SuperSLime
New Member
We have the same problem with the iron sights on the L85. At 300m the foresight blade appears about twice as wide as a Fig 11 target.
SuperSLime
New Member
No. Just... no.
Anyway, how does this solve the issue of the iron sights being too far above the bore? It will actually make the problem WORSE, because as well as the straight-line shape of a bullpup you now need to allow for the height of the cheekpiece as well.
Last edited:
ando, spent 6 years at 3, from dig to seco....spent 1 yr at TSP (RMC) and a little time as a rigger at silverwater. Did a RISC course at Kamp K...but not for me!!! now work at berrimah big house. good luck with the corp transfer....pogo!
as for the replacement for F88....its just not going to happen, i was invoved in the trials for the s.a.r.p in 1985, i was going through IET,s at singo...we trialed Styer, m16A2 and the Leader. personally i liked the leader. it took all M16 Acc...mags, bayonet, BFA etc and was a solid, sound aussie design. But i was a soldier of of 5 months experience at the time, and the decision to go with styer was made by people with a little more nouse and experience than me! i trust they had good reasons! the only thing i didnt like about f88 was the trigger gaurd/safty catch, apart from that, it was a good rifle,that average soldiers could hit their targets at 300m with no problem, infact blind freddy could hit a figure 11 at 300m with a styer!
the leader had some success in the US as a sporting rifle, i remember reading a review on it in some gun mag many years ago....ill google it later and see if i can find some info.
as for the replacement for F88....its just not going to happen, i was invoved in the trials for the s.a.r.p in 1985, i was going through IET,s at singo...we trialed Styer, m16A2 and the Leader. personally i liked the leader. it took all M16 Acc...mags, bayonet, BFA etc and was a solid, sound aussie design. But i was a soldier of of 5 months experience at the time, and the decision to go with styer was made by people with a little more nouse and experience than me! i trust they had good reasons! the only thing i didnt like about f88 was the trigger gaurd/safty catch, apart from that, it was a good rifle,that average soldiers could hit their targets at 300m with no problem, infact blind freddy could hit a figure 11 at 300m with a styer!
the leader had some success in the US as a sporting rifle, i remember reading a review on it in some gun mag many years ago....ill google it later and see if i can find some info.
did a search on the leader rifle....faip bit of info on the net. cant copy and paste a link on this thing but for antone interested, type in leader dynamics, or leader assault rifle...plenty to choose from. cheers.
but for antone interested, type in leader dynamics, or leader assault rifle...plenty to choose from. cheers.I was wondering, Has anyone else heard that Dutch Pzh2000 has serious software problem with its battle managment system? Love the look of the system but hope we are not getting a dud piece of a kit here. Always wondered why dutch were so eger to sell their SPH.
any one know who else in the running for the SPH?
any one know who else in the running for the SPH?
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
The Samsung K9 thunder is in hot contention aswell. 8 tones lighter and it comes with a handy ammo resupply vehical, the crew dont even have to exit to resupply, just park it infront of the K9 and its all automatic. Not a bad peice of kit.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Not a bad little rifle, still not a sexy as the F88 IMHO.
Interesting, I met a Sargent from US army (artillery) who was stationed at US base in Korea and according to him K9 SPH is a great piece of kit. To my surprise he was a real fan of the Korean gun. Apparently the reliability of the gun is excellent. I guess he should know, he served on M109s and genuinely believed K9 is by far a better gun.:
:When are they making the decision on what to acquire?
considering the fact that all prpgrammes (well, the majority) are under the gun to reach the 5% dividend, I wouldn't be banking money on too many things making the cut intact.
even the sacred cow programmes are experiencing pressure to save, so a programme thats basically pre-natal will have an even more interesting time competing not only to survive in its own right, but to compete against a pile of other projects which may well rate ahead of it on the sacrificial lamb and wish lists shortlists......
K9 has a number of things that aren't in its favour as well.....
battlensign
New Member
Last edited:
All areas are expected to realise efficiency gains. Any program or project thats active is expected to realise efficiencies.
the fastest way to earn a "fatal" CLM is to talk out of shop..... esp within the next 8 months...
The cheekpiece sits below the bore line making the user get lower to the rifle and it is angled to ensure the sights can be as low as possible
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
But you have to buy and support twice as many vehicles if you want that sort of capability...
So what is the capability that we want? I would have thought surely, support capability for our new artillery system would be paramount importance to us no matter which gun ends up being selected,
I dare say I would be much happier with introduction of a gun system that is ready integrated with proven support system rather than attempting to mix and match at a later date as an after thought. A usual contributor to the budget blowouts in the past.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
We don't have K-10 support vehicles in-service now. Are you saying RRAA therefore cannot support it's current guns?So what is the capability that we want? I would have thought surely, support capability for our new artillery system would be paramount importance to us no matter which gun ends up being selected,
I dare say I would be much happier with introduction of a gun system that is ready integrated with proven support system rather than attempting to mix and match at a later date as an after thought. A usual contributor to the budget blowouts in the past.
Germany and the Netherlands don't use the K-10 re-supply vehicle for their PZH-2000 guns either. Are they incapable of supporting their guns?
This is what we would have to buy in ADDITION to the actual K-9 vehicle itself under your plan:
http://sig.megapass.net/club/home1/archives/ALBUM/920_photo.gif
She's a fair behemoth innit? However what she provides is a total of 104 rounds that can be "automatically" supplied to the K-9 which has an on-board storage capacity of 40 rounds.
The PZh-2000 has an on-board storage capacity of 60 rounds and has this "manual" system for reloading the vehicle:
http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w151/MARKMILES77/Avalon Airshow 2007/IMGP1216.jpg
Depending on the physical strength of your gunners, loading 60 rounds shouldn't take more than a couple of minutes...
The K-9/K-10 is going to cost a fortune in support costs compared to the PZH-2000 and I doubt the combination will be cheaper up front than individual PZH-2000's either.
Here are the requirements:
You Are Invited To Submit A Tender For The Acquisition And Support of A Protected Self Propelled 155MM Weapon Platform Capability (Also Referred To As The Self Propelled Howitzer Or SPH Capability) Under The LAND 17 Project.
LAND 17, Artillery Replacement Project, Seeks To Enhance The Indirect Fire Support Capability of The Australian Defence Force (ADF). The SPH Capability Will Be One Component of The Enhanced Indirect Fire System (IFS).
The LAND 17 Project Seeks To Provide Army With An Offensive Support System That Can Out-Range Or At The Very Least Match The Capability of Similar Systems Within The Geographical Region. The Delivery Platform Will Be Capable of Manoeuvre Commensurate With That of The Supported Forces And Shall Be Capable of Communicating On The Digital Battlefield. The Project Seeks To Improve Command And Control (C2) Aspects of The Current IFS By Digitising And Enhancing The ADF’s Joint Fires C2 Network. The Project’s Objective Is To Also Meet The Various Integrated Logistic Support (ILS) Requirements Including Training Support, Facilities And All Aspects of Through Life Support.
The Commonwealth Intends Entering Into Separate Contracts For The Acquisition And Support of The SPH Capability, To Meet The Following Requirements:
(1) Supply of SPH Capability (Quantity 18, Quantity 24 Or Quantity 30 Systems) To Achieve An In-Service Date of June 2011, With An Option For The Commonwealth To Purchase Up To 6 Additional Systems Within 5 Years Following Final Acceptance Under The Contract (Acquisition); And
(2) Provision of An Initial 7 Years Support of The SPH Capability Under A Performance Management Regime, With Options For Additional Periods of Support For The Life of The Equipment.
Both Contracts Will Be Entered Into In Response To A Single Tender, Hence The Commonwealth Will Only Consider Tenders That Address Both The Acquisition And Support Requirements Specified In The RFT. The Commonwealth Intends Entering Into Each Contract At The Same Time.
The Commonwealth May Enter Into A Contract With A Single Legal Entity For Both Contracts Or Separate Legal Entities For Each Contract Where The Requirements Specified In Clause 4.10 of The Conditions of Tender Are Met.
I also have the operational Concept documents and the functional performance requirements. When you can PM (after 50 posts) PM me and I will send them to you via email.
Suffice to say for the time being that there is no requirement stating, "SPH MUST come with an armoured re-supply vehicle".
Regards
AD
Reminds me of the SAR80 designed for us by Sterling of UK.
Looks like a good solid design but like the SAR80, simply not "sexy" enough to win contests.
Is the revolutionary "selective fire" trigger system of the Steyr a good thing? Any problems? No other weapons before or after has attempted such a trigger system.