Defence Technology Review (August Issue) has an interesting take on Land 400

Online Mag here

Defence Technology Review has an interesting take on Land 400.  A brief overview of their thinking (BUT YOU MUST read the entire article on page 4).

1.  Terrex 3/Sentinel II lost out because it was deemed "not in service anywhere".  DTR wonders if the experience with other programs that went sideways influenced the demand for an MOTS buy.

2.  General Dynamics might have gotten the vehicle wrong.  They muse that the Pirnaha 5, in competition for the British requirement, might have been a better choice for the Australian program.  After reading their justification I can't argue the fact.  GD is doing it right but its breaking down when it comes to them selecting which in the stable to put up for which competition.

3.  Much was said in the article about the vehicles that were selected and how bits and widgets were in service with other forces.

I still believe the Australians made a mistake....the Terrex 3 was the best of breed, but DTR makes a great case for why the ADF chose the vehicles they did.