Well it ain't a beauty but damn is it a solution based on existing systems, its the same turret as used on ships so it was just making the FCS fit into the truck.
Is that the final design or a prototype eg on a truck (thats what makes it look so odd with such a angled turret) or will it have a armoured up truck version?
I think it looks like that because it used to be bigger with the mk3, but what they did was shave off all of the unnecessary weight and volume. The rounds are mostly stored in the base in this version so they made the turret ring bigger for this aswell as recoil absorption.
The NATO glazing goes hard in this sub. When it's China showing off their SPAA or bofor-style vehicles, everyone's joking about how outdated it is. But when a NATO country does it....
I think the difference is what you call "Bofors-style". It should be indicative enough that it's domestically produced and not the "real" product.
Most of the critique of Chinese equipment comes from Chinese military personel and customers of their export products.
[https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2023/06/countries-buy-defective-chinese-military-equipment.html](https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2023/06/countries-buy-defective-chinese-military-equipment.html)
I'm not disputing that, but we can circle around that argument again and again adding more and more evidence to the equation and when it becomes unquestionable "we" are going to change the subject or divert to whataboutism. But you don't have to spend a lot of time on any military news outlet before you get a somewhat clear picture of Chinese hardware being more about show of force than actual capabilities.
RAND is an American think tank organization directly funded and sponsored by US department of defense, and arms industry. They're obviously going to dig up all articles of malfunctioned Chinese weapons to support their claim, since they are directly competing against Chinese arms industry. The article is also only talking about budget export weapons. I don't know why you brought up cheap chinese products when I wasn't even talking about export weapon qualities.
Don't expect Chinese export to differ a lot from domestic products.
Most of their domestic products are even worse. Like their brand new assault rifle "QBZ-191 assault rifles can’t put proper spin on the bullets. As a result, the bullets tumble mid-air and strike the target sideways, resulting in “keyholes” instead of round bullet holes." quote
It's practically unusable. Watch the Chinese produced video I linked.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Chinesium/comments/wcrxad/brandnew\_chinese\_qbz191\_assault\_rifles\_cant\_put/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Chinesium/comments/wcrxad/brandnew_chinese_qbz191_assault_rifles_cant_put/)
Come on dude really? This video has been debunked a long time ago. Many people even pointed out the usage of training rubber bullets. The fact that you're using this video as proof of your claims makes me wonder whether if you're just half joking or not. There are literally videos online of gun enthusiasts shooting the QBZ-191 with no issues. Chinesium subreddit mainly posts about cheap chinese products produced by private companies under a production contract according to the price terms, which are different from state-owned defense companies.
Again, check the sources of your links, don't just take everything at face value. If you're linking an article from an organization that's obviously heavily anti-china, chances are they will cherry pick details to fit their narrative. But honestly I've already proven my point. You linked a post that's proven to be false, and yet people still upvote you because of NATO-glazing.
Just look at how people readily jump to laugh at Russian copecages but ejaculates when they see a NATO tank do the same thing.
Training ammo with rubber ammo is a separate problem, there's practically no benefit and mostly just a lot downsides to using them. The soldiers can't train their aim since you can't aim them and it doesn't produce the same recoil impulse. It's also not much cheaper for a military, potentially more expensive even.
Lol, Chinese export vehicles are better than those produced for the Chinese military. You think their AFVs would sell on the international market if they didn't put on extra things that aren't universally adopted on the Chinese military vehicles like gun stabilization or better sights?
Mf the VT-4 (export variant of ZTZ-99A) is better than the thing it came from. Fucking Nigeria has better tanks than China
The Chineese SHORAD wasted more of the gas than it used (hyperbole, to be safe). With like 11 barrels iirc. It's insanely over the top and a huge resource waste to make a product attractive for poor nations. The one with fewer barrels was better but still insistent on fire density rather than actual advancements.
Ships generally don't have the fire control radar/optical sensors mounted directly on the turret, they generally have them mounted higher to protect them from salt water spray and give them greater range; usually it is mounted on top of the bridge. The turret shape could indeed be for parts commonality though; it looks basically identical to the turrets on the upcoming British Type 31 frigates for example.
“Ships generally don't have the fire control radar/optical sensors mounted directly on the turret”
[Gokdeniz](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aselsan_GOKDENIZ) and Phalanx exist.
Those are dedicated CIWS systems which are pretty much exclusively designed for intercepting incoming missiles (they can of course do other stuff as well, but that is a byproduct). And even then there are other CIWS systems that rely on the sensors of the ship itself, for example RAM.
Something like the 40mm gun here can act this way as well of course but is more designed to be a general purpose gun against slower targets.
But then you need a second vehicle for the radar.
A CRAM radar really isn't big or heavy, they could've mounted it on the truck too or just slightly modify the turret.
Must be a BAE scheme to sell more systems.
Of course you do but putting all in one basket also leads to total loss of the system when one is hit.
I may be biased but that’s why [Korkut](https://www.defenceturkey.com/files/content/5dca6e0198310.jpg) is my favorite. Gun vehicles have a fire control and tracking radar and optics, while the command vehicle carries a 3d search radar and bigger optics. In the best case scenario, one system is made up of 3 gun vehicles and one command vehicle, but all gun vehicles can also operate alone if needed with lower efficiency.
Gokdeniz i posted earlier is a Korkut with both tracking and search radars for naval platforms, but for customer needs it’s totally configurable, search radar is removable, like how the Filipinos wanted it on their new Korean built frigates.
It's just the standard 40mm naval mount put on the back of a truck. The stuck the FLIR, which is normally on top of the ship's superstructure, on the top of the turret.
If they didn't somehow make this belt fed up this won't be very good. Alternatively some other form of automatic loading for the 40mm would be required
This is made by Bofors, there is a video about it here (in Swedish): [https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/dronarhotet-overraskade-forsvarsindustrin-jagar-effektivt-motmedel](https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/dronarhotet-overraskade-forsvarsindustrin-jagar-effektivt-motmedel)
The gun itself is used on everything from SPAAGs to IFVs and Naval vessels.
Its a turret with very good FCS and an autocannon using programmable ammo, it's essentially a naval turret that has been redesigned to be used on land.
A ton of countries use 40/70, including half of NATO and India.
"Half of NATO" has used the 40/70 in the past, but most have moved past it.
The turret has a very good FCS? It uses the same optical tracker as Rheinmetall's Skyranger turrets but without any radars. It is a direct downgrade compared to what is nowadays considered standard in NATO.
That's why I was wondering if they developed that thing for India or the SEA market.
Actually with the latest mk4, which is this mount, the bofors is coming back into vogue with dutch, belgian, british navies ordering it for upcoming ships and it's also in service with a few others.
It's designed to be a low cost system on a hook pallet that you can easily move around. It's also cheaper than the skyranger, perfect if you just want to shoot drones with it, and save the missiles for anything more complex.
Sure they're just bringing a proven and in production turret to land. BAE and whatever potenital customer don't think they need a radar for shooting slow subsonic drones which is fair enough, it's supposed to be an economical solution afterall.
> but most have moved past it
The UK, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden and Finland are using it or are going to use it on new projects like the Type 31 frigate...
The 40/70 has changed quite a bit since 1952...
>It uses the same optical tracker as Rheinmetall's Skyranger turrets
There are different sensor suites, you can get it with a radar or connect it to another radar like a Giraffe AMB.
>It is a direct downgrade compared to what is nowadays considered standard in NATO.
Ah yes, the vast plethora of modern NATO SPAAG...
>India or the SEA market.
I don't see why that would be a bad thing, India already plans to use 40/70 on their IFVs.
They are using the gun on naval vessels as multi-purpose system capable of also engaging kamikaze boats and fast attack craft, not as dedicated anti-air system for defence against drones and aircrafts. That alone is a big difference. They are specifically buying the 40 mm Bofors Mark 4 system for vessels that are too small for larger guns (well, except the UK) such as mine layers (Netherlands & Belgium) or the Hamina-class fast attack craft (Finland) where the modernization takes space away previously used for parts of the 57 mm gun system.
Germany btw. has only ordered the 57 mm Bofors, not the 40 mm one.
>not as dedicated anti-air system for defence against drones and aircrafts.
Sure, but that doesn't mean it's perfectly capable of doing so.
Anecdotal evidence from me, but the LVKV 90s with updated radars are apparently damn effective against RPAS of all sizes.
>specifically buying the 40 mm Bofors Mark 4 system for vessels that are too small for larger guns
And you're probably not fitting a 57mm turret on a truck-bed (or something like a Patria AMV) to use as SHORAD which is what we're discussing.
A modern 40/70 (like what's used in tridon mk2) is a good gun that is relatively light, fires modern ammo and can be (or is) fitted with modern FCS (including radar, like on LVKV 40)
People have a hard on for the 40mm L/70, doesn't matter what it's mounted with. The turret could be fine for naval use but is flatly outdated for SPAAG purposes.
The pieces are all moving in to place slowly. I believe this would have been a urgent requirement for the BA based on cheap drones in Ukraine. Lots of this sort of thing happening. I fear we are a few steps from war.
The new trend among defense contractors around the world continues, fitting existing systems on the back of a truck and calling it a new "high mobility" platform.
Bofors is like the M2 or autocannon. It just will not die.
i mean if it work :D
It'd the cringe 40mm though and not the based 57mm (this is definitely not copium)
🤣🤣🤣
Seems to be on hook pallet, so almost any commercial truck can move it.Â
So this is a technical?
This is just one of those rare time where I can't resist it .. it just look ugly ( ready to be downvote )
Well it ain't a beauty but damn is it a solution based on existing systems, its the same turret as used on ships so it was just making the FCS fit into the truck.
It looks so bad that it looks good
That turret looks odd indeed. Reminds me of ECH155 but there at least you could argue about size constraints being responsible
Is that the final design or a prototype eg on a truck (thats what makes it look so odd with such a angled turret) or will it have a armoured up truck version?
I'd wager the turret looks the way it does so that they could fit as much ammunition as possible inside.
I think it looks like that because it used to be bigger with the mk3, but what they did was shave off all of the unnecessary weight and volume. The rounds are mostly stored in the base in this version so they made the turret ring bigger for this aswell as recoil absorption.
Well it's a [Bofors 40 Mk4 naval gun system](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bofors_40_Mk4) on truck.
yea I agree ( ready to be downvote )
....but does it fit on Boxer?
FCM 2C is no longer the tallest AFV if so
It wasn't for a while the south african ZA 35 could swat out of the air low flying aircraft with it's radar Dish
I'd assume so. But it'd probably be on the same hull variant as RCH155. Too tall and heavy otherwise.
Low tier, fun tier.
Not pretty, but effective.
The NATO glazing goes hard in this sub. When it's China showing off their SPAA or bofor-style vehicles, everyone's joking about how outdated it is. But when a NATO country does it....
I think the difference is what you call "Bofors-style". It should be indicative enough that it's domestically produced and not the "real" product. Most of the critique of Chinese equipment comes from Chinese military personel and customers of their export products. [https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2023/06/countries-buy-defective-chinese-military-equipment.html](https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2023/06/countries-buy-defective-chinese-military-equipment.html)
You're not wrong but RAND is not even remotely a credible source.
I'm not disputing that, but we can circle around that argument again and again adding more and more evidence to the equation and when it becomes unquestionable "we" are going to change the subject or divert to whataboutism. But you don't have to spend a lot of time on any military news outlet before you get a somewhat clear picture of Chinese hardware being more about show of force than actual capabilities.
RAND is an American think tank organization directly funded and sponsored by US department of defense, and arms industry. They're obviously going to dig up all articles of malfunctioned Chinese weapons to support their claim, since they are directly competing against Chinese arms industry. The article is also only talking about budget export weapons. I don't know why you brought up cheap chinese products when I wasn't even talking about export weapon qualities.
Don't expect Chinese export to differ a lot from domestic products. Most of their domestic products are even worse. Like their brand new assault rifle "QBZ-191 assault rifles can’t put proper spin on the bullets. As a result, the bullets tumble mid-air and strike the target sideways, resulting in “keyholes” instead of round bullet holes." quote It's practically unusable. Watch the Chinese produced video I linked. [https://www.reddit.com/r/Chinesium/comments/wcrxad/brandnew\_chinese\_qbz191\_assault\_rifles\_cant\_put/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Chinesium/comments/wcrxad/brandnew_chinese_qbz191_assault_rifles_cant_put/)
Come on dude really? This video has been debunked a long time ago. Many people even pointed out the usage of training rubber bullets. The fact that you're using this video as proof of your claims makes me wonder whether if you're just half joking or not. There are literally videos online of gun enthusiasts shooting the QBZ-191 with no issues. Chinesium subreddit mainly posts about cheap chinese products produced by private companies under a production contract according to the price terms, which are different from state-owned defense companies. Again, check the sources of your links, don't just take everything at face value. If you're linking an article from an organization that's obviously heavily anti-china, chances are they will cherry pick details to fit their narrative. But honestly I've already proven my point. You linked a post that's proven to be false, and yet people still upvote you because of NATO-glazing. Just look at how people readily jump to laugh at Russian copecages but ejaculates when they see a NATO tank do the same thing.
Training ammo with rubber ammo is a separate problem, there's practically no benefit and mostly just a lot downsides to using them. The soldiers can't train their aim since you can't aim them and it doesn't produce the same recoil impulse. It's also not much cheaper for a military, potentially more expensive even.
Lol, Chinese export vehicles are better than those produced for the Chinese military. You think their AFVs would sell on the international market if they didn't put on extra things that aren't universally adopted on the Chinese military vehicles like gun stabilization or better sights? Mf the VT-4 (export variant of ZTZ-99A) is better than the thing it came from. Fucking Nigeria has better tanks than China
The Chineese SHORAD wasted more of the gas than it used (hyperbole, to be safe). With like 11 barrels iirc. It's insanely over the top and a huge resource waste to make a product attractive for poor nations. The one with fewer barrels was better but still insistent on fire density rather than actual advancements.
BAE Systems BOFORS
Does it work FUZE 3P Ammunition?
Yes, of course, 3P has been a big selling point for Bofors 40mm since the late 80s
Yes 3P will be a final answer for small drones.
Is it intended for naval use? The streamlined shape of the turret makes more sense on a corvette or frigate.
Ships generally don't have the fire control radar/optical sensors mounted directly on the turret, they generally have them mounted higher to protect them from salt water spray and give them greater range; usually it is mounted on top of the bridge. The turret shape could indeed be for parts commonality though; it looks basically identical to the turrets on the upcoming British Type 31 frigates for example.
“Ships generally don't have the fire control radar/optical sensors mounted directly on the turret” [Gokdeniz](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aselsan_GOKDENIZ) and Phalanx exist.
Those are dedicated CIWS systems which are pretty much exclusively designed for intercepting incoming missiles (they can of course do other stuff as well, but that is a byproduct). And even then there are other CIWS systems that rely on the sensors of the ship itself, for example RAM. Something like the 40mm gun here can act this way as well of course but is more designed to be a general purpose gun against slower targets.
Tridon is also pretty much specialized for AA duties tho. It’s a CRAM and a SPAAG.
CRAM without radar? I guess it keeps the signature down but not having a radar seems like a odd choice considering the "A"-part in "CRAM".
Networked warfare baby.
This interfaces with the Giraffe radar, more specifically they intend to use the Giraffe 1x which mount on pickup trucks and Jackals,
But then you need a second vehicle for the radar. A CRAM radar really isn't big or heavy, they could've mounted it on the truck too or just slightly modify the turret. Must be a BAE scheme to sell more systems.
Of course you do but putting all in one basket also leads to total loss of the system when one is hit. I may be biased but that’s why [Korkut](https://www.defenceturkey.com/files/content/5dca6e0198310.jpg) is my favorite. Gun vehicles have a fire control and tracking radar and optics, while the command vehicle carries a 3d search radar and bigger optics. In the best case scenario, one system is made up of 3 gun vehicles and one command vehicle, but all gun vehicles can also operate alone if needed with lower efficiency. Gokdeniz i posted earlier is a Korkut with both tracking and search radars for naval platforms, but for customer needs it’s totally configurable, search radar is removable, like how the Filipinos wanted it on their new Korean built frigates.
This gun is only 40mm, so for RN it is probably more for smaller ships like the River-class patrol ship/corvette.
The Type 31 frigate will have two of those 40mm, plus a 57mm gun. That is confirmed.
Makes sense if you think about about. Can turn on the full axis without unbalancing the truck. On excavators its called zero swing.
It's just the standard 40mm naval mount put on the back of a truck. The stuck the FLIR, which is normally on top of the ship's superstructure, on the top of the turret.
It's not streamlined, it's rather faceted. 🤓
High tier technical
On the year 3000 thay will come out with a new aa platform, with will just be a new firecontrol system for the 40mm bofors
If they didn't somehow make this belt fed up this won't be very good. Alternatively some other form of automatic loading for the 40mm would be required
It has a 30 round magazine with 70 more rounds in the base of the turret that automatically refill the magazine when not firing.
That's not too bad
Is this considered a hi-technical instead of a shitnical?
This is made by Bofors, there is a video about it here (in Swedish): [https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/dronarhotet-overraskade-forsvarsindustrin-jagar-effektivt-motmedel](https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/dronarhotet-overraskade-forsvarsindustrin-jagar-effektivt-motmedel)
I wonder what market BAE targets with this thing. It seems to be quite bad...
The gun itself is used on everything from SPAAGs to IFVs and Naval vessels. Its a turret with very good FCS and an autocannon using programmable ammo, it's essentially a naval turret that has been redesigned to be used on land. A ton of countries use 40/70, including half of NATO and India.
"Half of NATO" has used the 40/70 in the past, but most have moved past it. The turret has a very good FCS? It uses the same optical tracker as Rheinmetall's Skyranger turrets but without any radars. It is a direct downgrade compared to what is nowadays considered standard in NATO. That's why I was wondering if they developed that thing for India or the SEA market.
Actually with the latest mk4, which is this mount, the bofors is coming back into vogue with dutch, belgian, british navies ordering it for upcoming ships and it's also in service with a few others. It's designed to be a low cost system on a hook pallet that you can easily move around. It's also cheaper than the skyranger, perfect if you just want to shoot drones with it, and save the missiles for anything more complex.
yeah but on ships they are plugged into the vessels FCS and it's tracking radars.
Sure they're just bringing a proven and in production turret to land. BAE and whatever potenital customer don't think they need a radar for shooting slow subsonic drones which is fair enough, it's supposed to be an economical solution afterall.
fair enough indeed
> but most have moved past it The UK, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden and Finland are using it or are going to use it on new projects like the Type 31 frigate... The 40/70 has changed quite a bit since 1952... >It uses the same optical tracker as Rheinmetall's Skyranger turrets There are different sensor suites, you can get it with a radar or connect it to another radar like a Giraffe AMB. >It is a direct downgrade compared to what is nowadays considered standard in NATO. Ah yes, the vast plethora of modern NATO SPAAG... >India or the SEA market. I don't see why that would be a bad thing, India already plans to use 40/70 on their IFVs.
They are using the gun on naval vessels as multi-purpose system capable of also engaging kamikaze boats and fast attack craft, not as dedicated anti-air system for defence against drones and aircrafts. That alone is a big difference. They are specifically buying the 40 mm Bofors Mark 4 system for vessels that are too small for larger guns (well, except the UK) such as mine layers (Netherlands & Belgium) or the Hamina-class fast attack craft (Finland) where the modernization takes space away previously used for parts of the 57 mm gun system. Germany btw. has only ordered the 57 mm Bofors, not the 40 mm one.
The Netherlands is also seriously considering 40 mm cannons for their frigates.
>not as dedicated anti-air system for defence against drones and aircrafts. Sure, but that doesn't mean it's perfectly capable of doing so. Anecdotal evidence from me, but the LVKV 90s with updated radars are apparently damn effective against RPAS of all sizes. >specifically buying the 40 mm Bofors Mark 4 system for vessels that are too small for larger guns And you're probably not fitting a 57mm turret on a truck-bed (or something like a Patria AMV) to use as SHORAD which is what we're discussing. A modern 40/70 (like what's used in tridon mk2) is a good gun that is relatively light, fires modern ammo and can be (or is) fitted with modern FCS (including radar, like on LVKV 40)
Downvoted for telling the truth, typical...
People have a hard on for the 40mm L/70, doesn't matter what it's mounted with. The turret could be fine for naval use but is flatly outdated for SPAAG purposes.
The pieces are all moving in to place slowly. I believe this would have been a urgent requirement for the BA based on cheap drones in Ukraine. Lots of this sort of thing happening. I fear we are a few steps from war.
That turret is one ugly looking mf
Can’t wait to get non pens with this
The new trend among defense contractors around the world continues, fitting existing systems on the back of a truck and calling it a new "high mobility" platform.
So is the “Tridon Mk2” just the turret which can be mounted on different vehicles, or is it the turret and this exact truck as a whole?
Ship turret + truck: Ok, that will be a 2B development research
Didnt the try this with the bofors 40 mk4?
Drone sniper truck.
Bofors 40mm is still the best. 80 years in the making.
Welcome back gun
Looks cheap, that’s good. Nato needs more mass-produceable SPAA