Land 400 requirements were poorly written.

Sorry folks.  I need to take another bite of this apple.  Long story short?  If I was Singapore Kinetics I would lodge a protest.  Ditto with General Dynamics.

The more I dig into the specification and wording of the requirement with the Land 400 the more I think the Australian Defence Ministry was smoking crack.

How can you run a contest and not specify a manned or unmanned turret?  How can you run a contest with protection levels so high that they're bordering on damn near MBT level protection and then turn around and talk about the vehicle having to be MOTS when NO ONE IN THE WORLD is operating a vehicle with the protection levels they specified!

The Aussies put out an unrealistic wish list, tried to pare it down by saying that it was off the shelf and are still ending up with a vehicle that is built with yesterday's tech but is suppose to serve well into the future.

I'm getting more and more pissed by what I'm seeing here.  I thought this program would be one to watch because it would deliver the most advanced wheeled vehicle in the world to the Aussies.  Instead it turned into a text book example of how NOT to run a program.

Let me leave you with this parting shot.  They wrote a requirement that meant the Patria XP, General Dynamics LAV 5 and apparently Terrex 3/Sentinel II were disqualified!  Three of the most advanced wheeled IFVs were shot down because they weren't in service yet.  Instead you have vehicles that have been in service for at least 10 years and a few even longer making the down select.  Simply Amazing!