Australian Army Discussions and Updates

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Phhffffft..... Are you seriously trying to tell me you (or any other digger) didn't know how to convert an SLR to full auto?

It was full auto when you wnated it to be.;)

cheers

w
ha ha! all that you needed was a broken matchstick under the safty sear. If you were caught doing it, you were in deep shit!....up to youre nostrils!:eek:nfloorl:
 

Wooki

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
ha ha! all that you needed was a broken matchstick under the safty sear. If you were caught doing it, you were in deep shit!....up to youre nostrils!:eek:nfloorl:
matchstick?... you know, I never saw the matchstick used... piece of scrunched up tinfoil, as it was easier to get out....

mis-spent youth...

cheers

w
 

rossfrb_1

Member
Land-17 decision soonish?

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21030567-31477,00.html

"
Army has big guns in its sights
  • Mark Dodd
  • January 09, 2007
THE Australian army expects to know within six months the outcome of a $600 million contract to buy new heavy artillery, including, for the first time, 155mm self-propelled guns.

Dubbed Land-17, the project is on track and a formal call for tenders is expected shortly, Chief of Army Peter Leahy said yesterday. Potential contenders for 155mm howitzers to replace Vietnam era big guns include firms from Israel, Singapore and France. Lieutenant-General Leahy said the army would get a mix of towed and self-propelled artillery.
"We're trying to get some prices and have a look at some equipment to see what we're getting for our money," he said.
"My preference would be for the self-propelled and have more of that rather than towed artillery. I think towards the middle of this year we should get a pretty good decision."
Contenders include the Bofors Archer truck-mounted 155mm system with a towable version as an option. France's GIAT industries is keen to showcase its Caesar self-propelled weapons system. Other possible contenders include Israeli Soltam's truck-mounted Atmos 2000 and a 20-tonne tracked Rascal self-propelled gun.
Singapore is likely to attract interest with its air-portable, semi-mobile Pegasus howitzer system."



OK folks, who reckons they have an idea of what is likely to be purchased?
There has been some grumbling over the years that the Korean K9 might have a leg in. Ex DefMin Hill was apparently quite taken with them. Wonder what Nelson thinks?

Wasn't a Bofors Archer unit paraded around the traps last year or the year before(?).



rb
 

FutureTank

Banned Member
It was the K-9 Thunder, but the mere fact it was tested here, means nothing. The RFT hasn't even been released yet. The Caesar was tested here 2 years ago and the RFI documents and the requirement for "crew protection whilst firing" ruled out the "gun on a truck" solutions...

The BIG problem with the K-9 is that a second armoured vehicle, the "K-10" is required to accompany it. For every artillery piece, you need to acquire ANOTHER armoured vehicle.

Seems a bit pricey for the "least" capable of the vehicles offered...

But maybe that's just me...
Yep, Artillery wants "The modernised offensive support system will be characterised by responsiveness, high tactical mobility, greater autonomy and survivability. ", and 'survivability' means armour plating :)
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21030567-31477,00.html

"
Army has big guns in its sights
  • Mark Dodd
  • January 09, 2007
THE Australian army expects to know within six months the outcome of a $600 million contract to buy new heavy artillery, including, for the first time, 155mm self-propelled guns.

Dubbed Land-17, the project is on track and a formal call for tenders is expected shortly, Chief of Army Peter Leahy said yesterday. Potential contenders for 155mm howitzers to replace Vietnam era big guns include firms from Israel, Singapore and France. Lieutenant-General Leahy said the army would get a mix of towed and self-propelled artillery.
"We're trying to get some prices and have a look at some equipment to see what we're getting for our money," he said.
"My preference would be for the self-propelled and have more of that rather than towed artillery. I think towards the middle of this year we should get a pretty good decision."
Contenders include the Bofors Archer truck-mounted 155mm system with a towable version as an option. France's GIAT industries is keen to showcase its Caesar self-propelled weapons system. Other possible contenders include Israeli Soltam's truck-mounted Atmos 2000 and a 20-tonne tracked Rascal self-propelled gun.
Singapore is likely to attract interest with its air-portable, semi-mobile Pegasus howitzer system."



OK folks, who reckons they have an idea of what is likely to be purchased?
There has been some grumbling over the years that the Korean K9 might have a leg in. Ex DefMin Hill was apparently quite taken with them. Wonder what Nelson thinks?

Wasn't a Bofors Archer unit paraded around the traps last year or the year before(?).



rb
Once again the "wide spread" media displays it's complete ignorance of the "real" goings on in defence. If it read the tender details and actually understood them it means that Caesar and ATMOS 2000 are ruled out immediately from competition.

A further understanding of the Kinnaird rules, whilst not completely ruling out Archer and G6, certainly puts them firmly into the "outsiders" camp. The choice will most likely come down to PZH-2000 and K-9, with Archer the most likely "outsider" (this is purely based on my opinion however)...

It's a bit hard to suggest which will win, when the tender hasn't even been released yet (ie: no-one has actually bid yet), though if I were a betting man, I'd be putting my money on PZH-2000...
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21030567-31477,00.html

"
Army has big guns in its sights
  • Mark Dodd
  • January 09, 2007
THE Australian army expects to know within six months the outcome of a $600 million contract to buy new heavy artillery, including, for the first time, 155mm self-propelled guns.

Dubbed Land-17, the project is on track and a formal call for tenders is expected shortly, Chief of Army Peter Leahy said yesterday. Potential contenders for 155mm howitzers to replace Vietnam era big guns include firms from Israel, Singapore and France. Lieutenant-General Leahy said the army would get a mix of towed and self-propelled artillery.
I was interested to see Lieutenant-General Leahy's comments that the army will get a mix of self propelled and towed artillery.

What are the benefits of each type? I can see some obvious benefits in SP artillery (mobility and protection for the gun crew) but what can the towed guns do better (presuming they are both of the same calibre)? Apologies if this has been addressed earlier and I have missed it.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
I was interested to see Lieutenant-General Leahy's comments that the army will get a mix of self propelled and towed artillery.

What are the benefits of each type? I can see some obvious benefits in SP artillery (mobility and protection for the gun crew) but what can the towed guns do better (presuming they are both of the same calibre)? Apologies if this has been addressed earlier and I have missed it.
I'm pretty sure a towed gun can be "man handled" and lifted by a helicopter better than an SPG... :eek:nfloorl:
 

lobbie111

New Member
Could A modified Bushmaster theoretically carry a 105-155mm Gun on its rear with other support veicles for a light support role for infantry
 

FutureTank

Banned Member
A further understanding of the Kinnaird rules, whilst not completely ruling out Archer and G6, certainly puts them firmly into the "outsiders" camp. The choice will most likely come down to PZH-2000 and K-9, with Archer the most likely "outsider" (this is purely based on my opinion however)...

It's a bit hard to suggest which will win, when the tender hasn't even been released yet (ie: no-one has actually bid yet), though if I were a betting man, I'd be putting my money on PZH-2000...
Please don't let it be K-9. Its a dooooog :D
 

PETER671BT

New Member
THE AGE
Brendan Nicholson
December 15, 2006

A $1 BILLION strategy to tackle the defence recruiting crisis has been approved by federal cabinet.
Prime Minister John Howard today will announce plans to boost the army, navy and air force by 6000 men and women.
A major component will be spending $306 million over 10 years on a military "gap year" scheme that will allow up to 1000 17 to 24-year-olds each year to spend a year in the services within two years of finishing year 12. They would be able to taste the military lifestyle and training, and would not have to stay if they don't like it.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/defence-forces-get-more-muscle-in-1-billion-strategy/2006/12/14/1165685825260.html

What are your thoughts? Personally, I applaud the government for shortening the general entry application time and I'd also like to see how far they relax the medical criteria, particularly when it comes to eyesight and orthotics.
Australian army was nothing but a coast guard the previous before John howard got in.This government has spent over 100 billon dollars in defence for capabilities and with another 100billon still to go.It wan't matter what prime minister is in ,they will have to keep up the motion.For the next election.tThis country has got goods tanks,bushranger,tiger.NH-90 helos,new guns,new artillary,new saterlite equipement,upgrades right across the board,
and so on. Hell I'M grateful to live in this country.Thank ADF.
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
Please don't let it be K-9. Its a dooooog :D
FT,

From what you and AD have said I get the impression that the K-9 is not 'flavour of the month' as far as members with good knowledge of modern armoured warfare requiements are concerned.

In Post 83 AD said:

The BIG problem with the K-9 is that a second armoured vehicle, the "K-10" is required to accompany it. For every artillery piece, you need to acquire ANOTHER armoured vehicle.

Seems a bit pricey for the "least" capable of the vehicles offered...
Are there other issues as well that make this weapon a 'dooooog'?

Cheers
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
Australian army was nothing but a coast guard the previous before John howard got in.This government has spent over 100 billon dollars in defence for capabilities and with another 100billon still to go.It wan't matter what prime minister is in ,they will have to keep up the motion.For the next election.tThis country has got goods tanks,bushranger,tiger.NH-90 helos,new guns,new artillary,new saterlite equipement,upgrades right across the board,
and so on. Hell I'M grateful to live in this country.Thank ADF.
I have to agree with Peter that the army was allowed to be run down although I think it always maintained capabilities that allowed it to deploy outside Australia, albeit in small numbers and for limited operations. The performance of Oz Special Forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, plus the way in which the East Timor force was put together demonstrate this. However, I'd hate the present government to start thinking that all is now well. IMO re-equipment and expansion has come about because the government was embarrassed at its inability to provide substantial land forces during the Second Gulf War and to deal with situations since. I seem to remember reading somewhere in this Forum (or perhaps elsewhere) that the PM wanted to send an armoured force to GW2 but the army was unable to provide a suitable force. Perhaps someone could correct me if I am wrong about this.

The good thing is that expansion (which is historically substantial by Australian standards short of major war conditions) and re-equipment is under way. It is IMO really important now that the program maintains its impetus to ensure that Oz troops have the numbers, equipment and training to do the jobs asked of them.

Cheers
 

cherry

Banned Member
I don't know if this has been raised within this forum before (I haven't read all posts) but would it be wise or likely to imbed a 15xcanister launcher for netfires (pam and/or lam) within each battery, purely for more time critical and moving targets?
 

PETER671BT

New Member
I don't know if this has been raised within this forum before (I haven't read all posts) but would it be wise or likely to imbed a 15xcanister launcher for netfires (pam and/or lam) within each battery, purely for more time critical and moving targets?
Is that the same as limaws,which is leightweight rocket launcher,which is capable of supporting rapid intervention and manoeuvre support forces,tactical mobility by helocopter.Aspect are prcision targeting at long range,100 miles plus. read more on global defence review LIMAWS.
 

rickshaw

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Could A modified Bushmaster theoretically carry a 105-155mm Gun on its rear with other support veicles for a light support role for infantry
A 105mm light gun is more than likely within the capabilities of the Bushmaster however, like the Caesar, the crew would have to dismount to operate it.
 

FutureTank

Banned Member
Could A modified Bushmaster theoretically carry a 105-155mm Gun on its rear with other support veicles for a light support role for infantry
What do you mean by "carry"?

The 155mm type weapon is probably out of the question.

The 105mm can be towed, but not carried internally (unless the top of the cabin is removed, as well as the wheels?), and the gunners would have to find their own ride :)
 
Last edited:
Top