It's the AMX-10 RC

>>33948008
are we supposed to say something nice about it?
I am confuse.
It looks like a cool sci fi tank prop

>>33948008

Turrets on wheeled vehicles are super lewd.

A shame that the Stryker's automated one got canceled. That shit was tight.

>>33948008
>This is a recon vehicle

The french have a very interesting notion of recon.

> Andre, what if ze vehicule that spotted ze target also destroys ze target
>Pierre, you are un génie

>>33948008
No, thats a FAMAS

Great unit in wargame: RD

File: ob_e972ee_img504-1.jpg (107KB, 1200x847px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1200x847px

>>33948529
O fug

File: Exercise_Allied_Spirit_I,_Day_5_150117-A-EM105-337.jpg (122KB, 800x531px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 800x531px

>>33948610

LOOK AT IT.

>>33948610
well, thanks for getting me all hot and bothered, anon

>>33948008
A perfect vehicle for conflicts in Africa: light, mobile, simple, can blow the tits off shit at long range

File: ob_7eae9a_img-6214vvv.jpg (394KB, 1510x1012px) Image search: [Google]

394KB, 1510x1012px

>>33948649
You're welcome

File: jaguar-blinde.jpg (60KB, 896x598px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 896x598px

>>33948008
It's going to be replaced by the Jaguar

File: hjNXqs9[1].jpg (79KB, 720x504px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 720x504px

>>33948008
Any other pics of ground vehicles with their loadout on display? I love that shit.
It's common for planes but I rarely see some for other materiel.

I had one with an AMX 30 at the same spot.

File: sdkfz234-puma.jpg (46KB, 800x457px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 800x457px

This is Puma.

File: aml60_035.jpg (56KB, 757x555px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 757x555px

>>33948699
>servir & defendre doesn't exist anymore.
>Stephane Ferrard is dead.
Good sources about post ww2 french army are getting scarce.

>>33948597
The perfect counter to a wheeled opener. This thing DESTROYS BTR-90s and shit.

>>33948704
a mistake imo

>>33948704
Aesthetic downgrade

>>33948755
SAD

Here some a e s t h e t i c Daguet AMX-10
https://youtu.be/4HYJmTVkZL0

>>33948787
Why ?

>>33948624
I have an erection.

>>33948554
kek

>>33948854

He probably doesn't like that it is going to use a smaller cannon. Which I disagree is a mistake. The 40mm cannon will let it destroy anything that isn't MBT-tier with ease, while keeping the mobility, and the missiles that it comes with will help negate any MBT's that it might run into - which is doubtful.

It's a good move.

>>33948008
What are those strips next to the shells? Coax belts?

File: 16_RTD_VAB-MK3-Amph-Copy.jpg (259KB, 1024x761px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 1024x761px

Why dd the Griffon win over the VAB mk.3? Both vehicles seem pretty similar, and I didn't see any area where the Griffon had the advantage, including acquisition and maintenance costs.

>>33948955
It has less range and less explosive power, tho.
It wouldn't surprice me that France is forgetting all the lessons from their colonial wars, where they had to put Chaffee turrets on their AMX-13 to have a more curved ballistic trajectory, or creating >>33948755, a mortar-equipped armored car.
I'm neutral on that topic. Both guns are good, and it will all depend on the doctrine used.

I also suspect that 40mm being cheaper to train with once it's mass produced might play a role.

However, using 76mm guns instead of 100mm for the navy is criminal.

>>33948008
>French
Probably 3 gears in reverse and 1 forwards
And 1 forwards is in case enemy decides to attack from behind

>>33948554
I mean, it's like games where you can command your guys to shoot other dudes. Like, if I'm already aiming at them, what not shoot em yourself? Same principle, why not give recon a nice little gift to share with the first guys the bump into?
oh no, the badguys have a mechanized brigade coming towards us.
i mean, mechanized brigade -1 lol
now it's gunna take a whole extra day cause they're gunna stop to re-consolidate from that.

>>33948610
>the us will NEVER have another spaag

File: VBC_90_90mm_gun_6x6_armoured_vehicle_French_France_army_defense_industry_military_technology_equipment_640_001[1].jpg (53KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 640x480px

>>33948554
You think that's overkill? Look at what they use for internal peacekeeping.
Even the brits didn't go that far, and they had northern Ireland to take care of.

>>33949305
Not sure if that's plain ignorance or just a pitiful attempt at trolling. In either case I'm saddened for you, anon.

>>33948704
Looks like a stretch VBL.

>>33949305
Hello 9gag xddd

File: AMX-32.jpg (189KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 800x600px

>>33948720

>>33949432
Why are they using soviet style skull cap and not CVC helmet?

>>33949395
I dunno, I thought it was funny.

>>33948008
Would he USMC benefit with an armored vehicle like this over the Abrams for their different role than the Army?

>>33949395
Do I recall correctly that the 90mm gun on French death trucks can fuck up an early model T-72's day?

File: C-AuzEQWAAADJi3.jpg (68KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 640x427px

>>33949404
The Griffon is the replacement of the VBL

>>33949922
This huge thing is replacing the VBL? They fell for the MRAP meme?

File: 29911[1].jpg (287KB, 1740x1180px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 1740x1180px

>>33949866
Well, it's a fast, amphibious armored vehicle with a fantastic gun for the time (1976). Some marines use similar vehciles, like the Indonesians and their AMX 10 PAC 90 (to stay on the same chassis); but idk if it really fits the current USMC doctrine. Because any beach taken by US marines will be devoid of life due to the massive amount of ordnance dropped on it beforehand.
And it is way underarmored and undergunner to remplace a MBT like the Abrams.


>>33949870
I don't think so. Not frontally at least.
While they had excellent penetration for 90m guns, due to the french develloping shaped charges shells stabilized by rolling bearings, the T-72 was meant to resist almost everything the West used at the time. The french countered it by adopting the infamoous Apilas, and it's a 112mm shaped charge.
But there is more to a shootout than just penetration, and I recall israelian AMX-13s destroying egyptians tanks by shooting at them until the crew and internal systems were knocked off by vibrations.
I wouldn't want to face a T-72 in a Sagaie or AML 90, anyways.

>>33950123
Nah, it's replacing the VAB. The next-generation VBL would be something like the Panhard CRAB, but they don't want to spend the money on it yet.

>>33950123
Well most fight are gonna happen in Africa, so protection against IED makes sense

>>33948720
>>33949432
SO 80s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEcXzDSaJow

>>33948610
Gon play some satellite TV when there's no planes to shoot

File: CRAB-by-Panhard-Defense[1].jpg (143KB, 1087x725px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1087x725px

>>33950228
The CRAB.
I can't say I'm a big fan of the current design of most modern military vehicles. Too tacticool for me.
Like that Griffon. Enjoy replacing the whole windshield as soon as some local throws a rock at it.

But at least it's funny to see fashions change in the military world.

File: 808f35105d5d7916.jpg (70KB, 736x584px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 736x584px

>>33950364
That thing is adorable.

>>33950364
>replacing the whole windshield as soon as some local throws a rock at it.
Come on, that's the most stupid meme of all, it's bullet proof glass

>>33950364
That should have a metal/composite front glacis and periscopes, instead of THREE windshields

>>33950424
I think you underestimate the damage a sling can do. And as soon as the glass is chipped they'll change it.

>>33950711
Even if it proves to be true, all they gotta do is separate the windshield in two, I don't think it's that complicated

>>33948955

It's because we're only getting 248 of them to replace almost 500 AMX-10RCs and numerous hundred ERC-90s. It's a MASSIVE downgrade in amount of armor, while missing outy on the direct fire guns that were propping up the army's anti-armor after the Leclerc got cut down to only 200 hulls.

I'm not too bothered as much about the direct fire gun loss due to the ATGMs, but part of the thing with these vehicles is they are all lightly armored. A Jaguar is no harder to kill than an AMX-10RC, in some ways much easier as its not had the same appliqued demoed on it. And there's far far less of them. These will suffer from incoming damage without the same numbers to back them up. If they were substantially better protected and not just STANAG Lvl fucking 4 then I could understand it, but no. Wheel mafia need their fucking "muh light".

>>33949231

>However, using 76mm guns instead of 100mm for the navy is criminal.

The 76mm is actually better than the old 100mm in almost all respects, if you have the right ammo for it.

Unfortunately, we never bought the right ammo. So all our new ships get these piddly little shitguns, not even the rapestorm version of the 76mm that the Italians use.

So yeah, it's criminal. Army and Navy are fucked.

>>33950424

The Griffin is the most pathetic and embarrassing purchase we've done in decades. This thing is supposed to be an "APC", and all we got was an light to moderate armored truck with an exposed fucking windscreen on the front just begging for an HMG or anti-material rifle to shitkick.

The APC program should have been the APC version of the VBCI and absolutely nothing less. The French Armys future armor is in a dire position at the moment.

To give a clear indication, outside of the Leclerc and VBCI, there is not a single combat vehicle in the French Army's future that has anything resembling proper armor any more.

>>33950798
76mm is shit for hitting terrestrial areas, as the intervention in Lybia has shown.

As a french mechanic puts it "We know the gun system inside and out. Since some of them are over 60 years old, we've exprerienced every kind of structural failure imaginable and know how to repair them. Making an improved version that fixes those most of the problems would be piss easy. But instead we're abandonning it, while the ships it is on will stay in service for 20 more years."

>>33950798
They're going to be use in Africa, so mobility is more important, they're also going to be against IED and their armor are made for that

>>33950931

The 100mm gun only has a 12km practical range, perhaps out to a bit further if you don't care much about the accuracy.

The modern Oto Melara 76mm with Vulcano ammo can reach out to 40km, not to mention its much better for air defense with its dedicated anti-air rounds and higher fire rate. It puts way more on target in a shorter time, at a longer range with modern ammo.

The 100mm was good but its day is done. The real crime was no 127mm guns being picked, either the Mk45 or the 127/62 would have been good. Hell the FREMM is already using the 127mm in Italy!

>>33950405
Toot toot

>>33950980

The VBCI chassis is just as mobile, if not more so in Africa, than the Griffin, along with having better IED protection. The VTT was a gift package that our government ignored to prop up other companies instead with an order.

>>33950987
As they aren't going to buy RAP or GPS-guided ammo, that point is kind of moot. Same with the RoF, the french aren't using the improved system afaik.

French navy is pitiful for the country with the biggest EEZ in the world.
And I think that during the presidential election, only Lassalle, that had like 1% of the votes, talked about the Sea in his program.

>>33951142

Yeah thats pretty much what I meant. Without the fancy add ons the 76mm in use is utter shit tier. With them its a monster, but we got only the most basic of basics with it and ended up losing capabilities with it.

Absolute fucking embarrassment.

Still waiting on that second goddamn carrier.

>>33951009
That poor bastard has to drive right up to enemy machine gun nests and bunkers and attempt to take them out with his mag fed LMG.

>>33951183
Don't look at the frigate program, it's even worse.
>cancel half of them and pay so much compensation money as a result that you end up poorer in the end.

>>33951183
Beginnig the construction of a second carrier right now is a bad idea, we need better R&D, and to do that we need a more stable economy, and our social situation does not make thing easier

>>33948008
>>33948610
>>33948704
>>33948906
>>33948964
>>33949395

>Only 6 wheels

>>33948529
It did not get canceled and they are in every SBCT

File: huestuart.jpg (52KB, 600x281px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 600x281px

The HUE M3 Stuart with 90mm

File: vextraraids105us-26a8b3a[1].jpg (73KB, 1200x600px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1200x600px

>>33951369
Happy?

I think there were some VBCIs with guns ranging from 40 to 120mm, too.

File: desert-strike-return-to-the-gulf.png (65KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 640x480px

>>33948610

File: M1128 MGS from 4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division at Baqubah 3.jpg (126KB, 800x512px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 800x512px

>>33948529
>A shame that the Stryker's automated one got canceled. That shit was tight.

?

>>33951412

Much better.

>I think there were some VBCIs with guns ranging from 40 to 120mm, too.

>tfw no lightweight 155mm's for maximum lulz
>(tfw no face)

File: Boxer-and-Donar-155mm-turret-illustration[1].jpg (543KB, 1280x1324px) Image search: [Google]

543KB, 1280x1324px

>>33951719
Dana, Rhino, Centauro Porcupine, Boxer Artillery Gun Module.

File: 62.jpg (94KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1280x720px

>>33951793

Excuse me while I go take care of something.

>>33949432
>>33948720
>>33948008
It must take hours to lay out every last cartridge like that, who the fuck has to do it? The guys who operate the thing? Their CO just shows up one day and says "Yeah, you know everything that goes in your vehicle? You're putting it all on the ground out from of it for some photos... Have fun!"?

>>33950364
>>33950228
I though the CRAB concept was ditched in favor of the SPHINX ?

Or was it the SPHINX winning over the leclerc T40 ?

>minor damage 70

>>33951412
>Vextra 105

Oh what could have been.

Also l-lewd

>>33953014
We did this once a year for Battalion Commander's inspection.

>>33948624
>you can tell by the orange marking that this is obviously a licensed hunter

>>33948610
I love it, looks like a chibi IFV

File: Leclerc+T-40[1].jpg (400KB, 1162x1600px) Image search: [Google]

400KB, 1162x1600px

>>33954367
The SPHINX was a contender for the EBRC program; the heavier Jaguar was chosen in the end.
Renault Trucks Defense, the Jaguar's manufacturer, owns Panhard, btw. Both are subdivisions of Volvo.

France seems to completely abandon amphibious vehicles with Scorpion.

>Leclerc T40.
I shouldn't complain about the Cold War ending, but the Mars 15 family and Leclerc variants (like the Crotale) being ditched make me a bit sad.

>>33951532
It was limited production run. They don't make them anymore.

>>33948554
Genie means Engineer in French btw.

>>33948483
Its a recon vehicle that can also destroy shit. Whats the problem?

>>33956399
"Génie" means genius
Engineer is "Ingénieur" in French
But the Génie is also the name of the military engineer

>>33956478
You mean >>33956414

>>33956335
This makes my peepee respond

File: Vextra POLE 120mm L52 FER gun.jpg (77KB, 768x576px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 768x576px

>>33951412
It was never monted on an actual VBCI hull but the POLE gun was meant to, here on a Vextra as a demonstrator. Lightened Leclerc turret with L52 modified low recoil gun with direct and indirect fire capability, it had metric precision at 12km during tests.

>>33950364
>>33950228

Meh. it sure looks cool but it doesn't really fit anywhere. For recon/fire support i'd rather go with more Jaguars, if possible, and it is totally overkill and overweigh as a scout vehicle in replacement of the VBL (and we're about to refurbish a good number of them, all the latest mark with slightly elongated hull, so they won't disappear anytime soon). Something a fair bit lighter with a RWS carrying a 12.7mm mg + a MMP missile and/or a recon mast would be way enough to integrate in our armored formations alongside the Leclercs. Besides nobody is very happy with Panhard these days after the shit job of the QA controls of the PVP which is an utter disaster.

>>33949231
Much higher growth potential, higher internal volume. The VAB Mk.3 is cool and all but it simply doesn't have the same long term possibilities. Besides keep in mind giving something to do to our R&D defense companies is a perfectly viable strategic point.

>>33948955
This. The mix of 40mm airburst and APFSDS rounds plus antitank missiles gives plenty of flexibility. My only gripe is that the early concept looked so much cooler than the actual vehicle.

File: VBCI-Dash-Two-Side-view-Nexter-EHB-Roanne-4-Sept-2015-IMG_5864.jpg (341KB, 1296x864px) Image search: [Google]

341KB, 1296x864px

>>33950798
>The APC program should have been the APC version of the VBCI and absolutely nothing less. The French Armys future armor is in a dire position at the moment.


I'm willing to agree but our army has so much expeditionnary emphasis, a 30 tons APC would do more arm than good. I'd rather see our guy having a 21 tons one with a lot of internal volume, easy to drive (it handles like a truck, it was in the requirement so pretty much anyone who trained for them can get behind the wheel of the Griffon), with rugged automotive components for our Africa operations is 100% fine. Besides keep in mind our vehicles are managed as a park and our base combat formation is the composite GTIA (roughly translates as Inter-Arms Tactical Group, a 1200 personnel formation iirc), if we ever need to send infantry units solely on VBCI if the opposition justify it we could do it by assembling operational units out of the pool of available personnel and equipment. I'd rather have the final target of 3000+ Griffins plus an additoonal batch of, like 300 VBCI mk.2 if the need arises at some point rather than paying for 3000+ VBCI-APC, with all the logistical footprint that goes with it.

File: amx-10RP.jpg (53KB, 593x369px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 593x369px

AMX-10 troop transport variant, which is apparently based of the AMX-10RC rather than a wheeled version of the AMX-10P. I think it look quite awesome and very modern, a shame it never interested anyone.

File: AMX-10RC-RTT.jpg (41KB, 564x324px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 564x324px

This one seems lower but i think it comes from the dynamic suspension, with a 25mm gun.

File: 211109_vbci_1.jpg (110KB, 715x658px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 715x658px

Early concept of a VBCI fire support vehicle with aforementioned T21 turret and POLE gun.

>>33948008
this thing is so cool a fast moving reconnaissance element with a 105 I love it

>>33950798
The Griffon is supposed to replace the VAB, that was initially a tactical truck not meant to fight at the frontlines. The VAB being an excellent vehicle and nothing else being available, they converted it to all sorts of functions including IFV, but the Griffon's primary role is not to be an APC like a BTR.

>>33956872
Fun fact: You can't steer the wheels in an AMX 10RC, they use a differential to turn.

>>33956888

Which would be great.

If we actually HAD a fucking APC.

So the Griffon has to fulfill that role and is wholly unsuited to it.

>>33949476
skull caps are much more comfy.

>>33956898
Griffon will be a perfectly fine APC and multipurpose armored carrier for all our non-contact battlefield role, and low-ish intensity peacekeeping missions. What you're asking is some more available VBCI for frontline troop transport under fire, which is indeed a matter i don't entirely disagree with.

File: VBR-DESERT-1.jpg (278KB, 2592x1728px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 2592x1728px

>>33949404
A stretched VBL you say?

>>33957007
Reminds me of those dune-buggy race games that i played on our first computer

Easy to wack European/American armor.

You all are smart enough, left behind turret for fireworks.

>>33956986

Not more VBCI as such, thats an IFV and fulfills another role, with the expense involved.

What I want is the VTT design on the same chassis as the VBCI, so we'd actually have troops in things that aren't paper.

>>33957090
considering that the base VBCI VTT is stanag level 4 as well, i fail to see the point

>>33957113
And if you're under fire and using uparmored VBCI VTT, then that's a waste of a perfectly good hull lacking a 25mm gun.

Our army has one thing going for it, it's its fluidity. Let the Griffons perform their role and concentrate the available VBCI for contact units on the go where they're needed.

In a perfect world with unlimited logistical capabilities i'd agree with you. But we're not the US army, we don't have a fleet of C5 Galaxy ready to carry all our stuff around, nor are we the German army cowering behing its borders waiting for the big nasty russians to come, we have to choose our battles and i'd rather have simple solid yet unperfect Griffin by dozens plus VBCI IFV where needed rather than 30 tons APC galore that are a mess to move around.

>>33957113

The chassis has upgrades that can see it up to STANAG 5. And it doesn't have a giant fucking windscreen weakpoint on the front. Its also better IED resistant to rollovers.

It's also much better off road with the 8x8 design.

And more upgradable with frontline requirements, such as to ATGMs or mortar carriers.

And it carries more troops I believe.

And it would share commonality with the VBCI to reduce the ridiculous costs of logistics these days, and make maintenance much easier.

And we already know it works and how to operate it, saving on training costs.

>>33957148
>The chassis has upgrades that can see it up to STANAG 5. [...]

But then again, if you put a Griffon in a situation it'd need level 5 protection, you're doing something wrong. If have no knowledge of the comparative protection against IEDs and resistance to rollovers. I'm willing to agree with you though

>It's also much better off road with the 8x8 design.
I agree indeed. Still it will always be better than the current VABs, so there is still a significant improvement there.

>And more upgradable with frontline requirements, such as to ATGMs or mortar carriers.
Not really. Griffon was designed from the ground up with much more variants in mind, including mortar carrier. ATGM tank hunting role will be performed by the Jaguar (of which i wouldn't mind a couple hundreds more, though)

>And it carries more troops I believe.
Same number of dismounts. Fuckhuge internal volume. Great power generation for equipment already integrated into it.

>And it would share commonality with the VBCI to reduce the ridiculous costs of logistics these days, and make maintenance much easier.
Not necesarily. The VBCI was not designed with a whole lot of modularity in mind and it is very hard to judge how different variants would turn out to be. Grifons was designed as a common platform with different mission packages.

>And we already know it works and how to operate it, saving on training costs.

Not really. VBCI demands a dedicated simulator Jaguar demands a mud track and a truck, as it is intently designed to handle like one, and the RWS will apparently be common to all Scorpion program vehicles.

I agree that in a perfect world i'd love we'd have a 8x8 30+tons, VBCI based multipurpose APC. I entirely see your point. I do believe however you're overevaluating the logistical benefits of it. Let's agree to disagree on this and hope for an improvement of the budget of our beloved army :)

>>33957229
>VBCI demands a dedicated simulator Jaguar demands a mud track
I meant Griffon, of course

As for the number of dismount, a quick check confirms you could indeed cram two more people into the initial VBCI VTT design. However that doesn't change to organisation of a french infantry squad, and the volume isn't that different so i'd assume if they actually produced the thing it would carry the same number of personnel and use the additional volume for stores and power generation, so i'm not too sure the additional possible seats really matter.

File: AMX-10RCR with SEPAR IED protection kit.jpg (156KB, 800x583px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 800x583px

SEPAR kit looks so weird.

>>33957408
>That ruined ground clearance
but why

File: french army AMX 10RC Mali.jpg (943KB, 1920x1260px) Image search: [Google]

943KB, 1920x1260px

>>33957494
It has an oleo-pneumatic suspension, it can lower itself.
See >>33956863 and >>33956872.

>>33957775
The image dates actually back from Operation Daguet, the french component of Desert Shield during first Gulf War.

>>33957494
It's not as bad as it seems, the hull is here in lowered position. The Separ kit is really all about mobility/ IED protection tradeoff anyway. There is an angled armor plate under the hull for IED protection, the side panels for close explosions, internal modification to the crews locations to minimize concussions, and radio jammers.

File: us-increases-military-presence-in-eastern-europe-to-counter-russia-reassure-allies-body.jpg (159KB, 1220x915px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1220x915px

>>33956399
I don't think you have any idea how many the US Army needed, let alone what cancelled means.

File: Leclerc 2018 Standart F1.png (476KB, 1120x590px) Image search: [Google]

476KB, 1120x590px

>>33950798
>It's because we're only getting 248 of them to replace almost 500 AMX-10RCs and numerous hundred ERC-90s.

If we add the currently in dotation AMX-10RC, the last few remaining ERC 90 and the dozen or so VAB Mephisto we have, we get something like 250 vehicles, to fit the current operational objectives of 300 vehicles. So 248 Jaguars is not absolutely ridiculous in comparison.

It will theoretically get a final order of 50 units for that 300 vehicles target. I don't believe they'll order a micro-park of another specialist vehicles for 50 units.Which may be reevaluated up with the next white paper to a slightly larger target with a faster delivery rate, as everyone who has a say on the matter these days agrees to increase the budget and dimension of the army. (no if we could have a few additional FREMM-ER and FTI and a whole fuckload of OPVs I would be a happy navyfag)

Also the current number of active Leclerc is 240, not 200, with the Ukrainian crisis the project to axe their number that low was cancelled.

>>33959226

We used to have almost 4 times that number AMX-10 RC, ERC-90 and Mephistos, stop trying to justify our government cutting our army just to make us look "better". They've fucked the army and they are trying to handwave it as a "one for one replacement" when its patently fucking not. Dropping from almost 1,000 vehicles to only 248 is ridiculous, no matter how you try and present it.

This "300" target is nothing more than the government trying to hide how much of a drop it really is. Years and years of steadily cutting vehicles and then just replacing the tiny amoutn left over is not good in any way. Shame on you for trying to justify them doing that to us.

>Also the current number of active Leclerc is 240, not 200,

We have 200 in service. There has never been an official reactivation of another 40, we dropped squadron numbers and their wagons went into storage like the rest, around about the same time they retired the AMX-30s for training. What you're quoting off was a brief "maybe they'll do this?" and then it never happened.

>>33959696
>I still wish we'd live in the cold war: the post

Implying you need or can afford, both in term of budget or human resources, 1000 modern recon/fire support vehicles.
Implying that a logic of number has any meaning in regards of a logic of effect.
Bitching that you don't meet these arbitrary numbers is plain stupidity

>>33959696
As far as I can tell our four regiments still do have 60 Leclerc each, mate. I confirm though that the upgrade contract was not redimensioned and is still budgeted for 200 tanks, though, so who knows what will happen around 2020.

>>33959696
>we dropped squadron numbers
But each tank unit went from 3 Leclerc 3 VBL to 4 Leclerc 4 VBL to maintain number without reopening squadrons. Better ask Frenchfag when he's around for confirmation.

Quelle était la position de Macron par rapport à l'armée et aux acquisitions?

>>33960771
Budget raise is planned but he was somewhat tame compared with some other candidates, with a target of 2% GDP oustide of pensions and operation costs for 2025, while both his center allies and the right wing want this for 2022, so it might be closer to that as he will very probably have to share power with the right wing assuming he doesn't get presidential majority at next month' election.

New white paper at the end of this year, and new programmation laxw in early 2018, we'll know more at that point but he confirmed he wants the start of R&D for new aircraft carriers in 2018 and a target for two ships. Acceleration of delivery rate of Scorpion program vehicles is almost garanteed, slight augmentation of deployable troops for the army, nothing specific yet for the air force and navy as far as I can tell. Preservation and modernisation of both airborne and submarine nuclear strike capabilities. We'll see how it turns out but it will be an improvement over 2000-2015 anyway.

>>33960288
>>33960615

French MoD sources directly specify 200 tanks.

>>33960214

Last year we still had 250+ AMX-10RCs and 190+ ERC-90's plus another 30 Mephistos.

Last. Year. We had over 500 vehicles.

We're getting half in return. There's no excuse.

>>33961040
According to wikipedia, 248 AMX-10RC and only 90 ERC-90. So between 368 antiques, and 248 modern vehicles which will likely be completed by another order at a later date, assuming the maintenance is adequate for decent disponibility, well, it's a no brainer.

>>33961141

Thats for now.

Last year we still had much much more. Again, they cut them slowly then act as though it's a one for one replacement. They cut them in advance so people won't see how little we get.

>>33951532
The thing looks like it would tip over sideways if you fired it on the move like that.

>>33957408

It's like a riced out Civic.

>>33948704
is that a leclerc turret ?

>>33961563
no retard

>>33951719
>no face
m8
https://gyazo.com/4093ca5bc2d5e0c41507c17f7882512f

File: Sagaie numbers.png (518KB, 2736x1694px) Image search: [Google]

518KB, 2736x1694px

>>33961198
The decrease is not as sharp as you seem to believe. There is a lot of things to bitch about in the french army equipment, but the AMX-10/ERC 90 to Jaguar ratio is hardly one of them.
I'd rather wait to see what comes out of this year's new white paper.

>>33960979
>2% GDP oustide of pensions and operation costs
Considering that our current budget without pension but with operation costs over the first billion € is currently around 1.5 or 1.6%, that is actually a pretty significant increase.

>>33961650

It's a simple fact. 248 is not enough for requirements. It's dropped by at least half, a quarter since 10 years ago, and at the very least a third. (248 AMX, 90 ERC, 30 Mephisto down to just 248 Jaguar, and highly likely to drop below 248 as retirements happen before replacement.)

This "we only need around 300" target is nothing more than them trying to pull the wool over our eyes. 248 isn't anything like enough.

>>33948554
>hon hon hon intensifies

File: 1447973249679.jpg (286KB, 1024x746px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 1024x746px

>>33955995
ohaiyou~ :3

>>33961563
No it's a 40mm telescoped

File: vAh3reg.jpg (109KB, 940x648px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 940x648px

>>33961650
>anti-aircraft duty is only assured by Mistral (and ALAT)
Well, that can't be right; surely there is...
>No more Roland
>No more AA guns
>Crotale, Hawk and Aster are used exclusively by the Airforce
God fucking dammit.

Looks like somebody forgot how 1940 went.

>>33962424
Losing most of your army's integrated SHORAD capabilities sucks.

t. American.

>>33961775
Beautiful

File: stig.jpg (58KB, 976x549px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 976x549px

>>33950364

>mfw Sparco seat

>>33967658
>Nobody here but us trees!

>>33948704
Is it amphibious?

File: 4289037+_fa5ce2f0cde7ef5cd6ea7399fc6ad19a[1].jpg (351KB, 1280x851px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 1280x851px

>>33967658
French vehicles are pretty shy as a rule.
Except the EFA, but that's because she's a slut.

>>33967684
RC is for "Roues Canon", whelled/gun.
The earlier tracked version was called P, for "Personnel".

>>33968136
Early versions are, as you can see here >>33950228.
The uparmored versions aren't (theorically you could remove the armor, but that's not gonna happen), and since those vehicles are more than 40 years old I wouldn't try anyway.
A couple of VABs have sunk due to old gaskets, after all.

File: 8c87fa37b7b600be3123a8cfb8f74cdd.jpg (735KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

735KB, 1920x1200px

whats going on in here.

>oh, hello little tanks