Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Abraham Gubler]

My point is that whilst such a battlegroup, will be a reasonably capable medium weight force, it has to get ashore before it can begin to operate.

All that firepower is useless until it gets onto land and the existing NGS and Tigers aren't going to suffice if there is any sort of armed opposition to landing at all, let alone any sort of peer force.

Hence my point about the need for greater suppressive fire capability during the landings.

The necessity for offensive support and shaping fires is even greater than usual amphibious operations because of our doctrine. Which is amphibious manoeuvre or as the Americans call it sea basing.

We won’t be establishing beach heads and shore based logistics (so much for any forward airfields!) but rather deploying ashore combat teams who will motor around the battlefield doing their thing and periodically meeting up with deployed logistics for resupply who will then (the logistics) return to the amphib ships offshore. The intent is to reduce the exposed force ashore and maximise the combat power of the force as their will be no need to allocate forces to defend vulnerable logistics bases.

The problem of all this is in order to manoeuvre you need to stop the enemy manoeuvring. Otherwise they will fix you to a location and without resupply you will be attrited away. In order to stop the enemy manoeuvring you need artillery and air support (ie offensive support or joint fires or whatever the buzzword is next week). So in ADDITION to supressing enemy counter landing capabilities (which can be as little as a mortar team or two) we need to also be stoping their free manoeuvre on the battlefield just to be able to sustain our own force.

The best and easiest way to do this by far is a light carrier with a squadron of F-35Bs as part of the joint force but failing that we need to find alternatives. Which will mean lots of tanking for F-35As and boosting artillery and NGS capability and maybe even off the wall ideas like the Navy Leagues LHD based OV-10s.

 

[Waylander]

Well, I thought there is a new US 127mm in the making which offers similar performance to the new Oto-Melara (40rpm, 100km+ range, IR/GPS guided ammunition)

I know that the current guns used onthe ANZACs as well as the Mod.4s planned for the Hobarts don't offer the same capabilities but buying a bunch of Otos seems to be a sensible and relativel cheap option. After all on can use them on the follow on class to the ANZACs as well without having much fuss with integration.

But you are right with the statement that when one can't spare some ships for NGS at all one shouldn't talk about forced entries against anything better than a 3rd world rag tag militia.

 

[chargerRT]

i have just found out from one of my step daughters, that her great great grandfather was a VC recipient in WW1. funnily enough, my ex's great grand father also recieved a VC in WW1! they were Stanley Mcdougall, and Albert Jacka. just abit of trivia...


just informed from daughter that it wasnt actually her GGgrandfather afterall...just same surname.

 

[Navor86]

Australia Delays Buying F-35 Jets in Push for Surplus - Businessweek

SPH plan has been scrapped. I wonder whether and if so how many additional M777 will be bought?

 

[Volkodav]

Australia Delays Buying F-35 Jets in Push for Surplus - Businessweek

SPH plan has been scrapped. I wonder whether and if so how many additional M777 will be bought?

No far too war like, no more M777s.

Do not dispair however as the government will shorly anounce a tender for several battery operated Nerf Guns.

Actually sorry about the stupid comment its just such stupid short sightedness on the part of government illicits stupid, flippant comments from me.

 

[ADMk2]

No far too war like, no more M777s.

Do not dispair however as the government will shorly anounce a tender for several battery operated Nerf Guns.

Actually sorry about the stupid comment its just such stupid short sightedness on the part of government illicits stupid, flippant comments from me.

Well if you recall back in 2008, when we initially requested M777 through FMS, the request was for up to 57x guns.

I suspected strongly back then (as did many) that Army was already coming to the conclusion that it was far too retarded to be capable of selecting and acquiring a Self Propelled Gun system and that it should stick with it's Vietnam war era ways of creating fire support bases with towed guns in revetments in order to support our newly forming and rapidly moving "multi-role manoeuvre" brigades.

I mean it makes a tremendous amount of sense for a brigade's only serious indirect fire capability to be completely unable to manoeuvre along with it, when our Army's entire doctrine is manoeuvre based.

I'm sure the 7 Chinooks we have will be more than sufficient to adequately move the 12 guns (down from 18 currently) each of our 3 Brigades are supposed to have under Beersheba...

12x 3 = 36 however I believe and as we apparently need to have some guns at the School of Artillery and some at the Trade Training School - Bandiana for some crazy reason, it looks as if Army's brigades won't be getting the 12 guns they are supposed to have...

For some bizarre reason we didn't even buy enough M777A2 guns to equip our artillery "regiments" with the measly 36 guns they were meant to have under Beersheba, purchasing only the odd number of 35...

:unknown

 

[Marc 1]

Well if you recall back in 2008, when we initially requested M777 through FMS, the request was for up to 57x guns.

I suspected strongly back then (as did many) that Army was already coming to the conclusion that it was far too retarded to be capable of selecting and acquiring a Self Propelled Gun system and that it should stick with it's Vietnam war era ways of creating fire support bases with towed guns in revetments in order to support our newly forming and rapidly moving "multi-role manoeuvre" brigades.

I mean it makes a tremendous amount of sense for a brigade's only serious indirect fire capability to be completely unable to manoeuvre along with it, when our Army's entire doctrine is manoeuvre based.

I'm sure the 7 Chinooks we have will be more than sufficient to adequately move the 12 guns (down from 18 currently) each of our 3 Brigades are supposed to have under Beersheba...

12x 3 = 36 however I believe and as we apparently need to have some guns at the School of Artillery and some at the Trade Training School - Bandiana for some crazy reason, it looks as if Army's brigades won't be getting the 12 guns they are supposed to have...

For some bizarre reason we didn't even buy enough M777A2 guns to equip our artillery "regiments" with the measly 36 guns they were meant to have under Beersheba, purchasing only the odd number of 35...

:unknown

Ah, what you guys didn't notice was the internal push to re-instate the "fitted for but not with" policy of the '80's seeing as it was such an outstanding success last time

You see having a battery with some 'fitted for but not with guns' gives many benefits to the army and government as a whole. The fictional M-777 is much lighter than even the real lightweight M777, so this will decrease the number of health claims from gun numbers dragging around heavy equipment or ammunition. It adds to the government's green targets as the notional M777 can be towed by a landrover or even a quadbike or BMX bike - the savings in fuel and CO2 output are phenomenal. The 7 x Chinooks are in fact 20 - you have just neglected the other 13 fitted for but not with hardstandings we have....

It's a brilliant plan with winners all around - including our potential and actual enemies.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

For some bizarre reason we didn't even buy enough M777A2 guns to equip our artillery "regiments" with the measly 36 guns they were meant to have under Beersheba, purchasing only the odd number of 35...

:unknown

35 guns is the number you need to sustain 24 in combat units. Ie two regiments. The third regiment was to be SPGs.

 

[Tasman]

35 guns is the number you need to sustain 24 in combat units. Ie two regiments. The third regiment was to be SPGs.

And the third regiment will now be equipped with...?

Maybe it can be set up like our reserve units with mortars to train gunners for the real guns we will desperately try to fast track when an emergency arises...

Tas

 

[Tasman]

Ah, what you guys didn't notice was the internal push to re-instate the "fitted for but not with" policy of the '80's seeing as it was such an outstanding success last time

You see having a battery with some 'fitted for but not with guns' gives many benefits to the army and government as a whole. The fictional M-777 is much lighter than even the real lightweight M777, so this will decrease the number of health claims from gun numbers dragging around heavy equipment or ammunition. It adds to the government's green targets as the notional M777 can be towed by a landrover or even a quadbike or BMX bike - the savings in fuel and CO2 output are phenomenal. The 7 x Chinooks are in fact 20 - you have just neglected the other 13 fitted for but not with hardstandings we have....

It's a brilliant plan with winners all around - including our potential and actual enemies.

I hope the Minister doesn't have a spy who is a member of DT - it just might give him some more great ideas to 'improve' the 'efficiency' of the army. But remember Australia is drawing down its operational commitments so the army won't need as much equipment. Maybe the new White Paper will find that 2 rather than 3 regiments of artillery is now the 'ideal' number...

Tas

 

[Abraham Gubler]

And the third regiment will now be equipped with...?

The Army still has a requirement for SP 155mm guns. Just because LAND 17 Phase 1C has been killed off doesn’t make this go away. Hopefully they will come back and ask for 18 PIMs (M109A7) or plain vanilla Paladins (M109A6) and leave the TLS to open tender once in service (piggy back on the Abrams TLS). Cost a fraction and be in service 2-3 years from Government approval.

But in the meantime it’s not such a big deal. Artillery has a new structure which splits the guns from the close support battery and concentrates them into a three troop (four guns per troop) gun battery per regiment. We have enough M777 guns to equip two troops per regiment rather than three. If a regiment has enough personnel to man the third troop then there are enough M198 guns to equip another six troops (plus maintenance and training loadings).

Maybe it can be set up like our reserve units with mortars to train gunners for the real guns we will desperately try to fast track when an emergency arises...

There is no need for such hyperbole. The Army has 70 up to date 155mm guns, just half a lightweight and the other half mediumweight. We also have another 100 or so 105mm Hamel guns which can be wheeled out in time of emergency. The only reason we aren’t keeping the 105mm Hamel guns in the reserve units is to lower costs so as to keep bureaucrats employed on the Defence dollar. But it takes about one to two weeks at most to convert gun bunnies from 81mm mortars to 105mm guns so it’s hardly crisis management time.

 

[Tasman]

There is no need for such hyperbole. The Army has 70 up to date 155mm guns, just half a lightweight and the other half mediumweight. We also have another 100 or so 105mm Hamel guns which can be wheeled out in time of emergency. The only reason we aren’t keeping the 105mm Hamel guns in the reserve units is to lower costs so as to keep bureaucrats employed on the Defence dollar. But it takes about one to two weeks at most to convert gun bunnies from 81mm mortars to 105mm guns so it’s hardly crisis management time.

Thanks AG. That is good info to have. I hadn't realised that the Hamel guns are being maintained for emergencies although I have noticed that the Hobart based reserve unit does still deploy 105mm guns for ceremonial duties.


Tas

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Thanks AG. That is good info to have. I hadn't realised that the Hamel guns are being maintained for emergencies although I have noticed that the Hobart based reserve unit does still deploy 105mm guns for ceremonial duties.

For now... They may be sold off soon... But we've still goy 70 155mm guns and that's quite a bit of arty frontage.

 

[Tee_Centre_10]

The Army still has a requirement for SP 155mm guns. Just because LAND 17 Phase 1C has been killed off doesn’t make this go away. Hopefully they will come back and ask for 18 PIMs (M109A7) or plain vanilla Paladins (M109A6) and leave the TLS to open tender once in service (piggy back on the Abrams TLS). Cost a fraction and be in service 2-3 years from Government approval.

If this is what happens then it might be the best result.
They were painted into a corner, with neither the K9 nor the Pz2000 suitable but they were unable to back down and go with the M109 without a) pissing off KMW/Samsung and inviting lawsuits, b) giving other suppliers pause for thought, c) looking like incompetent fools for down-selecting to two final unsuitable options.

Now with L17Ph1C cancelled for budget reasons, they can start having quiet conversations with the US and an announcement made about a rapid acquisition of M109A6 SPGs 12 months from now (because of an urgent capability requirement as Beersheba takes form), crews can go off for training in the US and deliveries of the first 6 can take place 12 months later and completed a further 6 months later.
Two and half years from now the Army will have their Rgt of SPGs and everyone will have have forgotten about L17Ph1C. And it would still have happened quicker than a K9/Pz2000 purchase.

 

[ADMk2]

35 guns is the number you need to sustain 24 in combat units. Ie two regiments. The third regiment was to be SPGs.

That hardly conforms with Army's plan called Beersheba and doesn't seem to add up numbers-wise, given M777A2's have been issued to 8/12...

Who has now missed out? 7 Brigade or 3 Brigade?

As to the rest of the Corps, is 53 Independant Bty still on the books?

Is 4 Field equipping with 2 gun batteries to support 1,2 and 3 RAR? What's 1 Field doing?

What happened to A battery?

To put it mildly, Arty seems like a bit of a mess at present...

 

[Raven22]

To put it mildly, Arty seems like a bit of a mess at present...

Just because you don't know what's happening doesn't make it a mess.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

That hardly conforms with Army's plan called Beersheba and doesn't seem to add up numbers-wise, given M777A2's have been issued to 8/12...

Who has now missed out? 7 Brigade or 3 Brigade?

As to the rest of the Corps, is 53 Independant Bty still on the books?

Is 4 Field equipping with 2 gun batteries to support 1,2 and 3 RAR? What's 1 Field doing?

What happened to A battery?

To put it mildly, Arty seems like a bit of a mess at present...

It’s not really a mess because one needs to consider that 1 Fd Regt was an integrated unit so a long way from having the ARA staffing to support a full Beersheba style arty regt. Which is why A Fd Bty was to be relocated to Brisbane to bring them up to full strength. 53 Bty is just a nice name for the training capability at School of Arty and not an ORBAT unit.

As to which regiment has the new guns arty has always been very flexible in moving guns around the place. Because it takes a lot less time to convert a gun troop from gun x to gun y than it does other types of military units. For example when 105 Fd Bty converted from Hamel to M198 back in 2005 it only took them a week of barracks training and another few days in the field.

 

[ADMk2]

Just because you don't know what's happening doesn't make it a mess.

Half of Army's future artillery plan and more than half it's intended capability being canned on the basis of savings, units being without the guns they were meant to have under Army's future force structure plan that was approved only months ago and a new white paper to come before we see if it gets re-instated.

Nah you're right, doesn't seem like a mess at all...

I see 1 Rgt got it's M777A2 guns last year. 4 Rgt is next, except 8/12 was already given M777A2's.

So where are the extra's for 4 Regt coming from? That's what I was referring to as a mess. Are 8/12's going to be taken off them , given to 4 Regt and 8/12 re-equip with M198's or are additional M777A2's on the way?

Does anyone in Army even know yet?

 

[ADMk2]

It’s not really a mess because one needs to consider that 1 Fd Regt was an integrated unit so a long way from having the ARA staffing to support a full Beersheba style arty regt. Which is why A Fd Bty was to be relocated to Brisbane to bring them up to full strength. 53 Bty is just a nice name for the training capability at School of Arty and not an ORBAT unit.

As to which regiment has the new guns arty has always been very flexible in moving guns around the place. Because it takes a lot less time to convert a gun troop from gun x to gun y than it does other types of military units. For example when 105 Fd Bty converted from Hamel to M198 back in 2005 it only took them a week of barracks training and another few days in the field.

True, but unless the M198's are retained, Arty doesn't have enough guns to equip the 3 gun batteries it has created and RAA's frontage won't be 70 guns.

It will be 36...

http://www.army.gov.au/Who-we-are/D...ces-Command/1st-Brigade/8th-12th-Regiment-RAA

 

[Raven22]

The only difference from before the announcement that the SPGs were canned and now is that instead of planning for the SPGs coming in 5 years, the Army doesn't know when they are coming.

It's not like the Army has taken all the old guns and dropped in the ocean of Sydney heads. The Army will simply continue to use the M-198s or Hamel guns until a replacement of some description arrives. Whether that is simply more M-777s or through a new program for an SPG remains to be seen.

Stop being so alarmist. The world has not ended.