mattyem.
Please refer to my PM to you before posting any more replies.
Please refer to the Forum Rules http://defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php
You've been on here long enough now to know whats expected.
Thanks for the assist.
Please refer to my PM to you before posting any more replies.
Please refer to the Forum Rules http://defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php
You've been on here long enough now to know whats expected.
Thanks for the assist.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
If one looks at the ADF website, there are still ADF personnel deployed to Iraq/Gulf area and Afghanistan, Ops Catalyst and Slipper respectively. IIRC many of the existing Op Catalyst personnel are not actual ground/army troops, rather RAAF and RAN personnel attached to support or HQ units which operate in the Gulf area, though there is a roughly company sized security detachment. Total ADF personnel in the Iraq/Gulf area is ~980
Op Slipper, in the Ghan, has a larger ADF contingent of ~1080, with (naturally on a land-locked country) a much larger ground based element. There is ~330 SOF personnel, as well as ~440 training & reconstruction personnel. Most of the rest are personnel for supporting elements (rotary wing, artillery, HQ etc)
-Cheers
winnyfield
New Member
May have misheard the ALP's election policy (the Coalition policy wasn't too different either).
The Army presence in Iraq is now at pre-AMTG (2005) levels. Mainly a security detachment supporting Australian officials in the green zone.
ReAl PrOeLiTeZ
New Member
it kills it works. no point on replacing the steyr in personal opinion nothing wrong with the rifle. though i would change the trigger firing system, instead of firing system being on the trigger for 1/2 and full pull to determine fire selection. i would change the firing selection to a thumb selector. other than that no need to replace.
Regarding changing the trigger system: If they could've, they would've. IMO it's probably too much costs, too much fuss. And any new modifications can bring new problems.
But nothing lasts forever including assault rifles, and the current stock of Austeyrs WILL eventually wear out. And when that happens should ADF continue buying Austeyr or decide on a new weapon?
My money is on the latter.
As a weapon system (including all its logistics and maintenance tail) ages, it is sometimes cheaper to just buy a new system. And a new system brings with it all kinds of innovations that maintaining or upgrading a old system can not.
Even very large military do change rifles and even calibres. So there's no reason why a smaller but highly-professional force like the ADF will not. And retraining ADF troops to a new rifle will be a breeze compared to some large conscript army.
The Austeyr probably works as advertised but something better comes along all the time. So why stick with the Austeyr?
We ae always talking about the regular Australian Army. But what will this whole modernisation Programm will bring to the Reserve?
Will the Cash and time for actual training be increased?
Will those Reserve Infantry Units get the same Equipment (NVG,Vests,Weapons optics) like regular Units?
Which Vehicles will be brought to the Reserve Armored Units( Bushmasters?Other vehicles which are to be prourred?)
Will the Arty get rid of M2A2 Howitzers and instead given L119 or even M198?
Navor
Will the Cash and time for actual training be increased?
Will those Reserve Infantry Units get the same Equipment (NVG,Vests,Weapons optics) like regular Units?
Which Vehicles will be brought to the Reserve Armored Units( Bushmasters?Other vehicles which are to be prourred?)
Will the Arty get rid of M2A2 Howitzers and instead given L119 or even M198?
Navor
winnyfield
New Member
It's been mentioned on this board that Ares will get mortars (more opportunity to train) in place of howitzers. It's more the preservation of skills than equipment.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Army reserve troops, have indeed been equipped with the same uniforms, body armour, load bearing systems, night vision and aiming systems as their regular brethren.
The "high readiness" scheme has been implemented amongst the reserves, to provide a pool of higher trained and higher readiness (for deployment) troops within each Reserve Brigade. Reserve forces (within limits) can therefore train to lesser or greater degrees, depending on their own personal circumstances.
The reserve armoured units have lost their M113 capability (which was not a usable operational capability anyway) and these have been replaced in the short term with Landrover "RSV's" (recon/surveillance variants - conceptually similar to Special Forces Landrover variants).
In the longer term, these Reserve armoured units, will be re-equipped with a G-Wagen and in some cases, the light armoured vehicle capability to be acquired under LAND 121 - Project Overlander.
Australia has recently signed on as a partner in the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle program in the US, however are looking at other options such as the Eagle IV recon vehicles. Under LAND 121 over 1200 of these vehicles are to be purchased, so it seems likely that at least some of the reserve "armoured" units will receive them, or else a capability (say a squadron's worth etc).
The reserve artillery units are losing their artillery gun capability and replacing it with an 81mm mortar based capability. The reasons are cost and training benefits in relation to the complexity of the weapon system.
Army feels it's reserve artillery units are better employed training for the role of an artillery unit - providing offensive support, rather then spending most of it's limited time trying to keep it's personnel trained on a particularly complex weapon system.
The IET course for Artillery is only 4 weeks (IIRC) so conversion to an operational type could occur quickly if necessary. It is the procedures and learning to respond in a timely and effective fashion to calls for fire support that are important.
Less time training (and more to the point maintaining) a complex weapon, equates to more time spent enhancing individual skills and collective unit training activities. This theory is also part of the reason why the reserve armoured units, lost their M113 capability (besides the vehicles obsolescence).
The M2A2 and the L119 are to be withdrawn from service, though some might be kept for ceremonial duties (it might be hard to have a "gun race" with an 81mm mortar...)
A decision on the M198 155mm howitzers hasn't been made yet, AFAIK. LAND 17 (artillery replacement) hasn't yet been decided by Government, though I believe the Project has gone to the National Security Council for Second Pass Approval with Army/DMO's recommendations as to the final decision.
I suspect we won't hear of the decision until the White Paper is released however, unless an urgent operational requirement, forces Government's hand...
winnyfield
New Member
'cos a production line has already been established in Australia.
If a new rifle/production line (with the same calibre) were introduced, there's a fair chance that you'd be spending the first ~5yrs sorting out problems. Like the Lee-Enfield and Kalashnikov; just keep refining it 'til you can't no more.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Some argue that it has weakened the reserves combat capability, but then in my opinion, in reality, the reserve as a whole never offered a significant combat capability ANYWAY, because their skillsets were too low.
The Australian Army has different skill levels depending on the particular trade you are performing. Infantry for instance has 4 levels, with level 3 being the minimum needed for a regular soldier to be considered "competent" and level 4 needed for operational deployment.
Most reserve infantry could only be trained to level 2. Because of this, no matter WHAT capabilities the reserve operated, they were not (in general) sufficiently trained to perform an operational role. The strategy being based on "warning time" for any operational requirement for mobilisation of the reserve units. This warning time would give Army sufficient time to bring reserves up to the level 4 (or equivalent) needed for operations.
A significant factor in this situation is the fact that reserves units (besides infantry) were directed to employ reasonably complex systems. These systems (M113, artillery etc) required significant training time, simply to maintain, let alone train upon and "Army headsheds" decided that this time would be better spent on allowing the individual soldiers to actually train as soldiers, by replacing this equipment (which also happened to be mostly obsolete) with less complex equipment that whilst offering less combat capability, allows significantly more time to use the kit that they have.
The idea that reserve troops with their limited training opportunities (compared to regular soldiers) would be more inclined to stay as they are actually doing "something" rather than working on APC's or artillery pieces, is a motivating factor too. I have heard reports that some of the troops in reserve armoured units are actually finding the Landrover RSV's excellent to work with and are enjoying their training now more than previously. That can only be a good thing.
I agree with the idea on this basis, provided that the intention behind it, has actually transferred into greater individual and collective training opportunities for the reserves. If it has simply been a cost-cutting exercise, with no greater training now than previously, then I don't support the idea at all.
I don't think it's a matter of "strengthening or weakening" the reserve. It was a way of making the reserve somewhat useful, whilst still providing that basis for expansion if ever required.
Each Reserve brigade is also directed to maintain a "high readiness company" which can be deployed for civil protection duties / response duties within Australia.
These companies are small, only 100 - 120 persons or so, but provide an operational focus for each of the Reserve brigades, plus provide Army with a source of higher trained personnel that can "fill the gaps" in regular units for deployments.
This has occurred several times in Timor and the Soloman Islands already. I can see no reason why it couldn't happen in Afghanistan either, in years to come.
From this operational POV, the changes HAVE strengthened the reserves, by actually giving them a useful role, besides training for some future expansion, that has never happened and probably never will.
It's been interesting and educational reading your comments.
IMHO, the 81mm mortar is a "pea shooter" in artillery terms. Its limited operational range - 4 to 6 km means it will have limited use in a forward fire support mission (they will have to move and displace so frequently). For Singapore, even our organic artillery support for our heli-mobile units uses 120mm mortars now.
However, if you view the 81mm mortar as an artillery training tool - then its fine.
It takes about 2 to 4 weeks to convert the reserve artillery units to the 120mm mortar system.
I just want to check - does the Australian Army still use the 60mm mortar as a Company support weapon?
Last edited:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Nope, I don't ever recall Army using a 60mm mortar system.
Our current 81mm mortar has been upgraded with a new South African type of ammunition, charge system etc. It has demonstrated a maximum range of 7.5k's, which is pretty spectactular for an 81mm mortar...
Army was looking at replacing our current mortar capability with a new "long range mortar system" a while back, however that project was put on hold.
Army is back looking at an upgraded mortar capability, possibly even a 120mm based system, but we'll have to wait and see how the project develops...
AD...are you saying that the Aust Army will totally lose the 105mm guns?
I reckon we need to keep some...our region has plenty of places where the 155,s are not going to be deployable....at least not easily. the hamels can be slung under a chopper and put in place with crew and ammo very quickly, is the new 155 as flexible, i know the SP versions will be severly limited in some terrain.
I reckon we need to keep some...our region has plenty of places where the 155,s are not going to be deployable....at least not easily. the hamels can be slung under a chopper and put in place with crew and ammo very quickly, is the new 155 as flexible, i know the SP versions will be severly limited in some terrain.
The 105mm gun is heading histories way. By that I mean Benalla is going to stop making M1 ammunition so the guns we have will be good for only ceremonial and gate guardians.
The new M777A2 weighs in at about four tonnes or twice as much as a Hamel gun. We will acquire between 2 and 6 batteries of these guns depending on how many, if any SPH the Govt. want. The M777A2 can be airlifted by CH-47Ds. Since each gun has their own radio and GPS/INS locator built in you don't need a battery recce or comd post to follow the guns. So they can actually be deployed far easier than Hamels. It is also much easier to move around on the ground that a Hamel because it is balanaced on its wheels. You can tow one easily behind a quadbike.
Of course ammo wise you need more lift to sustain it, I tried to make that argument a few years ago but no one cared. This Army can only afford one class of artillery ammunition in the future and 155 it will be.
The new M777A2 weighs in at about four tonnes or twice as much as a Hamel gun. We will acquire between 2 and 6 batteries of these guns depending on how many, if any SPH the Govt. want. The M777A2 can be airlifted by CH-47Ds. Since each gun has their own radio and GPS/INS locator built in you don't need a battery recce or comd post to follow the guns. So they can actually be deployed far easier than Hamels. It is also much easier to move around on the ground that a Hamel because it is balanaced on its wheels. You can tow one easily behind a quadbike.
Of course ammo wise you need more lift to sustain it, I tried to make that argument a few years ago but no one cared. This Army can only afford one class of artillery ammunition in the future and 155 it will be.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I do not think that will be much of a problem. According to Army Technology, Australia made a FMS request in July for 57 M777 155mm/39 cal ultralight weight towed howitzers. From what I have come across, they weight ~1,240 kg more than the L119 105mm Hamel howitzers currently used by the Field Batteries. So they will be a little bit heavier, but still light enough to be slung beneath the Chinooks, and it should also be light enough to be carried by the MRH-90s as well. There might be some adjustments to be made in terms of gun crew and ammo deployment, but otherwise it would seem to have similar versatility to the L119, while potentially boost 'punch' and simplifying logistics.
-Cheers
Edit: D'Oh, was still typing mine in...
From the Army Technology, the M777 gun seems to have a weight of 3,175kg/7,000lbs. Searching for the weight of the L119, I came across a weight of ~4,270lbs, not quite half... Still essentially the same.
Last edited:
Yes, the 105mm gun is being replaced by 155mm/39 cal guns in a number of counties. Australia has chosen the M777A2 155mm/39 cal. (Oops! Sorry about the error - post amended - Abraham thanks for spotting the error in my post).
Singapore has developed its own 155mm/39 cal called the the Pegasus (with an APU), which is heavier than the M777A2. Even the Pegasus is heli-portable.
I've include a pix of a Chinook lifting a 155mm/39 cal for quick reference
Singapore has developed its own 155mm/39 cal called the the Pegasus (with an APU), which is heavier than the M777A2. Even the Pegasus is heli-portable.
I've include a pix of a Chinook lifting a 155mm/39 cal for quick reference
Last edited:
Australia has actually chosen the M777A2, its a very different system to the M777. The STK Pegasus was considered but because of its extra weight it was not judged able to be lifted with first line ammunition and guncrew by a CH-47D with add on armour in the hot and high conditions of the Afghani summer.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Could you explain what the difference is between the M777 and the M777A2?
Quoting the article on Army Technology...
And the howitzer had a listed weight of ~7,000lbs, per the article. Hence the curiousity as to the difference, or if the article just was not specific and whenever mentioning an M777, it could have been referring to any one of several different variants...
-Cheers