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 Stampede Interesting news I thought one of the advantages of Plan Beersheba was flexability. Movement of a ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 16 votes, 3.75 average.
Old June 14th, 2017   #5266
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 70
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stampede View Post
Interesting news

I thought one of the advantages of Plan Beersheba was flexability.
Movement of a Infantry group,( Platoon , Company or Battalion ) across various means of transport. B vehicle,PMV, APC, and aviation.
Many scenarios come to mind. Move Infantry via B vehicle to link with PMV to conduct high intensity contact riding APC. Finish contact, airlift out with APC's picking up another infantry group who may of been dropped off by the exiting helicopters.
The scenarios are endless, but the key is that all infantry are comfortable and trained to move from and with all transport assets;wheeled,tracked rotary and fixed wing.
I do see the benefits of speciality and economy but I'm guarded if this new structure is the way forward.

A second Cav Sqn is good news and probably should always have being in the mix.

Will watch with interest. and welcome any further news on 2 RAR's structure and future.

Regards S
I thought the other reason to remove the AFVs from the infantry battalions was so they could concentrate on their core skills without the significant distraction of training for and maintaining a very complex bit of kit.
Richo99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2017   #5267
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 70
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raven22 View Post
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.
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...

WRT 2RAR, surely it's appropriate to change the name to something more appropriate and reflective of its new role...Any suggestions?
Richo99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2017   #5268
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,037
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 June 14th, 2017   #5269
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 282
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 June 14th, 2017   #5270
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: West Coast
Posts: 3
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raven22 View Post
The feedback coming from trials troop is that it is a significantly better vehicle
Then again, several other countries which have tested or evaluated the Boxer against the AMV (and other 8x8s) have come to different conclusions.
Or at least concluded that the slightly better capability didnt justify the vastly higher cost.

Quote:
It's normally expressed as the Boxer is a Mercedes while the AMV is a Commodore.
With the caveat that i dont have any actual experience with the Boxer itself, and that it might very well be the superior vehicle, i would like to add that this initial impression of high quality german engineering can be quite misleading.

+10 years of operating and maintaining german armor and weapon systems have taught me that driving a "Mercedes" isn't always what its cracked up to be.
I have often found them to be overly complex, temperamental/finicky and very maintenance intensive. And wrt armored vehicles in particular, ludicrously expensive to buy and even more so to operate.

I am intimately familiar with KMW and their spare parts prices make even BAEs seem cheap in comparison!

US equipment and/or vehicles in particular might seem crude or downright agricultural in comparison with their german counterpart, but will IMO often deliver equal or even superior capability .... and at a lower cost.
Whether the same applies to Finnish vehicles i dont know.


But in some cases a Commodore(or Chevy) can actually be better than a Mercedes.


Quote:
In addition, I think the Boxer has a better stablemate waiting in the wings for Phase 3.
What....the Lynx ?.....a warmed over Marder that has barely left the prototype stage yet. I think it is a little premature to proclaim superiority over its competitor.
The CV90 mk IV for Phase 3 is going to be a significantly improved version and will likely have little in common with the current mk III cv9035s.

A lack of growth potential has often been mentioned as a disadvantage for the CV90s , but it is frankly BS......7-8 years ago we successfully tested the CV9035 at 40,4 metric tonnes to simulate a future uparmored variant......and that was with a bog standard 2008 spec mk III, with stock suspension, running gear and power pack. As these test showed that the platform could easily cope with this weight increase , i see no reason why a further upgraded CV90 could not achieve the same ~43 tonnes GWV rating as the Lynx 41; ASCOD 2 and Puma .
Ironhead80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2017   #5271
Defense Enthusiast
Master Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 378
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 June 15th, 2017   #5272
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
weegee's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sydney
Posts: 254
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 June 16th, 2017   #5273
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: West Coast
Posts: 3
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raven22 View Post
The feedback coming from trials troop is that it is a significantly better vehicle
Then again, several other countries which have tested or evaluated the Boxer against the AMV (and other 8x8s) have come to different conclusions.
Or at least concluded that slightly better capability didnt justify the vastly higher cost.

Quote:
It's normally expressed as the Boxer is a Mercedes while the AMV is a Commodore.
With the caveat that i dont have any actual experience with the Boxer itself, and that it might very well be the superior vehicle, i would like to add that this initial impression of high quality german engineering can be quite misleading.

+10 years of operating and maintaining german armor and weapon systems have taught me that driving a "Mercedes" isn't always what its cracked up to be.
I have often found them to be overly complex, temperamental/finicky and very maintenance intensive. And wrt armored vehicles in particular, ludicrously expensive to buy and even more so to operate.

I am intimately familiar with KMW and their spare parts prices make even BAEs seem cheap in comparison!

US equipment and/or vehicles in particular might seem crude or downright agricultural in comparison with their german counterpart, but will IMO often deliver equal or even superior capability .... and at a lower cost.

So in some cases a Commodore(or Chevy) can actually be better than a Mercedes.


Quote:
In addition, I think the Boxer has a better stablemate waiting in the wings for Phase 3.
What....the Lynx ?.....a warmed over Marder that has barely left the prototype stage yet. I think it is a little premature to proclaim superiority over its competitor.
The CV90 mk IV for Phase 3 is going to be a significantly improved version and will likely have little in common with the current mk III cv9035s.

A lack of growth potential has often been mentioned as a disadvantage for the CV90s , but it is frankly BS......7-8 years ago we successfully tested the CV9035 at 40,4 metric tonnes to simulate a future uparmored variant......and that was with a bog standard 2008 spec mk III, with stock suspension, running gear and power pack. As these test showed that the platform could easily cope with this weight increase , i see no reason why a further upgraded CV90 could not achieve the same ~43 tonnes GWV rating as the Lynx 41; ASCOD 2 and Puma .
Ironhead80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 16th, 2017   #5274
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 282
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 June 16th, 2017   #5275
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
MARKMILES77's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 155
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 June 19th, 2017   #5276
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Australia
Posts: 26
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 June 19th, 2017   #5277
Moderator
General
ngatimozart's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,203
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.
________________
"There is one immutable truth we cannot prevent; war is coming, we just don’t know when or where." Brigadier Andrew Harrison DSO MBE
ngatimozart is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 21st, 2017   #5278
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
weegee's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sydney
Posts: 254
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 June 21st, 2017   #5279
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
weegee's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sydney
Posts: 254
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 June 21st, 2017   #5280
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 791
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 offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:34 AM.