PDA

View Full Version : Universal service vehicle



Come-quickly
7th February 2003, 23:24
I just want to know what people think of the viability of equipping all PDF units with Vehicle variants based on one highly capable chassis, lets say for arguments sake an Acmat or Hmmwv.
Starting with the RRF bn and then equipping the remaining bns and corps units.
i.e
The RRF battalion with its need to operate as part of a highly mechanised multinational force will be equipped with Piranha 8x8s and the LTV.
Lets say the LTV selected is the MOWAG Eagle; thats a Hmmwv chassis already selected for service, and scheduled to eventually replace all the AMLs.
1.Now equip the remaining infantry battalions with a mixture of High troop/cargo capacity (10 fully laden troops), M114 (essentially a four man APC variant) for specialists such as assault pioneers, add a weapons mounting ring to a few more standard vehicles for transporting a support platoon, and finally accompanying FOOs and the command post could be accomodated in modified versions of the LTV and utility respectively.

2.Ambulance variants and general utility are obviously enough for medical coys.

3.The LTV will equip cav units anyway and, the narrower Nissan type vehicle might still be useful for certain recce tasks.
http://ofp.info/iB_html/uploads/post-27-29098-Screen.jpg

4. Artillery usage would involve the use of the dedicated FOO vehicle, as well as utility types as tractors/general carriers.

5.Sigs sorry CIS, I'm not sure if there is enough space on a Hmmwv chassis to carry the neccesary equipment, but obviously thats what I had in mind.

6.Air Defence, apart from using them as tractors I still firmly believe that our limited SAM arsenal should be mobilised this has been done already with the Mistral.

7.Mps general utility, and M114 for site recovery.

8.Engineers, utility version.

Now as to why, firstly because we run a small light infantry force a few gaps have to be closed..the most immediate one is the gap between our maximum artillery range and that of an enemy equipped with 2s19s or even a MLRS: the most immediate remedy for this is to be able to close the gap faster.
Also given the tiny manpower levels of the army we cannot really afford the kind of service and support elements that larger forces can therefore we need to minimise our reliance on bridgebuilding and roadrepairs etc. because our engineers are quite likely to be needed for their assault and defence roles as well as forming a manpower reserve.
Similarly the few AD, Arty and A/tk assets available need to be highly manouverable without mechanisation.

THerefore I suggest the adoption of a single high performance vehicle chassis to perform 70-80% of the roles required by the army, on the basis that the cost savings from the standardisation would be ample to compensate for the procurement and running of such vehicles.

(No I don't see it happening but I'm just bouncing ideas.)

T.I.M.
7th February 2003, 23:28
Are you sure you dont know what happened to Imish - Yhall???

²°°³Soldier
8th February 2003, 11:43
Come-Quickly where do you come up with this stuff :confused:

Your theory sounds solid enough, I would agree with you that a universal chassis would make good sence. One big problem with our arty is that we are pretty tight on transport, using the Huumwv as you suggest would be a nice but we woudl still need trucks for ammo resupply.

The Brits are testing this vechicle as a 105mm gun tower, don't know much about the vechicle though.

FMolloy
8th February 2003, 11:47
It looks like a beefed up supacat, a transport vehicle used by 16 Air Assault Bde. I like the idea Imshi, but I'd go with the Pinzgauer as the baseline vehicle rather than the Hummer.

Docman
8th February 2003, 18:54
According to An Cosantoir, the DF are to start taking tenders for a new Recce vehicle along the lines of the Humvee/Mowag Eagle in 2004/2005. Could be the start of a new line of vehicles with specialisation in different roles, but be guaranteed, it will be years before the PDF see them and decades before we do.

Come-quickly
8th February 2003, 18:54
I thought about the PINZGAUER myself and in most roles I'd prefer it for its narrower frame...but that same characteristic makes it a bit dinky for use as an ambulance, cargo vehicle etc. as well as in the LTV role.
I'd envision the FEBA tasks of the Army beingg divided among the Pirhana and Hmmwv variants with secondary roles such as carrying the giraffe antennae on trucks.
By my calculations so far in the configuration I have envisaged an infantry battalion (5 coy) would require 60 Hmmwv including M114s for the assault pioneer platoon.

hptmurphy
10th February 2003, 07:27
Nice train of thought. I'd be a bit wary of the Hummmvee as it is a little too wide for countrylanes.Horrific expierince tearing up a forest road trying to navigate at 70mph when something rather large appears in front of you....bad enough in a nissan whats it gonna be like in a hummve.....another trouser warming moment.

Come-quickly
10th February 2003, 09:18
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/hmmwv_imgw_011-s.jpg
I'd envisage this: Infantry
Hq Coy-1x Command vehicle (M1037)http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1037.gif
-2xHmmwv utility (M998)
-Recce Platoon 2x Pinzgauer
- Assault Pioneer platoon 3xM114 (with relevant loadout)
1x Field Ambulance Hmmwv (M997)

Rifle Coy
-1x Eagle II command vehicle
3x Hmmwv utility (M998)http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m998.gif
3xHmmwv Truck (M1097)http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1097.gif
2xHmmwv weapons carrier (M1025)http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1025.gif

Support coy
-1x Eagle II command vehicle
-12xHmmvw weapons carrier
-2x Hmmwv Truck

Cavalry:
Sqn HQ-1x Eagle II command vehicle
-1x Ambulance
-1xHmmwv truck

Recce Troop
-3x Eagle II scout car
-1x Piranha fire support vehicle

Support troop
2xHmmvw utility
1x Piranha recovery vehicle

I won't do all the corps until I've done a bit more research.http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m998.htm

Come-quickly
10th February 2003, 10:43
Unit replacement cost for USMC US$50,000 (thats E46,000+) vs How musch for a Nissan, or a MAN?

Goldie fish
10th February 2003, 12:52
Nissan Patrol GR will set the individual back €42,000

Come-quickly
10th February 2003, 15:31
Thats not too big a disparity even if the Patrols are bulk discounted, the Hmmwv would be used in more tasks and therefore numbers, plus nothing says we have to rely on O'Gara and Hess for the Uparmouring etc...a little offset investment in Timoney wouldn't go astray.

That'd make the cost about E3m per battalion, the entire PDF infantry force could be done for 27m, say 9m a year over three years.

Come-quickly
11th February 2003, 15:27
It seems that the Humvee is being marketed as an artillery tractor for the US 105mm howitzer

²°°³Soldier
11th February 2003, 17:17
How wide are the Humvee's, I ask because I'm under the impression that are very wide, which would make them a nightmare for drivers to drive around Irish backroads.

FMolloy
11th February 2003, 17:36
I dunno, the Pinzgauer still looks good. Check out the field ambulance version: http://homepage.eircom.net/~fiachramolloy/ambulance.jpg

Here's the trauma management vehicle: http://homepage.eircom.net/~fiachramolloy/trauma.jpg

And here's the armed recce variant: http://homepage.eircom.net/~fiachramolloy/armed.jpg

Come-quickly
11th February 2003, 20:36
Well frankly the Breadth of the Humvee also concerns me but I selected it because of the existing range of Vehicles being in place for all the roles in the DF, and it's Cross country capacity which would eliminate the need for road rebuilding and heavy span Bridges for combat units, tasks which given the small size of the DF would be impossible to carry out in the face of any serious opposition without mechanisation, which would be impossible to support in such a small Army!

Therefore I set out with the following parameters in mind first thing sfirst the vehicle had to make economic and operational sense, therefore using one proven vehicle as a base for between 60-80% of combat tasks was essential as it creates economies of scale in purchase maintenance and modernisation.
Secondly it had to be capable of moving large loads and personnel in cross country conditions under some degree of protection.

The candidates I deemed eligible were the Landrover 6x6, The Pinzgauer and the Hmmwv.
I picked the Hmmwv because I could find no evidence of the Landrover being suitable as a load carrying vehicle, and the Pinzgauer cannot be (as far as I could determine) configured to carry twenty personnel, also only one of the candidates was likely to form a basis for the LTV.
So I chose the Hmmwv, there are definite issues to be debated about it, so debate away, I think you'll find the dimensions at www.FAS.org.
Just remember that it’s really a small truck (1 ¼ ton, max speed 55mph) not a big jeep.

Come-quickly
13th February 2003, 12:20
I don't suppose I could get the opinion of our two Hmmwv using/experienced members on this?

ex pat 007
14th February 2003, 15:02
Most of my experiences with the humvee are from my deployment to kosovo.It was entirely too wide to effectively travel on the back roads of the province and it usually was necessary to wait to allow civvie vehicles to drive past on most two lane roads as well.

I was often the man on the turret mounted gpmg (m-240)of the "up-armored" weapons carrier ,(I was foolish enough to brag about being a machine gunner in my old unit) this vehicle could hold six men with kit no problem.Driver gunner and one maneuver team of 4.The armor woud stop 7.62 wouldnt care to try on anything more substantial though.The under carriage provided decent protection against land mines.

The M-1097 was generally used to transport supplies or troops , depending on if you had rucks or not up to 15 in the back at a time.The off road capabilities of both were excellant and I can only recall one time that we needed a recovery vehicle to assist , but that was more a problem of width as the vehicle veered a little too far on a mountain trail and slid down the slope only to become lodged on a tree a few feet down.

California Tanker
15th February 2003, 07:17
I'm afraid my Hummer experiences are a little more limited. When I wasn't in training status, my assigned vehicle is a tank.. now -that's- wide.

In fairness, the thing is wide because it has to be in order to have such great off-road abilities. I would also point out that whilst it is wide compared to a Nissan or any civilian vehicle, it's actually not wider than your average Iveco delivery truck that ply their trade around Ireland.

By way of comparison, a Panhard M3VTT is 2.4m wide, Pirhana III is 2.66m wide, and an AML is 1.90 wide. A MOWAG Eagle comes in at 2.26m, only a foot wider than, say a Mercedes S600.

Frankly, if Irish roads are wide enough for the in-service vehicles, they're wide enough for Hummers.

NTM

Come-quickly
21st February 2003, 20:28
So that just leaves the question of fuel consumption, theres life in this dog yet,
FM whats the unit cost for the pinzgauer?

ForkTailedDevil
30th March 2004, 11:11
One of the main ideas for the HUMVEEs width was so that it could comfortably follow in the tracks left by the Abrams tanks.Personally I'd go for a Landrover variant, probably the greatest vehicle ever.The BA was selling of hordes of the armoured ones thatare used in NI before Iraq for absolutely nothing.Perfect vehicles for policing actions or some variant of them.Or those Pinzgauer which are meant to be the best off road vehicle in the world.I've seen them do some amazing things.For those of you interested Arnold Scharwzenegger drives a supped up version as his vehicle of choice.

Come-quickly
30th March 2004, 14:20
Actually bumping up this topic is fairly pointless since there are more up to date and relevant ones about more realistc and suitable choices such as the Unimog, Duro or Pinzgauer

DeV
30th March 2004, 15:19
I study Transport & Logistics in College and in 2nd year with did all about transport economics.

This included purchasing decisions and economies of scale. You have to look at the life cycle cost. The life cycle cost is the total costs of purchase, spares, storage, fuel, taxation, training, etc divided by the useful life. Obviously it is cheaper to buy say 1000 units of 3 versions based on one chasis, than it is to buy 500 of vehicle A, 200 of vehicle B, and 300 of vehicle C.

Current, DF Troop Carrying Vehicle (TCV) procurement is a bit strange. All are 4*4 vehices unless stated, figures in brackets refer to payload:

16 ACMAT VLRA delivered between 1983 and 1993 (2.5 ton) {unsure of status}

36 MAN 14.240 FAEG TCVs delivered between 1979 and 1989 (5 ton)

62 MAN 8:150 / 10:150 various versions (not all TCVs) of 4*2 truck in range delivered between 1989 and 1999 (3.5 / 5 ton)

10 MAN 8:163 various versions (not all TCVs) of 4*2 truck in range delivered in 1996 (3.5 ton)

51 Leyland TCVs delivered between 1993 and 1998 (4 ton)

60 Mecedes-Benz TCVs delivered between 2000 and 2003 (Unknown)

20 IVECO TCVs delivered from Winter 2002 (5.5 ton)

This means a total of up to 255 vehicles from 8 families of TCVs with little if anything in common. That means drivers and mechanics have to training on up to
8 different vehicles, as well as spares for 8 different vehicles having to be purchased, stored and tracked.