MLRS for Australia?

[Aussie Digger]

Gf's talk of MLRS has got me thinking. Should Australia consider an MLRS capability when it comes time (within the next few years) to replace it's Artillery? I thought that a HIMMARS type capabilty would provide a good compromise between firepower and the expense of this type of capability. What say y'all?

 

[gf0012-aust]

my 2 cents:

arty should be a combination, especilly in lieu of the terrain.

so the 3 "T's" for me, towed, tyred and tracked... balance should also include MLRS using all up rounds, guided and unguided.

an all up will allow the MLRS stacks to be used on 8-15 tonne flat top trucks as well as dedicated vehicles.

as has been discussed by others as well, and has been demonstrated by the Russians in WW2, the US in Iraq, MLRS is an ideal armoured vehicle killer..

MLRS will allow long range strikes on armour thus forcing the opfor to have UAV's up and running, thus also demonstrating presence and probable intent.

I'd be interested to see what Awang se says as they are using battlefield rockets in Malaysia, so similar operational doctrine overlap.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Yeah I have to say I agree. I wonder too about the decision to buy an armoured 120mm mortar system. This seems to be a hangover from the A21 days. The Recon battalions were supposed to have a troop of 6x 120mm Armoured Mortars and a troop of 6x 105mm Direct Fire vehicles to support each squadron. I guess that'll never really come about, but I think the money for the mortars would be better spent on MLRS, either tracked or wheeled. This would provide much greater firepower for the army (I never saw a mortar system that could destroy an entire gridsquare in one salvo...) and couldn't be too expensive.

 

[elkaboingo]

most countrys have a combo of MLRS and normal as MLRS is not as cheap.

i say go for a few MLRS to replace lots of towed. SP should stay

i do not no much about the australian situation so correct me if im wrong.

MLRS comes on tracks too.

 

[gf0012-aust]

most countrys have a combo of MLRS and normal as MLRS is not as cheap.

i say go for a few MLRS to replace lots of towed. SP should stay

i do not no much about the australian situation so correct me if im wrong.

MLRS comes on tracks too.

I'd still be tempted to have a mix. Arty is cheaper, logistics is easier, and as long as you have sector dominance may fill the need. As AG said, MLRS is an easier way to dominate a grid.

In a country like Australia I would imagine that tyred MLRS is a better choice. BUT () I would convert the old Leo 1 MBT's to mine thrashers and MLRS launcher platforms (no point in wasting good stable equipment)

We could convert some of the MII3's to 105mm SPG's using the weapons system out of the Leos. (probably unnecessary - but "waste not - want not")

 

[Snakecharmer]

Does Australia even need MLRS? I dont think massed land battles are a part of Aussie defence strategy, but I could be wrong. I think Australia should acquire more mobile and accurate gun systems, such as the upgraded South African G-5. I'm just speculating here.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Does Australia even need MLRS? I dont think massed land battles are a part of Aussie defence strategy, but I could be wrong. I think Australia should acquire more mobile and accurate gun systems, such as the upgraded South African G-5. I'm just speculating here.

I'm not sure we "need" MLRS either, but I guess its an issue of force flexibility. I would think that Ceasar would be our mounted choice in the near future..

 

[Aussie Digger]

We "won't" be getting towed artillery to replace our current artillery fleet according to the White Paper and our defence capability plan. The US Marine Corps has just developed a sort of mini MLRS named HIMMARS. It has half the firepower of the normal MLRS system, with 6 launchers instead of 12. It uses basically the same fire control system (actually a slightly improved one that is to be retro-fitted to the MLRS fleet) and the same munitions. It's mounted on the HUMMER, to provide greater mobility. This is what I think sould be obtained for Australian forces. It should be significantly cheaper than the normal MLRS, both to acquire and to maintain, and yet still provide useful capability. Our Government seems determined to raise a credible "armoured brigade" in light of it's inability to deploy more substantial forces to Iraq early last year, and will need capabilities such as this to fight in high intensity conflicts. As I stated above, a capability such as this would be much more useful for our army than the 120mm Armoured Mortars the government has planned for (which the army NEVER asked for btw...) This is particularly relevant when the 120mm mortars are compared to the South African 81mm mortars the Australian Army trialled in 2002. These mortars achieved maximum ranges in indirect fire of 7500 metres. The 120mm mortars I've read about only achieve around 9000m/s. That isn't a lot of extra capability, for the money. HIMMARS would be. Cheers.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Sorry, my bad. HIMARS is mounted on a light truck chassis, not a HUMMER. That is all.

 

[Aussie Digger]

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/himars.htm will provide people with most of the info and some pretty pics of the Himars system. Cheers.[/url]

 

[gf0012-aust]

These mortars achieved maximum ranges in indirect fire of 7500 metres. The 120mm mortars I've read about only achieve around 9000m/s. That isn't a lot of extra capability, for the money. HIMMARS would be. Cheers.

I guess the other issue is expendable cost ratios. Saturated 120mm fire or grid blocking with an MLRS. either way they both can only be used in a dominated area to protect them from other land forces that may be fast and mobile.

and any MLRS/howitzer group will need to travel under the mini combined arms of anti-hardened and anti-air forces.

the theatre is likely to be fluid, and hence they will be vulnerable unless sector dominance is achieved through stronger land or air cover.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Agreed, but that is very much a question for the entire army. Our army (nd indeed the ADF as a whole) is in dire need of more firepower. This has been admitted by the Chief of Army himself. On a purely platform v platform basis, HIMARS has more firepower at a (probably) less expensive rate. Don't forget the 120mm AMS is supposed to be fitted to an ASLAV type vehicle, with the inherent cost and maintenance issues that go with such a vehicle...

 

[gf0012-aust]

I get a bit nervous about unleashing heavy ordinance from a tyred vehicle, the recoil issues will be different, but to give you an idea, a 120mm TDS delivers 15tons of recoil, thats a heavy whack on body, chassis and suspension.

ASLAVs would only be able to fire these from a static position and it would need to be relatively flat - a tracked vehicle has better weight distribution and inherent stability.

We need more firepower, but firing it from an overgrown tyred and armoured taxi?

Not knocking the ASLAV, just whether its the right carrier for this job.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Well whether it is or not, that is what's planned. What I find interesting is the army never even asked for it. The idea obviously came from somewhere but not from Army's capability development section. I think that's why Land 5000 has now become so important. Army has figured out that it really needs to plan it's firepower asset acquistions or it may end up lumbered with capabilites it doesn't really need or even want. :?

 

[gf0012-aust]

maybe thats how you get equipment from the Govt? Just don't ask for it..

Lets see,

we don't want HSV's, Caesars and more AWACs...

 

[Aussie Digger]

Yeah and we don't want to ask for a fleet of F15E Strike Eagles, an extra squadorn or 2 of Armed Recon helicopters, the air warfare destroyers in addition to the Anzac's and FFG's etc etc...

 

[gf0012-aust]

its pretty scarey when you consider what should be on the shopping list as opposed to what we'd like on the shopping list.

the block obselesence thing is a bit of an issue ...

 

[Aussie Digger]

Hmm, but apparently the Government has got $50 billion lying around somewhere to fix that little problem...

 

[Aussie Digger]

I was just looking at the Australian Department of Defence website in the Defence Capability Development council. There is a powerpoint file in there which indicates the future capabilities of the Australian Army. At the Indirect fire support section there are pcitures of various indirect fire platforms including the HIMARS vehicle. Over this vehicle is a big bright Yellow NO written across it... If this document is still relevant (it still talks about Leopard tank upgrades...) then I guess there won't be any MLRS for Australia any time soon...

 

[Aussie Digger]

I just found this picture of a LAV fitted with a 120mm Mortar system. I believe somebody asked for a photo of it? Cheers.