PDA

View Full Version : Fenneks, Leo 2s and CV90s going cheap



The real Jack
18th December 2013, 17:28
The Netherlands Ministry of Defence (MoD) is planning to sell 44 BAE Systems CV9035NL infantry fighting vehicles following the new cuts in the defence budget.
The Royal Netherlands Army (RNLA) had disposed of Leopard 2A6 main battle tanks, a limited number of PzH2000 self-propelled howitzers and 40 anti-tank configured Fenneks due to budget cutbacks in 2011, according to Shephard.
Since then the Fenneks are stored in a former United States Army Europe Prepositioned Organisational Materiel Site (POMS) site, along with 116 Leopard II and 32 PzH2000s.
MoD also intends to sell most of the heavy equipment, which is stored in its facilities, and also plans to use as a source of spare parts, to support the fleet of Leopard II based support vehicles such as Kodiak armoured engineering vehicle and Buffel recovery vehicle.
The vehicles, which are expected to be put up for sale, are currently part of the 45th mechanised infantry battalion and include CV90s and another 35 Krauss-Maffei Wegmann Fenneks, apart from stored vehicles.

The Dutch Defence Minister Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert has revealed the disintegration of infantry unit based in Ermelo, as part of personnel and equipment reductions within all three services.

MoD plans to retain defence forces, which are fully funded, and are able to operate in the full spectrum of military operations, according to Hennis-Plasschaert.

Netherlands is also planning to sell 12 new wheeled Boxer armoured vehicles, which are infantry battalion, and yet to be delivered and are scheduled to join the infantry battalion.

In 2004, MoD had ordered 184 CV9035NL IFVs to replace the ageing YPR765A1 and eight CV90 driver training vehicles

http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsnetherlands-sell-cv90-vehicles

The article is from september, the finns have bought a couple hundred of the leopards for about €2m a piece, it's a pity we've already got the LTAVs as those fenneks are probably cheap as **** now.
.

Schmigs
18th December 2013, 20:40
All i want for Christmas is ... 24 L2A6's, 8 PzH2000, and a hovertank in a pear tree.

It would be nice though...

DeV
18th December 2013, 21:30
Fennek would have 2 disadvantages, say we equipped the Cav Sqns with some. They would have Fennek, LATVs & MOWAGs (2 versions) - way too complex for a smaller DF. Plus the anti-armour Fennek is equipped with Spike (not Javelin) and only carries 5 missiles.

Now Leopards for 1 ACS that is a different matter :)

madmark
18th December 2013, 22:02
cv 9035 to replace the scorpions...... oh ya we are broke nuts may be next time

Jetjock
18th December 2013, 22:18
Plus the anti-armour Fennek is equipped with Spike (not Javelin) and only carries 5 )

If you need to engage more than 5 tanks with a Fennek or any other scout vehicle, you're in the wrong war.

ropebag
18th December 2013, 22:22
cv 9035 to replace the scorpions...... oh ya we are broke nuts may be next time

the Danish CV9035's were very, very popular with UK forces in Afghanistan - they seemed to have good reliability, and lots of firepower. if you wanted a dependable, effective and air transportable 'stick' to take to some of the less desirable locations currently on offer, the CV90 would be a very good place to start. 35mm, it turns out, makes a right fcuking mess of most things...

sofa
18th December 2013, 22:45
What was the opinion on the Swedish cv 90s in Liberia? Didn't they carry a 40mm weapon

DeV
18th December 2013, 23:23
cv 9035 to replace the scorpions...... oh ya we are broke nuts may be next time
Forgot about them


If you need to engage more than 5 tanks with a Fennek or any other scout vehicle, you're in the wrong war.

Maybe recce anti-armour screen


What was the opinion on the Swedish cv 90s in Liberia? Didn't they carry a 40mm weapon

They do

Rhodes
18th December 2013, 23:50
MOWAGs (2 versions)

There is six variants in service but they are all Piranha IIIH.

The Army hasn't purchased seconded hand armoured vehicles since the Comet's and hopefully that continues.
I wonder what the sale price of twelve new Boxer APC's is.

DeV
19th December 2013, 00:42
Yes the 2 particular versions I was referring to being the CRV and MRV (the fit being different meaning crews may not be interchangible)

madmark
19th December 2013, 08:14
Yes the 2 particular versions I was referring to being the CRV and MRV (the fit being different meaning crews may not be interchangible)

thats like saying a rifleperson and the gpmg gunner re not interchangeable.

Jetjock
19th December 2013, 08:20
The Army hasn't purchased seconded hand armoured vehicles since the Comet's and hopefully that continues.
.

Have you read any newspapers since 2008? EU,IMF, Troika?? This kit is vastly superior to anything the DF has or is likely to be written into any tender document for the next 25 years.

DeV
19th December 2013, 12:00
thats like saying a rifleperson and the gpmg gunner re not interchangeable.

I'm not sure about the interior working of the MRV and CRV, but I do know one is a RWS and the other has a turret (so I assume that they aren't exactly the same?). Are troopers trained on both on the relevant course?

If a rifleperson hasn't done the GPMG, they aren't.

ropebag
19th December 2013, 12:22
If a rifleperson hasn't done the GPMG, they aren't.

if any soldier needs more than 2 minutes playing with a GPMG to get it to fire lots and lots of whizzy-bangs in broadly the direction he wants them to go in, then i'd question that soldiers ability to tie shoelaces, use velcro and lick ice cream.

its a gun: it has a pointy end, a blunt end, a trigger, a bolt, a belt of ammunition and a numbered wheel to determine how fast it goes. this is not rocket science.

ODIN
19th December 2013, 13:06
I'm not sure about the interior working of the MRV and CRV, but I do know one is a RWS and the other has a turret (so I assume that they aren't exactly the same?). Are troopers trained on both on the relevant course?

If a rifleperson hasn't done the GPMG, they aren't.

Back in the AML days, PDF crews were trained in both 90 and 20 versions of the turrets, and given the size of Cavalry Corps, it'd be crazy not to have crews trained on both platforms

DeV
19th December 2013, 13:36
if any soldier needs more than 2 minutes playing with a GPMG to get it to fire lots and lots of whizzy-bangs in broadly the direction he wants them to go in, then i'd question that soldiers ability to tie shoelaces, use velcro and lick ice cream.

its a gun: it has a pointy end, a blunt end, a trigger, a bolt, a belt of ammunition and a numbered wheel to determine how fast it goes. this is not rocket science.


Back in the AML days, PDF crews were trained in both 90 and 20 versions of the turrets, and given the size of Cavalry Corps, it'd be crazy not to have crews trained on both platforms

I agree, I don't if it is the case or not.

But knowing the DF it is probably 2 separate courses

Jungle
19th December 2013, 13:44
If a rifleperson hasn't done the GPMG, they aren't.

Rifleperson ?? Is that the new, politically-correct way, to call a Rifleman ? What's next: waterpersonship ?? ;)

BTW, here's my favourite definition of political correctness:


A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
Attributed to a student at Texas A&M University pre 2006

madmark
19th December 2013, 17:58
I'm not sure about the interior working of the MRV and CRV,
that answers my next question. if you have done the CRV/LATV the next step is the MRV. come on dev are you telling us you only ever done one weapon system. please tell us you are not a ponti (Person Of No Tatical Importance).

DeV
19th December 2013, 20:01
I was talking more about the sensors and operating systems etc

madmark
19th December 2013, 21:00
I was talking more about the sensors and operating systems etc

so am i

DeV
19th December 2013, 22:25
so am i

So is the controls of the turret the same as the RWS?

madmark
19th December 2013, 22:51
basic fire control unit is the same it only takes a few weeks to get a gunner and commander trained on LATV/CRV and MRV

Turkey
20th December 2013, 13:58
Do me a favour, Mister Real Jack, could you stop posting in that, err, colour, I am not racist, I just can't read it on my mobile, thanks, like ........

The real Jack
20th December 2013, 14:12
Do me a favour, Mister Real Jack, could you stop posting in that, err, colour, I am not racist, I just can't read it on my mobile, thanks, like ........

Sorry that was a copy and paste fail probably, looks fine in VB4 default, does look a bit unreadable in the IMO theme. Does this post have the same issue?

morpheus
20th December 2013, 14:13
Couldve said yes just to mess with your head....

but in the spirit of christmas

nope - thats a lot better

madmark
20th December 2013, 14:14
no its fine now

GoneToTheCanner
21st December 2013, 16:06
There's nothing wrong with buying second-hand provided they have been stored properly. Airlines buy, sell and lease second-hand aircraft every day of the week and that works fine.
regards
GttC

ropebag
21st December 2013, 19:32
There's nothing wrong with buying second-hand provided they have been stored properly. Airlines buy, sell and lease second-hand aircraft every day of the week and that works fine.
regards
GttC

absolutely - theres buying second hand, and theres buying outdated, obsolete, utterly ranted crap thats fit only for the scrap yard under the guise of 'value'.

i take it no one thinks Australia is in the Oxfam shop of Defence capability because they bought a 5 year old, 16,000 ton landing ship for £65 million?

to be frank, if its good enough for a country with 100 F/A-18's, 12 Frigates and 30-odd other Naval vessels, then its good enough for Ireland.

hptmurphy
21st December 2013, 23:11
The irony in this basement bargain sale being the ship that was /is being built to carry the now deleted army capacity is still going ahead albeit with its raison d'Etre removed.

Any one like to buy a 6000 tonne semi redundant car ferry?

Australia is far from the oxfam shop with new Aegis equiped Spanish build Destroyers in the offing along with something akin to the Invincible class carrier albeit without a fixed air wing.

TangoSierra
21st December 2013, 23:35
The new Dutch vessel is being completed so it can be rented for purpose

ropebag
22nd December 2013, 10:03
...Australia is far from the oxfam shop with new Aegis equiped Spanish build Destroyers in the offing along with something akin to the Invincible class carrier albeit without a fixed air wing.

indeed, and to carry the example further the UK is buying second hand RC-135's, the F-4 Phantoms of the 70's, 80's and 90's were second hand, certain specialist land capabilities have been bought second hand in the last few years and used with great success on operations overseas, 6 of the RAF's Merlin fleet are second hand, and the currently in-service Tristar tankers were second hand, as were the recently retired VC-10's.

nobody, i assume, thinks that the UK's purchase of the occasional second hand capability indicates that it, with 150 nuclear warheads, 13 nuclear submarines, 19 Frigates and Destroyers, 200+ fast jets, 90 medium lift helicopters and enough long range transport aircraft to move a full airborne Bde and its equipment in one go, is in the bargain basement of defence capability?

if this kit, or any other kit, is servicable and will remain so for a significant period of time, is effective, will plug a gap or provide an increase in required capability and will do so at much less than 'as new' cost, then i see nothing wrong with it - buying a 30 year old patrol ship thats falling apart is another matter, but no one is suggesting that...

hptmurphy
22nd December 2013, 18:40
Buying second hand proven technology is a very canny move if you can provide the support for it and integrate it into the existing set up and not end up with a huge mixed bag of stuff without logistical support.

Given that the likes of the Netherlands and Belguim who were some of the originators of NATO are now scaling down en masse as it was their geographical locations that made sense that they were part on Nato given the percieved threat was Warsaw Pact Based.

As the aspirant nations such as the Baltics States, Poland , Romania Hungary etc. are now the newer members and are picking up the cast offs from all the older members, will this lead to a two tier NATO as clearly these contries don't have the ability to buy into newer technology. In the past it was Greece and Turkey who were the 'dumping ground for cast offs' but Greece can hardly maintain its standing force let alone participate in any NATO led mission.

With future withdrawal from Afghanistan is NATO now in its twilight years, the Americans seem to be far more interested in the Chinese and Koreans as they have been badly burnt with their last major outings with NATO allies.

The UK can't afford to go it alone, and as we have seen with the Dutch offload many more may follow.

Interesting times.

sofa
22nd December 2013, 21:10
Australia also bought a load of 2nd hand Abrams MBT from the US latey

sofa
22nd December 2013, 21:13
absolutely - theres buying second hand, and theres buying outdated, obsolete, utterly ranted crap thats fit only for the scrap yard under the guise of 'value'.

i take it no one thinks Australia is in the Oxfam shop of Defence capability because they bought a 5 year old, 16,000 ton landing ship for £65 million?

to be frank, if its good enough for a country with 100 F/A-18's, 12 Frigates and 30-odd other Naval vessels, then its good enough for Ireland.

Also bought a load of 2nd hand Abrams MBTs from the US not to lang ago.