The rough intent of LAND 400 was to provide two main classes of vehicles: the cavalry combat system (an Infantry Fighting Vehicle like CV90, Puma, etc) to replace the ASLAV and some of the M113AS4s and the land combat vehicle system to replace the Bushmasters and balance of the M113AS4s.
As Raven points out things have changed in the past few years. LAND 400 Phase 2 seems to now be solely focused on the cavalry vehicle (now using the name land combat vehicle system) with Bushmaster replacement to come later in a Phase 3 or some other program. It is the replacement of the Bushmasters and combat support M113s that will push LAND 400 over 1,000 units.
However the IFV build is likely to include significant Australian content if not an entire build. Denmark built the turrets for their CV9035s and there were only 45 vehicles on order.
As Raven points out things have changed in the past few years. LAND 400 Phase 2 seems to now be solely focused on the cavalry vehicle (now using the name land combat vehicle system) with Bushmaster replacement to come later in a Phase 3 or some other program. It is the replacement of the Bushmasters and combat support M113s that will push LAND 400 over 1,000 units.
However the IFV build is likely to include significant Australian content if not an entire build. Denmark built the turrets for their CV9035s and there were only 45 vehicles on order.
The whole multiple phase thing for Land 400 has basically been scrapped. There is no longer a phase that will buy a cavalry vehicle and then a phase that will buy the infantry vehicle etc. The timelines for the program are now simply linked by when an entire ACR will be equipped, so vehicles of difference classes should be bought simutaneously. By the time the interim ACR for Plan Beersheeba comes into effect all Bushmasters will be in combat support/CSS roles, so no Bushmasters will be replaced by Land 400. All M113s however will be replaced.
Looks like Australia suffered the worst day of loss in the entire A-Stan campaign. Another infiltrator in the ANA it seems. I think the new Taliban strategy is to instill distrust ahead of security handover in 2014, thus we'll continue to see this type of attack increase in frequency.
I was talking to a marksman from an armoured recon unit the other day. He recently returned from deployment. Basically he stated that he suspect half of ANA are members of Taliban during their days off, and the other half are simply incompetent fools high on hash all day long. I don't know about the rest, but none of the CF members returning from Afghanistan that I've talked to have anything positive to say regarding the ANA or ANP.
And they want to hand over security to these people.....
BBC News - Five Australian soldiers killed in Afghanistan
I was talking to a marksman from an armoured recon unit the other day. He recently returned from deployment. Basically he stated that he suspect half of ANA are members of Taliban during their days off, and the other half are simply incompetent fools high on hash all day long. I don't know about the rest, but none of the CF members returning from Afghanistan that I've talked to have anything positive to say regarding the ANA or ANP.
And they want to hand over security to these people.....
Do you know if any interest has been shown or indicated in the US GCV IFV ? Looks like the timings would suit ? Also could we possibly/potentially show any interest in the USMC ACV ?
Cheers
There might be interest in the US GCV, depending on timelines and costs. Its probably too early to say though. The vehicles that have been costed at this stage is the 'High' combination of Puma and Boxer, the 'Middle' combination of CV90 and VBCI and the 'Low' combination of upgraded ASLAVs and M113s (for comparison purposes only, I hope). In each case the tracked vehicle is equipped with a 40mm CTA and ATGM for every third vehicle, and the wheeled vehicle equipped with 12.7mm/40mm RWS.
An interesting option for the wheeled vehicle is the RG 35 (and no doubt will be offered by BAES). With its bullet proof glass windows and deep V hull it looks like a MRAP truck. But its design heritage is from the Ratel and it has a monocoque hull and side mounted engine. Interestingly in the presentation slides (and seen on their promo video) they have designed a version of the RG 35 with periscopes in place of the windows for higher level armour protection. One configuration of this version even has the engine moved to the rear a lowered forward hull and a two man turret. Its basically a thick skinned ASLAV with a deep V anti mine hull. Anyway even the basic 6x6 with windows RG 35 would make for a good APC with a level of armour and mobility above the Bushmaster.
I've come to believe that something similar could be made of the Bushmaster.
Install a third wheel where the storage bins are located and replace the truck-style upper hull with that of an ASLAV-type vehicle and you'd have a decent 6x6 LAV with a V-hull and some commonality with the existing PMV fleet.
Whether a 6x6 is good enough to replace the 8x8 ASLAV would be a question worth asking. My guess is that it would trade some cross-country ability for range.
Install a third wheel where the storage bins are located and replace the truck-style upper hull with that of an ASLAV-type vehicle and you'd have a decent 6x6 LAV with a V-hull and some commonality with the existing PMV fleet.
Whether a 6x6 is good enough to replace the 8x8 ASLAV would be a question worth asking. My guess is that it would trade some cross-country ability for range.
And ADI/Thales are about 10 years ahead of you on that one... But the problem with converting the Bushmaster into a turreted IFV is the effect of the forward engine on centre of gravity and the cross section of the hull on shoe horning in a turret basket. The RG 35 has the advantage of being designed from scratch for these considerations so has an engine that is centrally located without interfering for interior fore and aft movement and can be moved to be between any two axels and a 'fatter' cross section for the turret basket.
Now you could fit a turret to the Bushmaster but it would be higher and more to the rear than on a similar footprint and mass RG 35. Which means a less manoeuvrable vehicle, more vulnerable and with less effective firing arcs. It would probably be a lot simpler just to reverse the transmission and swap the forward and rear axles and turn the Bushmaster into a rear engine vehicle for a turret carrier. But then you would have to add side access doors for the dismount team. So basically a new hull design.
Once in service savings could be made through drivetrain and other systems commonalities the issue would be in increased manufacturing costs related to additional enabling products, i.e. jigs fixtures etc. Worth it, I don't know maybe, it depends how many we want over how long. If we are talking a followon build then it does make sense as you would need to redo anything for a completely new product so everything you are able to reuse from the Bushmaster would become a saving.
Actually thinking on it, considering the job done on the Bushmaster why couldn't we go the next step and develop a new vehicle specifically for the ADF? After all how many other countries have done it from a lower base than we would have to, we have the Bushmaster experience, we have the ASLAV turret manufacture and vehicle fitout in Adelaide, we have a stack of recent operational experience in the ADF, we have probably not been better set up to do an AFV FOV since the end of WWII.
I was surprised by the weight of the RG35, 18t according to the web. Although I would be worried about the placement of the engine. Given the affects IEDs have on our Bushies, even if V-hull prevented a hull penetration the blast would likely catch the engine block and send the vehicle spinning.
Doing a barrell roll in an 18t vehicle would not be fun. Not that any IED strike is fun. It would be good to know if the engine block is designed to break free under a substantial strike.
Doing a barrell roll in an 18t vehicle would not be fun. Not that any IED strike is fun. It would be good to know if the engine block is designed to break free under a substantial strike.
An interesting aspect of this discussion is how hard it is to get to an 'Army of fours' and the sustainment benefits this would deliver.
Working on 4 identical motorised infantry brigades each able to generate 3 battlegroups based on:
1 ACR+ (3 Sabre, 1 Abrams, 2 APC Squadrons - lift for 2 inf battalions)
2 Infantry battalions
1 Artillery regiment (3x6 gun battery equiv.)
1 Engineering regiment (3 squadrons)
1 Support battalion
This requires 12 Sabre squadrons, 4 Abrams, 12 Engineering squadrons, 8 Infantry battalions and 12 artillery battery equivalent.
Pretty significant expansion. Costs could be kept down by going all wheeled with the exception of Abrams, Abrams support vehicles and some engineering vehicles but it would still be pretty expensive.
An alternative would be to look for a 4 x 2 battlegroup structure but that doesn't quite seem to be in line with expectations as to what the Army should be able to deliver.
I guess that comes to the point of the matter - determining the capability you need and then funding it, as opposed to what seems to be going on at the moment.
This may also be part of the answer to Abe's ongoing question about Defence productivity. Specifying the capability desired and then requiring defence to deliver that capability in the most cost effective manner would at least raise the possibility of measuring the performance of Defence.
Working on 4 identical motorised infantry brigades each able to generate 3 battlegroups based on:
1 ACR+ (3 Sabre, 1 Abrams, 2 APC Squadrons - lift for 2 inf battalions)
2 Infantry battalions
1 Artillery regiment (3x6 gun battery equiv.)
1 Engineering regiment (3 squadrons)
1 Support battalion
This requires 12 Sabre squadrons, 4 Abrams, 12 Engineering squadrons, 8 Infantry battalions and 12 artillery battery equivalent.
Pretty significant expansion. Costs could be kept down by going all wheeled with the exception of Abrams, Abrams support vehicles and some engineering vehicles but it would still be pretty expensive.
An alternative would be to look for a 4 x 2 battlegroup structure but that doesn't quite seem to be in line with expectations as to what the Army should be able to deliver.
I guess that comes to the point of the matter - determining the capability you need and then funding it, as opposed to what seems to be going on at the moment.
This may also be part of the answer to Abe's ongoing question about Defence productivity. Specifying the capability desired and then requiring defence to deliver that capability in the most cost effective manner would at least raise the possibility of measuring the performance of Defence.
Engine block would be protected by the V shaped armoured hull. No need to worry about the South African's getting this sort of thing right - they have been doing mine protected vehicles better than anyone else for decades. The rest of the world started to catch up a decade ago.
Although they may have lost some of their brain bank in that 10 years.
the latest vehicles coming out from some of their shops are flat bottomed ......
The Mbombe? It’s still supposed to be STANAG 4569 Level IV against mine blast.
As to the RG 35 being flipped or flung by a under belly IED if you look at this video:
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6jHbej1jFA"]RG35 Family of Vehicles - YouTube[/nomedia]
You will see that the engine bay has an angled bottom and what could be some channelization where it meets the main hull. Plus the video shows mine blast tests where the V effect of the entire vehicle is clearly seen diverting blast away to the sides of the vehicle.
Also at 3:10 shows a slide with some 20 different versions including the turreted AFV, ‘gun on a truck’ artillery and even a semi-trailer.
The Army is actually pretty good at raising new units and standing up a 4th brigade and 8th infantry battalion (already have the 7th) wouldn’t take too long. They key thing is the funding for the personnel and facilities. You could either split 1 Bde into two brigades with one at Darwin and the other at Adelaide or split 3 Bde with a new brigade based around 2 RAR specialising in the amphibious role.
Or combine both and turn 1 Bde at Darwin into the amphib bde with 2 RAR relocating there to bring them up to strength and a new fourth bde raised around the 7 RAR BG in Adelaide. I’m not a fan of APIN (having 1 Bde in Darwin) because of the huge cost it brings to the Army and the lack of operational need. But the one thing that would turn all that on its head is having it be the base for an amphibious task force (with the LHDs and LCMs) because it is the best geographical location for such. Also the capability inherent in an amphibious task force makes it possible to train during the wet season (the ability to cross water). With four Beersheba brigades the human cost of APIN on the Army would be alleviated because it would just be a 1 in 4 posting for all trades.
Another squadron of Abrams wouldn’t cost more than $200m. Raising a fourth ACR from LAND 400 again wouldn’t be more than a 10-20% additional cost for more vehicles because a lot of the outlay is on capability (training, maintenance infrastructure) that would be shared without significant scope change by either three or four ACRs. The big cost differential is in the Army’s annual budget with a ~25-30% increase in wages, housing, training and other sustainment costs for the field force.
The cultural change would have to more intensive than that because if you let Defence completely self-manage their allotment they would still spend heaps on the same level on useless bureaucracy. You would need a cabinet level push to par back the inefficiency by slashing bureaucratic management and changing the ADF career system.
What you have listed there is actually about a doubling of the manoeuvre force, not just increasing by a third. In particular the ACR you describe is about double the size of the planned one, and would need about 335 armoured vehicles. That is some regiment. It would also need an equivalent increase in the rest of the Army to support. Of course, just increasing the Army by a planned Beersheba brigade will be more achieveable.
As it is, the Army will get a very small fourth brigade in 2 RAR, which will have its own integral A vehicles and CS and CSS to enable the amphib role. With the current resource restrictions that is about the best that be expected.
Or the 4th Brigade could be an amphibious one with a lighter footprint.
2 Sqn with Amphibious Vehicles (+ maybe another one with Bushmaster)
2 Infantry Battalions
2 Arty Batteries+
1 strengthened Engineer Coy
1 Support BN with Beachmaster units and other units necessary for amphibious ops.
You would need fewer vehicles and men, and could consequently adapt to amphibious warfare.
2 Sqn with Amphibious Vehicles (+ maybe another one with Bushmaster)
2 Infantry Battalions
2 Arty Batteries+
1 strengthened Engineer Coy
1 Support BN with Beachmaster units and other units necessary for amphibious ops.
You would need fewer vehicles and men, and could consequently adapt to amphibious warfare.