Australian Army Discussions and Updates

Navor86

Member
German defence magazine "Europäische Sicherheit und Technik" published an article about the Boxer a few days ago

In a passage they also detailed the exact numbers for each Australian Boxer variant:
133 Recon
15 Command and Control
29 Joint Fire Support
11 Repair Vehicles
10 Recovery
10 so called "multi purpose" vehicles
Thats the 211 vehicles

No mention of dedicated ambulances.

Source 500. Boxer rollt vom Band – bis zu 1.000 weitere könnten folgen

Sorry can not copy and paste the passage from my tablet
 

Joe Black

Active Member
German defence magazine "Europäische Sicherheit und Technik" published an article about the Boxer a few days ago

In a passage they also detailed the exact numbers for each Australian Boxer variant:
133 Recon
15 Command and Control
29 Joint Fire Support
11 Repair Vehicles
10 Recovery
10 so called "multi purpose" vehicles
Thats the 211 vehicles

No mention of dedicated ambulances.
No SP mortar variant, no AD Skyranger variant... :(
 

FoxtrotRomeo999

Active Member
Comparing the list of possible Boxer varients and existing ASLAV variants:
  • Recon ASLAV-25 (Reconnaissance) – is an Armoured Car with a crew of three (commander, gunner & driver). The two man turret has day, thermal and infrared imaging weapon systems, a stabilised M242 25mm dual-feed chain gun and two FN MAG 58 7.62 mm machine guns. The ASLAV-25 conducts troop-level tactical reconnaissance and can carry up to six dismounts in the rear.[2][3][4]
  • Covered by Recon ASLAV-PC (Personnel Carrier) – is an Armoured Personnel Carrier capable of carrying 7 fully equipped troops in support of troop level tactical reconnaissance.[2][3][4]
  • Command and Control ASLAV-C (Command) – is an Armoured Command Vehicle, it is equipped with an enhanced radio installation and radio masts, map boards, stowage compartments, specialised seating and an stowable annex. In addition to the crew, the ASLAV-C can accommodate three staff officers and provides command and control at the Squadron and Regimental Headquarter level.[2][3][4]
  • I am thinking these are equivalent (correct me if I'm wrong) Joint Fire Support ASLAV-S (Surveillance) – is a specialised surveillance vehicle equipped with a hydraulically raised mast mounted thermal imager, laser range finder, day television camera and battlefield surveillance radar RASIT or AMSTAR. The ASLAV-S supports tactical reconnaissance with ground surveillance and observation and can carry four crew and two occasional troops.[2][4]
  • Not explicitly covered though maybe the "multi-purpose vehicles" could cover this configuration ASLAV-A (Ambulance) – is an Armoured Ambulance and is fitted with specialist medical equipment and in addition to the crew can accommodate a medic and three lying patients or six sitting patients.[2][4]
  • Repair ASLAV-F (Fitter) – is a maintenance support vehicle that provides a protected mobile workshop for field repair personnel including vehicle parts and tools and is fitted with a HIAB 650 crane.
  • Recovery ASLAV-R (Recovery) – is an Armoured Recovery Vehicle that is equipped with a heavy winch to recover disabled vehicles to a more accessible location or tow them to a repair facility.

So the list seems to give good coverage. Our Boxer configuration will have competent anti-infantry and anti-armour capabilities. Anti-air capability will need to be provided by an attached unit (unless we have total air superiority).
 

buffy9

Well-Known Member
Comparing the list of possible Boxer varients and existing ASLAV variants:
  • Recon ASLAV-25 (Reconnaissance) – is an Armoured Car with a crew of three (commander, gunner & driver). The two man turret has day, thermal and infrared imaging weapon systems, a stabilised M242 25mm dual-feed chain gun and two FN MAG 58 7.62 mm machine guns. The ASLAV-25 conducts troop-level tactical reconnaissance and can carry up to six dismounts in the rear.[2][3][4]
  • Covered by Recon ASLAV-PC (Personnel Carrier) – is an Armoured Personnel Carrier capable of carrying 7 fully equipped troops in support of troop level tactical reconnaissance.[2][3][4]
  • Command and Control ASLAV-C (Command) – is an Armoured Command Vehicle, it is equipped with an enhanced radio installation and radio masts, map boards, stowage compartments, specialised seating and an stowable annex. In addition to the crew, the ASLAV-C can accommodate three staff officers and provides command and control at the Squadron and Regimental Headquarter level.[2][3][4]
  • I am thinking these are equivalent (correct me if I'm wrong) Joint Fire Support ASLAV-S (Surveillance) – is a specialised surveillance vehicle equipped with a hydraulically raised mast mounted thermal imager, laser range finder, day television camera and battlefield surveillance radar RASIT or AMSTAR. The ASLAV-S supports tactical reconnaissance with ground surveillance and observation and can carry four crew and two occasional troops.[2][4]
  • Not explicitly covered though maybe the "multi-purpose vehicles" could cover this configuration ASLAV-A (Ambulance) – is an Armoured Ambulance and is fitted with specialist medical equipment and in addition to the crew can accommodate a medic and three lying patients or six sitting patients.[2][4]
  • Repair ASLAV-F (Fitter) – is a maintenance support vehicle that provides a protected mobile workshop for field repair personnel including vehicle parts and tools and is fitted with a HIAB 650 crane.
  • Recovery ASLAV-R (Recovery) – is an Armoured Recovery Vehicle that is equipped with a heavy winch to recover disabled vehicles to a more accessible location or tow them to a repair facility.

So the list seems to give good coverage. Our Boxer configuration will have competent anti-infantry and anti-armour capabilities. Anti-air capability will need to be provided by an attached unit (unless we have total air superiority).
The ASLAV-S is more suitable for sustained surveillance and is not a joint fires vehicle. According to the PDF I've attached:

"Joint Fires are closely coordinated tactical military actions by more than one Service component to deliver either lethal or non-lethal force against an adversary."

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.regionalsecurity.org.au/Resources/Files/Kokoda%20Paper%205%20Joint%20Fires%28finalA%29.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjGxOr31YLgAhWJfH0KHeVBCwIQFjADegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw3sLkUXBqjp4HG7PgKZrjn3

The Boxer CRV joint fires vehicle will likely be used to direct fire support in support of the maneuvre element without the need to carry a dedicated joint fires team (JFT). It will be useful as it provides a dedicated forward observer armoured asset that can use powerful communications/guidance equipment whilst being a part of the armoured assault.

I'm not sure if any of the ASLAV vehicles have this ability at the moment, but it's a good one to have. This is especially true when air superiority has been key in many recent conflicts over the past few decades.
 

Takao

The Bunker Group
So the list seems to give good coverage. Our Boxer configuration will have competent anti-infantry and anti-armour capabilities. Anti-air capability will need to be provided by an attached unit (unless we have total air superiority).
Air defence does not have to be a separate variant. While LAND 19-7b is introducing a SAM, and will be allocated as required, many of the Boxers come with a 30 mm cannon with extremely effective sights. Such a cannon / sight combination, when tied in with the IAMD / BMS / Fires networks, give a very effective SHORAD capability - arguably better than any very short range SAM available. No need to spend more money, just get some 1s and 0s flowing in correct directions.
 

Takao

The Bunker Group
The Boxer CRV joint fires vehicle will likely be used to direct fire support in support of the maneuvre element without the need to carry a dedicated joint fires team (JFT). It will be useful as it provides a dedicated forward observer armoured asset that can use powerful communications/guidance equipment whilst being a part of the armoured assault.
Just a minor thing, but CRVs should not expect to be used as part of the armoured assault. That is conducted by tanks and IFVs. While elements of a Bn, ACR or CER will have CRV, these are not intended nor designed to be part of the assault. They provide support from other angles or locations.

Also, the comms and equipment needed by the Fires control element will be available in the IFV and MBT.
 

buffy9

Well-Known Member
Just a minor thing, but CRVs should not expect to be used as part of the armoured assault. That is conducted by tanks and IFVs. While elements of a Bn, ACR or CER will have CRV, these are not intended nor designed to be part of the assault. They provide support from other angles or locations.

Also, the comms and equipment needed by the Fires control element will be available in the IFV and MBT.
I don't disagree, I only refer to the Boxer CRV joint fires vehicle.

The situation may be that a Boxer CRV element conducting force recce may identify a target suitable for air/artillery strike requiring rapid destruction. In this case, when the main MBT/IFV elements are still in the rear, then this would occur. Another situation may involve the deployment of CRV on operations where MBT/IFV are unsuitable and a wheeled platform may be required.

According to DTR April 2018, 16 joint fires vehicles are sought for Land 400 Phase 3. In an *operation, the CRV joint fires platforms may direct precision strike during the reconnaissance phase with the IFV joint fires in the assault phase. In addition to this any number of platforms could carry a team of artillery observers embedded with the infantry for light, motorised or airmobile operations.

Defence Technology Review : DTR APR 2018, Page 1

EDIT:

Fixed terminology.
 
Last edited:

Navor86

Member
I still wonder what this means for the total of 6 Squadrons?
By simply doing the maths it seems that each Squadron could have 18 Recon Variants, 4 Fire Support, 2 Command and Control and one of each Repair,Recovery and multi purpose.
 

Richo99

Active Member
German defence magazine "Europäische Sicherheit und Technik" published an article about the Boxer a few days ago

In a passage they also detailed the exact numbers for each Australian Boxer variant:
133 Recon
15 Command and Control
29 Joint Fire Support
11 Repair Vehicles
10 Recovery
10 so called "multi purpose" vehicles
Thats the 211 vehicles

No mention of dedicated ambulances.

Source 500. Boxer rollt vom Band – bis zu 1.000 weitere könnten folgen

Sorry can not copy and paste the passage from my tablet

Another source with slightly different information....

"Australia will locally assemble 197 Boxers in this Block II phase, the vehicles include 121 combat reconnaissance vehicles (CRV), 10 recovery vehicles, 15 command vehicles, 29 joint fires surveillance vehicles and 11 repair APCs. The Australians also have options to buy 11 Boxer ambulances, all under the Block II tranch. The first 25 CRVs and engineer vehicles will be delivered by 2020 from Germany under Block I."

Iron Fists APS for the Australian Boxers - Defense Update:
 

buffy9

Well-Known Member
Another source with slightly different information....

"Australia will locally assemble 197 Boxers in this Block II phase, the vehicles include 121 combat reconnaissance vehicles (CRV), 10 recovery vehicles, 15 command vehicles, 29 joint fires surveillance vehicles and 11 repair APCs. The Australians also have options to buy 11 Boxer ambulances, all under the Block II tranch. The first 25 CRVs and engineer vehicles will be delivered by 2020 from Germany under Block I."

Iron Fists APS for the Australian Boxers - Defense Update:
Why am I getting the vibe that defence is still sorting out how many it wants or how much it costs?
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The numbers work out - different articles are just using different numbers. The Block 1 tranche will include the 25 made in Germany vehicles, including 11 of the multi-purpose vehicles that aren’t representative of any of the variants but just making up numbers in the meantime. Block 2 will include the 197 made in Australia vehicles. The 14 non-multipurpose vehicles from Block 1 will then be upgraded to the Block 2 standard in Australia, making the total of 211 that has been announced. The 11 multipurpose vehicles that made up the numbers in Block 1 may then be purchased and put to some use.

The issue is that Rheinmetall don’t have any fully developed support variants that they can deliver with the made in Germany vehicles. The multi-purpose vehicles (big empty box) are just filling in until the made in Australia vehicles are delivered. Hence the slight confusion with the numbers.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Continuing from the Australian Navy thread regarding our amphibious capacity.
T68 posted the following regarding the Spanish Marine brigade as an example of a brigade sized Marine force.

.......................................................................
Spanish Marine Infantry Brigade
  • Headquarter Battalion, with 1x Headquarter, 1x Signals, 1x Military Intelligence, Battlefield Surveillance & Electronic Warfare and 1x Reconnaissance & Target Acquisition Company
  • 1st Landing Battalion, with 1x HQ & Service, 3x Naval Fusiliers and 1x Weapons Company
  • 2nd Landing Battalion, with 1x HQ & Service, 3x Naval Fusiliers and 1x Weapons Company
  • 3rd Mechanized Landing Battalion, with 1x HQ & Service, 2x Mechanized (Piranha III8x8), 1x (Tank M60 Patton) and 1x Weapons Company
  • Amphibious Mobility Group, with 1x HQ & Service, 1x Engineer, 1x Amphibious Assault Vehicle, 1x Anti-Tank (TOW) and 1x Boat Company
  • Artillery Landing Group, with 1x HQ & Service, 2x Field Artillery (105 Mod 56), 1x Self-propelled Artillery (155mm M109A2), 1x Air-Defense Artillery Battery (Mistral) and 1x Fire Support Coordination and Control Company
  • Combat Service Support Group, with 1x HQ & Service, 1x Transport, 1x Medical, 1x Supply, 1x Maintenance Company and 1x Beach Organization & Movement Company
This is certainly something in size and composition a good fit for the ADF.
The question will be funding.
Given we are currently locked in with 2 RAR and it's two company sized landing force as our marine group we are obviously a long way from the above.
Assuming funding stays the same for ARMY do we again look at all of the brigades composition and specialities.
A couple of suggestions.

Three Plan beersheba / Keogh brigades each with
One mech inf batt
ACR -Tanks 2 x Sqn
-ASLAV 2 x Sqn
One x Artillery,Engineer,Signal and CSSB.
.This will therefore be a small but all armoured brigade with an increase in tank numbers.
Still giving a Raise, Train and sustain capacity with a heavy force focus.
The three deleted Motorised battalions would go to a form a fourth brigade to create a dedicated marine unit ( Essentially a motorised inf Brigade with specially maritime equipment and orientation. )

Alternatively

Keep the three Brigade structure and have instead of the current formate two like heavy Brigades as above, but with each having an additional mech Inf Batt and then one dedicated marine orientated Brigade comprising three like Battalions.plus supporting elements.

The later marine battalion groups could operate on a cycle of three with the former heavy brigades operating on a cycle of four battalion group sized forces.

I'm not sure the current Heavy / light battalion mix within the current brigades is a good fit and suggest we are not doing justice to our three large amphibious vessels. With 2 RAR as it is today we really need to move to a brigade sized force.
I understand 2RAR and the brigades are an evolving capability and we are trailing different things to see what works for us, but I think there is enough experience in both our own history and that of allied marine forces to suggest we need to grow this sector of skill and capacity and do it much quicker than what I would consider a rather slow pace of achievement.


Thoughts

Regards S
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Comparing the list of possible Boxer varients and existing ASLAV variants:
  • Recon ASLAV-25 (Reconnaissance) – is an Armoured Car with a crew of three (commander, gunner & driver). The two man turret has day, thermal and infrared imaging weapon systems, a stabilised M242 25mm dual-feed chain gun and two FN MAG 58 7.62 mm machine guns. The ASLAV-25 conducts troop-level tactical reconnaissance and can carry up to six dismounts in the rear.[2][3][4]
  • Covered by Recon ASLAV-PC (Personnel Carrier) – is an Armoured Personnel Carrier capable of carrying 7 fully equipped troops in support of troop level tactical reconnaissance.[2][3][4]
  • Command and Control ASLAV-C (Command) – is an Armoured Command Vehicle, it is equipped with an enhanced radio installation and radio masts, map boards, stowage compartments, specialised seating and an stowable annex. In addition to the crew, the ASLAV-C can accommodate three staff officers and provides command and control at the Squadron and Regimental Headquarter level.[2][3][4]
  • I am thinking these are equivalent (correct me if I'm wrong) Joint Fire Support ASLAV-S (Surveillance) – is a specialised surveillance vehicle equipped with a hydraulically raised mast mounted thermal imager, laser range finder, day television camera and battlefield surveillance radar RASIT or AMSTAR. The ASLAV-S supports tactical reconnaissance with ground surveillance and observation and can carry four crew and two occasional troops.[2][4]
  • Not explicitly covered though maybe the "multi-purpose vehicles" could cover this configuration ASLAV-A (Ambulance) – is an Armoured Ambulance and is fitted with specialist medical equipment and in addition to the crew can accommodate a medic and three lying patients or six sitting patients.[2][4]
  • Repair ASLAV-F (Fitter) – is a maintenance support vehicle that provides a protected mobile workshop for field repair personnel including vehicle parts and tools and is fitted with a HIAB 650 crane.
  • Recovery ASLAV-R (Recovery) – is an Armoured Recovery Vehicle that is equipped with a heavy winch to recover disabled vehicles to a more accessible location or tow them to a repair facility.

So the list seems to give good coverage. Our Boxer configuration will have competent anti-infantry and anti-armour capabilities. Anti-air capability will need to be provided by an attached unit (unless we have total air superiority).
@FoxtrotRomeo999 Please do not use red or green text colours because those are reserved for Moderators. Thanks.
Ngatimozart.
 

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Stampede,

2RAR is now one company sized group of 4 Platoons , and a support coy, not a normal Inf support coy though.
Army organization ATM, IMO, is all wrong, but hey, who am I lol?
I can't see Army organized to include a proper marine brigade .....well, ever.
They will tweek and muck around with Beersheba/Keogh for a good 10-20 years, and then change to some other plan and tweek that until they realize that it dosnt work either.
I really feel sorry for armoured corp ATM, they are being screwed around in ways I didn't think were possible.
Sorry Raven, its just my opinion, but the logistics for you lot must be horrific.
 

Takao

The Bunker Group
We don't need a maritime / amphibious Brigade. It's questionable if we even need 2 RAR as it is, but who am I to question removing a unit....

The vast majority of landings conducted, ever, have been done with regular Army units. Read Kainmbla's war diary from 1944/45; the majority of units she takes are Army units - some of who Kanimbla is the first time they have seen a boat, landing craft or ship. They do rehearsals along the way. Aphibious is just another dlievery method.

Also, people really need to understand Beersheba / Keogh. They are raise-train-sustain organisations, not warfighting organisations. The Brigade we need will be assembled from 1 / 3 / 6 / 7 / 16 / 17 and others with the C2 element drawn from 1 / 3 / 7. This means that any of our units needs to be able to conduct amphibious operations (emphasised by our region). So a marine Bde would actually undermine our overall flexibility and capability (especially as, generally speaking, marine units are not as capable as land focused units).

Strike one against an amphibious AFV.

With this in mind, it flows that the forces do not need to be amphibious - rather the "bits" that move forces from the ships to the land need to be capable. They need to be able to carry lots and quickly. But they are fundamentally simple, and hence cheap to upgrade as technology increases. It is easier to upgrade a ship-to-shore connector (despite the ADFs best attempts to do otherwise) than an entire AFV or land mobility capability. Fundamentally, a ship-to-shore connector is more flexible than an amphibious vehicle, as it can move more "stuff" in a given period of time. The amphib can swim ashore (yay!), the landing craft can move a better vehicle, then do all it's stores and support in wave 2, 3 and 4.

Strike two against an amphibious AFV.

Now, tactically we need to move from the ship to the land as fast as possible. It either gets more stuff ashore, or allows us to strike from over the horizon and hence keep the ships safer. Amphib vehicles will never move fast. K-21 speed = 3.8 kt; LCM-8 = 9 kts. More than twice as fast. And LCM-8's are slow. LCM-1E go 50% faster again. And if we want to go crazy, a LCAC is 40+ kt. They are all exemplars - but anything that is a displacement hull (which an AFV is the best example of) is slower than other options like planning or hovercraft.

Strike three against an amphibious AFV.

"But Boxer is too big" I hear the cry. "It can't deploy as well". Noting that protection drives size, pending a change in armour technology or better integration of unmanned elements, all AFVs are going to be about the same size for a given protection level. But an amphib needs even more space for flotation. So pick one, an amphib has to be less protected (despite facing the same threats) or bigger (with consequences for tactical movement and deployment in confined areas like a LHD or C-17).

Strike four against an amphibious AFV.

Finally, the cost. We plan on running five 'armoured' fleets: Hawkei, Bushmaster, Boxer, IFV and M-1. They are in addition to three B-vehicle fleets. These things are expensive, and we want to add a sixth? "But it'll be smaller and cost less" I hear. You need a minimum fleet size, look at M-1. So your 40 may not be enough. So your sustainment costs will either be higher, or you cut the other fleets.

Strike five against an amphibious AFV.

tldr: Purchasing an amphib AFV goes against historical knowledge, reduces tactical, operational and strategic flexibility, undermines the basis of the Australian Army's structure, is too big, costs too much and will struggle on the battlefield, taking more losses.

Overall, it's a great example of kit fetish over needs analysis.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
We don't need a maritime / amphibious Brigade. It's questionable if we even need 2 RAR as it is, but who am I to question removing a unit....

.............

Overall, it's a great example of kit fetish over needs analysis.
This a Bravo Zulu for a thoughtful and well structured post. (BZ = well done)



This does not mean that I, or the Mod team, agree or disagree with the contents of the post.
A BZ is awarded to reward good quality posts and encourage good posting behaviour.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Stampede,

2RAR is now one company sized group of 4 Platoons , and a support coy, not a normal Inf support coy though.
Army organization ATM, IMO, is all wrong, but hey, who am I lol?
I can't see Army organized to include a proper marine brigade .....well, ever.
They will tweek and muck around with Beersheba/Keogh for a good 10-20 years, and then change to some other plan and tweek that until they realize that it dosnt work either.
I really feel sorry for armoured corp ATM, they are being screwed around in ways I didn't think were possible.
Sorry Raven, its just my opinion, but the logistics for you lot must be horrific.
Bloody Brigade structures!

I confess to being as guilty as others with suggestions of their composition.
I thought the original Plan Beersheba was correct with each Brigade having two infantry battalions, a ACR ,Art,Sig Eng,and a CSSB.
It appeared a good flexible structure with ready ,reset reading phases to provide both training and deploy ability.

My rather naive approach was that the infantry could move from a CSSB allocated Bushmaster move to the front to alight a ACR M113 which would carry them into the assault with accompanying MBT's and supporting over watch ASLAV's, only to win the day and be extracted by Taipans to head off for another adventure and then watch the credits!
Apparently we now have to be very specialised which is fine, but in all reality we still don't seem to be able to consolidate as to what that actually means.

To be honest I'm a bit confused with the whole availability ,specialised ready or not expectation thing.
Not to mention the challenges of Phase 2 and 3 for LAND 400

If the brigades were a suit it appears we can't wear the same jacket with the pants and we need threes sets of everything just to be ready for the dance anyway, because one suit will be in the wash and one will need ironing, but the one that's ready may not be the one we need anyway and it's old and doesn't' fit which is fine, as when actually we need to go to the dance we'll will start from scratch any way which is fine providing you have time. But really I don't want to go to the dance in the first place, and would prefer to stay home with tee shirt and thongs, but I've been forced to go to the dance so I'll just go with what I have, that's available now, and hope it all works out. Which of course is all very silly as I have such a history of dancing I shouldn't have to reinvent what I wear and how I wear it and look for what's available.
Are but your getting a new special suit they tell me and you have to be seen to carry yourself differently so maybe we should start again.
" Good Idea "
If the brigades were a suit.........................?

Its easy
We just need to be able to do everything and have a bit of everything available all the time.
The difficult bit is how to achieve this ?

Bloody Brigade Structures

Regards S ;)
 
Last edited:

Stampede

Well-Known Member
We don't need a maritime / amphibious Brigade. It's questionable if we even need 2 RAR as it is, but who am I to question removing a unit....

The vast majority of landings conducted, ever, have been done with regular Army units. Read Kainmbla's war diary from 1944/45; the majority of units she takes are Army units - some of who Kanimbla is the first time they have seen a boat, landing craft or ship. They do rehearsals along the way. Aphibious is just another dlievery method.

Also, people really need to understand Beersheba / Keogh. They are raise-train-sustain organisations, not warfighting organisations. The Brigade we need will be assembled from 1 / 3 / 6 / 7 / 16 / 17 and others with the C2 element drawn from 1 / 3 / 7. This means that any of our units needs to be able to conduct amphibious operations (emphasised by our region). So a marine Bde would actually undermine our overall flexibility and capability (especially as, generally speaking, marine units are not as capable as land focused units).

Strike one against an amphibious AFV.

With this in mind, it flows that the forces do not need to be amphibious - rather the "bits" that move forces from the ships to the land need to be capable. They need to be able to carry lots and quickly. But they are fundamentally simple, and hence cheap to upgrade as technology increases. It is easier to upgrade a ship-to-shore connector (despite the ADFs best attempts to do otherwise) than an entire AFV or land mobility capability. Fundamentally, a ship-to-shore connector is more flexible than an amphibious vehicle, as it can move more "stuff" in a given period of time. The amphib can swim ashore (yay!), the landing craft can move a better vehicle, then do all it's stores and support in wave 2, 3 and 4.

Strike two against an amphibious AFV.

Now, tactically we need to move from the ship to the land as fast as possible. It either gets more stuff ashore, or allows us to strike from over the horizon and hence keep the ships safer. Amphib vehicles will never move fast. K-21 speed = 3.8 kt; LCM-8 = 9 kts. More than twice as fast. And LCM-8's are slow. LCM-1E go 50% faster again. And if we want to go crazy, a LCAC is 40+ kt. They are all exemplars - but anything that is a displacement hull (which an AFV is the best example of) is slower than other options like planning or hovercraft.

Strike three against an amphibious AFV.

"But Boxer is too big" I hear the cry. "It can't deploy as well". Noting that protection drives size, pending a change in armour technology or better integration of unmanned elements, all AFVs are going to be about the same size for a given protection level. But an amphib needs even more space for flotation. So pick one, an amphib has to be less protected (despite facing the same threats) or bigger (with consequences for tactical movement and deployment in confined areas like a LHD or C-17).

Strike four against an amphibious AFV.

Finally, the cost. We plan on running five 'armoured' fleets: Hawkei, Bushmaster, Boxer, IFV and M-1. They are in addition to three B-vehicle fleets. These things are expensive, and we want to add a sixth? "But it'll be smaller and cost less" I hear. You need a minimum fleet size, look at M-1. So your 40 may not be enough. So your sustainment costs will either be higher, or you cut the other fleets.

Strike five against an amphibious AFV.

tldr: Purchasing an amphib AFV goes against historical knowledge, reduces tactical, operational and strategic flexibility, undermines the basis of the Australian Army's structure, is too big, costs too much and will struggle on the battlefield, taking more losses.

Overall, it's a great example of kit fetish over needs analysis.


Thanks again for a detailed post.

Regards S
 

seaspear

Well-Known Member
I believe Takao raised relevant concerns on aspirations of future amphibious planning this may come back to what the Canberra class were originally purchased for ,were they as disaster relief,and to address previous shortcomings in shipping, and developing a purpose for its incorporation in the fleet is the aim of present acquisitions .
Its easy to look back in historical context and find there are no requirements for future operations in that context , but it seems history is full of situations arising that had no pretext and left people unprepared.
If its believed Australia should not be involved in the acquiring of skills needed for its forces to assail a defended beachhead because it could be too costly perhaps other developed skills that Australia has shown in its military history should be remembered and what that cost actually was..
My father was in the Royal Marines and was involved in the training of U.S troops for d day he told me of them in practice coming ashore and stopping for a brew instead of as the British troops heading inland, times were harder then of course and d day showed the cost of unobtained skills
 
Top