Light Tanks

[FutureTank]

One problem with the 120mm on a 20tonne vehicle si that it becomes large and boxy in sillouette. The contrast between the M8 AGS and the AAI RDF is startling. The M8 with a smaller gun should have a smaller turret and smaller sillouette, thus allowing for thicker armour.

A 90mm gun might be a good compromise, these are still being made. I think the Stingray II can come with a 90mm option.

The AMX 13 is a nice tank as a 'starting concept' for a new design. If Australia develops / buys a new APC then applying the AMX 13 layout to that new APCs hullform and drivetrain would make a useful vehicle.

As I said, its important to first define what a 'light tank' is, and what role it is expected to perform within the unit and doctrine of the army as a whole before jumping into the design of one

By the way FutureTank, I know it was in a differnent thread, but you said that the British have no light tanks... well umm ..actually they still have scimitars and scorpions. You may have corrected yourself,, my apologies if you have already.

In reality these discussion are not likely to lead anywhere,, well at least for Australia, as we have no plans that I know off for a light tank, and cutting down an M113 chassis would take time to develop, by which time the M113 would only have a few years to go.

The British have no light tanks. The vehicles people call light tanks are not called this by the British Army. There is a reason for this.
In WW2 many light tanks had moderated AT capability early in the war. With advent of heavy tanks, the light tank disappeared because it was not feasible to mount a large enough AT weapon on a small chassis and retain manoeuvrability desired for the tactical role the crew were to play within the doctrine.

The British use of Scimitars and Scorpions is within the Reconnaissance Cavalry regiments. Their role is NOT to engage main battle tanks but to provide a screen for line units, and have a limited ability to defeat enemy advance guards (which are not expected to have MBTs (which I have always found a curious assumption).

The same applies to M113. Its FSV development in the 70s was based on exactly that, providing direct fire support to the infantry it accompanied as part to fthe unit and according to Australian doctrine at the time. Given this role, it was clearly not a ligth tank because its 76mm gun was not capable of defeating contemporary main battle tanks unless lucky enough to engage in side or rear at extremely close range.

 

[FutureTank]

So, basically. you say 105mm becouse you dont want to spend money developing something more apropriate. Not a wise move when building completely NEW, and likely very expencive vehicle. But i can see you point in case of 2th-rate military developers.

What is more appropriate then the L7 105mm gun? What is '2nd-rate' about the gun if used on a new chassis?

 

[FutureTank]

We had a project to build an indigenious tank and MICV in the early 1980s. The MICV was Project Waler, which reached quite advanced proposals, while the tank project didn't IIRC receive a name. Both were canned because of the small numbers involved. We simply couldn't afford the costs involved for the numbers we would need. Considering our absymal past experience in the Arms market, I doubt we'd be able to sell many, if any to improve the economies of scale.

The numbers are not so small!

LAND 400 will conceivably replace all M113s in all versions, and all ASLAVs, as well as add logistic versions currently not available (aking to US M548s).
There is every possibility that even the M1 would eventually be replaced by a heavier version of the same design platform (at end of production run).

All this amounts to at least 550+ vehicles over the whole period of production IF design and development costs can be kept low by keeping within the project schedule, and other costs reduced by eliminating stuff like shipping, and licences for manufacturing foreign components in Australia.

I also think the Australian Industry is more 'hungry' now then in the early 80s, and there is greater degree of government support and encouragement for such a project to go beyond Phase 1

 

[FutureTank]

It seems to me there is a place for a light tank in the Australian units, and doctrine.

While I find it hard to imagine a light vehicle armed with a conventional AT gun performing a recon role (for which there is a need), a platform which uses ATGWs would do as well, particularly if the launching stage can be visually suppressed from observation thereby preserving vehicle security as appropriate for it's role.

My problem is that I don't think it should be in the M3 BFV form, which is heavier then most WW2 light tanks. It seems the selection of M3 was a Congressional compromise which never satisfied the needs of Cavalry in US, and I expect will not satisfy the needs of Cavalry in Australia either.

Maybe something in the 15 ton range?

 

[Aussie Digger]

The numbers are not so small!

LAND 400 will conceivably replace all M113s in all versions, and all ASLAVs, as well as add logistic versions currently not available (aking to US M548s).
There is every possibility that even the M1 would eventually be replaced by a heavier version of the same design platform (at end of production run).

All this amounts to at least 550+ vehicles over the whole period of production IF design and development costs can be kept low by keeping within the project schedule, and other costs reduced by eliminating stuff like shipping, and licences for manufacturing foreign components in Australia.

I also think the Australian Industry is more 'hungry' now then in the early 80s, and there is greater degree of government support and encouragement for such a project to go beyond Phase 1

IF the vehicles are replaced on a 1 for 1 basis under Land 400 it's very much more than 550 vehicles, more likely greater than 700 vehicles, however it's unlikely any 1 vehicle type would exceed 350 vehicles.

I don't see the design and manufacturing expertise residing in Australia to build world class armoured vehicles, except perhaps under licence.

Do you think the Bushmaster is Australian designed and manufactured? Think again. A design house in Ireland designed the thing, the powerplant, transmission, final drive, suspension, braking "running gear" and internal systems are all of foreign manufacture and imported into Australia. The hull ONLY is manufactured in Australia.

Yes, GDLS manufacture ASLAV turrets in Adelaide. They are NOT an Australian company though...

On top of this as Rickshaw pointed out, we don't have the economy of scales to realistically support this idea anyway...

 

[Chrom]

What is more appropriate then the L7 105mm gun? What is '2nd-rate' about the gun if used on a new chassis?

The gun itself is fine, its just not suitable for modern light vehicle. 2nd-rate was refered to developers what may be technologicaly advanced but lack the capability to full-scale develop all associated systems for the tank. Like special gun. Or special FCS. In the current situation for such "light tank" low-ballistic 100-120 mm gun will serve MUCH better than high ballistic whatever gun.

 

[FutureTank]

The gun itself is fine, its just not suitable for modern light vehicle. 2nd-rate was refered to developers what may be technologicaly advanced but lack the capability to full-scale develop all associated systems for the tank. Like special gun. Or special FCS. In the current situation for such "light tank" low-ballistic 100-120 mm gun will serve MUCH better than high ballistic whatever gun.

In what way is it not suitable?!
The current FCS on Austrlian Leoprad would suffice for a fire support role. For such a role the 105mm is probably more then enough in terms of the 'punch'.
A light tank does not need a 105mm gun either.

 

[FutureTank]

IF the vehicles are replaced on a 1 for 1 basis under Land 400 it's very much more than 550 vehicles, more likely greater than 700 vehicles, however it's unlikely any 1 vehicle type would exceed 350 vehicles.

I don't see the design and manufacturing expertise residing in Australia to build world class armoured vehicles, except perhaps under licence.

Do you think the Bushmaster is Australian designed and manufactured? Think again. A design house in Ireland designed the thing, the powerplant, transmission, final drive, suspension, braking "running gear" and internal systems are all of foreign manufacture and imported into Australia. The hull ONLY is manufactured in Australia.

The Austrian/Spanish Ulan/Pizzaro will only amount to about 900 units in total, but initial production was only about 300 units.

Yes, GDLS manufacture ASLAV turrets in Adelaide. They are NOT an Australian company though...

On top of this as Rickshaw pointed out, we don't have the economy of scales to realistically support this idea anyway...

AD, I was taking worst case figure, but yes, 1:1 replacemet would eventually amount to more then 700 vehicles. This is also a larger production then Singapore's Bionix, so there goes the 'economy of scale' theory.

I don't know why Ireland was used to design the Bushmaster. However LAND 400 is a much larger project worth 1.5bn. Does the Australian government really want to send this overseas? It would be a pity if this happened, and a statement about the Government Defence Industry policy.

 

[rickshaw]

Light tanks are usually armed with light weapons. A 105mm gun is not a light weapon, either in physical weight or recoil. Until recently, in order to absorb the recoil of such a weapon you needed MASS. As the Sheridan showed, you can massively over-gun a light-weight AFV but when you do so, they tend to move about rather alarmingly when the weapon recoils because they lack the mass to absorb that recoil. With the advent of low-recoil 105mm guns, the mass of the vehicle carrying it could be considerably less than the traditional medium/MBT sized AFV.

Personally, I think it would be better to identify the intended role and how it fits into our doctrine, before deciding what weapon it should mount. Once you know that, then you can select the appropriate weapon.

So, is the vehicle intended to be a light tank, undertaking the traditional light tank roles of reconniassance and flanking guards? If it is, then usually a small calibre, often automatic cannon is usually considered sufficient armament, sometimes coupled with an ATGW system. Is the vehicle intended to be a light tank, being utilised for rapid deployment duties? Then a heavier-calibre weapon, usually in the 90mm even 105mm is considered sufficient by most, perhaps with an ATGW system. Is this vehicle intended to be a replacement for an MBT? :rolleyes"

 

[FutureTank]

ersonally, I think it would be better to identify the intended role and how it fits into our doctrine, before deciding what weapon it should mount. Once you know that, then you can select the appropriate weapon.

I was only suggesting reusing the existing Leopard 1 turrets. Obviously the MASS would need to be added to the LAND 400 platform to accomodate the turret, but at a guess this would still make the vehicle about 32 ton in weight. However the role I was suggesting is of an FSV, and not a light tank.

I think there is a place for an FSV in the Army mechanised battalions, which would release tanks for more tank-appropriate roles when required.

 

[FutureTank]

On top of this as Rickshaw pointed out, we don't have the economy of scales to realistically support this idea anyway...

Does Australia lack capability to design, develop and manufacture 700 armoured vehicles is the first question.

What is the economic quanitity required for above is the next question.

Le's say the unit cost is peged at 4.5 million.

The total cost for 700 vehicles would be 3.15bn. From this I deduct a smaller number of cheaper vehicles, or just a smaller number of vehicles priced at above figure.

However the above figure is based on US dollars. In Austalian dollars, using Australian design and development teams and production (never mind materials), the unit cost can be as low as A$2.75m. Tis would allow for a production of about 500 vehicles (if cost is equalised across the fleet for the more expensive versions).

 

[Aussie Digger]

AD, I was taking worst case figure, but yes, 1:1 replacemet would eventually amount to more then 700 vehicles. This is also a larger production then Singapore's Bionix, so there goes the 'economy of scale' theory.

I don't know why Ireland was used to design the Bushmaster. However LAND 400 is a much larger project worth 1.5bn. Does the Australian government really want to send this overseas? It would be a pity if this happened, and a statement about the Government Defence Industry policy.

Land 400 is not designed to acquire a single vehicle type. It is an "overarching" program to replace our armoured vehicle FLEET. Separate vehicle types WILL be acquired to replace existing vehicle types. Hence the "economy of scale" issue being very relevant.

Australian Defence Industry will receive PLENTY of coin from this project. $1.5b is a large amount of money, but it is NOT sufficient to design and acquire multiple "world class" armoured vehicle types.

At best, Industry will benefit through "work share" arrangements and through life support. $1.5b is not a lot of money on the world stage...

 

[Chrom]

In what way is it not suitable?!
The current FCS on Austrlian Leoprad would suffice for a fire support role. For such a role the 105mm is probably more then enough in terms of the 'punch'.
A light tank does not need a 105mm gun either.

Its exactly what i meant. Australia lack money/capability to design FCS what is optimal for light tank. You may be able to use Leo FCS (or may be not for whatever reason) but it will be less-than-optimal solution in any case. Again, the question is not if 105 mm "suffice" or "not suffice". The problem is what special low-ballistic cannon will do it much better. Such cannon will be MUCH lighter, the cannon shell will be more powerfull due to lower firing stress, and cannon itself will be much more flexibile in support role due to much better angles and ability to mortar-like fire. Once you starts to install powerfull high-ballistic cannon there is no option but go all the way to MBT. Else you will become horrible underarmored bastard MBT child what have all disadvantages of true MBT but lack its advantages. Again, high-ballistic cannons are BAD in support role even if we dont consider they weght.

An anology for you: the 1960x style Chrysler truck is good enouth for its primary job - driving wherever you need . But most peoples still prefer newer 2000x Chrysler minivan - becouse its better.

P.S. Allthought the lightened L7 version intended for Stryker wouldn't be that bad for such role. Is the gun on Stryker stabilized? Can it fire on the move?

 

[FutureTank]

Land 400 is not designed to acquire a single vehicle type

I think you meant to say a single vehicle platform, i.e. a modular chassis with multiple hull/turret/superstructure variants?

 

[FutureTank]

Else you will become horrible underarmored bastard MBT child what have all disadvantages of true MBT but lack its advantages.

All AFVs are horribly underarmoured bastard tanks, since the 'tank' was the first AFV

The AFV is a sum of many factors, including cost. There is no budget for a weapon of the type you suggest. Therefore utilising an existing paid-forweapon is a better alternative. Its FCS can be upgraded after the turret becomes a part of a different platform/application as need arises.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I think you meant to say a single vehicle platform, i.e. a modular chassis with multiple hull/turret/superstructure variants?

I think this might be "stretching" the boundaries a bit don't you? LAND 400 is supposed to replace the ASLAV from 2015. Can you see ANY current generational vehicles (which is all that will exist at that time) that meets this requirement?

I am unaware of any.

 

[FutureTank]

I think this might be "stretching" the boundaries a bit don't you? LAND 400 is supposed to replace the ASLAV from 2015. Can you see ANY current generational vehicles (which is all that will exist at that time) that meets this requirement?

I am unaware of any.

Which is why I'm proposing a new Australian design

 

[Aussie Digger]

Which is why I'm proposing a new Australian design

Have you ever checked out the history of Project Bushranger? It started in the early 90's, FYI...

Think an Australian designed IFV (a FAR more complicated vehicle and something we have NO experience in designing OR building) will be ready for operational service by 2015?

 

[FutureTank]

Have you ever checked out the history of Project Bushranger? It started in the early 90's, FYI...

Think an Australian designed IFV (a FAR more complicated vehicle and something we have NO experience in designing OR building) will be ready for operational service by 2015?

So what?

Americans who DO have expereince and capability took almost two decades to bring Bradley into service!

To me its a matter of project management, not expereince. If contractors and project teams are allowed to f**k around, nothing will get done. As it is there is 7 years to design and develop a pre-production platform, and that is more then enough time in engineering terms to build the required vehicle. This may mean that some electronics for the 'networked' part may not be complete because they to some degree will need to be tied into US standards (and Nato), BUT the fighting part should not be a problem.

 

[rickshaw]

I was only suggesting reusing the existing Leopard 1 turrets. Obviously the MASS would need to be added to the LAND 400 platform to accomodate the turret, but at a guess this would still make the vehicle about 32 ton in weight. However the role I was suggesting is of an FSV, and not a light tank.

I think there is a place for an FSV in the Army mechanised battalions, which would release tanks for more tank-appropriate roles when required.

The role of the FSV is to provide fire support - primarily HE and smoke to armoured units.

Basically they are the first line, direct fire, mobile artillery for armoured units. A 105mm HV would not be an appropriate weapon. Basically a LV or MV weapon would be best, something similar to the 76mm gun (or slightly larger) caried in the Scorpion/Saladin turrets.