Alternate Australian Defence Force 1970s Procurements?

[Caryina2642]

Another thought would the RAN Continue developing Ikara in this scenario as well as the Womba anti-ship missile that was being developed from Ikara?
Also i've just been reading the 1964 Carrier Replacement Plan the RAN wanted to replace HMAS Sydney with Attack Transport Ship, what would have this looked like? Something like the US Paul Revere Class
Also they wanted a mine countermeasure support ship, again what would this look like?

 

[Rule of cool]

If the army was going to get a SPAAG wouldn't make logistical sense for the Gepard seeing as though the army already uses the Leopard 1

IIUC the Gepard was extremely expensive, although it looks really cool so that makes it worth the money.

Given the level of air threat in S.E.A., the awesome striking power of the F111 fleet against those aircraft on the ground, and the defensive capability of the RAAFs fighter fleet if the Army is going to get a SPAAG then a tiny fleet of the cheapest vehicle around would do the job.

 

[Caryina2642]

IIUC the Gepard was extremely expensive, although it looks really cool so that makes it worth the money.

Given the level of air threat in S.E.A., the awesome striking power of the F111 fleet against those aircraft on the ground, and the defensive capability of the RAAFs fighter fleet if the Army is going to get a SPAAG then a tiny fleet of the cheapest vehicle around would do the job.

That is true i was just thinking from a logistic view if the army going to have a tank, a SPG on tank chassis it mays aswell have a SPAAG on the tank chassis was my thought path

 

[Pioneer]

If the army was going to get a SPAAG wouldn't make logistical sense for the Gepard seeing as though the army already uses the Leopard 1

No, I'd have to disagree about the Gepard, regardless of the Leopard 1 chassis commonality. For as much as it's an excellent system, the reality is, the Gepard for all intent and purposes both extremely expensive and excessively capable for the Australian Army needs. Australia is not facing a Central European battlefield scenario. It's choices should be realistic from the getgo.
If it was deemed that Australia needed a more sophisticated and more capable SPAAG, I would go as far as the Wildcat 30mm turret system.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Pioneer]

...... if the Army is going to get a SPAAG then a tiny fleet of the cheapest vehicle around would do the job.

Hence my suggestion of the TA-20 turret 20mm system - best mounted on the wheeled component of Project Waler.
Or perhaps something no bigger than a Cadillac Gage V-150 Commando 4x4......

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Volkodav]

Thats definitely the easiest way to do it. I was more thinking at turning project waler into the land 400 of the 80s sort of thing.with a
Wheeled AFVs replacing 1st n 2nd division m113
Tracked AFV replacing 3rd divisions m113 (like the original Army plan was)
SPGs on leopard chassis
Maybe more leopard 1s for a second armoured regiment for 3rd division

Definitely took some inspiration from it. I was more going along the lines of what if the adf got all its planned projects from the late 60s and 70s

Starlifters or Galaxy, Hawk SAM, Hawk trainer, a supersonic LIFT, Jaguar, Cobra, FAC version of the Fremantles, GP/Patrol frigate.

 

[Archibald]

Thing is, the Mirage F1 in iraqi service were armed to the teeth, better than the french ones. And still, they dragged all those heavy weaponry with the plain old Atar, and in a very hot and dusty climate that cut even further into the takeoff performance. My understanding is that Iraq had extremely long runways.
A F1 with a M53 would provide around 80% or more of the Mirage 2000 capability, many years ahead. The F1-200 Cyrano IV + Super 530F wasn't that different from a 2000 RDM. No reason the RDI+Super530F wouldn't fit a Mirage F1.
And finally, the moroccan Mirage F1 ended with an RDY-3 radar on par with the 2000-5 / 2000-9 tech level : must have been PESA, or close. They are still in service.
So the trick is
1-Put the M53 into the F1
2-Arm it to the teeth like the iraqi, Super 530F included, also Magic 2
3-Shift to look down / shoot down / pulse doppler, that is: RDI + Super 530D
4-Later it can be upgraded even further with OTL RDY-3, which in turn brings MICA.

 

[Rule of cool]

Thats definitely the easiest way to do it. I was more thinking at turning project waler into the land 400 of the 80s

I think a big 'problem' the M113 'caused' was it's huge numbers and being used for everything which makes any project to replace it so massive as to terrify governments. Given the task the Government and Army couldn't even agree on the requirement for Project Waler.

This is why I'd like to keep an unbroken wheeled AFV line going within the Army's OOB, not only for it's own capability but to alter the fleet management and therefore procurement dilemma for the Army and Government.

 

[Rule of cool]

That is true i was just thinking from a logistic view if the army going to have a tank, a SPG on tank chassis it mays aswell have a SPAAG on the tank chassis was my thought path

The Army could use the M163 VADS, based on the M113 that the Army has in the hundreds and vastly cheaper than the Gepard.

 

[Pioneer]

I think a big 'problem' the M113 'caused' was it's huge numbers and being used for everything which makes any project to replace it so massive as to terrify governments. Given the task the Government and Army couldn't even agree on the requirement for Project Waler.

This is why I'd like to keep an unbroken wheeled AFV line going within the Army's OOB, not only for it's own capability but to alter the fleet management and therefore procurement dilemma for the Army and Government.

So, you're proposing a Hi/Low type configuration of AFV Rule of Cool - Hi - tracked AFV, Low - wheeled AFV?
This way a portion of the Army fleet can be replaced without the politically daunting aspect....., if I'm reading you right?

If so, I support this analogy.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Caryina2642]

Starlifters or Galaxy, Hawk SAM, Hawk trainer, a supersonic LIFT, Jaguar, Cobra, FAC version of the Fremantles, GP/Patrol

Starlifters maybe 8? (Galaxy to big or RAAF)
The army got the rapier sam in the late 70s, which is better for the army rapier or Hawk?
Hawk trainer instead of the aeromacchis or earlier replacement or the aeromacchis?
Supersonic LIFT Ca-31?
With the fremantles i would replace them with the vickers vedette type 633 corvettes
The gp Frigate is the gp escort

The Army could use the M163 VADS, based on the M113 that the Army has in the hundreds and vastly cheaper than the Gepard.

Not a bad idea and also reduces some of the vehicles to be replaced under project waler

Another idea the bloodhound sams being brought up to mk 2 standard

 

[Rule of cool]

So, you're proposing a Hi/Low type configuration of AFV Rule of Cool - Hi - tracked AFV, Low - wheeled AFV?
This way a portion of the Army fleet can be replaced without the politically daunting aspect....., if I'm reading you right?

If so, I support this analogy.

Regards
Pioneer

Yes, it really annoys me that wheeled AFVs bought 1952-58 were replaced by 1966 when they had considerable life left in them and they were given a role in the reformation of 1st Division but never actually put into that role.

Let's not go too nuts though, the Army bought 100 (turretless) Ferret Mk1, 164 (turreted) Ferret Mk2, 15 Saladin and at most 30 Saracen. The Ferret Mk1 and likely half of the Mk2 are only good for the Reserves, so the Regulars only going to have ~120 wheeled AFVs and will still need to buy hundreds of M113s for Vietnam.

However, if the Recce Regiment is stood up from 1960 and the tracked APC regiment (or two) was stood up alongside it instead of replacing it the role of wheeled AFVs might be cemented in the OOB.

 

[Rule of cool]

Not a bad idea and also reduces some of the vehicles to be replaced under project waler

It will take the 'either/or' decision out of Project Waler as the Army will in effect have both tactically mobile Tracked AFVs and Operationally/Strategically mobile wheeled AFVs.

By the 80s the Army had two Cavalry units, 2 Cav and 3/4 Cav, but for about a decade in the 70s it had 2, 3 & 4 Cav as well as 1st Armoured Regiment. Perhaps if the Army had its wheeled AFVs all along it retains all 3 Cav regiments and gives one wheeled AFVs ad the other two tracked AFVs.

 

[Caryina2642]

It will take the 'either/or' decision out of Project Waler as the Army will in effect have both tactically mobile Tracked AFVs and Operationally/Strategically mobile wheeled AFVs.

By the 80s the Army had two Cavalry units, 2 Cav and 3/4 Cav, but for about a decade in the 70s it had 2, 3 & 4 Cav as well as 1st Armoured Regiment. Perhaps if the Army had its wheeled AFVs all along it retains all 3 Cav regiments and gives one wheeled AFVs ad the other two tracked AFVs.

This would probably allow project waler to turn into the land 400 of the 80s and get across the line.
So in the 60s 1st division gets in recce regiment of Ferret mk2, saladin and Saracen, which get replaced by a wheeled afv in project waler
There were plans for a 2nd Armoured regiment do you think that could happen

 

[Desertfox]

Mirage F1-M53s with F-15Es (to replace the F-111s) would make a nice one-two punch. The RAAF already uses the BAe HAwk, so why not a combat version of the T-45 Goshawk as an A-4 replacement?

 

[Rule of cool]

So in the 60s 1st division gets in recce regiment of Ferret mk2, saladin and Saracen, which get replaced by a wheeled afv in project waler

Given how quickly they got rid of the Wheeled AFVs I doubt they'd last until the 80s, but if they were replaced in the 70s with ~100 vehicles they'd drastically simplify Project Waler in the 80s. It would become an M113 replacement, an IFV with firepower and tactical mobility.

There were plans for a 2nd Armoured regiment do you think that could happen

I don't think so. IIUC 1st AR only had 2 sqns in the 50s and early 60s, it expanded to 3 sqns during Vientam although that was nominal as it was supporting the deployment of an oversized sqn so it was basically a training organisation at home and deployed sqn with cats and dogs. Much like how the RAAFs UH1 force was 5 sqn training (and SAR) at home to support 9 sqn in Vietnam.

I could possibly see 3 tank sqns expanding to 4 making 1st AR very big, most likely to send a tank sqn to another unit. For example, 1st Bde might have 1st AR, 2 & 3 Cav while 3rd Bde might have 4 Cav with D sqn 1st AR attached. I think you'd need to raise a 5th tank sqn in order to raise a second Armoured Regiment and by then the three Cavalry regiments would have to be maxed out at 3 or 4 sqns apiece and another Armoured Regiment being preferable to adding tank sqns to Cavalry regiments.

You've got me thinking about Australia again, I'll have to map out the comings and goings within the RAR and RAAC to wrap my head around things. For example, the amalgamation of 3rd and 4th Cav in 1981 might be something to lament, but from 1978-84 5/7 bth was converting to a fully mechanised btn so in reality nothing was lost.

 

[Volkodav]

I think a big 'problem' the M113 'caused' was it's huge numbers and being used for everything which makes any project to replace it so massive as to terrify governments. Given the task the Government and Army couldn't even agree on the requirement for Project Waler.

This is why I'd like to keep an unbroken wheeled AFV line going within the Army's OOB, not only for it's own capability but to alter the fleet management and therefore procurement dilemma for the Army and Government.

This was addressed through the phased introduction of the ASLAV project, the Bushranger Perenties and Bushmaster wheeled vehicles. The failure was retaining the M-113 too long.

 

[Pioneer]

Thing is, the Mirage F1 in iraqi service were armed to the teeth, better than the french ones. And still, they dragged all those heavy weaponry with the plain old Atar, and in a very hot and dusty climate that cut even further into the takeoff performance. My understanding is that Iraq had extremely long runways.
A F1 with a M53 would provide around 80% or more of the Mirage 2000 capability, many years ahead. The F1-200 Cyrano IV + Super 530F wasn't that different from a 2000 RDM. No reason the RDI+Super530F wouldn't fit a Mirage F1.
And finally, the moroccan Mirage F1 ended with an RDY-3 radar on par with the 2000-5 / 2000-9 tech level : must have been PESA, or close. They are still in service.
So the trick is
1-Put the M53 into the F1
2-Arm it to the teeth like the iraqi, Super 530F included, also Magic 2
3-Shift to look down / shoot down / pulse doppler, that is: RDI + Super 530D
4-Later it can be upgraded even further with OTL RDY-3, which in turn brings MICA.

My sentiments also Archibald!
The Mirage F1-53 offered such a leap in capabilities over the legacy Mirage F1C/E.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Pioneer]

Mirage F1-M53s with F-15Es (to replace the F-111s) would make a nice one-two punch. The RAAF already uses the BAe HAwk, so why not a combat version of the T-45 Goshawk as an A-4 replacement?

I don't know what the combat load of the T-45 would be, when fully militarised for combat, let alone carrier ops. From the getgo the Hawk was a compromised design to meet carrier operability.
The Hawk/T-45 two-seat arrangement sacrifices internal fuel and sensor/avionics space. So, any such carrier-based derivative would have to based around the later Hawk 200 single seat combat variant to be of any significant use by the RAN.
For if a modern carrier-based fighter-bomber can't employ a Sea Eagle/Harpoon, Skyflash/Aim-120 missiles, you may as well not have a carrier IMO - period

No, I think the earlier suggestion about Australia participate with New Zealand in ‘Project Kahu’ or even better and more capable Singaporean A-4SU Super Skyhawk program, which importantly incorporates a non-afterburning General Electric F404-GE-100D turbofan engine. Such engine compatibility with the RAAF's F-18L and F-20C (Big Wing) Tigershark would make a lot of operational and budgetary sense.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Caryina2642]

For the army in was thinking the best way forward id to combine the forward defence and DOA policies, my idea is
1st division is your amphibious and airmobile strike force
2nd division is your territorial defence force
3rd division us your mechanised force to crush any landings on Australian soil

I don't know what the combat load of the T-45 would be, when fully militarised for combat, let alone carrier ops. From the getgo the Hawk was a compromised design to meet carrier operability.
The Hawk/T-45 two-seat arrangement sacrifices internal fuel and sensor/avionics space. So, any such carrier-based derivative would have to based around the later Hawk 200 single seat combat variant to be of any significant use by the RAN.
For if a modern carrier-based fighter-bomber can't employ a Sea Eagle/Harpoon, Skyflash/Aim-120 missiles, you may as well not have a carrier IMO - period

No, I think the earlier suggestion about Australia participate with New Zealand in ‘Project Kahu’ or even better and more capable Singaporean A-4SU Super Skyhawk program, which importantly incorporates a non-afterburning General Electric F404-GE-100D turbofan engine. Such engine compatibility with the RAAF's F-18L and F-20C (Big Wing) Tigershark would make a lot of operational and budgetary sense.

Regards
Pioneer

The only way I see the t45 entering service in the ran is an earlier replacement for the aeromacchis as the jet trainer
I used new Zealand upgraded as an example, maybe use the kaku avionics and the super skyhawk engine when the ran upgraded its a4s

 

[Pioneer]

I used new Zealand upgraded as an example, maybe use the kaku avionics and the super skyhawk engine when the ran upgraded its a4s

Agree!

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Rule of cool]

For the army in was thinking the best way forward id to combine the forward defence and DOA policies, my idea is
1st division is your amphibious and airmobile strike force
2nd division is your territorial defence force
3rd division us your mechanised force to crush any landings on Australian soil

The Army was sort of structured like that in the post-Vietnam era, in particular in the 80s. 1st Brigade was the heavies, 1st AR, 2 Cav and 5/7 RAR (Mech) and 3rd Brigade was light infantry, in particular having 3 RAR (Para) and 3/4 Cav as the only armoured unit.

3rd Division was the Reserves, which apart of backfilling the Regulars would have been assigned defensive duties.

 

[Caryina2642]

The Army was sort of structured like that in the post-Vietnam era, in particular in the 80s. 1st Brigade was the heavies, 1st AR, 2 Cav and 5/7 RAR (Mech) and 3rd Brigade was light infantry, in particular having 3 RAR (Para) and 3/4 Cav as the only armoured unit.

3rd Division was the Reserves, which apart of backfilling the Regulars would have been assigned

With project waler it was planned to move 1st brigade to Puckapunyal and mechanise and integrate 4th brigade with regs in the ready reserve scheme

 

[Caryina2642]

With the big helicopter buy of the 70s
5 sqn is the training sqn with the UH-1B which there were 17 in 1975 (According to ADF Serials)
8 sqn gets the AH-1G Cobra
12 sqn gets the CHA-47C
how ever there would be 66x UH-1H in 1975 some would go to 5 sqn for training and 9sqn already has them, but would another sqn say 7 sqn get raised, cause 66x seems to many to split between to sqns

 

[Rule of cool]

35 sqn was a split Caribou and UH1 sqn for a while in the 80s. Perhaps the helicopter component of that would be much larger if the RAAF had bought the full 42 UH1s in the early 70s.

 

[Dilandu]

Another thought would the RAN Continue developing Ikara in this scenario as well as the Womba anti-ship missile that was being developed from Ikara?

If you means Woomera/Dropbear missile, its not real project, its fictional that I made for AH.

 

[Caryina2642]

If you means Woomera/Dropbear missile, its not real project, its fictional that I made for AH.

Nah there was a proposed anti-ship missile based off ikara called womba that was canned along with super ikara and boxed launched ikara

35 sqn was a split Caribou and UH1 sqn for a while in the 80s. Perhaps the helicopter component of that would be much larger if the RAAF had bought the full 42 UH1s in the early 70s.

that is a possibility but i think there would be too many airframes for that make 35spn too big, i believe a new sqn would have to be brought up

Another scenario, i know in 1987 white paper AEW aircraft were proposed, with Australia getting Hermes i would say the RAN would get some used E-1B Tracers for the airwing would this mean the RAAF would start looking at AEW aircraft in the 70s

 

[Rule of cool]

Army procurement cannot be looked at without the Pentropic experiment, as procurement of Armour and Artillery is closely tied to unit structures and roles. For example, the M113 procurement was to equip the APC Regiment in the Support Group of the 2 Pentropic (1st ARA/CMF, 3rd CMF) divisions. Given that the M113 is still in service the Pentropic experiment can be said to cast a 65+ year shadow. Funnily enough in the Pentropic division there was both wheeled AFVs as well as room for the tracked APC Regt.

A better path would have been to avoid the wholesale rearrangement of the Infantry, followed by exercises to learn how bad the organisation was, and simply stand-up 1st Division as an ARA formation and let the post-conscription CMF shrink by natural attrition. Stand up 1st Cav in 1960, instead of creating ARA sqns in a pair of CMF Light horse Units, and equipment them with wheeled AFVs. 1 APC sqn could be stood up in 1965 when the M113 enters service and become 3 Cav in 1967 as usual, and 4 Cav could be raised in 1971 as usual.

The procurement task of the 70s then becomes replacing the British AFVs of the 50s: Centurions, Ferrets, Saladins and Saracens for 1st R and 2 Cav (renamed from 1 Cav in 1970). The Procurement task of the 80s becomes replacement of the M113 for 3/4 Cav, 5/7 RAR (Mech) and various Reserve units. In particular the 80s Project Waler will be smaller and more focused on tactical mobility and not so vulnerable to overall arguments about strategic vs tactical mobility and the enormous cost of replacing so many AFVs.

 

[Caryina2642]

Army procurement cannot be looked at without the Pentropic experiment, as procurement of Armour and Artillery is closely tied to unit structures and roles. For example, the M113 procurement was to equip the APC Regiment in the Support Group of the 2 Pentropic (1st ARA/CMF, 3rd CMF) divisions. Given that the M113 is still in service the Pentropic experiment can be said to cast a 65+ year shadow. Funnily enough in the Pentropic division there was both wheeled AFVs as well as room for the tracked APC Regt.

A better path would have been to avoid the wholesale rearrangement of the Infantry, followed by exercises to learn how bad the organisation was, and simply stand-up 1st Division as an ARA formation and let the post-conscription CMF shrink by natural attrition. Stand up 1st Cav in 1960, instead of creating ARA sqns in a pair of CMF Light horse Units, and equipment them with wheeled AFVs. 1 APC sqn could be stood up in 1965 when the M113 enters service and become 3 Cav in 1967 as usual, and 4 Cav could be raised in 1971 as usual.

The procurement task of the 70s then becomes replacing the British AFVs of the 50s: Centurions, Ferrets, Saladins and Saracens for 1st R and 2 Cav (renamed from 1 Cav in 1970). The Procurement task of the 80s becomes replacement of the M113 for 3/4 Cav, 5/7 RAR (Mech) and various Reserve units. In particular the 80s Project Waler will be smaller and more focused on tactical mobility and not so vulnerable to overall arguments about strategic vs tactical mobility and the enormous cost of replacing so many AFVs.

Pentropic experiment was terrible for the army and not doing it all together agreed. However I'm going off POD late 60s and 70s so its too early for that, Thats why its my idea to Project waler into LAND 400 of the 80s
The tracked ifv's would go to 2nd Cav, 4th/19th Prince of Wales's Light Horse for Recce role and 5/7th RAR, 5th/6th RVR & 8th/8th RVR for mech role under 3rd Div.
The Wheeled AFV's would go to 3rd Cav, 4th Cav, 1st/15th Royal New South Wales Lancers, 2nd/14th Light Horse Regiment (QMI), 3rd/9th Light Horse Regiment (SAMR), 10th Light Horse Regiment (WAMI) & 12th/16th Hunter River Lancers
More Leopard 1s for 8th/13th Victorian Mounted Rifles to be converted to a reserve Armored Regiment for 4th Brigade, 3rd Division

 

[Rule of cool]

Thats why its my idea to Project waler into LAND 400 of the 80s

Land 400 comes, indeed virtually all Defence procurement decisions, out of earlier decisions; Lincoln-Canberra-F111-Super Hornet or Vampire-Sabre-Mirage-Hornet-F35 and so on. In particular the late 80s decision to abandon Project Waler as a purely tracked AFV, trial the LAV and then adopt the ASLAV to give the Army a mixed wheeled-tracked AFV structure came out of the Pentropic era decision to have a fully tracked AFV force.

To jump from a wholly tracked AFV structure/fleets that began in 1966 with the (early) retirement of the British wheeled AFVs to a mixed fleet in the early 80s is a big one for an organisation as conservative as the Army. The Senior Officers and Senior NCOs drafting the requirements for Project Waler in the early 80s would have had combat experience in Vietnam with M113s and Centurion tanks. and none of them would have any experience at all with wheeled AFVs. I suspect this institutional memory/experience is a major reason behind the failure of Project Waler as the Army stuck with what it knew worked in combat regardless of wider aspects such as changing defence policies and environment.

In my mind if you want to have Project Waler as the Land 400 of the 80s you need to hit the Army over the head with the need for wheeled vehicles on the day the project starts. If the Regular Army has a wheeled AFV unit from 1960 then it would be virtual heresy for it not to be part of Project Waler in 1980.

 

[Caryina2642]

Land 400 comes, indeed virtually all Defence procurement decisions, out of earlier decisions; Lincoln-Canberra-F111-Super Hornet or Vampire-Sabre-Mirage-Hornet-F35 and so on. In particular the late 80s decision to abandon Project Waler as a purely tracked AFV, trial the LAV and then adopt the ASLAV to give the Army a mixed wheeled-tracked AFV structure came out of the Pentropic era decision to have a fully tracked AFV force.

To jump from a wholly tracked AFV structure/fleets that began in 1966 with the (early) retirement of the British wheeled AFVs to a mixed fleet in the early 80s is a big one for an organisation as conservative as the Army. The Senior Officers and Senior NCOs drafting the requirements for Project Waler in the early 80s would have had combat experience in Vietnam with M113s and Centurion tanks. and none of them would have any experience at all with wheeled AFVs. I suspect this institutional memory/experience is a major reason behind the failure of Project Waler as the Army stuck with what it knew worked in combat regardless of wider aspects such as changing defence policies and environment.

In my mind if you want to have Project Waler as the Land 400 of the 80s you need to hit the Army over the head with the need for wheeled vehicles on the day the project starts. If the Regular Army has a wheeled AFV unit from 1960 then it would be virtual heresy for it not to be part of Project Waler in 1980.

I'm only using land 400 as the mix of wheeled, track and tank afv buy. I agree whole heartily that if the Army had kept wheeled afvs it would make everything easier.
However less than a decade late the army ends up getting the ASLAV and starts the bushranger program and there would still be people who thought in Vietnam in the army at this time. Additionally the army was looking at both wheeled and tracked afvs during project waler. So it wouldn't be too hard of a change for the army to get both i would think in the 80s during project waler

 

[Apophenia]

... In my mind if you want to have Project Waler as the Land 400 of the 80s you need to hit the Army over the head with the need for wheeled vehicles on the day the project starts...

But wouldn't that just pushes LAND 112 further back in time? And with the same ultimate outcome - overloaded 8x8 AFVs. An alternative outcome might result if this ATL Project Waler was split into two classes of vehicles - one wheeled, one tracked. The roles could then be divided between whichever drive systems best-suited.

The wheeled portion of this 'what-if' Project Waler will invariably choose some form of Ur-ASLAV. The USMC took delivery of its first amphibious LAV-25s in1983. Earlier adoption of an ASLAV Type I (ASLAV-25) opens the door to active co-development with DDGM-Canada of the ASLAV Type II hulls.

In Canada, DND was having trouble reaching a decision on wheeled APCs (mainly due to then-Col. Roméo Dallaire's fixation on new M113A3s). Had there been a co-development partnership between GM companies in Australia and Canada, DND would have been quicker to adopt what became the Bison APC and Coyote recce vehicles ... and the ADF could be fielding its first ASLAVs by the mid-80s.

By the mid-80s, costs for Project Waler were spiralling. In 1981, AUD 500M had been budgeted for 700 vehicles. By 1984, AUD 638M would be required to acquire 650 vehicles. My idea of two distinct vehicle types could only exacerbate rising costs. As such, I would suggest retaining M113s for some basic support roles along with orders for 250 x 'Wheeled Walers' and 250 x 'Tracked Walers'.

Wheels - ASLAV component of Project Waler

I note that the Holden Dandenong Plant was first closed in 1988. Now imagine main assembly of Holden autos being concentrated at Elizabeth, SA, earlier while Dandenong becomes the final assembly point for a GM-Holden Defence Ltd. Below I will list my imaginary LAV II-based ASLAV variants (which, just for fun, I have also assigned Australian mammal names):

Dingo-R; ASLAV-25 (Recce) = LAV-25 analogue with Delco turret
-- Main role: Recce-by-stealth; secondary: DFS & support for ASLAV-S

Dingo-S; ASLAV-S (Surveillance) = Coyote analogue; Delco turret
-- Main role: Surveillance (MSTAR radar; EO/IR; video; laser rangefinder)

Buffalo-PC; ASLAV-PC (Personnel Carrier) = Bison APC analogue

Buffalo-C; ASLAV-C (Command) = Bison CP analogue

Buffalo-A; ASLAV-A (Ambulance) = Bison Amb analogue

With the quieter and faster-moving roles covered by ASLAV, that leaves us with the tracked component of Project Waler.

Tracks - Marder/TAM component of Project [/i]Waler[/i]

This is another target of opportunity. I'm aware that the West German Marder was looked at for the RW Project Waler. By then, production of the Marder had ended but the derived Thyssen-Henschel TAM series (later TH 301 and 302) had begun in Argentina. However, due to a faltering Argentive economy, the Córdoba-based AMSE plant was shuttered in 1983.

RW, that shuttered turned out to be temporary. But what if (perhaps, through Thyssen-Henschel) Australia were to purchase TAMSE tooling related to the TAM during that difficult economic time? Rail-shipped to Buenos Aires, the TAMSE equipment could be loaded at Puerto Nuevo for the sea voyage to Oz.

Now Project [/i]Waler[/i] has a second iron in the fire. I am imagining a new Thyssen-Henschel Australia pty (Redbank, QLD?) as prime. The key point here is that, like the RW Project [/i]Waler[/i] but unlike the RW ASLAV, both vehicle types would be built - not just final assembly - in Australia.

The tracked vehicle range would be as follows (and again, just for fun, I've assigned Aussie reptile names to each sub-type).

Dragon-105; ASTAV-105 = TAM analogue; L7A2 main gun

Dragon-57; ASTAV-57 = TAM derivative; 57 mm Bofors gun
- Alternative armament (if anti-armour emph.) 60 mm IMI HVMS

Goanna-IFV; ASTAV-IFV; TAMSE VCTP APC analogue
- Infantry carrier;* 25 mm Delco turret (as per ASLAV-25)
-- * NB: Not an ISC (can only carry 1.5 'bricks' of Section)

Goanna-120; ASTAV-120; VCTM mortar carrier analogue
- Goanna-120 mortar carrier lacks the IFV's Delco turret

Varanid-CP; ASTAV-CP; VCTP analogue with raised roof
- Varanid Command Post lacks Goanna-IFV's turret

Varanid-RV; ASTAV-RV; raised roof ARV Eng vehicle

Skink-DT; ASTAV-DT = TAM analogue driver trainer

I've included the ASTAV-105 TAM analogue for fun. I doubt that the Australian Army perceived of any real need for an IFV-based tank destroyer. And, perhaps, missing in all this is a larger calibre DFS vehicle akin to the Saladin- and Scorpion-turreted M113 conversions?

Okay, I've wading in where I don't really belong! Brick-bats? Return fire?

 

[Caryina2642]

I think you would need more than 250x wheeled and 250x tracked AFVs im not quite sure how many ypu would need but there would be 7x regiments worth of wheeled afvs and 2/3x tracked regiments & 3x infantry battalions worth of tracked ifvs

Yeah the wheeled afv would just be an ealier ASLAV with the same variants as the Army got. I like the dingo name for the aslav
For the tracked afvs I was thinking going with what the dutch replaced there m113s with the AIFV.
I would call it waler in my opinion. I think the army would get an
Infantry Section Carrier (IFV)
APC variant
Recconissance Variant (like an m3 bradley)
Surveillance variant
Command post variant
Ambulance variant
120mm or 81mm mortar variant
And maybe a AA defence variant

 

[Rule of cool]

........ less than a decade late .....

This might be the biggest problem with Australia's defence procurement in the post WW2 era, it started so long ago that I saw a paper written about it published in 1975. The capital equipment purchasing cycle is usually 5, 10 and even more years too long in so many instances that it's basically accepted as a fact rather than being hated and fought with every thing possible.

For this reason at the very least is why I bang on about making the best use of the 50s wheeled AFVs, if nothing else they'd set the clock ticking for wheeled AFVs to be replaced in the 70s instead of having a 15 vehicle trial as late as 1989 after almost a decade of wasted project cycle that still didn't deliver an M113 replacement.

 

[Caryina2642]

This might be the biggest problem with Australia's defence procurement in the post WW2 era, it started so long ago that I saw a paper written about it published in 1975. The capital equipment purchasing cycle is usually 5, 10 and even more years too long in so many instances that it's basically accepted as a fact rather than being hated and fought with every thing possible.

For this reason at the very least is why I bang on about making the best use of the 50s wheeled AFVs, if nothing else they'd set the clock ticking for wheeled AFVs to be replaced in the 70s instead of having a 15 vehicle trial as late as 1989 after almost a decade of wasted project cycle that still didn't deliver an M113 replacement.

I say its Australia's biggest problem when it comes to defence its always too little, too late & over budget when it comes to procurement, its a shame really.

 

[Caryina2642]

With the Australia designing and building multiple defence types & classes of naval ships in the 70s onwards, would the government be more game to go award with other indigenous projects such as the AAC Wamira
The RAAF wanted 69 and it was entered into the competition to replace the RAF Jet Provost and if it somehow one it would have lead to 130 being built under lienece by short for the RAF (Plus possibly another 16x for Kuwait & 12x for Kenya)
With this success under it belt would the government be more game to produce more indigenous aircraft for the RAAF.
Possibly a DHC-4 Caribou replacement in the 90s
Maybe a UH-1 & AH-1 replacement in the 90s

 

[Rule of cool]

7x regiments worth of wheeled afvs and 2/3x tracked regiments & 3x infantry battalions worth of tracked ifvs

That's a huge number of units, IIUC 4 CMF regiments were equipped with M113 and 3 RA units at any 1 time had the M113, with 5/7RAR being the only Mech btn.

What would be interesting is to track the number of M113 sqns active at any one time. While 2, 3 & 4 Cav existed at the same time I doubt there were 9 sqns, indeed I think 6 or 7 would pull it up and wouldn't be surprised if there were only 5 at times. IIRC 5/7 Mech was only manned to 70% establishment in the 80s, so wouldn't need the full complement of vehicles.

Same with the Reserve RRAC regiments, I wouldn't be surprised ithe 4 or so regiments had a single sqn of M113s on call up.

The said with 800 or more M113s delivered I suspect the Army had enough vehicles to get those 7 or 8 units full up to strength quickly if needed.

 

[Caryina2642]

That's a huge number of units, IIUC 4 CMF regiments were equipped with M113 and 3 RA units at any 1 time had the M113, with 5/7RAR being the only Mech btn.

What would be interesting is to track the number of M113 sqns active at any one time. While 2, 3 & 4 Cav existed at the same time I doubt there were 9 sqns, indeed I think 6 or 7 would pull it up and wouldn't be surprised if there were only 5 at times. IIRC 5/7 Mech was only manned to 70% establishment in the 80s, so wouldn't need the full complement of vehicles.

Same with the Reserve RRAC regiments, I wouldn't be surprised ithe 4 or so regiments had a single sqn of M113s on call up.

The said with 800 or more M113s delivered I suspect the Army had enough vehicles to get those 7 or 8 units full up to strength quickly if needed.

Yeah that is true. I'm pretty sure some of the reserve squadrons were like A squadron, 3rd/9th light Horse Regiment, but that was what i was thinking have the numbers to be able expanded when needed .
I feel if you have more than you actually need on a day to day basis it allows for better maintenance, attrition rates and when required you can surge numbers or expanded squadrons into full regiments

 

[Rule of cool]

How do some of these procurements impact on others?

For example, the decades long Army-Navy spat over amphibious ships and the acquisition of the air portable M113 in the early 60s and the long-range, self-deployment capability arguments in Project Waler in the mid 80s. If the Navy had acquired the seagoing, large-ish LSM Mk2 in the 70s instead of the coastal, small-ish LCH would Project Waler have looked different? Might the mostly tracked nature of the project be OK if a single LSM Mk2 could deliver a full sqn of these AFVs to anywhere along the Australian coast or islands within a few days?

 

[Caryina2642]

How do some of these procurements impact on others?

For example, the decades long Army-Navy spat over amphibious ships and the acquisition of the air portable M113 in the early 60s and the long-range, self-deployment capability arguments in Project Waler in the mid 80s. If the Navy had acquired the seagoing, large-ish LSM Mk2 in the 70s instead of the coastal, small-ish LCH would Project Waler have looked different? Might the mostly tracked nature of the project be OK if a single LSM Mk2 could deliver a full sqn of these AFVs to anywhere along the Australian coast or islands within a few days?

Not sure i haven't really thought along those lines there. I think the lSM Mk2 was going to be around but slightly smaller than HMAS Tobruk was. Tobruk could carry 18 MBTs and 40 M113s. So i would say LSM mk2 would be able to carry a similar buy slightly smaller load. It's funny how the army had no requirement for tobruk to be able to beach except the ran wanted it do the ship had flexibility. Yet they where up in arms about the other wanting the LSM mk2s to have beaching capability the hypocrisy