TR Land Vehicle Programs

Strong AI said:

The question is, would Ukraine take those old IFVs?

Click to expand...

Bulgaria's aid package:

(And the US pays for it.)

Even the rickety 6x6s in the ground forces or the gendarmerie are better than these.

Sanchez said:

Some news on KKK's own YNZMA NGAFV project.

I remember people asking why do we even modernize old ACV AFVs and APCs when YNZMA was just on the horizon. We now have our answer.

"The total requirement of the Turkish Armed Forces in the New Generation Armored Combat Vehicles project was around 1300 vehicles, but was later reduced to 360. The first batch, for which the SSİK decision is expected, is thought to be around 50. Within the scope of the YNZMA project, the tests that started in 2020 were completed around September 2023. FNSS delivered the BAFO (best and final offer) in December. There are approximately 19 vehicles in different configurations to meet the needs of the Turkish Armed Forces."
https://twitter.com/Saffet_Uyanik/status/1754141485505597895

YNZMA tests were completed on September 2023 and number of (wheeled?) vehicles were lowered from 1300 to 360. While the first batch will be 50 vehicles only. 19 different configurations are to be inducted into service. Not clear if SSİK decision is waiting for the engines or for BMC to get its shit together with Altuğ. If 360 is not the first general batch and total number, huge let down and would mean we will continue using even unmodernized ACVs well into 2030s.

My own thoughts: If tests started in 2020 and ended 5 months ago, and as BMC's engine is not yet even ready for these vehicles and cannot have been tested on Arma Pars and Altuğ, maybe first general batch will be made with foreign engines, while a bigger batch is postponed into future.

Click to expand...

BMC, the only company within TR that redefines acquisition rules, amount or requirements of Turkish Armed Forces.

- How many do you need?
- 1000+ just get a production line ready.
- No i think you need 50.
- Ok 50.
- Also relax these requirements a little, i can not fit in.
- Ok done.
- But 50 in 5 years, don't expect soon, we got no factory nor CEO.
- Fine, whatever.
- Also T0 startes 12 months after the contract, you know we gotta take another look at this design and remake it. And imma need some incentives.

Click to expand...

dBSPL said:

I think the vehicle represents the level of mastery that FNSS has reached in armored combat vehicles with its ongoing R&D and after-sales feedback.

Active protection system, high situational awareness, acoustic detection system, high cbrn protection and mine resistance, the highest level of mobility for an 8x8 vehicle, 800km range, auxiliary power unit, high payload capacity in the personnel compartment... FNSS had set the bar quite high with the PARS IV - 6x6 SPV, and ALPHA seems to have succeeded in becoming an 8x8 that put more on this. If FNSS adds the optional capability of crossing stagnant water and rivers, which FNSS is very experienced in, I think this vehicle could be a complete package from A to Z. Maybe a wired mini UAV option can also be added, which is not a big deal. Because this time, a full and complete product range has also emerged in the tower section:

YN-ZMA 30/40mm w/OMTAS+AKKOR turret
YN-ZMA 105/120mm turret
KORKUT low altitude air defense turret
Configuration capable of carrying medium-altitude air defense missiles
120mm double barrel Mortar turret
Combat engineering and command and control, fire control configurations.
All looks great.

We should think about giving the old APCs to Ukraine.

Click to expand...

We have been talking about this for half a decade now. There is clearly no drive by the Land Forces to aquire any of these vehicles and they seem to sulk like a child everytime they are forced to do so.

YNZMA is just the newest example. Slashing vehicles to be aquired from 2900 down to 1350 down to 360 and now 50 in the "first batch", lets be honest it will most likely stay at those numbers for the next decade, just shows this.

Modernizing the ACV-15 needed to be vetoed by the higher ups instead we wasted money on trash, yes trash, 40 year old vehicles that have no place on the modern battlefield, and whose job in COIN could easily be taken over by APCs (Kipri, Cobra, Yalcin, Vuran) with 25mm turrets and even 30mm turrets.

What are you gonna do with that 25mm peashooter against modern armored vehicles? Hell forget modern, in Ukraine both sides had difficulties penetraing decades old BTRs with their 30mm guns. Sitting ducks nothing else.

L2A4 modernization has been a total flop.
M60 modernization has been a total flop.
Altay's development has been a total flop. Really you gonna go and buy engines from the same Germans who in the first place vetoed the sale of the Leopard 2A6 to you, which you had chosen in the first place btw?
Firtina-2 production is almost non-existant because of the same problems, then they went and decided to go with american engines and then dropped that too for whatever reason.

Maybe it is time to accept that the Land Forces is just incompetent when it comes to procurement and development of projects. Maybe both the Navy and Air Force should teach them a couple things.

Because this isn't gonna get better, oh no it will only get worse.

dBSPL said:

If FNSS adds the optional capability of crossing stagnant water and rivers, which FNSS is very experienced in, I think this vehicle could be a complete package from A to Z. Maybe a wired mini UAV option can also be added, which is not a big deal.

Click to expand...

In addition, a mini unmanned ground vehicle that can be controlled from within this vehicle and that can disembark from the personnel ramp can also be considered as an option.

Kartal1 said:

@UkroTurk I think you will see something familiar

Click to expand...

He forgot adding Gürz/ Burç AD turrets.
I would prefer Stryker M-SHORAD turret.

Anmdt said:

Am i seeing a twin-forty gun with a new turret there?

Click to expand...

If you're talking about the one on the right, second on from the top that is a 120mm double barrel mortar, I'm guessing that one because that is the only one with a different turret. There is no mention of a double barrel 40mm on FNSS's brochure, check the 5th page of the pdf I shared, all the configurations are also shown there.

Khagan1923 said:

We have been talking about this for half a decade now. There is clearly no drive by the Land Forces to aquire any of these vehicles and they seem to sulk like a child everytime they are forced to do so.

YNZMA is just the newest example. Slashing vehicles to be aquired from 2900 down to 1350 down to 360 and now 50 in the "first batch", lets be honest it will most likely stay at those numbers for the next decade, just shows this.

Modernizing the ACV-15 needed to be vetoed by the higher ups instead we wasted money on trash, yes trash, 40 year old vehicles that have no place on the modern battlefield, and whose job in COIN could easily be taken over by APCs (Kipri, Cobra, Yalcin, Vuran) with 25mm turrets and even 30mm turrets.

What are you gonna do with that 25mm peashooter against modern armored vehicles? Hell forget modern, in Ukraine both sides had difficulties penetraing decades old BTRs with their 30mm guns. Sitting ducks nothing else.

L2A4 modernization has been a total flop.
M60 modernization has been a total flop.
Altay's development has been a total flop. Really you gonna go and buy engines from the same Germans who in the first place vetoed the sale of the Leopard 2A6 to you, which you had chosen in the first place btw?
Firtina-2 production is almost non-existant because of the same problems, then they went and decided to go with american engines and then dropped that too for whatever reason.

Maybe it is time to accept that the Land Forces is just incompetent when it comes to procurement and development of projects. Maybe both the Navy and Air Force should teach them a couple things.

Because this isn't gonna get better, oh no it will only get worse.

Click to expand...

All of these flops sound more like sabotaging the land force on porpuse.

After seeing what kamikaze drones&drones and Javelins did in Ukraine, I began to think that spending on land vehicles, except for i) artillery rockets, ii) 155 mm howitzers and iii) armored personnel carriers, was unnecessary!

What are armored vehicles used for? They basically have 2 purposes:
1) To protect the infantry during transport and
2) To provide fire support.

What I have mentioned above is sufficient for these tasks, because drones also contribute to fire support. So, instead of spending that money on land vehicles other than the ones I mentioned above, let's spend the money on kamikaze drones&drones.

Merzifonlu said:

After seeing what kamikaze drones&drones and Javelins did in Ukraine, I began to think that spending on ground vehicles, except for i) artillery rockets, ii) 155 mm howitzers and iii) armored personnel carriers, was unnecessary!

What are armored vehicles used for? They basically have 2 purposes:
1) To protect the infantry during transport and
2) To provide fire support.

What I have mentioned above is sufficient for these tasks, because drones also contribute to fire support. So, instead of spending that money on land vehicles other than the ones I mentioned above, let's spend the money on kamikaze drones&drones.

Click to expand...

By this logic we should have scrapped the Altay project a long time ago, no ? Why bother continuing the project then ?

Merzifonlu said:

After seeing what kamikaze drones&drones and Javelins did in Ukraine, I began to think that spending on ground vehicles, except for i) artillery rockets, ii) 155 mm howitzers and iii) armored personnel carriers, was unnecessary!

What are armored vehicles used for? They basically have 2 purposes:
1) To protect the infantry during transport and
2) To provide fire support.

What I have mentioned above is sufficient for these tasks, because drones also contribute to fire support. So, instead of spending that money on land vehicles other than the ones I mentioned above, let's spend the money on kamikaze drones&drones.

Click to expand...

The two things are completely different. The dynamics of usage for these two things are completely different.

The firepower, fire rate and mobility that these vehicles can deliver is on a totally different level. I am against the logic that tanks, armored vehicles or any kind of vehicles are obsolete because there are drones. While Russia and Ukraine are in the middle of the war from which we kind of get these conclusions I didn't saw even for once Ukrainian or Russian sources to say "let's drop armored vehicles". Both sides are continuing to pump armored vehicles from all kinds at all directions. The half of the work on field is in order to enable these vehicles to operate no matter if we talk about prioritizing targets or demining operations or prevent these vehicles operating by all kind of means. Both elements are totally different and needed.

What can be done is introducing of a counter-measures against these threats and there are enough research and development towards that coming from all around the world. Both soft kill and hard kill solutions are introduced. These vehicles are absolutely needed and no drone can fill this gap.

By this logic we may drop the Land Forces as a whole because soldiers are killed by literally everything that manages to hit them. I don't think this is the right approach.

Merzifonlu said:

After seeing what kamikaze drones&drones and Javelins did in Ukraine, I began to think that spending on land vehicles, except for i) artillery rockets, ii) 155 mm howitzers and iii) armored personnel carriers, was unnecessary!

What are armored vehicles used for? They basically have 2 purposes:
1) To protect the infantry during transport and
2) To provide fire support.

What I have mentioned above is sufficient for these tasks, because drones also contribute to fire support. So, instead of spending that money on land vehicles other than the ones I mentioned above, let's spend the money on kamikaze drones&drones.

Click to expand...

IMO, the systems you mentioned are mostly for disrupting the enemy's organization on the contested field. But in order to capture that field, you need to settle there with your personnel. You can't by just march infantry to do that.

Even if you are losing personnel, you cannot be swept out of the contested area unless your will to fight is broken and the enemy advances equivalent armored combat elements. Maybe different things can be said about asymmetric warfare, but in a direct confrontation between armies, I think armored warfare still contains the real firepower of an army. In the future maybe they can do it with humanoid robots, but for now I think the story of the hare and the hound continues.

Countermeasures are a consequence of the advancement of armored combat systems, so new aproaches and countermeasures will pave the way for further advancement of these systems. Not only technologically, but more doctrinally and as an organization of units.

Merzifonlu said:

After seeing what kamikaze drones&drones and Javelins did in Ukraine, I began to think that spending on land vehicles, except for i) artillery rockets, ii) 155 mm howitzers and iii) armored personnel carriers, was unnecessary!

What are armored vehicles used for? They basically have 2 purposes:
1) To protect the infantry during transport and
2) To provide fire support.

What I have mentioned above is sufficient for these tasks, because drones also contribute to fire support. So, instead of spending that money on land vehicles other than the ones I mentioned above, let's spend the money on kamikaze drones&drones.

Click to expand...

Good luck advancing forward without MBT and IFV's and exactly the two points you mentioned are crucial for offensive operations. The solution is to find and apply counter-measure systems that increse the survivability of your armored units not to abandon them.

Those FPV drones and MANPATS (Javelin, NLAW) are an extra for the Infantry to attack Armored units and they're pretty effective because A) Russians and Ukrainians also don't have a solution to counter them, B) their equipment is outdated Cold War technology, C) the Air Force and CAS non existant.

PS: Nevertheless i support the idea of Turkish low cost FPV drones and AT weapons (more capable than RPG and M72-LAW). Beside night-vision/thermal goggles/optics i'd say heavy AT weapons are the most needed equipment for our Infantry. Those are real force multipliers on the ground.

Merzifonlu said:

After seeing what kamikaze drones&drones and Javelins did in Ukraine, I began to think that spending on land vehicles, except for i) artillery rockets, ii) 155 mm howitzers and iii) armored personnel carriers, was unnecessary!

What are armored vehicles used for? They basically have 2 purposes:
1) To protect the infantry during transport and
2) To provide fire support.

What I have mentioned above is sufficient for these tasks, because drones also contribute to fire support. So, instead of spending that money on land vehicles other than the ones I mentioned above, let's spend the money on kamikaze drones&drones.

Click to expand...

You're so wrong that it is incredible. If what you said was true, Ukraine wouldn't have been desperately seeking more tanks and IFVs, not to mention, you know, every other nation on the planet. Rock, paper, scissors of infantry, armour, anti-armour has been going on for a 100 years and it'll continue to do so but it doesn't mean it is obsolete or useless.

Strong AI said:

Looks like Air Force and Navy have priority, no money left for Land Forces.
New motto of the Land Forces could be:
"Entrusted first to Allah, then again to Allah"

Click to expand...

Hear me out:

Pass an IBAN number around. Our ppl sure love their military, they'd handle it.

Heck, even the Americans would help if you named one of the tanks "Tanky McTankface"

Sanchez said:

Some news on KKK's own YNZMA NGAFV project.

I remember people asking why do we even modernize old ACV AFVs and APCs when YNZMA was just on the horizon. We now have our answer.

"The total requirement of the Turkish Armed Forces in the New Generation Armored Combat Vehicles project was around 1300 vehicles, but was later reduced to 360. The first batch, for which the SSİK decision is expected, is thought to be around 50. Within the scope of the YNZMA project, the tests that started in 2020 were completed around September 2023. FNSS delivered the BAFO (best and final offer) in December. There are approximately 19 vehicles in different configurations to meet the needs of the Turkish Armed Forces."
https://twitter.com/Saffet_Uyanik/status/1754141485505597895

YNZMA tests were completed on September 2023 and number of (wheeled?) vehicles were lowered from 1300 to 360. While the first batch will be 50 vehicles only. 19 different configurations are to be inducted into service. Not clear if SSİK decision is waiting for the engines or for BMC to get its shit together with Altuğ. If 360 is not the first general batch and total number, huge let down and would mean we will continue using even unmodernized ACVs well into 2030s.

My own thoughts: If tests started in 2020 and ended 5 months ago, and as BMC's engine is not yet even ready for these vehicles and cannot have been tested on Arma Pars and Altuğ, maybe first general batch will be made with foreign engines, while a bigger batch is postponed into future.

Click to expand...

Where did u find those news ? the YNZMA project was to replace all Armored vihacles tracked and wheeled ones and was/is 4000+ vihacle . Perhaps u confused it with anti-tank vihacle that are some 300 produced . I think YNZMA that will replace m113 and acv 15 is waiting for national engine 600hp to 800hp power .

BalkanTurk90 said:

Where did u find those news ? the YNZMA project was to replace all Armored vihacles tracked and wheeled ones and was/is 4000+ vihacle . Perhaps u confused it with anti-tank vihacle that are some 300 produced . I think YNZMA that will replace m113 and acv 15 is waiting for national engine 600hp to 800hp power .

Click to expand...

I don't confuse.. Saffet Uyanık twit I linked mentions it.

Merzifonlu said:

After seeing what kamikaze drones&drones and Javelins did in Ukraine, I began to think that spending on land vehicles, except for i) artillery rockets, ii) 155 mm howitzers and iii) armored personnel carriers, was unnecessary!

What are armored vehicles used for? They basically have 2 purposes:
1) To protect the infantry during transport and
2) To provide fire support.

What I have mentioned above is sufficient for these tasks, because drones also contribute to fire support. So, instead of spending that money on land vehicles other than the ones I mentioned above, let's spend the money on kamikaze drones&drones.

Click to expand...

Heavy artillery and howitzers and artillery rockets are still in the Ukrainian battlefield. Neither Ukraine nor Russia abondon these weapons.
Both side have a load of UAVs however both sides still using artillery as fire pressure.
MBT s are still able to working despite of ATGMs, loetering munitions.
Russians produce 100 tanks per month.
UAVs reached their top limits.

Khagan1923 said:

We have been talking about this for half a decade now. There is clearly no drive by the Land Forces to aquire any of these vehicles and they seem to sulk like a child everytime they are forced to do so.

YNZMA is just the newest example. Slashing vehicles to be aquired from 2900 down to 1350 down to 360 and now 50 in the "first batch", lets be honest it will most likely stay at those numbers for the next decade, just shows this.

Modernizing the ACV-15 needed to be vetoed by the higher ups instead we wasted money on trash, yes trash, 40 year old vehicles that have no place on the modern battlefield, and whose job in COIN could easily be taken over by APCs (Kipri, Cobra, Yalcin, Vuran) with 25mm turrets and even 30mm turrets.

What are you gonna do with that 25mm peashooter against modern armored vehicles? Hell forget modern, in Ukraine both sides had difficulties penetraing decades old BTRs with their 30mm guns. Sitting ducks nothing else.

L2A4 modernization has been a total flop.
M60 modernization has been a total flop.
Altay's development has been a total flop. Really you gonna go and buy engines from the same Germans who in the first place vetoed the sale of the Leopard 2A6 to you, which you had chosen in the first place btw?
Firtina-2 production is almost non-existant because of the same problems, then they went and decided to go with american engines and then dropped that too for whatever reason.

Maybe it is time to accept that the Land Forces is just incompetent when it comes to procurement and development of projects. Maybe both the Navy and Air Force should teach them a couple things.

Because this isn't gonna get better, oh no it will only get worse.

Click to expand...

Reason why I kind of lost interest in the defence industry. Its a bureaucratic nightmare where a lot of promises get made, but few of them ever get fulfilled. Have gotten my hopes up and dashed to many times.

Notice the blast in the fifth second.

dBSPL said:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1754230825640513972

Notice the blast in the fifth second.

Click to expand...

I wish army would just order a hundred of these in 40 mm remote controlled turret configuration to start with, while they make up their mind about what the fuck they want from an IFV, so that it can be upgraded into Alpha Mk2 later on and get it in other configurations as well. Just get something ffs.