Agreed about the mobility articulated vehicles can achieve. Nah, I'd be surprised if such a vehicle was chosen as a CRV candidate too. In any case, if there is tough terrain ahead that the CRV must traverse, then the services of the combat engineers should be called upon.
The latest generation of wheeled AFVs are very mobile and often surprisingly so for their size and weight. Denmark has just selected the Piranha 5 8x8 to replace its M-113 APCs, beating out tracked vehicles such as CV90 and ASCOD 2, which is interesting.
Having said that, a 33 tonne CRV (Boxer would be 36 tonnes) will not cope where a 13 tonne ASLAV currently struggles, particularly in wet, boggy or steep terrain. If you look at Australia's experience with AFVs in East Timor the wet season caused issues for ASLAV in some situations, rendering the old M113 the most mobile of INTERFET platforms during that operation. Often the M113s were the only vehicles that could get through.
I have also seen vehicles bogged to their axles in bull dust during the Top End's dry season so it will be a challenge. Army will definitely learn where they can and cannot take the new vehicles.
It is worth noting however that no 8x8 vehicles are being manufactured these days which are under 25 tonnes. And to ensure the CRV has protection that will still be relevant post 2025 the highest possible protection level is being sought (STANAG Level 6). This is driving CRV weight well over the 30 tonne mark.
According to this site so has Australia 1475 APC:s and only 59 tanks, very unbalanced I think. Usually you se armies with at least half the number of APC:s compared to tanks. I also think we are in a time when we move away from tracked heavy APC to light highly mobile MRAP type of vehicles.
MARKMILES77
Active Member
Just reading the excellent wall to wall coverage of LAND 400 in your Defence Technology Review.
Some of the more interesting news:
Target protection level requirement reduced from STANAG Level 6.
Unmanned Turret becoming more likely.
Bidders confirmed:
Rheinmetall.
BAE Systems/Patria
GDLS/Thales
Bidders still maybe:
Raytheon/Nexter
Defence Technology Review : DTR MAY 2015, Page 1
Cheers mate. Yes, it's turning into a fascinating project, with no clear leader in the field. BAE and GD will put in VERY strong all-round bids, and the Boxer is likely to score very well due to its very high protection levels out of the box. Rheinmetall will need to match the other two bids in terms of commercial risk, value for money and Australian industry capability plan to keep up.
Still don't know what vehicle GD will offer: LAV 6.0, LAV 700 (Saudi Arabia) or Piranha 5. Or turret (30mm).
Interestingly, even though Denmark has now ordered Piranha 5, it still isn't MOTS according to the DMO, and therefore may be off the table.
The protection level is still STANAG 4569 Level 6, but minus the APFSDS round requirement. Now just APDS and the option of complying only with 30 degrees left-right over the frontal arc, instead of 90 degrees (which meant turret and hull flanks). Still very tough.
That is mostly a budget issue. We are moving from a light infantry based force to a light (well perhaps a not so light LAND 400 based force) armoured force, but the funding to support a significantly larger tank capability simply hasn't been present in ADF for a long time.
We are actually lucky to have any heavy armour at all at present, as there was a definite push towards 'light, precise' forces in the 90's and early 2000's that it's proponents thought would suffice in future.
Fortunately these theories fell short of observable reality when heavy armour protection was an obvious necessity in the face of heavy IED threats and advanced anti-armour capabilities.
We don't have 1479 APC's in-service anyway. That figure includes ASLAV which is a Cavalry / Reconnaisance vehicle and Bushmaster's which are protected mobility vehicles (MRAP like, if you want) but aren't frontline combat vehicles in the sense that the types of vehicles being sought under LAND 400 to replace our extant M113AS4 based capability.
The ratio of current APC's to tanks (on paper at least...) is about 430 to 59.
There have been a few suggestions the tank force may be enhanced in numbers slightly under Army's Project Beersheba, so we may see some further purchases, but I wouldn't hold my breath on a substantially increased force...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM5bx4KprMw
Good video... please look at the first ASLAV' s right wheel. What do you think about what happened?
Good video... please look at the first ASLAV' s right wheel. What do you think about what happened?
Hard to say. Might have run over an anti-personnel mine but could also just be a staked tyre that has disintegrated with extended driving.
If I had to guess I'd say it's just driver training - getting the driver used to driving with a busted front tyre. It's clearly not in an operational theatre, nor is it likely or be tactical training (the driver's hatch is open, both the commander and gunner are exposed, stabs not on, no extraneous rubbish in the bustle bins etc). I'd say it was taken in Cultana or somewhere as part of mission specific training before deployment to Iraq.
kiwi in exile
Active Member
Don't know if this has allready been linked on this forum, but good doc, and well done to the ADF on a good job.
The Longest War (The Australian Army in Afghanistan)
The Longest War (The Australian Army in Afghanistan)
Harking back to LAND 400 and Beersheba, I posted some time ago about a split buy of wheeled and tracked IFVs and CRVs to which Raven replied the CRV would be definitely be wheeled and the IFV almost definitely tracked. I have been thinking on this further on this, prompted by some reading on the UK Scout SV, and was wondering at the possibility of LAND 400 resulting in turreted IFV and CRV versions, as well as a RWS equipped APC version of the same vehicle, in addition to a wheeled CRV.
My thinking is the Bradley, as I understand it, was deployed in M-2 IFV and M-3 CFV versions, Humvees in the scout role and M-113 FOV variants in support. Based on this could versions of the same LAND 400 tracked vehicle fill IFV and CRV roles (along with a turretless APC and support versions), perhaps with tracked CRVs integrated into the IFV troops? Looking outside the square would a composite troop / section with a mix of CRV, IFV and APC be feasible i.e. a pair of CFV with a brick each, a pair of IFV one with PHQ and the other with a support brick and a pair of APCs each lifting a section or is this too complex?
I can definitely envision a Cavalry squadron with tracked CFVs, working closely with an IFV squadron with IFVs and perhaps APCs and a second Cavalry squadron with wheeled CRVs intended more for long range operations than working closely with the battle group.
What chance a small number of larger gunned CRVs for DFS and over watch? Say 105mm or even 120mm but even 76mm (as used by South Africa) would do. i.e. if a version of the Freccia were selected as the CRV a smaller number of Centauros could be acquired to beef up each troop, or perhaps a separate troop could be deployed at squadron level.
I apologise if these ideas are a bit over the place or unrealistic, I am just curious as to how flexible the coming procurement could be.
You have presented a lot of valid options that provide good capability, but I think the ultimate requirement for Land 400 (versatility) will kill a lot of them. While having some of the more specific capabilities you mentioned (tracked CFVs, DFS overwatch vehicles etc) would provide good capability for specific events, they would also make the overall force less flexible. As a result, with such a (relative to other parts of the world) small buy of vehicles in Land 400 expected to do so many things, I don't think any of the more specific options will get realised.
A wheeled CFV will be bought not because a wheeled solution will be better at the core job of force reconnaissance, but because if one weren't bought we would have no wheeled armoured vehicles at all, which would severely limit deployment options in the future. Same for things like overwatch vehicles - while they would be good as part of a mechanised battlegroup against a near peer enemy in medium intensity conflicts, they wouldn't be good for much else. Hence, that role will likely be filled by normal CFVs/IFVs with medium cannon and ATGMs - not as good at that specific role, but far more flexible overall.
Land400 will very much be the leatherman tool of the army - not necessarily excellent at any one thing, but able to do just about everything tolerably well.
A wheeled CFV will be bought not because a wheeled solution will be better at the core job of force reconnaissance, but because if one weren't bought we would have no wheeled armoured vehicles at all, which would severely limit deployment options in the future. Same for things like overwatch vehicles - while they would be good as part of a mechanised battlegroup against a near peer enemy in medium intensity conflicts, they wouldn't be good for much else. Hence, that role will likely be filled by normal CFVs/IFVs with medium cannon and ATGMs - not as good at that specific role, but far more flexible overall.
Land400 will very much be the leatherman tool of the army - not necessarily excellent at any one thing, but able to do just about everything tolerably well.
So realistically it is about core capability with a tracked IFV, that may be able to conduct some reconnaissance functions and a wheeled CFV that may be able to provide limited troop lift (i.e. a single brick)? I suppose the benefit of this new structure, especially if the MBTs are integrated into the ACRs, is that the crews, especially the officers can potentially become expert in Cavalry, mechanised / armoured Infantry and armoured operations as they move through their careers.
To me the great advantage appears to be if the threat level ever justified it there would be an extremely competent and talented corps able to rapidly expand the existing ACRs and seamlessly integrate new and enhanced capabilities, i.e. additional tanks, DFS to support the IFVs and tracked CRVs, as well as DFS overwatch vehicles for wheeled force reconnaissance, wheeled and tracked SP mortars and perhaps even dedicated ATGM vehicles.
I could be wrong but to me the structure of the Beersheba ACRs seems to suggest that once established and key commissioned and SNCO personnel are comfortable with how it all works, each regiment could easily and rapidly grow to a US Army style ACR + armoured Infantry Btn, just add money, vehicles, reserves and new recruits. Fantasy I know but having a common RAAC career path as opposed to the old tank, CAV or APC ones must be a great improvement.
Any news on supporting capabilities, i.e. armoured engineering capability (AVRE / Breacher etc), SPGs, HIMARS etc?
As it stands, all four fighting variants of the CRV will be equipped with an ATGW capability. About 180 vehicles in total.
No dedicated ATGW vehicles amongst them but still a big increase in combat power and versatility and a precision fires capability that will be organic to the vehicles.
Selected variants of the IFV under Phase 3 may also receive ATGW.
t68
Well-Known Member
Have heard the chatter for sometime now, but have not seen anything ordered maybe after the new WP. Would be outstanding they can also get the support variants aswell Wolverine Bridgeing capabilty and the Assualt Breacher
Bluey 006
Active Member
In the April edition of Defence Technology Review they talk about - Long Range Fire Support and a requirement beyond 2018 for enhanced land fires capability with a range up to 150kms and beyond the range of the M777 - which points to a HIMARS like system , not sure of the reliability of the source but looks as if it is on the list of what is possible.
I have often thought a GMLRS system makes sense for Australia , especially for counter insurgency operations like Afghanistan where we may not have organic air support or for a rapid deployment operation in our region, where deploying and operating a GMLRS system, and drones could be cheaper than long range close air support.
On that note , I know all the talk is on amphibious capability and multi-role brigades at the moment but anyone think we might see something in the white paper regarding rapid deployment " Airborne or Paras" to support Special Forces?
With all the new C17s , C27J and Hercs we now have the means to deploy them.
With the operational tempo of our Special Forces in the last 15 years seems to make sense.
Our key allies ( US, UK) operate in this way, special forces support by elite light infantry (airborne) ... I understand that traditionally in the ADF 2nd Commando performed this role, but the reality is that they are now closer to a core tier 1 special forces unit than elite light infantry.
Especially in our region (and depending on the operation) such a force may extend our force rotation cycle
For example - SAS, Commandos and new airborne battalion as first respondents, relieved by a Multi-role brigade(MRB)/ARG, followed by the other two MRB etc or alternatively for a larger operation perhaps a multi-role brigade + airborne group (battalion+)
Raising a battalion of elite airborne light infantry (parachute qualified) would not be cheap but it may give the foundations of a 4th Brigade (Airborne). And a light airborne 4th Brigade would undoubtedly be cheaper than a 4th Multi-role brigade with heavy vehicles.
Special Forces
1 x Airborne brigade
3 x Multi-Role Brigades (including the Amphibious Ready Group)
Enabling Brigade and support brigades
Inclusion of an airborne brigade would increase the flexibility of the Army and ADF as a whole.
As we have seen in recent times, the longer an insurgent movement or terrorist violence goes on without response the worse it gets ( e.g ISIS) - therefore making rapid response essential
Last edited:
I can't add anything to the SPG/MLRS requirement apart from a general disappointment that equipment that was common by the end of World War 2 is still absent.
For the airborne side of things, I'm not sure if you are aware but 3RAR only just lost their wings. It was a capability maintained for a long time but its cost vs benefit ratio just didn't stack up. There are major drawbacks with any larger scale airborne operation due to issues of resupply. The personal injury toll is also horrendous and very costly on top of all the other extra costs.
2RAR in its maritime role has essentially replaced 3RAR as the "non-standard" battalion.
I do believe there is a need for a 4th Brigade but it should be an identical multi-role brigade. The ADF should be able to deploy and sustain a larger force than it currently can and that requires brigade #4, or a new Beersheeba 2.0 structure.
For the airborne side of things, I'm not sure if you are aware but 3RAR only just lost their wings. It was a capability maintained for a long time but its cost vs benefit ratio just didn't stack up. There are major drawbacks with any larger scale airborne operation due to issues of resupply. The personal injury toll is also horrendous and very costly on top of all the other extra costs.
2RAR in its maritime role has essentially replaced 3RAR as the "non-standard" battalion.
I do believe there is a need for a 4th Brigade but it should be an identical multi-role brigade. The ADF should be able to deploy and sustain a larger force than it currently can and that requires brigade #4, or a new Beersheeba 2.0 structure.