Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Recommended reading for anyone interested in the future of the Australian Army.
I recommend DTR and APDR. Always informative and worth the time taken to read.
Interesting read. However, with a likely change in government, and with all the Navy and RAAF projects, I don't hold a lot of faith that many $ decisions will be made in the next 4 years.
Some good news about the Tiger and Taipan helicopters.
Nocookies
For those who can't breach the firewall here is the abridged version.
Nocookies
For those who can't breach the firewall here is the abridged version.
The article also flags the purchase of a new helicopter under Land 2097 phase 4 for delivery around 2022. This will be a small helicopter in the 4-ton category.
There was an article in the September edition of APDR along similar lines about the Tiger:
Tiger ARH Now Living Up To Its Potentials
And another in the same issue about the NH90:
Potential For Greatness: The NH90 Fleet Is Showing Its Promise
So it is good to see both types starting to achieve their full potential.
MARKMILES77
Active Member
Interesting to note DTR is predicting that Rheinmetall will not bid PUMA.
Could make AJAX the favourite.
Has the huge advantage over LYNX that we wouldn't be the sole users and that the development of most variants is already mostly complete.
Things are looking good for the ADF.
Perhaps the Land 400 mortar vehicle should await the results of the US Army turreted mortar trial.
Also seems a good chance to piggyback on Japans SPH program.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
There is also a very interesting interview in DTR with Major General Kathryn Toohey in which she explains why we have to replace the Tiger as the other users are upgrading to Tiger 3s and Australia would be left an Orphan.
In one sense it would be a pity to have to replace the Tigers in the mid 20s as there probable choice of replacements the Apache's and Vipers will be getting close to the end of there development by then with the US probably looking at introducing new Attack Helos based on either S-97 or V-280 technology in the 2030s.
It is going to be an interesting project to follow, by final decision time we should have a better idea of what the US is going to do re the Apache and Viper replacements, We could even see a JSF style program developed
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
I get the feeling the Mortar variant will use one of the Land 400 Vehicles fitted with a 120mm Turret.
The Royal Australian Arty Corps has only ever operated Towed Weapons, as it currently stands, between now and 2030 they will be introducing 4 SP systems, a SP Mortar, the Australianised version of NASAMs, a MRL system and a LR SAM system. They have a very busy 15 years or so in front of them, so we would not see any chance of a SPH until the 2030s at best, probably as a M-777 replacement.
The September issue of DTR has an interesting interview with the Army's head of land capability MG Toohey. She mentions the challenge with the Tiger ARH going forward is that other nations are going to the Mk3 version which will make it more difficult and expensive to maintain. I found that interesting given how we are starting to get some good results with the Tiger ARH. It seems that Australia has already made the decision to go with a full replacement rather than the mk3 upgrade (In January 2016, it was announced that France was working with Australia, Germany, and Spain on the Tiger Mk3 design. The Mk3 upgrade is reportedly scheduled around 2023).
Given the timeframe involved, the US future vertical lift solutions aren't realistic options and I highly doubt there is any appetite for something like the AW-249 (Italy's Mangusta replacement), which would be too much like the Tiger situation all over again. I only see two real options for the ARH replacement, the AH-64E and AH-1Z, both of which are well proven, low risk options that could be procured through FMS. Bell did offer Australia an AH-1Z/UH-1Y solution in 2017, although unless it was the kind of deal 'too good to refuse' or cost becomes a critical factor (which I don’t expect), I believe the AH-64E will get the nod, particularly with the ability to leverage both the US and UK development paths, supply chains, training etc. The UK and US both have new build AH-64Es under production and the US are not replacing the Apache until at least 2040.
The 2016 Defence Integrated Investment Program has a timeframe of 2017-2026 and estimated investment of $500m-$750m for the ARH Assurance Program. Given this timeframe along with MG Toohey’s comments around the increasing costs and difficulties in retaining the Tiger, I expect we are be looking IOC of the replacement by late 2024. I assume a FMS solution of either ASH-64E or AH-1Z would require a similar lead time as the FMS for the MH-60R. The MH-60R decision was made in June 2011 with initial delivery in 2014, IOC in August 2015 and final deliveries were in 2016. If we want IOC of the Tiger ARH replacement to be around August 2024, it would probably need a decision somewhere around June 2020.
The current political landscape will be a key consideration, the next election must be held by 18 May 2019 for half of the Senators and on or before 2 November 2019 for the House of Representatives and the Senators. The government will almost certainly want the decision before the next election; announcing they have ‘fixed’ the troubled Tiger ARH program with a proven, low-risk solution proving increased capability, better value etc. With that in mind, I expect to see a decision somewhere around June 2019 (if not sooner).
Given the timeframe involved, the US future vertical lift solutions aren't realistic options and I highly doubt there is any appetite for something like the AW-249 (Italy's Mangusta replacement), which would be too much like the Tiger situation all over again. I only see two real options for the ARH replacement, the AH-64E and AH-1Z, both of which are well proven, low risk options that could be procured through FMS. Bell did offer Australia an AH-1Z/UH-1Y solution in 2017, although unless it was the kind of deal 'too good to refuse' or cost becomes a critical factor (which I don’t expect), I believe the AH-64E will get the nod, particularly with the ability to leverage both the US and UK development paths, supply chains, training etc. The UK and US both have new build AH-64Es under production and the US are not replacing the Apache until at least 2040.
The 2016 Defence Integrated Investment Program has a timeframe of 2017-2026 and estimated investment of $500m-$750m for the ARH Assurance Program. Given this timeframe along with MG Toohey’s comments around the increasing costs and difficulties in retaining the Tiger, I expect we are be looking IOC of the replacement by late 2024. I assume a FMS solution of either ASH-64E or AH-1Z would require a similar lead time as the FMS for the MH-60R. The MH-60R decision was made in June 2011 with initial delivery in 2014, IOC in August 2015 and final deliveries were in 2016. If we want IOC of the Tiger ARH replacement to be around August 2024, it would probably need a decision somewhere around June 2020.
The current political landscape will be a key consideration, the next election must be held by 18 May 2019 for half of the Senators and on or before 2 November 2019 for the House of Representatives and the Senators. The government will almost certainly want the decision before the next election; announcing they have ‘fixed’ the troubled Tiger ARH program with a proven, low-risk solution proving increased capability, better value etc. With that in mind, I expect to see a decision somewhere around June 2019 (if not sooner).
Probably of the four systems you mention, the mortar & MRL would definitely be SP. NASAMS could be the dismounted box launchers but yes, it could be vehicle mounted including a tracked version ( I don't think there has been a decision on the Hawkei option). The LR SAM will have some mobility but I would not call it SP in the quick shoot & scoot sense. Additionally, LR SAM is currently a RAAF Air Project. The system may end up Army operated but it is going to fit into the RAAF's air defence command & control structure. Plus, there could be the coastal anti ship missile system which will need to be very mobile if the concept is too be valid for Australia. Busy time but it will depend on how many of these projects eventually get up. NASAMS is the only guaranteed runner at the moment. (Redlands 18, if my reply doesn't display correctly - my apologies!)
Last edited by a moderator:
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Forgot about the land based AShM capbility so we can add that to all the new stuff we are due to get. Would find it hard to believe that the NASAMs would not be full time Vehicle mounted, to many advantages though a Tracked version is probably unlikely. A Modulised version that would fit on a Land 121 Truck would make a lot of sense
PS i would never say Guarenteed about any system till i see it in service. The Land 17 SPH is a great example, we were all waiting on an announcement about the winner and we got a cancellation of the entire project.
PS i would never say Guarenteed about any system till i see it in service. The Land 17 SPH is a great example, we were all waiting on an announcement about the winner and we got a cancellation of the entire project.
Joe Black
Active Member
Actually I disagree. Whilst AJAX was built for the UK, and ASCORD is widely used, on paper it looks like a strong competitor but I suspect there are some drawbacks, namely, it can only carry 6 rather than 8 troops plus the price tag.
I think Rheinmetall has some work to do to convince that KF41 is the best option if they can manage to keep the price tag real, plus ensuring that though it is a new chassis, a lot of the components that are used in the vehicles are in fact used by others such as the Puma, and the Boxers. The only config I don't quite understand is the choice of the engine. I would have love to see a KF41 having a German MTU engine, rather than the Liebherr diesel engine.
Joe Black
Active Member
Actually I would think that a Boxer chassis with something like the AMOS or NEMO makes more economic sense.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Okay, I admit I am a bit confused here. Rheinmetall signed a contract for Boxer 8x8 CRV during Phase 2 of the LAND 400 project. To me, that means a SP mortar system using a LAND 400-based vehicle would be either the Boxer 8x8, or whatever vehicle ends up winning Phase 3.
Me personally, I think a direct/indirect fire support weapon would be better mounted on a tracked vehicle given some of the issues various wheeled gun systems have encountered. If memory serves, some of the large wheeled gun systems like the G6 and CAESAR SP 155 mm howitzers have armatures which are lowered when the gun is in firing position, to take the vehicle weight and recoil off the wheels and suspension system. If the planned conops has elements which require the ability to fire while on the move, that might preclude a wheeled vehicle solution.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
I would be very surprised if they went outside Land 400 for the Mortar Vehicle. There does seem to be a lot more 120mm Mortars on Wheels than Howitzers though. Can you really compare the G-6 to the Caesar though, The G-6 is a true SPH while the Caesar is a Gun on a Truck and the Gun is lowered to the ground for Firing.
This is an article on NASAMS which you may find interesting which includes an opinion on the type of launchers to be acquired. There are other insights into the preparations for the introduction of NASAMS.
Paper – Introduction of NASAMS into the Australian Army: Learning from the Norwegian Experience
Not sure that a truck mounted option will be right for Australia.
Half the army will be in heavy protected tracked vehicles - would seem off for artillery to be soft-skinned.
Regards,
Massive
Takao
The Bunker Group
The body doesn't have to be tracks or wheels; it has to be able to move to support the assault / defence, not move with them. Any assault force will have CRVs or variants moving nearby / with them, so it's not a big an issue as its made out to be.
Bingo.
Platform and self-propelled is half the equation. The other half is protection. While there is crew in the vehicle, they have to be able to operate protected. CEASER and the like do not cut it; there is no protection. It doesn't have to be MBT or IFV levels, but we should strive to be as protected as the CRV. That will also open up manoeuvre options to the commander.
Of course.... we could just go crewless....
MARKMILES77
Active Member
Wasn't aware there was even a requirement for a new Recoilless rifle.
Thought the M3 versions were only relatively recently purchased?