Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV


2805662
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Boagrius said:

Odd that the number of dismounts seems to have dropped on both vehicles from 8-9 to 6. Is there something I'm missing here?

In my memory, it was clear. 
The MCCC is calling for :

- required 6 dismounts ;

- desired 8 dismounts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Boagrius said:

Odd that the number of dismounts seems to have dropped on both vehicles from 8-9 to 6. Is there something I'm missing here?

Somebody from the tender eval team couldn’t count the number of seats & seatbelts in the back of each vehicle? 
 

Given the sign has “tenderer’s claims” on it, it doesn’t seem either accurate or honest. Quite on-brand!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/16/2021 at 9:56 PM, Boagrius said:

Odd that the number of dismounts seems to have dropped on both vehicles from 8-9 to 6. Is there something I'm missing here?

The Requirement is six and always has been,  8 and even 9 is occasionally stated by the Primes.  Utter bullshit.  No matter how many bodies, you must carry their gear.  6 plus gear is a challenge for both teams.  8 is simply not possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, DIADES said:

The Requirement is six and always has been


The requirement on the RFT when released was six. It’s incorrect to say that “always has been”.

 

Army Capability Requirement 2012 (ACR 2012 - the 2012 was the implementation date, not the drafting date) mandated the Standard Infantry Battalion, which was wholly dismounted. IFV would be held as battalion lift as a Squadron in the Brigade’s Armoured Cavalry Regiment. PMV would be held as a battalion lift as a company in the Brigade’s Combat Service Support Battalion. 
 

Why does this matter? SIB meant that all battalions were light infantry, with a section comprising two identical, four-man fireteams. This drove the IFV dismount requirement to crew (from the ACR)+8 (from the SIB).
 

When it became clear that an ACR of 1 x tank squadron, 2 x reconnaissance squadrons, & 1 x IFV (APC) squadron wasn’t workable, the ACR lost its IFVs, SIB died, mechanised & motorised infantry battalions were reconstituted. 
 

With IFV crew now part of the section, the number of dismounts required dropped to six. 
 

This was also pushed by industry feedback that crew + eight was not really a thing. 
 

All of this combined for the RFT as released to read 3+6. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/8/2020 at 10:30 PM, David Moyes said:

hhROPAQ.jpg

 

I count 8 in there.

And aren't those seats - Australian government issue seats from the Hawkei, to be common between Lynx and Redback?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

waVISY2.jpg

 

“Planned to be demonstrated with both the Spike....and Iron Fist....through either live fire or....laboratory demonstrations.”

 

Very carefully worded written responses to questions. No mention of Spike LR2. 
 

Any demonstrations - preferably on YouTube - of any kind of Spike LR being fired from an actual Lance turret? Or Iron Fist?

 

Interested to see how Liebherr’s first foray into AFV power packs will fare, reliability-wise. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

7 hours ago, 2805662 said:

Very carefully worded written responses to questions. No mention of Spike LR2. 
 

Any demonstrations - preferably on YouTube - of any kind of Spike LR being fired from an actual Lance turret? Or Iron Fist?

Yes. 
Spike LR2 is said to have problems. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, 2805662 said:

Or Iron Fist?

Hanwha dodgy on APS too,  Hanwha have good claim for SPIKE integration (tho I reckon it was an LR2 fired from a turret set up for LR1 but still a good claim)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DIADES said:

Hanwha dodgy on APS too,  Hanwha have good claim for SPIKE integration (tho I reckon it was an LR2 fired from a turret set up for LR1 but still a good claim)


jJ3Fkhu.jpg
 

UzarOEJ.jpg


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 2805662 said:


jJ3Fkhu.jpg
 

UzarOEJ.jpg


 

Yep.  And given all the fanfare around the SPIKE firing, with video and all, I struggle to take the Iron Fist claim seriously.   Maybe they did fire it - but what happened?  Is there a video?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DIADES said:

Yep.  And given all the fanfare around the SPIKE firing, with video and all, I struggle to take the Iron Fist claim seriously.   Maybe they did fire it - but what happened?  Is there a video?


I’d like to see the Iron Fist video, too. Perhaps the test was a multi-threat demonstration & the video would reveal too much of Iron Fist’s capabilities? I doubt we’ll ever know...unless the video is released.

 

That said, with the seriousness of the RMA, I’m sceptical that they’re making ambit claims.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DIADES said:

Maybe they did fire it - but what happened? 

Look at the Hanwha advert in the latest DTR.  SPIKE "Successfully fired" but  Iron Fist "Proven integration"  Big difference'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, DIADES said:

Look at the Hanwha advert in the latest DTR.  SPIKE "Successfully fired" but  Iron Fist "Proven integration"  Big difference'

Different language, sure. Big difference?Maybe. Maybe not. Are APS integrated, fired, or both?
 

Both a step up from “planned to be demonstrated” from RDA. HDA’s turret system integration seems to be ahead either way. But is it either by a nose, or a mile?

 

It’d be interesting to see what, if any, Iron Fist integration from 400-2 bleeds across to -3. Also be very interested in whether the Eurospike joint venture includes Spike LR2 IP. The public domain literature only mentions Spike LR as MELLS, not LR2.

 

If Lance has been tested with an ATGM (video request extant), was it Spike LR or MELLS? 


Interesting to speculate, as always. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Serge said:

Spike LR2 is said to have problems. 

 

Spike in general has problems. High dud rates even years after initial adoption.

 

9 hours ago, 2805662 said:

I’d like to see the Iron Fist video, too. Perhaps the test was a multi-threat demonstration & the video would reveal too much of Iron Fist’s capabilities? I doubt we’ll ever know...unless the video is released.

 

I doubt that. There is nothing hidden about Iron Fist's capabilities - two launchers each with two ready-to-fire rounds each. Weight, elevation angle, slew rates, energy consumption etc. all has been published. The integration of Iron Fist on Redback results iin a reduction of overlapping coverage, but then again the turret roof is less cluttered.

 

One could speculate that no video footage from the Iron Fist tests was released, because the result of these tests are classified. But it also could be due to Iron Fist having issues with defeating all threats (dudding was a major issue in US tests of Iron Fist). Or it could simply be some guy at Elbit's PR department thinking that the footage from the Spike launch is more pleasing to the eye.

 

9 hours ago, 2805662 said:

Both a step up from “planned to be demonstrated” from RDA. HDA’s turret system integration seems to be ahead either way. But is it either by a nose, or a mile?

 

The decision to offer an Australian-made launcher in order to appeal Australian decision-makers probably has delayed the test-firing of Spike missiles from the modified Lance 2.0 turret offered to Australia quite a bit. Supashock's launcher is a new product and has to undergo lots of certifications, qualifications and maturity assessements before it is ready for firing. Meanwhile the Redback turret simply integrates an existing launcher that already has been qualified, tested and sold to other customers.

 

9 hours ago, 2805662 said:

It’d be interesting to see what, if any, Iron Fist integration from 400-2 bleeds across to -3. Also be very interested in whether the Eurospike joint venture includes Spike LR2 IP. The public domain literature only mentions Spike LR as MELLS, not LR2.

 

MELLS is just the German designation for Spike LR and the program under which it was adopted. Other customers of EuroSpike (such as Poland or Italy) have their own designations for Spike LR.

 

Spike LR and Spike LR2 both utilize the same hardware and software interfaces; just a "simple" software update should enable any Spike LR launcher too fire the newer version - at least according to Rafael.

 

EuroSpike currently advertises the Spike SR, the Spike LR2, the Spike ER2 and the Spike NLOS missile on its website. My understanding is that EuroSpike itself doesn't have any intellectual property of the Spike missiles, but Rafael keeps it - while its two partners Diehl and Rheinmetall are responsible for manufacturing, marketing, distrubition and integration of Spike systems on the European market. Denmark has just ordered the Spike LR2 missile from EuroSpike.

 

________________________

 

These interviews in the DTR Magazine... both Hanwha and Rheinmetall use lots of words to say nothing, distract from the original question and then make a blanket statement regarding how their system is a good choice. Three questions regarding the AS21's turret are essentially answered with "It is not the XYZ turret, it is the Redback turret", while both Rheinmetall and Hanwha answer the question how the data accumulated by the vehicles' sensors are used with "we use it".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

These interviews in the DTR Magazine.

The CoA is very, very, very paranoid about impartiality.  Did I mention very paranoid?  The article was always going to be a waste of time.  Zero possibility of any real content as the parties are in an active RMA.  Yes, the marketing answers are nauseating as usual.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, 2805662 said:

Iron Fist integration from 400-2 bleeds across to -3

Pretty much has to.  Iron Fist is mandated by CoA - not chosen on its merits (there aren't any) by either tenderer.  Iron Fist is a complete dud.

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...