Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 812
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

screenshots    

AS21 rollout:    

4 hours ago, 2805662 said:

wouldn’t be surprised if they’re not available

Nor would I but there is no way Hanwha and Rheinmetall will have empty stands!  There will a fair bit of fanfare around the handover of RMA vehicles so they will be sort of public domainish and the Primes will find ways to brag.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DIADES said:

Nor would I but there is no way Hanwha and Rheinmetall will have empty stands!  There will a fair bit of fanfare around the handover of RMA vehicles so they will be sort of public domainish and the Primes will find ways to brag.


They won’t have empty booths - but unless they build & ship additional-to-RMA vehicles, they won’t have actual representative vehicles to display. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

isn't one of each team's vehicles tested to destruction.   Presumably that version is minus some of the more valuable components and could be displayed pre-testing.

 

 

Due to welding and steel prequalification requirements, I'm not so sure the lynx can be properly repaired in Oz,  it will need to sail through that test.

 

The redback, i doubt its track will perform adequately either, but that vehicle would be designed according to Bisalloy (local) steels anyway, and such be repairable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

More of a sequencing problem. The initial plan was for the RMA contenders to exhibit an RMA vehicle each at Land Forces 2020, initially scheduled for 1-3 September 2020, the hand them over for the RMA. With Land Forces now 3/4 of the way through the RMA, and it unlikely that the ballistic test articles being released to the RMA bidders until the conclusion of the RMA, or them being deemed non-compliant, I just don’t see it happening. 

 

The blast test vehicles are likely To be beyond economic repair, even if they were available. I’d love to be be proven wrong, but it seems very unlikely at this stage. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 2805662 said:

More of a sequencing problem. The initial plan was for the RMA contenders to exhibit an RMA vehicle each at Land Forces 2020, initially scheduled for 1-3 September 2020, the hand them over for the RMA. With Land Forces now 3/4 of the way through the RMA, and it unlikely that the ballistic test articles being released to the RMA bidders until the conclusion of the RMA, or them being deemed non-compliant, I just don’t see it happening. 

 

The blast test vehicles are likely To be beyond economic repair, even if they were available. I’d love to be be proven wrong, but it seems very unlikely at this stage. 

10kg mine blast is probably Hanwha's AS21 strongest point compared to LYNX.

 

(Due to hanwha history of originally being an explosive company that expanded into petrochem,  so if they know anything, it should be blasting and blasting mats)

Link to post
Share on other sites

very rough estimates

 

AS21 combat weight 42 tonnes, 2 tonnes for rubber tracks, 3.5 tonnes for engine/tran, gives 36.5 tonne for everything else

KF Lynx41,  combat weight 44tonnes, 4 tonnes (guess) for steel track, 4.0 tonnes for engine/tran, gives 36.0 tonne for everything else

 

different, yet similar

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Kal said:

10kg mine blast is probably Hanwha's AS21 strongest point compared to LYNX.

 

(Due to hanwha history of originally being an explosive company that expanded into petrochem,  so if they know anything, it should be blasting and blasting mats)

 

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 :rolleyes: The PMMC G5 manages 12 kilogram TNT at half the weight.

 

10 hours ago, Kal said:

very rough estimates

 

AS21 combat weight 42 tonnes, 2 tonnes for rubber tracks, 3.5 tonnes for engine/tran, gives 36.5 tonne for everything else

KF Lynx41,  combat weight 44tonnes, 4 tonnes (guess) for steel track, 4.0 tonnes for engine/tran, gives 36.0 tonne for everything else

 

different, yet similar

 

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

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 :rolleyes: 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.

thanks for the added detail,

 

I had used the old leopard 1 tracks as a proxy, 4 tonnes, since that tank was similar weight, and soucy's rough approximation of being 1/2 weight.http://www.tankarchives.ca/2017/05/leopard-tracks.html

for transmission KF41 was renk 256, @ 1.7 tonne vs AS21 X-1100-3B at 2.0 tonne

but for engine, for 850kW Liebherr D9612 @ 2.35 tonne vs MTU 881 at 1.4 tonne  (perhaps D9512 @ 750kW would be better https://www.liebherr.com/en/aus/products/components/combustion-engines/diesel-engines/product-portfolio-diesel-engines/details/d9512a7.html)

 

can Hanwha stuff it up, sure perhaps if that is a weld seam right along the centre of the hull floor.  but at this point is time, it appears that Hanwha has taken the opportunity to match the Lynx nearly exactly on combined hull+turret weight.   which is a very different scenario than the land400 phase 2 finalists.

 

for both vehicle blast tests, the vehicles will use the local hawkei seats.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kal said:

I had used the old leopard 1 tracks as a proxy, 4 tonnes, since that tank was similar weight, and soucy's rough approximation of being 1/2 weight.http://www.tankarchives.ca/2017/05/leopard-tracks.html

 

The value 2,750 kg is cited by militaerfahrzeuge.ch, which provides one of the most detailed break-downs for the weight of the Leopard 2. However double-checking their values suggest that they just list a (rather approximate) weight for just a single track rather than a pair of tracks. I was wrong, sorry for that.

 

The Leopard 2's Type 570F tracks weight ~5,445 kg for a full set, which is comparable to the US TT158 tracks at 11,736 lbs (5,323 kg) for a full set. However these are very old tracks and the Type 570P already were able to reduce the weight by 20% (155.0 kg per meter of track length versus 185.6 kg per meter for the older Type 570FT tracks) and these were available back in the mid-1990s.

 

I still don't think about 4 tonnes for the Lynx's track is a correct value. The Puma's DLT 464D tracks are reportedly 40% lighter than the Leopard 1's original tracks. Based on the Soviet figures, that would place the Puma's tracks at about ~2,535 kilograms when fitted with track pads. Unless Rheinmetall decided to use some really old components, a weight of three tonnes for the Lynx's tracks (given its slightly longer hull) seems rather reasonable.

 

2 hours ago, Kal said:

but for engine, for 850kW Liebherr D9612 @ 2.35 tonne vs MTU 881 at 1.4 tonne  (perhaps D9512 @ 750kW would be better https://www.liebherr.com/en/aus/products/components/combustion-engines/diesel-engines/product-portfolio-diesel-engines/details/d9512a7.html)

 

My understanding of the Lynx's engine (and the engine fitted to the Marder IFVs during the currently on-going upgrade) is that these are not based on exisiting products from Liebherr's heavy duty engine product line - at least not without major modifications. Hence these weight figure might be misleading.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/30/2020 at 9:52 PM, Kal said:

Hanwha's AS21 strongest point compared to LYNX.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/31/2020 at 9:31 AM, Kal said:

engine/tran,

Hanwha Allison about 1,900kg  Rheinmetall Renk about 1,700kg  Hanwha MTU about 1,400 kg Rheinmetall Liebherr about 1,800kg so Hanwha at about 3,600 kg plays Rheinmetall at about 3,200.  Now, eng and trans manufacturers are a bit dodgy with published weights - with fluids?  With accessories as installed?  So frankly, these powerpacks are near enough the same weight. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/30/2020 at 7:49 PM, Kal said:

welding and steel prequalificatio

Rheinmetall has been working with Bisalloy for years - many press releases.  They are working together to get Bisalloy qualified against German standards and I am pretty sure I saw a release celebarting success and I definitely saw one from Rheinmetall about getting welders qualified to German armour welding standards.  Don't forget, MLVEHCOE is gearing up to build BOXER.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DIADES said:

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.

Its not just the vehicles, but the crash test dummies inside.  No point having an immaculate vehicle if the dummies all have broken necks etc.

 

So yeah, that part is still a contest of who is better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DIADES said:

Rheinmetall has been working with Bisalloy for years - many press releases.  They are working together to get Bisalloy qualified against German standards and I am pretty sure I saw a release celebarting success and I definitely saw one from Rheinmetall about getting welders qualified to German armour welding standards.  Don't forget, MLVEHCOE is gearing up to build BOXER.

This type of announcement from bisalloy https://www.bisalloy.com.au/bisalloy-armour-steel-passes-german-government-testing/  makes me suspect that higher end german products will have lower australian steel content because they were designed to exclusivly use German grades of steel.  So less australian steel and less australian fabrication content.  But it still is to be fully welded in Australia.

 

Hanwha AS21 is opposite, its inspiration is from an  aluminum/fibreglass design so the steel equivalent is fully designed based upon Australian steel as the reference material.  Designed by koreans for Australian steel (so to speak)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DIADES said:

I can't see the ADF buying rubber track.  No growth (mass limited), bloody hard to repair and Cultana will eat it up by the truckload.

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:

 

J5myhMi.jpg
 

1sqMYug.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DIADES said:

 Rheinmetall BOXER in the L400 Ph2 RMA drove off the test area under its own power after an under hull blast.


Which, while briefing well, betrayed that the Rheinmetall team did not understand the test procedure, or failed to comply with the vehicle prep requirements. Fuel should’ve been drained and replaced with an inert, environmentally friendly substitute. They were lucky not to be disqualified at that point.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By Serge
      The Armored Combat Vehicle Puma started as a privat-venture betwen Krauss-Maffei and Diehl in 1983. The two first prototypes were ready first in spring 1986 with a Kuka 20mm two men turret and second in autumn with a Diehl 120mm mortar turret. 
      ACV-Puma was intented as an export armored vehicle of the 16-28 t class. 
       

       
      By 1983 original concept, it was offered with two engine options (400/600hp) to cope with the level of armor protection asked.
      The running gear was a mixt of both Leopard-1 and 2 components :
      - Leo-1 : road wheels, track support rollers, torsion bars and even the driver's seat ;
      - Leo-2 : track adjuster, cooling system components and sproket hub.
      It was possible to run the engine outside of its compartment. 
       
      In 1988, the concept was improved further :
      - the class range reached 38t ;
      - the engines offer was 440 or 750hp strong ;
      - the chassis was now available in two length (5/6 road wheels) and  hight/low profil hull (20cm).

      The ACV-Puma was a contender at the Norwegian IFV programme from 1991 and the Turkish 1987 relaunched TIFV programme.
      Norway chose CV-90 and Turkey, the AIFV.
      (If anyone have information about how it was a serious contender, I'm interested)
      It was also evaluated by the Swiss army in 1991. I don't know if it took part to the Char de grenadiers 2000 programme. 
       

      In 1983´s concept, the difference betwen the low profil hull and the 20cm higher hight profil hull was obtained by a "box shape vertical raised" rear compartment. With the 1988's design, the front slop is now different to achieve a better ballistic protection. 
       
      When considering documentations of this period, it's important to note the mine/IED protection was not a priority like today. 
       
      I'll post soon a scan showing general layout of the troop compartment. It's a Marder/BMP old fashion one with soldiers facing outside. 
       
      Even if it was not a success at exportation, I think ACV-Puma must be known because of both :
      - the outdated combat beliefs of the 80's (still vigourous today) ;
      - and advanced proposal  such as the differential hull length from the drawing board. 
       
      I have a question :
      Does anyone known if a 6 road wheels chassis was ever built ?
    • By delfosisyu
      I can't read russian or ukraine language so the range of information is very limited for russian AFVs.
       
       
      I'd like to have information about how fast turrets of soviet IFVs rotate.
       
       
      Especially BMP2, BMP3, BTR-82
    • By Belesarius
      http://www.janes.com/article/53057/boxer-the-favourite-for-lithuanian-ifv-buy
       
      30mm Cannon and Javelins for armament.
      Is that the first vehicle mounting the Jav?
       
    • By Belesarius
      http://www.janes.com/article/52476/german-army-receives-first-production-standard-puma-aifv
       
      30mm with airburst capability, and supposedly better mine protection than a Leo 2.
       

×
×
  • Create New...