Australian M113s

[FutureTank]

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.

Project Waler - Don't know much about it, but it seems to me it never got past design stage

It seems to me the IFVs designed elsewhere do not reflect unique needs of the ADF in general or the Australian Infantry Corps in particular.

 

[Simon9]

Project Waler - Don't know much about it, but it seems to me it never got past design stage

It seems to me the IFVs designed elsewhere do not reflect unique needs of the ADF in general or the Australian Infantry Corps in particular.

Same seems to go for IMVs as well, hence the Bushmaster. Perhaps the success of that project will encourage the Australian government to develop their own IFV too.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Project Waler - Don't know much about it, but it seems to me it never got past design stage

It seems to me the IFVs designed elsewhere do not reflect unique needs of the ADF in general or the Australian Infantry Corps in particular.

There was also a program prior to ASLAV being bought, to convert M113's from a tracked APC into a wheeled armoured recon vehicle. Thank GOD this ridiculous idea was cancelled in favour of an off the shelf wheeled vehicle, that has subsequently provided STERLING service.

Why can't the powers that be, see that THIS is the best way for relatively simple military capabilities?

There are a plethora of infantry fighting vehicles and APC's on the world market. I REFUSE to believe that they are all un-suitable for our "unique" requirements, whatever they may be...

 

[FutureTank]

I don't see why it shouldn't.

Australian industries are leaders in metals and materials research, electronic and software design, and we can also build engines.

It seems to me there is a degree of ability in designing weapon systems.

There is access to knowledge from US and UK.

The issue is that AIC operates under unique logistic constraints of long domestic and international distances couple to relatively small lift capability.

Also mission parameters of AIC deployments are fairly varied as history goes, requiring a versatile design that can accomodate many and varied tasks from conventional mechanised battle to humanitarian relief.

There is not one IFV on the market that can cater for all these design constraints.

 

[FutureTank]

Besides this, we have a small force that, if participating in the more intense of combat environments, can hold its own and defeat the enemy in the worst case scenario over the next 40 years (from 2015)

Most other IFVs are designed for large and complex forces with distinctly local tactical and operational needs in strategically limited environments.

Only French, UK and US IFVs have been deployed outside of their national territory, so this narrows the field. However these designs are 20 years old, and quite expensive.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I don't see why it shouldn't.

Australian industries are leaders in metals and materials research, electronic and software design, and we can also build engines.

It seems to me there is a degree of ability in designing weapon systems.

There is access to knowledge from US and UK.

The issue is that AIC operates under unique logistic constraints of long domestic and international distances couple to relatively small lift capability.

Also mission parameters of AIC deployments are fairly varied as history goes, requiring a versatile design that can accomodate many and varied tasks from conventional mechanised battle to humanitarian relief.

There is not one IFV on the market that can cater for all these design constraints.

Rubbish. There are plenty of IFV's that offer similar but enhanced capabilities over and above that the M113AS3/4 can provide. The M113AS3/4 is NOT developing advanced capabilities that modern IFV's offer ONLY because it is subject to a cost capped budget. If the budget were not being enforced by government, Army would have the vehicle equipped with a decent turret, offering good firepower, a modern fire control system, a better surveillance capability and FAR better armoured protection.

Apparently the anti-armour threat our land forces face is so great as to warrant the heavily armoured M1A1 tanks, but an APC that is NOT intended to provide protection from such weapons is adequate to protect our precious infantry? Please.

Lack of funding is the ONLY reason Army is not yet getting a modern IFV, along the lines of the vehicles operated by the US/UK and most NATO nations. Try reading the ADF Journal some time. Even RAN personnel have written articles arguing for such a capability. RAAC regards the acquisition of such as an absolute prerequisite to future operations, hence LAND 400...

 

[rossfrb_1]

Project Waler - Don't know much about it, but it seems to me it never got past design stage

It seems to me the IFVs designed elsewhere do not reflect unique needs of the ADF in general or the Australian Infantry Corps in particular.

thanks, this is what a quick and dirty google found
the most informative item was from another forum, where someone had posted some info
http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=11114&st=60&p=201554&#entry201554

"Although discussion of an Australian built replacement light armoured vehicle went back as faras 1973, it wasn't until October 1980 than Australian Army Staff Target was released 'for the Australian Army to replace its fleet of light armoured fighting vehicles in the mid 1990's.

The Project was named 'Waler' after the Australian cavalry horses supplied to British and Indian Cavalry units and later Australian Light Horse Regiment. The horse breed originated in the New South Wales, hence the name Waler. The project was to proceed in a number of stages, with a Request for Tender for the Target Study to be called in mid-1981, the Target Study to commence in mid-1981, leading up to the development and production phase beginning in 1986, with an in service date of 1995.

The project called for Australian industry participation as prime contractors, with the main AFV technology base coming from overseas via teaming arrangements.

The vehicle options were left open, with both wheeled and tracked alternatives being acceptable. The quantity of vehicles to be procured was left open but in mid 1981, the project coordinator, Lieutenant Colonel Bernie Sullivan stated the size of the Waler fleet was to be 'somewhere between 500 and 1000 vehicles'. He also described Project Waler as 'the biggest and most ambitious armoured vehicle project ever attempted by Australian Army'. By this time, 31 companies had registered interest as prime contractors. When tenders closed for the Target Study phase in February 1982, 14 had been submitted. In July 1982, three companies were chosen for the Target Study phase:

* EASAMS Ltd of Sydney - teamed with EASAMS and Vickers Defence Systems of the United Kingdom.

* Evans Deakin Industries Ltd. of Brisbane - teamed with SOFMA and GIAT of France.

* Goninan and Co. of Newcastle - teamed with FMC of the United States of America.

The three companies each produced four options, wheeled and tracked, for selection by the army of two concepts of each to proceed further. The study also showed that development and production in Australia was possible."


cheers
rb

 

[FutureTank]

Aussie Digger

It seems to me I was misunderstood.

I do not regard M113 upgrade as producing an IFV, but only a better APC.

I also think that since infantry is by far the primary Arm of the ADF, it should receive as much protection (particularly in absence of national service) as Armour Corps.

I do know about the budget restraints and the far from happy outcomes expressed in this regard through correspondence with M113AS3/4 project participant, hence suggestion that cost is a serious impediment to procurement where it includes licence fees, component shipping, external labour, etc.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Aussie Digger

It seems to me I was misunderstood.

I do not regard M113 upgrade as producing an IFV, but only a better APC.

I also think that since infantry is by far the primary Arm of the ADF, it should receive as much protection (particularly in absence of national service) as Armour Corps.

I do know about the budget restraints and the far from happy outcomes expressed in this regard through correspondence with M113AS3/4 project participant, hence suggestion that cost is a serious impediment to procurement where it includes licence fees, component shipping, external labour, etc.

I have no doubt, but for a relatively small additional investment and one that could ALMOST be funded from "project managers" personal allotments (as DMO describes it) the M113AS3/4 could be armed with a decent weapon system, the primary issue I and apparently MANY within RAAC have with the vehicle.

The Army Journal, ADF Journal's, as well as most civilian defence magazines (not to mention ANAO) are replete with almost universal "hatred" for this particular project AND it's eventual outcome, if anything.

The M113 upgrade program commenced in the mid 90's. It will not be until 2007 that we see an operational vehicle, maybe later. IF the vehicle can complete the entire series of tests again, once the brake issues are sorted. The time has come IMHO, to abandon it and undertake a rapid acquisition of a MOTS IFV, before our forces become involved in a SERIOUS ground war somewhere (by accident probably, given our Governments "concern" for casualties) and suffer the consequences of this debacle...

 

[FutureTank]

We seem to be in complete agreement, but I am neither the Minister, nor even the project manager

Hence why I am trying to generate debate NOW over spending of 1.5 BILLION in 8 years time.

I do think that the upgrade of M113 has been a good expereince in terms of the AFV design, development and evaluation. It is much better then to start IFV design from scratch. Same principle as 'never buy a teenager a new car'.

By the way the original Project capability officer was 2 Cav commanding officer who's name escapes me and he did the whole doctrine development as I recall before deploying to Iraq. There was an article in Army Magazine last year I think.

 

[Aussie Digger]

We seem to be in complete agreement, but I am neither the Minister, nor even the project manager

Hence why I am trying to generate debate NOW over spending of 1.5 BILLION in 8 years time.

I do think that the upgrade of M113 has been a good expereince in terms of the AFV design, development and evaluation. It is much better then to start IFV design from scratch. Same principle as 'never buy a teenager a new car'.

By the way the original Project capability officer was 2 Cav commanding officer who's name escapes me and he did the whole doctrine development as I recall before deploying to Iraq. There was an article in Army Magazine last year I think.

And the original design was an incremental upgrade program, to fix various immediate issues and give us SOMETHING more capable than what we had in Vietnam, (which we still don't). M113AS2 would have been the first step.

That got overturned by the White Paper 2000 into this new beast which is simply a disgrace. The upgrade program we have is based on a German one, which has been implement on hundreds of vehicles successfully and designed by a company called FFG I believe, but "modified" to our supposed "unique" requirements (ie: cost) and that is where the trouble started and has yet to recover...

 

[FutureTank]

I think the original disgrace was that an APC was not designed and built in Australia in the 60s.
I mean the M113 was just a correction of the M75, both being alluminium boxes with engines! Even the .5 cal was an afterthought placing the gunner in exposed mount 6 feet above the ground! That is the best way to make it to 6 feet under!

 

[wallup]

AD,

I worked on this program for several years, but was sacked for speaking out. What do you want to know?

Wallup

 

[Aussie Digger]

AD,

I worked on this program for several years, but was sacked for speaking out. What do you want to know?

Wallup

Why did they opt for that stupid Tenix turret when an "off the shelf" RWS could have been had cheaply and offered more capability plus internal space inside the vehicle?

Why can't Tenix fix a simple braking problem?

Why can't Tenix fix a simple cooling problem?

Why can't Tenix run a simple upgrade program, that's already been done succesfully hundreds, if not thousands of times already on the SAME vehicle?

Is it true there is an "applique" armour package for the M113AS3/4 over and above that which the base vehicle will have? If so, can you describe it's levels of ballistic tolerance (without going to anything classified)?

When is this vehicle ever going to be ready?

Feel free to answer what you will...

 

[rickshaw]

Interestingly, I also worked on the project indirectly, as a contractor. I believe a lot of the answers to your questions are because of the changing requirements of the end user. The Army kept laying on bells and whistles, wanting more and more capability. What started out as a relatively simple upgrade quickly moved into an expensive and more complete one. Tenix walked into it and instead of saying, "well this is going to double the cost," said, "yeah, OK, we can do that..."

 

[Aussie Digger]

Interestingly, I also worked on the project indirectly, as a contractor. I believe a lot of the answers to your questions are because of the changing requirements of the end user. The Army kept laying on bells and whistles, wanting more and more capability. What started out as a relatively simple upgrade quickly moved into an expensive and more complete one. Tenix walked into it and instead of saying, "well this is going to double the cost," said, "yeah, OK, we can do that..."

The design requirement hasn't changed since 2000 and still the Tenix designed POS keeps failing it's operational testing.

The engine was over-heating, so they de-rated it. It kept overheating so they increased cooling capacity. Last I heard, they still haven't solved the problem and the vehicle no longer has the mobility improvement over the A1 variant, thanks to the engines lower power.

Similar problems with the brakes. What Tenix SHOULD have said was, "what you require cannot be achieved with this vehicle" except they would have lost the contract.

A firepower improvement? The M2 "quick change barrel" guns were bought in the mid 90's for the A2 upgrade variant that was cancelled and have been fitted to both M113A1 and ASLAV since before ET in 1999. Stating that the gunis "new" is a blatant falsehood. The ONLY advantage and "new capability" the M113AS3 will have over the M113A1 is a night sight and electric turret drive.

Despite the money going into this vehicle, it's going to have 1 less weapon system, no stabilised weapon (fire on the move) capacity, no thermal imager capacity and no automatic range finding capacity.

All capabilities the M113 would have, plus increased internal volume and commonality with the Bushmaster or ASLAV fleets if either CROWS or Kongsberg "Protector" RWS mounts were chosen. Plus it would remove an element of risk as the "Tenix designed" turret has not been free from issue, either I understand, though I claim no particular knowledge in that area...

 

[icelord]

looks like someones been burnt by Tenix before...
So what is the expected time to start full upgrades, will they be ready for then new battalions or even operational by that time?

 

[Aussie Digger]

looks like someones been burnt by Tenix before...
So what is the expected time to start full upgrades, will they be ready for then new battalions or even operational by that time?

Not personally, I'm just sick to death of them getting contract after contract and f*cking it up... ADI's (another defective item) is just as bad...

God knows when tor if they'll be ready, but the "new" timetable is a company group by December 2007.

 

[knightrider4]

Apc

Surely its going to get to a stage where they say enough is enough and sh_t can the whole project. ADBR had an article where some in the ADF want to pursue an IFV now although it might impact negatively on LAND 400 funding.

 

[The_Jet]

Surely its going to get to a stage where they say enough is enough and sh_t can the whole project. ADBR had an article where some in the ADF want to pursue an IFV now although it might impact negatively on LAND 400 funding.

How much Funding was set aside for LAND 400 does anyone know?