|Note I picked these photos of the Piranha 5 to show the different turret configurations that were possible. Above its sporting the LANCE and below the MCT-30.|
Defence Technology Review's analysis of the Land 400 contest and the reason why they believe the down select was made has me spinning.
The idea that General Dynamics read the requirements as written and didn't allow for the wiggle room that the ADF obviously applied to the contest has me mystified.
How can we expect manufacturers to compete win the rules are so loose? When the requirements are so vague as to allow different classes of vehicles to be entered?
If I was an exec at General Dynamics I'd be punching walls.
They had a choice to make. Either enter the LAV 6.0 that was 100 percent pure MOTS and in service with the Canadian military and in a variation the US Army or roll with their future king the Piranha 5 that has grown into a beast of a vehicle with great growth potential, the ability to take a number of turrets and could be uparmored to the delight of Mothers of Australia?
The same complaint could be claimed by Singapore Kinetics with the Terrex 3/Sentinel II.
Defense Depts/Ministries need to write better requirements so that manufacturers can respond better. As things stand I agree with DTR. General Dynamics read the requirements as written and didn't take into account the "human factor"...questionable as it is...within the ADF.
NOTE: I stand by my view that the Boxer and Terrex 3 should have been in the down select. I additionally don't back off my view that the Terrex 3 was best of breed in this line up. What Australian Defence doesn't realize is that they're buying a functionally obsolete vehicle to fill a frontline combat role. The safe buy isn't always the right buy. Whether by delays like the F-35 or by a buy rate that is so slow that it takes years to enter service as in the ACV, obsolete is obsolete...even if the vehicle has a new car smell.