No-one is suggesting the world is ending, but pointing out the inconsistency between approved plans and this short-sided and very ordinary decision isn't alarmist.
If you think it is well that's your opinion. I have a different one.
If you think it is well that's your opinion. I have a different one.
No, you were carrying on that because the purchase of 18 guns had been cancelled, there wouldn't be enough guns to equip the three regiments. As the Army has 35 M-777s and 35 M-198s, not to mention a 100 odd Hamel guns, that is blatantly false. There are already far more guns than the Army can use. Hence, you were being alarmist.
Fair enough. It would help if your opinion was based on fact though.
Except it can't be lifted by helos and can't operate while being shot at. The advantage of into and out of action time a few seconds faster compared to a towed M777 (which can be towed by a gun tractor Bushmaster Ute) is minimal compared to the huge extra cost. Plus the failure to achieve the most important requirement of sustaining artillery fires while the bad guys are shooting at us.
PS ADI were going to bid a Bushmaster with the French 155mm L52 gun from the Caesar on the back of it for LAND 17 if the capability requirement hadn't been defined as a fully under armour system. They only needed a 4x4 to carry the gun.
Ok fair point and a Bushmaster based Archer would cost as much if not more than a tracked SPG. I suppose the other option is something like Donar using a LAND 400 platform. A short term solution for fire support of manoeuvre units could be some form of SP mortar, i.e. Dragonfire, AMOS, Nemo.
t68
Well-Known Member
I remember some time ago when ASLAV was being procured that a possible mortar variants was on the cards, I cannot remember the reason given for procuring them, but Russ French from Defence Models and Graphics commissioned two variants back in the 90's for a presentation to army.
DMG ASLAV 120mm MORTAR Carrier Models 1:35
DMG ASLAV 120mm MORTAR Carrier Models 1:35
t68
Well-Known Member
I was just going thru my email and came upon this from ADM headlines, unfortunately I cannot read the whole article but it is about a V12 into the G-wagon, I might be reading it wrong but why are they putting a V12 motor into the G –wagon or is it reefing to something thing else?
Mercedes to put V12 into G-wagen
Seems a bit of an over kill.
Mercedes to put V12 into G-wagen
Seems a bit of an over kill.
If Caesar failed on OH&S then a gunned up perentie has got no chance..
Can't read the article. The V12 is a petrol unit - totally unsuited to military use.
From motoring sites, the V12 is simply AMG finding the next engine to replace the 5.5litre supercharged V8 in the G55. And, as with all things automotive (particularly when it comes to fun trucks largely bought by arabs) more horsepower is better than less. The twin turbo V12 is all about having the biggest baddest truck on the streets.
A more suited engine already fitted to the G in some markets in the 4 litre V8 twin turbo diesel. That is if they needed more grunt. The standard V6 shouldn't be sneezed at - it makes around as much torque as the Unimog donks in service now.
My warped sense of regulation wonders whether the whole Afghan deployment "passed" the OH&S assessmentIf Caesar failed on OH&S then a gunned up perentie has got no chance..
MARKMILES77
Active Member
Couple of early snippets from Budget re Army:
SPH cancelled outright but additional M777s will be purchased. No time frame on this.
Considering the small number of Abrams in service now, I wonder how low the numbers will go? One full Squadron and some for training perhaps?
SPH cancelled outright but additional M777s will be purchased. No time frame on this.
Army will be required to reduce the use of the M1A1s and M113AS4s and as a consequence some of them will be taken out of service and mothballed.
Considering the small number of Abrams in service now, I wonder how low the numbers will go? One full Squadron and some for training perhaps?
I can't help but wonder if we should be looking at an AGS type solution as part of LAND 400, i.e. a sufficient number of 105 or 120mm gunned variants (AGS?) of both the wheeled and tracked vehicles we order to provide a heavy DFS troop for each APC and Rec Sqn as a more easily (more politically acceptable therefore more likely to be deployed) supplement to 1 ARMD. Give the Army the ability to deploy some heavy duty DFS without scaring to political horses by sending tanks. Would look good to do the same with SP mortars.
I don't think it would really matter. Anything that walked like a duck and quacked like a duck, would be labelled a duck by our media "experts".
Hell, I've even seen a Bushmaster described as a tank...
If you were going down that path - I've always thought the G6 looks to be just the ticket. That way we'd get the protected 155mm guns combined with the ability (wheels) to self deploy significant distances, and the ability to shoot and scoot if necessary. I'm guessing the cost would not be anywhere near the cost of the Korean or German offerings in Land 17.
There must be a reason why more countries aren't using it - is it because it doesn't do all the recent fun tricks? (multiple rounds/similtaneous impact, AFTADS etc). Political reasons? Reliability? Habitability?
I was thinking more along exploiting the full FOV options that are likely to be offered, i.e. LAV V for instance would include APC, AIFV, CFV, AGS, etc; there was even a SPV version of a GD LAV (cant remember which, may have been a Stryker with the ordinance based on the M777) but there is definitely the USMC LAV II based Dragonfire mortar. CV 90 has 105 and 120mm gun options as well as AMOS on offer. Aim to build homogenous (in terms of platform) squadrons within the Beersheba CAV Regiments a bit like the old days with the M-113 FOV LRV/APC, MRV, mortar carrier, ARV(L), ACV, etc. I know the ASLAV has quite a few variants in service but no where near as many as they could have had.
Hey once the up armoured G-wagens start being photographed and filmed in ADF colours they too will become tanks!
There is a 'requirement' for an armoured fire support vehicle as part of Land 400, but personally I think it is unlikely to be funded. A tank can do everything an MGS-type vehicle can do, but the reverse isn't true. If you need fire support in the assault, just bring a tank.
The ASLAV is a cavalry vehicle, not a vehicle to lift the infantry like the M-113 was/is. There is no need for an FSV/MRV type vehicle for the ASLAV, as the M-242 chain gun is a far better weapon system than either vehicle carried.
This is the LAV 3 version I think you might be refering to its a 105mm developed by Denel which is still in development.
LAV III Stryker T7 105 mm self-propelled howitzer technical data sheet specifications pictures*-*Army Recognition*-*Army Recognition
Would be a perfect example for the NZ Army to have not to sure if it will have a place in the Aus Orbat.
CD
Fair call on that, in the CAV role the M-113 was always a bit of an oversized clunker and we often used to speculate if something like the CVR(T) FOV (especially the ex 2 CAV blokes while those from 3/4 CAV and 5/7RAR seemed to fantasies over Warriors and Bradleys) would have been a better fit. Of course we were re-roled as APC following that, which wouldn’t / couldn’t have happened had the CVR(T), or even an armoured car, or scout car of some sort, been the issued vehicle. The ASLAV has proven its self but I think it was you who said its replacement is likely to be larger, possibly a wheeled APC variant of some sort.
My thinking is probably flawed and unrealistic but ever since (some time in my youth) I discovered that many infantry and cavalry units around the world have traditionally had an AT platoon / troop, a mortar platoon / troop, and usually a rec platoon / troop in their ORBAT I have envisioned the Australian Army doing something similar but motorising / mechanising the capabilities. Plan Beersheba just seems to make it easier to achieve with the CAV Regt being the home for these mounted capabilities and the Inf Btns maintaining their own ATGW, light mortar and dismounted Rec.