Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[aussienscale]

Just been doing a little reading on the Boxer, just wondering peoples thoughts on the possible future purchase of the KMW 155mm AGM modules for the Boxer ?

An SPH has been talked about for some time, on again, off again etc, Could this be a solution ?

Cheers

https://www.shephardmedia.com/media/images/article/6afc2430.jpg

Product Information | KMW

Boxer tested with AGM (ES14E4) | IHS Jane's 360

 

[Waylander]

I thought there is just money for either a SPH or HIMARS and the army decided, rightly so IMHO, on purchasing HIMARS to supplement the M777s.

 

[Raven22]

The problem with a Boxer-based SPH is the same as for the PZH and K9 originally - integration with AFATADS. Paying for the integration for a likely fleet of about 18 SPHs just wouldn't be worth it.

 

[t68]

The problem with a Boxer-based SPH is the same as for the PZH and K9 originally - integration with AFATADS. Paying for the integration for a likely fleet of about 18 SPHs just wouldn't be worth it.

They could have had near capabilty that they wanted with ex US M109A6s, but for some reason choose not too.

 

[Waylander]

Probably too expensive to operate.

IIRC the A6 still uses the older chassis without the Bradley parts the US Army moved over to with their PIM upgrade, making it even more of a maintenance hog. And in times of ever diminishing troop densitys a 39 calibre barrel seems not very attractive.

 

[Bluey 006]

Just been doing a little reading on the Boxer, just wondering peoples thoughts on the possible future purchase of the KMW 155mm AGM modules for the Boxer ?

An SPH has been talked about for some time, on again, off again etc, Could this be a solution ?

Cheers

https://www.shephardmedia.com/media/images/article/6afc2430.jpg

Product Information | KMW

Boxer tested with AGM (ES14E4) | IHS Jane's 360

Today, I personally I quite like the idea or AGM or 120mm turreted mortar for boxer however recently I have been reflecting on the the future of fire support and as a result I ask this :

By the 2026-2040 time frame will C-RAM systems especially laser based systems be so effective and cheap that they render current fire support mediums obsolete?
according to open source statements by some of the primes only thing holding up their development and increase in power, is money.

And, if Arty shells, mortar and missiles are easily zapped from the sky by lasers - what other fire support methods will we be looking at?

 

[ngatimozart]

Today, I personally I quite like the idea or AGM or 120mm turreted mortar for boxer however recently I have been reflecting on the the future of fire support and as a result I ask this :

By the 2026-2040 time frame will C-RAM systems especially laser based systems be so effective and cheap that they render current fire support mediums obsolete?
according to open source statements by some of the primes only thing holding up their development and increase in power, is money.

And, if Arty shells, mortar and missiles are easily zapped from the sky by lasers - what other fire support methods will we be looking at?

It does make for an interesting situation where you may have current artillery being shot down by direct energy weapons such as lasers. If that is the case, what then will replace current artillery? Direct energy weapons and such weapons as rail guns can, however what about indirect fire especially the kinds of fire that utilise the type of parabolic arc howitzers and mortars do for their warhead delivery?

 

[Milne Bay]

It does make for an interesting situation where you may have current artillery being shot down by direct energy weapons such as lasers. If that is the case, what then will replace current artillery? Direct energy weapons and such weapons as rail guns can, however what about indirect fire especially the kinds of fire that utilise the type of parabolic arc howitzers and mortars do for their warhead delivery?

Yes, that is the problem with lasers and railguns - they are virtually line of sight weapons.
What will replace howitzers is anyone's guess, but I think that it will be a long time before MLRS and howitzers become obsolete
MB

 

[gf0012-aust]

It does make for an interesting situation where you may have current artillery being shot down by direct energy weapons such as lasers. If that is the case, what then will replace current artillery? Direct energy weapons and such weapons as rail guns can, however what about indirect fire especially the kinds of fire that utilise the type of parabolic arc howitzers and mortars do for their warhead delivery?

the wildcard is about direct energy weapons that can be redirected via relay stations - eg a DEW is about energy, as is a signal - if you can redirect the latter and bounce
it across various relay stations, then in theory you can do the same with DEW.

no horizon restrictions, no LOS issues

 

[Raven22]

There's been lots of systems over the years that have been heralded as the 'end of' something. The submarine was supposed to be the end of the surface ship, the SAM was supposed to be the end of the aircraft, the ATGM was supposed to be the end of the tank. Somehow they all seemed to survive, as the system adapted. Arty and C-RAM systems (be they DEW or no) will be no different.

I think the biggest problem with DEW in particular against artillery is how exactly are they supposed to destroy the shell? A 155mm shell for example is basically a 40kg lump of metal, with only a couple of kg of explosive buried deep inside (the shell has to survive the stresses of firing after all). I think it will be a long time before a laser can reliably destroy a shell before impact. Rockets are an easier proposition of course.

 

[gf0012-aust]

plus there is the issue of CEC concepts being applied beyond the maritime construct.

smart weapons and munitions can be handed off and controlled beyond the host, so a LOS constrained platform could deliver its load beyond the horizon via another asset acting as a relay manager

 

[Waylander]

And there is the problem of fire density and protected area.

The system not only needs to be powerfull enough to destroy the mentioned 40kg lump of metal, ]it needs to do this very fast in order to have a meaningfull effect. A battery of PzH2000 fires 24 rounds in a 10 seconds fire mission or 15 rounds in a 1,2 seconds ToT fire mission.

A battery of MLRS like SMERCH or M270 puts even more metal into the target grid in short time.

On top of that you need enough systems to cover your frontline and frontline support units and installations.

All this is a totally different animal than intercepting the occasional mortar round or chinese 107mm rocket over a fixed base in Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

[SteveR]

The problem with a Boxer-based SPH is the same as for the PZH and K9 originally - integration with AFATADS. Paying for the integration for a likely fleet of about 18 SPHs just wouldn't be worth it.

However today's Defence Technology page 7 is reporting that the CRV Boxers are fitted with 35mm to match the AMV/


The only Rheinmetall 35mm I can find on their website is the Oerlikon ship based self defence weapon?

 

[Volkodav]

And there is the problem of fire density and protected area.

The system not only needs to be powerfull enough to destroy the mentioned 40kg lump of metal, ]it needs to do this very fast in order to have a meaningfull effect. A battery of PzH2000 fires 24 rounds in a 10 seconds fire mission or 15 rounds in a 1,2 seconds ToT fire mission.

A battery of MLRS like SMERCH or M270 puts even more metal into the target grid in short time.

On top of that you need enough systems to cover your frontline and frontline support units and installations.

All this is a totally different animal than intercepting the occasional mortar round or chinese 107mm rocket over a fixed base in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Which is one of the reasons Rhinemetal proposed developing an AHEAD type 155mm munitions to be fired by PzH2000 in the CRAM role. A battery, or even just a two gun section of modern SPGs could put up an impressive amount of counter projectile metal in a very short period of time.

Again its a matter of a sufficient CEC capability. On detection of the in coming rounds one gun held in reserve for CRAM while the others are reloaded with AHEAD after they are unloaded, or even used to fire on the attacking battery. Same thing on the offensive, one gun or section located away from the others are loaded with AHEAD to cover the other guns from counter battery fire as they scoot after firing their mission.

 

[Volkodav]

However today's Defence Technology page 6 is reporting that the CRV Boxers are fitted with 35mm to match the AMV/


The only Rheinmetall 35mm I can find on their website is the Oerlikon ship based self defence weapon?

They also offer it as a towed or SP land based AA option using their AHEAD munitions. It is an extremely effective round that has as induction fuse set as the projectile exists the barrel, for air burst over or in front of a target, after penetrating a soft or thin target or even on impact.

 

[ngatimozart]

They also offer it as a towed or SP land based AA option using their AHEAD munitions. It is an extremely effective round that has as induction fuse set as the projectile exists the barrel, for air burst over or in front of a target, after penetrating a soft or thin target or even on impact.

Oh yes, it is very impressive and offers very good capabilities both AAA and against surface targets.

 

[Raven22]

Oh yes, it is very impressive and offers very good capabilities both AAA and against surface targets.

That Australian AFV lift out in the latest Defence Technology Review is actually pretty good. It's clear from some of the things they mention and some of the terminology used that they have knowledgeable sources on the inside of the programs. It is the first time I have seen details of Land 8160 in the public domain before, although they get some of the details wrong.

I very much agree with the write up on Hawkei and some of the potential developments of that vehicle in the magazine itself as well.

 

[Waylander]

Which is one of the reasons Rhinemetal proposed developing an AHEAD type 155mm munitions to be fired by PzH2000 in the CRAM role. A battery, or even just a two gun section of modern SPGs could put up an impressive amount of counter projectile metal in a very short period of time.

Again its a matter of a sufficient CEC capability. On detection of the in coming rounds one gun held in reserve for CRAM while the others are reloaded with AHEAD after they are unloaded, or even used to fire on the attacking battery. Same thing on the offensive, one gun or section located away from the others are loaded with AHEAD to cover the other guns from counter battery fire as they scoot after firing their mission.

But you would need these SPG CRAMs to be spread out in huge numbers to really cover your important assets. I am more inclined to bet on something like the OTO 76mm Draco SPAAG. With their Strales gun/Dart ammo combo, which is in use on several ships, you get a proven system which acts as a normal SPAAG with good range, CRAM asset and, by removing the radar and putting some add-on armor onto it, quite a formidable fire support vehicle.

But in the end I doubt that one will be able to field even a fraction of the needed CRAM assets of any kind in the near to middle future to counter the heavy, fast and accurate fire missions quite a low number of modern artillery systems are capable of these days.

 

[ADMk2]

Tiger the gift that keeps on giving....

Who'd a thunk Airbus group would have under-bid on price, sustainment and capability and development status? It's not like they did the EXACT same thing on MRH-90 or anything...

Wonder where that fellow from Oakey has gone to, to defend this lemon?

https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/tiger-armys-armed-reconnaissance-helicopter

 

[SteveR]

Tiger the gift that keeps on giving....

Who'd a thunk Airbus group would have under-bid on price, sustainment and capability and development status? It's not like they did the EXACT same thing on MRH-90 or anything...

Wonder where that fellow from Oakey has gone to, to defend this lemon?

https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/tiger-armys-armed-reconnaissance-helicopter

Whilst cost per flying hour is real bad lets go back to 2001 when AIR87 was decided. At that stage the US Marines were just uncovering all the development woes of the AH-1Z - it took another 10 years before they were released for service.
Refer to many UK Defence blogs on the very high cost of operating their UK Apaches .

Finally in 2001 Australia had not decided on many of network standards that it now requires - easy to look back in hind site.