Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Shanesworld]

Surely you would just acquire a tank?

Seems an expensive way to acquire something that is likely to be less survivable than an ABRAMS?

Regards,

Massive

True, probably.
MAYBE having direct fire support and anti tank capability in a lighter indigenously built, supported capability using same bridging and supporting elements might be a happy trade off..... Dont know.
To be honest after Ngorno-Karabakh and now the russian misadventure I dont know alot.

 

[vonnoobie]

Surely you would just acquire a tank?

Seems an expensive way to acquire something that is likely to be less survivable than an ABRAMS?

Regards,

Massive

Which is why outside of some politicians and arm chair generals these options tend to have a limited to none existent market.

You can get multiple MBT's in use today that are in that same weight class that would be more survivable. Slapping a big gun on an IFV/APC does not make it an MBT or even a light tank but rather an SPT (Show pony tank).

While on it how the hell they call it a light tank. Going back circa WW2 normal tanks where in the 25-30 ton + range (even more by the end with out counting the heavy tanks) and light tanks half or so the size... Ergo a light tank today should not be pushing anymore then 35 tons...

If they are meant to be direct fire support for infantry forces and not intended to go against MBT's then why the MBT sized guns, a 76mm would work just fine in that role.

 

[Stampede]

Ship to shore connectors - Australian Defence Magazine

The Request for Tender (RFT) for a new landing craft to replace the Army’s venerable LCM-8 closes in mid-June, and industry comments on what is being requested range from ‘very ambitious’ and ‘incredi...

www.australiandefence.com.au

An excellent article from ADM on the Land 8710 phase 1 requirement(LCM-8 replacement). Basically saying that they must be able to carry up to a 80t load in Sea State 4 and in survival transit up to Sea State 6, over a distance of at least 500nm. A steel Hull is mandatory, must include a configuration for a crew of at least 10+ accommodation for 5 extra personnel.

Thanks for the post

Serco are one of the contenders with their LCH heavy sized Oboe LMV-M

Details posted in Janes Defence.

Indo Pacific 2022: Serco, Civmec partner on bid for Australian landing craft programme

Serco Australia and Civmec have formed a joint venture (JV) to bid to supply the Australian Army with a new amphibious landing craft.

www.janes.com

The article in ADM stresses that the carried vehicles must be at full combat weight.
While tanks and IFV's will probably not be the normal cargo, they at should at least be an option.
So the intention is good.
Suggest you would want the weight margin for at least a single MBT or two IFV's.
Looking more at 100 t rather than 80 t capacity.

The 500 NM appears short on range if the intention is to self deploy these craft both along our extensive coastline and also off shore to our island neighbors.
These are all are big distances going just one way, yet alone a return voyage.
These are meant to be independent craft

So all in all an interesting project.
If these craft cannot be carried by an LHD but rather just connect with the well deck for vehicle transfer,THEN GO BIG.

IOC in 2026 looks ambitious, but a most welcomed outcome if it can be achieved.
Fingers crossed.

Cheers S

 

[Rock the kasbah]

A Ukrainian Bushmaster Protected Mobility Vehicle, donated by Australia, was spotted in the East meaning that they are already deployed on the frontlines. Interestingly, this particular one has a EOS R400-Mk2 remote weapon station with a 7.62x51 GPMG and thermals.

This was on Twitter
Apologies couldn't paste the link
The words above are not mine but were posted with the photo
It's good to see they're being put to use.
Is the set up in the photo special for Ukraine or typical load out ?

 

[FormerDirtDart]

A Ukrainian Bushmaster Protected Mobility Vehicle, donated by Australia, was spotted in the East meaning that they are already deployed on the frontlines. Interestingly, this particular one has a EOS R400-Mk2 remote weapon station with a 7.62x51 GPMG and thermals.
View attachment 49308
This was on Twitter
Apologies couldn't paste the link
The words above are not mine but were posted with the photo
It's good to see they're being put to use.
Is the set up in the photo special for Ukraine or typical load out ?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1525958281998569476

 

[Rock the kasbah]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1525958281998569476

Cheers

@Rock the kasbah Can't you make the post any shorter? BTW this IS NOT a challenge.

Ngatimozart.

 

[Rock the kasbah]

Cheers

@Rock the kasbah Can't you make the post any shorter? BTW this IS NOT a challenge.

Ngatimozart.

Sorry mate
I'm using a tablet and stylus
Gotta hunt and peck
Try adding attchmens if/and/or when you're stoned and/ or pissed

 

[Stampede]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1525958281998569476

Trust the Ukraine drivers are not tempted to change lanes to the other side of the road to mirror the Bushmasters steering wheel configuration.


Cheers S

 

[Going Boeing]

20 more Bushmasters and 14 M113 APC’s being sent to Ukraine.

Defence Connect M113’s & Bushmasters to Ukraine

A number of posts on this forum have indicated that the M113 is no longer considered suitable for use in a war zone but there are a number of them enroute to Ukraine from other countries so it appears that they are wanted by the Ukraine armed forces.

 

[Redlands18]

20 more Bushmasters and 14 M113 APC’s being sent to Ukraine.

Defence Connect M113’s & Bushmasters to Ukraine

A number of posts on this forum have indicated that the M113 is no longer considered suitable for use in a war zone but there are a number of them enroute to Ukraine from other countries so it appears that they are wanted by the Ukraine armed forces.

As would most Countries when they are fighting for their survival, they will take anything offered that could be of some use. The Australian M-113s have been modernised at least and do have a 50cal MG in a Turret. Can still be a useful vehicle as a rear echelon support APC, you would not want to use them in an assault against a fortified position however.

 

[Rock the kasbah]

As would most Countries when they are fighting for their survival, they will take anything offered that could be of some use. The Australian M-113s have been modernised at least and do have a 50cal MG in a Turret. Can still be a useful vehicle as a rear echelon support APC, you would not want to use them in an assault against a fortified position however.

If you are attacking with tanks, would the m113s be suitable for the infantry that tanks require?
As I believe the Ukrainians have been presented a large number of those.

 

[ngatimozart]

If you are attacking with tanks, would the m113s be suitable for the infantry that tanks require?
As I believe the Ukrainians have been presented a large number of those.

Well both the Ukrainians and Russians are using BMP-3s and IIRC their armour is not exactly the best in the world, maybe on par with the M113 or slightly better. The Ukrainians are also using BMP-1s which have slightly worse armour so they won't be that different.

 

[Redlands18]

If you are attacking with tanks, would the m113s be suitable for the infantry that tanks require?
As I believe the Ukrainians have been presented a large number of those.

Against a strongly fortified position, no that is what IFVs are for, far better protected and far better armed. The 50cal on a M-113AS4 is only really a self protection weapon against light forces, you would not want to face a modern IFV in one let alone a MBT.
One advantage the BMPs have over a M-113 is a much heavier armament.

 

[FormerDirtDart]

Well both the Ukrainians and Russians are using BMP-3s and IIRC their armour is not exactly the best in the world, maybe on par with the M113 or slightly better. The Ukrainians are also using BMP-1s which have slightly worse armour so they won't be that different.

Both sides have also been using various generations/models of BMDs, BTR-Ds and MT-LBs which aren't exactly considered well protected.
M113s aren't AFVs, but they're a hell of a lot better than Ural, Zil or Gaz cargo trucks and assorted pickups.

 

[Massive]

Given the extremely massive investments we are making in the development of highly mobile battle groups, there are some ”interesting” priorities Army has in that space, with the observable real world effects of ever increasing PGM, UAS and loitering munitions capabilities, and us doing literally nothing to address those threats…

I find the plan for Army hard to determine. Airforce is crystal clear, Navy's is reasonably clear though clouded by long lead times, but Army not so much.

There are a lot of smart people in the Army so I imagine this is more a matter of it still being developed than not existing, but token buys are hard to rationalise without that overarching picture.

Regards,

Massive

 

[ngatimozart]

I find the plan for Army hard to determine. Airforce is crystal clear, Navy's is reasonably clear though clouded by long lead times, but Army not so much.

There are a lot of smart people in the Army so I imagine this is more a matter of it still being developed than not existing, but token buys are hard to rationalise without that overarching picture.

Regards,

Massive

I think that it comes from living in holes in the ground and carrying their home around on their backs all the time. It can also be that the composition of their diet of crayons has changed over time with less of the red kind and more of the vegan green kind.

 

[gabriel miauw.]

Australia is getting NASAMS artificial surface to air missiles from Kongsberg this year in June. The DOD signed contract as in favor of selecting NASAMS to replace Australia's Rapier SAMs. Tests will be held in Kongsberg defence and aerospace facility and dozens of canisters and NASAMS missile will be delivered and installed in pubic and military areas. NASAMS will be the part of Australia's air defence system along with Patriots, CIWS and other air defence systems currently operating by the ADF (Australian Defence Force).

This is the photo of NASAMS.

 

[ShortArm]

Is there any link for this one?

 

[protoplasm]

I reckon you'll want to give some source for this before a mod asks you to justify the statements...

 

[ngatimozart]

Is there any link for this one?

Welcome to the Forum. We have some rules and one of them is no one line posts so please bear that in mind in the future.

Australia is getting NASAMS artificial surface to air missiles from Kongsberg this year in June. The DOD signed contract as in favor of selecting NASAMS to replace Australia's Rapier SAMs. Tests will be held in Kongsberg defence and aerospace facility and dozens of canisters and NASAMS missile will be delivered and installed in pubic and military areas. NASAMS will be the part of Australia's air defence system along with Patriots, CIWS and other air defence systems currently operating by the ADF (Australian Defence Force).

This is the photo of NASAMS.

Welcome to the Forum.

I have had to delete a post of yours because one three letter word as a post doesn't offer any value to the discussion at all. We have some rules and one of them is no one line posts and there is no way that post was going to exceed one line no matter how hard you tried. Not even a politician could achieve that.

Secondly, we require reliable reputable verifiable sources for posts and the material that you posted in the first post definitely requires such sources. How do we know that it is accurate? For all we know it could've been written by my Aunty Hinemoa down the local pub when she's had to many rums. That's why we require sources so that we and other posters can be assured that the information being posted is as accurate as possible.