The issue for the Australian Army acquiring an Amtrac capability is not availability of hulls but availability of money, manpower and bureaucratic force to overcome (immense) bureaucratic inertia. That we don’t even have a beach recovery vehicle (BRV) capability is indicative of how difficult it can be to introduce new systems in the contemporary age even when they are crucial to enabling exsisting systems (such as LCMs). If the Army gets authorised for Amtracs then just getting some purpose designed American surplus (LVTP7) will be a much better solution than trying to rebuild M113s as Amtracs.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
"Across the Beach"- AAVs for the Australian Army ?
- Thread starter BOFORS
- Start date
The issue for the Australian Army acquiring an Amtrac capability is not availability of hulls but availability of money, manpower and bureaucratic force to overcome (immense) bureaucratic inertia. That we don’t even have a beach recovery vehicle (BRV) capability is indicative of how difficult it can be to introduce new systems in the contemporary age even when they are crucial to enabling exsisting systems (such as LCMs). If the Army gets authorised for Amtracs then just getting some purpose designed American surplus (LVTP7) will be a much better solution than trying to rebuild M113s as Amtracs.
The issue for the Australian Army acquiring an Amtrac capability is not availability of hulls but availability of money, manpower and bureaucratic force to overcome (immense) bureaucratic inertia. That we don’t even have a beach recovery vehicle (BRV) capability is indicative of how difficult it can be to introduce new systems in the contemporary age even when they are crucial to enabling exsisting systems (such as LCMs). If the Army gets authorised for Amtracs then just getting some purpose designed American surplus (LVTP7) will be a much better solution than trying to rebuild M113s as Amtracs.
From an operations perspective, perhaps the Australian Army does not see a need for this capability based on experiences in the Solomons and East Timor? After all, there are better ways to bring equipment and troops from ship-to-shore and with an LPH, the options are much expanded.. An AAV capability is more geared towards an opposed landing.
In any case, new vehicles can be acquired from Samsung Techwin which apparently builds them under license.
Army Guide - KAAV, Tracked armoured personnel carrier
edit:
The Japanese are also in the market for AAV-7s and were considering the KAAV-7.. until the politics stepped in.
http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/politics/defense/defence21/549433.html
Yep buying 20-30 odd new KAAV-7's for "A" Squadron - 3/4 Cav Regt in support of 2RAR would be a tremendously excellent idea, would cost about the same as 1 operational EA-18G Growler and would directly align with our increasingly strategic littoral operations doctrine, being as useful in Humanitarian and Peacekeeping operations as it would in combat operations.
Such a purchase would also alleviate single points of failure such as the handful of LCM-1E's we are buying, the point of failure being - they get sunk if someone decides to shoot something as heavy or heavier than an RPG at them and our lack of capability to currently provide any sort of protection to any fires that may rain down upon our precious cargo, whilst they are maneuvering to shore...
Pity it isn't going to happen.
Such a purchase would also alleviate single points of failure such as the handful of LCM-1E's we are buying, the point of failure being - they get sunk if someone decides to shoot something as heavy or heavier than an RPG at them and our lack of capability to currently provide any sort of protection to any fires that may rain down upon our precious cargo, whilst they are maneuvering to shore...
Pity it isn't going to happen.
Yep buying 20-30 odd new KAAV-7's for "A" Squadron - 3/4 Cav Regt in support of 2RAR would be a tremendously excellent idea, would cost about the same as 1 operational EA-18G Growler and would directly align with our increasingly strategic littoral operations doctrine, being as useful in Humanitarian and Peacekeeping operations as it would in combat operations.
Such a purchase would also alleviate single points of failure such as the handful of LCM-1E's we are buying, the point of failure being - they get sunk if someone decides to shoot something as heavy or heavier than an RPG at them and our lack of capability to currently provide any sort of protection to any fires that may rain down upon our precious cargo, whilst they are maneuvering to shore...
Pity it isn't going to happen.
Its such common sense that it makes me angry, what possible reason apart from cost is there for not operating them? Hell, we even let the US operate them out of our LPA's. Is it because they have the word 'assault' in their name? Should we possibly call them 'multirole humanitarian aid delivery vehicles'???