Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Bluey 006]

A NEMO-like mortar on a Land400 vehicle would be of tremendous use to the ACR, but wouldn't be very helpful for the ARE. Unfortunately, with low risk MOTS being the order of the day for Land400, mortar vehicles have been deemed to be too high of a technical risk and aren't part of the scope of Land400.

Thanks for your comments Raven.

Appreciate that mortar carriers are not part of Land 400. But too high risk? Really?

The Patria already has the Nemo turret integrated and is in service with a number of countries and the Boxer already has a 120 Mortar module (at least according to Rheinmetall) and/or based i what i have read should easily able to accept the NEMO.

Is there really that much more risk than integrating a two man turret? Curious

 

[Stock]

Thanks for your comments Raven.

Appreciate that mortar carriers are not part of Land 400. But too high risk? Really?

The Patria already has the Nemo turret integrated and is in service with a number of countries and the Boxer already has a 120 Mortar module (at least according to Rheinmetall) and/or based i what i have read should easily able to accept the NEMO.

Is there really that much more risk than integrating a two man turret? Curious

The paper presented by Army last year "Modernisation from Beersheba and Beyond" contains a hint at what Army might be thinking re joint fires, and I copy verbatim here:

Close support precision fires close urban / peri-urban operations
Timeframe Required: From 2019
Description:
• All weather, low signature system to deliver precision fires.
• Support to combat teams and battle groups conducting distributed operations in urban littoral environment.
• Precision 120mm munitions.
• Networked in land and joint digital environment.
• Vehicle mounted on a L400 chassis.

Whilst there is no inclusion in Ph 2 of Land 400 for any mortar variant of the CRV, clearly thought is being given to a 120mm capability at some point not too far down the track. Raven might know more.

 

[Bluey 006]

The paper presented by Army last year "Modernisation from Beersheba and Beyond" contains a hint at what Army might be thinking re joint fires, and I copy verbatim here:

Close support precision fires close urban / peri-urban operations
Timeframe Required: From 2019
Description:
• All weather, low signature system to deliver precision fires.
• Support to combat teams and battle groups conducting distributed operations in urban littoral environment.
• Precision 120mm munitions.
• Networked in land and joint digital environment.
• Vehicle mounted on a L400 chassis.

Whilst there is no inclusion in Ph 2 of Land 400 for any mortar variant of the CRV, clearly thought is being given to a 120mm capability at some point not too far down the track. Raven might know more.

Good find, I had missed that one. 120mm mortar has been tossed around for years so undeniable that it would be considered as part of the grand strategy. What is significant now is the retirement of the 105mm from front line roles, and the gap that exists. Unfortunately, though what the army wants and what it gets aren't always the same. Hopefully the DWP/DCP delivers some further insight.

I personally find it a bit strange that although the army has been very busy since 90s improvements don't get the attention in the media and politically that the other services do.

 

[Stock]

Good find, I had missed that one. 120mm mortar has been tossed around for years so undeniable that it would be considered as part of the grand strategy. What is significant now is the retirement of the 105mm from front line roles, and the gab that exists. Unfortunately, though what the army wants and what it gets aren't always the same. Hopefully the DWP/DCP delivers some further insight.

I personally find it a bit strange that although the army has been very busy since 90s improvements don't get the attention in the media and politically that the other services do.

If they do proceed with a 120mm mortar acquisition, let's hope it happens faster than that for the 40mm AGL - a basic capability that Army should have had a long time ago.

 

[FormerDirtDart]

I am out at the moment so can't check but I believe the US was looking at (or may actually have procured) the Dragonfire 120mm SP mortar and each vehicle also had an 81mm as well as a 60mm mortar for dismounted operations. Singapore has demonstrated a low recoil 120mm system mounted on a LSV as well.

The automated Dragonfire, a USMC program, died years ago. They adopted the towed French MO-120-RT as the M327 Expeditionary Fire Support System. It is fielded in the Artillery Regiment of the Marine Division. They do not carry additional smaller mortars with the system.

The US Army Stryker M1129 Mortar Carrier has the 120mm M121 mortar system mounted. Vehicles operated by at the battalion mortar platoon level carry an additional 81mm mortar for dismounted operations. While, the vehicles used by the company level mortar sections carry a 60mm for dismounted operations.

The US Army Infantry Brigade Combat Teams have gone to a mortar arms room concept at infantry battalion level for some time. Each battalion has 4x120mm, 4x81mm and 6x60mm, but with manning levels only to operate 6 light mortars (typically at company level) and 4 medium or heavy mortars at one time. Though additional systems have been fielded at times by spreading the mortar personnel out and augmenting the crews with regular infantrymen.

The Armored Brigade Combat Teams only field battalion level mortar platoons with 4x M121 120mm systems carried on the M1064 mortar carrier, with no additional mortars for dismounted operations

 

[Goknub]

Rather than trying to find a spot within the Beersheba Brigades for the 120mm mortar, I think a possible alternate would be to utilise the Army Reserves.

The ARES artillery units are currently operating the 81mm mortar so replacing these with 120mm heavy mortars wouldn't need as much change in the way of training or manning. This would be a relatively low cost option and would probably help with recruitment/retention as well.

Given the issues with deploying Reserve elements a Regular component would be desirable. This could be achieved by raising a separate unit and locating it within 6 Brigade which has the "other" capabilities that don't fit in a Beersheba Brigade. A Regiment consisting of 16 mortars would provide for a sustainable rotation of 4 x 4 tubes (Deploy-Surge-Raise-Recover) which shouldn't break the bank.

This only takes care of the towed mortar capability however.

 

[Raven22]

Is there really that much more risk than integrating a two man turret? Curious

As always the answer is both yes and no. Getting a 120mm mortar capability would be easy. Getting one that just happens to match up with the best solution for the CRV would be very hard.

You'd be aware how demanding the current Land400 requirements are - literally no current vehicles meet the specifications, and very few come close. If you added the need to offer a mortar vehicle as part of the tender, it would be harder still. Manufacturers that had very competitive bids for the CRV but no MOTS mortar vehicle would be unable to bid. You'd risk getting a poor CRV simply because nothing else was able to offer a bid that met all the requirements.

As has been said before, the motto of Land400 is low risk. The powers that be don't want to risk the program blowing out in cost or timeline just to include a capability that may or may not come to fruition.

 

[Raven22]

Given the issues with deploying Reserve elements a Regular component would be desirable. This could be achieved by raising a separate unit and locating it within 6 Brigade which has the "other" capabilities that don't fit in a Beersheba Brigade. A Regiment consisting of 16 mortars would provide for a sustainable rotation of 4 x 4 tubes (Deploy-Surge-Raise-Recover) which shouldn't break the bank.

How does that make raising a 120mm mortar capability any easier? It still needs more money and more soldiers. And a whole regimental HQ apparently. The easiest and cheapest way to develop a 120mm mortar capability is simply to replace some or all of the 81mm mortars in the infantry battalions with 120mm mortars. There are different ways you could do it - make each mortar platoon mixed (say, 6 x 81mm and 3 x 120mm), equip one battalion in each brigade 81mm and the other 120mm, or even just equip only 2 RAR with 120mm. They are the ones manning the ARE after all

 

[Volkodav]

The automated Dragonfire, a USMC program, died years ago. They adopted the towed French MO-120-RT as the M327 Expeditionary Fire Support System. It is fielded in the Artillery Regiment of the Marine Division. They do not carry additional smaller mortars with the system.

The US Army Stryker M1129 Mortar Carrier has the 120mm M121 mortar system mounted. Vehicles operated by at the battalion mortar platoon level carry an additional 81mm mortar for dismounted operations. While, the vehicles used by the company level mortar sections carry a 60mm for dismounted operations.

The US Army Infantry Brigade Combat Teams have gone to a mortar arms room concept at infantry battalion level for some time. Each battalion has 4x120mm, 4x81mm and 6x60mm, but with manning levels only to operate 6 light mortars (typically at company level) and 4 medium or heavy mortars at one time. Though additional systems have been fielded at times by spreading the mortar personnel out and augmenting the crews with regular infantrymen.

The Armored Brigade Combat Teams only field battalion level mortar platoons with 4x M121 120mm systems carried on the M1064 mortar carrier, with no additional mortars for dismounted operations

Thanks for that I see I got my programs mixed up, it was obviously the Striker Mortar Carrier I was thinking of.

 

[old faithful]

Agree with Raven, Mortar Pl can handle it.
They could keep the 81's as well, and deploy with the most suitable weapon.
DFSW have been doing it for years, Sustained fire MG and Anti Armour roles.

 

[Bluey 006]

Agree with Raven, Mortar Pl can handle it.
They could keep the 81's as well, and deploy with the most suitable weapon.
DFSW have been doing it for years, Sustained fire MG and Anti Armour roles.

Certainly a good starting point and the "arms room" concept makes sense.
I also come across the Elbit systems low-recoil "SOLTAM SPEAR 120mm mortar" which could be a cost effective way to deliver a light SP capability.

Mounted on the back of a Hawkei PMV and coupled with M395 could be a decent light platform capable of both precision strike and counter battery fire. Can operate with a 2 man crew which is nice. Also could be airlifted by a CH-47 Chinook

Perhaps 4-12 allocated to each Brigade.

Would still prefer a CRV turreted system somewhere in the mix though, although as Raven said that is a little "chicken before the egg" at this stage.

 

[Stock]

Certainly a good starting point and the "arms room" concept makes sense.
I also come across the Elbit systems low-recoil "SOLTAM SPEAR 120mm mortar" which could be a cost effective way to deliver a light SP capability.

Mounted on the back of a Hawkei PMV and coupled with M395 could be a decent light platform capable of both precision strike and counter battery fire. Can operate with a 2 man crew which is nice. Also could be airlifted by a CH-47 Chinook

Perhaps 4-12 allocated to each Brigade.

Would still prefer a CRV turreted system somewhere in the mix though, although as Raven said that is a little "chicken before the egg" at this stage.

Like it. The Hawkei flat-bed would certainly be able to handle the recoil forces, has good tactical and operational mobility, protection for the crew and enough motive power to mount the mortar and tow an ammo trailer with 30-40 rounds (should there not be adequate room on the load tray). Add to that low training burden and through-life costs for both mortar system and vehicle.

It would be great to see Army think laterally a little and approach industry about making these kind of solutions happen. I'm sure Thales for one would jump at the chance.

 

[old faithful]

little birdy tells me that Adelaide could be worth investing in, defence housing or investment property........1 brigade soon to have a much smaller footprint in Darwin.....

 

[Raven22]

little birdy tells me that Adelaide could be worth investing in, defence housing or investment property........1 brigade soon to have a much smaller footprint in Darwin.....

It's not a secret. 1 Armd Regt will relocate to Adelaide in its entirety by 2017.

 

[vonnoobie]

little birdy tells me that Adelaide could be worth investing in, defence housing or investment property........1 brigade soon to have a much smaller footprint in Darwin.....

Not that big of a thing, From what I read in the news it's only meant to be around 500 personnel so I wouldn't start spending up for some big influx in visitors.

 

[old faithful]

wait and see what the white paper says.
I was given the impresion that the beersheeba brigades will be kept together, that would involve 5RAR, etc etc moving south.
A slightly bigger RAN presence in the top end, a slightly bigger RAAF pressence in the top end.

 

[Bluey 006]

They are the ones manning the ARE after all

Raven,

It increasingly looks like 2nd Battalion will be the foundation of a standalone unit but as it stands it is part of 3rd Brigade. With the new 36 month force generation cycle can you explain what happens with the ARE when 3rd Brigade is at phase "reset" phase.

I assume there is a a smaller sub cycle within 2nd Battalion or is it some other mitigation method?

 

[old faithful]

like 3RAR's parra role, a company group will be the response unit for lack of a better description.

 

[Raven22]

Raven,

It increasingly looks like 2nd Battalion will be the foundation of a standalone unit but as it stands it is part of 3rd Brigade. With the new 36 month force generation cycle can you explain what happens with the ARE when 3rd Brigade is at phase "reset" phase.

I assume there is a a smaller sub cycle within 2nd Battalion or is it some other mitigation method?

At the moment 2 RAR is set up with two identical combat teams, consisting of a rifle company, elements from support company, engineers, armour etc. Each of these combat teams forms the ARE, and will swap between 'Ready' and 'Readying' to maintain the capability. There is very little support from the rest of 3 Bde required for the ARE, so where they are in the FGC isn't all that relevant.

Ideally 2 RAR will be enlarged to three combat teams to enable a proper readiness cycle, but that is a decision for the future.

 

[vonnoobie]

Ill have to look further into it, But quite an interesting idea that makes a lot of sense considering the amount of electronics our forces use these days.

The Australian Army Is Creating Solar-Powered Soldiers | Gizmodo Australia

Integrating solar power into the troops standard kit with the intention to power all the various devices and if I understand correctly possibly in future remove the need for batteries or at least reduce the amount needed.