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; 8344 views.
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
Farmplinker

From: Farmplinker

11-Aug

It is annoying to try to explain to people, "No, the civilian version isn't as good as the military version".  They don't grasp that they don't know what truly bad roads are like, that you just can't call up a wrecker in most of the world, and parts have different longevity under different conditions.

In reply toRe: msg 59
Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

12-Aug

It seems we will again be along for the ride , bought the same config as the Lithuanians, Previous generations of Israeli turrets couldn't hit the broad side of the barn on our Patria AMVs so had to be replaced with much more expenisve  Kongsberg and puff gone were the 30mm cannons instead replacement turrets had 12.7mm or 40mm grenade launcher.

What's really going on with Boxer: We bought Wolves and got the cat in the bag and we can do it again

https://www.delfi.lt/news/daily/lithuania/kas-is-tikruju-vyksta-su-boxer-pirkome-vilkus-o-gavome-kate-maise-ir-galime-tai-dar-karta-pakartoti.d?id=90844035&fbclid=IwAR1_MUubU2EM-xwkUETDWy2GuTxpbJCG1B_K8Qe5D1yGai2MU-uYxeSxXa8

"The platform itself is proven and of high quality, we have a legacy contract, when an Israeli-made turret is added to the German platform, the integration work is a bit stuck or delayed. It works: anti-tank Spike systems, machine gun, 30-millimeter cannon shoot well," said the deputy minister.

"I wouldn't call it a bug, it's a development problem. (...) I would not like to reveal the details, but these are also software improvements, we have now installed another version, and challenges related to the integration of the tower into the roadway," added V. Semeška.

It is still very popular to use the word "challenges" - it is said that everything is solved and will be solved. KMW's sales director for Eastern Europe, Thomas Fritzsch, also half-jokingly slyly suggested the word "challenges" when asked by Delphi about the Boxer's problems.

However, the details were not hidden. The essence of the problems is clear: the previously non-existent "Vilko" variant - the Samson II turret and its integration into the "Boxer" were unknown to the Germans at that time. And the contents of the problems began to creep in little by little, and there were three main ones: ammunition feeding, gun misalignment and autofocus. The "Wolf" would have the ability to fire a full set of 30 mm ammunition - 200 pieces. without jamming or redoing after the commander got out, but at the 150 ammo mark trouble started.

Then the software problems were revealed. The deviation of the gun horizontally to one side means additional calibration, and if the autofocus is not focused on the target, but on the gas from the barrel, the commander again faces aiming problems.

All of this requires testing, testing, and some more testing and tuning. And not in a stationary, factory, where everything can be theoretically calibrated, but in a real combat firing range that meets the conditions of battle. The more the better, as some problems only become apparent after a while. Apparently, it's not a problem - in Germany there are excellent ranges for testing, shooting, pressing everything possible. But as soon as the first problems of "Wolves" appeared, the COVID-19 pandemic hit and, of course, everything stopped: Israel closed down, introduced perhaps the strictest isolation rules, which meant that Rafael's representatives could not go to Germany to explain the problems and find a solution .

But placing all the blame on the pandemic would be unfair. "If the ammunition doesn't work, it's not a covid problem, it's a solution problem." You can't solve it, that is, fix the supply of ammunition during the Zoom meeting," said Th. Fritzsch. The fact that the Israeli turret does not work together with the Boxer as it should is not a big surprise in itself - Lithuania itself chose a cheaper, but untested module, although Artec offered the RCT-30 remote-controlled turret.

Countries with more modest financial possibilities, such as Lithuania, try to avoid such R&D costs. It doesn't always work out. For example, the Piranha 5 armored personnel carrier with the Israeli ELBIT turret purchased by Romania is also delayed - similar problems to the Lithuanian ones.

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

12-Aug

That reads like there is a classical system integrations problem. Which doesn't seem to be Boxer specific.

In Germany we have a saying that translates to: "if you buy cheap, you buy twice". There is also a tounge in cheek joke in "corporate Germany" which goes: "We need to save money! At any cost!"
It seems from the information presented both fully apply to this case as well.

In reply toRe: msg 61
Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

12-Aug

Yes its same here , but its also a point when politicians buy stuff countries really can't afford, then its just the race to the bottom cutting costs .so when you want to buy a 8x8 with a 30mm canon and ATGMs in the turret , is it better to buy a boxer with no turret at all or an AMV fully kited out? Plans on paper always called for heavily armed 8x8 and budget reality delivers basic 8x8 with 12.7mm , that is why boxer choice was such a surprise over here. Only other posibilty is a broad industrial cooperation offer inclusive with a Boxer outweighed the cost, as we are already seeing our local companies like Valhalla turrets working on German projects.  In the past the high 'offset' percentages turned out as absolute duds in procurment, manufacturers incorporated the costs of offsets into the pricing and offsets often failed to materialize in full .

Our military has been buying Israeli stuff for past 30 years and aside from the boats that seem to be working well, we had all sorts of problems with the Israeli gear, they are always the cheap offer in the mix,out but often take years to work out kinks , while Israelis use the opportunity to develop their products on our dime.

By the way, anyone in the know why french VBCI is practically absent on the market, i haven't seen them in any recent tenders.?

TOP