Currently Army’s biggest program, Phase 2 of Land 400, concluded its Risk Mitigation Activity (RMA) in August 2017. The Commonwealth team is now going through the data from the 12-month RMA alongside the tender documents submitted by the two bidders. But what happens now?
At the time ADM went to press the program office was in the final phase of the tender evaluation process. This will conclude with the production of the source evaluation report – which is CASG’s recommendation into Army Headquarters. From here, it will then be turned into a business case and attached to a submission that goes up to Government for consideration by the NSC in 2018.
Land 400 was the first major program in Defence that has had to deal with the new and improved Australian Industry Capability (AIC) approach for Defence as a result of the Government’s Defence Industry Policy Statement. As ADM has reported previously, the program was paused for a few months last year so that an industry roadshow could be conducted, allowing both teams led by BAE Systems and Rheinmetall, to maximise their involvement with Australian industry.
The current assessment process examines a number of factors as it works it way through the system.
“First of all we need to look at what’s the capability we’ve been offered and does it deliver the capability that we’re looking for,” Brigadier Greg McGlone, Director-General Combined Arms Fighting System, Land Systems Division explained to ADM. “Next, we determine the value for money proposition from a cost per unit of capability perspective, and we look at a range of things in there. And then there’s an AIC consideration in deciding whether have we maximised Australian industry opportunities within the Government’s policy guidelines for Australian industry. And then finally we look at the affordability within the funds that are made available to us.”
AIC
Colonel Anthony Duus, Director Fighting Vehicles Systems in Army Headquarters pointed out that AIC has been an important element of the program since day one. “It is one of the 10 evaluation criteria,” COL Duus said. “In fact, one of the tender evaluation work groups from the very beginning was the AIC Tender Evaluation Work Group that was working out the percentage of AIC that each tenderer could bring to the table and what the cost of that would be, and then what the implications of that cost on the overall tender would be.”
To verify that AIC level, Defence also engaged an outside auditing body to work with them during the process.
ADM also understands that the number of vehicles (225 in Phase 2) may be under pressure given the funding timeline and availability and cost per unit of the vehicles.
“As we go through the affordability figures, and secondly, as we go through our final negotiations with the preferred tenderer they may have other ideas for improving on the way of delivering some of the capability. The project will work with the tenderers to develop options and improved ways whereby the required capability can be delivered in a cost-effective manner and in some cases this may result in a small reduction in those numbers,” BRIG McGlone said.
The balance of vehicles and the subsequent timing of delivery also depends on the current structuring of the ASLAV fleet under Plan Beersheba. As a refresher, Plan Beersheba is about making the Army look the same across its three combat brigade locations. The final phases of that reorganisation will likely be completed in 2018, with each combat brigade now having a motorised battalion and a mechanised battalion as well.
Phase 2 impact on Phase 3
As reported previously, commonality between Phase 2 and Phase 3 is seen as a way to reduce the total cost of ownership of the Land 400 fleet.
“Wherever possible we will look to have commonality across the Land 400 fleet in order to reduce the total cost of ownership to the Army,” BRIG McGlone said. “Obviously, the turret becomes the first place to look for commonality - the gun and, the mission systems that are on come with that. The requirements between Phase 2 and Phase 3 are very similar in that regard, and so that’s an obvious source of where we’re looking.”
“Both of the current shortlist of tenderers chose to put an IFV (infantry fighting vehicle) turret on their CRV (combat reconnaissance vehicle) offerings,” COL Duus said. “So they clearly looked ahead at Phase 2 and commonality with Phase 3 and gave us a common turret. If we were to go down the path of choosing the same vendor for Phase 3 to Phase 2, it would flow logically between the phases. And whilst we can’t let Phase 2 inform Phase 3 in terms of choosing someone, the tenderers have clearly been clever about it.”
The lessons learned from the RMA are also flowing into the structure of Phase 3. While the original RFI documentation from the program office states Army’s preference for a tracked vehicle for Phase 3, there is scope for a wheeled variant to be offered.
GVA
The program office is also looking to leverage a locally tailored version of the UK’s Generic Vehicle Architecture (GVA). GVA covers the design of the electronic and power architectures for military vehicles, including requirements for standardisation of the Human Machine Interface (HMI).
While both the AMV-35 and Boxer have elements of GVA embedded in them, BRIG McGlone says the program is too far progressed to make this an enforceable element of the tender process, but it will be applied in Phase 3, with compliance to GVA rating more than a passing mention.
Army’s Land Network Integration Centre (LNIC) has also been working with the program office in this space to make sure the Land 400 vehicles, the centrepiece of the Combined Arms Fighting System (CAFS), are truly integrated into Army and then the wider ADF ORBAT with GVA playing a significant role in this space.
Training and simulation
Land 400 is also an opportunity for Army to change the way they train across the continuum.
“Already we have a level of simulation throughout armoured corps and the way we train, the same way we have for aviation and other systems,” BRIG McGlone explained to ADM. “However, what’s important now is that we’ve got to not only be able to get basic guided training but crew training, and being able to lift through the various Army training levels so that we can do actually team training and get people working together as teams.
“Ultimately it would be fantastic when we’ve got all of the elements of things like an armoured cavalry regiment, being able to use simulators and connect in with other simulators from other fighting forces, such as the ARH, to plan, rehearse and then do after action reviews on missions in the future. But that is well into the future at this stage. We’re planning the foundation for that now.”
COL Duus confirmed that he has been working with his simulation counterpart in Army Headquarters to make sure that the simulation standards in the tender process meet the wider Army simulation environment.
“Although the simulators are capable of doing the lower level procedural training, they can also do some crew training and then they’re used as a crew simulator in a higher level of training as we go up,” COL Duus said. “So more collective training at the same time is possible. The ultimate goal is that at each squadron location you can put an entire troop inside an immersive tactical trainer.
“The entire squadron can do both immersive tactical training at a troop level, so they can really focus on that troop but then the rest of the squadron can get some collective training out of it. In the fullness of time that entire squadron will plug into the Defence Simulation Network and can then operate as part of a battle group, as part of a brigade, as a part of the division in say Talisman Sabre or large scale collective exercise.”
Timeline
Both BRIG McGlone and COL Duus are confident that Phase 2 is on track, with an announcement due in the first half of next year on a preferred solution, leading to contract negotiations. Phase 3 is also due for first pass in that same timeframe, and is tracking well too. While BRIG McGlone confirmed that a number of unsolicited proposals have been received for Phase 3 he was unable to comment on the nature of them.
“They’re currently being assessed and reviewed but I can’t tell you anything about them as they are being assessed in isolation from the Phase 2 team at this time,” BRIG McGlone said. “They’re conducting their assessments and that’s separate to the Phase 2 people. No one that’s involved in the Phase 2, including myself, is currently allowed to know the outcomes of the unsolicited proposals.
“We’re playing a very straight bat in that regard but we will make an announcement around the approach to market we’ll be taking next year when we get through the first pass with Government.”
At this point, the 38 weeks of delays in the program, encountered from its First Pass in late 2014, have come from a number of sources such as in the release of the Defence Industry Policy Statement, a Federal election and tender period extension requests from industry. But the program is on track at the time of publication to head to government in early 2018 with the announcement of a preferred solution in Q2 of 2018.
This article first appeared in the December/January edition of ADM.