"The CO" wrote in message
...

The M113's are getting *well* past their use-by dates. I think they
need to go,

They are being rebuilt.

Is it worth the expense? How significant is the improvement? Are they
going to fix the
water crossing capability as well? ISTR that's been broken a very long
time.
Would it be better to ditch them for something better? Cheaper even?
The M113 is only marginally hardened against even infantry/small arms.

http://www.tenix.com/Main.asp?ID=437

The M113 upgrades resistance to SA is classified Secret.


give them to the reserves to train in, but they really need to be
replaced by ASLAV ASAP.
The Bushmaster seems to me to be a poor mans ASLAV, if we had more
ASLAV
you wouldn't need
to bugger about with it.

The Bushmaster is a Motorised unit vehicle, not a Cav/Mech vehicle, it
is
markedly cheaper to buy and operate than ASLAV.

Certainly, but it's soft skinned, so it's still just a truck. If you
are going to have highly
trained troops it's best to protect them til they get where they are
going to fight.
Whilst I see your point about cost, perhaps we should also look at the
costs associated
with training troops only to have them become casualties because some
Indo with an
RPG hosed a bunch of them sitting in the soft skinned Bushmaster on
their way in.


The role of motorised forces is not to ride the truck into combat.

The same ambush problem applies to Helos and SAMs, ASLAVS and RPGs etc
nothing is risk free.


Armour is an extremely useful asset in light combat ops

Hmm, make that *light* armour and I'd agree, (Such as ASLAV or some
other type of at least semi hardened APC with medium size fire support
capability)
I would suggest that heavy armour is more useful against other heavy
armour or in certain urban
scenarios that are rather less likely to happen here. But I'm willing
to be convinced otherwise if you
want to get more specific.

Try FSBs Coral and Balmoral in Vietnam for examples of where heavy armour is
of great value in light ops (Lex Mcaulays book covers it).




as is Arty,

Arty is arguably the best form of heavy fire support there is.
Remember Long Tan? Arty is good.

having the biggest stick in the fight is a very good idea.

Yes, but that can be achieved without resorting to an MBT if you are
up against APC/FSV variants. Terrain is also a factor, an MBT can
become
a sitting target (admittedly a hardened one) if the ground turns to mud
and
it can't move. Lighter vehicles such as ASLAV or variants would be the
last thing to grind to a halt when it got too soft, an MBT would be one
of
the first.


That of course depends on the relative ground pressure of the vehicle, not
the overall weight of the vehicle.

An MBT with wide tracks is likely to remain mobile over soft ground after a
Light Vehicle with thin tracks.

Wheeled Veh, soft ground, you could be looking at real problems.

For example, an M113 has a ground pressure of aprox 8.6 PSI,

a Leopard 1 has a ground pressure of aprox 12.8 PSI,

An LAV has a ground pressure of aprox 40 (forty) PSI...

Also, in Vietnam, it was found that Centurions could push through terrain
that M113s could not.


Why throw them away? But a review of their role and positioning
would
seem to be essential.

snip

Great idea, it will **** away a small fortune in moving troops to and
from
PTS at Nowra and flying Hercs up to Amberly to pick up troops for Para
continuation, exercises and so on.

Ok, there are obviously logistical issues. Effective force placement
would seem
to be something that may require a complete review, nothing is forever.

Nothing is forever, but given that 3RAR is a Para Bn, nothing is to be
gained by moving them to Bris, if the couple of hours flight time ever seems
to be a real concern they can be staged to Bris for an operation.



Thats the point of Bushmaster.

But is it the answer? Or just a cheap expedient?

It is a protected truck, the simple fact is we can't afford to put all our
troops in AFVs, if the choice is move them fast and then operate as leg inf
or do without a few more Bns, then Bushmaster is the answer.


This *must* include the ability to *logistically*
support a more highly mobile fielded force
as well. This is an even bigger can of worms..

Agreed.

The Alice-Darwin rail link is going to help a bit (or even a lot) but
supporting a sizeable
force in the bush in far north is arguably harder than supporting one at
some OS locs.

Yes, fortunately it works both ways.


The Tiger will do the support job just fine.

Probably could do most of it. No real argument, provided it can be
equipped to take out
light armour, which is what we are most likely to encounter in this
country if something happens
and on most likely OS placements. It's worth noting that we don't have
much in the line of COIN
or dedicated CAS airframes. Yes the F/A18 can do it, but something a
bit lower and slower can
also be an asset in many circumstances.

Given that the Tiger will carry Hellfire II it seems quite capable of
handling any armour we are likely to encounter.

Lockheed Martin, Eurocopter Ink Contract to Integrate Hellfire II Missile on
Tigre Attack Helo

ORLANDO, Fla. (May 8, 2002) - Lockheed Martin and Eurocopter recently signed
a contract to integrate the Hellfire II missile and M299 Hellfire launcher
on the Eurocopter Tigre helicopter.

The initial customer is Australia, in the AIR 87 armed reconnaissance
helicopter program, which specified Hellfire for the weaponry after
selecting Tigre to fulfill its coastal reconnaissance and defense mission.
There are additional opportunities in Spain, France, Germany, and other
countries.

The contract provides for integration at Eurocopter's facility in Marignane,
France and missile firings in Australia in early 2005 as part of the Tigre
qualification effort.



http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/a.../050802_2.html




It's noted that the RAAF are considering *not* retiring the Caribou
fleet for something newer,
so "Wallaby Airlines" can fill *some* of the roles of the transport
helo
with only the most basic
of prepared strips (though this becomes harder in the 'wet'.) But
we
*need* more helos too.

Helos are very expensive to own/operate.

Not disputed, but there are some jobs that nothing else can do,
particularly when everything is
wet and soggy and the clouds are almost dragging on the ground.

Keep in mind that the conditions you cite apply to both sides of a conflict,
in many cases you would be better off just leaving an enemy to rot in the
wet season, interdict his supplys and mop up the remains come the dry.


That will be tough, a great many of them don't want to be Infantry.

Quite. And there is a need for specialists. You might need trained
replacements in
a hurry, that's why it's called a 'reserve'.
That said, it's not unreasonable that the most pressing need would be
for infantry,
so the balance should favour that corp.

But they can't get enough to sign up for Ares Inf now, how do you propose
fixing it?



If it's done right, they *shouldn't* have a lot to do *here* but we
can't assume that.
It's likely that OS deployments are on the increase however and that
will probably be largely
infantry and special forces.

Agreed.

I'll add a caveat that if there is a major ruction (such as a
fundamentalist govt
coming to power in Djakarta) then that could change, however it's likely
we
would have help from other major players that could provide the heavier
stuff.
What we do best is not armoured warfare or massive logistics, but we
have friends that do, and we are very good at other roles.


Obviously a major local change would require something of a rethink, but
that is one reason to keep cadres of units such as Armour - our friends
could be tied up in Korea, Iraq, etc when we need help or they could be in
an election cycle and unwilling to help (see Clinton/E.Timor).


IMO a US base is a BAD idea, drop in visits have enough PR problems,

Like I said 'cost and provocativeness'.
If the Indos get a dose of nastiness, the provocativeness is no longer a
significant factor, though
the deterrent effect might be.
What's good in one situation isn't necessarily so in another.

The problem is that having the media leap on every single rape case and
every single assault, for years, playing on the 'furriners misbehaving here'
angle is not good in the long term.


put in a permanent base and you have constant, ongoing problems - not
good for the
alliance.

Concur. There would need to be an *imminent* threat not a possibility
of one to make
it desirable in view of the negative aspects.

Another good reason for a decent, well balanced military - it raises the bar
significantly as to what constitutes a credible threat.


Also, what's in it for Aust to have such a base?

Unless we have a serious situation looming, not a lot. I feel fairly
sure that such a scenario
wouldn't turn into a conflict overnight, there would be lead time to
seek US support and
get them in place *if* it becomes necessary (or desirable). At the
moment, IMHO, it's
better to be as prepared as we can be on our own.

Agreed.