Jump to content

StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)


EnsignExpendable
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...

Rrili1A.png

 

On 5/3/2018 at 3:11 PM, Willy Brandt said:

Any guess what they mean with Puma turret as Air Defence? Or what the Kongsberg System is? 

also is the qualified Air Defence the same as System for Nah- und Nächstbereichsschutz?

 

One option considered for the air defence system is to use the Puma turret with minor modifications. The Puma turret has been offered on the Boxer chassis since 2010, so it is an existing and proven solution with low development effort. I don't know about the Kongsberg system; I'd assume that it is based on (V)SHORAD missiles, because they probably wouldn't want to compete against KMW's and Rheinmetall's turret offerings. Kongsberg has developed a computerized controll system for (V)SHORAD missiles, which might encompass their offer:

 

https://www.kongsberg.com/en/kds/products/groundbasedairdefencesystems/shorad-vshorad/

 

Aside of the Skyranger turret, Rheinmetall seems to also offer the MPCS turret developed in cooperation with MBDA, which was first presented at ILA 2016. At least some of Rheinmetall's investor presentations use a photo of the MPCS turret for the NNBS program.

 

PCP-IMCP-MPCV.324-900x500.jpg

4l-image-34.jpg

 

As far as I know the Qualified Air Defence is part of the NNBS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://defence-blog.com/army/rheinmetalls-unterluess-plant-rolls-100th-puma-infantry-fighting-vehicle.html

 

Don't be confused by the title. This is the 200th Puma already delivered to the Bundeswehr out of 342 on order, with the final unit delivered sometime around 2020. 

I just hope they're not thrown into some workshop because of certain shortages like they did with tanks, aircraft and whatnot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FFG Flensburger Fahrzeugbau Gesellschaft has won the contract on the production of 75-150 Armoured Combat Support Vehicles (AGSV) for the Norwegian Army.This vehicle was originally called M113F4, and was pretty much an elongated M113F3 with a shorter superstructure to allow for various types of modules to be fitted in the back (similar to the Australian M113AS4), such as an Arthur artillery hunting radar module, a SHORAD module with a launch unit for IRIS-T missiles + a multi function radar, and a logistics variant with a 10 foot ISO container. In addition, there is supposed to be an electronic warfare variant that has a full superstructure.

 

sL8p6j4.png

An earlier computer model by KDA showing how a new SHORAD vehicle based on the M113F4 could look like.

 

Rather than let the Army’s workshop in Bjerkvik handle the production of these vehicle as has been the case in the past, they decided to outsource the production to FFG. IMO this makes sense considering that there is an urgent demand for these vehicles, especially the SHORAD variant, and the earlier Project 5026 ended up being completed way behind schedule. In any case, Bjerkvik will probably get some work anyway since FFG is also delivering additional upgrade kits to bring M113A2/M577A2 up to F3 level, in addition to the new ACSVs. Speaking of which, it also seems like FFG has made a lot of changes to the original M113F4 design, and it now appears to be more similar to their PMMV G5.

 

lTtw4OD.jpg

The new Armoured Combat Support Vehicle.

 

FFG is having success in Norway these days. In addition to this contract, they're also producing 6 Leopard 2 based Wisent 2 ARVs for the Norwegian Army, and will probably receive an order for 6 more in the AEV configuration to replace the Leopard 1 based NM189 INGPVs.

 

 

The delivery of the first Wisent 2 to the Norwegian Army happened in September last year.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted A minute ago

Having looked at the ACSV image for a while, I now wonder how much of the old M113 is actually left in this design. The suspension seems to be ripped from the G5 (I did not notice this initially), and the hull/superstructure looks different enough from the M113 that it probably has to be built from scratch.

 

What was initially intended to be a stretched M113 might have turned into a new vehicle from the looks of it. I guess we'll be able to tell for certain once the completed prototype is revealed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Laser Shark said:

Posted A minute ago

Having looked at the ACSV image for a while, I now wonder how much of the old M113 is actually left in this design. The suspension seems to be ripped from the G5 (I did not notice this initially), and the hull/superstructure looks different enough from the M113 that it probably has to be built from scratch.

 

What was initially intended to be a stretched M113 might have turned into a new vehicle from the looks of it. I guess we'll be able to tell for certain once the completed prototype is revealed.

Why not use the CV90 as a platform instead? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Xoon said:

Why not use the CV90 as a platform instead? 

 

I can imagine that the shape and layout of the ACSV (and the M113 design) might lend itself more favorably for a configuration seen in the image. You probably won't have that much space left in a CV90 with its lower hull and well sloped glacis plate if you cut away that much of the  superstructure. That said, for the EW variant you probably could use the CV90 Mk I hull  as is, and if it's somehow possible to put the launcher and radar on top of the hull , it could also take over the SHORAD role. Since Norway still has about 30 or so of these hulls sitting around  afaik, it might not be that much more expensive either.

 

On the other hand, the ACSV based vehicles are almost certainly going to be lighter and cheaper to operate than a CV90 based variant, and since the Norwegian Army were probably going to have to order a number of these vehicles anyway (for the reasons stated above, otherwise you'd not only have to buy more CV90s, but probably also ask Hägglunds to redesign the CV90 for those roles, and that would be very expensive), it might have made more sense to just opt for more ACSVs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Laser Shark said:

 

I can imagine that the shape and layout of the ACSV (and the M113 design) might lend itself more favorably for a configuration seen in the image. You probably won't have that much space left in a CV90 with its lower hull and well sloped glacis plate if you cut away that much of the  superstructure. That said, for the EW variant you probably could use the CV90 Mk I hull  as is, and if it's somehow possible to put the launcher and radar on top of the hull , it could also take over the SHORAD role. Since Norway still has about 30 or so of these hulls sitting around  afaik, it might not be that much more expensive either.

 

On the other hand, the ACSV based vehicles are almost certainly going to be lighter and cheaper to operate than a CV90 based variant, and since the Norwegian Army were probably going to have to order a number of these vehicles anyway (for the reasons stated above, otherwise you'd not only have to buy more CV90s, but probably also ask Hägglunds to redesign the CV90 for those roles, and that would be very expensive), it might have made more sense to just opt for more ACSVs.

Won't having two different platforms cost more in the long run? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Xoon said:

Won't having two different platforms cost more in the long run? 

 

In the very long term, you might end up saving money by standardizing on a single platform, yes, but if you’re trying to pitch this idea to the politicians, they’re going to be less interested in the notion that it will be less expensive in 30-40 years from now than the fact that they’d have to make space/ find additional billions of NOK for such an acquisition in the current budget.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Laser Shark said:

 

In the very long term, you might end up saving money this way, yes, but if you’re trying to pitch this idea to the politicians, they’re going to be less interested in the notion that it will be less expensive in 30-40 years from now than the fact that they’d have to make space/ find additional billions of NOK for such an acquisition in the current budget.

So we are not phasing out the old M113 in the near future?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The M113 is not bad if it's used only for utility roles, especially where you dont need the power and capacity offered by the CV90's chassis.

Its main criticism is its horrendous protection, which should be a non issue here.

It's still the only low cost, extremely simple box on the market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/2/2018 at 9:17 PM, Laser Shark said:

FFG is having success in Norway these days. In addition to this contract, they're also producing 6 Leopard 2 based Wisent 2 ARVs for the Norwegian Army, and will probably receive an order for 6 more in the AEV configuration to replace the Leopard 1 based NM189 INGPVs.

 

In mid-May the Norwegian government announced that they have to buy new tanks, as there are no Leopard 2 tanks available for lease. Does this mean they are just looking at Leopard 2s or are other tanks also considered?

 

20 hours ago, Laser Shark said:

Having looked at the ACSV image for a while, I now wonder how much of the old M113 is actually left in this design. The suspension seems to be ripped from the G5 (I did not notice this initially), and the hull/superstructure looks different enough from the M113 that it probably has to be built from scratch. 

 

The lower image seems to show the G5's suspension (the roadwheels are grouped in two pairs), the upper one however seems to show a M113G4 or similiar vehicle.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

 

In mid-May the Norwegian government announced that they have to buy new tanks, as there are no Leopard 2 tanks available for lease. Does this mean they are just looking at Leopard 2s or are other tanks also considered?

 

 

They announced that it's going to be a regular procurement process, and since the name of the project is “new tanks” (and not “new/upgraded Leo 2s”), it kind of implies that other tank manufacturers will also be able to bid on this contract. That said, considering that the Leo 2 is already an established platform in the Norwegian Army, and we’ve recently invested in a new simulator for it, as well as new Wisent 2 ARVs, and that projects such as new AEVs and AVLBs on Leo 2 chassis are apparently proceeding as planned, it doesn’t exactly seem all that likely that something that isn’t a Leopard 2 will end up being selected in the end IMO.

 

Quote

The lower image seems to show the G5's suspension (the roadwheels are grouped in two pairs), the upper one however seems to show a M113G4 or similiar vehicle.

 

 

The upper image shows how the ACVS looked like a few years ago (a few prototypes were even built), and it was pretty much just a stretched M113F3 with a shorter superstructure. It seems like FFG took a look at the RFT on the production of these vehicles, and decided to offer us something better than that instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1528119970-0977770_1280x1024.jpg


This Boxer will be presented at Eurosatory. It has been fitted with the latest version of the Skyranger turret (or maybe a photoshop variant of that). The Lynx KF41 will be revealed in two variants: an IFV with the new LANCE 2.0 turret will be revealed on Tuesday next week, while a command post variant will be revealed a day later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...