Land 400

[knightrider4]

With first pass approval scheduled for mid 2014, I thought it would be worthwhile to discuss what options may or may not be on the table or if this project will even go ahead in lieu of budget pressure. Will the Army go for a wheeled or tracked option or a mixture of the two? What are the relative merits of both in the Australian context? Will domestic industry involvement be a priority considering the closure of domestic vehicle manufacturing? Look forward to your thoughts.

 

[Raven22]

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.

 

[knightrider4]

Pirahna V IFV

Ive had a look at the available literature concerning the Piranha V IFV and it may well be considered for the cavalry role. As far as tracked vehicles for the APC requirement I have absolutely no idea. Perhaps the CV90 Armadillo? Could be a pricey option. Namer from Israel?? Highly capable but again very expensive.

 

[Warspite1807]

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.

This project is gathering some political momentum after Defence had provided an industry briefing in Geelong on the subject. This made me add LAND 400 to my Google alerts and join this forum when it came up in the search.

What I don't understand is the point of this briefing. The industry in question, formerly car manufacturing seems to use materials, processes and skills quite different to those required to manufacture armoured fighting vehicles.

But, there is a manufacturing capacity at Bendigo, right?

 

[Volkodav]

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.

I want to see LAND 400 go ahead but I am afraid I am not as confident as you because basically the average voter, therefore the average politician does not really care about defence. To them an ASLAV is a tank and M-113 is a tank, the media will sprout about how much they cost and how they have been ungraded etc. as well as pointing out how new the M1s are (to Australia).

Gut feeling the project will be delayed or possibly broken up into a number of smaller, individually cheaper projects that will cost more in the long run and deliver less capability.

Then again I have often been wrong in the past so I genuinely hope I am again

I would love to see local assembly with local component manufacture feeding back into a global supply chain. Very unlikely though.

Namer would be nice but is very heavy as well as expensive and would only be looked at if for instance it was picked up by the US Army. It would be great to see a FOV based on the Namer fabricated in Australia, say by ASC who are very good at precision cutting and welding of high strength alloys and integrating complex systems. Combine that with a buy of at least a regiments worth of M-1A3s (apparently this would be no more expensive than what has been budgeted for upgrading our current fleet according to APDR) and the Army would look very different than it does today. Throw in Centuros and Freccias or similar for the Cavalry and maybe look at the 155mm SPG, 76mm SPAAG / CRAM versions......

Sorry completely in fantasy land now but nothing I have mentioned is unachievable or unaffordable for that matter just incredibly unlikely.

 

[Raven22]

I want to see LAND 400 go ahead but I am afraid I am not as confident as you because basically the average voter, therefore the average politician does not really care about defence. To them an ASLAV is a tank and M-113 is a tank, the media will sprout about how much they cost and how they have been ungraded etc. as well as pointing out how new the M1s are (to Australia).

I don't agree. If the government doesn't care about defence, why did we spend $12 billion today on F35s? Why are we spending $40 billion on submarines? Why did the government spend billions of dollars buying and upgrading equipment for Afghanistan, often when the ADF didn't even want it? Why would a relatively (compared to other programs) small budget of $7.5 billion to effectively re-equip the Army for the next 30 years all of a sudden be seen as too much?

Every argument you made about Land 400 could just as easily be made about other purchases. Why are we spending tens of billions of dollars on new fighters when we just bought 36 Super Hornets and upgraded the Classics at a cost of billions? Why are we doubling the number of submarines at the cost of a medium sized city when the ones we have don't work and we can't crew them anyway?

There are some very specific reasons why Land 400 may not happen as planned, but sweeping statements that politicians and the public don't care, therefore it won't happen, are unfounded.

 

[the road runner]

Hi Raven

Can i ask your opinion on what you would be looking at for Land 400?
Boxer,Aslav,VCBI for wheeled vehicles.
Namer,CV-90,ASCOD ect?

Of note was Tony Abbots visit to South korea when he spoke with the korean PM and expressed his disappointment that Australia did not purchasing K-9's from his country.
To me Abbott seems big on defence

 

[Volkodav]

Ok then the public and politicians don't care about armour. I don't know or understand why but from history it appears to be the case. This is not a party political thing it is an observation of what has happened under successive governments for decades. They seem to take turns at disappointing the RAAC.

I agree with what you are saying ref the expenditure on other capabilities but unfortunately some extremely important, even critical capabilities seem to miss out. Armour is one, artillery another and believe it or not RAN minor warfare vessels fall in that basket too. They are critical but do not have the profile or support they should have and often have to make do with old, worn out or just plain unsuitable equipment when mind blowingly obvious alternatives are both affordable and available.

Why do we only have 59 Abrams in two squadrons when a third would cost so little? Why do we have the M-A1 AIM SEP when the M-1A2 is so much more capable , available and affordable? Why didn't we get AIFVs 20 years ago? Why don't we have SPGs when they offer so much capability for so little comparative cost? Why are MLRS and HIMARS out of bounds for the ADF when they have been proven so valuable in service with out allies? Why was the M-113 upgraded instead of being replaced a decade or more ago? Why was the ASLAV upgrade cancelled? Why wasn't an interim replacement considered when operational needs were impacting the number of vehicles available for regular activities? Why wasn't the Army motorised / mechanised in the past when just about every generation since Chauvel has recommended and pushed for it?

Like I said, I am often wrong and hope in this case that I am but history shows that the ADF does not do well when it comes to getting armour procurement projects off the ground. I was meant to be part of the Project Mulgara trials in the late 90s, its now 2014, I have been out of uniform for 15 years and LAND 121 Phase 4 looks to finally be about to provide something to fill that capability identified twenty years ago, that's one of the good news stories, the second Armoured Regiment rumoured when the Army moved north never happened, the old pams mentioned the second regiment as well but it never existed.

I am not for one second saying LAND 400 should not go ahead, I just fear that there will be delays, issues and cost cutting. Personally I would rather see more spent, not less, I would love to see some niche capabilities in addition to LAND 400, armoured engineering capabilities, some form of armoured amphibious capability, SPGs, SP mortars, more MBTs (enough to have a separate full strength tank regiment and sufficient extra vehicles to support the ACRs). Acquisition of something akin to the Viking or Bronco would be good to support light and amphibious forces, it wont happen though. All affordable, justifiable just cant see any of it happening.

Just to reiterate, I do hope I am wrong.

 

[Volkodav]

Every argument you made about Land 400 could just as easily be made about other purchases. Why are we spending tens of billions of dollars on new fighters when we just bought 36 Super Hornets and upgraded the Classics at a cost of billions? Why are we doubling the number of submarines at the cost of a medium sized city when the ones we have don't work and we can't crew them anyway?

On re-reading I must actually disagree with the points you made here, while I can see and believe in the benefits or hardening the Army I can also see the needs for the other capabilities you have questioned in the above.

The HUG upgrades were conducted over an extended period of time to guarantee the availability of the legacy fleet until its replacements were available and to avoid the expense of having to replacement early with something less suitable that would have been as (if not more) expensive but less capable than the selected F-35. These upgraded aircraft will have seen a decade of more of valuable service by the time they are retired but will be well and truly in need of replacement by the time they are retired.

The Growlers are an additional niche capability the previous government decided to acquire but the 24 F model Rhinos are an interim capability that was obtained when the necessary capabilities to permit the retirement of the F-111 were not in place in time, i.e. the HUG upgrades and stand off weapons. It was intended to be a 10 year lease at $10 billion all up to cover the strike gap until the FOC of the F-35, that appears to have changed with the capability to be retained but at the expense of the final squadron of F-35s not in addition to it.

They are likely not to double the number of submarines although that was the intention. The subs are good, they do work, and the reason we need more of them is six was never sufficient to provide the required number of boats at sea once sustainment requirements were taken into account. Eight hulls was probably always the minimum number of Collins class required but the options for the last two were dropped in the early to mid 90s. When you over stretch a capability, as you know, machines and people start to break which leads to a downward spiral until the capability as a whole is broken, this is what happened to the subs and the politicisation of the project along with the lack of investment in sustainment across the RAN in general leading to greater costs to fix things that would not have broken had they been looked after properly in the first place.

If you want an example of a platform that doesn't work its not the subs its the patrol boats. Wrong requirement, wrong design, wrong sustainment model all rolled in together to have made the entire procurement a total waste of time and money. A bit like the APC upgrade, MU90, Sea Sprite, FFG upgrade and possibly the Tiger and Combat Wombat etc.

 

[Warspite1807]

LAND 400 need

It seems to me that the Army itself is to blame. There isn't really a clearly articulated need for this LCVS. What exactly do they want to do with it now that we have over 1,000 Bushmasters?

 

[Todjaeger]

It seems to me that the Army itself is to blame. There isn't really a clearly articulated need for this LCVS. What exactly do they want to do with it now that we have over 1,000 Bushmasters?

Something to ponder is just why does Army have that many Bushmasters. IIRC it was not Army that requested that many, and AFAIK quite a few are parked.

As I understand it, a Bushmaster is a good vehicle to move a squad of troops a fairly long distance (~1,000 km) in rough terrain, where there is the potential for contacts with hostiles. A Bushmaster however is not really intended to act as an Infantry Fighting Vehicle like a Bradley, CV90, Warrior, BMP, etc

Part of Land 400 is to introduce such capabilities into Army, while replacing existing kit like the ASLAV, M113 and similar.

As for Army getting a SPG... I do hope that either someone drops the compatibility with AFATDS and keeps the design as an armoured, tracked SPG with a 52 caliber barrel, or perhaps better would be to drop the barrel requirement and just get some US M109A6 which already works with/has AFATDS.

-Cheers

 

[Raven22]

On re-reading I must actually disagree with the points you made here, while I can see and believe in the benefits or hardening the Army I can also see the needs for the other capabilities you have questioned in the above.

The HUG upgrades were conducted over an extended period of time to guarantee the availability of the legacy fleet until its replacements were available and to avoid the expense of having to replacement early with something less suitable that would have been as (if not more) expensive but less capable than the selected F-35. These upgraded aircraft will have seen a decade of more of valuable service by the time they are retired but will be well and truly in need of replacement by the time they are retired.

The Growlers are an additional niche capability the previous government decided to acquire but the 24 F model Rhinos are an interim capability that was obtained when the necessary capabilities to permit the retirement of the F-111 were not in place in time, i.e. the HUG upgrades and stand off weapons. It was intended to be a 10 year lease at $10 billion all up to cover the strike gap until the FOC of the F-35, that appears to have changed with the capability to be retained but at the expense of the final squadron of F-35s not in addition to it.

They are likely not to double the number of submarines although that was the intention. The subs are good, they do work, and the reason we need more of them is six was never sufficient to provide the required number of boats at sea once sustainment requirements were taken into account. Eight hulls was probably always the minimum number of Collins class required but the options for the last two were dropped in the early to mid 90s. When you over stretch a capability, as you know, machines and people start to break which leads to a downward spiral until the capability as a whole is broken, this is what happened to the subs and the politicisation of the project along with the lack of investment in sustainment across the RAN in general leading to greater costs to fix things that would not have broken had they been looked after properly in the first place.

If you want an example of a platform that doesn't work its not the subs its the patrol boats. Wrong requirement, wrong design, wrong sustainment model all rolled in together to have made the entire procurement a total waste of time and money. A bit like the APC upgrade, MU90, Sea Sprite, FFG upgrade and possibly the Tiger and Combat Wombat etc.

You need to re-read what I was replying to. You stated:

I want to see LAND 400 go ahead but I am afraid I am not as confident as you because basically the average voter, therefore the average politician does not really care about defence. To them an ASLAV is a tank and M-113 is a tank, the media will sprout about how much they cost and how they have been ungraded etc. as well as pointing out how new the M1s are (to Australia).

You stated that Land 400 won't go ahead because of a public perception that it is too expensive, what we have is good enough, and isn't required anyway. That same sentiment can be said of any defence purchase. Read comments regarding the F35 purchase today and you will see these exact same comments. Yet, it didn't stop the F35 purchase.

Your whole point seems to boil down to, effectively, we didn't replace the M113 in the '80s therefore its not going to happen now. That is just lazy thinking, has no relevance to reality and actually masks real threats to the Land 400 program. For someone who constantly lambasts everyone in the defence sphere for short sighted thinking you seem very happy to partake in that same thinking yourself.

 

[Raven22]

It seems to me that the Army itself is to blame. There isn't really a clearly articulated need for this LCVS. What exactly do they want to do with it now that we have over 1,000 Bushmasters?

And this is the real threat to Land 400. That people with no understanding of the way things are don't immediately see an obvious reason for the program and therefore assume it isn't required. This is not the case. There are literally thousands of pages worth of documents that clearly outline the reasons why we need Land 400. The Chief of Army has quite eloquently explained the need for it on many occasions. The Army's problem is that purchasing hundreds of new land weapon systems don't excite the public imagination as much as fighter jets flying over on Australia day, or the LHD coming in through Sydney Heads to berth at Garden Island.

To answer your question though, the Bushmaster has nothing to do with Land 400. Every single one of those 1000 Bushmasters are employed in combat support or combat service support roles - they are not combat vehicles. Land 400 will primarily replace the role performed by the M113 and ASLAV, but will include a whole bunch of other things necessary for success on the battlefield. Saying we don't need Land 400 because we have Bushmasters is the equivalent of saying we don't need F35s because we have C17s.

 

[Raven22]

Hi Raven

Can i ask your opinion on what you would be looking at for Land 400?
Boxer,Aslav,VCBI for wheeled vehicles.
Namer,CV-90,ASCOD ect?

Of note was Tony Abbots visit to South korea when he spoke with the korean PM and expressed his disappointment that Australia did not purchasing K-9's from his country.
To me Abbott seems big on defence

Well, it really depends on what we actually want the vehicles to do. Which still hasn't quite been worked out yet.

If it were up to me, right now, I would choose the Puma for the Cavalry Requirement and Boxer for the Lift Requirement. This would be expensive though.

I don't think Namer, or a vehicle like it, is suitable for Australia. Namer is obviously the gold plated solution if all you want to do is get infantry onto the forward pits with the maximum of survivability, however due to our size and likely employment requirements we need our vehicles to do more than this. Accepting MBT-sized support costs for a vehicle that is only really suited for the extreme end of likely employment , when there are other vehicles that will do the job tolerably well, is unnecessary in my opinion.

The biggest problem at the end of the day is that there are really no off the shelf solutions that fit the requirements, and the appetite for risk in vehicle development is essentially nil. We will just have to buy vehicles that are the closest fit with requirements within budgetary constraints.

I agree Abbott is big on defence, but I think it is more in the superficial 'lets support the troops' kind of way, not a deep seated desire to do right by the defence of the nation. He came through on his promise to bring back the berets, though, so who knows...

 

[Volkodav]

You need to re-read what I was replying to. You stated:



You stated that Land 400 won't go ahead because of a public perception that it is too expensive, what we have is good enough, and isn't required anyway. That same sentiment can be said of any defence purchase. Read comments regarding the F35 purchase today and you will see these exact same comments. Yet, it didn't stop the F35 purchase.

Your whole point seems to boil down to, effectively, we didn't replace the M113 in the '80s therefore its not going to happen now. That is just lazy thinking, has no relevance to reality and actually masks real threats to the Land 400 program. For someone who constantly lambasts everyone in the defence sphere for short sighted thinking you seem very happy to partake in that same thinking yourself.

Ok fair enough I see where you are coming from reading it in that context. However you seem to be missing what I have said, I see the need to replace the ASLAV and M-113 I am just concerned that what appears to be a very well thought out project will not go to plan based on what has happened in the past with other well thought out requirements. I believe I am being consistent through out with what I have complained about happening in the past and also what I fear will happen in the future.

LAND 400, as I understand it, is a big picture project where the integration of the system of systems in a holistic manner is perhaps more important than the individual platforms to be procured. By all means correct me if I am wrong on that point. If the project is cut back or split there is a danger that the overall objectives may be missed and the army will be worse off as a result.

I also fear that elements will, quite wrongly, state that there are x number of upgraded M-113s in storage, y number of Bushmasters and 59 recently bought Abrams so why does the army need new armoured vehicles. Some will see the numbers and assume it gives them wriggle room to delay or split the procurement, after all a tank is a tank.

Again I hope I am wrong but this is what I fear will happen because it has happened in the past and it is happening now, just look at submarines and the BS being spun to justify cutting the future buy from twelve to eight or nine or possibly even only six new boats. The rhetoric being used to justify selecting a small MOTS solution or worse a developmental "paper" sub repeating the key errors of the Collins procurement all over again. That is the prism I am viewing LAND 400 through, a necessary and over due project that could quite easily be derailed by vested interests and the lack of a committed political champion.

I am not the enemy, just a concerned bystander expressing my concerns.

 

[Waylander]

@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.

 

[Raven22]

@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.

The biggest issue is bums on seats for the IFV. The requirement for the tracked IFV is a two man turret with medium cannon and the ability to fit a section of 8 soldiers in the back. The turret isn't much of a problem, fitting eight dudes in the back is, as none of the likely contenders can do this. The Puma can fit 6, the ASCOD fits 6, the CV90 fits 7 etc. So either we need to build a bigger vehicle (which equals significant development risk and costs) or we need to buy more vehicles to fit everyone in (which is expensive and hardly ideal from a tactical POV).

The cavalry vehicle is much easier, as pretty much all the wheeled contenders can fit 8 dudes in the back. The turret is an issue here, as for obvious reasons both the CFV and IFV should have the same turret to make training and support easier. However, depending on what we buy this will be hard to achieve (Puma and Boxer with the Puma turret on top is the obvious solution that comes to mind). There is also the fact that the ideal weapon is the 40mm CTA, although only one or two contenders have that weapon. Would, say, the manufactures of Puma let us put a different turret on the vehicle, and if they did how much extra would that cost?

In the end its just going to be a choice of what is the closest fit, and some compromises are going to have to be made.

 

[King Wally]

The biggest issue is bums on seats for the IFV. The requirement for the tracked IFV is a two man turret with medium cannon and the ability to fit a section of 8 soldiers in the back. The turret isn't much of a problem, fitting eight dudes in the back is, as none of the likely contenders can do this. The Puma can fit 6, the ASCOD fits 6, the CV90 fits 7 etc. So either we need to build a bigger vehicle (which equals significant development risk and costs) or we need to buy more vehicles to fit everyone in (which is expensive and hardly ideal from a tactical POV).

The cavalry vehicle is much easier, as pretty much all the wheeled contenders can fit 8 dudes in the back. The turret is an issue here, as for obvious reasons both the CFV and IFV should have the same turret to make training and support easier. However, depending on what we buy this will be hard to achieve (Puma and Boxer with the Puma turret on top is the obvious solution that comes to mind). There is also the fact that the ideal weapon is the 40mm CTA, although only one or two contenders have that weapon. Would, say, the manufactures of Puma let us put a different turret on the vehicle, and if they did how much extra would that cost?

In the end its just going to be a choice of what is the closest fit, and some compromises are going to have to be made.

Due to this source

Puma Infantry Fighting Vehicle | Military-Today.com
+ http://www.army-technology.com/projects/puma_tracked/

I was under the impression the Puma could transport 8 troops? Is it incorrect? It seams like a fine option if it does carry x 8 in the back.

Edit * cross checked other sources and they refer to x6, somewhere along the line seams like incorrect info got onto the internet?

 

[Volkodav]

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.

 

[Waylander]

I wouldn't put my money on GCV resulting in anything fieldable for the near future...

Puma is 6 dismounts. The 7 blokes mentioned for the CV90 are also hardly achievable with modern decoupled individual seats and all the gear currently carried by the infantry.

So in the end the problem is that Australia tries to fit their normal Squads into different vehicles while most other nations mate the vehicles permanently to their infantry and so are able to organize them accordingly. So mech infantry suffers from a reduced dismount strength while gaining lots of mobile and protected firepower. The light infantry therefore provides more warm bodies for the meat grunder that is restricted terrain.

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