Depends on the specific requirement; but I've seen up to and including sea state 7. Not sure that I'd be interested in any helicopter at that point....
t68
Well-Known Member
I see DMO accepted a new prototype vehicle from Supercat for the SAS/commando, is this in recognition that the original fast tracked buy of the Nary did not meet the requirements of the specials. Has anyone else brought out a test bed for DMO and I was under the impression the there was a protected version of the new Mercedes 6x6 for this task similar to the 6x6 LR.
Supacat has delivered prototype new Special Forces vehicle HMT Extenda to Australian army 1412123 - Army Recognition
I know that this article is a couple of years old, but did Nary eventually go to Afghanistan?
Combat vehicles hit by glitches
Supacat has delivered prototype new Special Forces vehicle HMT Extenda to Australian army 1412123 - Army Recognition
I know that this article is a couple of years old, but did Nary eventually go to Afghanistan?
Combat vehicles hit by glitches
Were they successful and did the Special Forces prefer them to the other vehicles?
No idea. I was on the other side of the fence.
Vehicles overall successful but not entirely happy experiences when compared to earlier chariots
The Extendas buy is a second batch so quite the opposite. The primary problem with the Nary was the integrated systems side of the package not the Supercat vehicle.
The 6x6 G-Wagen recce & surveil vehicle is to replace 4x4 Landrover RSVs in use with RFSUs and other recce sub-units like light cavalry and infantry battalion recce pltns. AFAIK there is little or no ballistic/mine protection in this vehicle. It is for domestic use only and the PMV-L will provide a combat use RSV.
Mcphedran stikes again, apparently our defence cheifs are milking the tax payer
Taxper-funded gold lifestyle for Defence's top brass | News.com.au
I am currious though what does this twit think people of this calibre would be earning in private enterprise? Does he have any idea what they have sacrified in the service of their country, literally, over decades? And don't forget the fact they should all be provided with workers comp for having to deal with Smith so often!
Taxper-funded gold lifestyle for Defence's top brass | News.com.au
I am currious though what does this twit think people of this calibre would be earning in private enterprise? Does he have any idea what they have sacrified in the service of their country, literally, over decades? And don't forget the fact they should all be provided with workers comp for having to deal with Smith so often!
he's been on the nose ever since he decided to go and release names early (ie before all loved ones were informed)
who gives a toss what he thinks
if he thinks the brass are on junket packages then he's a bigger wanker than everyone currently thinks
Ian who ?
With regards to problems with spares due to Echo models I don't believe this would have been an issue in the future. I am currently flying block I and II's 1 software lot for the block I and 2 soon to be 3 software lots for the block II's (and yes it is challenging remembering what I need to remember between them all). I've been told the future fleet will be a mix of block II and III (now officially Echo models) so pieces parts for block II will be around for quite some time.
I would argue the exact opposite. First of all whatever the UK experience with the AH.1 is it has no bearing on the Aussie Apache what if. They rebuilt the aircraft with their own engines, weapons, EW, HRH friendly seating, etc. We were just going to be buying AH-64Ds from the Arizona production line. Maybe some minor changes but nothing like the UK. Further the Block III (AH-64E) represents long term growth where there is nothing similar for the Eurocopter EC 665. Even without Block III we would have the FCR option for growth potential.
As to the size issues smaller may be cheaper to run but is that going to offset the still delayed entry into service. Plus of course the costs of not being able to share TLS in theatre with the US if need be. And if size is such a crucial issue one can just spin the what if from Boeing and Apache to Bell and AH-1Z. Which despite its entry into service delays for the USMC would still beat ARH Tiger in to service and would have been hugely offset by the Bell offer of eight gap fill AH-1Ws.
I would agree with Abraham Grubler regarding the growth potential of the 64-E, or even the D model Block II . The MPNVS and MTADS is FAR superior to any other helicopter night system currently in use or proposed for use. I don't believe most people understand what that system really does for the warfighter, and it is set up with I2 which provides composite FLIR and light amplification imagery with flight data superimposed. With the included nav and attack data the IHADDS is really what sets the Apache apart from other attack helicopters.
As for the Echo model consider new drive train, the Echo sustains level flight at 170kts and that's using C/D engines running at roughly 1,700 hp each. That is hauling it for any helicopter. New power plants are going to be integrated that provide 3,000 hp each and the drivetrain was designed for this power. The Echo is going to bring a new meaning to the term hot and high. I reallize block III was probably not going to be considered but the block II fleet is going to be modernized and benefit from most of the Echo technology improvements, except for the drive train. Even the remaining Block I fleet is getting modernization upgrades and with an aircraft like the Longbow software upgrades alone can introduce exciting new things.
As for the Echo model consider new drive train, the Echo sustains level flight at 170kts and that's using C/D engines running at roughly 1,700 hp each. That is hauling it for any helicopter. New power plants are going to be integrated that provide 3,000 hp each and the drivetrain was designed for this power. The Echo is going to bring a new meaning to the term hot and high. I reallize block III was probably not going to be considered but the block II fleet is going to be modernized and benefit from most of the Echo technology improvements, except for the drive train. Even the remaining Block I fleet is getting modernization upgrades and with an aircraft like the Longbow software upgrades alone can introduce exciting new things.
Hello gentleman,
I need help. A buddy of mine once sent me a pdf detailing the planned structure/armament of Australian Infantry BN´s under the new "Adaptive Ramy " Plan. Unfortunately, I have lost it.
Can anyone please post the current/future organisation / Table of Equipment of Australian Infantry units?
(Orga of platoons/companies and Battalions)
I need help. A buddy of mine once sent me a pdf detailing the planned structure/armament of Australian Infantry BN´s under the new "Adaptive Ramy " Plan. Unfortunately, I have lost it.
Can anyone please post the current/future organisation / Table of Equipment of Australian Infantry units?
(Orga of platoons/companies and Battalions)
Plan Beersheba the overall force structure plan can be found in here:
Plan BEERSHEBA - Australian Army
Forces Command structure is in here:
Forces Command - Australian Army
Royal Australian Infantry Corps is here:
The Royal Australian Infantry Corps - Australian Army
The plan - Objective Force 2030 I think provides what you are looking for:
http://www.army.gov.au/Our-future/~/media/Files/Our future/Publications/Army AOF 2030.ashx
the road runner
Active Member
Joint fires core concept
Section 2.38 talks about Rocket Artillery for long range but also states Self propelled?
Do you guys think we will still get a SPH system,such as M-109, K9 or PZH 2000 ,seeing the 18 SPH were cancelled by government,or are they talking about a system such as 81/120 mortars? Bit confused here.
Also what would be the go for Rocket Arty?
Cheers
The SPH was cancelled IIRC, because they could not decide what to get ? Abe and AD were the one's discussing it from memory.
I have always been a fan of the K9 and K10
but can't see it happening in the current fiscal environmentJust quickly because I've got to run, effectively Army was looking for an SPG capability that doesn't exist and they wanted someone to develop it at no cost to us for a whopping 18 vehicles...
They wanted a heavily protected 155mm tracked SPG, that was equipped with a 155/52 Cal gun, the US AFATDS combat system as part of the Joint Fires System, with rack space for Excalibur, SMART 155, an RWS with 12.7mm / 40mm AGL capability and a whole heap of other Australian unique features.
Effectively a monumental "Australianised" stuff up in the making, which was mercifully cancelled before it got too out of hand.
They wanted a heavily protected 155mm tracked SPG, that was equipped with a 155/52 Cal gun, the US AFATDS combat system as part of the Joint Fires System, with rack space for Excalibur, SMART 155, an RWS with 12.7mm / 40mm AGL capability and a whole heap of other Australian unique features.
Effectively a monumental "Australianised" stuff up in the making, which was mercifully cancelled before it got too out of hand.