Land 400

[Goknub]

I've mentioned it before but has there been any serious look at South Korea's K21?

It claims 9 dismounts, 40mm cannon + ATGM and has an amphibious capability that would seem a great fit for our new LHDs. I'm sure they'd package them up with a few K9 SPGs if we asked nicely.

Now whether the vehicle's composite hull can handle Australian conditions and/or actually fit 8 Australian-sized dismounts is yet to be seem but South Korean certainly would be capable of producing a top-quality IFV.

It seems like the best fit for the ADF but never gets a mention.

 

[t68]

Whilst not part of the debate on what type, one also has to consider the transport implications.

If we go much wider than the current systems besides the MBT they will not be able to be transported by the Mack6x6 and p2 trailer or the future MAN, RACT will need to accomadate extra PM with widening decks. Will that's also impact on the eventual AFV?

 

[Monitor66]

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.

Agree. Cavalry vehicle to replace ASLAV will almost certainly be wheeled (8x8). Known within the project as the Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle (CRV), my understanding of the requirement is that a two-man turret with 30mm cannon is sought. The 40mm CTA weapon system, as per that earmarked for the British Army Warrior IFV upgrade, would be nice to have but will lose points in a tender evaluation (RFT due later this year) as still being developmental. The 30mm, such as the TRL9/combat proven Bushmaster II cannon from ATK, is an improvement over the M242 Bushmaster 25mm gun on ASLAV-25 - a weapon now seen as nearing battlefield obsolescence. A 30mm gun is probably adequate for a cavalry vehicle and is a good compromise between range, lethality, ammunition natures, quantity of ready-use and stowed rounds and low technical risk.

The IFV will very likely be tracked, if for no other reason than to ensure it can accompany Abrams onto an objective.

The third type of capability sought under Land 400 is the Manoeuvre Support Vehicle (MSV). The MSV will, among other things, replace the protected mobility capability currently provided by Bushmaster. The capabilities required of the MSV point to a wheeled vehicle (8x8 in most cases), particularly given the combat service support roles Bushmaster also fulfils.

Other roles which Bushmaster undertakes, such as that for RAAF Airfield Defence Guards and others where extreme cross-country mobility is not required, might prompt consideration of 6x6 versions of the same MSV. Or, given that money will be tight, I can envisage later versions of by then in-service Hawkei being proposed to take on these minor roles. A lighter but still protected 4x4 vehicle will have both lower unit and through-life costs than a much larger 6x6 or 8x8 MSV.

 

[Monitor66]

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.

Again agree. Land 400 will go ahead but its biggest threat is in fact from the project itself, specifically, its protracted timeline. With only the CRV capability likely to see delivery prior to 2020 (that's vehicle delivery and maybe IOC but definitely not FOC), Defence will need to work very hard over coming years to ensure successive governments do not water down a) requirements and scope (remember Labor's seeming disdain of heavy armour and high-end ground combat/warfighting capabilities) and b) vehicle numbers, between now and the early-mid 2020s.

Upgrades or life-of-type extensions (LOTE) to ASLAV and M113AS3/4 cannot at this stage be ruled out, particularly now hearing the Government talk about fiscal restraint and hardship to come. However, with ASLAV now approaching 20 years in service and having been worked hard on recent deployments, a LOTE may not be feasible.

Having said that I am yet to find clear justification as to why Defence did not proceed with the ASLAV upgrade under Land 112 Phase 4. The same prime contractor which performed the recent upgrade to the USMC LAV fleet (Armatec) was also involved in the Phase 4 upgrade proposal along with GDLS-A.

 

[Raven22]

The third type of capability sought under Land 400 is the Manoeuvre Support Vehicle (MSV). The MSV will, among other things, replace the protected mobility capability currently provided by Bushmaster. The capabilities required of the MSV point to a wheeled vehicle (8x8 in most cases), particularly given the combat service support roles Bushmaster also fulfils.

I think you are a bit mixed up here. The MSV isn't a Bushmaster replacement, it is a combat engineering vehicle along the lines of the Terrier or Kodiak. The Bushmaster replacement was removed from the scope of Land 400 after Plan Beersheeba removed Bushmasters from combat roles (also, to prevent politicians being able to point to all those new Bushmasters and asking why a replacement was needed).

 

[Raven22]

Having said that I am yet to find clear justification as to why Defence did not proceed with the ASLAV upgrade under Land 112 Phase 4. The same prime contractor which performed the recent upgrade to the USMC LAV fleet (Armatec) was also involved in the Phase 4 upgrade proposal along with GDLS-A.

Because it wasn't worth it. The scope for the Phase 4 upgrade was reduced from a proper mid life upgrade to simply being a survivability upgrade aimed at Afghanistan. Noting that the upgrade didn't really give that much greater survivability anyway, and the fact that upgraded vehicles would only be delivered just in time for the withdrawal from Afghanistan, it simply wasn't worth the expenditure. A proper upgrade of the ASLAV just isn't worth it. You'd be better off simply ordering new vehicles.

 

[Waylander]

I doubt that the Korean K21 is going to get considered. Heavy protection is the name of the game in western professional armies these days. Force conservation und crew protection are paramount and I doubt that Australia would opt for a vehicle like the K21 which at 25 tonnes is defenitely not on par with other designs when it comes to protection.

As for operating costs. A heavy vehicle like the Namer is more expensive to operate than a lighter one. But operating heavy tracked vehicles is expensive not matter what. The other aspects of the Namer will be much more important for a decision than a bit higher operating costs.

And I repeat that urban warfare is just one aspect of the Namer's design. Much more important for the IDF is to transport dismounts over an open battlefield in the face of heavy enemy fire and right onto an objective under maximum protection. We are talking about places like the Golan, the Sinai Peninsula and the Beka Valley.

 

[Volkodav]

I think you are a bit mixed up here. The MSV isn't a Bushmaster replacement, it is a combat engineering vehicle along the lines of the Terrier or Kodiak. The Bushmaster replacement was removed from the scope of Land 400 after Plan Beersheeba removed Bushmasters from combat roles (also, to prevent politicians being able to point to all those new Bushmasters and asking why a replacement was needed).

Very smart move, I wasn't aware of that but it definitely makes sense. As I understand it they are in effect very good armoured trucks (I will stand corrected if I have it wrong but I understand this is how many RAAC members actually regard them) rather than AFVs so I suppose it makes sense to reiterate that through the way they are seen to be employed.

 

[Monitor66]

I think you are a bit mixed up here. The MSV isn't a Bushmaster replacement, it is a combat engineering vehicle along the lines of the Terrier or Kodiak. The Bushmaster replacement was removed from the scope of Land 400 after Plan Beersheeba removed Bushmasters from combat roles (also, to prevent politicians being able to point to all those new Bushmasters and asking why a replacement was needed).

I stand corrected re MSV. That is encouraging in that case as it's a capability we currently don't have.

Where does that then leave the motorised/PMV concept WRT to Plan Beersheba?

A graphic from a DMO presentation last month indicates that the 431 M113AS3/4 and 257 ASLAV will be succeeded by CRV, IFV and MSV. With Bushmaster now out the Land 400 picture, are they still talking procurement of around 1,100 vehicles?

 

[Monitor66]

Because it wasn't worth it. The scope for the Phase 4 upgrade was reduced from a proper mid life upgrade to simply being a survivability upgrade aimed at Afghanistan. Noting that the upgrade didn't really give that much greater survivability anyway, and the fact that upgraded vehicles would only be delivered just in time for the withdrawal from Afghanistan, it simply wasn't worth the expenditure. A proper upgrade of the ASLAV just isn't worth it. You'd be better off simply ordering new vehicles.

If the option of an ASLAV LOTE is permanently off the table, then the RFT for the CRV capability is definitely incoming.

Given the requirements of Plan Beersheba any idea about how many CRVs will be required to equip the ACRs? I'm thinking 140-150 vehicles with training and attrition stocks.

 

[Raven22]

I stand corrected re MSV. That is encouraging in that case as it's a capability we currently don't have.

Where does that then leave the motorised/PMV concept WRT to Plan Beersheba?

A graphic from a DMO presentation last month indicates that the 431 M113AS3/4 and 257 ASLAV will be succeeded by CRV, IFV and MSV. With Bushmaster now out the Land 400 picture, are they still talking procurement of around 1,100 vehicles?

Under Plan Beerheeba you won't find any Bushmasters in the fighting elements of units. Infantry battalions will have some bushmasters in Admin Coy and Support Coy, and Bushmaster will remain the main 'protected' vehicle in combat support and combat service support units. Each CSSB is raising a transport Sqn on Bushmasters able to lift the fighting elements of one battalion (the other one to be lifted by the ACR). It is no where near the capability provided by 6 or 8/9 RAR though, where the vehicles were expected to be exposed to danger. The PMVs are now purely for A to B moves out of contact, essentially being a protected mog.

 

[Raven22]

If the option of an ASLAV LOTE is permanently off the table, then the RFT for the CRV capability is definitely incoming.

Given the requirements of Plan Beersheba any idea about how many CRVs will be required to equip the ACRs? I'm thinking 140-150 vehicles with training and attrition stocks.

The approximate figure is 150 CRVs and 450 IFVs

 

[Volkodav]

The approximate figure is 150 CRVs and 450 IFVs

I stand corrected, with total vehicle buys that small any government would be insane not to follow through with the project. I must admit I now realize I was thinking of the original scope including the PMVs as well when I made my original comments on the projects future and my arguments ref public and political perception fall over. Effectively the project has already been split, which I was unaware of, to prevent the exact situation I feared from happening.

The current scope could actually be claimed to be to small in terms of perceptions, I.e. a reasonable person, lacking a military insight, would likely be surprised that so few vehicles would be required and would support higher numbers so long as they remained in the hundreds rather than stretching over a thousand which is what the original plan, including a PMV replacement did.

 

[Monitor66]

The approximate figure is 150 CRVs and 450 IFVs

Those sort of numbers really pour cold water over the plans of the Geelong Mayor and others to replace lost automotive industry jobs with Land 400 work, particularly with the IFV build/assembly phase (the most meaningful in terms of vehicle numbers) not likely to commence in earnest until the early 2020s.

When you consider that Thales' Bendigo facility will only employ around 330 people during full rate production of Hawkei based on a production run of around 1,300 vehicles, they are chasing a mirage. The thousands of jobs they're envisaging just won't be there.

 

[Waylander]

The problem with the idea ofjob creation for a country like Australia is the lack of ancillary industries. That's where many jobs are created.

A country like Russia, the US, France or Germany receives most parts from it's own industry. In Australias case lots of important stuff like weapons, tracks, engines, etc. are going to get important even if the final assembly is in country.

 

[Monitor66]

The problem with the idea ofjob creation for a country like Australia is the lack of ancillary industries. That's where many jobs are created.

A country like Russia, the US, France or Germany receives most parts from it's own industry. In Australias case lots of important stuff like weapons, tracks, engines, etc. are going to get important even if the final assembly is in country.

Too true. With the small number of CRVs to be ordered a local facility may be established to perform assembly, integration tasks or mission kit installation etc but it will all be somewhat short-lived. Once the vehicles are delivered the facility and the workforce will no longer be required, and the expertise that was transplanted lost. That facility and workforce cannot be retained until such time as IFV production activities come along, even assuming the prime contractor for CRV will be the same as for IFV, which is unlikely.

There is a real and growing paucity in this country of companies which are able to machine parts, fabricate components and therefore, as you suggest, be a long-term part of a supply chain which feeds off the OEM. Where we do still make products and parts here the cost is almost never globally competitive.

The component supplier base which fabricates parts for the now dying auto makers Holden, Ford and Toyota engages hundreds of companies across Australia (and in turn employ many thousands of workers). Similar can be said of those companies which are the supply chains for OEMs of military platforms in the countries you list. The massive domestic orders in the US sustain entire industries for many years; in other countries where local orders are smaller the OEMs are often successful in winning export orders. Again, this sustains not only the OEM but its suppliers as well over the medium to long term.

Looking at Europe, military vehicle OEMs like Patria (Finland), BAE Systems Hagglunds (Sweden), Nexter/Renault (France), Rheinmetall/Krauss-Maffei Weggmann (Germany), Iveco (Italy) are good examples of this industry sustainability.

 

[Just Some Guy]

Hi all.
I have just signed up to defencetalk with the sole purpose of giving my 2cents worth on this thread

in line with the OP's question

what options may or may not be on the table or if this project

I have the following ideas.

firstly, it is going to be wheeled. I am 100% sure.
wheeled veh are cheaper to maintain (given the rate that tracks wear out). cheaper to transport (because they are allowed to travel on public roads).
wheeled veh swop a slight decrease in off road mobility for a massive increase in on road mobility.

secondly, it will be a single platform. once again, this is purely on cost.
the ASLAV has the type 1 Gun car. type 2 PC. and type 3 recovery.
there is no discernible reason why you need 2 different platforms when it has already been proven than a single platform is able to preform both tasks (fire support and uplift).
there is the possibility that they might want a tracked vehicle to work along side tanks. But it is a combined arms era. I have seen M1s work with ASLAVs enough times to know that tracks are not required.

thirdly, it will be amphib. to make better use of the LHD.
and rumor has it that there will be a 'ready squadron' stationed on the LHD for fast response.

fourthly, and finally, the following points are not 100% must haves. but they should be taken into consideration.
- ease of training/ transfer between platforms
- commonality with our allies
- a tested and trusted system (tested by Australia would be best)

after all of this is taken into consideration, I still have no idea what Australia will buy.
I used to think the LAV3, but since it is not amphib.... I just don't know anymore.

 

[Raven22]

Hi all.
I have just signed up to defencetalk with the sole purpose of giving my 2cents worth on this thread

in line with the OP's question I have the following ideas.

firstly, it is going to be wheeled. I am 100% sure.
wheeled veh are cheaper to maintain (given the rate that tracks wear out). cheaper to transport (because they are allowed to travel on public roads).
wheeled veh swop a slight decrease in off road mobility for a massive increase in on road mobility.

secondly, it will be a single platform. once again, this is purely on cost.
the ASLAV has the type 1 Gun car. type 2 PC. and type 3 recovery.
there is no discernible reason why you need 2 different platforms when it has already been proven than a single platform is able to preform both tasks (fire support and uplift).
there is the possibility that they might want a tracked vehicle to work along side tanks. But it is a combined arms era. I have seen M1s work with ASLAVs enough times to know that tracks are not required.

thirdly, it will be amphib. to make better use of the LHD.
and rumor has it that there will be a 'ready squadron' stationed on the LHD for fast response.

fourthly, and finally, the following points are not 100% must haves. but they should be taken into consideration.
- ease of training/ transfer between platforms
- commonality with our allies
- a tested and trusted system (tested by Australia would be best)

after all of this is taken into consideration, I still have no idea what Australia will buy.
I used to think the LAV3, but since it is not amphib.... I just don't know anymore.

Welcome to the forum. Unfortunately, however, your first three points are wrong.

The whole Land 400 solution won't be wheeled. The Cav vehicle certainly will be, part of the loft solution might be, but the IFV itself will certainly be tracked. There are still things that tracked vehicles can do that wheeled vehicles can't.

The whole Land 400 solution won't be a common platform. That option has been removed from what is being presented as part of first pass.

The Land 400 vehicles won't be amphibious. You can't make a 35-45 tonne vehicle amphibious (at least not without unacceptable compromises in design). You don't need amphibious vehicles to use the LHD capability. That is why they have landing craft.

Your last point is absolutely valid however.

 

[Just Some Guy]

The whole Land 400 solution won't be wheeled. The Cav vehicle certainly will be, part of the loft solution might be, but the IFV itself will certainly be tracked. There are still things that tracked vehicles can do that wheeled vehicles can't.

I used to be in 2Cav. so perhaps that is why my views are a little bias

I suppose I should look deeper into what LAND400 for means for roles OTHER than cav.
anyone got a link I could follow?

 

[StingrayOZ]

I used to be in 2Cav. so perhaps that is why my views are a little bias

I suppose I should look deeper into what LAND400 for means for roles OTHER than cav.
anyone got a link I could follow?

I do wonder what the ratio will be tracked to wheeled. I would imagine the wheeled component would be much larger than tracked.

Im not sure amphibious vehicles are the future anyway, there is talk about generally operating LHD's much further from shore to reduced risks. We have really good strategic lift that can easily be expanded/augmented in the future. The amphib compromises too much. That's not to say it won't be involved in amphibious operations. There is a lot pointing to the details of a Amphibious Ready Group within the ADF, but will most likely be more flexible/dynamic than what other forces have.

For reading I recommend the DMO stuff from the horses mouth:
Defence Materiel Organisation

It really does provide a bit of background (particularly the Primer and the CO) to some stuff that Raven22 has mentioned. Some of its a little dated and doesn't elaborate/vague, some of its more what they want than what they will get, but its interesting reading.