Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 750
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

screenshots    

AS21 rollout:    

Aslav bar armour was made cheaply by some Locals, so no need to go plasan.  The other thought is that the sides will just carry shovels and shit and if we be tricky, we mighty get a privacy sheet work to cover it, and pretend it something special.

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

Aslav bar armour was made cheaply by some Locals, so no need to go plasan.  The other thought is that the sides will just carry shovels and shit and if we be tricky, we mighty get a privacy sheet work to cover it, and pretend it something special.

Yeah, tracking. The original ASLAV stuff used actual rebar. Inefficient weight-wise. It was also very vulnerable to damage due to it being overly rigid. Simply showing an alternative that’s current generation. 
 

Also, to quote the press release: “The vehicle boasts an advanced layered protection system including Elbit’s active protection system, Plasan’s world class armour and a structure designed to protect occupants from the effects of blast.”

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

Can't shake the feeling that the redback will Look more complete with side slat armour for hull, and rear slat armour for turretfull

 

Why to install slat armour on a vehicle with APS? Slat armour severly degrades vehicle mobility and somewhat protects only against very old anti-tank weapons which shall be an easy prey for the APS. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Beer said:

 

Why to install slat armour on a vehicle with APS? Slat armour severly degrades vehicle mobility and somewhat protects only against very old anti-tank weapons which shall be an easy prey for the APS. 

Maybe slat armour will end up optimised for 57mm HEAT spam.

 

Besides slat armour should be cheap to repair.

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

Maybe slat armour will end up optimised for 57mm HEAT spam.

 

How is it supposed to work? 

 

1 hour ago, Kal said:

Besides slat armour should be cheap to repair.

 

That's purely secondary property and hardly a reason to carry it. The reason for slat armor existence is increase of surivability for the cost of extra weight, ridiculous dimensions, worse driving performance and harder accessability of most of the vehicle area. However it works only against very old HEAT grenades and only sometimes. It doesn't work against ATGM and newer RPGs at all (even against pretty old ones like RPG-18). When the vehicle is equipped with APS, which can deal with all those threats much better, there is no reason to diminish its performance by adding the cage. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/14/2021 at 11:54 PM, Beer said:

 

How is it supposed to work? 

 

 

That's purely secondary property and hardly a reason to carry it. The reason for slat armor existence is increase of surivability for the cost of extra weight, ridiculous dimensions, worse driving performance and harder accessability of most of the vehicle area. However it works only against very old HEAT grenades and only sometimes. It doesn't work against ATGM and newer RPGs at all (even against pretty old ones like RPG-18). When the vehicle is equipped with APS, which can deal with all those threats much better, there is no reason to diminish its performance by adding the cage. 

Modern slat armour is about 10kg per square metre coverage. (See hawkei above).  It also has electric cunning to defeat more modern rpg.  So weight is almost inconsequential, but maintainability and robustness could be an issue.  As both redback and lynx come with ironfist's radars, the obvious option to up armour for pre deployment is simply to plug in larger/ and or additional launchers for the APS....so perhaps that is the future.  But guessing the australian army conservatism, i would expect both.   Additionally i would expect users of either/both lynx and redback to eventually add some hull APS launchers, tied to the turret's radars.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2021 at 8:38 PM, SH_MM said:

Not a fan of using RWS' optics as independent commander's sight. There should be a noteworthy performance difference compared to using the independent commander's sight as RWS.

EOS r400 optics etc are better than elbit's 2016 COAPS, but i can't find pdfs about current COAPS, I notice the AS21 COAPS has differing lenses to earlier generation.

 

Other notable point is that EOS r400 seems to duplicated its dual axis stabilisation.  I guess that allows the sensor's slew and elevation to be more rapid and more stable than it's weapons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

just a thought, now that Apache are joining ADF, the M230 chaingun will now publicly be part of ADF.  which is an option for the redback's R400 RWS.  (but why bother when there is a real 30mm already on the turret)

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

sensor's slew and elevatio

Needs to be able to slew elevate separately from the weapon to enable lead.  Plus if the commander continues to use the remote sight when using the primary weapon (killer killer) then the sight must be able to slew and elevate independently as the ballistic characteristics of whatever small arm is mounted to the remote are radically different to the main weapon.   Actually reduces performance  as there are two sets of mechanical error available etc,

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/20/2021 at 5:44 AM, Kal said:

EOS r400 optics etc are better than elbit's 2016 COAPS, but i can't find pdfs about current COAPS, I notice the AS21 COAPS has differing lenses to earlier generation.

 

No, they are not. You may not know what the relevant performance metrics are, if you come to this conclusion...

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...