That turret weighs more and is wider than an M113 so it really wouldn't work. OTO-Melara are developing a lightweight version of the 76mm Oto gun for AFV mounting but it will still require a 20-30 tonne platform.Yep but I reckon it would look very funny on the tall and stubby M113 chassis....kinda like R2D2 with a big nose!
Australian M113s
- Thread starter Ozymandias
- Start date
Just me being silly,all this extra firepower added to the top of the apc how does it affect it operating with th RAAF C130 ,the LAV only just fits , the joy of the old m113 was you could come out with guns blazn once the herk had stopped. One thing though , at least the m113 got an upgrade unlike the Kiwis (and should have done for the above reason), they lost a valuable asset.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Basic M113: 2.5m's tall.
Height of Protector RWS (for example): 75cms.
Cargo hold of C-130J height: 2.74m's.
With an RWS fitted - I donna think she's gonna fit captain...
t68
Well-Known Member
What did the kiwis do with the m113?
placed into storage or sold for scrap/another country
winnyfield
New Member
Not to worry, the ADF has C-17s.
http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2008/Nov/20081105/index.htm
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I've heard about them...
There aren't many tactical situations in which flying a Hercules into a firefight makes much sense. Because what this means is the $250 million aircraft rapidly becomes a right off. Certain Entebee type hostage rescue situations may be worth it but nothing else. Air-mechanised operations off the back of an airlifter are the stuff of fiction writers not real warfare.
Besides the M113AS4 is 2.6m high with the new Tenix turret. So it should still fit into a C-130.
The NZ Army replaced the M113 with the LAV III (NZLAV) for a massive boost in firepower, protection and mobility. I don't think anyone is complaining about that one.
The LAVIII is a great asset to the kiwis but to keep at least a large handful of upgraded M113s would have been a wise thing, the LAV is so big it only just fits and then can only fly 400 Nm , not good for NZ!!! Hence the need for something a bit smaller annd more than suitable for the islands .
I understand they all got scrapped .
I understand they all got scrapped .
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Some 62 of them almost got sold to an Australian collector, James Swan, in late 2005 until the US State Department intervened in 2006. 48 were subsequently scrapped, with some 12 going to the Army Museum. NZ I think, bought 70 odd M113's thus unsure where the other 10 or so went over the years.
So there we go, there's at least 12 still left in the Army's hands if anyone thinks the new NZ Govt ought to bring them out of retirement and upgrade them up to the Australian M113AS3 standard or similar.
Perfect for deployment to Timor with their Australian counterparts?I sure do, Hey , we could tie it in with the A4s coming back..Some 62 of them almost got sold to an Australian collector, James Swan, in late 2005 until the US State Department intervened in 2006. 48 were subsequently scrapped, with some 12 going to the Army Museum. NZ I think, bought 70 odd M113's thus unsure where the other 10 or so went over the years.
So there we go, there's at least 12 still left in the Army's hands if anyone thinks the new NZ Govt ought to bring them out of retirement and upgrade them up to the Australian M113AS3 standard or similar.
MeatCleaver
New Member
Rubber Tracks for Australian M113's?.
Just wondering if DoD is considering a tender to retrofit the entire fleet of Australian M113 with new full rubber tracks that have now been developed?.
Singapore, Denmark, France the UK have or are considering retrofitting tracked vechicles under a certain tonnage with a new full Rubber Track system that dramatically reduces vibration and crew fatigue. The new rubber tracks also have a much greater lifespan when comapred against steel tracks. Steel tracks seeing about 400 - 500km before severe wear and tear whereas the new rubber tracks can last up to 3000km.
Other major advantages of the rubber tracks is they are much lighter and can reduce fuel consumption by up to 30%, approach noise of vehicles are reduced by up to 40% and spares are also much easier logistically as they are much lighter. Tracks can also be wider thus further reducing ground pressure.
Wondering if anyone has any knowledge on this new rubber compound and its impact as it seems like it could be a relatively cheap procurement that could possibly bring benefits and cost savings across the entire fleet?.
Any thoughts?.
Just wondering if DoD is considering a tender to retrofit the entire fleet of Australian M113 with new full rubber tracks that have now been developed?.
Singapore, Denmark, France the UK have or are considering retrofitting tracked vechicles under a certain tonnage with a new full Rubber Track system that dramatically reduces vibration and crew fatigue. The new rubber tracks also have a much greater lifespan when comapred against steel tracks. Steel tracks seeing about 400 - 500km before severe wear and tear whereas the new rubber tracks can last up to 3000km.
Other major advantages of the rubber tracks is they are much lighter and can reduce fuel consumption by up to 30%, approach noise of vehicles are reduced by up to 40% and spares are also much easier logistically as they are much lighter. Tracks can also be wider thus further reducing ground pressure.
Wondering if anyone has any knowledge on this new rubber compound and its impact as it seems like it could be a relatively cheap procurement that could possibly bring benefits and cost savings across the entire fleet?.
Any thoughts?.
They should definately concider it. Rubber tracks will make the M113 a more viable vechical and will allow it to have some of the benifits of a wheeled vechicals (cheaper, longer life, better ride etc) while retaining key track benifits (lower ground pressure, better in really rough stuff etc).
I would imagine that the compound would be simular to many earth moving tracks which are well proven.
Wasn't this concidered as part of the m113 upgrade...?
I would imagine that the compound would be simular to many earth moving tracks which are well proven.
Wasn't this concidered as part of the m113 upgrade...?
the road runner
Active Member
Found a link on who manufactures rubber tracks for m113,seems like the rubber tracks reduce vibration/wear n tear dramatically and also enhances the time a soldier can spend in a m113 from 1.5 hrs to 10hrs.It also reduces petrol consumption,lighter ect ...great article on rubber tracks and the benefits.
http://www.economist.com/science/tm/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12286718
also found a link for the instillation guide for rubber tracks on m113
http://www.combatreform2.com/SoucyBandTrackInstallationA-654RB.pdf
seems like the rubber tracks are a very good upgrade path for Australia in my opinion.Considering all the benefits of a Soucy upgrade should Australia do an upgrade like this?What do the other members think?
http://www.economist.com/science/tm/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12286718
also found a link for the instillation guide for rubber tracks on m113
http://www.combatreform2.com/SoucyBandTrackInstallationA-654RB.pdf
seems like the rubber tracks are a very good upgrade path for Australia in my opinion.Considering all the benefits of a Soucy upgrade should Australia do an upgrade like this?What do the other members think?
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Depends. Perhaps if these companies were to fund a trial on their own money and PROVE their claims on this particular vehicle. Yeah.
I'd prefer to let DMO get on with the job of procuring the M113AS3/4's we DO have on order, to the specification we currently have and get them into service so Army can develop a capability with them, before we worry too much about what ELSE we might be able to do with them...
the road runner
Active Member
But saving up to 30% on fuel,that alone ,if true would be a good enhancement to the M113.I see your point on how Australia M113 on order and we should get them up and running before considering any other upgrades/enhancements.from link said:
Also how quickly i forget these defence companies talking up there products,i guess that is why we have professionals who test these products to see if they do what the manufactures claim before purchasing.
Last edited by a moderator:
Generally speaking, armies are more than aware of the merits and or benefits of these types of tracks - the issue is whether the stakeholder (the user group) indicates a need based on the demands and usage of the platform.
eg I know when I worked on a private contract about 7 years ago we were tasked by an ex-Warpac country to find another source for track links as they were unhappy with the cost and delays associated with their normal supply chain. The request included a search for "road tracks" (rubber biscuits on std tracks) as they had an aversion to chewing up their poor existing highway and road systems during urban travel (in some instances it's not always convenient to roll out the tank transporters etc...)
Part of that brief thus included going to the same manufacturers who do rubberised tracks for companies like john deere, caterpillar etc .... for their heavy farm equipment who use whats affectionately called "rubber band wheels" or "slicks".
So yes, everyone in the armoured areas more than knows about them as any tank travelling on a public road has to take into consideration bitumen churn before they even touch the tarmac.
the road runner
Active Member
gf and others members, would you consider a rubber track upgrade a cost effective investment for the Australian M113 fleet considering the M113 will still be used by the Australian Army for a number of years.
If the manufactures claims are correct in a 30% fuel reduction for using rubber tracks,i would think that saving alone would be reason enough to invest in such an upgrade.
I am a builder by Trade and have paid many a council fine for plant equipment destroying footpaths/roads/curb n gutter
A 25 ton tracked excavator can destroy a house/building....pile up all waste and then roll on top of the waste,to load in a truck and dog.There are no wheeled variants of heavy plant equipment to destroy houses as they would get bogged.(bit off topic ,but hopefully interesting)Nope. The cost of developing something from scratch for the M113AS4 would probably be far more than any fuel and wear savings through the remaining life of the vehicle after it is completed (~5 years).
This would have to be for a vehicle designed for rubber tracks from scratch like the XM1200 compared to something similar with steel tracks. I doubt it would apply to refitting a vehicle with rubber tracks.
They are very different vehicles with very different tracks. Ground pressure of most plant is far higher than most tanks and the tracks are gougers without pads.
DSTO has been running a CTD with the Central Queensland based manufacturer of track pads for the Army on rubber tracks.
the road runner
Active Member
Points taken Abraham........ive got alot to learn,So if the M113 was going to be kept in service for longer than 5 years(say 15 years) then it may be fesable to place rubber tracks on the M113 as an apgrade or cost saving measure? OR are you saying that the M113 would have to be desighned like the X1200 with a rubber track as the base of the desighn?
Also your quote.......(QUOTE)"I doubt it would apply to refitting a vehicle with rubber tracks."
http://www.economist.com/science/tm/...ry_id=12286718
did you see the link Abraham on what this company has stated?(link above)
AFTER thinking of what AUSSIE DIGGER has said about getting the M113 into service and up to the disired specification.....i agree with his point,so no more Talk of upgrades from me anymore,i will sit back and listen now
http://www.industrysearch.com.au/Products/Track_Pads-22952
Above is a link for Mackay/DSTO track upgrade for M113.what Abraham was talking about........but its a track pad with grousers,attached to steel tracks?that is the impression i am getting
Even for 15 years it may not be worthwhile. You would have to change a lot of the running gear to make an M113 run on rubber tracks, not just replace the track. The new running gear would need to be designed, engineered, tested, etc. All this will cost a lot. Much better to start from fresh.So if the M113 was going to be kept in service for longer than 5 years(say 15 years) then it may be fesable to place rubber tracks on the M113 as an apgrade or cost saving measure? OR are you saying that the M113 would have to be desighned like the X1200 with a rubber track as the base of the desighn?
You will need to repost the link as its been truncated by the forum software and can't be followed.
That is the company but the project I was referring to is not the M113 upgrade. It is a seperated demonstrator program to develop capability in Mackay for rubber tracks and inform the Army about them.