Why doesn't the us army just buy pic related

Attached: 43308_obr1-min.jpg (640x397, 60K)

youtube.com/watch?v=9yfLa1WHWyE

I'm not sure what whose program is more advanced in progress, but Australia is replacing it's M113s, currently the Lynx KF41 is the front runner

Attached: Lynx KF41 lands a.jpg (5000x3333, 2.41M)

whats with the shroud over the barrel, to reduce radar cross-section?

Probably mostly for looks, maybe some minor thermal concealment

Attached: CV90 czech.jpg (3000x1687, 1.4M)

It's the most overrated IFV on the internet

What makes it better than a Puma, much less all of the other IFVs that are either in development or have hit the market in the last decade?

All I know is it's supposedly cheaper than the Puma - and it has a roomy inside.

Attached: kf41 mockup.jpg (2048x1536, 547K)

Cheaper and more modern than Puma. As well as being able to accommodate 6 95th percentile soldiers.
Just the other day they confirmed they will not offer Puma in their bid, and focus on Lynx, which makes sense considering rumours in Aus it was low on the list.

Pic is Korean offering

Attached: AS21 Redback Hanwha.png (600x400, 369K)

That is the slowest fucking missile system I have ever seen

that thing even looks jewish

Literally only 6 seconds though. In fact most new IFVs and AFVs have fold out or extending missile canisters for launching.

a e s t h e t i c

Attached: Lynx_KF41~6.jpg (750x500, 330K)

Sexy af

Attached: 1280px-Trophy_on_NAMER_AFV.jpg (1279x871, 352K)

Looks like it will work perfectly against rock throwers, kite flyers, and unarmed people. How much did that cost America again?

The turretless merkava
>60+ tons
>30mm airburst autocannon
>APS

Attached: proxy.duckduckgo.com2.png (793x508, 423K)

We pimpyn!

What is this? A tank for ANTS?

It’s just cheaper, Puma is like 9-10 million dollar per piece.
However Puma is better among any other metric.

M8

There is a pretty big difference between
>IFV that carries a full section, armed with a 20mm
>IFV that carries a full section, armed with a 40mm

source?

China has an impressive IFV being developed, Western experts has tagged it as a super light tank.

Impressive.

With this most recent achievement, fate has, in a single stroke, marked the decline of the west and spelled a new era of wondrous prosperity and peaceful global dominance for the Chinese dragon, which promises to firmly stand in sharp contrast to the historically bloody ascent of western powers and the cruel subjugation it brought to the humbler nations of the world. The blessings of Chinese plasma stealth technology, undetectable hypersonic combat vehicles, quantum direct-current electricity, neutrino submarine detectors, gamma titanium mono crystal turbines, quantum aircraft carriers, unmanned autonomous A.I. tanks, near-space ballistic air-to-air missiles, super light tanks, +2km range airburst rifles, and quantum enhanced railguns will be the instruments with which China affirms its noble stewardship of 21st century world politics and offers the non-western world a different option; an humanist alternative to the depredations of Western leadership and the opportunity for a more equitable and dignified multilateralism.

US should just buy Chinese

The Australian project is farther along. The KF-41 is competing for it as well but is actually one of the least likely to win- the Army isn't happy that it's so heavy.

So who is the most likely to win?

Griffin 3 from GDLS. Would offer synergy with the Griffin 2 for MPF if that's selected (Same chassis with a stripped down Abrams turret), lightest of the contestants while adhering most closely to what the Army wants.

Attached: General_Dynamics_Griffin_III_new_concept_of_50mm_light_tank_at_AUSA_2018_United_States_Army_defense_ (925x520, 119K)

Yes. One provides fire support and carries a lot of ammo.
The other provides tougher fire support but carries half the ammo.
There is a reason that IFVs don't carry Bofors, user.

Is the Griffin even offered? All i can find is the Cv90, KF-41 and whatever that last indo-chink thingy is called

Does GD have facilities down under? Wouldn't it be a bit more practical to choose Rheinmetall when you are building Big-Boy-Boxers and a shitload of trucks from them anyway?

This lol. He probably thinks Australia=America.

I was talking about the OMFV program in my first post and forgot to include that. I'm retarded and it's early, sorry
The GD product on offer for LAND 400 is the Ajax, which is similar to the Griffin in that it has the same chassis. The KF-41 will likely win but the Ajax is the runner up there.

No prob dude, i've been trying to keep up with the Land 400 program because i work on the CV90's and like, and was wondering if something had completely slipped past me here.
Though the entire L400-project is somewhat confusing, with wheels here, tracks there, aussie shitposting everywhere

This looks impressive, what level of protection does it have?

A CV90 would be a negligible upgrade over a Bradley and the money spent on CV90's would be better spent on more Iron Fist APS units.

hey Jow Forums

>currently the Lynx KF41 is the front runner

No it isn't.

The are focusing on the Lynx because the Puma is a shared product with KMW.

The low avalability rate and tight infantry compartment of the Puma don't help it.

The CV90 has significantly better mobility than the Bradley though.
youtu.be/HAsR7m1wXM0
Being able to get IFVs through snow or bogs that would otherwise be inaccessible is a pretty major benefit.

Attached: cv_90_l3.jpg (1024x751, 281K)

You are now aware you are treating all variants of the CV90 as though they have the same mobility, by that standard a Bradley can swim.

Ukraine kinda showed that lightly-armed APCs/IFVs are next to useless.

this.
the mobility of the MkIII went to shit compared to the Mk1, sadly

Ukraine showed having your entire conflict be within range of UAV guided over the border artillery fire is not desireable.

I agree Ukraine has specific factors, but you can still derive lessons from it. Namely, modern artillery is fucking deadly, and Russians have awesome artillery.

>lightly armored vehicles are shit
>when deployed without supporting heavy armor

I’m getting tired of this “Ukraine showed this” nonsense. Ukraine with a potatoe military got jumped by Russia with a non-potatoe military and consequently got smashed. That’s the end of the lesson.

It’s like looking at GW1 and saying “The Iraqis have shown us that heavy armor is useless”

Russia has passible artillery. The issue was is that they could strike the ukraine, but the ukraine could not strike them. They could recon and call fires on the ukraine, but the ukraine could not do the same.

This is why you saw what you saw.

Ukrainian military isn't so bad, and they aren't Arabs.
>This is why you saw what you saw.
They did some pretty impressive shit nonetheless.

by that logic iraq kinda showed that having tanks is next to useless

>Russian gunners spend all day spamming MRLS and howitzer fire
>Ukrainians never do any real counter-battery fire
>Russian artillery is epic!

Ukrain showed us that Russia has caught up in SIGNIT/EW and have some spoopy units that focus on destabilization. That’s it, the only revelations.

I disagree. It's like a boxing match between a guy with arms and one without.

No,

Ukrainian military was absolutely terrible. Literal Iraqi tier performance.

The riflemen are there to give support and protect the autocannon which is the most important weapon.
In some scenarios they use their legs to go where the IFV cannot.

The weapon on the IFV is very important I would say it decides how the IFV is used.
Gasoline or diesel is the difference between KAAAABOOOOM and a bit less kabom.

If your main weapon is a squad of properly trained and equipped riflemen you are in the regular infantry and not in mechanized infantry or cavalry as some call it.

>Ukrain showed us that Russia has caught up in SIGNIT/EW
Nah. Russia showed it can beat Russian equipment. Not the same as the US level of EW and SIGNIT.

But you are right about the destabilizing units though.

>doesn’t know the difference between an IFV and APC

>Russia
Surely you mean glorious Ukranian freedomfighters armed with division-level artillery found conveniently laying around, along with help from Russian military personnel on a casual leave

Of course comrad.

Naturally, excuse the typos

>along with help from Russian military personnel on a casual leave
Not to mention the Russian active personnel that keep crossing the border due to bad map reading skills.

Ukraine won several key battles during the summer offensive, like defending Maruipol from the attempt to create a land bridge to Crimea, if they are arab tier what does that say about Russian forces?

It didn't exist in 1981?

Better than the Bradley as it is now, with 12 ton expansion potential

The fact that you are trying to turn a minor skirmish into a huge battle and victory is quite telling.

Ukrainians did absolutely fine up until Russians overran them from across the border

While I'm assuming this is a joke....

All IFVs are technically tanks. They just aren't MBTs.

>imagine being this butthurt

Except they aren't, really. Tanks are designed for decisive lethality as their mission. IFVs aren't.

Russian history books say that the winter war was a ”series of border conflicts and skirmishes”. So we might as well believe Russia threw all it had available at Mariupol, and still lost.

Yes, that is the point of discussion

I doubt it, ukies themselves say their troop strength in the Town was 400 men and half a squadron of tanks

Your point was that ukies had an arab tier military which is blatant lies. Poor no doubt but they would've been fine if Russians didn't come in force through the border. There's like 100km from the border to Donetsk and they were hugging it at the time, what were they supposed to do.

It’s a turn of phrase.

The point I made here stands

The war proved or showed no new revelations.
>armor gets rekd by arty
>hence ree IFVs trash!
We have known that since the US did those tests in the 80s on the effect of arty on massed armor (arty fucks up mbts quite badly)

Proof vs HMGs all-round, autocannon on the front, and has an APS. It also has a recon/kamikaze drone launcher.

Because we're considering buying other IFVs on the market such as the German Lynx IFV and adopt them into the U.S. Army as the next IFV that replaces the Bradley and we have the AMPV on its way to replace the aging M113 APC.

>Replace the Bradley with an IFV
>Replace the M113 with a Bradley that has no turret

Burgers, everyone.

Can't help that I was born in bugerland. Knowing how wasteful the MIC is, they might just cancel the program and we're stuck with the M113 until DARPA finds some other project that doesn't leave the prototype stage.

Btw do soldiers like the fact that by 2020 they'll be wearing Master Chief style helmets?

Irony here is that the Bradley is the offspring of a project to replace the M113 back in the 70' and 80's. So in a way, we have gone full circle

Do you have an actual reason why that's bad or is this just another Jow Forums shitpost

What? I thought the Boxer 8x8 had been chosen already?
defence.gov.au/dmo/equippingdefence/land400

Attached: Land 400.png (848x73, 8K)

thats the Phase 2 replacement for the LAV's, Phase 3 is for the M113 replacements aka IFV

When did I say that it's bad?

It's just funny. A little ironic, perhaps. Don't wind your clock so tight, friend.

>major offensive attempting to create a land bridge
>just a minor skirmish bro, Russia getting BTFO is no biggie

Apologies, I assumed you were going to launch into a Pentagon Wars tism rant

To stiffen the barrel, as with ubiquitous russian 30mm

You're not about to criticize the most objective and factual documentary about the Bradley ever filmed, are you? I would hate it if you did that.

There are pills for that these days, you know

What is this?

Attached: stuff.png (93x177, 38K)

>"Sir, I can't get this thing to boresight correctly no matter what I do."
>TC hands gunner a grapefruit-sized blue pill
>"Here you go soldier, just stuff this in the gas tank. It should stiffen up in about 30 minutes."
>"Where...where did you get this?"
>"My old man runs an illegal elephant sex zoo in Puerto Rico. This is actually only half a tablet. I snorted the rest of it last week."
>"What the fuck?"
>"I told you not to ask!"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_screen#Smoke_grenades

Smoke grenade discharger. Those round things are the caps over the individual grenade tubes. The cords are so you don't lose the caps.

And it only took 40 years

why not shoot real grenades?