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 Abraham Gubler
But it isn't rocket science to integrate an L52 system with AFATDS and Raytheon/Samsung have ...
But it isn't rocket science to integrate an L52 system with AFATDS and Raytheon/Samsung have been motivated to do the work with their LAND 17 bid. Its just a matter of waiting to the delayed budget timetable comes around and the guns will be brought and delivered. The K9 aka AS9 will be a pretty neat system.
I must admit that I'm often confused on why this project has been delayed. Looking at the specs of the K9 Thunder on wikipedia, the barrel is 155mm/52 cal so that is one box ticked.
Then according to Defense Industry Daily website Raytheon who is part of the K9 bid will be integrating the AFATDS command and control (C2) system on it - second box ticked.
Finally according to Army Guide website the transmission box of the SPG is
Quote:
a further development of that installed in the General Dynamics Land Systems M1 series of MBT.
(Sorry can't link the website due to the lack of posts on here) so sharing common parts with the Army tanks would be another beneficial feature of the K9. So potentially that is a third box ticked.
So come on DoD put the money where your mouth is and give the contract to Samsung Techwin so we can all look forward to an awesome display of fire power by these bad boys on the ADF firing ranges!
I must admit that I'm often confused on why this project has been delayed. Looking at the specs of the K9 Thunder on wikipedia, the barrel is 155mm/52 cal so that is one box ticked.
Then according to Defense Industry Daily website Raytheon who is part of the K9 bid will be integrating the AFATDS command and control (C2) system on it - second box ticked.
Finally according to Army Guide website the transmission box of the SPG is (Sorry can't link the website due to the lack of posts on here) so sharing common parts with the Army tanks would be another beneficial feature of the K9. So potentially that is a third box ticked.
So come on DoD put the money where your mouth is and give the contract to Samsung Techwin so we can all look forward to an awesome display of fire power by these bad boys on the ADF firing ranges!
Those are the 2 big requirements, but there are a range of other ADF specific requirements including high level blast protection, remote weapon stations, radio / battlefield command support system etc, that have to go into the vehicle as well.
There is so much that Army wants from these vehicles, that it is somewhat difficult not to mention expensive, to get all of this in the one vehicle.
Who is it that decides which requirements are wanted, the Army or Defence? Over the years there have been a number of fiascos such as the Sea Sprites, caused by our requirements not being met.
I must admit that I'm often confused on why this project has been delayed. Looking at the specs of the K9 Thunder on wikipedia, the barrel is 155mm/52 cal so that is one box ticked.
Well its a lot harder to tick those boxes than use of such language implies, there are also more unique things required by the Army that had to be developed plus work outside the SP gun contract to make it all work.
But the core of the reason the LAND 17 SP gun has been delayed is the Government wanting to save money. KMW pulled out of it ages ago but Samsung remains highly motivated to win this contract as it is an 'in' for a major Korean combat system into a 'western' force.
The delay at first was covered by 'risk management' and the K9 had to be shipped out to Australia and fire a few rounds just to prove it could and so on but when that was all done it was back to hurry up and wait until the new schedule rolled around. All because of the Government trying to keep the cash flow under control until the budget is back in the black.
So we have the ridiculous situation of a tender that went out in 2008 which was meant to see a contract signed by the end of 2009 turned into a four or more year offer definition process with only one motivated tenderer.
Well its a lot harder to tick those boxes than use of such language implies, there are also more unique things required by the Army that had to be developed plus work outside the SP gun contract to make it all work.
But the core of the reason the LAND 17 SP gun has been delayed is the Government wanting to save money. KMW pulled out of it ages ago but Samsung remains highly motivated to win this contract as it is an 'in' for a major Korean combat system into a 'western' force.
The delay at first was covered by 'risk management' and the K9 had to be shipped out to Australia and fire a few rounds just to prove it could and so on but when that was all done it was back to hurry up and wait until the new schedule rolled around. All because of the Government trying to keep the cash flow under control until the budget is back in the black.
So we have the ridiculous situation of a tender that went out in 2008 which was meant to see a contract signed by the end of 2009 turned into a four or more year offer definition process with only one motivated tenderer.
So, Abe, if the money was available, how soon could the K9 / AS9 be in service?
So, Abe, if the money was available, how soon could the K9 / AS9 be in service?
The schedule is for five years for IOC from contract signing. Which is supposed to be either this financial year or the next (aka before 1 July 2013). So the first AS-9 should be in Army service around 2018...
Wouldn't it be better for the army to just buy the best guns it can get for what it can afford than end up with no guns at all?
In 2005 when the acquisition of SP 155mm was approved by the Govt. we could have purchased 24 M109A5 guns overhauled with spares, training, etc for only $22m... They could have been upgraded with digital FCS to Paladin standardswith OTS products later when AFATDS was acquired by the Army. A bird in hand is worth...
LAND 17 Phase 1C includes TLS so the cost of the contract is heavily distorted by this compared to just normal capital acquistion. But it should be no more than 1/3 to 1/2 of overall cost. For 18 guns it is estimated to cost around $750m all up. Or about $25m per gun and its share of supporting gear. Plus of course won't be in service until 2018...
In 2005 when the acquisition of SP 155mm was approved by the Govt. we could have purchased 24 M109A5 guns overhauled with spares, training, etc for only $22m... They could have been upgraded with digital FCS to Paladin standardswith OTS products later when AFATDS was acquired by the Army. A bird in hand is worth...
LAND 17 Phase 1C includes TLS so the cost of the contract is heavily distorted by this compared to just normal capital acquistion. But it should be no more than 1/3 to 1/2 of overall cost. For 18 guns it is estimated to cost around $750m all up. Or about $25m per gun and its share of supporting gear. Plus of course won't be in service until 2018...
In 2005 when the acquisition of SP 155mm was approved by the Govt. we could have purchased 24 M109A5 guns overhauled with spares, training, etc for only $22m... They could have been upgraded with digital FCS to Paladin standardswith OTS products later when AFATDS was acquired by the Army. A bird in hand is worth...
LAND 17 Phase 1C includes TLS so the cost of the contract is heavily distorted by this compared to just normal capital acquistion. But it should be no more than 1/3 to 1/2 of overall cost. For 18 guns it is estimated to cost around $750m all up. Or about $25m per gun and its share of supporting gear. Plus of course won't be in service until 2018...
I'm speechless - another golden opportunity allowed to slip by! I agree 100% with what Milne Bay said...
Those are the 2 big requirements, but there are a range of other ADF specific requirements including high level blast protection, remote weapon stations, radio / battlefield command support system etc, that have to go into the vehicle as well.
AD, with all these "Extras" the Government wants in its SP Guns,would the K-9 have a design/weight limit disadvantage compared to the PZH-2000? I assume throwing all that Extra Kit in a SP gun ,would affect its overall weigh and performance to a degree.
Tasman i think as the world economy keeps crashing ,there are going to be a number of Country's selling semi new kit, to allies for major discounts.ie England's Largs bay/Choules, Dutch Pzh 2000, US C-27 ect.Australia looks like its well placed to get a few more deals on military equipment off our allies.
Tasman i think as the world economy keeps crashing ,there are going to be a number of Country's selling semi new kit, to allies for major discounts.ie England's Largs bay/Choules, Dutch Pzh 2000, US C-27 ect.Australia looks like its well placed to get a few more deals on military equipment off our allies.
With the Choules purchase Defence showed it can move quickly if it is backed by the Minister...Likewise with the purchase of the 2 extra Chinooks to replace the one that was lost. Trouble is it usually seems to proceed at a snail's pace when it comes to hadware decisions and if that happens bargains will already have been snapped up.
AD, with all these "Extras" the Government wants in its SP Guns,would the K-9 have a design/weight limit disadvantage compared to the PZH-2000? I assume throwing all that Extra Kit in a SP gun ,would affect its overall weigh and performance to a degree.
That definitely has to be a factor in the delays, but as Abe suggested, it is a lack of Government approval that is holding this up, not any great technical problems.
I'm speechless - another golden opportunity allowed to slip by! I agree 100% with what Milne Bay said…
The problem is the DoD/AusGov is addicted to big projects and micro management. The 24 M109A5s I suggested would have been a minimal change. Enough guns to replace the M198 in the three ARA manned medium batteries at this time. The M109A5 is not a digital gun but the batteries as they were then were still using external methods to control the fires of the guns and as trained and crewed it would have been a very easy change. The major difference would be the RACT drivers replaced by RAAC and the RAEME light aide detachments changing to an A vehicle establishment.
Then you go to phase 2 which would be to digitise the self propelled battery. Then phase 3 for an ultimate 155mm L52 system with all the bells and whistles a la LAND 17.
