Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[weedyau]

Hi all,
This is my first time commenting on this forum. I have absolutely no military background but I strongly believe in a strong military and defence industry. As a 54 year old, I saw the lack of respect for returned Vietnam veterans and grew up hearing the recounts of experiences during World War 2. Strangely, I've heard nothing of the Korean War. I watched the first Gulf War on CNN, second on the Internet and Afghanistan on social media. I've taught refugees from Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya and Congo.

My first observation is that refugees that come to Australia often talk about how they were treated by the ADF. ....RESPECTFULLY. Perhaps compared to other defence forces?

My second observation is the lack of knowledge of the public. Relying on bias, ill-informed media, the public is clueless.

Mod edit: We have moderators on the forum to keep an eye on what’s posted thanks... Welcome to the forum.

 

[pgclift]

Don't you love our media, just about every single outlet has reported this as state vs state with zero reference to capability.
It simply shows how intellectually lazy they are, go for the sensational and stuff the reasons for the selection.

Sky News this morning was carrying in their business multi-view text stories the headline that Queensland were going to build “Super Tanks”. Further into the story they got at least half of it correct and called the new vehicles “CRV Super Tanks”.

When I read that I went straight to the Ministers’ web sites to see if they had sent out a morning media release to enable some informed reporting about the selection but they had not. The release and the press conference came later in the day.

 

[Bluey 006]

Congratulations Rheinmetall. Good to see the best in class vehicle got selected. This will be a huge leap in capability from the ASLAV vehicles.

Any news on gun? 30mm or 35mm

The announcement is for 211 vehicles. Will all the vehicles feature the lance turret or does this number include variants?

 

[ASSAIL]

Don't you love our media, just about every single outlet has reported this as state vs state with zero reference to capability.
It simply shows how intellectually lazy they are, go for the sensational and stuff the reasons for the selection.

Having later watched interviews with the two State Premiers they were no better than the press, quotes like "State of Origin" reallyshow how lollies think about military capability.

 

[old faithful]

DTR Magazine on Twitter
Boxer CRV won seemingly. Good to see the option pretty much everyone wanted win.

Also first post so hello, been lurking for a year or so but thought i might as well post this.

So phase 3 of land 400.....what's the bet it just becomes an extension of phase 2, with more boxers ordered?

 

[MARKMILES77]

Jan 26 2018
Would not surprise me that if the AMV wins LAND 400 Phase 2, a tracked IFV is chosen for Phase 3 but if the Boxer wins Phase 2 that it also gets chosen for Phase 3. Giving a single fleet of 675 or so Boxers.

Think the possibility of a wheeled solution to Phase 3 has just gone up.
Not saying it is any sort of certainty, or even that it is likely but it is certainly possible now.
The protection and firepower increase which would be provided by the 38.5 tonne Boxer over the 18 tonne M113AS4 is absolutely massive.

 

[MARKMILES77]

The Boxer CRV supplied for testing in Australia had 6 rear seats but versions have been shown with a turret and 8 rear seats, so it would certainly comply with requirements for carrying 8 passengers.

 

[aussienscale]

Think the possibility of a wheeled solution to Phase 3 has just gone up.
Not saying it is any sort of certainty, or even that it is likely but it is certainly possible now.
The protection and firepower increase which would be provided by the 38.5 tonne Boxer over the 18 tonne M113AS4 is absolutely massive.

Well there is a reported "escape" clause in phase 3 that allows for that very thing, time will tell. They have, in my opinion, made the correct decision on phase 2 and I think for the right reasons and have hopefully listened to Army on this one. That gives me hope they will make the correct call on phase 3 and go for the tracked IFV.

But hey could be wrong, if we go the tracked IFV route, be it the Puma or Lynx, does that then raise the chances of Leopard getting a look in ? I joke, I joke

 

[hairyman]

My memory has gone, cant remember the vehicles names. but the Swedish tracked vehicle that was considered a light tank a few years ago seems to me to be a good fit for us. That is for phase 3 of course.

 

[Wombat000]

I'm skeptical of a wheeled solution being selected for phase 3.
Tracked mobility will I think, correctly, win thru.
If there is a motivation to seek some synergies with the boxer, perhaps the Lynx will have some interest?

 

[StevoJH]

My memory has gone, cant remember the vehicles names. but the Swedish tracked vehicle that was considered a light tank a few years ago seems to me to be a good fit for us. That is for phase 3 of course.

Are you thinking of the CV90?

What other tracked APC's and IFV's could be an option at the moment?

 

[ADMk2]

Are you thinking of the CV90?

What other tracked APC's and IFV's could be an option at the moment?

I imagine both the Rheinmetall Lynx and Puma IFV’s will probably be bid for this...

Lynx:

Puma:

 

[Richo99]

I was under the impression that the requirement was for 225 vehicles in total...the breakdown of variants being 129 recon, 17 surveillance, 26 command, 20 repair, 10 recov, 15 amb, 8 joint-fires. Why the reduction to 211 vehicles? Cost?

 

[Yama]

I was under the impression that the requirement was for 225 vehicles in total...the breakdown of variants being 129 recon, 17 surveillance, 26 command, 20 repair, 10 recov, 15 amb, 8 joint-fires. Why the reduction to 211 vehicles? Cost?

Yes, Boxer was more expensive so it didn't fit to original 225 vehicle bid.

 

[t68]

http://www.defence.gov.au/casg/Mult...ase_3_RFI_Industry_Debrief_-_FINAL-9-7751.pdf

If you look at the breakdown there was 4x submissions for wheeled and turreted AFV with a review pending the MSV to include a broader base IFV, I imagine they are considering an all wheeled fleet(I hope not) As its requirements is to keep pace with the Abrams MBT could a wheeled vehicle achieve that requirement?

 

[John Fedup]

Canadian LAVs often couldn't follow Leopards in Afghanistan. It really is terrain dependent. The Canadian army wanted CV90s for their CCV program which was cancelled. There is a place for both tracked and wheeled IFVs (if the funding is available).

 

[Boagrius]

It will be interesting to find out what configuration the CRVs are to be acquired in. I am guessing the 30mm with the Rheinmetal ADS and Spike LR. When added to Boxer's already impressive protection levels it sounds like a very potent combo - class leading I suspect.

 

[hairyman]

The CV90 is the vehicle I was thinking of. It has been around a fair while now, but initially it was considered a light tank.

 

[zhaktronz]

The Boxer CRV supplied for testing in Australia had 6 rear seats but versions have been shown with a turret and 8 rear seats, so it would certainly comply with requirements for carrying 8 passengers.
View attachment 45761

I believe last months DTR magazine made reference to the fact that the lance turret could be moved forward on the mission module allowing room for 8 dismounts.

 

[Wombat000]

IMHO, the Boxer CRV is an excellent choice, for a CRV.
It's also the expensive option.
Why would anyone seriously entertain the prospect of selecting a wheeled phase 3 option for a IFV, that cannot keep mobility with its supporting tanks?
Why would you pay a premium price (for the modified IFV Boxer) when it does not have the same mobility as a tracked vehicle - what, just so it's the same as the CRV?
Isn't CRV role different to that of a IFV? Isn't that why they went to the bother of issuing different tenders in the first place?
There are synergies with tracked phase 3 competitors (Puma, Lynx) to appreciate before wandering down a pointless wheeled phase 3 concept.
My 2c.