Laser Shark

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

Maybe me knowledge will suffice as well.
 
This is the VT-001 (Versuchsträger) prototype of the Marder 2 vehicle.
With the introduction of the Leopard 2 there was a need for a new IFV that could keep up with the MBT, both from a mobility and technology standpoint. The German army then put the „Kampfwagen 90“ to life. The requirements were then given to the manufacturers (KMW main contractor) to come up with an offer. Main requirements were for the vehicle to carry at least 7 grenadiers and to protect them against 30mm AP(DS) munitions on the frontal arc.
 
In theory the armor concept was to be modular, but due to the heavy weight (44t) this was wishful thinking. The armor made the vehicle immune to 14.5mm AP all around, with the already mentioned 30mm protection on the front. It also had a spall liner.
 
The main armament (found in the rather cramped 2 man turret) was the Rh503 35mm external propulsion gun.
 

 
An innovative concept with quite a lot of firepower for its time (even upgradeable to 50mm if the need arises) with then newly developed Oerlikon APFSDS rounds and just like the modern Puma it had a programmable HE round against infantry. While the Marder 2 for some reason had no anti tank missiles, a major upside compared to the Marder 1 was that the gun now was fully stabilized.
 
Powering the Marder 2 was carried out by the 1000hp MTU Ka-500 from the Pzh2000 and the same gearbox from Renk which is also used on the SPH. The propulsion allowed for top speed of 60km/h (which produced an unpleasant sound for the passengers). In contrast to the Puma the Marder 2 relied on a torsion bar suspension system.
 
The fire control computer was a modified version of the ATLAS FLT2 found on the Leopard 2. 
The gunner was supposed to use the PERI-ZTWL sight, which was very similar to the EMES-15 (Both with the same daylight cameras and WBG-X thermal imager).
The commander had the PERI-RT 60 periscopic daysight (No dedicated thermal imager, just access to the gunners view).
 
While the vehicle was technically ready for mass production, the end of the Cold War (like so often) ultimately was the reason for the cancellation of the program.
 
The only existing prototype now is displayed at the WTS Koblenz. A disappointing end to a maybe overweight and simple, yet very powerful and (in contrast to Puma) maintainable machine.
 

 
I hope i was able to portrait it in an interesting manner, if there are still questions about the vehicle that i cannot answer, i can ask a curator at the WTS 
 

Updated tank destroyers
 

 
 
 

photos of K2PL scalemodel from various twitter users

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.

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.
 
 
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.

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.
 
 
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.

https://www.truppendienst.com/themen/beitraege/artikel/power-on-rubber-tracks/?L=0&cHash=04cf0983460b323b3979a8d0fe241097
 
Norwegian perspective on rubber tracks with comparisons for a 42 tonne weight class leopard 1 tank...

Some related information on US trials of composite rubber track. Targeting 75% reduction on vibration. 
 

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.

Diagrams from student theses:



1. Compartment for equipment and diesel heater.
2. Compartments for equipment and oil cans.
3. Tray for equipment.
4. Air passage from engine compartment and exhaust pipe entrance.
5. Air passage between exhaust pipe and fan chamber, with wading hatch.
6. Main fan, exhaust air.
7. Input Scavenger channel.
8. AC system.



Figure 1.2. The band shelf in cross section from the side.



Kylare = Cooler

4.2 Exhaust and cooling systems
The exhaust system enters the belt shelf adjacent to the engine compartment, then the exhaust pipes follow
the tape shelf along a channel all the way back where it finally opens. The exhaust pipes have a temperature
at about 550 ° C and is covered with insulation. The temperature in the estuary is about 500 ° C.
The operating system for air cooling in the belt shelf is a fan at the back that draws air away
the engine compartment and through the entire belt rack. The flow is currently about 230 l / s.
The engine cooling is a system with cooling water that after passing out of the engine passes along
the tape shelf. The temperature of the cooling water is approximately 100 ° C.
The engine air cooling system is located in the front of the engine compartment and the air intake is on top
the hood. When the air is filtered, debris and particles that must be blown away, the fan gets stuck
who performs that work is called Scavenger and blows out the unclean air on the right side of
the carriage.



Final drive cooling

http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-49985
http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-47224

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.

It also includes raising the roof of the rear compartment on some variants, at least unless plans have changed.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Brand new video on the Danish Leopard 2A7's:
 

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 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 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:
 
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.).

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:
 
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.).