Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[ADMk2]

Except for that one SASR WO2 who prefers to carry the EF88 rather than an M4...


What operators don't speak highly of it, and what alternative gets spoken of more highly? The M4 which the US has been trying to replace for two decades due to the operational deficiencies identified on ops?

I think it's rather the other way around... He doesn't think much more highly of the EF-88 than he does earlier models of the Steyr platform and the primary issues with the weapon have not been addressed with EF-88 and never will, as the weapon would no longer be an F-88 derivative, but rather something else.

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/the-ef88-versus-the-m4ar-15-a-special-operators-perspective/

I wouldn't rate the M4 as a genuine service rifle replacement, for one thing it is a carbine rifle and should be more accurately compared against the F-88C or EF-88C if that is the designation of the carbine version, in which many of the so-called advantages of the F-88 rapidly disappear...

However I never advocated any particular rifle. Rather an open compeition, that would have at least properly informed Army in a broader sense as to the capabilities of modern rifle systems, rather than simply going with a warmed over version of what we already know and then ridiculously insisting it is the greatest rifle on the planet, when even elements of our own Army don't...

 

[Waylander]

But isn't the compact size while retaining a long barrel the major advantage og a bullpup?

An AUG (derivative) is actually shorter than a M4 so IMHO it is fair to compare both of them. Carbine bullpups are even more compact and are more of a SMG competitor while retaining the more potent calibre.

 

[old faithful]

One of the problems of the bullpup design is its fixed butt length, Imagine a 6ft6 soldier and a 5ft6 solider using the same rifle. The butt to trigger is the same length and can not be adjusted. With the earlier version, it had a fixed optic sight, which meant that those same soldiers must move their eye closer or further from the sight to get proper eye relief, or focus on the target. The picatinny rail addressed that.
The M4 has an adjustable but, but a shorter barrel. The performance of the round is a bit reduced, but over about 300m, not much different.

 

[t68]

Geez I had not realized how big the new CRV were a comparasion against Abrams and Auslav

https://images.defence.gov.au/fotow...efence%20Imagery/?q=20170506adf000000_003.png

 

[vonnoobie]

Geez I had not realized how big the new CRV were a comparasion against Abrams and Auslav

https://images.defence.gov.au/fotow...efence%20Imagery/?q=20170506adf000000_003.png

Bloody huge. Can't wait for the decision to be made, No matter which vehicle we get it will be a major improvement, Just need to get these vehicles to the blokes and sheila's that will be using them.

--------------------------------------

In other new's, plans are in motion for every combat team to have a WASP UAV with a recent $101m order. No actual word on numbers purchased but some are estimating that the funding allows for at least 200 of them.

Army buys $100 million fleet of small drones to protect soldiers on battlefield

Should have happened years ago but better late then never.

--------------------

Apparently the Boxer and AMV35 are actually exceeding expectations so kudos to both companies. Guess it will come down to industry involvement for Australia though I am partial to the Boxer and it's modular approach.

 

[the road runner]

Apparently the Boxer and AMV35 are actually exceeding expectations so kudos to both companies. Guess it will come down to industry involvement for Australia though I am partial to the Boxer and it's modular approach.

I am a Boxer fan to..for the Modular approach they have taken..

A good video of the 2 contenders doing a live firing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bk5ZBlHrhs4

 

[Stampede]

Geez I had not realized how big the new CRV were a comparasion against Abrams and Auslav

https://images.defence.gov.au/fotow...efence%20Imagery/?q=20170506adf000000_003.png

Agree

The two competing newcomers appear surreal in size compared to the existing platforms.
If both could accommodate a 35mm main gun I'd be happy with either one.

Regards S

 

[Boagrius]

Agree

The two competing newcomers appear surreal in size compared to the existing platforms.
If both could accommodate a 35mm main gun I'd be happy with either one.

Regards S

I believe they both can . Question then arises about ammunition capacity I guess, but then again I also guess it's not a given that 35mm will be seen as the preferred armament. Like others, I think Boxer looks the goods, but will be interested to see what ultimately tips the scales in the winner's favour.

 

[Stampede]

Bloody huge. Can't wait for the decision to be made, No matter which vehicle we get it will be a major improvement, Just need to get these vehicles to the blokes and sheila's that will be using them.

--------------------------------------

In other new's, plans are in motion for every combat team to have a WASP UAV with a recent $101m order. No actual word on numbers purchased but some are estimating that the funding allows for at least 200 of them.

Army buys $100 million fleet of small drones to protect soldiers on battlefield

Should have happened years ago but better late then never.

--------------------

Interesting News

I remember at Avalon Air show this year the large number of Drone/ UAV exhibits both civil and military. It really is an area of massive growth as a sector of the aviation market and this was reflected in the amount of display space afforded at Avalon 2017 compared to other years.
Good to see Army take on this capability with hopefully substantial numbers.
A couple of questions.
What will be the lowest unit level to integrate this system? Section / Platoon /Company.
Also,how do we combat these small aerial drones used by an adversary?
Soft / hard kill options.
I would suspect the battle space is changing very quickly.
Dynamic times

Regards S

 

[Joe Black]

Size differences between AMV35, Boxer and ASLAV

Saw a clip of the Land400 contenders live firing here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bk5ZBlHrhs4

I've noticed it appears that both AMV35 and Boxer CRV are a lot larger than ASLAV25.

Is that really so or if this is just some weird perspective from the video clips.

 

[oldsig127]

I've noticed it appears that both AMV35 and Boxer CRV are a lot larger than ASLAV25.

Is that really so or if this is just some weird perspective from the video clips.

ASLAV, about 13 tonnes
Boxer, about 24 tonnes (over 35 tonnes with full combat load)

Draw your own conclusions

oldsig

 

[ngatimozart]

Saw a clip of the Land400 contenders live firing here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bk5ZBlHrhs4

I've noticed it appears that both AMV35 and Boxer CRV are a lot larger than ASLAV25.

Is that really so or if this is just some weird perspective from the video clips.

This is another video covering the Boxer modular changeout. Takes about 30 minutes according to the video. That modular idea is impressive and ticks boxes in my book.
https://youtu.be/mn_WblYc4xk

Another video with a longer look at the Boxer.
https://youtu.be/CBWTFiS535k

 

[SteveR]

I believe they both can . Question then arises about ammunition capacity I guess, but then again I also guess it's not a given that 35mm will be seen as the preferred armament. Like others, I think Boxer looks the goods, but will be interested to see what ultimately tips the scales in the winner's favour.

The one possibly big disadvantage of the Boxer CRV is its Lance turret - which is currently only used by the Spanish Marines. It is modular, well protected but its operator module is also quite cramped for its occupants according to an Armored Corps guy I spoke to - the screens are almost in the operators face. Also you have to get outside to access the gun's feed mechanism. This may work for the Spanish Marines who may only have to make short excursions in the littoral, but try spending hours in a cramped turret in the Australian outback. Operator performance will drop quickly.
The AMV35 turret meanwhile is well supported with future upgrades by the Dutch in progress. There is a Danish soldier blog claiming to have killed a Taliban dismount at 3km. The Norwegians have extra frontal armor on their CV90 version and an integral UAV.
If we buy the Lance turret we may have a virtual orphan.

 

[Raven22]

This is another video covering the Boxer modular changeout. Takes about 30 minutes according to the video. That modular idea is impressive and ticks boxes in my book.
https://youtu.be/mn_WblYc4xk

Another video with a longer look at the Boxer.
https://youtu.be/CBWTFiS535k

Personally I don't understand the point of the modular system. I understand it from a design point of view (for example, it is easier to create different versions of the vehicle), but once it is in service it is entirely irrelevant. It's not like we are going to buy more mission modules than chassis, such that we can swap out the mission modules based on need. We're going to have the same amount of each. I've heard the modular system has a weight penalty of about a tonne over a normal vehicle, which is pretty significant.

It's like the quick change barrel on the Steyr. Sounds like a useful feature, but since there were no extras barrels on issue, it was utterly pointless once in service.

 

[the road runner]

Personally I don't understand the point of the modular system.

I was under the impression the modular system was useful for damage that may occur to either the chassis or the modular ...IE they could be changed out if the whole vehicle was not a ride off ?

 

[Raven22]

I was under the impression the modular system was useful for damage that may occur to either the chassis or the modular ...IE they could be changed out if the whole vehicle was not a ride off ?

That would make sense if we buy spare modules or spare chassis, which isn't the plan.

 

[JPiper]

I was under the impression the modular system was useful for damage that may occur to either the chassis or the modular ...IE they could be changed out if the whole vehicle was not a ride off ?

On another tack.
Can anyone support the story in Townsville that 2RAR will be reduced to 200 pers. and moved to Sydney. The rest of the Bn will be split between 1RAR and 3RAR to improve their numbers

Regards

JPiper

 

[vonnoobie]

It's not like we are going to buy more mission modules than chassis,

While I see where you are coming from can you say with absolute certainty that in the future we wont?

We are already acquiring modules for Land 121 Phase 3B so nothing to say the Army won't consider expanding that approach across to this acquisition or allowing for it to be undertaken in the future(ie: future proofing).

 

[Raven22]

I can guarantee that we won't buy more mission modules than chassis. Why would we?

 

[vonnoobie]

I can guarantee that we won't buy more mission modules than chassis. Why would we?

Why would we buy more modules then trucks to fit them on, why would we buy more modules then there is room on the ships for them. We do so to increase or decrease on an as needed basis (as I understand it) and that same approach can very well be useful with the future CRV.

As a blue tag you are more knowledgable then me but cnsidering the way we have been moving in acquiring other modular capabilities short of a crystal ball I don't see how you can garauntee with 100% certainty so for the mean time how about agree to disagree?