3) Arming the Armidales, then they would be properly armed to take out pirates!

A 25mm is enough to take out some pirates if you use it properly.

 

A jevelin would not really add anything to the mix, especially once you factor in the cost of supply/maintainence/training in its use/fact there is no actual space for them in the ACPB design/chance of the weapons actual application.

 

As I recall, the US has been looking at using the Javelin in place of the TOW missiles that are used on ground mounted (Humvees, Bradleys etc) anti-armour units. However, the Javelin doesn't have the range of the TOW.

 

In response there's a program called Joint Air to Ground Missile (JAGM) attempting to find a common solution for TOW-Hellfire-Mavericks. Look for it in future. 

Their is also now a wireless version of TOW.

 

What may be of more utility for the ACPB's is surface launched Hellfire.

As already mentioned, the TOW, especially in the wireless version, would be a better bet - longer range, and reportedly actually cheaper. Personally, I would have gone with the Spike, which has similar performance to Javelin, but is cheaper, and there are longer range versions as well, potentially allowing a semi-common system for both Javelin and TOW roles.

 

 

On a somewhat unrelated note, look at the Netfires, which should prove to be a pretty useful weapons system, and might be a good option for mounting on the Armidales if needed. One interesting thing to note is the length of the missiles - the PAM and LAM are both around the same length as the Stinger, so I suspect it would be possible to mount Stinger (in a lock-on after launch mode) in the same launcher. This would potentially allow the Netfires box launcher to carry a mix of short range attack, medium range attack and short range air defence missiles. One box would be enough to give an Army company a good defence, or defend a patrol boat, giving an organic capability never dreamed of at that level before.

Re Spike:

Re Netfires:

1) Wasn't the LAM cancelled?

2) I am a huge fan of the Netfires PAM. It is a low total cost of ownership (containerized "rockets sitting in a box" until needed), easy to deploy, long range (longer ranged than Excalibur, similar to GMLRS?), PGM (GPS, INS, IIR, SAL), which can be deployed with the actual infantry.

3) Netfires on an Armidale!? I thought Netfires might be good to park in an out of the way corner of an LHD, to provide some organic precision fire support to intervention operations in the South Pacific, but on an Armidale!?

Re Spike:

Personally, I would have gone with the Spike, which has similar performance to Javelin, but is cheaper, and there are longer range versions as well, potentially allowing a semi-common system for both Javelin and TOW roles.

Very true.

Not to mention helicopter mounted as well.

 

As far as I know there are semi common Spike variants analogous to:

1) Javelin (man portable/crew served)

2) TOW (vehicle mounted)

3) Hellfire (helicopter mounted)

 

Not sure about UAVs though!

Given the weapon "locks on" to the target of it's own accord, I don't imagine a midly pitching deck would make too much of a difference...

It depends what you are shooting at, but the Javelin might have a good deal of trouble 'locking on' to either a terrorist motorboat or a larger ship. The software might need some updating so it can discriminate a small boat on the ocean, or a specific part of a larger ship - you might be limited to direct engagements instead. Besides, the time it takes to 'lock-on' a Javelin means its probably not an ideal weapon against terrorist boats - the 25mm Bushmaster is a far better weapon for that task. An Armidale as it currently stands wouldn't have any trouble taking out pirates.

 

I would love if they developed an ER version of the Javelin though - something with a 4000m range would be lovely. Sucks to have your primary anti-tank weapon outranged by every tank gun in the world, which is how it stands with the current Javelin. All we've got to do then is convince the Army to let us actually bolt a Javelin to our Kongsberg RWS, so the cav finally has a mobile anti-tank capability. All we have to do is buy the mounts and pay for the training and hey presto - its not rocket surgery. Convincing them to bolt a Javelin onto the side of the turret of the gun cars during the phase 4 upgrade is the next step. I want to be able to kill tanks damn it! Giving the infantry an equivalent of TOW-under-armour wouldn't hurt either.

Convincing them to bolt a Javelin onto the side of the turret of the gun cars during the phase 4 upgrade is the next step.

 

Weren't they looking at something like that in the mid 90's at about the same time they were concidering turreted mortars for the ASLAV's?  I believe TOW or MILAN were the contenders then.

Yeah, about 1998 the master plan was to fit TOW to the gun cars. But then East Timor happened. It was discovered that you don't need TOW to scare the crap out of the local militias running around the joint, which is all that was happening then, and nothing more came of it. The idea was revived again in early 2003 when the Americans asked for 2 Cav to be deployed as part of the invasion of Iraq, but of course that didn't happen so the idea was dropped again.

 

It is interesting to look at the doctinal organisation of a cavalry regiment though. Apparently we've got all sorts of interesting things, like a mortar troop, air defence troop, TUA troop, assault troop etc. Whoever wrote that organisation must have been an optimist.

 

Back to reality though, if the army really wants to be able to take part in mid intensity warfighting, it really needs a mounted anti-armour capability organic to cavalry and mech inf units. Currently the only mounted anti-armour capability in the entire army is the Abrams of 1 Armd Regt. Having cav and mech inf having to rely on dismounted Javelin teams is ridiculous. I hate having a dodgy old BMP having weapons overmatch on me because I can't touch it beyond 2000m, while it can kill me at 4000m with ATGMs. Cav need a mounted ATGM organic at troop level, and at the least the mech inf need their anti-armour platoon mounted in vehicles armed with ATGMs. Javelin is probably the easiest and cheapest missile for this to happen.

 

 

The other option would be ADATS as employed by Canada n M-113's, they had planned to refurbish and upgrade the units to fit on LAV III's but this has appearently been canned with the decision to go for Leo 2A6's instead of the AGS and upgraded M-113 ADATS instead of the LAV ADATS.

 

Such a system would be employed at REGT or SQN level so wouldn't solve the issue of what a TRP leader should do when he runs into a hostile MBT.

 

Looking outside the square I wonder if DAGAR or APKWS II could be fitted to an ASLAV Turret?

The other option would be ADATS as employed by Canada n M-113's, they had planned to refurbish and upgrade the units to fit on LAV III's but this has appearently been canned with the decision to go for Leo 2A6's instead of the AGS and upgraded M-113 ADATS instead of the LAV ADATS.

 

Such a system would be employed at REGT or SQN level so wouldn't solve the issue of what a TRP leader should do when he runs into a hostile MBT.

 

Looking outside the square I wonder if DAGAR or APKWS II could be fitted to an ASLAV Turret?

1. I don't see the need to "develop" this missile for these roles. There is a program to upgrade it's range to around 4k's as I understand, but to put it on a Seahawk, seems a bit of a stretch.You'd need to develop a multiple round launcher, qualify it and integrate it.

If you really need "light missile" capability why wouldn't you opt simply for Hellfire? Comes with the M299 smart launcher, DAGR guided rockets can be employed from the same launcher, using the same software as for Hellfire and increases firepower to 16x guided rockets per launcher... Hellfire gives you 8k range (ie: outside MANPAD range) and DAGR givs you 3k's, longer than Javelin anyway (though of course helicopter speeds are going to increase the Javelin's range automatically).

Hellfire on Seahawk has already been done too, by the USN. Surely piggybacking off their work would be easier cheaper and would result in more capability?

4. Again, same problem as above with respect to integration etc. Personally I think RAAF/ARmy will end up with a Predator/Reaper capability in years to come with inherent armed capability...

Thanks ADM2!

I guess that the advantages of OTS/pre integrated weapons (eg Hellfire on Seahawk or Reaper) outweigh the "economies of scope" of using a single weapon on multiple platforms in multiple services. Especially if the pre integrated weapon is longer ranged and more suitable!

 

 

As to the Charlie G, they aren't being replaced anytime soon. They are being upgraded under Land 40 Phase 2, with new ammunition natures, new night vision sights and (I believe) the light "M3" variant tubes. The Javelin will never be as cheap as the Charlie G because of the excellent CLU that comes with it...

What is still outstanding in Land 40?

If the Javelins were acquired under Phase 1, and the Carl Gustav upgrades under Phase 2, and the SR-25s seem to be being acquired and issued anyhow, what is still outstanding? Just grenade launchers?

 

And is the decision on grenade launchers waiting on the outcome between Mk 47 40mm AGL and the XM307 25mm AGL? Or has the XM307 been cancelled?

 

Is the intention to acquire a grenade launcher with an airburst capability?

 

Or is the grenade launcher acquisition waiting on the outcome of the AICW? I know that is three shot, not AGL ... but ...