The breakdown circa 2009 was:
That's 6 that were in some form of service post-2009, but possibly with fire control and similar removed; suspect all targets have been either blown up or demilled by now; all donations to RSLs and similar saw the tanks heavily demilitarized (as in would need to replace pretty much all the internals to get a useful tank); unsure of how heavily demilled the military museum or 'gate guards' were, suspect the military museum examples might still be able to run but are likely minus most fire control systems and similar.
So, might be able to rustle up 20ish that could be restored to service without too much buggerizing round, with another 50ish if you're okay with mostly fitting a new tank in an old hull and turret...
the road runner
Active Member
Hanwah Defense and Government has signed the contract for Redbacks
129 vehicles is a start and hopefully Government will place follow on orders for extra Redbacks so our M113 can be used as target on our live fire ranges
129 vehicles is a start and hopefully Government will place follow on orders for extra Redbacks so our M113 can be used as target on our live fire ranges
John Newman
The Bunker Group
I wouldn’t be holding my breath the ALP will suddenly do a 180 turn, especially since they were the ones that cut the planned order from 450 to 129, plus the cut to the SPH order too, unless they get backed into a corner.
What we are likely to see is at the next election (or two), the LNP will promise to restore the original plan for IFV and SPH (and whatever slash and burn comes out of the Naval review).
Apart from ADF implications, it will be promoted as ‘jobs, jobs and jobs!’ by the LNP.
Technically they didn't cut anything, they ordered fewer up front than the previous government said they planned to order.
This is what happens, in 96 the corvette program was canned altogether and the Fremantle's were life extended before Armidales were finally ordere. The planned replacements for the DDGs and FFGs, deferred to build corvettes, were not ordered when the corvettes were cancelled.
Project Mulgara was cancelled and Bushmaster came very close to being cancelled. The new brigade structure and ready reserve were axed with no replacement.
Things went badly backwards until Timor, then 911 resulted in the reversal of some but not all cuts made by the GotD.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Technically they didn’t cut anything? Mate, V, that is political speak.
But if you believe that, great, fine, no prob.
I guess there must be fairies at the bottom of the garden too?
But if you believe that, great, fine, no prob.
I guess there must be fairies at the bottom of the garden too?
Did you read the rest of what I wrote?
The government changed in 96, multiple projects were cancelled, not cut, cancelled, and nothing was put in their place. Service conditions were changed, entire types of service were abolished. Engineering, procurement and sustainment were gutted and out sourced.
We are still paying the price for what was done to the navy.
IFV and SPG's ?
Getting some proper detail of our new Brigade structure will shed some light on unit composition and equipment needs.
From the information and graphics supplied too many questions as to what that really looks like.
Either way, new manufacturing projects like the IFV's and SPG's have scope to increase their numbers.
Hopefully that was always the intention.
Is this just the first tranche?
My thinking is current vehicle build numbers reflect short term budgeting and priorities.
I maybe wrong and naive in this thinking, but that's me take on it.
If it was the Liberal party in government today, what would their defence budget look like?
The same, less or more than what we have currently
Would every ADF project have a green light ,or would some be prioritised for others?
Yes, I voted for this lot at the last election, but that doesn't mean I don't have reservations re some of the decisions .
Air Force is ok
Navy an unknown pending the review.
Army appears always in adjustment!
I'm open to the fact that it's evolving to meet the challenges of the future, but again a lack of detail does create uncertainty.
Units being amalgamated and reduced in size , coupled with lower production builds of new equipment does suggest a smaller Army.
In the big picture , I don't think that is going to be the reality down the track.
Army is evolving with alot of new capabilities in a relatively short amount of time.
I'm confident it will grown and have a broader range of capabilities going forward.
It's a busy space.
Increased SPG and IFV numbers will hopefully be apart of this evolution.
Fingers crossed.
Cheers S
Don't know the uniform, but the footwear appears to be civvi hiking shoes from Scarpa.![1054x1581] Australian Special Air Service Regiment member alongside Indonesian Kopassus during Exercise Dawn Komodo 2021 : r/MilitaryPorn](https://i.redd.it/tpl0351oag181.jpg)
Does anyone know the make of this uniform worn by SASR? Not sure if its from Sord, Platatac.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Unfortunately with lower production builds, there is also the distinct potential for the lower/reduced number on order to end up getting build and then that is it, the production line gets such down as does the supply chain which provided parts and materials to support the production line whilst the build was ongoing.
As I have mentioned before, with the planned production numbers, the build rate was/is anticipated to be ~5 IFV's per month for approximately two years once the line starts production. One (IMO anyway) significant negative of that, is that it could fairly easily end up with the current planned build to be completed before additional/supplemental orders get placed.
It could go many ways and what I'm saying is speculative re final numbers being increased.
A few things to consider.
Recent hostilities overseas have reinforced the role and need of IFV's and SPG's.
Not the opposite.
Political rhetoric re defence is that we need to prepare for a region facing greater levels of threat. These modern units fit that need.
Politicians do like a good increase in manufacturing story in their backyard.
We do have a federal election or two within the build timeframe.
Army has operated much larger fleets of APC's in the past compared to the proposed IFV aquistion....... A new capability for sure, but numbers do mater. A precident exists for an increase in armoured vehicle numbers.
The last thought is just one of logic.
Why would we build such a small fleet of IFV's and SPG's locally.
It would be much better value to buy from overseas. Sovereign capability I get , but there's a point when your return on investment makes it not worth the coin.
I wouldn't bet my house on it, but I'd be very surprised if build numbers are not increased.
Remember we were initially only going to build 299 Bushmaster PMV's.
Those numbers certainly grew.
If it's going to happen, an announcement would need to be within a couple if years.
Fingers crossed
Cheers S
One would hope the Govt has Commercial-In-Confidence deals with Hanwha for future tranches of IFV, following the initial (recently announced) initial batches. If that is the case there is a chance we are achieving some economies of scale. If not, then we are paying top dollar per unit.
These purchasing decisions were made in Treasury, not Defence.
I think we can answer one of those with info in the public domain (I appreciate you know the details but for lurkers reading your post …). SPGs were already being built, incoming govt kept those but cut the additional order. The logic offered in the DSR is that howitzers had insufficient firepower and range. This seems less than compelling given that no missile based alternative has been proposed at brigade level and M777s (with less - effective - firepower and shorter range) continue on in two brigades.
The value of local production also needs to be viewed in terms of Australian industry development and from Hanwha‘s perspective. I doubt that their long term plan relies on Australian orders but the value of an armoured vehicle plant for them that is a long way from North Korea is hard to calculate.
Some speculative details here.
Exclusive: After Australia Success, South Korea's Redback IFV Attracts Europe, Middle-East Nations
South Korea's Hanwha Defense, after recently clinching a multi-billion dollar contract to supply Australia with 129 AS21 Redback Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFVs), has disclosed to EurAsian Times that several European and Middle Eastern countries have expressed their interest in the ‘REDBACK.’
www.eurasiantimes.com
With the Army due to start receiving their new M1A2 tanks this year, I hope there is a plan to donate at least some of the old M1A1 tanks to Ukraine.
If the 3rd Brigade is to be the Army's mechanised brigade, then I think it would make sense if a second batch was ordered to also allow 1 RAR to be equipped with the AS21, rather than the Bushmasters they currently have. Would also be good if a second batch included the variants of the AS21 that appear to have been cancelled, eg a replacement for the M113 mortar carrier... but the following is from a transcript of an interview with Minister Marles on 7 November 2023 so I am not optimistic about more being ordered-129 vehicles is a start and hopefully Government will place follow on orders for extra Redbacks so our M113 can be used as target on our live fire ranges
MARLES: We reduced infantry fighting vehicles from 450 down to [129]. We did that because there was no world in which Australia would be able to take 450 infantry fighting vehicles beyond our shores. And we have made really clear what our strategic intent here is. We need to be able to project. We were not going to be protecting with those infantry fighting vehicles. And so former generals can, you know, be sad about the fact that they can't drive those around Australia The fact of the matter is, we need a force which is able to project and we make no apologies for the decisions that we've made there. But we've also got new capabilities. We are properly funding long-range strike. We are standing up a long-range strike brigade for the first time, which we based in Adelaide, where our test ranges are, where our defence industry is. It's a really significant step forward in terms of the lethality and the potency of the Australian Army, and it comes from doing the strategic thinking. Now there are, as I say, difficult decisions, and when you make a difficult decision, you'll always find somebody who will make a complaint about it. But we are not afraid of that because the fact of the matter is, we have a decade of no decisions being made at all and Australia has faced a 10 year capability gap as a result of that.
Doorstop interview, Indo Pacific Sea Power Conference | Defence Ministers
The question that should be put to the minister (just putting into a bite size chunk what others have said in the forum) should be how do you raise, sustain, retain and train the force to be projected and once projected what do you reinforce or replace it with?