Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 623
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

not that australia is going back to Vietnam, but as a proxy for SE Asia, https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1080/15732470902808581 only 15% of road bridges are classified as strong enough to handle 30 tonnes.

 

thus the reason for the earlier picture of a PNG bridge, weight becomes an issue, or leopard 2 deep wading properties are desireable.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
5 hours ago, 2805662 said:

No RWS requirement for the turreted vehicles. Doesn’t mean they’re not being offered, though!

Really?  I thought EOS RWS was a requirement even if for commonality of user interface with adf's other platforms.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DIADES said:

Only for non-turreted roles.  Turreted use MSSA as it is the best packaging solution when you have a proper independent commanders sight.


*proposed to use the MSSA. 

 

The Commonwealth didn’t execute the MSSA option for phase 2 Lance turrets (Block 1 or 2), so no reason to think that they’d change their mind for this phase. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 2805662 said:

The Commonwealth didn’t execute the MSSA option for phase 2 Lance turrets (Block 1 or 2), so no reason to think that they’d change their mind for this phase. 

Phase 2 and Phase 3 requirements are different.  Will not meet Ph3 without an MSSA.  Ph2 and Ph3 vehicles have different roles.  Ph2, despite ludicrous size is recon.  Ph3 is IFV

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DIADES said:

Phase 2 and Phase 3 requirements are different.  Will not meet Ph3 without an MSSA.  Ph2 and Ph3 vehicles have different roles.  Ph2, despite ludicrous size is recon.  Ph3 is IFV

Yeah, understand the different roles & tasks of the vehicles to be acquired via phase, but thanks for the explanation. 
 

Happy to be corrected with the requirement number that would indicate that turreted Phase 3 variants require a RWS or have a remote weapon requirement. MSSA negatively affects the overall vehicle height as whilst the SEOSS sight head can retract, the MSSA cannot. 
 

Anecdotally, the safety case for even a static live fire of the MSSA for the phase 2 RMA couldn’t be completed as the software performance was unable to verified. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Insomnium95 said:

emove all ATGM

They have not - this uses the pop up Supashock launcher instead of the side mounted type.  As to 30mm - its all about stowed kills.  The 35mm simply cannot carry enough rounds and against the defined targets, 30mm gets it done.

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...