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 

Everything posted by 2805662

  1. 2805662
    Nothing the UK does with armour surprises me anymore 😢
  2. 2805662
    Challenger 2 Mark 2? Seriously? UK naming conventions are the worst.
  3. 2805662
    DVD will be interesting. Expecting announcements on the Warrior upgrade, CR2 upgrade, and more progress on AJAX.
  4. 2805662
    Jebus! Jaguar isn’t little, is it?
  5. 2805662
    Australian National Audit Office report into Land 121 Phase 4: Protected Mobility Vehicle Light (Hawkei) https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/army-protected-mobility-vehicle-light Somehow we went from a Partner Nation in the Tech Dem phase of JLTV, complete with right-hand-drive prototypes being tested in Australia, to a “locally made” truck (Austrian engine, German transmission, US suspension, Israeli protected module, Israeli BMS, US radios - but locally made).
  6. 2805662
    That’s an impressive toilet monitor.
  7. 2805662
    Yep. Been in a Puma, Bradley, CV9035, Stryker, M113, and Bushmaster - the Lynx KF41 interior is still a mock-up.
  8. 2805662
    Interior of the troop compartment of the KF41 Napkinpanzer: best protected mobile boardroom:
  9. 2805662
    This was hiding on the Rheinmetall stand:
  10. 2805662
    Was told an interesting tidbit from the REME Sergeant accompanying the Apollo. Apparently the hull of the IFV variant of the AJAX will be stretched 450 mm by increasing the between-the-roadwheel spacing.
  11. 2805662
    Thanks for posting the US eval. Good information there, a good counterpoint to the “just [completely redesigning the entire vehicle] should be pretty straightforward..” opinions sometimes put forward on boards. It’s an insight into the technical jiggery-pokery required for AFV design. And that’s before contractual, sub-contractual, commercial, and intellectual property issues are brought into the equation.
  12. 2805662
    Haven’t seen anything, but I’ll see what I can see. What is “a thing” is the mandated use of the EOS R150 RWS and Spike 2 as GFE on the Phase 3 vehicle.
  13. 2805662
    More on the Lance 2.0 mission/missile bay:
  14. 2805662
    Land 907-2
  15. 2805662
    Some close ups of the KF41 Lynx (which looks and feels like a paper panzer): Open driver’s hatch (good luck getting out of that wearing armour): Driver’s hatch, viewer, coax, & the world’s slipperiest glacis: Turret:
  16. 2805662
    Sometimes modelling means on the road & helping out an OEM:
  17. 2805662
    The Bareback? Your (presumed) autocorrect has given me a nickname for that contender! Thanks.
  18. 2805662
    That turret is interesting.
  19. 2805662
    Joint Assault Bridge:
  20. 2805662
    What they’ve said: “Defence will proceed with seeking a manned turret solution for the vehicles that require a turret to fulfil roles. Defence will engage with the shortlisted tenderers during the Risk Mitigation Activity (RMA) to explore the growth path to a potential future unmanned turret solution.” i read that as evolve your manned turret to unmanned, not replace manned turret with new, different, unmanned turret.
  21. 2805662
    DTR is quoting the RFT, just like I’m doing. Anyone can register on AusTender, and download the 0.5GB document and go through it: https://www.tenders.gov.au/?event=public.atm.show&ATMUUID=F8D62769-EEF1-F99C-78E3ACCDA4927B26
  22. 2805662
    Rheinmetall moves into signature management: https://i.imgur.com/r1DFn3S.jpg
  23. 2805662
    More on the (indicative) turret:
  24. 2805662
    Side note on platform & environmental differences: Abrams doesn’t have aircon. Leopard 2 has PUP paint (differrnt permeability than CARC). Hot/wet operating environment (Northern Australia) vs. hot environment (Afghanistan). We used it very successfully on Leopard AS1 for a decade, and knew very well what it can do and how it performs. Actually, I think Australia was one of the earliest adopters of Barracuda MCS (1997). That success was what prompted its use on Abrams, and that’s why it was a surprise when it failed on Abrams. The requirement was badly written: there was too much coverage, it was insufficiently robust (very high number of breakages/stripping), increased corrosion during the wet season, overheating of hub bearings, etc. etc. In summary: too expensive, didn’t reduce the thermal load in the crew compartment enough (~5 degrees from memory), increased maintenance burden, was unpopular with the users, and didn’t markedly reduce thermal detectability to warrant to cost & workload. Pic from 2007: start of trial.
  25. 2805662
    Same stuff that failed on Abrams. Good plan.
×
×
  • Create New...