Be interested in hearing what Raven22 knows about this and what flow-on effect it will have on the ACR.
I have heard that money had been taken out of the budget for Land400, but for Phase 2 and not Phase 3. It sounds like money has been taken out of both, which isn't a good sign (although who knows what will happen with a new PM and defence minister).
One thing at is probably worth pointing out, is that the current BOP for Land400 is actually very generous. On current plans there will be 225 CRVs to equip just three squadrons, and 450 IFVs to mount the fighting elements of just three infantry battalions. Compare that to Germany, which is buying just 350 Puma and 272 Boxer to equip a force of 15 armoured and mechanised infantry battalions. It is entirely possible that Australia could end up with more Puma/Boxer than Germany, which is quite surprising when you think about it.
The 450 figure for the IFV is based off an assumption that each IFV can hold only six dismounts, and therefore a total of eight vehicles are needed to lift a platoon (and 26 to lift a company). Compare that to the four vehicles per platoon in just about every other army. In fact, on that BOP, a single Australian IFV troop of 26 vehicles is almost as large as entire soviet bloc battalion (with 31 vehicles).
The BOP for the CRV is similarly generous. On current thinking, a future cavalry squadron will have four 6-vehicle troops plus a four vehicle SHQ, for a total of 28 vehicles (plus the A1 ech). Compare that to a British recce squadron of three 4-vehicle troops plus a two-vehicle SHQ, for a total of 14 vehicles. An Australian squadron therefore is literally twice the size of a British squadron.
When you consider that, individually, the vehicles being sought by army are the best money can buy, it is clear that a reduction in budget may not be as disasterous as it might otherwise be.
It will be interesting, if the budget has been reduced, how they go about reducing costs. Having a think about it, there are many ways this could be done:
One way to reduce the number of vehicles, and hence cost, is to mandate that each vehicle must hold eight dismounts. Therefore each section could consist of just six vehicles instead of eight. Of course, there essentially are no vehicles that meet the likely Phase 3 requirements and hold 8 dismounts, so this may not be workable at all.
Another way to save money would be to make the Phase 3 solution the same as the Phase 2 solution - ie, have a wheeled IFV instead of a tracked one. While not ideal, this would likely make the full 450 vehicles affordable.
Similarly, haveing a majority of vehicles being APCs and not IFVs (ie not turreted) could be a solution. You would need less vehicles, as non turreted vehicles could hold eight dismounts, plus save money as you don't have to pay for the turrets or a third crew member. Compare the cost of a six vehicle APC section (with 12 crew members and 48 dismounts) to an eight vehicle IFV section (with 24 crew members, 48 dismounts and all the costs of the 30+mm cannon and ATGM). Of course, you would lose huge amounts of combat power doing this, so it's far from ideal.
If you look at Land400 holistically, there are other outside the box solutions as well. For instance, having only APCs instead of IFVs loses huge amounts of combat power, but there are other ways of providing his combat power. On current estimates, an M1 tank is about a third of the cost of projected Land400 vehicles. Through life costs are likely slightly more for the tank, but not by a huge amount. Perhaps a bigger buy of tanks is a way of adding the combat power needed to cater for the loss of the IFVs firepower?
Just considering the vehicles needed to lift the rifle companies, an IFV-based squadron would need 78 IFVs and 234 crew. An APC-based squadron would need 60 vehicles and 120 crew to do the same job. Reinvest this saving into a second tank squadron (14 tanks and 56 crew) and you would likely still save money. Maybe the answer is not more IFVs but more tanks?
Having said all that, all I think will happen if money has been taken out is that less vehicles will be bought. I think army will still demand a gold-plated solution in terms of a full IFV, and will simply accept having less vehicles in total to still get this. As I mentioned earlier, the BOP is already quite generous, so this will hardly be the end of the world, and there is no reason more can't be bought later (as happened with ASLAV and Bushmaster and, likely, the M1).
