Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

Japan’s modern armoured vehicles


Recommended Posts

  • 1 month later...


This is pretty big for Japan especially in terms of potential exports. For the longest time many companies didn't move into the export market because it was seen as risky and not very profitable. Now the government will support efforts for exports during the development process and also modifying existing equipment to match foreign specifications. There a new drive to keep companies in the defense market and providing a safety net for companies that previously saw endeavors as risky. This could incentivize the creation of defense centered companies as well as all of Japan's defense contract companies do it as a side to their primary markets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Big news recently. The reconnaissance version of the ICV has been seen yesterday and Japan has agreed to transfer 100 vehicles to Ukraine. The vehicles include the 1/2t truck, HMV, and Materials Carrier. While all will be "unarmed" upon delivery all readily accept weapons up to 50 cals on mounts and the Material Carrier can tow howitzers.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...


A new bill was approved and enacted on June 7th to increase production and allow exports of defense equipment. The Japanese government will subsidize the expansion of production lines as well as subsidizing efforts to adapt existing equipment to foreign specifications. The bill will officially take effect on October 1st with the 1st customer likely to be Ukraine as a video of Ukraine's intelligence chief with a Japanese and Ukrainian flag in the background was released with the comment to "Stay tuned" just a few days after the bill was passed.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

We now a bit more info on the Mitsubishi vs Patria WAPC replacement from one of the test drivers.



The performance advantage previously stated has to deal with the differential lock on both vehicle. The MAV only had a front and rear diff lock while the AMV had diff lock on all axels which gave better performance in off-road conditions. For those who don't know the MAV design and concept predated the MCV by a few years as the Common Tactical Wheeled Vehicle. From what I can tell this was changed between the MAV and MCV as this complaint was never raised about the MCV.


In terms of crew comfort

  • The MAV had much more room for dismounts, but the seats were less comfortable.
  • It was easier for the driver to get in and out of the Patria. 
  • The emergency fire suppressant switch was in an inconvenient place and was accidentally triggered during testing on the MAV.
  • The MAV was much louder in the drivers area, but it was partially because ear pro was accidentally forgotten when procuring supplies for the drivers. After ear pro was provided there were no issues, but he notes that the MAV was too loud without anything, but noted that the crew would always have earphones during operation.

In the posters opinion and my speculation, it seems like Mitsubishi kind of half-assed the competition. They put forward an old design and didn't bother properly adapting it to the competition the design wasn't really adapted based on feedback. It seems like Mitsubishi just put forward the design they already had just to fill out the domestic design requirement without any expectations to win. The poster thinks that MHI could have easily created a clean sheet design to directly counter the AMV based on talks with some of the engineers, but the higher ups didn't put in the expected effort for such a competition. On the other hand Patria was well prepared for the competition and very accommodating to the testing staff with plenty of spares (which didn't need to be used since both designs had an almost non-existent failure rate). IMO where Mitsubishi just put forward a design for the sake of putting forward a design Patria went all out in an attempt to win.


On one hand I don't entirely blame Mitsubishi. After Komatsu pulled out of the competition MHI was picked to replace them as the domestic design. On the other it's a shame that they just put a design forward without fully committing to the competition as one would expect out of a company like MHI. My hope is that the MoD will get Hitachi more into the defense business with the new grants and safety nets and take some of the weight off of MHI in the absence of Komatsu.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even more info about the MAV comes out. This time what appears to be an advertisement video for it in English. Perhaps Mitsubishi is planning on exporting the vehicle. One thing I did notice in the video is that the basic seats can be swapped out for suspended mesh ones which the previous poster complained the MAV didn't have. Maybe it was because he was a driver and was complaining about the driver's seat, but it seemed like he was complaining about the dismount seats as well.


Regardless it will be interesting to see if MHI tries to offer the MAV as an export vehicle since it wasn't selected by Japan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...



MCV No.3 

Publicly showcased for the first time in the Kyushu region of Japan.

Outlined below are the distinct attributes that set the MCV No.3 apart from its successor, the Type 16 MCV. These features, which I have thoroughly researched, provide a comprehensive understanding of the differences between the two vehicles:

1) Sloped Vehicle Hull Side: One of the standout characteristics of the MCV No.3 lies in its sloped vehicle hull side, a design choice to enhance the vehicle's armor effectiveness. This sloping is primarily aimed at optimizing armor thickness, a strategic maneuver intended to bolster protection against a range of threats, notably rifle rounds.

2) Individual Crew Member Hatches: A notable feature of the MCV No.3 is its provision of individual hatches for every crew member, including the gunner. 
A noteworthy detail as shown in this image is the presence of an openned gunner's hatch in front of the commander, albeit this feature has been excluded from the production model.

3) Commander's Cupola Design: The MCV No.3 features a commander's cupola that mirrors the one found on a Type 73 APC. Distinguished by its machine gun mount for an M2 .50 cal, this cupola diverges from the production MCV, where the machine gun is centrally located within the turret. 
Specifically engineered for combat in a Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical (NBC) environment, the machine gun is remotely operable from within the vehicle.

4) Triangle Shaped Turret: A remarkable departure from the Type 16's wedge-shaped turret front is the MCV No.3's adoption of a distinctive triangle-shaped turret.

5) Auxiliary Power Unit: Setting itself apart further, the MCV No.3 is equipped with an auxiliary power unit, enhancing its operational capabilities.

6) Meteorological System (METSMAN): An advanced meteorological system, developed by the esteemed Thales Group, finds its place within the MCV No.3. Worth noting is its dual presence in the Type 10 Main Battle Tank, showcasing a commonality of technology.

7) Muzzle Reference System: Among its standout features is the inclusion of a Muzzle Reference System, contributing to its precision and accuracy.

8) 360-Degree Laser Warning Receivers: Setting an unparalleled benchmark, a total of four laser warning receivers adorn the turret of the MCV No.3 — both on its front and rear. In contrast, the Type 16 houses two such units at its front. This configuration enables the MCV No.3 to effectively detect laser threats across a complete 360-degree spectrum.

9) Armor Differentiation: Notably distinct from the Type 16, the MCV No.3's design seemingly eschews modular armor, favoring thin bulletproof steel plates bolted to the turret's sides. Whether the vehicle can be retrofitted with additional armor remains a subject of uncertainty.

It is imperative to recognize that prototype vehicles often showcase a more elaborate iteration, with select features subsequently relinquished in the final design to curtail costs. 


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...


Patria & JSW signing 31 August 2023

An "upset" kinda? Most people were expecting Hitachi to produce the AMV XP as a kick start to their defense sector, but it turns out JSW will be the ones handling the licensed production. Still interesting as this could promote JSW to start working on vehicles besides the Type 19 instead of just AFV/artillery guns. Also many people were expecting the Type 19 to switch from the JSW produced MAN chassis to the Mitsubishi HWR this year, but it won't happen with the likely reason that the HWR chassis would put the Type 19 over the 26t capacity of the Kawasaki C-2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 3 months later...
  • 1 month later...

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.

  • Create New...