Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Bluey 006]

Me too actually, particularly given the low unit and through-life costs.

Agreed, I am only guessing here but I think that up until recently the 105 mm L119 Hamel Gun was in service,therefore, mid range NLOS was covered and thus need for a 120mm mortar was not as high. Now that they have been replaced by 155mm there is a distinct gap between 81mm mortar and 155mm.

Also, it may be that artillery "traditionalists" preferred howitzers (which is why I suggested the Hawkeye 105mm). Having said that all the action these days is in the 120mm mortar space, and this traditional view may be changing.

These light self propelled (be it 120mm or 105mm) systems would significantly enhance the capabilities of the MRB at a relatively low cost compared to other systems.

 

[ngatimozart]

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.

105mm guns are already fitted and operational in turrets mounted on 8x8 wheeled armoured vehicles, so the risk is negligible. It's more than likely only an engineering issue. The crew can load and fire in protection and provide direct fire which any 105 mounted on the back of a ute can't do protection wise and which Dragon Fire can't do direct fire wise.

 

[vonnoobie]

105mm guns are already fitted and operational in turrets mounted on 8x8 wheeled armoured vehicles, so the risk is negligible. It's more than likely only an engineering issue. The crew can load and fire in protection and provide direct fire which any 105 mounted on the back of a ute can't do protection wise and which Dragon Fire can't do direct fire wise.

Fair point, Would be nice to go one or the other at the very least, Compared to the M113's the ASLAV's will still be quite young once replaced, Would be nice to make some use out of the vehicle then scrapping it outright.

 

[Stock]

Agreed, I am only guessing here but I think that up until recently the 105 mm L119 Hamel Gun was in service,therefore, mid range NLOS was covered and thus need for a 120mm mortar was not as high. Now that they have been replaced by 155mm there is a distinct gap between 81mm mortar and 155mm.

Also, it may be that artillery "traditionalists" preferred howitzers (which is why I suggested the Hawkeye 105mm). Having said that all the action these days is in the 120mm mortar space, and this traditional view may be changing.

These light self propelled (be it 120mm or 105mm) systems would significantly enhance the capabilities of the MRB at a relatively low cost compared to other systems.

The last of the Hamel 105mm guns was withdrawn from Australian service this year I believe. I thought they might have retained a few for air-mobile missions slung under the MRH90 but looks like no.

The fact there now exists a gap between 81mm mortar and 155mm arty as you say might prompt some thinking about plugging that gap, if it is not already happening.

 

[Stock]

Fair point, Would be nice to go one or the other at the very least, Compared to the M113's the ASLAV's will still be quite young once replaced, Would be nice to make some use out of the vehicle then scrapping it outright.

I don't believe Army has any intention of re-roling the ASLAVs once CRV deliveries commence. Average age of the ASLAV fleet will be 25 years by the time that happens around 2020-21.

 

[ngatimozart]

Fair point, Would be nice to go one or the other at the very least, Compared to the M113's the ASLAV's will still be quite young once replaced, Would be nice to make some use out of the vehicle then scrapping it outright.

If you are going to go down that track, then it is probably best where possible to use a a common vehicle. Hence on one hand it may make sense to utilise the ASLAVs for such a capability, but if they are being replaced then means the Army thinks that they may be shagged so whilst you will have a relatively cheap upfront cost, the ongoing vehicle maintenance costs will be high as they increase in age. They will for all intents and purposes be orphan platforms.

OTOH, if you are able to use the same vehicle that you use as an APC then whilst the upfront cost is relatively expensive, the lifetime costs of the platform will be cheaper than the first option because vehicle costs are spread over a far wider base. My own view is that at present an 8x8 wheeled vehicle is idea because compared to tracked vehicles ongoing costs are low and if a wheel is knocked out it is easier to replace than a track, plus the fact the vehicle is not totally immobile until that wheel is repaired / replaced.

It's not as though you are going to take on a marauding Soviet tank army streaming through the Fulda Gap with something like these, because that's not what they are designed for. However, there are plenty of other scenarios on a battlefield where they can contribute very well. One is light amphibious forces as an example, especially in an airborne type operation well in the enemies hinterland. Since the ADF now have the C17s they would be able to mount such an operation using the C17, C130J, Chooks and MRHs. The US practices such ops.

 

[Raven22]

Also, it may be that artillery "traditionalists" preferred howitzers (which is why I suggested the Hawkeye 105mm). Having said that all the action these days is in the 120mm mortar space, and this traditional view may be changing.

Arty traditionalists won't have any impact, as the 120mm mortars would almost certainly be part of the infantry battalion and manned by infantry (either replacing or supplementing the 81mm).

The Artillery certainly won't be calling for a light weight howitzer such as is being mooted here - they have bigger problems to solve before they think about that. If extra resources were thrown at Arty they would use it to actually fully man the M777 capability first. There's no point introducing a new weapon when you can't fully man the weapon already in service.

 

[Bluey 006]

Arty traditionalists won't have any impact, as the 120mm mortars would almost certainly be part of the infantry battalion and manned by infantry (either replacing or supplementing the 81mm).

The Artillery certainly won't be calling for a light weight howitzer such as is being mooted here - they have bigger problems to solve before they think about that. If extra resources were thrown at Arty they would use it to actually fully man the M777 capability first. There's no point introducing a new weapon when you can't fully man the weapon already in service.

Appreciate the need to fully man the M777 capability first, fair and agree.

Was really just thinking about how to deliver to a low cost and deployable "self propelled" fire support capability - in the absence of SPGs (hence the thoughts on the Hawkeye 105mm)

If for arguments sake the 120mm mortar capability came in the form of CRV with turret system (NEMO etc) to support the ACR. Where would they sit administratively? still the Infantry, or artillery, cavalry etc

 

[Volkodav]

As I understand it a modern 120mm mortar offers similar terminal effects over similar ranges as a 105mm light gun. Happy to be corrected if I am wrong on that.

 

[Stock]

As I understand it a modern 120mm mortar offers similar terminal effects over similar ranges as a 105mm light gun. Happy to be corrected if I am wrong on that.

In general, the standard 120mm mortar round has a greater lethal radius than the 105mm, but the standard 105mm round typically has greater range (8km vs 11km). Rocket-assisted 120mm rounds will reach out to 10-11km I believe.

 

[Raven22]

If for arguments sake the 120mm mortar capability came in the form of CRV with turret system (NEMO etc) to support the ACR. Where would they sit administratively? still the Infantry, or artillery, cavalry etc

In that case they would belong to the ACR. Although, there would have to be a bit of planning done on what corps mans the turret.

A turreted mortar like Nemo would lose the advantages of being easily deployable for the ARE though.

 

[Bluey 006]

A turreted mortar like Nemo would lose the advantages of being easily deployable for the ARE though.

Is there a reason they couldn't they be deployed on the LCM-1E?

 

[t68]

Is there a reason they couldn't they be deployed on the LCM-1E?

placing a system like Nemo onto LCM-1E would eat into its key advantage of stern gate inside the LHD and limit the turn around time in the LHD, I could understand putting it on something like a Frank S Besson LSV or as the Finnish have done a small riverine craft like the Jurmo-class landing craft


Landing Craft Mounted Nemo 120 mm Turreted Mortar System | Defense Media Network

 

[Bluey 006]

placing a system like Nemo onto LCM-1E would eat into its key advantage of stern gate inside the LHD and limit the turn around time in the LHD, I could understand putting it on something like a Frank S Besson LSV or as the Finnish have done a small riverine craft like the Jurmo-class landing craft


Landing Craft Mounted Nemo 120 mm Turreted Mortar System | Defense Media Network

The small boats concept is interesting. But I actually was talking about the deployability of a CRV (8x8) fitted with a Nemo turret to the beach on an LCM-1E to support the ARE

While not impossible, for me it seems fairly hard to imagine a scenario where Australia would deploy a battery of 155 mm artillery. On the other hand small numbers of self propelled or conventional mortars in support of infantry during peace making operations or to support fast moving motorized forces (be they conventional or special) seems viable. Hence the interest.

 

[Raven22]

Is there a reason they couldn't they be deployed on the LCM-1E?

You could, but limiting deployment to LCM-E severely restricts the freedom of action of the ARE. The need is for a weapon able to be lifted easily by helicopter (MRH-90 essentially) to support dispersed force elements on the ground. Essentially, the whole STOM thing. A 120mm mortar fills this role better than just about anything.

A NEMO-like mortar on a Land400 vehicle would be of tremendous use to the ACR, but wouldn't be very helpful for the ARE. Unfortunately, with low risk MOTS being the order of the day for Land400, mortar vehicles have been deemed to be too high of a technical risk and aren't part of the scope of Land400.

 

[Volkodav]

You could, but limiting deployment to LCM-E severely restricts the freedom of action of the ARE. The need is for a weapon able to be lifted easily by helicopter (MRH-90 essentially) to support dispersed force elements on the ground. Essentially, the whole STOM thing. A 120mm mortar fills this role better than just about anything.

A NEMO-like mortar on a Land400 vehicle would be of tremendous use to the ACR, but wouldn't be very helpful for the ARE. Unfortunately, with low risk MOTS being the order of the day for Land400, mortar vehicles have been deemed to be too high of a technical risk and aren't part of the scope of Land400.

Easy, buy both a towed and an SP 120mm mortar but have common ammunition and fire control. Each brigade would have a battery or even just a troop of each type.

 

[Raven22]

Easy, buy both a towed and an SP 120mm mortar but have common ammunition and fire control. Each brigade would have a battery or even just a troop of each type.

Where does the money and the soldiers come from for that?

It's actually not that easy.

 

[Volkodav]

Where does the money and the soldiers come from for that?

It's actually not that easy.

I am out at the moment so can't check but I believe the US was looking at (or may actually have procured) the Dragonfire 120mm SP mortar and each vehicle also had an 81mm as well as a 60mm mortar for dismounted operations. Singapore has demonstrated a low recoil 120mm system mounted on a LSV as well.

By buying both I am not suggesting an increase in numbers but rather a reallocation. As I understand it NEMO and AMOS (even Dragonfire) actually reduce the number of crew required for each tube and due to their increased rate of fire plus computerized / automated targeting reduce the number of tubes required for a desired effect. Now as I understand it the allocation of mortars was six or eight in a mortar platoon per battalion making twelve to sixteen per brigade, why not either convert one platoon to SP and assign it to the ACR or alternatively drop platoon size to four tubes each and form a third SP platoon. The mortars can be retained in platoons pr could be concentrated in a battery with a number of troops.

I know its not easy but the simple fact is there is a case for 120mm in either towed, SP or both variations and it would make sense to model different options before deciding against any. Personally I would be surprised if we get 120mm at all, I hope I will be surprised.

 

[Bluey 006]

I am out at the moment so can't check but I believe the US was looking at (or may actually have procured) the Dragonfire 120mm SP mortar and each vehicle also had an 81mm as well as a 60mm mortar for dismounted operations. Singapore has demonstrated a low recoil 120mm system mounted on a LSV as well.

By buying both I am not suggesting an increase in numbers but rather a reallocation. As I understand it NEMO and AMOS (even Dragonfire) actually reduce the number of crew required for each tube and due to their increased rate of fire plus computerized / automated targeting reduce the number of tubes required for a desired effect. Now as I understand it the allocation of mortars was six or eight in a mortar platoon per battalion making twelve to sixteen per brigade, why not either convert one platoon to SP and assign it to the ACR or alternatively drop platoon size to four tubes each and form a third SP platoon. The mortars can be retained in platoons pr could be concentrated in a battery with a number of troops.

I know its not easy but the simple fact is there is a case for 120mm in either towed, SP or both variations and it would make sense to model different options before deciding against any. Personally I would be surprised if we get 120mm at all, I hope I will be surprised.

Some good points here. I agree there is a case for 120mm in whatever form it comes in (ideally both). Irregulars/ terrorists and the like all over have access 120mm mortar (even crude SP) due to the relative low cost, and the best we have is 81mm. It is almost a breach of "duty of care" to send our guys into conflict zones out gunned and out ranged - on such an elementary capability.

Now we do have other systems to respond to these threats (air power,attack helicopters etc which are expensive) and or fire support from allies but this is not always available as was the case in Afghanistan.I think there is also merit in giving the commanders on the ground a decent organic capability, and the ability to respond instantly.

Just my feeling.

Really a shame there isn't a bucket of money, oh wait there is, expense accounts for pollies travel

 

[t68]

The small boats concept is interesting. But I actually was talking about the deployability of a CRV (8x8) fitted with a Nemo turret to the beach on an LCM-1E to support the ARE

While not impossible, for me it seems fairly hard to imagine a scenario where Australia would deploy a battery of 155 mm artillery. On the other hand small numbers of self propelled or conventional mortars in support of infantry during peace making operations or to support fast moving motorized forces (be they conventional or special) seems viable. Hence the interest.

ah sorry, I thought you meant it to be mounted on the LCM-1E my misunderstanding.