Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Waylander]

I cannot imagine any possible doctrine which wants to have an IFV which is not able to go everywhere the tank you have can go and with the same speed. This is the idea behind an IFV. Make it possible that tanks and infantry work together mounted and dismounted.

I am not talking of normal HE 30mm ammo. I am talking of modern APFSDS or programmable ammo.

Why on tracks? And why fast?
Because I thought we are talking about a new IFV. You already have a wheeled light IFV.

Armor specs and design are one of the best kept secrets of a country. There is a reason why everybody is so keen about keeping them safe. This is not normal metalurgy but I agree that it helps you if you have a proper base at your universities.
The trick is not to make a vehicle withstand the said threats but not to makeit too heavy while doing so.

As to the prototypes. I not just talking about the prototypes and plans for just one special vehicle but for decades of engineering and learning it the hard way.

Without foreign help people you would have to go through the same process of learning, ivestment and mistakes like the established manufacturers.

As to the Leo 1 turret. I am not talking about the problems which a big turret ring diameter could bring when you want to implement it into a smaller vehicle.
I am talking about the pure size and weight of the upper structure of the turret.
With the current focusing on deployable forces you have to take weight and much more size into account. A Leo 1 turret is not really a good example for this.

Against nearly every IFV out there in your area a 30-40mm should be enough an with the integration of ATGMs you are also able to defeat possible tank contacts. Nothing more is needed by an IFV.

 

[old faithful]

This is one of the questions the Army needs to answer, not me. Does the Australian Army Infantry Corps have the same doctrine as the German Heer or US Army?


And the problem with desinging armour to withstand these threats is what? The Uni of NSW has an excellent materials lab with specialty in metals, and it is just one of many public and private places of research outside the Defence's own labs.


Australia has a mix of locally produced and imported ammunition. Is there a shortage of ammunition in the World?


We also want to have this! Why sould we always buy from others? How many prototypes does one need for a single chassis design? I think a pre-production batch of about a dozen should suffice. The DMO and various schools woudl keep that many anyway.


Well, what are you going to use for fuel in about 20 years?

I imagine the fuel in 20yrs will probably be the same as now,maybe more hybrid,but fossil fuel. When they say the oil is running out,what they mean is the EASY oil is running out. You should see the steerable motors that directional drillers use now.Feul will be expensive,but i think you will find,not much will change in 20 years.

 

[Waylander]

But my Battlemech is going to have a fusion reactor.

Muhahahahahaha... [Evil laughin]

 

[Simon9]

I imagine the fuel in 20yrs will probably be the same as now,maybe more hybrid,but fossil fuel. When they say the oil is running out,what they mean is the EASY oil is running out. You should see the steerable motors that directional drillers use now.Feul will be expensive,but i think you will find,not much will change in 20 years.

There are also new projects to produce oil from coal, as Germany did in WW2. But these use special underground gasification processes in addition which make it actually cheaper to produce a barrel of sulphur-free diesel (and the best diesel in the world, pretty much) for around half the price of a barrel of diesel produced from oil. At least, those are what the companies are claiming - we should know within a couple of years once their plants come online.

It can also be made into aviation spirit a lot more cheaply (again mostly because it's sulphur-free).

And best of all, this process uses 'stranded' coal deposits that would normally be un-economic to mine. I wouldn't worry about the military running out of fuel for a good many years yet.

 

[phreeky]

*snip*

Here's a thought - how about not assuming that the number of quality engineers within a country are not capable of coming up with concepts, ideas, and results, just because you personally cannot.

Engineering isn't all about developing prototypes to learn from - especially these days! Prototypes, and learning from the resulting set of test data, is just one small piece of the large puzzle that is used in modern engineering projects.

While I respect the need from some level of prototyping, IMO if you're still relying almost soley on "past experience" for you engineering projects then ultimately you're "living in the past".

If that isn't enough - taking on such a project and developing experience within the industry in this country surely is a positive, at least for future projects.

 

[Waylander]

First I have to say that I do believe that such a project can bring a country much forward.
I do believe that Australia is able to develop their own IFV.

What I just do not believe is that it will be cheaper, better and developed in shorter time than everybody else did.
The question is is the capability to build your own IFV worth the money and time or would it be better to use it for other important projects?

And no, we are not living in the past. Otherwise we would not go on developing new toys. We just use the experience of the past.

 

[old faithful]

But my Battlemech is going to have a fusion reactor.

Muhahahahahaha... [Evil laughin]

HA HA! In my mind,i can hear Arny Schwatznegger.....nfloorl:

 

[Waylander]

Hey, the Gouvernator is from Austria!!! :shudder

 

[old faithful]

I know mate, its just sounds like a line from one of those movies! By the way, i agree with you. We could build an IFV here,but it would be cheaper to get one off the shelf...and much,much faster! (also, if ADI got the contract,the finished product would be very compromised compared to the prototype.)

 

[Wooki]

Being my first post here I thought I'd tell a story about fully automatic SLR's.
20+ years ago I was a lance corporal in 1 Field Engineer Regiment at Holsworthy. 3 troop in 1 Sqn was doing a weeks worth of pretending to be infantry training in the range and myself and a few others from 1 troop volunteered to be their 'enemy'. Of course being enemy we AKed our SLR's to fire full auto, as you do, as we liked the sound and the M60 never, ever worked properly firing blanks. The troop commander thought it was a good idea and had a few of his men in each section do the same. After a few days in the bush weapons were handed in and life returned to normal. A few weeks after this 3 troop went to the range. Weapons were loaded and the command 2 shots down range was given to warm everything up. Bang Bang BangBangBang Frrraaappppp...Cease fire ..who the fcuken hell was that yelled the range safety officer..It was me said Sapper Blogs, Your in fcuken trouble screams the RSO...But Lt. Xxxxx said i could do it, he replied. If my memory serves me right he was Duty Officer for 6 weeks after that. Those were the days.

Too funny.. should open up a section for "warries" like that.

cheers

w

 

[FutureTank]

I cannot imagine any possible doctrine which wants to have an IFV which is not able to go everywhere the tank you have can go and with the same speed. This is the idea behind an IFV. Make it possible that tanks and infantry work together mounted and dismounted..

Lack of imagination is your problem, but in warfare imagination is 50% of victory (at least). An IFV will never be able to go anywhere a tank can. Aside from the difference in weight, and ground pressure, a tank can stay exposed longer because of greater level of protection then the IFV. The IFV crew therefore need to employ other methods. Now in case of Australian Army, the tanks work FOR infantry, even if they work with it. Infantry is the primary arm of combat in Australian doctrine, and so the doctrine is built around how grunts think, not that they don't show respect for tankers, but its jus the way of life here, has been, and allways will be I think.

This is particualrly true in dismounted combat. Do you think we need an AFV which can race around at 80km/h cross country? What do you think is an appropriate speed for an AFV?
I personally think it is more important to make use of terrain then to have speed.

I am not talking of normal HE 30mm ammo. I am talking of modern APFSDS or programmable ammo..

Again, this is just a case of manufacturing. I'm sure 30mm APFSDS ammo is not that hard to make. Programmable is another story, but we can work on that while we use German stuff for the first couple of years

Why on tracks? And why fast?
Because I thought we are talking about a new IFV. You already have a wheeled light IFV..

The L400 is to replace the ASLAV also.
But why not have tracked and wheeled on same chassis?

Armor specs and design are one of the best kept secrets of a country. There is a reason why everybody is so keen about keeping them safe. ..

Of course...they spend money on research, and they earn it back by charging countries like Australia to share this technology.

This is not normal metalurgy but I agree that it helps you if you have a proper base at your universities.
The trick is not to make a vehicle withstand the said threats but not to makeit too heavy while doing so..

Yes, the PtW ratio. There is no way to make a conventional AFV to survive all threats. One has to think outsde the box...M113, BFV, Puma, Warior...to solve this little challenge
I have. Have you?

As to the prototypes. I not just talking about the prototypes and plans for just one special vehicle but for decades of engineering and learning it the hard way..

Well, to make one family of AFVs, one needs only prototypes to design and test all the variants. I estimate about 12 would do.

Type A
Platoon IFV
Company mortar IFV (81mm)
Battalion mortar IFV (120mm)
Brigade Command IFV

Type B
Recon troop FV
Recon Squadron CFV
Recon EW FV
Signals FV

Type C
Brigade Light artillery FV
Brigade Direct Support FV

Type D
Combat Sappers FV
Engineers FV
Combat Support ARFV
AVLB FV

Type E
Intel FV
Logistics FV
Evac FV

With these five types you need about a dozen to work things out because some will be different only through internal fitout.

Without foreign help people you would have to go through the same process of learning, ivestment and mistakes like the established manufacturers..

I was under impression that intelligence is the ability to learn from other people's mistakes
God knows plenty of foreign people have made mistakes

As to the Leo 1 turret. I am not talking about the problems which a big turret ring diameter could bring when you want to implement it into a smaller vehicle.
I am talking about the pure size and weight of the upper structure of the turret.
With the current focusing on deployable forces you have to take weight and much more size into account. A Leo 1 turret is not really a good example for this.

Against nearly every IFV out there in your area a 30-40mm should be enough an with the integration of ATGMs you are also able to defeat possible tank contacts. Nothing more is needed by an IFV.

Enough. Can you give me a good reason to throw away a perfectly good turret?

I think you are just a tanker jealous to let infantry have a real gun to 'play' with

 

[Aussie Digger]

Firstly Australia needs something that is designed for its unique strategic, operational and tactical needs, not someone else's needs and doctrine.

Why shouldn't Australia be able to build ?
Is there a law agains this? Expereince is useful, but I would like you to tell me which parts of an IFV require skills and knowledge not available in Australia?

And what are these "unique strategic, operational and tactical needs" that are "unique" to Australia. I often here DMO types chant this mantra as an excuse for poor design changes (ie: the benefit being an ability to put their "stamp" on it mostly I'd suggest) to otherwise excellent weapons. The modification to the F-88 is an excellent case in point. An otherwise excellent weapon is modified to suit our "unique" requirements. End result: a weapon less capable than the one we originally chose.


In relation to the parts for an IFV we have no experience designing or manufacturing from scratch, only the hull, powerpack, transmission, final drive, suspension, braking system, cooling system, weapon systems, fire control systems, ISR systems, CBR systems, communication systems and advanced armour systems.

Other than those minor issues, I agree, we'd be all over it... nfloorl:

 

[gf0012-aust]

Well, I don't know why Tenix went to Ireland.
Designing any piece of engineering, including an automotive one is a process.

are you serious? you think that Tenix and ADI are up to beating Timoney at their own game? Priceless. Have a look at their track record. nfloorl:

Waylander...don't make funny German jokes for me ok

Waylander is probably trying to get his head around the concept of a high velocity L7 on an IFV. - in that case its a huge giggle.

I mean, you can't be serious? My experience with main gun ballistics is limited, but I've been on the range and in the ballistics shed at DSTO to measure effects for some specific projects.

I can assure you that any IFV trying to mount that gun is going to end up either on its arse, have restricted fields of fire (fore and aft only as a 90 degree shot will turn it over faster than a turtle), and definitely no firing on the move.

at 15+ tonnes of linear recoil, the suspension and main hull will be absolutely ferked within years.

If you've got the answers to all the engineering ailments of placing high velocity main guns on an IFV, then there will be no shortage of job offers. Bofors, Rheinmetal, Oto etc... will beat a path to your door.

 

[Aussie Digger]

This:

http://www.defence.gov.au/army/video/Leopard3.mpg

is what you've got to take into consideration FT. Look at the 41 ron vehicle rock on it's suspension when it fires. Look at how stable the 41 ton vehicle is firing on the move, cross country.

Can you possibly imagine a 13 ton vehicle (fitted with an 11 ton turret WITHOUT ammunition or FCS equipment) attempting this? I can't...

 

[Todjaeger]

Aussie designed IFV

Given the engineering assets of Australia, I would definately say that there could be a "home-grown" IFV. As others have mentioned though, the questions becomes would it be worth it. The general consensus has been that the answer would be "No". Given the lack of industrial capacity for such a project as an armoured vehicle, Australia would either need to build the capacity, or import many of the parts used in an IFV. These expenditures would be on top of any development costs for the vehicle. Also, any production run for the ADF would be fairly small, unless export sales could be arranged. Between the fairly high development costs and small order numbers, the average cost for an Australian designed & built IFV would most likely be much higher than an imported vehicle. Also, given ADF equipment history, there is likely to be a fairly significan gap between needed production runs for replacement IFVs so any "corporate knowledge" gained by gov't sponsorship of local industry is likely to be lost.

For more discussion on this, one might want to look at the Australian Defence Industry thread. http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5192

In the end, I suppose one needs to ask the question, would you rather pay for an Aussie IFV for the ADF, or buy two IFV from the US, UK, Germany, etc. for the ADF for the same amount of money.

If Australia starts having requirements for larger number of equipment, or needing to replace equipment more often than once every 15-30 years, then maybe local armour production might make sense.

-Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

Given the engineering assets of Australia, I would definately say that there could be a "home-grown" IFV. As others have mentioned though, the questions becomes would it be worth it. The general consensus has been that the answer would be "No". Given the lack of industrial capacity for such a project as an armoured vehicle, Australia would either need to build the capacity, or import many of the parts used in an IFV. These expenditures would be on top of any development costs for the vehicle. Also, any production run for the ADF would be fairly small, unless export sales could be arranged. Between the fairly high development costs and small order numbers, the average cost for an Australian designed & built IFV would most likely be much higher than an imported vehicle. Also, given ADF equipment history, there is likely to be a fairly significan gap between needed production runs for replacement IFVs so any "corporate knowledge" gained by gov't sponsorship of local industry is likely to be lost.

For more discussion on this, one might want to look at the Australian Defence Industry thread. http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5192

In the end, I suppose one needs to ask the question, would you rather pay for an Aussie IFV for the ADF, or buy two IFV from the US, UK, Germany, etc. for the ADF for the same amount of money.

If Australia starts having requirements for larger number of equipment, or needing to replace equipment more often than once every 15-30 years, then maybe local armour production might make sense.

-Cheers

The problem we have is build numbers. FT I think, is unaware of exactly how few IFV's Australia actually requires.

There are ONLY 171 M113AS4's ("stretched", which will be the "infantry carrier" APC variant), and these are to be issued to 5RAR and 7RAR ONLY, apart from the School of Armour and ALTC.

The remaining 180 odd vehicles will be of the M113AS3 (non-stretched) standard and are to comprise other variants, such as Command, recovery, fitters, ambulance and mortar variants, all of which will be built in numbers as few as 12 to 30.

To design a new vehicle from scratch for 171 vehicles CANNOT be done economically IMHO, nor can 5 or so variants on the basic vehicle in numbers as small as few as 12...

How does one expect to secure foreign orders for a new vehicle, given the already over crowded market, our complete lack of success building previous IFV's and our track record of upgrading our OWN in-service vehicles???

 

[Wooki]

The problem we have is build numbers. FT I think, is unaware of exactly how few IFV's Australia actually requires.

BINGO!

Give the man a prize. If Australia wants to make a viable IFV effort then they are going to have to export.

So the whole thing about unique requirements (and all that) is phooeee. There are a number of international models out there that have emerged or are emerging...Not all good, but not all bad either.

I could see Australia doing well in selling its primary resource and that's smarts. A consultng firm (industry) that would contribute to the design of a vehicle... say for a conglomerate like BAE Systems... Leave it up to the conglomerate whether they would like to actually build in Australia or not.

And as for "Ozzie IFV". let the natural market factors decide... If you have a good vehicle and Australian Army procurement cycle matches up, I bet you that the Australian Army will look at it.

May the best platform win, sort of thing.

This whole argument of build in australia for australia is old.... If you are that good then get on with it and do it! You will achieve success based upon your own merits.

Austal would be a good example of this. There was some cash injection (as I understand) to start with, but they never based their success on any one domestic market and that is why they have risen to the top.

cheers

w

 

[Waylander]

Lack of imagination is your problem, but in warfare imagination is 50% of victory (at least). An IFV will never be able to go anywhere a tank can. Aside from the difference in weight, and ground pressure, a tank can stay exposed longer because of greater level of protection then the IFV. The IFV crew therefore need to employ other methods. Now in case of Australian Army, the tanks work FOR infantry, even if they work with it. Infantry is the primary arm of combat in Australian doctrine, and so the doctrine is built around how grunts think, not that they don't show respect for tankers, but its jus the way of life here, has been, and allways will be I think.

This is particualrly true in dismounted combat. Do you think we need an AFV which can race around at 80km/h cross country? What do you think is an appropriate speed for an AFV?
I personally think it is more important to make use of terrain then to have speed.

I think you know what I ment with "going were the Abrams goes". I mean operating in the same terrain with the same speed. Not facing enemy fire. And it is possible.
This has to be te target of every knew IFV.
Or do you think the grunts are happy with a vehicle which slows down the entire group during mobile engagements? I would not feel very happy with this as a squadmember in the back.

Again, this is just a case of manufacturing. I'm sure 30mm APFSDS ammo is not that hard to make. Programmable is another story, but we can work on that while we use German stuff for the first couple of years

That's exactly what I mean. For sure you can achieve everything you want but it needs a huge load of money and time.

The L400 is to replace the ASLAV also.
But why not have tracked and wheeled on same chassis?

I think two chassis would be better. IMHO you would need to make too many compromises when using the same chassis. But these two chassis can for sure be modular and I also think that modularity is the way to go.

Yes, the PtW ratio. There is no way to make a conventional AFV to survive all threats. One has to think outsde the box...M113, BFV, Puma, Warior...to solve this little challenge
I have. Have you?

And what is outside the box? Have you thought about this?
For sure there has no way an IFV can withstand everything but proper frontal armor for duells against enemy IFVs and a good all around protection against low level enemy weapons and IEDs/Mines should be a target, especially when looking at the emphasisis on oversea missions.
Airlift is another factor. The Puma for example would have been an even bigger monster if cold war wouldn't had ended.

Enough. Can you give me a good reason to throw away a perfectly good turret?

I think you are just a tanker jealous to let infantry have a real gun to 'play' with

What do you think my posts about size, weight, gun performance, electronics, optics, etc. are about?
You not really tried to argument against my thoughts. You just say again ad again that it would be a waste without hard facts.

- THis turret is big not just the turret diameter. Makes it hard to put it onto a chassis and make it airdeployable in something smaller than a C-17
- The electronic and optics need and upgrade.
- The FCS needs and upgrade.
- The weight (11 tons) we are talking about even without the extra armor of you version and without ammo and equipment.
- The gun is neither top when it comes to AT capabilities, nor when it comes to infantry support. And it is hard to make a small vehicle taking the recoil of the gun.

I would think that two new chassis would be good for Australia.
One wheeled APC and one tracked IFV. Both modular (If bought now for example a mix of Boxer and CV90).

The IFV chassis for mech forces (IFV, AMOS mortar carrier, etc.)

The wheeled chassis for the other tasks (APC, C3i, EW, etc.)

 

[FutureTank]

And what are these "unique strategic, operational and tactical needs" that are "unique" to Australia. I often here DMO types chant this mantra as an excuse for poor design changes (ie: the benefit being an ability to put their "stamp" on it mostly I'd suggest) to otherwise excellent weapons. The modification to the F-88 is an excellent case in point. An otherwise excellent weapon is modified to suit our "unique" requirements. End result: a weapon less capable than the one we originally chose.

The needs of a European country, the USA and Australia are likely to be different from strategic, operational resourcing/force structure and tactical points of view. Decisions on procurement are made for different economic and political reasons, and there are different desing influences from design culture and organisational politics expressing their demands on the development process in different ways. If this didn't apply, NATO would continue to purchase US equipment after WW2 and have no defence industry manufacturing at all.

In relation to the parts for an IFV we have no experience designing or manufacturing from scratch, only the hull, powerpack, transmission, final drive, suspension, braking system, cooling system, weapon systems, fire control systems, ISR systems, CBR systems, communication systems and advanced armour systems.

Sorry AD, but can you just clarify if you mean that Australia does not have expereince in manufacturing all these parts, or does have this expereince (I suggest the later).

 

[FutureTank]

are you serious? you think that Tenix and ADI are up to beating Timoney at their own game? Priceless. Have a look at their track record. nfloorl: .

Maybe if Teniux and ADI can't perform, its time another manufacturer, or consortium stepped in.

Waylander is probably trying to get his head around the concept of a high velocity L7 on an IFV. - in that case its a huge giggle.

I mean, you can't be serious? My experience with main gun ballistics is limited, but I've been on the range and in the ballistics shed at DSTO to measure effects for some specific projects.

I can assure you that any IFV trying to mount that gun is going to end up either on its arse, have restricted fields of fire (fore and aft only as a 90 degree shot will turn it over faster than a turtle), and definitely no firing on the move.

at 15+ tonnes of linear recoil, the suspension and main hull will be absolutely ferked within years.

If you've got the answers to all the engineering ailments of placing high velocity main guns on an IFV, then there will be no shortage of job offers. Bofors, Rheinmetal, Oto etc... will beat a path to your door.

Maybe you missed it, but I suggested increasing the hull mass to 32 ton, but as you point out this may still not be enough to compensate for recoil. There are ways to reduce effect of recoil on the chassis, but I suspect they would be expensive (like providing the turret with its own independent hydraulic suspension).

I just don't believe in discarding something that can still be utilised in some useful way. I don't agree with the consumerism philosophy.