Australian Army Discussions and Updates

Bob53

Member
Hi Bob,

I don't do wish lists or fantasy fleets. This is my considered opinion (which evolves over time) as to what the ADFs artillery should look like.

That said, I do not believe these numbers will be acquired. I expect that the numbers will be more like 2 x batteries of SPH per regiment with additional SPH for training, and a single regiment of HIMARS will be acquired - 3 x 6 launchers.

As to the M777 & ASLAV - I would not expect these to be operated by Army Reserve units - the training burden would be too great and my understanding is that the ASLAV are essentially worn out.

Regards,

Massive
Acknowledged. I was just a bit surprised as it was well North of the numbers that have been used publicly. Even the SPH at your numbers looks to be about 40+. I had in my head that 30 would be acquired but understand what is acquired and what is really required are often poles apart. As to the HIMARs well anything is better than nothing.

The HIMARS seem a better bet for the ADF needs. Better road mobility and longer range but a lot more expensive to feed. I wonder if the numbers should be reversed.
 

InterestedParty

New Member
Excuse the question but what factors decide how many guns are in a battery? Manpower? I presume it should be an even number so you can deploy half a battery
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Acknowledged. I was just a bit surprised as it was well North of the numbers that have been used publicly. Even the SPH at your numbers looks to be about 40+. I had in my head that 30 would be acquired but understand what is acquired and what is really required are often poles apart. As to the HIMARs well anything is better than nothing.

The HIMARS seem a better bet for the ADF needs. Better road mobility and longer range but a lot more expensive to feed. I wonder if the numbers should be reversed.
30 was definitely correct plus 15 K-10 Ammo Vehicle’s, the review has added additional K-9s at a later date, so I’m thinking we will see the original 30+15 order and then a 2nd order down the track for similar numbers.

PS : i wonder if the Army will stick with the K-9 Moniker, could cause some confusion. Might be a bit embarrassing if a unit asked for Canine support and a 47t SP Howitzer turned up or vice versa.
 

Boagrius

Active Member
i wonder if the Army will stick with the K-9 Moniker, could cause some confusion. Might be a bit embarrassing if a unit asked for Canine support and a 47t SP Howitzer turned up or vice versa.
I think I have heard it referred to as the AS9 elsewhere. That might help prevent the confusion :oops: :D
 
Last edited:

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
What is Army doing about re-refueling vehicles? I mean serious off road re-feelers. With a new motorised/mechanised emphasis, I hear about SPGs, boxers, additional MBTs etc, how are we going to get Fuel to them in off grid locations, where semi trailer style vehicles won’t be able to get to?
 

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
What is Army doing about re-refueling vehicles? I mean serious off road re-feelers. With a new motorised/mechanised emphasis, I hear about SPGs, boxers, additional MBTs etc, how are we going to get Fuel to them in off grid locations, where semi trailer style vehicles won’t be able to get to?
We appear to be buying 3500+ Rheinmettal-MAN HX and HX2 trucks with not all yet delivered. There has been discussion on this thread, and links to demo videos. I suspect that we'll be able to get fuel to any place it needs to be taken, which needn't be right at the pointy end


oldsig
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I just watched a program on the Abrams tank factory and included was a discussion on the fitting of both flat and curved explosive tile armour.
Are Australian Army tanks so fitted? If so does this increase their weight beyond the limitations of the RAN’s recently modified LHD landing craft?
The link only refers to “advanced composite” armour, is that similar?
M1 Abrams Tank | Army.gov.au
 

Boagrius

Active Member
The link says the current fleet has been equipped with the TUSK kit so that should include ARAT ERA tiles. Not sure how this would affect weight limits vis a vis landing craft though.
 

Takao

The Bunker Group
Excuse the question but what factors decide how many guns are in a battery? Manpower? I presume it should be an even number so you can deploy half a battery
Cost. We couldn't afford enough M777 so we changed the size of the Bty.

Tactically speaking there should be eight guns to a Bty, allowing two Troops of 4. This provides the Bty Comd and the manouever Comd sufficient flexibility for all tasks while avoiding counter battery fires.

What the SPG Bty ends up looking like depends on a few factors....
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I just watched a program on the Abrams tank factory and included was a discussion on the fitting of both flat and curved explosive tile armour.
Are Australian Army tanks so fitted? If so does this increase their weight beyond the limitations of the RAN’s recently modified LHD landing craft?
The link only refers to “advanced composite” armour, is that similar?
M1 Abrams Tank | Army.gov.au
As Boagrius said the ERA is part of the TUSK upgrade, which is only fitted when required based on the threat. They aren't fitted unless required as the incease in protection is not worth the decrease in mobility when they are fitted. The full TUSK upgrade package would put the tank above the limits for landing craft. In the unlikely case you needed the ERA/TUSK upgrade and to land the tanks by landing craft, you would simply fit the TUSK components once ashore.

The 'advanced composite armour' simply the standard armour packs fitted to the tank, the composition of which is known only to a very select few.
 

Boagrius

Active Member
As Boagrius said the ERA is part of the TUSK upgrade, which is only fitted when required based on the threat. They aren't fitted unless required as the incease in protection is not worth the decrease in mobility when they are fitted. The full TUSK upgrade package would put the tank above the limits for landing craft. In the unlikely case you needed the ERA/TUSK upgrade and to land the tanks by landing craft, you would simply fit the TUSK components once ashore.

The 'advanced composite armour' simply the standard armour packs fitted to the tank, the composition of which is known only to a very select few.
Do you know, by chance, if our tanks use ARAT II? Or was it just ARAT I that came with our TUSK kits?
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
What is Army doing about re-refueling vehicles? I mean serious off road re-feelers. With a new motorised/mechanised emphasis, I hear about SPGs, boxers, additional MBTs etc, how are we going to get Fuel to them in off grid locations, where semi trailer style vehicles won’t be able to get to?
The volume of sustainment required for a mechanised force is such that it can really only be moved by large wheeled vehicles. It is technically possible to put a fuel pod on the back of something like an M113 ALV, but it is pretty limited in what it can achieve. To put it in perspective, a fuel pod on the back of an M113 ALV would only carry enough fuel to keep a tank squadron moving for about 85 minutes. You'd need to drain six of them every day just to keep the tanks running even at a low operational tempo.

Luckily, the mobility of the wheeled logistics vehicles is pretty good. However, if the logistics vehicles can't get to the armoured vehicles, the armoured vehicles will come to the wheeled logistics vehicles.
 

xhxi558

New Member
Reading the below article in ADM, they identify 3 phases for land 8116:
  • Phase 1 - 30 SPH and 15 ammunition vehicles - $0.9b to $1.3b (early 20's)
  • Phase 2 - additional SPH and ammunition vehicles - $1.5b to $2.3b (late 20's)
  • Phase 3 - M777A2 replacement and/or enhancement - TBC (early 30s)

Does the proposed funding for phase 2 indicate that it will be for a larger order than the initial 30 SPH or is this just inflation and is this likely to mean each regiment will have more batteries or that a new regiment will be formed?

Phase 3 is also interesting giving a timeframe for replacement of M777A2 capability given the discussion that has been occurring on the board.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
What is Army doing about re-refueling vehicles? I mean serious off road re-feelers. With a new motorised/mechanised emphasis, I hear about SPGs, boxers, additional MBTs etc, how are we going to get Fuel to them in off grid locations, where semi trailer style vehicles won’t be able to get to?

Can only tell you when I was in that we various size tankers for different vehicles

We had the general service road tankers behind the 3rd/4th line tpt with international S-Lines, 2nd line we had Mack 6x6 TTF (truck tanker fuel) then for the movz we had portable TPA( Tank & Pump Assemblies




I’ve seen photos of the new heavy vehicle with self load capbilty so just about every type of vehicle can be a fuel cart wether fixed or portable

It appears to be a lot of good kit going to RACT sometime I wish I was 25 years younger
 

Bob53

Member
Reading the below article in ADM, they identify 3 phases for land 8116:
  • Phase 1 - 30 SPH and 15 ammunition vehicles - $0.9b to $1.3b (early 20's)
  • Phase 2 - additional SPH and ammunition vehicles - $1.5b to $2.3b (late 20's)
  • Phase 3 - M777A2 replacement and/or enhancement - TBC (early 30s)

Does the proposed funding for phase 2 indicate that it will be for a larger order than the initial 30 SPH or is this just inflation and is this likely to mean each regiment will have more batteries or that a new regiment will be formed?

Phase 3 is also interesting giving a timeframe for replacement of M777A2 capability given the discussion that has been occurring on the board.
So that indicates the SPH will be additional capability to the M777s rather than replacement capability. And I heed the warnings about replacement numbers based on costs but in its simplest form, the budget for this looks like the initial numbers would be doubled or more. And then the M777 replacement would come in on top of this. Going to be interesting to see what the budget ad federal debt levels are looking like by mid to late 20s but I am reading Government interest rates are going to be sub .5% for a long time so borrowing money is going to be cheap for a while it seems. Of course everyone forgets about paying back the principle.
 
Top