Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

2805662

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    256
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by 2805662

  1. 2805662

    Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    The gun is *not* common between phases. The caliber is.
  2. 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.
  3. 2805662

    Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    It is. The model shipped to Australia in September painted green, I helped out a mate by repainting it the day before the tradeshow (Land Forces) into the camouflage, after DVD in the UK, the model was repainted into the desert scheme and will (likely) appear at IDEX this week in Abu Dhabi.
  4. DOT&E report on Javelin http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2018/pdf/army/2018javelin.pdf
  5. DOT&E report for 2018 published. Abrams: http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2018/pdf/army/2018m1a2sep.pdf APS: http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2018/pdf/army/2018aps.pdf AMPV: http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2018/pdf/army/2018ampv.pdf Bradley: http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2018/pdf/army/2018bradley.pdf JAB: http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2018/pdf/army/2018jab.pdf M109A7: http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2018/pdf/army/2018m109pim.pdf Stryker - Dragoon: http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2018/pdf/army/2018strykericvd.pdf RWS-J: http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2018/pdf/army/2018strykercrowsj.pdf ACV: http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2018/pdf/navy/2018acv.pdf
  6. 2805662

    Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    Apart from GFE, there’s no commonality requirement across the phases of L400. CASG wasn’t reigned in enough before RFT release, IMO.
  7. 2805662

    Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    No necessarily. Not even the 30mm gun has to be common across the phases.
  8. In other news, Iron Fist - Light has been selected for the Australian Boxer purchase. https://defense-update.com/20190121_iron-fists-aps-for-the-australian-boxers.html?sfns=mo “Australia plans to contract Rheinmetall to integrate Iron Fist on the Lance turrets being used on the 121 of the Block II (improved reconnaissance vehicles) Australia is buying under the Land 400 Phase 2 program.”
  9. 2805662

    Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    For a rational customer, I’d agree. However, the strength of GD’s potential offering is that, with the exception of the IFV hull (arguably the simplest of the family), they are offering a fully mature, technically certified & qualified family of vehicles, as accepted by the British, from whom the majority of standards & procedures used by the Land Engineering Agency (LEA) are derived from (Def Stans & DEF(AUST)s). Deviation from already-qualified vehicles undermines this narrative, which is “Low Technical Risk/Military Off The Shelf”. Let’s look at some decisions that GD have made so far regarding production. - hulls will be manufactured as ‘green’ hulls in existing facilities (so as not to risk perceived technical maturity). - hulls won’t use Australian steel (so as not to risk perceived technical maturity). Based on the above, and that nowhere in the L400 RFT is a requirement for calibres above 30mm, Griffin 1-3, whilst interesting, and illustrative of design capabilities and future options, aren’t really relevant to the L400-3 activity.
  10. 2805662

    Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    That’s my point. GD is offering AJAX-based variants only. They have been stressing the proven, low risk nature of their family of vehicles from the outset. Griffin (any variant) haven’t been accepted into service by any country and haven’t been subjected to a customer’s engineering & qualification processes like the AJAX families. Apart from being from the same OEM, it has no standing within the context of Land 400 Phase 3, as far as I can see. What “impact” are you suggesting?
  11. Apart from Tom Clancy - derived sources, is there any official confirmation that the M-8 was named?
  12. 2805662

    Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    Theyre all AJAX derivatives.
  13. Qatari KF-41 Lynx? https://twitter.com/jeremybinnie/status/1075008024136306689?s=21
  14. 2805662

    Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    Is the KF41 in service with Qatar, now? https://twitter.com/jeremybinnie/status/1075008024136306689?s=21
  15. 2805662

    M8 Buford Is Back

    Plus compartmentalised ammunition stowage either side of the driver to top up the ready bin.
  16. 2805662

    General AFV Thread

    According to a Rheinmetall guy I spoke to, the decision was commercially based.
  17. 2805662

    General AFV Thread

    @Toxn - any pics of the Olifant IB/II?
  18. 2805662

    General AFV Thread

    @Toxn - any pics of the Olifant IB/II?
  19. 2805662

    Britons are in trouble

    For years the British Army had a program called “FIST” (future infantry soldier technology or similar). Having used the FIST BMS software back in the day, all I can say is “no thank you” - real gen zero stuff. Putting it on was like falling into a pit of snakes (lots of cables)...just one problem amongst many.
  20. Still amazed at how lightly armoured the Leopard 1 - of any variant - is. There is a Leopard AS1 turret that was subjected to an unscheduled ballistic “test” by a 105mm service sabot round held in storage in Wodonga. Sadly, pics were not permitted. Apparently, the AS1 aren’t lasting nearly as long as forecast as hard targets. Further discussions revealed that the life projections were based on how long the Centurion Mk.5/1s lasted.
  21. Leopard AS1 (A3) - doesn’t like 120mm practice ammunition.
  22. 2805662

    Israeli AFVs

    Any idea on the contrivance on top of this D-9?
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
×