Australian M113s
- Thread starter Ozymandias
- Start date
MARKMILES77
Active Member
......
.
Re: M113 tanks!
I just wish their so called defence experts were at least a little bit expert.
Cheers
Once again the Australian Newspaper distinguishes itself with its knowledge of military matters by calling the M113 a "tank"!
I just wish their so called defence experts were at least a little bit expert.
Cheers
Nit picking Tassie! You belong to the X% of the population that actually knows (or cares about) the difference.Once again the Australian Newspaper distinguishes itself with its knowledge of military matters by calling the M113 a "tank"!
I just wish their so called defence experts were at least a little bit expert.
Cheers
You have to wonder who the defence section of the Aus is aimed at - if it's Joe Average then this sort of slip up might be deliberate to 'sex' up the article a little, as Joe Average isn't expected to know any better. I've noticed that most armoured military vehicles, be they tracked or wheeled, are often described as tanks in the non technical press.
It may not necessarily be the author's fault, a sub editor or somesuch may have fiddled with the article.
Anyway, you know what they say about 'experts'.
They're just drips under pressure...
nfloorl:rb
Maybe, but when it comes to the Australian media and its reporting on defence issues there seem to be an awful lot of nits to pick!
Cheers
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21790591-31477,00.html
"
Flak for $600m fleet upgrade
New weapons such as the powerful roadside bombs, rockets and mines being used by insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan have raised questions about the viability of the armoured personnel carriers.
More than 15 years in the making, the M113 upgrade is one of the Defence Department's longest-running and most trouble-plagued projects. None of the upgraded vehicles is in service.
What started as a simple plan to extend the life of the army's armoured personnel carrier fleet has turned into a procurement nightmare and, in the view of some insiders, should have been cancelled or scaled back long ago.
The M113's critics say Defence should have moved to consider a modern, heavier infantry-fighting vehicle such as the US Bradley class, giving troops added protection and the ability to integrate with other more advanced combat systems.
The upgrade being undertaken by Tenix replaces most of the 1960s vehicle, retaining only the hull, hatches, rear door and communications systems. They are being equipped with new applique armour, gun turret and engines.
Along with the navy's ill-fated $1 billion Seasprite helicopters, the M113 upgrade is the most problematic of the "legacy" projects inherited by the Howard Government in 1996.
In a 2005 report, the auditor-general found the project had been mismanaged by Defence, having undergone extensive design changes and chronic schedule delays since its inception.
The plan to refurbish 350 of the 1960s-era M113s has run into one technical snag after another. The latest, uncovered last year, was a fault in the brake system that threatens to delay the in-service date for the first batch of vehicles to late next year.
Tenix says the last of the 350 vehicles should be delivered to the army in early 2011, with the fleet expected to remain in service until 2020. Labor defence spokesman Joel Fitzgibbon said the M113 upgrade was another example of a long series of bungles by the Government in defence procurement.
"The specification of the upgraded vehicles may have been suitable in the mid 1990s, but they are unlikely to offer Australian soldiers enough protection against the array of roadside bombs, landmines and other threats they face in Afghanistan and Iraq," Mr Fitzgibbon said.
"It is high time this project was subject to a thorough review, and that other options such as new and better-protected vehicles were examined."
Yey, about time this had a bit more publicity.
I suspect that Defmin Nelson was hoping that this would stay a sleeper prior to the election. I would think that this is a very good stick that the opposition could use on the the government.
To quote Tenix's own site. (http://www.tenix.com/Main.asp?ID=437)
"Delivery of the first company group of upgraded M113 FOV is scheduled for 2006."
whoops..
According to http://www.defence.gov.au/capability/LAND400/ the upgraded M113's are supposed to last until 'around' 2020.
Anyone know about the effectiveness of the applique (?) armour that is planned for Land 106?
Given the availability of the RPG-29 family of weapons now - and I can only see it getting worse if China et al make their own knock offs available on the world market, I really wouldn't want to be sending M113s into high intensity environments.
rb
"
Flak for $600m fleet upgrade
- Patrick Walters
- May 25, 2007
New weapons such as the powerful roadside bombs, rockets and mines being used by insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan have raised questions about the viability of the armoured personnel carriers.
More than 15 years in the making, the M113 upgrade is one of the Defence Department's longest-running and most trouble-plagued projects. None of the upgraded vehicles is in service.
What started as a simple plan to extend the life of the army's armoured personnel carrier fleet has turned into a procurement nightmare and, in the view of some insiders, should have been cancelled or scaled back long ago.
The M113's critics say Defence should have moved to consider a modern, heavier infantry-fighting vehicle such as the US Bradley class, giving troops added protection and the ability to integrate with other more advanced combat systems.
The upgrade being undertaken by Tenix replaces most of the 1960s vehicle, retaining only the hull, hatches, rear door and communications systems. They are being equipped with new applique armour, gun turret and engines.
Along with the navy's ill-fated $1 billion Seasprite helicopters, the M113 upgrade is the most problematic of the "legacy" projects inherited by the Howard Government in 1996.
In a 2005 report, the auditor-general found the project had been mismanaged by Defence, having undergone extensive design changes and chronic schedule delays since its inception.
The plan to refurbish 350 of the 1960s-era M113s has run into one technical snag after another. The latest, uncovered last year, was a fault in the brake system that threatens to delay the in-service date for the first batch of vehicles to late next year.
Tenix says the last of the 350 vehicles should be delivered to the army in early 2011, with the fleet expected to remain in service until 2020. Labor defence spokesman Joel Fitzgibbon said the M113 upgrade was another example of a long series of bungles by the Government in defence procurement.
"The specification of the upgraded vehicles may have been suitable in the mid 1990s, but they are unlikely to offer Australian soldiers enough protection against the array of roadside bombs, landmines and other threats they face in Afghanistan and Iraq," Mr Fitzgibbon said.
"It is high time this project was subject to a thorough review, and that other options such as new and better-protected vehicles were examined."
Yey, about time this had a bit more publicity.
I suspect that Defmin Nelson was hoping that this would stay a sleeper prior to the election. I would think that this is a very good stick that the opposition could use on the the government.
To quote Tenix's own site. (http://www.tenix.com/Main.asp?ID=437)
"Delivery of the first company group of upgraded M113 FOV is scheduled for 2006."
whoops..
According to http://www.defence.gov.au/capability/LAND400/ the upgraded M113's are supposed to last until 'around' 2020.
Anyone know about the effectiveness of the applique (?) armour that is planned for Land 106?
Given the availability of the RPG-29 family of weapons now - and I can only see it getting worse if China et al make their own knock offs available on the world market, I really wouldn't want to be sending M113s into high intensity environments.
rb
I'm pleased to see Patrick Walters criticising a project that actually deserves criticism rather than some of the RAAF projects that he has attacked in recent times. The M113 upgrade program has reached the stage where, IMO, it is a disgrace. Defence Minister Nelson has had to back off the navy's Seasprite fiasco until after the election and I suspect that this project will be similar. I agree that the Opposition has an opportunity here to demonstrate its interest in defence matters and gain some political mileage out of this stuff up. So far, though, the Opposition has been rather silent about defence issues.
Cheers
Cheers
MARKMILES77
Active Member
One of the first sensible things Mr Fitzgibbon has said!
Might get bi-partisan support for an IFV purchase.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Til Hugh White or some other "expert" gets in his ear, and tells the Minister what Army REALLY needs...
Of course with a SOLID body of evidence including experimentation, war gaming, platform trials and an extensive RFT under his belt to support his opinion too.
"Just" like his infamous (and demonstrably wrong as seen recently in Darwin) comments about the M1A1 and it's transportability...
MARKMILES77
Active Member
Interesting to note, in an interview in Australian Defence Magazine May 2007, the CEO of Tenix, Greg Hayes, is stating the first M-113AS4s will be delivered this year, 2007.
Is the talk of first delivery late next year simply wrong, or does he not know what is going on in his own company?
Better start delivering them before Labour gets in or your whole programme may be scrapped Mr Hayes!
Is the talk of first delivery late next year simply wrong, or does he not know what is going on in his own company?
Better start delivering them before Labour gets in or your whole programme may be scrapped Mr Hayes!
Could the threat of cancellation be just what Tenix needs to actually get them producing something from this project?Better start delivering them before Labour gets in or your whole programme may be scrapped Mr Hayes!
Cheers
Jezz you guys can talk BS about something you know nothing about. The M113AS4 is in a tight pickle because of a sub-contractor stuffing up the brakes. This has been public since last year and is what is causing the problem and comes from the Germans who designed the powerpack upgrade. Just about everything except for the brakes has been accepted there are even Army pers training on the new turret. Sure the brake problem should never have happened but blame has to be shared between the contractor, subbie and DMO project manager who all let it slip by until the last minute.
Now does this mean the M113AS4 is a piece of shit? Nope it’s actually a very good vehicle and exactly what we need in Iraq at the moment to face the EFP IEDs. The M113AS4 actually has the highest level of protection than any non-tank vehicle in the Army. It has the original aluminium armour which is actually superior by weight to steel against small arms and kinetic energy threat (like EFPs and arty splinters used in IEDs) and an extra layer of the latest ballistic steel. Plus a spall curtain that utilises stored cargo as an extra layer of protection (in effect the crew and passengers sit inside a large Kevlar type tent inside the vehicle with all cargo, components and armour outside of them. Also the M113AS4 has the weight margin to unbolt those ballistic steel plates and add several tonnes of ERA – giving them as much protection as the much lauded M2A3 ‘Bradley’ IFV.
The only problem is they are stuck in production mire thanks to this brakes so they can’t be in the field proving themselves.
Now does this mean the M113AS4 is a piece of shit? Nope it’s actually a very good vehicle and exactly what we need in Iraq at the moment to face the EFP IEDs. The M113AS4 actually has the highest level of protection than any non-tank vehicle in the Army. It has the original aluminium armour which is actually superior by weight to steel against small arms and kinetic energy threat (like EFPs and arty splinters used in IEDs) and an extra layer of the latest ballistic steel. Plus a spall curtain that utilises stored cargo as an extra layer of protection (in effect the crew and passengers sit inside a large Kevlar type tent inside the vehicle with all cargo, components and armour outside of them. Also the M113AS4 has the weight margin to unbolt those ballistic steel plates and add several tonnes of ERA – giving them as much protection as the much lauded M2A3 ‘Bradley’ IFV.
The only problem is they are stuck in production mire thanks to this brakes so they can’t be in the field proving themselves.
MARKMILES77
Active Member
Fixing/Upgrading the brakes is rather a minor engineering problem.
How has this been allowed to delay the project by up to two years?
An RPG will penetrate the new M113, regardless of base Al armour, ceramic plate and spall liners. The M113AS4 will require applique or BAR armour to stop RPG.
The project is in pickle because the project chose the cheapest stretch option. One option was from UDLP with a Cummins/Allison pack. This option was a much developed stretch involving road wheel movement etc. The Cummins/Allison pack had also undergone extensive trials in Australia, which the project were aware of. The second option was a the cheaper German option - belly band stretch with MTU/ZF pack. The pack was not in existence when the project chose this solution. Concerns were raised that the pack would have heat rejection and weight problems. The engineering team were against the german solution and preferred the Cummins, however a week senior engineer sold us out.
The new British Bulldog, which is the from the 430 family that is near equivalent to the M113, chose the Cummins and is serving in Iraq today. The project lasted less than four years.
In my opinion an off the shelf turret (ie that from the AAAV7 that is in service in Iraq), no stretching and the proven Cummins/Allison pack. I argued this case but lost.
The project is in pickle because the project chose the cheapest stretch option. One option was from UDLP with a Cummins/Allison pack. This option was a much developed stretch involving road wheel movement etc. The Cummins/Allison pack had also undergone extensive trials in Australia, which the project were aware of. The second option was a the cheaper German option - belly band stretch with MTU/ZF pack. The pack was not in existence when the project chose this solution. Concerns were raised that the pack would have heat rejection and weight problems. The engineering team were against the german solution and preferred the Cummins, however a week senior engineer sold us out.
The new British Bulldog, which is the from the 430 family that is near equivalent to the M113, chose the Cummins and is serving in Iraq today. The project lasted less than four years.
In my opinion an off the shelf turret (ie that from the AAAV7 that is in service in Iraq), no stretching and the proven Cummins/Allison pack. I argued this case but lost.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
There's a couple more problems than simply this AGRA, even Dr Gumley has admitted it.
They can't find enough hulls that are suitable for the upgrade, the engine overheating problems haven't been completely solved, the brake issue hasn't been corrected and now the project is costing $100m MORE than budgeted for...
Talk about a complete dogs breakfast...
I admit it's armour will be better than anything else besides M1 in Australian service, but that only reflects poorly on the armour protection provided to the vehicles that are used by our Army, not positively on the capability of the vehicle itself.
In world terms, it's nothing special at all, for a VERY "special" price...
Last edited by a moderator:
MARKMILES77
Active Member
The M113AS4 certainly does not have the protection levels of an M2A3.
The Bradley has protection from 30mm AP (publically released information) all round without ERA being added.
M113AS4 with applique armour is 14.5mm AP.
The Bradley has protection from 30mm AP (publically released information) all round without ERA being added.
M113AS4 with applique armour is 14.5mm AP.
“ALMOST $600 million is being spent on refurbishing Vietnam-era armoured personnel carriers for 21st-century warfare, despite doubts the aluminium-bodied M113s will see combat action”. - Having read this thread and associated articles covering similar upgrades of older generation M113 / 432 APC’s (UK Bulldog for example), I still can’t get my head around what appears to be a very poorly thought out and administered programme.
Going on to review the number of relatively cheap vehicles available on the market today, why oh why didn’t the Aussies select to go with a simplified upgrade (new engine, gear box, reactive armour) for part of the M113 fleet and then invest any spare cash in a complimentary vehicle, such as an armoured BV variant. The following link provides an excellent overview of the BV’s success based on mobility, cost and recent experience in. The Dutch recently purchased 74 of the armoured BvS10 for $71.3 million. This number would have been about right to support 4 Commando in their amphibious role.
Double-Jointed & Popular: The Bv Family of Infantry Support Vehicles (updated) http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...f-infantry-support-vehicles-updated/index.php
I accept it’s protection level is not that of an upgraded M113, however the vehicle appears ideal for Australia – amphibious, versatile, suitable for mountain, desert, tropical conditions (all found in Aus), low ground pressure, easily carried as an under slung load, armoured against small-arms and finally ideal for operating from LSD’s.
Going on to review the number of relatively cheap vehicles available on the market today, why oh why didn’t the Aussies select to go with a simplified upgrade (new engine, gear box, reactive armour) for part of the M113 fleet and then invest any spare cash in a complimentary vehicle, such as an armoured BV variant. The following link provides an excellent overview of the BV’s success based on mobility, cost and recent experience in. The Dutch recently purchased 74 of the armoured BvS10 for $71.3 million. This number would have been about right to support 4 Commando in their amphibious role.
Double-Jointed & Popular: The Bv Family of Infantry Support Vehicles (updated) http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...f-infantry-support-vehicles-updated/index.php
I accept it’s protection level is not that of an upgraded M113, however the vehicle appears ideal for Australia – amphibious, versatile, suitable for mountain, desert, tropical conditions (all found in Aus), low ground pressure, easily carried as an under slung load, armoured against small-arms and finally ideal for operating from LSD’s.
The MTU 199 powerpack has been around for awhile. Albeit in its larger V8 variant, mounted in the Austrian ASCOD variant Ulan since 1997. The MTU 199 series is just the follow-up to the older MTU 183 series (whose V8 variant was originally planned for the Austrian Ulan IFV, and whose V6 is used in the almost-identical-to-Australian-efforts German M113 A3 G2 NDV 2 upgrade).