Australian Army Discussions and Updates

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Hi Raven22, do you think there is a need for a 60mm mortar in Australian service? I only ask noting some our allies utilise it (USMC, UK & I believe NZ just signed up for some). Cheers.
I must admit, personally I’m not a big fan of 60mm mortars, but it’s not my area of expertise. Most of my light infantry mates think they are great, but my mates with a mech infantry background think they are a bit pointless. Like everything, they have their place but here is an opportunity cost in their use. A 60mm mortar is already in service with SOCOMD and has been trialled by conventional battalions. There is also a project that will introduce a 60mm mortar into the regular battalions. I imagine we will se a 60mm mortar introduced into the light battalions in the next few years.
 

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
60mm mortar s don't really offer that much of an advantage over 40mm grenades for a grunt IMO.
Its another bit of kit to carry, and although 60mm rounds are small, 40mm rounds are smaller, and allow much easier carry and re sup.
81mm mortars have a range of about 3200m give or take, you have arty support, now "recce" helos, I think there are some good options for 40mm development in our Army.

Milkor MGL - Wikipedia
 

buffy9

Well-Known Member
I must admit, personally I’m not a big fan of 60mm mortars, but it’s not my area of expertise. Most of my light infantry mates think they are great, but my mates with a mech infantry background think they are a bit pointless. Like everything, they have their place but here is an opportunity cost in their use. A 60mm mortar is already in service with SOCOMD and has been trialled by conventional battalions. There is also a project that will introduce a 60mm mortar into the regular battalions. I imagine we will se a 60mm mortar introduced into the light battalions in the next few years.
Having some mortar experience, I agree with this summary. The 60mm is good for providing indirect fire in close country (either urban areas or thick vegetation) and is more difficult to detect considering you can place it behind hills, in gullies or anywhere else provided it has a clear trajectory to fire. Whereas DFSW generally need a clear LOS and are relatively easily identified once they have fired, mortars do not suffer these limitations to the same extent. Their ability to provide top down fires is probably the most useful component - especially if facing dug in infantry where trench systems, sandbags and other fortifications may provide cover horizontally, albeit not vertically.

This being said a 60mm mortar has it's disadvantages. Whilst much easier to carry than an 81mm (which are far less effective when manpacked) the ammunition would still be a limiting factor. If you include rounds for adjustment (which varies, but let's say 5) and then fire for effect (which again varies) then the number of fire missions capable of being conducted when the system is manpacked is severely limited. Additionally the system is far less useful against anything more than infantry or soft skinned targets - noting any effects will be limited to puncturing tyres and penetrating/damaging exterior systems. It would make sense that mech inf may not think it useful when they may have vehicle mounted mortars of a higher calibre (81mm) which provides greater effects, range and capability (noting 81mm can employ airburst, delay and possibly now even precision capabilities). However for light infantry it can be useful, provided any force element is able to carry the necessary amount of ammunition required.

60mm mortar s don't really offer that much of an advantage over 40mm grenades for a grunt IMO.
Its another bit of kit to carry, and although 60mm rounds are small, 40mm rounds are smaller, and allow much easier carry and re sup.
81mm mortars have a range of about 3200m give or take, you have arty support, now "recce" helos, I think there are some good options for 40mm development in our Army.

Milkor MGL - Wikipedia
I believe the use of 40mm grenades in addition to the 60mm mortar would be best practise. Both have their places and are relatively light, making them suitable for light infantry operations. Additionally the advantages/disadvantages of a 60mm mortar (such as flexible location and ammunition quantity) can be offset by the advantages/disadvantages of a 40mm grenade (more ammunition and a need for a clear LOS).

This all being said the 60mm is still overall less capable than heavier systems such as the 84mm, 40mm LWAGL and the HMG. With the move towards mounted operations it would make more sense to adopt vehicle mounted mortars which are more mobile and less exposed to counter battery fire. Vehicle mounted mortars can also carry more ammuntion and can keep up with other mounted units quite effectively. The 84mm, whilst only DFSW, provides a wide range of of heavier capabilities, most significant being it's bunker busting and anti-ARMD roles. The AGL and HMG systems are both effective suppression/support weapons and whilst I'm not truly familiar with DFSW, can provide more sustained fire than any 60mm mortar could.

The 60mm mortar is good for light inf but not mot/mech inf. I can imagine it being highly effective in COIN, peacekeeping or other low-intensity contingencies (where the likely hills, jungles, buildings and other obstacles could benefit from light indirect fire) as well as in higher end urban op, primarily in defence. However it lacks power when facing a peer type opposition or when higher calibre systems can be better utilised.

To my own knowledge the SOTG preferred the 60mm mortar in Afghanistan over the 81mm, probably due to it's light weight.It most likely proved useful in the mountainous terrain and could reliably be carried during arduous stomps from airmobile insertions. The Cove has a good article on the M224 trialled by 3RAR also:

Lightweight Handheld Mortars: A Suitable and Effective Platform to be Organic to Rifle Platoons | The Cove
 
Last edited:

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Zulu Vipers for the Army?
Bell pitches AH-1Z Viper credentials for LAND 4503 – ADBR

Can't help but feel that Zulus might be an interesting purchase. Their mobility, maritime deployment options and commonality with the USMC would be ideal. Supported out of Darwin? LHD supported deployments. US Cross decking opportunities. But Apaches are operated by Singapore and the UK and other forces as well. Or do we continue to live with the Tiger.
 

PeterM

Active Member
Zulu Vipers for the Army?
Bell pitches AH-1Z Viper credentials for LAND 4503 – ADBR

Can't help but feel that Zulus might be an interesting purchase. Their mobility, maritime deployment options and commonality with the USMC would be ideal. Supported out of Darwin? LHD supported deployments. US Cross decking opportunities. But Apaches are operated by Singapore and the UK and other forces as well. Or do we continue to live with the Tiger.
There are a couple of other related articles from ADBR

Boeing confirms AH-64E offer for LAND 4503 – ADBR

Airbus Helicopters offers improved Tiger to replace Tiger – ADBR

The UK have experience with Apaches from ships and I believe the French use their Tigers from LHDs and of course our Tigers have experience with our LHDs.

The rfi will certainly benefit from our recent practical ARH experience. The competition will be quite interesting and will depend on the particular capabilities/ conops that we are looking for.

It seems that whatever solution is selected, we should have quality outcomes.
 

buffy9

Well-Known Member
Zulu Vipers for the Army?
Bell pitches AH-1Z Viper credentials for LAND 4503 – ADBR

Can't help but feel that Zulus might be an interesting purchase. Their mobility, maritime deployment options and commonality with the USMC would be ideal. Supported out of Darwin? LHD supported deployments. US Cross decking opportunities. But Apaches are operated by Singapore and the UK and other forces as well. Or do we continue to live with the Tiger.
If it is just between the Tiger, Apache and the Viper, I'd bet on the Viper. If I remember correctly the Tiger is like driving a ferrari, whereas the Apache is akin to driving a truck - with the Viper somewhere between.

I imagine if it comes to amphibious capability then the Viper would have a clear advantage. Tiger pilots/crew around Darwin would likely have experience working with them (in addition to the Tiger) and have a good word to say about them if they have any say during the procurement. The Apache, by comparison, is usually only down in Australia for TS and does not have the same amphib capability.

However the Apache arguably packs a bigger punch with a 30mm autocannon and the Longbow radar, which is a significant advantage if marketed as an ARH. Whilst not as amphibious as the Viper, it has still proven able to do so.

The Tiger, whilst not appearing favourable, is at least well regarded currently by the pilots that fly it and is still a capable platform (like all three are). It has seen combat in NW Africa and is expected to stay in service beyond the 2040's, according to Airbus. However other than it's agility, what significant advantage can it hold against the Viper or the Apache?

So noting the Tiger situation and provided there is no bias to the Apache, the Viper makes sense due to commonality with the marines and it's suitability to amphib environments. I also feel it may hold an advantage as a more long-term platform, noting that the US army is currently in it's FVL program to (eventually) replace Apaches, Blackhawks and a few other platforms.The Tiger may also be suitable, but I fear it's reputation has been tarnished.I'm not familiar with how truly effective the Longbow radar is however and it may end up being a black horse in the project if marketed correctly.

At the end of the day they will all provide CAS effectively and in a timely manner, as they have all proven. Airbus, Bell and Boeing all have strong platforms being offered - so the amount of domestic industry content that can be included in their respective bids may play a large part of the project. I just hope this does not come at the expense of acquiring an effective platform in a timely manner, however.

Airbus offers to take Tiger beyond 2040 - Australian Defence Magazine

Boeing offers Apache for Land 4503 - Australian Defence Magazine
 
Last edited:

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
Zulu Vipers for the Army?
Bell pitches AH-1Z Viper credentials for LAND 4503 – ADBR

Can't help but feel that Zulus might be an interesting purchase. Their mobility, maritime deployment options and commonality with the USMC would be ideal. Supported out of Darwin? LHD supported deployments.
I like the Zulus for their ability to operate on ships but I prefer the Apaches for the range of qualified munitions and the Longbow fire control radar. Admittedly, the Longbow fire control radar is not problem free — demand for more functionality from its large user base (including Japan & Korea as LHD operators) ensures continued upgrades.

Over time, I expect an Australian LHD to launch both attack helicopters and UAVs (like the RQ-21A Blackjack at the same time), as part of manned-unmanned teaming. See: Insitu Unveils New ID-Capable Unmanned Aircraft Camera - Avionics. Due to the proliferation of SHOARDS, manned-unmanned teaming is crucial to attack helicopter survival. The Apache will be able to carry NLOS missiles soon — US Army set to fire Spike NLOS missiles from AH-64E Apache | Jane's 360
 
Last edited:

buffy9

Well-Known Member
I like the Zulus for their ability to operate on ships but I prefer the Apaches for the range of qualified munitions and the Longbow fire control radar. Admittedly, the Longbow fire control radar is not problem free — demand for more functionality from its large user base (including Japan & Korea as LHD operators) ensures continued upgrades.

Over time, I expect an Australian LHD to launch both attack helicopters and UAVs (like the RQ-21A Blackjack at the same time), as part of manned-unmanned teaming. See: Insitu Unveils New ID-Capable Unmanned Aircraft Camera - Avionics. Due to the proliferation of SHOARDS, manned-unmanned teaming is crucial to attack helicopter survival. The Apache will be able to carry NLOS missiles soon — US Army set to fire Spike NLOS missiles from AH-64E Apache | Jane's 360
Have any UAS been launched from the LHDs yet? I'm aware of Scaneagles being launched from Choules, but nothing in regards to Canberra or Adelaide. Also ship-launched UAS may not be the only options - drones like Grey Eagle can also do it, which would not be too far cry from the Reaper/SkyGuardian currently being looked at by defence. This is combat proven with Apache, which is a tick in the box which is more uncertain for Viper or Tiger.

New drone system relays real-time target data to Apache helicopters - ExtremeTech

The MANPAD/SHORAD threat is a tad overblown when facing irregular groups imo, noting that they tend to need a supply of batteries to actually power the systems. However it would not be hard for a state backed group or opposing state to rapidly acquire such systems, especially if it is likely to face a disadvantage against low altitude aircraft like attack helicopters (pretty much anywhere in SE Asia comes to mind). MANPADs proved devestating against helicopters in the Soviet-Afghanistan conflict, so having manned-unmanned teaming to avoid such casualtiea makes sense.

The AGM Spike NLOS is interesting, but from the article it appears to mostly be developmental in nature as a connection to the FVL program. I imagine it would be a key capability if one is conducting an airmobile amphibious insertion in a non-permissive environment - keeping the attack helicopters further out of range of MANPADs/SHORAD whilst neutralising/destroying key targets.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
The NS100 radar has multi-mission capabilities such as swarm defence, anti-piracy, UAV control and weapon support for active missiles. It is likely that the NS100 ASEA radar on RSN’s Independence class LMVs can be developed to control UAVs and serve as a forward line of defence for Singapore’s JMMS.
Have any UAS been launched from the LHDs yet? I'm aware of Scaneagles being launched from Choules, but nothing in regards to Canberra or Adelaide. Also ship-launched UAS may not be the only options - drones like Grey Eagle can also do it, which would not be too far cry from the Reaper/SkyGuardian currently being looked at by defence.
Should not be a problem, as UAS are routinely launched from USN LHDs for the US Marines. The RSN launches our scan eagles from the Victory Class.
 
Last edited:

John Newman

The Bunker Group
I can't help but be in two minds about the replacement plan for the Tiger ARH capability, I find myself sitting on the fence. We're well aware of the checkered history of Tiger, all the problems, the long delays to get to FOC, etc, etc, but on the other side, more recent reports have been positive, not just Airbus, but various public reports from Army.

Yes Army is lucky that Government has a big bucket of dollars available to have a replacement capability at IOC in 2026 and FOC in 2028, but just around the corner is the US Future Vertical Lift Program and also the US Army's Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft Program.

To me the issue is more about timing rather than replacing a problem system that will probably come down to choice of either Viper or Apache. Not bagging either of the two obvious contenders, but more about the fact that both Viper and Apache are coming to the end of their production runs.

What are we better off doing? Upgrading Tiger to be relevant up to 2040? Replace Tiger with new aircraft that may become irrelevant by 2040 if a more capable option is soon to become available?

If I was going to make a comparison to fighter aircraft, I would liken it to having a Classic Hornet in service (we had expected a Super Hornet), we can upgrade that Classic to Super or have a choice of two other new aircraft to give us that Super capability, but just down the road in the dim light is a Lightening II waiting.

Anyway, food for thought, maybe?

Cheers,
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
I can't help but be in two minds about the replacement plan for the Tiger ARH capability, I find myself sitting on the fence. We're well aware of the checkered history of Tiger, all the problems, the long delays to get to FOC, etc, etc, but on the other side, more recent reports have been positive, not just Airbus, but various public reports from Army.

Yes Army is lucky that Government has a big bucket of dollars available to have a replacement capability at IOC in 2026 and FOC in 2028, but just around the corner is the US Future Vertical Lift Program and also the US Army's Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft Program.

To me the issue is more about timing rather than replacing a problem system that will probably come down to choice of either Viper or Apache. Not bagging either of the two obvious contenders, but more about the fact that both Viper and Apache are coming to the end of their production runs.

What are we better off doing? Upgrading Tiger to be relevant up to 2040? Replace Tiger with new aircraft that may become irrelevant by 2040 if a more capable option is soon to become available?

If I was going to make a comparison to fighter aircraft, I would liken it to having a Classic Hornet in service (we had expected a Super Hornet), we can upgrade that Classic to Super or have a choice of two other new aircraft to give us that Super capability, but just down the road in the dim light is a Lightening II waiting.

Anyway, food for thought, maybe?

Cheers,
I think your question about timing is the key.
I feel anything in the air close to the ground is a pretty vulnerable beast today without looking to the future battle space.
Suggest unmanned platforms will certainly be a big part of the future, but as to how far away that is, and the balance between manned and unmanned A/c I guess it's all speculative.
I feel that there may be merit in the upgrade option for the current Tiger, with new build platforms to boost current numbers to a fleet of 29.
Forgetting Tigers problematic history and now moving forward, this would give us a known aircraft into the important mid to late 20's with an eye to the development of other systems into the early 2030's.
Open to all outcomes, but are mindful that manned ARH's may actually have become extinct by the 2040's.
I don't know the answers but worth asking the question


Regards S
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
If I was going to make a comparison to fighter aircraft, I would liken it to having a Classic Hornet in service (we had expected a Super Hornet), we can upgrade that Classic to Super or have a choice of two other new aircraft to give us that Super capability, but just down the road in the dim light is a Lightening II waiting.
I think that’s quite a good analogy. When Australia selected the JSF in 2001, we expected to receive usable aircraft by the end of that decade. As we know, however, it didn’t quite work out like that. Here we are 18 years later, and we still haven’t got a usable capability out of JSF. We had to buy Super Hornets and upgrade the Classics just to get us through to when JSF actually will provide a capability.

I would suggest it will be the same with FVL. It might seem like it is just around the corner, but when was the last time that a large program like that was on time? When was the last time the early adopters got a useful capability right out of the box? Buying Apache/Cobras now will actually give us a useful capability that will get us to the point that FVL has matured and in service where we can buy at our leisure.

Of course there is also the fact that the new aircraft wont actually cost any money in the long run. The Tiger is so expensive to sustain that the new aircraft will pay for themselves within about a decade in sustainment savings (although, to be fair, that study was for 22 aircraft replacing 22 aircraft, not 29 replacing 22).
 

MickB

Well-Known Member
I know an extra aircraft type would add some extra strain on the supply chain, but would the 84% compatability with the Viper allow for the adoption of the UH-1 Venom as a light/medium utility and SOF transport.
In some cases the size and cost of a MH90 is overkill.

As with the Viper, commonality with the USMC would be an additional advantage.

The USMC deploys Vipers and Venoms in combined detachments to take advantage of the capabilites of both aircraft.
 
Last edited:

John Newman

The Bunker Group
I would suggest it will be the same with FVL. It might seem like it is just around the corner, but when was the last time that a large program like that was on time? When was the last time the early adopters got a useful capability right out of the box? Buying Apache/Cobras now will actually give us a useful capability that will get us to the point that FVL has matured and in service where we can buy at our leisure.
Certainly agree that major defence projects have a history of being delayed and moving out to the right, and the FVL and FARA programs will more than likely do the same. And that may well be the answer to my question regarding timing.

Still it will be interesting to see where this project goes, an updated Tiger that Airbus is proposing, or the more obvious choice of Apache or Viper.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
I know an extra aircraft type would add some extra strain on the supply chain, but would the 84% compatability with the Viper allow for the adoption of the UH-1 Venom as a light/medium utility and SOF transport.
In some cases the size and cost of a MH90 is overkill.
I think you'd find that the Venom might be a bit too big, my understanding is that part of the requirement is for the chosen type to be air transportable by C-17A with four airframes being able to be transported in one go. I'd imagine that two Venom would fit, but four might be a bit of a stretch.
 

SteveR

Active Member
I like the Zulus for their ability to operate on ships but I prefer the Apaches for the range of qualified munitions and the Longbow fire control radar. Admittedly, the Longbow fire control radar is not problem free — demand for more functionality from its large user base (including Japan & Korea as LHD operators) ensures continued upgrades.

Over time, I expect an Australian LHD to launch both attack helicopters and UAVs (like the RQ-21A Blackjack at the same time), as part of manned-unmanned teaming. See: Insitu Unveils New ID-Capable Unmanned Aircraft Camera - Avionics. Due to the proliferation of SHOARDS, manned-unmanned teaming is crucial to attack helicopter survival. The Apache will be able to carry NLOS missiles soon — US Army set to fire Spike NLOS missiles from AH-64E Apache | Jane's 360
But remember that the US Army's declared first priority for helicopter replacement is for FARA to replace the AH-64 in the reconnaissance role:

US Army triggers design competition for future attack reconnaissance helicopter

The AH-64 replaced the aging Kiowa's in that role only a few years ago but US Army has obviously found they are not that suitable for ARH. Indeed quoting from the link above the US Army wants: "The helicopter would be the “ ‘knife-fighter’ of future Army Aviation capabilities” in a small package with “maximized performance,” Sounds like the Tiger to me!

And a variant of the Spike has been fitted to Spanish Tigers.
 
Last edited:

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
I think that’s quite a good analogy. When Australia selected the JSF in 2001, we expected to receive usable aircraft by the end of that decade. As we know, however, it didn’t quite work out like that. Here we are 18 years later, and we still haven’t got a usable capability out of JSF. We had to buy Super Hornets and upgrade the Classics just to get us through to when JSF actually will provide a capability.

I would suggest it will be the same with FVL. It might seem like it is just around the corner, but when was the last time that a large program like that was on time? When was the last time the early adopters got a useful capability right out of the box? Buying Apache/Cobras now will actually give us a useful capability that will get us to the point that FVL has matured and in service where we can buy at our leisure.

Of course there is also the fact that the new aircraft wont actually cost any money in the long run. The Tiger is so expensive to sustain that the new aircraft will pay for themselves within about a decade in sustainment savings (although, to be fair, that study was for 22 aircraft replacing 22 aircraft, not 29 replacing 22).
The fact that the stated requirement is for 29 aircraft raises the question of whether additional Tigers would be required if the MkIII upgrade was selected.
Unless this was the case the army would obviously not be able to meet the operational and training requirements specified in the RFI. Additionally, a proportion of the existing fleet would be unavailable throughout the upgrade process. Is the Tiger production line still open or able to be reopened or would second hand aircraft be the only way to increase the fleet size to 29?

It is great that the Tiger ARH is apparently now providing a satisfactory capability to the ADF but, based on past history with both Tiger and Taipan, I can't help but feel uneasy about promises that may be made re the upgrade proposal.

Tas
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
It is great that the Tiger ARH is apparently now providing a satisfactory capability to the ADF but, based on past history with both Tiger and Taipan, I can't help but feel uneasy about promises that may be made re the upgrade proposal.

Tas
Is it?

The tiger is being replaced a decade early for a reason, and it’s not because it is providing a satisfactory capability.
 

Takao

The Bunker Group
Is it?

The tiger is being replaced a decade early for a reason, and it’s not because it is providing a satisfactory capability.
It's not being replaced a decade early. It's PWD was always mid-/late-20s.

I also disagree with your view about its capability. Especially when compared to what we wanted and got. It's had problems and some damn hard work, but it's a good jet now.

Even then, a 20 year life from mid-00's to mid-20's is sensible. The push for Army to keep using old kit while the other services upgrade is dangerous. Now, that's mostly the fault of AHQ, but we should be promoting the replacement of Tiger in 2025, just like we are promoting the replacement of ASLAV (after 30 odd years), M-113 (after more than 50) and Unimog (after, what, 40 years). The M-113 saw Sabre, Mirage, Classic and JSF. Why shouldn't Army replace it's helicopters after 20 years?
 
Last edited:
Top