Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[PeterM]

nope

IMO, as a turnkey solution, the Apache would have been a much safer and more capable choice

I totally agree, I seem to remember thinking Super Cobras being a reasonable option as well (though I am certainly no expert).

The ironic thing is that for some systems we go with proven US systems such as the Abrams, but for other programs we are going with new or emerging system over the proven design (eg Tiger over Apache/Cobra, F100 over Baby Burke, F-35 over F/A 18F (and others) etc.

Cost is one of the biggest factors with defence procurement, the development and integration of new and emerging technologies seems to be where the biggest cost over runs and project risk are.

Oh well, it is what it is

 

[knightrider4]

I totally agree, I seem to remember thinking Super Cobras being a reasonable option as well (though I am certainly no expert).

The ironic thing is that for some systems we go with proven US systems such as the Abrams, but for other programs we are going with new or emerging system over the proven design (eg Tiger over Apache/Cobra, F100 over Baby Burke, F-35 over F/A 18F (and others) etc.

Cost is one of the biggest factors with defence procurement, the development and integration of new and emerging technologies seems to be where the biggest cost over runs and project risk are.

Oh well, it is what it is

Yes I know it's off topic but whatthe hell is happening to Land 17 SPH. If forum members here expect me to believe that it takes 3+ years to select a MOTS solution I'll be damned. It would be an utter miracle if this project ever comes to fruition.

 

[gf0012-aust]

and integration of new and emerging technologies seems to be where the biggest cost over runs and project risk are.

integration is the single biggest cost driver in any weapons systems solution

the initial widget cost is usually 1/3rd of the overall complete through life costs.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Yes I know it's off topic but whatthe hell is happening to Land 17 SPH. If forum members here expect me to believe that it takes 3+ years to select a MOTS solution I'll be damned. It would be an utter miracle if this project ever comes to fruition.

But defence didn’t ask for an off the shelf self propelled 155mm gun and they aren't spending three years trying to make a decision. They wanted a SP155 with two crucial new, unique items: integrated remote control weapon station to the 155mm guns direct fire system and an indirect fire control system integrated with AFATDS. There are other factors that could influence delay but the need for an offer definition phase to prove these two capabilities in the PzH2000 and K9 Thunder is the most significant.

 

[gf0012-aust]

But defence didn’t ask for an off the shelf self propelled 155mm gun and they aren't spending three years trying to make a decision. They wanted a SP155 with two crucial new, unique items: integrated remote control weapon station to the 155mm guns direct fire system and an indirect fire control system integrated with AFATDS. There are other factors that could influence delay but the need for an offer definition phase to prove these two capabilities in the PzH2000 and K9 Thunder is the most significant.

and here's one of the punchlines....

 

[t68]

But defence didn’t ask for an off the shelf self propelled 155mm gun and they aren't spending three years trying to make a decision. They wanted a SP155 with two crucial new, unique items: integrated remote control weapon station to the 155mm guns direct fire system and an indirect fire control system integrated with AFATDS. There are other factors that could influence delay but the need for an offer definition phase to prove these two capabilities in the PzH2000 and K9 Thunder is the most significant.

But is that not already an OTS capability from Raytheon or not made for an SPH from which Aus is trying out.
Raytheon Company: Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System (AFATDS)
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilitie...ments/content/rtn_ncs_products_afatds_pdf.pdf
Or am I on the wrong track with this?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

But is that not already an OTS capability from Raytheon or not made for an SPH from which Aus is trying out.
Raytheon Company: Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System (AFATDS)
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilitie...ments/content/rtn_ncs_products_afatds_pdf.pdf
Or am I on the wrong track with this?

You're off target. AFATDS is an artillery management tool. It sits in a rugged lap top and manages fires for the army. There are various systems that plug into AFATDS including the artillery guns. Now these guns need to be integrated with AFATDS in order to work as part of it.

Imagine AFATDS is the internet and your PC is the arty gun. Now if you don't have a web browser on your PC or an email program and a modem, etc. then you're not going to be able to access the internet. The internet is still out there and operating but you wouldn't know.

The problem with LAND 17 is the Army mandated AFATDS - fair enough, its the best fires system in the world and what the US uses - and also mandated an SP155 with a 52 calibre barrel. Unfortunately there is nothing out there in the SP155 world that is both. There is the 39 calibre M109A6 Paladin that is integrated with AFATDS but it doesn't have the long range shooting capability.

So once again the Army asked for something unique that wasn't off the shelf.

 

[riksavage]

I can see this pretty complex SPA requirement being overtaken by events. Recent criticism about Australian troops not having indigenous fire support in A-Stan might push the argument for less heavy kit and more light/medium deployable fire-power - namely increased numbers of M777A2's and 120mm mortar systems on mobile platforms capable of being moved by Chinook. Appreciate the need to have a system able to keep up with Abram's in a full-on mobile armoured confrontation against a tier one enemy, but the current scrap calls for deployable fire-power to support the PBI on the ground.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I can see this pretty complex SPA requirement being overtaken by events. Recent criticism about Australian troops not having indigenous fire support in A-Stan might push the argument for less heavy kit and more light/medium deployable fire-power - namely increased numbers of M777A2's and 120mm mortar systems on mobile platforms capable of being moved by Chinook. Appreciate the need to have a system able to keep up with Abram's in a full-on mobile armoured confrontation against a tier one enemy, but the current scrap calls for deployable fire-power to support the PBI on the ground.

Actually the Army's SP155 requirement is very much written around fighting in Afghanistan. Unlike a non-protected gun like the M777 the SP155 can keep firing when the Taliban are bombarding your base. Also they have protected mobility in those nasty hills. The L52 requirement also provides a lot of high angle range. Aimobile ops are mostly SF and only a part of the Afghan picture.

 

[PeterM]

I can see this pretty complex SPA requirement being overtaken by events. Recent criticism about Australian troops not having indigenous fire support in A-Stan might push the argument for less heavy kit and more light/medium deployable fire-power - namely increased numbers of M777A2's and 120mm mortar systems on mobile platforms capable of being moved by Chinook. Appreciate the need to have a system able to keep up with Abram's in a full-on mobile armoured confrontation against a tier one enemy, but the current scrap calls for deployable fire-power to support the PBI on the ground.

I don't see it, not when the PM makes this comment about sending a small detachment of Abrams to Afghanistan.

Ms Gillard took a swipe at the media for not focussing on issues of "real concern", saying there was a "ridiculous" debate about the need for more tanks.

"You may as well send them a submarine," she said (The Age 4 Oct 2010).​

 

[t68]

You're off target. AFATDS is an artillery management tool. It sits in a rugged lap top and manages fires for the army. There are various systems that plug into AFATDS including the artillery guns. Now these guns need to be integrated with AFATDS in order to work as part of it.

Imagine AFATDS is the internet and your PC is the arty gun. Now if you don't have a web browser on your PC or an email program and a modem, etc. then you're not going to be able to access the internet. The internet is still out there and operating but you wouldn't know.

The problem with LAND 17 is the Army mandated AFATDS - fair enough, its the best fires system in the world and what the US uses - and also mandated an SP155 with a 52 calibre barrel. Unfortunately there is nothing out there in the SP155 world that is both. There is the 39 calibre M109A6 Paladin that is integrated with AFATDS but it doesn't have the long range shooting capability.

So once again the Army asked for something unique that wasn't off the shelf.

Sorry I’m just a simple wheel nut (RACT), when you say calibre i understand basic terms of calibre 5.56(223), 7.62(308) etc.
When comparing calibre for an SPH I see 155mm are you referring to barrel length or in the case of NATO small arms rounds 7.62x51, Warsaw Pact rounds of 7.62x39 one round being longer or shorter, correct analogy?
So i take it from your post that the German SPH doesn’t come with AFATDS or the SPH is not 52 calibre?

 

[knightrider4]

You're off target. AFATDS is an artillery management tool. It sits in a rugged lap top and manages fires for the army. There are various systems that plug into AFATDS including the artillery guns. Now these guns need to be integrated with AFATDS in order to work as part of it.

Imagine AFATDS is the internet and your PC is the arty gun. Now if you don't have a web browser on your PC or an email program and a modem, etc. then you're not going to be able to access the internet. The internet is still out there and operating but you wouldn't know.

The problem with LAND 17 is the Army mandated AFATDS - fair enough, its the best fires system in the world and what the US uses - and also mandated an SP155 with a 52 calibre barrel. Unfortunately there is nothing out there in the SP155 world that is both. There is the 39 calibre M109A6 Paladin that is integrated with AFATDS but it doesn't have the long range shooting capability.

So once again the Army asked for something unique that wasn't off the shelf.

Forgive my stupidity but you would think Army/DMO would have known that that AFATDS isn't compatible with the 52 cal SPH's prior to LAND 17 being formulated. I mean what clowns are running the program?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Sorry I’m just a simple wheel nut (RACT), when you say calibre i understand basic terms of calibre 5.56(223), 7.62(308) etc.
When comparing calibre for an SPH I see 155mm are you referring to barrel length or in the case of NATO small arms rounds 7.62x51, Warsaw Pact rounds of 7.62x39 one round being longer or shorter, correct analogy?
So i take it from your post that the German SPH doesn’t come with AFATDS or the SPH is not 52 calibre?

SP155 was briefly LAND 17 terminology for Self-Propelled 155mm gun (SP155) as opposed to using the US terminology of SPH: self propelled howitzer which is offensive to Australian gunners because it is not a howitzer but a gun. Like calling a truck a van... Of course trucks are called tractors or limbers in Artillery…

In artillery terminology calibre usually refers to the length of the barrel in calibres (the diameter of the shell). Also there is usually a difference in chamber volume so a L52 155mm gun has a bigger chamber so you can stick more propellant in there. You are right in it is very similar to the difference between 7.62x51 and 7.62x39 but also a carbine or rifle barrel length. But unlike the small arms you can shoot the same shells (mostly) just you can’t fit in as many charge bags.

The German PzH2000 fire control system was integrated with a German battle management system fires (BMS-F). So it needs a change to its fire control system and also AFATDS needs an update to manage the different performance of an L52 gun compared to the L39 guns. The same goes for the Korean SP155 and the other potential competitors that didn’t bid (G6-52, Archer, Caesar, AS90 etc).

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Forgive my stupidity but you would think Army/DMO would have known that that AFATDS isn't compatible with the 52 cal SPH's prior to LAND 17 being formulated. I mean what clowns are running the program?

Of course 'they' knew that. It was a major issue resulting in the Capability Development Group re-writing the program requirements for about a year or two before going to tender.

There is no Seasprite type of disaster going on with the SP155 its just taking a bit of time for the companies - who aren't highly motivated by the tender - and Defence to sign off on an acceptable solution.

What is happening here is most of the public - which includes the defence commentators, journos, enthusiasts and a lot of the users/industry - only know about 10% of what is going on but are still willing to leap to major conclusions as if they were fully informed of the facts. The later is the real problem.

 

[Bonza]

Sorry I’m just a simple wheel nut (RACT), when you say calibre i understand basic terms of calibre 5.56(223), 7.62(308) etc.
When comparing calibre for an SPH I see 155mm are you referring to barrel length or in the case of NATO small arms rounds 7.62x51, Warsaw Pact rounds of 7.62x39 one round being longer or shorter, correct analogy?
So i take it from your post that the German SPH doesn’t come with AFATDS or the SPH is not 52 calibre?

Caliber can refer to the gun barrel length as a multiple of the bore diameter, ie a 155mm gun of 52 calibers has a barrel whose length is 52 times 155mm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliber_(artillery)

edit: Beat me to it Abe, never mind.

 

[t68]

thanks both to Abraham Gubler and Bonza I have a small undrestanding of the caliber diffrence and to your anology of the internet for AFATDS.

sometimes i wonder if there is just to much tech going into these thing, i like the KISS approch.

 

[knightrider4]

Of course 'they' knew that. It was a major issue resulting in the Capability Development Group re-writing the program requirements for about a year or two before going to tender.

There is no Seasprite type of disaster going on with the SP155 its just taking a bit of time for the companies - who aren't highly motivated by the tender - and Defence to sign off on an acceptable solution.

What is happening here is most of the public - which includes the defence commentators, journos, enthusiasts and a lot of the users/industry - only know about 10% of what is going on but are still willing to leap to major conclusions as if they were fully informed of the facts. The later is the real problem.

Questions over Land 17's future

08 Oct 2010


As Prime Minister Gillard questions the value of Abrams tanks in Afghanistan recently, others are wondering what is happening with the selection of self-propelled 155mm artillery under Land 17 and their potential for fire support to the ADF in the MEAO.
Rather than announcing a preferred bidder after what would seem to be a fairly exhaustive and longwinded evaluation phase since tenders closed in April 2008, Defence has arranged a further offer definition and refinement process (ODRP).
While Raytheon offering the AS-9 complied, KMW in consultation with BAE Systems declined to participate in the process, disagreeing with the terms and conditions of the ODRP.
Nevertheless their tender was not withdrawn and as far as KMW was concerned it stood.
Now there are dark rumours that the SPH requirement will not be considered in the latter half of 2010 – when tender validity in both cases will have run out – and that the requirement will be shelved until 2012 when it will again come up for consideration.
By then the Government may well have second thoughts about the need for heavily armoured, tracked, self-propelled heavy artillery, and how relevant such systems might be in the context of contemporary warfighting experience and future hostilities.
In which case it might invoke the balance of the M777A2 lightweight towed gun systems approved by Congress in mid-2008 for sale to Australia and thus satisfy the ADF’s requirement for 155mm gun systems, able to fire the most advanced ammunition types, and fully networked with the AFATDS command and control system


Perhaps the longest non event in Australian procurement history.

Taken from Australian Defence Magazine online.

 

[riksavage]

I could see this coming.

SF (SAS/Commando) are the dominant Aussie players in A-Stan, I bet if you asked them what they would prefer - Option A - more state of the art light deployable guns, which can be underslung and deployed to remote FOB's by Chinook (such as the M777A2), or heavy SPA, which will need to be transported on a low-loader or make its own way under escort to the FOB. I know which system I would be gunning for (excuse the pun).

I can see the SPA's being put on the back burner under the current Government.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

See what coming? Something that isnt happening? As to SF they don't want M777s or SP155s. They don't fight that way.

 

[gf0012-aust]

What is happening here is most of the public - which includes the defence commentators, journos, enthusiasts and a lot of the users/industry - only know about 10% of what is going on but are still willing to leap to major conclusions as if they were fully informed of the facts. The later is the real problem.

got it in one.

add in the fact that the requirements have finessed and that there are changes in those requirements, then it makes no sense continuing with the old requirements - now some of the vendors might not like that, and some of them are more than happy to just box flog a sale - but thats tough.

if they don't like it they can try and sell their existing solutions to someone else instead. it will make the selection process easier if they want to take a darwinian approach.