Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Takao]

Well actually I can see his point, the ADF is on its way to becoming a heavier harder hitting machine, but on an op like INTERFET which primary mission was stabilisation of the country, these new machines may be quite an overmatch in capability. I'm thinking 2RAR could have an attached light AFV Regiment that can be used in a number of roles that don't require the capability of the new vehicles something could be easily transported by C130 has a swim capability and able to move up to 16 pers and 5t of stores.

My personal opinion is that we have focus on the high intensity warfare which is a good thing but have lost sight of the lower intensity operations/HADR that may require an protected vehicle, something like Warthog should do the trick.

Warthog / Bronco All-Terrain Tracked Carrier - Army Technology

This is flawed thinking. Protection demands weight; otherwise, it's simply a funeral pyre. Afghanistan and Iraq are low intensity conflicts - and have demonstrated that Bronco or similar unprotected vehicles are not up to scratch. Now that the world has had an education for 15 years on how to target Western vehicles, why would any threat in our region not do it? What makes low intensity warfare not feature IEDs, complex ambushes, stolen ATGM or some combination?

HADR is a different mission, for which we have unarmoured vehicles much lighter. But the threat there is environmental - for which L121 and G-wagon's are fine.

But what decent vehicle is going to fit in a C-130? Noting a Unimog just fits now?

There's also the M113 fleet which would remain viable for these roles, perhaps a capability worth retaining in the Reserves on a shoestring budget.

No. Use the M-113 for experimentation in Australia sure - uninhabited vehicles or electrification spring to mind. But lets us never talk about putting an ADF member into an M-113 overseas again. They are long overdue retirement and will do nothing but kill our men and women.

 

[t68]

Exactly, why do we have this fixation lately on this forum for all services to suggest all these new vehicles, ships, split buys etc, lets get some reality please ! It is seriously doing my head in.

With regards to the 113's I was under the impression that sending them to the Reserve units was on the cards ? pretty sure I have read that before, Raven may be able to clear that one up for us ?

Cheers

what's the point of giving them back to reserves when the very reason they lost them in the first place was serviceability constraints and the impact of training time.

2RAR most likely being the go to battalion in amphibious operations and most likely be the one delivering aid via the LHD/LSD when port or airfield infrastructure is lacking, and will be facing a potencial multitude of obstacles in its way, don't see the bushies or hawki having a swim capability to cross swampy water ways and rivers in low intensity or HADR operations, have these new Land 400 got swim capability

 

[t68]

This is flawed thinking. Protection demands weight; otherwise, it's simply a funeral pyre. Afghanistan and Iraq are low intensity conflicts - and have demonstrated that Bronco or similar unprotected vehicles are not up to scratch. Now that the world has had an education for 15 years on how to target Western vehicles, why would any threat in our region not do it? What makes low intensity warfare not feature IEDs, complex ambushes, stolen ATGM or some combination?

I'm not suggesting limiting the Land 400 vehicles numbers in place of something lighter, I'm suggesting that land 400 vehicles may be more of a hindrance by there size and weight in lower intensity roles, there lack self deploying combat support and logistics capability under armour. there are a lot of places that Bushmaster Hawkie and the new protected land 121 MAN trucks cant go were a lighter tracked vehicle can go. been there done that trying to get an off road vehicle out of a bog up to the chassis rails when it hasn't rained for so long then the heavens open up.

 

[Raven22]

This is flawed thinking. Protection demands weight; otherwise, it's simply a funeral pyre. Afghanistan and Iraq are low intensity conflicts - and have demonstrated that Bronco or similar unprotected vehicles are not up to scratch.

It may be semantics, but I’d argue that protection does not equal weight, but passive protection equals weight. But there’s more to protection than more armour. This is the battle that has already been fought regarding dismounts, where we added passive protection (heavy body armour) to the infantry to the point they could no longer manoeuvre, and couldn’t sustain themselves. Their protection, in a holistic sense, actually went down. Bring in TBAS, and now our soldiers have a good balance of ballistic protection, yet can still actually manoeuvre and avoid being hit in the first place.

This is my big criticism of the Land 400 phase 2 vehicles - we are buying IFVs and not cavalry/recon vehicles. It is a source of much mirth that we are buying vehicles that are designed to fit a section of dismounts in the back, despite the fact we no longer have recon scouts. The Boxer/AMV need to have heaps of armour because they are gigantic, they can’t rely on more traditional modes of recon vehicle protection - not being seen and not being shot at.

It would be interesting how large/heavy a modern ASLAV (wheeled CVRT equivalent) would be, if you didn’t have the constraint of having to fit a section of 95th percentile males in blast proof seating in the back. I reckon you could get a 30mm turret and level 6 frontal arc armour, be about the size of a LAVIII, and still have change from 25 tonnes.

Now, Land 400 are somewhat constrained by having to buy vehicles that already exist. In addition, the reality is the majority of the time that the CRV will not be used in a recon role, but in a generic mounted combat role, the same as the ASLAV. In that role being able to fit a section in the back will be pretty handy. Still, 35 tonnes and a vehicle the size of a house is a big price to pay for that capability.

 

[Raven22]

With regards to the 113's I was under the impression that sending them to the Reserve units was on the cards ? pretty sure I have read that before, Raven may be able to clear that one up for us ?
Cheers

The M113s may continue to serve alongside the Land 400 vehicles in logistics roles, but they certainly won’t be given to the reserves. Automotively the upgraded M113s are excellent, so they will be pretty handy in non combat roles until something newer is purchased.

There has also been talk of creating an OPFOR squadron of retired ASLAVs and M113s, to serve alongside the Land 400 vehicles. For ASLAV that is probably a non starter because they are well past the point of being sustainable, but it might be possible for M113s. Still quite unlikely though.

 

[TheBoomerangKid]

It would be interesting how large/heavy a modern ASLAV (wheeled CVRT equivalent) would be, if you didn’t have the constraint of having to fit a section of 95th percentile males in blast proof seating in the back. I reckon you could get a 30mm turret and level 6 frontal arc armour, be about the size of a LAVIII, and still have change from 25 tonnes.

Raven - you may be interested in the USMC replacement program for their LAV. They are seeking exactly what you asked for plus the ability to swim. A summary of the program and industry details are held here: Armored Reconnaissance Vehicle (ARV) S&T Brief to Industry - Office of Naval Research All in a vehicle around the 20-25t weight class.

There is always the French Jaguar which exhibits similar capabilities.

 

[Takao]

It may be semantics, but I’d argue that protection does not equal weight, but passive protection equals weight. But there’s more to protection than more armour. This is the battle that has already been fought regarding dismounts, where we added passive protection (heavy body armour) to the infantry to the point they could no longer manoeuvre, and couldn’t sustain themselves. Their protection, in a holistic sense, actually went down. Bring in TBAS, and now our soldiers have a good balance of ballistic protection, yet can still actually manoeuvre and avoid being hit in the first place.

This is my big criticism of the Land 400 phase 2 vehicles - we are buying IFVs and not cavalry/recon vehicles. It is a source of much mirth that we are buying vehicles that are designed to fit a section of dismounts in the back, despite the fact we no longer have recon scouts. The Boxer/AMV need to have heaps of armour because they are gigantic, they can’t rely on more traditional modes of recon vehicle protection - not being seen and not being shot at.

It would be interesting how large/heavy a modern ASLAV (wheeled CVRT equivalent) would be, if you didn’t have the constraint of having to fit a section of 95th percentile males in blast proof seating in the back. I reckon you could get a 30mm turret and level 6 frontal arc armour, be about the size of a LAVIII, and still have change from 25 tonnes.

Now, Land 400 are somewhat constrained by having to buy vehicles that already exist. In addition, the reality is the majority of the time that the CRV will not be used in a recon role, but in a generic mounted combat role, the same as the ASLAV. In that role being able to fit a section in the back will be pretty handy. Still, 35 tonnes and a vehicle the size of a house is a big price to pay for that capability.

It's not semantics; it's an important distinction. Unfortunately, the bolded points hold true and cannot be challenged. I would have loved to see a smaller CRV without the armoured box (and potential for uninhabited operations) but until we can nail that down as a concept to follow it'll never happen. A vehicle without a human on board doesn't need any protection. I understand that there is a lack of political appetite for developmental projects - but until the Land domain gets its act together with (a) concepts and (b) forward planning of what makes up the Future Land Force (as in, what replaces Land 400?) we are unable to actually push for something revolutionary.

And like you say, no matter what happenes; the armoured box for a section will be useful it the war we actually end up fighting...

 

[Massive]

And like you say, no matter what happenes; the armoured box for a section will be useful it the war we actually end up fighting...

And provides for considerably more flexibility in deployment.

My sense is that uninhabited operations are going to be here much quicker than we think.

The French Jaguar is probably the best example of a pure current CRV - still comes in at 25 tonnes with stanag 4 though.

Regards,

Massive

 

[Stampede]

Yes the Land 400 Phase Two contenders are big.

Was there merit in the design of the old
FV101 Scorpion.

Small, fast and not with out some fire power. This was a very adaptable and flexible vehicle.
If we don't carry dismounts would not a modern incarnation of this concept be more suitable.
Crew of three complete with modern Rapid fire 30 / 40 mm cannon backed up with ATGM. Trade off armour for speed and endurance to get out of trouble.
Leave over watch for the really heavy platforms.
More MBT's

Regards S

 

[oldsig127]

Yes the Land 400 Phase Two contenders are big.

Was there merit in the design of the old
FV101 Scorpion.

Small, fast and not with out some fire power. This was a very adaptable and flexible vehicle.
If we don't carry dismounts would not a modern incarnation of this concept be more suitable.
Crew of three complete with modern Rapid fire 30 / 40 mm cannon backed up with ATGM. Trade off armour for speed and endurance to get out of trouble.

Regards S

I'd imagine that at that size and weight they'd fly a long way when the IED went off, and even a Scorpion won't outrun the bang and the bag of smoke

oldsig

 

[Todjaeger]

Yes the Land 400 Phase Two contenders are big.

Was there merit in the design of the old
FV101 Scorpion.

Small, fast and not with out some fire power. This was a very adaptable and flexible vehicle.
If we don't carry dismounts would not a modern incarnation of this concept be more suitable.
Crew of three complete with modern Rapid fire 30 / 40 mm cannon backed up with ATGM. Trade off armour for speed and endurance to get out of trouble.
Leave over watch for the really heavy platforms.
More MBT's

Regards S

I would say at the time, yes. At this point though, I suspect the level of armour protection would just be too low, as it is less than that of a 'stock' ASLAV or M113. IIRC it takes about 30 mm of aluminium armour to resist/be protected from 7.62 x 51 mm NATO AP round. The FV101 has just over a third of that level of protection, which suggests that the vehicle would be vulnerable to 155 mm artillery impacts less than 100 m away. I would be interested to find out what the standards or equivalent would be for various sizes of mortar as well.

 

[STURM]

So would it be safe to assume that 7.62mm AP will be able to penetrate the armour of a Scorpion? Would the same apply to baseline M-113s and stuff like V-100/50s?

I recall hearing somewhere years ago that French VABs in Bosnia were easily penetrated by artillery fragments.

 

[Todjaeger]

So would it be safe to assume that 7.62mm AP will be able to penetrate the armour of a Scorpion? Would the same apply to baseline M-113s and stuff like V-100/50s?

I recall hearing somewhere years ago that French VABs in Bosnia were easily penetrated by artillery fragments.

It would depend on range of course, but it would seem that a 7.62 x 51 mm AP round would penetrate the armour on a Scorpion.

As for the baseline M113, it would depend on which specific version but the M113A3 was designed to provide protection vs. the 7.62 mm NATO AP and had IIRC 30 mm of aluminium armour., which is supposed to provide comparable protection to ~10 mm of steel armour. The Cadillac Gage Commando V-100 family has ~6.35 mm of a hardened steel alloy armour. That and the sloping of the armour is designed to provide protection vs. 7.62 mm but as yet I have not been able to determine whether that was against ball/FMJ or AP rounds.

It is a bit difficult to make direct comparisons in armour effectiveness, in part due to the lack of information available either due to still be classified, or in some cases just not published. With many of the older vehicles like the FV101 Scopion, M113, or M706/Commando V-100, these vehicles were designed 15+ years before NATO standardized protection levels (STANAG 4569) were put out in 1987 IIRC. What this could potentially mean is that an M113 might be rated as protection vs. a 7.62 x 51 mm NATO AP round at 100 yards, but that is not quite the same as STANAG 4569 level 3 protection which is rated against the same round at 30 m.

EDIT: I also completely left out the (pardon the pun) potential impact of spalling. I do not know whether or not the KE of a 7.62 x51 mm round would be sufficient to cause spalling if it failed to penetrate the vehicle's armour, or if there would be sufficient spall for injuries to crew or vehicular damage to result.

 

[Volkodav]

I think the answer lies in the fact the CVR(T) FOV are being replaced with the much larger and better protected Ajax SV. Threats change so do the responses to those threats.

 

[Massive]

I think the answer lies in the fact the CVR(T) FOV are being replaced with the much larger and better protected Ajax SV. Threats change so do the responses to those threats.

A circa 40 tonne vehicle.

A question about the Boxer CRV & AMV35 - what is the planned ISTAR fit out - are they being fully kitted out as recon vehicles?

Regards,

Massive

 

[Stampede]

I would say at the time, yes. At this point though, I suspect the level of armour protection would just be too low, as it is less than that of a 'stock' ASLAV or M113. IIRC it takes about 30 mm of aluminium armour to resist/be protected from 7.62 x 51 mm NATO AP round. The FV101 has just over a third of that level of protection, which suggests that the vehicle would be vulnerable to 155 mm artillery impacts less than 100 m away. I would be interested to find out what the standards or equivalent would be for various sizes of mortar as well.

Thanks Todjaegar.

Thanks for the response. Probably looking at it as a concept rather than restarting a thirty year old production line. Certainly deleting the space for 8 PAX will bring down the vehicles size.
I would suggest a modern vehicle roughly based on the Scorpion design.should be able to get STANAG Level 4 all round and still be under 18t. A design more to shoot and scoot or provide infantry support in the appropriate environment. More in weight than the original but but still offering a lot of benefits in it's principle role coupled with the advantage of deploy-ability by air transport in realistic numbers. It's small size has many benefits in urban and restrictive environments plus a more gentle footprint on soft surfaces.
To be realistic, it's a light tank from days gone bye but with a modern design.

Now I do get the appeal of the 8 wheeled gunned up Recon vehicle, but in the age of UAV's and sensor technology across the services, maybe this style of vehicle is already out dated.

Heavy MBT's and IFV - yes
Bushmaster / Hawkei Vehicles - Yes
36t ,8 wheeled 8m long- Super LAV's , Well........ Yes / No / Maybe.

A bit agnostic on the last one.


Regards S

 

[Milne Bay]

Thanks Todjaegar.

Thanks for the response. Probably looking at it as a concept rather than restarting a thirty year old production line. Certainly deleting the space for 8 PAX will bring down the vehicles size.
I would suggest a modern vehicle roughly based on the Scorpion design.should be able to get STANAG Level 4 all round and still be under 18t. A design more to shoot and scoot or provide infantry support in the appropriate environment. More in weight than the original but but still offering a lot of benefits in it's principle role coupled with the advantage of deploy-ability by air transport in realistic numbers. It's small size has many benefits in urban and restrictive environments plus a more gentle footprint on soft surfaces.
To be realistic, it's a light tank from days gone bye but with a modern design.

Now I do get the appeal of the 8 wheeled gunned up Recon vehicle, but in the age of UAV's and sensor technology across the services, maybe this style of vehicle is already out dated.

Heavy MBT's and IFV - yes
Bushmaster / Hawkei Vehicles - Yes
36t ,8 wheeled 8m long- Super LAV's , Well........ Yes / No / Maybe.

A bit agnostic on the last one.


Regards S

Yeah they really are the size of a block of flats, but you have to get your dismounts into action somehow, and IFV without infantry support are out on a limb.
Maybe the offerings are not perfect, but they do give a reasonable hope for success in protected infantry operations
MB

 

[Wombat000]

Stampede,
reminds me of the German Weasel light tracked air-transportable armoured support vehicle.
Possibly a good example to build an autonomous vehicle from?

 

[Todjaeger]

Thanks Todjaegar.

Thanks for the response. Probably looking at it as a concept rather than restarting a thirty year old production line. Certainly deleting the space for 8 PAX will bring down the vehicles size.
I would suggest a modern vehicle roughly based on the Scorpion design.should be able to get STANAG Level 4 all round and still be under 18t. A design more to shoot and scoot or provide infantry support in the appropriate environment. More in weight than the original but but still offering a lot of benefits in it's principle role coupled with the advantage of deploy-ability by air transport in realistic numbers. It's small size has many benefits in urban and restrictive environments plus a more gentle footprint on soft surfaces.
To be realistic, it's a light tank from days gone bye but with a modern design.

Now I do get the appeal of the 8 wheeled gunned up Recon vehicle, but in the age of UAV's and sensor technology across the services, maybe this style of vehicle is already out dated.

Heavy MBT's and IFV - yes
Bushmaster / Hawkei Vehicles - Yes
36t ,8 wheeled 8m long- Super LAV's , Well........ Yes / No / Maybe.

A bit agnostic on the last one.


Regards S

Personally I question the value and effectiveness of a combination recon/direct fire support vehicle. As I understand it, for recon roles there is value in having capacity for 2-4 dismounts. Additionally it is more important for the recon vehicle to avoid being on the receiving end of incoming fires than it is to have significant armour protection. Relating to that, speed and maneuverability, or the 'scoot' capability are key to both getting the vehicle where it needs to go to be useful for recon, but also in then getting out to avoid detection and/or incoming fires.

With respect to providing direct fire support, having a medium/large calibre gun and the associated turret will both increase the vehicle profile, but also overall weight, both of which can negatively impact the ability to 'scoot'. Now for such a weapon to be effective in a 'shoot' role, the vehicle has to be or get into a position where it can 'see' the target, but that also means the target could see and shoot back. If one is going to introduce the potential for a vehicle to get into a sort of gun duel, I would much rather have that vehicle feature some significant protection since it is unlikely the 'target' would be the only thing with sufficient capability to damage a light armoured vehicle. It would be far better IMO to use something with Level 6 protection, or even a MBT, for direct fire support and level the recon units free to sneak around reporting in hostile locations and/or calling in artillery fires for air strikes.

 

[Raven22]

Personally I question the value and effectiveness of a combination recon/direct fire support vehicle. As I understand it, for recon roles there is value in having capacity for 2-4 dismounts. Additionally it is more important for the recon vehicle to avoid being on the receiving end of incoming fires than it is to have significant armour protection. Relating to that, speed and maneuverability, or the 'scoot' capability are key to both getting the vehicle where it needs to go to be useful for recon, but also in then getting out to avoid detection and/or incoming fires.

With respect to providing direct fire support, having a medium/large calibre gun and the associated turret will both increase the vehicle profile, but also overall weight, both of which can negatively impact the ability to 'scoot'. Now for such a weapon to be effective in a 'shoot' role, the vehicle has to be or get into a position where it can 'see' the target, but that also means the target could see and shoot back. If one is going to introduce the potential for a vehicle to get into a sort of gun duel, I would much rather have that vehicle feature some significant protection since it is unlikely the 'target' would be the only thing with sufficient capability to damage a light armoured vehicle. It would be far better IMO to use something with Level 6 protection, or even a MBT, for direct fire support and level the recon units free to sneak around reporting in hostile locations and/or calling in artillery fires for air strikes.

It is a not really the case that recon vehicles go sneaking around anywhere on a conventional battlefield. If you cannot fight for information, then you have to be so slow and careful that you cannot maintain any sort of tempo, cede the initiative to the enemy, and there are lots of things that you just won’t be able to see, because the risk of doing so is far too great. The recent experience of just about everyone is that for formation reconnaissance, you need to be able to fight for information. That allows you to maintain a tempo high enough to enable the manoeuvre plan, clear through the enemy’s security zone, shape the enemy, and all their other things that formation recce should be doing.

The sneaky type of recon vehicle is useful, but not for that role. They are useful for where tempo isn’t really required because it can be controlled (such as SF roles etc), and for the close recce role that is conducted by unit level recon platoons/troops, once the enemy has already been found and shaped for some sort of decisive action (ie, finding and marking FUPs etc).

It is not surprising that’s everyone’s formation/medium recon vehicles are getting more heavily armed and better protected.