Australian Army Discussions and Updates

R

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Stampede said:
Now I do get the appeal of the 8 wheeled gunned up Recon vehicle, but in the age of UAV's and sensor technology across the services, maybe this style of vehicle is already out dated.
Click to expand...
UAVs and other modern ISR tools are great, but they are by no means a replacement for a recon vehicle. There are lots and lots of tasks that cannot be conducted by electronic/airborne ISR and still need boots on the ground. UAVs can’t and mark find creek crossings, can’t clear security zones, can’t deny enemy ISR, can’t secure FUPs, can’t guard flanks etc etc. Plus, airborne ISR is almost entirely useless when there is a significant enemy air defences.

The future is not about replacing ground recon with airborne/electronic ISR, but with enabling ground recon with airborne/electronic ISR.
 
Todjaeger

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Raven22 said:
It is a not really the case that recon vehicles go sneaking around anywhere on a conventional battlefield. If you cannot fight for information, then you have to be so slow and careful that you cannot maintain any sort of tempo, cede the initiative to the enemy, and there are lots of things that you just won’t be able to see, because the risk of doing so is far too great. The recent experience of just about everyone is that for formation reconnaissance, you need to be able to fight for information. That allows you to maintain a tempo high enough to enable the manoeuvre plan, clear through the enemy’s security zone, shape the enemy, and all their other things that formation recce should be doing.

The sneaky type of recon vehicle is useful, but not for that role. They are useful for where tempo isn’t really required because it can be controlled (such as SF roles etc), and for the close recce role that is conducted by unit level recon platoons/troops, once the enemy has already been found and shaped for some sort of decisive action (ie, finding and marking FUPs etc).

It is not surprising that’s everyone’s formation/medium recon vehicles are getting more heavily armed and better protected.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I am not understanding the CONOPS, but I would think that a smaller, lower profile (and possibly unmanned) turret and kitted out with E/O systems and a gun in the 20 mm to 40 mm range would be more fitting for a recon role than something with a crew-served gun in the 76 mm to 120 mm range.

Is there an expectation that recon forces will ambush or initiate contact with a hostile force they observe, to hold the hostiles in place so that other units can be brought in to engage?

I have been under the impression that recon forces would observe and avoid contact when possible, but fight when needed.
 
Z

zhaktronz

Member
Todjaeger said:
Is there an expectation that recon forces will ambush or initiate contact with a hostile force they observe, to hold the hostiles in place so that other units can be brought in to engage?
Click to expand...
If the close combat story board is to be believed then very much yes

"Find, Blind & Monitor – Friendly Force cavalry in Combat Reconnaissance Vehicles (CRVs) find and blind (deny enemy reconnaissance assets from identifying the location, strength, and activities of the friendly force). This may result in direct mounted close combat"

and

"The CRV will be able to suppress and destroy enemy targets of opportunity with direct fire from overwatch positions"

http://www.defence.gov.au/casg/Multimedia/LAND400_CloseCombatStoryboard-9-5562.pdf


Todjaeger said:
Perhaps I am not understanding the CONOPS, but I would think that a smaller, lower profile (and possibly unmanned) turret and kitted out with E/O systems and a gun in the 20 mm to 40 mm range would be more fitting for a recon role than something with a crew-served gun in the 76 mm to 120 mm range.
Click to expand...
Yeah that would probably be better at the mounted combat component of the CONOP- but not exactly off the shelf, low risk or low cost - and as always you trade off that valuable armoured box of space in back - which realistically we'll probably see used as a space to deploy and operate small drones, unattended sensors etc in future.
 
R

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Todjaeger said:
Perhaps I am not understanding the CONOPS, but I would think that a smaller, lower profile (and possibly unmanned) turret and kitted out with E/O systems and a gun in the 20 mm to 40 mm range would be more fitting for a recon role than something with a crew-served gun in the 76 mm to 120 mm range.

Is there an expectation that recon forces will ambush or initiate contact with a hostile force they observe, to hold the hostiles in place so that other units can be brought in to engage?

I have been under the impression that recon forces would observe and avoid contact when possible, but fight when needed.
Click to expand...
Who’s talking about recon vehicles with 76 - 120mm guns? The world has more or less settled on 25 - 40mm guns with a 4000m+ ATGM. Unmanned turrets are not preferred due to how much SA you lose by being closed down.

There are a whole host of reasons why a recon vehicle would initiate contact, not least for their own protection. Having heavily armed recon vehicles also impacts the way the enemy does business without even firing a shot. If they know our own recon screen is lightly armed, they can be particularly aggressive with their own recon forces. Knowing we have the ability to destroy them at 4000m+, they have to be far more slow careful, and potentially reinforce their own recon screen with greater combat power. Essentially, you are reducing the enemy’s freedom of action without even having to fire a shot.
 
Todjaeger

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Raven22 said:
Who’s talking about recon vehicles with 76 - 120mm guns? The world has more or less settled on 25 - 40mm guns with a 4000m+ ATGM. Unmanned turrets are not preferred due to how much SA you lose by being closed down.
Click to expand...
There had been a suggestion here about a modern vehicle roughly based off the FV101 Scorpion (which had gun versions in 76 mm and 90 mm) with Level 4 protection.

Relating to that, was mention of a possible light tank design which to me sounds more like a direct fire support role than a recon role and would involve moving with the unit(s) receiving the direct fire support like mechanized or light infantry. That in turn suggests to me that in a direct fire support capacity the vehicle would lose much of the maneuverability because it cannot/should not stray too far from those it is supporting.

To my way of thinking, recon and direct fire support roles are quite different and what makes a vehicle good for one is likely to make it rather poor at the other, so attempting to get or design a vehicle which does both will lead to either a vehicle good at one and not the other, or a vehicle which is not really good at either.
 
A

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Todjaeger said:
There had been a suggestion here about a modern vehicle roughly based off the FV101 Scorpion (which had gun versions in 76 mm and 90 mm) with Level 4 protection.

Relating to that, was mention of a possible light tank design which to me sounds more like a direct fire support role than a recon role and would involve moving with the unit(s) receiving the direct fire support like mechanized or light infantry. That in turn suggests to me that in a direct fire support capacity the vehicle would lose much of the maneuverability because it cannot/should not stray too far from those it is supporting.

To my way of thinking, recon and direct fire support roles are quite different and what makes a vehicle good for one is likely to make it rather poor at the other, so attempting to get or design a vehicle which does both will lead to either a vehicle good at one and not the other, or a vehicle which is not really good at either.
Click to expand...
In which case there are a whole host of ‘not very good’ vehicles out there, manufactured by virtually every armoured vehicle manufacturer, given the pre-ponderance of 8x8 heavy armoured vehicles, fitted with medium cannons in-service and offer world-wide...
 
Last edited:
A

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Joe Black said:
Looks like the LAND 400 announce could be happening very soon.

Anyone with The Australian subscription, could you share the tidbits please :)

$5bn bids for army Land 400 combat vehicles armoured with local content
Nocookies
Click to expand...
The tidbits are:

No news is good news. There is nothing in that article other than the usual cheerleading of BAE.

It may be decided soon or it may not. It is a difficult thing to call NSC outcomes, particularly when members of the NSC are moving around...
 
M

Milne Bay

Active Member
New sidearm for ADF in 2022
I just noted this in the Australian Defence Magazine headlines but I do not have a premium service subscription to address the details.
Does anyone have the particulars please.
MB
 
t68

t68

Well-Known Member
Better get the popcorn ready, might get lively here soon:)

Twitter land says announcement might happen tonight.

I'll down load twitter feed when I get back home on PC the new forum won't let me do it be iPhone for some reason.

At 1637 via DTR Mag feed
 
t68

t68

Well-Known Member
I know there was some conjecture on the main gun size, any idea what Defence chose for it?
 
buffy9

buffy9

Well-Known Member
t68 said:
I know there was some conjecture on the main gun size, any idea what Defence chose for it?
Click to expand...
Probably political reasons. Securing seats in Queensland since Victoria is a lost cause.

That and I'm pretty sure the Boxer has better protection, a higher GVM and that Rheinmetall is offering to build an armoured vehicle hub in Queensland.
 
oldsig127

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
buffy9 said:
Probably political reasons. Securing seats in Queensland since Victoria is a lost cause.

That and I'm pretty sure the Boxer has better protection, a higher GVM and that Rheinmetall is offering to build an armoured vehicle hub in Queensland.
Click to expand...
Defence recommended the Boxer outright on the basis of the lengthy testing done. It's been no secret whatever going by the repeated comments here from various posters that it was greatly preferred but that Defence was concerned they might be rolled on the basis of politics or raw cost.

oldsig
 
ASSAIL

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
oldsig127 said:
Defence recommended the Boxer outright on the basis of the lengthy testing done. It's been no secret whatever going by the repeated comments here from various posters that it was greatly preferred but that Defence was concerned they might be rolled on the basis of politics or raw cost.

oldsig
Click to expand...
Don't you love our media, just about every single outlet has reported this as state vs state with zero reference to capability.
It simply shows how intellectually lazy they are, go for the sensational and stuff the reasons for the selection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top