Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV


Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, DIADES said:

Note that the front camera has been replaced bu a mirror!  So, the strategy is cheap and nasty :)

Or, just maybe, “we don’t need a camera for the intended purpose that this hull would fulfil”, or “we’ll integrate it when it gets to where it’s going”?

 

Just as when Rheinmetall ships production Boxer, a lot of the situational awareness sensors are stripped off. 


1hqWZey.jpg


Seems smart to have scalable alternatives & redundancies in a complex system. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 731
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

screenshots    

AS21 rollout:    

17 minutes ago, DIADES said:

Note that the front camera has been replaced bu a mirror!  So, the strategy is cheap and nasty 


Considering they seem to be 2 equally appealing options, they gotta do what they can to seem more appealing than the Lynx, even if the strategy is “we are cheaper than our competitors”. 

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

Note that the front camera has been replaced bu a mirror!  So, the strategy is cheap and nasty :)

The press release mentions (machine translated), "The new unit was specially designed to test and evaluate its ability to protect against landmines, improvised explosives, external bullets and shell attacks, especially underneath the vehicle."

 

With that mentioned it's probably the reason as to why this specific prototype has a different configuration to the previous AS21s that were shipped out earlier this year.

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

ships production Boxer,

not sure we have apples and apples - that is not a production boxer ex Germany.  They are painted DPP in Aus and have lots of gear including the SAS cameras fitted locally.  they use tectonica cameras;  I don't see a mirror added...

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cleb said:

With that mentioned it's probably the reason as to why this specific prototype has a different configuration to the previous AS21s that were shipped out earlier this year

could be.  This it would be odd as the mineblast test vehicle were to be first delivered.

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

not sure we have apples and apples - that is not a production boxer ex Germany.  They are painted DPP in Aus and have lots of gear including the SAS cameras fitted locally.  they use tectonica cameras;  I don't see a mirror added...

Well aware of that. It’s literally Boxer ARN213083, the first Block 1 Boxer delivered to the Australian Army. Boxers are also fitted with wing mirrors, as appropriate. I’ve circled the mount for the mirrors in the pic below. ARN is 213084, pic taken at 2/14 QMI open day on 2019. 
 

qdpH09D.jpg

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

Understood and agreed - the mirror I am talking about is the one mounted near the right hand front lifting point on the REDBACk, the one angled to look down/forward instead of a camera.  No BOXER has that.  They have a camera.

Don’t know about that. The mirror you refer to on the Redback looks angled to view where the front of the track comes into contact with the ground. Boxer’s camera, located midway up the glacis, can’t see that area. Boxer does have equivalent mirrors positioned to view the same area, albeit located outboard, rather than inboard. These are circled in the attached pic. Cheap & nasty? Seems pragmatic. 
 

n0hLsTd.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as a comparison of the mirrors of the AS21s out there.

 

Spoiler

Hanwha test rig? Not sure what to call this one but it lacks any sort of mirrors and has the low slung front facing camera cluster which is seen on the AS21 that was fitted with a turret at the Elbit Systems facility.

X8F5rjX.jpg

4Dv5fJF.jpg

 

Elbit test rig. Has the same low slung front facing camera cluster as the Hanwha test rig but has additional mirrors though of a different design to the ones fitted to the two AS21s that were rolled out in July and the recent 3rd prototype.

b4EmIVp.jpg

JbampxJ.jpg

The AS21 in the suspension test video has the same mirror setup as the one in the Elbit Systems Turret and Hull integration video. 

LUBms9X.jpg

 

1st and 2nd AS21s rolled out in July. These ones have a different front facing camera cluster to the Hanwha and Elbit test rigs and new mirrors. The mirrors on these two are the same as that on the 3rd prototype. Though as is being discussed it is lacking the front facing camera cluster.

wsTxh5I.jpg

WEqBE1Q.png

TejjtQt.jpg

 

Completely useless detail info...

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

mirror

we have driven down a mirror rabbit hole..!  My point is that the CAMERA has been deleted.  No number of mirrors on any platform in any way is equivalent to a CAMERA.  Clebs post is very useful.  Looks like the drivers camera has evolved.  Latest version is more practical as it sits back behind the front edge of the glacis.  I take back my comment about mounting provision too.  It looks like the latest cast housing picks up on 4 existing armour mount bolts,  Cable routs still not obvious tho.

 

And on mirrors :) BOXER does not look t have any mirrors fitted during driver conversion training.  It does have cameras.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

ADBC : 네이버 블로그 (naver.com)  page 4, google foo translate

 

they seem to suggest, Korea can offer bomblet protection like the Germans (Puma) and assume that Lynx will offer bomblet protection.

they seem to suggest, Korea did not have the tech to have the hull blast protection required, but that only Israel's Plasan and Germany's IBD do.  Obviously Plasan feeds into Redback.

seemed to suggest, Redback's 42 tonne combat weight can rise to 47 tonne.

they seemed to suggest that (주)삼양컴텍 (samyangct.com) is involved (an armour company supply both Korean tank, and K21 IFV armour 'glove')

 

there is also an obvious error where they mix up Rafael for Elbit.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

as i understand it, the vendors are allowed (not discouraged) to display various configurations, but when it comes down to the final analysis, the competition is a single variant vs a single variant,  ie, the tender score  normalisation is about a single offer each.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

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...