Australian Defence Force

[SW1]

And all without cepp

[Tempest414]

And all without cepp

Remember this can't be done and it can achieve naff all without cepp. Well this is what I told when I proposed LRG-S based on a LPH

[R686]

And all without cepp

They would have support via Tiger soon to be Apache and most likely the most permissive environment as possible from the LHD

ideally you would want Armour that can swim to the beach head to arrive at the same time has the heavy MBT something the ADF lacks or alternately something like a 2x Frank S Besson class LSV which could unload a squadron of MBT or ACR in a single lift to the beach freeing the 4x landing craft of the LHD to move either troops or stores or other heavy equipment needed.

The ADF lacks the most crucial enablers to support a ARG quickly and in numbers to support infantry once it hits the beach. if MBT are needed then they will need more than 8x LLC 2xLCVP and a Mexeflote off the 2 LHD and LSD

[Mercator]

There's a lot happening in Australia over the next month with Ex Talisman Sabre kicking off and bringing together various capabilities. A couple so far:

[SW1]

And all without cepp

They would have support via Tiger soon to be Apache and most likely the most permissive environment as possible from the LHD

ideally you would want Armour that can swim to the beach head to arrive at the same time has the heavy MBT something the ADF lacks or alternately something like a 2x Frank S Besson class LSV which could unload a squadron of MBT or ACR in a single lift to the beach freeing the 4x landing craft of the LHD to move either troops or stores or other heavy equipment needed.

The ADF lacks the most crucial enablers to support a ARG quickly and in numbers to support infantry once it hits the beach. if MBT are needed then they will need more than 8x LLC 2xLCVP and a Mexeflote off the 2 LHD and LSD

I think you raise some gd points. If your amphibious ships are carrying mbts how many other things are they capable of carrying as well. Also how many mbts are they likely to carry perhaps only 4. How much logistics do you really have to support them in an actual shooting conflict once ashore.

I think if you are landing such things then speed will be important and I don’t think conventional landing craft will cut it. This maybe more applicable to landing a force somewhere quickly before a enemy arrives there by deny them territory in a friendly country.

[Tempest414]

Maybe the RAN should go for say 9 X Caimen-90 4 each for the LHD's and 1 for the LSD then fit davits for two LVPC's on the LSD this may give them better faster connectors

[SouthernOne]

And all without cepp

They would have support via Tiger soon to be Apache and most likely the most permissive environment as possible from the LHD

ideally you would want Armour that can swim to the beach head to arrive at the same time has the heavy MBT something the ADF lacks or alternately something like a 2x Frank S Besson class LSV which could unload a squadron of MBT or ACR in a single lift to the beach freeing the 4x landing craft of the LHD to move either troops or stores or other heavy equipment needed.

The ADF lacks the most crucial enablers to support a ARG quickly and in numbers to support infantry once it hits the beach. if MBT are needed then they will need more than 8x LLC 2xLCVP and a Mexeflote off the 2 LHD and LSD

I think you raise some gd points. If your amphibious ships are carrying mbts how many other things are they capable of carrying as well. Also how many mbts are they likely to carry perhaps only 4. How much logistics do you really have to support them in an actual shooting conflict once ashore.

I think if you are landing such things then speed will be important and I don’t think conventional landing craft will cut it. This maybe more applicable to landing a force somewhere quickly before a enemy arrives there by deny them territory in a friendly country.

I suspect the ADF wouldn't ever contemplate a D-Day style landing on a defended coast. There's just no need to, either in Aus or in the immediate region to the north. There is simply too much available space to position a force prior to attacking any opponent who may have landed in significant numbers.

Similarly, in the north there would be a dearth of airstrips capable of landing fully loaded C-17's, but logistic support by C-130 or C-27, and CH-47 is a different issue. Using road transport to move MBTs and IFVs is not an option in that part of Aus either.

[R686]

I suspect the ADF wouldn't ever contemplate a D-Day style landing on a defended coast.

Even MacArthur had to go ashore in more non permissive environments at times, whilst he tried to bypass the more heavly defended areas.

There's just no need to, either in Aus or in the immediate region to the north. There is simply too much available space to position a force prior to attacking any opponent who may have landed in significant numbers.

The DSR said this;
8.8 In effecting our strategy of denial in Australia’s northern approaches, the ADF’s
operational success will depend on the ability of the Integrated Force to apply
the following critical capabilities:
undersea warfare capabilities (crewed and uncrewed) optimised
for persistent, long-range sub-surface intelligence, surveillance and
reconnaissance and strike;
an enhanced, integrated targeting capability;
an enhanced long-range strike capability in all domains;
a fully enabled, integrated amphibious-capable combined-arms land
system;
enhanced, all-domain, maritime capabilities for sea denial operations and
localised sea control;
a networked expeditionary air operations capability

Land domain immediate investment priorities
8.32 Defence must rapidly accelerate and expand Army’s littoral manoeuvre vessels
(medium and heavy landing craft) and long-range fires (land-based maritime
strike) programs. This will require Army to re-posture key capabilities.

8.33 It is essential to immediately accelerate the acquisition of LAND 8710 Phases
1-2 – Army Littoral Manoeuvre Vessels (Landing Craft Medium and Heavy) and
expand the scope of this capability. Without this, only limited numbers of major
land capabilities can be projected offshore.

The ADF certainly has not got that at the moment, hence why the US Army have large LSV to land large numbers of heavy equipment in a single lift if needed. The heavy landing craft should come under RAN domain

Similarly, in the north there would be a dearth of airstrips capable of landing fully loaded C-17's, but logistic support by C-130 or C-27, and CH-47 is a different issue. Using road transport to move MBTs and IFVs is not an option in that part of Aus either.

Why moving a MBT in the north of Australia is actually easier than movement of triple road trains and it's something the ADF actually do quite often. Like all things it takes planning on mass movement and things can go wrong like the incident yesterday with a US Army M1 involved in a accident being moved by civi contractor to Tailsmans Saber

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/br ... r-AA1e5BOY

Granted the new Boxers will not be able to be moved on triples like ASLAV/M113 were able to

[SW1]

And all without cepp

They would have support via Tiger soon to be Apache and most likely the most permissive environment as possible from the LHD

ideally you would want Armour that can swim to the beach head to arrive at the same time has the heavy MBT something the ADF lacks or alternately something like a 2x Frank S Besson class LSV which could unload a squadron of MBT or ACR in a single lift to the beach freeing the 4x landing craft of the LHD to move either troops or stores or other heavy equipment needed.

The ADF lacks the most crucial enablers to support a ARG quickly and in numbers to support infantry once it hits the beach. if MBT are needed then they will need more than 8x LLC 2xLCVP and a Mexeflote off the 2 LHD and LSD

I think you raise some gd points. If your amphibious ships are carrying mbts how many other things are they capable of carrying as well. Also how many mbts are they likely to carry perhaps only 4. How much logistics do you really have to support them in an actual shooting conflict once ashore.

I think if you are landing such things then speed will be important and I don’t think conventional landing craft will cut it. This maybe more applicable to landing a force somewhere quickly before a enemy arrives there by deny them territory in a friendly country.

I suspect the ADF wouldn't ever contemplate a D-Day style landing on a defended coast. There's just no need to, either in Aus or in the immediate region to the north. There is simply too much available space to position a force prior to attacking any opponent who may have landed in significant numbers.

Similarly, in the north there would be a dearth of airstrips capable of landing fully loaded C-17's, but logistic support by C-130 or C-27, and CH-47 is a different issue. Using road transport to move MBTs and IFVs is not an option in that part of Aus either.

It doesn’t need to be a heavily defended coast for the speed of landing craft to be an issue. Time from ship to shore and back in transit will slow your buildup with a heavy load and give the enemy more time to react. Small teams with anti tank missiles or even loitering munitions would pose a significant problem for exposed landing craft.

The logistics of supporting a heavy armoured force over a beach is beyond anyone bar the United States.

It does depend how many tanks we are taking about of course but even the British army in the gulf war in 91 had the logistics to support there armoured thrust of two brigades for about 7 days before it would of been necessary to start abandoning vehicles for lack of spares and that took significant more logistical assets than Australia has or U.K. has now.

[SouthernOne]

I suspect the ADF wouldn't ever contemplate a D-Day style landing on a defended coast.

Even MacArthur had to go ashore in more non permissive environments at times, whilst he tried to bypass the more heavly defended areas.

There's just no need to, either in Aus or in the immediate region to the north. There is simply too much available space to position a force prior to attacking any opponent who may have landed in significant numbers.

The DSR said this;
8.8 In effecting our strategy of denial in Australia’s northern approaches, the ADF’s
operational success will depend on the ability of the Integrated Force to apply
the following critical capabilities:
undersea warfare capabilities (crewed and uncrewed) optimised
for persistent, long-range sub-surface intelligence, surveillance and
reconnaissance and strike;
an enhanced, integrated targeting capability;
an enhanced long-range strike capability in all domains;
a fully enabled, integrated amphibious-capable combined-arms land
system;
enhanced, all-domain, maritime capabilities for sea denial operations and
localised sea control;
a networked expeditionary air operations capability

Land domain immediate investment priorities
8.32 Defence must rapidly accelerate and expand Army’s littoral manoeuvre vessels
(medium and heavy landing craft) and long-range fires (land-based maritime
strike) programs. This will require Army to re-posture key capabilities.

8.33 It is essential to immediately accelerate the acquisition of LAND 8710 Phases
1-2 – Army Littoral Manoeuvre Vessels (Landing Craft Medium and Heavy) and
expand the scope of this capability. Without this, only limited numbers of major
land capabilities can be projected offshore.

The ADF certainly has not got that at the moment, hence why the US Army have large LSV to land large numbers of heavy equipment in a single lift if needed. The heavy landing craft should come under RAN domain

Similarly, in the north there would be a dearth of airstrips capable of landing fully loaded C-17's, but logistic support by C-130 or C-27, and CH-47 is a different issue. Using road transport to move MBTs and IFVs is not an option in that part of Aus either.

Why moving a MBT in the north of Australia is actually easier than movement of triple road trains and it's something the ADF actually do quite often. Like all things it takes planning on mass movement and things can go wrong like the incident yesterday with a US Army M1 involved in a accident being moved by civi contractor to Tailsmans Saber

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/br ... r-AA1e5BOY

Granted the new Boxers will not be able to be moved on triples like ASLAV/M113 were able to

By "northern Australia" I was primarily thinking of areas like Northern WA, anywhere in the NT away from the Stuart and Victoria Highways, the Gulf country in the NT and Qld etc. There just aren't many paved highways in those parts, and the wet season even makes driving through those something of a lottery.

[R686]

I suspect the ADF wouldn't ever contemplate a D-Day style landing on a defended coast.

Even MacArthur had to go ashore in more non permissive environments at times, whilst he tried to bypass the more heavly defended areas.

There's just no need to, either in Aus or in the immediate region to the north. There is simply too much available space to position a force prior to attacking any opponent who may have landed in significant numbers.

The DSR said this;
8.8 In effecting our strategy of denial in Australia’s northern approaches, the ADF’s
operational success will depend on the ability of the Integrated Force to apply
the following critical capabilities:
undersea warfare capabilities (crewed and uncrewed) optimised
for persistent, long-range sub-surface intelligence, surveillance and
reconnaissance and strike;
an enhanced, integrated targeting capability;
an enhanced long-range strike capability in all domains;
a fully enabled, integrated amphibious-capable combined-arms land
system;
enhanced, all-domain, maritime capabilities for sea denial operations and
localised sea control;
a networked expeditionary air operations capability

Land domain immediate investment priorities
8.32 Defence must rapidly accelerate and expand Army’s littoral manoeuvre vessels
(medium and heavy landing craft) and long-range fires (land-based maritime
strike) programs. This will require Army to re-posture key capabilities.

8.33 It is essential to immediately accelerate the acquisition of LAND 8710 Phases
1-2 – Army Littoral Manoeuvre Vessels (Landing Craft Medium and Heavy) and
expand the scope of this capability. Without this, only limited numbers of major
land capabilities can be projected offshore.

The ADF certainly has not got that at the moment, hence why the US Army have large LSV to land large numbers of heavy equipment in a single lift if needed. The heavy landing craft should come under RAN domain

Similarly, in the north there would be a dearth of airstrips capable of landing fully loaded C-17's, but logistic support by C-130 or C-27, and CH-47 is a different issue. Using road transport to move MBTs and IFVs is not an option in that part of Aus either.

Why moving a MBT in the north of Australia is actually easier than movement of triple road trains and it's something the ADF actually do quite often. Like all things it takes planning on mass movement and things can go wrong like the incident yesterday with a US Army M1 involved in a accident being moved by civi contractor to Tailsmans Saber

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/br ... r-AA1e5BOY

Granted the new Boxers will not be able to be moved on triples like ASLAV/M113 were able to

By "northern Australia" I was primarily thinking of areas like Northern WA, anywhere in the NT away from the Stuart and Victoria Highways, the Gulf country in the NT and Qld etc. There just aren't many paved highways in those parts, and the wet season even makes driving through those something of a lottery.

True that when venturing of the bitumen it does become a concern if it starts to rain but that works both way for both blue and red forces.

Had my fair share of digging trucks out of places because the hierarchy would not listen no fun doing that when the Mack 6x6 is sitting in its chassis rails.

[TheLoneRanger]

Hope the Oz gov buy GCAP as a replacement.....

It is perfectly suited to their requirement - both Japan and Australia will have similar requirements. They may want to buy Tempest/GCAP off the shel versus be a development partner? Could we see the UK integrate the Ghost Bat ( etc ) as a core component of Tempest All speculation - but i do think they want stealth, long range and a good ally and both the USA and UK will have solutions that they can rely on.

[SouthernOne]

Hope the Oz gov buy GCAP as a replacement.....

Then there was four ...

Don't forget the USN F/A-XX and USAF NGAD programs.

The timing of F/A-XX will be neatly aligned; it is after all a program to replace the F/A-18 E and F (and F-35C). Then add in the benefits of integration of munitions already in inventory for use by the Supers and F-35s, and likely EA-18G replacement options.

[new guy]

Hope the Oz gov buy GCAP as a replacement.....

Then there was four ...

Don't forget the USN F/A-XX and USAF NGAD programs.

The timing of F/A-XX will be neatly aligned; it is after all a program to replace the F/A-18 E and F (and F-35C). Then add in the benefits of integration of munitions already in inventory for use by the Supers and F-35s, and likely EA-18G replacement options.

Alongside F-35C, not replacing it. The whole reason F/A-XX retains the obsolete F/A designation is for destinguation as the F-18 rep.
As for NGAD, it is planned as a F-22 rep and thus only 200 very expensive units are planned, likely only for the USAF. This is alongside the 1,500-2,000 F-35A's.

[SouthernOne]

Hope the Oz gov buy GCAP as a replacement.....

Then there was four ...

Don't forget the USN F/A-XX and USAF NGAD programs.

The timing of F/A-XX will be neatly aligned; it is after all a program to replace the F/A-18 E and F (and F-35C). Then add in the benefits of integration of munitions already in inventory for use by the Supers and F-35s, and likely EA-18G replacement options.

Alongside F-35C, not replacing it. The whole reason F/A-XX retains the obsolete F/A designation is for destinguation as the F-18 rep.
As for NGAD, it is planned as a F-22 rep and thus only 200 very expensive units are planned, likely only for the USAF. This is alongside the 1,500-2,000 F-35A's.

F/A-XX is probably the best aligned program for the ADF from a number of perspectives, but I wouldn’t discount NGAD.

A few years most would have discounted the possibility of the US selling Virginia class SSNs to Aus, and of Aus being in the market for that capability. There is precedence in the F-111 in the 1970s.

[Mercator]

Some sources suggesting two more KC-30 (A330 tankers) to come as well.

[R686]

Some sources suggesting two more KC-30 (A330 tankers) to come as well.

Yet atthe expense ofthe proposed 24x C130-30J and 6x KC130J so a cut of 10 aircraft to buy 2 second hand aircraft and convert

It seems to me that the current government cannot give any credit to the former they have to make changes to make it look like there own

As when you look at the DSR there is nothing new except for cutting numbers

[SW1]

Quite the price for the Hercules at 9.8 billion AUS dollars for the 20 or just over 5 billion pounds.

Airlift an in particular tankers are not cheap but absolutely in constant and growing demand

[Mercator]

[sol]

Hanwha Redback wins over Rheinmetall Lynx for new Australian IFV

https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/ko ... 726-p5drc2

[R686]

Hanwha Redback wins over Rheinmetall Lynx for new Australian IFV

https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/ko ... 726-p5drc2

Well, that leaves egg om my face

I was hoping the Koreans bid would get up

There are rumors on other sites that Germany will no longer buy the 100 boxers and the QLD factory will close in 2026 on completion of the Australian order.

Talk about throwing the bath water out with the baby considering how much the ADF has bought from Germany over the years. Another dummy spit from the Europeans

[SouthernOne]

Hanwha Redback wins over Rheinmetall Lynx for new Australian IFV

https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/ko ... 726-p5drc2

I really think that 129, or thereabouts, will only be the initial order.

[Zeno]

There are reports that the German Lynx was supplied for testing with metal tracks and subsequent vibration issues caused several of the testers to become ill , sounds familiar

[R686]

There are reports that the German Lynx was supplied for testing with metal tracks and subsequent vibration issues caused several of the testers to become ill , sounds familiar

Regarding the composite rubber track I'm led to believe it is one continuous track if a track comes off or breaks can new track be refitted in the field or does it require specialised equipment?

Track bashing a thing of the past with rubber?

[sol]

Regarding the composite rubber track I'm led to believe it is one continuous track if a track comes off or breaks can new track be refitted in the field or does it require specialised equipment?

Yes, it is one continuous track. Apparently it could be replaced in the field but it will require some tools ...

During the ATDU trials a swap was carried out in the field, with a team of six soldiers replacing the CRT system by hand in 2 hours 20 minutes.

... and in case of breaks

If a track is broken, the options to keep going are a bit more limited than steel. With steel tracks you always have the option to break the links around the damaged area, insert fresh links, and reconnect (though its many hours longer and more stressful than that sounds). CRT is less flexible in this regard. Though less likely to break, it can, and if this happens there are two options, the full replacement mentioned above, or a field repair is possible using a battle damage repair kit (BDR). The BDR rebinds the track and a bit like those skinny tyres in cars these days allows a reduced capability to return to a point where a full track replacement can take place. These kits can be carried on the vehicle and take up less space and much less weight than a bunch of spare track links.

Also there are some limitations about max weight of the vehicle that rubber tracks could support

A few years ago Soucy said the max was 40,000 kg and could not envisage it ever reaching MBT classes of 55,000 kg and higher. Yet barely 3 or 4 years later, they have 55,000 kg class CRT.

So this could explain why Lynx did not use it as it weight could exceed 40 tons, and it is possible that, at that point, that weight is not supported. Or there might be some other reason to use metal tracks.

https://www.tanknology.co.uk/post/__crt