|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Sept 4, 2012 12:44:24 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Sept 4, 2012 20:08:37 GMT 12
An interesting read.
In relation to the "non-availability" of MRAPs its interesting to note how responsive the ADF was in supplying the British and Dutch with Bushmasters from ADF stocks, or fresh off the production line from existing ADF orders.
|
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Sept 7, 2012 17:53:21 GMT 12
Yes but only interesting if your after an MRAP of that size.
|
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Sept 7, 2012 20:07:36 GMT 12
An MRAP of any size is better than no MRAP. I think that this is sonething that the Army need to actively acquire for the future even if it is at the expense oof getting rid of some Pinzgaurs rather than LAVs.
|
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Sept 7, 2012 20:18:50 GMT 12
An MRAP of any size is better than no MRAP. Not if it can't operate in the terrain you need to use it in. Do a Google search on 'MRAP stuck' and look at the photos. |
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Sept 9, 2012 10:26:06 GMT 12
An MRAP of any size is better than no MRAP. Not if it can't operate in the terrain you need to use it in. Do a Google search on 'MRAP stuck' and look at the photos. Given the sheer number of MRAP type vehicles (ie thousands) that have been used across Afghanistan and Iraq (and places like Timor) by a range of western armed forces, its pretty unrealistic to assume that no crews would ever manage to get bogged, drive off the road or experience a breakdown etc. An MRAP may not be able to do everything you would theorectically like it to, but neither do the non-mine protected LAV III or non protected HUMVEE. The point is whether non protected vehicles like the HUMVEE should be used if there is any alternative for that tasking, or if that tasking can be realistically modifed to allow for the use of more suitable vehicles. |
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Sept 10, 2012 17:56:27 GMT 12
Given the sheer number of MRAP type vehicles (ie thousands) that have been used across Afghanistan and Iraq (and places like Timor) by a range of western armed forces, its pretty unrealistic to assume that no crews would ever manage to get bogged, drive off the road or experience a breakdown etc. An MRAP may not be able to do everything you would theorectically like it to, but neither do the non-mine protected LAV III or non protected HUMVEE. The point is whether non protected vehicles like the HUMVEE should be used if there is any alternative for that tasking, or if that tasking can be realistically modifed to allow for the use of more suitable vehicles. Sure all vehicles will get stuck at times but heavy MRAP like the Bushmaster are more prone than lighter vehicle types. Your second sentence is confusing as there is no such thing as a non-mine protected LAV III although there are increasing levels of protection that can be provided with kits fitted as upgrades to increase the base level the armoured hull provides. The HMMWV version used by the NZDF is the M1114 (see www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Business/QWA/5/9/d/QWA_02642_2008-2642-2008-Dr-Wayne-Mapp-to-the-Minister-of-Defence.htm) That is an armour protected version of the HMMWV but it most definitely does not offer the protection level offered by the much bigger and heavier MRAPs. However the smaller M1114s can go places you may need to go to that MRAPs can't. |
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Sept 10, 2012 17:59:26 GMT 12
I suposse it it too costly to just use choppers instead of land vehicles.
|
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Sept 10, 2012 19:33:24 GMT 12
I suposse it it too costly to just use choppers instead of land vehicles. yep and not practical. Some unkind person with nasty thoughts would put an RPG round into our nice new NH90 which operates at $18,000 per flight hour ;D Bugger |
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Sept 10, 2012 19:51:53 GMT 12
Unfortunately helicopters are not much good for routine patrolling. Getting face time with locals on route between villages is rather hard from 1000 ft ;D
Also the altitude, terrain and weather are against their reliable use.
|
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Sept 10, 2012 20:08:01 GMT 12
Your second sentence is confusing as there is no such thing as a non-mine protected LAV III although there are increasing levels of protection that can be provided with kits fitted as upgrades to increase the base level the armoured hull provides. Everthing is relative, and while the LAVIII offers high levels of balistic protection, it doesn't offer the same level of protectoin against mines as vehicles that were purpose designed with that form of protection in mind. An example: the deep v-shaped hulls on vehicles like the Bushmaster give you protection from mine blast that no degree of add on armour will provide. www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=34407 |
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Sept 10, 2012 20:24:31 GMT 12
Everthing is relative, and while the LAVIII offers high levels of balistic protection, it doesn't offer the same level of protectoin against mines as vehicles that were purpose designed with that form of protection in mind. An example: the deep v-shaped hulls on vehicles like the Bushmaster give you protection from mine blast that no degree of add on armour will provide. I agree however note that a 'V' shaped hull bottom only offers this level of protection to a blast triggered under the vehicle. It offers no advantage to devices triggered to the side of the vehicle or Explosively Formed Penetrators (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised_explosive_device. They are not the panacea many believe. |
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Sept 10, 2012 20:32:50 GMT 12
Everthing is relative, and while the LAVIII offers high levels of balistic protection, it doesn't offer the same level of protectoin against mines as vehicles that were purpose designed with that form of protection in mind. An example: the deep v-shaped hulls on vehicles like the Bushmaster give you protection from mine blast that no degree of add on armour will provide. I agree however note that a 'V' shaped hull bottom only offers this level of protection to a blast triggered under the vehicle. It offers no advantage to devices triggered to the side of the vehicle or Explosively Formed Penetrators (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised_explosive_device. They are not the panacea many believe. Agreed, but wouldn't you rather have ballistic and blast protection? |
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Sept 10, 2012 20:36:32 GMT 12
Everthing is relative, and while the LAVIII offers high levels of balistic protection, it doesn't offer the same level of protectoin against mines as vehicles that were purpose designed with that form of protection in mind. An example: the deep v-shaped hulls on vehicles like the Bushmaster give you protection from mine blast that no degree of add on armour will provide. I agree however note that a 'V' shaped hull bottom only offers this level of protection to a blast triggered under the vehicle. It offers no advantage to devices triggered to the side of the vehicle or Explosively Formed Penetrators (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised_explosive_device. They are not the panacea many believe. The point is that the Bushmaster gives a greater probability of surviving an IED than any armoured humvee does. AS much as you push the case for the armoured humvees the point that the US Forces do not consider them protective enough that they won't let them be used except in secure areas. The argument is whether or not the NZ Army should have Bushmasters as part of its equipment and I for one reckon that they should have Bushmasters in Bamiyan. I am also of the opinion that 20 Bushmasters should be part of the NZ Army fleet now and post Afghanistan. |
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Sept 10, 2012 22:39:28 GMT 12
Agreed, but wouldn't you rather have ballistic and blast protection? I totally agree but there are places that an MRAP like Bushmaster simply can't go due to their size and weight. An HMMWV provides mobitiy in these situations and a degree of protection. The alternative is walking with no blast protection and the only ballistic ballistic protection being what you can wear. |
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Sept 10, 2012 23:08:58 GMT 12
[The point is that the Bushmaster gives a greater probability of surviving an IED than any armoured humvee does. AS much as you push the case for the armoured humvees the point that the US Forces do not consider them protective enough that they won't let them be used except in secure areas. The argument is whether or not the NZ Army should have Bushmasters as part of its equipment and I for one reckon that they should have Bushmasters in Bamiyan. I am also of the opinion that 20 Bushmasters should be part of the NZ Army fleet now and post Afghanistan. I disagree, the argument is not that that the NZ Army should have Bushmaster, the point is that the Army must have equipment appropiate to the task and the theatre. So while I may seem to be a proponent of the HMMWV (which I'm not) it has its place in Bamiyan, a role the Bushmaster could not perform. You also correctly note that the US Army no longer use HMMWV in that country but that must be balanced against the significant number of dismounted personnel casualities they have suffered to IEDs where personnel who have been forced to get out of the MRAPs as they can't get access to the places they need to go in their vehicles because they are too big. Bushmaster is a good vehicle but time and place. As good as they are in Afghinistan they were found to unsuitable due to size and weight in East Timor and quickly withdrawn. |
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Sept 11, 2012 8:40:07 GMT 12
Bushmaster is a good vehicle but time and place. As good as they are in Afghinistan they were found to unsuitable due to size and weight in East Timor and quickly withdrawn. Withdrawn? The Bushmasters used in Timor were preproduction vehicles undergoing trials as part of the program to finalise the specification of final build vehicles. While there they were also used in roles like VIP transport. Once production vehicles became available in 2005, Iraq and Afghanistan were higher up the ADF priority list for obvious reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Sept 11, 2012 18:57:42 GMT 12
'Withdrawn'. Yes they were prototype vehicles but I'm only repeating the phrase used used by a member of the Bushmaster project team to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Sept 11, 2012 20:09:01 GMT 12
It's interesting that while the ADF sees a role for a vehicle smaller than the Bushmaster, it doesn't see a HUMVEEs or G-Wagon type as being viable except for use in benign conditions: www.thalesprotectedmobility.com.au/tpm/pmvl.htmlUntil that vehicle is in service, it seems to be OK with the higher operating cost of a Bushmaster, rather than place its personnel at unnecessary risk. |
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Sept 12, 2012 3:56:44 GMT 12
I'm in the UK at the moment and just reading the latest RAF News and in it there as an article about the latest RAF Regiment detachment deploying with the new Foxhound IED resistant vehicle for the first time. It looks a lot smaller than the previous Mastiff and Ridgeback vehicles.
|
|
