t68
Well-Known Member
Not at this time, but they wil evolve over time. By the mid 2020 NZ will need to refocus on new operating CONOPS which will define the future combat weight of the JATF post 2035
shanes_world_05
Member
Could you elaborate? Even if speculative?
they have a need to work out how they will project and persist their force for maritime patrol and protection
so that means consideration for BAMs light, whether BAMs light means armed capability for the UAS rather than just buddy ISR
BAMs has to be considered as NZ has a huge area of MP responsibility, so can she afford to raise train sustain a comprehensive but expensive relative to threat manned capability where a BAMS companion system would reduce some of the RTS issues on through life fleet support (fleet in the military sense where it refers to any platform maintained in volume)
ditto for maritime rotary, at some point consideration for every capable navy has to be on future skimmer design requirements, "how big does the fantail get?" as manned and unmanned rotary again will also be a necessary combination to consider. its a capability issue, there is a tipping point where manned rotary air starts to lose efficiency due to a number of factors, rotary or even small rail launched UAS can start crossing over as a handover as it has greater persistence, no crew exhaustion and some projection and time on station efficiency issues as no manning factor, bums in the seat can be replaced by equipment.
etc etc... their future force will be very different in 20-30 years out of necessity and the technology around UAS, miniaturisation, companion tech and by association purple force developments
MARKMILES77
Active Member
Talked to some Thales People at Avalon.
They are working on a design for a Hawkei engine bay armour kit, in response to a Government request.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
...and in news that will surprise precisely nobody around these parts:
Australian Helicopter Needs Discussed at Avalon Show
Australian Helicopter Needs Discussed at Avalon Show
My personal opinion, but I think the AH-64 would not be politically "palatable" for lack of a better word. I have a feeling that the AH-1Z/UH-1Y combination would be the preffered option.
Call it simplistic, but the AH-1Z looks a fair bit like the Tigers in a few ways to the general public, easier to pass off and justify ?
My two cents anyway
Cheers
Call it simplistic, but the AH-1Z looks a fair bit like the Tigers in a few ways to the general public, easier to pass off and justify ?
My two cents anyway
Cheers
Last edited:
prev govt did like the word "gunship" - hence why it was an ARH. A similar perception might bedevil the competitors from the govt perception view
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Yikes... With the way our strategic outlook is changing now you'd think we can hardly afford to get hung up on how mean and nasty something looks or sounds(!). Not disputing that it is an issue, just seems insane to me...
Surely there's a positive marketing spin you could put on the Army having "the best combat helicopters on the planet" or some such? (Assuming AH64E was preferred).
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The Army needs to work out how to carry 2-3 tons of HADR stores on it
Last edited:
Is thatThe Army needs to work out how to carry 2-3 tons of HADR stores on it
Hit
And
Destroy
Resources
Regards S
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
lol : just don't tell the Govt though.
t68
Well-Known Member
I can see the Aussie version now, an under fuselage hook for a slung load. That or a cargo pannier like on the cessna caravan.The Army needs to work out how to carry 2-3 tons of HADR stores on it
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
That's something I would expect from Canadian not Australian pollies.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Haha. It's the kind of thing I could see creeping in during the 90's (peace dividend... whatever) but now? Grow up 'straya!That's something I would expect from Canadian not Australian pollies.
I very much doubt the PLA/N/AF are concerning themselves with how nasty or scary their procurement decisions sound... :roll:
A possibility that we may get an Abrams line built down under.
Army's plans for more and better tanks | afr.com
Colonel Anthony Duus say's it is a preferred option as after performing the work on the tank's said line could be used to sustain the tanks fully at home rather then needing to be sent to the US.
He also put's the optimal fleet of M1's at 90 for 3 squadrons to account for training, spares, maintenance and active use.
I'm liking this Colonel, Fingers crossed the pollies do to and listen to him. On topic of doing the work in Oz while the costs would be greater (hell of a lot greater) would the long term benefits outway the costs? And would it be prudent to set up a company similar to the ASC to perform such heavy vehicle work (ie: Single prime location to build the M1, APC's, IFV et etc)
Army's plans for more and better tanks | afr.com
Colonel Anthony Duus say's it is a preferred option as after performing the work on the tank's said line could be used to sustain the tanks fully at home rather then needing to be sent to the US.
He also put's the optimal fleet of M1's at 90 for 3 squadrons to account for training, spares, maintenance and active use.
I'm liking this Colonel, Fingers crossed the pollies do to and listen to him. On topic of doing the work in Oz while the costs would be greater (hell of a lot greater) would the long term benefits outway the costs? And would it be prudent to set up a company similar to the ASC to perform such heavy vehicle work (ie: Single prime location to build the M1, APC's, IFV et etc)
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
You are looking at a fleet of about 750 heavy AFVs, throw in Recov Vech and it does start looking plausable.
wonder if they have given any thought at all to joining the German French consortium which is working on a tank to replace the Leopard and le Clerc. It is to be slightly lighter than the older tanks. I think we should look at it and not just blindly go American for the sake of it. Its not that long agosince the Leopard was our tank.