Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[riksavage]

I would have thought the military would be looking at developing at least one 'box' type heavy brigade built around the M1's, that encompasses the following:


1. Tracked Recce to provide a screen for heavy armour / armoured infantry formations

2. M1 Tanks

3.Tracked AFV - Infantry / A-Tank / Medic etc.

4. SPH tracked artillery to provide indirect fire support for the Recce / Heavy Armour / Amoured Infantry

5. Tracked recovery, engineering and bridging units to support all the above

6. Full remit of support vehicles (DROPS / POL)


In my opinion Australia's decision to buy M1's committed the country to developing a heavy capability. Unless the tanks are supported by vehicles capable of keeping up in all terrain then the military is failing to exploit the vehicles full potential (unless it is restricted to operating as part of a US or UK coalition force). I don't think the country can afford both heavy and medium assets if it intends building a fully self-supporting force. A medium capability built around the full range of wheeled vehicles incorporating LAV's, wheeled AFV's (Boxer or equivalent), light guns (CEASAR configuration) and associated support (command, ambulance, engineering etc.) will prove very expensive in it's own right, the country can't aford both.

Having a mix of partially heavy and medium vehicles on the battle field benefits neither concept, I don't understand the logic - commit to single vision and stick with it.

 

[PeterM]

One of the key preferences for the LAND 400 vehicle is that the Australian requirement (1,100) be part of a large scale international order. So like the ASLAV and M113A1 Australian can leverage masses of international supply chains for spare parts to sustain the vehicles.

So in this context naturally the FRES utility vehicle and Piranha V was looked upon very fondly. That was before the British MoD 'rescinded' GDUK's position as preferred tenderer. Orders for Boxer, VBCI, AMV have not reached a level where Australia could comfortable coast of their logistics. The Canadian LAV-H version of LAV III for Stryker mid life upgrade is in a stronger position now than any of the European 8x8s. That is of course for wheeled vehicle only...

presumably whatever vehicle ends up the solution for FRES willbe an option.

The LAV-H seems an interesting option, it can potentially leverage existing the supply train for the US Stryker and LAVIII family plus likely build on the ADF's exisiting experience and training with the ASLAV.

I haven't found much information on it, but here is some general info on the differences of the LAV-H and LAV III (ASLAV is basically a LAV II variant)
from LAV-H HAS THE INSIDE TRACK AS THE NEW ARMOURED VEHICLE - David Pugliese?s Defence Watch

The LAV-H has an extended hull, larger engine, improved suspension system and an upgraded driver station. It also has a 55,000 pound gross vehicle weight, which makes available 10,000 extra pounds that can be used to carry additional armour, fuel or equipment.

Also among the upgrades on the LAV-H are a protection kit installed under the crew compartment and mine-resistant seats to reduce injuries during a blast. The vehicle can also be raised up several inches and locked into that position for use in high-risk areas. The additional space allows for a greater standoff from a blast.

 

[FutureTank]

Ummmmm........hell no.

I understand what you are saying about the need for the Cav. to have access to a range of vehicles, but you are advocating a sort of 'jack of all trades/master of none' approach there. It might be that there is a need for bushmasters or the like to accompany the Cav but once you get to the point where you need heavy tracked IFVs you are really talking Mech Inf. and at that point the Cav would give way to 5 or 7 RAR.

285 vehicles is insufficient to equip 2/3 Cavalry Regiments and 2 Mech Infantry Battalions. 257 ASLAVs was/is barely sufficient (if at all) to equip the two Cavalry regiments as is - once Trade School, Depot Maintenance and other vehicles are taken out of the picture.

Brett.

Brett, if you read carefully, you will see that we agree in terms of numbers. As for the vehicle mix, that's a foregone conclusion given the numbers of Bushmasters being purchased. LAND400 was always meant for the Infantry and not Cavalry. However, the provision was for the type was to replace ASLAVs also in the long term. Retirement of ASLAVs will now coincide with the introduction of the LAND400 design that has been pushed back a couple of years.

In terms of having a 'heavy' IFV in cavalry, I personally don't understand why you feel this is inappropriate. In both East and West there are tracked IFVs used in recon role, and have been since the 60s IMHO. The LAV is not designed for a recon role only either, and is in effect a medium wheeled IFV at over 13t, though this is not a role used by the ADF.
And, we are talking 'cavalry' which is traditionally a 'jack of all trades'. Lets not forget that in more conventional warfare scenarios the US Army and Russian doctrines call for MBTs in cavalry roles also.

The LAND400 design need not come only in the 'heavy' i.e. 25t+ configuration.

 

[FutureTank]

I would have thought the military would be looking at developing at least one 'box' type heavy brigade built around the M1's, that encompasses the following:


1. Tracked Recce to provide a screen for heavy armour / armoured infantry formations

2. M1 Tanks

3.Tracked AFV - Infantry / A-Tank / Medic etc.

4. SPH tracked artillery to provide indirect fire support for the Recce / Heavy Armour / Amoured Infantry

5. Tracked recovery, engineering and bridging units to support all the above

6. Full remit of support vehicles (DROPS / POL)


In my opinion Australia's decision to buy M1's committed the country to developing a heavy capability. Unless the tanks are supported by vehicles capable of keeping up in all terrain then the military is failing to exploit the vehicles full potential (unless it is restricted to operating as part of a US or UK coalition force). I don't think the country can afford both heavy and medium assets if it intends building a fully self-supporting force. A medium capability built around the full range of wheeled vehicles incorporating LAV's, wheeled AFV's (Boxer or equivalent), light guns (CEASAR configuration) and associated support (command, ambulance, engineering etc.) will prove very expensive in it's own right, the country can't aford both.

Having a mix of partially heavy and medium vehicles on the battle field benefits neither concept, I don't understand the logic - commit to single vision and stick with it.

Rick, the M1 was never bought with that thinking in mind. It was quite simple: does the Army need a replacement for the Leo1 or not. When the Army was able to provide a good argument for retaining an MBT, the M1 was purchased on the affordability/technology basis, with no employment really considered because the entire 1 Armoured would almost never go to field as a unit.

The big issue, as is evident from the White Paper, is the need for amphibious capability. Currently there is not an amphibious IFV hull in tracked configuration available from Australia's usual suppliers to choose from that will suit the role of armoured infantry also (the intended LAND400 role). The wheeled vehicles, even when amphibious, are neither capable of sea swimming, and severely limit choice of LZs in much of our region.

The 1,100 units requirement is just unaffordable based on current figures. It would only be affordable if stretched over maybe about 20 years worth of procurement (6 elections!), and that is after the newly revealed deficit is brought to some far more manageable level than now (say 10billion). The initial batch will not be greater than about 275 units. It may be increased if the SPH project is lumped into the LAND400 program, which will almost certainly mean a tracked chassis. However, I don't see that as an option right now.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

in my opinion Australia's decision to buy M1's committed the country to developing a heavy capability. Unless the tanks are supported by vehicles capable of keeping up in all terrain then the military is failing to exploit the vehicles full potential (unless it is restricted to operating as part of a US or UK coalition force).

The decision to buy the M1 was expressly to sustain a medium armour force. That is LAV type vehicles for armoured cavalry, mechanised infantry and combat support being supported by M1 tanks: that is light + heavy = medium. Since LAV type vehicles in the tank role (Stryker MGS) where rejected for lacking the protection needed to support close combat.

There is no serious concern about having a tracked tank driving in a single formation with a tracked IFV and a tracked SPH as its not really a relevant combat scenario. 8x8 vehicles like the LAV can keep up with the tank in tactical maneuvering. While there are differences in their mobility its not enough to bring a mechanised brigade to a halt.

 

[FutureTank]

presumably whatever vehicle ends up the solution for FRES willbe an option.

The LAV-H seems an interesting option, it can potentially leverage existing the supply train for the US Stryker and LAVIII family plus likely build on the ADF's exisiting experience and training with the ASLAV.

I haven't found much information on it, but here is some general info on the differences of the LAV-H and LAV III (ASLAV is basically a LAV II variant)
from LAV-H HAS THE INSIDE TRACK AS THE NEW ARMOURED VEHICLE - David Pugliese?s Defence Watch

FRES is probably dead given the current economic disarray in UK.

The entire AFV situation in the US is in disarray due to the FCS mounted systems range cancellation, and the near cancellation of the USMC EFV, which is out of ADF's price range, and not really suitable for an infantry vehicle due to the much larger USMC carried troops requirement, never mind the weight.

Besides all that, neither the USA nor UK have same AFV/IFV requirement as that of the Australian Army, that is:

1. Equip two armoured infantry battalions (replacing M113AS3/4s and other M113s)
2. Equip two armoured reconnaissance regiments (replace ASLAVs)

3. HIGHLY DESIRABLE capability to be used in amphibious role off the LHD without the need for an LCV

4. Ability to keep up with the Abrams

5. Have a highly adaptable design given 1, 2 and 3.

6. Be cheap with the highly desirable unit price of AU$3 million (keeping in mind the Bushmaster is AU$600K)

7. As much of it as possible be produced in Australia. (desirable 80%, achievable 50-60%)

Keep in mind that the Bushmaster can be redesigned to replace the ASLAV in role if not in capability. I suspect though that Cavalry will still want something with a bit of a punch on it in the troops.

 

[Firn]

The tactical mobility of a tracked vehicle is umatched and only an tracked IFV could follow a tank everywhere. But the current environment, for example Afghanistan has shown that tanks and 8x8 APC and IFV can cooperate well in LIC to MIC in arid climate zones. So there might be no need for Australia to buy a new and expensive tracked IFV.


Both the PzH 2000 and the AS-9 seem to be vehicles who should excel in the role of tracked and armored SPH. Both are already in service and the PzH 2000 has seen light combat under difficult climatic and environmental conditions. I don't think that the K-10 (or AS-10) ARV is needed for Australia as unlike the South Koreans they won't face massive numbers of enemy artillery in the foreseeable future. Hence it doesn't seem to be a cost-effective addition.

 

[PeterM]

I don't think there is much need for a tracked IFV option for the ADF. There are alot of reasons that most countries are moving to wheeled IFV designs.

While the amphibious options for IFVs would be nice, in my opinion that is a very expensive luxury. The army is not a marine corps where amphibious operations are the norm.

The RAN's job (with the RAAF) is to get the Army to where it needs to be and then support them with supplies etc.

It is all about getting the best capability Australia can sustainably afford
for example instead of getting maybe 10 expeditionary fighting vehicles ( $US22m ea), we could get 2 JHSV (US$100m+ ea), then that is a much better use of resources imho.

 

[PeterM]

Both the PzH 2000 and the AS-9 seem to be vehicles who should excel in the role of tracked and armored SPH. Both are already in service and the PzH 2000 has seen light combat under difficult climatic and environmental conditions. I don't think that the K-10 (or AS-10) ARV is needed for Australia as unlike the South Koreans they won't face massive numbers of enemy artillery in the foreseeable future. Hence it doesn't seem to be a cost-effective addition.

I believe the AS-9/AS-10 has been designed with Australian conditions in mind. How does the PzH 2000 cope with Aust conditions, particularly the heat in northern australia (which has been a serious issue for other amoured vehicles).

I wouldn't underestimate the utlity of the AS-10. being able to quickly re-ammunition

from ADM: Land Force: Artillery - Land 17: self propelled Vs towed | ADM Feb 2009

One of the lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan is that nowhere is really safe any more: not only does an SP gun require a smaller detachment, it offers full protection for its members, and Raytheon has made a point of highlighting successful tests of the AS-9's uprated armour.

and

The AS-10 is the only vehicle of its type in the world, using the same chassis as the AS-9 and providing full protection for the gun detachment during re-ammunitioning.

Importantly, as well as fully automating the re-supply process and reducing the manpower requirements this means the guns can be re-supplied in the operational area - the company says SP guns usually have to withdraw to a safe area because the re-supply vehicle crews are usually in unprotected trucks and the ammunition is transferred manually.

Each AS-10 carries enough ammunition to fully re-supply two AS-9s, but even using one to three or four would probably provide significant advantages, the company believes; much depends on Army's view of its own doctrine and operational requirements.

And if the Army prefers, the AS-9 can still be re-ammunitioned in the old-fashioned way, like the Army's current field guns, the PzH2000 and other SP guns.

In European NATO service, the PzH2000 is re-supplied using a standard B-Vehicle and DROPS (Demountable Rack-type Offload and Pick-up System) container.

The projectiles and charges are loaded manually into the vehicle and turret bustle, a process which takes less than 10 minutes.

Beyond generalities that are already in the public domain neither the gun manufacturers nor Defence have disclosed details of their ammunition re-supply proposals, nor how these might impact on, for example, Project Overlander.

Presumably if the ADF are in a position to use the SPH operationally, then the SPH and ammunition system is potentially at risk.

I am not sure which SPH system has the edge at the moment, both are good systems and both have different advantages and opportunites.

If I had to guess which system the ADF will go for, I have to lean towards the AS-9/AS-10 largely based on the considerable opportunities for australian companies and the associated long term benefits.

 

[FutureTank]

The decision to buy the M1 was expressly to sustain a medium armour force. That is LAV type vehicles for armoured cavalry, mechanised infantry and combat support being supported by M1 tanks: that is light + heavy = medium. Since LAV type vehicles in the tank role (Stryker MGS) where rejected for lacking the protection needed to support close combat.

There is no serious concern about having a tracked tank driving in a single formation with a tracked IFV and a tracked SPH as its not really a relevant combat scenario. . While there are differences in their mobility its not enough to bring a mechanised brigade to a halt.

light + heavy = medium???

"medium armour force"? I don't recall seeing that in the Army publications in recent years, probably because the mediumness of the M113 has severely lightened in the view of new crop of AT weapons that emerged in the last 40 years.

Stryker MGS??? Deploying a different vehicle to the rest of the park that at the time was not even in service with the US Army, or barely so?

"8x8 vehicles like the LAV can keep up with the tank in tactical manoeuvring"? That's on the assumption of keeping to certain soil types...like those in Shoalwater Bay, or West and Central Asia?
And, if the M1 was intended for supporting close combat (like urban warfare?), then what sort of tactical manoeuvring was being considered? Close combat involves being highly exposed to a wide variety of short range infantry AT weapons, usually in the final phases of an assault. Its a situation where no amount of doing sums like "light + heavy = medium" will convince the infantry they would not rather be in something heavier than a LAV, and not sitting on flammable tyres.

 

[FutureTank]

Arguing with FT is like arguing with a brick wall. He does not understand, despite being repeatedly told, that regular Cav units do NOT use Bushmaster at all, are not issued with them and do NOT use land rover for any operational taskings. They are purposely equipped with ASLAV-25 and variants for recon duties and ASLAV-PC carriers, to carry their recon scouts (vegies).

As you correctly point out, 257 ASLAV vehicles is barely sufficient to equip the units that have them already. Especially taking into account attrition, due to the heavy operational workload these vehicles have been placed under...

B Sqn 3/4 Cav, is not a "Cav Regt" in the typical sense of the word. It's mission is not to provide armoured recon/surveillance but rather a protected transport capability for 3 Brigade.

It is called a Cav Sqn due to that being it's original "raison d'etre" however it is a completely different capability to that provided by 2nd Cavalry Regt and 2/14 LHR, which ARE dedicated recon andsurveillance regiments.

If what Abe suggests, pans out, it sounds like B Sqn 3/4 Cav might eventually revert to a true Cavalry Regiment and be equipped with similar vehicles and a similar structure to the existing Cav Regiments, something Army and RAAC, though not the CO of 3 Brigade, has desired for a LONG time.

The other point he fails to understand is that the reserve Cav units as he calls them, though technically they are light horse, mounted infantry and lancer units are equipped with the Land Rover RSV, not the Bushmaster OR the ASLAV OR the M113AS3/4 for training purposes. It is not meant to provide an operational capability and in any case is an interim vehicle until Project Overlander delivers improved vehicles and possibly even JLTV or similar to these units.

The sole exception to this is a squadron of the Hunter Valley Lancers, that maintain a single squadron of Bushmaster IMV's. Their role is to provide protected mobility however, not recon/surveillance and they are so equipped because A) they support the School of Infantry's exercises and B) they have a powerful Federal member of parliament...

The Army units will use whatever they are given to use in future, and love it. Its quite simply a matter of affordability. A Bushmaster is just as capable of being used in many roles the ASLAV is used in, including PC.

"If what Abe suggests, pans out..."? I remember the proposal for a second recon regiment being made back in the late 1980s! Its just a mattter of internal Army politics and their ability to convince the Minister for one more.

And what does vehicle selection have to do with what the unit does? 2 Cav has been performing all manner of roles, some not even remotely recon over the years. By the same token M113 mounted infantry are just as capable in performing in the recon role as those mounted in ASLAVs. Lots of nations have recon elements that are mounted on vehicles similar in design to the Bushmasters.

Besides that, I didn't say the recon troop would consist entirely of Bushmasters. You don't think something a tad smaller than an ASLAV would be useful in a recon role?

 

[Firn]

I believe the AS-9/AS-10 has been designed with Australian conditions in mind. How does the PzH 2000 cope with Aust conditions, particularly the heat in northern australia (which has been a serious issue for other amoured vehicles).

It seems it has done fine in the hot/very hot and dusty summers in southern Afghanistan.

PzH in action

Climate of Afghanistan

 

[FutureTank]

I don't think there is much need for a tracked IFV option for the ADF. There are alot of reasons that most countries are moving to wheeled IFV designs.

While the amphibious options for IFVs would be nice, in my opinion that is a very expensive luxury. The army is not a marine corps where amphibious operations are the norm.

The RAN's job (with the RAAF) is to get the Army to where it needs to be and then support them with supplies etc.

It is all about getting the best capability Australia can sustainably afford
for example instead of getting maybe 10 expeditionary fighting vehicles ( ea), we could get 2 JHSV (US$100m+ ea), then that is a much better use of resources imho.

Looking around the Asian region away form the West and Central Asian dust bowls, I would tend to disagree. A wheeled vehicle would severely limit Army deployability options in far too many scenarios, particularly given amphibious emphasis. Having spoken with people who used BTRs and LAVs, the level of beach preparation to use wheeled AFVs is such as to make most tactical plans with even a modicum of opposition very challenging.

 

[Aussie Digger]

light + heavy = medium???

"medium armour force"? I don't recall seeing that in the Army publications in recent years, probably because the mediumness of the M113 has severely lightened in the view of new crop of AT weapons that emerged in the last 40 years.

Chief of Army describes Army's current transformation as the transfer from a light infantry based force to a light armoured force.

 

[Aussie Digger]

And what does vehicle selection have to do with what the unit does? 2 Cav has been performing all manner of roles, some not even remotely recon over the years. By the same token M113 mounted infantry are just as capable in performing in the recon role as those mounted in ASLAVs. Lots of nations have recon elements that are mounted on vehicles similar in design to the Bushmasters.

In training, nothing. On operations, it makes ALL the difference. If a Land Rover could be used in the operational Cavalry role, the ASLAV wouldn't exist.

Besides that, I didn't say the recon troop would consist entirely of Bushmasters. You don't think something a tad smaller than an ASLAV would be useful in a recon role?

It might, depending on the threat level. However the recon role you refer to is somewhat different to the role ASLAV performs.

You could try travelling route Irish in an unarmoured Land Rover if you wanted, but I wouldn't recommend it...

 

[FutureTank]

Chief of Army describes Army's current transformation as the transfer from a light infantry based force to a light armoured force.

Yes, and so did the previous Chiefs of Army (Sanderson?) when the ASLAVs were selected, and there were rumours of imminent M113 replacement. No Army publication I have seen has suggested acquiring a replacement in anything that comes close to the Bradley for example although there has been consistent support in forums for a "real" IFV. Both the M2/3 and the FV510 are too heavy for ADF logistic support, and no longer capable of providing the protection from infantry AT weapons mandated by the current/future state of technology. One can ether go the Israeli way and design heavy IFVs tantamount to one based on a tank chassis, and Israelis can do this on the Australian Centurion hulls, or find other solutions that do not require greater physical armour (in most situations) than that of light (ave.15t) IFVs.

I don't see the Australian Army going with a tank-IFV.
Given there is now little advantage in sitting in a 25-30t IFV to being in a 15-18t one, and the far greater bang for bucks in the later, my argument is that the LAND400 design is likely to be a hull in that lighter weight range. Whether it is tracked or wheeled is entirely dependent on the Army specific doctrinal and force mix needs since modular armoured vehicle engineering is now well tried and advanced to offer affordable choices in both types of chassis. Such a chassis will work well to suit all Arms in the Australian Army, and most roles on the future battlefields where speed may be of greater worth than additional armour, but which can be sacrificed if need be for added armour in situations, like close urban combat, where speed is often not a viable option in either mounted or dismounted combat.
(Note:Generally the term hull is reserved for tracklaying and amphibious vehicles, while the term body is used for wheeled vehicles.)

Tracked vehicles have inherently greater mobility if only because the track is less susceptible to enemy fire than tyres. They also offer better traction and propulsion in the amphibious role that does not require additional propulsion systems, and I quote "For amphibious vehicles, which tend to be in the 25 t range, weight reduction can significantly improve buoyancy." It is easier to add armour to tracked vehicles than to wheeled vehicles due to their better ground pressure factor. Notably Israelis that do a bit of close combat have so far procured only 150 or so wheeled APCs.

It seems to me that terminology gets confused sometimes. When the Army says "light", they do so in the context of the existence of "heavy" 40t+ IFVs, predominantly in Israel, and that the Cold War IFVs in the FV510 or M2/3 range are "medium" just going by military weight classifications at 25-30t. "Light" seems to be defined as anything in the teens in terms of gross AFV weight. Why RAND calls the Stryker a "medium" combat force is their secret since when Strykers were introduced, for a while they were called motorised brigades, with a memorable comment from somewhere at the time that there had not been motorised infantry in the US Army since 1941 at that time.

 

[FutureTank]

In training, nothing. On operations, it makes ALL the difference. If a Land Rover could be used in the operational Cavalry role, the ASLAV wouldn't exist.

It might, depending on the threat level. However the recon role you refer to is somewhat different to the role ASLAV performs.

You could try travelling route Irish in an unarmoured Land Rover if you wanted, but I wouldn't recommend it...

ASLAV exists because someone designed it, and someone else thought it suitable for their idea of a recon vehicle, namely the USMC. However, lots of other vehicles can and had performed the same role, including on operations during the Second World War (I hear it was dangerous), including Jeeps. I don't know what ASLAV performs, but the 2nd Cavalry Regiment performs a range of roles in a range of operational scenarios, not all of which require an ASLAV-like vehicle. The Land Rover is used in the reconnaissance role by the Reserve units. So I guess if the 2nd Cav is all tied up reconnoitring dangerous streets somewhere, that is the Army's fall back vehicle of choice until the light Protected Mobility Vehicle capability (PMV-L) version comes out of the LAND 121 "which will serve as the platform for command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and electronic warfare capabilities." Defence Materiel Organisation

 

[Aussie Digger]

ASLAV exists because someone designed it,

No, LAV-25 exists.

ASLAV was specifically designed to meet an Australian requirement. ASLAV is a modified variant of the LAV-25. If a Land Rover could perform the 2 Cav/2/14 LHR role, ASLAV wouldn't ever have been acquired and hence my earlier comment that ASLAV would never have existed...

As to the JLTV or similar, it will indeed be capable of performing recon and surveillance duties, at a somewhat lower threat level than an ASLAV or similar vehicle, though nonetheless still useful. n

As to your Land Rover idea, it is an interim vehicle. It is not intended for operational deployment, nor operations in general, IMHO. If some sort of incredible DoA warfighting scenario presented itself, it would be used, but that is not considered likely for obvious reason. If Government were seriously desiring an operationally capable vehicle for reserve units, they could have acquired:

A) Additional ASLAV's;

B) A purpose designed vehicle such as the Eagle IV which, btw is rather similar to the Project Overlander requirement and happens to be in-service and production right now (AFAIK) or;

C) JLTV.

We all know what they seem to have chosen...

 

[Aussie Digger]

It seems to me that terminology gets confused sometimes. When the Army says "light", they do so in the context of the existence of "heavy" 40t+ IFVs, predominantly in Israel, and that the Cold War IFVs in the FV510 or M2/3 range are "medium" just going by military weight classifications at 25-30t. "Light" seems to be defined as anything in the teens in terms of gross AFV weight. Why RAND calls the Stryker a "medium" combat force is their secret since when Strykers were introduced, for a while they were called motorised brigades, with a memorable comment from somewhere at the time that there had not been motorised infantry in the US Army since 1941 at that time.

M113AS3/4 in it's current operational configuration weighs in at 18t.

Upgrades are already being studied, which include bar armour, similar to that fitted to ASLAV, a belly armour package, to improve protection against mines/IED and other "unspecified" enhancements and WILL be fitted before the vehicle is ever deployed to any operational environment where ATGW/RPG/IED threats are present.

These modifications will push the vehicle into the 25t class...

 

[FutureTank]

No, LAV-25 exists.

ASLAV was specifically designed to meet an Australian requirement. ASLAV is a modified variant of the LAV-25. If a Land Rover could perform the 2 Cav/2/14 LHR role, ASLAV wouldn't ever have been acquired and hence my earlier comment that ASLAV would never have existed...

As to the JLTV or similar, it will indeed be capable of performing recon and surveillance duties, at a somewhat lower threat level than an ASLAV or similar vehicle, though nonetheless still useful. n

As to your Land Rover idea, it is an interim vehicle. It is not intended for operational deployment, nor operations in general, IMHO. If some sort of incredible DoA warfighting scenario presented itself, it would be used, but that is not considered likely for obvious reason. If Government were seriously desiring an operationally capable vehicle for reserve units, they could have acquired:

A) Additional ASLAV's;

B) A purpose designed vehicle such as the Eagle IV which, btw is rather similar to the Project Overlander requirement and happens to be in-service and production right now (AFAIK) or;

C) JLTV.

We all know what they seem to have chosen...

Forgive me for being blunt, but the Land Rover has been an interim vehicle for some 15 years now I think.

Also talking to the few Army people that would, they rarely use words like could have or should have. The diggers use what they get. No one has a crystal ball on what threat environment the ADF will find themselves in in the next 20 years. No one knows when a low level threat can turn into a deadlier environment overnight.

If it was up to me I would even have a separate heavy IFV platoon of four vehicles in each armoured battalion just in case. Relatively cheap to make from Centurions in storage, or even Leopards (but better go with Israeli experience) they can just sit there and do nothing until the Army finds itself in some Third World slum full of RPGs. Would give me a far better night's sleep.