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.
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.)
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.
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.)
Comment