DIADES

No "they" were not.  There are 13 of the buggers 2 were in but I don't know what for.
 
Block 2 is on schedule as far as I know.
 
The gun is fully external to the turret crew space.  The gas issue was to do with the NBC system and hatch seals not allowing full over pressure - now resolved.   It has nothing what so ever to do with gas or chain operated.  Both types make the same volume of gas ex-propellant.  The real issue is if the weapon breeech etc is in the crew space or not.  LANCE weapon is not in the turret crew space.

and that is exactly correct.  As Head Armoured Vehicle Division MAJGEN Jason Blain made clear during Senate Estimates yesterday:
"We never scoped to have any tank guided munitions fitted to our Block 1 vehicles. Again, in transition, as we move into Block 2, there is in the project scope and a plan to integrate an anti-tank guided munition system onto the Block 2 vehicle. We will have ATGMs, those missile systems, on our Block 2 fleet. It was never the case we'd have them on our Block 1 vehicles."
 
 

No "they" were not.  There are 13 of the buggers 2 were in but I don't know what for.
 
Block 2 is on schedule as far as I know.
 
The gun is fully external to the turret crew space.  The gas issue was to do with the NBC system and hatch seals not allowing full over pressure - now resolved.   It has nothing what so ever to do with gas or chain operated.  Both types make the same volume of gas ex-propellant.  The real issue is if the weapon breeech etc is in the crew space or not.  LANCE weapon is not in the turret crew space.

Related. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-06/multi-billion-dollar-army-vehicle-project-facing-cutbacks/100968910

It is true that not all my mates are the smartest bricks in the barbie - but, none of them are that stupid   They are saying that the advice to the Minister was LYNX.  Lets leave further discussion till aftet the actual announcement.

Your mates are saying Redback won? Nice. 

Probably best to caveat your comments with "according to my old mates" or similar.  My mates have the reverse story....

Probably best to caveat your comments with "according to my old mates" or similar.  My mates have the reverse story....

Probably best to caveat your comments with "according to my old mates" or similar.  My mates have the reverse story....

or any other - even vapouware EOS types   Iron Fist just does not do what it says on the tin.

I haven't sen any such reports. All latest reports are related only to the fact at this moment it's impossible to sign the final contract before parlamentary elections which means everything will be again delayed (if no other issues come with the new government).  
 
Before there was a lot of fuss related to Rheinmetall lobbying but there were basically no reports about any technical issues of any of the contenders (which doesn't mean none issues appeared). 
 

I for one look forwards to both of you sharing what you can, when you can.

or any other - even vapouware EOS types   Iron Fist just does not do what it says on the tin.

and what the hell, I make my call.  LYNX to win.  On merit but it won't hurt that the current Defence Minister is from Queensland...

Better late than never, I guess?
 
 

and what the hell, I make my call.  LYNX to win.  On merit but it won't hurt that the current Defence Minister is from Queensland...

From what I hear, that is a fair assessment. 
 
Separate issue - Iron Fist is turning into a massive cluster.  It will not enter Australian service - period.

All reasonable points. Will be interesting to see how it all plays out. 
 
New (infantry) boss for L400 at the end of the year, new guy in AHQ (black hat), new user rep in forces command (infantry - lightfighter); all setting up for an interesting evaluation. 
 
 

Yeah, read that.  Can't see how.  RMA is well and truly underway.  Pretty sure the rules do not allow late entries!  More likely that there is one turret type on their RMA vehicles (Elbit for sure) and they will show the CoA the "EOS" turret on the sidelines.

To my knowledge, not in active service yet anywhere.
The more cynical amongst us would say that means it's still vaporware.

Nothing strange about it. NATO is still using a lot of them - not MBTs but ARVs, BARV, AEVs, AVLBs etc.
 
Denmark, Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latwia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands and Germany have hundreds still in service (just to name a few countries I am certain about).

Yes - two Requirements FPS 2250 and 3381.  Static and in motion.  Non-detectable at 300m and 3,000m respectively.  Then there are crew/dismount habitability Requirements too.
 
Yes - AJAX is a valuable reminder.  In that case, given how old the vehicle is and that it is in service - I suspect the limits we accept now are lower than the bad old days!

For now yes, and even then it's not even exactly the same than the British one.
As I understood it, while France took the system that was developed as a whole, the UK choose to swap out a few subsystems to better suit their requirements (notably the feeding system) which caused a lot of integration problems.
 

Thanks. Long since deleted my copies of the requirements. 
 
Regarding the habitability requirements, will be interesting to see whether the different suspension & track systems affect the crew & dismount experiences. 

Yes - two Requirements FPS 2250 and 3381.  Static and in motion.  Non-detectable at 300m and 3,000m respectively.  Then there are crew/dismount habitability Requirements too.
 
Yes - AJAX is a valuable reminder.  In that case, given how old the vehicle is and that it is in service - I suspect the limits we accept now are lower than the bad old days!