"The CO" wrote in message
...

It is a protected truck, the simple fact is we can't afford to put all
our
troops in AFVs,

I'm not sure I can agree with that. It's always a question of
cost v survivability, but in view of the (relatively) small size
of the army, it might be desirable to give it all the protection
that we can. IF that means ASLAV's all round, well, defence
spending and presumably tax might need to increase to do so.
The force multiplication value of light armoured transport for your
troops cannot be discounted, particularly if the enemy is not as well
equipped.


If you can find the money to go AFVs all round, then the ASLAV is not the
way to go.

Upgraded M113s are much better value and are likely to get better in the
next 3 - 5 years as the 'Rubber band' tracks are perfected (For the M113,
they are in use on some armoured Veh already).

An American exchange officer reports:
"Just returned from Australia. While there, the Australian officers to
include their senior leadership outlined the problems they encountered with
the LAVs in East Timor. Apparently, the LAVs were never able to operate off
the roads and when the rains washed out the asphalt road surfaces, the LAVs
bellied out and the Australians became entirely dependent on the M113s for
operations in the interior. They have decided that the LAVs are useful on
roads inside Australia where the requirement to cross the northern deserts
quickly make them useful. However, for deployments, they are inclined to
restrict the use of LAVs to urban areas where the roads are good and rely
otherwise exclusively on the new upgraded M113s that they are purchasing.
Apparently, the ground pressure exerted by the LAVs is very high indeed and
this was a problem on East Timor's poor roads as well. Plus the LAVs provide
little or no protection against mines. Australian Generals like MG Abigail
and Brigadier Quinn along with a host of Australian Majors and Lieutenant
Colonels left me with the impression that the LAVs could be useful in the
context of home defense, but should not be the first consideration for use
in the deployable formations of the active army."