Australian M113s

[Todjaeger]

Does anyone know why the ADI Bushmaster was chosen over the Tenix S600 APC for the IMV? From reading what I have of the available specs, the two vehicles seem to be fairly similar in terms of range, speed & performance. The S600 is based off of the Unimog suspension while the Bushmaster uses a Timoney design I believe.

Also, is there any indication that the M113 project might draw on experience from companies outside Australia? I was checking some of my books and apparently United Defense (now a unit of BAE Systems) has done design & upgrade work on M113s for various countries around the world. A fairly similar sounding upgrade was done for Egypt starting circa-1980. It too involved lengthening the hull and adding a road wheel and an updated power pack. More significantly, it also mated a M2A2 Bradley turret with 25mm Bushmaster and TOW, to the hull. There was still room left for 6 passengers who made use of the rear ramp.

If Tenix is having an issue with the brakes, it might do well to check and see what was done for the Egyptians. Especially since the Egyptian variant is approx. 6 tons heavier than a standard M113 but still has roughly the same speed and range (within 3-5 kph & 3km range) I have to assume the brakes were appropriately modified.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Does anyone know why the ADI Bushmaster was chosen over the Tenix S600 APC for the IMV? From reading what I have of the available specs, the two vehicles seem to be fairly similar in terms of range, speed & performance. The S600 is based off of the Unimog suspension while the Bushmaster uses a Timoney design I believe.

I was involved at one stage with the S600 solution. The vehicle was successfully exported to Kuwait as a paramilitary vehicle even though it did not get across the line here.

you are correct that it was unimog based. we used to bring in complete mogs, strip their cab-over elements and then start the milspec rebuild from there. it was cheaper to bring in commercial mogs rather than get Benz to build milspec units as it would cost substantially extra to alter the prod line parameters. although benz did agree to stop/start the line for 2 hrs to build the Kuwaiti base vehicles, it was not seen as that useful.

As for why they missed out - a lot of the influence was political. bendigo (where the buishie was built) was a critical tipping point and unsafe seat in a national election, and retention of the bendigo seat was seen as very critical to securing the govts hold on regional and national power. at that stage, the facility was still dominated by Govt influence and was not entirely an independant commercial operation. the S600 option was being built in a voting stronghold that was already cemented in the opposition parties clutches - plus it was in the middle of being sold to an australian entity.

as for meeting requirements. all of the vehicles tested against the requirement were very very robust. the explosive proximity tests were all geared around the survivability parameters of a Caspir - as the caspir was regarded then as the most mine proof 4 wheeled vehicle in service. Both the S600 and Timoney designs exceeded the caspir stats. The queensland based consortia vehicle was less robust - but was still better than the majority of remaining international options.

As for the S600 based solution, I remember that we bought out specialist armour plate solutions technicians from germany. we also had to train up specialist ballistic welders as the metal used was completely different from any other ballistic plate in country at that time. I do recall that we trained up a special team of ex plastics welders (as they have much better finesse and motor skills as compared to general welders) - and we also pulled some of the titanium welders off of the submarine project to also assist in comprehensive training of the ballistics teams.

we sold 28 of the S600 based vehicles to the Kuwaitis. the mules were offered to various state police forces as forced entry solutions but were passed up as they were perceived as being too "Los Angeles PD" for local consumption.

as a side note. the kuwaiti vehicles were manifested as "police cars" - the AustGov didn't want to be seen as an arms exporter.

some of the other detail is a bit vague - as it was around 1997-98. I'd have to check my diaries for further info.

 

[scraw]

the mules were offered to various state police forces as forced entry solutions but were passed up as they were perceived as being too "Los Angeles PD" for local consumption.

I find that a bit strange, especially considering WA TRG has a Saracen as one of their toys.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I find that a bit strange, especially considering WA TRG has a Saracen as one of their toys.

I know the mule was offered to SA, Vic and NSW. maybe WA didn't show any interest? SA was actually offered the vehicle for "free". The others were offered it at almost cost free.

 

[Todjaeger]

Checking some of my references on the M113, apparently Australia had several deployed in Vietnam that had been modified. The ones I'm interested in had the 76mm gun turret from the Saladin Armoured Car added on. Does anyone know of any pictures of these M113s, or of any source for additional information on them?

Regarding the reasoning behind choosing the Bushmaster over the S600 :hitwall
I must say I'm very disappointed, not surprised, but very disappointed.

If it was an issue of cost, or platform suitability, that would be one thing. But allowing political considerations to decide choice... I believe that is one of the reasons why the US M2/M3 Bradley took so long and cost so much to develop. If I recall correctly, the program ran 17 years (yes, years) and cost some US$ 14 Billion, before orders were placed and production commenced. And there were still problems with the layout & protection levels of the initial production models.

A followup question on the S600. Was the expected operating costs for the S600 more or less than the Bushmaster (assuming the estimates got that far,) and was it expected that logistics would be easier since there would be parts commonality with non-armoured military Mogs already in service?

 

[gf0012-aust]

A followup question on the S600. Was the expected operating costs for the S600 more or less than the Bushmaster (assuming the estimates got that far,) and was it expected that logistics would be easier since there would be parts commonality with non-armoured military Mogs already in service?

I never saw the DMO/ADF runoff sheets at final selection. But I do recall that all that all the numbers crunched through for the S600 trumped the Bushmaster by some margin.

on economies of scale, NATO commonality issues (logistics issues), commercial commonality, commercial support spread etc it absolutely walked all over the ADI product.

Benz were more than confident about real time and real user benefits as their available data reference points were valid - amd immensely relevant.

simple issues such as round headlights (so that headlight replacement would be easy in distressed locations) provided it with practical advantages in a compressed logistics tail.

I do recall that in 2000, prior to attending the Land Warfare Conf in Sydney, we were told that Bushmaster was dead in the water - and that the only thing that could save it was the Govt in an election year. The Taipan (from Qld) was also regarded as a DNS due to poor support issues.

IMV, I strongly believe that we got the second best platform.

 

[icelord]

I know the mule was offered to SA, Vic and NSW. maybe WA didn't show any interest? SA was actually offered the vehicle for "free". The others were offered it at almost cost free.

The NSW Govt. bought a Armoured car after a Anti-terror review found it lacking, its called the "bearcat" i think, bear something anyway, its done its job of late, driving down quiet suburbs at 5am with a couple of State Protection Group officers waiting to kick down your door, more a terror device for the crooks then much else at the moment:finger

 

[gf0012-aust]

The NSW Govt. bought a Armoured car after a Anti-terror review found it lacking, its called the "bearcat" i think, bear something anyway, its done its job of late, driving down quiet suburbs at 5am with a couple of State Protection Group officers waiting to kick down your door, more a terror device for the crooks then much else at the moment:finger

On another note, is that you writing Letters to the Editor in the latest edition of "Contact" ??

 

[Aussie Digger]

Better Bushmasters
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Volume 11, No. 52, September 21, 2006
By Cpl Mike McSweeney [/FONT]


A PROTECTED Weapons Station (PWS) and drinking water cooling system will be among the improvements to Bushmaster as a result of soldiers’ feedback.

Lt-Col Sam McPhee from the AFV Implementation Team said DMO had been working closely with manufacturer ADI on a variety of enhancements based on advice from soldiers serving in the MEAO. “These enhancements reflect both our operational experience and also the expanded role of the Bushmaster under HNA,” he said.

In July, the Government app-roved rapid acquisition of 44 PWS for Bushmaster, the first of which are expected to be fitted to deployed vehicles by the end of the year. One would be fitted per vehicle, the last expected to be delivered by April 2007.

Lt-Col McPhee said although the PWS had not been selected yet, it would be different to the Remote Weapons Station (RWS) on ASLAV. “The PWS is designed to fit the standard MAG-58, but it will have growth potential to accommodate other weapons,” he said.

He said it was likely the tactical environment would dictate when PWS would be used instead of two firers, or in a combination both. Lt-Col McPhee said in addition to PWS, enhanced protection initiatives included the evaluation of an appliqué armour package from September.

“That assessment is not just of the improved survivability offered by the up-armouring package, but also like its impact on vehicle handling and the vehicle’s functions,” he said.

He said the 25 Bushmasters recently sold to the Dutch Army were equipped with PWS and appliqué armour, but sacrifices to offset the increased weight meant this version may not be suitable for Australian requirements.

“Army and DMO will review the Dutch IMV enhancements and the associated capability trade-offs as part of our evaluations,” he said.

Another enhancement to the Bushmaster is an on-board drinking water cooling system.

“The prototype is being tested in October, and pending successful completion of those tests, the drinking water cooling system will be fitted to operationally deployed vehicles,” he said.

Where possible, all upgrades to vehicles for operation would be fitted prior to deployment otherwise RAEME soldiers or contractors would fit the upgrade kits in theatre.

“While the enhancements will be initially limited to vehicles deployed on operation, Army will consider fitting them more widely to the fleet,” Lt-Col McPhee said.

Other upgrades being examined include an annex for the command variant (IMCV), daypacks specifically for Bushmaster occupants and WTSS weapon station mock up.

Lt-Col McPhee encouraged soldiers to submit RODUMs if the vehicle wasn’t performing satisfactorily or submit user requirements for suggested enhancements through the chain of command.

There's a pic of the first Bushmaster to be fitted with the PWS here:

http://www.defence.gov.au/news/armynews/editions/1152/images/03-newwpnstation.jpg

Courtesy of www.defence.gov.au

The PWS is the Israeli Rafael "Sampson" (lite). This is the vehicle mounted version of the Naval "mini-typhoon" which is why they mention that other weapons might be fitted "later". At least they've chosen an RWS that has some commonality with an existing in-service system within ADF, though I've no idea why they aren't equipping them with Protector RWS. Delivery time maybe?

I'm betting that when Land 40 Phase 2 is approved and the weapons acquired that they will go onto the Bushie.

At any rate this is an improvement over the current situation where a gunner has to stick his head up through an open hatch...

 

[Todjaeger]

Better Bushmasters
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Volume 11, No. 52, September 21, 2006
By Cpl Mike McSweeney [/FONT]

A PROTECTED Weapons Station (PWS) and drinking water cooling system will be among the improvements to Bushmaster as a result of soldiers’ feedback.

At any rate this is an improvement over the current situation where a gunner has to stick his head up through an open hatch...

I don't know, I'm a little leary of this kind of upgrade. Not so much that the idea is bad, but that it seems the Bushmaster is to be used for something it wasn't really designed for. Namely acting as an APC and patrol vehicle, as opposed to a lightly armoured transport.

 

[icelord]

On another note, is that you writing Letters to the Editor in the latest edition of "Contact" ??

Hahahaha, never even realised, yeah that sounds like something stupid that i'd say, all good at the moment, got assesmentsin oct, so outlook is good. takin me nearly 6mths to get this far,after about 12 mths since i f**ked up kapooka

Back to discussion, i'm not 100% on this, but, would it not reduce the gunners view. If your looking through a Tv screen basically, then you can't say, notice something out of the corner of your eye. I understand its so much safer, but the chance of failure might increase, or you may not get a clear view of what your about to shoot at. This could just be my anti-technology side talking.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Hahahaha, never even realised, yeah that sounds like something stupid that i'd say, all good at the moment, got assesmentsin oct, so outlook is good. takin me nearly 6mths to get this far,after about 12 mths since i f**ked up kapooka

Back to discussion, i'm not 100% on this, but, would it not reduce the gunners view. If your looking through a Tv screen basically, then you can't say, notice something out of the corner of your eye. I understand its so much safer, but the chance of failure might increase, or you may not get a clear view of what your about to shoot at. This could just be my anti-technology side talking.

Yes, but it's not as bad as trying to operate in an armoured vehicle "closed down" WITHOUT a TV screen which is what Australian soldiers have had to do PRIOR to the introduction of RWS systems, if they wanted protection from being shot at...

They might be called "periscopes" but little glass bricks are AWFULLY difficult to see through, not quite as much as a large amount of "pink mist" though, which is a DEFINITE possibility if you have to stick your head up THROUGH an open hatch to fire your primary weapon system...

 

[Aussie Digger]

Here's some pics of the first Dutch Bushmaster IMV with it's RWS and 7.62mm MAG-58 incorporated, plus the internal control system we have been discussing lately...

 

[ugunnadiepiggy]

I think i'm with you AD, can it! But then again when you're this far in maybe not...

As Whiskey has said we've got a poor record with regards to equipment upgrade projects. I reckon all involved are probably wishing they went with an off-the shelf IFV now. Second hand + refurb's (zero hours) M2's would've been an excellent option. Mind you, considering the $$$s spent I say finish these, hand them over to the Reserves and mothball the rest, then go for an OTS purchase from whomever could supply a new IFV quickest.

Interesting question though, its a bit like the Sprog, do we hold on and finish AND then promise to apply Kinnaird in each and every case from now on? And in the same vein although off topic (sorry) are we going to screw the pooch again with regards to the Aussie Baby Burke?! Mistral will probably win out on the Amphib side of things purely because of recent def project screw-ups.
Coota

originally the bushmaster are an interm effort to provide basic protection to reserve or rear echlon forces, the m113 upgrade became about because of cost and there was no planned heavy lift ability capable of taking brads, so the progressive upgrade came about although previous planned upgrades never came about.
aslav (all versions) the reason for move towards wheelded vehicle is running cost and increased self deployment ability. differences is that for every 4 hors of ops in a m113 you have 1 hr of maintenance. where this is reduced for aslav.
amour protection is the same or comparitive. a 7.62mm round will penertrate the side of a standard m113 at a distance of 50m or under. the difference with aslav is that the sloping amour offer greater protection for less weight.
with the purchase of c17 gm we may see brads yet.
5/7rar deployed with aslavs because the m113 are overdue for replacement or upgrade and the cost to run is great in comparison also the aslav can run to 140kph un-governed where the max you will get out of a m113 is 70kph.
an aslav in 1990 was booked by NSW police for doing 130kph in an 100kph zone. like jets land combat rule you are either big strong and slow or fast manourable. speed is life.

 

[blueorchid]

originally the bushmaster are an interm effort to provide basic protection to reserve or rear echlon forces, the m113 upgrade became about because of cost and there was no planned heavy lift ability capable of taking brads, so the progressive upgrade came about although previous planned upgrades never came about.
aslav (all versions) the reason for move towards wheelded vehicle is running cost and increased self deployment ability. differences is that for every 4 hors of ops in a m113 you have 1 hr of maintenance. where this is reduced for aslav.
amour protection is the same or comparitive. a 7.62mm round will penertrate the side of a standard m113 at a distance of 50m or under. the difference with aslav is that the sloping amour offer greater protection for less weight.
with the purchase of c17 gm we may see brads yet.
5/7rar deployed with aslavs because the m113 are overdue for replacement or upgrade and the cost to run is great in comparison also the aslav can run to 140kph un-governed where the max you will get out of a m113 is 70kph.
an aslav in 1990 was booked by NSW police for doing 130kph in an 100kph zone. like jets land combat rule you are either big strong and slow or fast manourable. speed is life.

Just one thing, the Bushmaster was never design as an interim effort. The Bushmaster (IMV) was designed to transport an entire battalion and all their gear from SW Queensland to NW of WA in around 3 days in good order ready for ops, where if an air lift was used it would take approx 2 weeks to get all their gear to the nearest airhead only if enough C130's were available.

I hope we never see Brads in Aussie service, because that would mean that we would not see a modern IFV in our service post 2010.

Cheers.

 

[blueorchid]

originally the bushmaster are an interm effort to provide basic protection to reserve or rear echlon forces, the m113 upgrade became about because of cost and there was no planned heavy lift ability capable of taking brads, so the progressive upgrade came about although previous planned upgrades never came about.
aslav (all versions) the reason for move towards wheelded vehicle is running cost and increased self deployment ability. differences is that for every 4 hors of ops in a m113 you have 1 hr of maintenance. where this is reduced for aslav.
amour protection is the same or comparitive. a 7.62mm round will penertrate the side of a standard m113 at a distance of 50m or under. the difference with aslav is that the sloping amour offer greater protection for less weight.
with the purchase of c17 gm we may see brads yet.
5/7rar deployed with aslavs because the m113 are overdue for replacement or upgrade and the cost to run is great in comparison also the aslav can run to 140kph un-governed where the max you will get out of a m113 is 70kph.
an aslav in 1990 was booked by NSW police for doing 130kph in an 100kph zone. like jets land combat rule you are either big strong and slow or fast manourable. speed is life.

Just one thing, the Bushmaster was never design as an interim effort. The Bushmaster (IMV) was designed to transport an entire battalion and all their gear from SW Queensland to NW of WA in around 3 days in good order ready for ops, where if an air lift was used it would take approx 2 weeks to get all their gear to the nearest airhead only if enough C130's were available.

I hope we never see Brads in Aussie service, because that would mean that we would not see a modern IFV in our service post 2010.

Cheers.

 

[Aussie Digger]

originally the bushmaster are an interm effort to provide basic protection to reserve or rear echlon forces, the m113 upgrade became about because of cost and there was no planned heavy lift ability capable of taking brads, so the progressive upgrade came about although previous planned upgrades never came about.
aslav (all versions) the reason for move towards wheelded vehicle is running cost and increased self deployment ability. differences is that for every 4 hors of ops in a m113 you have 1 hr of maintenance. where this is reduced for aslav.
amour protection is the same or comparitive. a 7.62mm round will penertrate the side of a standard m113 at a distance of 50m or under. the difference with aslav is that the sloping amour offer greater protection for less weight.
with the purchase of c17 gm we may see brads yet.
5/7rar deployed with aslavs because the m113 are overdue for replacement or upgrade and the cost to run is great in comparison also the aslav can run to 140kph un-governed where the max you will get out of a m113 is 70kph.
an aslav in 1990 was booked by NSW police for doing 130kph in an 100kph zone. like jets land combat rule you are either big strong and slow or fast manourable. speed is life.

The project Bushranger "Perentie" IMV's were the interim vehicle. The Bushranger project was designed to provide sufficient vehicles to enable a "motorised" brigade formation to be raised and sustained.

Unfortunately "hardening and networking 1 Brigade" has put paid to the original idea, unless additional vehicles are bought and ADF and Government seem in no hurry to do this...

 

[FutureTank]

There was even a comedy made about the Bradley development! nfloorl:
Greg

 

[FutureTank]

Land400 IFV design thoughts

Was interesting to read this thread, but noted some interesting 'white spots' and was curious what the thoughts are on the following:

1. Defence projects are first and foremost political decisions. Sure the Forces get their say, but in the case of Land400 the decision will be highly political because the Federal government was/is (as far as I'm aware) on having the design built in Australia (substantially, meaning about 80% of work).

2. Australian Army has a 'history' with design of armoured vehicles, starting with the very first proposed tank which was the model for the actual Royal Navy design. In fact this has been a consistent trend in Australia - no shortage of clever and creative people who produce World-leading ideas, only to be left hanging while the Australian Government opts for something from elsewhere for rarely understood reasons. M113 is a case in point. Does anyone doubt that Australia could not produce an APC in the 60s which is at least equal to if not better then the M113?

3. Australian Army serves in a unique strategic environment. It is complicated by geography, lack of strong alliance ties with other states in the region, rising cost of fuel (which allows deployment), and its size relative to that of its opponents in possible areas of deployment.
These unique factors suggest that ADF's needs are better served by IFV designs used for other forces in similar situation. As it happens there are only two such forces in the World (global reach, covering all possible contingencies, limited budget, small operational force, limited resources). These are the USMC and the Russian Airborne forces. The reason these are mentioned together is because they are the only troops that use IFV designs specific to their deployment doctrine.

4. The Australian Army is in the process of embracing amphibious warfare as part of its deployment doctrine. This may be surprising since the Australian Army has always gone to war with the help of the Navy, but there you go, never too late to admit the obvious. However this does not include actual beach assaults in the way the USMC still views true amphibious operations. Of course technically speaking 'amphibious' assault would require the assaulting force to approach landing zone using vehicles in fully submersed mode (the turret down equivalent of the ground surface operations).

5. Why are wheeled IFVs so popular? Actually this is a recent trend in the West European and US designs because the Soviet Union had, and Russia continues to produce wheeled APCs and IFVs. In fact Soviet Naval Infantry used wheeled APCs since the 60s. The answer is fairly simple, fuel. Since the dissolution of the USSR, and the mess in Kuwait, not to mention Venezuela, fuel prices have grown consistently. The fuel prices are not helped by the economic growth in China and India. This constant cost to operating AFVs is likely to escalate constantly in future. Wheeled AFVs get better fuel economy, which Soviet Army found out decades ago because their own economy rebuilding after WW2 was unable to support a fully mechanised Army. While fuel price was kept low artificially in the USSR, its scarcity could not be artificially increased for wartime planning, so Soviet generals had to stick to wheeled APCs and adjust their doctrine accordingly.

6. IFVs are designed to be operated by their crews while bringing their dismounted personnel to do battle. After all the discussion on the engines, armour and weapons are finished, what still needs to be added to the IFV design are the human operators and passengers. Australian Army has a scarcity of these. This is only in part due to their volunteer and therefore professional recruitment. Australia as a whole has a shortfall in labour supply and therefore conscription is out of the question because one can not conscript the very labour who’s taxes pay for deployments. This is the problem faced by Israel. The problem also forces the Army to design its doctrine and use systems that seek to increase survival of personnel to higher levels then expected in most other armed forces. However these survival enhancements need not be greater amounts of armour that evolve designs from IFVs into light tanks. Keeping designs simple and integrating design and doctrine also allows engineers to keep production and maintenance costs down without sacrificing survivability. This also means that design development phases are short, and there is a lesser chance of sub-system sophistication slowing down development of the whole design.

7. Lastly, if Australia is going to spend 1.5bn on designing and producing its own IFV, it is likely that this needs to be closely coordinated with the operators of the IFV’s primary means of deliver, the RAAN. The current project of procuring two large helicopter carriers in Europe therefore needs to be linked to that of LAND400, and the corresponding development of Amphibious Warfare Doctrine as a joint activity. This is likely to save much money for both services, and lead to a decision that God forbid the ships be designed and built in Australia to suit our unique needs.

Cheers
Greg

 

[rossfrb_1]

Was interesting to read this thread, but noted some interesting 'white spots' and was curious what the thoughts are on the following:

[snip]
2. Australian Army has a 'history' with design of armoured vehicles, starting with the very first proposed tank which was the model for the actual Royal Navy design. In fact this has been a consistent trend in Australia - no shortage of clever and creative people who produce World-leading ideas, only to be left hanging while the Australian Government opts for something from elsewhere for rarely understood reasons. M113 is a case in point. Does anyone doubt that Australia could not produce an APC in the 60s which is at least equal to if not better then the M113?
[snip]

7. Lastly, if Australia is going to spend 1.5bn on designing and producing its own IFV, it is likely that this needs to be closely coordinated with the operators of the IFV’s primary means of deliver, the RAAN. The current project of procuring two large helicopter carriers in Europe therefore needs to be linked to that of LAND400, and the corresponding development of Amphibious Warfare Doctrine as a joint activity. This is likely to save much money for both services, and lead to a decision that God forbid the ships be designed and built in Australia to suit our unique needs.

Cheers
Greg

I doubt very much that Oz will ever go it alone with an indigenous IFV design.
The 'market' seems to be full of competing vehicles. US Bradley, Swedish CV-90, Korean NIFV, German Puma................
Oz may build or assemble vehicles locally if it were to acquire something in the future. But I think the ADF is too risk averse to funding something new from scratch.
Interestingly, I once heard someone mention that Australia (presumably DSTO) had designed an APC back in the late seventies - early eighties(??) Apparently a very good, but expensive design. Don't know if it ever got off the drawing board. If anyone has any details, I'd like to know.

cheers
rb