Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Stampede]

The ABC is hardly Robinson Crusoe when it comes to poor reporting around defence issues. You can take your pick on most mainstream media platforms. They will all more than likely come up short.

As a "Pinko lefty" I generally don't mind the ABC, but as a skeptic I question still everything and everyone.
Noticed Australian New Zealand defender have also raised the issue.
Not such a fan of the later, but sometimes they do get in early with the news.

Anyway will see if this all goes away or if there's actually some substance to the articles.

As to a standardized round across the Army, it would certainly make sense.
A no brainer for all Land 400 vehicles.
One would of thought it would have been specified as a requirement.

If only I was king for a day I'd set everything right.

Regards S

 

[ngatimozart]

If only I was king for a day I'd set everything right.
Regards S

Hmm. That could be dangerous

The really obvious answer of course is to take Australian and NZ defence procurement out of the hands of the pollies and give to a commission comprised of selected DT members.

 

[ADMk2]

As a "Pinko lefty" I generally don't mind the ABC, but as a skeptic I question still everything and everyone.
Noticed Australian New Zealand defender have also raised the issue.
Not such a fan of the later, but sometimes they do get in early with the news.

Anyway will see if this all goes away or if there's actually some substance to the articles.

As to a standardized round across the Army, it would certainly make sense.
A no brainer for all Land 400 vehicles.
One would of thought it would have been specified as a requirement.

If only I was king for a day I'd set everything right.

Regards S

Defender got butthurt when some defence media that actually have a clue, corrected the nonsense JHF usually writes in “Defender”…

For instance his first take on this article was this “stuff up” meant there was only one type of “round” Boxer could fire… Got his knickers in a knot over that one…

 

[t68]

Hmm. That could be dangerous

The really obvious answer of course is to take Australian and NZ defence procurement out of the hands of the pollies and give to a commission comprised of selected DT members.

And we would most likely have a deficit the size of the US, have a fleet of ships in extended readiness like the UK do, with the presumption being under guise of better to have and than not have.

Which to my mind is not always a bad thing for defence

 

[Boagrius]

Called it!

Australia has joined a US-led program to develop new land-based guided missiles capable of striking surface targets and ships at ranges of up to 500km, as part of a push to equip the ADF with modern area denial weapons.

The federal government has contributed $70m under an agreement with the US to develop the next phase of its Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) program.

The Lockheed Martin missiles are due to be available from 2025, and capable of being fired from the US High Mobility Artillery Rocket System – demonstrated by the US Army in Queensland at last month’s Exercise Talisman Sabre.

The missile will improve on a less precise baseline version, with increased range and accuracy, and the ability to engage moving targets.

The push to obtain more smart, standoff weapons comes as China’s rapidly expanding military capabilities place Australia and its regional partners at risk of coercion by the People’s Liberation Army. The Australian reported on Tuesday that Australia is now within range of Chinese missiles and long-range bombers.

The agreement comes as Australia tries to convince the US to share top-secret military technology to manufacture some of its most powerful weapons under licence in Australia.

US Army Deputy Assistant Secretary for Defence Exports Ann Cataldo said the PrSM collaboration “lays the foundation for collaboration on future missile capability efforts”. “This agreement formalises one of our largest co-operative acquisition programs we’ve entered into with a partner nation,” she said.

NoCookies | The Australian (behind paywall for now)

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

 

[Bob53]

Having a long range precision strike is an over due capability. It’s only that we didn’t have any prospective targets that it’s has been left on the back burner. This should be a capability that is developed into more than just a few dozen launchers and supply vehicles. A game changer in my view.

 

[OldNavy63]

Not sure if there is anything in this ABC article about some concerns with the Boxer.

Concerns for fleet of armoured vehicles deemed overweight and unprotected from missile attack

An overweight weapons system is threatening to delay a multi-billion-dollar army project, prompting alarm across government, the military and defence industry.

www.abc.net.au

Anyone have any information.


Regards S

Defence rejects claims of technical issues in Boxer CRV.

Defence rejects reported Boxer CRV roadblocks

A media report alleging new technical issues have prompted delays in the rollout of the next-generation fleet has been rejected by sources from Defence. Earlier today (11 August), the nation’s pub

www.defenceconnect.com.au

 

[hairyman]

I thought the Huon class were armed with a 40mm gun?

 

[ADMk2]

Called it!

NoCookies | The Australian (behind paywall for now)

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Now all we need is something to actually launch it from…

Gawd I hope we go straight up FMS for HIMARS…

Last thing Army needs is yet ANOTHER development platform… Especially when the initial capability is a single battery of 6 vehicles, expanding over time to a whopping Regiment’s worth of 3 batteries…

Edit: Up on the Defmin website now too.

Australia and US partner to spearhead precision strike missile capability | Department of Defence Ministers

The Australian Defence Force and the United States Armed Forces will partner to develop a new precision missile capability to further interoperability and modernise both militaries.Australia’s participation in the US led Precision Strike Missile co-development program contributes to both...

www.minister.defence.gov.au

 

[Boagrius]

Now all we need is something to actually launch it from…

Gawd I hope we go straight up FMS for HIMARS…

Last thing Army needs is yet ANOTHER development platform… Especially when the initial capability is a single battery of 6 vehicles, expanding over time to a whopping Regiment’s worth of 3 batteries…

Edit: Up on the Defmin website now too.

Australia and US partner to spearhead precision strike missile capability | Department of Defence Ministers

The Australian Defence Force and the United States Armed Forces will partner to develop a new precision missile capability to further interoperability and modernise both militaries.Australia’s participation in the US led Precision Strike Missile co-development program contributes to both...

www.minister.defence.gov.au

No idea what you're talking about. We clearly need to Australianise it to include a custom TEL with SM-6 MRC, integrate CEA radars so it can act as a SAM system, mount it on a HX77 truck and start a brand new manufacturing facility in Tasmania to build it domestically and create new jerbs ;-)

 

[mattyg]

No idea what you're talking about. We clearly need to Australianise it to include a custom TEL with SM-6 MRC, integrate CEA radars so it can act as a SAM system, mount it on a HX77 truck and start a brand new manufacturing facility in Tasmania to build it domestically and create new jerbs ;-)

Long time reader of this Forum.

The US Army is also looking at Tomahawk and SM 6 combo as well ?

Would that be for Anti Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) ?

 

[Gryphinator]

I hope increment 2 will vastly increase the range if anti ship is the plan. I don't know what you all think but 500km isn't far enough IMO

 

[Boagrius]

Long time reader of this Forum.

The US Army is also looking at Tomahawk and SM 6 combo as well ?

Would that be for Anti Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) ?

Haha, my last post was a bit of a joke.

That said, yes, the US is looking at Tomahawk and SM6 for its MRC capability. Not really connected to our MLRS plans though.

 

[Boagrius]

I hope increment 2 will vastly increase the range if anti ship is the plan. I don't know what you all think but 500km isn't far enough IMO

I believe "Spiral 3" is the iteration set to max out the range of the weapon. It will be interesting to see how this is achieved.

https://www.dacis.com/budget/budget_pdf/FY20/RDTE/A/0607134A_209.pdf

 

[ADMk2]

I hope increment 2 will vastly increase the range if anti ship is the plan. I don't know what you all think but 500km isn't far enough IMO

Far enough compared to what? Compared to the capability of our towed artillery today, it‘s a massive increase… Compared to the capability of HIMARS today (maximum strike range of 300k with ATACMS Block IA) it’s a substantial increase in range and firepower (2 PRsM missiles per launch pod v 1 ATACMS) and 500k v 300k.

I think Increment 2 PRsM a massive increase in capability for us, that we should be jumping on asap, we shouldn’t only be looking at the future gold-plated standard that may only be achievable after a lengthy and torturous development program, assuming it survives the funding process… Moving to Increment 3 under an iterative process once a capability is actually bedded down? Sure.

 

[Gryphinator]

Far enough compared to what? Compared to the capability of our towed artillery today, it‘s a massive increase… Compared to the capability of HIMARS today (maximum strike range of 300k with ATACMS Block IA) it’s a substantial increase in range and firepower (2 PRsM missiles per launch pod v 1 ATACMS) and 500k v 300k.

I think Increment 2 PRsM a massive increase in capability for us, that we should be jumping on asap, we shouldn’t only be looking at the future gold-plated standard that may only be achievable after a lengthy and torturous development program, assuming it survives the funding process… Moving to Increment 3 under an iterative process once a capability is actually bedded down? Sure.

Apologies for not being clear, I was thinking in terms of deterrence/denial rather than fire support.

 

[Boagrius]

Apologies for not being clear, I was thinking in terms of deterrence/denial rather than fire support.

I imagine it depends where you deploy it. PrSM is clearly being developed as something of a "short" range ASBM that can be launched in saturating salvos by one or more HIMARS/MLRS batteries, so there is certainly an A2/AD dimension to it in that sense.

Beyond that you'd be looking at the mooted LBASM capability, which could potentially reach quite a long way if we followed the US down the TLAM/MST + SM6 MRC (+ SL-LRASM?) path. Remains to be seen though.

 

[Stampede]

Hmm. That could be dangerous

The really obvious answer of course is to take Australian and NZ defence procurement out of the hands of the pollies and give to a commission comprised of selected DT members.

Yep could have merit for either side of the ditch

Cheers S

 

[ngatimozart]

No idea what you're talking about. We clearly need to Australianise it to include a custom TEL with SM-6 MRC, integrate CEA radars so it can act as a SAM system, mount it on a HX77 truck and start a brand new manufacturing facility in Tasmania to build it domestically and create new jerbs ;-)

For gawds sake don't encourage the mongrels.

Maybe we should put you in the naughty girls corner. Hmm.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

5x potentially:

Mk.30-2 ABM - 30x137mm. (Boxer CRV / Lynx).

Mk-44 Bushmasters - 30x173mm. (RAN Hunter Class, Hawkei Redback).

M230LF - 30x114mm. (Apache, possibly ground / vehicle employed as well).

Oerlikon KCB 30x173mm. (Huon Class).

Aden Mk4, 30x111mm. (Hawk Mk 127).

Someone explained to me the ammo for Mk44 Bushmaster and MK-30-2 ABM is non interchangeable because of linking of ammunition on one of them. Can anyone shed some light on the topic?