...even for the US Army to purchase them by the few thousands.

 

I've seen various articles here and there suggesting that the FCS family of Manned Ground Vehicles was anywhere from $20-30M for a complete vehicle (roughly $1M/ton), depending on which vehicle/model it was.

On a related note, what sort of armament do people think we should be looking at for whatever we get to replace the M-113's? My thinking is one of the 40 to 50 millimetre weapons that are going on European IFV's at the moment, as they would be more suitable in the type of infantry support role that they would be used in than the current standard 25 to 30 millimetre guns and missiles. Thoughts?

I dont think the total cancellation of the US FCS program (if that does indeed happen) will have any impact on future Australian Procurment choices.  I say this for the following reasons:

 

These vehicles were being designed to operate together as part of a FCS equipped Brigade Combat Team.  Remember more than just being a weapons platform these vehicles were going to be "Nodes" in the highly networked and interdependant collection of sensors, shooters and information processors and disseminators that was to be a FCS BCT.

 

There was no way as far as I can discern that the Australian Armed forces were going to totally reorganise themselves and equip themselves as a mirror of the US forces.  WIth that in mind, then just picking certain vehicles from the FCS "Brochure" makes no sense.  You are paying an awfull lot of money for vehicles which have capabilities you cant use (to their fullest) and requirememnts for their optimum erformance that you cannot fulfill (again to the fullest).

 

I personally think going with the Stryker family of vehicles would be a more sensible approach for the Australian Army.  Again the Stryker Brigade Combat Teams are highly linked, networked etc but not to the level (and as I percieve an interdependancy) that teh FCS BCT would have been.

 

Regards

 

Arty

I don?t think the axing of FCS will affect Land400 much. The US will develop something to replace it by the time Land400 will see results (~2020). If the US don?t, somebody else will. Australia still hasn?t defined what we actually want from Land400 yet, so there?s no huge rush.

On a related note, what sort of armament do people think we should be looking at for whatever we get to replace the M-113's?

 

I reckon the 40mm CTA rounds used by the Warrior 2000 turret will be ideal. Any round larger than that would severely reduce the number of ready rounds able to be stowed in the turret, so I think that calibre would be ideal. I would like to see it backed up by a lightweight long-range ATGM as well (the in-service Javelin by then will have a 4000 range, and so would be suitable).

Current Australian AFVs on deployment are already as ?networked? as the Strykers, so that isn?t a very good advertisement to buy them. Our own land force will be just as networked as the US equivalent by the time of Land400, so there is no reason we couldn?t buy the US system. By the time Land400 comes around the Stryker/LAVIII will be quite an old platform with none of the improvements of the next generation of AFVs, so I don?t think it will be a contender.

The UK is looking at derivatives of the CV-90 and the ASCOD for the rec vehicle role in FES base vehicles are to be armed with 40mm CTA with talk of a 120mm AGS variant aswell.

 

I wonder if derivatives of either of these vehicles will find there was into US service?

I reckon the 40mm CTA rounds used by the Warrior 2000 turret will be ideal. Any round larger than that would severely reduce the number of ready rounds able to be stowed in the turret, so I think that calibre would be ideal. I would like to see it backed up by a lightweight long-range ATGM as well (the in-service Javelin by then will have a 4000 range, and so would be suitable).

 

Yeah, from the link below it looks like a good piece of kit. Apparently it will penetrate 150 mm of armour (presumably hardened steel, it doesn't say) at 1500 metres. Is there any rule of thumb about how that translates into penetration of reinforced concrete, earth etc? Being able to punch a single 40mm round to clear a strongpoint in an urban environment would be a great option to reduce the risk of collateral damage, as compared to a 120mm tank round.

 

I also love the airbust APERS function. How do they set the fuses to explode where the crew want them to?

>

Watch the bellow vids illustrating the US's goals regarding their desire for complete sensor fusion across the battlespace.  Thsi shows what the were aiming for with teh FCS System. 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/v/J9iTUMQKrD8&hl=en&fs=1" width="425" height="344" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always">

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/v/6kv8qlEVKU0&hl=en&fs=1" width="425" height="344" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true">

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/v/B-Gh6-_9J4M&hl=en&fs=1" width="425" height="344" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always">

 

Having worked with a Stryker Brigade Combat Team last summer the building blocks of this concept is already there waiting to be developed and expanded upon.  If you are telling me that the Australian Land 400 programs aims to be an equivilent of this concept then I am very impressed!!!!

The 30mm Bushmaster II that's already fitted on the CV90 (& USMC EFV) apparently is able to be easily converted to 40mm CTA.

 

Not a 40mm CTA but you get the idea.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKdwuOxYRI4" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKdwuOxYRI4">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKdwuOxYRI4