Australian Army Discussions and Updates

Bob53

Member
I was only referring to Archer. It would not be as survivable in the event of a close hit but it’s a lot more than a gun on a truck. As for shoot and scoot times it’s comparable and in some ways better as speed to next position would be superior.

My argument was only around the logistics of getting to the fight. Vehicle transport and crew transport are all additional movements and resources. Drive the last 4-500kms and devote the transport to fuel and ammo. As for the heavy formation argument I don’t see that as all that valid for the guns as they would/should be far behind the front lines. Even far behind the front lines, the outcomes in Donbas for stationary armoured and logistics vehicles suggest a sweeping change to thinking is either happening or coming.

For the cost of the 30 guns the AU army is getting ($1.3b) and the trucks required to move them we could have had 60-80 tubes ($4.5m each cost plus 2x that in support...sorry can’t copy the Wikipedia link for some reason) and the adage quantity has a quality all of its own still applies these days. If we are not on a budget these days it’s certainly coming.

Takao .....you said Overall, a GOAT is less flexible, less capable, slower and less resilient to a SPH - tracked or wheeled..... I’d argue otherwise on all bar the resilience under fire.
All a bit moot but we have discussed moot points plenty of times on this thread.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
I was only referring to Archer. It would not be as survivable in the event of a close hit but it’s a lot more than a gun on a truck. As for shoot and scoot times it’s comparable and in some ways better as speed to next position would be superior.

My argument was only around the logistics of getting to the fight. Vehicle transport and crew transport are all additional movements and resources. Drive the last 4-500kms and devote the transport to fuel and ammo. As for the heavy formation argument I don’t see that as all that valid for the guns as they would/should be far behind the front lines. Even far behind the front lines, the outcomes in Donbas for stationary armoured and logistics vehicles suggest a sweeping change to thinking is either happening or coming.

For the cost of the 30 guns the AU army is getting ($1.3b) and the trucks required to move them we could have had 60-80 tubes ($4.5m each cost plus 2x that in support...sorry can’t copy the Wikipedia link for some reason) and the adage quantity has a quality all of its own still applies these days. If we are not on a budget these days it’s certainly coming.

Takao .....you said Overall, a GOAT is less flexible, less capable, slower and less resilient to a SPH - tracked or wheeled..... I’d argue otherwise on all bar the resilience under fire.
All a bit moot but we have discussed moot points plenty of times on this thread.
Wikipedia is not regarded as a reliable source on this site.
Why should your Guns always be far behind the lines? The closer to the lines they are the shorter the distance to the enemy lines, thus providing faster and generally more accurate fire, Shoot and scoot is about avoiding Counter Battery fire, one way of overcoming Shoot and scoot is to cut down the range and speed of your reaction time.
The GOAT is only going to be faster to the next position if you are using a decent road, once off road especially in Muddy, Sandy, Hilly, Snowy conditions, then the Tracked Vehicle has the advantage and they can go the same places as the Tanks and IFVs in the same conditions.
 

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
Some new footage of Hanwha's LAND 400 Ph3 contender - the AS21 Redback - stretching its legs in Aus.


The AS21 and Lynx look like mirror images of each other to my untrained eyes. Two solid options on the table regardless.

EDIT: The most recent video of Lynx I could find was from a month ago - in case anyone wants to make comparisons:

 
Last edited:

Bob53

Member
Wikipedia is not regarded as a reliable source on this site.
Why should your Guns always be far behind the lines? The closer to the lines they are the shorter the distance to the enemy lines, thus providing faster and generally more accurate fire, Shoot and scoot is about avoiding Counter Battery fire, one way of overcoming Shoot and scoot is to cut down the range and speed of your reaction time.
The GOAT is only going to be faster to the next position if you are using a decent road, once off road especially in Muddy, Sandy, Hilly, Snowy conditions, then the Tracked Vehicle has the advantage and they can go the same places as the Tanks and IFVs in the same conditions.
Re the distance behind front lines. SPH would be some distance behind the hand to hand gun v gun fighting....hence the massive global drive for longer range for all artillery. There is no need to have artillery side by side with a tank for example and the further back the better. The closer to the enemy.... yes friendly rounds have faster flight times to target but equally counter battery fire can get at its target faster. As the influence of AI combined with Drone targeting and current/next gen counter battery radar ramps up on the battlefield, the response times to just about any action will be counted in seconds so my guess is max range would be beneficial. What do Australia have for this work?

Sorry wasn’t aware of the Wikipedia issue. The price/project costs are mentioned in a few article I have read....some a bit out of date.

 

buffy9

Active Member
Re the distance behind front lines. SPH would be some distance behind the hand to hand gun v gun fighting....hence the massive global drive for longer range for all artillery. There is no need to have artillery side by side with a tank for example and the further back the better. The closer to the enemy.... yes friendly rounds have faster flight times to target but equally counter battery fire can get at its target faster. As the influence of AI combined with Drone targeting and current/next gen counter battery radar ramps up on the battlefield, the response times to just about any action will be counted in seconds so my guess is max range would be beneficial. What do Australia have for this work?

Sorry wasn’t aware of the Wikipedia issue. The price/project costs are mentioned in a few article I have read....some a bit out of date.

Depends on the nuances of the situation I would say. Longer ranged arty gives you an advantage in counter-battery fire and that may be a role assigned to a SPH section or battery. That is only one job the guns of a battery or regiment may be doing, however. If the mission is to support friendly forces with danger close missions via a fire plan, then proximity will be favored for a variety of reasons (better precision, better communications, etc). Having to relay communications some forty or fifty km via HF is not ideal when you can communicate directly via VHF at say ten or fifteen km.

Again though it depends on the nuances of the situation - if counter-battery fire is a serious threat to our own artillery, the commander may choose to have the guns further back or they may choose to rely on alternative fires (i.e. CAS). Considering the proliferation of more advanced air defences by potential opposition, a major driver of increased arty range (in addition to counter-battery fire) may also be the need for the battlegroup or brigade to hit targets in depth, which may be a mission or task assigned to the battery/regiment if needed.

In summary it depends on the situation and what exactly the commander has in mind for the artillery assigned to them. If I had 155mm landing in front of me, I'd much rather be able to talk to the CP with a VHF radio than HF - it makes communications quicker and clearer, all with a smaller piece of kit.

VHF = Very High Frequency, 30 to 300 megahertz, good line of sight/just out of sight comms.
HF = High Frequency, 3 and 30 megahertz, good for long-range comms.
(Not to insult intelligence, just for any lurkers who may not know)
 
Last edited:

John Newman

The Bunker Group
It’s finally official, Apache is in, and Tiger out:


I wonder if Tiger will be sold or scrapped? Or sell them back to the Europeans to help sustain the Euro fleet?

Cheers,
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
It’s finally official, Apache is in, and Tiger out:


I wonder if Tiger will be sold or scrapped? Or sell them back to the Europeans to help sustain the Euro fleet?

Cheers,
Not a bad platform but a bit like buying F-15E to replace our F/A-18F fleet. It is better in some ways, worse in others, and at the end of its development with it replacement only a decade off. By the time the Apache has achieved FOC, everyone else will be introducing new capabilities.
 
Last edited:

Milne Bay

Active Member
Not a bad platform but a bit like buying F-15E to replace our F/A-18F fleet. It is better in some ways, worse in others, and at the end of its development with it replacement only a decade off. By the time the Apache has achieved FOC with the regiment relocated to QLD, everyone else will be introducing new capabilities.
Yes, that begs the question though - could the Tiger soldier on for another decade, and if not, what else besides Apache should they have chosen?
MB
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
It’s finally official, Apache is in, and Tiger out:


I wonder if Tiger will be sold or scrapped? Or sell them back to the Europeans to help sustain the Euro fleet?

Cheers,
Nothing on final numbers though.
Not a bad platform but a bit like buying F-15E to replace our F/A-18F fleet. It is better in some ways, worse in others, and at the end of its development with it replacement only a decade off. By the time the Apache has achieved FOC with the regiment relocated to QLD, everyone else will be introducing new capabilities.
But like the F-15E it still has decades of service life with the original Customer to go and there is still a long way to go with the FVL program before we would see a AH-? in Australian service.
Also i think Australia is paying a price for not going down the Attack/ARH Helicopter when we should have, by the early 90s at the latest. Say replace the Kiowas and UH-1H Gunships in the 90s with either the AH-64A or AH-1W, get a more mature Tiger around 2010-15 and then get the newer technology Aircraft in the 2030s.
 
Last edited:

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Nothing on final numbers though.
Whilst the Def Mins press release doesn’t mention numbers, it’s 29.

That has been the reported number required for a long time.

Airbus tried to offer an upgrade to the existing 22 Tigers and add 7 EC-145, this was officially rejected by the Government.

Airbus was then reported as trying to get seven (7) used airframes from one of the Euro operators to make up the numbers to 29, Tiger production ended a couple of years ago, no more new airframes available.

Cheers,
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Whilst the Def Mins press release doesn’t mention numbers, it’s 29.

That has been the reported number required for a long time.

Airbus tried to offer an upgrade to the existing 22 Tigers and add 7 EC-145, this was officially rejected by the Government.

Airbus was then reported as trying to get seven (7) used airframes from one of the Euro operators to make up the numbers to 29, Tiger production ended a couple of years ago, no more new airframes available.

Cheers,
John
Its always been reported as up to 29, there has never been any confirmation that it will definitely be 29. We need to wait and see on confirmation.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
John
Its always been reported as up to 29, there has never been any confirmation that it will definitely be 29. We need to wait and see on confirmation.
Have a read of this:

 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Have a read of this:

Thanks John, missed that one. We will definitely go with 29 then. I was fully aware of the Airbus offer as i do read every post put on this thread.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Thanks John, missed that one. We will definitely go with 29 then. I was fully aware of the Airbus offer as i do read every post put on this thread.
No prob mate.

I have only ever seen the numbers being reported as being 29 airframes (24 for operations and 5 for training), not ‘up to 29’ which clearly made it difficult for Airbus, not that I think they ever had a chance of getting an upgraded Tiger across the line.

Cheers,
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Yes, that begs the question though - could the Tiger soldier on for another decade, and if not, what else besides Apache should they have chosen?
MB
Well a decision has finally being made regarding our future ARH capability.

For good or bad we now move forward with this decision.

Trust Apache serves Army well in the decades ahead.

Regards S
 
Top