Competition for the Land 17 Artillery Replacement Project heating up? ADI/GIAT have offered the Ceasar platform. I've read that Indian army highly rate the Bofors guns and despite the scandal, want more of them. I am sure that will be one of Bofors selling points; that this gun has seen operational use.
ADF: Tenix and Bofors artillery upgrade (Land 17)
- Thread starter Supe
- Start date
knightrider4
Active Member
Reliability may be an issue with an automatic loader.
I spoke to some uniforms at the LandWarfare Conf last year and they indicated that Caesar was failing on some OH&S issues.Supe said:
From what I was told, they don't appear to be major and obstructive issues. mainly issues of sharp fittings, egress issues etc.... all seemingly able to be rectified IMV.Supe said:
knightrider4
Active Member
The Bofor's offering has a crew of three which may give it an edge although that autoloader may jump up the cost.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
The ADF needs a "lightweight" Arty system for 3 Brigade, or else the light infantry troops of that Brigade will be deploying on ops without Artillery support for the first few days. Something totally unnacceptable to the Australian Army...
I'd suggest that an SPG system will be acquired to replace the M198 system on a one for one basis, or possibly slightly increased numbers (to equip 7 Brigade with a Medm Artillery Regt as well as 1 Brigade). I'm not sure about the rest of the ADF's field guns.
The Army wants to replace it's entire artillery fleet with 155mm guns, as all of it's current fleet is towed and the lightweight and VERY short ranged L118 Hamel gun is the predominant piece throughout the Army. Significant numbers of the Korean War era M2A2 are STILL operated however and these are severely obsolete. Only 36 M198's are currently operated.
What has been suggested as the most likely scenario is that 2 Regt's worth of SPG's will be acquired, the L118 Hamel's will either be upgraded or replaced with a new "lightweight" 155mm towed gun and employed within 3 Brigade. The M198's would possibly then be cascaded down to the lower readiness units currently operating the M2A2's.
One thing that worries me about this project is there doesn't seem to be enought money allocated to replace the Army's Arty fleet. The most likely situation IMHO is that a small number of SPG's will be acquired to equip 1 Brigade, some L118's will be upgraded and some M198's will filter down to reserve units and some M2A2's will HAVE to be retained simply to equip some units with an artillery capability at all.
The situation will be the same as AIR 9000 has become. Instead of sticking with the original plan and funding it properly, the ADF will instead acquire a small quantity of the new capability and have MORE types of different assets essentially performing the same job to various degrees, moving from the current 3 to 4 different artillery types...
The ADF thanks to AIR 9000 will actually INCREASE to 10 helo platforms for a short duration before settling back down to 8, only 1 less than the 9 current platforms. The initial plan was to reduce the fleet to 4, but in-service bickering and a lack of funding saw this plan essentially scrapped...
I'd suggest that an SPG system will be acquired to replace the M198 system on a one for one basis, or possibly slightly increased numbers (to equip 7 Brigade with a Medm Artillery Regt as well as 1 Brigade). I'm not sure about the rest of the ADF's field guns.
The Army wants to replace it's entire artillery fleet with 155mm guns, as all of it's current fleet is towed and the lightweight and VERY short ranged L118 Hamel gun is the predominant piece throughout the Army. Significant numbers of the Korean War era M2A2 are STILL operated however and these are severely obsolete. Only 36 M198's are currently operated.
What has been suggested as the most likely scenario is that 2 Regt's worth of SPG's will be acquired, the L118 Hamel's will either be upgraded or replaced with a new "lightweight" 155mm towed gun and employed within 3 Brigade. The M198's would possibly then be cascaded down to the lower readiness units currently operating the M2A2's.
One thing that worries me about this project is there doesn't seem to be enought money allocated to replace the Army's Arty fleet. The most likely situation IMHO is that a small number of SPG's will be acquired to equip 1 Brigade, some L118's will be upgraded and some M198's will filter down to reserve units and some M2A2's will HAVE to be retained simply to equip some units with an artillery capability at all.
The situation will be the same as AIR 9000 has become. Instead of sticking with the original plan and funding it properly, the ADF will instead acquire a small quantity of the new capability and have MORE types of different assets essentially performing the same job to various degrees, moving from the current 3 to 4 different artillery types...
The ADF thanks to AIR 9000 will actually INCREASE to 10 helo platforms for a short duration before settling back down to 8, only 1 less than the 9 current platforms. The initial plan was to reduce the fleet to 4, but in-service bickering and a lack of funding saw this plan essentially scrapped...
knightrider4
Active Member
In regards Bofor's Archer system can anyone tell how MRSI (Multiple Round Simultaneous Impact) works?
I don't know how it works only thing i know about it is that it is capable of around 4-6 MRSIs
The Archer has a 4 man crew (including the driver, can be operated by 2 if needed), can hit moving targets of both land and sea, has MRSI capability, a range of 30 - 60 Km, flatout system (can run with all wheels punktured), take a 6 kg explosive charge, be transported by: Road, rail, air, water and by it self.
Top speed of 70 kph, reloding time is 8 min (time to reload the magazine) and a magazine of 20 different rounds. It is capable of firing the BONUS and EXCALIBUR guided projectiles (Excalibur will have a data link, not sure of Bonus) 8-9 shots per minute.
3 Identical computers for the 3 operators so they can switch computers while still doing their specific task.
Srouce: FMV
http://www.fmv.se/WmTemplates/Page.aspx?id=1183#Pjäsbetjäning
The Archer has a 4 man crew (including the driver, can be operated by 2 if needed), can hit moving targets of both land and sea, has MRSI capability, a range of 30 - 60 Km, flatout system (can run with all wheels punktured), take a 6 kg explosive charge, be transported by: Road, rail, air, water and by it self.
Top speed of 70 kph, reloding time is 8 min (time to reload the magazine) and a magazine of 20 different rounds. It is capable of firing the BONUS and EXCALIBUR guided projectiles (Excalibur will have a data link, not sure of Bonus) 8-9 shots per minute.
3 Identical computers for the 3 operators so they can switch computers while still doing their specific task.
Srouce: FMV
http://www.fmv.se/WmTemplates/Page.aspx?id=1183#Pjäsbetjäning
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
It works by calculating different trajectories for multiple projectiles. The initial rounds fired have longer more rounded trajectories, the later ones fired have more direct, straighter trajectories.
It can't be done at the weapon systems maximum range, but it can be done at tactically useful ranges. The artillery directing and fire control equipment is what's important for this capability. not the calibre, type or kinematic performance of the weapon system. Many artillery systems have this capability, though newer systems can probably do it at greater ranges. Cheers.
It can't be done at the weapon systems maximum range, but it can be done at tactically useful ranges. The artillery directing and fire control equipment is what's important for this capability. not the calibre, type or kinematic performance of the weapon system. Many artillery systems have this capability, though newer systems can probably do it at greater ranges. Cheers.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #13
I wish the ADF was a bit more transparent and open to keeping folks up to date with status of projects. (e.g: Land 17 July 12th; ADF tested Ceasar.) I'd like to know if they've trialled the Bofors Archer yet.
AD: Would the ADF be interested in obtaining HIMARS ? Just looking at that website, it offers plenty of flexibility but I guess the cost of such platforms would be phenomenal.
I note HIMARS is C130 air transportable. This is really interesting:
AD: Would the ADF be interested in obtaining HIMARS ? Just looking at that website, it offers plenty of flexibility but I guess the cost of such platforms would be phenomenal.
I note HIMARS is C130 air transportable. This is really interesting:
300km's. Now that's flexibility.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
The Australian Army would love HIMARS, but unfortunately it simply isn't on the cards. I was privy to a briefing several years ago (when I was still a member of the ADF) that outlined a number of plans for the Army in terms of equipment replacement and firepower enhancement.
One of these briefings included the direct and in-direct firepower assets that would be acquired by Australia in the next decade, (ie: from 2000 - 2010). Not the actual specific's of individual platforms mind you (to avoid "scaring" Industry types and "pre-empting" Government decisions)...
Amongst these assets, in-direct fire assets were one of the most prominently discussed items, due to the Army's severe lack such of at the time (and still to this day)... The in-direct fire assets the ADF will in all likelyhood acquire are a combination of towed and SP 155mm guns, 120mm towed and/or self-propelled mortars, 81mm mortars and "possibly" a small calibre Mortar system such as 60mm "Commando" Mortars etc.
During this briefing (consisting primarily of 'Powerpoint slides) a number of weapon systems were shown, including HIMARS. A large Yellow cross went through the middle of HIMARS and the word NO written across it. There was some conjecture about the reasons for this, but the Adjutant of my Regiment assured us that HIMARS was 'extremely' unlikely in the forseeable future for the ADF.
It was doubted even that sufficient funding would be provided to replace our predominantly obsolete, existing artillery pieces, let alone acquiring something like HIMARS in addition to the "traditional" artillery that the Australian Army would still require... This cynicism was based on the A21 program being recently canned due to excessive cost (despite A21 only providing new "medium" intensity capabilities for our Army, though for the ENTIRE army, rather than the piecemeal upgrades we're seeing now)...
One of these briefings included the direct and in-direct firepower assets that would be acquired by Australia in the next decade, (ie: from 2000 - 2010). Not the actual specific's of individual platforms mind you (to avoid "scaring" Industry types and "pre-empting" Government decisions)...
Amongst these assets, in-direct fire assets were one of the most prominently discussed items, due to the Army's severe lack such of at the time (and still to this day)... The in-direct fire assets the ADF will in all likelyhood acquire are a combination of towed and SP 155mm guns, 120mm towed and/or self-propelled mortars, 81mm mortars and "possibly" a small calibre Mortar system such as 60mm "Commando" Mortars etc.
During this briefing (consisting primarily of 'Powerpoint slides) a number of weapon systems were shown, including HIMARS. A large Yellow cross went through the middle of HIMARS and the word NO written across it. There was some conjecture about the reasons for this, but the Adjutant of my Regiment assured us that HIMARS was 'extremely' unlikely in the forseeable future for the ADF.
It was doubted even that sufficient funding would be provided to replace our predominantly obsolete, existing artillery pieces, let alone acquiring something like HIMARS in addition to the "traditional" artillery that the Australian Army would still require... This cynicism was based on the A21 program being recently canned due to excessive cost (despite A21 only providing new "medium" intensity capabilities for our Army, though for the ENTIRE army, rather than the piecemeal upgrades we're seeing now)...
In regards to bomblets or cluster munitions just say you fire the missile and it releases say 300 bomblets, what happens when only half of them go off? you have all of these UXBs lying around the battle field. correct me if i'm wrong, but this would pose a problem if you were advancing on to area you have just fired the HIMARS missile onto.
I saw some impressive looking pictures of a 120mm mortar systems on a LAV hull (I don't know how impressive the system actually is). Is that system still up for considerations?
On another issue what is the cross country mobility of the Bofors Archer system?
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
It has never been reported as a huge problem that bomblets having been failing to detonate from MLRS type weapon systems. So 50% of all munitions failing to detonate seems extremely high...
A very small percentage might so it would be a concern to a Commander should his forces be required to advance straight into the area that was fired upon. The troops would be prepared for it however, and engineers present to deal with them...
A very small percentage might so it would be a concern to a Commander should his forces be required to advance straight into the area that was fired upon. The troops would be prepared for it however, and engineers present to deal with them...
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #18
I know I'm beating a dead horse here but such an emphatic position just doesn't make sense. My ignorance on defence procurement, reasons for obtaining systems, political considerations and costs leaves me with entertaining thoughts that some old fogey, with a head stuffed full of straw is making the decisions here. It's time the Army got some real firepower and augmented its guns with rocket/missile capability.Aussie Digger said:
HIMARS fits the '21st century networked and hardened' paradigm the defence hats are always going on about. The only reason I can think of not procuring some of these, is that HIMARS is exceedingly expensive...
AD: What you think on the sort of bare minimum numbers the Army would deem as acceptable were it somehow be fortunate enough to field HIMARS?
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
The project to acquire self propelled 120mm mortars for Army came under Phase 4 of Land 112 (ASLAV acquisition program). This project was to acquire around 20 such vehicles. Given normal artillery batteries are comprised of 6 guns, and infantry battalions are equipped with a Mortar platoon of 6 Mortars, I'd say that such a purchase could of probably established 2-3 batteries at best.
I'd say that the reason it was cancelled was 2-3 batteries of such vehicles wouldn't make a huge difference to Army, and Army realised this. A curious fact was that during the drafting of the White Paper 2000, Army never seriously asked for this capability. Apparently the idea came from someone (or somebody) outside the Army.
By the time of the Defence Capability Plan however Army managed to successfully argue that 2 Squadrons of M1A1 Abrams tanks on the other hand would make a HUGE difference to Army capability and this part of Phase 4 of Land 112 was canned and Land 907 (replacement tank) was approved.
The 120mm Mortar project was designed to equip Army's Cavalry units with an integral in-direct fire support capability. As such 2 Cav Regt and 2/14LHR (Army's ony 2 frontline ASLAV units) would have been equipped with the Mortars. This capability requirement however still exists as does Phase 4 of Land 112, according to the DMO website, so we may yet see this project back on the cards.
In addition the Army currently has a new project called Land 5000 which is still in it's definition phase. This phase is studying all aspects of Army's fire support requirements in coming years.
Nothing concrete has come out of this yet, but it's findings will no doubt influence upcoming projects such as Land 40 phase 2 (area direct fire weapons for special forces, infantry battalions and armed recce units, and is expected to include auto grenade launchers, new short range anti-armour weapons and possibly short range mortars), Land 17 and any new 120mm Mortar purchase.
HIMARS would make a very useful contribution to army capability and firepower, but I think a more pressing requirement is for the Army's entire artillery fleet to be standardised on 155/52 Calibre artillery pieces and acquiring a sufficient mix of towed and SP guns to completely replace ALL of the Australia's current artillery fleet.
With the move to a total 155mm calibre fleet and the (inevitable) acquisition of new generation guided munitions for this artillery fleet (probably including BONUS and EXCALIBUR) I think Australia would be very well served by it's artillery capability. I personally would only recommend an acquisition of HIMARS or similar once this had been achieved, even though a significant firepower boost could probably be achieved with a fairly minimal HIMARS purchase.
I'd think a relatively small purchase of HIMARS could make a massive capability contribution to Army firepower. Given that it'd be used in combination with "traditional" artillery only 1x battery per Artillery regt could be a very useful addition. Given that Army currently only operates 3 Arty Regt's, only about 18 HIMARS operational vehicles plus attrition and training vehicles would be required. The total number at that point would not exceed 30 vehicles.
As stated earlier, I think focusing on the "traditional" gun fleet is a more pressing requirement at present though.
Here's a decent pic of the proposed ASLAV based 120mm Mortar system.
http://images.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/jdw/jdw010129_1_p.jpg
I'd say that the reason it was cancelled was 2-3 batteries of such vehicles wouldn't make a huge difference to Army, and Army realised this. A curious fact was that during the drafting of the White Paper 2000, Army never seriously asked for this capability. Apparently the idea came from someone (or somebody) outside the Army.
By the time of the Defence Capability Plan however Army managed to successfully argue that 2 Squadrons of M1A1 Abrams tanks on the other hand would make a HUGE difference to Army capability and this part of Phase 4 of Land 112 was canned and Land 907 (replacement tank) was approved.
The 120mm Mortar project was designed to equip Army's Cavalry units with an integral in-direct fire support capability. As such 2 Cav Regt and 2/14LHR (Army's ony 2 frontline ASLAV units) would have been equipped with the Mortars. This capability requirement however still exists as does Phase 4 of Land 112, according to the DMO website, so we may yet see this project back on the cards.
In addition the Army currently has a new project called Land 5000 which is still in it's definition phase. This phase is studying all aspects of Army's fire support requirements in coming years.
Nothing concrete has come out of this yet, but it's findings will no doubt influence upcoming projects such as Land 40 phase 2 (area direct fire weapons for special forces, infantry battalions and armed recce units, and is expected to include auto grenade launchers, new short range anti-armour weapons and possibly short range mortars), Land 17 and any new 120mm Mortar purchase.
HIMARS would make a very useful contribution to army capability and firepower, but I think a more pressing requirement is for the Army's entire artillery fleet to be standardised on 155/52 Calibre artillery pieces and acquiring a sufficient mix of towed and SP guns to completely replace ALL of the Australia's current artillery fleet.
With the move to a total 155mm calibre fleet and the (inevitable) acquisition of new generation guided munitions for this artillery fleet (probably including BONUS and EXCALIBUR) I think Australia would be very well served by it's artillery capability. I personally would only recommend an acquisition of HIMARS or similar once this had been achieved, even though a significant firepower boost could probably be achieved with a fairly minimal HIMARS purchase.
I'd think a relatively small purchase of HIMARS could make a massive capability contribution to Army firepower. Given that it'd be used in combination with "traditional" artillery only 1x battery per Artillery regt could be a very useful addition. Given that Army currently only operates 3 Arty Regt's, only about 18 HIMARS operational vehicles plus attrition and training vehicles would be required. The total number at that point would not exceed 30 vehicles.
As stated earlier, I think focusing on the "traditional" gun fleet is a more pressing requirement at present though.
Here's a decent pic of the proposed ASLAV based 120mm Mortar system.
http://images.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/jdw/jdw010129_1_p.jpg