The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 22, 2008

Dunnigan's and Bay's Latest

Advertisement



New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Squad Battles: Winter War
2.Silent War
3.Manoeuvre
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies

Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
Australia Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Latest developments on land 17, Land 121, land 40 phase 2
1stcohort3    9/3/2008 11:42:51 PM
Hi lads,

-What the latest on Land 17. Does anyone have any hints as to what might be selected. Its taking awfully long, and i cant deal with the suspense.

-Also what vehicles have been selected for 121?

-On the DMO website, it said trials had commenced in 2008 for a DFSW, any idea what likely candidates there are.
 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

ArtyEngineer       9/3/2008 11:52:06 PM
You guys are getting M777A2's for almost absolutely certain ;).  Quantity equal or les than 57 I think the numbe rwas.
Id bet a body part you will get PzH2000 also.  Several reasons for this surety.  BAE (Maker of the almost certainly selected M777) are in partnership with KMW and are already in the process of building some sort of support/maintenance centre i believe.
 
Quote    Reply

1stcohort3       9/4/2008 2:14:27 AM
^^If that's the case, I would not have had it any other way :)
 
Any news on overlander and DFSW?

 
Quote    Reply

1stcohort3       9/4/2008 2:16:45 AM
"An Australian government request to the US DSCA for 57 M777A2s has recently been made, worth $248m"
 
According to wiki (I know its wiki but hey). How many 2000's we looking at?
 
Quote    Reply

Arty Farty       9/4/2008 9:58:43 PM
Wasn't there talk of the new 7.62mm Minimi for DFSW to replace F89s? (can't recall where I heard this) The MAG 58 has been used widely in A'stan, guess it like going back to the M60.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       9/5/2008 5:52:55 AM
I hope its 'supplement the F-89' and not replace.
 
As to a return to the M-60 ...... the worst infantry weapon I ever fired or took on exercise.....there is a very good reason that the MAG 58 was bought and that some RAR Btn's started using Brens again while waiting for the F-89.  A heavy or old gun that works beats one that doesn't every time.
 
The advantage of the MAG 58 in Afghanistan is it's greater effective range and hitting power is very useful in the prevailing terrain.  It's length and weight, I imaging, would be a pain for the users. 
 
From Army Technology.com.au

MINIMI? 7.62 MACHINE GUN

FN HERSTAL recently launched the MINIMI? 7.62 x 51mm lightweight machine gun, to fulfil a growing worldwide requirement for a machine gun which provides the power of 7.62 ammunition in a 5.56 weight machine gun.

MINIMI? 5.56 and 7.62 machine guns have most parts in common, and similar ergonomics. A MINIMI? 5.56 machine gun user therefore needs no extra training to utilise the MINIMI? 7.62 machine gun.

The MINIMI? 7.62 machine gun is equipped with a medium barrel (longer than the MINIMI? 5.56 machine gun and shorter than the MAG 7.62 machine gun).

The MINIMI? 7.62 machine gun weighs less than 1kg more than the MINIMI? 5.56 machine gun, and approximately 4kg less than the MAG 7.62 machine gun.

ADVANTAGE OF THE MINIMI? 7.62 MACHINE-GUN

The MINIMI? 5.56 machine gun is used as a light support weapon and requires the user to carry the weapon and at least 600 rounds, while the MAG 7.62 machine gun is the ideal medium machine gun for tripods or being mounted on vehicles, but is heavy for any role requiring the user to carry it.

The MINIMI? 7.62 machine gun is a perfect compromise, providing the power of 7.62 ammunition in a machine gun of 5.56 weight.

 
Quote    Reply

Aussie Diggermark 2       9/5/2008 8:53:29 AM

Hi lads,

-What the latest on Land 17. Does anyone have any hints as to what might be selected. Its taking awfully long, and i cant deal with the suspense.

-Also what vehicles have been selected for 121?

-On the DMO website, it said trials had commenced in 2008 for a DFSW, any idea what likely candidates there are.

1. I posted about 3 weeks ago what is happening with Land 40 Phase 2. But here it is again...
 
The General Dynamics Mk 47 40mm AGL and the Heckler and Koch Grenade Machine Gun (GMG) are the Land 40 Phase 2 short listed weapons. According to ADM, the firing trials for these weapons are complete and the users (as usual) prefer the H&K ghat, but prefer the fire control system of the General Dynamics weapon... I guess it'll depend on price in the end... :)

Here are the guns anyway:

h**p://world.guns.ru/grenade/gl23-e.htm

h**p://world.guns.ru/grenade/gl21-e.htm


I expect a final recommendation will be put to Government shortly, but don't hold your breath with the White Paper due in less than 6 months, I expect NO major capability announcements prior to that. 


As to LAND 17, Defence HAVE confirmed that additional M-777A2 155mm guns were requested because they want to provide an expanded number of options to Government for our artillery replacement. Defence ALSO confirmed that an SPG still remains their top priority, however Government might feel differently...
 
 
Once again, don't expect anything prior to the White Paper. 
 
As to land 121, most of it is proceeding as previously announced, however the short-listed "medium and heavy" vehicles have failed some parts of their testing and hence that portion of Land 121 are going to be re-let. Basically the FMTV vehicles aren't proving up to scratch as far as Defence is concerned...
 
 

 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer    AD Mk2   9/5/2008 11:34:01 AM
Any details on the issues with the FMTV's.  They are a decent family of vehicles, however I much prefer the Oskosh "Beast" the MTVR!!!
 
Up-Armoured
 
Or Regular.
 
Was the MTVR family in consideration at all, or were the too big and were never a realistic consideration?
 
Quote    Reply

1stcohort3       9/5/2008 11:28:58 PM
What will happen to the m198s and L119s
 
Quote    Reply

Aussie Diggermark 2    Are: Artyengineer   9/6/2008 1:58:42 AM
They are not proving robust enough, of all things...
 
They were chosen "off paper" and once selected and Australian forces started copping IED hits overseas, the project managers realised survivability enhancement kits (SEK's) would be needed to use these things on a modern battlefield... 
 
They then procured some, tested them with the SEK of choice and axles started breaking etc...
 
Plus they wanted an 8x8 version that has never before been produced by the company (probably for recovery operations I guess) and therefore has inherent risk attached and the new Government has said, "enough of that" quite loudly in recent times and therefore the vehicle had to be cancelled. They decided then to cancel the entire section of LAND 121 that relates to "medium" vehicles, the "light" (G-Wagen) and heavy (new Mack's I believe) are continuing as before. 
 
It looks like a rival MAN product that was originally dismissed, might get a leg up afterall in the "medium" vehicle section...
 
A more interesting vehicle to be chosen is the "light" command, utility and recon vehicles that are to be acquired. Something along the lines of the Eagle IV I'm thinking would be very nice... With $1.5b to spend on that phase alone, we should be able to get a fair number of them...
 
 
 

 
 
 

 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       9/6/2008 4:31:23 AM
A more interesting vehicle to be chosen is the "light" command, utility and recon vehicles that are to be acquired. Something along the lines of the Eagle IV I'm thinking would be very nice... With $1.5b to spend on that phase alone, we should be able to get a fair number of them...
 
There are some very ineresting vehicles currently, or soon to be available in this class.  I bet the various Light Horse Units are waiting with baited breath.
 
Heres one I find particularly interesting.
 
AMPV
Enlarge image
Enlarge image
Krauss-Maffei Wegmann of Munich and Rheinmetall Defence of Düsseldorf have launched a joint programme to develop a highly protected new vehicle family in the 5 to 9 ton weight class. The first of the four-wheel drive Armoured Multipurpose Vehicle (AMPV) systems should be ready for serial delivery by 2011. A life-size mock-up of the vehicle is on show at Eurosatory 2008 for the first time. Completion of the first prototype is planned for 2009.
Responding to the Bundeswehr?s current GFF (?protected command and role-specific vehicle?) procurement programme, Krauss-Maffei Wegmann and Rheinmetall have decided to develop a family of GFF 1/2-class vehicles which will fully comply with user requirements. The two defence contractors are financing the development project on their own.

The objective of the joint project is to supply the armed forces of Germany and other nations with a vehicle that sets an entirely new standard for mobility, modularity and protection technology; and to safeguard and promote certain technologies vital to German national security.

AMPV VEHICLE FAMILY
The vehicle family encompasses two type series. The agile AMPV 1 is the smaller of the two, and makes an ideal liaison vehicle. A higher level of protection and a heavier payload are the primary characteristics of the bigger AMPV 2. However, the entire vehicle family is based on standardized engineering principles and technologies.

Both type series feature a patrol vehicle with an unprotected floor in the rear section, and an equipment kit carrier with a safety cell extending all the way to the rear of the vehicle.
Also planned is a special patrol version of the AMPV1 that can be airlifted in a CH53 transport helicopter.

PROTECTION AND MOBILITY ARE THE DRIVING FORCES BEHIND THE AMPV
Two of the world?s best-known suppliers of land systems, KMW and Rheinmetall both bring extensive experience from previous programmes to the AMPV development project.

The highly protected vehicle cell is an autonomous armoured steel structure with a spoor liner, while the reinforced undercarriage and reinforced cell structure offer optimum protection against landmines and IEDs. Moreover, add-on armour modules make sure that the various vehicle versions receive the required level of ballistic protection.

Drawing on past experience, the designers of the AMPV family have equipped the vehicles with a robust, high-performance running gear, independent wheel suspension, outstanding spring deflection and high ground clearance ? all specifically designed with military requirements in mind. These engineering principles are borrowed from the Boxer programme. Special combat wheels with run-flat tyres assure continued mobility even in critical situations.
A powerful 3.2-liter diesel engine with an output of around 200 kW guarantees excellent performance in all conditions. The vehicles all feature permanent four-wheel drive as well as automatic transmission and automatic differential lock management, relieving the strain on the driver.

The AMPV1 and AMPV2 are both extremely compact, and differ only slightly in height, length and wheelbase.

All vehicles in the AMPV family consist largely of identical components; the workstations in the fighting compartment are also identical, ensuring uniform operation. The advantages in terms of simplified logistics and training are readily evident.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       9/6/2008 4:53:09 AM
Something along the lines of the Eagle IV I'm thinking would be very nice...


Been lucky enough to go for a trundle in an Eagle, a v nice piece of kit....
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       9/6/2008 5:13:01 AM


Something along the lines of the Eagle IV I'm thinking would be very nice...






Been lucky enough to go for a trundle in an Eagle, a v nice piece of kit....


I knew your job was better than mine!
 
Quote    Reply

Aussie Diggermark 2       9/6/2008 9:46:37 PM


Something along the lines of the Eagle IV I'm thinking would be very nice...






Been lucky enough to go for a trundle in an Eagle, a v nice piece of kit....


Lucky you. I am jealous too...
 
Funnily enough, this type of vehicle seems awfully close to what Army wanted for it's Project Mulgara vehicles all those years ago. The more things change...
 
Quote    Reply

Kevin Pork       9/7/2008 2:06:17 AM

As to a return to the M-60 ...... the worst infantry weapon I ever fired or took on exercise.....there is a very good reason that the MAG 58 was bought and that some RAR Btn's started using Brens again while waiting for the F-89.  A heavy or old gun that works beats one that doesn't every time.

 The advantage of the MAG 58 in Afghanistan is it's greater effective range and hitting power is very useful in the prevailing terrain.  It's length and weight, I imaging, would be a pain for the users. 

 

From Army Technology.com.au


MINIMI? 7.62 MACHINE GUN


FN HERSTAL recently launched the MINIMI? 7.62 x 51mm lightweight machine gun, to fulfil a growing worldwide requirement for a machine gun which provides the power of 7.62 ammunition in a 5.56 weight machine gun.


MINIMI? 5.56 and 7.62 machine guns have most parts in common, and similar ergonomics. A MINIMI? 5.56 machine gun user therefore needs no extra training to utilise the MINIMI? 7.62 machine gun.


The MINIMI? 7.62 machine gun is equipped with a medium barrel (longer than the MINIMI? 5.56 machine gun and shorter than the MAG 7.62 machine gun).


The MINIMI? 7.62 machine gun weighs less than 1kg more than the MINIMI? 5.56 machine gun, and approximately 4kg less than the MAG 7.62 machine gun.


ADVANTAGE OF THE MINIMI? 7.62 MACHINE-GUN


The MINIMI? 5.56 machine gun is used as a light support weapon and requires the user to carry the weapon and at least 600 rounds, while the MAG 7.62 machine gun is the ideal medium machine gun for tripods or being mounted on vehicles, but is heavy for any role requiring the user to carry it.

The MINIMI? 7.62 machine gun is a perfect compromise, providing the power of 7.62 ammunition in a machine gun of 5.56 weight.



The reasons that Brens etc were used was that M60s literally wore out and parts were no longer being procured, if you were lucky enough to be issued an M60 in reasonable shape, and you were a decent machine gunner, they were an excellent weapon and far better balanced to carry than the Mag 58.
I like the idea of the 7.62mm Minimi, now they just have to design a 7.62mm F88.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       9/7/2008 2:44:03 AM
now they just have to design a 7.62mm F88.
 
The AUG A3 is offered in 6.8x43mm, not 7.62mm I know, but a definite improvement over 5.56mm
 
Quote    Reply

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2008StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy