Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV


2805662
 Share

Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, Kal said:

So less australian steel and less australian fabrication content.

Sorry, hard to be polite about this, Rubbish, pure rubbish and so one eyed that I can only assume that you are associated in some way with a certain Korean entity :)

In fact, Bisalloy is already exporting steel for use in Rheinmetall products fro non-Australian customers.  That is what supply chain access means - which is why the money was spent on German qualification.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Kal said:

Its not just the vehicles

Agreed, it only about the occupants - shock, over-pressure, secondary effects etc - and I expect both will pass.  Both will have done a lot of testing themselves.  But - each and every blast is unique.  Despite being careful with charges, site and soils, every blast is unique so an um-anticipated failure is always in the cards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, DIADES said:

my sources tell me that crew comfort and overall vibration were much higher with the rubber track on M113 - really counter-intuitive.  I reckon I might have a report somehwere too, see if I can find it.

Indeed. Quieter - reducing the need for higher level hearing protection - with less track slap, less vibration, greater mobility due to less weight when compared to T150. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, 2805662 said:

Indeed. Quieter - reducing the need for higher level hearing protection - with less track slap, less vibration, greater mobility due to less weight when compared to T150. 

 

I am confused. The quoted sentence says literally "overall vibration were much higher with the rubber track on M113", yet your reply says "less vibration". So what is correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

 

I am confused. The quoted sentence says literally "overall vibration were much higher with the rubber track on M113", yet your reply says "less vibration". So what is correct?

Much, much, much less. That’s what’s in the written report, plus discussions with the trial officer & staff from Accredited Test Services (ATS, the test element of Land Engineering Agency), as well as trial participants. First I’ve heard of “higher vibration” and is 180 degrees at odds with what I’ve read, been told, & heard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 2805662 said:

Quieter - reducing the need for higher level hearing protection - with less track slap, less vibration, greater mobility due to less weight when compared to T150. 

I drove quite few soviet types (VT-55, MTLBu, BMP-1, ZSU-23), and I didnt really remember hearing any noise from tracks. I heard only the deafening roar of the engine. I have zero real life experience with this with western AFVs, so how are they compare? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 2805662 said:

Much, much, much less. That’s what’s in the written report, plus discussions with the trial officer & staff from Accredited Test Services (ATS, the test element of Land Engineering Agency), as well as trial participants. First I’ve heard of “higher vibration” and is 180 degrees at odds with what I’ve read, been told, & heard. 

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Kal said:

True,

But Hanwha has to stuff it up to lose that contract now.  Its always possible as they are not local.

 

I doubt the K9 contract details will be finalised before a covid19 vacinne is available in Victoria.

 

 

 


Yep. Will be interesting to see how they respond to the RFT. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Kal said:

Hanwha will have good facilities

I don't see how.  The deal on the table is 45 vehicles.  Rheinmetall built their facility of the back of 3,000 trucks and 225 BOXER.  Everything I hear about the Geelong setup is old school project model - set up, do the project, sack everybody and go home.  And sole sourcing makes that even more likely - no need for a competitive AIC case.

 

If they really do build a decent facility - Australia is the winner.  War is coming and having multiple AFV production facilities is a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Protected Mobile Fires is more than just the 30+15: the next phase is a further buy of 30+15, plus an upgrade of the initial buy. Whispers from the Hanwha L400-3 offer is that the Geelong facility would also be fabricating hills of other Hanwha customers into the future. 
 

L400-2 is only delivering 211 drive modules, not the desired 225, due to the high cost of Boxer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/31/2020 at 4:13 PM, SH_MM said:

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.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Off topic, but Australia already has suitable operational factory for manufacturing offroad equipment in the 30 to 100 tonne, the elphinestone facility in Tasmania.

 

 

But whats left for that factory?  I don't know.  It was the site where the Sentinel II wouldve ben fabricated.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, 2805662 said:

conventional track

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Battle Damage Repair Kit at least offers a temporary fix until you can get back to base. Extra tracks will of course have to be brought along with the unit's logistics train. If you have to bring up a replacement track to an immobilized vehicle, however, it probably won’t be too much of an issue either since you have this thing:

 

ONB3s0y.jpg?1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, DIADES said:

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.

 

In field emergency kit should be a pragmatic option, similar to how old school push bikes have puncture repair kits.

 

With conveyor belt damage, a mine wont stop production until a whole new belt arrives, they patch up the old one and keep going.

 

(Unless its a slice along the belt, not accross the belt,  but how to transfer that style of damage to an ifv?  )

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...