British Army Cancelling ADI Bushmaster (failed mine test) ?

#1
Well, everything is in the title...I read on another forum that mine resistance tests conducted in 2008 in the UK led to the British Army cancelling its order of 24 ADI Bushmaster vehicles.

This what the forum said:

The Bushmaster did not pass the resistance to mines test carried out in the United Kingdom (Level 3 STANAG, e.g 8 kg mine )

According to the latest news, the British army will therefore not proceed with the order of 24 ADI Bushmaster vehicles

Anybody got any more infos on that ?
 
#2
Whos said its not already in-service!! :roll:
 
#6
Bushmaster Ambulance and flatbed version on back of low-loaders, dark o'clock on the M3 southbound today.
 
#7
As they are in service then, are they going to be named after a dog breed ?

As THALES is a French firm, may I suggest poodle ?
 
#8
Yes they are in service. Try named after a snake!
 
#9
CH512O said:
Yes they are in service. Try named after a snake!
That's breaking with a recent tradition (ridgback,mastiff,jackal etc..).

Mind you, so is Panther....Doh !
 
#12
So is it one of the newly named wagons then ? Husky, Wolfhound or Coyote ? Only I don't believe our army will let it remain being named aftera snake !
 
#13
Copperhead is the proposal put forward by Thales as a Armoured Logistic vehicle. Its based on the Bushmaster. There was a Copperhead on a low loader on the M3 the other day.
 
#16
Bit of a circular post this, but would those wagons on the M3 the other day be HUSKYs, which were announced today and come as loggy, ambulance and CP variants?

linky
 
#17
batus_survivor said:
Bit of a circular post this, but would those wagons on the M3 the other day be HUSKYs, which were announced today and come as loggy, ambulance and CP variants?

linky
Yes, in theory Bushmaster cargo fits the HUSKY requirement. But dont forget Bushmaster is already in service.
 
#18
Necro post alert !
The ones spotted on the low loader could have been over for trials and then subsequently failed.
So doesnt mean they are in service.
However I did hear this week they might becoming into main service ,I cant see this myself if they haven't managed to upgrade them .
Also what capability gap are they filling in our already extensive line up of armored vehicles ,
Does any one have any info or was it just idle chit chat down the pub.
 
#19
Necro post alert !
The ones spotted on the low loader could have been over for trials and then subsequently failed.
So doesnt mean they are in service.
However I did hear this week they might becoming into main service ,I cant see this myself if they haven't managed to upgrade them .
Also what capability gap are they filling in our already extensive line up of armored vehicles ,
Does any one have any info or was it just idle chit chat down the pub.
Have you seen how old this thread is? Congratulations. That's a record.
 
#20
The Bushmaster is a piece of shit.

One big door - at the back. In a fire or incident you are in trouble. you either stay inside or expose the whole interior.

Non standard mismatch of running gear. instead of basing it all on a standard truck platform it has a complicated mix of transmission components, axles and engine. Servicing and spares are a nightmare.

Too big. Its like a bloody connex container on a truck body. You can see it for miles.

Poor mine resistance. This was well known from the early days. The problem isn't injuries to the crew, it is its inability to withstand even a small blast without being totally immobilised due to loss of one or more wheels. troops are then forced to dismount via that one read door and fight to survive.
 

Top