Not quite. Puma is out as it only carries 6 dismounts (even with its unmanned turret), and we need 8 in the back I believe. Boxer will carry 8 in the rear but only with the remote turret.
There will be less respondents offering a tracked solution when the IFV RFT comes out than there is now for the CRV under Phase 2 (current RFT). Simply is not the number of IFV designs that suit.
Whilst the Army favours a tracked solution, I suspect the DMO will leave the requirement loose (not make tracks essential) so as to encourage wheeled solutions as well. This would have the effect of putting cost pressure on the tracked IFV bids and give the Commonwealth the option of assessing tracked and wheeled IFV solutions together during Risk Mitigation Activities for instance.
A wheeled IFV solution definitely cannot be ruled out for Land 400 at this point.
STK actually has a solid history of developing armoured vehichles, tracked and wheeled. Bionix IFV and the Terrex ICV springs to mind.
Annually, these vehicles can be seen romping around SWBTA so I suspect Australian defence officials would already have some familiarity with the capabilities of the Bionix and Terrex.
Yes, Singaporean AFVs have been exercising at SWBTA for some years.
Bionix II seems a capable vehicle but would need to step up a category to be in the same protection class as CV90 for instance.
We had it in this thread before. There is just is no serious modern IFV out there with a dismount capability of 8 fully rattled up dismounts in modern gear on mine resistant seats.
Apart from any possible 8 dismount solution becoming a really huge beast it adds considerable development risk.
So one or more things have to go, either protection levels, program risk reduction and/or weight and size. Wheeled platforms will be even more hard pressed to offer protection levels comparable to modern tracked IFVs.
Apart from any possible 8 dismount solution becoming a really huge beast it adds considerable development risk.
So one or more things have to go, either protection levels, program risk reduction and/or weight and size. Wheeled platforms will be even more hard pressed to offer protection levels comparable to modern tracked IFVs.
meatshield
Active Member
I watched a YouTube clip of a cv90 dismounting 8 troops the other day? Sure looked like it held 8? The fire power of 40mm gun looked pretty impressive as well...
I believe earlier versions could carry 8 but this has changed to 6 dismounts fully equipped, pretty sure the earlier versions would not have been able to support 8 fully equipped soldiers either, they would be light
Cheers
Current IFVs can't meet the criteria and would appear to be close enough in weight/armour to the CRV to suggest the same vehicle could suffice.
Unless we go the heavy APC/IFV route.
In this case the options as I see them are Namer, or more risky, an Abrams-based heavy APC. This is where a General Dynamics CRV win could be useful. They produce the Abrams and may be able to produce a cost-effective heavy APC/IFV using the existing stockpile of M1s.
Very much pie-in-the-sky stuff but I believe this option could have merit.
Unless we go the heavy APC/IFV route.
In this case the options as I see them are Namer, or more risky, an Abrams-based heavy APC. This is where a General Dynamics CRV win could be useful. They produce the Abrams and may be able to produce a cost-effective heavy APC/IFV using the existing stockpile of M1s.
Very much pie-in-the-sky stuff but I believe this option could have merit.
meatshield
Active Member
What changed in the design to reduce dismounts? And do the think the reduce load is a show stopper?
Thanks
As far as I'm aware the design didn't change. What changed was the equipment carried, 8 soldiers will fit if all they carry are their rifles and not much else.
Once you add in all the extra modern kit like M72s, extra ammo, supplies, radios etc then it's too much. Combine that with the long periods soldiers can now be stuck inside as seen in conflicts like Iraq & Afghan, and 8 just doesn't work.
------
Is it a show-stopper? I would suggest yes. It would undo the primary goals of Infantry 2012 and Plan Beersheba.
Once you add in all the extra modern kit like M72s, extra ammo, supplies, radios etc then it's too much. Combine that with the long periods soldiers can now be stuck inside as seen in conflicts like Iraq & Afghan, and 8 just doesn't work.
------
Is it a show-stopper? I would suggest yes. It would undo the primary goals of Infantry 2012 and Plan Beersheba.
meatshield
Active Member
Ok thanks for that. Just curious if the cv90 derivative the armadillo would be the way to go with the occasional cv90 charging around providing fire support.....
Land 400 is very much going down the heavy IFV route. They expect an IFV of up to 42 tonnes, which is Puma with top level armour category.
Protection is driving this weight/GVM. If they are calling for STANAG Level 6 for the CRV then they will most assuredly request the same from the IFV at the very least.
Adopting an unmanned turret (no turret basket) could free up the additional space required. This may well be Army's only option if it wants a low-risk IFV that can carry 8 troops.
For the CRV (cavalry/recon) role I'm not a fan of the unmanned turret (compromised situational awareness), but for the IFV it might be more appropriate.
It's certainly worked with the ASLAV and could have merit.
A CV90 Armadillo equipped with a remote HMG / Javelin combo should leave enough space for 8. A dedicated gun car could allow a heavier primary weapon, perhaps even up to 57mm or light weight 120mm.
This is what the future Russian Boomerang is being touted with carrying, it might be worth while to keep up. Although commonality with the CRV would preclude this unless that also went the PC/Gun car route.
A CV90 Armadillo equipped with a remote HMG / Javelin combo should leave enough space for 8. A dedicated gun car could allow a heavier primary weapon, perhaps even up to 57mm or light weight 120mm.
This is what the future Russian Boomerang is being touted with carrying, it might be worth while to keep up. Although commonality with the CRV would preclude this unless that also went the PC/Gun car route.
In the face of risk migation being a major goal dreaming of vaporware is probably not the advised way of action and I hope for the Aussie Army that the decision makers stick to this.
Some 57mm fure support vehicle just as some Abrams derived IFV is exactly that and a recipe for being late, over budget and underperforming.
Apart from all the additional battle rattle decoupled seats also added additional space requirements compared to the benches of older designs.
Some 57mm fure support vehicle just as some Abrams derived IFV is exactly that and a recipe for being late, over budget and underperforming.
Apart from all the additional battle rattle decoupled seats also added additional space requirements compared to the benches of older designs.
meatshield
Active Member
There are some great clips on YouTube of the cv90 range of vehicles. There is even a 120mm turret version. You name it and they have a version of it. Apc, recovery, gun platform. The 40mm armed apc version looked very impressive when combine with AT missiles. As mentioned above it only carries 6 troopers.
Often, most IFVs are developed as a family of vehicles based on the same chassis i.e. ARV, IFV, bridge laying. From a brigade commander's perspective, you're streamlining the logistics required to conduct operations, which is always a good thing. Also, personally I have some doubts about the usefulness of mounting ATGMs on IFVs.
Btw I know I'm being pedantic here but an APC is not an IFV/AFV.
Agreed that the vanilla BX2 will probably not meet ADF requirements as it is tailored to domestic requirements, but I'm not counting on that being submitted.
In terms of armour, apparently the Bionix uses the same add-on armour as the CV90.
At around 25 tonnes GVM and bearing in mind Army is expecting candidate Land 400 IFVs to be up to 42 tonnes GVM, Bionix II would need to add minimum 10 tonnes of armour to be in the game protection wise for the Land 400 IFV. Can't see this vehicle being a candidate, even an upgraded version.Often, most IFVs are developed as a family of vehicles based on the same chassis i.e. ARV, IFV, bridge laying. From a brigade commander's perspective, you're streamlining the logistics required to conduct operations, which is always a good thing. Also, personally I have some doubts about the usefulness of mounting ATGMs on IFVs.
Btw I know I'm being pedantic here but an APC is not an IFV/AFV.
Agreed that the vanilla BX2 will probably not meet ADF requirements as it is tailored to domestic requirements, but I'm not counting on that being submitted.
In terms of armour, apparently the Bionix uses the same add-on armour as the CV90.
@Meatshield
The Swedish CV9040 are the oldest of the bunch with export customers getting the more capable CV9030 and CV9035 (Mk.II and III).
@bdique
What are your doubts when it comes to ATGMs on IFVs?
I wouldn't want an IFV without them as it offers so much more flexibility.
Heavy long range AT overwatch of the accompanying tanks or ones own advancing infantry. AT ambush and additional of center support in the defense. The ability to blow up structures and bunkers when there is no tank at hand.
And apart from costs nearly no disadvantages. The additional weigth is neglible. Additional space requirements for spare rounds is a point but it depends on how many one wants to carry.
The Swedish CV9040 are the oldest of the bunch with export customers getting the more capable CV9030 and CV9035 (Mk.II and III).
@bdique
What are your doubts when it comes to ATGMs on IFVs?
I wouldn't want an IFV without them as it offers so much more flexibility.
Heavy long range AT overwatch of the accompanying tanks or ones own advancing infantry. AT ambush and additional of center support in the defense. The ability to blow up structures and bunkers when there is no tank at hand.
And apart from costs nearly no disadvantages. The additional weigth is neglible. Additional space requirements for spare rounds is a point but it depends on how many one wants to carry.
Tend to agree. The addition of the ATGW requirement for the CRV was unexpected but welcome. It gives Army more flexibility in deploying the CRV capability and the commander more engagement options on operations.
When you consider also how Australia failed to take air support or even towed artillery to Afghanistan in support of its own and other coalition ground forces, the all-round utility and lethality of organic fire support from an integrated medium-range ATGW will likely prove highly effective and very useful in future years.