Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[hairyman]

Originally Posted by PeterM

It is 22, my mistake, i stand corrected

Your probably like me, waiting for the government to increase to numbers from 22.

[Aussie Digger]

Originally Posted by Eamonn

AD, in response to your wanting to why I refer to the variant of the Tiger ARH we've purchased as 'limited'. Well I was reading some of your posts about the Tiger on the thread regarding the ADF's procurement of this helo, and how the discussion debated it's merits/flaws compared to the Apache Longbow, and the differences between the versions that Germany, Spain, France and Australia were purchasing. So no doubt you're aware that the ARH variant carries the least amount of ordnance of the versions of the Tiger, it was that 'limiting' I was refering to; the recurring Australian theme of buying equipment 'fitted for, not with', a philosophy that the ADF (Army mainly) does not need the best, most capable weapon systems, or instead buys weapon system types that are limited, or of a lower grade, than to what is available.

To the best of my knowledge, ALL Tiger helos maintain the same hardpoint carriage ratings, ie: they can ALL carry the same weight of munitions on their hardpoints.

Australia and France of chosen the Hellfire II as their main weapon and the Tiger can carry a maximum of 8x such missiles.

Germany has chosen the Trigat 3 missile and it's UHT variant can carry 8x of these missiles.

Spain has chosen the SPIKE-LR missile and it's variant can carry 8x of these missiles.

The difference between the original 2 variants of the Tiger in maximum takeoff weight is 150kg's. That is not sufficient to include 16x missile carriage of any of the 3 A2G missile variants integrated onto the Tiger platform, nor are the hardpoints capable of carrying this much weight anyway and is in any case, largely accounted for by the heavier mast mounted sight on the German UHT variant, as opposed to the roof mounted sights on the Australian, Frence and Spanish models.

All variants can carry similar rocket loadouts and 30mm ammunition is the same (on variants that mount the gun). Your dislike of the ARH variant on the basis it lacks firepower in comparison to the other variants is therefore rather confusing. Especically seeing as though France "copied us" by also choosing Hellfire II...

If you mean it lacks firepower compared to the AH-64 Apache, well you'd be correct, but then it's a different class of helicopter. That argument is akin to arguing that the Kiowa is rubbish because it can't carry as much as a Blackhawk...

Tiger meets Army's requirements in relation to recon capability and aerial fire support capability. I think it more than suitable.

No doubt others will disagree, believing recent purchases of tanks and new artillery prove otherwise, but I cant see it. I mean, for example, if we wanted the best tank available, why wasn't the Merkava4 put up for consideration? (Oh thats right, the US told the Israelis they werent allowed to sell it to us, even though our armoured boys wanted it.) This isn't a major criticism of the M1A1, which is a fine tank, but again is 'limited', by being purchased in so few in number we wont risk any being deployed to Afghanistan, amongst other reasons.

Who says Merkava 4 is the "best"? The Israeli's? They manufacture it, so I'm sure they do think it best. I've not met a tanker in ARA that isn't happy with the Abrams tanks however and it has proven it's capability time and time again. Merkava 4 has done well in urban terrain in the Gaza and to a lesser degree Lebanon. How well has it been proven in semi-arid plains type environments, which is the predominant land type in Australia, where manoeuvre is key?

It is hardly the case that Australia didn't weigh it's options with this either. We compared the Challenger II, Leopard II and M1A1 AIM- SA Abrams tanks when we replaced the Leopard As1 IA3 tanks.

Leo II and Abrams were short-listed and Abrams obviously selected. American pressure was by no means undue, it's just that the M1A1 AIm offered better value than the Leo II's we assessed.

As to numbers, we are never going to be deploying armoured brigades overseas. A squadron of 14x tanks will be more than sufficient for any of our likely deployments and unlike with Merkava, we have the option of a considerable pool of Abrams vehicles to draw upon (plus an operating re-manufacturing line for the future) should we need to expand our fleet....

[PeterM]

AD, you are right on the money with both the Tiger and Abrams

The Tiger is an excellent fit for the Army requirements. The Apache is a pure gunship designed to attack large armoured formations, there aren't any of those in our region. Bear in mind that the mind the Tiger replaces the Kiowa in the recon role with the option of fire support (which is still formidable). It is important to bear in mind that there are things the Tiger can do much better than Apache; for example it has around twice the range on internal fuel (800km vs 400km) plus it has alot more agility. Like AD says, both are very different helicopter designs for very different missions.

Also I agree that everyone from 1st armoured who I have met is very happy with the M1A1 Abrams (living in Darwin there are alot of tankers around), it is a very capable machine.

[Aussie Digger]

Originally Posted by PeterM

AD, you are right on the money with both the Tiger and Abrams

The Tiger is an excellent fit for the Army requirements. The Apache is a pure gunship designed to attack large armoured formations, there aren't any of those in our region. Bear in mind that the mind the Tiger replaces the Kiowa in the recon role with the option of fire support (which is still formidable). It is important to bear in mind that there are things the Tiger can do much better than Apache; for example it has around twice the range on internal fuel (800km vs 400km) plus it has alot more agility. Like AD says, both are very different helicopter designs for very different missions.

Also I agree that everyone from 1st armoured who I have met is very happy with the M1A1 Abrams (living in Darwin there are alot of tankers around), it is a very capable machine.

It's amazing, when I was a serving member, the blokes in Army drooled over the idea of possibly having an Abrams tank and a modern helo gunship.

Now we've got them (or at least very close to having both operational) and blokes still aren't happy... These aren't good enough they say.

I'm sure RAAFIES argue Hornet's aren't good enough. Why don't we have Eagles or at least more Super Hornets they'll say?

Pussers would probably whinge about FFG's too. Why don't we have Arleigh Burke class destroyers?

Because the real world intrudes on wishlists and there isn't an endless pit of money to acquire and support EVERYTHING we might want...

[PeterM]

Originally Posted by Aussie Digger

It's amazing, when I was a serving member, the blokes in Army drooled over the idea of possibly having an Abrams tank and a modern helo gunship.

you could probably add in current programs like LAND 17 with the self propelled howitizers and M777, upgraded M113s, protected mobility vehicles, increased infantry fire support, improved night flighting and so on...

I think many people under estimate the substantial capability increases in the Army in recent years.

[StingrayOZ]

Originally Posted by Aussie Digger

It's amazing, when I was a serving member, the blokes in Army drooled over the idea of possibly having an Abrams tank and a modern helo gunship.

Now we've got them (or at least very close to having both operational) and blokes still aren't happy... These aren't good enough they say.

We have the basics now. A decent tank, a decent attack/seach helicopter, a decent Destroyer, good frigates, a pair of very nice flattop LHD, we now have Superbugs with F-35 on the order books, subs that are decent (when avalible but thats another issue) and quiet good patrol boats. We are even getting some decent artillary and we have the C-17/wedgetail/refuelers. The bush master is a handy little unit too. The future looks bright too OCV's, new subs, new technologies its all going in the right direction. It wasn't cheap or hassle free but the ADF has it.

I think the ADF is now a tidy little force. There are some weaker areas, and there will always be a call for more numbers but in real terms its all good. Many countries are envious of what we have and what we are getting.

[abramsteve]

Hi all!
StingrayOZ, could not agree with you more, the ADF now has some very capable assets and this will only increase over the coming decades.

Icelord and Eamonn, some good points, and I know Im biased here but I have to agree with and earlier post by PeterM, much of the RAAF's recent procurments have been of great benifit to the Army.

I dont know how much kit could be pruchased for the price of a C-17, I'd imagine it would be quite a bit, but I still think its a worthwhile investment.

Aussie Digger got it spot on, whatever we get its never going to be enough or what everyone wants, but its better that getting nothing at all (eg New Zealand)

[PeterM]

from Army Technology - Australia Receives First Benz G-Wagon Prototype

Australia Receives First Benz G-Wagon Prototype
03 November 2009

The Australian Defence Force (ADF) has received the first prototype Mercedes Benz G-Wagon vehicles from the Defence Materiel Organisation's project Land 121 Overlander.

Australian Defence Minister Greg Combet said the new G-Wagon would include detachable unit-specific modules designed for specific tasks that include munitions transfer, field ambulances or troop carriers.

As part of the contract, a total of 1,200 Mercedes Benz G-Wagons and 315 specialist modules will be delivered ready for operations.

Under the $50m contract, the modules will be manufactured by Varley in Hunter Valley where they will also undergo quality assurance, verification and validation testing.

Testing is expected to be complete by late August 2010 and the first delivery of operational G-Wagon vehicles is scheduled for 2011.

The military G-wagon is not armoured, but can be equipped with armour modules by replacing body panels to protect the crew against rifle fire or grenade fragments.

The vehicle has three military variants – basic light utility vehicles, command and reconnaissance models and the military police version.

The project Land 121 Overlander is a $4.6bn multiphased project to provide a fleet of 7,000 vehicles, modules and trailers, and the associated support to enhance the combat capability of the ADF.

[StingrayOZ]

Originally Posted by abramsteve

Hi all!
I dont know how much kit could be pruchased for the price of a C-17, I'd imagine it would be quite a bit, but I still think its a worthwhile investment.

C-17 is an absolutely critical purchase (and the best option we could have pursued with hindsight). We are *the* regions C-17 operator. Even with out old clunky fleet of C-130's we make up a large percentage of total airlift avalible. For aid, for military, for evacuations etc.

We should be glad that we are big enough to get into these kinds of purchases that many countries in our region could never dream of. Thats why we shouldn't forgo these big expensive purchases, otherwise for love or money nobody locally would have them.

We then become the regions security hub. Not because of pressure, economic or military, but because we are the only ones regionally with the tools.

I would like to see the tool collection continue so we have atleast one of every need to have tool avalible for the job. Having only 60 M1A1's is not a concern. Having no self propelled artillary to even train with is a huge issue.

[StingrayOZ]

Originally Posted by PeterM

from Army Technology - Australia Receives First Benz G-Wagon Prototype

I like the G wagon. Between that and the bushmaster it covers what we need in this area. When do they start selling off the landies? Wouldn't mind picking one of those up.

[StevoJH]

Originally Posted by StingrayOZ

I like the G wagon. Between that and the bushmaster it covers what we need in this area. When do they start selling off the landies? Wouldn't mind picking one of those up.

They are probably completely trashed. Let me know if you get one though, if they are in any sort of decent ships, they'll probably still be cheap enough to muck around with.

[PeterM]

Originally Posted by StingrayOZ

C-17 is an absolutely critical purchase (and the best option we could have pursued with hindsight). We are *the* regions C-17 operator. Even with out old clunky fleet of C-130's we make up a large percentage of total airlift avalible. For aid, for military, for evacuations etc.

We are replacing the C-130H with a couple more C-130J - so they won't be so "old and clunky"
Don't forget the Carbiou replacement, MRH-90, new CH-47F and the Helicopter Aircrew Training System (which will likely have some light utility capability).
We will easily have the region's best airlift capability

When you consider the 2 LHDs, future strategic sealift ship and 6 new LCH
we will also have the region's best sealift capability.

We have a reasonably small army in the big scheme of things, however it is very capable and it will be extremely mobile.

[the road runner]

Originally Posted by StingrayOZ

When do they start selling off the landies? Wouldn't mind picking one of those up.

Aww landrover,put me down for 2.

On a side note i would like to ask the forum members who are in the know,what will Australia be doing with its Leopard 1 Tanks?

Are we in talks with anyone to purchase our Leos?
Or would these tanks be a usefull asset for engineers or other units in the ADF?

Regards.

[Jezza]

any word on the performance of the Tiger in afghanistan.

[lopez]

as far as i am aware australia has not deployed the tigre but the french have and that was only recent...

any word on the performance of the Tiger in afghanistan

have they announced which sp artillery we are getting?
i hope we get the archer system. but i think we a re more likely to get the Korean designed as-9