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.

  • 3334
    MEMBERS
  • 189421
    MESSAGES
  • 7
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Lynx as a platform   General Army topics

Started 4-Apr by graylion; 3169 views.
graylion

From: graylion

4-Apr

I've been wondering about the Lynx. If is is successful, how would it evolve? CV-90 has turned into a platform for all sorts of things. Tank destroyer, howitzer, etc. As did the Leo I chassis IIRC (Bergepanzer, Gepard). IMO a military could make a worse investment.

I'm imagining the 155, Atos, 120mm smoothbore, Mantis etc

  • Edited 04 April 2022 16:46  by  graylion
schnuersi

From: schnuersi

6-Apr

graylion said:

If is is successful,

The Lynx allready is reasonably successfull. It might become really successfull. We probably will see before the end of this year.

graylion said:

how would it evolve?

That is hard to tell. Since the Lynx as a platform is heavily modified to the customers specification for each tender.

graylion said:

CV-90 has turned into a platform for all sorts of things. Tank destroyer, howitzer, etc. As did the Leo I chassis IIRC (Bergepanzer, Gepard).

There are not that many versions of the CV90 that actually made it into service. Unless of course we count every armament selected by the customer as a different version. Besides the IFV there really only is an ARV and the mortar carrier. Everything else is a modification of the IFV. The SPAA for example is basically an IFV with radar and AA optimised FCS. The command post and forwar observer are IFV with specialised equipment.

graylion said:

I'm imagining the 155, Atos, 120mm smoothbore, Mantis etc

There are allready several proposed versions and several prototypes on Lynx chassis. It is possible. It just needs customers.
Rheinmetal certainly is going to offer their products on a Lynx chassis. For example the RCH 155.

In the last decades most militaries did not buy vehicle families like they did in the last century. Often the tenders are for one specific type of vehicle, sometimes plus support vehicles sometimes not. This often leads to different tenders being won by different companies.
Concidering the support vehicles like artillery, mortar and SPAA there has been a trend in the last years to pick wheeled platforms because of the lower maintenance and upkeep. The Lynx also has the problem that its pretty large and heavy. This makes it less desirable if strategic mobility by airlift is a requirement.
We will have to wait and see what impact the recent events will have.

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

23-Apr

The Lynx 120 is yesterdays news ;)

It would be news if somebody actually ordered some of these. It would be the first time somebody bought a tank on IFV chassis since the TAM. At least from memory. Maybe there are more and more recent ones but I can not remember any.

The Ukraine is desperate for weapons and gets funding from abroad mybe they take some?
But so far they only seem to be intrested in Leopard and old soviet designs. They don't even care for Lynx IFV but requested Marders.

graylion

From: graylion

23-Apr

that is b/c they need stuff right the eff now. 

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

23-Apr

graylion said:

that is b/c they need stuff right the eff now.

Yes but concidering this fact neither Laopards nor Marders make sense.
These are neither available right now nor are Ukrainian troops trained on these systems. It would take month to train them and to make the vehicles in stroage avilable. So its goint to be a mid term thing anywys. Chances are the same time could be used to train on new systems and build them.

taschoene

From: taschoene

23-Apr

schnuersi said:

It would be news if somebody actually ordered some of these. It would be the first time somebody bought a tank on IFV chassis since the TAM. At least from memory. Maybe there are more and more recent ones but I can not remember any.

I think the new Indonesian/Turkish Modern Medium-Weight Tank (Kaplan/Harimau) is based on the Turkish Kaplan IFV chassis, but with a lot of changes (including relocating the engine to the hull rear).

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/kaplan.htm

taschoene

From: taschoene

23-Apr

schnuersi said:

The Ukraine is desperate for weapons and gets funding from abroad mybe they take some? But so far they only seem to be intrested in Leopard and old soviet designs. They don't even care for Lynx IFV but requested Marders.

I think there's a sense that they may have gotten about all the ex-Soviet kit that's freely available and are moving on the the simplest, least challenging Western kit to be had (hence the US offering M113s rather than M2s, for example).  

NATO nations are also still proposing a bunch of three-sided swaps where ex-Soviet European states get older NATO kit (and hopefully a few months to train on it) in exchange for passing off their ex-Soviet gear to Ukraine.  So, Slovenia gives up their M-84s (Yugo T-72s)  and gets Leopards and Marders.  Or the Poles get Challenger 2 and give up their last T-72s.  Which means Poland ends up with three of the four main NATO main battle tanks -- Leo 2, M1, and CH2.  All they need now are some Leclerc and they have four of a kind.  I don't envy their logistics and training people.

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

23-Apr

taschoene said:

I think the new Indonesian/Turkish Modern Medium-Weight Tank (Kaplan/Harimau) is based on the Turkish Kaplan IFV chassis, but with a lot of changes (including relocating the engine to the hull rear).

Wich such radical changes its not really the same chassis anymore. Its more like the tank and the IFV share some parts.

The numbers are also really low.

One of the problems of these tank on IFV chassis is that their silhouette allways is really large for a tank of its weight.

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

23-Apr

taschoene said:

I think there's a sense that they may have gotten about all the ex-Soviet kit that's freely available and are moving on the the simplest, least challenging Western kit to be had (hence the US offering M113s rather than M2s, for example).

I don't think this really makes sense. The upgraded Leo1 have the same FCS as the Leo2. The old FCS of the original Leo1 is conciderable more complicated to use than the one of the Leo2.
Neither the Leo nor the Marder share any parts or consumables with the equipment the Ukraine has. Except for the fuel. The capabilities of the Marder and Leo and the mode of operation they are designed for is very different to what the Ukrainians are used to. If you have to train crews, maintenance and leaders from practically zero there IMHO it makes little sense to use old stuff.

taschoene said:

Or the Poles get Challenger 2 and give up their last T-72s.

Or they get more Leos or M1s.

taschoene said:

NATO nations are also still proposing a bunch of three-sided swaps where ex-Soviet European states get older NATO kit (and hopefully a few months to train on it) in exchange for passing off their ex-Soviet gear to Ukraine.

I am aware of that. I am not sure it makes sense to give them older stuff. This would be a great opportunitiy for production over the next couple of years. Something that would really help the industry. This way it would make sense to ramp up production and open new lines and facilities.

TOP