Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[chargerRT]

I have a relo who is Ares inf, and he's fired off a c$#@load of 66's in the last year. and yes its handy against structues.

 

[Boagrius]

I would be amazed if the Javelin ends up on a Land 400 vehicle, largely because no manufacturer has included them in their bid. My reading of the tea leaves is it will be Spike all the way. Whether that means we keep Javelin in service, or we would seek to replace Javelin with dismounted Spike posts, remains to be seen.

Interestingly, the down selection of Land 400 Phase 2 vehicles has occurred, and we can soon expect an announcement on which vehicles will proceed to trials later in the year.

I thought the LAV 6 bid had an MCT30 w/ Javelin? Could be way off on that one.

Switching to/just fielding Spike seems so bizarre to me given our penchant for maintaining commonality with US ammunition types for just about everything we don't manufacture domestically.

Same goes for AMV35 - the US seems to be going with 30mm for its Bradleys and Strykers, I figured we'd prefer to follow suit... or is using 35mm not that big of a deal?

 

[Raven22]

I thought the LAV 6 bid had an MCT30 w/ Javelin? Could be way off on that one.

Switching to/just fielding Spike seems so bizarre to me given our penchant for maintaining commonality with US ammunition types for just about everything we don't manufacture domestically.

Same goes for AMV35 - the US seems to be going with 30mm for its Bradleys and Strykers, I figured we'd prefer to follow suit... or is using 35mm not that big of a deal?

Using different weapons or ammunition types generally isn't that big of a deal. The big problem when it comes to commonality these days is the ability for different platforms to talk to each other. As long as the special widgets thst inside the vehicle can talk to the special widgets that go inside US vehicles, all will be good with the world.

 

[Boagrius]

Using different weapons or ammunition types generally isn't that big of a deal. The big problem when it comes to commonality these days is the ability for different platforms to talk to each other. As long as the special widgets thst inside the vehicle can talk to the special widgets that go inside US vehicles, all will be good with the world.

Fair enough. I suppose that opens things up a bit. That said I am still not sure as to how they will get by with phase 3. As I said before nothing on the shelf really seems to tick all the boxes. Personally I am a fan of the Boxer/Puma pairing for their combination of armament and protection levels. 6 dismounts just might not cut it though. I'll be interested to see if any of the offerings can do any more than that.

 

[bdique]

6 dismounts...the thing is that the US has been having to make do with with split and undersized squads while operating their Bradleys. It is acknowledged that this is not an ideal arrangement, and that the Bradley replacement, the GCV, should address this issue.

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR100/RR184/RAND_RR184.pdf

It seems like this issue might be resurfacing again in LAND400. I'm starting to wonder if asking for section integrity at the vehicular level is generally too much to ask for...

 

[Boagrius]

Yes the timing of this program is perhaps a little awkward in the sense that its here too late for the Bradley to be a viable option, and too early for the GCV. The only potential mitigator of the dismount capacity issue that I am aware of would be the CV90 Armadillo, assuming it can be fitted with a sufficiently sized RWS that does not impinge on the cabin. I thought the Kongsberg MCT30 might be a possibility? Genuinely not sure.

Otherwise I imagine you might be looking at a mixed APC/IFV fleet for CV90 ("vanilla" Armadillo w/ CV9035) or just sucking it up US style and dealing with fragmented inf sections in an all Puma fleet. Would there even be any other tracked contenders for Phase 3 for that matter? None spring to mind...

 

[Goknub]

I'll put out again that saying there is no vehicle that meets Phase 3 requirements is not correct. The Namer fits all criteria, that it comes with a significantly larger logistical impact doesn't change the fact it can achieve Land 400 Phase 3.

I would see a mixed wheeled/tracked fleet taking on the IFV role being a good option. The heavy tracked vehicles reserved for high intensity fighting. The RFI for Phase 3 notes that additional wheeled vehicles is an option.

Beyond that, I do think there is merit in an IFV/APC split as the ASLAVs have now. Keeping the APC in close support of troops would allow the IFV to maneuver more freely.

 

[Boagrius]

^Fair point. I guess I left out Namer on political grounds. I imagine ASCOD or CV90 would have to be the main choices for a mixed APC/IFV fleet...

 

[John Fedup]

^Fair point. I guess I left out Namer on political grounds. I imagine ASCOD or CV90 would have to be the main choices for a mixed APC/IFV fleet...

The Namer can only be air lifted by a C-17 whereas most other alternatives are C-130 compatible. I would think this and price would be be more important issues than politics. The Namer is pretty impressive with regards to capacity and protection.

 

[Boagrius]

Indeed. By all accounts it seems to be without peer on those two fronts. Perhaps a little under armed for our purposes though? I was under the impression that a 30mm+ main armament was being sought...

 

[John Fedup]

Indeed. By all accounts it seems to be without peer on those two fronts. Perhaps a little under armed for our purposes though? I was under the impression that a 30mm+ main armament was being sought...

An external 30mm auto canon was under consideration for the Namer. No progress on this to date that I am aware of.

 

[Boagrius]

An external 30mm auto canon was under consideration for the Namer. No progress on this to date that I am aware of.

I imagine where there is the will there would be a way(?). I still have a hard time seeing us fielding such a major platform to be operated (solely) alongside, and sourced from, Israel. Then again we were just talking about Spike being the likely front runner for the ATGM component so I will assume that my hunch is way off here...

The whole ASLAV-esque mixed fleet of IFVs and APCs might be the way we mitigate the carrying capacity issue somewhat (if Namer isn't considered). I would have thought the Army will be trying to stick with an all tracked fleet for Phase 3 if possible given the emphasis placed on "MBT-like" protection levels. I can't imagine you'll get close enough to that in a wheeled solution.

 

[bdique]

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that the ADF may be expected to operate their armoured vehicles in tropical terrain i.e. SEA. You'll have to contend with marshy ground and narrow tracks. The Namer, with its weight and dimensions, might not be that suitable.

 

[Boagrius]

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that the ADF may be expected to operate their armoured vehicles in tropical terrain i.e. SEA. You'll have to contend with marshy ground and narrow tracks. The Namer, with its weight and dimensions, might not be that suitable.

Yeah, I can't comment on which candidate would be most suitable for that sort of thing mobility wise - I will leave that to those "in the know". My guess, though, is that Phase 3 will be a two horse race between CV90 and Puma. Namer hasn't really been touted as an option to the best of my knowledge, and I suspect ASCOD may lack the desired protection levels (happy to be corrected on this).

Given the desire for commonality between Phase 2 and 3 vehicles, I imagine this means you're similarly looking at the two horse race between AMV35 and Boxer. You'd have to think the latter would have an edge given its possession of a turret bound ATGM, with the 30mm still being adequate for our needs.

As I said before I suspect we could do rather well for ourselves by going German on both phases (2&3). You're looking at a goodly sized fleet of vehicles whose design is likely to remain current for quite some time to come. The amount of combat weight that so many 30mm + ATGM armed vehicles could bestow upon the Army would surely be unprecedented. The dismount capacity is the main hurdle there, but I imagine there must be ways around this given the US has been doing it for quite some time already.

 

[t68]

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that the ADF may be expected to operate their armoured vehicles in tropical terrain i.e. SEA. You'll have to contend with marshy ground and narrow tracks. The Namer, with its weight and dimensions, might not be that suitable.

They said the same thing when we deployed Centurion MBT to South Vietnam, they seemed to go all right there, granted it a little lighter than Namer, but then I've seen M113's bogged in the bush here in oz. so it comes down to ground apprecation and having idea of terrain.


Australia and the Vietnam War | Armour

 

[bdique]

Yeah, I can't comment on which candidate would be most suitable for that sort of thing mobility wise - I will leave that to those "in the know". My guess, though, is that Phase 3 will be a two horse race between CV90 and Puma. Namer hasn't really been touted as an option to the best of my knowledge, and I suspect ASCOD may lack the desired protection levels (happy to be corrected on this).

Given the desire for commonality between Phase 2 and 3 vehicles, I imagine this means you're similarly looking at the two horse race between AMV35 and Boxer. You'd have to think the latter would have an edge given its possession of a turret bound ATGM, with the 30mm still being adequate for our needs.

As I said before I suspect we could do rather well for ourselves by going German on both phases (2&3). You're looking at a goodly sized fleet of vehicles whose design is likely to remain current for quite some time to come. The amount of combat weight that so many 30mm + ATGM armed vehicles could bestow upon the Army would surely be unprecedented. The dismount capacity is the main hurdle there, but I imagine there must be ways around this given the US has been doing it for quite some time already.

I'm too much in the dark to speculate on Phase 2/Phase 3 winners. However regarding the Namer, I don't think it will ever feature in Phase 3, or LAND400 for that matter. Firstly, the only Israeli 'presence' in the competition is Elbit Systems Australia; I'm pretty sure they are not the manufacturers of the Namer. If anything, it seems that the winner must not only have capable fighting vehicles, but must be highly networked as well.

Regarding dismounts, the LAND400 requirements (here: http://www.defence.gov.au/casg/Multimedia/Land400_User_Requirement-9-5563.pdf) indicate, on page 5, point 17 that while there is a preference for each vehicle to be able to carry 8 passengers based on current brick design, 'this figure is to guide, not limit, the options development.'

Also, I thought the LAND400 Close Combat Storyboard was very informative in helping me understand what the ADF is looking for in Phases 2 and 3.

They said the same thing when we deployed Centurion MBT to South Vietnam, they seemed to go all right there, granted it a little lighter than Namer, but then I've seen M113's bogged in the bush here in oz. so it comes down to ground apprecation and having idea of terrain.


Australia and the Vietnam War | Armour

Fully agree. If anything, my understanding is that ground pressure matters more than absolute weight. I really have no idea as to the ground pressure of the Namer; I might have spoken too soon there. However I am pretty sure there might be an issue regarding dimensions - it would restrict the Namer's usage to paths or roads of a certain width. Example: should a Namer be disabled, there should still be enough width left on the road for other vehicles in the column to bypass and advance.

 

[Boagrius]

I'm too much in the dark to speculate on Phase 2/Phase 3 winners. However regarding the Namer, I don't think it will ever feature in Phase 3, or LAND400 for that matter. Firstly, the only Israeli 'presence' in the competition is Elbit Systems Australia; I'm pretty sure they are not the manufacturers of the Namer. If anything, it seems that the winner must not only have capable fighting vehicles, but must be highly networked as well.

Regarding dismounts, the LAND400 requirements (here: http://www.defence.gov.au/casg/Multimedia/Land400_User_Requirement-9-5563.pdf) indicate, on page 5, point 17 that while there is a preference for each vehicle to be able to carry 8 passengers based on current brick design, 'this figure is to guide, not limit, the options development.'

Also, I thought the LAND400 Close Combat Storyboard was very informative in helping me understand what the ADF is looking for in Phases 2 and 3.



Fully agree. If anything, my understanding is that ground pressure matters more than absolute weight. I really have no idea as to the ground pressure of the Namer; I might have spoken too soon there. However I am pretty sure there might be an issue regarding dimensions - it would restrict the Namer's usage to paths or roads of a certain width. Example: should a Namer be disabled, there should still be enough width left on the road for other vehicles in the column to bypass and advance.

Thanks for those two links, I found them very informative. Yes I am quite confident that I am also in the dark as to the real determinants of the project. Still, it is fun to speculate sometimes.

 

[zhaktronz]

I suggest that we should accept the reduction of capability and adopt wheeled IFV. Boxer can carry 8 dismounts with a remote 30mm turret (eg MCTW) and still meet reasonable protection and mobility standards, whilst offering big potential for savings if boxer wins phase 2.

 

[the road runner]

I suggest that we should accept the reduction of capability and adopt wheeled IFV. Boxer can carry 8 dismounts with a remote 30mm turret (eg MCTW) and still meet reasonable protection and mobility standards, whilst offering big potential for savings if boxer wins phase 2.

A tracked vehicle will be needed to close the last few hundred meters of any enemy defensive position.Raven has stated this a few times in this thread. Refer to the below link ...

http://www.defence.gov.au/casg/Multimedia/LAND400_CloseCombatStoryboard-9-5562.pdf

 

[zhaktronz]

Yeah I've read the close combat story board :S

Thing is I'm not convinced that the other costs that tracked brings (size, weight, cost, dismounts) is completely worth it for that last 300m. The French seem to be happy to use VCBI as their sole IFV and that is a wheeled platform with even less firepower and protection.