Sentinel II
The Sentinel II is an 8x8 armoured reconnaissance vehicle jointly designed and developed by the Companies ST Kinets of Singapore and Elbit Systems Australia. Team Sentinel, leaded by Elbit Systems of Australia (ELSA), is offering the Sentinel II for the Australian Land 400 Mounted Combat Reconnaissance Capability (MCRC) request for tender. The Sentinel II is an integrated combination of Terrex 2 8x8 armoured vehicle personnel carrier, the Elbit Land System's MT30 30mm turret and a networked combat system forming the next generation of the Australian Army’s current Battle Management System. In December 2015.
The Sentinel II is fitted with an Elbit Land System's MT30 turret which is based on the UT30 unmanned turrets with sights and sensors relocated internally rather than mostly externally. Featuring high first round and burst hit probability, the dual-axis stabilized UT30 is designed for firing on the move and at moving targets.
Main armament of the MT30 turret consists of one Orbital ATK Mk 44 Bushmaster 30mm automatic dual-feed cannon and one 7.62mm coaxial machine gun. Rafael Spike-LR anti-tanh guided missile is already integrated in the turret. The Spike LR is a 4th generation lightweight, Fire & Forget Plus, multi-purpose missile system with a range up to 4 km.
The hull of the Terrex 2 is of all welded steel armour construction to which an additional layer of passive armour can be added for a higher level of battlefield survivability. The crew survivability of the Terrex 2 is enhanced with a proprietary hull design that it calls "V-over-V" (VoV), comprising two V-shaped hull sections: a lower section that is given over to the drivetrain and suspension systems; and an upper section that contains the protected crew and troop compartments. The lower section is designed absorb the initial blast from a mine or improvised explosive device (IED), with the second V-shaped hull further reducing the likelihood of troop casualties. The Sentinel II will have a gross vehicle mass of 30,000 kg.
The Sentinel II will use all the powerpack and 8x8 suspension components of Terrex 2. The vehicle will be motorized with a Caterpillar 6-cylinder C9.3 ACERT Diesel engine developing 600 hp. coupled to an automatic transmission Allison 4500 SP wide ration gearbox with 6 forward and 1 reverses gears. The Terrex 2 uses an 8x8 independent suspension double wishbones system to improve ground mobility and ride quality over the roughest terrain. The Terrex 2 is able to run at a maximum speed of 90 km/h with a maximum cruising range of 600 km.
Original post: armyrecognition
LAV(CRV) unveiled
16 Jun 2016
Nigel Pittaway | Anglesea
General Dynamics Land Systems Australia (GDLS-A), Thales Australia and Kongsberg became the second team to unveil their Land 400 Phase 2 offering locally during a presentation on June 7.
The GDLS team presented the LAV(CRV) to media at the Australian Automotive Research Centre (AARC) near Anglesea and it was on display again two days later at Thales Australia’s facility in Bendigo, as part of an industry engagement event.
The LAV(CRV) is a MOTS+ vehicle which uses the MOTS GDLS LAV 6.0 as the reference, but is enhanced with equipment such as the remotely-operated Kongsberg Protector MCT-30 turret, with Bushmaster Mk.44 30mm automatic cannon, Thales’ SOTAS-based open-architecture C4 system and integrated Elbit Torch BMS.
GDLS-A is the prime contractor for the bid and GDLS Canada (GDLS-C) is the chassis OEM. Thales Australia is the principal Australian supplier, responsible for SOTAS integration, mission role kits and final fit out, simulation, ammunition and support and Kongsberg is the weapons systems supplier.
GDLS-C’s international programs manager David Tunney said that the three Risk Mitigation Activity (RMA) vehicles were diverted off the LAV 6.0 production line for the Canadian Army and modified to LAV(CRV) configuration.
The vehicle on display at Anglesea was Vehicle No.2, which arrived in Australia on May 13 and after a period of time at Thales’ Bendigo facility was due to be shipped to GDLS-A’s plant at Pooraka in South Australia this week. Vehicle No.1 has been retained in Canada pending down-select and No.3 has been with Kongsberg in Norway since March, undergoing MCT-30 integration and testing.
Tunney said that a decision on where the vehicles will be built if the GDLS-A team is ultimately successful has not yet been made and will depend on the Commonwealth’s Australian Industry Content (AIC) requirements.
“There will be some work in Bendigo, because that’s where Thales has their armoured vehicle division (and) we have an industrial footprint in South Australia with GDLS-A that we’ll also make use of,” he said.
“To some extent it’s up to the customer how much risk they want to take, in terms of schedule. We are committed to industrial activity in Australia (and) there will be Australian content in these vehicles.”
The team will hold a further industry day in Pooraka on June 22.
This article first appeared in ADM's Defence Week Premium No.401 dated 16th June 2016.
Original post: australiandefence
Analysis by below-the-turret-ring
LAV(CRV)
As far as the other contenders are concerned, first and foremost of there is the LAV (CRV), a version of the Canadian LAV 6.0 upgrade modified to meet the Australian requirements. The LAV 6.0 itself is a modified and upgraded version of the old LAV III infantry fighting and scout vehicle.
The LAV (CRV) has the lowest gross vehicle weight of all contenders, sitting at just 28,600 kg. It is fitted with the unmanned MCT-30 turret from the Norwegian company Kongsberg. It features 8 smoke grenade dischargers (in 4 banks of 2 each), the Mk 44 Bushmaster II gun chambered in the 30 x 173 mm caliber from Aliant Techsystems (ATK), a low-profile version of the CROWS RWS and a laser warning system. An interesting side note is that the MCT-30 turret is fitted with the WAO sight from Airbus Defence, which is also used on the German Puma IFV. The US Army prefered to use a different - supposedly cheaper - sight unit for their Stryker upgrade with the MCT-30 turret. The fully stabilized WAO includes a daylight camera, a thermal imager and an eyesafe laser rangefinder.
The LAV (CRV) is also fitted with a 360° surveillance system consisting of three cameras. One is mounted on a mast above the rear ramp, while the other two are located on the frontal hull section. It uses a double-V hull desgin (like the late generation Stryker ICVs of the US Army) for advanced protection against mines and IEDs. For ballsitic protection the LAV (CRV) is fitted with ceramic composite armor on top of it's steel hull. However the ballistic protection of the LAV (CRV) is not able to keep up with the competition, offering only protection according to STANAG 4569 level 4 (all-round protection against 14.5 mm armor-piercing ammunition from 200 metres distance) on the hull. The turret is even less armored, not able to meet the level 4 requirements. According to General Dynamics the vehicle can be fitted with special deployment kits for increased ballistic protections, but this is expected to negatively affect mobility and payload, thus taking away the plattforms growth potential.
Original post: below-the-turret-ring
Sentinel II
The Sentinel II was also rejected, despite being the second heaviest option after the Boxer CRV. It consisted of a MT30 turret mounted ontop of a Terrex 3, which itself is a Terrex 2 with increased payload. The Terrex 3 chassis from ST Kinetics and the MT30 turret from Elbit Systems have revealed a number of unique and common shortcomings. Most importantly they are completely unproven at the time of the Australian down-selection, but it also suffers from relatively low protection (not being better armored than the five tonnes lighter Patria AMV with 35 mm gun turret). While the hull's armor can be improved by converting the turret into an unmanned configuration (with reduced protection), it still fails to meet the original LAND 400 Phase 2 requirements for protection. The supposedly poor reception of the Kongsberg MCT-30 unmanned turret also might imply a general dislike of unmanned turrets. This would mean that the Sentinel II was restricted to STANAG 4569 level 4 protection at best. The huge physical size of the Sentinel II, a result of it's Terrex-2 ancesty, meant that more surface needs to be armored, hence the gained protection per added is a bit smaller than on some of the other contenders.
The Sentinel II was meant to be an high-end offering, just like the Boxer CRV. The LAV (CRV) and AMV 35 CRV appear to be more budget oriented offerings, lacking some of the more advanced components for a lower price. Australia's choice of the AMV and Boxer seems to combine the better high-end vehicle with the better budget oriented vehicle, so that the changes to the budget still while deliver a good vehicle; if only the two bidders with the more expensive vehicles had been shortlisted, budget cuts could result in the end of the LAND 400 Phase 2 program. This way however, the most capable vehicle options remain open.
Aside of the aforementioned protection, the Sentinel II suffers from a number of minor and major drawbacks compared to the Boxer CRV, which is why it shouldn't be considerred the better high-end offer. The Sentinel II has no RWS options integrated into the vehicle. It also has only a non-dampened launcher for the Spike ATGMs. A non-dampened launcher does not stop the vibrations of the vehicle from being transported onto the missiles. Such vibrations can damage the the internal guidance electronics and thus prevent longer storage of the missiles in the launcher. Instead the missiles can only be loaden before a mission or during a mission.
A further issue might be the Iron Fist LC's launcher configuration. The Iron Fist Light Configuration (LC) active protection system is located ontop of the turret and hence increases overall vehicle height, reducing the ability to travel through tunnels and under bridges. This apparently has been a concern for the LAND 400 program, at least Rheinmetall made sure that the commander's sight could be retracted and the RWS folded down, so that the vehicle height when traveling is barely affected by these components. A bigger drawback of Iron Fist LC is however the amount of ready-to-fire countermeasures and launchers. The system has only two launchers, each having two barrels for countermeasures. This means the APS can engage at most two threats at the same time (a simple solution for insurgents and soldiers would be to overpower the APS by attacking with three RPGs or ATGMs at the same time) and has to be reloaden after four engaged RPGs/ATGMs. While at least some versions of Rheinmetall's ADS can defeat EFPs, Iron Fist LC is incapable of doing so.
Original post: below-the-turret-ring
No comments:
Post a Comment