Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Takao]

I wouldn't undermine my own unit, but I can tell you this.
If I had a substandard dig in my section when I was a seco, I would try and bring him up to standard. If he lacked motivation, or the actual skills to do his job, he was moved on to somewhere that his strong points would be put to better use. Every one has strong and weak points. It happens to me when I was a "lid" I stuffed up for my first year.
But, you MUST not lower the standards so that someone will fit in. If they can't carry a Mag 58 and the rest of the gear, at the speed required, if they can't man pack a couple of mortar rounds as well as their own gear, when required, if they can't keep up 5km an hour for 8 hours with their kit, they can't be grunts.
There are plenty of suitable jobs that females can do in combat roles. But you can't just have ladies as scouts only, they have to be able to every job an infantry soldier does. Sig, gunner, what ever.
Having said that, if they CAN do it, welcome aboard, and I doubt that many men would find a girl that can do the job properly attractive, and she probably wouldn't find most of the guys attractive either.
.

I can't argue that you need to be able to do all the roles required - that's a no brainer. Nor that anyone has to be able to meet the standards (I'll come back to that). I can tell you that despite being a male I would never have passed Infantry IETs as a teenager - I'd have been broken.

I can also fully support the role of a leader is to bring up those below standard. However, there are some things that get lots of slack and some things that don't. And we both know of soldiers and officers who should have been eased out earlier instead of trailing along. Were these 7 in that group? I don't know. I can only judge them on their lack of respect and teamwork.

The standards are a separate and fascinating discussion that was, for a period of time, closely looked at last year until someone senior said stop. Why are RAInf standards like they are? No one can tell you. They are seriously excessive when compared to every other line infantry requirements and exceed most Special Operations requirements. So why the disparity? And why the order to stop investigating? Even better, why (noting the greater mechanisation and potential for uninhabited systems in the near future) are the standards at SoI the same now as they were when old faithful went through? Why do they have to carry 81 mm bombs? Has nothing improved or changed since then? Every other school has evolved - SoI fiddles around the edges.

To my mind, RAInf missed a serious trick here. Instead of a bunch of blokes tossing their toys out of the cot (like many are), they missed the opportunity to revise the Corps to push into the future. In taking females in, they could have triggered a "Corps review" - a fundamental justification of infantry, its importance and its role in the future. There could have been a body of work that made RAInf look forward-leaning, capable - pushing the unique opportunities that they offer the Joint Force and securing a strong say in many things that flow on. But even when pitched that option it was rejected - better just to say no.

Finally, some of those standards are crippling people. Not Infantry ones, but recruit ones. And not because they are bad or because our trainees are weak - but because we are ignoring professional advice about how small and large, male and female, tall and short bodies absorb nutrients and recover. Sometime soon, someone is going to ask why we break so many young men and women. No one's heads will roll as it's mostly officers, but the reality is that we have failed many, many people thanks to our unwillingness to listen, consider and revise as appropriate.

 

[old faithful]

This clip shows what can happen when you lower standards.
I'm not saying don't put women into infantry. I am saying, don't lower the standards so that women can pass.
We have a tiny, but well trained and capable army (all our forces for that matter).
Yes, its a more modern time, and yes women definatley have a role to play in infantry battalions, but more in specialized positions. Linguists, dog handlers, SIG's, drivers, plenty of other jibs to, but as a member of a mixed fighting patrol?
Put it this way, how come the Brisbane Broncos don't have any women playing in their 1st grade team? Why hasn't the Australian cricket team got a few women playing in it? Because of one factor alone, thepysical differences of men and women.

 

[Wombat000]

Im waiting for mixed gender boxing, or UFC, elite sports.
If society has deemed it appropriate to have mixed gender INTENTIONAL close combat units, then surely they can compete in the sporting arena.
They simply select the most capable to win the trophy, regardless of gender.
I am waiting for the ADF to back its own inclusive policies & lead the way in mixed gender competitions.

 

[Stampede]

Interesting question.

According to a US presentation (presumably by BGEN Coffman) referred to in the DTR article, the 30mm gun (presumably the 30 x 173mm) offers no advantage over the 100mm gun of the BMP-3 or 30mm gun on the T-15 Armata IFV, however, the 50mm achieved lethality overmatch.

I would suggest there is a significant advantage in the larger rounds. The US are not alone in moving to larger calibres. The British and French are also moving to larger AFV armament with the 40mm CT40 Case Telescoped Weapon System for the Ajax, Warrior and Jaguar AFVs. Other countries have moved to the 35x228mm, so there is obviously tangible benefits to moving larger calibres. This makes sense given the emerging trend of heavier and better protected IFVs.

The real question for Australia is whether we consider a larger calibre at some point; obviously the 30x173mm meets the currently expected future CONOPs as detailed in the LAND400 tender.

No one wants to take a knife to a gun fight, but then again, no use having a gun if you lack ammunition.
The upshot, lots of trade off's to look at in choosing the appropriate calibre gun for our Land 400 vehicles.
I probably would think that larger than 30 mm would be the future.Even if it means less rounds carried.
One thing to consider will be the proliferation of UAV's of all sizes;nano / small / medium and large that will contest the future battle space.
A vehicle that has a sufficiently large calibre canon able to strike a surface target one minute and then engage an aerial target the next will be a must in the future.
Not sure 30mm is what you want when you up against a near peer adversary who has a gun in a modern IFV with a few extra mm than what you have.

And yes I do suggest a near peer will also have tanks,artillery, air support and all the other bits and bobs.

Regards S

 

[old faithful]

Im waiting for mixed gender boxing, or UFC, elite sports.
If society has deemed it appropriate to have mixed gender INTENTIONAL close combat units, then surely they can compete in the sporting arena.
They simply select the most capable to win the trophy, regardless of gender.
I am waiting for the ADF to back its own inclusive policies & lead the way in mixed gender competitions.

Pretty sure there are no chicks in the 1RAR rugby team.....less dangerous, and less physically demanding than combat.....

 

[Milne Bay]

Puma IFV 'no bid' for Land 400 Phase 3
Read more at Puma IFV 'no bid' for Land 400 Phase 3 - Australian Defence Magazine

Effectively the Army has decided that it does not want an unmanned turret which sidelines the Puma.
Apparently Lynx is still a possibility.
I would be interested in Army's reasoning behind the unmanned turret being out of favour
MB

 

[PeterM]

Puma IFV 'no bid' for Land 400 Phase 3
Read more at Puma IFV 'no bid' for Land 400 Phase 3 - Australian Defence Magazine

Effectively the Army has decided that it does not want an unmanned turret which sidelines the Puma.
Apparently Lynx is still a possibility.
I would be interested in Army's reasoning behind the unmanned turret being out of favour
MB

It also sidelines the Samson turret which was featured in the October issue of DTR magazine.

I am surprised that they didn't look at fitting the Lance 2.0 turret on the Puma. It could simply be that Rheinmetall and Kraus-Maffei Wegmann want to focus their efforts on the Lynx KF41, which they believe has the best chance of success.

The Lynx is also being going to be proposed for the US Next Generation Combat Vehicle program. Given the ties and similar equipment between the US and Australia, if the Lynx does get up for Land 400 ph3, it probably would be a small advantage for their US bid.

 

[PeterM]

The November issue of DTR magazine has an article on the M777ER which is being developed by the joint Army/USMC Long Range Cannon project.

The M777ER has a 55 calibre barrel instead of the current 39 calibre barrel. Range increases to over 65km. The barrel is 1.83m longer and increases weight by 453kg. The Armaments Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC) demonstrated the capability to integrate the longer barrel into the M777A2 with minimal modification.

It seems that this could be a future development for our M777A2s. Combined with the Assegai range of 155mm ammunition there will be a significant increase in capability.

I still have questions on how well the M777A2 (or M777ER) will be able to provide support once LAND 400 becomes fully operational. Interestn

The US Army believes the technology developed for the Long Range Cannon project could be leveraged for a wheeled 155mm self-propelled howitzer. I wonder whether they are thinking of something along the lines of the Caesar SPG or perhaps something based on an armoured vehicle like Stryker.

 

[Stampede]

The November issue of DTR magazine has an article on the M777ER which is being developed by the joint Army/USMC Long Range Cannon project.

The M777ER has a 55 calibre barrel instead of the current 39 calibre barrel. Range increases to over 65km. The barrel is 1.83m longer and increases weight by 453kg. The Armaments Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC) demonstrated the capability to integrate the longer barrel into the M777A2 with minimal modification.

It seems that this could be a future development for our M777A2s. Combined with the Assegai range of 155mm ammunition there will be a significant increase in capability.

I still have questions on how well the M777A2 (or M777ER) will be able to provide support once LAND 400 becomes fully operational. Interestn

The US Army believes the technology developed for the Long Range Cannon project could be leveraged for a wheeled 155mm self-propelled howitzer. I wonder whether they are thinking of something along the lines of the Caesar SPG or perhaps something based on an armoured vehicle like Stryker.

The lack of a SPG for the Army is disappointing.
With our Brigades all mobile with either tracks of wheels, a towed M777 even with an upgrade looks the odd man out for a modern heavy manoeuvre force.

Regards S

 

[ngatimozart]

The lack of a SPG for the Army is disappointing.
With our Brigades all mobile with either tracks of wheels, a towed M777 even with an upgrade looks the odd man out for a modern heavy manoeuvre force.

Regards S

It's swings and roundabouts with SPG and towed arty. Each has it's pros and cons and even in a mobile force towed arty still has its place.
This article discusses the 105 mm / 155 mm round or something in between but it covers tracked and towed arty as well. It's well worth the read.

105mm, 155mm or Something In-between? - Think Defence

 

[Stampede]

It's swings and roundabouts with SPG and towed arty. Each has it's pros and cons and even in a mobile force towed arty still has its place.
This article discusses the 105 mm / 155 mm round or something in between but it covers tracked and towed arty as well. It's well worth the read.

105mm, 155mm or Something In-between? - Think Defence

Thanks for the reply.

ADM 2009

Land Force: Artillery - Land 17: self propelled Vs towed | ADM Feb 2009 - Australian Defence Magazine

I wonder if LAND 17 was run today, which way would we lean?
Any way it's not on the table so I guess it's academic.
However I would envisage, that other varieties of Land 400 vehicles other than those being initially sort, may be adopted with a SPG capability.
Will wait and see.


Thanks S

 

[Takao]

It's swings and roundabouts with SPG and towed arty. Each has it's pros and cons and even in a mobile force towed arty still has its place.
This article discusses the 105 mm / 155 mm round or something in between but it covers tracked and towed arty as well. It's well worth the read.

105mm, 155mm or Something In-between? - Think Defence

As much as I like Think Defence, there are some significant flaws in that article, especially about towed v self-propelled.

LAND 17-1 was killed across the lake from Russell. You'll have to ask the Minister at the time why.

Looking at the futures work of Australia and her significant allies, it becomes clear that, in the near future, artillery will have to be mobile (to rapidly respond, to manoeuvre with mobile forces and to avoid counter-fires) and to be protected (to avoid small arms / shrapnel from counter-fires and to avoid mines / IEDs). It also stresses the need for artillery, the ability to mass fires is still a potent deterrence and is essential on the battlefield - especially if you increase your artillery ammunition from just HE or illum. Note also that a SPG has significant range advantages, even more so if the new barrels seen in the US are pursued. Finally, in an environment with shortfalls in people, an SPG offers reduced crew and better options for automation - even possibly uninhabited systems.

Most of the criticisms of SPG are no longer relevant to the ADF, especially with the CRV / IFV push that will be occurring. It won't be the biggest, heaviest, longest or tallest vehicle in the fleet, that is for sure! Also, note that many of the 'advantages' are actually ignoring significant amounts of towed artillery support infrastructure.

Putting all that together - the M777, like all towed guns, cannot do most of this (ammo natures they can). Hence, it is obsolete. There are some on here and in uniform who still argue for it, either as a replacement for the M777 or as a third Battery in an SPG Regt; but with limited funding, I think the Army has to make a choice to pick one fleet and go for it. And I think, for the Objective or Future Forces, we will kill people if we persist in ignoring SPG.

Either way, it won't budge from 155 mm.

 

[old faithful]

One of the biggest problems I see with SP arty, mech Inf , and all of Australias armour, is the real lack of all terrain refeulers. I think we have some fuel trucks and a bushmaster varient. The bushmasters can only refuel 2 M1,s, and the trucks can't always get to where the tanks can. What is the solution to this, help resup?

 

[Joe Black]

One of the biggest problems I see with SP arty, mech Inf , and all of Australias armour, is the real lack of all terrain refeulers. I think we have some fuel trucks and a bushmaster varient. The bushmasters can only refuel 2 M1,s, and the trucks can't always get to where the tanks can. What is the solution to this, help resup?

What about the new Rheinmetall HX trucks?

 

[ngatimozart]

One of the biggest problems I see with SP arty, mech Inf , and all of Australias armour, is the real lack of all terrain refeulers. I think we have some fuel trucks and a bushmaster varient. The bushmasters can only refuel 2 M1,s, and the trucks can't always get to where the tanks can. What is the solution to this, help resup?

The 8 x 8 and 10 x 10 MAN high mobility trucks would get into most places that tanks can, so no reason why a refuelling system based on a 20ft TEU bulk fluid tank, or a dedicated fuel tanker using the MAN 8 x 8 or 10 x 10 MAN HX truck chassis cannot be utilised.

 

[Stampede]

The 8 x 8 and 10 x 10 MAN high mobility trucks would get into most places that tanks can, so no reason why a refuelling system based on a 20ft TEU bulk fluid tank, or a dedicated fuel tanker using the MAN 8 x 8 or 10 x 10 MAN HX truck chassis cannot be utilised.

Logistics is not very cool or sexy compared to the things that go bang.
However it's just as important a cog on the wheel for a true whole of a capability requirement.
Not just Tanks, but the whole ADF faces this challenge more than most defence forces with our large land geography and AIR / SEA approaches.
I cannot say if the Armoured Cavalry Regiments have a sufficient fuel resupply inventory of vehicles but I trust this was considered when selecting vehicles for Land 121.

An knowledge to confirm the situation.

Regards S

 

[Stampede]

I thought I'd share a link to the Army newspaper as it has an article on the Kiowa helicopters last flight with the Army.

Defence Newspapers | Army News

Given we are to select a new light helicopter it nice to reflect on an asset that has served the Army well.

Regards S

 

[Raven22]

One of the biggest problems I see with SP arty, mech Inf , and all of Australias armour, is the real lack of all terrain refeulers. I think we have some fuel trucks and a bushmaster varient. The bushmasters can only refuel 2 M1,s, and the trucks can't always get to where the tanks can. What is the solution to this, help resup?

There are no bushmaster variants that carry fuel. You may be thinking of a TPA, which is a system that holds just under 4000L and is usually mounted on a Unimog or 8-tonne trailer.

Fuel resupply isn’t great in the army at the moment. In a continuation of the absolute cluster*$&# that is the L121 introduction into service, there are currently no liquid pods for either the 40M or HX77. They will come at some indeterminate later time. Therefore everyone is still reliant on the old Mack TTFs for bulk fuel. However, the trucks are ancient and aren’t being sustained anymore, so serviceability is appalling. There were never enough to begin with, and only a small fraction that are left work at any one time. Until L121 starts to deliver a TTF replacement, bulk fuel supply will be a problem.

An ‘all-terrain’ fuel asset, by which I take it you mean one with the same mobility as tanks, is only really useful in the A1 ech, and only marginally useful there. Bulk fuel, which tanks will always need, will always come on wheels. They are looking at putting an off the shelf TPA-like thing on the ALVs, but they would really only be useful supporting the mech battalions. They just don’t carry enough fuel to be useful supporting tanks.

 

[t68]

Looking at the ANOA report into Land 121, it appears that there wont be a dedicated TTF but will have a portable system which NG alluded to, it doesn't go into detail on the size of the tank and appears to have to come with a separate container for the pumping equipment. The US Army use the HEMTT M978A2 which is 9,500ltr, too long ago since I worked with a TTF cant remember the capacity of the thing

I imagine that RACT still practice replenishment parks and distribution points with refuelling points etc, 1st line units will all ways move back for 2nd line transport to resup.

 

[PeterM]

I wonder if LAND 17 was run today, which way would we lean?

Any way it's not on the table so I guess it's academic.
However I would envisage, that other varieties of Land 400 vehicles other than those being initially sort, may be adopted with a SPG capability.
Will wait and see.

Thanks S

It is an interesting hypothetical discussion.

The obvious solution with a Land 400 vehicle is the Boxer RCH. This uses the 155mm Artillery Gun Module (AGM) which uses the 155mm 52-caliber gun from the PzH 2000.

The other obvious option is the Donar SPG (developed by Kraus-Maffei Wegmann and General Dynamics) which is built on the ASCOD 2 chassis and also uses the AGM. If Ajax gets up this may have been in consideration. Presumably a similar solution could be developed with a Lynx Kf41 chassis.

Donar has similar performance to the PzH 2000, however is significantly lighter and cheaper. Donar is 35t and the Boxer RCH has a similar weight. Both are significantly lighter than the Land 17 finalists (47t for the AS9 and 55t for the PzH 2000).

Interestingly, both options have a crew of two so either would save 3 crew over what the Land 17 finalists would have used.

The M777A2 is listed as having a crew of 7+1. Going to a Donar/ Boxer RCH would save 5-6 crew per gun; across 24 systems (as was proposed in Land 17 Phase 2), that is a total 576 fewer people needed to operate the systems.
These systems have a significant sticker price, but when you consider the indirect costs to recruit, train and support the crew to operate them a case could be made that a Boxer RCH or Donar style of solution provided better value for money. The flip side of it is that actual economic savings be realised as these 576 people would be repurposed to other areas of need.

Then again, it could also depend on how the Army view remote turrets for artillery; they are certainly not popular for the CRV and IFV tenders.

It is certainly not currently on the table, so it moot either way