It doesn’t necessarily advocate Namer, simply a vehicle that can lift an entire section in one go. As I said, not everything ports across to Australia, not least the fact that an Australian platoon is four sections, not three. The MSS, being 12 strong, is never going to fit in a single vehicle. Therefore we are always going to have to split at least that section across multiple vehicles.
A mix of turreted (IFV) and non-turreted (APC) vehicles has been looked at as a solution to the problem. One possible COA is having a single company lift of turreted IFVs, with the remaining vehicles being non-turreted APCs. The idea being that the IFV company would lead the assault with tanks and break-in on the objective, with the remaining dismounts being transported to the objective in APCs when the threat is much lessoned. This would save a lot of resources in terms of both money (less vehicles, less expensive vehicles) and people (no crew needed for the non-existent extra vehicles). The opportunity cost would be an extreme loss of flexibility (can’t swap out the companies, only two close-combat capable sub-units in a brigade) and much less resilience (if the IFV company takes casualties in the first assault, which it will, you lose the ability to break-in on another objective). One distinct negative against this possibility is the fact that is was modelled using simulation, and the IFV/APC mix of vehicles sustained 35% more casualties than an all IFV force structure. That’s pretty damning when the whole point of Land400 is to protect the force.
Another twist in the Land 400 Phase 2 saga.
An extension granted, so that STKinetics of Singapore, teamed with Elbit can be involved.
And in passing, what is it with South Australian Government officials...throwing in a Tony Abbot line and "questioning the timing of the extension"
Is there a default position in Adelaide that they have a God given right to all defence contracts?
The Australian
July 30...Meredith Booth.
"The second phase of a tender process for the army’s $10 billion next-generation armoured veh*icle fleet has been extended so that a Singaporean government-owned company can bid, surprising the defence industry and sparking claims Tony Abbott has done a secret deal in Singapore.
The tender for the lucrative LAND 400 Phase 2 — Mounted Combat Reconnaissance Capability, due to close on August 6, has attracted interest from three credible consortia in BAE Systems with Patria, General Dynamics Land Systems with Thales Australia and Germany’s Rheinmetall with Northrop Grumman.
But the four-week extension, which came just three days after the Prime Minister returned from Singapore on June 30 for private talks with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, has accommodated a fourth bidder, believed by the industry to have withdrawn from the race.
Singaporean government-owned defence company STKin*etics will team with Israeli firm Elbit Systems to tender for the project and was happy with the new September 6 deadline on what had “been a very aggressive schedule from the start”, *Australian-based Elbit executive Grant Sanderson said.
Bidders will be shortlisted by March to provide three of their armoured vehicles for an Australian trial where one will be tested to the point of destruction.
The winning bidder will supply 225 armoured vehicles with better firepower, protection and mobility to replace the army’s 8x8 ASLAVs (Australia Light Armoured Vehicles) which have seen service in Afghanistan, Iraq and East Timor and are due for retirement around 2021.
They also would be well placed for phase three of the project, to replace the army’s 700 venerable tracked M-113s, awaiting the go-ahead in the forthcoming white paper.
The Defence Minister, Kevin Andrews, confirmed the tender extension in an interview with The Australian in Adelaide this week, but the Prime Minister’s Office yesterday would not comment on whether the tender *extension was raised with Mr Abbott by Singapore.
“There was a desire to have a bit more time,’’ Mr Andrews said.
“If it’s just a few weeks in a project that’s going to have a life of 40 years then there can’t be any complaints that ‘we were *excluded before we got a chance to put a bid in’.”
However, South Australia’s Defence Teaming Centre chief executive, Chris Burns, questioned the timing of the extension and lack of consultation with bidders.
“The timing of the extension led to speculation in the industry that there was a relationship *between the PM’s visit to Singapore and Elbit’s renewed bid,’’ Mr Burns said.
“The first time they put an *extension out they told people that they were doing it and *consulted.
“This time, they put it out there without any collaboration or consultation and that makes people suspicious.
“People start getting doubts and looking at the PMs travel program.”
