This is a discussion on Australian Army Discussions and Updates within the Army & Security Forces forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by PETER671BT
Australian army was nothing but a coast guard the previous before John howard got in.This government ...
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 by FutureTank; January 11th, 2007 at 03:47 AM.
Reason: text correction
Giat was teamed with ADI to offer the Caeser before it became clear that the SP gun had to be able to be fired from under armour. At that stage they were considering offering the gun on a 6X6 version of the Bushmaster based on the logistics variant.
(See my Avatar for a photo of the 4X4 version of the Bushmaster Logistics vehicle also known as the Copperhead.)
The K-9 may not be quite up to the standards of the PzH-2000 but it would certainly be a huge step up from the current towed M-198s!
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?
Not under the initial phases of Land 17. Army is focused on fire control systems, SPG's and new ammunition natures at present, with new lightweight 155mm guns or upgraded M198's further down the track in terms of priority.
NLOS-LS or MLRS/HIMARS type capability would be very nice, however it "ain't on the shopping list" quite yet...
The K-9 may not be quite up to the standards of the PzH-2000 but it would certainly be a huge step up from the current towed M-198s!
I think Australia can be thinking about future artillery systems based on fullly, or at least semi-automated feed like that used on the naval platforms. This would provide the volume of fire while reducing on the manning levels, and conceivably the overall size of the vehicle.
I think Australia can be thinking about future artillery systems based on fullly, or at least semi-automated feed like that used on the naval platforms. This would provide the volume of fire while reducing on the manning levels, and conceivably the overall size of the vehicle.
The Archer and the PZH-2000 already have these features and are definitely in the running for Land 17. The PZH-2000 particularly...
Yes, and I think the PZH-2000 will be Army's 'compensation' to Germans for not selecting Leo 2
Actually, the reason I think it will get up, is the 18x near new PZH-2000's the Dutch want to "directly" swap for additional new build Bushmasters, manufactured by Australian Defence Industry, ie: Australia wins "both" ways...
Obviously more platforms will need to be purchased than 18, but it would definitely be politically attractive, be quicker into service whilst providing more combat capability than any other option, and be good for Australian industry.
Yes, and I think the PZH-2000 will be Army's 'compensation' to Germans for not selecting Leo 2
The germans wouldn't be expecting "compensation" - they basically told one of the australian vendors to "go jump" a few years back.
they've offered ex war stock with almost zero hours approx 5 years ago at mates rates - and not only armour. unfortunately some drongo decided to pass up their offers.
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
Actually, the reason I think it will get up, is the 18x near new PZH-2000's the Dutch want to "directly" swap for additional new build Bushmasters, manufactured by Australian Defence Industry, ie: Australia wins "both" ways...
Obviously more platforms will need to be purchased than 18, but it would definitely be politically attractive, be quicker into service whilst providing more combat capability than any other option, and be good for Australian industry.
Not many down sides to the deal...
Sounds like a done deal! Hope it works out that way to, with an additional buy of a further 18-24 (for the school of Arty) as well as units. I also hope that the hammels are replaced with something that can be slung under a whirlygig!
The germans wouldn't be expecting "compensation" - they basically told one of the australian vendors to "go jump" a few years back.
they've offered ex war stock with almost zero hours approx 5 years ago at mates rates - and not only armour. unfortunately some drongo decided to pass up their offers.
Yes, I heard something like that but never found out what the deal was or why it was knocked back. Can you say more?
Exactly how many SP systems are we looking for? Battalion per brigade would be nice...at least for the regular brigades
Sounds like a done deal! Hope it works out that way to, with an additional buy of a further 18-24 (for the school of Arty) as well as units. I also hope that the hammels are replaced with something that can be slung under a whirlygig!
There's no guarantee the Hamels WILL be replaced. Army only has $600m to spend on new "gats" and out of this it wants in order: new fire control systems, new SPG's, new ammo natures (including Excalibur etc), and only THEN will it look at acquiring new 155mm "light" towed guns or upgrading our existing M198's.
If it chooses the upgraded M198 option, 3 Brigade (3x "field" batteries) and 7 Brigade (2x field batteries) will get ALL of our M198's. The chocco batteries will HAVE to continue with whatever they've got now, but probably Hamel, with the M2A2 finally retired...
Hamel's didn't prove easily moved by Blackhawks, hence the rapid acquisition of the Chooks "back in the day", after some genius decided Army or Air Force didn't need any and retired our fleet of 12...
Hence the move to an M198 based force for the field batteries, this won't provide any loss of the capability operated now. In fact with the likely acquisition of additional Chinooks, it should even improve somewhat.
