Jump to content


Photo

Australian Reconnaissance Vehicle Replacement Competitors.


  • Please log in to reply
214 replies to this topic

#1 2805662

2805662

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 712 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 September 2015 - 1910 PM

Offers are:

BAE Systems/Patria: AMV35 Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle (CRV). The AMV35 is the Patria Armoured Modular Vehicle (AMV) & the E35 turret from the CV9035.

3E9ACD23-3EC6-42EF-9A46-070BBBA4257E_zps

Rheinmetall/Northrop Grumman: Boxer Cavalry Reconnaissance Vehicle (CRV). Boxer hull & Lance manned turret. Both 30 & 35mm guns are offered.

90D5BAD6-67D6-4162-87E1-2F2A8BBBE0A9_zps

Elbit/STK: Terrex 3 8x8 with Elbit MT-30 turret as the Sentinel 2.

39B04E49-E6C5-41C7-B17C-1C7B451C6F6F_zps

Thales/GDLS/Kingsberg: LAV6.0(CRV) with Kongsberg MCT-30 remote turret.

CFF19454-95FE-4568-9F14-56FB16CC979C_zps

Edited by 2805662, 16 June 2016 - 1438 PM.

  • 0

#2 Mr King

Mr King

    Leet Russian Hacker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,142 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Deep below Moscow
  • Interests:Vodka and Democrat Party Internet Servers

Posted 04 September 2015 - 1925 PM

Boxer 

 

HKF656K.jpg


  • 0

#3 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,629 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Berlin

Posted 05 September 2015 - 0326 AM

So I take it recon-by-stealth has fallen out of fashion.


  • 0

#4 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,928 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Muncie, Indiana

Posted 05 September 2015 - 0459 AM

So I take it recon-by-stealth has fallen out of fashion.

Drones?


  • 0

#5 2805662

2805662

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 712 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 September 2015 - 0507 AM

So I take it recon-by-stealth has fallen out of fashion.


The vehicle used before the ASLAV was the M113. I don't think reconnaissance-by-stealth has been in Royal Australian Armoured Corps doctrine for decades.
  • 0

#6 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Tamarama Beach, Sydney, Aust
  • Interests:Degree in History and Politics. Interests are Military History, military models,

Posted 05 September 2015 - 0520 AM

It should be remembered that Australia will only run four AFV in a serious fashion;  An MBT (currently Abrams - and not many of those), a tracked APC for 'heavy infantry (the M113 until 2025, yes..), a light wheeled APC  (Bushmaster) and a vehicle for recon / fire support / exploitation (the ASLAV). 

 

Not too much opportunity for Daimler Dingo type recon by strealth these days.


Edited by DougRichards, 05 September 2015 - 0538 AM.

  • 0

#7 Sovngard

Sovngard

    Honorary staff member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 677 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels city-state, Belgium
  • Interests:various

Posted 05 September 2015 - 0521 AM

In this article, they make mention of " STANAG 4569 Level 6 " :

http://defencetechno...ea3f0f#folio=36

This is the first time that I've heard about this so-called level 6 standard.

Edited by Sovngard, 05 September 2015 - 0522 AM.

  • 0

#8 2805662

2805662

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 712 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 September 2015 - 0603 AM

An MBT (currently Abrams - and not many of those)


The M88A2 acquired with the 59 Abrams almost doubled (another 5 on order) - I wonder if this is a prelude to a purchase of additional Abrams?

Especially as these are now being distributed to three 'armoured cavalry regiments' vice a single tank regiment (& schools, of course).
  • 0

#9 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Tamarama Beach, Sydney, Aust
  • Interests:Degree in History and Politics. Interests are Military History, military models,

Posted 05 September 2015 - 0756 AM

 

An MBT (currently Abrams - and not many of those)


The M88A2 acquired with the 59 Abrams almost doubled (another 5 on order) - I wonder if this is a prelude to a purchase of additional Abrams?

Especially as these are now being distributed to three 'armoured cavalry regiments' vice a single tank regiment (& schools, of course).

 

 

I am just guessing here, not even an educated guess, pure speculation:

 

The RAN has just procured two LHD.  These ships will, of course, be used when the need arises, to use their LCM--1E landing craft to land AFVs.  Sometimes these LMC may need help to get off the beach.  If each LHD was supplied with two M88A2, as BARV, these would be useful vehicles for both recovery of swamped AFV and to push LCM into deeper water.  Additionally, as the LHD have a secondary use of disaster relief, a couple of vehicles capable of bulldozer, winch and lifting work would be useful for that scenario. 

 

Then again, perhaps extra Abrams are being bought, as each LHD is capable of transporting 12 of the beasts, and with 24 at sea, that would only leave 35 on land....

 

If each LHD had a complement of 10 Abrams and 2 M88, that may seem like a reasonable number.

 

Anyway, what does the USA use for BARV?  The Brits use the Hippo (heavily modified Leo 1).


  • 0

#10 Dave Clark

Dave Clark

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,001 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Berlin

Posted 05 September 2015 - 1527 PM

**SNIP**

 

 

Not too much opportunity for Daimler Dingo type recon by strealth these days.

 

I suspect that BansheeOne is thinking more of Fennek (which would be my choice)


  • 0

#11 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,442 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 05 September 2015 - 1620 PM

The Australians use a car for more stealth reconnaissance maybe?

And an ASLAV is already more silent than the preceding M113. It got a bigger silhouette. But depending on the terrain it might be useful as a "watch tower"


So my bet is on a newer MOWAG Piranha model, but then I thought Australia would go from Leopard 1 to 2. So bag of salt is advised with my guesses. :D
  • 0

#12 2805662

2805662

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 712 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 September 2015 - 1734 PM

 
I suspect that BansheeOne is thinking more of Fennek (which would be my choice)


Unless there's an IED threat - RNLA ones didn't have a high survivability rate in Afghanistan, apparently. (Based on reports from colleagues sharing the base at TK)

As Australia doesn't already have a Fennek fleet, there's no compelling reason to purchase a vehicle that has an operationally demonstrated vulnerability (that causes casualties). My opinion, of course. YMMV.
  • 0

#13 chino

chino

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,172 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Now in Macau
  • Interests:S2 Branch & Rifle Platoon Runner

Posted 06 September 2015 - 0000 AM

The bids are in for the Australian program to replace the GDLS ASLAV family of vehicles, Land 400 Phase 2.

Offers are:

Elbit/STK: Terrex 8x8 with Bionix II turret.

That's interesting, I wonder why we never fit the Bionix turrets to the Terrex in SAF.

 

With the decommissioning of the V-200, we should take some of the 20mm Oerlikon turrets and put them onto the Terrex. Apparently, they have a higher angle of elevation than that of the Bionix turrets and the Terrex OWS.

 

The Bionix was developed to replace the M-113 but I believe it was developed specifically to enter the US IFV competition (many years ago). Apparently its ability to swim was only revealed during the competition. It looked promising beating the competition in ability to fit into C-130 (armour removed) etc. But did not win, like the Ultimax 100, for unknown reasons.

 

The one Singaporean vehicle that did get notable sales was not a poster child. It was the Bronco, as as the UK called it "Warthog". Because like I said, it was no poster child.

 

The Terrex probably has the best swim ability as it has a set of propellers.

 

Terrex

7292283324_952f1ca3b3_b.jpg

 

Bionix

highlights_bionix2.jpg


  • 0

#14 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,442 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 06 September 2015 - 0542 AM

But did not win, like the Ultimax 100, for unknown reasons.


NlH syndrome.

The Stryker is the exception proving the rule.
  • 0

#15 kaikaun

kaikaun

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 405 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Singapore

Posted 06 September 2015 - 2037 PM

The Bionix was developed to replace the M-113 but I believe it was developed specifically to enter the US IFV competition (many years ago). Apparently its ability to swim was only revealed during the competition. It looked promising beating the competition in ability to fit into C-130 (armour removed) etc. But did not win, like the Ultimax 100, for unknown reasons.

The IAV program that eventually chose the Stryker was not even a twinkle in the eye of the US Army at the time the Bionix program was started. 

 

The BX was developed with a single, simple goal: we wanted a Bradley that could swim (for real, not on paper). That was the whole point of the vehicle -- we wanted to trade the ATGM capability for more mobility. We had evaluated the Bradley and Marder, and were ready to take them if only they swam. Throughout the BX program, Bradley was the Plan B, the option that would be chosen if the program failed to deliver. We would have just bought more bridging assets and eaten the hit to the strength of the armored battalions in that case. Thankfully, the program delivered. 

 

And, yes, the swim capability of the BX was ultra Top Secret at first. The whole training area used to have to be sanitized before any amphibious training with the BX. It was quite shocking to some people in Gombak when the BX was then seen swimming on TV during the IAV trials. They hadn't gotten the memo that the capability had been declassified. 

 

The reason why we lost was simple: the US Army wanted a wheeled vehicle. Any pretence otherwise during the IAV competition was just that, a political pretence. The Stryker met a lot of criticism at first, but I think experience in the recent wars has silenced the critics. The Stryker turns out to be a relatively cheap to buy and run, self-deploying and survivable way to give protected mobility to a good mass of infantry. Now everyone is introducing 8x8 APCs like the Stryker, including our own Terrex.


  • 0

#16 2805662

2805662

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 712 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 September 2015 - 2145 PM

Kaikaun,

Any word on what the Bionix II turret is like? I assume it does -10 to +60 depression/elevation? FN MAG co-ax?
  • 0

#17 kaikaun

kaikaun

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 405 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Singapore

Posted 06 September 2015 - 2200 PM

Kaikaun,

Any word on what the Bionix II turret is like? I assume it does -10 to +60 depression/elevation? FN MAG co-ax?

Sorry, I don't have any info outside the public domain. FN MAG coax, 30mm Bushmaster II, 2 man turret. I don't know the depression and elevation.

 

Honestly, I don't think that the version of the turret being offered to Australia is going to be exactly the same as what we use, if only because our own version includes a Battlefield Management System that ties into our C2 network. The comms will be swapped out at a minimum. Very likely that means that the thermals, fire control and other stuff will be changed too, probably for Elbit's latest offerings.


  • 0

#18 2805662

2805662

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 712 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 September 2015 - 0038 AM

Thanks - appreciate the information.

Do you have any first-hand experience with the Bionix II turret?
  • 0

#19 kaikaun

kaikaun

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 405 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Singapore

Posted 07 September 2015 - 0053 AM

Thanks - appreciate the information.

Do you have any first-hand experience with the Bionix II turret?

No. I've only been in the original Bionix's turret. The BX 2 upgrade occurred after I left the services entirely.


  • 0

#20 methos

methos

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 828 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 September 2015 - 0534 AM

In this article, they make mention of " STANAG 4569 Level 6 " :

http://defencetechno...ea3f0f#folio=36

This is the first time that I've heard about this so-called level 6 standard.

 

Here is a definition of STANAG 4569 from 2012. Level 6 standard requires protection from 30 mm AP and APFSDS from 500 meters at 0° elevation along the frontal ± 30° arc aswell as protection against fragments from a 155 mm artillery round detonated 10 meters away at 0 - 90° elevation and 360° azimuth.


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users