Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
2805662

Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Serge said:

The most important news : 6 men squad. 

The SPz-Puma can participate and other contenders will save plenty of room. 

That was actually confirmed a while back. Someone in the ADF said they will be adjusting squad size so that a 6-man IFV will be okay.

Share this post


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

Yes. But it’s written now. 

Moving from a 8 to a 6 men section is something serious. 

Organisationally, it’s a nine-man section, three teams of three: crew, fire-team one, & fire-team two.  So, more correct to say it’s gone from a section of eight (2 x four man fire teams [the Army Capabilty Requirement [ACR] 2012 section structure that has been the planning tenet since 2005]), and the Plan BEERSHEBA-era Standard Infantry Battalion (SIB), when no infantry sections had organic vehicles, to the mechanised & motorised model. 

 

This change occurred last year when the 3rd, 6th, and 7th Battalions of the Royal Australian Regiment (3 RAR, 6 RAR, 7 RAR) went mechanised and the APC lift squadrons from the respective Armoured Cavalry Regiments (2nd Cavalry Regiment, 2/14 Light Horse Regiment, & 1st Armoured Regiment) we’re transferred to the newly reorganised, previously-mentioned, mech battalions.

 

I can’t see Puma being bid. KMW has no footprint out here at all, no industrial partners, no contracts. Puma has no variants (engineer reconnaissance, FIST, combat engineer, command, logistic etc.), and Rheinmetall want to offer Lynx

 

The interesting thing about the previously hinted-at Protected Amphibious Vehicle is that they’ll be owned and operated by the Ship’s Army Detachments, not the Amphibious Battalion, not any of the ACR. No mention yet of which Corps will “own” them, just that they’ll be amphibious specialists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 2805662 said:

Puma has no variants (engineer reconnaissance, FIST, combat engineer, command, logistic etc.),

 

Actually PSM has said on multiple occasions that they already have CAD designs of other Puma variants (supposedly they marketed some to the German army, they also confirmed all variants for the Czech IFV tender are possible & some design already exists and they told Col. MacGregor that there would/could be a light tank variant with 120 mm gun). It's kind of similar with the Boxer, which was offered to Saudi-Arabia once in a dozen different variants (including a version with 105 mm gun, a VIP transport version, a variant with dozer blade to clear road blocks, etc.). The LAND 400 Phase 2 purchase of the Boxer by Australia is also based on numerous CAD designs (like the Boxer recovery variant with crane)...

Boxer-Repair-and-Recovery.jpg

 

Still Puma has probably only limited chances, depending on what factors Australia considers more import. I doubt that Rheinmetall would block offering the Puma to Australia (they also offered it to the Czech Republic, where the Lynx was also offered) - for Rheinmetall offering both Puma and Lynx only increases the chances of winning the contract. The Lynx and Puma are not direct competitors based on the price, the Lynx was designed for customers who cannot afford the Puma. Personally I'd love to see a modified Puma by PSM with larger internal space (raised roof, stretched hull) and potentially a different turret (bigger gun).

 

I think it will be more interesting to see how other vendors deal with the requirements. For Rheinmetall it is pretty straight-forward to keep the Lance turret (either Mk 1 or Mk 2), a 30/35 mm gun and a Spike-LR II launcher. But what will General Dynamics do to create an AJAX IFV variant? I have trouble believing that the Lance-based turret is available - even if it was, a 40 mm CTAS gun would hardly be optimal for Australia (introducing a new calibre is not ideal). Also using Lockheed Martin UK's turret with Javelin missiles doesn't make much sense when the Spike missile is already chosen for the Boxer. So will the Ajax be offered with an unmanned turret from Israel as showcased on the ASCOD 35 at Eurosatory and tested in the Czech Republic?

The biggest changes will need to be made to the K-21 IFV though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

Actually PSM has said on multiple occasions that they already have CAD designs of other Puma variants. It's kind of similar with the Boxer, which was offered to Saudi-Arabia once in a dozen different variants (including a version with 105 mm gun, a VIP transport version, a variant with dozer blade to clear road blocks, etc.). The LAND 400 Phase 2 purchase of the Boxer by Australia is also based on numerous CAD designs (like the Boxer recovery variant with crane)...

Boxer-Repair-and-Recovery.jpg

 

I  believing that the Lance-based turret is available - even if it was, a 40 mm CTAS gun would hardly be optimal for Australia (introducing a new calibre is not ideal). Also using Lockheed Martin UK's turret with Javelin missiles doesn't make much sense when the Spike missile is already chosen for the Boxer. So will the Ajax be offered with an unmanned turret from Israel as showcased on the ASCOD 35 at Eurosatory and tested in the Czech Republic?

 

The biggest changes will need to be made to the K-21 IFV though...

 

PSM don’t *have* variants - they are only CAD, not real, not tested (yes, just as GD don’t *have* an IFV).

 

The Tender specifies 30x173mm, which rules out 40mm CTAS & the 35mm options. 

 

As the turret (at least initially) must be manned, so the turret displayed Eurosatory isn’t suitable (neither is the PSM Puma turret). The turret on the UK Ajax is a Lance turret at its core, so is unlikely to be able to be offered as Rheinmetall would block it. I’m predicting a new turret....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Actually PSM has said on multiple occasions that they already have CAD designs of other Puma variants (supposedly they marketed some to the German army, they also confirmed all variants for the Czech IFV tender are possible & some design already exists [/quote]

At EuroSatory exhibition, PSM representatives were not so optimistic. 

 

5 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Still Puma has probably only limited chances, depending on what factors Australia considers more import.

The order of priorities will play an important role. 

 

5 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Personally I'd love to see a modified Puma by PSM with larger internal space (raised roof, stretched hull) and potentially a different turret (bigger gun).

 

I think it will be more interesting to see how other vendors deal with the requirements. For Rheinmetall it is pretty straight-forward to keep the Lance turret (either Mk 1 or Mk 2), a 30/35 mm gun and a Spike-LR II launcher.

The request today is just for a 30mm  auto canon. 

Share this post


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

It's also interesting that the transport requirements pretty much permit a 60-ton vehicle (or more), yet no Namer. What's up with that, Jooz?

Am I a 1 man lobby? I feel like Michael Sparks.

Because nobody wants a Namer like solution, especially in large countries. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Australia won’t pay the massive fuel consumption of tank heavy APC.

 

With Israel, life is easy. Tank parks are no more than 1km far from the front line. They don’t know what is a long logistical train. They don’t have railway. When a Namer is destroying a road by its own weight, it’s not a problem. The road is Palestinian one.

 

I can image the Australian staff

« Gentlemen, our Namer strong brigade will counterattack Chinese force 1000km away from it.

- Sir, yes sir. But the strategic reserve will fall short of fuel after 200km. 

- ok, no problem. We will wait in Canberra to strike them deep. »

 

I can remember how easy it was to destroy French roads with the 15t only heavy AMX-10RC.

Share this post


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

And Australia won’t pay the massive fuel consumption of tank heavy APC.

 

With Israel, life is easy. Tank parks are no more than 1km far from the front line. They don’t know what is a long logistical train. They don’t have railway. When a Namer is destroying a road by its own weight, it’s not a problem. The road is Palestinian one.

 

I can image the Australian staff

« Gentlemen, our Namer strong brigade will counterattack Chinese force 1000km away from it.

- Sir, yes sir. But the strategic reserve will fall short of fuel after 200km. 

- ok, no problem. We will wait in Canberra to strike them deep. »

 

I can remember how easy it was to destroy French roads with the 15t only heavy AMX-10RC.

That was said more as a joke, not as a serious recommendation, because obviously marketing the Namer or any other heavy AFV made in Israel is marketed by SIBAT, which is a gov't agency that merely bunches up a lot of local industries and does marketing for them. With a whole lot of industries taking part in the production and development, organizing production with a foreign customer becomes complicated. Not to mention there's some odd reluctance to sell these AFVs, even though limited marketing was green-lighted in 2010. For example the marketing of the Sabra to the Czech Republic instead of a Merkava. 

 

But I'd still like to point out a few things where I believe you're terribly wrong.

 

Logistics are in fact, an issue in Israel. Maybe there is no need for the IDF to move a thousands kilometers at a time, but due to its geographical and demographical traits (mostly urbanized in all ends of the country, same goes for neighboring countries, roads are very busy, and the main road does not extend sufficiently to the borders, plus centralized but vulnerable logistical centers that are all within artillery range for the enemy) it's not very hard to see that the few hundred kilometers in which the IDF can move, are very tightly packed, while for Australia it may be just driving a very long way without facing any threat.

 

Regardless of where the front is, a sheer amount of forces will have to move 200km in a very busy road infrastructure in just a matter of days, or even hours, with a need to maneuver to a range of anything from 10km, to 150km or more, if we believe the recent talks about needing to reach all the way to northern Lebanon to destroy the longest range artillery.

That's 150km deep inside very dense and hostile environment, made up of a lot of urban areas along the way. How you do that without a very robust logistical network, I don't know.

 

Also, two things I'd like to note.

1)We do have a railway. Our trains couldn't drive anywhere otherwise.

2)Destroying roads, whether Palestinian, Lebanese, or Syria, IS a problem. If a road collapses, especially when the terrain is uneven, it could lead to a loss of lives and material. 

Example here, from Lebanon:

Spoiler

lvl220160721012911.jpg

 

And of course, the Namer's autonomy is 500km, which is a standard range, perhaps only exceeded by the CV90 Mk IV, which is said to have a 600km range.

 

Again, it was said with humor, but if we examine the possibility from the perspective of technical parameters alone, and not business considerations, then it is a viable option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd also like to point out, it is exceedingly unlikely for the Australians to need to road march 1000km as hypothesized, Australia themselves have a good railway network, and on their continent that will take care of long-distance logistics for the most part. Most heavy-vehicle combat theaters in SEA are pretty short-ranged. The only places where you could conceivably need to move a heavy mechanized or armored formation 1000km for the ADF are on Australia itself (hence railway), or on the Chinese mainland itself (Which, as an understatement, is a remarkably optimistic battle planning assumption; and they have a great rail network as well...) - pretty much everywhere else in SEA mountains or water bodies will be far more of a limitation for distance than the vehicle's speed or autonomy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Australia has an economy dependant upon moving kit much heavier than a namer over vast distances.  A dragline bucket could scoop a namer and have room to spare.

 

Australia would enjoy the safety benefits of a namera class vehicle.  But why?

 

The boxers are for our global peacekeeping missions, this next phase is more for defense of australia/png. 

 

What vehicles is suitable for both open desert and mountainous forrest?  I suspect the korean offering is more applicable to australia than generally considered.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

What vehicles is suitable for both open desert and mountainous forrest?  I suspect the korean offering is more applicable to australia than generally considered.  

Every vehicle can work in deserts or in mountainous forests. 

It’s more a problem of air cooling. 

 

The problem of K21 is the turret. Australian Army want a 30mm autocanon but Korean companies don’t have such a thing. 

It would have been easier for everybody if the Lance had been called. Competition would have been concentrated on the chassis properties. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Serge said:

 

Every vehicle can work in deserts or in mountainous forests. 

It’s more a problem of air cooling. 

 

The problem of K21 is the turret. Australian Army want a 30mm autocanon but Korean companies don’t have such a thing. 

It would have been easier for everybody if the Lance had been called. Competition would have been concentrated on the chassis properties. 

Hanwha already said that it should be EZ PZ for them to integrate the Lance turret.

But I support the decision to let contenders use their own turrets (so long as they're in 30mm).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you will face the following  problems :

- you restart the selection wich is a waste of time and money ;

- you run the risk to have two different auto canons and turret with added costs (spares, training, maintenance...) ;

- you run the risk to select an average vehicle (turret+chassis) not the best chassis available ;

- you won’t be able to upgrade your turret fleet the same way. 

 

Hanwha must an other partner if Rheinmetall is candidate. Maybe CMI. 

Share this post


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

I wish these companies would get help painting their camouflage patterns so that they actually look Australian. Doesn’t cost any more to get it right. 

And I wish someone decides to add a whole bunch of stuff to the Lynx KF41 because that clean sleek look is NOT pretty. It's ugly. And what's more, sharp edges do not contribute to camouflage. They ruin it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • By Serge
      The Armored Combat Vehicle Puma started as a privat-venture betwen Krauss-Maffei and Diehl in 1983. The two first prototypes were ready first in spring 1986 with a Kuka 20mm two men turret and second in autumn with a Diehl 120mm mortar turret. 
      ACV-Puma was intented as an export armored vehicle of the 16-28 t class. 
       

       
      By 1983 original concept, it was offered with two engine options (400/600hp) to cope with the level of armor protection asked.
      The running gear was a mixt of both Leopard-1 and 2 components :
      - Leo-1 : road wheels, track support rollers, torsion bars and even the driver's seat ;
      - Leo-2 : track adjuster, cooling system components and sproket hub.
      It was possible to run the engine outside of its compartment. 
       
      In 1988, the concept was improved further :
      - the class range reached 38t ;
      - the engines offer was 440 or 750hp strong ;
      - the chassis was now available in two length (5/6 road wheels) and  hight/low profil hull (20cm).

      The ACV-Puma was a contender at the Norwegian IFV programme from 1991 and the Turkish 1987 relaunched TIFV programme.
      Norway chose CV-90 and Turkey, the AIFV.
      (If anyone have information about how it was a serious contender, I'm interested)
      It was also evaluated by the Swiss army in 1991. I don't know if it took part to the Char de grenadiers 2000 programme. 
       

      In 1983´s concept, the difference betwen the low profil hull and the 20cm higher hight profil hull was obtained by a "box shape vertical raised" rear compartment. With the 1988's design, the front slop is now different to achieve a better ballistic protection. 
       
      When considering documentations of this period, it's important to note the mine/IED protection was not a priority like today. 
       
      I'll post soon a scan showing general layout of the troop compartment. It's a Marder/BMP old fashion one with soldiers facing outside. 
       
      Even if it was not a success at exportation, I think ACV-Puma must be known because of both :
      - the outdated combat beliefs of the 80's (still vigourous today) ;
      - and advanced proposal  such as the differential hull length from the drawing board. 
       
      I have a question :
      Does anyone known if a 6 road wheels chassis was ever built ?
    • 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.
       
×
×
  • Create New...