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
    Just go to my album; https://imgur.com/gallery/rEdpy
  2. 2805662
    https://i.imgur.com/k1ySr9e.mp4 My video of the CROWS LP from AUSA 17. Does this require a different mounting plate to the conventional M153 mounted on the SEP v2?
  3. 2805662
    I’d like to see them drop an Abrams turret on the Challenger 2. Takes care of the ammunition stowage (38 compartmented rounds), simplifies the integration, benefits from continued US investment in the Abrams, and joins them to the Abrams user community. Would likely be cheaper, too.
  4. 2805662
    If I recall correctly, the proposed re-engining of the Abrams with the Crusader engine involved replacement of the torsion bar suspension in the last two stations with some form of HSU due to engine height.
  5. 2805662
    Says “Horstman” on the stand. There was a unit from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries in 2016.
  6. 2805662
    They’re mine from AUSA 17. The prediction was from the reps on the stand.
  7. 2805662
    Expect to see an Abrams hull with hydro-pneumatic suspension at AUSA today: https://imgur.com/gallery/rEdpy
  8. 2805662
    Thanks - looking at the Trophy installation on the Abrams and trying to see whether the armoured cover is fitted.
  9. 2805662
    Looking at the launchers themselves on Trophy - they seem have a shield (to protect the crew), a reloader, and a retractable armoured cover that covers the launcher. Is this correct?
  10. 2805662
    Can you elaborate? Thanks.
  11. 2805662
    Wasn’t a Danish M113 similarly converted?
  12. 2805662
    How many PzGren battalions are left to re-equip?
  13. 2805662
    There seems to be some unresolved tension within the Land 400 program. Army has been bitten by “sub-system* optimisation” in the recent past, and seems to want to avoid it...at the same time that the procurement guys want to maximise competition by reducing requirements criticality (no requirements are “essential”, for example)...but aren’t resourced to evaluate more than a specific number of tender responses. *The “sub-system” in this case being the IFV. No point having the (most) “optimised” (i.e. best) IFV if it doesn’t fit into the broader organisation without breaking it. Army learned this lesson in the tactical C4I space between 2009-2014.
  14. 2805662
    In Australian service, the Hunter class will have different radars (Australian phased array radars), missiles (SM2 & ESSM), guns (Mk54, Typhoon, & Mini-Typhoon), combat system (AEGIS), and combat interface (9LV) than the Type 26, as well as being built in an Australian shipyard. I think it’s more accurate to say that the BAE entry was picked, not that the Type 26 was picked. http://www.defence.gov.au/casg/Multimedia/HunterClassFFGFactSheet-9-9233.pdf http://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/files/mas/australia_18-26.pdf
  15. 2805662
  16. 2805662
    Thanks. Enhanced the kit texturing as it was too fine. Tamiya textures sand paint did the trick. https://imgur.com/gallery/fUpkp0h
  17. 2805662
    Some feedback on the KF41 is that it’s “not the right truck”, citing the lack of capacity (not enough room for nine pax to live out of), immature status of the design (the 2016 KF31 was perceived as “better”, KF41 “no better than a prototype at best”), lack of parts interchangeablity with Phase 2 (“different engine?! Wtf?”), and general “yeah, nah.” Some interesting takes on the Puma, too.
  18. 2805662
    My conversion of the Tamiya M1A2 into an Australian M1A1: https://imgur.com/gallery/JsGZxjp
  19. 2805662
    According to someone with experience with the Delco 25mm & Elbit MT-30, the Lance 1.0 is not without its problems. 🤷🏿‍♂️
  20. 2805662
    Primary sources are good, right? http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/equippingdefence/land400
  21. 2805662
    To clarify: could a turret from another OEM (i.e. not Rheinmetall & if selected for Phase 3) be dropped onto Boxer? Functionally, sure. But contractually? The Lance turret was a major cost driver for Phase 2, swapping it out for something cheaper could be a thing.
  22. 2805662
    But having two German vehicles (Lynx & Puma) in the race would confuse the black hats that simply *know* German engineering is superior to all others.
  23. 2805662
    “Defence’s selection will also be informed by the opportunities to reduce whole of life costs by means of commonality of sub-systems, consumables and training across Phases 2 and 3 of the LAND 400 Program. Accordingly, the RFT will require tenderer responses on specific elements of commonality with the Phase 2 fleet and will seek options for further commonality, but it will also allow responses on alternative sub-systems, consumables and training if they represent better value for money and provide through-life cost savings. This includes the possibility of retrofitting of the Phase 2 fleet with items from the Phase 3 system.” Could a Phase 3 turret be dropped on a Phase 2 Hull? Seems unlikely.
  24. 2805662
    Im going to pull apart the draft requirements today #goodtimes Looks like Land 400 Phase 3 is continuing Phase 2’s complete lack of specificity. As per my first post, Defence’s attempts to get Rheinmetall to discount the Lance turret so that it could be used as GFE was unsuccessful. Plus there’s the question of who would own the technical risk for the integration of a third-party platform onto a hull. We know (discussions with bidders) as part of the Phase 2 negotiations/BAFO that both competitors were asked to price their Phase 2 vehicles in a configuration that would meet Phase 3 requirements, mainly the number of dismounts. So, despite having pricing for a 100% 8x8 fleet, common to both phases, the Commonwealth wanted to explore additional (presumably tracked) options. Also, as the Commonwealth wanted a signed contract for Phase 2 prior to release of the Phase 3 RFT (actual, not draft), we can expect a Phase 2 contract signature announcement soonish, I guess.
  25. 2805662
    An early version of the SEOSS sight?
×
×
  • Create New...