Laser Shark

21 hours ago, SH_MM said:

C.G Haenel has beaten Heckler & Koch for the German G36 replacement program. The weapon performed a bit better and was more "economical".

 

https://augengeradeaus.net/2020/09/neues-sturmgewehr-der-bundeswehr-soll-von-haenel-kommen/

I find that somewhat hard to believe considering that German SOF selected the HK416A7 instead of a Haenel.

It looks like the lawsuit between Rheinmetall Norway and the Norwegian state has been called off:

Quote

Rheinmetall Norway and Norwegian Defense Materiel Agency (NDMA) have issued a joint statement, stating that they have succeeded in reaching an agreement over the dispute regarding the delivery of the sensor system Vingtaqs II to the armed forces' CV90 reconnaissance vehicles.

 

- The solution brought about an amicable conclusion to the case. Chief of Defense Materiel Land Capacities, Brigadier General Ivar Halset and CEO Thomas Berge Nielsen of Rheinmetall Norway are both pleased to be able to look to the future. Beyond that, the parties have no further comment, they write in the message.

 

The settlement, which also includes legal costs, was agreed upon on August 28.

 

https://www.tu.no/artikler/hemmelig-forlik-forsvaret-og-rheinmetall-legger-cv90-saken-bak-seg/498954

Would be neat to know more about this settlement, but that's all there is, for now at least.

5 hours ago, DIADES said:

Definitely getting up there .  Still another 15t or 50% to go to get to Ph3 weight class - no, I do not believe Hanwha (or Rheinmetall) weights.

Yes, and the TU article I posted earlier in this thread claims they’re already snapping more frequently than they should on a vehicle that is just 5 tonnes heavier than the CV9030NF1, so there is definitely reason to be sceptical. Granted, it’s also possible that the Norwegian tracks were ones that were ordered years ago, and as such, might not give the correct impression of how durable those on the Redback are. So, one shouldn’t approach this without an open mind either.

11 hours ago, SH_MM said:

Personally I'd prefer the segmented rubber tracks from DST. They combine the strengths of CRTs (claimed weight reduction of 50% compared to conventional steel tracks) with the segmented construction of steel tracks. Though I suspect given that they are still composite-rubber tracks, their overall lifetime will also be significantly worse than that of lightweight/conventional steel tracks.

As long as the durability isn’t unacceptably bad, I think the benefits of rubber band tracks, particularly when it comes to environment, health and safety (aka “HMS” In Norway), will ultimately convince most Western militaries to adopt them sooner or later. I agree, though, that a segmented solution would be another step in the right direction.

11 hours ago, DIADES said:

OK, yes rubber bands work on very light vehicles.  Please show me any evidence of a medium or heavy AFY on rubber track?

One example:

Norwegian CV9030NF1 in Northern Afghanistan. These vehicles had also been outfitted with AMAP add-on-armour by that time, so they probably weighed around 30 tonnes. The positive experiences with rubber band tracks in Afghanistan, contributed to the decision to outfit the entire fleet of 144 new and upgraded vehicles (CV9030 MkIIIb and CV90RWS) with this type of tracks.

The Battle Damage Repair Kit at least offers a temporary fix until you can get back to base. Extra tracks will of course have to be brought along with the unit's logistics train. If you have to bring up a replacement track to an immobilized vehicle, however, it probably won’t be too much of an issue either since you have this thing:

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

I wonder if the U212CD submarines will affect KMW's chances. In the end the deal was similar to what the South-Korean government together with Hyundai seems to offer ("buy our stuff, then we buy your stuff"), but the Norwegian government had issues securing sufficient funds for the U212CD (or considered TKMS' offer to be too expensive), hence delaying the program. Maybe they could swap out one U212CD and buy Leopard 2 tanks instead for a little less money.

Pretty much zero chance of that happening IMO. After the F-35, new submarines are almost certainly among the projects with the highest priority, and 4 submarines are already on the low side (currently we have 6 Ula-class subs). Yes, there have been several delays before the production has even started (in addition to the reason you mentioned, it's going to take time for two navies to sit down and agree upon a common design, and there has also been a desire to include additional countries to bring down costs), but I do think that we’ll see a contract before the end of the year.

I’m less certain about the tank replacement project, even though KMW has reportedly stated that they can be pretty flexible when it comes to payment since they consider Norway to be a reliable customer (IIRC it was reported in this article by AldriMer.no, though it now sits behind a paywall…), and a Norwegian order would be placed behind those of other countries anyway with the possible exception of a dozen or so vehicles that Norway would need for its VJTF deployments. A competition will extend the project even further, however, so that could be another reason to go this route.

3 hours ago, 2805662 said:

Much, much, much less. That’s what’s in the written report, plus discussions with the trial officer & staff from Accredited Test Services (ATS, the test element of Land Engineering Agency), as well as trial participants. First I’ve heard of “higher vibration” and is 180 degrees at odds with what I’ve read, been told, & heard. 

This is also in line with the Norwegian experience, where these tracks have been in use for over 10 years now.

With that being said, it has been reported that the tracks are not as durable as expected on the new CV90s, so unless Soucy have taken steps to improve the durability, it could potentially be a serious drawback for the even heavier Redback.

12 hours ago, Plebola said:

I think the Chally 2 upgrade used similar art.

It did indeed.

On 9/1/2020 at 11:38 AM, Laser Shark said:

Also, if you got the feeling that this image reminds you of something, it’s probably for good reason.

Leopard 2 NOR - Rheinmetall’s offer to the Norwegian Leopard 2 upgrade programme (P5050) that was cancelled a few years ago:

It looks like a somewhat downgraded version of the ATD demonstrator (no L55A1, no ROSY etc.). In addition to the vehicle cameras from Saab, it would have had Kongsberg’s Integrated Combat Solution (ICS). Also, if you got the feeling that this image reminds you of something, it’s probably for good reason. Anyway, I guess time will tell if we made the right call on this one. If we end up with 84+ Leo 2A7V or K2, then the answer is decisively yes, but if that doesn’t happen (I mean, this is like our fourth attempt at upgrading/replacing the Leo 2A4...), then 38 of these would certainly have been way better than nothing.  

Speaking of the Norwegian tank replacement project, Hyundai Rotem have been pretty vocal lately about the industrial benefits of selecting the K2. They’re offering local production of all the turrets and spare parts, as well as system integration and final assembly. A South Korean purchase of Kongsberg's Naval Strike Missile is apparently also on the table. Now, while I think it’s fairly obvious why Hyundai Rotem & South Korea would be willing to offer up a lot to secure this contract, there is also a very good reason for why they are going out in the media before the competition has even started, namely that there might not even be a competition! A direct acquisition from KMW is apparently still an option, so Hyundai & MED (their Scandinavian representative) have to throw in a wrench to stop this from happening, and thus force a competition. It also seems to be working, and unless KMW can offer industrial incentives that are about as good as Hyundai’s, it seems unlikely that a direct acquisition project will be able to pass parliament approval next year.

The choice of a roof mounted MG on the Strf 9040 D instead of a typical coax is an interesting one. The drawbacks of such a solution are obvious; you can no longer carry out barrel changes, clearing malfunctions etc. from the relative safety of the AFV's interior. Now, on the up-armoured Strf 9040 C, the Swedes were perhaps willing to accept such drawbacks because they regarded the existence of a weak spot/gap in the armour (as you for example could see on the pre-production CV9030 OPV) as a worse pill to swallow. The Strf 9040 D does not have this armour, but it could be that they're planning on acquiring it at a later stage (the PDF document in the previous post confirms that they're at least looking into various options). According to this blog, there is another explaination, however, namely that there apparently wouldn’t have been enough room for the BMS if they didn’t get rid of the coax. Of course, these explanations do not have be mutually exclusive either.

Anyway, onto something a bit different…

Here are some recent photos of Norwegian CV9030 MkIIIb in Lithuania:

In the three years that have gone by since we started seeing Saab Barracuda MCS on Norwegian CV90s, I’ve never actually seen it on more than just the odd vehicle here and there. I guess the money and/or will isn’t there to outfit entire units (even just a platoon or two) or they must still be testing it.

The 100th refurbished and upgraded CV90 has been delivered to the Swedish Armed Forces:

The RENO of 172 Strf 9040 (IFV), 40 Sripbv 90 (FCV), 22 Epbv 90 (FOV), 12 Bgbv 90 (ARV)  and 16 Lvkv 90 (AA) includes the following changes:

Quote

 

Protection

• Reverse camera for driver
• New type of batteries
• Electrically driven commanders chair

 

Firepower

• Browning M1919 (SweMG m39) -> FN MAG (SweMG m58)
• New internal design (FC & FO vehicles)
• Improved kill ratio CV90
• All CV90 family equipped with 40 mm gun (except ARV)

 

Sensors

• Battle Management System
• New radios
• New IRV-camera (FO & AA vehicles)
• New radar monitor and command monitor (AAV)
• Changing navigation equipment, NAV 90 -> POS 2

 

https://plsadaptive.s3.amazonaws.com/eco/files/event_content/CY59uoNfwTShAV6orby6TYDsGNTmYrADO5auSTX2.pdf

Although not mentioned in the list above, the ARV variant also gets a Saab Trackfire RWS. All upgraded vehicles also get a "D" added to their designation (e.g. Strf 9040 D, Bgbv 90 D etc.).

Just a couple of updates to the last few posts…

It has been confirmed that the 20 additional CV90s for the Norwegian Army will be CV90RWS variants based on rebuilt Mk I hulls. We still do not know the composition of the upcoming order, but unless they decide to add additional variants to the Norwegian CV90 family, there are only two to choose from, namely CV90RWS STING (combat engineer vehicle) and CV90RWS Multi-BK (multi-role mortar carrier). This also means a third order of (between 20-40 vehicles, if I have to guess) CV9030 MkIIIb will also probably take place sometime in the next years

Regarding the upcoming lawsuit between Rheinmetall/Rheinmetall Norway and the Norwegian state, more details have been revealed here as well. The article is pretty long, but I’ll translate the parts that I found to be the most relevant:

•  According to Oslo district court, it was discovered that the original spring charged sensor mast could be a safety hazard for personnel inside the vehicle.
• The updated version, however, is claimed to be too sensitive to harsh environments to fulfil the Norwegian requirements.
•  This issue can apparently be fixed by switching to an electronically stabilized camera, which Rheinmetall Norway had originally intended to be a part of the system but abandoned for reasons that are not specified in the article.
• Because of these as well as other delays, the Norwegian side concluded that it would take several years  until the system could be delivered, and that’s why they decided to terminate the contract in 2018.
• For these reasons, the Norwegian state will also be suing Rheinmetall for 76,6 MNOK, as well as the cost of acquiring a new sensor system!

• Rheinmetall & Rheinmetall Norway are refuting the claim that the updated solution would not fulfil the Norwegian requirements. They are also pointing out that their solution has been found acceptable by both the Norwegian Border Guard (fitted to their border installations) and the Malaysian Armed Forces  (on the AV8 Gempita).
• They are also claiming that most of the delays were caused by an incompetent Norwegian project management failing to come up with clear and comprehensive requirements, demanding several changes after the contract had been signed, as well as attempting to but failing badly at coordinating the CV90 project/BAE Systems Hägglungs and the Vingtaqs II project/Rheinmetall Norway (according to Rheinmetall, a better solution would have been to let Hägglunds handle the CV90 part of the Vingtaqs II project, as had been planned initially).
• In another article, Rheinmetall have also been really leaning into the angle that incompetency is running rampant in the Norwegian Defence Material (and its predecessor in the Norwegian Defence Logistics Organization) by pointing to various acquisition projects that have been problematic (NH90, Archer etc.). To prove this, they’ve also issued a request to be able to go through the documentation of all Norwegian acquisition projects in the later years, but the court did not allow this, stating that it would be sufficient if Rheinmetall can prove that the project management have been incompetent in this specific case.
• (On a sidenote, one would think it that might not be the smartest idea to attack the entire agency from whom you’ll be competing for contracts in the future, but it certainly did not stop Rheinmetall Norway from winning a contract on the delivery of new soft-mounts for the M2A2Ns.)
• For these reasons, Rheimetall claim that Norway did not have the right to terminate the contract, and are demanding that the latter pay a refund at the discretion of the court (calculated to be at around 125 MNOK).

On 8/19/2020 at 9:25 PM, Voodoo said:

 

Calling the K9 a copy of the M109 is a bit of a stretch.

The K2 isn’t a copy of the Leo 2 and/or Leclerc either even if does share certain components with these two.

5 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

Maybe sharing parts with the Abrams and a potential K9 Thunder variant for the Australian Army (though one has to wonder if the old decision still holds value with Boxer RCH 155 and the PzH 2000 NDV being near market ready) is seen as more beneficial than sharing ammunition and parts with the Boxer CRV; I cannot say that.

Can KMW & Rheinmetall or Artec deliver an ammunition resupply vehicle to go along with their candidates? This article from a month ago gave me the impression that this might be a requirement for the Australian Army.

So, according to ES&T, the Bundeswehr is losing patience with the Puma and are considering replacing the entire fleet if the operational readiness is not proven in the coming year.

As for what might replace it, BAE Systems Hägglunds should appreciate this part of the article:

“In briefings of the Army Command, the CV90 has so far been mentioned as an alternative and favorite. But the Lynx would certainly be a candidate as well, as it has the DNA of the puma and at the same time learned the lessons from the problems of the puma in the Bundeswehr.”

I remain unconvinced, however, that this is something that could actually happen. With 330+ vehicles already delivered, the Bundeswehr is almost certainly way too deep in the Puma project to get rid of them simply because they fail to meet a readiness goal in the coming year(s).

@SH_MM care to take a jab at this one?

Planned modernization of Norwegian GBAD forces. The acquisition of a new LRAD system will apparently take place a couple of years earlier than this plan suggests.

https://www.dsei.co.uk/__media/libraries/east-theatre/Maj-Arne-Berg-Nilsen.pdf

Recently refurbished NM-116 outside the Norwegian Armed Forces Museum in Oslo:

Some info:

This vehicle is part of the Norwegian Armed Forces Museum's collection, and has been on display at Setermoen for several years, despite being in need of refurbishment. Major Geir Lyftingsmo (Chief of vehicles and engineering equipment at the Norwegian Armed Forces Museums) organized a collaborative project between Panservenner ("friends of armoured vehicles"), the Historical Military Vehicles Association (HMKF), Veteran meets Veteran and the Norwegian Armed Forces Museum, and on July 2, a newly refurbished NM-116 was handed over to the museum.

Torgeir Løvold, chairman of Panservenner, says the project was successful, and that over 400 hours have been spent on the job. The project required tenacity and patience. The museum would like to thank everyone involved for their efforts. A thanks also goes to the Norwegian Armed Forces competence center for logistics and operational support (FKL) for the transport of the vehicle.

Following the success of this project, the partners have already embarked on the next project, an NM135 which they plan to make ready for the next Veteran's Day.

http://forsvaretsmuseer.no/Forsvarsmuseet/Stridsvogn-paa-museet

Yep, though the company is now called CHSnor: https://chsnor.no/markets/defence/

Quote

 

600 million NOK to new combat vehicles for the Army

 

The government will accelerate the upgrade of the Army's CV90 combat and support vehicles, and will spend almost 600 million NOK on this. In the new long-term plan for the defense sector, the Army will have four mechanized battalions, all of which are set up with CV90 combat and support vehicles. A hastening in the process of upgrading these means that the Army will initially be supplied with another 20 CV90 combat and support vehicles. The acquisition will be carried out directly from the Norwegian industry in the period 2020 - 2023.

 

https://www.regjeringen.no/no/aktuelt/fremskynder-forsvarsplaner/id2704271/?utm_source=www.regjeringen.no&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=RSS-2581966-ownerid380

It looks like Norway is going to acquire another 20 CV90. There is no info on what variants this order will include, but if it’s a direct purchase from the Norwegian industry, I suspect there will be more of the turretless support variants based on Mk I hulls. It was the Norwegian industry that was responsible for rebuild of these vehicles the last time, and Norway should still have more hulls available as out of the original 104 CV9030N (Mk I), 16 hulls have been upgraded to CV90RWS STING (combat engineer vehicle), 16 to CV90RWS Multi-BK (multi-role mortar carrier), 37 have been sold to Estonia and a few have also been used in mine/IED tests. In any case, as suggested by the wording in the second to last sentence of the quoted paragraph, Norway will probably have to order more CV90s than that (and of the turreted variants as well if those aren't included in this order) if it wishes to realize the army structure mentioned in this post.

On 5/19/2020 at 9:21 AM, LoooSeR said:

   With recent Chinese new rifle and now this we are reaching an HK singularity event when all guns will look like 416s, kek.

It looks more like a Masada/ACR than a 416 tbh.

...

Ak 4D aka the Spuhr'ed up DMR variant of the Ak 4(G3) that the Swedes have started using as a stop gap solution. Note that this one doesn't have the old Hensoldt Fero Z24 4×24 telescopic sight that these rifles are normally issued with.

Found an article about this that also mentions which sensors systems they’re looking at to replace Vingtaqs II. According to Rheinmetall Norway/Vinghøg, it’s the lack of clear and comprehensive specifications that has caused the delays in the delivery of this system. It then gets a bit confusing further down where it says that according to sources who were involved with the CV90 project, a decision was made to attach the sensor system to the hull instead of attaching it to a movable system???

Anyway, I guess the armed forces must have zero confidence in Rheinmetall Norway’s ability to deliver the product in the coming years because otherwise it seems a bit harsh to go so far as to cancel it in a world where we’re still waiting for NH90s that were ordered almost two decades ago…

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

the recce variant of the CV9030NF1 (Mk. IIIb) vehicle

 

Minor nitpick, but the CV9030NF1 is the designation for the 17 Mk I vehicles that were upgraded for service in Afghanistan. The designations for the new CV90 include CV9030 Mk IIIb if we're talking about the entire fleet of vehicles with turrets, and if we're talking about the specific variants, it's CV9030 SPV (the IFV), CV9030 STRILED (the command & control variant) and CV9030 OPV (the recce variant).

It is difficult to predict what sort of effect Covid-19 will have on this project since the acquisition process is not supposed to kick off until 5 years from now, and a lot can have happened in that time...

Perhaps I can shed some light on this...

That 250 figure might have been correct if the government had opted for alternative A of the Chief of Defence's advice on the future structure of the armed forces, but to no one’s real surprise, they ended up choosing the least ambitious alternative instead, which means that there will likely be a total of 4 mechanized battalions and 1 partially mechanized cavalry battalion in the future Norwegian Army.

Now, currently, a Norwegian mechanized battalion only has a single tank squadron of about 14-18 tanks, but even if they decide to bring back the second squadron in these units to match the number of mechanized infantry squadrons (generally agreed upon to be the optimal ratio), that’s still a lot less tanks than the 250 figure.

Finally, the Inpector General for the Army, Eirik Krisoffersen, actually stated that he had been promised 84 tanks in an interview last year, but it's uncertain if he was aware that the army would receive a fourth mechanized battalion at that point.

Also, for those who are interested there has been some debate on what will be the best tank for Norway in the last issue of Offisersbladet. It starts on page 52, where Christoffer Westermoen, who was assigned to the earlier Leopard 2 upgrade project, takes the Leopard 2A7V in defence after the editor of Offisersbladed wrote an article that seemed to favour the K2 as the more modern and interesting alternative. Then on page 54, Mogens Rasmus Mogenssen, the representative of various South Korean defence companies in Scandinavia, argues against some of the points Westermoen made, while also directing some criticism towards the Norwegian Army for apparently being too focused on the German alternative. There is also a contribution by Major general (retired) Terje Antonsen and Lieutenant Colonel (retired) Lars J Sølvberg on page 58.

12-cm Mörser 16

The first two CAESAR 8x8 have arrived at the garrison of the Danish Artillery Regiment in Oksbøl: