I'll agree that the USMC's, and certainly Australia's ASLAVs,

are tired, older designs getting way long in the tooth.

The Piranha V now being the pinnacle of the family, the AMV is a nice piece of equipment also (if not principally for all its marketing hype involved with the AMOS and NEMO mortar turrets...).

 

But as to replacing Australia's (and the USMC's) AFV fleets with a single design,

I'm pretty sure it'll be found that all-wheels or all-tracks isn't the way to go.

 

Current operations should've opened everyone's eyes to the proven battlefield facts that both wheeled vehicles and tracked vehicles, working together, are better suited to overcome each other's shortcomings for a better overall outcome.

(Tracks can be more heavily armored, wheeled vehicles generally tend to be lighter and can thus be deployed quicker by air and land.)

 

Yes, it takes so much money,...limited money, by anyone's budget.

 

But an all-Puma or an all-AMV force will at some point eventually encounter some high-attrition obstacles and environments that will leave the troops, leaders, and planners wishing, "gee, I wish now we'd have bought some of those others."

 

Still, either new platform, even a mix, will allow for improvements in tactics to match the improvements either vehicle (AMV, Puma) has to offer over the current fleet (ASLAV, M113).

How much extra kit would it be nice to afford to add onto them?

If all your looking for is upgraded battle taxis, then the newest model LAVs and M113s are plenty adequate.

But if all the fanct kits (RWS, turrets) the Puma and AMV have advertised are what's generating interest in them, it's probably then worth pursuing these newer platforms (but at a 43-odd ton maximum up-armored weight, Puma's are damned expensive, aren't they?).

But an all-Puma or an all-AMV force will at some point eventually encounter some high-attrition obstacles and environments that will leave the troops, leaders, and planners wishing, "gee, I wish now we'd have bought some of those others."

If we go for the AMV for our Mech and Motor battalions we will still need tracked vehicles to support our Abrams as well as to provide mobility for our infantry in areas that are too challenging for wheeled vehicles.

 

The tracked APC to support our light infantry is a no brainer, just look at the good job the Viking is doing in in Afghanistan at the moment.  It would be a great fit with our new LHD's and be of great use through out the region.

 

A good option to complement our tanks could be the Puma or similar modern AIFV.  Looking outside the square if the Namer Heavy APC / AIFV is manufactured in the US for sale back to Israel could become an option for us in particular if the US Army decides to use the same MTU engine to upgrade the Abrams as has been selected for the Namer.

 

The question is how do we deploy them?

 

The first option as I see it would be to issue them to 3/4 CAV as was the case with the M-113 for many years.  The other more interesting option would be to embed them in 1 Armoured Regiment along with Assault Troops, also adding SPG's, armoured engineers, and an aviation element, effectively converting it into an Armoured Cavalry Regiment.

 

This would give the ARA a light brigade, two mech brigades (the mech and motor inf plus the two ASLAV CAV regt all re-equiped with AMV's) and an Armoured Cavalry Regiment / Armoured Brigade with two or three combined arms (armoured) squadrons / battlegroups.