An 8×8 for less than four hundred thousand million gazillion

661

The Polish and Slovakian governments have agreed terms for Slovakia to purchase 30 Rosomak armoured vehicles.

From the Ministry of National Defence Republic of Poland;

Within the next three years Slovakia will buy 30 armoured vehicles Rosomak. As Prime Minister Ewa Kopacz informed on Friday, in the factory in Siemianowice Śląskie, this company will get over 120 mln zloty

The letter of intent was signed today.

Slovakia Poland Rosomak

The deal will be between the Polish Armaments Group and the Slovakian company, Electrotechnical Research Company Nova Dubnica (EPVU). The base vehicle will be a version of the Polish Rosomak (a licence built Patria AMV) fitted with a Slovakian turret and electro-optical and fire control system called the Turra 30.

A neat piece of industrial and technical cooperation that sees both counties benefit.

The Turra 30 is a 50/50 development between Slovakia and the Czech Republic designed to offer a modern upgrade path for Soviet era vehicles which can use either the Russian 2A42 or ATK Bushmaster cannon and Spike or Konkurs ATGW’s

The KTO Rosomak has seen action in Afghanistan and is available in all the usual variants, it is widely considered to be an excellent vehicle.

All very good, but is it me, or is that price totally out of whack with our normal expectations?

Assuming the reported figures are correct, that is just over £20 million for 30 base vehicles, let’s just say three-quarters of a million each, which is not far off one-tenth of the cost of an SV Scout, give or take. Different vehicles I know, but still interesting from a comparison perspective.

Perhaps the Polish government are subsidising the deal, or it has been reported incorrectly, because to be honest, am somewhat taken abake at the numbers.

How many FV432’s are still in service?

Wonder if it meets UK specific requirements*

H/T Snafu

 

 

*That was a joke of course

 

newest oldest most voted
Notify of
mr.fred
mr.fred

What are we supposed to be comparing? Do we have a base vehicle cost for SV?

secundius

Look’s eerily like the New USMC Lockheed-Marine “Havoc”-AMV 8×8 Marine Personnel Carrier…

Observer
Observer

A lot of 8x8s look alike. There are only so many ways to make a “car” after all.

120 million for 30, so that is 4 million per. About 680 thousand pounds per. I take the deviation from other vehicles as the difference in labour and material costs, it’s still pretty reasonable.

duker
duker

Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia ?, South Africa ( with more underfloor amour) have the Patria based vehicle.
Havoc is LM-Patria version for USMC

secundius

@ duker.

I know that the USMC is interested in mounting the TDA Armaments DRAGON FIRE automated 120mm Mortar System into the Vehicle with the Saab Bofor Dynamics Pansarsprangvinggramat M/94 Strix Long-Range Guided Mortar Projectile. That SBD, claims can take-out the Russian T-14 Armata Main Battle Tank for ranges of ~7,500-meters…

secundius

@ mr. fred.

The Turra 30, is not a Vehicle, it’s a 30mm Remote Gun Mount. But the Patria-AMV, Vehicle base line price in 2015 USD is ~$2,198,982.45/vehicle. The cost for the Polish KTO-Rosomack 8×8 in 2016 USD is ~$2,334,660.00/vehicle…

mr.fred
mr.fred

secundius,
The cost for the turret is not mentioned since it would be in Koruna or Euro (Czech or Slovakian). The cost in Polish Zloty is for the base vehicle, but it isn’t exactly clear what this includes or excludes, so it is difficult to compare with the SV cost as it isn’t always clear what that includes or excludes.

Observer
Observer

secundius, thought the Dragon Fire project was scrapped years ago? Only one prototype was built and it is gathering dust in a location I forgot.

stephen duckworth

No miss print , from The defence ministry of Poland’s own web site.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://en.mon.gov.pl/&sa=U&ei=MMKXVcqNA-vXygOFlIaQCg&ved=0CAsQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNHSf_M8pifm_s0f952VuGJ5rcHYDQ
Even as an running chassis , no electronics , no comms , no defensive systems even just a rolling metal box circa 1950’s fit out but 2010’s armour and resistance ,still a massive bargain in todays world. How much is A Foxhound?

mr.fred
mr.fred

monkey,
The price may be right, but what does it include and how you compare that to a SV or a Foxhound?
Is it a running chassis? It’s possible that the engines and even the wheels are contracted separately.
Is the armour included? The AMV is a steel monocoque to which armour is added.
A bargain can only be a bargain if you know what you are getting for the money.

stephen duckworth

@mr.fred
True it could be just a £650k metal box and then not such a bargain. As with all these military orders actually what is supplied is concealed and obfuscated . The impression given by GDSL in its bid and response from to the MoD that the Scout SV would be ‘British to its bootstraps ‘ for our £3.5bn implying significant UK job share . Now it seems we free issue the 40mm to the appropriate variants and more UK involvement will involve a renegotiation. Various spares and servicing packages are/ are not in various military procurement programmes further clouding the issue. Time for a new DEFSTAN on the format and content of military procurement so true side by side comparisons can made?

Observer
Observer

I’ve learned not to compare costs with other countries, for one, you got no idea what they included or excluded and for another, no matter how low you go, there is always someone out there getting X,Y or Z cheaper than what you got.

Brian Black
Brian Black

The Havoc vehicle was withdrawn from the USMC program a while ago.

I think it just didn’t swim as well as the other contenders.

The Marine’s program took a three tiered approach to the swim capability. Havoc was submitted for the first phase capability only; but other vehicles in competition have exceeded the requirements for the first phase, and have met the advanced second phase requirements too.

It’s expected that the phase 1 and phase 2 requirements will now be met by the same vehicle from the current evaluation process, leaving LM’s little tank dead in the water.

The third phase of the program is for a capability approaching that of the now defunct EFV.

Perun
Perun

KTO Rosomak cost for Polish Army was about 4-5 mln zł per one, depends on version. (without turret) Last year order for 370 units in base version costs about, 1mld 650 mln zł so almost 4.5 mln zł per one.

stephen duckworth

@Perun
Thanks for the update. 4.5 m zlotys’ is £765k by my reckoning, a bargain. We bought 25 Foxhounds for £30m or £1.2m each for a 2+4 4×4 light MRAP with no armaments. £765k for a 2+8 , 8×8 light MRAP with no armaments seems good to me.

Barborossa
Barborossa

You have to wonder don’t you… Might well fit in nicely, replacing all those knackered mastiff’s etc and replacing the Bulldogs… Get a bit of industrial offset going and it could be a winner.

mr.fred
mr.fred

I rather like the AMV and buying the base vehicle off an existing production line would doubtless save money, while fitting out for armour, electronics, comms and weapons can be done in the UK.
However, it remains very difficult to compare purchases of military equipment without knowing what they include. £1.2m vs. £0.76m is a compelling figure, but without the detail, it is not the whole story.

secundius

@ Observer.

As far as I know Dragon Fire is being privately invested, not government. There’s another series of scheduled test firing’s in the summer of 2015. I can’t be anymore specific then that…

secundius

@ mr. fred.

Poland’s Zloty, is keep that secret close to their inside-vest pocket…

ArmChairCivvy
ArmChairCivvy

Dragon Fire II

ArmChairCivvy
ArmChairCivvy
ArmChairCivvy
ArmChairCivvy

I wonder if the Rosomak deal runs both ways, as the Polish ones are to get turrets with Spikes plenty quick. This news piece names Polish companies for the project, but that could be the integration and testing bit only
http://www.defence24.com/213101,rosomak-with-spike-missiles-matter-of-the-upcoming-months

In a gvmnt-to-gvmnt deal of roughly equal value it is possible that the costing has been “open book” i.e. audited production costs with no profit. What is in it for the companies? If the gvmnts pay for development, integration and testing, then the profitability of any further exports would be enhanced.

PhillEeeeeeee
PhillEeeeeeee

@ Monkey – The ‘British to its Bootstraps’ was always a wonderful sound bite that would come back to bite GDUK in the ass. Outside of BAE, nearly every major UK defence supplier has a foreign name above the door. Lockheed, General Electric, Thales… It’s still a vehicle with a lot of British engineering, and I think that’ll be part of the PR push come DSEi.

Observer
Observer

secundius, the first time I heard of Dragon Fire was in 2002-3. It has been 12 years. The original EFSS was even replaced by a low tech wheeled mortar.

It has been too long. I’ll believe it when I see it. IIRC this came in about the same time as the “pancake tank” concept. Asking someone to believe that “it is coming soon” might work better if the person had not been waiting for 12 years already.

And on an even more problematic note, I don’t see a US military “Need for” for a mechanized/motorized 120mm mortar, especially when they still got heaps and heaps of Paladins.

secundius

@ Observer.

As far as I’m aware a MEU doesn’t have any M109 Paladin’s aboard ship. Towed M777 Yes, but No SPG…

mr.fred
mr.fred

If you wanted a 120mm mortar on an AMV, why would you not choose the NEMO turret? If you want a higher rate of fire then AMOS. Both already tested with that chassis.

Observer
Observer

Then why didn’t they get it in 2002 when the original EFSS was being solicited? That was even before the 2008 financial crisis. Now with sequestration, it’s even less likely to get into service.

I’m going to have to be very skeptical on this secundius, sorry.

secundius

@ Observer.

If your referring to the TDA Armaments SAS RT-120 French-designed 1,800-pound Towed Mortar, they did. It was a Stop-Gap until the Dragon Fire II went into production…

Observer
Observer

Well, we can always wait 2 years and see.

ArmChairCivvy
ArmChairCivvy

Mr. fred, yes why not? And the Poles did look at them, before going for RAK on Rosomak (which is an AMV).

I suspect it has a lot to do with the fire control system
A. it is domestic and advances the hi-end capabilities of that industry,
B. It is the same one tey used on the artillery SPG combo: Braveheart turret, A French gun, indigenous fire control and armoured platform

stephen duckworth

@PhillEeeeeeee
Its quite probable that come DSEi that GDLS will push the British engineering banner and maybe get sales on the back of it , built either in Spain ( as per Scout SV ) or built in the purchasers home country as they can actually read ( a contract ) . ‘10,000 UK jobs’ my a*#e .

Slightly Agricultural
Slightly Agricultural

I wonder if a Polish purchase could be spun as ‘supporting our Eastern European allies’ during the current round of posturing, with a bit of ‘responsible procurement, see we’ve changed!’ thrown in.

Also plenty of options for a 40mm CT turret of whatever flavour if required, though I don’t know if that’s in the UV job description. Someone would probably insist on a 2-man turret and then we’d just end up with a Warrior on wheels…

Have them built in Poland, and fitted out here. If LM did the Havok for the USMC then they may be in a good position to compete for that work with the other usual suspects (assuming they can transfer that knowledge). It worked well for the Mastiff, so they could trade on that reputation a bit. I can see the Tabloids going off on it though; “Poles don’t even have to come here to steal our jobs any more”. The MAARS contract took some flak for building in Korea even though that was by far the best choice.

We’re also assuming they find some money down the back of the sofa for FRES UV, which looks incredibly unlikely. The massive projects are mostly funded and planned for, and the smaller ones pick up the under-spends and leftovers as they appear. Don’t see any room in the middle for a new vehicle, and I think the Army had its turn at the front of the queue. Guess we’ll see what “SDSR 2015 – Death, Taxes & inter-service rivalry; the only certainties in a changing world” brings.

Chris
Chris

Clearly I believe my vehicles would be better, but then I would think that. I need to find the odd million or two down the back of the sofa to prove it though. I’m going to need a bigger sofa.

stephen duckworth

@Chris
On your designs have you considered GLARE? NASA are looking at it to provide the ballistic containment for extreme turbine failure on jet engines as opposed to the existing 2024 ali.
This research paper gives interesting results with polypropylene as the interlaminate being better at projectile resistance than kevlar on a like for like basis in a GLARE 5 laminate stopping a 12.7mm penetrator (just) at 299J of energy. Not a lot in ballistic terms but it was coming in at 5.7mm thick and 18kg/m2.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar_url%3Furl%3Dhttp://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mohamed_Abdullah10/publication/222576316_The_impact_resistance_of_polypropylene-based_fibremetal_laminates/links/0c96051e4bda5a02e4000000.pdf%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26scisig%3DAAGBfm2OaojguSjXJRwAWf9fXDNhuigSoA%26nossl%3D1%26oi%3Dscholarr&sa=U&ei=h6CaVeirBciBU6GClMAI&ved=0CAwQgAMoAQ&usg=AFQjCNGq_6qVfVJ_DtSxFaeVgigLhWqRSA

Chris
Chris

monkey – I consider the detail of armour best left to specialists; I have shown an example construction in the CAD models of a reasonable thickness of S-glass composite with a chunky RHA disruptor which ends up about twice the weight per unit area as the latest exotic compositions of similar protection levels. The combat wheeled vehicles also have a steel V-hull of modest thickness. In all the concepts have a significantly generous volume and weight of armoured structure within which specialist designers should have adequate latitude to produce sound protection solutions at good protection levels for light/medium armour. There is little point getting a specialist company to work up a candidate armour design until a customer defines the requirement and shows some form of commitment to future procurement.

secundius

@ monkey.

GLARE, Glass Laminate Aluminium Reinforced Epoxy (FML). 1. No Polypropylene, and 2. Not an Armor. It’s a Structural Reinforcement of Existing Airframe Structure. At least five times more expensive than standard 6061 grade Aluminium. In essence, it’s to minimize Maintenance of the Airframe between Overhaul Inspections. Graphene, would make a better Composite Armor…

secundius

@ Chris.

As far as I know, Nobody has tried to use Sapphire-Glass (a-Al2O3) Aluminium Oxide as a Composite Armor, yet. It has a 9 of 10 rating on the Mohs Scale, Diamond, has a 10 rating…

Chris
Chris

secundius – thanks for the suggestion but as I said I would leave the composition of armour solution to experts. They would be the ones to worry about fatigue, delamination, brittle fracture, UV degradation, solvent effects and a hundred other not very obvious attributes.

↓