Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

2805662

Contributing Members
  • Content count

    133
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

2805662 last won the day on June 12

2805662 had the most liked content!

About 2805662

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Not yet. Now that the contract has been signed, I’d expect more details to trickle out. There’s been a big push by Varley Rafael Australia (relatively new JV) on the APS front....I’m expecting a degree of standardisation on the APS. Covers off on AIC (Australian Industry Capability), whilst offering economies of scale (Abrams, Boxer, Phase 3, etc.).
  2. 2805662

    Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    As expected...some progress: ”LAND 400 Phase 3 Classified Briefing Registration The LAND 400 Phase 3 Mounted Close Combat Capability Request For Tender (RFT) will be released shortly. The project will hold a classified briefing to vehicle OEMs and Primes who intend to submit a response to the RFT to detail classified technical requirements, specifically the protection requirements listed in the Technical Requirements Matrix (TRM), shortly after release. Defence has a specific process for releasing official information outside of Defence. There are two main steps. The process is different for Australian companies and foreign companies. Step one – Australian companies For Australian companies, the members attending the briefing will need to hold a Negative Vetting Level 1 or higher security clearance. Step one – Foreign companies Determine if your nation has a Security of Information Agreement and Arrangement (SIA) with Australia. A Security of Information Agreements and Arrangement (SIA) is a formal commitment to apply reciprocal protection to official information exchanged between Australia and your nation. This protection is to meet agreed security standards outlined in the relevant SIA. You may need to contact the Department of Defence equivalent of your nation to determine if there is a valid SIA in place. The existence of an SIA does NOT provide blanket approval for the release of classified information. Approval must be granted by Defence on every occasion where a release of official information is sought. This approval will be granted by the LAND 400 Phase 3 Project Office. Step Two Register with the LAND 400 Phase 3 Contact Officer with your relevant information to attend the briefing. The minimum details required by Defence are as follows: The status of a valid SIA (for foreign companies), the names, DOB, position within your company, and Australian or foreign security clearance level of those Subject Matter Experts you wish to attend. Numbers will be limited to no more than four per company and the final veto for attendance will remain with the LAND 400 Phase 3 Project Office. Please register your interest to attend the classified briefing with all relevant details via the LAND 400 Phase 3 Contact Officer mailbox. If you are a foreign company that is not subject to a valid SIA and you wish to attend the classified briefing please contact the project via the mailbox as soon as possible. On 13 March 2018, Government provided First Pass approval for LAND 400 Phase 3 Mounted Close Combat Capability, comprising, Infantry Fighting Vehicle and Manoeuvre Support Vehicle capabilities. This approval allows Defence to investigate options to replace Army’s M113 Armoured Personnel Carriers (APCs) with a fleet of up to 450 modern Infantry Fighting Vehicles and also acquire up to 17 Manoeuvre Support Vehicles. Defence anticipates releasing the LAND 400 Phase 3 RFT in the second half of 2018.”
  3. 2805662

    Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    Only relevant as this was a prerequisite for the Request For Tender release for Phase 3...
  4. Contract actually signed. Standby for the LAND 400-3 RFT...
  5. 2805662

    Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    @Mighty_Zuk Anyone who thinks they have a compliant solution can bid; it’s their money to waste (one tenderer for ADF replacement trucks spent $20 million on tendering before realising that their offer wasn’t going to win). I don’t think BAE will bid the CV90. Regarding growth potential, ADF was well bitten by LAND 106 (M113 upgrade project) that delivered a vehicle with a 2% growth margin for a 15 service life. Can’t go far on 0.13% annual available growth! [Btw, Australia doesn’t have a MoD, it has a DoD.]
  6. 2805662

    Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    Interesting you mention APS....you may recall that the US Army was having power generation issues with the Iron Fist for Bradley? Apparently that limitation is also present on a couple of other favourites for L400-3.
  7. 2805662

    Israeli AFVs

    Australian interest in things Israeli (BRIG in this case = Brigadier, i.e. 1 star):
  8. 2805662

    Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    Lance 2.0 gets Australianised.
  9. 2805662

    Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    Slight correction - not yet they don’t. Well, not for L400-2.
  10. 2805662

    Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    The (apparent) issue goes the other way: Rheinmetall aren’t playing nice about putting Lance turret onto other platforms for Phase 3. From a support perspective, turret commonality makes a lot of sense. The School of Armour currently trains three turrets of differing levels of complexity: M1A1 SA turret (M256, M2/48, M240/MAG58) ASLAV-25 Delco turret (M242, M240/MAG58) M113 turret (a very simple turret. M2 QCB) Reducing this to the tank turret & the Lance turret would help trainee throughput, whereas adding another, but selecting a different turret of similar complexity would be a training nightmare. That’s just user level. It also doubles the maintainer training requirement, and adds fleet management overheads. Here’s where we get to the nub of the L400: the procurement phases (i.e. the shortest phases) were emphasised, especially to maximise competitive tension. To that end, they were deliberately de-linked. Time will tell whether that was a smart decision.
  11. 2805662

    Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    Not if Rheinmetall decline to share their IP. If Rheinmetall’s Phase 3 competitive advantage is their Phase 2 turret (effectively incumbency), what’s their incentive to share that?
  12. 2805662

    Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    For background, each of the three Australian Multi-role Combat Brigades are organised as follows: - Brigade HQ - Combat Signals Regiment - Armoured Combat Regiment (1 x Sqn MBT [upgraded via L907-2], 2 x Sqn CRV [L400-2 BoxerCRV]) - Mechanised Infantry Battalion (currently M113AS4: replacement will be L400-3 IFV) - Motorised Infantry Battalion (Bushmaster PMV, to be replaced by L81xx [can’t recall]) - Artillery Regiment (2/3 x Bty of M777A2) - Combat Engineer Regiment - Combat Service Support Battalion As can be seen, it’s a bit of a mixed bag. Towed guns, mix of wheeled & tracked AFV, a sub-unit of tanks for the entire brigade, insufficient organic combat engineering, and differing levels of protection & mobility for each of the infantry battalions. The brigades are almost common/interchangeable by design, but internally, they have no depth for the capabilities offered. The three MCB rotate between three phases of the force generation cycle of “readying” (training, getting new gear, being certified), “ready” (deployable), and “reset” (not rest!).
  13. 2805662

    Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    “Mobility. Security. Passion.” wtf does passion have to do with an IFV?
  14. 2805662

    Australian LAND program

    So, major Land projects that are mechanised in nature and who’s interactions are affecting future procurement activities. LAND 106: upgrade of M113A1 FOV to M113AS4. LAND 112: ASLAV. Mulitple phases (1-4). LAND 116: Infantry Mobility Vehicle, later Protected Mobility Vehicle. Multiple phases. LAND 400: Combined Arms Fighting System. LAND 907: Replacement Main Battle Tank. Multiple phases, Phase 2 now concerned with Abrams upgrade.
  15. 2805662

    Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    Anyway....this thread is about Phase 3: IFV, not Phase 2. Thoughts on the best way/place to continue the CRV discussion?
×