Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[old faithful]

Finally, after talking about 60mm since at least 1992!
When the F88 entered service, rumour was that every Rifle Company would have a support section, trained in 60mm mortars, 84mm AA and or Milan and SFGPMG.
2016, and we revisit the 60mm Mortars again, 3 tubes per Company.

 

[ADMk2]

Good news on the command mortars but a shame on the 120mm as it actually makes for a pretty decent 105mm gun/howitzer replacement. I believe the USMC use 60, 81 and 120mm mortars, even operating them together in a mortar platoon and using whichever is most suitable at the time, in the manner most suitable.

'SIB's' are supposed to be able to do everything on foot, so they can't have a capability that needs to be vehicle mounted or towed... So no 120mm mortars...

Plus as always there are funding, training and manpower pressures we have to overcome that the USMC doesn't...

 

[ADMk2]

Finally, after talking about 60mm since at least 1992!
When the F88 entered service, rumour was that every Rifle Company would have a support section, trained in 60mm mortars, 84mm AA and or Milan and SFGPMG.
2016, and we revisit the 60mm Mortars again, 3 tubes per Company.

That is what 3RAR are looking at, whether to have an MSS at company level and allocate the mortars to the MSS permanently or to consolidate all mortars within mortar platoon and allocate 60mm weapons to the companies as needed.

Higher level Fire support for the SIB's is pretty decent these days (and in the near future) with MAG-58, 0.50 Cal HMG's, Mk 47 40mm grenade launchers, Charlie G, Javelin and 81mm mortars, not to mention the marksmen rifles and enhanced battle rifles coming into service.

60mm mortars will add a valuable direct and limited indirect fire support capability to us and I agree it is long overdue. If they are actually chosen that is. It's still a trial...

 

[Raven22]

Good news on the commando mortars but a shame on the 120mm as it actually makes for a pretty decent 105mm gun/howitzer replacement. I believe the USMC use 60, 81 and 120mm mortars, even operating them together in a mortar platoon and using whichever is most suitable at the time, in the manner most suitable.

The USMC don't use mixed mortar platoons, and have no 120mm mortar in service. They use 60mm mortars in the mortar section of the weapons platoon at company level, and 81mm mortars in the battalion mortar platoon. They are trying to bring a 120mm mortar into service, but they are having problems with the tow vehicles and being able to fit them all in a single helicopter.

 

[Volkodav]

The USMC don't use mixed mortar platoons, and have no 120mm mortar in service. They use 60mm mortars in the mortar section of the weapons platoon at company level, and 81mm mortars in the battalion mortar platoon. They are trying to bring a 120mm mortar into service, but they are having problems with the tow vehicles and being able to fit them all in a single helicopter.

Thanks for that. What was that prototype system, Dragonfire? In hindsight i think that may have been what I was thinking of as it was a vehicle mounted 120mm with a dismountable smaller calibre mortar as well.

 

[ADMk2]

The USMC don't use mixed mortar platoons, and have no 120mm mortar in service. They use 60mm mortars in the mortar section of the weapons platoon at company level, and 81mm mortars in the battalion mortar platoon. They are trying to bring a 120mm mortar into service, but they are having problems with the tow vehicles and being able to fit them all in a single helicopter.

The USMC has EFSS in service - Expeditionary Fire Support System which is based on the French RT 120mm - rifled 120mm mortar system.

It was first fielded in 2009 with the 1st Battalion, 10th Marine Artillery Regt at Camp Lejeune.

It is a towed 120mm mortar system that has it's own (controversial) ITV based 'mini-jeep' that is designed to be able to be carried internally in an Osprey.

 

[Raven22]

It seems they are further along in the introduction into service than I remember. The difference is that the EFSS is an artillery weapon, designed to be used as part of artillery battalions alongside M777s and HIMARS. It is not designed to be part of the USMC infantry battalion, which still uses 81mm mortars as they have the same need to be manpackable as Australian infantry battalions.

 

[ngatimozart]

News report on Australian Army amphibious warfare skills training at RIMPAC 2016.

 

[MARKMILES77]

Bit of an update on LAND 400 including from the latest Defence Technology Review's large Land 400 coverage. Few interesting things on the candidates which has changed my impression of their likely chances.

Sentinal II weighs 35 tonne, almost as heavy as Boxer so presumably high protection level. But surely has to be excluded as completely fails to comply with the requirement for a MOTS/MOTS+ option. Terrex 3 is not in service or under contract with anyone and is a COMPLETELY different vehicle to the Terrex 1 in service in Singapore. It is an all new vehicle, not an upgraded existing vehicle

AMV 35 is lighter than I thought (pretty much the same weight as LAV CRV) at 30 tonne.

LAV CRV is most compliant with the MOTS requirement. Hull in service with Canada, Turret ordered by US Army.
Use of an unmanned turret saves up to 2 tonne in vehicle weight so being the lightest vehicle may not mean it has the lowest protection level. In fact possibly some hinting from GDLS that LAV/CRV may have upgraded suspension compared to LAV 6.0 so maximum weight may be more than the 28.6 tonne of LAV 6.0. If true, combined with the weight saving of the unmanned turret, could mean that LAV CRV is better protected than AMV 35. DTR does mention that THERE IS a STANAG Level 5/6 heavy protection kit available.
Use of an unmanned turret also likely means there is significantly more interior room compared to the other candidates.
LAV/CRV has gone up in my estimation.

Boxer remains the highest capability vehicle and may have fans in Army.
Certainly complies with MOTS/MOTS+.

One last point: Surely Sentinal II can't win.
If it did, at least GDLS could undertake legal action, arguing they would have offered a different option if they had known they could ignore the requirements for MOTS/MOTS+ .

 

[ADMk2]

Surprise, surprise. Boxer and AMV-35 have been shortlisted. Sentinel and LAV6.0 goneski...

Companies shortlisted for Army’s Mounted Combat Reconnaissance Capability

28 July 2016 | Media Release
The Department of Defence today announced the selection of two tenderers to participate in the next stage of evaluation for LAND 400 Phase 2, Army’s Mounted Combat Reconnaissance capability.

Deputy Secretary Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group (CASG), Mr Kim Gillis, said both BAE Systems Australia Limited and Rheinmetall Landsysteme Gmbh have been assessed as offering competitive solutions with designs based on capabilities already in service with other nations.

“When introduced into service Army will have a capability which represents a quantum leap in protection for our soldiers while providing enhanced sensors and weapon systems for the crew,” Mr Gillis said.

“Today’s announcement follows an extension to the Request for Tender (RFT) evaluation period to conduct a review of the Australian industry involvement elements of the LAND 400 Phase 2 Risk Mitigation Activity (RMA) to ensure Australian industry involvement can be optimised.

“The review undertaken by Deloitte Australia found clear alignment between the LAND 400 Phase 2 tender evaluation process and the policy direction and priorities of the 2016 Defence Industry Policy Statement (DIPS),” he said.

The decision to conduct the Review has resulted in an improved understanding of industry, demonstrated clear alignment between the DIPS and the proposed RMA activities, and helped reinforce the importance of industry as a fundamental input to capability.

Media contact:
Defence Media: (02) 6127 1999

 

[Boagrius]

Surprise, surprise. Boxer and AMV-35 have been shortlisted. Sentinel and LAV6.0 goneski...

Companies shortlisted for Army’s Mounted Combat Reconnaissance Capability

28 July 2016 | Media Release
The Department of Defence today announced the selection of two tenderers to participate in the next stage of evaluation for LAND 400 Phase 2, Army’s Mounted Combat Reconnaissance capability.

Deputy Secretary Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group (CASG), Mr Kim Gillis, said both BAE Systems Australia Limited and Rheinmetall Landsysteme Gmbh have been assessed as offering competitive solutions with designs based on capabilities already in service with other nations.

“When introduced into service Army will have a capability which represents a quantum leap in protection for our soldiers while providing enhanced sensors and weapon systems for the crew,” Mr Gillis said.

“Today’s announcement follows an extension to the Request for Tender (RFT) evaluation period to conduct a review of the Australian industry involvement elements of the LAND 400 Phase 2 Risk Mitigation Activity (RMA) to ensure Australian industry involvement can be optimised.

“The review undertaken by Deloitte Australia found clear alignment between the LAND 400 Phase 2 tender evaluation process and the policy direction and priorities of the 2016 Defence Industry Policy Statement (DIPS),” he said.

The decision to conduct the Review has resulted in an improved understanding of industry, demonstrated clear alignment between the DIPS and the proposed RMA activities, and helped reinforce the importance of industry as a fundamental input to capability.

Media contact:
Defence Media: (02) 6127 1999

Well that's a relief. The other two never struck me as being serious options capability wise. You'd have to think that this also makes CV90 and Lynx the front runners for phase 3 now more than ever. I'm hoping we can make the German offerings work - they seem tremendously capable.

 

[ADMk2]

Well that's a relief. The other two never struck me as being serious options capability wise. You'd have to think that this also makes CV90 and Lynx the front runners for phase 3 now more than ever. I'm hoping we can make the German offerings work - they seem tremendously capable.

Yep if Boxer / Lynx doesn't work, then we would have to 'settle' for AMV-35 / CV-90-35...

Either way is absolutely fine by me and exactly what Aus Army has needed for a very long time!

I'm sure each has their strengths and relative weaknesses, so I'm awaiting eagerly to see which way we go.

 

[Joe Black]

Yep if Boxer / Lynx doesn't work, then we would have to 'settle' for AMV-35 / CV-90-35...

Either way is absolutely fine by me and exactly what Aus Army has needed for a very long time!

I'm sure each has their strengths and relative weaknesses, so I'm awaiting eagerly to see which way we go.

Happy with the shortlisting of AMV-35 and Boxer. Phase 3 will be interesting. My take is BAE has an edge in Australia, love the Rheinmetall’s solutions and German engineering though.

 

[Boagrius]

Yep if Boxer / Lynx doesn't work, then we would have to 'settle' for AMV-35 / CV-90-35...

Either way is absolutely fine by me and exactly what Aus Army has needed for a very long time!

I'm sure each has their strengths and relative weaknesses, so I'm awaiting eagerly to see which way we go.

I like the fact that a 35mm option seems to exist for either platform as well... Exciting times ahead for the Army - the future of the armoured vehicle fleet is beginning to look very promising.

 

[Bluey 006]

Yep if Boxer / Lynx doesn't work, then we would have to 'settle' for AMV-35 / CV-90-35...

Either way is absolutely fine by me and exactly what Aus Army has needed for a very long time!

I'm sure each has their strengths and relative weaknesses, so I'm awaiting eagerly to see which way we go.

Agree - two great solutions. I have a preference for Boxer/Lynx though.

I was also thinking once these vehicles are delivered especially "phase 3" there is a chance that for a time at least Australia has the most capable IFVs of the 5 eyes (ABCA) armies. Depending on how projects in said nations pan out.

for arguments sake say we go German on face value it would seem like its up there:

AJAX or ARES (UK)
LAV 3/ LAV 6 (NZ/CAN)
Bradley or GCV + Stryker (US)
Lynx (AUS)

The aforementioned point may mean as the best equipped. We are asked to be at the pointy end of armored operations in any future operations ( aka Iraq '91, '03)

Who would have thought that back in the 80s,90s and 00s

 

[Boagrius]

The aforementioned point may mean as the best equipped. We are asked to be at the pointy end of armored operations in any future operations ( aka Iraq '91, '03)

Who would have thought that back in the 80s,90s and 00s

I would have thought the size of the fleet (or lack thereof) might be a limitation there - at least for ops outside of our immediate region. Then again I've heard other posters mention that LAND400 may well provide enough $$ for a larger and more modern Abrams fleet so who knows. 100 odd M1A3 + Lynx + Boxer all kitted out with the latest bells and whistles would have to be a serious contender for most modern AFV fleet on the planet in the post 2020 timeframe. Who'da thunk it indeed!

 

[Raven22]

Happy with the shortlisting of AMV-35 and Boxer. Phase 3 will be interesting. My take is BAE has an edge in Australia, love the Rheinmetall’s solutions and German engineering though.

The biggest point of contention will be that the IFV requirement is almost certainly going to have the ability to carry 8 dismounts as an 'essential' requirement. That eliminates a good deal of the contenders right there. CV90 has been advertised as having the ability to carry 8 dismounts, but I would be wary of that claim until it has been proven. The only other suitable contenders are likely to be Lynx and, if it's offered, Namer.

I just hope the powers that be pick a manufacturer and stick with them. If Boxer wins Phase 2, buy Lynx for Phase 3. If the AMV wins, buy CV90. Both options would be a good outcome.

My money is certainly now on a Boxer/Lynx combo. The probable reduction in numbers for the Phase 3 vehicle based on smaller infantry platoons and 8 man lift will help make it affordable.

I will make a wild assed guess that the armoured force > 2025 will consist of 82 M1A2 SEP V3s, 45 M1 based engineering vehicles in three variants, 225 Boxer and 375 Lynx. If we're all still around in a decade we'll see if I'm right.

 

[Volkodav]

The biggest point of contention will be that the IFV requirement is almost certainly going to have the ability to carry 8 dismounts as an 'essential' requirement. That eliminates a good deal of the contenders right there. CV90 has been advertised as having the ability to carry 8 dismounts, but I would be wary of that claim until it has been proven. The only other suitable contenders are likely to be Lynx and, if it's offered, Namer.

I just hope the powers that be pick a manufacturer and stick with them. If Boxer wins Phase 2, buy Lynx for Phase 3. If the AMV wins, buy CV90. Both options would be a good outcome.

My money is certainly now on a Boxer/Lynx combo. The probable reduction in numbers for the Phase 3 vehicle based on smaller infantry platoons and 8 man lift will help make it affordable.

I will make a will assed guess that the armoured force > 2025 will consist of 82 M1A2 SEP V3s, 45 M1 based engineering vehicles in three variants, 225 Boxer and 375 Lynx. If we're all still around in a decade we'll see if I'm right.

I believe GD are tooled up to build Namer and it has the same power pack as our HERCULES ARVs. I wonder if it would be possible to retrofit it with the same tracks road wheels etc as either the HERCULES or Abrams?

 

[Bluey 006]

I will make a will assed guess that the armoured force > 2025 will consist of 82 M1A2 SEP V3s, 45 M1 based engineering vehicles in three variants, 225 Boxer and 375 Lynx. If we're all still around in a decade we'll see if I'm right.

I am betting that you're about spot on.

I wonder though, by then, will perhaps an amphibious armored vehicle also be part of the mix?

Nothing to necessarily indicate this in the DWP but i'd expect we'll have at least one more by then,

 

[Raven22]

I believe GD are tooled up to build Namer and it has the same power pack as our HERCULES ARVs. I wonder if it would be possible to retrofit it with the same tracks road wheels etc as either the HERCULES or Abrams?

Maybe, but with a weight of 70 tonne and no commonality with a Phase 2 vehicle, I think Namer will struggle.