Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[FutureTank]

This:

http://www.defence.gov.au/army/video/Leopard3.mpg

is what you've got to take into consideration FT. Look at the 41 ron vehicle rock on it's suspension when it fires. Look at how stable the 41 ton vehicle is firing on the move, cross country.

Can you possibly imagine a 13 ton vehicle (fitted with an 11 ton turret WITHOUT ammunition or FCS equipment) attempting this? I can't...

Elsewhere I said the mass of the vehicle needs to be 32 ton (so about 44 ton all up).

However this does not mean building a new tank chassis. The modular IFV hull would just be strengthened (since it would not have apssengers) and weight added using bolt-on armour plating of the simplest type available.

However the need for a much more powerfull engine would probably make the vehicle uneconomic unless the Infantry would be happy with a very slow FSV only capable of keeping up a the off-road speed of 30km/h (at its top speed).

 

[FutureTank]

The problem we have is build numbers. FT I think, is unaware of exactly how few IFV's Australia actually requires.

How does one expect to secure foreign orders for a new vehicle, given the already over crowded market, our complete lack of success building previous IFV's and our track record of upgrading our OWN in-service vehicles???

Firstly the Army, as I understand it, require replacement of whole M113 and ASLAV fleets within the 2015-2025 span of time. Although in theory this amounts to over 800 vehicles, as I suggested elsewhere in practical terms the replacement is unlikely to be 1:1 on the stated budget, and may amount to about 500 vehicles (unless the development and/or unit cost is somehow kept very low).

One expects to secure foreign orders by building somethign better then the models available in the 'crowded' market, which is how all markets work.
One does this by changing track record. Actually I am getting quite PO over this repetitive 'track record' mantra.

Just because something wasn't done before, or indeed failed on previous attempts, DOES NOT predestine it to be repeated in future. Aside from logical failure such statements heap failure onto the shoulders of those yet to even try!!! If you don't think something can't be done, just don't do it and let others who are willing to give it a go, have a go.

 

[FutureTank]

I think you know what I ment with "going were the Abrams goes". I mean operating in the same terrain with the same speed. Not facing enemy fire. And it is possible.
This has to be te target of every knew IFV.
Or do you think the grunts are happy with a vehicle which slows down the entire group during mobile engagements? I would not feel very happy with this as a squadmember in the back.

Ok, I will repeat again. Aside from the fairly well known fact that the formation moves at the speed of the slowest element in it, in the Australian Army the Infantry calls the pace. Abrams goes where the Infantry goes, and not the other way around.
Now how fast does infantry IFV NEED to go? Let's say the suspension on the IFV can be improved to achieve a 200% performance over M113. That would give it a 60km/h off-road speed. Is this realistic, wanted, NEEDED by the Australian Army (even if it is a selling point for the Puma in Saudi Arabia, Singapore or Brazil)?

For sure you can achieve everything you want but it needs a huge load of money and time.

Yes, or one can improve the project management and utilise as many COTS components as possible (or COTS varians that do not attract significant cost escalation in manufacturing).

I think two chassis would be better. IMHO you would need to make too many compromises when using the same chassis. But these two chassis can for sure be modular and I also think that modularity is the way to go.

I think innovative use of enginnering can allow use of a single chassis.

And what is outside the box? Have you thought about this?.

Yes, I have thought about it. Wooki found my ideas goofy, but 'goofy' ideas have saved an awfull lot of soldiers over the past century. I will not discuss them in a public forum though.

For sure there has no way an IFV can withstand everything but proper frontal armor for duells against enemy IFVs and a good all around protection against low level enemy weapons and IEDs/Mines should be a target, especially when looking at the emphasisis on oversea missions.
Airlift is another factor. The Puma for example would have been an even bigger monster if cold war wouldn't had ended.

Airlift is not a factor for Australian Army. Having four C-17s does not make us airliftable. Majority of equipment will still be going to combat in ships.
Please forgie me for saying this (and I am not trying to be patronising or condescending), but you have a distictly tanker's view of IFV design.
Tanks are relatively safe from a lot of threats infantry are not. To design a survivable IFV one needs to think in these terms. thinking in these terms quickly leads one to the conclusion that priority #1 in design is the ability to acquire the enemy first, and defeat the target before it is able to counterattack. If the IFV is able to do this, it does not need increased armour.

he issue of mine/IED threat is entirely different to common infantry tasks because they are sapper tasks. Never send a tailor to do the shomaker's job.
The sappers need to have a very capable FV of their own, and be integrated into the infantry force structure and doctrine much more intimatelly then through simple mission cross-attachment. I would go so far as to actually integrate sappers into standard company and battalion organisation.

In any case counter-mine warfare is a problem not only for the infantry, and recon would be the first to receive any tools to deal with detection and nutralisation of such threats.

What do you think my posts about size, weight, gun performance, electronics, optics, etc. are about?
You not really tried to argument against my thoughts. You just say again ad again that it would be a waste without hard facts.

- THis turret is big not just the turret diameter. Makes it hard to put it onto a chassis and make it airdeployable in something smaller than a C-17
- The electronic and optics need and upgrade.
- The FCS needs and upgrade.
- The weight (11 tons) we are talking about even without the extra armor of you version and without ammo and equipment.
- The gun is neither top when it comes to AT capabilities, nor when it comes to infantry support. And it is hard to make a small vehicle taking the recoil of the gun..

As others pointed out, it may be too expensive to reuse the turret since to accomodate the recoil one would need to compensate in other ways which may cost more then use of low-pressure weapon.

I would think that two new chassis would be good for Australia.
One wheeled APC and one tracked IFV. Both modular (If bought now for example a mix of Boxer and CV90).

The IFV chassis for mech forces (IFV, AMOS mortar carrier, etc.)

The wheeled chassis for the other tasks (APC, C3i, EW, etc.)

Ok, but I think there is another solution.

 

[swerve]

Well, I don't know why Tenix went to Ireland.
Designing any piece of engineering, including an automotive one is a process.
...

And some people are better at it than others. Timoney does heavy automotive design & consultancy for top-drawer clients around the world. An Irish company, but not dependent on the Irish economy, or its automotive industry (what Irish automotive industry?). They've sold to several armies, the USAF & the DARPA, starting in the 1960s. To quote their CEO: "Timoney is about heavy vehicle mobility systems". But because Timoney isn't a large-scale manufacturing firm, it's a perfect partner for anyone who wants to build their own AFV.

BTW, do you know where the Singaporeans went when they wanted to build AFVs? One guess . . .

 

[Waylander]

Ok, I will repeat again. Aside from the fairly well known fact that the formation moves at the speed of the slowest element in it, in the Australian Army the Infantry calls the pace. Abrams goes where the Infantry goes, and not the other way around.
Now how fast does infantry IFV NEED to go? Let's say the suspension on the IFV can be improved to achieve a 200% performance over M113. That would give it a 60km/h off-road speed. Is this realistic, wanted, NEEDED by the Australian Army (even if it is a selling point for the Puma in Saudi Arabia, Singapore or Brazil)?

But the fact remains that a IFV is designed to work together with tanks. I do not talk of it being the leading element or the following element.
An IFV has to be able to follow or work together with a MBT. This is a critical task and we are for example not happy with the Marder not being able to go were the Leo II goes.
I really really doubt that australian doctrine differs that much from NATO and russian one.

Yes, or one can improve the project management and utilise as many COTS components as possible (or COTS varians that do not attract significant cost escalation in manufacturing).

What is COTS? Jup I am no native speaker.

I think innovative use of enginnering can allow use of a single chassis.

You think this. But there are huge differences between tracked and wheeled vehicles. It is not just the engine.

Airlift is not a factor for Australian Army. Having four C-17s does not make us airliftable. Majority of equipment will still be going to combat in ships.
Please forgie me for saying this (and I am not trying to be patronising or condescending), but you have a distictly tanker's view of IFV design.
Tanks are relatively safe from a lot of threats infantry are not. To design a survivable IFV one needs to think in these terms. thinking in these terms quickly leads one to the conclusion that priority #1 in design is the ability to acquire the enemy first, and defeat the target before it is able to counterattack. If the IFV is able to do this, it does not need increased armour.

he issue of mine/IED threat is entirely different to common infantry tasks because they are sapper tasks. Never send a tailor to do the shomaker's job.
The sappers need to have a very capable FV of their own, and be integrated into the infantry force structure and doctrine much more intimatelly then through simple mission cross-attachment. I would go so far as to actually integrate sappers into standard company and battalion organisation.

In any case counter-mine warfare is a problem not only for the infantry, and recon would be the first to receive any tools to deal with detection and nutralisation of such threats.

When I ever talked about the IFv not beeding good protection if the IFV is able to attack the enemy first? I have been often enough "killed" by enemy Leopard II within 500m. My opinion is just that an new IFV needs good frontal protection against enemy IFVs and a good overall protection against low tech weapons and mines/IEDs.
Nothing more, nothing less.

And every part of a mech force have to deal with mines. There is a reason for us or the US, Danish, Swedish, dutch,.. mech forces to look for mines/IEDs.
Combat engineers are not the ulitmate solution.
Every combat force has to deal with IEDs/mines, because the sappeurrs do not drive in the front.

 

[FutureTank]

But the fact remains that a IFV is designed to work together with tanks. I do not talk of it being the leading element or the following element.
I really really doubt that australian doctrine differs that much from NATO and russian one.

What does "work together" mean? I hope you are not suggesting that it means moving at top DESIGN speed cross country!
They work together as approprite to the combination of factors like tactical situation, nature of mission, force composition, expected threat, available fuel and ammo, and not the least crew fatigue.
If you are going to tell me that the crucial constraint in IFV design is to match the force MBT for speed, I am going to be very disappointed

What is COTS? Jup I am no native speaker.

Commercial Off-The-Shelf
Actually I should have said MOTS - modified or modifiable off-the-shelf

But there are huge differences between tracked and wheeled vehicles. It is not just the engine.

Differences, but not 'huge'

When I ever talked about the IFv not beeding good protection if the IFV is able to attack the enemy first? I have been often enough "killed" by enemy Leopard II within 500m. My opinion is just that an new IFV needs good frontal protection against enemy IFVs and a good overall protection against low tech weapons and mines/IEDs.
Nothing more, nothing less.

Waylander...do German AFVs have a big sign saying Schießen Sie mich nur in der Stirnfläche (trans:Shoot me in frontal area only)Ability to avoid being shot at is firstly in the ability to destroy enemy first. Adding frontal armour may be great for tanks (but no assurance that will help), but for an IFV even doubling the frontal armour compared to side armour is still not enough against heavier ATGWs and tank guns. So why bother? What 'low tech' weapons do you mean? mines/IEDs are another issue altogether, and adding armour is not a solution because most attacks result in mobility disablement. The design has to be able to cope with 50% loss in mobility, BUT still allow crew to keep moving (not necessarily forward btw).

And every part of a mech force have to deal with mines. There is a reason for us or the US, Danish, Swedish, dutch,.. mech forces to look for mines/IEDs.
Combat engineers are not the ulitmate solution.
Every combat force has to deal with IEDs/mines, because the sappeurrs do not drive in the front.

There is never an 'ultimate' solution.
Dealing with mines is just a part of the threat spectrum a designer considers in the process of creating the design.

 

[FutureTank]

I really really doubt that australian doctrine differs that much from NATO and russian one.

I don't think NATO has a doctrine any more

 

[gf0012-aust]

Maybe if Teniux and ADI can't perform, its time another manufacturer, or consortium stepped in.

and we're still left with the more important issue that no one else in this country is either in a capacity to do it, or realises that the economies of scale aren't worth it.

Some of the highest margins in products are in miltech gear - they're an altruistic bunch of folks (esp Tier1's)

Maybe you missed it, but I suggested increasing the hull mass to 32 ton, but as you point out this may still not be enough to compensate for recoil. There are ways to reduce effect of recoil on the chassis, but I suspect they would be expensive (like providing the turret with its own independent hydraulic suspension).

I spent 2 years as an Ops Manager on a recoil management project. It turned out that as far as I was concerned the technology was limited - and thus misrepresented to shareholders - so I withdrew my services. But, in my time there I was involved with people from DSTO, DSTA, CSIT, SAIC, DARPA, NAVSEA, cavitating weapons specialists, Small Arms at Russell, BAE, Baretta, ADI, KMW and Oto Melara. Without fear or favour, everyone wanted a real "non snake oil" salesman answer to recoil mitigation on armoured vehicles, artillery, howitzers and naval vessels. - There is no combination of existing sanity checked technologies that can do this in a cost effective and useful manner. In fact in some weapons systems you actually use the recoil effect to assist in "going bang". Thats why invariably mass is added to a platform to assist in countering stability and movement effects. Its why the XM-777 went through a littany of probs including fractured optics, fatigued spades, fractured mounts, micro weld breaks, reload times, fatigued breech blocks, mantle distortion on tanks where the ring was inadequate, compression on suspension systems, hydraulic issues etc......

Some of these blokes live and breathe engineering fault resolution, they are the best in their game. There are huge trade offs in managing recoil. Look at the delivery cycle for the XM-777 and TDS-120 - and they aren't parts complex pieces of kit. I recall writing a 3 page document on the negatives of recoil and the need for its mitigation and I'm by no means an expert - its not as easy as you think. Sticking a HV main gun on a sub 40 tonne chassis is asking for trouble.

I just don't believe in discarding something that can still be utilised in some useful way. I don't agree with the consumerism philosophy.

Some of the smartest solutions currently available are only able to be delivered at a consortia or maxi company level. For them to be remotely interested outside of a National Strategic Interest level means that it has to be viable. Public companies are required to deliver to the shareholders - who are consumers. The Miltech industry is even more focussed on that mantra of delivery.

 

[Aussie Digger]

The needs of a European country, the USA and Australia are likely to be different from strategic, operational resourcing/force structure and tactical points of view. Decisions on procurement are made for different economic and political reasons, and there are different desing influences from design culture and organisational politics expressing their demands on the development process in different ways. If this didn't apply, NATO would continue to purchase US equipment after WW2 and have no defence industry manufacturing at all.



Sorry AD, but can you just clarify if you mean that Australia does not have expereince in manufacturing all these parts, or does have this expereince (I suggest the later).

They may very well be different but I'd like to know why is all. You've stated they are different, so what are they? I've heard DMO and Australian Defence Industry types talk about these "differences" too. Usually immediately before an otherwise straight forward project goes off the rails.

I've worked on exercises with USMC and Singaporean Armed forces. They operate in the Australian environment ALL the time (nearly EVERY single year in fact, EVERY year for the Singaporeans) quite successfully with markedly different capabilities to us, and they do it well.

As to our manufacturing capabilities I suggest the former. We DO NOT have ANY experience in designing OR manufacturer the majority of items needed to build a modern armoured fighting vehicle.

The best we could manage would be to build components, even large parts under licence, perhaps with some improvement (ie: ASLAV turrets are manufactured in SA by GDLS Australia under licence, but the turrets fitted to Australian LAV's are upgraded with an electric turret drive and other enhancements PRIOR to being fitted to Australian ASLAV's).

We could possibly as Wooki suggests take a pre-designed vehicle and establish a manufacturing capability for the vehicle, as we have done for Bushmaster, but again the economics of the situation are unlikely to provide the most cost effective option, for the limited numbers of platforms we are likely to acquire.

Bushmaster is somewhat different in that 425 vehicles are on order or already delivered, with the prospect of further Australian sales and some further OS sales, I can easily see a possible 600 or more vehicles being manufactured and even further improved with enhancements such as improved armour and CROWS styled RWS systems being fitted.

Land 400 will be lucky to acquire half this number under the available budget however, IMHO...

 

[FutureTank]

and we're still left with the more important issue that no one else in this country is either in a capacity to do it, or realises that the economies of scale aren't worth it.

Some of the highest margins in products are in miltech gear - they're an altruistic bunch of folks (esp Tier1's)

Some of the smartest solutions currently available are only able to be delivered at a consortia or maxi company level. For them to be remotely interested outside of a National Strategic Interest level means that it has to be viable. Public companies are required to deliver to the shareholders - who are consumers. The Miltech industry is even more focussed on that mantra of delivery.

I'm not an engineer but I believe I have read widely. I did basic calc which is of course not good enough, but could be a 32 ton hull is not enough for a Leopard 1 turret.

Yes, I realise that it would have to be a consortium rather then a single builder. I don't think Tenix has the reputation do undertake such a project.
However there are several issues.

Are Australians able to produce an advanced design competitive by market standards?

Is the Australian industry able to see this design through development process?

Is the Australian industry able to manufacture the design, and to what degree?

If you are saying that to break even the production would have to be 5000+ units, then the potential in exporting is in the 20bn region. Surely that is something to consider for investors?
Of course what happens there is that the consortium would become licincer since importers would be doing partial or full manufacturing and assembly in their own countries (what I think we should be trying to avoid).

 

[FutureTank]

They may very well be different but I'd like to know why is all. You've stated they are different, so what are they? I've heard DMO and Australian Defence Industry types talk about these "differences" too. Usually immediately before an otherwise straight forward project goes off the rails.

As to our manufacturing capabilities I suggest the former. We DO NOT have ANY experience in designing OR manufacturer the majority of items needed to build a modern armoured fighting vehicle.

The best we could manage would be to build components, even large parts under licence, perhaps with some improvement

We could possibly as Wooki suggests take a pre-designed vehicle and establish a manufacturing capability for the vehicle, as we have done for Bushmaster, but again the economics of the situation are unlikely to provide the most cost effective option, for the limited numbers of platforms we are likely to acquire.

Land 400 will be lucky to acquire half this number under the available budget however, IMHO...

My impression is that outside of tactics Australia doesn't have a doctrine because there is no clear strategic or operational guidance, and this has been true for a long time. This is not a detriment because given our regional position it would be difficult to design a strategic and operational doctrine.

Essentially Australian Army is an infantry force which will fight offensively in any battle environment it is called upon to perform in using fairly conventional tactical methods.
In our region there were few opportunities to conduct the sort of mechanised combat tactics which were envisioned for Europe at the height of the Cold War, and although the Australian Army does train for it, it is unlikely to participate in this type of combat.
I don't think the future will significantly alter how the Army fights.

So what you are saying in regards to LAND 400 is that if anyone has any ideas, don't go to Australian industry with them since they will not be able to do anything with them in the long run? Quite depressing really.
I'll think about it, but given everyone's comments, I may look elsewhere for support.

 

[gf0012-aust]

However there are several issues.

Are Australians able to produce an advanced design competitive by market standards?

yes, we currently do across a few military disciplines

Is the Australian industry able to see this design through development process?

yes, we currently do across a few military disciplines

Is the Australian industry able to manufacture the design, and to what degree?

yes, we currently do across a few military disciplines

If you are saying that to break even the production would have to be 5000+ units, then the potential in exporting is in the 20bn region. Surely that is something to consider for investors?
Of course what happens there is that the consortium would become licincer since importers would be doing partial or full manufacturing and assembly in their own countries (what I think we should be trying to avoid).

5000 is an absolute greenfields cradle to grave effort.

To sell in our immediate region we need to build ahead of the curve of all the locals, we can't do that cost effectively.

There is no money in royalties or license building. eg when I worked on the small arms project it worked out that each weapon would provide a royalty of 5c each.

the money for heavy weapons like arty pieces is in maintenance - royalties would only be effective if there was regular change over (like barrel resleeving or replacement)

You don't make much development money out of licence building a gunned up shoebox.

 

[FutureTank]

You don't make much development money out of licence building a gunned up shoebox.

So we can do a few of the desing parts, but not a many of the design whole...

 

[gf0012-aust]

So we can do a few of the desing parts, but not a many of the design whole...

No, Australia does provide some very credible whole of platform technologies - they just don't get airplay (and I don't believe that we need to trumpet these successes in the public domain either - the beauty of some of them being that they are private unlisted companies and so don't attract attention)

My view is that we should not try and compete at the base level already contested parts of the market - we should continue to play at the niche and specialist level.

let everyone else be the box floggers, they're already set up, and breaking into a contested market is an expensive exercise financially as well as in potential grief.

UDT technology, AI, USV/ROV tech, acoustics, sig management, sensor management are things we excel in and where we are world class.

Forget the vanilla stuff.

 

[rickshaw]

matchstick?... you know, I never saw the matchstick used... piece of scrunched up tinfoil, as it was easier to get out....

Never seen foil. Matches only. I know two different ways of doing it as well, with the match, one more dangerous than the other.

mis-spent youth...

Is there any other kind?

 

[Waylander]

What does "work together" mean? I hope you are not suggesting that it means moving at top DESIGN speed cross country!
They work together as approprite to the combination of factors like tactical situation, nature of mission, force composition, expected threat, available fuel and ammo, and not the least crew fatigue.
If you are going to tell me that the crucial constraint in IFV design is to match the force MBT for speed, I am going to be very disappointed

Jep, I tell you that.
It is one major factor. For sure you do not drive around at full speed but there are situations were you need the speed and it is not fun to have IFVs with you which slow you down for example during retreat under fire. I often enough saw this during maneuvers when working together with our Marders.
Reaching the same cross country performance like MBTs is important. And you cannot tell me that this is not important for Australian forces.
And it just puts back your ability to perform a combined arms battle if one of the participants is not able to go the speed of the others.

Waylander...do German AFVs have a big sign saying Schießen Sie mich nur in der Stirnfläche (trans:Shoot me in frontal area only)Ability to avoid being shot at is firstly in the ability to destroy enemy first. Adding frontal armour may be great for tanks (but no assurance that will help), but for an IFV even doubling the frontal armour compared to side armour is still not enough against heavier ATGWs and tank guns. So why bother? What 'low tech' weapons do you mean? mines/IEDs are another issue altogether, and adding armour is not a solution because most attacks result in mobility disablement. The design has to be able to cope with 50% loss in mobility, BUT still allow crew to keep moving (not necessarily forward btw).

With low tech or light weapons I mean rounds up to 14,5mm and basic RPGs as well as artillery spalls and bomblets.

And what is the logic behind "We are not able to withstand ATGMs and tank guns so why should we bother about frontal armor?"?
Why should you than even armor an IFV?

A good frontal armor gives you a much better chance to be the winner of a direct duell against enemy IFVs. And frontal hits remain the highest possibility when fighting enemy forces.
It is right that shooting and hitting first is the best protection you can have but there are enough occasions where you come under fire without seeing the enemy first even with the best optics and equipment.

And I know that mine/IED protection is a combination of construction procedures but of which adding armor is part of. Uncoupled running gears, V shaped bottoms, special uncoupled seats, etc are the other ones.
And against big IEDs and AT-mines mobility kills are not your only problem. The main task of mine/IED protection is to protect the crew. Remaining mobile is important but comes second to this.

There is never an 'ultimate' solution.
Dealing with mines is just a part of the threat spectrum a designer considers in the process of creating the design.

What do you want to tell me?
I never said anything about mine protection is the main threat which have to be considered. I just listed it as part of the protection package a modern IFV needs IMHO.

I don't think NATO has a doctrine any more

I meant the countries which are included in NATO.
And all of them which operate tanks accompany them with IFVs and vice versa.
And now you may tell me what makes Australian doctrine so special?
You cannot say that it is different and use it as an argument against my arguments for cross-country performance and protection without defining these special differences in doctrine.
Because I really doubt that the Australian approach to combined arms battles is that different that you think an IFV needs no good protection and all participants do not need the same speed for achieving optimal results.

 

[Aussie Digger]

No, Australia does provide some very credible whole of platform technologies - they just don't get airplay (and I don't believe that we need to trumpet these successes in the public domain either - the beauty of some of them being that they are private unlisted companies and so don't attract attention)

My view is that we should not try and compete at the base level already contested parts of the market - we should continue to play at the niche and specialist level.

let everyone else be the box floggers, they're already set up, and breaking into a contested market is an expensive exercise financially as well as in potential grief.

UDT technology, AI, USV/ROV tech, acoustics, sig management, sensor management are things we excel in and where we are world class.

Forget the vanilla stuff.

This is off-topic I know, but what about CEA Technologies etc? Here we have a reputedly "world class" tech that is wholly indigenous, yet is apparently succeeding in a rather congested market?

I don't think much of the idea of an "indigenous IFV" that is true, but do you think this applies as a generality across the spectrum of Australian Defence Industries?

 

[Waylander]

What is CEA?

 

[Chino]

Read about Aussies in Vietnam and some mention of matchstick-jigged SLR firing full auto.

They even welded 2 magazines together to get in more rounds.

They reported that they mostly couldn't hit anything they were aiming at with a FA SLR, but the noise and firepower had a "demoralising" effect on the VC.

Especially useful for breaking up VC ambushes.

Anyway, in the thick jungle, especially at night, very few actual "aimed" shots were fired by either side as you normally can't see the enemy anyway. You just fired in the general direction.

So in these engagements where 2 sides can't see each other properly in a firefight. the side with more noise and firepower had a psychological advantage.

And apparently, a FA SLR gave a lot of "noise" advantage.

 

[Wooki]

What is CEA?

CEA is a radar company in Oz. They use RF emission technology to form phased array panels and are quite good at it, apparently. The company just "hung on" for about 5 years when it finally had a break (a little over a year ago now, IIRC) and was awarded a major contract.

It really is a poster child of Australian military tech development, but if you read between the lines, their history also highlights the problems of doing business in Australia. Great tech, Great people, but frakking lucky to be alive IMHO.

GF knows more about it.

cheers

w