Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16741
    Points : 17349
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 02, 2011 6:19 am

    Last I remember reading about the subject weren't they interested in the Volk, and the Tiger-M because the earlier model Tigers had US owned Canadian made Cummins diesel engines?

    The VPK-233114 Tigr-M and the VPK-3927 Volk both have Russian engines and other improvements.

    Of course both are larger and heavier than Iveco and the PVP... but with the Russian military... who knows... they might just buy them all.

    Austin

    Posts : 6385
    Points : 6786
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  Austin on Sat Apr 02, 2011 6:48 am

    I would suppose the Military would be more interested in having Russian engines while the production run of Police and Paramilitary organisation would be comfortable with Cummins engine because they must have ordered significant amount of Cummins engines with perhaps local assembly.

    Well if they sell to global customers they can atleast offer a choice between two proven and inservice engine , which is good for customers.

    Austin

    Posts : 6385
    Points : 6786
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  Austin on Sun Apr 03, 2011 6:06 am

    Here is a nice Video of Volk reco vehical , it has active suspension and is computer controlled Smile

    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3231
    Points : 3317
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  medo on Sun Apr 03, 2011 10:29 am

    I think both Tiger-M and Volk are great vehicles. I wonder if Russian army will more use Volk as APC or as armored truck for battlefield logistics, for which it could be excellent. It could carry food, medics, ammo, etc to the place, where troops actually need them.

    Austin

    Posts : 6385
    Points : 6786
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  Austin on Sun Apr 03, 2011 12:43 pm

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16741
    Points : 17349
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 04, 2011 3:05 am

    Looks like a good vehicle to me...
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3231
    Points : 3317
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  medo on Mon Apr 04, 2011 6:53 pm

    It seems Volk have the same modular design as Vodnik have. But I think it would be smart to built Volks intended only for logistic duties and separate Volks as armor vehicles for different duties and not to mix them. Logistic in battlefield is also very important and it needs its own vehicles and Volk is very suited for that.

    Austin

    Posts : 6385
    Points : 6786
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  Austin on Tue May 31, 2011 5:04 pm


    Austin

    Posts : 6385
    Points : 6786
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  Austin on Sat Jun 25, 2011 10:04 am

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16741
    Points : 17349
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:35 am

    I would suppose the Military would be more interested in having Russian engines while the production run of Police and Paramilitary organisation would be comfortable with Cummins engine because they must have ordered significant amount of Cummins engines with perhaps local assembly.

    Sorry, I wasn't clear... the Army doesn't want a US engine, but police and paramilitary might not care, but the fact is that after 8 8 08 the US company stopped cooperating with Russian companies so an American engined model is not likely unless the US company changes its mind... and even if it did would you go back to working with them under such conditions?

    Have read that the ceramic armour of the iveco vehicle is added to the chassis, while the Volk has a built in armour shell that is part of the structure. The Italian approach leaves potential weak spots not covered by armour though it is lighter.
    The Volk is also supposedly better cross country and the internal layout is reportedly better with the driver isolated from the crew in the italian vehicle.
    They also mentioned that access and seats were better in the Russian vehicle.

    Austin

    Posts : 6385
    Points : 6786
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  Austin on Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:59 am

    GarryB wrote:Have read that the ceramic armour of the iveco vehicle is added to the chassis, while the Volk has a built in armour shell that is part of the structure. The Italian approach leaves potential weak spots not covered by armour though it is lighter.
    The Volk is also supposedly better cross country and the internal layout is reportedly better with the driver isolated from the crew in the italian vehicle.
    They also mentioned that access and seats were better in the Russian vehicle.

    Yes I did read it i am still wondering why they are ordering Iveco , they can straight away move to Tigr-M , perhaps Iveco is for paramilitary forces and to induce competition.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16741
    Points : 17349
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:35 pm

    Iveco seems to be an economic/political thing.

    In very many ways it was the backup to the Tigr.

    Another factor is that the company that will make the Iveco vehicles can try to sell them to CIS countries and paramilitary and police units so the scope for sales is good.

    AFAIK they have committed to making 10 so after that they can decide if mass production in its current form is worth while and if it isn't then it can certainly be modified to improve it in specific areas like cross country performance and performance in deep snow or mud.

    If it is different enough there might be a purpose in mass producing it especially if the retooled and upgraded factory doing the work has nothing else to make right now.

    It isn't a rubbish vehicle and has sold to several European countries already.
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2189
    Points : 3081
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Kamaz refused to make IVECO armored vehicles

    Post  Vladimir79 on Fri Aug 12, 2011 12:15 pm

    Kamaz refused to make IVECO armored vehicles

    Russian auto giant will not produce a Russian version of the Italian car "Lynx"

    The idea of ​​localizing the production in Russia of Italian LMV M65 armored vehicles under the brand name "Lynx" is close to failure. The head producer of cars, car manufacturer Kamaz, left the program. Experts believe that the decision is connected with foreign components, in which the plant has not and will not be licensed.

    Until the end of 2020 the Ministry of Defense must procure state armaments program for two thousand of these machines.

    On the decision to withdraw from the program of "Izvestia" talked to Kamaz.

    - We conducted a pilot assembly 10 of the Italian IVECO Vehicle, tested them and passed the Defense Ministry. Further participation in this program Kamaz not supposed to - told "Izvestia" on the plant.

    Key sites IVECO LMV M65 - non-Italian origin. Ceramic Armor - German, its foundation - the Dutch materials, engine - an American. IVECO could not transfer the rights to manufacture these units, because they do not belong, and to Americans in Russia there is no agreement on military-technical cooperation, - said, "Izvestia," a source in the military-industrial complex.

    Head of Centre ACT Ruslan Pukhov believes that in case of unlicensed production of armored vehicles, U.S. State Department could block the sale of KAMAZ trucks in the West. In addition, the Russian army would have been depending on the supply of U.S. parts.

    - The buyer of imported weapons should always be prepared, which will depend on the political situation. In such a situation very familiar to Pakistanis, Indians, Venezuelans - recalled in an interview Pukhov, "Izvestia".

    Plans for the purchase of armored vehicles IVECO year ago, said Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov, who found them vastly superior Russian armored "Tiger." Minister for Italians like assurances that the LMV M65 is able to withstand erosion of 8 kg of TNT under his head. Serdyukov personally traveled to Italy to get acquainted with the production of LMV M65, and then followed the testing of these machines in the Russian context.

    For these tests, and were used 10 cars assembled from kits in Kamaz. According to customs declaration, at the disposal of "Izvestia", each Vehicle LMV M65 car factory cost 12 million rubles. For comparison, the "Tiger" is about 5 million

    Now, according to "Izvestia", SKD, "the Bobcats" are trying to establish for a military repair plants in Bryansk. State defense order must be obeyed.


    Dmitry Litovkin

    http://vpk.name/news/56236_kamaz_otkazalsya_sobirat_broneviki_stran_nato.html

    Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16741
    Points : 17349
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 12, 2011 12:33 pm

    Can't say I am not happy with this, the Russian vehicle makers just need time to put together a better vehicle with Russian parts or parts Russian can licence produce.

    I have read some articles criticising the ceramic armour used how it was added to the chassis rather than part of the vehicle structure which leaves some vulnerable points and offers no protection for the engine at all.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3231
    Points : 3317
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  medo on Fri Aug 12, 2011 3:26 pm

    Isn't Volk vehicle in the same level of protection as vestern counterparts and produces completely from russian parts? On the other hand I think Border guard have better decision to buy french Panhard vehicles. French vehicles have only french components and they could give licence for a whole vehicle.

    Pervius

    Posts : 247
    Points : 267
    Join date : 2011-03-08

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  Pervius on Fri Aug 12, 2011 4:52 pm

    It says alot of Russia if they can't even make their own Armored Infantry Mobility Vehicle.

    It's not rocket science. They've got the Italian ones to look at as well as the Up-Armored American Humvee's to look at.


    Sketch something on paper and make it. To heck with everyone else though. Make it a HALF TRACK. V Hull to protect from IED's.

    Half Track is better Armored Car. Especially with world tire production in China....no need for many tires during war.

    HalfTrack Armored Car would out race on the street a Up-Armored Humvee any day. Plus it could go offroad and frame wouldn't twist like a pretzel from all the weight of Armor.

    US Armored Car is only pretty CNN Queen. Very expensive to maintain, poor engine, can't handle weight of the armor.

    Kamaz Chief was right to leave job. Medvedev wants pretty CNN queen military instead of cheaper functional military. Computers on a Diesel engine? Come on...

    No man with brains puts a computer on a diesel engine.

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16741
    Points : 17349
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  GarryB on Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:31 am

    It says alot of Russia if they can't even make their own Armored Infantry Mobility Vehicle.

    After 20 years of no funding the Russian military has suddenly decided it wants light mobile armoured vehicles of new design, and within the space of a few years we have seen a large number of indigenous designs shown and they are starting to go into service.

    This is not a case of Russia not being able to make a vehicle.

    This is a case of a successful Russian company not wanting to be forced to build and Iveco design because the Italian company that makes the vehicle doesn't own the design rights to all the components so if the Russian company makes the vehicle including the foreign components it might be subject to sanctions from the US. It knows the US companies wont cooperate in the manufacture because US companies are subject to US law that can and does get changed overnight by Congress.

    This is not Kamaz saying it can't build these vehicles, it is say it doesn't want to put itself in the position of getting sued or embargoed.

    It's not rocket science. They've got the Italian ones to look at as well as the Up-Armored American Humvee's to look at.

    Uparmoured Humvees are crap... the Humvee was too heavy to start with and the extra armour has made them useless... even the American forces admit that.

    Kamaz isn't talking about developing their own vehicle, they are saying they don't want to licence produce this Italian vehicle because Iveco doesn't own the patents and manufacturing licences for all the parts and has no right to sell them to Kamaz.

    Half Track is better Armored Car. Especially with world tire production in China....no need for many tires during war.

    Halftracks are dead. Their mobility is limited by their wheel component and their tracked component makes them expensive to buy and operate. Fully tracked and fully wheeled vehicles make much more sense.

    US Armored Car is only pretty CNN Queen. Very expensive to maintain, poor engine, can't handle weight of the armor.

    To paraphrase something I read recently: "It says alot of the US if they can't even make their own Armored Infantry Mobility Vehicle."

    Kamaz Chief was right to leave job. Medvedev wants pretty CNN queen military instead of cheaper functional military. Computers on a Diesel engine? Come on...

    No man with brains puts a computer on a diesel engine.

    Actually the Tiger-M has computerised engine control that manages heat sensors throughout the engine so even in very low temperatures they can safely start the engine without shattering it, or having to built a fire under it...

    Isn't Volk vehicle in the same level of protection as vestern counterparts and produces completely from russian parts? On the other hand I think Border guard have better decision to buy french Panhard vehicles. French vehicles have only french components and they could give licence for a whole vehicle.

    There is also the BPM-97 at 10 tons is rather heavier than the Iveco, but the Tigr-M and Volk and even Vodnik are in the same weight range.
    I think the SPM-3 Medved is in the same 10 ton weight class as the BPM-97.

    In many ways any and all these options would be better than the Iveco, but they really don't have anything in the very light PVP range at the moment.

    Pervius

    Posts : 247
    Points : 267
    Join date : 2011-03-08

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  Pervius on Sat Aug 13, 2011 4:40 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    Half Track is better Armored Car. Especially with world tire production in China....no need for many tires during war.

    Halftracks are dead. Their mobility is limited by their wheel component and their tracked component makes them expensive to buy and operate. Fully tracked and fully wheeled vehicles make much more sense.

    Tracked vehicles are cheaper to build. Did you notice there's nobody in the US making tires. All in China now. So if the US went into a lengthy multi-year war with China.....how would they have tires?
    A Half Track can easily handle many tons of weight for an armored car. Anything with tires on it can't handle weight of armor and ballistic glass, off road.

    US Up-Armor Humvee was originally designed for Columbian drug lords. The US Army saw it and liked it so much they wanted some for themselves. The problem is....they can only handle the weight on roads. The minute you try to offroad with it the frame twists into a pretzel. You buy many many many parts....even have to replace frames. So.....half track is cheaper.


    As I said, fully loaded with armor a halftrack could easily pass an Up-Armor on the highway....plus outperform off the road.

    Italian armored car is pretty CNN queen. It can't tow anything a military would need. It can't haul anything a military would need. It's a tiny armored coffin..any explosion and your skull will hit the side glass and your head will crack open. You can't be wearing full gear/helmet and even get into the drivers seat of the Italian armored coffin.


    """"""""Actually the Tiger-M has computerised engine control that manages heat sensors throughout the engine so even in very low temperatures they can safely start the engine without shattering it, or having to built a fire under it..."""""""

    Engine Block heater, battery heater for a diesel.....doesn't need computerised tech. These plug in block heaters existed for decades before computerised cars. No diesel engine needs a computer. Without ships full of money the US wouldn't be able to use their over complicated computerised diesels. Hordes of contracted mechanics....

    Go get the armored Italian coffin car and try to tow a Howitzer...offroad. Can't do it. It's just a pretty CNN drama queen car with no military purpose. Maybe it would make a good CIA/KGB/OMON special forces vehicle to sneak in, assassinate....and get out quick. But there were already armored cars for that purpose. Armored Japanese Hilux pickup is what everyone is using in Afghanistan...doesn't stand out as an armored car. Italian armored coffin maybe wouldn't stand out in Europe went shooting starts there for urban warfare.

    avatar
    NationalRus

    Posts : 631
    Points : 640
    Join date : 2010-04-11

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  NationalRus on Sun Aug 14, 2011 12:12 am

    are my english skills betryeing me but what exactly s it now, they "refuse" to obey a goverment order and contract or they "can't" build it becouse of legal issues?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16741
    Points : 17349
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  GarryB on Sun Aug 14, 2011 11:15 am

    Tracked vehicles are cheaper to build.

    You can't say that.

    Different vehicles in different roles REQUIRE different levels of mobility.

    A tank for instance needs to be able to operate on any terrain so tracks offer the best compromise in mobility and cost. A transport vehicle that operates on good roads tracks would never be considered because wheels are cheaper than any track layer and offer all the mobility needed.

    In maintainence alone a track is much harder to keep running than a wheeled vehicle, at to that the wear and tear on roads and increased fuel bill because it spends more time in lower gears than a wheeled vehicle and tracks are several times more expensive than wheels.

    The whole point of the BTR series armoured vehicles was a troop transport that was still armoured and amphibious, but it had to be cheap so it was 8 wheeled.
    They even made it high maintainence by putting in two engines that were each too underpowered to run the vehicle because it was cheaper than developing a new engine.
    The BTR-80 had a more powerful engine available so they used that which simplified the design.

    Did you notice there's nobody in the US making tires. All in China now. So if the US went into a lengthy multi-year war with China.....how would they have tires?

    Most computer hardware is not made in the US either... even if it is designed by US companies it is made in Taiwan or China or Malaysia or South Korea. China isn't the only country in the world making tires.

    A Half Track can easily handle many tons of weight for an armored car. Anything with tires on it can't handle weight of armor and ballistic glass, off road.

    A Halftrack has tires.

    Some of the heaviest vehicles in the world are actually wheeled.

    US Up-Armor Humvee was originally designed for Columbian drug lords. The US Army saw it and liked it so much they wanted some for themselves. The problem is....they can only handle the weight on roads. The minute you try to offroad with it the frame twists into a pretzel. You buy many many many parts....even have to replace frames. So.....half track is cheaper.

    Any vehicle designed as a car and then having tons of armour added without strengthening the structure properly will fail... unless the vehicle was over built in the first place.

    The real answer is to redesign the vehicle from scratch to allow for enormous weight increases... than means stronger frame and structure and transmission and engine improvements to allow for much more weight.

    The original concept of a half track was to develop a vehicle that was as simple to drive as a truck, but with the cross country mobility of a tank. The problem was that it also had the maintainence and running costs of a tank.

    The point is that a fully tracked vehicle can have a steering wheel and automatic transmission and be as easy to drive as a truck but with much better mobility.

    There is no reason to bother with half tracks now.

    As I said, fully loaded with armor a halftrack could easily pass an Up-Armor on the highway....plus outperform off the road.

    And cost 5-10 times more in maintainence and operating costs.

    Italian armored car is pretty CNN queen. It can't tow anything a military would need. It can't haul anything a military would need. It's a tiny armored coffin..any explosion and your skull will hit the side glass and your head will crack open. You can't be wearing full gear/helmet and even get into the drivers seat of the Italian armored coffin.

    These vehicles will not replace APCs... their purpose is not to perform missions of BTRs, their mission is better compared to BRDMs and even light unarmoured light vehicles like UAZ-469s. In many ways the Iveco is just an armoured SUV and that is what was required of it.

    In this case however they haven't got the licence production rights to all the components... otherwise it is exactly what they wanted.

    This vehicle is not for frontline military use, it is for police and paramilitary units to deploy and operate in. A recon unit might use it... remember the BDRM-2 was bulletproof and that was all but it was expected to operate all over the battlefield.
    The new Kornet-M system is based on this sort of light armoured vehicle.

    It is not safe from IEDs but then neither are tanks.

    Engine Block heater, battery heater for a diesel.....doesn't need computerised tech. These plug in block heaters existed for decades before computerised cars. No diesel engine needs a computer. Without ships full of money the US wouldn't be able to use their over complicated computerised diesels. Hordes of contracted mechanics....

    Well the Tigr has a computer to manage the engine and other systems on board the vehicle. Does it need them? Of course not. But it doesn't need a steering wheel either... they could go back to the old fashion levers.
    It will work better with a steering wheel and the engine will operate better with fuel flows monitored and temperatures checked.

    Go get the armored Italian coffin car and try to tow a Howitzer...offroad.

    They were not going to use it to tow weapons... they have plenty of MTLBs that can tow guns of all kinds plus carry crews and a load of ammo inside too.

    This Italian vehicle with all its foreign parts is selling well internationally and seems to be popular. It is not a tank nor is it an artillery tractor.

    are my english skills betryeing me but what exactly s it now, they "refuse" to obey a goverment order and contract or they "can't" build it becouse of legal issues?

    They are refusing to build it because they don't have the licence to build all the necessary components. They can build those components but will be subject to international legal action if they do. If the government makes them build them then they can blame the government and the government can sort it out.

    The thing is that Kamaz has a lot of business in the west for its trucks and other vehicles and I rather doubt they want to risk that by making what is basically an Italian vehicle.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3231
    Points : 3317
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  medo on Mon Aug 15, 2011 12:33 pm



    Modernized KAMAZ Vystrel-M from Russian army 19th motorized Brigade.

    Maybe Kamaz more likes to produce modernized vystrels in their production capacities, which is their own product, than Iveco LMV. But if MoD ordered and buy LMVs, than maybe any other company like GAZ could build them if Kamaz refuse.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16741
    Points : 17349
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  GarryB on Mon Aug 15, 2011 2:53 pm

    AFAIK the Iveco contract was for ten vehicles with an option for large scale production of several thousand.

    The BPM-97 is in the 10 ton weight class so it is really too heavy to consider a direct replacement of the Iveco M65, but then the Volk in the 7.5 ton range and the Tigr-M in the 5-6 ton class is much closer in terms of weight and performance.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16741
    Points : 17349
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  GarryB on Tue Aug 16, 2011 6:54 am

    BTW as the name suggests the BPM-97 is a patrol armoured vehicle rather than an APC replacement for the BTRs.

    The Iveco is more of an armoured SUV for use as a light patrol vehicle.

    Tigr is pretty much the same and in the Tigr-M version seems to be all Russian.

    The vehicle that KBP shows with twin 4 round Kornet-M launchers seems to be a Tigr-M, which would make it a good example of the sort of roles it would perform... the sort of thing the BRDM was used for.

    At 5-7 tons that is about right. At 10 tons the BPM-97 is getting close BTR weight of 14 tons, though the new BTRs will be in the 25 ton class (ie Kangaroo family of wheeled vehicles).
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3231
    Points : 3317
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  medo on Tue Aug 16, 2011 3:47 pm

    GarryB wrote:AFAIK the Iveco contract was for ten vehicles with an option for large scale production of several thousand.

    The BPM-97 is in the 10 ton weight class so it is really too heavy to consider a direct replacement of the Iveco M65, but then the Volk in the 7.5 ton range and the Tigr-M in the 5-6 ton class is much closer in terms of weight and performance.


    I know that Vystrel is not a replacement for Iveco LMV, but it is Kamaz product and maybe Kamaz want to produce their own Vystrel and not just putting together components of Iveco LMVs. Maybe Kamaz would be more interested, if they could produce all components for LMVs, but it seems there is a problem for licence of non-Italian components.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16741
    Points : 17349
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  GarryB on Wed Aug 17, 2011 6:32 am

    I am pretty sure that Kamaz has the capacity to make over one and a half thousand Ivecos over the next 5 years as planned and also make plenty of Vystrels and other vehicles too.

    The simple fact is that Kamaz realises that while it has permission to licence produce the M65 from Italy that the vehicle is made of parts from other countries including Germany and the US and so while they have Ivecos permission to make the vehicle they don't have permission to make the foreign components too.

    The foreign components include the ceramic armour and the engine so without those components the vehicle is pointless, and worse still if they made them without permission the makers of the components could sue Kamaz, which would be bad for business and might effect their sales performance in certain vehicle markets where they currently make a lot of money.

    The US engine alone could result in the engine maker going to congress and getting an import ban on all Kamaz products into the US. Germany could do the same with the EU.

    And for what?

    So that Kamaz can licence produce an Italian vehicle?

    I am sure they would rather make Russian vehicles.

    Personally I think the best solution would be to make the ten vehicles for the contract and then sell them to an existing user of the vehicle type cheaply to recover some of the costs and then mass produce something like the Tigr-M or a Russian equivelent where there are no licensing issues.

    With the French PVP... this is in a much lighter weight range... and there are less likely to be issues with foreign components because the French tend to use French components.

    If the Russian industry can make a comparable vehicle then put that in production, otherwise make buy the licence for the PVP.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Infantry Mobility Vehicles

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Nov 24, 2017 1:23 am