Australian Army Discussions and Updates

Stampede said:
I cannot find any images of a Bushmaster [ Any variety ] carried within the loading bay of a C-130J-30.

An image would be nice confirmation of this capability.

Does it fit or not?

Cheers S
Click to expand...

Doing some digging now to see if I can find anything. Found this in the meantime.

Will edit this post when I find anything

I don't believe the C-130 lift should necessarily be a deal breaker. We still have the C-17A which can fly higher, faster and further than a C-130J, while carrying multiple PMV. They can also land on relatively short and lesser prepared airfields. I don't see any reason we can't adapt to use the C-17A if we need to.
 
Last edited:
buffy9 said:
Doing some digging now to see if I can find anything. Found this in the meantime.

Will edit this post when I find anything

I don't believe the C-130 lift should necessarily be a deal breaker. We still have the C-17A which can fly higher, faster and further than a C-130J, while carrying multiple PMV. They can also land on relatively short and lesser prepared airfields. I don't see any reason we can't adapt to use the C-17A if we need to.
Click to expand...
Thanks
The C-17A can certainly carry most heavy bits of kit within the ADF including the Bushmaster.
Still curious with regards to the C-130.
Some information claiming its possible but still no images to confirm.
Given the prototype Bushmaster was around over two decades ago one would of thought such a capability would of been tested.

Yes or no!!!

Cheers
 
Bushmaster Protected Mobility Vehicle - Wikipedia
According to Wikipedia you can fit a Bushmaster PMV on a C-130J-30 but it is not regarded as a reliable source on DT, so its up to the individual, whether to accept it as facts. It certainly would be a tight fit both room and weight wise and there maybe a fair few restrictions on aircraft ops, given the weight to height ratio compared to most loads.
 
Redlands18 said:
Bushmaster Protected Mobility Vehicle - Wikipedia
According to Wikipedia you can fit a Bushmaster PMV on a C-130J-30 but it is not regarded as a reliable source on DT, so its up to the individual, whether to accept it as facts. It certainly would be a tight fit both room and weight wise and there maybe a fair few restrictions on aircraft ops, given the weight to height ratio compared to most loads.
Click to expand...

The only source Wikipedia provides for C-130 lift relates to the lift of a troubled PMV in Afghanistan by Mi-26. It is interesting, but I don't think we will be operating Mi-26 in a major scenario.

I suspect the Bushmaster does not fit, or it barely fits but presents other major issues (as you say, the weight distribution). It isn't a game changer for Bushmaster or Strikemaster imo, two of each can be carried in a C-17 - while conducting an anti-ship mission, rapidly from a C-130/C-17 is a very different tactic from striking a land target using HIMARS. In all likelihood the individual pieces will be assembled in the AO before conducting their operations, as radar and FDC assets (as well as reloads, fuel, signals, etc) will be necessary for A2AD operations around key points.

Imo, the Strikemaster may end up taking the path of ROGUE Fires whereby it becomes an unmanned asset that can be plugged into or teamed with a manned system. Alternatively, and unlike ROGUE Fires, there is still room for crew to take control if necessary. The Army is already embracing this technology in general.

There is also the future of littoral manoeuvre and Darwin's planned COE, if this all still ends up being considered viable after the DSR. Many of the craft proposed can carry four PMV, with a flotilla of these vessels possibly being capable of deploying a Strikemaster or HIMARS battery around islands and straits if necessary.
 
I suspect the Bushmaster frame is transportable, if you do something wacky, like completely clean configurate and remove the wheels and the springs and shocks. So you could move it, but it would not make any sense to do it that way.

I suppose the Bushmaster/strike master could also carry AIM9/AIM120. The Hawkie is meant to be the platform for NASAMS so defensive capability will be C130 portable.

Also with Strike master, why do the missiles get fired overhead of the cabin. Wouldn't it make more sense to fire them back off the rear tray? Protecting the glass of the vehicle, but also to make it easier for reload and allowing the vehicle to be moved quicker after firing.

I also wonder if there is any interest in a three axel bushmaster/strike master. Carry 2 x Tomahawk

Im suprised they didn't try to fit the NSM onto the LARC-V.. Take a Larc, mount a 40mm gun and two NSM and you have the perfect small corvette in which to engage the PLA-N.
 
ngatimozart said:
@Rob c will be able to answer your question. IIRC he was involved in servicing them and was NCO i/c shortening techies to fit under Strikemasters.
Click to expand...
Jack them up real high or be real good at the upside down squirm. The operating gear was in the fuselage and used cables to operate the gear. This was a system only the Poms could have thought of and never used by anyone else for a very good reason, It did have one redeeming feature in that it was guaranteed that every thing would extend or nothing would. No half measures;)
 
Milo said:
In the past, Raven22 had the below to say about moving Bushmaster by C-130-

New Zealand Army
Click to expand...

Legend. It does make me wonder if you could strengthen the cargo floor to reduce how much you need to modify - but it probably doesn't matter that much.

At the end of the day NASAMS or an AShM battery based on Strikemaster is going to need a lot more than just what the single Bushmaster platform can provide. 40M trucks are part of the NASAMS system for example, which is going to need a C-17A transport anyway (if it even can, not to extend it all even further). It is a good thing we got a fleet of C-17s as we did, else we would be entirelly dependent on shipping.

Edit:

For anyone who may not have seen it as well, the M113AS4 is currently operating as part of the 66th Mechanised Brigade along the Svatove-Kreminna Line.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1610950473875611649
 
Last edited:
The acquisition of the NSM for navy also opens up the potential for the Kongsberg CDS alongside NASAMS.

So potentially there is no need to reinvent the wheel and try and make HIMARS something it is not intended for, the NSM CDS uses the same basic architecture as NASAMS, using an FCC based on the NASAMS FDC. Integration is alluded to on their website, would assume integration into the NASAMS FDC would not be a major challenge.

The NSM's primary role is maritime interdiction, but has a secondary land attack capability. "Each of the FCCs can, when authorized, locally engage up to 12 different targets or use up to 12 missiles against the same target in a salvo. Through a defined FCC in the network, it is possible to plan and control up to 48 NSM™ engagements simultaneously against 48 different targets. The network further utilizes the NSM™ embedded features for different salvo sizes per target. Including the possibility for simultaneous time on target, using salvo engagements or network enabled coordinated engagements for maximum attrition"

Pretty handy piece of kit.

Cheers

www.kongsberg.com

Naval Strike Missile (NSM™) Coastal Defence System

Explore a coastal defence system combining precision strike capability, over-the-horizon targeting, networked fire control and advanced command and control integration.
www.kongsberg.com www.kongsberg.com
 
Milo said:
In the past, Raven22 had the below to say about moving Bushmaster by C-130-

New Zealand Army
Click to expand...
buffy9 said:
Legend. It does make me wonder if you could strengthen the cargo floor to reduce how much you need to modify - but it probably doesn't matter that much.
Click to expand...
Per Raven22's old post, if it is a question of ground pressure, I would think that it would be easier to palletize the vehicle to spread it's load over a larger area.. Surely limits deployability compared to simply rolling the vehicle on and off, and require material handling equipment. But in ther long run might be less time consuming then stripping weight then remounting.
 
I see this sort of news and feel …discouraged. Hungary starts a search for an IFV in …as far as I can see late 2017, places order 2020 and starts building in their own facility early 2023.

Australia on the other hand… starts a program in 2010 and by 2023 still dithering and dithers and dithers and dithers….

asiapacificdefencereporter.com

Rheinmetall launches production of new infantry fighting vehicle in Hungary - APDR

Rheinmetall’s state-of-the-art Lynx infantry fighting vehicle has reached its latest interim objective: promptly at the start on 2023, low-rate initial production (LRIP) began in NATO member nation Hungary,
asiapacificdefencereporter.com asiapacificdefencereporter.com

Im sure someone will say different geopolitical circumstances but nevertheless it’s not generating any confidence.
 
Bob53 said:
I see this sort of news and feel …discouraged. Hungary starts a search for an IFV in …as far as I can see late 2017, places order 2020 and starts building in their own facility early 2023.

Australia on the other hand… starts a program in 2010 and by 2023 still dithering and dithers and dithers and dithers….

asiapacificdefencereporter.com

Rheinmetall launches production of new infantry fighting vehicle in Hungary - APDR

Rheinmetall’s state-of-the-art Lynx infantry fighting vehicle has reached its latest interim objective: promptly at the start on 2023, low-rate initial production (LRIP) began in NATO member nation Hungary,
asiapacificdefencereporter.com asiapacificdefencereporter.com

Im sure someone will say different geopolitical circumstances but nevertheless it’s not generating any confidence.
Click to expand...
A fair observation.

Assuming the DSR confirms a continuation of an IFV purchase ,it does beg the question as to when that will translate to a meaningful capability.
Ie. To be able to deploy at least one coy. / sqn.

Cheers S
 
Last edited:
Bob53 said:
I see this sort of news and feel …discouraged. Hungary starts a search for an IFV in …as far as I can see late 2017, places order 2020 and starts building in their own facility early 2023.

Australia on the other hand… starts a program in 2010 and by 2023 still dithering and dithers and dithers and dithers….

asiapacificdefencereporter.com

Rheinmetall launches production of new infantry fighting vehicle in Hungary - APDR

Rheinmetall’s state-of-the-art Lynx infantry fighting vehicle has reached its latest interim objective: promptly at the start on 2023, low-rate initial production (LRIP) began in NATO member nation Hungary,
asiapacificdefencereporter.com asiapacificdefencereporter.com

Im sure someone will say different geopolitical circumstances but nevertheless it’s not generating any confidence.
Click to expand...
What program did Australia start in 2010? They certainly did not release a RFI for Land 400 Phase 3 in 2010. Hungary would have been planning towards a new IFV for years awaiting funding. Should not compare 2 very different Countries with totally different strategic requirements. There is also a huge difference between evaluating a Vehicle designed in Germany for service in Hungary and for service in Australia. Operating in Hungary is going to be broadly similar to Germany, cold winters, mild summers, generally short transit times on excellent to fair roads. Australia is the exact opposite, Hungary did not have to put the Lynx through some of the toughest, hottest conditions found on Earth.

There was never any plan to introduce a new IFV before the mid 2020s under Land 400, and we were still converting M-113s to AS4 standard in 2010. the ADF had other funding priorities such as the F-35s, DDGs, LHDs and the ARV was given priority over new IFVs.
 
Redlands18 said:
What program did Australia start in 2010? They certainly did not release a RFI for Land 400 Phase 3 in 2010. Hungary would have been planning towards a new IFV for years awaiting funding. Should not compare 2 very different Countries with totally different strategic requirements. There is also a huge difference between evaluating a Vehicle designed in Germany for service in Hungary and for service in Australia. Operating in Hungary is going to be broadly similar to Germany, cold winters, mild summers, generally short transit times on excellent to fair roads. Australia is the exact opposite, Hungary did not have to put the Lynx through some of the toughest, hottest conditions found on Earth.

There was never any plan to introduce a new IFV before the mid 2020s under Land 400, and we were still converting M-113s to AS4 standard in 2010. the ADF had other funding priorities such as the F-35s, DDGs, LHDs and the ARV was given priority over new IFVs.
Click to expand...
Could be wrong but my understanding is the land 400 program started in 2010. Your point re roads and hot climate …etc …could I give you a year to do that you think? …an in depth study would be about 6-12 months …but we have so many layers of red tape it’s Cleary why it’s an extra 5 or 6 years…
 
Bob53 said:
Could be wrong but my understanding is the land 400 program started in 2010. Your point re roads and hot climate …etc …could I give you a year to do that you think? …an in depth study would be about 6-12 months …but we have so many layers of red tape it’s Cleary why it’s an extra 5 or 6 years…
Click to expand...
Replacing the APC's was always going to be a big and expensive project.
It could always be put off to the next year, which became the election cycle ,which became the next decade.
Realistically IFV's will now be a 2030's capability.
Army needs to get better at selling itself!
You don't need a major war in Europe to reinforce what it already knows about the range of kit needed for the broad range of contingency's it needs to fulfill.
The hard reality is that defence costs money.
But deterrence is cheaper than actually fighting wars in both blood and coin.

In another world we wouldn't spend money on this stuff, but that unfortunately is not reality.

Cheers S
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top