Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[vonnoobie]

The success of the Abrams acquisition makes me wonder why other in service US vehicles aren't considered for rapid acquisition:

SPH: M109A7

Breaching (often raised by raven22): M9 ACE

Particularly when looking at relatively small volumes.

Regards,

Massive

The M109A7 quite simply is old tech but that aside we are not going the way of SPH but rather we are looking at longrange rocket artillery which is far more capable (M270 MLRS, HIMARs etc etc).

M9 is a completely different chain of supply that I'm not sure we require often enough to justify buying, If we needed such a vehicle we would be better off getting the AVB which is based on the M1 Abrams which may be the case as the DWP does mention that ...

6.15 There are four elements to the armoured vehicle capability:
`` armour – based on the Abrams
`` cavalry – based on the current ASLAV and the future replacement
Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle
`` armoured mobility – based on the current M113AS4 Armoured
Personnel Carrier and a future replacement Infantry Fighting
Vehicle
`` armoured Combat Support and Combat Service Support
(specialist versions of the above mentioned platforms).

So excluding the M88 any other heavy engineering vehicles based on any armoured vehicle we will operate sharing the base platform (ie: using M1 Abrams for Breaching [AVB}, bridge laying [M104] etc etc)

Either way those program's have already been thought about.

 

[STURM]

rather we are looking at longrange rocket artillery which is far more capable (M270 MLRS, HIMARs etc etc).

Are rocket systems really more ''capable'' than artillery? Whilst rockets indeed are very useful and can perform some of the roles artillery performs; I was under the impression that rockets can't fully do all the roles artillery can.

No doubt there are various factors at play and countries have their own requirements but the ideal solution - on paper - would be to have both artillery and MLRS as both complement each other.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Are rocket systems really more ''capable'' than artillery? Whilst rockets indeed are very useful and can perform some of the roles artillery performs; I was under the impression that rockets can't fully do all the roles artillery can.

No doubt there are various factors at play and countries have their own requirements but the ideal solution - on paper - would be to have both artillery and MLRS as both complement each other.

MLRS are certainly not a replacement for traditional artillery... they're a complimentary capability

I'm sure the arty people in here can chime in, but even superficially there are a whole pile of reasons why MLRS can't replace trad arty (its like arguing in the 60's that missiles would replace bombers)

 

[vonnoobie]

Point taken and while having both would be ideal some times we just don't have that option. We can have towed M777A2's and SPH 155mm guns or we can have towed M777A2's and MLRS.

May not be the ideal make up but it's probably the best we have going for our selves.

 

[Volkodav]

Point taken and while having both would be ideal some times we just don't have that option. We can have towed M777A2's and SPH 155mm guns or we can have towed M777A2's and MLRS.

May not be the ideal make up but it's probably the best we have going for our selves.

HIMARS provides a rapid response, surgical / near surgical, all weather, day or night, strike capability, at intermediate range, that neither tube artillery or CAS can. As I understand it, rocket artillery, specifically GPS guided and tactical missile varieties, can and have been the difference between life and death for coalition forces operating in Afghanistan.

The systems are highly complementary slotting between tactical airpower and tube artillery and is part of the filling out of the, once, very limited ADF support fires capabilities. On the other end of the scale it looks as if 60mm light mortars are being acquired to increase the versatility of the infantry's support fires, likely down to Company level or maybe even detachments at platoon level if required, to provide greater reach than the current grenade launchers but greater portability than the 81mm mortars that will be retained at Battalion level.

 

[Raven22]

Breaching (often raised by raven22): M9 ACE

The M9 isn't really a breaching vehicle, although it would still be handy for the engineers to have.

For assault breaching you really need to be able to do three things - cross gaps, clear mines, and reduce earthworks - and you have to do it within direct fire range of the enemy, so you need a vehicle with heavy armour.

Conveniently the US has two vehicles based off the M1 chassis that can do gap crossing and mine clearing (the Wolverine and ABV), however since the Grizzly was cancelled there is really nothing suited to reducing earthworks.

There is a new LAND project for an assault breaching capability, and it is expected to deliver capability at about the same time as the M1 upgrade project. Since doctrine calls for the ability to breach two lanes and have a breaching reserve, you really need three of each type of vehicle (AEV, ABV, HAB) per brigade. With three brigades and a training and attrition pool, you are looking at a need for about 12 of each vehicle type.

 

[Goknub]

Are rocket systems really more ''capable'' than artillery?

I would say yes, rocket artillery is (now) more capable than tube artillery in terms of both individual affects on target and as a means to maximise the pace of modern maneuver warfare. This isn't to say tubes are obsolete, should be disposed of or they don't have advantages, it's more that a complete rocket capability set now has more. I would count a complete capability as one that includes all 3 calibre types: 122-130mm, 220mm, +300mm. It's for this reason that I believe it would be better for the ADF to source a K-MLRS variant based on the Land 121 8x8 HX77 rather HIMARS. The South Koreans make good use of mixed calibres loaded on the same vehicle. Given the wide variety of munitions above now and in the future this would be the better option.

 

[Volkodav]

The M9 isn't really a breaching vehicle, although it would still be handy for the engineers to have.

For assault breaching you really need to be able to do three things - cross gaps, clear mines, and reduce earthworks - and you have to do it within direct fire range of the enemy, so you need a vehicle with heavy armour.

Conveniently the US has two vehicles based off the M1 chassis that can do gap crossing and mine clearing (the Wolverine and ABV), however since the Grizzly was cancelled there is really nothing suited to reducing earthworks.

There is a new LAND project for an assault breaching capability, and it is expected to deliver capability at about the same time as the M1 upgrade project. Since doctrine calls for the ability to breach two lanes and have a breaching reserve, you really need three of each type of vehicle (AEV, ABV, HAB) per brigade. With three brigades and a training and attrition pool, you are looking at a need for about 12 of each vehicle type.

Don't the US use engineer crewed M-1s issued with special thermobaric and demolition 120mm munitions plus dozer attachments for the AEV role? Am I miss naming them and the AEV is something else?

I wonder how hard it would be to adapt the Challenger based Trojan or one of the Leopard based AEV kits to an Abrams or M-88 hull?

 

[vonnoobie]

Don't the US use engineer crewed M-1s issued with special thermobaric and demolition 120mm munitions plus dozer attachments for the AEV role? Am I miss naming them and the AEV is something else?

I wonder how hard it would be to adapt the Challenger based Trojan or one of the Leopard based AEV kits to an Abrams or M-88 hull?

No idea, though I wonder how much work would be needed to bring the Grizzly back into the fold? From what I understand the prototype was finished so a good portion of the work is done for us.

------

In regards to our tank squadrons and the possibility of us getting another 10 - 12 Abrams what are the actual numbers involved. From my understanding each squadron is 14 strong with the aim to get 3 full squadrons which would total 42 tanks, Are the other 27 - 29 training/reserves? tanks.

Cheers.

 

[Raven22]

I'm no expert on US engineer vehicles, but I'm unaware of any M1 based engineer vehicles that keep the gun and have thermobaric warheads. You can fit mine plows, dozer blades and mine rollers to normal M1s, but they are not engineer vehicles, but normal gun tanks. There was an engineer vehicle based on the M60 that kept a short barrelled gun for demolitions, but I'm pretty sure that is well out of service.

The term 'AEV' is a very generic term, and means different things to different people (the US don't use the term at all). In this context it means something along the lines of the Terrier or Kodiak. There's no US vehicle based on a tank chassis I'm aware of that fits the bill, although there are other European options. Trying to engineer our own variant for only a dozen or so vehicles wouldn't be very smart.

 

[vonnoobie]

I'm no expert on US engineer vehicles, but I'm unaware of any M1 based engineer vehicles that keep the gun and have thermobaric warheads. You can fit mine plows, dozer blades and mine rollers to normal M1s, but they are not engineer vehicles, but normal gun tanks.

Realistically isn't that pretty much all AEV's? When they have had there armaments ripped out and replaced with engineering equipment they are no longer gun tanks, Not even close.

There was an engineer vehicle based on the M60 that kept a short barrelled gun for demolitions, but I'm pretty sure that is well out of service.

The M728 is actually still in service with most nations though the US Army retired theirs back in 2000, I believe some are still in stock with the Reserves and ANG.

The term 'AEV' is a very generic term, and means different things to different people (the US don't use the term at all). In this context it means something along the lines of the Terrier or Kodiak. There's no US vehicle based on a tank chassis I'm aware of that fits the bill, although there are other European options. Trying to engineer our own variant for only a dozen or so vehicles wouldn't be very smart.

There is one though it never made it passed the prototype stage being the Grizzly based off of the M1. Being made into a working prototype is why I mentioned it along with the DWP stating explicitly

6.15 There are four elements to the armoured vehicle capability:
` armour – based on the Abrams
` cavalry – based on the current ASLAV and the future replacement
Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle
` armoured mobility – based on the current M113AS4 Armoured
Personnel Carrier and a future replacement Infantry Fighting
Vehicle
` armoured Combat Support and Combat Service Support
(specialist versions of the above mentioned platforms).

If we are to acquire such a vehicle that does have it's uses then it will have to be based off either the winning CRV/IFV or the M1. To date I'm not aware of any of the Land 400 contenders having such variants leaving the Grizzly as the only other option.

 

[Raven22]

Realistically isn't that pretty much all AEV's? When they have had there armaments ripped out and replaced with engineering equipment they are no longer gun tanks, Not even close.

You can fit dozer blades, mine plows and mine rollers to any M1 in about ten minutes. Aside from reduced mobility, they have no impact on the ability of the tank to fight. They are still used as a normal gun tank, but they have the ability to conduct minor pioneer type tasks such as creating fighting posns and in limited in-stride breaching of minefields. In fact, Australia already has stocks of mine rollers and mine plows for the M1. They are not an engineer asset, but are the sort of thing you used to find in SEQ troop.

A proper engineering vehicle, as you say, may be based on a tank hull but everything on top is extensively modified.

If we are to acquire such a vehicle that does have it's uses then it will have to be based off either the winning CRV/IFV or the M1. To date I'm not aware of any of the Land 400 contenders having such variants leaving the Grizzly as the only other option.

Grizzly is not an option. If it was too complicated and expensive for the US Army, no one is going to build a dozen for the Australian Army.

The program that will buy an AEV type capability is LAND400, although they call it a Manoeuvre Support Vehicle (MSV) for some reason. I'm not sure exactly how the MSV as part of LAND400 and the new LAND program for under armour breaching will work together, but I imagine the new project will buy Wolverines and ABVs based on the M1 hull, while the MSV will be a far more generic vehicle suited to a wide range of engineering tasks, and will likely not be based on a CFV, IFV or M1 hull.

 

[Navor86]

Rheinmetall is proposing the Lynx IFV for Land 400.

DTR:
What opportunities does Lynx
present regarding your Australian industry plans under Land 400?

BH:
In addition to delivering a great capability for Army, we also believe there is a real opportunity to look at the combination
of Land 400 Phase 2 and 3 together and
deliver an Australian industrial capability
solution without peer. We intend to significantly exceed the levels of AIC we have achieved in Land 121 through the transfer and manufacture of the highest technology military systems and integration of Australian suppliers into Land 400 and our
global supply chain.

Info on the Lynx
http://dtrmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Lynx-IFV-Special-Supplement.pdf

 

[Raven22]

With the ability to fit 8 dismounts, it looks like there may be a new front runner for Land400 Phase 3. The only problem is it wont be a MOTS vehicle. However, since it may save the Army the need to buy ~70 vehicles compared to a vehicle that fits 6 dismounts (with the other obvious savings in personnel etc that comes with that) it would hope that fact wouldn't kill its chances. In fact, this vehicle may be the things that makes a proper tracked IFV for Phase 3 affordable (which I'm sure is the entire reason that Rheinmetall developed it).

It would seem Boxer for Phase 2 and Lynx for Phase 3 (with the same turret) and significant Australian content in both, would be a very competitive offer.

 

[Nick underscore]

Impressive platform. Just based on the looks, makes me think this will get rejected.

It looks like an evolved Namer (+10yrs in the future)

Would love to see the Lynx selected for Ph3.

I'll place my vote now. Boxer/Lynx for many reasons

 

[Ballistic]

With the ability to fit 8 dismounts, it looks like there may be a new front runner for Land400 Phase 3. The only problem is it wont be a MOTS vehicle. However, since it may save the Army the need to buy ~70 vehicles compared to a vehicle that fits 6 dismounts (with the other obvious savings in personnel etc that comes with that) it would hope that fact wouldn't kill its chances. In fact, this vehicle may be the things that makes a proper tracked IFV for Phase 3 affordable (which I'm sure is the entire reason that Rheinmetall developed it).

It would seem Boxer for Phase 2 and Lynx for Phase 3 (with the same turret) and significant Australian content in both, would be a very competitive offer.

Heck, the RAN got away with a submarine that doesn't even exist, if Army can't pull this off, there is something fundamentally wrong in procurement. If it dots all the i's and crosses all the t's, this should really be a no-brainer. Hopefully the fact that no MOTS vehicle actually met the requirements for Phase 3 will go some way pushing this vehicle to the finish line. The answer to Army's problem is right here, all they need to do is man up and buy the thing. It provides the same protection levels as Puma, lifts more than CV-90 or Puma and has the same turret/gun in either 30/35mm as the Boxer and Puma along with the Spike LR... it's got winner written all over it... hopefully.

 

[Boagrius]

Heck, the RAN got away with a submarine that doesn't even exist, if Army can't pull this off, there is something fundamentally wrong in procurement. If it dots all the i's and crosses all the t's, this should really be a no-brainer. Hopefully the fact that no MOTS vehicle actually met the requirements for Phase 3 will go some way pushing this vehicle to the finish line. The answer to Army's problem is right here, all they need to do is man up and buy the thing. It provides the same protection levels as Puma, lifts more than CV-90 or Puma and has the same turret/gun in either 30/35mm as the Boxer and Puma along with the Spike LR... it's got winner written all over it... hopefully.

I was under the impression that Phase 2 of LAND400 had the emphasis on MOTS solutions, with Phase 3 having more "wiggle room" for new technology anyway? Lynx and Boxer certainly seem like an extremely strong combo for our needs. Will be interesting to see what (if any) effect this has on what is offered in competing Phase 3 bids.

 

[Volkodav]

I wonder if it was maybe developed following feedback from the US Army's defunct GCV program, i.e. the Puma was seen as too complex and expensive while not being able to carry the required nine troops. If the vehicle commander is also the section commander and dismounts, then they have their nine man section.

 

[alexsa]

With the ability to fit 8 dismounts, it looks like there may be a new front runner for Land400 Phase 3. The only problem is it wont be a MOTS vehicle. However, since it may save the Army the need to buy ~70 vehicles compared to a vehicle that fits 6 dismounts (with the other obvious savings in personnel etc that comes with that) it would hope that fact wouldn't kill its chances. In fact, this vehicle may be the things that makes a proper tracked IFV for Phase 3 affordable (which I'm sure is the entire reason that Rheinmetall developed it).

It would seem Boxer for Phase 2 and Lynx for Phase 3 (with the same turret) and significant Australian content in both, would be a very competitive offer.

Added to which the turret can take the 35mm with very little modification, and has the AT missile fitted to the turret and integrated, makes this a very competitive offer. Maybe the Germans will get a contract after all.

 

[Raven22]

I was under the impression that Phase 2 of LAND400 had the emphasis on MOTS solutions, with Phase 3 having more "wiggle room" for new technology anyway?

Wiggle room, yes. However, there is a big difference between, say, integrating Spike into the turret of an existing MOTS vehicle, and being lead customer for a brand new vehicle that exists in prototype form only. The latter has 'high risk' written all over it.

As has been said, it certainly shouldn't be a warstopper, but it is an issue that goes against the principles of LAND400. Hopefully the fact that it ticks all the other boxes (while nothing else does) helps somewhat.