Australian Army Discussions and Updates

MARKMILES77

Active Member
RAVEN22

As to the solution for Phase 2, as I think I’ve said a few times I think the best solution would be a vehicle around the 20 - 25 tonne mark. The Boxer is the result of passive protection having an unreasonably high priority - which stems from learning the wrong lessons from Iraq/Afghanistan. However, by mandating the vehicle have such a high level of protection, while also mandating they must be MOTS vehicles (which means they must be adapted IFVs), the solution was always going to be huge and heavy.
So have the French got it absolutely right with the EBRC Jaguar?
20-25 tonne highly mobile vehicle, heavily armed with 40mm cannon and MMP protected against 14.5mm AP Rounds.
 

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
So have the French got it absolutely right with the EBRC Jaguar?
20-25 tonne highly mobile vehicle, heavily armed with 40mm cannon and MMP protected against 14.5mm AP Rounds.
I can’t find any info regarding dismounts, just a crew of 3.
So absolutely right? I don’t think there is such a thing. There is no absolute all round armoured vehicle that will do everything an arm or vehicle could be asked to do. As a recon vehicle, for a larger more versatile army than Australia’s this does look like a valuable asset, but not really suitable for us.
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Did I miss something ? Anyone know of this or what type of craft they are talking about ?

"The Morrison Government will acquire an Australian made 12.5 metre regional support craft to boost border protection in Far North Queensland"

"The craft will be operated by Army’s 51st Far North Queensland Regiment, enabling them to perform tasks including search and rescue, recovery and casualty evacuation operations"


Cheers
 

Milne Bay

Active Member
Did I miss something ? Anyone know of this or what type of craft they are talking about ?

"The Morrison Government will acquire an Australian made 12.5 metre regional support craft to boost border protection in Far North Queensland"

"The craft will be operated by Army’s 51st Far North Queensland Regiment, enabling them to perform tasks including search and rescue, recovery and casualty evacuation operations"


Cheers
I don't know who is making it or where it will be sourced, but it sounds something like the sea rescue boats that we have about here.
Ours are made by Steber in Taree
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I can’t find any info regarding dismounts, just a crew of 3.
So absolutely right? I don’t think there is such a thing. There is no absolute all round armoured vehicle that will do everything an arm or vehicle could be asked to do. As a recon vehicle, for a larger more versatile army than Australia’s this does look like a valuable asset, but not really suitable for us.
There is some older, outdated design information on the EBRC floating around on the Internet based around a chassis prototype built in 2003, which was designed like an APC with space for 6-8 men in the back and was mostly built to demonstrate a compact 6x6 vehicle with an electric engine in general. In early concept drawings for Jaguar this chassis prototype was used placing the turret compartment in there, with people insinuating that this still would leave space for some dismounts behind it.

In the actual design chosen for Jaguar the conventional diesel engine was placed at the back. This fits French doctrine for employment of light cavalry, which do not employ dismounts on combat vehicles but carry these on organic other vehicles (currently VBL, in equal numbers to the combat vehicles). I've seen it suggested that these might be replaced with (25-ton !) VBMR Griffon rather than VBMR-L Serval, representing a major upgrade in protection there while not switching to the combined combat-and-dismount doctrine other countries like Australia run.
 
Last edited:

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
So have the French got it absolutely right with the EBRC Jaguar?
20-25 tonne highly mobile vehicle, heavily armed with 40mm cannon and MMP protected against 14.5mm AP Rounds.
There is a lot to like about the Jaguar, but I don’t think it would be particularly suitable for us. To keep costs down the chassis and drivetrain is adapted from commercial vehicles, which would introduce a number of compromises in the design. I would say it is more of an armoured car than a true armoured vehicle. The fact it is 6x6 would reduce mobility compared to 8x8 vehicles as well, although the rear axle steering is nice (although can only really be done because there is no rear troop compartment).

As others have said, its biggest problem for us would be the lack of a troop compartment at the back. The Jaguar is designed as a recon vehicle in the European mould, while we are after a cavalry vehicle. While we don’t necessarily need a troop compartment sized to carry a full section, we do need some space. The space is not only for scouts these days, but for everything else needed for a modern capability. Thing like UAV/UGVs and their operators, tethered and remote sensors, EW equipment and their operators, stowed rounds for the main gun and ATGM launcher so combat can be sustained away from immediate resupply, a million battery chargers to keep everything charged etc.

Having said that, a vehicle about 25 tonne, 8x8, with level IV armour, a turret with medium cannon and ATGM, would tick the main boxes. Really, a modern remake of the LAV-25 would be about perfect.

However, we can become overly focussed on the platform. The cavalry capability is much more than just the platform they are mounted in. There is lots we can do to enhance the capability that doesn’t involve the platform.
 

Pusser01

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Did I miss something ? Anyone know of this or what type of craft they are talking about ?

"The Morrison Government will acquire an Australian made 12.5 metre regional support craft to boost border protection in Far North Queensland"

"The craft will be operated by Army’s 51st Far North Queensland Regiment, enabling them to perform tasks including search and rescue, recovery and casualty evacuation operations"


Cheers
Up until 4-5 years ago the Malu Baizam was based up there manned by the Navy. She was relocated to Cairns & then sold. Seems funny they are replacing an asset they had previously deemed unnecessary. Cheers. MALU BAIZAM patrol boat (1996)
 

Takao

The Bunker Group
The Royal Regiment of Australian Artillery has just released a bunch of papers relating to the capability. Most are quite good reads, especially in the latter half, and provide some good points for debate and review.

I particularly like An Australian neglect of contemporary field artillery on p 53 and Lessons from Antillia on p 112. In fact, I'd suggest the latter be mandatory reading.

I would note one thing - these were written before the FSP was released. The authors were unaware of additional LRF and SPH.

 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
And ADM article states that K9 SPH and K10 supply vehicles are to be ordered:

They will be called the AS-9 SPH and AS-10 AARV in Australian service. Finally good to see the ARA getting a SP Howitzer, long overdue.
 

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Not a lot of rounds on hand. 48 with the gun and 104 with resin vehicle.
PZH2000 carries 60 rounds. Most of the other western 155mm SPH also carry 48 or fewer.

But the resupply vehicle can top the AS9 up at 10 rounds per minute automated and under armour. A bit faster than a bucket brigade of baggies reloading manually

oldsig
 
Last edited:

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
A quote from the link in Takao's last post struck me:
As demonstrated in the ongoing War in Donbass, current Russian counterbattery capability is an indirect fire response within 4-6 minutes. As the epitome of peer threats, Australian artillery should train to defeat Russian capability as a benchmark for conventional war fighting. Current Combat Team fire planning trends and likely counterbattery threats have been combined at Figure 1 to depict the folly of allocating a single fire unit of four guns to support a tactical manoeuvre action ...

...Notes: A displacement of 500m will likely defeat current Russian counterbattery capability. The K9 Thunder, a self-propelled howitzer considered for Project Land 8112, can achieve this.

Now, I know I have shared this video several times in this thread, but I do think a picture (video?) speaks a thousand words on this one.


The announcement strikes me as welcome news indeed.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
A quote from the link in Takao's last post struck me:


Now, I know I have shared this video several times in this thread, but I do think a picture (video?) speaks a thousand words on this one.


The announcement strikes me as welcome news indeed.
I’m not sure that is a fair comparison the M-109 was a A2, a very early model. The later Models A6/A7 can fire in about 60 secs. The Crew has been cut from 7 to 4 and don’t have to leave the Vehicle anymore to set up.
 

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
I’m not sure that is a fair comparison the M-109 was a A2, a very early model. The later Models A6/A7 can fire in about 60 secs. The Crew has been cut from 7 to 4 and don’t have to leave the Vehicle anymore to set up.
Fair point. I use it mostly for illustrative purposes - ie. for the kind of mobility referenced in Takao's link. I am sure it will be a welcome (and overdue) capability once properly realised.
 

Massive

Active Member
Finally downloaded the article and read it. Relatively high level and, with all due respect to the authors, not all that compellingly argued.

1. How does that fit in with Army’s Beersheba Brigade concept? So we should have an entire regular Brigade that is equipped and structured entirely differently to the rest of Army? Yeah, no...
I would have thought that any increase would be in the Beersheba brigades themselves? Otherwise potentially in combat support and combat service support to bring them up to a level so that the Beersheba concept is fully supported.

e.g. Adding a third cavalry squadron, a second or third tank squadron, an additional mechanised battlion to each brigade. Or, alternatively, adding a third air defence battery, beefing up logistics support for each brigade, etc etc.

The brigades do the land element force generation. IMHO any expansion of the Army would be about expanding the resources the brigades have to draw on to generate that force.

The whole concept of a "two ocean army" feels like a diversion. The army is the army, and it can be moved to the ocean it is needed at.

Regards,

Massive
 
Top