Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[ADMk2]

I am definitely not the best person to tell you a vehicle model, but I can definitely outline a few ideas for you:

The current thinking is that we will only engage in high end conflict as part of a coalition, thus the contribution asked of us would likely be to provide niche capabilities or qualitative capability similar to what we have in the past. E.g. even if we had high end armoured vehicles comparable to what the US and UK have, would they ask for it? No. They've got plenty of their own, and the doctrine to use it.

So we want something that would work best to the low to med level of threat, likely within our region (so that our existing and projected sea and air lines of communication are short enough that we can do those "ferry runs" that made East Timor feasible), or will be relatively small scale (even if higher level intensity) such that the LHD and attendant fleet can sustain the force.

IFV
- capable of standing up to multiple impact from 12.7 mm at short range of up to 50 m;
- purpose designed v-hull
- fitted for, not with reactive armour;
- fitted for, not with remote weapon station;
- compatible with existing C3I systems, including future proved for LAND200 platforms;
- equipped with 30 mm gun on gun variants, with 12.7 mm gun mounts on non-gun variants;
- fire control and mount for hellfire or similar anti-armour weapon;
- anti-armour weapon on designated anti-armour variants, with agreed contracts for rapid acquisition of additional systems on demand;
- wheeled, up to max of 45 t combat load (given the bridges in most of our region's country);
- semi-amphibious at least to sea-state 1;
- size and dimensions to be compatible with both C17 and LCM1E;
- highly desirable, but not essential, to be air-transportable by either C130 or Chinook;

CRV
- capable of standing up to multiple impact from 12.7 mm at short range of up to 50 m;
- purpose built v-hull
- fitted for, not with remote weapon station;
- compatible with existing C3I systems, including future proved for LAND200 platforms;
- redundant C3I band wave and platform for interoperability with naval and air assets;
- compatible with existing JFEC fire control systems;
- future proved C3I with sufficient band wave for direct feed from tactical UAV systems;
- minimum 12.7 mm gun mounts;
- fire control and mount for hellfire or similar anti-armour weapon;
- anti-armour weapon on designated anti-armour variants, with agreed contracts for rapid acquisition of additional systems on demand;
- wheeled,
- fully amphibious capability at least up to sea-state 2.5, with cruising speed of at least 13.5 knots (speed of a loaded LCM1E);
- size and dimensions to be compatible with both C17 and LCM1E;
- air-transportable by Chinook;
- desirable, but not essential to be air-transportable by MRH90.

Now you folks who do know armour can probably tell me if there's a platform out there that meets what I think are our requirements.

No armoured vehicle is transportable by an MRH-90 and nothing we have in-service today is transportable by CH-47D/F. Your other suggestions don't appear to make a lot of sense either. Fitted for RWS but not with, but fitted WITH a 30mm gun? Do you expect them to carry both? How many crew commanders are these things going to have? 45t but air-transportable in a C-130 that has a max payload of 22t?

Armoured only against 12.7mm? Why? The threat is IED's, mines and anti-armour weapons with significantly greater penetration capability than 12.7mm...

I'd suggest a good read of Army's actual requirements as available (to the public) here:

Defence Materiel Organisation

 

[Raven22]

Our current doctrine, and indeed the development of the Army's future doctrine, still evolves at it's core from manoeuvre warfare. This means the "shock and awe" effect of armour is only one component. The crux of the doctrine still relies on a sensory superiority over our adversary, greater freedom of movement achieved through mobility and dislocation of our adversary via some means (e.g. geographic, deception) and hitting him at those areas that are weakest. If we are to accept this premise and not redefine our future concepts of land warfare, this means that in the majority of engagements, a reliance on superior protection has resulted from a operational failure of sorts.

No matter how successful you are with your manoeuvre and the whole surfaces and gaps thing, you still need the combat power to exploit those gaps. This will still usually result in a force having to close on an objective held by the enemy. At this point, any success at the operational level and any information or sensory advantage is almost irrelevant - you still need protection to close the last 300m without unacceptable losses. If you lack this capability, due to a lack of combat weight, you have significantly reduced your flexibility and ability to exploit opportunities. That is no way to design an Army.

The only way this would be acceptable is if, like Hugh White, you decide you are never going to fight a worthwhile enemy. All operational planning becomes very simple when you assume away the enemy. I think this is particularly dangerous thinking.

Given the economic environment, it is unlikely any option to purchase a significant amount of heavier, more expensive fleet of vehicles would be fully realised. This means pursuing this option would take a very long time to accomplish to a meaningful state, and more than likely never fully realised due to volatility in both economics and politics.

I would argue quite strongly that 'heavy' vehicles are not going to be significantly more expensive than 'light' vehicles. Despite whether they have heavy or light armour, all future vehicles are going to be much heavier and larger than legacy vehicles. The need to include larger weapons with better sensors, communication systems, BMS, ECM, power generation for everything, mine protected seating for dismounts, protected stowage points for weapons and ammo, growth margins for future systems etc, means that even lightly protected vehicles are going to be >25 tonne and big.

At this point, the difference in cost (both dollar cost, support cost and the opportunity cost of deployment) between a lightly protected ~25 tonne vehicle and well protected heavier vehicles becomes far less significant. It largely becomes a decision between having armoured vehicles or not having armoured vehicles, as there will be no such thing as 'light' armour.

 

[Monitor66]

I am definitely not the best person to tell you a vehicle model, but I can definitely outline a few ideas for you:

The current thinking is that we will only engage in high end conflict as part of a coalition, thus the contribution asked of us would likely be to provide niche capabilities or qualitative capability similar to what we have in the past. E.g. even if we had high end armoured vehicles comparable to what the US and UK have, would they ask for it? No. They've got plenty of their own, and the doctrine to use it.

So we want something that would work best to the low to med level of threat, likely within our region (so that our existing and projected sea and air lines of communication are short enough that we can do those "ferry runs" that made East Timor feasible), or will be relatively small scale (even if higher level intensity) such that the LHD and attendant fleet can sustain the force.

IFV
- capable of standing up to multiple impact from 12.7 mm at short range of up to 50 m;
- purpose designed v-hull
- fitted for, not with reactive armour;
- fitted for, not with remote weapon station;
- compatible with existing C3I systems, including future proved for LAND200 platforms;
- equipped with 30 mm gun on gun variants, with 12.7 mm gun mounts on non-gun variants;
- fire control and mount for hellfire or similar anti-armour weapon;
- anti-armour weapon on designated anti-armour variants, with agreed contracts for rapid acquisition of additional systems on demand;
- wheeled, up to max of 45 t combat load (given the bridges in most of our region's country);
- semi-amphibious at least to sea-state 1;
- size and dimensions to be compatible with both C17 and LCM1E;
- highly desirable, but not essential, to be air-transportable by either C130 or Chinook;

CRV
- capable of standing up to multiple impact from 12.7 mm at short range of up to 50 m;
- purpose built v-hull
- fitted for, not with remote weapon station;
- compatible with existing C3I systems, including future proved for LAND200 platforms;
- redundant C3I band wave and platform for interoperability with naval and air assets;
- compatible with existing JFEC fire control systems;
- future proved C3I with sufficient band wave for direct feed from tactical UAV systems;
- minimum 12.7 mm gun mounts;
- fire control and mount for hellfire or similar anti-armour weapon;
- anti-armour weapon on designated anti-armour variants, with agreed contracts for rapid acquisition of additional systems on demand;
- wheeled,
- fully amphibious capability at least up to sea-state 2.5, with cruising speed of at least 13.5 knots (speed of a loaded LCM1E);
- size and dimensions to be compatible with both C17 and LCM1E;
- air-transportable by Chinook;
- desirable, but not essential to be air-transportable by MRH90.

Now you folks who do know armour can probably tell me if there's a platform out there that meets what I think are our requirements.

Can't agree with your CONOPS or capability requirement. The light protection argument is nonsensical - it gives you less options than if your vehicles are well armoured.

IFV

If it's only armoured against 12.7mm it isn't an IFV. If you come up against 14.5mm HMG even you're screwed. You list weight as 45 tonnes (?). If you're IFV is 45t GVM it's a) tracked and b) exceptionally well protected against kinetic, blast, EFP, mines, IEDs, RPG, 30-35mm cannon fire.

No wheeled IFV is close to that weight; the heaviest wheeled IFV is the German Boxer with 30mm gun turret, with growth margin up to 36 tonnes with the highest level protection kit.

To ride in C-130J-30 you need to be mid-sized and under 17 tonnes. To ride in CH-47 - not happening.

Hellfire is not a missile fired from IFVs


CRV

Protection level is just above ASLAV/Bushmaster. So your options for deployment or to participate in coalition ops is compromised from the outset.

MRH90 can barely handle quad bikes let alone armoured vehicles. So no to that.

If your CRV is cruising in water at 13.5 knots it's more boat than vehicle.

Leaving aside the contradictions and disconnects, basically what you describe for both vehicles is a platform which is neither viable nor combat capable.

 

[Waylander]

Well, in the end everything is ok as one gets a Puma with protection level C at 43 tons. So there even is a weight reserve of 5 tons...

If anything the conflicts if the past 20 years have shown that protection is as important as ever. Just look at the IFVs and tanks (and every other AFV) deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq in order to see how everybody tried to raise the protection level of their AFVs.

Good protection is equally important when it comes to fighting ill equipped foes like in both sandboxes or when fighting a real heavy enemy like during Desert Storm.

Just read about how tanks and IFVs carried the day or played an important support role from Basra and Falluhja to Helmand and Kunduz or Easting 73.

You suffer from the same lighter is better line of thinking. A well rounded force is the aim. And while one can argue a country like Australia could and should lean more towards lighter formations just like the South Koreans need more heavy forces on their border, being just light or just heavy is bad.

As Rave said, at some point one has to make contact and actually fight for some piece of land. One can't always outmaneuver the enemy. Time, space, objectives and enemy actions often enough force one to close with the enemy.

A light infantry centric force enjoys no advantage over a heavy force when it comes to C4I capabilities and it enjoys no advantage in tactical maneuvering apart from cities and heavy woods/mountains. And even in cities the advantage of an all light infantry force compared to a force with less infantry but heavy support is debatable.

Cross country performance of heavy tracked vehicles is better and as soon as the first shots are fired the heavy force eats the lighter force alive outside of heavy terrain due to huge advantages in firepower, protection and cross country performance.

 

[Monitor66]

Well, in the end everything is ok as one gets a Puma with protection level C at 43 tons. So there even is a weight reserve of 5 tons...

If anything the conflicts if the past 20 years have shown that protection is as important as ever. Just look at the IFVs and tanks (and every other AFV) deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq in order to see how everybody tried to raise the protection level of their AFVs.

Good protection is equally important when it comes to fighting ill equipped foes like in both sandboxes or when fighting a real heavy enemy like during Desert Storm.

Just read about how tanks and IFVs carried the day or played an important support role from Basra and Falluhja to Helmand and Kunduz or Easting 73.

You suffer from the same lighter is better line of thinking. A well rounded force is the aim. And while one can argue a country like Australia could and should lean more towards lighter formations just like the South Koreans need more heavy forces on their border, being just light or just heavy is bad.

As Rave said, at some point one has to make contact and actually fight for some piece of land. One can't always outmaneuver the enemy. Time, space, objectives and enemy actions often enough force one to close with the enemy.

A light infantry centric force enjoys no advantage over a heavy force when it comes to C4I capabilities and it enjoys no advantage in tactical maneuvering apart from cities and heavy woods/mountains. And even in cities the advantage of an all light infantry force compared to a force with less infantry but heavy support is debatable.

Cross country performance of heavy tracked vehicles is better and as soon as the first shots are fired the heavy force eats the lighter force alive outside of heavy terrain due to huge advantages in firepower, protection and cross country performance.

Agree all. Although if the 8-man section requirement for the IFV under Land 400 is still a requirement when the FPS gets released to industry in 5-6 years then Puma is unlikely to be compliant.

See the images below and it's clear they simply can't get 8 men in the back, even with a remotely operated turret installed.

http://www.rommelkiste.de/Fahrzeuge/Puma/puma11.jpg

http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=23172&page=2

Other options in due course may be the Polish Anders IFV (8 troops plus 3 crew; 30mm HITFIST-30P turret; 700 unit order expected to replace BMP in Polish service) or Turkish Tulpar (9 troops).

Whilst these OEMs are not where western countries would normally go shopping for military kit, that could be offset by teaming arrangements with BAE Systems Aust etc for instance, whereby the latter would be prime contractor and the Polish/Turkish OEM would be the primary sub-contractor and simply build the vehicles or supply bare hulls/turrets to assemble and fit out here.

Patria used this model for the excellent AMV 8x8 in Poland and it appears to have worked very well.

 

[Goknub]

Do I like tanks and IFV? Yes. Do I see the importance of their employment? Yes.

What I propose is neither a light infantry army, or that we don't need heavier vehicles. What I am proposing is that LAND 400 needs to provide the ADF with a balanced option as part of a combined arms force....

This is essentially what we will be getting. Bushmasters and Hawkeis will be available for those less-intensive operations. The IFV/CRVs can then be included/substituted as the threat level increases.

The Army needs to be able to tailor the force for the task so needs the full range of vehs. Restricting ourselves to "this is how we will fight, and we need this to do it" will limit our options. Our crystal-ball isn't always accurate.

If we are happy to be contribute little more than a token force then niche capabilities are fine. However the US would much prefer Allies they don't have to babysit in order to be useful outside of peacekeeping.

 

[Waylander]

We had the 8 men requirement before and I understood that it is not a showstopper if a vehicle isn't capable of transporting 8 men. Otherwise most IFVs out there wouldn't be an option and the few which are either lack protection or are really heavy.

Puma, Ulan/Pizarro, CV90, Bradley, Warrior, Bionix, Dardo and BMP-3 all can't transport the desired 8 men.

Other designs like the VBCI or Anders lack protection while an IFV based on the Namer gets very heavy.

So something has to give be it dismount numbers, protection or weight. Australia won't get an IFV which completely fullfills all of it's requirements.

 

[Monitor66]

We had the 8 men requirement before and I understood that it is not a showstopper if a vehicle isn't capable of transporting 8 men. Otherwise most IFVs out there wouldn't be an option and the few which are either lack protection or are really heavy.

Puma, Ulan/Pizarro, CV90, Bradley, Warrior, Bionix, Dardo and BMP-3 all can't transport the desired 8 men.

Other designs like the VBCI or Anders lack protection while an IFV based on the Namer gets very heavy.

So something has to give be it dismount numbers, protection or weight. Australia won't get an IFV which completely fullfills all of it's requirements.

The Land 400 RFT for the IFV is at least 5 years away. There may be developments in vehicle options by then. Should be interesting.

 

[Waylander]

Fundamental differences just won't occur. One just doesn't get the dismounts and protection of a Namer, the armament and cross country mobility of a Puma in a package as light as a VBCI.

And I don't see lots of new suitable off the shelf options on the horizon. 5 years is not that much for getting a ln operational vehicle into the field. And I wouldn't bet on the US Army getting it's act together and fielding an actual vehicle instead of the GCV becoming another procurement fiasco...

 

[knightrider4]

Fundamental differences just won't occur. One just doesn't get the dismounts and protection of a Namer, the armament and cross country mobility of a Puma in a package as light as a VBCI.

And I don't see lots of new suitable off the shelf options on the horizon. 5 years is not that much for getting a ln operational vehicle into the field. And I wouldn't bet on the US Army getting it's act together and fielding an actual vehicle instead of the GCV becoming another procurement fiasco...

In your opinion does the CT 40 mm cannon have a decisive advantage over the 30 mm fitted to the Puma?

 

[Waylander]

You get a lot of gun for a reasonable volume.

I am a fan of larger calibres in IFVs so one gets more bang out of modern programmable HEs. I am not fully convinced of the effect the 30mm AHEAD with it's cone shaped flechette pattern has against enemy dismounts in rooms/fortifications and behind earthworks/berms. 3P and comparable ammo looks better for this IMHO.

On the other hand you get more stowed kills with it even while telescopic ammo closed the gap. And against enemy dismounts showing themselves as well as rotary air the AHEAD should be a real killer.

In the end I think the 40mm CT is really promising. One could always put the modified Lance turret by Rheinmetall carrying it onto the chassis of choice like the Brits die with their FRES Scout SV on ASCOD chassis.

 

[Monitor66]

Fundamental differences just won't occur. One just doesn't get the dismounts and protection of a Namer, the armament and cross country mobility of a Puma in a package as light as a VBCI.

And I don't see lots of new suitable off the shelf options on the horizon. 5 years is not that much for getting a ln operational vehicle into the field. And I wouldn't bet on the US Army getting it's act together and fielding an actual vehicle instead of the GCV becoming another procurement fiasco...

Not sure the MBT protection level of the 60 tonne Namer will be required for the Land 400 IFV, nor the GVM of VBCI. But it will very likely be tracked, which means cross-country mobility will be very similar across any of the tracked IFV candidates, not just Puma.

Not suggesting there will be a plethora of new IFV models within 5 years, or that a vehicle's troop seat configuration is easily changeable. However, improving the protection level of tracked IFVs which are right now perhaps not as well armoured as might be required but which can carry the required number of dismounts could easily happen in the next 5 years.

Who knows what industrial mergers, joint ventures, licensing agreements etc between vehicle OEMs will occur by then and what vehicle options might emerge from them. We also do not have full visibility of internal design activities being undertaken by OEMs who may very well be working on new vehicle iterations as we speak.

 

[Waylander]

Show me one tracked IFV out there which can carry the required number of dismounts and has the growth potential to get serious about protection.

It's about fundamental design choices. You won't get more dismounts in a vehicle the size of a Puma or CV90 Mk.III without reducing protection or enlarging it and by doing that making it heavier.

There will be no magic new project popping up fully fullfilling all of Australias requirements. One may think about a mixture of tracked IFVs and tracked HAPCs to keep dismount numbers high while giving up some of the organic firepower. But that's it as far as getting a modern IFV into service.

 

[Volkodav]

A turreted Namer would meet the IFV requirement. Namer uses the same engine as the in service Hercules ARV and being built in the US could possibly be bought under FMS. Failing that Australia already has a successful procurement relationship with Israel on the Typhoon. It is heavy but may work out cheaper and lower risk than a heavily modified or bespoke solution.

 

[Waylander]

As long as Australia is ok with the weight and dimensions the Namer is defenitely a possibility.
It would offer the best protection and could carry the required number of dismounts. And I doubt it is more expensive than the Puma for example.

 

[Monitor66]

Show me one tracked IFV out there which can carry the required number of dismounts and has the growth potential to get serious about protection.

It's about fundamental design choices. You won't get more dismounts in a vehicle the size of a Puma or CV90 Mk.III without reducing protection or enlarging it and by doing that making it heavier.

There will be no magic new project popping up fully fullfilling all of Australias requirements. One may think about a mixture of tracked IFVs and tracked HAPCs to keep dismount numbers high while giving up some of the organic firepower. But that's it as far as getting a modern IFV into service.

What do you deem as "serious" protection? MBT level (Namer)?

Army is not planning on a 60 or even 50 tonne IFV. 42 tonnes GVM is about where they are at.

Tulpar for instance has growth potential to 42 tonnes if the highest protection level is sought. As far as I know this add-on armour won't reduce troop compartment volume.

 

[Waylander]

With serious protection I mean something along the lines of being protected frontally against 30mm as well as a good CE protection all around.

A tulpar at 32 tons will not have the same protection like a CV90 Mk.III or Puma with protection level A at the same weight but with less dismounts.

And when you go up to 42 tons your power to weight ratio is reduced to 19.2 hp/t. That's not much compared to a CV90 Mk.III or Puma and will make it difficult to follow the Abrams.

 

[Monitor66]

With serious protection I mean something along the lines of being protected frontally against 30mm as well as a good CE protection all around.

A tulpar at 32 tons will not have the same protection like a CV90 Mk.III or Puma with protection level C at the same weight but with less dismounts.

And when you go up to 42 tons your power to weight ratio is reduced to 19.2 hp/t. That's not much compared to a CV90 Mk.III or Puma and will make it difficult to follow the Abrams.

Good points.

I wonder what others think about Army scaling back the number of dismounts to 6 to make allowance? Is Army likely to give ground on this issue?

 

[Raven22]

Good points.

I wonder what others think about Army scaling back the number of dismounts to 6 to make allowance? Is Army likely to give ground on this issue?

No chance whatsoever. Changing the section size for the infantry invalidates the entire concept behind Plan BEERSHEEBA.

If we can't fit a whole section in one vehicle, we'll just buy more vehicles. You might end up with an IFV section of seven instead of six vehicles which, while not ideal, is hardly the end of the world.

 

[Monitor66]

No chance whatsoever. Changing the section size for the infantry invalidates the entire concept behind Plan BEERSHEEBA.

If we can't fit a whole section in one vehicle, we'll just buy more vehicles. You might end up with an IFV section of seven instead of six vehicles which, while not ideal, is hardly the end of the world.

Good to know.