Australian Army Discussions and Updates

Volkodav said:
Does anyone know what's happening with LAND 400 Phase 3, for 100 Combat Support Vehicles?

This would boost production to 239 assuming the project is still happening.

Likely it would give Lynx the edge due to its modular design and ability to convert vehicle types in a matter of hours.

It would also provide an option for a survivable Lynx APC with an RCS instead of turret, to replace more of the M-113s more affordably, while having the potential to be quickly upgraded later if required.
Click to expand...

They are gone. Replaced by Hercules, Breacher and Joint Assault Bridge, under Heavy Armoured Combat Systems - LAND 907 Phase 2 and LAND 8160.

Basis of Provisioning for LAND 400 pH.3 now according to June DTR magazine is 78x direct fire IFV variants and 51x C2 / Joint Fires vehicles. To go wholly to 9 Brigade, School of Armour and Trade Training schools.

Everything else under LAND 400 has been cancelled including armoured mortar, ambulance, armoured logistics, fitter / recovery, surveillance, amphibious vehicles and the MSV complement…
 
Stampede said:
I'd be open to additional Boxers in the dedicated APC role.
Production up and running.
Vehicle has a good balance of speed, range and protection.

Boxer is also modular with a wide range of applications.

Not saying we don't get tanks and IFV's.
But a modest number of addition Boxers will help cover the years prior to the IFV 's entering service.

I'd prefer Boxer over our in servic M113 for just about any situation.



Cheers S
Click to expand...

The issue is money. If there was money for Boxer for Army armoured roles, it could equally be applied to acquiring additional LAND 400 Ph.3 vehicles.

The fact Government didn’t cancel Ph.3 shows they aren’t philosophically opposed to the capability, just actually paying for it.
 
A note in this article indicates the German Army are looking to integrate Sky Ranger with the Boxer. Thsi seems to be a good option for low cost SHORAD against drones for the Australian Army.
euro-sd.com

Royal Danish Army Selects Skyranger 30

The Danish Defence Acquisition and Logistics Organization (DALO) is in the final stages of awarding a contract for the ‘effector’ (weapon system) part of the Royal Danish Army’s new very-short-range air defence (V-SHORAD) system, according to a press release on 16 May 2023. Specifically, DALO...
euro-sd.com euro-sd.com
 
Bob53 said:
A note in this article indicates the German Army are looking to integrate Sky Ranger with the Boxer. Thsi seems to be a good option for low cost SHORAD against drones for the Australian Army.
euro-sd.com

Royal Danish Army Selects Skyranger 30

The Danish Defence Acquisition and Logistics Organization (DALO) is in the final stages of awarding a contract for the ‘effector’ (weapon system) part of the Royal Danish Army’s new very-short-range air defence (V-SHORAD) system, according to a press release on 16 May 2023. Specifically, DALO...
euro-sd.com euro-sd.com
Click to expand...
The issue at present is not requirements, it is a Government that has capped heavy armour acquisition at 75 M-1A2 MBT, 42 M-1 derivatives, 45 AS-9/10, 211 Boxers and 129 IFVs due to funding availability and until that changes there is little point looking at something like Skyranger fitted on Boxers and the numbers we are getting now look to be bare minimum to do there current roles. A similar system that can be fitted to a Bushmaster, Hawkeii or Land 121 Truck might get a look in, maybe?
 
Redlands18 said:
The issue at present is not requirements, it is a Government that has capped heavy armour acquisition at 75 M-1A2 MBT, 42 M-1 derivatives, 45 AS-9/10, 211 Boxers and 129 IFVs due to funding availability and until that changes there is little point looking at something like Skyranger fitted on Boxers and the numbers we are getting now look to be bare minimum to do there current roles. A similar system that can be fitted to a Bushmaster, Hawkeii or Land 121 Truck might get a look in, maybe?
Click to expand...
None the less it would be a good option. Whether it happens or not of course comes down to scarce amount of cash.

So what’s the army plan for SHORAD against cheap drones? A Remington 870 with buck shot?
 
Last edited:
Bob53 said:
None the less it would be a good option. Whether it happens or not of course comes down to scare amount if cash.

So what’s the army plan for SHORAD against cheap drones? A Remington 870 with buck shot?
Click to expand...

We chose a Benelli semi-auto shotty from memory… Lol.

Army has a Drone Shield trial in progress with 2 Cav Regt and a bunch of drone shield “guns”.

Other than that we have no air defence plan besides ’all arms fire’ and of course NASAMS II for our ground forces…

Not sure we’ll be firing many AIM-120C7 missiles against cheap drones though…
 
You might think the Ukraine situation might get this type of capability up the priorities list… or not and just worry about if after it is needed.
 
Marles has mentioned the doubling of the HIMARS order several times in interviews post DSR release.

Considering the backlog of international orders I am unsure why this has not yet been annouced. Wondering what the justification is for this considering he mentioned a serious urgency with regards to this capability.

Dsr reference below.

  • accelerating the delivery of additional High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) and associated battle management and support systems;
 
Lolcake said:
Marles has mentioned the doubling of the HIMARS order several times in interviews post DSR release.

Considering the backlog of international orders I am unsure why this has not yet been annouced. Wondering what the justification is for this considering he mentioned a serious urgency with regards to this capability.

Dsr reference below.

  • accelerating the delivery of additional High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) and associated battle management and support systems;
Click to expand...

Defence advised Senate Estimates last week that the DSCA announcement for these extra HIMARS is “imminent”.

Whatever that means. But as we haven’t yet contracted for the first batch, I’m not sure what the delivery timeframe will be, unless we reserved production slots or perhaps are acquiring platforms initially contracted for US Army / USMC requirements as we have allegedly done with UH-60M…
 
Last edited:
ADMk2 said:
We chose a Benelli semi-auto shotty from memory… Lol.

Army has a Drone Shield trial in progress with 2 Cav Regt and a bunch of drone shield “guns”.

Other than that we have no air defence plan besides ’all arms fire’ and of course NASAMS II for our ground forces…

Not sure we’ll be firing many AIM-120C7 missiles against cheap drones though…
Click to expand...
the attached on the tactical lessons of U-R war really reinforces a lot of the comments here by the pros. Says to me the members here that comment on land like Volk, Todd, Old Faithful and Stampede do know what they are talking about ….The conclusions are interesting in the context of the ADF in regard to tactical air defence.

 
Bob53 said:
the attached on the tactical lessons of U-R war really reinforces a lot of the comments here by the pros. Says to me the members here that comment on land like Volk, Todd, Old Faithful and Stampede do know what they are talking about ….The conclusions are interesting in the context of the ADF in regard to tactical air defence.

Click to expand...

There have a couple of these analyses around.

The surprise for me in the DSR was the cancellation in SPG order. Felt a more appropriate response would be to increase artillery regiments to 24 guns...

Regards,

Massive
 
Massive said:
There have a couple of these analyses around.

The surprise for me in the DSR was the cancellation in SPG order. Felt a more appropriate response would be to increase artillery regiments to 24 guns...

Regards,

Massive
Click to expand...

I've always wondered why we have stuck to four gun batteries. Like other systems, it isn't always the case that every gun is going to be available (especially with older equipment), and even four working guns may not give the concentration or coverage one is after depending on the circumstances. AS9 could have been a great opportunity to bring us more into line with how our allies tend to do things with six gun batteries, perhaps we still can within a single regiment.

The funding just doesn't exist for more. An armoured brigade is just going to have to function with the numbers allocated until there is positive information more vehicles will follow - as it is this doesn't exist and I'm pessimistic we will see more, at least until economic conditions improve (for inflation, cost-of-living, etc). Even then, current rhetoric seems to denigrate armoured vehicles as only being useful in Australia proper, as if there is any merit to the argument.

/

I suspect the only way we are going to generate an effective armoured brigade short of increased numbers is by concentrating it together, probably under 9 Brigade, while leaving some armour (likely Boxer) in case we need to get it overseas quickly into any scenario where we are getting shot at. At least in Adelaide/Cultana they can road or rail move to Darwin with a little bit of notice.

In an actual scenario where we find ourselves needing more IFVs/SPGs, MOTS will have to suffice (if it can) until production and supply chains can ramp up in country.
 
Last edited:
buffy9 said:
I've always wondered why we have stuck to four gun batteries. Like other systems, it isn't always the case that every gun is going to be available (especially with older equipment), and even four working guns may not give the concentration or coverage one is after depending on the circumstances. AS9 could have been a great opportunity to bring us more into line with how our allies tend to do things with six gun batteries, perhaps we still can within a single regiment.

The funding just doesn't exist for more. An armoured brigade is just going to have to function with the numbers allocated until there is positive information more vehicles will follow - as it is this doesn't exist and I'm pessimistic we will see more, at least until economic conditions improve (for inflation, cost-of-living, etc). Even then, current rhetoric seems to denigrate armoured vehicles as only being useful in Australia proper, as if there is any merit to the argument.

/

I suspect the only way we are going to generate an effective armoured brigade short of increased numbers is by concentrating it together, probably under 9 Brigade, while leaving some armour (likely Boxer) in case we need to get it overseas quickly into any scenario where we are getting shot at. At least in Adelaide/Cultana they can road or rail move to Darwin with a little bit of notice.

In an actual scenario where we find ourselves needing more IFVs/SPGs, MOTS will have to suffice (if it can) until production and supply chains can ramp up in country.
Click to expand...

We’ve ‘stuck’ to 12 gun batteries, moved to 4 or (at times) 3 or 2 gun “batteries” or troops or some other designation. RAA has be re-organised approximately 1000x over the last 10-13 years.

Nominally our operational artillery capability for the land force is 36x guns organised amongst 3 Regiments (depending on availability).

That number is based on the availability of guns. Leaves enough guns for 53 Independent Bty to support the School of Artillery and provide a maintenance rotation and that is it.

If we developed a 24 gun Regiment, we’d have 80% of our land force having no direct artillery support at all…
 
ADMk2 said:
We’ve ‘stuck’ to 12 gun batteries, moved to 4 or (at times) 3 or 2 gun “batteries” or troops or some other designation. RAA has be re-organised approximately 1000x over the last 10-13 years.

Nominally our operational artillery capability for the land force is 36x guns organised amongst 3 Regiments (depending on availability).

That number is based on the availability of guns. Leaves enough guns for 53 Independent Bty to support the School of Artillery and provide a maintenance rotation and that is it.

If we developed a 24 gun Regiment, we’d have 80% of our land force having no direct artillery support at all…
Click to expand...

My assumption was retention of the M777s in addition to the AS9 - three M777 regiments (each with twelve guns) supporting 1st, 3rd and 7th Brigades (36 plus SoA and 53 bty, minus that sent to Ukraine or etc) and the additional AS9 regiment supporting 9th Brigade, with the idea that that itself could maybe achieve 18 or 24 guns with 12 or 6 guns in other areas - though 12 is perhaps more likely for commonality with the other regiments.

That nominally leaves us with 36 towed guns and 12/18 self-propelled guns in prepared units. This assuming the M777s remain in service.

To make 6 or 8 gun batteries out of the M777s just isn't achievable given the numbers we have, and I wouldn't buy more given arguments in prior posts.
 
buffy9 said:
My assumption was retention of the M777s in addition to the AS9 - three M777 regiments (each with twelve guns) supporting 1st, 3rd and 7th Brigades (36 plus SoA and 53 bty, minus that sent to Ukraine or etc) and the additional AS9 regiment supporting 9th Brigade, with the idea that that itself could maybe achieve 18 or 24 guns with 12 or 6 guns in other areas - though 12 is perhaps more likely for commonality with the other regiments.

That nominally leaves us with 36 towed guns and 12/18 self-propelled guns in prepared units. This assuming the M777s remain in service.

To make 6 or 8 gun batteries out of the M777s just isn't achievable given the numbers we have, and I wouldn't buy more given arguments in prior posts.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure we’ll have mixed units and I agree the last thing we’ll be doing as things stand, is buying more M777A2…

The big problem I suspect will be workforce. RAA has to retain it’s M777A2 batteries plus support elements.

It has to introduce a new regiment of SPH, plus support elements. Bty size of SPH will be large too with guns and ammunition vehicles, as well as the usual Battery CP, joint Fires troop, CS etc. Mobile Protected Fires from memory is also re-introducing Weapons Locating Radar capability back into RAA, so troops will need to be established for those units.

It has to introduce a substantially expanded air defence capability within 16ALR.

RAA also now has to introduce 2x Regiments of HIMARS for divisional fires capability and at least 1x Regiment of land based ASM, plus of course support capabilities.

With such a massive introduction of new and expanded capability that corps will be under so much pressure. Historically speaking we’re also likely to chuck in a few Corps / Unit re-organisations into that mix as well, just to add to the ‘mess’.

The pressure they will be under will be immense.
 
Last edited:
ADMk2 said:
I’m not sure we’ll have mixed units and I agree the last thing we’ll be doing as things stand, is buying more M777A2…

The bjg problem I suspect will be workforce. RAA has to retain it’s M777A2 batteries plus support elements.

It has to introduce a new regiment of SPH, plus support elements. Bty size of SPH will be large too with guns and ammunition vehicles, as well as the usual Battery CP, joint Fires troop, CS etc. Mobile Protected Fires from memory is also re-introducing Weapons Locating Radar capability back into RAA, so troops will need to be established for those units.

It has to introduce a substantially expanded air defence capability within 16ALR.

RAA also now has to introduce 2x Regiments of HIMARS for divisional fires capability and at least 1x Regiment of land based ASM, plus of course support capabilities.

With such a massive introduction of new and expanded capability that corps will be under so much pressure. Historically speaking we’re also likely to chuck in a few Corps / Unit re-organisations into that mix as well, just to add to the ‘mess’.

The pressure they will be under will be immense.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily think the SPH batteries will be that much greater in size than the M777 batteries. More CSS for sure, but the number of vehicles works out similar (cutting a GTV and PMV for the AS9 and AS10 themselves, with ammo and crew carried by each). Still, it is a new and more complex training pipeline.

HIMARS is a big one, a completely new system. Getting help from the US would be key I imagine, perhaps even being radical and trying to get people on courses in the US.

Transitioning from RBS-70 to NASAMS is another large one, we'll have to maintain pipelines for both, while I can see us cannibalising the RBS-70 capability to make sure NASAMS works, despite the range/cost gap between them. StrikeMaster may be able to leverage shared FDC, sensors with NASAMS also, in addition to regular PMV qualifications - they may ease the training burden if it is chosen.

Plus drones, radars, sigs...

Not an easy path ahead...

Still, we get what we pay for. The alternative is giving up on one of these entirelly, and with current concerns/vulnerabilities I don't see one that really can be.

I suspect contractors/allies being directly involved is part of the solution. They already know the systems and can ease the pressure on the School to generate courses. Generating the workforce is another issue however - one which all of Defence is going to be struggling with, unless it becomes more attractive as a career/life.
 
Last edited:
ADMk2 said:
I’m not sure we’ll have mixed units and I agree the last thing we’ll be doing as things stand, is buying more M777A2…

The bjg problem I suspect will be workforce. RAA has to retain it’s M777A2 batteries plus support elements.

It has to introduce a new regiment of SPH, plus support elements. Bty size of SPH will be large too with guns and ammunition vehicles, as well as the usual Battery CP, joint Fires troop, CS etc. Mobile Protected Fires from memory is also re-introducing Weapons Locating Radar capability back into RAA, so troops will need to be established for those units.

It has to introduce a substantially expanded air defence capability within 16ALR.

RAA also now has to introduce 2x Regiments of HIMARS for divisional fires capability and at least 1x Regiment of land based ASM, plus of course support capabilities.

With such a massive introduction of new and expanded capability that corps will be under so much pressure. Historically speaking we’re also likely to chuck in a few Corps / Unit re-organisations into that mix as well, just to add to the ‘mess’.

The pressure they will be under will be immense.
Click to expand...
And throw in, RAA has no experience in operating armoured combat vehicles, especially ones with tracks. RAAC and Mech Inf as well as receiving new vehicles are going to have to assist RAA in developing trg and CONOPS, especially for the SPGs.
 
Redlands18 said:
And throw in, RAA has no experience in operating armoured combat vehicles, especially ones with tracks. RAAC and Mech Inf as well as receiving new vehicles are going to have to assist RAA in developing trg and CONOPS, especially for the SPGs.
Click to expand...

8/12 Regt has experience with M113AS4 having been on issue in their role supporting mechanised operations, but even that is a long way from what AS-9 / AS-10 will ask of them as an entire tracked Regiment…
 
buffy9 said:
I don't necessarily think the SPH batteries will be that much greater in size than the M777 batteries. More CSS for sure, but the number of vehicles works out similar (cutting a GTV and PMV for the AS9 and AS10 themselves, with ammo and crew carried by each). Still, it is a new and more complex training pipeline.

HIMARS is a big one, a completely new system. Getting help from the US would be key I imagine, perhaps even being radical and trying to get people on courses in the US.

Transitioning from RBS-70 to NASAMS is another large one, we'll have to maintain pipelines for both, while I can see us cannibalising the RBS-70 capability to make sure NASAMS works, despite the range/cost gap between them. StrikeMaster may be able to leverage shared FDC, sensors with NASAMS also, in addition to regular PMV qualifications - they may ease the training burden if it is chosen.

Plus drones, radars, sigs...

Not an easy path ahead...

Still, we get what we pay for. The alternative is giving up on one of these entirelly, and with current concerns/vulnerabilities I don't see one that really can be.

I suspect contractors/allies being directly involved is part of the solution. They already know the systems and can ease the pressure on the School to generate courses. Generating the workforce is another issue however - one which all of Defence is going to be struggling with, unless it becomes more attractive as a career/life.
Click to expand...

A slight note - it’s somewhat worse as HLC confirmed in October 2022, Army isn’t retiring the RBS-70 capability. It will be operated within 16ALR alongside NASAMS II until a long term replacement VSHORAD capability can be acquired…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top