Thanks Thanks:  64
Likes Likes:  166
Dislikes Dislikes:  4
Page 1 of 44 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 1084
  1. #1
    Closed Account Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,440
    Post Thanks / Like

    Light Tactical Armoured Vehicle: Second attempt.

    Given that the Decision has been taken to re open the LTAV selection process here is what we know from the last time. What vehicles currently in production fit this profile?
    I am only assuming that the criteria for selection has not changed.
    Tom Brady
    Security Editor
    http://www.unison.ie/irish_independe...issue_id=12181


    THE Government has taken a major step towards preparing the Defence Forces for a key role in Europe.

    Defence Minister Willie O'Dea announced yesterday that a multi million euro contract was being placed for the purchase of a fleet of 66 light tactical armoured vehicles.

    The vehicles will be used to boost the capability of the Army to carry out a range of tasks, including surveillance, reconnaissance, target acquisition, communications and acting as a weapons platform.

    Firms competing for the contract have been told by the Department of Defence that the vehicles must be capable of being adapted for:

    * A chemical, biological, radiation and nuclear role in protection and detection.

    * The fitting of add-on armour panels without adversely affecting its operational performance.

    The criteria are based on an examination of the performance of similar vehicles with other armies in war-torn zones overseas.

    The vehicles must be able to be fitted with 12.7mm heavy machineguns, 66mm smoke dischargers for close defence, and 40mm automatic grenade launchers - although the latter are available at present to the elite Army Ranger Wing only.

    They must also provide protection against a mine blast and have capability to carry ground surveillance radar equipment.

    On a visit to the Defence Forces training headquarters at the Curragh yesterday, Mr O'Dea said the new fleet would complement the work of the 65 Mowag armoured personnel carriers delivered in the past few years at a cost of €84m.

    Department officials this week began issuing documentation to interested suppliers, and proposals must be back in the department early next month with the aim of placing a contract before year-end.
    The RFP’s requirement is for up to 66 LTAV’s.

    Is the bid to include the weapons as well as the weapon station?

    Each LTAV must have a remote weapons station, which must be armed with a minimum of a 7.62mm MG. The weapon must be supplied and must be a current Defence Forces service weapon, i.e. FN 7.62mm MG or Browning 12.7mm M2.

    The only difference between the Target Acquisition variant and the Surveillance/ Reconnaissance variant is the addition of the Ground Surveillance Radar.

    The Engineer variant will be capable of carrying Class 1 Explosives (up to 100 kg of plastic explosive PE No 4 or equivalent RDX based bulk explosive) and 50 electric detonators with 1 cubic metre of storage for general engineer equipment.

    The vehicles will have CBBN protection (NBC + Radiological).

    The Infantry vehicle will carry 4 troops (including the driver).

    The sensor suite may be different from that offered by a specific vehicle manufacturer.

    The differential lock mechanism may be incorporated in the Transmission or Axel casings.

    The minimum required on road range is 450 km. The minimum required off road range is 250 km

    The crew restraint system will consist of a four-point seat belt configuration for each component.

    The requirement is for a European NATO Jump Starter Socket Inter Vehicle Type. This Jump Start Lead Set incorporates a pair of (one at each end) 16mm 24 Volt POS (+) centre Pole contact with a 40mm external 24 Volt Neg (-) contact connection.

    The standard International tow-hitch (12 - pin) suitable for military use must be included as well as the 7-pin plug. The weight to be towed should not exceed 3.5 tons.

    The vehicle must be fitted with a weapons station of proven design with wide proliferation. The requirement is for a weapons station which must provide a level of armoured protection for the crew not less than that afforded by the vehicle. In this context either a Remote Weapons Station or a manned Turret will be considered.

    The vehicle must be capable of fitting the radios (SINCGARS, Harris, Motorila)i.e. not have them fitted but have space for them, with the addendum that all wiring (looms) necessary to operate the equipment must be pre-installed. There must be no retro-fitting of wiring etc.


    Must be fitted with a day/night surveillance suite. All vehicles will have a similar remote weapons station or manned turret), flexibility of the weapon station will be a consideration e.g. is it possible to change the weapon quickly with a similar weapon or remove it temporarily. The weapons station must be armed with a minimum of a 7.62mm MG but should have the ability to accept a 12.7mm HMG. Regarding the GSR, the vendor is invited to submit all options, which will then be examined and decided upon during the tendering process.

  2. #2
    "Nice ass, Samson..." mutter nutter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The Banner
    Posts
    1,716
    Post Thanks / Like
    Will we keep it to Western vehicles only?, I mean the Russian and Eastern Europeans have some new vehicles that would fit the bill but they would be outsiders in the evaluation at best.
    Dr. Venture: Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?

    Dr. Venture: Dean, you smell like a whore

  3. #3
    MIA mugs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Lisburn
    Posts
    1,966
    Post Thanks / Like
    This came to my mind sticking with Panhard and go with the VBL

    http://www.janes.com/defence/land_fo...hard_vbl.shtml

  4. #4
    "Nice ass, Samson..." mutter nutter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The Banner
    Posts
    1,716
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by mugs View Post
    This came to my mind sticking with Panhard and go with the VBL

    http://www.janes.com/defence/land_fo...hard_vbl.shtml
    Too small for my money..
    Dr. Venture: Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?

    Dr. Venture: Dean, you smell like a whore

  5. #5
    6-40509-04014-7 yooklid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Right behind you.....
    Posts
    2,921
    Post Thanks / Like
    Fennec?
    Meh.

  6. #6
    "Nice ass, Samson..." mutter nutter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The Banner
    Posts
    1,716
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by yooklid View Post
    Fennec?
    pricy, isn't the Fennek like 1.1 mill a piece plus it's very specialised,
    Dr. Venture: Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?

    Dr. Venture: Dean, you smell like a whore

  7. #7
    "Nice ass, Samson..." mutter nutter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The Banner
    Posts
    1,716
    Post Thanks / Like
    Barring a major change in requirements or whatever, my money is on a fight bettween the Eagle IV and the Iveco MLV, with maybe another vehicle involved, the new French VBL, Dingo or something like the Isreali Golan, but thats more like an armoured minivan, there are literally dozens of LTAVS on the market now, but will the DF really want something Russian or Slovakian
    Dr. Venture: Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?

    Dr. Venture: Dean, you smell like a whore

  8. #8
    Closed Account Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,440
    Post Thanks / Like
    Driver plus 4 passengers?

  9. #9
    Commandant Come-quickly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    2,753
    Post Thanks / Like
    VBL, Fennec etc are recce vehicles.

    The point of the LTAV competition is to provide an armoured General Service vehicle which can carry out tasks that would other wise be carried out by GS 4x4s in addition to the specialised versions mooted which are frequently a cost cutting alternative to projected requirements for the PIII fleet.

    The VBL or VB2L aren't really optimised for a CS and work party to be continuously loading and unloading. The ideal for this is a four door with hatchback. Hence the preference expressed for the Eagle and MLV series of vehicles which presumably have the power and adaptability to carry specialised kit like surveillance radars but are mostly useful for carrying four bayonets and their bergens either on patrol or behind the FEBA in conventional CSS scenarios.

    I'm sure HPT would have his own extensive input about the practicalities of climbing in and out of the various vehicles...which is almost as important a consideration as the actual performance of the vehicle.
    "It is a general popular error to imagine that loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for it's welfare" Edmund Burke

  10. #10
    Banned User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,058
    Post Thanks / Like

    Eagle vs. Panther?

    Quote Originally Posted by mutter nutter View Post
    Barring a major change in requirements or whatever, my money is on a fight bettween the Eagle IV and the Iveco MLV, with maybe another vehicle involved, the new French VBL, Dingo or something like the Isreali Golan, but thats more like an armoured minivan, there are literally dozens of LTAVS on the market now, but will the DF really want something Russian or Slovakian
    I agree that it will probably come down to a choice between the Mowag Eagle IV and the Iveco MLV (Panther is the British Army version). However I would be surprised if they don't update the specs, in view of all the combat experience from Iraq and Afghanistan during the past couple of years.

    There are some interesting points in the information re the specs that GF supplied above:

    "The vehicles will be used to boost the capability of the Army to carry out a range of tasks, including surveillance, reconnaissance, target acquisition, communications and acting as a weapons platform."
    That suggests that it will be more than just an armoured utility vehicle. The first three tasks - surveillance, reconnaissance and target acquisition, tend to go together alright, but what exactly does 'communications' mean? And 'acting as a weapons platform'? Does that mean that the vehicle's weapons are not just for self-defence?

    "The only difference between the Target Acquisition variant and the Surveillance/ Reconnaissance variant is the addition of the Ground Surveillance Radar.... The Engineer variant will be capable of carrying Class 1 Explosives (up to 100 kg of plastic explosive PE No 4 or equivalent RDX based bulk explosive) and 50 electric detonators with 1 cubic metre of storage for general engineer equipment.... The Infantry vehicle will carry 4 troops (including the driver)."
    Does that mean that there will be a number of distinct sub-types? How many of each? Or will the vehicle be configurable as necessary to fulfil different roles? Is it only the Infantry vehicle that has to be able to carry four people?

    How will the new vehicle work with the Piranhas at a tactical level? Would the LTAVs be intended for patrolling and convoy escort work? Given the wide range of possible tasks, I sometimes wonder if more than one vehicle type is necessary.

    Final thought: the original competition was halted because they said the market was not mature at that stage (or something like that). If anything the market for light armoured vehicles - both in terms of what they are for, and the vehicles available on the market - has proliferated enormously since then, and become even more confusing rather than less. Why revive it now? Nothing to do with an election in the offing, I hope...

  11. #11
    Lord Chief Bottlewasher trellheim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Cathal Brugha
    Posts
    9,509
    Post Thanks / Like
    I don't normally dip into vehicle threads as you know but are these things for Cav or Inf ?
    "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

    "No, they're trying to fly the tank"

  12. #12
    C/S ackack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Luimneach
    Posts
    452
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by trellheim View Post
    I don't normally dip into vehicle threads as you know but are these things for Cav or Inf ?
    going off the original post, i would say both.
    Blog

    WHAT FLIES DIES

  13. #13
    Lower than a snakes balls Duffman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    973
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Goldie fish View Post

    The Infantry vehicle will carry 4 troops (including the driver).
    An infantry vehicle capable of carrying just 3 troops....I'm presuming this is not for transport but for some form of armoured support? As if it was for recce roles it would fall under the cavs jurisdiction?
    "Many a time a man's mouth broke his nose"

    "Don't waste money buying expensive binoculars. Simply stand next to the object you wish to view."

  14. #14
    Serf hedgehog's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    14,532
    Post Thanks / Like
    Since we started training properly in the Recce Game

    it was an Infantry role

    by that I mean the CTR

    and not the drive 10 miles out and have a quick gander
    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
    Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
    The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere***
    The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
    The best lack all conviction, while the worst
    Are full of passionate intensity.

  15. #15
    King Monkey FMolloy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    The Hacienda
    Posts
    5,511
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by carrington View Post
    That suggests that it will be more than just an armoured utility vehicle. The first three tasks - surveillance, reconnaissance and target acquisition, tend to go together alright, but what exactly does 'communications' mean? And 'acting as a weapons platform'? Does that mean that the vehicle's weapons are not just for self-defence?
    I would argue that being able to do all of the above, as well the other roles, is the very definition of 'utility'. As for the 'acting as a weapons platform' bit, I wouldn't dwell on it. It was written by a journo for mass consumption, it has to sound cool. The weapons fit given is fairly standard.

    Quote Originally Posted by carrington View Post
    Does that mean that there will be a number of distinct sub-types? How many of each? Or will the vehicle be configurable as necessary to fulfil different roles? Is it only the Infantry vehicle that has to be able to carry four people?
    I'd say it'll be configurable rather than sub-variants. The surveillance one might be the exception to that.

    Quote Originally Posted by carrington View Post
    How will the new vehicle work with the Piranhas at a tactical level? Would the LTAVs be intended for patrolling and convoy escort work?
    The DF doesn't have them yet, so it's impossible to say. And when they do get them it might very well be operational info.

    Quote Originally Posted by carrington View Post
    Given the wide range of possible tasks, I sometimes wonder if more than one vehicle type is necessary.
    What possible tasks make you think this is the case & why?

    Quote Originally Posted by carrington View Post
    Final thought: the original competition was halted because they said the market was not mature at that stage (or something like that). If anything the market for light armoured vehicles - both in terms of what they are for, and the vehicles available on the market - has proliferated enormously since then, and become even more confusing rather than less. Why revive it now? Nothing to do with an election in the offing, I hope...
    I doubt very much the election is the reason, the public don't care enough about defence to be swayed by something like this.
    "The dolphins were monkeys that didn't like the land, walked back to the water, went back from the sand."

  16. #16
    Closed Account ZULU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    The Real Republic
    Posts
    6,182
    Post Thanks / Like
    VBL has a bigger brother - The VBR

    http://www.panhard.fr/anglais/index.htm

    Tech Specs

    http://www.panhard.fr/anglais/VBR/CT_VBR.htm

    Seems to meet the criteria laid down. Has space for 4 + extra 5 passengers / payload

    Not sure about the armament options though. RWS would seem like it could be retro fitted.

    1300Nm Torque at 1200rpm is some pulling power!! (Though it is a 7.2L Diesel/Jet Fuel)


  17. Likes DeV liked this post
  18. #17
    Closed Account ZULU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    The Real Republic
    Posts
    6,182
    Post Thanks / Like
    Heres another interesting thing I found

    Like the idea of the seat arrangement
    Attached Images Attached Images

  19. #18
    Banned User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,058
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ZULU View Post
    Heres another interesting thing I found

    Like the idea of the seat arrangement

    Yeah, it's a good idea to have everyone facing outwards, covering all sectors. But it only seems to have provision for one weapon? And there might be a problem with legroom for the people facing to the sides? Maybe the side-facing seats could be staggered, to provide extra legroom? Or else they'll be seats for 'shorties' only...

  20. #19
    Lower than a snakes balls Duffman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    973
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by kermit View Post
    Recce is not a role exclusive to the Cavalry Corps.
    Does that mean that the Inf is getting kitted out with LTAV's just for this purpose of Recce? Makes far too much sense to be true!
    "Many a time a man's mouth broke his nose"

    "Don't waste money buying expensive binoculars. Simply stand next to the object you wish to view."

  21. #20
    Closed Account ZULU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    The Real Republic
    Posts
    6,182
    Post Thanks / Like
    Found this after a little digging. Looks very similar to Irelands Budget and requirements.

    Autumn 2005

    Armoured Patrol Vehicles (update):

    Four contenders for a Danish Army 4 x 4 armoured patrol vehicle (APV) requirement are undergoing trails in Denmark. The Danish Army Materiel Command earlier in 2005 issued an invitation to tender for the APV to 11 companies, including AM General (US), BAE Systems, Land Systems OMC (South Africa), IVECO Defence Vehicle Division (Italy), Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (Germany), MOWAG (Switzerland), Panhard (France), Patria Vehicles (Finland), Renault Trucks Defense (France), Rheinmetall Landsysteme (Germany), Sabiex (Belgium) and Textron Marine & Land Systems (US).
    Of these, four replied and the Danish Army is now testing the BAE Systems Land Systems OMC RG-32M, the MOWAG Eagle IV, the Panhard armoured reconnaissance vehicle (VBR) and the Textron Marine & Land Systems Guardian M1117 Armored Security Vehicle (ASV).
    Key APV user requirements include the ability to carry five people including the driver and to be fitted with an overhead weapon station that will be provided as government-furnished equipment.
    The 4 x 4 vehicle is also required to be armour protected, including the engine compartment and have a minimum payload of 2,000 kg.
    The Danish Army currently operates a fleet of 36 MOWAG Eagle I 4 x 4 APVs based on a modified AM HMMWV chassis, which have seen extensive service at home and overseas. These were delivered from 1995 in two batches, 10 and then 26.
    The Danish Defence Agreement for the period 2005 until 2009 states that the country will improve its military capability in order to participate in international military operations. The procurement of these APVs and other purchases will enable this objective to be met.
    Following extensive trials in Denmark it is expected that the Army Materiel Command will award a contract for the selected vehicle by the end of this year. The APV programme is currently funded at 425 million DKr. (USD 70 million), which covers the supply of about 85 vehicles, weapons, communications equipment, training and integrated logistic support.
    The BAE Systems Land Systems RG-32M is the latest model of the proven RG-32 and has already been selected and is in quantity production for the Swedish Army.
    The MOWAG Eagle IV is the latest generation vehicle and is a follow on to the earlier Eagle I, II and III of which 485 have been built for the domestic and export market. It is based on the MOWAG Duro chassis with greater payload than the earlier vehicles.
    The Panhard VBR has been developed as private venture for a vehicle with greater capacity and internal volume than the current production VBL reconnaissance vehicle, of which over 2,000 have been built for the home and export markets.
    Textron Marine & Land Systems is currently in quantity production of the ASV for the US Army and Iraq (the company was awarded a contract to deliver 43 vehicles for the Iraqi Civil Intervention Force in 2004) where it has seen extensive operational use.

    (Jane's Defence Weekly, September 2005)
    Last edited by ZULU; 18th April 2007 at 15:45.

  22. #21
    Closed Account ZULU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    The Real Republic
    Posts
    6,182
    Post Thanks / Like

    Post

    Here's the result

    Look at the price they got them for: 85 + all the extras for US$ 38 million (28Million Euro)
    Should keep the bean counters happy

    Denmark selects the EAGLE IV as their new Armoured Patrol Vehicle

    Hjørring, Denmark - On December 09, 2005 the Danish Army Materiel Command (DAMC) and MOWAG GmbH – a General Dynamics company – signed a contract for the delivery of 85 units plus a small number for training and logistic reserve EAGLE IV 4x4 Armoured Patrol Vehicles (APV), including initial logistic support and services with a total value of close to 50 Million Swiss Francs (approx. US$ 38 Million). After five contracts for EAGLE I 4x4 and PIRANHA III 8x8 between 1995 and 2004, this contract adds the latest development of the Swiss company to the fleet of MOWAG vehicles operated by the Danish Army.


    In May 2005 the Danish Army Materiel Command (DAMC) had announced the procurement Program for new Danish Army Armoured Patrol Vehicles. Key requirements included the ability to carry 5 people, be fitted with an Overhead Weapon Station and provide ballistic and mine protection to the crew and engine compartment.

    Out of 11 companies that were selected to bid, four finally received an invitation to send their vehicles to undergo trials in Denmark . In September and October 2005, customer tests over an 8000 km distance were conducted including extensive off-road driving in all types of terrain, long distance on-road driving including German Autobahn, testing at the tough WTD 41 test facilities in Trier , Germany and troop trials on the isle of Bornholm . The outstanding performance of the EAGLE IV in the areas of on- and off road mobility, driving safety, crew comfort and vehicle versatility at an affordable price made the EAGLE IV the winner in this competition.

    MOWAG's CEO, Simon T. Honess, was proud and pleased about the selection of the EAGLE IV by Denmark , and he declared: „This contract is a great success for MOWAG as it marks a further proof of our customers' confidence in the performance and reliability of our products and company.

    The EAGLE IV, to be equipped with an Overhead Weapon Station, Communication and Battle Management System and various other equipment will further enhance the military capability of Denmark 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 EAGLE IV, the technology-minded company from Kreuzlingen , Switzerland offers a new product based on the well proven DURO family of vehicles, which fulfils this high-ranking requirement of protection, comfort and mobility.

    Production will take place at MOWAG's facility in Kreuzlingen and deliveries will commence in August 2006. Danish companies will be involved in the supply of various components and assemblies.


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

    Facts about the EAGLE IV 4x4

    With the EAGLE IV MOWAG is on the way to set another standard in the domain of armoured wheeled vehicles in the weight class up to 8 tons. The EAGLE IV is 5.37 m long, 2.16 m wide and offers seating space for 4-5 people. On the road, the EAGLE IV reaches a speed of 110 km/h; it manages gradients of up to 60% and obstacles with a height of up to 40 cm. The 245 HP Cummins engine, in connection with the Allison 5-speed automatic transmission, the unique De Dion axles with patented Roll Stabilizer, the tire pressure regulation system, and permanent all-wheel drive give the EAGLE IV an incomparable mobility both on- and off road.

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

    www.mowag.ch
    Last edited by ZULU; 18th April 2007 at 15:49.

  23. #22
    Closed Account ZULU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    The Real Republic
    Posts
    6,182
    Post Thanks / Like

  24. #23
    Commandant Come-quickly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    2,753
    Post Thanks / Like
    These vehicles already have their role defined, as I said in my last post they are there to carry out roles carried out by non armoured vehicles in the past.

    It has an infantry role:
    Namely carrying kit back and forth from the F to A1 echelon same as in every other western army...like when you see senior NCOs driving around in a GS for three days on an exercise

    It has a Cav role:
    Carrying Recce teams in the same way a GS does

    It has an Arty role:
    Carrying radars that would have been towed by a GS or TCV in the past

    It has an Engr Role:
    Carrying Pioneer and EOD teams forward with specialist stores that would have been carried by a TCV or GS in the past

    It has a CIS Role:
    Being fitted for radio


    As for weapons carrying, if they can fit a travel box for a Carl Gustav or an 81mm LB or a HMG in the boot...it is a weapons carrier.

    Finally and mostly it is wanted for patrolling through potentially unsafe areas while on operations where a PIII is a bit on the big side and not really great for giving all round visibility in a hurry.
    This is where the four doors with openable windows is really rather a must.
    "It is a general popular error to imagine that loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for it's welfare" Edmund Burke

  25. #24
    Banned User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,058
    Post Thanks / Like

    Japanese VBL lookalike....

    Yet another stretched VBL lookalike is the Japanese ‘Light Armoured Combat Vehicle’, a 4.5 ton vehicle, 13.8 feet long and with a crew of four. It is fitted with a 160hp diesel engine, allowing it to reach top speeds of 100km/h. It can be carried by a CH-47J helicopter or C-130H transport aircraft for emergency air-drops.

    The gun mount on the roof can be fitted with a 5.56mm MINIMI machine gun or Type 01 Light Anti-Tank Guided Missile. Vehicles deployed to the Iraq town of Samawa in 2004 were fitted with reinforced bullet-proof windshields and extra equipment such as wire cutters. Many vehicles also featured an armoured cover around the gun mount for extra protection.

    Presumably the vehicle could be fitted with an RWS, like other vehicles in this class. The bigger problem is the Japanese ban on weapons exports... But then again, we already have Nissan Patrols....



    More pics at

    http://www15.tok2.com/home/lttom/mil...s_keisokou.htm

    http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...ad.php?t=91081 (scroll down)
    Last edited by thebig C; 19th April 2007 at 23:35.

  26. #25
    "Nice ass, Samson..." mutter nutter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The Banner
    Posts
    1,716
    Post Thanks / Like
    Maybe I should just get together a list of vehicles that would fit the role, post photos and spec for each and see where we go from there


    The Russians have several vehicles that would do the job, but would we want them from Russia?
    Dr. Venture: Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?

    Dr. Venture: Dean, you smell like a whore

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •