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

2805662

Contributing Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    689

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    52

 Content Type 

Everything posted by 2805662

  1. 2805662
    @Toxn - any pics of the Olifant IB/II?
  2. 2805662
    For years the British Army had a program called “FIST” (future infantry soldier technology or similar). Having used the FIST BMS software back in the day, all I can say is “no thank you” - real gen zero stuff. Putting it on was like falling into a pit of snakes (lots of cables)...just one problem amongst many.
  3. 2805662
    Still amazed at how lightly armoured the Leopard 1 - of any variant - is. There is a Leopard AS1 turret that was subjected to an unscheduled ballistic “test” by a 105mm service sabot round held in storage in Wodonga. Sadly, pics were not permitted. Apparently, the AS1 aren’t lasting nearly as long as forecast as hard targets. Further discussions revealed that the life projections were based on how long the Centurion Mk.5/1s lasted.
  4. 2805662
    Leopard AS1 (A3) - doesn’t like 120mm practice ammunition.
  5. 2805662
    Any idea on the contrivance on top of this D-9?
  6. 2805662
    Australian Army Tank Museum, Puckapunyal, Victoria - just down the hill from the School of Armour. There’s a M113A1 on the hill up to gunnery wing that’s also been cut in half, just without the interior.
  7. 2805662
    Not saying it would be cheaper, just better growth options. Once you’re at the negotiating table, it’s amazing what becomes possible.
  8. 2805662
    Apparently a “volume discount” of Lance turrets was discussed, to no avail. Without that discount, there was no way that the DoD could reasonably mandate the Lance 1.0 turret as GFE for Phase 3. Wouldn’t be surprised if the Lance 2.0 turret was negotiated into the Phase 2, Block 2 vehicles prior to contract signature.
  9. 2805662
    Aaaand - no Puma for L400-3:
  10. 2805662
    We must’ve got the message down here:
  11. 2805662
    Apparently IEEE 802.3-2012, Ethernet: 802.3 for AS GVA data distribution. Can't forget the power and power conditioning aspects of the AS GVA: There’s also defined HMI. The idea is that various systems an sub-systems can be hosted on non-proprietary screens and controls, avoiding the one screen per system that was an artefact of some of the operationally urgent acquisitions in the past decade (e.g. one screen for the GPS, one for the RWS, one for the BFT/BMS etc.).
  12. 2805662
    Not sure, TBH. That level of information is yet to be released (and probably yet to be decided). The design reviews for the Block 1 Boxers are underway at the moment. Apparently there is some rework around the ethernet, moving toward a Generic Vehicle Architecture based fitout (to align with Phase 3), but that’s the only detail that’s being discussed.
  13. 2805662
    I did clarify - “as-yet-unseen mark 5/V”.
  14. 2805662
    Anyone heard of the CV90 Mark 5? Was mentioned in passing today.
  15. 2805662
    Can they be networked so that the targeting function is off-boarded?
  16. 2805662
    Required dimensions for L400-3:
  17. 2805662
    Detail of the Lance 1.0 turret’s commander’s sight retraction:
  18. 2805662
    Huh. Australians Major General Kath Toohey & Brigadier Shane Gabriel front row in the left. At least they’re keeping up w/what the US Army is doing.
  19. 2805662
    An interesting change to the RFT Glossary has been released as an addenda (LAND 400 PHASE 3 – Mounted Close Combat Capability RFT CASG/LSD/RFT0056/18 Addendum Number 04). The definitions contained in an RFT Glossary are carefully written (& debated robustly internally) prior to RFT release, as this Glossary becomes contractually binding for the subsequent RMA, and potentially into the acquisition itself. The change? The definition of “Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV)”! From “means a highly protected and lethal AFV with excellent cross country mobility able to lift an armoured infantry section of no fewer than nine infantry soldiers, consisting of three crew and six dismounts, that can fight onto an enemy position. The IFV will have the lethality to destroy as a minimum equivalent threat AFV, air targets, and enemy dismounts operating behind fortified positions or cover. It will be a highly survivable platform with an improved ability to survive the first hits from direct fire weapons, blast and fragmentation and then continue the mission.” To: ”means a Mission System that achieves aspects of the Mounted Close Combat Capability” (yep, no full stop) Glad it’s not vague at all!
  20. 2805662
    It was fun to play around with. The ACOG has a custom reticle with is even more simple than that fitted to the Russian RPG-7. AirTronicUSA are also getting into the PG-7 rocket market.
  21. 2805662
    Its considered bad form to photograph interiors or undersides without permission. Booth staff will happily chat to and show you around/inside the vehicles if they don’t have a scheduled meeting.
  22. 2805662
    You asked me for my reasons - which I’ve given - not for any sources. If you find my reasons wanting, fine, however, I have answered the question you asked. Nothing I discuss in the public domain is derived from anything other than observation, experience, and analysis. The Boxer is an in-service vehicle, that has been subjected to the full range of reliability and user testing by a number of countries, and selected by those outside of the countries that funded the development, which adds to the credibility of the vehicle, in my opinion. The KF41 is not. That is not to say that it’ll get there, but (looking at Land 400-3, in this case), Rheinmetall will need every second of the 36 months (IIRC) to RMA to get that vehicle mature enough for user testing.
  23. 2805662
    M88A3 with hydro gas suspension.
  24. 2805662
  25. 2805662
    There was another Vehicle under a tarp at the GD stand....presumably the Griffon.
×
×
  • Create New...