Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

Spike LR and Spike LR2 both utilize the same hardware and software interfaces; just a "simple" software update should enable any Spike LR launcher too fire the newer version - at least according to Rafael.

 The physical interface is the same and a launcher for LR will fire an LR2 but will not support all LR2 features.  You are correct  to put simple in quotes.  There is nothing "simple"about changing the software in a turret, let alone software that controls ordnance....

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • Replies 806
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

screenshots    

AS21 rollout:    

On 4/1/2021 at 12:04 PM, 2805662 said:

by that article, the Redback is wider than the Lynx, by the picture the tracks on the Hanwha are as wide as the combo of Lynx track + side skirt.

the ride will be different between the 2 vehicles. more rubber in contact + more tension along the track

height seems similar, but hawha has both taller hull and nil suspension intrusion into hull.  why?

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

by that article, the Redback is wider than the Lynx, by the picture the tracks on the Hanwha are as wide as the combo of Lynx track + side skirt.

the ride will be different between the 2 vehicles. more rubber in contact + more tension along the track

height seems similar, but hawha has both taller hull and nil suspension intrusion into hull.  why?

By eyeball, I put the Soucy tracks on the Redback at 510-530mm wide. 
 

(Noting that this is 100% deductive reasoning/speculation) I think the hull roof height isn’t given as the in-arm suspension allows for variable ride height (though a notional overall height is given), with minimal hull intrusions. From the looks of it, the under hull protection on the Redback is *very* thick.


With 125kW more engine output than the Leopard AS1, at a comparable combat weight, but better suspension, I’d like to see Redback do some proper cross-country work. Likely put the old Leopard AS1 to shame!

 

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

Since this is the defacto Australia thread.

 

https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major-arms-sales/australia-heavy-armored-combat-systems

Quote

WASHINGTON, April 29, 2021 - The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Australia of Heavy Armored Combat Systems and related equipment for an estimated cost of $1.685 billion.  The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale today.

The Government of Australia has requested to buy one hundred sixty (160) M1A1 Tank structures/hulls provided from stock in order to produce the following end items and spares:  seventy-five (75) M1A2 SEPv3 Abrams Main Battle Tanks; twenty-nine (29) M1150 Assault Breacher Vehicles; eighteen (18) M1074 Joint Assault Bridges; six (6) M88A2 Hercules Combat Recovery Vehicles; and one hundred twenty-two (122) AGT1500 gas turbine engines.  Also included is development of a unique armor package, Common Remotely Operated Weapon Station Low Profile (CROWS-LP), Driver’s Vision Enhancer, mission equipment, special tools and test equipment, ground support equipment, system and engine spare parts, technical data, publications, Modification Work Orders/Engineering Change Proposals (MWO/ECPs), U.S. Government and contractor technical and logistics assistance, quality assurance teams, transportation services, program management, New Equipment Training (NET); and other related elements of logistical and program support.  The total estimated value is $1.685 billion.

This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States.  Australia is one of our most important allies in the Western Pacific.  The strategic location of this political and economic power contributes significantly to ensuring peace and economic stability in the region.  It is vital to the U.S. national interest to assist our ally in developing and maintaining a strong and ready self-defense capability.

The proposed sale improves Australia’s capability to meet current and future threats by enhancing the lethality, survivability, and interoperability of the Australian Army.  Australia will use the enhanced capability to strengthen its homeland defense and deter regional threats.  The M1A2 SEPv3 Main Battle Tanks will upgrade the current Australian fleet of M1A1 SA tanks with no changes to Royal Australian Armoured Corps force structure.  Additional M88A2 vehicles provide de-processing and combat vehicle recovery support for the Australian tank fleet.  The M1150 Assault Breacher Vehicles (ABVs) and M1074 Joint Assault Bridges (JABs) will be a new capability for the Royal Australian Engineers, bringing under-armor bridging and breaching capability, increasing the effectiveness and survivability of Australian Combat Engineers and providing increased mobility for the armored fleet.  Australia will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.

The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

The principal contractors will be General Dynamics Land Systems, Sterling Heights, MI; BAE Systems, York, PA; Leonardo DRS, Arlington, VA; and Honeywell Aerospace, Phoenix, AZ.  The purchaser typically requests offsets.  Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor(s).

Implementation of this sale will require the assignment of approximately 10 additional U.S. or contractor representatives to Australia.

There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

This notice of a potential sale is required by law.  The description and dollar value is for the highest estimated quantity and dollar value based on initial requirements.  Actual dollar value will be lower depending on final requirements, budget authority, and signed sales agreement(s), if and when concluded.

All questions regarding this proposed Foreign Military Sale should be directed to the State Department's Bureau of Political Military Affairs, Office of Congressional and Public Affairs, pm-cpa@state.gov.

 

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

 Wow, so nearly a tripling of Australia's tank weight fleet.

 

Will need clarification if these are upgrades of existing Australian Abrams, trading in existing Australian Abrams or that Australia will keep their current vehicles (into storage) and these are in addition to them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that the current 59 M1A1 AIM SA will return to the US as the new tanks are delivered. 
 

The inclusions are pretty extensive, to the point of turnkey. 
 

ci2iDq1.jpg

 

Someone dug up some of the pre-work in US disclosures. 
 

ed9QnWF.jpg

 

Zoomed in:

 

5mjklDQ.jpg

 

The $USD1.685b sticker price is the upper cost for what’s listed on the announcement. 
 

 

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...