Seriously? It does in the US and most of NATO. Only thing as a separate item would be deployment-related costs.
Great explanation Takao. Let’s say we end up with Lynx which is supposed to be around $14m each. Own it for 25 years with $1mil sustainment per year in 2020 dollars.(if ASPI is right) ...it ends up being a $40m vehicle...and that’s the bit I was taken back with. Bladdy expensive game but one we cannot afford to avoid.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
As has been said quite often on DT, initial acquisition of a weapon system is only about 1/3 of the overall lifetime cost.
The land section of the strategic update. There will be a considerable enhancement in equipment and capabilities. The indicative timeframes for these programs is interesting.
- Protected Mobile Fires (Self-Propelled Howitzers) ($0.9 – $1.3b)
- Additional Protected Mobile Fires (Self-Propelled Howitzers) ($1.5 – $2.3b)
- Protected Mobile Fires Assurance (Self-Propelled Howitzers) ($2.1 – $3.2b)
- Additional Protected Mobile Fires (Self-Propelled Howitzers) ($1.5 – $2.3b)
- Long Range Rocket and Missile Systems Fires ($0.6 – $0.9b)
- Long Range Rocket and Missile Systems Fires Upgrades ($1.6 – $2.4b)
- Additional Long Range Rocket and Missile Systems Fires ($1 – $1.5b)
- Long Range Rocket and Missile Systems Fires Upgrades ($1.6 – $2.4b)
- Battlefield Command Systems ($1.8 – 2.7b)
- Battlefield Communications ($3.2 – $4.8b)
- Combat Engineering Vehicle ($0.9 – $1.3b)
- Boxer Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle ($5b)
- Integrated Soldier Systems ($3.6 – $5.5b)
- Infantry Fighting Vehicle ($18.1 – $27.1b)
- Tank Assurance ($0.6 – $1b)
- Tank Replacement Evaluation and Design ($8 – $11.9b)
- Tactical UAV ($400 – $700m)
- Future Autonomous Vehicles ($7.4 – $11.1b)
- Army watercraft ($1.4 – $2.1b)
- Hawkei ($0.9 – $1.4b)
- Heavy Trucks ($1.3 – $2b)
- Tiger Replacement ($3.4 – $5.1b)
- Long-range Rotorcraft ($1.4 – $2.1b)
- Next Gen Rotorcraft ($1.1 – $1.6b)
- Long-range Rotorcraft ($1.4 – $2.1b)
Last edited:
Takao
The Bunker Group
Note the comments about out-turned v constant at the start of the document, I'd suggest that, allowing for inflation, those two are probably pretty similar budgets.
Based on these numbers :
Protected Mobile Fires $2.5-$6.8b.
LRMS $3.2 - $4.8b
IFV $18.1-$27.1B
Tank ? Not even sure what that means?
Tiger replacement $3.4-$5.1b
Long Range Rotor $1.4-$2.1B
Next Gen Rotor $1.1 - $1.6b
Thats a big spread of numbers? It looks to me like the lighter side is whats been previously announced.
Is this meaning the numbers included in the programs are going to increase or is it all spin?
There has been a number provided for the IFV approx 400 units. That works out at $45-$65 million per vehicle so that must include afore mentioned sustainment costs. I'm scratching my head why the price range...they must have some idea of manufacturing and sustainment costs by now...would this mean extra vehicles or what?
What does protected Mobile Fires & Tank assurance mean?
Protected Mobile Fires $2.5-$6.8b.
LRMS $3.2 - $4.8b
IFV $18.1-$27.1B
Tank ? Not even sure what that means?
Tiger replacement $3.4-$5.1b
Long Range Rotor $1.4-$2.1B
Next Gen Rotor $1.1 - $1.6b
Thats a big spread of numbers? It looks to me like the lighter side is whats been previously announced.
Is this meaning the numbers included in the programs are going to increase or is it all spin?
There has been a number provided for the IFV approx 400 units. That works out at $45-$65 million per vehicle so that must include afore mentioned sustainment costs. I'm scratching my head why the price range...they must have some idea of manufacturing and sustainment costs by now...would this mean extra vehicles or what?
What does protected Mobile Fires & Tank assurance mean?
PMF==Self Propelled Howitzer
For the rest, I'm afraid you'll need a more informed respondent
oldsig
oldsig
The first time I read the article about the increase in defence spending on ABC news, I read "two regiments of self propelled artillery" but every time I have reread it I cant find any mention of self propelled artillery. If two regiments is correct, how does that stand with thirty vehicles? Is thirty enough, or are they increasing the numbers?
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
It has additional protected Mobile Fires(SPH) from 2026 as well as the current program so that probably points towards additional SPH. They still haven’t actually signed a contract yet for the K-9/10s so negotiations could include a provision for 30/15 + options for more.
Takao
The Bunker Group
For platforms, the numbers match what is assessed to be needed.For existing projects they match the assessed need and for new projects they match a forecast need (although not type).
For the dollars, they are overall figures to encompass acquisition and sustainment. The range is a deliberate mechanism for a number of reasons. Remember that a project isn't just buying vehicles, but a whole bunch of other 'stuff'
Protected mobile fires is a fancy term for the system of self-propelled guns and/or mortars. If you hear someone talking about their contribution and development to the project - ask them the background to why PMF and not SPG. There is a funny story there....but for much later. Of course, if they don't know the story....
Tank assurance - think a mid-life upgrade/capability assurance program/etc.
Hmm... "Tank Replacement Evaluation and Design ($8 – $11.9b) "
$8-11B seems rather pricey for evaluating replacement options for the M1 (I mean, the proces of considering options and maybe leasing a few tanks off allies for evaluation purpoes might be a few $100M tops...). So, two possibilities spring to mind, either "evaluation and design" is wrong/very poorly worded and it's actually that full M1 replacement program costs, or, the inclusion of "design" is awfully suspicious and someone somewhere in the government/bowls of the public service wants Australia to do more than select a new tank off the rack...
$8-11B seems rather pricey for evaluating replacement options for the M1 (I mean, the proces of considering options and maybe leasing a few tanks off allies for evaluation purpoes might be a few $100M tops...). So, two possibilities spring to mind, either "evaluation and design" is wrong/very poorly worded and it's actually that full M1 replacement program costs, or, the inclusion of "design" is awfully suspicious and someone somewhere in the government/bowls of the public service wants Australia to do more than select a new tank off the rack...
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
I don’t know if i would get to worried about any programs that are not going to start until the mid 30s, there is a hell of a lot of water to flow under the bridge between now and then and its very hard to work what is going to happen with Tanks. All the Tanks in service today are basically improved Tanks from the 80s or Countries like China bringing their Tanks up to Western Standards, we seem to be stuck with 50-60t tanks armed with either 120 or 125mm Guns and it hasn’t changed since the 80s, just improvements to Armour, Sensors, Rounds and targeting Computers.
I suspect Australia will be very much in wait and see mode with the M-1 replacement and we will probably have at least one WP before then.
I thought I’d read it was pretty much slated that we were moving towards the M1A2 SEP v3 or v4 as the next gen tank in the early 2020’s. This budget would certainly align with something like that.
I hope there is a full evaluation though.
We are going German armor with the Boxer and more than likely the IFV.
The Leopard 2A7 is worth serious consideration as our next gen MBT.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
@CJR was referring to the eventual replacement for the current MBT capability which is slated to start in the mid to late 2030s, the M-1s are due to go through an upgrade in the next few years and the replacement possibly early 2040s, by then the Leopard 2A7 will be based on a 60yo design.
What makes you so sure about the Lynx41 winning the IFV? Both companies have to send Vehicles to Australia for testing yet, a very long way to go with the decision not due to 2022.
Not sure at all, was more a few things I’d read regarding the cross utilization of weapons systems etc with the Boxer and the winning IFV, seemed to indicate a likelihood of something of similar build to the Boxer.
The timelines released this week seem to indicate the MBT upgrade well before the 2040’s
I thought there was an evaluation between upgrading the current M1A1 fleet up to M1A2 SEP spec vs handing them back to the USA and just purchasing a new fleet directly?I’m not an expert so unsure how each option would compare to the other price wise.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Germany and France are jointly working on a new MBT which will replace their current tanks. Rheinmetal’s new 130 mm gun with an automated turret will be featured. The goal is for the mid 2030s.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Well the Force Structure plan has the M-1s currently going through Assurance, so its just the current Fleet being upgraded, no new Tanks yet. As i said in a post above, what will replace our M-1s is way up in the air and we need to wait and see whats available and the proposed budget for the replacement is hell of a lot more then what we paid for the M-1s.
This would certainly be of some interest if it happens.
Takao
The Bunker Group
Para 7.5 makes it clear - it's a tank replacement program. Allowing for a decent fleet of a tanks (including sustainment) that are more capable than a SEP v4 with advanced armour, tech and - possibly - weapons and that budget looks feasible - especially in 2035-ish dollars. You can see the current fleet upgrade on the funding chart.
The thing is, while tanks are essential, the M1 replacement may be something different that fulfils the niche but doesn't look like a tank. Or is called a tank. The language gives the ADF flexibility to maintain a warfighting capability (tank) while conducting studies and the like to ensure what we get is needed. Will also be good at shushing naysayers....
The simple reality is that we can't build or design tanks in Australia. Even Britain is struggling. For that heavy armour capability you are looking at the Americans and maybe the Europeans.
In no way at all - for four reasons:
1. survivabilty and battle worthiness is comprised by internal design that has significant flaws
2. German stuff is overall too complex and expensive
3. A supply chain that links in with the US offers more advantages than any other nation - especially for heavy armour
4. The 2A7 is worse than a current M1A2 (see pt 1) and is an inservice platform - way to out of date for an M1 replacement.
Fact. And needs to be highlighted. This isn't a set in stone plan, the strat reviews between now and then will modify if required (look at KC-30s). The true win here is that there is an M1 replacement publicly incorporated. We've never had that for any of our heavy stuff - having markers in the sand is a massive win. It's now up to Army to do the hard intellectual work between now and then to keep the markers out - but keeping the status quo is always easier....
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The US hasn’t exactly had a stellar record lately when it comes to new armour kit, upgrades of existing platforms have been good but Abrams and Bradley upgrade/rebuilds surely must have limit?