Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Lolcake]

Anyone suggesting more boxers be ubstituted for tracked IFV May be worth looking at this tweet… what happens to wheeled vehicles in a fire fight ….

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1598644397117243394

So Tracked vehicles don’t get their tread blown off and rendered useless, by mines, RPGs etc? Come now. You can highlight the entire Ukraine war with that happening to tanks. Silly argument. Crux of the matter is any Vehicle not effectively used in combined arms is susceptible to immobility.

 

[Stampede]

So Tracked vehicles don’t get their tread blown off and rendered useless, by mines, RPGs etc? Come now. You can highlight the entire Ukraine war with that happening to tanks. Silly argument. Crux of the matter is any Vehicle not effectively used in combined arms is susceptible to immobility.

If I'm correct both contenders for LAND 400 Phase Three have the option for a rubber based track with the Redback having it as standard issue.
Everything is a compromise with trade offs.
At the end of the day conflict is a dangerous realm!!!

Cheers S

 

[Bob53]

So Tracked vehicles don’t get their tread blown off and rendered useless, by mines, RPGs etc? Come now. You can highlight the entire Ukraine war with that happening to tanks. Silly argument. Crux of the matter is any Vehicle not effectively used in combined arms is susceptible to immobility.

Didn’t suggest that at all so thanks for the out of context response. A Small arms fire fight would not effect mobility on a modern tracked vehicle to this degree.

 

[ngatimozart]

So Tracked vehicles don’t get their tread blown off and rendered useless, by mines, RPGs etc? Come now. You can highlight the entire Ukraine war with that happening to tanks. Silly argument. Crux of the matter is any Vehicle not effectively used in combined arms is susceptible to immobility.

Not a silly argument at all. That wheeled vehicle can still move. When a tracked vehicle loses a track or has a track jammed it stops. Full stop. It doesn't go anywhere and the crew have to get out and replace the track or part of it, which is hard, heavy, time consuming, and dangerous work if it's in a combat zone. Or the vehicle requires another vehicle to tow it back to an area where the track can be changed.

No need for the stink attitude at all. It was uncalled for. Watch your posting attitude.

 

[old faithful]

The Boxer is a very big vehicle.
To suggest that the Army should just forget tracked AIFV and go with more boxers is not great idea. A bit like making the C130 redundant and just getting more C17s (if that were an option).

 

[Lolcake]

The Boxer is a very big vehicle.
To suggest that the Army should just forget tracked AIFV and go with more boxers is not great idea. A bit like making the C130 redundant and just getting more C17s (if that were an option).
View attachment 49930

I support the aquisition of Tracked IFVs. It seems Sheriden has inside info that they will indeed be cut in numbers. He has also in a recent article on The australian advised we will likely get two Virginia's based(either leased or aquired) here to get our crews trained up in a 50 50 split. Someone is spilling the beans to this fellow.

Tracked IFVs are a necessary part of combined arms but if they happen to be cut (reduction in numbers - not cut completely) for other pressing purchases then i am supportive of that decision. A chunk of money should be spent of improving our logistical position and strategic fuel reserves as well as hardening bases and local production of ammunition. Thats what i believe are extremely pressing matters that should be addressed NOW!

 

[old faithful]

I support the aquisition of Tracked IFVs. It seems Sheriden has inside info that they will indeed be cut in numbers. He has also in a recent article of The australian, suggested we will likely get two Virginia's based(either leased or aquired) here to get our crews trained up in a 50 50 split. Someone is spilling the beans to this fellow.

Tracked IFVs are a necessary part of combined arms but if they happen to be cut (reduction in numbers - not cut completely) for other pressing purchases then i am supportive of that decision. A chunk of money should be spent of improving our logistical position and strategic fuel reserves as well as hardening bases and local production of ammunition. Thats what i believe are extremely pressing matters that should be addressed NOW!

Agree 100%, fuel security, and a stockpile of munitions as well as an ability to rapidly expand the size of the ADF is imperative.
I would also like to see a patriot type system acquired, or more AWDs.

 

[Morgo]

Bell’s V-280 Valor Just Won the Most Important Army Helicopter Competition In 40 Years

Apologies if others have already seen this but I'd missed the pretty significant news last week that the US Army has decided on the V-280 to replace it's Blackhawks. A very impressive looking bit of kit from a range, speed and payload perspective.

From what I can tell they are going to be operating side by side with Blackhawks for some time but it does beg the question as to whether we can lean on our friends to put us somewhere toward the front of the queue for these. Perhaps a mixed Blackhawk / Valor buy? That would raise fleet size and sustainment issues though which is what did the Taipan in to start with.

A question for those more knowledgeable than I - how practical will it be to operate these from the LHDs? They have an enormous footprint but presumably a marinised, folding wing & nacelle version is in the works. Would be a potentially transformational capability for the LHDs in terms of the amount of coastline and hinterland they could hold at risk, as well as the tempo of getting light infantry ashore.

 

[John Fedup]

Bell’s V-280 Valor Just Won the Most Important Army Helicopter Competition In 40 Years

Apologies if others have already seen this but I'd missed the pretty significant news last week that the US Army has decided on the V-280 to replace it's Blackhawks. A very impressive looking bit of kit from a range, speed and payload perspective.

From what I can tell they are going to be operating side by side with Blackhawks for some time but it does beg the question as to whether we can lean on our friends to put us somewhere toward the front of the queue for these. Perhaps a mixed Blackhawk / Valor buy? That would raise fleet size and sustainment issues though which is what did the Taipan in to start with.

A question for those more knowledgeable than I - how practical will it be to operate these from the LHDs? They have an enormous footprint but presumably a marinised, folding wing & nacelle version is in the works. Would be a potentially transformational capability for the LHDs in terms of the amount of coastline and hinterland they could hold at risk, as well as the tempo of getting light infantry ashore.

Valor is a US army acquisition, not likely they will provide funding for a marinizing. Unless the USMC wants to buy into the program, not happening. The USN along with the USMC operate the larger Osprey. It can transport the JSF’s F135 engines be to CVNs, something the Valor can’t. An Osprey v2.0 incorporating the engine/transmission setup of the Valor would be nice but likely too expensive.

 

[ngatimozart]

Valor is a US army acquisition, not likely they will provide funding for a marinizing. Unless the USMC wants to buy into the program, not happening. The USN along with the USMC operate the larger Osprey. It can transport the JSF’s F135 engines be to CVNs, something the Valor can’t. An Osprey v2.0 incorporating the engine/transmission setup of the Valor would be nice but likely too expensive.

Just to add to John's post. Because it's a US Army program there is no guarantee that it will make it to fruition. The US Army has a track record of acquisition programs taking off with a hiss and roar only to die an ignominious death, further down the track, as they slide into oblivion.

 

[Todjaeger]

Just to add to John's post. Because it's a US Army program there is no guarantee that it will make it to fruition. The US Army has a track record of acquisition programs taking off with a hiss and roar only to die an ignominious death, further down the track, as they slide into oblivion.

Possibly, but then again possibly not... Apparently Bell put in a fair bit of coin on it's own to develop part of the V-280, and examples have been flying for a few years now so this is not a paper aircraft. Whether or not it will actually be able to meet all Army requirements is a bit of another question.

As for an Australian acquisition... I see no chance and little point in attempting an acquisition at this point. First deliveries to the US Army are currently planned for some time in ~2030, and the US Army IIRC is planning on keeping Black Hawks in service until sometime into the mid-2040's at least. Also, with a planned (under current numbers) run of ~2,000 V-280's to replace ~3k Black Hawks ordered over the years, it would likely be some time before potential production slots were available for any Australian order.

Having said that, if new/more Black Hawks were to get ordered now, their likely service lives would be ending either around or just after the US retired it's Black Hawks. As a bit of an FYI, the US Army placed a USD$2.3 bil. order back in June for at least 120 more Black Hawks, so there is definitely still some useful life left in the design.

 

[Redlands18]

Just to add to John's post. Because it's a US Army program there is no guarantee that it will make it to fruition. The US Army has a track record of acquisition programs taking off with a hiss and roar only to die an ignominious death, further down the track, as they slide into oblivion.

As far as Rotor Aircraft go, the current US military fleet is based on aircraft that first flew in
CH-47 1961
UH-1 1956
H-60 1974
H-53 1964
H-58 1966
AH-1 1965
AH-64 1975
UH-72 1979
V-22 1989
The US Army nor Navy has introduced a completely new design since 1974-75, the Marines or USAF since 1989.

PS: I have only included "Battlefield Aircraft", left out Helicopters used in non-operational roles, such as Trg, SAR.

 

[FormerDirtDart]

Valor is a US army acquisition, not likely they will provide funding for a marinizing. Unless the USMC wants to buy into the program, not happening. The USN along with the USMC operate the larger Osprey. It can transport the JSF’s F135 engines be to CVNs, something the Valor can’t. An Osprey v2.0 incorporating the engine/transmission setup of the Valor would be nice but likely too expensive.

Almost 2 years ago the US Navy initiated a request for information (RFI) for an Analysis of Alternatives for the Future Vertical Lift-Maritime Strike program. An effort to replace the MH-60 and MQ-8 fleets

The Navy Has Begun To Hunt For Its MH-60 Seahawk Helicopter And Fire Scout Drone Replacements

The U.S. Navy is looking toward next-generation vertical-lift platforms to replace existing types starting in 2030.

www.thedrive.com

Mission set defined:

• Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance, and Targeting (ISR&T)
• Surface Warfare (SUW)
• Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW)
• Mine Counter Measures (MCM)
• Air Warfare (AW)
• Electronic Warfare (EW)
• Search and Rescue (SAR)
• Command and Control
• SOF Support

Along with the following functional requirements to be studied

• Embark Aviation and Air Capable Ships
• Conduct Logistics
• Conduct Patient Movement
• Signature Control

Later reporting had the Navy emphasizing they saw these requirements being answered by both manned and unmanned platforms.
So, I think it would be illogical to assume a singular platform will meet these needs.
I would add I expect the US Coast Guard will be watching this effort closely. As it is becoming increasingly hard to support their fleet of MH-65 helos as well as their MH-60 Jayhawk fleet getting older every day
One of the questions I keep coming back to, can they get these new aircraft to fit in the legacy hangers of the fleet's surface combatants?
While the SB-1 Defiant's footprint is close to the H-60's, the rotor mast seems awfully damn tall, and I don't see how it's tail folds to reduce length.
And the V-280's wingspan is longer than an unfolded H-60s fuselage. So even if they design a version that rotates for stowage like a V-22 can it fit in existing shipboard hangers?
The only FVL aircraft demonstrated thus far that can possibly carry troops and with a manageable footprint has been Sikorsky's S-97 Raider (which is on par with Dauphin/Panther/MH-65) But in comparison to the H-60 capacity (weapons, systems, troops) it seem to be behind the curve.

 

[Bob53]

I’d just like to see AU get its old fashioned spinning top choppers sorted out and settled in before by any new fandangled gizmos. Get the Blackhawk order delivered, get the apaches delivered. May be a few more chooks. When the last of them are on the tarmac only then turn minds to what is next

 

[Bob53]

Not sure if this is permitted these days but a general question on this article And my question re land 400 phase 3 IFV?

Slovakia officially buys 152 CV90 IFVs under government-to-government

As part of a government-to-government agreement between Sweden and the Slovak Republic, the Ministry of Defence of the Slovak Republic officially announced

armyrecognition.com

I read here previously the CV was knocked out of land 400 on cost grounds.

Slovakia buying 152 for 1.3 billion Euros or approx $2.1 billion on au converson.

Ends up at close to $14 mill au per unit. Understand this is drive away rate not including sustainment over 30 years.

Land 400 Phase 3 is being touted as $18 billion and $27 billion (Assuming numbers stay as per original order)

So 450 vehicles for phase 3 would be approx $6.3 billion. leaving let’s say $15 billion in the budget which ends up being over $500 mil a year in or ….$1.1mil per year per unit in sustainment costs ….. is that realistic? how do they spend a mil + a year on sustainment on a IFV?

 

[Mikeymike]

Land 400 Phase 3 is being touted as $18 billion and $27 billion (Assuming numbers stay as per original order)

So 450 vehicles for phase 3 would be approx $6.3 billion. leaving let’s say $15 billion in the budget which ends up being over $500 mil a year in or ….$1.1mil per year per unit in sustainment costs ….. is that realistic? how do they spend a mil + a year on sustainment on a IFV?

The 18-27 billion will include additional costs on top of just acquisition and sustainment. This will include a level of contingency (think ~10%) as well as development funds for all of the fundamental inputs to capability across the lifespan of the vehicles. These would include things like buildings and infrastructure, changes to training grounds etc. Essentially everything to make the capability work.

Not sure as this seems to change depending on the scope/project but this might also include the costs of upgrades throughout the vehicles life to ensure they remain suitable.

These are all things that make it really hard to compare costs between projects and countries.

 

[ADMk2]

Not sure if this is permitted these days but a general question on this article And my question re land 400 phase 3 IFV?

Slovakia officially buys 152 CV90 IFVs under government-to-government

As part of a government-to-government agreement between Sweden and the Slovak Republic, the Ministry of Defence of the Slovak Republic officially announced

armyrecognition.com

I read here previously the CV was knocked out of land 400 on cost grounds.

Slovakia buying 152 for 1.3 billion Euros or approx $2.1 billion on au converson.

Ends up at close to $14 mill au per unit. Understand this is drive away rate not including sustainment over 30 years.

Land 400 Phase 3 is being touted as $18 billion and $27 billion (Assuming numbers stay as per original order)

So 450 vehicles for phase 3 would be approx $6.3 billion. leaving let’s say $15 billion in the budget which ends up being over $500 mil a year in or ….$1.1mil per year per unit in sustainment costs ….. is that realistic? how do they spend a mil + a year on sustainment on a IFV?

The basis of provisioning isn’t for 450 vehicles or 300 vehicles. It’s 450 + 20 or 300 + 20.

The first 20 for each order will be batch 1 vehicles built entirely overseas.

There is a lot to this project, including the acquisition and development of training ranges suited for them. Those costs are also in projected ‘then year’ dollars too.

Dividing number by overall cost doesn’t show you how much each vehicle costs to acquire or sustain. This project is buying a lot more than vehicles.

 

[Takao]

Not sure if this is permitted these days but a general question on this article And my question re land 400 phase 3 IFV?
[URL
So 450 vehicles for phase 3 would be approx $6.3 billion. leaving let’s say $15 billion in the budget which ends up being over $500 mil a year in or ….$1.1mil per year per unit in sustainment costs ….. is that realistic? how do they spend a mil + a year on sustainment on a IFV?

So, this is going to sound really condescending, but what do you think an IFV in this construct is?

If your answer is a tracked vehicle with gun that can carry some peeps, that is technically accurate - but wrong. L400-3's role is not to buy 300 - 450 of these cars. It is to buy an IFV capability.

From an acquisition side, you need to buy the vehicles (come back to that), spares, munitions. You need to upgrade facilities. That's facilities at the Battalions, but also the CSSB's, the JLUs, the training grounds - a whole lot. You need to build a training program. The Commonwealth cannot do all of this, we don't have the worker numbers. So you are paying for contractors to help, on the Commonwealth and on the manufacturer's side. So straight up, even if you assume that the $14 m / unit you worked out was correct...there is a bunch of other 'things' that fit into the acquisition side.

Now, pausing before going to sustainment, we need to look at the vehicle. This part you can argue if it is included in your $14 m or not, it's just an indicator on what an 'IFV' is. Anything unique to the IFV will be the responsibility of L400-3 (so, say cannon ammo). But, common items also need to be purchased. These include radios (and you can assume some V/UHF, HF, data for a BMS) and missiles - things that organisations other than L400-3 may buy, but will have to be purchased anyhow.

Which gets onto sustainment. All of those 'things' you have bought need sustainment. The buildings, the radios, the vehicles, the sustainment, the contractors...everything. Some you'll never be able to work out (ie, how much from L400 gets given to the radio peeps to sustain the radios) but it gets back to the first point; the IFV is a capability, not a vehicle. That $500 m / year (lower because we bought all the other stuff) is now distributed over a bunch of areas, and includes buying new munitions and the like. Remember, if a Coy of IFVs is 12 vehicles and each carries 2x Spike NLOS (at ~AU$300 k each based on Google), that's $7.2 m for one shot of missiles...

Finally, the figures in FSP20 are outturned. In the outer years the number is getting bigger - $500 m of sustainment in 2040 is not the same as $500 m of sustainment in 2025. Also, each year is different. Sustainment base costs are usually steady, but they vary to allow for upgrades and major purchases (so, for example, one year may have an additional $150 m to buy more Spike NLOS to allow refurbishment of the live EO stocks).

 

[Massive]

If your answer is a tracked vehicle with gun that can carry some peeps, that is technically accurate - but wrong. L400-3's role is not to buy 300 - 450 of these cars. It is to buy an IFV capability.

In some sense this is a discussion of fixed versus variable costs.

The initial tranche of the capability is very expensive, but later tranches a lot less so.

Reducing number of vehicles from 450 to 300 for examples doesn't save so much - what would really save money is cancelling the capability acquisition.

To me that re-emphasises the importance on the decision to acquire the capability or not, as opposed to how big.

Greatly appreciate you taking the time to lay this out Takao.

Massive

 

[ADMk2]

In some sense this is a discussion of fixed versus variable costs.

The initial tranche of the capability is very expensive, but later tranches a lot less so.

Reducing number of vehicles from 450 to 300 for examples doesn't save so much - what would really save money is cancelling the capability acquisition.

To me that re-emphasises the importance on the decision to acquire the capability or not, as opposed to how big.

Greatly appreciate you taking the time to lay this out Takao.

Massive

Media reports out today are stating LAND 400 Ph.3 is going ahead, as the lower 320 or so vehicle option.

Suspect down the track it will eventually get to where it was originally planned with the ‘extra’ 50 vehicles at a time, method to sustain local production and round out Army’s fleet.

The initial smaller upfront acquisition will allow re-programming of funds.