Australian Army Discussions and Updates

seaspear

Well-Known Member
I would believe that any military exercise over a large area with hundreds of drones participating would present some interesting challenges ,any exercise that has no realism as per the Ukraine scenario may well be futile as for Comcare they spend a lot of time investigating without conclusion
 

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Just pulled up at set of lights in time to see what looked like a polaris SF vehicle and a himars on the bed of a truck. What took me by surprise was the low profile of the himars, a very low profile.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Only four rounds? For a low (relatively) cost anti-UAV system, that doesn't seem many. Can't a Humvee carry a bigger launcher?
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Only four rounds? For a low (relatively) cost anti-UAV system, that doesn't seem many. Can't a Humvee carry a bigger launcher?
So far it appears that only a four-cell launcher has been developed. Given the costs and mass involved, I would imagine that more rockets could be stored in the vehicle and then the launcher could get reloaded as needed. The base Hydra 70 mm rocket has a mass of slightly more than 11kg and depending on the contracting, likely costs somewhere between USD$1k and USD$3k.

It also might be that a larger launcher with more cells is in the works, now that the basic idea has demonstrated proof of concept.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I think where this system would be good is on slaved launchers mounted on multiple platforms and containers, even pallets distributed around a position, as well as mounted on the side of modified RWS.

Small, light, modular, literally every vehicle could mount it.

Also, line of sight, a 70mm rocket would ruin the day of anything but the very heaviest armoured vehicles.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
I think where this system would be good is on slaved launchers mounted on multiple platforms and containers, even pallets distributed around a position, as well as mounted on the side of modified RWS.

Small, light, modular, literally every vehicle could mount it.

Also, line of sight, a 70mm rocket would ruin the day of anything but the very heaviest armoured vehicles.
If I understand your idea correctly, then I would be concerned about how the slaved launchers would work with the sensor turret and fire control system. Would each launcher have their own dedicated FCS and sensor turret, or would it be a position and/or multiple vehicles/launchers networked to a common sensor turret and FCS?

Given that a likely method to reduce or at least attempt to reduce the effectiveness of UAS involves EW and possibly even jamming, then introducing a system which would like require some sort of RF-based networking could be problematic, especially for highly mobile units.

A side question I just had is, "I wonder how effective a system like this might be as a VSHRAAD?"
 

MARKMILES77

Well-Known Member
Australian Ammunition manufacturer ARES Ammunitions has developed a new approach to countering drones.
They have developed a new type of ammunition which can be fired from any 7.62 mm or 12.7mm weapon with the accuracy of a rifle but the
on target effect of a shotgun. A version for 5.56mm is also possible if desired. Apparently ADF is interested and purchase by some NATO Countries is likely.
Screenshot 2025-06-20 at 16.51.53.png
Screenshot 2025-06-20 at 16.51.33.png
 

MARKMILES77

Well-Known Member

SammyC

Well-Known Member
The Govt is abandoning the deal with Thales to make 155mm ammunition in Australia.
They claim they still aim to make 155mm ammunition but they need to “reassess” their needs! Part of the reason given is that World 155mm ammunition production has increased.
They also hint the manufacturer of 127mm ammunition is a possibility.

The Government released statement doesn't ring true and seems to be sending confusing signals.

If the desire is to switch to 127mm rather than 155mm projectiles, then the logical pathway would have been a contract variation with Thales for a slightly different forge. The same statement also says the Government remains committed to 155mm production by 2028, which seems at odds with the intention to cancel current arrangements with Thales.

I'm wondering if this is a cover to exit a contract breakdown with Thales. Notably, Thales has not made any announcements, which I would have thought would have coincided with the Government release.

That aside, this is the type of action that must drive defence industry crazy. A commitment, then a contract, then a cancellation, then a change of direction, then a commitment to the original intention but from square one.

I also saw that the Government released a request for information for a satellite comms system a week or so ago, which included a narrow band geostationary platform. I'm pretty sure that's near to the same as what was cancelled earlier.

I should note, I never understood why NIOA in QLD was overlooked for this contract in the first place. They are already producing 155mm shells (at least the casing) for the Europeans.
 
Last edited:

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The Govt is abandoning the deal with Thales to make 155mm ammunition in Australia.
They claim they still aim to make 155mm ammunition but they need to “reassess” their needs! Part of the reason given is that World 155mm ammunition production has increased.
They also hint the manufacturer of 127mm ammunition is a possibility.

This Governments approach towards Defence has been very disappointing, but not surprising.
Despite the positive rhetoric after their first election win, nothing positive has happened as yet, everything has either been delayed, cancelled or not decided on yet, along with a restructure of Army that includes a few new capabilities, but at a loss of existing or other new planned capabilities.
Anyway.....what can we do?
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The Government released statement doesn't ring true and seems to be sending confusing signals.

If the desire is to switch to 127mm rather than 155mm projectiles, then the logical pathway would have been a contract variation with Thales for a slightly different forge. The same statement also says the Government remains committed to 155mm production by 2028, which seems at odds with the intention to cancel current arrangements with Thales.

I'm wondering if this is a cover to exit a contract breakdown with Thales. Notably, Thales has not made any announcements, which I would have thought would have coincided with the Government release.

That aside, this is the type of action that must drive defence industry crazy. A commitment, then a contract, then a cancellation, then a change of direction, then a commitment to the original intention but from square one.

I also saw that the Government released a request for information for a satellite comms system a week or so ago, which included a narrow band geostationary platform. I'm pretty sure that's near to the same as what was cancelled earlier.

I should note, I never understood why NIOA in QLD was overlooked for this contract in the first place. They are already producing 155mm shells (at least the casing) for the Europeans.
Because their forge is established to manufacture the range of Rheinmetall 155mm shells, whereas we are looking at domestic production of the US M795 155mm round as our primary artillery round.

How this applies to the Assegai range of munitions which have been qualified on the M777A2 and are being qualified on the AS-9 / AS-10 Thunder and are to be operated alongside the M795 round is anybody’s guess and as usual, the ADF aren’t telling anyone…

They also haven’t told anyone why they went to the expense of buying and qualifying the Assegai rounds on our guns, but want to locally produce the M795 instead…

NIOA / Rheinmetall have talked up their ability to produce other varieties of 155mm ammunition (and even 81mm mortar and 127mm naval ammunition) from their facilities at Maryborough and their access to facilities at Benalla and Mulwala. Perhaps this “pivot” is that, given they specifically pointed to the desire to locally produce 127mm naval ammunition as well as 155mm artillery ammunition?

Personally I thought they were a shoe in for this contract accordingly and was rather surprised it went to Thales. Possibly there were probity issues with it…



:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Bob53

Well-Known Member
Because their forge is established to manufacture the range of Rheinmetall 155mm shells, whereas we are looking at domestic production of the US M795 155mm round as our primary artillery round.

How this applies to the Assegai range of munitions which have been qualified on the M777A2 and are being qualified on the AS-9 / AS-10 Thunder and are to be operated alongside the M795 round is anybody’s guess and as usual, the ADF aren’t telling anyone…

They also haven’t told anyone why they went to the expense of buying and qualifying the Assegai rounds on our guns, but want to locally produce the M795 instead…

NIOA / Rheinmetall have talked up their ability to produce other varieties of 155mm ammunition (and even 81mm mortar and 127mm naval ammunition) from their facilities at Maryborough and their access to facilities at Benalla and Mulwala. Perhaps this “pivot” is that, given they specifically pointed to the desire to locally produce 127mm naval ammunition as well as 155mm artillery ammunition?

Personally I thought they were a shoe in for this contract accordingly and was rather surprised it went to Thales. Possibly there were probity issues with it…



:rolleyes:
So might this mean that 155mm production remains with RM Nioa in Benalla Mulwala but with small scale production. Seems short sighted once again…15000 rounds a year…what capability t increase capacity? I thought we ere heading to over 100 000 rounds a year.
 
Top