Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Aussie Digger]

7.62mm minimi (F89)

I think i see a bigger barrel

Well it's a Para-Minimi, there's no doubt about that. Whether it is chambered for 7.62mm or not, who knows? The Para-Minimi's have a shorter barrel, so that might account for the extra thickness, but it could be chambered in 7.62mm.

It is widely known that a mix of 7.62mm and 5.56mm is carried by Australian forces in Afghanistan with SR-25 "marksman's rifle" and MAG-58 GPMG's and the usual F-88/F-89 and M4 carried within the same sections/patrols.

It would not surprise me if the specials have some Para-Minimi's chambered for 7.62mm.

 

[Mick73]

Well it's a Para-Minimi, there's no doubt about that. Whether it is chambered for 7.62mm or not, who knows? The Para-Minimi's have a shorter barrel, so that might account for the extra thickness, but it could be chambered in 7.62mm.

It is widely known that a mix of 7.62mm and 5.56mm is carried by Australian forces in Afghanistan with SR-25 "marksman's rifle" and MAG-58 GPMG's and the usual F-88/F-89 and M4 carried within the same sections/patrols.

It would not surprise me if the specials have some Para-Minimi's chambered for 7.62mm.

Yes, it is a Minimi 7.62 T.R. Sliding Butt with an after market forward hand grip and bipod. Plus the usual scopes and shit. Oh and it isn't one of our builds...brought straight off the shelf.

 

[Eamonn]

Well it's a Para-Minimi, there's no doubt about that. Whether it is chambered for 7.62mm or not, who knows? The Para-Minimi's have a shorter barrel, so that might account for the extra thickness, but it could be chambered in 7.62mm.

It is widely known that a mix of 7.62mm and 5.56mm is carried by Australian forces in Afghanistan with SR-25 "marksman's rifle" and MAG-58 GPMG's and the usual F-88/F-89 and M4 carried within the same sections/patrols.

It would not surprise me if the specials have some Para-Minimi's chambered for 7.62mm.

Aussie Digger, apologies for not getting back to you re. our previous discussion, being flat out with work. The weapon you're looking at is the Mk48 7.62mm Minimi, currently issued only to SF. A mate of mine just back from Afghanistan carried one for his deployment- he reckons its a wet dream! Pity though that the rest of us wont see it for about a decade; though the heirachy has finally seen the wisdom of returning a 7.62mm machine gun to the infantry section, we'll get MAG58's again. Dont get me wrong- its a rugged, reliable weapon, proven over many years, but it is a mongrel to carry in fire and movement, I know -I carried one for 2 years in the 80's! I suppose, AD, why the rest of the army hasn't been issued this excellent weapon (Mk48) is an adjunct to my previous post, when I finish up work I'll respond to your points more fully.
Cheers, Eamonn.

 

[icelord]

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,

You left out the LHDs, the navys getting these transports but with the budget cuts i take it we wont be carrying the army anywhere? Its also not exactly cheap to upgrade an M113, buy M1A1, Chinooks, MRH-90, SPG, Expand the army by 2 battalions, increase the Special Forces budget and build new bases or expand current ones...but hey, we're getting new subs and Destroyers...
Look closely at the facts, the Current Govt. has slated $10 Billion over 10 years is to be cut across the board, The navy is starting to feel the pinch with required upgrades being reduced, reduced operational subs...(due to manning and restraints) 2 Anzacs becoming Training ships, and the New LHDs, LCM, LCH plus MRH-90 purchases to carry gear from LHDs...Army Gear that is will become a major assest to both Forces.
Hell im all for inter-service Rivalry and Pongo bashing, but make sure you pick on the right service waste...hear that fly boys?!?

 

[Eamonn]

To gf0012-aust, apologies for not responding earlier, thanks for your attempts to answer my queries. The point Im trying to make is that with Defence told to find billions in savings to help fund these big ticket items,(JSF, 12 submarines, new destroyers and LHD's, etc.) why is it necessary to slash the training and resources of those who serve in uniform, as opposed to the vast bureaucracy that soaks up so much of the defence budget at the moment? Recently I read that, including Reserves, there is 2.5 bureaucrats to every serviceman/woman in uniform, and Im pretty sure they're not paid a privates wage! The bottom line is, we have a defence structure that is weighed far too heavily with red tape and bureaucrats, that absorb too much of Defence's resources. That there are 'too many chiefs, not enough Indians' is a reality that should be recognised, and rectified, instead of limiting the capabilities of those who ACTUALLY serve in uniform and do the duties of defence for the country.

 

[Eamonn]

AD, in response to your wanting to why I refer to the variant of the Tiger ARH we've purchased as 'limited'. Well I was reading some of your posts about the Tiger on the thread regarding the ADF's procurement of this helo, and how the discussion debated it's merits/flaws compared to the Apache Longbow, and the differences between the versions that Germany, Spain, France and Australia were purchasing. So no doubt you're aware that the ARH variant carries the least amount of ordnance of the versions of the Tiger, it was that 'limiting' I was refering to; the recurring Australian theme of buying equipment 'fitted for, not with', a philosophy that the ADF (Army mainly) does not need the best, most capable weapon systems, or instead buys weapon system types that are limited, or of a lower grade, than to what is available. No doubt others will disagree, believing recent purchases of tanks and new artillery prove otherwise, but I cant see it. I mean, for example, if we wanted the best tank available, why wasn't the Merkava4 put up for consideration? (Oh thats right, the US told the Israelis they werent allowed to sell it to us, even though our armoured boys wanted it.) This isn't a major criticism of the M1A1, which is a fine tank, but again is 'limited', by being purchased in so few in number we wont risk any being deployed to Afghanistan, amongst other reasons.

 

[battlensign]

Eamonn........

There are a number of issues you have raised that are not exactly accurate, although I much appreciate and agree with your basic sentiments.

1) In the 07/08 DOD Annual Report there were 53 467 actual personnel (average) in the ADF as Full Time staff and a further 20 340 people in the Reserves, for a total of 73 807. Totals for the APS are 15 087 in the DoD and around another 5 400 for the DMO (based on expansion from 4 952 in 05/06) for a total of 20 487. These figures give a ratio of 3.6 : 1.

2) Whilst not paid 'a private's wage' - the bureacrats can have some advantages (i.e no service allowances etc) and are useful for taking on positions that allow the freeing up of more uniform personnel for postings that really require a uniform, especially when it is easier to recruit bowler hatted Sir Humphrey's than ADF personnel.

3) I would say that a greater issue here is the fact that as a result of (2), the on-base postings that used to be enjoyed by uniform personnel in posting cycles as breaks etc from more arduous/demanding 'field' postings have gone and contributed to a broader general attenuation of conditions of service.

4) The Reserves have always been an easy target for cuts in Defence spending over the last......well, since just after the First World War really. Aus is not alone. Have you been paying attention to The UK PM ZGordon Brown's plans for the UK Territorials?

Brett.

 

[Eamonn]

You left out the LHDs, the navys getting these transports but with the budget cuts i take it we wont be carrying the army anywhere? Its also not exactly cheap to upgrade an M113, buy M1A1, Chinooks, MRH-90, SPG, Expand the army by 2 battalions, increase the Special Forces budget and build new bases or expand current ones...but hey, we're getting new subs and Destroyers...
Look closely at the facts, the Current Govt. has slated $10 Billion over 10 years is to be cut across the board, The navy is starting to feel the pinch with required upgrades being reduced, reduced operational subs...(due to manning and restraints) 2 Anzacs becoming Training ships, and the New LHDs, LCM, LCH plus MRH-90 purchases to carry gear from LHDs...Army Gear that is will become a major assest to both Forces.
Hell im all for inter-service Rivalry and Pongo bashing, but make sure you pick on the right service waste...hear that fly boys?!?

Icelord, just let it be noted that the recent aquisitions the army has enjoyed in the last few years were a belated response to the fact that the army had been allowed to wither for the last 25 years, with governments repeatedly giving most of the defence budget to the RAAF and RAN. Army has only been try to make up for 1/4 century of neglect, so dont begrudge us our miniscule enhancements. So Navy is 'starting to feel the pinch'? Welcome to our world!
Im all for eliminating wasted resources (re. my posts about defence bureaucrats), and when it comes to living well off the public tit, the RAAF has it over us in spades (if us grunts had the kit like ADG's, hell the whole army would be Special Forces!), but the reality is that the Service who's member is the current CDF, then usually that service benefits in priority, like at present.

Joke I heard recently; Whats the difference between the services? The Army sleeps under the stars.......The Navy is guided by the stars........and the Airforce grades their hotels by the stars!

 

[Eamonn]

Eamonn........

There are a number of issues you have raised that are not exactly accurate, although I much appreciate and agree with your basic sentiments.

1) In the 07/08 DOD Annual Report there were 53 467 actual personnel (average) in the ADF as Full Time staff and a further 20 340 people in the Reserves, for a total of 73 807. Totals for the APS are 15 087 in the DoD and around another 5 400 for the DMO (based on expansion from 4 952 in 05/06) for a total of 20 487. These figures give a ratio of 3.6 : 1.

2) Whilst not paid 'a private's wage' - the bureacrats can have some advantages (i.e no service allowances etc) and are useful for taking on positions that allow the freeing up of more uniform personnel for postings that really require a uniform, especially when it is easier to recruit bowler hatted Sir Humphrey's than ADF personnel.

3) I would say that a greater issue here is the fact that as a result of (2), the on-base postings that used to be enjoyed by uniform personnel in posting cycles as breaks etc from more arduous/demanding 'field' postings have gone and contributed to a broader general attenuation of conditions of service.

4) The Reserves have always been an easy target for cuts in Defence spending over the last......well, since just after the First World War really. Aus is not alone. Have you been paying attention to The UK PM ZGordon Brown's plans for the UK Territorials?

Brett.

Brett, thanks for correcting my figures (last time I take the word of the opposition defence spokesman- hang on, I believed him in the first place?). Its just frustrating that the Reservists have worked so hard in recent years to achieve credibility in performing operations and deployments, and slashing their training and resources at a time where they are needed to support the ARA, yet they are seen as an easy target for cost-cutting, while other departments are insulated from the Treasurer's scythe. 'Tis ironic that when the UK Territorials, now more needed than ever for missions in Afghanistan, are also facing spending cuts to their force structure, if they could cut all those corrupt MP's allowances then they would'nt have to now, would they? (Yeah, fat chance)

 

[Eamonn]

Recommended reading; RUSI (Royal United Studies Institute) Oct 2007 'Conspiracy of Optimism', discussion paper on how defence procurements are conducted within UK MoD, strikingly similar to our own problems of defence purchases, with excellent solutions- if anyone would be game to implement them.
Cheers, Eamonn

 

[icelord]

Icelord, just let it be noted that the recent aquisitions the army has enjoyed in the last few years were a belated response to the fact that the army had been allowed to wither for the last 25 years, with governments repeatedly giving most of the defence budget to the RAAF and RAN. Army has only been try to make up for 1/4 century of neglect, so dont begrudge us our miniscule enhancements. So Navy is 'starting to feel the pinch'? Welcome to our world!
Im all for eliminating wasted resources (re. my posts about defence bureaucrats), and when it comes to living well off the public tit, the RAAF has it over us in spades (if us grunts had the kit like ADG's, hell the whole army would be Special Forces!), but the reality is that the Service who's member is the current CDF, then usually that service benefits in priority, like at present.

if we really look at it, all services have been trying since 99 to rebuild since the collapse of this wall looking thing with curtains attached, that was when decisions for now were made that lead to a major need for equipment right now. Which is what Hardened and Networked, and LHD/AWD is doing now, preparing for next decade, cause the last was spent bringing the forces to standard from the last, and if we start cutting again we get back into that circle of the needing but not having. it just keeps going and going, we may as well ask for Energiser sponsership, half our equipment could push it to its age limits.

Joke I heard recently; Whats the difference between the services? The Army sleeps under the stars.......The Navy is guided by the stars........and the Airforce grades their hotels by the stars!

nfloorl: so so so true...cept the guiding, i got one from a sister ship during a recent excercise. The ships Navigator was having a great night, till he walked out and noticed two Phase IV officers and Officer of the Watch taking a star sighting off a helicopter...

 

[Marc 1]

Brett, thanks for correcting my figures (last time I take the word of the opposition defence spokesman- hang on, I believed him in the first place?). Its just frustrating that the Reservists have worked so hard in recent years to achieve credibility in performing operations and deployments, and slashing their training and resources at a time where they are needed to support the ARA, yet they are seen as an easy target for cost-cutting, while other departments are insulated from the Treasurer's scythe. 'Tis ironic that when the UK Territorials, now more needed than ever for missions in Afghanistan, are also facing spending cuts to their force structure, if they could cut all those corrupt MP's allowances then they would'nt have to now, would they? (Yeah, fat chance)

All things are relative - at 6RAR in 1990 on a pre deployment exercise before heading to do an RCB tour we were given 5 blank rounds per man per day for a 5 day exercise, no blank link, no whiz bangs, and hotbox meals (no rat packs) - which is really convenient when you are trying to be 'tac' in the jungle at Canungra . I think at 6 RAR in 1989 we went bush for 8 weeks that year - and 4 of those weeks were on K89! (where we saw bugger all action anyway). At 2 Trg Gp, we were 'qualifying' ECN 343 riflemen with less than one third of the minimum ball ammunition that we were supposed to have.

There are some efficiency gains that can be made - a classic example was my wife was home from on ROCL from the Solomon Islands 5 years ago. We were living in Sydney, so that's where she was. She needed to depart on a Herc from Amberley, so defence provided her with Cab vouchers to get to Sydney airport, civy flight to Brisbane airport. Cab voucher from Bne to Amberley (bloody long way) and then catch the Herc. OR, if they had've used their brains they could have done a cab voucher from our place to Richmond where the Herc was based and she could have done the hop to Amberley on that, saving defence at least one cab ride and a civvy flight. All it needs is for someone to use their brains.

Then again, many of these useless civy's that you believe could be cut possibly can be, but then the things that distinguish the ADF from the defence forces of other places like the Defence Community Organisation, the ability to get access to subsidies on home loans, the people who manage and administer the long term schooling and repayment of educational expenses under schemes like JOPES etc would not exist. Many of these services are not intrinsic to keeping the digger in the front line supplied with bullets and beans, but taking a broader picture they are just as important from a retention point of view, and the longer term viability of the ADF.

 

[PeterM]

I mean, for example, if we wanted the best tank available, why wasn't the Merkava4 put up for consideration? (Oh thats right, the US told the Israelis they werent allowed to sell it to us, even though our armoured boys wanted it.) This isn't a major criticism of the M1A1, which is a fine tank, but again is 'limited', by being purchased in so few in number we wont risk any being deployed to Afghanistan, amongst other reasons.

As far as I am aware, the Merkava 4 isn't offered for export (although I believe the Merkava 3 is). Regardless, various options were looked at and we got a good deal on the Abrams, which are quite capable battle proven systems. Personally I think we would have had better value with late model Leopard IIs, particularly if they could have been built here, but in the end it doesn't matter, we have the Abrams and it is a very capable system. From the ADF personell I have spoken to, they really like the Abrams.

I don't see your point regarding numbers, we have enough Abrams for an Armoured Regiment.; it is entirely impractical to expect the ADF to support a 2nd armoured Regiment. On a strategic level there is no similar capability within our immediate region.
Whilst I don't see the regiment deploying wholesale, I could easily see a Troop or maybe even squadron deployed in support of Infantry deployments.

Further to your comments on neglect for the army in favour of the RAAF and RAN, look at what has happened in recent years, and what is planned or in the pipeline.

new MBT
new SPH and Artillery systems
22 Tiger ARH (replacing Kiowas)
30 MRH-90
2 new Infantry Battalions
improved fire support
Bushmasters and other
improved fire support options
upraged M113s
upgraded Special Forces capability
new CRAM capability
upgraded Air Defence
1100 new protected vehicles to replace M113s and ASLAVs
plus a lot of other programs (night fighting cabability, battlefield command, solider ehancement etc),

The Army may not have alot of flashy big ticket items, but they have a lot going on including a major capability increase.

further the Army is the primary beneficiary of RAAF programs such as the C-17, C130J, Caribou replacement, new CH-47F and RAN programs such as Canberra Class, new Stategic Sealift vessel and 6 new replacements for LCH.

I think it is a stretch to consider the Army as the poor cousin to the RAAF and RAN.

 

[hairyman]

As far as I am aware, the Merkava 4 isn't offered for export (although I believe the Merkava 3 is). Regardless, various options were looked at and we got a good deal on the Abrams, which are quite capable battle proven systems. Personally I think we would have had better value with late model Leopard IIs, particularly if they could have been built here, but in the end it doesn't matter, we have the Abrams and it is a very capable system. From the ADF personell I have spoken to, they really like the Abrams.

I don't see your point regarding numbers, we have enough Abrams for an Armoured Regiment.; it is entirely impractical to expect the ADF to support a 2nd armoured Regiment. On a strategic level there is no similar capability within our immediate region.
Whilst I don't see the regiment deploying wholesale, I could easily see a Troop or maybe even squadron deployed in support of Infantry deployments.

Further to your comments on neglect for the army in favour of the RAAF and RAN, look at what has happened in recent years, and what is planned or in the pipeline.

new MBT
new SPH and Artillery systems
24 Tiger ARH (replacing Kiowas)
30 MRH-90
2 new Infantry Battalions
improved fire support
Bushmasters and other
improved fire support options
upraged M113s
upgraded Special Forces capability
new CRAM capability
upgraded Air Defence
1100 new protected vehicles to replace M113s and ASLAVs
plus a lot of other programs (night fighting cabability, battlefield command, solider ehancement etc),

The Army may not have alot of flashy big ticket items, but they have a lot going on including a major capability increase.

further the Army is the primary beneficiary of RAAF programs such as the C-17, C130J, Caribou replacement, new CH-47F and RAN programs such as Canberra Class, new Stategic Sealift vessel and 6 new replacements for LCH.

I think it is a stretch to consider the Army as the poor cousin to the RAAF and RAN.

Is it 22 or 24 Tigers?

 

[PeterM]

Is it 22 or 24 Tigers?

It is 22, my mistake, i stand corrected

 

[hairyman]

It is 22, my mistake, i stand corrected

Your probably like me, waiting for the government to increase to numbers from 22.

 

[Aussie Digger]

AD, in response to your wanting to why I refer to the variant of the Tiger ARH we've purchased as 'limited'. Well I was reading some of your posts about the Tiger on the thread regarding the ADF's procurement of this helo, and how the discussion debated it's merits/flaws compared to the Apache Longbow, and the differences between the versions that Germany, Spain, France and Australia were purchasing. So no doubt you're aware that the ARH variant carries the least amount of ordnance of the versions of the Tiger, it was that 'limiting' I was refering to; the recurring Australian theme of buying equipment 'fitted for, not with', a philosophy that the ADF (Army mainly) does not need the best, most capable weapon systems, or instead buys weapon system types that are limited, or of a lower grade, than to what is available.

To the best of my knowledge, ALL Tiger helos maintain the same hardpoint carriage ratings, ie: they can ALL carry the same weight of munitions on their hardpoints.

Australia and France of chosen the Hellfire II as their main weapon and the Tiger can carry a maximum of 8x such missiles.

Germany has chosen the Trigat 3 missile and it's UHT variant can carry 8x of these missiles.

Spain has chosen the SPIKE-LR missile and it's variant can carry 8x of these missiles.

The difference between the original 2 variants of the Tiger in maximum takeoff weight is 150kg's. That is not sufficient to include 16x missile carriage of any of the 3 A2G missile variants integrated onto the Tiger platform, nor are the hardpoints capable of carrying this much weight anyway and is in any case, largely accounted for by the heavier mast mounted sight on the German UHT variant, as opposed to the roof mounted sights on the Australian, Frence and Spanish models.

All variants can carry similar rocket loadouts and 30mm ammunition is the same (on variants that mount the gun). Your dislike of the ARH variant on the basis it lacks firepower in comparison to the other variants is therefore rather confusing. Especically seeing as though France "copied us" by also choosing Hellfire II...

If you mean it lacks firepower compared to the AH-64 Apache, well you'd be correct, but then it's a different class of helicopter. That argument is akin to arguing that the Kiowa is rubbish because it can't carry as much as a Blackhawk...

Tiger meets Army's requirements in relation to recon capability and aerial fire support capability. I think it more than suitable.

No doubt others will disagree, believing recent purchases of tanks and new artillery prove otherwise, but I cant see it. I mean, for example, if we wanted the best tank available, why wasn't the Merkava4 put up for consideration? (Oh thats right, the US told the Israelis they werent allowed to sell it to us, even though our armoured boys wanted it.) This isn't a major criticism of the M1A1, which is a fine tank, but again is 'limited', by being purchased in so few in number we wont risk any being deployed to Afghanistan, amongst other reasons.

Who says Merkava 4 is the "best"? The Israeli's? They manufacture it, so I'm sure they do think it best. I've not met a tanker in ARA that isn't happy with the Abrams tanks however and it has proven it's capability time and time again. Merkava 4 has done well in urban terrain in the Gaza and to a lesser degree Lebanon. How well has it been proven in semi-arid plains type environments, which is the predominant land type in Australia, where manoeuvre is key?

It is hardly the case that Australia didn't weigh it's options with this either. We compared the Challenger II, Leopard II and M1A1 AIM- SA Abrams tanks when we replaced the Leopard As1 IA3 tanks.

Leo II and Abrams were short-listed and Abrams obviously selected. American pressure was by no means undue, it's just that the M1A1 AIm offered better value than the Leo II's we assessed.

As to numbers, we are never going to be deploying armoured brigades overseas. A squadron of 14x tanks will be more than sufficient for any of our likely deployments and unlike with Merkava, we have the option of a considerable pool of Abrams vehicles to draw upon (plus an operating re-manufacturing line for the future) should we need to expand our fleet....

 

[PeterM]

AD, you are right on the money with both the Tiger and Abrams

The Tiger is an excellent fit for the Army requirements. The Apache is a pure gunship designed to attack large armoured formations, there aren't any of those in our region. Bear in mind that the mind the Tiger replaces the Kiowa in the recon role with the option of fire support (which is still formidable). It is important to bear in mind that there are things the Tiger can do much better than Apache; for example it has around twice the range on internal fuel (800km vs 400km) plus it has alot more agility. Like AD says, both are very different helicopter designs for very different missions.

Also I agree that everyone from 1st armoured who I have met is very happy with the M1A1 Abrams (living in Darwin there are alot of tankers around), it is a very capable machine.

 

[Aussie Digger]

AD, you are right on the money with both the Tiger and Abrams

The Tiger is an excellent fit for the Army requirements. The Apache is a pure gunship designed to attack large armoured formations, there aren't any of those in our region. Bear in mind that the mind the Tiger replaces the Kiowa in the recon role with the option of fire support (which is still formidable). It is important to bear in mind that there are things the Tiger can do much better than Apache; for example it has around twice the range on internal fuel (800km vs 400km) plus it has alot more agility. Like AD says, both are very different helicopter designs for very different missions.

Also I agree that everyone from 1st armoured who I have met is very happy with the M1A1 Abrams (living in Darwin there are alot of tankers around), it is a very capable machine.

It's amazing, when I was a serving member, the blokes in Army drooled over the idea of possibly having an Abrams tank and a modern helo gunship.

Now we've got them (or at least very close to having both operational) and blokes still aren't happy... These aren't good enough they say.

I'm sure RAAFIES argue Hornet's aren't good enough. Why don't we have Eagles or at least more Super Hornets they'll say?

Pussers would probably whinge about FFG's too. Why don't we have Arleigh Burke class destroyers?

Because the real world intrudes on wishlists and there isn't an endless pit of money to acquire and support EVERYTHING we might want...

 

[PeterM]

It's amazing, when I was a serving member, the blokes in Army drooled over the idea of possibly having an Abrams tank and a modern helo gunship.

you could probably add in current programs like LAND 17 with the self propelled howitizers and M777, upgraded M113s, protected mobility vehicles, increased infantry fire support, improved night flighting and so on...

I think many people under estimate the substantial capability increases in the Army in recent years.