Page 87 - Australian Defence Mag Sep 2020

SEPTEMBER 2020 | WWW.AUSTRALIANDEFENCE.COM.AU
FROM THE SOURCE
SIMON STUART 87
times all together at the same time in those different domains. We know that we’re going to have to work in degraded environments, whether that’s degrada- tion in communications, or in chemically or biologi- cally degraded environments.
At the centre of the Army programs is making sure that our people are protected; that they’re con- nected and that the digital network is the backbone of everything we do; that they’re enabled by other elements of the joint force; and that we have the po- tency and the lethality that gives you credibility and the ability to create dilemma in the mind of an ad- versary and slow their decision cycle. That is at the heart of deterrence.
And if we need to respond, then we do so in a way that is going to win. We don’t ever want to put our soldiers into a fair fight – we want them to have every advantage that we can give them.
I think the other aspect in your question is about combat weight – size and mass. Now historically
we’ve used armour - tanks - in places like New Guin-
ea. Most regional armies have tanks and other armoured vehicles, and they have excellent cross-country mobility. Further, as part of what we’re introducing with Land 8160, we’ll have armoured engineering vehicles that can provide gap crossings and bridges. We can already lift by sea and air our heaviest vehicle, our main battle tank, and we’ll be able to do the same with our other armoured vehicles.
Things are getting bigger. The reason they’re bigger to- day is because the environment is more lethal. You need mass to be able to protect against the kinds of threats that are out there today, particularly in anti-armour weapons, which have proliferated, they’re available to non-state ac- tors, they’re reasonably cheap, they’re very effective. It’s all about protecting our people and making sure that they can operate in a degraded environment and they can do so un- der protection from kinetic threats.
But those vehicles are so much more than just armour and physical protection. They’re nodes on the network which is about increasing the overall effect of the combined arms team and the Joint Force. They have very capable sensors and they’re networked into a broader range of sensors. So that’s that outer layer of protection, to know what and where the threats are and to be able to reach out and touch them.
ADM: If you do have that layered protection that we’ve been talking about, you’ve sacrificed mobility for protec- tion; if you have other systems in play like NASAMS and other ground-based air defence, where does mobility come into the fight now for Army?
STUART: Mobility is important in any armoured vehicle, in terms of the way they’re designed it’s about the optimal mix of protection, lethality and mobility. None of the vehicles are perfect, in a combined arms sense and that’s why we need a tank, an infantry fighting vehicle, a combat recon- naissance vehicle and protected mobile fires.
It is these different platforms that when combined can now move at the same rate across the same terrain. They can move cross country, and in urban environments. Our
future Self Propelled Howitzers and Armoured Ammu- nition Resupply Vehicles will be able to fire rapidly, then move away from the signature they just created.
Digitally connected, protected and persistent, this is about a disproportionate effect and a compelling credible combined arms force.
ADM: And what’s the future of the G Wagon in Army service? STUART: We took delivery of our last G Wagon earlier this year in March. We have just under 2,300 of them and we’ll continue to operate them. They have a place within the spec- trum of operations –generally in an uncontested environ- ment and we’ll continue to use them for those kinds of tasks.
Where we have made a deliberate choice is to say we need more protected vehicles, like the Hawkei, Bushmaster and our future armoured infantry fighting vehicles.
ADM: Building on that, what assumptions are being made in terms of force structure for the self-propelled howit- zers and the service life of unprotected M777 towed guns? Does the government mandate that the SPH is manufactured in Geelong preclude other offerings other than the K9?
STUART: The short answer to that question is no. Govern- ment will make a decision and an announcement in due course, but to get to your point about M777 and self-pro- pelled howitzer, again, it’s about having the right tool for the right job. The M777 will continue in service.
ADM: Even with the cracking and fatigue issues? STUART: Yes, they’re being managed well. The M777 has a life out to the mid-2030s and you would have seen in the FSP there’s a line there for its replacement. It’s an airmo- bile, lightweight towed gun and is really useful when you
ABOVE: Government is asking more of Army in Australia and in the region under new policy documents.
DEFENCE