Sad news indeed.
It seems to me that the nature of Australia's commitment means that it is almost inevitable that casualties in Afghanistan will continue to climb and that its special operations forces will bare the brunt of these.
R.I.P.
Tas
It seems to me that the nature of Australia's commitment means that it is almost inevitable that casualties in Afghanistan will continue to climb and that its special operations forces will bare the brunt of these.
R.I.P.
Tas
Going back to the MEU question is that where Australia is heading?
The LHD's/sealift, the troops, artiliary etc all seem to be avalible for Australia to make a MEU possible.
While Australia could sustain a MEU (barely), I would imagine it would operate long enough to stablise or hold together a hotspot until a collalition or the US turns up to support or escalate the situation.
Which is why I guess there is no opposed landing capability. Although with a 3rd LHD with a dozen F-35B's and additions supplies, troops etc. It would give Australia something pretty close to that level of capability (if for only a short while). Maybe as a coalition...
The LHD's/sealift, the troops, artiliary etc all seem to be avalible for Australia to make a MEU possible.
While Australia could sustain a MEU (barely), I would imagine it would operate long enough to stablise or hold together a hotspot until a collalition or the US turns up to support or escalate the situation.
Which is why I guess there is no opposed landing capability. Although with a 3rd LHD with a dozen F-35B's and additions supplies, troops etc. It would give Australia something pretty close to that level of capability (if for only a short while). Maybe as a coalition...
Unfortunatly you're probably right. The PM also said something to that effect in his Press release about it. But I'm actually suprised that we've lost so few soldiers so far. Are the Special Forces seldom involved in 'heavy' fighting or are they just better and luckier than the Taliban?
Land17 rft closed
Just a heads up for anyone interested
http://www.australiandefence.com.au...objectID/93A83E72-65BF-75E5-CF8294901789E0AE/
No real surprises here, AS-9 and PzH2000 the two heavyweight contenders and M777 the only lightweight contender.
on a related matter
a possible aussie order of excalibur projectiles
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Aus...982_Block_Ia_1_Excalibur_Projectiles_999.html
They may be needed if the ADF were to increase its presence in Afghanistan.
As a mooted possibility here
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23614251-31477,00.html
I believe someone already flagged ADF M198 conversion for Excalibur. No idea where that's at.
rb
Just a heads up for anyone interested
http://www.australiandefence.com.au...objectID/93A83E72-65BF-75E5-CF8294901789E0AE/
No real surprises here, AS-9 and PzH2000 the two heavyweight contenders and M777 the only lightweight contender.
on a related matter
a possible aussie order of excalibur projectiles
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Aus...982_Block_Ia_1_Excalibur_Projectiles_999.html
They may be needed if the ADF were to increase its presence in Afghanistan.
As a mooted possibility here
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23614251-31477,00.html
I believe someone already flagged ADF M198 conversion for Excalibur. No idea where that's at.
rb
Thanks for that, lots of information there. Interesting to note that there's been 4 Rifle Companies in a battalion since the days of the 1st AIF
on paper...every bn has 4 x rifle coys, 1 x Admin coy, 1 x support coy, and BHQ. Although, in most bns, only 3 x rifle coy,s are manned, and the 4th coy is a training coy manned only with CHQ staff.
this may have changed recently, but i doubt it. the structure of the mech bns was 3 rifle coys, as was 3 and 6 RAR.
this may have changed recently, but i doubt it. the structure of the mech bns was 3 rifle coys, as was 3 and 6 RAR.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
It is nominally 4x rifle coy's as Old Faithful suggested. In reality Battalions rarely have more than 3x operational rifle companies at home.
Deployments are another "kettle of fish" however with an extra Coy being added for most deployments (which is why we have seen reserve infantry coy's added to reg battalions deploying to Timor for instance).
This is changing with the infantry 2012 "trial" to commence in 2009 with one of the battalions from 3 Brigade to undertake this trial (the particular battalion hasn't been chosen yet). This structure will formally reduce the battalions to 3x rifle companies, but will add a "maneuvre support platoon" to each company and this platoon will be equipped with the LAND 40 Phase 2 range of weapons to increase the firepower available to each company.
battlensign
New Member
Couldn't we just have both?!?!? (Maneuvre Support Platoon in each company AND a 4th Company?)
Brett.
Any inkiling of what LAND 40 phase 2 may select?
I am very curious about the differences between the proposed Australian version of the PzH2000 being considered and the discounted new-build Dutch PzH2000s which were offered to the ADF.
The Dutch would likely have been substantially cheaper and in service alot earlier. Is there some capability lacking in the Dutch version that has been included in the proposed Australian version? Otherwise it makes more sense to go with the Dutch offer.
As far as the M777 goes, the ADF is also considering an option to upgrade our M198 along the general lines of the Korean KH179 upgrade (American M114A1 howitzers were substantially upgraded, including a new 155mm/39 gun and new fire-control equipment. This began in 1979 and was completed in 1982).
The Dutch would likely have been substantially cheaper and in service alot earlier. Is there some capability lacking in the Dutch version that has been included in the proposed Australian version? Otherwise it makes more sense to go with the Dutch offer.
As far as the M777 goes, the ADF is also considering an option to upgrade our M198 along the general lines of the Korean KH179 upgrade (American M114A1 howitzers were substantially upgraded, including a new 155mm/39 gun and new fire-control equipment. This began in 1979 and was completed in 1982).
I am unsure of any potential differences either.
The Dutch offer was for units yet to be built.
The offer was rejected because no in service costings could be made (for whatever reason).
http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?topic=63753.0;wap2
rb
I haven't heard much and official information is very scarce.
"Phase 2 seeks to provide a range of direct fire support weapons for use by an Infantry Battalion."
I have heard that the Army is getting the 7.62mm version of the Minimi; presumably this would make sense for a 'Manoever Support Platoon' and direct fire support weapons.
The Army is getting Accuracy International AW50F .50cal (12.7mm) anti-material rifles, but I am not sure if that is part of LAND 40 phase 2.
I guess other options may be the Mk19 automatic grenade launcher, but that is pure speculation
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Automatic grenade launchers (not necessarily Mk 19 variant though).
Upgrades for the Carl Gustav 84mm RCL (night vision sites, ammunition natures etc).
Acquisition of "marksmens" rifles for the platoons. Given the SR-25 is already being employed in that role on operations, I would suggest it will "get the gig".
Additional MAG-58 and 12.7mm QCB machine guns.
Lightweight vehicles to help cart around these weapons and ammunition for them.
Something in the mold of a 6x6 Polaris...
Regards
AD
winnyfield
New Member
Guess the Army has already made up it's mind. Most of the fire support weapons that the Army now operates remains and continues to be useful. More a question of organisation than weaponry.
PS: Any room for a 60mm commando (ie. handheld) mortar? ~1.8kg of HE out to 1000m; beyong the reach of m203s and M72s. Useful but the CG 84mm might be enough.
the idea of "support Pl" is not new. early 80,s Bns had a support section for each coy. was either 2 x 81mm morters, or 2 x 84mm Carl Gustavs or 2 x GPMG,s depending on the mission.
the idea of 60mm morters was also kicked around (particulary by 3RAR) but never eventuated, now days i personaly think 40mm grenades are a much better idea, logisics and fire power.
Surely the best option for a infantry company level fire support weapon for Australia would be the Mk 47 Striker automatic grenade launcher with its air burst ammunition and ballistic computer?
This would project more HE more accurately than a light mortar, due to its automatic fire, its sight/computer, and its trajectory.
And surely the air burst ammunition would be an infinitely more effective "suppressive" fire weapon than GPMGs. Indeed it would be lethal to an enemy in the defilade (terminology?) rather than suppressive!
And its main shortcoming (weight, ammunition weight, crew served nature) could be alleviated by ATVs.
This would project more HE more accurately than a light mortar, due to its automatic fire, its sight/computer, and its trajectory.
And surely the air burst ammunition would be an infinitely more effective "suppressive" fire weapon than GPMGs. Indeed it would be lethal to an enemy in the defilade (terminology?) rather than suppressive!
And its main shortcoming (weight, ammunition weight, crew served nature) could be alleviated by ATVs.