No guru on the subject but the weights according to wiki are within a tonne or so of each other - the ASLAV has twice as many wheels, therefore roughly half the ground pressure, twice the traction, the ability to cross trenches that the 4x4 design cannot etc. There would be no rampover angle on the ASLAV, whereas there would be on the Bushmaster....
The ASLAV and Bushie are roughly equivalent on road. They can both easily cruise at 100km/h (although its far more comfortable to do so in a Bushie than an ASLAV), and ranges are about the same.
Spall armour is enough to take away the ASLAV's swim capability. Bar armour is even more weight (I can't imagine anyone would roll with bars and not spall liners) plus CIED ECM. The Gen IV, Phase 5 ASLAV was supposed to add a new design, new build hull which provided the higher armour level while restoring the swim capability but since it cost money it was cancelled.
The Phase 4 (not 5) ASLAV was never going to swim. There's no way the weight saving features was going to offset the increase in weight. Since no combat loaded ASLAV has ever actually swum anyway, this wasn't such a big deal.
Phase 4 for Gen 3… I added one to each! The new hull was going to be bigger so have more volume so displace more water to compensate for gross increase in weight to maintain the swim capability. I agree it wasn’t a big deal (the swim capability) but it was a specified requirement. Would have been much easier that after the first deployments of the AMTG that a regiment’s worth of LAV III were purchased. Sure it would have a different engine, transmission, etc but it could have a common turret and provide a bigger, more armoured vehicle for operational use while the ASLAVs were used for training.
It depends on what variant ASLAV, but it will generally be 2-3 times more expensive than a PMV.
It's yet to be decided whether the new cams will replace DPCU. There are trials happening early next year that will inform any decision. Not surprisingly, cost will play a big part - now probably isn't a good time to get new uniforms that aren't all that much better than the old ones.
The Australian Financial Review carried a story today saying the South Koreans are really ticked off, after the Government rejected an unsolicited offer for SPGs, at around $225 million.
I'm a bit unclear about the M777. Would it be correct to say that despite not having an APU and a fixed undercarriage that enables the gun to be rapidly moved, the main advantage M777 offers over other towed 155mm guns is its light weight?
Others will correct me here, but I think its main advantage is that it is AFATDS compatible.
The M777 can be moved faster over ground than any 155mm with an APU. Unlike these other guns the M777 is balanced to stand on its wheels. So when in the travel configuration you can basically haul it along by hand quite easily. But the best method is just to tow it with a quad bike.
Nope. Army doesn’t believe in the viability of air transportability of mechanised combat forces.
