Australian Army Discussions and Updates

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I think this is an oversimplification. If you’re talking about a land war in Eurasia against a major power, then sure an SPG is the best answer. But that’s not the only, or even the most likely, contingency we would face.

If you’re talking about the sort of action 2 RAR is designed for then the difference between the 4 tonnes of an M777 vs the 40+ of a K9 becomes pretty important. One is a hell of a lot easier to move from an LHD to shore than the other, and takes up much less room on board. If you’ve got guns on the beach / at the airfield and the oppositions are still in their ships - you win.

If you’re talking about COIN, then mobility and survivability become less valuable as you’re probably operating from a well protected fire base.

So I think a mixed inventory of self propelled and stationary but lightweight (and hence high mobility) guns makes sense. Which seems to be where we’re heading.
Don't you classify the PRC as a major power?

Just because the ADF has 2 x LHD is it a foregone conclusion that the majority of its future conflicts will involve crossing beaches? For your info not all amphib combat operations involve landing on beaches. Some landings are actually in the enemies hinterland, well behind the beaches and not by parachute either. In fact the days of opposed beach landings like WW2 and Inchon during the Korean War are history, because in modern warfare they would be absolute suicide. There are many areas in Asia and Australia where mobile armoured forces can and will run loose. Forget the COIN wars of the 21st Century because they aren't the only threat. You also have to be prepared to fight against an enemy who has a well established all arms military force with a complete doctrine, quite capable of giving the ADF a very bloody nose in the air, on the ground, in and on the sea. An eight wheeled light vehicle operating as a SPG will not be as survivable on the modern battlefield as a fully armoured tracked SPG that can go everywhere that the armoured brigades can go.

There are DEFPROs on here who actually know what they are talking about when it comes to armoured forces because they've been there done that and have the teeshirts. I strongly suggest that you pay attention to what the say and I also suggest that you do some background reading. I'm no tanky and never had the any inclination to join the army, because why carry your home around on your back and sleep in a hole in the ground when your home can carry you around and give you three hot squares (meals) a day. I was air force then navy. Got sick of 5 star hotels so went navy for adventure.
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
He’s right - there are still lots of places a M777 will be very useful. It might not be great at defending the Fulda Gap against the 3rd Shock Army, but for airmobile, amphibious and security operations it still has its place. As much as an SPG necessary, if the Australian Army’s concept for winning a war against a peer enemy involves nothing more than lining up our weapons and slugging it out against theirs, we won’t be on the winning side. The ability to pop up at unexpected places and times around the Asia Pacific will be pretty useful in the next couple of decades, and a 40 tonne SPG will never allow as much agility as the M777.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
When looking at the artillery and the role you have to take into account what asset the artillery is to be used for. The reason for the SPG's is to be able to move along with our armored formations and in that context an SPG is a better choice then the M777 that being said if its a task similar to Afghanistan or Vietnam then yes the M777 would more often then not be a better option for that sort of conflict.

We aren't looking at scrapping our M777's, The future SPG will be in addition to them with the guns either retained in full in the Army, Split between Army and Reserve or given entirely to the reserve. The Army reserve under current plans are to have the artillery replaced with mortars but if he M777's become surplus to need there may be room for some personnel to be assigned to them. All that will happen is we will attain the equipment suited to both sorts of conflict, Its a win win.

As to the US Army EMCR well that is why we should have a tender but said tender should not be delayed to suit the time frame of another country. They have the barrel already in testing and if it is working as well as claimed then they should be able to put forward an offer in the tender when we get around to starting it.

No need to argue for or against an SPG, The need for it has been well established. Only thing to debate know is what sort of SPG it will be (Wheeled, Tracked, Weight etc etc), What numbers and the supporting assets for it ie: Do we want only minimal resupply capability so fewer resupply vehicles or do we want something able to keep going at it thus an equal number of supply vehicles to SPG's.
 

Morgo

Well-Known Member
Don't you classify the PRC as a major power?

Just because the ADF has 2 x LHD is it a foregone conclusion that the majority of its future conflicts will involve crossing beaches? For your info not all amphib combat operations involve landing on beaches. Some landings are actually in the enemies hinterland, well behind the beaches and not by parachute either. In fact the days of opposed beach landings like WW2 and Inchon during the Korean War are history, because in modern warfare they would be absolute suicide. There are many areas in Asia and Australia where mobile armoured forces can and will run loose. Forget the COIN wars of the 21st Century because they aren't the only threat. You also have to be prepared to fight against an enemy who has a well established all arms military force with a complete doctrine, quite capable of giving the ADF a very bloody nose in the air, on the ground, in and on the sea. An eight wheeled light vehicle operating as a SPG will not be as survivable on the modern battlefield as a fully armoured tracked SPG that can go everywhere that the armoured brigades can go.

There are DEFPROs on here who actually know what they are talking about when it comes to armoured forces because they've been there done that and have the teeshirts. I strongly suggest that you pay attention to what the say and I also suggest that you do some background reading. I'm no tanky and never had the any inclination to join the army, because why carry your home around on your back and sleep in a hole in the ground when your home can carry you around and give you three hot squares (meals) a day. I was air force then navy. Got sick of 5 star hotels so went navy for adventure.
The PRC most definitely is. God forbid we ever fight a ground war against them on their home landmass. I can’t imagine the level of strategic blunder that’d lead us to be doing that.

I totally agree with what you’re saying re likely types of amphib operations. Opposed beach landings would be a stupid waste of blood and treasure, but this reinforces my point. An M777 is airmobile and could be moved over the beach and inland via NH90, whereas an SPG could not unless you have a C17 handy.

And apologies if my comments came off flippant, they were meant with the greatest of respect. I’m a big fan of the no BS moderation of this forum and the contributions of pros, it leads to a much higher quality discussion.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I totally agree with what you’re saying re likely types of amphib operations. Opposed beach landings would be a stupid waste of blood and treasure, but this reinforces my point. An M777 is airmobile and could be moved over the beach and inland via NH90, whereas an SPG could not unless you have a C17 handy.
And that brings up another point about SPGs. IIRC the RAAF operates eight C-17, so its quite feasible to utilise the C-17 to deploy a SPG troop or troops in such an OP. The US practises a similar evolution by landing marines far inland from LHDs etc., using USMC CH-53 & MV22, and an USAF C-17 for heavy vehicle insertion and extraction using an austere location. I saw a video a few years back and buggered if I can find it again.

So do you have:
  1. An all tracked SPG force?
  2. An all wheeled SPG force?
  3. Or a combination of both?
All three options have their pros and cons and the practical side of me would go with option 3. However, being pragmatic I don't think that would happen because I can't really see an justification for it, because from what I understand, there is no place in Army CONOPS for such a mix. I could be wrong in that and am happy to be corrected.
 

Takao

The Bunker Group
He’s right - there are still lots of places a M777 will be very useful. It might not be great at defending the Fulda Gap against the 3rd Shock Army, but for airmobile, amphibious and security operations it still has its place. As much as an SPG necessary, if the Australian Army’s concept for winning a war against a peer enemy involves nothing more than lining up our weapons and slugging it out against theirs, we won’t be on the winning side. The ability to pop up at unexpected places and times around the Asia Pacific will be pretty useful in the next couple of decades, and a 40 tonne SPG will never allow as much agility as the M777.
I think this is an oversimplification. If you’re talking about a land war in Eurasia against a major power, then sure an SPG is the best answer. But that’s not the only, or even the most likely, contingency we would face.

If you’re talking about the sort of action 2 RAR is designed for then the difference between the 4 tonnes of an M777 vs the 40+ of a K9 becomes pretty important. One is a hell of a lot easier to move from an LHD to shore than the other, and takes up much less room on board. If you’ve got guns on the beach / at the airfield and the oppositions are still in their ships - you win.

If you’re talking about COIN, then mobility and survivability become less valuable as you’re probably operating from a well protected fire base.

So I think a mixed inventory of self propelled and stationary but lightweight (and hence high mobility) guns makes sense. Which seems to be where we’re heading.
It's not a 4 tonne gun (unless you are talking about leaving it at an Army Barracks or air mobile - but I'll get to there in a second). It's a 4 tonne gun with a 32 tonne tow truck. It's longer than a SPG, just as heavy and considerably less mobile off-road (it is not as tough as a M198). So, just ground mobility wise, how is is it better than a tracked vehicle? How does a tracked vehicle go less places than a HX77? The length means it takes up more room on an LHD too - and will probably cut a C-17 down to 1 gun (the same as a SPH). So what mobility does it give? @Raven22 talks about the ability to pop up at unexpected times around the Asia Pacific? The M777 can't (unless there is a road or nice firm terrain); the SPH can tactically and operationally. Hell, even just moving a SPH on Australian roads in peacetime is easier than a M777!

Ahhh....airlift I hear. Yes, a CH-47 will carry a M777 a lot further than an SPG. Great. And does what? Unlike an L118 it can't carry ammunition, so that'll be another CH-47. So 2 per gun; that's 8 CH-47 for a Bty or 4 for a Tp. And gives you a few minutes of firing. Note that the anaemic rate of fire of an M777, especially at high angles, means a Tp doesn't really offer any weight of fire and a Bty is likely going to be the minimum needed. So 8x CH-47 for a few minutes of firing. How many CH-47 do we have in theatre? I suppose they could do ferry flights - but that is giving up surprise and undermining the concept of multi-domain operations that Army is looking at tackling where short temporal windows are all that can be assured.

Now tactics. The extra range of an SPH means that it does not have to move as much, nor as far forward, as a M777. For those who can, there is more than 1 DSTO / DSTG study that shows this clearly. So a force with M777 may have to consider airlift while an SPH force just drives to a different spot not available to a M777 and operates from there. Speaking of operating, it takes about 30 - 60 s to get a SPH from stopped to in action. On Chong Ju (the most friendly and kindest scenario you can generate for a gun crew) it took 6:32 min to go from the first gunner touching the gun on the back of the HX77 to first round down range. In that time, a K9 has fired 30 rounds - or a Bty has fired 120 - 180 rounds (either a 4 gun or 6 gun Bty. From now on I'll assume it's a 4 gun Bty. Urgh). Without the super MRSI mode. The K9 doubles the RoF of the M777. In every case you have artillery, it's the first few seconds that matter. The Americans proved this in 1944 and it remains true. So in 10 minutes from stopping my M777 Bty gets 24 - 28 rounds off (depending on elevation), the SPH (assuming K9) Bty gets 180 rounds off. In 5 minutes from stopping that drops to 0 for the M777 and 80 for the SPH.

Now, against a reasonable threat (one we are throwing a lot of 155 mm at), there is likely to be a counter-battery threat. You don't need to be fighting the Fulda Gap - you just need to be fighting any army built on the Soviet model (of which there is a large number in the areas Australia may operate). Russian C-Bty units in the Ukraine are getting down to 80 s from "Blue" firing to the first "Red" shell landing on them (that's unclass OSINT figures too). Any threat we face is going to be similar, but gosh, lets call it 120 s (that's 50% worse than the Russians). After the first shell fires on the M777, how much time to get the gun hooked up (hint - at Chong Ju it was over 3 minutes). The SPH? In fact, assuming you can get your SPH and M777 loaded and ready to fire without detection, in 120 seconds you can have 4x shells fired and 44 dead soldiers from a M777 Bty or 32x shells and some diesel fumes from a K9 Bty.

Resupply is also easier with an SPH, especially the K9-K10 combo. The flatpack addition to a HX77 does speed it up compared to the older Mack; but it still is slow. Note that the M777 combination will require another HX77 to resupply ammo; so moving a K10 is no more a load than another HX77.

Operationally there is little to discuss that hasn't already. The lack of inherent mobility of the M777 means it needs an HX77. It is also restricted to only operating against threats without a counter-battery capability. Any FOB mission can be done by an SPH as much as a M777 - so that isn't an issue.

Strategically, it comes down to personnel and money. M777 chew up people - 10 - 11 per gun. A K9 uses 5 (a 50% saving), with the new kit in the turret that drops to 2 (an 80% saving). If they can be built in Australia (probably only applicable to the K9) then that adds to our sustainability and economy. Noting that a SPH is better tactically and operationally, why would I pay the money to run two fleets? I haven't run the numbers, but I wonder how many more SPH we can buy if we delete the M777 entirely and shift that funding across (it'd add up, especially taking into account the SoA and supply chain).

So, a SPH is better than a M777 in almost every respect at every level. Those it isn't, it's equal. The one niche capability of airlift demands more online CH-47 than we have - and hence is not cost effective. The M777 capability (because it's more than just the gun) is slower, clumsier, longer, less agile, more manpower intensive, less safer and less capable. It's a wonderful tool - for the 1940s. But this is the army of 2025 - 2045. The M777 is obsolete. SPH is the answer, especially for a small Army like ours. I love the Centurion and the Charles F Adams class DDG, and tolerate the F-4) - but I would never, ever suggest we bring them back, let alone use them into the 2030s. Towed guns of 155 mm are the same.
 

Takao

The Bunker Group
Defence industry representatives were in Canberra for the Land Environment Working Group (LEWG) meeting to get an update from senior Army capability leaders chaired by Major General Kathryn Toohey.

Land Environment Working Group updates industry on Army programs - Australian Defence Magazine
My favourite quote?

"Head of Helicopter Systems Division Shane Fairweather also confirmed that work was being done to clarify their documentation into ‘plain English’, noting that from his time in industry it can be hard to decipher what the Commonwealth actually wants even after reading all the tender documentation."

Ahhh....if only we actually did that! The amount of time we spend writing in "Defence-ese" is stupid, especially as we usually don't understand it ourselves outside individual services, let alone before stuff goes over the lake. But hey, what would I know?

(actually, my boss was big on the plain English too - so I have no cause to complain. Except for the stuff I have to read....o_O)
 

Morgo

Well-Known Member
It's not a 4 tonne gun (unless you are talking about leaving it at an Army Barracks or air mobile - but I'll get to there in a second). It's a 4 tonne gun with a 32 tonne tow truck. It's longer than a SPG, just as heavy and considerably less mobile off-road (it is not as tough as a M198). So, just ground mobility wise, how is is it better than a tracked vehicle? How does a tracked vehicle go less places than a HX77? The length means it takes up more room on an LHD too - and will probably cut a C-17 down to 1 gun (the same as a SPH). So what mobility does it give? @Raven22 talks about the ability to pop up at unexpected times around the Asia Pacific? The M777 can't (unless there is a road or nice firm terrain); the SPH can tactically and operationally. Hell, even just moving a SPH on Australian roads in peacetime is easier than a M777!

Ahhh....airlift I hear. Yes, a CH-47 will carry a M777 a lot further than an SPG. Great. And does what? Unlike an L118 it can't carry ammunition, so that'll be another CH-47. So 2 per gun; that's 8 CH-47 for a Bty or 4 for a Tp. And gives you a few minutes of firing. Note that the anaemic rate of fire of an M777, especially at high angles, means a Tp doesn't really offer any weight of fire and a Bty is likely going to be the minimum needed. So 8x CH-47 for a few minutes of firing. How many CH-47 do we have in theatre? I suppose they could do ferry flights - but that is giving up surprise and undermining the concept of multi-domain operations that Army is looking at tackling where short temporal windows are all that can be assured.

Now tactics. The extra range of an SPH means that it does not have to move as much, nor as far forward, as a M777. For those who can, there is more than 1 DSTO / DSTG study that shows this clearly. So a force with M777 may have to consider airlift while an SPH force just drives to a different spot not available to a M777 and operates from there. Speaking of operating, it takes about 30 - 60 s to get a SPH from stopped to in action. On Chong Ju (the most friendly and kindest scenario you can generate for a gun crew) it took 6:32 min to go from the first gunner touching the gun on the back of the HX77 to first round down range. In that time, a K9 has fired 30 rounds - or a Bty has fired 120 - 180 rounds (either a 4 gun or 6 gun Bty. From now on I'll assume it's a 4 gun Bty. Urgh). Without the super MRSI mode. The K9 doubles the RoF of the M777. In every case you have artillery, it's the first few seconds that matter. The Americans proved this in 1944 and it remains true. So in 10 minutes from stopping my M777 Bty gets 24 - 28 rounds off (depending on elevation), the SPH (assuming K9) Bty gets 180 rounds off. In 5 minutes from stopping that drops to 0 for the M777 and 80 for the SPH.

Now, against a reasonable threat (one we are throwing a lot of 155 mm at), there is likely to be a counter-battery threat. You don't need to be fighting the Fulda Gap - you just need to be fighting any army built on the Soviet model (of which there is a large number in the areas Australia may operate). Russian C-Bty units in the Ukraine are getting down to 80 s from "Blue" firing to the first "Red" shell landing on them (that's unclass OSINT figures too). Any threat we face is going to be similar, but gosh, lets call it 120 s (that's 50% worse than the Russians). After the first shell fires on the M777, how much time to get the gun hooked up (hint - at Chong Ju it was over 3 minutes). The SPH? In fact, assuming you can get your SPH and M777 loaded and ready to fire without detection, in 120 seconds you can have 4x shells fired and 44 dead soldiers from a M777 Bty or 32x shells and some diesel fumes from a K9 Bty.

Resupply is also easier with an SPH, especially the K9-K10 combo. The flatpack addition to a HX77 does speed it up compared to the older Mack; but it still is slow. Note that the M777 combination will require another HX77 to resupply ammo; so moving a K10 is no more a load than another HX77.

Operationally there is little to discuss that hasn't already. The lack of inherent mobility of the M777 means it needs an HX77. It is also restricted to only operating against threats without a counter-battery capability. Any FOB mission can be done by an SPH as much as a M777 - so that isn't an issue.

Strategically, it comes down to personnel and money. M777 chew up people - 10 - 11 per gun. A K9 uses 5 (a 50% saving), with the new kit in the turret that drops to 2 (an 80% saving). If they can be built in Australia (probably only applicable to the K9) then that adds to our sustainability and economy. Noting that a SPH is better tactically and operationally, why would I pay the money to run two fleets? I haven't run the numbers, but I wonder how many more SPH we can buy if we delete the M777 entirely and shift that funding across (it'd add up, especially taking into account the SoA and supply chain).

So, a SPH is better than a M777 in almost every respect at every level. Those it isn't, it's equal. The one niche capability of airlift demands more online CH-47 than we have - and hence is not cost effective. The M777 capability (because it's more than just the gun) is slower, clumsier, longer, less agile, more manpower intensive, less safer and less capable. It's a wonderful tool - for the 1940s. But this is the army of 2025 - 2045. The M777 is obsolete. SPH is the answer, especially for a small Army like ours. I love the Centurion and the Charles F Adams class DDG, and tolerate the F-4) - but I would never, ever suggest we bring them back, let alone use them into the 2030s. Towed guns of 155 mm are the same.
I’m sold. Makes perfect sense to me.

Given this, why in God’s name did we buy the M777 in the first place?
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
It's not a 4 tonne gun (unless you are talking about leaving it at an Army Barracks or air mobile - but I'll get to there in a second). It's a 4 tonne gun with a 32 tonne tow truck. It's longer than a SPG, just as heavy and considerably less mobile off-road (it is not as tough as a M198). So, just ground mobility wise, how is is it better than a tracked vehicle? How does a tracked vehicle go less places than a HX77? The length means it takes up more room on an LHD too - and will probably cut a C-17 down to 1 gun (the same as a SPH). So what mobility does it give? @Raven22 talks about the ability to pop up at unexpected times around the Asia Pacific? The M777 can't (unless there is a road or nice firm terrain); the SPH can tactically and operationally. Hell, even just moving a SPH on Australian roads in peacetime is easier than a M777!

Ahhh....airlift I hear. Yes, a CH-47 will carry a M777 a lot further than an SPG. Great. And does what? Unlike an L118 it can't carry ammunition, so that'll be another CH-47. So 2 per gun; that's 8 CH-47 for a Bty or 4 for a Tp. And gives you a few minutes of firing. Note that the anaemic rate of fire of an M777, especially at high angles, means a Tp doesn't really offer any weight of fire and a Bty is likely going to be the minimum needed. So 8x CH-47 for a few minutes of firing. How many CH-47 do we have in theatre? I suppose they could do ferry flights - but that is giving up surprise and undermining the concept of multi-domain operations that Army is looking at tackling where short temporal windows are all that can be assured.

Now tactics. The extra range of an SPH means that it does not have to move as much, nor as far forward, as a M777. For those who can, there is more than 1 DSTO / DSTG study that shows this clearly. So a force with M777 may have to consider airlift while an SPH force just drives to a different spot not available to a M777 and operates from there. Speaking of operating, it takes about 30 - 60 s to get a SPH from stopped to in action. On Chong Ju (the most friendly and kindest scenario you can generate for a gun crew) it took 6:32 min to go from the first gunner touching the gun on the back of the HX77 to first round down range. In that time, a K9 has fired 30 rounds - or a Bty has fired 120 - 180 rounds (either a 4 gun or 6 gun Bty. From now on I'll assume it's a 4 gun Bty. Urgh). Without the super MRSI mode. The K9 doubles the RoF of the M777. In every case you have artillery, it's the first few seconds that matter. The Americans proved this in 1944 and it remains true. So in 10 minutes from stopping my M777 Bty gets 24 - 28 rounds off (depending on elevation), the SPH (assuming K9) Bty gets 180 rounds off. In 5 minutes from stopping that drops to 0 for the M777 and 80 for the SPH.

Now, against a reasonable threat (one we are throwing a lot of 155 mm at), there is likely to be a counter-battery threat. You don't need to be fighting the Fulda Gap - you just need to be fighting any army built on the Soviet model (of which there is a large number in the areas Australia may operate). Russian C-Bty units in the Ukraine are getting down to 80 s from "Blue" firing to the first "Red" shell landing on them (that's unclass OSINT figures too). Any threat we face is going to be similar, but gosh, lets call it 120 s (that's 50% worse than the Russians). After the first shell fires on the M777, how much time to get the gun hooked up (hint - at Chong Ju it was over 3 minutes). The SPH? In fact, assuming you can get your SPH and M777 loaded and ready to fire without detection, in 120 seconds you can have 4x shells fired and 44 dead soldiers from a M777 Bty or 32x shells and some diesel fumes from a K9 Bty.

Resupply is also easier with an SPH, especially the K9-K10 combo. The flatpack addition to a HX77 does speed it up compared to the older Mack; but it still is slow. Note that the M777 combination will require another HX77 to resupply ammo; so moving a K10 is no more a load than another HX77.

Operationally there is little to discuss that hasn't already. The lack of inherent mobility of the M777 means it needs an HX77. It is also restricted to only operating against threats without a counter-battery capability. Any FOB mission can be done by an SPH as much as a M777 - so that isn't an issue.

Strategically, it comes down to personnel and money. M777 chew up people - 10 - 11 per gun. A K9 uses 5 (a 50% saving), with the new kit in the turret that drops to 2 (an 80% saving). If they can be built in Australia (probably only applicable to the K9) then that adds to our sustainability and economy. Noting that a SPH is better tactically and operationally, why would I pay the money to run two fleets? I haven't run the numbers, but I wonder how many more SPH we can buy if we delete the M777 entirely and shift that funding across (it'd add up, especially taking into account the SoA and supply chain).

So, a SPH is better than a M777 in almost every respect at every level. Those it isn't, it's equal. The one niche capability of airlift demands more online CH-47 than we have - and hence is not cost effective. The M777 capability (because it's more than just the gun) is slower, clumsier, longer, less agile, more manpower intensive, less safer and less capable. It's a wonderful tool - for the 1940s. But this is the army of 2025 - 2045. The M777 is obsolete. SPH is the answer, especially for a small Army like ours. I love the Centurion and the Charles F Adams class DDG, and tolerate the F-4) - but I would never, ever suggest we bring them back, let alone use them into the 2030s. Towed guns of 155 mm are the same.

Thanks for the info and certainly a very strong case for SPG's
Like it or not the M777 will be around for a while yet.

A small interesting item in AA re the M777 being loaded on a C-17.
Not saying its good or bad, but just re-enforcing its all we have today.

PHOTOS: C-17 load trials for M777 Howitzer - Australian Aviation

Regards S
 

toryu

Member
@toryu , Just a quick heads up mate in the world of economics it isn't the assets you look at, Its the equity. Assets minus liabilities equals equity.
Hello Vonnoobie. I wasn't really trying to say one way or the other. The intent of my comment was merely to propose that Hanwha might have enough resources at it's disposal that building a small production facility, if only for a small order of SPA, may not be that large a risk (or loss) for them should they not succeed as L400P3. Proceeding to do so, however, may increase their odds at gaining further orders in the form of the Redback or other products and so may be worth taking a chance on. As in my original post; this was pure speculation.

I apologise if my previous post was not able to articulate that clearly, cheers.
 
Last edited:

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
It's not a 4 tonne gun (unless you are talking about leaving it at an Army Barracks or air mobile - but I'll get to there in a second). It's a 4 tonne gun with a 32 tonne tow truck. It's longer than a SPG, just as heavy and considerably less mobile off-road (it is not as tough as a M198). So, just ground mobility wise, how is is it better than a tracked vehicle? How does a tracked vehicle go less places than a HX77? The length means it takes up more room on an LHD too - and will probably cut a C-17 down to 1 gun (the same as a SPH). So what mobility does it give? @Raven22 talks about the ability to pop up at unexpected times around the Asia Pacific? The M777 can't (unless there is a road or nice firm terrain); the SPH can tactically and operationally. Hell, even just moving a SPH on Australian roads in peacetime is easier than a M777!
If the RAA uses a 32 tonne vehicle to tow the M777, is that because it has to, or has chosen to? I ask because according to the BAE M777 datasheet

Towing vehicles: MTVR, FMTV, M800 and M900 5 ton trucks, any 2.5 ton truck
Which suggests to me that there are more towing options available for the M777 which are of less weight than an SPG.

Also IIRC, one of the reasons why the M777 was selected and purchased (apart from previous SPG projects failing) was the urgent need for an M198 replacement, that could also easily/seamlessly integrate with with modern US fire control systems. Unfortunately I cannot remember what the exact acronym for the system is, but again IIRC the reason why the previous SPG project failed is that no SPG had both the desired FCS and barrel length.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
If the RAA uses a 32 tonne vehicle to tow the M777, is that because it has to, or has chosen to? I ask because according to the BAE M777 datasheet
I think someone has mixed up the max safe loaded weight of a HX77 8x8 with the weight of a tow vehicle. HX77 8x8 is only 13.5t and allowing gun weight would mean it is also dragging along around 1,300 HE shells with it if its the 32t people have claimed. Actually the two trucks coming into service that we would use would be the HX58 and HX60 whose empty weights are around 10 and 7 tons respectively with 9 and 6 ton payload capacities.
 

Takao

The Bunker Group
I think someone has mixed up the max safe loaded weight of a HX77 8x8 with the weight of a tow vehicle. HX77 8x8 is only 13.5t and allowing gun weight would mean it is also dragging along around 1,300 HE shells with it if its the 32t people have claimed. Actually the two trucks coming into service that we would use would be the HX58 and HX60 whose empty weights are around 10 and 7 tons respectively with 9 and 6 ton payload capacities.
If the RAA uses a 32 tonne vehicle to tow the M777, is that because it has to, or has chosen to? I ask because according to the BAE M777 datasheet

Which suggests to me that there are more towing options available for the M777 which are of less weight than an SPG.
No, I didn't mix up the weights. I made two assumptions - one, it had the protected cab (and I didn't have my cheat sheet of LAND 121 data at hand) and two, the truck will reach GVM in Regt use. In every case we load our trucks up, so the GVM becomes a useful planning figure. Every CSS planning figure assumes GVM for vehicles - the exception being airlift when you lighten to a specific load. In reality, the lightest I have had one of my trucks was 1200 kg under GVM - and that's over many trucks, units and loads. Note that the 40 tonne SPG is also GVM.

Now, it may be lighter if RAA pursues a manned, protected module on the back of the HX77. In that case, the module will out bulk before it outmasses the load. It also is not that protected, nor as I understand, formally planned. So that may be lighter - lets say 25 tonnes all up. Assuming that solution is not adopted, the "light" gun needs a Bushmaster for the crew. So, protected cab + ammo tow HX 77 is ~25 tonnes + 4 tonne gun + 15 tonne Bushmaster - how is this lighter, more mobile and shorter than a SPG?

My point stands. A M777 is only light and simple when considering the gun and not the capability.

As for tow vehicles, there is a very good conversation that Army needs to have about its BoP for LAND 121-3B and -5B. We one-for-one'd Mack and Unimog, which was a simple decision for R2, but undermined an excellent opportunity to rationalise and simplify to what it needed, as opposed to what it had. As an example, the HX40M can tow a trailer that can take a Merlo (done previously by a Mack), but we replaced all those Mack's with HX77s. So now a lighter CSS Sqn may be running multiple 40M's and one 77. Or take our ACRs - they run a mix of trucks too. Why not just HX77 to simplify their internal logistics?

Basically, the Army has chosen to use the HX77 to tow the M777. I have no idea to the specifics as to why, but I'm guessing it's because the Arty Regt used Mack previously. As to BAe's list, in Australian service you are stuck with a HX77 or a HX40M. We have absolutely no need for another truck fleet, so it's one of those two. And by the looks of it, we aren't certifying the 40M...
 

Massive

Well-Known Member
The ability to pop up at unexpected places and times around the Asia Pacific will be pretty useful in the next couple of decades, and a 40 tonne SPG will never allow as much agility as the M777.
Hi Raven,

It is a bit unclear to me what the scenario would be where the M777 would be the weapon of choice.

I can imagine scenarios where ASM and SS - potentially launched from HIMARS or similar - but where you would chose M777 is more challenging.

Thoughts?

Massive
 

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Hi Raven,

It is a bit unclear to me what the scenario would be where the M777 would be the weapon of choice.

I can imagine scenarios where ASM and SS - potentially launched from HIMARS or similar - but where you would chose M777 is more challenging.

Thoughts?

Massive
Somewhere that the terrain won't allows multi ton vehicle access?
Air lift arty into tropical, mountainous country perhaps?
Think somewhere like East Timor in the wet season, where the conflict got hotter....
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Hi Raven,

It is a bit unclear to me what the scenario would be where the M777 would be the weapon of choice.

I can imagine scenarios where ASM and SS - potentially launched from HIMARS or similar - but where you would chose M777 is more challenging.

Thoughts?

Massive

Spotted this the other day..
https://www.smh.com.au/national/aussie-gunners-deployed-to-afghanistan-20080314-1zex.html

I guess light field artillery still has a place.
I guess SPG's still have a place.
There will be scenario's where each is the preference and the alternative is a poor choice and visa a versa.

With our current line up we have only one option and this will be addressed in the years ahead with the introduction of an SPG.

Probably see the future of the M777. once the SPG's come into service more as a support weapon for a static location.
That location will be geography difficult for heavy vehicles and it will be "Chinooked" in to be plonked in the one location until no longer needed.
Yes I get the logistic challenge of support, but remote fire bases are never logistic friendly for all that they need.

Regards S
 

Massive

Well-Known Member
Probably see the future of the M777. once the SPG's come into service more as a support weapon for a static location.
This is quite different to Raven22's point of being able to pop up in unexpected places and create maximum battlespace friction.

A support weapon from a static location is far from this.

Does make you wonder how important maintaining this capability is and whether it needs to be always available.

Could the M777's be put in storage and the capanbility stood up as required, with SPGs being the weapon of choice and always available.

Thoughts?

Massive
 

Massive

Well-Known Member
Somewhere that the terrain won't allows multi ton vehicle access?
Air lift arty into tropical, mountainous country perhaps?
Think somewhere like East Timor in the wet season, where the conflict got hotter....
My reaction to this would be don't do it.

Surely an SPG would be a better option in the wet season in East Timor. Certainly better than a bogged M777.

Regards,

Massive
 

MickB

Well-Known Member
In light of Takao's very well thought out post on the M777 should they be retired to the reserve and and a small detachment of Hamel guns be stood up for support of any air landing or establishing mountaintop/jungle fire bases.

Is the lighter weight, thus greater air mobility of both gun and ammunition enough to offset the reduced range and firepower.

Is this a capability that the army needs to maintain.

Would we be better served with the army adopting a 120 mm mortar.
 
Last edited:
Top