Because we want proven, in service (or even prototype) IFVs and not a “What-If” configuration of a Finnish vehicle? We don’t need another F-16AJ.
Type 89 does have APDS, better than 30mm APFSDS by a mile (more pen, more spall, better ROF)
I mean, it actually shreds through the side of the BMPT better than 30mm Bushmaster- which is what every top tier IFV has (or has an analogue to (30mm Mk 30-2))
Kh38mt aren’t proven to be in service why should this IFV?
if you want to get technical, BMPT is an AFV not an IFV, so not even relevant.
I said “even prototype”, the Kh-38MT is just a prototype Kh-38M w/ an IR seeker. The Japanese haven’t used or prototyped any Patria AMV with a gun, so?
you are either schizophrenic, or being stupid on purpose. either way, stop it.
Again its modular its interchangeable its like saying a t90m with a different ERA is a entirely different model tank
Have Japan used OR prototyped any module with a gun? Answer me.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
You are not making any sense. First you suggest to give japan IFV based on patria, when people press you to show what Patria IFV japan is getting, you go rambling on that since they get license for APC variant they can get IFV as well and when people point out that does not make sense you go all defensive and claim how japan suffers without any proper top tier IFV.
Start acting normally ffs, youre not five.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Agreed with you, while Japan doesn’t have any new options to add yet with top ranked, wheeled APC’s with ATGM’s, it has its sub-tree’s to bounce off. The ICV and RCV could maybe one day receive ATGM’s anyways, they’re both still low production/prototypes.
The BTR-3 variants, VN-1C and CCV can put in work on there own
Ajax doesn’t have ATGMs, Britain doesn’t have a tech tree, top tier IFV either, Japan isn’t being singled out…
Not the way to create suggestions on the Forum.