Expeditionary Military Force??
I was thinking he might have meant "embarked marine force"? Whatever EMF is its not an ADF acronym.
The two LHDs working together are to embark a 1,200 strong combined arms battle group (the landing force) and an 800 strong support group. Much of the later would not disembark but stay on the LHDs to provide various types of support to the landing force (medical treatment, aviation, C2, INT analysis, etc).
knightrider4
Active Member
Land 17
G'day Abe, I,m replying in reference to you LAND 17 post regarding the numbers of SPH being 12 in total. Do you agree that this number is too small to be tactically useful? It leaves no room for attrition and very little for training. Also in your opinion which option do you believe will get up?
G'day Abe, I,m replying in reference to you LAND 17 post regarding the numbers of SPH being 12 in total. Do you agree that this number is too small to be tactically useful? It leaves no room for attrition and very little for training. Also in your opinion which option do you believe will get up?
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Arguing with FT is like arguing with a brick wall. He does not understand, despite being repeatedly told, that regular Cav units do NOT use Bushmaster at all, are not issued with them and do NOT use land rover for any operational taskings. They are purposely equipped with ASLAV-25 and variants for recon duties and ASLAV-PC carriers, to carry their recon scouts (vegies).
As you correctly point out, 257 ASLAV vehicles is barely sufficient to equip the units that have them already. Especially taking into account attrition, due to the heavy operational workload these vehicles have been placed under...
B Sqn 3/4 Cav, is not a "Cav Regt" in the typical sense of the word. It's mission is not to provide armoured recon/surveillance but rather a protected transport capability for 3 Brigade.
It is called a Cav Sqn due to that being it's original "raison d'etre" however it is a completely different capability to that provided by 2nd Cavalry Regt and 2/14 LHR, which ARE dedicated recon andsurveillance regiments.
If what Abe suggests, pans out, it sounds like B Sqn 3/4 Cav might eventually revert to a true Cavalry Regiment and be equipped with similar vehicles and a similar structure to the existing Cav Regiments, something Army and RAAC, though not the CO of 3 Brigade, has desired for a LONG time.
The other point he fails to understand is that the reserve Cav units as he calls them, though technically they are light horse, mounted infantry and lancer units are equipped with the Land Rover RSV, not the Bushmaster OR the ASLAV OR the M113AS3/4 for training purposes. It is not meant to provide an operational capability and in any case is an interim vehicle until Project Overlander delivers improved vehicles and possibly even JLTV or similar to these units.
The sole exception to this is a squadron of the Hunter Valley Lancers, that maintain a single squadron of Bushmaster IMV's. Their role is to provide protected mobility however, not recon/surveillance and they are so equipped because A) they support the School of Infantry's exercises and B) they have a powerful Federal member of parliament...
Well checking my notes (what I've published before on it and the LAND 17 RFT documentation) its actually 18 SPH not 12 for two batteries. Two batteries is very much tactically useful and 18 guns sustains that number. Especially since these guns will have SMArt 155 and Excalibur rounds.
The preferred solution for LAND 17 was three batteries (24 guns) so each artillery regiment could have one battery of SPH and one of M777. The development of a mixed SPH/M777 artillery unit in Afghanistan (Dutch/Canadian) providing a very effective artillery capability. However two batteries is better than nothing!
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Not when you look at the intentions for deployable units outlined in the White paper. The White Paper is fairly explicit in that only a company or battalion level group will deploy overseas to "higher intensity" conflicts.
Such will only require 2 - 4 guns at the most in support of them operationally, particularly when you take into account the increased capability of the SPG's on order (a single platform of either of the 2 vehicles has roughly the same firepower as a current RRAA 155mm battery, but with a much longer range).
If we are preparing for continental warfare, yes, they will probably be inadequate. If we want a deployable capability of only a few, but very high quality guns, that number should be fine.
As to which SPG will get up? Absolutely no idea, but I am quite happy with either vehicle. My personal preference would be for PZH-2000 to get the nod and I have an inkling that the "cost element" has been reduced somewhat with a firm number (12 "operational" vehicles plus a number of attrition and training guns is the requirement) put in place, ie: AS-9 had an advantage in cost over PZH-2000 reportedly and with varying packages being discussed that could lead to quite a difference, but with a fixed small number now, I suspect cost might not be as beneficial to the AS-9's cause as it once was, but who knows?
We will have to wait just a bit longer, I feel...
knightrider4
Active Member
Land 17
It makes you wonder in hindsight why defence just didnt take the Dutch up on their offer of 18 surplus vehicles.
We might still end up buying those guns. The reason the offer was turned down was there was no data on how much it would cost to operate them. It wouldn't be hard for Defence to estimate such a cost and compare that to estimates of rival offers. But the Government has laid out a range of procedures for Defence and other Departments to do business and unless a Minister cares enough to make the call themselves they have to go through the formal process.
Last edited:
the road runner
Active Member
Abe beat me!!!!
I think the problem there was that the Australian Governement wanted to know what the complete cost of the platform would be. Platform,spares,running costs ect....
Also they wold have been Purchased of the Dutch Military,instead of the Manufacturer.Better to buy of the Manufacturer and get all that is required to operate ,maintain and upgrade the Platform.
The Dutch/Aussies, also tried to do a barter deal, Bushmaster vehicles for a trade of a number of PZH-2000.
This is my understanding of purchasing the PZH-2000 of the Dutch.
I do like the larger amount of rounds carried on the PZH-2000 and hope this will become Australias new SPH.
But the budget is for $1.5 Billion, or this figure will grow as the defence budget grows?
or,are we looking to purchase $5 Billion worth of equipment with a $1.5 Billion budget?
Abraham Gubler,may i ask you what type of vehicle(s) you would purchase for the future IFV ect?
Just trying to pick your brain:vamp
Here is the planned basis of provisioning for the LAND 17 SPH with the multiple batteries options. There will also be two SP Driver Trainers, two SP Crew/Turret Trainers and one SP Maintainer Trainer.
Last edited:
No not at all. The way the public Defence Capability Plan works is it provides a ten year forward look. So LAND 400 in the last DCP only provided details up to 2016 (Phase 1) it was also before the Government decided to expand the size of the army by two battlegroups. The full DCP goes to infinity and has plans beyond the printed 10 year outlook. So the 2006-16 DCP's $1-1.5 billion was only a small slice of the overall project.But the budget is for $1.5 Billion, or this figure will grow as the defence budget grows?
or,are we looking to purchase $5 Billion worth of equipment with a $1.5 Billion budget?
So LAND 400 in its entirety is a lot bigger than the Phase 1 (Phase 2, Phase 3, etc) and its forward estimate (not a budget, that happens for only the next financial year and tonight!) of $1.5 billion. Unless tonight's budget provides the full LAND 400 forward estimate we will have to wait until August for the next printing of the DCP.
One part of LAND 400 was removed from the project and became LAND 121 Phase 4 for the protected mobility vehicle light (PMV-L) for which Australia has joined the US JLTV project as an option.
The IFV is only part of the combat vehicle system (CVS) and the actual vehicles will come in multiple versions, including IFV, a cavalry configured CFV and various support vehicles like command post vehicles, armoured mortars, ambulances, etc. It even includes an eventual replacement for the M1A1. But the CVS also includes a new battle management system (BMS) and unmanned vehicles (UV), both air and land, that are identified as being able to replace manned vehicles. This will most likely include a range of new reconnaissance vehicles, radio retrainsmission and logistics UVs.
I would suggest the best solution for LAND 400 overall, including the BMS, UVs and manned vehicles, would be joining the US Army's Future Combat System (FCS). The vehicles are being upgraded for improved protection against mines and better tailoring for weight requirements and are far better than anything else on the books.
There is a strong train of support within Defence for the new large European 8x8s like the Piranha IV, AMV and Boxer. Despite the strong marketing efforts there is little support for the Puma IFV.
This also seems to be a big problem for everyone driving around in Afghanistan. Many LAV III of the Canadians are also suffering greatly.
The LAV III did a sterling job in Afghanistan, as did the Stryker in Iraq. I don't know what experience the Australians had with there ASLAV (or their "LAV III"), but for the current missions and conflicts it seems that such large wheeled carriers are very well suited.Abraham Gubler said:
So a new enhanced 8x8 seems to be a logical step and one supported by many.
The ASLAV is not a LAV III it is a LAV 2 like the USMC's LAV-25. Though the Gen III ASLAV is fitted with the far more advanced sights, FCS and turret drives of the LAV III. The experience in Iraq and Afghanistan with the ASLAV has been very positive.
That's why I put in marks - a different, yet similar vehicle to the LAV III which I knew performed well. Thanks, good to know it did, and is doing a fine job.
Does that also include the VBCI and Piranha V as options?
I don't doubt that PzH2000 may have the edge with as an artillery system.
The AS-9 though has a lot of advantages including considerable opportunity for Australian companies. Considering the current economic climate could be enough to push it over the top?
from ADM: Land Force: Artillery - Land 17: self propelled Vs towed | ADM Feb 2009
Are you aware of any preference for a particular one of them, or just a feeling that a vehicle in that class would suit Australian needs?
If the latter, you're not exactly short of choice.
I expect they are reasonably open with options at this stage, it is still a little early. I think a major factor will be the level of opportunities for australian companies. There are certainly alot of possible options.
LAND 400 Phase 1 was orinally intended for a decision in FY 2011/12 to 2013/14 with in-service delivery of 2015 to 2017
I guess they could look at it a little earlier if it is decided to start getting new vehicles instead of the ASLAV upgrade LAND 112 Phase 4. That was schedules for a decision in FY 2010/11 to 2012/13 with in-service delivery: 2012 to 2014.
I do think the ADF will be keeping an eye on the outcomes of the UK's Future Rapid Effect System (likely based on Pirahna V).
General info on FRES from
Future Rapid Effects System (FRES) ? Medium-Weight Armoured Vehicles - Army Technology
At this stage there still is a lot of debate about all wheeled versus a mix of wheeled and tracked. The positive experience with ASLAV and the desire for a common vehicle to maximise efficiency are strong forces in favour of all wheeled. Though band track vehicles like the XM1200 muddy the waters of wheeled vs track. Army has been running a capability technology demonstrator program on band tracks to better understand them. So there isn't a preferred vehicle class, especially not type, nor would there be until tenders are evaluated.
One of the key preferences for the LAND 400 vehicle is that the Australian requirement (1,100) be part of a large scale international order. So like the ASLAV and M113A1 Australian can leverage masses of international supply chains for spare parts to sustain the vehicles.
So in this context naturally the FRES utility vehicle and Piranha V was looked upon very fondly. That was before the British MoD 'rescinded' GDUK's position as preferred tenderer. Orders for Boxer, VBCI, AMV have not reached a level where Australia could comfortable coast of their logistics. The Canadian LAV-H version of LAV III for Stryker mid life upgrade is in a stronger position now than any of the European 8x8s. That is of course for wheeled vehicle only...
These are the 2006 figures. A lot has happened in LAND 400s development to push back this schedule to at least the later dates in the original timeframe. I would not expect an ISD before 2016.