US Army buys Bushmasters from Australia

[Jezza]

Bushmaster Bonanza for Bendigo

(Source: Australian Minister for Defence; issued Aug. 17, 2007)

Australia has announced it will buy an additional 250 Bushmaster armoured vehicles, which have proved effective in foreign operations. I am pleased to announce that the Australian Government will acquire at least 250 additional Bushmaster Infantry Mobility Vehicles, subject to satisfactory contract negotiations. These additional Bushmasters worth more than A$300 million will be built by Thales Australia at its Bendigo facility.​

The additional Bushmasters are on top of the Australian Government’s current commitment to purchase 443 bushmasters and will provide a valuable injection to the economy and community of Bendigo.

Bushmasters provide important protection to Australian troops deployed overseas and are currently deployed on operations in the Middle East. This protection reduces the risk to our service men and woman from the threats increasingly experienced on operations including land mines, suicide bombers, improvised explosive devices and they provide protection from bullets and other projectiles.

The Bushmasters are a critical part of ensuring that our land forces have sufficient firepower, protection and mobility to provide a clear advantage in any likely operation in defence of Australia or our immediate region.

The Australian Government will commence negotiations with Thales for these vehicles in the near future and will continue to strongly support Defence exports and the export of the Bushmaster.

-ends-
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cg...621197.m6CIM38AAAEAACGWpaYAAAAR&modele=jdc_34

Well it offical now.

 

[rossfrb_1]

from Janes Public area
http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdw/jdw070821_1_n.shtml

UK is after 180 medium protected patrol vehicles (MPPVs). These vehicles are supposed to have a combat weight of ~14 tonnes and carry 7 soldiers.
Wiki has the Bushie at 12.5 tonnes (empty?) + carry 9 soldiers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmaster_IMV
So I'm wondering whether it has a chance of being selected in this program?
Anyone?

rb

 

[buglerbilly]

So I'm wondering whether it has a chance of being selected in this program? Anyone?

It is one of the formal competitors, so yes it has a chance.........

Regards,

BUG

 

[Simon9]

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22616282-2862,00.html

John Howard gets behind Australian firm

PRIME Minister John Howard has written to US President George W. Bush in an effort to help a Victorian-based company win a major contract to supply the US military with mine-resistant vehicles.

Earlier this month, Mr Howard wrote to Mr Bush in support of Thales Australia's bid to win a share of the $3 billion set aside by the US Government for the purchase of mine-resistant ambush protected vehicles.

The US military needs more secure vehicles to help stem the death toll from ambushes and roadside bombings in Iraq.

Thales's Bendigo-built Bushmaster infantry protection vehicles are being used by Australian troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The company is also supplying them to the Dutch armed forces.

Thales and American joint venture partner Oshkosh want to develop a new version of the Bushmaster for the US military.

"I urge you to consider the joint venture by Thales Australia and Oshkosh to offer . . . a vehicle based on an operationally proven Australian design," Mr Howard wrote to Mr Bush.


Probably about the only thing left for Thales Australia to do to breathe some life back into the Bushmaster's chances in the US, given the close friendship between Bush and Howard.

And if Bush can get Scooter Libby off jail time, he'd have to have some power in this matter surely. :

The only problem might be that elections are coming up again, and the US defence industry lobby is incredibly powerful.

 

[grndpndr]

Wasnt this vehicle available several years ago?maybe Im impatient /unrealistic
but overseas or homegrown when the need was identified why has it taken so long to even begin negotiations to field a vehicle nearly everyone agrees was/has been needed for years in Iraq and afghanistan?maybe the amputee ward/head trauma ward wouldnt have been so busy had someone been a bit more concerned with fielding an appropriate vehicle .excuse the emotion i get somewhat angry about the situation if you'all hadnt noticed.Surely we'd have suffered ww2 longer if it had taken this long then to rectify equipment deficiencys.

 

[Simon9]

Wasnt this vehicle available several years ago?maybe Im impatient /unrealistic
but overseas or homegrown when the need was identified why has it taken so long to even begin negotiations to field a vehicle nearly everyone agrees was/has been needed for years in Iraq and afghanistan?maybe the amputee ward/head trauma ward wouldnt have been so busy had someone been a bit more concerned with fielding an appropriate vehicle .excuse the emotion i get somewhat angry about the situation if you'all hadnt noticed.Surely we'd have suffered ww2 longer if it had taken this long then to rectify equipment deficiencys.

Yes, it's been available for several years and was trialled on operations as far back as Timor in 1999.

I agree with you. That it has taken four years of IEDs for the US to finally ramp up a mass MRAP program is little short of criminal IMHO. Especially when you consider that for the cost of a mere handful of F-22s, the US could have purchased literally thousands of Bushmasters or a similar vehicle. And how much has the F-22 contributed to the War on Terror?

I don't know why the US persisted with up-armoured Humvees for so long, the cynical side of me wonders if it might have been partly political. It's probably accurate to say many American casualties could have been avoided if this had been done earlier.

The insurgents have already adopted the counter to the MRAP before the vehicle has even appeared in theatre in large numbers, in the form of the EFP IED.

 

[the road runner]

I always have compassion for the grunts in the field who do not have the latest technology and equipment needed to firstly,ensure the safety of the soldiers,and the equipment needed to fufill there mission.I wonder as to why a rich country like America,would not buy of a loyal/friendly allie as australia?
Politics,i think?(BUY USA)
I wonder if the USA did have Bushies at the start of the insergence and the IED threat was not taking as many lifes as it has(and also mamed a number of soldiers)would the American public still support the war if there were alot less casulties(due to the bushies saving the day,and more importantly soldiers lifes)
dose anyone have any views on this thought?
Thanx
Also glad the australian government has placed an order for an extra 299(i think?) Bushies,to keep the production line going,i think we will be fighting the war on terror for another 20+ years and at least the Australian government relises that if we can protect our troops,and have minimal deaths occur in theater then the public will atleast support our soldiers!
Hope to hear some feedback

MEEP MEEP

 

[Rossiman]

Why did they buy the Bushmaster? They already have the Cougar, it offers the same amount of protection. I know the Cougar is a little on the heavy side, what is the weight/price difference?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Why did they buy the Bushmaster? They already have the Cougar, it offers the same amount of protection. I know the Cougar is a little on the heavy side, what is the weight/price difference?

It might be an idea to read the entire post history before commenting. The US is not buying Bushmaster 4wd's. There is however consideration being given to the 6wd version if it meets some of the new requirements (side doors etc...)

How do you know the Cougar offers the same level of protection? Their initial design briefs were for different requirements.

All we can assume is that the baseline STANAG and proximity capability is similar otherwise they'd be rejected at first evaluation tranche. ie:

TARDEC's (The United States Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center) informational papers state the requirements of the MMPV to be as follows:[3]
100% of communication interfaces; services; policy enforcement controls; and data correctness available. SINGCARS and FBCB2 included as part of baseline configuration
Transportable by rail, sealift, highway, air (C-5, C-17, C-130) without disassembly
Operator and crew survive (PROVIDE PROTECTION LEVEL AND STANDOFF RANGE):
AT Mine blast
Ballistic Protection
RPG Protections
IED Protection
Engine and suspension must be able to handle payload weight of 9000 lb at speeds up to 62 mph on improved “paved” roads
Operate by 1 Soldier with ability to transport 6 additional Soldiers / EOD variant will have 1 operator with ability to transport 3 additional Soldiers and 2 robots
Designed for quick repair (< 8 hrs repair time after blast) in the field after a mine blast
Initial maintenance provided through CLS. Battle damage repair kits and detailed manuals need to be provided. Manuals need to go through full VAL/VERA
Equipped with a 15000 lb vehicle winch on the front of the vehicle
Transversal 360-degree ring mount for crew served weapon that is removable
Tactical lighting system inside and outside of vehicle with blackout capabilities
Storage space capability (392 cubic ft and 6000 lb) / Lockable compartments
Free space of 25” x 36” x 52” free of obstruction with 4 tie down points and a doorway at least 25” wide
4 power outlets 110 VAC and 4 each 12 VDC
Vehicle must have run-flat tires and 1 spare tire with lifting system to change tire
Vehicle must have available space claims for add-on electronic systems
Upgradeable to provide NBC protection and operate in MOPP 4 conditions
Equipped with an interior climatic control system to provide heating and cooling / Capable of operating in hot and basic MIL-standard climatic conditions
Provide external air source capable of providing compressed air with sufficient pressure and volume
Ignition/Starter switch should be pushbutton vice keyed
System must survive the INWE of High-Altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP)
Have ability to provide removable ramp and computer workstation terminal

 

[Rossiman]

It might be an idea to read the entire post history before commenting. The US is not buying Bushmaster 4wd's. There is however consideration being given to the 6wd version if it meets some of the new requirements (side doors etc...)

How do you know the Cougar offers the same level of protection? Their initial design briefs were for different requirements.

All we can assume is that the baseline STANAG and proximity capability is similar otherwise they'd be rejected at first evaluation tranche. ie:

TARDEC's (The United States Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center) informational papers state the requirements of the MMPV to be as follows:[3]
100% of communication interfaces; services; policy enforcement controls; and data correctness available. SINGCARS and FBCB2 included as part of baseline configuration
Transportable by rail, sealift, highway, air (C-5, C-17, C-130) without disassembly
Operator and crew survive (PROVIDE PROTECTION LEVEL AND STANDOFF RANGE):
AT Mine blast
Ballistic Protection
RPG Protections
IED Protection
Engine and suspension must be able to handle payload weight of 9000 lb at speeds up to 62 mph on improved “paved” roads
Operate by 1 Soldier with ability to transport 6 additional Soldiers / EOD variant will have 1 operator with ability to transport 3 additional Soldiers and 2 robots
Designed for quick repair (< 8 hrs repair time after blast) in the field after a mine blast
Initial maintenance provided through CLS. Battle damage repair kits and detailed manuals need to be provided. Manuals need to go through full VAL/VERA
Equipped with a 15000 lb vehicle winch on the front of the vehicle
Transversal 360-degree ring mount for crew served weapon that is removable
Tactical lighting system inside and outside of vehicle with blackout capabilities
Storage space capability (392 cubic ft and 6000 lb) / Lockable compartments
Free space of 25” x 36” x 52” free of obstruction with 4 tie down points and a doorway at least 25” wide
4 power outlets 110 VAC and 4 each 12 VDC
Vehicle must have run-flat tires and 1 spare tire with lifting system to change tire
Vehicle must have available space claims for add-on electronic systems
Upgradeable to provide NBC protection and operate in MOPP 4 conditions
Equipped with an interior climatic control system to provide heating and cooling / Capable of operating in hot and basic MIL-standard climatic conditions
Provide external air source capable of providing compressed air with sufficient pressure and volume
Ignition/Starter switch should be pushbutton vice keyed
System must survive the INWE of High-Altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP)
Have ability to provide removable ramp and computer workstation terminal

I know this info.... and i know the cougars. Why do you thing we just purchased 1000 more cougars.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I know this info.... and i know the cougars. Why do you thing we just purchased 1000 more cougars.

thats not as supporting argument. US procurement is just as daft as ADF recruitment.

A couple of the US blokes registered in here have actually been involved with MRAP. Their stories about the procurement process would make your toes curl.

A response to the vagaries of the MRAP process would warrant writing a small book.

 

[Jezza]

Some good news but only a small purchase.

10 more bushies bought as attrition replacements.

Extra Bushmasters for Uruzgan Mission

(Source: Dutch Ministry of Defence; issued Nov. 20, 2007)

(Issued in Dutch only; unofficial translation by defense-aerospace.com)

In the past year, the Dutch Army has lost or written off four of the 25 Australian-built Bushmaster patrol vehicles it procured for use in Afghanistan. (Dutch MoD photo)​

The Dutch Ministry of Defence will buy ten extra Bushmaster patrol vehicles. They will replace five vehicles which were lost or damaged in Uruzgan, while four vehicles will be held in reserve and one will be added to the fleet in the Netherlands and used for training.

The new Bushmasters are directly necessary in the mission area for patrol tasks and transport.

During the operational commitment in Uruzgan two Bushmaster vehicles and one Patria-armoured vehicle have been written off, while two Bushmasters were hit and heavily damaged. The Patria vehicles which were destroyed are also replaced by Bushmaster, which are better suitable for the tasks in Uruzgan.

Through the intensive use of the Bushmaster vehicles also the work-load of the drivers is very high. For this reason, the number of drivers has been increased. This requires a larger training effort, but also an extra vehicle. Because of that, the number of Bushmaster patrol vehicles in the Netherlands will be increased to three.

Great news i hope more orders come.......great news

 

[RubiconNZ]

Extra Bushmasters for Uruzgan Mission

Source: Dutch Ministry of Defence; issued Nov. 20, 2007)
(Issued in Dutch only; unofficial translation by defense-aerospace.com)

In the past year, the Dutch Army has lost or written off four of the 25 Australian-built Bushmaster patrol vehicles it procured for use in Afghanistan. (Dutch MoD photo)
The Dutch Ministry of Defence will buy ten extra Bushmaster patrol vehicles. They will replace five vehicles which were lost or damaged in Uruzgan, while four vehicles will be held in reserve and one will be added to the fleet in the Netherlands and used for training.

The new Bushmasters are directly necessary in the mission area for patrol tasks and transport.

During the operational commitment in Uruzgan two Bushmaster vehicles and one Patria-armoured vehicle have been written off, while two Bushmasters were hit and heavily damaged. The Patria vehicles which were destroyed are also replaced by Bushmaster, which are better suitable for the tasks in Uruzgan.

Through the intensive use of the Bushmaster vehicles also the work-load of the drivers is very high. For this reason, the number of drivers has been increased. This requires a larger training effort, but also an extra vehicle. Because of that, the number of Bushmaster patrol vehicles in the Netherlands will be increased to three.

Defense Aerospace


Well when I saw it I was hoping for a large order, oh well good news that they do what they are supposed to do, Bushmaster definitely seem to be something to be proud of.

 

[Investigator]

Comments deleted.

 

[eckherl]

"They will replace five vehicles which were lost or damaged in Uruzgan"

Isn't 4 or 5 out of 25 high? Do the humvees face similar losses? I suppose with such a low sample size it could just be bad luck. 2 lost without being hit could be driving accidents.

The most important factor is the the human cargo that they have managed to keep safe which the Bushmaster does a darn good job of doing.

 

[buglerbilly]

"They will replace five vehicles which were lost or damaged in Uruzgan"

Isn't 4 or 5 out of 25 high? Do the humvees face similar losses? I suppose with such a low sample size it could just be bad luck. 2 lost without being hit could be driving accidents.

IF you only have a few hitting any is a large number..........and yes the Hummer losses are high.............

 

[Investigator]

Comments deleted.

 

[Todjaeger]

If the hummer losses are between 16% and 20% every year to 14 months then that is very high. A full replacement every 5-6 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmaster_IMV#The_Bushmaster_in_Dutch_service

states the first Dutch deployment of the vehicles to Afghanistan occured from 28 August 2006.

I admit I am going from memory here, but the situation with respect to the HMMV is somewhat worse than that, at least for the up-armoured versions. I have not researched to see if any loss records are available on the HMMV, but do recall the following factoid. The up-armoured HMMV has roughly the same ballistic protection as a Bushmaster but is more vulnerable to mines and IEDs due to a flat hull bottom as opposed to the V-hull bottom of a Bushmaster. Also, the HMMV was originally a replacement for the jeep and was not intended to be armoured or used as a combat vehicle or transport. As a result the up-armoured versions on considerably heavier than the vehicle was originally intended. As a result of the increased weight the useful life of the up-armoured HMMVs are only around five years IIRC. That is not taking into account any losses due to accidents or hostile action.

To me, that has suggested (for some time now) that the US should replace the up-armoured HMMV with a purpose designed and built type of vehicle. As I understand it, the up-armoured modification of the HMMV was only supposed to be an interim solution. Nearly five years down the road...

-Cheers

 

[t68]

It might be an idea to read the entire post history before commenting. The US is not buying Bushmaster 4wd's. There is however consideration being given to the 6wd version if it meets some of the new requirements (side doors etc...)

Hi gf0012

I did not know that they made a 6wd version of Bushmaster,ive only ever seen the 4wd version or are you referring to couger ?

Can anybody explain the level or extent of damage to the dutch Bushmasters and how it happened?

REGARDS
TOM

 

[winnyfield]

Hi gf0012

I did not know that they made a 6wd version of Bushmaster,ive only ever seen the 4wd version or are you referring to couger ?

Can anybody explain the level or extent of damage to the dutch Bushmasters and how it happened?

REGARDS
TOM

From the pics that I've seen, they've been mobility kills. Wheels and undercarriage were blown off (as designed).

Pics: see wikipedia's Bushmaster IMV article discussion, there's a link.