The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 25, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: MINCS(L) AMP048.36 ? Army Mortar System Project
BLUIE006    5/31/2009 8:30:06 AM
Army's mortars will also be replaced with a new and more capable system, and the Government will equip our soldiers with new direct-fire anti-armour as well as automatic grenade launcher systems.


Any chance this will include a Self propelled mortar system and the XM395 PGMM ?
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: 1 2
Barracuda    Mortars   6/1/2009 9:30:16 PM
I would not know about the ammo, but they would just whack the mortars in an APCM variant or a modified bushmaster.
Wouldn't they?
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       6/2/2009 2:18:02 AM

I would not know about the ammo, but they would just whack the mortars in an APCM variant or a modified bushmaster.

Wouldn't they?

potential engineering issues.

eg a 105mm mortar can generate 15 tonnes of felt recoil.  that tends to bugger up suspension and structural integrity if not designed in from the outset.

 
 
Quote    Reply

Barracuda    GF   6/3/2009 2:52:14 AM
We do have the APC - M now or will the new modified Tenix APC not be right for that? 
 
I had always thought with the Bushmaster we were getting Mortar variants, I do vaguely remember a briefing about it and doing TEWT's with them.
 
You are right about the kick and the need for engineering. 
 
I remember the old furphy in the 80s about the SASR putting a smoke dispenser off a Leopard on the front of a 110 and blowing it off the front axles ... goes with the boys wanting to fire 81 mortars without posts, tripods aiming by hand
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       6/3/2009 9:03:50 AM
A turreted mortar such as NEMO or a recoiling mortar such as the SOLTAM CARDOM or Dragonfire would do the job.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussie Diggermark 2       6/3/2009 11:52:04 AM

Army's mortars will also be replaced with a new and more capable system, and the Government will equip our soldiers with new direct-fire anti-armour as well as automatic grenade launcher systems.


Any chance this will include a Self propelled mortar system and the XM395 PGMM ?

I would rate that about as likely as RAAF operating the F-22. 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussie Diggermark 2       6/3/2009 11:55:07 AM

We do have the APC - M now or will the new modified Tenix APC not be right for that? 

 

I had always thought with the Bushmaster we were getting Mortar variants, I do vaguely remember a briefing about it and doing TEWT's with them.

 

You are right about the kick and the need for engineering. 

 

I remember the old furphy in the 80s about the SASR putting a smoke dispenser off a Leopard on the front of a 110 and blowing it off the front axles ... goes with the boys wanting to fire 81 mortars without posts, tripods aiming by hand


We are, but like the Bushmaster direct fire weapons variant, the vehicle will not actually be armed with a mortar or a direct fire weapon, but rather will simply carry around the existing crew served weapon systems, ie: the Bushmaster mortar carrier will carry a mortar section plus the F2 81mm mortar tubes the battalions are already using. It won't be integrated into the chassis as such, just as the Javelin and Carl Gustav direct fire weapons won't be mounted on the Bushmaster, though AGL's might, someday...
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       6/3/2009 7:13:18 PM

 
You are right about the kick and the need for engineering. 

and welcome to the problem with the upgunned Nary's.....
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    mortar mounted on a Bushmaster 4x4 not really that far-fetched...   6/3/2009 11:09:15 PM
I wouldn't rate the chance of this not happening as so low as some here have suggested.
 
I've seen this one recently, recalling its mention back in IDEX 2007.
It's the Agrab 120mm mortar system, and its base vehicle is the BAE RG31 (4x4 MRAP to any US folks).
Looks rather impressive and quite capable.
 
From Army-Guide.Com's entry we can get some decent photos of the system,
and there's also a Jane's entry here.
 
Those of you receiving a subscription to Defense Technology International ( via AviationWeek.com/dti )
will recognize it from the May 2009 edition, page 20
(should be accessible with an online account, either under Archives or Previous Editions or something like that in there).
 
If there's still concerns a Bushie 4x4 can't handle the big 120, why not use the 6-wheeler?
Judging by the sheer bulk of armor I've seen bolted onto other 6x6 frames (MRAP types not wholly dissimilar to a Bushmaster 6x6), a cut-down pick-up truck version should easily handle the girth, recoil, and magazine(s) of any number of the modern advanced 120mm mortars.
 
Shucks, if there's that MOBAT system that can handle a 105mm howitzer from the back of a 4x4,
( link here from Army-Guide.Com, and link here from Jane's ) it should be doable to develop something similar suitable for the Bushmaster chassis.
If 120 sounds too scary for a 4x4, consider then that 81mm systems are getting smarter, too, even if they don't have the punch of a 120mm shell (but remember: precision on point targets means we don't necessarily need as large a warhead, either).
 
We could always work with Patria, who seem good with turreted mortars, to develop a semi-scale NEMO or AMOS in 81mm...
Then again, the NEMO brochure there (see page 4 of that pdf) depicts the system mounted on the aft half of a Viking-type articulated APC/weapons carrier.
If its hull, not really known as a brute of a vehicle (it floats & swims, doesn't it?), can handle a full-up NEMO 120 (even if maybe only a couple dozen rounds?), is such a caliber on a 4x4 really that impossible to envision?
 
Either or, pursuing a truck-mounted 120mm mortar (greater yield than 105 howitzer)
or a truck-mounted 105mm howitzer (greater range than 120 mortar),
the strides in the PGK program are looking quite promising as well
(should be easy to create 120mm mortar rounds with a suitable fuze well, if the US PGMM is deemed too expensive to purchase in large quantities: Excalibur GPS artillery shells currently cost Uncle Sam upwards of $100K per round, so I doubt PGMMs will cost anything less than $75K apiece, being conservative).
 
Then again, if people still think wheeled chassis can't handle such recoil, there's always those stretched M113 chassis Australia has decided on.
 
Quote    Reply

BLUIE006       6/14/2009 10:34:57 AM

Developments in mobile mortar & precision mortar platforms certainly require some attention - IMHO.

If a self propelled turreted system is out of the question? And modifying existing vehicles provides too greater engineering challenge then trailer mounted options should be investigated. 120mm mortar combined with PGMM provides a relatively simple, low-cost, precision-indirect fire weapon.

 

They would provide organic precision (1m accuracy) weapons to deployed infantry and motorized forces that are dependably available and immediately responsive, able to neutralize time urgent protected targets. They would also be Air deployable and have a small political footprint.

 

US have a cost goal of $15K per round for the M395 PGMM (h**p://www.dtic.mil/ndia/ammo/cilli.pdf). This provides a reasonable ?bang for buck? and should this prove unattainable there are alternative PGMM?s being developed all around the world.

 

Something like the towed Dragon-fire II or conventional 120mm with the M326 & M1101trailer (or alternative) could easily be integrated into the Bushmaster package; and with the M395 provide a battle ready solution to precision indirect fire.

 

Lack of previous training with 120mm mortar could prove a minor huddle for Australia; however, it is likely the troops on the ground would be keen to quickly to acquire these skills, given the ?one-shot defeat? potential of these systems.

 
Quote    Reply

Aussie Diggermark 2       6/14/2009 10:45:01 AM
A trailer mounted mortar system, might be a possibility, though I heard that the USMC trailer mounted 120mm wasn't proving such a great success.
 
Army models itself quite closely on the USMC, so if they don't like something or are having trouble with it, I would suggest it might be a deathknell as far as we're concerned... 
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    for what it's worth....   6/14/2009 11:49:56 PM
The pdf offered on the PGMM is an older one: the system depicted at the beginning is/was based on a German program called Bussard, same wingplan and everything, just needed the US gold-plating tacked on to justify a higher price.
In its current propsed form, the M395 PGMM looks nothing like the Bussard.
 
$15K for a 120mm PGMM will never happen, not as a complete from-the-ground-up, purpose built precision munition.
Some sort of PGK-equipped equivalent, certainly (course correction mechanism and actual "dumb" round's combined price).
 
Ask the Swedish where they went with the Strix, certainly wasn't coming in that cheap: mass production just might get that price down, but only after future blocks/iterations work out the technical kinks and find cheaper solutions to fabricating many of the components.
$15K is still asking for a lot of technological miracles in one package in post-year-2000 dollars.
 
As to the USMC's interesting little 120mm: the EFSS Expeditionary Fire Support System,
it consists of four units: two 'pullers", little trucks buggies even smaller than a WW2 Willys Jeep, with one towing an ammo limber and one towing the actual mortar.
Four pieces of equipment just to move one mortar.
What f...'s it up for the USMC is the fact they wanted something internally-portable in their V-22s, which will require two of them to move a complete fully-battle-ready EFSS system (gotta figure in crews and the crews' supllies).
 
If anyone here has ever seen the concepts for the EFSS, there's no room at all for any protectiuon on those little runabouts, other than minimal protection from the elements.
 
In short: a dismal failure.There's better systems out there for the same amount of money the USMC is throwing away into the EFSS.
 
Quote    Reply

Arty Farty       6/15/2009 1:54:07 AM
French towed 120mm mortar youtube.com/watch?v=qvWa_plTUB4
 
Stryker 120 mortar carrier w/ recoil youtube.com/watch?v=nA61l_HktlU
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    more on EFSS, PGMM,...   6/15/2009 7:17:34 AM
Here are two articles on what/where the M395 PGMM appears to stand today ( info from ~2006, actually).
2) from Wiki
 
Tried to find a little more on the EFSS, and came up with
1) this pdf (EFSS is seen on page 16 (PM-W pulls actual mortar, PM-T pulls ammo limber and its whopping 24 rounds),
2) this article from National Defense Magazine , which explains the issues in purpose-developing a vehicle/system suitable for internal carriage in the Osprey's cramped confines.
Notice that the two vehicles displayed on the pdf (page 16), obviously it's going to be impossible to fit both of them at the same time into a single V-22.
 
Another issue I'm seeing: I'm under the impression that the PGMM isn't designed for use with rifled mortars in mind, but rather smoothbores so it doesn't spin.
That could be a major issue on the point that it would then require a brand new PGM (or future M395 Block) that allows compatibility with rifled tubes (USMC EFSS).
 
Now if the USMC can achieve that 20km range they're hoping from said mortar (says so in the NDM article),
more power to them.
A mortar with that range capability could almost negate the need for 105mm howitzers.
But again, without some sort of precision at that range, the extra range is pointless.
Carrier rounds containing submunitions and bomblets are certainly an option, but only for area targets.
Then there's the dud factor inherent in all cluster bomb designs, which has lead to some frowning on them (local populace stumbling across the UXOs and getting maimed) and many cluster bombs weapons being removed (or at least withdrawn) from immediate service.
 
Personally I like the idea of such a long range mortar: the possibility here is that the 105mm howitzer and 120mm mortar classes could see a convergence to where we can achieve the greater range (~20km)
but thru a lightweight system to cover with one weapon what currently takes both.
A vehicle-mounted platform obviously could fire the weapon at higher pressures because it can actually be a heavier system.
But infantry will still want their lightweight tubes.
 
Againg though, without sufficient accuracy the farther we fire, extra range means little more than nuisance value, if any at all.
 
There are some other mortar PGM projects out there: I found these two (from 2005, mind you) on Defense-Update.Com also:
1) Fireball ,an Israeli-offered system suggesting rifled and smoothbore compatibility with a range out to 15km.
2) "Mor" - M150/M151 HE-TAG , (Terminal Area Guided) mortar bomb ,another Israeli offering, suggesting up to 9.5km range.
I can't find anything else really as to whether these were pursued further in the last 4 years, or abandoned on cost issues, technical hurdles, or lack of interest (I seriously doubt the last one).
Catch here with any of these is the fact they need forward laser designation (~1m precision certainly makes it worthwhile)
 
If PGK (or any other CCF programs) proves it can achieve its expectations, that's a GPS system that doesn't need forward designation (~10m precision?),
but it's still not ready for primetime (could easily be another 5+ years for a mass-production-ready system capable of adapting across the board to either 105&155mm artillery, and 120mm mortars).
 
...not that we haven't talked this stuff to death already, like here, about this time last year,
or even all the way back here, a few years ago yet.
 
Quote    Reply

BLUIE006       6/15/2009 9:19:00 AM
Although it has the potential to make the system too complex, there is always the possibility that lightweight UAV's could be used for target illumination?
Eliminating the need for a Forward observer...
 
 
 
link
 
 
Nexter Munitions is also said to be developing a system (MPM)
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       6/18/2009 3:46:07 AM

The pdf offered on the PGMM is an older one: the system depicted at the beginning is/was based on a German program called Bussard, same wingplan and everything, just needed the US gold-plating tacked on to justify a higher price.

In its current propsed form, the M395 PGMM looks nothing like the Bussard.

 

$15K for a 120mm PGMM will never happen, not as a complete from-the-ground-up, purpose built precision munition.

Some sort of PGK-equipped equivalent, certainly (course correction mechanism and actual "dumb" round's combined price).

 

Ask the Swedish where they went with the Strix, certainly wasn't coming in that cheap: mass production just might get that price down, but only after future blocks/iterations work out the technical kinks and find cheaper solutions to fabricating many of the components.

$15K is still asking for a lot of technological miracles in one package in post-year-2000 dollars.

 

As to the USMC's interesting little 120mm: the EFSS Expeditionary Fire Support System,

it consists of four units: two 'pullers", little trucks buggies even smaller than a WW2 Willys Jeep, with one towing an ammo limber and one towing the actual mortar.

Four pieces of equipment just to move one mortar.

What f...'s it up for the USMC is the fact they wanted something internally-portable in their V-22s, which will require two of them to move a complete fully-battle-ready EFSS system (gotta figure in crews and the crews' supllies).

 

If anyone here has ever seen the concepts for the EFSS, there's no room at all for any protectiuon on those little runabouts, other than minimal protection from the elements.

 

In short: a dismal failure.There's better systems out there for the same amount of money the USMC is throwing away into the EFSS.


What about Raytheon's DAGGER? I am not a mortar or artillery expert so I would appreciate the views of some professionals on this system.
 
Herald
 
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy