Great. congrats.

Congrats

Congrats. Good luck!

Wouldnt it be nice if our government invested more in our forces. Bought a few toys for the diggers to play with swap out get some ideas and design, build, and export our own REME built tough lol. Might get some money onto the Army then

It’s like Xmas for the ADF at the moment and it’s about time they stopped being neglected . They are starting to take our position in the world very seriously in Canberra.

Eric Ferguson civilian reconnaissance vehicle?

Eric Ferguson No, probably Caffeine Reconnaissance Vehicle

Eric Ferguson children reconnaissance vehicle No please don't take me to jail

Eric Ferguson chicks rec v.

That one sounds a bit dodgy.

Politenessman they will do the land125 all over again. they will take the 2nd hand yank strikers rather then buying somthing new. I'm still in shock they got the Gwagons rather the 2nd hand humvees. I'm not jaded at all im just pissed we got the m777's rather then Self propelled.

re the m777s I agree, but you can make an argument that since we only have 57 tanks (and last time I looked most of those are in storage), buying SP guns to support an armoured battlegroup we can't field is over the top.

I'm Australian and I like the AMV35 a lot better then the boxer...

why would the army get a punch of left hand drives over right

The ADF never procures anything as is :(

Where’s that

Facken ripper ... backpackers must be shitting bricks

Well as far as i know it is a requirement from the australien army that the Boxer for the australien army gets build there. Where I work we built the first i belive 6 test vehicles that were sent to australia to be tested. I worked a bit on it, since we had trouble building them in time with that litle amount of people that were planned to work on it so they asked for some trainee. I can say it is a great vehicle an fun to work on

They are made in the UK

@@michaelwood8413 yes, but not the first ones that were send to be tested

Boxer is huge, is that new gen of giant 8x8 vehicles. And the Australian Boxers especially are more like light Tanks on wheels. Theyre apparently 40 ton heavy; means theyre close to the weight of russian MBTs and same as the heaviest IFVs. Theres been some rumors they actually struggle a bit with the heavy weight (feature creep?), but theres not anything official. I hope it works out smoothly enough.

小兒為我會員6 6,9

I saw a picture of a boxer next to a lav, made it look like a toy

simply remarkable.

Looks like Pucka... :P

The lithuanian boxer was even tested with the RCT30 (Puma turret), however that was even more expensive than the LANCE.

Being such a large country we desperately need long range rapid deployment vehicles. Tracked vehicles are vital for all terrain mobility but logistical support to cover long range missions need to be considered. I love this "Boxer" as a 8×8 class leader.👍

Honestly, currently it feels like "recon vehicles" becomes an excuse for everyone to get themselves some light tanks xD

Ik kan aan je naam zien waarom, haha.

ik vat m XD

martijntjuu1 luchs first then we do Fennek (in historical order) ;)

Do the Fennek Mati! Pls..

yeah at least we arent paying the Americans for more shit i suppose?

German quality :)

Looking at re enlisting, this thing is the shizzle

michael Scales then they will pick the cheapest. they did it with land125 when they choice 2nd hand m777's over brand new self propelled

Boba Fett True I was loaded off at additional towed 155mm instead of SPH. there was a lot of controversy surrounding the South Korean howitzer.

Boba Fett pissed not loaded lol

michael Scales the K9 thunder. we had a few demo videos shown to us back when I was in the artillery i got all pumped for then they shafted us

I'm Australian and I like the AMV35 a lot better then the boxer...

It can be equipped with the APS from rheinmetall

One of the biggest weaknesses of the Boxer, as will all full sized german armored vehicles, is the sheer size. Just like the Puma, this thing is taller than the Leo2. And Leo is already pretty tall a tank. Funnily enough, Germany is also operating the super tiny Wiesel and is developing the equally tiny LuWa to replace it. Fennek is also not very big. So somehow, Germany seems to be building some of the smallest and some of the biggest armored vehicles. Very little in between. If you compare it with soviet and post-soviet designs, they all seem very low profile in comparison. I guess thaf will be direly needed if they ever have to go up against Boxer or Puma (or Lynx). PS: I have always been in !ove with the Wiesel and LuWa looks almost as cute.

@@tomitiustritus6672 the height is due to the heavy IED blast protection. A Boxer can survive IED blasts, most tracked armored vehicles like Abrams, Challenger 2 or basicly every IFV would be left in shreds afterwards.

nenurodytas "Karinės paslaptys"/ Eduardo Silva (man atrodo jis šituos modelius daro) copyright.

ZeOverman cool :-) in lithuanian it wolf 👍

Gripen39C not amphibious

At 38.5 tons in combat form its heavier than a ww2 Sherman tank. They might be able to make it float with a floatation screen.

Land 400 is a $10 billion program. Money is not a problem.

It's a 10 billion program alright, but how many vehicles you're getting for your money is an important. It doesn't matter how good something is if you simply don't have enough of them to do the job.

We always end up spending a fortune so might as well choose the best.

225 CRV 8x8 to replace 257 ASLAV's Tracked IFV's to replace over 400 M113's. I'd say up to 300 IFV's or more but haven't seen anything yet. It would depend on the design as the Boxer can be changed out mission wise and the CV-90 has mortor and 120mm configurations.

dude where spending $64 billion over the next few years Australia is fine.

Yes it is. Its samson mkII turret with 30mm Mk44 Bushmaster II chain gun.

Nice catch..it did looked familiar

So the Israelis can also build modules for this platform ? This truly is a military LEGO vehicle :)

Yep, contract signed for 500, with at least 60% of them built in the UK but the first orders coming from German factories I believe.

@@G1NZOU Cool.

In today's threat environment, it's definitely a good idea to make your recon vehicle more intrusive and obvious than a main battle tank apparently.

@Malcolm Caden Thanks for the information but will the Canadian Army be getting the 30 or 40 mm versions

Yeah why you were using the m113 America was using the Bradley lol.

@@captaron True, governments back then didn't want to spend money on our army. Things have changed, though, and we are now invested in using the best equipment we can buy (or manufacture ourselves).

well that why Australia designed the first and most practical MRAP the Bushmaster our soldiers were protected while everyone else was dying in land rovers and humvees. it took the US so long to get MRAP's and when the Dutch saw their troops getting killed in the middle east they bought our Bushmaters over any other MRAP

that Makes no sense, Land mine do not care size or speed of vehicles, nor do rocket launchers.. lazy child like video game thinking is not the answer.

Allan Desmond the bushmaster is obviously safer than an unarmoured Land rover or Humvee

Since the ALR Tanga is so outdated......

That 30 mike mike would fuckin wreck water buffalo and theres plenty of them out there for the Aus army to practice shots on haha

@@h.c5750 Water buffalo? have you notheard of saltwater crocodiles? this isn't like the US where you can just drive up and practice shooting at schools.

think bigger and more deadly. the Emu's won't know what hit em

I'll just settle for a scaled down civilian version. Ferals won't know what hit them.

well we did give our bushmasters to the dutch so Aus and dutch should do more work together. and we gave a bunch to the UN

yes but it would also mean if someone learns of specific weaknesses or in the worst case allies become enemys... Really sucks that australia didn't bother to look at our domestic offerings.

Yes its a shame that the US didn't do as the Dutch did in Afghanistan and buy our Bushmaster vehicles. Would have saved a lot of US lives from IED blasts after 2005 to 2007 before the Humvee was replaced.

@@yakidin63 Unfortunately it was a Political Decision by the Obama, not to deploy mine protected vehicles, as to to Bushmaster, it was not needed, as there was MaxxPro, Cougar, RG-31, RG-33 and M1117.

@@omegasub90803 you realize that Obama was elected president in 2009, right ? By that time, the US already had MRAPs on the ground.

Brian Jordan Dutch/German.

Brian Jordan excellent point. thinking as a reservist here in a low budget military. if they just trained without 30mm turret as an apc or maybe just with a 7.62x51mm MG on the turret to save money during peacetime training. switch out for the 30mm for pre deployment and annual qualifications as well as wartime

@@thatdutchguy2882 ehhh...same same😜😂😂 🇳🇱🇩🇪

Exactly what I was thinking. Too many moving parts that could fail during combat. I don’t know, I’m not sold

yeah its sad that we got sucked into the shitty f35 feed america money for nothing joke

All those nice land vehicles wont last long against air attack. F35's to the rescue.

Pilots love the F35. Don't believe the negative comments. The F35 controls the battlespace. Its not just a plane.

We are not planning on doing too much fighting in Aus. Continental defence will rely on air and sea dominance to stop enemy getting here.

@@yakidin63 I hope you're right for our sakes.

Who's gona invade Australia! 95% is just desert and nothing!

@@bulletproofkam7931 it's what's under the surface. On that note, if anyone is reading this, we have absolutely no minerals down here, none at all.

@@garyfoale3707 They don't need to invade us, Gary. Our politicians are really cheap bribees.

@@bulletproofkam7931 that’s where all the iron or and other minerals are though

Deutschland bestes Land 4eva

Right i forgot/werent shure about the gramawa

EnduroRookie the gtk Boxer is Suppost to replace the Fuchs which is a transport vehicle not an IFV

German/Dutch vehicle* Dont forget your swamp brethren!

halorecon95 Nein ,nur Deutsch ein jointventure von Rheinmetall und Kmw

Remember this machine is built for war. If it drives over IED and drive module is damaged you can put mission module on working drive module from any nation or vice versa. Second thing it allow for fast prototyping and already there are many variants of mission modules

Modular setups are the future... It may look like a gimick, however the result of the setup turns out to be of real benefit. It is most effective on ships, due to the larger size, and longer life, but the principles are the same... The real effect, if done right, means that a weapon system, sensor pack and so on, can be upgraded or maintained/repaired much more cost-effective and faster, than a conventional setup... How effective is it on a vehicle this size, I don't know... But I do know that the Danish navy has build its ships up around the concept, making the ships much more flexible, and cheaper in their expected life cost, because the instead of going to dock and cut a hole in the hull to access the hardware inside (meaning an upgrade will only happen once), container moduls can be pulled out and replaced in as short a time as 15 minuts... So if a sensor package is damaged or something, the container modul can simply just be unplugged, pulled out, and replaced with one that works, and the damaged sensors can be worked on while the unit is out in the field/sea.

Yes +MatoVuc, as previous speakers said, you are not thinking this through. Ofc no soldier in the field is going to swap his nice m4 in a cqb 'build' into a dmr variant while sitting in his one man hole in the night. That's not what his all is about however. It is about logistics, cost effectiveness and versatility. A more practical example might be able to make it more clear. Just think on it on divisonal level for a second. Let's say you have a mechanized division equipped with boxer based vehicles. You have a mortar battalion using the 120mm mortar turret and a reconaissance battalion using this crv turrent. Then you have your infantry using boxers for transport and a medical battalion using boxers in the field ambulance configuration. Isn't the advantage of having just one vehicle for all this tasks already obvious? Not only that you don't need to worry about all sorts of different spares parts for all the different vehicles anymore as you just have one vehicle. You also can easily exchange vehicles between your units in relative short time simply by exchanging equipment modules. Especially after a division has been in battle for some time and after suffering quite some casualties you now have the opportunity to concentrate on these kind of boxers you need the most in a certain situation. That's a huge advantage. Modularity is not a new invention however. Just look at all the different sdkfz/251 variants in WW2. Actually interchangeability always had a major influence in German military development not only when it comes to vehicle development. One can almost consider this a doctrine. It's one reason why the German Army didn't use a heavy machine-gun caliber like the .50. They simply didn't want to think about a lot of different calibers but instead only have one rifle caliber and a pistol caliber. The German 8mm Mauser has been used in sniper rifles, standard infantry rifles, light to heavy machine guns and even in the air-defence on bombers and on the ground in twin mounted mg42's. Up to the stg.44 there simply was no other rifle caliber in the German Military. You can also look at the large family of vehicles based on the chassis of a Leopard 1 and 2 nowadays. Modularity isn't something the Germans invented however. I just thought it's a good example.

rantanplan178 having operated in a unit based on variants of the Patria AMV, i am aware of the benefits and drawbacks of running with a family of vehicles. my point is that i don't exactly see much use for the swappable module system as it will require at the least a crane to swap out and it doesn't seem like something you'd do very often while deployed. at most, i see it as a production and cost saving measure, but as a practical ability in the field, not so much.

rantanplan178 having operated in a unit based on variants of the Patria AMV, i am aware of the benefits and drawbacks of running with a family of vehicles. my point is that i don't exactly see much use for the swappable module system as it will require at the least a crane to swap out and it doesn't seem like something you'd do very often while deployed. at most, i see it as a production and cost saving measure, but as a practical ability in the field, not so much.