Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[pussertas]

Sharp Spikes for the Boxer

(Source: Australian Department of Defence; issued Aug 22, 2018)

A Rheinmetall Lance turret, seen here fitted to a Puma IFV but which will also be fitted to Australia’s Boxer Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle, fires a Spike LR anti-tank missile during German army trials. (Rafael photo)

Under project Land 400 Phase 2, Defence will acquire 211 Rheinmetall Boxer combat reconnaissance vehicles which will provide vital mobility, lethality and protection for the Australian Army. The Boxer will be manufactured in Queensland, creating up to 1450 jobs across the supply chain.

The Spike was selected after an independent comparative evaluation of potential missile options for the vehicle was conducted by the Defence Science and Technology Group. The missile will offer long range, light weight, high resistance to countermeasures and higher technical maturity in the anti-tank role.

“The Spike missile is the best anti-tank guided missile for the Boxer” said Minister Payne. “It will give the Boxer the range and lethality it needs to fight and win the land battle”.

Varley Rafael Australia has committed to building the Spike LR2 in Australia, employing up to 70 Australians directly with hundreds more in the supply chain.


Coming soon after the contract signing with Rheinmetall for the acquisition of the Boxer, this is the next step in delivering Australia’s future land combat capabilit


.

 

[toryu]

Just to reinforce Todjaeger's point.
If you go to Kel-Tec's web site home page, a recall notice for the SUB-2000 pops up

Cheers for the info! I wasn't so much endorsing that particular product as intrigued by the idea of it and how well such a thing might fit the role. Shared ammunition and magazines make absolute sense if possible. Same could be said for anything that could use mags from EF88/5.56 but that seems unlikely to ever exist. There are at least other 5.56 PDW sized options yes but it's a little less elegant with the need for different mags. Just thoughts anyway...

 

[Todjaeger]

Cheers for the info! I wasn't so much endorsing that particular product as intrigued by the idea of it and how well such a thing might fit the role. Shared ammunition and magazines make absolute sense if possible. Same could be said for anything that could use mags from EF88/5.56 but that seems unlikely to ever exist. There are at least other 5.56 PDW sized options yes but it's a little less elegant with the need for different mags. Just thoughts anyway...

The requirement as I understand it is rather interesting, and there are a range of potential approaches to it. One of the potential issues is that the requirements also seems to fall somewhat past what a pistol can reasonably expected to do, but also short of a would be expected of a rifle. Commonality between what would be in service for either a rifle or pistol would be nice, but to achieve such commonality could require either a custom design, and/or performance issues.

Commonality with the Austeyr in terms of ammunition is a possibility, since there are AR-15 pistols with 8.5" barrels chambered in 5.56 x 45 mm NATO. However, that particular round performs better when fired from an 18" or 20". As the US military learned from experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, the 14.5" barrel in the M4 carbine had a significant decrease in effectiveness when firing standard ammunition at ranges past 100 m with both reduced accuracy and lethality.

It might be possible to develop a carbine/short-barreled rifle which fires a pistol round, which would have greater accuracy and lethality at range when compared with the performance of a pistol firing the same round. A potential issue here though is finding a design which would be small enough to meet the requirements, which is also a quality product, and then being able to test it to determine whether or not it has the designed performance parameters.

 

[toryu]

good post

It's a tough thing for sure and you're clearly familiar of the problems in trying to accomplish this. I was aware of the problems with 5.56 out of short barrels, which is why the previous product caught my eye, seeming to be a slightly more elegant solution. Everything has trade-offs though and it seems to be a recurring problem/question around the world. The core of the problem is that pistol rounds are made to work best from pistols, rifle rounds best from longer barrelled rifles. To get get good performance from 'in-between' honestly does require a different sort of round, but then you get the logistics headaches. It's this conundrum that spawned the P-90 and Mp-7.

It does seem clear that significant sacrifices in performance would have to be made in order to get a cost effective result, whether it fall on pistol or rifle calibre selection. There's really no perfect answer is there?

 

[Todjaeger]

It's a tough thing for sure and you're clearly familiar of the problems in trying to accomplish this. I was aware of the problems with 5.56 out of short barrels, which is why the previous product caught my eye, seeming to be a slightly more elegant solution. Everything has trade-offs though and it seems to be a recurring problem/question around the world. The core of the problem is that pistol rounds are made to work best from pistols, rifle rounds best from longer barrelled rifles. To get get good performance from 'in-between' honestly does require a different sort of round, but then you get the logistics headaches. It's this conundrum that spawned the P-90 and Mp-7.

It does seem clear that significant sacrifices in performance would have to be made in order to get a cost effective result, whether it fall on pistol or rifle calibre selection. There's really no perfect answer is there?

For me, one of the questions to really answer would be what is the best barrel length for a given round. It is distinctly possible that a pistol cartridge fired from a longer barrel, and possibly one with a greater twist rate than is usual for a pistol, might provide better performance than when fired from a 4" pistol barrel.

From what I have come across, a 16" barrel would be the optimal length for a 9 Para Bellum round, while an 18" - 20" would be best for a .45 ACP round. Now if a manufacturer could be induced to design a bullpup configuration carbine chambered in 9 mm, that uses the same magazine design as what the ADF currently uses in their 9 mm pistols...

 

[ngatimozart]

Why not a SMG, such as the MP5, with a longer barrel and Todj's greater twist rate? That way all that needs to be re-engineered is the barrel

 

[Todjaeger]

Why not a SMG, such as the MP5, with a longer barrel and Todj's greater twist rate? That way all that needs to be re-engineered is the barrel

Part of the issue with an SMG like the MP5 is that the design can approach the length of a bullpup rifle like the F88, but provide a significantly shorter barrel.

The smallest MP5 (not the MP5K) versions with stocks I have come across are ~550 mm/21" LOA with the stock collapsed, with a ~225 mm/9" barrel and would have a muzzle velocity ~400 m/s or ~1,300 fps. A 400 mm/16" barrel would likely have a muzzle velocity of 490 m/s or ~1,600 fps.

A standard issue F88A2 has a LOA of 790 mm/~31", a barrel length of 508mm/20", and a muzzle velocity of 930 m/s or ~3,050 fps when firing 5.56 x 45 mm ammunition.

If the MP5 barrel was extended to 406 mm/16", then the LOA of a MP5 with the stock collapsed would be 730 mm or 28.7", with the stock extended, it would become ~871 mm/34.2" and would actually be a larger weapon than the standard rifle.

One of the advantages of bullpup designs is that a longer length barrel can be accommodated in a given LOA for a weapon.

 

[Massive]

SPH does not mean tracked. Right now there is a Boxer 155 mm module. The South Africans have the G6. If that meets requirements, good - buy them. If a K9 or M109A7 or AS90 does better,, than fine, buy that. I don't care what it looks like.

Suspect AGM is the answer.

Automation, wheeled, common platform (though upgraded engine), very low manning.

AGM and HIMARS gives a dramatic upgrade in firepower for the army at very low manpower requirement.

Regards,

Massive

 

[Ranger25]

Suspect AGM is the answer.

Automation, wheeled, common platform (though upgraded engine), very low manning.

AGM and HIMARS gives a dramatic upgrade in firepower for the army at very low manpower requirement.

Regards,

Massive

SOCOM has purchased the new SIG Rattler in .300 AAC for PDW. It’s small 5.5” barrel and new gas system is ideal for CQB use but with a hard hitting .300 round. Common Mag to the M4 family.

I personally have one, it’s optimized for subsonic/suppressed use.



https://taskandpurpose.com/mcx-rattler-sig-sauer-socom/

Part of the issue with an SMG like the MP5 is that the design can approach the length of a bullpup rifle like the F88, but provide a significantly shorter barrel.

The smallest MP5 (not the MP5K) versions with stocks I have come across are ~550 mm/21" LOA with the stock collapsed, with a ~225 mm/9" barrel and would have a muzzle velocity ~400 m/s or ~1,300 fps. A 400 mm/16" barrel would likely have a muzzle velocity of 490 m/s or ~1,600 fps.

A standard issue F88A2 has a LOA of 790 mm/~31", a barrel length of 508mm/20", and a muzzle velocity of 930 m/s or ~3,050 fps when firing 5.56 x 45 mm ammunition.

If the MP5 barrel was extended to 406 mm/16", then the LOA of a MP5 with the stock collapsed would be 730 mm or 28.7", with the stock extended, it would become ~871 mm/34.2" and would actually be a larger weapon than the standard rifle.

One of the advantages of bullpup designs is that a longer length barrel can be accommodated in a given LOA for a weapon.

 

[pussertas]

Land 400 Phase 3 - Request for Tender Now Open

(Source: Australian Department of Defence; issued Aug 24, 2018)

Having operated the M-113 armored personnel carrier for over 50 years, the Australian Army will soon replace it with 450 modern infantry combat vehicles procured under the LAND 400 program, which was formally launched yesterday. (AUS Army photo)
The multi-billion dollar project to replace Army’s M113 Armoured Personnel Carriers has taken another step forward with the formal release of the Request for Tender for LAND 400 Phase 3 – Mounted Close Combat Capability.

Minister for Defence Senator the Hon Marise Payne said the project will see Army’s capability significantly enhanced with a fleet of up to 450 modern Infantry Fighting Vehicles and 17 Manoeuvre Support Vehicles.

“This will be the largest investment in Army’s capability ever undertaken and will provide our troops with a modern close combat capability,” Minister Payne said.

“The vehicles will be equipped with high levels of protection, firepower and mobility that will enable sustained operations, varying from peacekeeping to close combat.” Minister Pyne encouraged Australian industry to get behind the project.

“I actively encourage Australian small and medium sized enterprises to take advantage of the significant opportunities arising from this project,” he said.

“Just as with the LAND 400 Phase 2 Combat Reconnaissance Vehicles, Australian industry involvement and Australian workers will be critically important to this project.

Minister Pyne indicated that during this tender process, Defence will work closely with industry to optimise Australian Industry Capability content.

“This project is another exciting opportunity for Australian industry to deliver leading edge technology in support of the Army,” he said.

Defence is placing greater emphasis on a coordinated and programmatic approach to Army’s biggest project ever.

A new Armoured Vehicle Division will be created to consolidate large programs like LAND 400, LAND 907 – Main Battle Tank Replacement and LAND 8160 – Enhanced Gap Crossing Capability into a programmatic ‘mega project’.

When fully delivered, the LAND 400 Program will allow Army to successfully sustain mounted close combat operations against emerging and future threats as part of a joint force.

At long last the army will be rid of the M113 which dates back to the Vietnam era.

 

[FORBIN]

At long last the army will be rid of the M113 which dates back to the Vietnam er

Exact and why ASLAV which is enough recent yet replaced in first by Boxer combat reconnaissance vehicles and only after old M113AS3/4 not logic ?

 

[Todjaeger]

At long last the army will be rid of the M113 which dates back to the Vietnam er

Exact and why ASLAV which is enough recent yet replaced in first by Boxer combat reconnaissance vehicles and only after old M113AS3/4 not logic ?

At least some of the roles of the ASLAV and the M113 are different. Similarly, the LAND 400 Phase 2 Mounted Combat Recon Capability phase (signed) and Phase 3 Mounted Close Combat Capability (RFT issued) to replace the ASLAV and M113 respectively are to provide different capabilities to Army.

As for why the ASLAV replacement was prioritized first as Phase 2, I suspect that Army felt a modern replacement for the ASLAV was more important. That could be due to the degree of wear and tear the ASLAV fleet has experienced (since the M113 fleet did have a more recent modernization) or that improvements in recon vehicle capabilities are or would be needed before an IFV replacement for an APC.

 

[Redlands18]

At long last the army will be rid of the M113 which dates back to the Vietnam er

Exact and why ASLAV which is enough recent yet replaced in first by Boxer combat reconnaissance vehicles and only after old M113AS3/4 not logic ?

The M-113s were controversely rebuilt to the M-113AS4 standard in the mid 2000s, basically taking them from totally outdated. obsolete and worn out to just totally obsolete. They should have been replaced then.

 

[Todjaeger]

The M-113s were controversely rebuilt to the M-113AS4 standard in the mid 2000s, basically taking them from totally outdated. obsolete and worn out to just totally obsolete. They should have been replaced then.

IIRC the controversial part was that, instead of utilizing an already developed M113 upgrade and modernization, a decision was made to develop an Australian solution. Part of this stems from the fact that what is/became LAND 106 originally started ~1992 and was to be a minor (AUD$50 mil.) fleet wide interim upgrade as a replacement vehicle was to be sought, but due to changes in the scope of the project, the contract signed in 2002 with Tenix was substantially different.

As a side note, I believe delivery of the last upgraded M113's was completed in 2012 so for some uses they are still fairly "new."

In terms of capabilities, since gov't had not committed to the M113 replacement, there was really no other option but to upgrade them. In some scenarios an upgraded M113 would have been serviceable if the need had arisen, and it is also possible that a rapid development of another interim upgrade (like applique armour) could have been developed should further capabilities be required earlier than a replacement could be managed. After all, there are a number of countries around the world which still field either upgraded M113's, or vehicles based off the M113 which have been modernized.

 

[t68]

The M-113s were controversely rebuilt to the M-113AS4 standard in the mid 2000s, basically taking them from totally outdated. obsolete and worn out to just totally obsolete. They should have been replaced then.

Wonder what the best Alternative vehicle at the time that with in the budget allocated

 

[Redlands18]

News - Australian Defence Magazine
Lynx KF41 in Adelaide For Land 2018 Land Warfare Conference. Looks an absolute Beast

 

[Joe Black]

News - Australian Defence Magazine
Lynx KF41 in Adelaide For Land 2018 Land Warfare Conference. Looks an absolute Beast

KF41 is by far my favourite vehicle especially with the new Lance 2.0 turret, and with the new variant CV90 MkIV coming a close 2nd. I don't know if a labor govt if coming into power, would continue to let defence select the best vehicle to meet their requirement or simply would go for the cheaper-middle-of-the-road choice.

 

[Joe Black]

Glad to read the news about EOS R400S Mark 2 being selected. There are so many RWS available in the world, with the Kongberg's PROTECTOR M151 CROWS system already widely used in the ADF, and Rheinmetall own RWS system, for EOS RWS to be selected has proven that their product is just as good and would meet ADF's standard. It is indeed such a good thing to know!

EOS remote weapons system for Land 400 Phase 2 - Australian Defence Magazine

EOS wins LAND 400 deal to support Boxer - Defence Connect

Now, if only EOS would make a naval version out of their R400S for RAN, that would be superb!

 

[MARKMILES77]

KF41 is by far my favourite vehicle especially with the new Lance 2.0 turret, and with the new variant CV90 MkIV coming a close 2nd. I don't know if a labor govt if coming into power, would continue to let defence select the best vehicle to meet their requirement or simply would go for the cheaper-middle-of-the-road choice.

Being reported (strangely to my mind) that the two KF 41s flown into Australia are both fitted with 35 X 228mm firing cannons.
Not the same 30 X 173mm gun as fitted to the Lance turret on the Boxer.
Would have thought a gun using the same ammo as on the Boxer would be a must have.
Unless the LAND 400 Phase 3 is specified otherwise.

 

[camo_jnr_jnr]

Australian opens Land 400 Phase 3 tender - LWI - Land Warfare - Shephard Media
https://twitter.com/DTRmag/status/1034204143940820992

Unless I've missed it there's been no mention of the inclusion of an RFI for 50 amphibious assault vehicles with the land 400 phase 3 tender in this or the RAN thread yet. Land 400 ph3 we knew was coming but this is the first we're hearing of a proper protected amphibious vehicle for the LHD's as far as i'm aware. Will be interesting to see which amphibious vehicle they go with.