Australian M113s

[Todjaeger]

With regards to the new M113's how do they stack up agianst say a CV-90 or M2/M3 Bradley Reliability/Maintainence and Cross Country ability.

Not sure how valid (or valuable) a comparison between the M113 and CV-90 or M2/M3 is, since the M113 is an APC and the CV-90 and Bradley are IFVs. Gives the vehicles different roles, uses and weight classes, not to mention troop carrying capacity.

Also, Australia does not have any of either (any) IFV at present, and the M113 has been in service for some time, and already has seen some wear and tear.

-Cheers

 

[lobbie111]

Not sure how valid (or valuable) a comparison between the M113 and CV-90 or M2/M3 is, since the M113 is an APC and the CV-90 and Bradley are IFVs. Gives the vehicles different roles, uses and weight classes, not to mention troop carrying capacity.

Also, Australia does not have any of either (any) IFV at present, and the M113 has been in service for some time, and already has seen some wear and tear.

-Cheers

What I mean is how does the older upgraded M113's stack up against newer weapons systems in terms of reliability, not comparing anything else...

You could consider the ASLAV's as IMV's if they were used in that role which they are not...

 

[Todjaeger]

What I mean is how does the older upgraded M113's stack up against newer weapons systems in terms of reliability, not comparing anything else...

You could consider the ASLAV's as IMV's if they were used in that role which they are not...

The Bradley and CV90 as mentioned are both Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFV) weighing in the ~23 - 25 ton range.

The Bradley mounting a 25mm cannon and a number of TOW missiles (AFAIK varies depending on whether M2 or M3 and role) and a crew and 6-7 passengers (M2) or 2 scouts (M3).

Th CV90 mounts a 30mm - 40mm cannon depending on version and has a crew of 3 plus 8 passengers.

Given that they are both IFVs, they are armed and armoured to allow them to deploy and then support their embarked troops on a battlefield. An APC on the other hand, is generally intended to safely deploy their embarked troops and then withdraw until needed to redeploy. They are not intended, generally, to provide support other than protected transport onto a battlefield. An IMV (Infantry Mobility Vehicle) is intended to provide protected transport for troops like an APC is, but typically not onto an actual battlefield. Rather, they are to provide transportation through threatened areas where the risk of attack due to mines, IED, ambush etc are sufficient so that regular unarmoured transportation is inadvisable.

As for the M113, I do not know what the expected weight of the Aussie M113A3/4 (~18 tons full load?), the original M113 weighted in ~11 tons and AFAIK was armoured to protect against 7.62mm AP and possibly also against 0.50 cal. Not sure on that one, since armoured was/is ~44mm aluminum which I believe is around 50% more than needed vs. 7.62mm AP. The Tenix brochure here does not mention any changes to crew capacity, which could mean it was still at 11. Finally the A3/A4 will be armed with either 0.50 cal or 7.62mm MGs.

Given the differences in capabilities between the M113 and the CV90 or M2/M3, that is why I question comparison attempts between such vehicles, even for reliability. Anything other than questions about something like mechanical reliability under normal/peacetime conditions then can have a number of different variables that would effect comparisons between dissimilar vehicles. Now if the comparison was between the M113A3/4 and a British FV432, or between the Bushmaster and S600 IMVs, that would be another story.

-Cheers

 

[lobbie111]

The Bradley and CV90 as mentioned are both Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFV) weighing in the ~23 - 25 ton range.

The Bradley mounting a 25mm cannon and a number of TOW missiles (AFAIK varies depending on whether M2 or M3 and role) and a crew and 6-7 passengers (M2) or 2 scouts (M3).

Th CV90 mounts a 30mm - 40mm cannon depending on version and has a crew of 3 plus 8 passengers.

Given that they are both IFVs, they are armed and armoured to allow them to deploy and then support their embarked troops on a battlefield. An APC on the other hand, is generally intended to safely deploy their embarked troops and then withdraw until needed to redeploy. They are not intended, generally, to provide support other than protected transport onto a battlefield. An IMV (Infantry Mobility Vehicle) is intended to provide protected transport for troops like an APC is, but typically not onto an actual battlefield. Rather, they are to provide transportation through threatened areas where the risk of attack due to mines, IED, ambush etc are sufficient so that regular unarmoured transportation is inadvisable.

As for the M113, I do not know what the expected weight of the Aussie M113A3/4 (~18 tons full load?), the original M113 weighted in ~11 tons and AFAIK was armoured to protect against 7.62mm AP and possibly also against 0.50 cal. Not sure on that one, since armoured was/is ~44mm aluminum which I believe is around 50% more than needed vs. 7.62mm AP. The Tenix brochure here does not mention any changes to crew capacity, which could mean it was still at 11. Finally the A3/A4 will be armed with either 0.50 cal or 7.62mm MGs.

Given the differences in capabilities between the M113 and the CV90 or M2/M3, that is why I question comparison attempts between such vehicles, even for reliability. Anything other than questions about something like mechanical reliability under normal/peacetime conditions then can have a number of different variables that would effect comparisons between dissimilar vehicles. Now if the comparison was between the M113A3/4 and a British FV432, or between the Bushmaster and S600 IMVs, that would be another story.

-Cheers

I was under the assumption the hull was t be lengthened to accommodate two extra personnel...but I could be wrong...You don't have to compare those vehicles exactly I was just throwing names around...

 

[Todjaeger]

I was under the assumption the hull was t be lengthened to accommodate two extra personnel...but I could be wrong...You don't have to compare those vehicles exactly I was just throwing names around...

On some of the (A4?) the hull is to be extended, and there was to be a degree of up-armouring. With all the modifications, it was expected to raise the vehicle weight up to around 18,000 kg ~18 tons. This would still be around 5 tons short of the early production M2A1 Bradley, or about 7 tons less than the CV90. Between the weight difference as well as in armament and embarked troop capacity, this would dictate a different role for the M113A3/4 vs. the M2/M3 Bradley or CV90. In some deployments in the region (Timor Leste, PNG, RAMSI) where there is little risk from large calibre and/or AT weapons, then they (M113) could be used as fire support like an IFV. Otherwise IMO they should be used as troop carriers which is what they were originally intended for.

-Cheers

 

[lobbie111]

On some of the (A4?) the hull is to be extended, and there was to be a degree of up-armouring. With all the modifications, it was expected to raise the vehicle weight up to around 18,000 kg ~18 tons. This would still be around 5 tons short of the early production M2A1 Bradley, or about 7 tons less than the CV90. Between the weight difference as well as in armament and embarked troop capacity, this would dictate a different role for the M113A3/4 vs. the M2/M3 Bradley or CV90. In some deployments in the region (Timor Leste, PNG, RAMSI) where there is little risk from large calibre and/or AT weapons, then they (M113) could be used as fire support like an IFV. Otherwise IMO they should be used as troop carriers which is what they were originally intended for.

-Cheers

I never actually stated what I suspect that they should be used for and I agree with you, considering that there are no new tracked APC's (In Production) that can be compared to the M113, the armament although inferior to that of the Bradley and the CV-90 etc...Could be rectified by fitting some Javelin AT missiles such as that used on the M2 Bradley (I know they use TOW but there was a concept vehicle modified to shoot them) although the problem with that is the lack of range on the javelin missile, In order to fire it you have to be in the range of the M2 or CV-90's Cannons which would make mince meat out of an M113...

IMHO the M113 has served its purpose well but its days should be numbered, Its out-gunned, under armored and lacks the capabilities of new APC's and IFV's especially a battle space management system.

The government however, does not see my way of thinking...

 

[Aussie Digger]

I never actually stated what I suspect that they should be used for and I agree with you, considering that there are no new tracked APC's (In Production) that can be compared to the M113, the armament although inferior to that of the Bradley and the CV-90 etc...Could be rectified by fitting some Javelin AT missiles such as that used on the M2 Bradley (I know they use TOW but there was a concept vehicle modified to shoot them) although the problem with that is the lack of range on the javelin missile, In order to fire it you have to be in the range of the M2 or CV-90's Cannons which would make mince meat out of an M113...

IMHO the M113 has served its purpose well but its days should be numbered, Its out-gunned, under armored and lacks the capabilities of new APC's and IFV's especially a battle space management system.

The government however, does not see my way of thinking...

That's because you are looking at the situation as in "M113 v M2" Bradley in open terrain or some sort and it's entirely different to how Army will actually be using this vehicle.

It's role is different to that of an IFV such as Bradley, Warrior etc. It is not intended to be a "fighting" vehicle. It is intended to provide armoured transport and limited fire support capabilities and has been built to a budget and specification designed to this requirement. As to the battlespace management system, you might be surprised...

Suffice to say it operates a more advanced navigation system than that which equips the ASLAV FOV and it includes the SAAB Battlefield Command Support System (BCSS) and will feature the new Battlespace Communications equipment when this project (increasingly looking like an off the shelf acquisition) is advanced.

Army wants an armoured vehicle which can carry a 9 man section capable of being dismounted from the vehicle and typical IFV's such as the ones you have mentioned don't provide that. Hence the lack of a 2 man cannon equipped turret (such as that on the ASLAV-25) which limits your options to 1 man turrets (as it has) or RWS mounted systems which are a future possibility.

A cost capped budget is the reason it features only a 12.7mm machine gun (even if it IS the QCB variant) rather than a more capable weapon and is more than sufficient for the low intensity warfare operations Army saw itself undertaking when the vehicle was conceived.

Army is not structured, equipped or trained for the "force on force" style armoured warfare you seem to be envisaging and the lack of an adequate IFV is amongst the more trivial issues for the ADF's ability to conduct the sort of warfare you seem to think they should be capable of.

This is the reason why Army has been under political directives to accept this platform in it's current form and other proposals about upgrading the vehicles specification base have been made and rejected.

Army has the LAND 400 project which will acquire a new vehicle to replace the M113AS3/4 along with ASLAV etc so it IS aware of the vehicles limitations, but Government is responsible for approving projects, not ADF and M113AS3/4 should be good enough for the "gap" between now and the future LAND 400 vehicle.

 

[lobbie111]

Fair enough that is all explained, so the latest M113 package is designed to deal with low intensity threats such as technicals and anything up to an ASLAV but nothing more, I believe that the ADF should have the capability for a force on force engagement because its impossible to know what the future of the world or the future of Australia knows, and as expirience has taught us conditions are rife for a major conflict, just my 2 c...

To replace both, A vehicle like this but with the CV-90 series of turrets, this is good because it shares the same common chassis in both wheeled and tracked variants, its probably not perfect but it seems to tick all the right boxes.

(Sadly development was canceled)

 

[t68]

maybe should go back to one these?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Puckapunyal-M113-MRV-1-1.jpg

cheap solution protected weapons station increased firepower,it would be right in the budget specs

 

[Jezza]

maybe should go back to one these?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Puckapunyal-M113-MRV-1-1.jpg

cheap solution protected weapons station increased firepower,it would be right in the budget specs

i like it.

but how many would be required
for aus

 

[Aussie Digger]

maybe should go back to one these?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Puckapunyal-M113-MRV-1-1.jpg

cheap solution protected weapons station increased firepower,it would be right in the budget specs

For what purpose? A slow firing 76mm that is uncompetitive against modern armour?

There are a multitude of RWS systems in production that could offer a firepower upgrade (an RWS mounting a 25 -40mm Bushmaster cannon for instance?) that would be of more use than a manned 76mm weapon turret that removes the ability to operate infantry from the vehicle.

If the infantry need heavy fire support, the M1A1's should be deployed. That's what they were bought for...

These vehicles have been upgraded as cheaply as Army/Government could get away with. They are to provide an interim capability until LAND 400 replaces the M113 entirely.

Therefore, they are sufficient (with perhaps a few armour upgrades if they are going overseas) for now.

 

[t68]

These vehicles have been upgraded as cheaply as Army/Government could get away with. They are to provide an interim capability until LAND 400 replaces the M113 entirely.

It a quite tongue in cheek
With everyone going on about the amount of firepower on the upgraded m113 and need for more, and to keep within a fixed budget.
But it would still provide cheap indirect fire support.
Yes a bushmaster cannon would be better, commonality with Auslav.
They have increased the rebuild numbers up anther 83 buckets, there is still anther 200 or so to upgrade if need.
And they do have the don’t f##k with me look.

 

[winnyfield]

For what is possible see Dutch M113 variant w/25mm: http://www.primeportal.net/staneke/ypr_765.htm Regarding the 76mm, if ones looking for somthing more 'explosive', I'd have a look at the M2+mk19 one man turret used on USMC AAV-7s.

Frankly I'd be concerned about protection levels in the up-rated M113s. Mines, IEDs, Soviet era HMGs and RPGs.

PS: The M113 looks like its going to be around for quite a while.

 

[ThePuss]

For what purpose? A slow firing 76mm that is uncompetitive against modern armour?

There are a multitude of RWS systems in production that could offer a firepower upgrade (an RWS mounting a 25 -40mm Bushmaster cannon for instance?) that would be of more use than a manned 76mm weapon turret that removes the ability to operate infantry from the vehicle.

If the infantry need heavy fire support, the M1A1's should be deployed. That's what they were bought for...

These vehicles have been upgraded as cheaply as Army/Government could get away with. They are to provide an interim capability until LAND 400 replaces the M113 entirely.

Therefore, they are sufficient (with perhaps a few armour upgrades if they are going overseas) for now.

Well if you are concerned about rate of fire chuck one of these on an M113!

It is called the Otomatic which is the Otobreda 76 mm in a SPAAG role

 

[Abraham Gubler]

If you really want more firepower on an M113AS4 and still keep them able to carry grunts in the back (the FSV has not room for dismounts) then just stick a remote control turret on the roof.

Something like this:

 

[Aussie Digger]

Well if you are concerned about rate of fire chuck one of these on an M113!

It is called the Otomatic which is the Otobreda 76 mm in a SPAAG role

It might be a bit big...

I'll think you'll find that behemoth is on a Leo tank chassis...

 

[Aussie Digger]

It a quite tongue in cheek
With everyone going on about the amount of firepower on the upgraded m113 and need for more, and to keep within a fixed budget.
But it would still provide cheap indirect fire support.
Yes a bushmaster cannon would be better, commonality with Auslav.
They have increased the rebuild numbers up anther 83 buckets, there is still anther 200 or so to upgrade if need.
And they do have the don’t f##k with me look.

Agreed. I can see a use for perhaps 1 or 2 buckets per platoon being fitted with an RWS and a 25mm Bushmaster (for ammo commonality reasons throughout ADF) to provide a firepower boost.

To be honest, I'd be happy just to see the 431 M113AS3/4's on order, actually make it through production and get into line service before we worry too much about upgrades etc.

It's not as if the 12.7mm QCB is a bad piece of kit afterall...

Quite the contrary.

 

[riksavage]

On assumes the M113AS3/4's primary function is to provide armoured infantry with a means of moving in support of the M1's now in service. Once engaged the infantry would then dismount to fight in the traditional infantry /armoured coordinated role.

Having a .50 or 22/30/40mm cannon would obviously bring much to the equation particularly if the M113AS3/4's are operating without tank support in a recce role, when the ground is unsuitable for wheeled LAVS for example. For self defence a .50 and Javelin (or equivalent) missile combination would prove a potent enough mix until a totally new platform arrives.

When the new M113A33/4's operate in conjunction with the new M1's, the latter's speed and mobility must have to be rained in because of the formers mediocre cross-country performance (when compared with more modern AFV's - Bradleys / Warriors) - correct?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Nope; the M113AS4 has a significant upgrade in mobility over legacy M113A1s. It has a new driving system replacing the old tillers with a steering wheel and automatic gearbox, new engine, transmission, drive train, suspension, track and road wheels. The new engine is a MTU V-6 and is downrated to 260 kW. At the Recommended Gross Vehicle Mass (RGVM) of 18 tonnes the M113AS4 has a power to weight ratio of 14.5 kW/t. Not as good as the M1A1's 18 kW/t, but bear in mind without add on armour the M113AS4 only weights 11.6 tonnes empty, so with crew and fighting load will have a power to weight ratio of over 17 kW/t.

The extra weight margin is for three tonnes of add on armour for RPG-7V/14.5mm AP resistance. Which is what the M113AS4 needs more than a bigger gat if it’s ever going to visit the hills of Afghanistan: hybrid armour, DAS and FPECM.

The APC's of the manoeuvre support teams should have a remote control weapon system added to the vehicle top so they can fire their 40mm LWAGLS (either the Mk 47 Striker or the Point Redback/H&K GMG) from inside the vehicle. Unfortunately the 40mm AGL was never a requirement when the M113AS4 was designed so the Tenix turret can only accept the 12.7mm M2HB QCB or the 7.62mm MAG-58.

 

[ThePuss]

It might be a bit big...

I'll think you'll find that behemoth is on a Leo tank chassis...

Yep but I reckon it would look very funny on the tall and stubby M113 chassis....kinda like R2D2 with a big nose!