Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

2805662

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    322
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

2805662 last won the day on October 6

2805662 had the most liked content!

About 2805662

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. To clarify, this vehicle is *not* at the annual AUSA conference in Washington DC.
  2. Literally just walked past them both. A Dragoon & one with the radar cluster that’s been exhibited over the last couple of years. Also a new M109 (M1299?), BAE UGV with RWS & the Elbit M113 Carmel demonstrator. No pics until tomorrow - setup day, today.
  3. People are conflating requirements - parameters a system being procured has to meet - and conditions - parameters that respondents to the procurement have to comply with in order to participate. It doesn’t matter whether a system, in this case, KF41, meets the requirements stipulated by the customer, if the respondent (i.e. Rheinmetall) cannot meet the conditions of the RFP, in this case, delivery of an example system by a specified timeframe. A respondent has to meet the requirements while complying with the conditions.
  4. Unlikely. Bid deadlines are usually an absolute. Once saw a major military communications company excluded from further consideration as the guy delivering the physical copies of their bid got caught in traffic and missed close by less than five minutes. Only having a single prototype smacks of under investment by Rheinmetall.
  5. Literally the first paragraph of the linked article: “General Dynamics Land Systems today announced it has submitted its proposal for the Army's Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle competition, almost a year after it debuted its offering in Washington.”
  6. I’d be surprised if the KF31 found any customers, TBH.
  7. In the land domain, ADF has generally been very conservative (ASLAV was forced onto it by then MINDEF, M113 upgrade, LR for decades, upgrading the EF88). This decision is a bit of a surprise. There was was no way K21 would’ve met the blast & protection requirements of L400-3. “Redback” is an almost-new design. Who exactly was “disappointed” by the K21? ROKA? GDLS fell into a (seemingly common) trap made by UK-staffed entities (the team for 400-3 was overwhelmingly UK/Brit) in Australia: “we know best.” There was a marked reluctance to accept Australian requirements and input, for cost/design reasons, but also because of (imo) arrogance. Even the ramp vs. back door discussion took longer than it should’ve. The customer has been operating tracked APCs with ramps since 1965 - they know what works for them. Then there’s the 40mm AGL piece: the customer just struggled through Land 40-2 (vice 400-2) to select the Mk47, proposing a solution that used the H&K GMG (i.e. the losing solution to 40-2, regardless of the fact that the British Army bought it) was both dumb & tone deaf. Further; the coax - the 7.62mm chain gun coax makes sense in the UK context (Warrior & AJAX) but makes zero sense in the ADF context. A MAG58 would’ve made a lot more sense. Even Rheinmetall realised offering a MG3, MG4, or MG5 wasn’t a good move, offering the MAG58 coax instead. AJAX seemed to get caught up in their own hype & it bit them.
  8. 7.62mm chain gun coax didn’t help, either.
  9. Reflects a discussion I had yesterday with a former colleague who’s tangentially involved: ”AJAX is a very old truck. Just not really in the running and viable. Not for us, doesn’t do anything that the others do, better.” The GDLS team is “shocked” - they had no idea until the announcement.
  10. I don’t think Rheinmetall will get much of a say in the matter.
×
×
  • Create New...