Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification. It certainly looks the goods, here's hoping it is!
I'd think this rather unlikely. The combat/administrative workload on that individual might be too great, and a vehicle without a commander is essentially a horse without a rider.
I would trust a working German prototype built from MOTS systems more than a fully MOTS, "in service", option from France. The French are still very much proponents of getting it into service, before it can be cancelled, and then sorting any issues , while the Germans like to get things right before service release.
It is actually standard practice in many nation's armoured infantry for the vehicle commander to be the section commander and dismount as required with the gunner stepping up to command the vehicle. With the Beersheba ACRs its different as it has been recognised we can not sustain both armoured / mech infantry battalions and a deployable brigade structure with the resources we have, therefore it makes sense to have the main armoured troop lift capabilities to be operated by RAAC rather than RAINF.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Rheinmetall's Lynx Infantry Vehicle Targets Australian Market
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/eurosatory-rheinmetall-reveals-lynx-ifv/
Couple more Lynx links (sorry!) here. Latter one appears to have a short video in the non-subscribers portion.
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/eurosatory-rheinmetall-reveals-lynx-ifv/
Couple more Lynx links (sorry!) here. Latter one appears to have a short video in the non-subscribers portion.
Volk,
Ok I get what you mean regarding the dismounting of the vehicle commander. The thought of the gunner stepping up to be a stand-in vehicle commander didn't quite cross my mind...
Regarding Beersheba, fully agree. I don't think there's any other way solution to the troop-lift issue. Moreover, I don't think vehicle maintenance/overhaul etc. is something RAINF would want to bother themselves with.
It can be done, and quite successfully but those soldiers become specialist armoured infantrymen and are neither as effective dismounted as regular infantry, or mounted as cavalry, they are their own specialist capability that needs to be complemented by equally specialist supporting capabilities to be truly effective and the ADF is not big enough to sustain these capabilities, while maintaining a viable deployable capability in other areas.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Has it been established yet whether the Lynx is an evolution of the Marder? If so perhaps that could go some way to alleviating the risk associated with a "new" design? Could Lynx then be considered "MOTS+"?
From various articles I have read that is the case. Puma was seen as a very capable vehicle but far too costly, The Lynx is pretty much an evolution of that with some of the unecessary goodies gone.
Sounds some what like the Seawolf class submarine to the Virginia class.
Bluey 006
Active Member
Seems like a purpose built and reasonable solution for Land 400 Phase 3. The boxer and lynx solution looks like a very competitive offering. Especially if you can fit a 35mm main armament and Spike.
Is this not a choice though?
If more combat weight was desired, then the proposed brigade structure could be changed to one motorised battalion & one mechanised/armoured/heavy battalion.
The heavy battalion would be 2 squadrons tank + 2 squadrons mech inf. ACR becomes 2 sabre squadrons + PMV squdaron (battalion lift), motorised battalion remains the same.
Thoughts?
Massive
Volk, sorry for the late reply. Got it, understand what you mean.
FYI where I come from, the way I understand it we term 'calvary' as 'armoured infantry'. Hence was a tad confused reading your reply...that partly contributed to the late response.
Why would you have the Sabre Squadrons and PMV squadron if you already have a mechanised infantry and a motorised inf battalion?
Mech and motorised infantry battalions have their own allocated vehicles... Who will the ACR be lifting if the battalions already have their own vehicles?
Something we have deliberately steered away from with Beersheba to allow infantry to do what they do best (infanteer) and let RAAC handle the armoured vehicles (what they obviously do best)?
Weird.
3 new Chinook aircraft delivered early.
CASGdeliversthreenewChinooksaheadofschedule | Capability Acquisition and Sustainment
CASGdeliversthreenewChinooksaheadofschedule | Capability Acquisition and Sustainment
t68
Well-Known Member
Another tick in the box for FMS instead of Euro. But interesting they used USAF C17 for delivery.
A quick tidbit or 2 from the latest Infantry magazine.
3RAR has been designated as the trials battalion for the concept of adding a 60mm mortar capability into the 'Standardised Infantry Battalion.' The concept envisages adding 9x 60mm mortar tubes into the battalions to primarily boost their direct fire capability and moderately increase their indirect fire capability.
The article also confirms LAND 136 Land Force Mortar Replacement is seeking a like for like replacement of extant 81mm mortar capability with a new 81mm mortar system.
So no 120mm mortar for now...
3RAR has been designated as the trials battalion for the concept of adding a 60mm mortar capability into the 'Standardised Infantry Battalion.' The concept envisages adding 9x 60mm mortar tubes into the battalions to primarily boost their direct fire capability and moderately increase their indirect fire capability.
The article also confirms LAND 136 Land Force Mortar Replacement is seeking a like for like replacement of extant 81mm mortar capability with a new 81mm mortar system.
So no 120mm mortar for now...
Good news on the commando mortars but a shame on the 120mm as it actually makes for a pretty decent 105mm gun/howitzer replacement. I believe the USMC use 60, 81 and 120mm mortars, even operating them together in a mortar platoon and using whichever is most suitable at the time, in the manner most suitable.