2805662
-
Posts
689 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
52
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Everything posted by 2805662
-
Good thread from ATDU on the WCSP cancellation. https://twitter.com/thepagey/status/1379927374263955464?s=21
- 1,042 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- challenger 2
- warrior
- (and 2 more)
-
Different language, sure. Big difference?Maybe. Maybe not. Are APS integrated, fired, or both? Both a step up from “planned to be demonstrated” from RDA. HDA’s turret system integration seems to be ahead either way. But is it either by a nose, or a mile? It’d be interesting to see what, if any, Iron Fist integration from 400-2 bleeds across to -3. Also be very interested in whether the Eurospike joint venture includes Spike LR2 IP. The public domain literature only mentions Spike LR as MELLS, not LR2. If Lance has been tested with an ATGM (video request extant), was it Spike LR or MELLS? Interesting to speculate, as always.
-
I’d like to see the Iron Fist video, too. Perhaps the test was a multi-threat demonstration & the video would reveal too much of Iron Fist’s capabilities? I doubt we’ll ever know...unless the video is released. That said, with the seriousness of the RMA, I’m sceptical that they’re making ambit claims.
-
-
“Planned to be demonstrated with both the Spike....and Iron Fist....through either live fire or....laboratory demonstrations.” Very carefully worded written responses to questions. No mention of Spike LR2. Any demonstrations - preferably on YouTube - of any kind of Spike LR being fired from an actual Lance turret? Or Iron Fist? Interested to see how Liebherr’s first foray into AFV power packs will fare, reliability-wise.
-
Great update courtesy of DTR: https://defencetechnologyreview.partica.online/defence-technology-review/dtr-apr-2021/flipbook/11/
-
Don’t call it a white paper!
-
Yes. The number has been six since 2018.
-
The requirement on the RFT when released was six. It’s incorrect to say that “always has been”. Army Capability Requirement 2012 (ACR 2012 - the 2012 was the implementation date, not the drafting date) mandated the Standard Infantry Battalion, which was wholly dismounted. IFV would be held as battalion lift as a Squadron in the Brigade’s Armoured Cavalry Regiment. PMV would be held as a battalion lift as a company in the Brigade’s Combat Service Support Battalion. Why does this matter? SIB meant that all battalions were light infantry, with a section comprising two identical, four-man fireteams. This drove the IFV dismount requirement to crew (from the ACR)+8 (from the SIB). When it became clear that an ACR of 1 x tank squadron, 2 x reconnaissance squadrons, & 1 x IFV (APC) squadron wasn’t workable, the ACR lost its IFVs, SIB died, mechanised & motorised infantry battalions were reconstituted. With IFV crew now part of the section, the number of dismounts required dropped to six. This was also pushed by industry feedback that crew + eight was not really a thing. All of this combined for the RFT as released to read 3+6.
-
Apparently the Challenger 2 LEP contract has been signed.
- 1,042 replies
-
- 5
-
-
- challenger 2
- warrior
- (and 2 more)
-
Somebody from the tender eval team couldn’t count the number of seats & seatbelts in the back of each vehicle? Given the sign has “tenderer’s claims” on it, it doesn’t seem either accurate or honest. Quite on-brand!
-
StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)
2805662 replied to EnsignExpendable's topic in Mechanized Warfare
Now with video. -
The “offical” stats on the two trucks.
-
And, lastly, from the Defence image gallery: https://images.defence.gov.au/assets/Home/Search?Query=20210312adf8588365_016.jpg&Type=Filename
-
Even more. Some good details of the vehicles.
-
Some more
-
More pics. Rheinmetall RMA video https://youtu.be/-IgkrX8jc14
-
Link to some reference pictures of the Warrior Capability Sustainment Program: https://www.scorpion-miniature-models.co.uk/warrior-2
- 1,042 replies
-
- 4
-
-
- challenger 2
- warrior
- (and 2 more)
-
RMA roadshow marking the end of Phase 1 continues. Good that the tradition of bringing along the vehicle being replaced by one of the contenders continues into the phase of L400.
-
I’m interested in a fair competition. The only thing I’d change from phase 2, for example, is swapping the Mk30-2ABM for the Mk44. I find the assumed superiority of German engineering found in a lot of commentary on phase 3 reminiscent of wehraboo rantings, but that’s just me.
-
I guess. I’m sure the people who need to know, know. Is there anything in the public domain that indicates LR2 launchers aren’t backwards compatible with LR missiles? Looking forward to the equivalent Rheinmetall video of Spike LR or LR2.
-
Perhaps to preserve how capable the seeker is from the public domain?
-
I don’t think that’s accidental.
-
StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)
2805662 replied to EnsignExpendable's topic in Mechanized Warfare
Leopard 2A7A1 with Trophy. Not sure of the veracity of this pic. -
Left side for the coax for Lynx.
