We came under air attack plenty of times in Korea…
Australia isn’t exactly alone in having been continuing with a tokenistic force structure. The geopolitical situation in conjunction with how difficult it is to acquire replacement military kit quickly is a rude awakening to many pollies. Considering the huge combined manufacturing resources the West has, it is a shame all the players can’t get on the same page and coordinate efforts on procurement of military kit.
Ahhhh.....I think you are confusing battery with regiment.Contract signed for LAND 19 Phase 7B SRGBAD Enhanced NASAMS | ADBR
According to this 2 Batteries ordered and 6 (total or in addition?) planned with each battery according to the article to have 3 troops per a battery. If my understanding of the termninoligy is correct that will be 3 - 4 launcher's per a troop? giving 9 - 12 launchers each battery which means we can be looking at anywhere from 54 to 96 launchers (Depending if 6 batteries of 9 launchers or 8 batteries of 12 launchers or anything in between)... Im pretty sure it is the lower number but we can dream
I realised where I got the 6 battery figure from, I had recalled it off top of my head from wiki.. yea I know bad noobie, bad bad noobie. I have attempted to search to see if that figure is mentioned anywhere but find nothing. What I do see mentioned however is these two batteries are apperantly only the initial order so may be more down the line especially with real world knowledge gleaned in Ukraine.
My situation when I left the RAAF in 1990. I was a corporal cal tech. My trade was instrument fitter. My trade qualifications allowed me to apply to the Commonwealth Trades boards. I was given the Electrical Fitter (Instruments) trade certificate. The trade board wasn't well known and I was surprised that others didn't didn't apply. The certificate has given me exemptions and opened doors.
Yes, the news from Defence Connect indicates it is the 90 and it appear to be a tri-bow monohull. Trying for the best of both worlds. The bow structure would allow the flow around the bow to be more efficient and may help increase the speed of the vessel.Interesting given that BMT's Caimen-90 and Caimen-60 are tri-bow hull designs. I would expect the ILMV contender to be some kind of derivative of an existing BMT design, not unlike how the US Vigor MSV(L) is a derived from the Caimen-90
Maneuver Support Vessel (Light)
DESIGN INNOVATION Innovative tribow monohull form maximizes seakeeping, beached stability and provides speeds in excess of 20 knots fully laden…vigor.net
I am no expert but looking at the Caimen-90 design pics, it seems like it has a twin hull form but also a tri-bow which is intriguing.
I am sure there are others here better placed to comment, but I did find this article from BMT dating from February this year and specifically referring to the ADF; if credible some kind of Caimen derivative could be in the works.
Seize and hold ground - CAIMEN landing craft
The Australian Defence Force will benefit from more than a decade of continual development behind BMT's family of small, medium and large landing craft.www.bmt.org
AMRAAM-ER has been integrated onto NASAMS and can be launched from NASAMS II. From my understanding, there must be a booster added to the standard AMRAAM missile body, perhaps based on available length within the NASAMS launcher, but not available missile-body diameter, particularly once wings are added, perhaps explaining why ESSM I/II is not being included?
PROJECT AIR-6501 exists to acquire that sort of capability on behalf of ADF… It’s pre-gate 1 approval atm and heavily dependant on the AIR-6500 air battle management system decision and integration, so heavens only knows the timeline for this one…
Thanks alexsa.
Just don't get this project.
The ADF need a small Amphib that can self deploy around the Continent, enter River systems across the Top End or out to nearby Islands. In peace time it will be supporting ongoing Trg, Infrastructure support, delivering logistics. In war time, delivering and supporting small units in remote areas. There are a lot of places that a LCM can go that a LST cannot and we only have 3 large Amphibs so their availability for jobs like this is just not feasible. The Army needs something that has an improved open ocean capability then a LCM-8, better endurance, reasonably cost effective.
Thanks for the reply
Its there now and has been for decades using the LCM-8s, what we are seeing is a move to a little bit bigger and better platform. The LCM-8s do occasionally work with the LHD/LSDs and the new Boats will as well, just can't operate out of the Well Docks, that is what the smaller LCM-1Es are for.
Army v RAN politics may come into it, remember the Balikpapan Class LCH were originally Army but the RAN ended up taking them of the Army's hands. Crewing a larger vessel may be an issue for the Army, get up into the 45-50m range then you are going from a Crew of 3-5 to 6-10 and probably going from a Corporal to a Sergeant in command.
Maybe but on the other side of things it also allows a further leg up in promotion with crews rather then being stuck on the smaller craft for their life having the chance to move up to an LCH could play a big role in retention of personnel for that field.