Thanks Thanks:  137
Likes Likes:  341
Dislikes Dislikes:  14
Page 28 of 30 FirstFirst ... 182627282930 LastLast
Results 676 to 700 of 732
  1. #676
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    521
    Post Thanks / Like
    Nice vehicle, but I would suggest ST Terrex 3, 8x8 wheeled IFV, same RWS, big in connectivity, big in protection, and first two prototypes, for the Australian Land 400 competition, built in Ireland last year (and for those worried about being the first customer, 16 of the similar, but lighter, amphibious Terrex 2 in trials with the USMC (against a BAE/Iveco offering).

  2. Likes morpheus liked this post
  3. #677
    Sergeant
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    75
    Post Thanks / Like
    If a tracked vehicle is still envisaged at some point as a replacement for the Scorpions, could the projected US Mobile Protected Firepower solution fit the bill? Still a project in development, and nothing solid, but just another possible solution

    * http://www.defensenews.com/articles/...wer-into-force

  4. #678
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,738
    Post Thanks / Like
    If it ever happens, it is much more likely to be a common chassis with the current MOWAG or replacement APC. I also saw something to suggest that the mobile gun the Cav wanted was bigger than 90mm

  5. Likes X-RayOne liked this post
  6. #679
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    939
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    If it ever happens, it is much more likely to be a common chassis with the current MOWAG or replacement APC. I also saw something to suggest that the mobile gun the Cav wanted was bigger than 90mm
    IMO shouldn't we be looking for commonality within the area?

  7. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  8. #680
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    525
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mobile Protected Firepower Bridges Infantry Brigade Combat Team Direct Fire Capability Gap http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...e-combat-21347

    Expected for release this later this month, a draft request for proposals will take US Army plans to add “Mobile Protected Firepower” to its Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (IBCT) a step closer to realization. The vehicle selected to fulfill the service’s emerging requirement will also determine if a long dormant capability is revived; battlefield delivery of light tank-type vehicles by airdrop. The 1996 retirement of the 82nd Airborne Division’s M-551 Sheridan armored reconnaissance vehicles, and cancellation of the M-8 Armored Gun System, the Sheridan’s intended replacement, left the Army’s airborne formations with a direct fire capability gap the service intends to restore with a new combat vehicle.

    “We expect to issue a draft RFP sometime in June with a final following in December, for the vehicle selected, airdrop capability is an objective, not definitive, requirement,” according to Colonel William T. Nuckols, director of the Mounted Requirements Division at the US Army Maneuver Center of Excellence at Fort Benning, Georgia. Nuckols spoke with the National Interest on May 17, confirming imminent release of the draft RFP by email on June 12. Nickols’ group is central to ensuring the selected vehicle fulfills the requirement to provide infantry with the capability to engage line of site targets with a large caliber gun, from a mobile, protected platform.

    Initially, MPF requirements were drawn up to re-equip Army airborne formations with an air-droppable light tank. Plans changed as the service saw need to provide its regular IBCTs with a fire support vehicle offering mobility and survivability not available from comparable in-service assets such as the M-2 Bradley. Envisioned organizational structure calls for each Army’s IBCT to receive an MPF company, approximately 14 vehicles. “We are planning for a vehicle to primarily support our IBCT in standard configuration, rather than one that would be configured only for airborne,” Nuckols said.

    MPF fits into the Army’s newish Joint-Entry Operations Concept, one calling on airborne troops to prevent enemy forces from employing area-denial tactics. Until a vehicle candidate is selected, it will remain unclear if paratroop formations will have to seize contested airfields, prior to MPF arrival by conventional landing. Based on the M-551, the weight limit for airborne armored vehicles is approximately 18 tons. For the MPF program, Nuckols said there is no specified weight ceiling, “but we do require that two MPF be transported by a single C-17.”

    Nuckols said the service is “not looking for a replacement for the M-551 Sheridan or M-8 Armored Gun System, we intend to field an infantry support vehicle, an asset that can defeat most battlefield targets, it’s not intended to fight enemy tanks, whatever vehicle is chosen will have that capability.” He said requirements would likely force vehicle weights beyond 18 tons, rendering the airdrop requirement a ‘nice to have’.

    Lt. Colonel Scott Coulson (retired), formerly with the US Army Capability Integration Center at Fort Eustis was heavily involved in the MPF initiative, working as an advocate to ensure overall program support. “The MPF Industry Day last August was the start of the program, while it was not then a budget line item, as is now the case, during Industry Day high-level details on MPF lethality, mobility, protection, and sustainability were discussed with contractor representatives,” Coulson spoke with National Interest on May 16. Due to the high costs of non-government funded prototype and concept development activities, Nuckols anticipates between three to five industry teams will submit proposals after the release of the final RFP release, anticipated in December.

    Regarding firepower, Nuckols said the Army is leaning towards a 105mm gun armament, enabling the MPF to engage main battle tanks as a secondary mission. An autoloader, reducing crew size is favored. The new AMP round, now in the development and qualification phase, will replace legacy 120mm tank ammunition including the M830 High Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT), M830A1 Multi-Purpose Antitank (MPAT), M1028 canister, and M908 Obstacle Reduction round. “Should the Army go with a 105mm for MPF, I would anticipate a similar multi-purpose round along the lines of AMP may be developed,” Coulson remarked.

    Army infantry brigades may not be the only US military formations in line to receive the MPF, Nuckols said the Marine Corps is monitoring developments. Coincidently, the MPF is slated to begin fielding at about the same time USMC M1A2 main battle tanks are passing the 25-year mark. “I think the vehicle is going to be of high interest to the Marines, they have a similar need for an expeditionary fire support vehicle for infantry, additionally, the MPF is intended to operate without resupply during the initial hours of an operation.”

    Estimates state up to 500 vehicles could be procured for Army and National Guard infantry brigades, equipping Marine tank battalions could raise the number in excess of 600. In the meanwhile, the 82nd Airborne is evaluating several USMC LAV-25 light armored vehicles for suitability in airborne operations, if successful up to 50 may be acquired from USMC stocks.

  9. Thanks DeV, EUFighter thanked for this post
  10. #681
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    3,031
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by meridian View Post
    If a tracked vehicle is still envisaged at some point as a replacement for the Scorpions, could the projected US Mobile Protected Firepower solution fit the bill? Still a project in development, and nothing solid, but just another possible solution

    * http://www.defensenews.com/articles/...wer-into-force
    All depends on what it looks like The americans are experimienting with concepts ranging from 10 to 40 tonnes in weight, armed with anything from a 57mm to 120mm .

    However they are definite about it being tracked, as it will need to fight in an urban environment

  11. Likes EUFighter liked this post
  12. #682
    Lt General Bravo20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    The Big Smoke
    Posts
    4,868
    Post Thanks / Like
    Have the scorpions been finally retired? I see one has been delivered to Spike and Fort Camden in the past couple of weeks

  13. #683
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2,606
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Bravo20 View Post
    Have the scorpions been finally retired? I see one has been delivered to Spike and Fort Camden in the past couple of weeks
    I was on spike island last Sunday, and in the "Gun Park" there is a Scorpion in the corner. It's track marks are in the tarmack leading from the pier to the Fort. Rubber pads are down to the metal track
    Last edited by sofa; 1st November 2017 at 23:49.

  14. #684
    Colonel
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,435
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Bravo20 View Post
    Have the scorpions been finally retired? I see one has been delivered to Spike and Fort Camden in the past couple of weeks
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhodes View Post
    The Scorpions have been retired after 37 years service.
    The Scorpion was donated to Fort Meagher about two weeks ago, another to Spike last week.
    Last edited by Rhodes; 2nd November 2017 at 00:31.

  15. Thanks sofa thanked for this post
  16. #685
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,332
    Post Thanks / Like
    The one in Spike was permanently attached to a battery booster pack while on the move, and is now parked with a large baking tray underneath it to collect whatever fluids have not yet leaked from it.
    Museums are the best place for them. Last time they were in Cork they were new.
    Well, there's good news and bad news. The bad news is that Neil will be taking over both branches, and some of you will lose your jobs. Those of you who are kept on will have to relocate to Swindon, if you wanna stay. I know, gutting. On a more positive note, the good news is, I've been promoted, so... every cloud. You're still thinking about the bad news aren't you?

  17. Thanks sofa thanked for this post
  18. #686
    C/S
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    496
    Post Thanks / Like
    Jesus, it sounds like a mortuary table.

  19. #687
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    3,031
    Post Thanks / Like
    When they bought them in 1978 they wanted to develop an armoured regiment as part of 6th brigade, that fell through in the 1980s, and there was no money put into them. Arguably they were obsolete when they were acquired, the only way to get them overseas would have been a complete rebuild like the Brits did, and even then that would be pointless

  20. Likes na grohmití, hptmurphy liked this post
  21. #688
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,358
    Post Thanks / Like
    Someone made the decision a long time ago that the Scorpions were to be run into the ground and the capability gap is now here, so the Cav have no main gun vehicle and the biggest thing the DF appears to want to take to a gunfight is 30mm and a scarce handful of Javelins, since they won't bring the 105s on tour?! Are there any adults in the building?

  22. Likes ropebag, TangoSierra, Tempest liked this post
  23. #689
    Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,732
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    Someone made the decision a long time ago that the Scorpions were to be run into the ground and the capability gap is now here, so the Cav have no main gun vehicle and the biggest thing the DF appears to want to take to a gunfight is 30mm and a scarce handful of Javelins, since they won't bring the 105s on tour?! Are there any adults in the building?
    oh GTTC...

    a Bn-sized BattleGroup that can mix it with pretty much anyone is expensive, and it runs the risk that it might be deployed somewhere dangerous, or worse, politically controversial and expensive.

    think Chad.

    a PK force that is limited from birth in what it can do is both cheaper and politically safer - when some appalling opportunity for a crunchy deployment rears its unwelcome head, the DOD/Govt can wheel out the 'outside of our doctrine/capability' line.

    remember: Cheap good. Expensive bad. Easy good. Difficult bad.

  24. Likes X-RayOne liked this post
  25. #690
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,738
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    Someone made the decision a long time ago that the Scorpions were to be run into the ground and the capability gap is now here, so the Cav have no main gun vehicle and the biggest thing the DF appears to want to take to a gunfight is 30mm and a scarce handful of Javelins, since they won't bring the 105s on tour?! Are there any adults in the building?
    120s go on tour

  26. #691
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,738
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    oh GTTC...

    a Bn-sized BattleGroup that can mix it with pretty much anyone is expensive, and it runs the risk that it might be deployed somewhere dangerous, or worse, politically controversial and expensive.

    think Chad.

    a PK force that is limited from birth in what it can do is both cheaper and politically safer - when some appalling opportunity for a crunchy deployment rears its unwelcome head, the DOD/Govt can wheel out the 'outside of our doctrine/capability' line.

    remember: Cheap good. Expensive bad. Easy good. Difficult bad.
    We don’t have the resources to deploy a Bn Battlegroup overseas (We currently deploy a Bn minus to UNIFIL for example).

    Not sure where your going with the Chad example.

    Chad was an example of resources actually being put in place for once. The first 11 months of EUFOR cost the Irish taxpayer an additional € 59m plus normal pay and allowances

  27. #692
    Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,732
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    We don’t have the resources to deploy a Bn Battlegroup overseas (We currently deploy a Bn minus to UNIFIL for example).

    Not sure where your going with the Chad example.

    Chad was an example of resources actually being put in place for once. The first 11 months of EUFOR cost the Irish taxpayer an additional € 59m plus normal pay and allowances
    whhooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosssssshhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhh......

  28. Likes TangoSierra liked this post
    Dislikes DeV disliked this post
  29. #693
    Corporal
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    72
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    whhooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosssssshhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhh......
    That was less the mach loop, and more the ISS going overhead

  30. Likes ropebag liked this post
  31. #694
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,358
    Post Thanks / Like
    I know the 120s go on tour but, as was pointed out by one NCO on a TV programme, "we don't go outside the coverage of mortars and we don't bring mortars out of camp", so, in effect, the AO consisted of a 120's range footprint and probably a silent prayer that no baddie rocks up with anything bigger than a Toyota technical with a Dshka or a Zsu-Zsu on it. Given the current very fluid situation on the Israel-Syria-Lebanon border, it might be no harm to have something a bit heavier on hand than a 30mm (and please don't automatically reply Javelin, as any Irish commander who fire more than a very few of those will be shat upon from a height, from home). Penny pinching to save using 90 or 105mm rounds, by firing 30mm, is alright for the Curragh but not when lads are facing potential aggression from tough, well armed bastards like Hezbullah or various armed parties from Syria.

  32. Likes sofa, ODIN liked this post
  33. #695
    CQMS spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,502
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    I know the 120s go on tour but, as was pointed out by one NCO on a TV programme, "we don't go outside the coverage of mortars and we don't bring mortars out of camp", so, in effect, the AO consisted of a 120's range footprint and probably a silent prayer that no baddie rocks up with anything bigger than a Toyota technical with a Dshka or a Zsu-Zsu on it. Given the current very fluid situation on the Israel-Syria-Lebanon border, it might be no harm to have something a bit heavier on hand than a 30mm (and please don't automatically reply Javelin, as any Irish commander who fire more than a very few of those will be shat upon from a height, from home). Penny pinching to save using 90 or 105mm rounds, by firing 30mm, is alright for the Curragh but not when lads are facing potential aggression from tough, well armed bastards like Hezbullah or various armed parties from Syria.
    Whats the reasoning behind not taking the 105's on tour?
    'History is a vast early warning system'. Norman Cousins

  34. #696
    Lt General apod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Ass in the grass.
    Posts
    4,677
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mortars have been taken out of camp over in the Leb to provide cover for patrols in the past.
    I know cause I was on one such patrol and the BMR set up their tubes right outside the gates of our post just before we departed.
    We were expecting trouble that day.Thankfully we never got any.
    "Let us be clear about three facts:First of all.All battles and all wars are won in the end by the Infantryman.Secondly the Infantryman bears the brunt of the fighting,his casualties are heavier and he suffers greater extremes of fatigue and discomfort than the other arms.Thirdly,the art of the Infantryman is less stereotyped and harder to acquire than that of any other arm".
    -- Field Marshall Earl Wavell.1948

  35. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, GoneToTheCanner liked this post
  36. #697
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    19,738
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    I know the 120s go on tour but, as was pointed out by one NCO on a TV programme, "we don't go outside the coverage of mortars and we don't bring mortars out of camp", so, in effect, the AO consisted of a 120's range footprint and probably a silent prayer that no baddie rocks up with anything bigger than a Toyota technical with a Dshka or a Zsu-Zsu on it. Given the current very fluid situation on the Israel-Syria-Lebanon border, it might be no harm to have something a bit heavier on hand than a 30mm (and please don't automatically reply Javelin, as any Irish commander who fire more than a very few of those will be shat upon from a height, from home). Penny pinching to save using 90 or 105mm rounds, by firing 30mm, is alright for the Curragh but not when lads are facing potential aggression from tough, well armed bastards like Hezbullah or various armed parties from Syria.
    most armies have settled for the 30mm / 40mm GMG in fairness

    Quote Originally Posted by spider View Post
    Whats the reasoning behind not taking the 105's on tour?
    The French had 155s I think with UNIFIL

  37. Thanks spider thanked for this post
  38. #698
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    701
    Post Thanks / Like
    Do the French still have their LeClerc's?

  39. #699
    C/S EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    352
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by TangoSierra View Post
    Do the French still have their LeClerc's?
    The still have around 200 Leclerc tanks operational with another 200 in storage. They have upgraded 70 of their GCT-155 to auf2 standard with another 180 in storage at present.

    A dozen or two Leclerc's on the cheap to replace the Scorpions and AML90s would be a dream!

  40. Thanks Herald thanked for this post
  41. #700
    Major General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,332
    Post Thanks / Like
    Ah come on now. Replacing a tracked 8 tonne light recce vehicle with a 55 tonne Main battle tank? The logistics alone are a non starter, not to mention the tactics and the fact we have no history of operating MBTs in the irish defence forces, and there is no place for them in the ORBAT. For training at home, you would require a garda escort to move any of the tanks by road (you won't be able to drive them on the road).
    Should I mention we do not have the vehicles capable of transporting the tanks around this country, let alone overseas.
    By comparison 3 Scorpions at a time could be carried on the current Army Low loaders.
    Think smaller. We have so space on the island to train MBT crews. We barely have enough space to train wheeled AFV crews.
    Well, there's good news and bad news. The bad news is that Neil will be taking over both branches, and some of you will lose your jobs. Those of you who are kept on will have to relocate to Swindon, if you wanna stay. I know, gutting. On a more positive note, the good news is, I've been promoted, so... every cloud. You're still thinking about the bad news aren't you?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 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
  •