Kal Posted September 20, 2019 Report Share Posted September 20, 2019 Its largely to do with ownership. European companies really nickel and dime you if you want to make any modifications, American companies would be just as bad except the Pentagon gives us, hand me downs at mates rates. (Often the depreciated USA hand me downs are equivalent to EU latest and greatest). (Ie fighter radars) Case in point Poland has some excellent ceramic ERA, but Germany wont allow installation of polish ERA on polish leopard 2 tanks. Despite the need for those to have it. Australia likes to optimise their equipment for local requirements, that will get really painful (expensive) if we go the German route. Boxer is unique, there is a clear partition between hull and mission module, so as long as we dont touch hull, its much better. More thoughts later. Ramlaen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIADES Posted September 20, 2019 Report Share Posted September 20, 2019 3 minutes ago, Kal said: Australia likes to optimise their equipment for local requirements, that will get really painful (expensive) if we go the German route. Boxer is unique, there is a clear partition between hull and mission module, so as long as we dont touch hull, its much better. Remember, LYNX is designed around the Australian Requirement. The vehicle is already tailored to Australian needs. Redback (hate people thinking they can make something Australian by using the name of one of our critters) has to be optomised for South Korea (main volume) and modified for Australia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kal Posted September 20, 2019 Report Share Posted September 20, 2019 Australian government procurment is generally very skeptical of Australian manufacturing. Particularly federal bureaucrats are skeptical. EOS being located in Queanbeyan and Mt Stromlo is going to be very mentally discordant for them. (Queanbeyan is seen as the backward bogan town adjacent to enlightened Canberra) (Mt Stomlo is inhabited by elvish CSIRO magi who spend all day playing sudoku with interstellar quasar maps) Ramlaen and DIADES 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Moyes Posted September 20, 2019 Report Share Posted September 20, 2019 Quote According to informed sources, the AJAX was regarded as not fit for purpose, and the BAE Systems-Hagglunds CV90 was assessed as too expensive https://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/the-reasons-behind-the-land-400-phase-3-decision Not elaborated on but an interesting statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted September 20, 2019 Author Report Share Posted September 20, 2019 4 minutes ago, David Moyes said: https://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/the-reasons-behind-the-land-400-phase-3-decision Not elaborated on but an interesting statement. Reflects a discussion I had yesterday with a former colleague who’s tangentially involved: ”AJAX is a very old truck. Just not really in the running and viable. Not for us, doesn’t do anything that the others do, better.” The GDLS team is “shocked” - they had no idea until the announcement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted September 20, 2019 Report Share Posted September 20, 2019 "not fit for purpose" I'm gonna guess that turret played a role in being deemed lackluster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted September 20, 2019 Author Report Share Posted September 20, 2019 7.62mm chain gun coax didn’t help, either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Moyes Posted September 20, 2019 Report Share Posted September 20, 2019 1 hour ago, 2805662 said: Reflects a discussion I had yesterday with a former colleague who’s tangentially involved: ”AJAX is a very old truck. Just not really in the running and viable. Not for us, doesn’t do anything that the others do, better.” The GDLS team is “shocked” - they had no idea until the announcement. Seems harsh. All were developed within a few years of each other; all descended from a previous iteration. Notably the AS-21 (K-31) exists because the K-21 disappointed. Can't help but feel that Ajax being a relatively mature and proven platform worked against it. Aussies chasing after the shiny new thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted September 21, 2019 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2019 1 hour ago, David Moyes said: Seems harsh. All were developed within a few years of each other; all descended from a previous iteration. Notably the AS-21 (K-31) exists because the K-21 disappointed. Can't help but feel that Ajax being a relatively mature and proven platform worked against it. Aussies chasing after the shiny new thing. In the land domain, ADF has generally been very conservative (ASLAV was forced onto it by then MINDEF, M113 upgrade, LR for decades, upgrading the EF88). This decision is a bit of a surprise. There was was no way K21 would’ve met the blast & protection requirements of L400-3. “Redback” is an almost-new design. Who exactly was “disappointed” by the K21? ROKA? GDLS fell into a (seemingly common) trap made by UK-staffed entities (the team for 400-3 was overwhelmingly UK/Brit) in Australia: “we know best.” There was a marked reluctance to accept Australian requirements and input, for cost/design reasons, but also because of (imo) arrogance. Even the ramp vs. back door discussion took longer than it should’ve. The customer has been operating tracked APCs with ramps since 1965 - they know what works for them. Then there’s the 40mm AGL piece: the customer just struggled through Land 40-2 (vice 400-2) to select the Mk47, proposing a solution that used the H&K GMG (i.e. the losing solution to 40-2, regardless of the fact that the British Army bought it) was both dumb & tone deaf. Further; the coax - the 7.62mm chain gun coax makes sense in the UK context (Warrior & AJAX) but makes zero sense in the ADF context. A MAG58 would’ve made a lot more sense. Even Rheinmetall realised offering a MG3, MG4, or MG5 wasn’t a good move, offering the MAG58 coax instead. AJAX seemed to get caught up in their own hype & it bit them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Moyes Posted September 21, 2019 Report Share Posted September 21, 2019 9 hours ago, 2805662 said: Who exactly was “disappointed” by the K21? ROKA? Yes. Hence K-31. 9 hours ago, 2805662 said: There was a marked reluctance to accept Australian requirements and input, for cost/design reasons, but also because of (imo) arrogance. Sound familiar. I had hoped UK industry had changed. Sad! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIADES Posted September 21, 2019 Report Share Posted September 21, 2019 12 hours ago, David Moyes said: Seems harsh. All were developed within a few years of each other; all descended from a previous iteration. Not correct - Yes, CV90 and AJAX date to the 80s. But Redback is new. It is not a tart up of the previous k21. LYNX KF41 is new. Definitely not a tart up or carry over. Not to be confused with the KF31 proto which has muddied the waters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIADES Posted September 21, 2019 Report Share Posted September 21, 2019 23 hours ago, Kal said: so as long as we dont touch hull, its much better. Unfortunately, Australian BOXER is much heavier and does have very significant change in the drive module to deal with higher loads due to higher GVM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kal Posted September 22, 2019 Report Share Posted September 22, 2019 18 hours ago, DIADES said: Unfortunately, Australian BOXER is much heavier and does have very significant change in the drive module to deal with higher loads due to higher GVM perhaps that is why the boxer won, the underbelly blast seemed such a critical factor for its success. But even so, its far cheaper to option in scope change before contract sign-off rather than as a variation later. Particulary if the vendor considers the vehicle a cow to milked even after sales. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kal Posted September 23, 2019 Report Share Posted September 23, 2019 maybe its an illusion, but this turret looks wide, that Iron Fist look like it overhangs on base configuration, so is that 3.4m width? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIADES Posted September 23, 2019 Report Share Posted September 23, 2019 42 minutes ago, Kal said: maybe its an illusion, but this turret looks wide, that Iron Fist look like it overhangs on base configuration, so is that 3.4m width? Yeah, looks like a scale problem to me. Turret too big and not in correct location. A problem for Hanwha, no actual vehicle t photograph. The APS config is very poor. The port and starboard launchers are limited to their own hemispheres and there are good size dead zones. Then again, the whole turret is just vapourware at the moment and probably deliberatly deceptive. Elbit and Hanwha do know their stuff so I am sure the actual turret will be competitive. LYNX is 3.7m wide in full MCO config, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zadlo Posted October 15, 2019 Report Share Posted October 15, 2019 It's beautiful! 2805662, Serge, Clan_Ghost_Bear and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Moyes Posted October 15, 2019 Report Share Posted October 15, 2019 LoooSeR, Serge, VPZ and 5 others 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Moyes Posted October 17, 2019 Report Share Posted October 17, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted October 18, 2019 Author Report Share Posted October 18, 2019 Not nearly as exciting as the real thing, but some interesting details nonetheless: Clan_Ghost_Bear, Serge and Beer 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pascal Posted October 18, 2019 Report Share Posted October 18, 2019 4 hours ago, 2805662 said: Not nearly as exciting as the real thing, but some interesting details nonetheless: Ouch, someone dropped that model on the floor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kal Posted October 20, 2019 Report Share Posted October 20, 2019 On 10/16/2019 at 2:14 AM, David Moyes said: That photo suggests the APS can fire from either side of the turret to reach where the photographer stood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kal Posted October 20, 2019 Report Share Posted October 20, 2019 comparing the AS21 to K21 they seem quite different, possibly the rear half is similar, but the front half appears really quite different. Do the lifting hooks reveal the weight distribution ? If so the weight is biased to the aft.. I can't see the equivalent on the Lynx. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIADES Posted October 21, 2019 Report Share Posted October 21, 2019 14 hours ago, Kal said: Do the lifting hooks reveal the weight distribution ? If so the weight is biased to the aft.. They certainly should give a pretty good indication of CoG location. But, i would be surprised to see a rear bias. Front powerpack including an MBT transmission. Looks like roughly 100mm forward of the turret centerline to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kal Posted October 21, 2019 Report Share Posted October 21, 2019 Whatever is accessible in the front. Is design with hinges for easy accessibilty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted October 22, 2019 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2019 Well, Rheinmetall has signed the Risk Mitigation Activity contract. 12 months until vehicles are delivered. 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.