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 

Posts posted by 2805662

  2. What the Hell is the Point of Interleaved Road Wheels?

    in Mechanized Warfare

    Posted

    8 hours ago, Beer said:

    M26 was rated to climb 27° gradient which isn't much but here the test states it was able to climb 35°, surprisingly more when usually it was less than the rating. 

    27 degrees or 27% (15 degrees) gradient?
    If it’s a 27 degree gradient, that’s actually pretty good. 

     

    Modern western AFV generally can do 60% (31 degrees), so 35 degrees (70%) is very, very good. 

  3. Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    in Mechanized Warfare

    Posted

    2 hours ago, Kal said:

    by that article, the Redback is wider than the Lynx, by the picture the tracks on the Hanwha are as wide as the combo of Lynx track + side skirt.

    the ride will be different between the 2 vehicles. more rubber in contact + more tension along the track

    height seems similar, but hawha has both taller hull and nil suspension intrusion into hull.  why?

    By eyeball, I put the Soucy tracks on the Redback at 510-530mm wide. 
     

    (Noting that this is 100% deductive reasoning/speculation) I think the hull roof height isn’t given as the in-arm suspension allows for variable ride height (though a notional overall height is given), with minimal hull intrusions. From the looks of it, the under hull protection on the Redback is *very* thick.


    With 125kW more engine output than the Leopard AS1, at a comparable combat weight, but better suspension, I’d like to see Redback do some proper cross-country work. Likely put the old Leopard AS1 to shame!

     

  5. Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    in Mechanized Warfare

    Posted

    18 minutes ago, DIADES said:

    Look at the Hanwha advert in the latest DTR.  SPIKE "Successfully fired" but  Iron Fist "Proven integration"  Big difference'

    Different language, sure. Big difference?Maybe. Maybe not. Are APS integrated, fired, or both?
     

    Both a step up from “planned to be demonstrated” from RDA. HDA’s turret system integration seems to be ahead either way. But is it either by a nose, or a mile?

     

    It’d be interesting to see what, if any, Iron Fist integration from 400-2 bleeds across to -3. Also be very interested in whether the Eurospike joint venture includes Spike LR2 IP. The public domain literature only mentions Spike LR as MELLS, not LR2.

     

    If Lance has been tested with an ATGM (video request extant), was it Spike LR or MELLS? 


    Interesting to speculate, as always. 

  6. Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    in Mechanized Warfare

    Posted

    1 minute ago, DIADES said:

    Yep.  And given all the fanfare around the SPIKE firing, with video and all, I struggle to take the Iron Fist claim seriously.   Maybe they did fire it - but what happened?  Is there a video?


    I’d like to see the Iron Fist video, too. Perhaps the test was a multi-threat demonstration & the video would reveal too much of Iron Fist’s capabilities? I doubt we’ll ever know...unless the video is released.

     

    That said, with the seriousness of the RMA, I’m sceptical that they’re making ambit claims.

     

  8. Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    in Mechanized Warfare

    Posted

    waVISY2.jpg

     

    “Planned to be demonstrated with both the Spike....and Iron Fist....through either live fire or....laboratory demonstrations.”

     

    Very carefully worded written responses to questions. No mention of Spike LR2. 
     

    Any demonstrations - preferably on YouTube - of any kind of Spike LR being fired from an actual Lance turret? Or Iron Fist?

     

    Interested to see how Liebherr’s first foray into AFV power packs will fare, reliability-wise. 

     

  12. Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    in Mechanized Warfare

    Posted

    19 minutes ago, DIADES said:

    The Requirement is six and always has been


    The requirement on the RFT when released was six. It’s incorrect to say that “always has been”.

     

    Army Capability Requirement 2012 (ACR 2012 - the 2012 was the implementation date, not the drafting date) mandated the Standard Infantry Battalion, which was wholly dismounted. IFV would be held as battalion lift as a Squadron in the Brigade’s Armoured Cavalry Regiment. PMV would be held as a battalion lift as a company in the Brigade’s Combat Service Support Battalion. 
     

    Why does this matter? SIB meant that all battalions were light infantry, with a section comprising two identical, four-man fireteams. This drove the IFV dismount requirement to crew (from the ACR)+8 (from the SIB).
     

    When it became clear that an ACR of 1 x tank squadron, 2 x reconnaissance squadrons, & 1 x IFV (APC) squadron wasn’t workable, the ACR lost its IFVs, SIB died, mechanised & motorised infantry battalions were reconstituted. 
     

    With IFV crew now part of the section, the number of dismounts required dropped to six. 
     

    This was also pushed by industry feedback that crew + eight was not really a thing. 
     

    All of this combined for the RFT as released to read 3+6. 
     

     

  14. Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    in Mechanized Warfare

    Posted

    6 hours ago, Boagrius said:

    Odd that the number of dismounts seems to have dropped on both vehicles from 8-9 to 6. Is there something I'm missing here?

    Somebody from the tender eval team couldn’t count the number of seats & seatbelts in the back of each vehicle? 
     

    Given the sign has “tenderer’s claims” on it, it doesn’t seem either accurate or honest. Quite on-brand!

  23. Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

    in Mechanized Warfare

    Posted

    Just now, DIADES said:

    Ahahahahahah - chose sides much!?  Seriously, your kimchee is showing again,  I like my sauerkraut better!  But, yes, both are just cabbage.

    I’m interested in a fair competition. The only thing I’d change from phase 2, for example, is swapping the Mk30-2ABM for the Mk44. 
     

    I find the assumed superiority of German engineering found in a lot of commentary on phase 3 reminiscent of wehraboo rantings, but that’s just me. 

×
×
  • Create New...