Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Todjaeger]

Someone explained to me the ammo for Mk44 Bushmaster and MK-30-2 ABM is non interchangeable because of linking of ammunition on one of them. Can anyone shed some light on the topic?

Not sure about an issue with linking, but the 30 mm x 173 mm MK30-2/ABM is AFAIK programmed for air bursts as it is fired. The 30 mm rounds used by the Mk 44 Bushmaster II does not, to my knowledge at least, have the ability to be individually programmed, and again AFAIK the Mk 44 Bushmaster II itself does not have the ability either. That suggests to me that some ammunition which could be used by a Mk 44 might also be able to be shared with a MK30-2, it would not also work the other way around.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Not sure about an issue with linking, but the 30 mm x 173 mm MK30-2/ABM is AFAIK programmed for air bursts as it is fired. The 30 mm rounds used by the Mk 44 Bushmaster II does not, to my knowledge at least, have the ability to be individually programmed, and again AFAIK the Mk 44 Bushmaster II itself does not have the ability either. That suggests to me that some ammunition which could be used by a Mk 44 might also be able to be shared with a MK30-2, it would not also work the other way around.

Perhaps. The Mk44 does have a variant called Mk44S, which enables firing programmable munitions.

 

[Massive]

...straight up FMS for HIMARS… a whopping Regiment’s worth of 3 batteries…

It is pretty clear that with the changing strategic environment these "high end" capabilities are going to have to expand pretty quickly.

HIMARS in brigade strength, Land-based AShM in regiment strength, suitable layered air-defence.

Not sure how this happens though - would it require a big reallocation of resources and funds - in a sense - how does the Army absorb all of the change going on?

Thoughts?

Massive

 

[ADMk2]

It is pretty clear that with the changing strategic environment these "high end" capabilities are going to have to expand pretty quickly.

HIMARS in brigade strength, Land-based AShM in regiment strength, suitable layered air-defence.

Not sure how this happens though - would it require a big reallocation of resources and funds - in a sense - how does the Army absorb all of the change going on?

Thoughts?

Massive

I’m concerned long ranged fires and land based anti-ship are being merged into the same platform, housed in the same (single) Regiment…

Hence the snippet in the Ministerial release about the PRsM gaining anti-ship missile capabilities… I understand the desire to use a single platform for long ranged fires / ASM capability. It makes sense. I am concerned that also gives an excuse to underfund the capability and leave us with a mere 6 vehicles to begin with.. Growing to the previously mentioned “whopping” force of 3x batteries of 6 launch vehicles…

 

[Bob53]

I’m concerned long ranged fires and land based anti-ship are being merged into the same platform, housed in the same (single) Regiment…

Hence the snippet in the Ministerial release about the PRsM gaining anti-ship missile capabilities… I understand the desire to use a single platform for long ranged fires / ASM capability. It makes sense. I am concerned that also gives an excuse to underfund the capability and leave us with a mere 6 vehicles to begin with.. Growing to the previously mentioned “whopping” force of 3x batteries of 6 launch vehicles…

Is 18 launch vehicles the proposed number? That’s seems incredibly low number for what I suspect is a very cost effective area denial platform. From this article initial cost (understand there is through life costs) looks to be about $6m for HIMARs. HIMARS - High-Mobility Artillery Rocket System, a member of MLRS family

Of course the munitions are not cheap but I would rather divert $ from any/some/all of the armoured vehicle programs into this capability and a stock pile of munitions if the objective is area denial. It would make entering onto range a high risk proposition.

 

[ngatimozart]

Of course the munitions are not cheap but I would rather divert $ from any/some/all of the armoured vehicle programs into this capability and a stock pile of munitions if the objective is area denial. It would make entering onto range a high risk proposition.

And what would you expect the infantry to ride into battle in / on? The back of brumbies or march? Come on get bloody real.

 

[Gryphinator]

And what would you expect the infantry to ride into battle in / on? The back of brumbies or march? Come on get bloody real.

What's with the attitude? The poor fellow is only expressing a very valid opinion. I quite frankly agree. We need that deterrence/denial moving forward.

Being a defence pro means you behave like it. Now apologise and go read up on Thales Bushmasters..

 

[Redlands18]

What's with the attitude? The poor fellow is only expressing a very valid opinion. I quite frankly agree. We need that deterrence/denial moving forward.

Being a defence pro means you behave like it. Now apologise and go read up on Thales Bushmasters..

Seriously, are you suggesting that the Bushmaster can do the same job as a Land 400 phase 3 IFV? Standard protection on a Bushmaster is STANAG 4569 level 1, on a phase 3 IFV it will be level 5. The Bushmaster is not designed to go toe to toe with other Armoured Vehicles or be able to keep up with Tanks in an assault on a fortified position. Its a Battlefield Taxi designed to withstand close by explosions and weapons fire up to 12.7mm, it basically replaces carrying Soldiers in the back of Trucks.
Its not an APC its a PMV(protected mobility Vehicle) and should never be used as one.

 

[Gryphinator]

Seriously, are you suggesting that the Bushmaster can do the same job as a Land 400 phase 3 IFV? Standard protection on a Bushmaster is STANAG 4569 level 1, on a phase 3 IFV it will be level 5. The Bushmaster is not designed to go toe to toe with other Armoured Vehicles or be able to keep up with Tanks in an assault on a fortified position. Its a Battlefield Taxi designed to withstand close by explosions and weapons fire up to 12.7mm, it basically replaces carrying Soldiers in the back of Trucks.
Its not an APC its a PMV(protected mobility Vehicle) and should never be used as one.

That wasn't the point I was making but...

 

[Boagrius]

The problem is it's a classic case of robbing Peter to pay Paul - specifically compromising Army's capacity to take and hold ground in favour of A2/AD effects. Personally I think it's vital that we maintain both...

 

[Takao]

Of course the munitions are not cheap but I would rather divert $ from any/some/all of the armoured vehicle programs into this capability and a stock pile of munitions if the objective is area denial. It would make entering onto range a high risk proposition.

If you want actual deterrence, this would achieve the exact opposite.

Personally I think Australia attempting deterrence against a significant power in the current economic climate is a joke. But if you want to do it, one of the very few capabilities is a heavy armoured land force. Exactly what you want to cut. Note this was a USAF funded report that found this, and there is a hell of a lot more in the details.

Airpower (including long-range fires) is an adorable capability that is generally needed to support ground forces - but can't deter anything without nuclear weapons. Have a look at how much the Taliban is being deterred right now. The long-range fires is essential to Army and it will work to support the ground force. It will shift to support RAN and RAAF elements - but for tactical actions only. Not deterrence.

 

[Boagrius]

The other thing I'd point out is that with 75 Abrams tanks and several hundred IFVs, our investment in armour going forward isn't particularly extravagant. Just look at the inventories of Indonesia, Singapore etc for evidence of that.

To my mind this is the minimum investment needed to keep our people alive in the face of a peer competitor, not some massive force poised to storm the Fulda Gap. Seems wiser to maintain what is a central part of Army's raison detre, and grow the long range fires component alongside it.

 

[ngatimozart]

What's with the attitude? The poor fellow is only expressing a very valid opinion. I quite frankly agree. We need that deterrence/denial moving forward.

Being a defence pro means you behave like it. Now apologise and go read up on Thales Bushmasters..

He's been on here long enough to know better. It's soldiers lives that we are dealing with and they are somewhat important. The soldiers themselves are rather attached to them for some strange reason. The army has spent a significant amount of time and money training the infantry up and they require the best protected vehicles capable of operating with the armoured forces. Failure to provide that reduces the capability of the armoured force and that can be fatal. Having infantry trapped on their own on a modern battlefield amongst armoured forces has the potential to be fatal for the infantry.

This is not just about capabilities and platforms, but it is also about lives. Never forget that. That's why I jumped on him and I won't hesitate to again. So don't come the raw prawn with me about it because it's those nameless soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, and airwomen who I always think about when I am considering capabilities etc.

 

[Anthony_B_78]

He's been on here long enough to know better. It's soldiers lives that we are dealing with and they are somewhat important. The soldiers themselves are rather attached to them for some strange reason. The army has spent a significant amount of time and money training the infantry up and they require the best protected vehicles capable of operating with the armoured forces. Failure to provide that reduces the capability of the armoured force and that can be fatal. Having infantry trapped on their own on a modern battlefield amongst armoured forces has the potential to be fatal for the infantry.

This is not just about capabilities and platforms, but it is also about lives. Never forget that. That's why I jumped on him and I won't hesitate to again. So don't come the raw prawn with me about it because it's those nameless soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, and airwomen who I always think about when I am considering capabilities etc.

You're right that armour saves lives. It does. (Probably sounds like an odd statement to some who don't consider these matters, but it's true. It's a proven fact.) I think we need to be a little careful to not imply that the individual you were referring to - and anyone who agrees with what they were saying - doesn't care about those lives. Not saying you were doing that, but people have a way of reading things into a post that the writer did not intend. (Some are just looking for arguments.)

I imagine the counter-argument to this - and supporting the original point that you responded to, of "divert(ing) $ from any/some/all of the armoured vehicle programs" - would be something akin to the idea that the capability they would prefer to invest in ("area denial") would win the battle before our soldiers had to meet the enemy or at least attrit its forces to the point that we didn't armour.

I would absolutely disagree with that, just to be clear, but it can't be ignored that the USMC is divesting itself of armour and investing in long-range fires. So clearly people who are certainly professionals can have different opinions on this.

I do agree with them that the size of the capability being talked about - by another poster - seems rather small. But diverting ALL of the funds from our armoured vehicle programs? God no. I've said before I could see - realistically - a smaller buy of Land 400 Phase 3 vehicles, but I'd be thinking about a third less (thinking still enough for two battalions, maybe not three), nothing more than that. And I think that's possible regardless of my own thoughts just based on the apparent restructuring the Army has planned.

 

[Gryphinator]

He's been on here long enough to know better. It's soldiers lives that we are dealing with and they are somewhat important. The soldiers themselves are rather attached to them for some strange reason. The army has spent a significant amount of time and money training the infantry up and they require the best protected vehicles capable of operating with the armoured forces. Failure to provide that reduces the capability of the armoured force and that can be fatal. Having infantry trapped on their own on a modern battlefield amongst armoured forces has the potential to be fatal for the infantry.

This is not just about capabilities and platforms, but it is also about lives. Never forget that. That's why I jumped on him and I won't hesitate to again. So don't come the raw prawn with me about it because it's those nameless soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, and airwomen who I always think about when I am considering capabilities etc.

Ex digger here who's been on 2 way firing ranges. Don't patronize me thanks.

And Bob has been here long enough to know what better? Advocating a different opinion? Sure seems like it.

And P in PMV stands for protected no?

I'm not advocating we stop Boxer, Land 400/3 Or the Abrams I'd love to do both these, and the long range fires but if budgets get tight, I'd prefer extra defensive batteries over an IFV squadron or 2, so the OPFOR cant land in the 1st place.

 

[OPSSG]

Your demand for an apology initiates a review of the reasoning used and your pattern of posts. If your logic in every post is clear and impeccable, the Mod team will review our team’s prior posts with a view to change.

This review also means you are on our radar — no big deal, we just issued a few warning points — if you don’t like warning points, a ban of 2 weeks can be arranged.

That wasn't the point I was making but...

Please note that this is a one-liner that we have decided does not merit a warning. In the interest of fairness, a moderator will request the team to review a post by him that is raised by another member.

And P in PMV stands for protected no?

I'm not advocating we stop Boxer, Land 400/3 Or the Abrams I'd love to do both these, and the long range fires but if budgets get tight, I'd prefer extra defensive batteries over an IFV squadron or 2, so the OPFOR cant land in the 1st place.

Really appreciate your clarification above, that is why, it is a green text message (instead of red). Many thanks.

If we need to discuss this further, a longer ban can be arranged, should that be desired.

 

[OPSSG]

You're right that armour saves lives. It does. (Probably sounds like an odd statement to some who don't consider these matters, but it's true. It's a proven fact.)

Agreed.

As others like Takao and ADMk2 have noted, airpower (including long-range fires) is an adorable capability — but can't deter anything if the enemy have the right tactics to go toe-to-toe in an infantry centric fight. The Taliban is NOT being deterred by air power, right now. The deployment of a single Australian armoured brigade can prevent the fall of Kabul (or any large city in Afghanistan) — but the propping up a corrupt and incorrigible Kabul regime is not a problem for Canberra to solve alone, if the Americans don’t want to show leadership to solve.

To preserve a working relationship, it is NOT in your country’s interest to show-up Biden’s stupidity — in choosing to surrender a country to the Taliban on the 20th anniversary of 9-11.

I would absolutely disagree with that, just to be clear, but it can't be ignored that the USMC is divesting itself of armour and investing in long-range fires. So clearly people who are certainly professionals can have different opinions on this.

I do agree with them that the size of the capability being talked about - by another poster - seems rather small. But diverting ALL of the funds from our armoured vehicle programs? God no. I've said before I could see - realistically - a smaller buy of Land 400 Phase 3 vehicles, but I'd be thinking about a third less (thinking still enough for two battalions, maybe not three), nothing more than that. And I think that's possible regardless of my own thoughts just based on the apparent restructuring the Army has planned.

I am sure you realise that the combat air wing of the US Marines is much larger than the Australian and Singaporean air forces combined. This means the Americans can do stupid things that Australian or Singaporean ground troops can’t afford in terms of their orbat. A flight of 4 USAF B-52s, in support of a US Marine MEU can drop more ordinance on the Taliban THAN a squadron of Australian Super Hornets.

The US Army has more tanks than most countries, they certainly can attach a few to any MEU or MEF. The problem for the American Navy is the relative lack of amphibious shipping in relation to their ‘needs’ to move the large amount of forces they have on hand; and in this respect they are expecting region amphibious forces to bring MBTs in any fight.

 

[ADMk2]

Ex digger here who's been on 2 way firing ranges. Don't patronize me thanks.

And Bob has been here long enough to know what better? Advocating a different opinion? Sure seems like it.

And P in PMV stands for protected no?

I'm not advocating we stop Boxer, Land 400/3 Or the Abrams I'd love to do both these, and the long range fires but if budgets get tight, I'd prefer extra defensive batteries over an IFV squadron or 2, so the OPFOR cant land in the 1st place.

Why are we assuming budgets are getting tight? Even in the year of COVID, Defence’s budget including Army’s slice of that, has grown substantially, not tightened…

Long range fires and LAND 400 are both fully funded, as is everything else in the FSP. Some rescheduling of programs may well occur, but I don’t see significant loss of funding for ADF being likely, except maybe with respect to submarines in the near future...

 

[Todjaeger]

I would absolutely disagree with that, just to be clear, but it can't be ignored that the USMC is divesting itself of armour and investing in long-range fires. So clearly people who are certainly professionals can have different opinions on this.

While the current plans for the USMC to get out of operating MBT's are in the works, there is the 500,000+ strong gorilla to keep in mind. I personally think that the USMC planning on dropping M1 Abrams from the OrBat will either be cancelled or turn out to be less advantageous than expected, the US has the ability to reinforce any deployed USMC units requiring heavy armour by deploying US Army armour units. In the case of deploy Australian Army units, if Army needs an armour capability it lacks, there is no other Australian service which could provide it. If no Australian capability exists, then Australia would either have to depend on allies to provide the needed capability, or forego it.

TBH though, it does seem somewhat like people were advocating for a DOA-type defence configuration if they were advocating reducing funding from Land 400 to fund/expand long ranged fires and/or provide an AA/AD capability. Given the sheer volume of space which would require A2/AD, I am not certain that trying to cover even the northern approaches of Australia would be viable. Not to mention the sensor coverage which would require target quality data if one were to attempt to use standoff AShM to deny an area. Another, related thought, would be the effective impact a Mk 48 ADCAP would have upon discouraging unwelcome tourists wishing to visit Australia from ever landing. That and it could also serve to make fish food and croc chowder...

 

[Anthony_B_78]

While the current plans for the USMC to get out of operating MBT's are in the works, there is the 500,000+ strong gorilla to keep in mind. I personally think that the USMC planning on dropping M1 Abrams from the OrBat will either be cancelled or turn out to be less advantageous than expected, the US has the ability to reinforce any deployed USMC units requiring heavy armour by deploying US Army armour units. In the case of deploy Australian Army units, if Army needs an armour capability it lacks, there is no other Australian service which could provide it. If no Australian capability exists, then Australia would either have to depend on allies to provide the needed capability, or forego it.

Agree on all counts. Was only making the point that this planning by the USMC does show some defence professionals have different ideas on these matters. Notwithstanding that they are rather controversial, could well be reversed, and that the US does still have the Army to bring the armour.

TBH though, it does seem somewhat like people were advocating for a DOA-type defence configuration if they were advocating reducing funding from Land 400 to fund/expand long ranged fires and/or provide an AA/AD capability.

I don't know about others' thinking (and please don't get me wrong, I absolutely do not support DOA), but there is also the prospect of using such capabilities in a forward engagement sense. That is, occupying an island, or natural choke point, and using your - particularly - land-based anti-ship missiles to contain your foe. It just feels a little defensive and putting too many of your eggs in one basket to me, especially if it comes at the expense of other capabilities, and as ADMk2 said, it shouldn't. The funding - we are told - is there.