Australian Army Self Propelled Mortars
- Thread starter blade1313
- Start date
MARKMILES77
Active Member
The Australian Army plan to purchase 20 self-propelled mortars has been scrapped. Apparently they were keener to get Abrams than mortars.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Apparently Army isn't all that keen on mortars at ALL. Even the 81mm "long range mortar" project has been scrapped whilst Army "reviews it's requirements"...
Perhaps Army has something ELSE in mind instead of short ranged in-direct fire weapons, or just doesn't want to spend money on replacing it's current mortar capability?
Perhaps Army has something ELSE in mind instead of short ranged in-direct fire weapons, or just doesn't want to spend money on replacing it's current mortar capability?
AD,could you tell us what the something ELSE might be? I am struggling to think of what could replace such a valuable infantry support weopon....i understand that the tactics in the mid east in this current conflict,that mortars are not so effective, but down the track...who knows? as a seco,its nice to have that back up on hand...
Here's a nifty little article
http://www.defence.gov.au/ARMY/LWSC/Publications/journal/AAJ_Winter06/Green_Mortars.pdf
past and current ADF mortar history and doctrine.
It's hard to believe that Army aren't interested in mortars.
I was of the understanding that Army wasn't happy with the proposal for ONLY twenty odd 120mm vehicle mounted mortars and at the time were keener to let the funding slide in favour of the ugrading/replacing that the Leopard 1s so badly needed. This was at a time when defence $$ weren't as forthcoming.
Maybe there will be a decision on Land 135 made after Land 17 is decided. If the 105mm Hamels are retained in some way shape or form, I can't see the pollies springing for 120mm mortars. Because Army would have too much choice then
. But maybe if 155mm is made the sole arty calibre, then the pollies could be persuaded that Army needs SOME choice and an argument could be made for some 120mm mortars. But I can't see the option of more than the original twenty or so being made available if that were to happen.
But I'm just ruminating:
rb
http://www.defence.gov.au/ARMY/LWSC/Publications/journal/AAJ_Winter06/Green_Mortars.pdf
past and current ADF mortar history and doctrine.
It's hard to believe that Army aren't interested in mortars.
I was of the understanding that Army wasn't happy with the proposal for ONLY twenty odd 120mm vehicle mounted mortars and at the time were keener to let the funding slide in favour of the ugrading/replacing that the Leopard 1s so badly needed. This was at a time when defence $$ weren't as forthcoming.
Maybe there will be a decision on Land 135 made after Land 17 is decided. If the 105mm Hamels are retained in some way shape or form, I can't see the pollies springing for 120mm mortars. Because Army would have too much choice then
. But maybe if 155mm is made the sole arty calibre, then the pollies could be persuaded that Army needs SOME choice and an argument could be made for some 120mm mortars. But I can't see the option of more than the original twenty or so being made available if that were to happen.But I'm just ruminating
: rb
FutureTank
Banned Member
Possibly the issue has been relegated to the outcomes of the LAND400 project with will deliver a direct fire weapon support capability to the battalions. The intention may be to replace mortars with something akin to the Russian 2B9 Vasilek at which time the decision for the larger indirect fire weapon capability requirement will also be made.
Defence has tendered for new SPHs a few weeks ago. The RFT requires suppliers of SPHs to also tender for a TLS package, however they can be tendered as seperate contracts. KMW will no doubt tender the PZH2000 and perhaps in partnership with the Dutch govt offering some of their surplus equipments. BAE Australia will tender to provide PZH2000 TLS.Don't know about SPMs but they have just rejected Dutch new-build PzH 2000s for the Land 17 SPH Programme. Reason cited; 'absence of accurate in-service support costs'
Land 400 has a requirement for a mortar carrier but its not part of the phase 1 IFV buy to replace the ASLAVs and M113AS. The intention is very much for an indirect fire support system. However most potential offerings are turreted systems.
Land 400 is for 'Survivability of Ground Forces' and is very much an all inclusive project for everything from armoured vehicles to a combat system to even UAVs. One element of Land 400 has already been 'spun out' becoming Land 121 Phase 4 the armoured Recce & Surv. Vehicle (RSV).
Land 135 is dead and buried. As I posted above armoured mortars are part of Land 400 Phases 2 and onwards.Maybe there will be a decision on Land 135 made after Land 17 is decided. If the 105mm Hamels are retained in some way shape or form, I can't see the pollies springing for 120mm mortars. Because Army would have too much choice then
The Hamel guns will also be withdrawn from service after the Land 17 guns are introduced. They will all be 20 plus years old at this time and will not fit into the Army's new digital BMS-F without significant upgrade. Under Land 17 the Army will have as many as 100 digitial 155mm guns (<35 M77A2s, <35 SP155s, 35 enhanced M198s).
The long range mortar was just an Army Minors project and the assessment was very little enhancement for the dollars (ie not that long range at all). Infantry are hard at it upgrading the Carl Gustavs (tender out for new digitial FCS) and getting the new 40mm LWAGL. The 81s are still good tubes and very useful in current ops. Land 106 is to deliver about 20-30 M125AS3s for the mech infantry and the Bushmaster mortar carrier is being delivered for the light infantry both types in the Australian context very much like to be both mounted fires and dismounted fires.