Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[ThePuss]

Highly Highly unlikely. The M134 has not be mentioned at all in any capacity for the future. RAN use the 50 Cal for last resort against anti-air defence and surface contacts. The F89 is used for Force protection in harbour. The UK i believe use a M134 for close protection.
And at this stage no mention of a "mini-CIWS" for the Hobart Class, but there is a Phalanx CIWS Block 1B
Air Warfare Destroyer Alliance - News & media - Latest Air Warfare Destroyer Combat System Contracts

I know this is fftopic for this thread guys and I beg your forgiveness but as I understand it the AWDs will carry the 1B Phalanx which adds optics and a joystick to enable it to be used against swarming small craft/suicide boat, two 25mm Typhoons also ideal in this role, Two 50cal Mini Typhoons which are again good in that role and two crew served 50cals just to keep the Dibbies (BM's) happy. I think the F89 lacks the stopping power required and is more suited to hosing down the wharf with suppressive fire if the permitter is breached.

 

[icelord]

two crew served 50cals just to keep the Dibbies (BM's) happy. .

That'll do it for us...that and a WEO who was willing to give us ammo to play with.

 

[t68]

I have read a little bit about the PZH-2000 and K9 thunder, from what little bit of knowledge i have on SPH the spec’s seem to favour the PZH-2000 just in front.

I did notice that the K9 thunder also comes with it own organic re-supply capability witch to my mind brings the K9 into another class if purchased by the ADF.I could not find out how the PZH-2000 is re-suppled i believe it would be the old tried and tested method of ridged truck in the rear.
Would it be possible to use some of the old mothballed m113 that are still in storage and convert into something like the K9 resupply track or if Copperhead get’s the go ahead would it be feasible, but still having to dismount to reload.

I could not help but notice that the Dutch have criticised the PZH-2000 that the NBC system could not cope with the amount of dust coming in, and with the need to keep it in the shade unless firing witch tell me that it needs internal AC for the crew, considering how hot it gets in A-stan and northern Australia.
It also brought up a significant “cold gun “effect and having to use warmers does this mean having to warm up the barrel before firing?

On the topic of the Chinook Helicopter i read that Boeing states that the ideal number of aircraft is 18 obviously that could be direct replacement for the Caribou aircraft and the seven in service now become dedicated special force’s platform with longer range and in flight refuel probes and kit for the SAS and Commando Regiments. It’s a lot of money up front but i do not believe osprey is the answer due to cost and maintenance requirement when you can standardise on one platform.

http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/ch47d/docs/MH-47G_overview.pdf

 

[Aussie Digger]

I have read a little bit about the PZH-2000 and K9 thunder, from what little bit of knowledge i have on SPH the spec’s seem to favour the PZH-2000 just in front.

I did notice that the K9 thunder also comes with it own organic re-supply capability witch to my mind brings the K9 into another class if purchased by the ADF.I could not find out how the PZH-2000 is re-suppled i believe it would be the old tried and tested method of ridged truck in the rear.
Would it be possible to use some of the old mothballed m113 that are still in storage and convert into something like the K9 resupply track or if Copperhead get’s the go ahead would it be feasible, but still having to dismount to reload.

I could not help but notice that the Dutch have criticised the PZH-2000 that the NBC system could not cope with the amount of dust coming in, and with the need to keep it in the shade unless firing witch tell me that it needs internal AC for the crew, considering how hot it gets in A-stan and northern Australia.
It also brought up a significant “cold gun “effect and having to use warmers does this mean having to warm up the barrel before firing?

On the topic of the Chinook Helicopter i read that Boeing states that the ideal number of aircraft is 18 obviously that could be direct replacement for the Caribou aircraft and the seven in service now become dedicated special force’s platform with longer range and in flight refuel probes and kit for the SAS and Commando Regiments. It’s a lot of money up front but i do not believe osprey is the answer due to cost and maintenance requirement when you can standardise on one platform.

http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/ch47d/docs/MH-47G_overview.pdf

The K10 re-supply vehicle is NOT going to be acquired by Australia, if the K9 Thunder is chosen as our SPG solution.

 

[t68]

The K10 re-supply vehicle is NOT going to be acquired by Australia, if the K9 Thunder is chosen as our SPG solution.

Why's that, to expensive or not really need in oz situation?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Why's that, to expensive or not really need in oz situation?

ADF has no requirement for such a vehicle is the main issue.

Another is that it is yet another armoured vehicle capability that Army would need to operate and one which I don't imagine is all that much cheaper than the K9 itself, particularly in TLS.

For the cost of 6-8 K10's (in operational units of 3x per battery, supporting 2x guns each, plus training vehicles), we can probably almost equip another full battery of 155mm guns.

Or better yet, devote to something like a NLOS-LS capability, which will provide much more bang for buck than any number of K10's...

 

[OPSSG]

Why's that, to expensive or not really need in oz situation?

If I may add a minor point, I would think that the S. Koreans face a different threat matrix from Australia.

Remember, the S. Koreans face a target rich N. Korean armoured and artillery horde that threatens Seoul, their capital city. The S. Koreans need take sure that their armoured counter thrust into the rear echelon to break up a N. Korean armoured thrust is well supported by indirect fires.

 

[t68]

Thanks for the info AD on the K9.
I did not know about the NLOS-LS capability i had thought that stuff went out years ago like Stalin’s organ.
But it had me thinking about the capability from the quick search i have done.
Non-Line-of-Sight Launch System (NLOS-LS)

It could be used in most places on land and on ships, but the thought that went mind the most was on the back of an M113as4-ALV,cheap armoured platform with just about go anywhere capability.
It seems it could used anywhere from the back of a 6x6 Landover to multi systems deployed from a Mack truck if needed, air deployable ,no need about the blast effect from launch as it comes out the front of the canister.

 

[Waylander]

The PzH2000 is indeed loaded rather traditionally by hand. A truck brings the ammo palet to the ammunition point and unloads it there.
What is different to older SPHs is that the crew loads the rounds onto an automated carriage and the SPH automatically arranges the rounds so that every kind of ammo is available to the automatic loader at any time.

I am not surprised that the PzH2000 had problems with the dust in A-stan. The system was developed for the european theater and nearly every vehicle which is send to (be it a land or air vehicles) needs special treatment and possibly additional kit (sand filters, etc.) to cope with the conditions there.
I believe that adding a AC shouldn't be that much of a problem.

And heat isn't really that much of a problem.
The Italians and Greek operate the PzH2000 and they reported of no special problems due to the heat, which can get very severe, in the summer.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Thanks for the info AD on the K9.
I did not know about the NLOS-LS capability i had thought that stuff went out years ago like Stalin’s organ.
But it had me thinking about the capability from the quick search i have done.
Non-Line-of-Sight Launch System (NLOS-LS)

It could be used in most places on land and on ships, but the thought that went mind the most was on the back of an M113as4-ALV,cheap armoured platform with just about go anywhere capability.
It seems it could used anywhere from the back of a 6x6 Landover to multi systems deployed from a Mack truck if needed, air deployable ,no need about the blast effect from launch as it comes out the front of the canister.

I'd suggest something more like the Thales Copperhead ASCV for an NLOS tractor for Australia. Basic Bushmaster body and features with utility tray on the rear of the vehicle.

The crew get excellent protection and mobility, the vehicle is supportable as it is basically the same from a logistical POV as the Bushmaster IMV and it can carry the crew, NLOS launch system and a significant number of missile reloads (with a trailer fitted).

http://img.blog.yahoo.co.kr/ybi/1/24/56/shinecommerce/folder/294/img_294_19010_4?1214223791.jpg

On top of which, the NLOS-LS system has a significant chance of being selected by RAN for the OCV (following the USN's lead to include this weapon system on the LCS) so there will be significant ADF commonalities for such a weapon system.

Here is a future weapons article on the system. (The host is a bit of a tosser, but the capability is fine).

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cL46ifGQJE"]YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]

 

[Firn]

Where appropriate, air movement or air drop will occur. Overwhelmingly however, ground movement will be used, simply because there is insufficient tactical air transport available and it is much more efficient and cost effective to do it by gun tractor.

This goes ( mostly) also for the delivery of ammunition combined with the crew and all the stuff needed by them. In special cases supporting artillery pieces by air can be the only truly effective alternative, but it is of course some magnitudes more efficient to do so over land.


Firn

 

[Firn]

The PzH2000 is indeed loaded rather traditionally by hand. A truck brings the ammo palet to the ammunition point and unloads it there.
What is different to older SPHs is that the crew loads the rounds onto an automated carriage and the SPH automatically arranges the rounds so that every kind of ammo is available to the automatic loader at any time.

The K-9 working togheter with the K-10 ammunition carrier is certainly an innovative take aimed at the problem of how supporting an SP gun. Same carriage and the ability to reload the K-9 under armour with good speed. The manual approach may not be much slower, if at all, but has some pitfalls and maybe some unexpected advantages. As OPSSG already wrote, the Korean approach has certainly to do with the specific threat matrix. The K-10 could well be the vital link between the teeth and the tail in case of massive enemy artillery fire which will also aimed to a great deal at the infrastructure beside the population and the military.


Firn

 

[Firn]

I'd suggest something more like the Thales Copperhead ASCV for an NLOS tractor for Australia. Basic Bushmaster body and features with utility tray on the rear of the vehicle.

The crew get excellent protection and mobility, the vehicle is supportable as it is basically the same from a logistical POV as the Bushmaster IMV and it can carry the crew, NLOS launch system and a significant number of missile reloads (with a trailer fitted).

I like the concept to use the Bushmaster's body to carry and trail the IDF support, and have already wrote about it in this forum, albeight concerning the 120mm or 81mm mortar. Perhaps I will find it again. The NLOS design and concept is interesting, but I'm still not quite sure how it will work out. It might be a (very) good companion and supplement to the good old heavy mortar. Basically being at a lower level what the MLRS is to the 155mm.

What it truly brings to the table and at which cost it does so remains to be seen.


Firn

 

[riksavage]

NLOS looks good, but you will need a bloody good logistics chain to keep bringing in container after container of rounds. If you look at the comparable footprint and weight of a single container of NLOS vs a pallet of guided 155mm rounds; I strongly suspect you will get a damn sight more bang for buck with the latter. In an A-STAN type scenario it will be more cost effective to use 120/105 & 155mm fire power than a v-expensive NLOS round? Australia has to balance future likely threats against desired capability and take into consideration not just the spearpoint but all associated arms trying to keep it fed in a high intensity conflict.

 

[Firn]

NLOS looks good, but you will need a bloody good logistics chain to keep bringing in container after container of rounds. If you look at the comparable footprint and weight of a single container of NLOS vs a pallet of guided 155mm rounds; I strongly suspect you will get a damn sight more bang for buck with the latter. In an A-STAN type scenario it will be more cost effective to use 120/105 & 155mm fire power than a v-expensive NLOS round? Australia has to balance future likely threats against desired capability and take into consideration not just the spearpoint but all associated arms trying to keep it fed in a high intensity conflict.

I agree that systems like the NLOS and PAM could be a huge strain on the supply chain. All in all it seems to me that it might be a very good addition to one already pretty good fire support system, which already includes a sensible quantity of the usual supects like the 155mm and 120mm.


Firn

 

[Aussie Digger]

NLOS looks good, but you will need a bloody good logistics chain to keep bringing in container after container of rounds. If you look at the comparable footprint and weight of a single container of NLOS vs a pallet of guided 155mm rounds; I strongly suspect you will get a damn sight more bang for buck with the latter. In an A-STAN type scenario it will be more cost effective to use 120/105 & 155mm fire power than a v-expensive NLOS round? Australia has to balance future likely threats against desired capability and take into consideration not just the spearpoint but all associated arms trying to keep it fed in a high intensity conflict.

Compared to standard 120/155mm ammunition natures I agree. Precision munitions though always complicate logistical support.

I see NLOS as little different to Excalibur or other SMART munitions, in the Australian context. None of the munitions are going to be produced in Australia so either a large warstock of the munitions are maintained or a rapid access agreement to warstock elsewhere is arranged, if any of these systems are going to provide an actual "capability".

Once access to a significant warstock is arranged than it is simply a matter of shifting the munitions from warehouse to area of operations. The usual targeting requirements etc, don't change whether it is a PAM missile or an Excalibur 155mm guided artillery munition and any precision guided weapon system is delivered in a specialised container system. Excalibur rounds aren't delivered en masse on a pallet...

Packing the Army's guns & ammo - 2010-01-06 07:00:00 | Packaging Digest

I tend to think of NLOS in an Australian context as a very much "high value target" or "strike" weapon system. I don't envisage it being used much, if at all to support "troops in contact" in an Afghanistan type conflict, but rather higher-end warfighting scenarios or urgent targets of opportunity (a General inspecting troops at the frontline or similar).

Given the nature of the NLOS munitions, I'd suggest that the most likely roles for an NLOS system in an Afghanistan type conflict would be over-watch and counter-battery fire, for which these systems seem almost perfect. They don't strike me as having much utility (at the current time) as a high explosive suppressive weapon system, however it is foolish to design and equip your Army soley based on current operational experience...

I can easily envisage an NLOS system (or systems) being deployed in support of Special Forces or recon troops, rather than a traditional artillery gun detachment, even one equipped with precision guided munitions. The ability to bring a PAM missile down on a target chosen by a specwarops unit, seems rather like a land-based version of the capability provided by Predator/Reaper UAV's to me.

I expect future iterations of the NLOS will feature extended range, to make them genuine "operational level" strike weapon systems too. Not that 60k's is all that shabby now...

 

[Firn]

I tend to think of NLOS in an Australian context as a very much "high value target" or "strike" weapon system. I don't envisage it being used much, if at all to support "troops in contact" in an Afghanistan type conflict, but rather higher-end warfighting scenarios or urgent targets of opportunity (a General inspecting troops at the frontline or similar).

Given the nature of the NLOS munitions, I'd suggest that the most likely roles for an NLOS system in an Afghanistan type conflict would be over-watch and counter-battery fire, for which these systems seem almost perfect. They don't strike me as having much utility (at the current time) as a high explosive suppressive weapon system, however it is foolish to design and equip your Army soley based on current operational experience...

I can easily envisage an NLOS system (or systems) being deployed in support of Special Forces or recon troops, rather than a traditional artillery gun detachment, even one equipped with precision guided munitions. The ability to bring a PAM missile down on a target chosen by a specwarops unit, seems rather like a land-based version of the capability provided by Predator/Reaper UAV's to me.

I expect future iterations of the NLOS will feature extended range, to make them genuine "operational level" strike weapon systems too. Not that 60k's is all that shabby now...

It seems that we agree about the value it could bring and the roles it could cover. It might become a compact "MLRS" performing at considerable ranges partly the function of the larger guided cousins and just like it the de facto standard in the West.

Light enough to pack it on a "shoot-and-scoot" carriage like the Bushmaster, rather easily moved into decentralized locations for later use, with a long range, guidance, a potentially masking flight path and a "man-in-a-loop" it could be an superb counter battery system for light forces. Special forces might indeed profit from a 24/7 surgical strike capability.

Such a peculiar weapon system will have to be integretated in fitting form into various structures to get the most out of it.


Firn

 

[Aussie Digger]

Some interesting new photos have been released by ADF in relation to current replacement/addition equipment projects.

First, the first unclassified photo of the new "Nary" SASR long range patrol vehicle (Supacat based).

http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/faulkner/gallery/20100122/20100121adf8262658_112.jpg

And second, the new mine roller attachment designed for the Bushmaster IMV.

http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/faulkner/gallery/20100122/20100121adf8262658_091.jpg

 

[stoker]

I am interested to find out if the NLOS is mooted to be fitted on to any of our naval units?

The USN apparently is going to carry them on their LCS units.

I don't know if they could be carried in any useful numbers on the Anzacs, buyt our new Hobarts should have adequate room.

The NLOS firing off one of our destroyers/frigates would provide a highly accurate long distance strike capability, to complement the 127mm in fire support for our diggers ashore.

I imagine they could also be carried on our new LHD's. The 15 cell units could be carried on a Bushranger, which would provide the mobility from the hangar decks to the flight deck via the aircraft lift. Naturally the Bushranger/NLOS would be primary for use ashore as part of the firepower for the Army.

Navy helicopters would be more then capable of providing logistical replentishments capabilities.

 

[StingrayOZ]

NLOS will most likely be selected for the OCV. However it may also be concidered for the LHD, there may be space at the rear to permanently mount a unit there.

The OCV may be armed only with a 25mm gun so it needs as much help as possible.

I can't see the frigates or AWD getting them. The AWD is covered in much better stuff and the frigates don't need them either.

Army will most likely be interested in the NLOS. Highly flexable and perfect for the bushmaster varients.

The bushmaster IMV looks interesting.