Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Patria AMV for LAND 400?
Volkodav    7/16/2008 9:55:55 AM
I have read a number of articles indicating that the AMV is a serious contender for the USMC and now it has been suggested that the AMV will, along with the Puma, be a front runner for Land 400. Would it be feasable to replace the M-113, ASLAV and Bushmaster in our Mechanised and Motorised Battalions, as well as our Cavalry Regiments with a single wheeled Family Of Vehicles?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
doggtag       7/16/2008 10:26:43 AM
I'll agree that the USMC's, and certainly Australia's ASLAVs,
are tired, older designs getting way long in the tooth.
The Piranha V now being the pinnacle of the family, the AMV is a nice piece of equipment also (if not principally for all its marketing hype involved with the AMOS and NEMO mortar turrets...).
 
But as to replacing Australia's (and the USMC's) AFV fleets with a single design,
I'm pretty sure it'll be found that all-wheels or all-tracks isn't the way to go.
 
Current operations should've opened everyone's eyes to the proven battlefield facts that both wheeled vehicles and tracked vehicles, working together, are better suited to overcome each other's shortcomings for a better overall outcome.
(Tracks can be more heavily armored, wheeled vehicles generally tend to be lighter and can thus be deployed quicker by air and land.)
 
Yes, it takes so much money,...limited money, by anyone's budget.
 
But an all-Puma or an all-AMV force will at some point eventually encounter some high-attrition obstacles and environments that will leave the troops, leaders, and planners wishing, "gee, I wish now we'd have bought some of those others."
 
Still, either new platform, even a mix, will allow for improvements in tactics to match the improvements either vehicle (AMV, Puma) has to offer over the current fleet (ASLAV, M113).
How much extra kit would it be nice to afford to add onto them?
If all your looking for is upgraded battle taxis, then the newest model LAVs and M113s are plenty adequate.
But if all the fanct kits (RWS, turrets) the Puma and AMV have advertised are what's generating interest in them, it's probably then worth pursuing these newer platforms (but at a 43-odd ton maximum up-armored weight, Puma's are damned expensive, aren't they?).
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       7/17/2008 8:47:46 AM
But an all-Puma or an all-AMV force will at some point eventually encounter some high-attrition obstacles and environments that will leave the troops, leaders, and planners wishing, "gee, I wish now we'd have bought some of those others."
 
Pretty much what happened to Canada in Afghanistan, fortunately they still had Leopard C2's and M-113's to cover what the LAV's couldn't handle.  Their shiny new AGS's hadn't arrived so they were able to cancel the deal and buy 100 Loe 2 A5/A6's instead.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       7/22/2008 8:18:10 AM
If we go for the AMV for our Mech and Motor battalions we will still need tracked vehicles to support our Abrams as well as to provide mobility for our infantry in areas that are too challenging for wheeled vehicles.
 
The tracked APC to support our light infantry is a no brainer, just look at the good job the Viking is doing in in Afghanistan at the moment.  It would be a great fit with our new LHD's and be of great use through out the region.
 
A good option to complement our tanks could be the Puma or similar modern AIFV.  Looking outside the square if the Namer Heavy APC / AIFV is manufactured in the US for sale back to Israel could become an option for us in particular if the US Army decides to use the same MTU engine to upgrade the Abrams as has been selected for the Namer.
 
The question is how do we deploy them?
 
The first option as I see it would be to issue them to 3/4 CAV as was the case with the M-113 for many years.  The other more interesting option would be to embed them in 1 Armoured Regiment along with Assault Troops, also adding SPG's, armoured engineers, and an aviation element, effectively converting it into an Armoured Cavalry Regiment.
 
This would give the ARA a light brigade, two mech brigades (the mech and motor inf plus the two ASLAV CAV regt all re-equiped with AMV's) and an Armoured Cavalry Regiment / Armoured Brigade with two or three combined arms (armoured) squadrons / battlegroups.
 
Quote    Reply

PatriaAUS       11/23/2010 6:53:58 PM
Good morning,
 
The AMV is a highly versatile product that has seen excellent service in armies around the world. Can it provide the full solution for all of ADF's littoral deployment requirements, and still deliver all of its promise. LAND 400 is not a vehicle for vehicle replacement, the programme is a complete re-think of the way Army does its business. Thinking this through it is logical that AMV can fulfill the key close combat elements in urban and most non-urban deployed environments. It cannot (nor does it purport to) fulfill every role. That AMV also has abilities that include NEMO and AMOS as well as fully integrable TA and other BCSS makes it a solid contender for the programme.
 
Quote    Reply

BLUIE006       11/30/2010 12:45:28 AM

?The LAND 400 project will aim to replace and enhance those combat systems currently provided by M113, ASLAV and Bushmaster? (DCP).

 

Despite any rethink associated with Land 400 unless you?re going to do something completely radical (i.e. Future Combat System or completely new ORBAT) - which is risky and potentially costly, chances are your still going to need both tracked and wheeled. U.S. Army has tested and studied the merits and shortfalls of wheeled and tracked combat platforms for the past 30 years. Results indicate that no single solution can be applied that will answer all requirements for all situations and missions (Hornback). The 2009 White paper suggests our defence policy should be ?founded on the principle of self-reliance? and therefore capable of a diverse range of independent and joint operations, covering ?the spectrum of plausible operational contingencies? (white paper). It also stats ?The Government places a high priority on the survivability and mobility of our land forces? (white paper). U.S Army studies unanimously conclude that a tracked configuration is the optimal solution for tactical, high-mobility roles (off-road usage greater than 60 percent), gross vehicle weights in excess of 20 tons, and missions requiring unrestricted terrain movement, continuous all-weather operations, smaller silhouettes/dimensional envelopes, and greater survivability(Hornback).Placing all our eggs in one basket (wheeled or tracked) would seem to contradict the overall DOD strategy and degrade the ability of the ADF to deliver the services required by its prime customer: the federal government. We are not talking strategic power projection assets here; these are the key tools of the trade for modern mobile land forces and they are constantly in use. {Much like a hammer is to a builder}.  To only deliver half a solution would be a gross miscalculation, bordering on misconduct IMHO.

 

*Most of this information is old, however the basic factors which impact the physics of mobility have not changed and are still relevant.

Quote    Reply




 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics