Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Greyman]

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.

Hi All, new here. Your discussion on Hugh White has been very instructive and I thought I would join the party. I have a number of comments I could throw into the mix, but first I wanted to add something here.

Now that the GCV program is all but cancelled, GAO more or less recommended an upgraded M2/M3 Bradley solution and BAE have just about got the AMPV Bradley acrss the line, what do people think about an M2/M3/AMPV "A4" Bradley solution to L400? I haven't found how many seats in the AMPV but if the M2 carries 7 the AMPV without the turret should carry at least one more. Othwerwise it seems to tick almost all the boxes. Cheap and quick to start (surplus M2/M3), Australian content (BAE production line to refurbish), commonality with coalition partners, common IFV/CRV platform and reduced stress on logistics and the manning cap. I know some will argue it won't survive IED because it is not a V-hull, but BAE seem to have convinced the US Army otherwise.

The only box not ticked is wheeled CRV. I understand Cav like this because they can drive long distances to fight for information, but I suspect they like it more because it cannot be employed as FS over the last 300m or frittered away on 100 other support tasks. The US M3 and UK ASCOD seem to suggest tracked CRV can be OK.

What do you think? Is the bradley a goer for L400?

 

[Waylander]

Introducing the Bradley in this day and age is a bad idea. It's undergunned, undermotorized and underamored, especially considering it's dimensions and weight.

 

[Monitor66]

Hi All, new here. Your discussion on Hugh White has been very instructive and I thought I would join the party. I have a number of comments I could throw into the mix, but first I wanted to add something here.

Now that the GCV program is all but cancelled, GAO more or less recommended an upgraded M2/M3 Bradley solution and BAE have just about got the AMPV Bradley acrss the line, what do people think about an M2/M3/AMPV "A4" Bradley solution to L400? I haven't found how many seats in the AMPV but if the M2 carries 7 the AMPV without the turret should carry at least one more. Othwerwise it seems to tick almost all the boxes. Cheap and quick to start (surplus M2/M3), Australian content (BAE production line to refurbish), commonality with coalition partners, common IFV/CRV platform and reduced stress on logistics and the manning cap. I know some will argue it won't survive IED because it is not a V-hull, but BAE seem to have convinced the US Army otherwise.

The only box not ticked is wheeled CRV. I understand Cav like this because they can drive long distances to fight for information, but I suspect they like it more because it cannot be employed as FS over the last 300m or frittered away on 100 other support tasks. The US M3 and UK ASCOD seem to suggest tracked CRV can be OK.

What do you think? Is the bradley a goer for L400?

No idea what Army thinks of Bradley but it is a legacy platform with a design heritage stretching back to the late 1970s. Without a hull redesign can it cope with current and future treats as well as a later generation design, bearing in mind the Land 400 IFV will likely still be in service in 2045-2050?

Does the AMPV program have an IFV variant? The 25mm turret on Bradley won't do for Land 400; will need to be at least 30mm.

 

[Greyman]

When the GAO canned GCV they scored options and suggested the
Puma or an upgraded Bradley. I suspect the US would die in a ditch before they bought their armour overseas which means an upgraded Bradley. What turret it would get is anyone's guess at this stage, but it's a safe bet it would provide 'the world's best hammer'. And definitely stabilised. Probably good enough for Australia.

So 'legacy' yes, but one the equal of the proposed GCV.

The Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle Program is the M113 replacement. The only tenderer was BAE with a turretless Bradley. Some variants like the APC show an RWS. Their offer has some real nice vehicle upgrades which would point the way forward for the M2/M3 upgrade however.

Since the Plan Beersheba construct is for an APC Sqn providing lift for one (per Bde) Bn fighting echelon, I'm assuming not all vehicles need to be an IFV. More like 2 x IFV and 3 x APC per APC Sect.

 

[Waylander]

For the US an upgraded Bradley makes much more sense.

They already have the hulls and all the infrastructure to support them in service. And it is much easier to milk the system with a proposed "easy and cheap" upgrade of legacy systems than getting a new programm on track while the current financial climate lasts.

For somebody not already operating the Bradley (i.e. the US and Saudi-Arabia) it is a bad choice IMHO.

Rheinmetall and KMW offered a modified Puma to the US in a joint venture with SAIC which I am sure included licence production in CONUS. Entering the US market is difficult, the USAF tanker boondoggle shows as much, but it is possible. The Eurocopter LUH and Fox NBC vehicle are examples of this.

 

[Greyman]

Yeah I agree - bad choice, but I couldn't think of a good argument against it either. When the US go firm on the Bradley upgrade ... watch this space.

 

[Waylander]

No arguments against it?

One would introduce a legacy system out of which the last drop of upgradability has been pressed before it entere service with the Australian Army.

As I said, in it's current form it is undergunned, underprotected and undermotorized. With a new turret, new electronics and additional protection it would need a new engine and even then I doubt it's mobility will be good. I also seriously doubt that it gets any cheaper than real new builds of a more modern design.

Apart from plugging into the US logistics system I see no advantage in going with a modified Bradley for current non-users.

 

[old faithful]

IMO, Bradley would be a poor choice, only advantage would be availability of of logistics.
I am lead to believe that the Singaporean BIONIX out performs the Bradley in nearly all areas, even though its loosley designed on the Bradley.
Im not suggesting that Bionix is the right vehicle for Australia either.
Guess we will have to wait and see, I dont think we will see an an IFV selected any time soon.

 

[Monitor66]

IMO, Bradley would be a poor choice, only advantage would be availability of of logistics.
I am lead to believe that the Singaporean BIONIX out performs the Bradley in nearly all areas, even though its loosley designed on the Bradley.
Im not suggesting that Bionix is the right vehicle for Australia either.
Guess we will have to wait and see, I dont think we will see an an IFV selected any time soon.

The Bionix II ticks some of the Land 400 IFV boxes, although I'm unsure of its protection levels (medium at best?). Already comes with a 30mm two-man turret. Like other candidate solutions it appears to have room for 7 dismounts plus 3 crew.

The Singaporean defence industry is highly innovative and remarkably capable for a small nation, and incredibly self-sufficient. We could learn a lot from them in how to make it work and just get things done.

STK (producer of Bionix II) already has export runs on the board with the British Army Warthog, which has been thoroughly combat proven in Afghanistan.

The Singaporeans have deployed (or perhaps they're pre-positioned stock) the Bionix II to Shoalwater Bay several times; maybe our guys have had some exposure to it. Link to images of Bionix II on ex in SWBTA below:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/cyberpioneer/6416248995/in/photostream/

 

[StevoJH]

Is Warrior any good? They are getting a new turret at the moment aren't they?

They are at a similar age to Bradley though, so possibly heading towards the end of the development cycle.

Unfortunately other then Germany with the Puma, most of the other new-ish IFV designs come from smaller countries, which means that Australia could end up being the largest user of the type, and thus the one who would likely bear the burden of paying for the development of any upgrades.

 

[Waylander]

The CV90 in all it's versions is rather widepsread with Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Switzerland and ine baltic country IIRC.

The ASCOD sees service with Spain (As Pizarro), Austria (as Ulan) and will be introduced in the UK as the basis for FRES SV.

The Warrior is too old and not in production anymore.

I would think that the Bionix II will see future development even if it only operated by Singapore and Australia. The same applies to a possible IFV version of the Namer which may even stay unique as Israel may very well decide to go on using it solely as an HAPC.

In the end I see new build CV90s, ASCODs, Pumas, Namers, Tulpars, K21s or Bionix IIs as the only viable alternatives for Australia. Eastern designs are out IMHO. The US may get their act together for a new IFV program but I doubt it just as much as the Japanese exporting their Type 89.

 

[Joe Black]

I would think that the Bionix II will see future development even if it only operated by Singapore and Australia.

In the end I see new build CV90s, ASCODs, Pumas, Namers, Tulpars, K21s or Bionix IIs as the only viable alternatives for Australia. Eastern designs are out IMHO. The US may get their act together for a new IFV program but I doubt it just as much as the Japanese exporting their Type 89.

I think if ADF decides to go with Bionix II, it won't be too difficult to ask Thales Australia to license it and build it in country with ADF specific mods. ADF and SAF could then jointly develop future upgrades for a Bionix III based on 40mm gun variant perhaps?

 

[MickB]

I think the K21 ticks all the boxes for the ADF except perhaps protection. But if the Bionix is selected it might open the door to the purchase of the Primus SPH.

Many parts in common with Bionix. Smaller and lighter than most tracked SPHs.
Better suited to operate with or aganst our northern neighbours.

 

[Waylander]

Commonality with a possible Bionix buy and weight/dimensions are defenitely a plus when it comes to the Primus. As always one buys these advantages with less range and ROF. It's always a tradeoff.

The question is also how different the Bionix II is to the Bionix I. Parts commonality may be reduced but still significant.

 

[Volkodav]

Back in the day during my time in the Light Horse (Army reserve light armour units), we used to discuss / dream about what would replace our clapped out M-113A1 fleet. Who would have believed almost 20 years later the M-113 would still be in service with the ARA and the reserves would be operating landrovers and IMVs.

Many of the vehicles we discussed back then are still in the mix, CV90, Bradley, Pizaro / Ulan and some are new, Puma, Bionix, Namer. We just had no concept that it would take so long. Seriously how hard would it have been to just select a design or type and buy or build several hundred of them at some point following the 91 Gulf War? Every time the ADF has deployed to contested environments they have taken armour so there has been a need, just not the political will to get the vehicles.

I have heard Australia was offered Leo 2s and Marders post 91 but turned them down, I wonder if they would have been cheaper than the M-113 upgrade, they definitely would have been more capable.

 

[Waylander]

How much did the M113AS4 program cost?

IIRC one could get plain normal used Leopard IIA4s for roughly a million DM in the 90s. Naturally heavily refurbished and upgraded Leos like the Danish ones where and are much more expensive not to talk of new build ones like the Swedish ones. Marders should have been even cheaper.

So two battalions + spares and training vehicles worth of Marder 1A3s and Leopard IIA4s (roughly 100 each) could probably have been bought for maybe 500 million DM. Even if we double the costs to 1 billion DM in order to include training, simulators, AGDUS/MILES sets, spare parts and ammunition it may have been a very good buy.

There is a reason why used Leopard IIs where such a good deal for the last 20 years. Marders didn't sell as good, probably because they were less competitive compared to other products being of the same generation like Leopard 1s. Nevertheless still much better than M113s...

Australia could have gotten a brigade worth of equipment for cheap in the 90s. One could have even gotten some cheap M109A3GA1 on top of that.

 

[Massive]

Cavalry: Abrams and Namer

Hi all,

Realise that this could well be a stupid question but given what appears to be a move to an all tracks set up for front line units is it completely out of the question for Cavalry troops to be comprised of Abrams and Namer (or whatever HAPC is chosen?

I realise that traditionally these units have been comprised of smaller/lighter vehicles but is there a reason that this heavier combination could not be used?

I realise it would be costlier, but would it be much more costly than the alternative vehicles being considered?

Regards,

Massive

 

[Monitor66]

How much did the M113AS4 program cost?

IIRC one could get plain normal used Leopard IIA4s for roughly a million DM in the 90s. Naturally heavily refurbished and upgraded Leos like the Danish ones where and are much more expensive not to talk of new build ones like the Swedish ones. Marders should have been even cheaper.

So two battalions + spares and training vehicles worth of Marder 1A3s and Leopard IIA4s (roughly 100 each) could probably have been bought for maybe 500 million DM. Even if we double the costs to 1 billion DM in order to include training, simulators, AGDUS/MILES sets, spare parts and ammunition it may have been a very good buy.

There is a reason why used Leopard IIs where such a good deal for the last 20 years. Marders didn't sell as good, probably because they were less competitive compared to other products being of the same generation like Leopard 1s. Nevertheless still much better than M113s...

Australia could have gotten a brigade worth of equipment for cheap in the 90s. One could have even gotten some cheap M109A3GA1 on top of that.

The M113 Upgrade has cost in excess of AUD$1 billion.

 

[ADMk2]

Hi all,

Realise that this could well be a stupid question but given what appears to be a move to an all tracks set up for front line units is it completely out of the question for Cavalry troops to be comprised of Abrams and Namer (or whatever HAPC is chosen?

I realise that traditionally these units have been comprised of smaller/lighter vehicles but is there a reason that this heavier combination could not be used?

I realise it would be costlier, but would it be much more costly than the alternative vehicles being considered?

Regards,

Massive

I don't think a tracked vehicle is seen as ideal for the Cavalry / scouting, escort and flanking roles we currently use the ASLAV for. These roles demand high speed than tracked vehicles normally operate at and the improved off-road mobility isn't seen as important.

Plus the self-deployable capability of a wheeled vehicle capable of highway speeds in Australia conditions is seen as a big plus.

 

[Gordon Branch]

I don't think a tracked vehicle is seen as ideal for the Cavalry / scouting, escort and flanking roles we currently use the ASLAV for. These roles demand high speed than tracked vehicles normally operate at and the improved off-road mobility isn't seen as important.

Plus the self-deployable capability of a wheeled vehicle capable of highway speeds in Australia conditions is seen as a big plus.

Not to mention that an event that might break the track on a tracked vehicle leaving it immobilised might destroy a wheel station on a 6x6 or 8x8 but still leave it mobile, albeit with reduced mobility.