Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Stock]

The choice of weapon for the Cavalry Weapon will have an impact on what IFV is chosen later, unless the Cav vehicle and the IFV are going to have different weapons which would seem unlikely. Can't see say the CRV having a 40 mm weapon and the IFV having a 30mm gun.
So whatever gun is chosen for the CRV, potential IFV suppliers are going to have to be able to offer that weapon on their IFV offering.

You would think 30mm is the minimum acceptable calibre for the IFV. If the preferred CRV solution is armed with the Bushmaster II 30mm from ATK, this has the option of upscaling to the 40mm SuperShot, but obviously at the expense of both ready-use rounds in the turret and total stowed rounds. Although no one to my knowledge has adopted 40mm SuperShot to date.

The CTA 40mm cannon as fitted into the Nexter T40 turret and which will likely be offered on the VBCI might be a bit of overkill for the CRV, but it would suit the IFV. The T40 40mm turret going onto the French Army's new EBRC 6x6 already has the MMP ATGW integrated/fitted and could be seen as a low-risk solution for CRV, with migration to IFV.

 

[Stock]

Can't find much out about the LAV 6.0.
Is that the Canadian LAV III upgrade programme?
If so aren't they aiming for a vehicle around the 25 tonne mark which is a significantly lighter vehicle than many of the other potential offerings which are around the 30 tonne mark and up. Presumably that implies less protection than the other potential candidates.
Wouldn't GDLS just offer the Piranha V or do they consider that too far from being MOTS (not that a LAV 6.0 is exactly MOTS either)?

Yes, LAV 6.0 is the LAV III Upgrade and so named due to the adoption of the Generation 6 suspension system.

LAV 6.0 has a GVM of 28.6 tonnes. My reading is that most CRV candidate vehicles will be 32 tonnes and over.

Not sure GD will offer LAV 6.0. Perhaps they will opt for basing their proposal on the LAV 700, which is now in production for Saudi Arabia (900 units).

 

[Stock]

I have a hard time imaging a government trying to explain to their voters that the not very old AHs are better sold and new ones of another type are bought.

Even if objectively not true it will smell of a giant waste of taxpayers money.

Agree. Whilst the rate of effort Army has been getting out of Tiger is not what they need - and at times availability rates have been as low as 35% I'm told - I don't think there is the appetite to junk a capability that will reach full operational capability in Jan 2016.

Tiger achieved Operational Capability 3 last December, which gives Army the ability to deploy a land-based Tiger squadron and sustain a troop for prolonged periods.

Further details here:
Defence Technology Review : DTR FEB 2015, Page 1

 

[buglerbilly]

The US Army has just placed a Contract for 35 Apache's..............

Army orders 35 AH-64E Apache Guardian attack helicopters in $591.2 million contract to Boeing

Our 1$Billion would seem capable of doing the same. Why bother to upgrade when you buy the latest new, and yes, I'm aware we would have to establish a whole new supply chain, but still...............

 

[winnyfield]

South Korea FMS request 2012

AH-1Z: 36+munitions, US$2.6bn Korea – 36 AH-1Z COBRA Attack Helicopters | The Official Home of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency

AH-64E: 36+ a lot more munitions, US$3.6bn Republic of Korea (ROK) – AH-64D APACHE Attack Helicopters | The Official Home of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency

 

[MARKMILES77]

Yes, LAV 6.0 is the LAV III Upgrade and so named due to the adoption of the Generation 6 suspension system.

LAV 6.0 has a GVM of 28.6 tonnes. My reading is that most CRV candidate vehicles will be 32 tonnes and over.

Not sure GD will offer LAV 6.0. Perhaps they will opt for basing their proposal on the LAV 700, which is now in production for Saudi Arabia (900 units).

LAV 700?
How many variations of the Piranha/LAV are there? Is this a Piranha V version?

Whichever vehicle GDLS offers surely they are in the box seat.

Australia is already a LAV operator. Has I believe, been pretty happy with the ASLAV.

GDLS have manufacturing facilities already existing in Australia as well as LAV maintenance facilities in QLD, SA and Northern Territory.

US already a major LAV III operator and Stryker being upgraded to similar to LAV 6.0 standard.

Many other close allies also operators i.e. Canada, New Zealand etc.

Bit like the Super Hornet buy really.
Sure you could argue maybe the Rafale (or Eurofighter or Gripen) was superior to the Super Hornet but the advantages of buying a plane related to the Hornet already in service and operated by your major ally was the low risk option.
And in the current climate Australia will want a low risk option.

 

[FormerDirtDart]

South Korea FMS request 2012

AH-1Z: 36+munitions, US$2.6bn Korea – 36 AH-1Z COBRA Attack Helicopters | The Official Home of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency

AH-64E: 36+ a lot more munitions, US$3.6bn Republic of Korea (ROK) – AH-64D APACHE Attack Helicopters | The Official Home of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency

That was for one, or the other. Two and a half years a ago.

They selected the AH-64E. Almost two years ago.
Seoul to purchase 36 Apache helicopters

And, kind of dispelling the "lack of support structure" for the aircraft, many nations in the region operate, or have ordered AH-64s

 

[ADMk2]

That was for one, or the other. Two and a half years a ago.

They selected the AH-64E. Almost two years ago.
Seoul to purchase 36 Apache helicopters

And, kind of dispelling the "lack of support structure" for the aircraft, many nations in the region operate, or have ordered AH-64s

That s a ridiculous argument. There is zero 'regional' support for the Tiger in South East Asia, if by 'support' you mean it is used by other Countries.

Clearly such thinking plays little import in our acquisitions. MRH-90, KC-30A, Wedgetail and so on, dispel that 'myth'...

 

[buglerbilly]

South Korea FMS request 2012

AH-1Z: 36+munitions, US$2.6bn Korea – 36 AH-1Z COBRA Attack Helicopters | The Official Home of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency

AH-64E: 36+ a lot more munitions, US$3.6bn Republic of Korea (ROK) – AH-64D APACHE Attack Helicopters | The Official Home of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency

That's the Life Cycle Cost.............the US Army figure is a CAPEX Cost, they have the benefit of a huge Spares and Support Stock for Apaches which we would have to establish.........BUT even our Cash outlay would be spread over many years.

The UK has just been offered latest-standard Apaches for GBP 20 Million which equates to USD$30.5 Million...................

BBC News - Lobbyists 'delaying Apache contract'

Whichever way you slice the apple pie, USD$1 Billion would buy as a very effective, latest standard Apache's, the Hellfires and Rockets we already have.................

 

[Volkodav]

35% availability on the Tigers, I didn't realise it got as bad as that. So roughly speaking at those figures we would need to double, or even triple, the number of airframes to achieve the level of capability the government thought they getting when they signed on the dotted line in 2001. FOC was meant to have been achieved in 2011 but as I understand it IOC or at least a deployable baseline has only just been achieved in 2014/15.

Once the Tiger was selected Australia had to spend extra to integrate the weapons we wanted, i.e. Hellfire and bring the type to a standard that met the ADFs requirements. Ironically it does not appear that it was the changes that caused the cost increases, delays and support issues as the risks were well understood, had been managed appropriately and had been factored into the original contract, rather delays with the development and certification of the base platform that Australia had no control over.

In continuous improvement regimes a key element is having the discipline to terminate, or kill a project once it has been overtaken by events, no matter how much has already been invested. That means doing what was done with the Super Sea Sprite, yes large sums of money had been spent, yes the project team had almost got it to meet requirements and the RAN desperately needed extra helicopters, but it was recognised that what the aircraft offered wasn't actually needed any more as ASW, littoral warfare (counter swarm tactics), fast roping boarding parties etc. were actually more important than the ASvW (Penguin) capability of the Sprog. End result, Sprog and SH-60B upgrade are cancelled and both types are replaced with MOTS (FMS) SH-60R. This is what I am talking about with the Tiger, no matter how much money we spend to bring it up to the original requirements over a decades worth of active deployments have changes the ADFs requirements to the point that a replacement, rather than an upgrade may be a better option.

On the support side versions of the GE T-700 are also used by the Armys Blackhawks and the RANs existing and replacement Seahawks, while many of the weapons used by the Apache Echo or Zulu are already in inventory as Australia paid extra, or planned, to integrate them into the Tiger. The advantage of buying a type used by the US military is the existence of a robust support system for their in-service equipment.

I hope a proper analysis is done and if replacing the Tiger early is the best choice, that we then do it. Personally I think it is a shame that Australia hasn't cancelled more troubled projects or retired superseded capabilities earlier and diverted the money saved into more critical areas. For instance the FFGUP and M-113 upgrade were both projects we would have been better off cancelling and investing the money in replacements instead, I can see a Tiger upgrade being the same.

 

[Trackmaster]

The German military is in the process of re-organising helicopter assets....it includes retiring 11 early build Tigers.
The total order has also been reduced significantly.
It will be interesting to see how committed our Government is to getting the best value for the defence dollar.
Spend to protect an earlier decision or spend to plug into a known capability with a worldwide logistics chain operated by real friendly folks.

 

[Stock]

LAV 700?
How many variations of the Piranha/LAV are there? Is this a Piranha V version?

Whichever vehicle GDLS offers surely they are in the box seat.

Australia is already a LAV operator. Has I believe, been pretty happy with the ASLAV.

GDLS have manufacturing facilities already existing in Australia as well as LAV maintenance facilities in QLD, SA and Northern Territory.

US already a major LAV III operator and Stryker being upgraded to similar to LAV 6.0 standard.

Many other close allies also operators i.e. Canada, New Zealand etc.

Bit like the Super Hornet buy really.
Sure you could argue maybe the Rafale (or Eurofighter or Gripen) was superior to the Super Hornet but the advantages of buying a plane related to the Hornet already in service and operated by your major ally was the low risk option.
And in the current climate Australia will want a low risk option.

There are so many Piranha/LAV variants it's very difficult to keep track and understand the differences between each. I don't.

GDLS-A will certainly bid strongly, as will BAE (AMV).

Canada is the LAV III/LAV 6.0 operator, not the US.

The CRV that GDLS-A will offer for Land 400 will have virtually zero commonality with ASLAV, which is a good thing. Remember ASLAV has at best an early 1990s design pedigree, and the CRV must remain relevant and supportable for 30 years (out to 2050).

Don't believe the Stryker will be offered. Like the LAV 6.0, it is in the last 15 years of life-of-type, meaning that upgrades by the primary users will cease in about a decade.

The protection requirements for Land 400 are very demanding (STANAG Level 5/6 over the frontal arc), with most candidate CRVs put forward to be in the 30-35 tonne GVM range. Big and heavy with IFV-like protection.

Be interested to hear what folks think about this level of protection and the subsequently high GVM for what it still a cavalry/recon vehicle.

 

[t68]

I just came across an interesting post on another forum in regards to the ARH debate.*

You know, if we were smart, instead of spending that $1B messing with the Tigers, we could just buy some MH-60S to go with our Romeos. You get a decent enough gunship with VERTREP and MCM capabilities thrown in. All for the same front end and sensors as Romeo, plus the ship friendly blade folding, etc.

It's *an interesting point he makes *also their has been talk of the SOCOMD wanting to keep some of the Blackhawk fleet, if we only did minor upgrade to the ARH and divert some of the funding to either new MH60S or refurbish the existing Blackhawk fleet say 18x mariniezied *direct action penetrators and another 18x MH60K or similar standard, if we can standardise the amphibious service helicopters to a degree like MH-60R it reduce the logistic tail and spares needed on hand on the ship. Keep the existing ARH and MRH-90 for non Amphiboius operations . All this depends on if the existing Blackhawk can be refurbished to a commonality of Romeo, thoughts

 

[gf0012-aust]

I just came across an interesting post on another forum in regards to the ARH debate.*

I'm pretty sure that the same thing was said on here a few years back.... in fact I'm 99% sure

 

[t68]

I'm pretty sure that the same thing was said on here a few years back.... in fact I'm 99% sure

Wasn't awere of that but I'll do a little digging to see if anything turns up

 

[MARKMILES77]

There are so many Piranha/LAV variants it's very difficult to keep track and understand the differences between each. I don't.

GDLS-A will certainly bid strongly, as will BAE (AMV).

Canada is the LAV III/LAV 6.0 operator, not the US.

The CRV that GDLS-A will offer for Land 400 will have virtually zero commonality with ASLAV, which is a good thing. Remember ASLAV has at best an early 1990s design pedigree, and the CRV must remain relevant and supportable for 30 years (out to 2050).

Don't believe the Stryker will be offered. Like the LAV 6.0, it is in the last 15 years of life-of-type, meaning that upgrades by the primary users will cease in about a decade.

The protection requirements for Land 400 are very demanding (STANAG Level 5/6 over the frontal arc), with most candidate CRVs put forward to be in the 30-35 tonne GVM range. Big and heavy with IFV-like protection.

Be interested to hear what folks think about this level of protection and the subsequently high GVM for what it still a cavalry/recon vehicle.

General Dynamics and Thales Australia Announce Agreement to Team for LAND 400


Adelaide, Australia – General Dynamics Land Systems and Thales Australia have signed a teaming memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the intention to submit a bid in response to the Land 400 Phase 2 - Mounted Combat Reconnaissance Capability Request For Tender.



General Dynamics and Thales have a proven track record of working together across a broad range of vehicle programs. These include Canada’s LAV III Upgrade, the UK Foxhound and Scout SV Programs, Switzerland’s Piranha CBRN Program, and in Australia the ASLAV Program for Crew Procedural Trainer and electro-optics.



General Dynamics Land Systems is the manufacturer of combat-proven 8x8 and tracked Military Off The Shelf (MOTS) Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle (CRV), Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) and Manoeuvre Support Vehicle (MSV) products, and has proven performance in delivering international programs in a timely and cost-effective manner. Thales Australia has an established in-country industrial base of vehicle design, manufacture and through- life support and expertise in electronics, electro-optics, simulation and platform systems integration. The General Dynamics Land Systems / Thales team will offer Australia a compelling value-for-money solution comprising the complete suite of LAND 400 capabilities as required by the Australian Army.



Ian Cook, managing director of General Dynamics Land Systems – Australia, noted: “General Dynamics Land Systems and Thales will leverage our strengths to deliver a low-risk Land Combat Vehicle System capability for LAND 400. This is a great opportunity for us to combine world-leading MOTS 8x8 platforms with proven in-country manufacturing, integration, upgrade and through-life support. Our arrangement will maximise domestic and international opportunities for Australian industry and builds on the success of our current platforms in protecting Australian soldiers.”



Kevin Wall, Armaments & Protected Vehicles Vice President, Thales Australia, said: “General Dynamics is a global powerhouse in military vehicles. Combined with our experience delivering, supporting and upgrading the life-saving Bushmaster in Australia, we believe the collective expertise of our two companies represents a compelling offer for LAND 400.”



General Dynamics Land Systems – Australia was established in 2000 to support the delivery of the ASLAV wheeled armoured fighting vehicles and has manufactured approximately 400, LAV-25 turrets, mostly for export. General Dynamics Land Systems – Australia currently provides comprehensive support to the fielded fleets of M1A1 Abrams tanks and the ASLAVs.



For information about General Dynamics Land Systems, a business unit of General Dynamics (NYSE: GD), please visit Home.



Thales Australia is the manufacturer of the Bushmaster Protected Mobility Vehicle, which is a local success story with over 1,000 vehicles already sold and supported in Australia and internationally. Thales Australia is a trusted partner of the Australian Defence Force and is also present in commercial sectors ranging from air traffic management and ground transport systems to security systems and services. Employing around 3,200 people in over 35 sites across the country, Thales Australia recorded revenues of AUD 1 billion in 2013.



For more information, please visit: www.thalesgroup.com.

Groups are beginning to form up to bid.
Surprised GDLS was looking for a partner when they already have a significant Australian presence.
And wasn't Thales involved with making the VBCI?

 

[Goknub]

That's a great looking partnership. It allows for the use of the existing Bendigo facilities while also tapping into the massive supply chain of the US military. Win-win, at least on paper.

I'd forgotten that VBCI is a GIAT/Renault product, not Thales.

It's a smart play by General Dynamics, the Bendigo facilities are a valuable asset and have strong political backing. If they didn't team with Thales Australia someone else would have. Given how tight this competition could be that is an asset best not left to the competition.

 

[Stock]

That's a great looking partnership. It allows for the use of the existing Bendigo facilities while also tapping into the massive supply chain of the US military. Win-win, at least on paper.

I'd forgotten that VBCI is a GIAT/Renault product, not Thales.

It's a smart play by General Dynamics, the Bendigo facilities are a valuable asset and have strong political backing. If they didn't team with Thales Australia someone else would have. Given how tight this competition could be that is an asset best not left to the competition.

It's a very strong industry teaming, combining the two biggest land vehicle players in Australia. They have a good story to tell commercially and also in the vehicles they supply and support - ASLAV and Bushmaster. Very high end user regard for both vehicles. If their bid doesn't go through to the Risk Mitigation Activities I'd be amazed.

The LAV is not in US service as such (discounting the now ancient first-generation USMC vehicles), and Stryker is unlikely to be offered. So no reach back there.

Industry teams are:

GDLS-A - Thales (LAV 700 ??)
Raytheon Aust - Nexter (VBCI)
BAE Systems Aust - Patria (AMV)
Boeing Defence Aust - CIO (Freccia)
Rheinmetall-KMW (Boxer)
Elbit Systems Aust - STK (Terrex)

Going to be a very interesting year watching Land 400 unfold.

 

[MARKMILES77]

Industry teams are:

GDLS-A - Thales (LAV 700 ??)
Raytheon Aust - Nexter (VBCI)
BAE Systems Aust - Patria (AMV)
Boeing Defence Aust - CIO (Freccia)
Rheinmetall-KMW (Boxer)
Elbit Systems Aust - STK (Terrex)

Going to be a very interesting year watching Land 400 unfold.

Another interesting question is which of those teams can offer both a CRV AND an IFV?
All of them have a wheeled CRV but not necessarily a tracked IFV to offer.
Will some only go after the CRV part of Land 400 and if they do are they at a disadvantage relative to those teams who offer a whole package?

Could some teams offer a wheeled vehicle as their solution to the IFV part of Land 400 as well as to the CRV part?

 

[Stock]

Another interesting question is which of those teams can offer both a CRV AND an IFV?
All of them have a wheeled CRV but not necessarily a tracked IFV to offer.
Will some only go after the CRV part of Land 400 and if they do are they at a disadvantage relative to those teams who offer a whole package?

Could some teams offer a wheeled vehicle as their solution to the IFV part of Land 400 as well as to the CRV part?

Realistically, none of them, assuming a tracked IFV solution is sought. Individually only BAE would have a good shot at the IFV requirement with CV90.

This Phase 2 RFT is only about the wheeled CRV, it does not take into consideration the Phase 3 IFV, so no disadvantage.

If the door is left open to consideration of both wheeled and tracked IFV solutions, then the teams lining up for Phase 2 could well have a crack at Phase 3. The protection level required of the CRV under Phase 2 is so high as to be akin to that of an IFV anyway.

Bear in mind also that the VBCI in French service and the Freccia in Italian service are each considered as IFVs by their respective armies.