Land Warfare 2011: Land 400 - war horse on the move | ADM October 2011
Tom Muir | Canberra
Livewire Brigadier Nagy Sorial, leading a dedicated Integrated Project Team, has breathed new life into Land 400. Separate requirements for cavalry and infantry capabilities are now combined into a single Phase 2 Land Combat Vehicle System as the main element of the Combined Arms Fighting System (CAFS). Destrier, a medieval warhorse, is being readied for the joust—much to industry’s relief.
There was a somewhat hesitant start to this project with the release to industry of an RFI back in 2006 with information from responses used to refine the capability concept and provide some cost estimations. The secondary purpose was to provide early advice to industry on the nature, scope and complexity of the Land 400 capability requirement.
Back then the aim of the Land 400 capability was to enhance the survivability and combat effectiveness of ground forces in close combat through the provision of a cost effective, integrated Future Combat Vehicle System (FCVS). Indications were that urban and associated complex terrain would be the most likely conflict environment due to a number of demographic and technological influences.
It was against this backdrop that Land 400 was expected to deliver a system which incorporated platforms capable of being employed in a variety of roles including infantry fighting vehicle, armoured personnel carrier, command and control post, reconnaissance and surveillance vehicles, and so on.
Four years later, in May 2010, another RFI was released but this time Land 400 was to be central to the future Army’s ability to manoeuvre, detect and defeat threats by stand-off attack and/or by close combat, operating within complex environments, while ensuring survivability of own forces. Land 400 would pursue a ‘system of systems’, rather than a platform replacement approach to deliver the Army’s future combat capability.
Information from various industry sources, from a system, platform and sub-system perspective, enabled Defence to undertake detailed analysis to support more informed decision-making on capability, cost and schedule. This input would form the basis of the First Pass business case for consideration in 2013.
By December 2010 the updated Defence Capability Plan indicated that while Phase 1 had enabled project development, winning a significant increase in its funding allocation, it had now been split into Phases 2A and 2B. Phase 2A Cavalry Combat System was to replace those fleets that enabled the cavalry capability whereas Phase 2B Land Combat Vehicle System was to replace those enabling infantry capabilities and the support elements that service the Fighting Echelon.
That was late last year. This year it was announced that the project had been consolidated into a single Phase 2 Land Combat Vehicle System, under the new and apt banner of Project Destrier (a medieval warhorse).
Land 400 LCVS status
At the June LEWG briefing Brigadier Nagy Sorial, Director General CAFS, told industry that the project had received successful clearance through initial internal Defence committees and the user requirement was now defined as the need for a deployable, affordable and sustainable mounted close combat capability, with enhanced lethality, survivability & connectivity. It would support Plan Beersheba, including through the development of multi-role manoeuvre brigades capable of mounted close combat.
First Pass was anticipated in 2013 and would be followed by an open RFT (with the draft released to industry for comment). Second Pass was expected in 2018-19 coincident with the establishment of the Army’s future force structure. This will be based on three multi-role manoeuvre brigades containing all elements of the combined arms team (tank, close combat protected mobility, infantry, artillery, combat engineer and so on). This force structure would underpin the basis of provisioning (BOP) and the development of options for the Land 400 LCVS, which would be found predominantly within the armoured cavalry regiments of those multi-role brigades.
Project limitations and constraints included dealing with legacy systems, and the imperative for capability/platforms to have development paths. There were strategic lift considerations as well as intellectual property and national arrangements and exclusions, including ITARS considerations.
Acquisition assumptions included the need for Australianised MOTS systems, to avoid development issues and the need to ensure there were no gaps in organic mobility or lethality in close combat. Crew numbers were postulated at up to three and platforms would need to carry a minimum of four, but preferably eight, close combatants. The Land 400 Concept of Operations (CONOPS) has been released for internal comment with the intent that it be publicly available later this year.
Brigadier Sorial said his aim was to maximise Australian content and to that end an RPDE QuickLook activity had been arranged with industry to determine Strategic and Priority Industry Capabilities (SIC and PIC) likely to be linked to Land 400. He expected that the Land 400 LCVS capability would be supported by Australian industry throughout its life and during operational deployments.
Land 400 potential systems
So what are the capabilities we may expect to see offered in response to the Land 400 Phase 2 LCVS requirement, possibly in 2013? Aside from unmanned ground and aerial systems and other supporting capabilities, we are likely to see tracked and wheeled platforms of varying levels of protection and firepower to suit combat scenarios ranging from high intensity, high threat clearance operations to the protected movement of infantry.
The former suggests a highly protected, and thus heavy, class of armoured infantry fighting vehicle, with firepower capable of dominating the battlespace and able to carry up to half a dozen or so combat troops. The latter suggests armoured personnel carriers that can provide protected mobility for infantry. Most of the systems that we anticipate will be proposed for the Land 400 requirement are already in military service, however some are more recent developments than others.
BAE Systems has indicated that it would propose the tracked CV90 Mk III Armadillo, and wheeled RG41 vehicles. Combat Vehicle 90 represents a family of armoured combat vehicles developed by BAE Systems Land Systems Hägglunds. The new variant, the CV90 Armadillo, offers additional protection and flexibility without a turret. The vehicle weighs 27 tones and has a payload capacity of 8 tonnes for armour and additional equipment. It can provide horizontal ballistic protection against mines of about 10kg.
According to BAE Systems, the RG41 is designed to provide mine and IED protection comparable to the much larger and heavier MRAP type vehicles, in a lighter 8x8 combat vehicle configuration.
Our understanding is that GD Land Systems Australia will also be offering tracked and wheeled platforms likely based on the ASCOD 2 SV (the variant chosen for the FRES SV requirement) and the Piranha V (or an evolved Stryker).
The ASCOD (Austrian Spanish Cooperation Development) AFV family is the product of cooperation between the Austrian Steyr and Spanish Santa Bárbara Sistemas (both companies are now divisions of a unit of General Dynamics). The ASCOD 2 SV is a tracked armoured infantry fighting vehicle with the capacity for a combat group of seven riflemen and three-man crew, and designed to a 42 tonne rating. In Spanish service the vehicle is called Pizarro, while the Austrian Army version is called Ulan.
The Piranha has evolved from 18 tonnes to 25 tonnes since 1997 and has been sold to many countries, mainly as the Piranha III. With survivability requirements evolving very rapidly GDUK commenced the type’s next evolution, the Piranha V, starting from a baseline of 26 tonnes.
Another major Land 400 contender is PSM, a joint venture between KMW and Rheinmetall Land Systems, proposing the Puma AIFV, one of the newest armoured fighting vehicle developments. With modular armour that can be removed for A400 transport, the Puma offers the option of three levels of protection to suit operational needs, the weight of the vehicle varying from around 31 tonnes to 43 tonnes accordingly.
In 2009 PSM was contracted by the German government to deliver 405 Puma with the first two AIFV handed over to the German Bundeswehr in December 2010. Further vehicles are currently in production, which ends in 2020.
Doubtless there will be proposals from the French Nexter VBCI, and the German-Dutch Boxer built by ARTEC, both 8x8 vehicles originally proposed for the FRES Utility Vehicle program. The Nexter VBCI (vehicule blinde de combat d’infanterie) is a wheeled 8×8 infantry fighting vehicle with modular protection that can be adapted to the threat. The infantry fighting vehicle version has a combat weight of 26 tonnes and accommodates two crew, the gunner, the driver and a combat team of eight troops and a commander. Conditional orders have been placed to cover the supply of 700 vehicles to the French Army in two versions. There will be up to 550 VBCI/VCI infantry fighting vehicles and 150 VBCI/VPC command post vehicles.
Could the ARTEC Boxer provide the basis for Land 400 mission variant systems? The German/Dutch Boxer 8x8 multi-role armoured vehicle, being proposed for Land 400 comprises six vehicle versions, including armoured personnel carrier, command post vehicles, ambulance vehicle, a cargo vehicle and a battle damage repair vehicle. The 25 tonne vehicle provides protection against mines and has adaptable modular armour to defeat current and future threats likely to develop during the life of the vehicle.
But are we ignoring the Elephant in the Room?
The US GCV program
Does the US Army’s Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) requirement, initially based on an Infantry Fighting Vehicle variant to replace the M2 Bradley, offer a low risk FMS opportunity to meet some of the Land 400 LCVS requirement? Certainly Defence has been well briefed on the program and no doubt Defence staff in Washington are keeping a close eye on it.
Following approval by the Pentagon for the GCV program’s technology development phase, separate contracts have been awarded to BAE Systems and General Dynamics Land Systems. These two are to develop competitive, affordable and executable designs for a new Army Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) over the next 24 months. (A team led by SAIC and Boeing, with German companies KMW and Rheinmetall, no doubt offering Puma AIFV technologies, was not awarded a share of the work and a protest has been lodged.)
The IFV must be transportable by aircraft, rail and ship. The US Army has limited the vehicle to the dimensions of the C-17 rather than smaller aircraft such as the C-130, which in the past has restricted many designs. The Army requires the IFV to be as logistically deployable as the current Stryker with good cross-country mobility and a baseline requirement of 48 km/h off-road speed. The IFV should deliver improved maintainability and consume less fuel than the Bradley Fighting Vehicle or other vehicles of similar weight and power.
In its original standard configuration the IFV will have a crew of three and carry a squad of nine. The vehicle can be reconfigured to support casualty evacuation. The Army has stated no preference as to whether the IFV should be tracked or wheeled but suggests that it be tracked due to the weight stemming from the requirements.
As the Australian and US Armies pursue their modernisation plans, there appear to be capabilities with attributes common to both. Land 400 is a major component of our Army 2030 and there are striking similarities between the requirements of the Australian Land Combat Vehicle System and the US GCV Infantry Fighting Vehicle. Is a JLTV-like arrangement between the two countries on the cards?
While we suspect that neither BAE Systems nor GD would be averse to including Australian specific requirements in their designs as a precursor to export sales, the possibility that the US Army may wish to increase the size of the IFV to carry more troops and thus bring its weight up to 50t or so would effectively nullify any consideration of the GCV as an option for Land 400.
And with the recent example of a sudden extension of the US JLTV timeline, and the uncertainties this has caused within Australia’s Project Land 121 Ph.4, Canberra must take scheduling issues into account in determining its acquisition strategy.
Comment
But for a recent and welcome burst of activity, Land 400 has been around for too long with little to show for it but the promise of a CONOPS, the possibility of an RFT in two years time, and to our mind, an implication that the requirement will to some extent be shaped by an as yet unapproved future force structure.
With Second Pass anticipated in 2018-19 and thus the possibility of one prime engaged in extensive contract negotiations with the DMO, especially where multiple acquisitions are concerned, when will we see the first land combat vehicle system actually in service?
We have previously pondered whether the Army can really wait another nine years or so for combat vehicles that can be used to far greater effect and with far better protection for ground forces in high intensity, close combat situations than upgraded M113A3s, ASLAV APCs and Bushmaster PMVs, all unsuited to the role of infantry operations in support of heavy armour.
Indeed, as we have mentioned previously, even peacekeeping operations, which have sometimes provided a comparatively benign work environment for ADF members, are fast becoming frontline operations as events have shown.
As Land 400 progresses through its various requirements definition and costing phases, and later the exhaustive assessment and comparison of tender responses, perhaps there will be a growing realisation that some of the existing component systems of the CAFS are no longer up to the tasks ahead and that the Land 400 project should, in the first instance, be used to fast track the early acquisition of troop-protecting combat vehicles—in particular the Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) that originally featured as Land 400’s primary requirement.
Subject: Land