It doesn't really matter what the colours were designed for - they work. The different patterns were tested in every environment imaginable (jungle, rocky desert, sandy desert, savannah, urban, mixed urban, good old Aussie bush, night) and the selected pattern proved the best. DPCU proved best for darker environments and Multicam the best for lighter environments, with the hybrid the best compromise.
Technically a decision to buy new cams hasn't been made, but only a decision on what the new camouflage pattern will be. The first piece of uniform to be in the new pattern will be a new combat jacket which will start being issued next winter (another piece of clothing which is ten years overdue).
The answer believe it or not is it can be a cost saving. A disruptive pattern uniform looks good for longer with a single stain unlikely to force its wearer to replace it as it will potentially blend in with the pattern. With solid colour uniforms or work fatigues wear and tear shows sooner leading to more frequent replacement, the other factor is it was often necessary to provide overalls or similar as part of the standard issue to protect the uniforms during maintenance operations.
Over here in NZ there is talk of RNZAF going to their own DPM replacement uniform although plain dark blue not camo pattern, just similar cut and functionality. I suppose it reflects the nature of work and operating enviroments plus has the added benefit of instant identification as opposed to everyones army to average joe public.
I agree and have to ask, what happened to engineers wearing overalls, or have we reached the stage where engineering billets don't tough anything dirty anymore?
It does serve a purpose, just not an operational purpose. It's all about "branding". Grey cams clearly identifies Navy and presumably Blue cams will achieve the same thing for Air Force.
Except they also got rid of coveralls for the engineers and the cam does not last longer in the E/R. Add to that there is a view that the one piece option is generally better for protecting against ship board fire and blast than the top and trousers and jacket.
If funding for a SPH is made available why not use it instead for an equivalent HIMARS purchase (i.e. If the plan is to buy 18-24 SPHs, buy 18-24 HIMARS).
Who would you man the HIMARs with? There aren't enough soldiers to man the current guns, let alone introducing another regiments worth of capability. You couldn't just replace a battery of M777s with a battery of HIMARs in each regiment either, as they would need completely separate support chains, which costs even more soldiers.
The original SPG buy died because of Australia trying to buy a bespoke capability as opposed to buying off the shelf. Why do it again? It's just not smart.
Any new SPH buy would simply follow the original plan - one SPH troop in each regiment. It would mean we had more M777s than we needed, but I doubt anyone would complain about that. It would be relatively manning neutral as the gun detachment for an SPH is less than that of an M777, with the delta being made up by the necessary increase in spanners etc to maintain a different platform.
A gun on a truck is not a pseudo SPH. And if you wanted a M777 gun on a truck there is a legacy solution with the British Supacat truck using a portee arrangement (LIMAWSG). It achieves every performance aim of Caesar type systems without the need to mechanically alter the M777.
The Koreans have been pushing defence sales to Australia on a G to G level for some time. They see it as a means to alleviate their strong balance of payments deficit to Australia. Also winning a major Australian contract would be an important milestone towards being a first rank international arms supplier. And the Korean gear can be very good.
If the AS9 works and is integrated into AFATDS it would pretty much be an ideal solution. But I doubt it’s worth the $250-500 million for 20 guns when you can get the M109A7 for about 1/10 of the price. The only significant difference is +25% in range, better roof armour and minus 1-2 crew per gun.
No. The problems that caused the project to drag on interminably are still there.
Having read about the logistic problems on Main Battle tanks in general and some vauge reports on the M1A operated in Australia and Centurien in Vietnam etc.