Australian Army Discussions and Updates

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Reports that the first 2 of 3 AS-21 Redbacks will depart Korea soon and arrive in Melbourne for commencement of testing slated for November and to run for approx 10 months alongside the Rheinmetall KF-41 Lynx. The third unit will be sent later in the year.


Going to be an interesting competition

Cheers
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Nice to see Land 19 Ph 7B moving along, Fire Distribution Centre Shelter manufacturing has commenced in Adelaide, cant't wait to see this system deployed and operational.



And yes sponsored content, but a nice little plug highlighting/reminding the cross functionality of the FDC to also be used with the Kongsberg NSM CDS, could be an interesting combination depending on requirements, but a highly mobile and deployable combination of systems that I could see a lot of upsides for. In particular the SE Asia region and shipping choke points and key Northern Australian approaches.


Cheers
 

Morgo

Member
Nice to see Land 19 Ph 7B moving along, Fire Distribution Centre Shelter manufacturing has commenced in Adelaide, cant't wait to see this system deployed and operational.



And yes sponsored content, but a nice little plug highlighting/reminding the cross functionality of the FDC to also be used with the Kongsberg NSM CDS, could be an interesting combination depending on requirements, but a highly mobile and deployable combination of systems that I could see a lot of upsides for. In particular the SE Asia region and shipping choke points and key Northern Australian approaches.


Cheers
This does seem like a no brainer - unless of course there is a risk operators could get overwhelmed trying to engage air and surface targets simultaneously? I suppose that’s why there are two stations.

I also wonder whether HIMARS and the Precision Strike Missile (presuming these get acquired, which seems probable) could also be integrated? Would it be worth the effort?
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
This does seem like a no brainer - unless of course there is a risk operators could get overwhelmed trying to engage air and surface targets simultaneously? I suppose that’s why there are two stations.

I also wonder whether HIMARS and the Precision Strike Missile (presuming these get acquired, which seems probable) could also be integrated? Would it be worth the effort?
Just to clarify, not advocating the systems, Nasams & NSM CDS, being operated in unison or concurrently, but rather as separate capabilities, was just referring to the commonality of the FDC between the two systems and the inherent fleixibility it could bring.

A lot happening in this domain around the world, the US have some interesting things happening, NSM for the US Navy, USMC, the USMC Nemisis program etc

Cheers

 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Reports that the first 2 of 3 AS-21 Redbacks will depart Korea soon and arrive in Melbourne for commencement of testing slated for November and to run for approx 10 months alongside the Rheinmetall KF-41 Lynx. The third unit will be sent later in the year.


Going to be an interesting competition

Cheers
Video of the Redback.

 

InterestedParty

New Member
Excuse what may be a stupid question but with all of the lenses being used externally how are they kept clean. To an amateur it looks as if one plough through the mud and the unit would be blind, I know there must be something
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
There would be a system to blow either air or water (or both) onto the lenses to keep them clear. The same systems already exist for the vision blocks for the drivers. It’s actually not mud that is the biggest issue, but dust, particularly in Australia.

it is a valid point though, and it reinforces the need for redundant systems for when all the fancy electronic gadgetry fails.
 

MARKMILES77

Active Member
Australian and New Zealand Defender reporting all 985 remaining Bushmasters will undergo an extensive upgrade/reset to bring them to a common standard. This will bring them up to a level similiar to the MR6 but without changes to the hull length and presumably not incorporating the MR6's side doors.
This will include an APU, upgrades to the digital architecture and changes to allow them to all operate the EOS R400S MarkII remote weapon station. No mention of whether they will get the heavy duty suspension which gives an increase in gross Vehicle Mass to 17+ tonnes. There will also be some new versions including a General Maintenance Vehicle and an Explosive Ordnance Disposal vehicle
Can't help but wonder whether just building new MR6s wouldn't be more worthwhile.

 

Stampede

Active Member
Australian and New Zealand Defender reporting all 985 remaining Bushmasters will undergo an extensive upgrade/reset to bring them to a common standard. This will bring them up to a level similiar to the MR6 but without changes to the hull length and presumably not incorporating the MR6's side doors.
This will include an APU, upgrades to the digital architecture and changes to allow them to all operate the EOS R400S MarkII remote weapon station. No mention of whether they will get the heavy duty suspension which gives an increase in gross Vehicle Mass to 17+ tonnes. There will also be some new versions including a General Maintenance Vehicle and an Explosive Ordnance Disposal vehicle
Can't help but wonder whether just building new MR6s wouldn't be more worthwhile.

Just wondering what the current seating arrangement is in the Bushmaster.
I think it was initially 2 in the cabin and seven seats in the back plus one basic metal Seat / Platform. ............... Total 9 Pax
Are they now configured with 10 dedicated seats.
Talking personal carrier, not all of the other variants.

Regards S
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
While there are lots of different versions out there (hence the program to standardise everything), most troop carriers have had the platform for the rear gunner replaced with an eighth seat. The upgraded seat cushions can be flipped over to provide a flat surface for a gunner to stand on, so there’s no real loss of capability.
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
So curious for those who know more about it and can comment, reading more on the Land 400 Ph3 competition between the Hanwha AS-21 Redback and the Reinmetall KF-41 Lynx.

In the earlier article I referenced on the Redback being sent for the test and evaluation phase of the competition there was an interesting quote

"Vice president An Byung-chul pointed to reductions in weight and belly protection as benefits of the variant"


Got me looking at the stated weights of both vehicles, obviously not going to find any open source material on either vehicles protection and their solutions, but they both appear to weight the same, guessing both are listed combat weights ?

My question is, I noticed right from the start that the KF-41 basically looked to have an extension/stretched back end for the additional dismounts to meet the requirement, but the wheelbase seems to have remained the same and has kept the 6 road wheels of the original KF-31.

The Redback however, being of a similar weight, width and length have a 7 road wheel wheelbase.

Are there any perceived advantages or disadvantages to either ? Does a 7 wheel track offer better load distribution and therefore better off road capability ? Depending on the distances between does that afford a better ability to traverse steps or ledges ? Trench distances etc

We don't know length of the tracks, width, contact patch etc, but does the extra road wheel offer any benefits in track wear or durability, throwing a track etc ?

Just curious

Cheers
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Without knowing all the details of the design, it is hard to say anything of value. All else being equal, more road wheels for a given length of track should give better suspension, more evenly distribute the weight across the track, and have less chance of throwing track. However, it is also more complex with additional weight, has more that can go wrong and need repairing, and is also more likely to be gummed up with mud or snow or whatever. Realistically, for the KF41/AS21 competition it won’t make a difference at all.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Without knowing all the details of the design, it is hard to say anything of value. All else being equal, more road wheels for a given length of track should give better suspension, more evenly distribute the weight across the track, and have less chance of throwing track. However, it is also more complex with additional weight, has more that can go wrong and need repairing, and is also more likely to be gummed up with mud or snow or whatever. Realistically, for the KF41/AS21 competition it won’t make a difference at all.
I think it's safe to say either option will be a great step forward for Army.

Have you had a chance with either yet, or a boxer for that matter? Just interested to know what our resident black hat thinks of the new gear?
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
No one has had anything to do with the Phase 3 vehicles, as the risk mitigation activity hasn’t begun yet.

I’ve had a little bit to do with Boxer, and my opinion is more or less unchanged - a technologically fantastic vehicle, that is really just too big for what we need. The cavalry should be the most mobile and agile force we have, yet with Boxer being mobile and agile will be really difficult. With the renewed focus on the region, it would be interesting to see what the RFP for Phase 2 would look like if written today. I would imagine that there would be much more focus on mobility (particularly strategic and operational mobility) and much less focus on protection (fighting the last war, as always). There is some increasingly serious discussion on equipping at least a small part of the cavalry with Hawkei, to give at least some capability that is less than a 35 tonne combat weight.
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
No one has had anything to do with the Phase 3 vehicles, as the risk mitigation activity hasn’t begun yet.

I’ve had a little bit to do with Boxer, and my opinion is more or less unchanged - a technologically fantastic vehicle, that is really just too big for what we need. The cavalry should be the most mobile and agile force we have, yet with Boxer being mobile and agile will be really difficult. With the renewed focus on the region, it would be interesting to see what the RFP for Phase 2 would look like if written today. I would imagine that there would be much more focus on mobility (particularly strategic and operational mobility) and much less focus on protection (fighting the last war, as always). There is some increasingly serious discussion on equipping at least a small part of the cavalry with Hawkei, to give at least some capability that is less than a 35 tonne combat weight.
What is the current feedback on the Hawkei ? Not a lot out there about it and has been pretty quiet since the Steyr Motors drama, which I am assuming has been sorted ? I do recall Thales stepping in at some stage and putting some money up ?

What sort of vehicle to you think an updated Ph2 would like ?

Cheers
 

MARKMILES77

Active Member
No one has had anything to do with the Phase 3 vehicles, as the risk mitigation activity hasn’t begun yet.

I’ve had a little bit to do with Boxer, and my opinion is more or less unchanged - a technologically fantastic vehicle, that is really just too big for what we need. The cavalry should be the most mobile and agile force we have, yet with Boxer being mobile and agile will be really difficult. With the renewed focus on the region, it would be interesting to see what the RFP for Phase 2 would look like if written today. I would imagine that there would be much more focus on mobility (particularly strategic and operational mobility) and much less focus on protection (fighting the last war, as always). There is some increasingly serious discussion on equipping at least a small part of the cavalry with Hawkei, to give at least some capability that is less than a 35 tonne combat weight.
Cant help myself in posting these!
Screen Shot 2020-08-09 at 10.18.30 am.pngScreen Shot 2020-08-09 at 10.18.49 am.png
 

Stampede

Active Member
I suspect a lot of the future recon role will be undertaken with both ground and aerial UAV assests.
That's not to say a manned vehicle will not have a place.

While the Boxer looks an an impressive beast , so will the winner of Land 400 Phase three..
For lighter motorised operations, I can see the Hawkei / Bushmaster combination fulfilling the wide range of tasks within a reinforced battalion size battle group, including the reconnaissance element.
For heavy operations of a battalion sized battle group made up of heavy things on tracks, then maybe the vehicle in the recon role should be an IFV.
Boxer will not have too dissimilar size to the winning IFV, which in this day and age will have the impressive combination of cross country speed / Armour and fire power.

Not sure where to place the Boxer today and into the future.

Maybe not recon, but rather embedded in the Motorized battalions as a fire support asset.
Or maybe something else?????
As has been mentioned, if we re did Land 400 Phase Two today, what would we request.

Boxer......a capable beast looking for a role ??????


Regards S
 
1596938116420.png
Two optionally manned M113s at the Majura Training Area.

Force Structure Plan 2020 https://www.defence.gov.au/StrategicUpdate-2020/docs/2020_Force_Structure_Plan.pdf has on Page 72
"Acquisition of a fleet, up to a brigade in size, of un-crewed systems, to include vehicles, to support operations by land forces. This will enhance the war-fighting capability of the ADF while also protecting Australian personnel "​

Asia Pacific Defence Reporter Government investing in Army’s autonomous vehicles - APDR has an article on current developments.

This is in line with similar Air Force and Navy developments. But having 4 moving to 20 optionally manned M113s under R&D and the possibility of a brigade sized fleet makes it real for me. The traditional bugbear of Army expansion, the need to recruit/fund extra personnel, is reduced. News | BAE Systems and ADF showcase autonomous vehicles for Australian Army | BAE Systems | Australia.
 
Last edited:

MARKMILES77

Active Member
One criticism about using the Hawkei as a Recon Vehicle has been that the engine is not protected from any ballistic threat. (Doesnt need mine blast protection)
But some of you might remember that I posted on here 3 years ago that Thales were asked to look at options/a kit for armouring the engine bay by Defence. I have no idea whether that has progressed at all though.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
When all said and done no one vehicle or asset is perfect for recon in the modern battlefield let alone over the last couple of decades had we been up against a peer enemy. Go to ok small for speed, mobility and agility as historically required of recon vehicles and modern guided man portable munitions can rip them apart, go to large and they can stand out more. Just comes down to needing assets across various size classes that if needed can be up gunned allowing leadership options so they can pick what is best for the situation. The days of one asset for one role are long gone.
 
Top