Not our fault that they can't understand it :rotflI do wish the US would stop talking in Latin re weights and measures!
54000 pounds = 24494 KG
May just have to reconsider our alliance with them for this very reason.
MARKMILES77
Active Member
Just reading European Defence Review Jan/Feb 2017, on ISSUU and they mention how the JLTV will be issued to USMC units. For example each Marine Expeditionary Unit will receive 200 JLTVs.
Raised the question in my mind how will Australia's large number of Hawkeis (around 1,300 total purchase) be issued to each of Australia's Multi Role Combat Brigade.
Presumably each Brigade would have a few hundred issued but looking at each of the Brigade subunits it looks like only a handful will be required.
For example each ACR seems to have only 6 attached.
A Transport Squadron in a CSSB has 56 trucks, 36 Bushmasters but only 16 Hawkeis.
So which units have all the Hawkeis?
Are they directly allocated to the Infantry Battalions?
Raised the question in my mind how will Australia's large number of Hawkeis (around 1,300 total purchase) be issued to each of Australia's Multi Role Combat Brigade.
Presumably each Brigade would have a few hundred issued but looking at each of the Brigade subunits it looks like only a handful will be required.
For example each ACR seems to have only 6 attached.
A Transport Squadron in a CSSB has 56 trucks, 36 Bushmasters but only 16 Hawkeis.
So which units have all the Hawkeis?
Are they directly allocated to the Infantry Battalions?
Do you think these will only go to regular units?
MARKMILES77
Active Member
Possibly some to Reserve Armour units but am not aware of any plans to do so.
Most of them would be issued to the Multi Role Brigades as the units most likely to be deployed.
But can't see which Brigade units would have them allocated in any significant number.
Out of curiosity
How many Bushmasters to lift a standard infantry company and what number of troops is that? I'm guessing around 140.
Regards S
Most of the reserve armour units already provide Bushmaster PMV capability, either in troop or squadron strength. I'd be astonished if they didn't gain similarly with Hawkei, particularly given the number being acquired, but stranger things have happened I guess...
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Parts of the movie being filmed in Nz too, dont we use a variant of the Ar 15 here now, with the new rifles being introduced? I d wonder why we didnt go for similar to Australia though.
NZDF have acquired the Lewis Machine & Tools Company Modular Assault Rifle System – Light (MARS-L) which is basically their CQB16 weapon, a M4 derivative. NZDF have had the 7.62mm LMT rifle as its dedicated marksman weapon and were quite impressed with that. The Aussie EF90 may not have met all the requirements and / or may not have been the best weapon during the testing phase.
Wouldn't surprise me. EF-88 was chosen for political purposes in Australia. Not operational ones...
Political and strategic reasons I would say. Maintain an importan capabilty in Australia (design and manufacture). So long as the equipment is suitable and meets operational requirements by some significant margin.
Same can be said of many acquisitions, eg Naval shipbuilding in Australia rather than overseas.
Not sure what strategic reasons necessitated the EF-88? Surely locally building any rifle that met Army's requirements would have sufficed to cover any of our strategic requirements for a basic rifle? It's not like the Steyr family is the only rifle Lithgow has ever manufactured and they obviously didn't design the F-88 upon which the EF-88 is clearly based...
I've obviously never used it and never will so I can't comment, but specwarries who have have come out openly and are not favourable on it.
Personally I'd have liked to see a competition for as much money as we spent. Lithgow could build the chosen rifle sure, but I don't see a huge rush world wide for enhanced Steyr rifle variants and with current operstors not speaking highly of it...
When it comes to the EF-88 or any Steyr AUG variant I see them as a capable paramilitary, police or even base security weapon especially in confined area's with the shorter length providing some benefit however for front line forces as an article I read once pointed out needing to look down during a stopage drill (Due to the magazine location) loses one situational awarness. Based on that fact alone forces deployed outside of the base should be armed with an AR-15 type or comparable designe weapon.
Except for that one SASR WO2 who prefers to carry the EF88 rather than an M4...
What operators don't speak highly of it, and what alternative gets spoken of more highly? The M4 which the US has been trying to replace for two decades due to the operational deficiencies identified on ops?Personally I'd have liked to see a competition for as much money as we spent. Lithgow could build the chosen rifle sure, but I don't see a huge rush world wide for enhanced Steyr rifle variants and with current operstors not speaking highly of it...
What utter nonsense. You read an article once that said you have to look down during a stoppage drill and all of a sudden it is an ineffective service rifle?
Every rifle has its advantages and disadvantage - the bullpup design of the F88 is no different. The AR15 has its own deficiencies - try cocking one while keeping the weapon in the shoulder. Can't be done.
The F88 has served on ops for the last two decades with almost zero complaints. It might not be perfect, but it is a very good service rifle.
Agreed.
It was definitely a quantum improvement when first adopted, replacing the SLR, M-16 and F-1 SMG (which I quite liked to shoot but would never rate over the F-88). The M-4 (and its clones) I believe was a more desirable option for special warfare types because of the various attachments developed for it and the fact that the operators also had access to a wide range of specialist equipment, to mitigate its deficiencies, that line units didn't.
I obviously can't speak for the updated weapon, but the original F-88 was accurate, ergonomic, easy to use, reliable and robust. It also had a longer barrel than most competitors, especially the M-4, providing superior ballistics with the standard service rounds, while retaining compact overall dimensions.
I know there is the carry on about not being able to swap shoulders etc. but how many commentators have ever actually tried this, unless you are an exceptional shot you don't hit shit off hand. As to the IAs, when they happen you are doing a lot more than just looking and from my recollection they were much easier on the F-88, even with removing the barrel at times, than the weapons they replaced.
Right.
One of the main reasons the M4 is prefered over the styer by SF is that the M4 does not utilise a piston.If water gets into the piston pot, it can cause stoppages. To the best of my knowledge, the Styer has not failed because of water in the piston chamber.
There are other reasons as well, including faster magazine changes, and other easy to get mods for the M4.
The original F88 had quite a few teething problems, that all new bits of kit have, and its reputation is a bit of a hang over from those early F88 problems. Multiple stoppages in dusty conditions, trigger mech related.
The Butt plate coming off due to SOLDIERS not fitting the rear sling swivel correctly.
There were some problems with the sights as well, and all of these problems have been addressed and fixed over time.
For me, I absolutely hated the trigger guard, made for mittens and blokes with 9" trigger fingers, this also has been addressed, that trigger guard was responsible for 100's of U.D,s.
All up, the new model is good battle rifle with plenty of advantages over the M4, including better balistic performance due to a longer barrel length.
When I did my IET training at the INF centre in 1985, we trialed the M16A2, the Leader,and the F88.
The Leader was the most poular choice among our Platoon, but the F88 won in the end.
Why? Over the length of the trial, the F88 got more rounds on target quicker than the other 2. It wasnt any other reason, than the powers that be thought that the styer was easier to put in the hands of inexperienced soldiers, and have them hit their targets quickly and regularly. The 1.5 optic sight won at the end of the day.
As for reliability,ruggedness,saftey, not as good as the other 2 IMO.
One of the main reasons the M4 is prefered over the styer by SF is that the M4 does not utilise a piston.If water gets into the piston pot, it can cause stoppages. To the best of my knowledge, the Styer has not failed because of water in the piston chamber.
There are other reasons as well, including faster magazine changes, and other easy to get mods for the M4.
The original F88 had quite a few teething problems, that all new bits of kit have, and its reputation is a bit of a hang over from those early F88 problems. Multiple stoppages in dusty conditions, trigger mech related.
The Butt plate coming off due to SOLDIERS not fitting the rear sling swivel correctly.
There were some problems with the sights as well, and all of these problems have been addressed and fixed over time.
For me, I absolutely hated the trigger guard, made for mittens and blokes with 9" trigger fingers, this also has been addressed, that trigger guard was responsible for 100's of U.D,s.
All up, the new model is good battle rifle with plenty of advantages over the M4, including better balistic performance due to a longer barrel length.
When I did my IET training at the INF centre in 1985, we trialed the M16A2, the Leader,and the F88.
The Leader was the most poular choice among our Platoon, but the F88 won in the end.
Why? Over the length of the trial, the F88 got more rounds on target quicker than the other 2. It wasnt any other reason, than the powers that be thought that the styer was easier to put in the hands of inexperienced soldiers, and have them hit their targets quickly and regularly. The 1.5 optic sight won at the end of the day.
As for reliability,ruggedness,saftey, not as good as the other 2 IMO.
MARKMILES77
Active Member
Found a mention of Australia's PGK purchase in Armada Compendium Artillery.
Says that after the initial request for 4000 PGKs a second request was made for a further 2000.