Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[40 deg south]

Australia signs AUD1.3 billion Hawkei 4x4 deal - IHS Jane's 360

Jane's cover the Hawkei deal.

 

[Nick underscore]

I have heard that money had been taken out of the budget for Land400, but for Phase 2 and not Phase 3. It sounds like money has been taken out of both, which isn't a good sign (although who knows what will happen with a new PM and defence minister).

One thing at is probably worth pointing out, is that the current BOP for Land400 is actually very generous. On current plans there will be 225 CRVs to equip just three squadrons, and 450 IFVs to mount the fighting elements of just three infantry battalions. Compare that to Germany, which is buying just 350 Puma and 272 Boxer to equip a force of 15 armoured and mechanised infantry battalions. It is entirely possible that Australia could end up with more Puma/Boxer than Germany, which is quite surprising when you think about it.

The 450 figure for the IFV is based off an assumption that each IFV can hold only six dismounts, and therefore a total of eight vehicles are needed to lift a platoon (and 26 to lift a company). Compare that to the four vehicles per platoon in just about every other army. In fact, on that BOP, a single Australian IFV troop of 26 vehicles is almost as large as entire soviet bloc battalion (with 31 vehicles).

The BOP for the CRV is similarly generous. On current thinking, a future cavalry squadron will have four 6-vehicle troops plus a four vehicle SHQ, for a total of 28 vehicles (plus the A1 ech). Compare that to a British recce squadron of three 4-vehicle troops plus a two-vehicle SHQ, for a total of 14 vehicles. An Australian squadron therefore is literally twice the size of a British squadron.

When you consider that, individually, the vehicles being sought by army are the best money can buy, it is clear that a reduction in budget may not be as disasterous as it might otherwise be.

It will be interesting, if the budget has been reduced, how they go about reducing costs. Having a think about it, there are many ways this could be done:

One way to reduce the number of vehicles, and hence cost, is to mandate that each vehicle must hold eight dismounts. Therefore each section could consist of just six vehicles instead of eight. Of course, there essentially are no vehicles that meet the likely Phase 3 requirements and hold 8 dismounts, so this may not be workable at all.

Another way to save money would be to make the Phase 3 solution the same as the Phase 2 solution - ie, have a wheeled IFV instead of a tracked one. While not ideal, this would likely make the full 450 vehicles affordable.

Similarly, haveing a majority of vehicles being APCs and not IFVs (ie not turreted) could be a solution. You would need less vehicles, as non turreted vehicles could hold eight dismounts, plus save money as you don't have to pay for the turrets or a third crew member. Compare the cost of a six vehicle APC section (with 12 crew members and 48 dismounts) to an eight vehicle IFV section (with 24 crew members, 48 dismounts and all the costs of the 30+mm cannon and ATGM). Of course, you would lose huge amounts of combat power doing this, so it's far from ideal.

If you look at Land400 holistically, there are other outside the box solutions as well. For instance, having only APCs instead of IFVs loses huge amounts of combat power, but there are other ways of providing his combat power. On current estimates, an M1 tank is about a third of the cost of projected Land400 vehicles. Through life costs are likely slightly more for the tank, but not by a huge amount. Perhaps a bigger buy of tanks is a way of adding the combat power needed to cater for the loss of the IFVs firepower?

Just considering the vehicles needed to lift the rifle companies, an IFV-based squadron would need 78 IFVs and 234 crew. An APC-based squadron would need 60 vehicles and 120 crew to do the same job. Reinvest this saving into a second tank squadron (14 tanks and 56 crew) and you would likely still save money. Maybe the answer is not more IFVs but more tanks?

Having said all that, all I think will happen if money has been taken out is that less vehicles will be bought. I think army will still demand a gold-plated solution in terms of a full IFV, and will simply accept having less vehicles in total to still get this. As I mentioned earlier, the BOP is already quite generous, so this will hardly be the end of the world, and there is no reason more can't be bought later (as happened with ASLAV and Bushmaster and, likely, the M1).

Great post Raven. Thank you for the breakdown. I have mentally marked this post for future ref

 

[Volkodav]

Yes, thanks Raven, great post very informative.

Definitely hope we get more tanks, a full three squadrons of tanks in each ACR would be nice but I know has zero chance of getting up, unless of course there is a trade off in CRV numbers, i.e. the second CRV sqn becomes a third tank sqn. don't know how that would work, especially if the IFVs are displaced with APCs.

On APC verses IFV, is there any reason there can't be a mix of both? My thinking is a IFV/APC section needs 48 dismounts instead of either eight IFVs or six APCs, why not a mix of APC and IFV versions of the same vehicle? With a common turret for the IFV and CRV, as some are offering, this would be even easier, especially if it is a non penetrating turret.

There is also my favourite option, although it has not been offered so is fantasy, the Name. It exceeds the required capacity, i.e. nine dismounts instead of six or eight, meaning as few as five vehicles per section would suffice and is the best protected / most survivable vehicle of its type currently available.

 

[John Fedup]

Yes, thanks Raven, great post very informative.

Definitely hope we get more tanks, a full three squadrons of tanks in each ACR would be nice but I know has zero chance of getting up, unless of course there is a trade off in CRV numbers, i.e. the second CRV sqn becomes a third tank sqn. don't know how that would work, especially if the IFVs are displaced with APCs.

On APC verses IFV, is there any reason there can't be a mix of both? My thinking is a IFV/APC section needs 48 dismounts instead of either eight IFVs or six APCs, why not a mix of APC and IFV versions of the same vehicle? With a common turret for the IFV and CRV, as some are offering, this would be even easier, especially if it is a non penetrating turret.

There is also my favourite option, although it has not been offered so is fantasy, the Name. It exceeds the required capacity, i.e. nine dismounts instead of six or eight, meaning as few as five vehicles per section would suffice and is the best protected / most survivable vehicle of its type currently available.

The Namer along with the Trophy option is state-of-the-art for IFVs. Too bad about the 60 ton weight however but that is the price for great protection.

 

[hairyman]

It is obvious that 59 tanks are insufficient for the Australian Army. Now would someone with more recent experience, or more experience, nominate how many more we should be getting?/ (My only experience with armoured vehicles was with the Ferret, so you can see it was not yesterday.)

 

[Raven22]

On APC verses IFV, is there any reason there can't be a mix of both? My thinking is a IFV/APC section needs 48 dismounts instead of either eight IFVs or six APCs, why not a mix of APC and IFV versions of the same vehicle? With a common turret for the IFV and CRV, as some are offering, this would be even easier, especially if it is a non penetrating turret.

A mix of IFVs/APCs based on the same vehicle is certainly one of the options being looked at. The idea is there would be one combat team lift of IFVs to lead the assault and break in on the objective, while the remaining combat teams would lifted in APCs and only close on the objective after the break-in.

There are about a million problems with this though - you can't rotate the combat teams and hence lose huge flexibility, if the lead combat team is attritted your whole force has culminated and can't secure any subsequent objectives, simulation has shown this ORBAT will have significantly more casualties than an IFV only ORBAT etc.

I think what you are talking about is having the mix at troop level though (say four APCs and two IFVs per section) which would likely be workable, but with an obvious loss of combat power and flexibility.

There is also my favourite option, although it has not been offered so is fantasy, the Name. It exceeds the required capacity, i.e. nine dismounts instead of six or eight, meaning as few as five vehicles per section would suffice and is the best protected / most survivable vehicle of its type currently available.

The Namer would be ideal if the only task required of the LAND400 vehicle was closing the last 300 metres against a peer enemy. However, it would be a pretty terrible solution for just about everything else. Due to its size and likely tasks, the army needs a vehicle better suited to more of the spectrum of conflict. This is the same reason why the CRV will be wheeled, even though a tracked vehicle would likely be better at the role - otherwise the army would have no wheeled AFVs and not have many options for conflicts at the lower end of the spectrum.

 

[Raven22]

It is obvious that 59 tanks are insufficient for the Australian Army. Now would someone with more recent experience, or more experience, nominate how many more we should be getting?/ (My only experience with armoured vehicles was with the Ferret, so you can see it was not yesterday.)

Obviously, that's a difficult question to answer and depends on what capability you desire from the tank force. A baseline capability to support Plan Beersheeba is three squadrons, which would require another dozen or so gun tanks to be bought to do properly (ie, around 71 or so gun tanks).

As I'm mentioned in previous posts, a single squadron really isn't enough to to support a Beersheeba brigade. By the time you have put some in the brigade reserve, maybe a few in the guard force etc, you don't have enough mass left to support the main effort and achieve a decisive effect. Realistically, two squadrons of tanks at least would be required to provide enough to go around. You could then essentially have one squadron for regrouping to everyone else, and one squadron to remain to support the main effort. Obviously, this would require a doubling of the tank force (~142 or so).

That isn't going to happen though. Personally I think or good force to aim for would be for a single squadron of four troops per ACR (ie, 18 tanks instead of 14), with the extra troop being the SEQ troop with mine plows/mine rollers. You could also probably argue you need a couple for the ACR HQ to allow the CO to accompany his main effort in the assault. All this would likely require around 100 or so tanks in total.

Of course, it's worth pointing out that as the tank force grows you need to grow the A1/A2 echs as well, particularly by buying more M88s. The current force of seven is being grown by about another half dozen to support Beersheeba. Any growth over that would require even more to be bought.

Assault breaching vehicles (based on MBT chassis) are a whole other issue as well. Based on doctrine you need the capability to breach two lanes in the assault, plus have a reserve in case one lane fails. Therefore each ACR/CER really should have a squadron with at least three assault sections (each consisting of an AEV, ABV and HAB) to enable this assault breaching. This would likely require another ~40 or so vehicles based off an M1 chassis.

As I've mentioned before, the issue is far more complicated that simply saying 'we need XX number of tanks.'

 

[Trackmaster]

Speaking as an absolute observer...but as a taxpayer in Australia, I'm interested in views on whether the right decision been made with the purchase of the Hawkei?
I have read what I can find...mainly company material, but I would value the thoughts of those with experience.
I can certainly see this as a political decision, and saw what I considered an extraordinary comment in recent days, suggesting the possibility of sales to the US Marines.
Oskosh would have something to say about that, I would think.

 

[Goknub]

I believe it was the right decision considering all the other options that are available.
I've seen it up close but unfortunately wasn't able to have a drive. It's an impressive vehicle and like the Bushmaster will be designed rugged enough to survive the Australian outback.

However the biggest plus for the Army is that it is a political asset. This should ensure a larger quantity is procured than would otherwise be the case. Political pork works in our favour on this one. Even if many sit in storage the lesson re-learnt in East Timor '99, Iraq '03 and Ukraine is that you fight with the military you have, not the one you wish you had. Being able to surge a force of Bushmasters/Hawkeis could save many lives.
----------------------------------

Talking IFV/APCs/CRVs...

Given that the Namer is the only IFV that seems likely to meet both the 8 man lift and high protection requirements (including active protection), perhaps a re-alignment of numbers between the IFV and CRV could be worth a look.
At 30t+ and heavily armed the CRV should be able to perform many tasks that are currently performed by IFVs. A larger force of CRVs might be more useful with a heavy weight IFV left for the most intense combat situations.

 

[Raven22]

The key issue with the Hawkei is that is about as good as any of the other contenders. It may not necessarily be the absolute best, but it's close enough as makes no practical difference. That being the case, it wouldn't make any sense to buy a foreign made vehicle and lose all the advantages of a domestic build.

 

[ADMk2]

Speaking as an absolute observer...but as a taxpayer in Australia, I'm interested in views on whether the right decision been made with the purchase of the Hawkei?
I have read what I can find...mainly company material, but I would value the thoughts of those with experience.
I can certainly see this as a political decision, and saw what I considered an extraordinary comment in recent days, suggesting the possibility of sales to the US Marines.
Oskosh would have something to say about that, I would think.

I'd like to see what RWS options are being considered for it. The open hatch / flex mount idea is nice and cheap, but doesn't reflect what is needed on Ops...

 

[Ranger25]

I'd like to see what RWS options are being considered for it. The open hatch / flex mount idea is nice and cheap, but doesn't reflect what is needed on Ops...

Looking at potential conflicts either in conjunction with American/NATO lead coalitions or a PLA foe, most militaries are moving to increase leathality of their IFV. I this a CROWS larger than .50 cal is almost a requirement. I think SAAB and Konigsberg both have RWS that can handle up to a 30mm system.

I'd like to see something along those lines or a remote turret on the Styker platforms similar to the USMC LAV25

 

[ADMk2]

Looking at potential conflicts either in conjunction with American/NATO lead coalitions or a PLA foe, most militaries are moving to increase leathality of their IFV. I this a CROWS larger than .50 cal is almost a requirement. I think SAAB and Konigsberg both have RWS that can handle up to a 30mm system.

I'd like to see something along those lines or a remote turret on the Styker platforms similar to the USMC LAV25

It's not an IFV, it is a classed as a protected mobility vehicle - light. Therefore it won't necessarily get a 'high end' RWS and is most unlikely to get any sort of manned turret, but as it will be used in a light Cavalry role by some units, I expect at least a portion of the fleet will get an ISR capable weapon station, capable of operating light / medium calibre machine guns or auto grenade launchers.

I expect something similar (or exactly the same, even...) as the R-400 CROWS we were using on some of our Bushmasters, but with 1100, vehicles purchased, plus hundreds of in-service Bushies still around, we may need more than a few more...

R-400 CROWS

As this vehicle is only intended for 'lower end' roles I can't see it getting a 30mm gun and being expected to go 'toe to toe' with IFV's, even though CROWS can handle ATK's 30mm 'light' cannon. The cost would blow out enormously...

 

[Ballistic]

So, with all the talk about the number of IFV/APC the Army would need, I was just wanting to get an idea of unit sizes and what the Army was/is hoping to be able to lift into battle.

Is the platoon still based on the Inf 2012 design? And is that still 40 personnel or is it more? Raven was saying 48, or was I misreading that?

The size of the company, I've seen referred to as 130 personnel in the Infantry Magazine, is this correct or is it more? I thought it was more like 140?

And was it Army's intention to be able to lift both infantry battalions of the brigade with the IFV squadron or just 1 and the other conducted light infantry, airmobile or used Bushmaster for lift?

Will or could the CRV be used in the infantry lift role as well as the IFV? Or will it be solely be used as a recon capability?

 

[FoxtrotRomeo999]

Son is a current Reservist, so I'm basing my reply on chats with him.
______
Infantry
platoon = 40 command brick 6 infantry bricks and 3 support bricks (10x4)
company=140
_________
Beersheba plans for Regular Brigades
ACR
Tank Sqn=14-20 tanks (some extra to ensure 14 available)
Cav Sqn=26-ish vehicles - CRV for recon/cav role only
APC Sqn=86 vehicles, allows mounts for 1 Battalion

The structure gives the maximum available resources and those needed are then selected. So, a brigade could deploy 2 light infantry battalions only, or an ACR including mechanised infantry or .....

 

[Raven22]

So, with all the talk about the number of IFV/APC the Army would need, I was just wanting to get an idea of unit sizes and what the Army was/is hoping to be able to lift into battle.

Is the platoon still based on the Inf 2012 design? And is that still 40 personnel or is it more? Raven was saying 48, or was I misreading that?

The size of the company, I've seen referred to as 130 personnel in the Infantry Magazine, is this correct or is it more? I thought it was more like 140?

And was it Army's intention to be able to lift both infantry battalions of the brigade with the IFV squadron or just 1 and the other conducted light infantry, airmobile or used Bushmaster for lift?

Will or could the CRV be used in the infantry lift role as well as the IFV? Or will it be solely be used as a recon capability?

Foxtrot has already given the size of an SIB platoon/company, but when talking about the number of vehicles required to lift a platoon/company it's important to remember that you will very rarely see a 'pure' rifle platoon/company any more. Almost always you will see some sort of enablers attached - a joint fires team (JFT), engineers, interpreters, CIMIC, attachments from support coy etc etc. That's why you need spare seats in vehicles above the base number of grunts in a platoon/company.

In addition, the amount of equipt carried by today's infantry is above that carried in the past - and all this needs space in the vehicles. Consider the manoeuvre support section which is equipped with 84s and Mag-58s with tripods. Add in all the ammunition, day and night sights and batteries for everything, and space in the back of vehicles starts to fill up pretty quick. All this adds up to a lot of vehicles needed to lift the infantry, far more than in the past.

Again, as Foxtrot said the lift squadron is equipped to lift the fighting elements of a single the battalion. The other battalion, as you said, can walk, be airlifted in or use the PMV squadron from the CSSB. Or, the lift squadron of the ACR can kick the first battalion out the back at their objective then come back to pick up the second battalion in a subsequent move (although the crews will fatigue very, very quickly like this).

The CRVs, in their primary role, will not be used to lift infantry (unless they are being used as pseudo cav scouts). However, they will retain the physical capability to do so. That is a key reason why a wheeled vehicle is being bought for the CRV and not a tracked vehicle, even though tracked vehicles would likely be more suited to the very demanding protection requirements. A wheeled CRV provides flexibility, and for deployments of an intensity where deploying tracked vehicles would be unnecessary or provocative, CRVs could be used in the same manner as ASLAVs in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are also far cheaper.

 

[Volkodav]

Foxtrot has already given the size of an SIB platoon/company, but when talking about the number of vehicles required to lift a platoon/company it's important to remember that you will very rarely see a 'pure' rifle platoon/company any more. Almost always you will see some sort of enablers attached - a joint fires team (JFT), engineers, interpreters, CIMIC, attachments from support coy etc etc. That's why you need spare seats in vehicles above the base number of grunts in a platoon/company.

In addition, the amount of equipt carried by today's infantry is above that carried in the past - and all this needs space in the vehicles. Consider the manoeuvre support section which is equipped with 84s and Mag-58s with tripods. Add in all the ammunition, day and night sights and batteries for everything, and space in the back of vehicles starts to fill up pretty quick. All this adds up to a lot of vehicles needed to lift the infantry, far more than in the past.

Again, as Foxtrot said the lift squadron is equipped to lift the fighting elements of a single the battalion. The other battalion, as you said, can walk, be airlifted in or use the PMV squadron from the CSSB. Or, the lift squadron of the ACR can kick the first battalion out the back at their objective then come back to pick up the second battalion in a subsequent move (although the crews will fatigue very, very quickly like this).

The CRVs, in their primary role, will not be used to lift infantry (unless they are being used as pseudo cav scouts). However, they will retain the physical capability to do so. That is a key reason why a wheeled vehicle is being bought for the CRV and not a tracked vehicle, even though tracked vehicles would likely be more suited to the very demanding protection requirements. A wheeled CRV provides flexibility, and for deployments of an intensity where deploying tracked vehicles would be unnecessary or provocative, CRVs could be used in the same manner as ASLAVs in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are also far cheaper.

Ok taking that on board would it be possible / affordable to equip one CRV Sqn with wheeled vehicles and the other with tracked? Alternatively, long term, replace the CSSB PMV Sqn with a wheeled IFV Sqn using the same basic platform as the CRV.

An interesting structure for the ACR could be a tracked group consisting of a tracked CRV Sqn and a tracked IFV Sqn (battalion lift), a wheeled group with a wheeled CRV Sqn and a wheeled IFV Sqn (battalion lift), as well as a armoured support group with two or three tank Sqn, and armoured engineer Sqn and perhaps even an APC Sqn to provide lift to other elements as required.

 

[Ballistic]

Thanks FoxTrot and Raven, appreciated!

The dilemma in finding an appropriate vehicle, considering the limitations of the currently available IFV's must be a major issue in the Army. Even the vehicle that I thought had 8 dismounts (CV9035 Mk.III) only has 7 as well. Finding a perfectly fitting vehicle that will do what Army needs seems all but impossible at this point (in terms of a gold plated, one size fits all solution), unless they reduce firepower, which would make the purpose of the IFV somewhat redundant.

Interesting conundrum they are in!

 

[FoxtrotRomeo999]

Beersheba gives us an affordable but not optimal solution. The US dropped the ACR in favour of "horses for courses" - sometimes you want to be tank heavy, sometimes light infantry, sometimes Mech Inf with supporting tanks. A squadron of tanks is very limited - the preference would be an armoured regiment (2-3 squadrons of tanks, battery of SPGs, Armoured Engineer Squadron and tracked IFVs for one battalion) and a separate cavalry regiment/squadron (maybe regiment with all the wheeled PMVs and battlefield helos attached). The US has always preferred tracks though is keeping the wheeled Stryker brigades whereas the Russkis have always used both the wheeled BTR-60/70/80/90 or the tracked BMP/BTR50. So, there is no one right answer - it depends....

And it also depends on how much money Government is prepared to pay. Let's hope the white paper is favourable.

 

[MARKMILES77]

The key issue with the Hawkei is that is about as good as any of the other contenders. It may not necessarily be the absolute best, but it's close enough as makes no practical difference. That being the case, it wouldn't make any sense to buy a foreign made vehicle and lose all the advantages of a domestic build.

Interesting to note a comment in latest Australian Defence Magazine that the Hawkei will be the best protected Vehicle in the Army other than Abrams, at least until the CRV is introduced(i.e. better ballistic protection than ASLAV, Bushmaster and upgraded M113). Probably not surprising as a quick "back of an envelope" calculation reveals that the surface area that has to be armour protected in the Hawkei, is probably only around a third of that in the Bushmaster yet the Hawkei weighs around 2/3rds as much as Bushmaster (10 tonne Vs 15 tonne in the Bushmaster). Also when you see the Bushmaster and Hawkei side by side you can see that ballistic glass in the Hawkei is probably twice as thick as in the Bushmaster. I would imagine that the ballistic protection of the Hawkei is as high as STANAG Level IV (i.e. proof against 14.5mm AP).