Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

[Żółć]

Sorry for post after post but one issue has started to bother me. @SH_MM do you perhaps know just how well armoured the exhaust channel is, if at all?  

[SH_MM]

Unfortunately no. I would be surprised if it is armored, as it is installed on top of the existing armor. It appears to be quite thick though. Ideally it would abe made of something other than steel/metal (something with low thermal conductivity).

 

[Kal]

'Delays in selecting a next-­generation armoured vehicle for the army could cost taxpayers an extra $2bn, with the tenders provided by the bidders due to expire before a decision is made.'

 

https://amp.theaustralian.com.au/nation/defence/defence-delay-may-cost-taxpayers-2bn/news-story/b701957d5118351d7ebe7bf7c48a1913

 

'The winner of the Land 400 Phase 3 tender was due to be announced in September but was repeatedly pushed back as Defence searched for spare funds to pour into new long-range capabilities.'

 

 

 

[SH_MM]

Specifications of Rheinmetall's KF41 Lynx offer for LAND 400 Phase 3.

 

Spoiler

 

[Kal]

so, can we start to discuss what went wrong?  Both vendors appears to have demonstrated fit for purpose, compliant products, but procurement has failed to reciprocate from stakeholders why this remains necessary.

Personally, I think Qld should go alone with some Lynx deal anyway,  afterall, war in the pacific be it at PNG or Solomon Islands, is on Qld's doorstep.

[2805662]

32 minutes ago, Kal said:

so, can we start to discuss what went wrong?  Both vendors appears to have demonstrated fit for purpose, compliant products, but procurement has failed to reciprocate from stakeholders why this remains necessary.

Personally, I think Qld should go alone with some Lynx deal anyway,  afterall, war in the pacific be it at PNG or Solomon Islands, is on Qld's doorstep.

Labor being Labor. As simple as that. 
 

The defence strategic review may green light a small buy of IFV to save face, but I’m not hopeful. 

[Kal]

“Now, our defence assets need to not be about fighting a land war defending western Queensland because that is highly unlikely, but a lot of our assets are not really the ones that we necessarily need for this century and for the times — and also their location as well.”

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/we-need-to-be-prepared-to-invest-albanese-highlights-need-for-subs-not-tanks-20221214-p5c6ah.html

 

translation, f$$k modern IFVs, we using 60 year M113 for another 60 years.

 

[2805662]

Both Redback & Lynx are at Avalon 2023, an Australian “air show +”, both in overall OD. 
 

 

Notable for Redback is the pop up poster that details Elbit’s “30mm Redback turret”. 

[Cleb]

Lynx IFV and CSV at Avalon 2023

 

Spoiler

 

Redback from the same

 

Spoiler

 

[2805662]

Today’s The Australian newspaper:

 

[Cleb]

6 hours ago, Cleb said:

Lynx IFV and CSV at Avalon 2023

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Redback from the same

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Just as a quick note the Redback on display seems to have an Iron Vision module attached on the turret. As far as I am aware this is the first time we've seen the Redback fitted with the Iron Vision system (A similar module was seen equipped to the ASCOD 2 demonstrator).

 

Spoiler

 

[SH_MM]

If the result of the Australian trials shows that the Redback is the better solution for Australia, they should buy it... with the turret that performed better during trials (so likely EOS' T2000 instead of the Redback turret, if rumors are to be believed).

 

While I've also heard about issues with the Lynx's Liebherr engine in Australia, such issues should be fixable (as both G-Wagen and MAN trucks had those during trials in Australia, but series vehicles are described as reliable). IMO it is a bit odd to see how much the trial results of Lynx & Redback dramatically differ based on country were they were tested. This raises the question if the performance is so temperature/climate dependent or if requirements and perceived performance are to blame for the different assessements.

[Serge]

The purpose of a test is to make a choice not to look at what to fix. 

[Żółć]

10 hours ago, SH_MM said:

IMO it is a bit odd to see how much the trial results of Lynx & Redback dramatically differ based on country were they were tested. This raises the question if the performance is so temperature/climate dependent or if requirements and perceived performance are to blame for the different assessements.

In Poland, Redback's tests went poorly

[SH_MM]

19 hours ago, Serge said:

The purpose of a test is to make a choice not to look at what to fix. 

 

Yes, that's fair. Still not entirely sure about the concept behind LAND 400 though (Phase 2: eliminate all unproven systems, then modify Boxer after selection and making it less proven; Phase 3: eliminate all proven systems, then complain about teething issues...).

 

If there are no issues with one vehicle and performance is on par or better, it always should be selected.

 

14 hours ago, Żółć said:

In Poland, Redback's tests went poorly

 

This is what I was referring to. Redback performed very well in Australia (according to Australian reports), yet poor in Poland (according to Polish sources).

Australian soldiers complaint about Lynx's "excessive noise" in the vehicle, yet in the Slovak trials only the ASCOD 42 was demoted for vibration and noise issues.

[SH_MM]

Boxer with the same LANCE 2.0* turret as fitted to the Hungarian KF41 Lynx variant. Boxer CRV block II?

[Dragonstriker]

Reports ahead of tomorrow’s public Strategic Defence Review release indicate that L400-3 will be cut to 129 for a single mech battalion. It seems likely that Hanwha will get the contract, to soften the blow of losing the second tranche of huntsman (30 AS9 + 10 AS10).

[2805662]

A bit early to say who will get what, imo. The commonwealth looks guilty for “attritional tendering” at this point - there’s apparently another repricing activity. That’s the third one. 

[2805662]

22 hours ago, 2805662 said:

A bit early to say who will get what, imo. The commonwealth looks guilty for “attritional tendering” at this point - there’s apparently another repricing activity. That’s the third one. 

The Minister for Defence Industry has confirmed via a media interview the number is 129 x vehicles, plus the re-pricing/best & final offer activity. Months from a decision. 

 

What no one appears to be talking about is whether the M113AS4 fleet, in whole or in part, will be retained. This would change the net personnel & operating costs of 400-3. 
 

AS4 was initially at 350 vehicles, then topped up by further 81 via the “Enhanced Land Force”. APC, command, & logistics variants have been gifted to Ukraine, so the total number of AS4 may be below 400. 
 

If AS4 is retained, ideally some ideas for improvement that were stopped when 400-3 was conceptualised may be recommenced. 
 

 

[SH_MM]

On 3/2/2023 at 8:55 PM, 2805662 said:

Today’s The Australian newspaper:

 

 

Interestingly, their later article claims something else :

 

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/defence/germany-in-drivers-seat-to-clinch-18bn-armoured-vehicle-deal/news-story/8b25bc70abb164b76e5d7337a2b2dec3?amp

 

Quote

Multiple sources said the South Korean vehicle outperformed its German rival, but those close to the Rheinmetall bid said the Lynx came out on top. The Australian understands soldiers in the Rheinmetall vehicle complained of excessive vibration in the cabin and an occupational health and safety waiver had to be issued when some of the testers became sick.

 

The problem was linked to the German vehicle’s all-metal tracks. The Lynx was also said to have suffered more mechanical problems requiring engine changes.

 

The Redback reportedly had issues with cabin toxicity when the main gun was fired, which also required an OHS waiver, and problems with the vehicle’s composite rubber and steel tracks.

 

Both vehicles had developmental issues with their turrets and integration of active protection systems, which have become vital given the proliferation of anti-armour weapons.

 

[2805662]

The re-pricing activity, evaluation, & negotiation for the 129 is scheduled to take approximately 9 months. Far too early to say which way it’ll go. There’s a real danger that either or both tenderers may decline to participate. There’s also a real chance that any anticipated savings from reducing the buy may not be sufficient to warrant proceeding with the buy. 

That article is a bit contradictory. Lynx’s vibrations due to “all metal track”, which points toward rubber band track (Soucy was demonstrated on Lynx, briefly), however Redback had “problems” with its rubber band track (first I’ve heard of this).

 

 

[Dragonstriker]

From my reading of the UNCLASS report, I think retention of M113AS4 is unlikely.

• Whilst the media reportage casts the L400-3 reduction as solely about cost, the report repeatedly references “optimising Army for littoral manoeuvre capability by sea, land and air.”
• The close combat capabilities to be provided by Army include a “single armoured combined-arms brigade, able to meet the most demanding land challenges in our region.”
• LAND8116-2 needs immediate cancellation because the range is inadequate.
• New IFV are required, but only sufficient for one mech battalion “in particular for littoral manoeuvre”.
• Need long-range fires stat. (HIMARS & moar HIMARS)
• Re-roling units is necessary.
• Fires, IFV and landing craft must be delivered simultaneously.

Aside from the Armoured Brigade, all the key vehicles to provide the refocused Army capability are wheeled; HIMARS, NASAMS on Hawkei, the land based ASM capability (NSM on Hawkei or the weird unmanned JLTV).  It seems most likely protected mobility for non-mech infantry (and engineers and arty and so on) will be completely by Bushmaster and Hawkei and M113 will finally be allowed to retire.

[SH_MM]

53 minutes ago, 2805662 said:

That article is a bit contradictory. Lynx’s vibrations due to “all metal track”, which points toward rubber band track (Soucy was demonstrated on Lynx, briefly), however Redback had “problems” with its rubber band track (first I’ve heard of this).

 

I wouldn't call that contradictory; the track issues could be of different nature. Unlike presented in Soucy's marketing material, both types of tracks have their advantages and shortcomings. Wiesel 1 originally had rubber band tracks, but due to performance issues these were later replaced with Diehl steel tracks. Now the LuWam prototype is fitted with (lengthened) Wiesel 1 tracks, but it is planned to replace those with rubber band tracks...

 

For the Australian bid, Rheinmetall fitted the KF41 Lynx with TR40 tracks from the British company Cook Defence Systems... the same tracks as fitted to Ajax. Maybe using other steel tracks might have avoided the vibrations/internal noise from reaching unbearable levels? Vibrations at least are something that is being considered during steel track development.

 

[Żółć]

21 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Both vehicles had developmental issues with their turrets

That is interesting in the context of Polish trials  

[Thuel]

With the Strategic Defence Review reducing the LAND400 Phase 3 - Land Combat Vehicle System (Infantry Fighting Vehicle) from 450 to 129 vehicles, there are still several details which would be interesting to understand.

 

The original tender for 450 vehicles included several variants including Infantry Fighting Vehicle, Joint Fires, Mortar, Command & Control,  Combat Engineer, and Ambulance. The wording in the SDR specifically referred to (Infantry Fighting Vehicle), does this insinuate that the other variants will not be included, some or all of the variants will be included in the 129, or some or all of the variants will be procured in addition to the 129. Also, if the variants are excluded or otherwise, which new or existing vehicles will be used to provide those capabilities, if at all.

 

While continued industry support was also discussed in the SDR, primarily around naval manufacturing, what might the impact of the reduced purchase, re-pricing, and negotiation mean. As a primary motivation is to reallocate savings to other projects, could commitments to the percentage of components or vehicles to be manufactured in Australia be relaxed to keep the price down, and, would this benefit either Rheinmetall or Hanwha in finalising their bids. Also, as there is a stated pivot towards an iterative procurement approach encompassing getting minimum viable capability into service, will this project be subject to this approach, and if so, what would that mean for the systems which will be procured with the vehicles (ie RWS, APS, ATGMs, etc), which systems the vehicles may potentially be built for but not with, and which systems requiring further development and integration will be included.