Yes you are correct, steyr are no longer issuing licenses to manufacture their A3 variant, it must be done in house by Steyr thats where the problem lays.
Who wants to be in Boeings shoes?
Fitzgibbon set to scrap $150m defence contract
Mark Dodd | September 03, 2008
THE axe is poised to fall on another troubled defence project, the $150 million contract to buy unmanned aerial vehicles for the Australian Defence Force.
It is understood the Defence Materiel Organisation has recommended to Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon that the problem-plagued contract be axed. A formal announcement by Mr Fitzgibbon is expected later this week.
The Israeli-built I-View 250 UAV system is dogged with technical problems and more than two years behind schedule. The relationship between the partners in the project, US aircraft builder Boeing and Israeli Aerospace Industries, has deteriorated in recent months.
A defence source close to the project, who asked not to be named, said: "The capability has not been axed but the contract has. Boeing have had two years to get this sorted and they've been dragging the chain."
Taxpayers can expect a refund from Boeing of about $6 million. Boeing did not reply to a request for comment on the project.
Following the axing of the $1.2billion Seasprite project in March, Mr Fitzgibbon drew up a list of four "projects of concern" to name and shame delayed defence procurements, including the UAV project.
In December 2006, Howard government defence minister Robert Hill signed a contract to purchase eight of the UAVs because "it offered the best value for money".
The UAV is designed to provide the army with airborne surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance capabilities for ground operations.
Fitzgibbon set to scrap $150m defence contract
Mark Dodd | September 03, 2008
THE axe is poised to fall on another troubled defence project, the $150 million contract to buy unmanned aerial vehicles for the Australian Defence Force.
It is understood the Defence Materiel Organisation has recommended to Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon that the problem-plagued contract be axed. A formal announcement by Mr Fitzgibbon is expected later this week.
The Israeli-built I-View 250 UAV system is dogged with technical problems and more than two years behind schedule. The relationship between the partners in the project, US aircraft builder Boeing and Israeli Aerospace Industries, has deteriorated in recent months.
A defence source close to the project, who asked not to be named, said: "The capability has not been axed but the contract has. Boeing have had two years to get this sorted and they've been dragging the chain."
Taxpayers can expect a refund from Boeing of about $6 million. Boeing did not reply to a request for comment on the project.
Following the axing of the $1.2billion Seasprite project in March, Mr Fitzgibbon drew up a list of four "projects of concern" to name and shame delayed defence procurements, including the UAV project.
In December 2006, Howard government defence minister Robert Hill signed a contract to purchase eight of the UAVs because "it offered the best value for money".
The UAV is designed to provide the army with airborne surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance capabilities for ground operations.
Off the top, I think the other projects are Wedgetail and Vigilare which are also Boeing projects.
the road runner
Active Member
But surley the ADF has a liquidated damages clause of some kind in there contract for
1.Time delay
2.loss of capability (ie dose no do what the contract specified)
I think that the ADF needs to ensure that contract that are sighned favour the Aussie tax payer and not the contractor,Lets face it we have squandered money on seasprite(around $1 billion):nutkick and we have nothing to show for it.
AS for Boieng and wedgetail,i read a while back that they are beieng hit with a bill from the Commonwealth over the delay of wedgetail.the link below is a bit old tho 2006,
http://www.militarypeople.com.au/mainsite/content/view/119/2/
Time to put all these contractors on notice and to type up a contract that is in favour of the ADF!!!!
dose anyone know about how much tha ADF is recieving for compensation of boieng for wedgetail and vigilantee?
the road runner
Active Member
9 Diggers wounded in taliban ambush
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,,24290214-5001021,00.html
To the brave diggers in Afghanistan,who have been taking the fight to the taliban,Australias thought and prayrs are with the wounded diggers,there families and there colegues who give so much for our country.
It seems that the injured were from 4RAR Commando(the article says 3rd commando batallion) but it dose not say if any SAS troopers were injured?i knowthat 4RAR are supporting the sas but i did not know the commandoes are taking the fight to taliban.I guess we are not told of what they are doing for operational safety of the diggers.
The article talks about the Commando doing hunter killer and snatch and grab missions and also going after bomb makers and enemy leaders.
Would not want to be the taliban tommorow:nutkick
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,,24290214-5001021,00.html
To the brave diggers in Afghanistan,who have been taking the fight to the taliban,Australias thought and prayrs are with the wounded diggers,there families and there colegues who give so much for our country.
It seems that the injured were from 4RAR Commando(the article says 3rd commando batallion) but it dose not say if any SAS troopers were injured?i knowthat 4RAR are supporting the sas but i did not know the commandoes are taking the fight to taliban.I guess we are not told of what they are doing for operational safety of the diggers.
The article talks about the Commando doing hunter killer and snatch and grab missions and also going after bomb makers and enemy leaders.
Would not want to be the taliban tommorow:nutkick
The Infantryman
New Member
Quick question, wasn't sure where to ask it. Is the correct acronym for target indication RID or RIT. I'm doing a lesson plan on target indications & I have conflicting info from my superiors & those who've just completed Kapooka.
The Infantryman
New Member
GRIT is used in fire control orders - Group, range, indication, type of fire. I'm after target indication, which is Range, Indication & ? is it D for description of target or T for type of target. The MLW makes no reference of it. I'm being assessed for my 1st hook & want to have it correct as per doctrine.
I'm almost certain it's D for description, but I don't actually remember a mnemonic for TIs. Just range, location, descripion. But I went through Kapooka 8 years ago now, so it's probably changed since then.
Any chance of getting your hands on the pam? That'd be your best bet.
Any chance of getting your hands on the pam? That'd be your best bet.
The Infantryman
New Member
I've read the pam cover to cover & everything else is there. I never went to Kapooka. I'm Bardia trained. Last year I relented & agreed to do my sub 1.
Yeah well that suggests to me that there ISN'T an Army-approved mnemonic for TIs, which is what I thought because I don't remember one from Kapooka. I remember GRIT and CLAP and RSVP and five S's and an M, but not one for TIs. That was just always range, direction, description of target.
The main thing in giving lessons for Sub 1 etc is to be confident. Even if you get something wrong, they won't mark it down as harshly as long as you're confident doing it. So I'd suggest you choose one mnemonic (preferably whichever one the markers use) and then just go with it. Half the time the NCOs don't remember anyway, so if you're confident they will just assume you've got it right.
The main thing in giving lessons for Sub 1 etc is to be confident. Even if you get something wrong, they won't mark it down as harshly as long as you're confident doing it. So I'd suggest you choose one mnemonic (preferably whichever one the markers use) and then just go with it.
Half the time the NCOs don't remember anyway, so if you're confident they will just assume you've got it right.The Infantryman
New Member
Thanks heaps. I know the stuff like the back of my hand & can do it without thinking. Teaching is a different story.
After all that I couldn't use RID in my preso after all that. Because the reference wasn't in the pam it's not doctrine therefore I couldn't use it. The 2IC was impressed with the litepro preso & I'm 1 step closer to my promotion. Damn it's hard work.
After all that I couldn't use RID in my preso after all that. Because the reference wasn't in the pam it's not doctrine therefore I couldn't use it. The 2IC was impressed with the litepro preso & I'm 1 step closer to my promotion. Damn it's hard work.
Last edited:
t68
Well-Known Member
Has anyone heard when the LCM-8 is due for retirement?
According to wiki they are being replaced with a water jet design but there is no further information on a timetable when this is going to happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LCM-8
They were given a 20 year life of type extension in the 1990’s so they would be due soon for either upgrade again or be replaced.
Also the Balikpapan class landing craft heavy are getting on a bit, any news on what they are planning with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balikpapan_class_landing_craft_heavy
According to wiki they are being replaced with a water jet design but there is no further information on a timetable when this is going to happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LCM-8
They were given a 20 year life of type extension in the 1990’s so they would be due soon for either upgrade again or be replaced.
Also the Balikpapan class landing craft heavy are getting on a bit, any news on what they are planning with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balikpapan_class_landing_craft_heavy
t68
Well-Known Member
In people’s views in regards to the above comments do you see if it in our interest to go with 120mm mortar carrier or sph?
http://www.defencemodels.com.au/Projects/Aslav3.asp
Last edited by a moderator:
the road runner
Active Member
I think australia needs both for these points
1.the topography and landscape of Asia is very jungle orientated for this reason im sure it would favour light equipment like portable mortars,or even light vehicles like M113 or Lav vehicles.I would prefer a light vehicle or even portable mortars in this trying environment.
2.For Coalition Style warefare a combined arms approach ,surley will be needed where a SPH ,tanks,engineres,infantry,special forces,helicopters ect come together to form a battle group.In this instance you would surley need a vehicle that is well protected from mines arty ect.Maybee PZH2000?
Im a novice but it just seems like common sense to have a light and heavy weapon for use in different terrain,diffrent requirements,and against diffrent weapons platforms.I think that having both SPH and mortar will give our mission planners alot more flexibility in planning missions
On a side not am i right in saying its not the size of the shell/mortar but how constant the shells/mortars will rain down on a specified target?
Thanx in advance
Hope this makes sense
1.the topography and landscape of Asia is very jungle orientated for this reason im sure it would favour light equipment like portable mortars,or even light vehicles like M113 or Lav vehicles.I would prefer a light vehicle or even portable mortars in this trying environment.
2.For Coalition Style warefare a combined arms approach ,surley will be needed where a SPH ,tanks,engineres,infantry,special forces,helicopters ect come together to form a battle group.In this instance you would surley need a vehicle that is well protected from mines arty ect.Maybee PZH2000?
Im a novice but it just seems like common sense to have a light and heavy weapon for use in different terrain,diffrent requirements,and against diffrent weapons platforms.I think that having both SPH and mortar will give our mission planners alot more flexibility in planning missions
On a side not am i right in saying its not the size of the shell/mortar but how constant the shells/mortars will rain down on a specified target?
Thanx in advance
Hope this makes sense
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
There is no contest. Army requires a self propelled howitzer MUCH more than it requires a self propelled mortar.
SPH effects are achievable with other systems. Army cannot replicate the firepower that a 155mm Self-Propelled Gun such as K-9 or PZH-2000 can provide with any other asset.
More to the point, it can't replicate the firepower AND provide protection for it's personnel any other way.
Army quite clearly wasn't interested in an SPH and it wasn't even interested in a new mortar system because the planned "Long range mortar" project:
http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/lsd/mincs_l_48_36/mincs_l_48_36.cfm
was also canned, just like the 120mm AMS project...
just found this on
http://www.australiandefence.com.au...objectID/ABBD41C9-5056-8C22-C92CA725765A78C9/
"
Aussie Thunder bolts beyond expectations
29 Sep 2008
After successful armour protection and C2 integration tests, Raytheon Australia has announced better than expected performance from the AS-9 ‘Aussie Thunder’ self-propelled howitzer’s Aselsan weapon management system, particularly when firing demanding Multiple Round Simultaneous Impact (MRSI) fire missions.
The AS-9 is the joint Raytheon Australia/Samsung Techwin solution for the Australian Army’s Land 17 Artillery Replacement Program.
Rumour has it that heavy tracked SP behemoths may be sidelined in this competition by lighter, but similarly hardhitting, airmobile towed systems."
My understanding was that there were only two competitors for the SPH component of Land 17.
The AS-9 and the Pzh2000. Anything considered airmobile & towed (Caesar/Archer??) has long since been discarded.
Surely they aren't referring to the request for (59?) M777 units?
rb
http://www.australiandefence.com.au...objectID/ABBD41C9-5056-8C22-C92CA725765A78C9/
"
Aussie Thunder bolts beyond expectations
29 Sep 2008
After successful armour protection and C2 integration tests, Raytheon Australia has announced better than expected performance from the AS-9 ‘Aussie Thunder’ self-propelled howitzer’s Aselsan weapon management system, particularly when firing demanding Multiple Round Simultaneous Impact (MRSI) fire missions.
The AS-9 is the joint Raytheon Australia/Samsung Techwin solution for the Australian Army’s Land 17 Artillery Replacement Program.
Rumour has it that heavy tracked SP behemoths may be sidelined in this competition by lighter, but similarly hardhitting, airmobile towed systems."
My understanding was that there were only two competitors for the SPH component of Land 17.
The AS-9 and the Pzh2000. Anything considered airmobile & towed (Caesar/Archer??) has long since been discarded.
Surely they aren't referring to the request for (59?) M777 units?
rb
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
When we all saw how many M-777's were "requested" through FMS, I think we all got a sinking feeling about LAND 17...
The M-777, whilst a fine LIGHT 155mm artillery piece and an excellent choice for 3rd Brigade and probably even 7 brigade operations, does NOT have the firepower, that either the PZH-2000 or AS-9 will provide. Thus it should NOT provide the MAIN artillery capability for Australia.
Nor does it provide ANY protection whatsoever for it's crew.
I'm beginning to think it will despite all this however...