I think PzH2000 was the compeditor in the initial project that Gillard / Smith
killed a decade ago, the current proposal is apparently on an unsolicited offer that was dusted off during the last election.
killed a decade ago, the current proposal is apparently on an unsolicited offer that was dusted off during the last election.Redlands18
Well-Known Member
All i think @Boagrius was doing, in posting that Video was showing the difference between a Tracked SPH and a Gun on a Truck, I don’t think it had anything to do with the SPH competition from 10 years ago
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
That's correct. I guess we are in a bit of an awkward spot timing-wise with ERCA poised to deliver so much additional capability over existing SPH, but the impression I get from the more knowledgeable members of the forum is that this issue has been dragging on for so long we just need to get the damn capability funded and fielded without no additional waiting. K9 seems like a good choice to that end.
No, I don't think that there is a competitor.
According to ABDR:
ADBR understands the project will be renamed LAND 8112 Protected Mobile Fires, and that the government is looking to acquire it as a sole source acquisition through Defence’s new Smart Buyer initiative.
and further:
“When the acquisition process for self-propelled artillery was cancelled in 2012 Raytheon Australia had successfully led a team offering an Australianised version of the Korean K-9 self-propelled howitzer which became known as the AS-9 ‘Aussie Thunder’,” a Raytheon Australia spokesman told ADBR. “As preferred tenderer, the company had won the competition, completed a risk-mitigation process in collaboration with the Commonwealth, finalised the solution and negotiated contracts.
“Following the cancellation announcement, Raytheon Australia formally advised the Commonwealth that, although the company was disappointed with the decision, we would resume the acquisition process should the Commonwealth decide to reconsider acquiring self-propelled artillery. This advice was provided to rapidly deliver a world-class capability for the Australian Army. That offer remains on the table.
Certainly if a new facility is to be built Work is expected to commence at a green-fields site in Geelong in 2022-23 ...... and the Redback and South Korean Multiple rocket launcher get the nod, then K9 looks to be the obvious choice
MB
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
One issue with the SPH is, there is no funding in the IIP for a SPH so something else will have to be taken out to fund it. Of course we don’t know yet what effect that the $300b odd Covid-19 stimulus package will have on defence.No, I don't think that there is a competitor.
According to ABDR:
ADBR understands the project will be renamed LAND 8112 Protected Mobile Fires, and that the government is looking to acquire it as a sole source acquisition through Defence’s new Smart Buyer initiative.
and further:
“When the acquisition process for self-propelled artillery was cancelled in 2012 Raytheon Australia had successfully led a team offering an Australianised version of the Korean K-9 self-propelled howitzer which became known as the AS-9 ‘Aussie Thunder’,” a Raytheon Australia spokesman told ADBR. “As preferred tenderer, the company had won the competition, completed a risk-mitigation process in collaboration with the Commonwealth, finalised the solution and negotiated contracts.
“Following the cancellation announcement, Raytheon Australia formally advised the Commonwealth that, although the company was disappointed with the decision, we would resume the acquisition process should the Commonwealth decide to reconsider acquiring self-propelled artillery. This advice was provided to rapidly deliver a world-class capability for the Australian Army. That offer remains on the table.
Certainly if a new facility is to be built Work is expected to commence at a green-fields site in Geelong in 2022-23 ...... and the Redback and South Korean Multiple rocket launcher get the nod, then K9 looks to be the obvious choice
MB
I think we are going to be in a wait and see circuit for a while with future Defence projects, don’t think we should take anything for granted.
Takao
The Bunker Group
I think you can assume that the IIP has had some rework over the past years and that if the Government has announced something to the extent it has with respect to LAND 8116 (also noting that while project number doesn't always equal funding, it does in ~95% of cases) you can assume it has funding....
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
I fully realise that funding has been found and the SPH has been added, just wondering where it has come from, is it a case of another capability dropped or was there more funds available than expected.
Lets not forget that the Government has to pay for these massive Covid 19 stimulus packages, a bill that wasn’t expected 3 months ago let alone in 2016 or 2019.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Appropos of nothing I just thought I'd amend my earlier comment on ERCA after some additional reading. The range of the K9 (which I had assumed to be inferior) is often quoted as being quite competitive when using developmental GGAM (Guided Gliding Artillery Munition) and perhaps rocket/ramjet assisted rounds. Potentially makes the purchase an even bigger no-brainer to my mind...
Last edited:
Interesting that defence connect appear to be indicating in their disscussion on the US Army Bradley replacement that the gun on the Australian IFV options are the 40mm on the AS21 and 30 or 35mm on the lynx. I suspect this is poor research as I have seen no change to the gun requirement to be the 30mm. Happy to be corrected.
www.defenceconnect.com.au
Back in the race: Rheinmetall/Raytheon team to recontest US OMFV program
After a shock decision in late-2019 to prevent the Rheinmetall/Raytheon Lynx KF-41 IFV from contesting the US Army's Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) program to replace the Cold War-era M2 B
I take the opposite view and see this a critical capability gap for a small-medium sized army.
I see HIMARS or similar as a critical multiplier (with very low manpower requirements) and would like to see it acquired at brigade/army group scale.
Regards,
Massive
Obsolete except in very specific situations.
We should treat it that way.
Regards,
Massive
buffy9
Well-Known Member
They appear to be getting confused that because the AS21 is an evolution of the K21, it must operate the same calibre. In regards to Boxer, Rheinmetall indicated during Phase 2 that it that the turret could fire 35mm if necessary.Interesting that defence connect appear to be indicating in their disscussion on the US Army Bradley replacement that the gun on the Australian IFV options are the 40mm on the AS21 and 30 or 35mm on the lynx. I suspect this is poor research as I have seen no change to the gun requirement to be the 30mm. Happy to be corrected.
Back in the race: Rheinmetall/Raytheon team to recontest US OMFV program
After a shock decision in late-2019 to prevent the Rheinmetall/Raytheon Lynx KF-41 IFV from contesting the US Army's Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) program to replace the Cold War-era M2 B
Mixing up old news and linked news, rather than what has been actually outlined.
I think it’s more interesting that Lynx is back in the US army race. It seemed a flawed decision to omit that vehicle on the grounds that 2 of them could not be delivered within the short time frame. Ideally the US decision would be ahead of AU so that we would know if we’re potentially buying into a large support fleet. I suspect the it’s going to come down to the cheapest option with both contenders offering to build here.Interesting that defence connect appear to be indicating in their disscussion on the US Army Bradley replacement that the gun on the Australian IFV options are the 40mm on the AS21 and 30 or 35mm on the lynx. I suspect this is poor research as I have seen no change to the gun requirement to be the 30mm. Happy to be corrected.
Back in the race: Rheinmetall/Raytheon team to recontest US OMFV program
After a shock decision in late-2019 to prevent the Rheinmetall/Raytheon Lynx KF-41 IFV from contesting the US Army's Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) program to replace the Cold War-era M2 B
Hi everyone, just a quick question, just been reviewing current White Paper and the progress, and with momentum appearing to be building toward and updated White Paper, has anyone heard or seen any updates on the proposed Army Riverine Capability ?
Would have thought this would be up the list with what we have done with our Amphibious capability and how that has progressed
Cheers
Would have thought this would be up the list with what we have done with our Amphibious capability and how that has progressed
Cheers
buffy9
Well-Known Member
I can't find anything procurement related unfortunately. From what I've heard (via DTR and by ear) the boats will likely go to 2RAR as a means to insert/extract personnel over greater distances, at higher speeds and with suppressive fire should they be in contact.
Link to DTR issue wrt 2RAR wants/needs:
June 2018 - Defence Technology Review
Australian Army considers cannons for air defence Third Air Warfare Destroyer in the water Hawkei manned weapon station French unveil new 6×6 combat vehicle US special ops acquiring new glide munition Spike LR2 selected for Land 400 UMS Skeldar to offer V-200B UAV to RAN NASAMS Launcher Vehicle...
dtrmagazine.com
(On a side note, I believe some SOV-Cdo have been running with 2RAR as of late. Would be interesting to know how they are using that and how it's going).
It is certainly an interesting subject. Depending on the characteristics of the boats selected, I would be interested to also see the RFSG utilising them in the Top-End, CYP and Torres Strait for actual riverine patrol as opposed to supporting the amphibious force, as I expect would happen under 2RAR.
There have been changes in the past four years to the IIP however. Other capabilities/concerns may have popped up for procurement decisions elsewhere (e.g. Land 8116). The RFSG seem to make do with their tinnies and quite frankly it is perhaps a better piece of kit for the role they do. I'd argue 2RAR needs them, on the other hand, as they could do with the capability to insert/extract with organic direct fires - a Zodiac isnt going to cut it if they are bumped and RAN RHIBs have their own takings.
In terms of what platform, can only speculate. Engagement with AFoP SURC boats a few years back gives an idea of what defence may be looking for/towards, though I have heard other things related to SOC-R (seems unlikely, personally).
Will look to find something document/article related, as opposed to snippets.
Last edited:
Takao
The Bunker Group
The via ear is out of date; there are some pretty solid reasons why there hasn't been anything heard of on the riverene patrol front. You've hit on one of them with respect to the IIP (but not L8116...) It doesn't help it's not close to being a priority and, while looking good on paper, has very questionable tactical application for us.I can't find anything procurement related unfortunately. From what I've heard (via DTR and by ear) the boats will likely go to 2RAR as a means to insert/extract personnel over greater distances, at higher speeds and with suppressive fire should they be in contact.
Link to DTR issue wrt 2RAR wants/needs:
June 2018 - Defence Technology Review
Australian Army considers cannons for air defence Third Air Warfare Destroyer in the water Hawkei manned weapon station French unveil new 6×6 combat vehicle US special ops acquiring new glide munition Spike LR2 selected for Land 400 UMS Skeldar to offer V-200B UAV to RAN NASAMS Launcher Vehicle...dtrmagazine.com
(On a side note, I believe some SOV-Cdo have been running with 2RAR as of late. Would be interesting to know how they are using that and how it's going).
It is certainly an interesting subject. Depending on the characteristics of the boats selected, I would be interested to also see the RFSG utilising them in the Top-End, CYP and Torres Strait for actual riverine patrol as opposed to supporting the amphibious force, as I expect would happen under 2RAR.
There have been changes in the past four years to the IIP however. Other capabilities/concerns may have popped up for procurement decisions elsewhere (e.g. Land 8116). The RFSG seem to make do with their tinnies and quite frankly it is perhaps a better piece of kit for the role they do. I'd argue 2RAR needs them, on the other hand, as they could do with the capability to insert/extract with organic direct fires - a Zodiac isnt going to cut it if they are bumped and RAN RHIBs have their own takings.
In terms of what platform, can only speculate. Engagement with AFoP SURC boats a few years back gives an idea of what defence may be looking for/towards, though I have heard other things related to SOC-R (seems unlikely, personally).
Will look to find something document/article related, as opposed to snippets.
Just reading a back issue of DTR discussing Options to give another life to some of the M113s. What is everyone’s view on this and potential uses being suggested? https://defencetechnologyreview.partica.online/defence-technology-review/dtr-feb-2020/flipbook/22/
Will leave it to Takao and others more qualified to answer because personally I never saw the logic of living in a hole in the ground and carrying your home around on your back when your home could carry you around and provide you with 3 hot squares (meals) a day.
Having said that, there appears to be some logic in their article, but I would have to to qualify that by saying that it would depend upon how much economic serviceable life is left in them, and how many spares they have in stock or access to.
Haha a caravan is way better than a hike. The article is saying a large number of the upgraded/extra wheel vehicles have had bugger all use and there is around 700 of them with apparently around 100+ low kms ..only driven to church on Sundays.Will leave it to Takao and others more qualified to answer because personally I never saw the logic of living in a hole in the ground and carrying your home around on your back when your home could carry you around and provide you with 3 hot squares (meals) a day.
Having said that, there appears to be some logic in their article, but I would have to to qualify that by saying that it would depend upon how much economic serviceable life is left in them, and how many spares they have in stock or access to.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Sorry but its only about 100 not 700, there was only 431 upgraded to begin with