Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[t68]

I was under the impression it was that no one built an SPG with Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System (AFATDS) in the caliber that Army desired was the main reason why we did not get a SPG.

 

[Redlands18]

It is an interesting hypothetical discussion.

The obvious solution with a Land 400 vehicle is the Boxer RCH. This uses the 155mm Artillery Gun Module (AGM) which uses the 155mm 52-caliber gun from the PzH 2000.

The other obvious option is the Donar SPG (developed by Kraus-Maffei Wegmann and General Dynamics) which is built on the ASCOD 2 chassis and also uses the AGM. If Ajax gets up this may have been in consideration. Presumably a similar solution could be developed with a Lynx Kf41 chassis.

Donar has similar performance to the PzH 2000, however is significantly lighter and cheaper. Donar is 35t and the Boxer RCH has a similar weight. Both are significantly lighter than the Land 17 finalists (47t for the AS9 and 55t for the PzH 2000).

Interestingly, both options have a crew of two so either would save 3 crew over what the Land 17 finalists would have used.

The M777A2 is listed as having a crew of 7+1. Going to a Donar/ Boxer RCH would save 5-6 crew per gun; across 24 systems (as was proposed in Land 17 Phase 2), that is a total 576 fewer people needed to operate the systems.
These systems have a significant sticker price, but when you consider the indirect costs to recruit, train and support the crew to operate them a case could be made that a Boxer RCH or Donar style of solution provided better value for money. The flip side of it is that actual economic savings be realised as these 576 people would be repurposed to other areas of need.

Then again, it could also depend on how the Army view remote turrets for artillery; they are certainly not popular for the CRV and IFV tenders.

It is certainly not currently on the table, so it moot either way

Get the feeling with the last DWP that army got the Choice SPH or MRL and have gone with the latter.
Army is going to be very busy integrating new SP systems with the MRL, NASAMS, SP Mortars and a whole range of new AFVs with new capabilities. No SPH is Probably understandable when you take into consideration just how much learning the Army has to do in the next Decade.
2 new AFVs mounted with ATGW(a 1st for the ARMY)
MRLs(1st)
SP Mortars(1st)
SP SAMs(1st)
Fleet of new Trucks that will have a very different way of doing things.
The Hawkei Vehicles which will be a revolutionary new capability(good read in the Nov issue of DTR)
May see the SPH pop up in the next DWP, due mid 2020s as a replacement for the M-777s from around 2035?

 

[hairyman]

It is an interesting hypothetical discussion.

The obvious solution with a Land 400 vehicle is the Boxer RCH. This uses the 155mm Artillery Gun Module (AGM) which uses the 155mm 52-caliber gun from the PzH 2000.

The other obvious option is the Donar SPG (developed by Kraus-Maffei Wegmann and General Dynamics) which is built on the ASCOD 2 chassis and also uses the AGM. If Ajax gets up this may have been in consideration. Presumably a similar solution could be developed with a Lynx Kf41 chassis.

Donar has similar performance to the PzH 2000, however is significantly lighter and cheaper. Donar is 35t and the Boxer RCH has a similar weight. Both are significantly lighter than the Land 17 finalists (47t for the AS9 and 55t for the PzH 2000).

Interestingly, both options have a crew of two so either would save 3 crew over what the Land 17 finalists would have used.

The M777A2 is listed as having a crew of 7+1. Going to a Donar/ Boxer RCH would save 5-6 crew per gun; across 24 systems (as was proposed in Land 17 Phase 2), that is a total 576 fewer people needed to operate the systems.
These systems have a significant sticker price, but when you consider the indirect costs to recruit, train and support the crew to operate them a case could be made that a Boxer RCH or Donar style of solution provided better value for money. The flip side of it is that actual economic savings be realised as these 576 people would be repurposed to other areas of need.

Then again, it could also depend on how the Army view remote turrets for artillery; they are certainly not popular for the CRV and IFV tenders.

It is certainly not currently on the table, so it moot either way

I dont want to appear pedantic, but to my mind a saving of 6 people over 24 units is a saving of 144 people overall,

 

[PeterM]

I dont want to appear pedantic, but to my mind a saving of 6 people over 24 units is a saving of 144 people overall,

Very true, damn typo

my sincere apologies

 

[Joe Black]

It is an interesting hypothetical discussion.

Interestingly, both options have a crew of two so either would save 3 crew over what the Land 17 finalists would have used.

The M777A2 is listed as having a crew of 7+1. Going to a Donar/ Boxer RCH would save 5-6 crew per gun; across 24 systems (as was proposed in Land 17 Phase 2), that is a total 576 fewer people needed to operate the systems.
These systems have a significant sticker price, but when you consider the indirect costs to recruit, train and support the crew to operate them a case could be made that a Boxer RCH or Donar style of solution provided better value for money. The flip side of it is that actual economic savings be realised as these 576 people would be repurposed to other areas of need.

Then again, it could also depend on how the Army view remote turrets for artillery; they are certainly not popular for the CRV and IFV tenders.

It is certainly not currently on the table, so it moot either way

Yeah, not sure a crew of 2 makes sense, I would think at the minimum, a crew of 3-4 would be required for SP guns, especially for sustained firing, shoot and scoot ops. I have seen clips of a crew of 4 working on the French Caesar SP gun - which is highly automated. Can't see how a remoted turreted artillery could operate with just a crew of 2 in real life ops. Small scale exercise maybe ok, but on the battle field, think one would quickly find that 2 man firing arty team is probably not going to work very well.

 

[Takao]

Logistics is not very cool or sexy compared to the things that go bang.
However it's just as important a cog on the wheel for a true whole of a capability requirement.
Not just Tanks, but the whole ADF faces this challenge more than most defence forces with our large land geography and AIR / SEA approaches.
I cannot say if the Armoured Cavalry Regiments have a sufficient fuel resupply inventory of vehicles but I trust this was considered when selecting vehicles for Land 121.

An knowledge to confirm the situation.

Regards S

Everything @Raven22 and @t68 says is spot on. There are 10 kL pods for L121; but they haven't been delivered / fully delivered. The TPA (@4 kL) doesn't fit on the M113 logistics vehicle and doesn't matter anyhow as the TPA just can't keep up with tanks in the combat team or battlegroup.

Tracked fuel isn't an issue nor is wanted / needed. The F Ech will move through DPs and the like as they move around the battlefield, meaning that the A1 Ech can pick where - hence wheels is okay. Plus they give the carrying capability that a M1 + Boxer + IFV needs.

But bulk liquid distribution, even with L8190, is poorly thought out and considered, especially mobile elements. Good thing we don't have an increased mech fleet coming....

 

[Takao]

Get the feeling with the last DWP that army got the Choice SPH or MRL and have gone with the latter.
Army is going to be very busy integrating new SP systems with the MRL, NASAMS, SP Mortars and a whole range of new AFVs with new capabilities. No SPH is Probably understandable when you take into consideration just how much learning the Army has to do in the next Decade.
2 new AFVs mounted with ATGW(a 1st for the ARMY)
MRLs(1st)
SP Mortars(1st)
SP SAMs(1st)
Fleet of new Trucks that will have a very different way of doing things.
The Hawkei Vehicles which will be a revolutionary new capability(good read in the Nov issue of DTR)
May see the SPH pop up in the next DWP, due mid 2020s as a replacement for the M-777s from around 2035?

Army's problem isn't integrating these capabilities - it's the lack of / poor intellectual work in justifying them If we had done that work before the last FSR and the one before, we wouldn't be quibbling about 59 tanks, SPG or any of the other capabilities we have suddenly twigged to. Remember - the ASLAV and M113AS4 lack decent protection to fight in a mid - high intensity conflict as of today, let alone 2025. So what are we expected to do when Government starts calling?

Instead of doing the hard intellectual yards (like the RAN did with SS, DDG and FFG or the RAAF did with extra C-17 and JSF), we just pouted and did platitudes. Take two of these comments here - L121 trucks that have a different way of doing things (different? really? and just how different is it to civilian trucking of todays as opposed to Army trucking of the 1980s?) and Hawkei (revolutionary? really? how?). These views (that Army holds, not @Redlands18) are flawed and highlight just how bad we have been.

Where is the strategic justification for extra tanks? SPG? Decent GBAD? Why can't we, as an organisation, convince our other services of our needs - especially in plain English?

Army as a whole can meet the challenge of integrating all this + SPG + extra tanks nad better comms. What Army needs is elements of AHQ to do their job - and fight for the kit Land Forces need to go and fight the fight that Government demands....

 

[Massive]

a crew of 4 working on the French Caesar SP gun

The Caesar requires the crew to be exposed outside their vehicle to operate the gun.

The AGL has two crew inside the vehicle operating the gun.

The crew in the gun vehicle would not be the only crew in the battery. Regardless, a lot less are needed than 9 crew fully exposed to counter-battery fire serving a gun that needs to be hitched to a truck after firing to scoot.

The M777 is obsolete with the exception of a few very specific combat situations. Not moving quickly to a SPG is an error IMHO.

Regards,

Massive

 

[Massive]

a saving of 144 people overall,

About the manning of a HIMARS or SPG regiment.

Regards,

Massive

 

[Milne Bay]

The Caesar requires the crew to be exposed outside their vehicle to operate the gun.

The AGL has two crew inside the vehicle operating the gun.

The crew in the gun vehicle would not be the only crew in the battery. Regardless, a lot less are needed than 9 crew fully exposed to counter-battery fire serving a gun that needs to be hitched to a truck after firing to scoot.

The M777 is obsolete with the exception of a few very specific combat situations. Not moving quickly to a SPG is an error IMHO.

Regards,

Massive

I could not agree more.
Gun numbers are virtually assured of casualties from counter battery fire and should be given more protection.
SPG is essential, and not just a "nice option"
MB

 

[MARKMILES77]

The November issue of DTR magazine has an article on the M777ER which is being developed by the joint Army/USMC Long Range Cannon project.

The M777ER has a 55 calibre barrel instead of the current 39 calibre barrel. Range increases to over 65km. The barrel is 1.83m longer and increases weight by 453kg. The Armaments Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC) demonstrated the capability to integrate the longer barrel into the M777A2 with minimal modification.

It seems that this could be a future development for our M777A2s. Combined with the Assegai range of 155mm ammunition there will be a significant increase in capability.

I still have questions on how well the M777A2 (or M777ER) will be able to provide support once LAND 400 becomes fully operational. Interestn

The US Army believes the technology developed for the Long Range Cannon project could be leveraged for a wheeled 155mm self-propelled howitzer. I wonder whether they are thinking of something along the lines of the Caesar SPG or perhaps something based on an armoured vehicle like Stryker.

US Army currently trialing a truck mounted 155mm low recoil howitzer.
Mounted on a 6X6 FMTV unarmored truck for the purpose of the trial.
Basically the same idea as Caesar.
The gun is not an M777 as far as I am aware.
The truck gun combination is known as "Brutus"

 

[MARKMILES77]

Photos of "BRUTUS"
Likely any production version would have some form of armoured cab, ammunition storage and other operational changes but this is what the trial vehicle is like.

 

[Redlands18]

Instead of doing the hard intellectual yards (like the RAN did with SS, DDG and FFG or the RAAF did with extra C-17 and JSF), we just pouted and did platitudes. Take two of these comments here - L121 trucks that have a different way of doing things (different? really? and just how different is it to civilian trucking of todays as opposed to Army trucking of the 1980s?) and Hawkei (revolutionary? really? how?). These views (that Army holds, not @Redlands18) are flawed and highlight just how bad we have been.

Where is the strategic justification for extra tanks? SPG? Decent GBAD? Why can't we, as an organisation, convince our other services of our needs - especially in plain English
.

L121 Phase3B Trucks(Mack replacements) will have a very different way of being loaded all they will do is pick up an already loaded Module take it to where its wanted drop it of and go. Pick up and drop off will take minutes instead of waiting while its unloaded for anything from 10 mins to 10 hrs. They will be integrated into the entire Comms network they will also be Armoured. You are going from 4WD to 8 & 10wd. They will be able to go places the Macks never could and be re-directed far faster then ever before and give their Drivers a level of protection never seen before . Their Commanders will know where they are all the time and the Comms will be secure.
Have a read of the November issue of Defence Technology Review it has a very interesting piece on the Hawkei, it will have 4 Computer Work Stations built into the Vehicle, the Vehicle has been designed from scratch to do this with all the Electrical Power req fitted and the Vehicle is well Armoured If that is not a Revolution over a Voice only Radio or a Lap top in the back of a 110 Perentie then I don't know what is.

 

[STURM]

The M777 is obsolete with the exception of a few very specific combat situations.

Apart from situations where there is little or zero likelihood of counter battery fire and where armies have a need for a gun that can be heli lifted [irrespective of the drawbacks associated with towed guns]; what would the other situations be?

On another matter; in a scenario where crews have to provide sustained fire without switching locations, would it be practical for
M-109/K-9/AS-90/Panzerhaubitze crews to operate without actually leaving their vehicles and for all hatched to stay shut? The reason I'm asking is because I've seen pics of Dutch Panzerhaubitzes in Afghanistan operating with hatches opened, crews outside the vehicle and ammo and charges laid on the ground beside the vehicles. Same with IDF M-109s in Lebanon. A possible reason could have been that apart from the AC and ventilation systems not being able to function in the heat; the risk of counter battery fire was considered slim.

 

[Stampede]

About the manning of a HIMARS or SPG regiment.

Regards,

Massive

Surprised the DWP suggested acquiring a HIMARS capability in the first place, when we don't have SPG's in the Brigades.
MLRS appears a bit niche for an army of our size and structure.
Probably more on the list of nice to haves, rather than I'd suspect a SPG, which is a bit more bricks and mortar stuff for the type of Brigade we wish to create.
Even more surprising given we had an aspiration for such a capability a few years a go, and where down to the last two finalists with the result of a no go being the final outcome.

Army is a strange beast at times.

Platoon size, section size, Plan Beersheba,Plan Keogh Plan what next.
I often wonder what the RAAF would look like if it chopped and changed as much as the Army has over the decade.
As an organisation it has made good decisions and acquired the correct balance of equipment to create a forward thinking progressive system that can deliver a range of outcomes the envy of any air force of comparable size.

Maybe the Army will achieve such a position at the end of the next decade.
As of today I'd suggest their are far too many areas that are deficient and this adds stress to those areas we still do well.

Army needs to be a better ambassador for itself.

Regards s

 

[John Fedup]

Apart from situations where there is little or zero likelihood of counter battery fire and where armies have a need for a gun that can be heli lifted [irrespective of the drawbacks associated with towed guns]; what would the other situations be?

On another matter; in a scenario where crews have to provide sustained fire without switching locations, would it be practical for
M-109/K-9/AS-90/Panzerhaubitze crews to operate without actually leaving their vehicles and for all hatched to stay shut? The reason I'm asking is because I've seen pics of Dutch Panzerhaubitzes in Afghanistan operating with hatches opened, crews outside the vehicle and ammo and charges laid on the ground beside the vehicles. Same with IDF M-109s in Lebanon. A possible reason could have been that apart from the AC and ventilation systems not being able to function in the heat; the risk of counter battery fire was considered slim.

Absolutely the AC would have been a BIG issue. This was one of two critical reasons why the Canadian army pressed
the government to replace Leopard I tanks with Leopard 2 during our Afghanistan deployment.

 

[Massive]

Apart from situations where there is little or zero likelihood of counter battery fire and where armies have a need for a gun that can be heli lifted [irrespective of the drawbacks associated with towed guns]; what would the other situations be?

I agree with you.

Regards,

massive

 

[Massive]

MLRS appears a bit niche for an army of our size and structure.

I disagree with this.

Long-range (up to 400km) massed fires coupled with an effective long-range drone capability are an absolutely critical force multiplier for the ADF.

HIMARS has a very low manning requirement for a huge increase in firepower - across land and sea targets.

I would love to see a HIMARS brigade though imagine I will need to settle for a regiment.

Regards,

Massive

 

[Redlands18]

Absolutely the AC would have been a BIG issue. This was one of two critical reasons why the Canadian army pressed
the government to replace Leopard I tanks with Leopard 2 during our Afghanistan deployment.

Wasn't the Canadian Army at one stage going to replace the Leopard 1 with Stryker type Vehicles?

 

[Redlands18]

I disagree with this.

Long-range (up to 400km) massed fires coupled with an effective long-range drone capability are an absolutely critical force multiplier for the ADF.

HIMARS has a very low manning requirement for a huge increase in firepower - across land and sea targets.

I would love to see a HIMARS brigade though imagine I will need to settle for a regiment.

Regards,

Massive

Talking of Long Range there is also a number of new LR 155mm Rounds available for the M777 which means you can place your Guns a lot further back and make Counter Battery Fire a lot more difficult.
VULCANO 155mm - DETAIL - Leonardo - Aerospace, Defence and Security
There are far to many Towed 155mm Guns in the world to right them off yet.