Jason_kiwi
New Member
Sorry but I do not know how yto merge posts. Can you please advise me.gf0012-aust said:
New Zealand awards contract for $500 Million Dollar Project "Protector".
Jason_kiwi
New Member
Indonesia is your threat and fighting vehicles and infantry mobility are different.Aussie Digger said:
We have 105 and you have...??? how many
Hello?? of course they are, what do you think NZ called their 113's before they got LAVs? What do you think has been trundling about in East Timor, Kosovo, Albania and Kuwait?Jason_kiwi said:
What do you think APC stands for? They're there to make infantry mobile. The difference is that we use tyres and tracks. Tracked vehicles aren't armoured taxis - but they're armoured to STANAG specs so as to get feet on the ground.
As East Timor showed, you need a mix of vehicles. Tyred wagons didn't do to well in parts of Timor Leste. It's why we've just modified our 113's to a stretched body with an uprated engine and different body shells - The ASLAVs couldn't do the same job that we want - and LAVs aren't suitable for the mission either.
It might pay for you to come to grips with the terminology first. Platforms are used on a tactical and requirements basis. It's not defined by the numbers of wheels, or the type of mobility (tyres/tracks) etc....
Military Systems are about a balanced force - thats what Oz is doing. Look at the nature of what we participate in.
You have to get over the "numbers game" - its absolutely meaningless.
Jason_kiwi
New Member
how do you merge posts?
Jason_kiwi
New Member
Its not about numbers its abour skill. I am friends with the new captain of the new OPV's and he has told me they are training so hard that they can shoot down a missile coming at them from around 2km away...its skill...you might have more lavs but when it comes down to it, its skillgf0012-aust said:
Up to a point. The RNZN could do with an extra Frigate or two... Instead they get an undergunned OPV. Ditto for ADF. 11 Frigates...? Bah.gf0012-aust said:
Jason: Use the edit button. Instead of creating another post, edit the previous post to include the content you didn't include earlier. It's bogus to see three new posts in a row from the same poster within a matter of minutes, when a simple edit could have reduced it to one or two. It smacks of post whoring.
Edit: attached pic shows edit button.
Last edited:
Jason you need to go an spend some time researching the atributes and capabilities of the missiles you are talking about. The 25mm typhoon, while being a useful piece of 'secondary armament' is not an anti-missile defence system and would not have a snowballs hope in hell of stopping some of the missiles proliferating in this area. It would find it very hard in daylight to hit, let alone stop first generation sea skimmers. Things like the OTOMAT have warheads designed to withstand hits from a CIWS.
The reason so much money is been spent of anti missile defence is because these weapons are so capable. With mistral and effective fire control the 25mm Typhoon can 'contribute' to anti missile defence otherwise it is just a large, stabalised, machine gun.
Last edited:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #108
Jason, fighting vehicles are a convenient term. Do you really think for instance that your LAV's could stand up to an M1A1 Abrams? They are completely different levels of capability. The NZ Army acquired it's 105 LAVIII's for the purpose of providing armoured mobility for it's infantry forces.
It is NOT an Infantry fighting vehicle in the sense of a Bradley or Warrior, or for that matter M113AS3/4, due to it's lack of cross-country mobility placed on it by virtue of being a "wheeled" vehicle.
As to Australia's ASLAV's, though they are type II LAV's, as opposed to your Type III LAV's, ours have recently been upgraded with new thermal imagers, electric turret drives, new laser range finders and new fire control computers and represent a newer generation than the equipment fitted to the NZLAV's. Both NZ and Australia's vehicles (ASLAV-25's) are equipped with the SAME 25mm cannon and 2x 7.62mm GPMG's.
Australia operates 180 of the ASLAV-25 variant. We also operate ASLAV-PC variants and ASLAV support vehicles which are equipped with the new Kongsberg remote control weapons system, which is a capability NZ is entirely lacking.
As to the OPV's, well the 25mm Typhoon is not a radar guided close in weapon system like the Phalanx and would be extremely lucky to hit an anti-ship missile not matter how good the crew is. In addition Bushmaster Cannons are not particularly fast firing weapons like the 20mm Vulcan cannon fitted to Phalanx CIWS. Their max firing rate is around 120rpm, which is slow even compared to 0.50cal heavy machine guns (around 400 rounds per minute). They are simply not designed as a CIWS weapon. Accept fact.
It is NOT an Infantry fighting vehicle in the sense of a Bradley or Warrior, or for that matter M113AS3/4, due to it's lack of cross-country mobility placed on it by virtue of being a "wheeled" vehicle.
As to Australia's ASLAV's, though they are type II LAV's, as opposed to your Type III LAV's, ours have recently been upgraded with new thermal imagers, electric turret drives, new laser range finders and new fire control computers and represent a newer generation than the equipment fitted to the NZLAV's. Both NZ and Australia's vehicles (ASLAV-25's) are equipped with the SAME 25mm cannon and 2x 7.62mm GPMG's.
Australia operates 180 of the ASLAV-25 variant. We also operate ASLAV-PC variants and ASLAV support vehicles which are equipped with the new Kongsberg remote control weapons system, which is a capability NZ is entirely lacking.
As to the OPV's, well the 25mm Typhoon is not a radar guided close in weapon system like the Phalanx and would be extremely lucky to hit an anti-ship missile not matter how good the crew is. In addition Bushmaster Cannons are not particularly fast firing weapons like the 20mm Vulcan cannon fitted to Phalanx CIWS. Their max firing rate is around 120rpm, which is slow even compared to 0.50cal heavy machine guns (around 400 rounds per minute). They are simply not designed as a CIWS weapon. Accept fact.
I'm talking about general discussion degeneration into "we have X", "you have Y", we have more of x widgets etc....Supe said:
discussions revolving around numbers tend to degenerate into running conversations on statistics with a total absence of appreciation of how systems actually work.
I thought I'd post these links to more info on the Typhoon gun system:
http://www.rafael.co.il/web/rafnew/products/brochures/Typhoon_G.pdf
http://www.rafael.co.il/web/rafnew/products/brochures/folder_typhoon.pdf
http://www.rafael.co.il/web/rafnew/library/typhoon-image.htm
Hires pic of the Typhoon G
Rafael also market a missile/gun variant. SAM only?
Edit: ADI Gun systems for NZ's Project Protector.
Excerpt from ADI-Limited pdf
http://www.rafael.co.il/web/rafnew/products/brochures/Typhoon_G.pdf
http://www.rafael.co.il/web/rafnew/products/brochures/folder_typhoon.pdf
http://www.rafael.co.il/web/rafnew/library/typhoon-image.htm
Hires pic of the Typhoon G
Rafael also market a missile/gun variant. SAM only?
Edit: ADI Gun systems for NZ's Project Protector.
Excerpt from ADI-Limited pdf
Just thought I'd include this as there seems to be a mixup with the Typhoon system and the gun system bought by NZ.
Last edited:
Aussie is stretching it's M113's, new fact to remember. There has been a lot of political controversy here over the LAV's with some opposition parties wanting some of our M113's to undergo an upgrade due to the excessive weight of the LAV, it's thin skin, and the lack of tracks. We''ll have to say what happens after the elections come september.
Thanks for the info on the typhoons Supe, good basic cannon to pull over the odd trawler, but to take on a missile, hehe, have to be a very slow missile, and large
:
I find the best way to deal with the "mine is bigger than yours" type debates is state the facts and if they continue, ignore
So the crews for the PP vessels are already busy training, years ahead of actually recieving the vessels, I don't believe we have enough available manpower at the moment to man them all, even with the Leander decommisioned, another 150 required, almost said "men" but thats not PC.
Thanks for the info on the typhoons Supe, good basic cannon to pull over the odd trawler, but to take on a missile, hehe, have to be a very slow missile, and large
: I find the best way to deal with the "mine is bigger than yours" type debates is state the facts and if they continue, ignore
So the crews for the PP vessels are already busy training, years ahead of actually recieving the vessels, I don't believe we have enough available manpower at the moment to man them all, even with the Leander decommisioned, another 150 required, almost said "men" but thats not PC.
Jason_kiwi
New Member
Thats what he said...missiles upto the size of harpoons.
nz enthusiast
New Member
I have always wondered why Australia doesn't get bradleys or warriors to go with the LAVs. Surely they would want a good tracked and wheelled combat vehicles.
Hi Jason
In regards to my comment:
The 25mm as a stand alone mount cannot be expected to deal with modeten anti ship missiles.
In regards to my comment:
I assume this is the response to:
Sorry mate that is all rubbish. Size has very little to do with it. The Harpoon is not a very big missile (irrespective of block) compared to the SSN-2 but is a massive capability jump despite the fact the Styx is a bloody big missile.
The 25mm as a stand alone mount cannot be expected to deal with modeten anti ship missiles.
Last edited:
There is some scuttle running around that we may be getting up to 90 Bradleys. That has yet to be confirmed at any level though. AD may have heard something.nz enthusiast said:
Jason_kiwi
New Member
well according to this man a 25mm cannon can take down a missile...so it can not be rubbish
nz enthusiast
New Member
It would depend alot on the type of 25mm cannon, one on a lav for example would probably struggle, but those used on RN type 42 destroyers may have a bit more of chance.
I only consider very fast firing flak and weapons sytems like the 'phalanx' (bad spelling) can intercept missiles. i suppose modern surface to air missiles can too.
I only consider very fast firing flak and weapons sytems like the 'phalanx' (bad spelling) can intercept missiles. i suppose modern surface to air missiles can too.
Jason_kiwi
New Member
On the anzac frigates there is a system called Vulcan. Can anybody please tell me more about it?
Mod edit: jason you really have to make some effort in doing some research before posting questions like this. it smacks of laziness. all it required was a little hunt around with google and you would have pulled substantial info.
Mod edit: jason you really have to make some effort in doing some research before posting questions like this. it smacks of laziness. all it required was a little hunt around with google and you would have pulled substantial info.
Last edited by a moderator:
There is a CIWS called Phalanx on the ANZACs that uses a 20 mm gatling gun that is based on the vulcan.
"The M61A1 Vulcan cannon is a six-barrel 20mm gun capable of firing 6,600 rounds per minute. Its operation is based upon the principle used in the rapid-firing gun invented by Richard J. Gatling in the 1860s. The six rotating barrels, firing one at a time, permit a high rate of fire while at the same time reducing the problem of barrel wear and heat generation. The gun can be driven electrically, hydraulically, or by a ram-air turbine. The Vulcan has equipped such USAF aircraft as the F-104, F-105B/D/F, F-15, F-16, A-7D, F-111A, F-4E, B-58, and B-52H"
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/arm/arm8.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M61_Vulcan
http://world.guns.ru/machine/minigun-e.htm
The Phalanx fires a burst at the target, and sensors pick up the target and the burst and bring the two together, a bit like trying to hit a bee with a stream of water from your garden hose.
"The gun subsystem employs a gatling gun consisting of a rotating cluster of six barrels. The gatling gun fires a 20mm subcaliber sabot projectile using a heavy-metal (either tungsten or depleted uranium) 15mm penetrator surrounded by a plastic sabot and a light-weight metal pusher. The gatling gun fires 20mm ammunition at either 3,000 or 4,500 rounds-per-minute with a burst length of continuous, 60, or 100 rounds. "
See link for info on the Phalanx
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/weapons/wep-phal.html
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-15.htm
http://navysite.de/weapons/phalanx.htm
"The M61A1 Vulcan cannon is a six-barrel 20mm gun capable of firing 6,600 rounds per minute. Its operation is based upon the principle used in the rapid-firing gun invented by Richard J. Gatling in the 1860s. The six rotating barrels, firing one at a time, permit a high rate of fire while at the same time reducing the problem of barrel wear and heat generation. The gun can be driven electrically, hydraulically, or by a ram-air turbine. The Vulcan has equipped such USAF aircraft as the F-104, F-105B/D/F, F-15, F-16, A-7D, F-111A, F-4E, B-58, and B-52H"
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/arm/arm8.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M61_Vulcan
http://world.guns.ru/machine/minigun-e.htm
The Phalanx fires a burst at the target, and sensors pick up the target and the burst and bring the two together, a bit like trying to hit a bee with a stream of water from your garden hose.
"The gun subsystem employs a gatling gun consisting of a rotating cluster of six barrels. The gatling gun fires a 20mm subcaliber sabot projectile using a heavy-metal (either tungsten or depleted uranium) 15mm penetrator surrounded by a plastic sabot and a light-weight metal pusher. The gatling gun fires 20mm ammunition at either 3,000 or 4,500 rounds-per-minute with a burst length of continuous, 60, or 100 rounds. "
See link for info on the Phalanx
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/weapons/wep-phal.html
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-15.htm
http://navysite.de/weapons/phalanx.htm
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #120
I would be stunned if the ADF were to acquire Bradley's. I haven't heard of any serious acquisition talk about Bradley's since before the M113 upgrade program was approved. The Bradley acquisition was of course canned due to the cost. Only 90 such vehicles would be of limited use to the ADF in my view.
They are insufficient to equip the mech battalion (5/7 RAR presently has a complement of 180 M113's). They could perhaps be used to equip B Squadron 3/4 Cav Regt , but it'd simply be yet another armoured vehicle that has to be supported and operated by the ADF...
I'd rather the money go on additional upgraded M113's and to fund an upgrade to the M113's weapons and sensors to give it a similar weapons capability to our ASLAV's...
They are insufficient to equip the mech battalion (5/7 RAR presently has a complement of 180 M113's). They could perhaps be used to equip B Squadron 3/4 Cav Regt , but it'd simply be yet another armoured vehicle that has to be supported and operated by the ADF...
I'd rather the money go on additional upgraded M113's and to fund an upgrade to the M113's weapons and sensors to give it a similar weapons capability to our ASLAV's...