Australian Army Discussions and Updates

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Thank you US Army. A bit sad when you have to borrow 'kit' as vital as helicopters to give your elite soldiers the mobility edge they require.
I think you're being a bit harsh here. :)

there is a truck and support bucket that is drawn upon in any planning event.
just as much as we end up with coalition assets providing truck and support, we also do the same.

the US happens to own more rotary trucks than anyone else, and it makes sense for them to provide the lifting and support if they are within the response and delivery range of the mission set.

eg we get CAS from everyone in range, not just US fixed wing air, US rotary air.

in fact the US has made it clear in the past that they will provide as much and the majority of truck assets we need as what they want from us lies in other areas. (eg specials and various mentoring or air management roles)

Aust ATC's and JTACs are in demand as an example
 

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
It seems the talk of 3 RAR being the amphib battalion was a load of tosh. As expected it will be 2 RAR, starting next year.
So, Navy gets the capability to move 2-3 battle groups in a single lift, and have a single battle group trained up?
Yes I know, only one Canberra Class should be available at a time, but if required, Largs, I mean Choules and both C,Bras could be needed. Make sense to train all of 3 Bde and rotate the Bns through an ODF type cycle?
 

MARKMILES77

Active Member
Looks like the Bushmaster Ute has missed out but Thales will be happy with the Hawkei decision.
In Fact Everyone is really a winner!
Thales with Hawkei, Mercedes with the G Wagon and MAN with the heavy trucks.

Minister for Defence and Minister for Defence Materiel – Project Overlander – LAND 121
12 December 2011
Minister for Defence Stephen Smith and Minister for Defence Materiel Jason Clare today announced that the Government had taken the next step in the $7.5 billion Project Overlander that will provide the Australian Defence Force with around 7,500 new vehicles over the next decade.

Project Overlander will replace the current fleet of Land Rovers, Unimog, Mack and S-Liner trucks and their associated trailers and modules.

These new vehicles represent a significant increase in capability, replacing multiple vehicles fleets that have been in service since the early 1980s.

LAND 121 Phase 3B Protected and Unprotected Medium and Heavy Vehicles

Rheinmetall MAN Military Vehicles Australia has been down-selected as the preferred tenderer and will now enter into detailed negotiations to provide up to 2,700 protected and unprotected medium and heavy vehicles under LAND 121 Phase 3B.

Options will also be sought for approximately 1,000 more unprotected vehicles for training purposes under LAND 121 Phase 5B.

This decision has been made after lengthy tender evaluations that involved both desktop analysis and vehicle performance testing. Rheinmetall MAN was selected as it offered the best value for money and met Defence requirements for capability and cost.

These vehicles will replace the Australian Defence Force’s current fleet of Unimog, Mack and S-Liner trucks. They include:

Medium and Heavy recovery vehicles;
Medium and Heavy tractors (equipment transporters);
Heavy integrated load handling vehicles (self-loading hook lift trucks); and
Medium-weight tray variants (with cranes and tippers).
The new vehicles will improve performance and protection as well as provide commonality across the fleet which will improve Army’s training and logistic support requirements.

Subject to successful negotiations, it is anticipated that approximately 35 per cent of the value of the Phase 3B work will be undertaken inAustraliaby Rheinmetall MAN and its Australian subcontractors.

The work inAustraliawill provide significant opportunities for Australian industry, including the installation of locally supplied bodies and modules, and integration of vehicle parts and testing. This work is expected to be undertaken in Wacol, Brisbane. The through life support for the vehicles is also expected to be undertaken inAustralia.

Defence will also enter into negotiations with Australian company Haulmark Trailers, as the preferred tenderer to supply up to 2,500 trailers for these medium and heavy vehicles. Subject to satisfactory negotiations, the trailers will be manufactured at Haulmark’sBrisbanefacility and this work is expected to create up to 75 jobs and sustain approximately 150 jobs.

Commercial negotiations are expected to inform second pass approval by Government in 2013. Should a satisfactory commercial outcome not be achieved, Defence has reserved the right to engage other tenderers.

Subject to contract negotiation and the options exercised by Defence, the cost for Phases 3B and 5B is now expected to cost more than the original budget estimate from August 2007.

The additional funds will come from surplus funds previously committed to LAND 121 Phase 2A and 3A, LAND 17 Phase 1C Artillery Replacement and LAND 112 (Australian Light Armoured Vehicle Enhancement) and JOINT PROJECT 2048 Phase 3 (Amphibious watercraft).

The first stage of the upgrade to Australian Light Armoured Vehicles (ASLAVs) has been completed inAfghanistan. This included the fitting of US Marine Corps belly plates and blast protected driver seats.

The Government has decided not to proceed with the second stage of upgrades to ASLAVs on the advice of Defence. The second stage was developmental and considered too risky to proceed with.

LAND 121 Phase 4 Protected and Unprotected Light Vehicles

LAND 121 Phase 4 is a $1.5 billion project that seeks to provide up to 1300 protected and unprotected light vehicles.

ThalesAustralia’s Hawkei has been selected as the preferred vehicle for the development and testing under Stage 2 of the Manufactured and Supported in Australia (MSA) option under LAND 121 Phase 4.

Following exhaustive testing and assessment of the MSA participants, Defence recommended the Hawkei vehicle as it was most likely to meet the future capability and value for money requirements of the LAND 121 Ph4 MSA option.

The next stage of Phase 4 will include funding for further development and testing including the manufacture of prototype vehicles.

Subject to successful testing of the vehicles, final Government approval of the project is expected in 2015, and production work could potentially commence inAustraliaas early as 2016.

ThalesAustraliais currently manufacturing Bushmaster Protected Mobility Vehicles at its factory inBendigo. This manufacturing capability, and the skills of the workforce, is an important national security capability.

On current plans, manufacture of Bushmasters atBendigois expected to be completed before the end of 2013.

In order to retain critical skills inBendigowhile the design of the Hawkei is finalised and proven, the Government has agreed to explore the purchase of additional Bushmaster vehicles.

The approval to acquire additional Bushmaster vehicles will be dependant on Thales demonstrating an efficient, effective and innovative program to maintain core protected vehicle manufacturing skills atBendigoand in successfully meeting technical performance, cost and schedule commitments in the development of the Hawkei vehicle.

Progress towards a suitable production-ready Hawkei will be measured through a series of milestones. Thales will need to successfully demonstrate the maturing design of the vehicle.

Defence will continue to monitor progress of the US Joint Light Tactical Vehicle program, however, no additional funding commitments have been made at this stage.

LAND 121 Phases 3A and 5A Light and Lightweight Tactical Training Vehicles

The production of 1,187 Mercedes Benz G-Wagons was approved in 2007 to replace the Australian Defence Force’s current fleet of Land Rovers under LAND 121 Phase 3A.

In August this year, the Government announced that a further 959 G-Wagons would be purchased under LAND 121 Phase 5A to provide a fleet of tactical vehicles and an enhanced training capability to prepare for operations in protected vehicles.

Modules for these vehicles will be manufactured and integrated by G. H. Varley Pty Ltd in the Hunter Valley of NSW and the trailers will be sourced from Haulmark Trailers.

Vehicle deliveries commenced in March this year in accordance with the acquisition schedule. To date 307 production vehicles have been delivered to units including RAAF Base Amberley, Latchford Barracks and the Army School of Electrical and Mechanical Engineering in Albury.

The main roll-out of vehicles to Defence units is scheduled to occur between July 2012 and 2015.
 

MARKMILES77

Active Member
The announcements keep coming!
Presumably there was no option of speeding up the delivery of the Fs?


Minister for Defence and Minister for Defence Materiel – ADF Bolsters CH-47D Chinook Capability

12 December 2011

Minister for Defence Stephen Smith and the Minister for Defence Materiel Jason Clare today announced that the Australian Defence Force’s (ADF) CH-47D Chinook fleet will be bolstered by a further two helicopters following the loss of one aircraft on operations in Afghanistan in May 2011.

The purchase of the additional CH-47D Chinooks, effected through Defence signing of a Letter of Offer and Acceptance with the United States will bring Australia’s total CH-47D Chinook fleet to seven.

The additional aircraft will reduce pressure on the training and maintenance schedule for the ADF Chinook fleet resulting in enhanced support to the two Chinook’s currently deployed to the Middle East Area of Operations (MEAO).

The two additional aircraft have been sourced from the United States, and will be transported to Australia for servicing and modification to the current Australian CH-47D configuration. The aircraft are expected to arrive in Townsville by the end of January next year and are anticipated to be ready for domestic operations from mid-2012.

The CH-47D Chinook undertakes the medium-lift utility role with great versatility, including troop movement, battlefield equipment transport, search and rescue and disaster relief roles. The CH-47D Chinook aircraft has been an extremely capable workhorse since they entered ADF service in 1995.

This procurement will ensure the continued utility of Chinook aircraft on overseas operations, domestically through Defence Assistance to the Civil Community and in training and sustainment of aircrews.

The CH-47D Chinook have been deployed on Operation Slipper in Afghanistan since 2006. They have performed an outstanding service for both ADF and ISAF forces and are in high demand across Afghanistan due to its superior performance in hot and high altitude conditions.

The CH-47D fleet will be replaced with seven new CH-47F Chinook helicopters from around 2016.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Looks like the Bushmaster Ute has missed out but Thales will be happy with the Hawkei decision.
In Fact Everyone is really a winner!
Thales with Hawkei, Mercedes with the G Wagon and MAN with the heavy trucks.
Fancy a political decision influencing the decision... one would never have guessed....
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
compliments of aunty:

the purple bit hilighted is a bit of a problem ATM

Defence announces major Army restructure

Updated December 12, 2011 16:01:15
Photo: The ADF says the changes will enhance the Army's ability to undertake sustained operations. (Australian Defence Force)
Map: Australia

The Defence Force has announced a major restructure of the Australian Army.

Under Plan Beersheba three multi-role brigades will be created to include wider components of infantry, armour, artillery, engineers, logistics and communications.

There will also be changes to the structure of the Army Reserve and the creation of a new amphibious force.

Defence says multi-role brigades will enable more effective training in Australia and rapid deployment of forces overseas.

It says the changes will also enhance the Army's ability to undertake sustained operations.

Defence Minister Stephen Smith says the ADF has learnt from its engagement in the Middle East during the past decade.

"What we've learnt from that experience is that Army is better placed if its skills are integrated, so we're moving to three brigades which comprise and contain all of Army's key skills - armour, infantry, communications, logistics and the like," he said.

Chief of Army Lieutenant-General David Morrison described the changes as a smarter way of delivering capability.

"Our modern Army is moving into the future with a new perspective and a smarter way of doing business and delivering capability within the resources we have," he said.

Parliamentary Secretary for Defence David Feeney says the restructure will closely integrate full and part-time personnel to create a force capable of meeting a range of contingencies.

"Each multi-role manoeuvre brigade will be supported by two Reserve brigades from 2nd Division," he said.

"Plan Beersheba recognises the operational capability of the Army Reserve, with a focus on stabilisation operations such as those in East Timor and the Solomon Islands."

The plan will be progressively implemented over the coming years.
Key changes:
The restructure of the 1st, 3rd and 7th Brigades to form new multi-role manoeuvre brigades. These brigades will be fundamentally alike in structure to enable sustained operations within a new 36-month force generation cycle.
The establishment of 10 battle group manoeuvre units.
Realignment of the Army Reserve to be more integrated with the regular Army, forming an overall force of full-time and part-time personnel. The Reserve will assume a greater focus on operations.
The 2nd Battalion Royal Australian Regiment (2RAR) will form the core of the Army's contribution to a future amphibious force capable of conducting humanitarian and disaster relief and other operations, particularly in the immediate region.
Army working with the Navy and Air Force to enhance interoperability between the three services, in particular in operations with the Landing Helicopter Dock ships and other amphibious platforms.

Topics: army, defence-forces, defence-and-national-security, australia, perth-6000

First posted December 12, 2011 15:39:43
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Looks like the Bushmaster Ute has missed out but Thales will be happy with the Hawkei decision.
In Fact Everyone is really a winner!
Thales with Hawkei, Mercedes with the G Wagon and MAN with the heavy trucks.
Maybe they Ute hasn't missed out completely, just saw this on the SMH site:

German firm in line for Defence contract

The quote in the SMH article said "The government will throw a bone the way of the Bendigo company Thales, ordering about 150 of its Bushmaster utes and forestalling potential job losses at the company."

And the announcement from the Government did say "the Government has agreed to explore the purchase of additional Bushmaster vehicles."

Obviously they want to keep the line going, and keep the workforce occupied, so either more "standard" Bushmasters or if the SMH article is correct 150 Bushmaster utes.

The SMH article also claims that some of the trucks to be supplied were from a British order that was reduced, and that those trucks will not be to the standard required, does anybody know if this is true or not?
 

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
MAN have won the medium (10 t) and heavy truck (16.5 t) component. The Bushmaster Ute was competiting for the mediumweight (5 t) component of LAND 121. Which hasn't been announced.
 

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
MAN have won the medium (10 t) and heavy truck (16.5 t) component. The Bushmaster Ute was competiting for the mediumweight (5 t) component of LAND 121. Which hasn't been announced.
Having had a look further at the press release it looks like MAN has also won the mediumweight element. Unfortunately these releases are often edited by people with little of no understanding of the specifics of the contracts and decisions, So they would cut out "mediumweight" thinking it is duplication of medium. However the total number of trucks (2700) aligns with the mediumweight, medium and heavy basis of provisioning. Also the supporting images file includes several pictures of the MAN 4x4 titled "mediumweight". So looks like the cheaper vehicle with less protection won.
 

xhxi558

New Member
Would 2 RAR and its supporting elements in the amphibious force be pulled out of 3 BDE into its own separate command? Especially now that it would not fit into the Bersheeba plan for 3 identical multi-role brigades.

Also, would it make sense to have 3 divisions under Force Command and group a regular and 2 reserve brigades under each division to better integrate the training and deployment of those brigades given that 2 reserve brigades will be allocated to support each regular brigade?
 

MARKMILES77

Active Member
What about the significance of the cuts mentioned in the press release?
What is Land 17 Phase 1C?
And does the decision to not upgrade the ASLAV any further hint at a new vehicle buy as a replacement?


Subject to contract negotiation and the options exercised by Defence, the cost for Phases 3B and 5B is now expected to cost more than the original budget estimate from August 2007.

The additional funds will come from surplus funds previously committed to LAND 121 Phase 2A and 3A, LAND 17 Phase 1C Artillery Replacement and LAND 112 (Australian Light Armoured Vehicle Enhancement) and JOINT PROJECT 2048 Phase 3 (Amphibious watercraft).

The first stage of the upgrade to Australian Light Armoured Vehicles (ASLAVs) has been completed inAfghanistan. This included the fitting of US Marine Corps belly plates and blast protected driver seats.

The Government has decided not to proceed with the second stage of upgrades to ASLAVs on the advice of Defence. The second stage was developmental and considered too risky to proceed with.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
What about the significance of the cuts mentioned in the press release?
What is Land 17 Phase 1C?
And does the decision to not upgrade the ASLAV any further hint at a new vehicle buy as a replacement?
LAND17 Phase 1C is the SPG purchase. Either the surplus funds are because the SPG requirement has been cancelled or because it's scope has been reduced...

Given 8/12 Mdm Regt are equipping with M777A2 guns to replace it's M198's, it seems as if the SPG requirement may have been quietly dropped.

Wouldn't surprise me if the last two remaining vendors told DMO to shove their ridiculously optimistic and frankly over the top requirements and pulled out of the competition altogether...

Given the Auto-Grenade launcher failure, Phase IV ASLAV upgrade failure and now (perhaps) an SPG project failure, it seems as if Land Systems aren't performing too well...

Might be time for a rocket for them...
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Would 2 RAR and its supporting elements in the amphibious force be pulled out of 3 BDE into its own separate command? Especially now that it would not fit into the Bersheeba plan for 3 identical multi-role brigades.
It won't be given it's own command, but will become a direct command unit of 1 Div.

Also, would it make sense to have 3 divisions under Force Command and group a regular and 2 reserve brigades under each division to better integrate the training and deployment of those brigades given that 2 reserve brigades will be allocated to support each regular brigade?
There is really no such thing as a Division in the Australian Army. 1 Div is simply a HQ to command elements while they deploy, and 2 Div is purely an administrative HQ. All the regular brigades are directly under the command of FORCOMD. There is no need for another layer of command.

And does the decision to not upgrade the ASLAV any further hint at a new vehicle buy as a replacement?
They did look at the possibility of new build Strykers/LAVIIIs to increase the protection for Afghanistan, but it was decided to not be worth the cost.

Given the Auto-Grenade launcher failure, Phase IV ASLAV upgrade failure and now (perhaps) an SPG project failure, it seems as if Land Systems aren't performing too well...
ASLAV Ph 4 wasn't a failure, they simply decided that the increase in protection wasn't worth the cost (both in money and weight). They bought enough belly plates for those vehicles that are deployed and reinvested the money elsewhere. Personally I think even the belly plates are a waste of time of money.

The SPG hasn't been canned either. Nor will it be if Plan Beersheba is signed off.
 

Prosper

New Member
The SPG hasn't been canned either. Nor will it be if Plan Beersheba is signed off.
I've been trying to find out a bit more about this and all I could find was the website from the Defence Material Organisation website which only mention phase 1A.

The date this information was uploaded was in August this year so unless the department of Defence are really quick at changing their mind, it looks like that the later phases has been dropped or at least postponed to free up funds for the current defence expenditures.

However from the above website is this quote:

delivery of the Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System (AFATDS), produced by Raytheon Network Centric Systems (USA), which has been selected as the BMS-F (C2) system
Given my lack of knowledge on artillery data management system, I could be wrong here but it seems to suggest that when there is enough funds for the the SPG project, the K9 will be the most likely winner of the later phase of Land 17 because it data systems can easily be integrated into the battlefield network because Raytheon is part of the K9 consortium bid

South Korea’s Samsung Techwin to offer the K9 and its innovative protected K10 ammunition resupply vehicle (ARV), along with Raytheon’s AFATDS command and control (C2) system.
The above quote came from the Defense Industry Daily website and the article was published on the 11/10/2010.
.
 

MARKMILES77

Active Member
The SPG hasn't been canned either. Nor will it be if Plan Beersheba is signed off.

But now with Plan Beersheba why bother with a small number of SP Guns? Spreading 12 SPGs between 3 Brigades is ridiculous.
It makes sense under the current Army structure with one heavier Brigade, to have that Brigade equipped entirely with SPGs but with three identical Brigades every Artillery Regiment will have 4XSPGs and 8XTowed. Surely it is hardly worth the the trouble of supporting two separate gun systems in every Brigade in order to get 4 of your artillery pieces Self Propelled.

For LESS THAN the cost of purchasing the 18 SPGs, the Government should buy 35 more M777s. This would allow each Brigade to be equipped with 18 M777s rather than 4 SPGs and 8 M777s.
 

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
But now with Plan Beersheba why bother with a small number of SP Guns? Spreading 12 SPGs between 3 Brigades is ridiculous.
No it isn't. A troop of 4 SPGs per brigade is a huge increase in their firepower and enables the Beersheeba concept of each brigade having all the capabilities needed to fight various types of battles and to put a full mechanised battlegroup into the field.

Each artillery regiment per brigade has a gun battery made up of three troops of four guns each. Having one troop SP and two troops lightweight (M777) is an excellent and proven mix of capabilities.

The funds are available from the SPG buy for the trucks because the schedule was pushed back 5 years or more. This is to allow for the various integration efforts required for the LAND 17 spec to be developed and proven before production. Things like AFATDS integration, protection enhancements and even direct fire FCS integrated with the RCWS (all Army needs that the PzH2000 and K9 don't have).
 
Perhaps the "additional" Bushmasters are being ordered through Land 116 rather than Land 121?
Apparently when Defence says "the Government has agreed to explore the purchase of additional Bushmaster vehicles", the Australian media hears "Defence to buy more Bushmaster vehicles". It could be worse, the SMH could be reporting "Defence to buy land sharks with lasers".

It may have been a political decision, but the Hawkei being selected for a development program is probably sensible given the uncertainties with the JLTV program from the US end. If the US canned the JLTV (which isn't impossible, or even incredibly unlikely) it would land Australia with out a paddle.

Just because it has been raised I thought I would introduce this little Land 17 Ph1C nugget. Make of it what you will.
I was looking for photos of the Land 17 SPH contender, the Korean K9, and landed on a Korean-language photo forum. I didn't need to speak Korean to browse the images, however I used Google Translate to get a sense of what the specs and numbers meant.
One of the posts quoted a Korean newspaper (?) article that discussed the reliability (or rather, lack of it) of Korean-made armoured vehicles. It singled out the K9 (SPH)/K10 (ammo resupply) and the K30 SPAAG as being particularly bad.
I can't find the post again (sorry) but a quick Google found an article stating that during the island artillery duel with NKorea last year, of the 6 K9 SPH stationed on the island "over half" failed to work.
Maybe the dragging on of Land 17 has meant a bullet being dodged.

Defence may have gone a bit luke-warm on the SPH requirement because both the PzH2000 and K9 aren't really what they wanted and what they really wished they had done was shortlist the M109A6 so they could repeat the M1A1SA experience without screwing over the tendering suppliers.
 
With the way artillery is now networked and controlled, as well as the use of guided munitions, they are much more of a precision weapons system than they used to be. You don't need a full battery to provide a bombardment any more (it may not even be desirable), and SPHs have a "burst" capability to quickly put several rounds where needed.

@ Prosper: You can't just look at the DMO "Top 30" list as it isn't complete, but at the Defence Capability Plan page for Land 17. The DCP was updated in August 2011, and it still lists Land 17 Phase 1C with a Year Of Decision of FY 2011-12 to FY 2012-13
 

MARKMILES77

Active Member
No it isn't. A troop of 4 SPGs per brigade is a huge increase in their firepower and enables the Beersheeba concept of each brigade having all the capabilities needed to fight various types of battles and to put a full mechanised battlegroup into the field.
Do 4 SPGs really have more firepower than 10 M777s because that is the substitution my proposal would make?

Does the Australian Army need the ability to have a fully mechanised battlegroup?
For Australia's needs isn't the ability to put a USMC MEU type unit into the field more relevant. I just don't think a SPG is needed for that or worth the effort for our Army.



The funds are available from the SPG buy for the trucks because the schedule was pushed back 5 years or more. This is to allow for the various integration efforts required for the LAND 17 spec to be developed and proven before production. Things like AFATDS integration, protection enhancements and even direct fire FCS integrated with the RCWS (all Army needs that the PzH2000 and K9 don't have).
That's another problem with the SPGs. Rather than just buying them Army has a whole series of unique requirements which mean delay, development risk and increased cost. The Towed guns are the low risk option. They could be ordered and in service before a decision is even made on the SPG.
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Do 4 SPGs really have more firepower than 10 M777s because that is the substitution my proposal would make?
Do you have a spare 60 dudes per regiment to man the extra guns? Manpower wise the Army is a zero net sum game - increase the numbers of gunners and they will have to come from somewhere. As to your actual question though - 4 SPGs will have more firepower than 10 M777s if they are being used for the reasons they are being bought.

Does the Australian Army need the ability to have a fully mechanised battlegroup? For Australia's needs isn't the ability to put a USMC MEU type unit into the field more relevant. I just don't think a SPG is needed for that or worth the effort for our Army.
The reason the USMC can get away with being so light, is because they have the US Army and all its combat power able to hit the beach behind them and continue the fight. The USMC is just the can opener. Obviously the Australian Army has to do it all. Government has directed the Army to have the capability to defeat a near-peer competitor in medium intensity conflict independently of our allies. That means the ability to be heavy when required.
 
Top