Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[aussienscale]

My understanding is the next white paper is expected early next year

New Defence White Paper in 2015

Correct early 2015, waiting with baited breath to see what comes of it and hopefully move some programs on and keep them out of limbo.

I believe the K9 or AS/9 Aussie Thunder was the preferred option and got a fair way along before being canned, others here will have better background to comment, but here is some background info on the project

http://www.raytheon.com.au/rtnwcm/groups/rau/documents/download/rau_airshow11_land17.pdf

 

[Goknub]

If we're revisiting SPGs I'd much rather the Govt select HIMARS.

Given the limited budgets available, a decent rocket artillery system would provide a much greater capability enhancement on the receiving end compared to a SPG firing the same 155 rounds as the 777s.

The army won't always be able to rely on air support being available 24/7 so having guided rockets on call would be very useful and comforting.

 

[aussienscale]

If we're revisiting SPGs I'd much rather the Govt select HIMARS.

Given the limited budgets available, a decent rocket artillery system would provide a much greater capability enhancement on the receiving end compared to a SPG firing the same 155 rounds as the 777s.

The army won't always be able to rely on air support being available 24/7 so having guided rockets on call would be very useful and comforting.

Really ? 6 shots and your out, no armour and would not be able to go through the terrain needed. I think you have missed the point of the SPH and its intended use

 

[knightrider4]

Really ? 6 shots and your out, no armour and would not be able to go through the terrain needed. I think you have missed the point of the SPH and its intended use

You can probably forget about either. I can recall a statement by the PM although I can't provide a link that the government won't be revisiting that particular project.

 

[Goknub]

I understand the different roles, and ideally we would get both but if the choice had to be made I believe we need a rocket artillery capability more than we need a SPG.

With precision fires quantity is less important, there are few places a HIMARS rocket couldn't reach and it opens up the possibility of additional potential roles such as AMRAAM-based SAMs or tube-launched UAVs.

In terms of bang-for-buck, I believe this delivers more to the ADF than a SPG.

------------------------------------------------

You can probably forget about either. I can recall a statement by the PM although I can't provide a link that the government won't be revisiting that particular project.

That's essentially why I'd suggest looking at HIMARS, the SPG quota was filled by 777s so it would most likely require a new program with new requirements, etc.

I'd personally like to see 16AD become a tubed-artillery Regiment conducting anti-air, anti-surface and recon tasks.

 

[PeterM]

As reported in another forum, the UK are going to be trialling the VBCI.

This is interesting as it has previously came up short in a few areas during the FRES trials.

British Army to trial VBCI - IHS Jane's 360

Nexter unveiled at Eurosatory its new export variant of the VBCI, which featured changes in line with the British requirement. These included the ability to remove the vehicle's powerpack in the field (a British but not a French requirement), and an improved suspension and transmission to increase the VBCI's maximum weight from 29 tonnes to 32 tonnes - meeting the British need for growth potential and improved protection levels.

If this was selected for the UK, presumably there would be opportunity to leverage the UK production and support chains to reduce cost.

How does this vehicle shape up as an option for Land 400?

 

[PeterM]

What does a 2015 White Paper and government plan to increase defence spending to 2% of GDP mean for Land 400?

My understanding the priority is to replace the current ASLAV fleet due to obsolescence factors that limit tactical employment and increase ownership costs and that without replacement of the ASLAVS starting in 2020, a capability gap will result. The current plan is for the IFV to replace the M113AS4 beginning in 2025.

Is it possible we could consider separate vehicles to replace the Cavalry ASLAV-25 and the ASLAV-PC (and variants)? For example perhaps something like the UK’s Scout SV being developed by General Dynamics UK for the Cavalry units and something like the VBCI to replace the other ASLAVs.

Considering the time-frame to get the ASLAV replacement into service, it seems likely that options would be either vehicles currently in service or enter service in the near future.

 

[MickB]

As reported in another forum, the UK are going to be trialling the VBCI.

This is interesting as it has previously came up short in a few areas during the FRES trials.

British Army to trial VBCI - IHS Jane's 360



If this was selected for the UK, presumably there would be opportunity to leverage the UK production and support chains to reduce cost.

How does this vehicle shape up as an option for Land 400?

I think that unless there is a large difference in requirements or other gain (such as commonality with something already in service), all equipment for the ADF should be sourced from the US. Mainly from the USN and USMC.

This should provide the best interoperability, service, supply and future growth.

Past examples I think the ADF should have bought are the M109 SPH and AH1 gunship. These could have been in service two decades ago, rather than a capability we are still waiting on.

The additional Helo's should have more Blackhawks and Chinooks rather than the MH90. Again a know solution in service now.

In terms of Land 400 I would look closely at the winner of the USMCs MPC contest for our cav vehicle.

 

[PeterM]

I think that unless there is a large difference in requirements or other gain (such as commonality with something already in service), all equipment for the ADF should be sourced from the US. Mainly from the USN and USMC.

This should provide the best interoperability, service, supply and future growth.

Past examples I think the ADF should have bought are the M109 SPH and AH1 gunship. These could have been in service two decades ago, rather than a capability we are still waiting on.

The additional Helo's should have more Blackhawks and Chinooks rather than the MH90. Again a know solution in service now.

In terms of Land 400 I would look closely at the winner of the USMCs MPC contest for our cav vehicle.

I do understand where you are coming from as far as using US or USMC gear where possible, I certainly see the benefits.

My understanding of Land400 is for a highly lethal, survivable and networked combination of armoured vehicle capabilities and that the contemporary operational environment involves increasing levels of lethality and complexity.

As far as the MPC goes, the program was canceled in 2013 but resurrected in 2014 with the Amphibious Combat Vehicle program. For cavalry vehicles, the US are replacing the Bradley with the GCV program which is under considerable budget issues (I believe it may be shelved). Both programs are very much in the early stages and I think too risky, particularly considering previous programs for both vehicles failed. I don't see either entering service with the US before the relatively tight time-frames to get ASLAV replacements in service by 2020. I am not sure either are really an option.

From my understanding, I don't think the Stryker fits what we want to do with plan Bersheeba (particularly with protection). I don't see any major US options being leading options (although if the GCV is resolved it certainly could be in strong contention to replace the M113AS4 by 2025).

We have gone with non-us options before, and if we go options based on proven, in-service designs and can leverage other (albeit non-US) supply chains, I don't see the why they shouldn't be considered.

 

[MickB]

From my understanding, I don't think the Stryker fits what we want to do with plan Bersheeba (particularly with protection). I don't see any major US options being leading options (although if the GCV is resolved it certainly could be in strong contention to replace the M113AS4 by 2025).

We have gone with non-us options before, and if we go options based on proven, in-service designs and can leverage other (albeit non-US) supply chains, I don't see the why they shouldn't be considered.

You are correct, there are no US built options for the IFV portion of land 400. Here I favor something like the K21.

As for the Cav vehicle being the MPC, I understood the most likely options were the Patria or Terrex. Either way these are MOS and therefor low risk.
The amphibious requirement would be a bonus with the LHDs.

 

[the road runner]

Have a look at the Land 400 Thread..

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/army-security-forces/land-400-a-13035/

Raven22 has some great input

Go German and be done with it!

I see the Sako M10 is being trialled by the ADF assome pics have been showing up on the net!

Have we placed an order for this LTR?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Supacat hjave been formally selected to provide 89 special ops vehicles for (JP2097Ph1B)

 

[t68]

Supacat hjave been formally selected to provide 89 special ops vehicles for (JP2097Ph1B)

Are these 6x6 version replacing the 4x4 version or will the keep both?

 

[Gordon Branch]

... or the 4x4 with the 6x6 bolt on. HMT Extenda - Supacat

 

[t68]

... or the 4x4 with the 6x6 bolt on. HMT Extenda - Supacat

Interesting I did not know they did that, wonder if it a RAEME Job or the average digger can do it with basic tool. Would like to see how they do it

 

[Joe Black]

... or the 4x4 with the 6x6 bolt on. HMT Extenda - Supacat

Looks like the 6x6 bolt on.

See:
Supacat to deliver 89 Special Operations Vehicles Commando for Australian Special Forces 2008142 - Army Recognition

 

[gf0012-aust]

Are these 6x6 version replacing the 4x4 version or will the keep both?

both - 4 versions in total

 

[rossfrb_1]

70mm ARH rockets?

I was leafing through the current Defender magazine at a newsagent and I saw an image of an ARH Tiger loosing a brace of rockets.
My (albeit dodgy) memory recalls the caption stating that they were laser guided.
I looked at the online version and the image is there sure enough but no caption.
Australian & NZ Defender Magazine No 87 September 2014

Can anyone confirm whether the ADF has the laser guided version of what I presume is either the Hydra 70mm rocket or maybe the Turkish Cirit?
Or did I remember wrong?

Online interesting comment about the Blackhawk retirement/replacement with non operational MRH-90s. That is another one that snuck up on me. Anyone know the timetable?
cheers
rb

 

[rossfrb_1]

aussies under fire

Not wanting to detract from a hazardous mission undertaken by ADF staff.
But one of this group's favourite defence journos has been caught out employing at best some sloppy journalism and not checking the facts and at worst gilding the lily (others may use slightly different words).
Media Watch: Front page fact checking (08/09/2014)
Ian McPhedran's 'scoop' on an aussie c130 coming under fire whilst dropping aid packages to starving civilians in northern Iraq has pretty much been discounted. McPhedran is even supposed to have contacted the ADF after posting the story asking if it was true.
That guy is not helping his defence credentials any.
rb

 

[rossfrb_1]

I was leafing through the current Defender magazine at a newsagent and I saw an image of an ARH Tiger loosing a brace of rockets.
My (albeit dodgy) memory recalls the caption stating that they were laser guided.
I looked at the online version and the image is there sure enough but no caption.
Australian & NZ Defender Magazine No 87 September 2014

Can anyone confirm whether the ADF has the laser guided version of what I presume is either the Hydra 70mm rocket or maybe the Turkish Cirit?

Online interesting comment about the Blackhawk retirement/replacement with non operational MRH-90s. That is another one that snuck up on me. Anyone know the timetable?
cheers
rb

Bingo found this later
Department of Defence Video Gallery