DIADES

Excellent.  I still struggle.  Medium?  What does one those beasties weigh?

https://www.jlv.com.au/cable-belt-conveyors.html
The soucy patch reminds me of cable belt conveyors.  Not the cheapest solution but they are the long distance champioms of conveyors.  31km between drives is possobly not even physically possible with a segmented steel solution with shear connections.
 
Point is, rubber tracks are technology with lots of development potential.  With an end point generally superior to metal tracks with rubber pads.

Here you go: 

http://gvsets.ndia-mich.org/documents/PM/2018/0945_Marcotte, Tommy_final presentation.pdf
 
 

Some info regarding Rheinmetall's KF41 Lynx based on the current Wehrtechnische Report of the Mittler Report Verlag:
 
The Lance 2.0 turret is being offered with two configurations; internal missile launcher (probably the one designed in cooperation with SupaShock for Australia) and the already show-cased confiugration with two external mission pods. Apparently one configuration envisioned by Rheinmetall is to use one mission pod for a dampened dual launcher of Spike-LR ATGMs, while the other is to be fitted with an electronic warfare package.
 
When fitted with the MK30-2/ABM autocannon, the elevation range is -10° to +45°. There is storage for 252 ready rounds, reloading under armor is possible from the gunner's seat via a hatch. Main gun ammo and anti-tank missiles are stored in compartments separated from the crew in order to increase post-penetration survivability; no idea if there are blow-out panels. The 30 x 173 mm KETF ammunition is the only 30 mm airburst ammunition that has been fully qualified to NATO standards, but for customers wanting cheaper ammunition, a HEI-T and a SAPPIE-T round have been developed. Secondary armament is a coaxial 7.62 mm machine gun with 750 rounds. The electrically-powered Wotan 35 gun is still not fínished, but will be available in the near future.
 
Rheinmetall has developed the SEOSS-2 as successor for the current SEOSS sight. The basic functionality (LRF, daylight camera and thermal imager; all signals are transmitted electronically to the FCS & displays) is comparable to the original model, but sensor resolution has been improved. The SEOSS-2S (sector) designed for use as a gunner's sight has 15° traverse (-7.5° to +7.5°) and covers elevation from -13° to 70°. The SEOSS-P (panorama) provides the same elevation, but 360° traverse. It can be fitted with a ballistic cover for protection according to STANAG 4569 Level 3. The SEOSS-2P can be adapted to act as RWS as part of the Main Sensor Slaved Armament (MSSA). The fire control system of the KF41 Lynx includes features for automatic target detection and target tracking.
 
As already mentioned in the LAND 400 topic, the Lynx makes use of a six-cylinder in-line diesel engine from Liebherr with 18 litres of displacement and double turbo-chargers to reach a boost output of 850 kW and a constant 800 kW. Between 1,200 and 1,900 rpm, the torque is constant at 4,300 Nm. Maximum engine speed is 2,300 rpm. The transmission is Renk's excellent HSWL-256 as fitted to the Puma IFV and the AJAX family of vehicles.
 
The current situational awarenss system from Rheinmetall uses the SCM 60 (surveillance camera module) that is also part of the Boxer CRV and the Puma S1 upgrade. It combines a 1,600 x 800 pixel daylight camera and a 640 x 480 pixel thermal imager with a 60° fíeld of view. The Lance 2.0 turret features six SCM 60 modules. The software allows fusing the outputs of thermal and daylight optics together. The driver's night sight is the RFEL Trailblazer.
 
They Lynx makes uses of Rheinmetall's xGVA, which is fully compatible with the NGVA (NATO STANAG 4754), the older and less comprehensive British DefStan 23-09 GVA and the DEF (AUST) 11316 Australian GVA.
 
While Rheinmetall has only showcased one configuration of the Lynx, the company is willing to adapt to the customer. Both its own Ragnarok mortar and the Patria Nemo turret are available. Likewise steel tracks or Soucy's rubber band CRTs are available, though the later only support a GVW of up to 47 tons. Armor concepts are also designed for a wide range of threats including passive and active protection (i.e. ADS as hybrid protection module) systems against RPGs and top-attack threats.

It can happen, it depends on a lot of factors. But repairing conventional and light-weight steel tracks is easier.
 
Both Sourcy CRTs and steel tracks can also be damaged by smaller blasts. But the type of damage is rather different and means for (quick) repair are usually carried inside/on the vehicle in case for steel tracks.
 
 
It's a solution, but also an afterthought. The vehicle will be able to limp back to base for proper repairs. That's not necessary with steel tracks allowing a proper repair in field.
 
Personally I'd prefer the segmented rubber tracks from DST. They combine the strengths of CRTs (claimed weight reduction of 50% compared to conventional steel tracks) with the segmented construction of steel tracks. Though I suspect given that they are still composite-rubber tracks, their overall lifetime will also be significantly worse than that of lightweight/conventional steel tracks.
 
The US Army tested Soucy's band tracks and DST Type 513 steel tracks on the M113. Soucy's tracks lasted 4,700 kilometers, the Type 513 tracks were still not worn out after the trials were stopped after 6,000 kilometers of travel. DST claims a lifetime of up to 14,000 kilometers for the Type 513 tracks.

But conventional track can be repaired by crew anywhere.  Rubber band needs to be replaced completely and I don't see carrying a whole spare track as practical.  Band track makes sense for training if the durability/cost trade off actually works.  But will be a liability in real operations.

One problem remaining with rubber band tracks is mine strike resistance. Current Soucy tracks cannot withstand STANAG 4569 Level 4a/4b mine blast.

As confirmed by Rheinmetall, the Lynx KF41 is not equipped with any of Liebherr's existing heavy-duty engines. The previously mentioned Liebherr D9512 and D9612 engines are both V12 engines, but the Lynx is fitted with a six cylinder inline engine with a whooping 18 liters of displacement. It seems to be the very opposite approach to the Puma's MT890V10 enigne, being designed to output a constant 4,300 Nm of torque (up until 1,900 rpm), while never reaching really high rpm (max 2,300 rpm).
 
It is apparently based on the Liebherr D976 based on its specs (my speculations), but heavily modified.

Hanwha has received a restricted request for tender for the 30 x K9 & 15 x K10, not a contract. They have the tender period to detail, formalise, schedule, and price their offer. Nothing in Commonwealth Procurement Rules/Guidelines (can’t recall which are which, atm) obliges the Commonwealth to accept Hanwha’s offer and go into contract. It’s by no means a done deal. 

This is also in line with the Norwegian experience, where these tracks have been in use for over 10 years now.
 
With that being said, it has been reported that the tracks are not as durable as expected on the new CV90s, so unless Soucy have taken steps to improve the durability, it could potentially be a serious drawback for the even heavier Redback.

Speaking to people on the AS4 Soucy track trial, and the trial staff from ATS & ADTEO, from 2011, it trialled really well, handled rocky terrain very well, was robust, and had very high user acceptance. The barrier to entry into service was the contract for the T150 track. 
 
Pics are mine:
 

 

I disagree strongly :) both will pass under hull and under track and that is all that matters.  Rheinmetall has been building mine blast structures for a long time.  Rheinmetall BOXER in the L400 Ph2 RMA drove off the test area under its own power after an under hull blast.
 
The hard parts (for both teams) are EFP and IED side attack blasts.

Yep - to return to as new, fully functional.  But, to put into fit shape for a static show?  Different question - a marketing imperative, not an engineering view!

And the fact that Rheinmetall actually produces mine-resistant vehicles and its own combat-proven mine protection kits is irrelevant for what exact reason?
 
The suggestion alone that the Lynx would have trouble dealing with a 10 kilogram TNT-equivalent mine blast is funny The PMMC G5 manages 12 kilogram TNT at half the weight.
 
 
The Diehl Type 570F tracks of a Leopard 2A4 weight 2,750 kg. Diehl sold its track business to KMW, where it became known as DST. The Lynx KF41 uses DST tracks, but of a more modern generation than the old Type 570F tracks; the company claims weight-saving up to 30% are possible. Estimating the track weight at 4,000 kg is silly.
 
The transmission of the Lynx is likely lighter than the Allison X-1100-3B (at least if they use a current gen one like the HSWL 256C), the engine has not been disclosed, but assuming that it is heavier than a 30 year old design from MTU is not justified.

depends on mine blast timing and extent of repair required.  Certainly Rheinmetall has enough in country capability to repair if time permits.  Pretty sure the mine blast vehicles have no other role in RMA.

We will see real offered configurations at Land Forces Conference in Brisbane in June 21

Just a couple of updates to the last few posts…
 
It has been confirmed that the 20 additional CV90s for the Norwegian Army will be CV90RWS variants based on rebuilt Mk I hulls. We still do not know the composition of the upcoming order, but unless they decide to add additional variants to the Norwegian CV90 family, there are only two to choose from, namely CV90RWS STING (combat engineer vehicle) and CV90RWS Multi-BK (multi-role mortar carrier). This also means a third order of (between 20-40 vehicles, if I have to guess) CV9030 MkIIIb will also probably take place sometime in the next years
 
Regarding the upcoming lawsuit between Rheinmetall/Rheinmetall Norway and the Norwegian state, more details have been revealed here as well. The article is pretty long, but I’ll translate the parts that I found to be the most relevant:
 According to Oslo district court, it was discovered that the original spring charged sensor mast could be a safety hazard for personnel inside the vehicle. The updated version, however, is claimed to be too sensitive to harsh environments to fulfil the Norwegian requirements.  This issue can apparently be fixed by switching to an electronically stabilized camera, which Rheinmetall Norway had originally intended to be a part of the system but abandoned for reasons that are not specified in the article. Because of these as well as other delays, the Norwegian side concluded that it would take several years  until the system could be delivered, and that’s why they decided to terminate the contract in 2018. For these reasons, the Norwegian state will also be suing Rheinmetall for 76,6 MNOK, as well as the cost of acquiring a new sensor system!  
Rheinmetall & Rheinmetall Norway are refuting the claim that the updated solution would not fulfil the Norwegian requirements. They are also pointing out that their solution has been found acceptable by both the Norwegian Border Guard (fitted to their border installations) and the Malaysian Armed Forces  (on the AV8 Gempita). They are also claiming that most of the delays were caused by an incompetent Norwegian project management failing to come up with clear and comprehensive requirements, demanding several changes after the contract had been signed, as well as attempting to but failing badly at coordinating the CV90 project/BAE Systems Hägglungs and the Vingtaqs II project/Rheinmetall Norway (according to Rheinmetall, a better solution would have been to let Hägglunds handle the CV90 part of the Vingtaqs II project, as had been planned initially). In another article, Rheinmetall have also been really leaning into the angle that incompetency is running rampant in the Norwegian Defence Material (and its predecessor in the Norwegian Defence Logistics Organization) by pointing to various acquisition projects that have been problematic (NH90, Archer etc.). To prove this, they’ve also issued a request to be able to go through the documentation of all Norwegian acquisition projects in the later years, but the court did not allow this, stating that it would be sufficient if Rheinmetall can prove that the project management have been incompetent in this specific case. (On a sidenote, one would think it that might not be the smartest idea to attack the entire agency from whom you’ll be competing for contracts in the future, but it certainly did not stop Rheinmetall Norway from winning a contract on the delivery of new soft-mounts for the M2A2Ns.) For these reasons, Rheimetall claim that Norway did not have the right to terminate the contract, and are demanding that the latter pay a refund at the discretion of the court (calculated to be at around 125 MNOK).  

Nah - looks like that is PR too.  The Elbit LWS looks like that with no Iron Vision.
 
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjj0qbxxb3rAhWYwzgGHUfPDZUQFjACegQIAhAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Felbitsystems.com%2Fmedia%2FLWS_5_Web.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3XAt7o4HHJzNalXLLo-vUa

Those are laser warners from Elbit.
 
https://elbitsystems.com/media/LWS_5_Web.pdf

it has 4 of these,  I don't know if they are real or just place holders, but it sure looks looks like iron vision to me.
 
On EOS's T2000 pdf they indicate the laser warning and IronVision sensors are co-located.
https://www.eos-aus.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Turret-Launch-Brochure-WEB.pdf
 
 
 

I'm not surprised, amongst other things,  Elbit in Victoria,  Rheinmetall is in Qld  and the borders are locked down hard between states due to Covid19 (and Victoria is basically 95%+ of Australia's wave 2 infections)
 
EOS in Canberra had their own problems https://themarketherald.com.au/electro-optic-systems-asxeos-future-plans-drastically-altered-by-covid-19-2020-04-30/
''
One week before formal deliveries could commence, the delivery chain was broken in multiple places due to a national lockdown and the impact of COVID-19.
A total of five essential EOS technical staff from Australia had to leave the country within 24 hours or be stranded due to airport closures and quarantine.
All accessible airports were closed to normal commercial passengers and freight. The EOS production facility, located in a secure industrial zone, was locked down by military police, along with all other defence plants.
Approximately 50 per cent of EOS local staff were forced into quarantine. The military test facility required for live firing was closed and the designated delivery points within military bases were cut off by military base closures

Yes, this vehicle lacks of side and rear cameras, it really doesn't have see through armor.

Anybody remember the 1957 UK defence paper that killed TSR-2 (among other things) as the age of manned aerial combat was over......?  Here we go again.

screenshots

 
 

I had a good look at these "armour" modules at Eursatory - they are dummies, purely for show.
 
But I agree, we have not seen what was actually offered by either Rheinmetall or Hanwha.  The armour capabilities required are defined by the Spec and yes, bomblet protection is required as is IED and EFP.  Both contenders will offer solutions.
 
No.  Not possible.  This would be a breach of the Phase 3 RMA contract conditions.  There will be differences permitted but they are about test practicalities, not configuration with respect to features.  So, turrets can have dummy APS (for example) providing one has real.  The RMA compares one configuration from Rheinmetall and one from Hanwha.  Yes, each provides 3 vehicles but that is to facilitate the test program, not for config differences.
 
Rheinmetall and Hanwah can SHOW as many different configs as hey like to the public, but only one will be considered by CoA during RMA.