Land 400 Phase 2
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
Australia's going to replace their ASLAVs in the recce role with one of four contenders.
Which one?
Sentinel II from Elbit Systems Australia and ST Kinetics, based on the Terrex III.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iyYKxmz860
AMV 35 from BAE Systems Australia and Patria.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pKux09WCnQ
LAV (CRV) from GDLS-A and GDLS-C, based on the LAV 6.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-1lZMOrYFM
Boxer CRV from Rheinmetall Australia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q4Eb6w9RQM
The Sentinel is probably the best choice, especially if the USMC picks the Terrex for its ACV program.
>no external ATGMpod
why?
>>30578108
Only the Sentinel II and Boxer CRV offerings come with in-built ATGMs.
The Boxer's hasn't been fitted yet and the Sentinel's is in flush with the turret and is raised for firing.
See the video.
AMV is offering dismounted ATGMs with its bid.
>>30578209
is that Spike or something?
>>30578276
Yep, Boxer and Sentinel with Spike.
BAE is offering Spike or MMP.
>>30577953
I like the Boxer + Lynx combo desu.
>>30578027
If you working on commonality, the LAV CRV would be extremely close to the US Army's Strykers, especially with the Kongsberg MCT-30 turrets they're getting.
Exactly the same turret.
Variants breakdown.
>>30578706
>Hans, how do we get an IFV to fit eight dismounts with a manned turret?
>Let's make a new vehicle
>You're a fucking genius, Hans.
Has the Army said anything about buying more Abrams to flesh out Beersheba?
>>30578798
>tfw it looks cool as fuck but I remember how much I fucking hated Strykers and my fear of all IFVs or other light land vehicles will never go away
>>30578821
I heard another 14 for one more squadron, but no hard details.
>>30578821
>Roo getting fuckin rekt
>>30578926
Nice, Predator drones when?
Turret and gun options.
AMV: Huggland's E35 manned turret with 35mm cannon
LAV: Kongsberg's MCT-30 unmanned turret with 30mm cannon
Sentinel: Elbit's MT30 manned turret with 30mm cannon
Boxer: Rheinmetall's Lance manned turret with 30mm cannon
>>30579003
Next decade.
It'll probably be the same thing the Poms are getting.
Certified Predator B.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/uk-selects-certifiable-predator-b-as-reaper-replacem-424667/
>>30578375
.50s make anything look cooler.
>>30579408
Could be around the turn of the decade; RAAF SRG is very keen on getting them and once the decision is made, it shouldn't take long for the initial orders to be fulfilled. Could be a little while longer until IOC though.
>>30577953
Why haven't anyone gone back to a Half track design?
I mean you could get a Vehicle of the same size and armor protection, same speed and the possibility of saving weight
>>30579856
What is this, WW2.
>>30577953
Civilian Hawkei when?
>>30580201
Hahahaha, never.
50 Cent tried to buy a Bushmaster and was willing to lay down mad dollars and they told him to fuck off.
Dear Santa, I want one.
>>30580704
Why is the Boxer popular? The thing is absurdly heavy for a wheeled vehicle which exacerbates all the negatives of using wheels instead of tracks.
>>30580733
German engineering m8, plus it looks cool!
>>30580846
Fanboyism then.
Is there any reason to pick the others over the AMV 35mm?
The 35mm round is much larger and more powerful, as they lack ATGM 30mm is a bit lacking. With the popularity of armored VBIED, T-55s and long range portable ATGMs, wouldn't larger be better?
Why do none of them use the CTA 40mm? Isn't that considerably better than the ones proposed?
>>30581335
Why more people aren't using the 40mm CTAS is a good question indeed. I presume it's because they can't, for some reason, rather than any preference for the 30s and 35mm cannons.
>>30581428
Maybe it's ammo issue and they want to be able to take ammo from US forces if needed. Though the 35MM isn't much better when it comes to that.
>>30579856
You gert the worst of both worlds with half tracks.
>>30577953
>elbit
Nonononono
>>30581335
On the downside, far less ammo.
I think it's 70 against a couple hundred for the 30mm.
>>30581428
>>30581580
CTA 40 isn't 'off the shelf', tender stipulated weapons in service.
I known that when Boeing Australia/Nexter were offering the VBCI the CTA 40 was the preferred weapon, but then Boeing pulled out leaving Nexter floundering.
>>30581731
With many countries modernizing their 8 wheelers is the 35mm essential to punch their front armour?
We won't be getting ATGM's (or new IFV's) on ours for years. Not only that we will always be outnumbered, so, 35mm or 30mm for Aus?
>>30578798
>Let's make a new vehicle
But really it's a stretched Marder with a new turret
>>30581335
Boxer can be 35mm + ATGM apparently.
Any thoughts on the new frigates? T26 won't make it because of Brexit and budget issues pushing it back too far.
That leaves the shortlist as the Italian FREMM vs a Navantia F100 variant.
>>30581895
How will it hold up vs a CV90?
>>30577969
Is it just me or is this thing a Patria with a CV90 turret?
>>30577953
>ASLAV
>>30578108
Just buy the Boomerang. Its an actual slav vehicle- oh poetic!
>>30580201
>>30580231
Why is the ADF's equipment so sexy?
>>30577953
STRYKER
T
R
Y
K
E
R
>>30581918
The Italian FREMM is absolutely based. Just compare it to other FREMM's and you'll see what i'm talking about.
>>30582083
There is no Stryker in the tender.
The Stryker is a derivative of the LAV III (some would argue its inferior), and the one GDLS-Canada is offering is the LAV 6.0. An superior form to either of the aforementioned.
>wheels
lol....
Whats the point?
How hard is it to put the tracked vehicle on a truck or train if you believe wheels are key to ~strategic mobility~?
>>30582162
>(some would argue its inferior)
Everything the LAV does the stryker does better.
That is an arguement people will lose.
Higher base level armor, better and more varied armament, faster, more range, way more modularity, better optics.
The 6.0 is roughly equal to the stryker, but again the stryker has a more varied armament.
>>30582106
Looks pretty nice, could use more VLS though.
>>30582176
Wheels are less maintenance intensive, and are better on roads.
>>30582199
Post more Tone f-35 memes
Either of them options are fine just as long as it's not a Stryker.
Then again, a Stryker is never really an option seeing as it's just a licensed variant of the LAV from GDLS-C.
>>30577953
lads non milfag here whats the point of these bad boys?
like recon? cover for troops? armoured personal carrirers? getting stolen by crazies who joy ride them for hours and drive over lots of cars ;^)?
>>30582366
It's the principle of "diversity" applied to military vehicles
Have a buncha different stuff just for the same of having different stuff
>>30582372
ok gotcha i was thinking why not just have more tanks?
or are these things somehow more superior in certain circumstances?
>>30582379
These are better for recce and light infantry support, and for patrols and shit. They're also cheap to run and host a broad panoply of capabilities.
Full-on tanks are for the big fights, they're more expensive to run and less flexible in the field.
That said, nothing says 'fuck you' quite like a 120 mm gun.
>>30582379
politicians are of the opinion that tracked vehicles are scary to civilians
And since the recent wars of the last 70 years have been counter insurgency, they demand light wheeled vehicles for it.
>>30582394
>>30582401
oh well i'd just buy more tanks because i like them more
this diversity shit sounds like some faggy shit
>>30582401
ignore this guy
wheels are real, tracks are whack yo
>>30582401
With all these problems with IEDs, why do soldiers travel on roads in the first place?
>>30582394
>nothing says 'fuck you' quite like a 120 mm gun
What about 140mm guns, 155mm guns, or 203mm guns?
>>30582446
jetpacks when?
>>30582446
because off road you can go feasibly, like 60 kph... on roads, you can get to like 100-110 easily.
>>30582468
no lad we are going to go get jetpacks and just fly everywhere
we will be the first flying infantry
i can already see it now
i also think we will have spaceships and invade countries from orbit fuck your stupid borders we space now
>>30582394
>That said, nothing says 'fuck you' quite like a 120 mm gun.
You can always get a bigger gun, mein fuhrer.
Please buy patria.
ok arm chair generals what does the australian military need to really get ahead of the curve?
like lets say we increased our defense budget so we could get some sweet toys what would those be?
Pls Buy
>>30582351
Stryker is highly competitive with all of the options.
Its not an option because they are building a fuckton for the us army
>>30582514
Honestly just speed up our current plans and buy slightly more of what's needed rather than the bare minimum.
I think in 10-20 years time we'll be looking in pretty good shape.
>>30582514
Strykers, Abrams turned IFV and Bradleys, the rest is shit.
>>30582534
>Stryker is highly competitive with all of the options.
>highly competitive
it annihilates them completely just like Abrams annihilates other MBT's.
>>30582543
No, its just very competitive.
It IS better than the LAV III, no question.
>>30582080
Because Australia isn't a big enough market to make anyone any mad dollars and the soldiers get really really salty when they don't like what they're using so all of it is really practical and effective (usually, the F88 is loved and hated by some)
Also Australian camo uses a lot of great "warmer" colours which looks sweet when compared to their darker Euro equivalents
>>30582543
what about the other aspect of the military besides the mechanised infantry or whatever its called
>>30582539
but anon i want air craft carriers and shit like that
>>30582552
The 2 LHD can be modified to operate F-35Bs down the track if needed, does that count?
>>30582534
It's not an option because the Stryker is the LAV.
It's a licensed variant.
Just like how the Rosomak and Honeybadger are just AMV's licensed by Poland and South Africa respectively for example.
Adding whatever kit they want to the base vehicle.
>>30582570
no that thing looks like a fucking tug boat
>>30577953
>Sentinel II
Is it only option with APS? its no brainier choice then.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0nDHV_mkiY
>>Terrex
Australia should be ashamed, considering buying from a third world Chink country. The only other Western country to have sunk to this level is the UK.
Is this a representative paint job or is it just merely unfinished?
>>30582840
If it's good then they'll buy it. Jesus fuck you're a dumb shit
>>30582840
GD shill mad they're offering didn't make the ACV 1.1 short-list.
>>30582933
I'm a little disappointed the French entry didn't cut it, not enough protection even with off-the-shelf applique armour and the weren't willing to come up with a better upgrade
>>30583053
Meh, they won the sub contract they should be more than happy.
>>30583083
Really them over the Japanese?
>>30582516
Huehuehuehue
>>30582840
The Warthogs the UK bought are all out of service now.
They were just a temporary solution to a requirement in Afghanistan
>>30583093
Yeah, apparently the main factors were the lack of range and subsequent requirement of massive modification along with them not having any experience exporting arms let alone fucking Submarines, they also weren't keen to build here and wouldn't commit.
They consider it all DEEPLY REGRETTABLE.
I think we made the right decision in the end, Ameribros will help pimp it out.
>>30583168
Mad as
>>30583053
There was no French entry for ACV.
There was:
BAE Systems with Patria
SAIC with ST Kinetics
GDLS
and Lockheed Martin
Unless you're talking about Land 400, in that case Boeing Australia pulled out and they had no prime.
Italy/Iveco also got fucked over, Raytheon Australia pulled out too.
>>30583093
Not him, but the French are a much better choice than the Japanese.
>>30583168
>>30583182
They were pretty fucking mad. Tony Abott LITERALLY gave it to them on a silver platter with him and Abe being BFFs (expending quite the amount of political capital in domestic Japanese politics), and then the backbenchers managed to get a 'competitive evaluation process' that was still just a rubber stamp.
Only when Turnbull took over, did the process become a legitimate tender. But in the end, they got over it, our relationship goes much further than the subs.
>>30583377
I meant for land400 and it was the vbci or whatever it is
>>30578706
Ugly camo
>>30581335
>>30581428
The CT40 is not a viable option given the 40 stored kills with ready ammo requirement.
You want the smallest gun that is big enough to do the job, which is why 30x173mm is so prevalent at the moment.
>>30577953
That thing looks really tall and narrow, isn't there a greatly increased chance of that thing rolling on steep inclines?
>>30583560
Probably.
>>30583560
Chopping the commanders head off during rolls is a necessary part of every wheeled APC
>>30583168
>>30583093
Seems better then Soyuz anyway tbqh senpai
AMV looks grumpy.
>>30583548
>The CT40 is not a viable option given the 40 stored kills with ready ammo requirement.
Which it meets. Even the small unmanned turrets of CT40 could carry 68 rounds. The TINY manned turrets could sill carry 42. And believe me, they were miniscule. The much larger ones on Ajax and Warrior can carry a lot more. The size of the rounds makes it very easy to fit in.
The reason it's not being selected is none of the contenders remaining are users or acclaimers of the weapon. ie - They aren't British or French. And it's still pretty expensive because it's so new and fancy.
>>30583870
>1-2 rounds per target
No it doesn't meet the requirement.
>>30583093
Japan really reluctant to sell their top of the line subs to Australia ever since they made the statement that they wont gonna help Japan in the event on Japan-China war
>>30583870
I see you ignored the part where those were in small turrets and that larger turrets for vehicles such as these carry substantially more. There's a reason that it's been grabbed so heavily by two of NATO's leading members for their new vehicles.
It also depends on what they want from it. It's always worth remembering that the CT40 needs vastly less ammo for a given purpose and has the same sort of 3P ammo capabilities as the Bofors 40mm rounds. Pic related is the fragmentation difference between 40mm CT and 30mm, and thats before even considering that it can ruin other vehicles at much greater ranges with much less hits in an era when "30mm resistant" is quickly becoming a standard.
The only reason it's not there is Nexter dropped out their chassis where it was an option and it's so new that no-one else has really offered anything carrying it yet.
Once the British MIV project kicks up, we'll almost certainly see LAVs start demonstrating it, as they're one of the options.
>>30584031
Here's the size of the turrets carrying around 42-68 rounds. They're fucking tiny, based on older, much smaller Warrior turrets.
The turrets on the vehicles above in the realm they're after are much MUCH bigger.
>>30581918
>T26 won't make it because of Brexit and budget issues pushing it back too far.
Has Brexit made it *that* politically poisonous to buy the T26? Shame, since the first steel is supposed to be cut (iirc) either now or august.
>>30584031
>nce the British MIV project kicks up, we'll almost certainly see LAVs start demonstrating it, as they're one of the options.
MIV wont be armed with anything bigger than a .50 cal though.
It's an APC to replace stuff like Bulldog and Mastiff for mechanized infantry.
>>30584368
The MIV isn't defined yet on its weaponry at all. It's intended for separate brigades in the Army 2020+ plan, ones to be independantly deployable. As such, a fire support or IFV variant isn't out of the question from the requirements. It's all up to whats selected. Companies will pitch ideas still, they always do.
Hell, France even mounted one on a bloody VAB to showcase potential. Pic related, as bizarre as it looks.
>>30584073
Comparing the fragmentation of a generic a generic HE to a programmable airburst is dishonest, making the ammunition storage bigger works in favor of 30mm guns, and 2 NATO members (who previously used RARDEN and 25mm) adopting the CT40 is far fewer than the number that adopted 30x173mm.
>>30581918
>T26 won't make it because of Brexit and budget issues pushing it back too far.
Any sources on that or are you pulling that out of your arse?
>>30578209
If AMV's turret is same as in CV90. It has been tested with Bofors Bill and Spike.
>>30584456
Forgot pic.
>>30584420
The CT40 airburst hasn't actually been fired yet or finished development, it's not an airburst comparison. It's general HE to general HE.
>>30584420
>making the ammunition storage bigger works in favor of 30mm guns
Making the ammo storage bigger works in favour of both guns. The point is that CT40 as a basic design uses a lot less space than normal 40mm rounds. The 30mm you refer to is the 4th from the right, the CT40's ammo is the first from the right. It's larger, but it's not THAT larger (Especially compared to the hilariously oversized Bofors variety), yet it packs the power of a full 40mm round in both kinetic energy and fragmentation. 30mm will always fit more rounds, but to say that CT40 "doesn't meet requirements" for combat is frankly just silly. Especially with no source saying thats the reason it's not on offer.
>and 2 NATO members (who previously used RARDEN and 25mm) adopting the CT40 is far fewer than the number that adopted 30x173mm.
Because it's a newer gun. But the fact that two high end militaries both agreed on its use and design, even with the cost associated to develop it, speaks volumes of their confidence in it. There's over 750 been ordered already for Ajax, Warrior and Jaguar, with likely another 600ish for the VBCI's later upgrade, and a good bunch more for the remaining Warriors. It's even gone on a SPAAG platform they're aiming to try and sell. They are clearly confident in the weapon.
>>30582481
You aren't first to propose this brilliant idea.
>>30584510
>It's larger, but it's not THAT larger
It has nearly double diameter. So single stack magazine will have 3-4 times less capacity and i am not aware of any solution with double stack magazine/belt for 40 CTA or any other gun which can utilize relative shortness of 40 CTA rounds. Bit its diameter hurts, very much. Telescopic layout was mistake.
Russian RWS for Kurganets IFV. Holds 500 (!) 30mm ready rounds. Really puts to shame western counterparts.
>>30584510
>The CT40 airburst hasn't actually been fired yet or finished development, it's not an airburst comparison. It's general HE to general HE.
Your picture is an airburst test.
>Making the ammo storage bigger works in favour of both guns.
You get 2-3 30mm rounds in the space of 1 CT40. This gives you the option of using the weight for ATGM's or additional armor.
>yet it packs the power of a full 40mm round in both kinetic energy and fragmentation
The public numbers for the CT40 are comprrable to 35mm and notably less than claimed penetration for South Korean 40mm ammo.
>But the fact that two high end militaries both agreed on its use and design
They agreed to use it because they spent the money to develop it and it supports local industry.
>>30584746
>Telescopic layout was mistake.
Someone call the British and French Defence Ministers, 4chan has an error to show them!
It does more per round, thats why it doesn't carry quite as much. But "3 to 4 times less capacity" is gonna need a source of a direct comparison on the same vehicle and same turret with both weapons to even quote as numbers.
Given no such things exists, I'd say you don't have anything to claim there as to how it compared that way.
>>30584901
>They agreed to use it because they spent the money to develop it and it supports local industry.
And you think they chose this precise design for shits and giggles without thinking about it? Two of the worlds biggest arms developers making high end kit? They made the choice that higher lethality per round mattered, in a world where vehicles are getting heavier and better protected, even at the lower end, and where modern sights and FCS permit greater accuracy and shot on target assurance.
The fact that the ammos small size by comparison to other 40mm cannons permits it to carry vastly more is what creates that balance.
>>30582080
Given their economy and the size of their army/population they can afford to tailor make their equipment down to the needs of the individual soldier. You can see this whenever you look at the personal equipment of an Australian soldier, which is pretty much all Crye, Mystery Ranch, Ops Core, and a plethora of Australian made gear...
This is similar to Israel having really fancy tailor made equipment as well...
Us on the other hand, seeing as we have a pretty huge military, would focus more on the battalion and brigade level rather than squad level... It would be way too expensive for us to tailor our equipment to similar standards to that of the Australian/Israeli military...
>>30584982
>I'd say you don't have anything to claim there as to how it compared that way.
Pic related. Fat is bad.
>Someone call the British and French Defence Ministers, 4chan has an error to show them!
It was not first time Britbongs made horrendous choices when designing AFVs. Their Challenger and Warrior weapons systems are one big mistake.
>inb4 muh HESH
>>30585070
>This is similar to Israel having really fancy tailor made equipment as well...
Actually Israel doesn't waste money on the camo fashion carousel.
>>30584982
>The fact that the ammos small size by comparison to other 40mm cannons permits it to carry vastly more is what creates that balance.
It really doesn't though, the length of a shell is less relevant than its width. It holds more than a Bofors because of the Bofors obsolete clip based feed mechanism.
>>30585093
So you don't actually have an official source on ammo capacity in the same vehicle then and only enormous hyperbole on a near meme tier.
Yeah, I think we're done here. I'm happy to discuss with people actually wanting to talk about comparitives, but it seems all you're interested in is trying to shitpost because France and/or the UK is involved. It's become quite clear.
who gives a shit about ammo capacity? You can always have a bigger ammo box
>>30585168
>you don't actually have an official source on ammo capacity in the same vehicle then and only enormous hyperbole on a near meme tie
Irony.
>>30585214
>who gives a shit about ammo capacity? You can always make the vehicle heavier
>who gives a shit about ammo capacity? You can always take up more internal volume
>>30584746
>Telescopic layout was mistake.
Don't forget, when it comes to APFSDS CTA40 is already maxed out on projectile length because of this telescopic layout. In other words, the design has effectively zero growth potential in APFSDS rounds for the future.
What it has now is about as good as it will get.
>>30585168
>but it seems all you're interested in is trying to shitpost because France and/or the UK is involved
Can the victimhood act. Are you the same britbong that pitches a fit every time /k/ criticises the Chally? Lemme give you a brotip: sometimes people have opinions on things. It's not because they are trying to oppress you.
>>30584892
Doesn't russian 30 mm suck though?
>>30585093
You should be less disingenuous and compare that to the case head.
>>30585781
>Doesn't russian 30 mm suck though?
There is western ammo for it available. Performance is comparable to 30x173mm.
>>30585245
the amount of ammo & a steel box to store it in is irrelevant to the size or weight of the vehicle
>>30582508
They will. Technically each contender is pretty even especially considering that realistically these things will only be send off to do some low/medium intensity conflict overseas at most, but when it comes to economic side and impact the purchase is going to have it's not even funny how much better deal Patria/BAE is offering.
When Patria says Australia gets jobs they do actually mean it. Just look at SA and their Badger, every possible job from subcontracting work, establishing new parts manufacturing, to assembly and maintenance are done by South Africans (only rare few specialized parts that don't make any economic sense at all to establish production in SA are manufactured in Finland), that's more than 2000+ jobs they got out of their small 250 vehicle deal.
>>30585093
There is nothing wrong with the Challenger 2. Put a bigger engine (which is what they´re doing) on their and perhaps a fancy APS and you´re good to go.
The Warrior, I´ll admit was faily shit. Armour and armament was fine and the hull was more than adequate for for an IFV, but the gun wasn´t stabilised and had to be manually elevated until the new CTI turret is put on it.
Whats your excuse for the French deciding to use the CTI turret and gun.
>>30586238
>There is nothing wrong with the Challenger 2
Underpowered engine, rifled gun, HESH stored in the crew compartment, no thermal sight for the commander, gunners sight mounted on the mantlet etc. etc.
>>30586546
You can find flaws in every tank though
>>30586601
>>30586546
also, not him
>>30586601
Did you selectivity ignore the text I responded to?
>>30586546
>Underpowered engine
MoD never said they wanted it replaced but BAE will probably offer to upgrade it to a 1500bhp engine and the MoD will agree with it.
>rifled gun
Bad because it cant share ammo with the US, French, Germans and a bunch of other countries, I´ll give you that but not bad performance wise. The L23 APFSDS is equivalent to M829A3. I can´t find the speed of the CHARM 3 round, which is DU, but I´m assuming its around the 1500m/s mark.
>HESH stored in the crew compartment
I can´t comment with 100% certainty on that one but I think HESH rounds are stored in an armoured box on the floor. Its not as good as blowout panels but its better than just leaving explosive ammo lying around everywhere.
> no thermal sight for the commander
Its getting one of them soon. Probably should have been upgraded sooner but the money went to other projects in the military and in the UK.
>gunners sight mounted on the mantlet
If you´re looking directly at the gunners sight, its not like you´re going to live much longer anyway. I don´t see how this is relevant.
>>30586786
L23 is equivalent to the M829A3 in terms of velocity, not density, thats what the CHARM 3 is for btw. I don´t think i was clear there.
>>30586601
>"There's nothing wrong with x"
>Gets proven wrong
>"There's something wrong with everything!"
Anon, what the fuck.
>>30586238
>>30586786
>>30586812
Is me
>>30586601
>>30586618
Is not me.
Just so were all on the same page here.
>>30586786
The 8 armored bins store charges, HESH is in the open.
>>30586786
>The L23 APFSDS is equivalent to M829A3.
Uh.
Please buy Patria. my country desperately needs the money
>>30587488
Finland in dire straits at the moment?
>>30578007
Those white/red panels look like anime blush marks
>>30584475
But it's not part of the offering, BAE are giving the options of dismounts for ATGM capability.
>>30588621
I think you're half cut with anime, Bill.
>>30580912
That's the reason any military vehicle is 'popular', ya tosser
You will never go off-roading in an 8x8 with your mates.
;_;
>>30589433
Weld two hilux's together and put a truck engine in it
>>30582860
It's painted up like a Tasmanian Devil
>>30589433
Bruh
>>30591128
Oh, I get it now.
Because it's being made in Tasmania. I am not a clever man.
lads do these things have flamethrowers i think burning cunts would be important
tone add that to the list
t. concerned aussie citizen
>>30591303
>t.
Get fucked you commie cunt.
>>30591311
its a fucking meme you retard
and it doesn't discount the need for flame throwers
>>30591147
Ah, yes. For the true Russian experience and all its misery and suffering.
>>30584083
No it's just that apparently the Brits are considering delaying it because of Brexit and we need to get the ball rolling and can't wait any longer.
From what I've seen we want the T26 but don't want to end up in a situation like with the F-35 where our old Hornets will be nearly falling out of the sky from delays.
It might all be bullshit and will still work out, really hope so.
>>30581918
>>30592189
BAE Systems is still on the shortlist, DoD were well aware that the Poms haven't started Type 26 construction (mostly for internal haggling prior to Brexit) and still saw fit to down select it over DCNS and TKMS. I doubt anything has changed, still three players for the SEA 5000 program.
>>30592298
Good stuff, hope they get it.
Any idea why zee Germans didn't get in?
>>30592394
Nope. Interesting fact, MHI had a cursory bid but it was mostly academic rather a serious one.
>>30582514
Lots of long range drones
>ex Aussie military
Land 400 Phase 3 RFI when?
BAE Systems would probably put forth the CV90
GD would probably put out something with the ASCOD 2/Ajax chassis
Rheinmetall just unveiled the Lynx specifically for us
>>30588621
Perfect battle paint i say. Much better than teethed grins and such.
How are these vehicles actually painted and with what?
Academically curious.
>>30593685
Just an enamel vehicle paint, nothing particularly fancy as far as I know- up until the late 00's.
Doubt they're using any kind of superspacepaint for the new ones
>>30593703
Cheers.
yea nah but wheres my fast internet m8
>>30577969
I'm leaning towards the AMV 35, based purely on the fact it's using the CV90 40mm turret.
>>30593761
*35mm, my bad
>>30581918
They still thinking of integrating StanFlex with whatever design they go for?
>>30578926
No Chobham, just a 40 year old tank without its survivability
>>30593381
>Land 400 Phase 3 RFI when?
November-December this year, according to:
http://www.defence.gov.au/casg/Multimedia/LAND_400_Phase_3_RFI_Industry_briefing-9-7328.pdf
>>30593798
Fuck I'm an idiot, it's already happened. If you mean RFT that isn't likely until next year.
>>30593790
No, StanFlex is a proprietary system that the Danish use.
If you're asking about a modular payloads bay in general, there's no specific requirement but the Type 26 has one.
>>30593797
It has Chobham, just a downgraded version with the DU in the composite mix.
>>30593798
>>30593805
All good, I just want some hard details on the M113 replacement as soon as possible.
>>30580231
Tfw saw one of these driving around on the road
They are FUKKEN huge
>>30593807
Isn´t the armour on the aussue Abrams more suited to HEAT rounds rather than KEPs? I heard on another /thg/ thread a while back that it has a better chance of surviving in an urban area against enemies with RPGs and TOWs than it does in an open battlefield against enemy tanks.
>>30594722
Thales big.
>>30594722
12 tonnes of cuddly fun, she's big but pretty comfortable and with enough provocation can go like a fat chick on a chocolate cake
>>30593797
Australian Abrams are comperable to M1A1's being currently used by the US, they use a different armor package that was developed for European export because muhDU.
You know I'm looking at that debate about 30mm and CT40 above.
And all I'm feeling is NATO FUCKING STRONG that two really fucking good cannon systems are both debating their excellent qualities and showing how awesome each is in different ways.
End of the day NATO got BOTH of them.
Everyone wins.
Except Russia.
yeah, nah, not letting this thread die
>>30598887
Agreed.
Have a bump from one of your Ameribros Aussies, it was a good thread to read.
Also go with the AVM 35.
When is the proposed IOC and FOC suppose to be?
>>30594722
Fuck oath. See them around the city a lot and I'll tell you now no one tailgates or cuts off these big fuckers
>>30600777
I drive them through/around the city. People tailgate, cut you off and steal brake space like it's cool. Muppets everywhere, cobber.
>>30600840
Doesn't help it's been named the city with the worst drivers in Aus
That fucking CG model.
>>30600840
How does liability/insurance work if you're involved in an accident in an army vehicle?
>>30601819
Same way it normally would
>>30577953
Well the turret looks like it has a thick armor
>>30578375
>>30578706
So Puma is lynx in english. Nice to know
>>30583539
Flecktarn isnt ugly >:(
>>30601819
Member involved denies liability at the scene. Army investigates. Disciplinary action taken if the member is at fault.
>>30603061
The Lynx is a brand new vehicle, not a Puma variant. They may share some technology
>>30586786
They got a water heater in that thing. The british know how to treat their crews
>>30603027
It's manned. Unmanned turrets, less armour but less weight as well and more space.
>>30603061
Lynx seems to be a pimped out Marder, a lot cheaper than Puma. Not too many details on it yet.
Curious to see how it performs against a CV90.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zS2k_rZxqM
>>30582514
Some more amphibious assault ships, F-35Bs to go with the ships, drones. perhaps a future soldier like project due to ADF's ability to invest highly in individual soldier (if we haven't planned one yet)
All the DEETS on Lynx.
http://dtrmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Lynx-IFV-Special-Supplement.pdf
>>30594136
No problem bro, so do I. Although I have this feeling that the phase 2 selection will influence phase 3.
And >>30578706 is a pretty sweet sounding combo. Either way I think the German bid or GDLS + Thales are going to be the two top contenders.
>>30582406
Diversity isn't necessarily good since the sheer amount of different vehicle types may cause problems, but tanks are damn expensive and inflexible. They are maintenance heavy, can't carry troops inside and can't move long distances on their own without eating up massive amounts of fuel or possibly breaking down. Military budget and logistics always have to be taken into consideration.
>>30592189
Really? I haven't heard anything about the program being delayed. This would really fuck RN in the butt.
>>30604684
Looks breddy gud, can anything similar match 8 dismounts?
>>30604813
Nope.
>>30604760
The contract to start the whole thing hasn't been signed yet.
how can Singapore and Israle which are small nations compare to Australia be making a bid and having an amazing weapon to sell. what the hell does australia make?
>>30607350
Fucking nothing mate.
We don't make a fucking thing in this country any more, we just dig shit out of the ground and sell it on the cheap.
>>30607350
THE GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD MATE
>>30609854
Bundy rum and Cadbury. And milk that tastes like real milk
>>30578108
Looks like in a game when the models don;t actually touch the ground.
>>30607350
>what the hell does australia make?
Shitposts, vegemite, Fosters, Victoria Bitter and abbos that huff petrol.
Australian defense spending is a waste. Who the fuck is going to invade a wasteland full of spiders, crocs, and snakes?
>>30607350
Singapore and Israel have a besieged mentality so they pump money into defense industries.
>>30612384
Don't forget John Howard's eyebrows
>>30612564
China might be dumb enough to give it a go.
This isn't about invasion, they're already here.
Elbit might team up with ST Kinetics again for Phase 3.
Anyone got good high res pictures of Rheinmetall's Lynx?
>>30613952
>>30604684
>8 dismounts
Well fuck me sideways, that's big!
>>30614673
43 tonnes baby.
Pretty cool set up for the missiles.
>>30613986
>high res
>>30616428
>google it yourself you lazy fuck
>>30616480
Wasn't me asking. Take a chill pill, you rancid swine
>>30580201
Why cant we buy just super durable tanky Vehicles.
Im not gonna rob a bank i just want a badass car that uses 100 times more fuel than i need to be using
>>30612384
>Shitposts
Whats the origin of this anyway? Did Crocodile Dundee invade a tread at some point, and the "assie shitposting" remained ever since?
>>30616866
What others assume as shitposts the Australians call banter, and they've just rolled with it since.
It's growing on me, plus the Aus camo makes any vehicle look mint as fuck.
>>30580846
This is the reason i only play germoney tanks in Red Dragon.
>>30578007
Good lord that thing is ugly as fuck.
Then again, pretty don't stop bullets, and it doesn't win wars.
>>30604460
who is australia going to be assaulting amphibiously?
>>30617663
I like it, Bill.
>>30617694
The Kiwis. And it's not really configured for opposed landings, more like amphibious transport in permissible areas.
>>30617694
>
Indonesia, the Philippines.... New Australia. i mean zealand
>>30617694
Heaps of places, we're actually practised quite a lot and have done it for real, which does actually count for something.
okay fuck me sideways but what the shit.
Rheinmetall now builds the Puma IFV and the Lynx IFV?
literally why
>>30617844
east timor or something?
>>30617859
puma to replace the marder for domestic forces. the lynx is specifically designed as an export future-y version of that and sports the same turret as the boxer.
>>30617859
Puma can't hold eight and isn't easily reconfigured for other variants like C2, repair & recovery, etc.
>>30617859
Puma = KMW/Rheinmetall
Lynx = Rheinmetall
>>30617984
Yep
Small and 'apparently' non-violent as it was, the operation was done pretty well and what we learned from that is- how to do it. You can drill and practice all you want, but when it comes to a land invasion via sea, practical experience is what pays off. Its also not like we can just drive tanks over our neighbours either when they start getting fucky fucky with us.
A good lump of our entire defence is having that force projection capability- you fuck with us, we will get on a boat, come to your house and tread on your fucking neck.
A large part of the pacific and SE-Asian area is sort of on our watch, the asians don't do shit because they're mostly weak and otherwise incapable, NZ scooted out on actually having a military budget for the last 15 years and that just sort of leaves us and the yanks- who are quite a long way away.
It isn't all apples either- Fiji are basically dicks 24-7, Papua is anarchy, Bougainville is in some perennial state of fuckery and Indonesia has extremely dangerous muslim populations.
Got to also remember- the entire eastern hemispheres and half the southern hemispheres satellite comms comes through us.
Thats nearly all of Russia, half of Africa ,all of Asia and all of the Middle East
Like it or not, we've got a lot to look after.
>>30580201
i inspect windows like those, is there a use for these shape of windows or is it for the cool factor and increase price
Show me the Ajax chassis offering for Phase 3 already GDELS.
>>30618883
phase 1&2 are m113 and aslav replacement, whats phase 3?
>>30619139
Mostly a 'how much' and 'when can it be ready'
http://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/land-400-phase-3-rfi-released
