States that the Mistral class LHD's can accommodate up to four EDA-S or a combo of two EDA-S + one EDA-R/L-CAT, so i would presume the same would be true with the Canberra class considering they are significantly larger vessels. Canberra well deck is 69.3m long x 16.8m wide.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Do the Boxer armored vehicles enter the Canberra class ships via the LCM-1E craft , the pictures I have seen them deployed on the Canberra class are when at dock and from the side ,I ask this out of curiosity of their height , when fitted out Wiki will state their height at 2.37 compared to an Abrams of 2.44 but pictures on line of an Abrams and Boxer side by side show the fitted out Boxer to be much higher
This kind of image?
The 2.4 seems to be sans turret. So the new vehicles are likely to be significantly taller, wider and heavier than the vehicles they are replacing. While the M1a1 is likely to still be the heaviest mother, the land400 are likely to be more numerous and perhaps more dimentionally a challenge. Moving around internally inside the LHD for example.
Say 22 x boxers would need an additional 44 lane metres (over 22 m113), but also weigh an additional 450 tons to move to shore and might be only 2 to a LCM, verse 6? M113 to a LCM. So landings would take 3 times as long.
Hawkies weigh 10 tons, so moving those ashore would be a lot slower than say a land rover (not comparible but possible). But that would be another 200t to push to the beach and likely ~4 times slower than Land rovers.
Throw in the low and careful M1a1 deployment and you have a problematic landing issue. Not so much on the LHD's themselves but on the landing craft pushing much heavy masses ashore quickly.
I also would assume it would be tight moving from the light deck to the heavy deck in terms of turn radius and clearance.
FormerDirtDart
Well-Known Member
The height listed in Wiki for the Boxer is clearly stated as the "baseline vehicle" (without turret). The Boxer CRV is reported to have a height of 3.24 meters at the "turret roof"
So yes, it is significantly taller, more than 3/4 of a meter, than a M1 Abrams
Well, I assume from that you haven't found an answer since you last asked in June 2018? One must assume then that no-one in the chain specifying, evaluating and purchasing the Boxer thought to check the dimensions, so there's surely a scandalous cover up going on.
Or there was no issue. No one wrote about it fitting. No one gossiped or informed the ABC that it fits. No one (unthinkable!) posted on Defence Talk where we're entitled to know it all. Except the good bits. We just want bad news here.
oldsig
Armoured vehicles put to the test on Canberra
Published on 07 February 2017 LSIS Helen Frank (author)
Topic(s): Training, HMAS Canberra (L02)
A Rheinmetall Boxer combat reconnaissance vehicle prior to being loaded onto the heavy vehicle deck of the Royal Australian Navy amphibious ship HMAS Canberra during a series of trials at Fleet Base East in Sydney on 6 December 2016.
HMAS Canberra was introduced to the next generation of armoured fighting vehicles late last year, as part of Project Land 400 phase two trials.
The project will acquire and support the next generation of armoured fighting vehicles with the firepower, protection and mobility to defeat increasingly lethal and adaptive adversaries well into the future.
Phase two of the project seeks to identify a vehicle to provide a mounted combat reconnaissance capability, a replacement for the Australian light armoured vehicle.
The combat reconnaissance vehicle will be required to perform up to seven different combat roles, comprising reconnaissance, command and control, joint fires, surveillance, ambulance, battlefield repair and recovery.
Rheinmetall Defence has offered the Boxer multi-role armoured vehicle for test and evaluation. This vehicle is currently in production, with 300 already delivered to other customers in six variants.
BAE Systems Australia has teamed with Patria of Finland to offer the Patria armoured modular vehicle as a contender. This vehicle is in service with eight nations with more than 1500 vehicles delivered.
These two vehicles were loaded over Canberra’s side ramps into the heavy vehicle deck during the trial, where they were positioned to drive on board the ship’s landing craft.
The Project Manager Test and Evaluation of Land 400, Lieutenant Colonel Chris McKendry, said the trial was a success.
“The trial was conducted in order to meet some of the objectives of the phase two user evaluation,” he said.
“Specifically, this was to determine if the tendered vehicles can be deployed to all designated theatres.
“There is now the potential for some follow-on work with the amphibious assault ships in 2017 to confirm loads on the landing craft.”
Lieutenant Colonel McKendry said working with the crew of Canberra was very enjoyable.
“Maintaining regular communications with the ship’s amphibious department meant it all slipped into place on the day,” he said.
“These ships will provide the new combat vehicles with the ability to deploy into any theatre of operations the Australian Defence Force enters, providing a significant capability for deployed forces.”
The project will now continue the vehicle performance assessment at Monegeetta in Victoria before heading to Puckapunyal.
Royal Australian Armoured Corps soldiers will be trained on the operation of each vehicle in order to commence a four-month user evaluation.
Transportability testing for other strategic lift assets such as the Royal Australian Air Force’s C-17 is due to commence in mid-2017.
After all testing and evaluation, Defence will undertake a final evaluation of the tenderers’ proposals to develop the business cases for consideration by the government.
6
Log in (Navy Daily personnel only)
Article Gallery
Armoured vehicles put to the test on Canberra
Related articles
© Royal Australian Navy. Powered by Newscoop. Designed by Sourcefabric.
This may have been the paper referred to but no mention of actual deployment from using an LCM-1E , which was at one point claimed to be able to take the Abrams ,but trials were cancelled after the craft sank too low in the water ,Later Navantia during the promotion of its bid for the SEA500 was showing off film footage of a tank being successfully moved through a calm flat harbour to demonstrate how good the LCM-1E was the tank used was an old m 60 a good ten tons lighter than an Abrams Navantia according to the reports did not respond to questions about this
Topic(s): Training, HMAS Canberra (L02)
A Rheinmetall Boxer combat reconnaissance vehicle prior to being loaded onto the heavy vehicle deck of the Royal Australian Navy amphibious ship HMAS Canberra during a series of trials at Fleet Base East in Sydney on 6 December 2016.
HMAS Canberra was introduced to the next generation of armoured fighting vehicles late last year, as part of Project Land 400 phase two trials.
The project will acquire and support the next generation of armoured fighting vehicles with the firepower, protection and mobility to defeat increasingly lethal and adaptive adversaries well into the future.
Phase two of the project seeks to identify a vehicle to provide a mounted combat reconnaissance capability, a replacement for the Australian light armoured vehicle.
The combat reconnaissance vehicle will be required to perform up to seven different combat roles, comprising reconnaissance, command and control, joint fires, surveillance, ambulance, battlefield repair and recovery.
Rheinmetall Defence has offered the Boxer multi-role armoured vehicle for test and evaluation. This vehicle is currently in production, with 300 already delivered to other customers in six variants.
BAE Systems Australia has teamed with Patria of Finland to offer the Patria armoured modular vehicle as a contender. This vehicle is in service with eight nations with more than 1500 vehicles delivered.
These two vehicles were loaded over Canberra’s side ramps into the heavy vehicle deck during the trial, where they were positioned to drive on board the ship’s landing craft.
The Project Manager Test and Evaluation of Land 400, Lieutenant Colonel Chris McKendry, said the trial was a success.
“The trial was conducted in order to meet some of the objectives of the phase two user evaluation,” he said.
“Specifically, this was to determine if the tendered vehicles can be deployed to all designated theatres.
“There is now the potential for some follow-on work with the amphibious assault ships in 2017 to confirm loads on the landing craft.”
Lieutenant Colonel McKendry said working with the crew of Canberra was very enjoyable.
“Maintaining regular communications with the ship’s amphibious department meant it all slipped into place on the day,” he said.
“These ships will provide the new combat vehicles with the ability to deploy into any theatre of operations the Australian Defence Force enters, providing a significant capability for deployed forces.”
The project will now continue the vehicle performance assessment at Monegeetta in Victoria before heading to Puckapunyal.
Royal Australian Armoured Corps soldiers will be trained on the operation of each vehicle in order to commence a four-month user evaluation.
Transportability testing for other strategic lift assets such as the Royal Australian Air Force’s C-17 is due to commence in mid-2017.
After all testing and evaluation, Defence will undertake a final evaluation of the tenderers’ proposals to develop the business cases for consideration by the government.
6
Log in (Navy Daily personnel only)
Article Gallery
Armoured vehicles put to the test on Canberra
Related articles
- Amphibious capability enhanced
- Supporting amphibious development from ashore
- Aviation trials on track throughout Fleet
- HMAS Creswell welcomes largest intake of new officers
- Chief of Navy spends a little time underneath the waves
- A flurry of activity sets the tone for a busy 2019
- STS Young Endeavour visited by past CO of sister ship
- A worthy voyage completed
- New shipyard tower to increase productivity
- No flag too elusive for cyber sleuths
- Flexibility is the key
- Aussie Hero Quilts deliver ten thousandth gift
- Australian training in focus for Indonesian Officers
© Royal Australian Navy. Powered by Newscoop. Designed by Sourcefabric.
This may have been the paper referred to but no mention of actual deployment from using an LCM-1E , which was at one point claimed to be able to take the Abrams ,but trials were cancelled after the craft sank too low in the water ,Later Navantia during the promotion of its bid for the SEA500 was showing off film footage of a tank being successfully moved through a calm flat harbour to demonstrate how good the LCM-1E was the tank used was an old m 60 a good ten tons lighter than an Abrams Navantia according to the reports did not respond to questions about this
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
One question which springs to my mind is, just which ramp are you referring to?
If you mean the ramp which is supposed to be between the heavy and light vehicle decks, a question I would be interested in knowing before worrying about the ramp is what is the individual vehicle weight limit for the light vehicle deck. If memory serves, there is a cargo/vehicle lift with a 16 tonne load limit between the heavy vehicle deck/well dock and light vehicle deck/hangar in addition to the ramp between vehicle decks on the port side.
I was referring to the rear when the armored vehicle leaves via the LCM-1E , I have not been able to find height dimensions of this area , I understand from articles that the vehicles were only positioned on the Canberra class and not actually deployed from the LCM-1E there was to be testing in 2017 but it may have been that during this time the difficulties with the Abrams came to light and this was stopped
Flexson
Active Member
The HX40M with a TEU on the back is taller and it negotiates the side ramps, steel beach and ramp between decks, however the ramp between decks have some low hanging JP5/AVCAT pipes and light fittings on the outboard bulkhead which need to be avoided (they have been hit before). The lift between heavy and light vehicle deck is 20t SWL.
I thought the internal lift was a 20 tonne lift.
I would imagine that the Dock area is quite large.
I assume the light vehicle deck can handle vehicles up to 30 odd tons or so.
I would imagine that the Dock area is quite large.
I assume the light vehicle deck can handle vehicles up to 30 odd tons or so.
The RAN has lost one of its finest yesterday with the death of Captain John Stevenson RAN.
He was a great influence on my Naval career as the Captain of HMAS Melbourne when she collided with USS Frank E Evans in the South China Sea in June 1969.
He was treated poorly by both the government of the day and his superiors but he accepted this with gracious dignity.
I last saw him at the 45th Anniversary of the collision in 2014 in Sydney.
Rest In Peace Stevo
Captain John Phillip Stevenson | Royal Australian Navy
He was a great influence on my Naval career as the Captain of HMAS Melbourne when she collided with USS Frank E Evans in the South China Sea in June 1969.
He was treated poorly by both the government of the day and his superiors but he accepted this with gracious dignity.
I last saw him at the 45th Anniversary of the collision in 2014 in Sydney.
Rest In Peace Stevo
Captain John Phillip Stevenson | Royal Australian Navy
t68
Well-Known Member
I agree I read Jo Stevenson’s book on the matter, it didn’t appear to be very impartial with from memory Admiral King Who was in charge of the seven fleet at the time.
I recall something that the UDN could not be found at fault for propaganda reason with the Vietnam war in full swing and the damage to the USN had to be minimalised
I recall something that the UDN could not be found at fault for propaganda reason with the Vietnam war in full swing and the damage to the USN had to be minimalised
Maybe for the Army thread, but basically different purpose and requirements. Land 400 IFV is for Army as more of an overall capability and set of requirements.
How it gets there is not always going to be via LHD, or beach landings etc.
I do believe as the capability of the LHD's and the Army's landing forces develop over time that we will be in the hunt for a vehicle like that to be used specifically for Amphib ops, but think it would be a separate requirement and project in its own right
Cheers
RIP Sir calm seas and fair winds.
There are no flowers on a sailor’s grave
No lilies on an ocean wave
The only tribute is the seagulls sweep
And the tears upon a loved one’s cheek
Fear not for those who go down to the sea in ships
For as sunset draws near and dawn breaks afar
We remember those who have crossed the bar
(Adapted by Keith Ingram, RNZN rtd)
t68
Well-Known Member
The only real advantage I see in SuperAV is that numerous vehicles can be launched relatively quick, but using LCM1-E will reach the beach quicker
Super AV
- 5.3 knots (9.9 km/h;6.2 mph) on water:
LCM1-E
- 22 knots (41 km/h; 25 mph) light
- 13.5 knots (25.0 km/h; 15.5 mph) loaded
- Status