via UPI.
HELSINKI, Finland, Dec. 20 (UPI) -- Finnish defense manufacturer Patria reports it will overhaul and modernize XA-180 armored personnel carriers of the Finnish Defense Forces.The XA-180, known as the Pasi, is a six-wheel vehicle specifically designed for the country's military and has been in service since 1984. Estonia ordered the vehicle in 2005.A cold wind is blowing in the armored vehicle industry.
"Since the oldest of these vehicles dates back to the early 1980s, the total life-span of this successful Patria product is extremely long," said Seppo Seppala, president of Patria Land Systems and Patria Land Services. "As the original manufacturer of these vehicles, Patria has extensive in-depth know-how of armored wheeled vehicles. This enables us to produce a high quality-solution for the Defense Forces, in order to extend the life-span of the Pasi series.
"This is an extremely significant domestic defense project, a vital step for Patria in the development of the service business and a good reference for similar international projects in which we intend to be actively involved in the near future."
The contract involves the overhaul next year of a pre-series vehicle and a series of 70 vehicles in 2015-17. There is also an option to modernize 210 vehicles by the end of 2021.
The modifications will include new seats, electrical systems with instrument panels and new exterior surface coatings. Engines, power transmissions and axles will be inspected and repaired, or replaced if necessary, Patria said.
Instead of purchasing new vehicles at what I imagine would be bargain prices, countries instead are opting to upgrade instead. Bringing this back home, I wonder what the price for an upgraded AAV versus new MPC from BAE or Lockheed would cost.
We're entering a time where being penny wise and pound foolish might take on new meaning.
This seems to be a very minor upgrade ,actually more of an overhaul .So probably priced accordingly .Pasi is a good design. Estonia bought quite a lot of them and at a good price cca.250k US. lower than an up armored Hummve
ReplyDeleteWhat is the average cost savings for wheeled vs tracked vehicles considering their average life span?
ReplyDeleteyou would have to ask one of the brains at BAE or General Dynamics. i just don't know, but you would have to figure in a whole range of new stuff. first rubber tracks instead of steal with rubber inserts...jet, diesel or hybrid engine and how do you amortize the costs to see which is cheaper, and even then you would have to include the lessened logistics in lives threatened by IED or even lost...are you investing in anti-missile protection? what about hybrid armor? how much armor are you willing to have in exchange for mobility? are you going for a straight apc vs. IFv? just a whole bunch of variables in my opinion.
DeleteForm what i read its huge LAV- 25 runs at cca 2$ /mile while a tracked APC runs at cca 14$/mile + because of wear and tear you normally need trucks with trailer to transport tracked APC's to the battlefield while wheeled can selfdeploy ,while in Macedonia moving into Kosovo tracked M113 had considerably difficulty negotiating icy mountain roads ,while Sisu was commended for its preformance as it could easily negotiate same roads with the snow chains on.'s.
DeleteCanadians use LAV III which are considerably larger than the LAV-25. additionally i have trouble believing that a M113 would lose out in a mobility comp with an SISU. tracks always beat wheels in pure mobility.
DeleteNope wheels actually preform quite well offroad and M113 i the the reason for that as its no the the kickass tracked reference and its only past 20tons where they lose out significantly. As for m113 in macedonia ,report said that they turned in to dangerous unstopable sleds on icy mountain roads while sisu could put on snow chains and negotiate the same roads.
DeleteLink to a report :http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a324376.pdf
The tracks of the M1 only have a 2,000 mile service life. The barrel only last 300-500 rounds with new propellants. When ever we go with tank weight tracked vehicles we pay a high premium for victory in close vehicle on vehicle combat. Its worth it but it is expensive.
ReplyDeleteI do feel that now that our armored fleets have procured thousands of vehicles that can do their respective missions that overhauls with modernization over replacement does have a place in financial responsibility.
The only US specific problem with this is that the old US vehicle designers had/have idiotic choices in materials and their love for aluminum. What a low grade metal!!! So what if its cheap or light. Whenever I find out a vehicle is made out of aluminum I instantly look to replace it with steel someday.
And its not just the aluminum, its the material choices in general. Additionally the choices in wire insulation and methods of housing electronics should be considered. Regardless of how much armor you put on a vehicle there will always be a way to kill the vehicle.
Once that armor has been defeated the after armor effects MUST be considered when designing a vehicle. Molten aluminum among a few other metals and thermoplastics and paints give off lethally toxic fumes that will kill anyone not stuck by the copper jet, secondary projectiles and/or inhaled the explosive blast. I.E. two thirds of the occupants.
Whether it has sufficient armor or not any vehicle that doesn't take into consideration the after armor effects of its own materials is a dud.
US vehicles have the greatest survivability in the world at this isn't something to panic about.
Nonetheless in future fleets we must challenge our designers to limit their designs to safer materials to allow long term SLEP programs become a favorable option.
wheeled vehicles have less overall mobility and have hard weight limits.
Delete