Australian Army Discussions and Updates

Raven22 · Sep 23, 2017

Redrighthand said:
I imagine it'd be a useful feature if, for example, a unit suffers mechanical failure of a type that's less common (command or medic for example) and can relatively easily swap that module onto a working chassis from the fleet, maintaining unit capability.

How quick can you swap over the modules? What sort of equipment do you need to do it? What do you do with the left over modules once you've done the swap?

I would be amazed if doing as you say would be quicker and easier than simply fixing the fault in the first place. You still have to fix it anyway, after all, so it is already far less efficient. Just the paperwork needed to swap the CES over to a different vehicle would be a nightmare.

I agree with Waylander - the ability to swap modules has very, very little utility once the vehicle has left the factory. I mean, we don't swap turrets from one vehicle to another when one gets a fault, which is theoretically possible now. We just fix the turret.

ADMk2 · Sep 23, 2017

Raven22 said:
How quick can you swap over the modules? What sort of equipment do you need to do it? What do you do with the left over modules once you've done the swap?

I would be amazed if doing as you say would be quicker and easier than simply fixing the fault in the first place. You still have to fix it anyway, after all, so it is already far less efficient. Just the paperwork needed to swap the CES over to a different vehicle would be a nightmare.

I agree with Waylander - the ability to swap modules has very, very little utility once the vehicle has left the factory. I mean, we don't swap turrets from one vehicle to another when one gets a fault, which is theoretically possible now. We just fix the turret.

A crane / gantry lift system and a couple of spanners. That is about it.

https://youtu.be/mn_WblYc4xk

As for where, I imagine this as an eche capability at most in the Australian context, so the storage would be available in those areas, I imagine...

Raven22 · Sep 24, 2017

ADMk2 said:
A crane / gantry lift system and a couple of spanners. That is about it.

https://youtu.be/mn_WblYc4xk

As for where, I imagine this as an eche capability at most in the Australian context, so the storage would be available in those areas, I imagine...

The question is, if you have access to all the resources to change the mission module (and talk to the guys trying to work out the infrastructure for LAND400 - most places don't), then why not just fix the problem with the vehicle hull in the first place? It is very difficult to think of a situation in which changing out a mission module is more efficient than simply fixing the problem in the first place (noting that it would have to be fixed anyway, and the mission module changed back over).

Remember, all this comes at the price of about an extra tonne of weight over a vehicle without the mission module setup. I can certainly see the benefit in making it easier to design new variants, easier to do upgrades etc, but I cannot see any practical benefit once the vehicle has left the factory.

zhaktronz · Sep 25, 2017

Raven22 said:
The question is, if you have access to all the resources to change the mission module (and talk to the guys trying to work out the infrastructure for LAND400 - most places don't), then why not just fix the problem with the vehicle hull in the first place? It is very difficult to think of a situation in which changing out a mission module is more efficient than simply fixing the problem in the first place (noting that it would have to be fixed anyway, and the mission module changed back over).

Remember, all this comes at the price of about an extra tonne of weight over a vehicle without the mission module setup. I can certainly see the benefit in making it easier to design new variants, easier to do upgrades etc, but I cannot see any practical benefit once the vehicle has left the factory.

I've usually heard the weight penalty of the mission module as only being a few hundred kilograms at most?

I'd suggest the main benefit comes in the field - say your command vehicle, or engineer, or similar high value low density vehicle takes an IED or similar to the wheel that writes off the vehicle in terms of being able to be repaired in theater - get a crane, swap out the module from one of your APC or IFV models, and your capability is ready to go again.

Shanesworld · Sep 25, 2017

Raven22 said:
The question is, if you have access to all the resources to change the mission module (and talk to the guys trying to work out the infrastructure for LAND400 - most places don't), then why not just fix the problem with the vehicle hull in the first place? It is very difficult to think of a situation in which changing out a mission module is more efficient than simply fixing the problem in the first place (noting that it would have to be fixed anyway, and the mission module changed back over).

Remember, all this comes at the price of about an extra tonne of weight over a vehicle without the mission module setup. I can certainly see the benefit in making it easier to design new variants, easier to do upgrades etc, but I cannot see any practical benefit once the vehicle has left the factory.

Very true. But also down he track an emerging technology or system comes along that you want integrated into your mobile forces. Just design the module and use an existing and integrated vehicle that hopefully by that time is well proven and understood. Future proofing.

old faithful · Sep 27, 2017

Just read on another forum about a proposed acquisition of helo,s for SF.

UH1Y seemed to be the preferred option.
Obviously the NH 90 is unsuitable, and questionable in its normal role, we bought a cat instead of a dog, again.

My problem with SF specific helo,s is that it takes some of the unpredictability away from the SF guys. The bad guys see 4 x Aussie UH1Y,s and know straight away who is on board.

Get rid of the NH90,s altogether, buy 6 more chooks and 50 new gen blackhawks or UH1Y and be done with it. Availibity rates better, can have a door gunner, and tap into the US supply system. Why did that NH thing win the tender anyway, because it could carry a few more troops.....goes great with that other Cat Army was lumped with, the wounded tiger....

ADMk2 · Sep 27, 2017

old faithful said:
Just read on another forum about a proposed acquisition of helo,s for SF.

UH1Y seemed to be the preferred option.
Obviously the NH 90 is unsuitable, and questionable in its normal role, we bought a cat instead of a dog, again.

My problem with SF specific helo,s is that it takes some of the unpredictability away from the SF guys. The bad guys see 4 x Aussie UH1Y,s and know straight away who is on board.

Get rid of the NH90,s altogether, buy 6 more chooks and 50 new gen blackhawks or UH1Y and be done with it. Availibity rates better, can have a door gunner, and tap into the US supply system. Why did that NH thing win the tender anyway, because it could carry a few more troops.....goes great with that other Cat Army was lumped with, the wounded tiger....

It was a captain’s call. Howard had grandiose plans of buying everything Eurocopter had and making them all in Australia, providing 1000’s of jobs and reducing our helo fleet types to the barest minimum we could get away with. Army recommended Blackhawk, the PM recommended Eurocopter. Guess who wins that fight?

The only slight problem was that Eurocopter (now Airbus) told humungous porkie pies on what they could deliver, when they could deliver it and how much it would cost to acquire and sustain, to the point where even we woke up to their BS and made the smartest helicopter decision we have made in decades and bought the MH-60R virtually off the shelf.

As for the UH-1Y. That appears to be Boeing’s idea that dropped at Avalon and it doesn’t appear to have many supporters amongst most commentators, people or other industry suppliers who are offering markedly different solutions, nor accord with the official writings seen publicly on the topic...

The DWP2016 and Integrated Investment Plan outlined a program to acquire a lightweight deployable Special Operations capable helicopter for air mobility support, that had most commentators envisaging ‘Little Bird’ AH-6i or similar. This idea was supported by the line in the IIP which states:

‘they will be able to be deployed rapidly as a small force element of three to four aircraft and personnel by the Globemaster. Current plans also include a requirement for role-specific upgrades to the MRH-90 troop lift helicopter to replace the S-70A Blackhawk in support of domestic counter-terrorism operations.’

I think to most an aircraft the size of a UH-1Y doesn’t seem to fit particularly well with this statement of intended purpose and if it does, why not just use the special operations upgraded MRH-90 then, given it isn’t that much bigger than a UH-1Y anyway?

As for the idea of special forces not getting special equipment because they will be recognised, I think the benefits the capability advantages the kit provides, rather outweigh the negatives... If a Supacat or a 6x6 Land Rover festooned with weapons and kit rolls up on operations, it doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to figure out who it is...

John Fedup · Sep 27, 2017

ADMk2 said:
It was a captain’s call. Army recommended Blackhawk, the PM recommended Eurocopter. Guess who wins that fight?

The only slight problem was that Eurocopter (now Airbus) told humungous porkie pies on what they could deliver, when they could deliver it and how much it would cost to acquire and sustain

Substitute Howard with Chrétien, navy for army, and Sikorsky for Eurocopter. and what do you have, our Cyclone program. Merlins instead of NH-90s and CH-148s still makes sense if you need the extra capacity IMO.

Raven22 · Sep 27, 2017

old faithful said:
Just read on another forum about a proposed acquisition of helo,s for SF.

UH1Y seemed to be the preferred option.
Obviously the NH 90 is unsuitable, and questionable in its normal role, we bought a cat instead of a dog, again.

My problem with SF specific helo,s is that it takes some of the unpredictability away from the SF guys. The bad guys see 4 x Aussie UH1Y,s and know straight away who is on board.

UH1Ys don't have a shot at the SF helicopter requirement. The pot of money for SF helicopters is only so big, so I think one of two things will happen - a buy of Blackhawks to equip all of 6 Avn, or a buy of Little Birds to equip one squadron, with MRH equipping the other. There won't be enough money for both new Blackhawks and Little Birds. My money is just on new Blackhawks.

ADMk2 · Sep 27, 2017

Raven22 said:
UH1Ys don't have a shot at the SF helicopter requirement. The pot of money for SF helicopters is only so big, so I think one of two things will happen - a buy of Blackhawks to equip all of 6 Avn, or a buy of Little Birds to equip one squadron, with MRH equipping the other. There won't be enough money for both new Blackhawks and Little Birds. My money is just on new Blackhawks.

$2-$3b has been set aside within the IIP for this project, so they might just be able to afford both...

Raven22 · Sep 27, 2017

zhaktronz said:
I've usually heard the weight penalty of the mission module as only being a few hundred kilograms at most?

I'd suggest the main benefit comes in the field - say your command vehicle, or engineer, or similar high value low density vehicle takes an IED or similar to the wheel that writes off the vehicle in terms of being able to be repaired in theater - get a crane, swap out the module from one of your APC or IFV models, and your capability is ready to go again.

The tonne figure was hearsay from a brief. I have no data to back it up. It seems about right to me though - there is a lot of metal in that module that wouldn't need to be there if it was just a monocoque hull. This is probably one of those areas where taking the manufacturers claims is fraught with danger, as it is within their best interest to minimise the penalty.

I'd suggest the utility in the field, as you describe, to be vanishingly small. What are the chances that an IED strike is going write off a hull, but do no damage to the mission module? And what is the chance of that happening to perhaps the two or three vehicles in a battlegroup where you would be willing to sacrifice another vehicle to maintain that specific capability? I'm sure if you fought a campaign long enough that circumstance might eventually come up, but it isn't really as practical a capability as the marketing makes out.

For example, I can't think of a single battle damaged A-vehicle from Iraq or Afghanistan where, if the capability existed, a swap of mission modules would have been used. War just isn't that neat - you just crack on with the capability at hand until a new vehicle is deleivered from the theatre/strategic reserve.

Raven22 · Sep 27, 2017

ADMk2 said:
$2-$3b has been set aside within the IIP for this project, so they might just be able to afford both...

A squadron of Blackhawk and a squadron of Little Birds (plus all the backend) for <2-3 billion? Nope. It would take money to be moved around within the IIP, and that is already extremely tight. I would think it was more likely that money was taken out of that program than put in.

BigM60 · Oct 4, 2017

US Army - New Landing Craft

Since our LCM's don't appear able get our M1A1's ashore, here is the US Army's recent selection to replace their LCM8's:

https://www.marinelink.com/news/landing-build-vigor429903

This is the BMT tri bow design. We could go for 2 or 3 of these or keep wondering if our LCM's will sink or swim next time we want to put 63 tn on board.

ADMk2 · Oct 4, 2017

BigM60 said:
Since our LCM's don't appear able get our M1A1's ashore, here is the US Army's recent selection to replace their LCM8's:

https://www.marinelink.com/news/landing-build-vigor429903

This is the BMT tri bow design. We could go for 2 or 3 of these or keep wondering if our LCM's will sink or swim next time we want to put 63 tn on board.

Not sure how well these would fit in the LHD well-dock. These are over 100 feet long, with the LCM-1E’s only being 76 feet long...

Still we might be able to acquire 4-5 of these and carry one of these and 2 LCM-1E’s per LHD when we need to deploy Abrams / M88A2 / heavy plant?

BigM60 · Oct 4, 2017

ADMk2 said:
Not sure how well these would fit in the LHD well-dock. These are over 100 feet long, with the LCM-1EÂ’s only being 76 feet long...

Still we might be able to acquire 4-5 of these and carry one of these and 2 LCM-1EÂ’s per LHD when we need to deploy Abrams / M88A2 / heavy plant?

I hadn't done the maths but my thinking was the similar to yours. Using the well dock wouldn't be a problem but carrying a complete complement of 4 units could be problematic. Certainly their ability to self deploy once in theatre could be useful. I see these as replacements for the current LCM8's and a component of the future riverine/shallow water capability planned in the White Paper. Army has a skilled water unit, time to maximise their potential.

t68 · Oct 4, 2017

As a pure hypothectical Alexsa will not doubt put his unique knowledge and set us straight but if the BMT Camien 90 can lift 1 Abrams and rated for 90t loads at 30m long, could we expand it thejust short of the length of the LHD well dock 55m? from memory if we expand it to 53m long could we in theory put 2x Abrams.

I'm only taking those demensions from ADM saying about the possabilty of haveing 2x US design craft (30m?)and LCM-1E (23m) =53m. An inbetween of a Caimen 90 & 200

ADMk2 · Oct 4, 2017

t68 said:
As a pure hypothectical Alexsa will not doubt put his unique knowledge and set us straight but if the BMT Camien 90 can lift 1 Abrams and rated for 90t loads at 30m long, could we expand it thejust short of the length of the LHD well dock 55m? from memory if we expand it to 53m long could we in theory put 2x Abrams.

I'm only taking those demensions from ADM saying about the possabilty of haveing 2x US design craft (30m?)and LCM-1E (23m) =53m. An inbetween of a Caimen 90 & 200

The well-dock on the LHD’s is 69.3m’s long and 16.8m in width. It can handle other types of landing craft but has been designed to accomodate 4x LCM-1E landing craft and 4x RHIB’s as needed.

No doubt other types of landing craft will fit, but it is the impact on it’s intended role of carrying 4x LCM-1E craft that will need to be measured before any other considerations could be made.

BigM60 · Oct 5, 2017

t68 said:
As a pure hypothectical Alexsa will not doubt put his unique knowledge and set us straight but if the BMT Camien 90 can lift 1 Abrams and rated for 90t loads at 30m long, could we expand it thejust short of the length of the LHD well dock 55m? from memory if we expand it to 53m long could we in theory put 2x Abrams.

I'm only taking those demensions from ADM saying about the possabilty of haveing 2x US design craft (30m?)and LCM-1E (23m) =53m. An inbetween of a Caimen 90 & 200

Caimen 145 1/2? Unfortunately, I don't think Navy has any interest in adding any further landing craft, big or small. The LCH capability is gone forever (regardless of how useful it was). Larger beaching LST's are last century - but yes, I know, Turkey and South Korea think otherwise. I think the M1A1's will rely on Choule's Mexeflote for some time. Getting the new LCM's to carry the M1A1 will keep some boffins employed for some time.

ADMk2 · Oct 5, 2017

BigM60 said:
Caimen 145 1/2? Unfortunately, I don't think Navy has any interest in adding any further landing craft, big or small. The LCH capability is gone forever (regardless of how useful it was). Larger beaching LST's are last century - but yes, I know, Turkey and South Korea think otherwise. I think the M1A1's will rely on Choule's Mexeflote for some time. Getting the new LCM's to carry the M1A1 will keep some boffins employed for some time.

Army / Navy may not have much choice soon...

Small waves â€˜could stop Defence moving craft to shoreâ€™

Gentle ocean ripples would be enough to stop the navy’s billion-dollar amphibious ships from moving key armoured vehicles to shore because of compatibility *issues with new landing craft, leaked *Defence documents reveal.

The giant 230m-long landing helicopter docks HMAS Canberra and Adelaide, which cost $1.5 billion each, are needed to land troops and vehicles via specially designed landing craft that are stored under the deck.

An official Defence document from June warns that the accompanying landing craft could *struggle to carry heavy armoured and general mobility vehicles, *potentially “limiting operations of the amphibious vessels”.

There are also questions about whether the issues could narrow the choice of vehicles available as a replacement for the Australian light armoured vehicle, known as the Land 400 program.

Defence has been working on building a US Marine Corp-type rapid reaction capability based around the two ships responding to potential flashpoints in the Asia Pacific. Key to the operations is the ability to quickly land troops and armoured vehicles on to beaches from the two ships under most conditions.

The vehicles are supposed to be carried to the beach on special landing craft that are stored *beneath the amphibious ships’ decks.

Twelve of the landing craft mechanised-1Es are being built by Spanish ship builder Navantia for about $248 million and are due to be operational by later this year.

However, Defence confirmed in *August that the landing craft *required more testing because they sank too low in the water when carrying the army’s 62-tonne M1A1 tanks.

Indepth material about what the landing craft could or couldn’t carry and under what conditions was not made public at the time.

The Australian has seen a “Landing Craft Raft Compatibility Assessment”, and vehicle weights and testing status document for the landing craft, both of which *reveal broader issues associated with compatibility.

The landing craft assessment document states the craft are “unlikely to be able to transport the new generation of armoured *vehicles or the protected general purpose vehicles” because of the *vehicle’s axle weight exceeding the craft’s deck strength limits.

It also says the landing craft were not rated to carry vehicles weighing more than 45 tonnes when wave heights were above 85cm. And they could carry up to only 63 tonnes, just over the weight of Australia’s main battle tank the M1A1 Abram when seas were below 10cm.

The document features the warning that a “number of ADF vehicle types are either at or *exceed the authorised limits of the current LLC for the full range of environmental conditions, restricting the ability to force project ADF vehicles from ship to shore”.

The weights document also *revealed certain loads would *require a waiver to be issued on “a case-by-case basis, to meet operational requirements”.

It said no waiver was *required for weights up to 38.9 tonnes but one table states this was only for sea state 3 — a classification the World Meteorological Organisation describes as “slight seas”.

It notes vehicles weighing *between 20 to 45 tonnes could be carried when seas were below 85cm — or in the middle region of the organisation’s “slight seas” measurement.

Defence vehicles that could *require a waiver under certain conditions included the Abrams tank, weighing 62.5 tonnes, the new protected recovery vehicle at 45 tonnes, the new armoured *vehicle to replace the ASLAV’s, the new protected *medium truck at 21 tonnes and the protected heavy truck that is 37 tonnes.

The scenario could complicate selection of Australia’s replacement for the light armoured *vehicle.

A Defence spokesman this week admitted the landing craft would require “more benign conditions” to carry the Abrams tank, given its size and weight.

The spokesman also revealed Defence was “undertaking design efforts to address the existing deck strength limitations identified during the trials program. “These modifications will also address the expected weight and axle configuration of either of the potential Land 400 vehicles,’’ he said.

The spokesman said the landing craft were still being tested. He said analysis of trials would inform the suitable configuration of *defence vehicles while embarking the landing craft while staying with deck stability limits.

John Fedup · Oct 5, 2017

The weight for armoured vehicles is an issue for both airforces and navies. Reducing armour by modular attachments is ok for air transport but for naval assault, I would think the vehicle in many instances needs to be ready for immediate action. One one of biggest wishes, protection that is super light.

Australian Army Discussions and Updates

The Bunker Group

Just a bloke

The Bunker Group

Member

Well-Known Member

The Bunker Group

Just a bloke

The Bunker Group

The Bunker Group

Just a bloke

The Bunker Group

The Bunker Group

Member

Just a bloke

Member

Well-Known Member

Just a bloke

Member

Just a bloke

The Bunker Group