Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

Pat......... that is more or less exactly what is in the OOB's now.....missile count AND range except we call the latest version the TOS-1M but I need to sort out why we have 4 versions when it looks like 2 would do.

This shows them in a demonstration

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IiPuzj1OXA

and claims they will be sold to Syria

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

and it appears they are showing up in Iraq as well

http://www.janes.com/article/41343/i...ssian-weaponry

If I were the Jordanians, I'd want a few of these as well....payback can be a real b*itch


Iraqi soldiers learning how to re-load a TOS

http://www.chinanews.com/tp/hd2011/2...6/422119.shtml

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attac...1&d=1423176134

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

Don,
Read the bottom para first before you start on this-please!
TY-Pat

Don,
I agree I know of only those two versions as well, which is good for the Russian slot situation, hey two is a victory in that area. I like my boys from the Ukraine (1st Ref.) but the French (2nd ref.) are really good. The issue here is that the Ukrainians are saying the TOS-1 was not accepted into the Russian Army whereas the French said it was which was always my understanding. I recommend delete whatever those other units are and keep the below in until we have time to sort out TOS-1 as option 1. However there is an option 2 to consider based on the below video ref. and write up, which is to lock out the TOS-1.
As to Iraq and Syria (Though it is conjecture as to whether Syria has TOS-1 (I am not ready myself to give it to them.)) these were on my work list the deals also included the PANSYTR System as well for both. I'll give you what I have below.

TOS-1 Data comparison...
http://www.military-today.com/artillery/tos1.htm
http://www.armyrecognition.com/russi...ications_.html

TOS-1A Data comparison...
http://www.military-today.com/artillery/tos_1a.htm
http://www.armyrecognition.com/russi...ications_.html

As we have been down this road before the following will show a short video of a Russian exercise involving the TOS-1. Reminiscent of the North Korean tank situation from the MBT Thread, you might remember some of that was addressed when I counted the "road wheels" of the tanks. Now watch the below video pause it at the launcher, count the tubes,unless I'm really tired I got 24 tubes. Everyone is agreeing that the TOS-1 has 30 tubes, so the video labeled TOS-1 is really showing the TOS-1A with 24 tubes. Also your Iraqi picture shows you got it...24 tubes.
You gotta love life!
http://www.military.com/video/ammuni...1277144437001/

Iraq and Syria ...
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...s-again-07571/
(As this article shows I have work in this area under the Contract section look to 10/14.)
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...billion-03391/


Other issues on my list for Iraq and Syria
http://www.janes.com/article/47826/d...aq-as-positive
http://www.janes.com/article/47872/i...rian-d-20-guns

I need too hit the rack, for Russia Option 1 would be the easiest to deal with not knowing how much you're putting on yourself and what your timeline is. Besides I'm going to throw you two "softballs" over the next two days.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

There may be earlier links but this one is dated June 2013 and contains false information like the range of the TOS is 60km ( that added zero makes a big difference but that's corrected later in the article ) but what's "interesting" is this goes back to "pre ISIS" days when Assad was the worlds boogyman and Russia was supporting him when most everyone else wanted him gone.( then the middle east would be in peace and harmony:doh:)...... now the weapons are starting to show up and ISIS has shown itself to be unsupportable ( and nobody says anything about Assad anymore ) and suddenly this all seems like a pretty good idea

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

........and "just for fun" lets try to nail the dates down for this thing. We have it starting 1981..... I have NO idea where that date came from but it's never been questioned.....until I started digging today

THIS LINK ( Army guide from France ) claims

Until I find better info "early 1990s" is going to be 1993. What I don't know is when that article was written. It also suggests there is a prototype of a 122 mm version of TOS with 70 tubes but I'm going to leave that one alone for now

but THIS claims ( first appeared in August 2000 issue of Marine Corps Gazette )

That was written August 2000

so it could have been tested in the early 80's..... or the early 90's but for certain it could not have been "combat-tested in Afghanistan's Panjshir valley " in the "early 90's. If ANYONE has better info on this please let us know and if anyone sees any recent photos of the original 30 rocket version let me know. I suspect that is no longer in service but it's uncertain ATM

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

The very first ref. Military-Today does support the USMC Gazette claim that the TOS-1 did see combat in Afghanistan as well. The year I've seen most consistently for developmental start was 1981. As Russia is not India (Again 30+ years to get to the ARJUN MBT.) they could get a system like this tested and in the field within 5 yrs. because they already had identified and did not have to develop a launch platform by using the T-72. If you go with the Afghanistan situation I would recommend a date of 6/86 this would allow 5-5.5yrs. to develop the launcher, rocket and modify the readily available T-72 hulls for turret removal, modification of the FCS and reconfiguration of the turret opening to mount the launcher. Very doable for only 24-30 platforms. Or as your planning leave it alone as CHECHNYA is the common thread for all the refs we have concerning it's combat background. I had to give you the first option as you would understand for AFGHANISTAN since they didn't leave there until around May 1989(?) I believe.

I need to grab something to eat and get ready for work.

Regards,
Pat

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

Don,
I did as deep a search as possible and this ties into the immediate last post.
TOS-1: I gave the option of 6/86 I have found ONLY one ref that offers any specific date and that only a year from the first ref below "IOC 1985" a couple of these are Russian and support the Afghanistan combat role one says this was in 1989 (Second ref. note: it shows a TOS-1A video BUT the write is for the TOS-1.) and that's it, I didn't read the USMC Gazette to see if they even gave that much.
http://www.deagel.com/Multiple-Launc...002564001.aspx
https://russianmilitaryphotos.wordpr...sting-grounds/
http://tanknutdave.com/the-russian-tos-1-mlrs/

TOS-1A: Here 2001 is the consensus year. However the ref gives a specific date of 04 April 2001 as an in service date.
http://tonnel-ufo.ru/eanglish/weapon...tem-tos-1a.php

I REALLY GOTTA FLY NOW!!

Regards,
Pat

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

SOFTBALL #1...
In my last post I came across a ref concerning the TOS-1A having been delivered to Iraq in July. I thought I bookmarked it however, I did not so, to close the loop here, I give you the following...
I recommend that Oct. 2014 be the field date for the TOS-1A based on the late July 2014 delivery date and to allow for training. I believe the pictures you posted came from the first ref. the training time is reasonable considering the Iraqi Army is very familiar with the T-72 tank. The FCS is more of a direct fire system aided by a day/night (TI) optical sight with LRF again not a technical hurdle for them to overcome. The only time consuming issue I really is in learning to reload and use the launcher (As they already use similar systems.) specific to the TOS-1A.
http://www.janes.com/article/41343/i...ssian-weaponry

Please note dated posted on the following (This is a legitimate site designed to serve current active, reserve, veteran and retired military in the U.S.)
http://www.military.com/video/rocket...3846081544001/

And if your feeling really frogging...
JANE'S was right on top of this concerning the Iraqis having been equipped with the Iranian HM-20 MRL as pictured. I have not verified that this is even in the Iranian OOB. I have a handful of equipment issues to deal with concerning Iran, they've been busy this past year. If not, as you can see it's on my list to do already.
http://www.janes.com/article/47826/d...aq-as-positive

Since in these refs there has been discussion of the Su-25, Iraq does have and is getting more of them however, there is no info to support that they are being used at this time. This is a new aircraft for them thus the Russians (Yes they're there and yes we paid for some of this equipment as well.) are training them to fly and maintain them.

Regards,
Pat

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

Oct 2014 works for me

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

Out of the blue Finns present the improved SPAA Marksman upgrade:

Remember how the T-55 hull Marksman SPAA ItPsv 2010 upgrade was cancelled (and removed from OOB) after prototype and the Marksman pulled from training altogether in 2010? All of sudden FDF announces that they have accepted the new prototype and that is built on Leopard 2A4 hull! (Source: Panssari-lehti 1/2015: http://www.panssarikilta.fi/Lehti/)

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

I'm going to introduce a new ref here that focuses on Europe and especially Poland but still manages to maintain a world view. I've waited for a while to see how they did against their contemporaries I've used for years to include JANE'S. We'll benefit from the added content, I hope they'll be useful and you enjoy their work. Same applies as posted in the Jets Thread.

1. Poland and the KRAB 155mm SPA along with rechecking the issue concerning the South Korean THUNDER and Turkeys T-155 FIRTINA. That the KRAB will need some rework in the Polish OOB I don't doubt, however, I hope about the other two it'll be more of a verification process (:rolleyes:) though along with the K2 MBT, South Korea has had issues with the "THUNDER" as well. Below is an excerpt taken from the ref below it. The emboldening is mine.
"Despite the fact that the license for manufacturing the Turrets for the Krab howitzers has been purchased back in 1999, ever since then the Polish Army has received only 8 vehicles, most of which faced defects in the chassis. MoD Secretary of State, Czesław Mroczek, claimed that he will not tolerate any further delays in the Krab programme. The issue has been thoroughly analysed by Defence24.pl."
http://www.defence24.com/analysis_kr...nds-the-crisis

2. LEBANON will keep me busy in the APC area as well but since we're here, CAESAR has come back again to the region...
http://www.janes.com/article/49274/i...caesar-systems

3. CHILE gets 12 M109A5 155mm SPA units...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/febru...howitzers.html

4. When INDIA gets their "**** in one sock" they can develop very advanced systems case in point the AKASH SPAA platform...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/febru...e_systems.html

5. UK orders FLAADS SPAA using the highly successful CAMM Missile (Land version) that was originally developed for use by the RN...
http://www.janes.com/article/47936/u...stem-from-mbda

6. IRAQ has received the BULGARIAN D-20 152mm as well as Russian artillery. I believe Don will enter the TOS-1A when they (Andy) decide they are ready to do so. So as I pointed out on one of the items from the JET Thread last night there's again "news within the news" with this ref...
http://www.janes.com/article/47872/i...rian-d-20-guns

7. INDIA again this time has started to field an upgraded version of the ZSU-23-4 Schilka, hopefully the Russian OOB might provide something I can refer to if not well it won't be the first time we reinvented the wheel...
http://www.army-technology.com/news/...om-bel-4451712

That should do it for now here, so good night!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

It appears to be a locally designed upgrade instead of any of the Russian upgrades. New radar and digital FC.

That probably means that it has a laser rangefinder and TV camera with a thermal channel for tracking the targets without radar, even if they are not mentioned explicitly. It could also have an IRST system, but that is less certain. In any case, a daylight only optical system would make little sense in 2015.

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

More on Marksman, quick notes:
Training conscripts restarts after ~10 years, upgraded Marksman AA training will start in 2016 using Leopard 2 platform. Apparently the 2010 upgrades have been done but no specifics at this point.

Also SP artillery to be modernized but unspecified whether this will mean buying PzH 2000s or modernizing the existing soviet era stuff.

So 2016 will see a lot of new stuff rolled down to the conscripts.

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

5. UK orders FLAADS SPAA using the highly successful CAMM Missile (Land version) that was originally developed for use by the RN...
http://www.janes.com/article/47936/u...stem-from-mbda



QUOTE--
According to the MoD FLAAD Land should be ready for entry into service at "the end of the decade". This should allow for a smooth change over with the retirement of the Rapier, scheduled to begin in 2020


It's a safe bet this is not going to meet the 2020 "deadline"

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

Agree about the FLAAD for UK some of this was meant as just the "news" but worth tracking should the dates slip more into the favor of the current games time period. But this would be useful too anyone who tries to do a post 2020 game.

About India's upgrade of the ZSU-23-4 Schilka, I did use the words "I can refer to..." it makes Don's life a lot easier if I can find if you will a "baseline" unit from which to work from since, we will never truly know the full extent of or the technical issues involved in many of the upgrades involved on a certain piece of equipment so history helps. In this case a Russian upgraded unit of the same type provides us with that "baseline" from which when I submit this Indian ZSU-23-4 Schilka it'll be easier to address any further enhancements to said unit within acceptable game parameters.

Regards,
Pat

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

It's already been adjusted. I have no doubt that unit 52 in that OOB that show(ed) an upgrade in 2011 * co-incidentally when this project was announced... was entered to represent this upgrade which I have adjusted for date and capabilities

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

Don,
Thanks! One less item to worry about however, it's ashamed it had to be a fairly easy one! ;)

Regards,
Pat

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

Don,
Is this an easy one or should I just keep it on my list? Organizing my bookmarks in MOZILLA to transfer them from old PC > flash drive > my new PC.

Brazil/ASTROS/UNITS 180-182/Issue Battery size/see quote from and ref below.

"A full ASTROS system includes 1 wheeled 4×4 Battalion level Command Vehicle (AV-VCC), which commands 3 batteries, and a series of 6×6 wheeled vehicles. Each battery consists of:
1 4×4 Battery-level Command vehicle (AV-PCC)
1 Fire Control vehicle (AV-UCF)
6 Rocket launchers (AV-LMU)
6 Ammunition resupply vehicles (AV-RMD)
1 Recovery vehicle (AV-OFVE)
1 4×4 Mobile weather station (AV-MET). Ambient and active weather affect artillery."

This is very possible, but, unless I'm missing something here, I believe UNITS 180-183 are only showing 3 Launchers.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...avibras-07069/

One WORLD/One OOB.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

You are correct, those units represent 3 launchers

Those units should be called sections and the formations doubled to put two sections in a Battery . Formation 201 is named correctly but needs another section and Formation 200 needs 6 sections total

now corrected

Thanks

Don

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

Not there yet but, certainly bears watching...
http://www.janes.com/article/57074/t...improvised-sam

Regards,
Pat

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

Well I took some "heat" for submitting this unit back 2011 because some felt it was redundant to the Russian "SMERCH" however, as I've mentioned we're at a point (and beyond) that if we don't start typing units down to their nomenclature we're going to have a difficult time in tracking when units go away and or get improved. Let's take the ABRAMS for example, if we just listed all the current ABRAMS tanks in the USA/USMC OOB's as ABRAMS can you imagine trying to figure which are no longer in service or have been modified? Dates alone cannot tell you the whole story as variants tend to overlap each other-as with the ABRAMS. We do an excellent job with armor and better then average with the rest however, this game is transitioning to either a straight calendar end date extension or some kind've "partitioning" to the new end date, doesn't matter the point being is proper designation of units will ensure the right ones carry on past 2020. Including units that might be redundant. The TORNADO-S was entered as submitted - thank you Don - and the GRAD & SMERCH units in the Russian Army are still on track to be removed from active service in 2020. Russia has just replaced over 40 more Russia rocket artillery units with the TORNADO-S and one more below.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/janua..._11701163.html
http://www.military-today.com/artillery/9a52_4.htm THIS IS A
EARLY UNIT.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/russi...formation.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcRSW_Djq5Q

See Pg. 3 Post #30 APR. 6, 2011 & Pg. 4 Post #35 SEP. 26, 2011 for further info.

Now the following which is in service is designated the TORNADO-G this version apparently was designed to fire their latest anti-armor CM munitions and standard munitions apparently as well. I didn't see it in the OOB, I might've missed it, if so my apologies in advance. However it does further make my point from above.
TORNADO-G/JAN or JUN 2012 (Dates range from 2011 to one I saw that said APR. 2012.)/CREW 2-3/CAB UNARMORED/40 ROCKETS/4x10 LAUNCHER/USE THE CURRENT GRAD/BM-21 ICON NOTE: THE TRUCKS ARE NEWER THEY'LL HAVE SLIGHTLY BETTER CROSS COUNTRY ABILITIES AND SPEED/DESIGNED FOR "SHOOT AND SCOOT" DUE TO NEWER FCS etc./THE REFS INDICATE IT CAN LAUNCH AND CLEAR THE AREA TO 3-4Km BEFORE THE ROCKETS HIT THE GROUND. COULDN'T TELL IF IT'S "ONE AND DONE" SCOOT AND RELOAD OR IF THEY HAVE "RIPPLE LAUNCH" CAPABILITY.
http://www.military-today.com/artillery/tornado_g.htm
http://www.armyrecognition.com/russi..._pictures.html
http://www.deagel.com/Multiple-Launc...002668001.aspx
http://sputniknews.com/military/2015...025004996.html

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

I can save slots simply by renaming the BM-30 Smerch Pl to 300mm MLRS Pl ,in game terms nothing changes but the name and the Tornado-G is simply a Grad with slight improvements that are, in game terms, irrelevant. Even MT says the new one looks like the old one . This is akin to wanting ( for example , I've seen similar requests but this is made up) an AK-74VT added when we already have an AK-74 but the "VT" version is the locally made copy and people are loosing sleep and wringing hands because when they buy an infantry platoon the troops are carrying just plain 74's and furthermore I am not interesting in adding anything new or removing anything old until it's ACTUALLY in or out of the hands of troops. I know it's hard to believe but government plans to do this or that are frequently wrong . I spent a considerable amount of my surgery recovery time building new Icons for the newly announce Russian equipment upgrades and right now I'm planning on putting them in the SHP files but waiting for their actual delivery to troops before putting them into the OOB's , IDK--I'm on the fence about that because introduction dates for things like this just have a bad habit of getting pushed back repeatidy

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

That sounds like a good fix to me and probably means you can delete the TORNADO-S already in the game unless it's somehow better then the SMERCH as entered already game wise. I guess you can do the same with the GRAD/BM-21 units as well to simplify things as well. I already voiced my opinion out here several times about entering new equipment the F-35 is a prime example, which there news it might get pushed back again. Many want the ARMATA but, no one really has one yet either do they? I'll stick to the timeline we've worked with over the years seems to have worked pretty well to this point anyway.

In the Jet/Plane thread you did mean the gunships were gone as well-right? Just so I can clean up my folders if they are.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

off SPAA topic and speaking of things that don't get made........what do you know about the progress and development of the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) .. ??? In a fit of madness I built a full range of Icons for this thing ( they look great like the EFVP did....:mad:)

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

As of last year, the plan was:

http://www.defensenews.com/story/def...ampv/70728052/

The plan is to go to a preliminary design review this summer and a critical design review next summer, with first delivery in late 2016. From there, intermittent tests will lead to the limited user tests in late 2018. The fielding is not going to be complete until the mid-2020s.

The matter of wheeled versus tracked vehicles is not entirely settled, as other studies are ongoing.

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

From the USA PEO GCS office the AMPV is to start a 52 month (~4.3yrs.) Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) process by BAE the contract winner. The EMD once completed will turnover 29 vehicles the Army for evaluation. This process should take about 2-3yrs. based on my tracking of these events as in reality we're dealing with a known, though moderately improved platform. Best guess tracking to somewhere out to 2022/2023. The ref. is dated 24 Dec. 2014. Very much falls in line with what Mark just posted as also one of my sources as you know and the others I'm holding in my APC folder.
http://www.peogcs.army.mil/news/ampv...arded-bae.html
http://www.peogcs.army.mil/ampv.html (Covers models to be built on the bottom of 1st para.)

The home office...
http://www.peogcs.army.mil/index.html

ALSO...since we're at it...

The USMC will see their operational capability with the ACV 1.1 in 2020. This will prove a very hot competition between BAE and SAIC (TERREX 2 8x8) which are both fielding known fully amphibious platforms. It reports had given SAIC an early edge as the TERREX, first seen as a 6x6 platform was the first successful 360 situational awareness APC developed to include an RWS to operate in the same manner. TERREX 1 as it's now referred to was originally developed by TIMOTHY Industries of Ireland. And thought they just made good Beer and Whiskey!?! TERREX (1) was one of my first posts in the APC Thread where I'll re-post this to.
http://news.usni.org/2015/11/24/mari...stems-and-saic

I feel like I'm slowly coming back. I hear some of you already!?! :doh: (Used not for it's normal meaning! :p)

Need I say it-yeah, with an addition-CONTINUING TO TRACK.

Two for one not bad Don.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

This is really far out but the US has started to work on the XM907 ERCA 52 caliber Gun-Howitzer with an eye to applying it towards M777 and M109 modernization programs.

http://defense-update.com/20160329_m777er.html

ERCA involves everything from development of an autoloader for the SPH variant, new propellant, and new projectiles with a maximum range of 70~ km.

They already have a mockup of the new gun barrel (which is 6 foot longer than existing ones) on a M777A2 and are moving it around to find out which combination of barrel counterweights will be the most efficient for mobility.

Attached is a CAD model of the M109A7 with the new ERCA gun. At this point...maybe the turn signal lights are original to the 109.

It'll probably be cancelled like every other US Army modernization effort though. :doh:

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

Well I was going to hold on to this for a while but, Mark gave me a good intro to the next. The ref. concerns the new 2S33 MSTA-SM and KOALITSIYA-SV artillery systems that should be game ready by next year or the following year. What's also interesting considering the source, is the what would appear to be a general but, frank overview of the above mentioned world competitors. Take time to note the source. I'm not going to do all the work after all!?! :p Anyway...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/march..._52403162.html


Mark yours was interesting but I agree especially after reading this and what I've already read on "PIM", and lets not forget that 19 Trillion Dollar issue here.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

10 rounds a minute from a 152MM gun that's rapid, wonder how long it could realistically keep that up. The loader would not be the issue I would guess overheating & wrecking the barrel would be the issue.
Then there's the logistics of actually supplying the ammo, they are big shells.

Changing tack a bit I do wonder how much of this stuff will actually make it into mainstream service.
Russia seem to be waving the flag saying look we can still make good stuff.
My guess though with perhaps the exception of the Armata platform most will see a handful to 30 odd produced & assigned somewhere.

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

I recall a "truism" from days as an Intel Weenie:
"The Soviets can make one of anything but can't mass produce a thing."

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

hi here i have some more info from greek version of bmp-zu23.
greek army made about 100 vehicle and the rest of bmp1 i thing sold in egypt
http://veteranos.gr/wp-content/uploa...2/DSC_5708.jpghttp://http://www.army.gr/default.ph...0043&cat_id=14

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

Chad now apparently operates a license built version of the Chinese PTL-02 Tank Destroyer (Chinese OBAT unit 744) as the WMA301 Assaulter.

http://below-the-turret-ring.blogspo...in-africa.html

Differences between it and the PTL-02 in service with the PLA(N) are the use of a 105mm Rifled Gun instead of the Chinese 100mm Type 86 Smoothbore gun.

The WMA301 is already in combat against Boko Haram in some areas of Chad.

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

From a brief look at SIPRI:

http://armstrade.sipri.org/armstrade...e_register.php

From 2010-2015 China supplied the following weapons to: (very abbreviated version, skipping a *lot* of countries or weapons already in the OBATS):

OBAT050 ALGERIA:
18 x WA-021/Type 88 155mm Towed Gun in 2010.

OBAT062 CHAD:
42 x WMA-301 Assaulter Mentioned Earlier in two batches in 2010 and 2013.

OBAT085 PERU:
27 x Type-90BM 122mm Self Propelled MRL, delivered 2015.

OBAT089 TANZANIA:
10 x PLL-05 120mm SP Mortars delivered 2014.

OBAT054 THAILAND:
18 x WS-1 302mm SP MRL delivered 2011-2013. Desigated "DTi-1" in thai service.
UNK x WS-2 400mm SP MRL delivered 2012. Designated "DTi-1G" in thai service.
4 x SR-4 122mm SP MRL delivered 2013. Designated "PR-50" in Thai Service

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

China in 2015 announced that they were to begin retiring their Type 89 / PTZ-89 Tank Destroyers (Unit 513 in chinese OBAT).

Link

Photo attached of retirement ceremony.

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

Well it appears Finland has a surprise for it's neighbor to the east. I suspect a show of force to demonstrate "we're confirming what maybe you knew and we just wanted to demonstrate to you that we know how to use it and aren't afraid to use it", of course that's conjecture on my part however, we don't fully know what the relationship will be with Russian here. I don't know that I had any information on Nextar's Bonus Mk II round before this however, Finland has had it since 2014. This is a fairly new round, if you will, a more potent, updated version of "STRIX" containing two warheads within the shell. What's note worthy from the Nextar ref. is the search area of the shell @ 32,000m2 per charge. It's GOING TO FIND SOMETHING AND TAKE IT OUT.
http://www.janes.com/article/65616/f...for-first-time
http://www.nexter-group.fr/nexter/Fl.../index.html#69

Haven't had a chance to verify if Bonus Mk II is in the French, Swedish or Finland's OOB yet.


The holiday season is upon us and there's nothing more peaceful than a beautiful winter scene in a clearing in the forest with fresh snow on the ground. Except maybe for what lurks on the other side of those trees about 30km's away. But it does just put you in the Holiday Spirit, well maybe not but it is a great shot.

Attachment 14488

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

It's been on my radar for a while, but as there is no official confirmation of being accepted for live firing practices, it's been withheld. Some other submunition ammo is there, but AFAIK the penetration values in OOB10 still apply.

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

The Finnish purchase of used South Korean 155mm K9 Thunder self-propelled howitzers seems to be getting closer, a memorandum of understanding is to be signed shortly and the formal contract in the beginning of the next year. From KBS, the national public broadcaster of South Korea: http://world.kbs.co.kr/english/news/....htm?No=123440

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

Reports that FIN is purchasing 48 howitzers, but numbers don't add up. FIN gov has talked about approximately USD 100M purchase. However, tech transfer or maintenance etc. might not be included. (thread continues in Swedish, but machine translation works) https://twitter.com/a7_FIN_SWE/statu...59670779056128

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

New SWEDISH SPA.

http://www.baesystems.com/en/article...o-swedish-army

BAE Systems has received a 575 million SEK ($68 million) contract for the installation of vehicle mounted mortar systems on Swedish Army CV90 Infantry Fighting Vehicles.

The installation of the company’s mortar system, known as Mjölner, on 40 CV90s will considerably increase the indirect fire capability of the vehicles to support mechanized battalions.

“The delivery of the Mjölner solution to the Swedish Army allows it to field a capability well adapted for the CV90 while enhancing the fleet’s firepower,” said Tommy Gustafsson-Rask, managing director of BAE Systems Hägglunds.

Mjölner is the hammer of Thor in Norse mythology. The contract was issued by the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV), with first deliveries scheduled to take place in the first quarter of 2019.

CV90 is a family of Swedish tracked combat vehicles designed for FMV by BAE Systems Hägglunds and BAE Systems Bofors, which provides the vehicle’s turrets. More than 4.5 million engineering hours has contributed to the development of this advanced vehicle. The Swedish version is outfitted with a turret equipped with a 40 mm autocannon.

The Swedish Army has more than 500 CV90s. Earlier this year, BAE Systems was awarded a contract to refurbish 262 of the vehicles, including survivability, turret, and combat system performance upgrades. Adding the mounted mortar systems addresses another priority that helps increase the vehicles’ lifespan in support of Army capabilities.

Denmark, Estonia, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland also operate CV90s.

-----------

A Swedish member on another forum says:

After plowing through the sketchy explanations people have offered up online I'm confident that Mjölner is muzzle loading.

A human loader grab rounds and place them in the two rails depicted in the above prototype photo, a loading system then carries the rounds up towards the muzzle and then inserts them.

This is what allows for the higher rate of fire, the breech takes longer to open, load and close.

I can report that everyone who's had a chance to get a closer look at the system are very pleased.

Compared to AMOS the pros are a higher rate of fire, more storage for rounds and much cheaper cost which allows for more units given the available funds.

The cons are no firing on the move and no MRSI, at least initially. But the overall consensus is that it will be a better indirect fire platform.

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

Lets wait and see what it really looks like in a year or two.....or three

Don

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

I've said it before and I'll say it again...We need to slow things (And Mark I'm not saying this applies to your last.) down. I'm again sensing a certain rush or urgency to get equipment into this game. We've got until 2026 (Or longer?) for final submissions and personally I don't wish to spend that time like a few of us did about 4-5 years ago almost wasting a "patch season" on deleting equipment that "never was" for whatever reason you can think of. It was just an exercise in frustration and wonderment as to how some of what got in quite frankly did get in. So with the last two posts in mind and for TRACKING purposes only I give you the following with a related story (Somewhat) to follow at least in the "platform area". I must say I do like the concept...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/decem..._12612162.html

Again platform related but, more for the APC Thread...
The Dutch looking to protect theirs and again for TRACKING only...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/decem..._12612161.html

Breathe in Breathe out-I feel better already! :p

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

I'll second that.

The USMC rebuild got rid of a LOT of stuff that the original OOB builder assumed the USMC had because the US Army did, thought they had a lot more of then they actually did, and had a mish-mash of USAF, USN, and USMC aircraft. And that's ignoring the assumption that USMC administrative formations are also their combat formations like the US Army.

Don put in god knows how many hours cleaning out "what if" and no one wants to put in anything that's not solidly verified and have to do it again.

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

I don't mind putting it in once we can actually see one rumbling along a road. I got ahead of myself ( again ) with the USMC ACV......that's why it's right beside the ill-fated EFVP and yes pulling all the things the US Army eventually stopped development on but we had in the OOB's was a major PITA I don't want to repeat anytime soon. I do appreciate heads up info on new equipment but I really do try to contain my enthusiasm adding things that are still artist concepts but there will always be exceptions

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

I very much doubt that even anywhere close to 50% of military 'concepts' ever actually enter service in a recognisable form.

Add to that the huge factor of budget constraints, operational changes (ie, you start, or stop, fighting an actual conflict)etc, and you are looking at really very few 'concepts' actually reaching service.

Case in point one: The Russian Armata, how many will actually be in service in one year? How many in five years? How many in ten years? And that does not even begin to look at if they will actually work as it says on the tin...

Case in point two: The whole, hugely expensive, in both time and money, British Army FRES debacle, that has resulted in nothing more than Ajax, that is a very large, and heavy, recce vehicle that lacks the means to fight and defeat anything as well, or better, armoured than it is...

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

BUG REPORT: Ukrainian Rocket Artillery Vierba has no icon.

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

First.... a "bug" is a code problem NOT an icon issue
Second.......it's showing an Icon in my game and the virgin copy I keep for testing patch installations ( shown here ) so the "bug" is at your end

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attac...1&d=1483042652

The file the Icons used for that vehicle is Icon0105.shp....check you have one in your graphics folder and it's full and has been since version 5.5 so if you are missing the ones for the Vierba you are missing many more as well but I can assure you those Icons were issued and are in everyone else's game

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

Thank you I'm sorry

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

Did you find that file missing ?

Re: SP and SPAA Developments
 

Maybe patching error. My fault