Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
2805662

Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

Recommended Posts

Can we get a short summary on the confirmed competitors?

 

It seems to me that this requirement for AR puts Elbit and BAE in a really good position, so the ASCOD and CV90 have a good shot at this.

But if GDELS decide to partner with Rafael instead of Elbit, then that means the ASCOD and Hanwha's AS-21 have the edge in active protection, due to Rafael's large presence in Australia, and Australia's interest in mimicking certain US army acquisitions for the Abrams, meaning the Trophy has a serious edge over the Iron Fist LC, however then they will have no AR system.

 

Is there are info on whomst GDELS are partnering with?

 

Elbit is perhaps the strongest player on the AR market, having it already thoroughly tested and soon in service. But it is also one of only 2 participating companies that can offer an APS, and thus it can push Rafael and its Trophy out fairly easily.

 

 

Seems the Lynx is now at a disadvantage.

 

Share this post


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

Can we get a short summary on the confirmed competitors?

 

It seems to me that this requirement for AR puts Elbit and BAE in a really good position, so the ASCOD and CV90 have a good shot at this.

But if GDELS decide to partner with Rafael instead of Elbit, then that means the ASCOD and Hanwha's AS-21 have the edge in active protection, due to Rafael's large presence in Australia, and Australia's interest in mimicking certain US army acquisitions for the Abrams, meaning the Trophy has a serious edge over the Iron Fist LC, however then they will have no AR system.

 

Is there are info on whomst GDELS are partnering with?

 

Elbit is perhaps the strongest player on the AR market, having it already thoroughly tested and soon in service. But it is also one of only 2 participating companies that can offer an APS, and thus it can push Rafael and its Trophy out fairly easily.

 

 

Seems the Lynx is now at a disadvantage.

 

 

Only confirmed are:

Rheinmetall w/Lynx KF41 (not mention of the KF31 in their literature, nil since Eurosatory),

GDLS-A w/AJAX (turret as yet undeclared, but will be manned); and,

Hanwha w/AS-21. 

 

I think BAE may exhibit the CV90 next week, but am almost certain they won’t bid it. No mention of Puma from anyone (I don’t think KMW [or PSM] are exhibiting at Land Forces).  

Share this post


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

For the one who wants to laugh at will :

https://m.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/australian-military.html

I love this kind of article. « I’ve understood everything about AFV but I’ve no proposal. »

Marcus Hellyer should be chasing that guy up for plagiarism: https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/land-400-is-a-knight-in-shining-armour-really-what-we-need/

Share this post


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

Thanks for the brief explanation. Now, is there anything specific on manned vs unmanned turrets? 

 

And is the Lynx KF41 using a manned turret?

 

From the tender covering letter (RFT CASG_LSD_RFT0056_18 Covering Letter):

 

”Defence will proceed with seeking a manned turret solution for the vehicles that require a turret to fulfil roles. Defence will engage with the shortlisted tenderers during the Risk Mitigation Activity (RMA) to explore the growth path to a potential future unmanned turret solution.”

 

My take on that is you must have a manned turret to get shortlisted for the RMA.

 

There are some other constraints (noting that these are “Important” not “Essential”):

 

“4016: The Vehicle secondary weapon shall fire not less than 1,500 rounds without requiring a reload.

3386: The Vehicle guided weapon shall fire not less than two Missiles without requiring the Crew to expose themselves in order to reload.”

 

So, whilst the missile system (Spike 2) should have two missiles (doesn’t have to necessarily be a twin pack), it doesn’t have to be on the turret itself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having a manned turret certainly conflicts in a way, with the requirement for augmented reality. 

The whole advantage of manned turrets is that they provide higher situational awareness, but AR systems with 360 degree view, like the IronVision or BAE's BattleView, really nullify this advantage and then it's basically just disadvantages for the manned turret - worse weight utilization, worse protection for the crew, higher profile etc etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Having a manned turret certainly conflicts in a way, with the requirement for augmented reality. 

 

"Augmented vision" (as stated in the requirement) is not augmented reality. It could be a different way to describe the crew's task being assisted by cameras.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Having a manned turret certainly conflicts in a way, with the requirement for augmented reality. 

The whole advantage of manned turrets is that they provide higher situational awareness, but AR systems with 360 degree view, like the IronVision or BAE's BattleView, really nullify this advantage and then it's basically just disadvantages for the manned turret - worse weight utilization, worse protection for the crew, higher profile etc etc.

 

Servicing the armament is a plus for manned

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Serge said:

Like many turrets today, Lance turret is available in two men, one man or remotely operated configuration. 

 

It’d be interesting to see the costs of changing configurations (e.g. from manned to unmanned)  over the course of the vehicle’s life. 

 

Also interesting from a concept of employment (CONEMP) perspective is the organisational change from mounted infantry (i.e. light infantry that boards & rides in vehicles that belong to a separate organisation) to mechanised infantry (vehicle is organic to, and owned by, the section itself. The vehicle crew is drawn from the section that operates the IFV) and how (if?) that informs some of the requirements. 

 

The Operating Concept Document (OCD) released with the RFT was V.4, published in Q4/2014.....before the re-constitution of Mechanised Infantry battalions. So what? In Australian doctrine, the mechanised infantry commander (section, platoon, company) almost always dismounts when the entity he has overall command of does. 

 

So, when the vehicle stops to let its dismounts debus, the commander will have to get out of the turret, through the fighting compartment and down the ramp. Having done this in a “previous life”, ditching the CVC, squirming out of the T50 turret, putting on the PASGT (dating myself there, I guess) before dismounting was a pain in the arse. At least with a two-man turret, the section 2IC, Mech CPL, or Mech SGT is already in the turret and continue to fight the vehicle uninterrupted. 

 

How do you (potentially) quickly, and safely, ditch a helmet with AR? Not a problem if the crew & vehicle belongs to the ACR & doesn’t dismount.  Different if they’re mech as discussed above. 

Share this post


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

Same stuff that failed on Abrams. Good plan. 

And exactly how did it fail ?...i have extensive real world experience with the Barracuda MCS  and in my opinion it does exactly what it says on the tin .....it significantly reduces a vehicles thermal signature and it lowers the inside temperature by several degrees. In Afghanistan we saw a decrease in the fighting compartment temperature of 10-12 degrees Celsius when applied to our Leopard 2s .....from almost 50 degrees to less than 40......which was enough to make the air condition and cooling vests work properly. 

 

....Of course if you are stupid enough to expect it to be like a Klingon cloaking device or a substitute AC system , then yes i suppose you would call it a failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, MikeKiloPapa said:

And exactly how did it fail ?...i have extensive real world experience with the Barracuda MCS  and in my opinion it does exactly what it says on the tin .....it significantly reduces a vehicles thermal signature and it lowers the inside temperature by several degrees. In Afghanistan we saw a decrease in the fighting compartment temperature of 10-12 degrees Celsius when applied to our Leopard 2s .....from almost 50 degrees to less than 40......which was enough to make the air condition and cooling vests work properly. 

 

....Of course if you are stupid enough to expect it to be like a Klingon cloaking device or a substitute AC system , then yes i suppose you would call it a failure.

 

Side note on platform & environmental differences: 

Abrams doesn’t have aircon. 

Leopard 2 has PUP paint (differrnt permeability than CARC).

Hot/wet operating environment (Northern Australia) vs. hot environment (Afghanistan). 

 

We used it very successfully on Leopard AS1 for a decade, and knew very well what it can do and how it performs. Actually, I think Australia was one of the earliest adopters of Barracuda MCS (1997). That success was what prompted its use on Abrams, and that’s why it was a surprise when it failed on Abrams. 

 

The requirement was badly written: there was too much coverage, it was insufficiently robust (very high number of breakages/stripping), increased corrosion during the wet season, overheating of hub bearings, etc. etc.

 

In summary: too expensive, didn’t reduce the thermal load in the crew compartment enough (~5 degrees from memory), increased maintenance burden, was unpopular with the users, and didn’t markedly reduce thermal detectability to warrant to cost & workload. 

 

VFoDxna.jpg 

 

Pic from 2007: start of trial. 

 

 

 

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...