Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV


2805662
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.'

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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...