2805662
-
Posts
691 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
52
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Everything posted by 2805662
-
Challenger 2 Mark 2? Seriously? UK naming conventions are the worst.
- 1,043 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- challenger 2
- warrior
- (and 2 more)
-
DVD will be interesting. Expecting announcements on the Warrior upgrade, CR2 upgrade, and more progress on AJAX.
-
Jebus! Jaguar isn’t little, is it?
-
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).
-
That’s an impressive toilet monitor.
-
Yep. Been in a Puma, Bradley, CV9035, Stryker, M113, and Bushmaster - the Lynx KF41 interior is still a mock-up.
-
Interior of the troop compartment of the KF41 Napkinpanzer: best protected mobile boardroom:
-
This was hiding on the Rheinmetall stand:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
More on the Lance 2.0 mission/missile bay:
-
Land 907-2
-
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:
-
Sometimes modelling means on the road & helping out an OEM:
-
The Bareback? Your (presumed) autocorrect has given me a nickname for that contender! Thanks.
-
That turret is interesting.
-
United States Military Vehicle General: Guns, G*vins, and Gas Turbines
2805662 replied to Tied's topic in Mechanized Warfare
Joint Assault Bridge: -
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.
-
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
-
StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)
2805662 replied to EnsignExpendable's topic in Mechanized Warfare
Rheinmetall moves into signature management: https://i.imgur.com/r1DFn3S.jpg -
More on the (indicative) turret:
-
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.
-
Same stuff that failed on Abrams. Good plan.
-
It’d be interesting to see the costs of changing configurations (e.g. from manned to unmanned) over the course of the vehicle’s life. Also interesting from a concept of employment (CONEMP) perspective is the organisational change from mounted infantry (i.e. light infantry that boards & rides in vehicles that belong to a separate organisation) to mechanised infantry (vehicle is organic to, and owned by, the section itself. The vehicle crew is drawn from the section that operates the IFV) and how (if?) that informs some of the requirements. The Operating Concept Document (OCD) released with the RFT was V.4, published in Q4/2014.....before the re-constitution of Mechanised Infantry battalions. So what? In Australian doctrine, the mechanised infantry commander (section, platoon, company) almost always dismounts when the entity he has overall command of does. So, when the vehicle stops to let its dismounts debus, the commander will have to get out of the turret, through the fighting compartment and down the ramp. Having done this in a “previous life”, ditching the CVC, squirming out of the T50 turret, putting on the PASGT (dating myself there, I guess) before dismounting was a pain in the arse. At least with a two-man turret, the section 2IC, Mech CPL, or Mech SGT is already in the turret and continue to fight the vehicle uninterrupted. How do you (potentially) quickly, and safely, ditch a helmet with AR? Not a problem if the crew & vehicle belongs to the ACR & doesn’t dismount. Different if they’re mech as discussed above.
