2805662

Interior of the troop compartment of the KF41 Napkinpanzer:
 
 
 
best protected mobile boardroom:
 
 

Interior of the troop compartment of the KF41 Napkinpanzer:
 
 
 
best protected mobile boardroom:
 
 

Interior of the troop compartment of the KF41 Napkinpanzer:
 
 
 
best protected mobile boardroom:
 
 

This was hiding on the Rheinmetall stand:
 
 

Interior of the troop compartment of the KF41 Napkinpanzer:
 
 
 
best protected mobile boardroom:
 
 

btw, there was GAO's report on GCV proposals, which mentioned following things about that vehicle:
 

More on the Lance 2.0 mission/missile bay:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Land 907-2
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Some close ups of the KF41 Lynx (which looks and feels like a paper panzer):
 
Open driver’s hatch (good luck getting out of that wearing armour):
 
 
Driver’s hatch, viewer, coax, & the world’s slipperiest glacis:
 
 
Turret: 
 

More on the (indicative) turret:
 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 

More on the (indicative) turret:
 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 

More on the (indicative) turret:
 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 

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. 
 
 
 
Pic from 2007: start of trial. 
 
 
 

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. 
 
 
 
Pic from 2007: start of trial. 
 
 
 

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. 

I’ll dig up the requirements for under-armour reloading for the main & secondary armaments. 

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/

If I could meet you in person I would def stare sharply at you. 

Third competitor: AS-21 Redback by Hanwha. 
 
 

Request For Tender released:
 
https://www.tenders.gov.au/?event=public.atm.show&ATMUUID=F8D62769-EEF1-F99C-78E3ACCDA4927B26
 
Three “essential” (i.e. don’t bid if you can’t do this) requirements:
6 x dismounts. 
C-17 transportable when the vehicle is fully laden. 
Canberra Class “Amphibious Assault Ship” (direct quote) transportable when vehicle is fully laden. 
 
Only four pages of requirements, including aural detectability range, thermal detectability range, RPG/ATGW detection, laser targeting detection, armour protection, armour defeat, fire suppression, RWS compatibility (MAG-58, M2 QCB, Mk47), plus normal EMI/EMC etc. 

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). 
 

 
 

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.”

Contract actually signed. Standby for the LAND 400-3 RFT...
 

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!). 

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22621/the-army-wants-armored-turrets-packing-120mm-mortars-for-its-strykers-and-other-vehicles
 
US Army wants 120 mortars for its Strykers, this time turreted ones, with direct fire capability (sort of like NEMO).
It's not exactly new info, but it's a good sign that it's not a dead project.