Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
2805662

Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

Recommended Posts

On 12/20/2018 at 10:49 PM, Serge said:

Yes, but the Griffin II is a low profil chassis. It’s very different. 

 

That’s my point. GD is offering AJAX-based variants only. They have been stressing the proven, low risk nature of their family of vehicles from the outset. Griffin (any variant) haven’t been accepted into service by any country and haven’t been subjected to a customer’s engineering & qualification processes like the AJAX families. Apart from being from the same OEM, it has no standing within the context of Land 400 Phase 3, as far as I can see. What “impact” are you suggesting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think because both Griffin-Il and III are an evolution of the Ajax, the proposition for Land-400 can gain from them. 

They can integrate some details, but GDLS-A can propose a low profile of the Ajax chassis for long term need. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Yep. The superstructure is rarely ever meaningful when talking about cost and ease of production, let alone risk.

 

For a rational customer, I’d agree. 

 

However, the strength of GD’s potential offering is that, with the exception of the IFV hull (arguably the simplest of the family), they are offering a fully mature, technically certified & qualified family of vehicles, as accepted by the British, from whom the majority of standards & procedures used by the Land Engineering Agency (LEA) are derived from (Def Stans & DEF(AUST)s). Deviation from already-qualified vehicles undermines this narrative, which is “Low Technical Risk/Military Off The Shelf”. 

 

Let’s look at some decisions that GD have made so far regarding production. 

- hulls will be manufactured as ‘green’ hulls in existing facilities (so as not to risk perceived technical maturity). 

- hulls won’t use Australian steel (so as not to risk perceived technical maturity). 

 

Based on the above, and that nowhere in the L400 RFT is a requirement for calibres above 30mm, Griffin 1-3, whilst interesting, and illustrative of design capabilities and future options, aren’t really relevant to the L400-3 activity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from IAV 2019 -
what appears to be the same model as one which was shown back in September, but this time it's yellow-ish desert-ish instead of tri-colour camo
Dxgxh0mWsAAdiJ6.jpg:large)
(from this tweet https://twitter.com/gduknews/status/1087673769571831808)

Dxhh1HbXQAAiOvn.jpg:large
(from this tweet https://twitter.com/nicholadrummond/status/1087726889618288640)

and from this article https://defense-update.com/20190121_iron-fists-aps-for-the-australian-boxers.html 

Quote

AJAX_Land400-3_725.jpg
IF-LC is also included in the AJAX based tracked vehicle General Dynamics Land Systems UK (GDLS-UK) propose to the Australian Land 400 Phase 3, intended to replace the M113s in the future. A model of that vehicle was also unveiled by GDLS at the #IAVevent. Photo: Defense-Update
Ajax_land400_3_1_725.jpg
The AJAX proposed for Land 400 Phase III uses a manned GDLS turret that mounts an ATK 30mm cannon and a missile launcher. In addition to the two IF-LC active protection units the turret also uses dual, multi-sensor EO targeting system (note the protected, rotating commander sight) and the acoustic sensor behind it. Photo: Defense-Update

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

So, the Aussies want an evaluation of only the Iron Fist LC for the Boxer, because it's the only one meeting weight requirements.

This means the Phase 3 vehicle will have to use it as well.

No necessarily. Not even the 30mm gun has to be common across the phases. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

So the whole commonality thing is now gone? 

 

 

Apart from GFE, there’s no commonality requirement across the phases of L400. CASG wasn’t reigned in enough before RFT release, IMO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2019 at 9:39 AM, skylancer-3441 said:

what appears to be the same model as one which was shown back in September, but this time it's yellow-ish desert-ish instead of tri-colour camo

 

It is. The model shipped to Australia in September painted green, I helped out a mate by repainting it the day before the tradeshow (Land Forces) into the camouflage, after DVD in the UK, the model was repainted into the desert scheme and will (likely) appear at IDEX this week in Abu Dhabi. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • By Serge
      The Armored Combat Vehicle Puma started as a privat-venture betwen Krauss-Maffei and Diehl in 1983. The two first prototypes were ready first in spring 1986 with a Kuka 20mm two men turret and second in autumn with a Diehl 120mm mortar turret. 
      ACV-Puma was intented as an export armored vehicle of the 16-28 t class. 
       

       
      By 1983 original concept, it was offered with two engine options (400/600hp) to cope with the level of armor protection asked.
      The running gear was a mixt of both Leopard-1 and 2 components :
      - Leo-1 : road wheels, track support rollers, torsion bars and even the driver's seat ;
      - Leo-2 : track adjuster, cooling system components and sproket hub.
      It was possible to run the engine outside of its compartment. 
       
      In 1988, the concept was improved further :
      - the class range reached 38t ;
      - the engines offer was 440 or 750hp strong ;
      - the chassis was now available in two length (5/6 road wheels) and  hight/low profil hull (20cm).

      The ACV-Puma was a contender at the Norwegian IFV programme from 1991 and the Turkish 1987 relaunched TIFV programme.
      Norway chose CV-90 and Turkey, the AIFV.
      (If anyone have information about how it was a serious contender, I'm interested)
      It was also evaluated by the Swiss army in 1991. I don't know if it took part to the Char de grenadiers 2000 programme. 
       

      In 1983´s concept, the difference betwen the low profil hull and the 20cm higher hight profil hull was obtained by a "box shape vertical raised" rear compartment. With the 1988's design, the front slop is now different to achieve a better ballistic protection. 
       
      When considering documentations of this period, it's important to note the mine/IED protection was not a priority like today. 
       
      I'll post soon a scan showing general layout of the troop compartment. It's a Marder/BMP old fashion one with soldiers facing outside. 
       
      Even if it was not a success at exportation, I think ACV-Puma must be known because of both :
      - the outdated combat beliefs of the 80's (still vigourous today) ;
      - and advanced proposal  such as the differential hull length from the drawing board. 
       
      I have a question :
      Does anyone known if a 6 road wheels chassis was ever built ?
    • By delfosisyu
      I can't read russian or ukraine language so the range of information is very limited for russian AFVs.
       
       
      I'd like to have information about how fast turrets of soviet IFVs rotate.
       
       
      Especially BMP2, BMP3, BTR-82
    • By Belesarius
      http://www.janes.com/article/53057/boxer-the-favourite-for-lithuanian-ifv-buy
       
      30mm Cannon and Javelins for armament.
      Is that the first vehicle mounting the Jav?
       
    • By Belesarius
      http://www.janes.com/article/52476/german-army-receives-first-production-standard-puma-aifv
       
      30mm with airburst capability, and supposedly better mine protection than a Leo 2.
       
×
×
  • Create New...