Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

Dragonstriker

Contributing Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    30

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Dragonstriker

  1. Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    in Mechanized Warfare

    Posted

    Comments in ADM and The Australian imply that the cost of Lynx was very close to Redback and directly state that Redback was preferred on capabilities.

     

    If CASG had any sense, which is an open question, redback would be delivered with mk44S. Minor cost differential now, for Super40 later, if needed.

    The reason for selecting 30x173 over 35x228 was ammo capacity; super40 keeps that capacity with improved performance over 30mm if the threat requires it.

    It won’t happen, because it would be too sensible, just as specifying Mk30-2/ABM as the cannon armament for L400-3 was too sensible.

    Edit: mk44S it is. Good job by those who decided.

     

  3. Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    in Mechanized Warfare

    Posted

    From my reading of the UNCLASS report, I think retention of M113AS4 is unlikely.

    • Whilst the media reportage casts the L400-3 reduction as solely about cost, the report repeatedly references “optimising Army for littoral manoeuvre capability by sea, land and air.”
    • The close combat capabilities to be provided by Army include a “single armoured combined-arms brigade, able to meet the most demanding land challenges in our region.”
    • LAND8116-2 needs immediate cancellation because the range is inadequate.
    • New IFV are required, but only sufficient for one mech battalion “in particular for littoral manoeuvre”.
    • Need long-range fires stat. (HIMARS & moar HIMARS)
    • Re-roling units is necessary.
    • Fires, IFV and landing craft must be delivered simultaneously.

    Aside from the Armoured Brigade, all the key vehicles to provide the refocused Army capability are wheeled; HIMARS, NASAMS on Hawkei, the land based ASM capability (NSM on Hawkei or the weird unmanned JLTV).  It seems most likely protected mobility for non-mech infantry (and engineers and arty and so on) will be completely by Bushmaster and Hawkei and M113 will finally be allowed to retire.

  7. Tanks guns and ammunition.

    in Ballistics Science Discussion

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Sovngard said:

     

    You're gonna tell me that the designers didn't even noticed the excessive barrel wear throughout its development despite the fact than more than 15 000 rounds have been fired ?

     

    This is very easy to blame the joint company who designed the gun.  One can say that a poorly maintained gun wear out more quickly.

     

    Nobody said the designers didn’t notice.

    It seems more likely that barrel wear was just insoluble in the design space and determined to be a necessary trade off.

    Further, how can guns not in service be poorly maintained?

  8. Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    in Mechanized Warfare

    Posted

    22 hours ago, SH_MM said:

    If read on Twitter, that Australia supposedly demands that its next IFV has to be used in the country of origin (i.e. Germany has to buy the KF41 or South Korea has to buy the AS21), so it will be in these countries interests that the vehicle works correctly and is reliable. Is there any Australian source confirming that?

    No.

  10. Fiction Done Right: Designing your own MBT (1991-1999)

    in Mechanized Warfare

    Posted

    I’ll third the welcome and second the recommendation to check out the past design competitions.

    Having said that, I’m going to chance my arm by saying the fundamental factor determining tank design is doctrine; i.e. what is your tank supposed to do and how is it intended to fight?

    Another question regarding your scenario: is this a new design for 90s production for the “end of history” environment or is it a legacy Cold War platform tasked into that environment?

    If the second and western, it would look almost exactly like Abrams or Leo 2.

    If the first, you might well go for lighter overall, accepting say a 105mm L7 based gun and lighter base armour protection which theoretically could be up armoured… and it would look like an XM8.

    There are better educated amateurs on this forum who can quantify the trade offs, not to mention professionals who work in relevant fields. These folks can give more specific responses than I can - I am, at best, a dilettante.

  13. Legend of the A-10 Hog and the Avenger [Mythbusting]

    in Aviation

    Posted · Edited by Dragonstriker
    Typo

    The most telling thing about the A-10 is that it’s not all that good at its sole function, CAS in a permissive environment.

    Scrap ‘em now.

     

    SMSgt Mac has a comprehensive series of posts about the A-10 and CAS myths here:

    http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2011/07/debunking-close-air-support-myths-part.html

     

    In short, the A-10 mythology is all about keeping the USAF permanently relegated to a supporting force, while the real heroes in the Army get to call the shots, win the war and bask in the adulation of the citizenry. (My summary, not Mac’s)

     

    The money quote of the whole series for me is:


     

    Quote

    A few days before the ground war commenced in February 1991. . . he [General Schwarzkopf] met with his subordinate commanders to discuss the land offensive. General Horner explained his Push CAS modus of flowing airplanes to the battlefield twenty-four hours a day (rather than keeping them idle while sitting alert). When General [Frederick] Franks ignored what Horner had said and demanded that VII Corps be allotted hundreds of CAS sorties per day (whether needed or not),the airman angrily disputed the allocation of air power in that manner and reiterated his Push CAS procedures. Horner believed it important for unity of command to let his anger show as he vehemently rejected Franks’s claim for so much unfocused air power. He remembered his outburst having no effect: “Everyone looked at me and said, ‘Well, he fell on his sword; isn’t that quaint.’” General [Walt] Boomer jumped in and requested as many dedicated sorties for his Marines, and General [Gary] Luck joined the “run on the bank” and demanded as many CAS flights for his XVIII Corps. The ground commanders argued for their sorties, but after a while Schwarzkopf called a halt to the debate, reminding all present, “You people don’t understand. It’s all my air, and I’ll use it any way I please.” “That ended the argument,” Horner recalled, “and we maintained centralized command.” The CINCCENT [commander in chief of Central Command] depended upon his JFACC to ensure that all the ground commanders received adequate air support. 

    From http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2011/07/cas-myths-sidebar-army-air-force-views.html

     

    Mac knows wtf he’s talking about, and most importantly he backs it with sources.

     

    What is the Army going to do in the IndoPacific theatre again?

  15. Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    in Mechanized Warfare

    Posted

    Quote

    “We’ve gotten to the point where we’ve demonstrated that we have fixed those issues, and we’ve gotten a significant maturity level and performance demonstration within the system,” putting the system up against roughly 400 threats including single and dual-warheads, anti-tank guided missiles, rocket-propelled grenades and recoilless rifles, Neaves said.

    This is a positive statement. IFDL may not be there yet, but “there” is at least visible from here.

  16. Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    in Mechanized Warfare

    Posted

    There were problems with early production batches. As it turns out, the problems were due to ADI building to match the TDP. When consultants from Steyr were brought in all their “fixes” were to disregard the TDP specification and arbitrarily increase tolerances.

    After that “advice” ADI figured things out on their own, for better or worse.

  18. SSN for Australia

    in Naval Discussion

    Posted

    It appears that fuel - defuel operations won’t be required during the service life of the submarines which suggests that there will not be the same degree of nuclear industry and manufacturing required to support the operation of the fleet as in the past.

    Astute seems to be likely, based on similar dimensions to Attack, as the dry dock facilities at ASC CUF will fit Astute length boats.

    Nuclear powerplants are consistent with Australian NPT obligations as we already operate OPAL.

  20. SSN for Australia

    in Naval Discussion

    Posted

    In a joint press conference this morning, AU PM Scott Morrison, UK PM Boris Johnson and US President Joe Biden announced the acquisition of SSN and domestic nuclear manufacturing capability to replace our 6 SSK. This will substitute the previously programmed 12 “shortfin barracuda” SSNK (denuclearised barracuda SSN).

    This is a massive change for Australia.

     

    ADBR story

    ADM story

    ABC news story

     

    So far the reports are all saying the same thing.

     

  23. Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    in Mechanized Warfare

    Posted

    But Iron Fist Decoupled Light is vapourware anyway, according to this thread.

     

    Is this just "shaping the battlefield" for L400.3 so Redback isn't a "surprise winner"?

     

    only being able to fire German-made ammunition

    I mean the ABC gets this wrong in the second paragraph, right after "the ABC can reveal". Unless Benalla is in Germany.

     

    After a competitive tender in 2016, NIOA was awarded an MMC contract in October 2017. 

    The MMC is established for long term sustainment purchases with the scope of work being:

    • the provision of Munitions to the Commonwealth
    • ...

    50+ products are currently listed on the MMC including:

    ...

    • 30mm Ammunition

    and

    https://defence.nioa.com.au/projects/land-400

×
×
  • Create New...