Australian Army Discussions and Updates

winnyfield · May 3, 2009

No great procurement surprises for the Army in the White Paper. Most projects will go ahead. Artillery replacement still on, M113 upgrade to continue.

One thing I noticed is this:

Land Forces
8.20 Land combat, combat support and combat service support forces (such as infantry, armour, artillery, combat engineers, and aviation), which are able to operate as combined-arms teams and undertake combat in our littoral environment and territory, are necessary to secure offshore territories and facilities, defeat incursions onto Australian territory and potentially deny adversaries access to staging bases from which they could attack us. They are also required to undertake amphibious manoeuvre, and stabilisation and reconstruction operations in our immediate neighbourhood, as well as operations further afield in support of our wider interests, as determined by Government at the time.

Emphasis on army amphib ops. Wondering whether it came from the Army or Navy? Most likely the latter considering the tone of the white paper

PeterM · May 5, 2009

from the whitepaper

9.48 When deployed on combat operations, our troops could be exposed to rocket and mortar fire. The Government will replace or upgrade the Army's ground-based air defence system (currently based on the RBS-70 missile) with more advanced systems that will also include a new counter rocket and mortar capability to protect land forces from artillery, rockets and mortar fire.

what kind of systems are viable options?

There are plenty of options to upgrade the air defence, but the requirement to counter rockets, artillery and mortars (C-RAM) is interesting, does this mean some kind of gun system?

Perhaps something along the lines of the Centurion (Phalanx IB on a HEMTT) being used by the US?

Ozzy Blizzard · May 5, 2009

PeterM said:
from the whitepaper

what kind of systems are viable options?

There are plenty of options to upgrade the air defence, but the requirement to counter rockets, artillery and mortars (C-RAM) is interesting, does this mean some kind of gun system?

Perhaps something along the lines of the Centurion (Phalanx IB on a HEMTT) being used by the US?

MTHEL???? :tasty

jacktar · May 5, 2009

PeterM said:
from the whitepaper

what kind of systems are viable options?

There are plenty of options to upgrade the air defence, but the requirement to counter rockets, artillery and mortars (C-RAM) is interesting, does this mean some kind of gun system?

Perhaps something along the lines of the Centurion (Phalanx IB on a HEMTT) being used by the US?

The 2 most advanced systems as I understand it are the Phalanx/TPQ-36/37 based Centurion which is fielded in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Oerlikon (now Rheinmetall Air Defence) Sky Shield system based on the Millennium gun and an Ericson radar that is currently undergoing field trials with the Bunderswer. There are also several developmental system in France and Israel that are less advanced and a range of projects across the world attempting to integrate different sensors and effectors.

JT

Abraham Gubler · May 5, 2009

jacktar said:
The 2 most advanced systems as I understand it are the Phalanx/TPQ-36/37 based Centurion which is fielded in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Oerlikon (now Rheinmetall Air Defence) Sky Shield system based on the Millennium gun and an Ericson radar that is currently undergoing field trials with the Bunderswer. There are also several developmental system in France and Israel that are less advanced and a range of projects across the world attempting to integrate different sensors and effectors.

I wouldn't agree with that call. The Israeli Iron Dome is entering service this year and provides an area C-RAM defence. Phalanx/Centurion and Sky Shield only offer a point defence (ie a FOB). The Sky Shield system doesn't use the Ericson multi-fuction radar but the Skyguard dual antenna radar. Sky Shield is also under development for C-RAM with work underway to modify the AHED round for anti-bomb performance. Performance wise there is no way the gun systems (Centurion/Sky Shield) can compare to the Iron Dome missile system. Laser systems like the MTHEL have a range of difficulties in terms of energy management (chemical based) and can't operate in cloud, fog and smoke environments. The Raytheon solid state laser on a Phalanx mount is a lot more practical (and cheap!).

Abraham Gubler · May 5, 2009

winnyfield said:
Emphasis on army amphib ops. Wondering whether it came from the Army or Navy? Most likely the latter considering the tone of the white paper

MOLE [Maneuver Operations in a Littoral Environment] has been the Army's key doctrine since 2000.

PeterM · May 5, 2009

Abraham Gubler said:
I wouldn't agree with that call. The Israeli Iron Dome is entering service this year and provides an area C-RAM defence. Phalanx/Centurion and Sky Shield only offer a point defence (ie a FOB). The Sky Shield system doesn't use the Ericson multi-fuction radar but the Skyguard dual antenna radar. Sky Shield is also under development for C-RAM with work underway to modify the AHED round for anti-bomb performance. Performance wise there is no way the gun systems (Centurion/Sky Shield) can compare to the Iron Dome missile system. Laser systems like the MTHEL have a range of difficulties in terms of energy management (chemical based) and can't operate in cloud, fog and smoke environments. The Raytheon solid state laser on a Phalanx mount is a lot more practical (and cheap!).

Which are likely to be the more cost effective solutions for the ADF?

Iron Dome is interesting and certainly more effective than these other systems, but how does it stack up from a cost point of view?

The Raytheon Laser Area Defense System (LADS) is certainly interesting; presumably it could be mounted on on a vehicle something like the the Centurion for mobility

Abraham Gubler · May 5, 2009

PeterM said:
Which are likely to be the more cost effective solutions for the ADF?

Iron Dome is interesting and certainly more effective than these other systems, but how does it stack up from a cost point of view?

The Raytheon Laser Area Defense System (LADS) is certainly interesting; presumably it could be mounted on on a vehicle something like the the Centurion for mobility

The 'mobility' of a Centurion on the back of a truck is not tactical. The kind of C-RAM capability between a Centurion/LADS and Iron Dome are very different. One covers a pinprick the other covers wide areas.

The solicitation for information put out by defence a few years ago on the new air defence/C-RAM capability required protection of mobile combat teams in the field and ubran operations as well as base and beachead defence. Only system that can do that is Iron Dome. Which BTW can also easily shoot down aircraft and is scalable with the Sunner/David's Sling missile.

Each Iron Dome firing unit with multi function radar and command post would cost about the same as rivals (like Ericsson) if not less because of lower Israeli labour costs. The missile launcher is extremely cheap (its just a box with a radio) and the missiles are supposed to be under $40k a pop.

PeterM · May 8, 2009

Abraham Gubler said:
The 'mobility' of a Centurion on the back of a truck is not tactical. The kind of C-RAM capability between a Centurion/LADS and Iron Dome are very different. One covers a pinprick the other covers wide areas.

The solicitation for information put out by defence a few years ago on the new air defence/C-RAM capability required protection of mobile combat teams in the field and ubran operations as well as base and beachead defence. Only system that can do that is Iron Dome. Which BTW can also easily shoot down aircraft and is scalable with the Sunner/David's Sling missile.

Each Iron Dome firing unit with multi function radar and command post would cost about the same as rivals (like Ericsson) if not less because of lower Israeli labour costs. The missile launcher is extremely cheap (its just a box with a radio) and the missiles are supposed to be under $40k a pop.

I agree that the Iron Dome sounds like a much better solution from all I have read than point defense ciws style systems (which are the only C-RAM alternative I found).

PeterM · May 8, 2009

from the defence whitepaper

9.38 The Government places a high priority on the survivability and mobility of our land forces. To meet this priority, Defence intends to acquire a new fleet of around 1,100 deployable protected vehicles. These new vehicles will replace existing armoured personnel carriers, mobility vehicles and other combat vehicles which, in the past, have had limited or no protection. These new vehicles will offer greatly improved firepower, protection and mobility, in response to the increasing complexity and lethality of land operations. In the shorter term, Defence will continue to upgrade the protection, mobility and firepower of the M113 Armoured Personnel Carriers, some of which are already in service. By the time this project is completed in late 2011, the Army will have around 430 of these enhanced vehicles.

1,100 vehicles to replace the ASLAV and upgraded M113 is an interesting project.

it looks like this may be some kind of merger of LAND 112 Phase 4 and LAND 400 Phase 1, possibly with the earlier procurement of new systems instead of the ASLAV upgrade program.

general info on these projects from the DCP 2006
http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/id/dcp/DCP_2006_16.pdf

LAND 112 Phase 4 (ASLAV Enhancement)
Year-of-Decision: FY 2010/11 to 2012/13
In-service Delivery: 2012 to 2014
Estimated Phase Expenditure: $200m to $250m

LAND 400 Phase 1 (Survivability of Ground Forces)
Year-of-Decision: FY 2011/12 to 2013/14
In-service Delivery: 2015 to 2017
Estimated Phase Expenditure: $1000m to $1500m

What kind of systems are the likely options?

The obvious options seem to be German Puma (31.45t), UK's FRES/Pirahna V (28t), France's VBCI (26t) and maybe US Stryker (19t)

Any thoughts?

PeterM · May 8, 2009

Is there any update on the SPH component of LAND 17? I know Australia submitted a requested to purchase 57 M777 for the towed component of LAND17.

Last I heard it was down to the PzH2000 and AS-9, but that was some time ago. I expected the decision to be delayed until after the white paper, but has there been any final decisions yet?

from the white paper:

9.45 The Government has decided to further enhance the direct and indirect combat power available to the Army's combined-arms teams. The Government will proceed with the acquisition of new 155mm artillery systems, both self-propelled and towed type, able to fire precision munitions at very long ranges, and high rates of fire. These systems will comprise a deployable capability of two batteries of self-propelled guns and four batteries of towed guns. The towed guns will be able to be moved by helicopter and transport aircraft.

the army was looking for options for 18, 24 or 30 SPHs

presumably 2 batteries of SPH = 18 AS-9/PzH2000

The SPH will likely come from the total of 57 systems which leaves 39 M777 for the 4 towed batteries.

uuname · May 8, 2009

PeterM said:
1,100 vehicles to replace the ASLAV and upgraded M113 is an interesting project.

Note the phrasing carefully. They are planning on 1100 protected vehicles to replace a range of current vehicles.
That doesn't necessarily mean it has to be 1100 vehicles of the same type.

For example, the Bushmaster is a protected vehicle intended to replace current (unprotected) vehicles, so any of those still on order may be counted towards that total. I suspect that some armoured trucks may be on the cards as well.

Perhaps I'm a cynic, abut I wouldn't be expecting a fleet of >1000 IFVs just yet...

NOMAD · May 8, 2009

9.46 Army's mortars will also be replaced with a new and more capable system, and the Government will
equip our soldiers with new direct-fire anti-armour as well as automatic grenade launcher systems. (bold my emphasis)

Will this just be an upgrade/replacement of the existing 81mm mortars/fire control system or could army see a shift to 120mm mortars.

Nomad

winnyfield · May 9, 2009

NOMAD said:
9.46 Army's mortars will also be replaced with a new and more capable system, and the Government will
equip our soldiers with new direct-fire anti-armour as well as automatic grenade launcher systems. (bold my emphasis)

Will this just be an upgrade/replacement of the existing 81mm mortars/fire control system or could army see a shift to 120mm mortars.

Nomad

A long range version of the 81mm was looked at a few years ago but was eventually canned. Some of the improved 81s have similar ranges to 120mm mortars. But, a towed 120 (by Bushmasters) would come in handy for a battlegroup.

Navor86 · May 9, 2009

What I really miss in this white Paper is an all around Helicopter Capability.
For Exampe neither add. Tiger Helos nor a dedicated armed Utility Helo are on the cards. But a Regiment with comparable Structure like a USMC HMLA would a big punch for the ADF even though they would need 4 Task Units as opposed to 3 in an HMLA. 4 of those Tasks Units would give the ADF a sustainable Combat/Utility Helo option.

PeterM · May 9, 2009

Navor86 said:
What I really miss in this white Paper is an all around Helicopter Capability.
For Exampe neither add. Tiger Helos nor a dedicated armed Utility Helo are on the cards. But a Regiment with comparable Structure like a USMC HMLA would a big punch for the ADF even though they would need 4 Task Units as opposed to 3 in an HMLA. 4 of those Tasks Units would give the ADF a sustainable Combat/Utility Helo option.

I don't really agree here, firstly, the Tiger ARHs are just coming into service and is a huge upgrade in capability.

as for the utility aircraft, from the whitepaper

9.42 Operations in our region will generate considerable demands for intra-theatre lift to support dispersed deployments and to access remote areas.

9.43 The Government has decided to replace the current fleet of six CH-47D helicopters with a new fleet of seven CH-47F aircraft, the most modern and capable type of this proven and versatile helicopter. These new medium-lift helicopters will see Australia operating the same aircraft configuration as the US Army, which has a fleet of around 500 aircraft. Not only will these aircraft have improved electronic warfare self-protection systems and maintenance arrangements to increase their operational effectiveness and employability across the battlefield, but future operating costs will be reduced as we take full advantage of the development, engineering, training and spares systems that are in place for the US Army.

9.44 The Army will be the major beneficiary of the 46 MRH-90 helicopters to be introduced as a pooled fleet shared between the Navy and the Army. The Army will operate 30 MRH-90 helicopters to replace its Blackhawk troop lift aircraft, and share a further seven helicopters for common flight training for both Services. This larger and more capable new helicopter will enter service with the Army in 2011.

current
6 CH47D
35 Blackhawks (11 Passenngers ea) - 385 passenger lift capability

future
7 CH47F
30 MRH90 (20 Passengers ea) - 600 passenger lift capability

I am no defence expert, but that is a considerable upgrade in helicoptor lift capability despite the similar numbers.

Also bear in mind that some (6?) of the Blackhawks will be undergoing maintenance cycles whereas with MRH90 are all operational aircraft with additional aircraft in the pool to facilitate maintenance.

PeterM · May 9, 2009

uuname said:
Note the phrasing carefully. They are planning on 1100 protected vehicles to replace a range of current vehicles.
That doesn't necessarily mean it has to be 1100 vehicles of the same type.

For example, the Bushmaster is a protected vehicle intended to replace current (unprotected) vehicles, so any of those still on order may be counted towards that total. I suspect that some armoured trucks may be on the cards as well.

Perhaps I'm a cynic, abut I wouldn't be expecting a fleet of >1000 IFVs just yet...

They are very good points certainly

I think the current operations have shown the limited protection provided by the Aslav and M113

I believe that currently the ADF has 257 ASLAVs and will have 430 upgraded M113s by 2011.

I think it is reasonably to assume that these will be replaced by some kind of IFV, perhaps somewhere around 650 vehicles. That would leave 450 vehicles, which I would expect to be Bushmasters IMV (Infanrty Mobility Vehicles) or Bushmaster variants.

I believe the ADF has currently 289 Bushmasters with another 448 on order (for a total of 737). Looking at these numbers I would expect that the 448 Bushmasters currently on order would be included in the figure of 1,100 new vehicles listed in the white paper

that would give the ADF an operational mix of something like:

650 IFVs (replacing ASLAV and upgraded M113) + 737 Bushmasters (and variants)

NOMAD · May 10, 2009

PeterM said:
Is there any update on the SPH component of LAND 17? I know Australia submitted a requested to purchase 57 M777 for the towed component of LAND17.

Last I heard it was down to the PzH2000 and AS-9, but that was some time ago. I expected the decision to be delayed until after the white paper, but has there been any final decisions yet?

from the white paper:

the army was looking for options for 18, 24 or 30 SPHs

presumably 2 batteries of SPH = 18 AS-9/PzH2000

The SPH will likely come from the total of 57 systems which leaves 39 M777 for the 4 towed batteries.

PeterM

This is from a post on t5c by Abraham Gubler is response to a question similar to yours.

"The actual numbers will be 12 SP155 (PzH2000 or K9) and 35 M777A2. Of these guns each SP battery will have four SP155s ready to roll (contracted requirement for the TLS provider) and each towed battery will have six guns ready to shoot. There will also be a SP155 turret simulator and driver trainers at Pucka as no SP155s will be posted to School of Arty. The 11 extra M777A2s will be split between school guns and those at the TLS provider receiving depot level maintenance."

Hope this helps

Nomad

PeterM · May 10, 2009

NOMAD said:
PeterM

This is from a post on t5c by Abraham Gubler is response to a question similar to yours.

"The actual numbers will be 12 SP155 (PzH2000 or K9) and 35 M777A2. Of these guns each SP battery will have four SP155s ready to roll (contracted requirement for the TLS provider) and each towed battery will have six guns ready to shoot. There will also be a SP155 turret simulator and driver trainers at Pucka as no SP155s will be posted to School of Arty. The 11 extra M777A2s will be split between school guns and those at the TLS provider receiving depot level maintenance."

Hope this helps

Nomad

Very interesting, thanks Nomad

FutureTank · May 10, 2009

PeterM said:
650 IFVs (replacing ASLAV and upgraded M113) + 737 Bushmasters (and variants)

Probably the "650" includes the M113AS3/4s, and only about 200 new IFVs would be purchased, because that's all thee is in the LAND400 budget.

Given the cost of a modern IFV (4 million Euro for a wheeled, 5 million Euro for a tracked design), and the probable desire to assemble if not manufacture large parts of the design in Australia by the Government (at least the Liberal Government), 200 is about the number of a modular design that includes a number of variants (wheeled and tracked).

The only problem is that the emphasis pointed out in a previous post on amphibious operations. I would expect a swim capability of some sort, but there are very few existing designs on the market from Australia's usual suppliers that are also affordable. The US EFV now over 14 years behind original projected time for delivery and cost increase such (USD$21.6 million as of June 2007) that the USMC was forced to almost half the numbers of intended procurement.

That is not to say that such a vehicle can't be designed in Australia or elsewhere at more affordable prices.

Australian Army Discussions and Updates

New Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

Defense Professional

Defense Professional

Active Member

Defense Professional

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Member

Active Member

Active Member

New Member

Active Member

Banned Member