Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
2805662

Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

Recommended Posts

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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: 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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”...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

 

9b3TmMc.jpg 

 

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”. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

tenor.gif

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...