+ Reply to Thread
Page 51 of 88
FirstFirst ... 41 49 50 51 52 53 61 ... LastLast
Results 501 to 510 of 871

Thread: Australian Army 2011 onwards

  1. #501

    Quote Originally Posted by JKM Mk2 View Post
    All sounds good regarding Bushmaster. But then, if the BM is no longer to be used in the AFV role, do we need something else in that role (MRAP or something)? I imagine the Phase 2 & 3 orders will only be the first to replace ASLAV & M113, and eventually versions with remote weapons systems rather than turrets will come into play for troop transport duties with the Bushmasters & Hawkei's filling the support & reserve roles.
    The Lynx / CV-90 / whatever else is bid, is intended to play the AFV role, that M113 conducts now, if that is what you mean?

    Bushmaster provides protected mobility it is not a fighting vehicle (albeit we used them in a sense in this role in Afghanistan). We use it for many (but not all as as we have G Wagons to cover the rest now as well) of the roles we once used Landrovers for, the obviously difference being protection, weapons systems, sensors and comms / EW gear that we never had on the Landrovers.

    Seeing the Bushmasters equipping the reserve brigade Cavalry / 'ACR' units, I think (along perhaps with Hawkei as well) will do wonders for the reserve level of capability and is something that is long overdue.

    If we could then get the reserve artillery units a 120mm mortar system along with some form of precision guided munition for it, (even just a guided fuse kit...) as a decent replacement for their 105mm guns I'd be over the moon.
    In a low speed post-merge manoeuvring fight, with a high off-boresight 4th generation missile and Helmet Mounted Display, the Super Hornet will be a very difficult opponent for any current Russian fighter, even the Su-27/30

  2. #502

    if the Brits to go for bushmaster in the MRV-P (which I doubt), one of the remaining packages (on hold for the moment) is the gun limber.

    Word is Thales came up with a variant of the Bushmaster for just that.

    And wouldn't that be a nice addition to the fleet.

  3. #503

    As had been stated, Bushmaster has completely lost the role it performed in B 3/4, 6 RAR and 8/9 RAR. Back then the Bushmaster (in combat units at least) was operated as an A-vehicle - it had both a driver and a crew commander (who would operate the weapon system independent of dismounts), and it's own tactics course etc. While it wasn't designed to go into combat, it could do everything else an A vehicle would. For example, if you wanted to drop an infantry company into an FUP, off road and at night and sequenced with other manoeuvre elements, the Bushmaster (the crew really) could do that.

    However, with Bushmaster moving out of combat units, it is now used entirely as an armoured bus. The PMV squadrons in the CSSB operate them with only a driver and no crew commanders (except for a small number of vehicles that have SNCOs/officers etc in them), they can't provide their own security on the move without dismounts in the back, and they have no special tactical training. So you have lost the ability to use Bushmaster as part of a manoeuvre plan - if you ask the PMV squadron to drop you into an FUP off road by night, you will end up lost on the other side of the range two hours after H-hour. Picking up a company from a grid somewhere on a road and dropping them off on a grid somewhere on the road (like you would use Unimogs) is all they are good for.

    This of course has been done to minimise the number of personnel making up the PMV squadron (and minimise the training burden on the RACT). It isn't using the vehicle to its maximise capabilities, but the resources don't exist to do that (or, rather, those resources have been allocated elsewhere). Now, if an operation came up such that you needed the PMV to operate the way it was used in Iraq and Afghanistan you could throw some RAAC/RAInf guys at it and regenerate that capability pretty quickly, but for now Bushmaster = armoured bus.

  4. #504

    Bushmasters in the Reserve is another issue. Technically the Reserve units are supposed to use Bushmasters the way everyone else is (with no commanders), but that doesn't really work for them so they still use an 'auxiliary operator' in much the same way as a crew commander. The Bushmaster is not supposed to simulate an AFV though - it is a capability in its own right. Each paired reserve brigade generates a Reinforcing Battle Group to support their paired regular brigade, and the Reserve units provide protected mobility for this BG. The Bushmaster is particularly well suited to this role.

    The future of the Reserve RAAC is an interesting one. The CA has directed the combat brigades to lose manpower in combat units to free up manpower for new capabilities, and the Reserve will plug a lot of these gaps. 2 Div is going though a 'transformation' at the moment to better be able to provide the capability the Army need out of the Reserve. This is a good thing, as it will give the Reserve a clearly articulated and understood purpose, and actually force them to generate useful capability on an ongoing basis.

    One part of this relevant to the RAAC is that Reserve units will provide the recon scouts for the ACR. As part of the force gen cycle each paired brigade will prepare a troop worth of scouts, who will then join up with the ACR for Ex HAMEL and theoretically be available (at a longer notice to move) as part of the Ready cycle.

    The really interesting thing is that the Reserve may be given M113 again and expected to provide, say, a Troop of M113 able to slot into the lift squadron of the ACR. This would then free up ARA manpower for other things. While the Reserve are, understandably, very excited by this possibility, the problem is that all the studies show that the role requires too much training for the Reserve to be able to maintain the capability (the same thing that killed the M113 in the Reserve last time). It will be interesting to see what the outcome is.

    Personally what I think the Reserve RAAC units should get, is Hawkei with an RWS on top. When you look at the roles the Reinforcing Battle Group is supposed to provide (largely RASO, convoy escorts, key point Defence etc), there is a need for rapidly deployable firepower, particularly a mounted anti-armour capability. This currently doesn't exist. Put an RWS with 0.50 cal and Javelin (or Spike) on top of Hawkei, and you get this capability. You couldn't afford to train for the anti armour role in peacetime, but with the long notice to move of the Reserve you could generate the capability for contingencies when required. This also has the advantage of having an easily deployable vehicle with useful mounted firepower outside of the massive beasts in the ACR. For contingencies where deployability is needed more than survivability, the Hawkei with big bang sticks would fill that gap.

  5. #505

    Do you see an issue with replicating a regular ACR (minus the tank) in the reserve RAAC units, roughly with Hawkei / RWS / Javelin providing the capability you've discussed (and the Cavalry portion) and Bushmaster replicating the IFV role (within it's capability limits) respectively, that way providing protected lift for the reserve infantry battalions and a lightweight Cavalry capability for the reserve units (albeit with training limits) whilst still allowing them to provide the reinforcing battle group role?
    In a low speed post-merge manoeuvring fight, with a high off-boresight 4th generation missile and Helmet Mounted Display, the Super Hornet will be a very difficult opponent for any current Russian fighter, even the Su-27/30

  6. #506

    What you say isn't really replicating an ACR, but a future Reserve armoured capability that provides protected mobility to the reinforcing battlegroup with PMV, provides mounted recon/DFSW to the reinforcing battlegroup with Hawkei, and dismounted recon scouts for the ACR, would make sense and be achievable.

  7. #507

    Fair enough, hopefully it makes sense to the capability planners in Army! Seems like an excellent way forward for the Reserve RAAC units, who have been neglected for far too long, IMHO.
    In a low speed post-merge manoeuvring fight, with a high off-boresight 4th generation missile and Helmet Mounted Display, the Super Hornet will be a very difficult opponent for any current Russian fighter, even the Su-27/30

  8. #508

    A lot more pictures of Lynx in Australian Cam on line now. The KF41 has 8 seats, a manned Lance turret with 35mm gun, twin Spike LR ATGM, Puma levels of protection and 800 kW(1100 hp) engine, Australia could have the most powerful western IFV on the battlefield if this ends up winning Phase 3. I like the layout of the cooling system on the back too (pic below), much lower vehicle signature and allows the front of the vehicle to be closed for better protection. Teamed up with Boxer using a common turret, M1 Abrams and Rheinmetall's Kodiak Engineering vehicle, Australia would have the most modern family of AFVs in the world today. Time to bring Phase 3 forward?

    Last edited by Cortez; 18-06-16 at 12:56 PM.

  9. #509

    I'd love to see a photo of the inside (even CGI)

  10. #510

    the only thing I don't like is the turret overhang creating a bit of a bullet trap off the front sloping armour. The serious IFVs seem to do that a little better. Possibly nothing, but you know, to my untrained eye seems like a discontinuity from previous designs.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts