Land Warfare: Is Land 400 out of step with today's combat needs? | ADM Mar 08

1 March 2008

By Tom Muir

We may be wrong (we sometimes are) but we believe that there is a serious disconnect between the timing and aims of Land 400, Survivability of Land Forces and the situation, as it is today, on the ground.

In themselves, L400's aims are worthy ones, directed at enhancing the survivability of land forces in combat operations.

But the timelines and means to achieve these aims is questionable.

According to L400's take on Capability Need and Gap, "combat vehicle systems are a vital part of the combined arms team and allow it to prevail in close combat in complex terrain across the full spectrum of possible missions.

"Current operations reinforce this need."

It then goes on to state that "current combat vehicle systems and their planned upgrades are adequate for mid-term operational scenarios but will become increasingly vulnerable to future threats, and increasingly expensive to operate."

As to timing, L400 sees the life of type of current land fighting vehicle systems, (ASLAV and M113A1) as being around 2020 but that replacement of some elements of the system could begin in 2015.

Our contention is that current combat vehicle systems and their planned upgrades are not only inadequate for mid-term operational scenarios, (assuming mid-term to be five or seven years hence) but are little more than borderline in terms of the protection and fighting capabilities they now provide for our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Currently in play
And what are these so-called combat vehicle systems?

The ADF's light armoured vehicle, the ASLAV, is a reconnaissance vehicle and as such does not offer anywhere near the protection levels mandated in current projects such as Land 17.

There is more protection planned for artillery than soldiers travelling.

While the ASLAV platform has the versatility to accommodate a variety of roles including ASLAV-PC, a properly protected armoured personnel carrier (APC) isn't one of them.

Nor will the upgrade proposed under Land 112 (ASLAV Enhancement) which, although it leans heavily to mine and ballistic protection, is compromised by weight increases that limit its current amphibious and land mobility.

Upgrading ageing ASLAVs will not fully serve the purpose of L400 anymore than it will turn them into LAV-3s** or Stryker combat support vehicles.

As to the M113A1, we are faced with a system that flies in the face of modern combat vehicle technology exemplified by infantry fighting vehicles such as the KMW Puma and the Artec Boxer, or others in the UK's current crop of Future Rapid Effects Systems (FRES) contenders, as well as the manned and unmanned systems being dreamed up for the US Future Combat System program.

As we have previously pointed out, with Abrams M1A1 tanks at the top and lightweight ASLAVs and M113s at the bottom, the Army lacks any real punch in its middle section.

Should we not use L400 to fast track the acquisition of its priority capability (the Infantry Fighting Vehicle) before getting bogged down in the definition, evaluation, testing and acquisition of the project's other capabilities of lesser importance?

We don't need an officially endorsed future force structure to know that M1A1 firepower alone isn't going to win any battles without suitably protected infantry moving up in close formation.

Proposed plan
Our view is that the current M113A1 upgrade should be scrapped and the upgrade proposed for the ASLAVs be limited to those required for rear echelon and similar operations.

Immediate steps should be taken to acquire properly protected and armed, infantry fighting vehicles such as the IMVs proposed by industry for L400 or those others currently in contention for the UK FRES program, or even an off-the-shelf interim capability such as LAV-3s or Strykers, from their current their production lines.

An important issue is that, unlike the incumbent fleet, these European and North American systems are suited to the incorporation of today's smart technologies available for mission role systems, including surveillance, C2, battle management systems and communications.

The rolling acquisition of a manageable number of systems a year, to ease doctrinal, training and support aspects of their introduction into service, could be linked to ongoing improvements in the form of spiral development that provides for the insertion of upgrades as new technologies and new requirements develop and come on-line over time.

The ADF will then have the capabilities to meet and defeat the kind of adversary exemplified in the Army's own Complex Warfighting doctrine.

As we have seen in Afghanistan engagements, these are able to remain below the detection threshold until committed to engagement.

In prosecuting such adversaries, land combat forces must be sufficiently protected to survive first strikes and be able to respond rapidly in order to regain combat initiative.

**In some ways the New Zealand LAV-3 is an improvement on the Stryker LAV, with many small, but important, improvements.

All 105 of the New Zealand vehicles have a turret with a 25mm automatic cannon and have room in the back for ten troops.

Seven LAVs are equipped for engineer work and three used as recovery vehicles.

The 14 tonne, 8x8 vehicle has a maximum road speed of 100 kilometers an hour.

The Future Rapid Effects Systems (FRES) program

With a potential value of £16 billion and through-life cost three times that amount, the Future Rapid Effects Systems (FRES) is the largest armoured fighting vehicle program in Europe, with up to 3000 vehicles expected to be procured.

At present, the competition for the procurement of about 2000 8x8 FRES Utility Vehicles (UV) is underway toward fielding in 2012.

This family of wheeled vehicles will include a number of support type variants while variants a follow-on procurement is expected to include land combat, troop carrier, mobile gun and mortar vehicle systems, based on a different tracked or wheeled platform.

The three finalists for the UV are:

* the French Nexter VBCI,

* the German-Dutch BOXER built by Artec, and

* the Swiss-made GD/MOWAG Piranha Evolution.

All three participated in intensive trials held in mid-2007 and a preferred tenderer was due to be selected before the end of the year.

However this has been deferred for possibly another three months.

Baroness Taylor Minister for Defence Equipment and Support said: "The trials were successfully completed on schedule but it is important that we get this decision right as the FRES program has a vital role to play in the future of the Army.

"A technical recommendation has been produced and there will now be a brief period of work to clarify the commercial implications of the proposals, following which one vehicle will be announced as the preferred design to continue through to the next stage of the FRES program."