Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Goknub]

Not sure what the Blazer turret is you mention - I'm assuming it's not the old 25mm air defence turret for LAV.
....
Medium calibre turret integration on Namer and the Israeli factor make it an outside chance for Land 400 Ph 3. Although if Namer is offered by a different prime (US, UK) for instance that may alter perceptions as the contract would consequently not actually be with an Israeli firm.

My mistake, I got my Lance and Blazer turrets mixed up. It was the Lance that I was talking about.

This may actually be one reason for General Dynamics delay in announcing their contender. Rheinmetall would be reluctant to offer them the Lance turret as it would assist GD bid against their own Boxer.

The turret is probably the weak spot for GD. The MCT-30 (apart from being ugly as sin) has apparently been tested with ATGM but I don't know of any images of how it comes together.
--------
Regarding the Namer, it's only now that GD is producing some in the US that it would be a viable option due to the politics of buying from Israel.

 

[Stock]

Fair enough. The point being though that just because the publicly available information says it can fit X number of soldiers doesn't mean it is the 'truth'.

Absolutely.

 

[Stock]

My mistake, I got my Lance and Blazer turrets mixed up. It was the Lance that I was talking about.

This may actually be one reason for General Dynamics delay in announcing their contender. Rheinmetall would be reluctant to offer them the Lance turret as it would assist GD bid against their own Boxer.

The turret is probably the weak spot for GD. The MCT-30 (apart from being ugly as sin) has apparently been tested with ATGM but I don't know of any images of how it comes together.
--------
Regarding the Namer, it's only now that GD is producing some in the US that it would be a viable option due to the politics of buying from Israel.

GD did, in fact, approach Rheinmetall about the Lance turret early in the tender response period.

MCT-30 has been tested with an ATGW (Javelin) but only from a roof-mounted RWS, not integrated with the turret in a dedicated launcher. The Kongsberg Protector dual RWS is the only RWS integrated with Javelin.

A RWS has been relegated to a costed option for the CRV. Not sure which bidders will offer a RWS.

The KRM in the RFT reads as though the preference is for an ATGW capability integrated directly with the turret.

 

[Goknub]

I wonder how quickly GD's engineers can integrate ATGWs into a turret?
If not by September 3 they could be in trouble.

They'd need something more than a RWS Javelin. I'm curious whether it would be better to try and integrate something like Javelin or Wireless TOW on the MCT-30, or find an alternate option.

If it's an alternate, which one? It seems like a poor decision to develop the MCT-30 turret without an interrelated or easily attached missile system. There is a blank panel on the right side, perhaps there is room built into the design there?

 

[Stock]

I wonder how quickly GD's engineers can integrate ATGWs into a turret?
If not by September 3 they could be in trouble.

They'd need something more than a RWS Javelin. I'm curious whether it would be better to try and integrate something like Javelin or Wireless TOW on the MCT-30, or find an alternate option.

If it's an alternate, which one? It seems like a poor decision to develop the MCT-30 turret without an interrelated or easily attached missile system. There is a blank panel on the right side, perhaps there is room built into the design there?

Honestly don't know. Spike is probably the strongest option for GD for turret integration. Javelin has been integrated with the MCT-30 turret but only in mock-up form.

 

[Goknub]

General Dynamics has the Rafael designed Samson remote weapon stations in its line-up.

The Samson Mk 2 looks like it might be the right option. Primary weapon up to 40mm, coaxial 7.62, armour up to Stanag lvl 4 and a pop-up dual ATGW launcher that is designed for Spike but would suite Javelin as well.

That seems to fit the bill quite nicely.

General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems - Template

 

[Stock]

General Dynamics has the Rafael designed Samson remote weapon stations in its line-up.

The Samson Mk 2 looks like it might be the right option. Primary weapon up to 40mm, coaxial 7.62, armour up to Stanag lvl 4 and a pop-up dual ATGW launcher that is designed for Spike but would suite Javelin as well.

That seems to fit the bill quite nicely.

General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems - Template

Yes it does, not sure how mature the design is though. Does not appear to be the unmanned turret that is being spoken of in relation to GD's bid.

 

[John Fedup]

My mistake, I got my Lance and Blazer turrets mixed up. It was the Lance that I was talking about.

This may actually be one reason for General Dynamics delay in announcing their contender. Rheinmetall would be reluctant to offer them the Lance turret as it would assist GD bid against their own Boxer.

The turret is probably the weak spot for GD. The MCT-30 (apart from being ugly as sin) has apparently been tested with ATGM but I don't know of any images of how it comes together.
--------
Regarding the Namer, it's only now that GD is producing some in the US that it would be a viable option due to the politics of buying from Israel.

The Namer is an impressive APC but as it weighs almost as much as an Abrams MBT, the transportation issue is huge. For Israel, this is not a problem as they will never deploy very far from their region of interest. GD could always rename the Namer for export sales for countries that see it as an option.

 

[Volkodav]

The Namer is an impressive APC but as it weighs almost as much as an Abrams MBT, the transportation issue is huge. For Israel, this is not a problem as they will never deploy very far from their region of interest. GD could always rename the Namer for export sales for countries that see it as an option.

Australia has a number of very large and capable amphibious ships, plans to replace the smaller vessels with larger ones able to easily transport and deploy heavy armoured vehicles, including MBTs and our transport aircraft and trucks are either already capable of transporting such a large heavy vehicle, or incapable of transporting even a Puma or CV90. Basically we have no A400 or landing craft imposed size or weight limits that we wouldn't also encounter with a smaller lighter AIFV.

 

[Stock]

Australia has a number of very large and capable amphibious ships, plans to replace the smaller vessels with larger ones able to easily transport and deploy heavy armoured vehicles, including MBTs and our transport aircraft and trucks are either already capable of transporting such a large heavy vehicle, or incapable of transporting even a Puma or CV90. Basically we have no A400 or landing craft imposed size or weight limits that we wouldn't also encounter with a smaller lighter AIFV.

Not quite true. Whilst the LHD and Choules have excellent capacity for large, heavy AFVs, the actual means to bring them ashore is not so robust.

I'm told that the LCM-1E landing craft are quite limited in moving 60+ tonne loads ashore above Sea State 2. Their imposed max load at Sea State 3 is 51 tonnes. So no Abrams and no Namer.

Out of the 2,500 medium/heavy trucks being delivered under Land 121 Ph 3B, only 22 will be the Heavy Equipment Transporter version with low loader trailers. If Phase 3 acquires the 450-odd IFVs as currently predicted that's a huge shortfall.

Should the IFVs want to move long distances by road (between base and training areas for instance), chances are the majority will do so on their own tracks, much as the current Abrams and M113 fleets do now.

 

[Volkodav]

Not quite true. Whilst the LHD and Choules have excellent capacity for large, heavy AFVs, the actual means to bring them ashore is not so robust.

I'm told that the LCM-1E landing craft are quite limited in moving 60+ tonne loads ashore above Sea State 2. Their imposed max load at Sea State 3 is 51 tonnes. So no Abrams and no Namer.

Out of the 2,500 medium/heavy trucks being delivered under Land 121 Ph 3B, only 22 will be the Heavy Equipment Transporter version with low loader trailers. If Phase 3 acquires the 450-odd IFVs as currently predicted that's a huge shortfall.

Should the IFVs want to move long distances by road (between base and training areas for instance), chances are the majority will do so on their own tracks, much as the current Abrams and M113 fleets do now.

So basically the LCM-1E is yet another procurement stuff up as I believe the suitably sized British LCU and undoubtedly other designs are perfectly capable of transporting heavy vehicles. As for the trucks, the same problem will exist no matter which AIFV we opt for as the minimum weight we are looking at is around 40t meaning a low loader is required and only a single vehicle would be able to be carried whether it's 35t or 65t.

 

[Raven22]

Should the IFVs want to move long distances by road (between base and training areas for instance), chances are the majority will do so on their own tracks, much as the current Abrams and M113 fleets do now.

I suppose it depends on your definition of long distance, but this isn't really true at all. M113s might make short moves on public roads (Lavarack to High Range might be a good example), all long distance moves for tracked vehicles happen on the back of trucks. The new IFV fleet will be no different:

Regarding Namer and Amphibs - while the LHDs and Choules can transport heavy vehicles, the capability is not unlimited. When the new CFV, IFV, Land 121 fleets come on line, both weight and space will be at a premium. A 60+ tonne vehicle is going to cause a lot of problems a 40+ tonne vehicle won't.

 

[ASSAIL]

I'm told that the LCM-1E landing craft are quite limited in moving 60+ tonne loads ashore above Sea State 2. Their imposed max load at Sea State 3 is 51 tonnes. So no Abrams and no Namer.

.

Let's get a bit of realism into the discussion. No one would design or buy an LCM that was limited in its prime capability to Beaufort 2 - winds from 4-7 kts or even Beaufort 3 - 8-12 kts.
Next, if there were peace time limits set, which I'm sure there are, they would not necessarily be enforced during combat.
Again, what Commander would commence an amphibious operation without regard to weather conditions?.

These small craft were designed to operate up to 20+ miles from the LHD and I suggest in most cases in the Trade wind belt (the most likely area of ops) average wind speeds in the littorals is somewhere between Beaufort 3 & 5 ie 8 - 24 kts.

 

[Goknub]

The Namer certainly brings many additional issues in terms of logistics and support. Not only is it heavier but also wider, which would mean road moves are more difficult. Plus the issues of getting them ashore.

It would mean the easier to move CRV would have to be utilised more often with the IFV limited to use alongside the Abrams.

If GD was to offer it I'd imagine it would be smart to offer ASCOD as an alternative.

 

[vonnoobie]

So basically the LCM-1E is yet another procurement stuff up as I believe the suitably sized British LCU and undoubtedly other designs are perfectly capable of transporting heavy vehicles. As for the trucks, the same problem will exist no matter which AIFV we opt for as the minimum weight we are looking at is around 40t meaning a low loader is required and only a single vehicle would be able to be carried whether it's 35t or 65t.

There are suitable LCU's around though the Dutch one would probably be better with the RoRo capability and the Canberra's well deck being able to hold 4 of them.

That all aside, the Namer simply is too bloody over sized, Great for Israel but for Australia not so much.

 

[Goknub]

There are suitable LCU's around though the Dutch one would probably be better with the RoRo capability and the Canberra's well deck being able to hold 4 of them.

That all aside, the Namer simply is too bloody over sized, Great for Israel but for Australia not so much.

It's not ideal considering the difficulties involved but if the very high standards of protection and capability the CRV is required to posses are demanded of the IFV then I can see the Namer being the most logical choice. The ADF/govt is very casualty adverse so they may well decide only the best is good enough, difficulties be damned .

Talking naval. The sealift implications are why I favour the Point-class RORO and heavier 80m LSV/LCH . Once the IFV fleet weights the same as the MBT fleet then anything smaller is too small.

 

[Volkodav]

The Namer certainly brings many additional issues in terms of logistics and support. Not only is it heavier but also wider, which would mean road moves are more difficult. Plus the issues of getting them ashore.

It would mean the easier to move CRV would have to be utilised more often with the IFV limited to use alongside the Abrams.

If GD was to offer it I'd imagine it would be smart to offer ASCOD as an alternative.

While larger than the CV90 etc. the Namer is only a little larger than the Puma i.e 20cm longer and 10 cm wider. The Namer also has modular armour and is actually more heavily and better protected than the Merkava IV as the weight saved by deleting the turret was reinvested in increased protection. This modular armour could actually be reduced back to the same as the donor Merkava IV levels, saving about 18-20t .

So basically you have a vehicle that is not significantly larger than the Puma with modular armour that provides more protection than many MBTs but can be reduced by about 20t if required and still provide MBT level protection so is also about the same weight as an up-armoured Puma. The added advantage is the Namer can still brought back to the full level of protection even adding Trophy. To me that is worth looking at.

 

[Stock]

So basically the LCM-1E is yet another procurement stuff up as I believe the suitably sized British LCU and undoubtedly other designs are perfectly capable of transporting heavy vehicles. As for the trucks, the same problem will exist no matter which AIFV we opt for as the minimum weight we are looking at is around 40t meaning a low loader is required and only a single vehicle would be able to be carried whether it's 35t or 65t.

The craft themselves are quite capable and an ideal match with the LHDs, but that is the restriction the RAN has placed on them. Whether that is due to performance in higher sea states or regulatory I don't know. In the latter instance, I am told RAN regulators are treating the craft like a frigate from the damage control point of view.

I have seen photos of the LCM-1E carrying Leopard 2 (63 tonnes) during harbour trials in Spain. Open ocean might be another bag entirely.

Regardless, the limitation remains.

Yes re trucks and IFV transport.

 

[Volkodav]

The craft themselves are quite capable and an ideal match with the LHDs, but that is the restriction the RAN has placed on them. Whether that is due to performance in higher sea states or regulatory I don't know. In the latter instance, I am told RAN regulators are treating the craft like a frigate from the damage control point of view.

I have seen photos of the LCM-1E carrying Leopard 2 (63 tonnes) during harbour trials in Spain. Open ocean might be another bag entirely.

Regardless, the limitation remains.

Yes re trucks and IFV transport.

Naval tech regs are pretty much set in stone, irrespective what a manufacturers brochure might say. I'm not familiar with the requirements for certifying landing craft so can't say if the way the RAN is treating them is any different to the way the Armada is.

 

[Stock]

Naval tech regs are pretty much set in stone, irrespective what a manufacturers brochure might say. I'm not familiar with the requirements for certifying landing craft so can't say if the way the RAN is treating them is any different to the way the Armada is.

That makes two of us.