The Boxer certainly sounds like an excellent tool for its job. That said, we are in a fortunate position in that there are also a multitude of excellent tracked candidates out there for Phase 3. Surely one of them would meet the Phase 3 requirements better than the (albeit formidable) Boxer could. I would have expected CV90, ASCOD or Puma to be the front runners as Lynx, though capable on paper, might be viewed as a risky orphan(?).
As the Lance 2 man 30 mm turret was part of the bid for Land 400 Phase 2 i assume that is the turret and cannon we shall be purchasing ? Sounds like that's the vehicle Army wanted all along and its good to hear that's the vehicle Army shall be receiving! The "whispers" of how the Boxer was able to drive off the range after the "blast testing" part of Land 400 must have been a factor in favour of the Boxer !225 seems to have been the ‘placeholder number’ based on how many ASLAV’s remain in-service. 211 seems to be the requirement to meet the Plan Keogh needs.
I don’t think there will be a split buy. If for whatever reason we want to lift infantry in a wheeled vehicle instead of tracked we can just use the 211 Boxers we just bought. Take the surveillance gear out of the back and you can lift a mechanised section, same as a tracked IFV. We did the same with ASLAV.
I don’t think Boxer will be bought for Phase III. The only way I see that happening is if a tracked vehicle is simply unaffordable. Clearly, my bet is either Lynx or Puma. Each vehicle will come with the Lance turret and a number of common subsystems, which will make training and support for the whole fleet so, so much easier and cheaper. It would be possible for Australia to provide the Lance turret as government furnished equipment to put on some other contender, but the problems with that are obvious.
Surely Hawkei would make a more suitable Recon vehicle?
Hawkei is a 4x4 replacement for the Land Rover Perenties which AFAIK can carry up to a HMG or similarly-sized weapon. This might be sufficient for patrol and recon work in areas where the primary threats are limited to small arms, as there is a limit to just how much protection can be fitted to a 7 tonne vehicle.
Can be fitted with an EOS R400S Remote Weapon Station with a 30mm cannon or a RWS with dual weapons, a 50cal and an ATGM.
Anyone who shoots knows that a big target is easier to hit than a small target. The Boxer is a massive target.
They are pretty flogged and have had a mid life update ... id assume we would retire them and save money in not having another vehicle to suck funds in retaining them.. Gift them to a friendly nation,use some in museum's or worse ..as targets for Boxer
Per the Thales Australia Hawkei PDF found here:
No mention of a 30 mm cannon capability. Looking into the EOS R400S (Mk II specifically) is appears that package weight with a 30 mm cannon would be below 400 kg, but certainly above 250 kg (weight of system with M2 HMG and 500 rounds). Mounting a system I suspect would be just below 400 kg, plus up-armouring the vehicle to Level IV would IMO be asking a bit much for a vehicle with a normal design weight of 7 tonnes. Again, keep in mind that the Hawkei vehicle was designed as a replacement for the Land Rover Perentie which had/have a different role and are utilized differently than the ASLAV in a reconnaissance role.
It would depend on how much useful life remains in the ASLAV fleet, and what it would cost to re-purpose them. Given that the newest ASLAV's are a decade old, while the first production run is ~23 years old (and the vehicles are being replaced...) I suspect that a cost vs. benefit analysis would determine the benefits are not worth the total costs (to modify, running multiple vehicle fleets, training/support, etc.) There might be some value in mothballing some, just in case. Other than that, I suspect either on-selling them if able to, or else scrapping them or using them as targets on a range.
Hawkei would be handy as a recon vehicle, but not in place of Boxer. I mentioned in post 5694 that to be effective as formation reconnaissance you need to be able to fight for information - the Hawkei won’t give you that. The recon platoons from the PMV infantry battalion will get Hawkei, as in that role they are better suited.
The ASLAVs are shagged. They have reached a level of technical obsolescence that it just isn’t economical to continue to support them. Army has basically stopped spending money to support them anyway - the ASLAVs should have just enough life left to get them to their planned withdrawal, but no further. The ASLAVs will be turned into gate guards and targets when they are taken out of service, no more.
I think it would be competitive if Phase 3 was decided in isolation, but I think it will struggle now that Rheinmetall have won Phase 2. You would need a pretty compelling reason to turn your back on the benefits of going with a vehicle with a common turret and subsystems from a common manufacturer, and I don’t think CV90 provides that compelling reason.
It'd be a better recon vehicle, but it certainly won't be a better combat reconnaissance vehicle. That means fighting for information, pinning enemy forces, and destroying enemy reconnaissance elements. It also means effective firepower and protection to be able to defeat targets of opportunities - and in a world where even supply convoys might have machine gun resistance, remote weapon stations and heavy weapons to allow mounted counter-ambush combat a jeep with a machine gun doesn't cut it anymore.
Yeah the ASLAV's have been flogged there and back again, they will sell of what we can as spares for other operators, and I would be betting target practice hulks after that
Hawkei is 7 tonne in basic kerb side mode but has a maximum gross vehicle weight just over 10 tonne, so can carry significant add on armour and/or Remote Weapon Station.
vehicles such as the JLTV.
The Australian gov't has not asked for such a combination to be developed, and I personally doubt they would be interested.
