DIADES

11 hours ago, 2805662 said:

surprised if it’s turret appeared on Boxer CRV

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

5 minutes ago, 2805662 said:

Sunk cost fallacy.

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..

23 hours ago, 2805662 said:

Defence paid handsomely for that investment.

and so capitalising rather than duplicating is the obvious way to leverage money spent.

23 hours ago, 2805662 said:

Not a single dollar invested

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.

20 hours ago, Kal said:

Victoria is gifting land 400 phase 3 to Qld.

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!

some lynx propaganda

On 11/16/2020 at 7:22 PM, Kal said:

3.4.4.2.1 Main Weapon - General

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!

23 hours ago, 2805662 said:

That looks like “notes to tenderers” not a requirement per se. I assume it’s importance is “important”. 

agree.  Probably why I don't recall it.  Certainly not a Requirement in the true sense.

3 hours ago, Kal said:

requirement

Please tell me the requirement number?  These specs don't ring any bells?

9 hours ago, Insomnium95 said:

o with the 30mm.

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

On 11/10/2020 at 2:44 AM, Rico said:

Kodiak instead of Wisent

Yes, I think this will happen.  Then again, maybe FFG will get thrown a bone as a diversity/competition fig leaf

On 11/10/2020 at 2:44 AM, Rico said:

Lynx instead of Puma

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!

On 11/6/2020 at 10:07 AM, David Moyes said:

OPFOR

since that is a Tiger 2 - I suggest that they are using an OPFOR from about 1944,,,

On 11/12/2020 at 6:14 PM, DIADES said:

turreted Phase 3 variants require a RWS

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.

22 hours ago, 2805662 said:

turreted Phase 3 variants require a RWS o

they don't - explicitly.  It about overall system lethality.  Will try and dig the reqs out.

6 hours ago, Insomnium95 said:

emove all ATGM

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.

21 hours ago, 2805662 said:

SEOSS sight head can retract,

No, this version rotates to go under armour within the MSSA plinth

1 minute ago, 2805662 said:

The Commonwealth didn’t execute the MSSA option for phase 2 Lance turrets (Block 1 or 2), so no reason to think that they’d change their mind for this phase. 

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

20 hours ago, Serge said:

Iron Fist warnings modules are not fitted. 

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.

22 hours ago, Kal said:

EOS RWS

Only for non-turreted roles.  Turreted use MSSA as it is the best packaging solution when you have a proper independent commanders sight.

1 minute ago, 2805662 said:

Not sure.

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.

12 minutes ago, 2805662 said:

Block 2 turrets (as opposed to the Lance 2.0 turrets).

I understood that LANCE 2.0 is the turret for Block 2?

42 minutes ago, 2805662 said:

Boxer will be fitted with a turret

Agreed, the mission module has different lines from the MPV

On 9/28/2020 at 11:05 PM, Insomnium95 said:

Why would you want to pack a bunch of tanks on a mountainous island with thick jungles? Most armored vehicles will have little value in places like those islands.

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.

On 9/28/2020 at 11:00 PM, Insomnium95 said:

MBTs

How about 50t Centurions?