Australian Army Discussions and Updates

MARKMILES77

Active Member
Looks more like clip art from some fantasy website.
Are you really going to fire what looks like a weapon larger than a 155mm from a flatbed trailer.
Does have deployable "feet" which raise the low loader wheels off the ground but I know what you mean.
Strange to see it in a Victorian Govt advertisement for Victoria's defence manufacturing industry!
There must be some basis for it but what I don't know?
 

navyeo

New Member
Does have deployable "feet" which raise the low loader wheels off the ground but I know what you mean.
Strange to see it in a Victorian Govt advertisement for Victoria's defence manufacturing industry!
There must be some basis for it but what I don't know?
Could it be a proof or test gun for RAN 5 inch gun? Seem to recall reading about some such rig, but can't find a link.
UPDATE:
News - IDES TO DELIVER 2ND MOBILE PROOF GUN MOUNT
Hopefully this is the correct link to the relevant rig.
 
Last edited:

Milne Bay

Active Member
There has been a lot of "positioning" by both parties recently, and there has also been "noise" from state governments.
I imagine that a decision and an announcement must be imminent.
Does anyone know when the announcement will be made?
MB
 

benson1610

New Member
re land 400 phase 2 decision,it depends which article you read,one 'said' march/april this yearl,the other suggested some time this year.?
Hows my sentence structure?.
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
re land 400 phase 2 decision,it depends which article you read,one 'said' march/april this yearl,the other suggested some time this year.?
Hows my sentence structure?.
Watch your tone and intent when you are having a dig at not only and ex serving member, but one of the moderation team !

You might intend it as a little tongue in cheek, but how it is read can be very hazy online, especially until they get to know you and your engagement style.

Just friendly advise, do as you will with it

Cheers
 

MARKMILES77

Active Member
Victorian MPs feel the need to lobby Mr Pyne on mass about LAND400.
A sign that Boxer might be favoured by Army perhaps?
Interestingly, the article states that BAE Systems' bid with the AMV 35 is 20% lower than the Boxer bid.
How would the reporter know that?
A victorian Govt MP leaking bid details?IMG_5172.jpg
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Victorian MPs feel the need to lobby Mr Pyne on mass about LAND400.
A sign that Boxer might be favoured by Army perhaps?
Interestingly, the article states that BAE Systems' bid with the AMV 35 is 20% lower than the Boxer bid.
How would the reporter know that?
A victorian Govt MP leaking bid details?View attachment 45722
OT but Queensland electorates will determine the result of the next election, Vic is a lost cause it's socialist heaven. If politics plays a part in the selection it will,go to QLD
 

PeterM

Active Member
Interestingly, the article states that BAE Systems' bid with the AMV 35 is 20% lower than the Boxer bid.
How would the reporter know that?
A victorian Govt MP leaking bid details?View attachment 45722
The AMV35 and the Boxer are not like for like, cost differences are to be expected.

For example, my understanding is that the AMV35 meets up to STANAG Level 4 whereas the Boxer meets up to STANAG Level 6. The Boxer turret has a built in ATGM whereas the AMV version offered doesn't and so on.

The key will be the capabilities we are acquiring versus the requirements/planned CONOPS across a wide range of factors such as whole of life costs, industry potential, future development paths, risk etc.

Of course if you add the cynical political factors, being based in QLD could help in win seats, which is unlikely in Victoria. The timing of the 'leak' is what I find more interesting, it is obviously an attempt to swing public opinion.

Whoever wins the Land400 Phase 2 tender, will likely have an advantage for Land400 Phase 3. My understanding is that Phase 2 is around 225 CRVs, whereas Phase 3 is somewhere around 450 IFVs and 17 MSVs.
 
Last edited:

MARKMILES77

Active Member
The AMV35 and the Boxer are not like for like, cost differences are to be expected.

For example, my understanding is that the AMV35 meets up to STANAG Level 4 whereas the Boxer meets up to STANAG Level 6. The Boxer turret has a built in ATGM whereas the AMV version offered doesn't and so on.
Patria have stated that the AMV can be up armoured to give protection against 30mm AP over the frontal arc( STANAG Level 6).
The image in the Australian above, of the AMV 35, shows it with an ATGM built in but we don't know if that has been offered in their bid.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
I find some of the commentary on Land 400 pretty disappointing.

Particularly from somewhere like ASPI which should be more discerning.

Find it very difficult to imagine a scenario where we would want to airlift a large number of CRVs for example

Land 400—too much of a good thing? | The Strategist

Personally I see the Boxer as "Just right" for the ADF.

Regards,

Massive

Well actually I can see his point, the ADF is on its way to becoming a heavier harder hitting machine, but on an op like INTERFET which primary mission was stabilisation of the country, these new machines may be quite an overmatch in capability. I'm thinking 2RAR could have an attached light AFV Regiment that can be used in a number of roles that don't require the capability of the new vehicles something could be easily transported by C130 has a swim capability and able to move up to 16 pers and 5t of stores.

My personal opinion is that we have focus on the high intensity warfare which is a good thing but have lost sight of the lower intensity operations/HADR that may require an protected vehicle, something like Warthog should do the trick.

Warthog / Bronco All-Terrain Tracked Carrier - Army Technology
 

Goknub

Active Member
You've got the Bushmasters and soon the Hawkeis for lower level ops. They will be able handle everything but the toughest terrain. There's also the M113 fleet which would remain viable for these roles, perhaps a capability worth retaining in the Reserves on a shoestring budget.
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
You've got the Bushmasters and soon the Hawkeis for lower level ops. They will be able handle everything but the toughest terrain. There's also the M113 fleet which would remain viable for these roles, perhaps a capability worth retaining in the Reserves on a shoestring budget.
Exactly, why do we have this fixation lately on this forum for all services to suggest all these new vehicles, ships, split buys etc, lets get some reality please ! It is seriously doing my head in.

With regards to the 113's I was under the impression that sending them to the Reserve units was on the cards ? pretty sure I have read that before, Raven may be able to clear that one up for us ?

Cheers
 
Top