Australian Army Discussions and Updates

G

Goknub

Active Member
The French are predominantly concerned about operations in Africa that favour light/medium vehicles designed for long range tasks. The ADF wants to be able to defeat a peer force, that means pitched attritional battles of the sort seen in Ukraine, the invasion phase of Iraq. That requires heavy armour and heavy firepower.

The Israelies are among the most experienced in this close-quarters environment so I see their lessons learnt worth taking on board. Hence why I see value in a larger Phase 2 purchase and a (slightly) reduced Namer force for Phase 3. The wheeled force would be good for the majority of maneuver tasks with the tracked force limited to attritional fights.
 
blueorchid

blueorchid

Member
Thing is I'm not convinced that the other costs that tracked brings (size, weight, cost, dismounts) is completely worth it for that last 300m. The French seem to be happy to use VCBI as their sole IFV and that is a wheeled platform with even less firepower and protection.
Click to expand...
Its not just the last 300m, anywhere in Asia or Pacific in the wet season, tracks are needed to get around. The Army learned this again in Timour
 
T

the road runner

Active Member
I read an article that stated the Wheeled vehicles will be used on roads/dirt roads while the tracked vehicles will be used for doing the off road work. That is the impression im under in how Australia will use its wheeled/tracked vehicles
 
ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Last edited:
John Newman

John Newman

The Bunker Group
ngatimozart said:
That's quite interesting and when you think about it, should really be a logical evolution for track / wheel IFVs. Be interesting to see how it works in the field. My halfpenny's worth :)
Click to expand...
Here's a link to some more images of the tracks fitted to the front two sets of wheels:

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...4PCkZM:;nPYcOw0ESxXH3M:&imgrc=VJ1Dc1J44PCkZM:


One question I would have, as it is fitted to the two front sets, and they are the 'steering' wheels, how well do the tracks stay on when turning?

Obviously they have tested that (but it still looks a bit strange to me) with them being fitted to steering wheels and not fixed driving wheels as is normally the case with a tracked vehicle.

Edit:

The more I've looked at the photos of the two sets of front driving/steering wheels, the more I'm left scratching my head!

Yes I can see how the track goes around the front pair of wheels (and not the back set of wheels), and how that would work when driving in a straight line, all clear and obvious.

But it's when the steering is turned either hard left or hard right, I'm still wondering how it works without the track slipping off.

When the two front sets of wheels are turned, the front of the 1st set of wheels turns hard out at the front and hard left at the back, the follow set does exactly the same, the front of the wheel hard out and the back of the wheel hard in.

Maybe I'm missing something, just looks bloody odd to me!!
 
Last edited:
t68

t68

Well-Known Member
ngatimozart said:
That's quite interesting and when you think about it, should really be a logical evolution for track / wheel IFVs. Be interesting to see how it works in the field. My halfpenny's worth :)
Click to expand...
A few years ago GD used the Stryker and modified for use with tracks, not over the existing wheels but a set of tracks for the US Army Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle program to replace the old workhorse M113 for which the turret-less Bradley was the eventual winner.

Stryker+Tr Prototype Armored Personnel Carrier | Military-Today.com

But actually when I saw the photo of the tracks only over a set of two wheels and wondered the same thing as J Newman how does it turn, and then thought of the tracked versions of Land Rovers and why not go back to the future with the M3 Half Track, there was even a Brit prototype using a Land Rover!!

Untitled Document
 
John Newman

John Newman

The Bunker Group
zhaktronz said:
I figured they can only run them on the back and they just put them on the front for show at the expo
Click to expand...
Yes I'd say that sound about right.

Still even for 'display' purposes, the tracks should have been fitted to the fixed pair of rear driving wheels.

Anyway, certainly looks like an interesting idea.
 
ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
John Newman said:
Yes I'd say that sound about right.

Still even for 'display' purposes, the tracks should have been fitted to the fixed pair of rear driving wheels.

Anyway, certainly looks like an interesting idea.
Click to expand...
Like the old half tracks back in the day? Maybe somebody stuffed up for the display but at that level that's a really basic error. Even then though, the old half tracks had differential steering so that they could slew around.
 
John Newman

John Newman

The Bunker Group
ngatimozart said:
Like the old half tracks back in the day? Maybe somebody stuffed up for the display but at that level that's a really basic error. Even then though, the old half tracks had differential steering so that they could slew around.
Click to expand...
Yeah it would seem to be a rather basic error placing the track on the front set of steering wheels.

I can just see it now, 'lets take it for a spin', taking the first corner the tracks would go flying off into the distance, oops!!
 
Z

zhaktronz

Member
vonnoobie said:
A lot of fire power in one asset, Question is how mobile is the asset? Can it be used only from decent roads and fixed base locations or is it able to move across poor roads and terrain with advancing forces? ...
Click to expand...

You'd have to have serious manpower shortages for it to make more sense than three smaller trucks. It's used by the uae, who in general do have a shortage of well trained troops and have big wide open deserts and excellent highways to reduce mobility issues.
 
Bluey 006

Bluey 006

Active Member
Boagrius said:
I suspect ASCOD may lack the desired protection levels (happy to be corrected on this)
Click to expand...
The ASCOD 2 with maximum level of protection is one of the most protected vehicles in its class. Protection level might approach that of the German Puma IFV.

"Some sources report, once add-on armor is fitted vehicle withstands hits from 25-mm armor-piercing rounds from any direction"

"The mine protection performance according to STANAG 4569 was independently tested and certified by an independent certifying agency and a National Authority of a NATO country in February 2014" Source: GDELS

Seems to be up there with the CV90 and PUMA
 
Boagrius

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
Bluey 006 said:
The ASCOD 2 with maximum level of protection is one of the most protected vehicles in its class. Protection level might approach that of the German Puma IFV.

"Some sources report, once add-on armor is fitted vehicle withstands hits from 25-mm armor-piercing rounds from any direction"

"The mine protection performance according to STANAG 4569 was independently tested and certified by an independent certifying agency and a National Authority of a NATO country in February 2014" Source: GDELS

Seems to be up there with the CV90 and PUMA
Click to expand...
Didn't know that, thanks for the clarification. Will be interesting to see how the competition plays out.
 
R

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
http://www.janes.com/article/59200/project-land-400-phase-2-evaluation-period-extended

The Department of Defence announced today 1st april that the Land 400 evaluation has been extended by an indefinate period.
 
Last edited:
V

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Redlands18 said:
http://www.janes.com/article/59200/project-land-400-phase-2-evaluation-period-extended

The Department of Defence announced today 1st april that the Land 400 evaluation has been extended by an indefinate period.
Click to expand...
I wish it was an April Fools joke but fear it is not.

Then again if the extension is in response to information received from the US ref their various projects this may be a good thing. My thinking is if the US has made a major decision on the direction of a Bradley replacement and / or the MPC (Marine Personnel Carrier), we could be hanging back to see if suitable systems for us become available through FMS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top