Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Stock]

So all of them will have the potential of a protected gun.
Better than I expected.

Didn't the Australian Government fund the development of the 30mm Cannon capability for the EOS 400 Remote Weapon Station. Was that for an Australian need or to improve the export potential of the 400 RWS?

Not sure re EOS development funding of the R400 30mm. They do have interest from the Mid East and US Army for that system.

To me, Hawkei is well suited as a (indirect fire) weapons carrier rather than a mini fighting vehicle, where it can stay out of the direct fire zone. The rear flat bed is ideal for mounting systems such as RBS-70 or an 81mm mortar or towing a 120mm mortar.

 

[Raven22]

I don't think an RWS with a 25/30mm gun on Hawkei would get much support. It's hard to imagine how you would employ such a capability, at least in a way that would be worth the cost and training burden.

As I've mentioned before, I think having Hawkei allocated to the Reserve RAAC units with a mix of .50 cal and 40mm AGL, on a mix of protected swing mounts and RWS, is the way to go. Add a Javelin/Spike to the RWS, and you have a very handy capability. In the reinforcing battlegroup construct, you have a very mobile and well armed capability well suited to RASO tasks. The mobile anti-armour capability is a huge plus, as it's hard to imagine how you conduct RASO in a conventional conflict without this capability. You probably couldn't afford to train the Jav in large numbers in peacetime, but it would be easy to pick up that skill during the lead up training inherent in the ARES notice to move.

Such a capability would also be very handy for the ARA as well. As it stands, in ten years time the combat brigades won't have a combat vehicle less than 30 tonnes in weight, which makes rapid deployment and deployment to secondary theatres difficult. Having the capability to draw on ~10 tonne vehicles that still have a very handy armament, mobility and comms fitout would be very useful.

As I've mentioned, if I was in charge of the Reserve armoured capability, the RAAC regiments would provide three capabilities - dismounted cav scouts to slot into the ARA cav squadrons, Bushmaster's to lift the infantry combat teams, and Hawkei to provide an ISR/RASO/SASO capability, as the light counterpart to the ACR's heavy capabilities.

 

[Stock]

I don't think an RWS with a 25/30mm gun on Hawkei would get much support. It's hard to imagine how you would employ such a capability, at least in a way that would be worth the cost and training burden.

As I've mentioned before, I think having Hawkei allocated to the Reserve RAAC units with a mix of .50 cal and 40mm AGL, on a mix of protected swing mounts and RWS, is the way to go. Add a Javelin/Spike to the RWS, and you have a very handy capability. In the reinforcing battlegroup construct, you have a very mobile and well armed capability well suited to RASO tasks. The mobile anti-armour capability is a huge plus, as it's hard to imagine how you conduct RASO in a conventional conflict without this capability. You probably couldn't afford to train the Jav in large numbers in peacetime, but it would be easy to pick up that skill during the lead up training inherent in the ARES notice to move.

Such a capability would also be very handy for the ARA as well. As it stands, in ten years time the combat brigades won't have a combat vehicle less than 30 tonnes in weight, which makes rapid deployment and deployment to secondary theatres difficult. Having the capability to draw on ~10 tonne vehicles that still have a very handy armament, mobility and comms fitout would be very useful.

As I've mentioned, if I was in charge of the Reserve armoured capability, the RAAC regiments would provide three capabilities - dismounted cav scouts to slot into the ARA cav squadrons, Bushmaster's to lift the infantry combat teams, and Hawkei to provide an ISR/RASO/SASO capability, as the light counterpart to the ACR's heavy capabilities.

Agree all. The new SOV-Cdo will carry the Protector Dual RWS, which has the standard MG fit as primary armament plus Javelin mounted on the RH side. This same RWS was that mounted on a Hawkei at Land Forces.

The deployment versatility of a 10 tonne vehicle as opposed to a 30+ tonne AFV is also a point worth noting.

 

[Raven22]

Agree all. The new SOV-Cdo will carry the Protector Dual RWS, which has the standard MG fit as primary armament plus Javelin mounted on the RH side. This same RWS was that mounted on a Hawkei at Land Forces.

The deployment versatility of a 10 tonne vehicle as opposed to a 30+ tonne AFV is also a point worth noting.

The RWS used for the ASLAV T2s for the last decade or so have the ability to integrate Javelin as well. All you need is the mounting bracket and the correct software load (there may have been an informal trial conducted in southern Iraq about a decade ago). There has been talk of formally integrating Javelin now to give the Cav experience with ATGMs prior to the introduction of the Land400 vehicles.

 

[Joe Black]

Is there a date for the announcement of the Land 400 Phase 2 and Phase 3? I can't wait for the announcement of the preferred supplier. I truly hope we go with the German solution.

 

[Stock]

Is there a date for the announcement of the Land 400 Phase 2 and Phase 3? I can't wait for the announcement of the preferred supplier. I truly hope we go with the German solution.

Won't be any preferred Phase 2 tenderer announcement before completion of the Risk Mitigation Activity in August 2017. Second Pass Approval is then not expected until second qtr 2018. So highly unlikely to be any announcement in 2017.

 

[MARKMILES77]

Not sure re EOS development funding of the R400 30mm. They do have interest from the Mid East and US Army for that system.

To me, Hawkei is well suited as a (indirect fire) weapons carrier rather than a mini fighting vehicle, where it can stay out of the direct fire zone. The rear flat bed is ideal for mounting systems such as RBS-70 or an 81mm mortar or towing a 120mm mortar.

Giving the Reserve Mortar (Artillery!) units a Hawkei mounted 81mm mortar or even better a towed EFSS 120mm mortar, would make these units a very desirable addition to any of the Regular Brigades when deployed.

 

[Stock]

Giving the Reserve Mortar (Artillery!) units a Hawkei mounted 81mm mortar or even better a towed EFSS 120mm mortar, would make these units a very desirable addition to any of the Regular Brigades when deployed.

I did find it interesting that Thales had chosen to position the Thales/TDA 120mm towed mortar directly behind Hawkei at Land Forces.

 

[Volkodav]

I did find it interesting that Thales had chosen to position the Thales/TDA 120mm towed mortar directly behind Hawkei at Land Forces.

A 120mm would be a very interesting option as its performance is not that different to a 105mm gun/howitzer, it would be perfect for reserve field batteries. If adopted I hope it is in both towed and SP forms.

 

[Stock]

A 120mm would be a very interesting option as its performance is not that different to a 105mm gun/howitzer, it would be perfect for reserve field batteries. If adopted I hope it is in both towed and SP forms.

In the total absence of a SPH capability, even a simple towed 120mm mortar would be a significant improvement.

 

[STURM]

I've always wondered if 120mm mortars could be an adequate substitute for 105mm guns.

Back in 2013 there was a discussion on 120mm mortars in the ''Role of Light Tanks'' thread and Abraham Gubler had some very interesting things to say -

''I’m highly sceptical of this perennial proposal because a 120mm mortar is not an adequate direct fire weapon. While an excellent mortar and PGM firer a horizontal flight path 120mm mortar bomb is not going to knock out any kind of half decent bunker. Or any kind of structure made from reinforced brick or concrete. The mortar bomb wall is just too weak and doesn’t have enough kinetic energy to do anything more than peck at the surface of most direct fire targets.''

''Not as simple as that. Even if you could defeat 95% of battlefield targets if those remaining 5% are the enemy’s bunkers your weapon is pretty useless in infantry support. Because those notional 5% of targets are the very reason you want an infantry support tank in the battle.''

''A 120mm mortar bomb hitting a target at 900 fps will not penetrate heavy reinforced concrete or any kind of decent bunker (0.5 inch RHA penetration but stopped by 1 inch RHA). It will knock through a house wall, even a foot of basic reinforced concrete (single layer of 2mm steel mesh as a reinforcing), but this will not cut it in the infantry support role. Even a solid dug in bunker made from only wood and dirt will defeat this round''.

''Nah it’s not that. It’s just that there has been such a ‘buzz’ around the internet about the 120mm breech loaded mortar that everyone, myself included, thought it was a good idea. Except the people who build guns and don’t have a mortar to sell. It’s this informed opposition to the mortar as a direct fire weapon is the good reason why no one is building them.''

''The simple facts that a 120mm HE shell fired by a gun will penetrate 2-3 times as much reinforced concrete as a 120mm HE bomb fired by a mortar. And the mortar’s threshold is below that of the strength of many structures. Like bunkers made from layered logs and dirt, or log bunkers built inside buildings and weight bearing reinforced concrete structures.''

Volkodav,

Given the weight and bulk of 120mm mortars, in what scenarios do you feel a towed 120mm mortar would come in handy? Another issue for me is the need for loaders to use a stool when the Thales/TDA is fully elevated.

 

[FormerDirtDart]

Given the weight and bulk of 120mm mortars, in what scenarios do you feel a towed 120mm mortar would come in handy? Another issue for me is the need for loaders to use a stool when the Thales/TDA is fully elevated.

The MO-120 RT-61 (M327 in USMC service) as heavy/bulky as it is, weighs approx. 1/3 as much as the L119/M119 105mm Light Gun, 1/7 as much as the M77 155mm

It can be carried internally in a MV-22 Osprey (& most ramp loaded helicopters), as well as the AAV-P7 for amphibious landings.
This is why the USMC use the MO-120 RT-61/M327 to augment their 155mm howitzer batteries. To be able to insert indirect fire support assets when moving a large artillery piece would be logistically prohibitive.

 

[Waylander]

A mortar comes in handy in every scenario where there are enemy dismounts and/or light (and to some degree medium) vehicles present. Additionally they provide a handy illum and smoke capability. And with the right rounds (like Strix) may also compensate somewhat for otherwise inadequate AT capabilities. That represents lots of usefull fire missions even if Bunkers are not a prime target.

As the Donbass has shown, indirect fire is still the premier killer on the battlefield.

 

[Volkodav]

Very much looking at 120mm mortars, whether towed, SP, or even turreted breech loading, as a replacement for light, towed, predominantly indirect fire artillery. the utility of a high elevating, turreted, breech loader in the direct fire role against most target types, is just another advantage. Rather than their limitations against hardened targets being a disadvantage, it just means they need to be deployed as primarily an indirect support fire and only when applicable in the DF role, for which you would still have the auto cannons on the LAND 400 fleet as well as tanks (hopefully in both the ACRs and the supposed Armoured Engineering Squadrons/Regiment).

Looking at the Australian Army's traditional fires I could see 120mm mortars serving in are towed field batteries that in previous decades would have had Pack Howitzers, M-2A1, L118, was well as a replacement for the 76mm armed FSV and MRV M-113 variants formerly used by CAV sqns and regiments. Depending on logistics they could even be a supplement or replacement for 81mm tubes within the infantry battalions, especially if a 60mm "Commando" Mortar is adopted as planned.

 

[MARKMILES77]

In the total absence of a SPH capability, even a simple towed 120mm mortar would be a significant improvement.

Something like the Spear 120mm low recoil mortar mounted on a Hawkei Ute might be the best option of all.
Equipped with something like P.E.R.M. rounds you would have GPS precision targeting out to 17km in a highly mobile self propelled mortar.
That would be a higly useful capability.

 

[Stock]

Something like the Spear 120mm low recoil mortar mounted on a Hawkei Ute might be the best option of all.
Equipped with something like P.E.R.M. rounds you would have GPS precision targeting out to 17km in a highly mobile self propelled mortar.
That would be a higly useful capability.

That would work. Or to save on weapon system-vehicle integration costs, simply tow the mortar and build an ammo rack on the rear bed of the Hawkei 4-man cab variant.
Should be able to stow at least 40 rounds of 120mm, even though the cargo bed is shorter than on the 2-man cab variant. So simple.

 

[MARKMILES77]

Agree all. The new SOV-Cdo will carry the Protector Dual RWS, which has the standard MG fit as primary armament plus Javelin mounted on the RH side. This same RWS was that mounted on a Hawkei at Land Forces.

Came across this on IsraelDefence.
Not sure if this is widely known or even if it is accurate.
Would seem a strange choice when Army already uses other RWSs that are suitable or is this RWS also used by the ADF?

The French company Thales will equip some of Australia's Hawkei 4×4 vehicles with Rafael Advanced Defense Systems' Mini-Samson remote weapon station, according to a report on defesaglobal. Deliveries will begin early 2017.

A total of 1100 vehicles were procured to meet the requirements of the Australian LAND 121 Phase 4 project. It is still unclear how many vehicles will be equipped with the Mini-Samson remote weapon station.

The Hawkei 4×4 vehicles will replace the current fleet of Land Rover 110.

 

[Raven22]

It would seem strange, since the current PWS for the Bushmaster is currently being upgraded and formally brought into service (it was originally purchased purely for ops). Perhaps there is some advantage to the Samson (Lighter weight? Lower profile?) that makes it a better choice for the smaller, lighter Hawkei.

 

[Volkodav]

Came across this on IsraelDefence.
Not sure if this is widely known or even if it is accurate.
Would seem a strange choice when Army already uses other RWSs that are suitable or is this RWS also used by the ADF?

Mini Samson is similar / related to Mini Typhoon used by the RAN so there would be some commonality and logistics advantages. I would hope / expect that the formal procurement process would evaluate which of the suitable options is the most capable / best value for money. I do know Typhoon and Mini Typhoon are very good systems, but don't know how their land based brethren compare to the competition.

 

[STURM]

Rather than their limitations against hardened targets being a disadvantage, it just means they need to be deployed as primarily an indirect support fire and only when applicable in the DF role, for which you would still have the auto cannons on the LAND 400 fleet as well as tanks (hopefully in both the ACRs and the supposed Armoured Engineering Squadrons/Regiment).

With regards to a mortar round's ability to penetrate certain types of targets I would think the question is how likely will hardened targets or targets that can't be penetrated by a 120mm round be encountered on today's battlefields?

On the merits of towed versus mounted I would prefer having a mounted mortar due the flexibility it offers and the weight and size of a 120mm mortar but I suppose it also depends on the type of conflict being fought. In a scenario where troops are not maneuvering constantly but are placed in fixed positions, a towed mortar wouldn't be a huge issue. But then again the French deployed the TDA in Iraq, towed by VABs, without any issues.
The Malaysians are fitting the Thales/TDA 120mm to a number of AV-8s [an 8x8 based on the Turkish Pars].

Waylander,

Are 60mm mortars used in the Heer at section or platoon level to provide illumination and fire support?