Jump to content

Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV


2805662
 Share

Recommended Posts

Note that the Ajax for LAND 400 actually features a raised hull, as the British Ajax model doesn't provide enough space for dismounts in full combat gear on blast-proof seats in the rear compartment. If Australia had be open for IFVs with unmanned turrets, we maybe could have seen a Puma with a similiar roof design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

Note that the Ajax for LAND 400 actually features a raised hull, as the British Ajax model doesn't provide enough space for dismounts in full combat gear on blast-proof seats in the rear compartment. If Australia had be open for IFVs with unmanned turrets, we maybe could have seen a Puma with a similiar roof design.

DTR say they are open to unmanned turrets, but in the future:

http://defencetechnologyreview.realviewdigital.com/?iguid=ca529431-4b08-46ef-9028-306cb8e1c890#folio=20

 

The shortlisted competitors will be asked about options to integrate an unmanned turret.

Plus there's Rafael now pushing for their Samson Mk 2 turret, which they market as optionally manned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

DTR say they are open to unmanned turrets, but in the future:

http://defencetechnologyreview.realviewdigital.com/?iguid=ca529431-4b08-46ef-9028-306cb8e1c890#folio=20

 

The shortlisted competitors will be asked about options to integrate an unmanned turret.

Plus there's Rafael now pushing for their Samson Mk 2 turret, which they market as optionally manned.

 

DTR is quoting the RFT, just like I’m doing. Anyone can register on AusTender, and download the 0.5GB document and go through it: https://www.tenders.gov.au/?event=public.atm.show&ATMUUID=F8D62769-EEF1-F99C-78E3ACCDA4927B26

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, 2805662 said:

 

DTR is quoting the RFT, just like I’m doing. Anyone can register on AusTender, and download the 0.5GB document and go through it: https://www.tenders.gov.au/?event=public.atm.show&ATMUUID=F8D62769-EEF1-F99C-78E3ACCDA4927B26

They won’t adopt a two men crew turret and change for a remotely solution after a short period of time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Serge said:

They won’t adopt a two men crew turret and change for a remotely solution after a short period of time. 

Of course. But it still means that any company that can offer a vehicle with the required provisions to mount an unmanned turret, or better yet, offer an unmanned turret of its own, is at an advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Serge said:

They won’t adopt a two men crew turret and change for a remotely solution after a short period of time. 

 

What they’ve said: “Defence will proceed with seeking a manned turret solution for the vehicles that require a turret to fulfil roles. Defence will engage with the shortlisted tenderers during the Risk Mitigation Activity (RMA) to explore the growth path to a potential future unmanned turret solution.”

 

i read that as evolve your manned turret to unmanned, not replace manned turret with new, different, unmanned turret. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 2805662 said:

 

What they’ve said: “Defence will proceed with seeking a manned turret solution for the vehicles that require a turret to fulfil roles. Defence will engage with the shortlisted tenderers during the Risk Mitigation Activity (RMA) to explore the growth path to a potential future unmanned turret solution.”

 

i read that as evolve your manned turret to unmanned, not replace manned turret with new, different turret. 

How much sense would that make when they're demanding a manned turret for at least a certain time? 

Turning a manned turret into unmanned takes a lot of redesigning. One that effectively makes the unmanned variant a new development. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, 2805662 said:

 

What they’ve said: “Defence will proceed with seeking a manned turret solution for the vehicles that require a turret to fulfil roles. Defence will engage with the shortlisted tenderers during the Risk Mitigation Activity (RMA) to explore the growth path to a potential future unmanned turret solution.”

 

i read that as evolve your manned turret to unmanned, not replace manned turret with new, different, unmanned turret. 

I’m curious to see the BAE proposal because they say having a remotely turret. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

 

The bareback almost certainly does not have a Rafael turret. They have the Trophy on it, but it's not a Rafael turret. At least, it's not confirmed to be one.

 

Also, this lil guy:

Screenshot_1.png

 

The Bareback? Your (presumed) autocorrect has given me a nickname for that contender! Thanks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will organize the options according to DTR's data:

 

BAE

Spoiler

 

Candidate Vehicle

  • CV90 Mk IV/V.

Vehicle Strengths

  • Proven
  • Low Risk
  • Variants in service
  • D-series turret has integrated ATGM.

Vehicle Weaknesses

  • Ability to meet STANAG 4569 level 4a/4b unknown.
  • Original CV90 design approaching 30 years old.

Bid Summary

  • Trusted global supplier.
  • Australian subsidiary is country's largest defense contractor.
  • Low commercial risk.
  • High quality of bid.
  • Strong AIC (Australian Industry Capability) package likely.

Prediction

  • BID


 

 

FNSS

Spoiler

 

Candidate Vehicle

  • Kaplan-30.

Vehicle Strengths

  • Modern design.

Vehicle Weaknesses

  • Not yet on order or in production.
  • Internal hull volume unknown.
  • Turret has no integrated ATGM.

Bid Summary

  • Likely to be cost competitive.
  • Lack of Australian industry involvement.
  • Unproven supplier.
  • Lack of strategic alignment with CoA (Commonwealth of Australia).

Prediction

  • NO BID

 

General Dynamics UK

Spoiler

 

Candidate Vehicle

  • Ajax.

Vehicle Strengths

  • In production.
  • Entering service with ABCA (America Britain Canada Australia) countries. 
  • Low technical risk.
  • High protection levels.
  • Some common variants on order for British army.
  • Successfully passed blast and reliability testing.

Vehicle Weaknesses

  • New turret not yet on order or in production.

Bid Summary

  • Trusted global supplier.
  • GDLS-A is TLS (Through Life Support) provider and turret builder for in-service ASLAV.

Prediction

  • BID

 

Hanwha Defense Systems

Spoiler

 

Candidate Vehicle

  • AS-21 Redback

Vehicle Strengths

  • Leverages off in-service K21.
  • Uses proven sub-systems.
  • High protection levels.
  • Based on ROK army requirements.
  • Turret has integrated ATGM.
  • Hull/chassis is turret-agnostic.

Vehicle Weaknesses

  • Not yet on order or in production.
  • No variants yet deployed.

Bid Summary

  • South Korea's largest land systems supplier.
  • Low commercial risk.
  • Cost competitive.
  • High quality of bid.
  • Strong AIC package likely.
  • Aligns with G2G strategic relationship.

Prediction

  • BID

 

Israeli MoD/Industries

Spoiler

 

Candidate Vehicle

  • Namer

Vehicle Strengths

  • In production.
  • In service.
  • Very high and proven protection levels.
  • Integrated APS.
  • Integrated ATGM (wrongfully said it isn't integrated in weaknesses).

Vehicle Weaknesses

  • Almost as heavy as the M1 Abrams MBT.
  • Turret unique to the IDF.
  • Unavailable outside Israel (Israeli MoD product).

Bid Summary

  • Aligns with G2G strategic relationship.
  • Low commercial risk.
  • Cost competitive.

Prediction

  • NO BID

 

Otokar

Spoiler

 

Candidate Vehicle

  • Tulpar.

Vehicle Strengths

  • Good hull internal volume.
  • Modern design.

Vehicle Weaknesses

  • Not yet on order or in production.
  • Turret unique to Turkey.
  • Turret has no integrated ATGM.
  • No variants yet developed.

Bid Summary

  • Likely to be cost competitive.
  • Lack of Australian industry involvement.
  • Unproven supplier.
  • Lack of strategic alignment with CoA (Commonwealth of Australia).

Prediction

  • NO BID

 

PSM

Spoiler

 

Candidate Vehicle

  • Puma.

Vehicle Strengths

  • In production.
  • In service.
  • High protection levels.
  • Lower technical risk.
  • Uses same ATGM, launcher, and cannon as selected for Boxer CRV.

Vehicle Weaknesses

  • High unit cost.
  • Limited rear compartment space.
  • Designed specifically to meet German army needs.
  • Only two variants developed to date (IFV and command).

Bid Summary

  • Trusted global suppliers (Rheinmetall and KMW).
  • Low technical risk.
  • Low commercial risk.
  • High quality of bid.
  • May create conflict of interest for Rheinmetall with Lynx KF41 bid.

Prediction

  • NO BID

Rheinmetall

Spoiler

 

Candidate Vehicle

  • Lynx KF41

Vehicle Strengths

  • High capacity.
  • High protection levels.
  • Designed for Phase 3 requirements.
  • Turret commonality with Boxer CRV.
  • Turret has integrated ATGM.
  • Same ATGM, launcher, and cannon as Boxer CRV.

Vehicle Weaknesses

  • Not yet on order or in production.
  • Only two variants developed to date (IFV and command).

Bid Summary

  • Trusted global supplier.
  • Preferred tenderer for LAND 400 Phase 2.
  • High quality of bid.
  • Strong AIC (Australian Industry Capability) package likely.
  • Lance 2.0 turret would be manufactured in Australia.
  • Will strengthen long term viability of MILVEHCOE facility.
  • One-stop shop for complete vehicle.
  • Leverages commonality with Boxer CRV.

Prediction

  • BID

Singapore Technologies Engineering

Spoiler

 

Candidate Vehicle

  • NGAFV.

Vehicle Strengths

  • Full digital architecture.
  • In production.

Vehicle Weaknesses

  • Moderate protection only.
  • Variants uncertain.
  • Turret unique to Singapore.
  • Turret has no integrated ATGM.

Bid Summary

  • Likely to be cost competitive.

Prediction

  • NO BID

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Note that the Ajax for LAND 400 actually features a raised hull, as the British Ajax model doesn't provide enough space for dismounts in full combat gear on blast-proof seats in the rear compartment. If Australia had be open for IFVs with unmanned turrets, we maybe could have seen a Puma with a similiar roof design.

The funniest thing with SPz-Puma is when you’re talking to PSM representatives, they quickly say it’s impossible to develop variants, the chassis is too much specific. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...