Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[SteveR]

Quick question for those in-the-know - does the Army have any plans to pursue a C-RAM/UAV capability in the future? The shift from RBS-70 to NASAMS is a big step up in many respects, but it doesn't strike me as an ideal solution in the VSHORAD space, especially where C-RAM and C-UAV is concerned(?). I remember mutterings about Skyranger 35mm + Boxer on DTR some time ago but nothing since.

I suspect the >3km range 30mm airburst rounds of the Land 400 Ph 2 CRVs then same on Ph3 vehicles will provide some measure of cover.
Also note the award to Codarra 18 months ago:

Counter-UAS and EW tech in latest Hub contracts - Australian Defence Magazine

Minister for Defence Christopher Pyne has announced three more Defence Innovation Hub contracts, investing $7.8 million in promising counter-UAS, electronic warfare, and autonomous aircraft technology...

www.australiandefence.com.au

 

[Boagrius]

I don't know. I suspect they would need to be cued by some other sensor. I doubt the vehicles themselves would be able to detect and track the targets involved in C-RAM duties, for example.

 

[SteveR]

I don't know. I suspect they would need to be cued by some other sensor. I doubt the vehicles themselves would be able to detect and track the targets involved in C-RAM duties, for example.

The SAAB UTTAS system on the unsuccessful BAE AMV for Land 200 Ph 2 claimed an AA capability against aerial targets so I suspect the Rheinmetall system on the Boxer CRV could match that:

UTAAS Tank and Anti-Aircraft System | Saab

The Universal Tank and Anti-Aircraft System (UTAAS) is a versatile sight and fire control system for tanks and combat vehicles. It provides high hit probability against all ground targets, as well as against helicopters and high‑speed aircraft.

saab.com

 

[Boagrius]

The SAAB UTTAS system on the unsuccessful BAE AMV for Land 200 Ph 2 claimed an AA capability against aerial targets so I suspect the Rheinmetall system on the Boxer CRV could match that:

UTAAS Tank and Anti-Aircraft System | Saab

The Universal Tank and Anti-Aircraft System (UTAAS) is a versatile sight and fire control system for tanks and combat vehicles. It provides high hit probability against all ground targets, as well as against helicopters and high‑speed aircraft.

saab.com

Is that not pitched more at fixed wing and helicopters though? Would have thought you'd need a more powerful radar based solution for tackling C-RAM and small/swarm UAV.

 

[SteveR]

Is that not pitched more at fixed wing and helicopters though? Would have thought you'd need a more powerful radar based solution for tackling C-RAM and small/swarm UAV.

The IR and visual tracking capability of modern optical/laser sighting systems can easily detect/track and range on UAVs. I agree that swarms may be a problem and that is where air-burst rounds spread projectile pellets which are effective against fragile small UAVs, more vulnerable than larger, stronger, manned aircraft. Of course swarming attack may not be stopped effectively, as witnessed by the multi UAV attack on the Saudi pumping facilities guarded by world class C-RAMs.

 

[oldsig127]

Quick question for those in-the-know - does the Army have any plans to pursue a C-RAM/UAV capability in the future? The shift from RBS-70 to NASAMS is a big step up in many respects, but it doesn't strike me as an ideal solution in the VSHORAD space, especially where C-RAM and C-UAV is concerned(?). I remember mutterings about Skyranger 35mm + Boxer on DTR some time ago but nothing since.

I'm not sure whether this sheds any light on future plans other than NASAMS, but it does suggest that RBS-70 and other SHORAD and CRAM system elements will remain supported by SAAB for at least the next two years

Saab to support Australian Army’s air defence systems until 2022

Saab has been contracted to continue to support the Australian Army’s ground based air defence (GBAD) and counter rocket, artillery and mortar (C-RAM).

www.army-technology.com

oldsig

 

[Boagrius]

The IR and visual tracking capability of modern optical/laser sighting systems can easily detect/track and range on UAVs. I agree that swarms may be a problem and that is where air-burst rounds spread projectile pellets which are effective against fragile small UAVs, more vulnerable than larger, stronger, manned aircraft. Of course swarming attack may not be stopped effectively, as witnessed by the multi UAV attack on the Saudi pumping facilities guarded by world class C-RAMs.

Sounds fine in theory but perhaps no substitute for a purpose built system? To my mind you want a radar to perform volume search and provide weapon cueing. I'm also not sure how wise it would be to rely on our IFVs to provide protection against incoming enemy artillery, rockets and mortars...

 

[Goknub]

Looking at the Syrian (Russian) success against massed combat drones, the key is a multilayered air defence network with enough capacity to take a few hits. This is essentially what the ADF will end up with once all the various bits and pieces are acquired. The IFVs will have the mass that other systems will likely lack, every Land 400 vehicle will be able to contribute to the air defence mission.

 

[Boagrius]

Looking at the Syrian (Russian) success against massed combat drones, the key is a multilayered air defence network with enough capacity to take a few hits. This is essentially what the ADF will end up with once all the various bits and pieces are acquired. The IFVs will have the mass that other systems will likely lack, every Land 400 vehicle will be able to contribute to the air defence mission.

Yes it strikes me as a problem we have already solved on our naval vessels. Multiple layers of hard kill measures supplemented by soft kill/EW.

 

[SteveR]

Breaking news on 30mm UAV sensing rounds:

Janes | Latest defence and security news

Janes | The latest defence and security news from Janes - the trusted source for defence intelligence

www.janes.com

Just what we need for Land 400 Phases 2 & 3 to combat drones efficiently.

 

[Boagrius]

Something I imagine these Pantsir crews wished they had available to them...

Speaks to the difficulty associated with getting a regular 30mm shell to connect with such a small target skin-to-skin. A proximity fused fragmenting round sounds like exactly what is needed.

 

[south]

Looking at the Syrian (Russian) success against massed combat drones, the key is a multilayered air defence network with enough capacity to take a few hits. This is essentially what the ADF will end up with once all the various bits and pieces are acquired. The IFVs will have the mass that other systems will likely lack, every Land 400 vehicle will be able to contribute to the air defence mission.

I may have misunderstood your intent, but I caution against over-egging the kinetic engagement aspect, and simplifying the problem, particularly in a more complex terrain where line of sight is not continually assured. I'm not sure how much (beyond the article linked above) that the Aus Army is investing in the Counter UAS EW area; My gut feel is that we may not appropriately invest? The article I'm attaching would imply that as of ±18 months / 2 years ago the US Army is still building a C-UAS doctrine. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1071111.pdf

Another article regarding ISIS in particular, strongly implying/alluding to effectiveness of EW systems: Air Superiority Under 2000 Feet: Lessons from Waging Drone Warfare Against ISIL

The SAAB UTTAS system on the unsuccessful BAE AMV for Land 200 Ph 2 claimed an AA capability against aerial targets so I suspect the Rheinmetall system on the Boxer CRV could match that:

Are these systems (SAAB UTAAS, Boxer etc) linked into the air picture? If not I find some of the claims somewhat specious.

 

[PeterM]

With the USMC realigning away from Abrams, I wonder if there is an opportunity to leverage USMC Abrams to fill out the additional vehicles needed for the Australian tank numbers and engineering variants.

Presumably upgrading/refurbishing existing Abrams up to the newest standards would be cheaper and quicker than completely new vehicles.

 

[t68]

With the USMC realigning away from Abrams, I wonder if there is an opportunity to leverage USMC Abrams to fill out the additional vehicles needed for the Australian tank numbers and engineering variants.

Presumably upgrading/refurbishing existing Abrams up to the newest standards would be cheaper and quicker than completely new vehicles.

I was under the impression that all new variants of Abrams are all refurbished stock, no actual new build just continually upgraded

 

[Todjaeger]

I was under the impression that all new variants of Abrams are all refurbished stock, no actual new build just continually upgraded

No, it seems as though the facility has been kept open, with just enough orders going through to keep the line running vs. having a total shutdown. I expect a fair portion of any new variants would come from zero-timed/upgraded versions, but for cost reasons the line has been kept running at least at a minimal level of activity.

 

[aussienscale]

No, it seems as though the facility has been kept open, with just enough orders going through to keep the line running vs. having a total shutdown. I expect a fair portion of any new variants would come from zero-timed/upgraded versions, but for cost reasons the line has been kept running at least at a minimal level of activity.

Understand the Lima plant is still open, but was not aware they are producing new hulls ? I know they make the Namer APC hulls and ship out and then they do refurbs and zero current M1's ?

Cheers

 

[Anthony_B_78]

Hi, longtime lurker but new member here. Appreciate the knowledge base on these forums so I thought I'd sign up and ask a question or two.

I'm interested in direct fire support in RAR battalions as I think it's long been an area of deficiency when compared to, say, US Army or USMC battalions.

Many pages - and years - back there was discussion around the reforms that added manoeuvre support sections to rifle platoons with the "golf cart" approach in terms of what weapons they would carry. I understand that's largely been rolled back and rifle platoons have returned to about 30 men with three sections. Yet the weaponry has been boosted. We have the MAG 58 and are getting the new and improved version of the Carl Gustav. In addition, we've got Javelin ATGMs (to be replaced by Spike, IIRC?), M2 .50 cals, and automatic grenade launchers.

So the question is how are these weapons being employed in RAR battalions? I've seen articles where the Direct Fire Support Weapons Platoons have been using all of the above. But I believe each battalion only has once such platoon and I don't imagine it's much bigger than a rifle platoon? Are any of the weapons held at the rifle platoon / company level?

 

[Takao]

Hi, longtime lurker but new member here. Appreciate the knowledge base on these forums so I thought I'd sign up and ask a question or two.

I'm interested in direct fire support in RAR battalions as I think it's long been an area of deficiency when compared to, say, US Army or USMC battalions.

Many pages - and years - back there was discussion around the reforms that added manoeuvre support sections to rifle platoons with the "golf cart" approach in terms of what weapons they would carry. I understand that's largely been rolled back and rifle platoons have returned to about 30 men with three sections. Yet the weaponry has been boosted. We have the MAG 58 and are getting the new and improved version of the Carl Gustav. In addition, we've got Javelin ATGMs (to be replaced by Spike, IIRC?), M2 .50 cals, and automatic grenade launchers.

So the question is how are these weapons being employed in RAR battalions? I've seen articles where the Direct Fire Support Weapons Platoons have been using all of the above. But I believe each battalion only has once such platoon and I don't imagine it's much bigger than a rifle platoon? Are any of the weapons held at the rifle platoon / company level?

Page 17 will answer (almost) all...

https://www.army.gov.au/sites/default/files/aide_memoire.pdf

All of the weapons (I didn't think they ran 50 cals...) are held by the DFSW Pl, with sections farmed out as the mission requires. It's not taht there isn't enough, it's that giving such weapons to an foot-bourne element slows them too much and overloads them.

Each Bn only runs the one platoon, but I'd argue that's redundant now and likely going to become even more redundant as the Bn morphs with LAND 400. I think it's redundant now, but eh.....

 

[Anthony_B_78]

Page 17 will answer (almost) all...

https://www.army.gov.au/sites/default/files/aide_memoire.pdf

All of the weapons (I didn't think they ran 50 cals...) are held by the DFSW Pl, with sections farmed out as the mission requires. It's not taht there isn't enough, it's that giving such weapons to an foot-bourne element slows them too much and overloads them.

Each Bn only runs the one platoon, but I'd argue that's redundant now and likely going to become even more redundant as the Bn morphs with LAND 400. I think it's redundant now, but eh.....

Thank you. Being that document was dated 2014 I wonder if it might be a little dated? It does note that a rifle platoon has a "support section" but there's no further information on that. I agree that under Land 400 there will be more armoured firepower available to support the infantry. I'm just curious about what they carry themselves, particularly in the motorised battalions.

 

[Stampede]

An article of interest in the recent Defence Technology review regarding the future composition of the US marine Corp.

https://defencetechnologyreview.partica.online/defence-technology-review/dtr-apr-2020/flipbook/8/

Just wondering what influence this will have on the force structure of other nations defence forces and in particular with regards to that of the Australian Army.
While I acknowledge the US Marines land components is not necessarily the same as that of their army, there were certainly similarity's which will look much different come 2030 if the proposed changes go ahead.
While the ADF is not necessarily a mini US marine Corp given we have to accommodate the full range of land contingency's, does this proposed US Marine structure reflect the expected battle space for the future that all armed forces will have to adjust to?



Thoughts..


Regards S