The good news on this front is that the LAND 400 scope approved by govt. and therefore in the budget process can include additional tanks if need be. So the paperwork process needed to buy a few more (or even many more) M1s is available via LAND 400. Of course to do so means dollars will have to be spent and the govt. agree to that spend line item by line item but you won't need to start up an additional project.
Land 400
- Thread starter knightrider4
- Start date
Just Some Guy
New Member
They're buying extra RPS for when they split the tanks. I wonder what the NSN for an entire M1 is? Just order a few entire tanks as spare parts and hope no one notices.
Just Some Guy
New Member
@ Abraham Gubler
You do make some good points. Most of which about me applying CRV thinking to IFV requirements and some of which (re: C130) I have already acknowledged in earlier posts (re: #96).
However, I am still not fully convinced about getting the Namer (or a platform of similar size) for the IFV component of LAND 400.
Let’s start with the fact that you insist that the CRV and the IFV must be different platforms. I disagree.
Yes, the CRV will be wheeled while the IFV and MSV will be tracked. But the Puma, Boxer and Stryker are good examples of a single platform offering both tracks and wheels. So this alone isn’t reason to have two platforms. Just have different variants. This will save a lot of $$.
You claim that an M113 will take 20% KIA due to lack of protection. May I ask how you got this figure?
Remember the Egyptian IFV that I mentioned back in post #76. That this M113 variant had add-on armor that could stop 23mm AP rounds. Well, I forgot to mention that this vehicle entered service in 1995. That is 20 years ago. How much has armor tech improved since then? Or even just the engines? A larger power pack will simply allow for more armor, and as such more protection. It is the thickness of the armor and not the overall width of the vehicle that will offer protection.
Which brings me nicely to my next point. Why must the IFV have both 8 man lift and a 2 man turret in the same vehicle? Why not a gun car and an APC working in tandem? Where is it a written down that the IFV must offer both in the one vehicle?
To be completely fair, it is not like the idea of using gun cars and APCs side by side is anything new. The RAAC has been doing it with type 1 and type 2 ASLAVs or with type 1 ASLAVs and AS4s.
If we do use the APC/Gun car combo, there is nothing stopping us from putting a big RWS on the roof of the PC.
Is it even set in stone that is must be 8 dismounts? Because if not, then we could get away with 4 dismounts and a 2 man turret on… any of the ~30t IFVs used around the world.
My final point: I have already tried to point this out before, however it seems that I need to work harder to get you to understand.
It does not matter how big your gun is, or how thick your armor is. If you are unable to get your vehicle to the battle field (be it a forested area, a mountainous area, or just somewhere too wet and boggy for a 50t brick). If you cannot get to the battle field, you can not contest the battle field. Period.
If you can get to the battle field, but require taking a longer route due to ‘difficult terrain’, then the loss of time will result in a loss of capability.
Reduced mobility within ‘difficult terrain’ results in reduced flexibility in available options, and as such an increase in predictability.
You do make some good points. Most of which about me applying CRV thinking to IFV requirements and some of which (re: C130) I have already acknowledged in earlier posts (re: #96).
However, I am still not fully convinced about getting the Namer (or a platform of similar size) for the IFV component of LAND 400.
Let’s start with the fact that you insist that the CRV and the IFV must be different platforms. I disagree.
Yes, the CRV will be wheeled while the IFV and MSV will be tracked. But the Puma, Boxer and Stryker are good examples of a single platform offering both tracks and wheels. So this alone isn’t reason to have two platforms. Just have different variants. This will save a lot of $$.
You claim that an M113 will take 20% KIA due to lack of protection. May I ask how you got this figure?
Remember the Egyptian IFV that I mentioned back in post #76. That this M113 variant had add-on armor that could stop 23mm AP rounds. Well, I forgot to mention that this vehicle entered service in 1995. That is 20 years ago. How much has armor tech improved since then? Or even just the engines? A larger power pack will simply allow for more armor, and as such more protection. It is the thickness of the armor and not the overall width of the vehicle that will offer protection.
Which brings me nicely to my next point. Why must the IFV have both 8 man lift and a 2 man turret in the same vehicle? Why not a gun car and an APC working in tandem? Where is it a written down that the IFV must offer both in the one vehicle?
To be completely fair, it is not like the idea of using gun cars and APCs side by side is anything new. The RAAC has been doing it with type 1 and type 2 ASLAVs or with type 1 ASLAVs and AS4s.
If we do use the APC/Gun car combo, there is nothing stopping us from putting a big RWS on the roof of the PC.
Is it even set in stone that is must be 8 dismounts? Because if not, then we could get away with 4 dismounts and a 2 man turret on… any of the ~30t IFVs used around the world.
My final point: I have already tried to point this out before, however it seems that I need to work harder to get you to understand.
It does not matter how big your gun is, or how thick your armor is. If you are unable to get your vehicle to the battle field (be it a forested area, a mountainous area, or just somewhere too wet and boggy for a 50t brick). If you cannot get to the battle field, you can not contest the battle field. Period.
If you can get to the battle field, but require taking a longer route due to ‘difficult terrain’, then the loss of time will result in a loss of capability.
Reduced mobility within ‘difficult terrain’ results in reduced flexibility in available options, and as such an increase in predictability.
t68
Well-Known Member
Whilst I agree it’s a non –issue and the issue would be of so little importance in the overall greater scheme of things, but going larger decrease the flexibility that RACT has in moving them in short notice. In the past moving our armored vehicles was easy hell just call up 2nd line transport and they can move M113/ASLAV with 6x6 Mack & P2, by going wider takes that ability away now you’re talking specialist equipment widening decks and dolly’s which will restrict you to 3rd &4th line transport.
But we only have if my numbers are correct 18 Heavy Tank Transporters in the ADF nowhere near enough lift capability as for the new vehicles under LAND 121 Phase 3B there is to be 2700 medium and heavy trucks and up to 1700 trailers how many of what type and capability in lifting these I don’t know but it would be interesting to see how exactly it takes shape in the flexibility stakes across the ADF.
http://www.army.gov.au/Our-future/Projects/~/media/Files/Our future/L121-3B fact sheet July 2013.pdf
See now you’ll being an out and out douche bag so I’ve lost interest in having any engagement with you. You grief seems to be with the entire military establishment for insisting on IFVs with high levels of side armour that no longer make them narrow enough to drive on goat tracks or too heavy to motor over pond scum. This problem you have focused on the Namer for is just as an issue for every other vehicle in contention for the LAND 400 IFV.
t68
Well-Known Member
You can’t just drop a bigger power pack(cooling) in unless it can be upgraded to accept the bigger power output more horse’s doesn’t necessarily mean better performance torque is the name of the game.
Try 2350-01-328-5964. LOL.
There was an APDR article on the Abrams upgrade, I saw a while ago, that indicated the funding set aside for the upgrade was actually sufficient to not only bring strength up to three full squadrons (plus the training overhead), but to replace rather than upgrade the entire fleet with new build M-1A2 or even A3 (once available) fully kitted out with SEP and TUSK options with money to spare.
That is something I will never understand, armoured vehicles are in the big scheme of things very affordable yet the ARA needs to jump through hoops to actually procure what they need. Money is not the issue when compared to the cost of aircraft and warships there just seems to be some ideological problem preventing our politicians from signing off on things like Armoured Brigades, multiple tank regiments, SPGs, MLRS etc. This stuff doesn't really cost that much but the way governments behave you would be forgiven for thinking it was all hideously expensive.
The Boxer and the Puma are not one platform with a tracked and a wheeled versions.
While both are built by different Rheinmetall/KMW joint ventures they are the result of two totally different projects. Naturally the expertise in AFV design of both KMW and Rheinmetall went into them, they are not related to each other.
As for protection.
While going light and mobile was often fashionable during peacetime most countries couldn't get their stuff uparmoured fat enough one the balloon went up.
Just look at Iraq or Afghanistan. Most AFVs out there got heavily upgraded protection wise.
And apart from some narrow goat tracks (which are few and far) a modern 1,500hl MBT is the most mobile vehicle out there. The same applies to modern IFVs. A 41t Puma with 1,250hp is going to go to far more places than some M113 version.
I have seen the Boxer live on trials. It has good mobility but it's still not on par with a modern tracked vehicle.
An upgraded IFV on M113 chassis is hopelessly outclassed in mobility, protection and firepower compared to a modern IFV.
While both are built by different Rheinmetall/KMW joint ventures they are the result of two totally different projects. Naturally the expertise in AFV design of both KMW and Rheinmetall went into them, they are not related to each other.
As for protection.
While going light and mobile was often fashionable during peacetime most countries couldn't get their stuff uparmoured fat enough one the balloon went up.
Just look at Iraq or Afghanistan. Most AFVs out there got heavily upgraded protection wise.
And apart from some narrow goat tracks (which are few and far) a modern 1,500hl MBT is the most mobile vehicle out there. The same applies to modern IFVs. A 41t Puma with 1,250hp is going to go to far more places than some M113 version.
I have seen the Boxer live on trials. It has good mobility but it's still not on par with a modern tracked vehicle.
An upgraded IFV on M113 chassis is hopelessly outclassed in mobility, protection and firepower compared to a modern IFV.
Bluey 006
Active Member
Any chance we'll design and build a new system in Australia?
The capacity to design and build armoured vehicles is an important strategic capability (I understand that we have the ability) , especially for a country like Australia, an Island nation that is long distances from it's Allies.
After the success of the Bushmaster, there may be some export dollars in it to.
The capacity to design and build armoured vehicles is an important strategic capability (I understand that we have the ability) , especially for a country like Australia, an Island nation that is long distances from it's Allies.
After the success of the Bushmaster, there may be some export dollars in it to.
We didn't even design the Bushmaster, an Irish design house did. We built them sure, but they are a FAR simpler vehicle than a tracked IFV, so no, we don't really have the ability to design and build an IFV, nor the CRV for that matter and we could never do so economically with indicative planning numbers of 450 (IFV) and 150 (CRV) respectively.
Bluey 006
Active Member
Well, originally the ASCOD and the Puma were designed with similar numbers in mind
The Spanish Army had a requirement for 356 Pizarros with final deliveries due in 2012. The Austrian Army required 112 Ulans with deliveries between 2002 and 2004
( thats 468) and initially the Germans planned for 410 Puma's....( i think)
Also, I don't want to go off topic here but....If we can't design and build IFVs, who in their right mind thought we could design and build Submarines?
the road runner
Active Member
Yes but they had been developed by companies who have experience with developing these vehicles. Australia is better placed to just purchase off the shelf from one of the big manufacturers.Why would we waste money in developing a vehicle,testing this vehicle and then purchase a small amount of them ?
Because Australia has a lot more experience designing and building submarines than we do IFVs?
Also the need to design our own submarine is much higher than our own IFV. Because there aren’t any submarines out there that meet Australian needs except those six boats built in Australia and maybe the latest boat built in Japan and they have all sorts of issues about exporting miltech. However there are multiple IFVs that could meet Australian needs despite the Army doing its best to specify a unique requirement.
That being said I don’t think there is that much difference in risk between domestic design and local build of imported design. However a mix of import and local build is a likely option in this case to save some money.
Also the need to design our own submarine is much higher than our own IFV. Because there aren’t any submarines out there that meet Australian needs except those six boats built in Australia and maybe the latest boat built in Japan and they have all sorts of issues about exporting miltech. However there are multiple IFVs that could meet Australian needs despite the Army doing its best to specify a unique requirement.
That being said I don’t think there is that much difference in risk between domestic design and local build of imported design. However a mix of import and local build is a likely option in this case to save some money.
Bluey 006
Active Member
Points taken.....
However, the Virginia-class SSN suits our needs..but no government is willing to risk the potential voter backlash of taking Australia into the nuclear powered realm, so the spin about lack of nuclear industry comes dribbling out.
That's quite encouraging actually. They will need every one of them for movement of MBT, IFV and MSV during peacetime and on ops.