2805662

There was another Vehicle under a tarp at the GD stand....presumably the Griffon.

AS21 model turns up again.

Updated CV90 is out & about.

It was a typical in-service, in-use truck on display with its crew talking about it. Had a new-but-used feel to it.

Fair cop. I’d call it a “comment”, rather than a “whine”, but YMMV. The KF31 is a mature design that is ready for a customer to buy it - tomorrow. It has competed internationally against the Puma and the CV90. The BoxerCRV is also very mature, and that track record of Rheinmetall putting mature products in front of the customer (especially in Australia), sets an expectation, reasonable or otherwise. The KF41 is far from that. Rheinmetall has inferred that the KF41 is similarly mature as the KF31, which it patently is not. The KF41 as displayed at Eurosatory, Land Forces 18, and (presumably) AUSA 18 did not have a functioning turret (hand transverse only), for example. None of the appliqué armour, which has different geometry to the that trialled on the KF31, has been produced as a complete vehicle set for the KF41. The Lance 2.0 turret is a comparatively (to the Lance 1.0) immature design who’s flaws are yet to be wrung out. Interior stowage design, itself a major package of work, hasn’t been displayed. It also doesn’t have mature variants. Having been on both sides of vehicle development, display, deployment, and disposal, I’m aware that there are mock ups, models, and show ponies. At Eurosatory 18, it was illustrative to move from the Puma (on loan from a panzergrenadier battalion of the Bundeswehr) to the KF41, to the Stryker Dragoon (also an in-service vehicle). That experience, coupled with my other experiences led me to the “napkinpanzer” Moniker as an attempt to highlight where in the product cycle KF41 sits. It may evolve into My comments on “napkinpanzer” is a counter-point to Rheinmetall’s incessant propaganda/marketing on the KF41. It’s also a callback to the incomplete products that litter the history of German AFV development.

Having been inside the KF41 - it is a napkinpanzer. It is 100% a concept demonstrator. There is *a lot* of work required to get that (well travelled) single prototype anywhere near usable. Look in the back, for a start:

With a lot more development required. It’s still a sole-prototype napkinpanzer.

Thinking about AS-21 Redback, and potential ROK AFV replacement/upgrade opportunities... Could an Australian assembly line (for hulls & turret shells, say) be used to provide a commercially-sustainable source of green vehicle shells to the ROK Army? Coupled with the use of local steel (Bisalloy steel is already slated to be used for BoxerCRV). I imagine that ROK IFV needs, in raw numbers, would be higher than that of the Australian Army. If K-21 production was supplemented, or upgrades were required, there could be a tie-in with L400-3. That could make the Australian Industry Capability/Content/Component (AIC - sources vary on the definition) element of any Hanwha bid very attractive, despite the napkinpanzer nature of the AS-21, with production extending beyond local contracts.

Denel has a partnership with a local Australian company, NIOA, which is contracted to compete to supply (similar to IDIQ) Assegai 155mm ammunition. Maybe that will open a channel to get the APS formerly known as LEDS-150 into the Australian market?

Same. It satisfies my Rule #1: Look Good.

That is a good looking tank.

Don’t forget non-recurring engineering costs of things like the vehicle integration kits - variant-specific brackets, mounts, wiring, performance testing & verification. Ideally, you’d be able to use the same configuration items across variants, but there will likely be some up front costs for integration.

Made some progress on my big Abrams. Stencils + paint = Name Kangaroo & Army Registration Number:

Some answers provided by “the Commonwealth” to clarification questions on unmanned turrets & APS may be of interest. On unmanned turrets: “A tender proposing an unmanned turret would not be excluded, however,.... there is a high risk that an unmanned turreted IFV would not be shortlisted for Risk Mitigation Activity.” On APS: ”Defence has not yet made a determination as to the preferred Active Protection System (APS) for Land 400 Phase 2 and/or Phase 3 program. Defence has however determined that a ‘curtain-style’ APS will not be pursued for these programs.”

Should’ve quoted for clarity. I’m referring to the Arnold Defense Fletcher launcher, usually exhibited with APKWS-2, which has four ready rounds loaded.

Yeah, that bolt on, four round launcher seems pretty versatile. Looked at it on the W&E Platt MR660 mount on the Dillon Aero stand at Eurosatory. Remarkably simple.

Fancy that - MCT-30 put forward in another US program.

Maybe something on the (remote?) turreted/RWS ACV 1.1?

And the USMC is buying for 81 (IIRC) vehicles.

Australian M1A1 refuels from a C-130.

Better than what it seems.

Boxer CRV with two armour hardnesses: High Hardness Armour HHA500 “for hardness”. Ultra-High Toughness UHT440 “for toughness”.

Nothing the UK does with armour surprises me anymore 😢