Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[FutureTank]

What the hell do you mean by that? If I were Kato I would be extremely proud of the Puma. By virtue of its mobility, firpower and protection it should make the german army a very much more effective force. With less casualties to boot.

So far Future Tank all I have seen from you are vague questions asking whether we know tactics and basically insults to anyone who doesn't agree with your narrow view of warfare (all learned from a book). So far all we know is that you have a great admiration for soviet or modern russian AFV's why are they so superior? What AFV's do you think Australia should have and why (please chose existing vehicles not some mythical beast that will be totally designed and built here to a set of specs that could never be achieved)?

I don't believe in hell

Leopard 1A3 = 42.2t
Puma "IFV" with add on armour = 43t
Another expensive overengineered IFV that leaves the occupants with a false sense of security that protects them from 30mm cannon rounds in the age of AT missile proliferation

I wonder how it is that I insulted you? Was it by asking if you were on drugs?

As it happens I admire good engineering, which is not unique to ether Soviet Union or Russia.

If the choice was mine, I would suggest that the best option for Australia would be the SEP approach to AFV design, though not necessarily existing prototypes.

For every person that says something can''t be built there is another building it

 

[FutureTank]

I like the Boxer but is the production run large enough to leverage economies of scale for the ADF?

Presumably the ADF will go with a MOTS solution for their IFV options. Considering the approximate timeline and lengthy development time for any new vehicle, we are very likely looking at a system that is either operational or will be in the very near future.

I don't see the point in discussing some ficticious future IFV design.

The ADF have a plan for these vehicles and have substantials plans on how they will be used operationally. The ADF and Govt it will be a good value and a needed capability enhancement for the army.

Rather than speculate on what the ADF should do or how the ADF should use it, we should be discussing what the ADF could or should use to fit in with the identified needs and capabilities that are identified.

This is very much along the lines of everyone who says the RAN needs a carrier. That would be a nice capability, but it isn't going to happen so is pointless to discuss.

agreed

 

[FutureTank]

I like the Boxer but is the production run large enough to leverage economies of scale for the ADF?

Presumably the ADF will go with a MOTS solution for their IFV options. Considering the approximate timeline and lengthy development time for any new vehicle, we are very likely looking at a system that is either operational or will be in the very near future.

I don't see the point in discussing some ficticious future IFV design.

The ADF have a plan for these vehicles and have substantials plans on how they will be used operationally. The ADF and Govt believe it will be a good value and a needed capability enhancement for the army.

Rather than speculate on what the ADF should do or how the ADF should use it, we should be discussing what the ADF could or should use to fit in with the needs and capabilities that are actually identified by the ADF/Govt.

This is very much along the lines of everyone who says the RAN needs a carrier. That would be a nice capability, but it isn't going to happen so is pointless to discuss.

Here is a quote that I think should guide ADF's IFV selection

Weapons technology breakthroughs promise significantly greater tactical, operational, and strategic lethality from smaller, more agile forces. Platform designs in an arrangement of system-of-systems technologies will enable decisive maneuver, horizontal and vertical, day and night, in all terrain and weather conditions.

 

[Firn]

I like the Boxer but is the production run large enough to leverage economies of scale for the ADF?

Presumably the ADF will go with a MOTS solution for their IFV options. Considering the approximate timeline and lengthy development time for any new vehicle, we are very likely looking at a system that is either operational or will be in the very near future. .
.

I personally think that there are three main ways the ADF can take to get an modern and usefull IFV.

a) A relative small number of tracked IFV like the CV90 or the Puma. This provides a unique admixture to the ADF.

b) Add to the modern wheeled "standard" 8x8 a turret to a number of chassis - in the mold of the IFV LAV III or the IFV AMV "Rosomak". As already mentioned there are some interesting designs on the market.

c) Use the platform of the FCS - this is the most risky and most longterm solution.

All three ways have their advantages and disadvantages. The turret could also be replaced by a heavy RWS like on the Puma or one such as the heavy Samson. There are also advantages and disadvantages in this choice. Perhaps the former are increasingly more pronounced.

 

[Marc 1]

I don't believe in hell

Leopard 1A3 = 42.2t
Puma "IFV" with add on armour = 43t
Another expensive overengineered IFV that leaves the occupants with a false sense of security that protects them from 30mm cannon rounds in the age of AT missile proliferation

By your logic we don't need armour at all then do we? If it can be defeated by an AT missile why bother? Oh, hang on, providing protection against everything up to 30mm seems to me to be a good idea. Besides, there are systems such as Trophy as well as bar armour, ERA etc that mean you have a reasonable chance of surviving an ATGW fired at the vehicle.

I wonder how it is that I insulted you? Was it by asking if you were on drugs?

You insult me ( and every other reader of the thread) by assuming that we will not notice your attempts to hide your errors, deflect attention to where you are proven to be wrong and mislead the conversation. I've got a career suggestion for you mate - politics. Just about every thread you participate in is like watching a reporter grilling a politician. The reason why I get a tad annoyed at the way you carry on is that doubtless there are some young impressionable people who may be mislead into thinking you know something. I am astonished that you who have no military experience at all believe you know better than people who have or are involved in the industry.

If you need any further evidence of why you annoy me, you've done it again in this question you have just asked. You did not ask if I were on drugs, I asked you that question - again you misrepresent me vis:

So, let me get this straight, gun out the front, but adding weight overhanging the turret at the back is going to have no counterbalancing effect? What drugs are you on?

If the choice was mine, I would suggest that the best option for Australia would be the SEP approach to AFV design, though not necessarily existing prototypes.

Do you have any further information on this SEP approach to AFV design? I do not know of it and a google search has not turned anything up.

 

[kato]

Leopard 1A3 = 42.2t
Puma "IFV" with add on armour = 43t

The Puma provides significantly better protection than a Leopard 1 on the side, rear, top and against mines. Everywhere except on the front arc. It's slightly faster (the Leo's big protective measure back then), has 50% more range and a 35% stronger engine. With the SKWA it has considerably better protection against infantry at close range.
And it will be fitted with passive protection against ATGM (infrared jammer and multimode obscurant launchers, comparable to the Russian Shtora system), and is already considered for installation of a hardkill system as well.

 

[battlensign]

What I do not understand is why, if the modern battlefield is such a lethal place, we would want anything other than a fully armoured vehicle to protect people. Yes, they are targets......but have you seen the statistics for Iraq casualties without adequate armour...? And you want relatively unprotected vehicles for such environments?

Smaller and more agile vehicles can be more lethal with better tech, but there is still going to be the age-old trade offs between the technology available to make something quick and that which can make it protected.

It seems quite clear that the ADF needs a range of vehicles. It may be that there is a place for these 'agile' vehicles in the motorised units but there is a need for a proper IFV for the support of Mechanised Infantry and the Cavalry Regiments. The roles are fairly mutually exclusive and a vehicle suitable for one may not be so for the other. In general it appears that more armour, not less, is the game. IFVs are becoming heavier and the 'light-infantry' forces are becoming MRAPed. 15-18ton range vehicles are fine as support for skirmishes, but when the perverbial hits the fan Puma will come in handy.

Brett.

 

[Marc 1]

What I do not understand is why, if the modern battlefield is such a lethal place, we would want anything other than a fully armoured vehicle to protect people. Yes, they are targets......but have you seen the statistics for Iraq casualties without adequate armour...? And you want relatively unprotected vehicles for such environments?

Smaller and more agile vehicles can be more lethal with better tech, but there is still going to be the age-old trade offs between the technology available to make something quick and that which can make it protected.

It seems quite clear that the ADF needs a range of vehicles. It may be that there is a place for these 'agile' vehicles in the motorised units but there is a need for a proper IFV for the support of Mechanised Infantry and the Cavalry Regiments. The roles are fairly mutually exclusive and a vehicle suitable for one may not be so for the other. In general it appears that more armour, not less, is the game. IFVs are becoming heavier and the 'light-infantry' forces are becoming MRAPed. 15-18ton range vehicles are fine as support for skirmishes, but when the perverbial hits the fan Puma will come in handy.

Brett.

Agreed.

I'm also a tad worried about the suggestion that a 30 tonne 8 x 8 can do the job. I have seen the ASLAV having mobility issues and it only weighs around 13 tonnes, so less than 2 tonnes per wheel in ground pressure terms. If you are going to more than double that I'm wondering how mobile these systems will be when the ground gets soft? I'm hoping that this point doesn't reveal me as a Tracks vs wheels luddite.

A two tier combat capability IMHO would be preferable - Puma to equip minimum 2 x battalions (proper Mech Inf), the 8 x8's to replace the ASLAV's, Bushies for the units that just need IED protected transport.

 

[uuname]

Do you have any further information on this SEP approach to AFV design? I do not know of it and a google search has not turned anything up.

SEP Modular Armoured Tactical System Wheeled and Tracked Vehicles - Army Technology
Splitterskyddad Enhets Plattform - SEP
SEP / Splitterskyddad Enhets Plattform

Looks pretty nifty- Hightly modular, diesel/electric. Wheeled or tracked options.

Quite light, though. I imagine they would be rather agile, but used more like an APC than an IFV.

 

[kato]

I have seen the ASLAV having mobility issues and it only weighs around 13 tonnes, so less than 2 tonnes per wheel in ground pressure terms.

Pretty much all German armored vehicles have more than that. Dingo and Fennek have 3.0 to 3.1 tons/wheel, Fuchs has 2.8 to 3.2 tons/wheel depending on version.

Boxer actually draws somewhat on experience with the experimental '90s EXF 8x8 vehicle in this regard, which as a 32-ton combat weight tank destroyer (with a Leo 2 turret) would have had 4.0 tons/wheel.
EXF was developed to push wheeled vehicles precisely past what they thought was the weight limit for them in the 80s.

 

[PeterM]

I'm also a tad worried about the suggestion that a 30 tonne 8 x 8 can do the job. I have seen the ASLAV having mobility issues and it only weighs around 13 tonnes, so less than 2 tonnes per wheel in ground pressure terms. If you are going to more than double that I'm wondering how mobile these systems will be when the ground gets soft? I'm hoping that this point doesn't reveal me as a Tracks vs wheels luddite.

I believe the new 8 wheel IFV designs have considerable advanced mobility compared to their predecessors.

For example the Piranha V is reportedly alot more mobile that previous Pirahnha/LAV variants. I imagine similar vehicles sych as Boxer and VBCI have similar enahanced mobility.

from Piranha V Wheeled 8x8 Utility Vehicle - Army Technology

Mobility

The cross-country mobility of the Piranha V is similar to that of a tracked vehicle. The vehicle's height adjustable hydropneumatic suspension system installed at each wheel station provides a more comfortable, faster and more fuel efficient ride for the crew. The front and rear suspensions have a vertical travel up to 320mm and 340mm.

The Piranha V has improved mobility compared to earlier variant Piranha vehicles. A smaller turning radius greatly contributes to mobility where there is restricted room to operate, such as in narrow streets in urban environments, in wooded areas or in narrow wadis. The turning radius of the Piranha V, which additionally has assisted steering on the rear wheels as well as the first two pairs of wheels, is 15m, which was demonstrated in the FRES trials in 2007.

 

[Firn]

Agreed.

A two tier combat capability IMHO would be preferable - Puma to equip minimum 2 x battalions (proper Mech Inf), the 8 x8's to replace the ASLAV's, Bushies for the units that just need IED protected transport.

That would IMHO a pretty good path.

An vehicle like the ATTC Bronco would offer excellent mobility over the most difficult terrain, is able to carry 16 men and offers somewhat protection - a very interesting combination. However the ADF still has a rather large amount of M113 which will also be upgraded, so there seems to be no immediate need. All in all the Broco would be a specialized vehicle for the light infantry which is not very well suited to patrolling.

 

[Marc 1]

OK, must be a luddites argument then. I still cannot see how 8 wheels can give you an equal or lower ground pressure than tracks, therefore there must be some circumstances where tracks can proceed where wheels cannot. Then again I guess that is offset by the increased speed, range, ease of maintenance, and the fact that with even a few wheel stations blown off an 8 x8 can keep moving whereas if you throw a track you are going nowhere. Tracks do normally give a greater usable volume in hull though unless you are looking at a skid steer wheeled design.

A mix of tracked and wheeled would add inventory, training and maintainence issues, but would enable the Mech Inf to be as mobile as the M1's in all circumstances. I note that the UK is not planning to replace the Warrior with the FRES...

Be interesting to see what decision the Land 400 comes to, and the debates that will no doubt follow.

 

[Marc 1]

SEP Modular Armoured Tactical System Wheeled and Tracked Vehicles - Army Technology
Splitterskyddad Enhets Plattform - SEP
SEP / Splitterskyddad Enhets Plattform

Looks pretty nifty- Hightly modular, diesel/electric. Wheeled or tracked options.

Quite light, though. I imagine they would be rather agile, but used more like an APC than an IFV.

Thanks uuname, looks good. Provided they have a decently uparmoured version to serve in the role as an IFV then, I like it. Fit it with a Trophy style defence system and we are on the money, if the upgradable armour is seriously lacking then back to Puma for the tracked option. The electric drive system of SEP would certainly assist 2 Cav in their recon role though. Having done the odd battle run closed down in the back of an M113, there is no more vulnerable feeling knowing that anything larger than a 7.62AP round can come straight through the armour. That feeling is probably exacerbated by the total lack of situational awareness except for what you could glean from the radio. Any modern design must address that issue.

 

[kato]

That feeling is probably exacerbated by the total lack of situational awareness except for what you could glean from the radio. Any modern design must address that issue.

Puma is going sorta overboard on that too :

The troops in the back get a screen to which the commander can route any of his own sensor outputs, also to visually explain to them what they should do when they dismount. This includes the commander's periscope with four zoom levels and infrared. In addition, they have a mirror system for the rear 270° arc of the vehicle (already present in the current marder). Since they sit face-to-face, the mirrors leave a large dead room around the vehicle - hence the vehicle will also have 5 cameras whose image can be displayed on the main screen for the troops (driver can also use them for orientation).

Can't think of anything one could do more for awareness of the troops short of putting windows in the armour
Only thing that was dropped was the fighting stand in the ramp, which would have allowed two soldiers to stand in the back and observe and shoot out there without compromising the inside of the vehicle.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Puma is going sorta overboard on that too :

What Puma has will be seen as old tech in a few years. Elbit's 'See Through Armour' concept is the way most systems are going (including FCS) by having an array of cameras providing a fused image that can be transferred to all the flat screens and even HMD inside (and outside) the vehicle via wireless. Their concept of display has a 360 degree view band down the bottom of the screen (so the operator always has all round SA available) and the area of interest in the main part of the screen (with a field of view marker on the 360 degree band).

As to the best LAND 400 solution there are several competing interests:

* low cost of ownership: achieved by a common vehicle type across the fleet and large international fleet)
* high protection: designed in mine protection, at least 4 tonnes of GVW for add on armour (14.5mm AP, RPG resistant), preferably up to 10 tonnes (30mm AP, ATGM resistant) and a defensive aid suite (including under protection, being trialed now for the GEN IV ASLAV upgrade and LAND 400)
* high mobility: low ground pressure and high road speeds (band tracks or a mix of wheeled and conventional tracks)

As I said before the best solution for that is FCS XM1200 or whatever emerges as MGV2. SEP would also be an excellent vehicle choice enabling all users to have their preferred vehicle option (8x8 for cavalry and motorised infantry, tracked for mechanised infantry and 6x6 for combat support). But without a large international order Australia shouldn't risk being an orphan user for another product.

 

[Firn]

Thanks uuname, looks good. Provided they have a decently uparmoured version to serve in the role as an IFV then, I like it. Fit it with a Trophy style defence system and we are on the money, if the upgradable armour is seriously lacking then back to Puma for the tracked option.

The only hard-kill system with a μs reaction time..

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obgAYvLI2Zw"]AMAP-ADS[/ame]


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m426fLbKh34"]Infographic[/ame]



IBD really seems to at the forefront...

 

[Firn]

What Puma has will be seen as old tech in a few years. Elbit's 'See Through Armour' concept is the way most systems are going (including FCS) by having an array of cameras providing a fused image that can be transferred to all the flat screens and even HMD inside (and outside) the vehicle via wireless. Their concept of display has a 360 degree view band down the bottom of the screen (so the operator always has all round SA available) and the area of interest in the main part of the screen (with a field of view marker on the 360 degree band).

This way to "see" through armour is already feasable and will become a standard solution on all modern AFV. The Puma (and other new AFV) has already a lot of this elements in place (Quite some Flat screens inside, cameras outside) and should be able to easily incorporate this. The video of the F-35's IRST I posted shows very well the advantage of a "see through" view combined with an HMS.

 

[knightrider4]

Jp 129

If Abe is around the place perhaps he could let those interested, know what's happening with the TUAV requirement for the Australian Army.

 

[Aussie Digger]

4 RAR (COMMANDO) TO BECOME THE 2ND COMMANDO REGIMENT​

​

Chief of Army, Lieutenant General Ken Gillespie, today announced that Army’s 4th Battalion (Commando), the Royal Australian Regiment, (4 RAR Cdo) will be renamed as the 2nd Commando Regiment (2 Cdo Regt) on 19 June 2009.
The decision follows a comprehensive consultation process with current and previous serving members of 4 RAR (Cdo), as well as their families and support associations.
“While there were vast opinions to consider, we accepted the strong desire amongst current serving 4 RAR (Cdo) soldiers to rename the unit and effectively raise 2 Cdo Regt,” Lieutenant General Gillespie said.
“The name 2 Cdo Regt more accurately reflects the roles and capabilities of the commandos and their command structure, which are distinct from our conventional infantry battalions.”
Army’s infantry battalions are primarily used to seize and hold territory, where commandos focus on special operations including raids, interdiction of enemy communication lines, seizing points of entry and counter terrorism / hostage rescue.
4 RAR began transitioning in 1996 when Government directed Army to establish a second commando regiment with the ability to conduct special recovery and strike operations. 4 RAR (Cdo) is now nearing maturity as a special operations unit, and the name change to 2 Cdo Regt recognises this achievement as well as the skills and qualifications of its members.
“Army will continue to honour the contribution the past members of 4 RAR and 4 RAR (Cdo) have made to its rich history, and the unit name will not be lost. 4 RAR will remain on Army’s Order of Battle and may be reinstated in the future, if and when the need arises,” Lieutenant General Gillespie said.
The name 2nd Commando Regiment was chosen as it logically complements the existing 1st Commando Regiment, and also reflects the unit’s historical links to the Australian Independent Commando Companies that operated in the Southwest Pacific in the Second World War.
2nd Commando Regiment will join the Special Air Service Regiment, Incident Response Regiment, 1st Commando Regiment, the Special Forces Training Centre and the Special Operations Logistics Squadron as part of Army’s Special Operations Command.
Media contact: Defence Media Liaison: 02 6265 3343 or 0408 498 664


I've suspected this announcement would be made for a while now. What interests me is how the name 4RAR will be used in the future.

Personally I suspect that one of the existing battalions will be "linked" to this name again and the obvious choice is 2RAR to once again become 2/4RAR.

OTOH perhaps we might be getting an extra infantry battalion in 5 years time, when the next White Paper is due and the existing ELF/HNA plans are largely executed.

Who knows?