Page 81 - Australian Defence Magazine Sep-Oct 2022

livered to Australia through to June 2021 to meet an early requirement for familiarisation and training.
Block 2 production of the balance of 186 vehicles, a mix of reconnaissance and coun- ter-reconnaissance (121); command and control (15); joint fires surveillance with an enhanced target acquisition system (29); re- covery including a winch system (11) and re- pair including a crane (10), is scheduled to begin late this year at Rheinmetall Defence’s $170 million Military Vehicle Centre of Ex- cellence (MILVEHCOE) at Ipswich. This is the largest single infrastructure investment to be made by the German company in its 133-year history.
While the 25 German-built Block 1 vehi- cles were delivered to Army on schedule and are expected to reach Initial Operating Capa- bility (IOC) shortly (according to one report this has already been achieved but if so, it’s without official confirmation). Final opera- tional capability (FOC) is planned for 2027.
Meanwhile media reports of weight and stability issues potentially affecting the fu- ture integration of the Lance turret on Block 2 CRVs, together with ongoing technical problems with Block 1 vehicles, have been rejected by Rheinmetall and Defence.
Confirmation that Block 2 CRV produc- tion will begin at Ipswich on schedule has not been forthcoming given the reluctance of Rheinmetall communications personnel to respond to any media contact; presumably to avoid any misunderstandings while awaiting the IFV selection decision.
To reduce integration risk, fitting the R400 Mk 2 RWS to the 133 turreted CRV recon- naissance variants is not expected to begin until after domestically-produced Lance tur- rets become available from the MILVEHCOE facility, probably late in 2023.
Then-Chief of Army Lieutenant General Rick Burr disclosed to Senate Estimates in April that the Boxer CRV fleet would not be equipped with an APS and the Block 1 vehi- cles would not be able to fire turret-mounted ATGMs, although Block 2 reconnaissance variants would have that capability. Anti-ar- mour weapons for Block 1 vehicles to engage any threats would be carried by the troops inside the vehicle, he said.
If future APS technologies were suitable for CRVs, part of the type’s ongoing assurance program and development pathway could see this capability added “but its mission profile doesn’t require it, whereas the infantry fight- ing vehicle does because it’s in the most dan- gerous situations,” LTGEN Burr stated. ■
ASA4S804184051001
81