Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Land 400 Phase 3: Australian IFV


2805662
 Share

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Atokara said:

Glad to see it. I've been rooting for the AS21 to win and would've hated to see it only get dropped for a reason other than it's performance and capabilities.

 

The optics were downgraded - so not much to be happy about. There is some speculation that EOS only installed its optics as a stand-in (as the hull previously was used for blast testing) and the offered variant still has the Elbit COAPS as gunner's sight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/3/2021 at 6:21 PM, DIADES said:

looks like it might t be useful too - unlike the balcony on the back of Redback

Not a fan of either, tbh. 
 

Speaking of, here’s some more pics. 
AVnnis7.jpg

 

Note the top cover sentry hatches open to the vertical & prevent turret traverse. 
 

F7dpVeI.jpg

 

The overhang to the rear. 
 

6DaZ7QR.jpg
 

sFgwzDP.jpg

 

Some “well proven” suspension components. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More pics of the Redback. 
 

Suspension unit. 
5PpR5c5.jpg


Note the spacer between roadwheels to accommodate the Soucy track.

 

5LDIJL1.jpg

 

SA cameras. 
 

Fdsrr3K.jpg

 

Sadly, this (blast test hull) was displayed without its coat rack fitted. 
 

xhutMii.jpg

 

Marketing bumpf:

 

gjNjMJH.jpg

 

hFWrTnH.jpg

 

Information on the power pack:

 

czvPPHV.jpg 

 

The engine for the RMA Redback. 
 

Tu3QFRo.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DIADES said:

Great solar shield cammo - pity about the bloody great exhaust pipe sticking out of the from right corner....


Yes…already addressed:

 

On 5/27/2021 at 11:16 AM, David Moyes said:

@TokyoMorose

The test rig was shown with an exhaust management add-on:

T6QLKua.jpg


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, 2805662 said:


Yes…already addressed:

 


 

I don't agree.  That is pure show stuff.  If that was an actual functional system, why not fitted to RMA vehicles?  Plus, just look at it - the geometry means that there is almost certainly massive back pressure as the poor exhaust is basically pointed at a flat plate a few inches away.  OK, maybe I'm wrong about that and lets pretend that the exhaust is now flowing in that thing - which is now a massive thermal signature right down the side of the vehicle.  The vehicles as delivered are breathtakingly loud and I can't imagine Hanwha not fitting a solution if they had one ready to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DIADES said:

I don't agree.  That is pure show stuff.  If that was an actual functional system, why not fitted to RMA vehicles?  Plus, just look at it - the geometry means that there is almost certainly massive back pressure as the poor exhaust is basically pointed at a flat plate a few inches away.  OK, maybe I'm wrong about that and lets pretend that the exhaust is now flowing in that thing - which is now a massive thermal signature right down the side of the vehicle.  The vehicles as delivered are breathtakingly loud and I can't imagine Hanwha not fitting a solution if they had one ready to go.

Could well be correct - is the audible signature a requirement? Would be interesting to see what the respective interior noise & vibration profiles are, especially considering the UK AJAX experience. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/9/2021 at 6:41 PM, 2805662 said:

is the audible signature a requirement?

Yes - two Requirements FPS 2250 and 3381.  Static and in motion.  Non-detectable at 300m and 3,000m respectively.  Then there are crew/dismount habitability Requirements too.

 

Yes - AJAX is a valuable reminder.  In that case, given how old the vehicle is and that it is in service - I suspect the limits we accept now are lower than the bad old days!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DIADES said:

Yes - two Requirements FPS 2250 and 3381.  Static and in motion.  Non-detectable at 300m and 3,000m respectively.  Then there are crew/dismount habitability Requirements too.

 


Thanks. Long since deleted my copies of the requirements. 
 

Regarding the habitability requirements, will be interesting to see whether the different suspension & track systems affect the crew & dismount experiences. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Kal said:

Hanwha will be demonstrating 2 turrets for Land 400 phase 3 RMA.

Yeah, read that.  Can't see how.  RMA is well and truly underway.  Pretty sure the rules do not allow late entries!  More likely that there is one turret type on their RMA vehicles (Elbit for sure) and they will show the CoA the "EOS" turret on the sidelines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my understanding of phase 3 land 400, is that its easy to demonstrate multiple configurations and options, but the sales pitch is to about a sole particular best option.  I would consider it for australia to be demonstration of the better suited for Australia between the T2000 and the Elbit system, but could still be relevant for other countries looking for a in use, global solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RMA is underway, but each is a contract between the commonwealth and the tenderer; it can be amended via Contract Change Proposal. Either party can initiate a CCP. Would be surprised if they weren’t into double digit CCPs by now, for the RMA alone. 

Regardless, RMA would likely be followed by an offer definition & improvement activity (ODIA) which may occur on either side of a down-select. 
 

Interestingly, a separate project just (this month) shortlisted Elbit as a potential prime contractor for another Land project. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/19/2021 at 4:26 PM, 2805662 said:

Contract Change

True but CoA will not allow changes that to introduce any hint of unfair advantage.  As each part of RMA proceeds, extent of change that could be permitted will reduce for fear of damaging prior assessments - and CoA is definitely not going back to repeat prior work.  Changing the turret to a different design is massive.  I simply can't see it being allowed - it could invalidate blast results for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, DIADES said:

True but CoA will not allow changes that to introduce any hint of unfair advantage.  As each part of RMA proceeds, extent of change that could be permitted will reduce for fear of damaging prior assessments - and CoA is definitely not going back to repeat prior work.  Changing the turret to a different design is massive.  I simply can't see it being allowed - it could invalidate blast results for example.

All reasonable points. Will be interesting to see how it all plays out. 
 

New (infantry) boss for L400 at the end of the year, new guy in AHQ (black hat), new user rep in forces command (infantry - lightfighter); all setting up for an interesting evaluation. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Rico said:

Is there any current feeling/rumours/in between statements how Redback and Lynx are doing and which one is doing better?

don't know, it kinda feels like both have potential to make it to the finish line, barring some unfortunate self sabotarge ie, Redback's exhaust, Lynx's ammunition.

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...