Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[FoxtrotRomeo999]

Review of Australian industry involvement for LAND 400 Phase 2 : Department of Defence

"The Department of Defence today announced that the Government has agreed to an extension to the Request for Tender evaluation period of Army’s new Mounted Combat Reconnaissance Capability in order to conduct a review of the LAND 400 Phase 2 Risk Management Activities (RMA).

• Delay is not "indefinite" in the worst possible meaning of the word. Just an extension....
  
  My preference gun choice is a 35mm BAE/Hagglunds Turret with programmable ammunition.

A significant part of the RMA is to develop the Australian Industry Capability Plan. As the LAND 400 RMA was planned prior to the launch of the new Industry Policy, Defence has determined that it would be prudent to review the RMA, to ensure it aligns with the new policy and achieves the best possible outcomes for Australian industry."

• Delay is not to consider new bidders, just to review OzIndustry - probably a good thing???

Have a great day, FR

 

[gf0012-aust]

Delay is not to consider new bidders, just to review OzIndustry - probably a good thing???

It will be about re-assessing AIC opportunity - so in the current climate not unexpected

 

[Raven22]

The decision as to which vehicles will progress on to the trials stage has already been completed, and trials troop is preparing to receive vehicles this year.

I don't think this will affect the timeline of Land 400 too much.

 

[t68]

I found a quite interesting article in the Army newspaper today, one which I had thought they had done numerous times.

Seems they are trialing the hot refueling of M1 Abrams from Chinook helicopter's, just the start I guess but I wonder if they will give the Spartans the same capability as the USMC KC130J in the future as we possibly could have the ability to refuel the an ACR in the field in timely manner if road tanker run into problems.

Reminds me of the time on an ex in the early 90's when our TTF was bogged down to the chassis rails out in the bush with the Squadrons fuel supply, took three days and a bulldozer to get it out, all because a green TC not listening to advice. first time I ever saw our OC ever berate an someone in front of the troop as we could not set up our fuel distribution point.


Defence Newspapers | Army News


Also saw this in it as well my apologies if this has bee brought up before,

THE government has agreed to an extension to the request for tender evaluation period of Army’s new mounted combat reconnaissance capability in order to conduct a review of the Land 400 Phase 2 Risk Management Activities (RMA).

A significant part of the RMA is to develop the Australian Industry Capability Plan.

As the Land 400 RMA was planned before the launch of the new industry policy, Defence determined it would be prudent to review the RMA to ensure it aligned with the new policy and achieved the best outcomes for Australian industry. Deputy Secretary Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group Kim Gillis said Land 400 was a significant project for Army and Australian industry.

“Planning for the RMA and development of the RMA contracts, under which the work will be conducted with selected tenderers, was completed before the launch of the Defence Industry Policy Statement (DIPS),” Mr Gillis said. “The strong alignment of the RMA with the DIPS will deliver benefits to both industry and Defence. “This review will ensure Defence can obtain the best possible solution for Australian industry while delivering the required capability to Army.”

 

[Raven22]

Also of interest is the article on the EF88, including all the ancillaries (SpectreDR 1-4x sights for everyone, in-line thermal and II sights etc). Quite a step up from SA2.

 

[Boagrius]

Also of interest is the article on the EF88, including all the ancillaries (SpectreDR 1-4x sights for everyone, in-line thermal and II sights etc). Quite a step up from SA2.

Nice. Any word on how the EF88 is being viewed in the Army recently? I was reading this a while back which didn't inspire a huge amount of confidence but I don't know how on point it is (or isn't). Sounds like a decent step up as you say (?).

 

[swerve]

I've been wondering about something, & thought that perhaps someone here might know.

When the Eurocopter Tiger was bought, why didn't Australia specify Link 16?

As I understand it, the Australian army is unhappy with the datalink fitted & its interoperability, but the suppliers build aircraft to which Link 16 is fitted, & Australia is cleared for it, so I imagine it would have been available, if requested.

 

[Raven22]

The short answer is that in 2001, when the Tiger was ordered, Link16 wouldn't fit into a helicopter cockpit. You wouldn't find it in an Apache until a couple of years ago either. It is only as technology has progressed that Link16 has been miniaturised enough to make fitting them in helicopters feasible.

 

[ngatimozart]

The short answer is that in 2001, when the Tiger was ordered, Link16 wouldn't fit into a helicopter cockpit. You wouldn't find it in an Apache until a couple of years ago either. It is only as technology has progressed that Link16 has been miniaturised enough to make fitting them in helicopters feasible.

Raven, would it be technically feasible and economically viable to replace the current Euro datalink capability in the Tiger with Link 16 now? Or would that be a modification to far?

 

[Raven22]

Technically feasible? I would imagine so (although it's well outside my lane).

Economically viable? Almost certainly not (although, again, it's well outside my lane).

As far as I'm aware the short term plan is to develop and install a 'translator' to allow Eurogrid to talk to Link16 (or whatever the preferred format is).

The medium term plan of course is to replace Tiger.

 

[swerve]

Thanks. That makes sense.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Technically feasible? I would imagine so (although it's well outside my lane).

Economically viable? Almost certainly not (although, again, it's well outside my lane).

As far as I'm aware the short term plan is to develop and install a 'translator' to allow Eurogrid to talk to Link16 (or whatever the preferred format is).

The medium term plan of course is to replace Tiger.

I've worked on a very similar project with almost identical issues

technically possible as we've done it with other kit, but the ITARS issues are significant due to IP firewall issues

not associated with or had any involvement with the Tiger selection process, but the interface and broader combat and general operating picture issues should have come up under basic risk analysis

I'm aware that it was apparently raised at the time but was lost in the mud. Uncorroborated as water cooler chat only. Under the same caveat, I know that other entities were furious at the selection process and the failure to address interface and integration issues into the larger warfighting community

I've attended meetings when I was contracting where the present veggies were torn to strips, felt sorry for them as they weren't responsible for the decisions.
But the anger in the room was white hot

 

[ADMk2]

So, yeah... Patria's AMV-35 is in town (Melbourne town, anyway...)

I like it.

 

[Bluey 006]

So, yeah... Patria's AMV-35 is in town (Melbourne town, anyway...)

I like it.

Looks the business to me.

Throughout the whole process I've liked the Puma but slowly the AMV is converting me..

 

[Boagrius]

Looks the business to me.

Throughout the whole process I've liked the Puma but slowly the AMV is converting me..

If they could somehow integrate Spike LR onto the turret it would surely have to be a front runner. Without it though? I'm not as sure...

 

[Bluey 006]

If they could somehow integrate Spike LR onto the turret it would surely have to be a front runner. Without it though? I'm not as sure...

I think that ship has sailed

"Mounted either side of the turret is a Rafael Advanced Defence Systems Spike anti-tank guided weapon (ATGW) to enable targets to be engaged at greater ranges. Other ATGWs could be fitted depending on the user requirements"


- SEE LINK

 

[Raven22]

I think that ship has sailed

"Mounted either side of the turret is a Rafael Advanced Defence Systems Spike anti-tank guided weapon (ATGW) to enable targets to be engaged at greater ranges. Other ATGWs could be fitted depending on the user requirements"


- SEE LINK

That's for the HITFIST turret, which is a different turret to the one being proposed for the CFV.

 

[Boagrius]

That's for the HITFIST turret, which is a different turret to the one being proposed for the CFV.

It's the lack of a turret mounted ATGM that makes me think Boxer might be the top pick. I suppose it depends on how badly the army want it to be able to take out an MBT at ~4km. My hunch is that having to deploy an ATGM team to achieve this would be... less than ideal?

 

[Raven22]

Or simply accept the tiny risk and integrate an ATGM into the turret. I really don't see it being a war stopper.

 

[ADMk2]

A better image, hat tip to the Merc...