South Africa (43), UAE (78), Oman (24). All since the 80s/90s.
I didn't realise they had been around for that long. Any feedback as to how effective they are? Have they seen operational service?
I was under the impression that Bofors' Archer system was probably the currently preferred option. The Dutch offer of PzH 2000's had been declined, which seemed to kill off that system. Ex defmin Hill had apparently been enamoured of the K9, It still might be a slight chance. I'd not heard anything to suggest that the G6 had ever really been in the running for Land 17.
rb
Thanks for the links, they make for interesting reading. The range and speed of the G6 is certainly impressive. A 45 ton gun speeding down the highway at 90Km would be something to witness.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
If the Kinnaird rules are to be followed, then the competition will come down to the K9 and the PZH-2000, as these are the only 2 of the 4 systems that are in-service with a foreign power.
Archer is on order for a number of countries and G6 is in-service, but G6/52 isn't AFAIK.
I doubt PZH-2000 has been completely ruled out, just the deal that WAS on the table.
With full RFT information under their belts, Army may very well recommend this system.
Personally I think K9 will get the gig though, based on Kinnaird compliance, rapid production (South Korea is in the middle of producing thousands of them) and the fact it will be the cheapest and best integrated with Raytheon's battle-management system, a key criteria for this competition.
Personally I wouldn't be upset if Archer or PZH-2000 got the contract, I just don't see it as likely...
I suspect Army will be able to afford 36x K9's, but only 18x PZH-2000's and given the medium artillery batteries are likely to be down-sized to 4x guns per battery (because of the rate of fire, MSRI capability etc of SPG's) this would mean Army could equip up to 7 or 8 batteries with this gun (including a battery at School of Artillery - 53 Ind Bty I think...).
Somewhat of an improvement over the current situation...
Archer is on order for a number of countries and G6 is in-service, but G6/52 isn't AFAIK.
I doubt PZH-2000 has been completely ruled out, just the deal that WAS on the table.
With full RFT information under their belts, Army may very well recommend this system.
Personally I think K9 will get the gig though, based on Kinnaird compliance, rapid production (South Korea is in the middle of producing thousands of them) and the fact it will be the cheapest and best integrated with Raytheon's battle-management system, a key criteria for this competition.
Personally I wouldn't be upset if Archer or PZH-2000 got the contract, I just don't see it as likely...
I suspect Army will be able to afford 36x K9's, but only 18x PZH-2000's and given the medium artillery batteries are likely to be down-sized to 4x guns per battery (because of the rate of fire, MSRI capability etc of SPG's) this would mean Army could equip up to 7 or 8 batteries with this gun (including a battery at School of Artillery - 53 Ind Bty I think...).
Somewhat of an improvement over the current situation...
How many batteries are currently in service?
Maybe another option could be a mix of second hand PzH2000 (Which are in the end nearly new) and new build ones.
This would enable a rapid implemention with the new build ones getting into service when the training program is fully implemented as well as a higher number than with purely new build ones.
Are new fire finder networks also part of the program or is it purely for new SPHs and the attached C3 components?
In the end I also would bet on the K9s.
As mentioned before by others it offers good capabilities, network capable, has a good price and is in the middleof production.
But I would not be sad if Australia buys fully new build PzH2000 from Germany.
Maybe another option could be a mix of second hand PzH2000 (Which are in the end nearly new) and new build ones.
This would enable a rapid implemention with the new build ones getting into service when the training program is fully implemented as well as a higher number than with purely new build ones.
Are new fire finder networks also part of the program or is it purely for new SPHs and the attached C3 components?
In the end I also would bet on the K9s.
As mentioned before by others it offers good capabilities, network capable, has a good price and is in the middleof production.
But I would not be sad if Australia buys fully new build PzH2000 from Germany.
battlensign
New Member
How many batteries are currently in service?
Maybe another option could be a mix of second hand PzH2000 (Which are in the end nearly new) and new build ones.
This would enable a rapid implemention with the new build ones getting into service when the training program is fully implemented as well as a higher number than with purely new build ones.
Are new fire finder networks also part of the program or is it purely for new SPHs and the attached C3 components?
In the end I also would bet on the K9s.
As mentioned before by others it offers good capabilities, network capable, has a good price and is in the middleof production.
But I would not be sad if Australia buys fully new build PzH2000 from Germany.
It is a testimony to your incredible maturity Waylander that you would be able to force yourself to not be sad if the Australian Army gets the PzH2000 from Germany!
: Not being very up on these sorts of "Green" issues, can someone tell me the commonly agreed superior platform (SPA) if money was not an issue? The PzH2000 seems to hold measure of respect.....is this the leader at the moment?
Brett.
For FCS, armor protection, mobility and shoot and scoot capability I would give the PZH2000 a big salute, I even read a article and seen a picture as to where they stuck the turret on a naval vessel and had satisfactory results engaging other naval targets. Leave it to the Germans.It is a testimony to your incredible maturity Waylander that you would be able to force yourself to not be sad if the Australian Army gets the PzH2000 from Germany!
Not being very up on these sorts of "Green" issues, can someone tell me the commonly agreed superior platform (SPA) if money was not an issue? The PzH2000 seems to hold measure of respect.....is this the leader at the moment?
Brett.
... only until they checked the recoil buffers, the flexible mount buffers, and actual deviation from the computer fire solution though.
Oh, and the autoloader was limited to the on-turret rounds of course, since they didn't have time to actually build anything like a magazine or hoists beneath.
There are reasons why it wasn't bought, you know
Ah, you got to hand it to them for trying, it is still one of my favorite pictures.... only until they checked the recoil buffers, the flexible mount buffers, and actual deviation from the computer fire solution though.
Oh, and the autoloader was limited to the on-turret rounds of course, since they didn't have time to actually build anything like a magazine or hoists beneath.
There are reasons why it wasn't bought, you know
Is there any truth to the fact that they can artillery bracket a moving ship while on land, with a high success rate.
Last edited:
That would probably more be the result of using a KZO drone overhead linked directly to the battery command post, to provide additional targeting and effects info.
No idea if they've tried it. Putlos, where they usually do artillery (and tank) live-fire exercises would provide the needed terrain to try that though.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Money is not the only issue unfortunately.It is a testimony to your incredible maturity Waylander that you would be able to force yourself to not be sad if the Australian Army gets the PzH2000 from Germany!
Not being very up on these sorts of "Green" issues, can someone tell me the commonly agreed superior platform (SPA) if money was not an issue? The PzH2000 seems to hold measure of respect.....is this the leader at the moment?
Brett.
A big issue is the integration of the Raytheon FCS system that has been sole selected for Army's fire control system.
It is a key selection criteria that ANY system chosen for LAND 17 be integrated with this system. How hard this is, is anyone's guess, but NONE of these systems are currently integrated with this system, AFAIK, however the K9 is by far the closest to being so.
Every other system is going to have to be modified and the bidders will have to be able to show that they can do so (tech transfers issues may come into play here) to comply with the RFT.
On a pure capability basis I'd suggest the PZH-2000 is the leading contender, however the current PZH-2000 is unrepresentative of what Australia's version will look like, because of the RFT requirements...
As such it's a bit of a speculative question...
Interesting info AD. I was surprised when the original offer of Dutch PZH-2000's was turned down but this explains at least one of the major reasons. I like the look of the PZH-2000 and I still hope that it will win the contract. However, whichever bid is successful it will offer a huge improvement in capability for the Australian Army.
Tas
What kind of C4I system does the Dutch Army use with their PzH 2000 anyway? ADLER II, like Germany? (doubt it, more likely Adler I)
I'm asking because ADLER II offers standardized interfaces to tie in US artillery C4I systems apparently. ADLER I was already fully interfacable/compatible to TACFIRE, the AFATDS precursor for artillery, and ADLER II and AFATDS should be compatible through the NATO-standard ASCA interface, btw.
With regard to full battlefield systems, i'd be sure ESG could offer a new customized TARANIS-based artillery C4I system (which would basically be a rehashed ADLER II) even somehow, fully integrated with AFATDS as the overall battlefield management system. Would of course be bad business for ESG though, considering they'd be contributing a subcomponent to a competitor in that case.
defense industry daily land 17 rundown
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...-17-artillery-replacement-gets-goahead-01928/
A review of where land 17 currently is at.
Actually, the article doesn't give much more information that hasn't already been mentioned in defencetalk! Just no emoticons
rb
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...-17-artillery-replacement-gets-goahead-01928/
A review of where land 17 currently is at.
Actually, the article doesn't give much more information that hasn't already been mentioned in defencetalk! Just no emoticons
rb
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I guess MARAP is getting hurried up in case Afghanistan goes pear shaped, with the Dutch support eh?
WASHINGTON --- The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Australia of 2,400 Modular Artillery Charge Systems (MACS) as well as associated equipment and services.
The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $40 million.
The Government of Australia has requested a possible sale of 2,400 Modular Artillery Charge Systems (MACS), 250 M982 Block 1a-2 Excalibur Projectile with base bleed units, 28 Portable Excalibur Fire Control Systems (PEFCS), training ammunition, containers, support equipment, spare and repair parts, publications and technical data, maintenance, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor representatives’ engineering and technical support services, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $40 million.
The proposed sale will enhance Australia’s defensive capabilities and increase interoperability with United States (U.S.) and multi-national forces supporting coalition operations. The country will have no difficulty absorbing this new capability into its military.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not affect the basic military balance in the region.
The prime contractors will be Raytheon Missile Systems Corporation, Tucson, Arizona for Excalibur, and General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products, Camden, Arkansas for MACS. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this sale will not require the assignment of any additional U. S. Government personnel in-country.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
This notice of a potential sale is required by law; it does not mean that the sale has been concluded.
WASHINGTON --- The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Australia of 2,400 Modular Artillery Charge Systems (MACS) as well as associated equipment and services.
The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $40 million.
The Government of Australia has requested a possible sale of 2,400 Modular Artillery Charge Systems (MACS), 250 M982 Block 1a-2 Excalibur Projectile with base bleed units, 28 Portable Excalibur Fire Control Systems (PEFCS), training ammunition, containers, support equipment, spare and repair parts, publications and technical data, maintenance, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor representatives’ engineering and technical support services, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $40 million.
The proposed sale will enhance Australia’s defensive capabilities and increase interoperability with United States (U.S.) and multi-national forces supporting coalition operations. The country will have no difficulty absorbing this new capability into its military.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not affect the basic military balance in the region.
The prime contractors will be Raytheon Missile Systems Corporation, Tucson, Arizona for Excalibur, and General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products, Camden, Arkansas for MACS. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.
Implementation of this sale will not require the assignment of any additional U. S. Government personnel in-country.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
This notice of a potential sale is required by law; it does not mean that the sale has been concluded.
battlensign
New Member
Thanks for the responses guys.......much appreciated, and informative as always......
BTW, AD, what the hell is MARAP?
(Damn, being unable to access DT was annoying there for a bit....!
)Brett.
I know its hearsay...but i have it on good authority that 8/9RAR is to be re-formed as a Regular INF Bn once again. great news for the RAR. It will stay in Brisbane with 6RAR. (source is RSM friend )