I know this isn’t going to be everyone’s cup of tea but why don’t we just upgrade the M113as4 to something more substantial?
Yes I’m aware they are old and IFV’s are way ahead of them but if we could upgrade them to FNSS specs from turkey and look to not only upgrade the armour package but the firepower like the Phillipines did on theirs with Elbit turret we could have a a very transportable IFV/APC.
tjey currently only weigh 12t compared to modern IFV that are 40t.
I’m not sure how the ADF even plan to get these vechiles to conflict especially in the islands surrounding Australian where land warfare will be contested.
An upgrade M113as4 and I mean properly upgraded with the best armour package, new remote turret, and awareness tech to he incorporated.
Cost would be just a few billion compared to 30billion. ADF gets a capable lightwe armoured IFV to compete Over the next 15years when we are likely to face conflict.
money saved could be put towards other more vital projects like missile defence and long range defensive weapons, B21 strike bombers and Damen crossover 115 corvettes.
the Abrams tank upgrade is still a no brainer to have that capable high end tank to contest on home soil any invader and used in combined arms warfare.
it would be interesting to know what’s the armour package on the FNSS M113 upgrade as it looks substantial and elbits remote turret I believe is a great fit and would add considerable firepower.
Yes I’m aware they are old and IFV’s are way ahead of them but if we could upgrade them to FNSS specs from turkey and look to not only upgrade the armour package but the firepower like the Phillipines did on theirs with Elbit turret we could have a a very transportable IFV/APC.
tjey currently only weigh 12t compared to modern IFV that are 40t.
I’m not sure how the ADF even plan to get these vechiles to conflict especially in the islands surrounding Australian where land warfare will be contested.
An upgrade M113as4 and I mean properly upgraded with the best armour package, new remote turret, and awareness tech to he incorporated.
Cost would be just a few billion compared to 30billion. ADF gets a capable lightwe armoured IFV to compete Over the next 15years when we are likely to face conflict.
money saved could be put towards other more vital projects like missile defence and long range defensive weapons, B21 strike bombers and Damen crossover 115 corvettes.
the Abrams tank upgrade is still a no brainer to have that capable high end tank to contest on home soil any invader and used in combined arms warfare.
it would be interesting to know what’s the armour package on the FNSS M113 upgrade as it looks substantial and elbits remote turret I believe is a great fit and would add considerable firepower.
Attachments
the road runner
Active Member
M113 no matter how much money you throw at is not worth the effort.M113 were pretty much obsolete when they came into service
Army needs an upgrade and hopefully that is exactly what they will get in the form of Lynx or Red back. Army is on a major refresh with a number of new capabilities and upgrades. AH64, Blackhawks, New IFV, Boxer , HIMARS , K9 , no need to add upgraded M113 too that list
Army needs an upgrade and hopefully that is exactly what they will get in the form of Lynx or Red back. Army is on a major refresh with a number of new capabilities and upgrades. AH64, Blackhawks, New IFV, Boxer , HIMARS , K9 , no need to add upgraded M113 too that list
The RNZAF are the only other operator of the NH90 variants in the local area I think they may offer you a one for two deal, that is pay for one and get two to take them away. Other than that they may be broken up for spares. I personally would like them to tac an order for 14 or 16 of the MH60M on the Aussie order but thats talking logic.
But that’s what I’m getting at.. they will have HIMARs, Blackhawks, Apache’s, K9, NSM launchers, small arms upgrades, Boxers, Truck Fleet, harden Army bases, Drone warfare tech.
I know they are old and outdated but a upgrade instead of the new IFV would be an acceptable trade off to squire more HIMARs, missiles and deterrence packages.
Someone should be looking into this as a cheaper bang for buck alternative.
The Turkish FNSS company really does being these vehicles into the modern era and I’m sure we could improve the tech.
most importantly these new IFV’s are so heavy that infrastructure in the top end would need to be upgraded to move them around.
how many can you carry on a Canberra class LHD?
Is that the only way to transport them?
They are 40t each.. not many could fit in a c17 and take off.
I just think give the army the new Abrams upgrade the m113 and really work on missile launchers and platforms, drones etc.
I know they are old and outdated but a upgrade instead of the new IFV would be an acceptable trade off to squire more HIMARs, missiles and deterrence packages.
Someone should be looking into this as a cheaper bang for buck alternative.
The Turkish FNSS company really does being these vehicles into the modern era and I’m sure we could improve the tech.
most importantly these new IFV’s are so heavy that infrastructure in the top end would need to be upgraded to move them around.
how many can you carry on a Canberra class LHD?
Is that the only way to transport them?
They are 40t each.. not many could fit in a c17 and take off.
I just think give the army the new Abrams upgrade the m113 and really work on missile launchers and platforms, drones etc.
An article you may find interesting re the use of an unmanned M113as4 as a trials vehicle to test unmanned vehicle concepts.
20 vehicles projected to be part of this program which I'd suggest is a serious commitment.
Autonomous M113 variants put to the test
A fleet of optionally crewed M113 AS4 vehicles, delivered by BAE Systems Australia, have undergone testing with the Australian Army. BAE Systems Australia has delivered twenty M113 AS4 Optionall
Whether the long term intent is to use the old M113 or seek a more modern platform I cannot say.
Good to see Army exploring this realm.
Cheers S
buffy9
Well-Known Member
As Stampede has linked, the AS4 are unlikely to disappear in the mid-term - though they aren't suitable for and have never really been designed for close combat.
Yes they are used by some countries in the role of an IFV or fire support vehicle, though the threats they face are not comparable to a peer threat - mortars/artillery, grenades, light anti-tank weapons, medium/heavy machine guns, mines/IEDs, autocannons... all possibly in a single engagement if you're unlucky. The vulnerability of the AS4, regardless of theoretical upgrades, mean it cannot reliably remain in the fight to support a combined-arms team - unless the threat is incapable of using heavy weapons itself.
The IFV is supposed to remedy this. The vehicle offers protection and lethality an M113 upgrade cannot match whilst still being capable of keeping up with other armoured vehicles and staying to support them.
On operational and strategic mobility, I believe it is sufficient. The space it occupies is not necessarily that much larger than an AS4, which does not impact its position on a ship, whereas a MECH force is unlikely to be fully deployed by airlift alone even today with the M113. An additional APC on a C-17A vs a single IFV isn't a gamer changer. Further on that, you can expect any infantry force entering sustained combat to deploy with tanks - meaning the heavier Abrams is going to go regardless, where an IFV can follow. It doesn't deploy based on weight/mobility/complex terrain, it deploys based on the need for an infantry-tank team that can effectively battle.
I think the current Head Land Capability, Jeremy King, put it best in a recent ADM article. I'll only quote the part relevant to platform mobility:
In terms of funding other priorities, that is an issue that continues to be looked at. Some platforms will suffer, others will not. I would argue that a capable IFV/MECH capability is long overdue, based more on what the AS4 cannot do vs what it can do. But thats just me.
We will all likely know when the DSR roles around or Land 400 is given the go ahead or stop signal, sometime in the next two months.
Last edited:
The Gavin can live for ever!!!
The M113AS4 was basically non-deployable in our context the day it rolled (slowly) off it’s production line. It is susceptible to every single anti-armour weapon in the world, has virtually no protection whatsoever even in upgraded form against serious mine and IED threats, it cannot keep up with M1A1 Abrams today, forcing our combined arms battlegroups to manoeuvre slower than they could and the fleet was unreliable even when newly upgraded.
The vehicle is over 60 years old. 70+ as a design idea.
It’s time to let it go.
Perhaps there may be some theoretical merit in the re-tasking of AS4 hulls?
They are a tactical manoeuvre hardened box.
They have already been upgraded & presumably generally in good working order.
Their trials in autonomous operation looked interesting and innovative, however may be incomplete or have proved impractical as nothing seems to be mentioned from it?
Also perhaps efforts expended in converting a meaningful fleet to autonomous operations may be counter-productive distraction of resources in the evolving environment?
I think tho that if it was possible, they would conceivably be a good adjunct to (autonomous) tactical logistics?
They are a tactical manoeuvre hardened box.
They have already been upgraded & presumably generally in good working order.
Their trials in autonomous operation looked interesting and innovative, however may be incomplete or have proved impractical as nothing seems to be mentioned from it?
Also perhaps efforts expended in converting a meaningful fleet to autonomous operations may be counter-productive distraction of resources in the evolving environment?
I think tho that if it was possible, they would conceivably be a good adjunct to (autonomous) tactical logistics?
I like the description " a tactical manoeuvre hardened box. "
Such an unmanned animal may have a place going forward.
Thinking logistic support.
Cheers S
The M-113 is an APC not an AIFV, they were obsolete when I drove them in the 90s.
Imagine telling the RAAF they had to upgrade and retain the CAC Sabre into the 2030s or 40s. This is what extending the M-113 entails, stretching a 50s designed, 50s and 60s acquired capability to last into to its 80s or 90s.
Autonomous M113s could be a useful tool in minefield clearance.....
LegionnairE
New Member
Turkey went one step further when Aselsan got involved and the result is no longer amphibious but much more capable as a fighting vehicle.
And Turkish army has better options such as FNSS Kaplan and Otokar Tulpar but they still went with this which is intriguing
LegionnairE
New Member
Mobility, protection and firepower have all improved.
You could argue that they are still no match for 30-40 ton IFVs of today and there's definitely something to be said about that but I would argue that, with as much ATGMs flying around in the battlefields of today if you have better optics and better situational awareness than the enemy, it matters much less that he has a 10 ton heavier, sturdier vehicle.
You're all going to get destroyed anyway.
You could say that "M113 can't carry the weapons I want" and there's this peculiar twin 35mm airbursting thing.
Last edited:
Totally agree, infact I think it's a shame we retired the SLR, infact, we should have retained the SMLE and converted them instead
While we are at it, the RAN needs more destroyers, Vampire is currently under going restoration so why not turn it into an upgrade and return her to service?
16 cell Mk41 unplaced of B turret, Phalanx and RAM in place of Bofors. Install the mast from the ANZAC upgrades.
The sky's the limit, more tanks, well how about reengined Matilda's with Delco turrets from ASLAVs?
I still want to dig up the F-111 and turn them into hypersonic stealth attack fighters.
Last edited:
Lolcake
Active Member
M113s need replacement. Its almost criminal suggesting otherwise. Army needs a capable warfighting vehicle that is better protected than Vietnam era tin cans.
Even if it means scaling back the purchase to 200 or so vehicles at least we can set capacity for an expansion in numbers down the track. In light of Marles' comments yesterday at the very minimum we are looking at a reduction in numbers. Hoping against hope it's not the full monty.
There are some interesting ....uhhh, add on armour packages from the Philippines for the M113....these are fair dinkum mods to protect against RPG 2 armed rebels. thats right, RPG 2.
The main thing is getting IOC, production and sustainment up. Trickle deliveries if required, yes it's more expensive than mass production but the strategic imperative is getting it moving so we can increase production if we need to.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Bushmaster Protected Mobility Vehicle - Wikipedia
A similar situation happened with The Bushmasters, the original order was for over 350 vehicles, was reduced to 299 but once production was started it was then it was just a matter of funding further orders, 1046 in the end. There was a fair bit of whingeing about the reduction in numbers at the time if I recall correctly.
Yes, once you are building them you can build more. If you aren't building them, or there isn't a live line somewhere that others don't have priority on, you are stuck with what you have.