Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

2805662

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    234
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by 2805662

  1. The following is derived from various wanderings, discussions, & tyre kicking, and covers an opinion on the forthcoming Land 400 Phase 3 Request for Tender, and is as per June 2018. General: Phase 2 will significantly shape participation in Phase 3. Costs for the two bidders that weren’t short listed for the Risk Mitigation Activity (GDLS & Elbit Systems) ran into the tens of millions of dollars. Costs for the losing BAE bid could rightly be assessed as double that. Combined with Rheinmetall’s Phase 2-driven “perceived incumbency”, nobody wants to waste money to be a stalking horse on the Commonwealth’s behalf. There is a plausible risk that only Rheinmetall will bid. Reorganisation of infantry sections: When Land 400 was conceived, Australian infantry sections consisted of two fire teams of four. This drove the initial “eight dismounts” requirement that has subsequently been relaxed. Now comprising three fire times of three, one of those teams will be the vehicle crew, the other two will dismount, for a total of six dismounts. Recent operational experience has highlighted the need for temporary attachment of specialist personnel, so a platform that has some spare seating could still count for it. GFE Turrets: One possible tactic that the Commonwealth may seek to use is that of mandating that the Lance Turret, as used on the Phase 2 Boxer CRV, be used as Government Furnished Equipment (that is, purchased from Rheinmetall and provided to suitably configured hulls by competitors). This would simplify the turret training and offer spares commonality across both phases. Perceived savings for “buying in bulk” were (apparently) unable to be realised as Rheinmetall was reluctant to discount its turret. Costs aside, if an offerer has a GFE turret, who owns the systems integration risk? Who does the customer turn to solve potential issues between the turret and the hull when they, the customer, has mandated that particular turret? Commercially, this is a high risk proposition. Unmanned turrets: Only GDLS offered an unmanned/remote turret for Phase 2, the Kongsberg MCT-30, as has been adopted in small numbers (81) by the US Army to meet an immediate operational need. A bias against unmanned turrets is unlikely to manifest itself in Phase 3 due to the likely presence of the PSM Puma IFV. Of course, that’ll likely to open the door to GDLS bidding the ASCOD fitted with Elbit’s optionally manned/unmanned MT-30 turret....should they decide to bid at all. Likely bidders: This brings us to the inevitable list of potential bidders and their platforms. BAE: Unlikely to bid. If they win SEA 5000, that may get them off the bench, as would a requirements set that looks a lot like CV90. In the event that they do bid, the CV90 Mk4 is the most likely platform. GDLS: More likely to bid than BAE, but still waiting to see what the RFT looks like. (Tellingly?) Their ASCODs at Eurosatory we’re painted for upcoming European opportunities, not in the distinctive Australian disruptive pattern. Rheinmetall: likely to offer the Lynx and maybe also the Puma. With the reorganisation of Australian infantry sections (see above) the eight dismounts of the KF41 version of the Lynx are less relevant. Still, the modularity of the KF41 demonstrated at Eurosatory 18 definitely left an impression. PSM: As a JV between KMW & Rheinmetall, Puma may be offered separately (unlikely if the Boxer =\= ARTEC in Australia model is followed). In the event that it is offered separately, its high unit cost, without the associated modularity of Boxer, may be a disadvantage. Also, PSM has no experience with industrial partnerships in Australia: a significant disadvantage. Hanwha Defense Systems: Korea has been a bit “off” Australian defence opportunities, largely due to the cack-handed way in which the cancellation of the K-9/AS-9 was handled in 2012. The AS-9 was viewed as a loss-leader, primarily as Australia has a reputation of being a discerning (aka difficult) customer. If Hanwha bids their K21, it’ll be interesting to watch. Whilst no means exhaustive, the above outlines some less-obvious factors currently at play for the 450-vehicle opportunity that is Land 400 Phase 3.
  2. 2805662

    Israeli AFVs

    Any idea on the contrivance on top of this D-9?
  3. Australian Army Tank Museum, Puckapunyal, Victoria - just down the hill from the School of Armour. There’s a M113A1 on the hill up to gunnery wing that’s also been cut in half, just without the interior.
  4. 2805662

    Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    Not saying it would be cheaper, just better growth options. Once you’re at the negotiating table, it’s amazing what becomes possible.
  5. 2805662

    Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    Apparently a “volume discount” of Lance turrets was discussed, to no avail. Without that discount, there was no way that the DoD could reasonably mandate the Lance 1.0 turret as GFE for Phase 3. Wouldn’t be surprised if the Lance 2.0 turret was negotiated into the Phase 2, Block 2 vehicles prior to contract signature.
  6. 2805662

    Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    Aaaand - no Puma for L400-3:
  7. We must’ve got the message down here:
  8. Apparently IEEE 802.3-2012, Ethernet: 802.3 for AS GVA data distribution. Can't forget the power and power conditioning aspects of the AS GVA: There’s also defined HMI. The idea is that various systems an sub-systems can be hosted on non-proprietary screens and controls, avoiding the one screen per system that was an artefact of some of the operationally urgent acquisitions in the past decade (e.g. one screen for the GPS, one for the RWS, one for the BFT/BMS etc.).
  9. Not sure, TBH. That level of information is yet to be released (and probably yet to be decided). The design reviews for the Block 1 Boxers are underway at the moment. Apparently there is some rework around the ethernet, moving toward a Generic Vehicle Architecture based fitout (to align with Phase 3), but that’s the only detail that’s being discussed.
  10. 2805662

    CV-90, why so much love ?

    I did clarify - “as-yet-unseen mark 5/V”.
  11. 2805662

    CV-90, why so much love ?

    Anyone heard of the CV90 Mark 5? Was mentioned in passing today.
  12. Can they be networked so that the targeting function is off-boarded?
  13. 2805662

    Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    Required dimensions for L400-3:
  14. Detail of the Lance 1.0 turret’s commander’s sight retraction:
  15. Huh. Australians Major General Kath Toohey & Brigadier Shane Gabriel front row in the left. At least they’re keeping up w/what the US Army is doing.
  16. 2805662

    Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    An interesting change to the RFT Glossary has been released as an addenda (LAND 400 PHASE 3 – Mounted Close Combat Capability RFT CASG/LSD/RFT0056/18 Addendum Number 04). The definitions contained in an RFT Glossary are carefully written (& debated robustly internally) prior to RFT release, as this Glossary becomes contractually binding for the subsequent RMA, and potentially into the acquisition itself. The change? The definition of “Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV)”! From “means a highly protected and lethal AFV with excellent cross country mobility able to lift an armoured infantry section of no fewer than nine infantry soldiers, consisting of three crew and six dismounts, that can fight onto an enemy position. The IFV will have the lethality to destroy as a minimum equivalent threat AFV, air targets, and enemy dismounts operating behind fortified positions or cover. It will be a highly survivable platform with an improved ability to survive the first hits from direct fire weapons, blast and fragmentation and then continue the mission.” To: ”means a Mission System that achieves aspects of the Mounted Close Combat Capability” (yep, no full stop) Glad it’s not vague at all!
  17. It was fun to play around with. The ACOG has a custom reticle with is even more simple than that fitted to the Russian RPG-7. AirTronicUSA are also getting into the PG-7 rocket market.
  18. Its considered bad form to photograph interiors or undersides without permission. Booth staff will happily chat to and show you around/inside the vehicles if they don’t have a scheduled meeting.
  19. You asked me for my reasons - which I’ve given - not for any sources. If you find my reasons wanting, fine, however, I have answered the question you asked. Nothing I discuss in the public domain is derived from anything other than observation, experience, and analysis. The Boxer is an in-service vehicle, that has been subjected to the full range of reliability and user testing by a number of countries, and selected by those outside of the countries that funded the development, which adds to the credibility of the vehicle, in my opinion. The KF41 is not. That is not to say that it’ll get there, but (looking at Land 400-3, in this case), Rheinmetall will need every second of the 36 months (IIRC) to RMA to get that vehicle mature enough for user testing.
  20. There was another Vehicle under a tarp at the GD stand....presumably the Griffon.
  21. 2805662

    Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    AS21 model turns up again.
  22. 2805662

    Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    Updated CV90 is out & about.
  23. It was a typical in-service, in-use truck on display with its crew talking about it. Had a new-but-used feel to it.
×