1993, 20 years ago today. Mal had been posted on promotion to 5/7 after long look. There are a few around the world drinking to him tonight.
MARKMILES77
Active Member
Just been reading about Defence trials of the Hawkei vehicles in Army News and Airforce News.
Army and Airforce staff have been extensively testing the trial vehicles in Northern Australia. Generally they seem to have been impressed.
The armour including the windows were demonstrated to provide protection from .50 cal rounds. Impressive for a pretty light weight vehicle!
What seemed to concern all of the testers though (in the articles anyway) , was the fact that the engine bay has absolutely no protection whatsoever. So, for example, in a peacekeeping mission, a rebel with a .22 rifle knows he can get a mobility kill by putting a .22 round through the engine block! The DMO test engineer of the trials is quoted as saying this is accepted as a compromise in order to make the vehicle "airlift capable and lightweight". These vehicles have a payload of over 3,000 kg.
Surely a couple of hundred kg of light weight armour could protect the engine bay from at least small calibre rounds (Kevlar plates?)? No need for any mine protection but a .22 shouldn't be able to put them out of action.
Are all of the American JLTV candidates built in the same way with no engine protection?
Army and Airforce staff have been extensively testing the trial vehicles in Northern Australia. Generally they seem to have been impressed.
The armour including the windows were demonstrated to provide protection from .50 cal rounds. Impressive for a pretty light weight vehicle!
What seemed to concern all of the testers though (in the articles anyway) , was the fact that the engine bay has absolutely no protection whatsoever. So, for example, in a peacekeeping mission, a rebel with a .22 rifle knows he can get a mobility kill by putting a .22 round through the engine block! The DMO test engineer of the trials is quoted as saying this is accepted as a compromise in order to make the vehicle "airlift capable and lightweight". These vehicles have a payload of over 3,000 kg.
Surely a couple of hundred kg of light weight armour could protect the engine bay from at least small calibre rounds (Kevlar plates?)? No need for any mine protection but a .22 shouldn't be able to put them out of action.
Are all of the American JLTV candidates built in the same way with no engine protection?
Have to say that I'm no fan of Hawkei for a number of reasons... but Thales have excelled in their marketing ,,,,
the road runner
Active Member
What would be your pick to fill the contract gf?
I recall you were a fan of the Dingo over the Bushmaster.
MARKMILES77
Active Member
Eagle V as ordered by Germany looks impressive.
See there is also a 6X6 available specifically designed for Australia.
Weighs 7,700 kg, only 700kg more than a standard Eagle V yet has a 7,300 kg payload.
I think you are under-estimating what it takes to disable an engine!
Anyway, its perfectly normal for the engine to have no protection, especially is vehicles with protection designed by Plasan. For instance, the 15-tonne M-ATVs used in Afghan have no protection for the engine, the only thing protected is the crew cab - the chassis is completely exposed. Since the Hawkei isn't a fighting vehicle, it's simply designed to provide the crew with some protection, having an un-armoured engine is no big deal. Otherwise you would get mission creep and the Hawkei would end up being a Bushmaster.
I wouldn't worry too much about the comment in the Army rag - those Troopers are just used to a Bushie.
Agreed, if you go to the nth degree everything will end up the size and weight of a MBT, the job of the armour is to keep the crew alive while they do their job not to survive a slugging match with AFVs.
I imagine what ever is eventually selected will find its way into the light CAV regts to replace their current un-armoured patrol vehicles.
MARKMILES77
Active Member
Never suggested they should be designed to "survive a slugging match with an AFV", rather they should be able to slug it out with a rebel with a .22.
An important part of keeping the crew alive is keeping their vehicle mobile and having a vehicle which can be immobilized by having it's radiator punctured, fuel lines perforated etc by a low calibre weapon is not ideal.
Fan of the Eagle
Went for a spin in one and did some early evaluation on it.My main problem with Bushmaster was that at the time the Govt was going to kill it off as it was seen as over expensive for what it was and that we were just engaged due top local jobs issues. At the time I was involved with the build of the JRA Taipan so also had a slight conflict of affection
As it was the Govt decided that they needed to shore up their stocks in Bendigo (election issues) and decided to help secure the seat by changing their mind and restarting their enthusiasm - so it was a cynical exercise in politics rather than considered thought
But, in the scheme of things and the history shows that I was a tad wrong and that it was a vehicle worth continuing with. Despite the fact that Bendigo was more politically needed than Elizabeth (a safe Lab seat even under the worst political climate)
The unfort side bar issue was that ADI then thought that they had an inside run to Govt and started flogging off stupid projects under the guise of job creation... (eg stretched M113, Copperhead etc....) Hawkei was an ADI project with that money grabbing mentality as the central core to its creation/ Thales inherited it and continued the "this is a critical capability for the army and it will secure jobs" mantra.
Yep, got it in one...
I was really hoping that one got up with production / assembly at the old Mitsubishi site at Tonsley Park. Didn't happen, very sad about that, it pretty much would have been my dream project.Yep, got it in one...
I still think you are underestimating what it takes to disable a vehicle.
As I said, literally tens of thousands of M-RAPs and M-ATVs have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan with un-armoured engines, with no real issues (and they've been in a far higher threat environment than the Hawkei ever will). Even the Eagle IV, which seems quite popular here, has the engine outside the armoured box.
It's not that big a thing.
when I contracted to JRA the IMV's were nicknamed IMT's (Infantry Mobility Taxis)
Still - we exported Taipans as "police cars" to Kuwait
And Army flies "Armed Reconaissance Helicopters" not gunships...when I contracted to JRA the IMV's were nicknamed IMT's (Infantry Mobility Taxis)
Still - we exported Taipans as "police cars" to Kuwait
In the early years of Howards time as Pm and defence cuts / efficiencies were all the rage I suggested, tongue in check, that every weapons system proposal should be preceded with "Prime Ministerial Saluting Platform / System" to get it through PM&C i.e. to appease the sycophants.
If you want to build a vehicle that won’t be stopped by some sustained fire onto it (and frankly my old uni days Dato Charade could survive being hit by a .22 so I don’t think that will stop a PMV) you need an AFV. But it’s not a problem for a PMV because they will not be tooling around the battlefield by themselves needing the capability to drive through an ambush. If ambushed they will be part of a larger convoy of vehicles that will fight to stop itself from being overrun.
Many times over the years I have heard of the Army providing assistance to fight bushfires, but most reports don't give details of what form this assistance takes.
Do they -
Stand on the line and physically fight the fire, even though( I assume ) they have limited firefighting training.
Operate plant, dozers etc
Provide logistical support
Provide mess facilities
Cassevac and first aid
All of the above.
Do they -
Stand on the line and physically fight the fire, even though( I assume ) they have limited firefighting training.
Operate plant, dozers etc
Provide logistical support
Provide mess facilities
Cassevac and first aid
All of the above.