Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Izzy1]

I may be getting myself mixed up here, I hope Eck and AD can possibly confirm - but wasn't 2Hand Dutch PZH2000 actually offered to the Australian RHA 'Hot-Bunk' and refused?

Given the current trend of Aus buying battle-winning kit, things may have changed. Yet did'nt the Hamal-replacement order come into conflict however?

 

[eckherl]

I may be getting myself mixed up here, I hope Eck and AD can possibly confirm - but wasn't 2Hand Dutch PZH2000 actually offered to the Australian RHA 'Hot-Bunk' and refused?

Given the current trend of Aus buying battle-winning kit, things may have changed. Yet did'nt the Hamal-replacement order come into conflict however?

Izzy - according to @AGR they would more than likely purchase them directly from KMW, referred to @AGRs post no.799

 

[buglerbilly]

I may be getting myself mixed up here, I hope Eck and AD can possibly confirm - but wasn't 2Hand Dutch PZH2000 actually offered to the Australian RHA 'Hot-Bunk' and refused?

Given the current trend of Aus buying battle-winning kit, things may have changed. Yet did'nt the Hamal-replacement order come into conflict however?

The Dutch PzH2000's were offered new off the Production line, as in undelivered, still-to-be-built units. What the Dutch couldn't offer was guarantees for longevity, performance etc. There is nothing to stop the manufacturer offering the Dutch units as part of HIS proposals as they are the company that can provide the guarantees and support the Aussie Army wants and needs.

 

[Izzy1]

The Dutch PzH2000's were offered new off the Production line, as in undelivered, still-to-be-built units. What the Dutch couldn't offer was guarantees for longevity, performance etc. There is nothing to stop the manufacturer offering the Dutch units as part of HIS proposals as they are the company that can provide the guarantees and support the Aussie Army wants and needs.

No one disputes the prowess of Australia's frontline MBT capability. I just wish Canberra bought another 100.

I'll gladly take an M1 Abrahms and a Challenger II wright into the middle of Baghdad. Give me track, I'll park both of them on Bin Laden's patio.

I'm sorry. I Hate him.

 

[the road runner]

HEY Izzy

mate i think we are talking about Self propelled howitzers not main battle tanks.
would love 100 of any MBT or SPH but we got a government who is in power now and we dont know what the government will do with certain programs,cancell some ,cut others who knows?Well atleast johnny spent alot of our money on defence,hope kevin 07 dose the same

MEEP MEEP

 

[riksavage]

After lessons learnt in Afghanistan I would be very surprised if the Aussies got rid of 105mm and relied on just 155mm, even with the introduction of the new M777A2 version. The reason being ammunition, if you have a gun line operating in a high-tempo environment in a FOB you will go through a hell of a lot of rounds. The logistics requirements needed to shift 155-ammo is far greater than that required to shift 105-ammo, particularly if you are relying on helo re-supply, which is the case in Afghanistan. I understand this was also one of the reasons why the UK binned the idea of getting rid of the 105, instead they intend complimenting the light-gun with a light-weight rocket system.

It’s great to see Australia invest all this money at the spear point, but are they also improving the battle-field supply chain to keep the POL and ammo flowing?

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

After lessons learnt in Afghanistan I would be very surprised if the Aussies got rid of 105mm and relied on just 155mm, even with the introduction of the new M777A2 version. The reason being ammunition, if you have a gun line operating in a high-tempo environment in a FOB you will go through a hell of a lot of rounds. The logistics requirements needed to shift 155-ammo is far greater than that required to shift 105-ammo, particularly if you are relying on helo re-supply, which is the case in Afghanistan. I understand this was also one of the reasons why the UK binned the idea of getting rid of the 105, instead they intend complimenting the light-gun with a light-weight rocket system.

It’s great to see Australia invest all this money at the spear point, but are they also improving the battle-field supply chain to keep the POL and ammo flowing?

I'm pretty sure the 105 batteries will stay with the Reserve battalions anyway, theres no way they'll give chocko's toys of that sort of calibur. Although the local boys would love it! Unless they decided to abandon the reserve bateries all together?

 

[lobbie111]

I'm pretty sure the 105 batteries will stay with the Reserve battalions anyway, theres no way they'll give chocko's toys of that sort of calibur. Although the local boys would love it! Unless they decided to abandon the reserve bateries all together?

Hahahahaha thats a good one abandon reserve batteries altogether nfloorl: why not just give up the reserves if they do not have any reservist support capacity, which brings me to my next point will the reserves be getting the old Iroquois or a new helo any time soon (as in their own dedicated helo squadron/aircraft type say like the US is doing with the new one for the national guard?)? And why not get some of the armed PC-9's to do anti Armour missions?

 

[winnyfield]

After lessons learnt in Afghanistan I would be very surprised if the Aussies got rid of 105mm and relied on just 155mm, even with the introduction of the new M777A2 version. The reason being ammunition, if you have a gun line operating in a high-tempo environment in a FOB you will go through a hell of a lot of rounds. The logistics requirements needed to shift 155-ammo is far greater than that required to shift 105-ammo, particularly if you are relying on helo re-supply, which is the case in Afghanistan. I understand this was also one of the reasons why the UK binned the idea of getting rid of the 105, instead they intend complimenting the light-gun with a light-weight rocket system.

It’s great to see Australia invest all this money at the spear point, but are they also improving the battle-field supply chain to keep the POL and ammo flowing?

Playing devil's advocate for the moment - from a firebase, 155mm howitzers give greater coverage. Patrol units can venture a little further out. Also, with GPS rounds and a bigger bang you don't have to fire as many rounds (Excalibur still kinda expensive).

Maybe a towed 120mm mortar could be introduce as a 105 alternative especially for reserve units. What ever happened to that 81mm long range mortar project?

(Canada has fired 12,000 M777 rounds in Afghanistan http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=6eea0d9d-3f82-4efa-9bfb-ddfb9ae9b8a9&k=2200)
(Rheinmetall just bought a majority share in Denel Munitions)

 

[Aussie Digger]

After lessons learnt in Afghanistan I would be very surprised if the Aussies got rid of 105mm and relied on just 155mm, even with the introduction of the new M777A2 version. The reason being ammunition, if you have a gun line operating in a high-tempo environment in a FOB you will go through a hell of a lot of rounds. The logistics requirements needed to shift 155-ammo is far greater than that required to shift 105-ammo, particularly if you are relying on helo re-supply, which is the case in Afghanistan. I understand this was also one of the reasons why the UK binned the idea of getting rid of the 105, instead they intend complimenting the light-gun with a light-weight rocket system.

It’s great to see Australia invest all this money at the spear point, but are they also improving the battle-field supply chain to keep the POL and ammo flowing?

Well be that as it may, that's the current plan.

The SPG's are only one aspect of the Land 17 project. Also included is a "lightweight 155mm howitzer" acquisition and M198 155mm howitzer upgrades, along with a new computerised fire control system, new munitions (Excalibur, SMART 155, GPS guided fuzing systems, DPICM etc) and new supporting capabilities.

I think we still remember the lessons from Timor, where our support capability was shown to be absymal. (Thanks very much Mr Dibb and Mr White. Don't worry about that, we'll have 10 years notice before we have to go anywhere or do anything... Oops what? Reality has struck? Damn...)

ADF has made quite a number of strides in improving it's support capability. I imagine if a total 155mm based fleet and tracked SPG's are acquired, that the support requirements these will entail, will be adequately addressed...

 

[Aussie Digger]

I'm pretty sure the 105 batteries will stay with the Reserve battalions anyway, theres no way they'll give chocko's toys of that sort of calibur. Although the local boys would love it! Unless they decided to abandon the reserve bateries all together?

Nope the Chocko batteries will remain as is.

Except they are losing their guns and gaining 81mm mortars instead. :frown

The Army is being hardened and networked don't you know?

 

[lobbie111]

Nope the Chocko batteries will remain as is.

Except they are losing their guns and gaining 81mm mortars instead. :frown

The Army is being hardened and networked don't you know?

Like just plain old shove a round in a tube or like Dragonfire type mortars (which would be excellent for RAR btw)?

I think thats pathetic hope we don't get drawn into a major conflict anytime soon... at the very least they could get some 120's...

 

[Aussie Digger]

Like just plain old shove a round in a tube or like Dragonfire type mortars (which would be excellent for RAR btw)?

I think thats pathetic hope we don't get drawn into a major conflict anytime soon... at the very least they could get some 120's...

Yes, but the training requirements are the issue, not the capability.

The drills (and more to the point the interaction with FO parties aka JOST teams) for "punching bombs down range" are what is important, not so much what type of "bomb is punched".

Individual artillery skills can be learned very quickly. Indeed the IET course is only 4 weeks or so nowadays for regular artillerymen.

Collective capability as a battery is what is needed, not skills on a particular weapon system.

This is why the M113 and 105mm guns are being withdrawn from reserve units. It's not the case that reserves "can't" learn how to use modern equipment, but rather that the skills needed to do so aren't so difficult to acquire, but the training benefit from attempting to do so with limited training time available isn't deemed worth it.

Effectively you have a reserve unit operating modern equipment at a level significantly lower than regular units (due to more limited training time) and a capability significantly reduced due to reduced collective training opportuniities. The cost to maintain said equipment remains the same, for significantly less "quantifiable outputs".

Learning to operate as a basic soldier and as a unit is deemed to be more beneficial in the current era. If a soldier or a battery needs to be qualified on a particular system in the event of major war, they will be trained to do so and will benefit from the increased training put into individual and collective activites, moreso than increased maintenance and training focused on "high tech" (aka: complex) equipment.

The basic ability to function as an individual soldier and as a unit will be improved and the ability to operate specific systems can be learnt as required for particular taskings...

 

[Stryker001]

No one disputes the prowess of Australia's frontline MBT capability. I just wish Canberra bought another 100.

The number doesn't really matter after 12 months depending on certain fiscal matters, they could be mothballed, a MBT is a vexed issue in Australia for many.

The Abrams deal would not be done today.

 

[Tasman]

Yes, but the training requirements are the issue, not the capability.

The drills (and more to the point the interaction with FO parties aka JOST teams) for "punching bombs down range" are what is important, not so much what type of "bomb is punched".

Individual artillery skills can be learned very quickly. Indeed the IET course is only 4 weeks or so nowadays for regular artillerymen.

Collective capability as a battery is what is needed, not skills on a particular weapon system.

This is why the M113 and 105mm guns are being withdrawn from reserve units. It's not the case that reserves "can't" learn how to use modern equipment, but rather that the skills needed to do so aren't so difficult to acquire, but the training benefit from attempting to do so with limited training time available isn't deemed worth it.

Effectively you have a reserve unit operating modern equipment at a level significantly lower than regular units (due to more limited training time) and a capability significantly reduced due to reduced collective training opportuniities. The cost to maintain said equipment remains the same, for significantly less "quantifiable outputs".

Learning to operate as a basic soldier and as a unit is deemed to be more beneficial in the current era. If a soldier or a battery needs to be qualified on a particular system in the event of major war, they will be trained to do so and will benefit from the increased training put into individual and collective activites, moreso than increased maintenance and training focused on "high tech" (aka: complex) equipment.

The basic ability to function as an individual soldier and as a unit will be improved and the ability to operate specific systems can be learnt as required for particular taskings...

Thanks AD for explaining the rationale behind what I have considered to be a baffling decision.

I wonder how the Ares in Tasmania will manage to provide 21 gun salutes in future. There are no permanent artillery units in Tasmania and I can't imagine a salute being fired with mortars!

There is Dad's Army, made up by the Volunteers of Militaria Collectors Tasmania, but they only have a single muzzle loading 6 pdr gun so it would take a long, long time to fire a 21 gun salute.

Tas

 

[lobbie111]

Yeah thanks AD, I actually have friend who is being promoted to Colonel in the reserves artillery, he actually does the training packages for the units... And he said the exact same thing...

A few questions regarding the M777A2 Purchase... We are most likely getting guided rounds, could we see another Australian industry popping up, that is license producing guided and unguided artillery rounds. To me seems a bit stupid not to produce 155 rounds, its pretty easy for someone to cut off our supply and we'll run out of rounds pretty quick I imagine.

 

[flyboyEB]

Hey all,
I guess this is the best thread to ask the question: What radio does the Army use currently?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Hey all,
I guess this is the best thread to ask the question: What radio does the Army use currently?

Raven radios, Wagtail radios, Marconi Personal role radios and AN/PRC-77 (or more simply "77" sets) are the radios I'm aware of. There are a few more vehicle mounted types, but I can't recall their names anymore and a few HF radio types I never played with...

There is a bit of a cluster going on at the moment with the acquisition for new manpack and truck radios, after General Dynamics was sacked from being the "prime system integrator" last year.

Under the current climate, I'd suggest an off the shelf acquisition of Thales MBIRTR (JEM) or US (Harris) JTRS or similar would seem to be the most likely future option...

 

[flyboyEB]

I'm suprised the Army uses PRC 77s, we were using them in the Air Force Cadets a year back and I thought they were old at the time. I guess thats why they're being replaced
Thanks for the info

 

[Aussie Digger]

I'm suprised the Army uses PRC 77s, we were using them in the Air Force Cadets a year back and I thought they were old at the time. I guess thats why they're being replaced
Thanks for the info

There's a few reasons, (lack of frequency agility, lack of encryption, lack of data transmit capability etc) but the fact that they're 40 years old or more, is right up there...