Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Todjaeger]

For balance the US military actively recruits from its U.S. territories in the Pacific particularly Micronesia and American Samoa in Polynesia.

And these can be much smaller societies and are more spread out. Seems the US has made it work to some extent (including those recruited from the islands serving in Afghanistan and Iraq within the US military).

A bit of an apples to oranges comparison between US recruitment from US territories in the Pacific and the ideas I have seen thus far for Australia to recruit Pacific Islanders. One of the key ones is that US overseas territories are US possessions subject to US laws and oversight, as well as already providing US citizenship.

Being subject to US laws and oversight I suspect would hinder and limit the ability of potential recruits/personnel joining with ill intent to not only make it through US screening and training processes, but to also make use of skills learned. Among other things, such actions could trigger responses from the US military and/or law enforcement and intel communities. By the same token, the US gov't can and has deployed resources to aid these territories in response to disasters and sometimes even ahead of pending events.

In these regards, I would consider US recruitment from places like Guam or Saipan to be much more like Australia recruiting from Norfolk or Christmas Island or the Cocos Islands.

 

[Maranoa]

It's really the recruitment process that Is failing the Army.
I've said it before.
The process is way too long and drawn out.
A simple entry exam to test the candidates ability to learn.
A criminal back ground check.
A medical assessment.
An aptitude test.
A psych test.
Sign the contract, get on the bus.....

Spot on mate. And, take the people who volunteer instead of ignoring those with their hands up and targeting out for diversity quotas.

 

[Bob53]

Curious where you the $4 billion price from.
I was always told in a free market the cost of an item is only as much as what someone is willing to pay for it.
As we have seen in the current market the price of a 2nd hand MH 90 is sweet F A.

That was the MRH 90 project cost.

 

[MickB]

how did they arrive at the decision to send them to the tip in the first place …… a massive and $4 billion dollar costly knee jerk response.


https://asiapacificdefencereporter....024/03/APDR-March-2024_InteractiveSingles.pdf

The sentance I quried was not about project cost.
It was you saying that in a knee jerk reaction they sent $4 billion to the tip.
How is several nearly 20 year old gutted shells worth $4 billion?

Is a 10 year old car sitting on blocks with the engine and gearbox missing worth the original sticker price?

 

[Aardvark144]

That was the MRH 90 project cost.

Remember the Project cost is for the entire project over it's original projected lifespan and not just the initial purchase cost. It also includes all the supporting elements for that platform (people, infrastructure etc). A good deal of the supporting elements will continue to be utilised with the UH60M.

 

[Volkodav]

It's really the recruitment process that Is failing the Army.
I've said it before.
The process is way too long and drawn out.
A simple entry exam to test the candidates ability to learn.
A criminal back ground check.
A medical assessment.
An aptitude test.
A psych test.
Sign the contract, get on the bus.....

Just look at some of the complete jerks they managed to recruit since 9/11. All their testing, evaluations etc. and they ended up with quite a few characters who would have been a better fit for prison than the ADF.

Maybe there is merit in reintroducing the Ready Reserve.

Bring in far more than you need, let those who aren't sure have a taste, and more importantly, identify and filter out the dickheads.

 

[Bob53]

There have been a few comments previously on this thread about using Skyranger 30 as short range air defence and anti drone option for the ADF. Germany just ordered 19 to be mounted on Boxerand it looks like it’s about $55 million per turrent.

Germany buys Rheinmetall’s Skyranger to reinstate mobile air defenses

Mounted on Boxer vehicles, the weapons are meant to close a capability left by the 2010 retirement of Germany's Gepard air-defense tanks.

www.defensenews.com

Austria is purchasing 36 and the cost there looks to be even higher.

 

[Morgo]

Boxerand it looks like it’s about $55 million per turrent.

Article says acquisition price is US650m (AUD1bn) for 49 units, or around AUD20m?

Given the baseline boxer is c. $10m it looks like skyranger is around $10m per unit? Not cheap but not prohibitively expensive.

 

[Bob53]

Article says acquisition price is US650m (AUD1bn) for 49 units, or around AUD20m?

Given the baseline boxer is c. $10m it looks like skyranger is around $10m per unit? Not cheap but not prohibitively expensive.

I’m reading different to you. Germany has up to 49 proposed but the actual order is for 19 with a cost of 595 million Euros.

The order contains one prototype and 18 production vehicles, with an option for 30 further vehicles. Rheinmetall said it would deliver the Bundeswehr’s prototype by the end of the year.

Austria ordered 36 with a cost of 1.2 billion euros.

 

[Morgo]

I’m reading different to you. Germany has up to 49 proposed but the actual order is for 19 with a cost of 595 million Euros.

The order contains one prototype and 18 production vehicles, with an option for 30 further vehicles. Rheinmetall said it would deliver the Bundeswehr’s prototype by the end of the year.

Austria ordered 36 with a cost of 1.2 billion euros.

Yeah fair enough - it’s not that clearly worded is it?

 

[Stampede]

Yeah fair enough - it’s not that clearly worded is it?

The main take away is that mobile localised air defence is recognized.
Something the ADF will need to consider.

If Boxer, Red back, Huntsman, and MBTs are to be deployed ,they will need localised air cover against the plethora of small aerial threats currently found in abundance Ukraine.

While the 30mm canon on the Boxer and Redback will provide some protection, a dedicated system has certainly proven it's worth in the current battle space.

Not a whim but a must have in this day and age.
Luckily there is planning for such a system on our future vehicles.

We just need the coin to buy it.


Cheers S

 

[StingrayOZ]

Billion-dollar deal to supply Australian-made Boxer vehicles to Germany to be signed today

Germany's parliament has approved a plan to buy more than 100 Boxer armoured vehicles in a deal being touted as Australia's "single biggest defence export" of all time.

www.abc.net.au

So the deal is done?!

The Germans are honoring their commitment. Which is good to see. I hope this helps future relations and future deals, both ways, for the two countries. Because I think these are two countries with broad security concerns, who could possibly help each other out if a strong relationship, over a huge distance, could happen. Strategically over a broad number of areas.

Military to military, would be good, as the Germans have a lot of knowledge of Euro equipment as users, so we can avoid the stuff that perhaps underperforms or is developmental, and get the good stuff that works.

Hopefully it provides some breathing room for perhaps a follow on order from Australia. As I am not quite sure the numbers are right. But there is a lot of evolution in this space.

 

[Stampede]

Billion-dollar deal to supply Australian-made Boxer vehicles to Germany to be signed today

Germany's parliament has approved a plan to buy more than 100 Boxer armoured vehicles in a deal being touted as Australia's "single biggest defence export" of all time.

www.abc.net.au

So the deal is done?!

The Germans are honoring their commitment. Which is good to see. I hope this helps future relations and future deals, both ways, for the two countries. Because I think these are two countries with broad security concerns, who could possibly help each other out if a strong relationship, over a huge distance, could happen. Strategically over a broad number of areas.

Military to military, would be good, as the Germans have a lot of knowledge of Euro equipment as users, so we can avoid the stuff that perhaps underperforms or is developmental, and get the good stuff that works.

Hopefully it provides some breathing room for perhaps a follow on order from Australia. As I am not quite sure the numbers are right. But there is a lot of evolution in this space.

To think only say ten years ago that Australia would be manufacturing such a vehicle for the German army.
We do live in strange times.
Does make you wonder if we do a good job of this project what other opportunities are out there.

Optimistic S

 

[Bob53]

Yeah fair enough - it’s not that clearly worded is it?

No it isn’t very clear at first read. requires a few reads. Bladdy expensive!

 

[Armchair]

Billion-dollar deal to supply Australian-made Boxer vehicles to Germany to be signed today

Germany's parliament has approved a plan to buy more than 100 Boxer armoured vehicles in a deal being touted as Australia's "single biggest defence export" of all time.

www.abc.net.au

Hopefully it provides some breathing room for perhaps a follow on order from Australia. As I am not quite sure the numbers are right. But there is a lot of evolution in this space.

The numbers are not right but I am not sure they provide hope for a bigger order of CRVs for Australia.
The planned ratio of 75 MBT, 129 IFV and 211 CRV screams out for more IFVs rather than CRVs (especially, I would think, if Army is less likely to be operating in Western Asia and more likely to be in wet tropical regions). I guess that could change if Boxer hulls are to be used in larger numbers for AD, EW, mortars, logistics and (more speculatively) to provide an APC capability to make up for IFV deficiencies.
It will be interesting to see what vehicles the experimental 1st Armoured Regiment gets to work with.

 

[Unric]

Could be a worthwhile option for more "cheap" IFV - Redbacks are supposed to cost around 5 - 7 billion for 129 vehicles while the boxers cost marginally less at 5.2 billion for 211. Two for the price of one: Why is Australia being charged double for Boxer MIVs?. So around 2 for 1 (in theory and I realise it's not exactly apples for apples). Also what might suit the Brits may not suit the ADF. Although that can't be completely true or else why buy boxer for the Cav?

 

[Redlands18]

Could be a worthwhile option for more "cheap" IFV - Redbacks are supposed to cost around 5 - 7 billion for 129 vehicles while the boxers cost marginally less at 5.2 billion for 211. Two for the price of one: Why is Australia being charged double for Boxer MIVs?. So around 2 for 1 (in theory and I realise it's not exactly apples for apples). Also what might suit the Brits may not suit the ADF. Although that can't be completely true or else why buy boxer for the Cav?

You need to read the article you have linked, it explains the difference between costing of the Australian vehicles versus the UK costing. The UK costing is for procurement and 10 years of support costs, Australian costing as with all ADF projects is for life of type support, up to 30 years. Australian up front costing always looks a lot higher because it includes a lot more than many countries do.

 

[Unric]

Yep. Was only using the article as a ref for the $5 billion price tag for the AU boxers which as you pointed out includes life cost. Another link here has redback at 4.7 bil US. How South Korea’s AS21 Redback IFV Won out in Australia. Although it's not clear what's in that price. My point is that for similar prices you only get almost half as many Redbacks. But I agree with you that comparing prices is a fraught with difficulty. Prices can fluctuate greatly in just a few years.

 

[Todjaeger]

Yep. Was only using the article as a ref for the $5 billion price tag for the AU boxers which as you pointed out includes life cost. Another link here has redback at 4.7 bil US. How South Korea’s AS21 Redback IFV Won out in Australia. Although it's not clear what's in that price. My point is that for similar prices you only get almost half as many Redbacks. But I agree with you that comparing prices is a fraught with difficulty. Prices can fluctuate greatly in just a few years.

I believe you missed the point of @Redlands18 's post since an Australian price which includes the estimated whole of service life costs is quite different and going to be vastly more than the "drive away" costs another nation might list, or in this case, even including 10 years of support.

Australian price estimates are going to be high, because are intended to include every cost associated with a given programme/capability, for the entirety of it's service life. Just factoring in something like the estimated costs for fuel over a vehicle fleet's expected 30 year service life is going to provide a different number vs. a estimate that does something similar but only for a decade.

History has tended to show kit acquisition costs (aka flyaway costs) to just purchase a given piece of advanced kit, to only be around a third of the total cost of ownership and operation of a piece of kit for a ~30 year service life, assuming no unexpected losses due to accident, combat, etc.

As a side note with kit pricing, I from my POV it is not so much that prices vary widely from year to year, but much more what else is included with a contract to purchase a piece of kit or capability. For instance, is a training package and/or simulators included in the contract? What about parts, spares and support? Does there need to be upgrades to or expansion of base infrastructure?

Attempting to compare the procurements for different kit, by different nations which cost and estimate things differently, is going to be an apples to oranges comparison in most cases. It would potentially be somewhat different if we were to look at different DSCA releases for the same pieces of kit ordered by different nations, but that is because the cost estimates would those provided by the US, in USD$, for the different purchasing nations

 

[Unric]

I got Redlands point. Unfortunately, my first link seems to have confused what I was trying to say. I wasn't at all interested in the price the Brits were getting compared to the Au prices. I think that article explains that well enough. I was only including it to support AU boxer pricing as compared to Au redback pricing to make the point that boxers may be a significantly cheaper future option. Although as pointed out, hard to tell. My other reference to the brits was only insofar as they're going wheeled over tracks so they must consider the trade off worthwhile. Anyway, since this is just creating noise at this point, I'll get back in my box.