Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Bob53]

One of the other advantages to FMS purchases in addition to the training and support packages which are available, there is also quite likely to be ongoing development of the purchased kit for at least as long as it remains in US service. This can then create opportunities for a non-US purchaser to be able to add or upgrade capabilities without necessarily paying the full developmental and testing costs, as the R&D costs would be spread across a much larger user base.

The article states that the Elbit option is open source (meaning greater weapon integration possibilities to mix from weapons from alt suppliers - HIMARs weapons can be used on these platforms).

I don’t know enough about the process to argue whether buying from Hanwha or Elbit would be any more complex than from LM but we managed with SPH. The Dutch and Poles don’t seem to have any great concern with any of these issues. The article states that the weapons for both Elbit and Hanwha are cheaper, longer ranged, have a broader range of capabilities and already more advanced than those for HIMARs and be delivered within a much shorter time frame. Importantly all IP is handed over with the systems. I don’t know how accurate that is about the initial purchase price of the Elbit system being one fifth of the cost of HIMARs (based on the Dutch press release) but that alone draws attention. And both of these systems can be deliverered 24-36months sooner.

My read was the only downside was that the Elbit would not fit in a C130 as it was a dual pod system on an 8x8 vehicle.

Putting that aside isn’t the DSR about faster/sooner/quicker and cheaper would be a bonus. Still scratch my head with how long these acquisitions take in the ADF. A second article suggest no announcement on Land 400 till after Christmas at best and probably order placed late 24.

 

[ADMk2]

Australia should definitely consider this, given both cost and timelines.

The US should themselves consider purchasing this, and send some of their own HIMARS to Ukraine and Taiwan who both urgently need more HIMARS!
How Israel's PULS Rocket System Compares to HIMARS (popularmechanics.com)

Where do we get a ready supply of PULS rockets from in the event that we require rapid re-supply?

No disrespect Israeli industry, but there is a reason a lot of “their” weapons are actually manufactured in the United States…

On top of which, neither the Hanwha system nor the PULS system would come with PRsM...

 

[Todjaeger]

The article states that the Elbit option is open source (meaning greater weapon integration possibilities to mix from weapons from alt suppliers - HIMARs weapons can be used on these platforms).

I don’t know enough about the process to argue whether buying from Hanwha or Elbit would be any more complex than from LM but we managed with SPH. The Dutch and Poles don’t seem to have any great concern with any of these issues. The article states that the weapons for both Elbit and Hanwha are cheaper, longer ranged, have a broader range of capabilities and already more advanced than those for HIMARs and be delivered within a much shorter time frame. Importantly all IP is handed over with the systems. I don’t know how accurate that is about the initial purchase price of the Elbit system being one fifth of the cost of HIMARs (based on the Dutch press release) but that alone draws attention. And both of these systems can be deliverered 24-36months sooner.

My read was the only downside was that the Elbit would not fit in a C130 as it was a dual pod system on an 8x8 vehicle.

Putting that aside isn’t the DSR about faster/sooner/quicker and cheaper would be a bonus. Still scratch my head with how long these acquisitions take in the ADF. A second article suggest no announcement on Land 400 till after Christmas at best and probably order placed late 24.

The PULS system might be "open source" but then again, what is considered "open source" for civilian/commercial tech development vs. defence/security development might be somewhat different for rather obvious reasons.

However, regardless of whether or not the system is truly "open source" resources and personnel would still need to be allocated to develop, integrate and then test new weapons with the C3 and launch systems. The same holds true if new variants of existing munitions were desired.

Keeping that in mind, there can be a rather drastic difference in R&D costs for a niche capability when spread across a system with only a few units in service, vs. one that the primary user has 500+ units, and another ~1k of a system type launching system. Not to mention the potential to draw upon a global support and supply chain.

 

[MARKMILES77]

What version of the Boxer is this?
German officials visited the Rheinmetall factory in QLD and this is the version of Boxer they were shown.
Block 2 for Australia?
Version developed specifically for the German Army?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1681279893353504768

 

[Stampede]

I know the author of APDR is frowned upon by some people here. KB has an article about GMLRS in this months edition that states that following a purchase of Elbit PULS by the Netherlands, and subsequent information provided on that purchase, that both Elbit and Hanwha options offer better options at significantly lower cost than HIMARS. KB claims that these systems appear to be ignored by Australian defence procurement even though they offer better performance, are available sooner and at lower cost which were key elements of the DSR? Elbit system allegedly 1 fifth the initial price and cheaper missiles than HIMARS and can be delivered within 36 month.

page 20

https://asiapacificdefencereporter.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/APDR-July-Aug-2023.pdf

PULS Rocket Artillery Systems, Israel

PULS is an autonomous artillery rocket system developed by Elbit Systems capable of precision strike up to the range of 300km.

www.army-technology.com

Yes some do frown upon KB.
I may not agree with some of his views, but I appreciate his willingness to challenge defence to explain some of their decisions.
Scrutiny has a place.
Now is KB or any other defence journalist unencumbered and truly free in their opinions, I cannot say.
Like many, I try to use a variety of reference sources to form an opinion.
At this stage, I'm content to have APDR as apart of that mix.



Re HIMARS - It has many attributes of being a proven and popular capability being well supported by the US who we are allied to.
Would an alternative system be better for cost , availability ,supply and future growth, I cannot say.
But I'm sure these questions were asked.
Or more importantly, I hope all these questions were asked!


Cheers S

 

[Stampede]

Are the German vehicles in front of the ADF deliveries?
I assume so, but happy to proven wrong.
How much will this delay IOC/FOC.

No complaining, a win for aus industry and a lower cost per unit might be another win.

I'd like to know a road map for Army's armoured fleet for the decade ahead.

Boxer has started production and is desperately needed ASAP.
MBT Abrams are to be replaced, but this will still take time to role out and bring up to speed ,practically the new Bridge and engineering capabilities.
IFV's..........................................This is the big one!

Tanks need support and the M113 is long in the tooth and is restricted in capability compared to most modern threats.
Boxer may be a IFV substitute as we transition to a future IFV.
So the challenge is
M113 inadequate
Boxer numbers are too few now and full order compliment many be years away.
Where do the German Build numbers fit in?
IFV numbers realistically not till the end of the late 2020's going into the 2030's.

We talk of a valley of death in the ship building industry, but a look at our Armoured situation for the next five years and we seem to be in denial.

Don't get me wrong we have made decisions to get a great mix of stuff for down the track.

But the next five years looks like we have our fingers cross nothing will challenge us..

Suggest some answers and options.
Thinking additional Boxers are in the mix.

Cheers S

 

[Todjaeger]

I'd like to know a road map for Army's armoured fleet for the decade ahead.

Boxer has started production and is desperately needed ASAP.
MBT Abrams are to be replaced, but this will still take time to role out and bring up to speed ,practically the new Bridge and engineering capabilities.
IFV's..........................................This is the big one!

Tanks need support and the M113 is long in the tooth and is restricted in capability compared to most modern threats.
Boxer may be a IFV substitute as we transition to a future IFV.
So the challenge is
M113 inadequate
Boxer numbers are too few now and full order compliment many be years away.
Where do the German Build numbers fit in?
IFV numbers realistically not till the end of the late 2020's going into the 2030's.

We talk of a valley of death in the ship building industry, but a look at our Armoured situation for the next five years and we seem to be in denial.

Don't get me wrong we have made decisions to get a great mix of stuff for down the track.

But the next five years looks like we have our fingers cross nothing will challenge us..

Suggest some answers and options.
Thinking additional Boxers are in the mix.

Cheers S

Unfortunately, I suspect Australia was, is, and virtually always will be looking at an "armoured vehicle production valley of death" and short of Australia becoming a player in the international armour/IFV export market, it always will be.

I recall some posts from not long after I first joined DT where some of the DefPros active at the time were discussing the matter. The basic gist of what I recall is that major and complex armoured vehicles like modern MBT's and/or advanced IFV's need to be produced in significant numbers to truly be viable, with those numbers back then (this was in 2006...) needing to hit 1k+ units produced.

Even if a single Australian facility were to be responsible for the production of all Australian SPG's, IFV's and armoured CRV's, there is just no way that Australia's total production numbers will reach anywhere near that short of a major conflict breaking out. The Australian Army OrBat is just too small, and that is before any reductions from the DSR. As it is, the Bushmaster PMV (a significantly smaller and less capable, complex and protected vehicle) production numbers are only now ~1.2k units, and IIRC for a while the Bendigo facility was producing new units which were either immediately parked in storage, or taken into service to replace an active vehicle which was then put into storage.

One of the related issues is that the service lives of some of the modern armoured vehicles can, like modern warships, last for several decades with periodic upgrades and SLEP's. Clear evidence of that (IMO also overly done at this point) is the still ongoing life of the M113 in Australian service, to date some 59 years since they first entered service with Army. Like modern warships, it would be reasonable to expect a modern armoured vehicle to see some 20-30 years of service. However, unless an Australian production facility had a very low rate of production, I would expect orders for 100-200 vehicles to be produced in only a few years, well short of a decade. This would then mean such a facility would be largely idled once production was completed since it would likely be 15+ years before another/new production run would be needed.

Australia would either need to periodically place additional orders to maintain ongoing production, resulting in Australia possessing 'extra' vehicles which would not be active, and/or obtain export orders for other users.

 

[MickB]

Unfortunately, I suspect Australia was, is, and virtually always will be looking at an "armoured vehicle production valley of death" and short of Australia becoming a player in the international armour/IFV export market, it always will be.

I recall some posts from not long after I first joined DT where some of the DefPros active at the time were discussing the matter. The basic gist of what I recall is that major and complex armoured vehicles like modern MBT's and/or advanced IFV's need to be produced in significant numbers to truly be viable, with those numbers back then (this was in 2006...) needing to hit 1k+ units produced.

Even if a single Australian facility were to be responsible for the production of all Australian SPG's, IFV's and armoured CRV's, there is just no way that Australia's total production numbers will reach anywhere near that short of a major conflict breaking out. The Australian Army OrBat is just too small, and that is before any reductions from the DSR. As it is, the Bushmaster PMV (a significantly smaller and less capable, complex and protected vehicle) production numbers are only now ~1.2k units, and IIRC for a while the Bendigo facility was producing new units which were either immediately parked in storage, or taken into service to replace an active vehicle which was then put into storage.

One of the related issues is that the service lives of some of the modern armoured vehicles can, like modern warships, last for several decades with periodic upgrades and SLEP's. Clear evidence of that (IMO also overly done at this point) is the still ongoing life of the M113 in Australian service, to date some 59 years since they first entered service with Army. Like modern warships, it would be reasonable to expect a modern armoured vehicle to see some 20-30 years of service. However, unless an Australian production facility had a very low rate of production, I would expect orders for 100-200 vehicles to be produced in only a few years, well short of a decade. This would then mean such a facility would be largely idled once production was completed since it would likely be 15+ years before another/new production run would be needed.

Australia would either need to periodically place additional orders to maintain ongoing production, resulting in Australia possessing 'extra' vehicles which would not be active, and/or obtain export orders for other users.

If the production of Boxers for the ADF is slowed or even halted to push the German order out quicker, could/should the funds already budgeted for them be reallocated to purchase additional IFVs and /or SPGs ?

The Boxer numbers to then be bought in later years.

 

[Bob53]

Where do we get a ready supply of PULS rockets from in the event that we require rapid re-supply?

No disrespect Israeli industry, but there is a reason a lot of “their” weapons are actually manufactured in the United States…

On top of which, neither the Hanwha system nor the PULS system would come with PRsM...

Couldn’t we build them ourselves?
I read that both Hanwha and PULS already have missiles approaching 500km + range. So we wouldnt need PRsM? Happy to just leave it here …

 

[ADMk2]

Couldn’t we build them ourselves?
I read that both Hanwha and PULS already have missiles approaching 500km + range. So we wouldnt need PRsM? Happy to just leave it here …

Is this the same nation that is struggling to identify the "business case" to domestically produce 155mm artillery ammunition?

This the same nation that has a shell forging manufacturing plant that can "scale up" to 100,000 shells per year. It can't produce that now but could if funded and given time to scale up. That sounds pretty impressive. But is it?

Because that is 274 rounds in total, per day...

Even if we did invest the funding necessary to build the plant, acquire the IP (assuming of course that we can... Because we can't even for SPIKE LR2 we can only produce certain parts of that missile...) are we going to build every rocket type these can manage? At what scale? The scale we'll need for high intensity warfare?

GWEO has discussed building GMLRS rockets for HIMARS. The same rockets that are already in the process of being superseded by GMLRS-ER rockets...

Forgive me for being skeptical about GWEO and domestic manufacturing...

 

[kato]

What version of the Boxer is this?
German officials visited the Rheinmetall factory in QLD and this is the version of Boxer they were shown.
Block 2 for Australia?
Version developed specifically for the German Army?

The version Germany is buying is the Australian CRV Block 2 in Recon variant.

Not sure about whether Australia bought Rosy (two double five-cell launchers on it), or whether Rheinmetall installed them on this prototype for the show-off to the Germans (Germany uses Rosy in significant quantities).

 

[Bob53]

Is this the same nation that is struggling to identify the "business case" to domestically produce 155mm artillery ammunition?

This the same nation that has a shell forging manufacturing plant that can "scale up" to 100,000 shells per year. It can't produce that now but could if funded and given time to scale up. That sounds pretty impressive. But is it?

Because that is 274 rounds in total, per day...

Even if we did invest the funding necessary to build the plant, acquire the IP (assuming of course that we can... Because we can't even for SPIKE LR2 we can only produce certain parts of that missile...) are we going to build every rocket type these can manage? At what scale? The scale we'll need for high intensity warfare?

GWEO has discussed building GMLRS rockets for HIMARS. The same rockets that are already in the process of being superseded by GMLRS-ER rockets...

Forgive me for being skeptical about GWEO and domestic manufacturing...

I think you make a valid point. The domestic mission production idea goes seem be a thought bubble at the moment.

Maybe we can get .22LR pumping out so we can keep the bunnies under control.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Some interesting photos from TS23



At first I thought it said Dominos on the front. Some sort of special pizza delivery capability we have now.

Tent cities across north Queensland as 30,000 troops begin Australia's largest war games

Germany's army chief says his country wants to send a message it is interested in what is going on in the Indo-Pacific region as his troops take part in a major military exercise for the first time.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Redlands18]

Multi-billion-dollar decision looms for Australia to replace Vietnam War-era army vehicles - ABC News
ABC Australia are saying that the Land 400 Phase 3 IFV decision will be announced this week.

 

[Anthony_B_78]

Multi-billion-dollar decision looms for Australia to replace Vietnam War-era army vehicles - ABC News
ABC Australia are saying that the Land 400 Phase 3 IFV decision will be announced this week.

I was about to post this link too. Interesting article, but rather concerning on a few points.

This is arse-about-face: "Rheinmetall is offering an existing vehicle known as Lynx made in Queensland, while Hanwha has developed an entirely new product for Australia known as Redback, which it is proposing to build at a Geelong facility in Defence Minister Richard Marles's electorate."

Concerning points are this: "Over the past few weeks, the German government has boosted its sales pitch with a pledge to buy more than 100 Australian-made Rheinmetall Boxer heavy weapon carriers, which company insiders concede is contingent on winning the much larger LAND400 deal."

And this: "Responsibility for the project now rests with Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy, who some in the industry believe is hesitant about awarding a contract to a Victorian facility through fear of opening himself up to attack from now Opposition Leader Peter Dutton."

Neither of the latter points should be true, in my opinion, but we shall see.

 

[OldTex]

I was about to post this link too. Interesting article, but rather concerning on a few points.

This is arse-about-face: "Rheinmetall is offering an existing vehicle known as Lynx made in Queensland, while Hanwha has developed an entirely new product for Australia known as Redback, which it is proposing to build at a Geelong facility in Defence Minister Richard Marles's electorate."

Concerning points are this: "Over the past few weeks, the German government has boosted its sales pitch with a pledge to buy more than 100 Australian-made Rheinmetall Boxer heavy weapon carriers, which company insiders concede is contingent on winning the much larger LAND400 deal."

And this: "Responsibility for the project now rests with Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy, who some in the industry believe is hesitant about awarding a contract to a Victorian facility through fear of opening himself up to attack from now Opposition Leader Peter Dutton."

Neither of the latter points should be true, in my opinion, but we shall see.

The politicians will do what they think is best for their position (and influence) not what is best for the ADF or the country. Just as journalists don't always let facts stand in the way of a story.

 

[OldTex]

Some interesting photos from TS23

View attachment 50664

At first I thought it said Dominos on the front. Some sort of special pizza delivery capability we have now.

Tent cities across north Queensland as 30,000 troops begin Australia's largest war games

Germany's army chief says his country wants to send a message it is interested in what is going on in the Indo-Pacific region as his troops take part in a major military exercise for the first time.

www.abc.net.au

Aviation version of the CL vehicles in the ADF

 

[Anthony_B_78]

The politicians will do what they think is best for their position (and influence) not what is best for the ADF or the country. Just as journalists don't always let facts stand in the way of a story.

True enough about politicians, sadly, and journalists tend to make some errors when reporting on defence, but they are also generally accurate on the behind the scenes politics. Hence my concern about those latter two points.

 

[Morgo]

True enough about politicians, sadly, and journalists tend to make some errors when reporting on defence, but they are also generally accurate on the behind the scenes politics. Hence my concern about those latter two points.

Those latter two points make perfect sense to me.

Why wouldn't the Germans insist on a quid pro quo?

Why wouldn't the Queenslander opposition leader attack the Victorian minister if he awards something to Vic over Qld?

This does make the Geelong leg of the armoured vehicle acquisitions look like a massive white elephant / boondoggle though....

 

[Anthony_B_78]

Those latter two points make perfect sense to me.

Why wouldn't the Germans insist on a quid pro quo?

Why wouldn't the Queenslander opposition leader attack the Victorian minister if he awards something to Vic over Qld?

This does make the Geelong leg of the armoured vehicle acquisitions look like a massive white elephant / boondoggle though....

The Germans would likely try for a quid pro quo, but I don't think our government should agree to one. It should obtain the best IFV for our Army.

Dutton would be unwise to play partisan politics on this, but then he isn't exactly the most astute of politicians. My concern here is that Conroy would allow "fear" of what the leader of a practically irrelevant opposition might say influence the decision.