Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[the road runner]

Relying on LAV's to provide overwatch is limited. A relatively small calibre direct fire weapon can only aim at what it can see and can't fire smoke over extended ranges. The troops on the ground needed indirect fire support from 81mm mortars and/or 105mm's, which can lob fire infront, on (smoke) or behind the troops under fire.

I agree

Australia already has gunners attached to UK 105mm batteries, why not simply redeploy these assets to fire Aussie 105mm's from the FOB's where the patrols are based? You then have a 12km+ perimeter wide field of protection on call 24-7 - cheap and almost instantaneous once the FOO has radioed in his fire control order, plus you have HE, smoke and illumination at your disposal.

They Aussies attached to the UK batteries use UK 105mm.
I think the Aussie 105mm guns have different barrels compared to the UK.Im under the impression they are only training barrels and cannot be used in combat???

Do the Aussies have any LAV's fitted with mortors and not bushmaster turrets?

We did have a mortar project for the Lavs but it was cancelled around 2002 ,hope some senior members can elaborate more

Regards

 

[riksavage]

I agree



They Aussies attached to the UK batteries use UK 105mm.
I think the Aussie 105mm guns have different barrels compared to the UK.Im under the impression they are only training barrels and cannot be used in combat???



We did have a mortar project for the Lavs but it was cancelled around 2002 ,hope some senior members can elaborate more

Regards

The British use the L118 light gun, the Aussies use the L119 (export model), which has a different barrel for firing the widely used US M1 type ammunition. Other than barrel differences the UK L118 guns have replaced their optical sights with the LINAPS Artillery Pointing System (APS), which uses a self-contained system to determine azimuth, elevation angle and trunnion tilt angle. It also includes facilities for navigation and self-survey using Global Positioning System, inertial direction measurement and distance measurement - apparently a very quick tool for accurately gauging the correct fire coordinates.

The advantage of Aussie L119's mean they can leverage off US ammo supplies.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Do the Aussies have any LAV's fitted with mortors and not bushmaster turrets?

I worked at JRA during the Bushmaster definition project. During that time we had some LAVs in the shop for evaluation.

1 was a mortar truck, the other was fitted with a MIM72 chaparral (turret mounted SAM based on the sidewinder)

both were rejected for ADF

 

[Aussie Digger]

Relying on LAV's to provide overwatch is limited. A relatively small calibre direct fire weapon can only aim at what it can see and can't fire smoke over extended ranges. The troops on the ground needed indirect fire support from 81mm mortars and/or 105mm's, which can lob fire infront, on (smoke) or behind the troops under fire.

Australia already has gunners attached to UK 105mm batteries, why not simply redeploy these assets to fire Aussie 105mm's from the FOB's where the patrols are based? You then have a 12km+ perimeter wide field of protection on call 24-7 - cheap and almost instantaneous once the FOO has radioed in his fire control order, plus you have HE, smoke and illumination at your disposal.

Do the Aussies have any LAV's fitted with mortars and not bushmaster turrets?

Because the Australian Government has made a decision that the current force is all we will deploy, but now we are actually undertaking conventional combat operations, the force is inadequate, but the Government won't budge and until they do, the ADF brass won't stick up for their Digs.

It's actually sickening. The chief of the Australian Army sent an order around the internal defence email system ordering people not to call the Army brass 'yes men' but then they carry on like this... The ONLY reason why ADF doesn't have adequate fire support available is cost. It would cost more to deploy an artillery battery or a fighter detachment or a Tiger ARH unit or ALL of these, equipped and trained to a modern standard, just like our allies have done. We relied on the Dutch to bear this cost for us and then cast snide comments at them for deciding enough was enough and leaving and now we are expecting the Americans to provide these capabilities for us too. ADF accepts that our AoR is too dangerous to operate in without adequate fire support, hence the arrangements with the Americans, but we then go and expect them to provide it for us, when we are perfectly capable of doing so, we just choose not to...

So we make do with a limited deployment, suck all the political mileage out of it we can and if it looks like actually getting a bit tough, watch how quickly our 'brave' political leaders declare 'mission accomplished' no matter the state we leave the Country in behind us, and pull out.

It's a fergin disgrace. If the job is important enough to be there, with our Digs fighting and dying, then we should BE there, self-reliant, just like our alleged Defence policy says we are and conducting our own operations, with limited to no capabilities needed from anyone else, yet operating as a full member within the overall ISAF framework. If it's not important enough to justify deploying the capabilities we need to fully protect our own digs from within our own resources, then why the hell are we actually there?

To fight terrorism? When was the last time the Taliban launched a terrorist attack against the West? AQ sure, but Australia isn't conducting operations against AQ, so why are we doing what we ARE doing?

I cannot understand it and I see a bit more than open sourced information on it...

 

[Aussie Digger]

I worked at JRA during the Bushmaster definition project. During that time we had some LAVs in the shop for evaluation.

1 was a mortar truck, the other was fitted with a MIM72 chaparral (turret mounted SAM based on the sidewinder)

both were rejected for ADF

ASLAV's with 120mm mortars went out the window when we saw what it actually took to fight in an environment littered with IED's, RPG's and large calibre weapons, even if only mounted on 'technicals'...

This coupled with the eventual realisation by some senior leaders, who actually experienced some operations, that no matter how much they might want it to be, the battlespace ISN'T 'clean and precise'.

So we got M1A1's instead....

 

[hairyman]

Is there a need in the Australian Defence Force for a light tank or similar, something more heavily armed than anything we have at present except for the Abrams? Something more manouvreable and lighter than the Abrams so it is easier to transport etc.? The Swedish CV90 comes to mind for a start.

 

[RubiconNZ]

Is there a need in the Australian Defence Force for a light tank or similar, something more heavily armed than anything we have at present except for the Abrams? Something more manouvreable and lighter than the Abrams so it is easier to transport etc.? The Swedish CV90 comes to mind for a start.

From what I have seen need yes desire no certainly in the current political environment an additional vehicle that would be quickly labeled a Tank, thus putting doubt on the purchase of the M1 A1s would not be feasible. IMO it would be fantastic to see a ANZAC Light Armored Regiment, the NZDF is in need of a small number of these light tanks lost when they retired the 25 odd Scorpions, and the ADF would surely benefit from having this additional Tracked Vehicle, that could go a lot of places without the need for deploying the "heavies."

 

[riksavage]

From what I have seen need yes desire no certainly in the current political environment an additional vehicle that would be quickly labeled a Tank, thus putting doubt on the purchase of the M1 A1s would not be feasible. IMO it would be fantastic to see a ANZAC Light Armored Regiment, the NZDF is in need of a small number of these light tanks lost when they retired the 25 odd Scorpions, and the ADF would surely benefit from having this additional Tracked Vehicle, that could go a lot of places without the need for deploying the "heavies."

A lot of lessons are being drawn from Afghanistan, one of the more critical ones IMHO is the need for a deployable medium weight direct/indirect fire weapon, fitted with TRACKS. The old CVRT has proved indispensable for the Brit's operating independently or in conjunction with Danish Leopards. I reckon behind the scenes a few old sweats are bemoaning the demise of the Scorpion with its 75mm main-gun capable of firing HE. Every-time a Javelin is fired it costs 50K, you could fire 100 odd rounds of 75mm HE down range before you reached that figure. The enemy is low-tech, so why not invest in a low-tech solution?

As Aus continues to evolve its amphibious doctrine I would love to see the country invest in a AFV, which can wade/swim ashore (Viking/Bronco style) and be fitted with a variety of turrets, including 105mm direct fire, 120mm in-direct mortar, C&C, ambulance, recce and APC etc. With the introduction of rubber tracked systems the old argument in favour of wheeled AFV'S (LAV's for example) becomes largely redundant.

I'm still hoping FRES SV will not be cancelled in a UK context, a replacement CVRT is so much more of a priority than the Warrior upgrade programme. Having a light armoured tracked platform with a variety of turret offerings is to me a better multi-tool than having heavy armour supported by APC's (upgraded M113/432's for example).

When you look at the Aussie gunners attached to the UK batteries in Afghanistan (we are seeing a third rotation now), they were sent to give the guys operational experience during a time when the government wanted to restrict offensive operations to largely SF units. It was a way for the head of the artillery to sneak his troops in under the radar. The circumstances have now changed, these guys should be operating Aussie 105mm's in support of Aussie operations. The UK practice is to position a single 105mm inside each FOB alongside the resident 81mm mortar teams, Aus should be doing the same, the cost would be pretty insignificant and could still involve joint pre-deployment training with their UK counterparts.

 

[uuname]

Dr Goennemann said he was also pleased to report that work on a strengthened floor being developed for the Australian MRHs was progressing smoothly and on track for serialised production in 2011.
The new floor, which was not part of the original Defence specification, also provides additional equipment tie-down points. It will be incorporated in the yet-to-be assembled PBL 03 MRHs and, later, retrofitted to the PBL 01 and PBL 02 aircraft.

http://www.ausaero.com.au/Media_Centre/MRH90_Helicopters_on_Track/

“MRH Number 11 (which suffered engine failure) and the MRH fleet is flying again after the engine manufacturer Rolls Royce and Turbomeca working with the ADF identified the root cause (of the engine problem) and the delivery, testing and training program of the MRH-90 has resumed,” the Australian Aerospace chief said.

He confirmed a new heavy-duty aluminium floor was also being fitted to Australian models after complaints the existing decking was too weak.

More new MRH choppers on the way for Australian Defence Force | The Australian

It seems that the MRH issues are slowly being resolved, even if the new floor ruins the "all-composite" claims.

It makes me wonder about the cost, though- I thought Australian Aerospace was just supposed to assemble the things, not develop them.

 

[hairyman]

Tony Abbott wants us to send 6 tanks, more mortars/artillery, and some Euro Tigers to Afghanistan. I myself believe we should do something along these lines to replace what the Dutch took with them, instead of relying on the Americans. But if we did, would we need more Abrams than the 59 we have, and more Tigers or anything else?

 

[Marc 1]

Tony Abbott wants us to send 6 tanks, more mortars/artillery, and some Euro Tigers to Afghanistan. I myself believe we should do something along these lines to replace what the Dutch took with them, instead of relying on the Americans. But if we did, would we need more Abrams than the 59 we have, and more Tigers or anything else?

No. Why do you ask?

Biggest issues I believe are in relation to the Tigers, I don't think they have been declared fully operational at this pont.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The British use the L118 light gun, the Aussies use the L119 (export model), which has a different barrel for firing the widely used US M1 type ammunition.

All of the Australian built Hamel 105mm guns were built with two sets of ordnance: both L119 firing US M1 ammunition and L118 firing British Abbott ammunition. The Hamel gun could be converted from one ordnance to the other by the Field Regiment without resort to a high level depot. The plan behind this dual acquisition was that in peacetime artillery would train with the cheaper M1 ammunition and then use the longer range Abbott ammunition in wartime. Of course this plan was ridiculously expensive and the Government never acquired sufficient stocks or domestic production capability of Abbott ammunition. Initially when the Hamel was introduced (and I was serving in a battery that converted from L5 to Hamel guns) all the gun bunnies were trained on both types of guns with some limited firing of Abbott ammunition. When Abbott stocks ran out the practise was discontinued but the Field Regiments had to maintain their stocks of L118 ordnances.

So it is subsequently no big drama for the RRAA to provide L118 trained gunners to the British Army for ops. Now none of this has much to do with supplying an all Aussie fires capability to our force at Tarin Kwot. We could easily do so using far more capable M198 155mm guns and then replace them with the new M777A2s/SP155 when they are available. Our operational area is a lot hillier than the British so the extra high angle reach of the M198 would more than compensate for their lower level of mobility.

I worked at JRA during the Bushmaster definition project. During that time we had some LAVs in the shop for evaluation.

1 was a mortar truck, the other was fitted with a MIM72 chaparral (turret mounted SAM based on the sidewinder)

A LAV with the Royal Ordnance turreted 120mm mortar was trailed in the Op Phoenix A21 experimentation in 98. It was painted in pseudo AusCam colours so sort of looked like an ASLAV ". There was a project to acquire a lot of these for the armd cav regts but the money was used for the Abrams buy.

The Army does have a self propelled armoured mortar capability with the M125A1 81mm mortar carrier (M113A1 hull). These have been withdrawn pending delivery of the M113AS4 version of mortar carrier. M113AS4 would be ideal for service in the Tarin Kwot area.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Biggest issues I believe are in relation to the Tigers, I don't think they have been declared fully operational at this pont.

They've failed a critical certification process. they won't be going anywhere soon.

 

[ddub321]

Are you able to shed any light GF on the Tigers? It was my understanding that the French have Tigers operational in Afghanistan, are ours that different to the French that we are having issues they haven't?

 

[knightrider4]

Defence Budget under pressure.

Are you able to shed any light GF on the Tigers? It was my understanding that the French have Tigers operational in Afghanistan, are ours that different to the French that we are having issues they haven't?

Certification of the Tiger is the least of our concerns. Article in the Australian today stating that the Finance Department want to demolish the commitment for 3 percent funding of defence. With the Greens in the picture things are looking very dicey.

 

[ddub321]

^ do you have a link? I couldn't seem to find the article. As far as I thought the 3% real increase was in the white paper (averaged 3% to 2018).

I certainly hope not, if there were moves to abolish this commitment I'd hope there would be significant noise from the Liberals. In a parliament as fragile as ours I don't see how such a controversial policy would make it through, considering increased defence spending has enjoyed bi-partisan and general public support for more than a decade...

Maybe a deal could be done with Bob Brown, ie; "we'll give you gay marriage if you keep your nose out of defence" lol

 

[the road runner]

They've failed a critical certification process. they won't be going anywhere soon.

I can understand that the Tiger is a very complicated aircraft ,but after the Sea Sprite fiasco and the problem with MRH 90 floors i am starting to think that we are being taken for a ride by Eurocopter and other big Multi national corporations.

gf- can you give details on what process they failed?if not, understandable.......

I read that Tiger was chosen as it could make its IOC in 2005-06......2010 and still no ARH for the Army.In hind site maybe we would have been better choosing the Apache and gone down a path similar to the UK who have marinised there Aircraft????...IDK

Would the Government cancel the ARH contract like they did the sea sprites?

Seems like the biggest and longest battle the Army has ever faced is trying to chooses then receive a ARH into service .......


Regards

 

[gf0012-aust]

gf- can you give details on what process they failed?if not, understandable.......

nope

I read that Tiger was chosen as it could make its IOC in 2005-06......2010 and still no ARH for the Army.In hind site maybe we would have been better choosing the Apache and gone down a path similar to the UK who have marinised there Aircraft????...IDK

IMO, as a turnkey solution, the Apache would have been a much safer and more capable choice

Would the Government cancel the ARH contract like they did the sea sprites?

nope, too far gone. we already have platforms and too much at stake

Seems like the biggest and longest battle the Army has ever faced is trying to chooses then receive a ARH into service .......

there's a lesson in there for the way that this platform was selected

 

[aussienscale]

One critical factor as to why the Apache was not chosen though GF !
It would have been the rght decision ! ?

 

[Aussie Digger]

nope

IMO, as a turnkey solution, the Apache would have been a much safe and more capable choice

But much harder for Army to sell as a "recon" helo though...

there's a lesson in there for the way that this platform was selected

Yeah. Don't believe a manufacturers lies about development programs, nor the manufacturer's stated "expected" support costs (which are of course theoretical, rather than based on solid data obtained from in-service usage, due to the developmental nature of the platform and all of it's technologies.)

And finally don't look a gift horse in the mouth. We were offered a package of 40x refurbished AH-1W Super Cobra's, plus a support and infrastructure package for $150m in the early 90's...

That would have been a MUCH better expenditure of precious defence funding than that bloody useless F-111G acquisition and would have been extremely useful in Timor in 1999, as opposed to the F-111, which provided absolutely NIL operational value whatsoever.

Strategic value is extremely arguable (especially given the widespread belief that no-one in Canberra would actually have the ticker to deploy the things anyway), but the troops on the ground, would have MUCH preferred Super Cobra's performing the light recon role overhead, than Kiowa's and Blackhawks with digs in the back of them carrying sniper rifles and M79 grenade launchers...