I wouldn't put too much emphasis on that figure of 2032. That is simply the current date of when every single modernisation effort in Army as we know it now will have been completed. Most of the big muscle movements for Plan Beersheba will happen this decade - certainly the choc armoured regiments will start receiving PMVs within the next few years.
t68
Well-Known Member
I’ve been out for over a decade (RACT), just thought it would help retention for the reserves with a resemblance of armour protection and not having to run around in land rovers, alright for RACT but not RAAC. If ASLAV is not as maintenance heavy as M113 would have thought they were a better fit, with hindsight upgrading the M113 while a good idea at the time wasted a perfect opportunity to upgrade the Armoured Corps with a light(ASLAV) medium(Bionix/CV-90/Puma AFV) and heavy(m1 Abrams) fleet of vehicles.
The way they gutted the reserves in the 90's I actually thought it would have been better of getting rid of reserves altogether and the money going to ARA, it would be interesting to find out how many experience members walked out the gate when M113 was withdrawn.
Problem with ASLAV's is that weren't really enough bought even for the ARA, there wasn't enough to equip the Chocs too. M113A1 was entirely obsolete and had to go, but Project Mulgara had been cancelled and the Reserve Armoured units were worse than useless, because they were soaking up funding whilst not contributing to Army outputs, because their vehicles were so crap they spent more time working on them than they did training on them.
They were not deployable for anything beyond Timor, which after the first 12 months or so didn't even really need armour and the fact was (and is) that a person can be converted from a Land Rover to a light armoured vehicle qualification in a matter of weeks, but individual and collective training oppportunities were being hampered by the old vehicles and Army was receiving virtually no benefit from these units whatsoever.
I saw it coming in 2/14 LHR in early 2000. We were all offered Corps transfers as the Regiment was heading towards full ARA status and being fully equipped with ASLAV's (we already had a handful of LAV-25's after the A21 restructuring program collapsed). Some went, a lot didn't but it didn't matter to the unit as it restructured, was re-equipped with modern vehicles and it's been flat out supporting operations ever since.
It was sad when the vehicles were taken away from us and we marched out but the fact is the unit as it was then could not have contributed to modern Army operations and something had to change,
Same thing happened in artillery Corps. Their rubbish old, obsolete 105mm guns were taken away and now they have 81mm mortars they can actually go and live fire and get a good deal of training done. If needed they can actually flesh out infantry mortar units on operations overseas. Not seeing many 105mm Australian guns overseas..
Now the remaining armoured and artillery units can actually train instead of just maintain and I seriously doubt people are leaving just because they use Land Rovers at present instead of M113A1's or 81mm mortars instead of 45 year old 105mm's, when because of this very change, they can actually go away and do something on exercise, rather than spending days preparing your vehicles to go bush and then something else breaks and you don't end up achieving anything anyway. As used to often be the case...
t68
Well-Known Member
Does anyone see Australia purchasing the XM25 CDTE weapon for the infantry?
I am aware that we have the MK19 AGL belt feed weapon primarily fitted to LRPV, plus the M203 a single shot attachment for the F88.DSTO had a prototype weapon the Advanced Infantry Combat Weapon (AICW) which I have seen photos of before not sure what the latest is on that project is.
The Americans have come up with weapon that seems more user friendly than the cumbersome AICW, but is only fires 25mm grenades with a programmable airburst round in defilade situations. Not being from the Infantry and not familiar with the current Infantry tactics of the ARA, how would army integrate such a weapon, give them to the Rifle Companies or Support Company?
I am aware that we have the MK19 AGL belt feed weapon primarily fitted to LRPV, plus the M203 a single shot attachment for the F88.DSTO had a prototype weapon the Advanced Infantry Combat Weapon (AICW) which I have seen photos of before not sure what the latest is on that project is.
The Americans have come up with weapon that seems more user friendly than the cumbersome AICW, but is only fires 25mm grenades with a programmable airburst round in defilade situations. Not being from the Infantry and not familiar with the current Infantry tactics of the ARA, how would army integrate such a weapon, give them to the Rifle Companies or Support Company?
donuteater
New Member
No i dont because we are purchasing the ML-40AUS GLA. From my memory, this GLA is 40mm and is loaded from the side. To replace the F-88 Australia is developing the EF-88 and to replace the F-89A1 and the F-88A1P,
the Mk48 Mod 0. This gun looks like an FN Minimi but is a 7.62mm version. It is also 3 and a half kg's lighter than the FN MAG.
t68
Well-Known Member
Interesting, it seems British the might be about to down size their Artillery under the SDSR, ADM is suggesting we might get some AS90 SPG on the cheap under a deal like RFA Largs Bay. Don’t think this meets spec for Land 17 project. These wont be like the deal with the US for Abrams (zero hours rebuild) and the youngest would be 17 years old now, be interesting to see if AusGov goes down the 2nd hand route for the RAA.
A possible Land 17 SP solution?
A possible Land 17 SP solution?
Cleary they don't know what the LAND 17 requirement is for and its not just any old 155mm SP gun. Second hand AS90s have been on the table before. The UK has lots of them surplus though this ones are probably in better condition than the previous lot. But LAND 17 could have brought surplus M109A6s from the US Army as well which are just as good as the AS90 with the benefit of actually being LAND 17 compliant via integration with AFATDS.The AS90 Braveheart (L52) will need just as much work as the PzH2000 and K9 to meet LAND 17's requirements.
Doesn't meet our requirements?
Not as good as other designs on offer?
Cool I bet we'll buy them.
Australian Army Grounds Black Hawk Helicopters | Aviation & Air Force News at DefenceTalk
Two days later;
Black Hawks join flood efforts
Am I missing something?
Two days later;
Black Hawks join flood efforts
Am I missing something?
t68
Well-Known Member
Maybe they might have Seahawks which were not affected by the grounding or the Blackhawks were inspected and declared fit to resume flight operations. Something about bolts shearing off or something from memory in ET
So....you have to downplay a weapon systems effectiveness in killing people/breaking stuff to be allowed to buy it?
I mean...isn't that the point? Killing people/breaking stuff more effectively than the other guy?Adrian
I must have missed this somewhere.
I thought that the reasoning behind the glacial pace of a LAND 17 decision was the lack of AFATDS integration.
If there are suitably integrated US M109A6's going begging - why don't we take them?
Still puzzled
MB
It is but the imagery of un-guided MLRS raining sub-munitions down indiscriminately is the image Australian media would run with and is the one our politicians and political brass seek to avoid.So....you have to downplay a weapon systems effectiveness in killing people/breaking stuff to be allowed to buy it?
Adrian
So precise, pin-point attacks by Excalibur rounds are acceptable MLRS is not. The fact that artillery predominantly uses un-guided rounds is down-played and the fact that MLRS has GMLRS and unitary warheads is conveniently ignored...
Welcome to Australian political correctness...
Because they are not 155mm / 52cal guns...
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
If memory serves (and it might not...
) the M109A6 is a 155 mm/39 cal. howitzer with AFATDS, while Army wants a 155 mm/52 cal. howitzer that has AFATDS integrated.AFAIK the US does not utilize a 52 cal. howitzer yet, and in fact might never adopt one. There are German, British, French, South African and South Korean 52 cal. howitzers, but none of them have adopted AFATDS which IIRC is a US-based system.
-Cheers
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Quite a bit more than that I would say.
By having a longer barrel, there can be more time and room for the charge to combust and expand, plus the round can spin more due to the rifling. For these reasons a 52-cal gun can achieve greater range than a 39-cal gun. When rounds like base bleed, rocket-assisted, and/or guided munitions are added into the mix, there can be even greater variation in the potential range and accuracy of the gun.
AFAIK AFATDS is the software system to plan and coordinate fires. In order for it to does the job properly, AFATDS needs to be able to account for range and accuracy differences in the gun and munitions used, as well as the ROF. In short, the AFATDS would need to be reprogrammed with all the information for the 52-cal gun.
-Cheers
Yep, thanks again - not easy it seems.
So the US has spare 39cal AS90's with AFATDS.
The Brits have spare 52cal AS90's without AFATDS.
We are looking at the PzH2000 and the South Korean (acronym forgotten) 52cal's that don't have AFATDS.
Is there a similar system to AFATDS that has been mated to a 52cal weapon, or is AFATDS the only game in town?