Welcome to DefenceTalk.com Forum!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Australian Army Discussions and Updates

Discussion in 'Army & Security Forces' started by mickk, Nov 25, 2006.

Share This Page

  1. Raven22

    Raven22 Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,124
    Likes Received:
    130
    UAVs and other modern ISR tools are great, but they are by no means a replacement for a recon vehicle. There are lots and lots of tasks that cannot be conducted by electronic/airborne ISR and still need boots on the ground. UAVs can’t and mark find creek crossings, can’t clear security zones, can’t deny enemy ISR, can’t secure FUPs, can’t guard flanks etc etc. Plus, airborne ISR is almost entirely useless when there is a significant enemy air defences.

    The future is not about replacing ground recon with airborne/electronic ISR, but with enabling ground recon with airborne/electronic ISR.
     
    Kaki, Takao, PeterM and 2 others like this.
  2. Todjaeger

    Todjaeger Potstirrer

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Messages:
    4,441
    Likes Received:
    270
    Location:
    not in New England anymore...
    Perhaps I am not understanding the CONOPS, but I would think that a smaller, lower profile (and possibly unmanned) turret and kitted out with E/O systems and a gun in the 20 mm to 40 mm range would be more fitting for a recon role than something with a crew-served gun in the 76 mm to 120 mm range.

    Is there an expectation that recon forces will ambush or initiate contact with a hostile force they observe, to hold the hostiles in place so that other units can be brought in to engage?

    I have been under the impression that recon forces would observe and avoid contact when possible, but fight when needed.
     
  3. zhaktronz

    zhaktronz Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2016
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Australia
    If the close combat story board is to be believed then very much yes

    "Find, Blind & Monitor – Friendly Force cavalry in Combat Reconnaissance Vehicles (CRVs) find and blind (deny enemy reconnaissance assets from identifying the location, strength, and activities of the friendly force). This may result in direct mounted close combat"

    and

    "The CRV will be able to suppress and destroy enemy targets of opportunity with direct fire from overwatch positions"

    http://www.defence.gov.au/casg/Multimedia/LAND400_CloseCombatStoryboard-9-5562.pdf


    Yeah that would probably be better at the mounted combat component of the CONOP- but not exactly off the shelf, low risk or low cost - and as always you trade off that valuable armoured box of space in back - which realistically we'll probably see used as a space to deploy and operate small drones, unattended sensors etc in future.
     
  4. Raven22

    Raven22 Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,124
    Likes Received:
    130
    Who’s talking about recon vehicles with 76 - 120mm guns? The world has more or less settled on 25 - 40mm guns with a 4000m+ ATGM. Unmanned turrets are not preferred due to how much SA you lose by being closed down.

    There are a whole host of reasons why a recon vehicle would initiate contact, not least for their own protection. Having heavily armed recon vehicles also impacts the way the enemy does business without even firing a shot. If they know our own recon screen is lightly armed, they can be particularly aggressive with their own recon forces. Knowing we have the ability to destroy them at 4000m+, they have to be far more slow careful, and potentially reinforce their own recon screen with greater combat power. Essentially, you are reducing the enemy’s freedom of action without even having to fire a shot.
     
    Stock, Gomer, ADMk2 and 2 others like this.
  5. Todjaeger

    Todjaeger Potstirrer

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Messages:
    4,441
    Likes Received:
    270
    Location:
    not in New England anymore...
    There had been a suggestion here about a modern vehicle roughly based off the FV101 Scorpion (which had gun versions in 76 mm and 90 mm) with Level 4 protection.

    Relating to that, was mention of a possible light tank design which to me sounds more like a direct fire support role than a recon role and would involve moving with the unit(s) receiving the direct fire support like mechanized or light infantry. That in turn suggests to me that in a direct fire support capacity the vehicle would lose much of the maneuverability because it cannot/should not stray too far from those it is supporting.

    To my way of thinking, recon and direct fire support roles are quite different and what makes a vehicle good for one is likely to make it rather poor at the other, so attempting to get or design a vehicle which does both will lead to either a vehicle good at one and not the other, or a vehicle which is not really good at either.
     
  6. ADMk2

    ADMk2 Just a bloke Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    May 19, 2011
    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    38
    In which case there are a whole host of ‘not very good’ vehicles out there, manufactured by virtually every armoured vehicle manufacturer, given the pre-ponderance of 8x8 heavy armoured vehicles, fitted with medium cannons in-service and offer world-wide...
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2018
  7. FormerDirtDart

    FormerDirtDart Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2011
    Messages:
    234
    Likes Received:
    7
    Well, I guess it's already March 1st on that side of the globe.
    So, Happy Birthday Diggers
    117? You don't look a day over 103.
     
    wheelz and vonnoobie like this.
  8. Joe Black

    Joe Black Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2004
    Messages:
    433
    Likes Received:
    20
  9. ADMk2

    ADMk2 Just a bloke Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    May 19, 2011
    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    38
    The tidbits are:

    No news is good news. There is nothing in that article other than the usual cheerleading of BAE.

    It may be decided soon or it may not. It is a difficult thing to call NSC outcomes, particularly when members of the NSC are moving around...
     
    aussienscale likes this.
  10. Milne Bay

    Milne Bay Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2010
    Messages:
    427
    Likes Received:
    20
    New sidearm for ADF in 2022
    I just noted this in the Australian Defence Magazine headlines but I do not have a premium service subscription to address the details.
    Does anyone have the particulars please.
    MB
     
  11. t68

    t68 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,066
    Likes Received:
    40
    Location:
    NSW
    Better get the popcorn ready, might get lively here soon:)

    Twitter land says announcement might happen tonight.

    I'll down load twitter feed when I get back home on PC the new forum won't let me do it be iPhone for some reason.

    At 1637 via DTR Mag feed
     
  12. camo_jnr_jnr

    camo_jnr_jnr New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2017
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    VIC
    DTR Magazine on Twitter
    Boxer CRV won seemingly. Good to see the option pretty much everyone wanted win.

    Also first post so hello, been lurking for a year or so but thought i might as well post this.
     
    StingrayOZ likes this.
  13. t68

    t68 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,066
    Likes Received:
    40
    Location:
    NSW
    Can't seem to find anything official from defence, very quite if the decision was made.
     
  14. Joe Black

    Joe Black Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2004
    Messages:
    433
    Likes Received:
    20
    It is all over the news now:

    LAND 400 Phase 2 decision revealed
     
  15. Joe Black

    Joe Black Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2004
    Messages:
    433
    Likes Received:
    20
  16. t68

    t68 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,066
    Likes Received:
    40
    Location:
    NSW
    I know there was some conjecture on the main gun size, any idea what Defence chose for it?
     
  17. buffy9

    buffy9 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Tasmania
    Probably political reasons. Securing seats in Queensland since Victoria is a lost cause.

    That and I'm pretty sure the Boxer has better protection, a higher GVM and that Rheinmetall is offering to build an armoured vehicle hub in Queensland.
     
  18. oldsig127

    oldsig127 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2014
    Messages:
    391
    Likes Received:
    63
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Defence recommended the Boxer outright on the basis of the lengthy testing done. It's been no secret whatever going by the repeated comments here from various posters that it was greatly preferred but that Defence was concerned they might be rolled on the basis of politics or raw cost.

    oldsig
     
    PeterM likes this.
  19. ASSAIL

    ASSAIL Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    2,376
    Likes Received:
    324
    Location:
    Darwin NT Australia
    Don't you love our media, just about every single outlet has reported this as state vs state with zero reference to capability.
    It simply shows how intellectually lazy they are, go for the sensational and stuff the reasons for the selection.
     
  20. rand0m

    rand0m Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2006
    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    0
    Does this mean phase 3 is a shoe in for Rheinmetall?