M113-replacement contenders unveiled

Both contenders for the largest acquisition project in the history of the Australian Army were officially unveiled in Canberra today.

CAPTION: Rheinmetall’s KF41 Lynx, left, and Hanwha’s Redback, dwarf the M113 APC one of them will replace. Defence image.

Two infantry fighting vehicle prototypes are currently under evaluation and, once delivered, will provide the Army with an advanced, mounted, close-combat capability.

Acting Minister for Defence Marise Payne said up to 450 infantry fighting vehicles would be acquired at a project cost of up to  $27billion.

   

“These next generation infantry fighting vehicles will provide Australian soldiers with higher levels of protection, mobility, firepower and connectivity,” Minister Payne said.

“They will give our troops the best possible opportunity to successfully complete their mission safely.”

The two shortlisted tenderers for LAND 400 Phase 3 project are Rheinmetall, offering its KF-41 Lynx, and Hanwha, with its Redback.

If successful, both companies have proposed to build the vehicles in Australia, with substantial investment in Australian industry capability, supporting Australian jobs, talent and technology.

Attending the official unveiling in Canberra, former Army Major General, Senator Jim Molan said Defence was seeking a tracked infantry fighting vehicle, capable of accommodating six soldiers in addition to a crew of three.

“Hanwha Defense Australia and Rheinmetall Defence Australia have each delivered three prototype vehicles which will be tested over the course of this year, as part of a two-year risk mitigation activity,” Senator Molan said.

“These activities include Australian soldiers participating in user evaluation and testing, with a particular focus on the armour, firepower and mobility of the platforms.”

A decision on the preferred tenderer will be presented to government for consideration in 2022.

The infantry fighting vehicles will replace the current M113 armoured personnel carriers that have been in service since the mid-1960s.


 
.

    .  
...
...
. .
6918 Total Views 2 Views Today

Posted by Brian Hartigan

Managing Editor Contact Publishing Pty Ltd PO Box 3091 Minnamurra NSW 2533 AUSTRALIA

7 thoughts on “M113-replacement contenders unveiled

  • 02/06/2022 at 8:14 pm
    Permalink

    I’m no expert but surely a country that made one of the most protected armoured vehicles in service, the Bushmaster could rethink and design our own tracked APC? Is it possible? The M113 should have replaced 20 years ago but, here we are! 1960’s tech in 2022 with politicians fumbling for answers! Never ask the end user, always ask the manufacturer what we need. NH90, Tiger AHA, GWagon the mind boggles at the disasters and chronic waste of money thrown at projects that never should have passed the trial stage. The Boxer will do well to replace the LAV so why not just stick with what we know works and have one manufacturer with a small logistics train. The only decent fighting vehicle we have at the moment is the M1A1 and it’s soon to be replacements which will be more M1’s. That’s our problem, todays military fighting yesterday war.

    Reply
  • 02/06/2022 at 8:08 pm
    Permalink

    I’m no expert but surely a country that made one of the most protected armoured vehicles in service, the Bushmaster could rethink and design our own tracked APC? Is it possible? The M113 should have replaced 20 years ago but, here we are! 1960’s tech in 2022 with politicians fumbling for answers! Never ask the end user, always ask the manufacturer what we need. NH90, Tiger AHA, GWagon the mind boggles at the disasters and chronic waste of money thrown at projects that never should have passed the trial stage. The Boxer will do well to replace the L

    Reply
  • 23/03/2021 at 10:11 am
    Permalink

    Beggars belief. What are these dickheads thinking. Surely a 10 man vehicle should be purchased. How does the poor overworked section comd control his section split up in 2 vehicles??

    Reply
  • 23/03/2021 at 10:08 am
    Permalink

    What’s wrong with these dickheads. Surely a section vehicle accommodating 10 infanteers would be the right choice. Maybe there isn’t one??. Beggars belief

    Reply
  • 22/03/2021 at 4:17 pm
    Permalink

    They seem awfully large for less than a section of infantry.

    Reply
  • 21/03/2021 at 11:03 am
    Permalink

    And the infantry section ATM is 10. Tell me how is that going to work with current doctrine? Total rethink and restructure around the use and employment of the vehicle is required

    Reply
    • 22/03/2021 at 12:08 pm
      Permalink

      My thoughts exactly, another Defense stuff up.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.