I think Australia made a good choice. The opportunity to receive FDI and technology transfer from SK should be attracting a lot more Western governments. If the UK was savy they would be teaming with SK to build parts for K2 tanks and K9 SPGs to be assembled in Poland. I would already bet money that Challenger 3 turns out to be a boondoggle.
Certainly the AS21 is decades better! ..than the resonance-sickness inducing alleged embezzlement-project Ajax failure, that the UK's Commiservatives/Neo-Cons are still chasing as an avenue to withdraw national monies into their very many pockets while stripping what they can whilst appearing to be providing/procuring something as a misdirection ploy. I wish the UK would also get this vehicle system for its forces rather than the General Deceptions Laundering Diviosion's Ajax.
It seems unreasonably heavy, you could get a tank that weighs less than this thing. It's too heavy to cross normal road bridges with a 36T limit. Like the Bradley, makes no sense that a vehicle with minimal (even trivial) armor weighs more than a tank.
Lol what do u think the U.K. needs to learn from anyone it is top tier when it comes to weapons manufacturing BAE systems can produce anything it needs and the U.K. doesn’t need Korea to build a tank the k2 tank will not be as good as c3 and why would the U.K. buy a tank off the shelf that would require changing everything from training aids to tank tracks to transportation that makes no sense which was why they didn’t buy leopards
@@MrTangolizard plus our needs not their needs. Though i have my reservations with vickers design team, their R&D team, lol nah, they give me a run. Also Nicolas Moran once said, there is no best tank, only the best tank for you.
I'm happy the prefered platform was chosen and I'm sure it will serve well after the inevitable teething issues are ironed out. I do prefer the visual aesthetics of the Lynx, but I would always chose the better platform, plus Redback as a vehicle name is just a sweet name. I do however think 129 units is going to become an issue in a few years down the track when the DSR is quietly forgotten, they did originally want 450 for a reason. If anything they'll want a few more to cover the inevitable attrition. Let's just say I won't be the least bit suprised if in, say the next five to eight years, that the MoD makes an announcement of purchasing at least 100 more. So suggestion for video topic the corvette/light frigate debate. While I think it sounds like a good idea in theory I suspect that the numbers won't stack up. Say they cut the Hunter order to six and order three corvettes for every Hunter they cut, nine corvettes aren't going to face of with a [Regional Competitor] destroyer, they don't have the firepower or robustness. That's even before we even get to the issue of seakeeping, which is very different in benign vs. hostile environment.
@@Alan.livingston absolutely. I bet the Brits are kicking themselves for scrapping the Chieftans and the Germans for not putting the experimental 120mm armed turret on the Leopard 1. A bolt action rifle was obsolete by WW2, but it didn't stop it being used in bulk.
@@martinsmith9054 that’s it hey, with the wunderwaffen you have to hope the war is asymmetrical or if it’s (near)peer you can put them on the canvas in the first round of the fight. If you don’t you are chucking rocks after a few weeks.
Glad you said Australia helped design the Redback from the original K21 Korean as many will think is just a Korean. even uses the Bushmaster machine gun turret.
australia didn't really help the design of the redback. koreans implemented turrets made by EOS, just a strategy to localize parts. has got nothing to do with design process.
Man I’m so glad I found you, I follow a couple of American guys and they’re brilliant habitual linecrosser is both hilarious and full of information and he has covered some Australian things but obviously focuses on American stuff and a lot of nato. task and purpose is also a very good guy. So it’s good to get an Aussie perspective
Australia made a good choice. AS21 Redback IFV is a very solid pick, ether way, it was a huge improvement over the m113. With any luck the order will be increased. With any luck they'll hit 450, just not as soon as we'd hoped. Australia should never have bought the Boxer APC from Germany. The Boxer also has the identical optics, turret and armament of the Lynx.
I agree with you in that a increase in the number ordered would possibly be on the cards after the initial production and teething problems have been ironed out.
I suspect that the reduction in order numbers has a lot to do with a shift in focus to the new AUKUS treaty. With the current geopolitical climate, it makes more sense to invest in off shore deterrence such as submarines, amphibious assault vessels, frigates, helicopters, drones and fighters. We are less likely to end up involved in a major land based conflict like we have been the last 30 years in the Middle East. It’s much more likely we will be involved in an island hopping campaign through the South China Sea where the benefits of huge IFVs and tanks are somewhat irrelevant.
A great clip. Short, sharp and to the point. If only many senior officers could speak so lucidly, instead of constantly drifting into 'Mil-Speak'. A treatment of the proposed landing craft is also suggested once there is enough information available.
As result of this outcome, SoKo is considering ordering Redback IFV as the current stock of SoKo's IFV are not heavy armored, and fleet is ageing. Hanwha needed this result so that they could convince S.Korean army to buy Redback as SoKoArmy is their largest customer.
Perhaps one of the biggest pro's for Hanwha is that they are fast. They can offer fast and in South Korea they produce military equipment like tanks, IFV's and howitzers more like a car factory then a traditional manufacturer. They have the knowledge for it and they are willing to export it. In Poland they have a joint venture with an old tank factory somewhere in that country and Poland has purchased 1000 K2 tanks, many howitzers and also undercarriages for their KRAB howitzers, K239 MLRS and a jet called F50. It makes Poland and Hanwha one of the biggest producers of heavy equipment in a regio where there is a big demand for that equipment. I mean crazy like it sounds. Germany has a demand for a GTK Boxer heavy weapons carrier, as they call in, I think it is an Australian development.(CVRT perhaps?) The Boxer is a European armoured car, but Rheinmetall will build this vehicle in Australia, because in Europe there is no room on the production lines.
i hope that we keep ordering more as we go on, just to keep the production line open until its replacement....or if south korea or other nations want it for export. it seems like a very solid pick, ether way, it was a huge improvement over the m113. video suggestion, i dont know if australia has war stocks/reserves of vehicles, could ou please do a video?
The M113 was never intended to engage in combat it was suposed to deliver troops to the combat zone and piss off back to a safe zone untill it was time for the crunchies to bug out.Once it entered service everyone started treated it like the tank it was never intended to be and an endless litany of destroyed APC`s was the result.
Because Labor is in and alway's destroys our defence and cuts it's budget. Main Australian defence is going for long range missiles. spending big on hypersonics and Navy and Airforce will be recieving more funds and cutting back on Ground forces and their equipment. Planning to fight air and sea far from Australia is the way defence is thinking now.
I left the army 20 years ago after serving in 5/7 RAR (Mechanised), I find it hilarious that we are still utilising the M113 platform...... Mind you, it works if used for what it was designed for. Great vid mate, thanks.
Love the channel. Do you think Australia needs to take the concept of short range air defence more seriously? With the IFV now selected in my humble opinion something like the Swedish solution would not be the worst idea. A dedicated anti aircraft variant of the current APC with radar and such should be feasible especially with domestic production on the table.
I think a combined Gun/Missile system mounted on a vehicle is critical for short-range air defence of ground forces. Russia and China already have them in service.
Not sure if South Korea has any such variants on this chassis, but if they were to develop one, I'm sure Australia would be a potential customer, following your thinking. The question may be whether some other platform (some US designed/manufactured one) would compete for that capability.
The defence force is prioritising the Air Force and Navy for Defense, our army is almost strictly for offensive which is evident in why there is a massive push for training and gearing towards naval invasions
We need long range defensive missiles, good navy and good airforce... we don't need to do force projection. We need to be a deterrent, not an aggressor. We need to follow Japan's model, but have longer range.
@elbrados wouldn't a submarine do that job better though? Maybe I'm missing something, but I would've thought the nuke subs we intend on leasing and purchasing fit the same role.
(From Canada) Sounds like the decision that makes the most sense, given what else Aus is going to be fielding. Let's hope the quality holds up under real-world conditions. The strategic supply lines issue is no small thing, considering that the danger of getting into a war with China is lurking in every planner's mind. However, on that subject, I would also like to point out that such considerations work both ways: If there is a big war against China in the west Pacific, South Korea will be in more peril of having its production destroyed. Therefore, if Australia is also making these same weapon systems, there is a possibility that Australia's production facilities will be untouched, and can produce these vehicles to resupply South Korea in *their* time of urgent need. As someone else mentioned, the Australian version already seems to have prompted SK to upgrade their own.
I think the Active Protection System (APS), together with the Remote Weapon Station (RWS), should go a long way in providing some protection against Drones.
Yes and no. Our Army won't be able to contribute anywhere near as much to allied ops without them, but how many more ships or planes can we get instead? Both are far more essential to the Pacific theater. Not to mention missiles and drones. "Just get them all" is probably a reasonable answer too though, we're a wealthy nation and we all know what's coming. Even Labor seems to know.
Yes true. We need 6 Active Mechnz. Brigades + 3 Reserve. Also 6 Cavalry Rgts 75 X 6 ...450 KF- 47F IFV, 2 Armoured Rgts (150 M1-A2 Abrams MBTs), 600 AS21 Redback IFV, 450 105 mm Guns, 150 K2 Sp./ Guns, 75 Apache Helicopter, 36 NASSAM- 2 SAM, 150 Stinger -1 SAM, about 3000 Troop Carting Vehicles, 650 81 mm Mortars, 650 Car Gustaf ATGW. Also 3 more Perth Class Missile Destroyers, 12 Hunter Class Frigates, 4 Nuclear Submarines, 12 Los Angeles Class Submarines, 9 LST, 3 LSV, 3 Transports, 3 LPH. Plus 75 F/A- 18F (In 4 Air Defence Sqds), 36 A10 (2 Group Attack Sqds), 24 C- 13F transports, 36 B- 1B Bombers (2 ALong Range Bomber Sqds). About 25 Air Ports, 12 Navy Bases, 65 Army Bases, 18 Ammunition Storage Bases, 9 Refiling Bases. Also 50 000 Army and 25 000 Reserves. Plus 25 000 Navy, 25 000 Airforce Personnel and 12 500 Civil Defence. Plus about 650 Long Range Ship Attacking. Missiles
@@georgedimakopoulos3581 Why not British Astute Class or Virginia Class SSNs? Los Angeles Class subs are running on 1990s tech at best and require crews of 130.
Thank for this briefing and explanation as I have been asking the same question. My only concern, is the reduced numbers. I understand the other acquisitions such as Himars, K9's, Apaches etc but we a rich Country and yes, our defence spend is right up there, but we simply need more than we have, including feet on the ground.
Of all three purchases, the Redback should be the one built in sufficient numbers for both our regular armoured forces and reserve armoured forces as has been seen in Ukraine AFVS IFVS with good anti tank weapons can make even MBTs lives very difficult I also think we should build more of the artillery systems with a view to stretching out and extending the purchase build rate.i know Marles has a hard on for missile systems, but it must be asked will those systems be land based mobile, air launched, or naval even in any use case one must look at the missions that will be requirements you have to have firepower to protect bases from insurgent type attacks in low and medium intensity warfare. Or in the case of mobile ground launch systems escorts, and no one has mentioned that in all this we have not looked at a theatre air defence system. And what give me the shits we still have government amateurs without a clue about vertical envelopment warfare and the logistics all these toys require.
We are also getting HIMARS (newer and more advanced versions with munitions with range of 70-300km, far longer than Ukraine's current 60km range) and 211 Boxer CRVs which is similar to Red Backs minus the 8-man passengers and adding anti-tank missiles. The Red Backs is officially replacing the 450 old M113 personnel carriers which has already been replaced by 1,052 Bushmaster armored personnel carriers. We recently sent I think 70? Bushmasters to Ukraine, don't know why we don't just send them our entire pile of M113s.
The AS21 has almost nothing in common with the K21 apart from the IFV designation. Just part of the marketing strategy as it is in reality an all new build vehicle.(more like comparing a Hornet to a Super Hornet) As for the AS4 it turns out it's working quite well in Ukraine as an APC as is the Bushmaster but will not provide crew protection against anti tank mines due to its flat lighly armoured bottom. BTW it took a direct hit from a tank round to finally take out the crew of a Bushmaster and that wouldn't have happened if they weren't using it as a IFV.
The differences sound same as uk ajax about 40tons compared to the original ascod1 about 30t . A completely new vehicle except the ajax seemingly used the same chassis causing problems. Everyone has prob learnt from ajax project and its noticeable that all new ifv are same similar weight of 40tons and even more
It’s cause after the K21 was done being designed, the Koreans started research and development on its replacement, the K31. The design and new ideas from which developed into the AS21 Redback. When the Koreans eventually come out with the K31 it will probably have similar features to the Redback with even more improvements from testing and errors made on the AS21
129 is more than enough to protect a peacekeeping force in Timor/Solomons or another Middle-East war. Australia needs platforms firing anti-ship missiles for homeland defence a helluva lot more than ground combat units.
After a long assessment and mitigation phase which defence spent millions on we get...129. When are the M113 going to soldier on until? Curious what the cost per unit is now the order has been significantly reduced. The CV90 they excluded from land 400 phase 3 on the basis of cost per unit. It may be that the Redback is now more costly. I'm curious also about how much Australian content this will have apart from the steel and supply chain logistics - main gun - American, turrent assembled in Israel, ATGW and APS - Israeli, track - canadian, other armour - american, engine german, transmission - american. Hanwa are probably more probably described as an IFV assembler rather than manufacturer. The government have further downgraded Australian involvement by agreeing to more units being built in Korea to delivery faster. If you read some of the ASPI literature Hanwa were leaned on heavily to include Australian industry content and Hanwa reluctantly did so. If Hanwa do a deal with Poland (or others) for an IFV based on the AS21 how much Australian content would be included? Or would they simply assemble most in Korea and finish in Poland excluding any Australian companies from involvement. I'm sure the Redback is very capable and a massive leap forward over the M113 but the 400 asked for should be built. Another example of government creating a sow's ear out of a silk purse.
Everytime Defence procures anything, politicians apply the porkbarrel test, and it always comes down to suppliers agreeing local content, jobs, building new factories for very small production runs. The result is always the same. The platform is years late, over budget because of lack of skilled workers, quality and supply chain issues. The Land 400 Phase 3 programme is the most recent example; The Germans already have a well developed mature factory in Brisbane that is building military vehicles for the Australian and German Armies. So why do we need to replicate this capability just to put a factory in an area of high unemployment like Geelong for 129 vehicles (when the original requirement was for 450 vehicles)?
The 129 vehicles of the first production run will be followed by further runs as one requirement after another is met until far more than 450 are in service, plus more will be built for export. This is how many defence equipment contracts are structured, request many, get a few as a 'cost effective option', then keep on making more and more as one upgrade or urgent need manifests itself until the original order is met and hopefully exceeded. Also the whole program can be 'enriched' by 'upgrade' and 'capability enhancement' modifications to generate income for decades. The Australian Abrams tank program is a case in point.
I thought they'd go with the Redback, simply to syngergize with the building of the other South Korean purchases down in VIC...and I think it is a good choice...we should've had IFV decades ago, glad we finally got there and glad we chose such a great vehicle. Yeah, I wouldn't buy any more crap from Europe after the Taipan and Tiger distasters, both really bad decisions...we should've stayed with the Blackhawks (instead of siwtching to the Taipan) and we should've gone with the Apache rather than the TIger. I'm really disappointed i eth current goverment fro making the decision to cut the numbers on these and other Army acquisitions. I understand that competing importance of the nuclear subs and the advanced anti-shipping missile system we are getting involved in now (and should have long before now), but we should have found the money somehow to keep the numbers up...we should have been able to kit out and entire brigade with IFV's rather than just a battalion...I guess at the very least because we are making them here in Australia we will have the option of increasing the numbers of vehicles in the future...
Crew feedback is critical. However we’ve complicated our support logistics by going with both Rheinmetal (armoured reconnaissance vehicles) and Hanwa (AFV). Rheinmetal is not Airbus. They have a proven track record in delivery
It has been a long time that the Army has needed the capability supplied by the three new vehicles. The numbers being purchased are inadequate and we need twice as many of each vehicle as a minimum and should also be looking at a Drone command vehicle and launch vehicles as well. IE an artillery system that is delivered by Kamikaze drones with 10kg warheads at 60 to 80 km from launch point.
They are being manufactured here in Geelong. Not in France, not Germany or the US. That will count in the long run if numbers need to be boosted in a hurry.
I still can't help but think of, ( when it comes to armoured vehicles), how the crews in a fight when hit, burn to death. Maybe as much thought should be put into building in a human friendly anti fire suppression system as much thought is put into weapons and armour systems. I mean , look at those Sailors that died in Western Australia whilst in port. This issue should be a high priority imo. It costs a lot to train each Sailor, Soldier, Airman. Surely the investment in human friendly anti fire research investment is worth it ?
@@mike9347 I would doubt any designer or engineer (especially Korean ones) would spec out a fire-suppression system that would kill the infantry riding inside. That would be a sales marketing nightmare. The specs are set by Aussie SDF. I am sure it is safe - it would be unreasonable to think otherwise. It would defy all logic to put in something that would kill rather than protect. The video I watched put out a fire in seconds. There are air cleaners inside to filter out contaminants against bio-chemical-nuclear attack.
Following your explanation about supply lines and risk mitigation Australia should never have bought the Boxer APC from Germany. The Boxer also has the identical optics, turret and armament of the Lynx. Furthermore, unlike the Redback, the Lynx is modular like the Boxer and can take on various additional tasks such as recovery vehicles or light battle tanks. In view of the reduction in volume, I tend to suspect that the decision was made for political reasons only, like the submarines. And so that the damage to the army is not so great, the number of pieces has been reduced. Unfortunate for Australia.
Surely you're not suggesting the current ALP government has put political decision making ahead of operational and logistical considerations? Well, I never....
Supply line is a rubbish excuse used by politicians with an alteria motive, Labor hate Europe and loves Asia it's that simple, plus jobs in Victoria for chairman dan!
It sounds like the minor edge of crew positive feedback and logistics won out in the end. The crew positive feedback is straightforward, and I guess the Australian army don't wan't to be left in the same position as they were with the Eurocopter Tiger where they were expecting large orders in Europe that would keep the Tiger relevant and updated, never materialized. With the Redback, parts commonality with the K21 and the AS9/K9 AS10/K10, plus a Korea having 421 K21s in active service, as well as a drive to produce Korean Indigenous defence equipment so they don't get left without good kit as they had been in the Korean war is good for Australia because it means that the AS21 will continue to evolve as the Korean army drives the demand. It's interesting that the US military has chosen to take the Lynx to the next phase instead of the Hanwa/Oshkosh bid, I guess there is no concern over logistics because when the US makes an IFV they do it in the thousands, produced in the US, instead of hundreds so no logistics issues.
129 vehicles, but only 1 battalion equipped? Two large Armoured Infantry battalions along with FIST and engineer vehicles could easily be equipped with that many. Unless Australian battalions are much larger than normal.
I don’t think it just Combat variants, there will be command, ambulances, recovery and spares. If it is roughly 1 sections = 2 IFV, about 6 per platoon, about 24 per company, 96 per Battalion.
@thomasb5600 These are not for cavalry squadrons, which were larger. An armoured infantry company usually has 14 vehicles. 2x HQ and 3x platoons ,each with 4.
Good Brief, It would have been a better move for the army to have more Redbacks (say 250-300) and more KS9 and KS10's to 40-45 KS9's and 20-24 KS10's to give greater depth to to mobility and armored vehicles.
The thing is, even with the order cut, the M113 still has to go, so its either more Boxers and less Redbacks over the medium term, or more Bushies and more Redbacks. Politically though they probably cut the order to make themselves look financially responsible but are prepared to waste more money into the future on further acquisitions so i reckon will probably see either another order for a few hundred more in several years time, or multiple acquisition in batches of 50 over 5-10 yeaars to pad out the mechanised battalions that will keep the production line open, and provide facilitiies to refurbish X jumber of units per year on top of new builds.. As a side note, i would like to see the ADF take a leaf out of the IDF's book and repurpose chassis into a new role, i cant see any reason the M113AS4 or ALSAV chassis cannot be refurbished and be seen running around with an Avenger or Stormer like short range SAM system on it, especially if it can provide anti-drone support to any mecahnised or motorised assets.
Great video and tracks with some of what I've heard. One thing you briefly touched on was supply lines, and I'd like to expand slightly on that. Recently, it was announced that Rheinmetall Australia will be constructing 100 Boxer vehicle for export to Germany. If Rheinmetall's supply chain has been so hard hit with the events in Ukraine that they can no longer supply vehicles for their own country's military and have to rely on overseas manufacture (admittedly to our advantage!), then Australia could not be guaranteed to be a priority in terms of spares and service. South Korea, by comparison, seem to be adapting to the increase in military acquisition in Europe. While I don't doubt that building an entirely new manufacturing facility within Victoria will come with a whole boatload of teething issues, South Korea seems more willing and capable to supply overseas partners than Germany is at the current point in time.
The German Army didn't order Boxers in Australia because the German supply chains are busted but because all Boxer production lines in Germany itself are busy for the next 5+ years. The 128 Boxers ordered in Australia are only the 30 mm support vehicles for their medium forces, they have several hundred others on order in Germany in multiple versions including IFV (RCT-30), Artillery (RCH 155) and Air/Drone Defense (Skyranger 30, IRIS-T).
Being built in MINDEF's electorate wouldn't have hurt either. A little unfortunate that we now have another RPS to support, where there was some commonality between the Lynx and Boxer.
the AS21 has parts commonality with the AS9 though, so from that perspective I'd say they're roughly equivalent in logistical advantages of the Boxer/lynx (the exact degree would vary on the percentage and nature of the shared components of course).
The reduced complement is due to the prioritisation of the RAN & RAAF Also, calling it this or that “age” is oversimplifying an incredibly complex topic
@@DairyCatThe serious money on AUKUS subs won’t be spent until the 2030’s, when it will be some other governments problem. Cutting from 450 to 129 for a project to be completed by 2028 is so they can spend on the pet projects of inner city trendies now.
We need long range stand-off missile capability to make certain nations think before they send their fishing fleets and coast guard to Christmas Island (which we can't defend). IFVs are not going to help there.
AS4 will be in services for a few more years. My guess is they moved to the 2nd division and build mechanised battalions. We can't sell or even give away without US permission.
@@andreasbimba6519 towed artillery is far less useful than self-propelled in today's world, and with the need for trucks to actually tow them they take up more room on shipping
I wonder if ADF could put the US new developed 50mm auto cannon on some of these as a future upgrade on some of the redbacks IFV in the future. Have a mixture of both 30mm and a 50mm gun varent. I know you can get MP3 shells for the 50mm and it has more range. I think it would be good to have both. Maybe have 20 units of the redbacks with a 50mm gun the rest leave as 30mm.
Thanks, very useful analysis and well-presented too. Leaves me happy with the choice of the Redback. I was a fan of acquiring the Korean K2 Black Panther as a MBT replacement ... but I realise that's a pretty unconventional opinion :-)
@@craigbeatty8565 I'll expand. If an enemy can land troops on our shores at a time and place of their choosing, it implies they have defeated or beaten back the air force and navy. Therefore, they own the seas that bring in the trade we rely on. At that point invasion is unnecesary. We're cut off, nuetralised and at their mercy. All the IFVs and heavy armour in the world won't save you from an enemy that owns the sky and the sea.
I think the redback was a good choice and the rubber tracks are said to improve the condition of the infantry units traveling in the back something that would improve combat efficiency
Indeed. Some may laugh at the idea of improved comfort for the Infantry in the back, but if you want them to be able to fight effectively when they dismount, you want a comfortable ride.
Not only comfort, but less noise. Have you ever heard a M113 approaching you, particularly on a road run? The noise is unbelievable and travels far ahead of the vehicle, giving any enemy ample warning of it's approach!
This is all part of the plan to increase recruitment by forming the Australian Royal Army boy band, styled on Korean boy bands of course. So that is why we need all the Korean vehicles.
As Ukraine is showing, survivability is number one importance for crews and infantry in back. You can have a great gun but if you hit and antitank mine or light grenade launcher like RPG, you want the crews to survive to fight for another day.
Yes, Puma. The addition of RWS and APS should help in protecting against drone attack. As for mine resistance, this was a significant factor in the decision.
We've had the m113a1 in service now longer than we had the legendary MOUNTED Lighthorsemen... Be aware the new Chinese IFV has a 1,300bhp engine and they'll probably start with an order for 1,000. Wake up Dozystraya...
Rubber tracks don't last long on adverse terrain. I personally used the rubber track in Port Augusta on M113AS4 and it lasted 3 days and split off the rubber all the way to the metal. Without proper tools, its impossible to change this in hurry. This track would cost lives in the field as the metal track protects the tracks from incoming fire.
Thanks for this Shortstuff. Yes aware they don't last long, hopefully this was thoroughly tested during the trials. I did mention that changing rubber tracks in the field is difficult, as you say. Breaking link isn't fun, but at least the vehicle crew is able to do it.
Metal tracks can be gangrenous all by themselves at high speed (I have the scars to prove it). Rubber at 4kph on an excavator is all well and good but I hope they were extremely well tested here. They are a controversial choice. The rest of the package looks great but immobile is immobile and throwing a track at high speed is simply Leathal. 🤔
Can't have your cake and eat it. Tracks and wheels both have maintenance pro's and cons. Australian terrain's brutal on apc & ifv. You either shred tracks or shred tyres.
Tell that to Soucy Defense the maker of the CRT (your rubber tracks). The CRT provides 6 tons of weight savings and better ride comfort, less noise and less friction heat. It lasts for thousands of miles and can be repaired in the field much easier than the more heavy all metal tracks. The AS21 has ISU suspension which save crew space inside for more armor protection with its 6 tons of weight saving while the standard torsion bar suspension in the Lynx would not provide any protection but make the inside space smaller and be heavier for travel.
I don't know much about logistics but I assume the Lynx and the Boxer would have some level of commonality for parts and procedures? The Redbacks gun seems a bit small at 30mm given the yanks are slapping 50mm guns that shoot and penetrate at range far better, where as the lynx had a little more bite to it with a 35mm gun. Both IFV's are too heavy to really drop by aircraft.
If you took the time to mention that both Lynx and Boxer share some common parts, you should also (or should know) that As21 Redback has the exact same powerpack as the AS-9 Huntsman SPH to be built in Geelong. Similar ISU suspension parts also. Moreover, the 30mm cannon was the spec chosen by Australia but the AS21 can be upgraded to higher caliber cannon like a 50mm cannon in very short time without modifications by Bushmaster (designed to be modular from the very beginning to satisfy other buyers). Lastly, the AS21 is 42 tons and 2 units can fit and be flown by a C-17 transport plane. The weight limits for C-17 was already built in to the overall design.
@@jwb1227 Thanks. I did find out that the Redback and the Huntsman SPG have crossover component compatibilities after I posted the comment. I'm just a very amateurish enjoyer of military tech, I don't know much. Surely with the boxers and redbacks being so bulky it will be very hard for the military to transport assets rapidly? If the only aircraft that can move stuff are the c-17's and there's only 8 in the country, you're pretty immobile as a fighting force.
@@Waywind420 I don't think the Americans are expecting Aussie SDF to jump through hoops to transport weapons on schedule that is not feasible. Besides, now the pressure is on the Logistics Command of SDF to figure that out. What did the SDF do as far as planning to move the M113s? Probably by transport ships and transport planes. Nothing changed. Seems like SDF is down-sizing which is a trend these days. Everyone knows Americans are the ones to do the heavy lifting in military movements. I would not worry about what the SDF will do.
Poland a country vastly smaller in size to Australia have ordered way more(not sure exactly how many)...yes we should get more later down the line, or maybe get the KF41 lynx too.
Poland is also in alot more immediate danger. They have an aggressive expansionist enemy right on their doorstep. A land war for them is a very real threat at the moment. As it stands a land war in Australia is almost unthinkable. That situation is certainly changing but as much as it pains me to say, Defence does have higher priorities than armored vehicles.
Poland is nuts; Redback performed poorly in our testes and we have domestic Borsuk vehicle (which wasn't submitted to australian tender) and working on heavier variant of it.
@@piotrd.4850 There is no evidence of poor testing of the AS21 in Poland. The Polish staff conducting the test of AS21 said that the technology inside was 50-years ahead of their BMP. You don't need to spread fake news because you like the Borsuk. Borsuk is a good vehicle but not a competition for AS21 because of the differences in weight. Borsuk is a light/medium IFV because it has to float in water to cross rivers. The AS21 is HEAVY IFV designed to support heavier MBTs like the M1. The Huta Stalowa Wola (HSW) - part of PGZ - will build a HEAVY version IFV (name unknown currently - perhaps Borsuk Heavy??) based on the Korean K9 chassis (which is also same on AHS Krab) with Polish ZSSW turret. It should be good.
I wonder as Timoney Technology of Ireland are a supplier to the Korean company as of other countries that are clients of Timoney ie Singapore where Timoney have designed their vehicles such as the terrex av81 plus their tracked vehicles all designed by Timoney.
Reinmetall has production facilities in Australia, Hanwha had s to build there's We've spent so much money on Rheinmetall vehicles surely to Christ it made sense to get Lynx, and the new Panther tank and the German SP Artillery too for that matter. Whatever shortfall Lynx had could have easily been remedied. Could it be that Hanwha was was chosen to butter up South Korea to join a hot war in a fight over Taiwan?
It could be, and in a way, there's nothing wrong with that. Strategically speaking, the South Koreans are more important allies to Australia given the most likely adversaries.
The Germans/Rheinmetall does not handle "easily remidied" part very well. Germans are not known for fast turnaround on issues/fix. Look at the German Army's PUMA which is out of service due to defects. They had to use the retired Marder instead in NATO exercises. There were issues with the Boxer turret being too heavy for the chassis and additional protection systems are having some issues. The Germans/Rheinmetall was not that good in providing after-sale service to Australia, taking too long to respond to address issues brought up by Australia. The solders who tested both IFVs overwhelmingly preferred the AS21 with its better, comfortable ride with less noise while moving. The German BTU powerpack in AS21 also performed better than the Liebherr engine inside the Lynx. The BTU engine is more proven (BTU powers the Leopard 2A8 tank, not Liebherr). Moreover, you are kidding me with mentioning the Panther KF51 tank? It is not NATO compatible (logistics and supply chain) with its 130mm main gun. Panther is completely outside the current ecosystem for NATO weapons. Also, it is only a technology demonstration model by Rheinmetall - the German government did not even ask for it to be made. KMW's Leopard 2A8 is the MBT of choice for the Germans for another 20 years at least. The Panther will be forgotten in 5 years unless the Americans decide to change the main caliber of the tank gun which is highly unlikely for at least another 20 years.
@@alanbstard4 The 130mm main gun won't be standard everywhere for another 15-20 years based on the purchases of German Leopard 2A7/8 series and K2 Black Panthers all over the world. These tanks are built to last 20-30 years so your "soon everywhere" is bit misguided at best. The war in Ukraine has shown that heavy guns are not the game changer - more focus on drones and data link to share with all assets on the ground and in the air for a coordinated attack. Even the Panther will get slaughtered by ATGM missiles in a second it shows itself in a field. Save your money and wait for the next standard to set in ... in 15-20 years. The current logistics and supply chain cannot handle the 130mm rounds. What are you going to do when you run out of 130mm rounds because of lack of supply?
It is good that you mentioned the crews preference for the Redback over the Lynx. It has been proven during my time in the Army that the comfort of the crews is important, that is why getting the Abrams was appropriate over the Leopard and Challenger. It had more room and A/C, meaning the crew was more alert and not choked out on fumes. I would think cost, logistics and regional market is also a very big factor. The SP and the support vehicles also of the same company make for very big points in the commonality of the engine, whilst again, the logistical supply will be more reliable than that of any EU country, especially if it is linked with Germany...the Industrial might of that Nation has been quelled to an almost non existent state in the last few months. Of the report, the only questionable part would be the total waste of purchasing the most useless defence system available...HIMARS. The US force members I know that work with such equipment say that to be 40% effective, you need twelve launch units, a few thousand rounds a day, a regiment of people to keep that unit operational and if you are lucky, the command unit won't get hit rendering the systems nothing more than very expensive versions of MLRS. HIMARS and the Virginia Class sub are probably two items that could be scrapped, and reinstate the full orders of the SP Artillery, Support Veh and Redback. Maybe a few biplanes for the RAAF as well, those F35's are going to be trouble and expensive very shortly.
Excellent question, Mike. My briefing on the ADF post Defence Review (linked about) offers some suggestions. I think they may have been caught out, after approving the enhancement to the MBT fleet, only to realise they then couldn't afford all the necessary IFVs to support them. Or, more likely, plan to deploy the Army in a very different manner.
In case of combat, It is much easier/quicker to build more of these than bigger items eg. Ships, aircraft. High tech and cyber has to stay up to date too, so another priority, time and money wise.
except once the order has been completed they shut down the build line. As they said we need to look at international orders to ensure the line stay's in production.
@@scotty311 This also explains why so many are being purchased for only 1 Battalion. A large attrition reserve is needed as the production line will likely close.
A defence of the mainland would be a long and expensive grind of attrition, limited to the coastal strip, where defensive tools are worth more than offensive tools. The only metric that really matters in a protracted conflict for the defence of Australia is domestic manufacturing capacity and tech. A quick look at the map suggest that we are an isolated continent/island. We can’t expect the US, the UK, Germany, France or Sth Korea to operate a massive logistics tail .. directly through “enemy” seas, to keep us afloat.
Agreed and that is why I believe the current government is pushing for a domestic missile manufacturing industry. I would like to see a long range domestic ballistic missile program developed as well, whether that means we go down the nuclear armed path remains to be seen. Keep in mind the ongoing ship manufacturing industry as well.
Well, this is clearly part of the calculation. The air force and navy get proportionally more, to send off any adversary before they can cut you off or land any outnumbering forces upon you. It's how the planners envision a future conflict with a major power capable of full spectrum warfare, rather than knocking heads with insurgents. Already having more capabilities and production on-hand rather than overseas is definitely part of their thinking, and not just for the jobs. Given the same envisioned adversary (whose name starts with C, ends with A, and isn't your Commonwealth brother), they might be considering Australian production facilities as backup in case it is SK who has their production imperiled and suddenly needs Australia's help. Korea's a good friend to have, but remember they need friends too.
They're definitely not rubbish. Dare I say the M113 is the greatest APC ever put into service, but it's just an outdated platform. Theres simply a requirment for bigger guns and more protection to go toe to toe with modern threats. That certainly shouldnt be seen as a knock against the M113, its served Australia well at home and on operations.
The South Korean arms industry is on a ROLL! With Redbacks going to Aus. and tanks and armored artillery to Poland it is becoming a truly international arms supplier. With grenade launchers, Iron Fist active protection, a 30 mm chain gun and good armor the Redback is very well protected and very lethal. i.e With armored vehicles like IFVs survivability = lethality.
Australia is likely to pair these with M1s and prob never likely to send these overseas. So maybe keep a small number of IFV to work with MBT, but increase the number of Boxers for the rest of the army. Wheeled AFV are sometimes not as tactically mobile as tracked AFV, but in many other aspects like strategic mobility they are far better. Why not look at the tracked Boxer version? I could be wrong but aren't the mission modules interchangeable between tracks and wheeled?
Interesting choice by Aus. Would like to know how much commercials played a role here. There is a move for larger caliber weapons on IFV's, and I think this is being underestimated.
Love ya stuff mate, i make some aussie videos my self altho havent dor a long time. Id love to have a chat with you, i can edit, and help with audio/research and knowledge, was a grunt for 7 years, and study alot lol if you were keen id love to get your thoights on the timor doco im in the process im making
Considering it helps Korea's defence sector either way, they probably don't mind. Also, dropping the number from 450 to 129 is probably sensible considering of the three branches of the ADF, he RAAF and RAN should probably get most of the funding.
I do not know why the numbers being built to 125 vehicles? Especially as there is serious talk about entering a Cold War 2.0. Surely it would be important for Australia to be able to equip more than one Brigade of these IFVs. Also if Australia is going to build these under contract (or whatever you want to call it) to Hanwha, why can't we contract to build the IFV for America. And the Redback can be easily fitted with a 50mm weapon as the Americans are proposing. It would allow a little bit of conformity between two major allies?
I think this was the right choice but…. Not sure if the numbers are enough! I’m thinking there is a need for electronic warfare variants and drone warfare variants!
It is not only about infantry carrying ability. It is about how they are used we are using to deliver troops to a front and support. We have used M113 more like IFV in the past. But the lightly armoured and armed is no longer suited.
It is a political decision to strengthen local alliances. A supply chain to several European production sites through less contested waters and airspace west of Australia is longer but more reliable. In case of a conflict in the Pacific all supply chains to South Korea are cut and also South Korea will need everything for their own defense.
Your comment sounds reasonable on paper but in reality anything can happen and neither supply chain routes (Europe or Asia) will be more reliable in case of conflict in Europe (b/c of Russia) or Asia (b/c of China). Additionally, all weapons platform purchases are *political decisions* in nature - both internally within Australia politics and politics between nations. Even during peace, there always were short supply and stops in the supply chains from Germany/Europe because during peace for last 30 years the EU governments slowly killed off their own weapons industry so repair parts take super long time to arrive after ordered. Lastly, these vehicles will be built in Australia just to avoid long supply chain or lack of reliability in the supply chain. The turret designed and parts are made in Australia. The ATGM missiles are coming from Israel. The Soucy tracks come from Canada. The engine and transmission will be manufactured in Australia. Chassis will be made from Australia steel armor. Basically, Australia is an island and its own continent so almost everything will be made in Australia - even the ammunition will be made in Australia. All this means more good paying jobs for Australians.
I suspect/hope the 129 figure is a political smoke screen. I wouldn’t be surprised if when the factory in Geelong is nearly finished the first 100, the government will order more to keep the factory running. A potential game for future political points.
It makes no sense to have the Rheinmetall Boxer as a CRV but the Redback as the IFV. Should have gone with Rheinmetall Lynx for logistical and interoperability reasons.
I hate the cutbacks while acknowledging that at least they are built here so we can build more if necessary. We need a domestic tank building facility and some redundancy given the evidence of supply chain disruptions during covid which I imagine would be exponentially more fraught in war. This shift to a missile and interdiction defence seems truly shortsighted.
Well if you want domestic tank production the Koreans would probably be more than happy for a local K2 production line to spring up. But our shift to missiles and interdiction systems are not short-sighted. China will not land troops on our shores, aside from limited scale raids, when they have the ability to pound us into submission with little risk to themselves.
@@Burkutace27 Hi, I don't know your background but I'm certain the opposite is true. They don't need landing ships and a massive naval presence, they have a 10000+-strong global fishing fleet that already acts like a navy, including patrol vessels for protection. We don't and won't have the missiles for that. If, for example, Darwin is taken then we don't have any way to take it back - Oz demographic is coastal so there is no strategic depth. Same for anywhere else along our coastline. There is no need for anyone to go deeper so taking and holding a coastal area is ideal - not a limited raid. And what happens when one of our few platforms with all those missiles is taken out?
This briefing was suggested by a Subscriber.
😍😍
RAEME gone get real busy real quick.
Is the Geelong factory looking for toolmakers and machinists?
pretty cool our armoured vehicles have names like "redback" and "huntsman"
Yeah. And the huntsman is pretty terrifying! I hope they (the ADF) apply the appropriate decals! (Appropriately badass.)
Well names like "coffin" and "death trap" don't help with recruitment so here we are...
now to complete it the ADF just need something called the "funnel web"
@@iwishilivedinafreecountry5749 Yeah, we use their technical names: BMP2 and T72/T90
Waiting for the drop bear.
I think Australia made a good choice. The opportunity to receive FDI and technology transfer from SK should be attracting a lot more Western governments. If the UK was savy they would be teaming with SK to build parts for K2 tanks and K9 SPGs to be assembled in Poland. I would already bet money that Challenger 3 turns out to be a boondoggle.
Certainly the AS21 is decades better! ..than the resonance-sickness inducing alleged embezzlement-project Ajax failure, that the UK's Commiservatives/Neo-Cons are still chasing as an avenue to withdraw national monies into their very many pockets while stripping what they can whilst appearing to be providing/procuring something as a misdirection ploy.
I wish the UK would also get this vehicle system for its forces rather than the General Deceptions Laundering Diviosion's Ajax.
It's koreas issue not ours.
It seems unreasonably heavy, you could get a tank that weighs less than this thing.
It's too heavy to cross normal road bridges with a 36T limit.
Like the Bradley, makes no sense that a vehicle with minimal (even trivial) armor weighs more than a tank.
Lol what do u think the U.K. needs to learn from anyone it is top tier when it comes to weapons manufacturing BAE systems can produce anything it needs and the U.K. doesn’t need Korea to build a tank the k2 tank will not be as good as c3 and why would the U.K. buy a tank off the shelf that would require changing everything from training aids to tank tracks to transportation that makes no sense which was why they didn’t buy leopards
@@MrTangolizard plus our needs not their needs. Though i have my reservations with vickers design team, their R&D team, lol nah, they give me a run.
Also Nicolas Moran once said, there is no best tank, only the best tank for you.
I'm happy the prefered platform was chosen and I'm sure it will serve well after the inevitable teething issues are ironed out. I do prefer the visual aesthetics of the Lynx, but I would always chose the better platform, plus Redback as a vehicle name is just a sweet name. I do however think 129 units is going to become an issue in a few years down the track when the DSR is quietly forgotten, they did originally want 450 for a reason. If anything they'll want a few more to cover the inevitable attrition. Let's just say I won't be the least bit suprised if in, say the next five to eight years, that the MoD makes an announcement of purchasing at least 100 more.
So suggestion for video topic the corvette/light frigate debate.
While I think it sounds like a good idea in theory I suspect that the numbers won't stack up. Say they cut the Hunter order to six and order three corvettes for every Hunter they cut, nine corvettes aren't going to face of with a [Regional Competitor] destroyer, they don't have the firepower or robustness. That's even before we even get to the issue of seakeeping, which is very different in benign vs. hostile environment.
i rekon we will get 450, but over a decade.
Yes I will be doing a briefing on the corvette/frigate debate later in the year.
I think as we've seen in the current European conflict that there is no substitute for quantity.
@@Alan.livingston absolutely. I bet the Brits are kicking themselves for scrapping the Chieftans and the Germans for not putting the experimental 120mm armed turret on the Leopard 1. A bolt action rifle was obsolete by WW2, but it didn't stop it being used in bulk.
@@martinsmith9054 that’s it hey, with the wunderwaffen you have to hope the war is asymmetrical or if it’s (near)peer you can put them on the canvas in the first round of the fight. If you don’t you are chucking rocks after a few weeks.
Glad you said Australia helped design the Redback from the original K21 Korean as many will think is just a Korean. even uses the Bushmaster machine gun turret.
australia didn't really help the design of the redback. koreans implemented turrets made by EOS, just a strategy to localize parts. has got nothing to do with design process.
Very glad they chose this over the Lynx, but absolutely criminal that the government cut the order down so low.
Man I’m so glad I found you, I follow a couple of American guys and they’re brilliant habitual linecrosser is both hilarious and full of information and he has covered some Australian things but obviously focuses on American stuff and a lot of nato. task and purpose is also a very good guy. So it’s good to get an Aussie perspective
Thank you. Much appreciated.
Hi, This is the first time I have watched your channel. Really informative with typical Australian dryness. Look forward to watching some more
Thank you, much appreciated. More coming, and not only covering Australian issues.
Australia made a good choice. AS21 Redback IFV is a very solid pick, ether way, it was a huge improvement over the m113. With any luck the order will be increased. With any luck they'll hit 450, just not as soon as we'd hoped. Australia should never have bought the Boxer APC from Germany. The Boxer also has the identical optics, turret and armament of the Lynx.
Yes, commonality with the Boxer was something in the KF41 Lynx's favour.
I heard some where the Boxer, Lynx and Redback share the same Turret.
I agree with you in that a increase in the number ordered would possibly be on the cards after the initial production and teething problems have been ironed out.
I suspect that the reduction in order numbers has a lot to do with a shift in focus to the new AUKUS treaty. With the current geopolitical climate, it makes more sense to invest in off shore deterrence such as submarines, amphibious assault vessels, frigates, helicopters, drones and fighters. We are less likely to end up involved in a major land based conflict like we have been the last 30 years in the Middle East. It’s much more likely we will be involved in an island hopping campaign through the South China Sea where the benefits of huge IFVs and tanks are somewhat irrelevant.
@@hgf334 Fingers crossed all goes well.
Always better to have and not need, rather than...
A great clip. Short, sharp and to the point. If only many senior officers could speak so lucidly, instead of constantly drifting into 'Mil-Speak'. A treatment of the proposed landing craft is also suggested once there is enough information available.
Thank you. Much appreciated.
Yes I will look at the landing craft issue when more information is available.
About time the Vietnam war era M113’s were replaced.
As result of this outcome, SoKo is considering ordering Redback IFV as the current stock of SoKo's IFV are not heavy armored, and fleet is ageing. Hanwha needed this result so that they could convince S.Korean army to buy Redback as SoKoArmy is their largest customer.
Interesting if Australia's decision does indeed influence a South Korean purchase.
Thanks for the video. Let's hope we never need to use them in a war.
Thanks Paul. Agree.
Perhaps one of the biggest pro's for Hanwha is that they are fast. They can offer fast and in South Korea they produce military equipment like tanks, IFV's and howitzers more like a car factory then a traditional manufacturer. They have the knowledge for it and they are willing to export it. In Poland they have a joint venture with an old tank factory somewhere in that country and Poland has purchased 1000 K2 tanks, many howitzers and also undercarriages for their KRAB howitzers, K239 MLRS and a jet called F50. It makes Poland and Hanwha one of the biggest producers of heavy equipment in a regio where there is a big demand for that equipment.
I mean crazy like it sounds. Germany has a demand for a GTK Boxer heavy weapons carrier, as they call in, I think it is an Australian development.(CVRT perhaps?) The Boxer is a European armoured car, but Rheinmetall will build this vehicle in Australia, because in Europe there is no room on the production lines.
i hope that we keep ordering more as we go on, just to keep the production line open until its replacement....or if south korea or other nations want it for export.
it seems like a very solid pick, ether way, it was a huge improvement over the m113.
video suggestion, i dont know if australia has war stocks/reserves of vehicles, could ou please do a video?
Poland may become either a buyer or builder in the near future.
@@thomasb5600 Yes, certainly a possibility.
Good suggestion re reserve vehicles. I'll take a look at it.
The M113 was never intended to engage in combat it was suposed to deliver troops to the combat zone and piss off back to a safe zone untill it was time for the crunchies to bug out.Once it entered service everyone started treated it like the tank it was never intended to be and an endless litany of destroyed APC`s was the result.
Because Labor is in and alway's destroys our defence and cuts it's budget.
Main Australian defence is going for long range missiles. spending big on hypersonics and Navy and Airforce will be recieving more funds and cutting back on Ground forces and their equipment.
Planning to fight air and sea far from Australia is the way defence is thinking now.
Would the fact that all NATO standard 30mm rounds can be fired rather than Rheinmettall specific ammunition have helped
Good question, Geoff. I thought it could fire all NATO standard rounds, but i might be wrong.
I left the army 20 years ago after serving in 5/7 RAR (Mechanised), I find it hilarious that we are still utilising the M113 platform...... Mind you, it works if used for what it was designed for.
Great vid mate, thanks.
Same here 6 platoon B company
Thanks, Mate. Yes about time the Mech Inf got a modern IFV.
@@sticksnstones5407 4 Pl B Coy.
4 pl B Coy too mate
Love the channel. Do you think Australia needs to take the concept of short range air defence more seriously?
With the IFV now selected in my humble opinion something like the Swedish solution would not be the worst idea. A dedicated anti aircraft variant of the current APC with radar and such should be feasible especially with domestic production on the table.
I think a combined Gun/Missile system mounted on a vehicle is critical for short-range air defence of ground forces. Russia and China already have them in service.
What like a new biho version using the same chassis?
Not sure if South Korea has any such variants on this chassis, but if they were to develop one, I'm sure Australia would be a potential customer, following your thinking.
The question may be whether some other platform (some US designed/manufactured one) would compete for that capability.
Hopefully they realise they need more later on.
I think the Army already knows that.....but still since the original projections....errr...cough)..
......nuclear subs arnt cheap😮
The defence force is prioritising the Air Force and Navy for Defense, our army is almost strictly for offensive which is evident in why there is a massive push for training and gearing towards naval invasions
We need long range defensive missiles, good navy and good airforce... we don't need to do force projection. We need to be a deterrent, not an aggressor. We need to follow Japan's model, but have longer range.
@@liamsloan5410 exactly which is why I want us to look into the arsenal ship concept like South Korea
@elbrados wouldn't a submarine do that job better though? Maybe I'm missing something, but I would've thought the nuke subs we intend on leasing and purchasing fit the same role.
(From Canada) Sounds like the decision that makes the most sense, given what else Aus is going to be fielding. Let's hope the quality holds up under real-world conditions.
The strategic supply lines issue is no small thing, considering that the danger of getting into a war with China is lurking in every planner's mind.
However, on that subject, I would also like to point out that such considerations work both ways:
If there is a big war against China in the west Pacific, South Korea will be in more peril of having its production destroyed.
Therefore, if Australia is also making these same weapon systems, there is a possibility that Australia's production facilities will be untouched, and can produce these vehicles to resupply South Korea in *their* time of urgent need. As someone else mentioned, the Australian version already seems to have prompted SK to upgrade their own.
Great video, going through your others now & I gotta say its nice having stuff like this to listen to while I work, saves time. Subbed
Thank you. Greatly appreciated.
Seems like a great upgrade but it’ll need some sort of drone protection imo.
I think the Active Protection System (APS), together with the Remote Weapon Station (RWS), should go a long way in providing some protection against Drones.
Australia needs 450 of these and not 129.
Yes and no. Our Army won't be able to contribute anywhere near as much to allied ops without them, but how many more ships or planes can we get instead? Both are far more essential to the Pacific theater. Not to mention missiles and drones. "Just get them all" is probably a reasonable answer too though, we're a wealthy nation and we all know what's coming. Even Labor seems to know.
Yes true. We need 6 Active Mechnz. Brigades + 3 Reserve. Also 6 Cavalry Rgts 75 X 6 ...450 KF- 47F IFV, 2 Armoured Rgts (150 M1-A2 Abrams MBTs), 600 AS21 Redback IFV, 450 105 mm Guns, 150 K2 Sp./ Guns, 75 Apache Helicopter, 36 NASSAM- 2 SAM, 150 Stinger -1 SAM, about 3000 Troop Carting Vehicles, 650 81 mm Mortars, 650 Car Gustaf ATGW. Also 3 more Perth Class Missile Destroyers, 12 Hunter Class Frigates, 4 Nuclear Submarines, 12 Los Angeles Class Submarines, 9 LST, 3 LSV, 3 Transports, 3 LPH. Plus 75 F/A- 18F (In 4 Air Defence Sqds), 36 A10 (2 Group Attack Sqds), 24 C- 13F transports, 36 B- 1B Bombers (2
ALong Range Bomber Sqds). About 25 Air Ports, 12 Navy Bases, 65 Army Bases, 18 Ammunition Storage Bases, 9 Refiling Bases. Also 50 000 Army and 25 000 Reserves. Plus 25 000 Navy, 25 000 Airforce Personnel
and 12 500 Civil Defence. Plus about 650 Long Range Ship Attacking. Missiles
Let's be real, ADF needs heaps of shit, but we'll never get it with the current 'Government '
@@Truffles069or any government...
@@georgedimakopoulos3581 Why not British Astute Class or Virginia Class SSNs? Los Angeles Class subs are running on 1990s tech at best and require crews of 130.
Thank for this briefing and explanation as I have been asking the same question. My only concern, is the reduced numbers. I understand the other acquisitions such as Himars, K9's, Apaches etc but we a rich Country and yes, our defence spend is right up there, but we simply need more than we have, including feet on the ground.
Yes, lack of infantry is a concern.
The conversation around the replacement of Army Aviaition assets? (particularly the replacement of the MRH-90).
Good idea Starman. I'll look at that.
Finally!!! The only sour note is that we are ordering so few, in a war situation they'll last a month or two at most.
Not if you use them correctly and integrate them with SHORAD. This isn't Russia where they just throw vehicles at the front and hope for the best.
@@BravoCheesecake An integrated SHORAD capability is critical.
Of all three purchases, the Redback should be the one built in sufficient numbers for both our regular armoured forces and reserve armoured forces as has been seen in Ukraine AFVS IFVS with good anti tank weapons can make even MBTs lives very difficult I also think we should build more of the artillery systems with a view to stretching out and extending the purchase build rate.i know Marles has a hard on for missile systems, but it must be asked will those systems be land based mobile, air launched, or naval even in any use case one must look at the missions that will be requirements you have to have firepower to protect bases from insurgent type attacks in low and medium intensity warfare. Or in the case of mobile ground launch systems escorts, and no one has mentioned that in all this we have not looked at a theatre air defence system. And what give me the shits we still have government amateurs without a clue about vertical envelopment warfare and the logistics all these toys require.
We are also getting HIMARS (newer and more advanced versions with munitions with range of 70-300km, far longer than Ukraine's current 60km range) and 211 Boxer CRVs which is similar to Red Backs minus the 8-man passengers and adding anti-tank missiles. The Red Backs is officially replacing the 450 old M113 personnel carriers which has already been replaced by 1,052 Bushmaster armored personnel carriers. We recently sent I think 70? Bushmasters to Ukraine, don't know why we don't just send them our entire pile of M113s.
We have already sent 14 M113as4 to Ukraine and more are being sent in the near future.
The AS21 has almost nothing in common with the K21 apart from the IFV designation. Just part of the marketing strategy as it is in reality an all new build vehicle.(more like comparing a Hornet to a Super Hornet)
As for the AS4 it turns out it's working quite well in Ukraine as an APC as is the Bushmaster but will not provide crew protection against anti tank mines due to its flat lighly armoured bottom.
BTW it took a direct hit from a tank round to finally take out the crew of a Bushmaster and that wouldn't have happened if they weren't using it as a IFV.
The differences sound same as uk ajax about 40tons compared to the original ascod1 about 30t .
A completely new vehicle except the ajax seemingly used the same chassis causing problems.
Everyone has prob learnt from ajax project and its noticeable that all new ifv are same similar weight of 40tons and even more
It crazy that an IFV can actually weighs more than both the Leopard 1 and T72 tanks.
It’s cause after the K21 was done being designed, the Koreans started research and development on its replacement, the K31.
The design and new ideas from which developed into the AS21 Redback. When the Koreans eventually come out with the K31 it will probably have similar features to the Redback with even more improvements from testing and errors made on the AS21
129 is more than enough to protect a peacekeeping force in Timor/Solomons or another Middle-East war. Australia needs platforms firing anti-ship missiles for homeland defence a helluva lot more than ground combat units.
Who is planning on invading Australia?
@@MFitz12right now, anyone who decides they don't want to pay for our lithium, vanadium, coal, uranium or wheat anymore could just walk in.
@@danielcampbell9950 - I think they would have to be strong swimmers.
@@MFitz12 only if we have lots of anti-ship missiles.
Agreed. The decision to prioritise off-shore defence was the correct one.
After a long assessment and mitigation phase which defence spent millions on we get...129. When are the M113 going to soldier on until?
Curious what the cost per unit is now the order has been significantly reduced. The CV90 they excluded from land 400 phase 3 on the basis of cost per unit. It may be that the Redback is now more costly.
I'm curious also about how much Australian content this will have apart from the steel and supply chain logistics - main gun - American, turrent assembled in Israel, ATGW and APS - Israeli, track - canadian, other armour - american, engine german, transmission - american. Hanwa are probably more probably described as an IFV assembler rather than manufacturer.
The government have further downgraded Australian involvement by agreeing to more units being built in Korea to delivery faster.
If you read some of the ASPI literature Hanwa were leaned on heavily to include Australian industry content and Hanwa reluctantly did so. If Hanwa do a deal with Poland (or others) for an IFV based on the AS21 how much Australian content would be included? Or would they simply assemble most in Korea and finish in Poland excluding any Australian companies from involvement.
I'm sure the Redback is very capable and a massive leap forward over the M113 but the 400 asked for should be built. Another example of government creating a sow's ear out of a silk purse.
Some important points raised there. Thank you. I can't answer those questions today, but if in the future I can, I will.
I still like the Universal Carrier as was seen in the town of Chillingbourne.
Turk super-tech! The smart nation.
I have a folder about it (folder 6 in the playlist).
Everytime Defence procures anything, politicians apply the porkbarrel test, and it always comes down to suppliers agreeing local content, jobs, building new factories for very small production runs. The result is always the same. The platform is years late, over budget because of lack of skilled workers, quality and supply chain issues. The Land 400 Phase 3 programme is the most recent example; The Germans already have a well developed mature factory in Brisbane that is building military vehicles for the Australian and German Armies. So why do we need to replicate this capability just to put a factory in an area of high unemployment like Geelong for 129 vehicles (when the original requirement was for 450 vehicles)?
I reckon in the future, Australia will eventually buy more AS21’s
The 129 vehicles of the first production run will be followed by further runs as one requirement after another is met until far more than 450 are in service, plus more will be built for export.
This is how many defence equipment contracts are structured, request many, get a few as a 'cost effective option', then keep on making more and more as one upgrade or urgent need manifests itself until the original order is met and hopefully exceeded.
Also the whole program can be 'enriched' by 'upgrade' and 'capability enhancement' modifications to generate income for decades.
The Australian Abrams tank program is a case in point.
I thought they'd go with the Redback, simply to syngergize with the building of the other South Korean purchases down in VIC...and I think it is a good choice...we should've had IFV decades ago, glad we finally got there and glad we chose such a great vehicle. Yeah, I wouldn't buy any more crap from Europe after the Taipan and Tiger distasters, both really bad decisions...we should've stayed with the Blackhawks (instead of siwtching to the Taipan) and we should've gone with the Apache rather than the TIger.
I'm really disappointed i eth current goverment fro making the decision to cut the numbers on these and other Army acquisitions. I understand that competing importance of the nuclear subs and the advanced anti-shipping missile system we are getting involved in now (and should have long before now), but we should have found the money somehow to keep the numbers up...we should have been able to kit out and entire brigade with IFV's rather than just a battalion...I guess at the very least because we are making them here in Australia we will have the option of increasing the numbers of vehicles in the future...
Crew feedback is critical. However we’ve complicated our support logistics by going with both Rheinmetal (armoured reconnaissance vehicles) and Hanwa (AFV).
Rheinmetal is not Airbus. They have a proven track record in delivery
Great explanation. Thank you!
Thank you. Much appreciated.
It has been a long time that the Army has needed the capability supplied by the three new vehicles. The numbers being purchased are inadequate and we need twice as many of each vehicle as a minimum and should also be looking at a Drone command vehicle and launch vehicles as well. IE an artillery system that is delivered by Kamikaze drones with 10kg warheads at 60 to 80 km from launch point.
They are being manufactured here in Geelong. Not in France, not Germany or the US. That will count in the long run if numbers need to be boosted in a hurry.
@@krossbolt4100 very true.
I still can't help but think of, ( when it comes to armoured vehicles), how the crews in a fight when hit, burn to death. Maybe as much thought should be put into building in a human friendly anti fire suppression system as much thought is put into weapons and armour systems. I mean , look at those Sailors that died in Western Australia whilst in port. This issue should be a high priority imo. It costs a lot to train each Sailor, Soldier, Airman. Surely the investment in human friendly anti fire research investment is worth it ?
Not sure where you get your info from but the AS21 has a fire suppression system built into the interior.
@@jwb1227 but does it suffocate the crew? That's what happened to the Aussie Sailors. I'm happy to be corrected and learn.
@@mike9347 I would doubt any designer or engineer (especially Korean ones) would spec out a fire-suppression system that would kill the infantry riding inside. That would be a sales marketing nightmare. The specs are set by Aussie SDF. I am sure it is safe - it would be unreasonable to think otherwise. It would defy all logic to put in something that would kill rather than protect. The video I watched put out a fire in seconds. There are air cleaners inside to filter out contaminants against bio-chemical-nuclear attack.
Following your explanation about supply lines and risk mitigation Australia should never have bought the Boxer APC from Germany. The Boxer also has the identical optics, turret and armament of the Lynx. Furthermore, unlike the Redback, the Lynx is modular like the Boxer and can take on various additional tasks such as recovery vehicles or light battle tanks. In view of the reduction in volume, I tend to suspect that the decision was made for political reasons only, like the submarines. And so that the damage to the army is not so great, the number of pieces has been reduced. Unfortunate for Australia.
Yes significant crossover between the Boxer and Lynx, which should have contributed to the decision.
Surely you're not suggesting the current ALP government has put political decision making ahead of operational and logistical considerations?
Well, I never....
@@SnoopReddoggPlease.... dont act like every Govt has and will continue to do this regardless of who it is.
Supply line is a rubbish excuse used by politicians with an alteria motive, Labor hate Europe and loves Asia it's that simple, plus jobs in Victoria for chairman dan!
It sounds like the minor edge of crew positive feedback and logistics won out in the end. The crew positive feedback is straightforward, and I guess the Australian army don't wan't to be left in the same position as they were with the Eurocopter Tiger where they were expecting large orders in Europe that would keep the Tiger relevant and updated, never materialized. With the Redback, parts commonality with the K21 and the AS9/K9 AS10/K10, plus a Korea having 421 K21s in active service, as well as a drive to produce Korean Indigenous defence equipment so they don't get left without good kit as they had been in the Korean war is good for Australia because it means that the AS21 will continue to evolve as the Korean army drives the demand. It's interesting that the US military has chosen to take the Lynx to the next phase instead of the Hanwa/Oshkosh bid, I guess there is no concern over logistics because when the US makes an IFV they do it in the thousands, produced in the US, instead of hundreds so no logistics issues.
129 vehicles, but only 1 battalion equipped? Two large Armoured Infantry battalions along with FIST and engineer vehicles could easily be equipped with that many. Unless Australian battalions are much larger than normal.
I don’t think it just Combat variants, there will be command, ambulances, recovery and spares.
If it is roughly 1 sections = 2 IFV, about 6 per platoon, about 24 per company, 96 per Battalion.
@@thomasb5600 The Redback can fit 1 section (8 dudes) per vehicle so the battalions should, theoretically, be smaller.
@@tandem_heat9427 each Squadron in 1993 had around 42 APC. So how many Squadron makes a battalion? If it is 3 that is 126.
War reserve, training and maintenance rotation.
@thomasb5600 These are not for cavalry squadrons, which were larger. An armoured infantry company usually has 14 vehicles. 2x HQ and 3x platoons ,each with 4.
Why is the SA21 so much heavier than the K21 despite using a smaller caliber cannon and having similar protection level?
GPU's of the last three years have great sound suppression. Take out all that background noise. In real time 🎉
Good Brief, It would have been a better move for the army to have more Redbacks (say 250-300) and more KS9 and KS10's to 40-45 KS9's and 20-24 KS10's to give greater depth to to mobility and armored vehicles.
There may be yet be more.
The thing is, even with the order cut, the M113 still has to go, so its either more Boxers and less Redbacks over the medium term, or more Bushies and more Redbacks. Politically though they probably cut the order to make themselves look financially responsible but are prepared to waste more money into the future on further acquisitions so i reckon will probably see either another order for a few hundred more in several years time, or multiple acquisition in batches of 50 over 5-10 yeaars to pad out the mechanised battalions that will keep the production line open, and provide facilitiies to refurbish X jumber of units per year on top of new builds.. As a side note, i would like to see the ADF take a leaf out of the IDF's book and repurpose chassis into a new role, i cant see any reason the M113AS4 or ALSAV chassis cannot be refurbished and be seen running around with an Avenger or Stormer like short range SAM system on it, especially if it can provide anti-drone support to any mecahnised or motorised assets.
Great video and tracks with some of what I've heard. One thing you briefly touched on was supply lines, and I'd like to expand slightly on that.
Recently, it was announced that Rheinmetall Australia will be constructing 100 Boxer vehicle for export to Germany. If Rheinmetall's supply chain has been so hard hit with the events in Ukraine that they can no longer supply vehicles for their own country's military and have to rely on overseas manufacture (admittedly to our advantage!), then Australia could not be guaranteed to be a priority in terms of spares and service. South Korea, by comparison, seem to be adapting to the increase in military acquisition in Europe.
While I don't doubt that building an entirely new manufacturing facility within Victoria will come with a whole boatload of teething issues, South Korea seems more willing and capable to supply overseas partners than Germany is at the current point in time.
Thanks for the comment. Much appreciated.
@@Strategy_Analysis You're very welcome. Looking forward to the next video.
The German Army didn't order Boxers in Australia because the German supply chains are busted but because all Boxer production lines in Germany itself are busy for the next 5+ years. The 128 Boxers ordered in Australia are only the 30 mm support vehicles for their medium forces, they have several hundred others on order in Germany in multiple versions including IFV (RCT-30), Artillery (RCH 155) and Air/Drone Defense (Skyranger 30, IRIS-T).
Yaaaah! My idea became a video!
Yes, James. See the pinned comment.
Well done James. 😎
Being built in MINDEF's electorate wouldn't have hurt either.
A little unfortunate that we now have another RPS to support, where there was some commonality between the Lynx and Boxer.
the AS21 has parts commonality with the AS9 though, so from that perspective I'd say they're roughly equivalent in logistical advantages of the Boxer/lynx (the exact degree would vary on the percentage and nature of the shared components of course).
@@imagifyer The same engine being a significant contributor amongst them.
We need a full complement of AFV’s. Regardless of the ‘missile age’. Ukraine has shown we are in fact in the drone age.
Tensions in Global Power
ruclips.net/video/bko8TPk2YsA/видео.html
The reduced complement is due to the prioritisation of the RAN & RAAF
Also, calling it this or that “age” is oversimplifying an incredibly complex topic
@@IC3XR Stand -off capability is what is being prioritised.
@@krossbolt4100 yep. i.e: mostly RAN and RAAF
a disgrace they have cut the total number of 450 to 129
I think it's because of the nuclear submarines. ANZAC frigate is also due for replacement (Hunter Class), and geographically Navy takes precedence.
@@DairyCatThe serious money on AUKUS subs won’t be spent until the 2030’s, when it will be some other governments problem. Cutting from 450 to 129 for a project to be completed by 2028 is so they can spend on the pet projects of inner city trendies now.
We need long range stand-off missile capability to make certain nations think before they send their fishing fleets and coast guard to Christmas Island (which we can't defend).
IFVs are not going to help there.
@@krossbolt4100 so you know the enemy's battle plan? And that it won't change for the next 15 years?
……..think DSR and Submarines……..Land Systems has been severely impacted by the new Submarine $$$$
They need a lot more than 129. It means the M113AS4 will stay in service.
AS4 will be in services for a few more years. My guess is they moved to the 2nd division and build mechanised battalions. We can't sell or even give away without US permission.
We've had the m113a1 in service now longer than we had the legendary MOUNTED Lighthorsemen...
How do you see Army continuing with the M777 and AS4, considering cuts to final IFV and SPH numbers?
M777 should be replaced on a 1-1 basis by K9 SPG
@@De_cool_dude What zero towed artillery?
AS4 moved to 2nd Division to build mechanised battalions.
@@andreasbimba6519 towed artillery is far less useful than self-propelled in today's world, and with the need for trucks to actually tow them they take up more room on shipping
@@thomasb5600 why would we do that when we have full-time battalions now with them?
I wonder if ADF could put the US new developed 50mm auto cannon on some of these as a future upgrade on some of the redbacks IFV in the future. Have a mixture of both 30mm and a 50mm gun varent. I know you can get MP3 shells for the 50mm and it has more range. I think it would be good to have both. Maybe have 20 units of the redbacks with a 50mm gun the rest leave as 30mm.
Thanks, very useful analysis and well-presented too. Leaves me happy with the choice of the Redback.
I was a fan of acquiring the Korean K2 Black Panther as a MBT replacement ... but I realise that's a pretty unconventional opinion :-)
Thank you. The Black Panther would have been interesting.
Sadly not enough. 450 was the bare minimum required. The Army has been reduced to a militia with this decision.
Why?
If an enemy nation can land troops on our shores at a time and place of our choosing, I'd say we've already lost.
@@Burkutace27Really? With our size no country could handle the logistics.
@@craigbeatty8565 I'll expand. If an enemy can land troops on our shores at a time and place of their choosing, it implies they have defeated or beaten back the air force and navy. Therefore, they own the seas that bring in the trade we rely on.
At that point invasion is unnecesary. We're cut off, nuetralised and at their mercy. All the IFVs and heavy armour in the world won't save you from an enemy that owns the sky and the sea.
I think the redback was a good choice and the rubber tracks are said to improve the condition of the infantry units traveling in the back something that would improve combat efficiency
Indeed. Some may laugh at the idea of improved comfort for the Infantry in the back, but if you want them to be able to fight effectively when they dismount, you want a comfortable ride.
Not only comfort, but less noise. Have you ever heard a M113 approaching you, particularly on a road run? The noise is unbelievable and travels far ahead of the vehicle, giving any enemy ample warning of it's approach!
This is all part of the plan to increase recruitment by forming the Australian Royal Army boy band, styled on Korean boy bands of course. So that is why we need all the Korean vehicles.
As Ukraine is showing, survivability is number one importance for crews and infantry in back. You can have a great gun but if you hit and antitank mine or light grenade launcher like RPG, you want the crews to survive to fight for another day.
Yes, Puma. The addition of RWS and APS should help in protecting against drone attack. As for mine resistance, this was a significant factor in the decision.
Sadly the crews aren’t surviving 😢
129 is such an odd number of vehicles, I wonder if there's a mystery behind number 129.
Probably the minimum to maintain the order and build the in country facility
@@thedodger4886 Interesting, thanks.
We've had the m113a1 in service now longer than we had the legendary MOUNTED Lighthorsemen...
Be aware the new Chinese IFV has a 1,300bhp engine and they'll probably start with an order for 1,000. Wake up Dozystraya...
Rubber tracks don't last long on adverse terrain.
I personally used the rubber track in Port Augusta on M113AS4 and it lasted 3 days and split off the rubber all the way to the metal.
Without proper tools, its impossible to change this in hurry.
This track would cost lives in the field as the metal track protects the tracks from incoming fire.
Thanks for this Shortstuff. Yes aware they don't last long, hopefully this was thoroughly tested during the trials. I did mention that changing rubber tracks in the field is difficult, as you say. Breaking link isn't fun, but at least the vehicle crew is able to do it.
Metal tracks can be gangrenous all by themselves at high speed (I have the scars to prove it). Rubber at 4kph on an excavator is all well and good but I hope they were extremely well tested here. They are a controversial choice. The rest of the package looks great but immobile is immobile and throwing a track at high speed is simply Leathal. 🤔
Can't have your cake and eat it. Tracks and wheels both have maintenance pro's and cons. Australian terrain's brutal on apc & ifv. You either shred tracks or shred tyres.
Tell that to Soucy Defense the maker of the CRT (your rubber tracks). The CRT provides 6 tons of weight savings and better ride comfort, less noise and less friction heat. It lasts for thousands of miles and can be repaired in the field much easier than the more heavy all metal tracks. The AS21 has ISU suspension which save crew space inside for more armor protection with its 6 tons of weight saving while the standard torsion bar suspension in the Lynx would not provide any protection but make the inside space smaller and be heavier for travel.
I don't know much about logistics but I assume the Lynx and the Boxer would have some level of commonality for parts and procedures?
The Redbacks gun seems a bit small at 30mm given the yanks are slapping 50mm guns that shoot and penetrate at range far better, where as the lynx had a little more bite to it with a 35mm gun.
Both IFV's are too heavy to really drop by aircraft.
If you took the time to mention that both Lynx and Boxer share some common parts, you should also (or should know) that As21 Redback has the exact same powerpack as the AS-9 Huntsman SPH to be built in Geelong. Similar ISU suspension parts also. Moreover, the 30mm cannon was the spec chosen by Australia but the AS21 can be upgraded to higher caliber cannon like a 50mm cannon in very short time without modifications by Bushmaster (designed to be modular from the very beginning to satisfy other buyers). Lastly, the AS21 is 42 tons and 2 units can fit and be flown by a C-17 transport plane. The weight limits for C-17 was already built in to the overall design.
@@jwb1227 Thanks.
I did find out that the Redback and the Huntsman SPG have crossover component compatibilities after I posted the comment.
I'm just a very amateurish enjoyer of military tech, I don't know much.
Surely with the boxers and redbacks being so bulky it will be very hard for the military to transport assets rapidly?
If the only aircraft that can move stuff are the c-17's and there's only 8 in the country, you're pretty immobile as a fighting force.
@@Waywind420 I don't think the Americans are expecting Aussie SDF to jump through hoops to transport weapons on schedule that is not feasible. Besides, now the pressure is on the Logistics Command of SDF to figure that out. What did the SDF do as far as planning to move the M113s? Probably by transport ships and transport planes. Nothing changed. Seems like SDF is down-sizing which is a trend these days. Everyone knows Americans are the ones to do the heavy lifting in military movements. I would not worry about what the SDF will do.
Poland a country vastly smaller in size to Australia have ordered way more(not sure exactly how many)...yes we should get more later down the line, or maybe get the KF41 lynx too.
Poland is also in alot more immediate danger. They have an aggressive expansionist enemy right on their doorstep. A land war for them is a very real threat at the moment.
As it stands a land war in Australia is almost unthinkable. That situation is certainly changing but as much as it pains me to say, Defence does have higher priorities than armored vehicles.
Poland is nuts; Redback performed poorly in our testes and we have domestic Borsuk vehicle (which wasn't submitted to australian tender) and working on heavier variant of it.
@@piotrd.4850 There is no evidence of poor testing of the AS21 in Poland. The Polish staff conducting the test of AS21 said that the technology inside was 50-years ahead of their BMP. You don't need to spread fake news because you like the Borsuk. Borsuk is a good vehicle but not a competition for AS21 because of the differences in weight. Borsuk is a light/medium IFV because it has to float in water to cross rivers. The AS21 is HEAVY IFV designed to support heavier MBTs like the M1. The Huta Stalowa Wola (HSW) - part of PGZ - will build a HEAVY version IFV (name unknown currently - perhaps Borsuk Heavy??) based on the Korean K9 chassis (which is also same on AHS Krab) with Polish ZSSW turret. It should be good.
Interesting comment to finish the brief on
Not fair.
Thanks for watching all the way through to the end. Yes, a bit of a tease, but I will do a briefing on that in the future.
I wonder as Timoney Technology of Ireland are a supplier to the Korean company as of other countries that are clients of Timoney ie Singapore where Timoney have designed their vehicles such as the terrex av81 plus their tracked vehicles all designed by Timoney.
Reinmetall has production facilities in Australia, Hanwha had s to build there's We've spent so much money on Rheinmetall vehicles surely to Christ it made sense to get Lynx, and the new Panther tank and the German SP Artillery too for that matter. Whatever shortfall Lynx had could have easily been remedied.
Could it be that Hanwha was was chosen to butter up South Korea to join a hot war in a fight over Taiwan?
It could be, and in a way, there's nothing wrong with that. Strategically speaking, the South Koreans are more important allies to Australia given the most likely adversaries.
The Germans/Rheinmetall does not handle "easily remidied" part very well. Germans are not known for fast turnaround on issues/fix. Look at the German Army's PUMA which is out of service due to defects. They had to use the retired Marder instead in NATO exercises. There were issues with the Boxer turret being too heavy for the chassis and additional protection systems are having some issues. The Germans/Rheinmetall was not that good in providing after-sale service to Australia, taking too long to respond to address issues brought up by Australia. The solders who tested both IFVs overwhelmingly preferred the AS21 with its better, comfortable ride with less noise while moving. The German BTU powerpack in AS21 also performed better than the Liebherr engine inside the Lynx. The BTU engine is more proven (BTU powers the Leopard 2A8 tank, not Liebherr). Moreover, you are kidding me with mentioning the Panther KF51 tank? It is not NATO compatible (logistics and supply chain) with its 130mm main gun. Panther is completely outside the current ecosystem for NATO weapons. Also, it is only a technology demonstration model by Rheinmetall - the German government did not even ask for it to be made. KMW's Leopard 2A8 is the MBT of choice for the Germans for another 20 years at least. The Panther will be forgotten in 5 years unless the Americans decide to change the main caliber of the tank gun which is highly unlikely for at least another 20 years.
@@wyldhowl2821 South Korea won't get ivvolved unless they need to . I think the Aussies bought it as a carrot to get S K to enter any war with China.
@@jwb1227 For Australia I would still go for panther. I don't care about NATO. 130 mm gun will be standard soon everywhere I suspect
@@alanbstard4 The 130mm main gun won't be standard everywhere for another 15-20 years based on the purchases of German Leopard 2A7/8 series and K2 Black Panthers all over the world. These tanks are built to last 20-30 years so your "soon everywhere" is bit misguided at best. The war in Ukraine has shown that heavy guns are not the game changer - more focus on drones and data link to share with all assets on the ground and in the air for a coordinated attack. Even the Panther will get slaughtered by ATGM missiles in a second it shows itself in a field. Save your money and wait for the next standard to set in ... in 15-20 years. The current logistics and supply chain cannot handle the 130mm rounds. What are you going to do when you run out of 130mm rounds because of lack of supply?
It is good that you mentioned the crews preference for the Redback over the Lynx. It has been proven during my time in the Army that the comfort of the crews is important, that is why getting the Abrams was appropriate over the Leopard and Challenger. It had more room and A/C, meaning the crew was more alert and not choked out on fumes. I would think cost, logistics and regional market is also a very big factor.
The SP and the support vehicles also of the same company make for very big points in the commonality of the engine, whilst again, the logistical supply will be more reliable than that of any EU country, especially if it is linked with Germany...the Industrial might of that Nation has been quelled to an almost non existent state in the last few months.
Of the report, the only questionable part would be the total waste of purchasing the most useless defence system available...HIMARS.
The US force members I know that work with such equipment say that to be 40% effective, you need twelve launch units, a few thousand rounds a day, a regiment of people to keep that unit operational and if you are lucky, the command unit won't get hit rendering the systems nothing more than very expensive versions of MLRS.
HIMARS and the Virginia Class sub are probably two items that could be scrapped, and reinstate the full orders of the SP Artillery, Support Veh and Redback. Maybe a few biplanes for the RAAF as well, those F35's are going to be trouble and expensive very shortly.
Good content. Invest in better sound quality.
Thanks for the feedback. It's a priority investment. Just need to save for it.
I'll be interested in seeing how the sheer size of the vehicle plays out over its service life.
Similar to leopard as1 42 tonnes
Now that the US is abandoning the M1A2 SEP3V in favour of the M1A3 will we be getting that vehicle or will something new have to be acquired?
Australia is in the process of upgrading its current Abrams to SEPv3 standard. So is likely to have these in service for quite some time.
The decision to buy 70 MBTs but only 129 IFVs seems a bit strange, how will this affect the army's force structure?
Excellent question, Mike. My briefing on the ADF post Defence Review (linked about) offers some suggestions. I think they may have been caught out, after approving the enhancement to the MBT fleet, only to realise they then couldn't afford all the necessary IFVs to support them. Or, more likely, plan to deploy the Army in a very different manner.
Yes, can't wait to see how they ORBAT these in. Typically 40-50 IFVs in a western style Armoured Infantry Bn so 129 doesn't add up.
@@reyvan3806I think 2 mechanised battalions plus spares and training vehicles.
So are we expecting these vehicles to be shipped overseas to a war, or are they just to deal with an invasion of Australia?
In case of combat, It is much easier/quicker to build more of these than bigger items eg. Ships, aircraft.
High tech and cyber has to stay up to date too, so another priority, time and money wise.
except once the order has been completed they shut down the build line. As they said we need to look at international orders to ensure the line stay's in production.
@@scotty311 This also explains why so many are being purchased for only 1 Battalion. A large attrition reserve is needed as the production line will likely close.
A defence of the mainland would be a long and expensive grind of attrition, limited to the coastal strip, where defensive tools are worth more than offensive tools.
The only metric that really matters in a protracted conflict for the defence of Australia is domestic manufacturing capacity and tech.
A quick look at the map suggest that we are an isolated continent/island.
We can’t expect the US, the UK, Germany, France or Sth Korea to operate a massive logistics tail .. directly through “enemy” seas, to keep us afloat.
Agreed and that is why I believe the current government is pushing for a domestic missile manufacturing industry. I would like to see a long range domestic ballistic missile program developed as well, whether that means we go down the nuclear armed path remains to be seen. Keep in mind the ongoing ship manufacturing industry as well.
Well, this is clearly part of the calculation. The air force and navy get proportionally more, to send off any adversary before they can cut you off or land any outnumbering forces upon you. It's how the planners envision a future conflict with a major power capable of full spectrum warfare, rather than knocking heads with insurgents. Already having more capabilities and production on-hand rather than overseas is definitely part of their thinking, and not just for the jobs.
Given the same envisioned adversary (whose name starts with C, ends with A, and isn't your Commonwealth brother), they might be considering Australian production facilities as backup in case it is SK who has their production imperiled and suddenly needs Australia's help. Korea's a good friend to have, but remember they need friends too.
So why did we modify the M113 fleet if they are rubbish?
They're definitely not rubbish. Dare I say the M113 is the greatest APC ever put into service, but it's just an outdated platform. Theres simply a requirment for bigger guns and more protection to go toe to toe with modern threats. That certainly shouldnt be seen as a knock against the M113, its served Australia well at home and on operations.
The South Korean arms industry is on a ROLL! With Redbacks going to Aus. and tanks and armored artillery to Poland it is becoming a truly international arms supplier. With grenade launchers, Iron Fist active protection, a 30 mm chain gun and good armor the Redback is very well protected and very lethal. i.e With armored vehicles like IFVs survivability = lethality.
Australia is likely to pair these with M1s and prob never likely to send these overseas. So maybe keep a small number of IFV to work with MBT, but increase the number of Boxers for the rest of the army. Wheeled AFV are sometimes not as tactically mobile as tracked AFV, but in many other aspects like strategic mobility they are far better. Why not look at the tracked Boxer version? I could be wrong but aren't the mission modules interchangeable between tracks and wheeled?
A tracked Boxer🤣 but I would like to see an increase in Boxer procurement.
@@LeonAust what's wrong with looking at tracked Boxer?
Interesting choice by Aus. Would like to know how much commercials played a role here. There is a move for larger caliber weapons on IFV's, and I think this is being underestimated.
Love ya stuff mate, i make some aussie videos my self altho havent dor a long time. Id love to have a chat with you, i can edit, and help with audio/research and knowledge, was a grunt for 7 years, and study alot lol if you were keen id love to get your thoights on the timor doco im in the process im making
Apologies for late reply, having some connectivity issues. Send me an email about your doco.
It’s essentially an under gunned Light/med tank. 🇨🇦
It’s amazing the Koreans would sell it to Australia, after dropping the numbers to 129 from 450. It’s a pathetically small number.
Considering it helps Korea's defence sector either way, they probably don't mind.
Also, dropping the number from 450 to 129 is probably sensible considering of the three branches of the ADF, he RAAF and RAN should probably get most of the funding.
Redback and Huntsman both of made in the Australia region
I do not know why the numbers being built to 125 vehicles? Especially as there is serious talk about entering a Cold War 2.0. Surely it would be important for Australia to be able to equip more than one Brigade of these IFVs. Also if Australia is going to build these under contract (or whatever you want to call it) to Hanwha, why can't we contract to build the IFV for America. And the Redback can be easily fitted with a 50mm weapon as the Americans are proposing. It would allow a little bit of conformity between two major allies?
Hi why the large reduction in amounts of vehicles doesn’t seem much to protect a large country. I heard the reduction in F 35 as well
I think this was the right choice but…. Not sure if the numbers are enough! I’m thinking there is a need for electronic warfare variants and drone warfare variants!
Why did Australia choose a modern IFV as opposed to a modern APC? I ask this as an equivalent APC would be able to carry more infantry.
It is not only about infantry carrying ability. It is about how they are used we are using to deliver troops to a front and support. We have used M113 more like IFV in the past.
But the lightly armoured and armed is no longer suited.
The vehicle is only required to carry a complete section, which for the Mech Inf is 8 troops. So greater troop carrying ability was not required.
I can understand the need to redirect funds for more missiles but from 450 IFVs to 129 is just a joke…..
i wonder if the original version would be better or not than the redback version.
I was hoping this would be chosen 😊
Well, you got your wish. It should be a very capable vehicle.
It is a political decision to strengthen local alliances. A supply chain to several European production sites through less contested waters and airspace west of Australia is longer but more reliable.
In case of a conflict in the Pacific all supply chains to South Korea are cut and also South Korea will need everything for their own defense.
Your comment sounds reasonable on paper but in reality anything can happen and neither supply chain routes (Europe or Asia) will be more reliable in case of conflict in Europe (b/c of Russia) or Asia (b/c of China). Additionally, all weapons platform purchases are *political decisions* in nature - both internally within Australia politics and politics between nations. Even during peace, there always were short supply and stops in the supply chains from Germany/Europe because during peace for last 30 years the EU governments slowly killed off their own weapons industry so repair parts take super long time to arrive after ordered. Lastly, these vehicles will be built in Australia just to avoid long supply chain or lack of reliability in the supply chain. The turret designed and parts are made in Australia. The ATGM missiles are coming from Israel. The Soucy tracks come from Canada. The engine and transmission will be manufactured in Australia. Chassis will be made from Australia steel armor. Basically, Australia is an island and its own continent so almost everything will be made in Australia - even the ammunition will be made in Australia. All this means more good paying jobs for Australians.
I suspect/hope the 129 figure is a political smoke screen. I wouldn’t be surprised if when the factory in Geelong is nearly finished the first 100, the government will order more to keep the factory running. A potential game for future political points.
But does it have a vanity mirror and makeup compartment?
sadly the same in the UK,a sad view on a dangereous time
A well placed $1000 drone makes this essentially a defunct weapons system
Good oversight
Thank you.
It makes no sense to have the Rheinmetall Boxer as a CRV but the Redback as the IFV. Should have gone with Rheinmetall Lynx for logistical and interoperability reasons.
I hate the cutbacks while acknowledging that at least they are built here so we can build more if necessary. We need a domestic tank building facility and some redundancy given the evidence of supply chain disruptions during covid which I imagine would be exponentially more fraught in war. This shift to a missile and interdiction defence seems truly shortsighted.
Well if you want domestic tank production the Koreans would probably be more than happy for a local K2 production line to spring up. But our shift to missiles and interdiction systems are not short-sighted. China will not land troops on our shores, aside from limited scale raids, when they have the ability to pound us into submission with little risk to themselves.
@@Burkutace27 Hi, I don't know your background but I'm certain the opposite is true. They don't need landing ships and a massive naval presence, they have a 10000+-strong global fishing fleet that already acts like a navy, including patrol vessels for protection. We don't and won't have the missiles for that. If, for example, Darwin is taken then we don't have any way to take it back - Oz demographic is coastal so there is no strategic depth. Same for anywhere else along our coastline. There is no need for anyone to go deeper so taking and holding a coastal area is ideal - not a limited raid. And what happens when one of our few platforms with all those missiles is taken out?
We know why really. Dutton had promised his mates in Germany the contract and the money went to the right mates. More capable and less waste.