Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[icelord]

You do realise that a substantial number of israeli e-systems are shared with and/or purchased by Oz from the israelis?

those systems are of far more use than the Namer....

i do realise this, but i also realise that the israelis hold their most advanced equipment o themselves to avoid letting out how they work, and who could blame them, the less that know, the better protected the secret. the sale of UAVs to "non-jewish" supporting countries was surprising at first, but it would stand to reason that they have a more advanced system then the one they are selling to stay ahead of the game.

 

[harryriedl]

And IIRC both have been out of production for some time.

ASCOD (Spain/Austria), CV90 (Sweden), Dardo (Italy), Bionix II (Singapore), K21 (S. Korea) & Puma (Germany) are on the market. CV90 has sold to Denmark, Norway, Finland, Netherlands & Switzerland. The others have sold only to their home armed forces, so far.

There's also the Israeli Namer, if you want the most heavily armoured IFV in the world.

and in the case of the ASCOD and CV90 both are in comapotion in FRES Recce

 

[gf0012-aust]

i do realise this, but i also realise that the israelis hold their most advanced equipment o themselves to avoid letting out how they work, and who could blame them, the less that know, the better protected the secret. the sale of UAVs to "non-jewish" supporting countries was surprising at first, but it would stand to reason that they have a more advanced system then the one they are selling to stay ahead of the game.

we do get some very very tricky gear off of them, irrespective of what they withold. similarly we have the highest access into US capabilities as well, but the US does not always share some of that capability either.

its a matter of getting what we think is relevant and at a capability which impacts upon our overall stance

 

[the road runner]

we do get some very very tricky gear off of them, irrespective of what they withold. similarly we have the highest access into US capabilities as well, but the US does not always share some of that capability either.

Would that work with Australian cutting edge systems,IE we would not sell it to another country?
I remember you talking about our Sub sensors,probably not a good example to use in a Army forum

My question being dose Australia refuse to sell some of our cutting edge equipment on the world stage?.......Any examples of products?

Regards

 

[gf0012-aust]

My question being dose Australia refuse to sell some of our cutting edge equipment on the world stage?.......Any examples of products?

Regards

Yes, it has happened. I dealt with one technology where the core details of the system were with-held from the US even though they were co-funding it. They were quite happy to do so under our terms as they do the same to us.

 

[icelord]

we do get some very very tricky gear off of them, irrespective of what they withold. similarly we have the highest access into US capabilities as well, but the US does not always share some of that capability either.

its a matter of getting what we think is relevant and at a capability which impacts upon our overall stance

not that i support the idea, but the F22 is a prime example of holding out over the rest of the world.

 

[-C-o-o-k-i-e-]

Off current topic.

Hey guys.

Sorry for going off topic, but there is just something that I need to know.

How many days on average per month, do members of the Army Reserves train?
(I will note the position I would like to apply for: Commando; through the SFDRS.)
(And I do note that if I am able to get into and selected through SFDRS, that I will not be able to start my studies for over/about one year, althoug that suties me quite well. As it will allow some time off schooling/studing.)

I ask this question as after finishing school, next year, I hope to join the ADF, although I still want to attend university, (Hopefully studying Bachelor Emergency Health (Paramedic) or Bachelor of Health Science (Paramedic)). I would like to join as a reservist, allowing me to keep contact with the ADF, unlike the ADF gap year where I will be required to leave and rejoin the ADF. And although ADFA and the Undergraduate scheme seem like a great way to go, I do not want the position of an officer.

Once I have complete my studies, I hope to apply for selection/a transfer to a full time position within SOCOM-AUST.

I will be thankful for any information or help.

Cheers.

(P.S - Yes, I am another 'teenager' dreaming of a career within Special Forces, although I'd like to think I have an advantage on the others!

 

[gf0012-aust]

Once I have complete my studies, I hope to apply for selection/a transfer to a full time position within SOCOM-AUST.

Just some small but critical detail - Aust does not use "SOCOM" thats a US acronym. Aust uses "SOCOMD".

The operational boss used to be SOCAUST

 

[t68]

Sorry to go off topic but i was reading in another thread about M1A2 v Merkava MK4,

What has me intrigued is the use of an armoured cat D9 bulldozer for mine clearance forward of an MBT, and used for bunker busting/knocking down house etc

I have done a little bit of a search but came up empty handed, what other equipment does the 1st Armoured Regiment have for clearing these obstacles or is it left up to the Engineers?
I also saw an early version of an MBT with a blade attached to the front for obstacles /mine clearance. Is there any plan’s to acquire such equipment or can they turn ex leopards into mine Clearance /Bridge laying and so forth?

We also seem to have a policy of an army of three’s i know the Regiment is made up of three squadron’s, but i remember someone say we should have another Regiments worth of Abrams is this correct or do what we have is sufficient?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Sorry to go off topic but i was reading in another thread about M1A2 v Merkava MK4,

What has me intrigued is the use of an armoured cat D9 bulldozer for mine clearance forward of an MBT, and used for bunker busting/knocking down house etc

I have done a little bit of a search but came up empty handed, what other equipment does the 1st Armoured Regiment have for clearing these obstacles or is it left up to the Engineers?

I also saw an early version of an MBT with a blade attached to the front for obstacles /mine clearance. Is there any plan’s to acquire such equipment or can they turn ex leopards into mine Clearance /Bridge laying and so forth?

We also seem to have a policy of an army of three’s i know the Regiment is made up of three squadron’s, but i remember someone say we should have another Regiments worth of Abrams is this correct or do what we have is sufficient?

All the Leopard 1 tanks have been removed from service. The bulldozer blades and mine flails have been similarly retired.

No demolition or mine-clearing/breaching equipment has been introduced for the M1 Abrams capability (beyond M-88 recovery capabilities).

Australia has a requirement for protected engineering capabilities within the Combat Engineer Regiments and armoured plant and bulldozer capabilities exist within our Combat engineer regiments.

These magazines should help provide some illumination, though the 2009 edition is the one I want. It should detail 2CER's mech-assault and breaching trials conducted in combination with 1 Armoured Regt and the M1A1 MBT's for the first time...

Aust Sapper Magazine - Royal Australian Engineers - ARMY

Cheers

AD

 

[T.C.P]

All the Leopard 1 tanks have been removed from service. The bulldozer blades and mine flails have been similarly retired.

No demolition or mine-clearing/breaching equipment has been introduced for the M1 Abrams capability (beyond M-88 recovery capabilities).

Australia has a requirement for protected engineering capabilities within the Combat Engineer Regiments and armoured plant and bulldozer capabilities exist within our Combat engineer regiments.

These magazines should help provide some illumination, though the 2009 edition is the one I want. It should detail 2CER's mech-assault and breaching trials conducted in combination with 1 Armoured Regt and the M1A1 MBT's for the first time...

Aust Sapper Magazine - Royal Australian Engineers - ARMY

Cheers

AD

Yeah the leopards have all been retired from first line service.what about the Challenger 2, australia can purchase this

 

[ddub321]

Yeah the leopards have all been retired from first line service.what about the Challenger 2, australia can purchase this

Why would we buy challenger 2?? we just kitted out 1st Armoured Regt with M1A1's a couple of years ago...

 

[Aussie Digger]

Yeah the leopards have all been retired from first line service.what about the Challenger 2, australia can purchase this

Australia compared M1A1's with Challenger 2 and Leopard II's, when seeking a replacement for our Leopard AS1 tanks.

We chose M1A1 AIM MBT's. Why would we now go and seek a tank we earlier rejected?

 

[knightrider4]

Land 17

A little of topic I know however does anybody know when we can expect a decision on the SPH component of this project and what may be the likely winner? The PZH2000 or the AS9 Thunder? Thanks in Advance.

 

[Aussie Digger]

A little of topic I know however does anybody know when we can expect a decision on the SPH component of this project and what may be the likely winner? The PZH2000 or the AS9 Thunder? Thanks in Advance.

I believe the decision has been pushed back to 2012, so don't hold your breath...

No idea what will win. I suspect Army would prefer PZH-2000, but will make great use of whichever platform is chosen.

 

[t68]

I believe the decision has been pushed back to 2012, so don't hold your breath...

No idea what will win. I suspect Army would prefer PZH-2000, but will make great use of whichever platform is chosen.

I suspect what will happen everything defence comes out in favour of it will be caned, not what the blokes that have to use the kit wants it’s what treasury will fork out the money for.
So that why we have not heard what they are in favour of.might be learning.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I suspect what will happen everything defence comes out in favour of it will be caned, not what the blokes that have to use the kit wants it’s what treasury will fork out the money for.
So that why we have not heard what they are in favour of.might be learning.

Here is the announcement Defmin Faulkner made in relation to LAND 17 a while back:

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.

That is as much as is publicly known. It is quite rare for "outsiders" to know which platform is truly favoured by a customer during a large expensive tender competition. Opens up all sorts of avenues for potential litigation...

 

[StingrayOZ]

Its good news. The government is acting predictable and is actually getting what it is expected without further delays. I think the ADF was a bit lucky with Faulkner as he should be less random and more functional than other possible/previous candidates.

With the PZH-2000, are we still able to pick up surplus? Or have they disapeared?

Still think we need a few more Chooks to move all this stuff (like these M777).

 

[Marc 1]

Its good news. The government is acting predictable and is actually getting what it is expected without further delays. I think the ADF was a bit lucky with Faulkner as he should be less random and more functional than other possible/previous candidates.

With the PZH-2000, are we still able to pick up surplus? Or have they disapeared?

Still think we need a few more Chooks to move all this stuff (like these M777).

The question of the chooks will be tied to whatever decision the govt reaches on the Caribou replacement no doubt. That said, even if they do decide to do a one for one replacement of the 'bou's extra CH-47's are probably needed IMO, 7 is just too few. Take a pair out to Afg, one down for deep maintenance, one being used for training/conversion and you are left with bugger all.

 

[Todjaeger]

The question of the chooks will be tied to whatever decision the govt reaches on the Caribou replacement no doubt. That said, even if they do decide to do a one for one replacement of the 'bou's extra CH-47's are probably needed IMO, 7 is just too few. Take a pair out to Afg, one down for deep maintenance, one being used for training/conversion and you are left with bugger all.

I agree, particularly if the M777 gets deployed to the Ghan or somewhere else. Given their weight (just a little too much for a MRH-90 to carry) only the Chinooks are able to carry them as an underslung load. In a situation like this, having only two Chinooks might not be sufficient between potentially conflicting mission requirements, maintenance, aircraft damage, etc. This would then mean that Army could be forced to rely upon another nation to provide supporting helis, and/or draw further upon heli assets within Australia.

What do people feel the appropriate numbers of CH-47s would be? I am personally trending towards a total of 12-14 helicopters. This would allow for 3-4 to be in for maintenance at any given time, 2-3 to be away on deployment, and the rest available for training use as well as a deployment surge if needed. I do understand that given the current budgetary/financial situation one should not expect the number to increase, at least not right away, but how viable would it be for a gradual increase in numbers with perhaps one aircraft added every 18 months to two years?

-Cheers