via Yahoo.Australia
One industry figure said the delays in the tender for the LAND 400 contract were costly for the six teams interested in the contract, including those being overseen by BAE Systems, Boeing, Elbit Systems, General Dynamics, Raytheon and Rheinmetall.Interesting.
Insiders believe the project has already been ticked off by the Government's razor gang - the Expenditure Review Committee of Cabinet - but query why a tender has not been issued.
The project is seen as crucial in protecting Australian soldiers from rocket-propelled grenade attacks. Australia's ASLAVs and M113s were designed 30 to 40 years ago and cannot withstand modern weaponry.
The 16-tonne ASLAV will be replaced by a 25-30-tonne vehicle and the 18-tonne M113 will be replaced by a 35-40-tonne vehicle.
A spokesman for Defence Minister Kevin Andrews said the Government would have more to say about LAND 400 "in the near future".
The new info here is that they're looking at two different vehicles to replace the ASLAV and M113's instead of settling on just one.
That will cost extra.
I don't quite understand why they would choose to go that route but at least we now know that the program is still on. I think I'll start keeping an eye on this one. If only to learn the rationale behind the Australian Army's decision to go with two different sized vehicles.
Y'know why two? One tracked and one wheeled.
ReplyDeleteDefense Minister Kevin Andrews is new to the job. He replaced the abrasive David Johnson, who was sacked for telling the world that the Australian Submarine Corporation "couldn't even build a canoe" and he failed in trying to get a pay cut to the Australian defense force.
The LAV was purchased for reconnaissance in the two cavalry regiments and was not meant to be used in a mechanised sense. My guess is they are looking to keep the separation.
ReplyDeleteAustralia doesn't really operate a conventional cavalry as we know it today. they're more like a really light mech infantry. i just don't see a need for two vehicles. additionally you're going to unnecessarily push up costs when forces around the world are using the same vehicle to fulfill both the mech and cav missions.
Deleteto me this still doesn't make sense.
Think what allan means is that they would use one as a scout and the other as an assault unit in tandem with their M1s. He might have a point, the 25-30 ton one would be the scout and the 35-40 ton one would be the "medium tank".
DeleteAnything is possible when the Entrenched Defence Bureaucracy (and especially the DMO) have their grubby hands on a project. http://ericpalmerblog.blogspot.com.au/p/australian-defence-reading-list.html
ReplyDeleteThe army must be designed to be flexible force. But this is in case if you don't have potential adversary as a neighborhood country. The aussies have Indonesia. So aussies need to have more tanks with mpat-like munitions, more wheeled recon vehicles(with 40 mm autocannon), more engineer units for mine warfare, sp sams, sp artillery, and to motorize entire infantry force with something simple and cost effective.
ReplyDeletethe DMO website has a lot of info on LAND 400 http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/EquippingDefence/Land400
ReplyDeletethe most likely cannon will be the 30mm as I haven't seen a 35mm or 40mm cannon carry 200 rounds in the ready magazine
There is something to say for dedicated vehicles for different roles, if bought 'off the shelve' this can be affordable also.
ReplyDeleteIn the realities of war you see many nations doing emergency buys of specialized equipment , because reality has the nasty habit of not adhering to ( standardization) plans.