ironduke57
New Member
Hi, out there.
Just out of curiosity. Is there anything new regarding the SPG acquisition?
Regards,
ironduke57
Just out of curiosity. Is there anything new regarding the SPG acquisition?
Regards,
ironduke57
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Nothing much. Tenders are still being considered. Both of the platfoms need quite a bit of development work to meet Army's requirements, but the DCP in December confirmed that the acquisitision was still a priority, not necessarily according to an urgent schedule, but a priority instead of some other option.
In the meantime, the Royal Regiment of Australian Artillery still has a big job introducing M777A2, Excalibur, Excalibur portable fire control, SMART 55, the course corrected fuze capability, the AFADTS command and control system and the new modular charge system into service, all of which will provide a huge increase in our artillery capability in the meantime.
Cheers,
AD
No it was a few years before hand and besides 2nd line ships and helicopters are like apples and oranges. The US acquired the Newport LSTs as disposable assets so never gave them a proper refit in service. The AH-1Ws had just been rebuilt a few years before they were made surplas.
Except for all the sunk investment. A billion in cash plus all the training. When it was clear 5 years ago that they were going to come in very late the Army should have put a halt to conversion of the Kiowa units to ARH. 1 Avn Regt would then stay as a Kiowa unit until the ARH was ready. Rather the Army has let ARH drag out and then try to cover the short fall by raisin a Kiowa squadron (173) to provide the flying that ARH can't. And this is just to keep AAAvn in the air. No hope for actual medium intensity deployable capability like in Afghanistan. Which 161/162 Recce Sqns could sustain via using US Army Kiowa Warriors if they had stayed as Kiowa units.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Nope. Seemed like the bargain of the century at the time to me and with the benefit of hindsight it still does... I'm tempted to say that the Government didn't want it, because it would be very hard to label a Super Cobra in PC terms as an "armed recon helo" because it was the FIRST real helicopter gunship, but that would be childish of me...
Probably just wasn't new and shiny enough for Army to seriously push for it...
Strange because the acquisition was pitched at a period of time when the Australian Government was very keen on second-hand US kit (F-111G's, LST's, Sea Sprites) and would have been due for the AH-1Z upgrade at a time when the Australian Government was keen on big domestic (mostly) upgrade programs (FFG-UP, HUG and M113 upgade).
It would have fitted in well with both, but it wasn't to be and here we are 20 years later and the Kiowas that we have now are the same basic helicopter we had then (except for a few minor glass cockpit additions) and they still provide our operational "light observation" helicopter...
MARKMILES77
Active Member
More Bushmasters on the way.
Hasn't really been much interest shown by the Oz media, in the big extra order placed with Thales, for enhanced Bushmasters, by the Australian Government. Must take the total Australian Bushmaster order to over 900? Still no "Ute" versions as far as I know.
Good news for the workers in Bendigo who were being laid off.
Hasn't really been much interest shown by the Oz media, in the big extra order placed with Thales, for enhanced Bushmasters, by the Australian Government. Must take the total Australian Bushmaster order to over 900? Still no "Ute" versions as far as I know.
Good news for the workers in Bendigo who were being laid off.
Well it depends on your definition of good. Sure it’s good for Bendigo but so would Defence processing the simple order for the Bushmaster ute to fill the 980 mediumweight protected trucks requirement, why this is and has taken years is beyond normal comprehension. Bushmasters we really need. Because these Bushmasters will actually be replacing ASLAVs. They won’t be taking ASLAVs away from units but large numbers are not available because of the operational demand and reset needed to sustain it. So Bushmaster rather than an actual LAV type vehicle (new build LAV IIIs) are filling the gap.
ironduke57
New Member
t68
Well-Known Member
Ah that makes sense, it was reported in the Telegraph that 101 bushmasters are to be acquired to replace battle loses in Afghanistan, I knew we had lost a fair few to IED but not that many or beyond repair. Better to have extra Bushmaster’s introduced now to reset ASLAV, so we will have more than enough Bushmaster's than buy more ASLAV if we merge Land 400 with the US Ground Combat Vehicle program for a tracked/wheeled AFV in the future.
winnyfield
New Member
In the latest issue of Army News (May 2011) - official announcement that 7.62mm Minimi (aka Maximi) is being introduced into RAR to complement 5.56 F89 and Mag58. Doesn't mention how it'd be issued. (maybe one Maximi per section for Afghanistan?)
Defence Newspapers | The Soldiers Army
Defence Newspapers | The Soldiers Army
MARKMILES77
Active Member
Does anyone have any information on Australian mine roller equipped Bushmasters?
Who supplied the mine rollers?
Who supplied the mine rollers?
You did notice that ASLAVs are actually being used in theatre... Waiting for LAND 400 may be fine if it was the 1980s but not now. Further it is rather unlikely that the vehicle component of GCV will match our requirement. The two cavalry regiments need more proper scout cars now to train their troopers, more proper scout cars now to deploy into theatre and more proper scout cars now to sustain the higher maintenance demand of theatre deployment. This could be as easily met by an additional ASLAV or LAV III order as additional Bushmasters.
t68
Well-Known Member
It was my understanding that out of the 250 odd ASLAV in the fleet, only about 113 from memory were to be rebuilt these rebuilt ones I had assumed to be what you were talking about.
Not sure of the time frame needed for rebuilding ASLAV will be, but with additional Bushmaster to make up the shortfall in overall numbers till all are rebuilt plus the operational Bushmasters we have lost. Building the additional Bushmaster will keep the line open till they work out what they will do in regards to land 400, GCV could also be a possible replacement for ASLAV in the future.
I cannot remember where I read it but if GCV falls over for land 400, I think the US did a offer a good deal on refurbished Bradley AFV in a similar deal to the Abrams MBT
No the number to be upgraded is indicative of how many are left in working order after seven years of steady operations. To sustain the level of ASLAV use we need at least 300 vehicles. We’re down to about a third of that level. Bushmasters don’t cut it as an ASLAV gap fill because they are a very different vehicle.
The additional order keeps the line humming until defence can complete all the paperwork required for two lots of 450 odd (each lot) ute versions (short cab and dual cab) for LAND 121. Crazy to think we are ordering 70 additional Bushmasters on top of need to gap fill for paperwork. It has very little to do with LAND 400. Bendigo couldn’t build an IFV anyway.
LAND 400’s IFV will consider a range of options. Since GCV is still a paper vehicle I doubt it will even be bid. However its BMS and other systems derived from the FCS program are of interest. A modernised Bradley is a likely bid in competition with CV90, ASCOD, Puma and maybe others. Refurbished Bradleys will be a step backwards from the capability Army wants for the new IFV.
Er, no. Bushmasters wont be replacing ASLAVs anywhere.
Australia uses SPARK minerollers on the Bushies the same as everyone else. One was recently blown up on Route 66 in Afghanistan, so at least they work.
The Phase 4 ASLAV upgrade was canned some time ago. There is a survivability upgrade being introduced now for the vehicles in Afghan, but the remaining money was rolled over into other programs. If they just spend that money on RPS the current fleet could actually be used.
It certainly won't help the line units. No Bushmaster have been delivered to units for 18 months anyway, as they stopped buying the VIC3 harness and there are no harnesses to go into the vehicles being made. Until the new (POS) SOTAS harness comes in, it wont make a lick of difference.
thank you for the info raven
...It will be interesting to see how they are deployed. Will they be issued at brick, section, or platoon level?
If at brick level I assume they will replace the riflemans F88, leaving the brick leader with his F88, the grenadier and the LSW gunner. Who will be the scout?
A selective fire, bi pod equipped, full bore rifle would be quite useful. I imagine it would be used for precision fire out to 600m and harassing fire out to 800m or more. It would also be useful as a supplement to the Minimi in fire and movement, allowing one foot on the ground at a time.
That would be a great move with the added advantage that when LAND 400 starts delivering replacement vehicles there will be a capable vehicle with a decent life left to cascade down to the ARES.