Australian Army Discussions and Updates

Navor86

Member
I hope that this Gap Year doesnt end like Conscription in Germany.
Here you have them for 9 Months and the Conscripts are integrated in every Unit with the result that you cant deploy a Unit as a whole becuase conscripts are not as trained as regulars or their conscription would end while deployed.
 

Sea Toby

New Member
The problem lies with the education system, before military service. There should never be a shortage of technical recruits, every man or woman should graduate with these skills. The military should never be in the position of not recruiting required math and science skills.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
The problem lies with the education system, before military service. There should never be a shortage of technical recruits, every man or woman should graduate with these skills. The military should never be in the position of not recruiting required math and science skills.
I am not so sure that is the case. My understanding is that the current market in Australia has been quite good, particularly for those with technicial and/or trade skills. As a result, the ADF has been competing with private industry for some of the same skills, where private industry can afford to pay high wages or salaries. Not unlike the competition the US DoD had in recruiting engineers and computer techs between 1995-2000.

Factor in the current recruitment process the ADF has (mis)managed by Manpower which can drag on apparently, and it can be difficult to gather and keep the interest of recruits with the desired skills. I expect if the economy was worse, and jobs more scarce, the ADF would not have such an issue. There would likely still be some problems given how the process seems to be conducted currently, but then there would also likely be a larger pool of applicants who would have greater incentive to endure the entire process.

-Cheers
 

Beagle

New Member
I am not so sure that is the case. My understanding is that the current market in Australia has been quite good, particularly for those with technicial and/or trade skills. As a result, the ADF has been competing with private industry for some of the same skills, where private industry can afford to pay high wages or salaries. Not unlike the competition the US DoD had in recruiting engineers and computer techs between 1995-2000.

Factor in the current recruitment process the ADF has (mis)managed by Manpower which can drag on apparently, and it can be difficult to gather and keep the interest of recruits with the desired skills. I expect if the economy was worse, and jobs more scarce, the ADF would not have such an issue. There would likely still be some problems given how the process seems to be conducted currently, but then there would also likely be a larger pool of applicants who would have greater incentive to endure the entire process.

-Cheers
Definately agree. It took 10 months from my initial application to the selection board. In the end I took a civilian job because after the board I applied for, interviewed for, and was given a job before any response. People are not going to wait around to get into the ADF if someone is offering them a definate job now. Especially if the recruiting process is going to take over a year (as in my case) with no feedback on the timeline of the process. Obviously my case is a bit extreem but when most civilian companies can easily do it all inside a few weeks to a month, the ADF will always struggle to pick up the people it needs unless it can start to compare.
 

PeterM

Active Member
I read in a recent defence publication that the ADF were offering re-enlistment incentives for the RAN.

Apparantly $24,000 for general seamen and $80,000 for submariners.
6,000 general seaman will be eligible and 630 submariners

I wonder if they are doing something similar for the Army and RAAF? It would make sense.
 
Last edited:

McTaff

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I read in a recent defence publication that the ADF were offering re-enlistment incentives for the RAN.

Apparantly $24,000 for general seamen and $80,000 for submariners.
6,000 general seaman will be eligible and 630 submariners

I wonder if they are doing something similar for the Army and RAAF? It would make sense.
Nope, the RAN has much bigger issues regarding retention. However this probably isn't the forum for it.

The entire defence force needs a larger budget and sweeping changes (and more people in the ranks of the RAN and Army). Best not to continue in this thread here, though, and try to keep strictly to Army stuff.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Ahem, anyway getting back onto Australian Army discussions, Army seems to have changed the goal posts for Land 17 if this DSCA announcement is anything to go by...

WASHINGTON --- The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Australia of M777A2 155mm Light-Weight Howitzers as well as associated equipment and services.

The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $248 million.

The Government of Australia has requested a possible sale of 57 M777A2 155mm Light-Weight Howitzers, 57 AN/VRC-91F Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio Systems (SINCGARS), integration, spare and repair parts, support and test equipment, publications and technical documentation, maintenance, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $248 million.

Australia is one of our most important allies in the Western Pacific. The strategic location of this political and economic power contributes significantly to ensuring peace and economic stability in the region.

Australia’s efforts in peacekeeping and humanitarian operations in Iraq and in Afghanistan have had a significant impact on regional political and economic stability and have served U.S. national security interests. This proposed sale is consistent with those objectives and facilitates burden-sharing with our allies.

This proposed sale would greatly contribute to Australia’s military capability by making it a more sustainable coalition force to support the Global War on Terror. Australia will use these new M777A2 155mm Howitzers to protect its deployed troops, and give them the ability to operate in hazardous conditions. Australia currently operates the 100mm [actually 105mm—Ed.] Hamel Howitzer and the 155mm M198 Howitzer and will have no difficulty absorbing these howitzers into its armed forces.

The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not affect the basic military balance in the region.

The prime contractors will be: BAE Land Systems in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, and ITT in Fort Wayne, Indiana. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

The proposed sale requires engineering technical support for approximately two U.S. government representatives and five contractor representatives for one year.

There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale. This notice of a potential sale is required by law; it does not mean that the sale has been concluded.

-ends-
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
And here the official link
http://www.dsca.osd.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2008/Australia_08-78.pdf

Does this mean that the SPH Component will be dropt
57 M777 for 3rd and 7th Brigade+ Training wolud sound alright but hopefully they go for SPH for the 1st Brigade
I suppose until the White Paper and subsequent DCP is released nothing is really certain.

It must also be remembered that A:

This announcement is a possibility. Not a signed contract and B:

ALL announcements for LAND 17 have related to Phase 1. No-one ever suggested there would NOT be further orders for artillery placed under later phases...

An order of a small number to introduce into service quickly, supplemented by a larger order later (ala Canada) to address funding and immediate deployment needs is not out of the question, IMHO...

I would suggest that an SPG for Army is still a VERY strong possibility. Army REALLY wants an SPG and not just because it's "shiny" but because towed artillery simply can NOT protect it's own crew and modern counter battery capability means that towed artillery can NOT provide the sole "front line" capability for artillery forces any longer...

Persons like Paul Dibb and those "anti-military" Labor proponents fortunately, are NOT the persons who have to face the media and explain why the Government chose inadequate military capability and then deployed our forces with it...

I personally think Army will get it's SPG capability along with the apparently increased M-777A2 capability. Army's deployed elements is currently protected by a mere 3x PZH-2000's. An entire towed battery of M-777's would be required to match that level of capability...
 

mattyem

New Member
Steyr replacement

The issue of replacing the steyr in New Zealand is quite a debated issue also. The reason in not replacing as of yet is because we are in that 'grey' area of military rifle technology. Current rifle systems are almost reaching their height, and new and developing systems are emerging more and more each year. Thus the choice to upgrade the rifle as apposed to replace it with current day technology that is only on par or slightly better seems logical, why spend all up on a rifle package that is only a slight bit better when in several years an entirely new and superior system will be released. This is the thinking of the new zealand defence force and ministry of defence.
 

winnyfield

New Member
An order of a small number to introduce into service quickly, supplemented by a larger order later (ala Canada) to address funding and immediate deployment needs is not out of the question, IMHO...
The A'stan RTF have been building a whole bunch of patrol bases in Oruzgan ....


I would suggest that an SPG for Army is still a VERY strong possibility. Army REALLY wants an SPG and not just because it's "shiny" but because towed artillery simply can NOT protect it's own crew and modern counter battery capability means that towed artillery can NOT provide the sole "front line" capability for artillery forces any longer...


I personally think Army will get it's SPG capability along with the apparently increased M-777A2 capability. Army's deployed elements is currently protected by a mere 3x PZH-2000's. An entire towed battery of M-777's would be required to match that level of capability...
A risk averse gov't suggest the SPH would go ahead. More M777s me thinks means that there'd be no M198 refurbishment = PzH2k win.
 

croc

New Member
A risk averse gov't suggest the SPH would go ahead. More M777s me thinks means that there'd be no M198 refurbishment = PzH2k win.
I agree, SPH would be still on. But not sure i agree with you that Pzh2000 is in the bag.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
I agree, SPH would be still on. But not sure i agree with you that Pzh2000 is in the bag.
Given M-777A2 seems a given and it's supported by BAE, as is the PZH-2000, and BAE are building a nice shiny support centre in South Australia in anticipation of winning BOTH contracts, I'd suggest it's more likely than not, that PZH-2000 WILL win, if the SPG actually goes ahead...
 

jacktar

New Member
Land 121

Anybody know if there is any truth to this DIAR article? Canceling the Medium Heavy section of 121 seems like a big issue to me.

LAND 121 CONTRACT NEGOTIATION TERMINATION PITCHED TO FITZGIBBON: Sources close to the Department of Defence have confirmed that similar to the experience with project Land 17 – where combat experience has driven up-armouring requirements post-conclusion of tender evaluations – the ADF’s attempts to secure a new B-vehicle fleet under project Land 121 (medium-heavy segment) have now been jeopardised by the alleged failure during tests at the Army’s proving ground in Victoria of the preferred tenderer’s vehicle solution to meet new resistance and resilience requirements in relation to mines, roadside bombs and improvised explosive devices (IEDs). According to a Defence spokesperson, the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) “has made a judgement that it is time to revisit phase 3 and some of the decisions that have been made, and advice has been given to the Minister on how to proceed with project Land 121.” Options moving forward include either re-competing the changed requirements amongst the short-listed tenderers, or declaring current negotiations null and void, and re-opening the Land 121 requirement to all comers. [25.07.08]
 

croc

New Member
Interesting article on janes

Australia remains committed to 155 mm SPH purchase
Julian Kerr JDW Correspondent
Sydney

The Australian Department of Defence (DoD) is still planning to purchase 155 mm self-propelled howitzers (SPHs), despite the US Defence Security Co-operation Agency (DSCA) notifying Congress on 17 July of a possible sale to Australia of 57 M777A2 155 mm towed guns.

Under the Project Land 17 artillery replacement plan, the Australian Defence Force (ADF) is seeking proposals for 18, 24 or 30 protected 155 mm 52 calibre SPHs to replace the ADF's 36 M198 towed howitzers, as well as up to four batteries (35 platforms) of lightweight towed 155 mm howitzers.

A DoD spokesperson confirmed to Jane's on 25 July that the capability being sought continued to include both self-propelled and towed guns.

He added that the "request to the US State Department does not represent a decision to buy the M777A2 but is a necessary step in providing tender-quality cost information for Second Pass consideration by government".

The SPH competition is between Kraus-Maffei Wegmann's PzH 2000 teamed with BAE Systems Australia and Samsung Techwin's K9 Thunder primed by Raytheon Australia. The Australian variant has been named the AS-9 Aussie Thunder.

Raytheon announced on 24 July the successful live testing for the AS-9 of a Removable Armour for Vehicles solution developed by the Australian company SEAL Solutions to ensure maximum possible coverage of the protected crew compartment.

Raytheon said it had also developed a protection system incorporating a 20 mm spall liner, additional composite belly armour, mine-resistant seating and a blast overpressure kit.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Interesting article on janes
I hope so, but it's not exactly UP to Janes. Government is committed to "Hardening and Networking" the Army in it's current policy, but that doesn't mean that Government will remain so once they "fully examine" Australia's requirements under our new white paper...

It's amazing how Australia's "requirements" change to suit the Government of the day's wishes. If one were cynical one could speculate on how "requirements" could change so quickly... :rolleyes:

Seeing the SPG axed to please certain members of the Government would disappoint me, but not surprise me.
 

Cadeyrn

New Member
Well, I don't know much about assault rifles and all that, and I do realise that the ADF probably won't replace the Steyr until some major change occurs, but I just couldn't resist having my say.

I would like to see a locally produce version of the M17s. I'm pretty sure that the ADF or Thales could buy either the patents or at least the right to use the patent. It'd also be beneficial if the upper receiver was made from a polymer than from aluminium.

Why do I want to see this weapon made? It's pretty simple:

Short Length: The M17s is 760 mm long, shorter than the current service rifle.

Long Barrel Length: Despite being 45 mm shorter than the AUG, the M17s has a barrel length of 546 mm, 38 mm longer than the AUG's.

Reliability: Okay, so I know that there isn't really that much a problem with the AUG's reliability. However, I still reckon that the AR-18 style mechanism would provide better reliability. I mean, the G36 uses virtually the same system and it's supposed to be extremely reliable.

I'd also like to see the caliber stepped up to 6.5 Grendel. Why? Because it has a longer range, a heavier bullet, hits harder and yet you can still fit 26 rounds into a standard length magazine (although you can't actually fit them into a standard mag). From what I've heard, it also has a recoil that is less than 7.62x39, which in turn has a recoil less than the 7.62 NATO.

Of course, there's a whole logistics problem, but I honestly believe that if Australia wants to get ahead in the world, then we have to stop following other countries. We have to make the changes and let other countries follow suit. Besides, our country's pretty open, so you want a good, long range round if we ever go into serious trouble :D.

Anyway, that's just my armchair opinion.
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
I cant see us replacing the styer with anything for a while. All of the alternatives are comparable in capability. Sure one or two may have small advantages in ergonomics or length, but the differences are almost negligible. Realistically unless something like the AICW comes into production there is simply no real justification for the cost of replacing the small arms pool. Realistically none of them give us a capability that the F88 does not. Additionally there's no way the DoD is going to use a non NATO standard round. The logistical problem this creates more than outweigh the advantages.

Admin. Late deletion as comments not noticed before. Comments unacceptable.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Chino

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
That's absolutely true. Only possible reason for switch is if the current Steyr weapons wear out, and the option is open as to whether to make more Steyrs or something else.

Malaysia I think ran into some license problems with Steyr and probably cannot make any more Steyrs. So they decided to switch back to the M16 system (which they were using before Steyr) by getting a license to make M4s. This made sense for them in that all the old M16's are still in stock, most personnel are still familiar with the system, and logistics will also be simple.
 
Top