US Army to buy 1500 ADI Thales BUSHMASTER vehicles

#1
According to this australian paper (The Herald Sun):

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21985919-662,00.html?from=public_rss


AN Australian armoured vehicle manufacturer has come to the rescue of American troops in Iraq.

US soldiers travelling in Humvees have been killed or maimed in their hundreds by roadside bombs.

Many troops have welded steel plates on to their vehicles to provide some protection from blast and shrapnel.

In response, the US is set to sign a deal within the next few days for the supply of up to 1500 of the Australian-designed Bushmaster Infantry Mobility Vehicles.

Bushmasters were deployed to southern Iraq with Darwin-based forces in April 2005 and have impressed American commanders.

The contract will see the local vehicle built under licence by US firm Oshkosh.

The Bushmaster with its blast-resistant V-shaped reinforced steel hull and other features can carry up to 10 troops at high speed across all terrain. It has a top speed in excess of 100km/h and a range of more than 800km, and carries enough fuel and provisions for three days.

It is armed with a 7.62mm remotely operated machinegun and grenade launcher.

Australian defence firm Thales is building more than 400 of the vehicles for the Australian Army and another 50 for Dutch forces at its Bendigo plant.

Some of the 1500 US vehicles will be built at Bendigo.

===============================================

In 2006 Thales were given the green light to buy out Australian Defence Industries, a major manufacturer of such military equipment as smokeless gunpowder and the Bushmaster Armored Personel Carrier. As of September 06, all ADI branding has been replaced with Thales, and the website templates have been changed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales_Group
 
#4
They're easily recognisable because for some reason they were designed with the spare wheel hanging off the back right hand side?!
 
#5
They are so ugly, however if they do the job and save lives then rock on. Specs look good and someone finally thought about crew comfort for once.


fastmedic
 
#7
Let's look at a competitor

http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=51

Designation: BTR-90
Crew: 3+7

Max Speed: 62 mph (100 km/h)
Range*: 497.1 miles (800 km)

*Indicates road range for vehicles or maximum lethal range for towed-artillery systems.

Dimensions:
Length: 25 ft (7.64 m)
Width: 10.5 ft (3.20 m)
Height: 9.8 ft (2.98 m)
Weight: 21 tons (20,920 kg)

Support Systems:
NBC System: Yes
Night Vision: Yes

Armament:
1 x 30mm main gun
1 x 7.62mm coaxial machine gun
1 x AT-5 Spandrel ATGW missile launcher
1 x 30mm grenade launcher
6 x smoke grenade dischargers

Ammunition:
500 x 30mm ammunition
2,000 x 7.62mm ammunition
4 x Spandrel ATGW anti-tank missiles
400 x 30mm grenades

 
#8
Sergey why are you posting that? That's not really the same. For one, it doesn't carry as many people. As well as that, why would guys in Iraq feel the need for a main cannon or AT launcher? They're fighting people, not tanks/vehicles.

Come on Sergey, stop touting the amazing abilities of Russia and it's equipment.
 
#9
Bottleosmoke said:
Ozduke said:
It's an ugly brute, but a good, reliable and apparently fairly safe vehicle.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bushmaster/
Pretty sure i saw one of those at Millbrook yesterday.
Mind you there were so many weird and wonderful armoured vehicles that after a whle they all looked the same!
You did, it was next to the BAE ( :evil: ) stand on the x-country driving circuit park. I managed to pick up a Bushmaster model from there as well.

It was also near the CO's car, sorry Panther(!), which looks good but oh so small inside!
 
#12
The_Goon said:
Sergey why are you posting that? That's not really the same. For one, it doesn't carry as many people. As well as that, why would guys in Iraq feel the need for a main cannon or AT launcher? They're fighting people, not tanks/vehicles.

Come on Sergey, stop touting the amazing abilities of Russia and it's equipment.
Point taken, but cannons and AT weapons are exactly what I'd want to take with me to Iraq, considering the enemy are often dug in or inside buildings and you have no air sup.
 
#14
The_Goon said:
Sergey why are you posting that? That's not really the same. For one, it doesn't carry as many people. As well as that, why would guys in Iraq feel the need for a main cannon or AT launcher? They're fighting people, not tanks/vehicles.

Come on Sergey, stop touting the amazing abilities of Russia and it's equipment.


It looks as a toy not as rugged battle machine. I fancy that just now the insurgents are training to launch their RPGs into these lovely glass (glass!) windows.

Is it able to swim? Swimming speed of BTR-90 is 9 km/hour. And price likely lower.
 
#15
Prices are usually lower for a reason, Sergey. Don't pretend that you don't know that. And why is swimming an issue in Iraq? They aren't crossing the Tigris in these vehicles!

Although that capability is interesting, it's not part of the requirement as far as I see it. It appears the US just wants to get better protection for its troops.

It's a moot point anyway, both vehicles will have pros and cons, and the US is NEVER going to buy Soviet era equipment!
 
#16
The_Goon said:
Prices are usually lower for a reason, Sergey. Don't pretend that you don't know that. And why is swimming an issue in Iraq? They aren't crossing the Tigris in these vehicles!

Although that capability is interesting, it's not part of the requirement as far as I see it. It appears the US just wants to get better protection for its troops.

It's a moot point anyway, both vehicles will have pros and cons, and the US is NEVER going to buy Soviet era equipment!
Moreover I suspect that US is not going to buy Russian made equipment and uses all possible means to prevent NATO countries from it.

From my point of view our American friends make a big mistake. If they open weapon market of NATO countries for Russia then Russia would stop arms delivering to some (US-unfriendly) countries.

Russia has many to propose - transport planes, war-planes, helicopters, missiles, anti-aircraft systems, inexpensive submarines and so on and so forth. Why not to buy Kalashnikovs directly from Russia if American army is using them in Iraq anyway?

Of course I understand the situation. USA and Russia are now geopolitical rivals. But these so called 'battle machines' look rather as KIA Sportage with slightly modified body and would result in more KIAs.
 
#17
Sergey, dont judge on what you don't know. Apparently, this new bit of kit is pretty damned good, I see no reason to disbelieve this. On your point of glass, I suspect it will be bloody thick and bullet/shatter proof. As has been pointed out elsewhere on this very forum, the best defence against IED's, Insurgents et al is sight - being able to see.

From what the BTR looks like, you can't see very much when in it.

Not sure what you're talking about with the Kalashnikovs, the US don't use them, neither do the Brits. Not just for political reasons, but because it's not that great (see the AK-47 thread in the Infantry section). It's simple and easy to use, but that doesn't make it better than the current US Rifle or the A2 of Britain.

All the equipment you state that Russia could supply is sourced elsewhere, partly due to Geo-politics, but also because the kit from elsewhere is better than the Russian kit, even if it is more pricey.
 
#19
Seen these cutting around Kandahar with the Dutch - They are absolutely massive - quite tall as well - big target ?
 
#20
Sergey, isn't the BTR80 longer and less agile? Also I didn't think it was developed with the same reasons in mind.
Not exactly the competition AND not fit for purpose! BTR 80 to replace up armoured Humvees... wake up sergey!
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top