Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Contributing Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


2805662 last won the day on October 12

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. 2805662

    Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    Required dimensions for L400-3:
  2. Detail of the Lance 1.0 turret’s commander’s sight retraction:
  3. Huh. Australians Major General Kath Toohey & Brigadier Shane Gabriel front row in the left. At least they’re keeping up w/what the US Army is doing.
  4. 2805662

    Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    An interesting change to the RFT Glossary has been released as an addenda (LAND 400 PHASE 3 – Mounted Close Combat Capability RFT CASG/LSD/RFT0056/18 Addendum Number 04). The definitions contained in an RFT Glossary are carefully written (& debated robustly internally) prior to RFT release, as this Glossary becomes contractually binding for the subsequent RMA, and potentially into the acquisition itself. The change? The definition of “Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV)”! From “means a highly protected and lethal AFV with excellent cross country mobility able to lift an armoured infantry section of no fewer than nine infantry soldiers, consisting of three crew and six dismounts, that can fight onto an enemy position. The IFV will have the lethality to destroy as a minimum equivalent threat AFV, air targets, and enemy dismounts operating behind fortified positions or cover. It will be a highly survivable platform with an improved ability to survive the first hits from direct fire weapons, blast and fragmentation and then continue the mission.” To: ”means a Mission System that achieves aspects of the Mounted Close Combat Capability” (yep, no full stop) Glad it’s not vague at all!
  5. It was fun to play around with. The ACOG has a custom reticle with is even more simple than that fitted to the Russian RPG-7. AirTronicUSA are also getting into the PG-7 rocket market.
  6. Its considered bad form to photograph interiors or undersides without permission. Booth staff will happily chat to and show you around/inside the vehicles if they don’t have a scheduled meeting.
  7. You asked me for my reasons - which I’ve given - not for any sources. If you find my reasons wanting, fine, however, I have answered the question you asked. Nothing I discuss in the public domain is derived from anything other than observation, experience, and analysis. The Boxer is an in-service vehicle, that has been subjected to the full range of reliability and user testing by a number of countries, and selected by those outside of the countries that funded the development, which adds to the credibility of the vehicle, in my opinion. The KF41 is not. That is not to say that it’ll get there, but (looking at Land 400-3, in this case), Rheinmetall will need every second of the 36 months (IIRC) to RMA to get that vehicle mature enough for user testing.
  8. There was another Vehicle under a tarp at the GD stand....presumably the Griffon.
  9. 2805662

    Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    AS21 model turns up again.
  10. 2805662

    Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    Updated CV90 is out & about.
  11. It was a typical in-service, in-use truck on display with its crew talking about it. Had a new-but-used feel to it.
  12. Fair cop. I’d call it a “comment”, rather than a “whine”, but YMMV. The KF31 is a mature design that is ready for a customer to buy it - tomorrow. It has competed internationally against the Puma and the CV90. The BoxerCRV is also very mature, and that track record of Rheinmetall putting mature products in front of the customer (especially in Australia), sets an expectation, reasonable or otherwise. The KF41 is far from that. Rheinmetall has inferred that the KF41 is similarly mature as the KF31, which it patently is not. The KF41 as displayed at Eurosatory, Land Forces 18, and (presumably) AUSA 18 did not have a functioning turret (hand transverse only), for example. None of the appliqué armour, which has different geometry to the that trialled on the KF31, has been produced as a complete vehicle set for the KF41. The Lance 2.0 turret is a comparatively (to the Lance 1.0) immature design who’s flaws are yet to be wrung out. Interior stowage design, itself a major package of work, hasn’t been displayed. It also doesn’t have mature variants. Having been on both sides of vehicle development, display, deployment, and disposal, I’m aware that there are mock ups, models, and show ponies. At Eurosatory 18, it was illustrative to move from the Puma (on loan from a panzergrenadier battalion of the Bundeswehr) to the KF41, to the Stryker Dragoon (also an in-service vehicle). That experience, coupled with my other experiences led me to the “napkinpanzer” Moniker as an attempt to highlight where in the product cycle KF41 sits. It may evolve into My comments on “napkinpanzer” is a counter-point to Rheinmetall’s incessant propaganda/marketing on the KF41. It’s also a callback to the incomplete products that litter the history of German AFV development.
  13. Having been inside the KF41 - it is a napkinpanzer. It is 100% a concept demonstrator. There is *a lot* of work required to get that (well travelled) single prototype anywhere near usable. Look in the back, for a start: