2805662

Looks like some kind of driver viewer equipment. 

I’m betting against L400-3 getting up at all, thanks to the DSR.

BAE report on their OMFV submission, which included this graphic. 
 

Some more detail, here:

6 minutes ago, alanch90 said:

I should have rephrased it, because Meggit has made several autoloaders. Other people report that GDLS representatives stated an autoloader capacity of 19 rounds.

I get what you mean. I reckon - speculation alert - that the core auto loader is the Meggitt action with the capacity adjusted to the size constraints. I’ll see if I can get a definitive answer, as I didn’t have any luck today. 

7 hours ago, alanch90 said:

So far i´ve seen no indication that AbramsX is using the Meggit autoloader. Said autoloader is meant as a drop in upgrade for existing Abrams turrets while AbramsX uses a completely new and smaller turret.
 

I just asked the GD PM on the booth. He said it was the Meggitt auto loader. Make of that what you will.  

22 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

 

According to a German defence journalists, the autoloader holds only 19 rounds.

Spoke to the Meggitt guy. I’ll reengage today to clarify. 

28 minutes ago, Renegade334 said:

 

Impressive reduction in weight, though I have to ask how many rounds are in that carousel and whether they didn't think of using the turret basket as additional ammo storage space.

34 rounds in the cassette - not carousel - if that’s the off the shelf configuration. 

Elbit USA’s UT50 turret for the BAE OMFV. 

I’ve got a research request regarding the M48. 
 

I’ve found some good turret references online:

But nothing as detailed for the hull. Any pointers welcome. Cheers. 

In what amounts to one of the most prolonged examples of capability edging, we’re reentering the decision/announcement window for 400-3. 
 

RUMINT has some interesting points of speculation, noting that this is a mix of industry, CASG, AHQ, & think tank chatter. 
 

Options reportedly discussed:

- a reduction of 400-3 to 100 vehicles, with 400-4 being a follow-on buy of an unspecified quantity. 
- up to 1/3 of of the procured number of vehicles, whatever that number is, being fitted for, but not with a turret, having a RWS instead to reduce costs. Additional turrets would be procured during -3 sustainment. 
- all ‘manoeuvre support vehicle’ variants being deleted, with the capability need being met by the Heavy Armoured Capability System M1150 breachers & M1110 AVLB. 

Time will tell, but the predicted post-election turbulence has come to pass. 
 

The minister for defence/deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles has recused himself from the selection process, given the implications for his electorate. The selection will be proceeding regardless of the Defence Strategic Review. 

49 minutes ago, David Moyes said:

The perforated metal is super bainite.

As part of Afghanistan modifications. I think.

 It was present on the 2003 invasion of Iraq vehicles.  Iirc, the later bar armour was Afghan specific. 

Looking at CVR(T), specifically the turret. 
 

Any pointers for references for turret geometry/layout would be welcome. 
 

The only information I’ve got is “Metal Plate, Aluminium Alloy, Armour” ranging in thickness from 3/4” to 1 - 1/2”.
 

Diagrams, sections, drawings welcome. Looking to draw up a basic shell in CAD. 

On 6/1/2022 at 1:02 AM, David Moyes said:

They wasted 6 years on this.

Everyone knew Day 1 that JLTV could never be accepted by MoD or Government but the Army kept pushing.

I posted this a year ago:

 

Looks like JLTV is back on the cards. 
 

Another parliamentary update on AJAX. 

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmselect/cmpubacc/259/summary.html

1 hour ago, N-L-M said:

I was talking USD, should have perhaps made that clearer.

Yep, I was referring to the Rheinmetall slide at €4bn. 
 

Interestingly, the Phase 2 cam tract was the largest in Rheinmetall’s history. Should they take Phase 3, it would supplant that record. 

5 minutes ago, N-L-M said:

Based on those numbers, the per unit cost of the vehicle is around $10 mil per.

That presumably includes ILS and training, but it's still quite high for a troop carrier.

 

€10 million = $AUD14.8 million. 

Gun shields, sorry, “Objective Commander’s Weapon Station” for AMPV:

https://www.army.mil/article/255320/?fbclid=IwAR2sB31uEVi5ao3EHZQ2dS2GR2GiA65zwrMxkagqktxdC5HB0hfA4OSynD8&linkId=160429295

4 minutes ago, DIADES said:

from the same article: What is not clear is the possibility of retrofitting Spike, or including it on future variants of the turret.  It could be that the Chief of the Army was only referring to the first batch of vehicles currently being introduced into service.

 

Block 1 does not have and cannot have SPIKE.  These are the first 25 vehicles (13 turreted) entering service now  primarily for training purposes.

Block2 does have SPIKE but not every turreted car (fitted for not with) - purely cost related.  Block 2 covers the body of the fleet.

 

LANCE for Phase 3 (LYNX) which is the topic of this thread, does have SPIKE and APS.

Tracking the topic - I started the thread in 2018!

If the Chief is saying that it’s two years until Boxer gets Spike - if at all - then turreted Block 2 Boxers won’t be seen until 2024/25 at the earliest. The Block 1 Boxers are back at Redbank as of last month. No idea what they’re in for, or for how long. 
 

An apparent side effect of using a gas-operated, medium calibre gun in a crewed turret, rather than an externally-powered chain gun, Is toxicity in the crew module. This is further exacerbated by a high(er than necessary) rate of fire. Will be interesting if this problem persists into Lance 2.0. 

Some more from the Chief of Army about Lance on Boxer:

https://asiapacificdefencereporter.com/army-says-boxer-8x8-will-not-be-able-to-fire-guided-missiles/

“It will not have an organic anti-armour weapon – they will be carried by the troops inside to engage those sorts of threats.”

On Iron Fist (or any active protection system):

”Another surprise was the revelation that Boxers will not be equipped with an Active Protection System (APS)…Originally the Boxers were to be equipped with the Iron Fist system from Elbit, but Army say that the mission profile for the vehicles means that will no longer required.”

This tracks with Boxer shifting from combat reconnaissance vehicle to battlegroup support vehicle. This shift from frontline rearward relates to vehicle performance shortcomings, apparently. 
 

Lance also reportedly has issues with toxicity in the turret, something Army last experienced with Scorpion turreted M113s. From the ABC article:
 

“Military insiders claim Rheinmetall's Boxer is experiencing "carbon monoxide toxicity" inside the vehicle, vibration problems for passengers…”

Related. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-06/multi-billion-dollar-army-vehicle-project-facing-cutbacks/100968910

Announcement of the decision kicked into the long grass. 
 

8 hours ago, DIADES said:

Lets leave further discussion till aftet the actual announcement.

Agreed. 

1 hour ago, DIADES said:

Probably best to caveat your comments with "according to my old mates" or similar.  My mates have the reverse story....

Your mates are saying Redback won? Nice. 

2 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

Lynx with rubber tracks has evolved into Lynx having vibration issues?

Got the cart before the horse. Alleged - yes rumoured - noise, vibration, & unreliability issues during RMA, hence the commonwealth direction to try the Soucy rubber tracks.