Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Tee_Centre_10]

I'm sure that this has been covered before earlier in this thread but I can't find the answer but why has the Australian government (or more accurately, the Department of Defence) committed $43 million to the US JLTV project while still exploring other options for this Land 121 Phase 4 project??

It seems like a gigantic waste of money to me.....

As I understand the sequence of events it was along these lines:
* AustGov put money into the US JLTV program. This allows Australia to have input/influence/knowledge/a stake in the program. The US would fund some 20 of the prototypes and Australia 10. One obvious outcome (I would hope) is that the JLTV would come in a version driven from the right side. There was no commitment to buying the JLTV selected.
* Australian manufacturers (or just Thales?) whined "We should have a chance to compete! *pout*".
* AustGov crumbles in the face of wibbling bottom lips and agrees to a local competition for a vehicle that will go up against the selected JLTV.
* The Thales Hawkei was selected in the local competition for further development and competition against the JLTV.

Scenarios:
* If the JLTV goes ahead at full speed and proves to be the best thing out of the US since apple pies and mom, then the $40m will be well spent and the money spent on the Hawkei a waste.
* If the Hawkei is selected or the JLTV cancelled, then the $40m will be an expensive research exercise and the Hawkei development a good investment.
* If the PMV-L (Land 121 Ph4) is cancelled then all money spent was wasted.

I know that there has been some criticism of the whole JLTV/Hawkei issue but I think both decisions was a good thing whatever the actual motivations.

There was a real possibility that the JLTV could have been cancelled. This doesn't seem to be the case any more, but if it was so marginal once it could be again. There has been a real push by some in the US (lobbying for the win!) for more up-armoured Humvees (because they only cost $200,000. Associated costs, such as future health care/pensions from unnecessarily injured and dead service-people, weren't factored in), or re-manufacture existing up-armoured Humvees with V-hulls (because the US has so many of them lying around, shot up and knackered but what the hell...). In response, there has been a decision to get the cost of the JLTV down to US$250,000 from (I think) something like US$350,000.

In addition there had been quite a lot of speculation that the USMC would withdraw from the program because the USMC wouldn't buy a JLTV that was more than 20,000lbs. The response was to work on reducing the weight of the JLTV, and the easiest way for an armoured vehicle to lose weight is to reduce protection (I don't know if this was the case).

If the JLTV had been cancelled then the Hawkei would have been there.
If, despite Australia's investment, there has been compromises in capability to conform to weight and price restrictions or the requirements of the US Army or USMC then the JLTV may not suit the ADF PMV-L requirement any more. But the Hawkei is still there, and I assume its development is being guided by the ADF to the needs of the PMV-L.

Personally, I think that making the Bushmaster in Australia has been a good thing and it is worth continuing the manufacture of protected vehicles in Australia if possible. It would depend on economics, of course.
The cost of the JLTV is to be US$250,000, and how achievable it is in practise remains to be seen. But if the Hawkei/JLTV can be made in Australia with a reasonable premium, then I think it should.
As a comparison, a few years ago Bushmasters were A$550,000 or so. I haven't seen any estimates for how much the Hawkei would be.

Land 121 Ph4 is for 1300 PMV-L vehicles and is budgeted A$1.5 billion whatever vehicle is chosen. $43million would be good investment if the result is the right vehicle for the ADF.

 

[ADMk2]

I'm sure that this has been covered before earlier in this thread but I can't find the answer but why has the Australian government (or more accurately, the Department of Defence) committed $43 million to the US JLTV project while still exploring other options for this Land 121 Phase 4 project??

It seems like a gigantic waste of money to me.....

The money was committed to JLTV before local industry had a massive spit that it wasn't being paid to develop a similar vehicle.

So now they are and as local politics will be the biggest factor in this "competition" I suspect you're right about the waste of money on JLTV.

However if Hawkei proves to be a competent vehicle that meets our requirements, well we've wasted billions on stuff that provided us no capability whatsoever, at least we'll get a capability out of this project one way or the other...

 

[south]

Interesting commentary here by Chief of Army. Defence News and Media » Chief of Army – Letter to the Editor in relation to an article by Ian McPhedran

Quite dissapointing behaviour from a journalist who should know better....

To the Editor,

It was with the greatest disappointment and dismay that I read Ian McPhedran’s article in your newspaper this morning, releasing the name of our most recent combat fatality before official release by Defence and by his family. The Army and the Defence Force have well established protocols for the release of names and personal details in these circumstances; protocols with which your journalists are very familiar but have clearly chosen to ignore.

The family in this instance, whose lives are currently consumed with their own grief, had asked Army to wait to release his details so that they could deal with this terrible loss in their way. You have robbed them of this right. Such actions are unconscionable and un-Australian. Our only concern is a desire to look after those of the grieving family of a courageous soldier. Their trust has been betrayed by the selfish act of a journalist intent on being ‘the first’.

D.L Morrison

LTGEN

Chief of Army

04 July 2012

 

[Volkodav]

Interesting commentary here by Chief of Army. Defence News and Media » Chief of Army – Letter to the Editor in relation to an article by Ian McPhedran

Quite dissapointing behaviour from a journalist who should know better....

To the Editor,

It was with the greatest disappointment and dismay that I read Ian McPhedran’s article in your newspaper this morning, releasing the name of our most recent combat fatality before official release by Defence and by his family. The Army and the Defence Force have well established protocols for the release of names and personal details in these circumstances; protocols with which your journalists are very familiar but have clearly chosen to ignore.

The family in this instance, whose lives are currently consumed with their own grief, had asked Army to wait to release his details so that they could deal with this terrible loss in their way. You have robbed them of this right. Such actions are unconscionable and un-Australian. Our only concern is a desire to look after those of the grieving family of a courageous soldier. Their trust has been betrayed by the selfish act of a journalist intent on being ‘the first’.

D.L Morrison

LTGEN

Chief of Army

04 July 2012

The original press release said it all when it stated, quite clearly, that his name had been withheld on the request of his family. McPhedran is, always has been and likely always will be a tool.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The original press release said it all when it stated, quite clearly, that his name had been withheld on the request of his family. McPhedran is, always has been and likely always will be a tool.

The bloke is a maggot. He's been in long enough to know how these things work

Its about ego and scoop.

 

[south]

The bloke is a maggot. He's been in long enough to know how these things work

Its about ego and scoop.

Which is what makes it particularly disappointing given that he has spent the last umpteen years getting in close and working (and profiting from) with the ADF and then goes and abuses any trust that has been built up.

 

[Volkodav]

Which is what makes it particularly disappointing given that he has spent the last umpteen years getting in close and working (and profiting from) with the ADF and then goes and abuses any trust that has been built up.

Why on earth did the army trust him after what he did to the submarine project. He and his never ending dud subs slogan is a big part of the reason the real problems aren't being fixed. Pollies always go for the short term fix on the biggest pain and when that pain is being felt over the wrong thing the money (+time and effort) goes to the wrong place.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Why on earth did the army trust him after what he did to the submarine project. He and his never ending dud subs slogan is a big part of the reason the real problems aren't being fixed. Pollies always go for the short term fix on the biggest pain and when that pain is being felt over the wrong thing the money (+time and effort) goes to the wrong place.

My eyes bleed every time I read one of McPhedrans "inside" scoops. what a ferking tosser. He doesn't get terms right, stuffs up context, and in the past has also deliberately ignored factual advice that was unimpeachable and was given to try and help him understand.

and as V said re subs, geez uz wept.... where oh where are the real defence daily journo's?

he wouldn't want to try and engage with the specials too soon. he's burnt his trust card and won't be getting it back.

 

[Volkodav]

My eyes bleed every time I read one of McPhedrans "inside" scoops. what a ferking tosser. He doesn't get terms right, stuffs up context, and in the past has also deliberately ignored factual advice that was unimpeachable and was given to try and help him understand.

and as V said re subs, geez uz wept.... where oh where are the real defence daily journo's?

he wouldn't want to try and engage with the specials too soon. he's burnt his trust card and won't be getting it back.

Defence is so politicised in Australia these days that the uniforms cant make a peep as it will upset one mob or another that lets these clowns write what ever they want without fear of contradiction.

 

[Trackmaster]

The politics of the latest Bushmaster order is discussed in the Financial Review today.
Is it possible there will be a bunch of these vehicles sitting around..unused..in various depots in the near future?

Cynical ploy to shore up Labor MPs

 

[ADMk2]

The politics of the latest Bushmaster order is discussed in the Financial Review today.
Is it possible there will be a bunch of these vehicles sitting around..unused..in various depots in the near future?

Cynical ploy to shore up Labor MPs

You mean like all the Bushmasters in open storage at Pinkenbah in Brisbane, that anyone driving past can see?

Nah, that could never happen...

 

[Vanguard]

Surprised they did not add that the Timor deployment is likely to end by the beginning of next year, according to reports out post-election, which will reduce their need even further. My betting is that these will be built, see limited service, and will then be lined up for foreign export although considering the British and Dutch are making similarly extensive defence cuts it may be harder to find a buyer, police forces could be an option with the crime rate in Western Sydney and other areas rising ARV could be of interest.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The Bushmasters that are currently in storage are there because they haven’t been fitted with a radio harness. The Army still needs them and when they are back fitted with a harness will replace Perentie 6x6 trucks.

The additional Bushmasters are surplus to requirements because the DoD has already inked the contract for all the unarmoured vehicles in this category. Basically the ADF needs a certain number of field vehicles able to carry 10 or so people. These vehicles are made up of a 50-50 mix of armoured and unarmoured vehicles. The gross number of vehicles in this category are 2,067 for the ADF’s current structure. Of which 980 are G-Wagen 6x6s and 350 a yet undecided armoured dual cab chassis vehicle. Leaving a need for 737 Bushmasters. Additional Bushmasters can be purchased to replace those that have been clapped out via operational service but this number is a lot less than 300 (or 100). Now the Army can increase the ratio of armoured to unarmoured vehicles from the current 50-50 ratio (like to equip ARES RAAC units) but we have already brought the G-Wagen 6x6s. So there are going to be quite a few surplus vehicles (Bushmasters or G-Wagens) sitting around. The irony of course is with these 300 odd vote buying Bushmasters if they were being built in dual cab chassis version they would be the vehicle the Army needs. But that would have made sense.

 

[Tee_Centre_10]

The original press release said it all when it stated, quite clearly, that his name had been withheld on the request of his family. McPhedran is, always has been and likely always will be a tool.

... and finally we would like to thank those sectors of the media community who have respected our request for privacy and hope that this will continue during this difficult time.

Is there any possibility that shame will be felt by News Ltd after such a rebuke from Sgt Diddams family?

 

[Prosper]

Is there any possibility that shame will be felt by News Ltd after such a rebuke from Sgt Diddams family[/URL]?

You are talking about the same organisation that had no qualms about hacking into a dead British teenager mobile?? Most likely not.

That said I hope the ADF put a blanket ban on any civil or military staff talking to McPhedran for at least a year after his flagrant disregard for the protocol of respecting the deceased family wishes.

PS thanks for your and ADMk2 answers regarding the JLTV. I had a good laugh at your comment about the government

crumbles in the face of wibbling bottom lips

:lol:

 

[hairyman]

What is everyone's opinion on what equipment the Australian Army is most in need of ? Just to get the thread re-started.:nutkick

 

[ADMk2]

A reasonable budget that the Government is committed to?

Now for the cool stuff:

1. The 18x 155mm SP guns that were promised. Indicative type - K-9 Thunder.

2. A squadron of refurbished and upgraded Armoured Amphibious Vehicles to equip a Squadron within newly raised 3/4 Cavalry Regiment. Indicative type - BAE upgraded AAV7-1.

3. A light utility helicopter capability to supplement and fill in for the higher end helicopter capabilities that we've decided upon. Something cheap to run and very reliable, that can be supported in austere conditions with minimal levels of support.

Something that gives us the ability to undertake light utility and transport tasks, light observation taskings, Special Forces support missions and light fire support missions.

Indicative type - a Kiowa Warrior class helo, but based on the same platform as our new training helicopter capability.

4. A 120mm mortar capability with a precision guided munition. Indicative type - Indicative type - USMC EFSS 120mm mortar system (but with a different support vehicle).

5. An armed riverine / littoral patrol capability. Indicative type - CB-90.

 

[Raven22]

I think the most important thing is for Land 400 to be brought forward to a reasonable timeframe. Land 400 was originally to deliver vehicles in 2015 or so, but is now delayed so that IOC for the fist ACR is 2026. Considering that the ASLAV runs of of service life in 2021 and the M113AS4 runs out of service life in 2025, that is a problem. Not to mention that both vehicles will be laughable obsolete in that timeframe.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I think the most important thing is for Land 400 to be brought forward to a reasonable timeframe.

x2 and with the combat engineer element (M1 ABV, M1 AVLB, Terrier CETs) being delivered around the same time as the IFV not left for another million years. It wouldn't be hard to do LAND 400 around the original timetable (2015) as we brought M1s in a similar schedule. We would just have to acquire them with an OTS battle management system (same as the current LAND 200 BMS) and then upgrade them later with the all singing all dancing FCS style BMS that also controls the vehicle, UAVs and space battleships.

Add to this delivery of the LAND 125 EF88 now rather than 10 years from now... OTS M109A6 Paladins from the US Army and the Australian Army could have some of the world's best integrated combined arms systems in service within five years.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Just one thing to add about doing LAND 400 now with contract signing before 2015 is it won't need to be for the full scope of >1,000 vehicles. Because the M113AS4 will be able to provide all the combat support functions (or most of them) for another >10 years. So we will only need to buy >400 IFVs and <100 arty and engr AFVs to equip the ACRs and their mech arty and engr sub-units before 2020 and then come 2025 look at LAND 401 to buy something to replace the M113s and Bushmasters in CS & CSS roles and upgrade the BMS of the LAND 400 vehicles.