DIADES

4 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

both?

Exactly.  If you have to add mass for the sake of mass, then adding it in the form or armour is obvious.

11 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

R400

Phase 3 specified as must have per Phase 2 RWS, main gun ammunition, SPIKE and IRON FIST Light.  Hanwaha or Rheinmetall regardless and GFE.

21 hours ago, Willy Brandt said:

should still be done in 5 years.

I am talking "in service" not just delivered.  PUMA is a long way from fit for service hence MARDER upgrades

11 hours ago, Willy Brandt said:

That would make 579 Pumas

In service e somewhere around 2050 at this rate

18 hours ago, Serge said:

Leclerc

yep cos a person....General Philippe Leclerc de Hauteclocque

6 hours ago, 2805662 said:

BAE Hanwha

Yes, unless I have accidentally forecast a merger!

8 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

Zumwalt

Definitely supposed to be transformational - just wasn't.

7 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:

or full pedantry

Top marks!

17 hours ago, SH_MM said:

he specs of your products

MTU AFV engine specs have been public for years - right up to November 2019.  Same with their proud history, now no mention even of Leopard.  But I hope you are right

15 hours ago, SH_MM said:

MTU is not pulling out of the military engine market.

Reassure me   I see the MTU website as cached in Nov 2019 listing the engines in detail and now, nothing, really nothing..  So you know they are not pulling out how?

9 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:

As to the Puma

Yep, I reckon we will never see a PUMA in service anywhere except Germany.  Unless.... it is a PUMA not a PUMA by which I mean, an AMERICAN PUMA like an AMERICAN HARRIER is a HARRIER.  If you squint, they look the same but aside from the concept, nothing in common.  PSM could man up, find a US partner and re-birth PUMA.  Big ask - Germany has very aggressive defence tech/data export laws plus it would want to be a brave American Prime - PSM have right royally stuffed up the introduction into service of Puma.  As punishment for its part, Rheinmetall just got given 110 mill Euro to upgrade Marder. 

“We’re going to reset the requirements, we’re going to reset the acquisition strategy and timeline,” Gen. McConville said about OMFV on Tuesday. But, when he discussed Army modernization overall, he repeatedly emphasized that “we need transformational change, not incremental improvements.

“Transformational change is how we get overmatch and how we get dominance in the future,” the Chief of Staff said. “We aren’t looking for longer cords for our phones or faster horses for our cavalry.”

Source: https://breakingdefense.com/2020/01/bradley-replacement-did-army-ask-for-unobtainium/

So in other words, the reset will still ask the impossible to be delivered yesterday.

1 hour ago, TokyoMorose said:

mandatory growth margin tonnage or percentage in the detailed sections of the requirements that's a different story but only making the weight requirement even more hopeless

There was and it did.

The Raytheon (Rheinmetall) bid - plan was to bid.  As bid progressed, it became obvious that there was no way to bid compliant so decision made not to bid.  DoD not happy as were facing prospect of only a single bidder.  Applied gentle pressure to Raytheon, please bid regardless.  By the time Raytheon manned up to the inevitable, there was no time for Rheinmetall.  Rhinmetall definitely did not plan to fail.  News of the cancellation was massive relief.  Assuming DoD are less, well lets not go there, next time, I expect Rheinmetall, BAE Hanwha and GD will go in hard.

2 hours ago, N-L-M said:

without a substantial weight invested in the hull body, which cannot be detached for obvious reasons

Absolutely agreed.  Mine blast protection is fundamentally built in.  Yeah, there are belly plates bolted on too, but the protection level is the result of the combined system performance.  The hull structures in the belly of things like LYNX are massive and permanent.

1 hour ago, Clan_Ghost_Bear said:

If MPF counts as new enough

Nah, not really new - based on AJAX which is a tart up of ASCOD.  1980s tech at best.  One of the reasons AJAX did not make down select for LAND 400 in Australia was its actual age.  Lots of lipstick, still a pig.

30 minutes ago, TokyoMorose said:

heir tender was all-new

My turn.  That's kind of my point the bid failed.  So when did they last win new platform work?

A bigger question.  What does this all mean for GD?  When was the last time they won work with a new platform?  Not upgrades, genuine new platform.  All their product is old.  But their competitors are making traction with new product.

10 minutes ago, TokyoMorose said:

(which Rhm states has 6t of growth capacity at its full 44t weight

yeah, except you need to change to a higher rated track to get to the 50t GVM.  The new track eats a tonne so real growth about 5t.

Just now, TokyoMorose said:

Instead they just quietly dropped out under shipping errors as an excuse.

Not what happened as I have posted earlier in a different thread.  So this via a contact in the right Raytheon office -

As I hear it, the failure to provide a sample came about as Raytheon decided not to bid (some time ago).  The decision was based on non-compliance with requirements.  About 10 days out from the closing date, that decision was reversed,  no idea why, seems unlikely that compliance could have changed much so I assume politics.  Problem, Rheinmetall, knowing the bid was off, began turret off deep maintenance on the proto.  The rest writes itself.

This was backed up by media reports.  The logistic problem was real.  But I do not think the outcome would have changed.  We need to remember that other large players decided not to bid at all.

I think people are over analyzing the GD bid.  It was non-compliant.  End of story.  If they had been compliant, we would not be having this conversation.  I bet there are a lot of DoD people pissed off with GD (as usual).  They comfortably rejected the Raytheon non-compliant bid because they had a GD bid in hand......

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Liebherr, not MTU.

Given MTU seems to be pulling out of AFV, I think we will see the phrase "Liebherr, not MTU." a fair bit.

Very nice update of German state of play, thanks.

17 minutes ago, Zadlo said:

completely erased t

yep, and I can't find anything about it.

4 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:

Puma

Not a PUMA fan, but I agree.  Except we want a 50mm and we want...and we want..... and it can't be heavier

2 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

Anyone who actually knows wouldn't tell you.

Correct, well certainly shouldn't.  If you want to estimate it yourself, pretend you are a spotty teenager and go around the web copy paste every threat you can find (lint ballistic to 30mm) = OMFV threats to be defeated.  Specification development by window shopping.

2 hours ago, foxhound said:

protection requirement

STANAG L6 plus, plus, plus

7 hours ago, Clan_Ghost_Bear said:

specific requirement

as I understand it - not a single requirement but the conflict between having to fly two in a C17 and a 360 degree protection level beyond laughable.  The Requirements aren't strictly the problem - the problem is the engineering and technology development to meet them had to be done in a stupid timeframe and also had to be mature....  DoD clearly a victim of salesmanship over engineering.

  I have seen the docs but not sure if I have access to a copy.