Future Tank
Which armies have abandoned wheeled vehicles in the recon role?
.....The fact remains that the ASLAV is a good vehicle and its served our needs well.
For LAND 400 it would be worth looking at the LAV IV or III for a replacement for the M113AS4 series. Our Mech forces are probably never going to need to go up against heavy armour or ATGM's to a level that we need a Heavy IFV. What we need is fast, easy to maintain and light IFV, be it wheeled or tracked that can cross rivers and move well on our terrain. The dream team:
M1A2's plus all variants for 1 Armd (3 Sqn's)
CV9040's for 2 Cav and 3 Cav (its the dream team remember)
CV9040's plus all variants for 5 and 7 RAR plus 8/9 RAR (its the dream team remember)
Tiger ARH for 161 and 162 Recce Sqn's
AH-64D's 163 Recce Sqn (its the dream team remember)
SPH's for 3 Bty's
What we need is a Armoured fleet that we can and will use, that provides protection from mines and Lt AT weapons for our most costly asset... the soldier.
Firstly, what I said was that I was surprised at LAV selection AT THE TIME, because wheeled recon vehicles were being abandoned AT THE TIME.
Wheeled vehicles have problems with ground pressure, and this can't be changed. They will not have the capability to negotiate some terrains, particularly when soil type is subjected to inundation, or some of the sandy desert terrains. However these are far and between so far as ADF probable AOs are concerned. They are MUCH better on fuel economy on harder surfaces.
If Australia is unwilling to take on domestic IFV design and production, and if there are no ideas that would contribute to advancing IFV design over the 1950s cross of APC and light tank, then alsmost any current crop of overseas built IFV will do.
ADF deploys inbattalion battlegroups. The reality is that regimental associatio is a legacy org which does not function on deployment, so I think the whole force structure needs to be rethought.
I would suggest that in terms of actual field command Corps elements need to be permananetly assigned to battalions.
I'm not suggesting regiments be disbanded of course, but since an entire helicopter squadron is unlikely to be deployed, it seems to me the helicopters should be assigned to battalions by flights.
UAVs likewise should work at battalion level with recon troops. Same goes for tanks. I just can't see three squadrons of M1s deploying as one regiment.
Waylander suggested that Puma is a great improvement on the Marder, so I would expect it to be a strong competitor for the LAND 400. On the other hand US has the FCS program going, and UK has a similar project (although I think it is likely to culminate with a much improved version of Warrior).
SP artillery is a bit problematic. On the one hand it is a crucial part of a force structure on the modern battlefield. On the other hand the systems are as hard to deploy as the M1 tanks, and requires higher levels of logistic support. This becomes problematic when one considers ADF's modest sealift capability.
I actually think that we need to consider light artillery systems on the LAND 400 platform (or FSV role at least) integrated at battalion level.
How many L400 vehicles will ADF get for the 1.5bn budget? If there is no design and development in Australia, and the unit price is kept at about AU$3m, then about 500 vehicles. This seems unlikely given the nearly AU$11.5m price tag for the Puma (based on reported Eu3bm for 410 vehicles reports), which would only allow for about 130 vehicles. ADF reported need is for at least (about) 475 vehicles to AT LEAST replace the M113AS3/4s and ASLAVs.
In US the cost progression had been from the US$80,000 for M113 to US$1.947 for M2/3 Bradley (FY1984), a more then 100% increase over a generation (20 years), so I can't expect anything with a price tag of less then US$5m from US (and $7m is more likely).
This was my argument for domestic design and production using a mixture of COTS/MOTS systems to suplement systems that require specific defence application. As I see it this is the only way to ensure lower unit costs.
