Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[lobbie111]

You know a system won't get bought when a video comes out on youtube about tthe K-9 to the AC/DC song thunderstruck nfloorl: (just a joke)

As to the K-10 I'm not sure even if the K-9 is purchased we would get it for a few reasons, the main being its speed.

A fully loaded bushmaster with Ammunition can beat a K-10 from supplies base to the SPH easily, it may not be as protected nor easier to load but no doubt they could modify a bushmater with the K-10 feed system.

Another reason would be air transportability, you have to transport twice as much when that isn't need As I have stated before the bushmater would be a better transport.

just my 2 c

 

[croc]

Bushmaster would be certainly quicker than any tracked system but real issue here is, could bushmaster travel to all areas of rough terrain where tracked systems are far more suited for.

East timor was classic example where ASLAV couldn't travel to areas where our M113 could and I don't think our intention to use our artillery is based on operation near the paved roadside either.

 

[Chino]

Was the Oz requirement for a 52-cal SPH only?

(Being an arty noob...) I would think SPH are something you deploy closer to the front compared to towed arty. Which is why you need SPH to be on a highly mobile SP chassis.

And since SPH are close to the front, wouldn't a shorter 39-cal barrel have enough reach?

Because theoretically, a 39-cal SPH should be lighter and more flexible compared to a large 52-cal SPH. The table below shows that a 39-cal SPH like the Primus, is only half the weight of the PZH-2000.

This means that when near the front, it will have more mobility especially when it comes to bridge crossing. And the 39-cal gun has a disadvantage in range of only 10km compared to the 52-cal.

PZH-2000 (52-cal):
40km (weapon range)
55 tons
60km/h

Primus (39-cal)
30km (weapon range)
28 tons
50km/h

If you want the long range of a 52-cal, wouldn't a towed gun be more suitable (since you can employ it further back to the rear)? And modern towed howitzers take a very short time to set up.

 

[lobbie111]

Bushmaster would be certainly quicker than any tracked system but real issue here is, could bushmaster travel to all areas of rough terrain where tracked systems are far more suited for.

East timor was classic example where ASLAV couldn't travel to areas where our M113 could and I don't think our intention to use our artillery is based on operation near the paved roadside either.

Hmm, shelling east timor not the PR Australia is trying to achieve (I know what you mean though)

Think about an Artilley system, wherever it can't go due to supplies it can sit and shell stuff...

If the bushmaster can't take you there you can always call in other options such as helicopters, aircraft (low level drops) and M113's for example, infact a cheaper option than the K-10 would probably be refurbish some M113's for duty as ammunition carriers...

 

[winnyfield]

Some pics of the British 'Jackal MWMIK' - http://www.aulro.com/afvb/remlr-general/54957-british-jackal-lrpv.html.

Looks like a cut down Bushmaster. Also reminds me of those SF LMTVs, with guys sitting over the front wheels. Doesn't seem to be low profile (easier to conceal).

Significant since the ADF has reputedly bought some (or something like it ie. 6x6 variant) as a replacement for the SASR LRPVs, yet so far there doesn't appear to be any pics available.

 

[croc]

Not a bad idea, M113 could take on the role as the ammo carrier but it is light on the crew protection.

The other thing that should be considered is that K-10 has crew of 3 (according to OEM spec.) therefore it represents massive reduction in logistic and personnel required for the Ammunition resupply if escort requirement is no longer required for delivery due to its self protection level.

 

[winnyfield]

One of those MLRS vehicles would be perfect - http://www.primeportal.net/artillery/m270_mlrs.htm

 

[lobbie111]

Artillery or logistics vehicles for that matter as a rule generally dont come into contact with enemy attacks in an ideal situation, so armour against small arms (say a special forces team) maybe up to 14.5mm (which I believe the M113 was originally desinged to counter) protection levels and protection from 155m artillery should be sufficient to deal with any threats encountered, well if you think about it, you have the driver, vehicle commander and a loader type crewman you only have 3 personell anyway.

Buying another system altogether just increases the logisitics chain if your going to buy an MLRS vehicle why not just but the K-10...

 

[kato]

maybe up to 14.5mm (which I believe the M113 was originally desinged to counter) protection levels

.50cal only. In theory, not in practice.

 

[PeterM]

I would like to see the military get the Puma IFV for one of our mechanised forces (5 RAR or 7 RAR) to replace our M113s (even the upgraded ones have serious limitations).

It has 3 crew and carries 8 troops.

The basic armour package (Combat Weight 31.45t), protects against 14.5mm, Artillery fragments, RPGs, EFP mines and 10kg blasts all round, and 30mm rounds from the side and front. There are also additional armour packages available (the heaviest totalling 43t) should they be needed.

Plus it is armed with a dual feed Mauser 30mm MK 30-2 cannon with a rate of fire of 700 rounds a minute and a range of up to 3km; giving excellent fire support for our troops.

It is air transportable in a A400M aircraft, which means the Hercules/C17 can also transport it.

Particularly as we are having trouble with recruitment, and we are using our soliders operationally in high risk environments, then maximising protection and firepower of mechanised units makes alot of sense.

It would fill a similar role to the UK Warrior which has been extremely usefull in peace keeping operations.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I would like to see the military get the Puma IFV for one of our mechanised forces (5 RAR or 7 RAR) to replace our M113s (even the upgraded ones have serious limitations).

It has 3 crew and carries 8 troops.

The basic armour package (Combat Weight 31.45t), protects against 14.5mm, Artillery fragments, RPGs, EFP mines and 10kg blasts all round, and 30mm rounds from the side and front. There are also additional armour packages available (the heaviest totalling 43t) should they be needed.

Plus it is armed with a dual feed Mauser 30mm MK 30-2 cannon with a rate of fire of 700 rounds a minute and a range of up to 3km; giving excellent fire support for our troops.

It is air transportable in a A400M aircraft, which means the Hercules/C17 can also transport it.

Particularly as we are having trouble with recruitment, and we are using our soliders operationally in high risk environments, then maximising protection and firepower of mechanised units makes alot of sense.

It would fill a similar role to the UK Warrior which has been extremely usefull in peace keeping operations.

An Australian Infantry section won't fit into a Puma IFV as it in fact will only carry 6x troops in the carrier compartment, not 8. You could change the section size for the Mech Inf battalions, but when they change roles and operate in light infantry roles in operations such as Timor and Soloman Islands type operations, the battalion would have to be restructured for the operation and then down-sized when it changed back to it's normal mech role.

Ask 4RAR how easy that is...

A Puma IFV cannot be airlifted by a Hercules either. C-130 Hercules have a maximum lift capacity of 18 tonnes...

I'm not suggesting for a moment the Puma is not a "good" vehicle. But it's not right for Australia.

 

[lobbie111]

The CV-90 Looks like a better choice, multiple versions up to 120mm and 105mm cannons and air defence versions, plus the 40mm version can fire the 3P round which looks great in combination with the APFSDS round.

I don't think any modern IFV besides the new marine corps AAV can fit a full section in it anymore, the gear alone takes up a large portion of the IFV as you mentioned AD the puma can only take 6 realisitcally. The europeans seem to build there cars like they build there IFV's SMALL...

 

[gf0012-aust]

so armour against small arms (say a special forces team) maybe up to 14.5mm (which I believe the M113 was originally desinged to counter)

I would not like to be in a veggie bin being belted by .50 cal...

The STANAG ratings are quite specific.....

 

[Aussie Digger]

Artillery or logistics vehicles for that matter as a rule generally dont come into contact with enemy attacks in an ideal situation, so armour against small arms (say a special forces team) maybe up to 14.5mm (which I believe the M113 was originally desinged to counter) protection levels and protection from 155m artillery should be sufficient to deal with any threats encountered, well if you think about it, you have the driver, vehicle commander and a loader type crewman you only have 3 personell anyway.

Nope. 7.62mm NATO ball ammunition is all a non-upgraded M113 will "take".

And even that would be on a "good" day...

 

[lobbie111]

what will the upgraded M113's armour protection levels be?

 

[Aussie Digger]

what will the upgraded M113's armour protection levels be?

12.7mm/14.5mm on the M113AS3/4 over the front and sides, plus enhanced mine/IED protection on the underside of the vehicle, internal spaller liners, automatic internal fire extinguishers and fire "inhibition" zones.

A further "modular" kit has allegedly been procured for use raising protection levels beyond this base, but little to no information has been released about this and it could be a furphy or misunderstanding on the behalf of those reporting about it...

A not uncommon occurrence...

 

[croc]

Current M113A3/A4 is said to be weighed in at some 18 ton, well above the original weight of 12.3 ton. Even with additional road wheel to carry more weight, the M113 is at its limit and more.

Almost 10 years behind the schedule, I say it is high time we cut our losses and by new IFV.:nutkick

 

[Aussie Digger]

Current M113A3/A4 is said to be weighed in at some 18 ton, well above the original weight of 12.3 ton. Even with additional road wheel to carry more weight, the M113 is at its limit and more.

Almost 10 years behind the schedule, I say it is high time we cut our losses and by new IFV.:nutkick

Too late for that. It's already in-service and 5RAR has already received more than a company's worth of vehicles... :unknown

 

[kato]

The europeans seem to build there cars like they build there IFV's SMALL...

7.4 x 3.7 x 3.1 m isn't exactly small.

Both M2 Bradley, Warrior and ASCOD are a full meter shorter than that. CV90 and Dardo both a meter shorter and a lot less wide.
The AAAV is about the only thing in IFVs out there that's bigger than a Puma, by a scant 2m in length.
Oh yeah, and a AT-T/MT-T too of course, but that's more of a tracked 10-ton truck.

 

[Aussie Digger]

The CV-90 Looks like a better choice, multiple versions up to 120mm and 105mm cannons and air defence versions, plus the 40mm version can fire the 3P round which looks great in combination with the APFSDS round.

I don't think any modern IFV besides the new marine corps AAV can fit a full section in it anymore, the gear alone takes up a large portion of the IFV as you mentioned AD the puma can only take 6 realisitcally. The europeans seem to build there cars like they build there IFV's SMALL...

It's the large 2 man turrets inside them that takes up the room. The vehicles themselves are big enough.

However, it's not my opinion on the subject that really matters. It's Army's...