Australian Army Discussions and Updates

MARKMILES77 said:

Came across this on IsraelDefence.
Not sure if this is widely known or even if it is accurate.
Would seem a strange choice when Army already uses other RWSs that are suitable or is this RWS also used by the ADF?

Click to expand...

One would have thought that if this were the case Thales would not have spruiked Hawkei with the Kongsberg RWS at Land Forces. But who knows.

Bushmaster is receiving the first EOS R400S Mk 2 RWS and the Kongsberg Protector is also in service. We certainly don't need a third RWS.

STURM said:

With regards to a mortar round's ability to penetrate certain types of targets I would think the question is how likely will hardened targets or targets that can't be penetrated by a 120mm round be encountered on today's battlefields?

On the merits of towed versus mounted I would prefer having a mounted mortar due the flexibility it offers and the weight and size of a 120mm mortar but I suppose it also depends on the type of conflict being fought. In a scenario where troops are not maneuvering constantly but are placed in fixed positions, a towed mortar wouldn't be a huge issue. But then again the French deployed the TDA in Iraq, towed by VABs, without any issues.
The Malaysians are fitting the Thales/TDA 120mm to a number of AV-8s [an 8x8 based on the Turkish Pars].

Waylander,

Are 60mm mortars used in the Heer at section or platoon level to provide illumination and fire support?

Click to expand...

There is a project underway to study the merits of the introduction of a 60mm mortar into the Royal Australian Infantry battalions, lbut there are a variety of issues to consider before any decision is made on them, structurally within the battalions primarily, ie: 'how do we fit them in'.

There are competing demands for available systems and 60mm mortars offer plenty of upside but are they worth giving something else up? That is what the infantry are deciding for themselves at the moment.

ADMk2 said:

There is a project underway to study the merits of the introduction of a 60mm mortar into the Royal Australian Infantry battalions, lbut there are a variety of issues to consider before any decision is made on them, structurally within the battalions primarily, ie: 'how do we fit them in'.

There are competing demands for available systems and 60mm mortars offer plenty of upside but are they worth giving something else up? That is what the infantry are deciding for themselves at the moment.

Click to expand...

I recall reading an article on 60mm mortars in the Infantry Magazine, but not the full discussion. I think one of the pluses was being able to deploy them down to platoon level as well as being able to concentrate them at company or battalion level as required. 120mm is quite clearly a battalion level, if it even belongs in the battalions at all, though if the 60mm is adopted as well as 120mm, do we really need 81mm anymore?

Nope, no 60mm mortars in service in the Heer. And since we retired our 120mm mounted on M113s we are getting short on them, too.

Only some new ones mounted on Wiesel 2 and some old worn out truckborn Tampellas.

Although they did find them quite usefull in Afghanistan the quest for new mounted systems is endless.

One problem I see with light mortars on the coy level is the logistical demand. Even 60mm mortars eat through astonishing weights of ammo in short order.

While 120mm systems due to their range may support even somewhat detached operating coys their own 60mm may fall silent rather fast when in a serious engagement.

I think the whole 60mm trial has been caught up in the re-organisation of the infantry battalion. Until the Army decides how the infantry battalion is organised, it can't decide if the 60mm mortar has its place or not.

If the battalion or reorganised as having a single MSS at company level, as seems likely, I think the 60mm mortar has a shot. A company level MSS would be more specialised the current platoon level MSS, and could afford a higher level of training and equipment. A 60mm mortar could probably fit in then (although personally I would prefer a pair of javs at company level instead).

I've seen other options for the infantry battalion though that gets rid of the MSS completely. One example was to put all the heavy weapons back in support company - split DFSW platoon into an anti-armour platoon and a SFMG platoon, bring back assault pioneers etc. Such a construct would make a 60mm mortar a lot less likely.

Malaysian mechanised sections have a 60mm mortar. They recently bought the Ruag MAPAM round [2400 ball bearings inside] but traditionally the main role of the 60mm mortar has been to lay smoke and illumination - a role the Carl Gustavs in the Support Companies also perform. Given that sections also have Milkor MGLs; I fail to see a need for 60mm mortars anymore.

Volkodav raises a good point in questioning whether there is a need for 81mm mortars if an army already has 60mm and 81mm mortars. The only answer I can come up with is that in restrictive terrain or instances where wheeled transport is not available or can't effectively deploy; it'll be much easier lugging 81mm mortars and the needed ammo than 120mm. For me, I think the question is really whether armies that have 60mm mortars still need them if they already operate both 81mm and 120mm.

Especially if one mostly uses them for illum and smoke.

I rather like the french way of using rifle grenades with bullet traps. One saves the weight of underslung GLs and gets a wide range if potent and usefull payloads.

Raven22 said:

I think the whole 60mm trial has been caught up in the re-organisation of the infantry battalion. Until the Army decides how the infantry battalion is organised, it can't decide if the 60mm mortar has its place or not.

If the battalion or reorganised as having a single MSS at company level, as seems likely, I think the 60mm mortar has a shot. A company level MSS would be more specialised the current platoon level MSS, and could afford a higher level of training and equipment. A 60mm mortar could probably fit in then (although personally I would prefer a pair of javs at company level instead).

I've seen other options for the infantry battalion though that gets rid of the MSS completely. One example was to put all the heavy weapons back in support company - split DFSW platoon into an anti-armour platoon and a SFMG platoon, bring back assault pioneers etc. Such a construct would make a 60mm mortar a lot less likely.

Click to expand...

Where do the new Mk 47 AGLs fit in?
Is there a current plan for issuing them to Infantry Battalions as a routine?

MARKMILES77 said:

Where do the new Mk 47 AGLs fit in?
Is there a current plan for issuing them to Infantry Battalions as a routine?

Click to expand...

They're being issued to the DFSW platoon. Which is part of the problem; the DFSW platoons will now be issued five separate weapons systems - Javelin, 84, Mk 47, 0.50 cal and Mag-58. That's a big training burden for a single platoon, and lots of corporate governance in maintaining/accounting for the weapons.

Excerpts from an article which appeared in the Australian Infantry Magazine in 2012. I'm curious if any major changes have been made since the article first appeared.

The number four will be a dominant theme in the new battalion with each team made up of four people and each command level - battalion, company, platoon – having four sub-units. The principle of four has been identified as a consistent theme in infantry. Having four elements enables a unit to simultaneously fix, assault, echelon and provide a reserve. In non-linear operations four also enables all directions to be covered. Having four sub-units provides a commander more flexibility in manoeuvring.

The new addition to the platoon will be three Manoeuvre Support Teams normally organised as a single section in the barracks. Each MS Team will have a team leader, support weapon operator, grenadier and sharpshooter and will be able to carry out all the tasks of an Infantry Team. However the MS Team will have more powerful weapons and will generally operate in the fire suppression role. The support weapon operator in each team will be armed with a 7.62mm MAG-58 general-purpose machinegun and the sharpshooter with a semi-automatic 7.62mm sniper rifle. As part of the ‘arms room’ approach the three MS teams will also have two additional heavy weapons to draw upon if needed. These will be one 12.7mm heavy machinegun and one 40mm automatic grenade launcher and their required tripods. To provide mobility to the MS Teams with their heavy weapons and ammunition each team in a light infantry battalion will also receive a small, lightweight vehicle like the para-deployable Supacat All Terrain Mobile Platform.

The flexibility of the new structure will be best seen in the way the MS Teams are deployed, either as their own section per platoon or by adding one team to each infantry section or even grouping all the MS Teams at company level as a very powerful MS Platoon under command of the Company Weapons Sergeant. The MS Teams will use the appropriate weapon for each particular situation and mission and provide a major boost to the platoon’s combat power. The final team in each platoon will be a four-person command team with the platoon leader, sergeant, signaller and medic.

There hasn't been much formal change but, like in Game of Thrones, change is coming.

One obvious difference from the article is that the MSS were never issued 0.50 cal or 40mm AGLs. I don't know what was being smoked when that decision was made with the original 2012 orbat, but those weapons are obviously too heavy for platoon level and are kept in support company.

Otherwise the orbat described is accurate for the last few years. The difference now is that the CA has ordered that manpower be shed from the combat force so that it can be reinvested in emerging capabilities. As a result the MSS have already lost one fire team, and the whole MSS may be cut and in ways I have already described.

A few interesting bits in the latest DTR issue as far as LAND400 is concerned. Mentioned that BAE are working on a MkIV version of CV9035, with a view to allowing for 3 crew + 8 dismounts (actually) ala Lynx. Puzzlingly, though, it suggests that they will be offering a MkIII version of CV9035 for LAND400 phase 3, but still seem to be aiming to provide the capability for 8 dismounts with it. How those two statements square with one another I have no idea.

Also makes mention of work underway to integrate an ATGM onto the AMV35's E35 turret (probably Spike and/or Javelin).

Finally, I found it interesting to note the way the coaxial RMG7.62 on the Boxer works - apparently it has a "bundle" of three barrels that can be automatically rotated once a specific barrel begins to heat up with sustained use. The process of rotating from one barrel to the next supposedly takes 4 seconds - thought that was kind of neat!

Defence Technology Review : DTR OCT 2016, Page 1

In other news, I would have thought this is quite relevant to the new GBAD capability envisaged under the DWP:

Raytheon’s Extended Range AMRAAM Missile Destroys Target in First Flight Test

Anyone know the difference between this and ESSM Blk II?? Both seem to use ARH seekers for terminal guidance and both seem to use ESSM as the baseline airframe (??) At any rate I could see this - perhaps integrated into something like MML (if possible) or even HIMARS launchers - being very handy indeed .

Regarding the MSS and the requirement to reduce manning, I think a different approach might be worth considering. Redesignate the 1st and 2nd Platoons of a standard rifle Company as Assualt Platoons and convert the 3rd into a Heavy Weapons Platoon. This would have the advantage of freeing up manning whilst keeping the heavier weapons closer to the front, keeping access to these assets directly with the Company commander. Provide a "light" and "heavy" option for each capability type to keep dismounted tasks a realistic option.

The trade-off would be the loss of the 3rd rifle platoon but mitigated by the increase in firepower.

I am curious as to whether it would be feasible for the MAG 58s and 84mms, along with the 60mm mortars to be issued to the platoons directly, perhaps even one of each per section. Rather than equipping a specific MSS they could be an arms room option for the regular fire teams, MAG 58 replacing the Minimi in any of them as required and cross qualify half of the fire teams to be able to deploy 84s and 60mms when needed.

On top of this the Javelin could probably be deployed in a specific ATGW platoon leaving only the .50 cals and AGLs in the DFSW platoon, which would be a lot less onerous on them. This should use less manpower than the current construct, hopefully without too much degradation of capability / proficiency because of having to cross qualify the remaining troops.

I don't think it is feasible to push the heavier weapons to the rifle platoons. They are already overburdened as it is and the need to haul the extra ammo for those assets would be too much.

I think a dedicated ATGW and DFSW platoon would only be feasible if a return to a Support Company was mooted. Certainly an option that is typical in Western militaries but I think getting those weapons closer to the fight quicker could be achieved with a Heavy Weapons Platoon in the rifle company.

Goknub said:

I don't think it is feasible to push the heavier weapons to the rifle platoons. They are already overburdened as it is and the need to haul the extra ammo for those assets would be too much.

I think a dedicated ATGW and DFSW platoon would only be feasible if a return to a Support Company was mooted. Certainly an option that is typical in Western militaries but I think getting those weapons closer to the fight quicker could be achieved with a Heavy Weapons Platoon in the rifle company.

Click to expand...

The platoon would obviously retain the mobility vehicle associated with the MSS, but that said the rifle sections of old, especially when transitioning to the Steyr in the late 80s, early 90s used to carry and use a very wide range of weapons. The modern army has a lot more depth in terms of transport and load carrying than then so supporting different equipment and weapons types should actually be easier.

The idea is the fire teams, sections and platoons would be kitted out as required prior to beginning each operation. If they expect engagements out to 600meters they would swwap out some Minimis for MAGs and issue some DMRs, if the expect to encounter light armour or "technicals" the would maybe issue a couple of 84mm's, same if the expected to encounter dug in opfors, similar with the mortar. A platoon retained as a reaction force would likely have access to the various support weapons to equip as required by the particular threat.

Volkodav said:

I am curious as to whether it would be feasible for the MAG 58s and 84mms, along with the 60mm mortars to be issued to the platoons directly, perhaps even one of each per section. Rather than equipping a specific MSS they could be an arms room option for the regular fire teams, MAG 58 replacing the Minimi in any of them as required and cross qualify half of the fire teams to be able to deploy 84s and 60mms when needed.

On top of this the Javelin could probably be deployed in a specific ATGW platoon leaving only the .50 cals and AGLs in the DFSW platoon, which would be a lot less onerous on them. This should use less manpower than the current construct, hopefully without too much degradation of capability / proficiency because of having to cross qualify the remaining troops.

Click to expand...

In short, no. The rifle platoons have no scope to manage the heavier weapons, not from a training POV and not from an operational role POV.

Army is studying whether they can even manage such weapons at a company level...

If each platoon is to carry heavier weapons they will all need to be mounted... Might as well put them all in 35mm gun / ATGW missile armed IFV's and forget about the pea-shooters...

Volkodav said:

I am curious as to whether it would be feasible for the MAG 58s and 84mms, along with the 60mm mortars to be issued to the platoons directly, perhaps even one of each per section. Rather than equipping a specific MSS they could be an arms room option for the regular fire teams, MAG 58 replacing the Minimi in any of them as required and cross qualify half of the fire teams to be able to deploy 84s and 60mms when needed.

On top of this the Javelin could probably be deployed in a specific ATGW platoon leaving only the .50 cals and AGLs in the DFSW platoon, which would be a lot less onerous on them. This should use less manpower than the current construct, hopefully without too much degradation of capability / proficiency because of having to cross qualify the remaining troops.

Click to expand...

A possible solution would be to imitate the Brits, concentrate the heavy weapons in Support company in the Guns ( .50 HMG and 7.62 SFMG) and Anti tank (JAV, GMG) platoons, with the ability to organise them into 3 Fire Support Groups IOT attach to the rifle companies as required.

I am quite a big fan of boosting the firepower of the rifle platoons by using MAG 58 at section level, with the ability to concentrate them into a platoon gun group if needed. This was standard practice on 'Herrick' tours in Afghanistan, where the GPMG was put to good use.

Having used the 60mm both on ops and in training at platoon and 'multiple' level, it can come in very handy but is massively limited by the weight of ammo that the blokes can lug on the ground. Issue to platoon directly yes, but not at section level.

Goknub said:

Regarding the MSS and the requirement to reduce manning, I think a different approach might be worth considering. Redesignate the 1st and 2nd Platoons of a standard rifle Company as Assualt Platoons and convert the 3rd into a Heavy Weapons Platoon. This would have the advantage of freeing up manning whilst keeping the heavier weapons closer to the front, keeping access to these assets directly with the Company commander. Provide a "light" and "heavy" option for each capability type to keep dismounted tasks a realistic option.

The trade-off would be the loss of the 3rd rifle platoon but mitigated by the increase in firepower.

Click to expand...

Perhaps the biggest problem with the MSS, and why it is being targeted for reduction, is that it hasn't really proved its worth. Rarely has the MSS being used as was intended - as manoeuvre support for the rifle sections. Normally they are just used as a fourth rifle section, which kind of defeats the purpose.

Redesignating one of the the rifle platoons as a heavy weapons platoon would suffer the same fate - it would just get used as a third rifle platoon the overwhelming majority of the time. Such an orbat wouldn't be very effective anyway - you wouldn't be able to manoeuvre effectively with only two rifle platoons, no matter how much support you had from a heavy weapons platoon.

I am curious as to whether it would be feasible for the MAG 58s and 84mms, along with the 60mm mortars to be issued to the platoons directly, perhaps even one of each per section. Rather than equipping a specific MSS they could be an arms room option for the regular fire teams, MAG 58 replacing the Minimi in any of them as required and cross qualify half of the fire teams to be able to deploy 84s and 60mms when needed.

Click to expand...

There's no reason the current MSS can't be issued to the rifle sections. The weapons exist, and everyone in the rifle sections is already trained on the weapons. This wouldn't replace the MSS capability though, as the rifle sections can only be in one place at a time, and they wouldn't have the same training and specialised equipment as the MSS. For example, they could use the Mag-58s in an LSW role, but not in an SFMG role with tripods etc.

There currently is no 60mm mortar, and if there was it almost certainly wouldn't be issued to the platoons.