knightrider4
Active Member
Land 400
About a billion could be wrong though.
About a billion could be wrong though.
Australian M113s
- Thread starter Ozymandias
- Start date
The upgraded UK FV430’s (very similar to M113’S) were delivered under an urgent operational requirement (UOR) in a relatively short time-frame. The upgrade included a new engine, transmission, additional armour and air conditioning. Apparently the vehicles have been well received in Iraq.
I can’t understand why the Aussies don’t take a similar fast-track approach to improve current APC stocks until a new system is identified? There appears to be a huge amount of procrastinating!
Out of interest does the Aus Government have a UOR fast-track system where funds are allocated above and beyond the allocated defence budget to support urgent operational requirements? The UK has just ordered Predator Bs under the UOR process, the Bs are scheduled for deployment third quarter of 2007 in Afghanistan.
I can’t understand why the Aussies don’t take a similar fast-track approach to improve current APC stocks until a new system is identified? There appears to be a huge amount of procrastinating!
Out of interest does the Aus Government have a UOR fast-track system where funds are allocated above and beyond the allocated defence budget to support urgent operational requirements? The UK has just ordered Predator Bs under the UOR process, the Bs are scheduled for deployment third quarter of 2007 in Afghanistan.
Doubt it, its seems kinda hard to get anything rushed through, the fastest would be the C-17, which didn't even go to tender, at least the Govt. realised they had a limited window of oppurtunity to get a requirment that was needed long ago, something discovered after Timor the first time round.
You do have to wonder why some things take way to long, but with new proposals a tender is required to select from 2 or more to maintain some competition, this allows cheaper equipment,
Murpheys law on war"always remember your gun was made by the lowest bidder"
If a requirment is urgent then with this govt. it is possible for the Chief of defence to go directly to the PM, much in the way as Cosgrove did when it came to Javelins for Iraq, which proved effective, but if the other guy wins:shudder then it'll either take 2 years for such power to happen or not at all.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
No idea, Army DID change it's requirements several times, but the capability requirement was locked in placed under the Year 2000 issued White Paper and funding provided.
Why we are here, 7 YEARS later with Tenix still unable to provide a vehicle which passes testing should be subject of an inquiry itself. Australian Defence industry bleats about contracts going overseas and then "delivers" rubbish like this.
It's not as if Tenix even designed the upgrade itself. The upgraded vehicle design is based on a similar M113 upgrade, German company: FFG, has performed ANY number of times and our upgrade is hardly "pushing the technological envelope" of armoured vehicle technology...
Government DOES have the ability to fast track defence acquisitions, Javelin anti-armour weapons, ASLAV and Chinook CH-47D upgrades are some of the most obvious and successful acquisitions.
Why on Earth it can't manage such a simple upgrade and why Tenix can't deliver it, is beyond me...
Seems
And that this is one of those projects that has by and large managed to slip under the media's (and hence the public's) radar I'm guessing defmin Nelson isn't feeling as much pressure to do something definitive anytime soon.
Maybe it's just me, but it seems that once the media got hold of, and ran with, the Seasprite and Air6000 stories the government was roused to address those issues.
With a federal election later this year, I wonder if some of those 'defense' journalists who write for the Australian et al started running with the Land 106/400 story, especially if it was sexed up as a 'debacle endangering the lives of our brave troops' or somesuch, it might just see something similar happen.
rb
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
True, it's every bit as buggered up and offers even MORE chance for Australian servicemen and women to be killed or injured due to inadequate equipment than Seasprite and most definitely than the Super Hornet, but it hardly gets the headlines does it?
There was a bit of controversy in mid - 2006 about the delays (the first company group was supposed to be in-service by December 2006) but Dr Stephen GUMLEY of DMO said, "don't worry about it, everything's fine".
Well here we are nearly in mid 2007 and the vehicle still has not passed it's testing phase, still doesn't offer the capability that Army requires ANYWAY and absolutely no news about it, positively or otherwise. The fact that there was NO M113 display at Landdef 07 was hardly encouraging either, when EVERY other in-service armoured vehicle was there...
Personally, given DMO's "problems" with legacy projects, I'm afraid no news can only seem to equal one thing: "bad news"...
Given the operations in A-stan and Iraq, is it concievable that the upgrade is now so far out of date that the Army is looking to get out of it entirely?True, it's every bit as buggered up and offers even MORE chance for Australian servicemen and women to be killed or injured due to inadequate equipment than Seasprite and most definitely than the Super Hornet, but it hardly gets the headlines does it?
There was a bit of controversy in mid - 2006 about the delays (the first company group was supposed to be in-service by December 2006) but Dr Stephen GUMLEY of DMO said, "don't worry about it, everything's fine".
Well here we are nearly in mid 2007 and the vehicle still has not passed it's testing phase, still doesn't offer the capability that Army requires ANYWAY and absolutely no news about it, positively or otherwise. The fact that there was NO M113 display at Landdef 07 was hardly encouraging either, when EVERY other in-service armoured vehicle was there...
Personally, given DMO's "problems" with legacy projects, I'm afraid no news can only seem to equal one thing: "bad news"...
By this I mean that the operational reality and experiances over the last 4 years has made the M113 upgrade redundant in many ways IMHO.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I agree and from a cursory read of back issues of Army Journal (til it was considered "restricted" and only accessable through DRN) so do MANY high ranking officers in RAAC and RAINF.
Of course, who are the Army to what they want? DMO and Politicians know MUCH better...
MARKMILES77
Active Member
In IRONSIDES, the annual magazine of the Royal Australian Armoured Corp, the issue of turrets for the M113AS4 was specifically mentioned.
It was claimed that turret options, including RWSs were examined but that these were felt to be unsuitable for Australia's requirements.
Can't for the life of me understand why but there you go!
If the Tenix turret is retained and the upgrade of the M113s goes ahead, I would like to see each Mechanised Platoon have one M113AS4 equipped with the 25mm turret from the ASLAV.
It does get kind of difficult these days I guess, you need to be light enough to operate in the Pacific (where things like Jungle can resrict the use of armoured vehicles), but medium enough to operate in A-stan and Iraq type environments (where every vehicle needs protection and mobility), but also heavy enough to turn up to a high intensity conflict and feel you can operate with the US/UK and keep your troops as safe as possible.
Then add logistics, transport, training (three different doctrines).
Easy really.
It's interesting that Tenix's website still states that the first squadron of upgraded M113s will be operational in 2006!
http://www.tenix.com/Main.asp?ID=437
REALLY?
Cheers
PS: I think the company did OK with the Anzac frigate project. Perhaps they should concentrate on shipbuilding!
http://www.tenix.com/Main.asp?ID=437
REALLY?
Cheers
PS: I think the company did OK with the Anzac frigate project. Perhaps they should concentrate on shipbuilding!
In the 90s the Dutch were desperately trying to sell 600 of their YPR-765 PRI AIVFs armed with 25mm guns for rock bottom prices, in hind sight that might have been a good option.
We would still be in the same boat we are in now and they are nearly as whoefully armoured as the buckets but they would see us through to Land 400 a lot more credibly.
Id like to see Land 400 start now or soon and just stop throwing good money after bad with incompetent defense contractors.
I dont know how many CV90s or Pumas the 500 mil would have bought but I think we would have been better off doing that.
We would still be in the same boat we are in now and they are nearly as whoefully armoured as the buckets but they would see us through to Land 400 a lot more credibly.
Id like to see Land 400 start now or soon and just stop throwing good money after bad with incompetent defense contractors.
I dont know how many CV90s or Pumas the 500 mil would have bought but I think we would have been better off doing that.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Aha. So RWS's are suitable enough for Bushmaster and ASLAV-PC and suitable enough for multiple Army's around the world, but not for 1 Brigade's M113's eh?
What's not suitable then? The stabilised weapon system, automatic range finder, thermal imager, the ability to integrate a Javelin ATGW system, the ability to adopt multiple weapons types on the same turret, the ability to INCREASE "ready round" ammunition supply and the ability to increase the internal volume of the vehicle, because of no hull penetration?
Yes, when I think about it, I really can see why the Tenix turret is MUCH more suitable...
Of course it can't be that the weapon has to be reloaded "outside" the armour, because of course by Tenix's admissoin, the 12.7mm QCB heavy machine gun is the "gun that never stops" so even THAT can't be the issue.
What exactly is Australia's requirement then? Spend upwards fof 15 years in development and $500m in budget to obtain a fleet of vehicles with specfications that were obsolete before the upgrade even began?
I think someone needs to have a look at the specifications writers...
MARKMILES77
Active Member
Perhaps the price?
Although even that is hard too believe!
MARKMILES77
Active Member
BAE systems are already working on an advanced Bradley (an M2A4 if you like) which will keep the Bradley as one of the most advanced IFVs beyond 2030. (The US will still have them as front-line vehicles in 2030.) Note the new External RWS and external fuel tanks, which increases the internal volume and means the Bradley A4 would carry 9 Infantry soldiers. Although the turret looks similiar it is remotely operated.
There is a photo here:
http://mms.businesswire.com/bwapps/mediaserver/ViewMedia?mgid=78961&vid=5
BAE Systems is already keen to sell Bradleys to Australia:
Australia could buy these now and instead of LAND 400, could use the money to upgrade the Bradleys to the M2A4 version in say the 2015+ timeframe. This would give Australia a proper IFV right now, rather than an M113 APC, with the option of upgrading to the latest Bradley standard in the future.
What people appear to be missing is that when the contract was let, the decision was deliberately taken not to upgrade the turret to a large calibre weapon, as it was felt that such a weapon was not required for the Army's primary area of operations - the SW Pacific/Oceania. What was required was an improved night-vision capability, both for survelliance and for the ability to hit targets at night, something which had been proven in Gulf War I as a necessary capability. They didn't need a 20mm or larger calibre but they did want to hit what they were aiming at. As to why a RWS wasn't selected was because they were considered too expensive and weren't yet fashionable, nor required for the primary AO.Aha. So RWS's are suitable enough for Bushmaster and ASLAV-PC and suitable enough for multiple Army's around the world, but not for 1 Brigade's M113's eh?
What's not suitable then? The stabilised weapon system, automatic range finder, thermal imager, the ability to integrate a Javelin ATGW system, the ability to adopt multiple weapons types on the same turret, the ability to INCREASE "ready round" ammunition supply and the ability to increase the internal volume of the vehicle, because of no hull penetration?
Yes, when I think about it, I really can see why the Tenix turret is MUCH more suitable...
Of course it can't be that the weapon has to be reloaded "outside" the armour, because of course by Tenix's admissoin, the 12.7mm QCB heavy machine gun is the "gun that never stops" so even THAT can't be the issue.
What exactly is Australia's requirement then? Spend upwards fof 15 years in development and $500m in budget to obtain a fleet of vehicles with specfications that were obsolete before the upgrade even began?
I think someone needs to have a look at the specifications writers...
Seven years later, things have changed. Army kept changing its requirements, more armour, different fuel tankage, additional versions, etc. They then found the costs had blown out, primarily because the upgrade path chosen - the addition of an extra hull section and roadwheel station had revealed how badly fatigued the hulls were. The company I worked for had won the contract for the CNC milling machine for the test production system. As part of that I was the IT support for the system and often called in for software changes, etc., which allowed me to examine several hulls while they were being rebuilt. Defence then decided they weren't going to shell over the money to allow Tenix to move from a single sided machine to a duel sided machine which would have allowed them to machine both sides at once. This has, of course resulted in a considerable slow down in the rate of manufacture, with attendent increases in costs.
Tenix could have kept the costs down - either by using two hulls to make one APC or even purchasing new hulls for each APC from the US or even simply purchasing complete M113a3s from the US.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
That's fine, but it's patently inadequate in this modern "post 9/11" age. Very capable RWS systems are available off the shelf, very cheaply and offer us the flexibility to use a particular weapon system that suits a particular theatre, it would also free up room internally and offer an increased "all weather" fighting capability, which is want Army really needs not simply night fighting capacity.
The Protector RWS acquisition, acquired 59x RWS systems for $14m. Given we are only acquiring 170 "PC" variants, equipping them all could not cost more than about $40m. Small change given the project budget and money being thrown around defence at present and would neatly solve many problems with this vehicle.
Given that increased firepower is a project goal and the current plan doesn't deliver ANY increase in firepower, I think this would prove to be a very useful and problem solving decision, for the Tenix designed turret has not proven succesful to date EITHER from what I understand...
In any case, such might have been the case in 1996 when we had no night vision gear to speak of (my Regiment had 1x single pair of NV goggles on issue) however Ninox has clearly fixed this.
An armoured vehicle without TI and auto-range finding capability in this day and age is simply not good enough...
As you note, things have changed. The problem is Defence doesn't have a crystal ball. Personally, I'd suggest that for our primary AO the upgrade was perfectly adequate. Now that we are adventuring further afield, and as long as we are primarily engaged in COIN ops, its still quite adequate. The advantages that a turret confers over a RWS are still useful and its considerably cheaper, AIUI, as well. What should be added to the vehicle is provision for the fitting of bar armour if/when required. If increased firepower is desired, then I'd suggest a RWS at a latter date, perhaps on the hull rear a'la Marder with a 7.62mm MG.
I think part of the real problem is that the Army can't decide where or what its going to do with its armour assets. Are they going to be employed in an armour heavy environment, such as Korea or possibly even Iran or are they going to be engaged in power projection in the immediate neighbourhood or as support to infantry engaged in COIN ops? If its the former, then I'd suggest that the upgraded M113 is not the vehicle we need. If its the latter, then its perfectly adequate as an addition to the Bushmaster/ASLAV combination.
I think part of the real problem is that the Army can't decide where or what its going to do with its armour assets. Are they going to be employed in an armour heavy environment, such as Korea or possibly even Iran or are they going to be engaged in power projection in the immediate neighbourhood or as support to infantry engaged in COIN ops? If its the former, then I'd suggest that the upgraded M113 is not the vehicle we need. If its the latter, then its perfectly adequate as an addition to the Bushmaster/ASLAV combination.