Light Tanks

[rickshaw]

I think this might be "stretching" the boundaries a bit don't you? LAND 400 is supposed to replace the ASLAV from 2015. Can you see ANY current generational vehicles (which is all that will exist at that time) that meets this requirement?

I am unaware of any.

Piranha IV (or V more than likely by that time), Boxer, Pandur or similar vehicles with enhanced mine-protection IMO.

 

[FutureTank]

The role of the FSV is to provide fire support - primarily HE and smoke to armoured units.

Basically they are the first line, direct fire, mobile artillery for armoured units. A 105mm HV would not be an appropriate weapon. Basically a LV or MV weapon would be best, something similar to the 76mm gun (or slightly larger) caried in the Scorpion/Saladin turrets.

I know what would be best, but are YOU going to pay for them?

 

[rickshaw]

Have you ever checked out the history of Project Bushranger? It started in the early 90's, FYI...

Think an Australian designed IFV (a FAR more complicated vehicle and something we have NO experience in designing OR building) will be ready for operational service by 2015?

Well, actually we do have experience in designing an "IFV" - Project Waler. That reached the detailed design and mockup stage.

We have lost that experience now, though, unfortunately. We are having enough problems with the Bushranger and M113AS3 projects.

 

[Aussie Digger]

So what?

Americans who DO have expereince and capability took almost two decades to bring Bradley into service!

To me its a matter of project management, not expereince. If contractors and project teams are allowed to f**k around, nothing will get done. As it is there is 7 years to design and develop a pre-production platform, and that is more then enough time in engineering terms to build the required vehicle. This may mean that some electronics for the 'networked' part may not be complete because they to some degree will need to be tied into US standards (and Nato), BUT the fighting part should not be a problem.

So the Americans with their vast armoured vehicle buidling and designing experience took 20 years to build Bradley, but we can build a more advanced one in 7?

Bwahahahahahahaha!!!

Maybe Australia will score 10,000 runs in the One Day International tomorrow too. nfloorl:

 

[rickshaw]

I know what would be best, but are YOU going to pay for them?

No need. There are existing 120mm gun/mortar systems available which we could utilise. COTS is far cheaper than trying to develop a completely new system.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Well, actually we do have experience in designing an "IFV" - Project Waler. That reached the detailed design and mockup stage.

We have lost that experience now, though, unfortunately. We are having enough problems with the Bushranger and M113AS3 projects.

We also tried to convert an M113 into a wheeled armoured recon vehicle in the mid 80's too, instead of simply acquiring ASLAV or similar. Any guesses as to what the best option was?

 

[gf0012-aust]

So the Americans with their vast armoured vehicle buidling and designing experience took 20 years to build Bradley, but we can build a more advanced one in 7?

I was assigned to the JRA submission for the IFV - we were using an existing Shorts design and that took 5 years to get up. ADI are using a bastardised Timoney design - and thats taken 8 years to get right.

Oz indig design, cradle to grave in 7 years? I wouldn't bet on it.

 

[FutureTank]

No need. There are existing 120mm gun/mortar systems available which we could utilise. COTS is far cheaper than trying to develop a completely new system.

There is no development involved. Just mount the Leopard 1 turret onto the Land 400 chassis.

 

[gf0012-aust]

We also tried to convert an M113 into a wheeled armoured recon vehicle in the mid 80's too, instead of simply acquiring ASLAV or similar. Any guesses as to what the best option was?

and thats a classic example of the arrogance of some Oz mil industry players.

a simple job (of questionable value) is a continuing cluster....

 

[FutureTank]

I was assigned to the JRA submission for the IFV - we were using an existing Shorts design and that took 5 years to get up. ADI are using a bastardised Timoney design - and thats taken 8 years to get right.

Oz indig design, cradle to grave in 7 years? I wouldn't bet on it.

That's the Oz spirit

 

[Aussie Digger]

There is no development involved. Just mount the Leopard 1 turret onto the Land 400 chassis.

Isn't the idea to IMPROVE capability? Why would you want 70's era FCS, night fighting equipment and comms capability in our NCW Army of 2015???

Your Land 400 idea is starting to sound like the old axe, you know the one with 3 heads and 2 handles...

 

[gf0012-aust]

There is no development involved. Just mount the Leopard 1 turret onto the Land 400 chassis.

You're going to have approx 18 tonnes of linear recoil on a light vehicle. this is a gun where the the weight of the vehicle (MBT) contributes to recoil management, where the supporting superstructure for the mantle is geared towards the design. ie there is design integrity in place.

I'm not sure I'd want to shove a Leo1 turret onto a Boxer. Higher profile, almost a recoil neutral weight transference and some issues when firing at broadside angles.

 

[FutureTank]

We have lost that experience now, though, unfortunately. We are having enough problems with the Bushranger and M113AS3 projects.

Have we as a nation gone stupid over two decades since Waler?

So what if we are having problems with Bushranger and the M113 conversion? In engineering terms its a different design process.

 

[FutureTank]

Isn't the idea to IMPROVE capability? Why would you want 70's era FCS, night fighting equipment and comms capability in our NCW Army of 2015???

Your Land 400 idea is starting to sound like the old axe, you know the one with 3 heads and 2 handles...

I'm only suggesting reusing the turrets because otherwise they would go to scrap as unrecoverable administrative loss. At least this way we will get an FSV for not much extra cost. The turret is upgradable.

 

[rickshaw]

There is no development involved. Just mount the Leopard 1 turret onto the Land 400 chassis.

Errr, this is quite a bit more involved than simply psychically putting a turret ontop of a hull, when attempting to build essentially a completely new vehicle. Its not like building a plastic model kit, I hope you realise?

 

[gf0012-aust]

That's the Oz spirit

no, thats the reality of project curve in australia - and its actually pretty similar to the delivery curve of most modern militaries.

blaming the project managers is one third of the issue. aust project cycles are littered with the detritus of good intention...

I've been involved with JRA's Bushmaster submission, Kuwaiti armoured car project, Collins, the Rapier 2 upgrade, Perentie, Perentie upgrade. All have been compromised by a variety of well intentioned but disconnected players.

 

[FutureTank]

You're going to have approx 18 tonnes of linear recoil on a light vehicle. this is a gun where the the weight of the vehicle (MBT) contributes to recoil management, where the supporting superstructure for the mantle is geared towards the design. ie there is design integrity in place.

I'm not sure I'd want to shove a Leo1 turret onto a Boxer. Higher profile, almost a recoil neutral weight transference and some issues when firing at broadside angles.

Of course there would have to be sigificant design departures for the FSV to mount a Leopard turret from the standard L400.

 

[rickshaw]

Have we as a nation gone stupid over two decades since Waler?

No but the engineers who did the work on Waler are all retired now, I hope you realise?

The skills and knowledge they had, has been lost.

So what if we are having problems with Bushranger and the M113 conversion? In engineering terms its a different design process.

Errr, if we are having problems with a conversion as comparatively simple as the M113AS3 one and don't have, as has been pointed out, the ability to design and build an AFV as comparatively simply as the Bushranger ourselves, then don't you think we might find it just a tad difficult to build a completely new AFV as complex as an MICV or light tank?

 

[FutureTank]

No but the engineers who did the work on Waler are all retired now, I hope you realise?

The skills and knowledge they had, has been lost.

In engineering the knowledge is never lost

Errr, if we are having problems with a conversion as comparatively simple as the M113AS3 one and don't have, as has been pointed out, the ability to design and build an AFV as comparatively simply as the Bushranger ourselves, then don't you think we might find it just a tad difficult to build a completely new AFV as complex as an MICV or light tank?

What is easier and more cost effective, to build a new car, or to convert one?

I am not part of the Bushranger project management team so I can't say where the issues are.

However, I do agree that the project management in Defence in general needs to be 'hardened and networked' also

In any case, Israelis seem to do ok, so surely its not outside the realsm of possibilities

 

[Wooki]

So the Americans with their vast armoured vehicle buidling and designing experience took 20 years to build Bradley, but we can build a more advanced one in 7?

Bwahahahahahahaha!!!

Maybe Australia will score 10,000 runs in the One Day International tomorrow too. nfloorl:

I suspect what our young friend is referring to is integration of COTS onto a basic platform. A modular way of doing RCWS (for example). At the moment RCWS systems are largely MOTS and once you have one, you can't change out to match your mission requirements without making it very expensive. The key is being able to make it flexible and that makes it cheaper and acts as a force multiplier to your overall mission.

I also suspect what you are talking about Dig' is lack of capacity and a lack of willingness to to tackle a larger project within the Australian Industry? So if FT's proposals were to have more than a snowball's chance in hell there needs to be something akin to a paradigm shift within Australian Industry, correct?

Further to that; If you want to build an FSV (for the sake of keeping Australian Industry alive) go license the plans for the M8 Hyrbid vehicle by BAE Systems. BAE (Then United Defense) received an order for the vehicle, which was pulled at the 11th hour to spend the money on "more important" projects. There was nothing inherently wrong with it at all, and it was a good little tank.

So why waste the money inventing the wheel again, if it is already out there?

I think that sort of project would be plenty for Australia to bite off and chew and would compliment the existing MGS the USA employ.

my 2c

cheers

w