Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

DIADES

Contributing Members
  • Posts

    405
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by DIADES

  1. On 4/6/2022 at 5:02 PM, DIADES said:

    t could be that the Chief of the Army was only referring to the first batch of vehicles currently being introduced into service.

    and that is exactly correct.  As Head Armoured Vehicle Division MAJGEN Jason Blain made clear during Senate Estimates yesterday:

    "We never scoped to have any tank guided munitions fitted to our Block 1 vehicles. Again, in transition, as we move into Block 2, there is in the project scope and a plan to integrate an anti-tank guided munition system onto the Block 2 vehicle. We will have ATGMs, those missile systems, on our Block 2 fleet. It was never the case we'd have them on our Block 1 vehicles."

     

     

  2. 6 minutes ago, 2805662 said:

    The Block 1 Boxers are back at Redbank as of last month. No idea what they’re in for, or for how long.

    No "they" were not.  There are 13 of the buggers :) 2 were in but I don't know what for.

     

    Block 2 is on schedule as far as I know.

     

    The gun is fully external to the turret crew space.  The gas issue was to do with the NBC system and hatch seals not allowing full over pressure - now resolved.   It has nothing what so ever to do with gas or chain operated.  Both types make the same volume of gas ex-propellant.  The real issue is if the weapon breeech etc is in the crew space or not.  LANCE weapon is not in the turret crew space.

  3. 27 minutes ago, 2805662 said:

    Some more from the Chief of Army about Lance on Boxer

    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.

  4. 47 minutes ago, 2805662 said:

    God - reduced fleet size to save cost.  Yeah, nah.  Take the fleet down from 450 to 350 and save, I reckon, nothing,  All the NRE and support costs stay the same and the unit price willl go up..

     

    As for use Bushamaster to fill some roles.....  Really just a clear example of the complete lack of understanding.

  5. 9 hours ago, 2805662 said:

    Military:

    - Army’s preferred equipment solution was Redback. 
    - Army’s advice to MINDEF was Redback. 
    - MINDEF distrusts ADF leadership (see Brereton Report). 
    - this echoes selection of MRH over Blackhawk. 
    - Army fears an “Australian AJAX” with vibration & reliability issues of Lynx to be resolved. 

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

  6. So, we have Baaaanaby Joyce back as leader of the Nationals and thus Deputy PM.  Given his serious foot in mouth disease, I anticipate an early end to RMA and an early call on the winner.    Defence do not want the next Federal Election to impact the program and with Joyce in the mix, the odds are for an early election and real prospect of delaying the overall program due to caretaker provisions and or a change in Government.

  7. 9 hours ago, Kal said:

    Lynx's ammunition

    Bullshit.  May I remind you that CoA is already in contract for the Rheinmetall weapon and ammunition.  And has taken delivery of a dozen BOXER with this weapon and is firing this weapon and its ammo.  So - no way is "Lynx's ammunition" a factor - except maybe positive as it is common with in service ammo :)

     

  8. On 6/19/2021 at 4:26 PM, 2805662 said:

    Contract Change

    True but CoA will not allow changes that to introduce any hint of unfair advantage.  As each part of RMA proceeds, extent of change that could be permitted will reduce for fear of damaging prior assessments - and CoA is definitely not going back to repeat prior work.  Changing the turret to a different design is massive.  I simply can't see it being allowed - it could invalidate blast results for example.

×
×
  • Create New...