Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

[DIADES]

23 hours ago, 2805662 said:

it trialled really

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.

[DIADES]

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.

 

[DIADES]

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.

[2805662]

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. 

[SH_MM]

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?

[2805662]

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. 

[heretic88]

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? 

[Laser Shark]

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.

[Kal]

K9 and K10 are go.

 

So both Rheinmetall and Hanwha will have good facilities in Australia for production of IFV.

 

Its a 2 horse race.  Eitherway, hopefully a better outcome for final procurement of the IFV.

 

 

[2805662]

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. 

[Kal]

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.

 

 

 

[2805662]

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. 

[DIADES]

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.

[2805662]

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. 

[SH_MM]

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.

[DIADES]

12 hours ago, SH_MM said:

very opposite approach to the Puma'

yes, and in part due to the pivot turn stall problem arising from the Renk power flow in that mode and the MTU low idle torque.  Puma is very easily stalled without careful handling.

[Kal]

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.

 

[2805662]

Some related information on US trials of composite rubber track. Targeting 75% reduction on vibration. 
 

[Kal]

https://www.truppendienst.com/themen/beitraege/artikel/power-on-rubber-tracks/?L=0&cHash=04cf0983460b323b3979a8d0fe241097

 

Norwegian perspective on rubber tracks with comparisons for a 42 tonne weight class leopard 1 tank...

[2805662]

3 minutes ago, Kal said:

https://www.truppendienst.com/themen/beitraege/artikel/power-on-rubber-tracks/?L=0&cHash=04cf0983460b323b3979a8d0fe241097

 

Norwegian perspective on rubber tracks with comparisons for a 42 tonne weight class leopard 1 tank...

And that’s from 2016. Lots of progress since then. 

[SH_MM]

One problem remaining with rubber band tracks is mine strike resistance. Current Soucy tracks cannot withstand STANAG 4569 Level 4a/4b mine blast.

[2805662]

Just now, SH_MM said:

One problem remaining with rubber band tracks is mine strike resistance. Current Soucy tracks cannot withstand STANAG 4569 Level 4a/4b mine blast.

It’s unlikely that any conventional track could either, surely?

[DIADES]

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.

[Laser Shark]

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:

 

[Kal]

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?  )