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

2805662

Contributing Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    691

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    53

 Content Type 

Everything posted by 2805662

  1. 2805662
    Much, much, much less. That’s what’s in the written report, plus discussions with the trial officer & staff from Accredited Test Services (ATS, the test element of Land Engineering Agency), as well as trial participants. First I’ve heard of “higher vibration” and is 180 degrees at odds with what I’ve read, been told, & heard.
  2. 2805662
    Indeed. Quieter - reducing the need for higher level hearing protection - with less track slap, less vibration, greater mobility due to less weight when compared to T150.
  3. 2805662
    Which, while briefing well, betrayed that the Rheinmetall team did not understand the test procedure, or failed to comply with the vehicle prep requirements. Fuel should’ve been drained and replaced with an inert, environmentally friendly substitute. They were lucky not to be disqualified at that point.
  4. 2805662
    Speaking to people on the AS4 Soucy track trial, and the trial staff from ATS & ADTEO, from 2011, it trialled really well, handled rocky terrain very well, was robust, and had very high user acceptance. The barrier to entry into service was the contract for the T150 track. Pics are mine:
  5. 2805662
    Some interesting numbers from Hanwha... Plus some details of the proposed Victorian facility.
  6. 2805662
    More of a sequencing problem. The initial plan was for the RMA contenders to exhibit an RMA vehicle each at Land Forces 2020, initially scheduled for 1-3 September 2020, the hand them over for the RMA. With Land Forces now 3/4 of the way through the RMA, and it unlikely that the ballistic test articles being released to the RMA bidders until the conclusion of the RMA, or them being deemed non-compliant, I just don’t see it happening. The blast test vehicles are likely To be beyond economic repair, even if they were available. I’d love to be be proven wrong, but it seems very unlikely at this stage.
  7. 2805662
    They won’t have empty booths - but unless they build & ship additional-to-RMA vehicles, they won’t have actual representative vehicles to display.
  8. 2805662
    Maybe. Maybe not. Land Forces 2020 was meant to be commencing this week, with the RMA vehicles intended to be displayed there before being handed over to the Commonwealth for the RMA, itself. I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re not available inside that timeframe.
  9. 2805662
    So, KF41 exceeds requirements? Unless it’s the same price as the AS21, and the AS21 meets the requirement, there’s no competitive benefit (under Australian tender rules) to exceeding what’s been asked for. Otherwise the requirement is wrong & they’d have to go back to market.
  10. 2805662
    What do you base that statement on? They look like almost fungible items to me.
  11. 2805662
    Familiar with the new facility in Brisbane. Hanwha’s proposed facility in Geelong is about the same size. Easiest way to double the AIC bit would be to select Hanwha. Spread the love. It’s true that CDG - not Army - slow-rolled L17-1C approval (thanks to a certain LTCOL), but the the culminating point was the RAAF proposing canning of the “AS-9” to pay for the purchase of long-lead items required for the conversion of their 12 x F/A-18F+ to EA-18 before the production of those parts went defunct. Army & CDG choose to agree rather than fight. Wound up being redundant when the purchase of the EA-18, rather than the conversion of the F+, occurred. Was intimately involved in that whole thing.
  12. 2805662
    I’m leaning toward Hanwha, tbh. Rheinmetall owns too large a chunk of the ADF land vehicle fleet, plus the German government’s policies on arms exports are a bit capricious due to local political alliances. Lastly, Rheinmetall’s implementation of “Australian Industry Capability” to date hasn’t been what it was meant to be. With K9 & K10 being purchased (it beat the PzH2000 in completion during Land 17-1C before a GFC-induced cancellation in 2012), so long as Hanwha turns up and doesn’t fumble, L400-3 is theirs to lose (imo).
  13. 2805662
    https://mcusercontent.com/ebe687fe800f7d0f2f28fa168/files/353d7d1e-9bc1-4c3c-84f3-7741e51edd2f/Special_Bulletin_18_August_2020.02.pdf
  14. 2805662
    Apparently Hungary has selected the KF41 Lynx as it’s new IFV. https://mcusercontent.com/ebe687fe800f7d0f2f28fa168/files/353d7d1e-9bc1-4c3c-84f3-7741e51edd2f/Special_Bulletin_18_August_2020.02.pdf
  15. 2805662
    Apparently Hungary has selected the KF41 Lynx as it’s new IFV.
  16. 2805662
    The K21 exhaust layout is probably a good indication of AS21’s layout.
  17. 2805662
    Some more pics of the AS21 Redback being readied for delivery in September for the Risk Mitigation Activity.
  18. 2805662
    To be fair, CR2 has its propellant compartmented/segmented & (I believe) HESH projectiles.
  19. 2805662
    Marines farewell their tanks:
  20. 2805662
    Lots of good stuff there, @SH_MM, which has helped join some dots for me. I appreciate you taking the time to write such a detailed post. Regarding the Australian Boxer purchase, the customer has differentiated between “Block 1” and “Block 2” deliveries. The first 25 vehicles to be delivered (two delivered to date) are the Block 1 standard, with an interim configuration Lance turret. The first turreted Block 1 vehicle is due to be delivered around September this year. The exact configuration of the Lance turret for the Block 2 is yet to be determined, & will likely be informed by the IFV phase of the project (L400-3). Tree strike is a thing in Australia. Generally the first thing added or beefed up on a vehicle in Australian service are brush guards or deflectors. The Block 1 Boxers are a good demonstration of this - look at the side stowage racks. Shaped & angled brush deflectors to protect the side stowage & the side situational awareness cameras from being scrubbed (ha!) off the side of the truck. The launcher on the Risk Mitigation Activity (RMA - trial) overhung the side of the vehicle (Boxer). On Puma, the launcher was inside the outer mould line of the vehicle. On Boxer, the overhang means that, with the turret at 12 o’clock, the launcher could be the first thing that hits a tree as the vehicle threads through wooded terrain. Anything that lowers the exposure of the launcher is worth serious configuration, especially with the launcher mounted on the opposite side of the vehicle To the driver. Compare that to Bradley. Lower profile launcher on the same side as the driver, so that it’s easier to avoid tree strike. Regarding damping and Spike-LR2, one issue identified has been the lifecycle of the missile. Currently, as soon as the missile is loaded into the launcher, it has to either be fired, or if at the conclusion of the activity it has not, it has to be repackaged and returned to the factory for refurbishment. The useable life of the missile in the launcher is sensitive information, but it is finite before being declared unserviceable. The longer a missile is carried in a launcher, the lower its pH. In live-fire exercises, this isn’t an issue. Unpack, load, aim, fire. But operational use is different. Improving damping takes many forms. Taking weight out of the launcher is one way. Either way, improving damping is intended to improve the service life of the missile once loaded into the launcher and retain a high pH (& probability of correct function). It’s my understanding that one of the design goals of the new launcher is to extend the useful life of Spike LR2.
  21. 2805662
    According to the article in DTR (July 2020), it’s lighter, more robust, less vulnerable to tree strike, reduces turret swept volume, has better shock absorption, better operation temperature range (-40 degrees C - +70 degrees C) than the legacy MELLS launcher as used on Puma & the original Lance turret. I guess time will tell.
  22. 2805662
    Supashock Australia’s Retractable Anti-tank Missile Platform (RAMP) for Spike LR2 as being integrated into the Lance 2.0 turret for the Lynx KF41 & Boxer CRV.
  23. 2805662
    Well spotted.
  24. 2805662
    Not seen? There is Iron Fist integration scheduled for Block 2 turrets, not sure of Block 1 will be delivered with them.
  25. 2805662
    Linked to the above - Lance turret for Boxer CRV Block 1 vehicles being test-fired from a KF31 hull in Germany.
×
×
  • Create New...