Would you happen to know why it was denied?
There are plenty of suggestions that are in a similar boat that have been approved
1 Like
So it was developed to replace a tank but then it failed to do that so it’s components were used to modernise the tank that it was supposed to replace?
If I remember correctly, the original answer was because the vehicle only existed in mock-up regardless of parts made. Essentially, they wanted evidence that the vehicle had been assembled past just having parts made for it
I mean, this one was approved because it had a full scale mock-up and an escape capsule built for it lol
Another one with just parts of the airframe
1 Like
Whoever tried to post the suggestion should try again then, provided they have prove for the parts having been made
1 Like
btw one of the big ideas about the strv 2000 was that it was supposed to use off the shelf components as far as possible to keep costs low and the development time reasonable. the only major components that were supposed to be developed from scratch was the ammo storage, the turret, the chassis, the protection, and the loading system. things marked red in this image(blue labels are adaptions of existing systems, green is just off-the-shelf)
1 Like
Also
Perhaps but to my knowledge only a few minor things were made as the project got canned very early on, iirc someone mentioned a sight was made for it but I don’t have the details on that
They love their escape capsules lol
No the 103D was to be the next generation of the 103 series, the D model would’ve had other improvements like a new engine, new armor and some other minor things.
The parts for the 103D that were made were integrated into the 103Cs to show off what the 103D would look like.
Realistically we asked for the most realistic version of the 103D, the NERA armor platting and the thermal sight which two different C models had. Unfortunately a proposed 103C with both items that were made were denied.
2 Likes
In theory that sight should be enough, but you’d definitely need proof to show that it has been built and that it was meant for the specific vehicle in question.
I guess there is some kind of minimum requirement for the significance of the part, if the sight isn’t enough.
Personally, I’d argue that a sight is quite significant for a tank, since you need one to aim, but I suppose that is debatable. On the other hand, the only part that we know of for the O-I is a track link, so, who knows lol
2 Likes
I added one short paragraph to the images I linked above, again the Strv 2000 was focused on already using existing items so that parts would be easier to handle. BAE even had other mockups of the Strv 2000 alongside other Udes projects. These were also suggested designs for it.
1 Like
The Strv 2000 did get the PL-01 treatment though at one point as you can see the hull is actually a real vehicle beneath the mockup, likely a CV90 compared to the fully wooden mockup prior.
1 Like
Tbf it’s probably not going to be added as the entire front was planned to have like 2000mm of armor all over the front lol.
Iirc it’s been a long time since I looked at this thing, personally I’m indifferent and not a big fan of this thing since it’s not a CV90
@THEPolishThunder
To be exact 3 testbeds were made for the 103D as proof of concept, Night Hawk, one of the suspension dampening testbeds and the NERA testbed.
All featuring aspects of stuff that would go into the 103D with iirc talks about a reduced thermal signature model.
NERA
Don’t have anything for the suspension tests anywho we asked for these vehicles and were told no last I checked.
This is a comment referring to the 103D prototype
“Inför utvärdering av stridsvagn till de mekaniserade brigaderna på 90-talet, togs ett exemplar fram av en Strv 103D. Denna vagn var uppgraderad med en ny gasturbin, NBC-filter, styrd dämpning för att minska vagnens ibland guppiga gång, höjdstabilisering av vagnchefens kulspruta, ballistisk kalkylator för skjutning mot rörligt mål, system för mätning av eldrörskrökning, passiv mörkerobservationsutrustning och förstärkt frontskydd. Resultat från försök med utländska stridsvagnar i början av 90-talet lade emellertid dessa uppgraderingsplaner på is.”
2 Likes
Guess the rules must be different for variants?
I honestly can’t tell at this point.
But hey, apparently an escape capsule is enough for a plane!
2 Likes
Tbf suggestions aren’t word of snail, getting accepted as a suggestion means nothing, Kranvagn was accepted on the old forum and redone and accepted on this forum.
If we were to get a cold war vehicle for Sweden personally I’d like to the the Udes 19 or 20. Bofors Buster would be neat lol but I don’t know how far they got with their own LOSAT trial lol.
1 Like
I genuinely think that Gaijin does agree with the suggestion rules, it’s just that fully realized vehicles take priority.
It might still be a long time away, but there will be a point where they need new, unique vehicles to keep people interested, but the stash of fully realized vehicles has run out.
1 Like
Eh if they start worrying about running out they’ll just reduce how much a nation gets a year to sub 10 additions
1 Like
I’d really prefer to see the Ho-Ri II as a regular TT vehicle, but if this is the only way we can get it…
The Type 75/99 are NOT suitable candidates for the Ho-Ri
3 Likes
I think the flying tank would be more appropriate, the JP TT doesn’t have a flamethrower tank yet
1 Like