Australian Army Discussions and Updates

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
An interesting vessel.
Had a look at one berthed at Lady Barron on Flinders Island.
Certainly gone from concept to a working platform.

Trust defence get a move on with the Medium / Heavy LAND 8710 Project.
I thought it was to be a priority in the DSR.

ARMY Littorial manoeuvre

Still think the Medium category should of being 50m plus.

Waiting to see what transpires.


Cheers S
Why should the LCM-8 replacement be 50m+? Larger drives up the costs of acquiring, sustainment, maintenance, fuel. The larger the vessel the less places it can go, the requirement is for a vessel that can be deployed into remote coastal regions, deploy up into river systems, operate in fairly shallow water. The Army wants a one for one replacement for the LCM-8 but with superior open ocean, crew facilities, better endurance, better speed, not something in an altogether different class of Landing Craft.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Why should the LCM-8 replacement be 50m+? Larger drives up the costs of acquiring, sustainment, maintenance, fuel. The larger the vessel the less places it can go, the requirement is for a vessel that can be deployed into remote coastal regions, deploy up into river systems, operate in fairly shallow water. The Army wants a one for one replacement for the LCM-8 but with superior open ocean, crew facilities, better endurance, better speed, not something in an altogether different class of Landing Craft.
Fair questions.

My take is that I would doubt there would be a great difference in cost and manning between something in the 35 to 40m size which most of the LAND 8710 Phase 1A contenders are and something with an extra 10 plus meters in length.
Such a vessel would still have a lot of the desired Littoral flexibility and yet have a significantly greater load space for cargo.
The ships beam would be marginally wider providing greater load flexibility than the images of the existing contender designs.
Further more stability and range should be significantly improved.

I think we are too much of a LCM8 mindset of just transporting one of two vehicles from A to B.
While the current contenders will no doubt have significantly longer legs than their old predecessor they really don't appear to be able to carry many vehicles.
Seems to me a lot of money to expend for not a great deal in return.

To be fair the data is somewhat limited in the public space, but from what is available, I gathering we may just end up getting a craft that is deficient in load carrying capacity, that has legs to short for realistic Australian sized coastal endeavour, yet alone contributing to off shore operations.

Something that bit larger in the size of the old US Runnymede Class. would be my preferred solution.

Then something larger again for the Landing Craft Heavy Solution.

Just my opinion

Cheers S
 

Pusser01

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
An interesting vessel.
Had a look at one berthed at Lady Barron on Flinders Island.
Certainly gone from concept to a working platform.

Trust defence get a move on with the Medium / Heavy LAND 8710 Project.
I thought it was to be a priority in the DSR.

ARMY Littorial manoeuvre

Still think the Medium category should of being 50m plus.

Waiting to see what transpires.


Cheers S
I seem to remember reading an article a few years ago that suggested the SLV was based on the Flinders Island vessels. When they call into Cape Barron Island they back onto the beach & have sat on the beach at low tide. Bass Strait Freight – Logistics
 
Last edited:

Milne Bay

Active Member
Interesting on a number of levels.

Will this aid the German bid for our future IFVs.


Cheers S
Or.... conversely, because the line will already be busy, strengthen the chances of the Redback by giving yet another electorate a slice of the defence manufacturing pie.
Interesting
MB
 

Morgo

Well-Known Member
Or.... conversely, because the line will already be busy, strengthen the chances of the Redback by giving yet another electorate a slice of the defence manufacturing pie.
Interesting
MB
You would think that the quid pro quo would be that Australia buys German IFVs?

And wouldn’t this give further economies of scale to MILVEHCOE, offsetting the reduced cost economies from a smaller IFV buy (noting as others have noted they are very different vehicles in a number of regards)?

All in all this strongly suggests a Lynx buy to me. Wouldn’t surprise me if Albo announces as much while he’s hanging out with Olaf over the next few days.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Or.... conversely, because the line will already be busy, strengthen the chances of the Redback by giving yet another electorate a slice of the defence manufacturing pie.
Interesting
MB
Absolutely no idea for LAND 400 Phase 3.

It's an interesting dance.
......................................................................................

Something to consider re extra Boxers being produced, is there will probably be a reduction in price per vehicle as production ramps up
Maybe a temptation for the ADF to add to it's fleet down the track?

Cheers S
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The NZ Australian Army Cooperation Agreement aims to improve army interoperability with more cooperation over training, capability, readiness and personnel. It is named Plan ANZAC. The NZ govt Defence Policy Review (DPR) is due publicly released within the next month (Jul - Aug 2023). In recent times the NZ Govt is quite risk averse and has shown a preference for capabilities that are already operated by our FVEY (FIVE EYES) partners; and for commonality and compatibility with platforms operated by, and weapons used by our ally, Australia, and our major partner USA. They are also quite sensitive to acquisition costs and Term Of Life Costs (TLOC). This reduces the risk, plus offers better logistics and sustainment than a platform not operated by those would. The NZLAV is up for either a MLU or replacement and given the current NZG preference for commonality and compatibility, it is possible that NZ may elect to replace the NZLAV with Boxers. If so I would suspect that 80 vehicles maybe the number looked at. If this turns out to be the case, I suspect that some would remain in Australia for NZ Infantry Battle Group training etc., with the remainder held in NZ for training etc. We'll undoubtedly see when the DPR is released.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
The NZ Australian Army Cooperation Agreement aims to improve army interoperability with more cooperation over training, capability, readiness and personnel. It is named Plan ANZAC. The NZ govt Defence Policy Review (DPR) is due publicly released within the next month (Jul - Aug 2023). In recent times the NZ Govt is quite risk averse and has shown a preference for capabilities that are already operated by our FVEY (FIVE EYES) partners; and for commonality and compatibility with platforms operated by, and weapons used by our ally, Australia, and our major partner USA. They are also quite sensitive to acquisition costs and Term Of Life Costs (TLOC). This reduces the risk, plus offers better logistics and sustainment than a platform not operated by those would. The NZLAV is up for either a MLU or replacement and given the current NZG preference for commonality and compatibility, it is possible that NZ may elect to replace the NZLAV with Boxers. If so I would suspect that 80 vehicles maybe the number looked at. If this turns out to be the case, I suspect that some would remain in Australia for NZ Infantry Battle Group training etc., with the remainder held in NZ for training etc. We'll undoubtedly see when the DPR is released.
Boxer would be an excellent fit for NZ. on many levels
It's a very flexible design offering a wide range of applications.
Ticks most of the" Boxers" I'd say.

Pun intended. :rolleyes:


Cheers S
 

Bob53

Well-Known Member
I know the author of APDR is frowned upon by some people here. KB has an article about GMLRS in this months edition that states that following a purchase of Elbit PULS by the Netherlands, and subsequent information provided on that purchase, that both Elbit and Hanwha options offer better options at significantly lower cost than HIMARS. KB claims that these systems appear to be ignored by Australian defence procurement even though they offer better performance, are available sooner and at lower cost which were key elements of the DSR? Elbit system allegedly 1 fifth the initial price and cheaper missiles than HIMARS and can be delivered within 36 month.

page 20
 
Last edited:

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
I know the author of APDR is frowned upon by some people here. KB has an article about GMLRS in this months edition that states that following a purchase of Elbit PULS by the Netherlands, and subsequent information provided on that purchase, that both Elbit and Hanwha options offer better options at significantly lower cost than HIMARS. KB claims that these systems appear to be ignored by Australian defence procurement even though they offer better performance, are available sooner and at lower cost which were key elements of the DSR? Elbit system allegedly 1 fifth the initial price and cheaper missiles than HIMARS and can be delivered within 36 month.

page 20
Australia should definitely consider this, given both cost and timelines.

The US should themselves consider purchasing this, and send some of their own HIMARS to Ukraine and Taiwan who both urgently need more HIMARS!
How Israel's PULS Rocket System Compares to HIMARS (popularmechanics.com)
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I know the author of APDR is frowned upon by some people here. KB has an article about GMLRS in this months edition that states that following a purchase of Elbit PULS by the Netherlands, and subsequent information provided on that purchase, that both Elbit and Hanwha options offer better options at significantly lower cost than HIMARS. KB claims that these systems appear to be ignored by Australian defence procurement even though they offer better performance, are available sooner and at lower cost which were key elements of the DSR? Elbit system allegedly 1 fifth the initial price and cheaper missiles than HIMARS and can be delivered within 36 month.

page 20
I know the author of APDR is frowned upon by some people here. KB has an article about GMLRS in this months edition that states that following a purchase of Elbit PULS by the Netherlands, and subsequent information provided on that purchase, that both Elbit and Hanwha options offer better options at significantly lower cost than HIMARS. KB claims that these systems appear to be ignored by Australian defence procurement even though they offer better performance, are available sooner and at lower cost which were key elements of the DSR? Elbit system allegedly 1 fifth the initial price and cheaper missiles than HIMARS and can be delivered within 36 month.

page 20
I would suggest the primary attraction is that HIMARS is FMS. It does what is needed, comes with an established and certified support package, that will seemlessly integrate with the ADF.

A major constraint in Australia is finding sufficient, competent people to support projects, the more complex the acquisition the more competent people you need to ensure success.

Using FMS where possible streamlines a lot of this. It's still not simple or easy, but most of the heavy lifting is done buy the US DOD, meaning we can assign resources to non FMS acquisitions.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
I would suggest the primary attraction is that HIMARS is FMS. It does what is needed, comes with an established and certified support package, that will seemlessly integrate with the ADF.

A major constraint in Australia is finding sufficient, competent people to support projects, the more complex the acquisition the more competent people you need to ensure success.

Using FMS where possible streamlines a lot of this. It's still not simple or easy, but most of the heavy lifting is done buy the US DOD, meaning we can assign resources to non FMS acquisitions.
One of the other advantages to FMS purchases in addition to the training and support packages which are available, there is also quite likely to be ongoing development of the purchased kit for at least as long as it remains in US service. This can then create opportunities for a non-US purchaser to be able to add or upgrade capabilities without necessarily paying the full developmental and testing costs, as the R&D costs would be spread across a much larger user base.
 

MickB

Well-Known Member
One of the other advantages to FMS purchases in addition to the training and support packages which are available, there is also quite likely to be ongoing development of the purchased kit for at least as long as it remains in US service. This can then create opportunities for a non-US purchaser to be able to add or upgrade capabilities without necessarily paying the full developmental and testing costs, as the R&D costs would be spread across a much larger user base.
The other advantage is logisitics, being able to tap into the US supply line if deployed overseas.
 

MickB

Well-Known Member
You would think that the quid pro quo would be that Australia buys German IFVs?

And wouldn’t this give further economies of scale to MILVEHCOE, offsetting the reduced cost economies from a smaller IFV buy (noting as others have noted they are very different vehicles in a number of regards)?

All in all this strongly suggests a Lynx buy to me. Wouldn’t surprise me if Albo announces as much while he’s hanging out with Olaf over the next few days.
Are the German vehicles in front of the ADF deliveries?
I assume so, but happy to proven wrong.
How much will this delay IOC/FOC.

No complaining, a win for aus industry and a lower cost per unit might be another win.
 
Top