Sure, but the discussion at one point suggested that hawkei was the replacment for the landrover, which the g wagon really is. The hawkei is a new capability.....that still needs a tweak or 2.
My understanding was that the g-wagon and the hawkei were BOTH replacements for the land rover... the former for domestic duties and the latter for deployment
Takao
The Bunker Group
Exactly
The G-Wagon was purchased for domestic training only, never to be deployed (because of its poor protection). This reduced the numbers needed for a Hawkei fleet (and hence costs). The Hawkei would only be to deploy. Quite honestly, other than protection, I'd take a G-Wagon every time (if only because I can have a spare tyre without a trailer - I mean, really? An off-road vehicle that needs a trailer to carry a spare? Pshaw). At least the G-Wagon has brakes that always work, good internal space, a body that I can crawl over, and (while eye-wateringly expensive compared to what Mr Takao can buy at the local Mercedes dealership) is much, much more cheaper and cost effective than a Hawkei.
Remember, the Hawkei was conceived when we were planning on fighting some lightly armed and poorly trained insurgents in the MEAO. Not Pacific Islands, not the PLA, not the post-23 DSR Army.
Australian rocket motor takes flight
We can assemble a rocket motor! Huzzah!
We can assemble a rocket motor! Huzzah!
Wrong thread
TWZ article below on ADF acquisition of the AIM-260 JATM. Interestingly it mentions ground launched effects in ADF’s layered IAMDS…
With the same form factor as AMRAAM, I wonder if we’ll see any interest in adapting the weapon to the NASAMS SAM system? Could possibly account for Army’s lack of interest in adapting AMRAAM-D models for NASAM’s use…
Would substantially enhance the range and capability if the system…
www.twz.com
With the same form factor as AMRAAM, I wonder if we’ll see any interest in adapting the weapon to the NASAMS SAM system? Could possibly account for Army’s lack of interest in adapting AMRAAM-D models for NASAM’s use…
Would substantially enhance the range and capability if the system…
Australia To Become First Foreign Operator Of AIM-260 Air-To-Air Missile
The procurement marks a major step in Canberra’s push to prepare for high-end conflict in the Indo-Pacific. The procurement marks a major step in Canberra’s push to prepare for high-end conflict in the Indo-Pacific.
www.twz.com
Re earlier post on electric drive for noise suppression ,Would sound proofing materials be an option in engine bay walls and under hood ? another query is there any use of special paint for masking of thermal signatures a consideration ,obviously drones now carry thermal cameras and can detect heat signatures at night ,I recall many years ago the navy introduced such to decks of ships that reduced surface temperature of the steel decks during the day
I've used insulating paint in civilian applications. For instance we coated a large tank containing water at about 120 deg with insulating paint, and it dropped the surface temperature down to about 45 deg. Enough that it replaced traditional fibre insulation and was safe for the human touch.
The downside is that it is thick and heavy. Great for a stationary object, but you would want to be very thrifty with its use on something flying or floating.
I suspect there are some military grade paints that are much lighter, but the cost goes up. At some point this negates the benefit of a cheap mass produced drone.
I meant for the paint to be used on the vehicles themselvesto avoid attention from such drones that hunt at night with thermal cameras, recently on a Ukrainian video it showed a drone laying in wait behind a wall it had a sensor that the operator was able to hear a vehicle coming before attacking the Ukrainian vehicle , this was likely posted by Russians and reposted by the Ukrainians ,certainly listening to a similar thread that an ex mortar operaror was retrained to operate drones instead might suggest which method of warfare is more effective , It would be easy to believe that entire assumptions on how conflicts by the A.D.F would happen and programs to operate in such scenarios which appear rapidly evolving may said assumptions to be tossed out of the window and back to drawing board
Latest Austal update has both the LCM and LCH build beginning in Q4 CY2026.
18 LCM delivered by end 2032.
8 LCH delivered by end 2038
Looks like they have already made a few changes to the Birdon LCM design?
Pic 1 - Birdon
Pic 2 - Austal
18 LCM delivered by end 2032.
8 LCH delivered by end 2038
Looks like they have already made a few changes to the Birdon LCM design?
Pic 1 - Birdon
Pic 2 - Austal
Attachments
In the beginning it was 100t and over 2,000nm, then 90t and 1,800nm…
Now the specs are 80t load, 1,200nm range.
So maybe
1xMBT (70t+)
1xRedback (40t+)
up to 2xBoxers (35t+)
up to 2x8x8 HX trucks (30t+)
up to 4xHimars (15t+)
up to 4xBushmasters (15t+)
up to 6xHawkeis (10t+)
Mix of above…
Thanks Reptilia
That’s my current take on capability.
The distance hugging the coast between Darwin and Cairns is roughly 3500. Km.
These are big distances
With Brigades based at both of these cities it’s understandable the need to undertake maritime logistics in this area and for that matter any part of Australia’s coastal region.
I’d speculate you’d want the LCMs to be able to at least transit this sort of distance at FULL LOAD .
That load should also be more than what’s listed above
Can’t help but think this is a lost opportunity to get the right craft for what’s realistically needed
Unless there is some surprises re the load / range capacity, I can’t help but feel these new LCMs are not fit for purpose.
Cheers S
I didn't think that was the purpose of the LCMs. My understanding is that the LCHs or the LHDs would be the intra theatre transport, moving equipment in bulk to secure harbours, with the LCMs the local ferries for moving around small groups between islands or along the cost.
I'm also assuming the LCMs don't have a RAS capability, so their actual operating range is only 600mn, such that they can return to the original port for refuelling.
Thanks SammyC I must admit to being perplexed as to the role of the new LCM
It’s too big to be carried within a well dock, but its too small to carry a meaningful load over any realistic distances.
We are paying good coin and embarking a respectable number of crew for what I’d consider a really poor logistic outcome.
The vehicle carrying capacity break down is mediocre.
By way of example the old Runnymede class offers so much more in volume and distance.
A modern version of such a sized vessel would be my pick.
To be blunt the proposed LCM is a waste of money.
Cheers
They are kind of like a mini Balikpapan, about half the capacity and the same speed and similar range under load.
If I pick a possible operating area, say through the Philippines, then most islands are comfortably within 50nm. If you had a pair of LCMs shuttling, then that's about 6-8 return journeys in a 24 hour period.
I think we have 18 of these things in the eventual fleet, so assuming 12-14 could be available to an expeditionary force, these could move in the order of 36-50 Redbacks daily. Or twice that in boxers. Or four times that in Bushmasters. Or some combination thereof.
Army logistics is not my skill, but that seems like a lot of movement. Would a littoral foce need to relocate more frequently than that.
I think these vessels are useful if the travel distance is short. Conversely to the above, if the island hopping is say 300nm, then the efficiency drops significantly. The LCHs would be the better transport unit in these cases.
Thanks for your positivity
I’m hoping the LCMs stats are much better than what’s currently in the public domain.
It’s not actually a mini Balikpapan as its foot print is actually slightly bigger, but I get the temptation for comparison.
If the LCM could do a bit more than Balikpapans load
Say 200t
Two Abrams main battle tank
Or
Three Redback IFV
Or
Six bushmaster
Other combinations of smaller vehicles then I’d suggest you would have an appropriate vessel.
Say 60 by 12 m
A vessel that could do sea state four to Norfolk Island or cocos Island from the mainland with 20% reserves and transit the Australian coastline unsupported between major cities.
Same crew size but a much better outcome.
Cheets S
A few working designs like that exist but they are all prop driven and that’s not what the army requested.
France
Turkey
Landing Craft Tank (LCT) - Anadolu Shipyard
www.anadolushipyard.com
Thanks for sharingA few working designs like that exist but they are all prop driven and that’s not what the army requested.
France
Turkey
Landing Craft Tank (LCT) - Anadolu Shipyard
Appropriate choices and both a much better fit
Yes there is a lot out there in this broad size both civilian and military
Difficult not to compare and to be underwhelmed by what we have selected.
I’ll move on and have a cheer up coffee with biscuit.
Cheers all