Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Redlands18]

Not quite. Not only does the manufacturing capability need to be built and running, it then needs to be sustained, as well as the relevant supply chains and of course the workforce.

That is one of the major concerns I have about some of the cuts mentioned in the DSR. It is quite possible that the production runs for the reduced numbers could be completed before additional orders are made.

Related to that, I could easily see some of the int'l defence companies become reluctant to build/expand into Australia. It can require some serious coin to establish a new facility, and then to see that investment basically wither on the vine because the originally planned numbers get cut to a much lower number. NFI how much IFV's or SPH's would need to be built just to meet the costs involved in creating a new facility, training a workforce and establishing supply chains but I could easily see the potential for future partners to lose interest if they cannot be certain to just break even in terms of costs.

There is no way any International Company is going to come to Australia to build 200 odd vehicles for one customer with little to no chance of any other, unless they are paid a premium to do so. It is a one customer deal and that one customer is going to have to pay for everything, if that customer is going to cut back on orders, then the price per vehicle is going to go up. It's the Australian Government that is going to pay the price for cutting orders to 129, in less Taxes, GST and shorter employment times. Hopefully sanity will prevail and extra IFVs are ordered in time but as the Hanwa factory hasn't even been built yet and the Rheinmetal factory is busy building Boxers that is a few years away.

 

[ADMk2]

But it's not really long range fires is it. They have scrapped the second regiment of SPH stating it does not have the required range. So now we have the grand total of 30 which means of course we won't be able to deploy 30. HiMARS has it's place but it's no panacea is it. What persistence does this system possess? Can you really see the Australian Army or for that matter any Army using this system for persistent fires at god knows how many tens of thousands of dollars per round for the most basic version, never mind the precision strike missile which I would bet the house we will purchase in such miniscule numbers as to be completely inconsequential. For all the great strategic uncertainty blah blah blah BS, LRASM still not ordered. Tomahawks so far into the future thats it's barely worth discussing. Guided weapons enterprise at least 2 years away and I would not be surprised that in two years we will still be discussing when it will commence. These are just my opinions and I certainly don't want this discussion to sound political as that's not my intention.

AGM-158B2 JASSM-ER is at least under contract now. That will be the main RAAF long range strike weapon.

Lockheed Martin Corp., Missile and Fire Control, Orlando, Florida, was awarded a $750,552,869 firm-fixed-price contract for Lot 21 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile B-2 missiles with containers, tooling and test equipment, and spares. Work will be performed in Orlando, Florida; and Troy, Alabama, and is expected to be completed by Aug. 18, 2027. This contract involves Foreign Military Sales (FMS) to Australia. This award is the result of a sole source acquisition. Fiscal 2023 Air Force missiles procurement funds in the amount of $737,669,116; fiscal 2023 Air Force operations and maintenance funds in the amount of $209,098; fiscal 2022 Air Force missiles procurement funds in the amount of $4,840,000; and FMS funds in the amount of $7,834,655 are being obligated at the time of award. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, is the contracting activity (FA8682-23-C-B003).

Contracts for May 18, 2023

Today's Defense Department contracts valued at $7.5 million or more are now live on Defense.gov.

www.defense.gov

 

[old faithful]

Agreed but with manufacturing going I could see incentive/pressure, to keep things ticking over.

I worked in manufacturing for years before moving to defence. We would order items from some suppliers, not based on value for money, but because the orders were needed to sustain their capability to deliver the low volumes of critical components we couldn't get anywhere else.

This is how we need to do defence. Not this ramp up, punch it out, shut it down, then start from scratch again in a decade or two.

Too many people looking at, and not picking over detail, instead of looking at the big picture.

I agree with what you say, and I can see the manufacture of 129 vehicles taking much longer as the work is limited, and jobs will potentially be lost if no follow on orders come in.

 

[Bob53]

Prior to the acquisition of the M-777, Australia only had a single medium regiment with a grand total of 36 M-198 155mm.

The rest of the army made do with 105mm. There were no rockets, no missiles, no SPGs of any type. I am not talking ancient history here either, this was the status quo until the early 2000s.

Complaining that capabilities are still "2 years away", wow, ten or twenty years was the norm.

Reality check, things are better than they have ever been for army, just different, and maybe not as good as planned.

Then again the post WWII regular army was meant to consist of one regular and two militia armoured brigades with fifteen armoured regiments as well as mech infantry and SPGs, those were plans that never happened. There were the post WWI plans for a motorised army of five divisions. Ever heard of the Henderson Plan, that was for a two ocean navy with eight battlecruisers from before WWI.

True but a monkey could see over the past 20 years that long range fires …SPH and Missiles and now drones and Loitering munitions have changed the field. What we had was way to short ranged and what we are going to get in the immediate future are still somewhat short ranged or too limited in numbers. They should of got you and Takao to do the DSR!

 

[Redlands18]

The army's new infantry fighting vehicles could be built overseas to meet urgent strategic needs - ABC News
Now there is growing rumblings about a possible OS build for the IFVs.

 

[Wombat000]

The army's new infantry fighting vehicles could be built overseas to meet urgent strategic needs - ABC News
Now there is growing rumblings about a possible OS build for the IFVs.

Interesting.
on one hand there’s been speculation that IFVs are devalued & to be relegated to the bench, and now speculation that they’re so important that we need some before local industry can build them!

so much prev govt commentary about national resilience, building in Australia.
IMHO if accurate, it implies that the plan will continue but ‘maybe’ the initial tranche will be expedited by an overseas purchase to account for production setup delays.

I guess time will tell if I’m being over optimistic?
in the end of the day, Australia won’t be conducting deliberate combat using the AS4.

 

[knightrider4]

Interesting.
on one hand there’s been speculation that IFVs are devalued & to be relegated to the bench, and now speculation that they’re so important that we need some before local industry can build them!

so much prev govt commentary about national resilience, building in Australia.
IMHO if accurate, it implies that the plan will continue but ‘maybe’ the initial tranche will be expedited by an overseas purchase to account for production setup delays.

I guess time will tell if I’m being over optimistic?
in the end of the day, Australia won’t be conducting deliberate combat using the AS4.

More likely its simply not commercially viable to build such a small number here either for us or the prime.

 

[Morgo]

More likely its simply not commercially viable to build such a small number here either for us or the prime.

Surely this puts Rheinmetall at a massive advantage given economies of scale with the existing Boxer run?

 

[Volkodav]

True but a monkey could see over the past 20 years that long range fires …SPH and Missiles and now drones and Loitering munitions have changed the field. What we had was way to short ranged and what we are going to get in the immediate future are still somewhat short ranged or too limited in numbers. They should of got you and Takao to do the DSR!

It was clear from the 91 gulf war what modern missile and rockets could do as well as how critical heavy armour and integrated aviation was. Hell even drones were being used extensively.

We briefly headed down a medium armour route, before switching back to "elite" light infantry, but with access to light armour. Finally, but only after IEDs etc. Did armour come back into focus, but mainly in terms of force protection, not actual war fighting.

I'm a big one on patterns, it seems new governments are pretty much enamoured with "transformational" light forces, but over time are dragged back to understanding that, size and weight matter. Then the government changes and low and behold, the "light" everything mafia raises their heads again.

 

[Volkodav]

Surely this puts Rheinmetall at a massive advantage given economies of scale with the existing Boxer run?

As well as the export friendly family of vehicles they are developing from Lynx.

I am half wondering if we may even see a German order for Lynx to supplement the troubled Puma.

 

[Stampede]

The IFV dance takes another twist.

No idea as to how this pans out, but I'm open to the concept of an overseas build if both availability and price are very very competitive.

Still like to build locally, but do somewhat struggle to see build sites in different locations for Boxer / SPG / bushmaster / IFV as efficient manufacturing.

Maybe the answer and winner is in the geography.

It's a mystery alround

Cheers S

 

[Volkodav]

The IFV dance takes another twist.

No idea as to how this pans out, but I'm open to the concept of an overseas build if both availability and price are very very competitive.

Still like to build locally, but do somewhat struggle to see build sites in different locations for Boxer / SPG / bushmaster / IFV as efficient manufacturing.

Maybe the answer and winner is in the geography.

It's a mystery alround

Cheers S

I can't help but feel we are screwing over South Korea again. Procurement decisions can't and shouldn't be based on international relations but I can't help but think sticking with the original IFV and SPG plans may prove cheaper than what ever else will be required to rebuild the relationship.

 

[Volkodav]

Does anyone know what's happening with LAND 400 Phase 3, for 100 Combat Support Vehicles?

This would boost production to 239 assuming the project is still happening.

Likely it would give Lynx the edge due to its modular design and ability to convert vehicle types in a matter of hours.

It would also provide an option for a survivable Lynx APC with an RCS instead of turret, to replace more of the M-113s more affordably, while having the potential to be quickly upgraded later if required.

 

[Wombat000]

These random opaque ‘announcements‘ are confusing.

my understanding was that *if* Hanwha won the IFV contract, theyd build it from the same place they’re building Huntsman from.

Huntsman SPGs have the same tactical imperative as the M777, is it’s as survivable as the AS4s.

So much speculation, does anyone have a goat they aren’t using?

 

[Reptilia]

Rheinmetall Aus…
Production of 186 Boxers for Australia
Production of 123 Boxers for Germany
MASS decoy launchers for RAN fleet
Sustainment of 211 CRV Boxers
Sustainment of 3,500 Logistics Veichles
Possible Lynx production of 129 IFVs
Possible HIMARS production (after Rheinmetall/Lockheed agreement) beyond the initial 20 orderered from the U.S

Hanwha Aus…
30 AS9 Howitzers
15 AS10 Resupply
Possible Redback production of 129 IFVs

If the lot end up being built in Korea, you wonder how many extra ifvs you can get for the same cost as 129 built in Aus.

 

[Bob53]

I can't help but feel we are screwing over South Korea again. Procurement decisions can't and shouldn't be based on international relations but I can't help but think sticking with the original IFV and SPG plans may prove cheaper than what ever else will be required to rebuild the relationship.

Mr Dithers and his team are running this on both sides of politics. This program really has been a disgrace since the evaluation process completed close to 2 years ago. If they get built OS the chances of additional vehicles narrows dramatically I would say. Basically the argument now is that they are on one hand not that important and we don’t need too many of them but on the other hand if we dont get them fast it’s a major issue. What PR guy is coming up with that argument?

 

[knightrider4]

Mr Dithers and his team are running this on both sides of politics. This program really has been a disgrace since the evaluation process completed close to 2 years ago. If they get built OS the chances of additional vehicles narrows dramatically I would say. Basically the argument now is that they are on one hand not that important and we don’t need too many of them but on the other hand if we dont get them fast it’s a major issue. What PR guy is coming up with that argument?

Yes Mr Dithers is an oddball. A combination of incompetence and ideology. Even in the lead up to the SSN announcement he was blabbering on about whether we could really afford it etc etc. Whether we needed an interim conventional boat when anyone with a modicum of intelligence knew it was either going to be one or the other, simply not enough financial clout to do both and the timelines just didn't add up. What makes it even more hilarious is that both vehicles were designed with our requirements in mind, yet we have yet to order any. You just can't make this stuff up.

 

[knightrider4]

Surely this puts Rheinmetall at a massive advantage given economies of scale with the existing Boxer run?

Not really totally different vehicles obviously, sure essentially the same turret but thats it. Doesn't detract from the fact that its a small production run if its the Lynx which is probably a good enough vehicle certainly an order of magnitude better than grandads AS4 then an overseas build for 129 vehicles seems logical to me.

 

[Stampede]

Mr Dithers and his team are running this on both sides of politics. This program really has been a disgrace since the evaluation process completed close to 2 years ago. If they get built OS the chances of additional vehicles narrows dramatically I would say. Basically the argument now is that they are on one hand not that important and we don’t need too many of them but on the other hand if we dont get them fast it’s a major issue. What PR guy is coming up with that argument?

Yep

We just can't make a decision on this one

Cheers S

 

[Stampede]

Does anyone know what's happening with LAND 400 Phase 3, for 100 Combat Support Vehicles?

This would boost production to 239 assuming the project is still happening.

Likely it would give Lynx the edge due to its modular design and ability to convert vehicle types in a matter of hours.

It would also provide an option for a survivable Lynx APC with an RCS instead of turret, to replace more of the M-113s more affordably, while having the potential to be quickly upgraded later if required.

I'd be open to additional Boxers in the dedicated APC role.
Production up and running.
Vehicle has a good balance of speed, range and protection.

Boxer is also modular with a wide range of applications.

Not saying we don't get tanks and IFV's.
But a modest number of addition Boxers will help cover the years prior to the IFV 's entering service.

I'd prefer Boxer over our in servic M113 for just about any situation.



Cheers S