PDA

View Full Version : New Mowag Piranhas



Pages : [1] 2

Goldie fish
3rd September 2005, 14:18
Its going to be an armend version of the pirana...the infantry have preordained this..the cav wanted a six wheeeler. The infantry overruled them. A procuremnet part went overseas yesterday with a procuremnet budget of 25 million euro!...This is straight from the horses mouth.


Lets never doubt the murf again!! :eek:




Instead, the Army is looking at buying 15 more Mowag armoured personnel carriers from Switzerland at a cost of €20m.

Big Al
3rd September 2005, 14:56
so all they are doing is excerising the final portion of the option they got when they first purchased the mowags?

Goldie fish
3rd September 2005, 15:47
You mean exercising the option they ignored? They will now be paying todays prices for the Cars,whereas if they had Exercised the option back in 2000,they would have been paying 1999 prices(£1m each).

Yet another example of the government exercising the false economy. Save today,spend more tomorrow.

FMolloy
3rd September 2005, 18:38
Will these vehicles go to the cav or the infantry?

hptmurphy
3rd September 2005, 22:24
infanty of course they were left short 15 vehicles in the last procuremnet...AMLs for ever.....will out live some of the current users..i rest my case...

ias
3rd September 2005, 23:54
Well let's hope there another reason, recently Australia and the US have deployed a substantial numbers of heavier vehicles to Iraq, Bushmaster, ASV150 etc. The US has increased the order for ASV150s from 90+ to approx. 850 plus a further 250+ for Iraq's "new" army.

My hope is that we follow Belgium's lead and order a Medium, Multi Purpose, Mine Protected Armoured vehicle, the Belgians ordered the Dingo 2, however my choice, as though I'm sure everyone knows, would be for a version of the MP44/Bushmaster from Timoney.

It seems that operational experience there is leading to a requirement for this heavier type of vehicle.

IAS

Aidan
7th September 2005, 16:53
Are we to presume that the new Mowags will have different turrets and armament to the existing ones?

milmo
7th September 2005, 20:01
A new Mowag Board composed of Cav & Arty (Lt Col I/C) are sourcing Mowags which can fulfill the individual requirements of both corps. The initial tender will be for around 15 Mowags depending on the spec (€25m only buys so much). The Cav are looking at a 30mm canon to replace the AML 20, and later, to replace the AML 90 with a 105mm gun. Both types are available 'off the shelf' with no modifications required. No idea what the Arty are looking at.

Barry
7th September 2005, 20:13
No idea what the Arty are looking at.
Possibly a CP vehicle, or maybe even for use as an armoured gun tractor. Anybody have any ideas what sort of trailer load a Mowag can handle?

DeV
8th September 2005, 12:31
No idea what the Arty are looking at.

Proberly either a surveillance/recce vehicle or a target acquisition vehicle mounting a ground surveillance radar, as these were in the RFP for the LTAVs.

mutter nutter
8th September 2005, 13:16
Proberly either a surveillance/recce vehicle or a target acquisition vehicle mounting a ground surveillance radar, as these were in the RFP for the LTAVs.


this is maybe a similar vehicle to what the DF could get, it's called the coyote in Canadian service, based on the Piranha, it carries a radar system similar to the one the DF, it also has the 25mm bushmaster cannon.

CTU
8th September 2005, 14:25
No idea what the Arty are looking at.

This might spread some light on what they are looking for.

http://www.defence.ie/WebSite.nsf/Publication+ID/85CA33FDBCB52C008025702F004D7742?OpenDocument

Its about a compition for a fire control computer system, but if you look at a few of the diagrams you can see some Mowags.

Goldie fish
4th November 2005, 22:46
A new Mowag Board composed of Cav & Arty (Lt Col I/C) are sourcing Mowags which can fulfill the individual requirements of both corps. The initial tender will be for around 15 Mowags depending on the spec (€25m only buys so much). The Cav are looking at a 30mm canon to replace the AML 20, and later, to replace the AML 90 with a 105mm gun. Both types are available 'off the shelf' with no modifications required. No idea what the Arty are looking at.

Piranha IV with 30mm Cannon. Still carries 8 Passengers too.

http://www.mowag.ch/Images/Bildergalerie/Piranha/Piranha%20IV/Version8x8/8x8-IV_15.jpg

http://www.mowag.ch/Images/Bildergalerie/Piranha/Piranha%20IV/Version8x8/8x8-IV_16.jpg

http://www.mowag.ch/En/07_BilderEn/07-01_Frameset.htm

COXY
8th November 2005, 04:42
Question:

i understand that the Mowag contract allowed for 40 to be purchased straightaway , with options for 25 more, thus bringing the number of Mowag III 's in service up to 65.
Were all 65 purchased, and thus the new 15 Mowag contract bring the number in service up to 80 ?
or will the new 15 just bring the number up to 55 ??
regards,a nd thanks ,
Coxy.

pym
8th November 2005, 05:48
I think the original contract was 40 ordered with options for 40 more.

Only 25 were ordered before the option ran out. These 15 additional vehicles will bring the total number up to 80.

Again I think this is the case, but could be wrong.

DeV
8th November 2005, 12:33
Orginal contract was for 40 with options on another 40.

The initial vehicles were delivered (40) and options on 25 were exercised (bring the current total to 65). The new order (15) will bring the total in service with the DF to 80.

65 purchased at 1999 prices (average of €1 million each) and the new 15 purchased at 2005/6 prices (the average price will be at least €1.5 million each - I would imagine. F***ing stupid public procurement idiots in Ireland, another €15 million in 1999 wouldn't have been a huge jump.

Gunner Who?
8th November 2005, 18:54
Well either way 80 in use or 95 in use, very impressive numbers. The Cav/Arty requirement is recce ok . Judging from the feature in the last Cosantoir /Connect DOD have invested a lot in kit for the Arty anchor OP parties. The UK Arty deploy forward OP parties in fast light armoured vehicles, so we are following suit. Saw them on a demo shoot in Larkhill but cannot rem the make/model. Could also be trying to get a few of the CP versions as replacements for the FACE CP kit which they had in the School.

DeV
8th November 2005, 19:04
Well either way 80 in use or 95 in use, very impressive numbers.


Not really to be honest, around 60 are needed to equip a battalion. In theory each of the 9 PDF infantry battalions should have an APC mounted company. 80 is around enough to equip 6 in this way.

Consider that around 30 are currently deployed overseas.

Gunner Who?
8th November 2005, 20:40
http://www.defence.ie/WebSite.nsf/Publication+ID/85CA33FDBCB52C008025702F004D7742?OpenDocument

had a look at that link CTU
What a buzz ,brought me straight back to the essential make believe world of the way we were taught in the various Army Schools. 3 FOO per battery in Piranhas and a bty CP thats 4 per bty, 12 per regt. Add in one for the FDC and the 4 back at Mytical Bge Cp and you are up to 17 already. a true paper army concept. This in an Corps that has only got "'n" batteries of TOWED 105's. not a AS90 in sight. Ads usual it does not run it , so the most they will get is one or two for the School and so life goes on.Ingenuity/modest amounts of kit and bags of enthusiasm/professionism in small dedicated cadres is what keeps the Army going.

COXY
8th November 2005, 21:27
Orginal contract was for 40 with options on another 40.

The initial vehicles were delivered (40) and options on 25 were exercised (bring the current total to 65). The new order (15) will bring the total in service with the DF to 80.

65 purchased at 1999 prices (average of €1 million each) and the new 15 purchased at 2005/6 prices (the average price will be at least €1.5 million each - I would imagine. F***ing stupid public procurement idiots in Ireland, another €15 million in 1999 wouldn't have been a huge jump.
Would it be possible / advisable to take the AML 20 turrets and fit them onto Piranha III 's / IV's , or would that ruin the ballistic resistance of the hull , or make the Mowags top-heavy , or reduce room in the back for the 8 infantry men /women ?!?!?
i ask because even if the AML 20 's are replaced it seems a waste of those turrets , and all their new electronics , plus at a stroke you have relatively cheaply upgunned the III's, and made the turrets more mobile( as opposed to current AML hulls) .
or am i being mitty-ish ?!?!?!

Goldie fish
9th November 2005, 00:47
Its not impossible...

http://www.mowag.ch/Images/Bildergalerie/Piranha/Piranha%20III/Version6x6/6x6-III_08.jpg
Looks a lot like a Panhard turret there.

COXY
9th November 2005, 03:15
thanks for the pic. it certainly looks like the answer.
in Karl Martin's book, in the colour photograph section in the middle of the book, there was a photo of an AML 90 turret atop a Timoney Mk VI .
please God they'd try an AML 20 turret atop a Piranha.
your pic, and Karl's book, show the precedent.

Gunner Who?
9th November 2005, 05:12
Just remed. the number bought so far, did they get any of the command , ambulance, workshop versions ? thus reducing the numbers available for troop lift capacity in the Inf Bns . Did we not also have a mention that first and second line spares had long lead times which meant OTR vehicles were being canibilised? All of that aside what is the end user satisfaction with the equipment so far?
I for one was astonished by the idea of 1 APC for one million when the SISU was available for E170K
It seemed a very bad deal to me then but shortly after that GM bought the Swiss over and US Army placed a huge order. So must be good I thought then saw Australian /Canadian etc all have them so again must know something good.

hptmurphy
9th November 2005, 09:50
Given that ballistic performance of the Ratel 20mm is no longer deemed to be acceptable in general circles and the comonolity is now put at 25mm or 30mm...as part of any deployed RRF a mowag with 20mm would be insufficently armed.So a conversion using the 20mm gun is not deemed to be pratical.

The new cav dictate really has no place for the 90mm gun so why would they try and make that conversion. These home conversions are more expensive in man power and hours term sthan actually buying something straight of the shelf.There are enough armed versions of Mowag available and enough adittional packages with out having to rwork obselete turrets,

Its just going to take some with enough balls to stand up to the powers that be and say this is what we want and nothing less will surfice. Our current deployments fail to give atrue picture of what is needed and it is only with joint deploymnet on training or missions that our lack of ability through inferior equipmnet will be blatantly visible.

sledger
24th December 2005, 11:02
Taken from the news section:

Another 15 Mowag Piranha armoured vehicles are to be bought from Switzerland in a €36.5m deal.

Nine of the vehicles are to be equipped with a Norwegian designed Kongsberg remote weapon station with a 12.7mm heavy machinegun. It allows a gunner to fire the weapon while protected by armour.

The other six Mowag vehicles in the Irish order will be armed with a heavier Italian-made Oto Melara 30mm cannon to allow them to fulfill a cavalry and reconnaissance role.

The latest order brings the Irish Mowag fleet to 80.

Link to Kongsberg remote weapon station:
http://www.kongsberg.com/dokumenter/protechxproduktark/kda/english/Protector_RWS_04.pdf

Goldie fish
24th December 2005, 12:35
6 with a 30mm only?

Thats not even barely enough for one squadron!

http://www.otomelara.it/products/images/gallery/hitfist25_1.jpg
http://www.otomelara.it/products/images/gallery/hitfist25_2.jpg
http://www.otomelara.it/products/Images/land_hitfist_25_dett.jpg


Main Armament 30mm
type / calibre Mc Donnel Douglas BM11
Auxiliary armament
Coaxial machine gun 1 x 7.62mm
TOW launchers (option) 2, external
Smoke Grenade Launchers 8x80mm
Weight 2200 - 2800 Kg
Training arc unlimited
Elevation arcs
Main gun +60° / -10°
TOW missiles +30° / -7,5°
Training speed/acceleration max 1 rad/sec(1 rad/sec2)
Elevation speed/acceleration max 0.5 rad/sec(1 rad/sec2)
Ammunition HEI-T APDS-T
Ready-to-fire rounds 7.62mm 30mm TOW missiles
700 100 2
80

Oto Melara two-man, power operated turret armed with a 25 or 30-mm automatic cannon, a 7.62-mm coaxial machine gun, and two elevation controlled TOW missile launchers.

The turret is built with ballistic aluminium alloy and additional steel armour plates to reach the required protection level.

The new HITFIST® fire control system together with the TOW guidance set allows engagement of targets by day and night; the electrical, fully digital servosystems and the line of fire stabilization ensure a high accuracy of fire.

Crew consists of two men who sit side by side in the turret: the commander on the left, the gunner on the right.

A single man can fully operate the turret.

The main armament is an automatic cannon 25 or 30-mm, electrically controlled for elevation, traversing and firing operations; feeding is through belted rounds housed in two ammunition containers.

Assembly and disassembly of the weapon does not require special tools, thus making control and servicing operations possible in unfavourable conditions.

Cannon control is through the HITFIST® fire control system which includes a sight with eye-safe laser rangefinder and a thermal night vision camera.

A 7.62mm machine gun is coaxially mounted to the main cannon.

Two TOW armoured launchers are side-mounted on the turret with remote control (Digital Missile Guidance Set) integrated in the HITFIST® a fire control system.

http://www.otomelara.it/products/schedule.asp?id=prod_land_hitfist_25_ge

andy
24th December 2005, 12:59
http://www.irishmilitaryonline.com/board/showthread.php?p=108520#post108520

Whats everyone's thoughts on the new mowags ? I think its a wise move instead of ordering some HMVV or Eagle. It provides the soliders a lot more protection. I thought we already have the remotely controlled 12.7mm on the existing mowags.

The 30mm cannon will provide some proper support in the cav role. Its a shame they didnt have more of them.

Will the DF go for the Mowag for the cav ? It would cut down on the training of drivers and spare parts

yellowjacket
24th December 2005, 13:43
Apparently the TOW capability of the OTO turrets cost too much so was left off...

Gasplug
24th December 2005, 13:55
6 with a 30mm only?

Thats not even barely enough for one squadron!


question is which squadron will get them? and will the scorpians get scrapped now?

Bam Bam
24th December 2005, 15:08
it would have made more sense to buy the replacement for the nissans instead of these mowags, but what do I know I ain't a bean counter.

So our troops are left with unarmoured light vehicles and little to no body armour. Great.

andy
24th December 2005, 15:18
Apparently the TOW capability of the OTO turrets cost too much so was left off...

very disapointing:(

Spook
24th December 2005, 15:46
Any idea why they changed fron the previous 12.5mm turret,though I see the protector system can use the javiln atgm.
Regarding the 30 mm turrets and the lack of tow's, as we dont use this missile and to introduce it into service alongside the javalin would add greatly to the cost of the contract perhaps this was a good desision????
I cant see 6 30mm mowags replacing the aml 20's in service,hopefully its just an initial order to be followed by more plus in time mowags with 105 or 60mm cannons to replace the aml90's.
An all mowag fleet will give up great savings in spares holdings,training etc
Just the taughts of a poor grunt on christmas eve :frown:

Merry Christmas all :smile:

Pod
24th December 2005, 16:32
Why are they bothering with any of this? It's just another very dissapointing half-arsed attempt to look like they (Govt) actually want the DF to be able tgo do the job they are supposed too.
Call me a bitter and twisted cynic!

California Tanker
24th December 2005, 21:41
Ahem.

You are a bitter and twisted cynic.

NTM

B Inman
24th December 2005, 22:00
This purchase will provide commanality between the Inf and Cav vehicles, should make life easier for fitters and logs personnel. I just hope that 15 is only the start of a programme to replace all the Panhards/Scorpians in the Cav Corps. There are a variety of turrets fitted with suitable calibre weapons and sensors available for Mowags if the will is there to make funds available to purchase them.

FMolloy
24th December 2005, 22:28
I thought we already have the remotely controlled 12.7mm on the existing mowags.

The infantry mowags have manned turrets, not remote stations.


Any idea why they changed fron the previous 12.7mm turret?

Maybe they want these mowags to have a lower profile than the infantry ones.

ODIN
24th December 2005, 22:55
makes sense for the recce role

Goldie fish
25th December 2005, 00:57
Still not even close to enough. Panhards are well past replacment date, and are obsolete in the modern theater of operations(while not taking away from their usefulness).

Fact is though, they are the oldest operational vehicles in the inventory, and some have served longer than probably any individual in the Defence forces.

I assume the 30mm versions will go to 1st Armoured Cavaly Squadron, whose panhards (if operational) can be redistributed(please). My guess is the Non Turreted types will go to Artillery for FO

The Blue Max
25th December 2005, 03:12
Hmm interesting stuff looks like this going to be first order for these new versions (well hopefully) the 30mm cannon will be a good addition and will be great to see serving overseas in future just one question relating to the new remote controled weapon systen for .5 HMG is this remote controlled system capable of firing the 0.5'' HMG or is it modular i was confused by there website/link were it quotes that the Raytheon Javelin ATGM can be fitted/operated/fired from it does that mean you have to buy one just for the javelin or is the system modular i.e capable of being equiped with numourous weapons (at different occasions) e.g 0.5'' HMG or Javelin Or does anybody Know???


Nollaig Shona Diobh Agus Bliain Shona Nua Diobh go Leír

California Tanker
25th December 2005, 03:59
It's the same system that the US uses on Strykers. It has a generic pintle that can mount .50 cal or Mk19, but since the Irish don't use Mk19s, last I checked...

NTM

Goldie fish
25th December 2005, 05:36
Where is everyone getting the "first of many" idea? As mentioned earlier, this is the "last of many". When the APC competition wasannounced back in 1998, the requirement was for 40 vehicles, plus an option for a further 40. Total=80.
Since then we have seen delivery of:
6 in 2001.
34 in 2002
(This initial order of 40 comprised 34 APC variants, with Helio turrets, armed with 12.7mm and 7.62mm machine gun, 1 Fitters vehicle(no turret), 4 Command Vehicles and 1 armoured ambulance(no turret).)
25 in 2004.

This comes to a total of 65 Mowag Pirhana of various types. The 2004 models are different to the initial models.(You'll see it if you compare hull sides)


Yesterday we see the Order being placed for 15 more, with different turrets. The 30mm turreted version will have a different passenger compartment layout to all others in service.

65+15=80.

There is still a requirement, in Irish military doctrine for a Light Tactical armoured vehicle. The tender process ran its course, and there was no successful bid.
There is still a requirement for 12 armoured vehicles per squadron(6) for Cavalry to replace the Panhards.(thats 72 vehicles, even though there was never enough Panhards to go around as it was, even without overseas deployment. There are no plans, in the immediate future for replacement of these. It was thought that the LTAV may have been their replacement, but this was not to be the case. At the moment where recce should be carried out by armoured vehicles, it is being carried out with a combination of armoured and soft skinned vehicles.

Consider this the same as sending an infantry section out with only 4 of them armed?

1st Armoured Cav also have requirements for replacement of their Scorpion CVR(T). They are one of the few armoured vehicles in irish service never to have been deployed overseas. They are also the only armoured vehicle, and the only Army vehicle other than motorcycles, to be fuelled by petrol.

So now that the Infantry requirments have been covered, the DF will need about another 80 Mowags or whatever to cover the Cavalry requirement, assuming that is, that the DF want to continue having a seperate (Cav) Armoured recce corps?

California Tanker
25th December 2005, 14:11
Is the infantry requirement really filled? I know the general doctrine is for leg, not mechanised infantry, but when you subtract vehicles for overseas use and training schools, that doesn't leave a hell of a lot for the rest of the Army to play with.

NTM

The Blue Max
25th December 2005, 20:13
I suppose if the LATV issue is ever revisited it will help in case "Up-Armouring The Infantry" hopefully with either thr like of Mowag Eagle IV/Timoney Bushmaster etc.. Oh just to specify about the Remote Contolled weapon mount on some of the new Mowags will be able to fit the Raytheon Javelin ATGM to it??? If this is correct it will provide us with a great stand off(Punch Above Are Weight Mobile Anti-Armour System) which is a great capabilty to send overseas were there is potential other armoured threats e.g Western African Rebel Forces etc... Is it expected that the Cavarly/Artillery Armoured Mobile Requirement will be met with the some variants of Mowag Pirianha III either in 6X6,8X8,10X10 wheeled vechicles would this be correct to presume???

Goldie fish
25th December 2005, 20:56
No it wouldnt.

The Blue Max
25th December 2005, 21:38
How Would It Not Help Provide Enhanced (Armoured) Anti-Armour Missile System To Troops Overseas???

Goldie fish
25th December 2005, 21:53
Depends on if you expect to come up against agressors in armour. Rare enough these days. In Lebanon, they regularly encountered tanks and armoured half tracks. If you start shootin at them though, things get messy.

The Blue Max
25th December 2005, 22:20
True But dont forget about the TOW Incident when the Danes Fired One In Support Of Irish Troops Encountering Hostile Enemy Armour etc..So Just be definite it seems that Remote Weapons System we are purchasing will be able to be equiped with are Javelins, Yes??? Any Ideas About what types the Cav/Arty want would it be Mowag With 105mm 8X8 or 10X10 or similiar.. And what the likely hood of LATV competion being revisited i wonder..

ollie
25th December 2005, 22:21
" True But dont forget about the TOW Incident when the Danes Fired One In Support Of Irish Troops Encountering Hostile Enemy Armour etc.."

what incident was this ?

Goldie fish
26th December 2005, 14:44
" True But dont forget about the TOW Incident when the Danes Fired One In Support Of Irish Troops Encountering Hostile Enemy Armour etc.."

what incident was this ?


At-Tiri most likely. I remember one of their tanks was taken out with a TOW, on the same incident, one of our AML 90s took out a half track.
"he's stopped moving and I've stopped firing".

Can we try to keep this on topic please? Less speculation on how big a 25 pounder you can weld on the roof of a piranha. This topic is about New Mowags. 15 of them, 9 with a remote weapon, six with a 30mm cannon.

The Blue Max
1st January 2006, 21:01
Well is it known whether the contract has been signed for them yet and is there any idea when they are due to be delivered this year or next??

Goldie fish
2nd January 2006, 00:57
Found this on a thread from last year.

http://www.irishmilitaryonline.com/board/showpost.php?p=47274&postcount=3


The cav already opparate a workshop mowag and they are goin getting 6 mowag APCs sometime in the near future(2 for each PDF sqn.).:)

Anyone hear more?

Victor
27th January 2006, 14:30
Suggestion about numbers. Surely there should be enough vehicles for the RRF and any UN committment to be armoured (plus spares / training)? Not necessarily on a 1:1 basis but, close to it.
If this is correct it will provide us with a great stand off(Punch Above Are Weight Mobile Anti-Armour System) which is a great capabilty to send overseas were there is potential other armoured threats e.g Western African Rebel Forces etc...
If the bad guys ™ have tanks, I humbly suggest you use something better armoured than a Piranha.

At-Tiri most likely. I remember one of their tanks was taken out with a TOW, on the same incident, one of our AML 90s took out a half track.Wasn't it a MILAN? :tongue:

The Blue Max
27th January 2006, 16:05
No it was the AML 90 that took out the DDF (Israeli Backed Militia) Halftrack and the Danish did fire a TOW missile at a some tank or similiar i do believe that had been harassing UN forces trying to resupply Irish positions (i think an Panhard M3 APC was git wit MG fire on one instance.

Thats a preferible option to have something more armoured then a Mowag to take out other enemy armour probly in Centuaro Class, but if the capability is there with new remote weapon station to operate the Raytheon Javelin from then it provide a good stand off armoured platform to conduct Anti Armour operations from i.e firing the missile etc... instaead of just indangering Infantry Anti Armour asset unessarily in a combat situation.

Goldie fish
27th January 2006, 18:41
http://www.mowag.ch/En/10_PresseEn/10-01_Frameset.htm

Jan 24th 2006.

Ireland orders further PIRANHA IIIH 8x8 in new variants

Dublin, Ireland - On December 20, 2005 the Irish Department of Defence (DoD) and MOWAG GmbH – a General Dynamics company – signed a contract for a further batch of 15 units of the PIRANHA IIIH 8x8, with a total value of close to 30 Million Euros. After two contracts for the same vehicle between 1999 and 2002, this contract adds two new variants to the fleet of MOWAG vehicles operated by the Irish DoD.


In 1999 the Irish Department of Defence selected the PIRANHA for their overseas peace keeping missions, where the vehicle proved its liability and performance. Earlier last year, the Irish Department of Defence (DoD) had announced the procurement of additional PIRANHAs. Until today 65 vehicles are in operation and the additional order will summarize to a total fleet of 80 units.

Of the now ordered 15 PIRANHA IIIH 8x8, 9 will be equipped with a remotely controlled and stabilized 12.7 mm KONGSBERG Weapon Station and 6 with a stabilized OTOMELARA 30 mm Weapon System. The PIRANHAs will further enhance the military capability of Ireland to participate in international operations. The threat situation in such missions specifically calls for a high level of protection for the vehicle crews against mines and ballistic weapons. With the in worldwide operating PIRANHA IIIH 8x8, the technology-minded company from Kreuzlingen, Switzerland offers a proven product, which fulfils this high-ranking requirement of protection, comfort and mobility. With its third order, the Irish Army continues to trust in the reliability and performance of the successful product from Kreuzlingen.

Production will take place at MOWAG's facility in Kreuzlingen and deliveries will start in February 2007.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MOWAG GmbH of Kreuzlingen develops, designs, and manufactures technologically advanced special vehicles for military use. Far more than 10'000 armoured wheeled vehicles of the MOWAG PIRANHA, MOWAG EAGLE, and MOWAG DURO series are fielded all over the world. Since October of 2003, MOWAG is part of the General Dynamics European Land Com*bat Systems group, and employs a qualified staff of more than 500 in its Kreuzlingen site.

The General Dynamics European Land Combat Systems group is part of General Dynamics Corporation (GD), the largest armaments group in the world. General Dynamics, headquartered in Falls Church, Virginia, employs a staff of 70'800 in its worldwide operations, and will generate an estimated turnover of $19,2 billion in 2004. GD is a world market leader in the field of tactical IT systems, land-based and amphibious weapon systems, shipbuilding and ma*rine systems, and business aircraft. www.generaldynamics.com

FMolloy
27th January 2006, 20:17
If the bad guys ™ have tanks, I humbly suggest you use something better armoured than a Piranha.

The DF does not deploy overseas on it's own, it's safe to say that Irish troops would be supported by other contingents (like the Swedes do in Liberia). What vehicle would you suggest anyway?


No it was the AML 90 that took out the DDF (Israeli Backed Militia) Halftrack and the Danish did fire a TOW missile at a some tank or similiar i do believe that had been harassing UN forces trying to resupply Irish positions (i think an Panhard M3 APC was git wit MG fire on one instance.

It was the Dutch.


Thats a preferible option to have something more armoured then a Mowag to take out other enemy armour, probably in the Centauro class

The Centauro, and other vehicles like it, wouldn't offer that much more protection than a Mowag (maybe 20-30mm over the frontal arc). Add-on armour would improve a Mowag's survivability against larger callibre weapons and RPG's.


but if the capability is there with new remote weapon station to operate the Raytheon Javelin from then it provide a good stand off armoured platform to conduct Anti Armour operations from i.e firing the missile etc... instaead of just indangering Infantry Anti Armour asset unessarily in a combat situation.

You're getting way ahead of yourself there.

B Inman
27th January 2006, 21:57
The TOW was fired from a Dutch YP APC. Dutchbatt had a number of variants, troop carrier, TOW missle variant, Ambulance.

The Blue Max
31st January 2006, 17:21
In future overseas operations we will have similiar deployments to the Dutch Batt in the Lebanon of mixed variants such as Mowag APCs,IFVs and others variants such armoured ambulances etc.. and acourse aswell as those so talked about LATV will also probly make a appearance too!!!

womble
31st January 2006, 20:14
6 for the cav as armed recce is obviously not enough and I have a few other questions about them, so here goes; this is going to be long sorry.
To be effective (I think) they will really need multiple Javelin armament, i.e. you have a bunker/ armored target to engage then a 30mm won’t be good enough for all occasions.
Also what type of sensors if any will they be carrying. Ideally they would have something like the Canadian Coyote a mix of armament and sensors-
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/2_0_42_1.asp?uSubSection=42&uSection=1
One addition to the Coyote if it was possible would be a troop carrying capability.
Even without the extendable boom mounted package they will need decent sensors to do their job anyway effectively.
Another point is, are they too big? I’ve stood beside one and it was very tall. Something like them is perfect for the armed recce role but with such a large profile would you not be better off with something smaller for the less- armed recce role, sorry I’m un-aware if such a role exits in Irish, let alone any Doctrine. Where the point is to gather information and not engage the enemy, i.e. something like the fennek.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/fennek/
This type of vehicle might also be more suitable for the Forward Observer role for the artillery. To do FO do you really need something that can carry 2 crew and 9 troopers? Something like the Fenek might be more suited to this role.
The Fenek could also be used in the anti-tank role with Javelin, maybe even the LTAV roll. Although I am not sure if it is well protected enough for what the Army is looking for in this.
I would however imagine that the Fennek is very expensive so this would probably rule it out for this role.
Something cheaper might be something like the Turkish Cobra-
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/fennek/
This could do all the roles of the LTAV, but to be fair if the DF turned down the Eagle I don’t see the Cobra being much good in the role.

The main point I am trying to make here, is that while a good vehicle I get the impression that the Piranha is being forced into too many roles that it is not ideally suited for. The DF may be better off with smaller vehicles like the Fenek/ Bushmaster with the Piranha used more so by the cav for armed recce and fire support.
Just an idea to throw around/ have torn to peaces.

Goldie fish
2nd February 2006, 03:21
Another point is, are they too big? I’ve stood beside one and it was very tall. .

are you in any of these photos?


Thousands of protesters were actually crushed by tanks. But the media have been prevented from reporting on it of course.

http://www.indymedia.ie/attachments/jun2004/shannon_demo_26_30.jpg
The tanks preparing to crush the protestors

http://www.indymedia.ie/attachments/jun2004/shannon_demo_26_32.jpg
Tanks begin to crush protestors as they scream in terror...

http://www.indymedia.ie/attachments/jun2004/shannon_demo_26_34.jpg
The Tank commander gives to order to commence crushing...

http://www.indymedia.ie/attachments/jun2004/shannon_demo_26_35.jpg
Scenes of carnage after the tanks complete crushing the thousands of protestors..

Oh the humanity....the horror.

ODIN
2nd February 2006, 12:49
Damn Hippys....and womble you must be very tall to thing the Mowag is small in height!!!

womble
2nd February 2006, 14:54
No Goldie, I'm not there. My Mommy wouldn't let me go :frown:

womble
2nd February 2006, 14:56
Damn Hippys....and womble you must be very tall to thing the Mowag is small in height!!!


Emm, I think I said I thought that they are too big for certtain roles I have heard they may be used for Odin_ie. Thats what I ment to say at least.

Goldie fish
3rd February 2006, 02:07
6 for the cav as armed recce is obviously not enough and I have a few other questions about them, so here goes; this is going to be long sorry.
To be effective (I think) they will really need multiple Javelin armament, i.e. you have a bunker/ armored target to engage then a 30mm won’t be good enough for all occasions.
If you engage a stationary target with a javelin, you also have to remain stationary for its flight time. The Idea of a 30mm is to cover the rapid withdrawal from contact. It is after all an armoured recce vehicle.



Also what type of sensors if any will they be carrying.Ideally they would have something like the Canadian Coyote a mix of armament and sensors-
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/2_0_42_1.asp?uSubSection=42&uSection=1
One addition to the Coyote if it was possible would be a troop carrying capability.
Even without the extendable boom mounted package they will need decent sensors to do their job anyway effectively.
Another point is, are they too big? I’ve stood beside one and it was very tall. Something like them is perfect for the armed recce role but with such a large profile would you not be better off with something smaller for the less- armed recce role, sorry I’m un-aware if such a role exits in Irish, let alone any Doctrine. Where the point is to gather information and not engage the enemy, i.e. something like the fennek.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/fennek/
Just to repeat, the purpose of recce is not to engage the enemy. The fennek is also armed, for self defence.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/fennek/images/fennek7.jpg

"Less armed" recce as you call is is carried out in soft skinned vehicles, such as the Nissan Patrol. This is often done in the "hearts and minds" situation commonly seen on UN missions, where you want to be accessable to the local population, and where the threat is low.


This type of vehicle might also be more suitable for the Forward Observer role for the artillery. To do FO do you really need something that can carry 2 crew and 9 troopers? Something like the Fenek might be more suited to this role.
The Fenek could also be used in the anti-tank role with Javelin, maybe even the LTAV roll. Although I am not sure if it is well protected enough for what the Army is looking for in this.
To have a vehicle doing an anti tank role....the vehicle needs to be another tank... Preferably tanks. The Fennek type vehicle was considered for FOO during the LTAV tender.
The new Piranha's role is as yet unknown, and we are merely speculating.

I would however imagine that the Fennek is very expensive so this would probably rule it out for this role.
Something cheaper might be something like the Turkish Cobra-
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/cobra/
This could do all the roles of the LTAV, but to be fair if the DF turned down the Eagle I don’t see the Cobra being much good in the role.
All armour is expensive. You get what you pay for. The important factor is not initial cost, but how long will they last. Some of the Panhards in service today begun their service in 1963. Will we see the Piranhas in service in 2045?


The main point I am trying to make here, is that while a good vehicle I get the impression that the Piranha is being forced into too many roles that it is not ideally suited for. The DF may be better off with smaller vehicles like the Fenek/ Bushmaster with the Piranha used more so by the cav for armed recce and fire support.
Just an idea to throw around/ have torn to peaces.

There is that bushmaster again. ITS NOT A SMALL VEHICLE!
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bushmaster/images/3-Bushmaster.jpg
Fire support is an artillery task. The Piranha is an armoured Personell carrier, used at the moment by Infantry.It does that job well. It is smaller than the SISU used by the Irish DF in Lebanon, but it carries its dismounted element in greater safety(ever had to jump out of the back of a Sisu? I'll take the ramp any day.
Recce is still recce. The LTAV program is going to have to be re thought, with consideration given to the future role for Cavalry. 30mm seems to be the max armament used by armoured recce around the world, the question is, does your dismount travel with you, or do you bring other vehicles along with them in it? Most countries seem to go with the former option, which would rule out most of the 3 seater armoured vehicles.

Oddly enough we had the right idea years ago with the Unimog....apart from the fact it was a horrible vehicle, the theory was good.

Måk
3rd February 2006, 02:24
Hi Goldie , according to the Army Technology site the Javelin is a fire and forget missle.. once it has launched it guides itself to the target.

Javelin at work here http://home.hiwaay.net/%7Esickler/opforstuff/vids/JavelinLiveFireVsT72.mpg

Regards

Måk

womble
3rd February 2006, 03:34
Right so Goldie lets be at it.

My understanding was that the javelin was fire and forget and that once you have fired it you can move, as Måk has kindly pointed out.

You are correct, the idea of reconnaissance is to not engage the enemy, however if I am a battlefield commander and I have assets armed with 30mil cannon and carrying troops in a forward position and they have the opportunity to launch an assault I would utilize them to do so if I saw fit.
My point here is that in my opinion, Piranaha's armed with 30mil cannon, and as I suggest anti-tank missiles, plus carrying troops are an "armed" reconnaissance vehicle. That is their armament is not just for self defense, they can be used to offensively engage the enemy.
There is more than just looking at the enemy to reconnaissance. Rece troops can be used to probe the enemy for weak points to find out the ideal point for an attack.

Fennek's in the reconnaissance role would however be used solely as a reconnaissance and observation vehicle with their armament purely for self defense.
While "less armed recce" can be done in unprotected vehicles surely the best way to do it is in some vehicle that has protection whenever possible.

You are correct, the best way to defeat enemy tanks is with tanks of your own. There is still however there are other options though. The Dutch have bought 130 fenneks to be armed with Israeli Gill missile's. Thus I mentioned an anti-tank role. Please see;
http://www.global-defence.com/2003/fennek.htm

Yes armour is expensive, you still however need value for money. I do not know how much any of these vehicles cost but if i was pricing them I would compare them for value for money. I mentioned the cobra because it is Turkish and I assumed rightly or wrongly that it is probably cheaper than a HMMMWV or Eagle and Ireland has a limited budget for such. It was mearly a suggestion to emphasize the point. other options here could include the Dingo, the French VBL or the Slovakian Aligator.

I know you have a dislike for the Bushmaster. Fair enough I was merely throwing it in as a suggestion. Another option would be the South African Vickers OMC Nyala/ Mamba/ Casspir. | do not know how good any of these are but they would be useful vehicles in a support role and to ferry troops around. The Mamba is based on the unimog by the way.
This would free up Piranaha's for a more mechanized infantry role if they were suitable armed.
The way I would like to see the Piranaha's employed, (it will never happen I know but here's my 2 cents anyway), is as mech infantry carriers. That is they are armed with something like the 30mm as standard and atgw's if possible and employed in a role similar to the US Marine's LAV units.
They could also be fitted with sensors packages for the armed recce role. For that they don't all have to have the sensors package, troops and turret armament combined together in one package, mixes of these options can be used to give a balanced armed recce force.
As for fire support being an artillery function, not necessarily, tanks provide fire support. Also see the Canadian Mobile Gun System. This is what I was talking about in the fire support role;
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/2_0_83_1.asp
I don't know who would operate it, cav or arty but just having it would be nice.

I know that all of this is pure speculation and not going to happen. Its just my opinion but that is part of what this site is about isn't it, expressing an opinion.

California Tanker
3rd February 2006, 03:59
30mm seems to be the max armament used by armoured recce around the world

120mm that I'm aware of: The Germans have heavy recon companies which intermix Spahpzr Luchs with Leopard tanks. Then again, ever since WWII the Germans have believed in having their recon forces able to brush aside enemy recon/counter-recon screens and have traditionally been heavily armed.

NTM

womble
3rd February 2006, 04:03
Cheers Cal tanker, you just better expressed part of what was trying to get at.

California Tanker
3rd February 2006, 06:30
No, I'm just being pedantic. The German concept probably doesn't apply so well for the Irish defense forces because (a ) there aren't enough tanks to divert a few to recon roles (i.e. none), and (b ) Ireland doesn't have exploitation forces capable of using any deep information that heavy recon might find.

NTM

Goldie fish
3rd February 2006, 09:04
Defense? Defense? You been in the New World too long son. We speak English round these parts. You gone native on us.

FMolloy
3rd February 2006, 12:49
You are correct, the idea of reconnaissance is to not engage the enemy, however if I am a battlefield commander and I have assets armed with 30mil cannon and carrying troops in a forward position and they have the opportunity to launch an assault I would utilize them to do so if I saw fit.
My point here is that in my opinion, Piranaha's armed with 30mil cannon, and as I suggest anti-tank missiles, plus carrying troops are an "armed" reconnaissance vehicle. That is their armament is not just for self defense, they can be used to offensively engage the enemy.
There is more than just looking at the enemy to reconnaissance. Rece troops can be used to probe the enemy for weak points to find out the ideal point for an attack.

Recce units use firepower to cover themselves when they run into superior enemy forces and to destroy the enemy's recce units. Any use of recce units in the attack would be a last resort.

Jungle
3rd February 2006, 16:38
Fire support is an artillery task.
Partly right... There are 2 types of fire support: indirect and direct.
Indirect fire support is provided by the Artillery, and by the Infantry (Mortars)
Direct fire support (DFS) is provided by the Armoured elements, and by the Infantry (TOW etc...)
There are 2 types of Recce vehicles: patrol and surveillance. We use the Coyote for both tasks: http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/2_0_42.asp?uSubSection=42&uSection=1
The CF are also purchasing a number of Nyalas for patrol duties.
As part of CF transformation, our Mortars went to the Artillery (a big mistake IMO), and TOWs are sent to a DFS Regt. The unit will employ the TOW, the Stryker MGS and the still-to-be-developped MMEV (Multi-Mission-Effects-Vehicle, based on the ADATS: http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/2_0_29.asp?uSubSection=29&uSection=1), all mounted on the LAV-III chassis.
You ca see a concept pic of the MMEV here: http://army.ca/cgi-bin/album.pl?photo=Vehicles/Canadian/MMEV_Concept_2.jpg
Time will tell if this is a good move... :wink:

Barry
3rd February 2006, 17:38
As part of CF transformation, our Mortars went to the Artillery (a big mistake IMO)
Depends on the size of the mortar. Heavy mortars can be put to much better use when concentrated in Batteries, where their fire can quickly and accurately be directed to support any unit within range, rather than the single unit they are attached to

I'm open to correction by the cav types, but I understand that direct fire support is no longer a primary task of the cav

Jungle
3rd February 2006, 18:12
I'm talking about 81mm mortars. All our Infantry has left is the 60mm at Platoon level. We don't have heavy mortars.

andy
3rd February 2006, 18:57
Jungle, I think air defense is low on the list for new mowags. the vast majority of missions the DF will be going into will have 100% controlled airspace.

As i said on another thread the DF should get the fennek for recce. Its excellent unless they want to go the armoured route and buy some MBT's.

We could also do with some more Mowags with turret mortar fire.

womble
3rd February 2006, 19:29
No, I'm just being pedantic. The German concept probably doesn't apply so well for the Irish defense forces because (a ) there aren't enough tanks to divert a few to recon roles (i.e. none), and (b ) Ireland doesn't have exploitation forces capable of using any deep information that heavy recon might find.

NTM

Thanks for your input cal tanker but I am not talking about large scale deep penetration forces for Ireland. The role's I would envisage for the Mowag in an armed recce role are to gather information about the enemy, probe for weakness in their front, strike targets of oppurtunity when they present themselves and if and when neccessary and possible to be an assasult force.
I don't think it would best maximise their capabilities to be simply an information gathering tool. If they have the capability to strike the enemy then it should be used where feasable.

womble
3rd February 2006, 19:30
Recce units use firepower to cover themselves when they run into superior enemy forces and to destroy the enemy's recce units. Any use of recce units in the attack would be a last resort.


FMolloy, I realise that is the role of the recce units, but in my opinion it should be expanded to be more aggressive and let them take on inferior forces that they can destroy if they encounter them. What I am talking about is an aggressive force that carries out reconnaisance by fire when appropriate. An example of this would be first recon battalion of the US Marines in the invasion of Iraq. They are a unit that was designed and trained to carry out reconnaisance in small units behind enemy lines. During the Iraq invasion they wsere used in a completely different role. They were equiped with un-armoured humvee's armed with .50 cals amd mk 19 grenade launchers and in one marines in the units word's, used as "ambush bait". They were sent out ahead of the main force to basically see what they ran into and if they could go through it. I am not suggesting that Irish recce units be used like this, but it is an example of recce units being used for a different role than they are traditonally.


Jungle can you tell me what the difference between the two types of recce vehicles is if you would be so kind. Oh and what the hell is that MMEV concept thing?

Jungle
3rd February 2006, 21:51
Jungle can you tell me what the difference between the two types of recce vehicles is if you would be so kind. Oh and what the hell is that MMEV concept thing?
Well it is my pleasure...
A patrol vehicle will be used for "mud" Recce: moving forward of the FEBA etc...
A surveillance vehicle will have a surveillance suite, consisting of cameras, sensors and radars, and will keep away from the enemy, observing it.
Many armies use the same vehicle for both roles for financial reasons, but it is not ideal. For example, the Coyote was initially designed as a surveillance vehicle; eventually they removed the suites from a number of them to use as mud-recce / DFS vehicles. But they are not as manoeuvrable as some of the smaller Recce vehicles out there... Now we use the Comd/ Recce version of the G-wagen and the Nyala for some patroling tasks in low-to-mid intensity conflict areas.
As for the MMEV, it will be the long-range weapon system of the new DFS Regt. It will be able to engage aircraft and tanks out to (+/-) 10km. The mid-range will be covered by TOW to 4000m, then the Stryker MGS will be used in close range, as a tank destroyer or assault gun.
As mentionned, the MMEV is still a concept. I know it will be based on the ADATS, but I don't know what other system(s) will be used on it.

California Tanker
4th February 2006, 00:35
There is a further wrench to throw into the works:

We're focusing on the recon role. Unfortunately, that is not the sole function of the Cavalry Corps in Ireland. Two other cavalry roles are flank screening and independent operations. Both of those require some form of firepower. Ireland is not in the position such as the US where it can afford to have a cavalry unit (usually platoon) at battalion level for the close tactical recon role, and also have independent cavalry troops and squadrons (American definition) for the other two roles. As a result, either the Cavalry Corps needs to redefine its role solely to the close recon role, or it needs to accept compromises in the vehicle: Get one that's probably a little bigger than prefereable for one role in order to have it capable at another.

NTM

womble
4th February 2006, 01:29
Thanks Jungle, thats very interesting, just to clarify, the surveillance vehicle will monitor the enemy from a distance and will be heavier armed than the patrol vehicles which are lighter more maneuverable vehicles, do I have that correct?
That MMEV vehicle does look like a good idea although I am not sure about the MGS as a tank killer.

Cal Tanker you are completely correct and I have gotten a bit of tunnel vision on the recon role. i had not given any thought to the other roles so thanks for bringing that up. What are you talking about, something like the South African Rooikat, Italin Centauro, French AMX 10RC etc? they would be able to provide some amount of functionality for all those roles and would be a nice replacement for the panhards.
the unfortunate thing about this conversation is that it is pure wishfullness.

Jungle
4th February 2006, 04:06
Thanks Jungle, thats very interesting, just to clarify, the surveillance vehicle will monitor the enemy from a distance and will be heavier armed than the patrol vehicles which are lighter more maneuverable vehicles, do I have that correct?
Yes.

... I am not sure about the MGS as a tank killer.
Me neither, but then again, I am not an expert on armoured vehicles. Time will tell... :smile:

apod
4th February 2006, 10:07
Heres my two cents,
because of the roles thrust on them by pso bn requirements the cav are being put in a situation where because of budget constraints they are having to choose between equiping themselves for close recce,which was traditionally an infantry role,and medium recce which was allways a cav role.They are two totally different roles which require different vechicles.as it stands it looks as if the cav are focusing on close recce requirements to the detriment of their medium role.
Imho close recce should have been left to the infantry,and the recce plns should be equipped with some sort of landrover wmik variant.Not a totally outlandish suggestion as the inf wpns wing used to use recce landrovers in the mid '90s before they were disposed of.These type of vechicles are easily cammed up as they are open top.Ltv were first mooted because of a requirement in a mechanised bn for certain roles/ appt holders to have a vechicle that was armored and could keep up with the mowags,not for close recce.
Also imho the cav should focus on medium recce and re-equip for that role(which they were allways good at) instead of trying to fullfill all the recce roles.
Better to be very good at one thing than trying to be a jack of all trades. :smile:

California Tanker
4th February 2006, 13:35
Yes.

Me neither, but then again, I am not an expert on armoured vehicles. Time will tell... :smile:

It's an "OK" tank killer even though it's not the preferred role. It's actually better than the LAV-AT in a few situations such as close terrain where the missile hasn't had time to 'gather', or in areas where the TOW's command wire might get cut, such as rubble. In terms of raw power, it'll deal with any tank the US has ever shot at so far from the front. It will have difficulty with the current generation of MBTs from the front, but will kill about anything from the side. It's just too big for consideration for a recon role. Not exactly talking Centauro sized, but still, quite high. The afore-mentioned Rooikat 105 might do a bit better, but it's yet another chassis to support.

NTM

Måk
5th February 2006, 23:37
Just wondering if any of the heads that matter( Govt and Generals ) have thought of combining a Fennek type vehicle with the Rafael RCWS-30.
Taking the stats from Mowag for the Irish Piranha III(H) to the hull roof top 2.17m and adding the OTO Melera HITFIST 30 turret of .824m gives an overall height of 2.994m for the new Mowag OTO Melera Hitfist 30 recce vehicle.

I was wondering if the Cav would not be better off served with the Fennek or similar lower in stature vehicle combined with the Rafael RCWS-30. Its an extendable mounting that also offers -20degrees +60degrees depression / elevations.

PIII(H) Height 2.17m
OTO Melera turret .824m Weight 2200-2800kg
PIII(H) + OTO Melera Hitfist 30 turret - combined height of 2.994m

Fennek-1.79m to roof

Rafael RCWS-30
Folded height 545mm
Extended- 1010mm weight 1480kg

Fennek with RCWS
Overall Height RCWS folded 2.335m
Overall Height with RCWS extended 2.8m
Gun elevation -20degrees +60degrees
Main: 30 mm Cannon (ATK MK-44 or other)-200rds dual feed.
Coax: 7.62 mm Machine Gun 460 rounds
Optional: 2 SPIKE missiles (or other)
2x3 smoke grenades
Day sight: Color / CCD camera with x10 continuous zoom
Night Sight: FLIR with four fields-of-view by IAI / Tamam or other. (alternate: LLLTV camera)
Display: Multi-functional, color LCD monitor.

Link to RCWS-30 http://www.rafael.co.il/web/rafnew/news/news-260504.htm

Rheinmetal also make the Recoilless Cannon RMK 30 which offers a lot of possiblilties for arming a vehicle for the Cavs work.
Its a moot point seeing as the decision has already been made , partly due to the desire to standardise the APC / AV fleet on the Mowag.

In a recent An Cosantoir article ( mb a year ago ) covering the Cav and its recce role , the author talked about the Cav guys undergoing intensive training for close recce. Seeing as up to the present they have been 3 man crews manning the 30 odd Panhard AMLs would it be correct to assume that the Govt intends to cram all these lads into the 15 Mowags seeing as there will still be space for them even with the Kongsbergs and OTO Hitfists so as to save a few Euro?
Lions led by Sheep , and Sheep the fritter away the National Treasure for photo ops for over budgeted roads and crap computer pay systems :mad:
regards

Måk

hptmurphy
6th February 2006, 11:56
The cav are well aware with the imminent removal of Panhards that there roles is now solely recon.

Its a pity every body else fails to see this. The only role that the current armour fleet is capable of carrying out is indirect fire supports..flank protection and convoy protection. As soon as these vehicles are gone...the said roles will dissapear as well.
Seeing as most of the modern reccon role will be in the dismounted role all that reall is need is a transport to get the insertion teams to the drop off point ..that can provide some covering fire if required during a hot withdrawl.....now look at the actual reqiurements and have the uneducated move on from Kursk Like tank engagements...

DeV
9th March 2006, 20:05
The new MOWAGs will be delivered in early 2007.

9 x Close Recce Vehicles (CRVs) armed with remote controlled 12.7mm which will be stabilised.

6 x Medium Recce Vehicles (MRVs) armed with 30mm and 2 x 7.62mm.

Both will be equipped with a day/night camera, laser range finder & thermal imager. They will also be able to catty specialist teams (eg recce, OP, snipers, engineers and medics).

The Blue Max
9th March 2006, 22:28
Sounds Surprisingly well taught out by the Army for a change! LOL! Has this type of Multi-Role carrying "Recce type" APC/IFV been done like this in any other Armys elsewheres or usually would they be smaller vehicles??

Is it known whether they will be Cav,Inf or Arty vehicles or will they possible mixed between several units?

DeV
11th March 2006, 18:34
These vehicles are going to be delivered to the Cavalry Corps.

Goldie fish
11th March 2006, 18:40
By cavalry Corps, I assume you mean a Curragh based cavalry unit? Like the rest of the Mowag APCs, I doubt these vehicles will spend much of their irish time away from the Glen or the Curragh.
They will look great for photo ops,when the minister can bring down the meeja from dublin to "the country" for the day while the rest of the cav struggle on with the classic military vehicle that is the panhard.

DeV
11th March 2006, 18:46
I can only go from what Connect said "In early 2007, the Cavalry Corps will take charge of 15 new MOWAG Piranha III armoured vehicles."

I would assume that one unit (proably in the the Curragh) will take them on charge (similar to the APCs).

But remember that every PDF infantry unit (and some RDF ones) have run APC familiaristation courses.

Goldie fish
15th March 2006, 11:29
It makes things difficult with overseas deployments though.
I assume some of these machines will make their way overseas. It would be rare that these machines would not travel in pairs.

In the current situation, we have Piranhas in Kosovo and Liberia...
If a similar situation existed in the future you will leave 2 of the 30mm Variants at home.
2 Turrets to train an entire Corps? It'll either be a long waiting list for courses or a very short course.

apod
16th March 2006, 18:53
To the best of my knowledge the plan is for the cav units in each bde to be equipped with 2 mrv's and 3 crv's each.How they will be deployed is usually from within those units.

Goldie fish
16th March 2006, 18:56
Hmm.. I may get my grubby hands on one eventually so. The Overseas deployment will severely hinger operations though. Its one thing to Train on these machines once, but you need to be out there regularly. Difficult to keep crews up to speed when most of the vehicles are overseas.

Måk
16th March 2006, 19:02
Hi Apod , so if i were to do a bit of addition we will find our forces have gone from 16 x AML-20s and mb 19 x AML 90s to a nicely stretched force of 9 x CRVs and 6 x MRV.
Thats great , and Willie wants to help out the Liberians too as well as partaking in the Euro BG's.
Somebody give that man a calculator and a lesson in common sense! :rolleyes:
He had better start pushing a bit harder for a proper complement of vehicles to allow for the Cav to do its job and leave some wiggle room for "unforseen" events.

Regards

Måk

Goldie fish
17th March 2006, 00:48
Ah now the Panhards are still operational(some 1964 Vintage)...and will be kept in spares for another 2 years at least....
Thats two years to make a decision.
Those 65 Armoured vehicles that were supposed to be the LTAV are still required by the way. Nothing changed in the meantime.

apod
17th March 2006, 12:48
Hi Mak,
I dont think that the cav mowags will be the only ones evetr bought for them.I would guess the plan would be to purchase more of each type as finance becomes available.Dont forget that the initial purchase of mowags for the whole defence forces was only 40 and was built from there.:tri:
as for the ltv's Goldie is right there is still a requirement for them and seeing as how they were testing armoured hummers recently i would say it is still on the cards.

Thorpe
17th March 2006, 14:11
I might be rehasing old stuff here but here I go.
There is an immediate requirment to replace the Panhard fleet as soon as possible and this is already happening (well hopefully anyway) with the purchase these new mowags for the cav but a hell of a lot more are going to be needed as has been said these mowags will spend very little time of any in the country.
My view is that although a 30mm cannon is small enough its fine. Close protection and that is fine you dont need much more, but if you do meet a bigger force than expected, would it not be benefical to have an ability to hit back hard and then as you do so make good you break contact, say for example a mounted Javlin system our else have one on board with the mounted element or else the old reliable, 84mm
The requirement for the LATV is still alive and kicking from what Ive heard its just that what was offered to the DF on tender did not exactly meet what they required.

GoneToTheCanner
17th March 2006, 15:42
Hi all
Is this 30mm a mag fed or belt fed? If this is Rarden all over again, it's a waste of space. Another calibre for the Qs to mess with...any idea why the AML20s couldn't have been kept on for a while longer?
regards
GttC

FMolloy
18th March 2006, 15:37
From the Oto-Melara Site:

Oto Melara two-man, power operated turret armed with a 25 or 30-mm automatic cannon, a 7.62-mm coaxial machine gun, and two elevation controlled TOW missile launchers.

The turret is built with ballistic aluminium alloy and additional steel armour plates to reach the required protection level.

The new HITFIST® fire control system together with the TOW guidance set allows engagement of targets by day and night; the electrical, fully digital servosystems and the line of fire stabilization ensure a high accuracy of fire.

Crew consists of two men who sit side by side in the turret: the commander on the left, the gunner on the right.

A single man can fully operate the turret.

The main armament is an automatic cannon 25 or 30-mm, electrically controlled for elevation, traversing and firing operations; feeding is through belted rounds housed in two ammunition containers.

Assembly and disassembly of the weapon does not require special tools, thus making control and servicing operations possible in unfavourable conditions.

Cannon control is through the HITFIST® fire control system which includes a sight with eye-safe laser rangefinder and a thermal night vision camera.

A 7.62mm machine gun is coaxially mounted to the main cannon.

Two TOW armoured launchers are side-mounted on the turret with remote control (Digital Missile Guidance Set) integrated in the HITFIST® a fire control system.

FMolloy
18th March 2006, 15:50
Their site says the 30mm is a McDonnell Douglas Bushmaster II.

Goldie fish
18th March 2006, 15:57
Their site says the 30mm is a McDonnell Douglas Bushmaster II.
http://www.otomelara.it/products/schedule.asp?id=prod_land_hitfist_25_ge

Aidan
20th March 2006, 09:08
Its definitely a Bushmaster - same basic cannon as the Bradley, just a different caliber.

Its belt fed, electrically driven and switchable between HEI and AP - 180 ready rounds.

Tank
27th April 2006, 15:36
30mm seems to be the max armament used by armoured recce around the world

120mm that I'm aware of: The Germans have heavy recon companies which intermix Spahpzr Luchs with Leopard tanks. Then again, ever since WWII the Germans have believed in having their recon forces able to brush aside enemy recon/counter-recon screens and have traditionally been heavily armed.

NTM


Wishful thinking unfortunately. The Germans took all the heavy recce Leopard IIs out back in 1998 and have gone over to the concept of light but apparently more mobile recce troops. Even the recce platoons in the battalions have gone - the battalion troops themselves are now expected to carry out their own "tactical" recce as an extra task.

The recce element in the German Army is now divided between the A-class troops, who for the recce battalion at division level and the recce squadron at brigade level all get the Fennek, and on the other hand the B-class troops, who get the Luchs. There are serious concerns from tactical commanders though after both the Fennek and Luchs had problems finding sufficient gaps to slip through opfor's lines in manoevres.

Brings us back to doctrine. Do you want recce troops to be able to fight (And against what?) as well or should they only do recce? Seeing as we have (Light) infantry brigades which are not expected to face assaults by massed heavy armour (I don't think anyway), do we really need them to be able to fight heavy armour? I reckon the vehicles at hand are enough to deal with potential enemies. My problem is more with the fact that they are only getting 15. Should all Cav Sqdns not get them?

California Tanker
27th April 2006, 17:58
The Germans took all the heavy recce Leopard IIs out back in 1998 and have gone over to the concept of light but apparently more mobile recce troops

I find myself in the unfamiliar position of sitting corrected.

NTM

ODIN
28th April 2006, 13:23
maybe all sqns will eventually get them as replacements for the AMLs....whenever that happens

sledger
19th May 2006, 21:55
On the subject of MOWAGS, is the current turret on the MOWAG stabilised? Only recently a friend of mine reckoned the turret is dangerous and the DF cannot fire a .5 from it because it moves to much when the gun is fired?

jack
20th May 2006, 17:21
have the df fixed this problem

California Tanker
22nd May 2006, 05:41
Doesnt' sound like a stabilisation problem as much as a fitting problem. One can happily fire unstabilised .50 cals from anything.

NTM

mugs
30th August 2006, 17:55
Is this the same varision of the mowag that the Defence Forces have on order? with the remote weapons station?

http://www.mil.be/def/viewpic.asp?LAN=nl&FILE=gall&ID=121136&SIZE=big

mutter nutter
30th August 2006, 18:27
I'm not sure that's a Kongsberg RWS, I'll check to see what one the Belgians got.

hptmurphy
30th August 2006, 21:46
nope that ain't it...

mugs
30th August 2006, 23:34
I only asked because it appear to have a similar base to the current mowag used by the DF with a remote weapons station.

mutter nutter
31st August 2006, 11:47
I only asked because it appear to have a similar base to the current mowag used by the DF with a remote weapons station.

no the Belgian's got Pirahna III C's, Ireland's are III H, that's why they look slightly different:wink:


btw, the Belgian RWS is the FN Herstal ARROWS system.

Goldie fish
6th September 2006, 00:08
Here is the OTO Melara HITFIST Turret, with 25mm Cannon, on a Centauro

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/OTO%20HITFIST%2025mm%20Centauroe.jpg

hptmurphy
6th September 2006, 09:29
Problem straight way...Look at the HEAT trap under the gunmantlet and under where the turret sides slope inward toward the turret mounting..perfect aiming pooint for an RPG....well back to the drawing board and start again....no point in putting a nice 25mm gun in a death trap

GoneToTheCanner
6th September 2006, 11:39
Hi all
HPT, the failure of armour designers to learn from history never ceases to amaze me, nor does the fact that, for all the advances in ATGW design, the humble RPG is still a force to be reckoned with. Does anyone practise personal anti-armour warfare in the DF? Outside of using Javelins or MILAN?
regards
GttC

apod
6th September 2006, 12:04
Yeah, we use sraaws at section level and the carl gustaf 84 at platoon level.Sraaaw is taught to every soldier in 2-3 * trg.84 is covered on the infantry light support weapons course.:smile:

Goldie fish
6th September 2006, 16:17
Another problem. The New machines will be equuipped with this.

http://www.kongsberg.com/images/artikler/32978/finland.jpg

It cannot be loaded from under armour.

For a few euro more you could have picked this.

http://www.kongsberg.com/images/artikler/32981/nm221.jpg

You can load this from under armour.

Go figure.

andy
6th September 2006, 22:13
30 mm cannon should really be fitted as standard with a 50 cal on top as well.

Goldie fish
6th September 2006, 22:28
50 cal on top is adding a lot of height to the vehicle. Would it not be better to Just have the 30mm and its coax? Very few AFVs have hatch mounted Machine guns any more. It kinda does away with the whole point of being armoured.

spider pig
7th September 2006, 00:50
Another problem. The New machines will be equuipped with this.

http://www.kongsberg.com/images/artikler/32978/finland.jpg

It cannot be loaded from under armour.

For a few euro more you could have picked this.

http://www.kongsberg.com/images/artikler/32981/nm221.jpg

You can load this from under armour.

Go figure.




So if you have to get out to load is that not defeating its pupose. Is the idea of this weapon to keep the operaters inside and out of harms way??

Jungle
9th September 2006, 12:25
The RWS they chose is in service with the Yanks, the Aussies, the Canadians, the Finnish and the Swiss. The Yanks & Australians are using them in Iraq while the Canadians have them in Afghanistan, I wouldn't write their utility off just yet.

The RWS is mounted on vehicles used for patrolling, escort duties, and some specialist tasks; they are not mounted on IFVs. RWS are used in counter ambush drills, to break contact etc...

FMolloy
9th September 2006, 12:56
The RWS is mounted on vehicles used for patrolling, escort duties, and some specialist tasks; they are not mounted on IFVs. RWS are used in counter ambush drills, to break contact etc...

These new Mowags are going to be recce vehicles, so they'll be using the RWS in the same manner.

Måk
16th September 2006, 08:12
Found this over at www.mowag.ch
Armoured Reconnaissance Vehicle with Oto Melara 30 mm turret :biggrin:

http://www.mowag.ch/Photos/PIIIC_013e.htm

This MAY or mb not be what the Irish version will look like , minus the water board on front.
There is also a PDF in the Downloads section covering the Mowag Piranha III with the Kongsberg RWS, its the PIRANHA IIIC 8x8 / Armoured Personnel Carrier pdf.

The gunners side of the turret looks different to the other type of HITFIST turret i have seen mounted on the STORMER 30 tracked armoured reconnaisance vehicle / light tank and the Patria AMV 30P that the Poles will / are getting.

regards

Måk

sorry.. still asleep and was unable to get the image to display of the Hitfist 30 :(

Dogwatch
16th September 2006, 13:29
Spanish Piranhas belonging to their Marines in Lebanon

http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/5042/00818998kq0.jpg

http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/9168/00819000tc5.jpg

http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/3517/00819008st8.jpg

http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/5272/00819009hw0.jpg

Goldie fish
16th September 2006, 14:14
Found this over at www.mowag.ch
Armoured Reconnaissance Vehicle with Oto Melara 30 mm turret :biggrin:

http://www.mowag.ch/Photos/PIIIC_013e.htm

This MAY or mb not be what the Irish version will look like , minus the water board on front.
There is also a PDF in the Downloads section covering the Mowag Piranha III with the Kongsberg RWS, its the PIRANHA IIIC 8x8 / Armoured Personnel Carrier pdf.

The gunners side of the turret looks different to the other type of HITFIST turret i have seen mounted on the STORMER 30 tracked armoured reconnaisance vehicle / light tank and the Patria AMV 30P that the Poles will / are getting.

regards

Måk

sorry.. still asleep and was unable to get the image to display of the Hitfist 30 :(

They are Piranha PIIIC, ours are Piranha PIIIH.

Måk
16th September 2006, 15:16
Hi Goldie , i only linked the pix of the Piranha III C so as to give people an "idea" of what our Piranha III H "MAY" look like with a Hitfist 30 turret. Both vehicle are similar apart from ours not being able to swim ;)

Regards

Måk

Goldie fish
16th September 2006, 15:25
Ah right. Some people here might assume that the photos are of "Our" Mowags.

Måk
16th September 2006, 16:04
Hi Goldie , no prob's Sir :smile: Sometimes i forget others are not as mad a Track & Wheel head as me , hence me assuming others would know the difference. No intention to mislead others :redface:

That turret depicted in the Piranha IIIC pix btw looks different to the ones i have seen on the OTO Melera site and also as fitted to the Stormer 30 light tank that you can see on the Army Technology page http://www.army-technology.com/projects/stormer30/. The gunners side seems to be more recessed now compared to the "older" type. Cannot wait to see pix of our vehicles when they come into service. Roll on 2007. :biggrin:

Regards

Måk

mutter nutter
22nd November 2006, 14:16
Found out something interesting on another board, an Irish guy posted that the new Mowags with the "HITFIST" turrets may come equipped with the TOW missile, as the army likes the idea of having them, any truth to that lads?

Tribunius
22nd November 2006, 14:59
Thats unlikely as the army does not use the tow in any other form ie ground mounted, vehicle etc. Also as far as I can remember there was no mention of that in the tender.

Anyway for the handfull vehicles in the order it would hardly be worth it.

Goldie fish
22nd November 2006, 18:02
I disagree. The small quantity involved(5) would be easier to buy than a large amount, particularly when the turret is equipped with them already.

DeV
22nd November 2006, 18:06
If they were getting TOW missiles, do you not think that they would be mentioning it in various DF/DOD publications, along with the fact that they will have a 30mm cannon?

mutter nutter
22nd November 2006, 18:26
If they were getting TOW missiles, do you not think that they would be mentioning it in various DF/DOD publications, along with the fact that they will have a 30mm cannon?
maybe not, if they decided to get it even after the mowags with the HITFIST turret arrives, it's a pretty simple retrofit, as the turret has the mounting brackets and is wired up for it, as is.

Goldie fish
22nd November 2006, 18:30
There are many things relating to weaponry in the DF that do not make it to "official publications".
I can say no more.

mutter nutter
22nd November 2006, 18:32
There are many things relating to weaponry in the DF that do not make it to "official publications".
I can say no more.

oh why do you tease us so?.....:frown:

Goldie fish
22nd November 2006, 18:34
Time reveals all.

coffee
22nd November 2006, 18:36
if this is going to happen the df would fit the turrets with a javilin type system not a TOW

mutter nutter
22nd November 2006, 18:40
if this is going to happen the df would fit the turrets with a javilin type system not a TOW
HITFIST wasn't designed for Javelin though, so you'd have development coats, let's look at it, whats the cost, 6 TOW launchers, thats less then 2 million, chicken feed these days, the Defence estimates for this year top 1 Billion:wink:

mutter nutter
22nd November 2006, 18:51
come to think of it, it might be a smart move, compliment the Javelin, a little bit more mobile firepower, that or buy centauros or something similar for when the AML's go

Piranha
7th December 2006, 16:42
Good afternoon all im a long time reader but this is my first post so forgive me if this comes across as stupid i use this site as a kinda learning tool. I tought these mowags where goin to be replacing the AML's in the near future hopefully????

Goldie fish
7th December 2006, 20:30
The panhards will go on foreverrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrr

eelmonster
7th December 2006, 21:55
passed the old panhard factory at porte d'ivry during the summer and thought of you lads. might even have a photo.

Goldie fish
8th December 2006, 00:32
Avenue D'Ivry maybe?

eelmonster
8th December 2006, 13:56
indeed, in the 13th arrondissement. the office buildings - which are still there - are on avenue d'ivry which becomes porte d'ivry, the area where the old factory grounds used to be. there's a fire station and a shopping centre there now on part of the site.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Avenue-ivry-debut.jpg/250px-Avenue-ivry-debut.jpg

apologies for going off topic.

mutter nutter
20th December 2006, 12:45
I have a question, are these the "last" batch of mowags that will be bought, or is there another lot to be bought later?:confused:

DeV
20th December 2006, 17:30
There is no options left for MOWAGs.

Goldie fish
20th December 2006, 17:39
40+25+15=80. However the final 15 were not included in the original options offer.

mutter nutter
20th December 2006, 18:21
I meant beyond the 15 that are coming in, 6 30mm armed versions don't seem enough to me.

DeV
20th December 2006, 18:25
The original contract contained an option for the supply of up to 40 additional APCs by Mowag. This option has now been exercised albeit for a reduced number of APCs because of the changed financial situation.

http://www.gov.ie/debates-03/15May/d150503b.pdf

According to the Minister in 2003, the option was exercised (the DOD/DF decided to buy only 25 of the 40 available options). So we don't have "options" on about 15 MOWAGs.

Goldie fish
20th December 2006, 18:49
Changed Financial situation=CJ was still alive..

hptmurphy
20th December 2006, 22:18
There will be enough of the vehicles to deploy a troop overseas,,,thats all the bean counters are interested in...perceived internal security threat has passed allegedly....hence the whole DF is being down sized...all we will have in the future is enough for our overseas commitments..one in reserve and one in training...its not even a three brigade army...going to become a three battalion army with CSS.....the peace dividend.

mugs
21st December 2006, 19:24
its not even a three brigade army...going to become a three battalion army with CSS.....the peace dividend.

I know it's off topic but............What?!?

hptmurphy
21st December 2006, 22:38
Look at the reasoning behind the army,,to protect from internal agression..now that its gone ..allegedly ..why mainatin a three brigade standing army.....price water house recommended drastic cuts,,they are happening..would bet within 15 years given the current work in prgress we will end up with a three battalion army..with an equal reserve in size..and moderate combat support units..any takers?

yooklid
21st December 2006, 23:49
in 15 years it will either be 3 battalions or 3 divisions

mutter nutter
22nd December 2006, 13:54
well considering a country like Slovenia just ordered 135 AMV's from Patria, while having a smaller budget and DF then us, I would hope that these 15 are not the last ordered

pym
22nd December 2006, 19:14
Regardless of their budget, you're not compaing like with like. They're Nato members and they have "7,500 officers and approximately 33,000 enlisted personnel". (wikipedia)

But against that, it's worth noting the slovenians have fewer personel deployed abroad in total, than we have in Liberia alone.

It'll be interesting to see if more purchases are made.

mutter nutter
22nd December 2006, 19:23
Regardless of their budget, you're not compaing like with like. They're Nato members and they have "7,500 officers and approximately 33,000 enlisted personnel". (wikipedia)

But against that, it's worth noting the slovenians have fewer personel deployed abroad in total, than we have in Liberia alone.

It'll be interesting to see if more purchases are made.
the wikipedia is way out of date, they have about 8500 in the military now, all professionals now.

mutter nutter
22nd December 2006, 20:10
this might be something to get for the new 30m cannons



From defense-aerospace.com:

Alliant Techsystems recently received a contract from the U.S. Crane Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane, Indiana, to provide 30mm air bursting ammunition for the U.S. Marine's Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.

Under terms of the contract, ATK will provide 1200 rounds within the next six months to the U.S. Navy for qualification tests. The contract contains three production options for deliveries of 30mm air bursting ammunition. This is the first ever production contract for air bursting ammunition and highlights ATK's role as a gun-system provider of choice.

"Air bursting technology is the future of medium-caliber ammunition and we are proud to be selected as the system provider of this important new warfighting capability," said Mark DeYoung, President, ATK Ammunition Systems Group. "Air bursting technology will extend the life of today's gun systems by significantly enhancing their effectiveness and it will play a central role in the gun systems of tomorrow such as the U.S. Army's Future Combat System."

ATK's air bursting technology is an affordable, operator-friendly design that can be scaled down and integrated into other medium-caliber gun systems such as the 25mm M242 Chain Gun. The M242 is currently deployed on the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and Light Armored Vehicle-25.

Key components of the system include ATK's Mk44 Chain Gun, a gun control unit with an inductive fuze setter; a fire control system and the 30mm x 173mm Air Bursting Munition. Milliseconds before the round is chambered, the sophisticated fuze is programmed to explode at the precise range selected by the gunner -- who uses an advanced laser range finder to determine the distance. Once the round exits the gun, the ATK-designed fuze technology computes the projectile's revolutions and velocity to determine the exact moment of detonation.

The first platform scheduled to incorporate ATK's 30mm air bursting ammunition will be the U.S. Marines Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, which is equipped with ATK's Mk44 Gun System. Other Mk44 platforms include the U.S. Navy's San Antonio Class LPD-17 amphibious ship, numerous NATO armored and ground combat vehicles, and potentially an up-gunned Bradley Fighting Vehicle. Work on the contract will be performed by ATK at facilities in Plymouth, Minnesota, Rocket Center, West Virginia, and Radford, Virginia.

Victor
23rd December 2006, 00:42
Slovenia also has land borders with several countries and have seen war (at one level or another) on their doorsteps for much of the last 15 years.

mugs
21st January 2007, 17:14
http://www.altair.com.pl/files/raport/0506/m06.jpg
http://www.altair.com.pl/files/raport/0506/m07.jpg

Found this picture. I think it's the best example of what the irish ones will look like.

Actually the article I took it from came with the caption


Piranha IIIC z wieżą Oto Melara Hitfist - konfiguracja zamówiona niedawno przez armię Irlandii. W Malezji pojazd promowany jest przez Mowaga (General Dynamics) we współpracy z lokalnym potentatem, DefTechem

Now I don't speak what ever language that is (I have a feeling it's polish) but I did note "armię Irlandii" in the first sentence. i'm going to see if i can get it translated.

Link to the article in question www.altair.com.pl/files/raport/0506/rosom.htm

Spook
21st January 2007, 17:30
Rough translation

Piranha IIIC with tower Here Melara Hitfist - configuration ordered not long ago through the Ireland army. IN Malaysia vehicle promoted is through Movaga (General Dynamics) in collaboration with local potentate, DefTechem :rolleyes:

Banner
7th February 2007, 16:02
Just saw this on the web (its in google images) is this what our new Piranha's will look like? Is this an Irish camo paint job? I'm no expert so I thought I'd leave it up to ye to judge.

http://interarmees.fr/~inter7/logo_communiques/vign_piranha.jpg

http://interarmees.fr/~inter7/logo_communiques/vign_piranha.jpg

mugs
7th February 2007, 19:50
Wrong turret........I think:confused: :confused:

California Tanker
7th February 2007, 20:40
Looks like NATO standard three-colour scheme, with a 25mm turret.

NTM

Tribunius
7th February 2007, 22:21
Thats a delco turret as fitted to USMC lavs and it is armed with a 25mm cannon.

GoneToTheCanner
9th February 2007, 19:59
Hi all
Has anyone any doubts about the heights of these things? kind of hard to conceal something that's 12 or more feet high.
regards
GttC

Goldie fish
9th February 2007, 20:43
Sure it is. Hide behind a 12 foot ditch.

GoneToTheCanner
10th February 2007, 06:29
hi Goldie
Quick, nip down to Stores and draw Ditch, 12-foot, folding, armoured car, preservation, one for the use of!
regards
GttC

California Tanker
10th February 2007, 08:38
Hi all
Has anyone any doubts about the heights of these things? kind of hard to conceal something that's 12 or more feet high.
regards
GttC

Could be worse. Could be a Bradley.

NTM

GoneToTheCanner
10th February 2007, 17:38
Hi all
It just goes to show that history will get repeated...I read of a British soldier, in WW II, after having served in armoured cars throughout Europe after D-day, who stated that he and his colleagues detested their own cars as they were too tall, too thinly armoured and too badly armed.The AEC cars, although armed with either a 6 pdr or a 75, were so tall that they stood over the hedgerows and could be seen easily by the Germans. Also, their height was a disadvantage in built-up areas.......I understand that you have a trade-off when trying to get the best out of an APC or IFV from the design point of view, but I'd shave a bit of top speed off for more protection any time.
regards
GttC

apod
11th February 2007, 14:43
Am i right in saying that the new Cav Mowags are due this month?

Goldie fish
11th February 2007, 19:23
You are indeed, according to Mowag deliveries are to commence in February 2007.

Truck Driver
16th February 2007, 12:00
Am i right in saying that the new Cav Mowags are due this month?

And no doubt there will be a big fanfare in An Cosantóir in the Feb or March issue

The Thing
18th February 2007, 13:48
Hi all
Has anyone any doubts about the heights of these things? kind of hard to conceal something that's 12 or more feet high.
regards
GttC

Yes and I'm sure that the new white paint job that the majority of these APC's will recieve will conceal them anymore than terrain.

Curragh Plains
24th February 2007, 00:34
Talking about white paint ... I see that the two Sizus for long in UN white have been painted green ...

Truck Driver
24th February 2007, 14:39
Talking about white paint ... I see that the two Sizus for long in UN white have been painted green ...

Which has been the case for a while, as it's flaking off again, revealing
the white paint underneath again !!!

thebig C
25th February 2007, 20:55
The Mowag Piranha seems to be an excellent APC, but its main job is to transport infantry. The cavalry don't need an infantry squad sitting in the back. Rather than a few large, heavy, expensive vehicles, what's needed are larger numbers of smaller, lighter vehicles, with similar levels of mobility, armour and armament. Seems to me that's where the focus should be now....

Goldie fish
25th February 2007, 23:17
There isnt any available. Its easier to standardise what we have to one type. The cav's new role requires a certain amount of troops to dismount from their vehicle for close recce. The Mowag is ideal to get them deep inside, safely.

Beats a nissan in terms of ballistic protection and offroad ability.

thebig C
26th February 2007, 17:33
1. Surely there are lots of vehicles on the market that would fit the bill – some of them have been mentioned on this site - unless the Irish specifications are unusual in some way?
2. Agreed that standardisation is desirable, but it needs to be balanced against other considerations such as suitability, price, quantity…
3. I’d like to know more about “the cav’s new role requires a certain amount of troops to dismount from their vehicle for close reece.” Are there no infantry battalion recce platoons?
4. Not sure I would agree that the Mowag is ideal for deep infiltration of recce or other stealthy troops – isn’t it a bit big and heavy? Hard not to get noticed…
5. You can do better than a Nissan for ballistic protection and off-road ability without having to buy a Mowag. (Are the Nissans armoured?)
6. Still seems to me that what’s needed is a vehicle that slots in between the Mowag Piranha and the Nissan Patrol. As I said earlier, larger numbers of smaller, lighter, cheaper vehicles, with similar or better levels of mobility, armour and armament...

Goldie fish
26th February 2007, 19:42
All your questions would be answered in the LTAV thread.

hptmurphy
26th February 2007, 20:30
Reason being for cavalry to be carried...its called dismountable element..apart from providing specialist roles the cav have also got secondary functions and being able to become mobile infantry is one of them

No big mystery really....cav used M3s..so they need to be able to deployed from armoured personnel carriers.Role hasn't changed that much.

thebig C
27th February 2007, 10:06
OK, thanks for the info. Seems my comments/queries are more appropriate to the LTAV thread, so I'll post there next time.

thebig C
27th February 2007, 13:19
Given that the new Mowag Piranhas are for the cavalry, whose main role is reconnaissance, do they have surveillance and targeting equipment?

apod
27th February 2007, 18:11
Given that the new Mowag Piranhas are for the cavalry, whose main role is reconnaissance, do they have surveillance and targeting equipment?

Yes.Given that your total post count is low and i cant find out from your public profile are you pdf/rdf or neither?:confused:

hptmurphy
27th February 2007, 21:07
Most of the targeting and surveillance equipment used by the DF is man portable especially the gear by the rcce teams..hence the need for an armed armoured vehicle to get the detachment in close..and support them with fire power should they have to bug out.

All reasonable questions. Cav Mowags will be used to perform the role of the LTAV on the grounds there is nothing else availavble.

Feel free to ask..if we believe you are entitled to the information..we will tell you..assuming we know ourselves.

thebig C
28th February 2007, 11:58
Thanks, it’s just that I would have expected a cavalry/reconnaissance version of the Piranha to have a retractable mast with an optical/infrared/radar sensor suite and laser ranging and target designation, as you would find on many similar vehicles in other armies. The Canadian Coyote is a good example.

For info, I am not a soldier, either full- or part-time, just an Irish citizen and taxpayer with a long-standing interest in military and naval matters. However I am also a civil servant and I do have some idea of how public service procurement works, so maybe that’s why I’m inclined to ask questions…

Smithy
28th February 2007, 20:43
If you were watching "The General's War" on BBC2 tonight you would have seen the Canadian Coyote getting well and truly bogged down. And then the Coyote trying to tow it out of the mud got bogged down itself. Wheeled recce vehicles - nah!
________
TOYOTA B ENGINE SPECIFICATIONS (http://www.toyota-wiki.com/wiki/Toyota_B_engine)

hedgehog
28th February 2007, 21:01
That was actually a good programme-

thebig C
28th February 2007, 21:26
Yeah, but not a great advertisement for Piranhas. Apparently the Americans are having similar problems with the Stryker in Iraq. They've had to add so much extra armour one Stryker can no longer haul another out of the mud with its winch; like the Canadians, they have to call in a specialist vehicle.

But the Piranha/Coyote/Stryker is still a good vehicle, it's just that it's not perfect. IMHO, it's on the heavy side, which is why we could do with smaller, lighter combat vehicles as well...

That British general was a seriously smooth politician....

hptmurphy
28th February 2007, 22:49
i think some accredidation has to be given to some who come just asking ..inocent questions and who have limited knowledge..or maybe I'm just getting soft.

apod
28th February 2007, 23:51
Thanks, it’s just that I would have expected a cavalry/reconnaissance version of the Piranha to have a retractable mast with an optical/infrared/radar sensor suite and laser ranging and target designation, as you would find on many similar vehicles in other armies. The Canadian Coyote is a good example.

For info, I am not a soldier, either full- or part-time, just an Irish citizen and taxpayer with a long-standing interest in military and naval matters. However I am also a civil servant and I do have some idea of how public service procurement works, so maybe that’s why I’m inclined to ask questions…

No worries,glad you cleared that up.With all these lazy journos about you cant be too carefull:wink: but then thats a whole other thread:smile: As said previously alot of your questions are answered in the ltav thread.and i see you have allready been there.Afaik the long term plan is to have a few different variants of the mowag in service and an ltv.Your right mowags are NOT suitable for close recce.Some sort of stripped down landrover vechicle is ideal or even a ltv.Recce mowags such as the new crv's and mrv,s would be more suitable for medium recce and other traditional cav roles.Unfortunately the cav have been lumbered with a close recce role for pso ops overseas along with all their old tasks.They can thank the Director of cav at the time the pallette of forces for the helsinki headline goal was drawn up for that one:eek: Afaik he jumped up when recce was mentioned thinking it meant recce as per the old leb missions.When he found it it was dismounted close recce he tried to back out but got stuck with what is actually an infantry task.Imho the cav should concentrate on training and equiping for their traditional medium recce role(which they are quite good at) and leave the close recce to the infantry.Better to be a master of one trade an all that.:wink:

p.s i am naturally biased as a recce qualified infantryman:cool:

Goldie fish
1st March 2007, 03:52
I doubt any trooper will disagree with your opinion there apod. They don't join the cav to walk...

thebig C
5th March 2007, 18:05
Saw an interesting article in An Cosantóir, April 2002, about a close target recce course for infantry reconnaissance platoon members:

http://www.military.ie/images/an%20cosantoir/april_2002.pdf

Has the change in recce responsibilities happened since then?

hptmurphy
5th March 2007, 23:47
Not really while Infantry are quailfied to carry out recce onbattalion level. up to I belive 10kms. Cavalry are tasked up to 25kms..anything after that is ranger time. Hece the requirement for the recce teams to have a dedicated drop of and pick up vehicle in order to lug their gear around whuch for a four man team on a 72 hour CTR can be quite substantial.

I don't believe I am allowed to go into what the specifics of what the equipment actually is.

I may be open to correction od the AOs..but this is what Iremeber them to be from lectures and briefings.. but could be out slightly.

maybe those inf qualified could offer there understanding of it

mutter nutter
17th March 2007, 12:52
Have the new ones arrived yet?, they were supposed to arrive in March

Goldie fish
17th March 2007, 23:45
They have been delivered, however they have yet to arrive in this country.

apod
18th March 2007, 15:21
Not really while Infantry are quailfied to carry out recce onbattalion level. up to I belive 10kms. Cavalry are tasked up to 25kms..anything after that is ranger time. Hece the requirement for the recce teams to have a dedicated drop of and pick up vehicle in order to lug their gear around whuch for a four man team on a 72 hour CTR can be quite substantial.

I don't believe I am allowed to go into what the specifics of what the equipment actually is.

I may be open to correction od the AOs..but this is what I remeber them to be from lectures and briefings.. but could be out slightly.

maybe those inf qualified could offer there understanding of it

afaik the cav ctr teams still only operate at the 10 km distance.The armour being used for medium mounted recce as per the original cav taskings.Very hard to hide a mowag as opposed to a recce landrover when you dismount.However the idea of using the mowags as a drop of vechicle to forward insert teams is not a bad one ,but given the larger"footprint" of the cars it remains to be seen if it is feasible.Arw do long range recce and only use small (relatively)easily concealed vechicles.

Goldie fish
18th March 2007, 19:38
Its a compromise really. The Panhards are ant the end, if not beyond of their life, and are becoming less reliable, however you still need a decent punch of a weapon mounted on armour in overseas missions. This option does both...though not very well.

The LTAV should have done the job of mounted recce.

Maybe someday...

thebig C
19th March 2007, 10:35
Not really while Infantry are quailfied to carry out recce onbattalion level. up to I belive 10kms. Cavalry are tasked up to 25kms..anything after that is ranger time. Hece the requirement for the recce teams to have a dedicated drop of and pick up vehicle in order to lug their gear around whuch for a four man team on a 72 hour CTR can be quite substantial.

I don't believe I am allowed to go into what the specifics of what the equipment actually is.

I may be open to correction od the AOs..but this is what Iremeber them to be from lectures and briefings.. but could be out slightly.

maybe those inf qualified could offer there understanding of it

Came across this in another thread:

"The September issue of Connect as an interesting centrespread on the equipment available to DF RISTA (Reconnaissance, Intelligence, Surveillance & Target Acquisition) elements.

The teams fall into 3 types:
- Arty Anchor OP (which are in a fixed position overlooking ground)
- Arty FOO (with the lead Coy & Pln of the advance)
- Independent OP (manned by Inf, Cav or SF personnel)

The equipment they may have available include:
- Personal Role Radio
- Kite sight for Steyr
- "Lucie" night vision goggles
- Laser Range Finder
- Handheld GPS
- Viking 2000 Angulation Head
- "Sophie" thermal imager
- AMSTAR ground surveillance radar"

Goldie fish
19th March 2007, 10:43
Yes and its all very nice too.

apod
19th March 2007, 14:43
Came across this in another thread:

"The September issue of Connect as an interesting centrespread on the equipment available to DF RISTA (Reconnaissance, Intelligence, Surveillance & Target Acquisition) elements.

The teams fall into 3 types:
- Arty Anchor OP (which are in a fixed position overlooking ground)
- Arty FOO (with the lead Coy & Pln of the advance)
- Independent OP (manned by Inf, Cav or SF personnel)

The equipment they may have available include:
- Personal Role Radio
- Kite sight for Steyr
- "Lucie" night vision goggles
- Laser Range Finder
- Handheld GPS
- Viking 2000 Angulation Head
- "Sophie" thermal imager
- AMSTAR ground surveillance radar"

I remember that centrespread.It was Arty orientated.Lets clear a few things up ok?
Artillery dont do recce,o.p's yes, in their foo role .recce no.Different beasts alltogether.Infantry are tasked with close recce for the bn/bde.
Cav are tasked with medium armoured recce and limited close recce.(limited in that its a waste of a resource to have the cav dismount from their vechicles to do close recce)
Arw are tasked with long range recce.
Rista was an error.The correct term is ISTAR.(Intelligence,surveillance,target acquisition and recconaissance)For the uninitiated ISTAR is the bringing together of intel from all the intel gatering elements of the battalion group i.e recce pln,snipers,foo teams,cav recce elements and soon possibly aerial assets such as the ec-135 luh and uavs.:biggrin:

Goldie fish
19th March 2007, 15:06
I always get AMSTAR and ISTAR mixed up.

Måk
27th March 2007, 14:10
Just curious lads as regards to the new Piranah's that the Cav is getting.

Was there a good reason why not to get the amphibious kit ( propellers )for these new vehicles seeing as one of their missions is to scout ahead up to 10km.

I ask in relation to the poor infrastructure in many parts of Africa where you will find large bodies of water / rivers and restricted if none existent access to the otherside of the AO.

Just curious.

Regard

Måk

ODIN
27th March 2007, 14:20
Civil servants, and the extra cost that they do not want to put into the DF

Goldie fish
27th March 2007, 21:41
I really don't think anyone knows what they will be used for yet. Some of the Pics of the "roads" seen in Liberia are not inspiring. Is there much else to it apart from props and that deflector plate?

thebig C
28th March 2007, 23:05
We have the Piranha IIIH. The IIIC is the amphibious version. Is it the case that the IIIH has extra armour, making it too heavy to be amphibious?

mutter nutter
29th March 2007, 01:18
Anyone think these may be the last Mowags bought, or is there plans to buy more?
we have 80, I think (purely in my laymans terms) that maybe 110/120 would be a nice number of them to have, get another batch of RWS/30mm ones, then a batch of ones armed with something heavier, maybe 105 AGS, if it works well...or am I just full of crap?

spider pig
29th March 2007, 03:16
Although others may think that you are, i dont. I think that if a heavier armour is not going to be oersued then we should get more MOWAGS. I mean as it stands they are already stretched to a high extent. A worthy investment in my eyes.

mutter nutter
23rd May 2007, 12:58
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2515420&postcount=1456
Looks like the RWS to me

mugs
23rd May 2007, 14:29
That picture did stange things to me when I seen it earlier.

mutter nutter
23rd May 2007, 14:46
That picture did stange things to me when I seen it earlier.
You'll go blind,or so I'm told,

mutter nutter
23rd May 2007, 14:47
Pitty it's not bigger though....the photo that is...

Steamy Window
23rd May 2007, 14:52
Why the KE reg?

mugs
23rd May 2007, 16:18
You'll go blind,or so I'm told,

Oh wait til the picture of the 30 mm turns up:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

spider pig
23rd May 2007, 16:32
Oh wait til the picture of the 30 mm turns up:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

I think i felt movement....

Aidan
23rd May 2007, 16:45
Vehicles are registered to the 'owners' address. DOD are where now, exactly ... ?

Steamy Window
23rd May 2007, 16:58
Vehicles are registered to the 'owners' address. DOD are where now, exactly ... ?

Dublin, like every other DF vehicle.

DeV
23rd May 2007, 17:51
Its very tall for a recce vehicle.

Goldie fish
23rd May 2007, 18:24
Dublin, like every other DF vehicle.

DFHQ is moving to Co Kildare. Decentralisation and all that.

Steamy Window
23rd May 2007, 18:53
But of course :redface:

luchi
24th May 2007, 00:05
State service vehicles are registered by the government which as far as I know is in Dublin.

Goldie fish
24th May 2007, 04:06
Well somebody must have moved kildare st to kildare then. The Registered owner of all DF vehicles is the Minister for defence.

Where is his office?

luchi
24th May 2007, 09:47
Actualy


On the first licensing of a military vehicle the appropriate licensing authority shall, on receipt of an application from a duly authorised officer of the Department of Defence, assign to it an identification mark
S.I. No. 311/1982:ROAD VEHICLES (REGISTRATION AND LICENSING) REGULATIONS, 1982


So theoreticaly a militarty vehicle could be registered any where as there is nothing to ay the authorised officer must work in any particular DoD office.

I can't access the link to see the pic of this new Mowag. Any chance someone could embed it in a post or attach the pic?

Turkey
24th May 2007, 10:55
Department of the fence is still in :
Parkgate
Infirmary Road
Dublin 7


But Newbridge does get mentioned.

http://www.defence.ie/website.nsf/document+id/E172FF15142FF66880256C6300495B84

eelmonster
24th May 2007, 11:23
i've seen numerous civil defence vehicles with local county/city number plates, is this because the CD are financed by their local authority?

hptmurphy
24th May 2007, 11:32
Nice piccy looks the business alright.

thebig C
30th May 2007, 17:28
Have the Mowag Piranhas been issued to the brigades, or are they just for overseas and overseas training?

Goldie fish
30th May 2007, 18:02
The New Mowags are a Cavalry Vehicle. They will be used by the Cavalry Corps.

Thats all you need to know.

spider pig
30th May 2007, 19:19
Have they put the RWS on to of a turret?

mutter nutter
30th May 2007, 19:36
Have they put the RWS on to of a turret?
The RWS would be in place of a turret I believe.

thebig C
30th May 2007, 19:38
The New Mowags are a Cavalry Vehicle. They will be used by the Cavalry Corps.

Thats all you need to know.


Yeah, that's what I thought. I assume it will be similar to the Piranha APC situation. The Vehicles are either overseas or held in the Curragh, but available for all units that require them for training/operations.

So what about some proper APCs and Reconnaissance vehicles for the brigades?

spider pig
30th May 2007, 20:00
I asked because in the picture that was posted , it looks as if it is on top of the turret

mutter nutter
30th May 2007, 20:28
I asked because in the picture that was posted , it looks as if it is on top of the turret

No, thats it's elevated mount, it is pretty tall.

Goldie fish
30th May 2007, 23:09
It looks higher than normal.

mutter nutter
30th May 2007, 23:12
Seems to be mounted on a kind of tripod thats elevated....makes it a little higher then normal, unusual.

Goldie fish
30th May 2007, 23:14
It looks like its mount is raised, for inspection or something..


MORE PHOTOS!!!

Barry
30th May 2007, 23:18
It looks like its mount is raised, for inspection or something..


MORE PHOTOS!!!
Possibly to make it clear to any passing crusties that they're not about to get gunned down by any nasty weapons on their way to kill babies in Iraq, maaaaaaaan......

Jetjock
31st May 2007, 01:47
Saw a pair of them in the flesh today..down the N7 for a drive...way down the N7-where we dont often see armoured vehicles!! Very impressive indeed. Mean looking.

spider pig
31st May 2007, 02:02
One thing that i have been meaning to ask is, why do the DF opt to make the MOWAGs amphibious?

DeV
31st May 2007, 17:45
More capable, the Panhards & the SISUs were/are also amphibious.

thebig C
31st May 2007, 18:11
One thing that i have been meaning to ask is, why do the DF opt to make the MOWAGs amphibious?


I thought the Irish version was not amphibious?

hptmurphy
31st May 2007, 23:19
Amphibious as opposed to waterproof and wouldn't sink.....notice the SISUs had the propellors removed.Cosantoir had some photos of an M3 doing some amphib exercise some years back......highly hazardous.

spider pig
1st June 2007, 03:03
my bad i meant to say NOT amphibious

COXY
1st June 2007, 05:08
ok, when will there be pictures of the 2 new types of Piranha's in service.
nice big fat piccies of the Koningsburg, and OTO Melara turrets!!!!!!!!

COXY
1st June 2007, 05:26
any proper photos of the 2 new types of P111's in service.
nice to see the Koningsburgs , and OTO Melara turrets.:smile:

thebig C
1st June 2007, 10:11
The New Mowags are a Cavalry Vehicle. They will be used by the Cavalry Corps.

Thats all you need to know.

They're not really though, are they? They're what the Cavalry Corps got instead of Cavalry vehicles. Given a choice, I'm sure the Cavalry would have picked something smaller, lighter, lower and faster. That's what Cavalry are supposed to be about: mobility, agility, flexibility, and ideally seeing but not being seen... And they probably wanted a lot more than 15 of them. So I guess it'll be Nissan Patrols for a few years yet...

hedgehog
1st June 2007, 10:31
I remember crossing a very small part of the Blessington lakes in a Panhard

in the 80's and even though we didnt go into deep water

man was that scary shit

FMolloy
1st June 2007, 11:36
They're not really though, are they? They're what the Cavalry Corps got instead of Cavalry vehicles. Given a choice, I'm sure the Cavalry would have picked something smaller, lighter, lower and faster. That's what Cavalry are supposed to be about: mobility, agility, flexibility, and ideally seeing but not being seen... And they probably wanted a lot more than 15 of them. So I guess it'll be Nissan Patrols for a few years yet...

What makes you so sure they wanted something else? Several countries use Mowag variants in the recce role, so what makes you think that they & the PDF got it wrong?

apod
1st June 2007, 13:39
They're not really though, are they? They're what the Cavalry Corps got instead of Cavalry vehicles. Given a choice, I'm sure the Cavalry would have picked something smaller, lighter, lower and faster. That's what Cavalry are supposed to be about: mobility, agility, flexibility, and ideally seeing but not being seen... And they probably wanted a lot more than 15 of them. So I guess it'll be Nissan Patrols for a few years yet...

And you wont be in either so dont worry about it.:rolleyes:

hptmurphy
1st June 2007, 13:56
Read the opening post..its two years old...what the cav wanted then and what they ended up with are not incomparible..the addition of the oto melara turret has given them the fire power required to replace the AML20..and carry a recce team so it fulfilled two roles in one go...bit big for an LTAV but removed the requirement for a troop carrying vehicle with medium fire support.

Light softskins such as Nissans will always be a requirment in a cav unit ...so don't worry about it..I reckon they survive without you worrying about them.