Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
2805662

Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

Recommended Posts

On 9/13/2018 at 6:44 PM, SH_MM said:

 

  Hide contents

Aluminium oxide with polymer backing and encased in steel has a thickness efficiency of 1 or even below 1 (depending on the relation between backing and ceramic tiles) against shaped charges according to papers based on different tests made in China and Switzerland.

 

Can you show the source of that? Even via PM. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2018 at 10:16 PM, Serge said:

Families of armored tracked vehicles are divided into different classes of weight. So, looking for differences between Ajax and Namer is non sens. It would be like comparing an Audi R8 to a Renault Clio car. Both of them are cars, that’s all. 

Namer must be weighted with a T15 chassis.  

Ajax belongs to the same class as KV41 Lynx, the SPz Puma or a CV90 MkIV. Even the CV90 can be considered belonging a lower class.  

 

Theses weight classes are irrelevant for potential users who do not set a maximum weight limit (or like Australia set such a high limit, that the mentioned vehicles all would manage to meet it). There is no clear definition of these weight classes, so each manufacturer can claim that its vehicle is the best one of its class, simply by (implicitly) defining the classes in such a way, that other, better vehicles are excluded. BAE Systems can define the weight class as "up to 37 tonnes", which then would exclude the ASCOD 2/AJAX and Puma, that might offer better protection in certain areas, when offered at the same weight.

 

Just look at the Puma: It is offered with a weight ranging from 31.45 tonnes in the air-deployable "protection class A" configuration to the heavily armored version with "protection level C class" add-on armor at a weight of 41.5 tonnes (43 tonnes GVW). While Germany currently has only defined these two classes, nothing would prevent any other customer to demand any armor configuration lying inbetween, i.e. a customer could ask for the reactive side armor or the additional roof armor of the "protection class C" to be excluded, which would lower the combat weight by several tonnes. Likewise the Lynx and ASCOD 2/AJAX could be offered within various weight classes, depending on what armor kits are mounted. Depending on how much the protection of each part/sector is valued, one can argue that the Puma thanks to its multi-layered NERA array in the hull front can even be considered better armored than the CV9035 Mk III at 31-32 tonnes, so all these statements regarding "best in class protection" are usually marketing talk.

 

The weight difference to the Namer is obviously huge, yet it depends on whom you ask, wether it really should be considered a different weight or even vehicle class than some of the other mentioned vehicles.

 

On 9/19/2018 at 12:34 AM, David Moyes said:

I doubt Permali make all the armour. The contract is only for £15 million, which seems too little for nearly 600 vehicles. In an older blog post you mention that RUAG provided some armour but I can't find any other reference to this:
https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2017/08/which-new-ifv-for-czech-army.html

 

Well, I am not sure. While £15 million doesn't seem to be very much,  there are numerous factors that should be considered. Is this contract valid for all Ajax vehicles or will the purchase of armor kits be split into batches (i.e. like Germany did with the Puma)? When did Permali-Gloucester release this press release - is maybe the figure valid for the prototypes/pre-series vehicles only and they just didn't bother to write another press release at a later time?

 

I agree with £15 million being not very much, but it might not be too far off overall; Permali might provide the ballistic armor modules, while mine protection kits could be delivered by a different vendor (or be part of a different contract). Canada paid $13.5 million Canadian dollars (about $10.3 USD million, i.e. £7.84 million)  for IED protection kits for 550 LAV 6.0 vehicles (although it seems that they retain some of the existing MEXAS armor kits, so that might explain the relatively low cost of the armor).

 

I tried to find the source for the blog post again, but I haven't found it yet. If I remember correctly, it was an interview with a representative of RUAG published in a German defence magazine, where he specifically told about MinePRO and RoofPRO armor being used  on numerous Bundeswehr vehicles like the Boxer, Puma, Panzerhaubitze 2000 and Leopard 2A6M. Then he mentioned the where working on providing some armor for the "British ASCOD 2" (AJAX) - at the time however the AJAX wasn't in service, so maybe the specifications and armor supplier of the AJAX might have changed afterwards. Permali-Gloucester wrote that they provide armor for ballistic protection, i.e. it should either be roof armor (which seems unlikely given the other case studies on their website) or the main armor protecting against medium caliber and heavy machine gun fire.

 

On 9/16/2018 at 11:47 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

At 48 tons, the T-15 is only 4 tons heavier than the 44-ton KF41.  

There are, however, no indicators that either of them has especially high protection levels at the moment.  

Although intuitively and visually it seems the T-15 is better protected by quite a significant margin.

 

For IFVs, both of these vehicles should have a rather high level of protection. The Lynx KF41 meets the highest currently existing STANAG 4569 requirements and also seems to offer quite a bit of additional capability (AMAP-SC against shaped charges, roof armor against artillery bomblets [at least they mentioned that for the Lynx KF31, I guess the KF41 should also have that]) with several tonnes of additional payload being available for optional protection features.

 

The T-15 Armata is an odd design, but it seems to be heavily armored at most places aswell. The unmanned turret doesn't seem to feature much armor and the hull armor wasn't properly redesigned to compensate for the increased volume/surface area caused by the frontal engine:

U5kOnC9.jpg

 

But it good an hardkill APS, ERA protecting the roof against top-attack weapons, ERA at most of the front and sides of the hull that also provides some protection against tandem shaped charge warheads and KE ammunition and it got a mine protection plating, which however might noto be up to the competition.

 

The Namer also heavily relies on (hybrid) ERA, at the hull sides, but it provides better coverage.

 

On 9/26/2018 at 9:43 AM, 2805662 said:

On unmanned turrets: 

“A tender proposing an unmanned turret would not be excluded, however,.... there is a high risk that an unmanned turreted IFV would not be shortlisted for Risk Mitigation Activity.” 

 

Here is quote from an article containing a statement from Major General Gus McLachlan:
 

Quote

 

Most current IFVs date from the Cold War. The US produced 7,000 Bradley vehicles with the first entering service in 1981. The UK’s Warrior entered service in 1988. The Puma, developed by Rheinmetall and Krauss-Maffei Wegmann, entered service with the German Army in 2012.

Puma had been tipped as a potential contender for Australia’s IFV. However it’s expensive, around €12m (A$19m) each, and features an unmanned turret. The German Army is buying 350.

The Australian Army considered unmanned turrets for the Phase 2 CRV, and concluded they took up nearly as much space as a manned turret with not much difference in weight or size. For some of the missions on which CRV will be deployed such as peacekeeping in lower risk environments, it was concluded that it was still useful to have a human visible on top.

“That was our thinking with this one,” MAJGEN Gus McLachlan, the outgoing Commander of Army’s Forces Command told reporters at Puckapunyal in May. “That doesn’t mean that’s necessarily our thinking for the next one. We will evaluate exactly what the market is doing and what’s available.”

 

 

http://adbr.com.au/rheinmetall-lynx-lines-up-for-land-400-phase-3/

 

On 9/26/2018 at 10:47 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

So that basically nails down the APS contenders to Elbit and Rafael, offering the Iron Fist and Trophy respectively.

 

Farewell ADS...

 

Well, it depends on what is meant with "curtain-style APS". If this means all box-based/distributed active protection systems are excluded, then it might narrow down to just these systems. If the term however means something like "systems with downward-facing countermeasures mounted along the edge of the roof, incapable to protect the same spot twice or to defeat threats coming from eleveated postiions", then the ADS would still be an option.

 

When the US Army announced its plans to make a new "APS rodeo" to replace Iron Curtain in its evaluation, they got responds about five companies being interested to offer their APS designs - even if one of them was ADS and another was Trophy-VPS, there still would need to be three more active protection systems being offered on the market.

 

On 9/30/2018 at 10:35 PM, 2805662 said:

Maybe that will open a channel to get the APS formerly known as LEDS-150 into the Australian market? 

 

 

Denel is not in a position to offer an APS by itself, but maybe SAAB restarts the developement of the LEDS-150 APS. In the end they stopped works because there was no sign, that APS development would be funded by states in the near future - this obviously has changed.

 

On 9/30/2018 at 10:43 PM, 2805662 said:

Could an Australian assembly line (for hulls & turret shells, say) be used to provide a commercially-sustainable source of green vehicle shells to the ROK Army? Coupled with the use of local steel (Bisalloy steel is already slated to be used for BoxerCRV).  

 

Most likely not. The ROKA is not interested in buying a widely different vehicle from the K21 IFV, which was purpose-made to meet their requirements. They might purchase another batch of K21s, when the current one is finally finished and also seem to have plans for a product-improvment (upgrade) using ERA, an APS and the 40 mm CTAS of the AJAX.

 

The basic hull of the K21 is an aluminium construction reinforced with glassfibre-reinforced plastics, so Australia's steel industry cannot really help. The AS-21 Redback probably uses a steel hull, because aluminium hulls aren't well-suited for mine protected vehicles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 2805662 said:

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!

The answer is simple:

 

1418894208-m113-gavin.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PSM officials are awared SPz-Puma need deep modifications to satisfy foreign request. 

If this is technically feasible, the cost is unbearable for any customer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Puma not being offered for LAND 400 is a shame, but not surprising given the requirements and preferences of the Australian army. It seems that the Puma is still in the lead for the Czech IFV project, where it has been announced to be the favored solution. Interesting fact: last month Rheinmetall (and its competitors) presented their IFVs at an expo (scale models, drawing and in case of the CV90 an actual vehicle), but Rheinmetall again showcased the KF31 variant of the Lynx, instead of the Lynx KF41. It seems that this is part of Rheinmetall's marketing strategy, giving the Czech army the choice between a cheap and expensive IFV made by Rheinmetall, rather than two (relatively) expensive IFVs.

 

For Australia, where a manned turret has been declared mandatory and the Boxer CRV already has been purchased, the Lynx KF41 seems to make more sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

9 hours ago, SH_MM said:

For Australia, where a manned turret has been declared mandatory and the Boxer CRV already has been purchased, the Lynx KF41 seems to make more sense.

Yes, but what is the commonality between Lance 1 and 2.0 turrets ?

 

if I were the Australian Army, I would have compelled the Lance 1 turret first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Serge said:

 

if I were the Australian Army, I would have compelled the Lance 1 turret first

 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 2805662 said:

 

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. 

And why would the Lancelot 2 point 0 be any cheaper?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

And why would the Lancelot 2 point 0 be any cheaper?

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/3/2018 at 9:32 AM, Serge said:

Yes, but what is the commonality between Lance 1 and 2.0 turrets ? 

 

I don't think Rheinmetall has released a list of components or a percentage figure, but claimed "high commonality". In general the optics should have common parts (commander's sight is identical, gunner's sight is a modified version of the commander's sight), fire control system parts could be common to both vehicles, the armament is identical and the man-machine interface (displays, controls, etc.) could be similar. The smoke grenade launchers and SAS sensors are also used on both versions of the turret, but in case of the Lance 2.0 turret, they are integrated into the structure rather than being external modules.

 

 

Regardless what the actual percentage of common parts is, the commonality between the two Lance turret versions will be the highest. Simply because Rheinmetall is making all the key components - ranging from armor panels, coaxial machine gun, main armament, optics, ballistic computer, situational awareness system, acoustic sniper locating system to the smoke grenade launchers. In case the Lynx is not chosen, Rheinmetall should then approach the ADF and offer to integrate its components into the winning design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

52 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

In case the Lynx is not chosen, Rheinmetall should then approach the ADF and offer to integrate its components into the winning design.

So, if Rheinmetall is losing, they can integrate there failed proposal into a better platform. 

They will integrate machine gun, auto-canon, optics, FCS, situational awareness system, smock-grenade launcher... into the winner platform. And off course, the ADF will pay for an additional batch of tests. 

Makes sens.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if this is an actual possibilty, but this is what I think any company with such an advantage (i.e. having already sold a vehicle to Australia using several components that components that can be shared with the LAND 400 phase 3 offer) should try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By delfosisyu
      I can't read russian or ukraine language so the range of information is very limited for russian AFVs.
       
       
      I'd like to have information about how fast turrets of soviet IFVs rotate.
       
       
      Especially BMP2, BMP3, BTR-82
    • By Belesarius
      http://www.janes.com/article/53057/boxer-the-favourite-for-lithuanian-ifv-buy
       
      30mm Cannon and Javelins for armament.
      Is that the first vehicle mounting the Jav?
       
    • By Belesarius
      http://www.janes.com/article/52476/german-army-receives-first-production-standard-puma-aifv
       
      30mm with airburst capability, and supposedly better mine protection than a Leo 2.
       
    • By LostCosmonaut
      There are some who believe that Infantry Fighting Vehicles, such as the CV90 or BMP, are an inherently flawed concept. These people contend that IFVs try to be both a tank and an armored personel carrier, and fail to effectively perform in either role. As a result, were a sustained high-intensity conflict to occur, they would fare poorly. To my uninformed eye, this argument appears to have some merit. However, I am curious to hear to opinions of those more knowledgable than myself (or heck, anyone with an opinion at all).
×