2805662
-
Posts
691 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
52
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Everything posted by 2805662
-
I agree with Matt. Lynx KF41 isn’t “real”, yet. Not counting ASCOD @ Eurosatory in June, I haven’t seen AJAX in the flesh since DSEi 2015, so it’ll be good to see a variant of it in the same place as KF41, CV90 (potentially), & K-21 the week after next. @SH_MM of course it is yet to be decided. The RFT isn’t out & bid/no bid decisions are yet to be made.
-
https://www.contracts.mod.uk/do-features-and-articles/ajax-boosting-uk-land-capabilities/ The contract between the MoD & GDELS is signed and being executed. Details of delivery schedules not being in the public domain isn’t odd (IMO). The fact that there is a contract for AJAX somewhat invalidates the Piranha FRES-UV example given. The advantage that I see with AJAX is that there is a homogenous standard of qualification across a wide range of variants by a single user, in this case part of the Five Eyes community. Having a qualified, homogenous family of modern vehicles, paid for another customer should positively affect the platform cost (someone else paid for NRE), reduces schedule risk, and should reduce the workforce bill from the customer side for design reviews etc. You’re right with the IFV: there’s nothing. It could be said that that’s an opportunity to work with/ integrate to whatever soldier system is selected by LAND 125 Phase 4....if you’re an optimist. Of course vehicles are tested without being purchased. In the last 20 years, the Australian Army (to keep the example relevant) has evaluated the AMV35, Bv10, Eagle V, JLTV, M109, LAV-120mm mortar. The AJAX family is being introduced into service in the British Army, a pretty distinct difference to “tested & never purchased”. I’m still not convinced that CV90 will be bid. Army took a good look at the E35 turret last time and wasn’t impressed. Power supply remains a significant challenge (powering APS, RWS, hunter/killer sights, ATGW, etc. none of which are *simultaneously* fitted to any CV90 variant). Plus BAE has won a lot of business in Australia this year (JORN, SEA 5000, for example) and may not have the workforce, resources, or appetite for a four-year campaign.
-
I wouldn’t say so, when compared to other families such as AMPV (for example) or AJAX.
-
Are those CV90 variants all on the same chassis and generation? And on the current generation of production? Or a hodge podge across different build states?
-
That’s delivery/series production, which is a different issue. The variant designs themselves are complete, or near complete, (PDR, CDR, prototyped, tested, qualified, & certified) in partnership with a very demanding customer (British Army). No other viable contender (Lynx KF41, K21, or CV90) can say the same thing. Team Ajax is in the unusual position that their IFV variant (new turret + searing for 6 or 8 dismounts) is the least technically mature of the family. What remains to be seen in public is which turret will be offered by GD, though I’m expecting an announcement in the next ten days.
-
And....Team AJAX is in the public domain for Land 400-3: So far, this is the contender with the most mature variants (fitter, recovery, ambulance etc.), thanks to the British Army’s investment in their family of vehicles.
-
BAE will now display a CV90 at Land Forces 2018, having been “asked” to. No word on what scale, though! So, the lineup (for Land Forces 18) will be GD’s Apollo, BAE CV90, K21, and Rheinmetall Lynx. From a maturity point of view, the ASCOD (+)/AJAX (-) family has a range of qualified variants entering service with the British Army. Lynx remains relatively immature, and CV90 has a couple of concept demonstrators of non-IFV variants. This field is in stark contrast to the Phase 2 competitors (in-service hulls & turrets, though not necessarily in the combinations offered), though the timeline is a bit longer. Here’s some pics that I took in 2016, when the competition for Phase 2 was heating up & BAE were showcasing the turret commonality with the AMV35. This vehicle was on loan from the Dutch (RNLA).
-
StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)
2805662 replied to EnsignExpendable's topic in Mechanized Warfare
Not yet. Now that the contract has been signed, I’d expect more details to trickle out. There’s been a big push by Varley Rafael Australia (relatively new JV) on the APS front....I’m expecting a degree of standardisation on the APS. Covers off on AIC (Australian Industry Capability), whilst offering economies of scale (Abrams, Boxer, Phase 3, etc.). -
As expected...some progress: ”LAND 400 Phase 3 Classified Briefing Registration The LAND 400 Phase 3 Mounted Close Combat Capability Request For Tender (RFT) will be released shortly. The project will hold a classified briefing to vehicle OEMs and Primes who intend to submit a response to the RFT to detail classified technical requirements, specifically the protection requirements listed in the Technical Requirements Matrix (TRM), shortly after release. Defence has a specific process for releasing official information outside of Defence. There are two main steps. The process is different for Australian companies and foreign companies. Step one – Australian companies For Australian companies, the members attending the briefing will need to hold a Negative Vetting Level 1 or higher security clearance. Step one – Foreign companies Determine if your nation has a Security of Information Agreement and Arrangement (SIA) with Australia. A Security of Information Agreements and Arrangement (SIA) is a formal commitment to apply reciprocal protection to official information exchanged between Australia and your nation. This protection is to meet agreed security standards outlined in the relevant SIA. You may need to contact the Department of Defence equivalent of your nation to determine if there is a valid SIA in place. The existence of an SIA does NOT provide blanket approval for the release of classified information. Approval must be granted by Defence on every occasion where a release of official information is sought. This approval will be granted by the LAND 400 Phase 3 Project Office. Step Two Register with the LAND 400 Phase 3 Contact Officer with your relevant information to attend the briefing. The minimum details required by Defence are as follows: The status of a valid SIA (for foreign companies), the names, DOB, position within your company, and Australian or foreign security clearance level of those Subject Matter Experts you wish to attend. Numbers will be limited to no more than four per company and the final veto for attendance will remain with the LAND 400 Phase 3 Project Office. Please register your interest to attend the classified briefing with all relevant details via the LAND 400 Phase 3 Contact Officer mailbox. If you are a foreign company that is not subject to a valid SIA and you wish to attend the classified briefing please contact the project via the mailbox as soon as possible. On 13 March 2018, Government provided First Pass approval for LAND 400 Phase 3 Mounted Close Combat Capability, comprising, Infantry Fighting Vehicle and Manoeuvre Support Vehicle capabilities. This approval allows Defence to investigate options to replace Army’s M113 Armoured Personnel Carriers (APCs) with a fleet of up to 450 modern Infantry Fighting Vehicles and also acquire up to 17 Manoeuvre Support Vehicles. Defence anticipates releasing the LAND 400 Phase 3 RFT in the second half of 2018.”
-
Only relevant as this was a prerequisite for the Request For Tender release for Phase 3...
-
StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)
2805662 replied to EnsignExpendable's topic in Mechanized Warfare
Contract actually signed. Standby for the LAND 400-3 RFT... -
@Mighty_Zuk Anyone who thinks they have a compliant solution can bid; it’s their money to waste (one tenderer for ADF replacement trucks spent $20 million on tendering before realising that their offer wasn’t going to win). I don’t think BAE will bid the CV90. Regarding growth potential, ADF was well bitten by LAND 106 (M113 upgrade project) that delivered a vehicle with a 2% growth margin for a 15 service life. Can’t go far on 0.13% annual available growth! [Btw, Australia doesn’t have a MoD, it has a DoD.]
-
Interesting you mention APS....you may recall that the US Army was having power generation issues with the Iron Fist for Bradley? Apparently that limitation is also present on a couple of other favourites for L400-3.
-
Australian interest in things Israeli (BRIG in this case = Brigadier, i.e. 1 star):
-
Lance 2.0 gets Australianised.
-
Slight correction - not yet they don’t. Well, not for L400-2.
-
The (apparent) issue goes the other way: Rheinmetall aren’t playing nice about putting Lance turret onto other platforms for Phase 3. From a support perspective, turret commonality makes a lot of sense. The School of Armour currently trains three turrets of differing levels of complexity: M1A1 SA turret (M256, M2/48, M240/MAG58) ASLAV-25 Delco turret (M242, M240/MAG58) M113 turret (a very simple turret. M2 QCB) Reducing this to the tank turret & the Lance turret would help trainee throughput, whereas adding another, but selecting a different turret of similar complexity would be a training nightmare. That’s just user level. It also doubles the maintainer training requirement, and adds fleet management overheads. Here’s where we get to the nub of the L400: the procurement phases (i.e. the shortest phases) were emphasised, especially to maximise competitive tension. To that end, they were deliberately de-linked. Time will tell whether that was a smart decision.
-
Not if Rheinmetall decline to share their IP. If Rheinmetall’s Phase 3 competitive advantage is their Phase 2 turret (effectively incumbency), what’s their incentive to share that?
-
For background, each of the three Australian Multi-role Combat Brigades are organised as follows: - Brigade HQ - Combat Signals Regiment - Armoured Combat Regiment (1 x Sqn MBT [upgraded via L907-2], 2 x Sqn CRV [L400-2 BoxerCRV]) - Mechanised Infantry Battalion (currently M113AS4: replacement will be L400-3 IFV) - Motorised Infantry Battalion (Bushmaster PMV, to be replaced by L81xx [can’t recall]) - Artillery Regiment (2/3 x Bty of M777A2) - Combat Engineer Regiment - Combat Service Support Battalion As can be seen, it’s a bit of a mixed bag. Towed guns, mix of wheeled & tracked AFV, a sub-unit of tanks for the entire brigade, insufficient organic combat engineering, and differing levels of protection & mobility for each of the infantry battalions. The brigades are almost common/interchangeable by design, but internally, they have no depth for the capabilities offered. The three MCB rotate between three phases of the force generation cycle of “readying” (training, getting new gear, being certified), “ready” (deployable), and “reset” (not rest!).
-
“Mobility. Security. Passion.” wtf does passion have to do with an IFV?
-
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.
-
Anyway....this thread is about Phase 3: IFV, not Phase 2. Thoughts on the best way/place to continue the CRV discussion?
-
Interesting analysis. CRV isn’t about reconnaissance (IMO). It’s about Army leadership (senior RAAC/black hats) who were caught short by ASLAV’s vulnerability to IED in Afghanistan. Then over-reacting to a threat, they accelerated the replacement phase of the project. Boxer is a classic case of “emergent requirements” - without discipline, the aggregate of individual requirements can be a monstrosity that doesn’t meet the need. Side note: Australia has a *Department* of Defence, not a ministry, though it is headed up by the Minister of Defence (don’t ask). So, DoD, not MoD. I think ADF may be sleepwalking toward a pure Boxer fleet for non-tank armour...replacement (with different modules) for ASLAV, M113AS4, & Bushmaster.
-
I worked with the author when he was in “contestability” for major projects in the Department. All the objections had a common theme - is now the best time to replace a capability? Is the identified capability solution the right one? Maybe we should give Air Force the money. (Okay, made the last one up)
-
“So IFVs may not be survivable in a future conventional war, and they may be poor value for the likely tasks the ADF will have to perform in the future in the near region.“ https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/land-400-is-a-knight-in-shining-armour-really-what-we-need/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily The Strategist&utm_content=Daily The Strategist+CID_e43769539cc22d4a3dafe82240618155&utm_source=CampaignMonitor&utm_term=LAND 400 Is a knight in shining armour really what we need
