Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Abraham Gubler]

Well quoting my article from the July-August Asia-Pacific Defence Reporter:

Artillery that’s actually a radio

The US Department of Defense’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) notified US Congress of the possible FMS sale of M777A2 LWHs to Australia on July 17, 2008. The total value for up to 57 M777A2s including their integral radios and other supporting equipment and services is US$ 248 million. The M777A2 and the M777A1 are fundamentally different towed artillery system to all others including the original M777 and the current Army inventory of the M198 and Hamel 105mm guns. In a first for towed artillery systems the M777A1/A2 incorporates a radio, digital fire control system and electronic training and elevation controls. In effect and operation it is a complete stand-alone unit whereas legacy towed artillery systems require support from artillery surveyors, signallers and fire direction centres(FDC) to do anything other than direct fire.

Mounted above and below the M777A1/A2’s ordnance and recoil recuperators are the Top Cradle Electronics Assembly (TCEA) and the Under Cradle Electronics Assembly (UCEA). The TCEA racks the Communications/Location Enclosure (CLE) for a AN/VRC-91F Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio Systems (SINCGARS) radio with its power supply and amplifier and a Defense Advance GPS Receiver (DAGR) with its antenna. Also on the TCEA is a separate box for the Inertial Navigation Unit (INU). The UCEA holds the mission computer, battery and the Power Conditioning and Control Module (PCCM). Also mounted on the artillery system is a radio antenna, vehicle motion sensor (VMS) and displays for the gun layers (left and right of the breach) and a mobile display for the Gun No. 1 in charge of the detachment.

The M777A2 adds software improvements over the M777A1 allowing the artillery system to send limited variable message format (VMF) back into the battle management system – fires (BMS-F) updating its status. Objective software improvements will add full send/receive VMF capability able to update the gun detachments location and ammunition status, integrated muzzle velocimeter to improve accuracy and the ability of the gun to calculate all of its own fire missions. This would enable a M777A2 with the new software load to communicate directly with a forward observer or (more likely) the BMS-F without the need of an intervening FDC to provide fire mission calculations or manage its complete status. This will give the M777A2 a BMS-F(FCS) [BMS-F Fire Control System] en par with that planned for the SPH.

I think you'll find I'm a bit more clued into what's going on in Australian defence than some webpage.

 

[old faithful]

Thanks for the answers guys, im thinking along the lines of a conflict in difficult terrain like the north of Australia or close regions, where a rapid force is deployed in "wet" season conditions. We have 6 Chooks....i really hope the MRH90 is capable of deploying the M777A2. As an ex RAINF seco, I know I would be very worried operating with only 81mm indirect fire support. Also, long tan may have had a very different result with a danger close fire mission with 155,s rather than the less destructive 105,s.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Thanks for the answers guys, im thinking along the lines of a conflict in difficult terrain like the north of Australia or close regions, where a rapid force is deployed in "wet" season conditions. We have 6 Chooks....i really hope the MRH90 is capable of deploying the M777A2. As an ex RAINF seco, I know I would be very worried operating with only 81mm indirect fire support. Also, long tan may have had a very different result with a danger close fire mission with 155,s rather than the less destructive 105,s.

Worse than that is the current ops in the mountains of central Afghanistan. There the hot and high conditions are far worse than the top end during the wet. NH90 TTH cannot lift an M777A2 as its about 600-700kg to heavy for the helo. And that is without any ammo or crew.

Army is growing the Chook fleet to 12 and recaping as CH-47Fs. These helos are much more useful as gun tractors as they can carry some decent ammo, the gun crew and stores and a few quad bikes to move it all around when on the ground.

 

[old faithful]

never been to the ghan Abe, so i cant comment, but I live and work in darwin, and during the wet, a lot of the MSR,s are cut off, leaving air deployment of guns the ONLY way. Also, the mountains of PNG would be a worry.
On K92, I witnessed a couple of Leo,s bogged near Roper Bar, that was only in the build up, in November, before any serious rain.
The descision has been made by the sounds of it, and i do trust that the descison makers are pretty clued up and aware of what we have to deal with in our region. So it sounds to me that the M777A2 buy is being made with foreign shoars in mind first...as part of a co-alition, rather than the defence of Australia. Just my opinion, I reckon we could do with a light ATY unit.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Well the Hamel guns aren't going to disappear, nor is the tooling to produce M1 ammo at Benalla. The thing about defence of Australia and even PNG is there is no one preparing to attack them at the moment. And it would take a long time for someone to get their gear together to do so. This would give us plenty of lead time to recommission the field artillery (105mm) capability.

Also being an ex-Gunner I can say the capability the M777A2 brings to the table will really transform their deployability. While the gun is an extra 50% on the Hamel and the ammo is three times the weight because the actual gun is networked it will be incredibly easy to move, deploy and use. The M777 is a very nice gun with far less workload than the Hamel for the gun crew and once on the ground much easier to move around. Since the A2 doesn't need the rest of the battery to operate it will be incredibly flexible.

 

[Aussie Digger]

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.

As per Abe's comments, that seems to be the case.

Hopefully Army will acquire a 120mm mortar system relatively soon, which should "plug the gap" somewhat...

 

[Chino]

'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.

I have a theory only...

Take a car production line for example. After a certain order is met, they shut it down and retool for the next model.

Since the Austeyr is only produced mainly for ANZAC, I can't see them keeping that production line open for decades.

If a production line for something as complex as a car can shut down and retool, I'm sure the same can happen for the factory making Austeyr?

In Singapore, we similarly had a production line going for a while to produce licensed M16 for SAF in the 70's (?). But I'm sure after a decade or so they would've met the SAF bulk order for X number of rifles. And I think afterwards these production lines are converted to do something else like the SAR80, U100, SR88, SAR21 etc etc...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Hopefully Army will acquire a 120mm mortar system relatively soon, which should "plug the gap" somewhat...

Its no where in the DCP. The original project Land 12X (can't remember the exact number) was defunded to pay for Land 907 the M1A1 tank. The 81mm mortar capability is being transferred from the Infantry to Artillery so that may respark interest in a bigger system but Land 17 is the current priority. After that its Land 19-7 so don't expect another artillery system to be acquired into the 2020s.

A don't think there is going to be any real deployable artillery gap. With the expanded fleet of CH-47Fs concentrating on artillery and logistics movements (in out of Afghan ops) the M777A2 will have all the mobility it needs in amphibious and regional missions.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Its no where in the DCP. The original project Land 12X (can't remember the exact number) was defunded to pay for Land 907 the M1A1 tank. The 81mm mortar capability is being transferred from the Infantry to Artillery so that may respark interest in a bigger system but Land 17 is the current priority. After that its Land 19-7 so don't expect another artillery system to be acquired into the 2020s.

A don't think there is going to be any real deployable artillery gap. With the expanded fleet of CH-47Fs concentrating on artillery and logistics movements (in out of Afghan ops) the M777A2 will have all the mobility it needs in amphibious and regional missions.

There is no specific 120mm mortar project I agree, but there is : MINCS(L) AMP 48.36 - Army Mortar System Project, which is in the "seeking approvals" stage.

It isn't in the DCP, but that DCP is surely of limited value at the present moment, apart from Projects that are already contracted, with a new DCP being prepared for delivery after the White Paper?

As to the mortars to - artillery - are you saying Infantry Corps are giving up the Mortar platoon within the battalions, or are Artillery trained personnel going to be posted to Infantry Battalions?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Minors are projects under $20 million so they don't go into the DCP. MINCS(L) AMP 48.36 is the long range 81mm project you mentioned before. It remains to be seen if this will emerge as a 120mm mortar system but the money invovled, especially in ammo makes it pretty unlikely at this stage.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

As to the mortars to - artillery - are you saying Infantry Corps are giving up the Mortar platoon within the battalions, or are Artillery trained personnel going to be posted to Infantry Battalions?

Arty is going to take over the training of the mortar capability. The inf bn mortar pltns will still stay RAInf but they will go to School of Arty to learn how to be tube monkeys. But who knows what will be happening in the eternal war between the corps next week.

 

[the road runner]

Arty is going to take over the training of the mortar capability. The inf bn mortar pltns will still stay RAInf but they will go to School of Arty to learn how to be tube monkeys. But who knows what will be happening in the eternal war between the corps next week.

So we will still have a mortar capability with the ADF...but if they start to train the mortar crews on arty.....dose that not say between the lines,that the ADF will eventually go to 155mm and remove the mortar capability?

1. i truley believe a mortar type capibility is needed in the jungle terrain of asia,areas where you cannot even move because of so much jungle growth

2.im sure it is easier logistically to move a mortar and shells compared to a 105 or more so a 155mm howitzer,especially in jungle conditions.I am under the impression that a mortar and ammo can be moved and carried by soldiers in the field?right?

As to the removal of the 105 Hammel guns from service,after the SPH and
M777 are ordered i do agree that this logistically serves a purpose,but i also think that the more BIG BOYS TOYS you have the more flexibility you have.
I guess it all comes down to doctrine,capability and cost.Australia cannot afford all these different types of weapons and logistics required ie 105 mm hammels,SPH,155mm,81 and 120 mm mortars.

Is that why we chose the 155mm as we can use it in SPH and M777 and also have the capability of the M777 beieng underslung by a chanook chopper? pretty good capability,i think, with one shell type the 155 mm.:flame
Im sure the men and women in the ADF know what they want and need,as im just a punter.

Also is it true in saying that its not the size of a shell that is used but the fall of shot on target?ie 50 odd shells ranning down on a target at the same time,compared to 5 shells raning down every minute for 10 minutes?:splat

Abraham Gubler enjoy reading your articles in DT and Navy league,Avation australia(that is you right?) ect keep the articles comming.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

So we will still have a mortar capability with the ADF...but if they start to train the mortar crews on arty.....dose that not say between the lines,that the ADF will eventually go to 155mm and remove the mortar capability?

No there will still be a mortar and a gun artillery capability. Its just that the artillery will be responsible for training soldiers in the use of the mortars. The same way Transport Corps train everyone in the Army to drive. Its associated with the move of reserve units to mortars for training in place of guns and because the nature of mortar operation is becoming very similar to artillery guns thanks to digitisation (they used to be pretty different). So there will still be mortars and infantry battalion mortar platoons it will just mean they are all trained by the artillery.

Also is it true in saying that its not the size of a shell that is used but the fall of shot on target?ie 50 odd shells ranning down on a target at the same time,compared to 5 shells raning down every minute for 10 minutes?:splat

Close but its not about them landing at the same time. One of artillery's core missions is suppressing the enemy. Raining fire down on them so they stay under cover and not moving or shooting freely out our soldiers. So sustaining a steady rate of fire over TIME becomes very important.

So if you only have 4500 kg of shells that means you can have 100 155mm shells and if you drop one bomb every ten seconds on the enemy position to suppress them you can keep them suppressed for 17 minutes.

If you have the same weight of shells in 105mm you have 280 shells and at the same rate of fire can suppress the enemy for 47 minutes. That is a half hour difference.

Abraham Gubler enjoy reading your articles in DT and Navy league,Avation australia(that is you right?) ect keep the articles comming.

I write for Asia Pacific Defence Reporter and haven't worked for DefenceToday in 2 1/2 years. Yes there was a recent article in Navy on Sea 1000 by me but I've never written for Aviation Australia and never will, so you must have confused me with someone else with that one.

 

[riksavage]

The biggest driver moving forward will be calibre changes. If NATO and aligned countries stick with 5.56mm and 7.62mm as the primary calibre for infantry and section weapons then there is no need to replace the Steyr until 2020. However should NATO suddenly decide to adopt a new calibre (6.85mm for example), then the pressure will be on to change along with everyone else.

The feedback from the ongoing Afghanistan / Iraq campaigns will directly influence this decision - the old argument, hitting power / range (7.62mm) vs. quantity of ammo carried (5.56mm) still rages on today. The fact that the good old M14 is still used and the new FN SCAR can switch between calibres just adds to the argument.

 

[Chino]

The biggest driver moving forward will be calibre changes. If NATO and aligned countries stick with 5.56mm and 7.62mm as the primary calibre for infantry and section weapons then there is no need to replace the Steyr until 2020. However should NATO suddenly decide to adopt a new calibre (6.85mm for example), then the pressure will be on to change along with everyone else.

True, but rather, the fear that NATO may switch caliber may hold back any thoughts of fielding a new 5.56 rifle.

The feedback from the ongoing Afghanistan / Iraq campaigns will directly influence this decision - the old argument, hitting power / range (7.62mm) vs. quantity of ammo carried (5.56mm) still rages on today. The fact that the good old M14 is still used and the new FN SCAR can switch between calibres just adds to the argument.

I seriously doubt that such a debate exists.

 

[riksavage]

Chino - I guarantee weapons manufactures and government boffins will be studying in detail any feed-back from soldiers / medics et al reference stopping power, penetration (over / under), injuries sustained or handed out in combat in Iraq / Afghanistan. This research will be fed to anyone involved in the development of ammo, protective clothing, weapons systems etc. etc. Years back I got involved in similar exercise following the introduction of steel core 7.62mm-short Chinese ammo and its impact on body and vehicle armouring. You will always be looking to develop better ammunition as a result of real-time combat rather relying on stats produced whilst hunkering down in a sterile lab firing into blocks of gelatine!

More recently the debate over the purchasing of more 9mm sidearm's for the US military (92F) rather than upgrading to .40, .41 or .45 still rages on as a direct result of incidents in both Afghanistan / Iraq

 

[gf0012-aust]

Chino - I guarantee weapons manufactures and government boffins will be studying in detail any feed-back from soldiers / medics et al reference stopping power, penetration (over / under), injuries sustained or handed out in combat in Iraq / Afghanistan.

which is exactly whats happening...... ballistics and weapons scientists from Kinetic Weapons area are assessing these things as they come in.

(it effects weapons, armour, medical reaction times etc...) The co-alition partners also do the same.

 

[Chino]

Chino - I guarantee weapons manufactures and government boffins will be studying in detail any feed-back from soldiers / medics et al reference stopping power, penetration (over / under), injuries sustained or handed out in combat in Iraq / Afghanistan.

Well, we are talking about slightly different things.

I was talking about the likelihood of Australia fielding a new 5.56 rifle.

You say unlikely, and I agree and it could be because they are afraid that after they change to a new 5.56 rifle, NATO may decide to change calibres. Because as you say, NATO/US is already studying such a possibility.

When I next said that "I seriously doubt that such a debate exists." I was referring - again - to just Australia.

Being a medium/small sized military, I seriously doubt they would go off and explore their own calibre/ballisitcs requirements. I imagine they would go along, or at most, participate in a US or NATO initiative.

 

[Cadredave]

Well, we are talking about slightly different things.

I was talking about the likelihood of Australia fielding a new 5.56 rifle.

You say unlikely, and I agree and it could be because they are afraid that after they change to a new 5.56 rifle, NATO may decide to change calibres. Because as you say, NATO/US is already studying such a possibility.

When I next said that "I seriously doubt that such a debate exists." I was referring - again - to just Australia.

Being a medium/small sized military, I seriously doubt they would go off and explore their own calibre/ballisitcs requirements. I imagine they would go along, or at most, participate in a US or NATO initiative.

Just like Australia, NZ is not going to introduce a new small arm weapon into service in the next few years, Our combat school made a decision to introduce a upgrade program that would extend the lives of our steyrs for another 5-10 years, by then it will become much clearer what calibre Nato/US would of adopted or if something that is a quamtum leap ahead of the rest of the world has been introduced. The other reason we are not introducing a new weapon is that currently the NZ Army still has not reached the EOL (end of life) for our steyr we still have not shot our barrels out yet, not bad for something purchased in the late eightys.

 

[winnyfield]

Since the Austeyr is only produced mainly for ANZAC, I can't see them keeping that production line open for decades.

It's been done before with previous small arms (eg. Lee Enfield and FAL/SLR).