Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

[DIADES]

1 hour ago, Kal said:

It is expected that Richard Marles from Geelong will become the new defense minister in Australia. (incoming Labor government)

No - he is the Employment Minster (sworn in this morning) and Deputy PM.  I have no idea who will get Defence.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-23/anthony-albanese-sworn-in-australian-prime-minister/101089902

[DIADES]

On 5/23/2022 at 1:13 PM, Kal said:

It is expected that Richard Marles from Geelong will become the new defense minister in Australia. (incoming Labor government)

Hi Kal,

you were correct - he has been appointed now

[Jesh]

On 6/1/2022 at 7:09 AM, DIADES said:

Hi Kal,

you were correct - he has been appointed now

Will as21 be the likely winner now? 

[Dragonstriker]

It seems more likely, if the rumours that redback was Army’s preference are correct.

[SH_MM]

If read on Twitter, that Australia supposedly demands that its next IFV has to be used in the country of origin (i.e. Germany has to buy the KF41 or South Korea has to buy the AS21), so it will be in these countries interests that the vehicle works correctly and is reliable. Is there any Australian source confirming that?

[Dragonstriker]

22 hours ago, SH_MM said:

If read on Twitter, that Australia supposedly demands that its next IFV has to be used in the country of origin (i.e. Germany has to buy the KF41 or South Korea has to buy the AS21), so it will be in these countries interests that the vehicle works correctly and is reliable. Is there any Australian source confirming that?

No.

[Kal]

On 6/11/2022 at 8:19 PM, SH_MM said:

If read on Twitter, that Australia supposedly demands that its next IFV has to be used in the country of origin (i.e. Germany has to buy the KF41 or South Korea has to buy the AS21), so it will be in these countries interests that the vehicle works correctly and is reliable. Is there any Australian source confirming that?

which twit was that?

 

On 6/11/2022 at 6:04 PM, Jesh said:

Will as21 be the likely winner now? 

 

Not in my opinion,  If history is a guide, Labor will cancel it, and replace it with something far cheaper/inferior, and Australia will pay double the price a decade later.  I hope I'm wrong.

If it was such a politically easy decision, the Liberals (Conservatives in Aus) would've made the decision prior to the last election.  

 

[Kal]

Inflation seems to taking its toll...

Land 400 phase 3 seems to have gone from 450 vehicles down to 300 + optional lots of 50.

https://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/land-400-phase-3-cut-to-300-vehicles

https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/defence-poised-to-slash-armoured-troop-carriers-order-by-a-third-20220619-p5auu0

 

 

on the whole, I think this hurts the Hanwha bid more than the Rheinmetall bid.  I'm sure the new federal government doesn't like spending money on this.  It seems that running the procurement program full term, will result in a cost blowout resulting in 1/3 less vehicles!

[2805662]

In what amounts to one of the most prolonged examples of capability edging, we’re reentering the decision/announcement window for 400-3. 
 

RUMINT has some interesting points of speculation, noting that this is a mix of industry, CASG, AHQ, & think tank chatter. 
 

Options reportedly discussed:

- a reduction of 400-3 to 100 vehicles, with 400-4 being a follow-on buy of an unspecified quantity. 
- up to 1/3 of of the procured number of vehicles, whatever that number is, being fitted for, but not with a turret, having a RWS instead to reduce costs. Additional turrets would be procured during -3 sustainment. 
- all ‘manoeuvre support vehicle’ variants being deleted, with the capability need being met by the Heavy Armoured Capability System M1150 breachers & M1110 AVLB. 

 

Time will tell, but the predicted post-election turbulence has come to pass. 
 

The minister for defence/deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles has recused himself from the selection process, given the implications for his electorate. The selection will be proceeding regardless of the Defence Strategic Review. 

[Kal]

an earlier image, from https://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/news/defence/andrew-hastie-and-phillip-thompson-blast-ministers-over-defence-issues/news-story/4300f2462d1125766837dd286ebad0bb?amp

 

and a rubber track blurb https://www.australiandefence.com.au/defence/land/two-victorian-companies-to-make-redback-rubber-tracks up to 70 per cent less vibration, up to 13.5 decibels of noise reduction, less weight, better maneuverability, up to 80 per cent less maintenance, and better efficiency that enables higher top vehicle speeds or fuel savings of up to 30 per cent.

 

 

[2805662]

I’m betting against L400-3 getting up at all, thanks to the DSR.

[Kal]

21 hours ago, 2805662 said:

I’m betting against L400-3 getting up at all, thanks to the DSR.

i think you're right,  each month delay meaningfully reduces the amount of IFV/APC that can be obtained within budget.  If they wait until after DSR, cost will blow out to farcical expensive.

so, can ADF add another set of wheels to M113, and with fresh lipstick too?

[2805662]

Delay of decision to proceed *at all* now formalised. 
 

[SH_MM]

I believe T2000 is the incorrect designation for the turret (it is the "Redback turret"), but apparently the Polish tests suggest there were accuracy issues during trials of the Redback. Did the Australian military notice similar issues when testing the AS21 Redback?

[2805662]

7 hours ago, SH_MM said:

I believe T2000 is the incorrect designation for the turret (it is the "Redback turret"), but apparently the Polish tests suggest there were accuracy issues during trials of the Redback. Did the Australian military notice similar issues when testing the AS21 Redback?

Quite the opposite from what I’ve heard.

The EOS T2000 had a fire control system from EOS. The turret on the Polish test was the Elbit MT30.

They have a common ballistic shell, so telling them apart is tricky. Have to look at the sensors. 

Anecdotally, the Polish tests did not have any contractors present to zero, boresight, or train the crews. 

[mr.T]

No surprise there we had Accuracy issues with Elbit 30mm turrets for AMPV , couldnt hit a broad side of a barn.  Latvia is also having issues with Israeli turrets on Boxer.

 

[SH_MM]

1 hour ago, 2805662 said:

Quite the opposite from what I’ve heard.

The EOS T2000 had a fire control system from EOS. The turret on the Polish test was the Elbit MT30.

They have a common ballistic shell, so telling them apart is tricky. Have to look at the sensors. 

 

"The Redback vehicle that has been tested in Poland is equipped the Redback turret, the same solution offered to the Australian Army in the Land 400 Phase 3 project." according to Defence24.com.

 

The sensors on the turret are the same, the EOS-made RWS was just removed.

 

[2805662]

13 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

"The Redback vehicle that has been tested in Poland is equipped the Redback turret, the same solution offered to the Australian Army in the Land 400 Phase 3 project." according to Defence24.com.

 

The sensors on the turret are the same, the EOS-made RWS was just removed.

 

As per the Senior Vice-President International Business from EOS - not a defence aggregation website - the key external difference between the T2000 & the MT30 is the sensors. 
 

Here’s the MT30 (yes, with R400 Mk2 HD RWS fitted):

 

Here’s the T2000:

 

 

You can see that the T2000 has the same sensor package housing as that fitted to the R400 RWS. 

 

Internally, the FCS & HMI are completely different. 

 

[SH_MM]

Thanks. I've only looked at photos from Australian comparative tests with the AS21 Redback and KF41 Lynx, which seemingly only included the Redback turret (with Elbit FCS),

[Żółć]

On 11/25/2022 at 7:29 PM, 2805662 said:

Anecdotally, the Polish tests did not have any contractors present to zero, boresight, or train the crews.

Weapons tests were conducted by the Korean crew. 
From other news/rumours. In addition to turret accuracy problems, the AS-21 was also said to have issues with its thermal signatures. According to available information, it performed very badly compared to the Borsuk IFV. The AS-21 tested in Poland was not equipped with the exhaust cooling system that was present during trials in Australia. The army, unlike politicians, does not seem to be enthusiastic about the vehicle.

[2805662]

12 hours ago, Żółć said:

Weapons tests were conducted by the Korean crew. 
From other news/rumours. In addition to turret accuracy problems, the AS-21 was also said to have issues with its thermal signatures. According to available information, it performed very badly compared to the Borsuk IFV. The AS-21 tested in Poland was not equipped with the exhaust cooling system that was present during trials in Australia. The army, unlike politicians, does not seem to be enthusiastic about the vehicle.

Interesting. Would be useful to know whether the Korean crew were military or civilian, & qualified on the MT30 turret. 
 

Almost a 180 degree difference to the Australian experience, where the AS21 performed very creditably & army is a huge fan of it. 

[Kal]

12 hours ago, 2805662 said:

Interesting. Would be useful to know whether the Korean crew were military or civilian, & qualified on the MT30 turret. 
 

Almost a 180 degree difference to the Australian experience, where the AS21 performed very creditably & army is a huge fan of it. 

not surprising, Australia had time for both Hanwha and Rheinmetall to get things right.  Whereas for Poland this seems to be a case of removing the aussie bits and sending it over for evaluation.

Its probably was the aussie bits that made the difference for both the thermal signature and the gun calibration.

[Kal]

 

[SH_MM]

1 hour ago, Kal said:

Its probably was the aussie bits that made the difference for both the thermal signature and the gun calibration.

 

As you can see in the photos from the Australian trials, there weren't any Aussie bits in regards to FCS/gunner's sight, while the exhaust channel was only present on one of the two Redbacks. The other one "only" was fitted with SolarSigmaShield camouflage system from Rheinmetall Canada (made under license in Australia by CGB Systems).

 

I wonder if bias is one of the main factor of the different perception. Poles don't really want the Redback (but their MoD wants it) while Australians seem to want Redback (depending on whom you ask...). So maybe similar results are seen as more/less critical by different potential users.

[Żółć]

It is not that simple, I rather rule out that there was a potential bias. The IFV Borsuk tests are conducted in the 16th Mechanised Division and the Redback tests are conducted in the 18th Mechanised Division. After these tests there was an exchange of opinions, a comparison was made and the conclusion was that the Redback performs poorly. This second division, the 18th Mechanised Division, is to receive Abrams and, as its commander argued, a heavy IFV is needed to accompany these tanks. The same commander, in an interview with Polska Zbrojna, a military newspaper, spoke in glowing terms about the Redback (this was before the tests started) and claimed that the Redback was a vehicle in serial production and service with the Korean Army - at best he misunderstood something or was misled because I don't want to think he knew he was telling a falsehood. When I wrote that the army does not approach Redback with enthusiasm, I was referring to soldiers serving in the field. The ministry and the commanders close to the current minister (which is no secret) like Redback.