Australia's Armour Needs - Mortars
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 бер 2024
- Australia's new Amphibious Armoured Combined Arms Brigade must be able to meet the most demanding land challenges in Australia's Area of Primary Defence Interest. Does it have all the required capabilities?
Related briefings:
AS21 Redback IFV - Why Australia chose it: • AS21 Redback IFV - Why...
Australia's new armoured force: • Australia's new armore...
AS9 Huntsman SPG - Why Australia chose it: • AS9 Huntsman SPG - Why...
Australia's New Fighting Force: • Australia's New Fighti...
Great vid I think to save money Australia could easily pick a turret with a mortar system and put it on the Boxer Chasis that we can make up in QLD as suggested with APS system.
Thank you. Yes the Boxer chassis is another option.
I would find it hard to trust a combat armour with wheels and not tracks.
I agree but can't the Bushmaster also sport a mortar?
I think a variant was already developed, and it's certainly a capable vehicle to build upon (already being used in all kinds of land operations from reconnaissance and manoeuvre warfare to marine landings and ambulance services). Plus, we got a big supply chain in place to provide logistical support.
Nemo 120mm turret for the Boxer and Redback would be my recommendation @@Strategy_Analysis
As a ex member of 2nd Cav I saw the equipment trial for what then was called the A21 trial alongside side trialing the M109 155 SPG and a ASLAV TOW turret there was a trail ASLAV 120mm self propelled mortar system I forget whey it wasn't brought into service but I do remember the display veh was lacking a turret basket
Thanks mate. A gentleman of the cavalry.
Back our guys up,they work well,nice
Great Analysis , we can only hope that someone in the Government agrees with your analysis (it just so obviously needed) would think it would be and obvious fit with say the Redback Chassie or the boxer CRV Chassie, thank you for your video
Thank you. Much appreciated. The Boxer chassis is another option.
On the performance of Defense Procurement, it will be five white papers, mangled requirement definition, poor specification, bad selection and the wrong outcome. Then they will all fail and be buried.
Wasn’t Land 400 supposed to have a 120mm self propelled turreted mortar system plus about 50 amphibious assault vehicles
never heard of a self propelled mortar. They are doing 15-20 replacement for the LARC's under 8710. Google Navantia and platypus to see one of the proposals
Discussed, I believe, but not a confirmed project.
@@richardthomson4693 You've never heard of the M113 as a mortar carrier? We had them for over 50 years ago inc. in 2 Cav
The albo government, has slashed and cut the guts out of the amour that was to be bought. As an example, they cut the number of IFVs from over 400 down to 170. They are doing nothing but destroying our military, just like the helicopters, which they literally buried our choppers, with no new ones on the horizon. They also cut the current number of commissioned ships from 48 down to 42. The alp hate the military, always have and always will!
@@sunwolf8290 I know we had M113 with mortars no never heard of a replacement program for them
We need a mortar turret mated to either a Boxer/Redback - we don't need a third vehicle chassis in the Inf Bn Group.
Well the Boxers won't be in the Inf Bn, only the Redbacks. I agree the Boxer chassis could also be used for this, but tracks might be the better option.
The Nemo turret is impressive, I just saw our new AMPV has been fitted with it for testing. We all need to increase our artillery capabilities. 🇺🇸🤝🇦🇺
Yes, I had seen that. This capability fills an important role.
Find a turret that can be fitted to both Redback and Boxer would be cost effective.
Prebuild some FOBs all around the country but a distance back from the coastline. Do not need to be staffed. NAMMO is working on longer range 155mm. 40km, 70-85km rocket assist and ramjet >100km. (If a conflict ends up in terrain like Angola, the long range artillery is an important component) Have to look up the Australian radar boxers, if they have anti-drone lasers yet etc. ? The 155mm L2 boxer looks ungainly, guns too heavy for difficult terrain. N-LOS (non line of sight missiles) can go on the Apache helicopter, but would be very expensive compared to mortar rounds. Mortar rounds can have rockets added which might increase the range, if a slog battle happens. Thinking about what a Ghost Bat 2 drone could be ideally, hypersonic drones (think faster SR71) with even faster ASW ship breaker kinetic missiles, aim to be back at the bar for late afternoon beers. Kiwi DF will be lucky to turn up in old Ford Rangers wrapped in faded vinyl camouflage wrap with a technical-like mounted .50 cal and a javelin or two that are beyond expiry date.
The main purpose of deployable mechanised forces will probably be to support allies in places like the Philippines.
A modern self propelled mortar system does seem to be lacking a bit in the force. AMOS/NEMO seem like the obvious front runner but the Spanish GMOS is unique in that it can install an 81mm weapon. I don't know any details on how interchangeable the system is in that regard. But it is an interesting option.
NEMO has also been shown in a containerized format. Which is a very cool capability. Alongside a self propelled and naval model, a containerized system could provide solid, scalable & modular defense capability to any forward base.
Purely theoretical, but a Mortar with a range of ~10km could even perform anti-drone defense if a smart round was developed for it.
The containerised version of NEMO is interesting.
@@Strategy_Analysis Wile a containerised system is interesting, it becomes a stand alone object, while if the Nemo is mounted in a boxer module which is on a stand. The boxer vehicle can utilise the Nemo, then what was on the Boxer can then be utilised. This optimises the the usability of the assest on hand.
@@user-ui3dj5ph2mNEMO on a Boxer would be a good capability for Australia.
But What about elbit system's crossbow morat system?
@rasyaizzatbarcara5990 it fits the bill for what would be wanted. The main downside is that it's Israeli made and right now that's a political hot potato no one wants to deal with.
Boxer,Redback get 120 mm. Also, 155 mm for Boxer. Smaller system for bushmaster, Hawkeii ( & new 6x6 Scrubmaster and Swampmaster?🙏😂?)
Amos, Nemo, Mjolner….etc! Why can’t we design and build our own? .? Everything Aussie made! Indonesian 😅tank boat has a nice John Cockerill system? ( worth a video too👀👍!)
Luv ya work mate !
Thanks, much appreciated.
Hmmm - definitely need some type of mortar solution. I remember when Kim Beasley talked about our army being more like the US marines, and I know he was referring to buying off the shelf. But he did have a good point! I wonder if the South Koreans could do something with their Redback chassis? Or a M1129? All I know is we are going to an amphibious capability and we should be looking more at marine type organisations rather than equipment designed to fight European style WW3 scenarios. People are pointing to Ukraine and saying that’s what it will be like, but 1 ours is a different type of battlefield (mountains, jungles, islands), 2 our potential adversary is far more technically advanced & numerous than the Russians ( think Mick Ryan’s book The White Sun hinted at that) and 3 we need to work with our Kiwi mates - after all they will be providing some of our man power apparently!
Finally it’s been pointed out that senior defence officials want the best of everything & maybe they should start considering how much that is costing us in time and money!
Great briefing cheers
Much appreciated. Thanks.
Great presentation as usual. I have some concerns.
No integrated air defence network makes this armoured force easy pickings for an adversary with a modern surveillance-reconnaissance-long range precision strike capability. We have always assumed that we'll be operating in a battlespace under an umbrella of air superiority. No allowance has been made for an adversary who is able to overmatch us with air power, precision stand off air-to-ground weapons like glide bombs and missiles, as well as drones and long range missiles and rocket artillery.
We also seem to cherry pick a disparate array platforms and weapon systems with little consideration given to logistics and sustainability. For example, how many different autocannon chamberings are in use across the ADF? Our force structure and platforms look great on paper. Conflict with an adversary with modern capabilities will result in attrition and degradation of our forces. Does Australia possess the capability to generate and sustain credible forces with effective combat power without external support under these conditions? WIthout more attention to simplifcation of logisitics, sustainment, training and production that commonality brings, does Australia really have a serious and resilient wartime force?
Our track record post WW2 shows that we've often struggled to select, integrate and sustain viable equipment in a peacetime environment. How well positioned are we to do this under pressure in contested or wartime conditions? Our national defence strategy seems to be driven more by buying whatever is the current hot thing or keeping our senior alliance partners defence industry happy.
How well does all this stuff really integrate into a modern and viable system of warfare suitable for our nations defence? A shopping list of nice toys isn't a coherent national defence strategy.
What happens if we're on our own? What happens if our allies can't offer any hardware or production capacity to us? What happens if Fedex or Maersk aren't delivering and we have to look after ourselves for a while because our sea lanes and airspace are being interdicted or blockaded? Are our equipment levels, munitions stockpiles and spare parts inventories adequate? How much do we produce domestically? How quickly and to what level can we scale up production?
Do we really have to sacrifice young Australians so our leadership can relearn the lessons of 1941 and 1942? Our nation needs a proper defence strategy which isn't totally dependent on the dominance and benevolent self-interest of our leaders currently favoured geopolitical sugar-daddy for viability.
A national defence strategy that has no viability or credibility in wartime provides no deterence to a potential adversary in peacetime. It also provides the nation a false sense of security. The above considerations are critical for a genuine, credible wartime continental defence capability. Solving these issues should also be equally vital to our leadership if they intend to imbroil us in Gallipoli 2.0 in Taiwan or the South China Sea at the end of a long, tenuous and almost certainly contested logistics chain.
Thanks. Much appreciated. Note, this is Part 1😉
Outstanding 👍👍
Thank you! Cheers!
@@Strategy_Analysis 👌👌🍻🍻
I have thought about this for about a year now and thought that a 120mm mortar mounted system is essential. The question is which mortar and vehicle. The vehicle is simple it should be the Boxer. Why, because you can mount whatever module you like on this chassis. Then in a FOB scenario, this module (on ground) can provide the fire support without the required vehicle, ie there would be more modules at hand than vehicles. There would also need to be 30mm canon based modules at the FOB to act in the counter battery/drone/helicopter suppression role.
Which 120mm mortar? it would need to be self loading. The most mature would be the Nemo/Amos. This could then also see use in the RAN as mentioned.
A 120mm system seems an obvious addition.
by any chance do you have a video about the military structure in south east asia or other east asia countries
Back in 98 we looked at mortars in back of the lav. No money or backbone from hierachy and beauracy to go ahead
Presume you will get some counter UAV capability? As for mortars get the AMOS mounted on either Redback or Boxer, say 9 per bn?
Good coverage. Well done! Yes, the lack of self propelled 120mm mortars is a serious gap in this brigade. An active reactive self protection systems is essential to protect crew and an expensive armoured vehicle. A 12.7mm remote weapons station is essential in providing suppression fire for troops on the ground. A turreted mortar on a Redback system appears to be a very good solution as these vehicles are currently in production.
Also, in line with the recent funding announcement, an increase in ADF personnel to approx 80,000 divided between the three services is essential if Australia is to meet future security needs. Although conscription is one option, I feel a recruit drive for up to 5,000 personnel in say Japan, India and South Korea may provide a better solution - given that these people would be volunteers rather than conscripts. Incentives such as full citizenship after 5-7 years of service, a cash bonus similar to what is already in place for ADF personnel after 10 years of service could sweeten the whole deal. It would also improve the strategic alliances with these countries.
To meet the ongoing costs in personnel and procurement costs across the ADF, a one off sell off of a proportion of Australian Government held US bonds would provide the necessary cash injection.
Good chance to have an AS21 Funnel Web.😂
Gotta get the Funnel Web in there somewhere.
Much chance of NEMO being placed on Boxer or even Bushmaster chassis? Or is Aus looking for off-the-shelf solutions?
It could go on a Boxer. I'd be surprised if they put it on a Bushmaster, even if it is possible.
Will you make indonesia, phillipine military needs. They have military issue with china but with less budget than western countries and india
I will be doing a briefing on Indonesia, but it will be more than just the military aspect.
Good!
Thanks!
Could you do a talk on the pro's & con's of a lite tank, similar to the U.S. Booker?
I'll give.it some though.
@@Strategy_AnalysisWhat is the purpose of the light tank? Wouldn't a Reback with a 120mm mortar or similar be suitable?
@@user-ui3dj5ph2mDifferent role, require different weapons. I've done a briefing on the Chinese ZTQ-15 and U.S. M10 Booker.
Straight onto the in production Boxers. Also, Boxer RCH 155 for the rest of the lighter brigades. As The extra Huntsmen for them was cancelled.
With the downgrade of the number of Redback IFV’s to be purchased it means the 3rd Bde will be the only Brigade properly equipped as a mechanised force. Everyone else will have to make do with the M113AS4 for another decade or so.
With the short range of mortars there would have to be anti drone support. Wouldn’t a light support weapon system with a combination of 81mm and 120mm on Utv/ 4x4 scorpion high mobility mortar system. A more shoot and scoot system, mortars can also be targeted by counter battery fire also the fact that this could be married up with the Hawker vehicles it could be also used in the other light infantry divisions outside of the mechanised division, also on that side you can marry up the likes switchblade launchers which can be used as a surveillance drone as well as kamikaze drone. If you look at the reorganisation of the US pacific marines, they are implementing lighter vehicles with more punch, going for speed and manoeuvring, which Australia could achieve with 2 Div with its Reserve infantry units being trained and kitted out for a rapid light infantry insurgency which tho not having armour can carry anti armour, mortars, etc but in a more mobile and flexible reaction force. I realise we have 1st and 2nd Commando as well as SASR, they are usually first to move, then 1st Div, leaving 2 Div, etc with what’s left. Upskilling those other Divs and units is more ideal. Plus side is the lighter vehicles won’t cost as much as a squadron of M1A2 Abrams tanks a year to maintain.
Not without air defence. All modern forces need to be able to provide themselves with air defence from company level (stinger) up to battalion and bridge - offering layered defence for infantry and all hardware
Note, this is Part 1 😉
Was recommended to government over twenty five years ago in an internal Defence review. Ignored, as you could anticipate.
Given the US army is reportedly cancelling the SEPV 3 program does that effect our purchase of these vehicles and thinking long term would should eventually replace the Abrams altogether? KF51 Panther, Future European MBT, US army tank or South Korean which is developing a K3 MBT with a 130mm gun.
I think the U.S. cancelled the SEPv4 upgrade. There are a few new MBTs to come out over the next 10 years, so one of them might well replace the Abrams in Australian service.
All well and good but the Australian army needs many many more items of all kinds as war is about attrition and we don’t have enough of anything for a sustained war. My opinion.
Hello. Nice report, thankyou. Though I would like to know if Australia is likely to create a maritime drone force similar to Ukraine. As I feel a force of them distributed around our northern coasts and shared with our near northern neighbours would act as a very good deterent. Or at worst an economical way of bloodying an adversaries nose. Just a thought, I'm sure others have put forward.
Do you think it would be more..beneficial, to split the Marine force off and actually have an Australian Marines? Would it affect recruitment? It could then also get its own budget - to equip appropriately
Probably best not to create a new separate force. Duplicates cost.
Poland have now two version of 120mm mortar turret on Patria chassis and can fire over 10 shells per minutes
This is new options;)
Thanks for the info.
120mm turreted DF/InDF as a 4th vehicle in a recce troop would be an excellent option.
We had it with LRV/MRV M113.
Ah yes, the MRV. Also known as the FSV (Fire Support Vehicle).
Four points:
1. A mortar on a combat boat makes some sense in the Persian Gulf or the Baltic Sea. Completely useless in the Coral Sea, let alone the wider pacific. The South China Sea alone is the size of the Mediterranean, it would be deadweight.
2. The trouble with active protection systems like the Iron Fist, Trophy, etc, is that they are HEAVY. They add about 2.5 tonnes of weight to already very heavy vehicles. Every time you add weight to a vehicle you're not just making it more expensive, you're making it much less maneuverable on broken or muddy ground, and our region has plenty of both.
3. When you're talking about an amphibious capable armoured brigade you're generally going to working under the assumption of both command of the sea (and thus the presence of Naval Surface Fire Support from the 5" guns of ANZAC frigates), and air superiority (and thus close air support), since a naval landing is effectively impossible without both. Thus superiority of fires is achieved before the mortars are even deployed.
4. The range of the 120mm mortar is insufficient to make reliable contributions to battle while remaining at a safe distance. 8-12kms is the maximum range, which means firing at full charge at 45degrees, optimal range would be at most half that. The Chinese Type 15 light tank has a doctrinal requirement to engage between 4 and 8kms, meaning that 120mm mortars would need to be in first echelon position in order to be effective. They'd be the first things to get knocked out. The reality is the advances in precision munitions, surface launched attack missiles, and drones, means battles are being fought at ranges far too long for a mortar.
If you really wanted to supplement the 155mm SPHs, then 105mm SPHs with shoot-on-the-move capability would be the way to go. Smaller warhead, but longer range, better precision, shorter time to target. That said, given that in every concievable deployment scenario we're either going to be deploying as part of a joint force with allies who have a much higher need and capacity for mobile indirect fire support, or deploying as a purely Australian task force on an Island with the assistance of the RAN, we don't even really SPHs, let along self-propelled mortars. An extra frigate or an extra fighter-bomber, is always going to be a better investment. There's just never going to be a point where another F-35 is worth less than the cost-equivalent of self-propelled mortars.
ie. if these things cost 4million a unit, and you're not going to get active protection for that price, we can buy 25 mortars or 1x F-35, we should buy the F-35. And it doesn't matter how many F-35s we buy, that will never not be true. I know you ground pounders don't want to hear it, but it's the truth.
The Pacific is just too big.
If you don't think a Pacific War will need infantry who will be fighting at close ranges, you're just not thinking big enough.
@@Alpha1Bravo1Charlie1 Not talking about infantry, talking about an armoured brigade. These are motorized mortars, not trench mortars.
@@samoldfield5220 Chinese Amphibious Brigades are mechansied for a reason. If Australian infantry are running into Chinese infantry, we will need a combined arms brigade that can handle those Chinese vehicles and troops. Without things like SPArtillery and mortars, we'll be at a major disadvantage.
What about the Booker 105 gun
Tracks versus wheels or is there a case for both in this use case?
If the capability is organic to the Mech Inf BN, then it should be on a tracked chassis.
Oh that is cool, an automatic mortar system, LETS GO!
Do they need to be so big tho? You'd want something that you already have huge stockpiles of munitions for.
I mean, these are close in weapon support systems, as you go further out, with towed or mobile artillery, multiple rocket launchers and missiles, creating concentrated fire from all different calibres on the front line. I terms of mortars, i would argue more is better, not bigger is better.
Using a small mortar would also allow the resupply of small mortar teams. The ability to dismount, set up static mortar position and unloading shells, even with some sort of remote auto loader could be effective at masking your location. Basically a mortar resupply vehicle that can shoot mortars itself, as drones tend to target vehicles, so filling these up with mortars that are only usable by the vehicle would be a bad investment, where having the ability to go to the front line and unload shells to static entrenched positions would be of more value then a single mobile system stationed further back.
This is not artillery with 10-75km range, these would be within kill ranges of enemy tanks, but the idea being you would have infasntry with missiles that would take tanks about well before that 4km range. So you really your wanting capabilities to take out waves of men advancing, and that would be better served having the ability, like a IVF to unload troops who can scatter and create a line of fire. You basically talking about a IFV support platform of mortars, so why not have mortar teams dismount, load up with shells then acting sort of like a command and control platform for all your mortar teams?
Do these vehicles have peck resistant armour for the upcoming Emu wars?
Don't mess with the Emus.
Did I hear right, Charlie what weapons?
The 84mm Carl Gustav is colloquially known as the "Charlie Guts-ache".
@@Strategy_Analysis That's what I thought I heard.
@@k.whiking4372Not a bad weapon.
I like 120mm but what about side loading,,,,morter this Russian morter,,,,slam the pin against the deniator,,,,,that's inside a nother barrel side armed ,,,each shell drops in
gday mate can you look at our ammunition reserves please
I'll try. Not sure the precise details will be publically available.
@@Strategy_Analysis thanks either way. just seems topical at the moment. love your work.
I think we need to be careful what we buy for the adf as we don't have the population or people who want to be in the adf, lots of mobile stuff needs maintenance and repairs and we just don't have the people. Sure all this stuff looks cool and can do a job, but.
This is an area that has quietly explored over the last 24 months. The very latest designs include multi barrel or breach. So I understand the government is not committing just yet. There will be the temptation to hold onto the now aging M125 mortar vehicles. Perhaps modernised in the M113AS4 format or mounting a turreted mortar in it. I get the feeling that the current budgets are not stretching as far as expected. Projects like the Redback are being pushed back. This makes its small gun an issue. Replacement IFVs for the M2 are to have 50 mm as well as the BMP. This is brought about by the very latest Russian ERA, which will deflect munitions under 50 mm. A very recent video from Ukraine shows 2 M2s engaging the latest Russian T-90. What I find interesting is that as impressive, the M2's fire looked like it was failing to ignite the ERA, which was actually deflecting the rounds. This by itself is not proof positive that this new ERA is in service. However, by the time the Redback is in full service, it will be more common. This certainly brings the armament of the Redback into question and its ability to operate as an effective current IFV.
Also rockets like Himars or Spike NLOS
I'll be doing a briefing on HIMARS and other systems soon.
If anything and from the lessons of Ukraine and from the lack of mass of the ADF it should b adding a major Drone capability.
I think cost should be the main concern as if you spend The same money buying a cheaper system that means you have more quantity . we have all seen how the Ukraine lost 10% of it M1 Abrams fleet in just the first few days of Front line combat
The type of war Australia plans to fight is important because if it’s a modern equivalent to a colonial war then it’s not much of a problem but if it’s a large war like in The Ukraine then the majority of Australia’s fighting force will be New recruits so heavy equipment will be stretched thin so more is more important than quality
What if we sold our m777 fleet (roughy 4 million a piece) and bought the Swedish archer system. With in in and out 3 round fire time of roughly 60 seconds, I feel like the system would suit our needs as it can attack moving, static and entrenched targets at a distance out to 40km with6 charges and has a top speed of 70kmh with a range of 650km.
Because it is 8x8, it would easily traverse most of the un paved roads that make up Australia and could be transferred from one side to the other on relatively short notice.
The only issue is it’s size of 43ft but it’s much faster and safer than towing around an m777 all day considering Ukraine has lost 67. I think they would suit our military considering it’s size compared to our adversary’s and since it only requires a crew of 3-4.
Perhaps a wheeled self-propelled system for the Motorised Brigade. Option would include the Archer and Ceasar.
That with the double barrel 120mm we can substantiate exists internationally that belongs to a fighting fit country that isn't a export model, that the make the single barrel 120mm Nemo that has a round rate per minute of ten rounds, the double barrel 120mm not for export does 26 rounds a minute by adding another barrel they increased loading speed by 6 rounds, an they to be vigilant they don't fire exactly at the same time it's a double recoil of two 120mm fired one after the other very close yet it's not double recoil at the same time, with this in mind what about a triple barrel breech loaded 81mm mortar X 3 , or quadruple 60mm mortar that could be fired two at a time with recoil value for in close fighting the 60mm mortar can handle a lot more rounds per minute that really it could be a lot of fire power in close increasing loading speed every increased barrel.
In that sense the more you jettison range of the mortar the potential to increase fire power rate increase in a armoured vehicle situation that perhaps quad 60mm mortar armoured mortar could accompany main battle tanks for in close support, if it was in in close situation it'd be handy to have increased fire power for the less than ideal situation that close
Only 2,100m range with automatic grenade launcher
The Poles delivered the Rak mortars on the Rosomak wheeled chassis to the Ukrainians and they are currently being used in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict.
I read that, but haven't heard anything about how they have performed.
They moved 1st armoured to Adelaide. Now, why would they station anything in Townsville? Darwin should be our focus. The Army does not have the capability to transport anything due to the civilisation of logistics and transport requirements. How will that playout in a confrontation.? There are a lot of people who should be sacked for a lack of CDF.
however and however much they make weapons, they will always be under Indonesia.
speaking facts, The Indonesian character's fighting experience and mentality is far above that of the Aussies.
and will always rely on America and England with him.
accept it or not,
Indonesia in the future, as a single power player in the southern hemisphere.
Having lived in Indonesia, I know the country and people quite well. I'll be doing a comprehensive briefing on Indonesia this year.
I think if we get any acquisition it should be Asia centric
I don't see anything but man-portable mortars being useful in close country. Try driving through a jungle.
could put one on the back of a 4x4 quadbike. maybe the ammo on a second bike. do the job and probably be cheap too, if you don't mind manual ballistic calculations.
Got to get more missile technology going.... ground to air ...etc .... anti aircraft German lepards.... flaming hell we are the makers of steel and we make nothing for the war machine ... surely we can make own mobile motars in-house!
I even like to to think the 81mm mortar could be mobilize in a quad bike system that could be produced for about $25k that the CForce quad bike have a trailer system that could carry the mortar a a crew of 2 more in a cheap dime a dozen system that a platoon of 40 of them would cost about $1m it's just they weight 36.6kg something too heavy for a infantry woman to strict lift, even the switch blade 600 weight 54.4kg for the kit an the infantry woman can't lift that, when in reality Australia military women are equivalent to Ellen Ripley off the aliens movies in ambition,
So you could then see mobilizing switch blade 600 drones an mortar in quad bikes seems like something some women then could manage an cannon is traditionally 70% of the battle
Why not follow the British with the Boxers they are modular?
The Boxer chassis is also a possibility given Australia is building them as well.
Drones Drones and moor Drones cheap long 30km to 120km range. Look at Modern history or are we staying in the oldy times ,, just thinking 🤔
Needs drones, need anti-drones, still need traditional artillery (as is being shown).
Suicide drones?
I will be covering drones in a future part.
Hold on, isn't Australia building IVF? Why don't you add a Mortar turret? 40mm auto cannon? Why can't you have both?
Also you have a point about the requirement of amphibious armour but i would argue you need something with anti mine capabilities.
This specialized equipment concept doesn't work with drone warfare. A single bit of equipment, no matter what it is can be taken out, and roaming around in a column is asking to be ambushed. You need to spread out in a line and in the place has been mined, well you need a way to counter that on a decent scale. Which sort of leads to me why Abrams tanks suck, infact the Challenge 3 prototype sucks.
Its just the same old junk.
You see Israel using unarmoured bulldozers to good effect, aswell as tractors in the opening months of the war in Ukraine.
I would maybe opt for a remote control system that can be universally attached to these sorts of equipment, rather then up armouring them to protect lives.
But ultimately there needs to be a new tank, that is actually a tank, and not a battletank designed to combat other tanks. Something that can tank mines, missiles and artillery in the sense of a tank in a video game. Or better yet a WW1 tank...
What nonsense, I wonder, has anyone in the ADF done a statistical analysis of the casualties in the Russo Ukrainian conflict? Has the ADF ANY IDEA OF THE CAUSATION OF THOSE CASUALTIES?
Mmm…vid maybe needs some more critical analysis.
Needs detailed analysis of the requirement before moving on to solution and capability delivery. With weapons that means definition of the missions to be fulfilled in detail and the ammunitions and weapons to fulfil them. The video has taken leaps of unspoken faith to choose 120mm mortar and drawn false conclusions about mortar direct fire as a requirement that needs to be fulfilled and jumps to the conclusion of a turreted machine gun without considering vehicle manning.
Let’s start with ammo and fuses. HE obviously, illum?, smk/wp?….precision/guided probably drives a conclusion of 120 over 81mm. But does the requirement for more rounds on board necessitate 81mm. 40 120mm rounds won’t last past breakfast. Is there a requirement for direct fire.? This is contradiction in terms for a mortar. It is not a direct assault weapon, being sited behind cover at all times. A mortar round, being slow, has low kinetic energy, therefore will be less than effective against hard targets except top down through roofing or top armour. Direct fire is more a role for cased ammo particularly supplied by IFVs or rockets. Also you can’t use mortars in direct fire at a moving target above 5kmph, time of flight is too slow and you’d need to add a laser to get range to avoid adjusting fire.
Now moving on to self defence. Adding a machine gun is a Swiss Army knife approach, a mortar crew would only use it in lieu of bombs if they were out of ammo and not in high reverse gear repositioning to support the bn from an uncompromised position. Do self propelled guns have a need for mags 5km from line of contact.? The commander of a presumably 3 man mortar crew wouldn’t have the bandwidth to do a third job. A 4th crewman would take space for rounds.
Active defence, irrelevant. The threat to a mortar is arty counter battery, keep moving, don’t add irrelevant Swiss army blades, how much more space and resource would be required for weapon and ammo for this added gizmo?
I could go on and expand further in more detail. Start with the requirement, then use critical thinking to get to a solution. “So what?” Get to reasoned and rational conclusions. Otherwise you’ll end up with an under performing gold plated Swiss Army knife.
And another ting, is there a requirement for cluster or air burst?