Which one is the best one? The Australian army are going to replace their ASLAVs with the CRV for the recce role.
AMV with BAE System's E35 (CV90) turret and 35mm gun.
Boxer with the Rheinmetall's Lance turret and 30mm gun.
Sentinel (Terrex II) with Elbit's MT30 turret and 30mm gun.
LAV (LAV 6.0) with Konberg's unmanned MCT30 turret and 30mm gun.
All offerings besides the AMV will integrate the Spike ATGM, whereas the AMV offering will instead have dismount fired Spike or MMP.
AMV
>>29886583
As I said the last time you made this thread, the Terrex II because it is the likely winner of the ACV selection for the USMC.
>>29886642
Why do you think the Terrex will trump the SuperAV?
Regardless, the Australians don't have any requirements for amphibious capability and the armour/sensor options are beyond what's on offer in the ACV 1.1 competition.
>>29886709
The combination of it passing the downselect despite being a last minute entry, and SAIC doing the upgrades for the AAV, are what lead me to think it has the upper hand.
For it on Australia's end, the list of Australian companies behind it will have some weight.
>>29886583
>>29886843
BAE Systems is pretty fucking big in the US. SAIC has a huge battle on its hand, and the fact that Singapore hasn't made any huge sales to the US doesn't help let alone any exports on the Terrex.
All the other offerings are bigger industrial players there Elbit Australia.
BAE Systems Australia, Rheinemtall Australia, GDLS-Australia and Thales Australia already have major industrial advantages over the Sentinel offering.
Not to mention GDLS-A is incumbent with ASLAV and Abrams.
>>29886869
Mike, please.
>>29886889
>and the fact that Singapore hasn't made any huge sales to the US
>>29886869
>Accurate Depiciton of the M113 "Gavin"s full modern combat upgrade capability
>>29886583
Why the fuck are none of these companies listed on the Australian Stock Exchange? Goddamit I wanna gamble
>>29886912
BAE Systems is the current OEM for the AAV. SAIC made the SU for the AAV.
ST Kinetics has never made inroads into a Western AFV competition except for the Bronco/Warthog for the British army.
>>29887105
Presumably because they're all just subsidiaries. Might want look at the US and European markets.
>>29887116
Yeah they are.
The honey isn't sweet enough to warrant the fees my bank charges for an international trading account.
>>29887145
That feeling when no defence companies on the ASX.
I cry every time.
>>29886869
>rotary wings
delet this, gavins deserve the finest in glider technology
>>29887255
There was the drone company one that was the only one to tender on a job.
XTEK they're called, but the boat has sailed on them by now. At least until the second pass for their tender gets released.
Also ASB, won a few tenders for ships and stuff.
Is the increased firepower worth the reduction in rounds?
>>29886583
Boxer + Puma.
>>29887443
always
which is why you should be putting 120mm mortars on there
like the Amos
>>29886583
Strykers.
I don't see why you wouldn't want a tracked vehicle for recon
>>29887644
What are we? British?
>>29887637
Wanting a shittier LAV.
>>29886642
If that is your argument then you are wrong. From all signs and tests it looked like Havoc were going to win the competition, but Lockheed betrayed Patria and then failed miserably with their own bid.
So AMV is best choice.
>>29887622
I don't think 80 rounds of 35mm justifies going down from 200-300 30mm shells.
>>29887686
The Terrex II was not even on the table when that happened.
>>29887697
No IFV will survive the modern battlefield long enough to run out of ammo anyway IMO, so I don't see the issue
>>29887715
China, please. Go be expendable elsewhere.
>>29887701
Yes it was, SAIC and ST Kinetics had submissions well before the deadline and short listing.
>>29887701
Terrex joined the competition in 2012 so about same time as other competitors.
>>29887697
35mm has much more penetration and with modern IFV having enough front armor to stop 30mm rounds it is a good trade off
>>29887715
What is your reasoning to that?
>>29887669
Stryker is much more customizable with similar attributes.
Crows with m249, m240, m2 browning, 40mm grenade launcher, javelin, a 30mm autocannon, a 105mm cannon, 120mm or 81mm morter system, or a TOW.
It also has a commanders, FSV, recon, engineers, medical and NBC varient.
It has the most options out of any of the runners out of the box.
>>29887767
Literally everything in that list can be installed to everything else. Because Strykers are currently having all that shit, doesn't make it suddenly better.
>>29887729
>>29887735
>Lockheed and Patria part ways in July 2015
>Terrex II unveiled in September 2015
>downselect in November 2015
Sorry, but 2 months is very much a last minute entry.
>>29887786
The weapon options? No.
The varients? Not all of them without significant r and d.
Yes, having all that shit does indeed make it "better".
>>29887767
you can put that stuff onto any vehicle.
why do you think the stryker has so many variants? because making variants isn't difficult.
>>29887767
>7.62 protection
SEVEN POINT SIX TWO PROTECTION
Yeah fuck no
>>29887767
You do realise the Stryker is just a LAV III derivative?
Just about all 8x8s are modular and made to what the customer wants.
>>29887735
His BF4 experience
>>29887799
>Not all of them without significant r and d.
>Crows with m249, m240, m2 browning, 40mm grenade launcher, javelin
>TOW
this stuff exists today and can be attached to a go-kart
>a 30mm autocannon
there are plenty of drop-in turrets on the market to give this to any vehicle that doesn't already have it, which is most of them
>120mm or 81mm morter system
these are literally the same vehicle, but with a large roof hatch so the mortar can stick out.
>>a 105mm cannon
this is the only thing that would require effort to put together. it's also a completely shit weapon option and isn't actually needed.
>>29887812
you mean 14.5, which is good for its weight
>>29887800
Again, not the weapon varients.
>>29887812
14.5mm on the frontal arc, 7.62 nato all around BASE. Nothing wrong with this, and its compareable to all others on the list. Addon packages are available.
>>29887813
With all options out of the box, already ready.
Weapon options are the most versatile.
>>29887813
The irony being upgrades for the LAVIII come from Strykers.
Surprised GDLS didn't put forth the Piranha V.
It recently won in Spain and Denmark.
>>29887840
>compareable to all others on the list.
Didn't know 14.5mm can penetrate front armor rated to stop 30mm darts
>>29887823
>these are literally the same vehicle, but with a large roof hatch so the mortar can stick out.
Nope. The 120mm morter is directly integrated into the vehicle itself, attached to a FCS and the battle net.
>105mm is shit
Having an assult gun is NOT shit anon.
>You COULD put the rest onto other vehicles (paraphraseing)
Yet, they are not.
>>29887823
>it's also a completely shit weapon option and isn't actually needed
True, when you do not actually use your army having organic fire support is not needed.
For the US though, each rifle company in a Stryker BCT has 3 MGS.
>>29887851
Base armor?
>>29887840
>>29887843
No, I mean the Stryker is being offered. It's the LAV.
The Stryker is literally the LAV built to what the US Army wanted.
The Stryker is just the US Army's name. Just like the ASLAV is a AVGP/LAVII built to Australian specs called the ASLAV.
Or the NZLAV is a LAVIII built to NZ specs.
>>29886709
Did you miss the fact we have now 2 massive helicopter carriers/amphibious assult ships?
Think it was 2RAR that was reorganising to be a specilist amphibious assault force.
Sounds like exactly the thing that would require amphibious assult vehicles
>>29887873
AMVs base front armor is rated to stop 30mm darts. Sides were 12.7mm iirc
Numbers and roles being acquired.
>>29887894
No, I'm well aware. Land 400 isn't intended for any ship to shore purposes at all.
Hell, it's not even intended to carry carry any infantry. It's for recce and other roles, not an APC. That'll be Land 400 Phase 2 with the M113's replacement.
The Canberras aren't for landing on opposed shores, 2RAR will get to shore via LCM's and helicopters.
>>29887840
>its compareable to all others on the list
Yeah, it's comparable to the other LAVshit. The rest are 30mm protected minimum.
>>29887917
>>29887906
No, the AMV is rated UP to 30mm on the frontal arc, with armor packages.
I hope you guys realise that protection values even for the same family of vehicles will vary depending on the customer?
It's kinda mute sprouting X number without defining the exact country model and kit it has on. Not to mention a lot of these countries will have modular protection levels.
A Finnish AMV will widely differ to a Polish or South African AMV.
A Canadian LAV will widely differ to an American or Kiwi LAV, etc.
>>29887934
Nope, the LM Havoc copy of the Patria (amphib means base armor only) stopped 30mm darts in USMC testing.
>>29887966
Nope, if you knew a damn thing you would know the HAVOC was rated at STANAG 4a/4b, which is 14.5mm.
30mm is level 6.
Guys, why does daddy GDLS alway neglect me?
He won't even show me any tenders. My fucking cousins LAV and Piranha get all the limelight.
;_;
>>29887987
Oh, and thats with the addon armor package. Base was just the blast protection from 4a/4b, which implys level 3 ballistic protection which is, you guessed it, 7.62 nato.
Official AMV 35 commercial.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pKux09WCnQ
>>29887894
Thinking that RAAC would ever think outside their own Corps box when picking their new shiny toy.
- not amphibious because LPDs are an infantry battalion concern.
-no never 105mm gun because then no new after-Abrams tank to masturbate ove
- ditto no infantry dismounts because then M113AS4 would just get dumped without another replacement game to play after this one.
> thinking capability or interoperability ever wins over Corps politics
E.g. Bushie PMV - RAAC never wanted armoured-truck so claimed it could never fit bigger weapon mount than 1 x F89 and gave it to RACT and 8/9RAR motorised, so they could waste time on M113AS4. Then Iraq/Ghan and truckwits get deployed, suddenly PMV is ArmouredCorps and can fit .50cal and PWS. Now Meao is dull again, so PMV back to Cssb truckies and RAAC needs to buy new Land400. Wank.
Looking pretty sweet.
Anyone have images of the LAV CRV or Sentinel?
A wild Boxer appears.
>>29888421
You haven't decided yet.
As a side note, Land 400 Phase 2 is replacing the ASLAVs with the CRV.
Land 400 Phase 3 will replace the M113 with tracked IFV and Manoeuvre Fire Support vehicles.
Confirmed contenders for Phase 3 are BAE Systems with the CV90, Rheinmetall and KMW with the Puma and GDLS with the ASCOD 2. But the program isn't due any time soon.
When is the OSD for the ASLAV?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnKLO_25Zzs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Y3Aiuj7gSE
>>29887917
None of the vehicles in question are rated for 30mm with just base armor.
When does Phase 3 start?
The 113 shit box should move on already.
