Jump to content

Australian Reconnaissance Vehicle Replacement Competitors.


Recommended Posts

Just some short points I want to add to this discussion:

 

1. When the Patria AMV was claimed to be protected against 30 mm APFSDS, there was no official NATO standardized testing methodology for this. Thus impact angle, range, type of ammunition, etc. might not be comparable to NATO STANAG 4569 Level 6 (as required in Australia)

 

2. Not every AMV is protected against 30 mm ammo, I don't think that anybody has yet purchased this armor configuration. The Polish Rosomak for example wasn't even protected against 14.5 mm AP ammo at the sides before applique ceramic armor from Rafael was adopted. According to an official specs sheet hosted on the website of the Australian DoD, the AMV-35 is fitted with a K4 armor package (STANAG Level 4) only. A K5 armor package (STANAG Level 5) and a gross vehicle mass (i.e. suspension) upgrade is offered as optional feature.

 

3. The weight of the AMV-35 is limited to 30 metric tons due to the Australian Army looking for a MOTS (military off the shelf) solution. The Patria AMV-XP hull has yet to be adopted by a military, hence it is not MOTS. Supposedly not being MOTS was a key factor for rejecting the offers from General Dynamics and ST Kinetics. The Boxer is offered with a higher GVM thanks to Germany and the Netherlands already having tested and ordered this configuration (designated Boxer A2).

 

4. The Boxer is "German" in the sense of Rheinmetall having purchased the Dutch company Stork PWV. Thus Rheinmetall owns 64% of ARTEC, while KMW owns only 36%. However other suppliers from the Netherlands and even the UK (as Alvis Ltd. was part of ARTEC until 2003) might hold some intellectual property rights to the design.

 

5. If Australia wanted to change the Boxer, they just could develop their own mission modules (at least in Germany it's not illegal to build parts matching a proprietary standard from a competitor).

 

6. Contracts for Puma upgrades and spare-parts have been made or will be made within the next months; the government has agreed to vote for them before the elections in September.

 

7. The Marder was originally made by Thyssen-Henschel, which was bought a long time ago by Rheinmetall. KMW has nothing to do with it.

 

Edit: http://www.defence.gov.au/casg/multimedia/land_400_phase_2_flyer_-_web-9-7895.pdf

Edited by methos
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 214
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

5. If Australia wanted to change the Boxer, they just could develop their own mission modules (at least in Germany it's not illegal to build parts matching a proprietary standard from a competitor).

 

7. The Marder was originally made by Thyssen-Henschel, which was bought a long time ago by Rheinmetall. KMW has nothing to do with it.

 

Thanks for that - great information. RE: Your #7, I'm embarrassed by my assumption as to the OEM. My bad.

 

As to point #5 - the Technical Regulatory Framework that governs how equipment is managed is Australian Army service would have an embolism with that concept!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it shows that KMW has nothing else to sell. They only have a handful of products and guard their product and intellectual property jelously. KMW only has a handful very expensive products that they do not want to lose control over. Rheinmetall on the other hand is strong as supplier to heavy industry (mostly car and machine parts). Making more than half their money outside defense.

Krauss Maffei Wegmann is 100% defence sector, but the Krauss Maffei Group is primarily building and selling machines for plastic part production (injection moulding, extrusion et cetera).

I think they can move personnel around between group and KMW to some degree, especially to retain special know how that's not in demand at the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think it shows that KMW has nothing else to sell. They only have a handful of products and guard their product and intellectual property jelously. KMW only has a handful very expensive products that they do not want to lose control over. Rheinmetall on the other hand is strong as supplier to heavy industry (mostly car and machine parts). Making more than half their money outside defense.

Krauss Maffei Wegmann is 100% defence sector, but the Krauss Maffei Group is primarily building and selling machines for plastic part production (injection moulding, extrusion et cetera).

I think they can move personnel around between group and KMW to some degree, especially to retain special know how that's not in demand at the time.

 

 

No, the Krauss Maffei Group is owned by a Chinese company, it doesn't have anything in common with KMW, aside of the first two names. They used to be part of the same company/group, but split up a quite a while ago. KMW is still largely family-owned, Krauss Maffei is not.

Edited by methos
Link to post
Share on other sites

What is it actually? an IFV? A recce vehicle?

 

It's a Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle (CRV). I guess one could say it's the LAV concept evolved to medium weight vehicles; alternatively one might call it a wheeled variant of the Scout-SV AJAX concept. It's essentially a wheeled IFV modded to serve as a recce vehicle. The ISTAR package reduces transport capacity to only four dismounts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is it actually? an IFV? A recce vehicle?

recce vehicles. replacement for the ASLAV and is supposed to be able to carry a few scouts for dismounted recconaissance. but the requirements for interiour space and mine protection and general armour protection make them so huge.

 

 

Bigger, softer than a tank...they'd better be real sneaky.

At least no noisy clattering tracks.

And they can do double duty as watch towers with their height. ^_^

Link to post
Share on other sites

The crew of the Boxer on display mentioned that the RWS hadn't been fired since the vehicles had landed in Australia. One of the host officers commented "we don't know why it's there - we didn't ask for it and no CONOPS supports its use."

 

The crew were pretty favourable about its performance - especially mobility & target acquisition. The lack of egress via the driver's hatch wasn't seen as a plus at all.

 

Both vehicle's crews seemed pretty positive, overall.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A mate of mine works in Defence Procurement here in Oz and was giggling that the Armoured Corps shitcanned the recon vehicle with the unmanned turret as "we don't think it counts as an armoured vehicle if there is no one in the turret".

I kid you not, this was a direct quote of a senior black beret wearer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A mate of mine works in Defence Procurement here in Oz and was giggling that the Armoured Corps shitcanned the recon vehicle with the unmanned turret as "we don't think it counts as an armoured vehicle if there is no one in the turret".

I kid you not, this was a direct quote of a senior black beret wearer.

My black hat mates (plus a lot of my infantry ones, too) are hugely unconvinced of the utility of remote turrets - based a lot on their experiences with them in Iraq & Afghanistan. Great for static security tasks, not so great when everyone is closed down & incoming fire is received. Very low SA; lower still if not coupled with shot detectors etc. I've only operated/operated from vehicles with turrets &/or heads out.

 

I'm a bit sceptical of the "not AFV" quote, tbh. If believe "not a reconnaissance vehicle/CRV", though.

 

The knowledge of some of the DMO/CASG sustainment guys can be a bit suspect, too. I know of one fleet manager (ASLAV) that was presented a track pad from a M113 as an ironic "job well done" momento and has (to this day) NFI that the ASLAV didnt require track pads.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy concerned has 25+ year's experience in armoured, prior to working in private Defence procurement areas. I trust his viewpoint, although I'm unconvinced that SA is still as bad as it used to be. Surprised there hasn't been signgiicant advances. I've known guys who felt they were better off with RWS over eyeball Mk 1 with LAVs, but admittedly a different viewpoint as those RWS are pretty amazing for thermals and agility of view as I understand it. All since my time, admittedly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...