Light Tanks

[rickshaw]

In engineering the knowledge is never lost

If you really believe that, then you obviously have never worked in the engineering field.

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?

Build a new 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

The Israelis are often willing to accept costs which would normally be considered prohibitive by other nations because of their circumstance. We aren't faced by a largely hostile world, which blocks our access for the most part to new vehicles.

While I agree that DoD's project management skills presently leave a great deal to be desired, I suspect this is a consequene of the loss of a great many middle-ranking officers in the forced redundancies of the mid-1990s. When a great deal of that "knowledge" you claim doesn't get lost, did get lost.

 

[FutureTank]

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.

The only problem with this is that no one learns by mimicking, and the money will again go to the licence provider.

However you are right 100% in tha thte Defence Industry in Australia needs a paradigim shift. I think that the LAND 400 project is just that, being substantive enough, but still within the realm of possibility in many engineering terms present in Australia.
I'm not suggesting we can build the whole platform top to bottom 100% domestic, but I think 80% component and certainly major assemblies are well within the capability of COTS (or near-COTS).

 

[Wooki]

While I agree that DoD's ...

Just as an aside, isn't it MoD in Australia or referred to as "Defence"?. Bobby Hill always said "Defence this, Defence that, Defence is great". When you use DoD I start thinking "Pentagon".

cheers

W

 

[Aussie Digger]

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

I agree and in fact placed in the caveat earlier, that Australia "might" be able to build an IFV/FSV under licence. I'm far from sanguine that it would be the cheapest option however.

However "under licence" doesn't seem to satisfy FT's aims, he seems to want a new build IFV designed from the ground up and manufactured soley in Australia, of comparable or greater capability at a cheaper price than any current of projected IFV's available on the world market.

Hence, my incredulity...

I'm sure Australian Defence Industry would LEAP at the chance to get a virtual open cheque to build an IFV for Australia from scratch, as this is what it would take, IMHO.

The lack of capacity is only 1 aspect of the problems with this idea. Rickshaw pointed out another significant 1 and that is a lack of expertise in this field which is extant in Australia.

Our previous attempt at building an IFV/APC in Australia - Project Whaler, died a horrible death and this occured around 20 years ago.

Since then we have acquired ASLAV's off the shelf, built Bushmaster's based on an Irish design and attempted to upgrade our M113's based on a German upgrade design.

The Bushmaster and M113 programs have not gone well. The M113 program in particular has been abysmal to date.

These 2 projects, out of interest have been run byADI and Tenix respectively. Our 2 largest defence company's and the only 2 with anything like the expertise needed to build an IFV from scratch...

Hence my less than optimistic opinion of such an idea...

 

[Aussie Digger]

Just as an aside, isn't it MoD in Australia or referred to as "Defence"?. Bobby Hill always said "Defence this, Defence that, Defence is great". When you use DoD I start thinking "Pentagon".

cheers

W

Techinically DoD is correct. It is the Australian Department of Defence. We are lazy however and like to shorten names, hence "defence"...

 

[FutureTank]

If you really believe that, then you obviously have never worked in the engineering field.

Build a new one.

The Israelis are often willing to accept costs which would normally be considered prohibitive by other nations because of their circumstance. We aren't faced by a largely hostile world, which blocks our access for the most part to new vehicles.

While I agree that DoD's project management skills presently leave a great deal to be desired, I suspect this is a consequene of the loss of a great many middle-ranking officers in the forced redundancies of the mid-1990s. When a great deal of that "knowledge" you claim doesn't get lost, did get lost.

As a matter of fact I have worked in the engineering field, and I watched 'old' engineers absolutely thunderstruck buy what new 'kids' were doing.

This 'old expereinced officers have left' is BS. All Army oficers receive the equivalent of a university education, and besides that are fairly cluey people in my expereince. So what if some are lost and other come into the ranks. In the corporate world organisational knowledge is lost on daily basis. I watched somone leave banking industry after 46 years in the same bank. He had tried in vain to change a number of processes over 4 years, and yet new management achieved this in 6 weeks, and changed the processes to be more efficient as a result.

It is the credo of project management that everything can always be done better, and its time this is applied in Defence.

Yes, the Israelis accept costs because of their circumstances, but they also export over 4bn worth, so their product must be competitive. The competitive pricing is generally in the efficiency of project management because it can't be in materials (they have none) or scale of economy (not there either).

That competitive efficency is largely based on human capital, not technology or expereince. Israelis started with a dozen worn out Shermans and two dozen half-tracks. I think Australians can at least equal this effort, and in fact I know this because I have done the numbers and we appear to be no less intelligent or capable then any other developed nation per capita of population. On top of that we are blesed with material wealth most are not. Australia exports as raw resources almost every substance required in manufacture of IFVs.

And not only do you get inventiveness and materials, but, yes we can do complex projects, and we are also renoun as team operators...and I will throw in a set of stake knives for the pre-production launch barbie

Good night

 

[Wooki]

The only problem with this is that no one learns by mimicking, and the money will again go to the licence provider.

That is incorrect FT.

If you want to build a commercially viable skill level in industry, then you must attempt a task that has been done before by another person. The secret is that you are teaching another person how to do a task and because they have a brain they might be able to come up with a better and simpler way of doing it.

That is the benefit to a nation of keeping a factory open. Because they are contributing manpower and intellect to an industry as a whole. In other words, factories don't just churn out product. Geared correctly, they can also produce skilled workers which benefits your society as a whole.

Building a license built M8 would not be easy by any stretch of the imagination, as it has not been produced before. So again, you are not mimicking.

In fact that may be a very good reason NOT to do it!

cheers

w

 

[Aussie Digger]

That is incorrect FT.

If you want to build a commercially viable skill level in industry, then you must attempt a task that has been done before by another person. The secret is that you are teaching another person how to do a task and because they have a brain they might be able to come up with a better and simpler way of doing it.

That is the benefit to a nation of keeping a factory open. Because they are contributing manpower and intellect to an industry as a whole. In other words, factories don't just churn out product. Geared correctly, they can also produce skilled workers which benefits your society as a whole.

Building a license built M8 would not be easy by any stretch of the imagination, as it has not been produced before. So again, you are not mimicking.

In fact that may be a very good reason NOT to do it!

cheers

w

That and we don't need it. M1's will support any deployed "heavy" battle groups and "light" battle groups won't need the fire support anyway or they wouldn't be deployed.

IF you want to discuss unrealistic DoA operations, of some unknown "super power" conducting a massive invasion of Australia for the purpose of regime change, resources grab or possibly just to kill everyone in Australia for some pyschotic reason, then the problems with our forces are going to extend FAR beyond the sorts of direct fire assets we require.

Let's try and focus on realistic options, shall we? Theoretical arguments are all well and good and I'm all for it, but let's face facts. Army hasn't considered an MRV (medium reconnaisance vehicle) necessary since the M113/76mm gun combo was retired in the early 90's.

If a greater direct fire capacity was necessary, there are plenty of increased firepower options available for ASLAV (Bushmaster cannons alone are available in calibres up to to 35/50mm alone), M113AS3/4's could EASILY be fitted with an RWS system allowing a 30mm cannon to be operated, as could Bushmaster IMV's. Javelin ATGW system is already integrated with and can be mounted on "Protector" RWS systems that currently equip our ASLAV-PC's and I'm certain it wouldn't be too hard to integrate it on other RWS systems either.

The fact that any number of these options is available, relatively affordable, already tested and proven, are able to be introduced into service quickly and would massively increase our direct fire capacity, shows plainly that it's not considered necessary. What we've got is considered mostly sufficient, by those who's opinion ACTUALLY counts.

If greater direct fire capacity than this is required, then the money's better off going towards increased numbers of in-service vehicles and the vehicle best designed for this role i the Australian Army is the M1A1.

 

[Waylander]

I agree with AD and others.
If I look at how much experience we have with constructing and building AFVs and than at how long it took us and how much money we pushed into the Puma project than I really doubt that Australia is able to build a top IFV within this short period of time without serious foreign help, foreign licences and foreign items.

 

[FutureTank]

That is incorrect FT.

If you want to build a commercially viable skill level in industry, then you must attempt a task that has been done before by another person. The secret is that you are teaching another person how to do a task and because they have a brain they might be able to come up with a better and simpler way of doing it.

That is the benefit to a nation of keeping a factory open. Because they are contributing manpower and intellect to an industry as a whole. In other words, factories don't just churn out product. Geared correctly, they can also produce skilled workers which benefits your society as a whole.

Building a license built M8 would not be easy by any stretch of the imagination, as it has not been produced before. So again, you are not mimicking.

In fact that may be a very good reason NOT to do it!

In the early 80s I was a part of one of the first attempts to build personal computers in Australia. This begun because the PCs we imported were either very expensive or crap.
In the end our own engineers ahd to mod many imported components to increase reliability and we introduced World standard QA in production to reduce failure from 50% to about 5% despite using same componentry. We had manufacturers from US, Singapore and HK coming to us to have a look, and most of this was before Sigma 6, all done thanks to ingenuity of the staff, without government participation. Of course the Director sent the company bust, and one senior manager was fired for imbezelment, but that is another story. The result is that we now mostly import PCs, and they cost 25% more then they should.

Lots of Australian engineers work overseas, and find their education and skills are compatible with best standards in US and Europe. We have a lot of tallented people here that often lack a way to show their skills and ingenuity because they spend time re-manufacturing imported designs.

True competitive advantage can only come from creating new products (what Europeans do), or improving existing products (what Japanese and Koreans do). I think Australia shoudl go the European way of working by accepting challenges rather then shelling out cash for imported stuff.

 

[Wooki]

In the early 80s I was a part of one of the first attempts to build personal computers in Australia. This begun because the PCs we imported were either very expensive or crap.
In the end our own engineers ahd to mod many imported components to increase reliability and we introduced World standard QA in production to reduce failure from 50% to about 5% despite using same componentry. We had manufacturers from US, Singapore and HK coming to us to have a look, and most of this was before Sigma 6, all done thanks to ingenuity of the staff, without government participation. Of course the Director sent the company bust, and one senior manager was fired for imbezelment, but that is another story. The result is that we now mostly import PCs, and they cost 25% more then they should.

Lots of Australian engineers work overseas, and find their education and skills are compatible with best standards in US and Europe. We have a lot of tallented people here that often lack a way to show their skills and ingenuity because they spend time re-manufacturing imported designs.

True competitive advantage can only come from creating new products (what Europeans do), or improving existing products (what Japanese and Koreans do). I think Australia shoudl go the European way of working by accepting challenges rather then shelling out cash for imported stuff.

right, but you have to learn how to do it before you can make one of your own. That is my point.

cheers

w

 

[FutureTank]

right, but you have to learn how to do it before you can make one of your own. That is my point.

Originally Posted by FutureTank

And what makes you think Germany could design IFVs in the 70s although it designed first APC before WW2?

The USA certainly could not design an IFV in the 70s, and it had lots of expereince with AFVs.

Every engineering project is unique. What worked 20 years ago is hopelessly outdated today. Is Puma a huge improvement on the Marder?

Sometimes the solution is not creative, but cheap

That is what we did. We made mistakes for decades. And we learned of them.
We learned it the hard way. And especially special items like the armor is not that easy to make and can not easily be adopted from civil companies like for example optics.

The Puma is nothing completely new. But it is better in almost every aspect compared to the Marder. And it fits into our existing system being able to follow the Leo IIs everywhere they go with good armor protection good firepower and the ability to be transported by a A400M.

The question is not what can we do. We showed what we can do. If it is really good is another question.
The real question for you is why should Australia be able to build something faster, cheaper and better than anybody else without experience in this field?

The expereince may not be in AFVs, but in the subsystems in other industries.

Ever heard of the America's Cup? Just one of the better known examples of Australians achieving great results.

Sure I know there is no civilian equivalent to building armour, but Australia has a very strong metals research, in part because we export a lot of the stuff. Ever wondered how they make 1500kg deep sampling core drills for mining? What about axles for 200ton trucks operating in 40 degree heat (so operating temperature is more like 80 degrees? Got any of them in Germany?

Engineering is a profession of solving challenges. No challenge is insurmountable, and technological progress is the evidence. Australians have made a contribution to this in many ways, including the first known AFV design proposal.

Why don't the German Army buy its AFVs from elsewhere? Yes, it has something to do with national pride, and building expereince in the workforce, and generating jobs, and being productive,a nd maybe even selling some of the product to others. How many engineers on the Puma project had Marder project expereince? Probably, I'm guessing, but some Puma project engineers had to learn from elsewhere for skills and knowledge. What about the engineers that worked on the non-winning proposals for Marder replacement? Were they bad or lacked expereince? If the Puma proposal was submitted in German, and the name of the project director was Otto Schultz, you would't know he was born in Heidelberg and the proposed design is from Australia.

All it takes is inspired leadership to motivate the design and project management teams to achieve their goals. I think this is often missing in Defence because by its nature its a bureaucracy and often the 'spirit' is gone and what is left is just RFIs and a whole lot of ministerial guidance papers.

What happens then is that individuals tend to look at past failures and be pessimistic and prophecise failure before the project is even off the ground. Well, Australians were shot as 'failures' in Boer War, Gallipoli was a 'failure', the British told us ANZACs were going to be 'failures' in France, Tobruk was a 'failure', Americans wouldn't trust us in island hopping, Kapyong can't be called a failure because it was a f**g miracle, Long Tan was a victory snached from a near failure, Somalia could have easily been a failure, East Timor was a success no one even dared to expect (failure was expected in the 70s). Since Australians have been such 'failures' in the past, maybe we should just get someone else to do the defence for us

Here is a list of America's Cup Australian failures

1962
1967
1970
1974
1977
1980
1983 Australia II

Its worth trying , and if we don't try we are all bums

 

[rickshaw]

As a matter of fact I have worked in the engineering field, and I watched 'old' engineers absolutely thunderstruck buy what new 'kids' were doing.

I don't doubt. I often look on in disbelief myself.

This 'old expereinced officers have left' is BS. All Army oficers receive the equivalent of a university education, and besides that are fairly cluey people in my expereince. So what if some are lost and other come into the ranks. In the corporate world organisational knowledge is lost on daily basis. I watched somone leave banking industry after 46 years in the same bank. He had tried in vain to change a number of processes over 4 years, and yet new management achieved this in 6 weeks, and changed the processes to be more efficient as a result.

It is the credo of project management that everything can always be done better, and its time this is applied in Defence.

You admit you have had no time in the Army. It appears to me that you have little experience in project management. I've watched numerous projects being implemented, large and small where its obvious that the project manager concerned couldn't be trusted to take a baby for a walk around the block let alone spend millions of dollars.

Institutional memory is an important function and when large numbers of middle-level managers who are the main font of this are removed from an organisation, it is degraded. These are the people who not only know the "why" things are done, they are the ones who know the "how" it is achieved. The ADF downsized itself radically in the mid-1990s when it outsourced many previously in-house functions and its been paying the price ever since. Its obvious IMO that it has undertaken far too many projects when it lacks the experienced personnel to actually manage them.

Yes, the Israelis accept costs because of their circumstances, but they also export over 4bn worth, so their product must be competitive. The competitive pricing is generally in the efficiency of project management because it can't be in materials (they have none) or scale of economy (not there either).

Yep, they are good managers and they have gained that experience through managing many projects. However, even they can have the occasional stuffup, I hope you realise (ie the Lavi for example).

That competitive efficency is largely based on human capital, not technology or expereince. Israelis started with a dozen worn out Shermans and two dozen half-tracks. I think Australians can at least equal this effort, and in fact I know this because I have done the numbers and we appear to be no less intelligent or capable then any other developed nation per capita of population. On top of that we are blesed with material wealth most are not. Australia exports as raw resources almost every substance required in manufacture of IFVs.

They started at that level, yes however that was 50 years ago. They've rebuilt those Shermans at least three or four times since then and the half-tracks as well. They have gained that experience, the hard way. They made incremental improvements, building their experience.

And not only do you get inventiveness and materials, but, yes we can do complex projects, and we are also renoun as team operators...and I will throw in a set of stake knives for the pre-production launch barbie

Good night

It won't happen. We've been down that track before and we decided it simply wasn't economic. You won't see it resurrected.

 

[FutureTank]

It appears to me that you have little experience in project management. I've watched numerous projects being implemented, large and small where its obvious that the project manager concerned couldn't be trusted to take a baby for a walk around the block let alone spend millions of dollars..

Correction, as a project professional I would like to assure you that the work unit 'baby' is classified as 'non-walking' for task performance performance, and resources are required to upgrade the unit to 'young child' grade

Actually I'm working on completing my advanced project managment diploma
However, don't think the Army has all the 'big spenders'. While at Westpac I was able to have a look a their project completion files, and you may be interested that of all the projects completed in the last decade only one was brough in on time and within the budget. A hell of a lot of them failed altogether! The one I was one was abandoned after four years of valiant struggle against unequal forces of management with project goals abandoned in view of 'changed commercial environment'
Hell, even their new building was leaking within a month!

Institutional memory is an important function and when large numbers of middle-level managers who are the main font of this are removed from an organisation, it is degraded. These are the people who not only know the "why" things are done, they are the ones who know the "how" it is achieved. The ADF downsized itself radically in the mid-1990s when it outsourced many previously in-house functions and its been paying the price ever since. Its obvious IMO that it has undertaken far too many projects when it lacks the experienced personnel to actually manage them..

S**t happens as they say, but the ADF keeps going, and going and going

Yep, they are good managers and they have gained that experience through managing many projects. However, even they can have the occasional stuffup, I hope you realise (ie the Lavi for example)..

Lavi was a political decision rather then management one, and certainly not a project management one.

The IAI had produced three prototypes out of the originally planned five when the Israeli government decided to cancel the project because of budget problems and bickering among various economic and political pressure groups. The total cost for the development and production of the Lavi was US$6.4 billion in 1983, of which around 60% was funded by the United States and 40% by the Israeli government. The project was canceled in part because the U.S. was not prepared to finance an aircraft that would compete in the export market with the F-16C/D and the F/A-18C/D, and also because a dispute arose as to the final cost. The Israeli government was unable to finance the project alone and canceled it on August 30, 1987. [1] The decision to cancel was approved with a majority of only one vote. From Wiki

They have gained that experience, the hard way. They made incremental improvements, building their experience..

So you are saying that because we had one maybe-failure (no actual prototypes were built as far as I know), we should just abandon the possibility of success?

It won't happen. We've been down that track before and we decided it simply wasn't economic. You won't see it resurrected.

I don't think Waler should be resurrected
Let's call it something more intelligent then a horse. Americans have their Bradley, so maybe a Monash IFV?
So far as being uneconomic, who says? I can find you a dozen accountants who can make any project look economic, even profittable

 

[rickshaw]

Correction, as a project professional I would like to assure you that the work unit 'baby' is classified as 'non-walking' for task performance performance, and resources are required to upgrade the unit to 'young child' grade

Actually I'm working on completing my advanced project managment diploma

God help the world!

However, don't think the Army has all the 'big spenders'. While at Westpac I was able to have a look a their project completion files, and you may be interested that of all the projects completed in the last decade only one was brough in on time and within the budget. A hell of a lot of them failed altogether! The one I was one was abandoned after four years of valiant struggle against unequal forces of management with project goals abandoned in view of 'changed commercial environment'
Hell, even their new building was leaking within a month!

Which is one reason why have suspected for sometime that professional project "management" is an oxymoron. I've often wondered how the Ancient Egyptians managed to get the Pyramids built without a one of them owning a copy of Microsoft Project. :lol:

S**t happens as they say, but the ADF keeps going, and going and going

Yep but at substantially less efficiency, year after year.

Lavi was a political decision rather then management one, and certainly not a project management one.

Depends upon whom you read. It was running into severe cost over-runs and its death while blamed on international politics was more than likely a mercy killing than an execution.

So you are saying that because we had one maybe-failure (no actual prototypes were built as far as I know), we should just abandon the possibility of success?

No prototypes were built. We also built the Sentinel and that was a success but you'll note it wasn't economic either so it was canned, at an even later stage than Waler.

I don't think Waler should be resurrected
Let's call it something more intelligent then a horse. Americans have their Bradley, so maybe a Monash IFV?
So far as being uneconomic, who says? I can find you a dozen accountants who can make any project look economic, even profittable

Well, that is one area we do excel in, if the ATO is to be believed.

 

[Waylander]

The expereince may not be in AFVs, but in the subsystems in other industries.

Ever heard of the America's Cup? Just one of the better known examples of Australians achieving great results.

Sure I know there is no civilian equivalent to building armour, but Australia has a very strong metals research, in part because we export a lot of the stuff. Ever wondered how they make 1500kg deep sampling core drills for mining? What about axles for 200ton trucks operating in 40 degree heat (so operating temperature is more like 80 degrees? Got any of them in Germany?

Engineering is a profession of solving challenges. No challenge is insurmountable, and technological progress is the evidence. Australians have made a contribution to this in many ways, including the first known AFV design proposal.

Why don't the German Army buy its AFVs from elsewhere? Yes, it has something to do with national pride, and building expereince in the workforce, and generating jobs, and being productive,a nd maybe even selling some of the product to others. How many engineers on the Puma project had Marder project expereince? Probably, I'm guessing, but some Puma project engineers had to learn from elsewhere for skills and knowledge. What about the engineers that worked on the non-winning proposals for Marder replacement? Were they bad or lacked expereince? If the Puma proposal was submitted in German, and the name of the project director was Otto Schultz, you would't know he was born in Heidelberg and the proposed design is from Australia.

All it takes is inspired leadership to motivate the design and project management teams to achieve their goals. I think this is often missing in Defence because by its nature its a bureaucracy and often the 'spirit' is gone and what is left is just RFIs and a whole lot of ministerial guidance papers.

What happens then is that individuals tend to look at past failures and be pessimistic and prophecise failure before the project is even off the ground. Well, Australians were shot as 'failures' in Boer War, Gallipoli was a 'failure', the British told us ANZACs were going to be 'failures' in France, Tobruk was a 'failure', Americans wouldn't trust us in island hopping, Kapyong can't be called a failure because it was a f**g miracle, Long Tan was a victory snached from a near failure, Somalia could have easily been a failure, East Timor was a success no one even dared to expect (failure was expected in the 70s). Since Australians have been such 'failures' in the past, maybe we should just get someone else to do the defence for us

Here is a list of America's Cup Australian failures

1962
1967
1970
1974
1977
1980
1983 Australia II

Its worth trying , and if we don't try we are all bums

Forgive me but there are a lot phrases in this which look just like warm air to me than anything else.

It is not that we only had experience with the Marder but also with Leopard I and II with a huge amount of upgrades, PzH2000, Fennek, Boxer, Fuch, Luchs, Wiesel 1 & 2,... the list goes on not to talk uf light armored or other military vehicles, upgrades and license production of others, gun systems, etc. Enough human resources and companies with experience in designing nearly every kind of armored and non armored ground vehicles of all classes.
We made mistakes and had problems with every of these vehicles. But we do this since decades and are still one of the leading producers for ground equipment.
And you operate 200 ton trucks? It is not like we don't build heavy machines by ourselves here in germany like tracked mining diggers including the worlds biggest. The industrial base for heavy equipment here is for sure bigger than in Australia.

And how do you come to give Americas Cup as an example?
We scored 4th last summer olympics and 1st last winter olympics. Because of this I don't believe that we could build a better plane like the F-22 with much less money and in a much shorter time.

It is not that I don't see Australia building their own IFV. I just don't see Australia building a better one faster and cheaper than everybody else. You just lack the human and industrial experience and base.
Trying do go on par with the established producing countries is for sure possible for you but this would need a heck of money and time to do so. Saying that you just start with nothing and end with a new IFV while spending less money and time is just dreaming.

-----

Now to another point.

You had the idea of putting your old Leopard 1 turrets on a new chassis.
You asked me about weight and turret ring diameter for the turret via PM and I also told you my opinion about this.

The turret is too big, too old and too heavy, the gun is not top anymore as well as the FCS.

Till now I found out that the basic weight of the turret is 11 tons including gun but excluding ammo and equipment. A4 should be even heavier. This is heavy and I really believe that this doesn't works in favor for good air deployability not to talk of how bulky the turret is. Were is the point in needing a C-17 to transport the new vehicle when you could transport a M1 instead?

The whole electronics, FCS and optics need an upgrade which won't make the solution much cheaper.

The gun is not state of the art. A 105mm rifled gun has not enough power against modern tanks and is oversized for use against smaller vehicles and weak targets like 30-40mm machine guns and bigger low pressure guns.
So for what do you need such a vehicle

The turret itself is now decades old. Even with upgrade armor (Which makes it even heavier) there are enough modern materials and construction techics to make it obsolete.

In my eyes this is not one of the creative approaches you are talking of but more like a cheap but inferior solution.

 

[FutureTank]

God help the world!.

I'm really starting to like you Rickshaw

Which is one reason why have suspected for sometime that professional project "management" is an oxymoron. I've often wondered how the Ancient Egyptians managed to get the Pyramids built without a one of them owning a copy of Microsoft Project. :lol:.

Its a mystery
However without project managers things would be far worse. The problem is not with project management as a discipline, but with the way teams are put together. Its a complex subject which doesn't really belong here, but you can PM me if interested. I have always brough in projects on time and on budget without any formal quals. Now they are making me do them to satisfy industry standard although I have been doing it since before there were standards.

Depends upon whom you read. It was running into severe cost over-runs and its death while blamed on international politics was more than likely a mercy killing than an execution..

I have spoken to an Israeli who claimed to have worked on one of the prototypes for a short time as an avionics engineer. His version is that US refused to finance engines because of domestic manufacturing committment to the F-16 engines.

No prototypes were built. We also built the Sentinel and that was a success but you'll note it wasn't economic either so it was canned, at an even later stage than Waler..

The Sentinel was economic. As it happens we were offloaded on by Americans with the already discontinued in their production M3, which was surely the worst medium tank of WW2. The Sentinel was discontinued because there was a lack of immediate threat by then, and other priorities in manufacturing. From desing point of view it was on par, if not better then the Sherman, and it was Australia's first effort at a tank.

So remind me again why it is that Australian industry can't build a domestic IFV?

 

[Waylander]

Maybe we should concentrate on one thread.
We are now talking about the same topic in two threads.
Were do we want to meet?

 

[FutureTank]

Forgive me but there are a lot phrases in this which look just like warm air to me than anything else..

You are forgiven, and yes, hot air...sometimes required to make things go UP
There appears to be a need for motivation...

It is not that we only had experience with the Marder but also with Leopard I and II with a huge amount of upgrades, PzH2000, Fennek, Boxer, Fuch, Luchs, Wiesel 1 & 2,... the list goes on not to talk uf light armored or other military vehicles, upgrades and license production of others, gun systems, etc. Enough human resources and companies with experience in designing nearly every kind of armored and non armored ground vehicles of all classes.
We made mistakes and had problems with every of these vehicles. But we do this since decades and are still one of the leading producers for ground equipment.
And you operate 200 ton trucks? It is not like we don't build heavy machines by ourselves here in germany like tracked mining diggers including the worlds biggest. The industrial base for heavy equipment here is for sure bigger than in Australia. ..

It doesn't matter. Every project is different with its own set of knowns and unknowns that engineers need to deal with.

And how do you come to give Americas Cup as an example?
We scored 4th last summer olympics and 1st last winter olympics. Because of this I don't believe that we could build a better plane like the F-22 with much less money and in a much shorter time. ..

America's cup was an example of finding an engineering solution and using it by a team to achieve result. Winter Olimpics is just playing with snow, isn't it?
How come the Summer Olympics are held in nice climates? If Olympics are held in cold places, let's have the Summer Olympics in the Simpson desert Walking 1km without water can be an event

It is not that I don't see Australia building their own IFV. I just don't see Australia building a better one faster and cheaper than everybody else. You just lack the human and industrial experience and base.
Trying do go on par with the established producing countries is for sure possible for you but this would need a heck of money and time to do so. Saying that you just start with nothing and end with a new IFV while spending less money and time is just dreaming...

But we are anot starting from 0!
Can you give me examples of what are specific barriers in engineering terms as you see them?
-----

You had the idea of putting your old Leopard 1 turrets on a new chassis.
You asked me about weight and turret ring diameter for the turret via PM and I also told you my opinion about this.

The turret is too big, too old and too heavy, the gun is not top anymore as well as the FCS.​

Till now I found out that the basic weight of the turret is 11 tons including gun but excluding ammo and equipment. A4 should be even heavier. This is heavy and I really believe that this doesn't works in favor for good air deployability not to talk of how bulky the turret is. Were is the point in needing a C-17 to transport the new vehicle when you could transport a M1 instead?

The whole electronics, FCS and optics need an upgrade which won't make the solution much cheaper.​

The gun is not state of the art.​

A 105mm rifled gun has not enough power against modern tanks and is oversized for use against smaller vehicles and weak targets like 30-40mm machine guns and bigger low pressure guns.
So for what do you need such a vehicle

The turret itself is now decades old. Even with upgrade armor (Which makes it even heavier) there are enough modern materials and construction techics to make it obsolete.

In my eyes this is not one of the creative approaches you are talking of but more like a cheap but inferior solution.

Sometimes the creative part is accounting. The turrets are paid for, and would actually cost to dispose of.

Most Australian equipment is envisaged to go to AOs by ship, not C-17.
When was there ever an overpowered weapon?!!!
Its role would be to provide support like it had since the 70s, releasing the M1s from being an 'infantry' tank.

Yes, the turret is large and heavy, but this is just another engineering problem. Its not like it hasn't been done before. Infact the TAM used the Marder chassis in very much the same way.

 

[Waylander]

But we are anot starting from 0!
Can you give me examples of what are specific barriers in engineering terms as you see them?

You are starting nearly from zero.
As said before not even the Bushmaster is an independent design. There is no company you have which has experience in developing a whole new AFV from the beginning to the end.
FCS and optics shouldn't be a really big problem there are enough similarities with civil companies.
But when it comes to armor, modern guns and ammo, and make the whole package fast and maneuverable on tracks there are not very much civil counterparts.
Countries like the US, UK, France and Germany have tons of test data, prototypes, experienced personal, production capabilities, etc.

It doesn't matter. Every project is different with its own set of knowns and unknowns that engineers need to deal with.

This is not true. A base is always better than no base. All of these projects helped the mafuacturers to learn more about traction systems, guns, armor, system packages, etc.

Most Australian equipment is envisaged to go to AOs by ship, not C-17.
When was there ever an overpowered weapon?!!!
Its role would be to provide support like it had since the 70s, releasing the M1s from being an 'infantry' tank.

Yes, the turret is large and heavy, but this is just another engineering problem. Its not like it hasn't been done before. Infact the TAM used the Marder chassis in very much the same way.

Overpowered in a way that a high pressure gun substitutes payload for penetration. Sad to say the penetration of the 105mm is not enough anymore but the payload problem compared to low pressure guns remains.

Having a dedicated inantry support vehicle which has to be transported by a C-17 or by ship is not very innovative.
And what do you want to do? You cannot just shrink the turret. This is not just an engineering problem but a hard fact. If you want to use the old Leo 1 turrets you have to live with its size and weight or build a new turret.