Laser Shark

19 hours ago, Rico said:

I would guess that additional Leo 2 support will mean that the 2A4 hulls will be used for that since there is almost nothing else available.

I’m unsure if the 12 Wisent 2 and 6 AVLB are based on the hulls of Norwegian Leo 2A4NO*, surplus hulls acquired by the manufacturer or if they are completely new ones, but whatever the case may be, additional hulls should become available as completely new tanks (there’s going to be some even if Norway end up with a Leo 2A7NO fleet) start rolling in.  

* Reportedly, the Norwegian Army only has 38 operational tanks, so that leaves between 14-20 tanks/hulls unaccounted for.

On 3/31/2021 at 3:39 PM, Laser Shark said:

KMW has established a new website to promote the Leopard 2A7NO for Norway.

I have to correct myself here. As it turns out this website was actually created by “Kavaleriklubben”, an association of former and currently serving Norwegian cavalry personnel, and it’s only now that the website is being transferred over to KMW. I guess we can expect the quality of website to improve in the future referring back to @Rico’s complaints.

Also, as predicted, there are now projects with the goal of extending the life of both the Leo 1 based ARVs and AEVs (Project 1043), as well as acquiring additional support vehicles on Leo 2 hull (SUP LTP M-15). Interestingly, the latter project also mentions an assault breacher vehicle ("gjennombrytingspanservogn" in the Norwegian version of this document). The Norwegian Army had plans of acquiring such vehicles back in the 90s, initially taking the form of a turretless Leo 1 with a new  superstructure, a mine plough and a MICLIC launcher, but unfortunately it never got past the drawing board. If a MICLIC launcher can be fitted to the Wisent 2 Mine Clearance variant, it would probably satisfy the requirements, I think.

44 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

Was the Armadillo offered to the Norwegian Army for the ACSV program?

I don’t know, I'm afraid, but I somehow doubt that Hägglunds would have bid on an M113 rebuild, which this project started out as. It's an interesting question how the M113F4 morphed into the ACSV G5, but from the little that has been written about this process, I got no better answer than FFG decided to offer it, it got selected and somehow Norway managed to stumble our way into an actual M113 successor.

19 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:

the Norge PanzerGren regiment

Ugh. I’d rather that Körner claim all of the kills than the quislings of that regiment.

--------------

But anyway, it looks like FFG has finally added a page on the ACSV G5 to their website. There is some info there, as well as higher quality versions of photos which have already showed up here and elsewhere + some new ones I haven't seen before.

Production of the ACSV G5 is set to start next year, with system integration and final assembly being carried out at Ritek in Levanger. By then they should be mostly finished with the 12 additional CV90RWS combat engineering vehicles and 8 multi-role vehicles, which were ordered last year. The initial contract is for 44 vehicles, but this number is expected to grow to several hundreds over the next years.

KMW has established a new website to promote the Leopard 2A7NO for Norway.

One is free to appreciate the AFVs of WW2 Germany as far as I’m concerned, but it is annoying when certain people just handwave away all of the criticism directed towards tanks like the Panther and engage in all sorts of mental gymnastics when presented with overwhelming evidence against their position. I suspect it’s because many people just can’t deal with the fact that their favourite thing is flawed, but as someone who enjoys plenty of flawed things, like the Star Wars prequels and The Room, and, yes, even the Panther, which IMO is one the better looking tanks of WW2 with plenty of options for modellers, I would like to stress that it’s not only possible but (usually) completely fine as well.

But anyway, onto something different…

This is a Leopard 1A1NO, a tank that was based on Leopard 1A1A2s acquired from Germany after the Cold War had ended, It was only in service for a few years before, ironically, they too had to be retired in accordance with the CFE-treaty. Next to the housing of the PZB 200 image intensifier, we can also see an interesting feature of this tank, the Simrad LV3 laser range finder, which was probably repurposed from retired NM116s.

12 hours ago, Rico said:

 

Great to see the ACSV G5 coming into action on one side but sad to see Leopard 1 going out of service.

I always liked that vehicle a lot.

They’ll still be around for at least a handful of years, perhaps even a decade.

The project that has produced this G5 based ARV, Project 2592 “tracked recovery capacity”, contains two parts:

• A new light ARV (class 1) that will be based on the M113 (now ACSV G5).
• Exploiting the remaining service life of the current medium ARVs (class 2).

Of course, it’s possible that the switch from the M113 platform to the much more powerful G5 has reduced the need for maintaining the NM217/Bergepanzer 2, but I still don’t think they will be fully retired until Norway has acquired another batch of Wisent 2s ARVs, which probably won’t happen before the future MBT has been chosen. The same might also hold true for the Leo 1 based AEVs and AVLBs as 6 Wisent 2 AEVs and 6 Leo 2 AVLBs aren’t really enough to support five mechanized battalions either.

IIRC Norway decided against putting an RWS (Protector Nordic) on the K9 because "it was negatively affected by the cannon blast pressure" - or at least that's what this article claims.

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Slide showing the PMMC G5:

 

The Janes article also mentions a fifth variant that is more or less confirmed for Norway, that being a light armoured recovery vehicle with a recovery winch and strong crane ( I briefly mentioned this vehicle in a post last year). I expect it will be outfitted with a module similar to the one they developed for the Boxer.

They also write a bit about how the various mission modules (anti-air, ARV, EW, counter-battery radar) are integrated into the G5:

Quote

It ist tailor designed to carry either a 10 ft (3.05 m) container or 6.5 ft (1.83 m) container and has a loading crane that can lift up to 5 tonnes, such as various mission modules.

 

(...)

 

For fast integration of these modules all vehicles are equipped as standard with a comprehensive interface box, providing high electric power, a wide range of connectors for exchange of data and speech, and hydraulic power. 

Additional variants, including ones based on the full hull configuration, is also looking very likely since Norway has to acquire more AFVs in order to outfit the new mechanized battalions, and then there is also fact that the oldest M113s and M577s of the Norwegian Army, the A2s, are at the end of their service life (the F3s still have another 10-15 years left in them, so there will probably be a "high-low mix" for some time still).

U.S. Ordnance M2A2N with the new HMG-M softmount from Rheinmetall Norway. It will replace the older .50 cals (the oldest ones are from 1940) in the Norwegian Armed Forces.

Norway has signed a framework agreement with Saab for the Carl-Gustaf M4, with initial deliveries this year: https://www.saab.com/newsroom/press-releases/2021/saab-receives-norwegian-order-for-carl-gustaf-m4

It has now been confirmed that Norway was the “unspecified Northern European customer” who acquired the Hawkeye vehicle systems for long range surveillance and target tracking back in July last year. It will take a couple of years, however, until it has been integrated on the 21 CV9030 OPVs of the Norwegian Army.

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

I am also unsure whether AMRAAM-ER will be available with the high mobility launcher, given the fact that its 75% heavier and 12 inches longer.

 

It will according to Raytheon:

"The Raytheon High Mobility Launcher (HML) that will be provided for LAND 19 Phase 7B has also been upgraded with the same common launch rail and new electronics as the Mark 2 canister launcher. The launcher raises the missiles up to 30 degrees and can be rotated 360 degrees, and will give the HML a multi-missile capability for the AMRAAM, AIM-9X Block 2, and AMRAAM-ER.

Source: https://www.raytheon.com/sites/default/files/2019-04/ADBR_WorldLeader!_Land19_Supplement.pdf?linkId=66006150

As far as Norway is concerned, it looks like the future anti-aircraft battery/batteries of the Norwegian Army are going to consist of a mix of maneuver SHORAD (ACSV G5 with IRIS-T SL*) and NASAMS III with High Mobility Launchers. The latter has also been acquired by Australia in addition to cannister launchers, but theirs will be based on the Hawkei PMV instead of the HMMWV.

* I also would not be surprised if the SHORAD vehicle will also be outfitted with a H&K GMG and programmable ammunition similar to the C-UAS solution selected by Germany. In the latest image I've seen of this vehicle, it has both an RWS and a pintle mount FN MAG, and although the image is too small for me to be able to tell what sort of weapon is mounted in the RWS, I suspect it's a GMG since it seems a bit excessive for such a vehicle to carry 2 MGs (even if they are of different caliber).

The Protector family, now with new designations:

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

I am not sure about the exact relation between M113F4 and the new ACSV. Maybe I am wrong, but the original plan was to use old Norwegian M113 hulls and remanufacture them. Maybe this changed at some point?

Correct. The ACSV project originally called for the production of M113F4s, which were pretty much just a lengthened version of the previous F3 variant, and thus would have been based on surplus M113 hulls that Norway would ship to the manufacturer. As a part of their bid, FFG however decided to offer a G5 based solution as an alternative to the original ACSV design, and it ended up becoming the preferred option.

Quote

 

It is also hard to say when a vehicle deserves a new name. The M113G4 (FFG's last M113 upgrade before developing the G5) for example also had a new suspension, new engine, new transmission, stretched hull with raised roof, new braking system and add-on armor.

Very true. This is very much a grey area like the transition from M109A7 to XM1299. Some feel it's well past time for a new designation, others do not

Quote

From the few depictions and images of the ACSV, it seems to lack the G5's modularity.

 

Well, the open hull configuration of the ACSV G5 will have a loading area and integrated container mounts for container-based missions, and it can be outfitted with various modules like close-range air defence, radar applications and electronic warfare. Less has been revealed about the closed hull configuration, but it has been claimed that it will have “(…) a large, efficiently protected and flexibly usable interior, which is ideally suited for transport, command or ambulance missions”, which to me would imply a degree of modularity.

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

I also would have liked some cooperation with Norway, who purchase a similar system based on the Armored Combat Support Vehicle (refurbished M113 upgraded with parts from the FFG G5).

I’m not sure if it’s really fair to refer to the ACSV G5 (as it’s now being called by both FFG and the Norwegian Armed Forces) as a "refurbished M113", which IMO would put it in the same category as vehicles like the M113A2F1/F2, the M113F3 and the M113F4 (the original ACSV). The lower hull, along with the suspension and engine is that of a PMMC G5, and while the upper superstructure is very M113 like, and it’s possible that it’s been cut out from surplus M113s, it’s obviously been altered quite a bit as well. I know it’s a bit of grey area we're talking here, but to me it feels like we have moved past the territory of refurbished M113s, and that a better description would be “M113/G5 hybrid”.

If Norway sticks with the Leo 2, then we’ll probably end up with a combination of completely new and partially new/upgraded A7s (I have seen conflicting information on how much of the old A4NOs is re-usable). These I suspect will be kept as close to the German A7V standard as possible, and only include a few changes, like the installation of Kongsberg’s ICS. This is because Norway will likely want to enter into a strategic cooperation with Germany similar to the ongoing submarine project*, and also because Norway seems more interested in off-the-shelf solutions these days.

* But it’s also different because the Leo 2A7V is already a done deal and now entering production, but even if Norway had gotten involved at an earlier stage, I suspect that our influence on the A7V would have been a lot smaller than the submarine project where we’re set to be the biggest spender.

2 hours ago, Voodoo said:

What's the possibility of Germany offerering a similar deal? 

If the info in this quote by Centre Party leader Trygve Slagsvold Vedum is correct, it looks like they are offering industrial incentives that are as good if not better:

"Norway will now buy new tanks. It is mainly between buying a South Korean tank or a German tank. What type of industrial community do you think will create as many jobs as possible here in Norway? I think there is a greater chance of achieving that with German industry than South Korean industry. But if the government manages to disprove that, then it is fine, even though everything now indicates that there will be better industrial cooperation with the Germans, says Vedum."

Source: https://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/i/Qmm1yA/sp-vedums-forsvars-krav-70-nye-stridsvogner

More info about the Dutch CV90 upgrade program. It looks pretty good to me, though the scope of the project has been reduced from 141 to 122 vehicles, meaning that another 19 CV9035NL will likely be up for sale in the near future. Estonia will probably be very interested in getting those since they  already operate 44 CV9035NL.

On 11/1/2020 at 2:46 AM, Newtonk said:

and a funky digital camo to go with it...

The vehicle in the photo is BAE Systems Hägglunds' CV90 MkIV demonstrator. Upgraded Dutch CV90s will not necessarily receive such a paintjob.

ACSV G5

Offisersbladet claims that the US Army is consdiering the K9 Thunder for their forces in South Korea. I couldn't find any other source confirming this, so it seems dubious, but this is also the same journal that revealed that Germany had decided to acquire Trophy before that was made official too...

Source: https://dittmagasin.no/offisersbladet/utgivelser/offisersbladet_0520_flip (page 19)

4 hours ago, SH_MM said:

I am not entirely sure why they would adopt such add-on armor on a self-propelled gun. Specifically given that it lacks additional roof-armor to survive counter-battery fire.

 

Is it meant for peace-keeping operations?

Could be that and/or the Aussies feel they need it in case their artillery units have to defend their own positions and make use of that direct-fire capability?

Perhaps @2805662 or @DIADES know anything about this?

Concept image of an AS9 Huntsman (K9A1 variant for Australia) with additional armour, new headlights (similar to the ones on the Redback) and an RWS:

Source: https://www.janes.com/amp/hda-shows-concept-images-of-as9-sph-and-as10-aarv-for-australian-army/ZnlJK3dHVU9mZ28xajRJVkc5dVI5VFp1cVMwPQ2

Estonian CV90s, including one that is based on a Mk I hull acquired from Norway. No clue about the role of this particular vehicle, but whatever it is, it’s probably intended to be an interim solution until a proper rebuild can be carried out (I mean, there aren't any periscopes on that MG post and the rear cupola doesn't have one in the front centre, so forward visibility must be very bad for the commander when buttoned up…). As to when that might happen, I do not know. Estonia did launch a tender on the reconstruction of the Mk I hulls back in August 2017, but in January of last year, it was announced that they had rejected all of the offers.