Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Redlands18]

Australia is getting NASAMS artificial surface to air missiles from Kongsberg this year in June. The DOD signed contract as in favor of selecting NASAMS to replace Australia's Rapier SAMs. Tests will be held in Kongsberg defence and aerospace facility and dozens of canisters and NASAMS missile will be delivered and installed in pubic and military areas. NASAMS will be the part of Australia's air defence system along with Patriots, CIWS and other air defence systems currently operating by the ADF (Australian Defence Force).

This is the photo of NASAMS.

NASAMS selected by Australia for new air defence capability

The Australian Department of Defense (DoD) announced 25 March that the Raytheon/Kongsberg National Advanced Surface to Air Missile System (NASAMS) has been selected for the Australian Government’s…

defencetoday.com

The National Advanced Surface to Air Missile System(NASAMS) was first chosen by Australia in 2017 for a single supplier limited tender process and was approved by the Government on 25 March 2019. Since then it has been integrated into a version of the excellent Australian developed CEAFAR Radar. There is no such thing as a NASAMS Missile, they will be using the AMRAAM Missile in Australian service and could be fitted to fire the AMRAAM-ER, AIM-9X and ESSM as well. The Rapier was retired from the Australian Army 20 years ago, NASAMS will replace the RBS-70 MANPAD system.

The only other SAM systems currently used by the ADF are those fitted to the Hobart and Anzac class Ships. Patriot is not currently in ADF service and has not been chosen at this stage. There is currently a program for a long range SAM system set to begin about mid decade and the PAC-3 Patriot is expected to be a contender but like all medium to long term programs this will be subject to review by the incoming Labor Government.

If you are interested in the ADF then I highly recommend a read through of all the Australian Threads, its one of the best educations you can get.

 

[OldTex]

The Kongsberg concept offering (Strikemaster) towards LAND 4100 Phase 2 displayed at INDO PACIFIC 2022 has elements that may be of use in other LAND projects. The main element that should investigated for projects like Long-range Fires, in my opinion, is the use of the Bushmaster Copperhead flatbed. There is the benefit of this platform providing protected mobility for the crew, as well as a degree of commonality with the Bushmaster PMV-M. Using the Copperhead as the transport vehicle would also extend the life of the production line which would have some industrial and financial benefits.

 

[ADMk2]

The Kongsberg concept offering (Strikemaster) towards LAND 4100 Phase 2 displayed at INDO PACIFIC 2022 has elements that may be of use in other LAND projects. The main element that should investigated for projects like Long-range Fires, in my opinion, is the use of the Bushmaster Copperhead flatbed. There is the benefit of this platform providing protected mobility for the crew, as well as a degree of commonality with the Bushmaster PMV-M. Using the Copperhead as the transport vehicle would also extend the life of the production line which would have some industrial and financial benefits.

Interestingly, Army itself seems fairly ambivalent about this variant, as they pretty much dismissed it entirely, when it was rolled out years ago…

 

[Redlands18]

Interestingly, Army itself seems fairly ambivalent about this variant, as they pretty much dismissed it entirely, when it was rolled out years ago…

I get the feeling the Copperhead didn't offer enough advantages over the Man HX Trucks fitted with Armoured cabins. Not being fitted with the Automated Load Handling System(ALHS) would be a huge disadvantage. Commonality is a mute point against a fleet of 2500 Trucks in 1/2 a dozen different sizes. Using the Copperhead as a Launch platform means you lose the means to drop the System in place and drive off.

 

[STURM]

If they are meant to be direct fire support for infantry forces and not intended to go against MBT's then why the MBT sized guns, a 76mm would work just fine in that role.

Or a 90mm Cockerill which I assume would produce better results against bunkers and buildings. The South Africans mounted a 76mm on Rookait but the Italians went off in another direction with a 120mm on the Centauro.

Alvis/Hagglunds many years ago offered a CV-90 armed with a 120mm for users who wanted the ability to take on MBTs but didn't want an MBT. The downside of course is that such a vehicle would be vulnerable if fired upon by MBTs. If I'm not mistaken the U.S. army's future light tank will have a 105mm gun. There might also be users which see the need for a 105mm gun to take out other light tanks.

One advantage the BMPs have over a M-113 is a much heavier armament.

A major disadvantage is that it's very cramped; had an inside look of a Iraqi BMP-1 years ago . The crew compartment is divided in two; separated by a fuel tank. The M-113 is much roomier.

 

[OldTex]

I get the feeling the Copperhead didn't offer enough advantages over the Man HX Trucks fitted with Armoured cabins. Not being fitted with the Automated Load Handling System(ALHS) would be a huge disadvantage. Commonality is a mute point against a fleet of 2500 Trucks in 1/2 a dozen different sizes. Using the Copperhead as a Launch platform means you lose the means to drop the System in place and drive off.

Well if the requirement is to move and emplace the long-range fires or coastal defence system etc then the HX77 would be the better choice. That is because the system is being treated purely as cargo just like a container or a flat-rack load. This configuration would have the disadvantage that the armoured cabin of the HX77 then isn't being used to protect the crew in the firing position. There is also the disadvantage that this configuration does not do 'Shoot-and-scoot'. These are the reasons that I feel that the Bushmaster Copperhead with an integrated fires system may be a better choice in some situations.

 

[ngatimozart]

Well if the requirement is to move and emplace the long-range fires or coastal defence system etc then the HX77 would be the better choice. That is because the system is being treated purely as cargo just like a container or a flat-rack load. This configuration would have the disadvantage that the armoured cabin of the HX77 then isn't being used to protect the crew in the firing position. There is also the disadvantage that this configuration does not do 'Shoot-and-scoot'. These are the reasons that I feel that the Bushmaster Copperhead with an integrated fires system may be a better choice in some situations.

Trouble is "some situations" do not necessarily add up to warrant an investment in the capability. I agree with you that a MAN truck would be the better option and I would go so far to suggest the 8x8 because it can go just about anywhere. It's perfect for the shoot and scoot mission.

 

[Redlands18]

Australia – HIMARS Launchers | Defense Security Cooperation Agency

www.dsca.mil

Australia has formally requested DSCA clearance for 20 M-142 HIMARS MRLs, as well as 30 of each M-30A2, M-31A1, M-31A2, XM-403,EM-404ER Rockets and 10 M-57 ATACMS. As well as all the Miscellaneous items required. Total estimated program cost is $385M.
While Australia was expected to acquire a MRL system at some stage under the Long Range Fires program, this has come out of the blue and several years earlier then expected and would be under review by the new Government.

 

[Massive]

It appears so, with no publicly known replacement project in the MANPADS class, nor in ANY kind of mobile air defence capability, beyond ‘all arms fires’…

Given the extremely massive investments we are making in the development of highly mobile battle groups, there are some ”interesting” priorities Army has in that space, with the observable real world effects of ever increasing PGM, UAS and loitering munitions capabilities, and us doing literally nothing to address those threats…

I suppose we can always just withdraw if that sort of operational environment were to present itself though, which leads to a wider argument about why we would even be there in the first place if we just up and leave if things get a bit too tough, but that’s another discussion I guess…

It is hard not to believe that a comprehensive layered approach needs to be taken to air defence in the ADF given the way threats are evolving.

IMHO there is a need for counter UAS, SHORAD (~Stinger - armoured & MANPAD), Medium/Long (NASAMS), Long (~Patriot) and C-RAM - Iron Dome or similar.

I am sure that Army is talking about this and NASAMS & Patriot are in play (as is UAS) but I haven't seen an integrated plan anywhere.

Have to hope there is a plan somewhere.

Regards,

Massive

 

[Massive]

Australia – HIMARS Launchers | Defense Security Cooperation Agency

www.dsca.mil

Australia has formally requested DSCA clearance for 20 M-142 HIMARS MRLs, as well as 30 of each M-30A2, M-31A1, M-31A2, XM-403,EM-404ER Rockets and 10 M-57 ATACMS. As well as all the Miscellaneous items required. Total estimated program cost is $385M.
While Australia was expected to acquire a MRL system at some stage under the Long Range Fires program, this has come out of the blue and several years earlier then expected and would be under review by the new Government.

Not really a surprise that this has been accelerated (if it has been) - a critical capability.

A single regiment at this stage.

Better than a single battery I guess.

Regards,

Massive

 

[Redlands18]

Not really a surprise that this has been accelerated (if it has been) - a critical capability.

A single regiment at this stage.

Better than a single battery I guess.

Regards,

Massive

I wonder if the Albanese Government even knew about this, we don't really have a DEFMIN right now, Marles is handling Defence along with several other Portfolios. The new DEFMIN would be properly briefed after being sworn in next Wednesday so it may have come as a surprise.

 

[vonnoobie]

Australia – HIMARS Launchers | Defense Security Cooperation Agency

www.dsca.mil

Australia has formally requested DSCA clearance for 20 M-142 HIMARS MRLs, as well as 30 of each M-30A2, M-31A1, M-31A2, XM-403,EM-404ER Rockets and 10 M-57 ATACMS. As well as all the Miscellaneous items required. Total estimated program cost is $385M.
While Australia was expected to acquire a MRL system at some stage under the Long Range Fires program, this has come out of the blue and several years earlier then expected and would be under review by the new Government.

Out of it all the thing that surprised me the most is the ATACMS. We have signed on as a partner to the program that is meant to replace those missiles apperantly starting 2023... Is the 10 just a use and train with for now until then?

 

[ADMk2]

Australia – HIMARS Launchers | Defense Security Cooperation Agency

www.dsca.mil

Australia has formally requested DSCA clearance for 20 M-142 HIMARS MRLs, as well as 30 of each M-30A2, M-31A1, M-31A2, XM-403,EM-404ER Rockets and 10 M-57 ATACMS. As well as all the Miscellaneous items required. Total estimated program cost is $385M.
While Australia was expected to acquire a MRL system at some stage under the Long Range Fires program, this has come out of the blue and several years earlier then expected and would be under review by the new Government.

Might be the new Government flexing it’s defence credentials, or perhaps a degree of urgency (finally) observed in the requirement for such a capability?

 

[ADMk2]

Out of it all the thing that surprised me the most is the ATACMS. We have signed on as a partner to the program that is meant to replace those missiles apperantly starting 2023... Is the 10 just a use and train with for now until then?

We’ve never operated a land based ballistic missile system of any kind, so crawl, walk, run I guess…

Never had anything with the kind of range and effect this will provide, in reality…

 

[aussienscale]

Australia – HIMARS Launchers | Defense Security Cooperation Agency

www.dsca.mil

Australia has formally requested DSCA clearance for 20 M-142 HIMARS MRLs, as well as 30 of each M-30A2, M-31A1, M-31A2, XM-403,EM-404ER Rockets and 10 M-57 ATACMS. As well as all the Miscellaneous items required. Total estimated program cost is $385M.
While Australia was expected to acquire a MRL system at some stage under the Long Range Fires program, this has come out of the blue and several years earlier then expected and would be under review by the new Government.

Great news and a good start, assuming we will be mounting them to our HX series ?

 

[ngatimozart]

Great news and a good start, assuming we will be mounting them to our HX series ?

Makes sense and mount them on the 8 x 8 and they can basically just about go anywhere.

 

[OldTex]

The graphic (from armyrecognition.com) shows the different munitions that will be acquired once a formal contract is signed. The DSCA approval is just an early step in the whole process. The number of systems would suggest that 2 batteries worth, plus training systems (SoArty and ALTC), are going being procured at least initially. It will be interesting to see if the M1104 FMTV is used as the mount for these systems (for commonality with US systems) or if they will be integrated MAN HX series vehicles (for commonality with the Army logistic fleet).

 

[Reptilia]

Surely the Rheinmetall trucks and maintained at redbank.

 

[OldTex]

Surely the Rheinmetall trucks and maintained at redbank.

The launcher on the M-124 is trainable and controlled from the armoured crew cab. This suggests that the launcher is integrated with the vehicle platform for power, hydraulics and communications. To achieve that with the MAN trucks would require the redesign of both the launcher and the truck, as well as all of the integration and recertification for the system. If the initial 20 HiMARS are to allow the Army to develop the TTPs for the use of long-range fires, then I would suggest that such integration work would only delay developing those TTPs.
In a similar vein why use a HX77, which is fitted with the EPLS ,for possible integration with the HiMARS launcher? The use of the HX58 or HX42 (6x6), while a new type for the Army, would be perhaps more suited to replace the FMTV of the M-124 than a HX77 (8x8) would be. There has even been the suggestion in ADBR in October 2021 that the HX40M could be used as an alternative for the FMTV in the M-124. So this option would be potentially better than HX58 or HX42 as it is already in use and supported.
Time will tell which way Army will go.

 

[ADMk2]

Great news and a good start, assuming we will be mounting them to our HX series ?

I suspect we will be buying as is. Yes it’s another vehicle to support, operate etc, but that cost may well be out-weighed by the integration cost to reinvent the wheel…