2805662

22 hours ago, 2805662 said:

A bit early to say who will get what, imo. The commonwealth looks guilty for “attritional tendering” at this point - there’s apparently another repricing activity. That’s the third one. 

The Minister for Defence Industry has confirmed via a media interview the number is 129 x vehicles, plus the re-pricing/best & final offer activity. Months from a decision. 

What no one appears to be talking about is whether the M113AS4 fleet, in whole or in part, will be retained. This would change the net personnel & operating costs of 400-3. 
 

AS4 was initially at 350 vehicles, then topped up by further 81 via the “Enhanced Land Force”. APC, command, & logistics variants have been gifted to Ukraine, so the total number of AS4 may be below 400. 
 

If AS4 is retained, ideally some ideas for improvement that were stopped when 400-3 was conceptualised may be recommenced. 
 

A bit early to say who will get what, imo. The commonwealth looks guilty for “attritional tendering” at this point - there’s apparently another repricing activity. That’s the third one. 

1 hour ago, Dragonstriker said:

Is only the barrel removed, or the receiver/breech pulled too?

Depends on a variety of factors. Can be either. Barrel only is faster & more convenient. 

40 minutes ago, Newtonk said:

With the gun removed; makes for a large TOW Anti-tank vehicle... 

Fitting & removing the gun takes minutes. We used to do the same on ASLAVs when in the compound or in transit. Hardly a permanent state of affairs. 

Ukrainian Bradleys. 
 

Some images of ex-Canadian C1s turrets that were bought by Australia to harvest for spare parts. 
 

Any guesses on the diameter of that trunnion?

17 hours ago, David Moyes said:

 

Thanks to the Defence Trade Controls Act of 2012, these vehicles remain subject to Australian-government imposed end use controls until they’re scrapped. Good times. 

Found this one…somewhere. 
 

1 hour ago, Ramlaen said:

 

It was acceptable in the eighties is not a great argument for storing ammunition high and forward in the hull on a 'new' vehicle in the twenty twenties.

Not saying that it is a great argument, just that the design hasn’t changed since inception.
 

In terms of “high & forward”, the M8 is very similar to Leopard 1 & 2, location wise, but at least this is compartmentalised & tested for crew survivability.
 

From my understanding - it’s been a while since I dived into M8 - the hull stowage passed its testing (i.e. the driver survived ammunition deflagration of each of the hull stowage locations), but the turret stowage required redesign, testing, & qualification which was completed prior to type classification as the M8 in the 1990’s. 

48 minutes ago, Renegade334 said:

Regardless of whether there are blowoff panels and/or whether composite armor, ERA or the Iron Fist APS can negate KE and CE threats, it is still a curious place to position the non-ready storage. It doesn't even look accessible from inside the turret basket or the driver's compartment.

 

If the tank crew wishes to replenish the ready storage mid-combat, it means the vehicle has to disengage and find sizable cover, have the driver jump out of his seat, pop open the glacis side door and then start handing the rounds, one by one, to the TC or gunner perched on top of the mantlet. It would be so much simpler if that task could be done from the inside, even if it means doing weird body contortions and, later on, experiencing big lumbar pains.

That’s been the design since the CCVL days in the 80’s. Three compartments of ammunition; ready (i.e. turret) & either side of the driver. Replenishment of the ready ammunition requires the driver to get out as you say. 
 

Regarding compartmentalisation, this configuration passed crew survivability qualification in the 90’s. There’s some footage on YouTube of the testing, similar to the Abrams stuff with artillery air burst & shaped charges. 

29 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

I would not consider this an optimal placement for hull ammo storage.

 

It’s compartmented. 

Today’s The Australian newspaper:

Both Redback & Lynx are at Avalon 2023, an Australian “air show +”, both in overall OD. 
 

Notable for Redback is the pop up poster that details Elbit’s “30mm Redback turret”. 

Apparently a turret illustration of a C1 turret. 
 

Any clearer versions out & about?

After some research & googling, I’ve drawn a blank on some specifics of the Leopard 1.

Some questions: what is the turret ring diameter? What is the distance from the hull front to the centre of the turret ring? What is the height of the hull roof for the fighting compartment & the engine deck?

Thanks for any help you’re able to provide. 

AbramsX 3D model:

Cults 3D

I guess AJAX is off the hook?

Puma fails. Again. 
 

32 minutes ago, Kal said:

so, can we start to discuss what went wrong?  Both vendors appears to have demonstrated fit for purpose, compliant products, but procurement has failed to reciprocate from stakeholders why this remains necessary.

Personally, I think Qld should go alone with some Lynx deal anyway,  afterall, war in the pacific be it at PNG or Solomon Islands, is on Qld's doorstep.

Labor being Labor. As simple as that. 
 

The defence strategic review may green light a small buy of IFV to save face, but I’m not hopeful. 

On 12/15/2022 at 3:34 AM, Ramlaen said:

 

I'm not sure where that graphic is from so I am hesitant to trust the 38 ton figure you see floating around since it originated from a Warrior Maven article.

Would also question whether this is 38 short tons or 34.4 tonnes. 

12 hours ago, Żółć said:

Weapons tests were conducted by the Korean crew. 
From other news/rumours. In addition to turret accuracy problems, the AS-21 was also said to have issues with its thermal signatures. According to available information, it performed very badly compared to the Borsuk IFV. The AS-21 tested in Poland was not equipped with the exhaust cooling system that was present during trials in Australia. The army, unlike politicians, does not seem to be enthusiastic about the vehicle.

Interesting. Would be useful to know whether the Korean crew were military or civilian, & qualified on the MT30 turret. 
 

Almost a 180 degree difference to the Australian experience, where the AS21 performed very creditably & army is a huge fan of it. 

13 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

"The Redback vehicle that has been tested in Poland is equipped the Redback turret, the same solution offered to the Australian Army in the Land 400 Phase 3 project." according to Defence24.com.

 

The sensors on the turret are the same, the EOS-made RWS was just removed.

 

As per the Senior Vice-President International Business from EOS - not a defence aggregation website - the key external difference between the T2000 & the MT30 is the sensors. 
 

Here’s the MT30 (yes, with R400 Mk2 HD RWS fitted):

Here’s the T2000:

You can see that the T2000 has the same sensor package housing as that fitted to the R400 RWS. 

Internally, the FCS & HMI are completely different. 

7 hours ago, SH_MM said:

I believe T2000 is the incorrect designation for the turret (it is the "Redback turret"), but apparently the Polish tests suggest there were accuracy issues during trials of the Redback. Did the Australian military notice similar issues when testing the AS21 Redback?

Quite the opposite from what I’ve heard.

The EOS T2000 had a fire control system from EOS. The turret on the Polish test was the Elbit MT30.

They have a common ballistic shell, so telling them apart is tricky. Have to look at the sensors. 

Anecdotally, the Polish tests did not have any contractors present to zero, boresight, or train the crews. 

Delay of decision to proceed *at all* now formalised. 
 

Interview with the AMPV product manager & walkaround.