To me it doesn't matter how many there are - they are still obsolete outside of specific situations.
I can understand the regiments being 2 SPG batteries & 1 towed if that flexibility is still seen as valuable.
Regards,
Massive
I can understand the regiments being 2 SPG batteries & 1 towed if that flexibility is still seen as valuable.
Regards,
Massive
If what you have, they have, it's only providing a few more seconds. And you have to plan for the possibility
Which is fine so long as you're not in a fight with a peer or larger military. It doesn't matter if the little kids down in the slum blocks only have a slingshot if your rich and cranky neighbour has a bazooka.
oldsig
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Actually LAVs (Canadian version of Stryker) were sent first to Afghanistan. The 25 mm gun couldn't penetrate many of the adobe brick structures so the army requested the Leo 1 tanks with their 105 mm guns. The guns worked ok but the combination of hydraulic controls and Afghanistan weather made the Leo1 tanks real sweat boxes which is why Leo 2 tanks were acquired from the Netherlands and Germany in one of Canada's fastest ever military procurements
. The LAVs were found wanting wrt some terrain situations and couldn't keep up with the tanks hence the interest in acquiring CV90s as close combat vehicles for supporting the tanks. After several years of wasting vendors' time, the government cancelled the program.There was talk about 105mm gunned LAVs prior to Afghanistan to replace our Leo 1 tanks but this (fortunately) didn't happen.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The performance of the 25mm in Afghanistan may also explain the reason why the US is keen on the 50mm for their Bradley replacement.Actually LAVs (Canadian version of Stryker) were sent first to Afghanistan. The 25 mm gun couldn't penetrate many of the adobe brick structures so the army requested the Leo 1 tanks with their 105 mm guns. The guns worked ok but the combination of hydraulic controls and Afghanistan weather made the Leo1 tanks real sweat boxes which is why Leo 2 tanks were acquired from the Netherlands and Germany in one of Canada's fastest ever military procurements
There was talk about 105mm gunned LAVs prior to Afghanistan to replace our Leo 1 tanks but this (fortunately) didn't happen.
Its amazing how fast Military equipment can be acquired when Militaries can convince Governments of the need, look at how fast the RAAF got the C-17s, ordered in March 06 first one arrived in Dec 06.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Nothing like urgent necessities that may very well prevent deaths thus saving pollies from critism. Up gunning IFVs seems to be gaining momentum everywhere but Canada. Our LAV upgrade program is not replacing the 25 mm gun. Given the fact our new 6,400 ton $600 million AOPS ships only have a single 25 mm gun, hardly a surprise. Good enough for junior’s UN “peace missions”.
If I recall, Canada developed an up armour kit for the LEO 1 MBT that was hoped, if successful make its way to other fleet users including potentially Australia.Actually LAVs (Canadian version of Stryker) were sent first to Afghanistan. The 25 mm gun couldn't penetrate many of the adobe brick structures so the army requested the Leo 1 tanks with their 105 mm guns. The guns worked ok but the combination of hydraulic controls and Afghanistan weather made the Leo1 tanks real sweat boxes which is why Leo 2 tanks were acquired from the Netherlands and Germany in one of Canada's fastest ever military procurements
There was talk about 105mm gunned LAVs prior to Afghanistan to replace our Leo 1 tanks but this (fortunately) didn't happen.
I understand that for what was involved and the advantages gained it was better to go with the LEO 2.
Regards S
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The biggest issue with the Leo I in Afghanistan was heat. Personal crew cooling suits were tried but they weren't up to the job. Yes, I think Leo 2s made more sense than trying to upgrade Leo Is. The other consideration at the time was several Euro allies offering their Leo 2s at firesale prices (Putin's Crimea and Ukraine adventures were yet to happen).
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
When Australia moved its Leo 1s from the mild climates of the South to the Tropics of the Top End in the early 90s the heat inside the Tank was a problem and some effort was put into fixing the problem, don't know exactly how successful but they operated them for about 10 yrs or so in the far North.
t68
Well-Known Member
Yes I remember seeing camo beach umbrella up top provide shade
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Actually I do remember seeing that as well
sorry link didn't work
sorry link didn't work
Last edited:
An opinion piece from ASPI by Declan Sullivan.
/www.aspistrategist.org.au/infantry-fighting-vehicles-will-complete-australias-armoured-forces/
An over view of armour and the changes coming with Land 400, Phase 2 and 3.
Probably not too much that is new, however it reinforces the changes for the Australian army as we transition to a new fleet of armoured vehicles.
Regards S
/www.aspistrategist.org.au/infantry-fighting-vehicles-will-complete-australias-armoured-forces/
An over view of armour and the changes coming with Land 400, Phase 2 and 3.
Probably not too much that is new, however it reinforces the changes for the Australian army as we transition to a new fleet of armoured vehicles.
Regards S
t68
Well-Known Member
I wonder what is happening with the ARH and if the planned replacement is going ahead, or will any future government get sticker shock
Egypt – AH-64E Apache Attack Helicopters and Related Equipment and Support | The Official Home of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency
1B USD for 10 with supporting infrastructure
Egypt – AH-64E Apache Attack Helicopters and Related Equipment and Support | The Official Home of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency
1B USD for 10 with supporting infrastructure
It's an interesting question, given that the defence and aviation press is full of articles saying "problem solved" and by quotes from pilots and ground crew praising the way the aircraft is now performing - including support and availability issues. Even allowing for a little exaggeration due to unit pride, it doesn't seem like an environment where a government would willingly replace relatively new assets
oldsig
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
In the Sept 18 edition of DTR Magazine under Australian Army in 2030, Major-General Toohey, Armys Head Land Capability has basically said Army has to replace the current Tiger Model as it will become increasingly problematic and expensive beyond the late 2020s due to other users upgrading to Tiger Mk3s
Defence Technology Review - Defence Technology Review
Defence Technology Review - Defence Technology Review
Continued from the Canberra class thread.
In reference to plan Beersheba my understanding was it was the intention to build up a deployable Brigade sized force by the end of the decade.
Raise Train and Sustain was the intent to provide a framework to achieve that end
I'm aware that aspiration and reality do not always come together. What has being achieved is the recognition that training and operational tempo is important.
Many years of operations have reinforced the need to sustain a given commitment. Plan Beersheba with three like Brigades does what other Brigade structures have not done over the previous decades. Provide commonality and a sequence of three for Raise Train and Sustain. A sequence of four while optimal was beyond the budget.
Our Brigade size falls at the smaller end of what most modern army's field so you would think its achievable. But peace time army's always struggle to fill the numbers the service chief want and ours is no exception. What's important is the structure
In regard to the ability to deploy a Brigade, well most likely its the need to deploy a sub unit within the Brigade rather than the Brigade itself.
A Battalion sized battle group made up of Brigade assets centric to the mission at hand. Be it HADR to heavy kick in the door and everything in between.
Many of us have our own wish list as to what our Brigades should look like,but really what I believe it needs is stability and focus to build and consolidate what has been achieved so far.
In reality the Brigades will continue to evolve and be in even a much better shape with the introduction of the Land 400 Phase 2 and 3 vehicles,with MBT upgrade and compliment of specialist platforms.
A different and much better structured Army to a generation ago.
And now we have a LHD to transport them........
.
Regards S
In reference to plan Beersheba my understanding was it was the intention to build up a deployable Brigade sized force by the end of the decade.
Raise Train and Sustain was the intent to provide a framework to achieve that end
I'm aware that aspiration and reality do not always come together. What has being achieved is the recognition that training and operational tempo is important.
Many years of operations have reinforced the need to sustain a given commitment. Plan Beersheba with three like Brigades does what other Brigade structures have not done over the previous decades. Provide commonality and a sequence of three for Raise Train and Sustain. A sequence of four while optimal was beyond the budget.
Our Brigade size falls at the smaller end of what most modern army's field so you would think its achievable. But peace time army's always struggle to fill the numbers the service chief want and ours is no exception. What's important is the structure
In regard to the ability to deploy a Brigade, well most likely its the need to deploy a sub unit within the Brigade rather than the Brigade itself.
A Battalion sized battle group made up of Brigade assets centric to the mission at hand. Be it HADR to heavy kick in the door and everything in between.
Many of us have our own wish list as to what our Brigades should look like,but really what I believe it needs is stability and focus to build and consolidate what has been achieved so far.
In reality the Brigades will continue to evolve and be in even a much better shape with the introduction of the Land 400 Phase 2 and 3 vehicles,with MBT upgrade and compliment of specialist platforms.
A different and much better structured Army to a generation ago.
And now we have a LHD to transport them........
.
Regards S
Takao
The Bunker Group
All good - but the key point about a deployable Brigade is it only forms the kernel onto which enablers are bolted on. Right now, if we picked up a BEERSHEBA 3 Bde (only because 1 and 7 are too important to miss ChristmasContinued from the Canberra class thread.
In reference to plan Beersheba my understanding was it was the intention to build up a deployable Brigade sized force by the end of the decade.
Raise Train and Sustain was the intent to provide a framework to achieve that end
I'm aware that aspiration and reality do not always come together. What has being achieved is the recognition that training and operational tempo is important.
Many years of operations have reinforced the need to sustain a given commitment. Plan Beersheba with three like Brigades does what other Brigade structures have not done over the previous decades. Provide commonality and a sequence of three for Raise Train and Sustain. A sequence of four while optimal was beyond the budget.
Our Brigade size falls at the smaller end of what most modern army's field so you would think its achievable. But peace time army's always struggle to fill the numbers the service chief want and ours is no exception. What's important is the structure
In regard to the ability to deploy a Brigade, well most likely its the need to deploy a sub unit within the Brigade rather than the Brigade itself.
A Battalion sized battle group made up of Brigade assets centric to the mission at hand. Be it HADR to heavy kick in the door and everything in between.
Many of us have our own wish list as to what our Brigades should look like,but really what I believe it needs is stability and focus to build and consolidate what has been achieved so far.
In reality the Brigades will continue to evolve and be in even a much better shape with the introduction of the Land 400 Phase 2 and 3 vehicles,with MBT upgrade and compliment of specialist platforms.
A different and much better structured Army to a generation ago.
And now we have a LHD to transport them........
.
Regards S
), it would struggle to do almost any Bde task. Furthermore, for a medium or high end fight, it'd die. What the like Brigades do is guarantee training for people. So unlike a 2 RAR soldier of 1998 who might have seen a tank once in their career, now 2 RAR can regularly train with 2 Cav. Is 2 Cav a feasible armoured unit to deploy? Not really. But now everyone in 3 Bde 'gets' AFVs. And now we can draw soldiers from outside 3 Bde to reinforce - knowing they have similar levels of experience so can slot in easily. This also allows the Bde to not have to hold everything they need for all missions, but to be reinforced specifically (so a high-end warfighting operation may see extra AFV poured in from 1 and 7 Bde, while a HADR mission may see additional 6 and 17 Bde resources)
Our 3 line Bde are small, but they don't need to be bigger in peacetime. On a deployment, they'd be getting another Bn or two, additional AFV, helicopters from 16 Bde, CSS from 17 Bde and CS from 6 Bde. On top of Joint enablers, Special Forces, allies and civilian agencies. Depending on the mission, our hypothetical Christmas deployment could see 3 Bde doubling in size.
We really are arguing the same point - I'm just trying to sell the line that what is sitting on Gallipoli / Robertson / Lavrack Barracks is not our deployed force, but the framework of that force. That was the point that disappeared in AHQ's jihad in the mid- / late-2000s about BEERSHEBA, a point that still infects a broad group of O4 - O6.
Thanks TakaoAll good - but the key point about a deployable Brigade is it only forms the kernel onto which enablers are bolted on. Right now, if we picked up a BEERSHEBA 3 Bde (only because 1 and 7 are too important to miss Christmas
What the like Brigades do is guarantee training for people. So unlike a 2 RAR soldier of 1998 who might have seen a tank once in their career, now 2 RAR can regularly train with 2 Cav. Is 2 Cav a feasible armoured unit to deploy? Not really. But now everyone in 3 Bde 'gets' AFVs. And now we can draw soldiers from outside 3 Bde to reinforce - knowing they have similar levels of experience so can slot in easily. This also allows the Bde to not have to hold everything they need for all missions, but to be reinforced specifically (so a high-end warfighting operation may see extra AFV poured in from 1 and 7 Bde, while a HADR mission may see additional 6 and 17 Bde resources)
Our 3 line Bde are small, but they don't need to be bigger in peacetime. On a deployment, they'd be getting another Bn or two, additional AFV, helicopters from 16 Bde, CSS from 17 Bde and CS from 6 Bde. On top of Joint enablers, Special Forces, allies and civilian agencies. Depending on the mission, our hypothetical Christmas deployment could see 3 Bde doubling in size.
We really are arguing the same point - I'm just trying to sell the line that what is sitting on Gallipoli / Robertson / Lavrack Barracks is not our deployed force, but the framework of that force. That was the point that disappeared in AHQ's jihad in the mid- / late-2000s about BEERSHEBA, a point that still infects a broad group of O4 - O6.
I think we are on the same path.
Certainly see the Brigade format as a hub to add bits too depending on the mission.
May enablers can and will join the team!
Was just under the impression the Brigades had a bit more internal go than what you suggest.
However not in the loop, so go on what I read and happy to be advised.
I am also mindful of the limits of much of our vehicles both in age and quantity.
This is being addressed, but it is still a reality to day when giving option's to government.
Regards S
FoxtrotRomeo999
Active Member
The National Interest website has an article on what the US Army may get as it's future fighting vehicle: Study This Picture: This Could Be the Army's New Future Infantry Fighting Wow, the Lynx! Who woulda thunk it .... Not saying we should get it, but it does look nice and shiny ....
buffy9
Well-Known Member
Couldn't find anything on how many variants of the Boxer CRV. I know DTR had information on it when it was still 225 vehicles, but nothing since the number of vehicles has been reduced.
In regards to "Plan Keogh" there has been relatively little. In fact I've seen nothing about a specific definition of the plan itself, other than it's goal to increase the mobility of the battlegroups. I imagine Land 200 and Land 400 will play a big role in defining this as communications (i.e. networking) and more advanced, modular vehicles (i.e. Boxer CRV, Lynx IFV) begin to enter service. At the moment we're trying to increase the mobility of our battalions with legacy APCs, lightly protected/armed PMVs and greater combined-arms integration, among other things.
I believe Plan Keogh will be defined over the coming years in more detail as more advanced systems are introduced. I imagine the whole idea of "greater mobility" stems from a desire to reduce casualties (with mounted protection) and to keep pace with mounted American forces in a higher-intensity environment, such as the Korean tensions we had a few months back. The recent land warfare trials are a good example of initial development into the plan, as seen by it's mostly mounted mindset and greater integration.
Delivering a strong land force into the future: the Australian Army Journal Winter 2015 edition | Australian Army