It really was a question rather than a statement ...Nothing against Port Headland you know ...I understand its a nice place! ... But regardless of location...anywhere more than 1000Kms north of Perth or Adelaide....my question was really about how do they get there, how do they get targeting in an occupied space, how do they get deployed and supported, how do they concentrate fires? And 30 seems like a small number for an incredibly large area....
The K-9's can be fired from the deck of a ship for land bombardment, i.e the Canberra class LHD's in an amphibious landing scenario......
A few defence forces have configured them in this way, including the USA in certain scenario's.
I've only heard of the US trialling firing HIMARS from the deck of a warship during RIMPAC 2018. Do you have sources for other countries doing this in any meaningful way ? I can't see the skipper of an LHD being happy having his flight deck being used in such a way, especially if there are escorts nearby to provide NGS.
Not sure if a K9 would damage a flight deck manoeuvring to get into the correct position?
Reckon it might tear it up a bit! I’m sure it could’ve done, but unsure if it would ever needed to be done.
First turn the map around and ask how the enemy force is getting there, how they are being supported etc etc. History shows that it is much easier to resupply on internal lines rather than external lines, so I’d rather have the Australian problem than that of the attackers. Besides, if seemingly Australia can’t deploy and support 30 K9s on this hypothetical battlefield, then what good is having more of them?
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
We now have 11 Ships armed with the MK 45 127mm, we are not short on NGS, an Anzac, Hobart or a Hunter are far more manoeuvrable than a Canberra, far better suited to the task than using a K-9 off the Flight Deck of a Canberra, also remembering you may be interrupting Flight operations while doing so.
Last edited:
Takao
The Bunker Group
Yes. 120 mm mortars, while excellent platforms, are not in the same realm as 155 mm shells. The artillery effect still needs to be replaced after we get rid of the
The numbers are too small. They should be quadrupled - an optimal organisation would be 3 line Regt of 3x 8-gun Bty with another Bty for training and another Bty for attrition stock. But, at this point, we can't justify that over all the other bits of kit that we need. So we'll get double the original purchase, not quadruple. It'll mean risk for the follow on Bde, but hopefully a production line in Australia will help spool up rapidly. And if you are aware of how fast the K9 can be built - let's just say delays won't be on the civilian end....
Either way, and regardless of scenario, the 30 SPG is better than what we have now. Damn, 8 SPG would be better than what we have now. The rate of fire and manoeuvrability mean that 30 SPG will be able to do more than those familiar only with towed guns think.
Also - don't forget it isn't just 30 guns out there. No matter where you are fighting. There are the long-range rockets, Air Force and (if possible) Navy assets, tanks, attack helos, mortars, IFV, cybers, electrons and a bunch of smaller rockets and missiles. Add on this a suite of sensors ranging from space to nano-UAS all joined together in a C2 network that, having come from the RA, is one of the best in the world at applying fires to the points they are needed. For us, a combat Bde with enablers and a proper Regt of SPG is a fearsome thing, probably only rivalled by 1 - 2 other units of comparable size.
So for 30 SPG's are we now looking at 2 X 4 gun Bty for each of the three Regts. ( 24 Units ) ................. 6 for training / support.
Regards S
And also the fire control problem, from a probably moving ship, is a non trivial issue for a weapons system which is not integrated into the platform.
This report Patria enables remote control for Heavy Unmanned Ground Vehicles Has just been published and it prompts a question from this land warfare innocent.
Does this technology signal the end for manned heavy ground vehicles considering the high risks involved?
I’ve read that tank crews suffered disproportionate losses during WWII and the devastation to Iraqi crews during Desert Storm was horrific.
Given modern SA capabilities I would assume remote command was feasible.
Apologies to those wearing Black headgear!
Does this technology signal the end for manned heavy ground vehicles considering the high risks involved?
I’ve read that tank crews suffered disproportionate losses during WWII and the devastation to Iraqi crews during Desert Storm was horrific.
Given modern SA capabilities I would assume remote command was feasible.
Apologies to those wearing Black headgear!
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
I don’t think it’s about the M-777 itself but about Towed Artillery in general and the lack of Crew protection, rate of fire and mobility in comparison to a SPG system.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
To my mind it raises the question of resilience to modern EW systems. You potentially replace the vulnerability of the crew to physical harm with the vulnerability of the UGV command-link to hostile jamming.
The Ukrainian experience of using UAS in the presence of modern Russian EW equipment in the Donbass springs to mind here.
Yes, less mobile, larger crews, lower rate of fire, less survivable ( not just in terms of armour but also, shoot and scoot), and with their tractors, a larger footprint in terms of strategic transport.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
I can see pros and cons both ways, I don't need to explain the pros for an SPG system, but to me the main pro that I can see for the M777 is that it can potentially be moved and relocated much longer distances quickly by Chinook for example.
Is it a case of only one or the other? Or can Army have both? Or should Army have both options available?
Have your cake and eat it too?
Cheers,
With our Brigades having both a mechanised and a motorised battalion, we can cover a range of options to a given contingency.
Should we have that flexibility within the Artillery Regiments with both a SPG and the M777 on offer.
Or as John said, is it one or the other with two systems being a luxury.
Regards S
I had a similar question...do the 777s got to reserve or will they just try and find a buyer? I had an earlier question though...What is the Australian army method to the SPH get within 30km and find a target in a contested environment.....for the sake of the question assume there is a peer army on the field.
I know I have previously thrown in some regions but I can't for the life of me see a SPH getting used in anger close to any barracks so it has to get to the region and then get into the conflict zone and then start to find targets. In Australia thats potentially a 2000km + march.
Last edited:
I lived in Darwin for 5 years ....Whats the only Capital City in Australia with one road leading into it? Darwin. Dropping 4 bridges on the Stuart Highway (Adelaide River, Katherine and the 2 un-named bridges in between) would be a massive impact on logistics and with only one paved runway north of Tindal which is 300km south...a small toe hold in Darwin could be a big problem for us.
With a Chinese owned and managed port (possibly the dumbest thing in Australian defence history) anything could be ashore before we knew it. Heard of Troy? Remember what happened to all the PPE before anyone realised what was happening. The Confucian Centre apparatchiks are here already!
Putting aside all the whys etc why would they, how could they, they wouldn't dares....... I think the chances of something like this are very slim but regularly hear responses along the lines of it can't or won't happen because the enemy will give us plenty of notice they are coming and therefore we will do A,B&C to prevent it. You can bet there will be a bunch of people putting a lot of thought how they can do exactly this type of action and I'm fairly certain it wont include a to do step "Put ad in the Newspapers to tell Aussies we are coming".