Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

So, major Land projects that are mechanised in nature and who’s interactions are affecting future procurement activities. 

 

LAND 106: upgrade of M113A1 FOV to M113AS4.

LAND 112: ASLAV. Mulitple phases (1-4). 

LAND 116: Infantry Mobility Vehicle, later Protected Mobility Vehicle. Multiple phases. 

LAND 400: Combined Arms Fighting System.

LAND 907: Replacement Main Battle Tank. Multiple phases, Phase 2 now concerned with Abrams upgrade. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Australian National Audit Office report into Land 121 Phase 4: Protected Mobility Vehicle Light (Hawkei)

 

https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/army-protected-mobility-vehicle-light

 

Somehow we went from a Partner Nation in the Tech Dem phase of JLTV, complete with right-hand-drive prototypes being tested in Australia, to a “locally made” truck (Austrian engine, German transmission, US suspension, Israeli protected module, Israeli BMS, US radios - but locally made). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rheinmetall and DST (Defence Science and Technology group of the Australian DoD) have signed a partnership treaty regarding autonomous systems.

 

https://www.dst.defence.gov.au/news/2018/10/22/alliance-boost-defence-capability

https://asiapacificdefencereporter.com/rheinmetall-and-defence-science-and-technology-sign-research-partnership-for-autonomous-systems/

 

Might leverage technology and concepts from the Boxer JODAA development and be an advantage for LAND 400 Phase 3, if Australia is also looking at optionally manned operations.

 

SPRINT_JPW_03_JOODAA.jpg

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 Serge
      Let us open a topic dedicated to the Optionally maned  fighting vehicle. 
       
      What we know now is that we don’t know so much.
       
      What is sure, the US Army :
      - wants 9 men strong dismounted section ;
      - doesn’t want to continue to share an IFV between two sections when mounted ;
      - is awared that it’s complicated to fight with an IFV carrying a 9 men section.
       
      Platforms showed available at AUSA 2018 were :
      Griffin III from General Dynamic

       
      CV90 from BAE

       
      Lynx from Rheinmetall

       
      Maybe a proposal from SAIC ?
       
       
      My point here is the following : I have the strange feeling that there’s a misunderstanding. 
      During last years, US Army spend lots of money to study new manufacturing process, new designs... and today, when we are looking at news, all we see is old concept. 
       
      The Lynx is optimized to be a cost effective platform with proven components. But what is its upgrading capability to stay in services until 2070 ?
      CV90 is very good but it got limitations too. It need a deep reworked of its hull. 
      The Griffin was introduced as the response to the Army call but in fact there’s no other tracked other platform in the GD catalog. 
       
      I may be wrong but I can’t see any real disruption.
      What about monolithic forged hull ?
      What about decoupled running gear ?
      Are torsion bars still a solution for suspensions ?
       
      I think, this is the very beginning of the story but it’s very strange. 
×