FutureTank
Banned Member
Land 400
Has there been any news from the LAND 400 PMO?
Has there been any news from the LAND 400 PMO?
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
2 Digs lost their lives serving in Afghanistan last week.
RIP. My thoughts are with their mates, fellow diggs and family.
RIP. My thoughts are with their mates, fellow diggs and family.
I was wondering about economic stimulas packages we are seeing in the present economic enviroment and what the ADF's share was.
All i have found is that 793 million dollars will be spent on
new facilities and support infrastructure at ADF bases around the country.Construction from mid 2009 and finishing late 2011.
In the rest of the world the US has a 5.9 billion dollar constructin and repair budget from their economic stimulas package.The us military gets 7.4 billion dollars from the 787 billion dollar american recovery and reinvestment act. The french are using some of their stimulas spending to accelerate key military equipment modernization projects.
I do like what the french are doing in particular and am hoping that the aus government will take a leaf from their book if possible.
All i have found is that 793 million dollars will be spent on
new facilities and support infrastructure at ADF bases around the country.Construction from mid 2009 and finishing late 2011.
In the rest of the world the US has a 5.9 billion dollar constructin and repair budget from their economic stimulas package.The us military gets 7.4 billion dollars from the 787 billion dollar american recovery and reinvestment act. The french are using some of their stimulas spending to accelerate key military equipment modernization projects.
I do like what the french are doing in particular and am hoping that the aus government will take a leaf from their book if possible.
Last edited:
sierradelta
New Member
If 3RAR are still set to loose their status as airborne I was wondering whether this also affects the units that supported the airborne group artillery, medics etc. Or will they continue in their current role, keeping their wings for any possible mission supporting 4RAR?
The following appeared on the UK MOD website, explaining how Anglo-Oz Gunners are working in unison to support of 3-Commando in A-Stan. The photo's show the Aus Gun teams in action.
I understand this is the second rotation for Australian Gunners working with the UK Battle Group. According to Rudd (London talks), we are likely to see increased cooperation above and beyond SF units in the field.
It's a shame you don't read move about such activity in the Aussie press.
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/TalibanFearThedragon.htm
On a less positive note I read the following report in the Australian (link below), which if true makes for pretty depressing reading.
I can't understand why the Aus Government doesn't operate a UOR system, buying urgently needed equipment or upgrades for use in war, which is paid for outside the Defence budget, thus reducing the impact upon long term defence procurement. Both the US & UK have used this process to buy much need equipment for the Afghan theatre, particularly MARP vehicles, UAV's and increased fire-support.
Why aren't the M113's being upgraded along the lines of the UK Bulldog programme for example as a matter of urgency?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25264936-28737,00.html
I understand this is the second rotation for Australian Gunners working with the UK Battle Group. According to Rudd (London talks), we are likely to see increased cooperation above and beyond SF units in the field.
It's a shame you don't read move about such activity in the Aussie press.
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/TalibanFearThedragon.htm
On a less positive note I read the following report in the Australian (link below), which if true makes for pretty depressing reading.
I can't understand why the Aus Government doesn't operate a UOR system, buying urgently needed equipment or upgrades for use in war, which is paid for outside the Defence budget, thus reducing the impact upon long term defence procurement. Both the US & UK have used this process to buy much need equipment for the Afghan theatre, particularly MARP vehicles, UAV's and increased fire-support.
Why aren't the M113's being upgraded along the lines of the UK Bulldog programme for example as a matter of urgency?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25264936-28737,00.html
Last edited:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Australia does have a Urgent operational Requirement acquisition capability. The Javelin ATGW and Mk 19 auto-grenade launchers for SASR/4RAR (Cmdo) and the Bar armour and Konsberg Remote Weapon stations for ASLAV's are some examples of urgent acquisitions we have made in recent years.
M113's are being upgraded (slowly admittedly) under a formed program that has existed for a LONG time. Poor management, scope creep and poor contractor performance (pretty much the same time old theme in defence Acquisition) has led to the delays in the overall program.
A rapid upgrade of already upgraded vehicles, including additional belly armour, anti-rpg bar armour, air conditioning and other modifications are being considered for the M113AS4 in Australian service and would definitely be integrated if a deployment to Afghanistan were on the cards.
M113AS4 will only deploy to the Ghan if a serious combat deployment of conventional land forces were being considered.
The ASLAV and Bushmaster already there, are more than sufficient for the current tasks.
winnyfield
New Member
If it were known that the M113AS4s were to deploy, I'll bet they'd get their sh*t together pretty quickly. Before you know it they'd additional armor, RWS etc.
I am curious as to why the DEFMIN is so upset. The situationis far better than the state we were in when the ALP left power a decade and half ago......., you know .. ten years to prepare for a threat.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
He is upset, because he hasn't got a clue and can't come to grips with the complexity of his own portfolio.
Hence him lashing out in offence at any perceived "ills"... He is trying to redirect blame...
The M113AS4's won't be deployed quickly. Only 42 have been delivered and most of them are still with the trade training schools. Not enough capability has been put in service to support and operate them as yet, as the battalions are flat out on current ops...
winnyfield
New Member
Blast from the past.
http://www.olarmyjoel.com/Virtual Arms Room/australian_leader_dynamics_t2_mk.htm
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkLJgG4R_0o"]YouTube - Tasmanian Devil Experimental T2 MK5 Assault Rifle[/ame]
http://www.olarmyjoel.com/Virtual Arms Room/australian_leader_dynamics_t2_mk.htm
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkLJgG4R_0o"]YouTube - Tasmanian Devil Experimental T2 MK5 Assault Rifle[/ame]
Tassie devil eh?
I actually used that rifle at the infantry centre , Singleton in 1985. It was 1 of 3 contenders to replace the SLR (L1A1). The other 2 contenders were the M16A2 and the Styer Aug. .....The Styer won, the Tas Devil, was known to us as the Leader. It was a very good rifle, and seen as marginaly better than the M16 family. It took all M16 CES,ie magazines, cleaning kit, M203, BFA bayonet etc.
However, it was also considered not much of an improvment over the M16, and the Styer was percieved to offer more advantages....I like the F88, however, it has proved a lot more difficult to train with than a conventional rifle. I know many will disagree with that coment, but as a section commander, prior to and after the intro of the F88, the number of UD,s absolutley blew out! It was embaressing!
The Leader achieved resonable sales in the US as a sporting rifle, and prior to our new gun laws, even a few sold in Tas and SA. I like this rifle.
I actually used that rifle at the infantry centre , Singleton in 1985. It was 1 of 3 contenders to replace the SLR (L1A1). The other 2 contenders were the M16A2 and the Styer Aug. .....The Styer won, the Tas Devil, was known to us as the Leader. It was a very good rifle, and seen as marginaly better than the M16 family. It took all M16 CES,ie magazines, cleaning kit, M203, BFA bayonet etc.
However, it was also considered not much of an improvment over the M16, and the Styer was percieved to offer more advantages....I like the F88, however, it has proved a lot more difficult to train with than a conventional rifle. I know many will disagree with that coment, but as a section commander, prior to and after the intro of the F88, the number of UD,s absolutley blew out! It was embaressing!
The Leader achieved resonable sales in the US as a sporting rifle, and prior to our new gun laws, even a few sold in Tas and SA. I like this rifle.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
From DSCA:
Australia's requests up to 7x CH-47F Chinooks, plus weapons, avionics, engines, spares, technical manuals and contractor support for $560m.
http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2009/Australia_09-17.pdf
Be interesting to know what the rationale behind a fleet of 13x Chinooks is, unless they are replacing some existing Chooks...
Australia's requests up to 7x CH-47F Chinooks, plus weapons, avionics, engines, spares, technical manuals and contractor support for $560m.
http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2009/Australia_09-17.pdf
Be interesting to know what the rationale behind a fleet of 13x Chinooks is, unless they are replacing some existing Chooks...
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Quite possibly, though it could also be an availability issue as well.
Army apparently intends to rebuild it's CH-47D's into "F" models at some point and I imagine that will result in a significant downtime for the fleet. A Hornet centre barrel replacement takes 9 months from start to finish, so I can't see an entire rebuilt Chinook airframe, being much quicker than that!
Any production line capacity increase is likely to be offset by the extra demand for F model rebuilds, I would expect, so I would reckon that the F model rebuild would be a fairly lengthy process, followed by a test and evaluation period.
Perhaps the extra airframe is designed to manage that, keeping Army's capability at 12x helo's whilst the "F" model upgrade is occurring, with the benefit of an extra airframe at the end?
There were significant rumours of a "12 strong" Chinook fleet a while back. Perhaps the extra airframe is to allow this "downtime" to be managed, something ADF no doubt learnt with the F/A-18 HUG.
Whilst it has produced an excellent combat capability, the extensive nature of the HUG has led to significant availability issues with the Hornets for the operational Squadrons.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25383010-601,00.html
Anyone knows whether in the 8 Infantry Bn Figure 4th RAR is included or excluded?Because for me it sounds like they may raise an add. Infantry Bn (I might be wrong tough)
blueorchid
Member
When the Howard gov. announced the Army was to grow to 8 Bn's the Army was to be around 30,000, this was including the 4th Bn (Comando). If another Bn was to be added the figure would grow close to 32,000 to included all the other units needed to support another Bn.
Cheers
There was a rumour that three ch-47f s had been ordered (or there were plans to) by the former howard govt just before it was booted.From DSCA:
Australia's requests up to 7x CH-47F Chinooks, plus weapons, avionics, engines, spares, technical manuals and contractor support for $560m.
http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2009/Australia_09-17.pdf
Be interesting to know what the rationale behind a fleet of 13x Chinooks is, unless they are replacing some existing Chooks...
Is this the culmination of that or an entirely different labor initiative i wonder?
rb
Rumours? How about 1st pass decisions...
The Future Australian Chinook Capability (FACC) scoped by CDG and the ADF was (as of mid last year):
Air 9000 Phase 5C that received 1st Pass approval on 13 September 2007 to acquire three new build CH-47F, upgrade AAAvn Chinook facilities at RAAF Base Townsville and acquire a portable flight proficiency training system for the all-glass cockpit fully integrated digital Common Avionics Architecture System (CAAS) of the CH-47F.
Air 9000 Phase 5B was next to replace the current six CH-47Ds with CH-47Fs either by acquiring new builds or renewing the existing helicopters into CH-47Fs. Phase 5B was approved by Defence’s Capability Development Board (CDB) on 7 May 2008 and was likely to progress to first pass approval in December 2008. If approved by Government both Phase 5C and 5B will return for a joint second pass approval in October 2009 for acquisition and/or renewal of nine CH-47Fs.
The final FACC step is Phase 5D to meet on objective Chinook capability of 12 CH-47Fs of a homogeneous standard in two AAAvn squadrons and probably their own regimental headquarters. Phase 5D was unapproved for entry into the Defence Capability Plan (DCP) by mid 2008. The CDG timetable for Phase 5D is Government first pass approval in July 2012 with second pass in June 2013 leading to contract award in December 2014.
So what does this DSCA announcement mean? Australia has asked for seven new build CH-47F which concides with the numbers required for Phase 5B and 5D. Since this is different to the 3 new +6 rebuild +3 new plan it has obviously been rescoped. This doesn't mean the FACC has abandoned fleet growth to 12 CH-47F.
I wonder if FMS could support a rebuild of a customer supplied CH-47D to CH-47F because the donor airframe would not be US GFE. I would imagine the rebuild option would need to be a direct commercial arrangement between Aussie and Boeing Vertol.
So FMS is used to acquire the additional birds and direct commercial arrangement for the rebuilds. Keeping the Deltas flying while the transition to the Foxtrots makes a lot of sense. Then they can be rebuilt to F models. This way aircraft do not have to be withdrawn from the already stressed fleet to be sent to the USA to be rebuilt.
Of course the Deltas could become scrap but considering the importance of the Chinook I doubt it. The Caribou withdrawal has nothing to do with Chook numbers. Chooks are all about fighting in Afghanistan for at least another six years. And that's where additional aircraft are needed.
The Future Australian Chinook Capability (FACC) scoped by CDG and the ADF was (as of mid last year):
Air 9000 Phase 5C that received 1st Pass approval on 13 September 2007 to acquire three new build CH-47F, upgrade AAAvn Chinook facilities at RAAF Base Townsville and acquire a portable flight proficiency training system for the all-glass cockpit fully integrated digital Common Avionics Architecture System (CAAS) of the CH-47F.
Air 9000 Phase 5B was next to replace the current six CH-47Ds with CH-47Fs either by acquiring new builds or renewing the existing helicopters into CH-47Fs. Phase 5B was approved by Defence’s Capability Development Board (CDB) on 7 May 2008 and was likely to progress to first pass approval in December 2008. If approved by Government both Phase 5C and 5B will return for a joint second pass approval in October 2009 for acquisition and/or renewal of nine CH-47Fs.
The final FACC step is Phase 5D to meet on objective Chinook capability of 12 CH-47Fs of a homogeneous standard in two AAAvn squadrons and probably their own regimental headquarters. Phase 5D was unapproved for entry into the Defence Capability Plan (DCP) by mid 2008. The CDG timetable for Phase 5D is Government first pass approval in July 2012 with second pass in June 2013 leading to contract award in December 2014.
So what does this DSCA announcement mean? Australia has asked for seven new build CH-47F which concides with the numbers required for Phase 5B and 5D. Since this is different to the 3 new +6 rebuild +3 new plan it has obviously been rescoped. This doesn't mean the FACC has abandoned fleet growth to 12 CH-47F.
I wonder if FMS could support a rebuild of a customer supplied CH-47D to CH-47F because the donor airframe would not be US GFE. I would imagine the rebuild option would need to be a direct commercial arrangement between Aussie and Boeing Vertol.
So FMS is used to acquire the additional birds and direct commercial arrangement for the rebuilds. Keeping the Deltas flying while the transition to the Foxtrots makes a lot of sense. Then they can be rebuilt to F models. This way aircraft do not have to be withdrawn from the already stressed fleet to be sent to the USA to be rebuilt.
Of course the Deltas could become scrap but considering the importance of the Chinook I doubt it. The Caribou withdrawal has nothing to do with Chook numbers. Chooks are all about fighting in Afghanistan for at least another six years. And that's where additional aircraft are needed.
the road runner
Active Member
450 more troops to be sent to Afghanistan annonced today by PM
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h98KtcL1rVm_U_D8d16eoYE_mDDQD97RV3080
The Aussie army will be enhancing its training for ANA troops.I do see this as a good thing,train em up and make them Responsible for there own countrys security.
Rudd said. "If anything, security in Afghanistan is deteriorating."
This is ther reason for sending more troops,but it is a worrying sign.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h98KtcL1rVm_U_D8d16eoYE_mDDQD97RV3080
The Aussie army will be enhancing its training for ANA troops.I do see this as a good thing,train em up and make them Responsible for there own countrys security.
Rudd said. "If anything, security in Afghanistan is deteriorating."
This is ther reason for sending more troops,but it is a worrying sign.
blueorchid
Member
From the White Paper just released, only 7 new "F" Chinook's are to be purchased and these will replace the current six "D" models so an increase of only one Chinook, which is quiet disappointing.
Cheers