Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV


2805662
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 9/13/2020 at 11:31 AM, Kal said:

UAV defense

This is not a real thing.  Yes, you could shoot down a UAV with the main gun.  But not gunna happen in the real world.  No RADAR so no ability to even know there is a UAV around.  Then, the FoV of the sights is optomised for engaging ground targets around the size of an IFV at around 3,000m and potentially moving at typical IFV speeds.  Note that IFVs are limited to motion that has a vertical axis component dictated by geography.  A UAV of course has widely variable motion is all axis.  I can't see the FCS coping.  Plus, too much time staring at the sky would be just asking for real trouble!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/19/2020 at 10:33 PM, DIADES said:

This is not a real thing.  Yes, you could shoot down a UAV with the main gun.  But not gunna happen in the real world.  No RADAR so no ability to even know there is a UAV around.  Then, the FoV of the sights is optomised for engaging ground targets around the size of an IFV at around 3,000m and potentially moving at typical IFV speeds.  Note that IFVs are limited to motion that has a vertical axis component dictated by geography.  A UAV of course has widely variable motion is all axis.  I can't see the FCS coping.  Plus, too much time staring at the sky would be just asking for real trouble!

 

 

Staring at the sky is EOS's raison d'être, anyway, obligatory UAV shooting video  https://vimeo.com/358965824

in regards to C-UAS to EOS approximately shows the MK44 30mm as having about 50%-100% more range than the M230LF 30mm.

 

both the lynx and the redback will come with the EOS RWS, but its probable that the redback's bushmaster is more tightly integrated with whatever counter UAS capacity is provided by EOS.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Kal said:

UAV shoot

Firstly - UAV defence is not a Requirement under L400 Ph3 (or Ph2 for that matter).

 

Secondly - lets clear up a myth.  The Hanwha turret is not an EOS turret.  Not  At  All.  The turret is pure Elbit MT30 with new lipstick.  Designed by Elbit, made by Elbit in Israel.  Yes, an EOS remote is fitted - by CoA mandate and the same remote is used by Rheinmetall, by CoA mandate.  In fact, Rheinmetall have plenty of integration experience with this particular remote as it is also used on BOXER for Ph2.

 

Thirdly - still not a Requirement but what sort of UAV do you imagine we are shooting at?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DIADES said:

Firstly - UAV defence is not a Requirement under L400 Ph3 (or Ph2 for that matter).

 

Secondly - lets clear up a myth.  The Hanwha turret is not an EOS turret.  Not  At  All.  The turret is pure Elbit MT30 with new lipstick.  Designed by Elbit, made by Elbit in Israel.  Yes, an EOS remote is fitted - by CoA mandate and the same remote is used by Rheinmetall, by CoA mandate.  In fact, Rheinmetall have plenty of integration experience with this particular remote as it is also used on BOXER for Ph2.

 

Thirdly - still not a Requirement but what sort of UAV do you imagine we are shooting at?


You’re speaking very confidently in absolutes. I’m not so sure of the accuracy of some of your claims. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, 2805662 said:

some of your claims

OK, so correct me.

 

On the Requirements, there is a public version and I base my claim on that.  Perhaps something else has been negotiated that is not yet public but I would be surprised.  UAV defence would be a scope creep and that would come at a cost.  Neither turret has been seen with any UAV shootdown capability - where are the sensors?  True, we have not seen the to be delivered for RMA version of LANCE as yet but we have seen the Elbit turret for RMA.

 

On the turret being Elbit - that is obviously true on the basis of public info again - from Elbit....

 

So where am I wrong?

 

I am sure that CoA would love to see a UAV shootdown demonstration and maybe that is on the cards - but that would have to be a pretty contrived test.  Pointless in fact.  Any paper exercise will show that the primary weapon can shoot any UAV out of the sky.  Fine, but air defence requires detection and tracking capabilities very different from those found in conventional turrets - which is why there are specialized air defence vehicles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No arguments on the requirements. The specifics of the EOS T-2000 and your deductions may be correct; they also may be incorrect. My point is that you’re speaking in an authoritative manner about the specifics of a product. Unless you *know* what you’re saying is accurate, I’d caveat your assertions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 2805662 said:

the specifics of a product.

Understood - I will see what I can find.  It does feel like I can be pretty assertive when I see imagery of the turret being built in Israel followed up by it being operated proudly in Israel in an Elbit video :)

 

It being a member of the MT30 family should strengthen its case - Hanwha can argue maturity of sub-systems at least.  I am a bit twitchy about this stuff.  I really hate fig leaf AIC which is what this looks like.

 

Actually Elbit but the sales line is EOS who it apperas will be a thin sub-contractor - build to print if that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.eos-aus.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/1st-Person-from-APDR_April2019_lowres.pdf

 

' have jointly worked with Elbit to deliver a joint product for the Hanwha team. The T2000 is essentially an Elbit turret shell with EOS fire control software, turret drive control, HMI and electro optics. And we are the prime for that turret. The turret also brings together the Elbit Active Protection System, the Elbit IronVision See-Thru Armour System and embedded simulation. The EOS remote weapon station integrated to the turret is in a configuration able to provide counter UAS defence and also operate as part of the integrated Active Protection System.

 

It is definitely an Elbit turret but Elbit seems happy enough to localise production elsewhere, so localise production in australia should be very doable.

 

EOS fire control software, turret drive control, HMI and electro optics...  integrated to the turret is in a configuration able to provide counter
UAS defence
and also operate as part of the integrated Active Protection System.

 

....a third role as part of the vehicles protection suite as it's fully integrated with the existing APS effectors and the detection systems, the radars and the optical detectors....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Kal said:

bushmaster mk44S

What gun is near irrelevant - just a heavy stick that goes bang.  A few parameters in the FCS and you can change guns as much as you like.

 

Plus - I do not believe tight integration with Iron Fist and Iron Vision (and Iron Umbrella or whatever) unless Elbit is doing the FCS.  That sort of tight integration requires sharing code at a depth that I cannot see Elbit allowing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Kal said:

able to provide counter
UAS defence
and also operate as part of the integrated Active Protection System

Pure sales bullshit.  First of all, the APS is a short range system - as in very short range.  It is designed to deal with high speed threats, close in - the threshold velocity for threat recognition is probably about 300m/s = about 1,000km/h =RPG7 flight speed.  Just sub-sonic.  The senor suite for Iron Fist is optimised fro that speed and above.  Staged sensors IR then RADAR.  The RADAR which is the tracking tool is not enabled unless a launch flare is detected.  So, no launch, no RADAR = no tracking capability.  Unless a drone has a velocity above 300 m/s and an enormous flare exhaust (we call those RPGs not drones), IRON FIST will snooze while it drones around.

 

The RWS is a better tool for dealing with drones but, once again, no tracking capability, no detection capability - publicly declared anyway.  I do not believe that anybody is planning to run the Iron Fist RADARs in an active state just in case a drone comes along so it could be tracked and fired on by the RWS because that will allow everything with any kind of RADAR receiver to spot the vehicle immediately and accurately = suicide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, DIADES said:

Pure sales bullshit.  First of all, the APS is a short range system - as in very short range.  It is designed to deal with high speed threats, close in - the threshold velocity for threat recognition is probably about 300m/s = about 1,000km/h =RPG7 flight speed.  Just sub-sonic.  The senor suite for Iron Fist is optimised fro that speed and above.  Staged sensors IR then RADAR.  The RADAR which is the tracking tool is not enabled unless a launch flare is detected.  So, no launch, no RADAR = no tracking capability.  Unless a drone has a velocity above 300 m/s and an enormous flare exhaust (we call those RPGs not drones), IRON FIST will snooze while it drones around.

 

Not that it would change anything on what you wanted to say, just  alittle nitpicking from my side. Most of the ATGMs are much slower than 300 m/s so the system must be able to detect and track slower threads (I would put it rather to +/- 100 m/s and above - Malyutka has speed around 100 m/s).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, DIADES said:

.....The RWS is a better tool for dealing with drones but, once again, no tracking capability, no detection capability - publicly declared anyway. ...

1. Detect UAS by radar or electronic emissions, locate them, and “kill” them electronically if possible

2. Slew the RWS to this detection cue and accurately acquire the UAS with a thermal tracker, locking onto the UAS heat

3. Engage the UAS with either  or ballistic weapons to destroy

 

remember, UAS are not electronically silent, they are in constant radio communication,  that 'noise' is what needed to detect them, and why stange looking antennas can stun 'kill' some of them.  the radar does not need to emit to detect them, just to listen.

 

I would expect Lynx to also have similar capability, but as to whether it is offered to Australia without a crazy price. I doubt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 air-burst options from EOS would be

Proximity air-bursts  M230LF

Programmable air-bursts Mk44

 

no doubt Lynx would have equivalent available at a price.

 

but why pay for 2 diffferent 30mm guns, unless one is not used for airburst?  

perhaps the RWS will remain 12.7 HMG, and the main 30mm auto cannon really becomes the primary c-uav gun.

 

i sure don't know the prices offered for the various ammo, but it must be taken into account by CoA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/28/2020 at 9:40 AM, DIADES said:

....

Thirdly - still not a Requirement but what sort of UAV do you imagine we are shooting at?

I'm thinking, South East Asia modern equivalent terrain to battle of Long Tan, perhaps in wet, mountainous jungle PNG/Philipines, opposing infantry now has cheap UAV with 60mm mortar drop bombs, equivalent to Ukraine UAV/mortar bomb combo posted earlier.  assumption is that opposing force is willing to spend approx same amount of effort having infantry carry 60mm mortar OR small UAV around on mission.

 

L3XPIZ5NUJEDTN3NER36L5ZL24.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Kal said:

air-burst

and I suggest air burst is the wrong round against a MOVING UAV.  Stationary, fine but not moving.  If the UAV is moving toward or away, then range is changing dynamically.  Air burst rounds are programmed to burst at the range set as they leave the muzzle - that range comes from lasing the target.  The range is correct at the time of the LASER return.  UAV speeds are far above vehicle speeds so the target will not be where the round explodes and far outside normal FCS lead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, DIADES said:

and I suggest air burst is the wrong round against a MOVING UAV.  Stationary, fine but not moving.  If the UAV is moving toward or away, then range is changing dynamically.  Air burst rounds are programmed to burst at the range set as they leave the muzzle - that range comes from lasing the target.  The range is correct at the time of the LASER return.  UAV speeds are far above vehicle speeds so the target will not be where the round explodes and far outside normal FCS lead.

This is not a complex task. 

The problem is the cost of such a capability. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, DIADES said:

M113s don't count :)

 

What about Centurions? Long Tan formed the justification for the deployment of a squadron of tanks into the Task Force AO. 

 

You’ve been to New Guinea recently? Deforestation has changed it a lot. Sure, there’s mountainous & jungle-covered terrain, but wherever there’s people & farms, there’s a lot of cleared areas with excellent fields of fire. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, DIADES said:

and I suggest air burst is the wrong round against a MOVING UAV.  Stationary, fine but not moving.  If the UAV is moving toward or away, then range is changing dynamically.  Air burst rounds are programmed to burst at the range set as they leave the muzzle - that range comes from lasing the target.  The range is correct at the time of the LASER return.  UAV speeds are far above vehicle speeds so the target will not be where the round explodes and far outside normal FCS lead.

If the FCS can predict/track where the target is going, it's already calculated how long it takes the projectile to get there.

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...