Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
2805662

Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

Recommended Posts

Just waiting for the inevitable conflation of UK AJAX variants (Apollo etc.) with the Australian offerings (AJAX Fitters etc.). Was interesting to hear the rationale being that GD didn’t want to dilute or confuse the AJAX brand. 

 

Apparently the GD turret has yet to be released in the public domain & differs from what has been illustrated to date. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/26/2019 at 8:40 AM, 2805662 said:

the GD turret

Very keen to see this.  Prior GD turrets (LAV25) were cheap and cheerful basic bits of gear.  Well out of date in all respects.  GD has had a hiatus and I am sure that the new turret will reflect lessons learned and be an effort to leap over LANCE.  Will suit 50mm of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://defencetechnologyreview.realviewdigital.com

New issue of DTR become available - with article on weight of Land 400 Phase 3 contestants compared to other IFVs and tanks (btw, according to author's math, T-15 HIFV weigths about 46-47 metric tons), and whether it's a problem or not; two page poster on how Lynx KF-41 consists of proven components from elsewhere; and Nicholas Drummond's article on NGCV-OMFV where he forgot about US Army's HFM/ASM program from late 80s-early 90s, - if he ever knew about it in the first place - so according to him NGCV-OMFV is only third attempt to replace Bradley.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

It's interesting they've enabled the use of the Spike as an anti-air missile (anti-helicopters?).

 

Same with MELLS for the Puma (and from what it seems also Lynx).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Several pics related to AS21 Redback have appeared on twitter and elsewhere over the last couple of days

from latest DTR 2019-07  http://defencetechnologyreview.realviewdigital.com/#folio=50

- and also from EOS pdf presentation - photos of mockup (mockups?) - or whatever that is - of EOS T2000 turret:
D-l8N4qWwAA6gww.jpg:large
 

D-l8U3NXsAUBiT8.jpg:large

 

and also more pics of unfinished hull (next to that turret or outside) - from DTR twitter https://twitter.com/DTRmag/status/1146928739671928832 (originally from Hanwha facebook page) and from one of bemil.chosun.com blogs (although it seems to me that some of the latter were originally posted on instagram):
D-q0B7oU4AEhIk6.jpg:large
 

Spoiler

D-q0EhZU4AAtje0.jpg:large

 

D-q0GQ_VUAAxVg7.jpg:large

 

D-q_W8-X4AEG2-U.jpg:large

 

D-q_Y7AW4AAl-Ve.jpg:large

 

D-q_anFWsAUJ6Mt.jpg:large

 

D-q_cA_X4AIE5Eq.jpg:large

ohYmiwM.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rheinmetall & Hanwha through to the Risk Mitigation Activity. 

 

https://gallery.mailchimp.com/ebe687fe800f7d0f2f28fa168/files/1088f6cf-cb97-4812-a471-a1e933125641/DTR_Special_Bulletin_16_Sept_2019.pdf

 

 

Kinda glad CV90 is out. Also, not too unhappy that AJAX isn’t progressing - lots of legacy from the British Army that isn’t needed by the Australian Army. 

Edited by 2805662

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

13 hours ago, 2805662 said:

Also, not too unhappy that AJAX isn’t progressing - lots of legacy from the British Army that isn’t needed by the Australian Army. 

Why do you regard it as too much British ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Serge said:

 

Why do you regard it as too much British ?

 

AJAX is very much an ASCOD II that’s been optimised for British Army service. Lots of requirements that aren’t applicable to the Australian Army - no point in paying for someone else’s desirements. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it seems to me, my 2 favoured options are proceeding to the next round.

 

some thoughts

 

the EOS T2000 turret seems quite wide,  probably  wider than lance turret.

 

also the EOS R400 can be configured with combined M230 LF/ 7.62 GPMG   https://www.eos-aus.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/EOS-Brochure-R400S-Dual.pdf

 

although considering main turret weapon is also 30mm cannon, its kinda redundant to add a M230 LF up top, but it could make sense, if it can quickly return fire to ATGM teams.  (to be clear, M230 is not default on land 400 phase 2  or 3.)

 

both the lynx and the redback seem very competent upgrades for Australia, especially compared to what they are replacing.  getting an 'Australian' turret would be a major boost for local industry, although I suspect it has a lot of Israeli and Korean supervision, it should provide aussie ownership for additional growth without paying eurpoean companies whatever they think the upgrades are worth (as opposed to whatever the upgrades cost)

 

also, logistically useful that the redback has commonality with the Abrams transmission and the K9's engine.  since the K9 is coming to Australia (on again, off again, on again) and Australia has Abrams, thats a plus.

 

i do wonder if 8 lynx will be priced like 9 redbacks, ie same price per dismount, but more bang per firepower buck from redback, vs 9 dismounts from lynx.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 2805662 said:

I can see that T-2000 turret being back cast onto the Phase 2 vehicles, a possibility called out in the Phase 3 RFT. 

not a chance that Rheinmetall will walk away from the 133 Lance turrets on order, but DOD may have a lot more room for negotiation for remaining turrets, particularly as EOS will be common between MRAP , APC, IFV and Tank for ADF.

 

the T2000 turret is a 2 man turret, but just do a quick visual between the Namer turret (page 12 91083447.jpg ) and the T2000 turret.

 

hmmm, re arrange/expand the layout for 2 man operation, throw an EOS R400 where the mortar sits, and drop one of the sights because its redundant due to EOS fire control system (FCS), sensors, and user interface from the EOS Remote Weapon Station (RWS).

 

the T2000 looks new, but is a nice optimum of battle tested components between  EOS, Elbit and ATK https://www.defence.nioa.com.au/supply/view/6/8/supply/weapon-systems/orbital-atk-medium-calibre-chain-gun-systems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'firepower with 30-40mm high performance cannon, 30mm lightweight cannon, and up to two 7.62mm GPMG'

https://www.eos-aus.com/defence/

 

so 4 guns + missiles can be on T2000 turret for a single mission.   (actually its more, there is piccy out there where the EOS R400 has whats looks like M230 LF + 7.62 GPMG + MK 47 all installed together)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kal said:

not a chance that Rheinmetall will walk away from the 133 Lance turrets on order, but DOD may have a lot more room for negotiation for remaining turrets...

I don’t think Rheinmetall will get much of a say in the matter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, 2805662 said:

I don’t think Rheinmetall will get much of a say in the matter. 

That will depend on the precise wording of the contracts.  But if phase 3 goes to Hanwha/EOS, then a clean swap of additional boxer hulls in lieu of the 133 lance turrets would be a pragmatic option.

 

(And one that Rheinmetall would resist).

 

Just how much $$$ did Rheinmetall consider those Lance 1 turrets to be worth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand this obsession with the T2000 turret. Aside of a new steel shell and a few components made by EOS, it is largely the same turret fitted to the Elbit/STK Sentinel II that was rejected during the LAND 400 Phase 2 program. That just changing some electronics to something Australian-made is being depicted as a game-changer seems rather questionable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

I don't understand this obsession with the T2000 turret. Aside of a new steel shell and a few components made by EOS, it is largely the same turret fitted to the Elbit/STK Sentinel II that was rejected during the LAND 400 Phase 2 program. That just changing some electronics to something Australian-made is being depicted as a game-changer seems rather questionable.

For once, you and I completely agree.  Just more lipstick, same pig.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to be some confusion about the relationship between Phase 2 and Phase 3 of LAND 400.  Phase 3 has just seen down select.  That means 12 months before RMA starts.  12 months for RMA and 12 months for CoA to digest the results.  The decision on the Acquisition contract for Phase 3 happens in 3rd quarter 2022.  Phase 2 is already in Acquisition.  There is no possibility of retrospective changes to Phase 2,  Zero chance of radical change like using the T2000 on BOXER.  Even if that were contractually possible, turrets are not plug and play.

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...