Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Joe Black]

The most interesting aspect of the KF41 is that it is modular like the Boxer CRV. At the Eurosatory, the IFV module had been now replaced by a command module.

KF41 Lynx Command Variant | Defense Update:

I wonder if this is a capability and something that the ADF will gravitate towards given that they have shown quite a bit interests in the concept of utilising the modularity capability of Boxers.

 

[ngatimozart]

I found the Lance 2.0 turret interesting. Should the Lynx get the nod for phase3, I wonder if the Lance 2.0 turret could be used for the Boxer CRV.

Shouldn't be any technical reason why it couldn't be integrated on the Boxer.

 

[oldsig127]

The most interesting aspect of the KF41 is that it is modular like the Boxer CRV. At the Eurosatory, the IFV module had been now replaced by a command module.

KF41 Lynx Command Variant | Defense Update:

I wonder if this is a capability and something that the ADF will gravitate towards given that they have shown quite a bit interests in the concept of utilising the modularity capability of Boxers.

All rather interesting in the light of the discussion here in about mid March where it was suggested that the KF41 Lynx was basically just a stretched Marder. It's pretty convenient though that it has room for nine 95th percentile infantry with body armour - which as I understand it is just what we were asking for (or at least in the RFI stages)

In any case they're like space ships in comparison to the M-113

oldsig

 

[camo_jnr_jnr]

All rather interesting in the light of the discussion here in about mid March where it was suggested that the KF41 Lynx was basically just a stretched Marder. It's pretty convenient though that it has room for nine 95th percentile infantry with body armour - which as I understand it is just what we were asking for (or at least in the RFI stages)

In any case they're like space ships in comparison to the M-113

oldsig

DTR Magazine on Twitter
Apparently the KF41 is a new design. KF31 still appears to be based on marder however.

 

[oldsig127]

DTR Magazine on Twitter
Apparently the KF41 is a new design. KF31 still appears to be based on marder however.

Yes, a link to the DTR supplement has been posted here already (post 5890). I was mainly noting that the discussion in March was based on supposition rather than information, which to be fair is all that we had to go on aside from CAD renditions. Enthusiasm for the subject will often lead to some rather airy speculation when there's nothing actually *new* to discuss - a situation also reaching fever pitch as the frigate evaluation approaches completion.

oldsig

 

[Raven22]

The most interesting aspect of the KF41 is that it is modular like the Boxer CRV. At the Eurosatory, the IFV module had been now replaced by a command module.

KF41 Lynx Command Variant | Defense Update:

I wonder if this is a capability and something that the ADF will gravitate towards given that they have shown quite a bit interests in the concept of utilising the modularity capability of Boxers.

What interest have the ADF shown in the modularity of the Boxer?

Most people who will actually use the vehicle basically just see the modular concept as a marketing tool.

 

[Takao]

What interest have the ADF shown in the modularity of the Boxer?

Most people who will actually use the vehicle basically just see the modular concept as a marketing tool.

Agreed. We don't have the lift capability to lift all the IFV / MBT and ENG assets. Why would we add extra modules? Plus the cost would be stupid....

 

[Stampede]

Respectfully, the M113 is a bit dated. The M113's in Australian service started out as M113A1's which dates as far back as 1964... Additionally, some Australian M113's saw combat service in Vietnam, though I am uncertain whether or not any veterans which had seen service in Vietnam remain in Australian service. Approximately half the Australian inventory of M113A1's remain in service, having been upgraded to either the M113AS3 or M113AS4 configuration.

Either way, the M113 has been in Australian service for ~50 years.

Not sure if I'm impressed or saddened we have 50 year old vehicles as one of our main fighting vehicles.
Yes got bounced around in the back as a cadet in the 70's and later as a reservist in the 80's. Of course there was talk of replacing them back then and 30 years on with an upgrade we still have the M113 as a front line vehicle
Without getting too carried away with Phase 2 and 3 of Land 400, some consideration should maybe given to the fact we will need to rely on this vehicle for many years ahead until retired and replaced from service.
This timetable I find concerning and suggest some stop gap solution should be found ASAP.
With worn out ASLAVs and outclassed M113a4's a near peer adversary is looking very interesting. "Or is that alarming!"
Not to turn it into a major project, but there should be some second hand bolt on armour for some of the M113's plus a retro fit to some of their turrets with a Javelin ATGW and / or AGL........ Not perfect, but at least a short term agricultural fix / fit that may enable the fleet to encounter and defend more than they can as they are configured today.
Certainly need to compliment the M113's with additional M1A1's.
The later is a separate project in it's own right, but I'm sure a friendly US could get a dozen of old stock M1A1's to us very quickly.

Thoughts

Regards S

 

[t68]

Sorry to go off topic, but whilst looking for the info on the Growler incident I was just looking at other stuff and came across this networking from the top down.

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo...="Air Marshal Davies comSen,estimate growler"

An interesting bit in relation to BMS [Battle Management System]. Air Vice Marshal McDonald advised:

If they have to move from a C-17 we have satellite communications now in C130 so they too can pick up the fight and move in. That goes to C-27J. We have trialled with Army beyond-line-of-sight communications through the rotors of a CH-47 Chinook. That is not a mild undertaking in engineering terms, but I am happy to report there was a 20 per cent loss of information. As a result, that 80 per cent is essential for those war fighters in the back of that aircraft to be delivered into combat. That is where we are pushing networked and information flow for our fellow services.

Its interesting that CH-47F can also receive it partially

 

[Takao]

Not sure if I'm impressed or saddened we have 50 year old vehicles as one of our main fighting vehicles.
Yes got bounced around in the back as a cadet in the 70's and later as a reservist in the 80's. Of course there was talk of replacing them back then and 30 years on with an upgrade we still have the M113 as a front line vehicle
Without getting too carried away with Phase 2 and 3 of Land 400, some consideration should maybe given to the fact we will need to rely on this vehicle for many years ahead until retired and replaced from service.
This timetable I find concerning and suggest some stop gap solution should be found ASAP.
With worn out ASLAVs and outclassed M113a4's a near peer adversary is looking very interesting. "Or is that alarming!"
Not to turn it into a major project, but there should be some second hand bolt on armour for some of the M113's plus a retro fit to some of their turrets with a Javelin ATGW and / or AGL........ Not perfect, but at least a short term agricultural fix / fit that may enable the fleet to encounter and defend more than they can as they are configured today.
Certainly need to compliment the M113's with additional M1A1's.
The later is a separate project in it's own right, but I'm sure a friendly US could get a dozen of old stock M1A1's to us very quickly.

Thoughts

Regards S

If you were talking about 15 years ago, then yes (assuming that L400-2 and/or -3 was brought to the left 10 - 15 years as well). As it stands, in 2018 I can't support the idea at all. For three reasons:

1. The M-113 has had its day as an APC. Especially for combat involving an M1. It is under-powered, under-armoured and under-armed and all the applique armour in the world will not change that. Remote controlled / autonomous log vehicle - sure. But anything that involves putting a soldier in? No.

2. The money spent on this is wasted. We cannot afford today's Army, let alone what we are buying, let alone a contingency. If we could stop spending every dollar on M113 tomorrow I would be happy and we would start getting capability.

3. As every pet owner knows, there comes a time when you have to use the green needle. The M113 needs to be killed for the same reason Kiowa needs to be killed - it'll stop people spending money on it, thinking that we can push the replacement to the right and fiddling with it. Army needs to be cleverer with saying 'done' to capabilities that are no longer suitable for a modern battlefield and putting a stake in them.

Yes, it may involve telling the government that we cannot meet a task from the DWP. Got it. But I would rather an embarrassed Army than one who has to write letters to a whole bunch of soldiers who the government committed to a war in a substandard piece of equipment, simply so we can push the can down the road a few more years.

My harshness above is in no way aimed at you, just in general that we still are spending money on thinking that our current APC is adequate (including telling the public that) as opposed to seeing how quickly we can get a replacement into service. The King is dead! Long live the King!

 

[Stampede]

If you were talking about 15 years ago, then yes (assuming that L400-2 and/or -3 was brought to the left 10 - 15 years as well). As it stands, in 2018 I can't support the idea at all. For three reasons:

1. The M-113 has had its day as an APC. Especially for combat involving an M1. It is under-powered, under-armoured and under-armed and all the applique armour in the world will not change that. Remote controlled / autonomous log vehicle - sure. But anything that involves putting a soldier in? No.

2. The money spent on this is wasted. We cannot afford today's Army, let alone what we are buying, let alone a contingency. If we could stop spending every dollar on M113 tomorrow I would be happy and we would start getting capability.

3. As every pet owner knows, there comes a time when you have to use the green needle. The M113 needs to be killed for the same reason Kiowa needs to be killed - it'll stop people spending money on it, thinking that we can push the replacement to the right and fiddling with it. Army needs to be cleverer with saying 'done' to capabilities that are no longer suitable for a modern battlefield and putting a stake in them.

Yes, it may involve telling the government that we cannot meet a task from the DWP. Got it. But I would rather an embarrassed Army than one who has to write letters to a whole bunch of soldiers who the government committed to a war in a substandard piece of equipment, simply so we can push the can down the road a few more years.

My harshness above is in no way aimed at you, just in general that we still are spending money on thinking that our current APC is adequate (including telling the public that) as opposed to seeing how quickly we can get a replacement into service. The King is dead! Long live the King!

I take no offence and like your frank opinion.Certainly had a laugh with the green needle comment.
If the M113 are taken out of service tomorrow how then do we structure the Brigade.
Is it that we forget the current structure and forego the M113's as a "training tool" for developing Mech Inf and go another approach.
If so what do you suggest.
Maybe Two motorised battalions with Bushmasters and tell the Government this is our ability and limitation till we transition to Land 400?

Thoughts.

 

[CJR]

Thoughts.

With the LAND400 IFV to be selected in the next few years, it make more sense to just stick with the M113 for the next 5 years or so rather than order another couple of hundred Bushmasters.

But if we were making a call a decade back... Well, M113s and Bushmasters are both only really protected against small arms fire, mobility is a case of swings and round abouts (better rough terrain performance vs longer range and higher top speed), and the cost differential between the two options doesn't look too much (~[url=https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/australias-m113-apc-family-upgrades-05133/]$1B for M113 upgrade[/URL] vs ~$1.2B for an extra 400 IMVs extrapolating from costs for the dutch buy in 2007-8). I'd probably go with the extra Bushmasters...

Of cause, gotta wonder if a half-century old aluminum box on tracks really has that much more training value as a mech-inf platform than a modern wheeled IMV/MRV...

 

[Raven22]

Of cause, gotta wonder if a half-century old aluminum box on tracks really has that much more training value as a mech-inf platform than a modern wheeled IMV/MRV...

It does. For all it’s obsolescence, the M113 is still a far better APC than the Bushmaster. It has the tactical mobility to keep up with tanks and traverse the last 300m in the assault, it has a rear ramp, it has a protected weapon that can be fired from under armour in the assault and it has a protection scheme that protects the entire mission system, not just the crew.

The Bushmaster is a good vehicle, but it would be a terrible APC/IFV surrogate, even in training.

 

[old faithful]

So in all reality, the M113 is nothing more than a training aid ATM.
We have got to stop spending on the bloody things and just use them as they are, err, for training. Because they are not much use against a modern enemy. A sniper with a ,.50 cal rifle would render them useless.
On a different note, how does everyone feel about our tax dollars being used to encourage victims of war crimes at the hands of Australians to come forward. We are advertising for victims and witnesses in Afghan newspapers to come forward, I kid you not!

 

[Takao]

I take no offence and like your frank opinion.Certainly had a laugh with the green needle comment.
If the M113 are taken out of service tomorrow how then do we structure the Brigade.
Is it that we forget the current structure and forego the M113's as a "training tool" for developing Mech Inf and go another approach.
If so what do you suggest.
Maybe Two motorised battalions with Bushmasters and tell the Government this is our ability and limitation till we transition to Land 400?

Thoughts.

That's not a bad idea at all, and may actually save some sustainment money. I like it. It is a brutal approach, but one that is gaining some sympathy as the question of what we want versus what we can afford becomes starker. Some lean times in order to preserve a stronger Objective Force? Certainly, something that has to be considered.

While we keep the M113, I think the M113 is a fine training tool and we can use it to mimic IFV and even CRV. That may get a lead on IOC / FOC for L400. Assuming that we choose to keep it that is.

Noting a warfighting Bde =/= a raise-train-sustain Bde.

My structure for the Bde? It gets enough raised eyebrows at work! But I'd delete an Inf Bn from each Bde at the moment. The rest would remain as is. Until either rotation #2 or ~2022. Even then I'd look at bringing in other capabilities first. Based on the fact that I cannot kill the M113, I'd actually seek to make it a Mech Inf Bn, which will have nice secondary effects against the reactionary elements of RAInf.

 

[Stampede]

It does. For all it’s obsolescence, the M113 is still a far better APC than the Bushmaster. It has the tactical mobility to keep up with tanks and traverse the last 300m in the assault, it has a rear ramp, it has a protected weapon that can be fired from under armour in the assault and it has a protection scheme that protects the entire mission system, not just the crew.

The Bushmaster is a good vehicle, but it would be a terrible APC/IFV surrogate, even in training.

The M113a4 should stay in service, because really what is the alternative!.
My concern is to do with timing.
Phase 2 is still many years away in providing a working in service capability with worked up and trained crews.
Phase three is so far over the horizon, that at this stage it is still guess work as to when it will deliver an option to the commonwealth: that being a functioning IFV capability with trained crews.
This also assumes all the stars align and there is no slip in the manufacturing schedule.
A small investment in add on armour and fire power using existing in service weapons is a pragmatic and suggest TIMELY insurance as we transition to Land 400.

Regards S

 

[Stampede]

That's not a bad idea at all, and may actually save some sustainment money. I like it. It is a brutal approach, but one that is gaining some sympathy as the question of what we want versus what we can afford becomes starker. Some lean times in order to preserve a stronger Objective Force? Certainly, something that has to be considered.

While we keep the M113, I think the M113 is a fine training tool and we can use it to mimic IFV and even CRV. That may get a lead on IOC / FOC for L400. Assuming that we choose to keep it that is.

Noting a warfighting Bde =/= a raise-train-sustain Bde.

My structure for the Bde? It gets enough raised eyebrows at work! But I'd delete an Inf Bn from each Bde at the moment. The rest would remain as is. Until either rotation #2 or ~2022. Even then I'd look at bringing in other capabilities first. Based on the fact that I cannot kill the M113, I'd actually seek to make it a Mech Inf Bn, which will have nice secondary effects against the reactionary elements of RAInf.

That's not a bad idea at all, and may actually save some sustainment money. I like it. It is a brutal approach, but one that is gaining some sympathy as the question of what we want versus what we can afford becomes starker. Some lean times in order to preserve a stronger Objective Force? Certainly, something that has to be considered.

While we keep the M113, I think the M113 is a fine training tool and we can use it to mimic IFV and even CRV. That may get a lead on IOC / FOC for L400. Assuming that we choose to keep it that is.

Noting a warfighting Bde =/= a raise-train-sustain Bde.

My structure for the Bde? It gets enough raised eyebrows at work! But I'd delete an Inf Bn from each Bde at the moment. The rest would remain as is. Until either rotation #2 or ~2022. Even then I'd look at bringing in other capabilities first. Based on the fact that I cannot kill the M113, I'd actually seek to make it a Mech Inf Bn, which will have nice secondary effects against the reactionary elements of RAInf.

Interesting thoughts

Apologise if I was speaking for you regarding a lighter brigade proposal.

Limited money always make for hard decisions and choices.
I guess its then speculative as to whether we need a heavy combat land force in the next 7 to 10 years.
I'd say yes and somehow find the money.


PS Some clarity. Can the M113A4 now provide protection against 50 Cal ..............I thought it could?

Regards S

 

[Milne Bay]

Interesting thoughts

Apologise if I was speaking for you regarding a lighter brigade proposal.

Limited money always make for hard decisions and choices.
I guess its then speculative as to whether we need a heavy combat land force in the next 7 to 10 years.
I'd say yes and somehow find the money.


PS Some clarity. Can the M113A4 now provide protection against 50 Cal ..............I thought it could?

Regards S

Yes.

There are 7 variants of the upgraded M113AS family being produced under LAND 106. Enhancements are being made to a variety of areas.

Protection: Add-on external armor kits to protect against weapons up to 14.5mm; internal spall liners; hull reinforcement to improve mine protection; fuel tanks moved from inside to outside.

Australias M113 APC Family Upgrades

 

[Takao]

Interesting thoughts

Apologise if I was speaking for you regarding a lighter brigade proposal.

Limited money always make for hard decisions and choices.
I guess its then speculative as to whether we need a heavy combat land force in the next 7 to 10 years.
I'd say yes and somehow find the money.


PS Some clarity. Can the M113A4 now provide protection against 50 Cal ..............I thought it could?

Regards S

Nothing to apologise for! The structure of our warfighting and RTS Brigades should be debated and, if not convincing, changed. And it shouldn't just be green suit arms Corps doing the arguing, as is so often the case. Outside points of views are normally much more valuable than not getting them.

Yep - and we aren't prepared to have those hard choices. Kicking the can down the road is always easier.

I'm not sure its speculative - I think that having a heavy land force is important today, and more so over the next 7 - 10 years. a Medium or heavy Bde is more flexible, capable and resourceful than a light one. Hence I'd prefer to cut a RTS Bde from two to one Inf Bn and use those savings to boost the remaining Bn and associated enablers. That gives me resources and capability.

As far as I remember (and confirmed by the post between ours), it is rated to 14.5 mm. Also, from memory again, the M113AS4 is the second most heavily armoured asset we have. That in itself should be pause for consideration...

 

[Stampede]

Nothing to apologise for! The structure of our warfighting and RTS Brigades should be debated and, if not convincing, changed. And it shouldn't just be green suit arms Corps doing the arguing, as is so often the case. Outside points of views are normally much more valuable than not getting them.

Yep - and we aren't prepared to have those hard choices. Kicking the can down the road is always easier.

I'm not sure its speculative - I think that having a heavy land force is important today, and more so over the next 7 - 10 years. a Medium or heavy Bde is more flexible, capable and resourceful than a light one. Hence I'd prefer to cut a RTS Bde from two to one Inf Bn and use those savings to boost the remaining Bn and associated enablers. That gives me resources and capability.

As far as I remember (and confirmed by the post between ours), it is rated to 14.5 mm. Also, from memory again, the M113AS4 is the second most heavily armoured asset we have. That in itself should be pause for consideration...

I think there was a time in the 90's when the Infantry Battalion numbers got down to a total of four............................ A bit scary.
There is merit in doing something well and if the money is not there then yes it makes for hard choices. A single well equipped Mech Infantry Battalion may be doable ( PRE LAND 400 PHASE 2 and 3 ) with an up armoured M113a4 complete with ATGM / AGL and additional armour ( over and above the upgrade- The weight margin ,engine and brakes have some capacity for growth )
Eliminate a Battalion within each Brigade but I suggest some growth in other areas.
Certainly boost M1A1 Tank numbers and personnel.
Do justice to 2 RAR and bring it up to a full sized regular Battalion with each of it's three Maritime infantry company's mirroring the readiness cycle of the Brigades.
Equip this new capability adequately with the water craft it needs for the 21 century. We are not doing WW11 again. ??????
Add to the Commando's another Reg and Res SQN.

The above may prove a correct balance as we transition to Land 400 Vehicles if we lose in the interm three RAR Battalions.
But it is a gamble

Regards S

PS Good thing the RAAF and RAN are in relatively good order.