Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

[DIADES]

23 hours ago, 2805662 said:

Defence paid handsomely for that investment.

and so capitalising rather than duplicating is the obvious way to leverage money spent.

[2805662]

1 minute ago, DIADES said:

and so capitalising rather than duplicating is the obvious way to leverage money spent.

Sunk cost fallacy. All eggs in one basket isn’t smart. The German government has recent form in export control capriciousness. 

[DIADES]

5 minutes ago, 2805662 said:

Sunk cost fallacy.

Yes, can be but given MILVEHCOE is utterly new and state of the art, no.  Can Australia really afford two AFV manufacturing centers?  Can the ADF afford to operate two completely different turrets?

 

As for Export controls... well Korea is utterly in the pocket of the US so in no way reliable.  And in any case, the engine is German..

[2805662]

11 hours ago, DIADES said:

Yes, can be but given MILVEHCOE is utterly new and state of the art, no.  Can Australia really afford two AFV manufacturing centers?  Can the ADF afford to operate two completely different turrets?

 

As for Export controls... well Korea is utterly in the pocket of the US so in no way reliable.  And in any case, the engine is German..

We’re also “utterly in the pocket” of the US, and only one of three countries that has a bilateral defence trade cooperation treaty with the US (the others being UK & Canada). ROK is much more closely aligned with Australian interests than Germany, especially in regard to regional challenges. 

Who’s to say that the potential Hanwha facility wouldn’t be used for non-ADF customers? 

 

I agree that two medium-calibre turrets is a bad idea for the ADF. There doesn’t appear to be anything that would preclude the turret from whichever platform being backcast onto Boxer. After all, the Lance 2.0 is so different from Lance 1.0 that is a new turret from a supportability perspective. 
 

Rheinmetall missed a trick during Phase 2 negotiations by not making options for further quantities of Lance worthwhile for the Commonwealth. Had they done that, Lance would’ve likely been mandated as the turret solution, much like the EOS R400 is for the RWS. 
 

If the AS21 was to win, I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s turret appeared on Boxer CRV for Block 2. After all, Boxer is modular, right?

[DIADES]

11 hours ago, 2805662 said:

surprised if it’s turret appeared on Boxer CRV

 

I do think CoA should have mandated that Rheinmetall offer LANCE to all tenderes.  I guess they took the market forces view.

 

Pretty sure that there is no possibility of non-LANCE on BOXER Ph2 as the schedules are too far out of wack.  Block 2 will be being delivered before there is a decision on Ph3

[Kal]

On 12/3/2020 at 7:13 PM, DIADES said:

Easy - no facility.  NADA.  I would love to be proved wrong so somebody tell me where hanwha has actually spent any money in Australia?  Anybody seen any ads on Seek etc for Engineers even?  Nope,

 

Like I say, somebody please show me any evidence of actual spend.  All I can see is old school spend nothing, win, do the Project, shut down and bugger off.

if you want i could link seek ads for elbit and eos Elbit Jobs in All Australia - SEEK  Eos asx Jobs in All Australia - SEEK  

 

in all seriousness, at a distance the Redback and the Lynx seem both good items,  both comparable enough that if the products were switched (ie Lynx were to be Hanwha and Redback were to be Rheinmetall) it wouldn't change much,  a very different story to phase 2 where the Boxer was obviously the better vehicle for Australia's needs.  The problem is that by going with Rheinmetall again, as a country we will just be asking to be screwed on price for any and every upgrade.  Rheinmetall is smart, they will look us up and down and work out a price high enough that some other project in defense gotta be cancelled when we need an additional feature that was not part of original contract.  So even though I'm now a Queenslander i still think the Redback is the better option for Australia.

 

look, I'm no longer impartial, I had to wait until EOS was large enough before my super allowed be to allow me to buy into it,  so i got some EOS shares now in my super,  the choice as I see it, is that either Australia gets the Lynx but can't afford the later upgrades to counter UAV goodness, or Australia gets the redback and both affords and will soon enough get the upgrade to counter UAV goodness, some including freaking lasers. EOS-Mopoke-Full-Spectrum-CUAS-Capabilities-Web.pdf (eos-aus.com)

 

because if War comes our backyard, the UAV content will make Nagorno-Karabakh seem like stroll in the park.

anyone will be able an purchase export equivalent to www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ma3ya_lqCLM

 

 

 

[DIADES]

9 hours ago, Kal said:

we will just be asking to be screwed on price for any and every upgrade

nothing to do with how many products or projects a Prime has - that is their business model.  They all have long (15 years plus) support contracts and they use the IP stick to stop CoA sourcing work on their platforms from others.  Hanwha will do exactly the same for the same reasons.

 

The saying is "give the vehicles to the customer for free, as long as they sign a support contract, that is where the money is!"

 

[DIADES]

9 hours ago, Kal said:

elbit and eos Elbit Jobs in All Australia - SEEK  Eos asx Jobs in All Australia - SEEK  

Elbit is recruiting for its C4I business.  EOS for is RWS and general electro-optic stuff.

 

EOS is not a bad bet from an investment POV.  But, I will bet you a carton that RA wins. (xxxx Gold even)

[Kal]

On 12/5/2020 at 7:16 AM, DIADES said:

nothing to do with how many products or projects a Prime has - that is their business model.  They all have long (15 years plus) support contracts and they use the IP stick to stop CoA sourcing work on their platforms from others.  Hanwha will do exactly the same for the same reasons.

 

The saying is "give the vehicles to the customer for free, as long as they sign a support contract, that is where the money is!"

 

yeah, but CoA is going to have 3 obvious choices for turret upgrades, particulary for counter UAV tech,  EOS, Elbit and Hanwha are all excelent choices,   vs Rheinmetall where its going to be a sucker's price later on.   Similar with any future armour upgrades, Redback is essentially a prequalified panel of providers, whereas Lynx is locked in sole source.

 

similarly with ammo, Rheinmetall 30mm gun with proprietary non-nato linkage, no pay no fire.

[SH_MM]

There isn't any reason why Hanwha is more open to customization and integration/qualifying parts of different suppliers than Rheinmetall.

 

RE 30 mm ammo: Nammo for example supplies 30 x 173 mm rounds for the MK-30/2 as mounted on Ascod.

[Kal]

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

There isn't any reason why Hanwha is more open to customization and integration/qualifying parts of different suppliers than Rheinmetall.

 

RE 30 mm ammo: Nammo for example supplies 30 x 173 mm rounds for the MK-30/2 as mounted on Ascod.

yeah nah.

 

 

Ammunition with ammunition belt for Bushmaster II cannon (top) and for Rheinmetall MK 30-2 cannon (bottom) | CZD archive

 

It would be uncharacterically bold for australia defense procurement to purchase 30mm ammo that was not canon's maker's preferred,  even more so if the links are different.

 

since 30mm ammo comes as belts in boxes, just hope we don't need to rely on NATO partners fors overseas deployment.

 

Its a situation of damned if we do, damned if we don't.

 

 

 

 

 

[SH_MM]

Again, Nammo makes ammunition with links suitable for Rheinmetall's cannon, ammunition which is used with Rheinmetall cannon. General Dynamics makes ammunition used and compatible with the MK-30/1, pretending that they could never supply ammunition for the MK-30/2 - just because they would need a new steel catridge - is silly.

[Kal]

6 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

Again, Nammo makes ammunition with links suitable for Rheinmetall's cannon, ammunition which is used with Rheinmetall cannon. General Dynamics makes ammunition used and compatible with the MK-30/1, pretending that they could never supply ammunition for the MK-30/2 - just because they would need a new steel catridge - is silly.

Its not a question of do others supply it, its a question of would Australian defense even consider it.

 

back to land 400 phase 2 

Joint media release - Prime Minister, Minister for Defence Industry and Minister for Defence - New Vehicles to protect our troops and create 1450 jobs | Department of Defence Ministers

'The Government will spend $5.2 billion to acquire the 211 vehicles, which will replace the Army’s current ageing Australian Light Armoured Vehicle fleet.

Over the 30-year life of the vehicles, Australian industry will secure two thirds, or $10.2 billion, of the total investment in acquiring and maintaining the fleet'

they won't nickel and dime on the ammo, when they are spending this type of money, the risk reward is just not there for procurement.

[Beer]

There is similar discussion ongoing here in CZ. The reason is we have Bushmaster II on Pandurs and from logistical point of view the Rheinmetall MK-30/2 simply is a problem and it makes no sense to pretend it is not. 

[2805662]

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Again, Nammo makes ammunition with links suitable for Rheinmetall's cannon, ammunition which is used with Rheinmetall cannon. General Dynamics makes ammunition used and compatible with the MK-30/1, pretending that they could never supply ammunition for the MK-30/2 - just because they would need a new steel catridge - is silly.

A large part of the ammunition compatibility discussion isn’t (just) about who makes it. In Australia, it’s also about interoperability. Literally the ability to give & take ammunition from coalition partners and their military logistic chains.
 

This requirement has been regularly exercised in East Timor, Iraq, & Afghanistan. In the most egregious case, ASLAV crews airlifted into Baghdad in 2003 literally purchased - in cash - 25mm ammunition from US Army Bradley crews so that they could leave the airport with more than small arms ammunition. 
 

Australia’s most consistent coalition partner, regionally and farther afield, is the United States. The Mk-30/2 cannot consume US DoD 30x173mm ammunition.

 

That alone should have excluded the Mk-30/2 from consideration. The capability manager (AHQ), the contestability folks, and Land Explosive Ordnance SPO (LEOSPO) of CASG all failed to identify & address this all the way up to or before contract signature.

 

Rheinmetall were smart to exploit this lack of (very basic) technical knowledge on behalf of the customer.  

[Boagrius]

Do we have a sense of which vehicle is likely to be the better protected one? I would have expected the Lynx to have the upper hand here if only based on it being the heavier vehicle. I do wonder if domestic production of the 30mm ammunition plus superior protection levels might yet get it over the line. IIRC there was some mention of the Ph 3 vehicle needing comparable protection levels to the Abrams. Now while that may be a tad ambitious for either candidate, it speaks to the emphasis placed on that particular category.

EDIT: According to DTR, the MSV variant is now out due largely to the purchase of M1150 under Land 8160 Ph1, and an Armoured Mortar vehicle (AMV), Mortar Ammunition Vehicle (MAV) and Armoured Logistics Vehicle (ALV) are now in.

[Zadlo]

19 hours ago, 2805662 said:

The Mk-30/2 cannot consume US DoD 30x173mm ammunition.

 

We need source about that.

Because Spaniards use US DoD 30x173mm ammunition in Pizarros which are armed with MK 30-2.

[Beer]

According to what I read on our websites the ammo is compatible but the belts and feed mechanisms are not, i.e. it's not possible to take Bushmaster II ammo belts and use them in MK-30/2 equipped vehicles and vice versa. 

[2805662]

5 hours ago, Zadlo said:

 

We need source about that.

Because Spaniards use US DoD 30x173mm ammunition in Pizarros which are armed with MK 30-2.

I cannot open a box of US ammunition for a Mk44, load it into the ready round bin for a Mk30-2 & fire it. The links are different. 
 

 

[Zadlo]

4 hours ago, Beer said:

According to what I read on our websites the ammo is compatible but the belts and feed mechanisms are not, i.e. it's not possible to take Bushmaster II ammo belts and use them in MK-30/2 equipped vehicles and vice versa. 

You have a bit bigger issue because you already use Bushmaster II. It depends on Rheinmetall if you'll use different links for MK 30-2 and Mk 44 or Lynx will be armed with WOTAN 30 which can use Mk 44 links.

 

But for Australians it's not an issue. Tbh they choose the first 30mm autocannon and no matter if they choose Bushmaster II, MK 30-2 or WOTAN 30 they'll not solve this problem because Americans use Bushmaster II only on Stryker Dragoon (81 pieces) meanwhile XM319 uses linkless 30mm ammunition.

[2805662]

1 minute ago, Zadlo said:

You have a bit bigger issue because you already use Bushmaster II. It depends on Rheinmetall if you'll use different links for MK 30-2 and Mk 44 or Lynx will be armed with WOTAN 30 which can use Mk 44 links.

 

But for Australians it's not an issue. Tbh they choose the first 30mm autocannon and no matter if they choose Bushmaster II, MK 30-2 or WOTAN 30 they'll not solve this problem because Americans use Bushmaster II only on Stryker Dragoon (81 pieces) meanwhile XM319 uses linkless 30mm ammunition.

The USMC ACV variant with the MCT-30 also uses the Mk44. We regularly exercise & operate regionally with the USMC. 

[Zadlo]

7 hours ago, 2805662 said:

The USMC ACV variant with the MCT-30 also uses the Mk44. We regularly exercise & operate regionally with the USMC. 

 

How many ACV 1.1. uses MCT-30 turret?

Is it 0?

[2805662]

5 minutes ago, Zadlo said:

 

How many ACV 1.1. uses MCT-30 turret?

Is it 0?

Glad you edited out the lying accusation. I take it English isn’t your first language?

 

https://www.kongsberg.com/newsandmedia/news-archive/20202/bae-systems-selects-kongsbergs-mct-30-turret-for-u.s.-marine-corps-acv-program/
 

130 x MCT-30 turrets for the USMC ACV, apparently. These are yet to be delivered. 

Edited December 12, 2020 by 2805662
Clarity on delivery timeframe.

[Zadlo]

You behave like Australia doesn't have any ammunition plant and they won't have. Meanwhile RWM is building own facility in Maryborough and there's no problem to produce 30x173mm ammunition for both Boxer and Lynx.

[2805662]

18 minutes ago, Zadlo said:

You behave like Australia doesn't have any ammunition plant and they won't have. Meanwhile RWM is building own facility in Maryborough and there's no problem to produce 30x173mm ammunition for both Boxer and Lynx.

Don’t know how you arrived at that conclusion? I’ve consistently referred to interoperability - sourcing supplies (including ammunition) from our coalition partner, the US. Interoperability with the US has been a consistent element of Australian defence policy for literally decades. Local manufacturer of ammunition is a different discussion altogether. 
 

You present with a really angry tone for some reason? It undermines your credibility, imo.