PDA

View Full Version : 13 Ford F-350 SORV for Irish Army (Sp Fces)



Pages : [1] 2

Gunner
14th January 2004, 12:03
From Military Machines Feb 04

Displayed on the land rover stand was and example of the FORD F 350 SORV
(Severe off road vehicle) based on fords F 250/350 commercial pick up.
It was announced at the DESi that the irish army had procured 13 sorv for possible use by it's special forces on recce ops.The vehicles are currently being heavily modified by Ricardo Vehicle Engineering and it is understood they are being fitted with a rear body - frame similar to that fitted to the UK's WMIK fleet.

WMIK ( Wpns mount kit)

" just get me my Green surf board and shades surf's up "

Gunner

mil pic is too dull to be scanned

strummer
14th January 2004, 15:34
Are they left or right hand drive?

Goldie fish
14th January 2004, 16:48
Does it matter? At the moment there is a mixture. The DROPS are LHD,the Piranhas are as good as LHD. The Land Rovers appear to be RHD.
http://www.virtualroadtest.com/FordF350SuperDutyCrewCabXLT/f35011.jpg

strummer
15th January 2004, 03:49
Jeez, I was just wondering !!!:D

I wasn't sure if Ford made or marketed those trucks in Europe, and certainly not Ireland, because of their huge fuel consumption by most European auto standards.

They are expensive enough to gas up in the US, I can only dread how much to "fill 'er up" in Ireland !!!

Come-quickly
15th January 2004, 14:51
How does this affect driver training?
Forgive my ignorance as a non driver (soon to change after I had to rush my dad to hospital the other night, I guess ruralites have as little excuse for not driving as urbanites have for it) but is there much difficulty in switching from a right to left hand drive vehicle?

kermit
15th January 2004, 15:04
The gearstick is on the other side...

ias
15th January 2004, 15:17
CQ, it's not difficult at all, seems natural after a couple of minutes.

IAS

c22910
15th January 2004, 17:15
Its easy. Only issue is sometimes after pulling out on to the road you may occasionally scare the other drivers. This will pass after a while.

Driving should be tought in school

Gunner
15th January 2004, 17:21
dont you think this fits the bill a better
parts are available
Diesel engine 2.5 lt TDI
as simple as a sand castle


Gunner

Aidan
15th January 2004, 17:33
Also less stable at speed, open to the elements, has a much smaller payload and it isn't all that reliable (at least the civvy Td5s aren't). The Fords are a different size class of vehicle altogether. Doesn't mean they were the right purchase either, but I presume that those who made the decision have a better idea of the requirements than we do.

Gunner
15th January 2004, 17:51
[B]Also less stable at speed,

as a previous owner of both 90/110 models quite ok up to about 110 kph quite fast enough for military ops


open to the elements: Better observation all round ever try speak to the driver from the back bed of a dual cab pick up truck

has a much smaller payload but enough for 24 hr recce ops ever check out the WMK's the sas use in the desert and tell me they are shot of gear , will fit down irish lanes and inside Casa !

and it isn't all that reliable (at least the civvy Td5s aren't). True Land rover have their problems with TDI 's mainly gearboxes but are simple to fix , as far as i know the Military versions have use the 4 cylinder TDI mark 300 engines 2.5 turbo more torque but less max HP but who needs hp

The Fords are a different size class of vehicle altogether.
yes a crew cab pick and bed with a 6.5 lt Turbo diesel engine , if my info is correct where are we going to get spares for that or panels to fix if used in anger spare part is a dirty word in the irish military dictionary ??


Doesn't mean they were the right purchase either, Why invent the wheel WMK's are cheaper and proven and can be de kitted with roll over bars and plastic rear bodies like the UK's Wolf land rover

but I presume that those who made the decision have a better idea of the requirements than we do.
I would like the presumption to be true ?

Gunner

as a taster have a look at the arw in east timor with 2 x suzuki DR 350 motorcycles with ling range tanks and bark busters followed by a Aussie Unimog U1300 also a good platform for a Gunship or recce vehicle

kermit
15th January 2004, 18:34
The model you had may have been stable, but did it have a .5 mounted on top?

Gunner
15th January 2004, 19:21
[QUOTE]Originally posted by kermit


[B]The model you had may have been stable, but did it have a .5 mounted on top?

No Currently not on the scale of issue to the East Cork Militia

but 84 Lb + Mounts + box of .5 Ammo + Operative on a stable mount properly engineered i.e. Suspension Limited in travel and uprated to take into account the mass will leave you with a usable platform

of course a large vehicle with a wider Track and longer wheel base will provide greater stability but a a cost to maneuverability and cross country access ?

we are not talking about perfection

Rccce is not performed at 100 km/hr but you still need the ability to return fire as soon as it is spotted to give you time to get out of there

tashkugan
16th January 2004, 09:39
I agree with Gunner. I'm on my third 110 Defender and find them a very reliable vehicle. The mil versions aren't equipped with TD5s which makes them simpler to support and maintain. The 110 and 130 are used by SAS, SBS, Aussie SAS (6 wheel drive version), US Army Rangers and our own ARW. It seems to have a bit of a following.

Frank Aiken
16th January 2004, 10:17
http://www.landroverclub.net/Club/Defender/XD_110_FFR.jpg


This is a proper military land rover

ias
16th January 2004, 12:03
I was recently reading an article in Military Machines International and they were making the point that while the Landrover was a very good vehicle in the past the likes of the Mercedes G-Wagen (G Class) had a generation of improvements over it.

I was also under the impression the the US SFs had replaced their Landrovers by the G Wagen and the Aussies are replacing (some/all) of their 4 and 6 wheelers with the Timoney/ADI Bushmaster.

I don't know if the Ford is good or not, however it's about time the the ARW/DF got proper purpose built/converted military vehicles, a step in the right direction I would say.

IAS

FMolloy
16th January 2004, 12:09
I think the USMC has adopted the Merc.

tashkugan
16th January 2004, 12:44
US users include the 75th Ranger Regiment

Each Ranger Battalion possesses 12 Ranger Special Operations Vehicles (RSOVs) for its airfield seizure mission. The vehicle is a modified Land Rover. Each vehicle carriers a six or seven-man crew. Normally, each vehicle mounts an M240G MG and either a MK-19 Grenade Launcher or a M2, .50 cal MG. One of the passengers mans an anti-armor weapon (RAAWS, AT-4, LAW, and Javelin). The main purpose of the vehicle is to provide the operation force with a mobile, lethal defensive capability. They are not assault vehicles, but useful in establishing battle positions that provide the force some standoff capability for a short duration. Each Battalion also possesses ten 250CC motorcycles that assist in providing security and mobility during airfield seizures. Most commonly used as listening posts/observation posts (LP/OPs), or as an economy of force screen for early warning, the motorcycles offer the commander tactical mobility

I know of two types of mil spec Land Rover that are available from the Land Rover Special Vehicles division:

Defender RDV. The RDV features a roll cage, ring mount and munitions stowage which can be fitted to a standard heavy-duty Defender 110 General Service Vehicle making this an immensely flexible and capable weapons platform for a wide range of tactical applications. Designed for airportability, the RDV combines many of the key attributes of the Light Strike Vehicle with the reliability of a proven, Commercially-Off-The-Shelf, military platform. 200 of these vehicles are in use with the Airborne Infantry regiments of the United Kingdom Armed Forces.



Defender Demountable Armoured System (DAS)
Defender DAS. Utilising the unique modular construction of the Defender, this innovative product allows the user to install or demount armoured panels and glass screens to a prepared General Service Vehicle, transforming a standard vehicle to an Armoured Personnel Vehicle within hours. Protection to B6+ or Stanag 4569 level 1 can be provided with additional optional anti-personnel mine protection. This concept presents clear logistics and cost benefits to any defence force enabling the operator to upgrade armour, remove armour for low threat duties or to use with partial protection or anti-personnel mine protection alone. The Defender DAS is also available in a permanently armoured condition

81Charlie
16th January 2004, 18:40
Interesting thread. The Canadian Army has just bought the Mercedes G-Wagen, the first 60 are off to kabul shortly to replace the clapped out iltis. Only time will tell if they are actually suitable for their role.

Cheers,
Liam

strummer
16th January 2004, 22:18
As regards the Ford truck's suitability for military service...well we'll just have to wait and see how they work out. However, there are literally millions of these F-Series trucks on the road in the US. They do run forever. Spares are plentiful and relatively cheap and every mechanic knows the engines, etc. They are used for all sorts of work, up to and including heavy towing, agricultural, hauling, construction, etc. Not exactly as rigorous as military stuff but tough work all the same. Whether the easy availability of spares and widespread mechanical knowledge Stateside will translate into an easy maintenance and spares system in the Irish DF, we'll just have to see.

mutter nutter
5th February 2004, 19:40
Are the new ford sorv's supplementing or replacing the land rovers

Bailer
13th February 2004, 09:44
<FONT FACE="TAHOMA" COLOR="#FF9900">4 New Ford 4x4 WMK's were in McKee last night, mounted with .5 and a AT gun apparently. I only saw them fly by painted in same DPM as uniform. PDF driver said they were refuelling before going to Liberia last night.

</font>

mutter nutter
13th February 2004, 11:19
that's weird aren't the rangers coming home, why would more of their kit be getting sent out??:confused:

Erwin
13th February 2004, 23:55
They're actually on test in McKee at the moment!The Ford's are being tried out as Gun towers among other things.

driver2
14th February 2004, 02:07
where they located in McKee will be in over the weekend, are they over near the 2 Regiment Transport/

Erwin
14th February 2004, 13:37
unfortunately for youdriver2 they are safe under lock & key & away from prying eyes,after all it is new military kit on trial!

Come-quickly
17th February 2004, 19:00
It is possible that some of the professional soldiers in Liberia who don't have the good fortune to be super duper SOF personnel might also be trusted to drive a big jeep with machine guns on it...:)

Erwin
18th February 2004, 20:29
Correctomondo!

Padre
26th February 2004, 11:56
Can anyone tell what`s wrong with the Nissans that are in use?As regards all purpose vehicles why don`t they buy a few land rovers ?You know the ones the sas use and the US rangers.:D

mutter nutter
1st March 2004, 03:19
The F-350 is a big boy

trellheim
1st March 2004, 12:01
I drove one in the states - big ! Plenty of fuel needed.


Isn't a drawback a lack of commonality and ANOTHER set of spares to bring out ?

gaff85
1st March 2004, 13:34
Interesting link found on the web, it seems that it is not only Ford that are converting there usual oFf roaders into full military versions

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/alternative/163_0304_com/index1.html

mutter nutter
1st March 2004, 14:27
I've seen a picture of a sf sorv Ford-350 it look's a lot different, the cab is cut away, the rear hamper is an inlarged wmik type one and it's about 6 to 8 inch's more ground clearence

Victor
1st March 2004, 19:10
Originally posted by Padre
Can anyone tell what`s wrong with the Nissans that are in use? The general opinion is they are light weights when it comes to military levels of abuse. I suspect they are basicly commercial models, without the upgrades needed for military use. Certainly they ain't no Hummer.

Goldie fish
3rd March 2004, 02:28
The Newer Nissans(Patrol GR) are worse than the old ones,with Little if any REAL off road ablity,and the radio mans seat faces forward,with absolutely no legroom or means of fast egress.
They are great for bringing the Kids to school though.
I think its time they returned to Land Rover. The first 110 gave trouble,but the more recent Defenders and even Discovery's have much greater capability than the Nissans in fact among the current batch of "civilian" 4x4s, the Nissan usually comes last,behind the Daewoo,Izusu,Toyota and Mitsubishi.

mutter nutter
3rd March 2004, 03:42
In the latest issue of military machines international ther's a small article on the DF and in it, it talk's about some of the nissan's being replaced by a more heavy duty military vehicle, maybe humvee like

kermit
3rd March 2004, 09:39
the radio mans seat faces forward,with absolutely no legroom or means of fast egress.

That was designed by the CIS Corps, and does work if used properly, with part of the back seat down. There is a newer version again...

dangermouse
3rd March 2004, 10:10
The lack of off road ability is down to the fact that they are supplied with standard road tyres as opposed to the more capable off road types, but given that the majority of miles put up by these vehicles in escorts etc is on roads it makes for sense than using the faster wearing off road tyres. Selected vehicles in certain units have had off road tyres installled where it is clear that the vehicle will be used mainly in an off road capacity

tashkugan
3rd March 2004, 10:47
Why are they rubbish off road... well: useless 3litre diesel engine, part time four wheel drive, lockable rear diff useful in limited circumstances, no central diff lock, no traction control and yeah - road tyres.

A Defender is the best bet.

gruballright!
3rd March 2004, 11:23
I know it may be hard to hear, but sometimes it isnt always the fault of the vehicle being driven off road that is the problem,a lot of the time it can be the inexperienced driver behind the Wheel.Unfortunatly at the moment there is not a great deal of time allocated to Off Road Driving in the DF, but having said that the Defender is a more suitable car for off road driving.

SPOOKY
5th March 2004, 12:00
Land rovers are expensive though.

The Nissan is cheaper but much less capable.........

What is wrong with the Toyota Land Cruiser range?
They come with diesels, the suspension can be modified by mechanics,
(if they can do it for the AML's why not these?)
4x4, Have ability for rear cabs, as well as 'pick-up' cargo bays, and tow bars as standard.............

and they do have commonality with civilan models
(eg Spares, replacements, etc.)

They have also been used by foreign SOF, as well as conventional mil.

Why not ?
:confused:

Goldie fish
5th March 2004, 13:58
Good Point. The UN have always used mostly Toyotas,I think the model is the 4runner or 4trak or something...
Mate of mine who drove one in BiH swears by their off road capability. Off road being vital when a section of road has been swept away by flash floods(which has been known to happen in parts of Ireland...

DeV
5th March 2004, 17:32
Problem with F-350 & HUMMER is a huge wheelbase (distance between the front & rear tyres) and low ground clearance (very close to the ground)

tashkugan
8th March 2004, 09:07
Nissan's more expensive than Defenders? Eh.. Nope.

+ 2004 Defender 110 Station Wagon = €43k approx (with all that VAT and VRT rubbish)
+ 2004 Nissan Patrol (LWB) = €63k
+ Toyota Landlorry LWB about the same price.

Goldie fish
9th March 2004, 20:52
Originally posted by dangermouse
The lack of off road ability is down to the fact that they are supplied with standard road tyres as opposed to the more capable off road types, but given that the majority of miles put up by these vehicles in escorts etc is on roads it makes for sense than using the faster wearing off road tyres. Selected vehicles in certain units have had off road tyres installled where it is clear that the vehicle will be used mainly in an off road capacity

Why is it then that the older Nissans are preferred for use offroad?

Originally posted by gruballright!
I know it may be hard to hear, but sometimes it isnt always the fault of the vehicle being driven off road that is the problem,a lot of the time it can be the inexperienced driver behind the Wheel.Unfortunatly at the moment there is not a great deal of time allocated to Off Road Driving in the DF, but having said that the Defender is a more suitable car for off road driving.
Did the DF spend more time training for offroad driving with the older model Nissans?

gruballright!
10th March 2004, 01:02
Why break up a perfectly shiny new Nissan when you can practically nearly overturn one of the older ones?

barry sheehan
20th July 2004, 23:31
anybody out there got any decent pictures of the wings new ford srv.there was one in the star newspaper about a month ago but thats about it.:)

yellowjacket
20th July 2004, 23:57
There was a good bit about this in a previous thread, the search function should be able to locate it.

Heard some whispers they aren't all they were made out to be.

Muzzle
21st July 2004, 00:58
The pics I was trying to attach can be found at

http://www.ireland.com/photosales/

Search for Army Ranger and the 2nd and 3rd shots have their wagon in the backround

mutter nutter (again)
22nd July 2004, 02:47
Originally posted by yellowjacket
There was a good bit about this in a previous thread, the search function should be able to locate it.

Heard some whispers they aren't all they were made out to be.

They should have just got the SOV G-wagon:(

FMolloy
22nd July 2004, 14:44
I heard their ground clearance isn't great. Is that something that could be remedied by the DF workshop?

andy
24th July 2004, 14:11
I thought they would have properly evaluated them before they got them

shouldnt the wing have gotten Eagles instead ?

mutter nutter (again)
24th July 2004, 16:21
Originally posted by andy
I thought they would have properly evaluated them before they got them

shouldnt the wing have gotten Eagles instead ?

Isn't the Eagle designed and used for a different mission then the Ford's or the German LIV (SO)?

spiderman
29th July 2004, 22:25
saw 3 of them yesterday up close, got a guided tour of the specs by one of the lads, damned impressive! ground clearance looks ok, and wouldn't want to be too high given the .5 on top. chassis stiffness when firing looks dodgy though. They look up to the job. moreso than any other civvy unit I've seen.

spiderman
29th July 2004, 22:26
oh and we weren't allowed take photos, sorry Barry!

barry sheehan
31st July 2004, 13:09
thanks spiderman i'm sure you tried.just out of curiosity where did you see them?:)

Goldie fish
31st July 2004, 13:48
I'm guessing it was in the top secret training location in wicklow?

spiderman
3rd August 2004, 15:56
roger that. busy day for all, helos, black role, green role... 12BN 81 team declined our offer to shoot against them, is there something theyre afraid of?? :rolleyes:

Jimmy C
3rd August 2004, 16:32
As off topic as this may be, I had to ask. Who is this? I found it in with Muzzles link to new srv.

spiderman
3rd August 2004, 17:09
wing in the green role??

Muzzle
3rd August 2004, 17:36
Thet look Russian or Eastern Europen, The Times site dosnt give any detials on the pics which pain in the arse.

Gunner
4th August 2004, 01:34
Sorry hard to find the attach tab

Gunner
4th August 2004, 03:16
SORV `large

I keep on getting a messige that the file I am trying to attach is too large
it is 308 Kb

have tried again
here goes

Goldie fish
4th August 2004, 03:56
Any others?

Gunner
4th August 2004, 13:51
Sorry that is all I have at present

barry sheehan
5th August 2004, 19:10
Dont think so spiderman, but then again I wasn't there.Must be a reason. Also unusual seeing as we have one of the best mortar teams in the pdf.
What exercise were ye on? Was it this years pso or something different?

[MOD: Stick to the thread please.]

Thorpe
5th August 2004, 23:53
They are unable to pull themselves out of trouble as they only have an electric winch for 3 ton and you need 25% more to pull yourself clear with an electric winch as the motor will burn out.

mutter nutter (again)
9th August 2004, 19:43
There are a couple of good pic's of the F-350 in this months Military machine international, although the article said the ARW only got 12 and not 13 as was reported eleswhere:(

barry sheehan
10th August 2004, 16:32
Where can I get that magazine?Has it only just gone on sale? I am home on leave next week, hope its still available. Did the article give any tech specs?:)

Gunner
10th August 2004, 18:01
I bought mine in Easons in Cork Yesterday , it should be on sale in Easons in Limerick
if you are having problems let me know and I will post you up one

Gunner

Goldie fish
10th August 2004, 21:33
Yeah its sold in easons limerick too,over in the far corner,on the same shelf as An Cosantoir,near where the security guard always stands...

kermit
10th August 2004, 21:43
I can never find An Cosantoir in Eason's in Limerick - thanks for the directions!

Goldie fish
10th August 2004, 21:57
Thats cos its nowhere near the porn... It Used to be near the Tattoo magazines..thats how docman finds it...

Joshua
10th August 2004, 22:03
Ahem...

mutter nutter (again)
10th August 2004, 22:11
Originally posted by Goldie fish
Yeah its sold in easons limerick too,over in the far corner,on the same shelf as An Cosantoir,near where the security guard always stands...

He does always stand there:D , anyway the mag is going to have an article in an up coming issue focusing on the DVD military show and they are going to have a close look at the F-350 SRV in it:) probably because of the increased interest in it, it's in a couple of international compitions around the World, even the US sf are looking at it:)

barry sheehan
10th August 2004, 23:24
Thanks guys.i just hope it doesn,t sell out before i get home.
Combat and survival are doing a piece on the dvd show in the next issue if thats of any interest.
I guess from everybodies intimate knowledge of the scty guards loc.in easons limerick that a few of ye are from the treaty city?

mutter nutter (again)
15th August 2004, 16:39
from Eurosatory

Goldie fish
15th August 2004, 19:25
Nice. Well done mutter

warlord
18th August 2004, 23:10
The F-350 is featured in this months Combat&Survival but there's very little on it bar 2 pics.

Goldie fish
19th August 2004, 01:34
Originally posted by warlord
The F-350 is featured in this months Combat&Survival but there's very little on it bar 2 pics.

walter :D

JAG
19th August 2004, 23:24
Looks like a mutilated half breed of a Landy & Nissan Patrol to me.

Silly question- what is the advantage of this vehicle over an APC, apart from cost? I was under the impression the Mowags were fairly nippy ATVs with better armour that the above. Is it not an overly tempting target to have an open topped vehicle in a combat role?

It looks like something to market to a Somalian warlord rather than a Western military, but I'm sure someone will explain things to me.

The_Equalizer
19th August 2004, 23:33
Was it left over night on the northside?

Silly me, it would be up on blocks if it was.

Come-quickly
20th August 2004, 00:07
Originally posted by JAG
Looks like a mutilated half breed of a Landy & Nissan Patrol to me.

Silly question- what is the advantage of this vehicle over an APC, apart from cost? I was under the impression the Mowags were fairly nippy ATVs with better armour that the above. Is it not an overly tempting target to have an open topped vehicle in a combat role?

It looks like something to market to a Somalian warlord rather than a Western military, but I'm sure someone will explain things to me.

Weight, visibility transportability and speed for a start.
Like it says on the tin its a recce vehicle, which neccessitates that it be easily transported ahead of advancing forces i.e. by helicopter, fixed wing aircraft or boat.
Seoondly it must be nimble (which no APC is in real terms) and it must offer all round visibilty for man and machine and ease of entry and exit.
Firepower like on cav vehicles is really a matter of self defence and an aid to evasion rather than an offensive weapon , armour as carried by APCs doesnt really offer a great deal of protection against direct fire other than from small arms and usually not very convincingly against Heavy machine guns, what armour does offer is a huge amount of weight and cost.
Apart from the difficulties of moving an APC far beyond the FEBA there is also the issue of what happens if it breaks down or the crew are compelled to bail while it sinks?

irishrgr
20th August 2004, 02:23
A bit off topic, I agree, but wanted to ID the picture from a few posts ago. It's a Uzbek Army officer as best I can tell from the flag on his sleeve. The hat helps too, those bloody things are almost 18 inches tall......like a sail. Anyhow, can't tell his rank, but certainly Uzbekistan. The statues in the background are probably a war dead memorial from WWII, they are all over the place there and well tended. Interestingly all the Soviet war dead memorials have fallen into disrepair and are largely ignored. Apparently Uncle Ivan was less than popular there, go figure.........A

mutter nutter (again)
20th August 2004, 02:27
I got an up close look at the SRV today, it's a lot bigger then you think from the pic's, it's also remarkably quiet:)

Goldie fish
20th August 2004, 14:09
Originally posted by irishrgr
A bit off topic, I agree, but wanted to ID the picture from a few posts ago. It's a Uzbek Army officer as best I can tell from the flag on his sleeve. The hat helps too, those bloody things are almost 18 inches tall......like a sail. Anyhow, can't tell his rank, but certainly Uzbekistan. The statues in the background are probably a war dead memorial from WWII, they are all over the place there and well tended. Interestingly all the Soviet war dead memorials have fallen into disrepair and are largely ignored. Apparently Uncle Ivan was less than popular there, go figure.........A

They seem to be using the standard Soviet rank marking system,which is the same for all branches,only difference being colour of the shoulder boards.
I think I see 2 stars,2 bars,which would make him a Lt Col.

http://www.sovietarmy.com/ranks/rank_system.html

mutter nutter
3rd February 2005, 17:04
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v634/mutter1/arwf3505.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v634/mutter1/arwf3504.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v634/mutter1/arwf3503.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v634/mutter1/arwf3502.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v634/mutter1/arwf3501.jpg


courtasy of http://groups.msn.com/Chuck6dsMilitarypage

Gasplug
3rd February 2005, 19:06
What was wrong with the landrovers? and are they toyota hilux's?

mutter nutter
3rd February 2005, 19:11
What was wrong with the landrovers? and are they toyota hilux's?


too small and apperently had a tendency to want to tip over.....apperently*, and these one's are Ford F350 sorv srv to give them the whole meaningless acronym





*= I may be talking out of my arse on this :smile:

The Joker
3rd February 2005, 20:25
Is that the only vehicle apart from the mowags that have a DPM colour scheme?

Itchy
3rd February 2005, 20:27
Saw them in action during the summer, cracking piece of kit!!

hptmurphy
3rd February 2005, 21:04
No...the scorpions are DPM'd as well....they look well sexy to me...usual problem though...we just ain't got enough of them

hedgehog
3rd February 2005, 23:30
"Is that the only vehicle apart from the mowags that have a DPM colour scheme?"
__________________
The command car in my unit is in dpm

yellowjacket
4th February 2005, 10:44
http://www.maykuth.com/images/technic.JPG

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/75000/images/_78652_somalis300.jpg

GI Josephine
4th February 2005, 11:48
Savage machines got a gawk at them durin the summer months too and took my breath away...

'What pedestrian?!'

hptmurphy
4th February 2005, 14:33
Nice piccy in Military Machines International of the restored ACMATs in Private hands....one complete as a gunship.....

Who owns these as both are still wearing Irish registartion plates....although the gunship carries 82 KE......plates which would suggest that it has been reregistered. Any info?

Truck Driver
4th February 2005, 19:48
Nice piccy in Military Machines International of the restored ACMATs in Private hands....one complete as a gunship.....

Who owns these as both are still wearing Irish registartion plates....although the gunship carries 82 KE......plates which would suggest that it has been reregistered. Any info?


Yes, it belongs to one of two fellas I know who are in the Military Vehicles Club Of
Ireland. It was on display at the exhibition they did up at the Curragh Racecouse earlier
this year. If I think of it, I' ll post a photo of it on this thread tomorrow night. Just to
confirm I' m talking about the same ACMAT, it's in a desert camo scheme, right?

SPOOKY
5th February 2005, 20:54
Q. there was an article in JANES monthly about SUV/military 4x4 conversions, a wee bit back.....

crux of it was that Janes testers didn't rate the newer 4x4 military purchases from "SUV's" as these were not explicitly designed offroad endurance vehciles -"ie. mini-trucks"-

evidence deployed:
(read majority) most Canadian/Dutch 4x4 "Itis" have now developed cracks in chassis in Afghanistan........
Increased maintanence time/ spare parts purchases for JSDF newer 4x4 compared to older Mitsusbushi models.........
USMC G-wagen models "proven" to be" less than 1/2 as reliable as the M151" (USMC e6/7 ? ) on exercise(s) in California.........

point: Ford SUV (ie F350) AND other "purpose designed...civilian recreational[ tarmac/gravel] road"
models got slatted by testers........

But my Q. is the Ford they pictured seemed very diffeent to ARW F350 namely:
ARW F350,
seems to have much lower suspension/ground clearance.....
seems to have much smaller and narrower tyres...
&
(subjective) seems to look shorter...(?)

anyone know if this is right or have any geeky technical spec.s?

spiderman
7th February 2005, 10:42
no geeky specs but having seen them firing the .5, I noticed the chassis twisting a lot - can't be good for longevity

Jimmy C
7th February 2005, 11:10
You would imagine a vehicle like that would be well totalled before it gets a chance to use all the kit it has (The 2 SRAAW's for example).

hptmurphy
7th February 2005, 11:51
Yeah one is in Desert camo and the other one is fitted with a canvas tilt........what about the weapons fit..where did these come from?

happenin
7th February 2005, 15:16
Ya. saw them durin the summer too. Class machine. As far as i know they were kitted out by the same crowd in england that convert the landrovers for the brits.(open to correction)

mutter nutter
7th February 2005, 16:06
Ya. saw them durin the summer too. Class machine. As far as i know they were kitted out by the same crowd in england that convert the landrovers for the brits.(open to correction)

Ricardo vehicle engineering

hptmurphy
7th February 2005, 16:41
thanks for that.......

the question was actually in relation to the VLRA ACMAT as picture in this months MMI

PTE bog
9th February 2005, 19:00
Can anyone tell me what is the cluster of tubes on the rear right in the 3rd photo. Iv seen them on tanks as well

Boomer
9th February 2005, 19:05
Smoke Grenade Dischargers

kermit
9th February 2005, 19:14
Are there still a load of Acmats parked up in McKee? I'd like to buy one ;)

Come-quickly
10th February 2005, 10:15
So you could drive it at night with your sunglasses on? But win the collision with the wall?

kermit
10th February 2005, 12:17
exactly

happenin
18th February 2005, 15:04
Can anyone tell me what is the cluster of tubes on the rear right in the 3rd photo. Iv seen them on tanks as well
Theres a big red button on the dash that fires them. Looks like the launcher for nukes on a sub. Kinda class really.

Goldie fish
19th February 2005, 09:05
Are you sure thats not the Hazard Lights?

B Inman
1st April 2005, 22:37
ARMORED WARFARE: Afghan Army Equipped With Ford Pickups

March 31, 2005: The Afghan army is being equipped with some 5,000 Ford F 350 SORV (Severe off road vehicle) pickup trucks. These four wheel drive vehicles are based on Fords F 250/350 commercial pick up, which has been the best selling line of pickup trucks in the U.S. since the 1980s. The Afghan army trucks are being built in a Ford factory in Thailand. The SORV is being provided in five variants, (cargo, emergency response, personnel/tactical and personnel/command trucks, maintenance van). The SORV truck comes with a diesel engines (about 300 horsepower). Costing about $40,000 each, the 4.5 ton vehicle can carry about two tons of personnel and cargo, and tow up to eight tons. It has a 38 gallon fuel tank. Depending on the version, the SORV can seat up to eleven people. Afghans are accustomed to cramming as many people as they can into pickups and SUVs. The Afghans will probably also mount weapons on some of the SORVs, and give these vehicles a workout that Ford engineers never imagined.

Many armed forces, especially those on a low budget, use commercial vehicles, particularly the Ford F-250/350. The Irish army uses SORVs for recon units. In Afghanistan, the Ford, and other pickups, are very popular (especially if they are four wheel drive). Equipping the Afghans with the SORVs, instead of hummers, means the Afghans will get familiar vehicles at less than half the price of the hummer.


http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTARM.HTM

Fianóglach
11th April 2005, 22:01
:biggrin:

Laners
11th April 2005, 23:24
Nice pics and all that . Now what would happen if the targets could fire back at them ?

ex pat 007
12th April 2005, 00:45
I presume youre referring to the lack of armor," speed is their security."

Itchy
12th April 2005, 10:09
Any more pics?

Come-quickly
12th April 2005, 15:39
ARMORED WARFARE: Afghan Army Equipped With Ford Pickups

March 31, 2005: The Afghan army is being equipped with some 5,000 Ford F 350 SORV (Severe off road vehicle) pickup trucks. These four wheel drive vehicles are based on Fords F 250/350 commercial pick up, which has been the best selling line of pickup trucks in the U.S. since the 1980s. The Afghan army trucks are being built in a Ford factory in Thailand. The SORV is being provided in five variants, (cargo, emergency response, personnel/tactical and personnel/command trucks, maintenance van). The SORV truck comes with a diesel engines (about 300 horsepower). Costing about $40,000 each, the 4.5 ton vehicle can carry about two tons of personnel and cargo, and tow up to eight tons. It has a 38 gallon fuel tank. Depending on the version, the SORV can seat up to eleven people. Afghans are accustomed to cramming as many people as they can into pickups and SUVs. The Afghans will probably also mount weapons on some of the SORVs, and give these vehicles a workout that Ford engineers never imagined.

Many armed forces, especially those on a low budget, use commercial vehicles, particularly the Ford F-250/350. The Irish army uses SORVs for recon units. In Afghanistan, the Ford, and other pickups, are very popular (especially if they are four wheel drive). Equipping the Afghans with the SORVs, instead of hummers, means the Afghans will get familiar vehicles at less than half the price of the hummer.


http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTARM.HTM

Jesus H, if we had 500 SORVs for various roles we'd be better equipped than at any point in our history.

Truck Driver
14th April 2005, 11:50
Saw one of these in the Curragh a day or so ago. Presume it was the Wing boys driving. At that
instant the thought "It's a far hue and cry from Liberia lads" came into my mind - it was lashing
down on top of the crew !!!!

Chief Bubblewrap
16th April 2005, 22:08
Is it just me or do they look really crappy? It doesn't seem to be much more than a mobile platform for the fifty cal. It looks very low to the ground, would they not be better off with a hummer or somethin that has some ground clearance and is somewhat capable of taking some punishment. Granted it'd be nice to have a bit of momentum in a firefight, but rounds would rip through that thing like mary hearney through birthday cake, so unless it can outrun a bullet, i'd prefer the armour. I'm sure most on this site saw the cruddy conditions in kosovo in pictures, what kind of speed are you going to get up when you encounter pot-holes a half a metre deep every 2 seconds? I'm sure it was chosen for a good reason, i'm just curious as to what that reason it is.

kermit
16th April 2005, 22:13
High off ground = high Centre of Gravity
Mount HMG on top => CoG even higher

Remember what happened in Liberia...

FMolloy
17th April 2005, 01:26
The ARW aren't known for accepting shite equipment, if they'd had wanted Hummers or Land Rovers they would have gotten them.

Boom
17th April 2005, 11:18
The F350 was also tested as a gun tower about a year ago

Chief Bubblewrap
17th April 2005, 16:47
The ARW aren't known for accepting shite equipment, if they'd had wanted Hummers or Land Rovers they would have gotten them.

Why didn't they? That's what i'm wondering!

I don't remember what happened in liberia though, the tragic car crash involved a nissan, is that what you mean?

mugs
17th April 2005, 17:00
No. I think it's this. I hope no one takes offence at me posting this, if so just say.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2003/1202/mooneyd.html

RIP.

FMolloy
17th April 2005, 17:17
Why didn't they? That's what i'm wondering!

None of us here are privvy to the decision-making process of the ARW, except to say that they have far more input into their kit procurement than your average unit. If the purchase of the Fords follow previous form, they put in for a vehicle, tested a few out & picked the one they felt best fufilled their needs.

Only time will tell if they made the right choice. Since they're going to be the only ones using the Fords, I think it's safe to say that they didn't short-change themselves during the evaluation period.


I don't remember what happened in liberia though, the tragic car crash involved a nissan, is that what you mean?

Here's a link to a previous post on it: Link To Post (http://www.irishmilitaryonline.com/board/showthread.php?t=3163)

California Tanker
26th May 2005, 05:38
Here's the USMC's take on an armoured F350.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v47/Pthfndr/ArmoredF3501.jpg

NTM

yooklid
26th May 2005, 07:21
looks more armored.

hptmurphy
26th May 2005, 11:11
Sgt Mooney was killed whilst driving a landrover...rather than a nissan....read the report .

Looking at it indepth it would appear that the fact it was an open topped vehicle was a contributory factor in the death.

I would assume that seatbelts weren't been worn due to operational considerations .

The only thing that would have increased cahce sof survival would have been a 5 point harness and not a seatbelt. Again the realities are it could not be worn under the circumstances.

A tragic accident .

Old Redeye
29th May 2005, 19:25
French Special Forces just selected the Mercedes G-Wagon for their new vehicle with an initial order of 40-50 with the full SF mod kit. Competition was Land Rover Defender and two others I can't recall.

Cheers

Pathfinder
8th June 2005, 16:48
Hey, Boomer said i should hijack this thread, so, here goes.... :smile:

I`m looking for as much info on the F350 SORV as possible, why? Well, take a look in the "assistance needed" thread in the games section, i`m the guy whos behind those soldiers. Anyway, i`m planning on making the F350, and i need some info if its going to be accurately made. The stuff in here so far is pretty helpfull for a start.

Does anyone know what year the chassis is from? If i can find out this, i can model the base chassis pretty accurately, as itll be alot easier to find pictures and maybe even blueprints of the civvie chassis.

Other than that, any information on performance, weapons loadouts, additional gear (ie, things like jerrycans, and that AT weapon i see on one side) that would be carried on it and where it would be stowed, how many people you can fit into it, that kind of thing, i`d love to know. :smile:

Thanks in advance.

Chris.

AKA Pathfinder.

Goldie fish
8th June 2005, 17:55
Em..in case you missed the beginning of the thread,its only used by the ARW,and they don't post here much.

Pathfinder
8th June 2005, 18:03
Aye i saw, but just as half the people on UK armed forces boards think they are SAS experts, i expect some people here know SOMETHING about it, even if they arent ARW.

Goldie fish
8th June 2005, 18:11
IMO doesnt tolerate bluffers. Isn't that right JAG? Everything we know about it has been posted here.

JAG
8th June 2005, 20:40
Damn right.

Usually takes about 5 mins for 20 people to point out all the mistakes I make in any given post.

FMolloy
8th June 2005, 20:44
There's plenty of pics of the weapons fit, you could just copy the kit from an SAS Landrover. I doubt thered' be much difference. Try Ford's US site for info on performance.

Gunner Who?
8th June 2005, 23:28
Or sit outside Fentons as I did early last year. see one going by to Seskin , rub eyes in disbelief, what was that? Leave two full smithwicks on the table ,give chase up to Leitrim and get photo oportunity as they practice heli insertion and extraction drills. No problem public domain.

Pathfinder
9th June 2005, 00:58
Nobody would fancy doing that with a camera for me eh? :biggrin:

Thought not. :smile:

I dont mind educated guesses about things like the chassis type and equipment stashed aboard, if you dont want to potentially embarrass yourself in the public domain by speculation theres always my PM box :wink:

Goldie fish
25th June 2005, 04:14
Do you have the ability to keep to the topic anywhere or do you just ramble? Check out the title of this thread....

ARW F350
Not British,Not Landies,Not mercedes!

mugs
25th June 2005, 04:21
there it's gone

Goldie fish
10th March 2006, 22:12
I see in this months(March) Military machines a review of the Aussie LRPV and SRV.

These vehicles were used by the ARW during the East Timor operation. One vehicle is a heavily modified 6x6 Land rover(by Holden), with lots of storage boxes, an Izusu engine, and armed with GPMG and HMG or Mk 19 grenade launcher. Frequently a Suzuki DRZ400 is carried on a rack at the rear of the vehicle.

However it pointed out the main weakness of the vehicle is its use of Diesel only. The quality of fuel found in some theater of operation has given the vehicles some trouble, while other similar machines have the ability to burn whatever fuel grade is available.
The other is the modified Land Rover 110, with the same armament but less payload.
http://www.militaryunits.com/P1010069_lo.jpg

thebig C
30th May 2007, 21:09
Isn't it curious that while the Irish Rangers bought an American Ford to use as their 'Special Reconnaissance Vehicle' (SRV)...

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/c/c5/Arw45.jpg


....the American Rangers bought Land Rovers for the same purpose:

http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/Assets/Still/2003/Army/DA-SD-03-07620.JPG

mutter nutter
30th May 2007, 21:26
Oh no.....

hedgehog
30th May 2007, 21:29
Isn't it curious that while the Irish Rangers bought an American Ford to use as their 'Special Reconnaissance Vehicle' (SRV)...



....the American Rangers bought Land Rovers for the same purpose:






NO- why should it be - horses for course

the boys and girl of the wing

carried out extensive trials

and got what they considered to be best for the job

Muzzle
30th May 2007, 21:35
Wasnt it a land rover that ARW member was killed in when it tipped?

Pod
30th May 2007, 21:36
carrington, you need to get out more!:wink:

paul
30th May 2007, 23:42
maybe they wanted to differentiate themselves from there American counterparts

turbocalves
30th May 2007, 23:48
Wasnt it a land rover that ARW member was killed in when it tipped?

hit the nail on the head mate...

Goldie fish
30th May 2007, 23:51
The Only thing US Rangers have in common with the ARW is the "ranger" in the name.

luchi
31st May 2007, 00:03
NO- why should it be - horses for course

the boys and girl of the wing

carried out extensive trials

and got what they considered to be best for the job

And that the was available for delivery

and that the bean counters considered justified expendature

and ................. a load more.

The only surprise is the US buying non US or has that rule been done away with now?

thebig C
31st May 2007, 09:09
The Only thing US Rangers have in common with the ARW is the "ranger" in the name.


Didn't the ARW get started after a few guys attended a US Ranger course? Do the ARW not train with the US Rangers any more?

Just noticed that their Fords are left-hand drive.

apod
31st May 2007, 12:04
The american ranger landrovers have since been replaced by humvee special patrol vechicles (aka dpv desert patrol vechicle).The landrovers are no longer in use.:biggrin:

Barry
31st May 2007, 12:15
The only surprise is the US buying non US or has that rule been done away with now?
Note the 84 (not on issue to the majority of the US Army) sitting next to the land rover - the Rangers have always gotten special kit.

Pod
31st May 2007, 12:32
Didn't the ARW get started after a few guys attended a US Ranger course? Do the ARW not train with the US Rangers any more?

whats your point?:confused:

thebig C
31st May 2007, 13:51
whats your point?:confused:


Have a look at post 8 above.

thebig C
31st May 2007, 14:06
What does the 'Special' mean in 'Special Reconnaissance Vehicle'? I know this kind of vehicle is back in vogue now, but it looks like the sort of vehicle used by the Long-Range Desert Group in North Africa 65 years ago. Could someone explain to me the advantages of open vehicles such as this? They are more dangerous in the event of overturning; they offer no protection from the elements, and they have no armour. Is it that they are lighter and therefore airportable? That Ford looks heavy enough though. :confused:

CTU
31st May 2007, 18:11
Carrington have a look at this thread and see if it answers any of you questions.
http://forum.irishmilitaryonline.com/showthread.php?t=2275

If it doesn't go to a place called the curragh and ask to see a ranger, and ask him why they bought it. Of course that depends on if they let you close to a ranger:rolleyes:
(oh and just in case you didn’t realise I was being sarcastic):rolleyes:

luchi
31st May 2007, 21:28
What does the 'Special' mean in 'Special Reconnaissance Vehicle'? I know this kind of vehicle is back in vogue now, but it looks like the sort of vehicle used by the Long-Range Desert Group in North Africa 65 years ago. Could someone explain to me the advantages of open vehicles such as this? They are more dangerous in the event of overturning; they offer no protection from the elements, and they have no armour. Is it that they are lighter and therefore airportable? That Ford looks heavy enough though. :confused:

Special = task specific

someone identified a task that was not efficiently executable by using other vehicles.

Some advantages of this type of vehicle are
1. quick deployment
2. no blind spost
3. good power to weight ratio (better acceleration and manoeuverability)
4. Lighter without body or armour and thus better able for soft ground (bog or sand)

Since it is not meant to be used as a cruiser ther is no requirement for "protection"

Granted in the event of a high speed roll over someone would be thrown out but if intended to travel at high speed in a vehicle like this all pers should be wearing a 4pt harnest. In which case it is no less safe than any other vehicle.

turbocalves
31st May 2007, 22:32
your man in the passenger seat isnt in irish dpm(even his helmet is different)

womble
31st May 2007, 23:00
your man in the passenger seat isnt in irish dpm(even his helmet is different)

what, the fecking bar steward, I shall go report him to the COS immediately, might even tell Willie O'Dea

hedgehog
31st May 2007, 23:04
what, the fecking bar steward, I shall go report him to the COS immediately, might even tell Willie O'Dea


Judging on how hands on he is

it could well be WOD

Goldie fish
1st June 2007, 01:25
your man in the passenger seat isnt in irish dpm(even his helmet is different)

I can't see anybody in the passenger seat. God Bless your eyesight Mr Kent.

spider pig
1st June 2007, 02:52
i agree with goldie

thebig C
1st June 2007, 10:04
I can't see anybody in the passenger seat. God Bless your eyesight Mr Kent.


LHD?

hedgehog
1st June 2007, 10:29
I can't see anybody in the passenger seat. God Bless your eyesight Mr Kent.


The guy nearest to you is in the passenger seat

dont forget they are left hand drive vehicles

check this out



http://gallery.irishmilitaryonline.com/main.php?g2_itemId=666


and then check this out

kermit
1st June 2007, 11:11
Well said Mr Hedge Hog, That put them in their places.

Master Of None
1st June 2007, 12:03
Thanks Hedgie for your useful Left& Right guide, I shall carry it every where I go! :biggrin:

The trouser leg does look a bit yellow alright, like the brit or dutch stuff..

Goldie fish
1st June 2007, 20:28
Thats what I get for posting in the middle of the night/morning.

Thanks for the education. I was a firm believer in the "hay" "straw" method.

tonyrdf
1st June 2007, 20:43
Didn't the ARW get started after a few guys attended a US Ranger course? Do the ARW not train with the US Rangers any more?

Just noticed that their Fords are left-hand drive.

Mr carrington compare the mission portfolios of the ARW and the US Army Rangers, and then think about what your trying to say.

hptmurphy
1st June 2007, 21:10
the CG 84mm is also on issue to USMC

As for buying US equipment...ever wonder where all the 77 sets and 46 sets came from?

We have bought South African, Israeli, French, British,German..why should the US be any different.

The things great myths are made from?

turbocalves
1st June 2007, 23:16
I can't see anybody in the passenger seat. God Bless your eyesight Mr Kent.

right, heres a huge hint only one in the front is visible (and he's not driving) does that help???

if not-

SHOULD HAVE GONE TO SPECSAVERS...

paul
2nd June 2007, 00:03
it would make sense that they would be left hand drive,sense most of the countries they would be operating in would be left hand drive.

thebig C
2nd June 2007, 11:22
Just wondering, do the SAS take part in public parades in the UK?

CTU
2nd June 2007, 14:48
Just wondering, do the SAS take part in public parades in the UK?

Once in 1980.

Barry
2nd June 2007, 14:53
Once in 1980.
You bastard, I was going to say "Only at the Iranian Embassy"

rod and serpent
2nd June 2007, 15:35
Just wondering, do the SAS take part in public parades in the UK?

Every now and again in parts of NI. Can also be seen in parts of Scotland. :smile:

FMolloy
2nd June 2007, 16:52
Just wondering, do the SAS take part in public parades in the UK?

What's your point? And what's it got to do with Ranger F-350's?

Orion
2nd June 2007, 20:28
Just wondering, do the SAS take part in public parades in the UK?


Not so you'd notice

thebig C
2nd June 2007, 20:46
What's your point? And what's it got to do with Ranger F-350's?

Many of the pictures in this thread show Ranger F-350s in public parades - I was wondering if it was common practice for Special Forces to 'go public' in this way.

CTU
2nd June 2007, 21:06
Many of the pictures in this thread show Ranger F-350s in public parades - I was wondering if it was common practice for Special Forces to 'go public' in this way.

It was one parade. As for going public have any ex rangers wrote books about missions or appear on television programmes discussing their activities like some ex members of the SAS?

FMolloy
2nd June 2007, 21:09
Many of the pictures in this thread show Ranger F-350s in public parades - I was wondering if it was common practice for Special Forces to 'go public' in this way.

None of which has anything to do with the vehicles themselves.

If you want to make comment on this you can do so in the General forum, do not drag yet another thread off-topic.

mutter nutter
2nd June 2007, 21:17
Many of the pictures in this thread show Ranger F-350s in public parades - I was wondering if it was common practice for Special Forces to 'go public' in this way.A
public parade, just one, and I don't think it matteres a whole lot, you can't ID any of the actual Rangers, and the vehicle is just a vehicle, just it has a wepon on it and is in camo, nothing uber secret....you'll have a point about them being too public if (God help us) ex members start writing books about their time.


sorry FM:redface:

luchi
5th June 2007, 12:33
the CG 84mm is also on issue to USMC

As for buying US equipment...ever wonder where all the 77 sets and 46 sets came from?

We have bought South African, Israeli, French, British,German..why should the US be any different.

The things great myths are made from?

The stated procurement policy for many years was "Buy American".
Most likely something to do with the US defence industry having very strong connections with various politicians. We buy from anyone because we have no defence industry here.


Then again there are now ties between nearly all motor companies. Now that I re-read the thread I think Landrover produced and sold by Ford in the US?

Maybe one of the vehicle anoraks might know???

kermit
5th June 2007, 12:36
Well Ford own Land Rover, does that answer the question?

luchi
5th June 2007, 14:25
Well Ford own Land Rover, does that answer the question?

Wel then that brings us back to the beginning then



Isn't it curious that while the Irish Rangers bought an American Ford to use as their 'Special Reconnaissance Vehicle' (SRV)...

....the American Rangers bought Land Rovers for the same purpose:



Are we liiking at the same vehicle with different bodies?

There is another thread about the LR (Land Rovers making a return?). Is this vehicle the future of our requirements? Hard top version possibly??? The defence forces universal SUV to replace the Patrol??

Aidan
5th June 2007, 15:28
Are we liiking at the same vehicle with different bodies?

No, and not even close. The 350 is built on a far larger and heavier chassis than the LR. And then given entirely new aftermarket suspension.

luchi
5th June 2007, 16:27
No, and not even close. The 350 is built on a far larger and heavier chassis than the LR. And then given entirely new aftermarket suspension.

But what about engine, transmission etc.

Many modern vehicles have common components on different chassis.

Re-suspension, the mil std is a leafspring suspension because of its simplicity its all you want in a battlefield. What are they using on the 350?

Goldie fish
5th June 2007, 19:12
The Ford F350 SORV used by the ARW is based on the Ford F350.
http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//pictures/VEHICLE/2005/Ford/100415291/2005.ford.f250superduty.31368-E.jpg
It has a 5 litre engine. Its a Pickup.

The Land rover Wolf WMIK is based on the Land Rover Defender.
http://www.carsandtuning.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/land-rover-defender-25-td.jpg
They are currently fitted with a 2.5 litre engine.

If you are going to load something down with loads of Kit, and extras such as a 50 cal and ammo up high, you'd be better off with a bigger chassis, and a stronger engine.

thebig C
5th June 2007, 21:48
Para Land Rover WIMIK:

http://www.operations.mod.uk/telic/images/land/para_wmik.jpg


Royal Irish WIMIK:

http://nightoperations.com/images/rirish_wmik_well_hr.jpg


MOD EDIT - Very large image so direct link disabled

British Army WIMIK Land Rovers seem to have a similar fit to the Rangers' SRV.

Acidsphere
6th June 2007, 01:23
The Ford F350 SORV used by the ARW is based on the Ford F350.
http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//pictures/VEHICLE/2005/Ford/100415291/2005.ford.f250superduty.31368-E.jpg
It has a 5 litre engine. Its a Pickup.

The Land rover Wolf WMIK is based on the Land Rover Defender.
http://www.carsandtuning.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/land-rover-defender-25-td.jpg
They are currently fitted with a 2.5 litre engine.

If you are going to load something down with loads of Kit, and extras such as a 50 cal and ammo up high, you'd be better off with a bigger chassis, and a stronger engine.

Living here in Canada I've noticed that there are a number of different types of F350's. No idea which kind the ARW use?

Goldie fish
6th June 2007, 08:44
merge

luchi
6th June 2007, 10:27
The new Range Rover sports is fitted with a ford engine so there is no reason to assume that the defender could not get one also.

I see the need for the power to shift the load but, as they say, "size isn't everything"

Remember the old land cruisers. Light body, big engine and too spritly for their own good.

ropebag
6th June 2007, 11:08
anyone know how portable these things are...

are we talking AW139, CH-47 (internal or external), CASA235 Utility, C-130J....?

Aidan
6th June 2007, 11:46
And the new Freelander is based on a Mondeo chassis. Still doesn't matter.

Commonality is all very well and good, but when roles diverge as much as they do in this case, trying to shoehorn one vehicle into two roles is just going to make too many compromises necessary. The army has two distinct jobs that need doing, the SF role is so small and niche that it makes sense to go purpose built. For everybody else a more general solution works just fine.


Re-suspension, the mil std is a leafspring suspension because of its simplicity its all you want in a battlefield

Really? Rhetorical question - what suspension is under a Mowag? Or any AFV?

hptmurphy
6th June 2007, 12:15
"Remember the old land cruisers. Light body, big engine and too spritly for their own good"

Four speed gear box was a major fault...used to scream for mercy at high revs....as opposed to whistling in the wind through all the rust holes...having to get out to lock the differentials was a nightmare...CoF G was far too high and very sussceptible to turning over.....ah the good old days.

luchi
6th June 2007, 17:17
Really? Rhetorical question - what suspension is under a Mowag? Or any AFV?

thats a very specialised suspension system. The Hydro-pneumatic system has so many potential weeknesses at firs glance you would think the Mowag engineers were mad. On the otherhand it works. But how durable is it in the field.

Lets say your on the beach conditions, sand and salt water for a few days. Maintenance of the the good old LS is wash down and grease. If the there is ingress in seals on the Mowag suspension does the vehicle head to the work shop? (I ask out of eng interest)

Aidan
6th June 2007, 17:28
Its a case of horses for courses.

The Mowag needs very good off and on road characteristics, and is a high value asset, hence it gets a complex and very expensive suspension. Trucks have different goals, so leaf is ideal (but air is better!). Other vehicles have different requirements, hence a diversity of types.

As for the Mowag maintenance issue - don't know, never been under one. But reliability in a wide range of conditions would have been part of the tender and assessment procedure. Will it be as reliable as a MAN truck? Probably not, but I'll also be that its a good deal faster over ground than one also.

Don't actually know whats under a 350, but if its like the civilian one, it'll have leaf on the rear anyways, and perhaps a more modern trailing arm multilink upfront with coil-over (aftermarket) shocks. Ideally with an anti-roll bar, but who knows.

Goldie fish
6th June 2007, 19:24
I see the need for the power to shift the load but, as they say, "size isn't everything"

.

You mean "as she says" :biggrin:

luchi
6th June 2007, 21:01
No defo "they say"

"she" just laughs

luchi
7th June 2007, 00:31
http://forum.irishmilitaryonline.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2787&d=1181171899

Here the F350 for you Cav lads

More info at

http://www.strategypage.com/military_photos/200592522.aspx

I noticed on the Ford site the F350 is not suffixed with SORV/SRV but actually "Super Duty"

There is a "Ford Ranger SORV" that is built in Indonesia (not that we can hold that against it)

Looks like the F350 but in the the range there are only 3 models:
2.5L TDi 4x4 MT XLT,
double cabin 2.5L TDi 4x4 MT XLT-STD,
double cabin 2.9L NA 4x4 MT Base

No big 5ltr.!!!!!!!!!!

So what have we got? Is this a case of re-badging a cheap alternative?

spider pig
7th June 2007, 03:09
Just to note that my pln was taken aside last year and told not to discuss the pros and cons of this vehicle on the net. I think one or two of you may have been there, but there was people up high that didnt like it

luchi
7th June 2007, 08:32
Who ever said that hasn't done a google search for this.

It has been discussed on mil and civvy sites all over the place. The only thing that we are doing here is expressing opinion and preference.

Everything else has been done by others.

Aidan
7th June 2007, 09:03
luchi,

You must be looking at the Ford Ireland page

In the US (which is the model the ARW bought), the 2008 engines are a 5.4l Triton V8, 6.8l triton V10 and a 6.4l diesel. The engines available in Gen 10 (97-04) were a 4.2l V6, a 4.6l V8, a 5.4l V8, a 7.3l V8 (diesel and only 275bhp!) and the 6.8V10.

The SORV/SRV title came from the aftermarket work done by Ricardo on the suspension (all of which was in the public domain when the vehicles were shown at Eurosatory). The short wheelbase civilian model of the 2004 F-350 weighs in at over 2.9 tonnes (6459lbs).

For comparison, the Ford Ranger sold here (with the 2.5l Duratorq) is built in Thailand and weighs less than half that (you can have a 4l V8 if you want though.

thebig C
7th June 2007, 10:25
luchi,

You must be looking at the Ford Ireland page

In the US (which is the model the ARW bought), the 2008 engines are a 5.4l Triton V8, 6.8l triton V10 and a 6.4l diesel. The engines available in Gen 10 (97-04) were a 4.2l V6, a 4.6l V8, a 5.4l V8, a 7.3l V8 (diesel and only 275bhp!) and the 6.8V10.

The SORV/SRV title came from the aftermarket work done by Ricardo on the suspension (all of which was in the public domain when the vehicles were shown at Eurosatory). The short wheelbase civilian model of the 2004 F-350 weighs in at over 2.9 tonnes (6459lbs).

For comparison, the Ford Ranger sold here (with the 2.5l Duratorq) is built in Thailand and weighs less than half that (you can have a 4l V8 if you want though.

Does the fact that the ARW Fords are vehicles from the American market complicate support issues such as spares and major repairs, or are the various components - like the engine - available here in other vehicles?

Wonder how much it cost to have 13 vehicles shipped from the US?

thebig C
7th June 2007, 10:37
Just to note that my pln was taken aside last year and told not to discuss the pros and cons of this vehicle on the net. I think one or two of you may have been there, but there was people up high that didnt like it



Did they say why you weren't supposed to talk about it? There could hardly be a security issue: it's a Ford truck - there are millions of them out there - with a couple of machine guns, a tweaked suspension and presumably a radio or two fitted.

Unless they secretly replaced the big clunky diesel with nuclear power, or maybe it's really a hovertank in disguise, or it could be like James Bond's car...

luchi
7th June 2007, 13:49
Well I started here

http://www.fordvehicles.com/trucks/superduty/

But I see your point about were the title came from.

thebig C
8th June 2007, 13:01
The american ranger landrovers have since been replaced by humvee special patrol vechicles (aka dpv desert patrol vechicle).The landrovers are no longer in use.:biggrin:

I thought the Desert Patrol Vehicles were those dune buggies? Surprising that the Land Rovers were replaced by Humvees, because one of the reasons the US Rangers selected the Land Rover was that it was smaller and lighter than a Humvee and therefore could fit inside heavylift helicopters.

This is an interesting article that describes how the Land Rovers were used by the US Rangers:

http://shadowspear.com/rsovphoto.jpg

The Ranger Special Operations Vehicle (RSOV)
01/07/2001

One of the lesser-known mobility platforms for U.S. Army special operations missions is the ranger special operations vehicle (RSOV). Originally fielded in 1992 as a replacement for the M151-series "gun jeeps," the RSOV design is based on the Land Rover Defender Model 110. Currently fielded in multiple configurations, the vehicles provide each of the three battalions in the U.S. Army's 75th Ranger Regiment with a versatile tactical transportation platform capable of moving Rangers and their equipment in a variety of operational environments.

In citing the advantages of the RSOV systems over the old M151s, Rangers identify improvements in a number of areas. For example, while the RSOV meets the same mission parameters and requirements as the M151 -- it fits on all aircraft that might be used in Ranger operations -- the vehicles are more dependable, have superior suspensions, carry larger numbers of Rangers "to the fight" and provide a superior firing platform for accommodating the Rangers' larger gun systems.

As summarized by one RSOV operator, "The most important asset that the RSOV provides us is the capability to move combat power [Rangers and heavier weapons] around the battlefield quickly."

The RSOV chassis measures 173.8 inches long, 70.5 inches wide, 76 inches high (without gun mount) and possesses a ground clearance of 10 inches. When fully loaded, the vehicle weighs 7,734 pounds. A four-cylinder turbocharged diesel engine provides the RSOV with a fully loaded range of 200 miles, extended by 50 miles per extra five-gallon fuel can.

Stowage and configuration features include a Mk19 or .50-caliber main weapon, M60/M240G mount, Stinger missile stowage rack, multiple storage compartments and straps, concertina mounts, vehicle lashing points and a 7,000-pound-capacity winch.

In addition to being transportable by all U.S. Air Force tactical cargo aircraft, the RSOVs are internally transportable in both MH-47 and MH-53 helicopters.

The basic RSOV crew configuration includes a driver/team leader, a truck commander (TC) and a top gunner. However, capacity can range up to seven Rangers depending on mission requirements. Additional positions might include an antitank operator, radiotelephone operator or a dismount team typically consisting of an M249 squad automatic weapon gunner, M203 gunner and rifleman.

Antiarmor capabilities can come from the M3 84 mm Carl Gustav rifle, Javelin, AT-4 or light antitank weapons.

In addition to the advantages cited above, in the RSOV's seating configuration Rangers face out in all directions, providing greater security than any other platform currently in the Army's inventory.

In terms of tactical signature, operators note that the RSOV's four-cylinder turbodiesel engine runs more quietly than other similarly sized platforms. "Force-on-force engagements have proven that the enemy normally does not hear the RSOV coming until it's too late to set up an ambush," adds one operator. "As a result, most of our engagements using RSOVs could be considered ‘chance contacts' with an unprepared enemy force."

There are 12 RSOVs in the "Alpha Company" of each of the three ranger battalions. The vehicles are fielded in three platoons, each platoon encompassing two sections of two RSOVs and two Kawasaki KLR 250 motorcycles.

For a typical operation, both vehicles in an RSOV section would be equipped with M240-series machine guns at the forward TC station with one vehicle carrying a .50-caliber machine gun and the other sporting a Mk19 grenade launcher at the top gunner position. In the words of one RSOV TC, "It certainly is a lot of firepower rolling up on the enemy."

Yet in spite of the firepower capabilities, Ranger tactical planners are quick to clarify the vehicle's combat limitations:

"The RSOV is not a fighting platform," explains 1st Lt. Chris Ayers, an RSOV platoon leader in Company A, 1st Ranger Battalion. "It's a means of transportation. It's a means of moving people around quickly with crew-served weapons. The whole idea is to move out quickly and put the equipment in position to defend somewhere with those heavy weapons."

In addition to the RSOVs with their crew-served weapons, each Ranger battalion has two medical variants of the Defender known as medical special operations vehicles (MEDSOVs). Instead of the weapon mounts found on standard RSOVs, the MEDSOV variant has fold-down racks capable of carrying six litter patients. Along with its transported casualties, a typical MEDSOV crew would include a driver, a TC and two or three medics to treat the wounded.

A third variant of the RSOV is used by the Ranger battalion mortar platoon. Known as MORTSOVs, the platoon's two Defenders -- they also have three Humvees -- replace the top-gun configuration with storage boxes and guy wires that allow the vehicle to carry thirty 120 mm mortar rounds along with the extra equipment required by the platoon. In addition to its onboard carrying capacity, the MORTSOVw can be used to tow the platoon's 120 mm mortars.

Ranger fleet planners indicate that RSOVs have a projected 20-year life cycle.

ex pat 007
8th June 2007, 23:29
I doubt the RSOVs are being used considering the lack of armor. They are definately not in use in Astan or Iraq.

BTW the thread title looks like Sp feces

hedgehog
9th June 2007, 10:16
those RSOV's look like the dogs bollox but the crew configuration is weird


The basic RSOV crew configuration includes a driver/team leader, a truck commander (TC) and a top gunner. However, capacity can range up to seven Rangers depending on mission requirements. Additional positions might include an antitank operator, radiotelephone operator or a dismount team typically consisting of an M249 squad automatic weapon gunner, M203 gunner and rifleman.


the team leader also double as the driver- and there is a car commander as well

or did I read it wrong

X-RayOne
9th June 2007, 10:59
i got that impression too....seems like duplication of roles??

not sure about the team leader driving also. would it be better to have him in the passenger seat overseeing the operation and let a driver concentrate on driving?

seven rangers and weapons and kit....a bit of a squeeze. no farting in the back please:smile:

hedgehog
9th June 2007, 13:05
seven rangers and weapons and kit....a bit of a squeeze. no farting in the back please


If it were our lads it would be -

7 individual mirrors

7 shelves for ultra tight t shirts

X-RayOne
9th June 2007, 15:32
lol...:biggrin:

ex pat 007
11th June 2007, 00:20
7 shelves for ultra tight t shirts

I see were not the only ones guilty of the "extra medium T-shirt"

thebig C
17th June 2007, 22:43
An Australian vehicle in Afghanistan, similar style to the F-350s. You can see the makeshift protection for the driver. Like the Fords, the crews are completely exposed, both to the elements, and to enemy fire.

http://www.defence.gov.au/defencemagazine/editions/200604/photos/army3.jpg

FMolloy
19th June 2007, 10:46
Like the Fords, the crews are completely exposed, both to the elements, and to enemy fire.

These traits aren't unique to the Ford, all such vehicles share the same drawbacks.

mutter nutter
19th June 2007, 11:41
An Australian vehicle in Afghanistan, similar style to the F-350s. You can see the makeshift protection for the driver. Like the Fords, the crews are completely exposed, both to the elements, and to enemy fire.

http://www.defence.gov.au/defencemagazine/editions/200604/photos/army3.jpg
Whats your point?, these vehicles are designed for long range and speed, you start slapping armour on you loose both, if the Wing had wanted an armoured vehicle, they would have got one.....if it makes you feel better though, the new Aussie SASR vehicle based on the supacat, is armoured and has a RWS.:cool: ....

trellheim
19th June 2007, 11:56
Perhaps an aside, but in the current op. envs in raq and astan surely perhaps a little more cover might be necessary for the crew ?

is there really an op. necessity at all for these things . Don't get me wrong, the look good and move fast factor is important for our ARW brethren

FMolloy
19th June 2007, 12:02
Perhaps an aside, but in the current op. envs in raq and astan surely perhaps a little more cover might be necessary for the crew ?

It's not these vehicles getting attacked in either country, it's the likes of the Hummers travelling on well-used roads that are suffering.

mutter nutter
19th June 2007, 12:09
The Brits have designed an armoured "blanket" type system fof their Land rovers, it's in use now

luchi
19th June 2007, 12:54
Don't know why some people keep griping on about "protection"

These vehicles have almost the same protection for the crew as a Nissan patrol, ie f-all They have purpose. They are supposed to get from a to b quickly without been seen. Apart from recci they would also have a use as scout carr on convoy duty.

But armour is not always the most importat thing. At the rate some of you are going you will need to be using mowags when you are doing a section in attack!!!!!!!

thebig C
19th June 2007, 15:35
These traits aren't unique to the Ford, all such vehicles share the same drawbacks.

That's my point. I'm not criticising the Fords. I'm just wondering about the vulnerability of this type of open vehicle. If there's no need for armour, why do the Aussie drivers have body armour spread over the spare wheel beside them?

Following a spate of incidents, there has been concern that the unarmoured nature of the British Army's Land Rovers in Iraq and Afghanistan exposes the crews to excessive danger, and they are being replaced in front-line roles by the Bulldog APC.

There's an article on the Channel 4 News website that might explain why the ARW didn't select Land Rovers as their SRVs:


"Fresh calls have been made to stop soldiers using Land Rovers in combat after new figures revealed the ageing vehicles have overturned 100 times - without being in a collision.

Ministry of Defence (MoD) records show 87 incidents of Land Rovers "overturning without first colliding" in Iraq - and 13 in Afghanistan.... " (2 June 2007)

BANDIT
19th June 2007, 17:13
Agree entirely with Luchi, get there have a bit of firepower if necessary , avoid tanks etc , scott off and call up airpower or armour.
See pictures of Mowags in Liberia, guys covered up cannot see out etc and it cannot still stop an RPG , Sardines waiting to be roasted. Opened topped Casspirs types quick debuss etc bif necessary l, plenty of mags, 0.5 , etc if come across lightly armed westside boys or similar =etc.

Docman
19th June 2007, 21:34
Whenever I hear of needs for improved protection, firepower or mobility, I think of Pentagon Wars.

A vehicle should only have something if it needs it or may need it. Same as a soldier. People and vehicles need to be mission specific.

apod
19th June 2007, 21:36
Don't know why some people keep griping on about "protection"

These vehicles have almost the same protection for the crew as a Nissan patrol, ie f-all They have purpose. They are supposed to get from a to b quickly without been seen. Apart from recci they would also have a use as scout carr on convoy duty.

But armour is not always the most importat thing. At the rate some of you are going you will need to be using mowags when you are doing a section in attack!!!!!!!

I have to agree with Luchi there.Also remember the stand off capability of the weapons employed on the srv's.Hmg and gmg have a very long reach.Srv can stand back outta range of small arms and support dismounted raids/assaults.An eaxample of this use of jeep mounted weapons can be found in the book "ultimate risk"by Mark Nicols.An account of the SAS operations in Afghanistan in 2002.:smile:

ZULU
19th June 2007, 21:44
You can go back further with the Long Range Desert Group in North Africa during 1942onwards

DeV
20th June 2007, 17:25
For vehicles like these it is carrying capacity (troops & equipment), speed, size, manoeuvrability, etc that is important. As others have said if you put armour on it it will effect this requirements. This type of vehicles are designed for shoot & scoot ops, not fixed position defence.

The Aussie drivers above could of course just be leaving the armour on the spare tires as the threat is low at the time and they are resting.... as far as i can see they are relaxed and no one is wearing body armour. They also have a lot of firepower - 4 x GPMG and at least 1 mortar.

FMolloy
20th June 2007, 18:57
That's my point. I'm not criticising the Fords. I'm just wondering about the vulnerability of this type of open vehicle. If there's no need for armour, why do the Aussie drivers have body armour spread over the spare wheel beside them?

If they were that worried about the lack of armour they'd make a better go at protecting themselves instead of just throwing a flakker over the door.


Following a spate of incidents, there has been concern that the unarmoured nature of the British Army's Land Rovers in Iraq and Afghanistan exposes the crews to excessive danger, and they are being replaced in front-line roles by the Bulldog APC.

These are not SF landrovers, they're ordinary ones operating in a similar manner to what was done in NI.

The real Jack
20th June 2007, 19:12
That's my point. I'm not criticising the Fords. I'm just wondering about the vulnerability of this type of open vehicle. If there's no need for armour, why do the Aussie drivers have body armour spread over the spare wheel beside them?


Because they have taken their body armour off temporarily while they're not in a combat situation. If they were at risk of being shot at dont you think they'd be wearing their helmets? The body armour is not completely bullet proof, it contains front and rear plates which would only protect a small part of the wheel.

hptmurphy
20th June 2007, 20:29
The role is long distance recce with an ability to get them selves out of a firefight at speed..hence the weaponary , lack of armour etc.

If they wanted a vehicle to be used in an offensive role..just buy a tank.

Think role specific..and rememeber its defensive firepower rather than offensive,

Think recce where the primary objective is to avoid contact and return with the information so speed and light weight versus fire power protection and weight..hence you get this type of vehicle.

luchi
21st June 2007, 10:10
..............................
There's an article on the Channel 4 News website that might explain why the ARW didn't select Land Rovers as their SRVs:


"Fresh calls have been made to stop soldiers using Land Rovers in combat after new figures revealed the ageing vehicles have overturned 100 times - without being in a collision.

Ministry of Defence (MoD) records show 87 incidents of Land Rovers "overturning without first colliding" in Iraq - and 13 in Afghanistan.... " (2 June 2007)

This has nothing to do with why ARW did not go for the LR

You appear to have either missed or ignored an important word in this quote so I highlighted it for you.

As a vehicle gets older it is subject to what military types "fair wear and tear". Strangely enough civvy vehicles suffer from the same thing and so a process called the NCT was introduced.

Old vehicles (excess 5 years) are more suceptable to roll over than new vehicles unless new shocks and suspension is fitted. The degridation of the shocks and suspension depends on the duty of the vehicle. So a LR 20 years old that was ovned by some yuppiee could in theory be in better condition than a military one 12 months old.

Also your obsession with armour is now boardering on the rediculous. The BA on the spare wheel leaves the majority or the wheel exposed so doesnot protect the wheel and at any oblique angle leaves the driver even more exposed than he would be if wearing it.

Do you not think these things through?

thebig C
22nd June 2007, 15:52
There have always been three main aspects to any combat vehicle: mobility, protection, and firepower. Different missions favour different combinations, but having no protection whatsoever can means that the soldiers travelling in that vehicle are totally exposed to enemy fire. (That could be one person around the corner or behind a rock with an AK, or more likely an IED.) That would seem to be justifiable only if there is an essential constraint such as weight, e.g. to allow deployment of the vehicle by helicopter, or if you can be sure you're not going to be shot at.

The experience of most Western armies in Iraq and Afghanistan has led to a much greater emphasis on armour protection. Open vehicles are being withdrawn from these theatres.

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-isaf-armour1.htm

FMolloy
26th June 2007, 04:52
Open vehicles are being withdrawn from these theatres.

That article only mentions SF usage once in that article, when it mentioned the Australian SAS in Afghanistan and even then it was incorrect. The SASR brought some Bushmasters to Afghanistan in addition to, and not in place of, it's Landrovers. That was last year, and they're still using the Landys.

luchi
26th June 2007, 11:03
Carrington please look at "Latest British Army Supacat WMIK " thread.

I do believe that these are open vehicles bound for Iraq and Afghanistan.

I know that my eye sight is not the best but I can not see any more protection for the crew in this vehicle than on the ford

turbocalves
26th June 2007, 12:59
simple answer to all this balls is the fords are for what the wing call green ops, which is conventional warfare (army against army etc) not counter insurgency, one of the things they train to do is attack arty positions, as they wouldnt expect it, and as we all know arty positions arent armoured, so let the whole roadside bomb crap go

thebig C
26th June 2007, 13:30
Carrington please look at "Latest British Army Supacat WMIK " thread.

I do believe that these are open vehicles bound for Iraq and Afghanistan.

I know that my eye sight is not the best but I can not see any more protection for the crew in this vehicle than on the ford


Yeah, I saw it, and you're right, there are a number of similar vehicles around. (Although I suspect those Supacats are more for the wide open spaces of Afghanistan than for use in Iraq.)

I'm reading Mike Coburn's 'Soldier Five' at the moment. As you probably know, it's another account of the famous SAS Bravo Two Zero patrol in Iraq during the first Gulf War. He describes SAS patrols, together with their 'Pinkies', being inserted by Chinook. (There weren't enough vehicles for Bravo Two Zero so once they were dropped off they had to walk.) Presumably weight considerations were one of the factors in ruling out any armour protection on those SAS Land Rovers, which seem to have provided a model for many armies.

http://www.yourdailymedia.com/media/1138368653/OnBoard_During_An_IED_Attack

But on the other hand you have British soldiers in Iraq complaining about the lack of armour on the Land Rovers they use, and of course the US forces lost hundreds of soldiers in unarmoured Humvees. Both Britain and the US are spending large amounts of money on crash programmes to provide armour protection for their troops in Iraq.

So, given the choice, if you were driving into a combat zone, what kind of vehicle would you prefer to be in?

thebig C
26th June 2007, 16:13
simple answer to all this balls is the fords are for what the wing call green ops, which is conventional warfare (army against army etc) not counter insurgency, one of the things they train to do is attack arty positions, as they wouldnt expect it, and as we all know arty positions arent armoured, so let the whole roadside bomb crap go



http://www.aeronautics.ru/img001/2s1904.jpg

FMolloy
27th June 2007, 17:06
But on the other hand you have British soldiers in Iraq complaining about the lack of armour on the Land Rovers they use, and of course the US forces lost hundreds of soldiers in unarmoured Humvees. Both Britain and the US are spending large amounts of money on crash programmes to provide armour protection for their troops in Iraq.

Why do you keep coming back to this like a broken record? These are not SF vehicles, these are ordinary Land Rovers & Humvees being used for routine patrolling. Even the video you posted shows this.


So, given the choice, if you were driving into a combat zone, what kind of vehicle would you prefer to be in?

It would depend on the nature of my duty. If I was patrolling a well-travelled route and had good logistic support I'd like an armoured vehicle. If I was well off the beaten path doing recce & couldn't lug about the fuel needed to power a heavy armoured car.

thebig C
27th June 2007, 19:05
......
It would depend on the nature of my duty. If I was patrolling a well-travelled route and had good logistic support I'd like an armoured vehicle. If I was well off the beaten path doing recce & couldn't lug about the fuel needed to power a heavy armoured car.

That new Supacat for the British Army weighs 4 tons and has a 5.9 litre turbo diesel engine. Isn't the ARW Ford a bit of a beast too, with a big gas-guzzling engine..

An example of a lighter vehicle with a smaller engine, and it's armoured..

http://nancyetroland.free.fr/public/PhotosMilitaires/VBL-Afganistan.jpg

luchi
27th June 2007, 22:53
Excellent Malloy. I agree with your first paragraph totally.

As to the second again I agree (and have said it before) it depends on the duty.
or convoy escourt scout I want the Ford SORV. Fast out and back. No unnecessary weight
Cargo Tpt it would be more like an Iveco hardened for expected situations.
For troop tpt off road if there is high risk then they will be in sonme APC otherwise a 4x4 of 6x6 TCV
For troop tpt on road a coach or minibus.

You thats why people keep telling you the vehicles are chosen for the mission. There is not a one vehicle fits all.

pym
28th June 2007, 03:00
An excellent Panorama documentary on 3 Commando in Afghanistan, who operate in open vehicles like the ones being discussed here:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xr0n9_3-commando

As the reporter himself states:
"These vehicles aren't built for protection, but for chasing and fighting."

thebig C
28th June 2007, 10:50
An excellent Panorama documentary on 3 Commando in Afghanistan, who operate in open vehicles like the ones being discussed here:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xr0n9_3-commando

As the reporter himself states:
"These vehicles aren't built for protection, but for chasing and fighting."

I saw that Panorama programme when it was first broadcast - excellent, and well-balanced.

Note that Marines are not 'Special Forces'. They were using the only vehicles they had. Until the arrival of the Viking last year, the Royal Marines didn't have any armoured vehicles. Did you notice the makeshift protection they set up to try to protect the people in the rear of the vehicles? I bet those guys would have much preferred to have been riding in armoured vehicles.

The only contacts occurred in or near towns or villages, not out in the open. The Marines were forced to withdraw at one stage by mortar fire. Their tactic seemed to be to draw fire and then call in an airstrike. (Memories of the Americans in Vietnam...) A very expensive tactic - as is firing MILANs or JAVELINs at a couple of Taleban - both in terms of money but more importantly the collateral casualties and damage that inevitably result. Would they have been able to employ different tactics if they had vehicles with better protection?

I think you could see pretty clearly that those Marines knew they weren't going to 'win' this war. Fighting invaders, whether they be British (third time around), Americans, Russians or whoever, is part of the Afghan culture, and if they're not fighting foreigners, they'll fight among themselves.

FMolloy
28th June 2007, 17:58
An example of a lighter vehicle with a smaller engine, and it's armoured..


And it's small, and it can't carry any more than three troops...

And most importantly it isn't used by the French SF, they just got the unarmoured VPS. So what does that tell you?

thebig C
28th June 2007, 19:51
And it's small, and it can't carry any more than three troops...

And most importantly it isn't used by the French SF, they just got the unarmoured VPS. So what does that tell you?


When you don't want to be seen, small is usually best, and a crew of three seems to be be normal for these vehicles, e.g. the Rangers' SRV, WIMIK Land Rover.... French Special Forces include the 2eme Regiment de Hussards, which uses the VBL to infiltrate and operate up to 150km behind enemy lines.

According to www.defense-update.com, "The Panhard A3 VPS all terrain vehicle is designed to fit into the confined space of CH-53 and NH90 helicopters.... These vehicles provide high mobility over rough terrain but rarely have armor protection due to the weight penalty of the armor." I made that point in an earlier post: "....That (lack of armour) would seem to be justifiable only if there is an essential constraint such as weight, e.g. to allow deployment of the vehicle by helicopter..."

luchi
28th June 2007, 22:00
An excellent Panorama documentary on 3 Commando in Afghanistan, who operate in open vehicles like the ones being discussed here:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xr0n9_3-commando

As the reporter himself states:
"These vehicles aren't built for protection, but for chasing and fighting."

Just watched the video.

That should solve any questions about why the SORV or another open vehicle is the right one for the job

mutter nutter
28th June 2007, 22:16
Just watched the video.

That should solve any questions about why the SORV or another open vehicle is the right one for the job

I doubt it will.....:rolleyes:

hptmurphy
28th June 2007, 22:16
"An example of a lighter vehicle with a smaller engine, and it's armoured"

we tried this particular vehicle years ago,,,

Now look at the spec...lightly armoured, fast three man crew, capable of being heavily armed......

sound familiar..sounds like an AML 60 to me.....oh DoH!!! is that what we are trying to repalce in the tactical recce role?

Goldie fish
28th June 2007, 22:31
Think of the SORV as an infantryman. Sure you can send him into battle wearing the same body armour as the EOD guy who gets to defuse bombs, but he won't be mobile, he won't be useful for long and pretty soon he'll be knackered. The EOD guy needs all the armour because he will be in harms way for prolongued periods.

So you send the infantryman out well armed, with a nice helmet, and clothed to carry everything he needs to fight efficiently, without overloading him or restricting his dexterity. Maybe a basic armoured vest if there is a risk from snipers, but no need for the chest plate unless its really nasty out there.

luchi
29th June 2007, 10:26
I doubt it will.....:rolleyes:

there is always 1

Maybe I should have said

That should solve any questions about why the SORV or another open vehicle is the right one for a specific job that the pers that operate the vehicle have been tasked to do and that those pers with regard to their mission perameters have decided would afford them the greatest probability of mission success.

farlee
30th June 2007, 22:36
Here's a good review of the civilian Ford f350, F series trucks are the biggest selling trucks in America, in 2002 827,500 were produced in the US and 139,300 produced in Canada and Mexico, so spare parts are plentiful. A 6.4L, 350 HP diesel is an option with these trucks also.

http://www.kbb.com/KBB/NewCars/Review.aspx?VehicleId=Ny8yLzIwMDd8ODQ3Nzg%3d&PCFVehicles=&ManufacturerId=15&VehicleClass=NewCar&ModelId=848&Filter=HasEReview&Path=BlueBookReview&YearId=2008

luchi
2nd July 2007, 14:05
But as the reviews say if you aint hauling a big trailer or a heavy load you got the wrong machine.

This vehicle is built as a heavy hauler not an SUV or MPV.

From a mil spec point of view this is a specialist piece for bringing small but heavy kit to places that would not normally be accessable.

luchi
3rd July 2007, 12:54
So would any one like this version of the SORV?

http://z.about.com/d/4wheeldrive/1/0/c/K/1/ANA_RANGER.jpg

Or may be you want heavier armourment?

http://z.about.com/d/4wheeldrive/1/0/_/K/1/6Aug06_149.jpg