Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[MARKMILES77]

Giat was teamed with ADI to offer the Caeser before it became clear that the SP gun had to be able to be fired from under armour. At that stage they were considering offering the gun on a 6X6 version of the Bushmaster based on the logistics variant.
(See my Avatar for a photo of the 4X4 version of the Bushmaster Logistics vehicle also known as the Copperhead.)



The K-9 may not be quite up to the standards of the PzH-2000 but it would certainly be a huge step up from the current towed M-198s!

 

[Aussie Digger]

I don't know if this has been raised within this forum before (I haven't read all posts) but would it be wise or likely to imbed a 15xcanister launcher for netfires (pam and/or lam) within each battery, purely for more time critical and moving targets?

Not under the initial phases of Land 17. Army is focused on fire control systems, SPG's and new ammunition natures at present, with new lightweight 155mm guns or upgraded M198's further down the track in terms of priority.

NLOS-LS or MLRS/HIMARS type capability would be very nice, however it "ain't on the shopping list" quite yet...

 

[FutureTank]

The K-9 may not be quite up to the standards of the PzH-2000 but it would certainly be a huge step up from the current towed M-198s!

I think Australia can be thinking about future artillery systems based on fullly, or at least semi-automated feed like that used on the naval platforms. This would provide the volume of fire while reducing on the manning levels, and conceivably the overall size of the vehicle.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I think Australia can be thinking about future artillery systems based on fullly, or at least semi-automated feed like that used on the naval platforms. This would provide the volume of fire while reducing on the manning levels, and conceivably the overall size of the vehicle.

The Archer and the PZH-2000 already have these features and are definitely in the running for Land 17. The PZH-2000 particularly...

 

[FutureTank]

The Archer and the PZH-2000 already have these features and are definitely in the running for Land 17. The PZH-2000 particularly...

Yes, and I think the PZH-2000 will be Army's 'compensation' to Germans for not selecting Leo 2

 

[Aussie Digger]

Yes, and I think the PZH-2000 will be Army's 'compensation' to Germans for not selecting Leo 2

Actually, the reason I think it will get up, is the 18x near new PZH-2000's the Dutch want to "directly" swap for additional new build Bushmasters, manufactured by Australian Defence Industry, ie: Australia wins "both" ways...

Obviously more platforms will need to be purchased than 18, but it would definitely be politically attractive, be quicker into service whilst providing more combat capability than any other option, and be good for Australian industry.

Not many down sides to the deal...

 

[gf0012-aust]

Yes, and I think the PZH-2000 will be Army's 'compensation' to Germans for not selecting Leo 2

The germans wouldn't be expecting "compensation" - they basically told one of the australian vendors to "go jump" a few years back.

they've offered ex war stock with almost zero hours approx 5 years ago at mates rates - and not only armour. unfortunately some drongo decided to pass up their offers.

 

[old faithful]

Actually, the reason I think it will get up, is the 18x near new PZH-2000's the Dutch want to "directly" swap for additional new build Bushmasters, manufactured by Australian Defence Industry, ie: Australia wins "both" ways...

Obviously more platforms will need to be purchased than 18, but it would definitely be politically attractive, be quicker into service whilst providing more combat capability than any other option, and be good for Australian industry.

Not many down sides to the deal...

Sounds like a done deal! Hope it works out that way to, with an additional buy of a further 18-24 (for the school of Arty) as well as units. I also hope that the hammels are replaced with something that can be slung under a whirlygig!

 

[FutureTank]

The germans wouldn't be expecting "compensation" - they basically told one of the australian vendors to "go jump" a few years back.

they've offered ex war stock with almost zero hours approx 5 years ago at mates rates - and not only armour. unfortunately some drongo decided to pass up their offers.

Yes, I heard something like that but never found out what the deal was or why it was knocked back. Can you say more?

Exactly how many SP systems are we looking for? Battalion per brigade would be nice...at least for the regular brigades

 

[Aussie Digger]

Sounds like a done deal! Hope it works out that way to, with an additional buy of a further 18-24 (for the school of Arty) as well as units. I also hope that the hammels are replaced with something that can be slung under a whirlygig!

There's no guarantee the Hamels WILL be replaced. Army only has $600m to spend on new "gats" and out of this it wants in order: new fire control systems, new SPG's, new ammo natures (including Excalibur etc), and only THEN will it look at acquiring new 155mm "light" towed guns or upgrading our existing M198's.

If it chooses the upgraded M198 option, 3 Brigade (3x "field" batteries) and 7 Brigade (2x field batteries) will get ALL of our M198's. The chocco batteries will HAVE to continue with whatever they've got now, but probably Hamel, with the M2A2 finally retired...

Hamel's didn't prove easily moved by Blackhawks, hence the rapid acquisition of the Chooks "back in the day", after some genius decided Army or Air Force didn't need any and retired our fleet of 12...

Hence the move to an M198 based force for the field batteries, this won't provide any loss of the capability operated now. In fact with the likely acquisition of additional Chinooks, it should even improve somewhat.

 

[old faithful]

There's no guarantee the Hamels WILL be replaced. Army only has $600m to spend on new "gats" and out of this it wants in order: new fire control systems, new SPG's, new ammo natures (including Excalibur etc), and only THEN will it look at acquiring new 155mm "light" towed guns or upgrading our existing M198's.

If it chooses the upgraded M198 option, 3 Brigade (3x "field" batteries) and 7 Brigade (2x field batteries) will get ALL of our M198's. The chocco batteries will HAVE to continue with whatever they've got now, but probably Hamel, with the M2A2 finally retired...

Hamel's didn't prove easily moved by Blackhawks, hence the rapid acquisition of the Chooks "back in the day", after some genius decided Army or Air Force didn't need any and retired our fleet of 12...

Hence the move to an M198 based force for the field batteries, this won't provide any loss of the capability operated now. In fact with the likely acquisition of additional Chinooks, it should even improve somewhat.

Yep spent some time in those old chooks.If they arnt to be replaced, then i hope they are retained! Dont think an MRH90 would have much of a problem moving `em,with crews and ammo! Its a capability that the ADF CANT afford to lose!

 

[rickshaw]

I think Australia can be thinking about future artillery systems based on fullly, or at least semi-automated feed like that used on the naval platforms. This would provide the volume of fire while reducing on the manning levels, and conceivably the overall size of the vehicle.

Most SP guns already have semi-automatic "flick" ramming. Several have fully automatic loading. Despite what you appear to believe, the addition of such machinery does not make the SP vehicle smaller. Indeed, often it makes it larger. In addition, personnel requirements aren't actually reduced, they are usually redeployed from the SP vehicle itself to ammunition resupply vehicles.

 

[PETERn]

Being my first post here I thought I'd tell a story about fully automatic SLR's.
20+ years ago I was a lance corporal in 1 Field Engineer Regiment at Holsworthy. 3 troop in 1 Sqn was doing a weeks worth of pretending to be infantry training in the range and myself and a few others from 1 troop volunteered to be their 'enemy'. Of course being enemy we AKed our SLR's to fire full auto, as you do, as we liked the sound and the M60 never, ever worked properly firing blanks. The troop commander thought it was a good idea and had a few of his men in each section do the same. After a few days in the bush weapons were handed in and life returned to normal. A few weeks after this 3 troop went to the range. Weapons were loaded and the command 2 shots down range was given to warm everything up. Bang Bang BangBangBang Frrraaappppp...Cease fire ..who the fcuken hell was that yelled the range safety officer..It was me said Sapper Blogs, Your in fcuken trouble screams the RSO...But Lt. Xxxxx said i could do it, he replied. If my memory serves me right he was Duty Officer for 6 weeks after that. Those were the days.

 

[FutureTank]

Quote:
Originally Posted by FutureTank

And what makes you think Germany could design IFVs in the 70s although it designed first APC before WW2?

The USA certainly could not design an IFV in the 70s, and it had lots of expereince with AFVs.

Every engineering project is unique. What worked 20 years ago is hopelessly outdated today. Is Puma a huge improvement on the Marder?

Sometimes the solution isnot creative, but cheap

From Waylander:
That is what we did. We made mistakes for decades. And we learned of them.
We learned it the hard way. And especially special items like the armor is not that easy to make and can not easily be adopted from civil companies like for example optics.

The Puma is nothing completely new. But it is better in almost every aspect compared to the Marder. And it fits into our existing system being able to follow the Leo IIs everywhere they go with good armor protection good firepower and the ability to be transported by a A400M.
The question is not what can we do. We showed what we can do. If it is really good is another question.
The real question for you is why should Australia be able to build something faster, cheaper and better than anybody else without experience in this field

Firstly Australia needs something that is designed for its unique strategic, operational and tactical needs, not someone else's needs and doctrine.

Why shouldn't Australia be able to build

something faster, cheaper and better than anybody else without experience in this field

?
Is there a law agains this? Expereince is useful, but I would like you to tell me which parts of an IFV require skills and knowledge not available in Australia?

 

[Waylander]

Armor, guns, FCS, the whole tracked package,...

And if the Puma is able to follow the Leo II it is also able to follow the Abrams and this should be a have to for you.
As well as the ability to be air deployable in somethin smaller than a C-17.

It is a normal business standard that you have to invest a lot of money and time if you want to go on par with the leading companies of the market while being a small contender in this sector.

 

[FutureTank]

Armor, guns, FCS, the whole tracked package,...

And if the Puma is able to follow the Leo II it is also able to follow the Abrams and this should be a have to for you.
As well as the ability to be air deployable in somethin smaller than a C-17.

It is a normal business standard that you have to invest a lot of money and time if you want to go on par with the leading companies of the market while being a small contender in this sector.

With all due respect, and no insult intended, all you are doing is giving me a sales pitch.

We are talking an IFV. It is not possible to desing an IFV that will withstand a tank gun, or most heavy ATGWs, so armour would be desingned to provide protection appropriate to the weight it needs to allow it to move at speeds required by the doctrine.

It is highly unlikely the IFV would have a weapon larger then a 30mm cannon. Do you suppose Australians couldn't desing an FCS for a 30mm cannon?

The "whole tracked" package is an exercise in automotive engineering. In WW2 when US started building tanks, it was done at tractor building factories. I think Australian engineers can manage to work something out. There are however greater issues with the powerpack then you suppose, and which has been avoided in Puma, and will ultimatelly make it uneconomic and probably obsolete before its time.

At one stage on this planet mammals were small....small is good

 

[Waylander]

Than tell me what the difference in Australian doctrine is if your new IFV doesn't need to be able to go were a Abrams goes with the same speed.

I never talked about withstanding a tank round or heavy ATGM.
But good frontal protection up to 30mm AP, normal RPG-7 on the sides and overall 14,5mm, good Mine/IED protection and bomblet protection on top is nothing I would miss on an IFV.

I said it in the other thread that an FCS should be no problem but the gun and ammo could be. Do you want to buy off the shelf or also design it by yourself?

And for sure the whole "tracked package" is a question of engineering. But we have experience in building such systems. We have the test data, we have the prototypes, we have the experience with former systems. You not. You can have the same but you need money and time for this.

And what is the problem with the Puma powerpack?

 

[Waylander]

Because we leave the Light Tank thread and conentrate on this I post my last answer here again.

Quote:
But we are anot starting from 0!
Can you give me examples of what are specific barriers in engineering terms as you see them?

You are starting nearly from zero.
As said before not even the Bushmaster is an independent design. There is no company you have which has experience in developing a whole new AFV from the beginning to the end.
FCS and optics shouldn't be a really big problem there are enough similarities with civil companies.
But when it comes to armor, modern guns and ammo, and make the whole package fast and maneuverable on tracks there are not very much civil counterparts.
Countries like the US, UK, France and Germany have tons of test data, prototypes, experienced personal, production capabilities, etc.


Quote:
It doesn't matter. Every project is different with its own set of knowns and unknowns that engineers need to deal with.

This is not true. A base is always better than no base. All of these projects helped the mafuacturers to learn more about traction systems, guns, armor, system packages, etc.


Quote:
Most Australian equipment is envisaged to go to AOs by ship, not C-17.
When was there ever an overpowered weapon?!!!
Its role would be to provide support like it had since the 70s, releasing the M1s from being an 'infantry' tank.

Yes, the turret is large and heavy, but this is just another engineering problem. Its not like it hasn't been done before. Infact the TAM used the Marder chassis in very much the same way.

Overpowered in a way that a high pressure gun substitutes payload for penetration. Sad to say the penetration of the 105mm is not enough anymore but the payload problem compared to low pressure guns remains.

Having a dedicated inantry support vehicle which has to be transported by a C-17 or by ship is not very innovative.
And what do you want to do? You cannot just shrink the turret. This is not just an engineering problem but a hard fact. If you want to use the old Leo 1 turrets you have to live with its size and weight or build a new turret.

 

[FutureTank]

Than tell me what the difference in Australian doctrine is if your new IFV doesn't need to be able to go were a Abrams goes with the same speed.?

This is one of the questions the Army needs to answer, not me. Does the Australian Army Infantry Corps have the same doctrine as the German Heer or US Army?

I never talked about withstanding a tank round or heavy ATGM.
But good frontal protection up to 30mm AP, normal RPG-7 on the sides and overall 14,5mm, good Mine/IED protection and bomblet protection on top is nothing I would miss on an IFV

And the problem with desinging armour to withstand these threats is what? The Uni of NSW has an excellent materials lab with specialty in metals, and it is just one of many public and private places of research outside the Defence's own labs.

I said it in the other thread that an FCS should be no problem but the gun and ammo could be. Do you want to buy off the shelf or also design it by yourself??

Australia has a mix of locally produced and imported ammunition. Is there a shortage of ammunition in the World?

And for sure the whole "tracked package" is a question of engineering. But we have experience in building such systems. We have the test data, we have the prototypes, we have the experience with former systems. You not. You can have the same but you need money and time for this.?

We also want to have this! Why sould we always buy from others? How many prototypes does one need for a single chassis design? I think a pre-production batch of about a dozen should suffice. The DMO and various schools woudl keep that many anyway.

And what is the problem with the Puma powerpack?

Well, what are you going to use for fuel in about 20 years?

 

[FutureTank]

You are starting nearly from zero.
As said before not even the Bushmaster is an independent design. There is no company you have which has experience in developing a whole new AFV from the beginning to the end..

Well, I don't know why Tenix went to Ireland.
Designing any piece of engineering, including an automotive one is a process.

FCS and optics shouldn't be a really big problem there are enough similarities with civil companies..

Even so, I think this is our weakest area, and probably would require seeking external sources.

But when it comes to armor, modern guns and ammo, and make the whole package fast and maneuverable on tracks there are not very much civil counterparts..

I answered about armour and guns and ammo elsewhere...
Why does it have to be fast? Why on tracks? You are already making assumptions based on your own design bias.

Countries like the US, UK, France and Germany have tons of test data, prototypes, experienced personal, production capabilities, etc..

Yes, and they charge for the privelage of using it. Countries like US, and UK, and Germany and France become that by exporting knowledge. Should Australia become an importer like a 'bannana republic' to use one past Prime Minister's expression?

A base is always better than no base. All of these projects helped the mafuacturers to learn more about traction systems, guns, armor, system packages, etc..

Sure having a foundation in basic research is 'nice', but life doesn't always give 'nice'

Overpowered in a way that a high pressure gun substitutes payload for penetration. Sad to say the penetration of the 105mm is not enough anymore but the payload problem compared to low pressure guns remains..

Waylander...don't make funny German jokes for me ok nfloorl:
The L7 will still blow away almost any vehicle in our region except the Singaporean Leo IIs if used properly, BUT why would we want to do that if we have M1s. on the other hand the L7 DOES blow away ANY other AFV anywhere (ther then an MBT), and will make nice big holes in almost any civil structure for the infantry. Its a pretty good gun as far as I'm concerned, and is not overpowered. And stop with selling the low pressure piece. THERE IS NO BUDGET FOR IT

Having a dedicated inantry support vehicle which has to be transported by a C-17 or by ship is not very innovative.
And what do you want to do? You cannot just shrink the turret. This is not just an engineering problem but a hard fact. If you want to use the old Leo 1 turrets you have to live with its size and weight or build a new turret.

Ok, answered the C-17 elsewhere...
Yes, we can shrink the turret...but have to send it to Haiti nfloorl:
Of course we can't shring the bloody turret! That is why I was asking you about the turret ring !!! You can modify the suspension, chassis and hull structure,a nd put in a larger powerpack (considering there would not be passengers in an FSV, but you can't change the basic hull structure THAT much if the turret ring can't be stabilised in the enlarged hull. In fact I see this as the single biggest problem to such a conversion, and it also weakens the hull structure.