Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Land 17 - K9 Vs G6 ???
BLUIE006    1/10/2008 6:36:59 PM
its a pity the G6 requires a cre 0f 6 ........ nice system though my choice K9 - cheap but effective ...meaning potentially more of them. Pzh2000- is the best system... id say a bit expensive considering the trade deal for bushmasters fell through
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5   NEXT
Volkodav       1/11/2008 4:38:17 AM
I've heard the K9 is a bit of a dog.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussie Diggermark 2       1/11/2008 10:00:02 AM
K-9 may be cheaper than PZH-2000 but no matter how much cheaper, we still won't get more than 36x of them at most and the budget is large enough to cover 36x PZH-2000 I believe.

If the K-9 is cheaper, than Government will simply spend less money and Army will lose capability.

The original PZH-2000 deal reportedly fell through on insufficient detail for the support arrangements and costs. Not capability. I am certain a formal response to a request for tender WILL contain the information Army needs to make an informed choice and thus I don't think PZH-2000 is out of the picture by any means...

G-6 is but. I would "virtually" bet my house that G-6/52 is never in-service with the Australian Army.

 
Quote    Reply

Aussie Diggermark 2       1/21/2008 6:42:19 AM
A little snippet has emerged about LAND 17.

Apparently Tenix hasn't even submitted a tender for the 155mm SPH. The meaning of this is simple: no Archer for Australia...

And KMWare putting together a huge Australian support centre with BAE to jointly support PZH-2000 and M777 within Australia...

Raytheon and the K-9 are apparently intending to use a "reach back" support system to South Korea...
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       1/21/2008 7:20:25 AM
Raytheon and the K-9 are apparently intending to use a "reach back" support system to South Korea...
 
God no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
One of the reasons I left my previous job was I didn't want to be there when a dodgy korean manufactured version of one of our products killed someone.  The design was fine it was the poor quality and substandard parts substitutions that scared me. 
 
Greedy ferking baby boomer managers wanting to increase profit at any cost.
 
Koreans only make good stuff when you stand over them and watch every facet of the production process.  It would work out cheaper to buy gold plated PzH 2000's than it would to ensure the K-9's were built to spec. or to fix them after if we don't send a qualified person to follow each and every component through the production process.
 
Rant over
 
Quote    Reply

Milne Bay       1/21/2008 5:47:11 PM

A little snippet has emerged about LAND 17.

Apparently Tenix hasn't even submitted a tender for the 155mm SPH. The meaning of this is simple: no Archer for Australia...

And KMWare putting together a huge Australian support centre with BAE to jointly support PZH-2000 and M777 within Australia...

Raytheon and the K-9 are apparently intending to use a "reach back" support system to South Korea...

I thought that Archer was eliminated as a possibility some time ago for much the same reasons as Caesar - lack of protection for the crew in reloading scenarios. I may be wrong here.
Regards
MB
 
Quote    Reply

Aussie Diggermark 2       1/21/2008 9:18:35 PM
I don't think Archer was totally eliminated, but it is now...

Personally I think we'll see PZH-2000 and M777 in future RRAA service, supported perhaps by some M-198's in high readiness reserve service, which will be an excellent thing...
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       1/21/2008 9:18:44 PM



A little snippet has emerged about LAND 17.

Apparently Tenix hasn't even submitted a tender for the 155mm SPH. The meaning of this is simple: no Archer for Australia...

And KMWare putting together a huge Australian support centre with BAE to jointly support PZH-2000 and M777 within Australia...

Raytheon and the K-9 are apparently intending to use a "reach back" support system to South Korea...


I thought that Archer was eliminated as a possibility some time ago for much the same reasons as Caesar - lack of protection for the crew in reloading scenarios. I may be wrong here.
Regards
MB



Caesar also lost out due to OH&S issues.  I remember speaking to a punter at one of the LWC's and he pointed out that there were some concerns with dismounting under fire due to "sharp" appendages.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Arty Farty       1/21/2008 11:33:12 PM

Apparently Tenix hasn't even submitted a tender for the 155mm SPH. The meaning of this is simple: no Archer for Australia...

And KMWare putting together a huge Australian support centre with BAE to jointly support PZH-2000 and M777 within Australia...

I know it that BAE just only bought Tenix but, for BAE not supporting the Archer is odd considering it's their product.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussie Diggermark 2       1/22/2008 8:15:49 AM



Apparently Tenix hasn't even submitted a tender for the 155mm SPH. The meaning of this is simple: no Archer for Australia...

And KMWare putting together a huge Australian support centre with BAE to jointly support PZH-2000 and M777 within Australia...


I know it that BAE just only bought Tenix but, for BAE not supporting the Archer is odd considering it's their product.



It might be their product, but they obviously don't believe it's worth tendering for. The platform obviously then doesn't meet the requirements of the tender, or they can "see the writing on the wall" and don't want to waste a small fortune tendering for something they probably don't stand a realistic chance for.

Besides, the M-777 is a shoe-in for the LWH. Might as well concentrate on that...
 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer       1/22/2008 1:01:03 PM
Is there an "In Service by" requirement for Land 17?  I know a decision on the systems is immenent, but when are they actually wanted?
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4 5   NEXT



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics