Elbit Systems revealed on August 16, 2023, that its partner, Hanwha, has been identified by the Australian Government as the preferred tenderer for the Australian Land 400 Phase 3 project.
The final approval from the Government will come upon the conclusion of the contract discussions.
Hanwha clarified, “Elbit Systems is a key partner to Hanwha to deliver the Redback Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) under the Project“. This IFV features the Redback Turret, a product that draws from the most recent version of Elbit Systems’ 30 mm manned turret.
Additionally, it boasts the COAPS gunner sight, other electro-optic systems, the Iron Fist active protection system, Elbit Systems’ Iron-Vision advanced situational awareness head-mounted display system, and Elbit Systems’ ELAWS laser warning system.
It should be noted that the impending agreement between Hanwha and Elbit Systems is still dependent on the conclusion of talks between the two entities. However, the agreement’s value is expected to be significant to Elbit Systems.
Looks like a perfect Warrior replacement to me?
Agree plus it went up against the German Lynx ,and I believe CV 90 and came out on top 🏋
I was reading all about it the other day, one hell of a piece of kit…
Got to hand it to our Antipodean cousins, they do procurement very well indeed!
They actually appear to listen to what the Australian armed forces actually want and ask for, unlike the UK where the tail wags the bloody dog!
It’s just not the UK. Canada too.
I know mate it’s crazy 👍
Replaces the M113 APC from the 70s. If this is model procurement then I might have a harbour bridge you might want to buy
tender was issued in april 2018, so 5 years later a vehicle selected and more negotiations to come …..also was originally for 450.
Lucky choice too that Hanwha plant is in the electorate of the Defence Minister.
Sounds all too typical of procurement too me
Is that the best you can do, F35, Super Hornet, Growler, Apache E, divesting themselves of tardy European helicopters etc.
An excellent line up, even a Russian like yourself must accept that surely?
this story is about the IPV not the particular system itself
Do you want me to discuss the Submarine procurement debacle…even before they chose the French …and unchose them
Ask about the Collins , the Seasprite and other debacles.
Not a russian , or even been there. is that you you spend your time finding time to throw insults at people for not agreeing with you . I gave a basis for my opinion whats yours?
Hate to have my trees trop leaves onto your drive or something real , no doubt a massive eruption would ensue
I think Duker was just alluding to the fact the Aussie defence procurement isn’t all roses and sweet smelling success. I wasn’t aware the Hanwha plant was located in the defence ministers constituency. That is interesting. Opens the door to questioning what was probably the right selection outcome, which is a pity.
Was this selected on price or capability I wonder.
Everyone always seems to think the grass is greener and that everyone else does procurement perfect. What people in the U.K. see is all the little problems where from abroad the U.K. only here’s about the success story. The little problems don’t travel as far unfortunately.
Now down to the contract price etc.
The U.K. could do a joint production with Australia. We build sub bits they do IFV parts.
I hear AUS are having design problems with the Type 26 and may cut the number of vessels .
That certainly appears to be the case. Part of their issues centre around them having a more rounded AAW capability, with a different radar fit to control their Standard2 aaw missiles – a smaller Hobart class if you like. This and other changes has increased the displacement of the vessels by some 1500-2000 tonnes. Not to mention the increase in costs, rumoured to be some Aus $15 billion across the class. They are now looking at a high low mix not unlike our T26/T31 mix, not sure of the exact split, but funnily enough are looking at our T31. If… Read more »
I’d like the UK to select the Redback as well and get UK production line up and running. We would require a similar number to the Aussies. 400 or so IFVs seems about right to me.
Anyone know merits of Iron fist APS Vs the C3s Trophy? I’ve looked into it and can’t seem to determine which, if either, is better.
If we were smart we could have become the European manufacturer/exporter for South Korean armour (K2 Black Panther, K9 Thunder and K21 IFV) and Leonardo AW149 but governmental foot dragging and the “pennywise, Pound foolish” philosophy at UK MOD reigns supreme.
Too late. MoD decided to replace Warrior by Boxer (rather than by WCSP) in March 2021. First two phases are contracted for – metal is being cut.
The Rheinmetall production line in Queensland is already producing Boxers for export to the Bundeswehr in Germany and the Hanwha production line in Victoria will produce both the Redback IFV and the K9 Huntsman SPH for the ADF.
I’m sure we could knock up a batch of all three types in Australia for the UK!
Good luck getting spares during a serious conflict.
Yeah everything in the UK is shit and everyone else does everything better than us.
It’s amazing the island has not yet sunk 😀
Most people supporting these views either work for the BBC or can’t read. 😀
Bad news generates comments, and many posters like to moan, about cuts and procurement cock ups most of all. I posted on an earlier thread an update on the Army Deep Fires program which I’d read, which has now expanded from 35 operational GMLRS launchers, with 44 planned in FS, to 61 Launchers with 8 recovery variants on top. With various new long range precision fires munitions too, one with 150Km range against moving targets. Serious capability. And I have read another update since that lifts these numbers even higher to 85 platforms, 75 launchers and 10 recovery vehicles. A… Read more »
Spot on DM
👍
Haven’t seen this Danielle. Is there a link? Goes along with the argument for more and better deep fires. someone listening?
If you follow UKAFC Twitter its on there. The programme director has divulged this info in presentation slides.
Deep Fires, ISTAR, and AD, CUAV will all improve going forward.
I don’t use the Twitter. Don’t want to feed musks ego. I like his rockets and cars, that’s enough.
To be fair, don’t blame you. I use it just for UK defence information.
I missed that. Very interesting post. Thank you.
Thanks Daniele, we are so used to hearing bad news that the rare good news seems to get lost. Well done for highlighting again the positive stories about strengthening artillery.
For 100 order , it will likely mostly just be final assembly. The turret from Elbit might be the same or arrive fully set up
Sounds like their M1 Abrams procurement. The wrong tank for Australia but the right tank ‘politically’.
They do some well…some very poorly. They do tend to get more bang for buck across the basics but some collosal cock ups….subs, frigates, helos are examples.
Sadly the order size has been dramatically cut for the Australian Army – pesky defence cuts.
The CV90 did not get a look in as with the PUMA as too expensive. BUT, the contract for the Hanwa IFV was reduced from 450 to 129, but that’s a Labor government for you. There is talk of 5 RAR and 7 RAR linking again in Darwin, no mention of 1st Armoured Regiment. Given the versions of the Redback will include Fire and engineer vehicles, I doubt that there will be enough vehicles for two Infantry Battallions.
There is potential for a long production run of vehicles in the U.K. for a company. With artillery replacement, IFV, bulldog, tank and so on.
I really wish they would get a proper cvrt replacement. Light, fast, quiet.
Boxer while good is expensive and in its current planned models aren’t a suitable IFV replacement.
Light, fast, quiet, we do have 3 Regiments of Jackal. 😉
A combination of Ajax, Drones, and ISTAR situational awareness seems to be the plan regards the CVRT recc role.
2 versions of CVRT which were never replaced are Striker, and CVRT Shielder, on a Stormer chassis. A Brimstone Overwatch variant will do nicely for the former.
Shielder had to go when we signed up to that stupid land mines treaty! We also had a launcher that fitted on top of a 432 as well.🙄
Can we afford the additional ear plugs though 😂
If jackal can fit the kit in. It’s a bit open though for long watching missions. Can’t imagine sitting in that thing in a cold climate for a long time.
Ajax should probably be heavy Fire support vehicle, reconnaissance etc. A lighter vehicle, quiet, fast, easily deployable with long range, sensor mast, drone capability would be great. With that I would add in stormer replacement, laser/gun version for drone defence, brimstone launcher. Maybe they all end up on the boxer platform. Still think a light tracked vehicle has its place.
“Still think a light tracked vehicle has its place.”
I agree.
The CBRN protection system on Jackal might need sorting out, as well as putting armour all round it, to be a true CVR(T) replacement. Then there is the 30mm cannon to bolt on….!
Fully agree that a light(ish) tracked vehicle is ideal for armoured recce – CVR(T) had a long and distinguished ‘career’ – people should not knock how it wheezed on in its latter years – the thing should have been replaced in the mid-90s after 25 years service by something similar but a bit bigger and with better surveillance kit like that sensor mast you mention.
You say that, but 4/73 and 148 have to sit in hides and holes in the ground, even colder I’d think!
Wrap up warm! It can carry a Mk1 eyeballs, and some night and IR vision I’m sure.
Granted, it cannot be a Scimitar but at least it is nimble. ( I refuse to go all MoD and say “agile”
You’re right of course, but that requires joined up thinking MS…..
I don’t think there will be a Warrior replacement.
Alas Alex, I think you’re right, the requirement has been folded into Boxer by slight of hand.
Obviously not planning for muddy wars in future!!
The decision to buy Boxer for the five AI Bns will cost far more than proceeding with WCSP – and it is debatable whether we get a better vehicle – arguably Boxer will be a vehicle that has less armour protection, less firepower and less mobility than upgraded Warrior. Still, at least it will be shiny and new!
It can drives at 100kph in highways!
Bonus! We do a lot of that in war!
It will. But at least the numbers being bought for the outlay mean other regiments get a new vehicle. WCSP was just for the AI, and assume there were no new recovery ones for the REME?
Good point mate. WCSP would have delivered: a. 245 vehs for the AI (with WMPS (modular armour upgrade); WEEA (electronic architecture upgrade); WFLIP (new turret and CTAS stab 40mm cannon) AND… b. 135 ABSVs – for REME – original WR with turret removed, WMPS and WEEA fitted – and winch and crane fitted – presumably to replace WR FV512 (Repair) and FV513 (Recovery/Repair). Of course REME later drew the short straw with the ABSV part of the WCSP programme being cancelled as a savings measure in the 2016 Budget round. Always happens to CSS. So REME would be obliged to… Read more »
Swapping IFVs (Warrior) for APCs (Boxer)
Anyone else think that’s a retrograde step?
Me. But if you screw things up like the army did, and CHLEP, WCSP, AJAX, all require funding at the same time, and then you bring forward Boxer from 2027 as well, something gives. This goes way back to Labour’s failure to get anything moving 97 to 2010 regards major army armoured vehicle programmes. As Dern so comprehensively explained a while ago regards Carter’s vision mirroring the French wheeled set up, Boxer became priority. It’s a much bigger programme with greater numbers over longer so no wonder WCSP was binned. We can but hope Cannon, Brimstone, and other kit appears… Read more »
True. Total army screw up not to upgrade AFVs and artillery every 7-10 years service and then to replace such vehicles after about 25 years service – there would have been no programme clashes if that had been done. It really should not have been a very late toss-up whether to either field upgraded Warrior or switch to buying very expensive and possibly unsuitable Boxers – for the AI. You say Russians used to mix tanks with wheeled Inf vehs – but they introduced the BMP-1 IFV in 1966 and have introduced successive BMPs ever since – specifically to work… Read more »
My understanding is that the army are devising new and innovative ways of fighting that will deliver the same effects by leveraging combinations of the vehicles we do have. There you go….
Pau, you should have been a politician!
Sorry….couldn’t resist it
Looks more like he is after Sir Humphrey job…
There is – it’s called Boxer. MoD announced in the March 2021 Defence Command Paper (DCP) that Warrior will be replaced by Boxer.
https://www.overtdefense.com/2021/03/23/warrior-capability-sustainment-program-axed-in-favor-of-boxer/
https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2021/04/06/british-army-wants-more-punch-in-its-boxer-vehicle-fleet/
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/warrior-upgrade-scrapped-but-remaining-in-service/
Someone on an earlier article post even joked that it actually looks a bit like a Warrior! 😁
Ahh, but does it have a stabilised 40mm cannon like what WCSP would have delivered? Interesting that the K21 from which this is derived does have a 40mm stab cannon, but AS21 has a 30mm Bushmaster (not sure if it is stab).
Still we must all look forward to getting some sort of Boxer to replace Warrior.
Good point Graham… Didn’t we actually buy all the 40mm cannons for the Warrior SP?
I wonder what’s happened to them??
We did.
Still in boxes.
I fancy putting one on my FAC, just the job for Stickledown…
Two questions, will the new Warrior turret fit on my defender roof and does anyone stock 40mm🤔😂
Hi John, there is no new WR turret and yes, BAe make the CT rounds in Wales
Stored in Donnington maybe.
Donnington has gone I believe Daniele….
No mate. The army are moving from the Barracks there, but the MoD side, and the Defence Fulfilment Centre, a new construction which replaces many of the legacy warehouses, remains.
With Bicester and a few other places like Stafford it is the logistical centre of the military.
Cheers Danielle, your knowledge in these matters never fails to impress mate👍
No worries, mate. Our logistical tail and infrastructure remain impressive, I can outline further if required.
You must be joking. It is indispensable, being the army’s/MoD’s largest depot, I am sure.
That’s a good question, actually. Largest by stock tonnage held or by area? Bicester looks bigger, and is over 2 sites., Arncott, and the other I forget. Also has St Davids Bks. Stafford is also spread over more than one site. Donnington seems more compacted,but it’s individual storage may be higher. Bicester also had railway access.
Hmmm, not sure which is bigger. Donnington was reduced in size after the fires of 1983 and 1988, but it is still massive. When I was in 6 Bn REME (93-95), one of our exercise locations was at the site. Was reading up about Venning and Parsons Bks – MoD pumped a huge sum of money into developing these barracks about 20 years ago. Not sure why 2 barracks were required – the number of service personnel at the DSDA depot always was very small there, but one barracks had 11th Sig Bde personnel since ’92. Wiki: “In 2014 Venning… Read more »
There is. I am totally against it mate.
It was rumored the fires conveniently happened before stock check, they saved some mule shoes
We did buy several hundred 40mm cannons – and the turrets too (I would imagine) – for WCSP. Ian says cannons are still in boxes – but not sure where. As they are GFE (Government Furnished Equipment) they could well be in a MoD depot now, rather than at LM Ampthill, Beds.
Most likely Donnington as LM would want paying to store them.
Why would MoD want LM to retain GFE equipment from a closed project anyway?
Cos, from experience, the MOD will make any excuse not to store stuff they don’t have a perceived use for. Industry transit boxes for instance.
Aye let’s be having some of that 👍🏻could easily be ordered for our army …..but the shitebag political cartel that run the MOD won’t even consider it. Far too many billions to be given away to everybody else first you see meaning our armed forces need to make do with the long grass and ensuring BAE keep getting a pay day
absolute shitebags the lot O them
🏴🇬🇧
Let’s hope the Australians don’t suffer the same Ajax debacle like us, billions squandered, years overdue and still virtually bugger to show for it! British MOD procurement procedure is a master class of how not to do things!!
Don’t start, yes it’s late but billions have not been squandered😉
Late? Turning up for work an hour later than you should is late, 6 bloody years ‘late’ (ok millions not billions) with still sod all to show for it is beyond taking the p*ss!! This farce reminds me of the Type 45 mess, the RN said they needed 12 of which to replace the T42s, the 12 was cut down to 10, then 8, then 6! So the poor navy eventually ended up with half the amount of ships they needed, each of which ended up costing about a billion pound a pop, then spend most of their time breaking… Read more »
…and according to the classic ‘rule of 3’, then only 2 of those destroyers are likely to be ready and available for tasking at a given moment. [Although some of our UKDJ naval experts consider the rule of 3 is now outdated, for some reason].
I think they aim to have three operational at any one time Graham, basically, just enough to ride shotgun for the duty Carrier task group with a bit left over for local deployments etc….
I would assume that when our Carrier Strike Group is fully worked up, we can forget T45’s being available for any other deployments.
I am sure you are right.
We won’t of course be deploying our CSG ‘all the time’ – but when we do I expect that two T45s will be assigned as the default setting, as was the case for CSG21.
Not sure you would want or need any T45s elsewhere doing Air Defence.
Thats was the RAN diesel submarine replacement, something like A$A800-900 mill spent or paid in termination costs
Yet the nuclear Barracuda would have suited the changed requirement to a tee, except for political reasons and the low enriched uranium reactor while a good idea had political problems too. Likely a lot cheaper than the “future” Astute type
Hi Duker, do you know if the French were afforded an opportunity to pitch a nuclear Barracuda option? I imagine it would be a viable contender?
Think they were cut out without even having a chance to propose it, with the AUKUS deal being done before killing the SSK deal.
The Shortfin Barracuda was dead in the water by 2020. The whole program had become a joke with price escalating X2 local content reducing from 90% to 40% maybe. More importantly the first hull had to be in service by 2025 yet by then the inservice date had blown out to 2032. That is it was actually becoming the replacement for the replacement. Everyone wanted it off the table Navy, politicians, media and public-it was a dead cat! Initially it was assumed the solution was either Japanese or South Korean then the US happened to mention that a nuclear option… Read more »
Naval Group aka the French Gov tried to screw Australia over, it failed. The AUKUS trilateral goes beyond submarines, the French were not going to get another look in.
thanks M!
See above. The Chinese had stolen the design for Barracuda and Suffren designs. These design elements obtained via industrial espionage have given China a generational boost and their new type 95 SSNs are going to incorporate a lot of the Barracuda design elements.
The fact the PLAN knew everything about Barracuda was a key contributor to the cancelling of the order.
Interesting, didn’t know that. Would the French sell nuclear subs abroad? I seem to remember hearing that they would not, or at least in a way that would make any deal viable but memory may be deceiving me.
Fascinating stuff, thanks Mr Bell.
From what I read it wasnt the sub so much that was the issue. They want the support that working with the UK and especially the US will bring, US backup in logistics. They also had a major issue with the French companies way of working and their were lots of “personality clashes” apparently.
Also of course Im not sure if true but Australias main enemy apparently has all the plans before the Australians did.
Cheers, thanks Andy.
It’s not for political reasons Dunker, when the decision was made to go nuclear, the Australians didn’t want the French baby boat, with a small loadout, they want a full sized SSN, with double the loadout of the Barracuda. It’s a serous investment, requiring a serious submarine for the vast expanse of the indo Pacific, if things turned hot, then that large weapons load would be absolutely needed against the growing Chinese Navy. A pint sized French Mediterranean cruiser, just doesn’t cut the mustard Dunker. Unfortunately, the French scream ‘political reasons’, to save national pride, truth is the Barracuda is… Read more »
Not what the then Defence Minister Dutton later said
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/17/australia-considered-buying-nuclear-submarines-from-france-before-ditching-deal-peter-dutto
““We looked at what options were available to us. The French have a version which was not superior to that operated by the US and the UK,” Dutton said.
The government has consistently described the Naval Group submarine as “regionally superior”. A spokesperson for Dutton said the French nuclear technology had to be removed and reinserted, while the US reactor didn’t.”
It seems the HEU which is sealed for the life of the boat was the real advantage like I said
this ‘big boat’ thing is news to me
First off Dunker, I wouldn’t quote anything from that Woke, rabidly lefty mouthpiece that is the Guardian…. So I’m reading French not superior, of course it isn’t, it’s a little fish in a big pond, the Anglo Australian sub will be a shark…. As I said, the French hate loosing face and the Australians decided to “tool up for bear” with SSN’s.. That decision made, a small French boat just doesn’t cut it, it’s litteraly 50% of the firepower for a similar price point, so the French lost out. Saying it was underhanded and not fair is typical face saving… Read more »
It just came up in long list of sources.. But its a direct quote from Dutton so no need to quibble about the source when its opinion stories that you dont like ( and mostly agree on that side they are unreadable) And its 200% political wanting a UK or US nuclear sub. However you cant escape the fact the Barracuda was their first choice as a diesel because it met their requirements , also in the mix was the Japanese AIP subs. it seems the French wanted the RAN to continue with SSK at first and then buy the… Read more »
What small loadout ?
Dutton the defence minister at the time says it was LEU which requires refueling every 8-10 years ( but the design allows for that to be done through hatches)
What small load out??
The bomb shop can take 20 weapons, Astute 38, successor class, more again.
Enough for a med cruise perhaps, but it’s really not up to scratch these days.
Like I said, simply French sour grapes as Barracuda is not in the same league.
I apologise if you’re not a Russian, but you carry a similar anti British trait to the troll farm graduates that tag team each other on the journal.
Well Barracuda was in the right league for Australia as they chose it. Then they wanted nuclear power , well a version has that too.
Astute is fine …for UK and its considerably smaller than Virginia which is fine for USA.
The extra loadout – which Im very curious about but maybe another time- doesnt seem to have been publicly the reason for Australia switching.
Different boats Dunka, short fin Barracuda is an SSK and Barracuda an SSN. Short fin Barracuda was a great choice when they wanted Diesel electric, but with the switch to SSN’s, Barracuda is simply in a lesser league. Making comparisons with Astute, Barracuda is a third smaller, it’s weapon load is a full 50% larger, due to its much larger bomb shop. Now, the SSN that’s likely to form the basis of the joint UK/ Australian SSN (formally successor class) is likely to be considerably larger than Astute again, with vertical launch tubes and an even larger bomb shop. It’s… Read more »
I think you are underestimating the process somewhat, it’s not simply like replacing a battery. The fact the the French did their best to obtain US/British technology to avoid it and the general lack of ultimate efficiency in the Reactor design, but were refused says something about a true comparison.
It was working well enough in the conversion from nuclear( France) to diesel ( Australia) inside the same hull shape. I dont underestimate it at all, its practically a complete new design for the interior behind the sail and I think the French were also hoping the Dutch would buy some I understand the French have deliberately chosen the multiple refuelling LEU pathway- their intial nuclear boats were HEU- as it enables sharing of technology/safety oversight with their considerable civilian nuclear power reactors. It sounds a good practical decision, UK or USA virtually have no civilian reactor industry left Its… Read more »
The main reason Barracuda was excluded is that it uses power station level of enriched fuel that required refuelling every 10 or so years. Both Virginia and UK SSN (R) have weapon grade fuel which is sealed for the life of the boat – Australia has no nuclear industry to do the refuel so Barracudas would have to go back to France for extend refuel maintenance.
Which meant effective French control of their submarine fleet……
A lot if long lunches are needed over a refuel…..
And indeed imagine that control when even deals for their non nuclear surface vessels (not to mention aircraft) tie in buyers for life in weapons and support services which is why they tend to have an up front price a little less than competitors can offer.
It is all French IP and tech that they won’t share.
Really very similar to RR model of sell engines at cost and make money per hour flown.
No the main reason a nuclear Barracuda wasn’t selected was because the Chinese had stolen the designs. Why would you spend billions on a weapon system your principle adversary knows everything about?
That is not correct. Being low grade nuke fuel there is no treaty that forbids Australia to havea nuclear industry. So it could have been the start of a strategic industry in Australia.
Instead current SSN with high grade nuke fuel will force Australia to resupply in US or UK.
Alex
That assumes the Australian public want a nuclear industry. The country is very anti-nuclear. There is the one government owned research reactor & that’s it.
At least there are two options & since the HEU reactor lasts 30+ years, you can’t suddenly come unstuck with your whole fleet if there is a dispute.
Duker. A bit of background. The short fin Barracuda SSK (Conventionally powered sub) was cancelled because it lacked range and endurance required by Australia to operate at range around the Australian coastline and areas of interest eg Indian Ocean, western Pacific and throughout Asia. There was also the huge issue that the Chinese had hacked into Naval groups IT systems and stolen the technical designs. This was widely reported at the time and is still available if you’d like to check facts on the internet. So Australia were left with a choice pursue a French designed sub that the Chinese… Read more »
Well said a reasoned argument that makes total sense. As we recently read new Satellite technology is compromising conventional subs ability to hide and in a Pacific environment that would be potentially lethal not to mention that Australia seeing the way China is going simply cannot afford effectively defensive submarines they need something especially in another ten years that can perform stealthily and offer powerful retaliatory capability in a far wider area of the pacific. Costly yes but absolutely required in my opinion for Australia.
Think GD were trading on the long gone Chrysler Defense engineers reputation ?
God knows, but whilst many other countries have managed to modernise their fleets of armoured vehicles with relative ease, the UK has ended up yet again with a right jalopy, no wonder our armed forces have little to show for the billions they should get, thank the MOD for that!!
40 years back . Even their new graduates hired by Chrysler then would have retired by now
Nope
Most of our procurements go well. It is only the cock-ups that get airtime. Many, if not most, cock-ups are due to politicians’ or Treasury involvement, or inexperience in Industry. But the army deserves a massive share of the blame for poor AFV procurement in the last 20 years due to frequent changes of structure and doctrine.
An extremely smart move by the lads and lasses down under, it’s been my favourite pick from the start.
South Korea has a lot to offer, a pity we seem to have missed out on most of it thus far. We still have the option of purchasing the Hanwha K9 Thunder.
Think it’s heading that way or ,more Arches 🤔
Hanwha need to set up a UK industrial facility then we can build K9s and Redback locally retaining key industrial-military capability.
I could not agree more and mentioned this on many occasions as you may recall.
👍
And already designing their next generation of MBT
Hyundai Rotem stealth tank
“Hyundai Rotem is developing a new tank. The company presented a concept of a next-generation tank, which should be put into practical use in 2030.
The next-generation tank, which has a stealth design that is not detected by the enemy, is equipped with a 130 mm smoothbore gun and has increased power of the attack.”
If we had had vision years back and seen the writing on the wall of the cost/capability balance we would have got in early done a deal with them for UK production, producing for UK and with the option of competing against the Germans for the European market. They probably would have jumped at the idea with a large UK order book but now if anyone gets that bonus it will be Poland, ironically considering their u happy relationship with Germany and France we probably could have even initiated with them had we had the vision rather like our agreements… Read more »
Given where we are with Boxer and CR3 I would say Boxer or Lynx with CTA 40mm turret is more likely. Post Brexit we are building relations with individual European countries. Seems to me Germany is our strategic partner for rebuilding an industrial base for armoured vehicles. Hence King Charles visit. Technicians and welders assembling Boxer get their training with Rheinmetall in Germany. Not as good as the Hanwha but good enough.
The Monarch visits lots of countries. I don’t think we can read AFV cooperation in to a visit to Germany. That was happening anyway with Rheinmetall and BAE forming a JV some years ago (RBSL).
I understand that the RBSL JV was formed some time ago. Nevertheless it is the case that the countries that the Monarch visits are decided by the government. What is noteworthy is that France and Germany are at the top of the list. Traditionally one would expect a new monarch to visit Commonwealth countries first, so I do think the French and German visits are significant in the context of strengthening post Brexit economic, industrial and defence ties. Just my take.
I would not expect a new Monarch to visit 56 Commonwealth nations before visiting near-European countries (neighbours) such as France and Germany.
So long as the U.K. get a boat load of spares to keep things running in a long fight. Trying to get foreign sourced parts in a war may be a bit tricky. Especially if everyone fighting is wanting the same limited supply of spares.
Agreed, hence the comment made by Mr Bell and myself in the past to set up a UK industrial facility along with Poland. There would be great opportunities for us, not least some decent kit delivered far quicker than we seem to. I tend to think of it as a partnership that includes UK tech combined with industrial output which would be a winner for both sides. If we had an industrial base here along with Poland, spares could be sourced from either at short notice or SK too should any facilities be damaged during a conflict. K2 Black Panther… Read more »
https://www.army-technology.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/07/Image-1-KAI-Light-Armed-Helicopter-1.jpg
Looks a good choice. But given that the US appears to be heading towards 50mm for its Bradley replacement, is the 30mm sufficient in todays threat environment?
If the turret allows 90º there will be more ammo and can work for anti drone.
Probably not. Thats why Warrior was being upgraded to a 40mm stabilised cannon.
The 30mm Bushmaster cannon in the Redback IFV can be upgraded to the 40mm Supershot by changing just 3 parts without the need to modify the turret or otherwise change the cannon.
So a 40mm upgrade is a future option.
Both the Redback EOS AND Boxer CRV turrets have fully stabilised cannons.
Thanks mate. Hopefully our Boxers in the AI role will have some sort of cannon so we can convince ourselves that we have an IFV for the AI, but so far Kongsberg RS4 Protector RWS have been ordered which do not take any form of cannon at all, just MG/GMG.
A 40mm cannon was an option both on the Redback EOS turret and the Rheinmetall Lancer turret (for both the Lynx IFV and Boxer CRV) but was ruled out early in the design process in favour of the 30mm option. Twin Spike LR2 missile launchers will be fitted to the Redback and (recently announced) now the Boxer and will be able to deal with MBTs at stand off ranges up to 5.5 kilometers. The 30 mm option allows more ready rounds to be carried for infantry fire support or enemy suppression and dealing with light armour vehicles. So it was… Read more »
This is old news, a month old.
https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/media-releases/2023-07-27/delivering-next-generation-infantry-fighting-vehicles-australia
Did you have a point?
The Hanwha is slated to replace the M113 family of vehicles in the heavy APC /IFV role. Its Australian designation is ‘Redback’ (poisonous spider of the Widow family) It will be built in Australia in Geelong and in the same factory as the Hanwha SP gun and use some of the same components. If bureaucrats don’t fiddle with it, it should do well. While defence has not called for it and there is no discernable need, the chassis can take Cockerill turrets which may later see an FSV emerge for Australia’s Reserve forces
Same company providing the K9 155mm SPG too.
Good luck to Australia showing insights into their equipment procurement, pity the idiots in this country cannot do the same ,Australian forward thinking, British thinking “DOH”what day is it ?