Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[MARKMILES77]

Just came across the new 8X8 version of the Caeser 155mm artillery. I believe there are now versions on Renault (6X6), Mercedes(6X6) and Tatra trucks (8X8).
What about, as a solution for Australia's need for a SPH that they look at mounting the M777 on a MAN 8X8 with a 6 person armoured cab? No need for a 52 cal gun nowdays with all the options for long ranged ammunition, either available or under development.

 

[ADMk2]

Parliamentary transcript from the Senate Estimates last Wednesday, gives some insight into LAND 400.

Phase 2 will be decided by late February 2016 and remains at 225 wheeled vehicles.

Phase 3 will see a minimum of 450 tracked vehicles with first pass approval hoped for 2016.



more LAND 400

Senator CONROY: Back in budget estimates, at that time General Caligari confirmed that phase 3 would be around 500 vehicles. In other words, if we take the 700 and subtract the 225 that would be acquired under phase 2, we are looking at around 500 vehicles to be acquired in phase 3. Does that remain the case?

Major Gen. McLachlan: In the order of that number, yes.

Senator CONROY: So we are still planning to acquire about 500 vehicles under LAND 400 phase 3. Is the government committed to that figure. Is that still the publicly available figure?

Major Gen. McLachlan: That is the publicly released figure that was in the previous DCP. Clearly, we are now waiting on the white paper to confirm those numbers.

Senator CONROY: I have heard a rumour it could be as low as 450 vehicles.

Major Gen. McLachlan: Once again, it is dependent on the white paper.

Air Vice Marshal Hupfeld: The figure was for a minimum of 450. That is what is being considered at the moment. This will be refined through the force structure review and the integrated investment program, when that is released. We are still doing the analysis on the outcomes of that, linked to follow the 225 that are currently foreshadowed for phase 2. Obviously, that is still under the tender negotiations, so we cannot provide any additional analysis on that at the moment.

Senator CONROY: Does Defence have a date when it plans to start the tender process for phase 3?

Air Vice Marshal Hupfeld: We do have some plans on that, but we have yet to initiate the project formally. We plan to initiate it early next year and we expect it will undergo the first principles review process and be one of the first projects that will undergo the new capability development life cycle.

Senator CONROY: Has the government agreed to a commencement date for phase 3? Or is that part of the white paper?

Air Vice Marshal Hupfeld: That is part of the white paper and the integrated investment program.

 

[ADMk2]

Just came across the new 8X8 version of the Caeser 155mm artillery. I believe there are now versions on Renault (6X6), Mercedes(6X6) and Tatra trucks (8X8).
What about, as a solution for Australia's need for a SPH that they look at mounting the M777 on a MAN 8X8 with a 6 person armoured cab? No need for a 52 cal gun nowdays with all the options for long ranged ammunition, either available or under development.

Not sure SPG's remain a priority after the earlier unsuccessful phase was cancelled. In any case, I'm sure Army will argue a tracked vehicle remains a necessity, should approval be given to progress this capability.

 

[hairyman]

According to the previous edition of Defence Technology Review, we are going to acquire 12/13 additional Abrams tanks and six additional Hercules ARV's. Th additional tanks have been spoken about for a long time now. Can anyone explain why it is taking so long to place this order, or has it in fact been placed?

 

[t68]

According to the previous edition of Defence Technology Review, we are going to acquire 12/13 additional Abrams tanks and six additional Hercules ARV's. Th additional tanks have been spoken about for a long time now. Can anyone explain why it is taking so long to place this order, or has it in fact been placed?

In addition to the question would they be zero timed hulls like the originals or taken from existing US Army stocks, and if so how doses that effect the original hulls in regards to updates that have been done to the hulls if any?

 

[aussienscale]

In addition to the question would they be zero timed hulls like the originals or taken from existing US Army stocks, and if so how doses that effect the original hulls in regards to updates that have been done to the hulls if any?

If/when an order is placed, my guess would be re-freshed hulls like the original purchase and not from US stocks.

Our Abrams do not have the DU

FMS request for the Hercules was placed in Jan this year, but no mention yet of additional Arbams

Australia – M88A2 Hercules Heavy Recovery Vehicles | The Official Home of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency

 

[gf0012-aust]

If/when an order is placed, my guess would be re-freshed hulls like the original purchase and not from US stocks.

yep, they're zero hulled at Lima (or is it Anniston???)

 

[the road runner]

yep, they're zero hulled at Lima (or is it Anniston???)

Anniston Army depo breaks the tanks down

Lima puts the armour package in them and puts them back together

Notice the Kangaroo on the Abrams in the below video

This doco, i assume was made when Australia placed its order for their M1s... you can see skippy on the tanks that are being refurbished threw out the 2 videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8uFVKmAj5o

Part 2 of Ultimate factories

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dG4CLaBMfVU

Im curious as to why Australia has so few MBTs?

 

[aussienscale]

yep, they're zero hulled at Lima (or is it Anniston???)

Don't quote me, but from memory they are stripped down at Anniston with some refurb work done there, and then re-assembled and remaining refurb work done at Lima.

I do recall that Lima was slated to be closed down, but not sure of the outcome on this ?

Needless to say another order would be very welcome, the white paper will tell all

Cheers

 

[ADMk2]

According to the previous edition of Defence Technology Review, we are going to acquire 12/13 additional Abrams tanks and six additional Hercules ARV's. Th additional tanks have been spoken about for a long time now. Can anyone explain why it is taking so long to place this order, or has it in fact been placed?

Government approval hasn't been given to acquire these additional vehicles. There is a rather large review of Australia's defence, known as the White Paper and it's associated Defence Capability Plan that have not yet been approved.

Many capability decisions are awaiting approval...

 

[ADMk2]

Im curious as to why Australia has so few MBTs?

ADF bought as many as the Government would give them a budget for...

The original (hair-brained) plan was to retire the Leopard AS1 and 'replace' this capability with a squadron or two of ASLAV mounted 120mm mortars, firing precision guided mortar rounds.

Until someone FORTUNATELY pointed out that war isn't as nice and neat as we would like it to be and the late 90's / early 2000 idea where many (Australian) capability planners were besotted by the promise of weapons that could accurately hit what they were targetted at and that's all it would ever take to win any war we might be involved in, was absolute tosh.

We need to be able to hit precisely AND take the hits that WILL come our way on the two way range and the 'light, precise' forces we projected would be all we'd ever need were shown to be a fiction of those who spent more time on CP exercises where all they ever have to do is pretend we have the capability and magically we win the day, then they did on any sort of operations...

So we have a latent tank capability. Plan Beersheba requires it to be bolstered up a bit more if the plan is to be truly put into effect and that's what these extra tanks are for.

 

[Goknub]

I believe a turreted 120mm mortar (either CRV/IFV mounted) should be a high priority. It would provide the mobile formations a decent self-propelled option whilst also being able to support forces via direct fire when required.

Of all the capabilities missing in places like Afghanistan this would be my top pick.

However, it's important to note these are not MBT replacements and are intended to operate lower down the spectrum of conflicts. If a magical bucket of money was located this should be included in the Army's toolbox in my opinion.

The light, high-tech RMA concepts of the late 90's/early 00's should be left in the past. Iraq put a halt to that.

 

[rossfrb_1]

I believe a turreted 120mm mortar (either CRV/IFV mounted) should be a high priority. It would provide the mobile formations a decent self-propelled option whilst also being able to support forces via direct fire when required.

Of all the capabilities missing in places like Afghanistan this would be my top pick.

However, it's important to note these are not MBT replacements and are intended to operate lower down the spectrum of conflicts. If a magical bucket of money was located this should be included in the Army's toolbox in my opinion.

The light, high-tech RMA concepts of the late 90's/early 00's should be left in the past. Iraq put a halt to that.

I'm just wondering whether a mobile 105mm howitzer would be more useful?
The 120mm would likely have a heavier explosive payload, but the 105mm will have slightly more legs even with ordinary rounds.
Something like
Mandus Group: Artillery Solutions: Hawkeye 105mm Weapon System

rb

 

[ADMk2]

I believe a turreted 120mm mortar (either CRV/IFV mounted) should be a high priority. It would provide the mobile formations a decent self-propelled option whilst also being able to support forces via direct fire when required.

Of all the capabilities missing in places like Afghanistan this would be my top pick.

However, it's important to note these are not MBT replacements and are intended to operate lower down the spectrum of conflicts. If a magical bucket of money was located this should be included in the Army's toolbox in my opinion.

The light, high-tech RMA concepts of the late 90's/early 00's should be left in the past. Iraq put a halt to that.

Yep I agree, but the thought you could use something like this to replace an MBT is just nonsense, IF you are preparing forces for a close combat role.

If not and for the types of operations we have conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan, then perhaps they may have been useful.

Though when you have the situation of a previous Defence Minister having boasted of 'fighting' to have an 81mm mortar deployed, then perhaps not...

 

[rand0m]

Is there any truth to the reports that the Abrams are now overweight and cannot be used in conjunction with our LCM1E's?

 

[Raven22]

As always, the answer is both no and yes.

For starters, the M1 really hasn't got any heavier. There's a lot of discussion that the TUSK upgrade has made them a lot heavier, but there is really no such thing as a TUSK upgrade. The TUSK upgrade is simply a collection of enhancements that can be added if the situation dictates, very little of it is a permanent addition. The things that will add considerable weight - the ERA tiles and slat armour - are simply sitting in a warehouse somewhere waiting for the big one. If weight was a concern due to the tanks being deployed by landing craft, the TUSK enhancements could simply be attached onshore.

At the moment, the LCM1E can carry an M1 but only in sea state 2, although that is largely due to seaworthy regulations unique to Australia that I don't really understand. The constraints make deployment of the M1 by landing craft difficult, but not impossible. Of all the problems with the development of the amphibious capability, deployment of M1 is one one of the minor ones.

 

[rand0m]

As always, the answer is both no and yes.

For starters, the M1 really hasn't got any heavier. There's a lot of discussion that the TUSK upgrade has made them a lot heavier, but there is really no such thing as a TUSK upgrade. The TUSK upgrade is simply a collection of enhancements that can be added if the situation dictates, very little of it is a permanent addition. The things that will add considerable weight - the ERA tiles and slat armour - are simply sitting in a warehouse somewhere waiting for the big one. If weight was a concern due to the tanks being deployed by landing craft, the TUSK enhancements could simply be attached onshore.

At the moment, the LCM1E can carry an M1 but only in sea state 2, although that is largely due to seaworthy regulations unique to Australia that I don't really understand. The constraints make deployment of the M1 by landing craft difficult, but not impossible. Of all the problems with the development of the amphibious capability, deployment of M1 is one one of the minor ones.

So what are the majors then?

 

[Nick underscore]

So what are the majors then?

Two I think mentioned previously and related to capability requirements of lack thereof;

Assault breaching vehicles (based on MBT chassis) are a whole other issue as well. Based on doctrine you need the capability to breach two lanes in the assault, plus have a reserve in case one lane fails. Therefore each ACR/CER really should have a squadron with at least three assault sections (each consisting of an AEV, ABV and HAB) to enable this assault breaching. This would likely require another ~40 or so vehicles based off an M1 chassis.

There actually is an ADF requirement for a boat such as CB90, but it's not for the reasons listed here. It's as part of the amphibious capability, to insert recon etc with some measure of security, conduct low level raids, protect landing craft when under way, and other similar tasks in support of amphibious landings.

Im sure they're are more pressing issues Raven hasn't mentioned.

 

[Wazza]

Beersheba ACR

Hi Fella's, new member. Just wandering if anyone has any info on the structure of the support sqn in the Beersheba ACR's. They're gonna be a mixed bag. Will the troops be based on roles with multiple vehicle types in each troop or vehicle type.

 

[Goknub]

Land 400 Phase 3 RFI released

16 Nov 2015

Katherine Ziesing | Canberra

With responses to the first phase of Land 400 under Phase 2 in the box, the following Phase 3 Mounted Close Combat Capability RFI was released on November 13.

The covering letter outlines the following:

• price and availability of both the infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) and manoeuvre support vehicle (MSV)

• ideally the Commonwealth is seeking a tracked and turreted IFV with protection levels similar to that of the Abrams tank while carrying an eight person section.

• as an RFI all associated costs are borne by participants and not the Commonwealth.

• all estimates are to be based upon 450 vehicles under the Basis of Provisioning numbers outlined for the array of variants and suitable subsystems.

• the RFI is also looking for production rates for both home and Australian markets.

An industry briefing is scheduled for Nov 27 in Canberra with responses due on February 22.

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

Now if only there was a vehicle out there that could meet that. An active defence system would be even better.