Serge Posted August 28, 2018 Report Share Posted August 28, 2018 13 hours ago, 2805662 said: And, it’s arrived: These colors are tasteless. It’s a faux pas which call for direct elimination. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted August 28, 2018 Report Share Posted August 28, 2018 2 hours ago, Serge said: These colors are tasteless. It’s a faux pas which call for direct elimination. Explanation please? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted August 29, 2018 Author Report Share Posted August 29, 2018 Lynx IFV is launched. No sign of Puma. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted August 29, 2018 Author Report Share Posted August 29, 2018 Third competitor: AS-21 Redback by Hanwha. Serge 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kal Posted August 29, 2018 Report Share Posted August 29, 2018 That looks a lot wider than standard kf21. Is that nera/era/ floaties on the sides? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted August 29, 2018 Report Share Posted August 29, 2018 Took me a while to figure out this is not some new, unrevealed member of the Lynx KF-X1 series by a modification to the K-21, in which Hanwha, for some reason, decided to put an 'F' in a strategic position. That's a bold strategy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted August 29, 2018 Author Report Share Posted August 29, 2018 “AS” has been a notional designator for Australian-unique equipment for some time e.g. Leopard AS1 (tropicalised Leopard 1A3 w/SABCA LRF/FCS) and M113AS4 (FFG-derived extension of M113A1, w/MTU powerpack, ZF transmission, local turret). From Korea, the K-9 was pitched as the AS9 (no chance of being confused with the AS90...), back in the day. So, AS21. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serge Posted August 29, 2018 Report Share Posted August 29, 2018 11 hours ago, 2805662 said: Third competitor: AS-21 Redback Turkish touche ? With Trophy ? Good Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
123 Posted August 29, 2018 Report Share Posted August 29, 2018 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serge Posted August 29, 2018 Report Share Posted August 29, 2018 PL-01´s got very good shape. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted August 29, 2018 Report Share Posted August 29, 2018 54 minutes ago, Serge said: PL-1´s got very good shape. Yeah, if you like Potatoes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serge Posted August 29, 2018 Report Share Posted August 29, 2018 That’s the goal. This kind of shape is the best to suppress shadows. The PL01 is a low observability design demonstrator. It’s so natural it can’t catch your eyes compared to the KV41 wich is more basic. I hope CV90 MkV will have such a stealth design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted August 29, 2018 Report Share Posted August 29, 2018 41 minutes ago, Serge said: That’s the goal. This kind of shape is the best to suppress shadows. The PL01 is a low observability design demonstrator. It’s so natural it can’t catch your eyes compared to the KV41 wich is more basic. I hope CV90 MkV will have such a stealth design. You see, Ivan. A sharp edged design is not of natural. But potato is of most natural shape. But, Ivan, potato is not of practical design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serge Posted August 29, 2018 Report Share Posted August 29, 2018 You’re a master killer in AFV design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted August 29, 2018 Author Report Share Posted August 29, 2018 “Scepticism about the utility of armoured fighting vehicles (AFVs), and particularly what have been called ‘tanks’, in the Australian armed forces has a long pedigree, even among military personnel. The government, Defence and the ADF are only now starting to move away from the kind of advice that this represents.” https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/knights-in-shining-armour-afvs-in-the-australian-army/ A rebuttal of the argument put forward & discussed here: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kal Posted August 29, 2018 Report Share Posted August 29, 2018 Reminds me of a boat, amphibious capacity. Even if they 'lose' the bulk of land 400 phase 3, they might still get to place 50-100 units. Its a serious contender. Can it swim 12nm? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted August 29, 2018 Author Report Share Posted August 29, 2018 24 minutes ago, Kal said: Reminds me of a boat, amphibious capacity. Even if they 'lose' the bulk of land 400 phase 3, they might still get to place 50-100 units. Its a serious contender. Can it swim 12nm? In Sea State 3, crew of two, eight passengers, and have the same or better mobility than a Bushmaster. The Protected Amphibious Vehicle RFI of L400-3 is very different to the rest, and basically mandates a wheeled solution. Think ACV 1.1, rather than AAV-SU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted August 29, 2018 Report Share Posted August 29, 2018 28 minutes ago, 2805662 said: In Sea State 3, crew of two, eight passengers, and have the same or better mobility than a Bushmaster. The Protected Amphibious Vehicle RFI of L400-3 is very different to the rest, and basically mandates a wheeled solution. Think ACV 1.1, rather than AAV-SU. Mandates a wheeled solution, because you made a calculated guess, or because it's written somewhere? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted August 29, 2018 Author Report Share Posted August 29, 2018 32 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said: Mandates a wheeled solution, because you made a calculated guess, or because it's written somewhere? The RFI states “The PAV needs to have firepower, protection, mobility, communication and capacity performance levels equivalent to, or greater than the Bushmaster PMV.” The Bushmaster PMV a 100km/h vehicle. “Protected Mobility role. The baseline mobility platform with a crew of two and not less than 8 passengers;” ”Self-sustaining for 72 hours. (Too many words to quote)” The aggregate of a swimming truck, carrying 10 people, that has equal (or better) mobility, protection, & firepower is wheeled. But yes, it’s not mandated. I should’ve said “strongly suggests”... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted August 30, 2018 Report Share Posted August 30, 2018 10 hours ago, 2805662 said: The RFI states “The PAV needs to have firepower, protection, mobility, communication and capacity performance levels equivalent to, or greater than the Bushmaster PMV.” The Bushmaster PMV a 100km/h vehicle. “Protected Mobility role. The baseline mobility platform with a crew of two and not less than 8 passengers;” ”Self-sustaining for 72 hours. (Too many words to quote)” The aggregate of a swimming truck, carrying 10 people, that has equal (or better) mobility, protection, & firepower is wheeled. But yes, it’s not mandated. I should’ve said “strongly suggests”... Indeed suggests, but "equal or greater mobility" is a very subjective thing to say. None will really be driving this thing at 100km/h, unless they're also buying flex tape with that. Many often see wheeled vehicles as having limited mobility compared with tracked vehicles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted August 30, 2018 Author Report Share Posted August 30, 2018 I need to dive back into other parts of the tender (not really interested in the PAV), to confirm some things.....that said, there’s “Australian context” that goes back to the Defence White Paper of 1987. In that context, “mobility” in a tactical vehicle is understood (rightly or wrongly) to mean drive long distances, self-deploying at speed. This was used at the time to justify the purchase of 18 USMC LAV-25s and a variants for the then divisional reconnaissance regiment as they were seen as more “mobile” than the in-service M113 LRV & MRV. It was very controversial at the time, as the RAAC (armoured guys) had considerable experience in jungle operations thanks to Vietnam, and had a totally different understanding of “mobility” that was seen as not relevant for the “Continental Defence/Defence Of Australia” model that had widely geographically dispersed operations at its heart. I’ve been overtaken by ASLAV & PMV when they’re in convoy at ~100km/h, both on the Northern Territory & Victoria (near Pucka). They are driven at those speeds on public roads. See the notes of the bottom bottom of this page for more: https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C1128725 tl;dr: the subtext is “wheeled swimming vehicle = equivalent land mobility to Bushmaster PAV”. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Moyes Posted August 30, 2018 Report Share Posted August 30, 2018 Apollo - Repair Spoiler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SH_MM Posted August 30, 2018 Report Share Posted August 30, 2018 I guess this means the Ajax IFV variant is not ready yet... Xlucine 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted August 30, 2018 Author Report Share Posted August 30, 2018 7 hours ago, SH_MM said: I guess this means the Ajax IFV variant is not ready yet... I guess so. But they still have six months or so. This isn’t Phase 2. Interestingly, it looks like Iron Vision has made an impact on requirements: ”1212: The Vehicle shall allow the seated and restrained Crew using Augmented Vision, to collectively maintain 360 degree visibility, during Night an Day operations and in all Weather Conditions.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted August 30, 2018 Report Share Posted August 30, 2018 25 minutes ago, 2805662 said: I guess so. But they still have six months or so. This isn’t Phase 2. Interestingly, it looks like Iron Vision has made an impact on requirements: ”1212: The Vehicle shall allow the seated and restrained Crew using Augmented Vision, to collectively maintain 360 degree visibility, during Night an Day operations and in all Weather Conditions.” Frick yeah! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.