Ramlaen Posted October 4, 2018 Report Share Posted October 4, 2018 Quote Curtin said he expects that (WB America)'s AUSA exhibit will include ‘data sheets and white papers covering the RAK and what we call Krab, which is a self-propelled 155mm howitzer. And I anticipate that we will also have some other vehicle examples, like Langusta 1 and 2 multiple rocket launcher, and the Daisy, which is basically an anti-UAV rocket launcher system. https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/ausa-2018-us-arm-polish-wb-group-makes-debut/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted October 5, 2018 Report Share Posted October 5, 2018 Quote US experimental XM360E1 turret for XM-1202 MCS (Mounted Combat System) Spoiler Serge and Ramlaen 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skylancer-3441 Posted October 5, 2018 Report Share Posted October 5, 2018 slightly different version Ramlaen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TokyoMorose Posted October 5, 2018 Report Share Posted October 5, 2018 I really, really want to know the genius behind FCS who decided that for large-caliber weapons the only protection needed was the world's most complicated APS. They never did get Quick Kill working to a satisfactory level did they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted October 5, 2018 Report Share Posted October 5, 2018 The Lynx 41 would probably succeed in place of the FCS because it can actually carry the weight necessary while still having good protection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted October 6, 2018 Report Share Posted October 6, 2018 5 hours ago, Ramlaen said: The Lynx 41 would probably succeed in place of the FCS because it can actually carry the weight necessary while still having good protection. With a lot more development required. It’s still a sole-prototype napkinpanzer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SH_MM Posted October 6, 2018 Report Share Posted October 6, 2018 5 hours ago, 2805662 said: With a lot more development required. It’s still a sole-prototype napkinpanzer. Everytime the Lynx KF41 is mentioned, you seem to write a comment about it being a "napkinpanzer". Aside of the terminology being subjectively wrong (I've only heard this term before related to actual paper designs, but for the Lynx KF41 there is indeed a working prototype), you never bother to provide any reasoning for it being a so-called "napkinpanzer". Yes, the exterior is very smooth and lacks any signs of storage racks, but that is related to the new stealth characteristics mentioned by Rheinmetall and the DTR magazine. They even embedded the bolts and washers into the armor to minimize the radar signature - that is not a new concept, but hasn't been widely adopted. You complain about the interior being too clean and mostly empty, but the vehicle was used to showcase the available room to potential customers at an international exhibiition. If this vehicle went to actual field tests in this way, it might be valid to criticize it for having an unrealistic interior configuration - but expos are not meant to showcase realistic configurations. Sometimes AFVs are fitted with under floor lighting before such an expo, in order to make them look cooler. Someitmes non-functional mock-ups are presented, because it is not financially viable to ship a whole AFV to another country just to showcase it for two days - or because the actual working prototypes aren't available at the time. KMW has done that with the Leopard 2 a few times: they once weren't allowed to export (even temporary) a German Leopard 2A7 to showcase at IDEX, so instead they leased a Leopard 2A6 form another user country, shipped it to IDEX and added non-functional mock-up parts to replicate the look of a Leopard 2A7. If your only reason for calling it a "napkinpanzer" is the interior layout, which actually will be modified on user's specific requirements, then it is a poor decision to whine abou the Lynx KF41 everytime somebody posts about it. When the CV90, Lynx KF41, ASCOD 2 and Puma were tested in the Czech Republic, only the latter was actually fitted with all components, storage options for weapons and equipment, radios, BMS, etc. The reason behind this was the Puma being a German army vehicle, while the industry-owned demonstrators/prototypes all would only be fitted with user- and mission-specific equipment, once a choice had been made by the user. if you have other reasons to call it a "napkinpanzer" and those are actually valid, then I'm willing to support this claim. What exact reasons do you have to believe that it doesn't work and is an unfinished paper/napkin design? Do you have any reason to believe that some of the components are not functional, that they are mock-ups? It's not like Lynx KF41 is a second PL-01. It has been in development for three years, makes use of existing and working components and the technology used for it actually exists, while the PL-01 was a mock-up based on another chassis fitted with visual representations of non-existing armor modules, turret and APS launchers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted October 6, 2018 Report Share Posted October 6, 2018 Fair cop. I’d call it a “comment”, rather than a “whine”, but YMMV. The KF31 is a mature design that is ready for a customer to buy it - tomorrow. It has competed internationally against the Puma and the CV90. The BoxerCRV is also very mature, and that track record of Rheinmetall putting mature products in front of the customer (especially in Australia), sets an expectation, reasonable or otherwise. The KF41 is far from that. Rheinmetall has inferred that the KF41 is similarly mature as the KF31, which it patently is not. The KF41 as displayed at Eurosatory, Land Forces 18, and (presumably) AUSA 18 did not have a functioning turret (hand transverse only), for example. None of the appliqué armour, which has different geometry to the that trialled on the KF31, has been produced as a complete vehicle set for the KF41. The Lance 2.0 turret is a comparatively (to the Lance 1.0) immature design who’s flaws are yet to be wrung out. Interior stowage design, itself a major package of work, hasn’t been displayed. It also doesn’t have mature variants. Having been on both sides of vehicle development, display, deployment, and disposal, I’m aware that there are mock ups, models, and show ponies. At Eurosatory 18, it was illustrative to move from the Puma (on loan from a panzergrenadier battalion of the Bundeswehr) to the KF41, to the Stryker Dragoon (also an in-service vehicle). That experience, coupled with my other experiences led me to the “napkinpanzer” Moniker as an attempt to highlight where in the product cycle KF41 sits. It may evolve into My comments on “napkinpanzer” is a counter-point to Rheinmetall’s incessant propaganda/marketing on the KF41. It’s also a callback to the incomplete products that litter the history of German AFV development. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
123 Posted October 6, 2018 Report Share Posted October 6, 2018 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
123 Posted October 6, 2018 Report Share Posted October 6, 2018 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted October 6, 2018 Report Share Posted October 6, 2018 34 minutes ago, Willy Brandt said: @2805662 How was the Stryker Dragoon looking maturity wise compared to the Puma? I only saw some driving by at GTA. It was a typical in-service, in-use truck on display with its crew talking about it. Had a new-but-used feel to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted October 6, 2018 Report Share Posted October 6, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted October 6, 2018 Report Share Posted October 6, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted October 6, 2018 Report Share Posted October 6, 2018 (edited) Edited October 22, 2018 by Ramlaen better image Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted October 6, 2018 Report Share Posted October 6, 2018 L3 will be displaying their MX-GCS sight on a RIwP IM-SHORAD turret, MPF vehicle (SAIC) and a '50mm gun turret'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skylancer-3441 Posted October 6, 2018 Report Share Posted October 6, 2018 Ramlaen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade334 Posted October 6, 2018 Report Share Posted October 6, 2018 ...That's one big turret for sure. It's not B1 Draco-level, but still... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serge Posted October 6, 2018 Report Share Posted October 6, 2018 21 hours ago, Ramlaen said: The Lynx 41 would probably succeed in place of the FCS because it can actually carry the weight necessary while still having good protection. The Lynx was designed with basic components to provided both an affordable and low risk chassis. There is no breakthrough. So, I’m not sure this is what the US Army is looking for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted October 7, 2018 Report Share Posted October 7, 2018 On 10/5/2018 at 11:51 PM, TokyoMorose said: I really, really want to know the genius behind FCS who decided that for large-caliber weapons the only protection needed was the world's most complicated APS. They never did get Quick Kill working to a satisfactory level did they? The QK system was not intended to defeat KEPs afaik, and they deemed the Trophy satisfactory back then, so they didn't really seek any physical end-game protection against large caliber guns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skylancer-3441 Posted October 7, 2018 Report Share Posted October 7, 2018 17 hours ago, Ramlaen said: L3 will be displaying their MX-GCS sight on a RIwP IM-SHORAD turret, MPF vehicle (SAIC) and a '50mm gun turret'. it seems to me that MCAS turrret was described there as one "with embedded growth to 50mm". So, maybe they will show this turret with Bushmaster III? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted October 7, 2018 Report Share Posted October 7, 2018 2 hours ago, skylancer-3441 said: it seems to me that MCAS turrret was described there as one "with embedded growth to 50mm". So, maybe they will show this turret with Bushmaster III? They do specify turret so it might just be a shell or mockup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2805662 Posted October 8, 2018 Report Share Posted October 8, 2018 There was another Vehicle under a tarp at the GD stand....presumably the Griffon. Ramlaen and Serge 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade334 Posted October 8, 2018 Report Share Posted October 8, 2018 Will it be an actual prototype or the mockup shown at AUSA the last time? GDLS has been very quiet about the Griffin since exhibiting its mockup at the previous AUSA, so I'm not sure they have already reached the working prototype stage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted October 8, 2018 Report Share Posted October 8, 2018 (edited) Griffin III with 50mm gun, now with a bigger image. Edited October 9, 2018 by Ramlaen Serge, skylancer-3441 and SH_MM 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Moyes Posted October 8, 2018 Report Share Posted October 8, 2018 Concept vehicle for NGCV. Ramlaen, skylancer-3441 and Serge 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.