Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[ADMk2]

So if Australia was to go with skyceptor it would be used to defeat missiles fired at us from less than 1000kms away? Is that likely to be an issue for us? Who has ballistic missiles with that range of Australia? Serious question…what if the missile is fired from 3000km away. Is skyceptor then useless?

Short AND Medium ranged ballistic missiles. Remember the furore last week when a Chinese TF armed with 540nm ranged ballistic missiles sailed around Australia? Those sort of missiles are exactly the type of threat SkyCeptor can engage.

Part of the problem with ballistic missile defence, is our distance. There are plenty of types of ballistic missiles that can reach us, but to launch a land based missile at us by those who possess such capabilities, well you are talking about intermediate ranged BM’s (up to 5000k range) or intercontinental BM’s and no medium ranged air defence system will be able to engage those.

If you are considering we need a defence against those, we will need Arrow 3, the high end SM-3 series or Ground Based Interceptor series and the associated high end radar and IADS to go with it. The US is, and are spending $17b alone just to develop the next-generation of GBI, with interceptors “planned” to cost USD $74m a piece. If they do, I’ll be astonished because in reality they are so expensive, the US has deployed (and plan to deploy) a whopping 64 of them and earlier iterations of the program had budget blow-outs beyond 230%…

We meanwhile are struggling to find the funds to acquire an off the shelf Medium ranged AD system of about +/- 2 batteries… Which is why RTX might well be considering their SkyCeptor missile as a viable pitch for us. Because it can bring all of that Medium Range AD capability and ‘some’ BMD defence capability into a system like NASAMs we already use and are familiar and comfortable with…

On top of everything else, it is combat proven with it’s Israeli version - Stunner having successfully engaged Iranian BM attacks.

 

[Bob53]

What was the Army vehicle that rolled near Lismore Injuring between 20 and 36 depending on what report you read? Was it a bus?

 

[Sandson41]

Supposed to be two trucks, used as transports. Rolled trying to avoid hitting each other. Apparently the troops were seat-belted in.
There's a photo of the underbelly of what looks to me like a MAN truck, but I'm not going to post it.
Thoughts are with the injured and their families.

 

[Bob53]

Supposed to be two trucks, used as transports. Rolled trying to avoid hitting each other. Apparently the troops were seat-belted in.
There's a photo of the underbelly of what looks to me like a MAN truck, but I'm not going to post it.
Thoughts are with the injured and their families.

Do the MANs have a troop carrier/ transport module?

 

[Sandson41]

Not sure of the arrangement here or for these trucks, but protected modules for other trucks have been developed.
15 guys in the back of each, per the police report. One truck apparently rolled several times, so i hope they had more than benches and canvas.

https://www.royalwolf.com.au/royal-wolf-wins-51m-defence-contract

https://www.royalwolf.com.au/product/custom-modules

There are ladders visible on the truck similar to this module.

 

[Bob53]

Thanks …interesting concept… I was wondering how they got past the old sit in the canvas covered Unimog mode Of transport. Assume from this there must be a whole range of bullet proof and blast resistant containers out there.

 

[MARKMILES77]

Seems a lot of money for 54 rounds.

Australia – Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System-Alternate Warhead Rounds | Defense Security Cooperation Agency

www.dsca.mil

 

[SammyC]

Seems a lot of money for 54 rounds.

Australia – Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System-Alternate Warhead Rounds | Defense Security Cooperation Agency

www.dsca.mil

View attachment 52439

I'm assuming this lot (being the first order) comes with the integrated logistics support necessary for the program. If correct it would be more expensive than subsequent orders.

These are the tungsten shrapnel ones that replaced the bomblet type for elimination of unexploded ordinance.

 

[PHOTOGRAPHER]

Seems a lot of money for 54 rounds.

Australia – Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System-Alternate Warhead Rounds | Defense Security Cooperation Agency

www.dsca.mil

View attachment 52439

That purchase price makes a lot more sense if it is 54 pods of 6 and not just 9 pods. How much would logisitc support cost for a new type of warhead in the same pods we have already ordered? It would have to be in the multiple tens of millions to add up to $91 million USD.

 

[seaspear]

Is there a licensing agreement that then stops Australia from making these for our own use it would seem that and high intensity combat would quickly exhaust any of what we would use

 

[SammyC]

Is there a licensing agreement that then stops Australia from making these for our own use it would seem that and high intensity combat would quickly exhaust any of what we would use

https://www.minister.defence.gov.au...ges-ahead-missile-and-munitions-manufacturing

We have a licencing agreement. A factory is being built. Basic assembly (albeit from overseas parts) will occur this year. We will have capacity for 4,000 rounds by 2029 if all goes according to plan (and I see no reason it shouldn't).

I think however we will need to procure some inventory before this factory is online, hence this order. Expect more of them.

 

[seaspear]

As was shown in the Ukraine war 4000 rounds goes quickly perhaps large volumes of ALL the types of munition Australia uses and may export would be more strategic

 

[SammyC]

As was shown in the Ukraine war 4000 rounds goes quickly perhaps large volumes of ALL the types of munition Australia uses and may export would be more strategic

I would agree. One would think that 4000 per annum allows for stockpiling, and presumably the factory has some in built expansion capability. It is generally easier to add the second production line when the first is operational.

 

[StevoJH]

I would agree. One would think that 4000 per annum allows for stockpiling, and presumably the factory has some in built expansion capability. It is generally easier to add the second production line when the first is operational.

If 4000 per annum is working a single shift, it may be able to go up to 12,000 if run 24/7?

 

[SammyC]

If 4000 per annum is working a single shift, it may be able to go up to 12,000 if run 24/7?

Not sure. There's very little information available, but media releases use the wording "capable of producing up to 4,000 rounds per year from 2029." So possibly if we read between the lines this is full facility capacity (24/7) as built. The media releases at the time do alude to this number being in excess of Australian needs, and would require export sales to achieve.

So additional production might need additional facilities and equipment. And parts, which might be more difficult.

 

[Bob53]

I would agree. One would think that 4000 per annum allows for stockpiling, and presumably the factory has some in built expansion capability. It is generally easier to add the second production line when the first is operational.

With a fleet of 42 HIMARs it’s only about a a 100 rounds each per year for training….maybe 15 or so full canister firings a year. Probably enough for training ! But I’m thinking a reserve of about 15-20 thousand rounds would be needed.

 

[seaspear]

Why not build facilities that are capable of in times of need being able to expand production significantly ,I can appreciate plant and equipment not being used as expensive but times have shown small volumes either of production or stockpile don't cut it ,so whether its shells or missiles we need to not rely on others

 

[SammyC]

Why not build facilities that are capable of in times of need being able to expand production significantly ,I can appreciate plant and equipment not being used as expensive but times have shown small volumes either of production or stockpile don't cut it ,so whether its shells or missiles we need to not rely on others

It's an interesting point seaspear. I would think most people would see that in a hot conflict we will consume a lot more than 4,000 GMLRS rounds per year. So why not make a factory that can produce what we are really likely to need. Same principle with NSM/JSM and 155mm shells. All three factories are undersized for what an actual war consumption rate would be.

An argument for undersized factories is stockpiling, in that you make during peacetime to consume in war. Problem with this argument is that we may or may not have the stockpiling time. If this was the plan we should have started 10 years ago.

I think the actual reason is more in accordance with the crawl, walk, run strategy. At the moment we don't know how to build a factory, or operate it, or supply it. We have none of the machinery, none of the skills and none of the sub components. The smaller factories are all aligned to the crawl phase, where we can obtain these capabilities without biting off more than we can chew.

There are plenty of examples in our history of trying to do too much too quickly, and ending up with a disaster, that takes longer to then unpick and fix.

I also suspect that the bottleneck on GMLRS production is unlikely to be the actual assembly factory. It is more likely to be for instance the rocket manufacturer (which is what LM advises is the limiting factor for its American plant). I know LM have an agreement with Thales to produce rockets for the GMLRS and I'm personally interested to see how this goes. Watch that development to get an understanding of actual production progress.

Likewise for 155mm shells, the limitation is less the steelworks, and more the explosive and detonator production. I know the recent production deal with Thales includes the explosive component, however I'm yet to see anything on the detonators. Interestingly I understand that the shell steel billet is currently imported (taken from NIOA's media releases), I would have thought we could obtain this from our own steel mills (which given Trump's tarrifs are looking for alternative markets).

NSM from what I understand is limited by the sensor package (which is very fancy), hence the deal with BAe to tripple production (equating to 1,000 units over six years), with these made in Australia.

 

[MickB]

Are the Australian armoured vehicle factories able to compete on the open market?
Maybe even against its parent company.

Eg : Could the Huntsman be put forward to fill Canada's SPG requirement?

 

[John Fedup]

Are the Australian armoured vehicle factories able to compete on the open market?
Maybe even against its parent company.

Eg : Could the Huntsman be put forward to fill Canada's SPG requirement?

Given delivery issues for MIC items from parent vendors, I would think Australian sourcing would be welcomed by customers with an immediate requirement.