Australian Military Vehicle Development

[GTX_Admin]

If only Australia had the fortitude and political will to design such specialised vehicles, talored to Australian Army needs 

 

[Rickshaw]

We do not lack imagination and we don't lack ingenuity what we lack is the large scale orders required to normally launch and build these sorts of vehicles nowadays.

[Claymore]

It seems to me that Australia and Britain really should be working closer regarding the provision of protected mobility.  Both the Bushmaster and Hawkei are excellent vehicles and are just the thing we should be operating too - certainly my Regt should (RAF Regt) as our Australian counterparts already use the Bushmaster.  Sadly, we are stuck with Jackal and Coyote (outgoing), Husky (incoming) and the Juggernaut that is Mastiff.  Oh to be King for a day!

[GTX_Admin]

The Force Protection Ocelot/Foxhound (see pic below) was offered to Australia a couple of years ago for the Project Land 121 Phase 4 – Protected Mobility Vehicle (Light) program.  Other contenders were the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV), the MOWAG Eagle and the eventual winner, the Thales Hawkei.  A large part of the reason why Hawkei was selected was because it was designed/developed and would be manufactured in Australia.  However, this doesn't mean it was selected only because of this - it is afterall comparable to those competing international platforms.



There certainly are moves to interest other armies in the likes of the Hawkei and Bushmaster.  I have even shared a stand  at DSEi with the Thales folks as they tried to sell the Hawkei. 

Wrt the Bushmaster, there has been some export success with the likes of the Dutch and low and behold, the British Armies operating some.  It has also been offered (unsuccessfully) to the USA and is also being offered to the likes of Spain, France and others.  What's really good is that you can already get of kit of it:

[GTX_Admin]

I also like the Bushmaster Copperhead armoured combat support vehicle:

[GTX_Admin]

Another idea I have (and indeed intend to model with my example of the Showcase Models kit) is a Bushmaster based light SPH - basically something akin to the CAESAR/ATMOS 2000 systems:

CAESAR:



ATMOS 2000:



Story will be that after the cancellation of Land17 Phase 1C, Thales Australia makes an unsolicited bid with a 155mm SPH development of the Bushmaster called the Bushranger.

[Rickshaw]

I suspect one of the reasons why the Hawkei was selected was because it looks like a Monaro. 

Copperhead like a Holden/Ford Ute. 

It is good though, that we seem to be finally shaking off the old "cultural cringe" and purchasing domestically.

On a more serious note, my concern with the Ceasar and similar essentially truck based systems is the lack of armour for the crew.  Makes them particularly vulnerable to counter-battery fire IMHO.   While I accept that the armour has been sacrificed for airborne, strategic mobility, I'd much rather see the German Donar system used:

[AGRA]

Story will be that after the cancellation of Land17 Phase 1C, Thales Australia makes an unsolicited bid with a 155mm SPH development of the Bushmaster called the Bushranger.

That’s not What If. ADI (as it was called at the time now Thales Australia) had prepared to tender for LAND 17 the Caesar artillery system integrated onto a Bushmaster ACSV (as it was called at the time now the Copperhead) vehicle system. But the Army specified an artillery system able to fire and reload with all the crew under armour for force protection reasons in LAND 17 so Caesar and the similar ATMOS were unable to bid. The IMI bid for ATMOS was to be integrated into a heavy 8x8 MAN HX truck chassis and looked pretty cool.

[AGRA]

The Force Protection Ocelot/Foxhound (see pic below) was offered to Australia a couple of years ago for the Project Land 121 Phase 4 – Protected Mobility Vehicle (Light) program.  Other contenders were the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV), the MOWAG Eagle and the eventual winner, the Thales Hawkei.  A large part of the reason why Hawkei was selected was because it was designed/developed and would be manufactured in Australia.  However, this doesn't mean it was selected only because of this - it is afterall comparable to those competing international platforms.

The Hawkei decision was entirely a political exercise and is not yet certain. Hawkei wasn’t directly up against JLTV but the winner of the Australian production option which will then be considered against the American production option. Army wants to buy JLTVs through the US DoD because it would be by far the cheapest option in acquisition and sustainment. But votes in Bendigo are more important to the political echelon and they make the final decision. It would not surprise me at all if such a decision ordering the Hawkei is made before the election campaign…

Which is an acceptable decision by government as long as they support this by making PMVs a strategic domestic defence capability and compensate the Army for the additional outlay. Without doing so acquiring Hawkei for PMV-L will result in less dollars to be spent on other Army capability. Army has been screwed via domestic vehicle production the past 10 years with lots of Bushmasters and M113AS4s it doesn’t need and none of the new build IFVs it actually does need. Despite that ASLAVs and a potential replacement can have (and did have) just as much local dollar spend as the Bushmaster and M113AS4 did. Just they didn’t have a domestic corporate entity to sell the project for votes to the political echelon.

Further I wouldn’t be too excited about Hawkei being a great Australian design. They will be assembled in Australia but they were designed at a place within eye sight of Lebanon. The armour may also be built at this location and be imported to Australia alongside the engine and other components. The dollar value of the Australian production option if only 50% domestic.

[Volkodav]

Well in my perfect world the MOWAG Eagle would have been selected and manufactured at the old Mitsubishi factory at Tonsley Park in Adelaide along side the LAND 121 trucks.  Bendigo would have been placated by the order of 4x4 and 6x6 Copperheads to fill the rigid armoured truck component of LAND 121 as well as gun on truck and HIMARS platforms.

[GTX_Admin]

The Force Protection Ocelot/Foxhound (see pic below) was offered to Australia a couple of years ago for the Project Land 121 Phase 4 – Protected Mobility Vehicle (Light) program.  Other contenders were the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV), the MOWAG Eagle and the eventual winner, the Thales Hawkei.  A large part of the reason why Hawkei was selected was because it was designed/developed and would be manufactured in Australia.  However, this doesn't mean it was selected only because of this - it is afterall comparable to those competing international platforms.

The Hawkei decision was entirely a political exercise and is not yet certain. Hawkei wasn’t directly up against JLTV but the winner of the Australian production option which will then be considered against the American production option. Army wants to buy JLTVs through the US DoD because it would be by far the cheapest option in acquisition and sustainment. But votes in Bendigo are more important to the political echelon and they make the final decision. It would not surprise me at all if such a decision ordering the Hawkei is made before the election campaign…

Which is an acceptable decision by government as long as they support this by making PMVs a strategic domestic defence capability and compensate the Army for the additional outlay. Without doing so acquiring Hawkei for PMV-L will result in less dollars to be spent on other Army capability. Army has been screwed via domestic vehicle production the past 10 years with lots of Bushmasters and M113AS4s it doesn’t need and none of the new build IFVs it actually does need. Despite that ASLAVs and a potential replacement can have (and did have) just as much local dollar spend as the Bushmaster and M113AS4 did. Just they didn’t have a domestic corporate entity to sell the project for votes to the political echelon.

Further I wouldn’t be too excited about Hawkei being a great Australian design. They will be assembled in Australia but they were designed at a place within eye sight of Lebanon. The armour may also be built at this location and be imported to Australia alongside the engine and other components. The dollar value of the Australian production option if only 50% domestic.

Someone based near Kibbutz Sasa per chance...

[GTX_Admin]

Story will be that after the cancellation of Land17 Phase 1C, Thales Australia makes an unsolicited bid with a 155mm SPH development of the Bushmaster called the Bushranger.

That’s not What If. ADI (as it was called at the time now Thales Australia) had prepared to tender for LAND 17 the Caesar artillery system integrated onto a Bushmaster ACSV (as it was called at the time now the Copperhead) vehicle system. But the Army specified an artillery system able to fire and reload with all the crew under armour for force protection reasons in LAND 17 so Caesar and the similar ATMOS were unable to bid. The IMI bid for ATMOS was to be integrated into a heavy 8x8 MAN HX truck chassis and looked pretty cool.

My solution is simply to have the vehicles operate in a paired configuration whereby a Bushranger with the gun and some crew is always paired with a Bushmaster with ammunition and the rest of the crew.  Ideal?  Maybe not, but achieving an end goal.

[AGRA]

My solution is simply to have the vehicles operate in a paired configuration whereby a Bushranger with the gun and some crew is always paired with a Bushmaster with ammunition and the rest of the crew.  Ideal?  Maybe not, but achieving an end goal.

It doesn’t solve the problem. The ability to keep shooting a fire mission while under fire themselves is part of the requirement. My solution is they should have just brought off the shelf M109A6 Paladins from the US Army. Super cheap and fully capable of everything we need. My favourite ADI designed variant of the Bushmaster was the “Bushtub” which was a cut down to the top of the bonnet version for the SAS to replace the ‘Mother Mogs’.

[GTX_Admin]

Ah well... It is good enough for this whiff verse.

[AGRA]

Ah well... It is good enough for this whiff verse.

If its whiffverse why not Australian built Merkava Mk 4 vehicles for tank, recce vehicle, engr vehicles, APC and SP155! A Namer IFV with the 1,500 hp MTU engine and a turret with 35mm Bushmaster firing AHED ammo would be pretty cool and a good replacement for the ASLAV. And the Israeli ‘Slammer’ 155mm turret on Merkava chassis for the SP mdm gun. Kind of a Project Waler II or LAND 380 (Land 400 minus 20 years).

[Rickshaw]

Story will be that after the cancellation of Land17 Phase 1C, Thales Australia makes an unsolicited bid with a 155mm SPH development of the Bushmaster called the Bushranger.

That’s not What If. ADI (as it was called at the time now Thales Australia) had prepared to tender for LAND 17 the Caesar artillery system integrated onto a Bushmaster ACSV (as it was called at the time now the Copperhead) vehicle system. But the Army specified an artillery system able to fire and reload with all the crew under armour for force protection reasons in LAND 17 so Caesar and the similar ATMOS were unable to bid. The IMI bid for ATMOS was to be integrated into a heavy 8x8 MAN HX truck chassis and looked pretty cool.

My solution is simply to have the vehicles operate in a paired configuration whereby a Bushranger with the gun and some crew is always paired with a Bushmaster with ammunition and the rest of the crew.  Ideal?  Maybe not, but achieving an end goal.

A sub-optimal solution, Greg which doesn't provide protection while undertaking a fire mission.

It's not as if we weren't exactly spoiled for choice, there were and still are many different fully armoured SPGs available on the market which we could purchase cheaply.

As in everything nowadays, it's not necessary the hull which is the major cost in such a system either, it's the bells and whistles which go inside them, particularly the electronics which are a major determinant of costs.

The AS-90, PzH2000, the ROK K9, the M109 (in various forms and levels of sophistication), the already mentioned Donar, the Swedish Archer and the South African G6 are all examples of what is available.

The M109 represents a particularly good bargain, as does the K9.  The others are successively more expensive and of varying capabilities.   

[Volkodav]

AGRA for PM!

[GTX_Admin]

You guys are missing the point here - I was simply looking/planning a whiff model to use on my Bushmaster kit.    I was/am not trying to plan/propose real world army acquisitions or to debate decisions made in the past...

Any way, let's move on - let's see some other Australian Military Vehicle Developments.

[GTX_Admin]

An interesting site somewhat linked to the topic of this thread:  http://anzacsteel.hobbyvista.com/index.htm

[Rickshaw]

Then, perhaps we should discuss the Yeramba?



The first Australian indigenous designed SPG to make it into service.

Based on the M3 Grant/Lee Medium tank which Australia had large numbers in service, it was an adapted version of the Canadian Sexton design, mounting a 25 Pdr.

Unfortunately it was mounted on an obsolete chassis which was destined within a decade to be out of service, which limited it's utility.

Perhaps we would have been better to have adopted the 25 Pdr SPG on the Centurion Chassis (the FV 3802):




 

[AGRA]

There is nothing wrong with Yeramba’s conception. It was a good idea at the time: cheap and easy. No one in the CMF armd bde gp was to know that in a few years the Menzies govt. would slash defence funding and consign their formation to history. Being disbanded before the end of life of their equipment. In the process alleviating the need to replace their combat equipment.

In the whiffverse if the mid 50s defence cut backs had not been initiated then the Australian Army could have been in the market for equipment to recapitalise the CMF armd bde gp. Which would include 3-4 more regiments of medium tanks and 1-2 regiments of self-propelled artillery. Centurion is an obvious stand out for this requirement and was still under production in the UK up to ’62 and common with the regular medium tank regiment equipment. I doubt something like the purpose built short hull Centurion with 25 Pounder would be viable to replace Yeramba. But maybe a conversion of Centurions to something like Yeramba. With either the M2A2 105mm ordnance or even better the 5.5” medium gun. Such an acquisition program could be combined with a Centurion upgrade with new American powerpacks and radios making up their primary operational shortfalls from Vietnam.

A Centurion with 5.5” ordnance was prototyped by the UK as the FV3805 but featured a short howitzer barrel and a drive reversal to run in reverse as its forward gear. This by the way is the photo of the hulk Rickshaw has attached above not the 25 pounder centurion. It might have been a lot simpler just to keep the original 5.5” ordnance with long barrel and drive gear arrangement with the gun facing to the rear like on the short hull 25 pounder Centurion. Which if the ordnance removed would have made a pretty capable heavy APC.

[Volkodav]

I wonder if a gun on truck derivative of the M-777 could be justified as an interim option for the, it will lack crew protection in operation but will, if based on the Copperhead, provide protection on the move and much of the desired mobility.  Above all, using the M-777 ordinance would meet the AFATDS requirement.

I remember seeing a CG image of a LAV / Piranha / Stryker mounted M-777, it was recessed into the roof of the LAV with a large spade arrangement on the rear.  I believe it was a BAE concept but cant for the life of me find anything on it now.

[Gingie]

we trialled one of these in Canada about a decade ago. MOBAT, I think it was on loan from the Dutch, or perhaps RDM. Gotta say, compared to a towed 105, this thing kicked ass. Not because it was SP, but it had a unique way of laying the gun after each round that was very fast & accurate.

[Rickshaw]

Which gun is it on the back?

Are those gun shields each side of the barrel?

[Gingie]

105mm RDM howitzer, similar to C3. They are gun shields on each side. The shield on the right also supports the laying system. The towed 105 required 2 layers; for bearing and elevation. This one, the gunner just aligns a dot into the middle of a ring using a joystick, and the gun is layed.