Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Army & Security Forces

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures




Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence








Australian Army Discussions and Updates

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 ADMk2 I am happy to be corrected but I get the strong feeling the current amphibious asset ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 16 votes, 3.75 average.
Old 1 Week Ago   #5341
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 761
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADMk2 View Post
I am happy to be corrected but I get the strong feeling the current amphibious asset plan wasn't really talking to the LAND 400 folks when they planned our amphibious force, but rather the force in being. It's a habit we have I have observed over and over...
OT slightly but when did Land 400 start? From my understanding the Juan Carlos design was chosen circa 2004? if memory serves me. Did Land 400 start before or after this?

Seems to me and could be wrong my as well that we built up an amphibious capability based around 90's capabilities and only started upgrading said capabilities after the amphibious assets where decided.

---------

Personnel opinion if they want to keep this risk free then they will either go for LCU's aboard (Could theoretically fit 2 along with 2 LCM's) or they will revive the Heavy landing craft program and acquire some LST's. LCM's just simply too small to do what they want and trying to get one to do it will be throwing valuable, time, money and resources at a very long shot.

Oh well, Only time will tell all we can hope is that they look at past programs and utilize there lessons to work out how they will proceed.
vonnoobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #5342
Just a bloke
Major General
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,191
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by vonnoobie View Post
OT slightly but when did Land 400 start? From my understanding the Juan Carlos design was chosen circa 2004? if memory serves me. Did Land 400 start before or after this?

Seems to me and could be wrong my as well that we built up an amphibious capability based around 90's capabilities and only started upgrading said capabilities after the amphibious assets where decided.

---------

Personnel opinion if they want to keep this risk free then they will either go for LCU's aboard (Could theoretically fit 2 along with 2 LCM's) or they will revive the Heavy landing craft program and acquire some LST's. LCM's just simply too small to do what they want and trying to get one to do it will be throwing valuable, time, money and resources at a very long shot.

Oh well, Only time will tell all we can hope is that they look at past programs and utilize there lessons to work out how they will proceed.
But that refers to what my main point was. ADF talks over and over about acquiring complementary capabilities, but you see time and time again that the left hand clearly doesn't talk to the right.

If we are acquiring a future amphibious capability why would we acquire connectors designed for a previous generation of vehicles? I really don't think it takes any great intellectual leap to assume that capabilities needs will grow in future rather than lessen and plan accordingly...
ADMk2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #5343
Defense Professional / Analyst
Brigadier General
ASSAIL's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 1,902
Threads:
Can anyone explain the latest push by Army to only employ women? This was announced over the last few days apparently it's an attempt to raise the ratio of females in the service. In my view this is PC gone crazy, surely Army should be recruiting the best prospects be they either men or women.
ASSAIL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #5344
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 261
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADMk2 View Post
But that refers to what my main point was. ADF talks over and over about acquiring complementary capabilities, but you see time and time again that the left hand clearly doesn't talk to the right.

If we are acquiring a future amphibious capability why would we acquire connectors designed for a previous generation of vehicles? I really don't think it takes any great intellectual leap to assume that capabilities needs will grow in future rather than lessen and plan accordingly...
It appears unfortunately your correct in that the current LCM1e may not be able to carry either our current MBT or alternatively two future land 400 IFV's.Time and practise may secure a limited capacity in very calm conditions but still probably not the best or desired outcome.
My understanding is that back in the day the LCM 2000 landing craft where proving not fit for purpose during it's early days of operation off the old Kanimbla and would have been to wide for the soon to be acquired Canberra Classes docking well.
Back then a seemingly safe bet was to acquire the same landing craft that Spain had designed for it's Juan Carlos LHD.
This is seemingly both hands talking to each other after all Spain had a similar weighted MBT in the Leo 11 Mk 6 to our new Abram's and my understanding was all the appropriate questions were asked and assurances given that this new connector would do as advertised.
Our refurbished M113a4 were not in the weight category of current 25t + IFV such as your Bradley / Marder / Warrior vehicles so the immediate future looked a good mix of armoured vehicles and LHD with appropriate landing craft.

The sad current reality is that our LCM'1e may not be sufficiently future proofed to provide the weight carrying capacity for future loads. The Docking well of the Canberra class is a constant that may be a challenge in width to fit Two future LCM sized craft side by side. Our M113a4 provide no realistic deployable capacity as they are out classed for about all in harms way operations. The ASLAV are old, tired and are a light weight in this age.
To make things worse the out come of land 400 that being an in service phase 2 and 3 vehicle is still a long way away.
What puzzles me is that there is an acceptance that this is OK and there is no need for an immediate fix. If a commensurate situation was within the RAAF I would guess that they would have the Sales, diplomatic and professional skills to make government understand the gravity of the situation.
Army seem to have a generational culture of acceptance that our current situation is adequate which of course is fine if you aspire to just send light infantry / special forces type of groups to your Afghanistan type of mission.
But then again didn't the Dutch send MBT's, self propelled artillery and attack helicopters to Uruzgan?
I feel Army needs to provide government more options and much sooner than the fulfilment of Land 4000
Maybe we need to look at a quick armoured upgrade to the M113's, fast track phase 2 of land 400,up the numbers of Abrams and put a lot of energy into making the LCM1e work or find a quick alternative.


Regards S

Last edited by Stampede; 1 Week Ago at 06:35 AM.
Stampede is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #5345
Defense Aficionado
Major General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,114
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASSAIL View Post
Can anyone explain the latest push by Army to only employ women? This was announced over the last few days apparently it's an attempt to raise the ratio of females in the service. In my view this is PC gone crazy, surely Army should be recruiting the best prospects be they either men or women.
This article references the attempt to increase the female ratio in the ADF which I gather is hot button topic in OZ at the moment.

Canadian study about female shopping habits could aid Australian military recruiting | Ottawa Citizen

Last edited by John Fedup; 1 Week Ago at 06:13 AM. Reason: Spelling
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #5346
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 761
Threads:
All for increasing female numbers, and if physical fitness is the issue holding them back then implement a program to give them a few months to get there fitness up to scratch but they should not be ruling out any gender be it male, female or neutral.

PC should only go so far as to give them 'assistance' to reach the physical requirements, It should not drop them (requirements) and block entry for any one else.
vonnoobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #5347
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 34
Threads:
Here's the article:

http://http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/australian-army-bans-male-recruits-to-get-female-numbers-up/news-story/69ee9dc1d4f8836e9cca7ca2e3e5680a


A number of other papers are running the story also.


Objectively, men are generally a better choice for putting in harm's way as their loss won't impact the population's replacement potential.. Only a limited number of men are needed to make babies but every woman lost reduces the potential replacement capacity. This is why traditionally men take the risks to defend the tribe. However, in today's circumstances very few people from the total population are needed on the front line, thus the matter is moot. We could have an ADF composed entirely of women in theory.

But why? It seems like some people have become ideological fashion causalities. The result of their obsession with contriving an ideological outcome rather than letting natural processes work through the system, is the alienation of many people. This diminishes the esteem the establishment is held in and impacts moral. It can also lead to political instability. I do not think this approach has been well thought out.

Regrettably the thought behind such policies is common amongst Australia's power elites and indeed the national elites of other western countries. I could go into great detail in explaining why this is so. But this is supposed to be a defence forum. Suffice to say the first priority of power elites is to maintain political stability in order to preserve a status quote that delivers them their position of privilege. Western power elites seem to take their status for granted and so they think it doesn't matter how many commoners they alienate. But then it was that sort of arrogance that brought Trump to power. Will they ever learn?
foxdemon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #5348
Defense Aficionado
Major General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,114
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxdemon View Post
Suffice to say the first priority of power elites is to maintain political stability in order to preserve a status quote that delivers them their position of privilege. Western power elites seem to take their status for granted and so they think it doesn't matter how many commoners they alienate. But then it was that sort of arrogance that brought Trump to power. Will they ever learn?
Agree, and this is why Canada has that pathetic excuse for a PM, junior.
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #5349
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 12
Threads:
Are we now doing politics in this thread? The above comment does not contribute to the subject matter.
Geddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #5350
Defense Professional / Analyst
Brigadier General
ASSAIL's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 1,902
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geddy View Post
Are we now doing politics in this thread? The above comment does not contribute to the subject matter.
My original question was apolitical, trying to understand the Australian Army's rationale for making such a decision.
If it was simply based on gender diversity it needs to be condemned. If it was based on recruiting women to fill jobs at which women have proven to be more adept, it needs to be explained.
ASSAIL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #5351
Defense Professional / Analyst
Brigadier General
ASSAIL's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 1,902
Threads:
The Australian has reported that the entire Tiger fleet has been grounded and deemed unsafe following the crash in Africa. It's also reported that no single cause can be found but that the aircraft probably nose dived killing both the crew.
the future doesn't look too bright and their replacement may come sooner rather than later.

I can't post the Australians version but found another.

Australia grounds $1.5b Tiger fighter, manufacturer deems helicopter 'unsafe' | Manufacturers' Monthly
ASSAIL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #5352
Just a bloke
Major General
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,191
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASSAIL View Post
The Australian has reported that the entire Tiger fleet has been grounded and deemed unsafe following the crash in Africa. It's also reported that no single cause can be found but that the aircraft probably nose dived killing both the crew.
the future doesn't look too bright and their replacement may come sooner rather than later.

I can't post the Australians version but found another.

Australia grounds $1.5b Tiger fighter, manufacturer deems helicopter 'unsafe' | Manufacturers' Monthly
From recollection the rotors came off when it went into a dive for no known reason...

Not a good look...
ADMk2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #5353
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Sydney
Posts: 17
Threads:
LAND 400 Contest

Just saw an announcement on APAC from QLD pollies and Rheinmettall regarding their bid for Land 400 Ph. 2 with Boxer.

Usual stuff, similar to the Vic pollies promoting the AMV35 recently, but one item mentioned was that one of each of the demo units last week were put through 2 major explosions, one from beneath, the other from the side..

Only the Boxer drove off the range after the blasts.
Beam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #5354
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Waylander's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein
Posts: 4,933
Threads:
In a germsn forum someone claimed it not only left the range under it's own power but also climbed back onto the truck on it's own.

The AMV not so much.
Waylander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 Week Ago   #5355
Defense Professional / Analyst
Brigadier General
ASSAIL's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 1,902
Threads:
Waylander, has there been any reports in the German press about your Tiger crash in Africa or any subsequent developments?
ASSAIL is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:47 AM.