Future variants of Bionix?
-
I believe that there can be other variants of the Bionix to be developed such as the light tank version if we are not already working on it. AN anti-aircraft version similar to that of the CV9040 Anti-Aircraft Vehicle (AAV) but with Igla missiles can be used to replace what we are now using to defend airbases.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/cv90/ -
Haha my fav IFV, anyway for light tank ours will most likely be based no e bionix chasis but it will most likely be another class rather then another version of e bionix as for air defence e SAM version of e M113 is very new unlikely 2 be replaced or else built them for wat
-
I hope to see an ATGW version with 4 Spike /NT-D launchers and reloads carried internally. This would add bite to our armoured forces in an attack against well-defended positions.Originally posted by tankee1981:I believe that there can be other variants of the Bionix to be developed such as the light tank version if we are not already working on it. AN anti-aircraft version similar to that of the CV9040 Anti-Aircraft Vehicle (AAV) but with Igla missiles can be used to replace what we are now using to defend airbases.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/cv90/
The present M113 with 4 SA-18 missiles is unsatisfactory in my opinion. When the new light tanks enter service to operate alongside the Bionix IFV fleet, a mobile and well armoured mobile SAM would be needed. The M113 cannot keep up with these fast and fuel efficient AFVs. An air defence version of the Bionix with 8 SA-18 missiles in lieu of just 4 or even other more capable missiles like the Barak(10km) or Crotale VT-2(16km) would be a welcome addition to provide short range air defence for our advancing armour.
A light tank based on a Bionix? Not a good idea. Remember the weight and recoil problems faced by ST Kinetics when a 120mm gun on a turret made by Oto Melara was fitted on a Bionix trial vehicle? An IFV is just not meant to be designed as a tank however much the modifications. Why then do we not see light tank versions of the Bradley, Warrior or BMP-3 if they were so effective? A purpose designed chassis such as the M8 AGS would be a good choice. In fact I hope the SAF goes with this option which is competing with the UCVP chassis from General Dynamics and the Bionix chassis.
With regional armies fielding tanks like the ASCOD 105mm armed light tank, Scorpion 90 light tank or PT-91Z main battle tank, no compromise on our choice for a truly effective AFV can be made. -
First ATGM version unlikely cos no demand for it yet at lest for now, then i feel a gd air defence system should combine gun n SAM like e wildcat turret with 2 30mm gun n 4 clip-on SAM like mistral,stinger or SA-18 or any 2 type of SAM its desiged 2 fitted on2 most IFV/AFV maybe we can use something like tat
-
How about one that can swim without all that extra gear?
-
As for e light tank we r no using e chasiss of e bionix but a chasiss based on it desige so it will look like it but is heavier .
-
What makes you think the M113 cannot keep up with the Bionix???
If the M113 used is the Ultra version, then there is absolutely no problem whatsoever. In any case, there is no need for an air defense vehicle to be directly in line with the Bionix. Their role will be to support from behind, at the rear echelon.
BTW, I have experienced the old M113 before back in NS, and believe me, in the hands of a "garang" driver, it can give you a hell of a ride!!!!!!
My M113 driver can even do drifting....Originally posted by ^Delta^:I hope to see an ATGW version with 4 Spike /NT-D launchers and reloads carried internally. This would add bite to our armoured forces in an attack against well-defended positions.
The present M113 with 4 SA-18 missiles is unsatisfactory in my opinion. When the new light tanks enter service to operate alongside the Bionix IFV fleet, a mobile and well armoured mobile SAM would be needed. The M113 cannot keep up with these fast and fuel efficient AFVs. An air defence version of the Bionix with 8 SA-18 missiles in lieu of just 4 or even other more capable missiles like the Barak(10km) or Crotale VT-2(16km) would be a welcome addition to provide short range air defence for our advancing armour.
A light tank based on a Bionix? Not a good idea. Remember the weight and recoil problems faced by ST Kinetics when a 120mm gun on a turret made by Oto Melara was fitted on a Bionix trial vehicle? An IFV is just not meant to be designed as a tank however much the modifications. Why then do we not see light tank versions of the Bradley, Warrior or BMP-3 if they were so effective? A purpose designed chassis such as the M8 AGS would be a good choice. In fact I hope the SAF goes with this option which is competing with the UCVP chassis from General Dynamics and the Bionix chassis.
With regional armies fielding tanks like the ASCOD 105mm armed light tank, Scorpion 90 light tank or PT-91Z main battle tank, no compromise on our choice for a truly effective AFV can be made. -
Just that the steering is not so... automated. Unlike the new BX.
-
Actually both steers the same way, just that the bx has both differentials linked to a steering wheel. If you ever got to open a bx up and have a hacksaw in hand, you could ruin its steering just by sawing off that thin diameter of a differential link. But most of us just choose to loosen the screws on that damn thing to give the driver a hard time keeping it straight.
-
So are there to be no more further development of the Bionix? What about the variant which we develop to compete in the US? I think its called the ICV and can be transported by C-130.
-
Why not mount Rapier on the BX?Is that possible?
-
But we are phasing out Rapier soon so unlikely. Further more its not easy to fit the Rapier onto BX as the whole system quite big, alot of modifications and trials will be necessary.
-
Rapier consists of multiple components doesn't it? Search Radar, Fire control radar, Optical tracker, launch unit and power supply??
Which means it would need multiple BXs to carry the whole system.
Besides, the Rapier isn't a close air defence system, so no point really in mounting on BXs. Medium range systems can be moved far behind FLOT relatively safely without being armored up. -
Preferably one that can swim without all that extra gear.
-
Hmmm.....I read from previous post, Singapore is believed to have purchase the crotale next GEN. I was thinking it is designed to be able to mount on tracks. BTW, I was thinking why SAF never thought of getting the Russian PANTSYR-1 air defense system? It out range most NATO systems
-
Hmm, how bout mounting a Vulcan or Avenger gun on the BX as well as a fire control and tracking station. Ha, the Vulcan or Avenger will definitely scare the shit outta any aircraft flying low.
-
Vulcan gatling guns are out of the question. Uses ammo too fast, low pK. I was thinking more of short ranged vertical launched radar guided missile platform.
Search and tracking radar on 1 platform, and missile rack on another. Because its vertical launch, u dun need a turret and use the space to house more missiles. -
Anyway vulcan range of 1.25km 2 short liao
-
Having a vulcan have an additional advantage as it can be used against ground targets as well unlike SAMs.
However, having such a rapid firing gun uses ammo very quickly. So having a rapid firing cannon will be more ideal. This way both land and air targets can be engaged. Effective range may be increased as well.
An example: CV9040 AAV -
Basically u mean a tunguska type vehicle? Both guns and missiles and radar on 1 platform?Originally posted by tankee1981:Having a vulcan have an additional advantage as it can be used against ground targets as well unlike SAMs.
However, having such a rapid firing gun uses ammo very quickly. So having a rapid firing cannon will be more ideal. This way both land and air targets can be engaged. Effective range may be increased as well.
An example: CV9040 AAV -
That will be ideal. The vehicle then can provide short range anti-air support to the armoured forces much like the new Igla M113. This can be used to defend airbases as well and thus replacing the RBS-70 on V200 and the immobile guns. Definitely worth some consideration due to its versatility.
-
I still prefer e wildcat air defence turret
-
Hmm, why not seperate it into a multi vehicle system than to squeeze guns, missiles n tracking radar in to bx?
2 Vertical Launch Missile BX, 1 Gun BX, 1 Radar BX, Can form small multilayer AD umbrella liao. -
yaya I agree with you too me from M113 batt..........Its really depend on the driver skill....What I like about M113 is that going to swim no need to do so much preparation work......faster.........Originally posted by warspite:What makes you think the M113 cannot keep up with the Bionix???
If the M113 used is the Ultra version, then there is absolutely no problem whatsoever. In any case, there is no need for an air defense vehicle to be directly in line with the Bionix. Their role will be to support from behind, at the rear echelon.
BTW, I have experienced the old M113 before back in NS, and believe me, in the hands of a "garang" driver, it can give you a hell of a ride!!!!!!
My M113 driver can even do drifting....
And the best thing is M113 looks so cute just like matchbox....... -
Prob with M113 is the stupid profile is too tall. CG is dam high. Bigger and more obvious target, as well as flip risk.
Btw, any idea if they plan to make a SCOUT version of the BX? IE, BX with signals intercept equipment, enhanced optics etc.