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

2805662

Contributing Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    691

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    52

 Content Type 

Everything posted by 2805662

  1. 2805662
    I’ll dig up the requirements for under-armour reloading for the main & secondary armaments.
  2. 2805662
    From the tender covering letter (RFT CASG_LSD_RFT0056_18 Covering Letter): ”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.” My take on that is you must have a manned turret to get shortlisted for the RMA. There are some other constraints (noting that these are “Important” not “Essential”): “4016: The Vehicle secondary weapon shall fire not less than 1,500 rounds without requiring a reload. 3386: The Vehicle guided weapon shall fire not less than two Missiles without requiring the Crew to expose themselves in order to reload.” So, whilst the missile system (Spike 2) should have two missiles (doesn’t have to necessarily be a twin pack), it doesn’t have to be on the turret itself.
  3. 2805662
    Marcus Hellyer should be chasing that guy up for plagiarism: https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/land-400-is-a-knight-in-shining-armour-really-what-we-need/
  4. 2805662
    Only confirmed are: Rheinmetall w/Lynx KF41 (not mention of the KF31 in their literature, nil since Eurosatory), GDLS-A w/AJAX (turret as yet undeclared, but will be manned); and, Hanwha w/AS-21. I think BAE may exhibit the CV90 next week, but am almost certain they won’t bid it. No mention of Puma from anyone (I don’t think KMW [or PSM] are exhibiting at Land Forces).
  5. 2805662
    More views of the Apollo:
  6. 2805662
    I guess so. But they still have six months or so. This isn’t Phase 2. Interestingly, it looks like Iron Vision has made an impact on requirements: ”1212: The Vehicle shall allow the seated and restrained Crew using Augmented Vision, to collectively maintain 360 degree visibility, during Night an Day operations and in all Weather Conditions.”
  7. 2805662
    They probably won’t want to accept a fixed-price contract this time!
  8. 2805662
    Who says the BoxerCRV doesn’t have a mast with a sensor package?
  9. 2805662
    I need to dive back into other parts of the tender (not really interested in the PAV), to confirm some things.....that said, there’s “Australian context” that goes back to the Defence White Paper of 1987. In that context, “mobility” in a tactical vehicle is understood (rightly or wrongly) to mean drive long distances, self-deploying at speed. This was used at the time to justify the purchase of 18 USMC LAV-25s and a variants for the then divisional reconnaissance regiment as they were seen as more “mobile” than the in-service M113 LRV & MRV. It was very controversial at the time, as the RAAC (armoured guys) had considerable experience in jungle operations thanks to Vietnam, and had a totally different understanding of “mobility” that was seen as not relevant for the “Continental Defence/Defence Of Australia” model that had widely geographically dispersed operations at its heart. I’ve been overtaken by ASLAV & PMV when they’re in convoy at ~100km/h, both on the Northern Territory & Victoria (near Pucka). They are driven at those speeds on public roads. See the notes of the bottom bottom of this page for more: https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C1128725 tl;dr: the subtext is “wheeled swimming vehicle = equivalent land mobility to Bushmaster PAV”.
  10. 2805662
    The RFI states “The PAV needs to have firepower, protection, mobility, communication and capacity performance levels equivalent to, or greater than the Bushmaster PMV.” The Bushmaster PMV a 100km/h vehicle. “Protected Mobility role. The baseline mobility platform with a crew of two and not less than 8 passengers;” ”Self-sustaining for 72 hours. (Too many words to quote)” The aggregate of a swimming truck, carrying 10 people, that has equal (or better) mobility, protection, & firepower is wheeled. But yes, it’s not mandated. I should’ve said “strongly suggests”...
  11. 2805662
    In Sea State 3, crew of two, eight passengers, and have the same or better mobility than a Bushmaster. The Protected Amphibious Vehicle RFI of L400-3 is very different to the rest, and basically mandates a wheeled solution. Think ACV 1.1, rather than AAV-SU.
  12. 2805662
    “Scepticism about the utility of armoured fighting vehicles (AFVs), and particularly what have been called ‘tanks’, in the Australian armed forces has a long pedigree, even among military personnel. The government, Defence and the ADF are only now starting to move away from the kind of advice that this represents.” https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/knights-in-shining-armour-afvs-in-the-australian-army/ A rebuttal of the argument put forward & discussed here:
  13. 2805662
    “AS” has been a notional designator for Australian-unique equipment for some time e.g. Leopard AS1 (tropicalised Leopard 1A3 w/SABCA LRF/FCS) and M113AS4 (FFG-derived extension of M113A1, w/MTU powerpack, ZF transmission, local turret). From Korea, the K-9 was pitched as the AS9 (no chance of being confused with the AS90...), back in the day. So, AS21.
  14. 2805662
    Third competitor: AS-21 Redback by Hanwha.
  15. 2805662
    Lynx IFV is launched. No sign of Puma.
  16. 2805662
    Another pic of the rollerskate:
  17. 2805662
    New BoxerCRV variant arrives in Australia:
  18. 2805662
    And, it’s arrived:
  19. 2805662
    I wish these companies would get help painting their camouflage patterns so that they actually look Australian. Doesn’t cost any more to get it right.
  20. 2805662
    Yeah...Israel would be about the size of an instrumented range in Australia.
  21. 2805662
    PSM don’t *have* variants - they are only CAD, not real, not tested (yes, just as GD don’t *have* an IFV). The Tender specifies 30x173mm, which rules out 40mm CTAS & the 35mm options. As the turret (at least initially) must be manned, so the turret displayed Eurosatory isn’t suitable (neither is the PSM Puma turret). The turret on the UK Ajax is a Lance turret at its core, so is unlikely to be able to be offered as Rheinmetall would block it. I’m predicting a new turret....
  22. 2805662
    Organisationally, it’s a nine-man section, three teams of three: crew, fire-team one, & fire-team two. So, more correct to say it’s gone from a section of eight (2 x four man fire teams [the Army Capabilty Requirement [ACR] 2012 section structure that has been the planning tenet since 2005]), and the Plan BEERSHEBA-era Standard Infantry Battalion (SIB), when no infantry sections had organic vehicles, to the mechanised & motorised model. This change occurred last year when the 3rd, 6th, and 7th Battalions of the Royal Australian Regiment (3 RAR, 6 RAR, 7 RAR) went mechanised and the APC lift squadrons from the respective Armoured Cavalry Regiments (2nd Cavalry Regiment, 2/14 Light Horse Regiment, & 1st Armoured Regiment) we’re transferred to the newly reorganised, previously-mentioned, mech battalions. I can’t see Puma being bid. KMW has no footprint out here at all, no industrial partners, no contracts. Puma has no variants (engineer reconnaissance, FIST, combat engineer, command, logistic etc.), and Rheinmetall want to offer Lynx. The interesting thing about the previously hinted-at Protected Amphibious Vehicle is that they’ll be owned and operated by the Ship’s Army Detachments, not the Amphibious Battalion, not any of the ACR. No mention yet of which Corps will “own” them, just that they’ll be amphibious specialists.
  23. 2805662
    A couple of additional points: a RFI for “50 x Protected Amphibious Vehicles (PAV)”, which must swim from ship to shore in sea state 3 not less than 12NM. Plus an Armoured Mortar Vehicle (including a mortar ammunition re-supply “role”) & an Armoured Logistic Vehicle. RWS must be by EOS. Main armament to be 30x173mm.
  24. 2805662
    Request For Tender released: https://www.tenders.gov.au/?event=public.atm.show&ATMUUID=F8D62769-EEF1-F99C-78E3ACCDA4927B26 Three “essential” (i.e. don’t bid if you can’t do this) requirements: 6 x dismounts. C-17 transportable when the vehicle is fully laden. Canberra Class “Amphibious Assault Ship” (direct quote) transportable when vehicle is fully laden. Only four pages of requirements, including aural detectability range, thermal detectability range, RPG/ATGW detection, laser targeting detection, armour protection, armour defeat, fire suppression, RWS compatibility (MAG-58, M2 QCB, Mk47), plus normal EMI/EMC etc.
  25. 2805662
    Matt Shea, former infantry officer, works for ECLIPS Engineering, supplying the Australian Army. I’ve known him for over twenty years - good guy & has solid information.
×
×
  • Create New...