Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Redlands18]

Could be wrong but my understanding is the land 400 program started in 2010. Your point re roads and hot climate …etc …could I give you a year to do that you think? …an in depth study would be about 6-12 months …but we have so many layers of red tape it’s Cleary why it’s an extra 5 or 6 years…

Australia’s LAND 400 project to revolutionise combat vehicles - Army Technology (army-technology.com)
Here is an article from 2014 on Land 400, yes RFI for Land 400 was issued in 2010. The first new Land 400 vehicle was delivered in 2019, there was never a requirement for any new Land 400 vehicles any earlier than that. The 2010 RFI was not a request for information on specific vehicles but a far more general request for information regarding all aspects of developing a modern armour capability incl tactical use, vehicles, weapons, maintenance, training, construction, once all that was in place then they worked out what they wanted for the Vehicles, then they released RFIs for specific vehicles starting with the ARVs.

You seem to be failing to understand how Land 400 works and what the plan was.
Phase 1, upgrade the current fleet of M-113, ASLAV and Bushmaster to enable them to operate into the 2020s, this was already underway in 2010.
Phase 2, acquire a new ARV to replace the ASLAV from around 2020, we got our first Boxer in 2019.
Phase 3 acquire a new IFV to replace the M-113AS4 from around 2025, currently awaiting a decision on either Lynx or Redback.

Land 400 is going to cost up to $30B, that is a lot of money to be found, and was not available any earlier due to other priorities, so what would the point been of holding a competition to replace the M-113 in 2012-13?
Land 400 is a complex long-term project that was always going to take 25+ years to complete and is a complete revolution in the way the ARA will conduct armoured warfare.

 

[TheBoomerangKid]

Could be wrong but my understanding is the land 400 program started in 2010. Your point re roads and hot climate …etc …could I give you a year to do that you think? …an in depth study would be about 6-12 months …but we have so many layers of red tape it’s Cleary why it’s an extra 5 or 6 years…

Just some background information.
You are correct that Phase2 CRV and Phase 3 IFV emerged in early 2010s. However, LAND 400 "Survivability of Ground Forces" first entered the Defence Capability Plan (DCP) in 2004. This was Phase1 which had an IOC between 2015-2017 (see 2006 DCP for more information). So the LAND 400 project has now been running 19 years.
LAND400 Phase 1 Survivability of Ground Forces is briefly noted in this article from the ASPI 2004 DCP review. https://www.aspi.org.au/report/stra...e-capability-plan-2004-2014-good-bad-and-ugly

From public version of 2006 DCP:

 

[Stampede]

Australia’s LAND 400 project to revolutionise combat vehicles - Army Technology (army-technology.com)
Here is an article from 2014 on Land 400, yes RFI for Land 400 was issued in 2010. The first new Land 400 vehicle was delivered in 2019, there was never a requirement for any new Land 400 vehicles any earlier than that. The 2010 RFI was not a request for information on specific vehicles but a far more general request for information regarding all aspects of developing a modern armour capability incl tactical use, vehicles, weapons, maintenance, training, construction, once all that was in place then they worked out what they wanted for the Vehicles, then they released RFIs for specific vehicles starting with the ARVs.

You seem to be failing to understand how Land 400 works and what the plan was.
Phase 1, upgrade the current fleet of M-113, ASLAV and Bushmaster to enable them to operate into the 2020s, this was already underway in 2010.
Phase 2, acquire a new ARV to replace the ASLAV from around 2020, we got our first Boxer in 2019.
Phase 3 acquire a new IFV to replace the M-113AS4 from around 2025, currently awaiting a decision on either Lynx or Redback.

Land 400 is going to cost up to $30B, that is a lot of money to be found, and was not available any earlier due to other priorities, so what would the point been of holding a competition to replace the M-113 in 2012-13?
Land 400 is a complex long-term project that was always going to take 25+ years to complete and is a complete revolution in the way the ARA will conduct armoured warfare.

My frustration with LAND 400 his not that I don't recognize the size and scope of what it wants to achieve but rather it is twenty years too late.
We should of have this stuff today along with all the other projects to deliver heavier capability "yonks ago". SPG, Long range fires , air defence, add to the list the many others that we are now actually planning to acquire .............Crickey it wasn't that long ago that the battalions didn't even have an 40mm AGL. Army has its attributes but as a near peer on so many levels.............forget it!

ARMY has played second fiddle to the other two services for decades and I hate saying that as I'm ADF focused not service tribal.
Sure we know the history over the decades and the excuses.
We don't have the money , we have a light force focus , we BLAH BLAH BLAH are playing lets pretend for so long it has become the cultural norm.
It's complete nonsense.
I recall being carried around in APC's with 4th/19 PofW Regt with cadets at school and the instructor was telling us about something call a "IFV" back in the 70's
I went to a lecture in the reserves talking about the APC replacement in the early 80's under Project Waler..
There is no magic about LAND 400, just apathy.
The M113 was a dated platform post Vietnam.

So when we talk about Land 400, what we are really talking about is a capability and all the other capability's a modern army should have had and haven't.

To put it in perspective if ARMY was the RAN.
We would have a similar number of ships, The ANZAC's would of had minimal upgrades and our AWD would still be an upgraded Perth Class destroyer.
No Canberra class or Supply Class, but maybe Choules and a second converted tanker.
Halve the fleets weapons both in systems quantity and quality.

The RAAF would be flying upgraded Mirages and probably have the Super hornets but no Growlers.
707 Tankers and no Airborne control. No C-17
Again forget half of the weapons both in range deployed or quantity in stock.

Think I'm exaggerating, do your own comparison.
Armys range of actual capability's have been really that bad for decades.


But we had no money you say.

Yes and no.

We are a rich nation we have always had the money.

We just didn't spend it on the land domain and we have payed tax on that for decades.
We have always needed near peer capabilities but have always pretended we didn't.
By we , well those who made the decisions to get us where we are today.

The Defence Strategic Review will be very interesting.

Should I thank Putin and the PRC for opening our eyes.

Rant Done

Cheers S

 

[Volkodav]

The irony is LAND 400 may be coming at exactly the right time. We are in the box seat to not only introduce the long delayed capability, but to ensure it is the best available.

We may be in the box seat to go to war with the best currently available kit, and a hot production line.

 

[Bob53]

Australia’s LAND 400 project to revolutionise combat vehicles - Army Technology (army-technology.com)
Here is an article from 2014 on Land 400, yes RFI for Land 400 was issued in 2010. The first new Land 400 vehicle was delivered in 2019, there was never a requirement for any new Land 400 vehicles any earlier than that. The 2010 RFI was not a request for information on specific vehicles but a far more general request for information regarding all aspects of developing a modern armour capability incl tactical use, vehicles, weapons, maintenance, training, construction, once all that was in place then they worked out what they wanted for the Vehicles, then they released RFIs for specific vehicles starting with the ARVs.

You seem to be failing to understand how Land 400 works and what the plan was.
Phase 1, upgrade the current fleet of M-113, ASLAV and Bushmaster to enable them to operate into the 2020s, this was already underway in 2010.
Phase 2, acquire a new ARV to replace the ASLAV from around 2020, we got our first Boxer in 2019.
Phase 3 acquire a new IFV to replace the M-113AS4 from around 2025, currently awaiting a decision on either Lynx or Redback.

Land 400 is going to cost up to $30B, that is a lot of money to be found, and was not available any earlier due to other priorities, so what would the point been of holding a competition to replace the M-113 in 2012-13?
Land 400 is a complex long-term project that was always going to take 25+ years to complete and is a complete revolution in the way the ARA will conduct armoured warfare.

Mate not disputing your facts here but the 113s were introduced in 1964. They were overdue for replacement in the 90s when they were 35 years old. Instead we did an upgrade….. The upgrade did nothing I am aware to improve survivability And barely improved lethality. We should of be looking at replacing the m113 replacement by now.

that qualifies as dithering in my book.

 

[ADMk2]

Word is getting around the Blackhawks for Army have been signed off and will commence delivery in late 2023…

More to follow.

 

[old faithful]

Word is getting around the Blackhawks for Army have been signed off and will commence delivery in late 2023…

More to follow.

Well that's great news, and I would assume that it means that the Apache's are a given as well, hope the numbers will be 28 as planned. Engines are the same or will have a lot of common parts for the seahawks, Blackhawks and Apache's.

 

[ADMk2]

Mate not disputing your facts here but the 113s were introduced in 1964. They were overdue for replacement in the 90s when they were 35 years old. Instead we did an upgrade….. The upgrade did nothing I am aware to improve survivability And barely improved lethality. We should of be looking at replacing the m113 replacement by now.

that qualifies as dithering in my book.

M113AS4 does feature improved ballistic protection compared to M113AS1, improved mine / IED ‘belly’ armour, as well as spall liners and automatic fire detection and extinguishing systems and the fuel tanks moved from inside, to outside the armour... They are chalk and cheese compared to an M113AS1 in terms of survivability, though of course nowhere near adequate when compared to a modern armoured vehicle.

Lethality wise they featured no improvement whatsoever. They carried over the exact same QCB variant of the M2 12.7mm gun from the interim upgraded M113AS2’s we had for a bit and entirely deleted the old .30 Cals the M113AS1’s had, which were operated alongside 12.7mm guns. They actually spent a billion dollars on an armoured vehicle upgrade project and gave it less firepower… Lol.

It was up-armoured with an applique armour kit above the baseline vehicle as well, which lifts ballistic protection up to 14.5mm AP levels compared to the base vehicle, which would be lucky to withstand 5.56mm at close enough range.

The vehicles we sent to Ukraine featured the full applique kit, though whether we purchased enough armour kits to fully equip our fleet is unknown (I’d suggest it’s unlikely…)

 

[ADMk2]

Well that's great news, and I would assume that it means that the Apache's are a given as well, hope the numbers will be 28 as planned. Engines are the same or will have a lot of common parts for the seahawks, Blackhawks and Apache's.

Apaches have been approved for several years and were under contract before the new government came in. They were not in doubt, too expensive to cancel now…

 

[Redlands18]

Word is getting around the Blackhawks for Army have been signed off and will commence delivery in late 2023…

More to follow.

Excellent if correct, sounds like the US may have opened up production slots for us and the quicker we can get them, the easier the transition will be, with a very solid core of Blackhawk experience and knowledge still around, won't be a big task to get training staff up to scratch.

 

[ADMk2]

Excellent if correct, sounds like the US may have opened up production slots for us and the quicker we can get them, the easier the transition will be, with a very solid core of Blackhawk experience and knowledge still around, won't be a big task to get training staff up to scratch.

Yeah not sure if ‘deliveries in 2023’ means deliveries within Australia or in the US ala F-35, but I’m told it will be a quick delivery and ramp up to capability…

Someone wants those Taipans gone, asap…

 

[Redlands18]

M113AS4 does feature improved ballistic protection compared to M113AS1, improved mine / IED ‘belly’ armour, as well as spall liners and automatic fire detection and extinguishing systems and the fuel tanks moved from inside, to outside the armour... They are chalk and cheese compared to an M113AS1 in terms of survivability, though of course nowhere near adequate when compared to a modern armoured vehicle.

Lethality wise they featured no improvement whatsoever. They carried over the exact same QCB variant of the M2 12.7mm gun from the interim upgraded M113AS2’s we had for a bit and entirely deleted the old .30 Cals the M113AS1’s had, which were operated alongside 12.7mm guns. They actually spent a billion dollars on an armoured vehicle upgrade project and gave it less firepower… Lol.

It was up-armoured with an applique armour kit above the baseline vehicle as well, which lifts ballistic protection up to 14.5mm AP levels compared to the base vehicle, which would be lucky to withstand 5.56mm at close enough range.

The vehicles we sent to Ukraine featured the full applique kit, though whether we purchased enough armour kits to fully equip our fleet is unknown (I’d suggest it’s unlikely…)

View attachment 50011

AS4 would have been a pretty decent upgrade if we had done it in 1990. Australia also fitted 76mm Turrets to several dozen for use as Recce Vehicles.

 

[buffy9]

Yeah not sure if ‘deliveries in 2023’ means deliveries within Australia or in the US ala F-35, but I’m told it will be a quick delivery and ramp up to capability…

Someone wants those Taipans gone, asap…

Is there still an intention to move 1AVN to Townsville? Moving the regiment during the transition from Tiger to Apache may or may not be the best move, but having most of Aviation Command located at the same location could pay dividends. It has always struck me as unusual that attack aviation and lift have not been located together, though I can understand the desire for some kind of helicopter unit to remain in Darwin.

 

[ADMk2]

AS4 would have been a pretty decent upgrade if we had done it in 1990. Australia also fitted 76mm Turrets to several dozen for use as Recce Vehicles.

2nd hand M2A2 ODS Bradley’s would have been the better option…

We can’t send M113AS4’s anywhere because if we did, they’d end up like below, so at best they represent a training capability.

 

[Redlands18]

Australia to buy 40 UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters from United States, to replace troubled Taipan fleets - ABC News
Confirmation on the Blackhawks from ABC Australia, official announcement Wednesday. With deliveries to begin this year.

 

[phreeky]

Is there still an intention to move 1AVN to Townsville? Moving the regiment during the transition from Tiger to Apache may or may not be the best move, but having most of Aviation Command located at the same location could pay dividends. It has always struck me as unusual that attack aviation and lift have not been located together, though I can understand the desire for some kind of helicopter unit to remain in Darwin.

I'm also interested to know where the fleets are going to be based. The article linked by Redlands18 above indicates that no Blackhawks to Townsville, and I didn't realise that there'd ever been an intention to change the Tiger->Apache fleet location.

 

[Redlands18]

I'm also interested to know where the fleets are going to be based. The article linked by Redlands18 above indicates that no Blackhawks to Townsville, and I didn't realise that there'd ever been an intention to change the Tiger->Apache fleet location.

Think that is just a mistake by the ABC*, pretty sure the operational Sqns will stay in Townsville (2xTac Sqns) and Holsworthy (1xSF Sqn) and the School at Oakey.
Edit
*Looks like Oakey and Holsworthy were mentioned in the press release, still suspect it was a mistake by whoever wrote the press release.

 

[Stampede]

M113AS4 does feature improved ballistic protection compared to M113AS1, improved mine / IED ‘belly’ armour, as well as spall liners and automatic fire detection and extinguishing systems and the fuel tanks moved from inside, to outside the armour... They are chalk and cheese compared to an M113AS1 in terms of survivability, though of course nowhere near adequate when compared to a modern armoured vehicle.

Lethality wise they featured no improvement whatsoever. They carried over the exact same QCB variant of the M2 12.7mm gun from the interim upgraded M113AS2’s we had for a bit and entirely deleted the old .30 Cals the M113AS1’s had, which were operated alongside 12.7mm guns. They actually spent a billion dollars on an armoured vehicle upgrade project and gave it less firepower… Lol.

It was up-armoured with an applique armour kit above the baseline vehicle as well, which lifts ballistic protection up to 14.5mm AP levels compared to the base vehicle, which would be lucky to withstand 5.56mm at close enough range.

The vehicles we sent to Ukraine featured the full applique kit, though whether we purchased enough armour kits to fully equip our fleet is unknown (I’d suggest it’s unlikely…)

View attachment 50011

The upgrade cost some dollars but much less than acquiring a new fleet of vehicles hence its appeal.
While not my choice to upgrade, but rather to replace back in the day, I often wonder why the upgrade was not more substantial.
As mentioned the M113AS4 is much improved compared to the base vehicle...... Still it could of being much , much better!
While you can only do so much to any platform, my understanding is that their is still a few tonnes of spare capacity.
Drive train / brakes / engine / hull as is have capacity to carry more weight.

M113AS4 with added reactive armour or a cage system would of helped.
Also a trophy type of system.
A much better situational awareness / communication system.

As to offensive capability ,I believe the gun is not stabilized so certainly this should be rectified. ( may be wrong but please clarify )
Run with 6 dismounts and have a third crew member controlling a RCWS mounted on the top rear of the vehicle for a light machine gun coupled with a 40 mm or ATGM .

A fire support vehicle ( No Dismounts ) with no turret but a 30mm RCWS could of been re introduced to the fleet.................Its doable on a M113

This all up would of provided a good range of option to a broad range of threats.
The above is expensive for sure, but should be within the weight margin and would of provided a tidy unit for the investment made

Certainly not the equivalent of a modern IFV, but still much improved compared to the original M113AS1


A vehicle with a lot more capacity than what we got, which to be fair is just a training vehicle.


Cheers S

 

[Volkodav]

The upgrade cost some dollars but much less than acquiring a new fleet of vehicles hence its appeal.
While not my choice to upgrade, but rather to replace back in the day, I often wonder why the upgrade was not more substantial.
As mentioned the M113AS4 is much improved compared to the base vehicle...... Still it could of being much , much better!
While you can only do so much to any platform, my understanding is that their is still a few tonnes of spare capacity.
Drive train / brakes / engine / hull as is have capacity to carry more weight.

M113AS4 with added reactive armour or a cage system would of helped.
Also a trophy type of system.
A much better situational awareness / communication system.

As to offensive capability ,I believe the gun is not stabilized so certainly this should be rectified. ( may be wrong but please clarify )
Run with 6 dismounts and have a third crew member controlling a RCWS mounted on the top rear of the vehicle for a light machine gun coupled with a 40 mm or ATGM .

A fire support vehicle ( No Dismounts ) with no turret but a 30mm RCWS could of been re introduced to the fleet.................Its doable on a M113

This all up would of provided a good range of option to a broad range of threats.

The above is expensive for sure, but should be within the weight margin and would of provided a tidy unit for the investment made

A vehicle with a lot more capacity than what we got which to be far, is just a training vehicle.


Cheers S

Delco turrets were being built for the ASLAVs locally and could easily have been used on an AS4FSV but then again the two different 76mm versions of the M-113 used by Australia had different roles.

 

[Stampede]

Delco turrets were being built for the ASLAVs locally and could easily have been used on an AS4FSV but then again the two different 76mm versions of the M-113 used by Australia had different roles.

True but they could of played with that dynamic.

Moving forward as you said previously we are now in the box seat to get a good modern IFV.

Lets see what the DSR comes up with.


Cheers S