At first glance it reminded me of a German 88mm Flak or something from Star Wars.
Attachments
Last edited:
MARKMILES77
Active Member
Does have deployable "feet" which raise the low loader wheels off the ground but I know what you mean.
Strange to see it in a Victorian Govt advertisement for Victoria's defence manufacturing industry!
There must be some basis for it but what I don't know?
Could it be a proof or test gun for RAN 5 inch gun? Seem to recall reading about some such rig, but can't find a link.
UPDATE:
News - IDES TO DELIVER 2ND MOBILE PROOF GUN MOUNT
Hopefully this is the correct link to the relevant rig.
Last edited:
Well spotted, I wonder if the gun is a current barrel or something leftover from the 5"/54 Mk42 days?
MARKMILES77
Active Member
Here is their website, sitting proud front and centre
Mobile Munitions Proof Guns
It is for the 52 Cal, interesting piece of kit, had not seen anything about it before.
They actually have a few interesting products
Cheers
FormerDirtDart
Well-Known Member
I guess BAE really wants that Land 400 CRV contract
I g
I guess the cost of the front page Oz advert would be recouped from the taxpayerI guess BAE really wants that Land 400 CRV contract
MARKMILES77
Active Member
That turret looks like it has a lot of added features compared to the one on the vehicles used for assessment.
benson1610
New Member
re land 400 phase 2 decision,it depends which article you read,one 'said' march/april this yearl,the other suggested some time this year.?
Hows my sentence structure?.
Hows my sentence structure?.
Watch your tone and intent when you are having a dig at not only and ex serving member, but one of the moderation team !
You might intend it as a little tongue in cheek, but how it is read can be very hazy online, especially until they get to know you and your engagement style.
Just friendly advise, do as you will with it
Cheers
MARKMILES77
Active Member
Victorian MPs feel the need to lobby Mr Pyne on mass about LAND400.
A sign that Boxer might be favoured by Army perhaps?
Interestingly, the article states that BAE Systems' bid with the AMV 35 is 20% lower than the Boxer bid.
How would the reporter know that?
A victorian Govt MP leaking bid details?
A sign that Boxer might be favoured by Army perhaps?
Interestingly, the article states that BAE Systems' bid with the AMV 35 is 20% lower than the Boxer bid.
How would the reporter know that?
A victorian Govt MP leaking bid details?
OT but Queensland electorates will determine the result of the next election, Vic is a lost cause it's socialist heaven. If politics plays a part in the selection it will,go to QLD
The AMV35 and the Boxer are not like for like, cost differences are to be expected.
For example, my understanding is that the AMV35 meets up to STANAG Level 4 whereas the Boxer meets up to STANAG Level 6. The Boxer turret has a built in ATGM whereas the AMV version offered doesn't and so on.
The key will be the capabilities we are acquiring versus the requirements/planned CONOPS across a wide range of factors such as whole of life costs, industry potential, future development paths, risk etc.
Of course if you add the cynical political factors, being based in QLD could help in win seats, which is unlikely in Victoria. The timing of the 'leak' is what I find more interesting, it is obviously an attempt to swing public opinion.
Whoever wins the Land400 Phase 2 tender, will likely have an advantage for Land400 Phase 3. My understanding is that Phase 2 is around 225 CRVs, whereas Phase 3 is somewhere around 450 IFVs and 17 MSVs.
Last edited:
MARKMILES77
Active Member
Patria have stated that the AMV can be up armoured to give protection against 30mm AP over the frontal arc( STANAG Level 6).
The image in the Australian above, of the AMV 35, shows it with an ATGM built in but we don't know if that has been offered in their bid.
I find some of the commentary on Land 400 pretty disappointing.
Particularly from somewhere like ASPI which should be more discerning.
Find it very difficult to imagine a scenario where we would want to airlift a large number of CRVs for example
Land 400—too much of a good thing? | The Strategist
Personally I see the Boxer as "Just right" for the ADF.
Regards,
Massive
Particularly from somewhere like ASPI which should be more discerning.
Find it very difficult to imagine a scenario where we would want to airlift a large number of CRVs for example
Land 400—too much of a good thing? | The Strategist
Personally I see the Boxer as "Just right" for the ADF.
Regards,
Massive
t68
Well-Known Member
Well actually I can see his point, the ADF is on its way to becoming a heavier harder hitting machine, but on an op like INTERFET which primary mission was stabilisation of the country, these new machines may be quite an overmatch in capability. I'm thinking 2RAR could have an attached light AFV Regiment that can be used in a number of roles that don't require the capability of the new vehicles something could be easily transported by C130 has a swim capability and able to move up to 16 pers and 5t of stores.
My personal opinion is that we have focus on the high intensity warfare which is a good thing but have lost sight of the lower intensity operations/HADR that may require an protected vehicle, something like Warthog should do the trick.
Warthog / Bronco All-Terrain Tracked Carrier - Army Technology
You've got the Bushmasters and soon the Hawkeis for lower level ops. They will be able handle everything but the toughest terrain. There's also the M113 fleet which would remain viable for these roles, perhaps a capability worth retaining in the Reserves on a shoestring budget.
Exactly, why do we have this fixation lately on this forum for all services to suggest all these new vehicles, ships, split buys etc, lets get some reality please ! It is seriously doing my head in.
With regards to the 113's I was under the impression that sending them to the Reserve units was on the cards ? pretty sure I have read that before, Raven may be able to clear that one up for us ?
Cheers