Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

Serge

Contributing Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    976

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    22

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Serge

  1. Serge
    It looks like an Hoefyster concept demonstrator.
  2. Serge
    The KV41 is closer to the FFG G5 PMMC than the Boxer, considering the modularity. And the success of the Boxer because of its modularity is open for debate. Even Rheinmetall is not so affirmative.
  3. Serge
    It’s an optimistic value to support US Army choices.
  4. Serge
    Nothing new. This is classic because there is plenty of fashion to counter during military programs. And the very lesson learned of wars are not absorbed very quickly. The 2018 trends is not so bad. Costly but not so bad. KF41 is at an advanced state because it’s a basic chassis using proven components to move heavy load. There is no breakthrough with KF41. But, how does it perform facing CV90 or ASCOD-2 in mobility ? MBT are compulsory but having lighter AFV in your whole fleet gives you an advantage. Having 15% of your fleet at 75t and 35% at 40t is very different from 50% at 70t. This is why they want to split.
  5. Serge
    Nohki Kal conector.
  6. Serge
    Yes, but until now, nobody knows what Carmel looks like and the compatibility of the concept regarding the US need. And US companies would like to work a little bit.
  7. Serge
    CV90, why so much love ? 😏
  8. Serge
    It’s an evolution of there first TactiCam :
  9. Serge
    In a period where everyone is calling for tanks using APC chassis, a recall from the past :
  10. Serge
    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.
  11. Serge
    http://soldiersystems.net/2018/09/27/usmc-awards-vertical-protective-apparel-62-million-contract-for-gen-iii-plate-carriers/
  12. Serge
    It’s an 1V119 Reostat.
  13. Serge
    Is-there a link ? https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/dcs-support-us-army-tardec-gvsp/
  14. Serge
    What does she say ?
  15. Serge
    Can someone confirm the following : When the Challenger 2 was introduced, I understood the loader front episcope is able to be changed by a second independent sight. Was I right ?
  16. Serge
    Ok. I take my suit of Captain Obvious and here I am. SH_MM was dealing with armor thickness comparaison between Ajax and Namer. So my reaction was to stress they belong to different classes of weight. The cost is of no interest here. Quoting Namer is like the famous internet M113 VS Bradley talk, it’s only real on internet. It’s like : «- Kaplan MMWT is well protected. - No, Leopard-2 is better protected.» Obviously internet dedicated. Maybe you can’t see the differences between a 45t and a 60t chassis. If so, I can’t help you. A country purchasing a KV41 like chassis to replace an M113 will have many changes to consider whatever the kind of armor is chosen. Car parks will be rebuilt, road access to barracks and training areas will be reinforced or rebuilt. A new class of assault bridge, of train will be purchased. The logistic burden will change too. So, weight is the cost.
  17. Serge
    Weight is cost.
  18. Serge
    Business as usual. Journalists need access to their subjects and are unable to control facts by their own means. I’m partially agree with you. We think the same about the limited growth potential of a stretched variant but, considering it’s an IFV is of no interest. Structuraly, Ajax is an IFV. If it’s not long enough to carry an 8 men section, the ASCOD chassis wasn’t shortened. The point to take into account is the chassis and the chassis only. Consider an Ajax with the turret removed. What is the difference with a SPz-Puma internal volume ? Families of armored tracked vehicles are divided into different classes of weight. So, looking for differences between Ajax and Namer is non sens. It would be like comparing an Audi R8 to a Renault Clio car. Both of them are cars, that’s all. Namer must be weighted with a T15 chassis. Ajax belongs to the same class as KV41 Lynx, the SPz Puma or a CV90 MkIV. Even the CV90 can be considered belonging a lower class. Maybe not. To compare : Ajax must have a raised roof with a stretched chassis, the SPz-Puma too. On the other side, can we integrate Autoflug seats into an Ajax ?
  19. Serge
    Yes and no. There are two optical effects : - Jaguar is closer, - the ROWS is very large. Jaguar is large because : - driving gear is truck like, not a military one; - the engine is not a compact one but a cost effective one, - there is 1m3 of free internal volume into to have future improvement capability ; - the turret is build like a survival cell surrounded by mission modules (ATGM launchers,...)
  20. Serge
  21. Serge
    The successor of the French VAB APC fleet will be devided into two segments : - the heavy one will be outfitted by the Griffon VBMR, - the light one (17t) will be outfitted by the Serval VBMR-L. The first mockup of the Serval : https://www.lopinion.fr/sites/nb.com/files/2018/09/img_4117.jpg
  22. Serge
    No. My point is a little more complex. If I were you, I would read this : https://www.monch.com/mpg/news/land/4059-hanwhaaussz.html and compare the date of this article and the date of my claim.
  23. Serge
    A reversed position is not an argument. The argument is the technical integration whatever the right or left choice. The Redback turret is perfectly symmetrical to the Namer one. Sights are different because COAP is coming from Elbit. The gunner sight is lowered because of the use of episcops. So, others candidates can’t integrate the Trophy ADS ? But the Australian Army said they will take a decision latter about which system is selected. So, They are both the same. Do you know which turret is that : Once you will find, maybe you will understand that all turrets are designed to be manned or remotely operated according to the customer. The cover is a stealth cover. So, to secure an export competition, Hanwha would have chose a well renown turret maker company such as Tata ! Great ! Time will tell.
  24. Serge
    The point wich is raised is not technical. Technically, everything is possible. Any modification will call for a new qualification of the chassis. And, this is very costly. That’s the point. 15 years ago, the first variant I heard about was a combat engineer one. One of my dream would have been to use the Puma chassis components to design a 45t classe tank with the Nexter T21 turret. It would have been great. Let us remind the Warrior 2000 and the Warrior Recon...
  25. Serge
    Mjolner was designed for an Army which thinks MRSI capability is top priority, well above all. So, if it can’t purchase an AMOS like solution because of its outrageous cost, it will call for something very basic but with twins barrels.
×
×
  • Create New...