Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

[DIADES]

22 hours ago, 2805662 said:

turreted Phase 3 variants require a RWS o

they don't - explicitly.  It about overall system lethality.  Will try and dig the reqs out.

[2805662]

9 hours ago, DIADES said:

No, this version rotates to go under armour within the MSSA plinth

Yikes. 

[DIADES]

On 11/12/2020 at 6:14 PM, DIADES said:

turreted Phase 3 variants require a RWS

For those not familiar - Ph3 roles are divided into two groups.  Infantry Fighting Vehicle - Direct Fire High Survivability Lift (IFV-DFHSL) which is all the turreted roles and Infantry Fighting Vehicle - Specialist Support (IFV-SS)  The IFV-SS spec covers Ambulance, Recovery, Repair etc.

 

DFHSL and SS are two completely separate Specifications.

 

So, when we talk remotes on a turreted vehicle:

The RFT version of the IFV-DFHSL spec has an overarching Requirement:

FPS-2359 3.4.4.4 Lethality - Remote Controlled Weapon.  This has about a dozen child Requirements.  In summary, must have a remotely controlled weapon so a RWS or MSSA.

[2805662]

1 hour ago, DIADES said:

For those not familiar - Ph3 roles are divided into two groups.  Infantry Fighting Vehicle - Direct Fire High Survivability Lift (IFV-DFHSL) which is all the turreted roles and Infantry Fighting Vehicle - Specialist Support (IFV-SS)  The IFV-SS spec covers Ambulance, Recovery, Repair etc.

 

DFHSL and SS are two completely separate Specifications.

 

So, when we talk remotes on a turreted vehicle:

The RFT version of the IFV-DFHSL spec has an overarching Requirement:

FPS-2359 3.4.4.4 Lethality - Remote Controlled Weapon.  This has about a dozen child Requirements.  In summary, must have a remotely controlled weapon so a RWS or MSSA.

Thanks for doing the leg work. I’ve deleted my copies of the RFT pack as I’ve moved on to other things. 
 

It’ll be interesting to see whether the MSSA as offered by Rheinmetall can satisfy the RWS functional requirements. It’ll also be interesting to see if the MSSA can supplant the RWS mandated (as GFx?) for L400-3 (the EOS R-400).
 

With the retirement of the ASLAV, the Kongsberg RWS is likely to exit service. As such, the Australian Army can now consolidate its remote weapon stations down to the R-400 (on Bushmaster, Hawkei, Boxer, AS9/10 [as GFx?], and the L400-3 vehicles). Rheinmetall’s MSSA offering would have to be pretty compelling to shift the Commonwealth back away from a single, common RWS. 

[StarshipDirect]

On 11/12/2020 at 3:12 AM, DIADES said:

They have not - this uses the pop up Supashock launcher instead of the side mounted type.  As to 30mm - its all about stowed kills.  The 35mm simply cannot carry enough rounds and against the defined targets, 30mm gets it done.

30mm won't get it done in the long-term.  

[2805662]

9 minutes ago, Insomnium95 said:

30mm won't get it done in the long-term.  

Maybe, maybe not. Still, the platform will be fielded for 30-odd years. Plenty of time for ammunition improvements & upgrades to the calibre of the main armament itself. 

[StarshipDirect]

47 minutes ago, 2805662 said:

Maybe, maybe not. Still, the platform will be fielded for 30-odd years. Plenty of time for ammunition improvements & upgrades to the calibre of the main armament itself. 

There's only so much you can do with the 30mm. 

[2805662]

8 hours ago, Insomnium95 said:

There's only so much you can do with the 30mm. 

Agreed. That’s why I said that there’s the possibility of a calibre upgrade - i.e. larger calibre hub - over the life of the L400 vehicles. 

[DIADES]

9 hours ago, Insomnium95 said:

o with the 30mm.

But - where do you put the ammunition?  This is the eternal question in turret design.  30 to 35 does not sound like much but it would result is a drastic drop in stowed kills.  The 35 is bigger in dia and longer and heavier.  These parameters directly impact how many rounds can be carried.  They also indirectly impact.  Heavier, bigger round means more difficulties in stowage and feed and case ejection

[Kal]

part of the requirement was 9 rounds per 10 seconds for 3 minutes,  plus have plenty remaining to do actually fighting with.

 

anyway, calibre upgrade to 35/50mm supershot (or equiv) was to be baked into both offerings.

[2805662]

So, 54 rounds per minute for three minutes, or 162 rounds of an unspecified nature/target. Lance 1.0 has 120/80 ready round bin for 30x173mm, so, only 38 rounds remaining before the crew have to reload the ready round bins. That can take a while. 

[DIADES]

3 hours ago, Kal said:

requirement

Please tell me the requirement number?  These specs don't ring any bells?

[Kal]

Google gave

3.4.4.2.1 Main Weapon - General
...

'The Vehicle is required to suppress enemy vehicles at a distance of 2000 metres for 3 minutes to allow for another friendly unit to position and engage the enemy vehicle. It is assumed that the Vehicle main weapon will fire 9 rounds every 10 seconds during suppression and after three minutes still have ready rounds available.'

 

 

[2805662]

That looks like “notes to tenderers” not a requirement per se. I assume it’s importance is “important”. 

[DIADES]

23 hours ago, 2805662 said:

That looks like “notes to tenderers” not a requirement per se. I assume it’s importance is “important”. 

agree.  Probably why I don't recall it.  Certainly not a Requirement in the true sense.

[DIADES]

On 11/16/2020 at 7:22 PM, Kal said:

3.4.4.2.1 Main Weapon - General

actual Requirement is FPS-4136 and it reads as you suggest.  But not a Requirement to be met as it is classified as "Advice"  So, no can fail!

[2805662]

18 minutes ago, DIADES said:

actual Requirement is FPS-4136 and it reads as you suggest.  But not a Requirement to be met as it is classified as "Advice"  So, no can fail!

Yep. The dreaded Advice clause. Interesting, but has no standing from a criticality perspective. 

[Kal]

On 11/15/2020 at 8:39 PM, DIADES said:

But - where do you put the ammunition?  This is the eternal question in turret design.  30 to 35 does not sound like much but it would result is a drastic drop in stowed kills.  The 35 is bigger in dia and longer and heavier.  These parameters directly impact how many rounds can be carried.  They also indirectly impact.  Heavier, bigger round means more difficulties in stowage and feed and case ejection

Isn't the ammo stored as coils of linked rounds?  If so, wouldn't the round that fills the storage most efficently be the best ammo going forward as in the future, electronics will mean its cheaper for fused rounds that go bang at the target.  Less rounds but more total volume shrapnel cloud.

 

But if the intent is to suppress using a saw gun, the more rounds the better, which means less diameter.

 

Not even taking into account the possibilty of the turret being optimised for a particular length vs another length round.  Perhaps 2 stacked coils of 30mm vs 1 coil of 35/50mm. (Does seem unlikely)

 

[SH_MM]

 

[Kal]

I assume that is the one to be tested to destruction. the turret sure looks more adorned than Hungarys.

[DIADES]

some lynx propaganda

 

 

[Kal]

Senator calls for Victorian budget to step up support for defence industry - Defence Connect

 

with state govenment support like this, Victoria is gifting land 400 phase 3 to Qld.

 

[DIADES]

20 hours ago, Kal said:

Victoria is gifting land 400 phase 3 to Qld.

Don't be confused by all the rubbish State politicians (all parties) pump out.  Firstly, Defence is Federal.  Secondly, Rheinmetalls Qld setup did not exist at the point they won Ph2.  Defence are not stupid - they have seen investment claim after claim disappear so the plans to build MILVEHCOE had less that the weight of a feather on the decision.  The RMA trials killed the BAE bid - the vehicle was inadequate.

 

But, move forward to today and talk Ph3.    MILVEHCOE has been built, is real and is a tangible asset to the LYNX bid.  Hanwha?  Not a single dollar invested.  In any case, once again, RMA will be key. If there is a technical tie, then things like turret commonality, EA commonality and physical actual investment/commitment become more valid - after value for money!

 

[2805662]

I think Hanwha’s Victorian presence is a given due to the SPH (AS9 & AS10) work package. “Not a single dollar invested” is one of those hyperbolic, unprovable statements that I habitually challenge because I loath them. 
 

Yes, Rheinmetall has developed the MILVEHCOE - after winning several substantial contracts. Defence paid handsomely for that investment. The Australian taxpayer footed the Bill for the MILVEHCOE, not Rheinmetall. There’s no reason that Hanwha (courtesy of the Australian taxpayer) could not make a similar or superior investment, were they to win a similar contract. 
 

Personally, I see capricious German export controls & their potential effect on Australian land combat power, to be a substantial risk to Australian army capability. Putting our eggs in one basket, with a government who’s foreign policies are frequently not aligned with ours, is potentially the dumbest thing that the Australian government could possibly do. 

[DIADES]

23 hours ago, 2805662 said:

Not a single dollar invested

Easy - no facility.  NADA.  I would love to be proved wrong so somebody tell me where hanwha has actually spent any money in Australia?  Anybody seen any ads on Seek etc for Engineers even?  Nope,

 

Like I say, somebody please show me any evidence of actual spend.  All I can see is old school spend nothing, win, do the Project, shut down and bugger off.