LAND 400 includes replacing the Bushmaster hence the RG31. The first Bushmasters will be 15 years old come 2020...
Just as a curiosity have we ever looked at the likes of an ATTC style vehicle along the lines of the BV206 ? Or would this not suit our future requirements, I would think it would be handy running off the LCM's & LCH's
Land 400 only includes replacing the Bushies that are part of or in direct support of the manoeuvre force, and will do so with a much more robust vehicle (think Boxer not RG31). The Bushies will serve on for years in CS and CSS roles.
When a unit is using vehicles like say the Stryker or Boxer does that make them motorised or mechanised?
If they are motorised, then what is the difference between them and mech infantry.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Mechanised traditionally refers to the presence of tracked vehicles and the way they fight. Mechanised infantry operate with the vehicles in close combat scenarios.
Motorised infantry traditionally refers to infantry forces mounted in wheeled vehicles who dismount to conduct combat operations and use the vehicles for little more than protected mobility.
Not as an integral part of your assault upon an enemy position...
Last edited by a moderator:
Jup, in the end APCs like the Stryker or Boxer are battlefield taxis or motherships or whatever one wants to call it.
A mechanized unit using IFVs (tracked or wheeled) has the IFV as the main source of firepower of a squad where the vehicle is fully integrated into the combat drills. It is also important to note that mechanized forces are able to engage in mounted combat, whereas motorized infantry is basically defenseless as long as the infantry is mounted.
A mechanized unit using IFVs (tracked or wheeled) has the IFV as the main source of firepower of a squad where the vehicle is fully integrated into the combat drills. It is also important to note that mechanized forces are able to engage in mounted combat, whereas motorized infantry is basically defenseless as long as the infantry is mounted.
That makes more sense than a whole sale replacement of the Bushmaster with RG 31. I think BAE would be better off putting forward the RG 41 or SEP for LAND 400.
LAND 400 is a long term project and even a Bushmaster built today will be life expired around 2025 (without refit) and 2035 (with refit). Bushmaster is also quite unpopular with long term planning because of its very high cost of ownership due to a limited spares and training source basis. Army hopes to move to more common fleets with wide international sustainment supply options. However the Govt. likes to spend money in local electorates hence the LAND 121 JLTV vs 'Aussie' PMV-L. Of course the Army is left holding the much higher recurring expenses sheet from a limited budget.
Considering the durability issues with the BAE platforms initially selected for LAND 121 I would be surprised if THALES dosn't manage to get their Copperhead design up. Considering the performance of the Bushmaster in Afghanistan you would think our operators in the field would be more than happy with them and that we would be able to successfully market them OS.
I was under the impression that the Bushmasters drive train was derived from the FMTV and that the suspension was also COTS so sustainment shouldn't be that demanding.
Choosing to select FMS over a unique national solution for a new project based on cost and risk is one thing but replacing a proven national solution with an equivalent MOTS solution just doesn't make sense.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #2,131
IMHO as there is no perceived threat to Australia, and given our limited defence budget due to a small population, none of the above will ever eventuate.
We will never go to war on our own, that fact is part of our strategic plan. The planners consider the number of people necessary to maintain hi tech vehicles in force and the numbers are not affordable.
It is very sad that we actually consider one upmanship by our northern neighbours when it comes to defence planning.
We will never go to war on our own, that fact is part of our strategic plan. The planners consider the number of people necessary to maintain hi tech vehicles in force and the numbers are not affordable.
It is very sad that we actually consider one upmanship by our northern neighbours when it comes to defence planning.
disagree that as there is no perceived threat that we need to plan ahead. a number of situations in the last 20 years have left our capacity to engage or act independently at risk. a number of significant assets and systems bought in the last 10 years were bought to deal with 20+ years of indolent decision making. both sides of the house have stuffed up here - and the reason why we face major acquisitions in a block is due to a history of deferments
actually we do plan scenarios where we may need to go to war on our own. there is no guarantee that our principle allies will back us up - and thats been the situation a few times in the last 30 years. their political imperatives had priority (naturally) over ours. Allied support depending on the geopolitical circumstance is not a given
disagree again. we plan against perceived socio/political change in our region, and the variety of plans reinforces that. we plan 30-40 years ahead on potential threats and the volatility of change - not on what our neighbours buy.
the Falklands would be a good example of this, the UK had to go it alone with no US or EU help
These are different phases to the PMV-L part of LAND 121. The Copperhead has been shortlisted for further evaluation to fill the mediumweight protected vehicle. It is also likely in the king cab version for the light cab chassis protected vehicle but this vehicle class is in a different project element to the mediumweight class.
You can’t just stick a FMTV donk into a Bushmaster. It is packaged in a unique way and the only place to buy this engine is Thales in Bendigo.
It does when cost is involved. The cost differential (both none recurring and recurring) between Bushmaster and a MRAP vehicle is staggering.
Good to hear on the Copperhead.
I don't want to sound like I am arguing for the sake of arguing but isn't there a major difference in the off road capability of the MRAP vs the Bushmaster, i.e. the Bushmaster is very capable off road where the heavier truck based MRAPs are much more limited in this area. I just don't see why we would look at replacing the Bushmaster with an MRAP.
Going for what is basicaly a wheeled AIFV is another matter all together.
even though the US has a pretty spectacular logistics tail, there has been some chat about them struggling to get the right lift and transports in place when they need them.
They may be more expensive, but I'll take a Bushmaster over an MRAP every day of the week, they are a far better 'green' vehicle. Although to be fair I haven't worked with the new all-terrain MRAPs. It used to make me giggle watching the MaxxPro vehicles rollover if they tried to take a corner at more than 5km/h.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
About a 1 in 6 shot I'd say. That's how many vehicles were shortlisted, IIRC...
Don't be mistaken into thinking that Hawkei will win, just because the Bushmasters are manufactured here. I'm fairly certain it will be a program requirement for ANY selected vehicle to be manufactured here. Plenty of companies could assemble these vehicles within Australia, Bendigo doesn't hold the sole capability...
A large part of our ASLAVS are made n South Australia for instance...
FMD, I hope not. its in line for the woftam prize IMO