Australian Army Discussions and Updates

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Army v RAN politics may come into it, remember the Balikpapan Class LCH were originally Army but the RAN ended up taking them of the Army's hands. Crewing a larger vessel may be an issue for the Army, get up into the 45-50m range then you are going from a Crew of 3-5 to 6-10 and probably going from a Corporal to a Sergeant in command.
From memory the LCH was originally to have been commanded by a WO2.

What was more interesting was the LSMs, operated by the Army that the LCHs replaced, and even more interesting, the LSM MK2, designed to replace the LSM, but cancelled in favour of the LCH. These were all planned as army vessels, able to transport a troop of tanks and other assorted vehicles, plus personnel, stores etc.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Is there anything an LCM type can do that an LCH type couldn't do better?

Is there anything an LCM type that can't fit in an LHD or LPD can do that an LCU that can fit in a large amphib can't?

Steel is cheap and air is free so why acquire a vessel that doesn't offer much over a type that would fit in an amphib. If it's going to be too big to fit in a Canberra, why not make it as big as it can be, but can still access the restricted litoral waters required?
I think this is some what my concern with this project
I get Army have a long history with the LCM8.
In reality it is a connector converted to have some limited ability to conduct independent operations
We made do with what we had.
The LCM1e is good for what it is intended to do, but will need further "tweeking" or replacing as Armys equipment gets heavier.
The LCM8 is an oppertunity.
If a large LCH is too big and an LCM too small, then if something is needed in the middle ground I'd still suggest it should have the ability to still fit and deploy within the LHD's.
Call it a LCU or whatever, but probably it would have the same width as the LLC of 6.4 m and some added extra length.
The LHD's could fit two of such units with spare space for other smaller water craft yet to be acquired.

A 30m LCU will be able to carry all of ARMYs vehicles and still have the ability to self deploy, which is what it will be used for the majority of time.


Cheers S
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
I think this is some what my concern with this project
I get Army have a long history with the LCM8.
In reality it is a connector converted to have some limited ability to conduct independent operations
We made do with what we had.
The LCM1e is good for what it is intended to do, but will need further "tweeking" or replacing as Armys equipment gets heavier.
The LCM8 is an oppertunity.
If a large LCH is too big and an LCM too small, then if something is needed in the middle ground I'd still suggest it should have the ability to still fit and deploy within the LHD's.
Call it a LCU or whatever, but probably it would have the same width as the LLC of 6.4 m and some added extra length.
The LHD's could fit two of such units with spare space for other smaller water craft yet to be acquired.

A 30m LCU will be able to carry all of ARMYs vehicles and still have the ability to self deploy, which is what it will be used for the majority of time.


Cheers S
Then it comes down to how important is it for the Army to be able to move 70t M-1 Abrams from the LHD to shore but look at the possible compromises you will need to make.
1/ Possibly an ILS with inferior seakeeping and endurance
2/ You now have an inferior capability to move just about every other Vehicle in the Army from ship to shore due to the fact that you have gone from 4 LCMs to 2 slightly larger LCMs
You are deciding which LCM to get on just one requirement while ignoring all the others.
Also the ADF is looking at a LCH replacement and a 1500t+ LST is going to be a far better way to put MBTs across a beach then a LCM. Could carry an entire Troop, support Vehicles, Logistics etc.
 
Last edited:

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Then it comes down to how important is it for the Army to be able to move 70t M-1 Abrams from the LHD to shore but look at the possible compromises you will need to make.
1/ Possibly an ILS with inferior seakeeping and endurance
2/ You now have an inferior capability to move just about every other Vehicle in the Army from ship to shore due to the fact that you have gone from 4 LCMs to 2 slightly larger LCMs
You are deciding which LCM to get on just one requirement while ignoring all the others.
Also the ADF is looking at a LCH replacement and a 1500t+ LST is going to be a far better way to put MBTs across a beach then a LCM. Could carry an entire Troop, support Vehicles, Logistics etc.
To clarify
LHD still has four connectors that hopefully can still transport the heaviest of vehicles. Currently LCM1e
LCU for independent coastal operations to replace the LCM8 - LHD compatible.
LCH replacement about 70% bigger than the Balikpapan Class.
Something that can independently sail to Norfolk / Cocos / Christmas island and return.
More along the lines of an enhanced US Runnymede Class.
Purchase in decent numbers rather than getting fewer much larger vessels that become problematic with beaching and extracting.


Cheers S
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Just so long as we don’t get into the situation in the past, which was (I believe) one of the reasons the LCHs went to Navy - army manned craft wandering unannounced through live fire areas. Hopefully the modern joint approach will make sure that doesn’t happen.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Small article in ADM - EOS has released a maritime variant of it’s R400 remote weapon station and such will be supplied as GFE for LAND
8710-1 Littoral Manoeuvre Vessel – Medium capability. Probably mounting 12.7mm guns I would expect, though M230LF 30mm guns remain an outside possibility down the track, depending on how important Army sees a counter-UAS capability in it’s weapon systems…

 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Will the RBS70's be removed from service? Does does that mean we will be left with no man portable AD?
It appears so, with no publicly known replacement project in the MANPADS class, nor in ANY kind of mobile air defence capability, beyond ‘all arms fires’…

NASAMS II will provide an un-arguable increase in Army’s capability to provide an air-defence ‘bubble’ in a handful of locations, but even Hawkei mounted NASAMS launchers are still static systems, when the system is operational.

Given the extremely massive investments we are making in the development of highly mobile battle groups, there are some ”interesting” priorities Army has in that space, with the observable real world effects of ever increasing PGM, UAS and loitering munitions capabilities, and us doing literally nothing to address those threats…

I suppose we can always just withdraw if that sort of operational environment were to present itself though, which leads to a wider argument about why we would even be there in the first place if we just up and leave if things get a bit too tough, but that’s another discussion I guess…
 

Shanesworld

Active Member
Rheinmetall presents Lynx 120 mechanised fire support vehicle

Interesting that Rheinmetall have a concept of mating the KF41 chassis to a turret with the L/44 120mm gun sported by the Abrams.

If we go for KF41 for LAND 400 Ph 3 we may then be in a position to produce a very capable light tank in Australia if we ever felt the need, and one that has a high degree of commonality with existing in service systems.
50 ton light tank. But it does look an impressive capability to be able produce and sustain.
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
a turret with the L/44 120mm gun sported by the Abrams.
Actually the original Rheinmetall press release says "a weapon system based on the 120mm smoothbore technology of Rheinmetall".

Which can mean about anything (in particular not the L/44 or L/55 used in MBTs) - very likely though their LLR/47 model that they've so far been unable to sell to anyone.
 

FormerDirtDart

Well-Known Member
Actually the original Rheinmetall press release says "a weapon system based on the 120mm smoothbore technology of Rheinmetall".

Which can mean about anything (in particular not the L/44 or L/55 used in MBTs) - very likely though their LLR/47 model that they've so far been unable to sell to anyone.
Much more likely. Otherwise it might be popping a wheely every time it fires a round forward (who know what would happen with a shot to the left or right)
Can you imagine the difficulty of reacquiring your target for a possible follow on shot?
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Much more likely. Otherwise it might be popping a wheely every time it fires a round forward (who know what would happen with a shot to the left or right)
Can you imagine the difficulty of reacquiring your target for a possible follow on shot?
Could be worse. I remember a story that had circulated here on DT circa 2006 that was rather interesting. IIRC a wheeled fire support IFV armed with a 105 mm gun (might have been one of the early Stryker vehicles) which did a rollover due to recoil when firing to the side. That direct fire support gun suddenly became a flak gun.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Much more likely. Otherwise it might be popping a wheely every time it fires a round forward (who know what would happen with a shot to the left or right)
Can you imagine the difficulty of reacquiring your target for a possible follow on shot?
Could be worse. I remember a story that had circulated here on DT circa 2006 that was rather interesting. IIRC a wheeled fire support IFV armed with a 105 mm gun (might have been one of the early Stryker vehicles) which did a rollover due to recoil when firing to the side. That direct fire support gun suddenly became a flak gun.
We are not thinking they are talking about the 8x8 Boxer are we? This is the Tracked Lynx KF-41 IFV.
 

Morgo

Active Member
Actually the original Rheinmetall press release says "a weapon system based on the 120mm smoothbore technology of Rheinmetall".

Which can mean about anything (in particular not the L/44 or L/55 used in MBTs) - very likely though their LLR/47 model that they've so far been unable to sell to anyone.
Thanks for clarifying, I jumped to conclusions. Crafty wording they’ve used there.

I haven’t been able to find anything online about the LLR/47. What are the main differences between it and the MBT guns? Is it still 120mm (presumably yes given it’s called the Lynx 120)? Can it use the same ammunition, but with a shorter barrel / lower pressure?

Would this make it less technically demanding to manufacture (ie in Australia)?
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
An excellent article from ADM on the Land 8710 phase 1 requirement(LCM-8 replacement). Basically saying that they must be able to carry up to a 80t load in Sea State 4 and in survival transit up to Sea State 6, over a distance of at least 500nm. A steel Hull is mandatory, must include a configuration for a crew of at least 10+ accommodation for 5 extra personnel.
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I haven’t been able to find anything online about the LLR/47. What are the main differences between it and the MBT guns? Is it still 120mm (presumably yes given it’s called the Lynx 120)? Can it use the same ammunition, but with a shorter barrel / lower pressure?
LLR is short for "light/low-recoil". It is technologically derived from the NPzK-140 prototype gun (which was a L/44 scaled up to 140mm) scaled back down to 120mm and is supposedly fully compatible with NATO 120mm standard ammunition. It also uses materials specifically developed for NPzK-140 to reduce weights in certain areas. It achieves lower recoil through having the breech recoil a far longer distance, presumably while buffered.

Hägglunds offers the CV90 with the same LLR/L47 gun as CV90120.
 
Top