Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Cutaway]

The new SIG 556 may be a good move, Its basically a SIG 550 but with an M4 type stock, STANAG magazine insert and Picatinny rails. Not bad piece but guess it depends on the price. The HK416 would also be a good move.

Or a WELL BETTER IDEA!!!!!!!: Stick with the AUG a few decades more!, It has been done before!

BECOUSE: Loads of Forces around the world have been using old(but still capable) rifles before, Here are some examples:

*Argentina: Still use FN FAL's dated pre 1982 and still going strong.
*Sweden: Used bolt actions & BAR's up to the 1970s
*Decades old weapons like AK47s, G3's, M16's etc are still official service rifles of some countries and still work, Even some pre WW2 weapons like the Bren gun, M1919 and the M2HB.
*As SuperSLime said, Australia doesnt need much weapons(unless they face a major invasion)

"If it aint broke, Dont fix it"

"If its sh1t, Why is it still here?"

 

[winnyfield]

The K9 would surely be the safest buy. Raytheon AU (who's offerring the K9) is providing the AFATDS battle management system and the K9 is being bought in very large quantities by the RoK and Turkey.

My biggest concern is that being tracked and heavy, they'd need tank transporters to be moved around.

K9 & supply vehicle in action (w/ Korean rock music)
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKD7ju-heyM"]YouTube - K-9 and K-10 [armored Mobile Munition Vehicle][/ame]

 

[rossfrb_1]

But you have to buy and support twice as many vehicles if you want that sort of capability...

You wouldn't necessarily need a 1:1 support ratio. The ADBR site had an article that proposed a 2:1 (K9:K10) scenario IIRC.
It even states here
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...-17-artillery-replacement-gets-goahead-01928/
that one K10 supports two K9s. Although it does go on to say that a typical battalion would include K10s in a 1:1 ratio for redundant continuous resupply.
I'm guessing that there would have to be a manual reload option for the K9, in which case, if you really wanted, you wouldn't 'need' any K10 vehicles!
Regards the size of the K10 - it's based on the same chassis as the K9, Which is about as big a behemoth as the Pzh-2000.
There could be situations where a tracked armoured resupply vehicle would prove really useful.

rb

 

[croc]

We don't have K-10 support vehicles in-service now. Are you saying RRAA therefore cannot support it's current guns

?

Not at all, but the operational concept of SPH (mind you I have not seen it) would likely to be different to that of towed gun system. Therefore, it would be logical to assume that different support capability would be required to support the system.

Germany and the Netherlands don't use the K-10 re-supply vehicle for their PZH-2000 guns either. Are they incapable of supporting their guns?

No at all, I was not suggesting that K-10 type of supply system is a must to support the new SPH system. But in response to you question, I would envisage that K-9 can also be supported in the same manner as the Pzh2000 or any other SPH gun.

It is that I have seen some pictures of Dutch gun in action in Afghanistan. Understanding that the big advantage or selling point of SPH is its ability to Shoot and Scoot, the picture of the Dutch gun with pile of ammunition behind the gun just reminded me of a very nice but very expensive towed gun.

This is what we would have to buy in ADDITION to the actual K-9 vehicle itself under your plan:

No we don't, I was only suggesting that since all current SPH system can be supported by normal means, if there was a system that is able to enhance support and war fighting capability for the gun system that we buy, we should at least consider it.

She's a fair behemoth innit? However what she provides is a total of 104 rounds that can be "automatically" supplied to the K-9 which has an on-board storage capacity of 40 rounds.

I think you will find that it is 48 rounds rather than 40 rounds according to spec. on the internet. I guess that provide K-9 with some 152 rounds, double the Pzh2000 capacity and it’s all mobile.

 

[Aussie Digger]

It is that I have seen some pictures of Dutch gun in action in Afghanistan. Understanding that the big advantage or selling point of SPH is its ability to Shoot and Scoot, the picture of the Dutch gun with pile of ammunition behind the gun just reminded me of a very nice but very expensive towed gun.

The Afghanistan theatre doesn't require a shoot and scoot capability, so there's no reason not to have a large pile of ammo, on the ground at the rear of the vehicle. However the rate of fire is the important thing and that (plus the on-board stowage) is where the true superiority of the SPH comes into play.

No we don't, I was only suggesting that since all current SPH system can be supported by normal means, if there was a system that is able to enhance support and war fighting capability for the gun system that we buy, we should at least consider it.

And reduce the overall buy of guns in the process too. Army's got $600m to buy it's new guns (at present). I don't see it getting MORE under the new Government...

Purchasing a dedicated "armoured" resupply vehicle is going to limit the number of guns we get.

Take your pick...

The LWH btw, isn't going to have one...


[quoteI think you will find that it is 48 rounds rather than 40 rounds according to spec. on the internet. I guess that provide K-9 with some 152 rounds, double the Pzh2000 capacity and it’s all mobile.

Not with Excalibur munitions on board which is a "MUST have"...

The PZH-2000 will have a vehicle to resupply it's ammunition natures just as our current guns do. They aren't "lugged around the bush" by Gunners themselves...

It just won't be an expensive tracked armoured vehicle...

 

[gf0012-aust]

unless there is a significant improvement, any platform that incurs an extra logistics burden is going to struggle for attention - esp in a small military - and especially in the current political and procurement climate....

 

[croc]

The Afghanistan theatre doesn't require a shoot and scoot capability, so there's no reason not to have a large pile of ammo, on the ground at the rear of the vehicle.

I don't disagree in respect to Afghanistan, but are we buying SPH to operate in theatre against ill-equipped enemies?

However the rate of fire is the important thing and that (plus the on-board stowage) is where the true superiority of the SPH comes into play.

I beg to differ here. As you pointed out, exclaibur is a must hence PGM. With introduction of PGM, the number of onboard stowage should become less of importance and as far as rate of fire is concerned most of SPH guns today seems to have similar firing rate and I assume as long as they meets stated ADF requirements that should be the end of it. Therefore the notion of "true Superiority" is in my humble opinion doesn't really stack up.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The PZH-2000 will have a vehicle to resupply it's ammunition natures just as our current guns do. They aren't "lugged around the bush" by Gunners themselves...

It just won't be an expensive tracked armoured vehicle...

This months ADM has a section with a throw away line that says that KMW may withdraw completely as it's not financially viable.

 

[MARKMILES77]

This months ADM has a section with a throw away line that says that KMW may withdraw completely as it's not financially viable.

May well suit the Government.
If K-9 is the sole gun in contention, the Government could use the lack of competition to justify scrapping the current process and "re-examine" the artillery requirements of Army.

Would not surprise me if such a re-examination led to a completely rewritten set of requirements, which then favoured a "gun on a truck" solution.

Would bring Caeser and the like back into contention.

Probably a good thing too.

Caeser is perfectly adequate for the needs of the Australian Army.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Caeser is perfectly adequate for the needs of the Australian Army.

Caesar was knocked out in some early discussions in 2004 due to a number of operational concerns.

If it was unsuitable then, it won't be suitable now - and there is no way that the Govt will go to another Tender in the current climate - or allow a rewrite.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I don't disagree in respect to Afghanistan, but are we buying SPH to operate in theatre against ill-equipped enemies?

No, but there is a strong chance they will be used in that sort of role. When was the last time we fought a "force on force" engagement against an enemy with similar capability to us?

WW2 I'd suggest... In every other deployment since our capability has outmatched our "enemy".

I beg to differ here. As you pointed out, exclaibur is a must hence PGM. With introduction of PGM, the number of onboard stowage should become less of importance and as far as rate of fire is concerned most of SPH guns today seems to have similar firing rate and I assume as long as they meets stated ADF requirements that should be the end of it. Therefore the notion of "true Superiority" is in my humble opinion doesn't really stack up.

I wasn't comparing PZH-2000 to K-9 in that context, I referred to SPH versus towed guns.

Certainly the PZH-2000 is considered by most to be the superior artillery piece compared to the K-9. It's range performance with V-LAP alone proves that. K-9 has not shown anything like this sort of operational performance to the best of my knowledge.

The K-9 is also a cramped fit inside the vehicle and requires an additional gunner compared to the PZH-2000. PZH-2000 also has superior on-board stowage, better armour protection, a whole list of performance advantages. Adding ALL these things up, shows a significant difference in performance between the 2 platforms.

However it costs to get that much performance and those costs may not be worth the price.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Does anyone have any Pics of the Austeyr A3 or A4?
Google search only gives Steyr A3 nad I do not know whether Austrian Steyr A3 ist the same as Australian Steyr A3 or A4
Thanx

A brochure from the Australian manufacturer of the F-88A3 Austeyr can be found halfway down the page here:

http://www.adi-limited.com/site.asp?page=148

 

[Goknub]

Sph

The primary advantage for SPH in places like Afghan is armoured protection. Counter-battery fire is a major task for these guns and when the mortars/rockets are dropping all over the place the last with you want is to be running about exposed servicing a towed gun.

As for the K10, my money is definitely on a NO-GO. Why? The K10 makes sense if you're fighting a largely static war facing massed enemy guns as Sth Korea does with North Korea. In that situation a K10-type resupply vehicle is essential. However, for Australia that would not be the case. Instead the Army would likely be operating over widely dispersed areas and when its 50/100km to the nearest logistics base for resupply, a tracked vehicle is the last thing you'd want. For this reason only the vehicles that MUST be tracked will be so.

 

[alexsa]

No, but there is a strong chance they will be used in that sort of role. When was the last time we fought a "force on force" engagement against an enemy with similar capability to us?

WW2 I'd suggest... In every other deployment since our capability has outmatched our "enemy".

Hi AD

Korea in the 50's may fall into the category, albeit we forght as part of a larger entity but it could not be seen as an overmatch in the context of the latter part of the conflict (Chinese participation).

Cheers

 

[MARKMILES77]

The primary advantage for SPH in places like Afghan is armoured protection. Counter-battery fire is a major task for these guns and when the mortars/rockets are dropping all over the place the last with you want is to be running about exposed servicing a towed gun.

Virtually all the artillery in Afghanistan is towed artillery is it not?

As for the K10, my money is definitely on a NO-GO. Why? The K10 makes sense if you're fighting a largely static war facing massed enemy guns as Sth Korea does with North Korea. In that situation a K10-type resupply vehicle is essential. However, for Australia that would not be the case. Instead the Army would likely be operating over widely dispersed areas and when its 50/100km to the nearest logistics base for resupply, a tracked vehicle is the last thing you'd want. For this reason only the vehicles that MUST be tracked will be so.

Why must the SPH be tracked?
For an Army which will be operating widely dispersed perhaps the guns should be wheeled as well.

 

[winnyfield]

Virtually all the artillery in Afghanistan is towed artillery is it not?

Sort of .... the British have some MLRS with guided rockets - i don't recall them deploying their AS-90s. Think of GPS guided projectiles as mini-JDAMs. Thinking about it, the advantage of self-propelled arty in Afghanistan is that the battlefield is mobile, battlesites can move 10-20km a day thus no need to set up permanent firebases (kinda flawed?).

 

[croc]

Thinking about it, the advantage of self-propelled arty in Afghanistan is that the battlefield is mobile, battlesites can move 10-20km a day thus no need to set up permanent firebases (kinda flawed?).

Dutch forces have their PZH2000NL operating in Afghanistan supporting its forces, Canadians and us. Shoot and scoot capabilities of SPH have not played major part in Afghanistan but as you pointed out battle space is continuously changing and we need to be able to re-orientate rapidly to support the changing battle scenarios.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Hi AD

Korea in the 50's may fall into the category, albeit we forght as part of a larger entity but it could not be seen as an overmatch in the context of the latter part of the conflict (Chinese participation).

Cheers

True. I had temporarily forgotten about Korea. Still, like in Vietnam, the capability we deployed was greater than that of our enemy, comparatively...

 

[lobbie111]

Reminds me of the SAR80 designed for us by Sterling of UK.

Looks like a good solid design but like the SAR80, simply not "sexy" enough to win contests.

Is the revolutionary "selective fire" trigger system of the Steyr a good thing? Any problems? No other weapons before or after has attempted such a trigger system.

I'm not saying you don't know how it works but heres a basic explanation of the trigger, the trigger has two points on it, if you depress it to the first point you get semi auto fire, and the second point gives you full auto.

You can get kits that disable the rifle from firing full auto but IMO its a good system, its a lot easier and more accurate to fire single shots and its not going to get rid of your leg if you are accidently depressing the trigger while moving (just one bullet comes out).

I have only had experience with the steyr at the WTTS so i dont know how it handles in the rough but to me it was pretty good, I could lay down accurate single shot fire and it wasn't touchy (in that if you pull just slightly harder you'll go full auto) and the trigger wasn't sensitive enough until it got to the depressive points so if you were nudged just a little your probably less likely to accidenty shoot, wouldn't know how hard it is to maintain.

I would also like to know about problems..

 

[Goknub]

Arty

Personally I was for the G6 gun, which seems to have the armoured protection of a tracked SPH but the mobility of a wheeled vehicle. Unfortunately its already been ruled out.

Going by reputation alone I'd be siding with the PZ2000, those Germans know how to build decent weapons.