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

2805662

Contributing Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    692

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    53

 Content Type 

Posts posted by 2805662

  1. Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    in Mechanized Warfare

    Posted

    1 minute ago, Zadlo said:

    You have a bit bigger issue because you already use Bushmaster II. It depends on Rheinmetall if you'll use different links for MK 30-2 and Mk 44 or Lynx will be armed with WOTAN 30 which can use Mk 44 links.

     

    But for Australians it's not an issue. Tbh they choose the first 30mm autocannon and no matter if they choose Bushmaster II, MK 30-2 or WOTAN 30 they'll not solve this problem because Americans use Bushmaster II only on Stryker Dragoon (81 pieces) meanwhile XM319 uses linkless 30mm ammunition.

    The USMC ACV variant with the MCT-30 also uses the Mk44. We regularly exercise & operate regionally with the USMC. 

  3. Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    in Mechanized Warfare

    Posted

    2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

    Again, Nammo makes ammunition with links suitable for Rheinmetall's cannon, ammunition which is used with Rheinmetall cannon. General Dynamics makes ammunition used and compatible with the MK-30/1, pretending that they could never supply ammunition for the MK-30/2 - just because they would need a new steel catridge - is silly.


    A large part of the ammunition compatibility discussion isn’t (just) about who makes it. In Australia, it’s also about interoperability. Literally the ability to give & take ammunition from coalition partners and their military logistic chains.
     

    This requirement has been regularly exercised in East Timor, Iraq, & Afghanistan. In the most egregious case, ASLAV crews airlifted into Baghdad in 2003 literally purchased - in cash - 25mm ammunition from US Army Bradley crews so that they could leave the airport with more than small arms ammunition. 
     

    Australia’s most consistent coalition partner, regionally and farther afield, is the United States. The Mk-30/2 cannot consume US DoD 30x173mm ammunition.

     

    That alone should have excluded the Mk-30/2 from consideration. The capability manager (AHQ), the contestability folks, and Land Explosive Ordnance SPO (LEOSPO) of CASG all failed to identify & address this all the way up to or before contract signature.

     

    Rheinmetall were smart to exploit this lack of (very basic) technical knowledge on behalf of the customer.  

  4. Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    in Mechanized Warfare

    Posted

    11 hours ago, DIADES said:

    Yes, can be but given MILVEHCOE is utterly new and state of the art, no.  Can Australia really afford two AFV manufacturing centers?  Can the ADF afford to operate two completely different turrets?

     

    As for Export controls... well Korea is utterly in the pocket of the US so in no way reliable.  And in any case, the engine is German..


    We’re also “utterly in the pocket” of the US, and only one of three countries that has a bilateral defence trade cooperation treaty with the US (the others being UK & Canada). ROK is much more closely aligned with Australian interests than Germany, especially in regard to regional challenges. 

    Who’s to say that the potential Hanwha facility wouldn’t be used for non-ADF customers? 

     

    I agree that two medium-calibre turrets is a bad idea for the ADF. There doesn’t appear to be anything that would preclude the turret from whichever platform being backcast onto Boxer. After all, the Lance 2.0 is so different from Lance 1.0 that is a new turret from a supportability perspective. 
     

    Rheinmetall missed a trick during Phase 2 negotiations by not making options for further quantities of Lance worthwhile for the Commonwealth. Had they done that, Lance would’ve likely been mandated as the turret solution, much like the EOS R400 is for the RWS. 
     

    If the AS21 was to win, I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s turret appeared on Boxer CRV for Block 2. After all, Boxer is modular, right?

  6. Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    in Mechanized Warfare

    Posted

    I think Hanwha’s Victorian presence is a given due to the SPH (AS9 & AS10) work package. “Not a single dollar invested” is one of those hyperbolic, unprovable statements that I habitually challenge because I loath them. 
     

    Yes, Rheinmetall has developed the MILVEHCOE - after winning several substantial contracts. Defence paid handsomely for that investment. The Australian taxpayer footed the Bill for the MILVEHCOE, not Rheinmetall. There’s no reason that Hanwha (courtesy of the Australian taxpayer) could not make a similar or superior investment, were they to win a similar contract. 
     

    Personally, I see capricious German export controls & their potential effect on Australian land combat power, to be a substantial risk to Australian army capability. Putting our eggs in one basket, with a government who’s foreign policies are frequently not aligned with ours, is potentially the dumbest thing that the Australian government could possibly do. 

  15. Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    in Mechanized Warfare

    Posted

    1 hour ago, DIADES said:

    For those not familiar - Ph3 roles are divided into two groups.  Infantry Fighting Vehicle - Direct Fire High Survivability Lift (IFV-DFHSL) which is all the turreted roles and Infantry Fighting Vehicle - Specialist Support (IFV-SS)  The IFV-SS spec covers Ambulance, Recovery, Repair etc.

     

    DFHSL and SS are two completely separate Specifications.

     

    So, when we talk remotes on a turreted vehicle:

    The RFT version of the IFV-DFHSL spec has an overarching Requirement:

    FPS-2359 3.4.4.4 Lethality - Remote Controlled Weapon.  This has about a dozen child Requirements.  In summary, must have a remotely controlled weapon so a RWS or MSSA.


    Thanks for doing the leg work. I’ve deleted my copies of the RFT pack as I’ve moved on to other things. 
     

    It’ll be interesting to see whether the MSSA as offered by Rheinmetall can satisfy the RWS functional requirements. It’ll also be interesting to see if the MSSA can supplant the RWS mandated (as GFx?) for L400-3 (the EOS R-400).
     

    With the retirement of the ASLAV, the Kongsberg RWS is likely to exit service. As such, the Australian Army can now consolidate its remote weapon stations down to the R-400 (on Bushmaster, Hawkei, Boxer, AS9/10 [as GFx?], and the L400-3 vehicles). Rheinmetall’s MSSA offering would have to be pretty compelling to shift the Commonwealth back away from a single, common RWS. 

  17. Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    in Mechanized Warfare

    Posted

    1 minute ago, DIADES said:

    Phase 2 and Phase 3 requirements are different.  Will not meet Ph3 without an MSSA.  Ph2 and Ph3 vehicles have different roles.  Ph2, despite ludicrous size is recon.  Ph3 is IFV

    Yeah, understand the different roles & tasks of the vehicles to be acquired via phase, but thanks for the explanation. 
     

    Happy to be corrected with the requirement number that would indicate that turreted Phase 3 variants require a RWS or have a remote weapon requirement. MSSA negatively affects the overall vehicle height as whilst the SEOSS sight head can retract, the MSSA cannot. 
     

    Anecdotally, the safety case for even a static live fire of the MSSA for the phase 2 RMA couldn’t be completed as the software performance was unable to verified. 

  18. Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    in Mechanized Warfare

    Posted

    Just now, DIADES said:

    Only for non-turreted roles.  Turreted use MSSA as it is the best packaging solution when you have a proper independent commanders sight.


    *proposed to use the MSSA. 

     

    The Commonwealth didn’t execute the MSSA option for phase 2 Lance turrets (Block 1 or 2), so no reason to think that they’d change their mind for this phase. 

×
×
  • Create New...