Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

[Serge]

5 hours ago, Boagrius said:

Odd that the number of dismounts seems to have dropped on both vehicles from 8-9 to 6. Is there something I'm missing here?

In my memory, it was clear. 
The MCCC is calling for :

- required 6 dismounts ;

- desired 8 dismounts.

[2805662]

6 hours ago, Boagrius said:

Odd that the number of dismounts seems to have dropped on both vehicles from 8-9 to 6. Is there something I'm missing here?

Somebody from the tender eval team couldn’t count the number of seats & seatbelts in the back of each vehicle? 
 

Given the sign has “tenderer’s claims” on it, it doesn’t seem either accurate or honest. Quite on-brand!

[DIADES]

On 3/16/2021 at 9:56 PM, Boagrius said:

Odd that the number of dismounts seems to have dropped on both vehicles from 8-9 to 6. Is there something I'm missing here?

The Requirement is six and always has been,  8 and even 9 is occasionally stated by the Primes.  Utter bullshit.  No matter how many bodies, you must carry their gear.  6 plus gear is a challenge for both teams.  8 is simply not possible.

[2805662]

19 minutes ago, DIADES said:

The Requirement is six and always has been

The requirement on the RFT when released was six. It’s incorrect to say that “always has been”.

 

Army Capability Requirement 2012 (ACR 2012 - the 2012 was the implementation date, not the drafting date) mandated the Standard Infantry Battalion, which was wholly dismounted. IFV would be held as battalion lift as a Squadron in the Brigade’s Armoured Cavalry Regiment. PMV would be held as a battalion lift as a company in the Brigade’s Combat Service Support Battalion. 
 

Why does this matter? SIB meant that all battalions were light infantry, with a section comprising two identical, four-man fireteams. This drove the IFV dismount requirement to crew (from the ACR)+8 (from the SIB).
 

When it became clear that an ACR of 1 x tank squadron, 2 x reconnaissance squadrons, & 1 x IFV (APC) squadron wasn’t workable, the ACR lost its IFVs, SIB died, mechanised & motorised infantry battalions were reconstituted. 
 

With IFV crew now part of the section, the number of dismounts required dropped to six. 
 

This was also pushed by industry feedback that crew + eight was not really a thing. 
 

All of this combined for the RFT as released to read 3+6. 
 

 

[DIADES]

Bottom line - 6 is the number and has been for years

[2805662]

2 minutes ago, DIADES said:

Bottom line - 6 is the number and has been for years

Yes. The number has been six since 2018. 

[Kal]

On 9/8/2020 at 10:30 PM, David Moyes said:

 

I count 8 in there.

And aren't those seats - Australian government issue seats from the Hawkei, to be common between Lynx and Redback?

[Serge]

If I remind me well :

- KF41 seats are from Schroth ;

- AS21 seats are from Mobius. 

[Kal]

'

• STANAG 4A/4B for Mineblast protection with the same mine resistant seating system as on the Hawkei PMV

https://www.australiandefence.com.au/defence/land/land-400-phase-3-bids-in-the-box

[DIADES]

On 3/20/2021 at 5:19 PM, Kal said:

Australian government issue seats from the Hawkei, to be common between Lynx and Redback?

No, definitely not

[2805662]

Great update courtesy of DTR:

 

 

https://defencetechnologyreview.partica.online/defence-technology-review/dtr-apr-2021/flipbook/11/

 

[Reta]

So KF41 got 6 dismounts and Redback 8? Won't That make quite a difference TOE wise? 

[Serge]

KF41 can reach 8 dismounts. They just have to ask for. 

[DIADES]

16 hours ago, Reta said:

So KF41 got 6 dismounts and Redback 8? Won't That make quite a difference TOE wise? 

No.  6 is the Requirement.

[2805662]

 

“Planned to be demonstrated with both the Spike....and Iron Fist....through either live fire or....laboratory demonstrations.”

 

Very carefully worded written responses to questions. No mention of Spike LR2. 
 

Any demonstrations - preferably on YouTube - of any kind of Spike LR being fired from an actual Lance turret? Or Iron Fist?

 

Interested to see how Liebherr’s first foray into AFV power packs will fare, reliability-wise. 

 

[Serge]

 

7 hours ago, 2805662 said:

Very carefully worded written responses to questions. No mention of Spike LR2. 
 

Any demonstrations - preferably on YouTube - of any kind of Spike LR being fired from an actual Lance turret? Or Iron Fist?

Yes. 
Spike LR2 is said to have problems. 

[DIADES]

16 hours ago, 2805662 said:

Or Iron Fist?

Hanwha dodgy on APS too,  Hanwha have good claim for SPIKE integration (tho I reckon it was an LR2 fired from a turret set up for LR1 but still a good claim)

[2805662]

3 minutes ago, DIADES said:

Hanwha dodgy on APS too,  Hanwha have good claim for SPIKE integration (tho I reckon it was an LR2 fired from a turret set up for LR1 but still a good claim)

 

 

[DIADES]

Just now, 2805662 said:

 

 

Yep.  And given all the fanfare around the SPIKE firing, with video and all, I struggle to take the Iron Fist claim seriously.   Maybe they did fire it - but what happened?  Is there a video?

[2805662]

1 minute ago, DIADES said:

Yep.  And given all the fanfare around the SPIKE firing, with video and all, I struggle to take the Iron Fist claim seriously.   Maybe they did fire it - but what happened?  Is there a video?

I’d like to see the Iron Fist video, too. Perhaps the test was a multi-threat demonstration & the video would reveal too much of Iron Fist’s capabilities? I doubt we’ll ever know...unless the video is released.

 

That said, with the seriousness of the RMA, I’m sceptical that they’re making ambit claims.

 

[DIADES]

6 minutes ago, DIADES said:

Maybe they did fire it - but what happened? 

Look at the Hanwha advert in the latest DTR.  SPIKE "Successfully fired" but  Iron Fist "Proven integration"  Big difference'

[2805662]

18 minutes ago, DIADES said:

Look at the Hanwha advert in the latest DTR.  SPIKE "Successfully fired" but  Iron Fist "Proven integration"  Big difference'

Different language, sure. Big difference?Maybe. Maybe not. Are APS integrated, fired, or both?
 

Both a step up from “planned to be demonstrated” from RDA. HDA’s turret system integration seems to be ahead either way. But is it either by a nose, or a mile?

 

It’d be interesting to see what, if any, Iron Fist integration from 400-2 bleeds across to -3. Also be very interested in whether the Eurospike joint venture includes Spike LR2 IP. The public domain literature only mentions Spike LR as MELLS, not LR2.

 

If Lance has been tested with an ATGM (video request extant), was it Spike LR or MELLS? 

Interesting to speculate, as always. 

[SH_MM]

18 hours ago, Serge said:

Spike LR2 is said to have problems. 

 

Spike in general has problems. High dud rates even years after initial adoption.

 

9 hours ago, 2805662 said:

I’d like to see the Iron Fist video, too. Perhaps the test was a multi-threat demonstration & the video would reveal too much of Iron Fist’s capabilities? I doubt we’ll ever know...unless the video is released.

 

I doubt that. There is nothing hidden about Iron Fist's capabilities - two launchers each with two ready-to-fire rounds each. Weight, elevation angle, slew rates, energy consumption etc. all has been published. The integration of Iron Fist on Redback results iin a reduction of overlapping coverage, but then again the turret roof is less cluttered.

 

One could speculate that no video footage from the Iron Fist tests was released, because the result of these tests are classified. But it also could be due to Iron Fist having issues with defeating all threats (dudding was a major issue in US tests of Iron Fist). Or it could simply be some guy at Elbit's PR department thinking that the footage from the Spike launch is more pleasing to the eye.

 

9 hours ago, 2805662 said:

Both a step up from “planned to be demonstrated” from RDA. HDA’s turret system integration seems to be ahead either way. But is it either by a nose, or a mile?

 

The decision to offer an Australian-made launcher in order to appeal Australian decision-makers probably has delayed the test-firing of Spike missiles from the modified Lance 2.0 turret offered to Australia quite a bit. Supashock's launcher is a new product and has to undergo lots of certifications, qualifications and maturity assessements before it is ready for firing. Meanwhile the Redback turret simply integrates an existing launcher that already has been qualified, tested and sold to other customers.

 

9 hours ago, 2805662 said:

It’d be interesting to see what, if any, Iron Fist integration from 400-2 bleeds across to -3. Also be very interested in whether the Eurospike joint venture includes Spike LR2 IP. The public domain literature only mentions Spike LR as MELLS, not LR2.

 

MELLS is just the German designation for Spike LR and the program under which it was adopted. Other customers of EuroSpike (such as Poland or Italy) have their own designations for Spike LR.

 

Spike LR and Spike LR2 both utilize the same hardware and software interfaces; just a "simple" software update should enable any Spike LR launcher too fire the newer version - at least according to Rafael.

 

EuroSpike currently advertises the Spike SR, the Spike LR2, the Spike ER2 and the Spike NLOS missile on its website. My understanding is that EuroSpike itself doesn't have any intellectual property of the Spike missiles, but Rafael keeps it - while its two partners Diehl and Rheinmetall are responsible for manufacturing, marketing, distrubition and integration of Spike systems on the European market. Denmark has just ordered the Spike LR2 missile from EuroSpike.

 

________________________

 

These interviews in the DTR Magazine... both Hanwha and Rheinmetall use lots of words to say nothing, distract from the original question and then make a blanket statement regarding how their system is a good choice. Three questions regarding the AS21's turret are essentially answered with "It is not the XYZ turret, it is the Redback turret", while both Rheinmetall and Hanwha answer the question how the data accumulated by the vehicles' sensors are used with "we use it".

[DIADES]

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

These interviews in the DTR Magazine.

The CoA is very, very, very paranoid about impartiality.  Did I mention very paranoid?  The article was always going to be a waste of time.  Zero possibility of any real content as the parties are in an active RMA.  Yes, the marketing answers are nauseating as usual.

 

 

 

 

[DIADES]

11 hours ago, 2805662 said:

Iron Fist integration from 400-2 bleeds across to -3

Pretty much has to.  Iron Fist is mandated by CoA - not chosen on its merits (there aren't any) by either tenderer.  Iron Fist is a complete dud.