Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, SH_MM said:

KMW and Nexter apparently developed a new amphibious vehicle. No idea if this will be KMW or Nexter branded...

 

DfD5YxKUEAAH6oG.jpg

DfD5cVyU0AAzqIg.jpg

 

 

This is a KNDS brand. 

Nexter already communicated about AFV they will showcase at EuroSatory (TITUS with UGV kit, Jaguar....).

 

Shareholders were calling for a rapid common project between Nexter and KMW. Here it is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/7/2018 at 1:40 PM, SH_MM said:

KMW and Nexter apparently developed a new amphibious vehicle. No idea if this will be KMW or Nexter branded...

On 6/8/2018 at 9:12 AM, Serge said:

This is a KNDS brand. 

Nexter already communicated about AFV they will showcase at EuroSatory (TITUS with UGV kit, Jaguar....).

Shareholders were calling for a rapid common project between Nexter and KMW. Here it is. 

 

Shephard Media's video about this vehicle - interview and some footage from driving and swimming tests

screenshots:
Adug3ns.jpg

RJXGrLF.jpg

po1KbRv.jpg

gI9Bm0P.jpg

 

photo from Polish article on this vehicle http://www.defence24.pl/przemysl/eurosatory-2018-nowa-amfibia-kmw-plywa-do-tylu
zaqeuaj.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Serge said:

6 of them. 

 

Thanks.

 

But that's quite a far cry from the 25 (I think that's the number) of the LVTP-7.

So if it's aimed at replacing it (at least in some country) it will probably have to be significantly cheaper to compete (unless the AAV was originally too large for the needs of the client).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You’re definitely right. 

It muste be very expensive to carry only a 6 men section. 

The Turkish ZAHA can reach a good success. 

Share this post


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

6 of them. 

 

9 hours ago, Alzoc said:

 

But that's quite a far cry from the 25 (I think that's the number) of the LVTP-7.

 

It could probably hold more troops if it didn't have that silly engine arrangement. 

Share this post


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

 

 

It could probably hold more troops if it didn't have that silly engine arrangement. 

 

I received the “two minute product brief” (which included the use of augmented reality goggles to visualise the power train) on this yesterday. 

 

A couple of design considerations and concepts:

- designed for river crossings & use on inland waterways. 

- targeted customers are primarily South & Central American and Asian (including Indonesia, Colombia, & Singapore). 

- Operation in Sea States greater than Sea State 1 is questionable. 

- 5 metric tonne payload. 

- not intended for opposed landings. 

- can be fitted with a turret - but cannot carry troops if so fitted. 

- Armoured capsule is comparatively small, relative to the vehicle size. 

- wholly funded by KMW. 

- Marder based. 

 

My pics here: https://imgur.com/gallery/7zxppwb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lynx KF41 
some photos (originally posted in twitter):

8WL9OdM.jpg
bxP3uzd.jpg


pictures from that pdf:

yO5v1Cw.jpg
kX96X61.jpg
QloiXCe.jpg

vsdqn00.jpg

i8AEpnU.jpg

H8fDv0B.jpg

gij5ktZ.jpg

BN4hyGF.jpg

vIOjwgl.jpg

h6unv29.png

GkM3TEW.png

Rheinmetall press-release 
https://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/en/rheinmetall_defence/public_relations/news/latest_news/index_17408.php
https://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/media/editor_media/rm_defence/publicrelations/pressemitteilungen/2018/2018-06-12_Rheinmetall_Eurosatory_Lynx_KF_41_en.pdf

and some more pics from twitter:
OwSNZoB.jpg

w773Ffc.jpg

ey9lJ4k.jpg

video:

some screenshots:
rRmNQ5I.jpg
uWUF77a.jpg
nEYH9ch.jpg
mXY5xMg.jpg
7QTBQ17.jpg



....
Question: is it a correct thread for this vehicle? Or i should've been posting this in German vehicles thread like @2805662 did with his photos of this vehicle http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/topic/11-stug-iii-thread-and-also-other-german-vehicles-i-guess/?page=49&tab=comments#comment-133254
?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By 2805662
      The following is derived from various wanderings, discussions, & tyre kicking, and covers an opinion on the forthcoming Land 400 Phase 3 Request for Tender, and is as per June 2018.
       
      General: Phase 2 will significantly shape participation in Phase 3. Costs for the two bidders that weren’t short listed for the Risk Mitigation Activity (GDLS & Elbit Systems) ran into the tens of millions of dollars. Costs for the losing BAE bid could rightly be assessed as double that. Combined with Rheinmetall’s Phase 2-driven “perceived incumbency”, nobody wants to waste money to be a stalking horse on the Commonwealth’s behalf. There is a plausible risk that only Rheinmetall will bid. 
       
      Reorganisation of infantry sections: When Land 400 was conceived, Australian infantry sections consisted of two fire teams of four. This drove the initial “eight dismounts” requirement that has subsequently been relaxed. Now comprising three fire teams of three, one of those teams will be the vehicle crew, the other two will dismount, for a total of six dismounts. Recent operational experience has highlighted the need for temporary attachment of specialist personnel, so a platform that has some spare seating could still count for it. 
       
      GFE Turrets: One possible tactic that the Commonwealth may seek to use is that of mandating that the Lance Turret, as used on the Phase 2 Boxer CRV, be used as Government Furnished Equipment (that is, purchased from Rheinmetall and provided to suitably configured hulls by competitors). This would simplify the turret training and offer spares commonality across both phases. Perceived savings for “buying in bulk” were (apparently) unable to be realised as Rheinmetall was reluctant to discount its turret. 
      Costs aside, if an offerer has a GFE turret, who owns the systems integration risk? Who does the customer turn to solve potential issues between the turret and hull when they, the customer, has mandated that particular turret? Commercially, this is a high risk proposition. 
       
      Unmanned turrets: Only GDLS offered an unmanned/remote turret for Phase 2, the Kongsberg MCT-30, as has been adopted in small numbers (81) by the US Army to meet an immediate operational need. A bias against unmanned turrets is unlikely to manifest itself in Phase 3 due to the likely presence of the PSM Puma IFV. Of course, that’ll likely to open the door to GDLS bidding the ASCOD fitted with Elbit’s optionally manned/unmanned MT-30 turret....should they decide to bid at all. 
       
      Likely bidders: This brings us to the inevitable list of potential bidders and their platforms. 
       
      BAE: Unlikely to bid. If they win SEA 5000, that may get them off the bench, as would a requirements set that looks a lot like CV90. In the event that they do bid, the CV90 Mk4 is the most likely platform. 
       
      GDLS: More likely to bid than BAE, but still waiting to see what the RFT looks like. (Tellingly?) Their ASCODs at Eurosatory were painted for upcoming European opportunities, not in the distinctive Australia disruptive pattern. 
       
      Rheinmetall: likely to offer the Lynx and maybe also the Puma. With the reorganisation of Australian infantry sections (see above) the eight dismounts of the KF41 version of the Lynx are less relevant. Still, the modularity of the KF41 demonstrated at Eurosatory 18 definitely left an impression. 
       
      PSM: As a JV between KMW & Rheinmetall, Puma may be offered separately (unlikely if the Boxer =\= ARTEC in Australia model is followed). In the event that is is offered separately, it’s high unit cost, without the associated modularity of Boxer, may be a disadvantage. Also, PSM has no experience with industrial partnerships in Australia: a significant disadvantage. 
       
      Hanwha Defense Systems: Korea has been a bit “off” Australian defence opportunities, largely due to the cack-handed way in which the cancellation of the K-9/AS-9 was handled in 2012. The AS-9 was viewed as a loss leader, primarily as Australia has a reputation of being a discerning (aka difficult) customer. If Hanwha bids their K21, it’ll be interesting to watch. 
       
      Whilst by no means exhaustive, the above outlines some less-obvious factors currently at play for the 450-vehicle opportunity that is Land 400 Phase 3.  
       
    • By Sovngard
      Meanwhile at Eurosatory 2018 :
       
      The Euro Main Battle Tank (EMBT), a private venture project intended for the export market.
       


    • By LoooSeR
      Hello, my friends and Kharkovites, take a sit and be ready for your brains to start to work - we are going to tell you a terrible secret of how to tell apart Soviet tanks that actually works like GLORIOUS T-80 and The Mighty T-72 from Kharkovites attempt to make a tank - the T-64. Many of capitalists Westerners have hard time understanding what tank is in front of them, even when they know smart words like "Kontakt-5" ERA. Ignoramus westerners!
       
       
         Because you are all were raised in several hundreds years old capitalism system all of you are blind consumer dummies, that need big noisy labels and shiny colorful things to be attached to product X to be sold to your ignorant heads and wallets, thats why we will need to start with basics. BASICS, DA? First - how to identify to which tank "family" particular MBT belongs to - to T-64 tree, or T-72 line, or Superior T-80 development project, vehicles that don't have big APPLE logo on them for you to understand what is in front of you. And how you can do it in your home without access to your local commie tank nerd? 
       
       
         Easy! Use this Putin approved guide "How to tell appart different families of Soviet and Russian tanks from each other using simple and easy to spot external features in 4 steps: a guide for ignorant western journalists and chairborn generals to not suck in their in-depth discussions on the Internet".
       
       
       
      Chapter 1: Where to look, what to see.
       
      T-64 - The Ugly Kharkovite tank that doesn't work 
       
         We will begin with T-64, a Kharkovite attempt to make a tank, which was so successful that Ural started to work on their replacement for T-64 known as T-72. Forget about different models of T-64, let's see what is similar between all of them.
       
       
       

       
       
         
       
       
      T-72 - the Mighty weapon of Workers and Peasants to smash westerners
       
         Unlike tank look-alike, made by Kharkovites mad mans, T-72 is true combat tank to fight with forces of evil like radical moderate barbarians and westerners. Thats why we need to learn how identify it from T-64 and you should remember it's frightening lines!
       

       
       
       
      The GLORIOUS T-80 - a Weapon to Destroy and Conquer bourgeois countries and shatter westerners army
       
         And now we are looking at the Pride of Party and Soviet army, a true tank to spearhead attacks on decadent westerners, a tank that will destroy countries by sucking their military budgets and dispersing their armies in vortex of air, left from high-speed charge by the GLORIOUS T-80!

      The T-80 shooting down jets by hitting them behind the horizont 
          
×