It may be some time before the winner of the tender for land 4000 has commenced production certainly none of those listed in the article have a description of being able to mount a fifty mil calibre gun ,and it raises the question of when delivered will they be current with developing trends ,or even a lost opportunity ,would also a vehicle with a fifty mill auto cannon be easier delivered from ships like the lhd Canberra class than the Abrams
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I would guess there is a 15-20 ton difference between an Abrams MBT and any of the current HIFV vehicles available, Namer excluded.
I believe that 3 (BAE CV90, GD Ajax, and RM KF41) of the Land 400 Ph 3 contenders are also lining up to bid for the US Army Bradley replacement i.e. with 50mm gunns. I recall that BAE marketing for Land 400 Ph 2 (CRV) showed that the proposed ATK 35mm gun could be upgraded to the ATK 50mm version so I don't think there is a real showstopper to a future upgrade.
However remember that both the Land 400 CRV and IFV will be equipped with Spike LR2 which will be huge overmatch for any IVF they come against.
Is 30mm that much more useful against infantry? Would have thought 12.7mm would be most useful, leaving 30mm for vehicles - although with heavier vehicles becoming the norm maybe less so. Ww2 suggests that 75mm was good size for infantry support with enough explosives power to take down fortifications and useful AT power. Might be hard to fit on an IFV with much ammo though.
Hi Morgo
Fair questions and I don't pretend to know the answers.
Treat it as an opinion piece of more to the point an observation piece.
The reality of the situation, is both the Russian and the US are looking at larger calibre cannons.
Most likely some or all of their future fleets of IFV will go down this path, and no doubt their respective allies will watch and probably reflect on this trend.
I can envisage the IFV becoming a type of de facto light / medium tank. One that carries both crew and dismounts.
It will still carry a ATGM in addition to its larger cannon. It will also carry secondary weapons in the heavy machine-gun category up to 50 cal.
I'd speculate this will be the way forward and suggest if I was going up against a near peer adversary, I'd prefer not to be under gunned.
Yes the IFV will be just one of many vehicles on the battlefield, both on the land and in the sky all trying to create and effect.
These larger calibre vehicles may change the structure of the Brigades. Maybe this will have some affect on indirect fires which will influence the use of mortars and to some extent the mix of artillery.
At the end of the day I feel the effect of the larger round has more attributes than what the current trend of 25 / 30 mm offers.
I guess time will tell.
Just my opinion
All the best
regards S
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Certainly the new Russian IFV vehicles are likely responsible for the interest in larger caliber guns. As others have pointed out, getting MBTs to theatre can be a real PITA and a 120 mm gun isn't very urban friendly. Afghanistan was an extreme example of this fact. If the Canadian army were ever to deploy anywhere other than Europe, I could like to see a new tracked IFVs and upgunned LAVs. MBTs are still important but probably not for most missions that Canada or Australia are likely to be involved with.
FormerDirtDart
Well-Known Member
When discussing questions about ammo storage space on vehicles I think it's important to remember that the 50mm rounds in development are not significantly larger that the 35x228mm rounds whose systems they are designed to adapt from. Similarly, the Super40mm is not a leap from the 30x173mm. Though it affords the possibility of putting more mass on target (2nd thumb). Of course while the up-scaled rounds a dimensionally similar to their smaller caliber cousins, there in no doubt a considerable increase in weight per round.
And, these up-scaled weapons are intended to engage their targets with single shots. With hopes of achieving 1st or 2nd rounds hits/kills. Whereas the systems they are intended to replace would normally have engaged the same targets with multiple short bursts. In theory a reduction of rounds carried should not have a significant impact on combat effectiveness.
I will state that I wonder if the 50mm will carry to much of a weight penalty to be carried on wheeled IFVs. And, will militaries that field both tracked and wheeled IFV need to accept the increased logistics of multiple main gun types and ammunition. Where any commonality and ease in training would necessitate something in a common fire control system and layout across platforms
And, these up-scaled weapons are intended to engage their targets with single shots. With hopes of achieving 1st or 2nd rounds hits/kills. Whereas the systems they are intended to replace would normally have engaged the same targets with multiple short bursts. In theory a reduction of rounds carried should not have a significant impact on combat effectiveness.
I will state that I wonder if the 50mm will carry to much of a weight penalty to be carried on wheeled IFVs. And, will militaries that field both tracked and wheeled IFV need to accept the increased logistics of multiple main gun types and ammunition. Where any commonality and ease in training would necessitate something in a common fire control system and layout across platforms
Reports coming through that an Army Tiger ARH has made an emergency landing in a paddock after striking a power line, only one reference online that I can find at the moment but it is hidden behind a paywall, saw a quick grab on the news
Cheers
Cheers
Bugger. Hope that crew are safe and well.
All still behind the paywalls at this stage, did find a pic on a facebook post with the helicopter and crew in the paddock all looking fine.
Surprised there is nothing from Defence as yet ? Just a guess on my part but it was on a training exercise, sounds like it has hit a wire and probably made the landing as a precaution/standard procedure
Cheers
The Chronicle
Thanks. Them wire strikes can really ruin a pilots day. Glad they appear to be ok. Poor aircrew are going to be mired in a sh*tload of paperwork now, but better that than on the slab in the local morgue.
From a behind a paywall with just a couple of extra details which I'll leave in, but will clip the other bits so as not to annoy/infringe:
If it was during this kind of practice I imagine they were keeping it pretty slow and careful. Hopefully not too much damage to the airframe!www.australiandefender.com.au said:
Recent article on ASPI.
The Australian Army should focus on what it does best | The Strategist
I disagree with the main premise - I also find the use of the following large-army/boutique army straw man disingenuous:
Absolute advantage is more appropriate for large armies that need to achieve battlefield dominance over adversaries to win wars. Such armies envision a comprehensive, joint-force ability to engage in at least two theatres simultaneously, and to both overcome adversaries and withstand attrition. Neither of those goals is feasible for a small, ‘boutique’ army like Australia’s, which could never overcome the much larger forces in the region, even if it were to double its size.
The Australian army should focus on Australia's key strategic priority of "deter, deny and defeat any attempt by a hostile country or non-state actor to attack, threaten or coerce Australia."
http://www.defence.gov.au/WhitePaper/Docs/2016-Defence-White-Paper.pdf
I am all for force multipliers that can be used to maximise friction. However, my sense is that this article is not a positive contribution to the Australian defence debate and has the potential to result in an Army that does not have the capability to deliver on Australia's strategic priorities.
Regards,
Massive
The Australian Army should focus on what it does best | The Strategist
I disagree with the main premise - I also find the use of the following large-army/boutique army straw man disingenuous:
Absolute advantage is more appropriate for large armies that need to achieve battlefield dominance over adversaries to win wars. Such armies envision a comprehensive, joint-force ability to engage in at least two theatres simultaneously, and to both overcome adversaries and withstand attrition. Neither of those goals is feasible for a small, ‘boutique’ army like Australia’s, which could never overcome the much larger forces in the region, even if it were to double its size.
The Australian army should focus on Australia's key strategic priority of "deter, deny and defeat any attempt by a hostile country or non-state actor to attack, threaten or coerce Australia."
http://www.defence.gov.au/WhitePaper/Docs/2016-Defence-White-Paper.pdf
I am all for force multipliers that can be used to maximise friction. However, my sense is that this article is not a positive contribution to the Australian defence debate and has the potential to result in an Army that does not have the capability to deliver on Australia's strategic priorities.
Regards,
Massive
Ha ha.
I interpreted it as "the boutique Australian army should focus on only the things it has proven good at - here implied as non-conventional warfare - and, therefore, the Australian army is assumed to have a comparative advantage in these areas - and don't worry about conventional warfare.
Broadly nonsense.
Regards,m
Massive
Thought I would share a link to General Morrison's 2014 Australian Army Aide Memoire.
A few things have changed since it was published but I feel it is a useful document for non-defense pro members interested in the Australian Army and the ADF more broadly.
https://www.army.gov.au/sites/g/files/net1846/f/aide_memoire.pdf
Regards,
Massive
A few things have changed since it was published but I feel it is a useful document for non-defense pro members interested in the Australian Army and the ADF more broadly.
https://www.army.gov.au/sites/g/files/net1846/f/aide_memoire.pdf
Regards,
Massive
The author is a "Defence Economist"
Broadly speaking, I suggest he knows sod all about Defence but would like to find an excuse to cut costs
oldsig
Pretty much my take on it too. The old "elite" light infantry and special forces argument, even though every war we have fought has proven the need for mounted forces, be it the light horse in the Boer War and WW1, or armour since. Then there's every other "expensive" capability that saves lives and makes a big difference in battle, seen as unnecessary in peace and rapidly recapitalised when the shooting starts.
I found Paul Dibbs' article an interesting read.
Revisiting the north in the defence of Australia | The Strategist
Certainly the author has being in the defence conversation for some decades now.
What ever we think we need on the defence chess board, Dibb's message is time is not on our side.
What should we do?
Regards S