t68
Well-Known Member
I thought they were building them here, well that answers that.
All these new vehicles with auto trans and air cond like the new Mercedes, turning out a bunch of soft driver's tell em to learn on an F1 in the middle of summer and having to take the engine cowling off pouring cold water over the fuel lines because the fuel was evaporating because of the heat. But gee they could go places in the bush would have been interesting to see how they would have went if they converted them to diesel instead of buying the unimogs.
Not sure if they are all imported and the retrofitted with gear or imported complete. Somebody else may know but the trailers were built here
https://www.minister.defence.gov.au...-minister-defence-land-121-phase-3b-milestone
Doesnt seem to be any clear cut article on the Land 121 Phase 3b contract but from what I gather the 2,536 trucks ordered will be built over seas, With integration of Australian specific equipment taking palce here (battle management systems etc), while the 2,999 modules and between 1,500 - 2,000 trailers will be built here, Australian companies have also been shifted into Rheinmetals global supply chain creating export opportunities for us.
Not sure if others have read this but thought it worth a look regarding Australia's MBT
Army's plans for more and better tanks | afr.com
Interesting to see some tank numbers mentioned ( 90) as to what is realistically needed to support three tank squadrons.
Bridge layer and engineering support variants as well?!
Maybe some news on this front in the year ahead.
Regards S
Army's plans for more and better tanks | afr.com
Interesting to see some tank numbers mentioned ( 90) as to what is realistically needed to support three tank squadrons.
Bridge layer and engineering support variants as well?!
Maybe some news on this front in the year ahead.
Regards S
we had leopards in vietnam?
there must be a parallel universe somewhere
the numbers quoted on how many subs become available on a pool of 12 is way off the mark
Last edited:
Yes, some basic research would have helped and at least given the article some credibility.we had leopards in vietnam?
there must be a parallel universe somewhere
the numbers quoted on how many subs become available on a pool of 12 is way off the mark
No argument with the need for a larger tank force of course, but that is pretty old news. I am always amused when journos try to play catch-up in their articles.
MB
Last edited by a moderator:
Lack of basic fact checking very disappointing - particularly on something so easy to uncover.
Would have thought anyone purporting to be a defence reported would at least know a bit about the Coral/Balmoral operations.
Not as bad as general F-35 reporting but disappointing all the same.
Regards,
Massive
Could Duus be misquoted here? Seems an odd error for him to make as the statement is clearly wrong.
He might have said 2 on station if want to maintain this for a long period of time and you are talking South China Sea?
Regards,
Massive
COL Duus is misquoted. The comparison to submarines is a standard one that is being used to justify LAND 400, and the correct figures have been obtained direct from the Navy.
so the stated numbers are wrong in the article? - because the tempo and availability numbers projected for 12 from navy for the next fleet acquisition are very very different from the stated 2 out of 12.
I can only imagine so. The comparison with submarine availability is now in pretty much every presentation regarding armoured vehicles. I can't remember exactly what the figures are, but it is not simply 12 and 2. The figures have come directly from Navy, so they would be accurate.
It is simply the Army using the same logic the Navy and RAAF use to justify procurement.
The original cycle with six submarines was one in FCD (literally in bits in the shed being refurbished and upgraded, one in a shorter docking, two in assisted maintenance or alongside and two deployed. Twelve should give a minimum of four deployed at any given time plus another four alongside or in short assisted availabilities and the remaining four in build, FCD, or MCD.
My guess, likely the colonel mentioned two boats deployed and the journo just assumed there were twelve, because that's what's been in the news, and not the current six.
Yes I had a smile with the Vietnam Leopards and Sub reference.we had leopards in vietnam?
there must be a parallel universe somewhere
the numbers quoted on how many subs become available on a pool of 12 is way off the mark
However it did not detract for myself that this was the first time I had seen quoted this number number of MBT's by someone within Army. Now it may be a miss quote,however it is certainly greater than the extra dozen tanks that is often postulated.
Is this a slow letting the cat out of the bag for a big announcement or maybe am I reading too much into it I cannot say. But a MBT fleet of 90 does seem more realistic to adequately serve three squadrons.
Lets just hope their is something to that affect announced within the year.
Regards S
it could be something as simple as comprehension of the word "fleet"
ie fleet as per platform as opposed to FBE and FBW.
if it was the latter they could well have been confused by the split fleet numbers
ie looking at FBE as a fleet would give 2 available. add in FBW and you end up with 4 which is the number arrived at for the normal CONOPs tempo numbers
it also ignores the rolling build issue.
The Australian
"Deep divisions are fuelling rivalry between two of Australia’s most important special forces regiments."
Nocookies | The Australian
Surely every military has rivalry between units, and special ops units have a long history of such rivalry. UK SAS/SBS/Marines/Paras, US Delta/Seal/Ranger.
If there is any eveidence of one unit setting up another a sacrificial lamb then that would only relevant if the unit command did not know it was happening or was not done by senior command decision, but various units have been used as a diversion for ever with their unit being aware that it was happening.
"Deep divisions are fuelling rivalry between two of Australia’s most important special forces regiments."
Nocookies | The Australian
Surely every military has rivalry between units, and special ops units have a long history of such rivalry. UK SAS/SBS/Marines/Paras, US Delta/Seal/Ranger.
If there is any eveidence of one unit setting up another a sacrificial lamb then that would only relevant if the unit command did not know it was happening or was not done by senior command decision, but various units have been used as a diversion for ever with their unit being aware that it was happening.
Long story short - it's a nothing story. These 'deep divisions' aren't explored and there is no basis for this claim whatsoever other than a work of fiction about Australian Special Forces in Afghanistan...
load of tosh
I spent a few years working on projects for the specials, east and west and the unit variants internal to SOCOMD - that article is just ridiculous.
I never saw any animosity at all between units.
out of necessity I worked with all of the operationals within SOCOMD and invariably they'd be in the same room
I've certainly witnessed some "envy" from some in big army to them, but only a very small subset
Friendly rivalry no doubt, but when it's business time, it's business time.
There is a difference between this sort of stuff and 'deep divisions'...
https://youtu.be/1dm0BxFZfmI
There is a fair bit of truth to the story. Army's strategic leadership (who are all themselves ex SF) are pissed off at the SOCOMD units acting like a bunch of school children, and have implemented a number of fixes to get them acting more like adults. The SOCOMD units have certainly done some short sighted, idiotic things simply to feather their own nests and avoid the 'other team' getting a win. The story exaggerates it a fair bit, as all stories do, and the war crime but is blown out of all proportion.
The issues don't really affect the lower tactical levels much, who still all play nicely together, but it certainly is time for the unit leadership to pull their heads in and work out they are playing on the same team.
The issues don't really affect the lower tactical levels much, who still all play nicely together, but it certainly is time for the unit leadership to pull their heads in and work out they are playing on the same team.