Buzz, the A4 upgrade is regarded as a savage waste of australian taxpayer money. ADI (prior to their buyout by Thales) had trouble with cooling and horsepower.
I've seen the beast close up and even the diggers think that its a waste of money (this is despite the fact that any replacement/new kit is better than no kit)
Thales had the good sense not to continue investing in it when they purchased ADI (nicknamed "Another Defective Item")
I know that Sparks/Meyers et al see them as proof of life of the continuing merits of the M113, but the troops don't have the same fondness
They deliberately were not taken to Iraq because they were regarded as less survivable, less mobile and for convoy work (the majority of our work) too slow. When the conops were revisited and changed (after watching how some US convoys were copping a pasting from urban runs) it was reinforced that the change in tactics meant that the M113's would be an impediment rather than a benefit.
this is obviously in an australian context, but IMO some of the tactical usage logic was transferable as a lessons learnt.
Glonass did start out as a continental/regional solution, but the russians always intended for it to be global - primarily to support Gorshkovs vision of reaching out and having independance of targeting and guidance. The russian airforce also saw the advantages so followed close behind.....
bottom line is that the decay rate of the existing constellation is not being replaced by new birds - let alone expand the constellation to the min 23 and preferred 36 (to deal with overlap and decent racetracking)
StrategyWorld.com© 1998 -