Land 400

[knightrider4]

So reading the requirement for 8 troops you need an APC with a cannon armed RCWS or a larger vehicle, i.e. dare I say it, leaves only the Nammer as with a crew of 3 and 12 troops you would think there is room for a turret and Israel has demonstrated vehicles cannon armed IFV versions. It also has a engine that is related to that used in the M-88 Hercules we currently have in service.

Enter the Namer

I wonder if RM would be interested in integrating 40mm CTA into the Puma turret. By the way isn't the Puma turret unmanned? Does it penetrate the hull or is it all external?

I suppose the only other option is the wait (if we can) and see what comes from GCV and their nine man squad requirement.

Is the CT 40 mm cannon a prime requirement?

 

[old faithful]

Dosnt Singapore make the bionix 40/50 ?
Dosnt it have a 40mm gun, and up to 9 dismounts?
I am not really a fan of their infantry weapons, I spent some time at 1S.I.R in the 80,s and did a couple of live fire exercises, but this car seems to tick a few boxes. Does anyone have any experience with them. Do Singapore bring them to Shoalwater on ex?

 

[MARKMILES77]

@Raven

What are the special requirements Australia has which cannot be fully fullfilled by of the shelf vehicles (apart from the usual swapping of comm and command stuff)?

There are several modern wheeled platforms out there which should be able to cover the wheeled part replacing the different ASLAV versions.

The same applies for a tracked IFV which is able to follow and fight alongside Australias MBTs.

IMHO the irony is that there is less modern stuff available as a M113 replacement IF one defenitely wants to retain a tracked APC/special versions capability.

Tracked APCs went out of fashion in lots of the traditional armour building countries apart from special beasts like the Namer.

Is there anything in LAND 400 that states that the Cavalry and IFV cannot be the same vehicle?
Logistically it would be simpler if a single vehicle type was chosen for both roles.
The wheeled vehicles of recent origin Boxer, VBCI, Pirhanha 5 etc offer extremely high levels of protection, excellent long distance mobility and the ability to transport eight troops and would seem capable of fulfilling both roles.

 

[Volkodav]

Is the CT 40 mm cannon a prime requirement?

I don't believe it is, rather Raven has specifically mentioned it and it is a very nice system with a lot of advantages hence its attraction to those in the know. From a logistical perspective 25mm would be the way to go but 40CTA would be the preferred way of the future with much high capability combined with significantly reduced volume taken up by ammunition.

 

[Volkodav]

Is there anything in LAND 400 that states that the Cavalry and IFV cannot be the same vehicle?
Logistically it would be simpler if a single vehicle type was chosen for both roles.
The wheeled vehicles of recent origin Boxer, VBCI, Pirhanha 5 etc offer extremely high levels of protection, excellent long distance mobility and the ability to transport eight troops and would seem capable of fulfilling both roles.

I do not believe so and from memory in the past the assumption appeared to be that the Cav Vehicle would be tracked and the IFV wheeled, that appears to have changed. I have also heard the CV90 Armadillo being pushed for the APC role as well with an IFV version made possible through the addition of a non-penetrating turret, hence by questions on the Puma turret.

 

[Volkodav]

Dosnt Singapore make the bionix 40/50 ?
Dosnt it have a 40mm gun, and up to 9 dismounts?
I am not really a fan of their infantry weapons, I spent some time at 1S.I.R in the 80,s and did a couple of live fire exercises, but this car seems to tick a few boxes. Does anyone have any experience with them. Do Singapore bring them to Shoalwater on ex?

Not sure but OPSSG has recently put a stack of shots up of an exercise in India, I can't see that they wouldn't have been used here too at some point.

 

[Raven22]

I assume Australia wants to retain them having their transport assets organized seperately to the infantry units?

Yep, since the infantry has to operate as both light and mechanised infantry, the IFVs are stuck having to transport orbats optimised for dismounted ops. Although, its not just the infantry - combat engineers will need to fit in too, and they have 8 man sections as well (and more equipment to cart around to boot).

Is the CT 40 mm cannon a prime requirement?

Not really, its just the ideal weapon. If we were planning a vehicle from scratch, it would be armed with the 40mm CTA. By no means will vehicles without this weapon be disqualified though.

Dosnt Singapore make the bionix 40/50 ?
Dosnt it have a 40mm gun, and up to 9 dismounts?

That vehicle is hardly suitable, as it is only armed with a .50 cal and 40mm AGL. Put a two man turret on it and it won't fit 9 dudes in the back any more. That's the same with pretty much any vehicle - take the turret off a Puma/ASCOD/CV90 etc and you will easily fit 8 dudes in the back. The trick is having both.

Is there anything in LAND 400 that states that the Cavalry and IFV cannot be the same vehicle?
Logistically it would be simpler if a single vehicle type was chosen for both roles.
The wheeled vehicles of recent origin Boxer, VBCI, Pirhanha 5 etc offer extremely high levels of protection, excellent long distance mobility and the ability to transport eight troops and would seem capable of fulfilling both roles.

One of the options was to have both vehicles being the same, but this option has been canned and won't be presented as part of 1st pass. Essentially the requirements are different enough that a single vehicle was never going to meet the requirements. Despite advances in wheeled vehicles, you still need tracks if you want to close the last 300m right onto the enemy pits. You also need a manoeuvre support vehicle (Terrier/Kodiak etc), which is part of Land 400 as well.

 

[bdique]

Yep, since the infantry has to operate as both light and mechanised infantry, the IFVs are stuck having to transport orbats optimised for dismounted ops. Although, its not just the infantry - combat engineers will need to fit in too, and they have 8 man sections as well (and more equipment to cart around to boot).



Not really, its just the ideal weapon. If we were planning a vehicle from scratch, it would be armed with the 40mm CTA. By no means will vehicles without this weapon be disqualified though.



That vehicle is hardly suitable, as it is only armed with a .50 cal and 40mm AGL. Put a two man turret on it and it won't fit 9 dudes in the back any more. That's the same with pretty much any vehicle - take the turret off a Puma/ASCOD/CV90 etc and you will easily fit 8 dudes in the back. The trick is having both.



One of the options was to have both vehicles being the same, but this option has been canned and won't be presented as part of 1st pass. Essentially the requirements are different enough that a single vehicle was never going to meet the requirements. Despite advances in wheeled vehicles, you still need tracks if you want to close the last 300m right onto the enemy pits. You also need a manoeuvre support vehicle (Terrier/Kodiak etc), which is part of Land 400 as well.

A few quick points (sorry, at work):

1. Combat engineers would probably operate off a non-IFV platform that has a larger carrying capacity (specialised Puma with no turret, but with just an MG for self-defense - essentially an APC). There's barely any space in an IFV as the turret takes up a lot of space, leaving the bare minimum for the troopers.

2. About the ammo - the bigger the caliber, the bigger the round, the less ammo you can store. A trade-off needs to be made somewhere between round performance vs. quantity of ammo available.

3. The Bionix 40/50 is an IFV, but a differently armed animal. It's weapons allow for engagement of targets at relatively closer ranges as compared to platforms that use the two man turret (2MT). These are often soft targets i.e. exposed enemy infantry attempting to outflank the vehicles. This arrangement has its use in closed terrain often encountered in South East Asia. A better comparison would be the Bionix or Bionix II IFVs.

Btw the 40/50 cupola, being operated by a single person, affords a lot more space in the back. I guess the way Singapore approached the issue of space management is to have a mix of both vehicle types in the same unit.

4. Good point about the need for both vehicle types. There's also the issue of wheeled vehicles performing better in UO. Having a mix of vehicles would provide the Army with the flexibility to deal with a greater range of threats.

 

[Waylander]

The turret of the Puma is penetrating only slightly into the hull. And despite that one gets only 6 dismounts + 3 crewmembers into it due to the heavy protection.

I go along with Raven in that if one really wants to give the full spectrum of tactical mobility to it's mounted infantry a tracked vehicle is the way to go.
Wheels have come a long way but they are still not able to substitute tracks. In order to follow and fight with the M1s a modern tracked IFV is the way to go, probably supplanted by a tracked APC in order to keep the dismount numbers up.

In the end I think Australia should buy the Namer with the Sampson30 RWS or stop thinking about having 8 dismounts in a heavy tracked IFV. Every other solution would involve considerable redesigns of existing vehicles which in turn raises cost, risk and introduction date.

 

[Volkodav]

The turret of the Puma is penetrating only slightly into the hull. And despite that one gets only 6 dismounts + 3 crewmembers into it due to the heavy protection.

I go along with Raven in that if one really wants to give the full spectrum of tactical mobility to it's mounted infantry a tracked vehicle is the way to go.
Wheels have come a long way but they are still not able to substitute tracks. In order to follow and fight with the M1s a modern tracked IFV is the way to go, probably supplanted by a tracked APC in order to keep the dismount numbers up.

In the end I think Australia should buy the Namer with the Sampson30 RWS or stop thinking about having 8 dismounts in a heavy tracked IFV. Every other solution would involve considerable redesigns of existing vehicles which in turn raises cost, risk and introduction date.

Interestingly I believe the Nammer production in the US for Israel is so they can access FMS credits and to relieve local production constraints. It would be interesting to see if we could access a suitably modified version through FMS as it seem to best fit the bill. Cost could be kept down through not ordering the active protection system (maybe make it a for but not with option) although the RWS would drive it up again.

The other option, though not ideal, that comes to mind for the ADF would be to order a mix of IFVs and APCs and combine them at troop level. So instead of four IFVs and insufficient number of dismounts or four APC and insufficient firepower each troop would have two IFVs and four APCs covering both bases. Not idea and may work out more expensive than the Nammer option but may be workable. The IFVs could also carry CAV trained additional crew to help out with maintenance and dismounted roles when not lifting troops and provide extra crew to cover fatigue and injury issues when lifting troops.

 

[MARKMILES77]

Interestingly I believe the Nammer production in the US for Israel is so they can access FMS credits and to relieve local production constraints. It would be interesting to see if we could access a suitably modified version through FMS as it seem to best fit the bill. Cost could be kept down through not ordering the active protection system (maybe make it a for but not with option) although the RWS would drive it up again.

Is the Namer really being considered as an option? I can't imagine it is.
Is it even suitable for Australia's needs?
To my mind it is unsuitable for so many reasons. An ultra heavy (60+ tonne) APC designed for a country where moving it 100km is long distance transport. I believe it was assessed by the US and felt not really suitable for their needs. Put a few of these on the LHD with 60+ tonne Abrams and the vehicle decks will have to be left only partially used, as the ship will be weight limited.

Just on the question of tracks being the only suitable solution for the IFV, what are peoples opinions on the French abandoning tracks and using the wheeled VBCI as the IFV to support their Leclerc MBTs. They claim the VBCI mobility is on par with a tracked vehicle. They may be overstating it but the mobility of modern wheeled IFVs should be good enough for Australia's needs.

The other option, though not ideal, that comes to mind for the ADF would be to order a mix of IFVs and APCs and combine them at troop level. So instead of four IFVs and insufficient number of dismounts or four APC and insufficient firepower each troop would have two IFVs and four APCs covering both bases. Not idea and may work out more expensive than the Nammer option but may be workable. The IFVs could also carry CAV trained additional crew to help out with maintenance and dismounted roles when not lifting troops and provide extra crew to cover fatigue and injury issues when lifting troops.

This is an interesting idea and raises the question does the Australian Army really need an IFV at all.
The USMC does not currently use them.
The Israeli's don't use them.

I am not saying that I think it is the way Australia SHOULD go but what about this as a different option:
Rather than spending all the budget on a high end IFV, a well protected APC could be purchased and the money saved spent on an additional buy of M1s.
(The original buy of 59 M1A1s, I believe cost around $550 million. An additional 45 to 50 would do. The LAND 400 budget is said to be up to $10 billion so $9.5 billion or so would be left for the APC/ Cav Vehicle buy.)
Equip each Brigade with a higher number of M1s and these provide the direct firepower required. Say, two Squadrons of M1s per Brigade.
Rather than having a troop with 2 IFVs and 4APCs as you suggested each troop could have at least one Abrams attached for direct fire support.

 

[bdique]

Namer, as I've said earlier, suits the very unique needs that Israel faces. Most areas in which they need to fight in are highly urbanised, hence the need for a thick-skinned APC. Also, they have a lot of spare Merkava tank hulls, and while I believe that wheeled fighting vehicles are better in urban environments in terms of mobility, the weight of the extremely heavy Namer (including armour) is best supported by tracks.

In Australia, you have vast expanses of land. The Namer is probably going to be able to keep up with the M1s, but only because it has a massive engine - which logistically would be a nightmare for the Brigade commander. The spare parts that need to be carried in the logistics train, the number of recovery and engineering support vehicles needed (which themselves would be heavy vehicles too)...this is going to be one expensive set up. Is it really worth all that super protection given the nature of threats faced by the Australian Army? As mentioned earlier, all that weight is also going to complicate the sealift plans.

 

[Waylander]

The Namer is partly designed with urban warfare in mind but on of the primary design goals was to get a vehicle which gets it's infantry load right on top of it's target with a maximum (tank like) protection.

And they are not using surplus Merkava hulls for it. All Namers are new build and it's hull is derived from the Merkava IV but not the same.

As for increased logistical tail. I doub that there is lots of a cost difference in operating a 60+ tons Namer derived IFV or some other 40-50 tons tracked IFV. One needs heavy recovery equipment anyway.

 

[Raven22]

This is an interesting idea and raises the question does the Australian Army really need an IFV at all.
The USMC does not currently use them.
The Israeli's don't use them.

Both the USMC and Israeli's exist in a very different world to Australia. The USMC have absurd amounts of air support which mitigates the need for an IFV type vehicle, and at the end of the day they are a light force designed to fit their way ashore, at which point the heavy brigades of the US Army take over the fight. The Israeli's have massive amounts of tanks, that aren't represented in Australia, and they don't need much in the way of flexibility in their vehicles. They know exactly how their vehicles are to be used, and can therefore afford to buy vehicles that are very good at just one thing. Australia needs far more flexibility.

I am not saying that I think it is the way Australia SHOULD go but what about this as a different option:
Rather than spending all the budget on a high end IFV, a well protected APC could be purchased and the money saved spent on an additional buy of M1s.
(The original buy of 59 M1A1s, I believe cost around $550 million. An additional 45 to 50 would do. The LAND 400 budget is said to be up to $10 billion so $9.5 billion or so would be left for the APC/ Cav Vehicle buy.)
Equip each Brigade with a higher number of M1s and these provide the direct firepower required. Say, two Squadrons of M1s per Brigade.
Rather than having a troop with 2 IFVs and 4APCs as you suggested each troop could have at least one Abrams attached for direct fire support.

That would increase the cost of Land 400 by about 50%. The purchase costs of the tanks wouldn't be much - sustaining them would be. Doing that would be the equivalent of adding an extra tank regiment to the orbat, with all the costs of paying for an extra 500-600 personnel, facilities, equipment, training costs etc.

There's also the fact that IFVs are far more useful than APCs under the Beersheeba construct. Remember the IFVs will be manned by qualified, experienced armoured soldiers with about the same training as the CFVs. When they aren't lifting grunts, the IFVs are still very, very useful. They can be used for direct fire support, reserve/CATK force, screen etc in the same way that the cavalry can. An APC capability, without grunts in the back, isn't anywhere near as useful. The very compromises that makes some people question the IFV is the very thing that makes it attractive in an Australian context, as we need the maximum amount of flexibility we can (at least in the Beersheeba context).

One of the options for Land 400 is a split buy of IFvs/APCs. Essentially each ACR would be able to mount one combat team in IFVs, with the rest of the battle group mounted in APCs. The IFV combat team would be the lead in the assault and secure the objective, and the other combat teams would follow with protection but not the firepower. It's a lot cheaper, but you lose huge amounts of combat power and flexibility.

 

[bdique]

The Namer is partly designed with urban warfare in mind but on of the primary design goals was to get a vehicle which gets it's infantry load right on top of it's target with a maximum (tank like) protection.

And they are not using surplus Merkava hulls for it. All Namers are new build and it's hull is derived from the Merkava IV but not the same.

As for increased logistical tail. I doub that there is lots of a cost difference in operating a 60+ tons Namer derived IFV or some other 40-50 tons tracked IFV. One needs heavy recovery equipment anyway.

Noted about the Namer hull. I agree that the Namer would give the troops the best possible protection, but I think it would be overkill for use in Australia. There isn't much hostile, densely packed urban environments to fight in - or at least the chance of Melbourne, Canberra or any major city suddenly falling into hostile hands and to turning it into a Grozny is rather remote.

Okay, I think an easy way to start talking about operating cost differences is with the engine - and the corresponding amount of fuel needed to operate the vehicle. This cost kicks in regardless if you are on operations, or simply doing a training exercise. Those familiar with vehicles would also know that fuel is not the only petrochemical product a combat vehicle needs. What about engine oil, for example. And I haven't even started on the other vehicle bits - grease that is needed to maintain track tension, for example.

I mean, if Australia as the financial resources to spend, then why not? But I still think that the Namer is just too extreme a choice, especially the security situation, to me at least, doesn't seem to warrant it. Same thing about having a fleet of heavy recovery vehicles - they could be used to tow lighter IFVs, but that would be a bit of a waste of capabilities, wouldn't it?

 

[knightrider4]

Noted about the Namer hull. I agree that the Namer would give the troops the best possible protection, but I think it would be overkill for use in Australia. There isn't much hostile, densely packed urban environments to fight in - or at least the chance of Melbourne, Canberra or any major city suddenly falling into hostile hands and to turning it into a Grozny is rather remote.

Okay, I think an easy way to start talking about operating cost differences is with the engine - and the corresponding amount of fuel needed to operate the vehicle. This cost kicks in regardless if you are on operations, or simply doing a training exercise. Those familiar with vehicles would also know that fuel is not the only petrochemical product a combat vehicle needs. What about engine oil, for example. And I haven't even started on the other vehicle bits - grease that is needed to maintain track tension, for example.

I mean, if Australia as the financial resources to spend, then why not? But I still think that the Namer is just too extreme a choice, especially the security situation, to me at least, doesn't seem to warrant it. Same thing about having a fleet of heavy recovery vehicles - they could be used to tow lighter IFVs, but that would be a bit of a waste of capabilities, wouldn't it?

Eurosatory 2010: Boxer IFV options unveiled - Industrie de défense FRANCE - EUROPE and elsewhere sur Viadeo.com


Please see the above link, gentlemen. The IFV variant of the boxer has a stated capacity of 8 troops. Its not tracked but it can be fitted with the CT 40 cannon. Interesting vehicle. It seems KMW is keen to land Land 400 sorry for the pun.

 

[ADMk2]

Land 400 won't be canned. It can't be. It has already been delayed so long that both the ASLAV and M113 will reach life of type years before the introduction into service. You have to replace the vehicles with something. Land 400 is central to so many things under Plan Beersheeba that it simply has to happen, otherwise you might as well disband the Army.

Regarding the vehicles themselves, what will likely happen is that the Cavalry vehicle will be wheeled and the Lift vehicle will be tracked. There's still a lot of water to go under the bridge before then though. It is likely that the combat versions of both will be armed with 40mm CTA cannons, with every third vehicle equipped with ATGMs (to keep costs down).

I can't see Australian industry being involved in the builds, but obviously they will with maintenance, which is where the big money is anyway.

Knock-down kit assembly maybe?

Puma and Boxer seem to be the front runner at this point. Is there any particular reason why Army is wedded to the requirement of 8 dismounts for the lift requirement?

Other forces don't use this number (or the available vehicles would clearly be able to accommodate them) and as we know 8 is a different formation to the classic 'section' strength so it's not the case that Army is doctrinally wedded to a particular number...

 

[Raven22]

Puma and Boxer seem to be the front runner at this point. Is there any particular reason why Army is wedded to the requirement of 8 dismounts for the lift requirement?

Other forces don't use this number (or the available vehicles would clearly be able to accommodate them) and as we know 8 is a different formation to the classic 'section' strength so it's not the case that Army is doctrinally wedded to a particular number...

The Army is very doctrinally wedded to an 8 man section, as it is the fundamental building block on which the entire Plan Beersheeba is based. The entire concept of Plan Beersheeba is that all capability is broken down into building blocks which can be combat teamed as required to achieve the required combined arms effect. The 8 man section is the building block for the infantry.

The infantry have to be able to operate dismounted, mounted in Land 400 vehicles, mounted in PMVs, and combat teamed with every other capability out there (which all generally have 4 or 8 man capability bricks). It makes sense to make the vehicle who's primary role is to lift an infantry section is actually capable of doing so. If you don't, you invalidate the entire purpose of Plan Beersheeba. The Australian Army won't have mechanised infantry (as everyone else does) but standard infantry capable of being mounted in vehicles as required.

We are not the only one to have this requirement. It is worth reading why the US Army wants to be able to fit 9 dismounts into the GCV. This is because that experience over the last 10+ years (and simulation) has shown a need for more dismounts in mechanised formations to deal with complex terrain. The 6 man dismount section in the back of a Bradley can not achieve it. It's fine for conventional Fulda-gap style high intensity warfare where you only need dismounts to clear through enemy pits then climb back into the vehicles, but that is not how conflicts are expected to be fought in the future.

 

[knightrider4]

The Army is very doctrinally wedded to an 8 man section, as it is the fundamental building block on which the entire Plan Beersheeba is based. The entire concept of Plan Beersheeba is that all capability is broken down into building blocks which can be combat teamed as required to achieve the required combined arms effect. The 8 man section is the building block for the infantry.

The infantry have to be able to operate dismounted, mounted in Land 400 vehicles, mounted in PMVs, and combat teamed with every other capability out there (which all generally have 4 or 8 man capability bricks). It makes sense to make the vehicle who's primary role is to lift an infantry section is actually capable of doing so. If you don't, you invalidate the entire purpose of Plan Beersheeba. The Australian Army won't have mechanised infantry (as everyone else does) but standard infantry capable of being mounted in vehicles as required.

We are not the only one to have this requirement. It is worth reading why the US Army wants to be able to fit 9 dismounts into the GCV. This is because that experience over the last 10+ years (and simulation) has shown a need for more dismounts in mechanised formations to deal with complex terrain. The 6 man dismount section in the back of a Bradley can not achieve it. It's fine for conventional Fulda-gap style high intensity warfare where you only need dismounts to clear through enemy pits then climb back into the vehicles, but that is not how conflicts are expected to be fought in the future.

This is leaves the Australian Army in what appears to be a dilemma. They will then have to modify a vehicle with all of its inherent risks and associated costs, or alternatively look closely at the GCV.

 

[knightrider4]

Which reminds me of Land 106, a relatively simple upgrade already performed in Germany with no problems, yet turned into a procurement marathon here in Australia. I shudder to think what will happen if we modify an existing design to fit two extra soldiers.