Australian Army Discussions and Updates

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
I have some hope the AS9 and AS21 will end up like the Bushmaster:

299 ordered (down from 370 planned)
Increased to 443 in 2006
Increased again to 696 in 2007, and 737 in 2008
Another 101 ordered in 2011, and another 214 in 2012 (to keep the workers employed) for 1,052 total
Another 78 ordered in 2023 to replace the Ukraine contribution, and another 15 in 2024 for HIMARS command units.
Plus foreign orders.

TLDR - we have a record of ordering more after the initial batch, if we like the product and want to keep the factory running...
One might have hope, but one also needs to keep in mind that there really is not a large window of opportunity to get additional orders placed in order to keep the facility and workforce from idling.

The facility itself was planned to open sometime in 2024 Q3, which seems to have been met. It appears (AFAIK from current plans) for 30 AS9 Huntsman SPH and 14 AS10 Armoured Ammunition Resupply vehicles to be constructed and delivered, prior to the AS21 Redback. Going further with this, delivery of the AS21 Redback is to start some time in 2027 and complete delivery of the 129 vehicle order by some time in 2028. This means that Australia has at most only a little over four years from now before the facility is going to idle, assuming current production plans are met.

This does not provide all that much time for Australia to commit to ordering additional vehicles, or to secure export orders to keep the facility and workforce active. One also needs to keep in mind that in order to avoid the facility going idle or a break in production, orders for long-lead items would need to be placed to ensure their delivery ahead of need for production/assembly at the facility in Geelong. Not sure how many long-lead items there are, or just how far ahead they would need to be ordered, but IMO several months would likely be a reasonable requirement for at least some of the stuff. This could easily mean that Australia might only have perhaps three or three and a half years to get additional orders for AS21 Redbacks in.
 

Reptilia

Well-Known Member
I have some hope the AS9 and AS21 will end up like the Bushmaster:

299 ordered (down from 370 planned)
Increased to 443 in 2006
Increased again to 696 in 2007, and 737 in 2008
Another 101 ordered in 2011, and another 214 in 2012 (to keep the workers employed) for 1,052 total
Another 78 ordered in 2023 to replace the Ukraine contribution, and another 15 in 2024 for HIMARS command units.
Plus foreign orders.

TLDR - we have a record of ordering more after the initial batch, if we like the product and want to keep the factory running...
$170+ million dollar facility…
My guess is they go unmanned after the Redback order.
30 AS9s become C+C or additional units ordered for the control of the K9A3 unmanned variant.
1 manned unit can control 3 or more unmanned sphs. The new k9a3 will also have 100+ km firing range using gliding ammunition.


Some interesting clips attached to this article in manufacturers monthly…


AS21 cruising around the track with what looks to be a Hanwha 6x6 amphibious APC ‘Tigon’ in the background.
Need some more barriers around the track or we might see an ifv crash into the admin/design building…
 
Last edited:

MARKMILES77

Active Member
One might have hope, but one also needs to keep in mind that there really is not a large window of opportunity to get additional orders placed in order to keep the facility and workforce from idling.

The facility itself was planned to open sometime in 2024 Q3, which seems to have been met. It appears (AFAIK from current plans) for 30 AS9 Huntsman SPH and 14 AS10 Armoured Ammunition Resupply vehicles to be constructed and delivered, prior to the AS21 Redback. Going further with this, delivery of the AS21 Redback is to start some time in 2027 and complete delivery of the 129 vehicle order by some time in 2028. This means that Australia has at most only a little over four years from now before the facility is going to idle, assuming current production plans are met.

This does not provide all that much time for Australia to commit to ordering additional vehicles, or to secure export orders to keep the facility and workforce active. One also needs to keep in mind that in order to avoid the facility going idle or a break in production, orders for long-lead items would need to be placed to ensure their delivery ahead of need for production/assembly at the facility in Geelong. Not sure how many long-lead items there are, or just how far ahead they would need to be ordered, but IMO several months would likely be a reasonable requirement for at least some of the stuff. This could easily mean that Australia might only have perhaps three or three and a half years to get additional orders for AS21 Redbacks in.
Avalon is only building 28 AS9s. The first two are already under construction in South Korea.
 

Maranoa

Active Member
Avalon is only building 28 AS9s. The first two are already under construction in South Korea.
Mark, I was wondering if they've rolled off the production line as that media release about production starting in Korea was a while ago now and from what I understand the Hanwha K-9 assembly line pushes a vehicle out very quickly.
 

SammyC

Well-Known Member
One might have hope, but one also needs to keep in mind that there really is not a large window of opportunity to get additional orders placed in order to keep the facility and workforce from idling.

The facility itself was planned to open sometime in 2024 Q3, which seems to have been met. It appears (AFAIK from current plans) for 30 AS9 Huntsman SPH and 14 AS10 Armoured Ammunition Resupply vehicles to be constructed and delivered, prior to the AS21 Redback. Going further with this, delivery of the AS21 Redback is to start some time in 2027 and complete delivery of the 129 vehicle order by some time in 2028. This means that Australia has at most only a little over four years from now before the facility is going to idle, assuming current production plans are met.

This does not provide all that much time for Australia to commit to ordering additional vehicles, or to secure export orders to keep the facility and workforce active. One also needs to keep in mind that in order to avoid the facility going idle or a break in production, orders for long-lead items would need to be placed to ensure their delivery ahead of need for production/assembly at the facility in Geelong. Not sure how many long-lead items there are, or just how far ahead they would need to be ordered, but IMO several months would likely be a reasonable requirement for at least some of the stuff. This could easily mean that Australia might only have perhaps three or three and a half years to get additional orders for AS21 Redbacks in.
I really do fail to understand the strategy behind building the Hanwa Huntsan and Redbacks with such small numbers in a new factory. The original plan made some sense, I don't see how the revised numbers do.

So we spend $200M building a really good factory, employ a whole heap of people in an economically sensitive area, and then close it down in three years?

It seems to make even less sense when we have a vehicle plant in Bendigo that is now starved of onging production and facing its own closure, and then another one in Redbank that also has limited runs (albeit it now has an overseas order), that also faces an uncertain medium term future.

It seems like a huge waste having three factories producing limited runs. It doesn't create a long term sustainable future for the industry or the employees. We have had this same conversation in the ship building sector with sustainable building, which looks to be resolved, but the learnings don't seem to have translated to vehicles.

I am perhaps missing something, but I don't see why the Bendigo facility could not have been upgraded for at least the Hanwa production, giving that team some certainty. I'm sure there also would have been a way to combine with the Boxer. Yes there would be some necessary JV commercial structures with Thales, but we have done that kind of thing before. Perhaps nationalise the Bendigo factory and lease it back to the manufacturers, like we do in Osborne for the Hunter frigates with BAE.

On the current plan It would appear that all three vehicle factories would close down prior to 2030. Where does this fit into our preparations for regional conflict.
 
Last edited:

Wombat000

Well-Known Member
The way I see it is that Boxer, Redback and Huntsman are THE new standard.

Any further fleshing out of the particular capability will be further numbers of the same.
No one genuinely believes we will never require further numbers, because capability effects and numbers evolve, and current kit degrades as it ages or gets broken.
IMHO we will not deliberately close to contact in M113 derivatives, we won’t get more ASLAV types and we won’t get more towed guns.

so we follow: adapt -> crawl -> walk -> run, and numbers will reflect that.

It kinda makes sense.
We budget in bites, we acquire in evolved tranches.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
I really do fail to understand the strategy behind building the Hanwa Huntsan and Redbacks with such small numbers in a new factory. The original plan made some sense, I don't see how the revised numbers do.

So we spend $200M building a really good factory, employ a whole heap of people in an economically sensitive area, and then close it down in three years?

It seems to make even less sense when we have a vehicle plant in Bendigo that is now starved of onging production and facing its own closure, and then another one in Redbank that also has limited runs (albeit it now has an overseas order), that also faces an uncertain medium term future.

It seems like a huge waste having three factories producing limited runs. It doesn't create a long term sustainable future for the industry or the employees. We have had this same conversation in the ship building sector with sustainable building, which looks to be resolved, but the learnings don't seem to have translated to vehicles.

I am perhaps missing something, but I don't see why the Bendigo facility could not have been upgraded for at least the Hanwa production, giving that team some certainty. I'm sure there also would have been a way to combine with the Boxer. Yes there would be some necessary JV commercial structures with Thales, but we have done that kind of thing before. Perhaps nationalise the Bendigo factory and lease it back to the manufacturers, like we do in Osborne for the Hunter frigates with BAE.

On the current plan It would appear that all three vehicle factories would close down prior to 2030. Where does this fit into our preparations for regional conflict.
In a somewhat twisted way, it makes sense to me. Look at where the new Hanwha is located. Then look to see who in gov't might consider that an 'area of interest'.

NFI if that is an accurate assessment, but it would not surprise me. Incidentally, IIRC the selection which led to a production facility in Bendigo was at least partially made for reasons other than what was to be produced. The competing product at the time had overall equal or better protection, but was expected to have lower overall support costs because it would be able to tap into a global parts supply chain. In the end, it seems as though deciding fact ended up not being what was produced, but who would gain from the production and where.

TBH I rather expect something similar to happen with naval construction.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Look at what we are getting, a world standard production facility and a trained workforce.

This is what we needed and didn't have in WWII. This is why we spent decades during and after WWII growing industrial capacity before pissing it away in the 2000s.

You build the infrastructure and capacity. You order small quantities of gear, evolve and improve it, then order more. Then when (hopefully only if) the shit hits the fan, you order bucket loads.

The UK stuffed up a bit with tanks, aircraft, AT guns etc. ordering masses of obsolete and obsolescent gear that was obliterated or rendered near useless early on, while there was no capacity remaining to build better until much later.

The US had extra time, did some interim orders, then produced swarms of good enough stuff, before switching to better stuff.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Look at what we are getting, a world standard production facility and a trained workforce.

This is what we needed and didn't have in WWII. This is why we spent decades during and after WWII growing industrial capacity before pissing it away in the 2000s.

You build the infrastructure and capacity. You order small quantities of gear, evolve and improve it, then order more. Then when (hopefully only if) the shit hits the fan, you order bucket loads.

The UK stuffed up a bit with tanks, aircraft, AT guns etc. ordering masses of obsolete and obsolescent gear that was obliterated or rendered near useless early on, while there was no capacity remaining to build better until much later.

The US had extra time, did some interim orders, then produced swarms of good enough stuff, before switching to better stuff.
The concern I have is that absent on-going or continued work, production facilities will close and decay, whilst the trained workforce will disperse (or retire) and with the currently known work, it will not take all that long for these conditions to be met.

For those that argue more orders might get placed... I agree, that might happen. However, one really cannot create and execute plans (particularly ones as resource and capital intensive) on mere possibilities. IMO this is especially true for the Hanwha facilities in Geelong because of how small I suspect the order really is, to keep the facility going.

As we already know, the (current) last AS21 Redback produced should come out of Geelong sometime in 2028, though it does not appear to be available publicly when in 2028 that is expected. If one estimates a fairly low/slow rate of production going from 2027 until nearly the end of 2028, then one is looking at slightly more than one vehicle produced per week. Further, if the long lead items take about six months (could be less, could easily be much longer) from time of order to delivery at the facility, then orders of long lead items for new production to keep the facilities going would need to be placed beforehand. Further, AFAIK there is no contract in place where Australia could 'just' order a few more from time to time, meaning that there would likely need to be some kind of contracting work to be done, ahead of any signatures for new orders, and this contract work could easily take months (or longer). Might not take as long as some of the contracts for new warship orders, which can easily top two years, but it would still induce a time crunch.

Right now, it appears that the Hanwha facility in Geelong might have production plans and orders in place for up to the next ~40 months with current orders. It could easily be less though, if the planned production rate is higher than ~five vehicles monthly, and/or the production run had been planned to end earlier in 2028, like Jan/Feb rather than Nov/Dec. If the window of opportunity to place more orders closes nine to twelve months before the end of a production run (and again, this just a guess on my part, it could be wildly off in either direction), then we could be looking at a order window closing sometime between the beginning of 2027 and the first month of 2028. This in turn means that Australia would need to make the decision to order more production and commit to it within the next two or three years.

One personal wish if mine, would be for Australia to work harder to take the politics out of the procurement decisions, particularly for major facilities which keep getting built at new sites in different states. Given the comparatively small size of the ADF, where the order volumes really will never reach those of countries like the US, it might make more sense for there to be Commonwealth-owned common user facilities for things like armoured vehicle production. Such facilities could be contracted out based upon contracts and orders placed for the ADF, and keep the need for different companies bidding on ADF programmes from needing to waste coin establish newly built facilities and work forces, only to have those investments be made redundant after a couple of years. Of course this would also require pollies from different states stop trying to get defence work for their states, at the expense of existing facilities elsewhere within the Commonwealth.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
The problem with Commonwealth facilities in Australia is the same as Dominion facilities in Canada wrt defence production ( and other production in Canada as well), namely which state or province gets the facility. Almost certain shit locations will be selected for the electoral advantage.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
The problem with Commonwealth facilities in Australia is the same as Dominion facilities in Canada wrt defence production ( and other production in Canada as well), namely which state or province gets the facility. Almost certain shit locations will be selected for the electoral advantage.
Not sure about Canada, but it does seem in the case of Australia that there have been projects where the end selection was determined by who would receive (or be denied) electoral advantage. Making this worse is that there does not seem to have been significant effort (apart from the National Shipbuilding plan, which itself now appears in jeopardy) to have continuity of ops at production facilities, so that they and their workforces can be utilized for the next procurement programme.

This is particularly visible for Australian shipbuilding, but one can see signs of it elsewhere in Australian defence procurement.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Not sure about Canada, but it does seem in the case of Australia that there have been projects where the end selection was determined by who would receive (or be denied) electoral advantage. Making this worse is that there does not seem to have been significant effort (apart from the National Shipbuilding plan, which itself now appears in jeopardy) to have continuity of ops at production facilities, so that they and their workforces can be utilized for the next procurement programme.

This is particularly visible for Australian shipbuilding, but one can see signs of it elsewhere in Australian defence procurement.
Pretty much the here. WRT ship building, SeaSpan and Irving were the only two ocean based yards when our National Ship Building program started. It was an easy choice as Quebec based Davie was in receivership. It is now back in business building commercial stuff and smaller ice breakers and of course the Quebec government is demanding increased workshare. They will build one of Canada’s heavy icebreakers. As long as they don’t get to build naval fighting ships, I can accept the other stuff. The province of separation does not deserve any pointy end stuff, ever!
 

SammyC

Well-Known Member
Look at what we are getting, a world standard production facility and a trained workforce.

This is what we needed and didn't have in WWII. This is why we spent decades during and after WWII growing industrial capacity before pissing it away in the 2000s.

You build the infrastructure and capacity. You order small quantities of gear, evolve and improve it, then order more. Then when (hopefully only if) the shit hits the fan, you order bucket loads.

The UK stuffed up a bit with tanks, aircraft, AT guns etc. ordering masses of obsolete and obsolescent gear that was obliterated or rendered near useless early on, while there was no capacity remaining to build better until much later.

The US had extra time, did some interim orders, then produced swarms of good enough stuff, before switching to better stuff.
That would make all the sense in the world and would be a smart approach. I would be amongst the first to congratulate it.

I will take a moment to correct my earlier comment about Bendigo. The IIR includes a further $1.7-2.2B over the decade period for the venerable Bushmasters, so it looks like they will be progressively replaced and upgraded over time. $200M of that is up now for an additional 105 vehicles. Bendigo evidently has a future, which is good news.

My problem is that if we are to take the recent IIR at its word, it specifies 129 Redbacks, 211 Boxers and 30 Huntsmen. Funding over the next decade aligns only with these purchases. The Australian boxer order finishes in 2026 and the Redback/Huntsmen in 2028. After this, the two vehicle factories will not get any further orders within the next 10 years. Without orders, the factories will go cold and will be difficult to restart (people get other jobs, machinery rusts).

Now I get that IIRs do change (as the 2024 version demonstrated), but to do so would entail stopping another priority or increasing funding. Neither I would have thought is easy.

Perhaps, the Redback and Boxer factories could work on the subsistence model. Small orders aligned with minimum viable production, where the unbudgeted cost blends into the overall Defence budget and balances out some other underspends (which always occur with other project delays).

IFV/CRVs however are expensive, by 4-5 times the value of a Bushmaster, so an additional year of low rate production (say 30 units) is in the order of $300-400M per plant. That's a lot of mony to hide in the budget in the 2028 period onwards

Alternatively, the factories may get a lifeline via international orders, as per the current Boxer one with Germany. This factory now has orders through to 2030 as a result. Maybe it could be converted to truck manufacture beyond this timeframe for HX/SX series replacements.

To todjaeger's point above, there is not much time for a decision on factory continuation to be made.
 
Last edited:

Stampede

Well-Known Member
The concern I have is that absent on-going or continued work, production facilities will close and decay, whilst the trained workforce will disperse (or retire) and with the currently known work, it will not take all that long for these conditions to be met.

For those that argue more orders might get placed... I agree, that might happen. However, one really cannot create and execute plans (particularly ones as resource and capital intensive) on mere possibilities. IMO this is especially true for the Hanwha facilities in Geelong because of how small I suspect the order really is, to keep the facility going.

As we already know, the (current) last AS21 Redback produced should come out of Geelong sometime in 2028, though it does not appear to be available publicly when in 2028 that is expected. If one estimates a fairly low/slow rate of production going from 2027 until nearly the end of 2028, then one is looking at slightly more than one vehicle produced per week. Further, if the long lead items take about six months (could be less, could easily be much longer) from time of order to delivery at the facility, then orders of long lead items for new production to keep the facilities going would need to be placed beforehand. Further, AFAIK there is no contract in place where Australia could 'just' order a few more from time to time, meaning that there would likely need to be some kind of contracting work to be done, ahead of any signatures for new orders, and this contract work could easily take months (or longer). Might not take as long as some of the contracts for new warship orders, which can easily top two years, but it would still induce a time crunch.

Right now, it appears that the Hanwha facility in Geelong might have production plans and orders in place for up to the next ~40 months with current orders. It could easily be less though, if the planned production rate is higher than ~five vehicles monthly, and/or the production run had been planned to end earlier in 2028, like Jan/Feb rather than Nov/Dec. If the window of opportunity to place more orders closes nine to twelve months before the end of a production run (and again, this just a guess on my part, it could be wildly off in either direction), then we could be looking at a order window closing sometime between the beginning of 2027 and the first month of 2028. This in turn means that Australia would need to make the decision to order more production and commit to it within the next two or three years.

One personal wish if mine, would be for Australia to work harder to take the politics out of the procurement decisions, particularly for major facilities which keep getting built at new sites in different states. Given the comparatively small size of the ADF, where the order volumes really will never reach those of countries like the US, it might make more sense for there to be Commonwealth-owned common user facilities for things like armoured vehicle production. Such facilities could be contracted out based upon contracts and orders placed for the ADF, and keep the need for different companies bidding on ADF programmes from needing to waste coin establish newly built facilities and work forces, only to have those investments be made redundant after a couple of years. Of course this would also require pollies from different states stop trying to get defence work for their states, at the expense of existing facilities elsewhere within the Commonwealth.
Part of the answer of vehicle manufacturing will lie in what will be the structure and composition of the Army going forward.
In the public domain we have some broad layout of three much more specialised brigades compare to a common structure across the brigades of the last decade
What vehicles and numbers are needed will be interesting

As is for what we have and what is projected I cannot say
Really not much in the public domain

What I do observe is that major restructures tend to evolve with time and that will influence equipment needed

On the vehicle front will that tie in with our manufacturing capability both for today and into the future

Difficult to see Geelong only producing such a limited number of vehicles as planned, then again what does Army look like going forward!

interest the lack on detail

Cheers S
 

Armchair

Well-Known Member
Alternatively, the factories may get a lifeline via international orders, as per the current Boxer one with Germany. This factory now has orders through to 2030 as a result. Maybe it could be converted to truck manufacture beyond this timeframe for HX/SX series replacements.

To todjaeger's point above, there is not much time for a decision on factory continuation to be made.
It is an unfortunate fact but, strategic circumstances being as they are, if the factory is able to produce good quality modern IFVs at a competitive price then it will get orders (From Australia or elsewhere, most likely South Korea).
 

Bob53

Well-Known Member
I really do fail to understand the strategy behind building the Hanwa Huntsan and Redbacks with such small numbers in a new factory. The original plan made some sense, I don't see how the revised numbers do.

So we spend $200M building a really good factory, employ a whole heap of people in an economically sensitive area, and then close it down in three years?

It seems to make even less sense when we have a vehicle plant in Bendigo that is now starved of onging production and facing its own closure, and then another one in Redbank that also has limited runs (albeit it now has an overseas order), that also faces an uncertain medium term future.

It seems like a huge waste having three factories producing limited runs. It doesn't create a long term sustainable future for the industry or the employees. We have had this same conversation in the ship building sector with sustainable building, which looks to be resolved, but the learnings don't seem to have translated to vehicles.

I am perhaps missing something, but I don't see why the Bendigo facility could not have been upgraded for at least the Hanwa production, giving that team some certainty. I'm sure there also would have been a way to combine with the Boxer. Yes there would be some necessary JV commercial structures with Thales, but we have done that kind of thing before. Perhaps nationalise the Bendigo factory and lease it back to the manufacturers, like we do in Osborne for the Hunter frigates with BAE.

On the current plan It would appear that all three vehicle factories would close down prior to 2030. Where does this fit into our preparations for regional conflict.
One word. Elections.
 

Bob53

Well-Known Member
Part of the answer of vehicle manufacturing will lie in what will be the structure and composition of the Army going forward.
In the public domain we have some broad layout of three much more specialised brigades compare to a common structure across the brigades of the last decade
What vehicles and numbers are needed will be interesting

As is for what we have and what is projected I cannot say
Really not much in the public domain

What I do observe is that major restructures tend to evolve with time and that will influence equipment needed

On the vehicle front will that tie in with our manufacturing capability both for today and into the future

Difficult to see Geelong only producing such a limited number of vehicles as planned, then again what does Army look like going forward!

interest the lack on detail

Cheers S
Richard Marles said heavy armour (which would mean CRV, Tanks and IFV) is no longer credible in an Australian context. He obviously has a great insight into modern combat. So the cynic in me say why would they order more? or reduced orders were a budget issue and that story was just PR and the budget issue …. that’s not going away
 

Milne Bay

Active Member
Richard Marles said heavy armour (which would mean CRV, Tanks and IFV) is no longer credible in an Australian context. He obviously has a great insight into modern combat. So the cynic in me say why would they order more? or reduced orders were a budget issue and that story was just PR and the budget issue …. that’s not going away
Do you have a link to Richard Marles' comments?
I would be interested to read them in their context.
MB
 
Top