gatnerd

Military Guns and Ammunition

Hosted by gatnerd

This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.

  • 3359
    MEMBERS
  • 191194
    MESSAGES
  • 2
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Lynx as a platform   General Army topics

Started 4/4/22 by graylion; 8343 views.
Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

10-Aug

Definitely interested, as it looks like 6x6 are being resurrected .

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

10-Aug

As for the Germans joining the CAVS program: this is a move from the MoD. It caught anybody involved in the Fuchs replacement program, one of the slow burners running for years, by supprise. It seems the MoD wants additional contenders for the Fuchs replacement than just Rheinmetall with the high roof Fuchs 1A9. Which actually is a typical German procurement program with the 1A9 directly tailored to the requirements. Since lately Latvia has purchased some Patria 6x6 for ~1 Million € a piece and the price Rh calls for the 1A9 is more than twice that someone in the German MoD decided it might be a good idea and bring Patria into the race. Which at first glance seems like a smart idea.

Now here is the but. A really huge but. As mentioned the 1A9 is tailored to exactly fit the existing requirement for the Fuch replacement. The Patria is not. It turns out after even a brief reading trough the specs that the Patria doesn't even come close to fullfilling the German requirements. Lativia purchased a really basic version. That even lacks essential equipment like NBC-protection, a fire supression system etc. Furthermore the protection is really basic too. STANAG K2 and B2. Since the Fuchs replacement is supposed to operate together with the Boxer fleet a comparable protection level is needed. The Latvian Patria doesn't even have decoupled seating. The engine the Latvians use is a truck engine. Not mil spec. An off the shelf truck engine. Its power to weight ratio (with STANAG 2) is below the German requirement. It also lacks features like day and night vision systems. Of course Patria confirms that the CAVS can be modified to meet the German standards and requirements... but it will definitly not cost 1 Mio. € per vehicle after that anymore.
The Fuchs replacement program really is going to get intresting. The recon and engineer corps, heavy users of the Fuchs, allready added the requirement for the replacement to be amphibious. The Fuchs is the last amphibious vehicles they have. If this capability is going to be retained without purchasing special vehicles the new Fuchs besides having conciderable protection requirements also needs to be able to swim.
 

It really comes down to the details and capabilities. If you want a truck to carry stuff and people around with some armor you can get this rather cheap. Allthough I would argue a Griffon 6x6 or Eagle V 6x6 are a better choice for this than a basic CAVS. If you want/need the capabilities of a real AFV as APC you have to pay for it.

This for example is why the Boxer is so expensive. Its a true AFV. Its better protected than most APC and lots of IFV regardless if tracked or wheeled. At the same time it has really good mobility. Behond what an armored truck can achieve. This of course costs money.

SiverSurfeR

From: SiverSurfeR

10-Aug

https://euro-sd.com/2020/02/articles/15949/the-return-of-the-6x6-afv/#:~:text=The%20Return%20of%20the%206%C3%976%20AFV%207.%20February,a%20number%20of%20new%20designs%20already%20in%20production.

As seen in the article above, the tyranny of the land and poor infrastructure of less than developed countries has kept the 6x6 alive in theaters usually with less focused internet exposure than the fancy 8x8 contracts. The Guarani is one of those programs whereas the best substitute for a 6x6 (Urutu/Cascavel) is another 6x6. Although the ENGESA golden years will be well missed, the occasional small export batch (Phil, Libano, etc) keeps the concept viable internally and externally.

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

10-Aug

I don't think the 6x6 ever went away.
The German Army for example operated more than twice the number of Fuchs 6x6 APCs compared to the Boxer 8x8.

In Afghanistan both where deployed together. With the Fuchs being deployed first and serving trough the entire mission. The Boxer joining once it became available.
The main advantage of the 8x8 is the ability to carry more protection. Which means its better for expeditionary use, COIN and LIC. If this is not needed 6x6 work fine and usually fullfill the requirements. With shifting focus the requirements for vehicles also shift.

To me it seems more like the 8x8 taking over the role of sub 30 t tracked APCs and support vehicles.

Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

10-Aug

Do they not fear you end up with 6x6 boxer if you want to integrate too much Boxer like capability into it. I hardly imagine any vehicle with glass windows trying to match Boxer in protection.

If you want a cheap armored amphibian Protolab PMPV is surprisingly cheap at sub-800k Eur  , Protected Multi-Purpose Transport  14 t (empty or equipped - not specified), with up to 10 t of cargo all COTS drivetrain and up to stanag level 4 protection which is more than enough for armored truck

Patria 6x6 resurrection of PASI gen 2 is kinda surprising as PMPV was originally developed as  XA180 replacement and initially, they touted 600k Eur price tag

While Patria was still playing with a 6X6 AMV variant before they sold the whole AMV licene to Poles

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

11-Aug

Why should they fear ending up with a 6x6 Boxef if this is what they want? The requirements are what they are for a reason.

Besides the Fuchs 1A9 currently fitts the requirements and is not really a 6x6 Boxer. Allthough it Codes pretty clone to that.

The thing is with the recend observations and data from UA the protection requirement is being reworked. As a result the required protection most likely will go up. STANAG Lvl 3 ist currently seen as the minimum. Its likely that there will be  shift to lvl 4. At least for front an roof protection. To adress the submunition and grenades dropped by drones and loitering munitions issue. Lvl 4 will also not be penetrated by most kamikaze drones except for the larger mit spec types.

Window protection is easy. Foldable armored covers. The Fuchs has these. It it id possible to realize these for lvl 4 armor in a sensible way will be seen in the future.

The PMPV is exactly a case of you get what you pay for. Its an armored truck. With the bare minimum of military equipment. Its capabilities even compared to a minimum equiped CAVS are limited. For simple transportation and support tasks such a vehicle is usefull and sufficient. As APC or in any function that will bring it closf to the frontline or in likely contact with the enemy its unsuitable. Its Lvl 2 protection is concidered not suitable at all by the German Army for anything but pure logistical tasks. Depending on how good the mine/blast protection actually is of course. 

Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

11-Aug

Add on armor for level 4 is more or less standard in most 8x8 these days not an issue to add to Patria or any other 

PMVP/Misu ( can be up-armored to level 4 and mine protection  considering its touted as an MRAP likely exceeds Fuchs or Patria AMV in terms of mine protection 

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

11-Aug

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

Add on armor for level 4 is more or less standard in most 8x8 these days not an issue to add to Patria or any other

Yes of course. If a vehicle has load carrying capacity it can use this to carry armor. But this will directly eat into the usable carrying capactiry. Concidering the PMPV is 14 t empty with Lvl 2 protection for 10 t of cargo carrying capacity uparmoring such a huge vehicle to lvl 4 will propaply eat half the cargo allowance. Which would defeat its purpose. Its a protected truck to carry stuff around.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

PMVP/Misu ( can be up-armored to level 4 and mine protection considering its touted as an MRAP likely exceeds Fuchs or Patria AMV in terms of mine protection

How well its mine protected also is unknown. There is no reliable info available. I really doubt it has comparable protection to the current itteration of the Fuchs. Which is extremly well protected against direct attacks and blast by 6x6 standards.
The PMPV simply is an MRAP. Its not in the same class as the 6x6 APCs. The manufacturers home page even says so. They also say it uses mostly civillian of the shelf parts. Its in the same class as the Eagle V 6x6 used by the German Army only less mil spec and thus cheaper but at the cost of reduced capability.

  • Edited 11 August 2022 10:11  by  schnuersi
Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

11-Aug

Even If you added 3 tons to PMPV it would still have higher payload leftv than Fuchs high roof , but yes i do understand that these truck like 6x6 are not meant to enter combat zones (most do not have fully armored engine compartments) , but so would i expect of fuchs as lower grade APC than Boxer .

'' IMI-RAFAEL L-VAS protection suite for the M-113 and LAV/Stryker APCs. This system is utilizing a hybrid armor solution, comprising of both passive and reactive armor, added with mesh traps, to provide front and side multi-hit protection from RPGs, 14.5mm AP and 155mm shell fragments, at a total weight increase of only two tons''

MAXAS  Level4 adds 3 tons to Stryker 

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

11-Aug

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

at a total weight increase of only two tons''

It doesn't provide full coverage and does nothing to improve blast protection. But yes it is possible to increase protection for modest weight. Again its about the compromises you make.

I mentioned armor as one example. The entire mil spec problematic is far more complex and hard to understand without significan background or explaining. An off the shelf truck engine is not the same as a mil spec engine. Not even close.
This doesn't mean a truck engine can not propel a military vehicle but it means it will cease to function where a mil spec engine doesn't. This costs money. Quite significant amounts.
Same with NBC protection. Sealing a vehicle that has not right from the start been designed to be gas tight is difficult and expensive. A NBC air supply and filter system is not just an AC with an additional fiter in front. Again the details matter. A lot.

Why does the US military use HUMVEEs or the German military mil spec G wagons (which are not the same as the civillian ones)? Especially nowadays. The HUMVEE is a more than 30 years old design. The G wagon is even older. Toyota (or any other manufacturer) would be delighted to deliver Hilux to replace them. For a fraction of the cost. The answer is: because even the most modern Hilux does not fullfill the requirements a HUMVEE or mil spec G wagon does. Actually chances are a 30 years old Hilux would be closer to do it.
The German military encountered massive problems  with their COTS vehicle solutions in Afghanistan and Mali. The mil spec vehicles did not have these. These problem where not specific German but of technical nature. I know from other nations that there have been similar problems for them as well. It is possible to get good equipment for low price. But chances are if push comes to shove you will have to pay then. If you are unlucky not in money or resources but in lives.

I used to be super critical of the Boxer in the past too. But I changed my mind. It works. Actually it works great. Its super reliable (after some experiences in Afghanistan resulted in modifications). The mobility is really good (for a wheeled vehicle). The protection level is awesome and this alone is worth the prictag. Its a great piece of kit. Its well liked by the users who also have lots of confidence in the vehicle. Its the gold standard as far as I can tell. If it costs acodingly that is fine for me. Same will be true for the new 6x6.

  • Edited 11 August 2022 12:38  by  schnuersi
TOP