Australian Army Discussions and Updates

camo_jnr_jnr said:

Australian opens Land 400 Phase 3 tender - LWI - Land Warfare - Shephard Media
DTR Magazine on Twitter

Unless I've missed it there's been no mention of the inclusion of an RFI for 50 amphibious assault vehicles with the land 400 phase 3 tender in this or the RAN thread yet. Land 400 ph3 we knew was coming but this is the first we're hearing of a proper protected amphibious vehicle for the LHD's as far as i'm aware. Will be interesting to see which amphibious vehicle they go with.

Click to expand...

Interesting I haven't heard anything official about Protected Amphibious Vehicles from an ADF POV.

But apparently the USMC have chosen ACV 1.1(SuperAV tactical vehicle) as the replacement for AAV

https://www.stripes.com/news/marine...-build-new-amphibious-combat-vehicle-1.533813

camo_jnr_jnr said:

Australian opens Land 400 Phase 3 tender - LWI - Land Warfare - Shephard Media
DTR Magazine on Twitter

Unless I've missed it there's been no mention of the inclusion of an RFI for 50 amphibious assault vehicles with the land 400 phase 3 tender in this or the RAN thread yet. Land 400 ph3 we knew was coming but this is the first we're hearing of a proper protected amphibious vehicle for the LHD's as far as i'm aware. Will be interesting to see which amphibious vehicle they go with.

Click to expand...

Also talking about a Mortar variant as well,

FORBIN said:

Ok but for number and units according Wiki 5 on 6 Inf Bns in the 3 Bdes use now M113AS3/4 other Bushmaster ASLAV is only used by 2 Cies in the 3 Armored cavalry gts with in in more a M1 Sqn ( have 14 tanks ) i think about 15 ASLAV ? by company so 90 + some others and seems enormeous 211 Boxer
i have see some Recc reserve units have Bushmaster Boxer replace in these ones also ?

BTW i know the quality of the Aussie soldier during WWI, II in North Africa etc... but Army despite not dangerous neighboors is small 3 small Bdes 3800 troops each coz each Aussie Bn have only 3 combattants units i think must have max 700 troops and artillery rgts are also small 12 guns in 3 batteries miss also one heavy Artilley unit 155 mm SPG or MLRS and eventualy SAMs LR ​

Click to expand...

211 Boxers replacing 257 ASLAVs, No SPGs and none currently planned for, no MRL but is planned for mid 2020s(have to be HIMARS, nothing else on the market), SP SR SAM system currently under development(a variant of NASAMS) Longer Range SAM planned for mid 2020s.
Yep Forbin we saved your Butts in April 1918 or you would be speaking German.

Redlands18 said:

Also talking about a Mortar variant as well,

211 Boxers replacing 257 ASLAVs, No SPGs and none currently planned for, no MRL but is planned for mid 2020s(have to be HIMARS, nothing else on the market), SP SR SAM system currently under development(a variant of NASAMS) Longer Range SAM planned for mid 2020s.
Yep Forbin we saved your Butts in April 1918 or you would be speaking German.

Click to expand...

Hahaha also in 1870 and 1940 ! i joke ofc

But Australian Army is an expeditionary Army especialy ofc 1st active Division and the best AIFV Puma, Lynx, T-15 but Russian lol or Namer Israel don't sold ofc seems heavy for such tasks do about 40 tons maybe too much all Armies which use these types are not expeditionary

Redlands18 said:

News - Australian Defence Magazine
Lynx KF41 in Adelaide For Land 2018 Land Warfare Conference. Looks an absolute Beast

Click to expand...

I know that looks and size don't always count, but ....

I remember seeing the images of the Lynx KF31 a couple of years ago and thinking that it was a large and good looking beast, the KF41 is an even larger and even better looking beast.

Looking forward to seeing some images of an M-113 next to the KF41 (as was done with ASLAV and Boxer).

Reminds me of what Mick Dundee said: "that's not a knife ..... that's a knife!"



Makes you wonder if it's worth running the competition with Boxer winning the previous phase.

Cheers,

John Newman said:

I know that looks and size don't always count, but ....

I remember seeing the images of the Lynx KF31 a couple of years ago and thinking that it was a large and good looking beast, the KF41 is an even larger and even better looking beast.

Looking forward to seeing some images of an M-113 next to the KF41 (as was done with ASLAV and Boxer).

Reminds me of what Mick Dundee said: "that's not a knife ..... that's a knife!"

Makes you wonder if it's worth running the competition with Boxer winning the previous phase.

Cheers,

Click to expand...

Price could be the only issue, get the feeling the KF-41 will not be cheap. Also not yet ordered by anyone else so is Australia up for being Lead Customer?

Sorry misread, Ignore

John Newman said:

Makes you wonder if it's worth running the competition with Boxer winning the previous phase.

Cheers,

Click to expand...

I hope other firms do put in serious tenders. There is a significant strategic benefit to not having all our medium and light A vehicles being made by the one manufacturer. As long as the important elements are compatible, having two manufacturers involved is a good thing.

Takao said:

I hope other firms do put in serious tenders. There is a significant strategic benefit to not having all our medium and light A vehicles being made by the one manufacturer. As long as the important elements are compatible, having two manufacturers involved is a good thing.

Click to expand...

My comment yesterday regarding if it was worth running the competition was, to a degree, done 'tongue in cheek'.

Of course the competition should continue as planned (as was done in Phase 2), and the winner of Phase 2, Boxer, appears to be the choice of Army too.

I would hope that all companies tendering, and eventually being shortlisted, will put their best foot forward and provide the best capability, price, sustainment, future growth path and relevance for how ever long the IFVs are in service.

Is the winner a forgone conclusion? Probably not, but I think that Lynx (if it ticks all the boxes of the tender requirement), appears to have an advantage, to me at least, due to the selection of Boxer for Phase 2.

A couple of examples could include things such as commonality of components/sub-systems, etc, used across the two types. And from an industry perspective, producing Lynx in the same production facility following the Boxer production run.

If Lynx is judged to be the best offering, then so be it. I don't see a problem with Rheinmetall being the winner of both LAND 400 Phase 2 & 3 (and on top of the vehicles delivered and still to be delivered under LAND 121 too).

Anyway, just my opinion of course.

But I am interest to understand why you think that "There is a significant strategic benefit to not having all our medium and light A vehicles being made by the one manufacturer. As long as the important elements are compatible, having two manufacturers involved is a good thing."

Cheers,

Takao said:

I hope other firms do put in serious tenders. There is a significant strategic benefit to not having all our medium and light A vehicles being made by the one manufacturer. As long as the important elements are compatible, having two manufacturers involved is a good thing.

Click to expand...

I have seen a tweet by GDLS-Australia with a AJAX vehicle enroute to the Adelaide Convention Centre ahead of the Land Forces 2018 show, hopefully they submit this vehicle.

CD

John Newman said:

A couple of examples could include things such as commonality of components/sub-systems, etc, used across the two types. And from an industry perspective, producing Lynx in the same production facility following the Boxer production run.

Cheers,

Click to expand...

If you want commonality between Phase 2 and 3 then just buy Boxers for Phase 3.

John Newman said:

But I am interest to understand why you think that "There is a significant strategic benefit to not having all our medium and light A vehicles being made by the one manufacturer. As long as the important elements are compatible, having two manufacturers involved is a good thing."

Cheers,

Click to expand...

A single source means that any supply chain issues can impact an entire Army instead of fleet elements. Especially if we can have a second supplier from outside Europe, meaning that physical supply chains are harder to sever.

A single manufacturer often sees common items across platforms, meaning that any systemic / critical unserviceabilities in one effects the other. So a widget failure that grounds one fleet will now ground many. In a time of greater electronics / computers on our platforms and greater risk of cyberworthiness, this is probably a greater issue (although having seen T70X engines ground multiple helicopter fleets in the past, it isn't just electrical).

With a single manufacturer, inherent design assumptions and bias are replicated across the fleet. This means that if we find something unsuitable in our operating environment, it is likely to be unsuitable across all our fleets. Taking two different companies generates two different sets of bias, meaning that we can take ideas from one and apply it to another. This extends to value for money - after all, without some element of competition, there is the tendency to stop innovating. It also prevents 'honest' contracting (and I say 'honest' because both sides are acting in good faith), as the Commonwealth has no other option they can hold over the first party.

The latter leads to the economic bonuses. For Army fleets, that generally number in the hundreds (unlike naval or air fleets), more contractors generate more Defence industry in Australia. Instead of one factory, we could have two. This improves our economic base, spreads risk and improves our resilience overall.

Finally, the tactical logistics element is often overstated. While common fittings are nice to have, the issue with footprint is the greater sub-assemblies / parts. In this case, we still need to take similar amounts. I have seen loads decreased by only 10-15% because of commonality across two fleets (as opposed to the 35-50% often claimed). I still need a certain amount of bits.

The key bits of interoperability are often government furnished (ammunition, fuel, radios). So compatibility should be considered beyond the simple, tactical (mis)assumptions of the platform. Picking impossibilities to avoid work issues, I see few issues with a Challenger 2 MBT + Bradley M3 IFV + BTR-90 (as long as the GFE mentioned above was sorted).

MARKMILES77 said:

If you want commonality between Phase 2 and 3 then just buy Boxers for Phase 3.

Click to expand...

Is Phase 3 open to both wheeled and tracked vehicles?

John Fedup said:

Is Phase 3 open to both wheeled and tracked vehicles?

Click to expand...

I think Army will say they are agnostic re tracks and wheels but in all reality my guess would be tracks.
IFV's are going to get heavier not lighter so I don't see a wheeled future for "armoured moving thing's" getting onto and above the 40 t mark.

IMHO Regards S

John Newman said:

My comment yesterday regarding if it was worth running the competition was, to a degree, done 'tongue in cheek'.

Of course the competition should continue as planned (as was done in Phase 2), and the winner of Phase 2, Boxer, appears to be the choice of Army too.

I would hope that all companies tendering, and eventually being shortlisted, will put their best foot forward and provide the best capability, price, sustainment, future growth path and relevance for how ever long the IFVs are in service.

Is the winner a forgone conclusion? Probably not, but I think that Lynx (if it ticks all the boxes of the tender requirement), appears to have an advantage, to me at least, due to the selection of Boxer for Phase 2.

A couple of examples could include things such as commonality of components/sub-systems, etc, used across the two types. And from an industry perspective, producing Lynx in the same production facility following the Boxer production run.

If Lynx is judged to be the best offering, then so be it. I don't see a problem with Rheinmetall being the winner of both LAND 400 Phase 2 & 3 (and on top of the vehicles delivered and still to be delivered under LAND 121 too).

Anyway, just my opinion of course.

But I am interest to understand why you think that "There is a significant strategic benefit to not having all our medium and light A vehicles being made by the one manufacturer. As long as the important elements are compatible, having two manufacturers involved is a good thing."

Cheers,

Click to expand...

I am with John on this one. Defense-Update reports that The Australian Defense ministry is placing greater emphasis on a coordinated and programmatic approach to Army’s biggest project ever (hooray). The Lynx ticks a lot of the boxes and as stated there will be a commonality of components/sub-systems, this can only be a good thing unless of course, Rheinmnetall's performance is not up to par.

Been waiting for one of you to jump in and post this:

South Korean company to unveil AS21 Redback infantry fighting vehicle at Land Forces 2018

Hanwha will unveil a new vehicle during Land Forces 2018 this week. Called the AS21 Redback, it's an advanced version of the K21 IFV and designed specifically for Land 400 P3.

Though not a requirement, it's hard to ignore that the original K21 is somewhat amphibious (with self deploying pontoons). I wonder if they'd be able to pull it off with an up-spec'ed AS21? It's a curious alternative for sure. The AS21 supports 3+8 95th perc.

It's not clear if they're showcasing a working prototype or just the concept.

Here's a look at the CV90 to be show cased at the Land Forces 2018.

Facebook

Interesting to see that the CV90 is draped in the Barracuda Adjustable Mobile Camouflage. I do wonder if BAE will pitch a CV90 with a Lance 2.0 turret version though.

The September issue of DTR Magazine has a number of articles related to the LAND 400 Ph3 tender

There is an article on the main potential solutions with predictions on whether they will likely bid.

Defence Technology Review : DTR SEP 2018, Page 1

I am curious to see some of the defence professionals view on the various contenders

The Ajax seems like an interesting option. I hadn't really considered it in too much detail, but it seems to be a strong contender.

Ajax is entering service with the UK, and we could leverage existing variants for most of our requirements. \Earlier ASCOD versions are in service with Spain and Austia with their Pizzaro and Ulan IFVs since 2001/2003 with 261 and 112 vehicles respectively. The Ajax would be a reasonably known entity with a lower risk of any unexepected gotcha's.

It seems the Ajax has excellent protection, which reportedly is one of the primary considerations for Land 400 Ph3

There is potential for collaboration with the UK on both the Boxer and Ajax with UK are looking at 589 Ajax and 400+ Boxers. As far as synergy with the Boxer CRV, again this shouldn't be an issue. Rheinmetall did develop the turrets for the Ajax (the Ajax Scout SV turret structure is based on the Lance turret). I don't see an issue with changing the calibre to 30mm, both the Pizzaro and Ulan (Spanish and Austrian ASCODs) use the Mauser 30mm x 173.

There is potential to leverage any Spanish experience using their Pizzaro IFVs with their LHD and LLC (although the Pizzaro is significantly lighter than Ajax) .

I am curious to see how the Ajax compares with other contenders from a capability/performance point of view

The Protected Amphibious Vehicle is intriguing.

The requirements are for a crew of two and 8 dismounts. I am curious on how they are planned to be used.

There isn't likely to be a 40t+ option, which means it
won't have the protection levels of we require with the IFVs and CRVs.

Are we looking for something like the AMV-28A or the USMC's ACV1.1 (30t)?
Or could we be looking for something lighter, perhaps even something like the BvS 10 Viking in use with the UK and Dutch Marines? This could limit the weight/space needed in the LHDs, leaving more capacity for the heavier MBTs, CRVs, IFVs etc.

Does anyone have an idea of what is likely for this capability?