Army Rumour Service

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

FRES 2: The Revenge aka MIV

gafkiwi

War Hero
How long to fix them, then buy something else like the Tigre?
If they have to fix anything the local and Federal Govt will still be happy. It will mean the Rheinmetall/MAN 'COE' and associated large work force they are establishing will have guaranteed work. It wouldn't be a Defence program if it didn't have a self licking ice-cream component to it.
 
4AE47172-EA33-4A38-BA5C-E84C21D18C68.jpeg
 
Blimey. Didn't realise the size comparison.
Niether did I, we had spartan’s at catterick(RAF) in my early days, nice little vehicle. 81mm mortar in the back. That thing looks huge in comparison.
 
40Tonne Redback contender for Aus Land 400, active defence and bandtrack. Proly has that "New IFV Smell".
 
 




Seriously - I don’t even know where to begin with this....so I won’t.


Presumably a ”compelling case” is based on a contractual obligation to act as a social media influencer for Defence Shoppers...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:



Seriously - I don’t even know where to begin with this....so I won’t.


Presumably a ”compelling case” is based on a contractual obligation to act as a social media influencer for Defence Shoppers...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

on a serious note

the major peer threat is UAV related and cannon is much more cost effective than SAMs
 
on a serious note

the major peer threat is UAV related and cannon is much more cost effective than SAMs

Is it really though?

We see a lot of examples of UAV use in places like Syria and Ukraine, but in a major peer-on-peer, a Brigade still has more to worry about from a concerted attack by AH or fast jet.

Against larger armed UAV types, missiles are far more effective, given the likely altitude and stand-off range at which they operate. Against the smaller types, airbursting cannon fire could be effective, if you could get it in the right place - which is the tricky part, given the low RCS and IR signature of smaller UAV types, and reliance on a close coupled detection, tracking and fire control system. Realistically, I think you’re still going to be firing a lot of rounds to stand a high chance of hitting a small manoeuvring UAV - and I’m not sure that such a niche capability is a useful investment in a brigade with limited capacity for carrying logistics, yet alone the money we have available to spend on air defence.

I think the reason most armies and navies are now strongly considering the development of DEW systems to counter smaller close-in threats is to do with the issue of ‘stowed kills’, and broad utility against a wide range of threats.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 



Seriously - I don’t even know where to begin with this....so I won’t.


Presumably a ”compelling case” is based on a contractual obligation to act as a social media influencer for Defence Shoppers...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If theres truly a compelling case (and i assume it would revolve around small RPS rather than Attack aircraft** wouldnt a high angle mount utilising the 40mm CTA be more logical

Im not convinced I would be using boxer for support vehicles - its rather expensive - Command / Sigs vehicles Mortar vehicles, AA Teams even AT teams - I would perhaps be considering MRVP (JLTV) and the not yet chosen MRVP bigger brother as more affordable options for those tasks


**Im no Clausewitz but even i can see the flaw in trying to defeat aircraft using stand off weapons with a circa 10km range with a gun system whose range is half that.
 
Is it really though?

We see a lot of examples of UAV use in places like Syria and Ukraine, but in a major peer-on-peer, a Brigade still has more to worry about from a concerted attack by AH or fast jet.

Against larger armed UAV types, missiles are far more effective, given the likely altitude and stand-off range at which they operate. Against the smaller types, airbursting cannon fire could be effective, if you could get it in the right place - which is the tricky part, given the low RCS and IR signature of smaller UAV types, and reliance on a close coupled detection, tracking and fire control system. Realistically, I think you’re still going to be firing a lot of rounds to stand a high chance of hitting a small manoeuvring UAV - and I’m not sure that such a niche capability is a useful investment in a brigade with limited capacity for carrying logistics, yet alone the money we have available to spend on air defence.

I think the reason most armies and navies are now strongly considering the development of DEW systems to counter smaller close-in threats is to do with the issue of ‘stowed kills’, and broad utility against a wide range of threats.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think there is a better case for denying the appropriate bit of the electronic spectrum for UAV control. No idea if or how it could be done, but got to be better than trying to swat them with cannon fire.
 
I think there is a better case for denying the appropriate bit of the electronic spectrum for UAV control. No idea if or how it could be done, but got to be better than trying to swat them with cannon fire.

Expendable ECM.
Like a mortar round. Fire it, goes up and transmits as it comes down under a small chute. Ene drones using home-on-jam get safely directed away.
Just my 2p.
 
Im not convinced I would be using boxer for support vehicles - its rather expensive - Command / Sigs vehicles Mortar vehicles, AA Teams even AT teams - I would perhaps be considering MRVP (JLTV) and the not yet chosen MRVP bigger brother as more affordable options for those tasks

In theory there's no problem with adding another vehicle to the mix, as long as that vehicle can go when Boxer can go and survive being hit by what Boxer can survive.

I'm not 100% convinced JLTV can do all that and JLTV did not do well in the test evaluation report released by DoD in 2018 with blind spots, maintenance issues and reliability issues being their main concern. The fix for the blind spots issue was to stick a camera to resolve one blind spot. What's wrong with making sure the driver and commander can actually f**king see what they need to be able to see by using their own eyes ?

I'm concerned JLTV is just too big and chunky, whilst not being capable of carrying a suitable load for actual real war, for it's intended role.
 
In theory there's no problem with adding another vehicle to the mix, as long as that vehicle can go when Boxer can go and survive being hit by what Boxer can survive.

I'm not 100% convinced JLTV can do all that and JLTV did not do well in the test evaluation report released by DoD in 2018 with blind spots, maintenance issues and reliability issues being their main concern. The fix for the blind spots issue was to stick a camera to resolve one blind spot. What's wrong with making sure the driver and commander can actually f**king see what they need to be able to see by using their own eyes ?

I'm concerned JLTV is just too big and chunky, whilst not being capable of carrying a suitable load for actual real war, for it's intended role.

Mist admit i prefer the Hawkei (thales) and the Duro based Eagle 4/ 5?* both have a more looks right is right feel to them with similar capabilities whilst being a tad smaller (and probably more frugal as well) than the tractor unit based JLTV



*partly because that comes as both 4*4 and 6*6 - thus fulfilling both mrvp 1 and 2 with a common platform and it has parts commonality with duro 3 trucks already in UK service -( IIRC Eagle 1-3 where Humvee based)
 
Last edited:

Latest Threads

Top