Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[winnyfield]

I remember reading they'd finished testing the offroad performance, with some vehicles getting bogged, etc. Unfortunately, no details were provided...


Press seems to be picking it up now- seems to be a bit of a marketing push on.


They seems to be expecting it to replace the Landrover- I was under the impression that the G-Wagen had already been selected...

Amusingly, it is named after the Barkly Death Adder. That particular snake was named after Bob Hawke... So do you think this vehicle will come with an alcohol-burning engine? :

The Dragonskin of ADF vehicles

G-wagen has already been selected but there's a phase 2 light (4x4) armour vehicle to be selected. Anywhere from uparmoured G-wagen to JLTV.

 

[winnyfield]

Hawkei - the next generation Australian Light Protected Vehicle

Thales launches the next generation Light Protected Vehicles : the Hawkei

Drawing on both international and local expertise provided by Boeing, PAC Group or Plasan, and numerous Australian Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs), the vehicle’s design incorporates world-leading innovative technologies.

Thought it look familiar

Plasan Sand Cat
Military Photos - View Single Post - IDF Ground Forces - (Read first post)

 

[bren122]

whilst acknowledging that the Hawkei has to meet certain requirements, Thales has already demonstrated with the Bushmaster it has an awareness of what is required. even with a delay to 2012 or 2013 it is probably going to be in service at the same time as we can expect anything from the JLTV project so why not develop an Australian vehicle where we can have a lot more say in the specifications, develop an export winner and invest in local industries rather than just 'buying American'?

 

[hairyman]

whilst acknowledging that the Hawkei has to meet certain requirements, Thales has already demonstrated with the Bushmaster it has an awareness of what is required. even with a delay to 2012 or 2013 it is probably going to be in service at the same time as we can expect anything from the JLTV project so why not develop an Australian vehicle where we can have a lot more say in the specifications, develop an export winner and invest in local industries rather than just 'buying American'?

I am sure most of us would like to see the Australian vehicle get the go ahead.

 

[blueorchid]

Hawkei - the next generation Australian Light Protected Vehicle


Thought it look familiar

Plasan Sand Cat
Military Photos - View Single Post - IDF Ground Forces - (Read first post)

It looks as familiar to the Hawkei as the Bushmaster does to the truck in the back ground in the third photo, does that make that truck as good as a Bushmaster - i don't think so. I do not think that this Ford F100? would cut the mustard as the next generantion of Light Protected vehicle

Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

whilst acknowledging that the Hawkei has to meet certain requirements, Thales has already demonstrated with the Bushmaster it has an awareness of what is required. even with a delay to 2012 or 2013 it is probably going to be in service at the same time as we can expect anything from the JLTV project so why not develop an Australian vehicle where we can have a lot more say in the specifications, develop an export winner and invest in local industries rather than just 'buying American'?

Well if you base the success of this vehicle on the "success" of the Bushmaster, then this vehicle should be in-service in around 2025...

Check out when Project Bushranger actually started...

 

[bren122]

Well if you base the success of this vehicle on the "success" of the Bushmaster, then this vehicle should be in-service in around 2025...

Check out when Project Bushranger actually started...

i can remember way back then LOL. when first developed it was a unique concept and many critics questioned the need for it- and though in reality it is not doing what it was initially designed for, the fact is it has proven versatile enough to cope with being used in its current role. one thing often forgotten in R&D is that knowing a thing can be done is half the battle. i think with the lessons learnt on the Bushmaster the development time on the Hawkei should be a lot less. according to the news reports it is at full prototype stage so, if correct, it should only be a matter of evaluating it to see that it does do what Thales says it does and iron out any minor problems.
having said that, and given our unfortunate history with procurements, it would be sensible to insert a close out date for the project. i don't know the actual legal requirements but i would imagine that if Thales is saying a 2012 production date then allowing it to drift to 2014 seems more than fair- no Hawkei by 2014 then no contract.
i am not aware of exactly where the JTLV is in its development arc but i am not aware of it being in production- it would seem that the first 500 (or more) vehicles would be designated for the US so we probably wouldn't see much before 2012 anyway.
of course i could be completely wrong and if it were available sooner then it would be irresponsible not to procure it. all i am saying is that we have a company that has developed one capable platform and is now offering another that is based on that design's development and, as far as i am aware, on the same time scale as the JTLV- it seems good policy to me to spend the money at home and develop our own defence industries instead of just sending it offshore.

 

[Aussie Digger]

i can remember way back then LOL. when first developed it was a unique concept and many critics questioned the need for it- and though in reality it is not doing what it was initially designed for, the fact is it has proven versatile enough to cope with being used in its current role. one thing often forgotten in R&D is that knowing a thing can be done is half the battle. i think with the lessons learnt on the Bushmaster the development time on the Hawkei should be a lot less. according to the news reports it is at full prototype stage so, if correct, it should only be a matter of evaluating it to see that it does do what Thales says it does and iron out any minor problems.
having said that, and given our unfortunate history with procurements, it would be sensible to insert a close out date for the project. i don't know the actual legal requirements but i would imagine that if Thales is saying a 2012 production date then allowing it to drift to 2014 seems more than fair- no Hawkei by 2014 then no contract.
i am not aware of exactly where the JTLV is in its development arc but i am not aware of it being in production- it would seem that the first 500 (or more) vehicles would be designated for the US so we probably wouldn't see much before 2012 anyway.
of course i could be completely wrong and if it were available sooner then it would be irresponsible not to procure it. all i am saying is that we have a company that has developed one capable platform and is now offering another that is based on that design's development and, as far as i am aware, on the same time scale as the JTLV- it seems good policy to me to spend the money at home and develop our own defence industries instead of just sending it offshore.

JLTV has LRIP models in testing. IOC for US Army is scheduled for 2012.

Personally I believe nothing will happen with this project before then, unless Government sees an urgent operational requirement and forgoes the competition and selects Eagle IV or something.

As for Thales, don't be confused, Hawkei hasn't been developed by them, they've sourced it from another Country. They might claim they have one built to prototype stage, but why not release it then? All they've released is a digital mockup so far.

Lockheed Martin has released theirs:

Lockheed Martin Unveils Second Operational Joint Light Tactical Vehicle Prototype At AUSA Winter | Lockheed Martin

Northrop Grumman/Oshkosh have released theirs:

Northrop, Oshkosh Unveil 2nd JLTV Prototype - Defense News

And there are a million pics of the Eagle IV around the place...

Eagle II / Eagle III / Eagle IV Armoured Reconnaissance Vehicle - Army Technology

So far, Thales is not exactly "blowing my skirt up" with it's news...

 

[bren122]

They might claim they have one built to prototype stage, but why not release it then? All they've released is a digital mockup so far.

the first news report i saw stated that the Hawkei was at prototype stage; this is incorrect and the story has been altered to reflect this. i apologise for any misunderstandings caused.

but if they are just using technology already in place then this bodes well for a speedy development process. and at the end of the day, if we are to be serious about investing in our own defence industries, we need to take some risks.
perhaps Thales is just blowing wind, but i think we should at least be considering it.
whilst it is unlikely that any of these designs will replace the landrover and similar; even at a 1 in 5 replacement we are talking a market of 10 000 vehicles (Australian Newspaper estimates 50 000 landrover vehicles worldwide)..

 

[Aussie Digger]

the first news report i saw stated that the Hawkei was at prototype stage; this is incorrect and the story has been altered to reflect this. i apologise for any misunderstandings caused.

but if they are just using technology already in place then this bodes well for a speedy development process. and at the end of the day, if we are to be serious about investing in our own defence industries, we need to take some risks.
perhaps Thales is just blowing wind, but i think we should at least be considering it.
whilst it is unlikely that any of these designs will replace the landrover and similar; even at a 1 in 5 replacement we are talking a market of 10 000 vehicles (Australian Newspaper estimates 50 000 landrover vehicles worldwide)..

Army are considering it. They released a request for proposals for Phase 4 of LAND 121 after Thales had a massive public whinge about not being "told" about it, despite it being present in the DCP some 2.5 years before ADF announced it was investing in JLTV...

These vehicles are not replacing the Land Rovers overall though. The Mercedes Benz G Wagon is. These vehicles are providing an armoured vehicle to do what the Land Rover RSV (recon/surveillance variant) does now. The Land Rover fleet is around 6000 strong. Only 1300 of these vehicles are being acquired, with additional SEK's (survivability enhancement kits) to be added for some of the G wagen fleet too.

With the 650 odd additional Bushmaster variants that will be acquired under LAND 121, plus the existing 690 Bushmasters (in-service and on order), 426 M113AS3/4's, 257 ASLAV's and the new 1300 JLTV (used to describe the vehicle, not the make) Army should have a fleet of around 3000, permanently armoured vehicles and a large number of SEK protected vehicles by 2020.

No wonder people say Army is getting "harder"...

Nice...

As to the Land Rover replacement, all the usual light duty roles of the Landies will be conducted by un-armoured G wagens. Interestingly enough, Land Rover didn't even enter the competition this time...

 

[PeterM]

How do these fit into the 2009 DCP?

For example would these be included in 9.38 or (as I believe) 9.39

9.38 The Government places a high priority on the survivability and mobility of our land forces. To meet this priority, Defence intends to acquire a new fleet of around 1,100 deployable protected vehicles. These new vehicles will replace existing armoured personnel carriers, mobility vehicles and other combat vehicles which, in the past, have had limited or no protection. These new vehicles will offer greatly improved firepower, protection and mobility, in response to the increasing complexity and lethality of land operations. In the shorter term, Defence will continue to upgrade the protection, mobility and firepower of the M113 Armoured Personnel Carriers, some of which are already in service. By the time this project is completed in late 2011, the Army will have around 430 of these enhanced vehicles.

"Deployable protected vehicle" is an extremely broad term

9.39 Defence will continue a further major vehicle-related project to replace the current deployable support vehicle fleet of wheeled transport and logistic vehicles with a mix of around 7,000 support vehicles. The new vehicles will provide transport, command and control, liaison and logistic support.

any news on the Self Propelled Howitzer decision?

 

[Aussie Digger]

How do these fit into the 2009 DCP?

Whatever section LAND 121 Phase 4 is contained in.

any news on the Self Propelled Howitzer decision?

PZH-2000 and K-9 Thunder are still in the running. Government is due to provide 2nd pass approval within the 2009-2010 - 2010-2011 time frame, according to the DCP 2009.

The reason for the delay is Government wanted better costings than the proposals provided because of a whole list of modifications "someone" wants for the guns on offer. (RWS systems, AFATDS etc).

Good to see lip service is still being paid to Kinnaird...

Both are "off the shelf" platforms with only 100's of individual modifications to each platform requested by some or perhaps multiple groups within DoD...

 

[the road runner]

With the 650 odd additional Bushmaster variants that will be acquired under LAND 121, plus the existing 690 Bushmasters (in-service and on order

We getting more than 700 odd bushies?

First order was for 299 Bushies..
December 2006 order was pushed too 443 vehicles
August 2007 another 250 bushies ordered for a total of 696 Vehicles
Then in October 2008 the order was revised to a total of 737 vehicles.....


Have i missed something here????????

Land 121 will purchase another 650 vehicles ontop of the 737 sold to the ADF?

Regards

 

[Aussie Digger]

We getting more than 700 odd bushies?

First order was for 299 Bushies..
December 2006 order was pushed too 443 vehicles
August 2007 another 250 bushies ordered for a total of 696 Vehicles
Then in October 2008 the order was revised to a total of 737 vehicles.....


Have i missed something here????????

Land 121 will purchase another 650 vehicles ontop of the 737 sold to the ADF?

Regards

Yah. And it could actually be more, depending on how DMO assesses the bids. The Bushies will be single cab and dual cab ute variants though, rather than the extant "wagons" and will be procured under Phase 3 specifically:

"around 2300 medium and heavy trucks, at least 1300 of which will be protected to enable operational deployment, in total replacing around two thirds of the medium and heavy vehicle fleet; and"

 

[the road runner]

Yah. And it could actually be more, depending on how DMO assesses the bids.

More is good


Is the Copperhead on the wish list for the ADF? or is it still in development?

And what do the troops think of the Bushies, Aussie Digger? I have heard nothing but praise from the vehicles.......do they have any negative things to say about em?

Regards...

 

[Aussie Digger]

More is good


Is the Copperhead on the wish list for the ADF? or is it still in development?

That is the ute version I think off-hand isn't it? Anyway that is what I was referring to with the single cab/dual cab variants...

And what do the troops think of the Bushies, Aussie Digger? I have heard nothing but praise from the vehicles.......do they have any negative things to say about em?

Regards...

I've heard nothing but good things about them.

"The worst ride is always better than the best walk" as the saying goes and the Bushies are far from the worst ride around the Army...

 

[uuname]

Yah. And it could actually be more, depending on how DMO assesses the bids. The Bushies will be single cab and dual cab ute variants though, rather than the extant "wagons" and will be procured under Phase 3 specifically:

Wait, this has been decided? Isn't it still facing off against the USMC Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement?

 

[the road runner]

That is the ute version I think off-hand isn't it? Anyway that is what I was referring to with the single cab/dual cab varian.

Yeh its the flat bed ute,used for container transportation....i was unawear of the dual cab till i checked out the Thales site

On another note,the Daily telegraph has a story on how MCBAS body armour bought for Mounted troops in Iraq,is to heavy for dismounted troops in Afghanistan

Body armour danger for Diggers | The Daily Telegraph

One Digger in Astan said,"These things are not only heavy,but bloody dangerouse"

I would expect that the ADF would not just purchase one type of body armour,but would need a number of different body armour protection levels ,for different tasks.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Wait, this has been decided? Isn't it still facing off against the USMC Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement?

None of this has reached 2nd pass approval yet, so technically, none of it has been decided.

Just wait and see what happens when Mr Combet and Mr Faulkner are presented with the opportunity to build another 950 - 1100 odd Bushmaster vehicles within Australia, for money they were GOING to spend anyway.

I think they'll jump at the chance and I'd suggest that should that occur, it will mean even less chance of Hawkie (my preferred name...) getting the gig.

Thales engineering capacity would be stretched to the limit by such a large order, I should imagine and they can hardly complain about "not getting any work"...

 

[uuname]

None of this has reached 2nd pass approval yet, so technically, none of it has been decided.

Just wait and see what happens when Mr Combet and Mr Faulkner are presented with the opportunity to build another 950 - 1100 odd Bushmaster vehicles within Australia, for money they were GOING to spend anyway.

Hmm. I just hope the ADF doesn't get stuck with an unsuitable vehicle just because it's local.
The Bushmaster may be an excellent IMV, but that doesn't make it a cost effective truck...

Hawkie (my preferred name...) getting the gig.

Pic here:
First look at Hawkei - Local News - News - General - The Advertiser
Video here:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zdJHq8DIZI&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Australian Army Hawkei - The Next-Generation Australian Light Protected Vehicle[/ame]
(These are apparently just mock-ups, rather that real vehicles. )

Note the very slight V hull- you can see it in the video. Interesting that they didn't continue with the Bushmaster "big V" style...