August issue of Defence Technology Review now available to view:
Defence Technology Review : DTR AUG 2015, Page 1
Significant Land 400 coverage.
Defence Technology Review : DTR AUG 2015, Page 1
Significant Land 400 coverage.
Had a read yesterday, the new turret selected for the Stryker is very interesting, as I read it such a turret would pretty much make all the IFVs under consideration capable of carrying the full section.
Interestingly, the new EF88s are cheaper than the F88SA2s they are replacing. That is why the EF88 is being rolled out quicker than the original plan - they swapped an order of F88SA2s over to EF88s because it was cheaper (or, rather, they could get more weapons for the same money).
Anyway, the real cost in weapons these days is all the sights and ancilleries that go with it. The average cost for the ancilleries for the EF88 is something like $12000 per weapon. Add that up for all the weapons in an infantry battalion, and it is a lot of money. The cost of the weapons themselves is almost a rounding error in comparison.
Adopting the MCT-30 unmanned turret or similar would free up 1-2 troop seats per vehicle. By the time the Phase 3 RFT for the IFVs rolls around unmanned turrets will likely be well accepted and perhaps even blooded in combat.
Otokar has a 30mm unmanned turret on its Tulpar IFV also, with 9 dismounts I believe.
Won't help Puma though; it already has an unmanned turret and can still only get 6 dismounts in the back.
That's a surprise they ended up being cheaper but definitely good news. Earlier indications seemed to be for a slower, more limited role-out. I even heard mention of combat arms only at one point.
This comment is also interesting "...exploring a range of options, including adapting the rife for other calibres of ammunition, as well as developing sustained-fire variants."
A "Maximi"-ed 7.62 EF88 could make for a very compact marksman rifle or even a conventional battle rifle to compliment the 5.56 assault rifle. This may become more useful in the future as body armour becomes more widespread.
A belt-fed bullpup LSW would be interesting too but the ergonomics might not be the best. It could be superior in non-prone positions.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Raven
Very interesting, thanks. I knew the value of the sight and accessories generally exceeded that of the weapon, but hadn't realised just how big the gap was. $12,000 - ouch.
Incidentally, the issue of DTR linked by Stock above (cheers for that) indicates Australia has just selected the Mk47 Automatic Grenade Launcher. This is another example of the NZDF and ADF making different choices. NZ purchased the H&K GMG 3-4 years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu22tSlB3W0
To be honest I thought the GMG, packaged with the Vingmate FCS and the in-service heavy weapons thermal sight, had it in the bag. The same complete GMG-based system which was offered for Land 40-2 is in service with Canada and NZ, so the risk was very low.
The Mk 47 is the lighter of the two weapon systems, but lower cost may also have played a factor. The GMG bid did after all include three margins (BAE, H&K and Rheinmetall). Our SF have used the Mk 47 in Afghanistan, borrowed from US Army stocks. Perhaps they had a preference for it and this also leant weight, I don't know.
Given that this project has been a nightmare for Army and the introduction into service at least 5 years behind schedule (through no real fault of its own), there has curiously been no release from Defence about the contract award. Unless I missed it?
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
The lighter weight would certainly be an advantage - I have no idea of the relative costs. My impression is that NZ was determined to place an order around 4-5 years ago, and at that point the Mk 47 may not have been deemed sufficiently well proven. The accuracy of the GMG was supposedly a big selling point, in terms of effectiveness agianst hard targets and minimising risk to civilians.
Quite possibly. When the Kiwis see something that fits the bill, they go ahead and buy it without fuss. The GMG does look very stable when fired off the tripod, more so than the Mk 47 from the footage I've seen.
Whilst there was no live fire demonstration/evaluations involved in this latest RFT, Army did fire both weapons during the first attempt at the project. So I guess they understand what they're buying.
As far as the Puma goes, could a hull extension ever be put forward as an option, or would something like that be too risky?
And is there a preference within the Army for either manned or unmanned turret? I could only imagine, but certainly there is something to be said about seeing things with your own eyes rather than through the view of a camera. That disconnect would surely impact overall situational awareness for the crew commander, unless of course the sensors are all seeing and all knowing...
Bluey 006
Active Member
Was just having a read of this month Defence Technology Review and I came across the Hawkeye 105mm Weapon System.
Now, although the Land 17 ship has long sailed and we got the highly capable M777 and thus the requirement filled. I am of the understanding that the Army was quite keen on the idea of self-propelled/mobile artillery.
I wonder if a system like this procured in small numbers could provide a low cost and nimble self-propelled artillery force to support fast-moving operations of the Multi-Role Brigades or Special Forces. Or are other alternatives like 120mm NEMO/AMOS turrets on the Future CRV more appropriate.
I am leaning toward 120mm due to the proliferation of PGMM but interested to hear others thoughts.
Now, although the Land 17 ship has long sailed and we got the highly capable M777 and thus the requirement filled. I am of the understanding that the Army was quite keen on the idea of self-propelled/mobile artillery.
I wonder if a system like this procured in small numbers could provide a low cost and nimble self-propelled artillery force to support fast-moving operations of the Multi-Role Brigades or Special Forces. Or are other alternatives like 120mm NEMO/AMOS turrets on the Future CRV more appropriate.
I am leaning toward 120mm due to the proliferation of PGMM but interested to hear others thoughts.
A hull extension for the Puma for Land400 won't be entertained, as it is way too much development risk. It might be possible that if it was done for another customer first (such as the US Army as was mooted at one point) it would be considered, but I think that boat has sailed.
With unmanned turrets, officially Land400 has no preference one way or the other, as seen by the RFT for Phase 2. The users, though, would much prefer a manned turret. As you say, there's nothing as good as sticking your head up and having a look yourself, particularly for a recce vehicle. Just simple things like guiding a driver through dense trees would be extremely difficult with an unmanned turret - cameras simply don't give the same appreciation for the surroundings.
Of course, prevailing thought of the 'users' 100 years ago was that tanks could never replace horses, and we all saw how that ended. It could be that if a vehicle with an unmanned turret gets selected to be part of the trials, the crew get inside and decides it all works fine and it's not an issue. I doubt it though.
One thing we can say with a lot of certainty, however, is a turret being manned or not is unlikely to be the issue that decides who wins Land400.
The short answer is yes, a system like this could be procured, the reason being to support the ARE and littoral manoeuvre. The M777, while lightweight, is still too large and needs too much in the way of support to be overly useful for the ARE. It cannot easily be airlifted by helicopter, cannot be manoeuvred once on the ground, and ammunition is too heavy to make ammunition resupply easy. The only other OS system in service, the 81mm mortar, has the other problem - it is too small, too short ranged, too limited array of ammunition etc.
A 120mm mortar would be ideal to fill this gap - manned by infantry, able to easily be airlifted, can be manoeuvred on the ground by ATV (or by hand if need be) and has a good array of ammunition, including PGMs. With all the other competing requirements, however, it might be difficult to get traction.
Thank you for the insight Raven22.
Going by the general information that is available then, there are actually very few solutions that would meet the Phase 3 requirements, with perhaps the best solution being the CV90 platform. 3 crew, manned turret and up to 8 dismounts, although I have no idea how cramped it would be inside with 8 soldiers and equipment. There are certainly some difficult decision on the horizon.
Agree re Puma and turret issue. There doesn't seem to be resistance to an unmanned turret but as you say the type of turret will be that which happens to be on the vehicle proposed by the preferred tenderer. Capability will be just one of the deciding factors.
The Risk Mitigation Activities should be telling about how the end users receive the down-selected CRV solutions when they arrive in-country next year.
The Bushmaster ute (flat-bed) would be ideal for an ADF version of the Hawkeye 105mm, in place of the Sherpa 4x4.
If Army was to show an interest in acquiring a 120mm mortar, the USMC's Expeditionary Fire Support System (EFSS) might be worth a look. Internally transportable in CH-47 - prime mover + mortar in one aircraft, prime mover + ammo trailer in another. Won't fit in MRH90 (what does!).
Good tactical and operational mobility, low through-life support costs, high lethality, TRL 9, complete integrated system. I imagine Army has had a first-hand look at EFSS during recent exercises with the USMC (?).
A 120mm mobile mortar for the Australian Army has been proposed for discussion many times in the past. It seems to me to be such an obvious choice, given the shortcomings of the 81mm mortar, that I am surprised that Army hasn't pushed harder for it to be included as a priority piece of kit.
MB
Me too actually, particularly given the low unit and through-life costs.
The NZ Army still use the M118 105 Lwt pack howitzer and that can be slung under a NH90 without having to be broken down. Two aircraft can then do lifting - 1 for gun and crew and 1 for 3 tonnes ammunition. Not The same as a mobile 105 gun system but doable. I to like the look of the Hawkeye 105 and wonder how easily adaptable it would be to the likes of a NZLAV / AUSLAV or similar. It would definitely be highly advantageous.
Would we be better off trying to fit the Hawkeye 105 to the NZLAV/ASLAV's? or would it be safer to fit the Dragon Fire since that is to some extent already in use. Personnally for Australia's case I reckon that the Dragon Fire for the ASLAV's and the 105 fitted to the back of the Bushmasters would be the safe way to go.