Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV


Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, DIADES said:

yes there are.  They are drivers cameras that have the FoV a driver needs.  There are no cameras on the turret, no flank cameras anywhere.  So, not Iron Vision which uses stitched together camera images to mimic seeing through the hull and turret.  The video tries to show the turret moving with the operators head movements.  But he can't see anything cos - no situational awareness cameras.  So, PR puffery.



Yes, this vehicle lacks of side and rear cameras, it really doesn't have see through armor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/26/2020 at 5:51 PM, skylancer-3441 said:



  Hide contents






in this piccy, my untrained eye can see

2 set of IRON VISION sensors

2 set of IRON fist's radar

1x ELBIT commander sight

and a fore hull mounted Hanwha camera


still to come are the EOS RWS sensor packages.


why place iron vision sensor there unless intent is to use them?



and the birds eye photo add 2 more sets of IRON VISION sensor and IRON fist's radar, so 4 of each, thats 360 coverage.

+ driver''s reversing camera ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Kal said:

my untrained eye

Yes, Iron Fist IR and RADAR sensors are there.  Each RADAR sensor has a dedicated IR sensor.  IR is on all the time and if it sees a muzzle flash or rocket exhaust, it turns the RADAR on to detect and track a possible incoming threat.  The RADARs are off by default as they use a lot of power and give the host vehicle a RADAR cross section you could see from the moon.


Iron Fist has no sensors of use at all for human vision.  These sensors are outside the visible spectrum.  There are also a pair of LASER warning receivers.  There is no Iron Vision camera array on this turret.  If you look around the web you will see that Iron Vision fitted demonstrators have a multi-camera array.  This turret does not.  Yes, the gunners sight is present and that is the only feed available on this turret.  Utterly pointless to use a headset with it.  The sight points where the gun is pointing and vice versa.  Useless for situational awareness (no peripheral vision) and a headset is useless for aiming the weapon.  The gun is a gun, not a missile which you can point in roughly the right direction.  Don't get me wrong - I am a fan of Iron Vision and the whole concept of fused data streams, images, targeting systems etc.  But, my point is that this specific vehicle/turret does not have have the claimed capabilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DIADES said:

While on the topic - latest reports in Defence Technology Review talk of 18 month delay for L400 Phase 2 integration due to lack of system maturity.


I'm not surprised, amongst other things,  Elbit in Victoria,  Rheinmetall is in Qld  and the borders are locked down hard between states due to Covid19 (and Victoria is basically 95%+ of Australia's wave 2 infections)


EOS in Canberra had their own problems https://themarketherald.com.au/electro-optic-systems-asxeos-future-plans-drastically-altered-by-covid-19-2020-04-30/


One week before formal deliveries could commence, the delivery chain was broken in multiple places due to a national lockdown and the impact of COVID-19.

A total of five essential EOS technical staff from Australia had to leave the country within 24 hours or be stranded due to airport closures and quarantine.

All accessible airports were closed to normal commercial passengers and freight. The EOS production facility, located in a secure industrial zone, was locked down by military police, along with all other defence plants.

Approximately 50 per cent of EOS local staff were forced into quarantine. The military test facility required for live firing was closed and the designated delivery points within military bases were cut off by military base closures

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kal said:

Elbit in Victoria

I think the problems are deeper and are more to do with basis system maturity in Israel.  I hear (unsubstantiated) rumors of increasing system mass, power demand and shock loads on the turret plus decreasing threat defeat capabilities...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DIADES said:

hmmm.  Indeed.  Still that will only see forward while Iron Vision is 360 degree.  Plus the lens (if that is what they are) look too small?

yeah but there are 4 of them, you can count them in the video.


and presumably, they can use that frontal hanwha camera, its really looks like its intended for full 180 coverage so when the vehicle pokes its nose around a corner, they can see sideways before the turret is exposed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DIADES said:

Your pics don;t come across?  Just a random string of characters

thanks, its working on my system, but I can't tell about others, 


those pictures are links to the the screenshots that skylancer posted after that video.  Can you see those?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DIADES said:

Iron Fist has no sensors of use at all for human vision.  These sensors are outside the visible spectrum.  There are also a pair of LASER warning receivers.


This is not correct. Iron Fist uses cameras for wake-up detection and apparently they have been integrated into the Iron Vision system. See the graphic visible at #01:30 of the following marketing video:



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Australian DOD will get a good chance to test Iron vision/fist out, i don't know how much the results will be made public.  The T2000 turret is derived from Elbit, so the family DNA is high, but its still is an EOS product, and until there is an EOS RWS on it, the turret is incomplete.


(Which is to say,  we can see what they are selling, but we can't see if it matches delivery.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kal said:

results will be made public

Zero.  CoA runs competitive closed tender evaluation.  That process will not be complete until late 2022 when the winner is announced.  Even after that, nothing from the trials will be public.  Once deliveries start in 2025, we may get to see info on what is being delivered.

Link to comment
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.

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
      30mm Cannon and Javelins for armament.
      Is that the first vehicle mounting the Jav?
    • By Belesarius
      30mm with airburst capability, and supposedly better mine protection than a Leo 2.
  • Create New...