Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[machina]

Australia has different requirements for its mechanised units compared to European nations. Europe has many countries connected by land. Invasion by large, modern armoured forces is a plausible threat. Therefore mechanised units need a vehicle that can survive a high intensity armoured war.

Australia is an island, and lies a reasonably sea voyage from any medium or great power. There are few nations that could manage to pull together the amphibious, oiler, replenishment, ammunition, etc. ships required to support an amphibious invasion. It's unlikely to happen, and so the weighting it is given in developing land force structure would be much less.

Australia is likely to be deploying mechanised forces overseas in the future. In recent times this has primary been in low to medium intensity conflict, against technologically inferior enemies. Australian light armoured vehicles have largely coped with the threats. A greater capability may well be needed, as the intensity of these conflicts gradually rises.

However, this capability must be targeted at the emerging threats. The threats include: IEDs, RPGs,and snipers targeting exposed crew. Counter-measures to these include: jamming technology, bar armour, RWS. These are all available to light armoured vehicles.

The need for an IFV in the Australian Army may emerge as time goes by but I don't see the need at present. A better use of funds would procuring more light armoured vehicles equipped with the technologies developed to counter the common threats to Australian forces overseas. This would meet a key aim of the HNA, all troops being able to ride in armoured vehicles of some sort.

 

[PeterM]

Australia has different requirements for its mechanised units compared to European nations. Europe has many countries connected by land. Invasion by large, modern armoured forces is a plausible threat. Therefore mechanised units need a vehicle that can survive a high intensity armoured war.

Australia is an island, and lies a reasonably sea voyage from any medium or great power. There are few nations that could manage to pull together the amphibious, oiler, replenishment, ammunition, etc. ships required to support an amphibious invasion. It's unlikely to happen, and so the weighting it is given in developing land force structure would be much less.

Australia is likely to be deploying mechanised forces overseas in the future. In recent times this has primary been in low to medium intensity conflict, against technologically inferior enemies. Australian light armoured vehicles have largely coped with the threats. A greater capability may well be needed, as the intensity of these conflicts gradually rises.

However, this capability must be targeted at the emerging threats. The threats include: IEDs, RPGs,and snipers targeting exposed crew. Counter-measures to these include: jamming technology, bar armour, RWS. These are all available to light armoured vehicles.

The need for an IFV in the Australian Army may emerge as time goes by but I don't see the need at present. A better use of funds would procuring more light armoured vehicles equipped with the technologies developed to counter the common threats to Australian forces overseas. This would meet a key aim of the HNA, all troops being able to ride in armoured vehicles of some sort.

Your argument is very much in line with the argument against Australia fielding expensive MBTs. Australia does have main battle tanks and they do need infantry support. You simply can't ask ASLAVs or M113s (however they are upgraded) to operate in a similar battlefield environment that requies an M1A1 MBT.

I disagree, I see a genuine IFV as a force multiplier. The proliferation of cheap IEDs and AT weapons (eg RPGs) make these more important, the nature of low-medium intensity combat situations has been changing.

A good example of this is Israel, they are regularly involved in low-medium intensity actions against palestinian forces. It is interesting that they are developing the Namur (Leopard) AIFV which is based of the Merkava MBT hull, is over 40t and carriers 2+9 crew.

Either the CV90 (28t), Puma (31.45t) or even new versions of the combat proven Warrior (24t) would fill this role admirably. The CV90 and Puma carry 3+8 crew (unless of course German soliders are substantially smaller than Aussies!) and the Warrior 3+7.

I do stand corrected on the air transportability by a Hercules, but a C-17 would certainly get the job done.

Personally, I see an IFV as being alot more pratical and cost effective than MBTs, particularly the gas guzzling M1A1, but that is a completely separate issue.

 

[Waylander]

The Puma and the CV90 carry only 6 dismounts but at least in the German army it is envisioned that the vehicle commander also dismounts if the situation requires it.
And a Puma is going to have a much better protection against IEDs/mines and RPGs than every wheeled APC/IFV out there.
But the question remains if a true IFV is needed for Australia.


It is defenitely right that if Australia would operate their MBTs like most NATO countries they would need a proper IFV to accompany them.
But IIRC I learned that Australia attaches their MBTs in smaller units to their infantry units which is very similar to how the USMC uses it's tanks.

I would think that mobilizing the whole Australian army is much more important and IMHO a mix of wheeled IFVs and APCs seems to be the right solution for it. I hope I remember correctly that not all of the Aussie forces are at least motorized (even if it is by using land rovers...) which is not understandable for me when I look at the vast distances which need to be covered in Australia.

In the end I would say stay with a Piranha chassis. A modern Piranha IV would make transition easy and there are enough possible APC and IFV configurations available for it.
Maybe Boxer or VBCI would also be interesting candidates.
Aquiring a heavy tracked IFV is less important than getting the rest of the army into proper protected vehicles.

 

[PeterM]

The Puma and the CV90 carry only 6 dismounts but at least in the German army it is envisioned that the vehicle commander also dismounts if the situation requires it.
And a Puma is going to have a much better protection against IEDs/mines and RPGs than every wheeled APC/IFV out there.
But the question remains if a true IFV is needed for Australia.

It is defenitely right that if Australia would operate their MBTs like most NATO countries they would need a proper IFV to accompany them.
But IIRC I learned that Australia attaches their MBTs in smaller units to their infantry units which is very similar to how the USMC uses it's tanks.

I would think that mobilizing the whole Australian army is much more important and IMHO a mix of wheeled IFVs and APCs seems to be the right solution for it. I hope I remember correctly that not all of the Aussie forces are at least motorized (even if it is by using land rovers...) which is not understandable for me when I look at the vast distances which need to be covered in Australia.

In the end I would say stay with a Piranha chassis. A modern Piranha IV would make transition easy and there are enough possible APC and IFV configurations available for it.
Maybe Boxer or VBCI would also be interesting candidates.
Aquiring a heavy tracked IFV is less important than getting the rest of the army into proper protected vehicles.

the Pirahna IV (24t) or VBCI (26t) are intriging options and would provide substantially better protection than the ASLAV (13.2t) or upgraded M113 (18t). It is worth noting that the VBCI is a finalist for the UK Army's Future Rapid Effect System (FRES), which is very similar to how we would use IFVs. The wheeled vehicles to have a much lower logistical footprint which makes alot of sense (the old tracked vs wheeled argument).

I don't think the M1A1 is the best value MBT solution for us, I can't help thinking we would have been better off with the Challenger IIE or Leopard 2 A6M. It is no disrepect for the M1A1's actual combat capability, but their fuel consumption is horrendous. I know we run them on bio-desiel, but it is still a logistical nightmare.

 

[old faithful]

Australia has different requirements for its mechanised units compared to European nations. Europe has many countries connected by land. Invasion by large, modern armoured forces is a plausible threat. Therefore mechanised units need a vehicle that can survive a high intensity armoured war.

Australia is an island, and lies a reasonably sea voyage from any medium or great power. There are few nations that could manage to pull together the amphibious, oiler, replenishment, ammunition, etc. ships required to support an amphibious invasion. It's unlikely to happen, and so the weighting it is given in developing land force structure would be much less.

Australia is likely to be deploying mechanised forces overseas in the future. In recent times this has primary been in low to medium intensity conflict, against technologically inferior enemies. Australian light armoured vehicles have largely coped with the threats. A greater capability may well be needed, as the intensity of these conflicts gradually rises.

However, this capability must be targeted at the emerging threats. The threats include: IEDs, RPGs,and snipers targeting exposed crew. Counter-measures to these include: jamming technology, bar armour, RWS. These are all available to light armoured vehicles.

The need for an IFV in the Australian Army may emerge as time goes by but I don't see the need at present. A better use of funds would procuring more light armoured vehicles equipped with the technologies developed to counter the common threats to Australian forces overseas. This would meet a key aim of the HNA, all troops being able to ride in armoured vehicles of some sort.

I agree. I see Australia,s roll at the moment as sending a small contribution to oversea,s deployments, working with the US and NATO.
Regional conflicts would not NEED AFV,s. With APC,s ASLAV,s and MBT,s., we have the resourses to counter anything in our region, combined with controll of the sea and air.
the bushmaster is proving very capable as well, and im sure it can be upgraded as required.
The tiger ARH will boost the armour many times more than AFVs, and personaly, I would much rather see $$$ spent on another dozen!

 

[Goknub]

IFVs

Some sites state the CV90 as having 8 dismounts but I'm guessing this is a tight squeeze. Replacing the turret with a RWS should allow for an 8th mount to be carried, although I would personally like a hi/lo mix of Namers and M113 in a similar style to the ASLAV/Bushie mix.
Though I do realize the logistics of adding another vehicle type is likely to prevent such a mix.

The real-world result I think would be best would be copying the PC/Gun car split the ASLAVs have, this would lighten up many of the IFV to allow more amour or to allow better performance in SE Asia without needing 2 different platforms.

At the very least we should be procuring Bar Armour sets for both the M113s and Bushies. Both these vehicles are expected to go into harms way and should have the same protection against RPGs.

 

[croc]

I found this on the net, whilst browsing Internet on Korean capabilities

K21 IFV could be a contender.

 

[swerve]

...I do stand corrected on the air transportability by a Hercules, but a C-17 would certainly get the job done.
....

I believe all these vehicles are transportable by A400M. In the case of the Puma this is only with the base armour, but that's still very well armoured. With the additional armour modules it weighs over 40 tons.

 

[machina]

Your argument is very much in line with the argument against Australia fielding expensive MBTs. Australia does have main battle tanks and they do need infantry support. You simply can't ask ASLAVs or M113s (however they are upgraded) to operate in a similar battlefield environment that requies an M1A1 MBT.

I disagree, I see a genuine IFV as a force multiplier. The proliferation of cheap IEDs and AT weapons (eg RPGs) make these more important, the nature of low-medium intensity combat situations has been changing.

A good example of this is Israel, they are regularly involved in low-medium intensity actions against palestinian forces. It is interesting that they are developing the Namur (Leopard) AIFV which is based of the Merkava MBT hull, is over 40t and carriers 2+9 crew.

Either the CV90 (28t), Puma (31.45t) or even new versions of the combat proven Warrior (24t) would fill this role admirably. The CV90 and Puma carry 3+8 crew (unless of course German soliders are substantially smaller than Aussies!) and the Warrior 3+7.

I do stand corrected on the air transportability by a Hercules, but a C-17 would certainly get the job done.

Personally, I see an IFV as being alot more pratical and cost effective than MBTs, particularly the gas guzzling M1A1, but that is a completely separate issue.

Despite the proliferation of RPGs and IEDs, light armour has not had too many issues. I don't think it's the right thing to do to armour some units to a level beyond has been found to be sufficient, while leaving others completely unarmoured. Certainly those unarmoured units can be restricted to roles that don't put them in much danger, however that obviously restricts the ability to rotate troops and maintain deployments long term.

As far as Israel goes, their force structure is largely a result of the wars they have fought with their neighbours. These are much more similar to European wars than the expeditionary style deployments that Australia carries out. I think for the same reason that a European force structure is not valid for the Australian Army, neither is an Israeli one.

As far as the M1A1 goes, it's coming into service so arguments about it are academic now.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Your argument is very much in line with the argument against Australia fielding expensive MBTs. Australia does have main battle tanks and they do need infantry support. You simply can't ask ASLAVs or M113s (however they are upgraded) to operate in a similar battlefield environment that requies an M1A1 MBT.

I disagree, I see a genuine IFV as a force multiplier. The proliferation of cheap IEDs and AT weapons (eg RPGs) make these more important, the nature of low-medium intensity combat situations has been changing.

A good example of this is Israel, they are regularly involved in low-medium intensity actions against palestinian forces. It is interesting that they are developing the Namur (Leopard) AIFV which is based of the Merkava MBT hull, is over 40t and carriers 2+9 crew.

Either the CV90 (28t), Puma (31.45t) or even new versions of the combat proven Warrior (24t) would fill this role admirably. The CV90 and Puma carry 3+8 crew (unless of course German soliders are substantially smaller than Aussies!) and the Warrior 3+7.

I do stand corrected on the air transportability by a Hercules, but a C-17 would certainly get the job done.

Personally, I see an IFV as being alot more pratical and cost effective than MBTs, particularly the gas guzzling M1A1, but that is a completely separate issue.

Once again the Puma ONLY carries a 6 man dismount section. It has a crew of 3 like ALL IFV's that operate a crew served weapon (cannon's generally require a gunner AND a commander).

Even Rheinmetall admit this.

http://www.rheinmetall.de/index.php?lang=3&fid=1688

 

[winnyfield]

By the time a IFV decision is made, hopefully the US Army's Future Combat Systems vehicles and the USMC amphibious EFV (carries ~15-20) have been sorted out. An amphibious IFV capability could be useful for Australia.

I think we will eventually adopt an IFV. The Russians and Chinese are modernising and there'd likely be a few used BMPs/BMDs going around - 73mm cannon vs. M113 w/ a .50 cal; not good. Remember, the Taliban pre-OP EF did operate armoured vehicles admittedly not well but, they did exist.

From The Oz - the ETimor has got an aid package from China that includes patrol boats. Used armoured vehicles could be next.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23547135-31477,00.html

 

[Waylander]

I doubt that Australia is going for any type of russian or chinese IFV...

And it is right that at the beginning they tried to fit more dismounts into the CV90 (whereas AD already stated that the Puma has 6 from the beginning) but they found out very fast that it is not possible to carry more than 6 dismounts in full gear during an operation.

 

[t68]

.

From The Oz - the ETimor has got an aid package from China that includes patrol boats. Used armoured vehicles could be next.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23547135-31477,00.html

Hi guys

That’s a very interesting development by the Chinese; I understand East Timor has right to be able to determine what goes on in their territorial waters, I just hope that they don’t bite the hand that feeds it.
I am sure that their will be a lot of discussion in Canberra on the latest Chinese /Russian involvement in the pacific region.

Regards
Tom

 

[flyboyEB]

From The Oz - the ETimor has got an aid package from China that includes patrol boats. Used armoured vehicles could be next.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23547135-31477,00.html

I guess we just have to hope that East Timor doesn't sack half its army again if they're kitted out with armoured vehicles. Just a theorhetical question, but assuming that during the 'mutiny' in 2006, for want of a better word, the former soldiers had have had armoured vehicles, what would the ADF had done when they intervened? I imagine there would be lots of anti-armour weapons brought with the first wave, maybe send in the UH-1 Bushrangers to make sure they could deal with any armour?

 

[PeterM]

I guess we just have to hope that East Timor doesn't sack half its army again if they're kitted out with armoured vehicles. Just a theorhetical question, but assuming that during the 'mutiny' in 2006, for want of a better word, the former soldiers had have had armoured vehicles, what would the ADF had done when they intervened? I imagine there would be lots of anti-armour weapons brought with the first wave, maybe send in the UH-1 Bushrangers to make sure they could deal with any armour?

I think alot of that had to do with the poor economic situtation.

East Timor has had difficulty in negotiating with Australia an equitable share of the resources in the Timor Gap. The revenue is badly needed by East Timor and has continually been delayed.

China is very likely willing to come in and develop the infrastructure to access these resources. It would mean East Timor would be less reliant on Austalia.

Considering the potential boon to the Chinese economy, a couple of patrol boats is a nelgible cost; particularly if East Timor purchases these Patrol Boats as part of Chinese foreign aid to East Timor.

Perhaps these patrol boats are the start of increased independance and the start of increased assistance for Timor from China. The allow East Timor to effectively patrol their economic zones, which coincidently is where the bulk of the natural resources are.

 

[Goknub]

Timor

On top of the economic advantages it would give China, a large portion of the Timorese Govt are true-blue Communists. The previous PM, Altakiri, learnt his trade in African "Democratic Republic's" so Australia needs to play this carefully or we'll have a PLA naval base within sight of Darwin.

That would certainly change things up, though not all for the worse. At least the ADF would have more justification for budget increases

 

[Navor86]

IIRC the AUssie Infantry Olatoon will have 40 Man( 4 Man Command Fire Team,6 4 Man Fireteams+ 12 Man Heavy Weapons Squad)
So if they go for an 6 Dismounts IFV like Puma,why not bringing 6 IFV in one Platoon instead of the usually 4? This would mean you could transport the Fire Teams+ Heavy weapons Teams=36 Soldiers and the Command Element would be made of the Vehicle Commanders which would stay in their Vehicles.
Or are 6 Vehicles per Platoon impractical?

 

[the road runner]

can you really blame the East Timories,australia was trying to get 90% of the oil ang gas revenue then it was going to be a 50/50 partnership but it seems that fell thru.There is always corruption when large amounts of money are at stake.I remember marching for the CFMEU(construction,forestry,mining union,as i was a builder at sydney international airport.They had a digga(from sparrow force i think) there telling us all how the east timories helped save australia from the plight of the japanese,and how we owed them a debt of gratitude that we could neva pay back.He went on to speak about how the timories let them eat food off there plate and gave them shelter and even fought side by side with the diggers<<<<sory getting a bit of track here.
well it was an olympic year and the airport was run by the federal govt,whathappened?well the union was gonna shut down the site unless the federal govt was going to do something,they did and east timor was sort of saved,anyhow this digger told me that it made him so sick that the government will only do something to help his Timore comrads if it is in the countrys political intrest.He started to tell me how we found a gas reserve in the timor straight and that there was no boundries drawn where the gas was found,he went on to say that our government was doing alot of "dirty politiks,"at the time just thought i would share that with the forum ,a bit off track, but these were the words (dirty politiks)of a WW2 digger that served and have stuck in my mind.
I guess when it comes to large amounts of money and prestige there will be some form of corruption .
And i do not blame australian politicons for trying to get the best deal for OZ,it is there job
I just hope that this will not affect timore/australian/chinese friendship
Hope we can work it out with our brains and not our braun

MEEP MEP

 

[winnyfield]

The Chinese have been known to offer aid in return for recognition of their right to Taiwan - 'cheaquebook diplomacy'.

I guess we just have to hope that East Timor doesn't sack half its army again if they're kitted out with armoured vehicles. Just a theorhetical question, but assuming that during the 'mutiny' in 2006, for want of a better word, the former soldiers had have had armoured vehicles, what would the ADF had done when they intervened?

My thoughts exactly. Even the most rudimentary IFV capability would pose significant problems for an Aust'n Army section and their M113 w/ .50cals. We're lucky they haven't been introduced into the SW Pacific.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I guess we just have to hope that East Timor doesn't sack half its army again if they're kitted out with armoured vehicles. Just a theorhetical question, but assuming that during the 'mutiny' in 2006, for want of a better word, the former soldiers had have had armoured vehicles, what would the ADF had done when they intervened? I imagine there would be lots of anti-armour weapons brought with the first wave, maybe send in the UH-1 Bushrangers to make sure they could deal with any armour?

The UH-1H Bushrangers were retired by then and never had an anti-armour capability anyway.

Australia has plenty of anti-armour capability if necessary. However the easiest way to "end" this threat would be to do an air-mobile insertion into the armoured vehicle support base and cut off all support for these armoured vehicles.

Without fuel and spare parts, spare track etc, any armoured vehicle grinds to a halt within a day or 2 at best. Particularly an armoured vehicle that would have to continually keep moving to avoid those coming after it...

Such an air-mobile based insertion within Timor is well within Army's capability...