Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[PeterM]

Probably the "650" includes the M113AS3/4s, and only about 200 new IFVs would be purchased, because that's all thee is in the LAND400 budget.

The white paper is cleart that the M113 upgrade is a short term stop gap until the replacement is ready. LAND 400 Phase 1 had an in-service delivery of 2015 to 2017; presumably the M113AS3/4s were scheduled to be on the back end of that.

This white paper is a complete overhaul of defence thinking and strategy, it is possible that additional resources could be availble over previously established procurement plans and budgets.

I don't expect the ASLAV upgrade program Land 112 Phase 4 will go ahead.

I am no expert on numbers needed, presumably the minimum requirement of IFVs would be enough to equip the two cavalry regiments and the two mechanised battalions (plus spares for maint/training etc) - How many would be needed for that? perhaps 430?

Cost-wise: the VBCI (for example) reportedly costs around US$3.8m ea, so 430 similar IFVs for the ADF would cost around US$1630; this is somewhat more than the $1750m (max) already budgeted for Land400(ph1) and Land112(ph4), but seems feasible.

Maybe the shortfall (220 vehicles) could be comprised of Bushmaster support variants?

 

[FutureTank]

The white paper is cleart that the M113 upgrade is a short term stop gap until the replacement is ready. LAND 400 Phase 1 had an in-service delivery of 2015 to 2017; presumably the M113AS3/4s were scheduled to be on the back end of that.

This white paper is a complete overhaul of defence thinking and strategy, it is possible that additional resources could be availble over previously established procurement plans and budgets.

I don't expect the ASLAV upgrade program Land 112 Phase 4 will go ahead.

I am no expert on numbers needed, presumably the minimum requirement of IFVs would be enough to equip the two cavalry regiments and the two mechanised battalions (plus spares for maint/training etc) - How many would be needed for that? perhaps 430?

Cost-wise: the VBCI (for example) reportedly costs around US$3.8m ea, so 430 similar IFVs for the ADF would cost around US$1630; this is somewhat more than the $1750m (max) already budgeted for Land400(ph1) and Land112(ph4), but seems feasible.

Maybe the shortfall (220 vehicles) could be comprised of Bushmaster support variants?

Originally the LAND400 was intended as a replacement for the M113 and ASLAV vehicles. This was before Bushmaster emerged. Later the Bushmaster was included in the numbers of vehicles to be replaced by the LAND400 design, but this was before Bushmaster became the most numerous armoured vehicle in the Army parks.
Consequently Bushmaster is no longer the support vehicle to the M113, and the amount of money spent on the M113AS3/4 upgrades means that the Government, at least Labour, decided to get their money's worth out of them.
Hence why the White Paper is not saying "IFV" but a "protected vehicle", which can mean just about anything, and leaves much to speculation, but at least no one will be able to call the Government liers since the M113AS3/4, the Bushmaster and even the armoured trucks that will come as the Landrover replacements are all "protected".

There is a complete overhaul of defence thinking and strategy, but it seems to me unlikely there is a possibility that additional resources could be available over previously established procurement plans and budgets, primarily due to the coming budget which, to quote the Treasurer, "is going to be unpopular".

Presumably the minimum requirement in IFVs would be enough to equip the two cavalry regiments and the two mechanised battalions (plus spares for maint/training etc), but the Army will tailor its organisation to what is available as it always had before. The absolute minimum for the mechanised infantry battalion is the Soviet model of about 40, and a maximum is perhaps as many as 60 sharing same chassis. Clearly under my assumptions a one-for-one replacement of ASLAVs is not feasible, so not sure what would happen with the recon regiments.

The original LAND400 budget was in the AU$1 to 1.5 billion mark. However, this is the project budget and not one based on unit cost only. That is the spares, introduction into service, and all other sundries also come out of this, which is why not much has been heard from that office in the last 3-4 years. The Army is saving all the money for the final purchase.

Almost anything is possible in the ADF it seems. If the Navy reckons they can crew 12 submarines at the same time, maybe the Bushmasters can become support vehicles to IFV-equipped armoured infantry units, and that is what they are called in the British Army where they are equipped with the Warriors.

Probably the two armoured infantry battalions will rotate for service on the LHDs, with elements of one being combined with a mechanised (M113AS3/4), motorised (Bushmaster) or light infantry battalion providing backup as required by the situation.

Note the White Paper is subtitled Force 2030. If the LAND 400 Phase 1 has an in-service delivery of 2015 to 2017 (it had the 2012 timetable before), then in reality it will be 2020 before there is a first upgrade due to be carried out because anything available now will be hopelessly outdated by then, and by that time it will be time to replace the M113AS3/4s also, probably not by the Labour Government's impending 4th term, so that is when the rest of the LAND400 vehicles will be purchased. Probably (speculating) the Army figures they will get well over 40 years service out of the M113 hulls, so they might as well get something that will last 60 years with the LAND400.

 

[PeterM]

Presumably the minimum requirement in IFVs would be enough to equip the two cavalry regiments and the two mechanised battalions (plus spares for maint/training etc), but the Army will tailor its organisation to what is available as it always had before. The absolute minimum for the mechanised infantry battalion is the Soviet model of about 40, and a maximum is perhaps as many as 60 sharing same chassis. Clearly under my assumptions a one-for-one replacement of ASLAVs is not feasible, so not sure what would happen with the recon regiments.

I wouldn't rule out a 1 for 1 replacement with ASLAV with IFV style design. Replacing the 257 ASLAVs with an IFV style vehicle would cost around US$977m (going by VBCI cost). That is probably enough for the two cavalry regiments and both mechanised regiments.

Don't forget that Australia is partner with the the US in Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) program; that could be a factor.

Personally I think the white paper shows a change in philospohy, almost certainly triggered by operational experience in Iraq and Afghanistan; particularly the protection limitations of LAV and M113 style vehicles. A 1100 vehicle program for the ADF is certainly rather ambitious and will almost certainly include a considerable percantage of lighter vehicles; I suspect this program will be somewhat bigger than the original Land400 plans.

As far as funding for projects go, the White Paper has outlined a huge increase in funding for the ADF (most for RAN and RAAF), but also requires that the ADF reduce current costs by 10% though more effcient operational methodologies (which the ADF have readily taken on board). I am curious to see how the numbers pan out; presumably there will be a new/updated DCP plan in the near future outlining updated programs and expected budgets.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I wouldn't rule out a 1 for 1 replacement with ASLAV with IFV style design. Replacing the 257 ASLAVs with an IFV style vehicle would cost around US$977m (going by VBCI cost). That is probably enough for the two cavalry regiments and both mechanised regiments.

I would... simply because an armoured cavalry section has three ASLAVs to do the job that would only need two IFVs.

Now to hose down a lot of speculation in this thread. The 1,100 vehicles are to be acquired under project LAND 400. They are to equip six mechansied battlegroups. At present the plan is for those units to be 2 Cav, 2/14 LHR, 5, 6, 7, 8/9 RARs. LAND 400 vehicles will also replace the supporting vehicles in the other units of 1 and 7 Bde. This does NOT include the Bushmasters issued to 1 Bde and those 7 Bde Bushmasters in a similar role to those in 1 Bde. Each brigade will have about 400 LAND 400 vehicles (more in 1 Bde thanks to 1 Armd Regt).

The primary vehicle is conceived as being an Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) armed with a 25-30mm gun and able to carry a dismount section or equivalent weight and space of other things. Not all 1,100 vehicles will be in the IFV configuration many will be command post vehicles, recovery and repair vehicles, ambulances, etc that are needed to make the unit work.. Wether it will be tracked, wheeled or a mix of two vehicle types remains to be determined. Though I would palce bets on a European 8x8 vehicle like Piranha IV or Boxer.

 

[FutureTank]

I would... simply because an armoured cavalry section has three ASLAVs to do the job that would only need two IFVs.

Now to hose down a lot of speculation in this thread. The 1,100 vehicles are to be acquired under project LAND 400. They are to equip six mechansied battlegroups. At present the plan is for those units to be 2 Cav, 2/14 LHR, 5, 6, 7, 8/9 RARs. LAND 400 vehicles will also replace the supporting vehicles in the other units of 1 and 7 Bde. This does NOT include the Bushmasters issued to 1 Bde and those 7 Bde Bushmasters in a similar role to those in 1 Bde. Each brigade will have about 400 LAND 400 vehicles (more in 1 Bde thanks to 1 Armd Regt).

The primary vehicle is conceived as being an Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) armed with a 25-30mm gun and able to carry a dismount section or equivalent weight and space of other things. Not all 1,100 vehicles will be in the IFV configuration many will be command post vehicles, recovery and repair vehicles, ambulances, etc that are needed to make the unit work.. Wether it will be tracked, wheeled or a mix of two vehicle types remains to be determined. Though I would palce bets on a European 8x8 vehicle like Piranha IV or Boxer.

LOL...that certainly hosed it down. You can stop now nfloorl:

 

[FutureTank]

I wouldn't rule out a 1 for 1 replacement with ASLAV with IFV style design. Replacing the 257 ASLAVs with an IFV style vehicle would cost around US$977m (going by VBCI cost). That is probably enough for the two cavalry regiments and both mechanised regiments.

Don't forget that Australia is partner with the the US in Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) program; that could be a factor.

Personally I think the white paper shows a change in philospohy, almost certainly triggered by operational experience in Iraq and Afghanistan; particularly the protection limitations of LAV and M113 style vehicles. A 1100 vehicle program for the ADF is certainly rather ambitious and will almost certainly include a considerable percantage of lighter vehicles; I suspect this program will be somewhat bigger than the original Land400 plans.

As far as funding for projects go, the White Paper has outlined a huge increase in funding for the ADF (most for RAN and RAAF), but also requires that the ADF reduce current costs by 10% though more effcient operational methodologies (which the ADF have readily taken on board). I am curious to see how the numbers pan out; presumably there will be a new/updated DCP plan in the near future outlining updated programs and expected budgets.

With the current unit costs and LAND400 budget the Army can have an ASLAV replacement 1-to-1, or it can have the M113AS3/4 replacement, but not both.

 

[FutureTank]

Don't forget that Australia is partner with the the US in Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) program; that could be a factor.

Any partnership with Americans in a project means we will get some extravagantly priced thingamy that will do way more than the ADF needs about two decades after we need them nfloorl:

 

[riksavage]

With the advent of the M1's, I would have thought a modern off-the-shelf tracked AFV, configured for Mech Infantry Regiments and Cavalry Recce Regiments would be the next logical step and an absolute priority in the new white paper. The upgraded M113AS3/4 are OK, but cannot be compared to the latest generation of AFV's fitted with a capable 25,30 or 40mm defensive armament. The LAV's are also great assets, but are limited by virtue of their wheeled chassis. Highlighting a 'protected vehicle' in the white paper does not give much away - the last thing you want is a state of the art all terrain M1 tank being operationally restricted by 'protected vehicles' , which can't keep up, lack protection / offensive armament and have a limited cross-country performance. The new M1's are currently let down by existing supporting assets, it's battle winning capabilities are severly restricted by the quality of material available in direct support (tracked recce, bridging units, engineering units, in-direct fire etc.).


Moving forward, with the planned arrival of the LHD's senior staff must be looking at developing the ARG concept, this would be made much easier if they could build it round limited number of M1's supported by a modern amphibious AFV chassis, which could be configured for command post, mortar carrier, local air defence, engineer's, medivac etc. etc. I wonder whether a Viking/Bronco concept as ever been considered/tested - it's amphibious, wide-tracked and versitile - ideal for use across Australia's varied terrain?

Also I can't help but note a lack of commitment to UCAV platforms for the army - Predator and other similar platforms are making a real difference in A-STAN, why isn't there more commitment to buying larger numbers of UAV's for use at the tactical and strategic level?

Finally, man-power continues to be a major issue, even taking into consideration the current economic depression. The Australian reports the latest figures from the ADF stand in stark contrast to those just released by the British / US military who are now in the enviable position of reaching their full recruitment targets for the first time in years. Unless more people can be recruited I don't see how the Aussie military is going to operate, maintain and service all the shinny new kit. Out of interest other than the standard military recruiting office, does the Aus military actively recruit in schools, collages and universities and do they have aligned CCF (schools) and OTC units (Universities) above and beyond joining the reserves?

 

[Marc 1]

Moving forward, with the planned arrival of the LHD's senior staff must be looking at developing the ARG concept, this would be made much easier if they could build it round limited number of M1's supported by a modern amphibious AFV chassis, which could be configured for command post, mortar carrier, local air defence, engineer's, medivac etc. etc. I wonder whether a Viking/Bronco concept as ever been considered/tested - it's amphibious, wide-tracked and versitile - ideal for use across Australia's varied terrain?

There are significant limitations in a truly amphibious AFV - large tradeoffs that compromise the vehicle's operations on land. Why go down the specialised amphibious role when there is now and will be in the future equipment purchased to bridge the gap from LHD to beach?

If you are suggesting that we only purchase a few amphibs to equip certain units then we are adding yet another armoured vehicle to the inventory with all the attendant maintenance, spare parts and training issues.

 

[riksavage]

There are significant limitations in a truly amphibious AFV - large tradeoffs that compromise the vehicle's operations on land. Why go down the specialised amphibious role when there is now and will be in the future equipment purchased to bridge the gap from LHD to beach?

If you are suggesting that we only purchase a few amphibs to equip certain units then we are adding yet another armoured vehicle to the inventory with all the attendant maintenance, spare parts and training issues.

If the Aussies decide to go for a non-amphibious platform then the ship-to-shore component (landing craft / air-cushion) will have to suffice as the only means of getting resources ashore.

I'm a great fan of the Bronco / Viking for the Aussie military because it builds in so much flexibility, for the following reasons:

1. The two articulated units can be separated for easy transportation (underslung load).

2. The front driver / commander tractor unit can be fitted to a wide variety of different specialised rear units (DROPS, Ambulance, Engineer, Mortar, Command, Local Air-defence, Anti-tank).

3. Suitable for all Aussie terrain - snowy mountains, western deserts and northern wet-lands.

4. Armoured and amphibious

With the Arrival of the LHD's, the Aussie military must look at building in resources, which dovetails nicely with the carrying/opperational capacity of the LHD, forces must be adequately equipped to make a difference once ashore. Having amphibious elements brings much to the table, particularly in tropical climates crisscrossed with rivers, after all you may not have tracked bridging assets at your disposal.

 

[FutureTank]

There are significant limitations in a truly amphibious AFV - large tradeoffs that compromise the vehicle's operations on land. Why go down the specialised amphibious role when there is now and will be in the future equipment purchased to bridge the gap from LHD to beach?

If you are suggesting that we only purchase a few amphibs to equip certain units then we are adding yet another armoured vehicle to the inventory with all the attendant maintenance, spare parts and training issues.

The options offered by equipment to be purchased for the LHDs will not allow same flexibility to the commander as the capability to come ashore in fighting vehicles.

Although the Soviet BTRs are amphibious, their range of LZs are severely limited due to being wheeled. On the other hand tracked IFV chassis are not really available at this time. However, it doesn't seem to me an insurmountable engineering issue, although Americans seem to be struggling with their EFV. The BMP-3Fs are perhaps not as protected as the Army may desire, but do provide every other capability, so I'm sure a design more compatible with the ADF specifications can be produced that does not break the budget. Indonesians paid a reported US$2 million each, while the Greeks were reported to have paid closer to $3million, so clearly there is scope for unit cost increase in a comparable design that will still remain within the ADF budget.

I note that the Greek purchase was almost in the same quantity as that required by the ADF to replace M113AS3/4, although they chose to include in that 50 amphibious versions (BMP-3F), or enough to equip a battalion of infantry.
Is there any other IFV of non-Russian design that allows operation in sea state 3 and firing in sea state 2 if suitably modified?

I really do not see the purchase of different designs to replace ASLAV and M113AS as being a smart choice for the reasons you stated. If the cavalry uses a mix of Landrover replacement light protected vehicles, Bushmasters and LAND400 design, it will get a very nice park of vehicles that answer many different cavalry needs, i.e. light recon, scout transports/recon platforms/UAV launchers in Bushmasters, and heavier tracked cavalry support vehicles with retained amphibious capability.

With a 1billion budget (from 1.5billion program total) at about AU$3.5million unit cost, the ADF will afford about 285 IFVs, enough for replacement of all ASLAVs and M113ASs in two armoured battalions and two cavalry regiments, but only in combination with the Bushmasters and light protected vehicles also used in the units in combat, CS and CSS roles.

Ideal purchase would be about 500 LAND400 design hulls, but this would necessitate 80% local design and production to keep unit cost down and eliminate licence fees, and still would not allow 1-for-1 replacement of all ASLAVs and M113ASs.

 

[FutureTank]

I'm a great fan of the Bronco / Viking for the Aussie military because it builds in so much flexibility, for the following reasons:

1. The two articulated units can be separated for easy transportation (underslung load).

2. The front driver / commander tractor unit can be fitted to a wide variety of different specialised rear units (DROPS, Ambulance, Engineer, Mortar, Command, Local Air-defence, Anti-tank).

3. Suitable for all Aussie terrain - snowy mountains, western deserts and northern wet-lands.

4. Armoured and amphibious.

....Bolt-on armour plates provide protection against 7.62mm armour-piercing rounds and 152mm artillery shell fragments from a range of more than 10m.
Are they still amphibious with bolt on armour?
However, I suspect the Army is looking for something with more punch for both cavalry and armoured infantry units.

 

[StevoJH]

Finally, man-power continues to be a major issue, even taking into consideration the current economic depression. The Australian reports the latest figures from the ADF stand in stark contrast to those just released by the British / US military who are now in the enviable position of reaching their full recruitment targets for the first time in years. Unless more people can be recruited I don't see how the Aussie military is going to operate, maintain and service all the shinny new kit. Out of interest other than the standard military recruiting office, does the Aus military actively recruit in schools, collages and universities and do they have aligned CCF (schools) and OTC units (Universities) above and beyond joining the reserves?

I've read elsewhere that the problems the army is having with recruits is with recruits in technical trades such as engineer's, mechanics etc, rather then in finding combat troops. At the moment there are so many recruits that the army is having trouble putting them all through basic training at kapuka.

Most Australian Universities have University training regiments for training officers for reserve units and I don't know about other schools but i know we had recruiters visit the school i was at when i was in my final year (i know at least 5 or 6 guys from my year that joined the army or navy).

 

[battlensign]

I really do not see the purchase of different designs to replace ASLAV and M113AS as being a smart choice for the reasons you stated. If the cavalry uses a mix of Landrover replacement light protected vehicles, Bushmasters and LAND400 design, it will get a very nice park of vehicles that answer many different cavalry needs, i.e. light recon, scout transports/recon platforms/UAV launchers in Bushmasters, and heavier tracked cavalry support vehicles with retained amphibious capability.

With a 1billion budget (from 1.5billion program total) at about AU$3.5million unit cost, the ADF will afford about 285 IFVs, enough for replacement of all ASLAVs and M113ASs in two armoured battalions and two cavalry regiments, but only in combination with the Bushmasters and light protected vehicles also used in the units in combat, CS and CSS roles.

Ideal purchase would be about 500 LAND400 design hulls, but this would necessitate 80% local design and production to keep unit cost down and eliminate licence fees, and still would not allow 1-for-1 replacement of all ASLAVs and M113ASs.

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.

 

[riksavage]

....Bolt-on armour plates provide protection against 7.62mm armour-piercing rounds and 152mm artillery shell fragments from a range of more than 10m.
Are they still amphibious with bolt on armour?
However, I suspect the Army is looking for something with more punch for both cavalry and armoured infantry units.

The Bronco can be better armoured at the base level than the Viking Mk I (not sure about Mk II) buy virtue of the increased weight carrying capacity, to what level I don't know. Bang for buck it brings a lot of versatility (see attached).

http://www.stengg.com/upload/995A9iATNhT6FY12ZMS.pdf

Unfortunately we are limited as far as medium modern amphibious armoured alternatives are concerned in the West unless one opts for the new USMC Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV), which IMHO is too expensive. Aussie could think out the box of course and go for a Russian BMP-3 hull, insert a more efficient diesel engine, and fit a LAV turret (didn't the South Koreans do something similar?). Talking of which, the new K21 is supposed to be amphibious and will probably end up being much cheaper than the EFV.

Google Image Result for http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/LAND_K21_IFV_Concept_Doosan_lg.jpg

I seriously believe Aussie would be wise to go for such a capability, it compliments the LHD's and adds yet another string to the planning bow. Plus the country has such diverse terrain (snow, swamp, sand and bush)

 

[Goknub]

Amphib

When the EFV finally comes good there will be plenty of spare AAVs the Yanks will be happy to get rid of for a bargain.

Its a niche capability the ADF would be silly not to look at but not enough to plan major numbers around. 30 or 40 would be enough to leave a handful on each LHD on the odd chance they are needed.

-----------

As for IFV vs wheels, whilst reducing vehicle types would be handy I can't see any option other than a IFV/LAV split. LAV may be great for fast-moving cav but if the army ever needs to go toe-to-toe with an enemy then an IFV has to be available (thinking jungle, urban, "closed terrain").

What I'd like to see is a determination of what our deployed "Brigade + Battalion" would need in terms numbers and times that by 4, enough to sustain + 1 spare. Allocate these to the Regulars first then Reserves if theres any left over.

This way we get a sustainable capability and x4 that capability in a DOA conflict.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

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

I wouldn't take too seriously what FutureTank has to say about anything, least of all Australian Army programs.

LAND 400 was given a forward budget estimate of $1-1.5 billion in the 2006-16 DCP. But this was only Phase 1 of LAND 400. At that time Phase 1 was scoped for combat vehicles to replace ASLAVs and M113 issued to three units (2 Cav, 2/4 LHR and 5/7 RAR) and only those vehicles actually in the maneuver sub-units. This was about 250 vehicles.

This is of course a far cry from the multiple phases of LAND 400 not included in the 2006-16 DCP and the increased scope of the program brought about by the HNA and ELF programs (Army expansion). The 1,100 vehicles is a complete replacement of all ASLAV and M113AS4 vehicles and an expansion to requip 7 Bde as a mechanised brigade and raising B Sqn, 3/4 Cav Regt to a new full armd cav regt. Meaning lots of extra vehicles for HQ 7 Bde, 1 Fd Regt (Arty), 2 Cbt Engr Regt, 7 Comd Supt Regt, 6 RAR, 8/9 RAR and 7 CSSB. For example a combat engineer regiment (mechanised) has and establishment of 47 M113 vehicles and another 32 armoured vehicles of types that don't actually exist in the Army at the moment (supposed to be made available by allies).

Of course LAND 400 as detailed in Joint Forces 2030 will cost a lot more than $1-1.5 billion. Try as much as over $5 billion.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Unfortunately we are limited as far as medium modern amphibious armoured alternatives are concerned in the West unless one opts for the new USMC Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV), which IMHO is too expensive. Aussie could think out the box of course and go for a Russian BMP-3 hull, insert a more efficient diesel engine, and fit a LAV turret (didn't the South Koreans do something similar?). Talking of which, the new K21 is supposed to be amphibious and will probably end up being much cheaper than the EFV.

None of these vehicles (K21, BMP3) are as amphibious as the EFV. They can't swim through big waves like an EFV and you'd be a mad man to go to sea in them in anything other than a very short run in sheltered waters. The EFV on the other hand is designed to be dropped into the deep blue sea 25 NM of shore (that's over the horizon) and sail by itself to the shore, cross it and then fight inland.

EFV is likely to be a very expensive vehicle but buying under FMS Australia would only have to pay for the production unit cost, not pay for any of its extensive development bill. And you get what you pay for...

To deploy a combat team only 10 EFVs would be needed. The LHD based ADAS is to have enough helicopters to deploy two combat teams simultaneously. Add 10 EFVs and each infantry company can hit the shore simultaneously along with 10 30mm guns and whatever the LCMs can ferry... A small force of 24-30 EFVs would be sufficient for Army needs.

Army has a direct requirement to replace the LARC V with an amphibious vehicle for deploying the beachmasters. There is also a requirement for a riverine and raiding capability. JP 2048 Phase 5 is being developed for these projects. EFV is likely to be a competitor along with the lightweight Griffon hovercraft, various small combat boats and rigid raiders and other amphibious vehicles (Gibbs Technologies HSA).

 

[harryriedl]

With the advent of the M1's, I would have thought a modern off-the-shelf tracked AFV, configured for Mech Infantry Regiments and Cavalry Recce Regiments would be the next logical step and an absolute priority in the new white paper. The upgraded M113AS3/4 are OK, but cannot be compared to the latest generation of AFV's fitted with a capable 25,30 or 40mm defensive armament. The LAV's are also great assets, but are limited by virtue of their wheeled chassis. Highlighting a 'protected vehicle' in the white paper does not give much away - the last thing you want is a state of the art all terrain M1 tank being operationally restricted by 'protected vehicles' , which can't keep up, lack protection / offensive armament and have a limited cross-country performance. The new M1's are currently let down by existing supporting assets, it's battle winning capabilities are severly restricted by the quality of material available in direct support (tracked recce, bridging units, engineering units, in-direct fire etc.).


Moving forward, with the planned arrival of the LHD's senior staff must be looking at developing the ARG concept, this would be made much easier if they could build it round limited number of M1's supported by a modern amphibious AFV chassis, which could be configured for command post, mortar carrier, local air defence, engineer's, medivac etc. etc. I wonder whether a Viking/Bronco concept as ever been considered/tested - it's amphibious, wide-tracked and versitile - ideal for use across Australia's varied terrain?

Wondering dose Aus army have plans for embarked EMF for the LHD. If not would their be preferred units for the LHD

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Wondering dose Aus army have plans for embarked EMF for the LHD. If not would their be preferred units for the LHD

What do you mean by EMF? The content of the landing force to be loaded onto the LHDs has been detailed about three times on the RAN thread in the Navies sub-forum.