t68
Well-Known Member
I know they bought new vehicles but have never seen a breakdown on the actual amounts and what type, has tracked been discounted for the new armour?
t68
Well-Known Member
Not sure of this is the latest but at this time they are only looking at ASLAV in phase two
http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/Multimedia/LAND400_Update_16_February_2015-9-5560.pdf
Haven't had a chance to read it yet
http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/Multimedia/LAND400_Update_16_February_2015-9-5560.pdf
Haven't had a chance to read it yet
MARKMILES77
Active Member
Number of CRVs required 225.
Possible CRV candidates?
VBCI
Piranha V
Boxer
Freccia
Patria AMV
Personally think any of these would be acceptable as the IFV solution as well.
Would allow a single type buy of 600+ armoured vehicles.
An order that large would probably justify Australian production.
For example, Iveco, which already operates a fairly sizeable factory in Australia could open another production line for Freccia at it's Dandenong factory.
The intel is:
VBCI - definite
LAV 6.0 (upgraded LAV III) - most likely
Freccia - definite
AMV - definite
Not sure if Rheinmetall/KMW will play ball with Boxer. STK (with Terrex) I expect will not bid.
There are certainly significant through-life cost savings in having the same wheeled CRV and IFV fleets - training, spares, maintenance etc.
The choice will not be based solely on the vehicle, but the overall bid strength (industry package, risk profiles (technical, schedule, commercial), price, support proposal etc).
I wonder how they calculate the through life costs as from what I have seen, that while cheaper to operate, wheeled vehicles are more difficult and expensive to upgrade to maintain their combat power and are often cheaper to replace than upgrade. I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong on this.
I am a little concerned that what seemed to be heading towards an all tracked fleet, CRV and IFV seems to be swinging back through wheeled CRV and tracked IFV to wheels for both, with cost rather than capability being the deciding factor. I wonder if any consideration has been given to adopting a mixed fleet, not of wheeled CRV and tracked IFV, but a wheeled FOV and a tracked FOV with CRV and IFV versions of each. This would work well, in particular, if the ACRs receive the rumoured second Cav squadron, one could be wheeled and one tracked, while the IFV squadron could have two troops of each wheeled and tracked. This would potentially give each brigade one tracked and one wheeled battlegroup.
The respondents to the CRV RFT will be asked to put forward both a MOTS (in service/production) and MOTS Plus solutions, the latter illustrating the respective capability growth path. My understanding is that the MOTS Plus versions will have a degree of 'future proofing' WRT lethality and the ability to accept additional protection (i.e weight) in future years without adversely affecting mobility.
An ex black hat might be able to shed more light on upgradeability etc of wheeled platforms.
But with respect to the potential for a mixed tracked-wheeled CRV fleet, it won't happen. Not least because it adds considerable complexity to the acquisition but also because none of the RFT respondents are going to offer a tracked solution. So CRV will be wheeled, which I think Army is happy with.
Defence Technology Review has more on Land 400 in the current issue:
Defence Technology Review : DTR FEB 2015, Page 1
Subscription to the mag is free (Defence Technology Review - Defence Technology Review), go to the Subscribe page if interested.
The CRV will most definitely be wheeled, just as the IFV will be tracked.
The 'MOTs Plus' part of the submission isn't so much about future growth, it's about the options actually meeting requirements. The thing is, not a single MOTs solution meets the requirements for Land400. Yet there is no real appetite for risk for a developmental solution. So the MOTs Plus part is for companies to put in a submission that, while technically not MOTs, is still a low risk modification to a MOTs vehicle that more closely meets the requirements of the tender. I think that DMO will weigh up the added risk versus the added capability, and make a judgement on what the best trade off is. I will don't think any MOTs Plus vehicle will get anywhere close to meeting all the requirements of the tender, so it will be interesting to see what companies offer.
The 'MOTs Plus' part of the submission isn't so much about future growth, it's about the options actually meeting requirements. The thing is, not a single MOTs solution meets the requirements for Land400. Yet there is no real appetite for risk for a developmental solution. So the MOTs Plus part is for companies to put in a submission that, while technically not MOTs, is still a low risk modification to a MOTs vehicle that more closely meets the requirements of the tender. I think that DMO will weigh up the added risk versus the added capability, and make a judgement on what the best trade off is. I will don't think any MOTs Plus vehicle will get anywhere close to meeting all the requirements of the tender, so it will be interesting to see what companies offer.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
MARKMILES77
Active Member
Took this from the DMO website. Does look like some of the protection requirements will be difficult, if not impossible, for current vehicles to achieve!
I am not very familiar with medium calibre cannons but I wouldn't have thought a 25mm cannon could penetrate 65mm of RHA at greater than 2,500 meters?
But if you move up to a 30-35-40 mm cannon is 200 rounds without reload realistic.
4000 metre range immediately rules out TOW, Javelin etc.
Seems like this is a wish list of what the perfect vehicle would have rather than what is available MOTS.
t68
Well-Known Member
amphibious does not only mean OTH to the surf, obstacles could range from flooded paddocks and creek to a river crossing without waiting for bridgeing equipment, ASLAV still has a swim capabilty but M113AS4 lost it in the upgrade
Both Boxer and Puma with active protection system achieve the desired protection.
The Puma turret as well as the proposed Lance turret for the Boxer have 200 rounds of ready ammunition.
If you scale the calibre up to 35mm I doubt anybody gets 200 ready rounds into a turret.
Amphibious capabilities pretty surely kill all aspirations for reaching the stated protection goals.
The Puma turret as well as the proposed Lance turret for the Boxer have 200 rounds of ready ammunition.
If you scale the calibre up to 35mm I doubt anybody gets 200 ready rounds into a turret.
Amphibious capabilities pretty surely kill all aspirations for reaching the stated protection goals.
25mm is a legacy weapon system in the twilight of its development and will not meet requirements for CRV.
But if you move up to a 30-35-40 mm cannon is 200 rounds without reload realistic.
Not sure about 30mm, but 35mm I doubt and 40mm no way. The T40 turret from Nexter for instance (with 40mm Case Telescoped Ammunition) has 60 rounds of ready-use ammo in the turret. Total stowed kills in the vehicle (stowed in the hull) might be 200 for 40mm but certainly not in the turret as ready-use.
Re the ATGW, look at Spike and MMP from MBDA. There is also a long-range version of Javelin in development/testing that comes close to that 4000m mark.
Re an amphibious requirement, had a search through the OCD and there is no mention of the CRV needing to be amphibious or have a swim capability.
It won't be swimming ashore under its own power during an amphibious op:
"The LCVS is not likely to be capable of swimming ashore and may need to be landed and have a fording capability. As soon as it is on land, all vehicle systems should be operational."
There is a brief reference to fording in the Key Requirements Matrix but nothing else.
Given that ASLAV at around 13-14 tonnes has only a marginal swim capability (river crossing, harbour inlet etc), the CRV at 28-32 tonnes GVM will struggle. I'm guessing a CRV puttering along at 6-7 knots, if it did have a swim capability, is not really conducive to Army's concept of rapid STOM.
Given that the LCM-1E/LLC (LHD Landing Craft) will each only take a single CRV, the build up of AFV-based combat power ashore won't be quick.
But it is curious that no detail is given on a swim capability to cross water obstacles such as rivers, flooded tracts of land or harbour coves/inlets where a ship-to-shore connector may not be able to reach the beach due to tides etc.
t68
Well-Known Member
I have wondered that myself, M113AS4 lost the capabilty in the upgrade program so ASLAV is our only swim capabile armoured vehicle.
I have taken Waylanders comments regarding weight limitations is the reason for the non-swim capabilty then thought of the weight of the AAV-7.
Looking at the drama the Americans are haveing for a replacement goes to show its not as easy as it looks in building a swim capabile vehicle.
I am not 100% sure but I think the reason M113 is slated for a late withdrawal was in the anticipate the Americans next AMTRACK
Whilst a bit more risky, I think there could be great potential in a custom design. Thales Australia has plenty of experience now with the Bushmaster and could leverage the technology of Thales' VBCI.
They would need to get a design out pretty quick but the V hull of the Bushmaster has proved it's worth in combat. Seems an opportunity to achieve logistical commonality.
They would need to get a design out pretty quick but the V hull of the Bushmaster has proved it's worth in combat. Seems an opportunity to achieve logistical commonality.
As has been stated, the Land 400 vehicles won't be amphibious because you can't make a >30 tonne vehicle amphibious without unacceptable compromises in design.
The fact is though, an amphibious capability is one of those things that sounds like a good idea but is never actually used in the real world. By anyone. Have a look through history and find all the instances of amphibious vehicles being used operationally off the line of march in combat conditions. The Egyptians used small numbers of PT-76s to cross the Great Bitter Lake in the Yom Kippur War, but you won't find too many others. It's just not a very practical capability.
The fact is though, an amphibious capability is one of those things that sounds like a good idea but is never actually used in the real world. By anyone. Have a look through history and find all the instances of amphibious vehicles being used operationally off the line of march in combat conditions. The Egyptians used small numbers of PT-76s to cross the Great Bitter Lake in the Yom Kippur War, but you won't find too many others. It's just not a very practical capability.