Diesel
t68
Well-Known Member
By using diesel are their any performance trade offs?
I can understand the logic by using diesel it is the choice of fuel outside of the major regional centres but with training ranges close to major fuel terminals jet would be readily available. It would be interesting to see the margin for which goverment pays for dist and jet.
There's no performance issues that you'd notice. The reason our Abrams use diesel is simply because that's what everything else in the brigades use. The Australian Army just doesn't have enough helicopters for JP8 to be widely available. The US has so many that its easier just running everything on JP8.
While it doesn’t look pretty it’s not half the mess it would be if it was an armd, engr, inf or other sub unit getting the mess around.
The new artillery troops are supposed to be self-contained elements enabled by the M777A2 gun. So they can be grouped either into a brigade level gun battery or attached to each direct support battery. It should matter nothing to the actual operation of the new types of guns either way. It was just in the old new structure some bright spark thought it was more flexible to have all the guns together. Of course Australian Army units conduct training and deployments by sub units so all they did was make training a dog’s breakfast which is why the troops are going back into the direct support batteries.
The Operations Support Battery used to be called the HQ Battery and is commanded by the Artillery Regiment’s Operations Officer and remains fundamentally unaffected by the changes to the direct support batteries. It provides capability to deploy and manage artillery at the brigade commander’s level unlike the direct support batteries which do so at the unit level plus of course providing the actual shooters.
the road runner
Active Member
So Australia is getting a free NH-90 off Eurocopter.
Buy 46 and get one free
Eurocopter Gives Australia Free NH90 Chopper in Delay Accord - Bloomberg
We never hear about a Defence company giving away free kit to its clients.I am very curious to this tactic from Eurocopter.The Australian Government must have applied a lot of pressure toward Eurocopter.
How is this program travelling,must not be going to well if it is being sweetened by a free chopper.
Buy 46 and get one free
Eurocopter Gives Australia Free NH90 Chopper in Delay Accord - Bloomberg
We never hear about a Defence company giving away free kit to its clients.I am very curious to this tactic from Eurocopter.The Australian Government must have applied a lot of pressure toward Eurocopter.
How is this program travelling,must not be going to well if it is being sweetened by a free chopper.
It could be a way around a penalty clause. Because the Kiwi ones are all late they are all delivered by Antanov 124 to Ohakea at NHs expense which one pundit figured out was $20mill per delivery, so thats equivalent of one free one for us (four deliveries).So Australia is getting a free NH-90 off Eurocopter.
Buy 46 and get one free
Eurocopter Gives Australia Free NH90 Chopper in Delay Accord - Bloomberg
We never hear about a Defence company giving away free kit to its clients.I am very curious to this tactic from Eurocopter.The Australian Government must have applied a lot of pressure toward Eurocopter.
How is this program travelling,must not be going to well if it is being sweetened by a free chopper.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
The 47th airframe was mentioned in a Defence press release about a week ago, the relevant paragraph:So Australia is getting a free NH-90 off Eurocopter.
Buy 46 and get one free
Eurocopter Gives Australia Free NH90 Chopper in Delay Accord - Bloomberg
We never hear about a Defence company giving away free kit to its clients.I am very curious to this tactic from Eurocopter.The Australian Government must have applied a lot of pressure toward Eurocopter.
How is this program travelling,must not be going to well if it is being sweetened by a free chopper.
"Included in today’s agreement is the delivery of a 47th aircraft, at no additional cost, to be used as a live training aid for Army and Navy aviation technicians who undergo MRH90 training at the Army’s Aviation Maintenance school at Oakey, Queensland."
Doesn't sound like it will be a flying example, more likely to be a ground and maintenance trainer, be interesting to know if it's 'new' production or maybe a prototype.
And speaking of prototypes and training aids, the Navy is obtaining a 'Bromeo' airframe as a training and maintenance aid too (from an article in the March edition of Australian Aviation mag).
When the MH-60R program started 7 SH-60B airframes were rebuilt as Romeo's (hence the Bromeo tag), maybe Eurocopter is following the lead set by Team Romeo!
But getting back to the MRH-90, there is an article in the May 9 issue of 'Navy News', see page 6:
Defence Newspapers | Navy News
It says that IOC for the Navy should be achieved around the end of this year and mid next year for Army.
The article also mentioned that the Kiwi's were interested in coming here and making use of the simulator at Oakey.
Trackmaster
Member
A US site, wired.com is carrying a story stating that the Australian Army, along with the Danes, used the M40, 106mm recoilless rifle in Afghanistan.
It was my belief that they were well and truely in the back of the warehouse.
It was my belief that they were well and truely in the back of the warehouse.
t68
Well-Known Member
Australia is firmly committed to Plan Beersheba a combined arms team format centered on multi-role brigade. With the current government’s aversion for a tracked in-direct fire support platform (SPG) and since Abrams in the direct fire support role and is not likely to be sent overseas. Does the Army need a more mobile light direct fire support system such as Lockheed DAGR which would also be compatible with Tiger ARH EO.
Obviously DAGR won’t replace Abrams in heavy amour support role when needed such as in Operation Hammer (Battle of Binh Ba) but can provide additional support to ASLAV or M113 in the over watch role such as the Battle of Derapet. It may be able to be placed on Hawkei PMV or M113 for a wheeled and tracked version, my only problem is reload time and the effort needed to sustain it in the field.
Is it something that would be needed as part of an Amphibious Assault Task Group or would we be better off just relying on Tiger ARH and SPG at a later date (hopefully).
Lockheed Demos DAGR Missile Ground Vehicle Launch Capability from JLTV | Missiles & Bombs News at DefenceTalk
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omxwpiOKL6A&NR=1&feature=endscreen"]Lockheed Martin Demonstrates DAGR Missile Ground Vehicle Launch Capability from JLTV - YouTube[/nomedia]
Obviously DAGR won’t replace Abrams in heavy amour support role when needed such as in Operation Hammer (Battle of Binh Ba) but can provide additional support to ASLAV or M113 in the over watch role such as the Battle of Derapet. It may be able to be placed on Hawkei PMV or M113 for a wheeled and tracked version, my only problem is reload time and the effort needed to sustain it in the field.
Is it something that would be needed as part of an Amphibious Assault Task Group or would we be better off just relying on Tiger ARH and SPG at a later date (hopefully).
Lockheed Demos DAGR Missile Ground Vehicle Launch Capability from JLTV | Missiles & Bombs News at DefenceTalk
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omxwpiOKL6A&NR=1&feature=endscreen"]Lockheed Martin Demonstrates DAGR Missile Ground Vehicle Launch Capability from JLTV - YouTube[/nomedia]
Me thinks wired can't tell the difference between M40 106mm and Carl Gustav 84mm.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I know Wired as being a techno-gaming magazine geared towards hipsters and computer/platform gamers. I have read a few Defence-related articles from them, but I have found their 'Defence' reporters to be generally more clueless about defence than regular broadsheet journo outlets like the NYT, WSJ, Washington Post, etc.
-Cheers
I can see a definite future for a guided rocket system on the Tiger ARH, the MH-60R Romeo and perhaps on a UAV system in years to come.
I'm not sure the Army is particularly interested in a short-ranged rocket system for land vehicles.
Hell, we struggle to buy a 40mm lightweight automatic grenade launcher. We'd be in massive trouble trying to introduce something like this!
I think Army would be happy just to be able to afford an RWS system for it's Hawkei / JLTV vehicles with an M2 QCB or 40mm AGL AND an actual replacement for it's M113 vehicles with a 25-40mm cannon system in years to come.
A capability such as this would be on the outer edge of the crystal ball, I'd suggest.
MARKMILES77
Active Member
The latest edition of Army News has a number of articles regarding Plan Beersheba.
The first of the Armoured Cavalry Regiments deployed on an excercise with 3 Brigade.
What is interesting is the composition of the new ACR.
441 Soldiers
14 Abrams
30 ASLAVs
55 M113 AS4s
2 M88s
I don't know if this is the definitive structure of an ACR but if it is, it seems that many ASLAVs will be mothballed (or handed to the Reserves?).
Currently I believe EACH of the two current Cavalry Regiments operates around 90 ASLAVs, whereas only 30 will be needed for each of the three new Armoured Cavalry Regiments. So effectively the six current ASLAV Cavalry Squadrons will be reduced to only three.
And how do the Bushmaster PMVs fit into this structure?
Are they allocated to each Infantry Battalion directly or are they operated by Reserves?
The first of the Armoured Cavalry Regiments deployed on an excercise with 3 Brigade.
What is interesting is the composition of the new ACR.
441 Soldiers
14 Abrams
30 ASLAVs
55 M113 AS4s
2 M88s
I don't know if this is the definitive structure of an ACR but if it is, it seems that many ASLAVs will be mothballed (or handed to the Reserves?).
Currently I believe EACH of the two current Cavalry Regiments operates around 90 ASLAVs, whereas only 30 will be needed for each of the three new Armoured Cavalry Regiments. So effectively the six current ASLAV Cavalry Squadrons will be reduced to only three.
And how do the Bushmaster PMVs fit into this structure?
Are they allocated to each Infantry Battalion directly or are they operated by Reserves?
PMVs are going to the CSSBs; a SQN each.
That's not the definitive version of the ACR, its just what Armd Regt happened to take with them for TS/Hamel. With the ASLAVs, the full ACR will have more than 30. If you include the A1 Ech, A2 Ech and Regt HQ, the ACR will have over 40 ASLAVs. 2RAR are also supposed to get two troops in direct support as well. To put that in perspective, the current structure has 18 ASLAV troops, the new structure will have 14. Considering that all the ASLAVs are being returned from theatre and reconditioned, all the Phase 4 prototypes have been returned and the ASLAV-S are finally be delivered, the regiments will be fully equipped for the first time in a long time.
As focus said, the PMVs are being given to the CSSB, who will raise a small transport squadron capable of lifting most of the F ech of a battalion. The Reserve units are also being delivered Bushies, with each Reserve unit supposedly able to provide a company lift.
MARKMILES77
Active Member
Has a final structure for each of the Armoured Cavalry Regiments been decided and if so is it public knowledge?
If 2RAR is going to have attached armour is it also going to have an attached artillery detachment , engineers etc and form an Australian version of a Marine Expeditionary Unit?
If 2RAR is going to have attached armour is it also going to have an attached artillery detachment , engineers etc and form an Australian version of a Marine Expeditionary Unit?
The ACR structure has been decided (down to the last soldier and last piece of equipment), however it is only a proposed structure and has yet to be tested. 1 Armd Regt are testing it on TALISMAN SABRE. All the considered opinion is that it will fail miserably.
The basic structure of the ACR is public knowledge (ie, one tank squadron, one ASLAV squadron and one APC squadron) but nothing more detailed than that. It is hardly a secret though.
Yes and no. 2 RAR is only forming the basis for the ARE, not the full ARG, so anything not needed for the ARE will not be part of the 2 RAR orbat. Essentially, 2 RAR will simply be two AREs, with one being online at any one time. The elements of the ARE that are not organic to an infantry battalion will be raised, trained and sustained by the relevant unit in 3 Bde, but allocated direct support to 2 RAR. For instance, the ASLAVs in direct support to 2 RAR will remain part of 2 CAV (the 3 Bde ACR), but will do all their collective training with the relevant rifle company of 2 RAR.
If this re-org is all simply to create 3 APC squadrons (which seems a VERY low number to me, given what 5 and 7 had until recently) 3 Cav Squadrons (again low compared to what 2/14 and 2 Cav were equipped with) and 3 tank squadrons (ironically high given 1 Armed currently only has 2) why don't we just create a full Cavalry Regt (3 squadrons plus support), a full APC Regt (3 squadrons plus support) and a full tank Regt (3 squadrons plus support) and be done with it?
The Govt isn't going to pay to move tank squadrons to Brisbane and Townsville just to suit Army's desire to have a range of capabilities to support small taskforces in Townsville and Brisbane as well as in Darwin...
Locate all 3 Regt's in Darwin, with pre-positioned armour in South Australia so we can train in the wet season.
Force packages prepare for operations and conduct mission rehearsal exercises and deploy with the necessary squadron/s from the full Regiments whenever required.
Peace time forces drive around in peace time vehicles. Operational forces train on and deploy with operational vehicles.
Done and cheaply (which let's face it, is the overwhelming priority...)
The Govt isn't going to pay to move tank squadrons to Brisbane and Townsville just to suit Army's desire to have a range of capabilities to support small taskforces in Townsville and Brisbane as well as in Darwin...
Locate all 3 Regt's in Darwin, with pre-positioned armour in South Australia so we can train in the wet season.
Force packages prepare for operations and conduct mission rehearsal exercises and deploy with the necessary squadron/s from the full Regiments whenever required.
Peace time forces drive around in peace time vehicles. Operational forces train on and deploy with operational vehicles.
Done and cheaply (which let's face it, is the overwhelming priority...)