Australian Army Discussions and Updates

MickB

Well-Known Member
give Hanwha an additional contract at the Geelong factory; to build a fleet of Amphibious Combat Vehicles based of the Tigon 6x6 to support our developing Amphibious capability.
A quick read up on the Tigon shows some models have limited water crossing ability depending on armour and weapons fit.
Don't think this translates into open ocean capability, pretty sure this vehicle in its current form would need to be put ashore by landing craft.
Would take a large redesign to turn it into a fully capable Amphibious Combat Vehicle along the lines of an Amtrac or similar.
 

Bluey 006

Active Member
A quick read up on the Tigon shows some models have limited water crossing ability depending on armour and weapons fit.
Don't think this translates into open ocean capability, pretty sure this vehicle in its current form would need to be put ashore by landing craft.
Would take a large redesign to turn it into a fully capable Amphibious Combat Vehicle along the lines of an Amtrac or similar.
To say large redesign is a bit of a stretch. While it is certainly true that the design would need some evolution to develop full ocean-going capability I did say “based off” the Tigon 6x6.

The Tigon 6x6 can host a crew of two and 11 dismounts in the personnel carrier variant. It is powered by a Caterpillar C9.3 530 hp engine coupled to a full automatic Allison 4500SP transmission and is fitted with independent whishbone suspensions with coil spring and shock absorber. Optional equipment that can be fitted on the TIGON include: Water Jet propulsion, Central Tyre Inflation System (CTIS), Automatic Fire Suppression System (AFSS), NBC protection system, thermal driver periscope and Identification Friend or Foe (IFF). The prototype already underwent company tests in Korea, is amphibious, and is propulsed in water by two waterjets that ensure an 8.5 km/h speed, allowing to traverse large bodies of open water under its own power. The amphibious performance is affected by the weapon system and level of ballistic protection selected by the user. Maximum speed on road being 100 km/h. cruise range is estimated at 1,000 km. Four different weapon systems are currently on offer for the Tigon: a crew-served 12.7mm machine gun, and three types of RWS ranging from 12.7mm machine gun to 30mm cannon to 90mm gun. The vehicle’s weight varies from 21t to 22t depending on what weapon is selected.

With some evolution seems like a pretty good fit for the role our light amphibious forces (at this point 2nd RAR) will be expected to play during distributed maritime ops. Filling a gap between the Bushmaster and Boxer/Redback. Amphibious operations aren’t only about fully-fledged amphibious assaults from open ocean; you’re right we have heavier vehicles and landing craft for that.

If we are heading down the distributed littoral operations path the DSR seems to suggest then we won’t have enough landing craft for all tasks. The ability for relatively small teams of 2nd RAR to traverse bodies of water in protected vehicles (bays, rivers, channels, estuaries, between islands etc) across the Indo Pacific archipelago independently and discretely with a low footprint ahead of a main landing force, for reconnaissance, security, advanced force operations will be necessary. Especially if we will be deploying A2D2 missile systems across multiple locations. The TIGON offers majority of what is required for this, it doesn’t need to be the best armoured or carry its heaviest weapons options in order to be this. You can always fit additional protection or weapons once ashore.

Also, the Koreans have the tracked Korea Amphibious Assault Vehicle (KAAV) they have been developing to draw lessons from for any evolution required. This is another potential option. Of course, there are other Amphibious Combat Vehicle options, the BAE ACV 1.1 for example, but not built by Hanwha at the Geelong factory. It is a moot point anyway; the decision is made.

The post was just an “alternative path” thought bubble that offered a way to get a Lynx combat vehicle system for commonality and also work for the Geelong factory (sadly jobs, electorates and political factors do come into Defence procurement, always have and always will) to ensure its survival (again an important factor for strategic indigenous capability development).

As it stands Hanwha will need to develop alternative redback variants if ADF is develop a complete mechanised battalion (not nearly enough IMHO), but that is another story. The Redback is a fine vehicle, but alone it doesn't constitute the capability to conduct mechanised operations.
 
Last edited:

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
To say large redesign is a bit of a stretch. While it is certainly true that the design would need some evolution to develop full ocean-going capability I did say “based off” the Tigon 6x6.

The Tigon 6x6 can host a crew of two and 11 dismounts in the personnel carrier variant. It is powered by a Caterpillar C9.3 530 hp engine coupled to a full automatic Allison 4500SP transmission and is fitted with independent whishbone suspensions with coil spring and shock absorber. Optional equipment that can be fitted on the TIGON include: Water Jet propulsion, Central Tyre Inflation System (CTIS), Automatic Fire Suppression System (AFSS), NBC protection system, thermal driver periscope and Identification Friend or Foe (IFF). The prototype already underwent company tests in Korea, is amphibious, and is propulsed in water by two waterjets that ensure an 8.5 km/h speed, allowing to traverse large bodies of open water under its own power. The amphibious performance is affected by the weapon system and level of ballistic protection selected by the user. Maximum speed on road being 100 km/h. cruise range is estimated at 1,000 km. Four different weapon systems are currently on offer for the Tigon: a crew-served 12.7mm machine gun, and three types of RWS ranging from 12.7mm machine gun to 30mm cannon to 90mm gun. The vehicle’s weight varies from 21t to 22t depending on what weapon is selected.

With some evolution seems like a pretty good fit for the role our light amphibious forces (at this point 2nd RAR) will be expected to play during distributed maritime ops. Filling a gap between the Bushmaster and Boxer/Redback. Amphibious operations aren’t only about fully-fledged amphibious assaults from open ocean; you’re right we have heavier vehicles and landing craft for that.

If we are heading down the distributed littoral operations path the DSR seems to suggest then we won’t have enough landing craft for all tasks. The ability for relatively small teams of 2nd RAR to traverse bodies of water in protected vehicles (bays, rivers, channels, estuaries, between islands etc) across the Indo Pacific archipelago independently and discretely ahead of a main landing force, for reconnaissance, security, advanced force operations will be necessary. Especially if we will be deploying A2D2 missile systems across multiple locations. The TIGON offers majority of what is required for this, it doesn’t need to be the best armoured or carry its heaviest weapons options to do this. You can always fit additional protection once ashore.

Also, the Koreans have the tracked Korea Amphibious Assault Vehicle (KAAV) they have been developing to draw lessons from for any evolution required. This is another potential option. Of course, there are other Amphibious Combat Vehicle options, the BAE ACV 1.1 for example, but not built by Hanwha at the Geelong factory. It is a moot point anyway; the decision is made.

The post was just an “alternative path” thought bubble that offered a way to get a Lynx combat vehicle system for commonality and also work for the Geelong factory (sadly jobs, electorates and political factors do come into Defence procurement, always have and always will) to ensure its survival (again an important factor for strategic indigenous capability development).

As it stands Hanwha will need to develop alternative redback variants if ADF is develop a complete mechanised battalion (not nearly enough IMHO), but that is another story. The Redback is a fine vehicle, but alone it doesn't constitute the capability to conduct mechanised operations.
Army Guide (army-guide.com)
KAAV II Korean Amphibious Assault Vehicle II (globalsecurity.org)
Can I make a suggestion? The members of DT like to see a link provided, if possible, for any equipment you are discussing.
 

Navor86

Member
Regarding the Redback aquisition and a possible German response.

Our Army needs the IFV Version asap because we commited to transform 3 brigades into medium units. And the IFV is essential for this. As we do not have enough production capacity to get enough vehicles till 2027 this deal will be safe in my opinion.

Regarding 9th Brigade
Will this mean that 1st Armored Regiment will be the sole user of Abrams Tanks, since it seems that most tracked vehicles will be assigned to this brigade?
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member

Anthony_B_78

Active Member
Our Army needs the IFV Version asap because we commited to transform 3 brigades into medium units. And the IFV is essential for this. As we do not have enough production capacity to get enough vehicles till 2027 this deal will be safe in my opinion.

Regarding 9th Brigade
Will this mean that 1st Armored Regiment will be the sole user of Abrams Tanks, since it seems that most tracked vehicles will be assigned to this brigade?
Plan Beershaba - structuring around three like "medium" brigades - is dead. The Army was committed to restructuring even before the Defence Strategic Review was handed down.

As for the 9th Brigade, nothing has been publicly announced yet, as far as I have seen, and I am sure it would be discussed here. The Chief of Army has said there will be consideration of force structure given the DSR.

I would agree it would make sense to have more of the Abrams in 1st Armoured Regiment as 9th Brigade will basically be an armoured brigade. Maybe two squadrons, instead of one, with one of the Queensland-based brigades losing its tanks, perhaps with that RAAC regiment forming a light cavalry squadron using Hawkeis - as per the 10th Light Horse Regiment in the 13th Brigade in WA.

There are, of course, many possibilities. I recall sometime ago the knowledgeable people here explained the Army was getting more Abrams because they were needed to be able to field three squadrons of 14 tanks each. But squadron sizes can be changed too. The Israelis, I was interested to read last night, have only 10 tanks in their regular squadrons (companies). A suggestion by Raven in a great discussion here a while ago was for integrated armoured battalions, each with two companies of mechanised infantry and a tank squadron. Maybe a little too radical for our Army - I don't know.

One imagines 9th Brigade will be designed to operate as a brigade, but also be able to deploy and sustain armoured battle groups in support of other forces. It will be interesting to see what shape it takes.
 

Maranoa

Active Member
Apparently Hanwha Defense Australia and EOS have 'sensitivities' and the AS21 might not get the higher spec EOS T2000 turret. Hanwha accidentally leaked itself, sending Defence publications the wrong file on the day of the announcement. Story in Australian & NZ Defender is behind a paywall, but they have a Hanwha document that confirms that EOS is not yet included in Redback subcontractors and EOS has released an advisory to the stock exchange confirming that no contracts have been signed. It would be a real pity if Redback got stuck with the so so Elbit MT-30 turret and not the more updated EOS T2000 version of it. Facebook
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Plan Beershaba - structuring around three like "medium" brigades - is dead. The Army was committed to restructuring even before the Defence Strategic Review was handed down.

As for the 9th Brigade, nothing has been publicly announced yet, as far as I have seen, and I am sure it would be discussed here. The Chief of Army has said there will be consideration of force structure given the DSR.

I would agree it would make sense to have more of the Abrams in 1st Armoured Regiment as 9th Brigade will basically be an armoured brigade. Maybe two squadrons, instead of one, with one of the Queensland-based brigades losing its tanks, perhaps with that RAAC regiment forming a light cavalry squadron using Hawkeis - as per the 10th Light Horse Regiment in the 13th Brigade in WA.

There are, of course, many possibilities. I recall sometime ago the knowledgeable people here explained the Army was getting more Abrams because they were needed to be able to field three squadrons of 14 tanks each. But squadron sizes can be changed too. The Israelis, I was interested to read last night, have only 10 tanks in their regular squadrons (companies). A suggestion by Raven in a great discussion here a while ago was for integrated armoured battalions, each with two companies of mechanised infantry and a tank squadron. Maybe a little too radical for our Army - I don't know.

One imagines 9th Brigade will be designed to operate as a brigade, but also be able to deploy and sustain armoured battle groups in support of other forces. It will be interesting to see what shape it takes.
Army's brigade structure appears a bit of a mystery in the public space going forward.
9th Brigade heavy............i think.
The others a bit of mystery.
Littoral stuff up north.

Maybe playing with available vehicle numbers and varieties to see what is realistic.

Cheers S
 
Last edited:

swerve

Super Moderator
Singapore designed & built the Bronco after operating the Bandvagn 206 for a long time. Other Bv206 operators include Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia & the Brazilian marines. It's had a lot of use in wet & forested tropical areas, & along coastlines from the equator to the arctic. Sweden has a long coastline with a lot of islands, & large areas with no or poor roads, bogs, etc. - & so do other operators, such as Brazil. It was designed specifically for such environments.

The Bronco is based on the Bv206 (which was developed from the Bv202), as is the BvS10. The Singaporeans modified it to their taste. I think whether one prefers the BvS10 or the Bronco depends on your particular requirements, e.g. IIRC the Bronco's a bit bigger. Both seem to work well & have satisfied users, e.g. the Royal Marines & Dutch marines seem to like their BvS10s.
 

OldTex

Well-Known Member
The thought crosses my mind that something like the BVS 10 could be a good fit for a litoral/amphib roled brigade. Forget truck mounted gear, look into platforms that can swim.
What are the CONOPS and requirements that would suggest or necessitate the acquisition of vehicles like the BvS10/Bronco type of vehicle for the Australian Army? Or is it a case of suggesting that the BvS10/Bronco type of vehicle could be the replacement for the LARC-V/ LMV-L? Or is the suggestion that the BvS10/Bronco type of vehicle is used in conjunction with the LMV-H?
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
What are the CONOPS and requirements that would suggest or necessitate the acquisition of vehicles like the BvS10/Bronco type of vehicle for the Australian Army? Or is it a case of suggesting that the BvS10/Bronco type of vehicle could be the replacement for the LARC-V/ LMV-L? Or is the suggestion that the BvS10/Bronco type of vehicle is used in conjunction with the LMV-H?
No idea what the conops are, if they have even been developed yet. I am looking to what the DSR says is desired, i.e. light forces that can operate effectively from small amphibs.
 

Massive

Well-Known Member
While not entering into the Redback v Lynx debate, I did wonder if the advantages of a common turret with the Boxer might sway the decision in the Lynx's favour.

More from a training/sustainment perspective.

Regards,

Massive
 

Bob53

Well-Known Member
While not entering into the Redback v Lynx debate, I did wonder if the advantages of a common turret with the Boxer might sway the decision in the Lynx's favour.

More from a training/sustainment perspective.

Regards,

Massive
Yes I had the same view. Commonality is ….a common thread on these pages. Not only training and sustainment i was thinking with the limited number of turrents on the boxers there might be options for swaps were required from damaged vehicles. That Ship has sailed. The Gov had one eye on looking at expanding the number of allied manufacturing partners and industrial base as well. And of course the Redback won the shoot out.
 
Top