Ratel replacement projects

[Herman]

Sealord, concerning your post number 29 (I think) of 6-1-1010, if you look closely at the photos of the various "Pirhana" vehicles, you will notice that they are not fitted with suspensions at all. The wheels are simply bolted by 2 bolts each to backing plates welded to upright struts (round or square) supporting the body. Although the mock-ups seem to be quite detailed internally, no drive-line components have been fitted, as far as I can see.

 

[Herman]

Herman replying to post #52

Looks like fan fiction.

Indeed fan fiction. That is technically an almost impossible lay-out. The normal Ratel solid axles would have to be replaced by independant units, for instance Oskosh TAK4 axles, to start off with. The transfer case would probably have to be situated at the back, similar to the situation in the VAB, but then reversed, or in the US Dragoon 300 armoured car. The engine in the drawing, judging from the position of the radiator, sits in the same postion as the turret! It would be possible to put the engine in its original position at the back but that would only leave the small door next to the engine for the infantry section. Alternatively, and probably the best solution, would be to move the driver to one side and fit the engine next to him, as is the situation in the LAV, Patria vehicle, etc. The modifications would have to be so extensive that it would be simpler and probably no more expensive to build a completely new vehicle.

 

[Herman]

Both the RG 35 and the RG 41 are being marketed as MRAP vehicles which are regarded as a step below wheeled ICV's such as the LAV, Patria and German/Dutch Boxer vehicles, for instance. The RG 41 is very interesting however. In fact, it is substantially more capable than the RG35. Although similar in size to the RG35 it is considerably more sophistaicated drive-line wise. The RG35 is comparable to the Ratel with its 6 truck-like solid axles whereas the suspension lay-out of the RG 41 approaches that of the wheeled ICV's. The RG41 will probably be equal or superior to the ICV's, with the possible exception of the Boxer, as far as mine and IED rpotection is concerned. With add-on armour made possible by its great payload, it will certainly approach the protection levels of the more sophisticated vehicles.

My personal opinion is that South Africa does not need a highly sophisticated and ludicrously expensive vehicle such as the Patria. They would be served entirely adequately by refurbished and/or modified Ratels, possibly with an additional buy of RG41s.

My apologies for opening this thread this late again but I only recently happened upon this excellent forum.

 

[kaiserbill]

My apologies for opening this thread this late again but I only recently happened upon this excellent forum.

No apologies needed at all Herman, welcome aboard!

There are a couple of other threads regarding SA vehicles, such as this one below. The South African weapons industry came up with some interesting products and concepts, so any light shed on this relatively unknown and still secretive sector is most welcome.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,9088.0.html

 

[JFC Fuller]

Both the RG 35 and the RG 41 are being marketed as MRAP vehicles which are regarded as a step below wheeled ICV's such as the LAV, Patria and German/Dutch Boxer vehicles, for instance. The RG 41 is very interesting however. In fact, it is substantially more capable than the RG35. Although similar in size to the RG35 it is considerably more sophistaicated drive-line wise. The RG35 is comparable to the Ratel with its 6 truck-like solid axles whereas the suspension lay-out of the RG 41 approaches that of the wheeled ICV's. The RG41 will probably be equal or superior to the ICV's, with the possible exception of the Boxer, as far as mine and IED rpotection is concerned. With add-on armour made possible by its great payload, it will certainly approach the protection levels of the more sophisticated vehicles.

My personal opinion is that South Africa does not need a highly sophisticated and ludicrously expensive vehicle such as the Patria. They would be served entirely adequately by refurbished and/or modified Ratels, possibly with an additional buy of RG41s.

My apologies for opening this thread this late again but I only recently happened upon this excellent forum.

RG41/35 will be filling the pages of this forum in the years to come, neither has much market potential. BAE is attempting to compete them against the traditional wheeled ICV's though they have only entered a variant in one competition to date. A recce version (4x4) is being offered for the Canadian TAP-V programme. RG-35 is basically an Iklawa on steroids with some fine tuning. However, neither of these vehicles was intended for use by South Africa, they were both intended for export.

The idea seems to have been that the RG35 would be offered to the lower end of the market and the RG41 to the middle tier. My understanding is that it was hoped that the Alligator/SEP (Hagglunds) would be the top tier offering- that fell through with recent events in Sweden, Alligator/SEP is now worthy of a thread on this forum.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

My personal opinion is that South Africa does not need a highly sophisticated and ludicrously expensive vehicle such as the Patria. They would be served entirely adequately by refurbished and/or modified Ratels, possibly with an additional buy of RG41s.

But where’s the opportunity for graft and international travel on the account of the republic in that?

RG41/35 will be filling the pages of this forum in the years to come, neither has much market potential. BAE is attempting to compete them against the traditional wheeled ICV's though they have only entered a variant in one competition to date. A recce version (4x4) is being offered for the Canadian TAP-V programme.

Not quite. BAE are offering the RG 41 for the combat support element of the Australian LAND 400 program for over 1,000 vehicles to replace Bushmasters and M113AS4s. In which case it’s quite a savvy competitor against far more expensive Piranha Vs, AMVs and the like in a tier below the IFV.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Not quite. BAE are offering the RG 41 for the combat support element of the Australian LAND 400 program for over 1,000 vehicles to replace Bushmasters and M113AS4s. In which case it’s quite a savvy competitor against far more expensive Piranha Vs, AMVs and the like in a tier below the IFV.

Has that programme actually formerly started, is there an RfP out?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Has that programme actually formerly started, is there an RfP out?

It started years ago and there have been two tender quality RFIs.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Has that programme actually formerly started, is there an RfP out?

It started years ago and there have been two tender quality RFIs.

So no RfP then, meaning nothing has formerly been offered.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Has that programme actually formerly started, is there an RfP out?

It started years ago and there have been two tender quality RFIs.

So no RfP then, meaning nothing has formerly been offered.

Clearly you don't understand what the words 'tender quality RFI' means.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Clearly you don't understand what the words 'tender quality RFI' means.

It does not mean that anyone has been asked to formerly tender a product or a package, it means they have been asked for information.

The First Pass Business case will not even be considered until 2012.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

It does not mean that anyone has been asked to formerly tender a product or a package, it means they have been asked for information.

No it doesn’t. An RFI is a formal offer and a contract can be cut from it. Also it can be used to inform later RFPs and/or RFTs. But it is a common pre contract approach just like RFP or RFTs. It certainly isn’t a send me your latest brochure moment.

Which is why BAE made a big thing out of announcing tey had provided info on the RG41 (and CV90) in response to the latest LAND 400 RFI.

The First Pass Business case will not even be considered until 2012.

Sure but the Government has already approved the purchasing of stuff arising out of LAND 400 RFIs.

 

[JFC Fuller]

It does not mean that anyone has been asked to formerly tender a product or a package, it means they have been asked for information.

No it doesn’t. An RFI is a formal offer and a contract can be cut from it. Also it can be used to inform later RFPs and/or RFTs. But it is a common pre contract approach just like RFP or RFTs. It certainly isn’t a send me your latest brochure moment.

Which is why BAE made a big thing out of announcing tey had provided info on the RG41 (and CV90) in response to the latest LAND 400 RFI.

The First Pass Business case will not even be considered until 2012.

Sure but the Government has already approved the purchasing of stuff arising out of LAND 400 RFIs.

Absolutely, but whilst it is highly probable, there is no guarantee that BAE will offer the RG41 when the RfP takes place. There is also no guarantee that the programme will proceed- though it almost certainly will. However, cutting a contract out of an RfI will require significant negotiation- obviously depending on the exact nature of the information requested in the RfI. Reportedly, the last Land 400 RfI gave no indication of either operational context or quantities, and was focussed on pricing. Turning a response to that into a contract would probably require an actual proposal.

The BAE press release contained this curious phrase:

Mr Scott said BAE Systems recently responded to an Australian Government invitation to register interest in Land 400 by providing details of more than 10 vehicles that could potentially fulfil the multiple roles required by the ADF.

Given the timing I would imagine they through in the RG-41, RG-35, Armadillo, Alligator 6x6, Alligator 8x8, SEP 6x6, SEP 8x8, outside possibilities include the Bradley and Caiman MTV- also plausible is the Iveco SUPERAV for which BAE has a licensing agreement in order to offer the vehicle for the USMC MPC programme.

However, Alligator and SEP are now reported to be dead

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Absolutely, but whilst it is highly probable, there is no guarantee that BAE will offer the RG41 when the RfP takes place. There is also no guarantee that the programme will proceed- though it almost certainly will.

You just don’t get it. BAES has already offered the RG41 to Australia via the RFI. They may be another RFI, an RFP or more likely a RFT but that does not invalidate their current RFI offer (though it might have a expiration date). As to the 10 types of vehicles LAND 400 covers a lot more than just IFVs and APCs.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Absolutely, but whilst it is highly probable, there is no guarantee that BAE will offer the RG41 when the RfP takes place. There is also no guarantee that the programme will proceed- though it almost certainly will.

You just don’t get it. BAES has already offered the RG41 to Australia via the RFI. They may be another RFI, an RFP or more likely a RFT but that does not invalidate their current RFI offer (though it might have a expiration date). As to the 10 types of vehicles LAND 400 covers a lot more than just IFVs and APCs.

No, you dont get it, they have provided information about the RG41, they have not tendered it, submitted a proposal or provided a qoute. The information provided could be used as part of a contract, or BAE could submit a formal, un-solicited proposal, but until such a time as they do they have not offered anything. They have registered their interest and provided information, but nothing more; they have not formerly offered any product or service other than the information provided in their response to the RfI.

The information provided will be time limited, obviously, prices change and products change.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

No, you dont get it, they have provided information about the RG41, they have not tendered it. The informtion provided could be used as part of a contract, or BAE could submit a formal, un-solicited proposal, but until such a time as they do they have not offered anything. They have registered their interest and provided information, but nothing more.

Have you read the RFI? Participated in a response to it? Talked to the people involved in preparing the RFI. Worked on this project for the past five years? Nope. Do you have any professional understanding of commercial contracting practise? Very unlikely.

But let’s lay this stupid back and forth to bed. The current (and previous) LAND 400 RFI requires respondents to provide tender quality data (costings, scheduling, etc) and commit to that data as the basis for potential contacting if the CoA wishes to pursue it. The only difference between a RFI and an RFP or RFT is the kind of specification provided by the customer for what they are looking for. Either can lead to contracting and is treated as such by any serious respondent.

Things that you talk about like registers of interest and basic information provision are entirely different. Your loose grip on commercial terminology is just plain embarrassing. I won’t bother responding anymore and cluttering up this otherwise valuable thread.

 

[JFC Fuller]

You are wrong,

A response to an RfI is not a formal offer, it is the provision of information and a commitment to the accuracy of that information for a period of time- it is not the offering of a product or service. Of course it can lead to contracting, but in itself the response does not constitute an actual offer.

 

[Jemiba]

Back to the topic, please and calm down ! About the last eight posts didn't relate to
the original topic and the tone has become a little bit harsh ! Phrases like "stubborn fool"
could be used at the bar (NOT here in "the Bar", please !) after some beers, but not in this
forum, even it is meant just as collegial taunting. The Forum Rules are still valid !

 

[sa_bushwar]

This looks like a Rooikat derivitive IFV with a Rooikat suspension back to front?!

 

[kaiserbill]

I'm still interested in that hull I posted in reply 49 on pg 4. It is an 8X8 vehicle that I thought might be related to your picture above, sa-bushwar.
However, on closer inspection, it is not though.
The hull lines are very different, particularly the top hull being stepped to the rear.

 

[Grey Havoc]

However, Alligator and SEP are now reported to be dead

SEP isn't quite dead. It's currently the subject of legal action which has put the Swedish government in somewhat of a pickle, last I heard.

 

[sa_bushwar]

I'm still interested in that hull I posted in reply 49 on pg 4. It is an 8X8 vehicle that I thought might be related to your picture above, sa-bushwar.
However, on closer inspection, it is not though.
The hull lines are very different, particularly the top hull being stepped to the rear.

It does not appear to be the same as reply on post 49. Unfortunately I can't help with that one - to me it looks like one of the Hoefyster contenders. 3 examples can be seen at 1 SAI in Bloemfontein.

 

[JFC Fuller]

SEP isn't quite dead. It's currently the subject of legal action which has put the Swedish government in somewhat of a pickle, last I heard.

Yes it is, the legal action was a protest by BAE following the selection of the Patria AMV, that protest was upheld and the contest was re-run, this time BAE submitted the Alligator (Mechanical drive) rather than the SEP (Hybrid), the AMV won again, there was a brief threat of further legal action from GDELS but this came to naught. FMV is now well in to the process of acquiring the AMV's (major swedish work share including indigenously sourced armour via a company now owned by IBD) and BAE is consolidating its Swedish operations which has reportedly involved firing everyone involved in the wheeled vehicles business at what used to be Hagglunds. Alligator (in 6x6 form) was supposedly offered for the Canadian TAPV programme but nothing has been heard of it since the loss of the Swedish deal whilst the RG-35RPU now has the limelight for that one. The RG41 was paired with the CV90 Armadillo (basically a CV90 without the turret) as a suggestion/discussion point (at the 2010 Australian Land Warfare conference) for Land 400 in Australia, simultaneously BAE has teamed with Iveco to offer the SUPERAV for the USMC MPC programme despite the SEP (called Thor at the time) having previously (2007?) been tested in the US for that requirement- note the lack of SEP or Alligator or Thor from mid-2010 onwards.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Thought the legal action had been resurrected after that. So the SEP is RIP after all. Pity.

While we are still on the subject, does anyone know why BAE went with the Alligator when they got another crack at the cherry, rather than a revised SEP? Given that Hybrid designs are currently in vogue.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Hybrid designs are in vogue? They have actually been near universally rejected and the only place they are now in play is GCV for the US Army.

I must be behind the times there, it seems.

 

[sa_bushwar]

Here is another picture...

On page 3, post 43, the Iklwa was shown armed with a multi-weapon turret, or a remote 12,7mm weapon station. This is a development of the basic Ratel with a new hull top that can accept multiple turret configurations, and has a more compact, powerful engine moved to the centre-side of the vehicle, a ramp at the back, additional armour, and bigger wheels amongst other improvements. Below is the version with a Ratel 20 turret.

 

[kaiserbill]

One wonders whether some Ratels will be put through the Iklwa process, seeing as only 260 odd Patria Badgers are to be built?

 

[sa_bushwar]

Here is a 90mm MkIV, not sure how they fit the engine and turret so close to each other!

The Ratel MkIV. A revamped Ratel which, like the rival iKlwa project has taken advantage of the advances made in automotive technology over the last 30 years. The original Ratel had 2 side doors, as well as a rear door at the end of the corridoor alongside the engine. The smaller, compact, but more powerful engines available now 30 years on have enabled the designers to place the engine centrally on the left hand side, and increased the door size to the rear. There still remains the one original side door in use.

A picture first of the original Ratel setup, followed by the MkIV as displayed.

 

[kaiserbill]

The original Ratel is almost 40 years old.

I was reading somewhere that the placement of the engine from the rear to the middle-side was made possible by the fact that in those intervening 40 years, diesel engines are now very much smaller for a given power.

Both the Iklwa and Ratel MkIV make use of this.

The Iklwa has a Cummins engine rated at 450hp, I've been trying to find out more info on the Ratel MkIV, but to no avail...

 

[Graugrun]

Kaiserbill you are correct in terms of diesel engine improvements - in fact much smaller with even more power over that it replaced, BTW it was a Cummins ISL Turbo charged interlocked engine placed in iKlwa, rated at 336kW (373 kW combat rating also available).

Here is a page from a bound type of book given out at DEXSA '96 - this looks like it was the start of the Ratel replacement program (Pierre told me that it was also known as the Ratel "Lobo" program). Unfortunately there wasn't any further explanation in terms of the numbered points on the diagram...

 

[kaiserbill]

Thanks Graugrun.

I wonder if this is the Ratel that was displayed with the 35mm turret in DEXSA in the 1990's, as can be seen in the first pic below, although the turrets look different.

And this strangely ties in neatly with SA Bushwars post in the other thread too, about that Ratel with the modification at the rear.
Whilst having a look around my computer, I found the same vehicle that SA Bushwar posted, but also with a frontal pic with the word "LOBO" spraypainted on it.

I recall a while back looking at a pdf about active suspension testing at Gerotek on the Ratel and the G-6 SP gun.
I'm not sure if I'm recalling correctly, but the word "LOBO" seems to ring a bell.

I'll see if I saved it...

Lastly, a normal Ratel pic taken from behind showing some detail.

 

[Graugrun]

Not an easy to find brochure - the iKwla, note the additional spaced armour and the whole range of envisaged variants - this should go a long way to answering most of the spec and technical questions around it.

 

[Herman]

Reply to post #112
I agree. GOK how they got both the new engine and the two-man turret next to one another in the centre of the vehicle. The turret is probably off-set to the right, but still.....

 

[Graugrun]

The Iklwa has a Cummins engine rated at 450hp, I've been trying to find out more info on the Ratel MkIV, but to no avail...

Then I think this article should answer a lot for you on the Ratel Mk IV (and the iKwla) - IDR Nov 2006.

 

[kaiserbill]

Thanks for that Graugrun.

Interesting to see the Iklwa was propsed in 105mm howitzer and quad Umkhonto SAM variants.
It would be interesting to see drawings of these.

More interesting however, is the comment that a Ratel MkIV with a new turret and high pressure 90mm gun was being worked on and was to be tested shortly, at the time.
That would be interesting to see more about.

 

[sa_bushwar]

For comparison...

 

[Graugrun]

I originally posted this in the SA armour thread - it should go here though... (Janes IDR Nov 2002).

 

[Graugrun]

Another IDR article (June 2006) on the Ratel Mk IV - did Mechanology only develop it after they had moved into Jordan (and teamed up with the KADDB)?

 

[Graugrun]

Kaiserbill's post #47 covers pretty much all the specs and info from this brochure - however here it is in full colour and with an extra pic or two...

 

[kaiserbill]

Excellent brochure and pics, Graugrun.

I've always had a few questions about this vehicle.

Do we know from what timeframe this vehicle stems?
I assume, if related to the AC200, that it stems from the mid 80's?

Sandock Austral also produced the Ratel, so was this an unsolicited design to replace it, or part of a wider tender/requirement?
For example, also in the early/mid 80's, we see that Rooikat based 8x8 ICV that resides at the Armour museum that is described as a "weapons platform", yet which has the infantry hatches above the rear troop compartment.

I wonder if the 76mm illustrated was a development of the Rooikats weapon, or merely what the Rooikats weapon looked like at that stage.

Lastly, I've always found it strange that an amphibious vehicle was looked, bearing in mind the majority of the terrain in Southern Africa.