Land 400

[knightrider4]

Two man turret

The user requirement for LAND 400 stipulates "high levels" of protection. Especially for the IFV (aka close combat, high survivable lift) capability. I think it’s safe to assume that the IFV requires, at least, comparable side armour to the Puma IFV.

Abe, why is the stipulation that the IFV have a two man turret as opposed to the boxer/puma combo having remote turrets thereby allowing 8 dismounts?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Abe, why is the stipulation that the IFV have a two man turret as opposed to the boxer/puma combo having remote turrets thereby allowing 8 dismounts?

It makes for much better situational awareness for the commander and gunner. We still aren’t there yet on the virtual reality displays and being able to stick your head out the hatch counts for an awful lot. It also allows for degraded capability by being able to revert to manual backup and still stay in the fight if a system fails.

The Puma BTW still can’t carry eight dismounts even with a remote turret. It does not have the space above the tracks inside the hull available to the crew for storage. This space is consumed by secondary mechanical systems (exhaust, batteries, aircon, etc). So there is no room for storage lockers with eight dismount sets fitted. So two of the seats are replaced by lockers for equipment leaving only six for dismounts.

 

[Monitor66]

The LCH replacement will not be the ship to shore connector for the ADAS. The full objective amphib task force will have eight LCM-1Es each able to lift a tank, 2 CRVs and maybe 2 IFVs (or only 1). If the two LHDs park themselves close to shore these boats will be able to get a mechanised combat team ashore quicker than it takes the LHDs to flood their well decks. If we plan on over the horizon ship to shore movements then forget about it.

Looks like the Destrier IFV will have to be a hull extension of existing IFVs if they want a full 8 man dismount section, and manned turret with 30-40mm gun. Or the Namer. It’s the only vehicle out there with the under armour volume available to carry a fully equipped infantry section and a two man turret with MCG. Both Scout SV and Puma have been designed with the growth margins to absorb a hull stretch but its going to be a costly endeavour in more than just money (risk, schedule, politics, industry interest, etc).

Not suggesting the LCH replacement is the ship-to-shore connector capability for the LHDs. However, they are a key component of ADAS and the ARG as well. Their payload capacity and size (65-80m likely) and advanced design will enable both independent operations or those in concert with LHD and/or Choules. They will have much improved blue water capability over the LCH and will thus be able to accompany LHD/Choules on all but the longest open ocean transits, conditions permitting.

Whilst the LCH replacement would typically be loaded in port, an interesting question is whether there is any intention to examine the potential of the LCH replacement to marry up with the well dock of the LHDs?

An entire craft won't fit into the well dock due to superstructure height, but with the centreline divider removed and with a dock width of 16m might it be possible to drive enough of the craft into the LHD to enable transfer of vehicles and cargo? Stern-to-bow ramp mating would of course depend on ramp load ratings, which would probably exclude MBT and IFV transfer but vehicles of CRV GVM could be a possibility. Note: beam of LCH replacement would be somewhere around 10-11m.

A multitude of issues to address here no doubt but a question worth posing nonetheless.


As for a stretched (read: bespoke) IFV, don't even go there!! Hopefully sanity will prevail when the times comes for a decision, or a new generation of IFVs with greater troop carrying capacity will emerge; the RFT for IFVs won't see the light of day for another 8-9 years at least, which may be a blessing in that respect.

 

[Just Some Guy]

For the sake of this thread as a whole, I shall list some of the requirements asked by the "ARMY USER REQUIREMENTS. LAND 400 - LAND COMBAT VEHICLE REQUREMENTS (Version 1)"

the following has been paraphrased for simplicity and I have only listed the requirements that I feel are most pertinent to our discussion.

1) replace the capabilities provided by the M113 and ASLAV. (the PMV is no longer included)
2) most practical degree in commonality in fleet design
3) retains flexibility for rapid transition between mission profiles.
4) cost effective
5) modularity
6) compatibility with strategic lift assets
7) amphib NOT required
8) able to provide Close Combat Recon
9) able to provide Fire Support
1) able to provide Close Combat, High Survivable lift.
11) limited to a crew of 3
12) a minimum of 4 dismounts. preference of 8.
13) task flexibility and agility of effort across a spectrum of threat, environments and complex terrain.
14) firepower
15) Survivability: networked resources and sensors, signature management, electronic counter-measures, active protection, armor, tactical mobility and system redundancy.

 

[Just Some Guy]

@ Abraham Gubler
we can both agree that heavy armor is more survivable than medium armor. Thus it is important to have as much armor as possible. however is that armor more important than the other requirements asked by LAND 400?
if a platform can not achieve 2 different requirements, then it will need to make a compromise somewhere. and that somewhere may just be the level of armor.

of course this train of thought would only have merit if the Namer did not fulfill some of LAND 400's requirements. so let us look into this possibility:

- air lift compatibility. a quick Google search tells me that the width of the cargo compartment on a C130J is 3.12m. where as the width of the Namer is 3.8m

- ground lift compatibility. when an ASLAV is on a flatbed semi the wheels of the ASLAV bulge over the edge. the Namer is 1.18m wider than the ASLAV

- Able to provide Close Combat Recon. if a 50t APC can do recon, then why not the M1A1?

- mobility through complex terrain. the Namer is simply too BIG. inability to go places due to size is the inability to contest sections of the map.

- firepower. 1x12.7mm and 1x7.62mm is not what I would call 'weapons overmatch'

 

[Volkodav]

As far as I am aware none of the currently available vehicles being considered for the IFV role, including the Puma, would fit in a C-130J so it is quite irrelevant that the Namer doesn't fit. All fit in the C-17, some, in base armour variants, may fit in a A-400, but the RAAF doesn't have a requirement for a replacement for the C-130J at this point.

 

[Monitor66]

For the sake of this thread as a whole, I shall list some of the requirements asked by the "ARMY USER REQUIREMENTS. LAND 400 - LAND COMBAT VEHICLE REQUREMENTS (Version 1)"

the following has been paraphrased for simplicity and I have only listed the requirements that I feel are most pertinent to our discussion.

1) replace the capabilities provided by the M113 and ASLAV. (the PMV is no longer included)
2) most practical degree in commonality in fleet design
3) retains flexibility for rapid transition between mission profiles.
4) cost effective
5) modularity
6) compatibility with strategic lift assets
7) amphib NOT required
8) able to provide Close Combat Recon
9) able to provide Fire Support
1) able to provide Close Combat, High Survivable lift.
11) limited to a crew of 3
12) a minimum of 4 dismounts. preference of 8.
13) task flexibility and agility of effort across a spectrum of threat, environments and complex terrain.
14) firepower
15) Survivability: networked resources and sensors, signature management, electronic counter-measures, active protection, armor, tactical mobility and system redundancy.

There has been some discussion about the number of dismounts that need to be carried by the IFV and that 8 troops will be problematic for all existing vehicle designs to meet.

However, evaluation of competing IFV designs/bids will be conducted under the RFT construct, whereby vehicle specifications are prioritised and given weighting to determine their influence on the overall source selection decision.

With this there are two critical things we don't yet know about the 8 dismount requirement:

a) Is the requirement Essential, Important or Desirable?
b) What weighting does the requirement has?

In the lead-up to RFT release (still at least 8-9 years away) if DMO/CDG/Army is aware that none of the candidate vehicle designs can meet an important requirement they are less likely to categorise it as Essential.

If Defence does insist on making 8 dismounts an Essential requirement and by then there are still no IFV designs which can fit 8 troops in the back then all bids will be rendered non-compliant the instant the tenders are lodged. Inability to meet an Essential requirement means automatic non-compliance - that's the rule. This of course would be in no one's interest.

However, should the 8 dismounts requirement be given an Important or Desirable ranking, not meeting that requirement will not automatically make the bid non-compliant, although it will affect the tenderer's overall score.

Against this background it may well be that the 8 dismounts requirement is given a Desirable ranking ("nice to have"), 7 dismounts as Important ("really should have")and 6 dismounts as Essential ("absolutely must have"). This would open the field up and not automatically exclude vehicles such as Puma, leaving other factors on balance (such as price, weapon system, CRV commonality, in service with key allies, Australian industry package, through-life support arrangements etc) to be discriminators.

 

[Just Some Guy]

There has been some discussion about the number of dismounts that need to be carried by the IFV and that 8 troops will be problematic for all existing vehicle designs to meet
(......)
With this there are two critical things we don't yet know about the 8 dismount requirement:

a) Is the requirement Essential, Important or Desirable?
(......)
Against this background it may well be that the 8 dismounts requirement is given a Desirable ranking ("nice to have"), 7 dismounts as Important ("really should have")and 6 dismounts as Essential ("absolutely must have").

ARMY USER REQUIREMENTS. LAND 400 - LAND COMBAT VEHICLE REQUREMENTS (Version 1)

"17. Each vehicle solution is to be limited to a crew of three, with total crew numbers not to exceed manning limits within PLAN BEERSHEBA. it is to have the ability to carry at least four close combatants, noting that preference is for an ability to carry eight passengers based on current brick design ^6. This figure is to guide, but not limit, the options development. Army will consider changes to force structures and TTPs to ensure the best operational outcome. Manoeuvre and survivability specialist platforms may be crewed by Combat Engineer personnel.

 

[Raven22]

I think you'll find that those user requirements are very much out of date. The concept back then was that each ACR would contain three identical cavalry squadron equipped with a common vehicle, each able to do both the ISR and lift tasks. Hence the user requirement above. However, after a bit of thinking it turned out that the plan had knobs on it, and the Beersheeba plan evolved into a dedicated ISR squadron and a dedicated lift squadron, each with a vehicle optimised for that role. As result, the user requirements have changed.

 

[Volkodav]

Any chance of there ever being a dedicated tank squadron in each ACR as well?

I must admit following this thread I wasn't aware how out of date I was but looking at the common sense approach taken I am glad to have been behind the times.

 

[Raven22]

Any chance of there ever being a dedicated tank squadron in each ACR as well?

Yeah, that's still the plan. The tanks should be disaggregated about 2017, with a tank squadron in each ACR

 

[Just Some Guy]

I would like the readers of this thread to indulge me for a moment and consider the Piranha V.

the ASLAV was based off of the LAV which was in turn a licensed production of the Piranha. the Piranha V is simply the latest version in this line.
Mine/ IED protection of the Piranha is very good thanks to V hull, twin floor and dismount seating.
Side armor is also good baseline (all-round protection against 14.5mm) with modular add-on.
can carry 8 dismounts and large RWS. or give it a manned turret and less dismounts. (or have both: gun car and PC variants)
height adjustable suspension and central inflation.
it's width is compatible with the C130J. (I don't know enough about air list to give any more details than this)

other than it ONLY having 30t of armor, not 50t. and it ONLY carrying 8 dismounts instead of 10...... are there any downsides you can see about the Piranha V?

 

[ADMk2]

I would like the readers of this thread to indulge me for a moment and consider the Piranha V.

the ASLAV was based off of the LAV which was in turn a licensed production of the Piranha. the Piranha V is simply the latest version in this line.
Mine/ IED protection of the Piranha is very good thanks to V hull, twin floor and dismount seating.
Side armor is also good baseline (all-round protection against 14.5mm) with modular add-on.
can carry 8 dismounts and large RWS. or give it a manned turret and less dismounts. (or have both: gun car and PC variants)
height adjustable suspension and central inflation.
it's width is compatible with the C130J. (I don't know enough about air list to give any more details than this)

other than it ONLY having 30t of armor, not 50t. and it ONLY carrying 8 dismounts instead of 10...... are there any downsides you can see about the Piranha V?

Does it have a related tracked IFV counterpart? That's what I think LAND 400 is aiming at. A related 'family' of vehicles. Boxer and Puma for instance...

 

[Monitor66]

I would like the readers of this thread to indulge me for a moment and consider the Piranha V.

the ASLAV was based off of the LAV which was in turn a licensed production of the Piranha. the Piranha V is simply the latest version in this line.
Mine/ IED protection of the Piranha is very good thanks to V hull, twin floor and dismount seating.
Side armor is also good baseline (all-round protection against 14.5mm) with modular add-on.
can carry 8 dismounts and large RWS. or give it a manned turret and less dismounts. (or have both: gun car and PC variants)
height adjustable suspension and central inflation.
it's width is compatible with the C130J. (I don't know enough about air list to give any more details than this)

other than it ONLY having 30t of armor, not 50t. and it ONLY carrying 8 dismounts instead of 10...... are there any downsides you can see about the Piranha V?

The Piranha V has very little in common with the original Piranha/LAV developed in the late 1970s or ASLAV. Even ASLAV can trace its design heritage back to the late 1980s. Piranha V is an evolved, new generation platform that leverages off GD's experience with early generation LAV/ASLAV, Stryker, LAV III and Piranha III and IV in Europe; it is of significantly greater capability than ASLAV, as you would expect, and appears to tick most of the anticipated CRV boxes.

The Piranha V will almost certainly be offered by GDLS-A (General Dynamics Land Systems - Aust) for the Land 400 CRV and tied into a local part-build/assembly package utilising their facility at Pooraka outside Adelaide. From GDLS-A's perspective, if they miss out on this first phase of Land 400 they will find it very difficult to keep the doors open, so they will throw everything at it.

Technically the Piranha V looks quite strong. It's only weakness from a tender evaluation point of view is that no one has ordered it yet. That increases its risk profile in the eyes of the DMO.

The C-130J-30 won't have any part to play in transporting Land 400 vehicles. With its lengthened fuselage the J model's payload of 17,000kg is actually less than the now retired H models (20,000kg). The new C-27J Spartan tactical airlifter is of course smaller than the C-130J-30 and has a 10,000kg payload, so forget that platform too.

Only carriage in C-17 will be a requirement in Land 400, where two CRVs or one IFV should be able to be accommodated, or two IFVs if GVM is under 37 tonnes.

 

[t68]

Does it have a related tracked IFV counterpart? That's what I think LAND 400 is aiming at. A related 'family' of vehicles. Boxer and Puma for instance...

I remember seeing some time ago a picture at a trade show or something similar that a tracked version of the LAV III, not sure whatever came of the idea or if it was just a demonstrator or what, can’t find a picture now though.

 

[Just Some Guy]

The Piranha V has very little in common with the original Piranha/LAV

You say it like it is a bad thing....

Piranha V is an evolved, new generation platform that leverages off GD's experience with early generation LAV/ASLAV, Stryker, LAV III and Piranha III and IV in Europe; it is of significantly greater capability than ASLAV, as you would expect, and appears to tick most of the anticipated CRV boxes.

Oh, wait. never mind. you acknowledge that being different in this case is being better.

Technically the Piranha V looks quite strong. It's only weakness from a tender evaluation point of view is that no one has ordered it yet. That increases its risk profile in the eyes of the DMO.

true. but although no one has ordered the Piranha V (or Piranha Evo, or Piranha IV), the Piranha III is still one of the most widely built and used IFV platforms in the world. with Australia itself having many years of experience with one of it's variants (ASLAV).
also, there is always going to be someone who is the first person to buy a new platform.

The C-130J-30 won't have any part to play in transporting Land 400 vehicles. (...) Only carriage in C-17 will be a requirement in Land 400.

I admit that knowledge on airlift isn't my strong point.
Only the C17s for our uplift for any of the vehicles. I shall remember this. thanks.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The Piranha V will almost certainly be offered by GDLS-A (General Dynamics Land Systems - Aust) for the Land 400 CRV and tied into a local part-build/assembly package utilising their facility at Pooraka outside Adelaide. From GDLS-A's perspective, if they miss out on this first phase of Land 400 they will find it very difficult to keep the doors open, so they will t
hrow everything at it.

The Piranha V also has the advantage of leveraging the GDUK work for FRES of having comon sub systems with the Scout SV for the tracked IFV part of LAND 400. A FRES based offer for LAND 400 could include the PIR-V with the Scout SV turret for the CRV and the Scout SV in turreted and/or APC versions for the IFV and combat engineer requirements (MSV). While the wheeled Piranha and the tracked Scout would not have common hulls and automotives they would have common vehicle electronics and other components. Supported by GDLS-A it would be a very powerful offer. And GDLS-A can just sub contract a lot of armour plate assmebly and welding work to Thales A (ex ADI) like they did for the ASLAV built.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

@ Abraham Gubler
we can both agree that heavy armor is more survivable than medium armor. Thus it is important to have as much armor as possible. however is that armor more important than the other requirements asked by LAND 400?
if a platform can not achieve 2 different requirements, then it will need to make a compromise somewhere. and that somewhere may just be the level of armor.

You seem to not be working on the same page as everyone else. A quick refresh could help:

LAND 400 is looking for three vehicles types: cavalry vehicle (wheeled, aka CRV), infantry vehicle (tracked, aka IFV) and combat engineer vehicle (tracked, aka MSV). There is no requirement for airlift in C-130s. The IFV needs to have protection against low signature ambush weapons like EFP and RPG+ weapons. The CRV and IFV need to have a two man turret with a medium calibre gun (30-40mm). The IFV needs to carry eight dismounts.

The big problem in this equation is finding an IFV with enough under armour volume to support a two man MCG turret, eight dismounts and their gear. Which is what the rest of us have been discussing.

Re the Namer:

@ - air lift compatibility. a quick Google search tells me that the width of the cargo compartment on a C130J is 3.12m. where as the width of the Namer is 3.8m

C-130 air portability not required for LAND 400. Non issue.

@ - ground lift compatibility. when an ASLAV is on a flatbed semi the wheels of the ASLAV bulge over the edge. the Namer is 1.18m wider than the ASLAV

Army has acquired new tractors under LAND 121 including tank transporters that can lift the Namer and other heavy and wide potential IFVs (Puma, Scout, etc). Non issue.

@ - Able to provide Close Combat Recon. if a 50t APC can do recon, then why not the M1A1?

CRV is a different vehicle requirement. Non issue.

@ - mobility through complex terrain. the Namer is simply too BIG. inability to go places due to size is the inability to contest sections of the map.

Same problem exists for other potential IFVs like the Puma and Scout. Armour has proven itself to be more of a decisive issue for mobility than width. If you want to be doing close combat in M113 hulls so you can fit between trees then you going to have to accept the 20% KIA from enemy use of anti tank weapons.

@ - firepower. 1x12.7mm and 1x7.62mm is not what I would call 'weapons overmatch'

We are talking about Namer because it has a hull big enough to take eight dismounts, their gear and a 1.7m turret ring for a turret with a 30-40mm gun. The Namer just as an APC (12.7mm, 7.62mm MGs) as enough hull volume to carry 12 dismounts and their gear.

 

[Monitor66]

Yeah, that's still the plan. The tanks should be disaggregated about 2017, with a tank squadron in each ACR

Raven22, with the 41 MBTs in 1 Armd (two sabre squadrons plus HQ squadron) is there enough tanks to provide a sabre squadron for each of the three ACRs?

Is anyone talking about buying additional Abrams?

 

[Raven22]

Raven22, with the 41 MBTs in 1 Armd (two sabre squadrons plus HQ squadron) is there enough tanks to provide a sabre squadron for each of the three ACRs?

Is anyone talking about buying additional Abrams?

Yes and no. There isn't enough gun tanks to go around if every ACR has a full allocation of M1s all the time. However, depending on what model is eventually chosen for the tank disaggregation, it can still work. One model is the 'ready' and 'readying' brigades have the full compliment of tanks but the 'reset' brigade has only a troop or so. The key weakness of this model is you have to transport tanks all over the country every year, which isn't cheap or easy. Another option is that some/all of the ACRs have a reduced compliment, but there is a full time training pool (probably at shoalwater bay) for use during large scale training.

While a number of extra enablers (such as M88s) are being bought to enable Plan Beersheba, I don't think the appetite is there to buy another 5 or so gun tanks (despite being cheap as chips to do so).