NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/pandurII/images/PandurII2.jpg

The LRRA has recieved the first of a planned 5,000 APC-5 wheeled armored personnel carriers, delivered to the LRRA rapid deployment force.

The APC-5 has the same weaknesses that reside in all wheeled combat vehicles, but it is very fast, at 125km/h, and has a low ground pressure, as well as armor which can withstand multiple RPG impacts. The hybrid diesel/electric engine, a downscaled version of the L&F SHD-9L which powers the SEP (of which the LRRA operates ~50,000 of all variants) provides plenty of torque for getting through snow and rough terrain impassible by other wheeled vehicles. The drive system also has a very low CO2 output, low thermal signature, and a high reliability and fuel efficcency.

The APC-5 is air-droppable, NBC protected, and fully amphibious. The driver, commander, and gunner are equipped with thermal imaging for night operations, and an advanced command and control system is included as well.

The APC-5 is generally armed with a 30mm cannon and two Spike-LR missiles, but 8x8 versions generally come with the AMOS mortar system, with a maximum range of 15km. Infantry teams deployed with the vehicle would probably carry a starstreak HVM missile or other anti-aircraft weaponry.

The APC-5 can carry 8 lightly equipped troops, or perhaps 4-6 heavily equipped troops (as opposed to the SEP's 15/10 and 12/8). Four firing pots are provided, and hatches over the troop compartment can be opened for wider coverage or anti-aircraft shooting on the go.

The APC-5 can make 10km/h in water, and fire while in water as well.

Warning systems and decoy launchers are mounted on the turret, which enhances the vehicle's survivability.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/pandurII/images/PandurII3.jpg

An APC-5 driving across a river.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/pandurII/images/PandurII8.jpg

An APC-5 8x8 crossing muddy terrain.

Price is negotiable.

[OOC - If you can get that number of troops carried up to eleven like current APC, I will buy the design from you for six billion guynms along with the contract not to sell any APCs I create from that design. Sound fair, you can still sell them, and you get six billion guynms.]

Paradroping a nearly 30,000lb APC? Pushing it, to say the least...

Paradroping a nearly 30,000lb APC? Pushing it, to say the least...

You can airdrop a tank, why not an APC?

Paradroping a nearly 30,000lb APC? Pushing it, to say the least...


If you can paradrop the 13,000kg BMP-3, why not the 13,000kg pandur?

And the sheridan weighs even more.

Few good chutes and retro-rockets. No problem. :cool:

Yeah! I mean, its not that hard.

You can throw the bradley out the back of a C-130, so you can at least do that with a little Pandur.

Are the production rights purchasible?

Wed like to purchase 500.






Good target practice for various chainguns.

Bisons, you can use my pre-gutted APC's for that.....

Wed like to purchase 500.






Good target practice for various chainguns.

I was thinking about buying some GT-6s for ATGM target practice...

Come on people! And especially you, Bisons. Just because its wheeled doesn't mean its worthless. It has a longer striking range than a tank.

Coudl I get an answer on production rights?

No production rights!

Seriously, the LRRA has only just got them. And by the way, its mostly a recon or fire support vehicle in practice.

And there's only 5,000 in service, hardly forming the bulk of the land force.

No production rights!

Seriously, the LRRA has only just got them. And by the way, its mostly a recon or fire support vehicle in practice.

And there's only 5,000 in service, hardly forming the bulk of the land force.
I see. We will take 100 please. Money will be wired upon confirmation.

I see. We will take 100 please. Money will be wired upon confirmation.

Ok...100 it is then.

Ok...100 it is then.
What price would you see as reasonable?

Erm...I dunno. 100 million for the whole batch of whatever versions.

ATGMs have been taken into account, and if they dont get shot down by 7.62mm miniguns, jammed, or knocked of course, their electronics will simply be fired by a nice mini-laser.

Hey, thats my technology!

And all of those systems make for a wildly expensive, gigantic tank that is only really at home in flat, open territory. The standard LRRA anti-tank missile, the Spike series, has a maximum range of 8 kilometers with the vehicle-carried ER variant, 4km with the LR variant, and 2.5km with the two-man portable MR variant.

The last time I checked, the ER variant (standard on all LRRA T-SEP personnel carrier variants) has a maximum range 1km longer than the striking range of the GT-6.

The 15km maximum range Hellfire II, deployed on T-SEP fire support vehicle variants and Bv-206TR missile carrier vehicles, can, again the best I know, hit the GT-6 a full 8km before it can strike back. And its fire and forget, so even if the missile doesn't hit the firing team will be well out of harm's way by the time the target can think of striking back.

The Nimrod missile, a very large ATGM deployed on specialized Bv-206T (modified NA-110) tracked carriers, can hit targets 25 kilometers away. The Pzh-2000 self-propelled howitzer can hit targets 40km away, as can a wide range of much cheaper howitzers. And then there's the 60km Polyphem, deployed on truck launchers (not in terribly large numbers, albeit, being an expensive platform), which can hit 40km artillery (such as the 2S1) with a good 15 kilometers to spare.

The AMOS mortar system, deployable on a wide range of wheeled and tracked platforms, has a maximum range of 15 kilometers, 8km longer than the range at which the GT-6 can strike targets, and you don't have to worry about jamming because it fires KE rounds at a very high rate, and while its not as accurate as a missile, it has the plus side of being jam-proof.

Now the GT-6 is the epitome of modern tanks, I have no question about it (even though I still have no idea how you get the power to run all those systems and still have a low profile), but what I am saying is that its usefulness is limited, and with proper tactics an armored assault can always be stopped cold by a defending force with good training and equipment.

If you were ever to try to attack LRR, your armored formations would likely have a very tough time in the terrain (think scottish highlands...not much forest but very hilly, foggy, and rocky), and considering ever since LRR got started the army had been trained to repulse an attack by the Bisons/Dark Terror/Iron Blood, it would be a close fight.

In fact, the reason why the LRRA only operates a few armored divisions is because tanks are not an effective fighting force in LRR terrain, where they can be channeled into a few routes, making the big machines easy targets for light attack helicopters, attack planes, missiles, and artillery. And with a large amount of missiles (say 10-15 per ambush, triple or quadruple that number if the attack meets a standing defense) concentrated on the first few tanks or armored vehicles in a column, any anti-missile system would be overwhelmed.

Add to that lack of air superiority and LRRA artillery, and any attacking force would be in trouble.

However, if you monitored the LRRA's experiences in Korea, the army was hard pressed to hold back a massive infantry attack, and only with tank support could the line be held. See, out of LRR terrain, the LRRA and all the LRRMFs are a somewhat unwieldy fighting force. The idea of the APC-5 is to give the army a vehicle that can cope with the severely restricted overseas logistics capabilities and still be useful in combat.