Land 400

[Monitor66]

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?

Don't have enough posts racked up to post the link here but type in "Land 400 DMO" and it will take you directly to the DMO's Land 400 site. That's a good place to start.

A Google search will also dig up several papers and other docs on the project.

Spent some time out bush with 2 Cav in a previous life and have fond memories of ASLAV. So long ago the CO recently left Army as a MAJGEN!

 

[Just Some Guy]

so... um... this took me by surprise

Army User Requirements. LAND 400-LAND COMBAT VEHICLE SYSTEM (Version 1)

13. system boundaries and acquisition assumptions. the LCVS includes the protected close combat land platforms and their enablers excluding the M1A1 fleet. the LCVS does not include a requirement to acquire an amphibious land vehicle platform.

I guess that means that even CAV doesn't need amphib.

 

[StingrayOZ]

so... um... this took me by surpriseI guess that means that even CAV doesn't need amphib.

Apparently not. Somewhere in there it talks about an amphibious landing of two companies in two waves with heavy stuff coming in multiple waves. Its an amphibious landing not an amphibious assault. LHD's might stay 30 or 120 km offshore, that's a long way to travel in a barely floating metal box at a handful of knots.

With the LHD's, Choles, C-17's its not worth it. Its possible the OCV/patrol thingy might also have the ability to transport one or two vehicles. Also possibly some sort of JHSV (perhaps short term lease during operations).

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_Combat_Vehicle"]Amphibious Combat Vehicle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] has some information on the issues with amphibious vehicles. The Americans are now thinking two vehicles, one that is not amphibious (well not really very amphibious).

Given the ADF pressures, it doesn't make sense to acquire any at this stage.I imagine if the Americans come up with something handy it will be looked at.

 

[Monitor66]

so... um... this took me by surpriseI guess that means that even CAV doesn't need amphib.

Even ASLAV, at 13 tonnes GVM, is not amphibious in the sense that it can move from ship to shore in anything higher than Sea State 1. It is really not much more than a swim capability to overcome water obstacles such as rivers etc. Think Sydney Harbour on a calm day and that's the kind of seas ASLAV could handle without getting swamped.

The CRV will be at least double this weight but only displace perhaps an additional 25%, so its amphibious capability will be no better, and probably less.

Typically, to be able to drive out of the well deck of the LHDs or Choules and get to shore (and through the surf line) an amphibious platform would need to be capable of negotiating swells encountered at Sea State 3 or 4. Otherwise you're restricted to operating in protected harbours or inlets just a couple of klics from shore, which is of course unacceptable in any scenario even resembling a non-permissive environment.

None of the CRV candidate solutions can get anywhere near Sea State 3/4 and Army knows it, hence part of the reason they have to give up on the amphibious component. Also bear in mind that the ADF, unlike the USMC, does not subscribe to the doctrine of opposed landings. Driving Land 400 rigs onto a defended beach won't be happening.

As Raven 22 says, the Land 400 platforms will be brought ashore by the LCM-1E landing craft organic to the LHDs, which will be able to carry two CRVs each (but probably only one IFV assuming GVM will exceed 33-34 tonnes).

In addition, Phase 5 of Joint Project 2048 is scheduled to introduce replacements for Navy's Balikpapan-class landing craft heavy (LCH) around the time the first CRVs will be delivered. The LCH replacement will likely be able to accommodate 3-4 CRV/IFV.

 

[t68]

As Raven 22 says, the Land 400 platforms will be brought ashore by the LCM-1E landing craft organic to the LHDs, which will be able to carry two CRVs each (but probably only one IFV assuming GVM will exceed 33-34 tonnes).

In addition, Phase 5 of Joint Project 2048 is scheduled to introduce replacements for Navy's Balikpapan-class landing craft heavy (LCH) around the time the first CRVs will be delivered. The LCH replacement will likely be able to accommodate 3-4 CRV/IFV.

And that’s where Volkodov idea with a pair of LSV comes in with the ability to carry and land over the beach a Squadrons worth of M1A1 Abrams or a Combined Arms Team in its entirety leaving the LHD and its ship to shore convectors to bring other store and equipment via either water or helicopter operations.

Moniter66 I am assuming this is the document to which you refer, http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/lsd/land400/Land400_C0.pdf

 

[Just Some Guy]

when DoD asks for the ability to 'maneuver within the range of direct fire weapons...'
what sized weapons do we think they are referring to?
7.62? 12.7? 14.5? 23? 25? 40? 120!!?

I think that agreement on this point could be a very limiting factor for what options Australia has in terms of vehicle choice.

given that our doctrinal enemy uses Soviet/ Russian weapons, 14.5mm is the absolute minimum.
better yet would be 23mm to handle Soviet era AA guns
but at the top of my wish list would be ability to survive BMD-3s and BMP-3s. these two beasts pack a 30mm coax! 0_o

 

[Monitor66]

And that’s where Volkodov idea with a pair of LSV comes in with the ability to carry and land over the beach a Squadrons worth of M1A1 Abrams or a Combined Arms Team in its entirety leaving the LHD and its ship to shore convectors to bring other store and equipment via either water or helicopter operations.

Moniter66 I am assuming this is the document to which you refer,

t68 - That's only one of the docs that shed some light. There are others from Army Journal/ADF Journal which explain how the ADF conducts amphibious operations and intends to undertake STOM (ship-to-objective manoeuvre) as part of the Amphibious Deployment and Sustainment (ADAS) system, of which the Land 400 CONOPS makes up a piece of that puzzle. Raven22 can probably provide further illumination.

But again, the beach landing won't be contested. Assets will manoeuvre inland to the objective.

The heavy vehicle deck of each LHD will be able to transport 26 CRV sized vehicles and 13 M1A1 Abrams/IFV (including one loaded into each of the four LCM-1Es). As part of a balanced load out Choules will be capable of hauling 35 CRV or 29 IFV on its vehicle deck. The well dock of Choules can only accommodate a single LCM-1E, compared to two abreast in that of the LHD, so offload would be rather slow. Choules also has its mexeflote to bring vehicles ashore, but sea conditions need to be relatively calm and without surf zone for this to be an option.

Bringing this much combat power ashore would not happen quickly from even the largest USMC LHD/LHAs, but the introduction of the (up to 6) LCH replacements will play a critical role as each vessel is expected to be able to carry 3 MBT or multiple CRV/IFV.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Bringing this much combat power ashore would not happen quickly from even the largest USMC LHD/LHAs, but the introduction of the (up to 6) LCH replacements will play a critical role as each vessel is expected to be able to carry 3 MBT or multiple CRV/IFV.

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).

 

[Volkodav]

It strikes me that while the Namer is expensive and heavy a stretched IFV would also be expensive and heavy, as would the remaining option of additional vehicles to lift the required troops, i.e. needing 5 or 6 hulls in a left section as opposed to 4. This all seems to make a FMS Namer purchase look more attractive.

The Namer shares a drive train with the HERCULES which is in service with 1 Armoured Regiment, it is being / planned to be procured by Israel using FMS credits so it should be possible for Australia to procure it through the same FMS channels. It has already been trialled with a 30mm cannon and has plenty of spare volume for conventional turret should one be required while its base APC version lends itself to various roles in support of engineers artillery etc. It has the added advantage of having been designed to incorporate active protection systems should the ADF ever develop the requirement for such a system, integration of ATGW should not be a problem.

The Namer is looking better and better.

 

[Just Some Guy]

the Namer can lift more because it is BIGGER
it is about the same size as the Assault Amphibious Vehicle (aka Amtrack)

from experience I can tell you that the ability of an Amtrack to to maneuver in 'complex terrain' (which is a requirement for the LCVS) is vastly limited by its size.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

the Namer can lift more because it is BIGGER
it is about the same size as the Assault Amphibious Vehicle (aka Amtrack)

from experience I can tell you that the ability of an Amtrack to to maneuver in 'complex terrain' (which is a requirement for the LCVS) is vastly limited by its size.

Namer is the same footprint as a tank but without the gun barrel sticking out the front.7.6m long, 3.7m wide. Which is about the same as the AAV but without the big nose overhang. So the forward edge of the track is close to the bow of the IFV so you aren't pivoting the nose into things when turning corners. An extended hull Puma would be about the same footprint as the Namer.

The Namer with the turret from the Scout SV and the 1,500 hp MTU engine would be a pretty ideal Destrier IFV. Of course it would be costly and burn twice as much fuel as current IFVs. But it could carry the full section, have loads of HHS armour and be a very impressive ISR asset as well.

 

[Raven22]

It strikes me that while the Namer is expensive and heavy a stretched IFV would also be expensive and heavy, as would the remaining option of additional vehicles to lift the required troops, i.e. needing 5 or 6 hulls in a left section as opposed to 4. This all seems to make a FMS Namer purchase look more attractive

The lift section is already six vehicles (one for each rifle section, two for the manoeuvre support section and one for PHQ). Even with a vehicle only able to lift six dismounts you could fit everyone in seven vehicles (albeit tightly). That's about a 15% increase. With a vehicle able to lift seven dismounts you could actually fit everyone in just the six vehicles (although again, not in a tactically useful way).

A compromise has to be made somewhere. Personally I think the compromise will be only one company will have proper turreted IFVs (with larger sections) and the remainder will be in turretless vehicles able to fit the full compliment of dismounts.

 

[Just Some Guy]

Namer is the same footprint as a tank but without the gun barrel sticking out the front.7.6m long, 3.7m wide. Which is about the same as the AAV but without the big nose overhang. So the forward edge of the track is close to the bow of the IFV so you aren't pivoting the nose into things when turning corners.

lack of nose overhang doesn't mean much when you try to drive in between 2 trees.

sealed roads tend to have, shall we say, less favorable conditions on either side. If a Namer needs to herringbone of the side of the road it will need to go further off the road because of its size. Thus increasing it's likelihood of getting bogged.

same if 2 vehicles need to pass each other along a 1 lane road / track.

larger vehicles are harder to conceal

having to carry more responsibility (in this case, by literally carrying more dismounts) it will suffers from the "all your eggs in one basket" approach.

having less vehicles reduces your flexibility for conducting tasks (such as sending a vehicle to play taxi for the rank)

having a platform with "the same footprint as a tank" may be worth considering for working along side the tanks. but it does not fulfill the role of armored recon very well. too much armor and not enough recon ^_^

 

[Abraham Gubler]

A compromise has to be made somewhere. Personally I think the compromise will be only one company will have proper turreted IFVs (with larger sections) and the remainder will be in turretless vehicles able to fit the full compliment of dismounts.

Or compromise within the IFV section. Using the Scout SV (FRES ASCOD) as an example vehicle you could have six vehicles to comfortably lift 40 dismounts. That is two Scout SV with 40mm gun turrets and four APC SV without the turret and 50/40 style RCWS. The Scouts can carry three crew and 4-6 dismounts and the APCs two crew and eight dismounts. So each infantry section can have an APC and the MS section and PHQ divided up amongst the other APC and two Scouts. You could have one of each of the MS bricks in each of the Scouts and the fourth APC. The PHQ can split into two by twos (pltn leader and pltn sgt) and ride in each of the Scouts with access to their ISR and combat power. The fourth APC with the heavy MS brick onboard can also use its spare room to carry first line ammo and their dis-mountable weapons. It could also operate like a reverse ASLAV troop with two patrols each of a single Scout and two APCs when not carrying the platoon.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

having a platform with "the same footprint as a tank" may be worth considering for working along side the tanks. but it does not fulfill the role of armored recon very well. too much armor and not enough recon ^_^

Well there isn't much choice in the IFV department. They are all big unless you want to go back to thin skin death traps like the BMP.

 

[Just Some Guy]

Well there isn't much choice in the IFV department. They are all big unless you want to go back to thin skin death traps like the BMP.

Big is a relative term.
they are not all as big as the Namer. while still being able to offer good armor and 8+ dismounts. for example:

Namer: weight= ~50t
L=~7.5 W=~3.8 H=~2
crew= 2+10

Egyptian IFV (m113 variant): weight= 17.7t
L=5.26 W=2.82 H=2.5
crew=3+7
wiki: " (...) can significantly enhance the armor on the EIFV even further, allowing it to withstand armor-piercing 23 mm rounds, without sacrificing the vehicle's mobility."

Boxer: weight= 33t
L=7.88 W=2.99 H=2.37
crew= 3+8
military today . com "It is claimed that front armor can withstand 30-mm rounds, while the all-round protection can withstand 12.7-mm fire."

Puma: weight: 43t
L=7.4 W=3.7 H=~3
crew= 3+8
military today . com "The base model has a front and flank protection against 30-mm rounds, while vehicle has an all-round protection against 14.5-mm machine gun fire. (...) It seems that the most protected variant of the Puma withstands 120- and 125-mm projectiles over the front arc."

 

[Just Some Guy]

before when I was listing the (many) drawbacks of having unrealistically large IFV's, I forgot to mention one of the more important ones. air transport.
could a C130 lift a Namer? or would the C-17s be needed.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Big is a relative term.
they are not all as big as the Namer. while still being able to offer good armor and 8+ dismounts. for example:

Nope. The two ‘narrow’ ones you mention do not have anywhere near the armour of the Namer and Puma. And the Puma cannot carry eight dismounts and a two man turret.

If you want EFP/RPG+ proof side armour then you need a wide hull. Either a tank like track base hull like the Namer or large side armour sponsons like the Puma.

 

[Just Some Guy]

I would like to point back to an earlier post of mine :

when DoD asks for the ability to 'maneuver within the range of direct fire weapons...'
what sized weapons do we think they are referring to?
7.62? 12.7? 14.5? 23? 25? 40? 120!!?

I think that agreement on this point could be a very limiting factor for what options Australia has in terms of vehicle choice.

It would seem that you prefer the higher end of armor protection.

if Light Armored Vehicles are not good enough, it may be that you will have to be content with Medium Armored Vehicles. because, sadly I don't see the Australian army consisting of only tanks and tank sized APCs. Despite how cool that would be.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I would like to point back to an earlier post of mine :It would seem that you prefer the higher end of armor protection.

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.