Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 731
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

screenshots    

AS21 rollout:    

So, the bottom line is that Australia is already in contract with Rheinmetall for Phase 2.  The contracted BOXER CRV uses the Rheinmetall weapon.

 

If there is any kind of ammunition issue, it is already real.  I am struggling to understand what anybody posting might imagine that this topic has not been thrashed to bits by the ADF already.

 

As for the main topic pf this thread - no way in hell does the choice between REDBACK and LYNX come to down to the single parameter of ammunition.

 

So, anybody have any new images of either contender?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DIADES said:

If there is any kind of ammunition issue, it is already real.  I am struggling to understand what anybody posting might imagine that this topic has not been thrashed to bits by the ADF already.

 

So, anybody have any new images of either contender?

You’d be surprised- this was new news as of October/November to quite a few senior ADF types. Note that CASG is not part of the ADF, but the DoD (for non-Australians).
 

I believe some new images will be released before Christmas. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DIADES said:

.. am struggling to understand what anybody posting might imagine that this topic has not been thrashed to bits by the ADF already....

well, Qld was able to buy a shiney new fleet of illegal trains...New Queensland train delivery doomed 'from day one', inquiry chief declares - ABC News  I'm not so confident that Australian procurement won''t overlook the obvious.

 

I'm happy with boxer for CRV, pretty good odds that where ADF boxer goes, UK boxer is nearby. 

but for M113 replacement,  i want USA/Korean.  

1968-vietnam-war-safe-conduct-pass-histo

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Kal said:

or M113 replacement

Ph3 is really, really not in any way an M113 replacement.  Ph3 is something Australia has never had = IFV  Utterly different.

 

I frankly don't care about the nationalist side of this - I want the best equipment.  The real RMA trials will shine a light on the claims of both teams.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://proceedings.ndia.org/1590/11839.pdf

 

The MK 30-2 is a gas-operated machine cannon recently chosen as the main armament for Germany's next-generation Infantry Fighting Vehicle, the Puma. This cannon features a double belt feed system with "first round select". A key feature of the MK 30-2 gun is its ability to fire Air Burst Munitions (ABM), using the highly precise AHEAD programming technology. Other key characteristics include a rate of fire of 200 rounds per minute, the capability to fire single shots, and the potential for an emergency firing mode.  

 

Rheinmetall's latest development is the new Wotan 30mm x 173 machine cannon. This externally-powered weapon system has been specifically designed for use in the latest generation of vehicle mounts and remote weapons stations). The Wotan features a unique chainless bolt drive system that accepts two belt feeds and fires at an adjustable rate of between 1 and 200 rpm. Other unique new features include a 100% mechanical hang fire safety, horizontal ammunition feeding and transfer between the bolt and barrel, and the ability to use all NATO standard links, including both the US-standard MK 44 link and the MK 30-2 link.''

 

point is, that is a lot of vendor lockin,  users of MK 30-2 links Army Guide (army-guide.com) are really sparse compared to MK 44 links Mk44 Bushmaster II - Wikipedia  (yes, low effort web links, but it paints the picture)

 

so it appears the Lance turrets can use either Wotan30 or MK30/2 ABM

https://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/en/rheinmetall_defence/systems_and_products/weapons_and_ammunition/direct_fire/medium_calibre/index.php

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/11/2020 at 9:24 AM, Boagrius said:

Do we have a sense of which vehicle is likely to be the better protected one? I would have expected the Lynx to have the upper hand here if only based on it being the heavier vehicle. I do wonder if domestic production of the 30mm ammunition plus superior protection levels might yet get it over the line. IIRC there was some mention of the Ph 3 vehicle needing comparable protection levels to the Abrams. Now while that may be a tad ambitious for either candidate, it speaks to the emphasis placed on that particular category.

EDIT: According to DTR, the MSV variant is now out due largely to the purchase of M1150 under Land 8160 Ph1, and an Armoured Mortar vehicle (AMV), Mortar Ammunition Vehicle (MAV) and Armoured Logistics Vehicle (ALV) are now in.

Nominally Lynx is a 44 combat weight vehicle (including 6 tonnes) so perhaps 38 tonne transport load.

Nominally Redback is a 42 combat weight vehicle (including 6 tonnes?) so perhaps 36 tonne transport load.

the difference between conventional tracks/suspension VS rubber tracks/suspension is about 2 tonnes, resulting in weight parity

So the weight appear evenly matched, but perhaps Redback marketing is overstating their weight? don't know.  Lynx has stated more baked in weight growth potential to 50 tonnes

 

for efficiency gains. rubber tracks typically are tensioned at twice the tension of conventional tracks,  that could result in some structural consequences.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Kal said:

http://proceedings.ndia.org/1590/11839.pdf

 

The MK 30-2 is a gas-operated machine cannon recently chosen as the main armament for Germany's next-generation Infantry Fighting Vehicle, the Puma. This cannon features a double belt feed system with "first round select". A key feature of the MK 30-2 gun is its ability to fire Air Burst Munitions (ABM), using the highly precise AHEAD programming technology. Other key characteristics include a rate of fire of 200 rounds per minute, the capability to fire single shots, and the potential for an emergency firing mode.  

 

Rheinmetall's latest development is the new Wotan 30mm x 173 machine cannon. This externally-powered weapon system has been specifically designed for use in the latest generation of vehicle mounts and remote weapons stations). The Wotan features a unique chainless bolt drive system that accepts two belt feeds and fires at an adjustable rate of between 1 and 200 rpm. Other unique new features include a 100% mechanical hang fire safety, horizontal ammunition feeding and transfer between the bolt and barrel, and the ability to use all NATO standard links, including both the US-standard MK 44 link and the MK 30-2 link.''

 

point is, that is a lot of vendor lockin,  users of MK 30-2 links Army Guide (army-guide.com) are really sparse compared to MK 44 links Mk44 Bushmaster II - Wikipedia  (yes, low effort web links, but it paints the picture)

 

so it appears the Lance turrets can use either Wotan30 or MK30/2 ABM

https://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/en/rheinmetall_defence/systems_and_products/weapons_and_ammunition/direct_fire/medium_calibre/index.php

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interesting, thanks. Not a fan of the Mk30-2 (if that wasn’t clear XD). A gas operated system in medium calibre is bonkers. Externally powered systems do have a distinct advantage insofar as they can continue to cycle to the next round if there’s a misfire. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Kal said:

Nominally Lynx is a 44 combat weight vehicle (including 6 tonnes) so perhaps 38 tonne transport load.

Nominally Redback is a 42 combat weight vehicle (including 6 tonnes?) so perhaps 36 tonne transport load.

the difference between conventional tracks/suspension VS rubber tracks/suspension is about 2 tonnes, resulting in weight parity

So the weight appear evenly matched, but perhaps Redback marketing is overstating their weight? don't know.  Lynx has stated more baked in weight growth potential to 50 tonnes

 

for efficiency gains. rubber tracks typically are tensioned at twice the tension of conventional tracks,  that could result in some structural consequences.

 


Great, thanks for the input. I guess we will know more once they have both been properly put through their paces (or shot to pieces?).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Each of EOS, Hanwha, Rheinmetall and presumably Elbit would have decent vehicle mounted solutions for close in anti air applications.

 

Russia's pantsir would be the global base reference, The Hanwha Biho is probably the western base reference https://www.hanwha-defense.co.kr/eng/mobile/products/antiaircraft-artillery-biho.do

 

 

and biho 2 would be a hard to beat next gen unit.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

First look at new proximity fuzed round - YouTube

relevence is twofold,

the XM1211 round (proximity fuse) would be usable on Redback if they placed an apache helicopter derivative gun on the RWS.  (M230LF on EOS R400 RWS)  which is both highly possible and unlikely because why have  2 differing 30mm cannons on same vehicle??

 

this round becomes the basis for a proximity ammo for the 30mm Mk44 Bushmaster II , as used accross NATO and asia, including Redback's main gun, or a hypothetical Lynx with Wotan30mm

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 3rd AS21 prototype has left Korea and is en route to Australia. It departed from Masan Port on the 18th.

 

According to the press release (machine translated), "prototype 3 will be officially delivered to the Australian Army in the middle of next month along with the 1st and 2nd units sent to Australia in July, and will be used for a full-fledged test evaluation from February." (Link: https://www.news1.kr/articles/?4155699

 

5mKZEWf.jpg

Spoiler

r4N9eY5.png

ryJrv64.png

i15dMmG.jpg

 

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

The 3rd AS21 prototype has left Korea and is en route to Australia. It departed from Masan Port on the 18th.

 

According to the press release (machine translated), "prototype 3 will be officially delivered......

  Hide contents

r4N9eY5.png

 

 

 

Starboard side appears up-armoured.   Port side left as-is.

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...