2805662

Today’s The Australian newspaper:
 

Today’s The Australian newspaper:
 

Both Redback & Lynx are at Avalon 2023, an Australian “air show +”, both in overall OD. 
 

 
Notable for Redback is the pop up poster that details Elbit’s “30mm Redback turret”. 

This one has higher resolution.
 
Here upscaled via AI, but quality is still not good:

AbramsX 3D model:
 
Cults 3D
 

 
 

AbramsX 3D model:
 
Cults 3D
 

 
 

Labor being Labor. As simple as that. 
 
The defence strategic review may green light a small buy of IFV to save face, but I’m not hopeful. 

I guess AJAX is off the hook?
 
 

I guess AJAX is off the hook?
 
 

Labor being Labor. As simple as that. 
 
The defence strategic review may green light a small buy of IFV to save face, but I’m not hopeful. 

Specifications of Rheinmetall's KF41 Lynx offer for LAND 400 Phase 3.

 
 

A rare picture: an overhead shot of the M1 Thumper, used to test the XM291 ATAC gun (sometimes referred to as LW120) in conjunction with the XM91 cassette autoloader.
 

 
The Thumper, which was built out of a M1A1 at Anniston Depot, used a 120mm XM291 in three different barrel lengths, one 265in/6.75m long (the standard, "long tube" XM291), a second one cut the same length as the M256 ("short tube", 5.3m) and a third, intermediary one ("medium tube") that stands somewhere between 6.75m and 5.3m.

On-the-move test fires done at speeds of 10, 15 and 20mph showed that the target impact dispersion (TID) was bigger (read: lower accuracy) with the "long tube" XM291 compared to the "short tube" or EVEN the M256, which was problematic. To support the increased barrel length, Benét Labs also had to create a 415lbs and 22in-long extension for the gun cradle...which was later reused in the proposed installation of a XM360E1 inside the notional M1A3...and, quite likely, inside the M1 AbramsX demonstrator showcased at AUSA 2022.
 
 
 
The 1988 M1 Thumper was only fitted with the 120mm ATAC gun, but the XM291 installed on the 1993 M1 CATTB, on the other hand, went on to trial a 120mm and a 140mm barrel. At one point, the ATAC prototype pool was noted to have successfully fired 1,300 rounds, 150 of which were of the 140mm variety. The latter (at least the KE part) was even judged capable of defeating the armor of what was tentatively described as the FST-3 (Future Soviet Tank 3, essentially a Obj.477/477A); there are no known numbers for the 140mm XM964's performance, but the 140mm ATAC itself was expected to produce a great maximum of 25MJ of muzzle energy. The ammunition for the ATAC was developed by Valentec International and Hercules.
 
 
 
While the Thumper was originally meant to trial the 120mm ATAC, some of the official literature indicates it may have also undergone the 120-to-140mm tube conversion and done static test firings at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, where it showed precision equal to a M1A1 but "with greater penetration".
 

>> Source document for the two above scans <<
 
Also, a common mistake (one I've also been guilty of, mea culpa) I often see around in forums and milblogs is that the Thumper is a derivative of the CATTB, which is false, as the Thumper (AKA the ATAC Demonstration System) predates the CATTB Phase I by at least five years.
 
M1 CATTB Phase I (using a M1 hull as basis), in 93/94, about to be shipped to Aberdeen Proving Grounds for testing:
 

 
Picture of the CATTB Phase II (ATTD?) hull under construction, completed in 1994. Note the closed back with no exhaust grille, the absence of apertures for torsion bars (replaced by a hydro-pneumatic suspension system) and the smaller engine compartment designed to receive a Cummins XAV-1000 AIPS instead of a Honeywell AGT-1500. The freed-up volume between the XAV and the turret basket was reclaimed to accept two vertically-stacked non-ready cassettes housing a total of 22 rounds (either single-piece 120mm or two-piece 140mm), which would have given the CATTB Phase II a maximum loadout of 39 rounds (either 120mm or 140mm), just five less than a M1A2. The huge tradeoff, of course, was that all this made the CATTB massively overweight.
 

 
Apparently, at least one of the two CATTB testbeds is currently sitting at the Sierra Army Depot in Herlong, California, but one has to wonder if it's not a case of mistaken identity; the Thumper was, after all, spotted in 2010/09/30, in Ohio, as it was being relocated by train to parts unknown. Here's to hoping any of these big bois shall make their way to a museum one day, as did the TTB, the Crusader and many others before them.
 
XM291 ATAC with its 17-round Benét Labs XM91 bustle autoloader:
 

Thanks. I've only looked at photos from Australian comparative tests with the AS21 Redback and KF41 Lynx, which seemingly only included the Redback turret (with Elbit FCS),

As per the Senior Vice-President International Business from EOS - not a defence aggregation website - the key external difference between the T2000 & the MT30 is the sensors. 
 
Here’s the MT30 (yes, with R400 Mk2 HD RWS fitted):

 
Here’s the T2000:
 

 
You can see that the T2000 has the same sensor package housing as that fitted to the R400 RWS. 


 
Internally, the FCS & HMI are completely different. 
 

No surprise there we had Accuracy issues with Elbit 30mm turrets for AMPV , couldnt hit a broad side of a barn.  Latvia is also having issues with Israeli turrets on Boxer.
 

Interview with the AMPV product manager & walkaround. 
 
 

Ah this clarifies that the cage you sometimes see is in fact a wire guard.
 

 

Interview with the AMPV product manager & walkaround. 
 
 

Seems very familiar.

 
 

BAE report on their OMFV submission, which included this graphic. 
 

BAE report on their OMFV submission, which included this graphic. 
 

BAE report on their OMFV submission, which included this graphic. 
 

BAE report on their OMFV submission, which included this graphic. 
 

Some more detail, here:
 
 

Some more detail, here: