Skipping over most of the previous couple of days discussion, mainly because of the apparent deliberate ignoring of fact. Nonetheless...
2 things need to be considered. If you want to fly a Mirage III or drive a Charles F Adams into combat in 2035, sweet, carry on. If you have a fetish to drive an M48A5 tank, an Oberon submarine or a Wasp helicopter, cool. If you want to jump off this forum, 'cause the whole internet thing is way to modern for you, it means you are happy to die. Me? Not so much. Nor do I want my fellow Service peeps needlessly dying....
Secondly, the AS4 is an....adequate upgrade. For the 1980s. The best description of the M113AS4 program is it's an excellent 70s upgrade for a 60s platform, designed in the 80s, paid for in the 90s and not delivered until the 00s. Let us be brutally honest, the AS4 represents a fundamental abrogation of AHQ when it came to analysing the future of war and what would be needed. For all the (legitimate) other issues like White's DoA fetish, a large chunk of the fault for this....crap...can be laid in Blamey Square.
Why, with that clear lesson, would anyone suggest that the M113 is suitable for carrying people into combat in 2010s, let alone the 2040s, bewilders me.
But if you think that your bureucracy can't handle upgrade programs well, you feel that you're not getting your money's value, then probably buying new, more modern stuff is the better option for you.. The old vehicles can be converted for second line duties.
Like this SAM thingy or mortar carriers or this or that.
You are arguing two (maybe more?) different things - but at least your decision here is correct. The M113 is obsolete - for the direct fire zone carrying people. Other have mentioned remote usage for obstacle clearance, there are also automated logistic delivery.
We are already looking at that, with demo vehicles being played with in 2020. Plus some of what you mention. We may be able to superglue a NASAMs on it. But, if it needs to operate against any one fighting back, or in the direct fire zone, it cannot carry people.
Personally I would keep them around just in case of national mobilization. What fvcked Russia in the ass was not getting mobilized in time.
How do we pay for it? For every dollar spent on M113AS4, that's one less dollar spent on IFV. It also fails to grasp what mobilisation would actually need to do. I'd be intrigued to watch you justify to 3 Brigade that they are going in to relieve 1 Brigade - and don't worry, despite 1 Brigade having suffered lots of losses of it's M1s and IFVs, you'll have M113's! You want an actual mobilisation capability?
Alright, few things;
1. I don't care if you're the richest country in the world, you still have to think about your resources, everything you get for your army is going to come at the expense of other things. Maybe you'll have to spend less on education or you're going to be able to efford fewer F35s.
Yup. Which is why after FSP 20 that did months (like, 18+) or review, experimentation and prioritisation, LAND 400 remained.
2. Unless you're getting something like the Israeli namer, a 50 ton MBT chassis to carry around your troops, it won't make a huge difference in terms of survivability. Even then if you want real protection you need some APS. It's the technology that's going to save you more often than just heavy steel.
This shows a fundamental lack of knowledge of armour and it's changes since the 1960s. No armour is perfectly impenetrable, but modern armour is orders of magnitude better than armour from the 90s. Let alone earlier. In addition, a lot of that passive armour is needed to make an APS work properly. Even if you strap an APS on an M113AS4, it is highly likely that the incoming frag can still penetrate the hull.
3. There are good logistical reasons to stick with the lighter APCs.Even if you're the USA, it makes a difference if you can stick 3 APCs into a C17 vs just 1 APC. not to mention the fuel a heavier APC drinks
Nope. The biggest logistics bill for the new IFVs over M113AS4s is the ammo carriage. But the greater mass, larger spares - already catered for thanks to the new 40M and HX77 vehicles. As for strategic mobility - airlift is irrelevant and with LHD an IFV and a M113AS4 is indistinguishable.
All good choices, except I would wait on Abrams. I would keep and upgrade the current M1s but hold off on new orders.
What? Again, this shows a significant lack of knowledge. The difference between an M1A1 and a M1A2 is almost as great as the difference between an F/A-18C and -18E. The A2 will have better armour, sensors, intercommunication capability. It'll be more fuel efficient, easier to upgrade. And we'll be getting more! In no way would you want to keep the current A1s.
MBTs are priority targets, when enemy drone or helicopter, or even an infantry ATGM team sees one, that's the first target to take out. If we're moving in a column of M1 Abrams' and M113 vehicles I'd rather be in the M113. At least after the explosions start I might have a little time to dismount lol.
Even guided artillery shells are getting more and more common. I suspect you'll call me a retard but think about it for a sec.
Sigh....no they are not. Of the thousands of wargames/tactical exercises I've done, regular MBTs never made any form of priority targeting. You know what the priority targets are? Things that are different. Bridges, engineer vehicles, SAMs, radars, tanks with lots of antenna, BMP/BTR with lots of antenna. But, fundamentally, anything different. If none of those exist, sure, punch a 120mm round or ATGM into an MBT over a BMP, or if you have an MBT at 50m v a breeching vehicle at 3000m, sure kill the threat. But a line MBT on a dedicated targeting list? Nah....
Any disposal of Australian M-1s would be subject to full US approval, it would basically be the US sending them to Ukraine, even if they were shipped straight from Australia.
And bingo....something that all our 'great strategic thinkers' on Twitter and most blogs need to remember. We cannot just sell our military kit. It's not a US rule (although they have additional ones), its all related to our international legal obligations. I mean, we needed US permission to sell our Kiowa's in the 2010s!!!
www.defenceconnect.com.au
