Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Todjaeger]

Blackhawks and HIMARS are also waiting for the final go ahead, I think HIMARS may be safe, not so sure about the Blackhawks.

Perhaps, OTOH if no Blackhawks are purchased, what then? The Taipan was to be axed early, for a host of reasons as I recall. I am unaware of a similar helicopter programme to provide a battlefield heli, apart from the US FVL programme. A problem with that is that the programme does not really expected to start delivering lift capabilities to US units until 2030. Also, given the numbers of Blackhawks in service current with the US, the Blackhawk is expected to remain in service with US units until some time in 2040's IIRC. This in turn suggests that both the Blackhawk would remain a viable offering for other users for another two decades or so before becoming an 'orphan' as well as it being likely that production slots for whatever ends up as the FVL might not be available to fill orders for some time.

 

[Stampede]

Perhaps, OTOH if no Blackhawks are purchased, what then? The Taipan was to be axed early, for a host of reasons as I recall. I am unaware of a similar helicopter programme to provide a battlefield heli, apart from the US FVL programme. A problem with that is that the programme does not really expected to start delivering lift capabilities to US units until 2030. Also, given the numbers of Blackhawks in service current with the US, the Blackhawk is expected to remain in service with US units until some time in 2040's IIRC. This in turn suggests that both the Blackhawk would remain a viable offering for other users for another two decades or so before becoming an 'orphan' as well as it being likely that production slots for whatever ends up as the FVL might not be available to fill orders for some time.

I have always wanted the Taipan to work and have been a late convert to making the call for its replacement with the latest Blackhawk.
Do we spend lots of money maintaining the Taipan for the life of this platform or spend lots of money on a new aircraft?
If the later, I cannot see any aircraft other than the Blackhawk.
While new aircraft are always in development; I'd suggest the ADF will go with a safe and establish product such as the latest Blackhawk.
A history of too many helicopter purchase fails to do otherwise.

Cheers S

 

[Redlands18]

Perhaps, OTOH if no Blackhawks are purchased, what then? The Taipan was to be axed early, for a host of reasons as I recall. I am unaware of a similar helicopter programme to provide a battlefield heli, apart from the US FVL programme. A problem with that is that the programme does not really expected to start delivering lift capabilities to US units until 2030. Also, given the numbers of Blackhawks in service current with the US, the Blackhawk is expected to remain in service with US units until some time in 2040's IIRC. This in turn suggests that both the Blackhawk would remain a viable offering for other users for another two decades or so before becoming an 'orphan' as well as it being likely that production slots for whatever ends up as the FVL might not be available to fill orders for some time.

If the current Government decide to stick with the plan to get rid of the Taipans than it will be a Blackhawk order but like everything else, it would be under review. Just have to wait and see.

 

[rand0m]

Does anyone have a clear explanation of what is the plan re AShM's, it sounds like we are investing in multiple different missiles?

- Naval Strike missile
- LRASM & LRASM-SL
- Precision Strike missile
- JASSM-ER

 

[OldTex]

Does anyone have a clear explanation of what is the plan re AShM's, it sounds like we are investing in multiple different missiles?

- Naval Strike missile
- LRASM & LRASM-SL
- Precision Strike missile
- JASSM-ER

The reason for multiple different AShMs is more a function of the platforms that can utilise the missles.

NSM is intended to replace Harpoon on naval vessels. It is being proposed for land based launchers (as coastal defence type systems) but at this stage and in this role it has not been procured for Army under Project Land 4100 Phase 2.

LRASM is intended for aircraft launch and will most likely be used by F/A-18F Rhinos in RAAF service. The LRASM-SL is a development version for use from naval vessels with MK41 VLS (it is not currently in use but is a risk reduction activity in US).

PrSM is intended for Army in the tactical long-range fires role potentially from HIMARS launchers. Its anti-ship capability is a future secondary capability.

JASSM-ER is a development of the JASSM which in Australian service was used on classic F/A-18s with the withdrawal from service of the F-111C. It is able to be used by both F/A-18F and F-35A aircraft (on the F-35 it is carried externally).

 

[ADMk2]

Yep.........we just don't know what's the future of tracked armour is for Army going forward until some clarity is given by the DSR.

What we do know is Boxer is replacing ASLAV.
We know we have US approval to purchase 121 M1A2 SEPv3 Abrams of various types . Not completely sure if government approval to proceed has actually been given.
We know the M113 is old and of limited value as a front line unit in a high intensity conflict.
We are getting a tracked SPG.

So we are definitely at a cross road.

Tanks - we will either get them or not! Suggest we will not be playing around with the numbers proposed if the purchase goes forward.
M113 replacement. - well time is not on this platforms side. 50 years old, a decision will have to be made to finally ditch and replace with "something"

What that something looks like is the mystery.

If a Land 400 Phase 3 contender is announced with a dramatic cut in numbers; the numbers are in reality a bit academic, as its a long term project with a build over many years. No doubt a lot will happen with numbers in that time.

If its a definite no to acquiring an IFV ,then I cannot see the M113's serving for much longer.

What that does to armys composition I'd hate to guess.
What that would do to Army's ability to give government a full range of military options, I'd hate to contemplate.

March 2023 is not that far away.

Cheers S

Heavy Armoured Combat Systems has already been contracted and production is underway same as Apache, Army Head of Land Capability confirmed in October 2022.

So a rather different circumstance to LAND 400 Ph.3, Blackhawk and HIMARS, none of which have yet passed Gate 2…

 

[seaspear]

Is the R.A.A.F to carry the J.S.M internally on the f35a
JSM anti-ship and land-attack missile successfully tested from F-35A - Naval News

 

[ADMk2]

Does anyone have a clear explanation of what is the plan re AShM's, it sounds like we are investing in multiple different missiles?

- Naval Strike missile
- LRASM & LRASM-SL
- Precision Strike missile
- JASSM-ER

Naval strike missile is being fitted to ANZAC and Hobart class under Project SEA 1300 Phase 1 for the RAN. NSM is also being pitched in combination with a Bushmaster adapted launch vehicle and marketed as “Strikemaster” for Army’s land based anti-ship requirement, which may or may not make it past DSR.

LRASM has been acquired to arm initially the F/A-18F fleet for anti—ship strike capability for the RAAF. It may also be integrated further down the track on P-8A and JSF, but I believe that is awaiting USN integration efforts on those platforms. Lockheed and Thales are developing an Australian designed (and produced perhaps) booster motor for LRASM, which will enable the weapon to be employed as a surface launched weapon - what they call LRASM-SL. This weapon has not yet been chosen for the ADF but is being pitched for RAN, with a similar version being pitched in combination with a HIMARS based launch vehicle for Army’s land based anti-ship requirement, competing probably against NSM / Strikemaster. Again, assuming this requirement survives DSR.

Precision Strike Missile is planned to replace the ATACMS in the short-medium ranged conventional Tactical Ballistic Missile role. This missile whilst still under development will be launched from the HIMARS rocket launch system. Army plans to acquire several Regiments worth of HIMARS over time as it’s deep-fires solution and has been approved to acquire such through FMS, including ATACMS. HIMARS has not yet achieved Gate 2 approval from Government but of all Army projects, seems the most likely to continue under our Defmin’s ”Porcupine - no wait - impactful projection” missile / drone based defence “strategy”. Australia has joined the Precision Strike Missile project as a development partner and is contributing funding snd has input into the design as well as (hopefully) preferential access to missile stocks. Precision Strike Missile has multiple iterations planned with the 2nd tranche of designs, intended to having moving target and maritime strike capabilities added to the baseline missile.

JASSM-ER is being acquired to provide RAAF with a long-ranged “standoff” land attack missile capability. Initially it will arm the F/A-18F and later may well arm the JSF and possibly the P-8A.

RAN is approved to acquire the Tactical Tomahawk land attack missile as well. Initially to arm the Hobart Class destroyers and perhaps later the Hunters as well. Studies are also being conducted to decide if this weapon may be integrated with Collins Class submarine , what the cost may be and whether it is operationally beneficial to do so.

And that is about as current as it gets for ADF long-ranged strike capabilities…

 

[ADMk2]

Is the R.A.A.F to carry the J.S.M internally on the f35a
JSM anti-ship and land-attack missile successfully tested from F-35A - Naval News

Not presently. This weapon has not been mentioned in any government approvals for future RAAF acquisition.

RAAF has the AGM-154 JSOW-C1 which is qualified for internal F-35A carriage in-service and is maritime strike capable and in future will acquire the AGM-88G AARMG-ER which has internal carriage capability for F-35A and maritime attack capability.

Additionally JSF will most likely have AGM-158C LRASM and AGM-158B2 JASSM-ER integrated on it so RAAF may well feel it’s stand-off weapons needs are already well covered by these weapons, offering as they do a range of warhead capabilities, targeting capabilities, ranges and speeds.

With the above already in-service or approved, it’s difficult to see what JSM offers that the above don’t.

 

[ADMk2]

Perhaps, OTOH if no Blackhawks are purchased, what then? The Taipan was to be axed early, for a host of reasons as I recall. I am unaware of a similar helicopter programme to provide a battlefield heli, apart from the US FVL programme. A problem with that is that the programme does not really expected to start delivering lift capabilities to US units until 2030. Also, given the numbers of Blackhawks in service current with the US, the Blackhawk is expected to remain in service with US units until some time in 2040's IIRC. This in turn suggests that both the Blackhawk would remain a viable offering for other users for another two decades or so before becoming an 'orphan' as well as it being likely that production slots for whatever ends up as the FVL might not be available to fill orders for some time.

Government is “reviewing” the ADF helicopter debacle. RAN’s additional MH-60R’s are going ahead, but Army’s Blackhawks, like other Army projects are subject to Defence Strategic Review considerations.

ADF has all but stated openly in Senate Estimates as of 08 November that they are strongly backing replacement of the Taipan with Blackhawk, but that decision has not yet been taken.

I suspect it will be and Government will do the usual trick of blaming the other side of politics for MRH-90’s demise, and try to remain chummy with Macron…

 

[Bob53]

I just came across this article on the Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb that uses Himars, MLRS or a 20ft container launcher to deliver a GBU39 SDB with its 250Lb warhead out to around 150Kms at half the cost of the guided MLRS round... Impressive capability that would be a good acquisition with our HIMARS purchase give the ranges the ADF potentially needs to deliver fires and the bang for the buck it delivers.

Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bomb Would Double Ukraine’s Precision Strike Range

Ukraine needs more long-range strike weapons and delivery of the Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bomb could be poised for approval.

www.thedrive.com

 

[Volkodav]

Government is “reviewing” the ADF helicopter debacle. RAN’s additional MH-60R’s are going ahead, but Army’s Blackhawks, like other Army projects are subject to Defence Strategic Review considerations.

ADF has all but stated openly in Senate Estimates as of 08 November that they are strongly backing replacement of the Taipan with Blackhawk, but that decision has not yet been taken.

I suspect it will be and Government will do the usual trick of blaming the other side of politics for MRH-90’s demise, and try to remain chummy with Macron…

I wonder if operation from the LHDs is still a consideration, if it is may some, if not all the MRH replacements should be Sierras rather than Mikes.

To be honest, the MRH, Armidales, Arafuras, Capes, FFGUP Super Sea Sprites, MU90, Spartan Vigilaire etc.etc. all really piss me off. One of the things that comes up every time new kit is mentioned is we can't afford it, or it costs too much. What costs too much is money spent of gear that never delivers the required capability.

 

[ADMk2]

I just came across this article on the Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb that uses Himars, MLRS or a 20ft container launcher to deliver a GBU39 SDB with its 250Lb warhead out to around 150Kms at half the cost of the guided MLRS round... Impressive capability that would be a good acquisition with our HIMARS purchase give the ranges the ADF potentially needs to deliver fires and the bang for the buck it delivers.

Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bomb Would Double Ukraine’s Precision Strike Range

Ukraine needs more long-range strike weapons and delivery of the Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bomb could be poised for approval.

www.thedrive.com

I’d like to know where they got their costings from, since GLSDB doesn’t exist, hasn’t yet been developed or integrated into HIMARS, hasn’t actually been ordered by anyone and uses the exact same rocket as GMLRS, and it’s SAAB, telling us this…

The fact that Boeing has suggested a production order will require a “price discovery waiver” is also not especially encouraging and may give some insight as to why it has attracted zero customers…

”You order it, but we’re not going to inform you what it really costs.”

But trust us. It’s much cheaper than GMLRS-ER… Which is developed AND in actual testing AND is already integrated on HIMARS AND outranges us by about 30k’s…

 

[ADMk2]

I wonder if operation from the LHDs is still a consideration, if it is may some, if not all the MRH replacements should be Sierras rather than Mikes.

To be honest, the MRH, Armidales, Arafuras, Capes, FFGUP Super Sea Sprites, MU90, Spartan Vigilaire etc.etc. all really piss me off. One of the things that comes up every time new kit is mentioned is we can't afford it, or it costs too much. What costs too much is money spent of gear that never delivers the required capability.

Sierras are no longer in production, is my understanding… Stripped out Romeos are, which is what RAN opted for… But we will be lucky if we get Mikes I’d suggest. LHD wash downs will just have to keep on keeping on…

 

[swerve]

I’d like to know where they got their costings from, since GLSDB doesn’t exist, hasn’t yet been developed or integrated into HIMARS, hasn’t actually been ordered by anyone and uses the exact same rocket as GMLRS, and it’s SAAB, telling us this…

The fact that Boeing has suggested a production order will require a “price discovery waiver” is also not especially encouraging and may give some insight as to why it has attracted zero customers…

”You order it, but we’re not going to inform you what it really costs.”

But trust us. It’s much cheaper than GMLRS-ER… Which is developed AND in actual testing AND is already integrated on HIMARS AND outranges us by about 30k’s…

On SAAB's website it says "Developed in partnership with Boeing, our GLSDB . . . " & shows a video of a firing at Andøya test range. That was in September 2019 (see link below).

The first test launch was in February 2015. And it used the same rocket motor, but not the whole missile - "Saab and Boeing signed a teaming agreement in August 2014 to develop the GLSDB by integrating Boeing’s GBU-39B SDB I bomb and M26 rocket motor of the M270A"

"Saab and Boeing conducted a series of live-fire tests of the GLSDB, using the rocket motor provided by Nammo in Vidsel, Sweden, in February 2015 "

2019 - https://militaryembedded.com/radar-...llowing-third-test-launch-say-saab-and-boeing

Given that they've made a few, fired them, & it uses mostly OTS components (it's a in-production warhead with built-in guidance fitted to an in-production unguided rocket), I think SAAB & Boeing should have an idea of the costs, even if not an exact price.

 

[ADMk2]

On SAAB's website it says "Developed in partnership with Boeing, our GLSDB . . . " & shows a video of a firing at Andøya test range. That was in September 2019 (see link below).

The first test launch was in February 2015. And it used the same rocket motor, but not the whole missile - "Saab and Boeing signed a teaming agreement in August 2014 to develop the GLSDB by integrating Boeing’s GBU-39B SDB I bomb and M26 rocket motor of the M270A"

"Saab and Boeing conducted a series of live-fire tests of the GLSDB, using the rocket motor provided by Nammo in Vidsel, Sweden, in February 2015 "

2019 - https://militaryembedded.com/radar-...llowing-third-test-launch-say-saab-and-boeing

Given that they've made a few, fired them, & it uses mostly OTS components (it's a in-production warhead with built-in guidance fitted to an in-production unguided rocket), I think SAAB & Boeing should have an idea of the costs, even if not an exact price.

They haven’t produced anything at all apart from a handful of test based systems for the 3 flight tests they have conducted over the last 7 years... No planned ramp up to even an LRIP level of production because of no orders whatsoever...

I think I’ll take their rather substantial price differential with a very large grain of salt, until they actually sign a contract to produce something and one without any possible review into the price they are charging, waived first…

 

[swerve]

But you must admit that "doesn’t exist, hasn’t yet been developed" was mistaken. That sort of mistake can make people distrust other things you say about an issue, because it can look as if you're being dismissive without looking into it. It's something to be careful of.

 

[Stampede]

An article of interest from ASPI today re Army's ability for long range strike.
What's on the horizon and what is needed to make it work.

Australian Army’s long-range strike capability could be firing blind | The Strategist

The Australian government has committed to spending $5 billion on procuring a land-based long-range strike capability, which will almost certainly be the US-produced High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, better known as HIMARS. This investment, under ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

No doubt some answers will be found in the defence review.
Certainly Army is getting some long range reach.

Interesting



Cheers S

 

[ADMk2]

But you must admit that "doesn’t exist, hasn’t yet been developed" was mistaken. That sort of mistake can make people distrust other things you say about an issue, because it can look as if you're being dismissive without looking into it. It's something to be careful of.

Depends how semantic you want to be about those terms I guess. Does it have a current production run? Answer is no.

So does it ‘exist’? Not in material form…

Call me cynical if it makes you feel better, but I am hardly going to accept non-critically such claims around cost when they aren’t even manufacturing the things. Certainly not from Boeing and SAAB and especially not when they have announced that if ordered they will not reveal the actual cost of the things… Lol

 

[Bob53]

Anyone suggesting more boxers be ubstituted for tracked IFV May be worth looking at this tweet… what happens to wheeled vehicles in a fire fight ….

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1598644397117243394