Big V would have added height which makes the vehicle less capable offroad, more difficult to conceal and transport. They may have come up with an improved armour solution answer to V hull question.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Not yet.
Here is a recent article (8 Oct) from ADM about GD's PMV-L solution for Land 121/4
https://www.australiandefence.com.au/index.cfm?objectid=52FC8477-B3A5-11DE-BF200050568C22C9
https://www.australiandefence.com.au/index.cfm?objectid=52FC8477-B3A5-11DE-BF200050568C22C9
Here is a recent articel on the Iron Dome system, which could be one of the options for CRAM capability that was mentioned in the white paper
https://www.australiandefence.com.au/index.cfm?objectid=8F38A15C-ABBF-11DE-AB410050568C22C9
https://www.australiandefence.com.au/index.cfm?objectid=8F38A15C-ABBF-11DE-AB410050568C22C9
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
DEFENCE FIREPOWER TO RECEIVE MAJOR BOOST
The Minister for Defence, Senator John Faulkner, today announced that the Government has given Second Pass Approval for a $493 million project to provide the next generation artillery system for the Australian Army.
Senator Faulkner said the first phase of Land 17 (the Artillery Replacement Project) will provide the Army with four batteries of 35 M777A2 155mm Lightweight Towed Howitzers.
“The Lightweight Towed Howitzer is the most advanced towed artillery system available in the world. It is air-portable under CH-47 Chinook helicopters and can provide a weight of fire not previously available to rapidly deployed forces,” Senator Faulkner said.
“The second phase of the artillery enhancement will include the procurement of a self propelled artillery system, which will be capable of providing fire support to highly mobile mechanised forces.
The artillery system will be further enhanced through the future acquisition of a digital terminal control system for the tactical control of artillery, naval and close air support fires by forward observers and joint terminal attack controllers. This element of the project will be considered by Government in the second half of 2010,” said Senator Faulkner.
Senator Faulkner said these are high priority acquisitions which will provide improved protection and precision firepower to Australian soldiers, allowing missions to be carried out more efficiently, safely and effectively.
Good news about LAND 17 at last. Seems they took their sweet time about it, but at least RAA can get on with developing it's next generation artillery capability...
Still no news about which self-propelled howitzer will be chosen, which is THE news in this story as it has long been known the M777A2 was going to be chosen...
The maths looks interesting. The initial Australian request to purchase the M777 A2 mentioned a number of 57 units. It looked like the SPH option might have been foregone.
57-35=22.
The SPH RFT is for 18, 24 or 30 units (initially a minimum of two batteries - 12 units when the project went through first pass approval).
So, bets anyone on how many SPH will be acquired? I'm guessing 18.
That BAE have the M777 2A gig, what does that say about the chances of another BAE partnership (with KMW) for phase two?
Army Guide - Krauss-Maffei Wegmann and BAE Systems Australia team for LAND 17
Although Raytheon's presence in Australia isn't insignificant I guess.
rb
MeatCleaver
New Member
One soldier killed, another shot in night exercise at Port Augusta
A very sad day indeed.
Greetings
Greetings members, this is my first post on Defence Talk Forum. Firstly condolences to the family of Lcpl Edwards, killed during the night time live fire exercise, an unfortunate incident that will no doubt have repercussions on the intensity of realistic training we currently have. Considering the banning of personal webbing/ ammo pouches, used as an excuse instead of individuals failing to carry out proper range clearances, this tragedy will probably be used as a pretext to ban all night time live fire exercises; not meaning to be overly cynical, but with the emphasis on multiple OHS regulations limiting the scope of much training, I dont have much hope that we will retain live fire training, so to placate political correctness. And in the end the ones who will suffer will be soldiers being deployed on warfighting operations. I hope I am proved wrong.
As a HRR member who, along with the rest of the Army Reserve has lost about half of our training schedule, due to us being required to cut expenditures so the government has the funds to buy submarines, destroyers and fighters; meanwhile the army has been the most stretched in years in the support of operations, and is needing additional personnel, equipment and resources, Im wondering if anyone could clear up some questions that have been bothering me:
1. Does the defence budget cover, as well as the ADF, the DoD and the DMO ? If so, what is the ratio of who gets how much?
2. What is the personnel levels in the DoD and the DMO?
3. What percentage of the budget is spent on administration, as opposed to equipment and running costs, defence training and training areas, service people wages and expenditures (eg. Defence housing)
4. What is the average time/cost of the Defence procurement process, compared to the condensed process for Special Forces, and those for countries with similar budgets and/or capabilities?
5. I heard recently that Australia has the 12th largest defence budget in the world- is this true? Does that mean we have the 12th most powerful military? ( I think we know the answer to that one!)
Thanks for any responses to these questions.
Cheers, Eamonn
Greetings members, this is my first post on Defence Talk Forum. Firstly condolences to the family of Lcpl Edwards, killed during the night time live fire exercise, an unfortunate incident that will no doubt have repercussions on the intensity of realistic training we currently have. Considering the banning of personal webbing/ ammo pouches, used as an excuse instead of individuals failing to carry out proper range clearances, this tragedy will probably be used as a pretext to ban all night time live fire exercises; not meaning to be overly cynical, but with the emphasis on multiple OHS regulations limiting the scope of much training, I dont have much hope that we will retain live fire training, so to placate political correctness. And in the end the ones who will suffer will be soldiers being deployed on warfighting operations. I hope I am proved wrong.
As a HRR member who, along with the rest of the Army Reserve has lost about half of our training schedule, due to us being required to cut expenditures so the government has the funds to buy submarines, destroyers and fighters; meanwhile the army has been the most stretched in years in the support of operations, and is needing additional personnel, equipment and resources, Im wondering if anyone could clear up some questions that have been bothering me:
1. Does the defence budget cover, as well as the ADF, the DoD and the DMO ? If so, what is the ratio of who gets how much?
2. What is the personnel levels in the DoD and the DMO?
3. What percentage of the budget is spent on administration, as opposed to equipment and running costs, defence training and training areas, service people wages and expenditures (eg. Defence housing)
4. What is the average time/cost of the Defence procurement process, compared to the condensed process for Special Forces, and those for countries with similar budgets and/or capabilities?
5. I heard recently that Australia has the 12th largest defence budget in the world- is this true? Does that mean we have the 12th most powerful military? ( I think we know the answer to that one!)
Thanks for any responses to these questions.
Cheers, Eamonn
DMO is the Project Managing entity for organisations within Defence. DMO acts at the direction of agencies such as CDG
Not that simples as reservists are also attached to DMO - esp in the current climate where the push is to get rid of contractors and use more reservists to take up the slack
Costs within projects inlude all of the above. ie the sustainment costs factor all of the above and include processes such as earned value and through life support. its not simple to break down as you ask
major capital acquisitions can take up to 15 years through the normal submission to IOC date. however other projects can be done through rapid acquisition but are not costed for sustainment as they are "one offs".
there is no way that anyone will talk about actual specfor spends in the public domain.
spend is not related to capability. capability is relevant to regional requirements and associated threats. eg some countries have spent a motzah on their forces and have wasted their money - if its not done efficiently or against an overall force capability req, ie sympathetic and coherent to force delivery needs etc... then spending lots of money is a woftam.
eg how long is a piece of string? scenario
Last edited:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Yep, the basis for provisioning for the SPG capability is for 18x platforms. 12x operational in 8/12 Mdm Regt and the remainder at the trade training schools.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
We may well do, but it depends what you want to spend your money on. We could have an army as capable as any in Europe, but for what purpose and how would it get anywhere?
When you look at European Country's Armies, you see large tank, IFV and self-propelled gun fleets.
But are they deployable? No, because they're not intended to go anywhere to fight, they are largely intended to fight within Europe. Have a look at their other force capabilites. How many Hercules do most European Countries possess? 4? 6? 12?
We run 24x Hercules (reducing admittedly over time), we run 4x C-17's, we run a Caribou fleet that is in the process of being upgraded to a new airlifter fleet.
How many MPA aircraft do most European Countries run? 4, 6, 12?
We operate 2x Squadrons with 19x aircraft.
How many Countries within Europe are buying Amphibious vessels of the size and capability of the Canberra Class LHD's we are buying? (Very few).
Our budget is relatively large and the force structure of our Army is comparatively weak, because of "strategic" ie: cost based decisions made 25 years ago.
Our Navy and Air Force stack up well against powers of similar size and "weight", but the Army has a bit of catching up to do.
In 5 years time, when our Army is running M1A1's, M113AS3/4, Bushmaster, G-Wagen, JLTV, ASLAV, M777A2 155mm guns, self propelled 155mm guns, Tiger Armed Recon Helos, MRH-90 and Chinook transport choppers, Tactical UAV's, Weapons locating radar and modern comms, small arms, DFSW and EW capabilities, plus a decent ability to support operational forces overseas AND the ability to get them there, tell me which of these countries that supposedly spends their money better than us, will truly have a qualitative advantage over ADF at a platform level?
If, in stating that we could have an army as capable as any in Europe, I assume (dangerous word, that) that you acknowledge that our army is not capable, in the sense of fighting in a high intensity battlefield environment. And having that capability IS the purpose, and the reason I question the spending priorities set out by the current government's Defence White Paper. I do not criticise the expanding of expeditionary capability, just what is currently intended to be deployed.
Speaking of which, why has there been no mention of the need for a modern IFV? Considered as essential by other modern land forces, yet here there is no reference to a requirement.Aussie Digger said:
Considering that the RAAF has enjoyed a lion's share of the defence budget for many years, Im not surprised they have such numbers of aircraft. Nor do I begrudge them it; but it would be good for a change for the Army to enjoy such priority.Aussie Digger said:
Aussie Digger said:
In otherwords, because of Labor's 'Continental Defence' doctrine of the 80's, which degraded Army's capability to the point where during the East Timor crisis of 1999 it struggled to handle the operation; so lacking in follow-on-forces that a US MEU was positioned in the Arafura sea to ensure the Indonesians behaved. More than a bit of catching up, IMO.
In response to your last paragraph, I ask:Aussie Digger said:
Why does it have to take 5 years? The thrust of my post is that we take such along time in deciding what piece of kit we want, spending an inordinate amount of money on the tendering, testing and evaluating of a particular system (which may already have been in service for some years), then modifying or changing it, which causes delays to getting it into service, and adds to the overall expense of it.
You ask "which of these countries spends their money better than us?" Why those of course that have faith in their own intellectual property,manufacture their own weaponry, and have efficient research and development, evaluation and procurement processes in place so to get modern weapon systems into service within a reasonable time frame. Sweden, Israel and South Africa come to mind. Australians have come up with some fantastic ideas/concepts, yet our government rarely supports their efforts. Virtually all the weapon systems you referred to are made overseas, and some of them decades old in design and manufacture (M1A1, M113). Admittedly the Bushmaster has proved a great success, and Thales new vehicle, the Hawkei, is very impressive- I just wish Australia could do that with larger projects!
You mentioned the Canberra class LHD's, a design from Spain, drawn up (I believe) in the early 90's. Meanwhile, AUSCAT, an Australian catamaran ship building firm, has set up shop in the US and is developing/building the US Navy's new littorial ships (and other classes) leading the world in most advanced warship design. Why didn't we take advantage of our own intellect and have them design and build LHD's (and destroyers too) for the Navy? Having the most advanced 'soft' gear (EW, UAV, transport helicopters, etc.) is very good, but having 'hard' platforms either 2-3 generations old or new weapons with limited capability (eg. Tiger Recon Helos) does us no favours in the long term.
Last edited by a moderator:
Australian designed CRAM system?
Missile system to protect Aussies in Afghanistan | The Australian
"Missile system to protect Aussies in Afghanistan
Mark Dodd | October 22, 2009
Article from: The Australian
DEFENCE is rushing to deploy an anti-missile system to Afghanistan to protect Diggers in southern Oruzgan province against the threat of Taliban rockets being fired at forward bases and the main headquarters at Camp Holland.
At a Senate estimates hearing yesterday, Defence chief Angus Houston warned that an Australian-designed counter-rocket system was still "developmental" and risked causing civilian casualties.
Under questioning from opposition defence spokesman David Johnston, Air Chief Marshal Houston admitted the earliest warning of an incoming rocket was "less than 29 seconds" provided by a Singapore system.
Taliban insurgents are known to be armed with former Eastern Bloc missiles that include 107mm and 122mm unguided rockets that can be fired using a portable battery and makeshift launcher.
Commando Greg Sher, serving with the Special Operations Task Group, was killed instantly in January when he was struck by a Taliban-fired 107mm rocket that landed inside his forward patrol base near Tarin Kowt.
"The counter system is still developmental and, as you are probably aware, if you were to have a counter-rocket artillery munition system, you have also got to factor in such issues as collateral (civilian) damage," Air Chief Marshal Houston said.
"In sending out a munition to intercept the incoming rocket, a mortar or artillery round, there's always a danger of the whole lot falling on the civilian population.
"There's a lot of issues here but we're complying with the minister's directive (for force protection) to develop a capability proposal to get a system - an Australian system - into Afghanistan as soon as possible."
He appeared to rule out any additional combat exposure to Australian troops when asked if Diggers would accompany Afghan forces on patrol outside the Tarin Kowt provincial boundary.
Asked by Greens leader Bob Brown if the Australian Defence Force supported negotiations with moderate Taliban elements, Air Chief Marshal Houston said that was a matter for the Afghan government but any political dialogue with the insurgents would require their acceptance of the country's constitution.
Earlier, Defence Minister John Faulkner ruled out an early withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, but said the main priority for the ADF was the mentoring of two Afghan army battalions that would take control of security in Oruzgan within three to five years.
The program was working well, Senator Faulkner said. "I remain very much focused on that objective because I don't want to see Australian troops in Afghanistan a day longer than is necessary."
Australian troop levels in Afghanistan will be maintained at about 1500 soldiers, including an additional 120 troops deployed for the recent presidential election.
They would now stay on for the runoff vote on November 7, Senator Faulkner said."
************
I'm scratching my head trying to think of what Australia might have in house that could be used for CRAM (well counter rocket anyway)??
Why not get what the yanks are using, a modified Phalanx system (Centurion)?
rb
Missile system to protect Aussies in Afghanistan | The Australian
"Missile system to protect Aussies in Afghanistan
Mark Dodd | October 22, 2009
Article from: The Australian
DEFENCE is rushing to deploy an anti-missile system to Afghanistan to protect Diggers in southern Oruzgan province against the threat of Taliban rockets being fired at forward bases and the main headquarters at Camp Holland.
At a Senate estimates hearing yesterday, Defence chief Angus Houston warned that an Australian-designed counter-rocket system was still "developmental" and risked causing civilian casualties.
Under questioning from opposition defence spokesman David Johnston, Air Chief Marshal Houston admitted the earliest warning of an incoming rocket was "less than 29 seconds" provided by a Singapore system.
Taliban insurgents are known to be armed with former Eastern Bloc missiles that include 107mm and 122mm unguided rockets that can be fired using a portable battery and makeshift launcher.
Commando Greg Sher, serving with the Special Operations Task Group, was killed instantly in January when he was struck by a Taliban-fired 107mm rocket that landed inside his forward patrol base near Tarin Kowt.
"The counter system is still developmental and, as you are probably aware, if you were to have a counter-rocket artillery munition system, you have also got to factor in such issues as collateral (civilian) damage," Air Chief Marshal Houston said.
"In sending out a munition to intercept the incoming rocket, a mortar or artillery round, there's always a danger of the whole lot falling on the civilian population.
"There's a lot of issues here but we're complying with the minister's directive (for force protection) to develop a capability proposal to get a system - an Australian system - into Afghanistan as soon as possible."
He appeared to rule out any additional combat exposure to Australian troops when asked if Diggers would accompany Afghan forces on patrol outside the Tarin Kowt provincial boundary.
Asked by Greens leader Bob Brown if the Australian Defence Force supported negotiations with moderate Taliban elements, Air Chief Marshal Houston said that was a matter for the Afghan government but any political dialogue with the insurgents would require their acceptance of the country's constitution.
Earlier, Defence Minister John Faulkner ruled out an early withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, but said the main priority for the ADF was the mentoring of two Afghan army battalions that would take control of security in Oruzgan within three to five years.
The program was working well, Senator Faulkner said. "I remain very much focused on that objective because I don't want to see Australian troops in Afghanistan a day longer than is necessary."
Australian troop levels in Afghanistan will be maintained at about 1500 soldiers, including an additional 120 troops deployed for the recent presidential election.
They would now stay on for the runoff vote on November 7, Senator Faulkner said."
************
I'm scratching my head trying to think of what Australia might have in house that could be used for CRAM (well counter rocket anyway)??
Why not get what the yanks are using, a modified Phalanx system (Centurion)?
rb
I find it interesting that we are looking at an Australian designed system rather than using and exsiting system such as Centurion or Iron Dome.
Australia did develop the Nulka rocket propelled, disposable, offboard, active decoy for Ships - which as had considerable commercial success.
I imagine that the C-RAM system would offer considerable commercial potential; particularly as other systems such as Sky Dome and Centurion are quite expensive.
Centurion I believe does have considerable risk of civlillian collateral damage (which isn't such an issue at sea).
I am curious to see what the Australian guys have come up with,
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I do. Armies such as the German Army, Dutch etc, are clearly more capable.
I don't see that we need our Army to match even on a smaller scale, these Armies. They are designed this way because of their perceived threat. We face no such threat.
I agree that we should have a deployable combined arms capability, with good firepower, protection, mobility and one that is well supported logistically, with adequate force protection capabilities and big enough to achieve our likely goals, but the entire Army structured and equipped that way?
Unsustainable and most unnecessary, IMHO.
M113 was upgraded because that was the capability submission Army put to Government in 1999 for the 2000 White Paper, when there was little to no money for a major armoured vehicle acquisition. Government cannot keep spending a heap of cash and then forgoe the capability with no return on investment, ala Seasprite.
And so we are stuck with M113AS3/4 and it's limited capability compared to more modern vehicles.
LAND 4000 will eventually replace the M113 and ASLAV with a more modern armoured fighting vehicle (or vehicles) but don't expect it before 2020 or so...
Since 2000 Army has received:
Confirmed acquisition of 59x M1A1's and 7x recovery vehicles.
Confirmed acquisition of 144x ASLAV Type 3 vehicles, for a total ASLAV fleet of 253x vehicles.
Confirmed acquisition of 300+ Bushmaster IMV vehicles with orders currently standing at 693 for ADF.
Confirmed acquisition of 100 + M113AS3/4 vehicles, with orders standing at 433 vehicles.
Confirmed acquisition of 100+ Javelin MRAAW's.
Upgraded M3 Carl Gustav SRAAW.
Acquisition of 12.7mm AMR and new 7.62mm sniper systems.
Acquisition project in the final stages to acquire 40mm auto-grenade launchers.
Approval to replace existing 105mm and 155mm artillery systems with new generation artillery systems.
Approval to replace or upgrade existing 81mm mortar capabilities.
Upgraded and expanded RBS-70 SAM capability, integrated with Perentie vehicles and air surveillance radar systems.
Confirmed acquisition of 17x Tiger ARH helicopters with Hellfire missile, rockets and 30mm cannon, with the complete order of 22x to be delivered by 2011.
Confirmed acquisition of 5x MRH-90 helicopters, with orders standing at 40x airframes for Army (and 6x for Navy).
Upgrades to Chinook, ASLAV, Bushmaster, M1A1, small arms, night vision and communications capability.
Development of SOCOMD and Incident Response Regiment capabilities.
I hardly think Army can complain all that much about it's capability enhancements since 2000. A few remain to be delivered, true, but that is an impressive list, nonetheless...
Let's be honest and hold both sides of parliament responsible. Howard did bugger-all until 1999 to improve Army (or even ADF for that matter) capability before Timor happened.
Capability means more than simply delivering a platform. The platform needs to be manufactured, tested, delivered and introduced into service. The digs need to be trained on it, exercise the platforms and develop the underlying support system and "operational mastery" of a particular system.
This doesn't happen overnight no matter how much you might want it to.
Take the Super Hornets for instance. An entirely off the shelf acquisition, with no "Australian specific" modifications whatsoever.
Ordered in March 2007. First airframe delivered to RAAF in the USA in July 2009, with OUR first aircraft to be delivered to Australia in March 2010. Deliveries of airframes to continue into 2011, when all 24x should be completed.
IOC is due to be reached in December 2011, with FOC scheduled to be achieved in December 2012.
Just a tad over 5 years to get ANY sort of operational capability out of a completely off the shelf acquisition.
It is a regrettable fact of life that modern platforms are complicated and take time to achieve the best from.
I can point to any number of projects within these Countries that are every bit as stuffed up as ours.
Heard of FCS in the USA? Gone. Project cancelled. Billions down the drain.
Heard of Commanche? Gone. Project cancelled. Billions down the drain.
Heard of the UK's efforts to develop it's own Special Forces Chinook variant? Billions spent, no capability achieved whatsoever and the airframes sat in a shed for over 10 years. UK finally contracted Boeing to bring them back to a "standard" Chinook level so they can at least use them for normal Chook operations...
We have had our fair share of procurement disasters, but not everything is "peachy" elsewhere.
As for Bushmaster, well that was very nearly a project disaster itself and was YEARS late and over budget. It's finally working well, but it is hardly a "model procurement".
Hawkei? I'll be interested to see if this amounts to anything. Army clearly preferred JLTV and Hawkei only exists because Thales threw a fit when they weren't "consulted" despite a protected vehicle capability requirement for Project Overlander having existed since 2006...
A political decision was made to include them and they have now managed to roll out a computer generated image of the vehicle "they have".
Going against the Eagle IV which can be had right now, the JLTV which offers the chance to acquire vehicles from a HUGE production run (60,000 +), Thales seems more than a way aways from the 8 ball on this one...
AUSTAL had the opportunity to submit designs for the LHD contract. If they did, they couldn't even manage to get shortlisted. I see no designs for ANYTHING as large as the LHD on their website though.
They won the Armidale Class patrol boat contract though and they will be well-positioned to work on similar projects such as the OCV outlined in the 2009 DCP.
I'd like to hear your opinion on why the ARH is "limited". Admittedly it has not been released for operational service yet, but the program is working towards it. In 12 months or so, Army will have a deployable capability with the Tiger.
How then is it "limited"?
winnyfield
New Member
Is this what i think it is?
http://www.defence.gov.au/opEx/global/opslipper/images/gallery/2009/1019/20091002adf8251931_088.jpg
http://www.defence.gov.au/opEx/global/opslipper/images/gallery/2009/1019/20091002adf8251931_088.jpg
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
What do you think it is?