Can rubber tracks be repaired in the field?
MB
MB
This is an interesting page discussing pros and cons of composite rubber tracks. It includes a graphic showing field repair of a damaged track, so clearly the answer is "yes".
Power on Rubber Tracks | Truppendienst
oldsig
(edit:typos)
Minor addendum. My experience of belting around in the back of an M-113 on even mildly hard surfaces has faded over years to a few key memories - the main one being the way the vibration was enough to make my teeth ache. Never mind advantages like lower rolling resistance and fuel consumption; there's an advantage to the poor silly buggers in back as well
oldsig
In regards to Australian forces they are covered under Comcare insurance and its legislation which supersedes other legislation serving personnel injured whilst unxer this system are able to be compensated as per those requirements
Vibration
Whole of body vibration as described under this legislation would have to be assessed to meet legal requirements per the code vibration has been shown to travel from the floor of vehicles through lower limbs effecting spine and organs
(I was subpoenad twice to provide evidence on workplace injuries ) it would be interesting if compliance to meet safety legislation under Comcare was a deciding factor in choice of vehicle lol
Vibration
Whole of body vibration as described under this legislation would have to be assessed to meet legal requirements per the code vibration has been shown to travel from the floor of vehicles through lower limbs effecting spine and organs
(I was subpoenad twice to provide evidence on workplace injuries ) it would be interesting if compliance to meet safety legislation under Comcare was a deciding factor in choice of vehicle lol
I'd say Hanwha Defense are going to pull out all stops to get a win with Land 400 Phase 3
Success with the ADF will have a lot of sales appeal with future international customers.
Looks like we have a very interesting competition.
Regards S
A further update from Kym with some more info on the offering
Cheers
NEWS FLASH !!!!!!! Redback contender for LAND 400 Phase 3 Update
So, although I personally really like the Lynx, at the end of the day it is about meeting requirements, so favourites have to go by the wayside
So all being said and done, if the Redback does meet requirements, a split between Rheinmetall and the truck fleet and CRV's and Hanwha for the IFV and SPH may not be a bad way to go ? thoughts ?
Edit: Just found a quick vid on youtube of the launch, it looks like a big unit !!
Last edited:
And the Korean PM launched the Redback! I don't recall Angela Merkel launching the Lynx?
Yep, not a small unit at all. Got some details off the placard out front.A further update from Kym with some more info on the offering
Cheers
NEWS FLASH !!!!!!! Redback contender for LAND 400 Phase 3 Update
So, although I personally really like the Lynx, at the end of the day it is about meeting requirements, so favourites have to go by the wayside
So all being said and done, if the Redback does meet requirements, a split between Rheinmetall and the truck fleet and CRV's and Hanwha for the IFV and SPH may not be a bad way to go ? thoughts ?
Edit: Just found a quick vid on youtube of the launch, it looks like a big unit !!
11 people: 3 crew + 8 dismounts
42 tons weight
65 km/h top speed
520 km range
Armament consisting of 30 mm cannon, ATGM, 12.7 mm RWS, 7.62 mm MG
Interesting to compare these two offerings of LAND 400 to our old MBT the Leopard1.
After all they are not too different in size and weight.
The current offerings have a section of grunts in the back and the other a large calibre gun.Not apple for apples of course but I wonder if in the 70's we would have envisaged an IFV of this weight.
Regards S
I hate the idea that the CRV and the IFV will have a different turret when they could have been identical.
The additional cost of having different turrets in terms of training and sustaining the RAAC is likely to be significant.
Regards,
Massive
I agree and it would appear to make sense on many levels.
Acknowledging we have two phases for the Land 400 vehicle types and many competing manufacturers at play.
Could we have done the process differently to ensure a common turret or is this just not realistic.
Is it impractical to insist on the boxer turret to out fit the winner of Phase 3.
Our really has that horse bolted.
Regards S
Note that the Hanwa/Elbit/EOS turret seems to have been designed from start with a fully integrated Iron Fist system (which is an Elbit formerly IMI product) but there is no sign of these on the Lynx, and whilst Rheinmetall is under contract to integrate them to the ADF Boxer the result has still to be tested and verified. In this respect the Redback turret seems to have a head-start.
Perhaps.
In my view the training and sustainment benefits of a common turret massively outweigh this.
Regards,
Massive
Thanks Massive but just to put numerical perspective, Land 400 Ph 2 only plans to acquire 133 CRVs with Lance Mk 1 turrets:
Defence Connect
Whereas Ph 3 is likely to get multiple times that number of turreted IFVs given the program seeks some 468 vehicles - perhaps 411 as IFVs:
Defence Technology Review : DTR FEB 2019, Page 1
And indeed the images I see of the KF41 Lynx show the Mk 2 turret. We would not want the tail wagging the dog
Last edited:
Absolutely not.We would not want the tail wagging the dog
Pity Hanwa didn't have a credible CRV.
Regards,
Massive
MARKMILES77
Active Member
Autonomous Australian M113s revealed for the first time.
Considering the M113 AS4s are all recently rebuilt probably worth keeping them in this role.
Each CRV or IFV could operate with a fire support "wingman" Autonomous M113AS4.
Video of them operating here on BAEs Twitter account:
@BAESystemsAus
Considering the M113 AS4s are all recently rebuilt probably worth keeping them in this role.
Each CRV or IFV could operate with a fire support "wingman" Autonomous M113AS4.
Video of them operating here on BAEs Twitter account:
@BAESystemsAus
MARKMILES77
Active Member
@MARKMILES77 Please provide the source / link for this plus commentary, as per forum rules.
Two fully autonomous armoured vehicles were the centrepiece of a landmark demonstration for the Australian Army this week, providing crucial insights into the capabilities of integrated autonomous technologies on future battlefields.
The ‘battlefield simulation’ demonstration was held at the Majura Training Site where the Chief of Army observed the two M113 vehicles in operation.
In a six month project, engineers and technicians installed hardware and software in the vehicles enabling them to operate autonomously. The innovative autonomous technologies being explored could remove soldiers from future battlefields and enable a range of other applications including intelligence gathering and logistics support. The on-board systems have been designed to comply with the rules of engagement, which always require human in the decision-making loop.
BAE Systems Australia CEO Gabby Costigan said:
“This project highlights our commitment to leading the development of new technologies and collaborating across industry and academia to advance autonomous capabilities.
“BAE Systems Australia’s autonomous systems capability leverages more than three decades of collaboration between BAE Systems Australia and the Commonwealth Government through Programs such as Nulka and Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM).
“Autonomous technologies will support soldier responsiveness in an accelerating warfare environment - increasing their ability to outpace, out-manoeuvre and out-think conventional and unconventional threats.”
The BAE Systems autonomous technologies used for this project have already supported Australian and UK Autonomy programs such as Taranis, Mantis, Kingfisher UAS demonstrators as well as the multi-all terrain vehicle (MATV) and Digger unmanned ground vehicle (UGV) demonstrators.
With the technologies now integrated into the M113 prototype, the vehicles will now be used by the Army to experiment with to better understand the opportunities to employ autonomy on the battlefield as part of its recently released Robotics and Autonomous Systems Strategy.
The vehicles will also be used as test vehicles for technology developed by the Commonwealth’s recently announced Trusted Autonomous Systems Defence Cooperative Research Centre (TAS-DCRC).
The TAS-DCRC was announced by the Australian Government in 2017 under the Next Generation Technologies Fund to deliver game-changing autonomous systems that ensure trusted, reliable and effective cooperation between people and machines during military operations.
BAE Systems is a founding member of the CRC and the industry lead for Land Autonomy, working closely with Army and with Defence Science and Technology Group to ensure soldiers have what they need to be future ready.
Ngatimozart
Last edited by a moderator:
MARKMILES77
Active Member
Unsure why but cannot edit post.
Just reply to the post and put the source link in the reply & add a bit of commentary as well ~2 lines. That should do it. I'm not sure why you can't edit either.