Australian M113s

[Ozymandias]

Hello everyone. I'm a recently graduated civilian electrical engineer, with zero military experience.

I've been reading about the Australian Army deployments to Iraq. According to wikipedia, 5th/7th RAR didn't deploy with the M113, instead using ASLAV and Bushmaster:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Muthanna_Task_Group

are wheeled vehicles superior to tracked in the environment the Army is operating in, or is the choice not to deploy the M113 essentially an admission that it is obsolete? According to the DMO website, they are being upgraded, with better armor, turret and a new engine:

http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/lsd/land106/land106.cfm#status

Will LAND 106 make the M113 capable enough to be deployed? According to the defence capability they have been around since 1963:

http://www.defence.gov.au/publications/cfb.pdf

I've never bought an APC, but I wouldn't rely on a 43 year old car to get me around, no matter how well maintained the seller says it is. It seems to me that in this current shopping spree of M1A1s,F-35s,C-17s etc that the our mech inf battalion is missing out. What do you think? If a replacement is needed what should Australia buy?

[Aussie Digger]

Hello everyone. I'm a recently graduated civilian electrical engineer, with zero military experience.

I've been reading about the Australian Army deployments to Iraq. According to wikipedia, 5th/7th RAR didn't deploy with the M113, instead using ASLAV and Bushmaster:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Muthanna_Task_Group

are wheeled vehicles superior to tracked in the environment the Army is operating in, or is the choice not to deploy the M113 essentially an admission that it is obsolete? According to the DMO website, they are being upgraded, with better armor, turret and a new engine:

http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/lsd/land106/land106.cfm#status

Will LAND 106 make the M113 capable enough to be deployed? According to the defence capability they have been around since 1963:

http://www.defence.gov.au/publications/cfb.pdf

I've never bought an APC, but I wouldn't rely on a 43 year old car to get me around, no matter how well maintained the seller says it is. It seems to me that in this current shopping spree of M1A1s,F-35s,C-17s etc that the our mech inf battalion is missing out. What do you think? If a replacement is needed what should Australia buy?


It's a defacto admission that our M113's are obsolete. They have not been significantly upgraded in their entire serviceand the new upgrade will not make them a great deal better. They will have increased protection, mobility and a marginally greater level of habitability and fire control systems.

They will however be severely deficient in terms of protection and fire power compared to virtually any other modern infantry fighting vehicle.

The Government is finally starting to realise the futility of such large upgrade programs on already obsolete vehicles. They have a new project LAND 400 which will consolidate our Armoured vehicle fleets and introduce new armour types. Bushmaster and Abrams have already been chosen and a new IFV and wheeled recon vehicle will eventually be chosen.

My pick would be for the CV-90 tracked IFV if Australia were to acquire a new vehicle for 5/7RAR and 3RAR. Details can be found here:

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/cv90/

[Theodor]

This is my first post, so be nice :D

Wheeled vs. Tracked

Wheeled vehicles are cheaper to operate and easier to maintain. Wheeled vehicles are generally faster than tracked vehicles.

Tracked vehicles have better cross-country performance in rough terrain, and, can generally carry more armor than wheeled vehicles.

Current operations in Iraq seem to favor wheeled over tracked vehicles (e.g.. U.S. "Striker" brigade). The reson for this may be as simple as, it's easier to hit a vehicle going 15 mph with an RPG than it is to hit one going 50 mph. Speed equals greater survivability. In the case of the ASLAV vs. the M113, the ASLAV's without doubt are more maneuverable, better armed and armored.

I do however have to stick up for the M113. I have as a quick guess well over 2000 miles behind the sticks of an M113 and half as many again the TC (track commander). Of all the tracked vehicles I've crewed, I liked the M113 the best, never once did an M113 let me down. For those of you who have crewed an armor vehicle you know a track can make your life hell. It is long in the tooth as armored vehicles go, however it can still get the job done. It is one of the most widely used armored vehicles in the world for that reason.

[icelord]

This is my first post, so be nice :D

this is not my first post, so does that mean people can be mean?


Wheeled vs. Tracked

Wheeled vehicles are cheaper to operate and easier to maintain. Wheeled vehicles are generally faster than tracked vehicles.

Tracked vehicles have better cross-country performance in rough terrain, and, can generally carry more armor than wheeled vehicles.

Current operations in Iraq seem to favor wheeled over tracked vehicles (e.g.. U.S. "Striker" brigade). The reson for this may be as simple as, it's easier to hit a vehicle going 15 mph with an RPG than it is to hit one going 50 mph. Speed equals greater survivability. In the case of the ASLAV vs. the M113, the ASLAV's without doubt are more maneuverable, better armed and armored.


You hit the nail on the...nail :tomato

its probably alot easier to get a wheeled ASLAV out of the sand then a tracked vehicle, although, if u ever watch the dakar rally you could argue it.

Another reason is that these ASLAVs are in the deployment regiments. most M113s are for chokos:ar15 while phasing out the M113 they get pushed to the reserves, and will most likely remain till the ASLAV gets pushed down the chain. Perhaps if we end up back in the jungle it may call for tracked vehicles, and if they havn't replaced them with a CV90, which looks sweeeeet, then it might be reused

[Aussie Digger]

this is not my first post, so does that mean people can be mean?



You hit the nail on the...nail :tomato

its probably alot easier to get a wheeled ASLAV out of the sand then a tracked vehicle, although, if u ever watch the dakar rally you could argue it.

Another reason is that these ASLAVs are in the deployment regiments. most M113s are for chokos:ar15 while phasing out the M113 they get pushed to the reserves, and will most likely remain till the ASLAV gets pushed down the chain. Perhaps if we end up back in the jungle it may call for tracked vehicles, and if they havn't replaced them with a CV90, which looks sweeeeet, then it might be reused

What deployable regiments are these Icelord? I'm pretty sure the Royal Australian Regiment is a "deployable regiment" and it doesn't have ANY ASLAV's on strength... 5/7 RAR is one of our 5x "high readiness" battalions and will be the primary unit equipped with the M113AS3/4 (if and when it's finally delivered). Guess which unit was also the lead battalion for the Op Catalyst deployments to Iraq???

The reason ASLAV's are deployed as they are perfect for the high speed "escort" tasks our Army and the "SECDET" in particular are conducting. They also possess the heaviest firepower of any of our armoured vehicles with the ASLAV-25's 25mm cannon, apart from our Leopards and (within the next few weeks) our Abrams.

As to their armour protection? I don't think without their bar armour system or spall curtains, they possess greater protection than an M113 and compared to the M113AS3/4 they possess significantly LESS armour protection.

They certainly possess far less off-road mobility than M113's and as to the question as to how difficult they would be to "pull" out of the sand, I would counter with the argument that they are far less likely to be struck in the first place and this outweighs any recovery options...

The ASLAV-PC variant (seen here: http://www.defence.gov.au/opcatalyst/images/gallery/20060811/20060802adf179443_002_lo.jpg)

also operates only roughly the same firepower and fire control capabilities as the upgraded M113AS3/4 will. The Bushmasters which the infantry are actually riding in, have only a flex mounted 5.56mm Minimi for fire support. Significantly less than what infantry in M113AS3/4's would have to support them, let alone the protection and mobility levels difference...

Unfortunately the M113 upgrade program has run into such significant problems that by the time it's ready to be introduced, LAND 400 will be kicking off and it may just be better (as with the Seasprite) to launch straight into LAND 400 and by pass the program for "off the shelf" new build IMV's, such as CV-90 or similar...

[rossfrb_1]

I've read a little on the Korea Next (New?) Infantry Fighting Vehicle
Up until very recently there was a very easily google-able link from globalsecurity or some such - not anymore...
Instead a quick google reveals
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/produit/57152_us.html
".....“The new armored vehicles have far better capabilities than the K-200s which the military is currently operating,” Choi said. “It is also superior to the U.S. M2 Bradley and Russia’s BMP-3.”

The 25-ton vehicle, which has a seating capacity of 12, is equipped with sophisticated anti-tank missiles, a 40mm anti-air craft gun and a 7.62mm machine gun, he said. It can move in the water with the help of an automatic airbag system on both sides of the vehicle.

The fighting vehicle is also equipped with a high-tech identification system, dubbed the “friend or foe” system, using an ultraviolet sensor to detect the approach of enemy airplanes, Choi said.

“We expect the KNIFV would be in high demand among Middle East and Southeast Asian countries because of its accessible price of $2.5 million and superior capabilities as compared to foreign vehicles,” he said. The 33-ton M2 Bradley and 18.7-ton BMP-3 cost some $4.5 million. ....."

some eyecandy at http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=46231
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=48635
I think this is one of those vehicles made from some composite. Seems to come standard with a 40mm canon.
Would go nicely with some K-9s!

rb

[Todjaeger]

A few questions and thoughts on Australian M113s & Australian APC/IMV/IFVs in general.

As things stand now, Australia currently deploys 3 types of APC/IMV that I'm aware of, namely the ASLAV, Bushmaster and M113. From what I've read on all of these, none of which are IFVs like the Bradley or BMP. What is the proposed role for the upgraded M113s, will it act as an upgraded & improved APC, or is it supposed to become an IFV? If the goal is to make an improved APC which will see use, then I say go for it, if instead the desired result is an IFV then I would say drop the Land 106 project. Incidentally, anyone have info on the Land 400 project Aussie Digger mentioned? Nothing showing right now on the DMO website.

Regarding the armour protection of M113 vs. LAV III

The LAV III has approx. 10mm steel armour which is rated to protect against 155mm shell fragments and 7.62mm AP rounds.

The M113 has approx. 44mm aluminum armour, with some upgradea adding on titanium/steel applique kits.

From my understanding, steel armour is stronger than aluminum but not as rigid. Therefore steel armour needs more bracing which can reduce the internal volume of armoured compartments. Aluminum, lacking the strength of steel armour needs to be approx. three times thicker to achieve that same degree of protection but needs less bracing. What this means as I understand it is that the M113 armour has the same level of protection as approx. 15mm of the armour used on the LAV III. If anyone knows differently, please let me know.

One of the problems of the early M113s in terms of survivability was that the petrel engine would ignite when hit (hmm, sounds like the Sherman all over again...) Also the M113s deployed in Vietnam had to contend with mines and improvised explosives (sound familiar?) which led to many M113 passengers & crew to cover the flooring with sandbags and flak jackets while they rode atop the vehicle instead of inside it.

Is there any word on what sorts of difficulties Land 106 has run into? I can imagine that extending the hull and adding a road wheel isn't an easy modification. How is the re-engining going? I would think that switching from petrel to diesel would improve servivability, but not sure if that is part of the re-engining scheme.

Also, what is the ground pressure exerted by the M113 vs. the ASLAV, since this has a direct bearing on which of the two is more likely to get stuck offroad?

[Ding]

Since we are talking about the M113, isnt the Korean KIFV based on the M113? Also the ACV 300 from turkey is based on the M113 as far as i know of. both of these variants comes with 25mm turrets or machine gun or mortar or grenade launchers. Both variants runs on diesel fuel. Since it was developed by Turkey and Korea, why Australia is having difficulties in upgrading its M113?

[chargerRT]

How is the re-engining going? I would think that switching from petrel to diesel would improve servivability

i thought the aussie 113's WERE diesel?im trying to think back 15years...:sleepy3

[Aussie Digger]

Full details of the Australian M113AS3/4 upgrade program can be found here:

http://www.tenix.com/Main.asp?ID=437

and also here: http://www.tenix.com/PDFLibrary/137.pdf

The aim of the project is to upgrade the mobility, protection and firepower of our existing M113A1's, which are unbelievably obsolete. 350 of these vehicles are to be procured and will equip the 1st Brigade (Mechanised) primarily 5/7 RAR, 1 Armoured Regt, 1 CER, 8/12 Mdm Regt and (eventually) 3RAR when it converts to mech. The M113 is and will always remain an APC, which is what Government has told Army, Army wants...

The upgrade basically entails stretching the vehicle by approx 70cms via a "plug" being inserted after the base vehicle is "chopped in half" an extra road wheel is then added along with the necessary extra suspension components (Torsion bars). This will provide the basis for the A4 variant which is the "troop" carrier variant.

A3 variants will undergo the remainder of the upgrade which provides additional armour protection through the use of "applique" armour, spall liners, the removal of the fuel tanks from inside the vehicle, to "outside" the main armour (and which also frees up significant space within the vehicle) additional "belly armour" (for mine protection) a new engine, transmission/final drive, suspension and braking system, a new 1 man turret with a new fire control system including passive day/night sensors and the existing 0.50cal QCB machine gun and a "ready 200 round bin" for this gun.

The vehicle will then be capable of carrying 10 troops in the rear of the vehicle, plus the crew commander and the driver. It is being given a baseline armour protection against 12.7mm/14.5mm AP ammunition. An additional "heavy" modular armour kit is also being provided to provide protection against light anti-armour weapons and light cannon rounds. As such it has a considerable higher level of protection than that provided by Bushmaster or ASLAV.

The mobility is also being upgraded with a much more powerful yet more fuel efficient engine (Australian M113's came with a Diesel engine in the 60's, we NEVER had the petrol engined variant). The problems encountered so far have included the engine overheating, the braking system failing entirely and the turret not working as advertised.

The engine problem has been overcome only through de-rating the engine and fitting larger radiator's, hoses and a greater cooling fluid reserve. The braking issue has not been resolved to the best of my knowledge. The turret may never be fixed.

The issues mainly have arisen from trying to "take the chassis too far". The weight of the baseline vehicle is now up to 18 tons, the additional modular armour kit adds further undisclosed weight to the vehicle. The cooling and braking systems have not been able to cope sufficiently with the additional weight and the additional engine power (and subsequent heat generated) needed to move the hefty weight.

On top of which the firepower of the upgraded version will actually be less than that now (as the 0.30cal machine gun is being deleted). The Tenix designed turret cannot have another weapon system added as it wasn't designed for it from the start and the ammunition supply is less. The fire control system is better (as there is NONE now) but the weapon is not stabilised and never will be with this system and overall firepower has obviously gone backwards.

My preference if this vehicle HAS to be used and the unresolved issues can be sorted quickly and cheaply would be for the rubbish Tenix turret to be junked and a remote weapon system to be fitted. This would require additional investment but should reduce overall weight, but would add significantly to the firepower that could be operated by this vehicle.

Alternatively a single man turret designed for the 25mm Bushmaster cannon should be purchased and fitted.

If the issues could be resolved and a 25mm cannon fitted, I think Army might actually become interested in it...

[Theodor]

One of the problems of the early M113s in terms of survivability was that the petrel engine would ignite when hit (hmm, sounds like the Sherman all over again...)

Diesel engines replaced petrol beginning with M113A1.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m113.htm


Also, what is the ground pressure exerted by the M113 vs. the ASLAV, since this has a direct bearing on which of the two is more likely to get stuck offroad?

What I found from a quick look.
7.9 - 8.6 (psi) M113A1-A3
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m113.htm
http://www.combatreform.com/lavdanger.htm

20 - 40 (psi) LAV III
http://www.combatreform.com/lavdanger.htm


If the issues could be resolved and a 25mm cannon fitted, I think Army might actually become interested in it...

From the post by rossfrb_1, looks like the KNIFV fits these requirements.

[rossfrb_1]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20402386-31477,00.html"
Brake problems delay army carriers upgrade

Patrick Walters, National security editor September 13, 2006

A $585 million upgrade of the army's M113 armoured personnel carrier - already one of Defence's most troublesome projects - will be delayed at least a year, with its brake system having to be completely redesigned.

After being fitted with new armour and other protective equipment, the redesigned 12-tonne vehicles became too heavy for the existing brake system.
The M113, the army's main land battle transport, designed to take up to a dozen soldiers into battle, has been in service since the 1960s.
A total of 350 of the tracked vehicles are being completely overhauled and were due to re-enter service from November.
Defence Minister Brendan Nelson wrote to the project's prime contractor, Tenix, last week saying he still expected the company to meet a contractual deadline of 2010 for all 350 upgraded M113s.
The problems with the M113's brake system are the latest to hit what is regarded as one of Defence's two most troublesome "legacy" projects dating from the early 1990s. The other is the Seasprite helicopter.
The M113 is the third major defence project to experience a serious delay this year, following problems with the Seasprites and the 18-month delay in the delivery of the RAAF's $3billion Wedgetail early-warning aircraft.
There is now doubt that the M113s will ever be put in harm's way, because of the changing nature of military conflict.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have highlighted the lethal threat to them posed by a new generation of shoulder-fired missiles and roadside bombs.
Defence analysts say that even the upgraded M113 will be obsolete in the face of weapons now routinely employed by terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Defence Materiel Organisation chief Stephen Gumley confirmed to The Australian that there had been problems with testing and certification of the M113's brake system. "We are expecting of the order of a 12-month delay to the project," he said. "A new brake system has to be designed and a new prototype made and tested."
Dr Gumley said the contract with Tenix to upgrade the vehicles was for a fixed price, with the contractor expected to incur the costs of fixing the brake problem.
The 2000 defence white paper planned for the vehicles to enter service last year."




Unless this is old news being rehashed, then this surely would have to be one of the last nails in this coffin?
Mind you, with ALR 2002 apparently being scrapped for the hornets, would defence be willing to put its hand up for this project as well?



rb

[Whiskyjack]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20402386-31477,00.html"
Brake problems delay army carriers upgrade

Patrick Walters, National security editor September 13, 2006

A $585 million upgrade of the army's M113 armoured personnel carrier - already one of Defence's most troublesome projects - will be delayed at least a year, with its brake system having to be completely redesigned.

After being fitted with new armour and other protective equipment, the redesigned 12-tonne vehicles became too heavy for the existing brake system.
The M113, the army's main land battle transport, designed to take up to a dozen soldiers into battle, has been in service since the 1960s.
A total of 350 of the tracked vehicles are being completely overhauled and were due to re-enter service from November.
Defence Minister Brendan Nelson wrote to the project's prime contractor, Tenix, last week saying he still expected the company to meet a contractual deadline of 2010 for all 350 upgraded M113s.
The problems with the M113's brake system are the latest to hit what is regarded as one of Defence's two most troublesome "legacy" projects dating from the early 1990s. The other is the Seasprite helicopter.
The M113 is the third major defence project to experience a serious delay this year, following problems with the Seasprites and the 18-month delay in the delivery of the RAAF's $3billion Wedgetail early-warning aircraft.
There is now doubt that the M113s will ever be put in harm's way, because of the changing nature of military conflict.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have highlighted the lethal threat to them posed by a new generation of shoulder-fired missiles and roadside bombs.
Defence analysts say that even the upgraded M113 will be obsolete in the face of weapons now routinely employed by terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Defence Materiel Organisation chief Stephen Gumley confirmed to The Australian that there had been problems with testing and certification of the M113's brake system. "We are expecting of the order of a 12-month delay to the project," he said. "A new brake system has to be designed and a new prototype made and tested."
Dr Gumley said the contract with Tenix to upgrade the vehicles was for a fixed price, with the contractor expected to incur the costs of fixing the brake problem.
The 2000 defence white paper planned for the vehicles to enter service last year."




Unless this is old news being rehashed, then this surely would have to be one of the last nails in this coffin?
Mind you, with ALR 2002 apparently being scrapped for the hornets, would defence be willing to put its hand up for this project as well?



rb

Not a good time for defence projects in Australia. :(

While I can understand that the ADF wants cutting edge equipment, and taking the risks associated with this, what I can't understand is why it would not go off the shelf for many of the items.

Why not buy surplus M2/M3s and ship them into Australia for refurbishment to keep the local industry involved?

I'm a Kiwi and it frustrates me, so I can only imagine how some of you Aussies feel. :)

[Aussie Digger]

Not a good time for defence projects in Australia. :(

While I can understand that the ADF wants cutting edge equipment, and taking the risks associated with this, what I can't understand is why it would not go off the shelf for many of the items.

Why not buy surplus M2/M3s and ship them into Australia for refurbishment to keep the local industry involved?

I'm a Kiwi and it frustrates me, so I can only imagine how some of you Aussies feel. :)

The problem is that they've already spent approx $280m to get to this stage, before production has begun, now they'll have to spend another massive amount to get the brakes fixed and then re-test the vehicle.

I was a supporter of this project for a while because something drastically needed to be done to replace the massively obsolete M113A1's which we operate. Unfortunately the main thing this program had going for it, it's timeliness has been wasted by yet another stuffed up project. Cost capped my ARSE!!!

The vehicle itself will not be "cutting edge" even if it is ever actually introduced with it still lacking most of the features of a modern IFV, particularly in respect to armour protection, firepower and sensor capability.

Dr NELSON has shown he's not afraid to make tough decisions. It's time for him to can this project and buy an off the shelf IFV. Tenix has shown yet again it's absolutely amazing ability to win a simple and very staight forward upgrade program for a vehicle that has already been successfully completed on thousands of vehicles around the world and completely stuff it up.

Well done Australian Defence Industry. You've certainly proven you're worthy of large scale investment...

[Cootamundra]

I think i'm with you AD, can it! But then again when you're this far in maybe not...

As Whiskey has said we've got a poor record with regards to equipment upgrade projects. I reckon all involved are probably wishing they went with an off-the shelf IFV now. Second hand + refurb's (zero hours) M2's would've been an excellent option. Mind you, considering the $$$s spent I say finish these, hand them over to the Reserves and mothball the rest, then go for an OTS purchase from whomever could supply a new IFV quickest.

Interesting question though, its a bit like the Sprog, do we hold on and finish AND then promise to apply Kinnaird in each and every case from now on? And in the same vein although off topic (sorry) are we going to screw the pooch again with regards to the Aussie Baby Burke?! Mistral will probably win out on the Amphib side of things purely because of recent def project screw-ups.
Coota

[rossfrb_1]

{snip}
Tenix has shown yet again it's absolutely amazing ability to win a simple and very staight forward upgrade program for a vehicle that has already been successfully completed on thousands of vehicles around the world and completely stuff it up.

Well done Australian Defence Industry. You've certainly proven you're worthy of large scale investment...
Wasn't part of the problem with Army changing the project goalposts a few times midcourse and Tenix trying to play catch up?
If a design had been initailly settled upon and not changed a few times, then this project might have born some fruit.
(Sounds a lot like the seasprite project actually)

rb

[icelord]

Mind you, with ALR 2002 apparently being scrapped for the hornets, would defence be willing to put its hand up for this project as well?
Theres no actual decision on the ALR 2002 not going ahead, although a review is underway, as the electronics of a F/A 18 are different to a caribou, blackhawk or chinooks....who would have thought?

I think i'm with you AD, can it! But then again when you're this far in maybe not...

As Whiskey has said we've got a poor record with regards to equipment upgrade projects. I reckon all involved are probably wishing they went with an off-the shelf IFV now. Second hand + refurb's (zero hours) M2's would've been an excellent option. Mind you, considering the $$$s spent I say finish these, hand them over to the Reserves and mothball the rest, then go for an OTS purchase from whomever could supply a new IFV quickest.

Interesting question though, its a bit like the Sprog, do we hold on and finish AND then promise to apply Kinnaird in each and every case from now on? And in the same vein although off topic (sorry) are we going to screw the pooch again with regards to the Aussie Baby Burke?! Mistral will probably win out on the Amphib side of things purely because of recent def project screw-ups.
Coota

I'd go with pushing the upgraded versions to Reserves, and going with a strong IFV. My choice, the Puma seems to go well, Plus would be a stronger contender then many others, and AD could'nt whine bout lack of firepower, as it can pack whatever punch you like, excluding artillery and cannons or course:rolleyes:
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/puma_tracked/

And in other Posts i have backed the SEP as a good replacement, if a desire is tracked or wheeled, you get both from this little swede.:sweden
On the downside, its not off the shelf, not tried and i can't find any reference to firepower it would use, and since its sweden, a bow and arrow might be its most offensive weapon, being neutral and all. But according to all accounts, its quiet as hell, with rubber tracks and a low
heat signature, its does well as a recon vehicle.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/sep/

Puma for IFV, SEP for recon...neither gunna happen so no need to worry

[NZLAV]

I really think the M113's won't see replacement soon. I think the CV90 won't be purchaed because it has a different roll to an M113. What id the difference between an APC and and IMV??? I would replaced the M113's with ASLAV's. As for the Bushmaster's I do not like that purchase because they do not offer the firepower. What happend if it encounters a vehicle such as a NZLAV or ASLAV, the LAV would rip it to pieces.

[Todjaeger]

I really think the M113's won't see replacement soon. I think the CV90 won't be purchaed because it has a different roll to an M113. What id the difference between an APC and and IMV??? I would replaced the M113's with ASLAV's. As for the Bushmaster's I do not like that purchase because they do not offer the firepower. What happend if it encounters a vehicle such as a NZLAV or ASLAV, the LAV would rip it to pieces.

My impression of the Bushmaster IMV is that it was designed to move infantry through rear areas over long distances (fuel range 1,000 km as I recall) It was designed to be able to operate in areas where it might come under fire, but was not really intended to deliver troops in active combat. As for an APC, they were designed to deliver troops while an engagement is in progress. In many instances, the role of APC has been taken over by the IFV which would deliver the troops (though usually fewer) and then stick around to provide fire support.

As for the LAV and various derivatives, that seems to be really more of an armed recon-come-light APC/IFV. While it has the same gun as the M2/M3 Bradley IFV, it has even lighter armour than a M113, sufficient to withstand 7.62mm AP, basically the same level of armour as a Bushmaster. I don't think though it has the V-shaped mine resistant hull bottom. Granted, the 25mm cannon would make a mess of a Bushmaster, a 0.50 cal. MG on the Bushmaster would have an effect on the LAV. Not to mention I doubt a Bushmaster would be by itself.

In the end, I suppose it really comes down to what the different vehicles are used for, and how.

FYI: From what I've read about the origin of the Bushmaster, it was intended to provide long distance offroad transportation across northern Australia.

[Aussie Digger]

My impression of the Bushmaster IMV is that it was designed to move infantry through rear areas over long distances (fuel range 1,000 km as I recall) It was designed to be able to operate in areas where it might come under fire, but was not really intended to deliver troops in active combat. As for an APC, they were designed to deliver troops while an engagement is in progress. In many instances, the role of APC has been taken over by the IFV which would deliver the troops (though usually fewer) and then stick around to provide fire support.

As for the LAV and various derivatives, that seems to be really more of an armed recon-come-light APC/IFV. While it has the same gun as the M2/M3 Bradley IFV, it has even lighter armour than a M113, sufficient to withstand 7.62mm AP, basically the same level of armour as a Bushmaster. I don't think though it has the V-shaped mine resistant hull bottom. Granted, the 25mm cannon would make a mess of a Bushmaster, a 0.50 cal. MG on the Bushmaster would have an effect on the LAV. Not to mention I doubt a Bushmaster would be by itself.

In the end, I suppose it really comes down to what the different vehicles are used for, and how.

FYI: From what I've read about the origin of the Bushmaster, it was intended to provide long distance offroad transportation across northern Australia.

Exactly. The Bushmaster was designed to provide armoured protection and mobility for a light infantry force conducting "Defence of Australia" operations across the enormous expanse of Northern Australia. It was meant to provide this mobility for infantry battalions that would otherwise be mounted in un-armoured landrovers or Unimog trucks. Obviously an unsatisfactory situation.

The Bushmaster is not intended as a "fighting vehicle" ie: it is not intended to participate directly in assaults or go up against other armoured vehicles. It is designed to be capable of carrying an entire infantry section (9 men) over a 1000k's without refuelling and carry enough food, water, ammunition etc to allow the section to operate for up to 3 days without resupply. It was also intended that this vehicle be capable of adding to the sections firepower with a MAG-58 7.62mm GPMG or similar without being capable enough (ie: expensive enough) to actually assist in a section attack.

The ASLAV in Australian service is used for reconnaissance or Cavalry tasks (ie: vehicle escorts and light fire support missions). They are also used to provide a "limited" offensive capability (ie: shoot and see what shoots back). They are not designed as an infantry fighting vehicle (again assaulting enemy positions or fighting other enemy vehicles) though unfortunately both ASLAV and Bushmaster have been forced into these roles (to a degree) in Iraq and soon Afghanistan.

The M113AS3/4 was designed to carry an infantry section, provide sufficient armour protection as to be able of "closing with the enemy" and disembarking troops onto an enemy position and providing fire support for them with a heavy machine gun. The difference between an APC and an IFV is primarily in the firepower capacity, the armour protection and troop carrying capacity.

An IFV has much greater firepower and armour protection than the M113 usually does (being normally equipped with light-medium cannons, GPMG's and occasionally anti-tank missiles) but with a reduced infantry component (typically 6 or 7 only).

An APC like the M113 is capable of carrying a FULL infantry section, plus the vehicles crew and support them with a 12.7mm machine gun or similar. The M113AS3/4 upgrade was to bridge this gap somewhat with much greater armour protection than any other armoured vehicle in Australia (besides the Leopards and Abrams of course) whilst still retaining excellent mobility and the full strength infantry section.

The downside was that the existing 12.7mm machine gun was being retained, the existing 7.62mm gun removed and NOT replaced and no actual firepower enhancement was being provided.

The difference between using a Bushmaster, ASLAV or M113/IFV type vehicle is usually one of doctrine. Australia uses and will continue to use a tracked APC/IFV because it is aware of the limitations of trying to use a wheeled vehicle in a close combat "assault" situation.

The cross-country mobility of wheeled vehicles is significantly less than that of tracked vehicles and wheeled vehicles are easier to disable than tracked. Of course tracked vehicles are also more expensive, more difficult to maintain (in general) are heavier and are less mobile on roads. Which is why we maintain a balance I guess.

The NZ Army which has opted for a sole wheeled armoured force with the LAVIII, is no doubt aware of the vehicle's limitations (in the aspects outlined above) and will compensate for this with appropriate tactics or operational taskings, should it ever find itself in a warfighting scenario.

[Todjaeger]

Does anyone know why the ADI Bushmaster was chosen over the Tenix S600 APC for the IMV? From reading what I have of the available specs, the two vehicles seem to be fairly similar in terms of range, speed & performance. The S600 is based off of the Unimog suspension while the Bushmaster uses a Timoney design I believe.

Also, is there any indication that the M113 project might draw on experience from companies outside Australia? I was checking some of my books and apparently United Defense (now a unit of BAE Systems) has done design & upgrade work on M113s for various countries around the world. A fairly similar sounding upgrade was done for Egypt starting circa-1980. It too involved lengthening the hull and adding a road wheel and an updated power pack. More significantly, it also mated a M2A2 Bradley turret with 25mm Bushmaster and TOW, to the hull. There was still room left for 6 passengers who made use of the rear ramp.

If Tenix is having an issue with the brakes, it might do well to check and see what was done for the Egyptians. Especially since the Egyptian variant is approx. 6 tons heavier than a standard M113 but still has roughly the same speed and range (within 3-5 kph & 3km range) I have to assume the brakes were appropriately modified.

[gf0012-aust]

Does anyone know why the ADI Bushmaster was chosen over the Tenix S600 APC for the IMV? From reading what I have of the available specs, the two vehicles seem to be fairly similar in terms of range, speed & performance. The S600 is based off of the Unimog suspension while the Bushmaster uses a Timoney design I believe.


I was involved at one stage with the S600 solution. The vehicle was successfully exported to Kuwait as a paramilitary vehicle even though it did not get across the line here.

you are correct that it was unimog based. we used to bring in complete mogs, strip their cab-over elements and then start the milspec rebuild from there. it was cheaper to bring in commercial mogs rather than get Benz to build milspec units as it would cost substantially extra to alter the prod line parameters. although benz did agree to stop/start the line for 2 hrs to build the Kuwaiti base vehicles, it was not seen as that useful.

As for why they missed out - a lot of the influence was political. bendigo (where the buishie was built) was a critical tipping point and unsafe seat in a national election, and retention of the bendigo seat was seen as very critical to securing the govts hold on regional and national power. at that stage, the facility was still dominated by Govt influence and was not entirely an independant commercial operation. the S600 option was being built in a voting stronghold that was already cemented in the opposition parties clutches - plus it was in the middle of being sold to an australian entity.

as for meeting requirements. all of the vehicles tested against the requirement were very very robust. the explosive proximity tests were all geared around the survivability parameters of a Caspir - as the caspir was regarded then as the most mine proof 4 wheeled vehicle in service. Both the S600 and Timoney designs exceeded the caspir stats. The queensland based consortia vehicle was less robust - but was still better than the majority of remaining international options.

As for the S600 based solution, I remember that we bought out specialist armour plate solutions technicians from germany. we also had to train up specialist ballistic welders as the metal used was completely different from any other ballistic plate in country at that time. I do recall that we trained up a special team of ex plastics welders (as they have much better finesse and motor skills as compared to general welders) - and we also pulled some of the titanium welders off of the submarine project to also assist in comprehensive training of the ballistics teams.

we sold 28 of the S600 based vehicles to the Kuwaitis. the mules were offered to various state police forces as forced entry solutions but were passed up as they were perceived as being too "Los Angeles PD" for local consumption.

as a side note. the kuwaiti vehicles were manifested as "police cars" - the AustGov didn't want to be seen as an arms exporter. ;)

some of the other detail is a bit vague - as it was around 1997-98. I'd have to check my diaries for further info.

[scraw]

the mules were offered to various state police forces as forced entry solutions but were passed up as they were perceived as being too "Los Angeles PD" for local consumption.

I find that a bit strange, especially considering WA TRG has a Saracen as one of their toys.

[gf0012-aust]

I find that a bit strange, especially considering WA TRG has a Saracen as one of their toys.

I know the mule was offered to SA, Vic and NSW. maybe WA didn't show any interest? SA was actually offered the vehicle for "free". The others were offered it at almost cost free.

:confused:

[Todjaeger]

Checking some of my references on the M113, apparently Australia had several deployed in Vietnam that had been modified. The ones I'm interested in had the 76mm gun turret from the Saladin Armoured Car added on. Does anyone know of any pictures of these M113s, or of any source for additional information on them?

Regarding the reasoning behind choosing the Bushmaster over the S600 :hitwall
I must say I'm very disappointed, not surprised, but very disappointed.

If it was an issue of cost, or platform suitability, that would be one thing. But allowing political considerations to decide choice... I believe that is one of the reasons why the US M2/M3 Bradley took so long and cost so much to develop. If I recall correctly, the program ran 17 years (yes, years) and cost some US$ 14 Billion, before orders were placed and production commenced. And there were still problems with the layout & protection levels of the initial production models.

A followup question on the S600. Was the expected operating costs for the S600 more or less than the Bushmaster (assuming the estimates got that far,) and was it expected that logistics would be easier since there would be parts commonality with non-armoured military Mogs already in service?

[gf0012-aust]

A followup question on the S600. Was the expected operating costs for the S600 more or less than the Bushmaster (assuming the estimates got that far,) and was it expected that logistics would be easier since there would be parts commonality with non-armoured military Mogs already in service?

I never saw the DMO/ADF runoff sheets at final selection. But I do recall that all that all the numbers crunched through for the S600 trumped the Bushmaster by some margin.

on economies of scale, NATO commonality issues (logistics issues), commercial commonality, commercial support spread etc it absolutely walked all over the ADI product.

Benz were more than confident about real time and real user benefits as their available data reference points were valid - amd immensely relevant.

simple issues such as round headlights (so that headlight replacement would be easy in distressed locations) provided it with practical advantages in a compressed logistics tail.

I do recall that in 2000, prior to attending the Land Warfare Conf in Sydney, we were told that Bushmaster was dead in the water - and that the only thing that could save it was the Govt in an election year. The Taipan (from Qld) was also regarded as a DNS due to poor support issues.

IMV, I strongly believe that we got the second best platform.

[icelord]

I know the mule was offered to SA, Vic and NSW. maybe WA didn't show any interest? SA was actually offered the vehicle for "free". The others were offered it at almost cost free.

:confused:

The NSW Govt. bought a Armoured car after a Anti-terror review found it lacking, its called the "bearcat" i think, bear something anyway, its done its job of late, driving down quiet suburbs at 5am with a couple of State Protection Group officers waiting to kick down your door, more a terror device for the crooks then much else at the moment:finger

[gf0012-aust]

The NSW Govt. bought a Armoured car after a Anti-terror review found it lacking, its called the "bearcat" i think, bear something anyway, its done its job of late, driving down quiet suburbs at 5am with a couple of State Protection Group officers waiting to kick down your door, more a terror device for the crooks then much else at the moment:finger

On another note, is that you writing Letters to the Editor in the latest edition of "Contact" ?? ;)

[Aussie Digger]

Better Bushmasters
Volume 11, No. 52, September 21, 2006
By Cpl Mike McSweeney


A PROTECTED Weapons Station (PWS) and drinking water cooling system will be among the improvements to Bushmaster as a result of soldiers’ feedback.

Lt-Col Sam McPhee from the AFV Implementation Team said DMO had been working closely with manufacturer ADI on a variety of enhancements based on advice from soldiers serving in the MEAO. “These enhancements reflect both our operational experience and also the expanded role of the Bushmaster under HNA,” he said.

In July, the Government app-roved rapid acquisition of 44 PWS for Bushmaster, the first of which are expected to be fitted to deployed vehicles by the end of the year. One would be fitted per vehicle, the last expected to be delivered by April 2007.

Lt-Col McPhee said although the PWS had not been selected yet, it would be different to the Remote Weapons Station (RWS) on ASLAV. “The PWS is designed to fit the standard MAG-58, but it will have growth potential to accommodate other weapons,” he said.

He said it was likely the tactical environment would dictate when PWS would be used instead of two firers, or in a combination both. Lt-Col McPhee said in addition to PWS, enhanced protection initiatives included the evaluation of an appliqué armour package from September.

“That assessment is not just of the improved survivability offered by the up-armouring package, but also like its impact on vehicle handling and the vehicle’s functions,” he said.

He said the 25 Bushmasters recently sold to the Dutch Army were equipped with PWS and appliqué armour, but sacrifices to offset the increased weight meant this version may not be suitable for Australian requirements.

“Army and DMO will review the Dutch IMV enhancements and the associated capability trade-offs as part of our evaluations,” he said.

Another enhancement to the Bushmaster is an on-board drinking water cooling system.

“The prototype is being tested in October, and pending successful completion of those tests, the drinking water cooling system will be fitted to operationally deployed vehicles,” he said.

Where possible, all upgrades to vehicles for operation would be fitted prior to deployment otherwise RAEME soldiers or contractors would fit the upgrade kits in theatre.

“While the enhancements will be initially limited to vehicles deployed on operation, Army will consider fitting them more widely to the fleet,” Lt-Col McPhee said.

Other upgrades being examined include an annex for the command variant (IMCV), daypacks specifically for Bushmaster occupants and WTSS weapon station mock up.

Lt-Col McPhee encouraged soldiers to submit RODUMs if the vehicle wasn’t performing satisfactorily or submit user requirements for suggested enhancements through the chain of command.

There's a pic of the first Bushmaster to be fitted with the PWS here:

http://www.defence.gov.au/news/armynews/editions/1152/images/03-newwpnstation.jpg

Courtesy of www.defence.gov.au (http://www.defence.gov.au)

The PWS is the Israeli Rafael "Sampson" (lite). This is the vehicle mounted version of the Naval "mini-typhoon" which is why they mention that other weapons might be fitted "later". At least they've chosen an RWS that has some commonality with an existing in-service system within ADF, though I've no idea why they aren't equipping them with Protector RWS. Delivery time maybe?

I'm betting that when Land 40 Phase 2 is approved and the weapons acquired that they will go onto the Bushie.

At any rate this is an improvement over the current situation where a gunner has to stick his head up through an open hatch...

[Todjaeger]

Better Bushmasters
Volume 11, No. 52, September 21, 2006
By Cpl Mike McSweeney

A PROTECTED Weapons Station (PWS) and drinking water cooling system will be among the improvements to Bushmaster as a result of soldiers’ feedback.

At any rate this is an improvement over the current situation where a gunner has to stick his head up through an open hatch...

I don't know, I'm a little leary of this kind of upgrade. Not so much that the idea is bad, but that it seems the Bushmaster is to be used for something it wasn't really designed for. Namely acting as an APC and patrol vehicle, as opposed to a lightly armoured transport.

[icelord]

On another note, is that you writing Letters to the Editor in the latest edition of "Contact" ?? ;)
Hahahaha, never even realised, yeah that sounds like something stupid that i'd say, all good at the moment, got assesmentsin oct, so outlook is good. takin me nearly 6mths to get this far,after about 12 mths since i f**ked up kapooka:rolleyes:

Back to discussion, i'm not 100% on this, but, would it not reduce the gunners view. If your looking through a Tv screen basically, then you can't say, notice something out of the corner of your eye. I understand its so much safer, but the chance of failure might increase, or you may not get a clear view of what your about to shoot at. This could just be my anti-technology side talking.

[Aussie Digger]

Hahahaha, never even realised, yeah that sounds like something stupid that i'd say, all good at the moment, got assesmentsin oct, so outlook is good. takin me nearly 6mths to get this far,after about 12 mths since i f**ked up kapooka:rolleyes:

Back to discussion, i'm not 100% on this, but, would it not reduce the gunners view. If your looking through a Tv screen basically, then you can't say, notice something out of the corner of your eye. I understand its so much safer, but the chance of failure might increase, or you may not get a clear view of what your about to shoot at. This could just be my anti-technology side talking.

Yes, but it's not as bad as trying to operate in an armoured vehicle "closed down" WITHOUT a TV screen which is what Australian soldiers have had to do PRIOR to the introduction of RWS systems, if they wanted protection from being shot at...

They might be called "periscopes" but little glass bricks are AWFULLY difficult to see through, not quite as much as a large amount of "pink mist" though, which is a DEFINITE possibility if you have to stick your head up THROUGH an open hatch to fire your primary weapon system...

[Aussie Digger]

Here's some pics of the first Dutch Bushmaster IMV with it's RWS and 7.62mm MAG-58 incorporated, plus the internal control system we have been discussing lately...

[ugunnadiepiggy]

I think i'm with you AD, can it! But then again when you're this far in maybe not...

As Whiskey has said we've got a poor record with regards to equipment upgrade projects. I reckon all involved are probably wishing they went with an off-the shelf IFV now. Second hand + refurb's (zero hours) M2's would've been an excellent option. Mind you, considering the $$$s spent I say finish these, hand them over to the Reserves and mothball the rest, then go for an OTS purchase from whomever could supply a new IFV quickest.

Interesting question though, its a bit like the Sprog, do we hold on and finish AND then promise to apply Kinnaird in each and every case from now on? And in the same vein although off topic (sorry) are we going to screw the pooch again with regards to the Aussie Baby Burke?! Mistral will probably win out on the Amphib side of things purely because of recent def project screw-ups.
Coota
originally the bushmaster are an interm effort to provide basic protection to reserve or rear echlon forces, the m113 upgrade became about because of cost and there was no planned heavy lift ability capable of taking brads, so the progressive upgrade came about although previous planned upgrades never came about.
aslav (all versions) the reason for move towards wheelded vehicle is running cost and increased self deployment ability. differences is that for every 4 hors of ops in a m113 you have 1 hr of maintenance. where this is reduced for aslav.
amour protection is the same or comparitive. a 7.62mm round will penertrate the side of a standard m113 at a distance of 50m or under. the difference with aslav is that the sloping amour offer greater protection for less weight.
with the purchase of c17 gm we may see brads yet.
5/7rar deployed with aslavs because the m113 are overdue for replacement or upgrade and the cost to run is great in comparison also the aslav can run to 140kph un-governed where the max you will get out of a m113 is 70kph.
an aslav in 1990 was booked by NSW police for doing 130kph in an 100kph zone. like jets land combat rule you are either big strong and slow or fast manourable. speed is life.

[blueorchid]

originally the bushmaster are an interm effort to provide basic protection to reserve or rear echlon forces, the m113 upgrade became about because of cost and there was no planned heavy lift ability capable of taking brads, so the progressive upgrade came about although previous planned upgrades never came about.
aslav (all versions) the reason for move towards wheelded vehicle is running cost and increased self deployment ability. differences is that for every 4 hors of ops in a m113 you have 1 hr of maintenance. where this is reduced for aslav.
amour protection is the same or comparitive. a 7.62mm round will penertrate the side of a standard m113 at a distance of 50m or under. the difference with aslav is that the sloping amour offer greater protection for less weight.
with the purchase of c17 gm we may see brads yet.
5/7rar deployed with aslavs because the m113 are overdue for replacement or upgrade and the cost to run is great in comparison also the aslav can run to 140kph un-governed where the max you will get out of a m113 is 70kph.
an aslav in 1990 was booked by NSW police for doing 130kph in an 100kph zone. like jets land combat rule you are either big strong and slow or fast manourable. speed is life.

Just one thing, the Bushmaster was never design as an interim effort. The Bushmaster (IMV) was designed to transport an entire battalion and all their gear from SW Queensland to NW of WA in around 3 days in good order ready for ops, where if an air lift was used it would take approx 2 weeks to get all their gear to the nearest airhead only if enough C130's were available.

I hope we never see Brads in Aussie service, because that would mean that we would not see a modern IFV in our service post 2010.;)

Cheers.

[blueorchid]

originally the bushmaster are an interm effort to provide basic protection to reserve or rear echlon forces, the m113 upgrade became about because of cost and there was no planned heavy lift ability capable of taking brads, so the progressive upgrade came about although previous planned upgrades never came about.
aslav (all versions) the reason for move towards wheelded vehicle is running cost and increased self deployment ability. differences is that for every 4 hors of ops in a m113 you have 1 hr of maintenance. where this is reduced for aslav.
amour protection is the same or comparitive. a 7.62mm round will penertrate the side of a standard m113 at a distance of 50m or under. the difference with aslav is that the sloping amour offer greater protection for less weight.
with the purchase of c17 gm we may see brads yet.
5/7rar deployed with aslavs because the m113 are overdue for replacement or upgrade and the cost to run is great in comparison also the aslav can run to 140kph un-governed where the max you will get out of a m113 is 70kph.
an aslav in 1990 was booked by NSW police for doing 130kph in an 100kph zone. like jets land combat rule you are either big strong and slow or fast manourable. speed is life.

Just one thing, the Bushmaster was never design as an interim effort. The Bushmaster (IMV) was designed to transport an entire battalion and all their gear from SW Queensland to NW of WA in around 3 days in good order ready for ops, where if an air lift was used it would take approx 2 weeks to get all their gear to the nearest airhead only if enough C130's were available.

I hope we never see Brads in Aussie service, because that would mean that we would not see a modern IFV in our service post 2010.;)

Cheers.

[Aussie Digger]

originally the bushmaster are an interm effort to provide basic protection to reserve or rear echlon forces, the m113 upgrade became about because of cost and there was no planned heavy lift ability capable of taking brads, so the progressive upgrade came about although previous planned upgrades never came about.
aslav (all versions) the reason for move towards wheelded vehicle is running cost and increased self deployment ability. differences is that for every 4 hors of ops in a m113 you have 1 hr of maintenance. where this is reduced for aslav.
amour protection is the same or comparitive. a 7.62mm round will penertrate the side of a standard m113 at a distance of 50m or under. the difference with aslav is that the sloping amour offer greater protection for less weight.
with the purchase of c17 gm we may see brads yet.
5/7rar deployed with aslavs because the m113 are overdue for replacement or upgrade and the cost to run is great in comparison also the aslav can run to 140kph un-governed where the max you will get out of a m113 is 70kph.
an aslav in 1990 was booked by NSW police for doing 130kph in an 100kph zone. like jets land combat rule you are either big strong and slow or fast manourable. speed is life.

The project Bushranger "Perentie" IMV's were the interim vehicle. The Bushranger project was designed to provide sufficient vehicles to enable a "motorised" brigade formation to be raised and sustained.

Unfortunately "hardening and networking 1 Brigade" has put paid to the original idea, unless additional vehicles are bought and ADF and Government seem in no hurry to do this...

[FutureTank]

There was even a comedy made about the Bradley development! :onfloorl:
Greg

[FutureTank]

Was interesting to read this thread, but noted some interesting 'white spots' and was curious what the thoughts are on the following:

1. Defence projects are first and foremost political decisions. Sure the Forces get their say, but in the case of Land400 the decision will be highly political because the Federal government was/is (as far as I'm aware) on having the design built in Australia (substantially, meaning about 80% of work).

2. Australian Army has a 'history' with design of armoured vehicles, starting with the very first proposed tank which was the model for the actual Royal Navy design. In fact this has been a consistent trend in Australia - no shortage of clever and creative people who produce World-leading ideas, only to be left hanging while the Australian Government opts for something from elsewhere for rarely understood reasons. M113 is a case in point. Does anyone doubt that Australia could not produce an APC in the 60s which is at least equal to if not better then the M113?

3. Australian Army serves in a unique strategic environment. It is complicated by geography, lack of strong alliance ties with other states in the region, rising cost of fuel (which allows deployment), and its size relative to that of its opponents in possible areas of deployment.
These unique factors suggest that ADF's needs are better served by IFV designs used for other forces in similar situation. As it happens there are only two such forces in the World (global reach, covering all possible contingencies, limited budget, small operational force, limited resources). These are the USMC and the Russian Airborne forces. The reason these are mentioned together is because they are the only troops that use IFV designs specific to their deployment doctrine.

4. The Australian Army is in the process of embracing amphibious warfare as part of its deployment doctrine. This may be surprising since the Australian Army has always gone to war with the help of the Navy, but there you go, never too late to admit the obvious. However this does not include actual beach assaults in the way the USMC still views true amphibious operations. Of course technically speaking 'amphibious' assault would require the assaulting force to approach landing zone using vehicles in fully submersed mode (the turret down equivalent of the ground surface operations).

5. Why are wheeled IFVs so popular? Actually this is a recent trend in the West European and US designs because the Soviet Union had, and Russia continues to produce wheeled APCs and IFVs. In fact Soviet Naval Infantry used wheeled APCs since the 60s. The answer is fairly simple, fuel. Since the dissolution of the USSR, and the mess in Kuwait, not to mention Venezuela, fuel prices have grown consistently. The fuel prices are not helped by the economic growth in China and India. This constant cost to operating AFVs is likely to escalate constantly in future. Wheeled AFVs get better fuel economy, which Soviet Army found out decades ago because their own economy rebuilding after WW2 was unable to support a fully mechanised Army. While fuel price was kept low artificially in the USSR, its scarcity could not be artificially increased for wartime planning, so Soviet generals had to stick to wheeled APCs and adjust their doctrine accordingly.

6. IFVs are designed to be operated by their crews while bringing their dismounted personnel to do battle. After all the discussion on the engines, armour and weapons are finished, what still needs to be added to the IFV design are the human operators and passengers. Australian Army has a scarcity of these. This is only in part due to their volunteer and therefore professional recruitment. Australia as a whole has a shortfall in labour supply and therefore conscription is out of the question because one can not conscript the very labour who’s taxes pay for deployments. This is the problem faced by Israel. The problem also forces the Army to design its doctrine and use systems that seek to increase survival of personnel to higher levels then expected in most other armed forces. However these survival enhancements need not be greater amounts of armour that evolve designs from IFVs into light tanks. Keeping designs simple and integrating design and doctrine also allows engineers to keep production and maintenance costs down without sacrificing survivability. This also means that design development phases are short, and there is a lesser chance of sub-system sophistication slowing down development of the whole design.

7. Lastly, if Australia is going to spend 1.5bn on designing and producing its own IFV, it is likely that this needs to be closely coordinated with the operators of the IFV’s primary means of deliver, the RAAN. The current project of procuring two large helicopter carriers in Europe therefore needs to be linked to that of LAND400, and the corresponding development of Amphibious Warfare Doctrine as a joint activity. This is likely to save much money for both services, and lead to a decision that God forbid the ships be designed and built in Australia to suit our unique needs.

Cheers
Greg

[rossfrb_1]

Was interesting to read this thread, but noted some interesting 'white spots' and was curious what the thoughts are on the following:

[snip]
2. Australian Army has a 'history' with design of armoured vehicles, starting with the very first proposed tank which was the model for the actual Royal Navy design. In fact this has been a consistent trend in Australia - no shortage of clever and creative people who produce World-leading ideas, only to be left hanging while the Australian Government opts for something from elsewhere for rarely understood reasons. M113 is a case in point. Does anyone doubt that Australia could not produce an APC in the 60s which is at least equal to if not better then the M113?
[snip]

7. Lastly, if Australia is going to spend 1.5bn on designing and producing its own IFV, it is likely that this needs to be closely coordinated with the operators of the IFV’s primary means of deliver, the RAAN. The current project of procuring two large helicopter carriers in Europe therefore needs to be linked to that of LAND400, and the corresponding development of Amphibious Warfare Doctrine as a joint activity. This is likely to save much money for both services, and lead to a decision that God forbid the ships be designed and built in Australia to suit our unique needs.

Cheers
Greg

I doubt very much that Oz will ever go it alone with an indigenous IFV design.
The 'market' seems to be full of competing vehicles. US Bradley, Swedish CV-90, Korean NIFV, German Puma................
Oz may build or assemble vehicles locally if it were to acquire something in the future. But I think the ADF is too risk averse to funding something new from scratch.
Interestingly, I once heard someone mention that Australia (presumably DSTO) had designed an APC back in the late seventies - early eighties(??) Apparently a very good, but expensive design. Don't know if it ever got off the drawing board. If anyone has any details, I'd like to know.

cheers
rb

[FutureTank]

Australia (presumably DSTO) had designed an APC back in the late seventies - early eighties(??) Apparently a very good, but expensive design. Don't know if it ever got off the drawing board. If anyone has any details, I'd like to know.

Project Waler - Don't know much about it, but it seems to me it never got past design stage

It seems to me the IFVs designed elsewhere do not reflect unique needs of the ADF in general or the Australian Infantry Corps in particular.

[Simon9]

Project Waler - Don't know much about it, but it seems to me it never got past design stage

It seems to me the IFVs designed elsewhere do not reflect unique needs of the ADF in general or the Australian Infantry Corps in particular.

Same seems to go for IMVs as well, hence the Bushmaster. Perhaps the success of that project will encourage the Australian government to develop their own IFV too.

[Aussie Digger]

Project Waler - Don't know much about it, but it seems to me it never got past design stage

It seems to me the IFVs designed elsewhere do not reflect unique needs of the ADF in general or the Australian Infantry Corps in particular.

There was also a program prior to ASLAV being bought, to convert M113's from a tracked APC into a wheeled armoured recon vehicle. Thank GOD this ridiculous idea was cancelled in favour of an off the shelf wheeled vehicle, that has subsequently provided STERLING service.

Why can't the powers that be, see that THIS is the best way for relatively simple military capabilities?

There are a plethora of infantry fighting vehicles and APC's on the world market. I REFUSE to believe that they are all un-suitable for our "unique" requirements, whatever they may be...

[FutureTank]

I don't see why it shouldn't.

Australian industries are leaders in metals and materials research, electronic and software design, and we can also build engines.

It seems to me there is a degree of ability in designing weapon systems.

There is access to knowledge from US and UK.

The issue is that AIC operates under unique logistic constraints of long domestic and international distances couple to relatively small lift capability.

Also mission parameters of AIC deployments are fairly varied as history goes, requiring a versatile design that can accomodate many and varied tasks from conventional mechanised battle to humanitarian relief.

There is not one IFV on the market that can cater for all these design constraints.

[FutureTank]

Besides this, we have a small force that, if participating in the more intense of combat environments, can hold its own and defeat the enemy in the worst case scenario over the next 40 years (from 2015)

Most other IFVs are designed for large and complex forces with distinctly local tactical and operational needs in strategically limited environments.

Only French, UK and US IFVs have been deployed outside of their national territory, so this narrows the field. However these designs are 20 years old, and quite expensive.

[Aussie Digger]

I don't see why it shouldn't.

Australian industries are leaders in metals and materials research, electronic and software design, and we can also build engines.

It seems to me there is a degree of ability in designing weapon systems.

There is access to knowledge from US and UK.

The issue is that AIC operates under unique logistic constraints of long domestic and international distances couple to relatively small lift capability.

Also mission parameters of AIC deployments are fairly varied as history goes, requiring a versatile design that can accomodate many and varied tasks from conventional mechanised battle to humanitarian relief.

There is not one IFV on the market that can cater for all these design constraints.

Rubbish. There are plenty of IFV's that offer similar but enhanced capabilities over and above that the M113AS3/4 can provide. The M113AS3/4 is NOT developing advanced capabilities that modern IFV's offer ONLY because it is subject to a cost capped budget. If the budget were not being enforced by government, Army would have the vehicle equipped with a decent turret, offering good firepower, a modern fire control system, a better surveillance capability and FAR better armoured protection.

Apparently the anti-armour threat our land forces face is so great as to warrant the heavily armoured M1A1 tanks, but an APC that is NOT intended to provide protection from such weapons is adequate to protect our precious infantry? Please.

Lack of funding is the ONLY reason Army is not yet getting a modern IFV, along the lines of the vehicles operated by the US/UK and most NATO nations. Try reading the ADF Journal some time. Even RAN personnel have written articles arguing for such a capability. RAAC regards the acquisition of such as an absolute prerequisite to future operations, hence LAND 400...

[rossfrb_1]

Project Waler - Don't know much about it, but it seems to me it never got past design stage

It seems to me the IFVs designed elsewhere do not reflect unique needs of the ADF in general or the Australian Infantry Corps in particular.

thanks, this is what a quick and dirty google found
the most informative item was from another forum, where someone had posted some info
http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=11114&st=60&p=201554&#entry201554

"Although discussion of an Australian built replacement light armoured vehicle went back as faras 1973, it wasn't until October 1980 than Australian Army Staff Target was released 'for the Australian Army to replace its fleet of light armoured fighting vehicles in the mid 1990's.

The Project was named 'Waler' after the Australian cavalry horses supplied to British and Indian Cavalry units and later Australian Light Horse Regiment. The horse breed originated in the New South Wales, hence the name Waler. The project was to proceed in a number of stages, with a Request for Tender for the Target Study to be called in mid-1981, the Target Study to commence in mid-1981, leading up to the development and production phase beginning in 1986, with an in service date of 1995.

The project called for Australian industry participation as prime contractors, with the main AFV technology base coming from overseas via teaming arrangements.

The vehicle options were left open, with both wheeled and tracked alternatives being acceptable. The quantity of vehicles to be procured was left open but in mid 1981, the project coordinator, Lieutenant Colonel Bernie Sullivan stated the size of the Waler fleet was to be 'somewhere between 500 and 1000 vehicles'. He also described Project Waler as 'the biggest and most ambitious armoured vehicle project ever attempted by Australian Army'. By this time, 31 companies had registered interest as prime contractors. When tenders closed for the Target Study phase in February 1982, 14 had been submitted. In July 1982, three companies were chosen for the Target Study phase:

* EASAMS Ltd of Sydney - teamed with EASAMS and Vickers Defence Systems of the United Kingdom.

* Evans Deakin Industries Ltd. of Brisbane - teamed with SOFMA and GIAT of France.

* Goninan and Co. of Newcastle - teamed with FMC of the United States of America.

The three companies each produced four options, wheeled and tracked, for selection by the army of two concepts of each to proceed further. The study also showed that development and production in Australia was possible."


cheers
rb

[FutureTank]

Aussie Digger

It seems to me I was misunderstood.

I do not regard M113 upgrade as producing an IFV, but only a better APC.

I also think that since infantry is by far the primary Arm of the ADF, it should receive as much protection (particularly in absence of national service) as Armour Corps.

I do know about the budget restraints and the far from happy outcomes expressed in this regard through correspondence with M113AS3/4 project participant, hence suggestion that cost is a serious impediment to procurement where it includes licence fees, component shipping, external labour, etc.

[Aussie Digger]

Aussie Digger

It seems to me I was misunderstood.

I do not regard M113 upgrade as producing an IFV, but only a better APC.

I also think that since infantry is by far the primary Arm of the ADF, it should receive as much protection (particularly in absence of national service) as Armour Corps.

I do know about the budget restraints and the far from happy outcomes expressed in this regard through correspondence with M113AS3/4 project participant, hence suggestion that cost is a serious impediment to procurement where it includes licence fees, component shipping, external labour, etc.

I have no doubt, but for a relatively small additional investment and one that could ALMOST be funded from "project managers" personal allotments (as DMO describes it) the M113AS3/4 could be armed with a decent weapon system, the primary issue I and apparently MANY within RAAC have with the vehicle.

The Army Journal, ADF Journal's, as well as most civilian defence magazines (not to mention ANAO) are replete with almost universal "hatred" for this particular project AND it's eventual outcome, if anything.

The M113 upgrade program commenced in the mid 90's. It will not be until 2007 that we see an operational vehicle, maybe later. IF the vehicle can complete the entire series of tests again, once the brake issues are sorted. The time has come IMHO, to abandon it and undertake a rapid acquisition of a MOTS IFV, before our forces become involved in a SERIOUS ground war somewhere (by accident probably, given our Governments "concern" for casualties) and suffer the consequences of this debacle...

[FutureTank]

We seem to be in complete agreement, but I am neither the Minister, nor even the project manager :(

Hence why I am trying to generate debate NOW over spending of 1.5 BILLION in 8 years time.

I do think that the upgrade of M113 has been a good expereince in terms of the AFV design, development and evaluation. It is much better then to start IFV design from scratch. Same principle as 'never buy a teenager a new car'.

By the way the original Project capability officer was 2 Cav commanding officer who's name escapes me and he did the whole doctrine development as I recall before deploying to Iraq. There was an article in Army Magazine last year I think.

[Aussie Digger]

We seem to be in complete agreement, but I am neither the Minister, nor even the project manager :(

Hence why I am trying to generate debate NOW over spending of 1.5 BILLION in 8 years time.

I do think that the upgrade of M113 has been a good expereince in terms of the AFV design, development and evaluation. It is much better then to start IFV design from scratch. Same principle as 'never buy a teenager a new car'.

By the way the original Project capability officer was 2 Cav commanding officer who's name escapes me and he did the whole doctrine development as I recall before deploying to Iraq. There was an article in Army Magazine last year I think.

And the original design was an incremental upgrade program, to fix various immediate issues and give us SOMETHING more capable than what we had in Vietnam, (which we still don't). M113AS2 would have been the first step.

That got overturned by the White Paper 2000 into this new beast which is simply a disgrace. The upgrade program we have is based on a German one, which has been implement on hundreds of vehicles successfully and designed by a company called FFG I believe, but "modified" to our supposed "unique" requirements (ie: cost) and that is where the trouble started and has yet to recover...

[FutureTank]

I think the original disgrace was that an APC was not designed and built in Australia in the 60s.
I mean the M113 was just a correction of the M75, both being alluminium boxes with engines! Even the .5 cal was an afterthought placing the gunner in exposed mount 6 feet above the ground! That is the best way to make it to 6 feet under!

[wallup]

AD,

I worked on this program for several years, but was sacked for speaking out. What do you want to know?

Wallup

[Aussie Digger]

AD,

I worked on this program for several years, but was sacked for speaking out. What do you want to know?

Wallup

Why did they opt for that stupid Tenix turret when an "off the shelf" RWS could have been had cheaply and offered more capability plus internal space inside the vehicle?

Why can't Tenix fix a simple braking problem?

Why can't Tenix fix a simple cooling problem?

Why can't Tenix run a simple upgrade program, that's already been done succesfully hundreds, if not thousands of times already on the SAME vehicle?

Is it true there is an "applique" armour package for the M113AS3/4 over and above that which the base vehicle will have? If so, can you describe it's levels of ballistic tolerance (without going to anything classified)?

When is this vehicle ever going to be ready?

Feel free to answer what you will...

[rickshaw]

Interestingly, I also worked on the project indirectly, as a contractor. I believe a lot of the answers to your questions are because of the changing requirements of the end user. The Army kept laying on bells and whistles, wanting more and more capability. What started out as a relatively simple upgrade quickly moved into an expensive and more complete one. Tenix walked into it and instead of saying, "well this is going to double the cost," said, "yeah, OK, we can do that..."

[Aussie Digger]

Interestingly, I also worked on the project indirectly, as a contractor. I believe a lot of the answers to your questions are because of the changing requirements of the end user. The Army kept laying on bells and whistles, wanting more and more capability. What started out as a relatively simple upgrade quickly moved into an expensive and more complete one. Tenix walked into it and instead of saying, "well this is going to double the cost," said, "yeah, OK, we can do that..."

The design requirement hasn't changed since 2000 and still the Tenix designed POS keeps failing it's operational testing.

The engine was over-heating, so they de-rated it. It kept overheating so they increased cooling capacity. Last I heard, they still haven't solved the problem and the vehicle no longer has the mobility improvement over the A1 variant, thanks to the engines lower power.

Similar problems with the brakes. What Tenix SHOULD have said was, "what you require cannot be achieved with this vehicle" except they would have lost the contract.

A firepower improvement? The M2 "quick change barrel" guns were bought in the mid 90's for the A2 upgrade variant that was cancelled and have been fitted to both M113A1 and ASLAV since before ET in 1999. Stating that the gunis "new" is a blatant falsehood. The ONLY advantage and "new capability" the M113AS3 will have over the M113A1 is a night sight and electric turret drive.

Despite the money going into this vehicle, it's going to have 1 less weapon system, no stabilised weapon (fire on the move) capacity, no thermal imager capacity and no automatic range finding capacity.

All capabilities the M113 would have, plus increased internal volume and commonality with the Bushmaster or ASLAV fleets if either CROWS or Kongsberg "Protector" RWS mounts were chosen. Plus it would remove an element of risk as the "Tenix designed" turret has not been free from issue, either I understand, though I claim no particular knowledge in that area...

[icelord]

looks like someones been burnt by Tenix before...
So what is the expected time to start full upgrades, will they be ready for then new battalions or even operational by that time?

[Aussie Digger]

looks like someones been burnt by Tenix before...
So what is the expected time to start full upgrades, will they be ready for then new battalions or even operational by that time?

Not personally, I'm just sick to death of them getting contract after contract and f*cking it up... ADI's (another defective item) is just as bad...

God knows when tor if they'll be ready, but the "new" timetable is a company group by December 2007.

[knightrider4]

Surely its going to get to a stage where they say enough is enough and sh_t can the whole project. ADBR had an article where some in the ADF want to pursue an IFV now although it might impact negatively on LAND 400 funding.

[The_Jet]

Surely its going to get to a stage where they say enough is enough and sh_t can the whole project. ADBR had an article where some in the ADF want to pursue an IFV now although it might impact negatively on LAND 400 funding.

How much Funding was set aside for LAND 400 does anyone know?

[knightrider4]

About a billion could be wrong though.

[riksavage]

The upgraded UK FV430’s (very similar to M113’S) were delivered under an urgent operational requirement (UOR) in a relatively short time-frame. The upgrade included a new engine, transmission, additional armour and air conditioning. Apparently the vehicles have been well received in Iraq.

I can’t understand why the Aussies don’t take a similar fast-track approach to improve current APC stocks until a new system is identified? There appears to be a huge amount of procrastinating!

Out of interest does the Aus Government have a UOR fast-track system where funds are allocated above and beyond the allocated defence budget to support urgent operational requirements? The UK has just ordered Predator Bs under the UOR process, the Bs are scheduled for deployment third quarter of 2007 in Afghanistan.

[Tasman]

How much Funding was set aside for LAND 400 does anyone know?

$1 - 1.5 Bn.

http://www.defence.gov.au/capability/LAND400/

Cheers

[icelord]

I can’t understand why the Aussies don’t take a similar fast-track approach to improve current APC stocks until a new system is identified? There appears to be a huge amount of procrastinating!

Out of interest does the Aus Government have a UOR fast-track system where funds are allocated above and beyond the allocated defence budget to support urgent operational requirements? The UK has just ordered Predator Bs under the UOR process, the Bs are scheduled for deployment third quarter of 2007 in Afghanistan.

Doubt it, its seems kinda hard to get anything rushed through, the fastest would be the C-17, which didn't even go to tender, at least the Govt. realised they had a limited window of oppurtunity to get a requirment that was needed long ago, something discovered after Timor the first time round.
You do have to wonder why some things take way to long, but with new proposals a tender is required to select from 2 or more to maintain some competition, this allows cheaper equipment,
Murpheys law on war"always remember your gun was made by the lowest bidder"
If a requirment is urgent then with this govt. it is possible for the Chief of defence to go directly to the PM, much in the way as Cosgrove did when it came to Javelins for Iraq, which proved effective, but if the other guy wins:shudder then it'll either take 2 years for such power to happen or not at all.

[Aussie Digger]

The upgraded UK FV430’s (very similar to M113’S) were delivered under an urgent operational requirement (UOR) in a relatively short time-frame. The upgrade included a new engine, transmission, additional armour and air conditioning. Apparently the vehicles have been well received in Iraq.

I can’t understand why the Aussies don’t take a similar fast-track approach to improve current APC stocks until a new system is identified? There appears to be a huge amount of procrastinating!

Out of interest does the Aus Government have a UOR fast-track system where funds are allocated above and beyond the allocated defence budget to support urgent operational requirements? The UK has just ordered Predator Bs under the UOR process, the Bs are scheduled for deployment third quarter of 2007 in Afghanistan.

No idea, Army DID change it's requirements several times, but the capability requirement was locked in placed under the Year 2000 issued White Paper and funding provided.

Why we are here, 7 YEARS later with Tenix still unable to provide a vehicle which passes testing should be subject of an inquiry itself. Australian Defence industry bleats about contracts going overseas and then "delivers" rubbish like this.

It's not as if Tenix even designed the upgrade itself. The upgraded vehicle design is based on a similar M113 upgrade, German company: FFG, has performed ANY number of times and our upgrade is hardly "pushing the technological envelope" of armoured vehicle technology...

Government DOES have the ability to fast track defence acquisitions, Javelin anti-armour weapons, ASLAV and Chinook CH-47D upgrades are some of the most obvious and successful acquisitions.

Why on Earth it can't manage such a simple upgrade and why Tenix can't deliver it, is beyond me...

Seems

[rossfrb_1]

No idea, Army DID change it's requirements several times, but the capability requirement was locked in placed under the Year 2000 issued White Paper and funding provided.

Why we are here, 7 YEARS later with Tenix still unable to provide a vehicle which passes testing should be subject of an inquiry itself. Australian Defence industry bleats about contracts going overseas and then "delivers" rubbish like this.

It's not as if Tenix even designed the upgrade itself. The upgraded vehicle design is based on a similar M113 upgrade, German company: FFG, has performed ANY number of times and our upgrade is hardly "pushing the technological envelope" of armoured vehicle technology...

Government DOES have the ability to fast track defence acquisitions, Javelin anti-armour weapons, ASLAV and Chinook CH-47D upgrades are some of the most obvious and successful acquisitions.

Why on Earth it can't manage such a simple upgrade and why Tenix can't deliver it, is beyond me...

Seems

And that this is one of those projects that has by and large managed to slip under the media's (and hence the public's) radar I'm guessing defmin Nelson isn't feeling as much pressure to do something definitive anytime soon.
Maybe it's just me, but it seems that once the media got hold of, and ran with, the Seasprite and Air6000 stories the government was roused to address those issues.
With a federal election later this year, I wonder if some of those 'defense' journalists who write for the Australian et al started running with the Land 106/400 story, especially if it was sexed up as a 'debacle endangering the lives of our brave troops' or somesuch, it might just see something similar happen.



rb

[Aussie Digger]

And that this is one of those projects that has by and large managed to slip under the media's (and hence the public's) radar I'm guessing defmin Nelson isn't feeling as much pressure to do something definitive anytime soon.
Maybe it's just me, but it seems that once the media got hold of, and ran with, the Seasprite and Air6000 stories the government was roused to address those issues.
With a federal election later this year, I wonder if some of those 'defense' journalists who write for the Australian et al started running with the Land 106/400 story, especially if it was sexed up as a 'debacle endangering the lives of our brave troops' or somesuch, it might just see something similar happen.



rb

True, it's every bit as buggered up and offers even MORE chance for Australian servicemen and women to be killed or injured due to inadequate equipment than Seasprite and most definitely than the Super Hornet, but it hardly gets the headlines does it?

There was a bit of controversy in mid - 2006 about the delays (the first company group was supposed to be in-service by December 2006) but Dr Stephen GUMLEY of DMO said, "don't worry about it, everything's fine".

Well here we are nearly in mid 2007 and the vehicle still has not passed it's testing phase, still doesn't offer the capability that Army requires ANYWAY and absolutely no news about it, positively or otherwise. The fact that there was NO M113 display at Landdef 07 was hardly encouraging either, when EVERY other in-service armoured vehicle was there... :(

Personally, given DMO's "problems" with legacy projects, I'm afraid no news can only seem to equal one thing: "bad news"...

[Whiskyjack]

True, it's every bit as buggered up and offers even MORE chance for Australian servicemen and women to be killed or injured due to inadequate equipment than Seasprite and most definitely than the Super Hornet, but it hardly gets the headlines does it?

There was a bit of controversy in mid - 2006 about the delays (the first company group was supposed to be in-service by December 2006) but Dr Stephen GUMLEY of DMO said, "don't worry about it, everything's fine".

Well here we are nearly in mid 2007 and the vehicle still has not passed it's testing phase, still doesn't offer the capability that Army requires ANYWAY and absolutely no news about it, positively or otherwise. The fact that there was NO M113 display at Landdef 07 was hardly encouraging either, when EVERY other in-service armoured vehicle was there... :(

Personally, given DMO's "problems" with legacy projects, I'm afraid no news can only seem to equal one thing: "bad news"...

Given the operations in A-stan and Iraq, is it concievable that the upgrade is now so far out of date that the Army is looking to get out of it entirely?

By this I mean that the operational reality and experiances over the last 4 years has made the M113 upgrade redundant in many ways IMHO.

[Aussie Digger]

Given the operations in A-stan and Iraq, is it concievable that the upgrade is now so far out of date that the Army is looking to get out of it entirely?

By this I mean that the operational reality and experiances over the last 4 years has made the M113 upgrade redundant in many ways IMHO.

I agree and from a cursory read of back issues of Army Journal (til it was considered "restricted" and only accessable through DRN) so do MANY high ranking officers in RAAC and RAINF.

Of course, who are the Army to what they want? DMO and Politicians know MUCH better...

[MARKMILES77]

AussieDigger said:

A firepower improvement? The M2 "quick change barrel" guns were bought in the mid 90's for the A2 upgrade variant that was cancelled and have been fitted to both M113A1 and ASLAV since before ET in 1999. Stating that the gunis "new" is a blatant falsehood. The ONLY advantage and "new capability" the M113AS3 will have over the M113A1 is a night sight and electric turret drive.

Despite the money going into this vehicle, it's going to have 1 less weapon system, no stabilised weapon (fire on the move) capacity, no thermal imager capacity and no automatic range finding capacity.

All capabilities the M113 would have, plus increased internal volume and commonality with the Bushmaster or ASLAV fleets if either CROWS or Kongsberg "Protector" RWS mounts were chosen. Plus it would remove an element of risk as the "Tenix designed" turret has not been free from issue, either I understand, though I claim no particular knowledge in that area...

In IRONSIDES, the annual magazine of the Royal Australian Armoured Corp, the issue of turrets for the M113AS4 was specifically mentioned.
It was claimed that turret options, including RWSs were examined but that these were felt to be unsuitable for Australia's requirements.

Can't for the life of me understand why but there you go!

If the Tenix turret is retained and the upgrade of the M113s goes ahead, I would like to see each Mechanised Platoon have one M113AS4 equipped with the 25mm turret from the ASLAV.

[Whiskyjack]

I agree and from a cursory read of back issues of Army Journal (til it was considered "restricted" and only accessable through DRN) so do MANY high ranking officers in RAAC and RAINF.

Of course, who are the Army to what they want? DMO and Politicians know MUCH better...

It does get kind of difficult these days I guess, you need to be light enough to operate in the Pacific (where things like Jungle can resrict the use of armoured vehicles), but medium enough to operate in A-stan and Iraq type environments (where every vehicle needs protection and mobility), but also heavy enough to turn up to a high intensity conflict and feel you can operate with the US/UK and keep your troops as safe as possible.

Then add logistics, transport, training (three different doctrines).

Easy really.:rolleyes:

[Tasman]

It's interesting that Tenix's website still states that the first squadron of upgraded M113s will be operational in 2006!

http://www.tenix.com/Main.asp?ID=437

REALLY?


Cheers


PS: I think the company did OK with the Anzac frigate project. Perhaps they should concentrate on shipbuilding!

[Smythstar]

In the 90s the Dutch were desperately trying to sell 600 of their YPR-765 PRI AIVFs armed with 25mm guns for rock bottom prices, in hind sight that might have been a good option.
We would still be in the same boat we are in now and they are nearly as whoefully armoured as the buckets but they would see us through to Land 400 a lot more credibly.
Id like to see Land 400 start now or soon and just stop throwing good money after bad with incompetent defense contractors.
I dont know how many CV90s or Pumas the 500 mil would have bought but I think we would have been better off doing that.

[Aussie Digger]

In IRONSIDES, the annual magazine of the Royal Australian Armoured Corp, the issue of turrets for the M113AS4 was specifically mentioned.
It was claimed that turret options, including RWSs were examined but that these were felt to be unsuitable for Australia's requirements.

Can't for the life of me understand why but there you go!

If the Tenix turret is retained and the upgrade of the M113s goes ahead, I would like to see each Mechanised Platoon have one M113AS4 equipped with the 25mm turret from the ASLAV.

Aha. So RWS's are suitable enough for Bushmaster and ASLAV-PC and suitable enough for multiple Army's around the world, but not for 1 Brigade's M113's eh?

What's not suitable then? The stabilised weapon system, automatic range finder, thermal imager, the ability to integrate a Javelin ATGW system, the ability to adopt multiple weapons types on the same turret, the ability to INCREASE "ready round" ammunition supply and the ability to increase the internal volume of the vehicle, because of no hull penetration?

Yes, when I think about it, I really can see why the Tenix turret is MUCH more suitable... :confused:

Of course it can't be that the weapon has to be reloaded "outside" the armour, because of course by Tenix's admissoin, the 12.7mm QCB heavy machine gun is the "gun that never stops" so even THAT can't be the issue.
What exactly is Australia's requirement then? Spend upwards fof 15 years in development and $500m in budget to obtain a fleet of vehicles with specfications that were obsolete before the upgrade even began?

I think someone needs to have a look at the specifications writers...

[MARKMILES77]

Aussie Digger:

What's not suitable then?

Perhaps the price?
Although even that is hard too believe!

[MARKMILES77]

Blueorchid said:


I hope we never see Brads in Aussie service, because that would mean that we would not see a modern IFV in our service post 2010.


BAE systems are already working on an advanced Bradley (an M2A4 if you like) which will keep the Bradley as one of the most advanced IFVs beyond 2030. (The US will still have them as front-line vehicles in 2030.) Note the new External RWS and external fuel tanks, which increases the internal volume and means the Bradley A4 would carry 9 Infantry soldiers. Although the turret looks similiar it is remotely operated.


(Source: BAE Systems; issued Oct. 6, 2006)

WASHINGTON --- BAE Systems will feature its Bradley Technology Demonstrator for the first time starting Monday, Oct. 9 at the largest industry event showcasing technologies and capabilities for the U.S. Army.


The BAE Systems Bradley Technology Demonstrator (TD), on display at the Association of the U.S. Army's Annual Meeting & Exhibition in Washington, DC on Oct. 9-11, incorporates advanced systems and approaches to demonstrate core technologies and capabilities. The company supports the overall capabilities of the Army's modular Heavy Brigade Combat Teams (HBCTs), and helps ensure current force compatibility with Future Combat Systems (FCS) - all designed to support the future soldier.

"BAE Systems is supporting the Army's efforts to define requirements for its current force combat systems as it evolves to meet future threats, by leveraging the Army's broad investments in advanced technologies," said Andy Hove, BAE Systems' director of Bradley Combat Systems. "The company's development on the Bradley TD reduces future risk by applying and evaluating Army-developed enhancements on existing current force platforms."

The Bradley TD illustrates the impact of integrating a broad range of technologies currently under development in the Army Technology base and across current acquisition programs.

Bradley TD is BAE Systems' look at managing the Bradley Combat System into the future, leveraging the extensive CMMI Level 5 certified software development and systems integration expertise of the BAE Systems design team. The team's focus will be on demonstrating technologies and capabilities that can ensure the Bradley continues to deliver critical capabilities to the Army and the HBCTs as the units fight alongside FCS BCTs.

The vehicle illustrates enhanced lethality, survivability through situational awareness, enhanced mobility, sustainability, networkability, plus enhanced mission role packages for Infantry, Cavalry, Fire Support, Engineer and Battle Command.

Bradley TD as demonstrated at AUSA features:

- Upgunned to 30/40MM Mk 44 Cannon (based on the current Bradley turret structure)
- Common Missile Launcher (mock-up)
- Commanders Light Automatic Weapon (integrated to CIV)
- Remote Turret operation (Driver, Gunner, Commander, plus 9-man squad)
- Shock Absorbing Suspended Seating
- Panoramic Vision
- Double-pin Track
- Conventional Auxiliary Power Unit
- Embedded Diagnostics/On-Vehicle Level 1 IETM
- Embedded Training across the live, virtual and constructive domain
- Environmental Control
- FCS Spin Out One Mock-up
- Wireless Intercom
- Improved Fire Suppression
- External Fuel Tanks
- Ceramic Composite Armor mock-up



There is a photo here:
http://mms.businesswire.com/bwapps/mediaserver/ViewMedia?mgid=78961&vid=5



BAE Systems is already keen to sell Bradleys to Australia:

From Australian Defence Magazine

With the arrival in Australia of the first of the Army's M1A1 Abrams MBTs, BAE systems in the USA believes there could be an emerging requirement for an Infantry Fighting Vehicle such as the M2 Bradley, which was designed to work alongside the Abrams in both conventional and counter-insurgency operations.
While the ADF has not stated it requires such a vehicle, BAE Systems has access to around 800 Bradleys in the US Army's so-called Long Stock. These are vehicles which are excess to US Army needs, mostly through being replaced by new-build M2A3 versions , which will remain in production right through to 2011.
The US Army and BAE Systems have a remanufacturing program under way designed to return older Bradleys to a zero hour, zero miles condition, much like the Australian Army's Abrams. The re-lifed vehicles would be built to M2 ODS configuration, the equivalent of M2A2 standard. The M2A2 matches the AIM configuration of the Army's new Abrams tanks, except for the digitisation architecture, ADM was told.
However the company can also provide different variants to suit specific Australian needs, if required, including a turretless variant equipped with a CRWS remote weapon station and a crew of eight infantrymen.


Australia could buy these now and instead of LAND 400, could use the money to upgrade the Bradleys to the M2A4 version in say the 2015+ timeframe. This would give Australia a proper IFV right now, rather than an M113 APC, with the option of upgrading to the latest Bradley standard in the future.

[rickshaw]

Aha. So RWS's are suitable enough for Bushmaster and ASLAV-PC and suitable enough for multiple Army's around the world, but not for 1 Brigade's M113's eh?

What's not suitable then? The stabilised weapon system, automatic range finder, thermal imager, the ability to integrate a Javelin ATGW system, the ability to adopt multiple weapons types on the same turret, the ability to INCREASE "ready round" ammunition supply and the ability to increase the internal volume of the vehicle, because of no hull penetration?

Yes, when I think about it, I really can see why the Tenix turret is MUCH more suitable... :confused:

Of course it can't be that the weapon has to be reloaded "outside" the armour, because of course by Tenix's admissoin, the 12.7mm QCB heavy machine gun is the "gun that never stops" so even THAT can't be the issue.
What exactly is Australia's requirement then? Spend upwards fof 15 years in development and $500m in budget to obtain a fleet of vehicles with specfications that were obsolete before the upgrade even began?

I think someone needs to have a look at the specifications writers...

What people appear to be missing is that when the contract was let, the decision was deliberately taken not to upgrade the turret to a large calibre weapon, as it was felt that such a weapon was not required for the Army's primary area of operations - the SW Pacific/Oceania. What was required was an improved night-vision capability, both for survelliance and for the ability to hit targets at night, something which had been proven in Gulf War I as a necessary capability. They didn't need a 20mm or larger calibre but they did want to hit what they were aiming at. As to why a RWS wasn't selected was because they were considered too expensive and weren't yet fashionable, nor required for the primary AO.

Seven years later, things have changed. Army kept changing its requirements, more armour, different fuel tankage, additional versions, etc. They then found the costs had blown out, primarily because the upgrade path chosen - the addition of an extra hull section and roadwheel station had revealed how badly fatigued the hulls were. The company I worked for had won the contract for the CNC milling machine for the test production system. As part of that I was the IT support for the system and often called in for software changes, etc., which allowed me to examine several hulls while they were being rebuilt. Defence then decided they weren't going to shell over the money to allow Tenix to move from a single sided machine to a duel sided machine which would have allowed them to machine both sides at once. This has, of course resulted in a considerable slow down in the rate of manufacture, with attendent increases in costs.

Tenix could have kept the costs down - either by using two hulls to make one APC or even purchasing new hulls for each APC from the US or even simply purchasing complete M113a3s from the US.

[Aussie Digger]

What people appear to be missing is that when the contract was let, the decision was deliberately taken not to upgrade the turret to a large calibre weapon, as it was felt that such a weapon was not required for the Army's primary area of operations - the SW Pacific/Oceania. What was required was an improved night-vision capability, both for survelliance and for the ability to hit targets at night, something which had been proven in Gulf War I as a necessary capability. They didn't need a 20mm or larger calibre but they did want to hit what they were aiming at. As to why a RWS wasn't selected was because they were considered too expensive and weren't yet fashionable, nor required for the primary AO.

Seven years later, things have changed. Army kept changing its requirements, more armour, different fuel tankage, additional versions, etc. They then found the costs had blown out, primarily because the upgrade path chosen - the addition of an extra hull section and roadwheel station had revealed how badly fatigued the hulls were. The company I worked for had won the contract for the CNC milling machine for the test production system. As part of that I was the IT support for the system and often called in for software changes, etc., which allowed me to examine several hulls while they were being rebuilt. Defence then decided they weren't going to shell over the money to allow Tenix to move from a single sided machine to a duel sided machine which would have allowed them to machine both sides at once. This has, of course resulted in a considerable slow down in the rate of manufacture, with attendent increases in costs.

Tenix could have kept the costs down - either by using two hulls to make one APC or even purchasing new hulls for each APC from the US or even simply purchasing complete M113a3s from the US.

That's fine, but it's patently inadequate in this modern "post 9/11" age. Very capable RWS systems are available off the shelf, very cheaply and offer us the flexibility to use a particular weapon system that suits a particular theatre, it would also free up room internally and offer an increased "all weather" fighting capability, which is want Army really needs not simply night fighting capacity.

The Protector RWS acquisition, acquired 59x RWS systems for $14m. Given we are only acquiring 170 "PC" variants, equipping them all could not cost more than about $40m. Small change given the project budget and money being thrown around defence at present and would neatly solve many problems with this vehicle.

Given that increased firepower is a project goal and the current plan doesn't deliver ANY increase in firepower, I think this would prove to be a very useful and problem solving decision, for the Tenix designed turret has not proven succesful to date EITHER from what I understand...

In any case, such might have been the case in 1996 when we had no night vision gear to speak of (my Regiment had 1x single pair of NV goggles on issue) however Ninox has clearly fixed this.

An armoured vehicle without TI and auto-range finding capability in this day and age is simply not good enough...

[rickshaw]

As you note, things have changed. The problem is Defence doesn't have a crystal ball. Personally, I'd suggest that for our primary AO the upgrade was perfectly adequate. Now that we are adventuring further afield, and as long as we are primarily engaged in COIN ops, its still quite adequate. The advantages that a turret confers over a RWS are still useful and its considerably cheaper, AIUI, as well. What should be added to the vehicle is provision for the fitting of bar armour if/when required. If increased firepower is desired, then I'd suggest a RWS at a latter date, perhaps on the hull rear a'la Marder with a 7.62mm MG.

I think part of the real problem is that the Army can't decide where or what its going to do with its armour assets. Are they going to be employed in an armour heavy environment, such as Korea or possibly even Iran or are they going to be engaged in power projection in the immediate neighbourhood or as support to infantry engaged in COIN ops? If its the former, then I'd suggest that the upgraded M113 is not the vehicle we need. If its the latter, then its perfectly adequate as an addition to the Bushmaster/ASLAV combination.

[Waylander]

But in Iraq as well as in A-stan the troops over there are quite happy with their guns of 20-30mm.
In which way is a 12,7mm better suited for any mission than a 20-30mm with a 7.62mm coax?

[Manfred]

In which way is a 12,7mm better suited for any mission than a 20-30mm with a 7.62mm coax?

I don't think it should be a question of better, but which is more handy to the troops in the field. A single caliber of ammunition is always better than two. One type of weapon is easier to maintian than two, and you need a full turret for a 20mm and a 7.62mm M.G.

The biggest benifit from the two gun system is the longer range and penetration of the 20mm, and maybe the short-range spray of small bullets from the MG. A twin 12.7mm mount (or better yet; 14.5mm) would seem to be able to both jobs well enough. The M2hb is such a simple gun to maintain, I would much rather work on two of them than one 25mm Bushmaster.

[Waylander]

If your troops have problems with supporting a autocannon turret and its coax than you have much bigger problems than what new turret would be the best. ;)

And you just don't get the range and power of a 20-30mm with even three 12,7mm.

In the end the whole "make a good modern IFV/APC bastard out of the M113" thing is bullshit.
Save the money. Buy some additional LAVs or new IFVs and get out of this messy M113 game.

[Manfred]

Oh, I argee 100% about the M-113. The things you find in the bargain-basement generaly belong there (meaning underground). The M-113 is 40 years out of date... it was the generation right after half-tracks! You stear it with clutch-levers and it has a Bus engine, and the "armor" does not deserve the name.

If you can have a 30 or 35mm gun, go for it. What I was picking at was the 60 year-old concept of a 20mm with a medium MG for a co-ax.

[Waylander]

I thought about the 20mm because you one might keep the space and weight down on a refitted M113.
As I stated in the IFV claibre thread I also believe that 30-40mm are the best choice for an IFV with 30mm representing the borderline and reaching its limits.

Why not use the M113s for something were they can still be usefull?
Give it to the medics, combat engineers, staff units, school instructors, referees at training centres, etc.
There they can do what they do best till they finally get phased out and don't suck up money which could better be used on a real modern IFV.

[StingrayOZ]

Private collectors were interested in the M113.

Unfortunately the NZ ordel put a end to that when they basically told the NZ government to jump, they are still US equipment and they will not be sold privately but crushed into cubes.

Shame, I would have bought one if they ever came up. Even perhaps on a long term lease agreement. They were apparently going to go for $10,000-$15,000 each. Which places them as equal value as a cheap korean car.

Modern european cars have radar, nightvision, external cameras and are proberly better armoured than a M113. They certainly handle, brake and accelerate better. Some would cross country almost as well and carry as many troops.

There are a number of rolls the M113 could perform. Firefighting, medics, light duty peace keeping and security, etc.

I think the key motivation is that we already have 700 of them.

I think there would have been other companies other than tenix that could have handled this upgrade and should have been concidered.

[Waylander]

Baaah, I would not eaven drive one if it is a gift. ;)

Of all armoured vehicles I have sitten in this ugly little cube is the most embarassing one. :sick

[Falstaff]

Of all armoured vehicles I have sitten in this ugly little cube is the most embarassing one.

True. But at least our medics proved you can sleep in it better than in other APCs during several maneuvers :)

I don't think the M113 is that bad. It still plays a versatile role in almost every western army and has proven it can be heavily modified and used as IFV. Look at the dutch YPR-765 which served them well for almost 30 years and the turkish ACV which is based on the M113. And in the German army there are still some 3000 of them, despite Fuchs, Marder and others (not as IFV or APC any more).
I don't know anything about the Australian upgrade apart from what I've read here but it seems to me that
1) the fighting doctrine of the Australien army doesn't require a "full" Bradley/Marder-class IFV (or am I wrong? please correct me) at this time and one thing is clear, the M113 will never be one, no matter how heavily it's modified
2) the upgrade program could have been a low-cost, low-risk solution

As AD said, the question is why Tenix can't manage it, especially since I read that Tenix teamed up with FFG, a company that did the upgrades ("NDV" 1+2) on the German M113 fleet. . So many users upgraded their fleets without any serious problems. New engines and gearbox, longer hull with additional roadwheel, additional armour, turret, all been done for decades.

Seven years later, things have changed. Army kept changing its requirements, more armour, different fuel tankage, additional versions, etc. They then found the costs had blown out, primarily because the upgrade path chosen - the addition of an extra hull section and roadwheel station had revealed how badly fatigued the hulls were.

I don't think this is an excuse. Nothing new here for M113 upgrades.

[rickshaw]

But in Iraq as well as in A-stan the troops over there are quite happy with their guns of 20-30mm.
In which way is a 12,7mm better suited for any mission than a 20-30mm with a 7.62mm coax?

It is lighter, cheaper and it fires as fast with a round that weighs considerably less. The first is important in that it means the turret is simpler to design, build and maintain. The second is important because it keeps the bean counters happy. The last is important because when you are at the end of a long line of supply, how many rounds you can bring forward can be as important as the weight of fire produced.

Now, remember, in our primary AO we were/are unlikely to be faced by a target which requires more than a 12.7mm round. A rioting Indonesian militia member is killed just as effectively by a .50cal round as he is by a 20mm and there is less chance of collateral damage in the process as well.

Not every army is facing the Warsaw Pact type enemy.

Even in COIN operations in Afganistan or Iraq, I would suggest that there are few targets worth the cost of a 20mm round.

[Waylander]

Yeah, but we don't use them for carrying our infantry around.
As I said my point would be to give it to secondline units. There its cross country mobility and basic armor protection is in good use.
But giving it to the infantry with just a 12.7mm is just not the best choice in my eyes.

You could defenitely make an IFV like vehicle out of it but that was only an option some years ago.
There is a reason for everyone who has the money trying to get away from it.

[rickshaw]

Well, I suspect that the German M113 fleet wasn't as clapped out as our's was. I saw some very serious cracking around the wheel stations on the hulls I examined, which is why they all needed remachining, whereas the original plan ASIUI was to only do the new wheel station which was spliced into the hull.

[Waylander]

Ok, if they need to get overhauled than do this. But not more.

[Aussie Digger]

As you note, things have changed. The problem is Defence doesn't have a crystal ball. Personally, I'd suggest that for our primary AO the upgrade was perfectly adequate. Now that we are adventuring further afield, and as long as we are primarily engaged in COIN ops, its still quite adequate. The advantages that a turret confers over a RWS are still useful and its considerably cheaper, AIUI, as well. What should be added to the vehicle is provision for the fitting of bar armour if/when required. If increased firepower is desired, then I'd suggest a RWS at a latter date, perhaps on the hull rear a'la Marder with a 7.62mm MG.

I think part of the real problem is that the Army can't decide where or what its going to do with its armour assets. Are they going to be employed in an armour heavy environment, such as Korea or possibly even Iran or are they going to be engaged in power projection in the immediate neighbourhood or as support to infantry engaged in COIN ops? If its the former, then I'd suggest that the upgraded M113 is not the vehicle we need. If its the latter, then its perfectly adequate as an addition to the Bushmaster/ASLAV combination.

I don't so much have a problem with the vehicle per se, I DO have a problem with A) the armour protection levels the designed vehicle will provide B) the so called "firepower improvement" that the vehicle is intended to provide, but clearly DOESN'T and C) the cost effectiveness of the vehicle.

Supporting Australian jobs is important but sooner or later the line has to be drawn and I'd NOT like to compare an off the shelf purchase of "zero lifed" M2A4' s and "zero lifed" M113AS3/4's because I KNOW what would provide more capability, I'm just not certain what would be cheaper...

I'm not sure of the advantages that a turret provides over an RWS, particularly in relatively small calibre weapons, so if you'd care to explain it I'm willing to listen. (I "screwed" the T-50 around enough to have SOME practical experience of a turret)...

Australian Industry involvement is fine. My POV is though, that there's more to Australian Industry then Tenix. I'm not sure Tenix would care to put their M113 turret up against CROWS in cost v capability comparision, for instance and it is only one of many capability options that didn't even EXIST at the time this contract was written and offers MANY more capabiliies at a reasonable cost.

Sooner or later Tenix is going to HAVE to be brought to account, just as Kaman was, in relation to this (continuing) underperforming project.

I'd personally like to see a few "off the shelf" solutions ACTUALLY used to resolve these problems. They are proven relatively cheap, available QUICKLY, effective - capability wise and even in-service on other platforms .

I really can't think of too many "downsides"...

[Manfred]

Rickshaw;

I would am not so sure about the 50 cal. having a significantly smaller collateral damage factor. They only come in ball and armor piercing rounds, and have a very high penetration ability (this is the reason the US did not bother with anti-tank weapons until the late 1930s).

20mm cannon have much greater flexibility in ammunition, such as the thin-walled H.E. rounds and other items that can kill without turning a cinder-block building into a sieve.

[rickshaw]

Rickshaw;

I would am not so sure about the 50 cal. having a significantly smaller collateral damage factor. They only come in ball and armor piercing rounds, and have a very high penetration ability (this is the reason the US did not bother with anti-tank weapons until the late 1930s).

20mm cannon have much greater flexibility in ammunition, such as the thin-walled H.E. rounds and other items that can kill without turning a cinder-block building into a sieve.

How much fragmentation do you get from a 20mm HE round as against a 12.7mm solid round?

[rickshaw]

I don't so much have a problem with the vehicle per se, I DO have a problem with A) the armour protection levels the designed vehicle will provide B) the so called "firepower improvement" that the vehicle is intended to provide, but clearly DOESN'T and C) the cost effectiveness of the vehicle.


You don't think those choices are rather dependent upon the environment its designed for?


Supporting Australian jobs is important but sooner or later the line has to be drawn and I'd NOT like to compare an off the shelf purchase of "zero lifed" M2A4' s and "zero lifed" M113AS3/4's because I KNOW what would provide more capability, I'm just not certain what would be cheaper...


More than likely, considering the cost of what the AS3/4s have now come to, per unit.


I'm not sure of the advantages that a turret provides over an RWS, particularly in relatively small calibre weapons, so if you'd care to explain it I'm willing to listen. (I "screwed" the T-50 around enough to have SOME practical experience of a turret)...


Turrets have improved vision over RWS. They also as the yanks have discovered with the Stryker tend to be safer for the commander to use. The result is improved situational awareness, without necessarily the danger of an exposed MG.


Australian Industry involvement is fine. My POV is though, that there's more to Australian Industry then Tenix. I'm not sure Tenix would care to put their M113 turret up against CROWS in cost v capability comparision, for instance and it is only one of many capability options that didn't even EXIST at the time this contract was written and offers MANY more capabiliies at a reasonable cost.

Sooner or later Tenix is going to HAVE to be brought to account, just as Kaman was, in relation to this (continuing) underperforming project.


Were the Seasprite's Kaman's fault? My impression is again a case of poor DoD Project Management, rather than necessarily contractors' fault.


I'd personally like to see a few "off the shelf" solutions ACTUALLY used to resolve these problems. They are proven relatively cheap, available QUICKLY, effective - capability wise and even in-service on other platforms .

I really can't think of too many "downsides"...

Costs would increase as time once more was needed to rejig the design to utilise them. Simple rule of project management - you start to screw around the design and the costs will blow out as time is wasted. It would be cheaper to either scrap the project or simply continue with it.

[Aussie Digger]

You don't think those choices are rather dependent upon the environment its designed for?

Not especially. Australia cannot afford a range of mechanised vehicles designed for differing operational scenario's. Stating that Army's only tracked APC should be "designed for our region" is not especially bright in my opinion, especially when you consider that Australian strategic advice recognises this region as proliferating in "highly lethal" anti-armour weapons and typified by close combat operations in complex terrain...

A vehicle purposefully designed NOT to be capable of operating in such an environment seems rather useless...



More than likely, considering the cost of what the AS3/4s have now come to, per unit.

What a surprise... Let's by all means continue this farce then to PAY Tenix to build us such an in-capable design at such a hefty price...



Turrets have improved vision over RWS. They also as the yanks have discovered with the Stryker tend to be safer for the commander to use. The result is improved situational awareness, without necessarily the danger of an exposed MG.

Stryker uses Protector RWS in the main...



Were the Seasprite's Kaman's fault? My impression is again a case of poor DoD Project Management, rather than necessarily contractors' fault.

The contractor still promised a capability that was shown to be all but beyond it's capability to deliver. Admittedly defence stuffed up big time too and the platform should never have been chosen, but it's hard to blame defence I suppose. Gaining new capability in the early 90's was a HUGE ask...


Costs would increase as time once more was needed to rejig the design to utilise them. Simple rule of project management - you start to screw around the design and the costs will blow out as time is wasted. It would be cheaper to either scrap the project or simply continue with it.

Agree. Hence my POV it should be canned. Immediately and an off the shelf M2A4 Bradley purchase should be conducted...

[Waylander]

Are Brads for sale out there?
As long as I know most of the ones which are not in the units or in the areas of operation are really worn out and broken down.
I think the US Army needs nearly all its Brads to make sure that there are enough in theater.
The repair facilities in the US are more than full and despite the money pumped into the system they are too slow there for a circle and so new Brads from depots have to be used to keep numbers in Iraq and elsewhere high.

Maybe CV90s? I think there are new ones and used ones for sale in Sweden.

[rickshaw]

Not especially. Australia cannot afford a range of mechanised vehicles designed for differing operational scenario's. Stating that Army's only tracked APC should be "designed for our region" is not especially bright in my opinion, especially when you consider that Australian strategic advice recognises this region as proliferating in "highly lethal" anti-armour weapons and typified by close combat operations in complex terrain...


Actually, I'd suggest the reverse. The cost of vehicles is really only a small fraction of the cost of defence compared to the cost of training and/or personnel themselves. Australia could easily afford to have two or three differing sets of equipment scales, and Orbats designed around different threat scenarios. As long as the vehicles had common controls/equipment, you could have a light APC (eg Bushmaster) for COIN/Peacekeeping/intervention duties and a heavy APC (eg M2) for conventional warfare duties. You'd issue the type best suited to the situation, as required.


A vehicle purposefully designed NOT to be capable of operating in such an environment seems rather useless...


Define the "environment". As I keep pointing out, part of the problem is that the Army has such a wide range of scenarios to prepare for that it is nearly impossible to actually have a vehicle which is suitable for them all.


What a surprise... Let's by all means continue this farce then to PAY Tenix to build us such an in-capable design at such a hefty price...


You've yet to prove its incapable. What is meant to be incapable of? It was always only intended to be an improved battlefield taxi, nothing more. How is it incapable of performing that duty?


Stryker uses Protector RWS in the main...


Yep and they've found that its a danger to the commander if he's operating head out. The smoke dischargers are right by his head, apparently and can't be fired. Not a good situation according to the end users.


The contractor still promised a capability that was shown to be all but beyond it's capability to deliver. Admittedly defence stuffed up big time too and the platform should never have been chosen, but it's hard to blame defence I suppose. Gaining new capability in the early 90's was a HUGE ask...


I think its hard to blame Kaman as well. Defence failed in managing the project and let the situation get away from it, just as it has with Tenix (starting to detect a pattern here yet?).


Agree. Hence my POV it should be canned. Immediately and an off the shelf M2A4 Bradley purchase should be conducted...

I think we should continue with the project. Its will prove to be a useful vehicle to have. However it will need to be supplemented, both at the top and the bottom end of the scale IMO.

[Aussie Digger]

Actually, I'd suggest the reverse. The cost of vehicles is really only a small fraction of the cost of defence compared to the cost of training and/or personnel themselves. Australia could easily afford to have two or three differing sets of equipment scales, and Orbats designed around different threat scenarios. As long as the vehicles had common controls/equipment, you could have a light APC (eg Bushmaster) for COIN/Peacekeeping/intervention duties and a heavy APC (eg M2) for conventional warfare duties. You'd issue the type best suited to the situation, as required.



Define the "environment". As I keep pointing out, part of the problem is that the Army has such a wide range of scenarios to prepare for that it is nearly impossible to actually have a vehicle which is suitable for them all.



You've yet to prove its incapable. What is meant to be incapable of? It was always only intended to be an improved battlefield taxi, nothing more. How is it incapable of performing that duty?

Meeting it's required performance for one. Meeting the agreed upon schedule for another. The vehicle IS required to improve mobility, protection and firepower for land combat forces. Protection is really the only thing that seems to have been achieved out of these 3 and then we don't really know do we? As armour protection levels are rightly classified...



Yep and they've found that its a danger to the commander if he's operating head out. The smoke dischargers are right by his head, apparently and can't be fired. Not a good situation according to the end users.

I hardly think that it's the same thing. Different vehicle, different configuration, however it's HARDLY an unachievable project. As Kongsberg themselves point out, integration work necessary to adapt it to the M113 FOV has already been conducted at THEIR expense... It's even Kinnaird compliant given that it's in-service with the Norwegian Army and Air Force on their M113's...



I think its hard to blame Kaman as well. Defence failed in managing the project and let the situation get away from it, just as it has with Tenix (starting to detect a pattern here yet?).

Defence are HARDLY perfect and deserve any amount of blame here. Unfortunately the contractor cannot escape it either.



I think we should continue with the project. Its will prove to be a useful vehicle to have. However it will need to be supplemented, both at the top and the bottom end of the scale IMO.

The fact remains that even as you state we will require a different or "supplemental" vehicle. 1 Brigade already has the "low end" covered with Bushranger and the enhanced vehicle under Overlander (if it's ever selected").

It's the "high" that's absent this should replace the M113As3/4. It's time has passed. It should have been in-service 10 years ago and be replaced from now onwards. The fact that it's NOW going to serve until 2015 at LEAST as our only armoured vehicle for our mechanised infantry forces (Bushrangers are NOT "A" vehicles remember?) is unpalatable in the extreme to me...

Useful it may be, until we have to face an anti-armoured threat or an opposing armoured vehicle force. At which point it's shortcomings will be all too familiar...

[Manfred]

How much fragmentation do you get from a 20mm HE round as against a 12.7mm solid round?

It varies, there are dozens of different types of 20mm ammo on the market now. The smallest/lightest round is a copy of the round developed by the Luftwaffe back in 1940 for thier aircraft. The idea was low-velocity shells for lighter guns, and this meant lower penetration.

In South Africa, they have a new sniper rifle that fires that round. While I question that value of such a weapon, it does show how vast the variety is in 20mm options.

Talking about using 20mm guns for crowd control seems a little over the top, but the situation in Indonesia might be as bad as they say. In such a case, you want the round to do damage where you aimed it, not travel onwards, punch through a wall and kill mom and the kids hidding in the apartment. That is why I was going on about penetration.