Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV


2805662
 Share

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, DIADES said:

Rubber band needs to be replaced completely and I don't see carrying a whole spare track as practical.  
 

But will be a liability in real operations.


Your first point is no longer correct. Here are some pics I took at AUSA 2019 of the CRT repair kit:
 

uNrSAER.jpg


SbBcMvP.jpg

 

169Uxna.jpg

 

Regarding your second point, Canadian “TLAVs” (M113) in Afghanistan seemed to find CRT robust & practical enough, as do multiple users of the BV210 & Warthog. 

 

ATDU trialled CRT in 2018 on Warrior and had overwhelmingly positive results. Some of you concerns & considerations re. CRT, whilst once potentially valid, appear to have been overtaken by developments and aren’t supported by evidence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, 2805662 said:

aren’t supported by evidence.

OK, yes rubber bands work on very light vehicles.  Please show me any evidence of a medium or heavy AFY on rubber track?

 

And - the repair is not apples and apples.  The rubber band repair does not return the track to fully functional - speed degraded and vibration increased - it is purely an expedient repair prior to replacement.

 

A repaired in the field conventional track is fully functional.  There is no comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, 2805662 said:

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

 

It can happen, it depends on a lot of factors. But repairing conventional and light-weight steel tracks is easier.

 

Both Sourcy CRTs and steel tracks can also be damaged by smaller blasts. But the type of damage is rather different and means for (quick) repair are usually carried inside/on the vehicle in case for steel tracks.

 

17 hours ago, Laser Shark said:

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:

 

It's a solution, but also an afterthought. The vehicle will be able to limp back to base for proper repairs. That's not necessary with steel tracks allowing a proper repair in field.

 

Personally I'd prefer the segmented rubber tracks from DST. They combine the strengths of CRTs (claimed weight reduction of 50% compared to conventional steel tracks) with the segmented construction of steel tracks. Though I suspect given that they are still composite-rubber tracks, their overall lifetime will also be significantly worse than that of lightweight/conventional steel tracks.

 

The US Army tested Soucy's band tracks and DST Type 513 steel tracks on the M113. Soucy's tracks lasted 4,700 kilometers, the Type 513 tracks were still not worn out after the trials were stopped after 6,000 kilometers of travel. DST claims a lifetime of up to 14,000 kilometers for the Type 513 tracks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DIADES said:

OK, yes rubber bands work on very light vehicles.  Please show me any evidence of a medium or heavy AFY on rubber track?

 

And - the repair is not apples and apples.  The rubber band repair does not return the track to fully functional - speed degraded and vibration increased - it is purely an expedient repair prior to replacement.

 

A repaired in the field conventional track is fully functional.  There is no comparison.

Do they state it is degraded in vibration or speed.   I'm not saying it isn't, but Im not assuming it is either, simply because induatrial belting splice kits can be rated for the same speed the application is used for even if it less than the theoretical maximum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Personally I'd prefer the segmented rubber tracks from DST. They combine the strengths of CRTs (claimed weight reduction of 50% compared to conventional steel tracks) with the segmented construction of steel tracks. Though I suspect given that they are still composite-rubber tracks, their overall lifetime will also be significantly worse than that of lightweight/conventional steel tracks.

 

As long as the durability isn’t unacceptably bad, I think the benefits of rubber band tracks, particularly when it comes to environment, health and safety (aka “HMS” In Norway), will ultimately convince most Western militaries to adopt them sooner or later. I agree, though, that a segmented solution would be another step in the right direction.

 

11 hours ago, DIADES said:

OK, yes rubber bands work on very light vehicles.  Please show me any evidence of a medium or heavy AFY on rubber track?

 

One example:

 

boR8l6t.jpg

 

Norwegian CV9030NF1 in Northern Afghanistan. These vehicles had also been outfitted with AMAP add-on-armour by that time, so they probably weighed around 30 tonnes. The positive experiences with rubber band tracks in Afghanistan, contributed to the decision to outfit the entire fleet of 144 new and upgraded vehicles (CV9030 MkIIIb and CV90RWS) with this type of tracks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.jlv.com.au/cable-belt-conveyors.html

The soucy patch reminds me of cable belt conveyors.  Not the cheapest solution but they are the long distance champioms of conveyors.  31km between drives is possobly not even physically possible with a segmented steel solution with shear connections.

 

Point is, rubber tracks are technology with lots of development potential.  With an end point generally superior to metal tracks with rubber pads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DIADES said:

Definitely getting up there :).  Still another 15t or 50% to go to get to Ph3 weight class - no, I do not believe Hanwha (or Rheinmetall) weights.

 

Yes, and the TU article I posted earlier in this thread claims they’re already snapping more frequently than they should on a vehicle that is just 5 tonnes heavier than the CV9030NF1, so there is definitely reason to be sceptical. Granted, it’s also possible that the Norwegian tracks were ones that were ordered years ago, and as such, might not give the correct impression of how durable those on the Redback are. So, one shouldn’t approach this without an open mind either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, DIADES said:

Agreed.  My point is that we are not there yet.  And that is what we are talking about.   Now, well, the next 12 months roughly when the evaluation takes place.  That will use existing technology.

Agree about using existing technology for the evaluation, but pointing out for future growth, this tech's progression is open ended not closed ended.

 

Also, has reservations that a cold country track maker will choose the right compound for a hot country

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Kal said:

The 2 are not mutually incompatible,  added boost to achieve required power rating combined with new emissions verifications is probably sufficient to consider it a new engine, even if it is 95%+ common by parts

 

I did not say that they are mutually incompatible, but I mentioned the D976 engine already last Friday... which at least makes me wonder, why you post about it with the words "New D976 18 litre, 6cyl ".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

 

I did not say that they are mutually incompatible, but I mentioned the D976 engine already last Friday... which at least makes me wonder, why you post about it with the words "New D976 18 litre, 6cyl ".

Because in my country the link to that engine has the word NEW appended in the top corner, unlike most of liebherr's other engine links.  But there are plenty of times when whats new for Australia is old for the rest of the world....

 

I dont know if D976 is a new 18l engine, or just a new edition of an old 18l engine.  Just that liebherr is labeling it as 'new'.

 

I do appreciate your friday posts, I'll need to update my lynx vs as21 spreadsheet with the 6cyl engine..

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

  • 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...