Everyone wants more Self-Propelled Howitzers, except Australia

One of the more startling recommendations in the DSR was to cancel additional 155mm Huntsman SPHs, with a second batch previously due to be ordered later this decade.

South Korean Army version of the Huntsman SPH. Picture: US Army

One of the more startling recommendations in the Defence Strategic Review (DSR) was to cancel additional 155mm Huntsman SPHs, with a second batch previously due to be ordered later this decade.

This means that as the rest of the world is scrambling to acquire more mechanised artillery, the Army will have to get by with just the first phase of LAND 8116 that will deliver a mere 30 SPHs and 15 armoured in-field resupply vehicles. These are due to be built near Geelong by South Korean technology giant Hanwha. The apparent logic is that Australia will now rely on longer-range missiles to meet our needs.

This overlooks the effectiveness of Ukraine’s successful fightback against the current Russian invasion, which has involved the use of a lot of mobile artillery – increasingly of the Western standard 155mm calibre.

Most of the publicity has gone to HIMARS – which has done an excellent job firing rockets – but that is just one part of a complex equation.

The cancellation has powerful echoes from 2012 when Army elected not to go ahead with the purchase of earlier and very similar SPHs from South Korea for the most tawdry and embarrassing reason.

Some senior people in Army were convinced that an Asian country was not capable of producing high-quality military equipment and declined to award a contract after years of trials, offering to sacrifice the project as a “budget saving”.

So egregious was this behaviour that on a visit to South Korea in April 2014 by new Prime Minister Tony Abbott he officially apologised for the actions of the previous Labor government and then Defence Minister Stephen Smith in going along with such shoddy behaviour. Mind you, he could have used his time in office to rectify the situation but chose to do nothing.

SPHs have a number of benefits that systems such as the truck-mounted HIMARS do not.

First, having the crew behind a layer of armour gives them a good level of protection not afforded to HIMARS operators; second, by using tracks they have a far higher level of manoeuvrability; and third, they can sustain high rates of fire for many hours, if required.

Finally, a standard 155mm artillery shell costs about 100 times less than a basic HIMARS rocket, though with shorter range and with a smaller amount of explosive.

The DSR says that the SPHs “do not provide the required range or lethality.” This is a questionable statement, at best. A standard 155mm round travels 40km, but by using techniques such as base bleed and rocket assist, distances of double that are achievable.

The 155mm naval gun in service on USN Zumwalt destroyers can push a sub-calibre round more than 150km. A standard HIMARS rocket travels 80km – though certainly much longer-range versions are available. Regarding lethality, a standard battery of six SPHs using techniques such as Multiple Rounds Simultaneous Impact can deliver a volley in less than a minute. That is the equivalent of a HIMARS salvo – which admittedly is coming from a single platform.

This is why the Hanwha system is in great demand, purchased by several NATO countries including the UK, Poland, Norway, Finland and Estonia – and is in production for India and Egypt as well as the army of South Korea, which is getting 2000 of them.

By cancelling a second batch of these SPHs the combat power of the Army is being reduced, for dubious reasons.