Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Abraham Gubler]

Do 4 SPGs really have more firepower than 10 M777s because that is the substitution my proposal would make?

Your ‘proposal’ if you can call it that fails to take into account so many issues it is ridiculous. Something you thought about for five minutes isn’t a serious proposal to change the Army’s structure. First of all 10 M777s don’t have the fire power of 4 SPGs like K9 or PzH2000. They can shoot further, faster and from a bigger unit of fire. Also 10 M777s require 70 Gunners to crew rather than 16-20 (4 SPGs) and combined with their gun tractors would match the maintenance needs of 4 SPGs.

Also the Army just doesn’t need 45 more 155mm guns unless we were to reequip the reserve units. Army has 35 M777s and 36 M198s which have been upgraded and are still excellent weapons. 24 155mm guns per brigade is what you would need for high intensity combat which is not a requirement of the Army. We would need many more tanks and IFVs and the like to build units needing high levels of artillery.

Do Does the Australian Army need the ability to have a fully mechanised battlegroup?

Ahh yes and has maintained them since WWII and used them in combat in VietNam, Somalia, East Timor, Iraq and Afghanistan.

For Australia's needs isn't the ability to put a USMC MEU type unit into the field more relevant. I just don't think a SPG is needed for that or worth the effort for our Army.

Well you don’t know much about MEUs. They have plenty of armour and used to have M109s until they were cut for funding reasons in the 1990s.

Armour is needed for force protection. The biggest difference between a SPG and M777 is the former can keep firing in the face of enemy fires. Well the M777 can but it would cost casualties amongst our Gunners. This is the thing the Armchair Generals don’t understand about the Hardened Army; it’s all about force protection not about building forces for fighting mass tank battles and the like. You can take the armour out of the Army to meet silly political and perception issues and that will just cost lives amongst our soldiers.

That's another problem with the SPGs. Rather than just buying them Army has a whole series of unique requirements which mean delay, development risk and increased cost. The Towed guns are the low risk option. They could be ordered and in service before a decision is even made on the SPG.

Sure but this is not a problem specific to SPGs but just the Army. Army could acquire M109A6s off the shelf integrated with AFATDS if they wanted an OTS solution.

 

[gf0012-aust]

That's another problem with the SPGs. Rather than just buying them Army has a whole series of unique requirements which mean delay, development risk and increased cost. The Towed guns are the low risk option. They could be ordered and in service before a decision is even made on the SPG.

the problem with the SPG's are the requirements against the volume intended to be acquired.

quite a few within industry regard those requirements within the intended volume intent as ridiulous.

if we were ordering 150 or even 50 the design demands might be defensible. From a vendors perspective (having worked on the other side) I can tell you that its a cost neg solution for them and I wouldn't blame them if they elected to withdraw and go to more greener and cleaner pastures,

 

[Waylander]

What is keeping the Army from buying Paladins and be done with it?
Sure as an individual vehicle both the K9 and PzH are superior to the Paladin and when integrated into their original fire control networks work together lovely with the rest of the armed forces but one wouldn't need such a huge effort to make the Paladins compatible with the rest of the Army.

As GF and others said the numbers are quite low...

 

[Lander]

This might be a stupid question, but would the Swedish Bofors Archer be ruled out as a self propelled howitzer for Australia? In Sweden, studies have showed that one Archer is as effective as 10 FH77 B which is why Sweden and Norway have only ordered 24 of them each.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

This might be a stupid question, but would the Swedish Bofors Archer be ruled out as a self propelled howitzer for Australia? In Sweden, studies have showed that one Archer is as effective as 10 FH77 B which is why Sweden and Norway have only ordered 24 of them each.

Yes it was ruled out. The Archer system was offered by Tenix who pitched it strongly to the Army. But the Army identified protection and self defence as being strong requirements for the new gun. Therefore the Archer couldn’t meet the requirements (neither could the G6-52) so wasn’t tendered.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

What is keeping the Army from buying Paladins and be done with it?

The desire to have a L52 barrel. As is usual the early focus was on the physical capability with little understanding of how hard it would be to integrate into AFATDS. Obviously somewhere along the line someone should have said this is all BS and just ordered 24 M109A6s from US reserve stocks for a fraction of the cost and schedule time. But anyone who follows the ADF knows that such simple logic is often in very short supply.

 

[rand0m]

The desire to have a L52 barrel. As is usual the early focus was on the physical capability with little understanding of how hard it would be to integrate into AFATDS. Obviously somewhere along the line someone should have said this is all BS and just ordered 24 M109A6s from US reserve stocks for a fraction of the cost and schedule time. But anyone who follows the ADF knows that such simple logic is often in very short supply.

What are the chances of this happening?

What are the thoughts on the decisions with LAND 121 Phase 3B, LAND 121 Phase 4 & LAND 121 Phases 3A and 5A? From the people I know within the defence force, they are not very fond ofthe Benz G-Wagons (again this is their personal opinion).

Glad to see the Aussie Hawkei selected


Defence Ministers » Minister for Defence and Minister for Defence Materiel – Project Overlander – LAND 121

 

[icelord]

The SPG was offered Pzh2000 from Dutch stock, which would have made it the least risky project that any of the DOD handles...which is perhaps why they didnt accept them. DMO hate an easy project, they like challenges where they can (and do) fail.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The SPG was offered Pzh2000 from Dutch stock, which would have made it the least risky project that any of the DOD handles...which is perhaps why they didnt accept them. DMO hate an easy project, they like challenges where they can (and do) fail.

That's not it at all. There is no problem with acquring ex Dutch or German PzH2000s and the Koreans turn out new K9s faster than the Dutch can bring them out of mothballs. But neither gun is integrated with AFATDS which is why there is all this delay. Its Army that wants a L52 barrel AFATDS gun which doesn't exsist anywhere in the world and the DMO that is caught between a rock and a hard place trying to get industry, any industry, to supply one.

 

[SASWanabe]

does the L52 upgrade of the M109 not come integrated with AFATDS? i have been looking around to see wether it is or not but cant find anything specific.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Well if it is fully funded by the US Army for an in service weapon it will be otherwise its just sticking a long barrel on the gun system for shits and giggles.

The key issue for integration is programming AFATDS to understand L52 weapons. AFATDS isn’t just a network but it is a mission planning tool and will actually do all the work for you. It will tell you where you need to put your guns to provide fire support and which weapon to use and how when a call for fire comes in. It has all sorts of weapons in its data bank from Tomahawk to 81mm mortars. But since the US Army has no L52 155mm the software and CONOPS to utilise the extra range and MRSI capability of these weapons needs to be developed and tested. Be much better for the US Army to do this than the DMO for 18 guns.

 

[Waylander]

I understand the idea behind having a long range 52cal gun. With troop densities in an area of operations getting smaller having the extra range comes in quite handy as is not getting outranged by some G6s but it's not as if a Paladin wouldn't be enough for the kind of mech force the Australian Army wants to employ.

The additional money needed for integrating a K9 or a PzH could IMHO be used for more important stuff.

Maybe a couple of HIMARS with GMLRS rockets with unitary and SMArt submunition warheads.

Would be a much better mix than paying a boatload of money for getting a small number of 52cal SPGs into service.

 

[lopez]

Just to change tack a little....
With things potentially heating up in PNG at the moment. Does the ADF have the capacity to respond to such a situation? Irrespective of whether things will actually require our involvement could We do so if it was required. I mean with commitments everywhere else in the region and beyod as well as A short fall in amphibious ships could we even stabilize the place if we had to? Assuming we even have the capability to do that in the first place...

hope this is the right thread... It is kinda a navy/ army/airforce thing but with Our 'marines' coming online soon enough and the close co-operation between the services lines are becoming blurred (as they should).

 

[Raven22]

Just to change tack a little....
With things potentially heating up in PNG at the moment. Does the ADF have the capacity to respond to such a situation? Irrespective of whether things will actually require our involvement could We do so if it was required. I mean with commitments everywhere else in the region and beyod as well as A short fall in amphibious ships could we even stabilize the place if we had to? Assuming we even have the capability to do that in the first place...

hope this is the right thread... It is kinda a navy/ army/airforce thing but with Our 'marines' coming online soon enough and the close co-operation between the services lines are becoming blurred (as they should).

Mate, you wouldn't need any amphibs to respond to a situation in PNG. Unless the place went really balls up, you could fly in the RCT with light equipment within a day or so, and could have the rest of the RBG on deck within a week or two (assuming no prior warning). Obviously if the intervention force needed heavy equipment this couldn't be flown in any great quantity and would have to come by ship, but since there's a port handy you wouldn't need dedicated amphibious ships. Any sort of transport ship would do the job. However, with Choules online now we have a greater capability than we had in Timor, so getting heavy equipment in wouldn't be too much of a problem.

In reality though, even if PNG does go balls up, about the biggest intervention we would make would be a non-combatant evacuation operation (ie, flying Aussies and approved foreign national out of danger). This would't need more than a couple of C-17 sorties and at most a company worth of dudes for security.

 

[MARKMILES77]

Do you have a spare 60 dudes per regiment to man the extra guns? Manpower wise the Army is a zero net sum game - increase the numbers of gunners and they will have to come from somewhere.

A perfect opportunity to show that the plan to closely link two Reserve Brigades with every Regular Brigade is more than just talk. Each of the Two Reserve Brigades could be tasked to provide 30 "HRR" Gunners so that between the two Reserve Brigades they could man six M777s. Each Reserve artillery unit would probably only need to be equipped with a single gun for training purposes. With the new 36 month readiness cycle a Reserve Brigade would have two years to make sure they had 30 gunners fully trained to be at a high level of readiness for the 12 months high readiness phase. There is also no need to limit the number of high readiness gunners to 30. If a Reserve Artillery unit was able to get 50 gunners trained to a high level in time, fine but the aim would be to have at least 30.

 

[MARKMILES77]

Your ‘proposal’ if you can call it that fails to take into account so many issues it is ridiculous. Something you thought about for five minutes isn’t a serious proposal to change the Army’s structure.

I am not proposing to change the Army's structure, quite the contrary.
Leave the Artillery as an all towed force. Introducing SPGs and putting them in mixed Towed/SPG regiments, now that is a change to Army structure.

Also the Army just doesn’t need 45 more 155mm guns unless we were to reequip the reserve units. Army has 35 M777s and 36 M198s which have been upgraded and are still excellent weapons.

Well there is much money to be saved then. What could Army do instead, with the hundreds of millions saved by not buying extra Artillery? What about a proper Armoured Combat Engineer Capability?

Well you don’t know much about MEUs. They have plenty of armour and used to have M109s until they were cut for funding reasons in the 1990s.

I am aware of a MEU's Armour and Australia should aim for a similiar force. You are confused that because I suggested that introducing 4 SPGs to each Brigade was not worth the effort that therefore I was against all armour for the Australian army. Wrong. I think the planned mix of M1s, ASLAVs, Bushmasters etc is ideal for Australia. What is not worth the effort in time and money is getting a handful of SPGs.

Armour is needed for force protection. The biggest difference between a SPG and M777 is the former can keep firing in the face of enemy fires. Well the M777 can but it would cost casualties amongst our Gunners. This is the thing the Armchair Generals don’t understand about the Hardened Army; it’s all about force protection not about building forces for fighting mass tank battles and the like. You can take the armour out of the Army to meet silly political and perception issues and that will just cost lives amongst our soldiers.

Are you serious?
Adding 4 Armoured SPGs to a Brigade of 3,000 soldier's is needed for force protection?
A grand total of 16 Soldier's will be protected inside those SPGs.
What about the 80 gunners manning the 8 M777s that will still remain in each Brigade?
And when a Brigade is divided into three BattleGroups, one BG will have 4 SPGs and two BGs will have only towed guns or alternatively each BG gets 1 1/3rd SPGs.

Sure but this is not a problem specific to SPGs but just the Army. Army could acquire M109A6s off the shelf integrated with AFATDS if they wanted an OTS solution.

If SPGs are truly required then this is the only option which makes sense.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

A perfect opportunity to show that the plan to closely link two Reserve Brigades with every Regular Brigade is more than just talk.

This is how the Army is structured already. The ARES arty units provide manning support to the ARA units using a pool of guns. To convert an ARES gun team from M198 to M777 is a matter of a few days. Further it skewers the manning issue towards gun parties. Which is far from being under stress in the Artillery. The real issue for manning is Joint Fires teams. Which is one of the reasons the gun line has been removed from the field batteries and grouped together in a single guns only battery per regiment.

Besides replacing the SPGs with a notional number of equal to value M777s doesn’t address any of the capability reasons the army wants the SP guns.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Are you serious?
Adding 4 Armoured SPGs to a Brigade of 3,000 soldier's is needed for force protection?
A grand total of 16 Soldier's will be protected inside those SPGs.
What about the 80 gunners manning the 8 M777s that will still remain in each Brigade?
And when a Brigade is divided into three BattleGroups, one BG will have 4 SPGs and two BGs will have only towed guns or alternatively each BG gets 1 1/3rd SPGs.

Mark clearly you have a very shallow understanding of the army.

Your idiotic statements about the protection of the SPGs simply confirms what an uninformed level you are operating under. Force protection is not just about sitting in a mine proof seat it is about being able to do your role while the enemy are shooting at you without being injured or killed.

In the case of the SPG it is about providing a multi role brigade, battle group, combat team with fires support even when you yourself are under fires. Which is why the Australian Army in VietNam had attached US Army M109s and how effectively the PzH2000 was used by the Dutch in Afghanistan and M109s by US forces in Iraq. They are just low intensity COIN examples in medium intensity conflicts it’s even more pressing.

So go back to counting guns and soldiers and getting all upset because your nice little symmetrical line of towed guns has been disturbed by the injection of a different system.

 

[old faithful]

Mark clearly you have a very shallow understanding of the army.

Your idiotic statements about the protection of the SPGs simply confirms what an uninformed level you are operating under. Force protection is not just about sitting in a mine proof seat it is about being able to do your role while the enemy are shooting at you without being injured or killed.

In the case of the SPG it is about providing a multi role brigade, battle group, combat team with fires support even when you yourself are under fires. Which is why the Australian Army in VietNam had attached US Army M109s and how effectively the PzH2000 was used by the Dutch in Afghanistan and M109s by US forces in Iraq. They are just low intensity COIN examples in medium intensity conflicts it’s even more pressing.

So go back to counting guns and soldiers and getting all upset because your nice little symmetrical line of towed guns has been disturbed by the injection of a different system.

Abe, I for one value reading your contributions to just about every thread you reply to. You obviously know what you are on about, and the knowledge that you share here is valued. But mateeeee, why do you personally attack people and answer in sarcastic tones, when you could just ignore them? I hope you just ignore this post. i guess i dont want you to answer that question, but consider less attacks, because it makes you look the arsehole, not the other bloke.

 

[Kirkzzy]

Abe, I for one value reading your contributions to just about every thread you reply to. You obviously know what you are on about, and the knowledge that you share here is valued. But mateeeee, why do you personally attack people and answer in sarcastic tones, when you could just ignore them? I hope you just ignore this post. i guess i dont want you to answer that question, but consider less attacks, because it makes you look the arsehole, not the other bloke.

Looks like somebody read my mind. I think this is what some people were talking about in the RAN RN capabilities thread. Like I value this site a lot and the members really know there stuff which is why I keep coming here. But everyone here (and I mean probably everyone) has at times displayed arrogance, no one is innocent. I'm not singling anyone out here I am just saying we could be a bit more polite. (that goes for everyone including myself)

Edit: Please don't take this the wrong way. I meant to make this as polite as I could and I have the deepest respect for all the staff and experts at this forum that provide me with new knowledge that I crave daily.