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 Aussie Digger
There's no guarantee the Hamels WILL be replaced. Army only has $600m to spend on ...
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.
Yep spent some time in those old chooks.If they arnt to be replaced, then i hope they are retained! Dont think an MRH90 would have much of a problem moving `em,with crews and ammo! Its a capability that the ADF CANT afford to lose!
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.
Most SP guns already have semi-automatic "flick" ramming. Several have fully automatic loading. Despite what you appear to believe, the addition of such machinery does not make the SP vehicle smaller. Indeed, often it makes it larger. In addition, personnel requirements aren't actually reduced, they are usually redeployed from the SP vehicle itself to ammunition resupply vehicles.
Being my first post here I thought I'd tell a story about fully automatic SLR's.
20+ years ago I was a lance corporal in 1 Field Engineer Regiment at Holsworthy. 3 troop in 1 Sqn was doing a weeks worth of pretending to be infantry training in the range and myself and a few others from 1 troop volunteered to be their 'enemy'. Of course being enemy we AKed our SLR's to fire full auto, as you do, as we liked the sound and the M60 never, ever worked properly firing blanks. The troop commander thought it was a good idea and had a few of his men in each section do the same. After a few days in the bush weapons were handed in and life returned to normal. A few weeks after this 3 troop went to the range. Weapons were loaded and the command 2 shots down range was given to warm everything up. Bang Bang BangBangBang Frrraaappppp...Cease fire ..who the fcuken hell was that yelled the range safety officer..It was me said Sapper Blogs, Your in fcuken trouble screams the RSO...But Lt. Xxxxx said i could do it, he replied. If my memory serves me right he was Duty Officer for 6 weeks after that. Those were the days.
And what makes you think Germany could design IFVs in the 70s although it designed first APC before WW2?
The USA certainly could not design an IFV in the 70s, and it had lots of expereince with AFVs.
Every engineering project is unique. What worked 20 years ago is hopelessly outdated today. Is Puma a huge improvement on the Marder?
Sometimes the solution isnot creative, but cheap
From Waylander:
That is what we did. We made mistakes for decades. And we learned of them.
We learned it the hard way. And especially special items like the armor is not that easy to make and can not easily be adopted from civil companies like for example optics.
The Puma is nothing completely new. But it is better in almost every aspect compared to the Marder. And it fits into our existing system being able to follow the Leo IIs everywhere they go with good armor protection good firepower and the ability to be transported by a A400M.
The question is not what can we do. We showed what we can do. If it is really good is another question.
The real question for you is why should Australia be able to build something faster, cheaper and better than anybody else without experience in this field
Firstly Australia needs something that is designed for its unique strategic, operational and tactical needs, not someone else's needs and doctrine.
Why shouldn't Australia be able to build
Quote:
something faster, cheaper and better than anybody else without experience in this field
?
Is there a law agains this? Expereince is useful, but I would like you to tell me which parts of an IFV require skills and knowledge not available in Australia?
And if the Puma is able to follow the Leo II it is also able to follow the Abrams and this should be a have to for you.
As well as the ability to be air deployable in somethin smaller than a C-17.
It is a normal business standard that you have to invest a lot of money and time if you want to go on par with the leading companies of the market while being a small contender in this sector.
And if the Puma is able to follow the Leo II it is also able to follow the Abrams and this should be a have to for you.
As well as the ability to be air deployable in somethin smaller than a C-17.
It is a normal business standard that you have to invest a lot of money and time if you want to go on par with the leading companies of the market while being a small contender in this sector.
With all due respect, and no insult intended, all you are doing is giving me a sales pitch.
We are talking an IFV. It is not possible to desing an IFV that will withstand a tank gun, or most heavy ATGWs, so armour would be desingned to provide protection appropriate to the weight it needs to allow it to move at speeds required by the doctrine.
It is highly unlikely the IFV would have a weapon larger then a 30mm cannon. Do you suppose Australians couldn't desing an FCS for a 30mm cannon?
The "whole tracked" package is an exercise in automotive engineering. In WW2 when US started building tanks, it was done at tractor building factories. I think Australian engineers can manage to work something out. There are however greater issues with the powerpack then you suppose, and which has been avoided in Puma, and will ultimatelly make it uneconomic and probably obsolete before its time.
At one stage on this planet mammals were small....small is good
Than tell me what the difference in Australian doctrine is if your new IFV doesn't need to be able to go were a Abrams goes with the same speed.
I never talked about withstanding a tank round or heavy ATGM.
But good frontal protection up to 30mm AP, normal RPG-7 on the sides and overall 14,5mm, good Mine/IED protection and bomblet protection on top is nothing I would miss on an IFV.
I said it in the other thread that an FCS should be no problem but the gun and ammo could be. Do you want to buy off the shelf or also design it by yourself?
And for sure the whole "tracked package" is a question of engineering. But we have experience in building such systems. We have the test data, we have the prototypes, we have the experience with former systems. You not. You can have the same but you need money and time for this.
Because we leave the Light Tank thread and conentrate on this I post my last answer here again.
Quote:
But we are anot starting from 0!
Can you give me examples of what are specific barriers in engineering terms as you see them?
You are starting nearly from zero.
As said before not even the Bushmaster is an independent design. There is no company you have which has experience in developing a whole new AFV from the beginning to the end.
FCS and optics shouldn't be a really big problem there are enough similarities with civil companies.
But when it comes to armor, modern guns and ammo, and make the whole package fast and maneuverable on tracks there are not very much civil counterparts.
Countries like the US, UK, France and Germany have tons of test data, prototypes, experienced personal, production capabilities, etc.
Quote:
It doesn't matter. Every project is different with its own set of knowns and unknowns that engineers need to deal with.
This is not true. A base is always better than no base. All of these projects helped the mafuacturers to learn more about traction systems, guns, armor, system packages, etc.
Quote:
Most Australian equipment is envisaged to go to AOs by ship, not C-17.
When was there ever an overpowered weapon?!!!
Its role would be to provide support like it had since the 70s, releasing the M1s from being an 'infantry' tank.
Yes, the turret is large and heavy, but this is just another engineering problem. Its not like it hasn't been done before. Infact the TAM used the Marder chassis in very much the same way.
Overpowered in a way that a high pressure gun substitutes payload for penetration. Sad to say the penetration of the 105mm is not enough anymore but the payload problem compared to low pressure guns remains.
Having a dedicated inantry support vehicle which has to be transported by a C-17 or by ship is not very innovative.
And what do you want to do? You cannot just shrink the turret. This is not just an engineering problem but a hard fact. If you want to use the old Leo 1 turrets you have to live with its size and weight or build a new turret.
Than tell me what the difference in Australian doctrine is if your new IFV doesn't need to be able to go were a Abrams goes with the same speed.?
This is one of the questions the Army needs to answer, not me. Does the Australian Army Infantry Corps have the same doctrine as the German Heer or US Army?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waylander
I never talked about withstanding a tank round or heavy ATGM.
But good frontal protection up to 30mm AP, normal RPG-7 on the sides and overall 14,5mm, good Mine/IED protection and bomblet protection on top is nothing I would miss on an IFV
And the problem with desinging armour to withstand these threats is what? The Uni of NSW has an excellent materials lab with specialty in metals, and it is just one of many public and private places of research outside the Defence's own labs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waylander
I said it in the other thread that an FCS should be no problem but the gun and ammo could be. Do you want to buy off the shelf or also design it by yourself??
Australia has a mix of locally produced and imported ammunition. Is there a shortage of ammunition in the World?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waylander
And for sure the whole "tracked package" is a question of engineering. But we have experience in building such systems. We have the test data, we have the prototypes, we have the experience with former systems. You not. You can have the same but you need money and time for this.?
We also want to have this! Why sould we always buy from others? How many prototypes does one need for a single chassis design? I think a pre-production batch of about a dozen should suffice. The DMO and various schools woudl keep that many anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waylander
And what is the problem with the Puma powerpack?
Well, what are you going to use for fuel in about 20 years?
You are starting nearly from zero.
As said before not even the Bushmaster is an independent design. There is no company you have which has experience in developing a whole new AFV from the beginning to the end..
Well, I don't know why Tenix went to Ireland.
Designing any piece of engineering, including an automotive one is a process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waylander
FCS and optics shouldn't be a really big problem there are enough similarities with civil companies..
Even so, I think this is our weakest area, and probably would require seeking external sources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waylander
But when it comes to armor, modern guns and ammo, and make the whole package fast and maneuverable on tracks there are not very much civil counterparts..
I answered about armour and guns and ammo elsewhere...
Why does it have to be fast? Why on tracks? You are already making assumptions based on your own design bias.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waylander
Countries like the US, UK, France and Germany have tons of test data, prototypes, experienced personal, production capabilities, etc..
Yes, and they charge for the privelage of using it. Countries like US, and UK, and Germany and France become that by exporting knowledge. Should Australia become an importer like a 'bannana republic' to use one past Prime Minister's expression?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waylander
A base is always better than no base. All of these projects helped the mafuacturers to learn more about traction systems, guns, armor, system packages, etc..
Sure having a foundation in basic research is 'nice', but life doesn't always give 'nice'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waylander
Overpowered in a way that a high pressure gun substitutes payload for penetration. Sad to say the penetration of the 105mm is not enough anymore but the payload problem compared to low pressure guns remains..
Waylander...don't make funny German jokes for me ok
The L7 will still blow away almost any vehicle in our region except the Singaporean Leo IIs if used properly, BUT why would we want to do that if we have M1s. on the other hand the L7 DOES blow away ANY other AFV anywhere (ther then an MBT), and will make nice big holes in almost any civil structure for the infantry. Its a pretty good gun as far as I'm concerned, and is not overpowered. And stop with selling the low pressure piece. THERE IS NO BUDGET FOR IT
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waylander
Having a dedicated inantry support vehicle which has to be transported by a C-17 or by ship is not very innovative.
And what do you want to do? You cannot just shrink the turret. This is not just an engineering problem but a hard fact. If you want to use the old Leo 1 turrets you have to live with its size and weight or build a new turret.
Ok, answered the C-17 elsewhere...
Yes, we can shrink the turret...but have to send it to Haiti
Of course we can't shring the bloody turret! That is why I was asking you about the turret ring !!! You can modify the suspension, chassis and hull structure,a nd put in a larger powerpack (considering there would not be passengers in an FSV, but you can't change the basic hull structure THAT much if the turret ring can't be stabilised in the enlarged hull. In fact I see this as the single biggest problem to such a conversion, and it also weakens the hull structure.
I cannot imagine any possible doctrine which wants to have an IFV which is not able to go everywhere the tank you have can go and with the same speed. This is the idea behind an IFV. Make it possible that tanks and infantry work together mounted and dismounted.
I am not talking of normal HE 30mm ammo. I am talking of modern APFSDS or programmable ammo.
Why on tracks? And why fast?
Because I thought we are talking about a new IFV. You already have a wheeled light IFV.
Armor specs and design are one of the best kept secrets of a country. There is a reason why everybody is so keen about keeping them safe. This is not normal metalurgy but I agree that it helps you if you have a proper base at your universities.
The trick is not to make a vehicle withstand the said threats but not to makeit too heavy while doing so.
As to the prototypes. I not just talking about the prototypes and plans for just one special vehicle but for decades of engineering and learning it the hard way.
Without foreign help people you would have to go through the same process of learning, ivestment and mistakes like the established manufacturers.
As to the Leo 1 turret. I am not talking about the problems which a big turret ring diameter could bring when you want to implement it into a smaller vehicle.
I am talking about the pure size and weight of the upper structure of the turret.
With the current focusing on deployable forces you have to take weight and much more size into account. A Leo 1 turret is not really a good example for this.
Against nearly every IFV out there in your area a 30-40mm should be enough an with the integration of ATGMs you are also able to defeat possible tank contacts. Nothing more is needed by an IFV.
This is one of the questions the Army needs to answer, not me. Does the Australian Army Infantry Corps have the same doctrine as the German Heer or US Army?
And the problem with desinging armour to withstand these threats is what? The Uni of NSW has an excellent materials lab with specialty in metals, and it is just one of many public and private places of research outside the Defence's own labs.
Australia has a mix of locally produced and imported ammunition. Is there a shortage of ammunition in the World?
We also want to have this! Why sould we always buy from others? How many prototypes does one need for a single chassis design? I think a pre-production batch of about a dozen should suffice. The DMO and various schools woudl keep that many anyway.
Well, what are you going to use for fuel in about 20 years?
I imagine the fuel in 20yrs will probably be the same as now,maybe more hybrid,but fossil fuel. When they say the oil is running out,what they mean is the EASY oil is running out. You should see the steerable motors that directional drillers use now.Feul will be expensive,but i think you will find,not much will change in 20 years.
I imagine the fuel in 20yrs will probably be the same as now,maybe more hybrid,but fossil fuel. When they say the oil is running out,what they mean is the EASY oil is running out. You should see the steerable motors that directional drillers use now.Feul will be expensive,but i think you will find,not much will change in 20 years.
There are also new projects to produce oil from coal, as Germany did in WW2. But these use special underground gasification processes in addition which make it actually cheaper to produce a barrel of sulphur-free diesel (and the best diesel in the world, pretty much) for around half the price of a barrel of diesel produced from oil. At least, those are what the companies are claiming - we should know within a couple of years once their plants come online.
It can also be made into aviation spirit a lot more cheaply (again mostly because it's sulphur-free).
And best of all, this process uses 'stranded' coal deposits that would normally be un-economic to mine. I wouldn't worry about the military running out of fuel for a good many years yet.
Here's a thought - how about not assuming that the number of quality engineers within a country are not capable of coming up with concepts, ideas, and results, just because you personally cannot.
Engineering isn't all about developing prototypes to learn from - especially these days! Prototypes, and learning from the resulting set of test data, is just one small piece of the large puzzle that is used in modern engineering projects.
While I respect the need from some level of prototyping, IMO if you're still relying almost soley on "past experience" for you engineering projects then ultimately you're "living in the past".
If that isn't enough - taking on such a project and developing experience within the industry in this country surely is a positive, at least for future projects.
