PDA

View Full Version : Fire support vehicles



kiwi1
21st October 2005, 23:43
Hi all from downunder can someone answer this question ,does the irish army still use the scorpions in the recce/fire support role.In nz we use the lav3[105 delievered] but there is serious talk of getting 18 to 24 lav3 with 105mm or cv90 with 120mm.We looked at upgrading our scorpions but decided against it.

hptmurphy
22nd October 2005, 00:05
Yep thast what we do with them.....for another while anyway.we did the same and even refused to aquire anymore.....the day of tracked vehicles in the DF is all but gone

GoneToTheCanner
22nd October 2005, 00:43
Hi HPT
What is it about tracks that the Bosses are so afraid of? Heavier tanks and other tracked vehicles are used in worse terrain than ours. It would be crazy to allow the institutional experience of tracked armour to deteriorate.
regards
GttC

kiwi1
22nd October 2005, 01:46
Hi HPT
What is it about tracks that the Bosses are so afraid of? Heavier tanks and other tracked vehicles are used in worse terrain than ours. It would be crazy to allow the institutional experience of tracked armour to deteriorate.
regards
GttC
The reason we went to wheeled apc in nz was easier to deploy ie australia/less logistical tail required/less maintenance.We know tracked apcs have a better advantage but does it matter if a rpg/missle system can take out anything regardless.

DeV
22nd October 2005, 15:39
Less damage to roads as well.

mugs
22nd October 2005, 19:59
The reason we went to wheeled apc in nz was easier to deploy

Yeah doesn't tracked armour need to be transported by trucks?

GoneToTheCanner
22nd October 2005, 23:11
Hi all
We should always retain even a token force of tracked vehicles to retain operational experience. What would happen if the UN offered tracks for overseas service and the Army were found wanting?
I'd prefer a squadron of Scorpions or some other light tracked AFV, which offer little prospect of damaging roads,whilst still offering some kind of fire support capability.
regards
GttC

Bosco
23rd October 2005, 03:39
I doubt it its finance calling the shots now, they will not want their new roads built under NDP to be hurt in any way!

hptmurphy
23rd October 2005, 11:59
Agree GTTC..but in the past tanks were bought as a training tool for anti tank forces. After WW2 it looked as if the DF were going to mage the giant step into armoured warfare .but the sixties negated this again. the Scorpion was procuured as a reece vehicle and not in a tank Role as in the real world these operate independently.

I think the associated costs, maintaince , training and army lack of interest in armoured warfare..seeing as the army is run by infantry men, have always let an armoured elemnet unless it is partof an infantry unit something to be desired.

The Irsh army was concieved as a force against internal agressions..this has developed into a peace enforcement unit without a role for armoured vehicles such as MBTs.

With commitments to deploymnets as elements of other peoples reaction forces I don't think the current DF strategy will ever give thought to an Armoured offensive unit such as medium or MBTs.

If thigs had been different during the sixties ..more money for the DF...and a Nato involvement where such equipment ewould have more easily available at great reduced cost thing smight be different.

Given the direction of the current Armys evoloution I reckon..and ist only my opinion you can write us off as having any serious commitment to armoured warfare.

Our current recce vehicle fleet are well past their use by date with no successor on the hozion. any future recce vehcle willbe an adaptation of an existing infantry vehicle rather than a dedicated cavalry one.

As for Tanks....its a bit like dedicated jet fighters..Tanks but no tanks....

Truck Driver
23rd October 2005, 20:18
Yeah doesn't tracked armour need to be transported by trucks?

Not necessarily. I think the Scorpions have rubber blocks that can be inserted in the tracks for driving on tarmac roads....

See THIS (http://images.google.ie/imgres?imgurl=http://www.mojojets.com/images/trucks/scorpion-tank-04-8.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.mojojets.com/trucks-scorpion.htm&h=574&w=800&sz=91&tbnid=pbaDbN9pbfoJ:&tbnh=101&tbnw=142&hl=en&start=3&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dscorpion%2Btank%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3De n%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG) picture for what I mean...

hptmurphy
23rd October 2005, 22:30
Yes..but given the price...we tend to put them up on low loaders and transport them...plus its cheaper on Petrol....and given the lack of availability of petrol in transport yards..well..i hope the commanders credit card is up to date.....mine would'nt power a lawn mower...

Goldie fish
24th October 2005, 00:00
Not necessarily. I think the Scorpions have rubber blocks that can be inserted in the tracks for driving on tarmac roads....

See THIS (http://images.google.ie/imgres?imgurl=http://www.mojojets.com/images/trucks/scorpion-tank-04-8.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.mojojets.com/trucks-scorpion.htm&h=574&w=800&sz=91&tbnid=pbaDbN9pbfoJ:&tbnh=101&tbnw=142&hl=en&start=3&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dscorpion%2Btank%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3De n%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG) picture for what I mean...


They are already fitted with these. However they cost a fortune to replace. Remember every time the vehicles makes a slight turn, these pads wear away. I think it costs something like 10grand per track(just to replace the rubber pads) and they last about 2000km.

Truck Driver
24th October 2005, 00:45
I think it costs something like 10grand per track(just to replace the rubber pads) and they last about 2000km.

Those are expensive f*****g "tyres"...

Måk
24th October 2005, 22:29
Why not buy new tracks with replaceable rubber pads then?
http://www.steyr-motors.com/news/media_scorpion.htm

The K10,000 track might do the trick :)

Rgeards

Måk

DeV
25th October 2005, 01:20
Why not buy new tracks with replaceable rubber pads then?
http://www.steyr-motors.com/news/media_scorpion.htm

The K10,000 track might do the trick :)

Rgeards

Måk

No because its not the army way (it makes too much sense!)

California Tanker
25th October 2005, 03:10
I'm not entirely convinced how much 'operational experience' you can get from a CVR(T) when you compare it to today's heavier tracked vehicles, particularly those with supported double-linked track

NTM

GoneToTheCanner
25th October 2005, 09:01
Hi all
Cal tanker, I'd be all for purchasing even a nominal amount of heavier tracked armour, such as a self-propelled gun. A squadron of M-109 155s would answer the Army's need for a heavier artillery round than the 105 and give them tracks to retain the experience I talk about.I appreciate that a CVR(T) is not entirely ideal for retention of experience but it's better than nothing and it offers something heavier than 20mm. Also, if the Army was going to get an FSV, why didn't they get the South African Eland family, when they were getting the AML90s modded up. I also believe that they need to get out of the mix of calibres currently in use in the armoured fleet.
Do you think you could arrange for your colleagues to "abandon" some armour in Ireland as they pass thru Shannon!?
regards
GttC

DeV
25th October 2005, 09:33
Cal tanker, How many miles to the gallon does an Abrams do?

ias
25th October 2005, 09:52
or is it measured in gallons per hour :-)

IAS

Bosco
25th October 2005, 11:13
I think its gallons to the mile

DeV
25th October 2005, 11:27
So do I.

The replacement cost of an Abrams is US$4.3 million (e 3.5m), a squadron of 14 would cost e49 million. Add upgrades, spares, maintainance, fuel training, transport, VAT, etc. We could equip nearly a full APC battalion for that cost, and it would get more use.

I believe a light tank (wheeled/tracked) with a 105mm would do the job, if we needed it done.

General Smash
25th October 2005, 11:38
I'd say that turbine engine drinks it as if it were going out of fashion

Barry
25th October 2005, 12:54
Hi all
Cal tanker, I'd be all for purchasing even a nominal amount of heavier tracked armour, such as a self-propelled gun. A squadron of M-109 155s would answer the Army's need for a heavier artillery round than the 105 and give them tracks to retain the experience I talk about
I sincerely doubt the lads in the funny hats would like Gunners having something they're supposed to have, and I can't see gunners just letting the cav go galavanting around with their guns (especially since we'd probably have 1 Bty of guns, and expect 2+ Regiments to share them), so the basic idea behind the CVR(T), retaining a tracked cavalry element, and the associated skills, doesn't work. And we're stuck with heavy guns that cost more per shot, and require large amounts of maintainance. A L119 can be unhooked from a broken down truck and hooked onto another, working, truck (or manhandled into position, if the detachment has done something bad lately), whereas a SP gun requires a heavy recovery vehicle to rescue it.

Plus, M109s are crap, AS90 all the way :tongue:

Tank
25th October 2005, 16:40
I reckon that there's no point maintaining a tracked capability for the sake of competence retention. I doubt the UN or any other organisation will ever be short of tracked vehicles if they really need them, and if need be we could get trained up again within 2 years or so.

We should concentrate on maximising the capabilities we have, i.e. a lightly armoured & infantry force. The majority of countries out there do not have a significant light armour capacity, and there is always a shortage of leg infantry for specific roles. That could be our "niche market", where we could contribute to the international scene with the limited means we have. Considering the reputation for professionalism and the respect that Irish soldiers have earned for their work in the past I'd say we would do pretty well there.

Get in a wheeled Recce/ FSV with a 105mm and build up the light armour capabilities.

California Tanker
25th October 2005, 17:32
I didn't say you needed to have a full sized tank. (And it's four gallons to the mile, about)

Something more the size of an ICV would probably do nicely. CV90 series for example. Properly introduces people to suspended track, has enough weight that it becomes a serious consideration for maneuver, far cheaper than a tank.

NTM

paul g
25th October 2005, 18:17
Personally I can’t understand the logic behind buying a force of M-109, they’re old, and don’t really fall into our force structure, which like it or not is a light infantry one, M-777 would be a better buy.

Secondly, this thread poses a number of intresting questions for the future of the cavalry corps. In some ways, the plans for a digitalised battlefield, and the inmportance of real time information, the traditional cavalry corps reconnaissance squadrons are going quickly towards obselesence, UAV’s, Ground surveillance radars, and other gadgets will improve reconnaissance abilities out of all recognition, and will not be relatively expensive. And what the Americans are planning in the FCS is interesting, as the use of robots is also going to feature in the next twenty years, ( and before anybody says anything, the D.F. have being using combat robots for years in the EOD role), if you consider the Armed Robotic vehicles the Americans are developing, it’s the same size as an AML-90/20, armed with a 30mm cannon and hellfire missiles, but has no crew on board, and the Americans hope to have it operational by 2014, could something like that eventually end up as the scorpion’s replacement? http://www.army.mil/fcs/factfiles/arv.html.

In this scheme of things, the role of the armoured vehicle apart for fulfilling its role as a platform for carrying electronic sensors comes into question. I’m not saying that the cavalry corps doesn’t have a future, just that it’s going to evolve into something more high-tech.

Secondly, the army will take part in peace support operations, at worst, something like Afghanistan or iraq, there is limited scope for armoured warfare, so buying main battle tanks, which incidently are more expensive to operate per mile than F-16s is out of the question, although there is a need for some sort of Fire support vehicle. As for the whole tracks, wheels debate, new programme overseas which will see the old heavy armoured forces being replaced by medium ones like the FCS, SEP and FRES, have both wheeled and tracked versions in development, the simple fact is that wheeled vehicles are getting better all the time, are cheeper and more reliable.

Anyway, I’d say that the results of the new MOWAG purchase will point some of the way towards the future. Its intresting that the defence forces seem to be opting for the “Stryker route”, and I’d suggest that they’ll buy 6 105mm Fire-support vehicles ( CMI’s CT-CV turret is already tested on the Piranha IIIH) , 6 Reconnaissance and surveillance vehicles and three artillery fire control vehicles on a Piranha Chassis, which will be used to support battalion sized missions overseas, and that the two promised UAVs, if they arrive, will also be deployable.

Docman
25th October 2005, 18:42
Secondly, this thread poses a number of intresting questions for the future of the cavalry corps. In some ways, the plans for a digitalised battlefield, and the inmportance of real time information, the traditional cavalry corps reconnaissance squadrons are going quickly towards obselesence, UAV’s, Ground surveillance radars, and other gadgets will improve reconnaissance abilities out of all recognition, and will not be relatively expensive.

The big word here is improve!!!

All the EW stuff is only a supplement to the troops on the ground as has been proven in Kosova, Afghanistan and Iraq. Cavalry & Recce units are not moving towards obsolesence but are changing to use the EW battlefield in the performance of their role. They are more important than ever.


Secondly, the army will take part in peace support operations, at worst, something like Afghanistan or iraq, there is limited scope for armoured warfare, so buying main battle tanks, which incidently are more expensive to operate per mile than F-16s is out of the question,

I know several US (and European) soldiers who would disagree with you here.
I would suggest stop listening to the armchair experts and get more real info on what works and doesn't work.

California Tanker
25th October 2005, 23:45
if you consider the Armed Robotic vehicles the Americans are developing, it’s the same size as an AML-90/20, armed with a 30mm cannon and hellfire missiles, but has no crew on board

I had a word with some designers at United Defense about that, actually, and I asked them some very pointed questions about small niggling details such as 'what happens when it gets stuck?', and also pointed out a few other historical failures of the small, top-heavy, wheeled recon vehicle genre such as the Fox that we happened to be standing next to. I am not in the least convinced by this vehicle.

Unfortunately, it seemed that unbeknownst to me, the ARV programme director was amongst my audience, I think my blunt opinion might have been a factor in my non-employment in a job application I had handed in two days prior...

which incidently are more expensive to operate per mile than F-16s

False comparison. Abrams costs are measured per mile (And at $230 or so per mile, is actually cheaper than the cost I was quoted for Challenger 2 at $280, if my exchange rates are correct). Aircraft costs are measured per hour.

NTM

Itchy
25th October 2005, 23:51
False comparison. Abrams costs are measured per mile (And at $230 or so per mile, is actually cheaper than the cost I was quoted for Challenger 2 at $280, if my exchange rates are correct). Aircraft costs are measured per hour.

NTM

Depends how far an aircraft can fly in an hour then dosent it:tri:

GoneToTheCanner
26th October 2005, 09:12
Hi all
Tank operating costs do not remotely compare to fighter operating costs! Ask someone in the USAF how much an F-16 burns for a routine flight of,say, 90 minutes, with afterburner use, air-to-air practise and returning to base. It'd make your eyes water.The only near comparison is the amount of miantenance hours each needs per hour of operation. Fighters routinely require 10-15 manhrs/flight.
With regard to Ireland's terrain and tank ops, there's pretty much nowhere on this island a tank couldn't go. A wheeled vehicle might not be able to cope, in some parts. The AML/Scorpion has had it's day and an FSV is overdue. Bring on the light tanks and the 155s!
regards
GttC

ODIN
26th October 2005, 10:22
Compared to a Scorpian, what is the difference is size, weight and crew for the CV90

Bosco
26th October 2005, 12:49
Depends how far an aircraft can fly in an hour then dosent it:tri:

Come on Itchy you should know all about fuel efficiencies where you are.
Or are they bragging when saying their turbofans are so economical. :tri:

Bosco
26th October 2005, 12:50
But anyway do we really need tanks?

sledger
26th October 2005, 13:27
Comparsion for Scorpion, CV9040 and CV90120-T. There is also a CV90105-T but I don't have the info available.

Scorpion
Crew: 3, Armament: 76mm+7.62mm,
Weight: 8,073kg, Ground Pressure: 0.36kg/cm²
Road Speed: 80.5km/h, Range Road: 644km,
Length: 4.794m, Width: 2.235m Height: 2.102m


CV9040
Crew: 3+8, Armament: 40mmL/70+7.62mm,
Weight: 22,800kg, Ground Pressure: 0.53kg/cm²
Road Speed: 70km/h, Range Road: 600km,
Length: 6.471m, Width: 3.192m Height: 2.5m


CV90120-T
Crew: 4, Armament: 120mmL/50+7.62mm,
Weight: 27,700kg, Ground Pressure: 0.66kg/cm²
Road Speed: 70km/h, Range Road: 600km,
Length: 6.45m, Length Gun Forward: 8.95m, Width: 3.19m Height: 2.80m

ODIN
26th October 2005, 13:36
The CV90 seems like it'd be a big step up for the Cav, and from what I've heard its one they won't be making.

Måk
26th October 2005, 14:52
Here is a Quicktime movie of the CMI’s CT-CV on the Mowag III doing its stuff.
The gun turret has a useful elevation of +42 degrees.
http://www.cmi.be/defence/images/montagever2.mpg

Regards

Måk

California Tanker
26th October 2005, 15:07
and from what I've heard its one they won't be making.

Oh, they won't be, I admit.

But other than the Wiesel, which is its own little aiportable niche, I can't offhand think of any modern tracked vehicles that are likely to be cheaper and smaller than something CV sized. Anything lighter, these days, is wheeled. At least other countries that Ireland usually works with abroad such as Sweden and Norway already use the thing, so you get a training advantage there.

NTM

ODIN
26th October 2005, 15:09
From what I've heard tracks are a thing of the past come the end of the scorpian fleets life in 2 years I believe. Lets hope its not the case and the men at the top change their minds.

hptmurphy
26th October 2005, 17:58
Its beyond retrival...they'e have even been vehicles earmarked from the current MOWAG fleet to be designated to RDF Cav units for training....

Given that the MOWAGs are even been canabilised as we speak...i wouldn't hold out any faith in this.

DeV
26th October 2005, 18:20
Not enough spares, typical.

Goldie fish
26th October 2005, 21:53
Problem with the warranty there then.

hptmurphy
26th October 2005, 22:26
Waranty...hah..I reckon MOWAG..didn't even supply a users manual......buy in haste repent at your leisure

Goldie fish
26th October 2005, 22:36
I wonder if the pandur had a warranty?

GoneToTheCanner
27th October 2005, 08:43
Hi HPT
Cannibalising isn't so much of a problem as long as the "victim" is refitted afterwards. It's common in aircraft overhaul, for instance, for the grounded aircraft to be used to source parts for the flying aircraft for short-term relief of a spares supply problem. If a new MOWAG ends up as a basket-case, though, from over-enthusiastic cannibalisation, then the problem lies with the decision-making process upstairs.
regards
GttC

hptmurphy
27th October 2005, 12:43
it si a problem if you bring 10 vehicles to carry out a job knowing that you are going to have to purge parts from a second ten that have also been dragged out..why not supply a spares workshop instead.

GoneToTheCanner
27th October 2005, 13:41
Hi there
That would involve realistic event planning, accurate tracking of spares consumption, realistic manpower planning, a Plan B and a Plan C. That's so unlike the actual Army!!
The DF attitude seems to be to buy ten,so as to have maybe four on the road, instead of buy ten, demand and expect at least 9 on the road, by planning ahead and making credible use of men, tools, etc. It's worked for the Don since the dawn of flight, why change now?! Tell you what, HPT....stop fellas going on non-trade related courses, stop squandering at least 10% of actual manpower on sport per day....
regards
GttC