If you are prepared to take the gloves off, reverse slope is open to chemical warefare, even CS. My old company commander used to like reverse slope, now he,s a big player..LT Gen mark Evans.
thats the punchline......
He is having a somehwta fractious relationship with the press recently....
Reverse slopes provide no protection against Excalibur with dial an angle of fall.
The Australian fight in the valleys of Uruzgan is very different to the British in the river zone of Helmand. Especially for artillery. Also any deployment of Australia 105mm guns would hugely complicate ammunition supply. Artillery is not about guns its about shells. There is no supply of M1 105mm ammo in Afghanistan. So Australia would need to provide one or acquire large amounts of Abbott 105mm ammo from the UK. Plus of course the 105mm gun would not provide the required capability in the high valleys.
The Australian fight in the valleys of Uruzgan is very different to the British in the river zone of Helmand. Especially for artillery. Also any deployment of Australia 105mm guns would hugely complicate ammunition supply. Artillery is not about guns its about shells. There is no supply of M1 105mm ammo in Afghanistan. So Australia would need to provide one or acquire large amounts of Abbott 105mm ammo from the UK. Plus of course the 105mm gun would not provide the required capability in the high valleys.
except that not all work is happening in Oruzgan - esp wrt specials.
which gets back to my end para in 2057.
woftam logostically and tactically when we have other options that can be used and modified if necessary.
Last edited:
ah yes the press...He is a very good man, best I had as a coy comd. Guess you dont make Lt gen if youre a fool eh?thats the punchline......
He is having a somehwta fractious relationship with the press recently....
Maj Evens put us in reverse slope defence on ex diamond dollar, 1987. We were enemy to 3 bde and a Bn of Yanks. The yanks came down the slope, and in all reailty, our defensive position turned into a coy ambush. It would not have been pretty for the attacking force. We actually had puffer mines out front, and Ill never forget some yanks (who had never seen puffer mines) stop and look totally confused as little orange clouds "puffed" up to waist height!
On the downside of reverse slope. CS gas will linger in the low ground, forcing the defenders to don masks , or leave their defensive positions.
We used to carry cs grenades at section level, great for discouraging a follow up, during bug outs.
there's also the airburst option
some of the vendor claims about what they can do with guided munitions is a bit of tosh though....
I'd also be interested to "hear" what Raven22 says as the recent operational feedback is sometimes substantially different from the marketing claims
If Australia decides not to go with SPHs is there a chance that the government decides to procure HIMARS (or something comparable).
I am aware that the mission profile differs fundamentally but I always had the impression that the ability to lob a guided 227mm rocket onto enemy positions with a very good reaction time and relatively unhampered by weather conditions is very nice to have.
The Brits seem to like them in A-Stan and US reports from Iraq were also very positive.
The question is their utility in mountaineous regions. Does anybody know how they would do in such a theater?
I am aware that the mission profile differs fundamentally but I always had the impression that the ability to lob a guided 227mm rocket onto enemy positions with a very good reaction time and relatively unhampered by weather conditions is very nice to have.
The Brits seem to like them in A-Stan and US reports from Iraq were also very positive.
The question is their utility in mountaineous regions. Does anybody know how they would do in such a theater?
GMLRS doesn't really offer any response or time of flight advantages over 155mm. GMLRS does have longer range and a bigger payload (equivilant to 203mm shell) which has its moments. But for mountain ops ballistic path MLRS is a very shallow firing system at shorter ranges. 10-20km has an apogee of 2,000-6,000 feet. Because GMLRS has aerodynamic controls it could fire a tighter path though more than off axis firing this would stress the missile body.
But Australia is buying SP155s. GMLRS is so much more expensive its not a realistic alternative if one was even needed.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/Cost_Effectiveness_of_Precision_40-41.pdf
The point is that GMLRS is still capable of vertical or near vertical attacks at optimum ranges. The differences may be more marked between howitzers, towed guns and mortars with regards to flight path.
Nevertheless, 155m arty isn't generally intended as a precision fires weapon (though that's part of its capability with excalibur rounds). Himars bns are for the stated reasons as justified in the article. No reason why the Himars won't enter army service at some point in the future.
The cost analysis stating that the GMLRS is "much more expensive" is not borne out by this analysis (wrt to himars rather than M270s).
http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/Cost_Effectiveness_of_Precision_40-41.pdf
The point is that GMLRS is still capable of vertical or near vertical attacks at optimum ranges. The differences may be more marked between howitzers, towed guns and mortars with regards to flight path.
Nevertheless, 155m arty isn't generally intended as a precision fires weapon (though that's part of its capability with excalibur rounds). Himars bns are for the stated reasons as justified in the article. No reason why the Himars won't enter army service at some point in the future.
Compared to tube artillery, especially when one uses 39cal tubes, GMLRS provides a very good range. The Brits like it for providing precision fire support for a vast area.
As the Aussie area of operations is described as rather mountaineous I just wondered if the relatively low trajectory of GMLRS rockets would be a problem.
Operating a truck based HIMARS system should also be relatively to a heavy tracked SPH. Nevertheless Abraham is right in that a GMLRS is rather expensive (thanks for the interesting article).
As the Aussie area of operations is described as rather mountaineous I just wondered if the relatively low trajectory of GMLRS rockets would be a problem.
Operating a truck based HIMARS system should also be relatively to a heavy tracked SPH. Nevertheless Abraham is right in that a GMLRS is rather expensive (thanks for the interesting article).
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
During the LAND 17 industry briefings, there was a photo of HIMARS in the early days, showing some potential solutions that might meet our capability requirements, so someone in ADF must have actually considered it.
Unfortunately there was a big red circle around the HIMARS platform and a red line through it, with NO written in capital letters beneath it. A fairly clear message to industry to not even bother proposing that capability...
Australia won't see a HIMARS capability domestically any time soon. Period, no matter it's operational worth.
With respect to your comments about 155mm rounds not intended for precision guidance, that is reasonably true of un-guided rounds, but that statement is akin to arguing that fighter aircraft aren't intended for precision guided attacks because they CAN drop un-guided munitions...
Australia is buying AFATDS, Excalibur Block I and SMART155 sensor fuzed PGM's and GPS/INS guided 'Course Corrected' fuze systems (that attach to 'standard' rounds to increase accuracy) to operate with both our light 155 and SP Guns. Clearly the bulk of the LAND 17 purchase is aimed at precision fires, with the 'dumb' munitions obvioulsy availabke as well...
Cheers,
AD.
That article is not an attempt at total cost of ownership analysis, just cost of a particular type of target engagement. It doesn’t take into account cost of acquisition, cost of training, etc or engagement cost of providing anything other than point target destruction. If you start shooting four GMLRS rockets at $600,000 a fire mission to provide sustained suppressive fire frontages to protect your own infantry compared to six 155mm HE rounds at $3,000 a fire mission you may notice a difference in your bank account at the end of the day.
This paragraph does not make much sense. Can GMLRS provide a 10km range shot while clearing a crest of 6,000 feet? Since no one in Afghanistan is using artillery built in WWI there is no issue of firing angle. Weapons like the M777 are “gun howitzers” and capable of both low and high angle fire.
Conventional 155mm like all artillery is inherently precise. You can drop a first round fire with dumb 155mm shells onto a target with the same kind of CEP as an Excalibur out to 10-15km ranges using GPS/INS and laser rangefinders. Even without digital geo-location with pre-registered fire and an experienced forward observer you can achieve first round fires of similar precision in the first 1/3 or so of the range table. It is only at the long ranges possible by these guns that dispersion causes high CEPs.
HIMARS and MLRS it is descended from were designed for deep battle operations using rockets or missiles to attack the enemy deep; and to strike at counterfire, air defence, and high-payoff targets. GMLRS has just made it more efficient and reduced the UXO risk of the old M26 rocket. Should the Australian Army have a deep battle fires requirement? Yes. Does it? No.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
The best answer that can be given at present is 'maybe'...
There have been contradictory statements about this, but it seems likely that some may be retained.
The ADF's intention is to retain all 6x CH-47D+ Chooks in-service until all 7x CH-47F Chooks are delivered, so there will definitely be a period of time where we operate both fleets side by side.
I suspect this approach is to maximise our investment and usage of our current capability, whilst not diminishing the airlift capability available to ADF, whilst also giving ADF as much time as possible to convince Government to authorise an increase in Chinook capability (bearing in mind that we used to operate 12x CH-47C Chinooks...)
I guess we'll see what happens in due course...
Its Army Aviations stated requirement to have a force of 12 CH-47s in service. But the Government has only approved 7 Foxtrots to date. Though as AD says these will be side by side with 6 Deltas requiring an expansion in establishment so its not hard to do the math where that leads... Which BTW leads to 12 CH-47s and a full Chinook regiment.
winnyfield
New Member
Does 171st Av Sqn want their own Chinooks (maybe a sf version)?
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
To address some of the HIMARS/GMLRS vs M777/Excalibur issues highlighted.
- When one considers actual cost, Australia got 250 rounds for US$58m (US$232,000 each incl support, training etc) which I suspect the unit cost then was ~US$150k.
http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2008/Australia_08-51.pdf
I think overall full production cost comparison using public sourced info may be 2-3 times higher for the GMLRS. However, considering overall weapons coverage and round effectiveness, I think a good case can be made to state that the GMLRS is a cheaper weapon compared to the excalibur.
- I think what is equally important is the cost-effectiveness of force structure which is what is argued in the rusi.org article. The cost savings comes from lower manpower cost of a himars bn. Don't forget I don't think one can contend that the CEP vs blast effect ratio of a 20 lb warhead vs 200 lb warhead would be better. And as argued that if precision fires is going to be used at range, then the Himars has an accuracy advantage as range increases plus it can hit a target beyond what a 155mm can do. That means one needs less weapons for a bigger coverage area (rather than even SPH 155mm can cover).
Another example (which includes other arguments for the Himars) is as follows:
HIMARS ENGLISHLANGUAGE Ppt Presentation
- As to firing GMLRS at 10km, that's not what its designed for. There are other shorter ranged MLRS munitions. But the contention that it can't do high angle shots is what I am (as well as the article is) highlighting. At 50km, the Himars can hit at 67 deg. The Himars is not exactly a fixed elevation weapon.
Am not stating that it can hit all targets behind mountains but that's not to say it can't hit crest mountains. I think when one looks at the flight profile of a MLRS rocket, I don't think 6,000 ft is too high for a MLRS rocket to crest.
Mathematically, at 70km range and 45 deg elevation, assuming a standard flight profile where the max altitude is achieved at 50% of target range, that's mathematically several kms altitude. As to whether the flight profile for himars is a standard one, I don't think so but the altitude figure remains.
- With respect to Australia, having an SPH capability is already a capability jump compared to towed artillery. That's already way behind in introduction compared to other developed country's armies. When one looks at the intent of Land 17, I can understand why Himars is not considered. Like the USMC, the Himars is not intended as a complete towed arty replacement. The M777 is equally used by the USMC and the Himars does not change that. Its merely doctrine.
The issue has been discussed here so no point repeating.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/army-security-forces/mlrs-australia-736/
To address some of the HIMARS/GMLRS vs M777/Excalibur issues highlighted.
- When one considers actual cost, Australia got 250 rounds for US$58m (US$232,000 each incl support, training etc) which I suspect the unit cost then was ~US$150k.
http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2008/Australia_08-51.pdf
I think overall full production cost comparison using public sourced info may be 2-3 times higher for the GMLRS. However, considering overall weapons coverage and round effectiveness, I think a good case can be made to state that the GMLRS is a cheaper weapon compared to the excalibur.
- I think what is equally important is the cost-effectiveness of force structure which is what is argued in the rusi.org article. The cost savings comes from lower manpower cost of a himars bn. Don't forget I don't think one can contend that the CEP vs blast effect ratio of a 20 lb warhead vs 200 lb warhead would be better. And as argued that if precision fires is going to be used at range, then the Himars has an accuracy advantage as range increases plus it can hit a target beyond what a 155mm can do. That means one needs less weapons for a bigger coverage area (rather than even SPH 155mm can cover).
Another example (which includes other arguments for the Himars) is as follows:
HIMARS ENGLISHLANGUAGE Ppt Presentation
- As to firing GMLRS at 10km, that's not what its designed for. There are other shorter ranged MLRS munitions. But the contention that it can't do high angle shots is what I am (as well as the article is) highlighting. At 50km, the Himars can hit at 67 deg. The Himars is not exactly a fixed elevation weapon.
Am not stating that it can hit all targets behind mountains but that's not to say it can't hit crest mountains. I think when one looks at the flight profile of a MLRS rocket, I don't think 6,000 ft is too high for a MLRS rocket to crest.
Mathematically, at 70km range and 45 deg elevation, assuming a standard flight profile where the max altitude is achieved at 50% of target range, that's mathematically several kms altitude. As to whether the flight profile for himars is a standard one, I don't think so but the altitude figure remains.
- With respect to Australia, having an SPH capability is already a capability jump compared to towed artillery. That's already way behind in introduction compared to other developed country's armies. When one looks at the intent of Land 17, I can understand why Himars is not considered. Like the USMC, the Himars is not intended as a complete towed arty replacement. The M777 is equally used by the USMC and the Himars does not change that. Its merely doctrine.
The issue has been discussed here so no point repeating.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/army-security-forces/mlrs-australia-736/
Actually you have addressed very little. This is a classic case of armchair generalship feed by a healthy dose of ignorance of the nature and purpose of Joint Fires and the weapons under discussion.
Firstly there is more to cost of a system than just buying one type of ammunition. Excalibur is part of a 155mm artillery system and does not supplant other types. Also your cost benchmark assumes you have to fire a minimum number of Excalibur rounds to achieve a result. What about when one round is all that is needed? Not every target needs a 203mm artillery shell (GMLRS unitary equivalent).
But HIMARS/MLRS cannot shoot the greater majority of missions required of field artillery? So who is going to provide those missions?
Before I can forget this statement it needs to be understood. It doesn’t make sense. Are you trying to imply that the greater lethality of the GMLRS Unitary means it can be less accurate?
Again you are only providing a single HE effect on a point target. What about all the other missions required of artillery? Who is going to provide that when you replace SP155s with HIMARS. Also as range increases so does time of flight. It takes two minutes for a 155mm or MLRS rocket to reach a range of around 30km. GMLRS is going to take over five minutes to reach a range of 70km. I think most soldiers would prefer the established relationship of having an artillery battery within 10km of their position and providing a time of fight of under 30 seconds. This is far more than just a responsiveness issue but has a lot to do with safety and accuracy.
I don’t know where you found this fiction. GMLRS is actually better at short ranged shots than legacy MLRS rounds because it does not have to follow a ballistic path. Also with a unitary warhead it can be used at shorter ranges with actual warhead detonation unlike legacy MLRS rockets that need to be fire to at least 10km so as to provide enough impact velocity to trigger the submunition warheads.
MLRS rockets are actually fixed elevation for range weapons. You can not vary the rocket motor so the angle it is fired at determines the range it will land at. GMLRS changes this somewhat because it can control its flight but it can’t tip over too sharply because it will break the rocket in half.
Now as I mentioned above MLRS rockets have no problems with clearing crests nicely at long range because their apogee is very high. But at short and medium (with a close crest) it has real problems with clearing crests. MLRS was actually designed to have a low apogee so as to stay under the field of regard of Soviet counter battery radars.
You don’t understand what crest means. For a M26 MLRS to clear a 6,000 foot high crest said hill needs to be 5km away the rocket will not land at a range less than 25km.
It’s not doctrine it’s servicing targets.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Nice find and you're right. Army didn't want HIMARS/MLRS then and still doesn't want it today.
It has been perfectly clear for at least 6 years what Army's priorities are in relation to it's artillery capability. For the platforms, they want a highly protected tracked SPG and a lightweight towed howitzer. Both in 155mm NATO compliant calibres.
An artillery rocket system doesn't feature in Army's plans just as F-22 doesn't feature in RAAF's plans.
I see little point of continuing the discussion now, unless some info can be added showing a capability requirement in addition to current LAND 17 plans for Army or the development of a formal proposal to acquire such a capability, but going around in circles arguing about a capability that Army seems to have no plan on acquiring, seems like a bit of a waste of time to me...
ARS never had a shot, politically its one of those "run away, run away" platforms.
we're not interested in anything that tells the neighbours that we have a tactical battlefield rocket system to throw their way