2805662

1 hour ago, Serge said:

Another view of the Horstmann proposal : 

Just go to my album; https://imgur.com/gallery/rEdpy

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?

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. 

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. 

3 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

I'd be really curious to know who designed that hydro suspension unit.  

Says “Horstman” on the stand. 

There was a unit from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries in 2016. 

11 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Aren't these photos from last year? I remember seeing them somewhere.

They’re mine from AUSA 17. The prediction was from the reps on the stand. 

Expect to see an Abrams hull with hydro-pneumatic suspension at AUSA today:

https://imgur.com/gallery/rEdpy

Thanks - looking at the Trophy installation on the Abrams and trying to see whether the armoured cover is fitted. 

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?

On 7/4/2018 at 2:48 AM, DarkLabor said:

The turret (at the end of the production) is similar to a Leclerc serie 2 while the chassis is way more protected with the extended skirt armor.

Can you elaborate? Thanks. 

Wasn’t a Danish M113 similarly converted?

How many PzGren battalions are left to re-equip?

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. 

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

Thanks. Enhanced the kit texturing as it was too fine. Tamiya textures sand paint did the trick. 

https://imgur.com/gallery/fUpkp0h

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. 

My conversion of the Tamiya M1A2 into an Australian M1A1:

https://imgur.com/gallery/JsGZxjp

On 6/12/2018 at 8:22 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Turret is ugly af, which is interesting, because Lance 1.0 was arguably the most aesthetically built medium caliber turret I can think of.

According to someone with experience with the Delco 25mm & Elbit MT-30, the Lance 1.0 is not without its problems. 🤷🏿‍♂️

Primary sources are good, right?

http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/equippingdefence/land400

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. 

20 minutes ago, Kal said:

2 vehicles to be shortlisted

 

(Because 3 is too many to understand and explain)

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. 

“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. 

2 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

So what about the Lance turret? Is that not a requirement? Or are they gonna let them compete as they are and only give an integration contract when the winner is selected or the competition is down to 2?

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. 

An early version of the SEOSS sight?