Yes you are spot on as I didn’t explain properly. About 700 originally with 431 upgraded to M113A and of those upgraded vehicles approx 100 mothballed after very low use. To re deploy these to non front line roles seems like a cost effective use of resources. If the Isralies do it, it probably make sense for AU to at least consider it. A $2m vehicle that’s been paid for vs a $10-15m platform that we need to find the money for. Of course there is any conversion costs but given the examples in the article the blueprints exist so no huge r&d expense.
Takao
The Bunker Group
No. No no no no.
Page 26 of the DTR article:
I get it, I really do. We sepnt a lot of $$ on it and to get rid of it now would be a waste. Let me let you all in to a little secret - LAND 106 was a waste of money. It delivered a 1980s capability into a 1990s Army just in time for the 2010s. It was over priced and delivered us less armoured boxes that are no more capable than the A3s. And it wasn't $2m a vehicle, that's some creative accounting....
Note the cute line:
Finally, keeping the M113 costs money. Just like we should have put a bullet in Kiowa's in 2005-08 but dragged it out, that money could be being put into its replacement. The way that sustainment generally works is that a replacement capability absorbs the replaced capability's sustainment funding, then tops it up if needed. If you are funding M113 still, then IFV isn't getting its full sutainment.
Make them robots sure, but don't put meatbags in and realise that every $$ given to a M113AS4 is taken from an IFV. And the IFVs will save lives.
Page 26 of the DTR article:
Done. And dusted. Don't put meatbags in it. So all that other stuff - if it needs human crew than no.
I get it, I really do. We sepnt a lot of $$ on it and to get rid of it now would be a waste. Let me let you all in to a little secret - LAND 106 was a waste of money. It delivered a 1980s capability into a 1990s Army just in time for the 2010s. It was over priced and delivered us less armoured boxes that are no more capable than the A3s. And it wasn't $2m a vehicle, that's some creative accounting....
Note the cute line:
Sounds pretty impressive, yeah? I mean, first is the M1, so second must be pretty good. Right up until you compare M113 with it's equivalents. BMP? M2 Bradley? Boxer? Either of the IFV competitors? I could give the M113 to Fiji and say it was Fiji's best armoured vehicle - and it would still be a death trap on the battlefield.
Finally, keeping the M113 costs money. Just like we should have put a bullet in Kiowa's in 2005-08 but dragged it out, that money could be being put into its replacement. The way that sustainment generally works is that a replacement capability absorbs the replaced capability's sustainment funding, then tops it up if needed. If you are funding M113 still, then IFV isn't getting its full sutainment.
Make them robots sure, but don't put meatbags in and realise that every $$ given to a M113AS4 is taken from an IFV. And the IFVs will save lives.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Yea I don’t think its much of a secret, they turned a worn out, Obsolete Vehicle into just a Obsolete Vehicle. Probably about the only good thing they are doing at present is keeping the Crews concurrent on operating a Tracked personal Carrier,
Just to ask the question, how are the mortars currently transported, by bushmaster or by truck?
If by truck is not some armor protection better than none?
In either case they still set up in the open and are at risk from counter battery fire.
By placing them in the M113 you at least give them some armor protection.
Not to mention the increased mobility. The ability to shoot and scoot.
In a perfect world the best vehicle would be in use.
But given how long long it has taken for SPGs, I would think SP mortars will take even longer.
And if that best vehicle is not likely to be our service in the near future, then perhaps we should make the best use of what we do have.
The mortar system itself can be reused in better protected vehicles as they become available.
Sustainment cost can be offset by the reduced crewing cost of SP mortars.
Last edited:
buffy9
Well-Known Member
The mechanised battalions already use the M113s as self-propelled mortars. The motorised battalions have modified PMVs, though the mortar itself needs to be unloaded and fired from the ground. Reserve artillery makes do with mortars operating from trucks, also needing to fire from the ground.
Another advantage to employing them from the M113s would be to reduce the need for bedding in rounds. Normally, when on ground, two or so rounds are required to bed the system in so it is a stable firing platform - adding some extra time and noise to the deployment of the system. Depending on how quick counter-battery fires can be generated and whether it is a threat when firing mortars (which are going to be closer and firing at a higher angle), then those bedding in rounds are effectively a gong saying where the team is - and that's before they have actually fired an actual mission.
For me it is less about protection and more about mobility. The only thing the buckets are really going to defend against is small arms, they are not going to protect against artillery shrapnel or heavy weapons. However if the mortar is integrated into the vehicle and is able to properly shoot and scoot (especially without the need to bed in), then that is a big boost for the BG imo - whether mechanised or motorised.
Last edited:
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
sorry link didn’t work
There are plans to procure a 120mm SP Mortar as part of Land 400 phase 3
There are plans to procure a 120mm SP Mortar as part of Land 400 phase 3
Yep understand not protected enough for front line use. I think the Israelis use them for rear echelon work where they may require some protection from counter battery and rocket attack. I think given the current and worsening financial situation ( and no one likes the idea at all) we need to accept that not every soldier is going to be zipped up in the perfect cocoon. Money that’s is saved on the transport can be used to purchase the actual systems. We don’t have an unlimited budget and the alternative is We have even less platforms.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Bob we also have the remaining Bushmasters out of the 1000+ we procured(no idea of current numbers in service), we are getting hundreds of Trucks with Armour fitted and 1300 Hawkei’s, so we are not short on protected Vehicles for rear echelon work and they are far more Mobile and don’t require Low Loaders to deploy any real distance.
I am submitting this article believing it may be worthy of discussion as it details the brain trauma injuries suffered by defense personnel, I cannot find a link or a study specifically of A.D.F personnel who may have incurred such physical trauma to the brain, the article suggests that it is more than possible that A.D.F personnel have had cognitive injuries based on the large numbers of U.S personnel numbering over 300,000 to have had such to different levels.
Would A.D.F personnel benefit from C.T.I scans to identify such injuries or would this not provide the detail that autopsies elsewhere have in identifying brain injuries
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Would A.D.F personnel benefit from C.T.I scans to identify such injuries or would this not provide the detail that autopsies elsewhere have in identifying brain injuries
Military-related traumatic brain injury and neurodegeneration
Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) includes concussion, subconcussion, and most exposures to explosive blast from improvised explosive devices. mTBI is the most common traumatic brain injury affecting military personnel; however, it is the most difficult ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
From the article, " Because these asymptomatic mTBIs are difficult to assess, it is likely that DTI and fMRI (functional MRI) will become useful tools to guide the prognosis and management of these injuries moving forward". Also from the article, "Concussion and subconcussive injury are associated with microstructural changes in the white matter and alterations in fiber tract integrity that are detectable with diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and susceptibility weighted imaging but are not evident on conventional structural imaging studies such as computed tomography (CT) scan and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)" thus CT scans wouldn't be useful.I am submitting this article believing it may be worthy of discussion as it details the brain trauma injuries suffered by defense personnel, I cannot find a link or a study specifically of A.D.F personnel who may have incurred such physical trauma to the brain, the article suggests that it is more than possible that A.D.F personnel have had cognitive injuries based on the large numbers of U.S personnel numbering over 300,000 to have had such to different levels.
Would A.D.F personnel benefit from C.T.I scans to identify such injuries or would this not provide the detail that autopsies elsewhere have in identifying brain injuries
Military-related traumatic brain injury and neurodegeneration
Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) includes concussion, subconcussion, and most exposures to explosive blast from improvised explosive devices. mTBI is the most common traumatic brain injury affecting military personnel; however, it is the most difficult ...
DTI, fMRI, and PET apparently are useful for assessment of mTBI. PET imaging is relatively expensive compared to other imaging techniques as a cyclotron is needed for F-18 production. Sadly, there isn't a lot that can be done to treat TBI other than to restrict further exposure to any activities that cause TBI.
It definitely looks interesting, but I for one can't really comment on it because I am not a neurologist neuroscientist. It's well out of my field. Maybe they the ADF and Veterans Affairs, or whatever it's called, could start a database of all ADF personnel andveterans who have suffered military TBI. This could be with the view of follow up treatment and monitoring.
An interesting Series of articles in the ASPI strategist on budget pressures facing the ADF. It is saying that a boxer is expected to cost about $1million per year per vehicle in sustainment cost and the IFV will be expected to be about the same. No mention on what is the cost to sustain an Abrams. I’m not 100% clear on what the difference is between maintain and sustain? Australia’s defence budget in the age of Covid-19: Unsustainable sustainment? | The Strategist
Maintaining costs mean you have a vehicle in the garage that's ready to run. Sustainment costs additionally cover all "other" lifecycle costs such as training crews, procuring e.g. simulators or other training and testing equipment, incremental upgrades to the vehicle as required, possible cost of intentional changes (example: personnel and equipment for mounting add-on armor), foreseen fuel and transport costs for intended operations etc.
In addition to my earlier post regarding brain trauma incurred by A.D.F personal, I have resourced a sheet providing a breakdown of the brain and what the various lobes contribute to cognitive function so that the earlier report is easier to read in understanding the trauma incurred by these victims of brain injury and how it may affect their behaviors,
Is there a screening mechanism also for personal potentially affected before they are allowed back on duty?
Is there a screening mechanism also for personal potentially affected before they are allowed back on duty?
Thanks Kato.....that’s a lot clearer. I‘m still a bit baffled by the increase over current vs new vehicles ....( if the quoted article is accurate) how each CRV or IFVs annual sustainment will increase to be around $1mill per vehicle when a lot of the items in sustainment explained above by Kato (training, fuel, transport, personnel ) would be required for even existing kit.
The number quoted for the ASLAVs are for when they were between 15 and 25 years old. Support equipment procurement and incremental upgrades tend to occur earlier in a vehicle's lifetime, such as investment into training centers right at the start, after a few years buying those optional upgrades you deferred for cost reasons from the initial buy, or incrementally building up a spare parts stock over a few years.
Especially when you know that you are going to procure a replacement in the foreseeable future (situation of ASLAV in the last couple years) you'll intentionally not make these kinds of investments, as well as e.g. slowly running down your spare parts stocks.
Especially when you know that you are going to procure a replacement in the foreseeable future (situation of ASLAV in the last couple years) you'll intentionally not make these kinds of investments, as well as e.g. slowly running down your spare parts stocks.
Takao
The Bunker Group
There was a joint US-Australian study that looked at using MRI to identify blast and PTSD trauma to the brain. Quite successful in smaller trials, but I don't know where that sits now.
We do a cognitive test prior and after deployment to determine any changes to our cognitive ability. Note that doesn't check physical trauma though.
Takao
The Bunker Group
I've never heard of that separation. Maintenance is an activity - but maintenance cost is only part of sustainment and we'd never mix the two, except maybe in a SPO. Money for a fleet is split into two parts, acquisition (buys the kit, facilities and initial spares) and sustainment (buys everything else). Sustainment doesn't include personnel (for operating or logistics), just the fuel, ammo, spares and support contracts. Furthermore, depending on what upgrades you are talking about, they may be separate acq/sust budgets. As a simple example, M113AS4 was a separate project to the M113A3 purchase. So we took the M113 sustainment line, paid for bits (acq) to turn it into the best 1980s kit evah! and then added the sustainment funding to the M113 line.
To answer @Bob53's question, the sustainment agreements between CASG and the Services are based on type, not platform. So, sticking with the IFV, there is a APC/IFV funding line now of $x. That's the sum of all the IIP sustainment lines for M113 until now. Lets say it's $s (for SUPER!) per year. The L400-3 sustainment line is an additional $e per year, after a growth period (of $a, $b, $c, $d as the fleet ramps up in size). So you have a budget that looks like:
s
s
s
s+a
s+b
s+c
s+d
s+e
s+e
s+e
s+e
In the Brigades you'd have (in theory)
s 100 AS4
s 100 AS4
s 100 AS4
s+a 80 AS4 + 10 IFV
s+b 60 AS4 + 30 IFV
s+c 40 AS4 + 50 IFV
s+d 20 AS4 + 70 IFV
s+e 100 IFV
s+e 100 IFV
s+e 100 IFV
s+e 100 IFV
And this is why it's important to get rid of old kit. Because CASG manages on capabilities and not platforms, every dollar going to an AS4 after the IFV starts delivery is one dollar less for the kit that can fight. It's when we have $s+e supporting 100 IFV and 20 AS4 that problems start arising. It was one of the main reasons we should have got rid of Kiowa earlier (it's a reconnaissance helicopter funding line) and ideas to keep AS4 around have real financial risk.
As for ASPI's article - *sigh*. Can anyone think why a IFV may cost more to sustain than a M113? I mean, it's not really heavier, bigger, has a more powerful engine, has air conditioning, a stabilised gun, more munitions and a digital fire control system - does it? Even ASLAV compared to Boxer isn't that applicable....
Furthermore, Hellier gets wrapped up around out turned v constant. His maths breaks down because of this, which complicates his already simplistic view. Urgh....
Yes, sustainment costs more. Yes, platforms are going to need more. But what other solution do we do? We can buy less, not maintain or realise this is the cost of doing business. I'm kinda proud the government took the latter.
Last edited: