Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Army & Security Forces

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures




Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence








Australian Army Discussions and Updates

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 Richo99 So am I correct in understanding that of 225 CRVs to be ordered, only 72 + ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 16 votes, 3.75 average.
Old 2 Weeks Ago   #5266
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,002
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richo99 View Post
So am I correct in understanding that of 225 CRVs to be ordered, only 72 + shq and some support variants will actually be in the ACRs? Seems rather light on...
Only 72 in the sabre troops, yes. Each Sqn will have 12 CRV in the sabre troops, plus five in SHQ plus three in the A1. There will be about another dozen spread over RHQ and Support Sqn. So there will be about 50 CRV per ACR, for 150 or so spread across the three ACRs.
Raven22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 Weeks Ago   #5267
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 244
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raven22 View Post
Having the ACR provide lift for the infantry is far more flexible, but at the cost of efficiency. With any organisation, flexibility and efficiency are two sides of the one coin - if you increase one you decrease the other. When Beersheeba was first dreamed up the powers that be decided flexibility was more important. Now that the army are trying to reduce numbers in the combat brigades to reinvest elsewhere, efficiency is deemed more important.

The second cav squadron is just the first cav squadron cut in half (three 4-vehicle troops instead of four 6-vehicle troops). With the addition of an extra SHQ and A1, two squadrons are far more flexible than one, as it essentially means you can have cav on two different axis at once. It won't mean any more vehicles are purchased - the current scope of Land 400 Phase 2 is more than enough.

The future of 2 RAR is decided. It will lose its rifle companies, and maintain only specialist amphib capabilities (pre landing force mainly). 2 RAR will be an infantry battalion in name only. For the future amphib capability, the ground combat element will simply come from the ready brigade.
Thanks Raven.

We all have budgets and I guess we work with what we have.
Two smaller Cav Sqn's out of one as described is probably not a bad result.
As to the Amphib side of things with 2 RAR ,I'm sure that will ebb and flow in the years ahead. But the constant will be that the ready Brigade will step up and be the main work horse in any boots on the ground maritime action.That said I still would not be too surprised if events in the region near and far get hostile that 2RAR's numbers may improve. At least a battalion HQ and framework exists for expansion and training as well as testing new equipment, methods and amphib doctrine.

Still a bit guarded about battalions having labels as motorised infantry ( PMV )or mounted/heavy/infantry (M113 APC ). It can become cultural and tribal and probably not the way forward for a numerically small army.
Our Brigades will have to do everything from HADR to heavy war fighting and everything in between.
The structure may suite small scale commitments but unsure it does justice to brigade level flexibility.
As I said we all have budgets.

Regards S
Stampede is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 Weeks Ago   #5268
Defense Enthusiast
Master Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 369
Threads:
With 2 RAR losing its rifle companies, and maintaining only specialist amphibious capabilities (as mentioned by Raven 22), it is likely they will be outfitted with specialist amphibious equipment (if they haven't already)?
PeterM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #5269
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
weegee's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sydney
Posts: 234
Threads:
I came across this yesterday:

Airbus proposes upgrade for Australian attack helicopters

One would think that the upgrade would need to improve the servicing and availability significantly and be fairly cheap too for the Tiger to have any significant future in the ADF?
weegee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #5270
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 244
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by weegee View Post
I came across this yesterday:

Airbus proposes upgrade for Australian attack helicopters

One would think that the upgrade would need to improve the servicing and availability significantly and be fairly cheap too for the Tiger to have any significant future in the ADF?
Can't blame Airbus for having a go.
The balls in their court to improve the platform in the immediate years ahead. which may, just may, be achievable!!!!
. Is there time to salvage creditability with ARH Tiger.

Up to you Airbus.

Regards S
Stampede is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #5271
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
MARKMILES77's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 147
Threads:
Army has a photo they recently posted, I think on Facebook or Twitter, of gunners firing their M777s in the direct fire role.
Raised a couple of questions in my mind.

Do they have a canister round for the 155mm guns, for use against infantry formations like the canister round available for the 120mm main gun on Abrams?

At what range can a 155mm gun reliably hit a vehicle (Tank, APC etc) in the direct fire role? Are we talking 200 metres or 2000 metres?
MARKMILES77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #5272
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Australia
Posts: 18
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARKMILES77 View Post
Army has a photo they recently posted, I think on Facebook or Twitter, of gunners firing their M777s in the direct fire role.
Raised a couple of questions in my mind.

Do they have a canister round for the 155mm guns, for use against infantry formations like the canister round available for the 120mm main gun on Abrams?

At what range can a 155mm gun reliably hit a vehicle (Tank, APC etc) in the direct fire role? Are we talking 200 metres or 2000 metres?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_Junior
zhaktronz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #5273
Moderator
General
ngatimozart's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,002
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by zhaktronz View Post
You are a newbie here and as such one line posts are not permitted. Secondly wikipedia is not a valid or reputable source.
________________
The Rules - read them. Ignorance of them is not an excuse.
The Introduction thread for new members to tell the rest of us something about you.
ngatimozart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #5274
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
weegee's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sydney
Posts: 234
Threads:
Hey guys,

Just wondering did Holsworthy just get their first MRH90's?
I work in Minto and we get the occasional pair of blackhawks fly over once a week or so. But today we have been lucky enough to have 4 MRH90's circling all afternoon and flying in formation its been great. Later in the afternoon the 4 were circling and then at the rear was a blackhawk by its self I was wondering if maybe they were assessing something?
weegee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #5275
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
weegee's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sydney
Posts: 234
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by weegee View Post
Hey guys,

Just wondering did Holsworthy just get their first MRH90's?
I work in Minto and we get the occasional pair of blackhawks fly over once a week or so. But today we have been lucky enough to have 4 MRH90's circling all afternoon and flying in formation its been great. Later in the afternoon the 4 were circling and then at the rear was a blackhawk by its self I was wondering if maybe they were assessing something?
Now the 4 blackhawks are flying around in formation. Its all happening here haha
weegee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #5276
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 736
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by weegee View Post
Now the 4 blackhawks are flying around in formation. Its all happening here haha
Nope, The men in black are just coming after you :P
vonnoobie is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 6 Days Ago   #5277
Defense Enthusiast
Master Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 315
Threads:
Land 400 selection

As much as I like the Rheinmetall's Boxers CRVs, with the recent testing of AMV 28A amphibious, I now wonder if it is better to go with AMV35 so that ADF might be in a better position to consider inducting the amphibious AMVs in the future.

What are your thoughts?
Joe Black is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6 Days Ago   #5278
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,002
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Black View Post
As much as I like the Rheinmetall's Boxers CRVs, with the recent testing of AMV 28A amphibious, I now wonder if it is better to go with AMV35 so that ADF might be in a better position to consider inducting the amphibious AMVs in the future.

What are your thoughts?
I don't think there is any merit in an amphibious Land 400 vehicle. When the manufacturer says amphibious, what they mean is that it will float in completely protected waters, after significant preparation, with prepared near and far banks. The military advantage of such a capability is pretty minimal. Look at how much we used the amphibious capability of the ASLAVs - essentially never.

The design penalty for including an amphibious capability is huge. There is very little value in significantly compromising the capability of the vehicle for the 99.9% of the time they are not floating.
Raven22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5 Days Ago   #5279
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,343
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raven22 View Post
I don't think there is any merit in an amphibious Land 400 vehicle. When the manufacturer says amphibious, what they mean is that it will float in completely protected waters, after significant preparation, with prepared near and far banks. The military advantage of such a capability is pretty minimal. Look at how much we used the amphibious capability of the ASLAVs - essentially never.

The design penalty for including an amphibious capability is huge. There is very little value in significantly compromising the capability of the vehicle for the 99.9% of the time they are not floating.
Agreed.

Maybe if the need is perceived in the future a sqn of suitable vehicles could be added to 2RAR.
Along the same lines, does anyone know what's happening with the Armys LCM-8s?
Volkodav is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 5 Days Ago   #5280
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 244
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volkodav View Post
Agreed.

Maybe if the need is perceived in the future a sqn of suitable vehicles could be added to 2RAR.
Along the same lines, does anyone know what's happening with the Armys LCM-8s?
G' Day

Just re reading the article in Army news regarding Plan Beersheba and 2 RAR , I noticed the plan to integrate reserve units to this unit.

I understand having a budget; but I'm a bit confused as to what Army realistically wants from 2 RAR. Is it to be a force projection capability , training group, amphibious logistical force ,frame work and base for expansion, or is it a unit that is a bit lost in the system!
I would of thought moving forward this would of being a priority battalion / Capability.
Nothing against the Reserves, but more info on 2 RAR would be appreciated.

ahttp://armynews.realviewdigital.com/#folio=10ny

Regards S

Last edited by Stampede; 5 Days Ago at 02:48 AM.
Stampede is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:09 AM.