Australian military and technology. the more info we have the better.

 

http://www.defencesuppliers.net.au/2B372C9C-6695-11DE-A46B0050568C22C9

 

http://www.defencesuppliers.net.au/news/land-121/4-pmv-developments

 

both these items may directly influence the ADF PR mod.

The end product of the Land-17 won't.

 

Ever wonder why the US Army doesn't have the Paladin in game yet? Map ranges are far too small, and it generally takes people away from the battle.

What will happen when the Dutch pull out over the next two to three years?

 

 

Same thing Canada does, beg borrow and steal help. In the case of the Dutch, hitch rides on Chinook helicopters we sold them when the government didn't think we needed them.....

Seems its not just the Cannuks who do that mate. Were well known for the fact that we rarely ship out self contained forces. Constantly were relying on other nations for support whether it be aircraft, artillery or supplies. >_<

my apologies i should have spelled it out. just see if you boys can find more info around this stuff, as i can only find a few pdf's. i wasn't asking for a debate.

i also need some really clean detailed pics of f35's and australian mortar systems. and here is the really difficult one. good pics of spent australian

155mm rounds.

Mortars

 

http://defence.gov.au/opEx/exercises/ts09/gallery/20090714a/20090712adf8208022_130.jpg

http://defence.gov.au/opEx/exercises/ts09/gallery/20090714a/20090712adf8208022_143.jpg

http://defence.gov.au/opEx/exercises/ts09/gallery/20090714a/20090712adf8208022_158.jpg

...constantly were relying on other nations for support whether it be aircraft, artillery or supplies. >_<

 

relative to our population and our means we have a pretty good adf imo.

 

Being a component in multilateral engagements in the world is i think the basic premise that we operate on here...

 

unless its low intensity local regional operations such as peacekeeping, disaster relief etc...we still sit on one of the most capable defence forces in the region.

I wasn't asking for a debate.

 

You don't need to ask for debates and discussions because you will get them anyway since that is what forums are made for.

 

Also in regards to what you have said Gourmetrail I meant no disrespect towards our armed forces merely making a observation. :sweat:

It's one of the main reasons we also fly US aircraft etc. Easy to get ammo and repairs if it's all the same.

It's one of the main reasons we also fly US aircraft etc. Easy to get ammo and repairs if it's all the same.

 

damn straight, its a beautiful system where we are very rarely the fall guy...

So what's the deal with the new F35s? I hear alotta news about how it should have been the VTOL variant (B isn't it?) but I always wondered why do we need a VTOL?

we dont, and the VTOL costs ALOT more, and there is just no need.

ok back to the initial topic, what does the community think of the JLTV program, and what australia's next choice of protected light vehicles could be.

givin that we are only in the initial part of this phase 4 of land121.

and considering they will be deployed no later than 2012 "if" the deployment, schedual is adhered to. this would put it into the deployment window for PR if i understand the rules correctly.

 

what are your thourght's ?........

I think its very unlikely we will see them by 2012 given the fiscal situation that the current government has adopted due to the economic recession. Lets also remember that there will be a Federal Election some time in April 2011 and that will also without a doubt effect the possibility of allot of the currently planned/scheduled programs being fulfilled in the time frames given. Especially if labour doesn't maintain its current strength. All in all the next few years will be very interesting not only in regards to our military expenditure but that of nation as a whole.

this was a previous government inititive, started under howard. the money is already in the budget for this phase and 2012 unless i am mistaken is the initial delivery date for the phase requirments. and yes, how long it actually takes to get them deployed is anyones guess,

 

that all said and done, what do you actually think of the JLTV program

That its the same as every other multi national program that has being proposed and under taken thus far. It will as always try to please everyone and in doing so please no one. How do they say jack of all trades, master of none that is what I foresee for the end product of the JLTV program. Once again assuming we stay the course and adopt the final product.

 

That said there is certainly a need to replace our aging land cruisers and trucks with vehicles that are more capable and better protected. Without just strapping more armour on them and in doing so destroy there combat capacity and loads. The HMMWV certainly suffers from the same problems and is also in urgent need of replacement. Also we really need to look at vehicles with long life survivability and service as well as looking at future energy sources.

that all said and done, what do you actually think of the JLTV program

 

. . . meh . . . not really a lot to see there tbh, most are looking like uparmoured vehicles that are either inservice or coming in with a few 'spacy' looking prototypes. If you want pretty good informed opinions on the JLTV, then have a read of this thread -> http://www.t5c.biz/showthread.php?t=6106 most of the blokes posting (yes i've said this before) are either ex-service, serving members of the defence force, def contractors, def dept workers and the occasional def journo so they have pretty good info.

 

One thing i do find quite humorous tho is the fact that the US & UK are madly rushing out to purchase wheeled mine/ied resistant/survivable vehicles (MRAP) when our of all the ones on the market, the Bushmaster outperforms them all . . . maybe Thales just have a really crap marketing dept tho. More Bushies i say

Edited July 30, 200915 yr by Heat-seeker

Only one issue with the bushmaster anything more than a slight curve above 50k/h and they tend to end up on their sides. I mean they are a good capable vehicle but I have spoken to 2 or 3 people that have rolled them and they say it rolled a lot easier than it should have.

not to mention they arnt exactly "light" vehicles.arnt they looking at some merc 4x4 to replace the landy? from wat i hear the dutch (who have them over in afghanistan) hate them, they they are way under powered, and once u get your guns and gear on there strugle like anything.

Only one issue with the bushmaster anything more than a slight curve above 50k/h and they tend to end up on their sides. I mean they are a good capable vehicle but I have spoken to 2 or 3 people that have rolled them and they say it rolled a lot easier than it should have.

 

high centre of gravity.

Edited July 30, 200915 yr by Hambang101

this is the kind of discussion i like, a real exchange of information.

very good valid points.

and i had read we where supposed to be getting G-wagons.

i wish Holden would make something!

(hey tonnie can you model us up a quick Ford/Holden JLTV)

 

i cant get the link to work BTW

 

 

McDethWivFries, i believe the reason the yanks didn't go with Thales was the whole "freedom fries" bull*. essentially Thales is a French company, even though the Bushmasters where designed and made in Australia by Australians for Australians. it's the whole "Sentinal Tank" escapade again.

 

(apply annoying American accent)

"what Australians made that, oh well it cant be any good right, oh it's better than anything we will come up with for 30 years, oh no we cant have that, well then if you continue to make it we will just have to stop shipping you any other materials and you can just get by on your own and you can deal with the Germans and Japanese on your own then...... i can do what with a pineapple!"

 

seriously how many times has stuff* like this happened to us before.

 

 

* obscene word replacement.

not to mention they arnt exactly "light" vehicles.arnt they looking at some merc 4x4 to replace the landy? from wat i hear the dutch (who have them over in afghanistan) hate them, they they are way under powered, and once u get your guns and gear on there strugle like anything.

 

Its not only the Bush Masters the M113's are known for rolling as are our/were our Unimogs. Its just a given really considering most of these vehicles are often used off road and at speed. Add to that the fact they are often over loaded or poorly loaded with extra water, fuel and equipment plus personnel. The other contributing factor is like already mentioned they have a high centre of gravity which is a large part of how they are made to cope better under IED or mine incidents. A vehicle with a low centre of gravity is often much lower to the ground and this often doesn't allow for a the well designed hull that funnels away the explosive forces of a IED or mine.

 

All in all military equipment, personal and designers have to face the classic catch 22 every day their working.

arnt they looking at some merc 4x4 to replace the landy? from wat i hear the dutch (who have them over in afghanistan) hate them, they they are way under powered, and once u get your guns and gear on there strugle like anything.

that would be the G Wagon, and you are correct the Dutch do hate them. Have been cases of recon patrols refusing to do their patrols due to the vehicle being woefully underpowered . . . good to see our Govt thought underpowered must = awesome

 

i had read we where supposed to be getting G-wagons.

yup

 

i cant get the link to work BTW

if its asking for a username and pwd, its basically username and password in the respective areas (anti spambot measure apparently...)

 

McDethWivFries, i believe the reason the yanks didn't go with Thales was the whole "freedom fries" bull*. essentially Thales is a French company, even though the Bushmasters where designed and made in Australia by Australians for Australians. it's the whole "Sentinal Tank" escapade again.

i think Oshkosh or whatever they are called were suppose to be marketing the vehicle in the US and they did a reeeeeeaaaaally . . . . ummm . . . fecal matteresk job in marketing it.

 

from what i've been reading regarding the Bushy v MRAP type vehicle is the MRAPs are only really good for driving on sealed roads, take them offroad and they fall over at the sight of a peble . . . the Bushy tho is able to go offroad as thats one of their design parameters, MRAP were made more for convoying along highways in Iraq etc.

a currently serving member in the ADF, told his missus who informed me the MRAP's are refereed to as PRAM's by Australian bushmaster crews in Afghanistan. he is heading over in a few months his missus is not taking it well, i have to hear about it everyday at work.

and i had read we where supposed to be getting G-wagons.

 

 

 

 

 

We have them in Canada, they are not even allowed outside of the wire. Guys kept jumping on the hood and blowing themselves up taking some poor Canadian soldiers with them.

 

Now we use the Nyala.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RG-31

 

 

It was a battlefield necessity as it became clear to the army in late 2005 that it would need a better protected patrol vehicle than the lightly armoured Mercedes G-Wagon.

 

The procurement of the Nyala broke speed records at the Defence Department, going from request to field delivery in five months.

 

"Our motto on this project was: schedule is king, lives depend on it,'' said Moggridge.

 

 

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070415/nyala_vehicle_070415

 

 

 

 

McDethWivFries, i believe the reason the yanks didn't go with Thales was the whole "freedom fries" bull*. essentially Thales is a French company, even though the Bushmasters where designed and made in Australia by Australians for Australians. it's the whole "Sentinal Tank" escapade again.

 

 

You can stay on your high horse about the Americans in this case if you must ignore a simple fact about building your own things that everyone likes to forget; logistics.

 

While Australia can make her own fantastic MBT's etc can you make them in numbers like the Americans? Can you produce enough ammunition spare parts and all the other goodies required to run your own systems? If so can you get them in sufficient numbers to rearm, repair and supply your equipment and vehicles?

 

That last bit right there is why you do not have your own Australian designed and built tanks, jets and anything else. With American kit you just roll up to their base and get a repair or transport . If you can't repair you can also lease new equipment with no retraining.

 

Right now only the Americans can move very large amounts of men and material world wide.

 

No good having the best stuff if it's parked in your backyard gathering cobwebs. Besides, the Yanks have great stuff which you would expect with a research budget bigger than Australia's entire GDP.

Edited July 30, 200915 yr by Snazzy