Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Panzer_Leader

Australian Army modernisation

Recommended Posts

IHS Jane's has produced an informative overview of investment and upgrade programmes for the Australian Army: http://www.janes360.com/images/assets/623/62623/Shaping_up_for_the_future_Australian_Army_modernisation.pdf

 

However, I'm pretty sure the two M1A1 SA the article mentions at brigade headquarters are actually at squadron (company) headquarters, in addition to the three 4-tank troops (platoons).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seen in one of the reviews of so called Plan Beersheba, that they plan to upgrade their M1A1SA's and also purchase more M1's, there is also some talk about purchasing M104 HAB's and maybe also M1150 ABV's.

 

Perhaps Australia will upgrade to M1A2SEPv3 level?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well just recently if I am not mistaken Australia purchased more M88A2's.

 

I just readed the IHS Jane's article posted, yep they plan to go with M1A2SEPv3.

Edited by Damian90

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you can draw that conclusion.

 

I think I'm a touch closer to the issue than well meant observations from Poland. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I do not deny that, I can only say what I can find in official statements and released documents.

 

Can you say more about it? Or it's OPSEC? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I could have, I would have.

 

I'm not authorised to make official "Public" comment here (i.e. representing the ADF or DoD).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, but we would love to hear your speculations. xD

 

(No, don't! Don't want you getting in trouble... well, not that kind of trouble anyway.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an excerpt of a Chief of Army speech to the Defence Magazine Conference on 9 February 2016:

 

"Army is also looking at the options available to better posture it to sustain the current tank capability prior to its upgrade under Land 907 Phase 2.

That project will ensure Army maintains the capability to successfully conduct sustained mounted close combat in the future.

It may include Australia aligning our baseline tank configuration with US Army tank development pathways (M1A2 Systems Enhancement Package Version 3).

The Land 907 Phase 2 upgrade will occur over the next 10 years with the intent to have a fully operational capability by 2025.

This upgrade will provide improvements in lethality, protection, mobility and importantly command, control and communications systems which will ensure that the M1 is operable with Australian and coalition land forces.

Importantly, the timing of this project aligns with key milestones in Army’s other armoured vehicle project, Land 400."

 

I guess the key word is "may".

 

Link to full speech: http://www.army.gov.au/Our-work/Speeches-and-transcripts/Chief-of-Army-address-to-the-Defence-Magazine-Conference

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No the key phase is:

 

"Army is also looking at the options"

 

From that we derive a capability requirement

 

Then we look at all the implications (facilities, training, spares, etc.)

 

Then we work out how to fund it

 

Then, if Government approves we can buy it.

 

Its a long road from identifying a need to that new capability driving into the vehicle compound.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gibsonm said:

.....

 

Its a long road from identifying a need to that new capability driving into the vehicle compound.

 

Tell me about it :-(

In comparison, stalactites are fast growing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my favourite online publications for Australian Defence Force updates, Defence Technology Review (http://dtrmagazine.com/), has produced an excellent and detailed lift out on the Australian Army's armoured vehicle programmes to 2030: http://dtrmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Australian-Armoured-Vehicle-Programs-to-2030-Special-Supplement.pdf.

 

The publisher is a former editor at Jane's so a must read for anyone interested in Australian AFVs or the Australian Army in general. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

Sure but remember its still a publication by a Journo.

 

2030 is a loooong way away.

 

 

So not the time to use the Boxer as replacement for M113s in the next aussi "rolling thunder" campaign yet :-)

Edited by Grenny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree, I won't tell you how old I'll be then ;)

 

But, we're not all professional military officers "inside the tent" and we need something to go on. As far as I'm concerned, DTR provides some of the best analysis of LAND 400 around. Given the value of the Australian Army's armoured vehicle recapitalisation, it's got the interest of major defence corporates and the media. I appreciate everything can change between now and then but enjoy the analysis anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Grenny said:

So not the time to use the Boxer as replacement for M113s in the next aussi "rolling thunder" campaign yet :-)

 

Well it hasn't won yet now has it ;-)......though if money is no object then it surely is the front-runner. What i dont get about the LAND 400 Phase 2, is the disparity between the different contenders (Sentinel, LAV , Boxer and AMV) . It does sort of point to the requirements being kind of vague or open to misinterpretation. How else does one explain one offer being a very basic almost spartan vehicle, and another being the all singing all dancing with bells and whistles and cupholders deluxe model. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...because in the end, politics and budget determine what kind of capabilities an army gets. It shouldn't be like that ... but this is reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The September special edition of Australian Defence Magazine, for the Land Forces 2016 conference, contains a lot of detailed information on planned Australian Army modernisation, inlcuding LAND 400 Phase 2 and Phase 3, and is available electronically (at least until next month's edition) here: http://www.australiandefence.com.au/home/adm-editions

 

Read from page 32 onwards.  It includes coverage of (Phase 2 contenders Boxer CRV and AMV35 and possible Phase 3 contenders CV90E35, Ajax/ASCOD(IFV), Rheinmetall Lynx, and Puma.  Plenty of enjoyable reading for those interested. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Panzer_Leader said:

The September special edition of Australian Defence Magazine, for the Land Forces 2016 conference, contains a lot of detailed information on planned Australian Army modernisation, inlcuding LAND 400 Phase 2 and Phase 3, and is available electronically (at least until next month's edition) here: http://www.australiandefence.com.au/home/adm-editions

 

Read from page 32 onwards.  It includes coverage of (Phase 2 contenders Boxer CRV and AMV35 and possible Phase 3 contenders CV90E35, Ajax/ASCOD(IFV), Rheinmetall Lynx, and Puma.  Plenty of enjoyable reading for those interested. 

 

Great read...tanks ^_^

 

Aside from a few factual errors,  it  gives like a well rounded overview of LAND 400. One thing that is obvious is that the German AFV industry is going all-in on Phase 2 and 3....you can tell they want to win this bad ;-) 

 

Contrasting the article on the Boxer CRV with the ditto on the AMV is also telling........the first one goes on and on about all the systems and capabilities of the Boxer , while the AMV35 article barely mentions the vehicle, focusing solely on the industrial aspects of LAND 400 ie local production , technology transfer etc.

BAE's phase three entrant is also looking decidedly lackluster .....its not 2005 anymore.....a bog-standard CV9035 with a protector RWS on top is not going to cut it i'm afraid....its like they are not even trying O.o??

 

 

Honestly , BAE is starting to look more and more like a stalking horse to me.........cant see how they can possibly win this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, if I was the customer and cost (and perhaps weight) wasn't an issue, I'd want Boxer CRV - that thing's a beast! The AMV35 offers lower levels of protection and looks like it can't be upgraded to the maximum extent of the documented requirements. They also haven't integrated an ATGM, unlike its competitor. But it is lighter and I assume cheaper so it looks like Army has options and the ability to make informed cost/benefit trade-offs after trials. Not a bad position to be in for the customer I would think.

 

The total value of the programme is definitely bringing the best of the (mostly) MOTS contenders to the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/9/2016 at 2:06 AM, Panzer_Leader said:

Yes, if I was the customer and cost (and perhaps weight) wasn't an issue, I'd want Boxer CRV - that thing's a beast!

It really is......and i,m guessing the price tag is going to be pretty monstrous as well ;-) .......Its huge weight might be its achilles heel though.....~38 tonnes coupled with a high center of gravity might limit its mobility in heavy terrain. 

 

Quote

The AMV35 offers lower levels of protection

Compared to the heavily up-armored Boxer CRV yes, however the basic AMV has the same protection level as a basic Boxer ( STANAG level 6 front , level 4 allround ) . 

 

Quote

looks like it can't be upgraded to the maximum extent of the documented requirements

I cant see why not ?.....it certainly has enough of a payload margin to be able to fit substantial add-on armor.

The bare E35 turret is already at level 5+ allround so  only needs minor improvements to reach the required STANAG 6 level.

 

Quote

They also haven't integrated an ATGM

I agree this is a critical disadvantage,.....however i do know that BAE/ Hägglunds is working hard on trying to rectify that shortcoming by adding a ATGM capability to the E35 turret. When it will be ready or what missile they plan on using i dont know.

 

Quote

The total value of the programme is definitely bringing the best of the (mostly) MOTS contenders to the table.

 

Is it ?....See, this is what i dont understand .......if its that important, why are all the other competitors entering these mediocre/ basic vehicles ? ....Of the plethora of 8x8s GD has in its portfolio they choose to offer the LAV 6.0 which is arguably the least capable of them all.

That doesnt look like someone who wants to win a competition.  

 

The STK/Elbit  Sentinel, though advanced, is little more than a prototype technology demonstrator at this stage and certainly not MOTS. Its amphibious heritage apparently also meant it has difficulty meeting protection requirements (despite a  GVW of 35t )

 

The AMV35 might have great potential.......but it looks like the result of BAE panicking....a last moment kit-bash of available parts/vehicles. That's bad enough, but submitting it without a RWS, CITV , APS , ATGM capability or even just an upgraded armor package is frankly mind-boggling. As in stupid ! ......

 

If the only selling point of these also-ran's is low cost(at the expense of capability)....then they have already lost.

 

What it does not look like is four companies having read the same set of requirements or RFI/RFPs .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, MikeKiloPapa said:

What it does not look like is four companies having read the same set of requirements or RFI/RFPs .

 

...or someone has already made up his mind about what he wants, and shaped the RFQ accordingly so only one or two contenders have a realistic chance of winning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Ssnake said:

 

...or someone has already made up his mind about what he wants, and shaped the RFQ accordingly so only one or two contenders have a realistic chance of winning.

 

Having procured vehicles for the government, I can't possibly comment on that. :P

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...