Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV


Recommended Posts

On 3/3/2021 at 9:27 AM, Cleb said:

Spike LR2

Probably not an actual LR2.  The primary difference between LR1 and LR2 is colour camera.  Note the footage in the PR clip from the missile is black and white = LR1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, 2805662 said:

Perhaps to preserve how capable the seeker is from the public domain?

Possible.  But I think it is more likely that the vehicle has integration to suit LR not LR2.  The timing supports this.  The move to LR2 by CoA is recent compared to the timing that Hanwha/Rheinmetall would have been working to to get LR integrated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess. I’m sure the people who need to know, know. Is there anything in the public domain that indicates LR2 launchers aren’t backwards compatible with LR missiles?

Looking forward to the equivalent Rheinmetall video of Spike LR or LR2. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 2805662 said:

Looking forward to the equivalent Rheinmetall video of Spike LR or LR2.

Ahahahahahah - chose sides much!?  Seriously, your kimchee is showing again,  I like my sauerkraut better!  But, yes, both are just cabbage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DIADES said:

Ahahahahahah - chose sides much!?  Seriously, your kimchee is showing again,  I like my sauerkraut better!  But, yes, both are just cabbage.

I’m interested in a fair competition. The only thing I’d change from phase 2, for example, is swapping the Mk30-2ABM for the Mk44. 

I find the assumed superiority of German engineering found in a lot of commentary on phase 3 reminiscent of wehraboo rantings, but that’s just me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/8/2021 at 3:24 AM, LoooSeR said:

Maybe they just used Blavk and White mode for daylight optics, to make it easier to see objects/contours.

Odd choice given they are promoting LR2 and colour is one of the features.  I reckon its just bullship PR using LR not real LR2

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.

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
      30mm Cannon and Javelins for armament.
      Is that the first vehicle mounting the Jav?
    • By Belesarius
      30mm with airburst capability, and supposedly better mine protection than a Leo 2.
  • Create New...