By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.
Discussion in 'Army & Security Forces' started by mickk, Nov 25, 2006.
So 1 Bde's armoured elements aren't important?
That had crossed my mind. I also wondered whether something like the Donar would be considered if we went for the Lynx.
Donar is already mated with the Boxer chassis, so it is definitely an option, but would Defence go this option knowing they will definitely piss off the Koreans. This could spark a diplomatic issue at the Foreign Affairs dept.
While doable if we are going to go the SPG route then I would rather we get the best system available. For such a vehicle there are three issues off the bat that I see with the Boxer AGM. Reloading, Is there a specialised vehicle/system to get the module reloaded quickly like with other SPG's because if not then they would have limited operational use in regards to time frame. Shell's carried, The module only carries 30 shells compared to the K9's 48 which is quite a bit less and also the issue of cost vs capability. If we get more bang for our buck spending a little more on say a K9 portfolio I would rather that then saving a little on a Boxer AGM that could potentially be a lot less capable.
Thanks Raven for the reply.
Given Army already has its existing brigade structure I don't want to take the conversation too far into fantasy unit structures.
In relation to the reserves, I concur that it appears a bridge too far to expect too much from them as large deployable units for high intensity operations.
As suggested, gap fillers of "warm bodies" for the lesser skilled jobs is certainly possible.
How do we move forward with this.
Do we directly link individual reserve units with regular units so that they culturally fit?
Maybe we condense our six reserve brigades down to three with these having a much greater percentage of regulars to provide for both greater flexibility for expansion and limited deploy-ability.
Certainly some challenges but maybe with some good outcomes
I feel if we maintain three like brigades with both a mechanised and motorised battle group we would want to reflect that across the supporting elements.
Therefore a heavy SPG and towed artillery in each Brigade ( I don't see us getting an additional wheeled SPG if we purchase a tracked SPG )
I cant see that working out either as reserves are not just in one location, unless reservist have government jobs they are very limited with the amount of time they can put aside, unless they increase the pay for reservist, would majority of reservist like to put more into their time I think so, but unfortunately reserve pay doesn't pay the bills
That was the catch 22 in the 90s, employers were able to, and did discriminate against reservists. Even today, with additional protections many managers, if not employers, see reserves in an unfavourable light, i.e. people playing soldier.
The sort of person who is an efficient and capable reservist also tends to be good at their day job, meaning management doesn't like having to give them leave for any reason, they want them there working, Nd not just 38hours a week.
Hang on - really? Let’s put things into perspective. Hanwha are not big. Their market cap is around AUD3bn. This is the roughly the same as Corporate Travel Ltd. So if Corp Travel has made an unsolicited offer to outsource travel procurement to a S Korean government department, and that gov department said “Great idea! We really like what you’ve put forward here, but we’re going to put it to tender so our taxpayers are getting value for money” this would be a diplomatic incident too? I think not.
By way of comparison, the Japanese got the rug pulled out from them on a contract that is literally 100 times larger. They didn’t like it, but the relationship seems fine now.
The chosen missile and the latest missile already integrated with NASAMs is the AIM-120C-7. The AMRAAM-ER (ESSM w/ AIM-120D seeker) is still under development.
US Department of State approves possible sale of AIM-120C-7 AMRAAMs to Australia | Jane's 360
Diplomatically speaking there wont be any issues beyond maybe some SK ministers grumbling if Australia goes back to a open tender rather then sole source from SK however there will be a decent diplomatic issue if SK does win or is selected and then the program is once again cancelled or delayed.
As for Japan I wouldn say they had the rug pulled out from under them. They hadn't won anything prior to the tender with only Abbott (One man does not make a deal) and the US (Which shouldnt matter as the US was only looking at it from the perspective of what best sent a message to China rather then what was best for Australia) and when it was all said and done when it did go to competition against other offers they lost fair and square, No rug pulling of any kind. Japan shouldnt have made the assumption that Abbott alone could pick and choose where everything was acquired and how, Their fault for that assumption not ours.
I think if Hanwha wants to make a serious impression regarding L400P3 then having an actual, existing production facility in place would be looked at very favourably.
There's also potentially another reason. There's a dot point in the graphic in this article another user put up a few pages back:
Now I tried looking into this but could not come up with much. No idea if it's truly significant. It's clear they are really hungry for a bigger slice of the world market.
It is possible however that taking the leap and building a production facility earlier accomplishes not only a more realistic bid proposal for L400P3 but also accomplishes something regarding this 'national directive' back home. They're not exactly a small company, given the group sits on nearly US150B in assets, so maybe the cost of a small factory, maybe designed to scale-up, is probably not that big a deal and worth taking a chance on if it helps score a win with the Redback. There is also that protective amphibious vehicle that has been talked about...
It feels like they're probably being very strategic, but as an outsider I'm just plain guessing!
@toryu , Just a quick heads up mate in the world of economics it isn't the assets you look at, Its the equity. Assets minus liabilities equals equity.
As to why go for a build in Australia well it really comes down into what kind of build it is. If its CKD or majority CKD then it really isnt so hard for them to justify the expense of setting up a facility. Such a production facility wouldn't require nearly as much equipment and infrastructure as building them from scratch.
Was actually wondering if this is Hanwha's way of breaking into the Australian defence market and having a local subsidiary from whom they can expand and even make deals in regards to production, R&D etc across other products??
Agreed. Could’ve chosen my words better, but I think we agree that the Govt shouldn’t feel constrained by diplomatic considerations if they feel the need to cast a wider net.
The issue I can see here is that over the next few years, if the US Army gets its way and the technology works out, they will have an even more capable system than the current K9 is right now - if we get K9, we will have a good system for sure, but not the best system available. If as capable as advertised, ERCA will substantially increase artillery range and capability, the M109A7 will move from a 39 calibre gun with a slow non-automated reload system and a crew of 5 to a 58 calibre gun and an auto-reloader with a need of only 2/3 crew. This will both lower manning requirements even more and increasing artillery range by over twice as much with the current extended range munitions used by the K9.
I don't know of any pressing time constraints with this program other than future federal elections, but I think the in the greater scheme of things, waiting for the ERCA upgrades and then having an open tender would be a good choice to get the best option for the ADF. That's just my humble opinion.
The uselessness of the M777 in almost any modern war, especially if the enemy has a counter-battery capability, is more than enough. Between the M113 and the M777 we have an excellent 1950s Army.....
And how long before the US Army fields a new 155 mm SPG? The US Army doesn't exactly have a sterling reputation for fielding acquisitions on time and on budget. Their recent acquisitions history isn't exactly encouraging either. The point that I am making is that Australia doesn't really have the luxury of waiting for the US Army to line all its ducks up and make a decision, let alone get Congressional approval and survive any subsequent appeals and legal action.
Gun numbers on the M777 are simply casualties waiting to happen in any peer conflict.
The choice of an armoured SPG was overdue ten years ago and is even more imperative now.
We didn't need the Ukrainian experience to know that, but it is a salutory reminder.
ERCA is coming online in about the same time period that Land 8112 Protected Mobile Fires program starts building up (first ERCA M109A7 battalion in 2022/23), the time frames are are so close to each other that holding off for an actual tender process makes sense. I agree on both your points, that M777 is an antiquated type of artillery system (as far as its inability to be self propelled - though that artillery system still has its place) - I also argued a few pages back that this hole in capability (SPA) should have been filled back when Land 17 was a thing. I agree also that there could be problems within the US ERCA program, halting/stalling progress (though I don't really see this happening with an essential artillery upgrade program to counter Chinese and Russian artillery systems in which the US is already behind), the US is pushing ahead hard with ERCA, it needs it because if it doesn't get it, their artillery capability will be less capable than their peer rivals. I'm just saying that going for a sole source on a system that has the very high possibility of being superceded technologically in the same time frame would be a lost opportunity.
Either way though, I think the K9 is a fine system and one that could serve Australia well, but I think the ERCA is an equally important program/capability and its developments must be watched closely.
I think this is an oversimplification. If you’re talking about a land war in Eurasia against a major power, then sure an SPG is the best answer. But that’s not the only, or even the most likely, contingency we would face.
If you’re talking about the sort of action 2 RAR is designed for then the difference between the 4 tonnes of an M777 vs the 40+ of a K9 becomes pretty important. One is a hell of a lot easier to move from an LHD to shore than the other, and takes up much less room on board. If you’ve got guns on the beach / at the airfield and the oppositions are still in their ships - you win.
If you’re talking about COIN, then mobility and survivability become less valuable as you’re probably operating from a well protected fire base.
So I think a mixed inventory of self propelled and stationary but lightweight (and hence high mobility) guns makes sense. Which seems to be where we’re heading.