Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
2805662

Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

Recommended Posts

Its largely to do with ownership.  European companies really nickel and dime you if you want to make any modifications, American companies would be just as bad except the Pentagon gives us, hand me downs at mates rates.  (Often the depreciated USA hand me downs are equivalent to EU latest and greatest). (Ie fighter radars)

 

Case in point Poland has some excellent ceramic ERA, but Germany wont allow installation of polish ERA on polish leopard 2 tanks.  Despite the need for those to have it.

 

Australia likes to optimise their equipment for local requirements, that will get really painful (expensive) if we go the German route.  Boxer is unique, there is a clear partition between hull and mission module, so as long as we dont touch hull, its much better.

 

More thoughts later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Kal said:

 

Australia likes to optimise their equipment for local requirements, that will get really painful (expensive) if we go the German route.  Boxer is unique, there is a clear partition between hull and mission module, so as long as we dont touch hull, its much better.

 

 

Remember, LYNX is designed around the Australian Requirement.  The vehicle is already tailored to Australian needs.  Redback (hate people thinking they can make something Australian by using the name of one of our critters) has to be optomised for South Korea (main volume) and modified for Australia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Australian government procurment is generally very skeptical of Australian manufacturing.  Particularly federal bureaucrats are skeptical.  EOS being located in Queanbeyan and Mt Stromlo is going to be very mentally discordant for them.

 

(Queanbeyan is seen as the backward bogan town adjacent to enlightened Canberra)

 

(Mt Stomlo is inhabited by elvish CSIRO magi who spend all day playing sudoku with interstellar quasar maps)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, David Moyes said:

 

Reflects a discussion I had yesterday with a former colleague who’s tangentially involved:

”AJAX is a very old truck. Just not really in the running and viable. Not for us, doesn’t do anything that the others do, better.”

 

The GDLS team is “shocked” - they had no idea until the announcement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 2805662 said:

 

Reflects a discussion I had yesterday with a former colleague who’s tangentially involved:

”AJAX is a very old truck. Just not really in the running and viable. Not for us, doesn’t do anything that the others do, better.”

 

The GDLS team is “shocked” - they had no idea until the announcement. 


Seems harsh. All were developed within a few years of each other; all descended from a previous iteration. Notably the AS-21 (K-31) exists because the K-21 disappointed.

Can't help but feel that Ajax being a relatively mature and proven platform worked against it. Aussies chasing after the shiny new thing.

Share this post


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


Seems harsh. All were developed within a few years of each other; all descended from a previous iteration. Notably the AS-21 (K-31) exists because the K-21 disappointed.

Can't help but feel that Ajax being a relatively mature and proven platform worked against it. Aussies chasing after the shiny new thing.

 

In the land domain, ADF has generally been very conservative (ASLAV was forced onto it by then MINDEF, M113 upgrade, LR for decades, upgrading the EF88). This decision is a bit of a surprise. 

 

There was was no way K21 would’ve met the blast & protection requirements of L400-3. “Redback” is an almost-new design. Who exactly was “disappointed” by the K21? ROKA?

 

GDLS fell into a (seemingly common) trap made by UK-staffed entities (the team for 400-3 was overwhelmingly UK/Brit) in Australia: “we know best.”

 

There was a marked reluctance to accept Australian requirements and input, for cost/design reasons, but also because of (imo) arrogance. Even the ramp vs. back door discussion took longer than it should’ve. The customer has been operating tracked APCs with ramps since 1965 - they know what works for them. 

 

Then there’s the 40mm AGL piece: the customer just struggled through Land 40-2 (vice 400-2) to select the Mk47, proposing a solution that used the H&K GMG (i.e. the losing solution to 40-2, regardless of the fact that the British Army bought it) was both dumb & tone deaf. 

 

Further; the coax - the 7.62mm chain gun coax makes sense in the UK context (Warrior & AJAX) but makes zero sense in the ADF context. A MAG58 would’ve made a lot more sense. Even Rheinmetall realised offering a MG3, MG4, or MG5 wasn’t a good move, offering the MAG58 coax instead. 

 

AJAX seemed to get caught up in their own hype & it bit them. 

Share this post


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

Who exactly was “disappointed” by the K21? ROKA?


Yes. Hence K-31.
 

9 hours ago, 2805662 said:

 

There was a marked reluctance to accept Australian requirements and input, for cost/design reasons, but also because of (imo) arrogance.


Sound familiar. I had hoped UK industry had changed. Sad!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, David Moyes said:


Seems harsh. All were developed within a few years of each other; all descended from a previous iteration.

 

Not correct - Yes, CV90 and AJAX date to the 80s.  But Redback is new.  It is not a tart up of the previous k21.  LYNX KF41 is new.  Definitely not a tart up or carry over.  Not to be confused with the KF31 proto which has muddied the waters.

Share this post


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

so as long as we dont touch hull, its much better.

 

 

Unfortunately, Australian BOXER is much heavier and does have very significant change in the drive module to deal with higher loads due to higher GVM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, DIADES said:

Unfortunately, Australian BOXER is much heavier and does have very significant change in the drive module to deal with higher loads due to higher GVM

perhaps that is why the boxer won, the underbelly blast seemed such a critical factor for its success.

c25032de50181e022c58121eabdef94a?width=1

 

But even so, its far cheaper to option in scope change before contract sign-off rather than as a variation later.  Particulary if the vendor considers the vehicle a cow to milked even after sales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

antiaircraft-artillery-as21_slide_img05.

 

maybe its an illusion, but this turret looks wide, that Iron Fist look like it overhangs on base configuration,  so is that 3.4m width?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Kal said:

maybe its an illusion, but this turret looks wide, that Iron Fist look like it overhangs on base configuration,  so is that 3.4m width?

Yeah, looks like a scale problem to me.  Turret too big and not in correct location.  A problem for Hanwha, no actual vehicle t photograph.  The APS config is very poor.  The port and starboard launchers are limited to their own hemispheres and there are good size dead zones.  Then again, the whole turret is just vapourware at the moment and probably deliberatly deceptive.  Elbit and Hanwha do know their stuff so I am sure the actual turret will be competitive.  LYNX is 3.7m wide in full MCO config,

Share this post


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

Not nearly as exciting as the real thing, but some interesting details nonetheless:

 

080dleo.jpg

 

Ouch, someone dropped that model on the floor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2019 at 2:14 AM, David Moyes said:


FOQ4h3P.jpg

That photo suggests the APS can fire from either side of the turret to reach where the photographer stood.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

comparing the AS21 to K21 they seem quite different, possibly the rear half is similar, but the front half appears really quite different.

 

Do the lifting hooks reveal the weight distribution ?  If so the weight is biased to the aft..  I can't see the equivalent on the Lynx.

Share this post


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

Do the lifting hooks reveal the weight distribution ?  If so the weight is biased to the aft..

They certainly should give a pretty good indication of CoG location.  But, i would be surprised to see a rear bias.  Front powerpack including an MBT transmission.  Looks like roughly 100mm forward of the turret centerline to me.

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...