DIADES Posted April 3, 2021 Report Share Posted April 3, 2021 1 hour ago, SH_MM said: 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. The physical interface is the same and a launcher for LR will fire an LR2 but will not support all LR2 features. You are correct to put simple in quotes. There is nothing "simple"about changing the software in a turret, let alone software that controls ordnance.... DrPlop 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kal Posted April 19, 2021 Report Share Posted April 19, 2021 On 4/1/2021 at 12:04 PM, 2805662 said: Great update courtesy of DTR: https://defencetechnologyreview.partica.online/defence-technology-review/dtr-apr-2021/flipbook/11/ by that article, the Redback is wider than the Lynx, by the picture the tracks on the Hanwha are as wide as the combo of Lynx track + side skirt. the ride will be different between the 2 vehicles. more rubber in contact + more tension along the track height seems similar, but hawha has both taller hull and nil suspension intrusion into hull. why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted April 19, 2021 Author Report Share Posted April 19, 2021 2 hours ago, Kal said: by that article, the Redback is wider than the Lynx, by the picture the tracks on the Hanwha are as wide as the combo of Lynx track + side skirt. the ride will be different between the 2 vehicles. more rubber in contact + more tension along the track height seems similar, but hawha has both taller hull and nil suspension intrusion into hull. why? By eyeball, I put the Soucy tracks on the Redback at 510-530mm wide. (Noting that this is 100% deductive reasoning/speculation) I think the hull roof height isn’t given as the in-arm suspension allows for variable ride height (though a notional overall height is given), with minimal hull intrusions. From the looks of it, the under hull protection on the Redback is *very* thick. With 125kW more engine output than the Leopard AS1, at a comparable combat weight, but better suspension, I’d like to see Redback do some proper cross-country work. Likely put the old Leopard AS1 to shame! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted April 30, 2021 Report Share Posted April 30, 2021 Since this is the defacto Australia thread. https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major-arms-sales/australia-heavy-armored-combat-systems Quote WASHINGTON, April 29, 2021 - The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Australia of Heavy Armored Combat Systems and related equipment for an estimated cost of $1.685 billion. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale today. The Government of Australia has requested to buy one hundred sixty (160) M1A1 Tank structures/hulls provided from stock in order to produce the following end items and spares: seventy-five (75) M1A2 SEPv3 Abrams Main Battle Tanks; twenty-nine (29) M1150 Assault Breacher Vehicles; eighteen (18) M1074 Joint Assault Bridges; six (6) M88A2 Hercules Combat Recovery Vehicles; and one hundred twenty-two (122) AGT1500 gas turbine engines. Also included is development of a unique armor package, Common Remotely Operated Weapon Station Low Profile (CROWS-LP), Driver’s Vision Enhancer, mission equipment, special tools and test equipment, ground support equipment, system and engine spare parts, technical data, publications, Modification Work Orders/Engineering Change Proposals (MWO/ECPs), U.S. Government and contractor technical and logistics assistance, quality assurance teams, transportation services, program management, New Equipment Training (NET); and other related elements of logistical and program support. The total estimated value is $1.685 billion. This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States. Australia is one of our most important allies in the Western Pacific. The strategic location of this political and economic power contributes significantly to ensuring peace and economic stability in the region. It is vital to the U.S. national interest to assist our ally in developing and maintaining a strong and ready self-defense capability. The proposed sale improves Australia’s capability to meet current and future threats by enhancing the lethality, survivability, and interoperability of the Australian Army. Australia will use the enhanced capability to strengthen its homeland defense and deter regional threats. The M1A2 SEPv3 Main Battle Tanks will upgrade the current Australian fleet of M1A1 SA tanks with no changes to Royal Australian Armoured Corps force structure. Additional M88A2 vehicles provide de-processing and combat vehicle recovery support for the Australian tank fleet. The M1150 Assault Breacher Vehicles (ABVs) and M1074 Joint Assault Bridges (JABs) will be a new capability for the Royal Australian Engineers, bringing under-armor bridging and breaching capability, increasing the effectiveness and survivability of Australian Combat Engineers and providing increased mobility for the armored fleet. Australia will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces. The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region. The principal contractors will be General Dynamics Land Systems, Sterling Heights, MI; BAE Systems, York, PA; Leonardo DRS, Arlington, VA; and Honeywell Aerospace, Phoenix, AZ. The purchaser typically requests offsets. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor(s). Implementation of this sale will require the assignment of approximately 10 additional U.S. or contractor representatives to Australia. There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale. This notice of a potential sale is required by law. The description and dollar value is for the highest estimated quantity and dollar value based on initial requirements. Actual dollar value will be lower depending on final requirements, budget authority, and signed sales agreement(s), if and when concluded. All questions regarding this proposed Foreign Military Sale should be directed to the State Department's Bureau of Political Military Affairs, Office of Congressional and Public Affairs, pm-cpa@state.gov. Lord_James, 2805662, Beer and 3 others 4 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kal Posted April 30, 2021 Report Share Posted April 30, 2021 Wow, so nearly a tripling of Australia's tank weight fleet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted April 30, 2021 Report Share Posted April 30, 2021 9 hours ago, Kal said: Wow, so nearly a tripling of Australia's tank weight fleet. Will need clarification if these are upgrades of existing Australian Abrams, trading in existing Australian Abrams or that Australia will keep their current vehicles (into storage) and these are in addition to them. Kal 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted April 30, 2021 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2021 My understanding is that the current 59 M1A1 AIM SA will return to the US as the new tanks are delivered. The inclusions are pretty extensive, to the point of turnkey. Someone dug up some of the pre-work in US disclosures. Zoomed in: The $USD1.685b sticker price is the upper cost for what’s listed on the announcement. Kal, Ramlaen and Beer 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIADES Posted May 14, 2021 Report Share Posted May 14, 2021 So, Hanwha are looking unlucky. Elbit as a partner probably looked like a good idea a few years ago. Now a definite liability. https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/update-australia-removing-elbit-software-from-armys-battle-management-system Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted May 14, 2021 Author Report Share Posted May 14, 2021 41 minutes ago, DIADES said: So, Hanwha are looking unlucky. Elbit as a partner probably looked like a good idea a few years ago. Now a definite liability. https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/update-australia-removing-elbit-software-from-armys-battle-management-system Definitely some work to do between the now, the end of the RMA, & up to the offer definition & improvement activity (ODIA). Also work to be done by Rheinmetall as the Elbit BMS was mandated for Land 121, Land 400-2, as well as Land 400-3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIADES Posted May 14, 2021 Report Share Posted May 14, 2021 1 minute ago, 2805662 said: Land 121, Land 400-2 Yep - but the difference is that 121 and 400 Ph2 are in contract so changes to BMS will be ccp. Paid work. Hanwha are faced with having a key partner on the shit list. 2805662 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted May 14, 2021 Author Report Share Posted May 14, 2021 31 minutes ago, DIADES said: Hanwha are faced with having a key partner on the shit list. Unless they ditch them between now and the ODIA. Expensive, either way. Rheinmetall could take the opportunity to adjust their offer as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIADES Posted May 14, 2021 Report Share Posted May 14, 2021 32 minutes ago, 2805662 said: ditch them How? elbit own the turret IP and that is the turret being assessed during RMA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrPlop Posted May 14, 2021 Report Share Posted May 14, 2021 Janes, I could not read. But I found some news here https://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/elbit-bms-shut-down. 'Some' as also nothing. It's a strange story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serge Posted May 26, 2021 Report Share Posted May 26, 2021 I found this : Laviduce, Stimpy75 and Beer 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted May 26, 2021 Author Report Share Posted May 26, 2021 (edited) Yep, on the way to Brisbane for Land Forces next week. Edited May 26, 2021 by 2805662 Beer, Stimpy75 and Clan_Ghost_Bear 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TokyoMorose Posted May 27, 2021 Report Share Posted May 27, 2021 4 hours ago, Serge said: I found this : I just cannot get over how the Redback has that large, and totally unprotected and un-cooled exhaust right up front. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Moyes Posted May 27, 2021 Report Share Posted May 27, 2021 @TokyoMorose The test rig was shown with an exhaust management add-on: Beer, Boagrius, Stimpy75 and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted May 28, 2021 Author Report Share Posted May 28, 2021 Likely that the Minister of Defence will announce acceptance of all 25 Block 1 Boxers (13 flat tops, 12 with Lance 1.0 turrets) this week at Land Forces. That’ll be a weight off Rheinmetall’s mind, undoubtedly. With the turreted Boxers arriving around October 2020, seems to have been quite a bit of work to get to this point. Should restore some confidence for their Phase 3 bid. DrPlop 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SH_MM Posted May 29, 2021 Report Share Posted May 29, 2021 Not directly related to LAND 400, but Diehl Defence of Germany and EOS have agreed on a strategic cooperation; Diehl will market and - if contracted - produce EOS' line of remote weapon stations in the European market. Diehl and EOS are also cooperating in regards to the space sector and high energy effectors (where it seems that Diehl might transfer technology to EOS). DrPlop 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted May 31, 2021 Author Report Share Posted May 31, 2021 First pictures from Land Forces are emerging. Apparently both vehicles are the repaired blast tested trucks, refurbished for the show. Boagrius, Clan_Ghost_Bear, Ramlaen and 2 others 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SH_MM Posted May 31, 2021 Report Share Posted May 31, 2021 2 hours ago, 2805662 said: First pictures from Land Forces are emerging. Apparently both vehicles are the repaired blast tested trucks, refurbished for the show. Hanwha replaced the Elbit COAPS sight! In April they still used that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrPlop Posted May 31, 2021 Report Share Posted May 31, 2021 Also the stabilisation of the sight of the RCWS is different. But it looks beter now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atokara Posted May 31, 2021 Report Share Posted May 31, 2021 11 hours ago, SH_MM said: Hanwha replaced the Elbit COAPS sight! In April they still used that... Glad to see it. I've been rooting for the AS21 to win and would've hated to see it only get dropped for a reason other than it's performance and capabilities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted May 31, 2021 Author Report Share Posted May 31, 2021 Being “trade show specials”, I’d not look too closely at the details of either, tbh. Separately, do any offerer have their power packs on display? Keen to have a look at the Liebherr design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted June 1, 2021 Author Report Share Posted June 1, 2021 Inside the troop compartment of the Lynx. Hull is likely RMA3, the refurbished blast test hull, so unlikely to be representative of a production vehicle. SH_MM 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.