Żółć Posted November 30, 2022 Report Share Posted November 30, 2022 Sorry for post after post but one issue has started to bother me. @SH_MM do you perhaps know just how well armoured the exhaust channel is, if at all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SH_MM Posted November 30, 2022 Report Share Posted November 30, 2022 Unfortunately no. I would be surprised if it is armored, as it is installed on top of the existing armor. It appears to be quite thick though. Ideally it would abe made of something other than steel/metal (something with low thermal conductivity). Dragonstriker and Żółć 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kal Posted December 6, 2022 Report Share Posted December 6, 2022 'Delays in selecting a next-generation armoured vehicle for the army could cost taxpayers an extra $2bn, with the tenders provided by the bidders due to expire before a decision is made.' https://amp.theaustralian.com.au/nation/defence/defence-delay-may-cost-taxpayers-2bn/news-story/b701957d5118351d7ebe7bf7c48a1913 'The winner of the Land 400 Phase 3 tender was due to be announced in September but was repeatedly pushed back as Defence searched for spare funds to pour into new long-range capabilities.' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SH_MM Posted December 12, 2022 Report Share Posted December 12, 2022 Specifications of Rheinmetall's KF41 Lynx offer for LAND 400 Phase 3. Spoiler 2805662, David Moyes and Ramlaen 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kal Posted December 16, 2022 Report Share Posted December 16, 2022 so, can we start to discuss what went wrong? Both vendors appears to have demonstrated fit for purpose, compliant products, but procurement has failed to reciprocate from stakeholders why this remains necessary. Personally, I think Qld should go alone with some Lynx deal anyway, afterall, war in the pacific be it at PNG or Solomon Islands, is on Qld's doorstep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted December 17, 2022 Author Report Share Posted December 17, 2022 32 minutes ago, Kal said: so, can we start to discuss what went wrong? Both vendors appears to have demonstrated fit for purpose, compliant products, but procurement has failed to reciprocate from stakeholders why this remains necessary. Personally, I think Qld should go alone with some Lynx deal anyway, afterall, war in the pacific be it at PNG or Solomon Islands, is on Qld's doorstep. Labor being Labor. As simple as that. The defence strategic review may green light a small buy of IFV to save face, but I’m not hopeful. Kal and Dragonstriker 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kal Posted December 20, 2022 Report Share Posted December 20, 2022 “Now, our defence assets need to not be about fighting a land war defending western Queensland because that is highly unlikely, but a lot of our assets are not really the ones that we necessarily need for this century and for the times — and also their location as well.” https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/we-need-to-be-prepared-to-invest-albanese-highlights-need-for-subs-not-tanks-20221214-p5c6ah.html translation, f$$k modern IFVs, we using 60 year M113 for another 60 years. Lord_James, Laviduce and Dragonstriker 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.