Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[old faithful]

Yeah, thats going to take some time, I just dont get the reason for change of pattern that has very little benefit to the old pattern.
Saw a RAAFie today in the street fighter cam. He was old, fat and looked rediculous in the blue cams.
Another brain fart.....

 

[t68]

The Army is requesting Government to buy an extra 11 tanks. Then reason, oddly enough, is to save money. The Army could support the Beersheeba construct with the current number of tanks, however it would involve a lot of movement of tanks between units and training areas IAW the force gen cycle. Moving tanks is hideously expensive. By buying the extra 11, each unit would be at full strength all the time which would limit any movement of tanks and save money in the medium term. That's in addition to all the other benefits that would come from having extra tanks.

saving money to transport them any excuse will do to get more kit I like it.

Let's see do they use civilians to transport them around? That the only way I see it costing a lot of money

Army owns the equipment so it's paid for, the pers who move them are getting paid if they move them or not, under the new rules they may need permits money (from one goverment dept to another) so at the end of the day all it has cost defence is consumables (fuel, most RT use at about 1.7 KPL) but I would be avert valuable training tool to everyone involved in the move from the driver to the troop commander dealing with a heavy oversize loads and the proir planning if going into built up areas. Bit I am not complaining if we need the extra kit, just which if they are going to be completely rebuilt zero hours MBT getting some M109A6 Padalins would be nice complement.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Yeah, thats going to take some time, I just dont get the reason for change of pattern that has very little benefit to the old pattern.
Saw a RAAFie today in the street fighter cam. He was old, fat and looked rediculous in the blue cams.
Another brain fart.....

Is that the cam that looks like USN blue cam? if so it looks naf

 

[old faithful]

Yes Garry, Kylie Minogue pulled it off in streetfighter, but 50yo, 5ft 3" 90kg RAAFies should stick to blur king gee shorts and a (loose) blue t shirt. Those blue cams are just camp.

 

[winnyfield]

Yeah, thats going to take some time, I just dont get the reason for change of pattern that has very little benefit to the old pattern.
Saw a RAAFie today in the street fighter cam. He was old, fat and looked rediculous in the blue cams.
Another brain fart.....

Personal equipment has evolved rapidly over the last decade. Surely it's easier to keep gear updated in mutlicam than auscam.

btw/ Ops Core Sentry is the new standard issue helmet: All Images

http://www.ops-core.com/2014_Ops-Core_Catalog.pdf

 

[Raven22]

saving money to transport them any excuse will do to get more kit I like it.

Let's see do they use civilians to transport them around? That the only way I see it costing a lot of money

Army owns the equipment so it's paid for, the pers who move them are getting paid if they move them or not, under the new rules they may need permits money (from one goverment dept to another) so at the end of the day all it has cost defence is consumables (fuel, most RT use at about 1.7 KPL) but I would be avert valuable training tool to everyone involved in the move from the driver to the troop commander dealing with a heavy oversize loads and the proir planning if going into built up areas. Bit I am not complaining if we need the extra kit, just which if they are going to be completely rebuilt zero hours MBT getting some M109A6 Padalins would be nice complement.

I think you underestimate the cost of moving tanks. They're not just 63 tonne lumps of steel you can ship through the mail. The security requirements alone are oppressive and cost huge sums of money and lost labour.

The real interesting thing in army is the possible purchase of a HIMARS like capability. Army has presented the case to government, which as I understand has been generally supportive of the requirement. A HIMARs capability would be far more revolutionary for the army than SPGs, as they give you the capability for deep fires. It will be interesting to see what comes of that.

 

[t68]

I think you underestimate the cost of moving tanks. They're not just 63 tonne lumps of steel you can ship through the mail. The security requirements alone are oppressive and cost huge sums of money and lost labour.

.

It's been a while since I've had anything to do with commonwealth EO and the like, I know some of the in's and out on what is needed as have had armed escorts on all sorts of things carting for the commonwealth, but a lot of that sort of stuff has been privatised and that's why it's costing the commonwealth $$$$

I am ex RACT & DAS

 

[Richo99]

Himars

I think you underestimate the cost of moving tanks. They're not just 63 tonne lumps of steel you can ship through the mail. The security requirements alone are oppressive and cost huge sums of money and lost labour.

The real interesting thing in army is the possible purchase of a HIMARS like capability. Army has presented the case to government, which as I understand has been generally supportive of the requirement. A HIMARs capability would be far more revolutionary for the army than SPGs, as they give you the capability for deep fires. It will be interesting to see what comes of that.

There are unitary warheads for the HIMARS rockets, but the most common, and arguably the most effective/versatile contains hundreds of submunitions. Given Australia is signed up to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, does this proposal really have any legs?

 

[StingrayOZ]

Yes Garry, Kylie Minogue pulled it off in streetfighter, but 50yo, 5ft 3" 90kg RAAFies should stick to blur king gee shorts and a (loose) blue t shirt. Those blue cams are just camp.

Terrible. I point them out at Richmond airbase, people don't believe they are in fact the official uniform.I haven't seen anyone where them out down to the shops or what not. You would change out or put a Hawaiian shirt over the top of something.

Extra tanks seems like a fairly reasonable purchase, we ordered far less than the leopards they replaced. I would imagine with the LHD's and what not we would actually want to train moving them in and out and around a bit more than what we previously have. Army could even possibly training with US marines in region somewhere with their own equipment? Did we ever put a M1A1 onto Tobruk or Kanimbla?

 

[ADMk2]

There are unitary warheads for the HIMARS rockets, but the most common, and arguably the most effective/versatile contains hundreds of submunitions. Given Australia is signed up to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, does this proposal really have any legs?

Singapore didn't buy the M-26 un-guided (and sub-munition dispensing) round when it bought HIMARS.

We are both (presumably) intending on employing the system for deep fires, we can't get from our existing artillery and for which it may not be cost effective (too 'hot' to approach etc) to use armed helo's or other capabilities.

I think the nature of the future Army this system will reside in, will demand such fires be precise, so I can easily see that no sub-munition round would be acquired for this capability.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

There are unitary warheads for the HIMARS rockets, but the most common, and arguably the most effective/versatile contains hundreds of submunitions. Given Australia is signed up to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, does this proposal really have any legs?

The US Army is in the process of fielding a new warhead to replace the DPICM (Cluster) warhead for the MLRS/HIMARS rocket. It is CCM compliant and has the same on target effect as the legacy DPICM warhead with 500-700 bomblets. Also the rocket can be used as a carrier round for 4-6 sensor fused munitions (SFM) like the 155mm SMArt round. They are also CCM compliant.

 

[Bonza]

The US Army is in the process of fielding a new warhead to replace the DPICM (Cluster) warhead for the MLRS/HIMARS rocket. It is CCM compliant and has the same on target effect as the legacy DPICM warhead with 500-700 bomblets. Also the rocket can be used as a carrier round for 4-6 sensor fused munitions (SFM) like the 155mm SMArt round. They are also CCM compliant.

Were there any serious studies put into the feasibility of loading the unitary version into a VLS for a navalised capability? I've seen it mentioned on forums here and there but unsure how much official thought was put into it. With a terminal seeker it seems like they'd offer a decent anti-surface/strike capability with less expense than, say, the Tomahawk. Although I guess the flight profile would be much less than optimal for an anti-surface version.

 

[Richo99]

The US Army is in the process of fielding a new warhead to replace the DPICM (Cluster) warhead for the MLRS/HIMARS rocket. It is CCM compliant and has the same on target effect as the legacy DPICM warhead with 500-700 bomblets. Also the rocket can be used as a carrier round for 4-6 sensor fused munitions (SFM) like the 155mm SMArt round. They are also CCM compliant.

I cant find a lot online about the new alternative warhead, but what is there suggests it will be compliant with the US DoD policy on cluster munitions, not the CCM (given the US is not a signatory to CCM).

From what I can work out the US policy primarily requires a low UXO rate of <1%, whereas the CCM has far greater limitations in terms of both the number of submunitions (<10 allowed) and the minimum size (>4kg required), with an unlimited number of submunitions if each individual one is greater than 20kg.

I think (???) each DPICM weighs less than 1kg, so I assume the AW will be quite a different beast? Do you have any further info on the AW you can put in the public realm?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Were there any serious studies put into the feasibility of loading the unitary version into a VLS for a navalised capability? I've seen it mentioned on forums here and there but unsure how much official thought was put into it. With a terminal seeker it seems like they'd offer a decent anti-surface/strike capability with less expense than, say, the Tomahawk. Although I guess the flight profile would be much less than optimal for an anti-surface version.

Yes. The USN looked at both naval MLRS at ATCAMS in the 80s and 90s. The GMLRS rocket modified for vertical launch could be quad packed or even oct packed into a standard Mk 41 VLS canister. ATCAMS needs minimal modification to be fired from a VLS.

Back to the replacement of the MLRS DPICM (cluster bomb) capability apart from the new CCM compliant fragmentation warhead the move from free flight MLRS rockets to GPS/INS guided GMLRS rockets has a huge impact on lethality against discrete but area targets. To destroy a SA-6 missile site the MLRS unit would need to fire a ripple of 75 rockets. With an 8% dud rate that would leave 1,546 UXO bomblets across an area of 284,000 sqm. The SA-6 battery site would be cactus but you'd have a big UXO problem.

Using GMLRS rockets you only need to fire 15 to destroy the same SA-6 target. Using the new ATK high frag unitary warhead you would not have any duds and subsequent UXO problem. GMRLS could also service this target at twice the range as the legacy MLRS.

 

[t68]

Now that the US GVC program has been terminated , how does that effect the replacement for M113 which was due about 2020.

How does the British Army’s Future Rapid Effects System (FRES) program would that align with our goals, it appears the US are going to use the Bradley for sometime yet is it time to hope onto the Bradley Remanufacture Program

 

[Ballistic]

Now that the US GVC program has been terminated , how does that effect the replacement for M113 which was due about 2020.

How does the British Army’s Future Rapid Effects System (FRES) program would that align with our goals, it appears the US are going to use the Bradley for sometime yet is it time to hope onto the Bradley Remanufacture Program

FRES as major program was also terminated and broken up into smaller capabilities was it not?

I was under the impression the British MoD decided to just upgrade and up gun the Warrior with the 40mm CTA and have just put an order through for upwards of 600 SCOUT SV (ASCOD) vehicles.

 

[MickB]

The real interesting thing in army is the possible purchase of a HIMARS like capability. Army has presented the case to government, which as I understand has been generally supportive of the requirement. A HIMARs capability would be far more revolutionary for the army than SPGs, as they give you the capability for deep fires. It will be interesting to see what comes of that.

Would the HIMARS system be bought complete or adapted to a local platform like the Bushmaster 6X6.

 

[Trackmaster]

Would the HIMARS system be bought complete or adapted to a local platform like the Bushmaster 6X6.

Is it just me, or would a MOTS solution be the best way, rather than re-inventing the wheel with a Bushmaster solution.
Fit for the task...or job creation?

 

[bdique]

Is it just me, or would a MOTS solution be the best way, rather than re-inventing the wheel with a Bushmaster solution.
Fit for the task...or job creation?

The easier way would be to mount the GMLRS on a flatbed with an armoured cab. The GMLRS should not be doing much off-roading so you won't need a platform as rugged as the Bushmaster.

 

[t68]

The easier way would be to mount the GMLRS on a flatbed with an armoured cab. The GMLRS should not be doing much off-roading so you won't need a platform as rugged as the Bushmaster.

the original requirement was for a tracked under armor protection. might be better to just go with rebuilt M270A1

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/wsh2010/244.pdf