Kal
-
Posts
347 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Kal
-
-
That roof looks lite.
Is that roof hole large enough for an Australian 81mm mortar teams use?
-
32 minutes ago, SH_MM said:
I did not say that they are mutually incompatible, but I mentioned the D976 engine already last Friday... which at least makes me wonder, why you post about it with the words "New D976 18 litre, 6cyl ".
Because in my country the link to that engine has the word NEW appended in the top corner, unlike most of liebherr's other engine links. But there are plenty of times when whats new for Australia is old for the rest of the world....
I dont know if D976 is a new 18l engine, or just a new edition of an old 18l engine. Just that liebherr is labeling it as 'new'.
I do appreciate your friday posts, I'll need to update my lynx vs as21 spreadsheet with the 6cyl engine..
-
-
-
9 hours ago, DIADES said:
Agreed. My point is that we are not there yet. And that is what we are talking about. Now, well, the next 12 months roughly when the evaluation takes place. That will use existing technology.
Agree about using existing technology for the evaluation, but pointing out for future growth, this tech's progression is open ended not closed ended.
Also, has reservations that a cold country track maker will choose the right compound for a hot country
-
https://www.jlv.com.au/cable-belt-conveyors.html
The soucy patch reminds me of cable belt conveyors. Not the cheapest solution but they are the long distance champioms of conveyors. 31km between drives is possobly not even physically possible with a segmented steel solution with shear connections.
Point is, rubber tracks are technology with lots of development potential. With an end point generally superior to metal tracks with rubber pads.
-
1 hour ago, DIADES said:
OK, yes rubber bands work on very light vehicles. Please show me any evidence of a medium or heavy AFY on rubber track?
And - the repair is not apples and apples. The rubber band repair does not return the track to fully functional - speed degraded and vibration increased - it is purely an expedient repair prior to replacement.
A repaired in the field conventional track is fully functional. There is no comparison.
Do they state it is degraded in vibration or speed. I'm not saying it isn't, but Im not assuming it is either, simply because induatrial belting splice kits can be rated for the same speed the application is used for even if it less than the theoretical maximum.
-
11 hours ago, DIADES said:
But conventional track can be repaired by crew anywhere. Rubber band needs to be replaced completely and I don't see carrying a whole spare track as practical. Band track makes sense for training if the durability/cost trade off actually works. But will be a liability in real operations.
In field emergency kit should be a pragmatic option, similar to how old school push bikes have puncture repair kits.
With conveyor belt damage, a mine wont stop production until a whole new belt arrives, they patch up the old one and keep going.
(Unless its a slice along the belt, not accross the belt, but how to transfer that style of damage to an ifv? )
-
Norwegian perspective on rubber tracks with comparisons for a 42 tonne weight class leopard 1 tank...
- Laser Shark and 2805662
- 2
-
Off topic, but Australia already has suitable operational factory for manufacturing offroad equipment in the 30 to 100 tonne, the elphinestone facility in Tasmania.
But whats left for that factory? I don't know. It was the site where the Sentinel II wouldve ben fabricated.
-
1 hour ago, Zadlo said:
Always has been. Level 6 requires protection against 30mm NM225 APFSDS-T or Slovakian copy of 3UBR6.
So, one of those has double the penetration values of the other?
-
True,
But Hanwha has to stuff it up to lose that contract now. Its always possible as they are not local.
I doubt the K9 contract details will be finalised before a covid19 vacinne is available in Victoria.
-
K9 and K10 are go.
So both Rheinmetall and Hanwha will have good facilities in Australia for production of IFV.
Its a 2 horse race. Eitherway, hopefully a better outcome for final procurement of the IFV.
-
Hanwha Defense Australia (HDA) has been selected as the preferred supplier to the Australian Army (AA) of 30 K9 155 mm self-propelled howitzers (SPHs) and 15 K10 armoured ammunition resupply vehicles (AARVs), Defence Minister Linda Reynolds announced on 3 September.
(So its intent to negotiate a sole source contract)
-
-
-
21 hours ago, SH_MM said:
Yes, no protection against 30 mm APFSDS. AEP-55 Volume 1 (1st edition) also specifies no 25 mm APFSDS threat.So something equivalent to 3UBR8?
Was there ever a stanag 4569 that had a level 6 but not explicitly APFSDS?
-
5 hours ago, sksslrkalqek said:
Daewoo's K21 is 25 tonne class vehicle with Al, fibreglass and Alumina.
AS21 is 42 tonne class vehicle with steel, although Hanwha is major plastics petrochem company and used to make lots of silicon including some silicon carbide.
-
-
1 hour ago, DIADES said:
Rheinmetall has been working with Bisalloy for years - many press releases. They are working together to get Bisalloy qualified against German standards and I am pretty sure I saw a release celebarting success and I definitely saw one from Rheinmetall about getting welders qualified to German armour welding standards. Don't forget, MLVEHCOE is gearing up to build BOXER.
This type of announcement from bisalloy https://www.bisalloy.com.au/bisalloy-armour-steel-passes-german-government-testing/ makes me suspect that higher end german products will have lower australian steel content because they were designed to exclusivly use German grades of steel. So less australian steel and less australian fabrication content. But it still is to be fully welded in Australia.
Hanwha AS21 is opposite, its inspiration is from an aluminum/fibreglass design so the steel equivalent is fully designed based upon Australian steel as the reference material. Designed by koreans for Australian steel (so to speak)
-
1 hour ago, DIADES said:
I disagree strongly both will pass under hull and under track and that is all that matters. Rheinmetall has been building mine blast structures for a long time. Rheinmetall BOXER in the L400 Ph2 RMA drove off the test area under its own power after an under hull blast.
The hard parts (for both teams) are EFP and IED side attack blasts.
Its not just the vehicles, but the crash test dummies inside. No point having an immaculate vehicle if the dummies all have broken necks etc.
So yeah, that part is still a contest of who is better.
-
2 hours ago, SH_MM said:
And the fact that Rheinmetall actually produces mine-resistant vehicles and its own combat-proven mine protection kits is irrelevant for what exact reason?
The suggestion alone that the Lynx would have trouble dealing with a 10 kilogram TNT-equivalent mine blast is funny The PMMC G5 manages 12 kilogram TNT at half the weight.
The Diehl Type 570F tracks of a Leopard 2A4 weight 2,750 kg. Diehl sold its track business to KMW, where it became known as DST. The Lynx KF41 uses DST tracks, but of a more modern generation than the old Type 570F tracks; the company claims weight-saving up to 30% are possible. Estimating the track weight at 4,000 kg is silly.
The transmission of the Lynx is likely lighter than the Allison X-1100-3B (at least if they use a current gen one like the HSWL 256C), the engine has not been disclosed, but assuming that it is heavier than a 30 year old design from MTU is not justified.
thanks for the added detail,
I had used the old leopard 1 tracks as a proxy, 4 tonnes, since that tank was similar weight, and soucy's rough approximation of being 1/2 weight.http://www.tankarchives.ca/2017/05/leopard-tracks.html
for transmission KF41 was renk 256, @ 1.7 tonne vs AS21 X-1100-3B at 2.0 tonne
but for engine, for 850kW Liebherr D9612 @ 2.35 tonne vs MTU 881 at 1.4 tonne (perhaps D9512 @ 750kW would be better https://www.liebherr.com/en/aus/products/components/combustion-engines/diesel-engines/product-portfolio-diesel-engines/details/d9512a7.html)
can Hanwha stuff it up, sure perhaps if that is a weld seam right along the centre of the hull floor. but at this point is time, it appears that Hanwha has taken the opportunity to match the Lynx nearly exactly on combined hull+turret weight. which is a very different scenario than the land400 phase 2 finalists.
for both vehicle blast tests, the vehicles will use the local hawkei seats.
-
very rough estimates
AS21 combat weight 42 tonnes, 2 tonnes for rubber tracks, 3.5 tonnes for engine/tran, gives 36.5 tonne for everything else
KF Lynx41, combat weight 44tonnes, 4 tonnes (guess) for steel track, 4.0 tonnes for engine/tran, gives 36.0 tonne for everything else
different, yet similar
-
1 hour ago, 2805662 said:
More of a sequencing problem. The initial plan was for the RMA contenders to exhibit an RMA vehicle each at Land Forces 2020, initially scheduled for 1-3 September 2020, the hand them over for the RMA. With Land Forces now 3/4 of the way through the RMA, and it unlikely that the ballistic test articles being released to the RMA bidders until the conclusion of the RMA, or them being deemed non-compliant, I just don’t see it happening.
The blast test vehicles are likely To be beyond economic repair, even if they were available. I’d love to be be proven wrong, but it seems very unlikely at this stage.
10kg mine blast is probably Hanwha's AS21 strongest point compared to LYNX.
(Due to hanwha history of originally being an explosive company that expanded into petrochem, so if they know anything, it should be blasting and blasting mats)
Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV
in Mechanized Warfare
Posted
Ajax with 2 crew and 4 dismounts would never have been seriously considered for the role anyway. Australia wants family edition IFV.
It may be great vehicle, but it is not what Australia is looking for. And does it have a rear ramp?