Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Boagrius]

IMHO, the Boxer CRV is an excellent choice, for a CRV.
It's also the expensive option.
Why would anyone seriously entertain the prospect of selecting a wheeled phase 3 option for a IFV, that cannot keep mobility with its supporting tanks?
Why would you pay a premium price (for the modified IFV Boxer) when it does not have the same mobility as a tracked vehicle - what, just so it's the same as the CRV?
Isn't CRV role different to that of a IFV? Isn't that why they went to the bother of issuing different tenders in the first place?
There are synergies with tracked phase 3 competitors (Puma, Lynx) to appreciate before wandering down a pointless wheeled phase 3 concept.
My 2c.

The Boxer certainly sounds like an excellent tool for its job. That said, we are in a fortunate position in that there are also a multitude of excellent tracked candidates out there for Phase 3. Surely one of them would meet the Phase 3 requirements better than the (albeit formidable) Boxer could. I would have expected CV90, ASCOD or Puma to be the front runners as Lynx, though capable on paper, might be viewed as a risky orphan(?).

 

[the road runner]

Boxer for the win... That's great news As the Lance 2 man 30 mm turret was part of the bid for Land 400 Phase 2 i assume that is the turret and cannon we shall be purchasing ? Sounds like that's the vehicle Army wanted all along and its good to hear that's the vehicle Army shall be receiving! The "whispers" of how the Boxer was able to drive off the range after the "blast testing" part of Land 400 must have been a factor in favour of the Boxer !

So now we wait for phase 3 ...

The CV90 has a number of orders and variants while in the middle of its operational life .. i have always liked the CV90 from my arm chair General POV..

The Lynx ,i am assuming is a follow on of the Marder.. a simple and effective vehicle but has not been tested and i assume would have the highest risk of contenders..

The Puma is the most advanced of the tracked vehicles ...one point is that, the PUMA order for the German Army is 350 vehicles ...of course if Puma was selected by Australia and all 450 vehicles were purchased with no more orders coming from Germany ..that would make Australia the largest Puma operator .. Unlikely But .. i could live with that


Would be great to get Waylander , Kato's and Ravens point of view on the what vehicle they would select for Land 400 phase 3

 

[Goknub]

I think the big question for Phase 3 will whether to go all-tracked or split tracked/Boxer. Without a Boxer troop carrier there is a potential Medium gap between the Light Bushmaster and the Heavy IFV. Tracked vehicles have their own limitations which often preclude their use, particularly on overseas deployments which would leave the Bushmaster as the only option. This may be too high a risk for military and political leaders which a split option would negate.

 

[ADMk2]

I was under the impression that the requirement was for 225 vehicles in total...the breakdown of variants being 129 recon, 17 surveillance, 26 command, 20 repair, 10 recov, 15 amb, 8 joint-fires. Why the reduction to 211 vehicles? Cost?

225 seems to have been the ‘placeholder number’ based on how many ASLAV’s remain in-service. 211 seems to be the requirement to meet the Plan Keogh needs.

Raven for the hat tip...

 

[Raven22]

I think the big question for Phase 3 will whether to go all-tracked or split tracked/Boxer. Without a Boxer troop carrier there is a potential Medium gap between the Light Bushmaster and the Heavy IFV. Tracked vehicles have their own limitations which often preclude their use, particularly on overseas deployments which would leave the Bushmaster as the only option. This may be too high a risk for military and political leaders which a split option would negate.

I don’t think there will be a split buy. If for whatever reason we want to lift infantry in a wheeled vehicle instead of tracked we can just use the 211 Boxers we just bought. Take the surveillance gear out of the back and you can lift a mechanised section, same as a tracked IFV. We did the same with ASLAV.

Using history as a guide, we’ll probably use Boxer more in a generic mounted combat role, with dudes in the back, than we will in a pure recon/surveillance role. It is one of the few advantages in having a vehicle the rough size of a WWII aircraft carrier, rather than a purpose designed recon vehicle.

 

[Raven22]

Would be great to get Waylander , Kato's and Ravens point of view on the what vehicle they would select for Land 400 phase 3

I don’t think Boxer will be bought for Phase III. The only way I see that happening is if a tracked vehicle is simply unaffordable. Clearly, my bet is either Lynx or Puma. Each vehicle will come with the Lance turret and a number of common subsystems, which will make training and support for the whole fleet so, so much easier and cheaper. It would be possible for Australia to provide the Lance turret as government furnished equipment to put on some other contender, but the problems with that are obvious.

Between Puma and Lynx, I think it will come down to a mixture of cost and carrying capacity. With the move (back) to dedicated mechanised battalions, each section will only have six dismounts, which means a section will fit in Puma, which is almost certainly a more capable vehicle than Lynx. However, army may still decide that a vehicle that can carry eight dismounts is still needed/preferred (for when we inevitably change our mind again about section size etc), which would make Lynx the more attractive vehicle as it is the only one that can fit eight dismounts.

Puma will almost certainly be more expensive than Lynx, so if the budget is particularly stressed then that might be a more attractive option. I don’t think the not-off-the-shelf nature of the Lynx will be as big an issue as some state, as pretty much all the subsystems are proven, Rheinmetall are hardly new at this, and there is a lot more appetite for developmental risk for Phase 3 compared to a Phase 2 (although still not much).

Of note as well, is that it is very unlikely we will buy a full 450 vehicles. That was planned off eight man sections, 40 man platoons and eight vehicles to lift a platoon. With the change in orbat, only four vehicles are needed to lift the platoon. I think only about 75% as many vehicles will be needed. The obvious so what is that the budget won’t be as stressed, and a more expensive vehicle becomes more of an option.

My tip in descending order of likeliness is:
Puma/Lynx
Boxer
Other vehicle with Lance turret
Any other vehicle

 

[MARKMILES77]

It is one of the few advantages in having a vehicle the rough size of a WWII aircraft carrier, rather than a purpose designed recon vehicle.

Surely Hawkei would make a more suitable Recon vehicle?

 

[Todjaeger]

Surely Hawkei would make a more suitable Recon vehicle?

Hawkei is a 4x4 replacement for the Land Rover Perenties which AFAIK can carry up to a HMG or similarly-sized weapon. This might be sufficient for patrol and recon work in areas where the primary threats are limited to small arms, as there is a limit to just how much protection can be fitted to a 7 tonne vehicle.

Should the potential threats include any vehicle-mounted weapons (including just HMG's) then I strongly suspect that a Hawkei-sized vehicle would become little more than a target.

 

[Joe Black]

What are we doing with the ASLAVs when the Boxer CRVs come online? Can we repurpose them? Use them for other roles - eg.convert some with the AMOS turret? Perhaps some of them converted to MGS with the remote 105mm gun?

 

[MARKMILES77]

Hawkei is a 4x4 replacement for the Land Rover Perenties which AFAIK can carry up to a HMG or similarly-sized weapon. This might be sufficient for patrol and recon work in areas where the primary threats are limited to small arms, as there is a limit to just how much protection can be fitted to a 7 tonne vehicle.

Can be fitted with an EOS R400S Remote Weapon Station with a 30mm cannon or a RWS with dual weapons, a 50cal and an ATGM.
Protection with the up-armour kit is said to be to STANAG LEVEL IV, protection from 14.5mm Armour piercing rounds.

Should the potential threats include any vehicle-mounted weapons (including just HMG's) then I strongly suspect that a Hawkei-sized vehicle would become little more than a target.

Anyone who shoots knows that a big target is easier to hit than a small target. The Boxer is a massive target.
The Hawkei is smaller which means harder to hit and easier to hide.
It is also likely faster and more agile.

 

[the road runner]

What are we doing with the ASLAVs when the Boxer CRVs come online? Can we repurpose them? Use them for other roles - eg.convert some with the AMOS turret? Perhaps some of them converted to MGS with the remote 105mm gun?

They are pretty flogged and have had a mid life update ... id assume we would retire them and save money in not having another vehicle to suck funds in retaining them.. Gift them to a friendly nation,use some in museum's or worse ..as targets for Boxer

Thanks for the reply Raven i would be betting on the Puma to

 

[hairyman]

I don’t think Boxer will be bought for Phase III. The only way I see that happening is if a tracked vehicle is simply unaffordable. Clearly, my bet is either Lynx or Puma. Each vehicle will come with the Lance turret and a number of common subsystems, which will make training and support for the whole fleet so, so much easier and cheaper. It would be possible for Australia to provide the Lance turret as government furnished equipment to put on some other contender, but the problems with that are obvious.

Between Puma and Lynx, I think it will come down to a mixture of cost and carrying capacity. With the move (back) to dedicated mechanised battalions, each section will only have six dismounts, which means a section will fit in Puma, which is almost certainly a more capable vehicle than Lynx. However, army may still decide that a vehicle that can carry eight dismounts is still needed/preferred (for when we inevitably change our mind again about section size etc), which would make Lynx the more attractive vehicle as it is the only one that can fit eight dismounts.

Puma will almost certainly be more expensive than Lynx, so if the budget is particularly stressed then that might be a more attractive option. I don’t think the not-off-the-shelf nature of the Lynx will be as big an issue as some state, as pretty much all the subsystems are proven, Rheinmetall are hardly new at this, and there is a lot more appetite for developmental risk for Phase 3 compared to a Phase 2 (although still not much).

Of note as well, is that it is very unlikely we will buy a full 450 vehicles. That was planned off eight man sections, 40 man platoons and eight vehicles to lift a platoon. With the change in orbat, only four vehicles are needed to lift the platoon. I think only about 75% as many vehicles will be needed. The obvious so what is that the budget won’t be as stressed, and a more expensive vehicle becomes more of an option.

My tip in descending order of likeliness is:
Puma/Lynx
Boxer
Other vehicle with Lance turret
Any other vehicle

Raven22, would you give the CV90 any show at all, or is it just too old?

 

[Todjaeger]

Can be fitted with an EOS R400S Remote Weapon Station with a 30mm cannon or a RWS with dual weapons, a 50cal and an ATGM.

Per the Thales Australia Hawkei PDF found here:

Weapon mount options include Manned or RWS 12.7 mm HMG, 40 mm Auto Grenade Launcher, 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm MG swing mounts.

No mention of a 30 mm cannon capability. Looking into the EOS R400S (Mk II specifically) is appears that package weight with a 30 mm cannon would be below 400 kg, but certainly above 250 kg (weight of system with M2 HMG and 500 rounds). Mounting a system I suspect would be just below 400 kg, plus up-armouring the vehicle to Level IV would IMO be asking a bit much for a vehicle with a normal design weight of 7 tonnes. Again, keep in mind that the Hawkei vehicle was designed as a replacement for the Land Rover Perentie which had/have a different role and are utilized differently than the ASLAV in a reconnaissance role.

What are we doing with the ASLAVs when the Boxer CRVs come online? Can we repurpose them? Use them for other roles - eg.convert some with the AMOS turret? Perhaps some of them converted to MGS with the remote 105mm gun?

It would depend on how much useful life remains in the ASLAV fleet, and what it would cost to re-purpose them. Given that the newest ASLAV's are a decade old, while the first production run is ~23 years old (and the vehicles are being replaced...) I suspect that a cost vs. benefit analysis would determine the benefits are not worth the total costs (to modify, running multiple vehicle fleets, training/support, etc.) There might be some value in mothballing some, just in case. Other than that, I suspect either on-selling them if able to, or else scrapping them or using them as targets on a range.

 

[Raven22]

Can be fitted with an EOS R400S Remote Weapon Station with a 30mm cannon or a RWS with dual weapons, a 50cal and an ATGM.
Protection with the up-armour kit is said to be to STANAG LEVEL IV, protection from 14.5mm Armour piercing rounds.


Anyone who shoots knows that a big target is easier to hit than a small target. The Boxer is a massive target.
The Hawkei is smaller which means harder to hit and easier to hide.
It is also likely faster and more agile.

Hawkei would be handy as a recon vehicle, but not in place of Boxer. I mentioned in post 5694 that to be effective as formation reconnaissance you need to be able to fight for information - the Hawkei won’t give you that. The recon platoons from the PMV infantry battalion will get Hawkei, as in that role they are better suited.

Where I think the Hawkei can come into its own is in the Reserve armoured regiments. Give the Reserve units Hawkei with a mix of flex mount MGs and RWS with HMG and Javelin/Spike, and you have an extremely handy capability that is well suited to the Reserve and compliment the regular ACRs very well. They would be capable recon vehicles, with the anti-armour capability it would allow them to conduct rear area security properly as part of the reinforcing battlegroup, and it would provide army an option for mobile combat power at a weight below the 30+ tonnes of Land 400. You couldn’t afford to train everyone in Javelin all the time as it would be too expensive, but providing gap training within the notice to move of the reserves would be easy.

Reserve armoured units with Hawkei for recon/mounted combat power, PMVs to lift the infantry, and scouts able to integrate with the regular ACRs would be particularly handy and give the Reserve armoured units a purpose again.

 

[Raven22]

What are we doing with the ASLAVs when the Boxer CRVs come online? Can we repurpose them? Use them for other roles - eg.convert some with the AMOS turret? Perhaps some of them converted to MGS with the remote 105mm gun?

The ASLAVs are shagged. They have reached a level of technical obsolescence that it just isn’t economical to continue to support them. Army has basically stopped spending money to support them anyway - the ASLAVs should have just enough life left to get them to their planned withdrawal, but no further. The ASLAVs will be turned into gate guards and targets when they are taken out of service, no more.

On the other hand, the M113s will probably continue to serve alongside their replacements IFVs, at least for some period. Automotively the M113s are excellent, and have enough armour for non-combat roles, so will likely continue to serve as logistics carriers and potentially mortar carriers.

 

[Raven22]

Raven22, would you give the CV90 any show at all, or is it just too old?

I think it would be competitive if Phase 3 was decided in isolation, but I think it will struggle now that Rheinmetall have won Phase 2. You would need a pretty compelling reason to turn your back on the benefits of going with a vehicle with a common turret and subsystems from a common manufacturer, and I don’t think CV90 provides that compelling reason.

However, I have absolutely no inside knowledge on any of this, so I could be talking out of my backside.

 

[zhaktronz]

Surely Hawkei would make a more suitable Recon vehicle?

It'd be a better recon vehicle, but it certainly won't be a better combat reconnaissance vehicle. That means fighting for information, pinning enemy forces, and destroying enemy reconnaissance elements. It also means effective firepower and protection to be able to defeat targets of opportunities - and in a world where even supply convoys might have machine gun resistance, remote weapon stations and heavy weapons to allow mounted counter-ambush combat a jeep with a machine gun doesn't cut it anymore.

Really if only the C had stood for Calvary instead of Combat we probably would have avoided the endless 'too big for recon' discussion.

 

[aussienscale]

They are pretty flogged and have had a mid life update ... id assume we would retire them and save money in not having another vehicle to suck funds in retaining them.. Gift them to a friendly nation,use some in museum's or worse ..as targets for Boxer

Thanks for the reply Raven i would be betting on the Puma to

Yeah the ASLAV's have been flogged there and back again, they will sell of what we can as spares for other operators, and I would be betting target practice hulks after that

Agree with what you guys are saying in that Rheinmetall would have to be a shoe in now for Phase 3, my opinion, the logistics line from Land 121 and up has so many advantages. While the Puma is an amazing piece of kit, I personally have a feeling about the Lynx, I really have a feel that it will tick a lot of boxes.

It has a lot of the sub systems of the Boxer, it is not high risk as some may think, and talk of an orphan fleet is not even the slightest issue, especially if we build them

Cheers

 

[MARKMILES77]

Per the Thales Australia Hawkei PDF found here:



No mention of a 30 mm cannon capability. Looking into the EOS R400S (Mk II specifically) is appears that package weight with a 30 mm cannon would be below 400 kg, but certainly above 250 kg (weight of system with M2 HMG and 500 rounds). Mounting a system I suspect would be just below 400 kg, plus up-armouring the vehicle to Level IV would IMO be asking a bit much for a vehicle with a normal design weight of 7 tonnes. Again, keep in mind that the Hawkei vehicle was designed as a replacement for the Land Rover Perentie which had/have a different role and are utilized differently than the ASLAV in a reconnaissance role.



.

Hawkei is 7 tonne in basic kerb side mode but has a maximum gross vehicle weight just over 10 tonne, so can carry significant add on armour and/or Remote Weapon Station.
A 30 mm, light weight EOS R400 turret has not been integrated with Hawkei because the Australian Government hasn't requested it.
But 30mm RWSs have been demonstrated on other similar size and weight (10 tonne) vehicles such as the JLTV.

 

[Todjaeger]

Hawkei is 7 tonne in basic kerb side mode but has a maximum gross vehicle weight just over 10 tonne, so can carry significant add on armour and/or Remote Weapon Station.
A 30 mm, light weight EOS R400 turret has not been integrated with Hawkei because the Australian Government hasn't requested it.
But 30mm RWSs have been demonstrated on other similar size and weight (10 tonne) vehicles such as the JLTV.

The Australian gov't has not asked for such a combination to be developed, and I personally doubt they would be interested.

AFAIK per the Thales Australia info on the Hawkei, that 10 tonne MGVW includes 3 tonnes of cargo, crew and personal gear, etc. From looking at the options available, it appears such a RWS with a 30 mm cannon and ~120 rounds of ammunition would be just under 400 kg. Comparing the 'regular' and up-armoured weights of M1114 HMMWV's, which are similar in size and role to the Hawkei's and what they are replacing, the add-on armour weights ~2,800 kg and that was to get to approximately Level III protection, not Level IV protection.

Given that a 4-man crew plus their personal gear would likely weight ~400 kg, and a 6-man crew which would likely be more useful for an armed recon vehicle with a 30 mm cannon would likely be ~600 kg, then the Hawkei vehicle weight starts getting up to 10.8 tonnes which is past the MGVW.

As a side note, the ~400 kg weight of the RWS would add considerably to the Hawkei topweight, making the vehicle top-heavy and limit mobility to avoid rollovers.

From my interpretation of the Hawkei spec sheets, the vehicle is not intended as a combat vehicle which will be sent to seek out and engage hostile forces. If it were, then I would have expected a stock Hawkei to be kitted out with at least Level III protection. The Bushmaster IMV's which are to provide troops with armour-protected mobility and are not APC's or IFV's troops would expect to be transported directly into battle in has Level III protection as a standard feature IIRC.

It would seem to be better (and the fact that armed forces around the world do this seem to confirm this) for combat recon forces to be kitted out with vehicles which are designed from the beginning to be able to fight against enemy forces directly encountered, be they forward/recon elements, or frontline troops.