I understand that..... but maybe we should?  Perhaps our requirement and modern regional threats could best be countered by mortar and rockets ... or other non line of sight fire support methods ...rather than traditionaL arty ? thats  the issue im touching on i suppose...  but anyhow...

 

Land 17

 

Towed - M777

SP tracked - K9

 

and suppose it's inevitable that 105 will eventually be replaced by 120mm mortar?

 

Its a no brainier really? Isn't it?

Your argument seems to boil down to the idea that SP is for all intents an purposes always going to be deployable in our region. Were that the case you should be arguing to get rid of the L-118's as well and replace them with SP's, which you don't seem to be doing.

In any case both history and geography show that the argument is wrong. Imagine if the British hadn't had the Light Gun when they went to the Falklands. They couldn't have deployed SP's there so it would have reduced their tubed firepower to the 1 or 2 major surface combatants that could be spared for shore bombardment at a time and mortars. Given their early experience at Goose Green of taking heavy casualties after conducting an attack without adequate guns, we can only assume that not having a reasonable number of guns would have lead to similarily high casualties during the later battles. There are heaps of places in our region where it is equally impossible to deploy an SP and it is naive to suggest that there will never be combat in those places.

 

In fact if we were dealing with a well-armed insurgency I would suggest that it would be in the insurgent's interests to base in less accessable places, to provide a measure of protection from Australian and allied heavy forces. The PNG highlands immediately spring to mind. There are places up there where a truck can't get to but which the Army operates in and supplies by air (mainly by Caribou) now.

 

As for PGM's in the Jungle, those with active seekers are going to be less effective but GPS guided rounds will still hit the grid reference that they are aimed at. The ability to do that in such an accurate manner is likely to be extremely useful in close jungle fighting.

1. The NH-90 looks to have a sling load limit just shag shy of 4,500 kilograms.

2. The M-777 is just about 3,200 kilograms in its current configuration.

3. Would it be safe to assume that that is no accident, and that was a driver for the M-777 weight limit?

And isn't it fairly obvious,that since the UH-60L Blackhawk is rated at 4200 kg slung load that it too is capable of lofting an M-777? 

 

Meaning that the Australian Army is well aware of its local geography and its artillery requirements and that heloing in artillery ranks as one of the many factors at which they would look when specifying the type of tube artillery they might need or desire?

 

Just curious about the LOGISTICS and RAPID battlefield mobility end of this discussion.

 

I mean when you LOOK at the M-777 on its compact mount, it looks like somebody actually thought about the helo sling feature FIRST, how to spread the surface weight across square meterage second, how to manhandle it third, and THEN how to crew serve it-though that crew service feature seems to be surprisingly well-designed as well.

 

Herald 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wouldn't we have the Hamel and M-777 for that ?

 

 

Could be mounted on an air dropable trailer/platform? Surely?

 

 

I was more thinking where in South East Asia can we deploy-2000 or via C-17 etc .... yet i believe the self propelled ability also has uses.... 

 

Like for example hot East ..  SAS take Airport, Port etc .... immediately C-130 can land with mobile fire support via SP & surgical strike via GMLRS ......  I figured increased the mobility of SP 120 mm .. and additional range speed of strike for high value targets via GMLRS.....would be vital.... and it takes time to position a number of towed guns in various positions.... a smaller number of SP and extended range platforms can cover greater distance quicker...

 

I agree on the highland thing.... 105 mm would be essential here ... maybe make 105 the only towed platform? there seems to be allot of support for m777 though....

 

 

BTW i actually meant no brainer about the other part....Land 17 - M777 and K9

 

I'm no expert on this stuff...so go easy.... im just interested,  but it seemed that there were allot more developments in 120mm mortar globally than there is in 105mm?  

 

 

No it isn't, because the Army is already looking at replacing the 105's with M-777's. We don't have the manning nor the requirement for 120mm mortars as well. As for rockets, that isn't even on the DOD's radar as far as I am aware. Personally I reckon a battery of HIMARS with unitary warheaded guided munitions per tubed artillery regiment would be a good addition for CB fire and to hit high-value, time critical targets deep in enemy territory, but I don't think it is going to happen any time soon.

 

I like the idea of HIMARS, its a great equaliser incase things go pear shaped as well as for plumb targets of opportunity.

 

On the mortars, I have recently read a write up on how the USMC is attracted to 120mm mortars due to their lower manning requirements than towed guns.  A 120mm has the same manning requirements as an 81mm tube so the first step would be to replace the 81mm's in the Battalions.  The next place I see them doing good work is an organic SP element in the CAV Regt's say a par of AMOS or NEMO turreted ASLAVS (or LAND 400 replacement for) at Sqn level.  Finaly a mix of towed and SP for the reserve RARA Bty's that have or are losing their guns for 81mm's.

 

As for the current ARA units, lets them have M-777's.

 

Basically I am suggesting replacing many 81mm mortars and some 105mm guns with 120mm mortars.  That done the rest of the 81mm's could be replaced with 60mm mortars and even issued at company or platoon level in the RAR together with the guided projectiles that are in development now.

Given that it remains Army policy to be hardened, whether you call this 'mechanised' or merely 'protected' vehicles doesn't matter.  They are sensitive to ground.  If they can be used then so can tracked SPs, it's mostly about ground pressure.  Then for SPs they don't actually need to go everywhere, that is the prerogative of the direct fire merchants, inf and armour.  The whole reason for artillery is firepower mobility, move the fire not the firing platforms, which you can put anywhere in range of where you want their fire.  This is the only reason why arty range is important - more range means more firpower mobility.  Infantry have never been in the serious firepower mobility biz, which is why they use mortars and basically handle them as direct fire weapons that can't see their target.  Nothing wrong with that but it's not arty.

 

The issue is whether or not you want/have light forces, a very different game to medium or heavy forces, and one that Aust used to be very good at.  Minimum vehicles, few heavy ones (mostly those in a follow-up echelon).  The basis for light forces is that they are heli (or foot) mobile, anything that isn't is nice to have but you must be prepared to conduct ops without it. 

 

This also means you have to have enough heli to sustain them, and this means a goodly number of heavy lift.  Troop lift, eg B'hawk or NH90 aren't good enough for serious sustainment.  155mm ammo is heavy, that's why the UK did an abrupt about face for their light forces when they got around to running the numbers (you'd have to say piss poor staffwork first time around), 155mm wasn't an option in the real world.  It might be for US light forces, but for Aust the concept is wet dreams in Pucka. 

 

For arty you also have to consider how you are going to move between gun positions, both guns and ammo.  Only a really dumb arty comd is going to assume he will always have heli available when and where he wants to move his guns and their ammo, it's OK if operations are basically static, as in SVN where FSBs were occuppied for weeks (frequently after a road move), but if you want mobility it's a different game.  This means if you do move guns by heli then either you have to move the vehicles by ground and hope they reach the guns before they are needed, or you have to heli the gun towers.  Just remind me, how would RAA tow M777?  What heli can lift it? 

 

So if you have light forces then you need light arty, including it's ammo and towers that are within the capability of available heli for sustainment.  For anything else, SPs are just another heavy vehicle, albeit with lower ground pressure than some.  If inf vehs like Bushranger can go there so can SPs.

 

and then look at the LIFT available.

 

Then, look again at the M-777 and RUN THE NUMBERS AGAIN.

 

[SARCASM with emphasis added.]

Herald 

 

Not the worst plan I've ever heard. The 105's are being replaced by 81mm's in in the ARES because it is too hard for the ARES to maintain competency on the guns. I can't imagine that 120mm's are going to be any more difficult to operate would be far more effective. The added bonus is that they can fit an 81mm subcalibre insert so we could use current 81mm ammo for training. I can also see how they would be a good 81mm replacement for the mechanised and cavalry units, as the extra weight wouldn't compromise their operations and the extra capability (particularily range for wider ranging mechanised/cav ops).

I don't like the idea of them replacing 81mm's in motorised units though, as I think these units are more likely to be deployed in a light infantry capacity in our region anyway and the 120's are too heavy. I also don't see the point in spending any money replacing them in the light infantry units with 60mm. The 81's are portable enough and I think the extra range and bigger bomb are valuable. Don't forget that infantry platoons have heaps of firepower anyway so I don't see that compromising our indirect fire capabilities would be worth it.