Landlubber.
We may of evolved in the water, but we left it millions of years ago for a reason.Landlubber.
It's cold, wet and unforgiving.
Regards S
Apart from the friendly sea state the LLC looks to be fairly empty apart from the tank and crew. It would be interesting to know how lightly loaded the tank was. An answer to this in the public domain is unlikely but I suspect it would have been kept to a minimum with additional fuel and ammunition landed separately if required. I am sure that navy and army will continue to work together to calculate safe limits for loads and sea states when deploying an M1A1 on an LLC.
Regardless of any limitations that may have been imposed, this represents another step in bringing the amphibious force up to operational readiness. I think that the ADF has come along way since the first LHD was commissioned. This year has seen the MH-60R, CH-47F and Tiger ARH deployed from the big amphibs in operations and it has also been good to see allied forces embarked in the Australian ships. The LHDs have also demonstrated that they have much to offer outside their core amphibious role. I know there was a hiccup with the unfortunate timing of the MRH-90 issue during Talisman Sabre but short of a shooting war safety must always be given top priority.
I believe that the ADF has every reason to feel really pleased to have achieved so much with the resources available.
Tas
First post so be gentle please... it looks like to die is cast on this but with Land 17 I cant understand why a wheeled SPH like Archer has not been considered. With a unit consisting of Archer gun and dedicated supply vehicle for each gun about $4.5 mil US vs 2 x K9 AS9 Thunder and 1 x A10 combination (about $18 mil US) it’s seems dramatically cheaper for a possibly better result (unless shells are exploding directly over head of course).
Given the logistics and transport tail required to ship a 40+ tonne tracked vehicle and its 40 tonne partner supply system from North to South or East to West of Australia...wouldn’t a wheeled set of vehicles that can self transport make more sense? Same for transporting to OS operations.....vehicle and supply system for a K9 & K10 pair is close to 90 tonnes...Archer and supply vehicle laden is closer to 55 tonnes.
Yes .... not as well protected and not completely under cover for reloading when compared to K9&10 combo...but for the same or less cost we could buy more units. ( even equipping reserve) and get them to where they are needed in less time with less crew when the haulers and drivers are counted. And more guns means more opportunity to get guns on target simultaneously....
Given the logistics and transport tail required to ship a 40+ tonne tracked vehicle and its 40 tonne partner supply system from North to South or East to West of Australia...wouldn’t a wheeled set of vehicles that can self transport make more sense? Same for transporting to OS operations.....vehicle and supply system for a K9 & K10 pair is close to 90 tonnes...Archer and supply vehicle laden is closer to 55 tonnes.
Yes .... not as well protected and not completely under cover for reloading when compared to K9&10 combo...but for the same or less cost we could buy more units. ( even equipping reserve) and get them to where they are needed in less time with less crew when the haulers and drivers are counted. And more guns means more opportunity to get guns on target simultaneously....
G'day @Bob53 . Welcome to the forum. Please take time to read the rules. If you have a read back through this thread you will see why the tracked SPH is preferred to the wheeled option. In a nutshell it is because it can stay with the armoured formations, i.e., MBT etc., can venture, whereas wheeled vehicles can't.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Welcome and g’day @Bob53
If you are interested in any or all Australian Defence Matters then do yourself a huge favour and read through the Australian Defence threads on Here, there are several dozen members who are either ex ADF members and or heavily involved in Australian Defence as Civilians.
Wheeled v Tracked Vehicles in general both have pros and cons but if you want to be able to keep up with MBTs and IFVs you need Tracked.
Having about 60 to 70 tonnes in one location forward ... the bow is going to go down even if the LCM 1e was longer or wider. it is a simply fact of weight distribution and bouyancy. It appears to be afloat at the correct trim, with the marks not submerged, while underway. It is also notable that the (much larger) LCAC only has a paylaod on 60 tonnes (75 tonnes in overload) so it could only carry a single MBT as well and would be similarly restricted in the addition bodies and equipment it could carry.
Agree this would not want to done in weather where it is was quite rough.
Takao
The Bunker Group
The Archer fits the criteria, and with SPG the tracks v wheels difference isn't actually an issue. The greater range of a self-propelled 155/52 barrel provides enough options that the gun vehicles don't have to keep right beside the armoured formation. Furthermore, with the Boxer entering service, the wheels / tracks issue becomes even more irrelevant.
Your line of reasoning makes sense, although the weight isn't really an issue. The fact is, these things are heavy, but they'll go where we need. The lower protection is a concern, although I note that it can be used on an armoured platform that could suggest a feasible v-hull or similar.
There are two cautions I'd provide though. The first thing is using per vehicle costings. The overall project / capability has many other costings that must be included, so a more $$ / vehicle bid can actually end up being cheaper as things like deeper maintenance / simulators / facilities are included. With little expose to that, it may be that when all that is added up, the Korean bid beats Sweden.
The second caution is sustainability (with a touch of politics). There are 48 Archer's in service, versus nearly 1500 K9 (noting some are still being delivered). This alone means that that the K9 is a more sustainable platform. Add in a factory in Australia and we are talking about something that may be the best supportable platform in the world that mates excellent performance to that. I find that particularly reassuring, as we will have better knowledge of the system and it's development has been less buggy.
I also note that the Norwegian's chose the K9 over the Archer. That's a decision worth looking into.
A lot of optimism in that the ADF are persevering to make this capability reality.
This reality may only be calm sea states but that's better than the limited alternatives of Mexiflotes / Allies and parked at a pier.
Just wondering have they painted the LCM1e a darker shade of grey.
Maybe just the image, or alternatively my middle aged eyes.
Regards S
Yes - welcome Bob 53. I too wondered why the Archer seemed to be passed over but then Norway cancelled its order after investing lot in it:
Why Norway Pulled the Plug on Archer
The report Norway was being diplomatic as to its reasons but something apart from schedule delays was amiss.
That is interesting. I hadn’t seen that article about the Norwegian cancellation. The numbers of K9 units in service make sense in regard to support and sustainment but it still seems like an incredibly long and heavy logistics tail for a small number of guns. As mentioned by Takao the guns realistically are not front rowers and can behind the lines somewhat. Apologies if I’m not supposed to mention cost but was just taking initial unit costs but would think sustainment of a tracked vehicle would be substantially higher than a Volvo or Mercedes 8x8. Thanks for the response everyone one.
Nurse
New Member
Given the realisation it does not necessarily need to be a tracked platform, any consideration to the Hawkeye on a Hawkei?
HMMWV/Hawkeye - AM General
Cheers
HMMWV/Hawkeye - AM General
Cheers
Exactly which requirement would it be evaluated to fill?
I have my doubts whether there's much appetite to randomly consider weapons that don't actually meet an ADF requirement, which is a good thing, because if we need to do that, starting with thrown rock and working up to thermonuclear we're going to need a much larger purchasing bureaucracy.
oldsig
Nurse
New Member
Nothing random about it at all. An SPG is not an ADF requirement-but we’re allegedly getting one to create jobs in Geelong anyway?
I think it is/was a requirement per Land17.
Cheers
The SPG most certainly is an ADF requirement, LAND 8112. It existed long before the government announced it before the election. The only thing he government did was bring the timeline forward a decade or so.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Great promotional Video of a Humvee running around carrying a 105mm gun on the back but forgets to show the Truck that will have to follow it every where it goes carrying the Ammo, stores etc.
The US Army M-20 Howitzer? Never heard of it and I can’t find any reference to any such Weapon.
Takao
The Bunker Group
For us? It's pointless.
3 major issues:
1. it's a 105 mm gun. That's an inappropriate calibre for what we want, it requires a new ammunition funding line, it doesn't mesh with most of our likely allies (noting that some use 105 mm, but those supply chains are too small to be of any significance) and frankly, it doesn't have enough payload. Against any force other than light infantry it's reasonably useless, and 155 mm works against light infantry just as well. Note also that this is a L118 gun - we replaced those with M777. Why go backwards?
2. the platform is unprotected and unsupported. If there is a worse platform for protection than a Humvee, I don't know. I know you have said on a Hawkei, but that is a significant chunk of change for engineering on something that would be a bespoke system (so why buy the platform). That's even assuming a Hawkei can take the load, while the M20 is around 2.1 t and the Hawkei can take up to 3 t, I don't know how much the undercarriage needs to be beefed up.
3. the gun is not protected. This is the biggest killer for me. To have the crew operating outside armour is pointless and just killers gunners. The gun has to carry and operate with all it's people under cover - the exception being during reloading of ready ammunition when out of contact (and if this can be done automatically / under cover than even better). This alone takes it out of the contention for a protected, mobile fires system.
All up this fulfils no need in the ADF, is a backwards step, would be a bespoke system, has significant technical overheads, would cost a bucketload, has little battlefield application and undermines the joint force.
Takao
The Bunker Group
It's a M119, the US built L118. I think it's a designation of the version produced at the US Army Watervliet Arsenal, but like you said, references are hard to find.
(Last line of the second paragraph in the development section): M119 howitzer - Wikipedia