Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Send Topic Print
Defence matters, today... (Read 616 times)
Brian Ross
Gold Member
*****
Online


Bored with racism/Islamophobia/
Xenophobia

Posts: 15312
Defence matters, today...
Dec 6th, 2017 at 5:34pm
 
Oh, dear...
Quote:
Spanish shipbuilder’s landing craft sank under Australian tanks

A Spanish company vying for a $30 billion Navy ship building contract is using a Youtube video to imply its landing craft can carry Australia’s heavy tanks despite the boat sinking too low in water when the armoured vehicle was put on board.

Navantia, one of three contenders for Australia’s $30 billion Future Frigates contract, has a contract worth about $240 million to supply Australia with 12 landing craft supposedly capable of carrying the army’s 62 tonne M1A1 Abrams tanks.

Defence has since confirmed trials of the boats had to be suspended after they sank to low in the water when the 62 tonne Abrams was put on board.

Despite the suspended trials Navantia, which is ramping up promotions in a bid to win the Future Frigates contract, has maintained a promotional video on YouTube implying their landing craft by using imagery of lighter Spanish tanks on the vessels.

The 3.52 second Navantia video is titled in Spanish “LLC for the Royal Australian Armada 12 units: 2012-2015” and features a few short clips of a tank reversing onto the landing craft. The vessel is then featured cruising along in a dead calm harbour carrying the tank,

At the conclusion of the video, text in Spanish appears on the screen stating: “Flexible load capacity: Abrams vehicle, various military vehicles an infantry company or a container truck of 6 meters.”

Close inspection of the video however reveals the tank used in the video is not an Abrams but what appears to be a lighter older Spanish tank.

The tank was likely an M60 Patton which was significantly lighter than the Australian’s Abrams tanks, said tank expert, former soldier and Leopard crewman Jason Belgrave from the Australian Armour and Artillery Museum last week.

Australia’s M1A1 Abrams are some of the heaviest modern tanks built weighing more than 10 tonnes than the M60 Patton vehicles which were designed in the 1960s.

Navantia last week declined to respond on whether the advertisement had misrepresented the landing craft’s capability.

“Navantia promotes a range of cutting edge capabilities from around the world in our promotional videos,’’ a Navantia spokeswoman said.

Defence said it had no concerns about the videos and has defended the tender process for the boat’s acquisition.

“The LHD landing craft were procured through a request for tender process. The performance of the landing craft and associated risks were assessed by Defence and agreed by the Government,’’ said Defence spokesman.

Concerns about the landing craft’s ability to carry the Abrams have already been raised both in a report by the Australian National Audit Office last year and in March in a Senate Defence Committee Estimates Hearing.

The ANAO last year reported that the landing craft had not reached Final Operational Capability (FOC) because trials needed to be done to confirm the ability to carry Australia’s M1A1 main battle tank.

It noted that subsequent trials conducted in May 2016 were unsuccessful. Carrying the M1A1 on the LHD landing craft required the operation of the craft in an overload state, it said.

It said significant issues needed to be addressed prior to project conclusion.

In March in answer to questions about the ANAO’s report, Defence’s Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group deputy secretary Kim Gillis told the Defence Senate Estimates Committee that “prior to signing the contract for the Landing Helicopter Docks and the water craft (landing craft), they had been given a physical model of that specific landing craft carrying a tank “to which we added the additional weight to ensure that we would be able to carry the Abrams tank at the time.

“So we went through that process.”

In 2007, the then Coalition Government’s Defence Minister Brendan Nelson said landing craft to be acquired by the government would be able to carry the tanks.

Australia’s has 59 Abrams tanks none of which have ever been deployed in combat.

The landing craft are supposed to work in with Australia’s two Canberra class amphibious ships the Landing Helicopter Docks (LHD) moving men and equipment from the ships to shore when there are no fixed port facilities.

Navantia built the hulls of the LHDs.

[Source]
Back to top
 

85% of Australians support Multiculturalism - https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/1189188/mapping-social-cohesion-national-report-2017.pdf
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Vic
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 6349
Mornington Peninsula, Victoria
Gender: male
Re: Defence matters, today...
Reply #1 - Dec 13th, 2017 at 6:44pm
 
Brian Ross wrote on Dec 6th, 2017 at 5:34pm:
Oh, dear...
Quote:
Spanish shipbuilder’s landing craft sank under Australian tanks

A Spanish company vying for a $30 billion Navy ship building contract is using a Youtube video to imply its landing craft can carry Australia’s heavy tanks despite the boat sinking too low in water when the armoured vehicle was put on board.

Navantia, one of three contenders for Australia’s $30 billion Future Frigates contract, has a contract worth about $240 million to supply Australia with 12 landing craft supposedly capable of carrying the army’s 62 tonne M1A1 Abrams tanks.

Defence has since confirmed trials of the boats had to be suspended after they sank to low in the water when the 62 tonne Abrams was put on board.

Despite the suspended trials Navantia, which is ramping up promotions in a bid to win the Future Frigates contract, has maintained a promotional video on YouTube implying their landing craft by using imagery of lighter Spanish tanks on the vessels.

The 3.52 second Navantia video is titled in Spanish “LLC for the Royal Australian Armada 12 units: 2012-2015” and features a few short clips of a tank reversing onto the landing craft. The vessel is then featured cruising along in a dead calm harbour carrying the tank,

At the conclusion of the video, text in Spanish appears on the screen stating: “Flexible load capacity: Abrams vehicle, various military vehicles an infantry company or a container truck of 6 meters.”

Close inspection of the video however reveals the tank used in the video is not an Abrams but what appears to be a lighter older Spanish tank.

The tank was likely an M60 Patton which was significantly lighter than the Australian’s Abrams tanks, said tank expert, former soldier and Leopard crewman Jason Belgrave from the Australian Armour and Artillery Museum last week.

Australia’s M1A1 Abrams are some of the heaviest modern tanks built weighing more than 10 tonnes than the M60 Patton vehicles which were designed in the 1960s.

Navantia last week declined to respond on whether the advertisement had misrepresented the landing craft’s capability.

“Navantia promotes a range of cutting edge capabilities from around the world in our promotional videos,’’ a Navantia spokeswoman said.

Defence said it had no concerns about the videos and has defended the tender process for the boat’s acquisition.

“The LHD landing craft were procured through a request for tender process. The performance of the landing craft and associated risks were assessed by Defence and agreed by the Government,’’ said Defence spokesman.

Concerns about the landing craft’s ability to carry the Abrams have already been raised both in a report by the Australian National Audit Office last year and in March in a Senate Defence Committee Estimates Hearing.

The ANAO last year reported that the landing craft had not reached Final Operational Capability (FOC) because trials needed to be done to confirm the ability to carry Australia’s M1A1 main battle tank.

It noted that subsequent trials conducted in May 2016 were unsuccessful. Carrying the M1A1 on the LHD landing craft required the operation of the craft in an overload state, it said.

It said significant issues needed to be addressed prior to project conclusion.

In March in answer to questions about the ANAO’s report, Defence’s Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group deputy secretary Kim Gillis told the Defence Senate Estimates Committee that “prior to signing the contract for the Landing Helicopter Docks and the water craft (landing craft), they had been given a physical model of that specific landing craft carrying a tank “to which we added the additional weight to ensure that we would be able to carry the Abrams tank at the time.

“So we went through that process.”

In 2007, the then Coalition Government’s Defence Minister Brendan Nelson said landing craft to be acquired by the government would be able to carry the tanks.

Australia’s has 59 Abrams tanks none of which have ever been deployed in combat.

The landing craft are supposed to work in with Australia’s two Canberra class amphibious ships the Landing Helicopter Docks (LHD) moving men and equipment from the ships to shore when there are no fixed port facilities.

Navantia built the hulls of the LHDs.

[Source]



After all the issues with the LHDs one would have thought we would have learnt a lesson......
Back to top
 

Football, Meat Pies, Kangaroos and Liberal Lies
Football, Meat Pies, Kangaroos and Liberal Lies
 
IP Logged
 
Gordon
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16354
Gordon
Gender: male
Re: Defence matters, today...
Reply #2 - Dec 13th, 2017 at 7:05pm
 
Do we really need M1A1s? Id have thought something like the Bradley would be perfect.
Back to top
 

Wokka Wokka Wokka
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Gold Member
*****
Online


Bored with racism/Islamophobia/
Xenophobia

Posts: 15312
Re: Defence matters, today...
Reply #3 - Dec 13th, 2017 at 11:00pm
 
Gordon wrote on Dec 13th, 2017 at 7:05pm:
Do we really need M1A1s? Id have thought something like the Bradley would be perfect.


We don't need the M1a1.  It is too heavy and its' acquisition has distorted our defence forces.

We don't need the M2/M3 Bradley.   It is under-armed and under-armoured.

We do need a Medium Tank - something like the Leopard AS1, equipped with a large calibre tank gun and light enough to be easily transported and used in our main theatre of operations.   It needs heavier armour than an APC/MICV but not as heavy as the M1 series.

However, the Turret-heads have control of what sort of MBT they desire and the M1A1 was offered cheap to us by the Yanks.  As it was the newest (well actually refurbished), brightest and best and John W. Howard had put his foot in it over what forces were available to be sent to Iraq for the invasion in 2003 ("An armoured brigade group" - what "Armoured Brigade Group"? ), the Turret-heads got what they wanted.

As a consequence we have purchased C-17 transport aircraft, the LHDs and now it appears, malfunctioning LCUs.  We have had specialised railway trucks built for the Ghan.  We have had specialised tank transporter trucks/trailers built to carry the M1s.   Roll Eyes
Back to top
 

85% of Australians support Multiculturalism - https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/1189188/mapping-social-cohesion-national-report-2017.pdf
WWW  
IP Logged
 
BigOl64
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 13237
Townsville QLD
Gender: male
Re: Defence matters, today...
Reply #4 - Dec 23rd, 2017 at 1:48pm
 
Brian Ross wrote on Dec 13th, 2017 at 11:00pm:
Gordon wrote on Dec 13th, 2017 at 7:05pm:
Do we really need M1A1s? Id have thought something like the Bradley would be perfect.


We don't need the M1a1.  It is too heavy and its' acquisition has distorted our defence forces.

We don't need the M2/M3 Bradley.   It is under-armed and under-armoured.

We do need a Medium Tank - something like the Leopard AS1, equipped with a large calibre tank gun and light enough to be easily transported and used in our main theatre of operations.   It needs heavier armour than an APC/MICV but not as heavy as the M1 series.

However, the Turret-heads have control of what sort of MBT they desire and the M1A1 was offered cheap to us by the Yanks.  As it was the newest (well actually refurbished), brightest and best and John W. Howard had put his foot in it over what forces were available to be sent to Iraq for the invasion in 2003 ("An armoured brigade group" - what "Armoured Brigade Group"? ), the Turret-heads got what they wanted.

As a consequence we have purchased C-17 transport aircraft, the LHDs and now it appears, malfunctioning LCUs.  We have had specialised railway trucks built for the Ghan.  We have had specialised tank transporter trucks/trailers built to carry the M1s.   Roll Eyes



We acquired the Globemaster before the Abrams and I can assure you the RAAF didn't get that A/C just so we could transport some tanks for the army, I not even sure we have every put one inside a Globemaster, I know they fit. But I don't thing the RAAF could be fkked giving it a go. Too busy doing real work I s'pose.  Smiley Smiley

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Gold Member
*****
Online


Bored with racism/Islamophobia/
Xenophobia

Posts: 15312
Re: Defence matters, today...
Reply #5 - Dec 23rd, 2017 at 2:44pm
 
BigOl64 wrote on Dec 23rd, 2017 at 1:48pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Dec 13th, 2017 at 11:00pm:
Gordon wrote on Dec 13th, 2017 at 7:05pm:
Do we really need M1A1s? Id have thought something like the Bradley would be perfect.


We don't need the M1a1.  It is too heavy and its' acquisition has distorted our defence forces.

We don't need the M2/M3 Bradley.   It is under-armed and under-armoured.

We do need a Medium Tank - something like the Leopard AS1, equipped with a large calibre tank gun and light enough to be easily transported and used in our main theatre of operations.   It needs heavier armour than an APC/MICV but not as heavy as the M1 series.

However, the Turret-heads have control of what sort of MBT they desire and the M1A1 was offered cheap to us by the Yanks.  As it was the newest (well actually refurbished), brightest and best and John W. Howard had put his foot in it over what forces were available to be sent to Iraq for the invasion in 2003 ("An armoured brigade group" - what "Armoured Brigade Group"? ), the Turret-heads got what they wanted.

As a consequence we have purchased C-17 transport aircraft, the LHDs and now it appears, malfunctioning LCUs.  We have had specialised railway trucks built for the Ghan.  We have had specialised tank transporter trucks/trailers built to carry the M1s.   Roll Eyes



We acquired the Globemaster before the Abrams and I can assure you the RAAF didn't get that A/C just so we could transport some tanks for the army, I not even sure we have every put one inside a Globemaster, I know they fit. But I don't thing the RAAF could be fkked giving it a go. Too busy doing real work I s'pose.  Smiley Smiley


That is not what these two youtube videos seem to be showing   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes





Oh, and the decision to adopt the M1a1 (AIM) was taken in 2004, the decision to adopt the C-17 was taken in 2006.   The M1 was one of the reasons why the C-17 was needed.  The other was our inability to move the rest of our equipment 200 miles across the Arafura Sea without the help of the Russian Commercial Airline, Volga-Dnepr Airlines and their An-124 Ruslan aircraft in the East Timor crisis of 1999...
Back to top
« Last Edit: Dec 23rd, 2017 at 3:13pm by Brian Ross »  

85% of Australians support Multiculturalism - https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/1189188/mapping-social-cohesion-national-report-2017.pdf
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Sprintcyclist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 32529
Gender: male
Re: Defence matters, today...
Reply #6 - Dec 23rd, 2017 at 3:03pm
 
that was a posting from a cult member who is opposed to anything that is not totally islamic
Back to top
 

Modern Classic Right Wing
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Gold Member
*****
Online


Bored with racism/Islamophobia/
Xenophobia

Posts: 15312
Re: Defence matters, today...
Reply #7 - Dec 23rd, 2017 at 3:07pm
 
Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 23rd, 2017 at 3:03pm:
that was a posting from a cult member who is opposed to anything that is not totally islamic


Really?  I never suspected BigOl64 of such a thing.  Tsk, tsk.   Roll Eyes
Back to top
 

85% of Australians support Multiculturalism - https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/1189188/mapping-social-cohesion-national-report-2017.pdf
WWW  
IP Logged
 
BigOl64
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 13237
Townsville QLD
Gender: male
Re: Defence matters, today...
Reply #8 - Dec 23rd, 2017 at 10:38pm
 
Brian Ross wrote on Dec 23rd, 2017 at 2:44pm:
BigOl64 wrote on Dec 23rd, 2017 at 1:48pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Dec 13th, 2017 at 11:00pm:
Gordon wrote on Dec 13th, 2017 at 7:05pm:
Do we really need M1A1s? Id have thought something like the Bradley would be perfect.


We don't need the M1a1.  It is too heavy and its' acquisition has distorted our defence forces.

We don't need the M2/M3 Bradley.   It is under-armed and under-armoured.

We do need a Medium Tank - something like the Leopard AS1, equipped with a large calibre tank gun and light enough to be easily transported and used in our main theatre of operations.   It needs heavier armour than an APC/MICV but not as heavy as the M1 series.

However, the Turret-heads have control of what sort of MBT they desire and the M1A1 was offered cheap to us by the Yanks.  As it was the newest (well actually refurbished), brightest and best and John W. Howard had put his foot in it over what forces were available to be sent to Iraq for the invasion in 2003 ("An armoured brigade group" - what "Armoured Brigade Group"? ), the Turret-heads got what they wanted.

As a consequence we have purchased C-17 transport aircraft, the LHDs and now it appears, malfunctioning LCUs.  We have had specialised railway trucks built for the Ghan.  We have had specialised tank transporter trucks/trailers built to carry the M1s.   Roll Eyes



We acquired the Globemaster before the Abrams and I can assure you the RAAF didn't get that A/C just so we could transport some tanks for the army, I not even sure we have every put one inside a Globemaster, I know they fit. But I don't thing the RAAF could be fkked giving it a go. Too busy doing real work I s'pose.  Smiley Smiley


That is not what these two youtube videos seem to be showing   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes





Oh, and the decision to adopt the M1a1 (AIM) was taken in 2004, the decision to adopt the C-17 was taken in 2006.   The M1 was one of the reasons why the C-17 was needed.  The other was our inability to move the rest of our equipment 200 miles across the Arafura Sea without the help of the Russian Commercial Airline, Volga-Dnepr Airlines and their An-124 Ruslan aircraft in the East Timor crisis of 1999...



There ya go, we never really gave a fkk about army toys unless we were moving them for real.

Nice to know that we have the capacity should Australia ever move a tank more than a few hundred Kms


Personally I only took notice if it carry bombs, missiles and guns on it.  Smiley Smiley
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Gold Member
*****
Online


Bored with racism/Islamophobia/
Xenophobia

Posts: 15312
Re: Defence matters, today...
Reply #9 - Jan 8th, 2018 at 6:49pm
 
Back to top
 

85% of Australians support Multiculturalism - https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/1189188/mapping-social-cohesion-national-report-2017.pdf
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Send Topic Print