Australian Army Discussions and Updates

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Hi
Just to let you know the G-6 was part of the initial tendering process, called phase 2 which stopped in 2012 . THe Defense Minister this year awarded the tender to S Korea for the K-9 / 10, with a hundred rounds for Auto loading. Here's the the kicker, they expect the K-9 spew a round called GGAm out to 100km or so.
Seeing as though you are so interested in ‘facts’ phase 2 was a part of LAND 17. That was indeed a project to acquire a self-propelled howitzer for the Australian Army. That project was cancelled however in favour of an additional purchase of M777A2 lightweight towed guns, by the then Labor Government,

Project LAND 8116 - Mobile Protected Fires, has since been re-raised by the current Government under the new Defence ‘smart buyer’ procurement policies, as a sole-source selection.

G-6 was never shortlisted for Australia. Bid yes, but not short-listed. PZH-2000 and K9 were. Add to which it hasn’t been in production for many years as I understand it and has no integration with our BMS, C2 systems nor our new artillery ammunition supply (Assegai)...

It is so far away from being a realistic prospect for Australia it is laughable.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Good article in the November issue of DTR Magazine on the future Landing Craft for the Australian Army. First up will be the replacement for the Vietnam era LCM-8, Land 8710 phase 1, which is due for Gate 1 approval before the end of the year. 2 Contenders have been confirmed so far, BMT with the Caiman 90 and CNIM with the 29m Landing Craft Assault(LCA) both of which currently have major orders from important Allies in the USA and France respectively.
Second will be the LCH replacement, Land 8710 phase 2 which is due for Gate 0 approval in. 21-22.
While Land 8710 may not be as sexy as Land 400 or the ARH replacement or the SOCOMD LT Helo projects they are just as important in their way. The big improvement which all the contenders will offer will be far superior Sea Keeping and performance over legacy platforms, which will certainly be appreciated by the Personal operating them, the Caiman 90 for instance has a top speed of 40kt unloaded, 22kt loaded.
 
Last edited:

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Good article in the November issue of DTR Magazine on the future Landing Craft for the Australian Army. First up will be the replacement for the Vietnam era LCM-8, Land 8710 phase 1, which is due for Gate 1 approval before the end of the year. 2 Contenders have been confirmed so far, BMT with the Caiman 90 and CNIM with the 29m Landing Craft Assault(LCA) both of which currently have major orders from important Allies in the USA and France respectively.
Second will be the LCH replacement, Land 8710 phase 2 which is due for Gate 0 approval in. 21-22.
While Land 8710 may not be as sexy as Land 400 or the ARH replacement or the SOCOMD LT Helo projects they are just as important in their way. The big improvement which all the contenders will offer will be far superior Sea Keeping and performance over legacy platforms, which will certainly be appreciated by the Personal operating them, the Caiman 90 for instance has a top speed of 40kt unloaded, 22kt loaded.
I worry somewhat about the Alu construction of the BMT design, we’ve been down that path before.
Despite this it seems to have the edge over the CNIM 29mtr in both speed load (22kts v 13kts) and load capacity (95 t v 80t)
It seems the the LHDs can still handle 4 x hulls of either type.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
I worry somewhat about the Alu construction of the BMT design, we’ve been down that path before.
Despite this it seems to have the edge over the CNIM 29mtr in both speed load (22kts v 13kts) and load capacity (95 t v 80t)
It seems the the LHDs can still handle 4 x hulls of either type.
The DTR article actually disagrees about them fitting inside the LHD and both are somewhat larger then the LCM-1E, the Caiman 90 is 30m and 203t as against the LCM-1E at 23m and 110t
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The DTR article actually disagrees about them fitting inside the LHD and both are somewhat larger then the LCM-1E, the Caiman 90 is 30m and 203t as against the LCM-1E at 23m and 110t
The LHD well docks are over 69mtrs long So theoretically 2 would fit.
When 4 x1Es are embarked There is space between them and the dock door to enable other watercraft to be carried.
 

hairyman

Member
Is there no consideration for the vessels built in Queensland that reverse into the beach? They do appear to be pretty big, that may be the problem for them. The Americans have apparently shown some interest in them according to recent issues of APDR and DTR.
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Is there no consideration for the vessels built in Queensland that reverse into the beach? They do appear to be pretty big, that may be the problem for them. The Americans have apparently shown some interest in them according to recent issues of APDR and DTR.
Possibly as the LCH replacement, but not for the beach connector, two different requirements and programs

Cheers
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The LHD well docks are over 69mtrs long So theoretically 2 would fit.
When 4 x1Es are embarked There is space between them and the dock door to enable other watercraft to be carried.
I don’t think it’s the length that would be the problem, but the width. The dock on the LHD is 16.8m wide, and there is a baffle down the centre limiting any landing craft to less than 8m or so in width. Based on the article, it seems the Carmen 90 is too wide at 8.6m, but the French design at 6.4 m should fit.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Is there no consideration for the vessels built in Queensland that reverse into the beach? They do appear to be pretty big, that may be the problem for them. The Americans have apparently shown some interest in them according to recent issues of APDR and DTR.
They were mentioned and there is a picture of one in the DTR article for the phase 2 requirement, on paper they look a very good option but a couple of our RAN Members on here have concerns about sticking your Back end in the sand in this fashion.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Seeing as though you are so interested in ‘facts’ phase 2 was a part of LAND 17. That was indeed a project to acquire a self-propelled howitzer for the Australian Army. That project was cancelled however in favour of an additional purchase of M777A2 lightweight towed guns, by the then Labor Government,

Project LAND 8116 - Mobile Protected Fires, has since been re-raised by the current Government under the new Defence ‘smart buyer’ procurement policies, as a sole-source selection.

G-6 was never shortlisted for Australia. Bid yes, but not short-listed. PZH-2000 and K9 were. Add to which it hasn’t been in production for many years as I understand it and has no integration with our BMS, C2 systems nor our new artillery ammunition supply (Assegai)...

It is so far away from being a realistic prospect for Australia it is laughable.
Good article in the November issue of DTR Magazine on the future Landing Craft for the Australian Army. First up will be the replacement for the Vietnam era LCM-8, Land 8710 phase 1, which is due for Gate 1 approval before the end of the year. 2 Contenders have been confirmed so far, BMT with the Caiman 90 and CNIM with the 29m Landing Craft Assault(LCA) both of which currently have major orders from important Allies in the USA and France respectively.
Second will be the LCH replacement, Land 8710 phase 2 which is due for Gate 0 approval in. 21-22.
While Land 8710 may not be as sexy as Land 400 or the ARH replacement or the SOCOMD LT Helo projects they are just as important in their way. The big improvement which all the contenders will offer will be far superior Sea Keeping and performance over legacy platforms, which will certainly be appreciated by the Personal operating them, the Caiman 90 for instance has a top speed of 40kt unloaded, 22kt loaded.
Correct,
not sexy but important.

Not sure as to which thread this conversation belongs, but certainly agree that a replacement for the LCH is a must.
Something small enough to park and extract itself from a beach, yet seaworthy enough to transit around the coast and to a our regional island neighbours would be seem to fit the bill.
What that look like we'll wait and see.
The Stern landing craft concept seems to have a lot of merit.
Trust it is as good as the sales brochure.
I certainly don't think we are looking at something the size of the old HMAS Tobruk LCH.

As to the LCM 8 replacement I'm somewhat confused.
I can understand the need of a connector from ship to shore in the form of our in service LCM1e.
A craft that sails with and integrated within a larger amphibious ship.
A coastal hugger in a small LCM8 replacement seems to replace the existing capability of a craft never designed to do what we expect of it with something slightly larger.
It appears we may end up with something still too small to fulfil its intended role, yet too big to fit within and be carried within an amphibious ship.
While it maybe able to dock with an LHD, if it cannot be carried within one I don't see its purpose.

Suggest this project is deleted and extra LCH's acquired.

If the LCM-1e is not up to the task to carry our future fleet of heavy armoured vehicles, then I can see the need for it's replacement.
The criteria must be that this future LLC can be carried within the Canberra Class. Independent coastal operations is not the priority.

The 69 m length of the well dock for the LHD often comes up in conversation.
It must be remembered the ramp takes up a big part of this space and with two LLC's in tandem the space to the rear of them does not appear to be that great, unlike some of the graphics displaying images of large RHIBs to the rear of the LCM1e's.
If others could clarify regarding this space it would be appreciated
Therefore any future craft will have to work within the realistic parameters of this docking well space.


Regards S
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
There may be some confusion here. This project is not about replacing the LSM-1Es, its about the Armies requirement for small to medium Amphibs to operate in Northern Australian and Pacific Island waters supporting ongoing ADF activities.
I think the LCM-8 and the phase 1 replacement are intended more as a semi independent Work Horse more than a Ship to Shore Connector, will have superior Comms, some Crew accomodation and facilities, operating away from Base for extended periods. The LCM-8s spend there lives supporting ADF activities across Northern Australia as opposed to the LCM-1Es who’s primary role is operating out of the big Amphibs
 
Last edited:

Stampede

Well-Known Member
There may be some confusion here. This project is not about replacing the LSM-1Es, its about the Armies requirement for small to medium Amphibs to operate in Northern Australian and Pacific Island waters supporting ongoing ADF activities.
I think the LCM-8 and the phase 1 replacement are intended more as a semi independent Work Horse more than a Ship to Shore Connector, will have superior Comms, some Crew accomodation and facilities, operating away from Base for extended periods. The LCM-8s spend there lives supporting ADF activities across Northern Australia as opposed to the LCM-1Es who’s primary role is operating out of the big Amphibs
Thanks Redlands

If there is a need for such support operations in the north or anywhere else along the coast, then I see more advantage in using a much larger craft in the modern incarnation of the LCH.
I feel the legacy of the LCM8s size has influenced its replacement size. ie another small craft.
I really don't see it's utility in this day and age.

Moving forward I'd have

-LCH .............. 10 to 12 vessels - whatever is selected, they are still going to be relatively cheep and agricultural with a small crew.
In defence terms not, too expensive to both acquire and maintain.
-Future replacement for the LCM1e - LHD connector.
-New large riverine fast patrol boats. - Sized to fit into the LHD's when needed.


Regards S
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Thanks Redlands

If there is a need for such support operations in the north or anywhere else along the coast, then I see more advantage in using a much larger craft in the modern incarnation of the LCH.
I feel the legacy of the LCM8s size has influenced its replacement size. ie another small craft.
I really don't see it's utility in this day and age.

Moving forward I'd have

-LCH .............. 10 to 12 vessels - whatever is selected, they are still going to be relatively cheep and agricultural with a small crew.
In defence terms not, too expensive to both acquire and maintain.
-Future replacement for the LCM1e - LHD connector.
-New large riverine fast patrol boats. - Sized to fit into the LHD's when needed.


Regards S
Well the Army has decades of experience operating the LCM-8s and working with the RAN in operating the LCHs in the North, PNG and Solomon Islands etc and at this stage Land 2087 has been broken into 2 distinct Ship sizes. Both sizes have there advantages and disadvantages, the phase 2 vessels will be bigger more capable yes but that comes with a significant rise in costs in initial purchase, Crew size, operating costs etc and they will not be able to go the same places as the smaller Vessels, will be more affected by the extreme Tides that are found in Tropical areas
 

BigM60

Member
Just an observation - the Bay class (Choules) was built to carry a single example of the RN's MK10 LCU. Choules may be an option to carry the army's proposed larger landing craft if needed. Choules will eventually be replaced and any design should incorporate the requirement to carry these larger landing craft. The whole idea of the new landing craft project is for a vessel that is reasonably self deployable and supportable in our immediate region but if it does need to go further afield - then having the amphib ship to carry it will give us more flexibility. I just hope the army doesn't tweak an existing design too much or choose a "custom' design - I don't think there was much glory in the last domestic designed and built landing craft project.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The army used to operate LSMs prior to the LCH, which were what was built instead of the more capable LSM MkII the army wanted. Then to add insult to injury the LCHs were transfered to the RAN.

The army has had to make do with, and has gotten used to the LCM-8 as it's all they have had, the soldiers used to bigger more capable assets all long retired.

Something larger and more capable than the LCH would actually make sense as the RAN is no longer playing in the field.
 

BigM60

Member
Although the RAN is no longer playing in the LCH field - all services have a tendency to double back and re-enter the field if they think their turf is being eroded or they believe they can divert funding. Anything bigger than the LCH will always be on the navy's radar and to be fair - the army's as well if funding gets tight. The army likes water transport now but things change and they will give up a boat before they let go of anything else. Fincantieri Vard 7 series has some interesting designs that could meet the LCH + requirement.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Although the RAN is no longer playing in the LCH field - all services have a tendency to double back and re-enter the field if they think their turf is being eroded or they believe they can divert funding. Anything bigger than the LCH will always be on the navy's radar and to be fair - the army's as well if funding gets tight. The army likes water transport now but things change and they will give up a boat before they let go of anything else. Fincantieri Vard 7 series has some interesting designs that could meet the LCH + requirement.
There is no shortage of decent designs for a LSM but the Vard 7 LST is probably a bit large for the requirement. I think something like the Damen LSL 40/50/55/60 is more likely what we are looking at. Relatively straight forward to use, can be beached.
 

Pusser01

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The army used to operate LSMs prior to the LCH, which were what was built instead of the more capable LSM MkII the army wanted. Then to add insult to injury the LCHs were transfered to the RAN.

The army has had to make do with, and has gotten used to the LCM-8 as it's all they have had, the soldiers used to bigger more capable assets all long retired.

Something larger and more capable than the LCH would actually make sense as the RAN is no longer playing in the field.
If the requirement for transport on Kanimlba/Manoora had been dropped, could the axed LCM2000's have partially replaced the LCM8 in their current roles? I understand there was issues with them made from aluminum & cracking, but I wonder if they were maybe axed too quickly. Nowadays the RAN could easily carry one in the Choules welldeck. Cheers.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
At end of the day depends what you want to do and where you want to go with them. If going from ocean to beach then can get away with just and LCH. If looking at ability to go up river then then a direct replacement for the LCM is warranted. Both have advantages and disadvantages just comes down to perceived future tasks as to what is needed. If history anything to go by the will continue to get larger and more capable then their predecessors so any LCH we get could very well in all but name be a small LST.
 
Top