Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Aussie Digger]

The Chinese have been known to offer aid in return for recognition of their right to Taiwan - 'cheaquebook diplomacy'.



My thoughts exactly. Even the most rudimentary IFV capability would pose significant problems for an Aust'n Army section and their M113 w/ .50cals. We're lucky they haven't been introduced into the SW Pacific.

They do if you are a fan of the "1 v 1" type of comparisons that dominant "arm - chair general" type Internet discussions...

Tell me, how long could a rudimentry IFV capability operate in a SW Pacific nation if an ANZAC Class frigate or Army Artillery/Mortar capability shelled it's support base?

How long could they last if RAAF decided to do a spot of "plinking"?

How long if SASR and 4RAR operators conducted a strategic strike on our opponents support base?

How long if Army deployed Javelin ATGW, Carl Gustav 84mm, Copperhead or SMART 155mm guided artillery munitions or M1A1 Abrams tanks?

And seeing as though we're talking about "future" capabilities, how long if Army deployed the Tiger ARH?

Arguing that M113AS3/4 is "outmatched" is ludicrous if you don't consider what ELSE ADF can bring to a fight...

 

[Atilla [TR]]

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?"

Turkey is using the G3 since the early 1970's it is just getting replaced. Some U.S troops want to use the modern version of the M14 in Iraq.

 

[winnyfield]

I'm thinking of situations like 1999 E.Timor when Australian forces were operating in the midst of Indonesian forces. Peacekeeping/making alongside a supposedly a non-hostile force; peace missions in the Balkans and Africa, there is a quasi-conventional presence that can cause a few problems if something goes wrong.

Something like this happened to the French in the Ivory Coast a few years back when their relatiohsip with the government went sour, they (the French) were attacked conventionally by Su-25s.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

They do if you are a fan of the "1 v 1" type of comparisons that dominant "arm - chair general" type Internet discussions...

Tell me, how long could a rudimentry IFV capability operate in a SW Pacific nation if an ANZAC Class frigate or Army Artillery/Mortar capability shelled it's support base?

How long could they last if RAAF decided to do a spot of "plinking"?

How long if SASR and 4RAR operators conducted a strategic strike on our opponents support base?

How long if Army deployed Javelin ATGW, Carl Gustav 84mm, Copperhead or SMART 155mm guided artillery munitions or M1A1 Abrams tanks?

And seeing as though we're talking about "future" capabilities, how long if Army deployed the Tiger ARH?

Arguing that M113AS3/4 is "outmatched" is ludicrous if you don't consider what ELSE ADF can bring to a fight...

Indeed. The threat of a single weapons system in the hands of the Timorese is a less than credible IMO, unless it was a deliverable nuclear warhead.

The only deficiency would be when faceing the mechanised forces of a mojor power in the field, and even then the M113AS3/4 could probably do the job of moveing the infantry arround the battlefield adequatly, but not engage IFV's "head on", or in a low intencity conflict in urban area's, were the real protection and firepower an IFV brings to a small unit is invaluable.

But i think the critical thing to remember is that a deficiency in a single weapons system is not usually a deal breaker. Its allways agregate capability that counts and just because we dont have an IFV, ARH or whatever does not mean we can not operate effectively, usually.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I'm thinking of situations like 1999 E.Timor when Australian forces were operating in the midst of Indonesian forces. Peacekeeping/making alongside a supposedly a non-hostile force; peace missions in the Balkans and Africa, there is a quasi-conventional presence that can cause a few problems if something goes wrong.

Something like this happened to the French in the Ivory Coast a few years back when their relatiohsip with the government went sour, they (the French) were attacked conventionally by Su-25s.

The Indonesians were in the process of leaving Timor in-line with the UN Resolutions in relation to the matter. They had no combat capability to "fight" the Australian forces other than Para-military and militia "light infantry" style forces.

If the Indonesians had tried to "fight" then it would have been every bit as one sided as the contacts that DID happen. Plus it would have drawn in the FULL capability of the ADF and called upon Air Commander Criss's abilities as "Air Commander for the battle of Timor"... nfloorl:

Plus the USMC MEU sitting off the Timor coast would have assisted Australia no doubt. How much could a full MEU contribute to the fight do you think?

 

[battlensign]

The Indonesians were in the process of leaving Timor in-line with the UN Resolutions in relation to the matter. They had no combat capability to "fight" the Australian forces other than Para-military and militia "light infantry" style forces.

If the Indonesians had tried to "fight" then it would have been every bit as one sided as the contacts that DID happen. Plus it would have drawn in the FULL capability of the ADF and called upon Air Commander Criss's abilities as "Air Commander for the battle of Timor"... nfloorl:

Plus the USMC MEU sitting off the Timor coast would have assisted Australia no doubt. How much could a full MEU contribute to the fight do you think?

About a reinforced Battalion with some combat aviation elements?

Are you mocking the ferociously hard-fought "battle for timor"? I think more respect is in order - only the 12th SS at Caen were 'arder!

Brett.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

About a reinforced Battalion with some combat aviation elements?

A mechanised battalion with fixed wing aviation and AH1's. Not something to snivle at.

 

[Aussie Digger]

About a reinforced Battalion with some combat aviation elements?

Are you mocking the ferociously hard-fought "battle for timor"? I think more respect is in order - only the 12th SS at Caen were 'arder!

Brett.

A bit more than than a battalion actually. A battalion group, with it's own artillery, armour, combat engineers and combat support elements, plus Force Recon elements...

And those "aviation assets" include CH-53's, AH-1W's and AV-8 Harrier II's...

All up, it would have nicely bolstered the Interfet force, which was the point of it being positioned where it was...

As to the "battle", well blokes I worked with were there in the first few days from 2nd Cav Regt and B sqn 3/4 Cav Regt and never saw it...

But hey, Criss was the air commander who fought the "battle for Timor" so it must have happened, right?

 

[battlensign]

Oz, was talking about the wording of the question rather than the sentiment behind it. Not sure if I would call it mechanised though - as I understand it 15 amphibious assault vehicles, 10 light armoured vehicles, 60 ish HMMWVs and 4 Abrams accompany an MEU - motorised rather than mech?

Brett.

P.S This question is open for any to answer: should Aus have 3 standing 2000 person units modeled on the MEU architecture (though obviously modified for aus conditions etc) ? How difficult is it to generate such a force? (manpower issues aside)

 

[flyboyEB]

P.S This question is open for any to answer: should Aus have 3 standing 2000 person units modeled on the MEU architecture (though obviously modified for aus conditions etc) ? How difficult is it to generate such a force? (manpower issues aside)

That's a good idea in my uninformed opinion, surely such a force would be well suited to peace-keeping operations in Australia's neighbourhood. But doesn't the MEU theory also rely on being reinforced quickly by rest of the USMC and the US Army, which is a lot bigger than the ADF? Also, aren't MEUs relient on USN Carrier Groups for air supperiority and bombing? It could be a good idea if the 'Aussie MEUs' are used alongside USMC MEUs, as Australia is ussually fighting next to the Yanks anyway. Maybe Aussie Digger can enlighten me

 

[Cutaway]

Although the ergonomics of the Interdynamics MKS is sh1t(Except for an aircrew survival weapon?), I was thinking a front magazine/bullpup variant of it could be manufactured. The weapon is well less than 3kg and also simple/cheap to manufacture and has an ROF around 750 to 1,100RPM.

 

[aricho87]

Aussie MEU's

The idea of having aussie meu's is a good idea for austarlia's role and needs in this region but the support needed for these makes it impossible.

US meu's usually consist of a LHD and two LPD of which australia does not posses. From what i have seen there are plans for australia to get maybe two LHD type ships which would make it possible to have 1 MEU style force. However they do require other ships to make up the number of troops, machinery and logistics to support such a force for short periods.

I assume there would also need to be a heavy reliance on air-lift which RAAF is forfilling with the C-4's (realise on the basis of a runway or airport being close by or operational).

 

[Aussie Digger]

That's a good idea in my uninformed opinion, surely such a force would be well suited to peace-keeping operations in Australia's neighbourhood. But doesn't the MEU theory also rely on being reinforced quickly by rest of the USMC and the US Army, which is a lot bigger than the ADF? Also, aren't MEUs relient on USN Carrier Groups for air supperiority and bombing? It could be a good idea if the 'Aussie MEUs' are used alongside USMC MEUs, as Australia is ussually fighting next to the Yanks anyway. Maybe Aussie Digger can enlighten me

Depends. Are these MEU's additional to or instead of our current forces? I don't see a HUGE need for MEU's at the expense of our current forces.

Does anyone see us doing USMC style "opposed" amphibious operations? I don't...

We have a demonstrable amphibious capability at present if necessary and this is being improved with the current range of acquisitions including LHD's, MRH-90's, the new LCM-8 type vessels that are to be acquired, plus the improved RAN re-supply vessels and overall ELF/HNA improvements that will improve Armies combat capabilities.

We don't have the vessels for a proper USMC style MEU, nor could we man them even if we did and nor dow we have the support assets (AV-8 Harrier II's?) that the USMC can call upon.

More importantly there are a few more operational tasks than simply amphibious operations (not that USMC aren't capable of other things mind) that the Australian Army has to cover...

 

[machina]

The main issue is the amphibious assault vehicles, LCACs and choppers. Amphibious vessels are currently being procured which will give the Navy much greater sealift. Much more additional lift and it will go beyond what the Army could deploy and sustain anyway. But without the ability to get ashore against opposition, it is fairly limiting in terms of capability.

Which leads to weird situation we have an amphibious capability developing with the ability to transport battlegroups supported by M1A1s, Tigers, ASLAVs, SPHs... and yet the expectation we'll be moving them into a fairly benign environment. One that doesn't require an opposed landing capability.

 

[Mr Brown]

Kiwis keeping M88

You may be interested to know the NZDF has decided to upgrade their Steyrs rather than replace them. This based on theory that any new 5.56mm rifle is as likely to be obselete in 10-15 years as an upgraded one.

 

[MARKMILES77]

Australia is clearly planning to have the capability to deploy a MEU like force:

Australian Defence Magazine April 2008

LHD 101: Using our capability
Julian Kerr

The Joint Amphibious Capability Team (JACIT), officially established in September 2006, reports to and operates from the office of Captain Tony O'Malley RAN, director of Navy Force Structure and Warfare.
Consisting of a Commander, Lt-Commander, Lt-Colonel and a Major, the team's responsibility is the introduction into service of the Amphibious Deployment and Sustainment System, including the LHD's and their in-service employment.....

At present JACIT is largely concentrating on what Capt O'Malley describes as " planning the plan."....


Capt O'Malley confirms that planning revolves around the deployment of a combined arms battalion group similiar to a US Marine Expeditionary Unit within a US Expeditionary Strike Group.
"Exactly how that Battalion Group would be structured is clearly dependant on the operation in train and the adversary at the destination," he comments.

 

[ando]

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..

Not much troubles with it unless, hahaha you forget you haven't put your lock out button down and you let of a burst chewing through your ammo (yeah, yeah, Aussie dig, pogo haha) Sometimes on ex young digs get rush of blood and squeeze the trigger as hard as they can and yeah messy. haha Major advantage is if you are surprised by a group of enemy you can let of a burst and dive into cover without having to reach for a selector switch etc.

Not much more if any to maintain than standard trigger mech.

 

[lobbie111]

I think thats an issue of training and operator inexperience rather than the trigger, but if its a major problem I'm sure it will be replaced.

 

[Aussie Digger]

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..

You don't need a kit. Every F-88 has the "single shot lock out button" built into the bottom of the trigger. Pull it downwards and the F-88 will only fire single shots. Click it up and you have the option to employ "rapid fire" should you wish..

The F-88 is a fine weapon out in the field. It doesn't like too much oil on it's working parts (but then what weapon does?) but needs to be cleaned regularly. The F-88 has a reputation for stoppages, but this mostly stems from cheap "blank" training rounds with low propellent levels.

I never had a problem with a well maintained rifle (as of course MINE always was...) firing live rounds and never UD'd once in my entire career, a point that astounds me when I hear stories of how many soldiers are "UDing" these days.

Is keeping your finger OUTSIDE the trigger guard and remembering to take one's magazine off BEFORE unloading, all THAT hard? :rel

Cheers

AD

 

[croc]

Australian howitzer programme attracts two bids
Julian Kerr JDW Correspondent
Sydney

Key Points
Australia's request for tender for self-propelled howitzers has closed

Teams led by KMW and Raytheon were the only responders


The Australian Defence Force's (ADF's) request for tender (RfT) for up to 30 protected 155 mm, 52-calibre self-propelled howitzers (SPHs) closed on 14 April with just two bids - both offering tracked systems - having been lodged.

Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) has teamed with BAE Systems Australia to offer the KMW PzH 2000; and Raytheon Australia has teamed with Samsung Techwin to propose the Korean company's K9 Thunderer, whose Australian variant will be known as the AS-9.

The Archer FH77 BW proposed by Tenix Aerospace and Defence teamed with BAE Systems Bofors and the G6-52 offered by South African manufacturer Denel were withdrawn from the competition several months ago.

The RfT under the Land 17 artillery replacement project sought proposals for 18, 24 or 30 SPHs to replace the ADF's 36 M198 towed howitzers, with an option for the purchase of six additional systems within five years of final acceptance of the initial tranche.

Each bidder was also required to submit a separate proposal for a seven-year support contract.

The Raytheon bid was for 18 platforms, although it included pricing information for 24 and 30 systems, a company spokesperson told Jane's . The bid also included an undisclosed number of K10 protected ammunition resupply vehicles.

A BAE Systems spokesperson declined to disclose the number of platforms involved in its proposal.

Land 17 also seeks up to four batteries (35 platforms) of lightweight towed 155 mm howitzers. The project office has specified a maximum gun weight of 5,040 kg to allow transportation by a CH-47D helicopter.

An invitation to register closed on 14 November 2007 and BAE Systems' M777A2 ultra-lightweight howitzer, weighing 3,745 kg, is thought to have been the only respondent.

A Department of Defence (DoD) spokesperson told Jane's that a separate element within Land 17 seeking proposals for the refurbishment and upgrade of the ADF's existing M198 howitzers would be the subject of further assessment before any decision was made on solicitation.

Raytheon Australia confirmed to Jane's that should this requirement proceed, it would be bidding an upgrade based on South Korea's conversion of its M198s to the KH179 standard.

Estimated expenditure for Land 17 is AUD450 million (USD422 million) to AUD600 million with an in-service date of 2011. The DoD spokesperson said government second pass approval was anticipated in mid-2009.