AS21 Redback IFV - Why Australia chose it. 

This briefing was suggested by a Subscriber.

pretty cool our armoured vehicles have names like "redback" and "huntsman"

Australia needs 450 of these and not 129.

Very glad they chose this over the Lynx, but absolutely criminal that the government cut the order down so low.

About time the Vietnam war era M113’s were replaced.

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 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.

Hi, This is the first time I have watched your channel. Really informative with typical Australian dryness. Look forward to watching some more

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

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.

Hopefully they realise they need more later on.

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 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Thanks for the video. Let's hope we never need to use them in a war.

I reckon in the future, Australia will eventually buy more AS21’s

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.

(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 still like the Universal Carrier as was seen in the town of Chillingbourne.

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.

Would the fact that all NATO standard 30mm rounds can be fired rather than Rheinmettall specific ammunition have helped

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.

Good oversight

a disgrace they have cut the total number of 450 to 129

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

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 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 explanation. Thank you!

We need a full complement of AFV’s. Regardless of the ‘missile age’. Ukraine has shown we are in fact in the drone age.

Seems like a great upgrade but it’ll need some sort of drone protection imo.

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.

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...

The conversation around the replacement of Army Aviaition assets? (particularly the replacement of the MRH-90).

Yaaaah! My idea became a video!

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.

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.

GPU's of the last three years have great sound suppression. Take out all that background noise. In real time 🎉

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.

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.

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.

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.

129 is such an odd number of vehicles, I wonder if there's a mystery behind number 129.

Interesting comment to finish the brief on Not fair.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

Turk super-tech! The smart nation. I have a folder about it (folder 6 in the playlist).

Looks like the 1st brigade gets a ride to work while the rest have to walk.

Sadly not enough. 450 was the bare minimum required. The Army has been reduced to a militia with this decision.

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.

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.

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.

It’s essentially an under gunned Light/med tank. 🇨🇦

Good content. Invest in better sound quality.

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.

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.

Redback and Huntsman both of made in the Australia region

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 ?

A well placed $1000 drone makes this essentially a defunct weapons system

The decision to buy 70 MBTs but only 129 IFVs seems a bit strange, how will this affect the army's force structure?

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.

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...

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?

sadly the same in the UK,a sad view on a dangereous time

They need a lot more than 129. It means the M113AS4 will stay in service.

Why is the SA21 so much heavier than the K21 despite using a smaller caliber cannon and having similar protection level?

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!

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?

Its huge, how do you hide something that big from the enemy?

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.

I think it's the basis for a test the hanwha redback that 129 I something that'd suit an amphibious vessel nicely, I'd like to see armoured vehicle with a DS30b rapid fire cannon for a air defence vehicle like the gepard

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

I'll be interested in seeing how the sheer size of the vehicle plays out over its service life.

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

why are rubber tracks more difficult to replace in the field? availability?

Wish Australia would take thier national defense more seriously. They should be building up a full division of these.

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.

I can understand the need to redirect funds for more missiles but from 450 IFVs to 129 is just a joke…..

But does it have a vanity mirror and makeup compartment?

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 :-)

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.

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.

Those old Buckets are a bloody embarrassment.

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

How do you see Army continuing with the M777 and AS4, considering cuts to final IFV and SPH numbers?

i wonder if the original version would be better or not than the redback version.

I was hoping this would be chosen 😊

For Korean companies, the Korean military is an alpha test area.

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.

I really feel we need to start making factories in Australia instead of buying from foreign nations. Like the rheinmetall one in Brisbane

129 of IFV are definitely insufficient for Australia

The M-113 is doing pretty good on the battlefield in Ukraine the troops seem to like them. So it looks like the M-113s will be on battlefields around the world for several more decades.

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?