Dragonstriker

Closest to confirmation we’re likely to get regarding the Elbit MT30 turret. 
 

https://asiapacificdefencereporter.com/selection-of-redback-ifv-confirms-the-importance-of-test-trials/
 
'All of the leaks had a certain consistently to them: namely that the Redback was proving to be exceptionally reliable and robust.  This in turn was probably related to the use of rubber tracks – more accurately steel mesh coated in rubber – which greatly reduced vibration when driving across almost all surfaces.  They also proved to be more durable and easier to repair than conventional steel link tracks used by the Lynx.
 
This has never been confirmed – and probably never will be – but there was also a suggestion that the Redback had an advantage in the critically important blast test requirements.  Both vehicles passed but apparently one of them did so with a greater margin of safety.  Hanwha used Israel’s Plasan – a world leader in armour protection – to develop their solution.
 
This might be a coincidence, but APDR has seen evidence of Redback undergoing preliminary blast testing in Israel with a number of 155mm artillery shells being detonated near a test vehicle, with impressive survivability results.'
 
not precisely the same way, but it seems that Redback did to Lynx, what Boxer did to AMV35.  Demonstrate superiority via an unscripted method,  Boxer driving off after a blast test in Vic,  Redback doing something after a 155mm shell test, overseas.

https://n.news.naver.com/mnews/article/366/0000919875?sid=101 
 
Koreans claiming that some claiming that redback was a bit more expensive but better in the evaluation.
 
More expensive, I doubt,  better in evaluation is high likelihood, if only for the rubber tracks all the way through evaluation.  And the EOS/Elbit goodies

Comments in ADM and The Australian imply that the cost of Lynx was very close to Redback and directly state that Redback was preferred on capabilities.
 
If CASG had any sense, which is an open question, redback would be delivered with mk44S. Minor cost differential now, for Super40 later, if needed.
The reason for selecting 30x173 over 35x228 was ammo capacity; super40 keeps that capacity with improved performance over 30mm if the threat requires it.
It won’t happen, because it would be too sensible, just as specifying Mk30-2/ABM as the cannon armament for L400-3 was too sensible.
Edit: mk44S it is. Good job by those who decided.
 

the better vehicle for Australia won,  but I suspect at the end of the day, it all came do to price, price and price. 
 
somehow I have visions of diggers manually unlinking  NATO 30x173 and relinking them to Rheinmetall 30x173 either at base or on patrol.   Cause thats what the USA came to the party with.

Midjourney. Looks like something out of Warframe.

 
 

It's for real.
Hanwha wins lucrative Army IFV contract - Australian Defence Magazine
The Redback is confirmed with Mk44, Boxer uses MK30-2, so the IFV and the CRV will use incompatible ammunition despite both being 30X173.
Is there a conversion for Mk44 to use rheinmetall links? Or a linkless feeder for MK30-2?

Block 2 turret. 
 
The latest rumour is that the winner for 400-3 will be announced at the Defence + Industry conference on 27 July. Not getting too excited, tbh. 

He was my lecturer for “Firepower & Protection” & has relocated to Australia. Good dude. 

Posted this one long time ago (pics only) somewhere, apparently there was animations made for this concept thingy.
GDI Orca, but more modern, lol
 

 
 

A bit early to say who will get what, imo. The commonwealth looks guilty for “attritional tendering” at this point - there’s apparently another repricing activity. That’s the third one. 

Reports ahead of tomorrow’s public Strategic Defence Review release indicate that L400-3 will be cut to 129 for a single mech battalion. It seems likely that Hanwha will get the contract, to soften the blow of losing the second tranche of huntsman (30 AS9 + 10 AS10).

Depends on a variety of factors. Can be either. Barrel only is faster & more convenient. 

Follow-on to Challenger...with a T-72/90-style carousel and autoloader:
 

Well, earlier in Oct, ROK stated that they’d be willing to give up 24 tanks from their own production line, and could ship these to Norway in 6-8 months, but those would almost certainly have been regular K2s, and not the proposed K2NO variant. Still, a couple of dozen interim/“gap filler” K2s would nonetheless have been an improvement on the current tanks, even if they didn’t meet all of the requirements, so there is that to consider.
 
On the other hand, I personally can’t really see why this would have been a particularly big selling point until the government decided that we should donate some of our Leo 2s to Ukraine (even though we barely have enough to outfit our current tank squadrons…), but that decision was also made after FMA had already delivered their recommendation, so who knows...
 
 
Not attack helos. Just new transport helos (Bell 412 replacement) for the Army and SOF, as well as new naval helos (NH90 NFH replacement) for the Navy and Coastguard. He also wants long range rocket artillery, and more air defence systems. In other words, sensible stuff, which should be funded, but so should the new tanks IMO.

Boxer with the same LANCE 2.0* turret as fitted to the Hungarian KF41 Lynx variant. Boxer CRV block II?

NII Stali, test chamber for ERA

 
 

you could host a midnight drive in movie with all that projection

OK, with this you can seriously fuck off. Your beloved fuckers murdered millions of innocent people and I'm sure I'm not the only one on this forum whose ancestors fought the Nazi scum and eventually died on the battlefield. 
 
Go fuck yourself. 

This. This right here is an absolute choice bit of consequential apologism. It doesn't occur to you at all that Panther might have been a dysfunctional product of a dysfunctional system. If it does occur to you, your brain runs interference and blocks you from allowing yourself to even imagine such a thing could be true. Hitler has cucked your brain. Your raising his little aryan kiddies in your head! Only question is: why?

A little summary of what went down.
Both systems met the basic requirements of protection and performance required of the program. We don't know the specific scores of both systems so it's unknown which categories each system won. The Patria AMV was a much better value than the MAV which was one of the main reasons why it was picked. As for performance, the AMV's mine protection is one of the biggest factors as well. The MAV and Type 16 both have V hull add on plates, but are not purpose built so the AMV is much better in that category. Now to the specifics. On top of the AMV being a better value, another suspected reason why it was picked was to have other companies producing vehicles. MHI is already committed to producing the Hawkei under license, the Type 89 replacement and possibly the CTWV program. Alongside that, the JSDF has been rapidly arming in the last few years and the AMV would be much quicker to production which seems to be the trend the MoD wants. The AMV contract will likely be given to another company to relieve MHI production lines and maintain other companies production lines. While not specifically a requirement, the amphibious capability of the AMV is also another thing that was alluring for the AMV. While the MAV would've been really convenient for a vehicle family, it's not all bad news for the AMV. The AMV replaces the Type 96 and the Type 82 CCV 6x6, so it reduces those systems into a single 8x8 platform which is still an improvement.
 
Contrary to what I've been seeing posted a lot, the AMV is not part of the CTWV program which is the armed ICV, RCV, and mortar system posted above. The AMV is just a new WAPC for the entirety of the JGSDF which means that Type 16 commonality isn't as important. The CTWV is only for the RDR and Recon units already using Type 16s which makes the family more valuable. So far there is no plans for any competition for that program as the platform commonality is seemingly so important there that competition wont be considered. However there was a request for companies to sign up for unmanned turret research.
There is no guarantee that this is specifically for the AMV, but there is a distinct possibility. A competition could potentially happen for the CTWV, but it's unlikely. I more see it that the JGSDF wants to have organic IFV capability inside of normal units operating the AMV and will act as an army wide IFV rather than the recon/RDR specific CTWV.
 
The AMV is a good platform, but hopefully Japan gets favorable production rights such as modification and exporting. I know with some past AMV sales, the modifications countries would make would be considered Patria intellectual property. I trust that Japan made the right choice on this one.

Labor being Labor. As simple as that. 
 
The defence strategic review may green light a small buy of IFV to save face, but I’m not hopeful. 

“Now, our defence assets need to not be about fighting a land war defending western Queensland because that is highly unlikely, but a lot of our assets are not really the ones that we necessarily need for this century and for the times — and also their location as well.”
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/we-need-to-be-prepared-to-invest-albanese-highlights-need-for-subs-not-tanks-20221214-p5c6ah.html
 
translation, f$$k modern IFVs, we using 60 year M113 for another 60 years.
 

Unfortunately no. I would be surprised if it is armored, as it is installed on top of the existing armor. It appears to be quite thick though. Ideally it would abe made of something other than steel/metal (something with low thermal conductivity).
 

The Centauro and Type 16 MCV are lower profile wheeled gun carriers.
Even then there are practical limits, but both look substantially less godawful than this.