I'm aware of the extent of the upgrade of the M-113, I was assuming a sufficient degree of sophistication that whoever was reading this wouldn't take my statement literally. Never the less your claim that those upgrades make those vehicles "brand new" is bullsh1t in its purest form and everybody here knows it.

 

If you want me to argue this based on the capabilities of the platforms rather than the reletive age then fine. Currently the primary roles of the Cavalry in the Australian Army is reconnasciance, force protection/rear area security and light offensive operations (screening, fire support and exploitation), correct? These operations typically involve exposure to smallarms, blast and fragements from indirect fire, mines, IED's and unguided man portable AAW's. These are reletively mature threats which the ASLAV can generally counter with its armour protection and it can counter heavier threats with a combination of stealth and speed, so the ASLAV can currently perform these missions adequately and is likely to be able to do so with upgrades until they wear out in 20 or 30 years time. In a similar manner British CVR(T)'s are perfoming these roles ok now, 30 years or so after thier introduction. The only concern that I have is the off road mobility of a wheeled type, but you don't want tracks so that is irrelevant to this discussion.

 

However, what you want the Cav to have is an AFV which can confidently go into the more threatening environment of close combat and defeat the enemy with onboard weapons, and if appropriate deploy a rifle squad to do the same. The fact that you keep ignoring is that we have two units who have that role, 5 RAR and 7 RAR and we don't need the Cavalry to double up on the role, irrespective of how juicy the prospect of doing so makes you. Doing so would essentially be a complete WOFTAM and the Cav should stick to its current role.

 

The problem for the mechanised battalions is that their current vehicles can't safely perform this role and haven't been able to do so for a long time, because they lack both the armour and armament to counter modern threats. The M-113 is never going to be able to be upgraded to be able to do this safely as it is obsolete, which is why our allies replaced them starting over 20 yars ago.  In short those units cannot currently do their job, which is woeful. That is why replacing the M-113 should be THE priority for armoured vehicle replacement for Australia and we need to do it with a tracked vehicle, or we will have NO capability for difficult off road armoured operations if something like East Timor (perhaps with RPG's and ATGW's) crops up.

 

What the government chooses to deploy to the ME is discretionary, can be done with existing vehicles and will probably be over by the time any new vehicles are in service anyway, whereas unless we choose to completely abandon the ability to lead complex operations in our region then we HAVE to have modern tracked IFV.

 

 

I'll listen to the professionals when I meet one who isn't obviously putting self interest and ego over the national interest. I'd also note that resorting to being condescending is a sure sign that you know that you can't make an argument stack up. I'll expect more of it though, because its all you've got.