Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Takao]

The same M113 hulls that are within years of being phased out? That are so obsolete they are undeployable?

M113 was a great vehicle in it’s day. It needs to be retired.

Spike NLOS can go on virtually anything from ‘dune buggies’ to light armoured vehicles and helicopters.

In an Australian context, the rear tray of a Hawkei on the face of it, appears ideal…

The M113AS4 was a stupid idea and becomes stupider every day. As an APC/IFV

But....the key phrase is uncrewed. Nothing wrong with using them as uncrewed platforms. We already own them, they have demonstrated ability to keep up with A Veh, they are reasonably protected against direct fire (second most armoured until recently). They also offer more carrying capability than a Hawkei.

Note that the funding for AS4, which will be needed for IFV, isn't an issue this time as Army is already funded for a Bde size of uncrewed vehicles. Here, the AS4 funding can cut across to that as an interim measure.

 

[ngatimozart]

The M113AS4 was a stupid idea and becomes stupider every day. As an APC/IFV

But....the key phrase is uncrewed. Nothing wrong with using them as uncrewed platforms. We already own them, they have demonstrated ability to keep up with A Veh, they are reasonably protected against direct fire (second most armoured until recently). They also offer more carrying capability than a Hawkei.

Note that the funding for AS4, which will be needed for IFV, isn't an issue this time as Army is already funded for a Bde size of uncrewed vehicles. Here, the AS4 funding can cut across to that as an interim measure.

The good thing about them being old, well and truly paid for, and unmanned, is that they are expendable so it doesn't matter if they are knocked out by counter battery fire etc. The fact that they still have some use in a role other than their primary role, means that they don't have to be discarded just because they are no longer viable as APC / IFV.

 

[OldTex]

The M113AS4 was a stupid idea and becomes stupider every day. As an APC/IFV

But....the key phrase is uncrewed. Nothing wrong with using them as uncrewed platforms. We already own them, they have demonstrated ability to keep up with A Veh, they are reasonably protected against direct fire (second most armoured until recently). They also offer more carrying capability than a Hawkei.

Note that the funding for AS4, which will be needed for IFV, isn't an issue this time as Army is already funded for a Bde size of uncrewed vehicles. Here, the AS4 funding can cut across to that as an interim measure.

Perhaps an area that could be trialled is the use of the M113AS4 as an autonomous tracked load carrier for resupply missions to AFV and IFV equipped combat teams and battle groups. It would build on the autonomous LAND 121 40M cargo vehicle project mentioned in APDR.

 

[ADMk2]

The M113AS4 was a stupid idea and becomes stupider every day. As an APC/IFV

But....the key phrase is uncrewed. Nothing wrong with using them as uncrewed platforms. We already own them, they have demonstrated ability to keep up with A Veh, they are reasonably protected against direct fire (second most armoured until recently). They also offer more carrying capability than a Hawkei.

Note that the funding for AS4, which will be needed for IFV, isn't an issue this time as Army is already funded for a Bde size of uncrewed vehicles. Here, the AS4 funding can cut across to that as an interim measure.

Fair enough, what does their supportability look like, long term though? This is only a trial at this stage still, not an actual tender for a capability, I presume?

 

[Takao]

Fair enough, what does their supportability look like, long term though? This is only a trial at this stage still, not an actual tender for a capability, I presume?

That is the other thing. These are tech demonstrators that also make capability enhancements. Similar to Loyal Wingman.

The work that RICO is doing with the AS4 and other autonomous systems will be the launch for our big autonomous project better - we'll have concepts rooted in reality, we'll have an idea of the tech and its needs, and we'll know where the risks actually lie.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Fair enough, what does their supportability look like, long term though? This is only a trial at this stage still, not an actual tender for a capability, I presume?

IMO I think its a good sized platform for unmanned, and as the M113 always was, could be used in a wide variety of applications, from resupply to weapon and sensor platforms. It has a good internal volume. Lots of flat surface around it. Something like this is going to be much tougher than say the autonomous trucks the US has been playing with.

Also. They made 80,000 of them. Many still in service in support/training rolls because they don't die. That is a huge potential refurbishment market. Mechanically, size, field capability they were always fairly good, it was slab sided aluminium people protection that was their downfall. But as unmanned that is much less of an issue, and they are still tough little buggers and there are 80,000 of them out there.

The US army had started similar modification of a few units, to learn before they built something specific. I wouldn't be surprised if it came out looking somewhat M113..

 

[Morgo]

Does anyone have any idea of the composition of the force being deployed to the Solomons? Some mix of ADF and AFP according to the ABC.

Apparently the riots are a result of Chinese money flowing to the political class over there and the people having a gutful of it. Good on them and glad we can help.

 

[ngatimozart]

Does anyone have any idea of the composition of the force being deployed to the Solomons? Some mix of ADF and AFP according to the ABC.

Apparently the riots are a result of Chinese money flowing to the political class over there and the people having a gutful of it. Good on them and glad we can help.

Read some of the previous posts on the topic and they will answer your questions. There's one poster who has been or is on the ground in Honaria and they've given a brief rundown. It pays to read through the recent previous posts before bursting into print, rather than expecting others to do your basic research for you.

 

[Morgo]

Thanks for the steer to the other thread. I didn’t know that forum existed. Will do a quick search in future to make sure I’m in the right place.

 

[Bob53]

IMO I think its a good sized platform for unmanned, and as the M113 always was, could be used in a wide variety of applications, from resupply to weapon and sensor platforms. It has a good internal volume. Lots of flat surface around it. Something like this is going to be much tougher than say the autonomous trucks the US has been playing with.

Also. They made 80,000 of them. Many still in service in support/training rolls because they don't die. That is a huge potential refurbishment market. Mechanically, size, field capability they were always fairly good, it was slab sided aluminium people protection that was their downfall. But as unmanned that is much less of an issue, and they are still tough little buggers and there are 80,000 of them out there.

The US army had started similar modification of a few units, to learn before they built something specific. I wouldn't be surprised if it came out looking somewhat M113..

There was discussion on this post 6978. Apparently around 100 of the upgraded M113 have very low use. The DTR article is behind a paywall now days but they explored a range of options for the M113s including as unmanned platform carriers with significant reference to the Israeli army.

 

[John Newman]

MRH-90 out, new Black Hawks in:

Army to retire MRH 90 Taipans 10 years early & replace with Black Hawks | ADBR

UPDATED with Minister Dutton’s comments: Defence Minister Peter Dutton has announced that the Australian Army will retire its Airbus MRH 90 Taipans some 10 years earlier than planned, and will…

adbr.com.au

 

[OldNavy63]

An initial heads up that Defence Minister Peter Dutton is about to announce the early retirement of the Airbus MRH-90 Taipans and replace them with about 40 UH/MH-60M Black Hawks. The following article suggests reject Land 2057 Phase 4 special Forces Light Helicopter may be cancelled or deferred.

Army to retire MRH 90 Taipans 10 years early & replace with Black Hawks | ADBR

UPDATED with Minister Dutton’s comments: Defence Minister Peter Dutton has announced that the Australian Army will retire its Airbus MRH 90 Taipans some 10 years earlier than planned, and will…

adbr.com.au

Oops, sorry John, you pipped me to the post!

 

[Gryphinator]

Thank the gods for that!
Why we didn't buy Lima's years ago I don't know. The light helo I feel is still necessary but we'll see.

 

[OldTex]

MRH-90 out, new Black Hawks in:

Army to retire MRH 90 Taipans 10 years early & replace with Black Hawks | ADBR

UPDATED with Minister Dutton’s comments: Defence Minister Peter Dutton has announced that the Australian Army will retire its Airbus MRH 90 Taipans some 10 years earlier than planned, and will…

adbr.com.au

Perhaps now the NZDF can buy some more helicopters cheap to fill out their Air Force. But to replace about 47 MRH-90 with 40 UH-60M seems to be a reduction for the Army. It would seem likely that a number of those UH-60M would be 'assigned' for special operations use by 6AVN to replace the existing S-70A-9s.

 

[OldNavy63]

Perhaps now the NZDF can buy some more helicopters cheap to fill out their Air Force. But to replace about 47 MRH-90 with 40 UH-60M seems to be a reduction for the Army. It would seem likely that a number of those UH-60M would be 'assigned' for special operations use by 6AVN to replace the existing S-70A-9s.

i guess 40 operational Black Hawks would be preferable to 47 grounded Taipans.

 

[Mikeymike]

Not really a reduction considering it seems Army is replacing 41 with 40 and navy is replacing 6 with 12 for a net gain of 5.

Considering 1 of those initially ordered wasn't planned and only received as compensation from Airbus seems like theyve managed to keep numbers fairly favourable.

If they can keep the light helicopter in the force structure as well it should be a good place for both army and navy until the future rotorcraft becomes fully developed.

 

[Gryphinator]

Perhaps now the NZDF can buy some more helicopters cheap to fill out their Air Force. But to replace about 47 MRH-90 with 40 UH-60M seems to be a reduction for the Army. It would seem likely that a number of those UH-60M would be 'assigned' for special operations use by 6AVN to replace the existing S-70A-9s.

The Kiwi's need more reading their forum page. Given our bigger numbers of Chooks maybe 40 is about right?
Anyone else feel like they've known for a while this was going to happen?

 

[OldTex]

Not really a reduction considering it seems Army is replacing 41 with 40 and navy is replacing 6 with 12 for a net gain of 5.

Well the 12 MH-60Rs that might be bought for the Navy are intended for logistic support. So yes they could at a pinch be used for roles other than VERTREP (if they come equipped with ASW equipment, which wasn't mentioned in the DSCA notice). So the Army was to have 47 MRH-90 which are now going to be replaced by about 40 UH-60M. 2 very different roles being supported by 2 very different airframes (common ancestry but now very different).

 

[Redlands18]

The Kiwi's need more reading their forum page. Given our bigger numbers of Chooks maybe 40 is about right?
Anyone else feel like they've known for a while this was going to happen?

The Australian Army requirement is for 40 Battlefield Utility Helicopters, the Army currently operates 41, the extra Helo was given to Australia by NH Industries in an attempt to fix the availability issues. The Army has never operated 47 and now probably never will. Also wonder if some might be the MH-60M variant for 6 Avn Regt(SOCOM)

 

[old faithful]

About 40......I heard it was 48 about 6 months ago, with a possibility of another 2 Chinooks.