Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
2805662

Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV

Recommended Posts

In a nutshell :

- coaxial machine gun mount is the same as the Namer turret ;

- screening system is the same (very specific integration) ;

- sights positions are the same ;

- COAPS are not used ;

- Trophy is the same ;

- ATGM module is... the same ;

- general geometry of the turret is the same ;

- no Korean hard kill or soft kill ;

but it’s not a Rafael turret... It’s not Israely too I guess ?

 

Of course, Hanwha made a 30mm turret from scratch and by chance, the design is very close to something already existing. 

 

When I first saw this turret, I believed it was the Aselsan Korhan turret. I was wrong. 

Share this post


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

In a nutshell :

- coaxial machine gun mount is the same as the Namer turret ;

- screening system is the same (very specific integration) ;

- sights positions are the same ;

- COAPS are not used ;

- Trophy is the same ;

- ATGM module is... the same ;

- general geometry of the turret is the same ;

- no Korean hard kill or soft kill ;

but it’s not a Rafael turret... It’s not Israely too I guess ?

 

Of course, Hanwha made a 30mm turret from scratch and by chance, the design is very close to something already existing. 

 

When I first saw this turret, I believed it was the Aselsan Korhan turret. I was wrong. 

 

Coaxial machine gun is in the opposite location in the Namer compared with the AS-21. Very conventional setup.

 

Screening system is not the same. Namer had once shown 2 stacks of 5 on each side, but the real turret has only one stack. And the Redback has them on the far sides with the radars being close to center, while the Namer's one stack (or two according to CAD) are much closer to the center, with the radar panels on the far sides instead.

 

The position of sights is also reversed, unless the Redback's photos are mirrored. Either way, it's also a very conventional setup.

 

ATGM module being placed in the back is the result of the Trophy modules taking the spaces on the sides.

 

General geometry of the Namer's turret is a very low but very long turret, while the Redback's is taller and shorter.

 

And I won't even start talking about how the Redback's got 2 dudes in it.

 

Plus the cannon may be different as the Namer doesn't need an external stabilizing cage, while the Redback's cannon does need one.

 

Also I'm pretty sure there was Tata written on the gun's cage in the first image to come out, with the Redback in black.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/land-forces-2018-south-korea-tantalises-as21-redba/

 

The AS-21 weighs 40 tons, has a crew of 3 and transports 8 men.

Powered by a 1,000hp engine and has a 70km/h top road speed.

The vehicle itself, however, is very far from ready, and Hanwha will only build a prototype if it is shortlisted. A prototype would only be ready within 12 months from being shortlisted (Q3 2019  --> Q3 2020).

I guess we can say it's pretty much not a competitor anymore.

 

Spoiler

Hanwha Defense Systems, a giant conglomerate from South Korea, exhibited a proposed solution to Australia’s quest for 450 new IFVs to replace its M113AS4 fleet under Project Land 400 Phase 3 at Land Forces 2018 in Adelaide.

The company showed a scale model of the AS21 Redback. As its name suggests, the AS21 is an Australian specification version based on the K21 used by the Republic of Korea Army. It therefore employs proven components and subsystems.

Hanwha said: ‘The AS21 offers a higher level of protection, superior firepower and multispectral sensors.’

Different variants will be available, but the model at Land Forces showed an IFV with a manned turret armed with a 30mm cannon, an RWS with 12.7mm machine gun and a pop-up dual antitank missile launcher.

At 40t the AS21 is considerably heavier than the K21 thanks to better ballistic protection, and its dimensions are also greater, said Park Yoowon, Hanwha’s senior manager of BD for Europe and Australia.

Park also highlighted the presence of an active protection system.

It is powered by a 1,000hp engine with a top road speed of 70km/h, and the suspension and transmission are also upgraded to cater to the greater weight. Its range is listed as 520km.

It will accommodate eight dismounts and require a crew of three.

Hanwha said it could have a prototype ready by Q3 of 2020 in accordance with the indicative timeline laid out by the Australian Defence Force, if it is shortlisted 12 months prior to that.

This will be the first major competition in which Hanwha has participated in Australia. Of course, Samsung Techwin, which Hanwha has since absorbed, entered the K9 in Australia’s Project Land 17 quest to find an SPH. However, that competition was suddenly cancelled in 2012.

For Land 400 Phase 3, Hanwha will therefore face an uphill battle against other OEMs such as BAE Systems, General Dynamics and Rheinmetall who all have an established presence in Australia.

Hanwha is therefore believed to be in discussions with partners and state governments in Australia that could be part of the supply chain.

In Adelaide the South Korean manufacturer was also highlighting its K9 to Australia, highlighting the range of countries such as Finland, India, Norway and Turkey that have purchased the SPH platform.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, a paper carnival, and a near paper panzer.

 

Is there a disconnect between what australian defense thinks the world will offer. Vs what the world thinks australian defense wants?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/3/2018 at 10:11 PM, Serge said:

The funniest thing with SPz-Puma is when you’re talking to PSM representatives, they quickly say it’s impossible to develop variants, the chassis is too much specific. 

 

We'll, they are sending mixed signals.  I guess the PSM representative meant, that a lot more has to be changed to create a variant of the Puma than on other vehicles. In terms of physics, there is nothing that prevents using the same chassis, drivetrain or components. The small size of the useable interior and the armor package are making it harder to turn the Puma IFV design to other roles without major modifications. That is true, which is why I'd like to see PSM offering a larger hull.

 

In the past, no non-IFV variant of the Puma has been showcased, but there have been quite a few mentions of variants being proposed to different governments:

  • One of the very first variants showcased was a CAD model and a photoshopped image of a prototype Puma hull with the Skyranger turret, which Rheinmetall wanted to sell to Germany.
  • A stretched Puma with modified turred was the bid by SAIC, KMW and Rheinmetall for the US' GCV program. The proposal was meant to meet the US requirement of transporting 9 dismounts. It was rejected, because only two proposals could be funded (which happened to be two of BAE Systems and General Dynamics).
  • As previously mentioned, McGregor was told that the Puma IFV could accept a turret with 120 mm or even 130 mm smoothbore gun for his Recon Strike Group concept. How such a turret would look is not known yet. He also wrote (but that might be speculation on his part), that the Puma could be used as recovery vehicle, artillery (mortar?) carrier and self-propelled anti-aircraft gun, based on its powerful engine.
  • PSM told a Czech military news blog, that there already would exist further Puma variants as 3D CAD data, but any variant offered to the Czech Republic would be designed based on the specific Czech requirements.
  • The APVT, while being a radically different vehicle compared to the Puma, is actually making use of many Puma components. While it probably would be too far of a stretch to call it a variant, it certainly shows that it is possible to design other variants based on the Puma's drivetrain. 

ASCOD 2/AJAX and CV90 are very easy to adapt for other roles (the Lynx KF41 with its module system even more).

 

On 9/5/2018 at 12:12 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Yeah they really should have tossed a generous amount of anti-slip on that

 

That would ruin (some of) the signature reduction measures that were introduced with the Lynx KF41. The flat surface with no anti-slip areas is required to minimize radar signatures, the same was done with prototypes of various AFVs over the past decades (including the "Stealth AMX" and "Stealth Leopard 1):

 

amx30sth.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Land Forces 2018: Contenders vie for Australia’s IFV requirement

Julian Kerr, Adelaide - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
06 September 2018

At the close of the Land Forces 2018 exhibition in Adelaide on 6 September, contenders to supply the Australian Army with up to 450 modern infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) as part of Project Land 400 Phase 3 had been whittled down to three definites, one possible, one barely possible, and one withdrawal.

Confirmed competitors for the AUD10-15 billion (USD7.4-11 billion) project comprise Rheinmetall Defence's Lynx IFV, General Dynamics Land Systems' (GDLS') Ajax armoured fighting vehicle, and the Hanwha Group's AS21 Redback IFV.

Among the contenders for Australia’s Project Land 400 Phase 3 is the Hanwha Group’s AS21 Redback IFV, a model of which was displayed at the Land Forces 2018 exhibition in Adelaide. (Julian Kerr)

Among the contenders for Australia's Project Land 400 Phase 3 is the Hanwha Group's AS21 Redback IFV, a model of which was displayed at the Land Forces 2018 exhibition in Adelaide. (Julian Kerr)

 

Participation by BAE Systems' CV90 combat vehicle is under consideration, as is that of the Puma IFV produced by Rheinmetall Defence and Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW).

 

https://www.janes.com/article/82828/land-forces-2018-contenders-vie-for-australia-s-ifv-requirement

 

 

Share this post


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

So far it's only JPost reporting this so I would take this with salt and pepper. They're not a defense news agency, and they usually have some fucked up fact-checking.

I'd wait for @2805662 to give us the news.

 

Haven’t seen anything, but I’ll see what I can see. 

 

What is “a thing” is the mandated use of the EOS R150 RWS and Spike 2 as GFE on the Phase 3 vehicle. 

Share this post


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

 

  • A stretched Puma with modified turred was the bid by SAIC, KMW and Rheinmetall for the US' GCV program. The proposal was meant to meet the US requirement of transporting 9 dismounts. It was rejected, because only two proposals could be funded (which happened to be two of BAE Systems and General Dynamics).

btw, there was GAO's report on GCV proposals, which mentioned following things about that vehicle:

Quote

SAIC’s proposed GCV design provided for a three-person crew and a nine-person infantry squad. The Army assessed a significant weakness in SAIC’s initial proposed approach under the integrated design subfactor, because of the lack of space for operation by the soldiers and crew. The most significant factor in the agency’s assessment was the lack of horizontal (fore & aft) and vertical space. For example, the Army found that SAIC’s design provided seatpan heights that were less than eight inches from the floor in all crew stations, in an attempt to provide sufficient interior head clearance.(11) The extremely low seats positions, the evaluators found, would place soldiers in an unnatural seated position with constricted thigh-trunk angles and would require the soldiers’ legs to be extended out from the body. The agency concluded that this lack of space was detrimental to the soldiers’ ability to safely operate the vehicle, would cause fatigue over time, and was an impediment to getting in and out of the seats. AR, Tab 5-8, SAIC Integrated Design Evaluation, at 7.


Following discussions, SAIC made a number of design changes, including raising the vehicle roof by 3 inches, which allowed the driver’s and commander’s seat pan height to be increased to 10.7 inches, and the gunner’s seatpan height to 12.4 inches. Although the evaluators found that this was an improvement, they concluded that the seat pans were still very low, and that, “given the constricted interior space envelope of the current concept, it appears unlikely that the interior volume can be further increased without significant re-engineering effort.” Id. at 12. Moreover, an updated SAIC computer-aided design model, submitted in response to the Army’s discussions questions, showed that leg and foot space accommodation was still a concern; the evaluators noted that the gunner’s feet were now positioned under the driver’s station, resulting in very limited space for the gunner’s feet and lower legs. The agency concluded that this positioning increased the risk of injury to both the gunner and the driver. (12)

 

The evaluators noted SAIC’s discussions response that it could, through additional engineering efforts related to changing the underbody armor solution, lower the walk-on floor, thereby increasing the compartment height. The evaluators found, however, that this design solution would require a significant amount of engineering effort during the technology development phase.(13) Overall, the evaluators concluded that SAIC’s discussion responses had mitigated the significant weakness assigned with respect to the lack of horizontal and vertical space in the crew and squad stations. The agency concluded, however, that there were still a number of MANPRINT weaknesses associated SAIC’s design, including the very low seat pan heights for crew and squad (including squad foot placement), inadequate headspace clearance in the periscope position for both the commander’s and driver’s stations, lack of gunner station accommodation at the screen position, and limited controls and screen adjustability resulting in lower body strike hazards for driver and commander stations. The agency concluded that these weaknesses increased risk with respect to SAIC credibly meeting the MANPRINT performance requirements. Id. at 24. Although SAIC disagrees with agency’s judgment in this regard, it has failed to show that the agency’s judgment was unreasonable.

(11) In addition, the evaluators found, as a related significant weakness in the area of force protection, that SAIC’s proposed head clearance was inadequate, given that SAIC’s design provided less than two inches from the top of a soldier’s helmet to the top of the vehicle interior. The Army found that this lack of head clearance increased the likelihood of injury from an underbody event, such as an improvised explosive device or other type of blast. AR, Tab 6-38, Discussion Letter to SAIC, at 2.
(12) The evaluators expressed concern that having hard components (including soldiers’ feet) underneath seats would endanger soldiers during rough terrain movement, vehicle accidents and IED events; however, they noted that repositioning the gunner’s feet from under the seat would result in strike hazards to the knees and thighs. The agency did not believe, given the vehicle’s tight interior space, that there was adequate horizontal space to push the gunner’s seat back to allow appropriate positioning and reduce the risk of strike hazards. AR, Tab 5-8, Integrated Design Evaluation, at 21.
(13) In this regard, the record contains numerous examples where the evaluators found that SAIC had proposed design changes in response to concerns raised in discussions, but concluded that these changes would require some re-engineering effort, given the constricted space available in SAIC’s proposed GCV design.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting the US eval. Good information there, a good counterpoint to the  “just [completely redesigning the entire vehicle] should be pretty straightforward..” opinions sometimes put forward on boards. It’s an insight into the technical jiggery-pokery required for AFV design. And that’s before contractual, sub-contractual, commercial, and intellectual property issues are brought into the equation.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was told an interesting tidbit from the REME Sergeant accompanying the Apollo. Apparently the hull of the IFV variant of the AJAX will be stretched 450 mm by increasing the between-the-roadwheel spacing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Willy Brandt said:

 As someone that sat in a Puma: This looks comfy as fuck. And man all that free height and leg space. 

But i bet after you squeeze all the equipment an communications in there it isnt so roomy anymore.
 

Yep. Been in a Puma, Bradley, CV9035, Stryker, M113, and Bushmaster - the Lynx KF41 interior is still a mock-up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/6/2018 at 5:34 PM, SH_MM said:

 

We'll, they are sending mixed signals.  I guess the PSM representative meant, that a lot more has to be changed to create a variant of the Puma than on other vehicles. In terms of physics, there is nothing that prevents using the same chassis, drivetrain or components. The small size of the useable interior and the armor package are making it harder to turn the Puma IFV design to other roles without major modifications. That is true, which is why I'd like to see PSM offering a larger hull.

The point wich is raised is not technical. Technically, everything is possible. 

Any modification will call for a new qualification of the chassis. And, this is very costly. That’s the point. 

On 9/6/2018 at 5:34 PM, SH_MM said:

In the past, no non-IFV variant of the Puma has been showcased, but there have been quite a few mentions of variants being proposed to different governments:

  • One of the very first variants showcased was a CAD model and a photoshopped image of a prototype Puma hull with the Skyranger turret, which Rheinmetall wanted to sell to Germany.

15 years ago, the first variant I heard about was a combat engineer one. 

 

On 9/6/2018 at 5:34 PM, SH_MM said:
  • As previously mentioned, McGregor was told that the Puma IFV could accept a turret with 120 mm or even 130 mm smoothbore gun for his Recon Strike Group concept. How such a turret would look is not known yet. He also wrote (but that might be speculation on his part), that the Puma could be used as recovery vehicle, artillery (mortar?) carrier and self-propelled anti-aircraft gun, based on its powerful engine.

One of my dream would have been to use the Puma chassis components to design a 45t classe tank with the Nexter T21 turret. 

It would have been great. 

 

On 9/6/2018 at 5:34 PM, SH_MM said:

That would ruin (some of) the signature reduction measures that were introduced with the Lynx KF41. The flat surface with no anti-slip areas is required to minimize radar signatures, the same was done with prototypes of various AFVs over the past decades (including the "Stealth AMX" and "Stealth Leopard 1):

 

amx30sth.jpg

 

Let us remind the Warrior 2000 and the Warrior Recon...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/3/2018 at 1:47 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Coaxial machine gun is in the opposite location in the Namer compared with the AS-21. Very conventional setup.

 

Screening system is not the same. Namer had once shown 2 stacks of 5 on each side, but the real turret has only one stack. And the Redback has them on the far sides with the radars being close to center, while the Namer's one stack (or two according to CAD) are much closer to the center, with the radar panels on the far sides instead.

 

The position of sights is also reversed, unless the Redback's photos are mirrored. Either way, it's also a very conventional setup.

A reversed position is not an argument. The argument is the technical integration whatever the right or left choice. 

The Redback turret is perfectly symmetrical to the Namer one. Sights are different because COAP is coming from Elbit. The gunner sight is lowered because of the use of episcops. 

 

On 9/3/2018 at 1:47 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

ATGM module being placed in the back is the result of the Trophy modules taking the spaces on the sides.

So, others candidates can’t integrate the Trophy ADS ?

But the Australian Army said they will take a decision latter about which system is selected. So, 

On 9/3/2018 at 1:47 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

General geometry of the Namer's turret is a very low but very long turret, while the Redback's is taller and shorter.

They are both the same. 

On 9/3/2018 at 1:47 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

And I won't even start talking about how the Redback's got 2 dudes in it.

Do you know which turret is that :

marder_evolution.jpg

Once you will find, maybe you will understand that all turrets are designed to be manned or remotely operated according to the customer. 

On 9/3/2018 at 1:47 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Plus the cannon may be different as the Namer doesn't need an external stabilizing cage, while the Redback's cannon does need one.

The cover is a stealth cover. 

On 9/3/2018 at 1:47 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Also I'm pretty sure there was Tata written on the gun's cage in the first image to come out, with the Redback in black.

So, to secure an export competition, Hanwha would have chose a well renown turret maker  company such as Tata ! Great !

 

Time will tell.

Share this post


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

A reversed position is not an argument. The argument is the technical integration whatever the right or left choice. 

The Redback turret is perfectly symmetrical to the Namer one. Sights are different because COAP is coming from Elbit. The gunner sight is lowered because of the use of episcops. 

 

I have literally just explained why the turret is anything but symmetrical. On any plain. Your only argument is that it has a Trophy APS so it MUST be a Namer's turret.

Let's completely throw out the window the possibility that both Elbit and Rafael are offering completely separate turrets, neither of which is the Namer's turret, right? Even if you switch out the El-Op's sights with Elbit's sights on the Samson, you still get a different turret.

The Samson, for example, is optionally manned, while Namer's turret is built to be unmanned only.

 

Quote

So, others candidates can’t integrate the Trophy ADS ?

But the Australian Army said they will take a decision latter about which system is selected. So, 

They are both the same. 

Do you know which turret is that :

marder_evolution.jpg

Once you will find, maybe you will understand that all turrets are designed to be manned or remotely operated according to the customer. 

The cover is a stealth cover. 

So, to secure an export competition, Hanwha would have chose a well renown turret maker  company such as Tata ! Great !

 

Time will tell.

 

That is a Lancelot RC. What is your point here?

It retains the same FCS, same sights, same gun, same protective envelope, and same sub-components as the manned Lance.

 

Meanwhile, all we know is that Hanwha's concept turret, which isn't going to become a prototype until 2021 (in the best case), has the Trophy. That's it.

FCS? N/A.

Gun? Mk-30/2, not the Mk44-S the Namer uses.

Feed system? N/A.

Power supply and capacity? N/A.

Turret drives? N/A.

BMS? Unless South Korea bought license for the Fire Weaver, then no.

Interface? N/A.

Sights? Different.

 

Is there anything that isn't the Trophy that is similar to them? 

 

Because by your logic if Australia buys the Trophy, then any turret that will have it integrated will automatically be Namer's turret.

 

There may be some candidates with only limited room to install the Trophy, but integration can be done on the hull instead of turret.

Share this post


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

I have literally just explained why the turret is anything but symmetrical. On any plain. Your only argument is that it has a Trophy APS so it MUST be a Namer's turret.

No. My point is a little more complex. 

If I were you, I would read this :

https://www.monch.com/mpg/news/land/4059-hanwhaaussz.html

and compare the date of this article and the date of my claim.

 

 

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...