Can either of these options fit on a herc? To me that is a critical requirement. Fly to Austere landing within 1-200km of the launch point. Drive out and back to the aircraft.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
One major problem with the Strikemaster concept is that, the Bushmaster Ute has no room behind the Cabin for a Crew Rest area/Storage area, where as the Man HX Trucks can be fitted with one.
buffy9
Well-Known Member
The cargo bay height of a C-130J-30 is 2.74m high, 3.05m wide and is 12.50m long. (using wikipedia, which has several sources in the specifications section).
Assuming no difference from a regular Bushmaster, then Strikemaster's height is 2.65m tall and 2.48m wide. The weight also doesn't appear to be a major issue at ~15t GVM. On paper, no issues it seems.
That said, I don't believe I've ever seen a Bushmaster transported by a C-130. HIMARS (tyres deflated) and Hawkei yes, but no Bushmaster...
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The problem with Armoured vehicles on aircraft is how high the weight is, a Bushmaster is certainly going to use most of the weight allowance and its not going to be down low, like a pallet can be loaded, heavier weight centred and low, troops are sitting low in the aircraft.
And your problem is? Gives them something to do. A MAN is a tad large and more difficult to hide in some aspects. The Poles have the NSM mounted on trucks so see how they have done it.
Back to sticking NSM on Bushies. It is vehicle that is small to be hidden on an island, and / or near a coast without attracting to much attention. For example there are plenty of places in the top end where these could be planted and an enemy wouldn't know that they were there until launch. Again think of the PNG coast or Bougainville. There's no reason why you can't mount it on both vehicles.
US related missile land based developments/planning that Australia May leverage into… Army Seeks New Mid-Range Missile Prototype By 2023 - Breaking Defense
If you are going to use the HX-77 truck / trailer set up anyway, I can see an argument for using a missile with a bit more ‘poke’. Army also already passed on the Bushmaster ‘ute’ idea when it was presented many years ago to them.
Both Tomahawk Block Va and SM-6 Block IA can be fired from a trailer mounted Mk.41 as seen in both the US Army and (Tomahawk only) USMC configurations.
That set-up may not be quite so easily hidden, but opens up a ton more range and weapons effects than an NSM can offer, leverages weapons that will already be in ADF service just like NSM does and can potentially be used in other roles with Tomahawk’s well known land strike capability and SM-6’s surface to air missile / BMD point defence capability…
Alternatively were something like LRASM to be chosen, once again this weapon will be in ADF service, as will it’s launch vehicle - HIMARS. An argument could be made that it can exploit existing investment in HIMARS Army is planning anyway, or perhaps justify in an expanded HIMARS fleet which would see capability growth in a number of capability areas, not just land-based ASM capability. LRASM would also greatly expand available range with a heavier-weight missile system and potentially offer greater low observability options for strike missions.
Accordingly I am not sure the ‘Strikemaster’ is the ‘slam dunk’ some assume it to be and at least, it’s good to have options…
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
IAI's OTHELLO-P passive hostile fire detection system has been selected to equip Australian vehicles.
It uses a combination of optical and acoustic sensors to get an accurate location.
Elements of this system are integrated in the Trophy APS.
It uses a combination of optical and acoustic sensors to get an accurate location.
Elements of this system are integrated in the Trophy APS.
I imagine a pool of such systems will be acquired for deployable vehicles…
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Australia to buy long-range HIMARS missile system from United States after Ukraine praises weapon's effectiveness against Russia - ABC News
@Bob53 You will find a clear answer to your question about HIMARS fitting on Hercs in this article, with a photo of a HIMARS unloading from a Herc.
Thanks but was referring to strike master…but have to agree it’s looks like a yes.
I think they are clearly two different platforms.
Strikemaster is a smaller, better hidden less capacity solution. Bushmasters are pretty common in the ADF, hiding, operating Strikemaster a smaller, more common platform around Australia is easier. Its a deterrent, where perhaps you want to distribute a lighter force and capability over a larger area. Its lighter, more mobile, easier to hide, but less capacity.
Himars is a full on system for the battlefield. It would be more appropriate at high value areas with its greater capacity to fire.
I don't know if we need two different systems, but it would be worthwhile to look at both concepts.
![1000px-14SquadronRNZAFStrikemaster[1].JPG](/military/data/attachments/49/49982-2a0f7c8753d03e14b7702e571edbae10.jpg)
The dreaded Blunty and it was replaced by the AerMacchi MB339 in 1992. They weren't a good investment because lost one or two of the Macchis to engines eating things that were bad for their health. They apparently sucked in a lot of FOD. There's a video on YouTube somewhere of one crashing in northland here both the pilot and back seater banged out. The back seat was a techy JR.
The dreaded Blunty and it was replaced by the AerMacchi MB339 in 1992. They weren't a good investment and lost one or to of the Macchis to engines eating things that were ba
The dreaded Blunty and it was replaced by the AerMacchi MB339 in 1992. They weren't a good investment because lost one or to of the Macchis to engines eating things that were bad for their health. Engines were prone to ingesting FOD.
I see an inherent benefit to both HIMARS and the conceptual StrikeMaster system.
StrikeMaster being naturally lighter and more compact means you can scatter them across islands / littoral regions in higher quantities - working with longer range, higher value systems like HIMARS.
StrikeMaster being naturally lighter and more compact means you can scatter them across islands / littoral regions in higher quantities - working with longer range, higher value systems like HIMARS.
In regards to the use of sometimes costly munitions it has been suggested to supply Ukraine with the Ground Launched Small Diameter Bombs
Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bomb Would Double Ukraine’s Precision Strike Range (msn.com)
Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bomb: Ukraine May Get New HIMARS Bomb (popularmechanics.com)
Are there any equivalent munitions held by the A.D.F that may similarly be converted for a cheap munition?
Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bomb Would Double Ukraine’s Precision Strike Range (msn.com)
Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bomb: Ukraine May Get New HIMARS Bomb (popularmechanics.com)
Are there any equivalent munitions held by the A.D.F that may similarly be converted for a cheap munition?
buffy9
Well-Known Member
I believe the StrikeMaster compliments HIMARS, and has the advantage of being produced and sustained domestically (we know how to use and sustain Bushmaster, and NSM could in theory be produced by soverign missile production). We are familiar with the intended FDC and CEA radars, whereas NSM is or is going to be used fairly widely (including by the UK, US, Canada and Malaysia).
HIMARS, as a CDS, doesn't have the same base. No radar or FDC has been integrated for the role, whereas LRASM-SL isn't widely used. If we are talking about a battery worth of deterrence (eight launchers), then eight missiles are launched - if the same organisation is used by StrikeMaster, then sixteen NSM can be launched against a target. HIMARS does have the unique characteristic of being carried and deployed by a C-130, but how effective this is in targetting ships hasn't been proven - so far it has only been used for land targets - and we know we can currently transport more than three Bushmasters with a C-17A, which we have.
PrSM offers interesting advantages in the future as an AShM, with greater range and speed, but it may very well end up being integrated on the currently intended HIMARS regiment - offering the ability to conduct a combined PrSM and NSM strike as both systems mature (assuming a regiment of each system are acquired).
I do find Typhon/MRC to be interesting, as a Mk41 cell system on trucks, but the mobility is an issue. Just like NSM we are already procuring Tomahawk and SM-6, with the two missiles (in addition to a future PrSM) have a lot of unique characteristics in terms of speed and range.
Last edited:
I cannot find any images of a Bushmaster [ Any variety ] carried within the loading bay of a C-130J-30.
An image would be nice confirmation of this capability.
Does it fit or not?
Cheers S