• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Infantry Vehicles

Do they still have these kits available?
I’d imagine so, but as you can see it’s not exactly “field expedient” and an infantry carrying vehicle will by definition have a lot more vectors for water ingress that will need to be sealed.
 
Both of their helicopters ? Pretty small operation.
True - unsure if they also meant their Blackhawks too, and they have 5-6 UH-60M, that replaced the Mi’s

More an example of a hypothetical than a total capability display Id say. We’ve used fascines on pretty substantial at ditches in Wainwright.
Agreed, but they aren’t exactly new, the same had been done on M113’s 40 years ago.
 
Or a behind closed doors deal with the U.S to get surplus Blackhawks. Winner winner chicken dinner.
Yeah, they were not very clear.
They said they got rid of all their helicopters, they already had donated most of the Mi-8’s etc to Ukraine, and already have 5-6 UH-60. So was it also the Hawks? Or just a pointless presser.

We have 200 (~+35 ish) older UH-60’s that are being replaced by newer R models, so those are being offered to the Baltic states and other NATO Allie’s assisting Ukraine.
 
Yeah, they were not very clear.
They said they got rid of all their helicopters, they already had donated most of the Mi-8’s etc to Ukraine, and already have 5-6 UH-60. So was it also the Hawks? Or just a pointless presser.

We have 200 (~+35 ish) older UH-60’s that are being replaced by newer R models, so those are being offered to the Baltic states and other NATO Allie’s assisting Ukraine.
Cmon getting rid of Griffon. A boy can but dream
 
As long as it isn’t that deep or wide…

And if it is:
oregontrail-oregon.gif
 
The Boxer - Armoured Pickup Truck

1687388597704.png


Just as interesting was the claim at the end of the video about the Brimstone module - 12 mile range - 19-20 km
 
And more on the benefits of modularity - Applied to Boxer but generally applicable to all sorts of things, including ships and subs.

 
1687390863794.png


I kinda like this concept - especially for RWS mission modules moved by ARGO type platforms.

Have the vehicle deliver and drop off modules to static positions and free up the vehicle to deliver other modules or resume general transport duties.

 
View attachment 78314


I kinda like this concept - especially for RWS mission modules moved by ARGO type platforms.

Have the vehicle deliver and drop off modules to static positions and free up the vehicle to deliver other modules or resume general transport duties.

For old guys "gunner dot , HESH ... Load,,, Fire!
 

I kinda like this concept - especially for RWS mission modules moved by ARGO type platforms.

Have the vehicle deliver and drop off modules to static positions and free up the vehicle to deliver other modules or resume general transport duties.

If only someone had invented a vehicle specifically for delivering payloads to locations, then moving on to deliver other payloads...

medium-support-vehicle-3.jpg

More seriously, what is going to power these RWS modules when the vehicle leaves? You're better off using actual cargo vehicles to move cargo than you are trying to make fighting vehicles cargo carriers.

The real "value" in the Boxer design is that a damaged drive module can be switched out relatively quickly(supposing the mission module wasn't also damaged) to get the desired mission module back into the field quickly.

As an example, the Met MTLVs were specific versions of the MTLV. We couldn't easily make an ISC MTLV a Met MTL if a Met vehicle had been knocked out. With Boxer, theoretically we could lift the Met module off a damaged vehicle, and make another Boxer a Met vehicle.
 
If only someone had invented a vehicle specifically for delivering payloads to locations, then moving on to deliver other payloads...

View attachment 78348

More seriously, what is going to power these RWS modules when the vehicle leaves? You're better off using actual cargo vehicles to move cargo than you are trying to make fighting vehicles cargo carriers.

The real "value" in the Boxer design is that a damaged drive module can be switched out relatively quickly(supposing the mission module wasn't also damaged) to get the desired mission module back into the field quickly.

As an example, the Met MTLVs were specific versions of the MTLV. We couldn't easily make an ISC MTLV a Met MTL if a Met vehicle had been knocked out. With Boxer, theoretically we could lift the Met module off a damaged vehicle, and make another Boxer a Met vehicle.

You'd have difficulty getting that into a helicopter.....

As to what is going to power the RWS? The same thing that powers the UGV that delivers it. Batteries. And the UGV, with its own freshly charged batteries will quietly and unobtrusively deliver a second, separate, freshly charged battery pack along with the bullets and beans.

I fully agree with your assessment of the Boxer. The leg stand thing is probably not a high priority item.
 
Back
Top