Land 400

[t68]

During peacetime civilian flatbeds can be used. They are not that expensive.
Transport in country by rail is the most economic way but I don't know how good your bases are connected to the rail net.

Majority of our defence establishments had a railhead years ago, but unfortunately they are no longer connected to the mainline, I do know they used rail to move the MBT from the north to south for the wet season not sure if they still use them as I haven’t heard anything like that for a while.

 

[STURM]

Sorry for getting off-topic. Does anyone know of any wheeled APCs that have 'floatation devices' contained within the side armour to increase buoyancy when the vehicle is in the water?

 

[MickB]

Well, originally the ASCOD and the Puma were designed with similar numbers in mind

You can add the Bionix to that list.
If the skills do not currently exist in Australia to design and build an IFV can we not import them, similar to when ASC started up.

Depending on the level of protection required, its seems the K21 would be a good fit as the IFV. Additional protection can be added by using MEXAS or a similar add on armour.

Many IFV,s in the K21, ASCOD range also come with 105/120 mm armed versions.
If the base IFV was chosen would one of these light tanks be a better fit for the ACRs than the M1.

The common platform would greatly ease cross training, maintaininse and logistical support. The lighter weight would increase transportability.

But does this come at to high a price in survivability.

 

[ADMk2]

Well, originally the ASCOD and the Puma were designed with similar numbers in mind

The Spanish Army had a requirement for 356 Pizarros with final deliveries due in 2012. The Austrian Army required 112 Ulans with deliveries between 2002 and 2004
( thats 468) and initially the Germans planned for 410 Puma's....( i think)

Also, I don't want to go off topic here but....If we can't design and build IFVs, who in their right mind thought we could design and build Submarines?

By companies that have extensive experience in building tracked armoured vehicles and manufacturing facilities designed to build modern vehicles.

Neither designed and built a modern tracked IFV or wheeled CRV from scratch with no history whatsoever of doing so...

And as for Collins, we didn't design it, we bought the designs AND the manufacturing knowhow from Kockums for an enormous premium, something we appear likely to do again for the future submarine (though not necessarily from Kockums).

We are paying an enormous premium to build AWD's here, (in excess of $1b for the 'strategic' value in building a class of 3 ships that will never be expanded...) another huge premium to build subs here and we are likely doing so for Bushmaster too.

I don't see it as an effective use of our limited defence dollars to continue to build small numbers of complicated platforms that we will struggle to sell in already over crowded market...

 

[Waylander]

Don't look at the small post cold war initial production numbers for the Puma and Boxer. KMW and Rheinmetall have been building AFVs continiously for decades and remain to do so for some time.

And don't forget that Boxer is a multinational project with the Dutch being a partner while the Brits jumped of somewhere in the middle (and haven't managed to field a modern wheeled platform since then...). Also Boxer will gain additional buys by our government as soon as the older upgraded Fuchs APCs are busted.

As for light tanks on IFV chassis (like TAM, CV90120T,...) being a substitute for real MBTs. Their only advantage is air transportability and crossing performance of really soft ground and weak bridges.

And it comes with a hefty price in protection. While a modern MBT coy can chew through large numbers of older tanks with ease a light tank always needs to be one to shoot and hit first as even old T-54/55s are a threat over the whole frontal arc.

While new active protection systems may negate some of the threat posed by ATGMs and RPGs they are still some way away from intercepting direct fire guns.

 

[swerve]

Yeah. British AFV procurement over the last 20 years has been a sick joke. We managed to spend about a billion pounds on projects which didn't result in anything entering service. Some people in the MoD should be shot. The only bright spots are some (not all) of the emergency buys to make up for deficiencies. We got some good armoured & mine-protected trucks which should be useful in the future, & the quick & dirty FV438 upgrades worked well.

We should have stuck with Boxer.

 

[the road runner]

The Boxer(and i am sure others) seems to be a tight squeeze for the soldiers inside.
I saw a picture of one ,its 14 m3 and seems to be a bit of a knee knocker.
I was under the impression they have a lot of room inside but know realise they are a sardine in a can.

 

[MickB]

As for light tanks on IFV chassis (like TAM, CV90120T,...) being a substitute for real MBTs. Their only advantage is air transportability and crossing performance of really soft ground and weak bridges.

My thoughts are that in the most probable areas for intervention in our region (Timor, The Solomons, Fiji etc) a modern MBT might be seen as overkill. This could lead to none being deployed for political reasons.(Somalia)
If the ACRs were equipped with fire support vehicles based on an IFV (note no mention of the word tank) then these could be deployed in support as normal.

I was never suggesting doing away with the MBTs completely. The armoured regiment and its M1s would still be on call for the higher intensity conflicts.

 

[Waylander]

I doubt that the press or general public can appreciate the fine distinction between a light tank like the CV90120T and a MBT like the Abrams. And as soon as the first 120mm goes downrange it is moot anyway.

I also doubt that there are much logistical savings to be earned by having a light tank which shares some parts with your IFV compared to plugging just some more MBTs of a type you already operate into the existing logistics chain.

As for cramped conditions. Every APC and IFV is cramped. Some more than others and some have better ergonomics but in the end space isvat a premium in every AFV and dismounts get canned into them like sardines since ages.
Modern IFVs and APCs are even a bit roomier than older ones as they are build with more personal gear (especially body armour) and mine protection in mind.

 

[ADMk2]

My thoughts are that in the most probable areas for intervention in our region (Timor, The Solomons, Fiji etc) a modern MBT might be seen as overkill. This could lead to none being deployed for political reasons.(Somalia)
If the ACRs were equipped with fire support vehicles based on an IFV (note no mention of the word tank) then these could be deployed in support as normal.

I was never suggesting doing away with the MBTs completely. The armoured regiment and its M1s would still be on call for the higher intensity conflicts.

I imagine that for those sort of 'light' intensity interventions even the 30-40mm main gun on the IFV and CRV would provide significant firepower overmatch against any likely threat. I don't see 120mm needing to go downrange in those scenarios (we didn't need our own in Iraq or Afghanistan in 12 years, 25mm was all we needed apparently).

I would suggest the more likely need would be heavier armour to deal with IED's and RPG type ambush scenarios and then the M1A1 would obviously be much better suited.

 

[MickB]

I imagine that for those sort of 'light' intensity interventions even the 30-40mm main gun on the IFV and CRV would provide significant firepower overmatch against any likely threat. I don't see 120mm needing to go downrange in those scenarios (we didn't need our own in Iraq or Afghanistan in 12 years, 25mm was all we needed apparently).

I would suggest the more likely need would be heavier armour to deal with IED's and RPG type ambush scenarios and then the M1A1 would obviously be much better suited.

I was thinking more as a bunker buster, but then a 40mm backed by Carl Gustav should do the trick in most situations.

 

[Volkodav]

Realistically you would probably get better value out of a wheeled vehicle with a 105 or 120mm than an IFV based tracked light tank as you would get the mobility factor as well. Don't know how Centauro (or similar) would slot into LAND 400 though, likely it probably wouldn't, it just seems that if the RAAC were to go for a light tank / armoured car / TD, it would be a better fit to beef up the SV side of things and leave it to the MBTs to support the IFVs.

 

[STURM]

My thoughts are that in the most probable areas for intervention in our region (Timor, The Solomons, Fiji etc) a modern MBT might be seen as overkill.

Given that there is almost zero possibility of the ADF engaging in combat on Australian soil and that there is a much greater chance of it participating in some future UN or Allied operation in the Asia Pacific region or elsewhere, I would imagine that consideration will be given on operating conditions/terrain likely to be found in these countries. It will be 'inconveniant' if a vehicle is suited for ops within Australia itself but it too heavy for many of the bridges found in South East Asia or is too wide or has too high a profile to effectively operate on many of the narrow dirt tracks found there.

 

[Bluey 006]

Yes but they had been developed by companies who have experience with developing these vehicles. Australia is better placed to just purchase off the shelf from one of the big manufacturers.Why would we waste money in developing a vehicle,testing this vehicle and then purchase a small amount of them ?

Fair... however obviously we would also be engaging one of the big manufactures ( hardly going to design one from scratch). By design, I meant customise locally - similar to what the UK did with the ASCOD SV.

 

[ADMk2]

Given that there is almost zero possibility of the ADF engaging in combat on Australian soil and that there is a much greater chance of it participating in some future UN or Allied operation in the Asia Pacific region or elsewhere, I would imagine that consideration will be given on operating conditions/terrain likely to be found in these countries. It will be 'inconveniant' if a vehicle is suited for ops within Australia itself but it too heavy for many of the bridges found in South East Asia or is too wide or has too high a profile to effectively operate on many of the narrow dirt tracks found there.

I find this a rather curious argument. Not having a go at you in particular but rather at proponents of the idea, that we have to base our decisions on the major combat assets we choose to acquire for our Army, on the idea that we have to choose some theoretical design featuring some generic specifications, that will thus fit on some theoretical jungle track or some hypothesised 'bridge' in the wider Asia Pacific region.

Every major power in our region operates heavy armour. To employ this capability, even if we are somehow enemies, they will need to cross the very same bridges and traverse the very same tracks, yet they choose to employ heavy armour within their respective force structures, whereas it is supposedly a terrible idea for us to do the same thing...

For some obscure reason and despite the reality of the last time we engaged in jungle warfare within this region (successfully employing heavy armour in the process) it has somehow become fashionable to assume that we would be unable to do so again...

Out of interest our biggest, heaviest armoured combat vehicle is the M1A1 AIM tank, roughly 63 tons, 9.7m long and 3.6m wide.

Indonesia's Leopard 2's are about 63 tons, 9.9m long and about 3.7m wide.

Malaysia's PT-91M's in upgraded form are about 55 tons, 9.6m long and about 3.6m wide.

The T-90 tanks Vietnam is reportedly buying are about 55 tons, 9.6m long and 3.7m wide.

China's most modern reported tank is the Type 99A2 at 58 tons, 11m long and 3.5m wide.

Thailand's most modern tank is the T-80M Oplot, about 51 tons, 9.7m in length and 3.4m wide.

Those are the realities of the heavy armour currently being or intended to be operated within our region. Rather interesting it is only our heavy armour that is being called into question...

 

[STURM]

Rather interesting it is only our heavy armour that is being called into question...

Not all all. I'm not questioning whether Aussie armour can operate effectively in a South East Asian enviroment and I'm certainly not questioning the value of Aussie armour. I'm aware that countries - including Australia - have in the past operated armour - with success - in areas that were considered non-armour friendly and that with adequate engineering support, armour will be able to operate in most; if not, all places. Just to clarify, I'm speaking mostly from a Malaysian perspective: in areas such as plantations, rubber estates , etc, where dirt roads are narrow and where there is thick vegetation barely feet away from the roads, it has clearly been found that operating AFVs can be very problematic at times. I was wondering how practical it would be operating heavier vehicles [when compared to Malaysian ones] in terrain of this kind.

Granted, an argument can be made that most South East Asian countries are more armour conducive compared to the past due to a widespread road system linking all urban centres and that the primary operating ground for AFVs will be in an uban or semi urban enviroment; as opposed to a jungle or semi jungle setting: the fact remains that there still will be a requirement for AFVs to operare in a semi jungle setting where weight and ground pressure will be an issue. At the end of the day I suppose everything's a trade-off and there is no perfect solution. During intensive trials performed around Malaysia it has clearly been found that the AV-8 [the pic on the left below] has more problems effectively operating in certain areas when compared to the older, smaller and less protected Condor but that is the price to be paid.

 

[Waylander]

Don't confuse weight with cross country performance.

A modern MBT is still the most mobile vehicle out there and apart from very soft ground traverses environments which no other vehicle can cross.

A 60+ tons MBT with 1,500hp is able to just run through lots of trees where lighter and especially wheeled vehicles get bogged down.

 

[Volkodav]

Well the ADF is looking at two core vehicles, a heavy tracked lift vehicle to support the infantry and a wheeled vehicle for Cavalry operations so there shouldn't really be an issue.

It will be interesting to see how many of each type of vehicle we get if we need to go for a split buy to meet the firepower and lift requirements with the tracked vehicle, we could end up with turreted cav versions and RCWS equipped APC versions of the same vehicle in each Troop. The same could also happen with the wheeled cav vehicle, a gun car and an APC type in each Troop, effectively providing the CAV Regts with heavy and light or tracked and wheeled squadrons that can overlap roles as required.

I suppose it will all come down to what and how many of each vehicle type are selected.

 

[ADMk2]

Not all all. I'm not questioning whether Aussie armour can operate effectively in a South East Asian enviroment and I'm certainly not questioning the value of Aussie armour. I'm aware that countries - including Australia - have in the past operated armour - with success - in areas that were considered non-armour friendly and that with adequate engineering support, armour will be able to operate in most; if not, all places. Just to clarify, I'm speaking mostly from a Malaysian perspective: in areas such as plantations, rubber estates , etc, where dirt roads are narrow and where there is thick vegetation barely feet away from the roads, it has clearly been found that operating AFVs can be very problematic at times. I was wondering how practical it would be operating heavier vehicles [when compared to Malaysian ones] in terrain of this kind.

And that was the point of my previous post, you can't base a force structure on one limited scenario where a heavy armoured vehicle might not be best suited. The whatifs will never end. What if we need to deploy forces to high mountainous areas? Well M1A1 AIM's won't be suitable there either and so on.

It's always possible to find a place where a heavy vehicle can't go, but that shouldn't dominate your thinking about what vehicles your limited overall resources should be put towards.

If defeating / surviving IEDS and modern anti-armour capabilities is your primary protection requirement, then your vehicle will need to be heavy and therefore large. End of story...

 

[Monitor66]

Well the ADF is looking at two core vehicles, a heavy tracked lift vehicle to support the infantry and a wheeled vehicle for Cavalry operations so there shouldn't really be an issue.

It will be interesting to see how many of each type of vehicle we get if we need to go for a split buy to meet the firepower and lift requirements with the tracked vehicle, we could end up with turreted cav versions and RCWS equipped APC versions of the same vehicle in each Troop. The same could also happen with the wheeled cav vehicle, a gun car and an APC type in each Troop, effectively providing the CAV Regts with heavy and light or tracked and wheeled squadrons that can overlap roles as required.

I suppose it will all come down to what and how many of each vehicle type are selected.

The cav vehicle (Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle) shouldn't need separate gun trucks and APC variants, as most of the candidate vehicle designs have space in the rear compartment for 8 troops, even with a two-man 30mm turret. Boxer can fit 8 troops if a remote turret is installed.

Candidate CRV designs include:
Patria AMV
CIO Freccia
Nexter VBCI
GDELS Piranha V
GDLS-C LAV 6.0
CIO VBA/Super AV
ARTEC Boxer
STK Terrex