12 in total. Three fire teams of four.
As there are people here who have first hand experience operating the F-88 and M4; I thought it would be best to ask my questions here rather than creating a new thread.
- I've read that the M4 is 'more' ambidextrous compared to the F-88. Is there any truth in this?
I would assume that like the F-88, the bolt on the M4 can be switched to either side and that the ejection port can be covered to suit left handers.
- Someone who once fired an AUG told me that because he is left eyed dominant, that using the weapon's built in scope was tricky as the scope is catered or configured (if that's the right word) for people who are right eyed dominant. Does this make any sense?
- In the Aussie army, is it common for left handers to shoot F-88s from the right shoulder?
- In terms of robustness, does the M4 score better over the F-88?
- Apart from being lighter and having an adjustable stock, what key advantages would an M4 have over an F-88; especially if the M4 user has only iron sights to work with.
- I've read that the M4 is 'more' ambidextrous compared to the F-88. Is there any truth in this?
I would assume that like the F-88, the bolt on the M4 can be switched to either side and that the ejection port can be covered to suit left handers.
- Someone who once fired an AUG told me that because he is left eyed dominant, that using the weapon's built in scope was tricky as the scope is catered or configured (if that's the right word) for people who are right eyed dominant. Does this make any sense?
- In the Aussie army, is it common for left handers to shoot F-88s from the right shoulder?
- In terms of robustness, does the M4 score better over the F-88?
- Apart from being lighter and having an adjustable stock, what key advantages would an M4 have over an F-88; especially if the M4 user has only iron sights to work with.
I had anF-88C with a left-handed bolt and had no issue with the location of the sight which was centered, not canted to either side. When my issued weapon was made unserviceable by the sight reticule coming loose it was replaced by issuing me with a right-handed weapon then an armourer switching the bolt face to the left handed type and swapping the port cover to the other side. I have never heard of lefthanded personnel being required to fire from the right shoulder except perhaps in parade drills i.e. Firing volleys.
I am not familiar with the M-4 but have trained on the M-16A1 and fired the 9mm version of the Colt Commando. Neither was available with left handed ejection but was easy enough to fire left handed as the ejection port was sufficiently forward for spent cases to clear the shooter.
- The M4 is ambidextrous in so far as you can fire it from either shoulder with no modification. It simply has a brass deflector to the immediate rear of the ejection port which deflects the brass forward so it can be fired from either shoulder. You can't do the same with a bullpup because the ejection port is so far to the rear.
- The optical sight on a Steyr works for either eye, but if someone is right handed but left eye dominant, they won't be able to use it properly (although that is the same for any sight). If someone is right handed but left eye dominant, they will simply have to learn to fire a weapon left handed, as that is easier than trying to shoot with the 'wrong' eye. I've learned that the hard way a few times.
- Its not common for anyone to fire a Steyr off handed. About the only tactical reason to do it is for QCB type activities, where firing it offhand might be necessary. All you do is tilt the weapon over so you take the ejected brass in your shoulder instead of your face. It makes it hard to shoot accurately, but it's better than nothing.
- In terms of robustness, the average F88 will be more robust than the average M4. Although, this is largely down to quality of manufacture - if you spend big money on a top quality M4 or clone it will be as robust as any other weapon in existence.
- The biggest advantage of the M4 is adaptability. There are simply so many optical sights, night weapon sights, laser sights, hand grips, stocks, bipods and every other type of accessory you can think of that can easily be attached to the M4 (or any AR15). You can't do this anywhere as easily with a Steyr. However, this actually isn't all that helpful for the majority of the army since they aren't issued all the accessories. However, for special forces, who do have money for all the accessories and the training and mission profiles to take advantage of them, it is a very handy capability. This is why SOCOMD uses the M4 while the rest of the army doesn't. However, the new F90s will come with an 'accessory pack' for each soldier that will allow them to be customised far more than current models.
So I've not fired the F-88 before, but I've had good experience with the M4, M16, AR-15, CAR-15, so I think I can chip in a little here...
- The M4's ejection port is fixed to the right, so there is no way you can rotate the bolt and 'adapt' it for left-handed usage, there's simply no ejection port there even if you could rotate the bolt (and you can't rotate it anyway). There is a brass deflector (older M16s don't have it, if I remember correctly) and the charging handle can be used by left or right-handed firers so I would say that the weapon is pretty ambidextrous alright.
- How did the shots land? Was it just scattered all over, or clustered at one point but off target? I believe that has to do with a inadequately zeroed weapon, or improper firing posture, sometimes caused by the ergonomics of the weapon itself. That said, I've never held a F-88 before, so I can't say anything specific...
- In Singapore, the SAR-21 (also another bullpup) is taught to be fired from the right shoulder, regardless. This was the result of a training incident in which a poorly handled/poorly maintained weapon used by a left-handed firer experienced a cook-off while the firer was clearing a stoppage during live-fire training. Given that the SAR-21 has a Kevlar plate on the inner left side to protect the cheek of a right-handed firer, deflecting the explosion to the right (and away from the right-hander's face) in the event of a chamber explosion...the design ended up causing injury to the left-handed serviceman. Of course, if safety procedures were followed and the weapon well serviced, then this would not have happened, but I guess the SAF wanted to play it safe.
- I think robustness is a tricky question to answer. I believe that all weapons will break down and/or stop firing given a sufficiently hostile environment. This can be mitigated through regular maintenance i.e. cleaning/oiling moving parts regularly to prevent dirt accumulation, removing carbon deposits from important areas i.e. bolt carrier group etc. If you're talking about how likely things like the plastic pistol grips breaking or the plastic hand guard shattering...I guess that will boil down to what Raven says - if you spend more, you get a better weapon that's less likely to break under all sorts of circumstances.
- I never really felt a major difference between bullpup and conventional, other than the ease of moving around more closed environments i.e. urban. Don't really have much else to add here.
DSCA FMS request dated yesterday for up to 6 M88A2 Hercules Recovery Vehicles and associated equipment, nice to see, will we see an FMS for more M1's
soon too ? time will tell
Cheers
Australia – M88A2 Hercules Heavy Recovery Vehicles | The Official Home of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency
soon too ? time will tell
Cheers
Australia – M88A2 Hercules Heavy Recovery Vehicles | The Official Home of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency
My guess is we'll see an order for 12 more tanks, announced about the same time as the White Paper.
No extra M1s have actually been ordered yet. The 11 talked about previously is the same as the 12 being talked about now - extra tanks to realise the third squadron as part of Plan Beersheeba. I imagine that the intention to but them will be announced about the same time as the White Paper.
The extra 12-odd tanks is to enable each ACR to have four extra tanks (18 as opposed to 14). This means that, based on traditional availability rates, you can pretty much guarantee that a squadron's worth of tanks will be available at any time to put into the field.
FoxtrotRomeo999
Active Member
71 main battle tanks is an improvement on 59 ... and Plan Beersheba will give us better experience with combined arms. However, a squadron of mbts for a combat brigade is not always the right answer. We need additional flexibility to enable a Brigade to bulk up if required - with an additional one to three tank squadrons (and I will overlook SPGs and organic helicopter support for now), without degrading the other Brigades. Three additional squadrons at Divisional level would allow this.
t68
Well-Known Member
Hi all
Can someone set the story straight please regarding Tiger ARH.
I keep hearing unsupported rumbling's that at the midlife upgrade that Army Aviation will dump ARH for AH64E Apache, is this a serious option or someone's vivid imagination and the rumor mill has picked it up and ran wild?
Can someone set the story straight please regarding Tiger ARH.
I keep hearing unsupported rumbling's that at the midlife upgrade that Army Aviation will dump ARH for AH64E Apache, is this a serious option or someone's vivid imagination and the rumor mill has picked it up and ran wild?
t68
Well-Known Member
You don't happen to know when they are due for midlife by chance?
What are the proposed upgrade Army has in mind, any of these suggestions?
http://futureadf.blogspot.com.au/p/the-tiger-armed-reconnaissance.html?m=1
Last edited:
There was a project in the last defence capability plan to upgrade the Tiger ARH platform, but as far as I recall the only approved upgrade project so far is to add an interim data-link capability to the fleet.
You'd have to go through the DCP to find out the timelines projected...
As to the modifications proposed on that blog, I think someone needs to rethink a few things... Available payload for the Tiger platform springs to mind...
Nick underscore
Member
The embarrassment of Sprite and potentially replacing the Tiger seem a bridge to far for me.
I would prefer the 64E, but cannot see AusGov back peddling on this.
What about the original concerns of 'Armed Recon' vs 'Attack'?
Note; interesting article regarding Apache MUM-T and future expectations regarding further integration of UAV capabilites - US Army to ramp up Apache MUM-T as Kiowa retirement begins - IHS Jane's 360
IMO procurement in the late 90s, early 2000s leaves a lot to be desired as it was micro managed by a succession of merchant bankers who were more interested in political capital and too easily swayed by well connected lobbyists (and dare I say their expense accounts), than providing the ADF with the gear they needed. The PM taking a personal interest saw some improvement but it wasn't until Nelson took over that common sense stated to prevail, after a decade of questionable decisions.
Hi folks,
I asked this question about Tiger ARH upgrade or replace directly to Defence last week and got a particularly non-committal (formal) response. The article with that response will appear in the February issue of Defence Technology Review magazine in about a week.
But from what they did say I got the sense that an upgrade has a stronger chance of getting the nod than direct replacement. However, continuing poor availability rates (I've heard from people this has been as low as 35% recently) remain a disappointment for Army.
For those interested, the current and back issues of DTR can be viewed via the website (Google the magazine full title).
Cheers.
Industry is still trying to get its head around how many CRVs will be required under the pending Land 400 RFT; I heard the other day that the number could be now closer to 250 vehicles than 150 as previously thought, precisely for the reason you list (two CRV squadrons per ACR).
Cheers.
2Cdo is going to have the same issue with supporting and maintaining the incoming fleet of 70-odd Supacat SOVs.