Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

2805662

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    397
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Everything posted by 2805662

  1. Would love to see a rear view. See what they’ve changed for MPF.
  2. Regarding the Oshkosh M-ATV/TAK-4 suspension: I’m looking for dimensions on the track (distance between the center line of each of the two wheels on the same axle). I’ve got 2,100 mm in my notes but would like to verify that.
  3. Thanks. Makes sense - which probably reduces the likelihood of it being adopted! 😂
  4. Is M1A2B official nomenclature? I’ve only seen reference to M1A2C (SEP v.3) and M1A2D (v.4) in US Army literature.
  5. Yep. Look at the relative distance from the grenade box to the front of that armour plate. Definitely longer, like IP M1 to M1 turret.
  6. The Puma turret is not a Lance turret. There is a remote Lance turret, but it is not the same as that fitted to the Puma (though the Puma turret has been fitted to Boxer for trade shows, further confusing matters).
  7. These pics I took at Land Forces 18 may be of use:
  8. I see this term used in solicitations frequently. From the context, I’m guessing they’re samples of production-standard armour packages. That said, I’d love a definition of what constitutes an ‘armor coupon’ (apart from an inconvenient-to-carry food stamp?).
  9. The two teams of eight section in Australia has been superseded by the 3/3/3 model (3 crew, six dismounts). Check this (excellent) article on the implementation of the IFV within the Australian context. https://www.cove.org.au/breakin/article-land-400-phase-3-a-case-for-reviewing-that-other-case/ it summarises the organisational & doctrinal background to what is coming, set against the 50+ years of M113 operation by the Australian Army.
  10. You’re right: it is for mounted close combat...that said, the IFV are intended to be issued to the three mechanised infantry battalions. The infantry sections (now) have three ‘teams’ of three pers, two teams for dismounts, and the vehicle team (i.e. crew). To clarify, the section commander commands the section - dismounts + vehicle - whereas the vehicle commander, being subordinate to the section commander, only commands the vehicle. Having spoken to British Army armoured infantry JNCO & officers, they do the stop/drop switcheroo: entity commander is in the turret, up to dismounting on the objective (for C2/SA reasons), then exits the turret and the vehicle (via the rear door/ramp) to command dismounted. During this evolution, the gunner continues to engage targets until the vehicle commander gets into the turret. Unsure how US mechanised infantry does it, though Stryker squad commanders have their own hatch/SA, independent of the vehicle commander.
  11. The @Mighty_Zuk is best placed to answer questions on the Merk 4.
  12. Could be like the original Merk 4? Although the tender requires a ‘manned turret’, it doesn’t explicitly call out that both the gunner & commander have to be contained within. One of the tricky parts of using the M113A1 w/T50 turret in the mechanised (as opposed to mounted) infantry role is where the infantry commander resides. Does s/he man the turret whilst mounted, then dismount in an objective, acknowledging that the turret (& weapons) are unattended while the ‘other’ crew commander gets in? Or does the infantry commander sit in the back, with zero SA while closed down? Maybe the T-2000 configuration addresses this, somehow?
  13. So, last week was the tenderer’s brief to the tender evaluation team. Each of the four tenderer’s had an equal time allocated to brief. Generally speaking, the Commonwealth structures its evaluation into specific teams, called Tender Evaluation Working Groups (TEWGs). The TEWGs are segregated into commercial, financial, project management, technical/engineering, and user. Depending on the activity, other TEWGs may be generated. Financial aspects of the tenderer’s offers are stripped out before non-financial TEWGs start their evaluations, so that offers are evaluated on their objective merits. Each TEWG completes its evaluation of the submission against the requirements (ostensibly not against the competing products) and produces a TEWG report. The TEWG lead presents the findings of the TEWG report to the Tender Evaluation Board (TEB), to arrive at a preferred tenderer and a non-preferred tenderer. So, AS21, KF41, CV90, and AJAX are all being evaluated for short-listing to detailed assessment, similar to L400-2 (AMV35 & Boxer CRV).
  14. Apparently that’s the turret being offered by Hanwha on the AS21.
  15. More of Rheinmetall’s submission has made it I to the public domain. 120mm Nemo mortar Protected amphibious vehicle:
  16. 2805662

    UAV thread

    Boeing Australia unveils “Loyal Wingman” UAS. “The new concept aircraft even looks different from many UAVs, with a profile more like a conventional fighter plane without a cockpit. When the actual prototype flies in 2020, the 38 ft (11.7 m) long airframe will have "fighter-like performance" with a range of 2,000 nm (2,301 mi, 3,704 km).” https://newatlas.com/boeing-australia-loyal-wingman/58657/
  17. The gun is *not* common between phases. The caliber is.
  18. It is. The model shipped to Australia in September painted green, I helped out a mate by repainting it the day before the tradeshow (Land Forces) into the camouflage, after DVD in the UK, the model was repainted into the desert scheme and will (likely) appear at IDEX this week in Abu Dhabi.
  19. DOT&E report for 2018 published. Abrams: http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2018/pdf/army/2018m1a2sep.pdf APS: http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2018/pdf/army/2018aps.pdf AMPV: http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2018/pdf/army/2018ampv.pdf Bradley: http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2018/pdf/army/2018bradley.pdf JAB: http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2018/pdf/army/2018jab.pdf M109A7: http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2018/pdf/army/2018m109pim.pdf Stryker - Dragoon: http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2018/pdf/army/2018strykericvd.pdf RWS-J: http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2018/pdf/army/2018strykercrowsj.pdf ACV: http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2018/pdf/navy/2018acv.pdf
  20. Apart from GFE, there’s no commonality requirement across the phases of L400. CASG wasn’t reigned in enough before RFT release, IMO.
  21. No necessarily. Not even the 30mm gun has to be common across the phases.
  22. In other news, Iron Fist - Light has been selected for the Australian Boxer purchase. https://defense-update.com/20190121_iron-fists-aps-for-the-australian-boxers.html?sfns=mo “Australia plans to contract Rheinmetall to integrate Iron Fist on the Lance turrets being used on the 121 of the Block II (improved reconnaissance vehicles) Australia is buying under the Land 400 Phase 2 program.”
  23. For a rational customer, I’d agree. However, the strength of GD’s potential offering is that, with the exception of the IFV hull (arguably the simplest of the family), they are offering a fully mature, technically certified & qualified family of vehicles, as accepted by the British, from whom the majority of standards & procedures used by the Land Engineering Agency (LEA) are derived from (Def Stans & DEF(AUST)s). Deviation from already-qualified vehicles undermines this narrative, which is “Low Technical Risk/Military Off The Shelf”. Let’s look at some decisions that GD have made so far regarding production. - hulls will be manufactured as ‘green’ hulls in existing facilities (so as not to risk perceived technical maturity). - hulls won’t use Australian steel (so as not to risk perceived technical maturity). Based on the above, and that nowhere in the L400 RFT is a requirement for calibres above 30mm, Griffin 1-3, whilst interesting, and illustrative of design capabilities and future options, aren’t really relevant to the L400-3 activity.
  24. That’s my point. GD is offering AJAX-based variants only. They have been stressing the proven, low risk nature of their family of vehicles from the outset. Griffin (any variant) haven’t been accepted into service by any country and haven’t been subjected to a customer’s engineering & qualification processes like the AJAX families. Apart from being from the same OEM, it has no standing within the context of Land 400 Phase 3, as far as I can see. What “impact” are you suggesting?
×
×
  • Create New...