Australian Army Discussions and Updates

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
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
Read again, think mountain terrain "like East Timor", could mean PNG, could mean anywhere, Vietnam ,Indonesia etc etc, It could well mean that the terrain dictates that a SPG cannot get there, so next option would be "AIRLIFT" 777's......via chinook, I did write airlift Massive. There are plenty of places that Tracked vehicles just can't get to full stop.
An SPG might well be first choice, but it is always a bonus to have a second choice, this called a contingency plan....(tongue in cheek)
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Let's hope we wouldn't get involved in a conflict that required the ADF to airlift M777 into inaccessible terrain.

Point taken - my bogged comment was specious.

I'm all for contingency.

Regards,

Massive
You cannot pick and choose your conflicts, nor can you pick and choose where your enemy is, unless you are the aggressor. So I think that your comment is somewhat unrealistic and ill-founded. I suggest that you acquaint yourself with Australian military history.

SPG is not a magic pill or the be all to end all. If you read the Think Defence article that I posted earlier in the thread about arty, it explains some of the advantages and disadvantages of SPGs and towed arty, plus tracked vs wheeled SPG. Think Defence is a good resource.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
It all comes down to budget and manpower. Australia is just within the budget and manpower constraints that we can afford and be capable of fielding both be them in active or reserve units. As @ngatimozart early showed benefits and disadvantages for both, Some countries may be forced to choose one or the other but we are not one of them. We can afford the financial and man power requirements for both capabilities it just comes down to a matter if the M777's are kept in the active force, split between the Army and reserve or sent entirely to the reserve. Personally I would lean more towards a split as it allows for a core crew to be active in them and the reservist filling in as needed as we do with the reserves in several aspects.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
It all comes down to budget and manpower. Australia is just within the budget and manpower constraints that we can afford and be capable of fielding both be them in active or reserve units. As @ngatimozart early showed benefits and disadvantages for both, Some countries may be forced to choose one or the other but we are not one of them. We can afford the financial and man power requirements for both capabilities it just comes down to a matter if the M777's are kept in the active force, split between the Army and reserve or sent entirely to the reserve. Personally I would lean more towards a split as it allows for a core crew to be active in them and the reservist filling in as needed as we do with the reserves in several aspects.
I think as has been pointed out there quite a skill set to operating elements of the M777 system.
So if retained it would at least have to be a Reg / Res mix in force compsition which I dont see as such a bad thing long term.
As to the future SPG I'd say it would be for the Regulars only.
MickB made the suggestion of reintroducing the 105 mm Hamel.
I can certainly see a place for such a system but unfortunately it fits into the maybe nice to have category. Like many things we only have so much money and man power.
Probably confined to a box in a warehouse somewhere
That said I think those guns if correct were relativity young with a lot of life left in them.
Maybe one for the next big mobilisation.

Regards S
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Would a multiple launch rosket system be practical for the Australian army ?
The question should be would HIMARS fit the CONOPS of the Australian Army? If so it must be seen as an additional capability, not one replacing tube arty in any way shape or form, because it's not a precision weapon.
 

Takao

The Bunker Group
Would a multiple launch rosket system be practical for the Australian army ?
The question should be would HIMARS fit the CONOPS of the Australian Army? If so it must be seen as an additional capability, not one replacing tube arty in any way shape or form, because it's not a precision weapon.
Absolutely, and as an additional capability - although the comment about precision is incorrect. A "dumb" 155 mm round compared to a MGM-140 ATCAMS is night and day - as you'd expect from a GPS guided rocket.

A MLRS is needed for two things, range and options. The former is obvious - by having a self-propelled round it can go further than a shell. HiMARS is about 300 km which far exceeds any tube artillery. The second one ties in with the Army's push to multi-domain warfare. A HiMARS Bty can run SAMs, SSMs or anti-shipping missiles, all out of the same launcher. In addition, the SSMs can carry better payloads, simply due to their size (155 mm diameter v 227 mm). This also has options in non-HE warheads - now EW or ISR payloads can be higher power and duration.

Overall, it would give the Army more range, a heavier throw weight of indirect fires, a multi-domain capability and increased options - all in a simple enough platform (that could even be issued to ARes RAA units).
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
The question should be would HIMARS fit the CONOPS of the Australian Army? If so it must be seen as an additional capability, not one replacing tube arty in any way shape or form, because it's not a precision weapon.
A MRL capability is in the 2016 DWP/DIIP for delivery in the mid 20s, wether the proposed SPH will effect this is publicly unknown
 

Takao

The Bunker Group
You cannot pick and choose your conflicts, nor can you pick and choose where your enemy is, unless you are the aggressor. So I think that your comment is somewhat unrealistic and ill-founded. I suggest that you acquaint yourself with Australian military history.

SPG is not a magic pill or the be all to end all. If you read the Think Defence article that I posted earlier in the thread about arty, it explains some of the advantages and disadvantages of SPGs and towed arty, plus tracked vs wheeled SPG. Think Defence is a good resource.
I like Think Defence and communicate regularly on the Twitters with him, but that article isn't the greatest, especially when contextualised with the ADF.

His base argument of 105 mm v 155 mm and coming up with 122 mm is fine - but not practical in reality. We have selected the 155 mm round for all our artillery needs (putting MLRS and 120 mm mortars aside) - not 105 mm. There are no MOTS guns of 122 mm that we would buy that allows integration with the US. How we got to 155 mm is irrelevant - for the next 15 - 20 years it is highly unlikely the US (and hence us) will shift away from 155 mm as the primary artillery calibre; for the next 5 - 10 years it is not happening.

His view that 105 mm is better logistically and for suppression is partially right. Logistically it is partially correct - there is little chance 100x rounds of 155 mm will ever weight less or be smaller than 100x 105 mm rounds. So? We should never reduce battlefield effect to meet logistics - otherwise we might as well go 20 mm (after all, 100x 20 mm is smaller and lighter than 100x 105 mm...). In use however, this gets less clear. A 155 mm shell is better in lethality and flexibility - so you have to fire more 105 mm rounds to achieve the same effect. From memory (doctrinal planning figures only) a Bty of 105 mm guns can cover 62 500 square meters. A Bty of 155 mm guns covers 122 500 square meters. In other words, you need 2x Bty of 105 mm to achieve the same coverage (but with less lethal effects) that a Bty of 155 mm can do. So is it really logistically better? I have to deliver twice the number of (smaller) shells, have twice the guns with twice the crew and twice the fuel....

Suppression is based only on rate of fire and time into action. I couldn't find where he states that explicitly, but it can be inferred from the first couple of paragraphs. Unfortunately, it also becomes clear he is comparing towed 105 mm to towed 155 mm. He states that the RoF of a SPG is superior to either towed option, meaning that a 155 mm SPG is actually better at suppression than a 105 mm solution (which intuitively makes sense, it has a more lethal round, fires faster and further).

The first half of the article highlights that self-propelled platforms are superior in every form of transport and firing other than air. Which, if you read my previous comparison of the M777 and SPG in Australian service) is something I have never argued with. The article also points out that towed guns are, on the ground, limited to the wheel vehicle's mobility. For the M777 it can only go where a HX77 and/or Bushmaster can go. And it doesn't like rough terrain itself. As for airlift, sure. I've never said otherwise. All I've ever said is that requires a hell of an effort - and I'm not sure that we'll have enough CH-47 or the end effects will be worth it.

Everything in that article that is relevant and correct agrees with my comments here: Australian Army Discussions and Updates And nothing in either justifies a towed 155 mm gun. I maintain the M777 is obsolete (as is every towed 155 mm gun), and further add that in a fiscally constrained IIP it's worth spending money on Joint effects that matter - not obsolete systems that 'may' be useful in a niche role one day.
 

seaspear

Well-Known Member

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Russia Unveils a new Cannon for the Armata T-15 AIFV - Defense Update:
Does Russias new t-15 hivf heavy infantry fighting with an auto 57mill cannon present as superior to the western European vehicles like Boxer and Puma
Russia unveils T-15 HIFV armed with 57 mm cannon | Jane's 360
If as the article suggests is correct and even the U.S commences production of a similar vehicle with a fifty mill auto cannon what would it suggest about the development of Land 400 phase 2 and calibre size
Would have made a formidable early WW2 Tank.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
The attached article shows other viewpoints in calibre size ,I have attached as Australia is in the consideration phase land 400 phase3
This Massive Gun Toting Armored Beast Could Replace The Army's Bradley Fighting Vehicles
With the avant of modern ballistic computers, first round shots are a quantum leap in accuracy over previous generation weapon systems.
While their will always be limitations to how much ordnance weight a vehicle can carry. I do feel the future trend will certainly move to less rounds carried, as a trade off for a larger calibre round and the punch in size and distance that calibre brings to the situation.
Maybe a question that is pertinent to consider for both Phase 2 and 3 of land 400.
Unfortunately that horse has probably bolted in favour of the 30 mm size round.
Therefore I do hope our vehicles select for Land 400 series have the scope to be future proofed for a larger calibre in the years ahead.
Taking a knife to a gun fight and all that!!!!!!

Regards S
 

Massive

Well-Known Member
You cannot pick and choose your conflicts, nor can you pick and choose where your enemy is, unless you are the aggressor.
I do not agree with your premise. When it comes to airlifting towed artillery into mountainous terrain I believe you most definitely do have a choice.

Regards,

Massive
 

Morgo

Well-Known Member
With the avant of modern ballistic computers, first round shots are a quantum leap in accuracy over previous generation weapon systems.
While their will always be limitations to how much ordnance weight a vehicle can carry. I do feel the future trend will certainly move to less rounds carried, as a trade off for a larger calibre round and the punch in size and distance that calibre brings to the situation.
Maybe a question that is pertinent to consider for both Phase 2 and 3 of land 400.
Unfortunately that horse has probably bolted in favour of the 30 mm size round.
Therefore I do hope our vehicles select for Land 400 series have the scope to be future proofed for a larger calibre in the years ahead.
Taking a knife to a gun fight and all that!!!!!!

Regards S
Can someone who knows more than me help me understand what the target set would be that would need such a large round?

I would have thought that a 30 to 35mm round would be more than enough for:

1) infantry
2) unarmoured vehicles
3) light armoured vehicles
4) Medium armoured vehicles up to STANAG VI
5) Light to medium structures
6) Helicopters / drones.

What it wouldn’t work for is:

7) Heavy fortifications
8) MBTs.

I don’t think a CRV / IFV is the platform of choice for dealing with 7 & 8, but if needs be turret mounted ATGMs can always be fitted.

So what am I missing? What do we need to fire a 57mm round at that a 35mm round wouldn’t kill, which justifies the significant decrease in rounds carried and rate of fire?
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I do not agree with your premise. When it comes to airlifting towed artillery into mountainous terrain I believe you most definitely do have a choice.

Regards,

Massive
Look at the wider context instead of just focusing on one scenario. My point is that you don't acquire kit for one specific purpose, such as your example, unless it's highly specialised for a specific requirement that is of national strategic importance.
I am very well acquainted with Australian military history thank you.

Let us hope that lessons are learned from this history.

Regards,

Massive
Good that you are, but unfortunately many of those in power forget, don't know or choose to ignore the lessons of history.
 

Ballistic

Member
Can someone who knows more than me help me understand what the target set would be that would need such a large round?

I would have thought that a 30 to 35mm round would be more than enough for:

1) infantry
2) unarmoured vehicles
3) light armoured vehicles
4) Medium armoured vehicles up to STANAG VI
5) Light to medium structures
6) Helicopters / drones.

What it wouldn’t work for is:

7) Heavy fortifications
8) MBTs.

I don’t think a CRV / IFV is the platform of choice for dealing with 7 & 8, but if needs be turret mounted ATGMs can always be fitted.

So what am I missing? What do we need to fire a 57mm round at that a 35mm round wouldn’t kill, which justifies the significant decrease in rounds carried and rate of fire?
It appears as though the thinking is mostly based on overmatch and out-ranging enemy armour - perfectly reasonable goals in my opinion. For the US, they seem to be justifying 50mm to counter Chinese and Russian armour advances, particularly the T-15 family which is much more heavily armoured and armed than any previous RuAF armoured systems. They also seem to be thinking about the limitations of the M1 Abrams, especially its difficulty in deploying rapidly and restrictions with regards to local infrastructure. Having an IFV fleet with a heavier cannon reduces the need (some what) of requiring the deployment of M1 for all but the worst case scenarios. M1's would still be deployed for sure, but not in the numbers once required, when they have an IFV with a middle ground cannon that can engage all but the best armoured targets and achieve effects with fewer rounds needed for a kill.

If and when the US Army finally get their MPF "light tank" back in service, the need for M1 will be further reduced for most deployments. According to the examples below, the higher calibre gun (50mm) would reduce the need to expend as much ammunition, kill enemy armour etc faster and save on ammunition - the downside is that they will have less ready and stowed rounds. A good example provided was during Gulf War 1 when US Bradley's engaged Iraqi BMP-3's. Some BMP-3's were needing up to 45 25mm rounds for a kill, the 300 stowed rounds of a Bradley IFV begin to diminish quickly if that becomes the norm. While it is unknown exactly how effective the armour of the T-15 series is against common Western ammunition (25-35mm), it is a good bet it is significantly more advanced then the BMP-3, so a much larger round becomes vastly more effective and ultimately required.

The Army is Testing a New 50mm Cannon

https://www.janes.com/images/assets/553/84553/Winning_the_firefight_IFV_cannons_evolve.pdf (Only a portion of the essay unfortunately).
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Seems to be history repeating its self. Guns start small, Armor improves, Guns get bigger, Guns improve, Caliber goes down.. Armor improve, Guns get bigger.. You can see where it is going. Either a radical new ammunition type, Lasers (unlikely for decades at the earliest) or perhaps increased velocity (Be it in the explosive charge or use of a rail gun system of some kind). All speculation but history does love to repeat its self over and over.
 
Top