Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[icelord]

Read this today.

Budget cuts expose troops to 'greater harm' - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

In Senate Estimates today, Liberal Senator David Fawcett asked the Chief of the Army, Lieutenant General David Morrison, whether that would have negative consequences.

"A capability that is less capable, more expensive in the long term and will expose troops to greater harm?" Senator Fawcett asked.

"I don't believe there's a need to prevaricate - the simple answer is yes," Lt General David Morrison said.

But....But...thats not what the defmin said, and the PM backed him, he said that the budget cuts would not impact on capability, and will not have negative consequences...so, he lied, and the PM lied about putting Army personnel in danger...lets see how much this gets aired, after all hurleys only the chief of the army, why would his opinion matter?

 

[gf0012-aust]

But....But...thats not what the defmin said, and the PM backed him, he said that the budget cuts would not impact on capability, and will not have negative consequences...so, he lied, and the PM lied about putting Army personnel in danger...lets see how much this gets aired, after all hurleys only the chief of the army, why would his opinion matter?

The problem is that the Govt - and the opposition when they're not in opposition, know full well that snr uniforms will not contradict or do anything which challenges the Govts stated position and/or claims

Cosgrove and Houston being exemplars - VADM Chris Barrie being the standout example of a CLM when you don't tow the public line

 

[ADMk2]

The budget cuts won't hurt our troops, because under this mob, our troops won't be GOING anywhere.

That's why it's perfectly acceptable not to have new combat capabilities, such as the SPG. That's why it's perfectly acceptable to mothball 1/4 of our APC capability, 1/3rd of our MBT fleet, 1/4 of our ANZAC frigate fleet, 1/3rd of our Minehunter fleet, our entire C-130H fleet and so on and also why the fleets that we do have remaining are severley afflicted with a lack of support, spare parts and training activities etc.

We can afford not to meet DLOC, let alone OLOC for the majority of our Army because we won't be doing much in the way of operations anyway.

It's so simple when you come to this understanding. That's also why I maintain as I've said elsewhere that we have a facade of a defence force.

We improve specific elements of to meet operational contingencies as they arise but overall it's a hollow sham.

 

[hairyman]

Is one quarter of our Anzac fleet being mothballed, or are the two ships undergoing the latest upgrade?

 

[ADMk2]

Is one quarter of our Anzac fleet being mothballed, or are the two ships undergoing the latest upgrade?

Being placed into "extended readiness" I believe is the BS politically correct term...

 

[StevoJH]

Being placed into "extended readiness" I believe is the BS politically correct term...

Were two additional ships taken out of service to replace them when they were docked for the ASMD upgrade earlier this year?

 

[Volkodav]

Back on CAV, I see that Patria are now offering a NEMO 120mm mortar turret with an RWS for improved self defence and situational awareness. NEMO would be a great addition to the CAV troops in that they would provide increased direct fire support and currently non existant in-direct fires to the troops.

The other new toy that caught my eye was the GD LMMG in .338 calibre. This would provide a very serious upgrade in firepower for vehicles such as the Bushmaster and just imagine having these available for the weapons sections / platoons. Likely to be a goer or not?

 

[Raven22]

Back on CAV, I see that Patria are now offering a NEMO 120mm mortar turret with an RWS for improved self defence and situational awareness. NEMO would be a great addition to the CAV troops in that they would provide increased direct fire support and currently non existant in-direct fires to the troops.

There is merit in a turreted mortar system for the cavalry, but it would not be a troop asset but either a squadron or regimental asset. It won't happen with Land 400 though, the money isn't there.

The other new toy that caught my eye was the GD LMMG in .338 calibre. This would provide a very serious upgrade in firepower for vehicles such as the Bushmaster and just imagine having these available for the weapons sections / platoons. Likely to be a goer or not?

The only place I can see these weapons being worth the cost of supplementing the Mag-58 is in AFV turrets and to arm remote weapon stations. The fact is no matter what the theoretical range of the weapon, dismounted/unstabilised machine guns aren't precise enough to hit what they aim at at long range anyway. Trying to shoot past tracer burn out is pure guess work. In fact great accuracy in a sustained fire machine gun isn't all that helpful as it makes the beaten zone smaller.

AFV turrets and remote stations, due to being stabilised and having good optics, can actually turn long range accuracy into precision. Of course, if you really want a long range weapon just use a .50 cal. That's what happening with the Bushies - .50 cals have been approved for use on the PWS and DMO are trialing an American-esque protected swing mount that is able to mount a .50 cal or Mk-19. Far more useful than any rifle-calibre weapon.

 

[Volkodav]

There is merit in a turreted mortar system for the cavalry, but it would not be a troop asset but either a squadron or regimental asset. It won't happen with Land 400 though, the money isn't there.

Would the troops be operating within a 10km radius of SHQ, I would have thought they would be further out than that, if not deployed independantly altogether. I am no expert and am so rusty on the little I did once know I will gladly take the advice of a professional. I would have thought a turreted mortar would have been a good replacement for the old MRV within the troop with the added advantage of able to provide indirect fire. Sqn level for the APC troops and squadrons would make sense.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Back on CAV, I see that Patria are now offering a NEMO 120mm mortar turret with an RWS for improved self defence and situational awareness. NEMO would be a great addition to the CAV troops in that they would provide increased direct fire support and currently non existant in-direct fires to the troops.

The cavalry troops have four 25mm guns for direct fire. The 120mm mortar in direct fire might offer a nice big bang against a close range stationary soft target (wood shingle house) but is useless against anything else. If you really want a hard hitting direct fire weapon and don’t have the weight margin for a 105mm or 120mm gun then a 76mm high velocity weapon is the way to go. It has the time of flight and straight trajectory to actually hit something and won’t bounce off anything thicker than a red brick wall like a 120mm mortar bomb will.

A mortar section would be a great addition to the cavalry squadron HQ as it provides a quick response smoke screen capability to get cavalry out of trouble while doing their probing and recce thing. But an 81mm tube shooting through a roof hatch would be good enough. In many ways better than a turreted 120mm as it can get off a lot of bombs very quickly. Which is also good with HE if you want to supress some pesky Musorians.

The other new toy that caught my eye was the GD LMMG in .338 calibre. This would provide a very serious upgrade in firepower for vehicles such as the Bushmaster and just imagine having these available for the weapons sections / platoons. Likely to be a goer or not?

I’m surprised they’ve made .338 Lapua Magnum work in a machinegun. Everyone, including Lapua, keep saying the cartridge doesn’t have the taper to handle self loading weapons. Hang on a quick search of the internet shows that these .338 self loaders fire .338 “NORMA” Magnum. Which is the same round repackaged into a self loading friendly taper.

Personally I don’t think it’s worth it. If you want longer range in a MG then there is no need to go to a bigger round to provide it. .338 is designed for sniper needs and to achieve a range boost over 7.62mm for MGs you don’t need a range of features it has. You just need higher sectional density which is best achieved by going lower in calibre.

The British 7mm round was designed to replace .303 which should have been the western world’s small arms ammunition since the 1950s except the Americans stuffed it up. While most people think about this bullet in terms of its assault rifle (EM2) it was also designed to replace the .303 Vickers MG. It could outshoot .30 (7.62x67mm) MGs despite having a lower muzzle velocity because it was a denser round and therefore lost less energy to drag as it flew through the air. So it had higher energy at longer ranges and could travel further. The lower velocity meant at extreme ranges it had to be fired at a higher angle which was better for long range MG fires as it created a better beaten zone shape.

Most of the intermediate rounds being proposed today like 6.8mm and 6.5mm are designed just for assault rifles. But if we just readopted 7mm we would have both a better assault rifle round (than 5.56mm) and a better MG round (than 7.62mm). Of course there is way too much inertia around the current rounds 5.56mm and 7.62mm so it is far easier to add a third round (8.6mm) to this than replace them all with a better single round.

 

[Volkodav]

The British 7mm round was designed to replace .303 which should have been the western world’s small arms ammunition since the 1950s except the Americans stuffed it up. While most people think about this bullet in terms of its assault rifle (EM2) it was also designed to replace the .303 Vickers MG. It could outshoot .30 (7.62x67mm) MGs despite having a lower muzzle velocity because it was a denser round and therefore lost less energy to drag as it flew through the air. So it had higher energy at longer ranges and could travel further. The lower velocity meant at extreme ranges it had to be fired at a higher angle which was better for long range MG fires as it created a better beaten zone shape.

Most of the intermediate rounds being proposed today like 6.8mm and 6.5mm are designed just for assault rifles. But if we just readopted 7mm we would have both a better assault rifle round (than 5.56mm) and a better MG round (than 7.62mm). Of course there is way too much inertia around the current rounds 5.56mm and 7.62mm so it is far easier to add a third round (8.6mm) to this than replace them all with a better single round.

Well the US Army can't even upgrade, let alone replace, the M4, so there is no hope of changing from 5.56x45. A bit sad really as you have pointed out the .280 (7mm) could have easily done the job that currently requires both 5.56x45mm and 7.62x51mm, which ironically could have left an opening for 8.5mm for sniper and MMG applications (the thought of a .338 battle rifle while fun is more than a little impractical).

I have read that a 120mm mortar bomb has similar terminal effects to 105mm artillary, in fact it may have been you who posted that. 75mm sounds good, how about 76mm as used by South Africa on the Rooikat? The Dart ammunition and guidance options being devoloped make it even more interesting with possible CRAM applications (depending on platform). You could have a basic gun car/track in the troops with a speciallised CRAM/AAA vehicle at SHQ/RHQ and a containerised CRAM set up for base defence.

 

[Raven22]

Would the troops be operating within a 10km radius of SHQ, I would have thought they would be further out than that, if not deployed independantly altogether. I am no expert and am so rusty on the little I did once know I will gladly take the advice of a professional. I would have thought a turreted mortar would have been a good replacement for the old MRV within the troop with the added advantage of able to provide indirect fire. Sqn level for the APC troops and squadrons would make sense.

Distance of the troops from SHQ obviously depends on the type of mission being conducted but it doesn't really matter. The OC would put his mortars wherever they needs to be to achieve whatever effect is desired. Simple blanket coverage of OS is handy for places like Afghanistan (and Iraq, Vietnam etc), but isn't needed for most cavalry tasks where contact can be predicted.

The scenario where organic OS would be most useful for the cavalry would be conducting the doctrinal screen for which it is designed. When advancing, the screen will usually be >20km in front of the advance guard, meaning it realistically is out of range of any arty from the main body. Organic mortars at squadron level would allow the screen to conduct its own fire missions to support the clearance of enemy recon/security positions or, more realistically, provide some nice obscuration to cover the withdrawal when the screen runs into serious combat power. Putting the mortars with either the depth troop or SHQ tac will enable this.

As Abe said, the troops don't need a mortar to provide direct fire. The Land 400 ISR vehicle will be armed with a >30mm cannon, which will provide far more capability than the MRV ever did.

 

[Volkodav]

Distance of the troops from SHQ obviously depends on the type of mission being conducted but it doesn't really matter. The OC would put his mortars wherever they needs to be to achieve whatever effect is desired. Simple blanket coverage of OS is handy for places like Afghanistan (and Iraq, Vietnam etc), but isn't needed for most cavalry tasks where contact can be predicted.

The scenario where organic OS would be most useful for the cavalry would be conducting the doctrinal screen for which it is designed. When advancing, the screen will usually be >20km in front of the advance guard, meaning it realistically is out of range of any arty from the main body. Organic mortars at squadron level would allow the screen to conduct its own fire missions to support the clearance of enemy recon/security positions or, more realistically, provide some nice obscuration to cover the withdrawal when the screen runs into serious combat power. Putting the mortars with either the depth troop or SHQ tac will enable this.

As Abe said, the troops don't need a mortar to provide direct fire. The Land 400 ISR vehicle will be armed with a >30mm cannon, which will provide far more capability than the MRV ever did.

Thanks for that.

I remember reading that the MRV and the old Saladin turreted FSV had different roles. The MRV being intended to increase the direct fire weight of a CAV troop while the earlier FSV was intended to provide close support HE fire in the same vein as the old British CS tanks with their 3" and 85mm low velocity guns. A RWS mounted 40mm AGL would likely be a more suitable replacement for the FSV.

Any bets on 40mm CTA getting up, or is it doomed because its not in service with the US?

LAND 400 is very interesting especially if it ends up being a primarily tracked solution for both CAV and APC primary roles, as Abe has suggested previously. I had originally thought there would be a wheeled solution for CAV although I can definitely see the merits of tracks in the new Beersheba battle groups. Is there likely to be a wheeled APC to replace the Bushmaster?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Well the US Army can't even upgrade, let alone replace, the M4, so there is no hope of changing from 5.56x45. A bit sad really as you have pointed out the .280 (7mm) could have easily done the job that currently requires both 5.56x45mm and 7.62x51mm, which ironically could have left an opening for 8.5mm for sniper and MMG applications (the thought of a .338 battle rifle while fun is more than a little impractical).

7mm will still provide a better MMG round than 8.6mm (.338 Norma Magnum) in everything but terminal effect.

I have read that a 120mm mortar bomb has similar terminal effects to 105mm artillary, in fact it may have been you who posted that. 75mm sounds good, how about 76mm as used by South Africa on the Rooikat?

120mm mortar bomb is similar to 105mm in its terminal effect as an indirect fire weapon. That is plunging fire fusing either as an airburst or point detonating and only looking at short range effect for splinters against infantry and against open entrenchments or unreinforced roofs. This is very different to firing it straight into a wall, bunker or vehicle. Which is what direct fire weapons do.

75mm and 76mm high velocity guns are effectively the same thing though there are about six or more different models out there. The Denel GT4 76mm is a land use modification of the ordnance of the naval Oto Gun 76mm. So has obvious advantages for low cost and ease of support. The ARES XM254 75mm is the top of the line in medium calibre. The first CTA weapon it fires the same HE shell as the Oto Gun and the same APFSDS shell as the 76mm M32 but repackaged for telescoped casings. The advantage of CTA is it’s a much lighter gun with automatic loading for high ROF (60 rpm).

The Dart ammunition and guidance options being devoloped make it even more interesting with possible CRAM applications (depending on platform). You could have a basic gun car/track in the troops with a speciallised CRAM/AAA vehicle at SHQ/RHQ and a containerised CRAM set up for base defence.

You don’t need Dart terminal guidance to achieve hits for CRAM against artillery, mortars and some rockets if you have the right fusing and attack concept. Like the blast attack that is becoming more favoured over KE attack. Against Gaza made rockets you need terminal guidance because they aren’t going to follow a predictable ballistic path! With contemporary phased array radars like CEA stuff you could easily fit a search and illumination radar in a LAND 400 type vehicle. The line gets blurred further when you factor in APS and networked APS assets. Having a high power radar vehicle in your formation could boost the APS capability of other vehicles not to mention provide a guided anti aircraft and CRAAM capability for a medium calibre gun (75mm).

 

[Volkodav]

Sounds better and better, CAV troops with 4 x 75mm gun cars including networked volume search phased array radars using discrete radar frequencies to data link the troop vehicles and possibility also blue force UAVs back to SHQ and RHQ. The pair of vegie tins would be armed with a RWS with an AGL and MMG, with a 60mm mortar and ATGW in each for the vegies to use dismounted.

 

[Volkodav]

7mm will still provide a better MMG round than 8.6mm (.338 Norma Magnum) in everything but terminal effect.

A what if I have been toying with for a while involves post WWI the the British Commonwealth and US select a common new family of ammunition based on the US 30 06 7.62x63 round. The idea was the case was necked down to .280" (7mm) and provided in 3 lengths, full bore 63mm long, intermediate 42mm and short 21mm to replace the current rifle and MG rounds, introduce a suitable round for the semi-automatic and automatic rifles and carbines being being developed and to replace the multitude of pistol calibres being used in SMGs, carbines and pistols.

Then again lets get back to reality.

 

[Tee_Centre_10]

One of the Chinooks has been damaged in Afghanistan in a hard landing, but the crew is safe thankfully.
Damaged badly enough that it isn't flyable and it remains on-site, and the damage must be more than minor if it can't be repaired in situ and requires the Chinook to be "moved" to Kandahar.
I'm assuming that if it needs to be moved then it will require part dismantling to be moved by helicopter lift, and that it is at least in a secure enough location that would make it safe to both dismantle and lift. How much it would need to be dismantled would depend on the lifting helicopter, as at those kinds of altitudes the heavy lifting ability of any recovery helicopter would be degraded. I know the ADF has chartered Mi-26's in Afghanistan, so if the security of the location permitted a Mi-26 might be able to move it nearly whole with a minimum of work.

Hopefully it is not a write-off, but a good thing Army just received those ex-US Army D's or they'd be down to 4 Chinooks.

 

[Raven22]

One of the Chinooks has been damaged in Afghanistan in a hard landing, but the crew is safe thankfully.
Damaged badly enough that it isn't flyable and it remains on-site, and the damage must be more than minor if it can't be repaired in situ and requires the Chinook to be "moved" to Kandahar.
I'm assuming that if it needs to be moved then it will require part dismantling to be moved by helicopter lift, and that it is at least in a secure enough location that would make it safe to both dismantle and lift. How much it would need to be dismantled would depend on the lifting helicopter, as at those kinds of altitudes the heavy lifting ability of any recovery helicopter would be degraded. I know the ADF has chartered Mi-26's in Afghanistan, so if the security of the location permitted a Mi-26 might be able to move it nearly whole with a minimum of work.

Hopefully it is not a write-off, but a good thing Army just received those ex-US Army D's or they'd be down to 4 Chinooks.

Depending in where in Kandahar they are, they'll probably just stick the chook on the back of a truck to get it back to KAF. Kandahar isn't particularly high anyway, so there will be no dramas airlifting it back if needs be.

 

[ADMk2]

A few announcements today. Army is to get another 214x Bushmasters in batches of 50 to be ordered when and if Thales continues to hit it's required milestones with Hawkei.

Hawkei to be assessed against JLTV, which now seems very unlikely to be chosen as this is a "critical national security" capability apparently...

Defence Ministers » Minister for Defence and Minister for Defence Materiel – Joint Media Release – More Bushmasters for Army, Hawkei development proceeds

The 2 new CH-47D's have been handed over to Army as well.

Defence Ministers » Minister for Defence and Minister for Defence Materiel – Joint Media Release – Army takes delivery of two Chinook helicopters

And we're going to set up the Australian Military Sales office in a similar fashion to the US - FMS system.

Defence Ministers » Australian Military Sales Office Established

 

[Prosper]

Hawkei to be assessed against JLTV, which now seems very unlikely to be chosen as this is a "critical national security" capability apparently...

I'm sure that this has been covered before earlier in this thread but I can't find the answer but why has the Australian government (or more accurately, the Department of Defence) committed $43 million to the US JLTV project while still exploring other options for this Land 121 Phase 4 project??

It seems like a gigantic waste of money to me.....