Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Tied

United States Military Vehicle General: Guns, G*vins, and Gas Turbines

Recommended Posts

Quote

The Army required the competitors to deliver a bid sample — a full-up working vehicle — to Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, by Oct. 1.

What snarled Rheinmetall, for instance, according to sources, was the timeline it needed to get approvals from the local municipal government to transport the vehicle by tractor trailer or rail and then via air.


Seems like a minor issue. An extension will almost certainly be granted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, David Moyes said:


Seems like a minor issue. An extension will almost certainly be granted.

 

It shouldn't have been difficult to deliver a vehicle on time either.

 

Looks like the Ajax is getting a brother in arms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David Moyes said:


Seems like a minor issue. An extension will almost certainly be granted.

Unlikely. Bid deadlines are usually an absolute. 
 

Once saw a major military communications company excluded from further consideration as the guy delivering the physical copies of their bid got caught in traffic and missed close by less than five minutes. 
 

Only having a single prototype smacks of under investment by Rheinmetall. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/2/2018 at 10:19 PM, skylancer-3441 said:

it turned out that there is a report about SAIFV, which is readily available on the internet there http://cdm16635.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p16635coll14/id/56079/rec/1

It appears that, approximately one year later, that link no longer works. If anyone happened to have saved the file while it was available, a rehost would be greatly appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 2805662 said:

Only having a single prototype smacks of under investment by Rheinmetall. 

Yeah, but to some extent, Rheinmetall is a victim of its own success,  The Kf41 was developed specifically for the Australian L400 Phase 3 Requirement.  The very strong interest from half a dozen other nations probably exceeded even the wildest marketing team claims.  All the air miles and repaints on the show car will have hacked into its availability too.  They probably never expected to be the prettiest girl at the ball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, David Moyes said:

Are single-bidder competitions allowed in the US? I know in UK and Canada they have to be restarted/cancelled.

Don't know - but having only a single valid bid sure as hell compromises credibility.  Given BAE no bid, Rheinmetall non-compliant bid.  Pretty clear that the requirement set does not work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not difficult to come with requirements which are impossible to fulfill by one or more bidders. That has been even intentionally used for ages all over the Globe. Not saying that it's this case, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Beer said:

Not saying that it's this case, of course.

 

If they made another prototype and shipped it to Raytheon back in March/April when the RFP came out, they'd have been fine. Just the stupidest way to lose a potential 3500 vehicle contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

Sour grapes do not compromise credibility

Have a good read of the requirements.  The fundamental conflict is the usual weight/protection problem.  The driver is the requirement to put two units in a C17 and have very, very high protection and 20% growth margin.  BAE assessed that as not doable.  Rheinmetall/Ratheon bid Kf41 which from my reading of mas and protection claims against L400 Phase 3, cannot meet the OMFV spec and would have been rejected regardless of not providing a bid sample.

 

GD have bid and good luck to them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Beer said:

It's not difficult to come with requirements which are impossible to fulfill by one or more bidders. That has been even intentionally used for ages all over the Globe. Not saying that it's this case, of course.

It does happen, no way to tell at this stage.  This is interesting:

But a larger issue, multiple sources conveyed, was the clear differences between what the Army acquisition community and what Army Futures Command wanted to do. Sources confirmed that the acquisition side of the house was willing to agree to extensions, for instance, but AFC, who is in charge of rapid requirements development and prototyping efforts ahead of programs of record, insisted the Army must adhere to the schedule.

Industry also expressed concern to the Army over the roughly 100 mandatory requirements, with just six tradeable ones, expected to be met over 15 months using non-developmental vehicles

From: https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/10/04/lynx-41-disqualified-from-bradley-replacement-competition/

Noting that nobody has published any data on any vehicle presently in existence (non-developmental) that meets the spec or even near it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are conflating requirements -  parameters a system being procured has to meet - and conditions - parameters that respondents to the procurement have to comply with in order to participate. 
 

It doesn’t matter whether a system, in this case, KF41, meets the requirements stipulated by the customer, if the respondent (i.e. Rheinmetall) cannot meet the conditions of the RFP, in this case, delivery of an example system by a specified timeframe. 
 

A respondent has to meet the requirements while complying with the conditions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 2805662 said:

A respondent has to meet the requirements while complying with the conditions.

Correct.  As I hear it, the failure to provide a sample came about as Raytheon decided not to bid (some time ago).  The decision was based on non-compliance with requirements.  About 10 days out from the closing date, that decision was reversed,  no idea why, seems unlikely that compliance could have changed much so I assume politics.  Problem, Rheinmetall, knowing the bid was off, began turret off deep maintenance on the proto.  The rest writes itself.

 

So non-compliance with requirements lead to non-compliance with conditions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, DIADES said:

Correct.  As I hear it, the failure to provide a sample came about as Raytheon decided not to bid (some time ago).  The decision was based on non-compliance with requirements.  About 10 days out from the closing date, that decision was reversed,  no idea why, seems unlikely that compliance could have changed much so I assume politics.  Problem, Rheinmetall, knowing the bid was off, began turret off deep maintenance on the proto.  The rest writes itself.

 

So non-compliance with requirements lead to non-compliance with conditions

 

I'm interested in where you heard that Raytheon decided not to bid and as a result Rheinmetall had the prototype taken apart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DIADES said:

As I hear it, the failure to provide a sample came about as Raytheon decided not to bid (some time ago).  The decision was based on non-compliance with requirements.  About 10 days out from the closing date, that decision was reversed

 

No offense but this is a tad hard to believe. Raytheon was working on the bid during mid-August, and selecting Textron to manufacture would've been difficult to do in a week. Possible but not likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Clan_Ghost_Bear said:

Raytheon was working on the bid during mid-August, and selecting Textron to manufacture would've been difficult to do in a week. Possible but not likely

Yes they were working on it and I imagine their commercial guys were preping people like Textron in parallel.  The person who provided the info works out of Tuscon where the bid team wee so is a pretty good source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://breakingdefense.com/2019/10/bradley-replacement-army-risks-third-failure-in-a-row/

 

Some neat things from the article on GD's OMFV

>The suspension is a totally new design. The engine and transmission are totally different. Drive train is different. Exhaust placement is different

>3+5 crew/passengers, all in the same compartment in the hull

>360 deg. awareness from cameras

>APS integrated into vehicle

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really confused.


Rheinmetall's Lynx Kf41 has been disqualified, officially because the producer miss the delivery of the prototype at Aberdeeen by the Oct.1.


Meanwhile GDLS is in the game with a prototype that is completely different (as the same GDLS said) from the prospected solution ... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • By Sturgeon
      I'll start off with a couple Pathe videos:


       

       

       

    • By EnsignExpendable
      Volketten on the WoT forums posted some XM-1 trials results.
       
       
      Compare this to what the Americans claimed the XM1 will do:
       

       
      Seems like the XM1 really didn't earn that checkmark-plus in mobility or protection. 
       
    • By JNT11593
      So National Geographic has a mini series airing right now called The Long Road Home. I'm curious if any else is watching it right now. The show is about black Friday, and the beginning of the siege of sadr city in 2004. It's filmed at Fort Hood with cooperation from the U.S. Army so it features a lot of authentic armor. The first couple of episodes feature Bradleys quite heavily, and starting with episode 4 it looks like Abrams starting getting more screen time. It's pretty cool if you want to see some authentic tanks and vehicles as long as you can stand some cheesiness and army wife shit.
       
      Edit: Just realized I posted to the wrong board.
       
    • By SH_MM
      Well, if you include TUSK as armor kit for the Abrams, then you also have to include the different Theatre Entry Standards (TES) armor kits (three versions at least) of the Challenger 2. The base armor however was most likely not upgraded.
       
      The Leclerc is not geometrically more efficient. It could have been, if it's armor layout wasn't designed so badly. The Leclerc trades a smaller frontal profile for a larger number of weakspots. It uses a bulge-type turret (no idea about the proper English term), because otherwise a low-profile turret would mean reduced gun depression (breech block hits the roof when firing). There is bulge/box on the Leclerc turret roof, which is about one feet tall and located in the centerline of the turret. It is connected to the interior of the tank, as it serves as space for the breech block to travel when the gun is depressed. With this bulge the diffence between the Leopard 2's and Leclerc's roof height is about 20 milimetres.
       

       
      The problem with this bulge is, that it is essentially un-armored (maybe 40-50 mm steel armor); otherwise the Leclerc wouldn't save any weight. While the bulge is hidden from direct head-on attacks, it is exposed when the tank is attacked from an angle. Given that modern APFSDS usually do not riccochet at impact angles larger than 10-15° and most RPGs are able to fuze at such an angle, the Leclerc has a very weakly armored section that can be hit from half to two-thirds of the frontal arc and will always be penetrated.
       

       
      The next issue is the result of the gunner's sight layout. While it is somewhat reminiscent of the Leopard 2's original gunner's sight placement for some people, it is actually designed differently. The Leopard 2's original sight layout has armor in front and behind the gunner's sight, the sight also doesn't extend to the bottom of the turret. On the Leclerc things are very different, the sight is placed in front of the armor and this reduces overall thickness. This problem has been reduced by installing another armor block in front of the guner's sight, but it doesn't cover the entire crew.
       

       
      The biggest issue of the Leclerc is however the gun shield. It's tiny, only 30 mm thick! Compared to that the Leopard 2 had a 420 mm gun shield already in 1979. The French engineers went with having pretty much the largest gun mantlet of all contemporary tanks, but decided to add the thinnest gun shield for protection. They decided to instead go for a thicker armor (steel) block at the gun trunnions.
       

       
      Still the protection of the gun mantlet seems to be sub-par compared to the Leopard 2 (420 mm armor block + 200-250 mm steel for the gun trunion mount on the original tank) and even upgraded Leopard 2 tanks. The Abrams has a comparable weak protected gun mantlet, but it has a much smaller surface. The Challenger 2 seems to have thicker armor at the gun, comparable to the Leopard 2.
       
      Also, the Leclerc has longer (not thicker) turret side armor compared to the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2, because the armor needs to protect the autoloader. On the other tanks, the thick armor at the end of the crew compartment and only thinner, spaced armor/storage boxes protect the rest of the turret. So I'd say:
      Challenger 2: a few weakspots, but no armor upgrades to the main armor Leclerc: a lot of weakspots, but lower weight and a smaller profile when approached directly from the turret front M1 Abrams: upgraded armor with less weakspots, but less efficient design (large turret profile and armor covers whole turret sides) So if you look for a tank that is well protected, has upgraded armor and uses the armor efficiently, the current Leopard 2 should be called best protected tank.
×
×
  • Create New...