Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV


2805662
 Share

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

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

I'm sure I don't know what the relevant performance metrics are,

however using the public advertisments in my country, I get

COAPS 2016 COAPS_2016.pdf (elbitsystems.com.au) FLIR •target NATO NFOV (DRI 10.5, 4.5, 2.2) km

R400 R400BrochureAUS_WEB.pdf (eos-aus.com)  thermal imager•target  (DRI 13.7, 5.1, 4.0) km

 

If I were to draw a conclusion, it would be that 4 years is currently a long time in sensor tech, and that COAPS2016 is different to COAPS today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question, how friendly (or otherwise) are rubber tracks to dirt roads.  I assume the rubber tracks are still too aggressive to place on bitumen roads, but do they tear up dirt roads too?   (Ie australian rural dirt road, but still traversable by RWD. Ie ford falcon)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never (personally) had an issue with tracks tearing up roads. T130, Diehl 513, T150F: never damaged the roads I operated on, in Australia & overseas. Re. Dirt tracks, we’d normally parallel them if we thought we’d damage them by repeated traffic. 
 

We’d also road run Leopard AS1 (similar MLC as AS21/KF41) with no issues regarding damage. Can’t imagine composite rubber track would be any more aggressive than conventional track using rubber pads. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kal said:

I assume the rubber tracks are still too aggressive to place on bitumen roads, but do they tear up dirt roads too? 

Military track (in peacetime) is friendly to all road surfaces simply as load is distributed so well compared to wheeled vehicles.  Exceptions are when the midden intersects the ventilator and we revert to steel track and even rubber pad or band track does rip up bitumen if you pivot turn.  Less damage on dirt as less traction. (less resistance to pivot)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DIADES said:

Military track (in peacetime) is friendly to all road surfaces simply as load is distributed so well compared to wheeled vehicles.  Exceptions are when the midden intersects the ventilator and we revert to steel track and even rubber pad or band track does rip up bitumen if you pivot turn.  Less damage on dirt as less traction. (less resistance to pivot)

what I'm trying to understand, would a carefully driven rubber banded IFV be capable of travel on australian/asian roads without causing damage.  because excavators have a bad reputation for tearing up the roads.  we have plenty of that thin cheap, spray seal (chip & seal) road The Nature of Sprayed Seals | Austroads.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Kal said:

excavators

earthmoving equipment uses pure steel track - literally a steel edge or two contacts the road at every link..  99% combat vehicle track (in peacetime) use a steel track with rubber pads - only the pads contact the road.  Same impact as a rubber track.  Tracked earthmovers have no suspension so there are high in-equalities in load distribution as well.  No comparison

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, 2805662 said:


I don’t believe that’s been integrated into the KF41 as of yet. 

 

AFAIK according to the original schedule (before covid-related delay) by this time the Lynx shall have been under state trials here in CZ in its final configuration, i.e. including the Iron Fist. For sure the Australian version is different but the Iron Fists shall be present in both and by now already integrated at least in one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/20/2020 at 12:52 PM, 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 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

  Hide contents

 

 

 

 

something that is standing out is that both as21 and kf41 seem to have the drivers position a lot further aft than CV90 or KF31....LYNX-5_(c)HDF.jpg

periscopes seem to at front of AS21 drivers  hatch, but halfway back of KF41 hatch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, 2805662 said:

integrated into the KF41

Yes it has been.  The pics with no sensors are of the blast vehicle which has many expensive bits omitted.  Not fitted is not the same as not integrated.  Later pics of the non-blast vehicles for RMA clearly show the sensors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Kal said:

isn't the coax on the starboard side?  or did it swap side for Australia?

The pics you show are the show car version of LYNX, not a real config.  LANCE on BLOCK 1 BOXER has RHS coax, LANCE on RMA LYNX has coax LHS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

H9J6VRp.jpg

Queensland's cabinet hosting a meeting at Rheinmetall Defence Australia’s Military Vehicle Centre of Excellence on Monday. The state government signed a MoU that day reiterating its support for RM's KF41 bid.

 

Also the Department of Defence says that it has received the three prototypes of each contending IFV as of 13 February https://www.overtdefense.com/2021/02/19/queensland-government-reaffirms-backing-of-rheinmetall-land-400-phrase-3-bid/

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.

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.

 Share

  • 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...