DIADES

14 hours ago, 2805662 said:

signed the Risk Mitigation Activity contract.

as have Hanwha

How does one PUMA recover another?  Typically, an AFV has a rear pintle hook and can use that plus and A frame attached to the front recovery eyes of a casualty vehicle to flat tow recover it.

PUMA has an odd looking hook where I expect to see a pintle?  And I can't find any images of a PUMA recovering another PUMA?

8 minutes ago, N-L-M said:

which I'm sure you'd agree

and I do.  Truck mounted is way ahead of towed - although watching a well drilled team bring their gun into action is a joy.  Providing there are no bad guys...

Yes, wheels are for barrows.  I wasn't thinking that a low recoil force would make the platform smaller or shorter, more that the low recoil forces could allow a lighter, more agile platform (tracked) to have acceptable dynamic stability if the gun fired while it was in motion.  Not a deeply considered though, came out as I typed.

2 minutes ago, N-L-M said:

Brutus

I reckon that if the recoil forces are as low (haven't seen numbers) as claimed, then perhaps fire on the move from a heavy tracked platform becomes possible'

Given that the proto is on an FMTV surely that is deliberate to illustrate exactly how the OEM sees sales?

Just now, N-L-M said:

missing his point entirely-

perhaps - but as I read it, one of the sales points of such low recoil systems is their ability to carry their own firing loads thus enabling them to be fitted to any old lightweight chassis.  Point is of course, that any old lightweight chassis can't carry a decent armoured cab and BTW, where does the ammo go?   A second lightweight truck?  With armoured cab?

1 hour ago, roguetechie said:

gun technologies

You are seeing a gun I think and I am seeing a vehicle.  May reflect our backgrounds - certainly my view does.  I guess as mature adults we should be seeing the system.

I don't really see a place for un-armoured guns anymore either - no matter how good the gun is.  Counter battery fire is just too good.  Shoot and scoot, yeah but enemy batteries and loitering drones will be firing on you while your first salvo is still in the air.  The only attraction for a gun on an un-armoured truck is price.

I guess I am situating the appraisal - I automatically think peer to peer.  If not that, then gun on a truck is fine.

14 hours ago, Kal said:

Do the lifting hooks reveal the weight distribution ?  If so the weight is biased to the aft..

They certainly should give a pretty good indication of CoG location.  But, i would be surprised to see a rear bias.  Front powerpack including an MBT transmission.  Looks like roughly 100mm forward of the turret centerline to me.

3 hours ago, roguetechie said:

dummy

I had forgotten how much I enjoy the witty repartee so often a feature of forums in general.  Thank you for reminding me of both that enjoyment and my own failings.

1 hour ago, 2805662 said:

impolite to ask

Absolutely

6 hours ago, foxhound said:

Two Pumas would fit in a C-17 in class A protection, right?

I don't think there is any vehicle that a C17 can carry two of if the vehicles are at the mandated protection level.  PUMA also cannot meet the growth requirement.  The chassis is at its weight limit - no way is there 20% growth available.

8 hours ago, 2805662 said:

They seem to think that their platform is the best match to OMFV requirements.

So how come no bid?

2 hours ago, Serge said:

Czech Army officers said the same thing two years ago.

..and they were right then too.

1 minute ago, Beer said:

ASCOD has the highest chances.

Yes, CV90 or ASCOD.  BAE very, very hungry

That work share will be reconfigured in 2020.  Rheinmetall will acquire KMW.

3 hours ago, Beer said:

Puma is out

No surprise.  As I said in September, " Pretty hard to do a cheap PUMA, it is a very integrated beastie. "

CV90 will probably win.

1 hour ago, 2805662 said:

Brutus;

Jeebers!  That had better be cheap.  Only one (very small) step up from a Technical.

Good article:

https://breakingdefense.com/2019/10/bradley-replacement-army-risks-third-failure-in-a-row/

Note that by 2023 both LYNX and Redback will have completed RMA for L400 Phase 3 and one will have been selected.

On 10/8/2019 at 10:32 PM, Clan_Ghost_Bear said:

The General Dynamics vehicle delivered to the army is their final product.

How do we know this?  It was not a condition.  If true, then GD are well and truly in the box seat

8 hours ago, Clan_Ghost_Bear said:

Raytheon was working on the bid during mid-August, and selecting Textron to manufacture would've been difficult to do in a week. Possible but not likely

Yes they were working on it and I imagine their commercial guys were preping people like Textron in parallel.  The person who provided the info works out of Tuscon where the bid team wee so is a pretty good source.

2 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

I'm interested in where you heard

Friend of a friend has a friend in Raytheon

4 hours ago, 2805662 said:

A respondent has to meet the requirements while complying with the conditions.

Correct.  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.

So non-compliance with requirements lead to non-compliance with conditions

1 hour ago, Beer said:

It's not difficult to come with requirements which are impossible to fulfill by one or more bidders. That has been even intentionally used for ages all over the Globe. Not saying that it's this case, of course.

It does happen, no way to tell at this stage.  This is interesting:

39 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

Sour grapes do not compromise credibility

Have a good read of the requirements.  The fundamental conflict is the usual weight/protection problem.  The driver is the requirement to put two units in a C17 and have very, very high protection and 20% growth margin.  BAE assessed that as not doable.  Rheinmetall/Ratheon bid Kf41 which from my reading of mas and protection claims against L400 Phase 3, cannot meet the OMFV spec and would have been rejected regardless of not providing a bid sample.

GD have bid and good luck to them

3 hours ago, David Moyes said:

Are single-bidder competitions allowed in the US? I know in UK and Canada they have to be restarted/cancelled.

Don't know - but having only a single valid bid sure as hell compromises credibility.  Given BAE no bid, Rheinmetall non-compliant bid.  Pretty clear that the requirement set does not work.

3 hours ago, 2805662 said:

Only having a single prototype smacks of under investment by Rheinmetall. 

Yeah, but to some extent, Rheinmetall is a victim of its own success,  The Kf41 was developed specifically for the Australian L400 Phase 3 Requirement.  The very strong interest from half a dozen other nations probably exceeded even the wildest marketing team claims.  All the air miles and repaints on the show car will have hacked into its availability too.  They probably never expected to be the prettiest girl at the ball.