This is a discussion on Australian Army Discussions and Updates within the Army & Security Forces forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by OPSSG
There's also externally mounted guns that does not impact the number of seats on the military-off-the-shelf ...
There's also externally mounted guns that does not impact the number of seats on the military-off-the-shelf market but I suspect they brought it up as an issue as they may want to develop a German solution for that.
I can see the problem with the door gun issue as being more of an impracticality of co-locating the gun system in the doorway which doesn't seem big enough to me, for this addition.
I can see the problem with the door gun issue as being more of an impracticality of co-locating the gun system in the doorway which doesn't seem big enough to me, for this addition.
The NH-90 has a dedicated load-masters seat which does not block the doorway and yet allows a gun to be carried on each side of the helo.
As usual, thanks for that clarification. From your response, I see that the initial reporting on the issue was even more misleading that I thought.
There were some other WTF points in that report, but why bother getting upset? It's mainstream journalism who are attempting to create controversy to sell copy, using very the usual very poor or out-dated source material.
I mean, come on. "Fast ropers", use the winch instead of a rope???
I don't know how other militaries do it, but the ADF uses good, plain old rope...
There were some other WTF points in that report, but why bother getting upset? It's mainstream journalism who are attempting to create controversy to sell copy, using very the usual very poor or out-dated source material.
I mean, come on. "Fast ropers", use the winch instead of a rope???
I don't know how other militaries do it, but the ADF uses good, plain old rope...
Is there any news on the replacement for the LCM-8, last info is that they were looking into water jet landing craft or pump jet design.
How would water jet go when close inshore and picking up sand and seaweed thru the motors, obviously they could handle a small amount.
Source wiki (pump jet)
Advantages
Pump jets have some advantages over bare propellers for certain applications, usually related to requirements for high-speed or shallow-draft operations. These include:
Increasing the speed before the onset of capitation, due to the raised internal dynamic pressure.
•High power density (with respect to volume) of both the propulsor and the prime mover (since a smaller, higher-speed unit can be used)
•Protection of the rotating element and making operation safer around swimmers and aquatic life
•Improved shallow-water operations, since only the inlet needs to be submerged
•Increased maneuverability, by adding a steerable nozzle to create vectored thrust.
•Noise reduction resulting in a low sonar signature; this particular system has little in common with other pump-jet propulsor and is also known as "shrouded propeller configuration"; applications:
Submarines, for example the Royal Navy Trafalgar class and Astute class, the US Navy Seawolf class, the French Navy Triomphant class, and the Russian Navy Borei class..
Torpedoes, such as the Spearfish and MK.48 weapons.
Disadvantages
•Can be less efficient than a propeller at low speed
•More expensive
•Higher weight in boat due to entrained water
•Will not perform well if boat is heavier than the jet is sized for
•Can become clogged with debris e.g. seaweed.
Obviously with such a large craft the vectoring nozzles in the front will hit the beach, how will it overcome these problems or could they use some thing similar to a hover craft arrangement with large fans on the rear with out the air cushion or maybe go with some thing like the Russian Zubr class LCAC, do the US make some thing similar which could transport an MBT to the shoreline, over kill in our needs but it moves,
The Zubr landing craft has a cargo area of 400 square meters (4,300 sq ft), and a fuel capacity of 56 tons.It can carry three main battle tanks (up to 131 tonnes), or ten armored personnel carriers with 140 troops (up to 115 tonnes), or up to 500 troops (with 360 troops in the cargo compartment). At full displacement the ship is capable of negotiating up to 5-degree gradients on non-equipped shores and 1.6m-high vertical walls. The Zubr remains seaworthy in conditions up to Sea state 4. The vessel has a cruising speed of 30-40 knots
Its being replaced by the same one the Spanish bought for JCI.
I can not find specs on the LCM-1E, but it is mentioned in a lot of articles.
So what happen to the water jet idea could not make it work for the tonnage required?
Will it be kept the same design or will they require modification like the lcm-8 such as,
The modifications of the vessels include an extended enclosed wheelhouse that included full galley facilities, chart table and storage space to aid in extended operations beyond the original design parameters. A water purification system allows the vessels to be somewhat independent for longer periods of time. A fully functioning toilet (head) and shower are also installed as part of the wheelhouse extensions, external provision for bedding is also include for the full crew complement.
Currently LCM-8 is administered by the Royal Australian Corps of Transport and one engineer from the Royal Australian Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (RAEME), will this still be the case in the future or will they taken over by the RAN?
I can not find specs on the LCM-1E, but it is mentioned in a lot of articles.
So what happen to the water jet idea could not make it work for the tonnage required?
Will it be kept the same design or will they require modification like the lcm-8 such as,
Seems like (my rudimentary spanish) the LCM-1E is similar to the LCM-8 in weight and dimensions. Able to accomodate a single MBT.
But, the LCM-1E :
- uses waterjets
- is faster 22 knots (light), 13.5 (loaded) vs 12/9 knots for the LCM-8
- greater range 190nm (342km) at economical speed
- shallower draft, 1m (loaded) vs 1.6m for the LCM-8
Schley: This “secret report” which was mentioned by the daily press was not new to us. We are regularly in touch with our customer regarding the status of NH90 programme. The report referred to by the daily press does not reflect the actual status and, respectively, the actual contractual background. The NH90s which are currently deployed with the German Armed Forces for pilot and ground crew training correspond to the agreed pre-series configuration of the Initial Operational Capability (IOC). The Final Operational Capability (FOC) for the German Army and Air Force will receive final certification in 2010 and are scheduled for delivery beginning in 2011.
The IOC configuration has undergone various operational trials during the past months in order to identify possible weak spots in the pre-series status. It is absolutely normal in the case of such complex weapon systems that the findings of these operational trials are incorporated into the final development phase.
It mentions several of the reported issues, basically stating that minor problems are to be expected at this point in development.
I can't help but feel it's a little odd to be bragging about 40 deliveries one minute, then falling back on the "it's not yet finished" excuse the next.
Still, the naval NFH is apparently also on schedule for delivery Q1 2010, so I'm sure we'll hear more about this in the future...
Fres contract as you know has now been signed the down side the system the goverment has gone for is the one the British Army does not want, the one we wanted was removed from the bidding early and the 2nd choice cv90 was not picked dispite the armys request, so will be intresting when the first systems come on line and ATDU get there hands on them for full trials.
the other issue is the combat wieght, as the current RECCE has a combat wieght of 7 tons the new system is reported at 30 to 40 tons, which restricts its transportablity, and would not have been able to have been used in the falklands in support of the infantry so there are concerns in the UK.
isn't their plans for the Australian army to get IFVs ?
if so.
what was the time frame for their acquisition and what are they likely to be?
many thanks lopez...
from the Defence White Paper 2009
9.38 The Government places a high priority on the survivability and mobility of our land forces. To meet this priority, Defence intends to acquire a new fleet of around 1,100 deployable protected vehicles. These new vehicles will replace existing armoured personnel carriers, mobility vehicles and other combat vehicles which, in the past, have had limited or no protection. These new vehicles will offer greatly improved firepower, protection and mobility, in response to the increasing complexity and lethality of land operations. In the shorter term, Defence will continue to upgrade the protection, mobility and firepower of the M113 Armoured Personnel Carriers, some of which are already in service. By the time this project is completed in late 2011, the Army will have around 430 of these enhanced vehicles.
from the Defence Capability Plan 2009 (under planning for capabilities beyond 2013 pg 17)
Land Combat Vehicles. The LAND 400 project will aim to replace and enhance those combat systems currently provided by M113, ASLAV and Bushmaster. The project is likely to be split into phases to deal with vehicle classes or capabilities. This is likely to be an ACAT I Program and Defence will commence work on developing this project for Government consideration after 2016.
It seems to me that nothing much will happen before 2016, so perhaps the timeframe for these to be in service is somewhere around 2020+
