Australian Army Discussions and Updates

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I reckon Defence has got to tread the SPG purchase very carefully. We could make things a whole lot worse on the already tested relationship with the Koreans.

Hanwha expects Defence to go with them as a default as they saw themselves as the winner of the previous bid. If the Army is going to prefer KF-41 Lynx rather than AS-21 Redback for the LAND400Phase3, then it is almost impossible to not award Hanwha with the SPG deal.
That had crossed my mind. I also wondered whether something like the Donar would be considered if we went for the Lynx.
 

Joe Black

Active Member
That had crossed my mind. I also wondered whether something like the Donar would be considered if we went for the Lynx.
Donar is already mated with the Boxer chassis, so it is definitely an option, but would Defence go this option knowing they will definitely piss off the Koreans. This could spark a diplomatic issue at the Foreign Affairs dept.

 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
While doable if we are going to go the SPG route then I would rather we get the best system available. For such a vehicle there are three issues off the bat that I see with the Boxer AGM. Reloading, Is there a specialised vehicle/system to get the module reloaded quickly like with other SPG's because if not then they would have limited operational use in regards to time frame. Shell's carried, The module only carries 30 shells compared to the K9's 48 which is quite a bit less and also the issue of cost vs capability. If we get more bang for our buck spending a little more on say a K9 portfolio I would rather that then saving a little on a Boxer AGM that could potentially be a lot less capable.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
My POV is that the Reserve is very useful - but only at the individual and small team (section / platoon level). With the current framework the Reserve simply can't sustain anything that requires a lot of collective training (outside of general mobilisation anyway). The utter failure of the reinforcing battlegroup to provide a meaningful capability (rather than just 400 blokes in uniform that happen to be in the same place at the same time) has made that pretty clear. Looking at the future, it is likely that the most useful role the Reserve can play is filling holes in regular units created by manning shortfalls.

For example, being a gun number on a gunline (punching bombs out of an M777) is not difficult. It doesn't take a lot of training to get good (enough) at it. All the difficult stuff in Joint Fires happens in the OPs, JFECC etc where the work out what to drop bombs on and how to do it. So while there is no way the Reserve could sustain something like a full battery at a remotely useful NTM, maintaining enough qualified gun numbers to augment a regular unit would be relatively simple. A battery construct that had all the difficult stuff manned by ARA, and four guns manned by ARA, with Reserves tasked to provide the warm bodies to man the last two guns when needed, would be entirely workable. Such a model could be used to augment all Regular units/capability.

For me the key thing is that the unit would still have to function only with ARA staff, without Reserves. The Reserves are there to take the capability from some acceptable minimum to some better level. Otherwise, your entire capability becomes dependent on whether Johnno can get next week off work or not. For an example of how it doesn't work, you only have to look at the Cavalry. The Cavalry is (or at least should be) a permanent combined arms team, where the recon scouts are fundamental to the capability. However, at the moment the ARA can't fit scouts within the manning cap, so the ARES have to provide scouts instead. While the scouts the ARES provide are generally okay skills wise, they are simply not there often enough or reliably enough to sustain a useful capability. My experience is that you put in more effort trying to get scouts, equip them, train them up, and integrate them into the troops than you actually get out of them in terms of capability. In other words, they are a net drain on capability. I only kept taking them on exercises to avoid rupturing the relationship with the ARES RAAC units.

Of course, as I've mentioned before, the biggest obstacle to any meaningful reform of the Reserve is their own leadership. Who wants to be a CO if all you do is give individual soldiers over to someone else to take to war?


Thanks Raven for the reply.
Given Army already has its existing brigade structure I don't want to take the conversation too far into fantasy unit structures.
In relation to the reserves, I concur that it appears a bridge too far to expect too much from them as large deployable units for high intensity operations.
As suggested, gap fillers of "warm bodies" for the lesser skilled jobs is certainly possible.
How do we move forward with this.
Do we directly link individual reserve units with regular units so that they culturally fit?
Maybe we condense our six reserve brigades down to three with these having a much greater percentage of regulars to provide for both greater flexibility for expansion and limited deploy-ability.
Certainly some challenges but maybe with some good outcomes

Regards s
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
My sense is that once the SPG are available there won't be a lot of M777 deployment.

Eventually a structure of 2 batteries SPG and 1 of M777 will be the structure - though possibly not straight away.

Would note the this again reinforces what a step change the current ADF modernisation plan is. Comparing todays ADF to that of 20 years ago is startling in a good way.

Regards,

Massive
I feel if we maintain three like brigades with both a mechanised and motorised battle group we would want to reflect that across the supporting elements.
Therefore a heavy SPG and towed artillery in each Brigade ( I don't see us getting an additional wheeled SPG if we purchase a tracked SPG )

Regards S
 

t68

Well-Known Member
Thanks Raven for the reply.
Given Army already has its existing brigade structure I don't want to take the conversation too far into fantasy unit structures.
In relation to the reserves, I concur that it appears a bridge too far to expect too much from them as large deployable units for high intensity operations.
As suggested, gap fillers of "warm bodies" for the lesser skilled jobs is certainly possible.
How do we move forward with this.
Do we directly link individual reserve units with regular units so that they culturally fit?
Maybe we condense our six reserve brigades down to three with these having a much greater percentage of regulars to provide for both greater flexibility for expansion and limited deploy-ability.
Certainly some challenges but maybe with some good outcomes

Regards s

I cant see that working out either as reserves are not just in one location, unless reservist have government jobs they are very limited with the amount of time they can put aside, unless they increase the pay for reservist, would majority of reservist like to put more into their time I think so, but unfortunately reserve pay doesn't pay the bills
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I cant see that working out either as reserves are not just in one location, unless reservist have government jobs they are very limited with the amount of time they can put aside, unless they increase the pay for reservist, would majority of reservist like to put more into their time I think so, but unfortunately reserve pay doesn't pay the bills
That was the catch 22 in the 90s, employers were able to, and did discriminate against reservists. Even today, with additional protections many managers, if not employers, see reserves in an unfavourable light, i.e. people playing soldier.

The sort of person who is an efficient and capable reservist also tends to be good at their day job, meaning management doesn't like having to give them leave for any reason, they want them there working, Nd not just 38hours a week.
 

Morgo

Well-Known Member
Donar is already mated with the Boxer chassis, so it is definitely an option, but would Defence go this option knowing they will definitely piss off the Koreans. This could spark a diplomatic issue at the Foreign Affairs dept.

Hang on - really? Let’s put things into perspective. Hanwha are not big. Their market cap is around AUD3bn. This is the roughly the same as Corporate Travel Ltd. So if Corp Travel has made an unsolicited offer to outsource travel procurement to a S Korean government department, and that gov department said “Great idea! We really like what you’ve put forward here, but we’re going to put it to tender so our taxpayers are getting value for money” this would be a diplomatic incident too? I think not.

By way of comparison, the Japanese got the rug pulled out from them on a contract that is literally 100 times larger. They didn’t like it, but the relationship seems fine now.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Hang on - really? Let’s put things into perspective. Hanwha are not big. Their market cap is around AUD3bn. This is the roughly the same as Corporate Travel Ltd. So if Corp Travel has made an unsolicited offer to outsource travel procurement to a S Korean government department, and that gov department said “Great idea! We really like what you’ve put forward here, but we’re going to put it to tender so our taxpayers are getting value for money” this would be a diplomatic incident too? I think not.

By way of comparison, the Japanese got the rug pulled out from them on a contract that is literally 100 times larger. They didn’t like it, but the relationship seems fine now.
Diplomatically speaking there wont be any issues beyond maybe some SK ministers grumbling if Australia goes back to a open tender rather then sole source from SK however there will be a decent diplomatic issue if SK does win or is selected and then the program is once again cancelled or delayed.

As for Japan I wouldn say they had the rug pulled out from under them. They hadn't won anything prior to the tender with only Abbott (One man does not make a deal) and the US (Which shouldnt matter as the US was only looking at it from the perspective of what best sent a message to China rather then what was best for Australia) and when it was all said and done when it did go to competition against other offers they lost fair and square, No rug pulling of any kind. Japan shouldnt have made the assumption that Abbott alone could pick and choose where everything was acquired and how, Their fault for that assumption not ours.
 

toryu

Member
A joint build of the K-9, K-10 and AS-21 at Geelong would make some commercial sense as you are looking at as many as 485 Vehicles but the AS-21 has to be selected first and that is 2-3 years away
I think if Hanwha wants to make a serious impression regarding L400P3 then having an actual, existing production facility in place would be looked at very favourably.

There's also potentially another reason. There's a dot point in the graphic in this article another user put up a few pages back:

snip.jpg

Now I tried looking into this but could not come up with much. No idea if it's truly significant. It's clear they are really hungry for a bigger slice of the world market.

It is possible however that taking the leap and building a production facility earlier accomplishes not only a more realistic bid proposal for L400P3 but also accomplishes something regarding this 'national directive' back home. They're not exactly a small company, given the group sits on nearly US150B in assets, so maybe the cost of a small factory, maybe designed to scale-up, is probably not that big a deal and worth taking a chance on if it helps score a win with the Redback. There is also that protective amphibious vehicle that has been talked about...

It feels like they're probably being very strategic, but as an outsider I'm just plain guessing!
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
@toryu , Just a quick heads up mate in the world of economics it isn't the assets you look at, Its the equity. Assets minus liabilities equals equity.

As to why go for a build in Australia well it really comes down into what kind of build it is. If its CKD or majority CKD then it really isnt so hard for them to justify the expense of setting up a facility. Such a production facility wouldn't require nearly as much equipment and infrastructure as building them from scratch.

Was actually wondering if this is Hanwha's way of breaking into the Australian defence market and having a local subsidiary from whom they can expand and even make deals in regards to production, R&D etc across other products??
 

Morgo

Well-Known Member
Diplomatically speaking there wont be any issues beyond maybe some SK ministers grumbling if Australia goes back to a open tender rather then sole source from SK however there will be a decent diplomatic issue if SK does win or is selected and then the program is once again cancelled or delayed.

As for Japan I wouldn say they had the rug pulled out from under them. They hadn't won anything prior to the tender with only Abbott (One man does not make a deal) and the US (Which shouldnt matter as the US was only looking at it from the perspective of what best sent a message to China rather then what was best for Australia) and when it was all said and done when it did go to competition against other offers they lost fair and square, No rug pulling of any kind. Japan shouldnt have made the assumption that Abbott alone could pick and choose where everything was acquired and how, Their fault for that assumption not ours.
Agreed. Could’ve chosen my words better, but I think we agree that the Govt shouldn’t feel constrained by diplomatic considerations if they feel the need to cast a wider net.
 

Ballistic

Member
The issue I can see here is that over the next few years, if the US Army gets its way and the technology works out, they will have an even more capable system than the current K9 is right now - if we get K9, we will have a good system for sure, but not the best system available. If as capable as advertised, ERCA will substantially increase artillery range and capability, the M109A7 will move from a 39 calibre gun with a slow non-automated reload system and a crew of 5 to a 58 calibre gun and an auto-reloader with a need of only 2/3 crew. This will both lower manning requirements even more and increasing artillery range by over twice as much with the current extended range munitions used by the K9.

I don't know of any pressing time constraints with this program other than future federal elections, but I think the in the greater scheme of things, waiting for the ERCA upgrades and then having an open tender would be a good choice to get the best option for the ADF. That's just my humble opinion.
 

Takao

The Bunker Group
I don't know of any pressing time constraints with this program other than future federal elections, but I think the in the greater scheme of things, waiting for the ERCA upgrades and then having an open tender would be a good choice to get the best option for the ADF. That's just my humble opinion.
The uselessness of the M777 in almost any modern war, especially if the enemy has a counter-battery capability, is more than enough. Between the M113 and the M777 we have an excellent 1950s Army.....
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The issue I can see here is that over the next few years, if the US Army gets its way and the technology works out, they will have an even more capable system than the current K9 is right now - if we get K9, we will have a good system for sure, but not the best system available. If as capable as advertised, ERCA will substantially increase artillery range and capability, the M109A7 will move from a 39 calibre gun with a slow non-automated reload system and a crew of 5 to a 58 calibre gun and an auto-reloader with a need of only 2/3 crew. This will both lower manning requirements even more and increasing artillery range by over twice as much with the current extended range munitions used by the K9.

I don't know of any pressing time constraints with this program other than future federal elections, but I think the in the greater scheme of things, waiting for the ERCA upgrades and then having an open tender would be a good choice to get the best option for the ADF. That's just my humble opinion.
And how long before the US Army fields a new 155 mm SPG? The US Army doesn't exactly have a sterling reputation for fielding acquisitions on time and on budget. Their recent acquisitions history isn't exactly encouraging either. The point that I am making is that Australia doesn't really have the luxury of waiting for the US Army to line all its ducks up and make a decision, let alone get Congressional approval and survive any subsequent appeals and legal action.
 

Milne Bay

Active Member
The uselessness of the M777 in almost any modern war, especially if the enemy has a counter-battery capability, is more than enough. Between the M113 and the M777 we have an excellent 1950s Army.....
Well said.
Gun numbers on the M777 are simply casualties waiting to happen in any peer conflict.
The choice of an armoured SPG was overdue ten years ago and is even more imperative now.
We didn't need the Ukrainian experience to know that, but it is a salutory reminder.
MB
 

Ballistic

Member
ERCA is coming online in about the same time period that Land 8112 Protected Mobile Fires program starts building up (first ERCA M109A7 battalion in 2022/23), the time frames are are so close to each other that holding off for an actual tender process makes sense. I agree on both your points, that M777 is an antiquated type of artillery system (as far as its inability to be self propelled - though that artillery system still has its place) - I also argued a few pages back that this hole in capability (SPA) should have been filled back when Land 17 was a thing. I agree also that there could be problems within the US ERCA program, halting/stalling progress (though I don't really see this happening with an essential artillery upgrade program to counter Chinese and Russian artillery systems in which the US is already behind), the US is pushing ahead hard with ERCA, it needs it because if it doesn't get it, their artillery capability will be less capable than their peer rivals. I'm just saying that going for a sole source on a system that has the very high possibility of being superceded technologically in the same time frame would be a lost opportunity.

Either way though, I think the K9 is a fine system and one that could serve Australia well, but I think the ERCA is an equally important program/capability and its developments must be watched closely.
 
Last edited:

Morgo

Well-Known Member
The uselessness of the M777 in almost any modern war, especially if the enemy has a counter-battery capability, is more than enough. Between the M113 and the M777 we have an excellent 1950s Army.....
I think this is an oversimplification. If you’re talking about a land war in Eurasia against a major power, then sure an SPG is the best answer. But that’s not the only, or even the most likely, contingency we would face.

If you’re talking about the sort of action 2 RAR is designed for then the difference between the 4 tonnes of an M777 vs the 40+ of a K9 becomes pretty important. One is a hell of a lot easier to move from an LHD to shore than the other, and takes up much less room on board. If you’ve got guns on the beach / at the airfield and the oppositions are still in their ships - you win.

If you’re talking about COIN, then mobility and survivability become less valuable as you’re probably operating from a well protected fire base.

So I think a mixed inventory of self propelled and stationary but lightweight (and hence high mobility) guns makes sense. Which seems to be where we’re heading.
 
Top