Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: What sort of land force does Australia really need?
Volkodav    8/19/2008 8:19:53 AM
Continental defence suggests light armour and motorised infantry. Regional commitments suggest air mobile light infantry. Extra regional coalition operations suggest heavy armour. We need to be capable in all areas but how can we achieve a balanced capable force with our small recruitment base? What solutions may we be seeing in the Defence White Paper?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17   NEXT
Raven22       8/31/2008 12:47:05 PM

AG, who cares what happened 10-15-20 years ago. It is now the year 2008. Why ASLAV/Bushmaster was bought is as irrelevant as why F-111 was bought. What we need to do is look forward to future force requiements - where there is a huge need for wheeled CFVs.

You are trying very, very hard to find dissatisfaction with ASLAV and Bushmaster. Yet the facts speak differently:

Since the ASLAVs were initially deployed to East Timor, Army decided to buy a further 144 of them. Since 2004 a third (the maximum sustainable) of the cavalry has been deployed on ops. Due to their success, the current ASLAVs are being upgraded and new hulls built under Phase 4. There is a huge push within army for a third cavalry regiment, equipped with ASLAVs, for 3 Brigade.

Bushmaster. Intially 300 were bought. They were very successful, hence a further 150 were ordered in 2006, and a further 250 in 2007 - all after East Timor and Iraq experience. There is still a considerable push for more Bushmasters to be bought, and they likely will. The design was so good it was bought by the Dutch - 3 times - and the UK.

Land 400 is the project to replace the entire armoured vehicle fleet. It is a completely clean sheet project that takes into account future strategic requirements and everything we have learnt in operating AFVs in the last 10 years. Land 400 will buy at least two, probably three, regiments of wheeled CFVs. It may even buy a wheeled IFV as well for commonalities sake. While this hasn't been decided yet, make some inquiries in knowledgable circles, and they will tell you exactly the same.

Why, if Army and the government was un-happy with the capabilities of wheeled AFVs in Timor, would they buy a further 144 ASLAVs and 400 Bushmasters after the fact? Why then will a wheeled CFV be chosen under Land 400? Why is there no-one (but you) on any forum on the internet claiming the ASLAV and Bushmaster are a waste of money, even though we like to complain about pretty much anything? Why has no one else in this thread lent you any support whatsoever? Tell me again why you think you are right?

 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       8/31/2008 2:07:39 PM
Does anybody know where the British Bushmasters went?  I have never seen any.  It also seems rather weird that we have bought the 4x4 version of Mastiff and Bushmaster.
 
Quote    Reply

Raven22       8/31/2008 4:03:46 PM

I may have seen some British Bushmasters in Baghdad...

As to buying both Bushies and Mastiffs - apparently all the Bushies are for the special chaps, so maybe they have divergent requirements from the conventional army

 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       8/31/2008 4:52:56 PM

Does anybody know where the British Bushmasters went?

AFAIK they've gone to the specials (in a number of places).  In that role they are also seen as ideal replacements for the job that Mogs have done (mother)
 
Quote    Reply

Aussie Diggermark 2       8/31/2008 11:47:43 PM
A-G,
 
I do and I don't back away from those comments or the ones I've made here either. There is a difference between possessing less off-road capability than hoped for and "spending all day digging your vehicles out of the mud" as you claim happens with wheeled armoured vehicles...
 
Anyway I'm done with this discussion it's going around in circles and the ASLAV and Bushmaster OTOH aren't going anywhere...

 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       9/1/2008 6:24:52 AM
Had to tow 3 bogged M-113's out of shale once, not pretty.
 
One of them lost a track in the muck and we had to tow the slipped track out separately, break it and refit it in a process that took ages.  I imagine recovering a Bushie or ASLAV would have been much quicker and easier.
 
We had to be very careful in rough terrain so as not to fracture the final drive housings on "sprocket" rocks, not an issue wheeled vehicles need be concerned with.
 
On other occasions we conducted fatiguing road runs that left us exhausted and almost useless.  In summer there was no aircon or cool water.
 
Oh what we would have given for a modern wheeled AFV, whether operating as either a Recc Sqn or an APC Troop.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Raven   9/1/2008 7:53:18 AM


AG, who cares what happened 10-15-20 years ago. It is now the year 2008. Why ASLAV/Bushmaster was bought is as irrelevant as why F-111 was bought. What we need to do is look forward to future force requiements - where there is a huge need for wheeled CFVs.

You are trying very, very hard to find dissatisfaction with ASLAV and Bushmaster. Yet the facts speak differently:

Since the ASLAVs were initially deployed to East Timor, Army decided to buy a further 144 of them. Since 2004 a third (the maximum sustainable) of the cavalry has been deployed on ops. Due to their success, the current ASLAVs are being upgraded and new hulls built under Phase 4. There is a huge push within army for a third cavalry regiment, equipped with ASLAVs, for 3 Brigade.

Bushmaster. Intially 300 were bought. They were very successful, hence a further 150 were ordered in 2006, and a further 250 in 2007 - all after East Timor and Iraq experience. There is still a considerable push for more Bushmasters to be bought, and they likely will. The design was so good it was bought by the Dutch - 3 times - and the UK.

Land 400 is the project to replace the entire armoured vehicle fleet. It is a completely clean sheet project that takes into account future strategic requirements and everything we have learnt in operating AFVs in the last 10 years. Land 400 will buy at least two, probably three, regiments of wheeled CFVs. It may even buy a wheeled IFV as well for commonalities sake. While this hasn't been decided yet, make some inquiries in knowledgable circles, and they will tell you exactly the same.

Why, if Army and the government was un-happy with the capabilities of wheeled AFVs in Timor, would they buy a further 144 ASLAVs and 400 Bushmasters after the fact? Why then will a wheeled CFV be chosen under Land 400? Why is there no-one (but you) on any forum on the internet claiming the ASLAV and Bushmaster are a waste of money, even though we like to complain about pretty much anything? Why has no one else in this thread lent you any support whatsoever? Tell me again why you think you are right?


I'd point out the several falsehoods that you have made in this post but they are clear to anybody who has been following this thread so I can't be bothered. Suffice to say that your argument to represent current thought of the RAAC or anybody else has been thoroughly discredited by the official, publicly available material which I have posted here. Keep on digging champ.

As for the only question that you have asked that is worth bothering to answer, i.e.

"Why, if Army and the government was un-happy with the capabilities of wheeled AFVs in Timor, would they buy a further 144 ASLAVs and 400 Bushmasters after the fact"

I don't know the exact answer but I'd hazard a guess that it might be one or more of the following reasons;

1. We already had those vehicles in service and neither the army nor the government would have wanted to wear the expense of adding another type of vehicle to the fleet. The decision makers probably thought that they were better than nothing. This is the only reasoning that I personally have any time for.

2. Many in the army were fixated on getting into some "real action" in the Middle East where those vehicles are suitable.

3. Some in defence (civilian and military) are probably still under the delusion that there is some sort of a threat to Northern Australia requiring a large number of wheeled vehicles, as a result of having spent their formative years implementing the DOA.

4.To prop up the auto manufacturing industry in Bendigo.
 
I'd note that you selectively under-rate the ability of Defence to make a bad decision. After all it was you who started this discussion asking the question of why we need two divisional armoured recon units. Somebody spent a lot of money making that (in your opinion) incorrect decision.
 
As for whether we should be caring about what happenned 15 or 20 years ago, in one respect you are right because it is done and we have to make the most of what it has left us with. However I believe it is important to understand why we previously made bad decisions, so as to avoid making similarily bad ones in the future. Don't forget that whatever vehicles we buy in Land 400 will determine our force structure out to around 2040, well be
 
Quote    Reply

Enterpriser       9/1/2008 8:48:44 AM





AG, who cares what happened 10-15-20 years ago. It is now the year 2008. Why ASLAV/Bushmaster was bought is as irrelevant as why F-111 was bought. What we need to do is look forward to future force requiements - where there is a huge need for wheeled CFVs.


You are trying very, very hard to find dissatisfaction with ASLAV and Bushmaster. Yet the facts speak differently:


Since the ASLAVs were initially deployed to East Timor, Army decided to buy a further 144 of them. Since 2004 a third (the maximum sustainable) of the cavalry has been deployed on ops. Due to their success, the current ASLAVs are being upgraded and new hulls built under Phase 4. There is a huge push within army for a third cavalry regiment, equipped with ASLAVs, for 3 Brigade.


Bushmaster. Intially 300 were bought. They were very successful, hence a further 150 were ordered in 2006, and a further 250 in 2007 - all after East Timor and Iraq experience. There is still a considerable push for more Bushmasters to be bought, and they likely will. The design was so good it was bought by the Dutch - 3 times - and the UK.


Land 400 is the project to replace the entire armoured vehicle fleet. It is a completely clean sheet project that takes into account future strategic requirements and everything we have learnt in operating AFVs in the last 10 years. Land 400 will buy at least two, probably three, regiments of wheeled CFVs. It may even buy a wheeled IFV as well for commonalities sake. While this hasn't been decided yet, make some inquiries in knowledgable circles, and they will tell you exactly the same.


Why, if Army and the government was un-happy with the capabilities of wheeled AFVs in Timor, would they buy a further 144 ASLAVs and 400 Bushmasters after the fact? Why then will a wheeled CFV be chosen under Land 400? Why is there no-one (but you) on any forum on the internet claiming the ASLAV and Bushmaster are a waste of money, even though we like to complain about pretty much anything? Why has no one else in this thread lent you any support whatsoever? Tell me again why you think you are right?





I'd point out the several falsehoods that you have made in this post but they are clear to anybody who has been following this thread so I can't be bothered. Suffice to say that your argument to represent current thought of the RAAC or anybody else has been thoroughly discredited by the official, publicly available material which I have posted here. Keep on digging champ.



As for the only question that you have asked that is worth bothering to answer, i.e.



"Why, if Army and the government was un-happy with the capabilities of wheeled AFVs in Timor, would they buy a further 144 ASLAVs and 400 Bushmasters after the fact"



I don't know the exact answer but I'd hazard a guess that it might be one or more of the following reasons;



1. We already had those vehicles in service and neither the army nor the government would have wanted to wear the expense of adding another type of vehicle to the fleet. The decision makers probably thought that they were better than nothing. This is the only reasoning that I personally have any time for.

Quote    Reply


Aussiegunneragain    PS   9/1/2008 10:50:29 AM






1. We already had those vehicles in service and neither the army nor the government would have wanted to wear the expense of adding another type of vehicle to the fleet. The decision makers probably thought that they were better than nothing. This is the only reasoning that I personally have any time for.


Don't take my word for this, here it is in black and white from to official document that I posted before.

Force Sustainability

The number of ready and interoperable units/formations that are available to be rotated through a prolonged or intense operation.  The ability to store and acquire stocks to replace those consumed during training and operations.

For a small Army we have already indicated that the current force structure has too many ?one-off? units. We also believe that too many ?one-off? equipment types or variants also affect the Army?s equipment sustainability. The absence of evidence on life cycle costings and the admission that armoured vehicle procurement was not to a coherent plan should be of concern.

Wherever possible, the Army should be seeking common platforms and weapons. This will limit the ability for the Army to provide niche capabilities for one-off activities. It will also mean that it does not have equipment optimised for every conceivable climate, terrain or tactical situation. It will, however, mean that the Army is telegraphing its intent to be a serious fighting force.

Optimisation for Our Area of Critical Security Interest

There appeared some disagreement as to whether the Army?s equipment was optimised for the conditions in which it must operate. There appeared a clear need to marinise the Army?s helicopters. The Army indicated that it would like to purchase more helicopters and that these were intended to be marinised.71 There was also disagreement on the utility of some vehicles within parts of Australia?s ACSI, in particular, the Bushranger infantry mobility vehicle. To some extent the Army will have to live with the equipment decisions of the past. This situation may have to be accepted for the short to medium term. In the longer term, it is necessary, if the Army is to remain credible, that all equipment decisions be made with a view to optimising the Army for successful performance within the environment of the Australian ACSI.



 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Brett   9/1/2008 11:05:10 AM
1) I wouldn't discount the notion that there are many of those in the know who actually desired the more wheeled armour focus as it left us with a force that isn't really deployable for expeditionary hight intensity ops. I note that the net result of such a force (intellectually backed by the notions of DOA) leaves the ADF as an entity that is ill suited to coalition ops in all bar niche capabilities. Say whatever you want but the overall tone can get very disengenuous (not anyone here, Dibb etc). It is politically convenient. If we do not see it as our mission we do not need it therefore we do not get it so therefore we do not have it can not be pressured to send it. Realistically, politically, it is the messy ground wars that are the most challenging to government. Why else is it that the 2/3 or more of forces still in the Gulf and Iraq do not cause a stir and could politically be left there far longer if need be?
 
Funny you should suggest that. The NZ Labour government actually stated that one of the reasons that they went to an all wheeled AFV fleet was because of the unnecessarily "warlike connotations" of tracked vehicles for a country only interested in peacekeeping rather than warfighting. Given that Labor is in power here now I would be very scared of the outcome of Land 400.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics