Thanks to all that have shared links to info regarding the Land 400 Phase 3. I've been trying to determine EOS' probability of winning the tender as part of Team Redback overRheinmetall's Lynx KF41, noting I have no military background myself.
After reading/watching numerous articles/videos on the topic and the 2 shortlisted IFV options, it was not clear to me which held the distinct advantage. My gut is leaning to the Redback from a strategic point of view by the Aus Gov. There has been a big emphasis on improving Australia's supply chain and sovereign capabilities post COVID-19, particularly in the area of defence. Selecting Team Redback seems to better align to this goal assuming there is not a significant increase in cost or technical shortfall in capability they have to give up over selecting the Lynx.
I share some of my comparisons/thoughts below that influenced my gut feel above. Keen for other's feedback on this post, particularly what else might drive selection of the Lynx over the Redback (as my views are most likely biased to favour EOS). Thanks
- Both IFV's would be manufactured in Aus, but it seems more of the IP and supply chain would be Australian under the Redback option, particularly given the T2000 turret and RWS with are manufactured by EOS, using a large Australian defence SME supply chain.
- There's the added advantage the T2000 and RWS use a similar EOS combat operating system and given the sovereign ownership, they can both be quickly and easily upgraded, as needed, and less training required to use separate systems. Lynx has advantages in that they would be the same OEM for the base and the turret, as well as using similar equipment to the 211 Boxer Combat Reconnaissance Vehicles (CRVs) being provided under the Land 400 Phase 2. This adds cost benefits over the long term as well, but I think the sovereign ownership and capability spread over both turret and RWS trumps a common OEM base and turret with foreign ownership/IP. Also, a common weapons/combat operating system seems to make more sense then a mixed turret (Lynx) and RWS (EOS).
- Improving the supply chain and relations with Hanwa/South Korea is probably more strategic than the relationship with Rheinmetall/Germany. Rheinmetall are already based in Australia producing the vehicles for the Phase 2 program which will run to 2027, so not sure it adds that much benefit to also award them Phase 3 with overlapping periods.
- Side note, I understand South Korea recently announced they will also start trialling the Redback IFV in 2022 for their own use. I think that's a great sign on the Redback's competitiveness and growing potential for future T2000 sales if the Redback is selected in other contracts (I guess the first test is this current tender).
- I got the impression that the combat capability of the Redback was ahead of the Lynx. There seemed to be more options available with market leading tech on the Redback. Lynx seemed to be a sleeker better looking IFV but that doesn't necessarily mean it is the best for the job required. Example, there seems to be a view the Redback's 'Iron Vision' system is market leading to see 360 degrees outside the IFV as if it isn't there (noting Lynx also has vision capabilities outside and around its IFV - sure if 360 degrees). Another example, I understand the T2000 has a manned and unmanned option whereas the Lynx does not have the unmanned option.
- It sounded more positive the Redback had rubber tracks over metal tracks on the Lynx, particularly for Aus conditions and ensuring a smoother ride for infantry and less impact on electro-optic systems (EOS' specialty and supplying RWS for both options).
- Videos suggested the Redback had a slight advantage in crossing trenches/ditches (could do 3m to the Lynx' 2.5m). Other than this, I did not come across anything that suggest a distinct speed/manoeuvrability advantage. Both seemed to have a similar range of 500-520 km. Both seemed to have proven engines. Redback I believe is slightly lighter (42 v 44 tonnes?).
- Probably the biggest advantage highlighted for the Lynx was its modular design allowing the military to convert the IFV to other types of vehicles (i.e. a turretless transporter or ambulance) within about 8 hours. I can see the benefits of this for reducing purchases of other vehicles and flexibility with limited resources. I didn't get the feeling it is essential or a deal breaker that the Redback is not modular. First and foremost it needs to be assessed on its IFV capability, then the other considerations come into play. The Redback highlighted its quick and easy method to update the turret from a 30mm canon to a 40mm cannon. As well as modular design for weapons systems to allow modules to be updated, as needed. Whilst there could be Lynx cost benefits of a modular IFV sharing similar traits to the Rheinmetall vehicles in the Phase 200, there are also cost benefits in similar combat systems of Redback's T2000 and RWS used across multiple vehicles in the Aus military.
- EOS' T2000 can accommodate its CUAS, if needed. Not sure how easy it would be for the Lynx to accommodate a CUAS.
- Both IFV's seem to be new and not fully proven in the field as yet. I believe the Lynx won its first contract in Hungary late last year so it will be some time before it is operational and a mainstream option. I understand the Czech Republic is currently trialling the Lynx.
(20min delay)