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

DIADES

Contributing Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    405

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by DIADES

  1. DIADES
    I do think CoA should have mandated that Rheinmetall offer LANCE to all tenderes. I guess they took the market forces view. Pretty sure that there is no possibility of non-LANCE on BOXER Ph2 as the schedules are too far out of wack. Block 2 will be being delivered before there is a decision on Ph3
  2. DIADES
    Yes, can be but given MILVEHCOE is utterly new and state of the art, no. Can Australia really afford two AFV manufacturing centers? Can the ADF afford to operate two completely different turrets? As for Export controls... well Korea is utterly in the pocket of the US so in no way reliable. And in any case, the engine is German..
  3. DIADES
    and so capitalising rather than duplicating is the obvious way to leverage money spent.
  4. DIADES
    Easy - no facility. NADA. I would love to be proved wrong so somebody tell me where hanwha has actually spent any money in Australia? Anybody seen any ads on Seek etc for Engineers even? Nope, Like I say, somebody please show me any evidence of actual spend. All I can see is old school spend nothing, win, do the Project, shut down and bugger off.
  5. DIADES
    Don't be confused by all the rubbish State politicians (all parties) pump out. Firstly, Defence is Federal. Secondly, Rheinmetalls Qld setup did not exist at the point they won Ph2. Defence are not stupid - they have seen investment claim after claim disappear so the plans to build MILVEHCOE had less that the weight of a feather on the decision. The RMA trials killed the BAE bid - the vehicle was inadequate. But, move forward to today and talk Ph3. MILVEHCOE has been built, is real and is a tangible asset to the LYNX bid. Hanwha? Not a single dollar invested. In any case, once again, RMA will be key. If there is a technical tie, then things like turret commonality, EA commonality and physical actual investment/commitment become more valid - after value for money!
  6. DIADES
    some lynx propaganda
  7. DIADES
    actual Requirement is FPS-4136 and it reads as you suggest. But not a Requirement to be met as it is classified as "Advice" So, no can fail!
  8. DIADES
    agree. Probably why I don't recall it. Certainly not a Requirement in the true sense.
  9. DIADES
    Please tell me the requirement number? These specs don't ring any bells?
  10. DIADES
    But - where do you put the ammunition? This is the eternal question in turret design. 30 to 35 does not sound like much but it would result is a drastic drop in stowed kills. The 35 is bigger in dia and longer and heavier. These parameters directly impact how many rounds can be carried. They also indirectly impact. Heavier, bigger round means more difficulties in stowage and feed and case ejection
  11. DIADES
    Yes, I think this will happen. Then again, maybe FFG will get thrown a bone as a diversity/competition fig leaf
  12. DIADES
    Not likely any time soon. Germany can hedge its bets. LYNX will be in production for Hungary and I expect Rheinmetall will start pushing LYNX once that production line is running. But still, big commitment to PUMA/Marder is in the system and Rheinmetall gets cash no matter what!
  13. DIADES
    since that is a Tiger 2 - I suggest that they are using an OPFOR from about 1944,,,
  14. DIADES
    For those not familiar - Ph3 roles are divided into two groups. Infantry Fighting Vehicle - Direct Fire High Survivability Lift (IFV-DFHSL) which is all the turreted roles and Infantry Fighting Vehicle - Specialist Support (IFV-SS) The IFV-SS spec covers Ambulance, Recovery, Repair etc. DFHSL and SS are two completely separate Specifications. So, when we talk remotes on a turreted vehicle: The RFT version of the IFV-DFHSL spec has an overarching Requirement: FPS-2359 3.4.4.4 Lethality - Remote Controlled Weapon. This has about a dozen child Requirements. In summary, must have a remotely controlled weapon so a RWS or MSSA.
  15. DIADES
    they don't - explicitly. It about overall system lethality. Will try and dig the reqs out.
  16. DIADES
    They have not - this uses the pop up Supashock launcher instead of the side mounted type. As to 30mm - its all about stowed kills. The 35mm simply cannot carry enough rounds and against the defined targets, 30mm gets it done.
  17. DIADES
    No, this version rotates to go under armour within the MSSA plinth
  18. DIADES
    Phase 2 and Phase 3 requirements are different. Will not meet Ph3 without an MSSA. Ph2 and Ph3 vehicles have different roles. Ph2, despite ludicrous size is recon. Ph3 is IFV
  19. DIADES
    A few other bits missing too I reckon. Pretty sure this is their blast vehicle so makes sense to leave off or just do mass dummies.
  20. DIADES
    Only for non-turreted roles. Turreted use MSSA as it is the best packaging solution when you have a proper independent commanders sight.
  21. DIADES
    Yeah. The PM is sitting in a LANCE 1.0 on a BLOCK 1 RECON. We have seen LANCE 2.0 - its on LYNX. Major config difference being coax flipped with gunners sight. But I agree, not clear exactly what a BLOCK 2 LANCE looks like.
  22. DIADES
    I understood that LANCE 2.0 is the turret for Block 2?
  23. DIADES
    Agreed, the mission module has different lines from the MPV
  24. DIADES
    You don't get to choose like that. War is chaos and a constant struggle for advantage. Tanks have been used over and over again in "bad tank country" of every kind. Always will be. There is no substitute for a tank.
  25. DIADES
    How about 50t Centurions?
×
×
  • Create New...