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

United States Military Vehicle General: Guns, G*vins, and Gas Turbines


Recommended Posts


Curtin said he expects that (WB America)'s AUSA exhibit will include ‘data sheets and white papers covering the RAK and what we call Krab, which is a self-propelled 155mm howitzer. And I anticipate that we will also have some other vehicle examples, like Langusta 1 and 2 multiple rocket launcher, and the Daisy, which is basically an anti-UAV rocket launcher system.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, 2805662 said:

With a lot more development required. It’s still a sole-prototype napkinpanzer. 


Everytime the Lynx KF41 is mentioned, you seem to write a comment about it being a "napkinpanzer". Aside of the terminology being subjectively wrong (I've only heard this term before related to actual paper designs, but for the Lynx KF41 there is indeed a working prototype), you never bother to provide any reasoning for it being a so-called "napkinpanzer". Yes, the exterior is very smooth and lacks any signs of storage racks, but that is related to the new stealth characteristics mentioned by Rheinmetall and the DTR magazine. They even embedded the bolts and washers into the armor to minimize the radar signature - that is not a new concept, but hasn't been widely adopted. You complain about the interior being too clean and mostly empty, but the vehicle was used to showcase the available room to potential customers at an international exhibiition. If this vehicle went to actual field tests in this way, it might be valid to criticize it for having an unrealistic interior configuration - but expos are not meant to showcase realistic configurations. Sometimes AFVs are fitted with under floor lighting before such an expo, in order to make them look cooler. Someitmes non-functional mock-ups are presented, because it is not financially viable to ship a whole AFV to another country just to showcase it for two days - or because the actual working prototypes aren't available at the time. KMW has done that with the Leopard 2 a few times: they once weren't allowed to export (even temporary) a German Leopard 2A7 to showcase at IDEX, so instead they leased a Leopard 2A6 form another user country, shipped it to IDEX and added non-functional mock-up parts to replicate the look of a Leopard 2A7.



If your only reason for calling it a "napkinpanzer" is the interior layout, which actually will be modified on user's specific requirements, then it is a poor decision to whine abou the Lynx KF41 everytime somebody posts about it. When the CV90, Lynx KF41, ASCOD 2 and Puma were tested in the Czech Republic, only the latter was actually fitted with all components, storage options for weapons and equipment, radios, BMS, etc. The reason behind this was the Puma being a German army vehicle, while the industry-owned demonstrators/prototypes all would only be fitted with user- and mission-specific equipment, once a choice had been made by the user.


if you have other reasons to call it a "napkinpanzer" and those are actually valid, then I'm willing to support this claim. What exact reasons do you have to believe that it doesn't work and is an unfinished paper/napkin design? Do you have any reason to believe that some of the components are not functional, that they are mock-ups? It's not like Lynx KF41 is a second PL-01. It has been in development for three years, makes use of existing and working components and the technology used for it actually exists, while the PL-01 was a mock-up based on another chassis fitted with visual representations of non-existing armor modules, turret and APS launchers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair cop. I’d call it a “comment”, rather than a “whine”, but YMMV. 


The KF31 is a mature design that is ready for a customer to buy it - tomorrow. It has competed internationally against the Puma and the CV90. The BoxerCRV is also very mature, and that track record of Rheinmetall putting mature  products in front of the customer (especially in Australia), sets an expectation, reasonable or otherwise. 


The KF41 is far from that. Rheinmetall has inferred that the KF41 is similarly mature as the KF31, which it patently is not. The KF41 as displayed at Eurosatory, Land Forces 18, and (presumably) AUSA 18 did not have a functioning turret (hand transverse only), for example. None of the appliqué armour, which has different geometry to the that trialled on the KF31, has been produced as a complete vehicle set for the KF41. The Lance 2.0 turret is a comparatively (to the Lance 1.0) immature design who’s flaws are yet to be wrung out. Interior stowage design, itself a major package of work, hasn’t been displayed. It also doesn’t have mature variants. 


Having been on both sides of vehicle development, display, deployment, and disposal, I’m aware that there are mock ups, models, and show ponies. At Eurosatory 18, it was illustrative to move from the Puma (on loan from a panzergrenadier battalion of the Bundeswehr) to the KF41, to the Stryker Dragoon (also an in-service vehicle). That experience, coupled with my other experiences led me to the “napkinpanzer” Moniker as an attempt to highlight where in the product cycle KF41 sits. It may evolve into 


My comments on “napkinpanzer” is a counter-point to Rheinmetall’s incessant propaganda/marketing on the KF41. It’s also a callback to the incomplete products that litter the history of German AFV development. 



Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

The Lynx 41 would probably succeed in place of the FCS because it can actually carry the weight necessary while still having good protection.

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/5/2018 at 11:51 PM, TokyoMorose said:

I really, really want to know the genius behind FCS who decided that for large-caliber weapons the only protection needed was the world's most complicated APS. They never did get Quick Kill working to a satisfactory level did they?

The QK system was not intended to defeat KEPs afaik, and they deemed the Trophy satisfactory back then, so they didn't really seek any physical end-game protection against large caliber guns.

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.

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.

  • Create New...