Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[gf0012-aust]

Volk I think that was with the F-22 I could be wrong but I haven't see that issue come up for the F-35

The F-22 problem was about the cockpit/canopy jamming - they had to cut it open to release, resulted in a redesign of the release mechanism

IIRC poor bastard was stuck inside for about 6 hours - they had to roll out a big canopy to shade him while they sorted it out.

edit:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=20396

 

[protoplasm]

Volk I think that was with the F-22 I could be wrong but I haven't see that issue come up for the F-35

Army grounds Tigers over cockpit fumes | Australian Aviation

Our Tigers had an issue which led to a grounding of the fleet. I'm unsure of the status of any resolution to this

 

[Joe Black]

The F-22 problem was about the cockpit/canopy jamming - they had to cut it open to release, resulted in a redesign of the release mechanism

IIRC poor bastard was stuck inside for about 6 hours - they had to roll out a big canopy to shade him while they sorted it out.

F-22 also suffered an oxygen supply issue during certain flight profile.

 

[Volkodav]

Volk I think that was with the F-22 I could be wrong but I haven't see that issue come up for the F-35

Sorry Dave, I should have made it clear I was discussing the Tiger. The former CSM of the RAEME maintenance Sqn was a mate of my dads and once when I mentioned I'd see a Tiger flying over he said, only half jokingly, "for gods sake don't say that, you'll jinx us and now son part that takes two months to get here from France is going to break and they'll all be grounded again".

 

[Cadredave]

The F-22 problem was about the cockpit/canopy jamming - they had to cut it open to release, resulted in a redesign of the release mechanism

IIRC poor bastard was stuck inside for about 6 hours - they had to roll out a big canopy to shade him while they sorted it out.

edit:

Langley Air Force Base Briefing: F-22 03-041 Stuck Canopy

All good mate? That actually came as a surprise to me about the issue with Tiger didnt hear anything about it on this side of the Tasman, has the issue been fixed or put into the to hard basket for now?.

 

[gf0012-aust]

All good mate? That actually came as a surprise to me about the issue with Tiger didnt hear anything about it on this side of the Tasman, has the issue been fixed or put into the to hard basket for now?.

my understanding was that it was sorted - but willing to stand corrected

 

[Raven22]

The problem was simply a drain hose not draining outside the aircraft. It dripped on something hot and caused fumes. They fixed it by the very complicated method of wiping the area down with a cloth between flights.

It literally cost millions of dollars to find and fix that problem.

 

[Volkodav]

The problem was simply a drain hose not draining outside the aircraft. It dripped on something hot and caused fumes. They fixed it by the very complicated method of wiping the area down with a cloth between flights.

It literally cost millions of dollars to find and fix that problem.

I know a few of the maintainers and the type does their heads in, so many stupid little problems that a decent amount of institutional knowledge and vendor support would be expected to overcome quickly and easily. I was constantly amazed at the amount of support and expertise we could access from the US on the AWD. compared to the pulling teeth experience with a lot of Euro contractors and suppliers. Often the issue is not that a problem has occurred or even how quickly and efficiently it can be fixed, but rather the sort of response support you get from the contractor.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I know a few of the maintainers and the type does their heads in, so many stupid little problems that a decent amount of institutional knowledge and vendor support would be expected to overcome quickly and easily. I was constantly amazed at the amount of support and expertise we could access from the US on the AWD. compared to the pulling teeth experience with a lot of Euro contractors and suppliers. Often the issue is not that a problem has occurred or even how quickly and efficiently it can be fixed, but rather the sort of response support you get from the contractor.

I've had some awful response rates from some "old euro" countries as a contractor when working OS.

it had some significant influence when I came home and those same companies tried to box flog back here.

I do like dealing with the germans though, they tend to have their house in order.

 

[Volkodav]

I've had some awful response rates from some "old euro" countries as a contractor when working OS.

it had some significant influence when I came home and those same companies tried to box flog back here.

I do like dealing with the germans though, they tend to have their house in order.

I know the Germans are pretty good its just not nice saying ******** French and BAE are ***** all the time.

 

[Goknub]

BAE seems to have a pretty solid record of delays and cost overruns. I've often wondered how accurate that reputation is. It's one thing that would be worth considering if the AMV35 gets selected.

 

[MARKMILES77]

BAE seems to have a pretty solid record of delays and cost overruns. I've often wondered how accurate that reputation is. It's one thing that would be worth considering if the AMV35 gets selected.

I wonder if the AMV35 may be out of the running (when previously I thought it may be the favourite). DTR is reporting that all of the CRV candidates are offering Turret mounted ATGWs except BAE with the AMV35. It is a requirement of Land 400 Phase 2 that the chosen CRV can destroy a MBT at 4000 metres. BAE is proposing that a Spike/MMP ATGW be carried in the vehicle and if a MBT is encountered the crew dismount, set up the ATGW and launch it external to the vehicle!
I just cannot see this being an acceptable solution but it is forced upon BAE as their chosen turret does not have an integrated ATGW.
Would not surprise me if the LAV 6.0 and the Boxer are now chosen as the two finalists.

 

[Raven22]

I can't see it being much of a problem. They can offer Spike integrated with the turret in a MOTS+ solution, and while it adds a little bit of risk, I certainly can't see it being a show stopper. Neither LAV6.0 nor Sentinel come anywhere close to meeting protection requirements, and that's a much bigger problem.

 

[MARKMILES77]

I can't see it being much of a problem. They can offer Spike integrated with the turret in a MOTS+ solution, and while it adds a little bit of risk, I certainly can't see it being a show stopper. Neither LAV6.0 nor Sentinel come anywhere close to meeting protection requirements, and that's a much bigger problem.

So Boxer must be the red hot favourite.
Also interesting that as part of Land 400 Phase 3, information has been requested on wheeled solutions for the IFV. Could also favour Boxer.

 

[Boagrius]

Just a quick query here for those in the know:

It is my understanding the our infantry sections still use the 66mm M72 LAW in the "Light Direct Fire Support Weapon" role. It strikes me that this particular weapon must be getting pretty long in the tooth by now, and I would have expected it to perhaps have been largely replaced by a program like LAND 40.

Does anyone know if it is likely to be replaced in the foreseeable future, or is it simply the case that it is still light and versatile enough to be used against fortifications/built ups and so on if not modern armour? I am cognisant of the fact that any newer analogues/replacement candidates are likely to be substantially larger and "less portable".

 

[Raven22]

The 66 in use now is the M72A6 version, which is much more modern compared to Vietnam era versions. It is not really seen as an anti-armour weapon anymore, but just a particularly effective way to get HE onto a target. They were particularly useful in Afghanistan, and you'll often see photos of everyone in a section carrying one. They'll soldier on in service as there is nothing really better out there that is as light, cheap and effective.

 

[Boagrius]

The 66 in use now is the M72A6 version, which is much more modern compared to Vietnam era versions. It is not really seen as an anti-armour weapon anymore, but just a particularly effective way to get HE onto a target. They were particularly useful in Afghanistan, and you'll often see photos of everyone in a section carrying one. They'll soldier on in service as there is nothing really better out there that is as light, cheap and effective.

^Right, as I suspected - thanks Raven. So I imagine the anti-armour role would be occupied by the Carl Gustav (M3) and Javelin for further out...

Back on the previous topic (LAND 400), wouldn't the fact that we already operate the Javelin make it a favourite as the IFV borne ATGM of choice? I've heard rumblings of Spike or MMP being used for this (on the BAe offering for example) but I would have thought a US based solution (Javelin if not TOW) might be preferred here.

I've got to say I've found this one very tricky to predict, particularly as far as the IFV/APC is concerned - there aren't any MOTS solutions that really seem to tick all the boxes. Puma has the protection and firepower, but not the space for an infantry section. The only potential contender I am aware of that does would be the Armadillo version of CV90... but then that seems deficient in firepower(!). Perhaps you could stick a MCT-30 on it or similar without disrupting the carrying capacity...(?)

Genuinely perplexed.

 

[gf0012-aust]

^Right, as I suspected - thanks Raven. So I imagine the anti-armour role would be occupied by the Carl Gustav (M3) and Javelin for further out...

from different chats I've had its good for breaching thins and buildings....

 

[Boagrius]

from different chats I've had its good for breaching thins and buildings....

Makes sense - a convenient compliment of sorts to the 40mm GL for an infantry section(?). Seems like a niche that has been largely left alone in the US - I guess they just went with AT4 and that was that.

 

[Raven22]

Back on the previous topic (LAND 400), wouldn't the fact that we already operate the Javelin make it a favourite as the IFV borne ATGM of choice? I've heard rumblings of Spike or MMP being used for this (on the BAe offering for example) but I would have thought a US based solution (Javelin if not TOW) might be preferred here.

I would be amazed if the Javelin ends up on a Land 400 vehicle, largely because no manufacturer has included them in their bid. My reading of the tea leaves is it will be Spike all the way. Whether that means we keep Javelin in service, or we would seek to replace Javelin with dismounted Spike posts, remains to be seen.

Interestingly, the down selection of Land 400 Phase 2 vehicles has occurred, and we can soon expect an announcement on which vehicles will proceed to trials later in the year.