PDA

View Full Version : Armoured Utility Vehicles



paul g
5th February 2016, 21:42
RFP just went out for 24 of these

The Armoured Utility Vehicles must meet the following minimum requirements
PROTECTION
The protection features of the proposed vehicle must meet the following minimum
standards and must be independently certified of same:
Ballistic Protection:
MOD: OPSEC
Material
Blast Protection:
OPSEC
ENGINE
 Diesel engine required
 Minimum 3 Litre (ideally >4 Litre)
 Turbo Charged
 Output minimum of 210 HP/ 2000 rpm
TRANSMISSION
 Minimum 5 speed manual / automatic
 4 x 4 wheel drive
BRAKING SYSTEM
 Enhanced braking system commensurate with vehicle weight
 The vehicle must meet all EU standard specifications for braking capacity
 Anti-Lock Braking System (ABS)
STEERING SYSTEM
 Left Hand Drive
 Power Steering
SUSPENSION:
 The vehicle must have :
o Enhanced suspension system that compensates for additional weight due
to armouring
o Off-road capability
o Handling characteristics to conform to normal non-armoured vehicle
standards
10
WHEELS
 Run-Flat system on all wheels including spare wheel.
 Fitted with all-terrain tyres.
 Spare wheel to be carried externally
POWER
 The vehicle must have an enhanced power capability for additional radio and
force protection equipment OPSEC
PAYLOAD
 The vehicle must be capable of carrying a minimum of 5 personnel (including
driver) plus personal protective equipment (PLCE)
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
 The vehicle must have:
o Air conditioning system as standard
o Air bag protection for front seat passengers (minimum requirement).
Capability of disabling air bag system
o Drivers windows capable of being lowered
o Anti-tamper exhaust outlet
o The integration of suitable mounting points for the stowage of the eFP
unit, power cabling and cables to exterior antennae
OPTIONAL REQUIREMENTS:
 Winch – Forward Mounted (>4,000 kg capacity

MOD: Think before you post.If you publish capabilities,the bad guys can find ways around them.

The real Jack
5th February 2016, 22:20
Looks like more armoured nissans or some Landbruisers.

DeV
5th February 2016, 22:22
Doesn't give a lot of detail

Armoured Nissan type vehicle ?

ODIN
5th February 2016, 22:37
Doesn't give a lot of detail

Armoured Nissan type vehicle ?

There were a number of Armoured Nissan Patrols that were purchased a number of years ago. I remember one being in Tralee while I was on camp there in 2007(?). Basically your standard Fifth generation Nissan Patrol (1997-2010 model) that had armour. Similar to this http://www.interarmored.com/en/vehicles/product-range/armored-suvs?listing=8724779321936346608

hptmurphy
5th February 2016, 22:41
http://i.imgur.com/a66su.jpg

Google Armoured Utility Vehicle and this is among those that pop up!

ODIN
5th February 2016, 22:50
I got this in the results when I searched!!!

8155

And if memory serves me, we only got about half the order that was initially intended.

hptmurphy
5th February 2016, 23:07
I got this in the results when I searched!!!

8155

And if memory serves me, we only got about half the order that was initially intended.

Problem is they turned out to be a ball of shite by all accounts

restless
5th February 2016, 23:24
rfp specifies lhd and aircon? are they all for overseas work?

apod
6th February 2016, 09:04
MOD: No discussion of armour capabilities or FP measures.One mention and thread closed.
Carry on.

hptmurphy
6th February 2016, 15:39
rfp specifies lhd and aircon? are they all for overseas work?

Well spotted

na grohmiti
6th February 2016, 16:34
Most DF vehicles purchased in recent years, apart from TCVs that would spend most of their time in Ireland, were LHD. When only ourselves and the UK drive on the left in Europe, and the next nearest left driving country is Malta, it is wise to plan for future missions being in a Right driving place.

ODIN
6th February 2016, 18:31
MOD: No discussion of armour capabilities or FP measures.One mention and thread closed.
Carry on.

Although I understand why you modded this, if it is from a publicly available tender document, are you being a bit over zealous?

hptmurphy
6th February 2016, 23:55
Most DF vehicles purchased in recent years, apart from TCVs that would spend most of their time in Ireland, were LHD. When only ourselves and the UK drive on the left in Europe, and the next nearest left driving country is Malta, it is wise to plan for future missions being in a Right driving place.

Fcuk me..are we going to invade Malta perchance?

apod
7th February 2016, 08:25
Although I understand why you modded this, if it is from a publicly available tender document, are you being a bit over zealous?

MOD:No.Question my decision to protect those who I serve with use these vehicles in harms way on a daily basis overseas again and take a holiday.No messing.I am very serious about this.

na grohmiti
7th February 2016, 10:09
Fcuk me..are we going to invade Malta perchance?

If we were, we would be looking for RHD vehicles. Malta is safe... for now.

na grohmiti
7th February 2016, 10:10
MOD:No.Question my decision to protect those who I serve with use these vehicles in harms way on a daily basis overseas again and take a holiday.No messing.I am very serious about this.

His point (well made) is that the information is already in the public domain, on the tender docs, available to anyone who bothers.

apod
8th February 2016, 18:00
His point (well made) is that the information is already in the public domain, on the tender docs, available to anyone who bothers.

MOD:No.It is not.Etenders requires registration as a company on their website and now a VAT number in order to access such documents.Again.I pass no apologies to anybody who either by mistake or design compromises the safety of our comrades by breaching OPSEC.Which we all agree to protect not only during or military service but also by our agreeing to this forums rules.
Also this is not a debate.MOD decisions are final.By all means if anybody thinks that my editing of the post was a breach of my remit as a MOD feel free to PM the site admins with a complaint.

apc
8th February 2016, 23:25
MOD:No.It is not.Etenders requires registration as a company on their website and now a VAT number in order to access such documents.Again.I pass no apologies to anybody who either by mistake or design compromises the safety of our comrades by breaching OPSEC.Which we all agree to protect not only during or military service but also by our agreeing to this forums rules.
Also this is not a debate.MOD decisions are final.By all means if anybody thinks that my editing of the post was a breach of my remit as a MOD feel free to PM the site admins with a complaint.

Well in all fairness there is no way that any group who has a gripe with the Irish Military would be able to access the etenders website, thankfully OPSEC has been preserved and we can all sleep safely in our beds tonight. REALLY?

apod
9th February 2016, 05:44
MOD: Just a reminder of part 4 of the forum rules for those who cant seem to get the message.

4. Please note that any comment relating to your military service in the Irish Defence Forces that is in breach of military regulations or Official Secrets Act 1963, or considered by Admin/Moderators to be of a militarily sensitive nature, will result in the immediate removal of the comment and possible disciplinary action by Admin/Moderators and may result in disciplinary action by the military authorities against the author of such comments. It should also be noted that this includes the posting of information which may compromise the security of military installations which is also forbidden

I think that pretty much cut and dried.It is not up to individual members to decide what is and isn't militarily sensitive.That's the ADMINS and MODs job.Their is no ambiguity here.Sorry If some think I am being heavy handed.I pass no apology.I have travelled in such vehicles overseas and know what they are used for.If their capabilities are compromised Irish personnel could DIE or be seriously injured.It is also immaterial as to wheter the capabilities which were posted are related to inservice or proposed purchases.
So.yes.Really.

gibedepusib0ss
9th February 2016, 10:32
Look lads it seems pointless, but let's just get behind APOD here. If it gets posted here, things can get difficult for some of the mods, who -unlike a lot of forums- are experienced military and police types, which is a nice touch. Imagine some bored journalist decided to make a fuss about DF capabilities being published on an open forum, at a time when IRA/gangs are moving around in tactical kit waving AKMs? It's for the overall good of the forum. Besides, we all know the line... "just play the game"

Banner
9th February 2016, 10:52
Can I just say I hate red font! :-) Its feckin awful to read :-)

Bravo20
9th February 2016, 12:16
The red font is to distinguish between what a mod says in his/her own capacity and what is an official statement. In other words, pay attention to the red.

na grohmiti
9th February 2016, 18:10
Given there is to be no discussion apart from colour, maybe the mods should just lock the thread.

apc
10th February 2016, 01:22
The red font is to distinguish between what a mod says in his/her own capacity and what is an official statement. In other words, pay attention to the red.

Which shade of red is official and which is the his/her capacity.

If its on a etenders website that the local kebab shop that has a vat number can access then its in the public forum and not classified. I dont think the DF has any equipment that any of our enemies equiped with a 1960s era RPG 7 couldnt defeat except maybe the fabled Hovertank, although those enemies may not have known that:eek:

Seriously I can understand OPSEC for certain things but when OPSEC is used for things in the public domain its a bit over zealous and smacks of self righteousness. If you dont give people credit for a certain level of intelligence the you diminish the value of the forum and you strangle debate. Maybe you should invite discussion on what exactly can and cannot be discussed rather than having an interesting thread being rashly Modded over something that may not really be OPSEC.

What terms of reference do Mods use when they Mod a thread, Do they refer back to a chief Mod , Have they a list of red Flag words/phrases or is it based on opinion and can the rule of Mod be appealed or overturned.
It would be very interesting to get an insight to the world of Moderation or is that OPSEC too?

DeV
10th February 2016, 06:14
MOD:
Things that in the public domain can be operational sensitive (eg if you wanted to know how many personnel on a cash escort you could have watched one and counted them asa random example).

The MODs don't want to put DF personnel's lives at risk to make it easier to find such information

http://forum.irishmilitaryonline.com/showthread.php?24290-Reminder-of-some-of-the-rules-of-Irish-Military-Online - rule 4

If you have a complaint use the report post button

paul g
10th February 2016, 10:24
I started the thread, taking the details from a document that Dev, a moderator, had posted on the board. So in fact the details on levels of protection was in actual fact posted by a moderator and therefore in my opinion open to discussion.


Surely the question should be asked who mods the mods. What disciplinary action will be taken against Dev?

DeV
10th February 2016, 11:01
I didn't post the details of the tender as I don't have access any more

ODIN
10th February 2016, 11:16
The mods serve at the pleasure of the Admin I'd assume.

But back to topic, Armoured Utility Vehicles...are we looking at simple Armoured Pajeros, LTAV 2.0 or something totally different here? Looks like they want an armoured Pajero from my reading, but I am open to other opinions.

Seems the RG32M meets some of the spec, but not all. As does the Pajero for that matter (link to a third party Armoured Pajero http://www.armsvos.cz/en/armoured-vehicles/armoured-cross-country/mitsubishi-pajero/).

DeV
10th February 2016, 11:35
It's extremely vague but I would say armoured SUV type

apod
10th February 2016, 17:58
Armoured SUV.We already use them overseas for certain tasks.

PS: The admins MOD the MODS and red font is only ever used by MODS when posting as a MOD.Hence why I am now posting in normal font in my normal user capacity.Hope that clears that up.:biggrin:

PS: The MODS do have guidelines for Moderating with regard to these issues but when it comes to OPSEC/PERSEC besides the threat to the DF we also consider the threat to this forum as we are ALWAYS monitored by those who have a remit to do so.Posting sensitive material is a sure fire way to drop the forum owner and any serving Military contributors in the s**t.
I know I like having this forum and want to see it continue.Remember the christmas drought a few years back and the proposed ARRSE takeover???
Lets err on the side of caution and protect our comrades and the forum!!!

The real Jack
10th February 2016, 18:08
God I hope there isn't a procurement ****up/interference by the DOD and they end up buying a heap of shite like the pajero that'll only get worse with the weight of armour plate and ballistic glass.

GoneToTheCanner
13th February 2016, 15:04
well, the way it is now, some soldier decides and you get what suited their opinion on the day....then you show the price tag to the DoD and see how pale he gets...

na grohmiti
14th February 2016, 12:50
I hope they get it in the right colour.

Flamingo
14th February 2016, 16:48
I hope they get it in the right colour.

"But it's cheaper in red"...

ias
16th February 2016, 12:18
I see another RFT, this time for 8X8 vehicles:

Request for Proposals (RFP) for the supply of ten (10) Armoured 8X8 Combat Service Support (CSS) Drops Vehicles to the Department of Defence, Ireland equipped with armoured cabs and capable of mounting a 20ft ISO container.

DeV
16th February 2016, 12:39
I see another RFT, this time for 8X8 vehicles:

Request for Proposals (RFP) for the supply of ten (10) Armoured 8X8 Combat Service Support (CSS) Drops Vehicles to the Department of Defence, Ireland equipped with armoured cabs and capable of mounting a 20ft ISO container.

Stated as required in the WP

na grohmiti
16th February 2016, 18:39
Armoured DROPS. About time.

snip1
26th February 2016, 14:01
They might be getting Mowag Eagles, or the brits Foxhound. lol I wish. Armoured DROPS are needed doh

Banner
26th February 2016, 14:21
Actually a quick question for those who know more than I. Is this tender (For Armoured utility Vehicles) in some ways an admission that the RG32 has proved less than satisfactory in the field?

Surely if the RG32 was a run away success they would have utilised the clause in the contract to avail of more of them (RG32’s) at the original price?

Or are the two vehicles in totally different classes and the above sentiment is purre nonsense?

Many thanks

snip1
26th February 2016, 14:35
That's what I was think when I first this, it looking very much like a replacement for the RG-32. But I could be wrong

apod
26th February 2016, 14:48
Actually a quick question for those who know more than I. Is this tender (For Armoured utility Vehicles) in some ways an admission that the RG32 has proved less than satisfactory in the field?

Surely if the RG32 was a run away success they would have utilised the clause in the contract to avail of more of them (RG32’s) at the original price?

Or are the two vehicles in totally different classes and the above sentiment is purre nonsense?

Many thanks

Nope.Different classes and different roles.We use both overseas.

snip1
26th February 2016, 15:00
apod I hope your not going to say these are for armoured Nissan lol

apod
26th February 2016, 15:33
apod I hope your not going to say these are for armoured Nissan lol

Er,why??

REX
26th February 2016, 22:40
That's exactly what the specifications in the first post would point towards, its very obviously a requirement for something in the way of an armoured Jeep as there is no mention of exterior weapons stations etc.

snip1
27th February 2016, 14:52
Er,why??

Can't you just say they are getting a replacement for the LTAV

The real Jack
27th February 2016, 14:58
Can't you just say they are getting a replacement for the LTAV

It is abundantly clear that these are not LTAV replacements. They are a like for like replacement/increase in numbers of vehicles already in service overseas.

apod
27th February 2016, 19:56
Can't you just say they are getting a replacement for the LTAV
Why would I do that when thats not what they are??:rolleyes:

It is abundantly clear that these are not LTAV replacements. They are a like for like replacement/increase in numbers of vehicles already in service overseas.
Precisely.Give that man a cigar.:biggrin:

expat01
22nd April 2016, 17:36
I know the opsec dispute on this is done, but have to say that while I'm sure the specifications of any military vehicle acquired by the defence forces will be retrievable by any who are motivated to do so, the habit of being close-mouthed about such things is a good one. The moment you become relaxed about any such information, you lose the sense of information being valuable. It's not necessarily about the specific information so much as the habit of security. Besides, if someone wants such information, let them work for it elsewhere rather than consider IMO as a first port of call.