Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: 120mm AMS in Australian service
BLUIE006    6/2/2008 4:45:13 AM
The 120 AMS (120mm Armored Mortar System) is a single barrel, smoothbore 120mm mortar turret suitable for integration on medium weight armored vehicles such as M113 and Piranha III. It is operated completely under armor featuring reduced recoil and semi-automatic loading system which makes possible integration on most types of wheeled and tracked vehicles. The 120 Armored Mortar System mortar-turret fires existing and planned 120mm mortar ammunition and can be employed for direct fire engagements as well as indirect fire engagements. A 7.62mm machine gun and smoke grenade launchers provide additional self-defense capability. h*tp://www.deagel.com/Weapon-Stations/120-AMS_a001428001.aspx The 120 AMS has been integrated on M113A4 and Piranha III 8x8 chassis and is currently in service with the armies of Saudi Arabia and Australia. Australia / 20 Saudi Arabia / 73 I had no idea ADF used 120 mortar?? Is this part of MINCS(L) AMP 48.36 – Army Mortar System Project The DMO site says its unapproved
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14   NEXT
ArtyEngineer    Herald   6/29/2008 7:03:01 PM
No Problem, Id like neutraliser to confirm it was actually white sands who were conducting the tests  As I mentioned its not really there stock in trade to do that type of work.  The Germans, Japanese, even the South Africans all go to Yuma Proving Ground to use their very well set up ranges for development of firing table data. 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    White Sands   6/30/2008 3:13:33 AM

No Problem, Id like neutraliser to confirm it was actually white sands who were conducting the tests  As I mentioned its not really there stock in trade to do that type of work.  The Germans, Japanese, even the South Africans all go to Yuma Proving Ground to use their very well set up ranges for development of firing table data. 

has always been more of a pyrotechnics, A2G ordnance, and rocketry test range, which is why I asked. I was surprised to see the Neut claim that the howitzer was tested there. Just want to clear that up......

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       6/30/2008 3:41:33 AM

No Problem, Id like neutraliser to confirm it was actually white sands who were conducting the tests  As I mentioned its not really there stock in trade to do that type of work.  The Germans, Japanese, even the South Africans all go to Yuma Proving Ground to use their very well set up ranges for development of firing table data. 

Gen query, I thought Aberdeen was also the place to play, or is that focussed on tracked (tanks) and tyred (SPH etc....) things?
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer       6/30/2008 6:39:05 AM
 Definitely not Aberdeen and I don't recal it as Yuma, White Sands is what stuck in my mind.  Normally UK does their R&A firings at Shoeburyness, but as I said there is no range available in UK or elsewhere in Europe that would allow live bomblet shells to be fired.  But I distinctly remember the ballpark numbers and the explanation that poor quality control meant that it took double the number of rounds, it's the sort of remark that sticks in the mind.  My interest was soley as representative of a project that had a prime contractor waving their contract and demanding GFD.  The ammo combination was M483 and L8 carts not sure about L10, these are the carts for the L15 ammo family and being adopted as standard for 155mm, including M109, triple base propellant and completely different to the US charges, while the shell shape is completely different to L15, hence the need for R&A firings.  R&A firings can be very short and need few shells, eg in 1991 UK decided they needed new type of 155mm coloured marker shells, same ballistics as L15 and same fill (PETN and die) as those for 105mm, IIRC it took 10 days from initial ordering, thru confirmatory R&A firings to production order.
 
LIMAWS(G) was the Assessment phase and at the end of that a business case has to be made to pass Initial gate.  Business cases are always about money and value for it.   In the world of journalism this can get translated into many things.  Even assessing M777 and Caesar, very different beasts, for the same requirement suggests a certain lack of clarity about what capabilities were wanted, which wouldn't help in making a convincing business case - it smacks a bit of  'we want new toys, when we've found the one we fancy we'll work out a good story of why'.  Still other nations will benefit from MoD's small contribution to funding M777 development, and if UK suddenly has a pressing need for a few towed 155mm then they can always take some FH70 from store, buy a few APS and the new MAN trucks should solve the towing problem.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Methinks Alice has caught the White Rabibt.    6/30/2008 7:18:53 AM
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer    GF   6/30/2008 8:45:45 AM



No Problem, Id like neutraliser to confirm it was actually white sands who were conducting the tests  As I mentioned its not really there stock in trade to do that type of work.  The Germans, Japanese, even the South Africans all go to Yuma Proving Ground to use their very well set up ranges for development of firing table data. 





Gen query, I thought Aberdeen was also the place to play, or is that focussed on tracked (tanks) and tyred (SPH etc....) things?


Aberdeen still in the game, however the ability to shoot howitzers there is quite restricted, apparently the loud bangs upset the locals!!!!  Aberdeen is primarily tasked with automotive testing aspect of new equipment.   However accelrated corrosion testing is done there as well.  Anyone whos ever been to Aberdeen MD will know why!!!!
 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer    Who needs spys when we got youtube!!!   6/30/2008 6:48:50 PM
http://www.youtube.com/v/gRxrwSCQo8g&hl=en" width="425" height="344" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true">
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer       7/1/2008 6:34:12 AM
Having thought about it while eating my very tasty lunch today, it's possible I've mentally merged two data problems onto White Sands.  A few years before the M483 data incident I was quietly revieing the results of a certain firings over about a decade when the numbers struck me as odd, so I got professional help from operatioanl analysts and they agreed that the data in the firing table was not consistent with observed (and instumentally measured) firings.  The system was a US origin SSM which of course means its R&A firings were at White Sands.  I thought of leaving this para as a sucker trap for our favourite missile expert to tell us that missiles don't have FTs or R&A firings, but I'm feeling kind today. This was Lance which did have FTs and firing data was calculated in the same way as other artillery.  Of course the question is how many msls did they fire in R&A firings.  I think we can safely say nowhere near 30,000!
 
There may be another reason why M777 looked good accuracy wise (in additon to more precise computation).  In the early 1980s or thereabouts, as I understand it the US Army made a policy decision about the scale of issue for the small Doppler type muzzle velocity radars that were then appearing. The policy was a fitting on every gun but only 2 (?) possibly 1, radars per bty(?)  The concept being to move the radars around between guns and on a program to periodically update MVs.  I think Aust copied this policy or something like it.  However, M777 seems to have a MV radar on every gun, presumably a new policy.
 
The issue is that, ignoring charge temp effects, MVs naturally vary round to round, and in a longer time frame as the barrel wears, but also day to day (often called occasion to occasion).  Continous MV measurement  corrects for the day to day MV variation, this would have a positive effect on perceived accuracy.   
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    What a puece of work.   7/1/2008 7:06:55 AM

Having thought about it while eating my very tasty lunch today, it's possible I've mentally merged two data problems onto White Sands.  A few years before the M483 data incident I was quietly revieing the results of a certain firings over about a decade when the numbers struck me as odd, so I got professional help from operatioanl analysts and they agreed that the data in the firing table was not consistent with observed (and instumentally measured) firings.  The system was a US origin SSM which of course means its R&A firings were at White Sands.  I thought of leaving this para as a sucker trap for our favourite missile expert to tell us that missiles don't have FTs or R&A firings, but I'm feeling kind today. This was Lance which did have FTs and firing data was calculated in the same way as other artillery.  Of course the question is how many msls did they fire in R&A firings.  I think we can safely say nowhere near 30,000!

 

There may be another reason why M777 looked good accuracy wise (in additon to more precise computation).  In the early 1980s or thereabouts, as I understand it the US Army made a policy decision about the scale of issue for the small Doppler type muzzle velocity radars that were then appearing. The policy was a fitting on every gun but only 2 (?) possibly 1, radars per bty(?)  The concept being to move the radars around between guns and on a program to periodically update MVs.  I think Aust copied this policy or something like it.  However, M777 seems to have a MV radar on every gun, presumably a new policy.

 

The issue is that, ignoring charge temp effects, MVs naturally vary round to round, and in a longer time frame as the barrel wears, but also day to day (often called occasion to occasion).  Continous MV measurement  corrects for the day to day MV variation, this would have a positive effect on perceived accuracy.   


Who do you think you are trying to kid, Neut?
 
Sorry I didn't step into to your clumsy "trap"? 
 
Go back to your breakfast, list three-er.
 
With contempt. 
 
Herald 
 
 

 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer       7/2/2008 7:28:54 AM
 re the post about possible earlier problems with titanium spades on M777, it rings a vague bell, obviously it's been sorted. However, it seems to have had one useful flow-on benefit - introduction of titanium platform and rock spade for L118 as a weight reduction measure.  Silver linings and all that, the UK taxpayer can at least get some gratification.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics