Australian Army Discussions and Updates

t68 said:

Not sure if all ended up at auction but some certantly did,

2002 Commando Operational Watercraft (COW) S178 7.8M Auction (0004-5004675) | GraysOnline Australia

Click to expand...

I think this one gives a better view of the forward interior space, and interior ramp.
Commando Aluminium 7.8mt tri hull boat

The shallow draft tri-hull with low bow definitely makes a hand emplaced ramp off the bow quite practical.
A nice solution. that isn't overly complex.

Pusser01 said:

What ever happened to the Commando Operation Watercraft (COW)?
I seem to remember that they could carry an ATV or 2 with 10 pax with the ATV launched via a ramp.

Are they still in service & are they potentially a design that could be re-used.

Cheers

Click to expand...

They were handy craft but did not quite fulfill all of 2 Cdo's requirements, especially for long-range open ocean ops. No great at high speed in large swells from memory. But then again what small craft is.

I'm not convinced about the Riverine craft requirement to carry an ATV. Our SF ATVs are not weapon carriers and can only carry the rider, not passengers. Perhaps if a craft could transport 2-3 ATVs that would be usaeful to insert/extract a very small fast-moving screening/surveillance team or at least one that is tactically meaningful.

Whilst the MV850 ATVs in service with SF are exceptionally mobile and very handy, 2 Cdo's Rough Terrain Vehicle is actually the vehicle they need to be planning around. The RTV is a larger vehicle in side x side configuration that can carry more people (up to 3), has 5.56/7.62mm MGs on swing mounts and can carry a cargo and heavy weapons payload that is better able to support a dismounted tactical team. It is wider and heavier than an ATV, so would require more deck space and a wider and structurally stronger bow ramp. The Polaris MRZR is also in this mould.

If the ADF is serious about deploying light tactical ATVs from the new Riverine craft then high-speed landing craft with the requisite deck space should also be considered as possible options.

FormerDirtDart said:

To meet the ATV landing requirement it's going to need to be something like an LCVP.
All the CB90 type assault craft, or other riverine/coastal type craft simply don't have ramps wide enough for more than a man carrying equipment, or maybe a motorcycle. But, no way an ATV.
For a typical one person 4-wheel ATV you're going to need something like a 1.25 meter wide ramp.
The plus with a LCVP type craft is that you'll have excess carriage capacity to add a good deal of weapons and armor.
But, you're going to max out at around 20-25 knts loaded.

Click to expand...

While the wording in IIP and DWP would indicate otherwise. It is also possible the riverine capability isn't a boat at all - rather a hovercraft or some other amphibian (in which case rapid deployment of ATVs from the riverine capability could be achieved.)

Bluey 006 said:

While the wording in IIP and DWP would indicate otherwise. It is also possible the riverine capability isn't a boat at all - rather a hovercraft or some other amphibian (in which case rapid deployment of ATVs from the riverine capability could be achieved.)

Click to expand...

I'm starting to think maybe it's something along the lines of an LCVP such as the Damen 1604.. 22 knot speed, 200nm range, 0.7m drought, 8 tonne capacity.

Sure it isn't as sexy as the Mk VI or CB 90 but if they want a useful ATV deployment capability then those just won't be up to the task.

vonnoobie said:

I'm starting to think maybe it's something along the lines of an LCVP such as the Damen 1604.. 22 knot speed, 200nm range, 0.7m drought, 8 tonne capacity.

Sure it isn't as sexy as the Mk VI or CB 90 but if they want a useful ATV deployment capability then those just won't be up to the task.

Click to expand...

I am pretty sure the Royal Marines Mk5 is the same (correct me if I am wrong) as the Damen version. From memory the Mk5 weighs 24 Tonnes fully loaded, it's payload is around 8 Tonnes and does 25 knots at full load. Photographs are around of them carrying a Land Rover and a Viking ATV.

Royal Marines Craft - JHLPHOTOGRAPHY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAmXimI6nqA
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/LCVP-03-Image-Plain-Military.jpg

So how "big" is a "small mobility asset such as an all-terrain vehicle".

It might just carry some of the armies smaller and lighter vehicles, and should be more than comfortable with a decent sized ATV as suggested by Former Dirt Dart.

The DIIP quotes a figure of $200M to $300M. When the Mk5's were built they cost around a Million pounds. So what ever defence have in mind, it appears they are going to do it properly.

4.54 A riverine patrol capability will be re-established from around 2022,
based on a fleet of lightly armed small patrol boats to allow mobility in a
wide range of riverine environments.

Guys lets not get too excited, The DWP clearly states "Lightly armed small patrol boats" Many wishful things are placed in a DWP, wants, needs, capability, etc, reality comes into the background of the DWP aftermath that we do not see.

There is pretty specific language used, and there is specific meaning to "Riverine Patrol", and I don't see a Damen LCVP or Royal Marines Mk5 fitting that language set

Until we see either a RFI/RFT, or some form of Doctrine on how these "Patrol Boats" are to be used, we are just making rather big assumptions.

Cheers

aussienscale said:

4.54 A riverine patrol capability will be re-established from around 2022,
based on a fleet of lightly armed small patrol boats to allow mobility in a
wide range of riverine environments.

Guys lets not get too excited, The DWP clearly states "Lightly armed small patrol boats" Many wishful things are placed in a DWP, wants, needs, capability, etc, reality comes into the background of the DWP aftermath that we do not see.

There is pretty specific language used, and there is specific meaning to "Riverine Patrol", and I don't see a Damen LCVP or Royal Marines Mk5 fitting that language set

Until we see either a RFI/RFT, or some form of Doctrine on how these "Patrol Boats" are to be used, we are just making rather big assumptions.

Cheers

Click to expand...

Don't we love to speculate and yes I'm guilty with the best of them.I guess we can read this may ways without greater detail but I suppose we all have our own ideas as to how to fill some of ARMY / NAVY's gaps in this area.Small fast boat /logistic craft / how big / how small/ weapons fit...............What will be the it's role.
Speaking only for myself, some of the smaller systems have more interest than some of the big ticket items.
Look forward to more details.

Regards S

It would have to be a capability that the RAN isn't providing, and whether they'd be based ashore or at sea.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkjsNEHFZAA

35mm?

Article below describes Rheinmetall's attempt to sell the 35mm Millenium gun to RAN. An idea I like as the system has real utility across a number of spectrums (sea & land).

Its relevance to Aus army as I see it is that as the selection of the 25mm Bushmaster for the Aslav's appeared to drive its selection for the RAN on the grounds of commonality (I believe RAN wanted 30mm for the Armidales et al).

This time around the chronology again has the selection by land forces quite likely influencing the future 'light' armament for the RAN. ie if Land400 ends up with a 30mm solution I believe it'd be much harder for RAN to get 35mm (if that is what it wants)

Defence Technology Review : DTR DEC-JAN 2017, Page 1

rb

rossfrb_1 said:

Article below describes Rheinmetall's attempt to sell the 35mm Millenium gun to RAN. An idea I like as the system has real utility across a number of spectrums (sea & land).

Its relevance to Aus army as I see it is that as the selection of the 25mm Bushmaster for the Aslav's appeared to drive its selection for the RAN on the grounds of commonality (I believe RAN wanted 30mm for the Armidales et al).

This time around the chronology again has the selection by land forces quite likely influencing the future 'light' armament for the RAN. ie if Land400 ends up with a 30mm solution I believe it'd be much harder for RAN to get 35mm (if that is what it wants)

Defence Technology Review : DTR DEC-JAN 2017, Page 1

rb

Click to expand...

Cheers rb, hadn't caught the latest copy and raises a few good point across the two services.

35mm commonality across both RAN would be a plus, but would this still not leave a capability gap.. 'Up-arming' the Hawkei/PMV with anything greater than 30mm+ would become difficult no? - Looking at the Moog RiWPS range for the U.S. JLTV 'types'..

I seem to recall Raven (maybe here or another place..) mentioning an RWS combo for the Hawkei.. That to me, made sense both for itself - and the Bushmaster (if at some point and depending on geo-political events unfolding).

Maybe 25/35..

Nick underscore said:

Cheers rb, hadn't caught the latest copy and raises a few good point across the two services.

35mm commonality across both RAN would be a plus, but would this still not leave a capability gap.. 'Up-arming' the Hawkei/PMV with anything greater than 30mm+ would become difficult no? - Looking at the Moog RiWPS range for the U.S. JLTV 'types'..

I seem to recall Raven (maybe here or another place..) mentioning an RWS combo for the Hawkei.. That to me, made sense both for itself - and the Bushmaster (if at some point and depending on geo-political events unfolding).

Maybe 25/35..

Click to expand...

Vehicles in the Hawkei size range with an RWS would typically field 7.62/12.7mm MG and or 40mm AGL + smoke + ATGM maybe. Always the exception though but I've not heard of any desire within ADF for anything larger for those vehicles.
ATGM would be a force multiplier.
rb

Nick underscore said:

I seem to recall Raven (maybe here or another place..) mentioning an RWS combo for the Hawkei.. That to me, made sense both for itself - and the Bushmaster (if at some point and depending on geo-political events unfolding).

Maybe 25/35..

Click to expand...

As mentioned above, there's almost no chance of either Hawkei or Bushmaster getting a cannon strapped to it. I was simply advocating an RWS with 0.50 cal or 40mm AGL, with a Javelin/Spike attached.

I see where we are spending a fair bit of money to refurbish our tanks.. But are we getting the additional 12 or so required so that each brigade can have its own platoon of tanks? It has been talked about for years, getting the additional tanks, but I have yet to see any indication they have been ordered yet.

More tanks is still a work in progress. The idea was shot down by government a couple of years ago due to cost, but since then a few things have changed and a new proposal is going back to the decision makers now. I've seen the cost quoted for the extra tanks, and they are dirt cheap - essentially free. The only reason the government would say no is political - they couldn't possible say no on a cost/capability standpoint. I'm pretty confident that more tanks will be signed off in the first few months of this year, but to be fair I said that last time.

What will be very interesting though is the fall out from a decision made at CASAC late last year that will affect the fundamental organisation of the Beersheeba brigade, which will have a significant effect on Land 400 (the detail of it anyway - nothing big will change). The decision isn't in the public domain yet, but it probably let will be soon as everyone gets back to work after the Christmas break (I go back tomorrow - damn it!)

Raven22 said:

What will be very interesting though is the fall out from a decision made at CASAC late last year that will affect the fundamental organisation of the Beersheeba brigade, which will have a significant effect on Land 400 (the detail of it anyway - nothing big will change). The decision isn't in the public domain yet, but it probably let will be soon as everyone gets back to work after the Christmas break (I go back tomorrow - damn it!)

Click to expand...

Ah a mystery to start the new year, might have to start referring you to as the cigarette smoking man

It's nothing that exciting - I don't know who shot Kennedy. Nor do I know anything that will get Putin and his spies excited. Simply a reinventing of the wheel with the organisation of the Beesheeba brigade that will generate some discussion here, although it's best not to discuss the detail before it's confirmed (personally I'm not convinced the decision will actually be implemented).

You will remember me talking about ways to reorganise things to save manpower in the combat arms - its related to that.

Raven22 said:

I've seen the cost quoted for the extra tanks, and they are dirt cheap - essentially free

Click to expand...

A lot of the army capabilities are quite inexpensive compared to the Navy and Airforce. Know you need all three but it is surprising the extent to which the army has missed out given how busy they have been.

Big challenge with all the capability that is being added for Army will be manpower. Still think it is hard to see how it all plays out without an increase in numbers to around 35k (while acknowledging Raven22's well-received comments on appropriate husbanding of resources).

Regards,

Massive

I do recall reading that the budgeted amount for modernisation and sustainment of the current Abrams fleet through the remainder of their estimated life would actually be sufficient to not only procure an additional squadron but to replace the entire force with zero timed M-1A2 or even new build M-1A3 such are the savings to be made by going link step with what ever upgrade and replacement direction the US chooses to go. I believe this is due to our fleet being so small in terms of the over all US fleet size that it is cheaper for us to just tack our requirements to whatever they are doing than to go it alone in any way at all.

Volkodav said:

I do recall reading that the budgeted amount for modernisation and sustainment of the current Abrams fleet through the remainder of their estimated life would actually be sufficient to not only procure an additional squadron but to replace the entire force with zero timed M-1A2 or even new build M-1A3 such are the savings to be made by going link step with what ever upgrade and replacement direction the US chooses to go. I believe this is due to our fleet being so small in terms of the over all US fleet size that it is cheaper for us to just tack our requirements to whatever they are doing than to go it alone in any way at all.

Click to expand...

Agree.

I think the appropriate thing to do would be to order 'zero timed' replacements (one for one and of the appropriate configuration), plus the additional squadron that is often talked about direct from the US 'remanufacture' line.

Once the 'new' fleet is delivered, we then return our 59 used hulls to go back into the 'pool' of hulls to then be also remanufactured to the appropriate spec for future US Army or Marine use too.

And yes in the 'big' scheme of things, our requirement is rather small beer in comparison too.


Just like going to the servo to 'swap' your empty gas bottle for a full one for the next barbie, don't pay for the bottle, just the gas!!!!

the rule of thumb is that we need to stay within 2 releases of any US FMS upgrade (and thats for all capabilities) if we are to stay within their capability dev

outside of that and support becomes difficult, get beyond 3 releases and you're just making sustainment and training harder