Australian Army Discussions and Updates

Aussie Digger said:
And how good is MY timing? I'm off to Ypres and Passchaedale next week... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


I'll second the suggestion about paying one's respects at Menin Gate. Not many things make me cry, but being there brought a few tears welling up.
Plus if the missus is with, there are a few chocolate shops nearby as well.
I'm not a chocoholic, but Belgian chocolate is pretty darn good, and you get browny points with SWMBO.

rb
 
eckherl said:
I just had a individual state to me that Australia is planning on adding a additional armor battalion, is this true.
Click to expand...

Like rossfrb, I reckon that this refers to the re-establishment of 8/9 RAR. This will be equipped with the Bushmaster Infantry Mobility Vehicle but will not be an armoured battalion.

Tas
 
Tasman said:
Like rossfrb, I reckon that this refers to the re-establishment of 8/9 RAR. This will be a motorised, not an armoured battalion.

Tas
Click to expand...

Thank you - I figured he was trying to blow a little smoke up my rear end.:)
 
eckherl said:
Thank you for the information, I knew that if anyone would know then it would be you guys.:)
Click to expand...

I am not sure how detailed a focus your knowledge of Australian Amry ORBAT has, but it may also have been a reference to the De-linking of 5/7 RAR which was a Mechanised unit. This would provide what would effectively be (If we could get some proper IFVs :( ) a second armoured infantry unit - I think the Brits call units equipped with the Warrior vehicle "armoured infantry".

Brett.

P.S. Did you here we are raising another mechanised Division?:rolleyes::p:
 
JP 2030 Joint Command Support Environment

JP 2030 Joint Command Support Environment

Defence is pleased to announce that CSC Australia has been awarded the contract as the System Integrator for the Joint Command Support Environment to assist in the provision of joint solutions and integrated systems to deliver capabilities for the Australian Defence Force (ADF).

This component of work was announced on 12 October 2006 and is the first phase to deliver a single integrated command support system, leveraging from existing command support systems developed for the individual services and for the higher headquarters.

The Defence Material Organisation will utilise an evolutionary acquisition approach for the Project whereby the capability will be incrementally defined and approved by Government before delivery.

The benefits to the ADF will be the delivery of a cohesive and integrated command support environment for the efficient and effective conduct of operations. Joint and Allied interoperability will be high priorities.

The first order contract to achieve the defined outcomes is valued at approximately $20 million and will commence immediately.

Ok, I know its not just the Army but there is no Joint forum...
 
eckherl said:
I just had a individual state to me that Australia is planning on adding a additional armor battalion, is this true.
Click to expand...

Yep as the others said it was probably mixed up with the updating and out fitting of Infantry vehicles and re-raising a full 5th and 7th RAR, as well as 8/9RAR.
Alternatively your friend and his smoke blowing, may have been thinking of the Abrahms MBT, that is now finding it's way all through the Aust Armoured Corps etc. As we have only recently replaced the Leopard MBT with the
new (?) Abrahms.

Regards lozza
 
The Abrams topic as already been discussed and in effect there are less Abrams coming in than Leos going out.
 
Waylander said:
The Abrams topic as already been discussed and in effect there are less Abrams coming in than Leos going out.
Click to expand...

Overall within Army, yes. There is no practical difference however between the number of Abrams and Leopards that 1 Armoured Regiment was ever actually issued with though...
 
I know.
I referred to the fact that unlike with the Leos there will be no stock of Abrams hulls which could form an additional unit.
Would the Leos get replaced by the Abrams one to one it would be possible to form a new unit with the Abrams going to the warehouse.

Should have made this more clear instead of typing a oneliner, sorry. :)
 
Aussie Digger said:
Overall within Army, yes. There is no practical difference however between the number of Abrams and Leopards that 1 Armoured Regiment was ever actually issued with though...
Click to expand...

Aussie:

Can you tell me what weapons systems/platforms that Australia may have looked at from South Korea, and is their a active interest in a future purchase.

Thanks
 
eckherl said:
Aussie:

Can you tell me what weapons systems/platforms that Australia may have looked at from South Korea, and is their a active interest in a future purchase.

Thanks
Click to expand...

G'day mate.

It is expected that Samsung in conjunction with Raytheon will bid the K-9 155mm self propelled howitzer for Australia's LAND 17 artillery replacement project. The K-10 re-supply vehicle will probably be offered as an option for this project too.

We also have had artillery ammunition/ naval gun ammunition "barter"deals in the past (ie: we get 155mm artillery ammunition, they get 127mm naval gun ammunition and propellent etc).

I daresay the South Korean IFV's will be a contender for the Land 400 armoured vehicle replacement project as well, but given how far out that project is, I expect it's a bit early to say for sure...

AGRA or GF-0012, might be able to detail some further involvement, but these are all that I am aware of.

Regards

AD
 
Aussie Digger said:
G'day mate.

It is expected that Samsung in conjunction with Raytheon will bid the K-9 155mm self propelled howitzer for Australia's LAND 17 artillery replacement project. The K-10 re-supply vehicle will probably be offered as an option for this project too.

We also have had artillery ammunition/ naval gun ammunition "barter"deals in the past (ie: we get 155mm artillery ammunition, they get 127mm naval gun ammunition and propellent etc).

I daresay the South Korean IFV's will be a contender for the Land 400 armoured vehicle replacement project as well, but given how far out that project is, I expect it's a bit early to say for sure...

AGRA or GF-0012, might be able to detail some further involvement, but these are all that I am aware of.

Regards

AD
Click to expand...

Many thanks, interesting in regards to the artillery/naval ammunition.
 
Bushmaster damaged by an improvised explosive device

Not sure if this is old news because I have tuned out of the TV for the past couple of days...
An Australian Bushmaster Infantry Mobile Vehicle (IMV) has been damaged by
an improvised explosive device (IED) during a patrol in southern Iraq this
afternoon (AEST). All occupants were able to safely evacuate the vehicle and
there were no injuries. The detonation of the IED immobilized the Bushmaster
and caused severe damage after it caught fire. Defence spokesman, Brigadier
Andrew Nikolic, said the OBG(W) patrol immediately secured the scene,
assessed the situation and requested support. "Nearby Coalition forces were
able to provide support to the Australian patrol with increased physical
security and surveillance overwatch." The damaged vehicle will be recovered
to the Australian base at Tallil. "Although anti-Iraqi forces continue to
use road-side bombs in an ongoing campaign to indiscriminately kill and maim
people, their actions will not deter the Australians from their mission,"
Brigadier Nikolic said.
Defence media release dated 16 October
 
Last edited:
So that's what, at least three Australian Bushmasters hit by IEDs and at least two Dutch, with not a single casualty? The vehicle seems to be holding up very well.
 
Simon9 said:
So that's what, at least three Australian Bushmasters hit by IEDs and at least two Dutch, with not a single casualty? The vehicle seems to be holding up very well.
Click to expand...

Yes, and particularly since the last one caught on fire and apparently sustaining extensive damage. However no burn casualty reported. Quite amazing, since this means troops were able to exit the vehicle very quickly despite the blast and the fire.
 
The Bushmaster is no tank loaded with 1,000 litres of fuel and loads of combustible ammunition - if its fuel was to catch alight then the crew are well isloated from it and have little within their cabin that would explode. The Bushmaster has a small fuel tank in the engine space and the main fuel tank on the outside, both seperated from the crew by their armour protection.
 
AGRA said:
The Bushmaster is no tank loaded with 1,000 litres of fuel and loads of combustible ammunition - if its fuel was to catch alight then the crew are well isolated from it and have little within their cabin that would explode. The Bushmaster has a small fuel tank in the engine space and the main fuel tank on the outside, both separated from the crew by their armour protection.
Click to expand...

The press release said there was extensive fire damage. What else would cause this? Maybe I'm reading this wrong and the fire damage resulted from after-effects of the initial explosion after the crew and passengers left the vehicle.
 
FutureTank said:
The press release said there was extensive fire damage. What else would cause this? Maybe I'm reading this wrong and the fire damage resulted from after-effects of the initial explosion after the crew and passengers left the vehicle.
Click to expand...

No I suspect you are right - it's just as AGRA said the crew would have been well isolated from the fire, particularly those exiting the rear door (which, if the fire was at the front in the engine bay, is where they all would have gone).

Soldiers train extensively in exiting vehicles at speed, it wouldn't have taken more than a few seconds for everyone to get out, even though the Bushmaster's rear door is a bit of a pain. It wouldn't stop you taking a flying leap out of it in an emergency.

It'd be a case of jump and run first, worry about the ringing in your ears and the splitting headache later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top