This kind of system is a fixed FOB defence solution, like Centurion. Since it fires a lot of 'lead' into the air it also has a problem with these rounds falling to ground. The system provides the operator with a map display of where these rounds are going to fall which updates with the interception solution so you can wait to intercept or go for an early intercept to avoid the rounds falling on civlians or friendly forces. But if the insurgent IDF is only coming from an area where a civilian village is going to cop the rounds falling to ground you're in a Catch 22... Which is why systems like Iron Dome and the German 155mm CRAM solution have large blast warheads to break up the interceptor and the interceptee into small fragments which are falling to ground at terminal velocity not still under ballistic velocity.
justsomeaussie
Member
The problem with the procurement cycle is the lack of integration across the services. Programs such as AIR5431P1 and LAND19P7 are effectively asking for the same thing. The airforce wants to track and land a target and the army was to track and destroy it. The combination of Air Traffic Management, Battlespace Management and Air Defence (inlc CRAM) systems still doesn't exist to the best of my knowledge.
From an Australian perspective the VCDF really needs to start looking at these Joint problems as they really provide a cost effective solutions all the way from manpower to the supply chain. But typically we stove pipe our service procurement and then wonder 10 years later why we didn't do it together.
As I said I'm not very familiar with Mantis, but I know that Centurion has some serious issues with it's allocation of it's arcs of fire. Due to the extremely complex air space that most bases have to work with, most kinetic CRAM system's arcs of fire are limited to extremely small channels. The EN quickly work out where these channels are, then move their positions.
That is happening now though... eg the prog I'm involved with includes a number of separate service stakeholders with service specific reqs, and a way to look at how we all stay mutually informed.
eg track management may have diff svce needs, but there are common nuggets...
it doesn't help if the svces think that they have uniquie requirements and go off and do their own thing... esp when it costs a bucket load more and they still get sign off.
governance is identified through areas such as DCIM, but if he's over ridden... then......
and you'd be aware that one of the dead cat offendors has been the VCDF area in the past, this despite the fact that they don't have a "budget"
justsomeaussie
Member
For me a lot of the problems occur because of the lack of integration between Defence and Industry. We've had some success with RPDE but generally we are still fighting the same battles.
We have the ADF knowing that the capability it wants but not knowing what tools it takes to get there. We have Industry understanding the tools but not being aware of where the ADF wants to be.
The ARTHUR radar system is a good example. The coalition said it wanted a system to protect troops from IDF in TK. This problem went out and Singapore wanted to contribute their system. So we have a tool and a capability. Did it work? No. On the books we had a need for a WLR capability and that capability was provided by a WLR tool. So from the desks in Canberra everything looks ok. Then after a couple of years they realize that that tool doesn't meet the capability it was supposed to. Then they have to rush out an OUR trying to get a real CRAM system in.
Unfortunately it appears that because some of the executive started their career in the 80s with little or no threat to the digger they don't realise that times have changed significantly, yet we are still blowing around trying to reinvent the wheel every 18 months. (midpoint camouflage is another great example)
The more we can get Defence and Industry working alongside each other and not against, the more we'll have real systems that provide actual capabilities to the troops on the ground.
We have the ADF knowing that the capability it wants but not knowing what tools it takes to get there. We have Industry understanding the tools but not being aware of where the ADF wants to be.
The ARTHUR radar system is a good example. The coalition said it wanted a system to protect troops from IDF in TK. This problem went out and Singapore wanted to contribute their system. So we have a tool and a capability. Did it work? No. On the books we had a need for a WLR capability and that capability was provided by a WLR tool. So from the desks in Canberra everything looks ok. Then after a couple of years they realize that that tool doesn't meet the capability it was supposed to. Then they have to rush out an OUR trying to get a real CRAM system in.
Unfortunately it appears that because some of the executive started their career in the 80s with little or no threat to the digger they don't realise that times have changed significantly, yet we are still blowing around trying to reinvent the wheel every 18 months. (midpoint camouflage is another great example)
The more we can get Defence and Industry working alongside each other and not against, the more we'll have real systems that provide actual capabilities to the troops on the ground.
this isn't a one sided issue though.
I've worked on all sides of the fence. I owned my own company and sold systems into T&S for RAN. I worked as a contractor and a consultant, I worked directly to industry on salary and I've worked on the defence side of the shop.
I've seen first hand how some of industry have walked in, done the death by powerpoint, or done the roadshow with the bright and shiny gear in front of people (uniform and suit) who were not line operators and who's appreciation of the need was somewhat focussed... deliberate use of words here
IMO, defence have been raped an pillaged a number of times by industry and that leads to a bad taste. I say that as someone who worked as a consultant for one of the primes and where that prime had a coherent plan to focus on senior stars to T-bone the evaluation process. like all companies, they had favourites.
thats not to say that defence doesn't have its own issues, but I'd also bet that 99.8% of the current crop of journalists who pretend to be defence specialist reporters have no idea about the governance issues and how some of those processes actually can directly impinge on a speedy meaningful acquisition process.
there are some in industry who still clearly see defence as a cash cow and which is why any talk about trust between the two requires a far more considered approach than a blanket silver bullet offer - which is unfort how its dumbed down to for the general public. eg its far easier to blame a problem on culture, accountability etc in wonderful sound bites than it is to step back and take a long hard look at all the processes.
I can think of any number of people for example who would see RPDE as causing pain further down the road when its been dead catted and someone somehow now has to establish a sustainment and integration model - esp when its a COTS solution which has to play nicely and be accredited to work in a raft of layers and with other capabilities.
now I'm not dismissing RPDE as it obviously has some merit and advantages, but its not a panacea for procurement process ills and still needs to be mainstream integrated overall.
eg the arguments you typically see are that its uninformed suits, or public servants who are stuffing up, when the sponsor in the majority of cases is actually driven by a uniformed desk officer - or more to the point, that the approval to change the scope and progress of a project will lie with the imprimatur of the sponsor - ie desk officer advice.
then there's the issue of industry deliberately using ex senior sirs to short circuit approaches etc.......
again, my view is hardened by what I've seen, done at multiple layers.
there's no easy fix for this, but industry also needs to take a long hard look at itself - and journalists probably would do themselves a favour by doing some real research before trotting out vanilla comments. case in point, subs and AWD
justsomeaussie
Member
I totally agree with everything you've said. Judging it I'm probably ten years behind you. I come from a pretty operational career in the military and now am involved with the primes.
It has to be a two way street. Too often Defence gets sucked into slick suits selling capability that just isn't there and the poor desk officer who's just picked up the procurement task just had to go with it. It's a sad state of affairs, a lesson we seem to keep learning over and over again.
It will be interesting to see how the Industry Working Groups will affect their related programs, at least an initiative to reform some of the strategy is a recognition of a problem.
Perhaps we need to change the posting cycle for desk officer in CDG so they can actually have some time learning about the program they will be implementing rather than a 2-3 year cycle. Then we can involve industry at every stage guiding defense on what is possible for each capability.
Too often I see lots of people with great ideas and capability just become frustrated with the process and leave and work in another area.
Don't even get me started on defense "journalists".
It has to be a two way street. Too often Defence gets sucked into slick suits selling capability that just isn't there and the poor desk officer who's just picked up the procurement task just had to go with it. It's a sad state of affairs, a lesson we seem to keep learning over and over again.
It will be interesting to see how the Industry Working Groups will affect their related programs, at least an initiative to reform some of the strategy is a recognition of a problem.
Perhaps we need to change the posting cycle for desk officer in CDG so they can actually have some time learning about the program they will be implementing rather than a 2-3 year cycle. Then we can involve industry at every stage guiding defense on what is possible for each capability.
Too often I see lots of people with great ideas and capability just become frustrated with the process and leave and work in another area.
Don't even get me started on defense "journalists".
I want to join the Australian Army
Hey everyone,
I'm new here and i have decided that I want to join the Army but with Australian troops being taken out of Iraq and all, do they really need any more people??
Also I would like to know from anyone who has been in the army what its like?
I'm currently 16 turning 17 in 3 months, when should I enlist in the army?
How long do you stay in the army for and where do you stay while in the army?
Also I have seen the word "diggers" around a lot on this forum and I was wondering what that meant?
Basically I want to know as much about ARMY life as possible so that I can make sure its right for me...also if there are any other points or tips you wanted to give me go ahead, Im all ears...
Thanks in advance
T.C
Hey everyone,
I'm new here and i have decided that I want to join the Army but with Australian troops being taken out of Iraq and all, do they really need any more people??
Also I would like to know from anyone who has been in the army what its like?
I'm currently 16 turning 17 in 3 months, when should I enlist in the army?
How long do you stay in the army for and where do you stay while in the army?
Also I have seen the word "diggers" around a lot on this forum and I was wondering what that meant?
Basically I want to know as much about ARMY life as possible so that I can make sure its right for me...also if there are any other points or tips you wanted to give me go ahead, Im all ears...
Thanks in advance
T.C
I can't really answer the sign up questions as I have no experience, although others on the forum have and I think they will be able to tell you. I recommend going to previous threads on the topic as well however, a lot of other people have asked tihs question.
As for diggers however, the term can be traced back to World War 1 and how the soldiers had to "dig, dig, dig" in the trenches.
Hawkei
For those interested here is a new vid on youtube of the hawkei going through some testing, of note in the first couple of minutes of the video is the uphill climb on wet clay, not a bad effort for a 7 1/2 tonne truck and not the best looking tyres for clay and mud
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwaoOItHRVA"]YouTube - Kym Bergmann editor APDR reviews the Thales Hawkei‏[/nomedia]
Cheers
For those interested here is a new vid on youtube of the hawkei going through some testing, of note in the first couple of minutes of the video is the uphill climb on wet clay, not a bad effort for a 7 1/2 tonne truck and not the best looking tyres for clay and mud
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwaoOItHRVA"]YouTube - Kym Bergmann editor APDR reviews the Thales Hawkei‏[/nomedia]
Cheers
justsomeaussie
Member
Certainly a positive video. I think a strong contender in Land 121 considering the options. Pity Thales hasn't been able to get rid of that god awful squeaking the bushmaster has.
What squeaking?
justsomeaussie
Member
Every bushmaster I've been in has a terrible squeaking sound when inside (and moving of course). At about 1 minute to go in the video you can hear the same sounds. It's quite distracting for anyone in the back.
Er, every single armoured vehicle ever made makes noises like that.
justsomeaussie
Member
Perhaps, I've just never noticed it as bad in any other type of vehicle. I thought it must of had something to do with the monocoque hull. A lot of the comms guys complained not being able to hear with headphones in some of the louder vehicles.
justsomeaussie
Member
That's probably not a very constructive response. Perhaps the BM engine is quieter making any other noises seem louder. What exactly creates the squeaky noise? It sounds like it comes from the suspension.
I'll just clarify some more. The squeaky noise isn't the same as the metallic sounds that come from armoured vehicles. It's directly related to when the vehicle is moving over rough terrain (the hull is moving). When on a firm road you can't hear it. It can be bloody loud.
I know what a bushmaster sounds like, being an instructor on the vehicle and all. The noise comes from the running gear, and is exactly the same noise that an ASLAV makes when on the move. I must admit, I've never had a passenger complain about the noise in the back. Maybe I just keep my vehicles well greased.
Personally I would be far more concerned with reducing the noise the CTIS makes everytime it adjusts itself, but even then a good driver can stop that if he pays attention.
justsomeaussie
Member
What is your impression of the Hawkei compared to the competition?
personally. I think its a woftam