Thanks Thanks:  216
Likes Likes:  545
Dislikes Dislikes:  17
Page 17 of 38 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... LastLast
Results 401 to 425 of 948
  1. #401
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    3,101
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    the EUBG policy, great, except of course that the EUBG's have never been used and don't look likely to be used... a pity the policy has absolutely no impact whatsoever on the deployments ONH actually undertakes.

    but yes, apart from that, its a brilliant plan, i can't see what i was thinking of...
    nato went from 1949 till 1995 without firing a shot.

    EU battlegroups are in their infancy, but a cursory look at the german and European newspapers will show that the concept is developing.

    its the future, can't get away from it.

  2. Likes Schmigs liked this post
  3. #402
    Intelligence Officer The Blue Max's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Finner Air Station
    Posts
    517
    Post Thanks / Like
    Since the doctrine change and the AMLs could not keep up the Mowags. I was thinking the CVRTs could compliment the 1st Armored's MRVs along with Infantry APCs in the medium recce role.. I believe they have the speed to keep up with the mowags..

    The 76mm gun is still a potent fire support weapon and with all the talk of AMOS mortar systems etc.. being wanted/wished for the mowags with a small upgrade the scorpion could offer an armored indirect & direct fire mode to the like of Long range patrols we have completed in the past as part of overseas missions if had to deploy again in the future for these types of roles..

    At 30 years old the CVRT is still young in comparison to other AFVs operated by other western forces.."old doesn't necessarily mean obsolete"

    With some more upgrades like rubber tracks, appliqué armour, NVE and a new FCS it could be potent enough..

    http://www.scorpiontank.co.uk/html/ContentsPage.html

    Is this likely to happen...probably not but some comfort in knowing there is a capability jump there in the CRVTs offering a larger weapons then the 30mm cannons of the MRVs..

    http://youtu.be/9j1BO9RYJog
    British officer: You're seven minutes late, Mr. Collins.
    Michael Collins: You've kept us waiting 700 years. You can have your seven minutes.

    [As the British flag comes down]

    Michael Collins: So that's what all the bother was about.

  4. #403
    King Monkey FMolloy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    The Hacienda
    Posts
    5,511
    Post Thanks / Like
    From what I've read, indirect fire from tanks & the like was generally considered to be not worth the effort by US tank crews in Korea & Vietnam. It wasted ammo & wore out barrels for not enough benefit.
    "The dolphins were monkeys that didn't like the land, walked back to the water, went back from the sand."

  5. Thanks The Blue Max, hptmurphy thanked for this post
  6. #404
    Intelligence Officer The Blue Max's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Finner Air Station
    Posts
    517
    Post Thanks / Like
    Could be well right FM.. I honestly have never heard much about mention of such indirect use in battle bar the previous israeli example given.. Just though i would throw it in the mix..

    Our own organic mortar fire support is up there with the best with 60s,81s and the 120s and the Morfire system so could provide a relatively quick,accurate fire support mission in the event of a combat situation arising..
    British officer: You're seven minutes late, Mr. Collins.
    Michael Collins: You've kept us waiting 700 years. You can have your seven minutes.

    [As the British flag comes down]

    Michael Collins: So that's what all the bother was about.

  7. #405
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,986
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by The Blue Max View Post
    Since the doctrine change and the AMLs could not keep up the Mowags. I was thinking the CVRTs could compliment the 1st Armored's MRVs along with Infantry APCs in the medium recce role.. I believe they have the speed to keep up with the mowags..

    The 76mm gun is still a potent fire support weapon and with all the talk of AMOS mortar systems etc.. being wanted/wished for the mowags with a small upgrade the scorpion could offer an armored indirect & direct fire mode to the like of Long range patrols we have completed in the past as part of overseas missions if had to deploy again in the future for these types of roles..

    At 30 years old the CVRT is still young in comparison to other AFVs operated by other western forces.."old doesn't necessarily mean obsolete"

    With some more upgrades like rubber tracks, appliqué armour, NVE and a new FCS it could be potent enough..

    http://www.scorpiontank.co.uk/html/ContentsPage.html

    Is this likely to happen...probably not but some comfort in knowing there is a capability jump there in the CRVTs offering a larger weapons then the 30mm cannons of the MRVs..

    http://youtu.be/9j1BO9RYJog
    +1 in the main but we should be looking along the lines of a transformational upgrade (or replacement)

    - new engine (and all that goes with it)
    - FCS & recce suite
    - possibly new gun
    - possibly new armour

  8. Likes The Blue Max liked this post
  9. #406
    King Monkey FMolloy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    The Hacienda
    Posts
    5,511
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    +1 in the main but we should be looking along the lines of a transformational upgrade (or replacement)

    - new engine (and all that goes with it)
    - FCS & recce suite
    - possibly new gun
    - possibly new armour
    If all of the above were done, at what point does the Scorpion turn into the sweeping brush Trigger had in Only Fools & Horses?
    "The dolphins were monkeys that didn't like the land, walked back to the water, went back from the sand."

  10. Likes Goldie fish, Flamingo, hptmurphy liked this post
  11. #407
    Commandant Come-quickly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    2,753
    Post Thanks / Like
    @HPT and Paulg: Not that I'm neccessarily saying you're wrong, but your arguments are getting lazy and devolving into illogical non sequituirs.

    "It's international pracitce by countries that are demographically similar" does not equal a reason that we should do something. To quote everyone's mother, if the other demographically similar European nations jumped off a cliff would you do it to?

    "The AML60 was obsolete" so all mobile mortar systems regardless of capability are obsolescent because one 1960s Scout car is?

    Threads like this are turning into a whack-a-mole effort where certain posters take it as a personal affront that their opinion's are not accepted as fact.

    Bad form, and bad for the board.
    "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

  12. Thanks Herald thanked for this post
    Likes Herald liked this post
  13. #408
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,703
    Post Thanks / Like
    @CQ, when I see a video of Irish AML 60 operations, on this forum, where the gunner leans out of the turret and loads the bomb from the muzzle end, then I know the AML 60 is pointless.........@bluemax, indirect fire from tanks, ie gun tanks as opposed to self-propelled guns has been around since WW 2 and there are quite a few photos out there of the British and Americans doing it with Shermans. The British also got quite fond of it in Korea with Centurions. FM is right when he says that it increased barrel wear and wasn't really as effective as genuine coordinated artillery fire from dedicated guns..........do they even make the 76mm rounds for the Scorpion any more?

    regards
    GttC

  14. Thanks The Blue Max thanked for this post
  15. #409
    King Monkey FMolloy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    The Hacienda
    Posts
    5,511
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    @CQ, when I see a video of Irish AML 60 operations, on this forum, where the gunner leans out of the turret and loads the bomb from the muzzle end, then I know the AML 60 is pointless.
    I don't think that was what CQ was getting at; I think his point was that the withdrawal of the AML 60 does not mean that the turret-mounted mortar concept is flawed.

    Was the AML 60's mortar not a breach loader?
    "The dolphins were monkeys that didn't like the land, walked back to the water, went back from the sand."

  16. #410
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,959
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    ...FM is right when he says that it increased barrel wear and wasn't really as effective as genuine coordinated artillery fire from dedicated guns..........do they even make the 76mm rounds for the Scorpion any more?...
    i'm assuming that if we're talking about indirect fire them we're talking about using guided ammunition - theres therefore no reason that such indirect fire would be less effective than any other guided ammunition, whether thats a Hellfire missile, JDAM bomb, or 155m Excalibur round. its also worth bearing in mind the difference between a 'flatten this grid square' fire mission from the inner German border in 1985, which a 76mm round from one or two Scorpions isn't exactly going to excell at, and the much more likely 'destroy that pick-up' or 'put a round into the top left window of that building' fire mission that is going to be the stock in trade of Irish troops on future overseas missions.

    of course, if no one makes 76mm ammunition for the L29 gun anymore then its all a bit moot...
    Last edited by ropebag; 4th February 2014 at 17:01.

  17. #411
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,986
    Post Thanks / Like
    If IDF from an AFV is your only option (say counter battery) it is better than nothing at all surely?

    I've seen pictures of the AML60 being muzzle loaded, not sure if that was indirect only. But it was direct fire as well.

    Even if 76mm is still being made, 90mm may be cheaper (I think only 2 modernish Western vehicles used the 76 and Scorpion was only of them.

  18. #412
    King Monkey FMolloy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    The Hacienda
    Posts
    5,511
    Post Thanks / Like
    Repaircraft PLC, a UK firm offering Scorpion upgrades, have a PDF document on their site dated 2011 which states they can provide 76mm ammo; but none of it is guided.

    If you were upgrading the armament of the Scorpion, I think there's a case for going with a more modern, smaller calibre auto-cannon. At least then the commander would not have the distraction of loading the main gun.
    "The dolphins were monkeys that didn't like the land, walked back to the water, went back from the sand."

  19. Likes The Blue Max liked this post
  20. #413
    Tim Horgan Goldie fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    you already know too much
    Posts
    33,440
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by FMolloy View Post
    I don't think that was what CQ was getting at; I think his point was that the withdrawal of the AML 60 does not mean that the turret-mounted mortar concept is flawed.

    Was the AML 60's mortar not a breach loader?
    One version was both Breech and muzzle loaded.


    Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.

  21. Thanks DeV, hptmurphy, FMolloy thanked for this post
  22. #414
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,959
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by FMolloy View Post
    ...If you were upgrading the armament of the Scorpion, I think there's a case for going with a more modern, smaller calibre auto-cannon. At least then the commander would not have the distraction of loading the main gun.
    i think my view is that the case for using Scorpion overseas is so marginal - by dint of its vunerability to IED's and generally limited weapons/role capability - that any significant cost in upgrading it would tip the scales away from the decision to continue with it in service.

    if the work neccessary to get it ready for role overseas could be done cheaply then i'd say go for it, but if we're talking about new armour, new FCS, new weapon, and guided rounds at $10,000 a pop, and there'd still only be a dozen or so in service, then i think its a money pit for not a fantastic capability.

    after all, if theres only a dozen or so in service, how many of them could be deployed overeas at any one time - and is that number enough for the role they'd have, and would it, and their future life, justify the money spent and diverted from other programmes?

  23. #415
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    3,101
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Come-quickly View Post
    @HPT and Paulg: Not that I'm neccessarily saying you're wrong, but your arguments are getting lazy and devolving into illogical non sequituirs.

    "It's international pracitce by countries that are demographically similar" does not equal a reason that we should do something. To quote everyone's mother, if the other demographically similar European nations jumped off a cliff would you do it to?
    d.
    it kind of what we have to do, its all about EU defence capabilities. Look at the green paper, the government here are going to be committed to developing capablities that fit into the wider European structure.

    There is a growing realisation in Europe that the old model of the nation state and independent armed forces is no longer relevant. Hence why we're developing Niche capabilities in areas such as ISTAR

    Look at where the money is being spent, all the funds for the past five years has gone on making sure that the ISTAR company is fit for purpose.

    Look overseas, Liberia, Chad and Lebanon Mk 2 and 3, where we formed joint battalions with the Finns Dutch and Swedes, that is the norm internationally, There never will be an irish battalion in the future that doesn't have at least one company thats from another nation, or in the case of ISTAR company, where its part of a battlegroup.

    Essentially our future capabilies will be planned in conjunction with our European partners, and we'll end up contributing on a similar basis to like sized European countries.

    If you look at the European defence debate, there is Cameron who wants to maintain national control of armed forces, largely because the U.K gets power that way and through its relationship with the US, versus the rest of Europe who is going to pool resources. We're going to go with the rest of Europe, and that means planning capabilities that are relevant, not sticking mortars on antiques.
    Last edited by paul g; 4th February 2014 at 18:39.

  24. Thanks northie thanked for this post
    Likes apod, hptmurphy liked this post
  25. #416
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,986
    Post Thanks / Like
    Why guided rounds that is what Javelin is for?

  26. #417
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,959
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Why guided rounds that is what Javelin is for?
    whats the maximum range of a Javelin? whats the maximum range of a Chinese 82mm mortar or 107mm rocket?

    and as importantly, how much does a Javelin cost, and how many of them have you got?
    Last edited by ropebag; 4th February 2014 at 19:28.

  27. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  28. #418
    King Monkey FMolloy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    The Hacienda
    Posts
    5,511
    Post Thanks / Like
    How much would a guided round for the L23 gun cost, if indeed it exists?
    "The dolphins were monkeys that didn't like the land, walked back to the water, went back from the sand."

  29. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  30. #419
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,959
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by FMolloy View Post
    How much would a guided round for the L23 gun cost, if indeed it exists?
    i don't think it currently exists, however the OM guided munition for the naval 76mm gun (which, as discussed, won't fit) is reputed to cost around $25,000. however, its also an extended range weapon, so i think it has its own propulsion system which will drive the price up.

    a GPS guided 120mm mortar round costs around $10,000, and the M982 155mm Artillery munition costs around $45,000. a Javelin costs about $70,000.

  31. Thanks Flamingo thanked for this post
  32. #420
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,699
    Post Thanks / Like
    @ CQ

    "The AML60 was obsolete" so all mobile mortar systems regardless of capability are obsolescent because one 1960s Scout car is?
    Not the issue, but the DF has to move away from bastardizing what it already has to provide a very niche capacity, we have mortars that can be towed, even carried to the location required and be laying down fire with greater efficiency than some thing some wingnut converted on his day off.

    My argument being that if the DF had required a mortar of a vehicle it would have sought a replacement for the AML 60 CS and HB , it would have sought this at the time of replacement rather than mounting direct fire weapons such as the .5 HMG and 20mm on the vehicles in their place.

    The concept ops for Cavalry changed to remove the requirement for mortars, so why would they revert to a mobile mortar platform.

    If anything its infantry or artillery could make use of the system and there are far more sophisticated systems off the shelf rather than attempt to reconfigure what limited tracked recce vehicles we have left.

    Had we gon down the BMP route as opposed to the Mowag route we could have had a greater variety of vehicles witha ll singing and dancing capability as suggested at a fraction of the price, this is we didn't, so we have what we have , and with very little thought given to concepts such as mobile mortar basis after the AML 60 the use of mortars is firmly embedded with those units that currently use them.

    i think my view is that the case for using Scorpion overseas is so marginal - by dint of its vunerability to IED's and generally limited weapons/role capability - that any significant cost in upgrading it would tip the scales away from the decision to continue with it in service.
    agreed.

    Was the AML 60's mortar not a breach loader?
    Both HB and CS mortar could be loaded in either manner.

    Threads like this are turning into a whack-a-mole effort where certain posters take it as a personal affront that their opinion's are not accepted as fact.
    Sometimes its not fact, and more often if facts had been researched before posting or accepting that things were / are different and persons have experience of the subject matter it would lead to less of this type of posting.Opinions are like arseholes, every one has one, but when discussing fact its better to keep the shite out of the equation.
    Time for another break I think......

  33. #421
    gunner at heart Archimedes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    465
    Post Thanks / Like
    Could the Scorpion turret be made to fit onto Mowag hulls similar to the Cougar?



    If its a runner, why not send 6 Scorpions and 6 Mowags in need of TLC up to Johnstown and let the gurus up there work their magic with a tin-opener.
    At least whatever money is spent stays in the country and the fire support would now be able to keep up with the main body on a patrol.
    Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

  34. #422
    King Monkey FMolloy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    The Hacienda
    Posts
    5,511
    Post Thanks / Like
    Jungle might be able to tell us how useful & successful this was for the Canadians. Aside from the cost of the fit, you'd also have the cost of upgrading the turret itself; if I remember correctly there's an issue with fume extraction.
    "The dolphins were monkeys that didn't like the land, walked back to the water, went back from the sand."

  35. #423
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,986
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by FMolloy View Post
    Jungle might be able to tell us how useful & successful this was for the Canadians. Aside from the cost of the fit, you'd also have the cost of upgrading the turret itself; if I remember correctly there's an issue with fume extraction.
    I think the fume issue was solved but other upgrades are also required (sights etc).

  36. #424
    gunner at heart Archimedes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    465
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by FMolloy View Post
    Jungle might be able to tell us how useful & successful this was for the Canadians. Aside from the cost of the fit, you'd also have the cost of upgrading the turret itself; if I remember correctly there's an issue with fume extraction.
    If it was not successful, was it because of the limitations of the turret or the hull?
    If the Australians and Philippines are re-using their turrets, can we assume they are still capable of providing reliable support fire?
    If the limitation was with the hull of the Cougar, is it of relevance to how good or bad a 76mm equipped PIII would be?

    Was is simply just that the Canadians had plenty of other larger systems and didn't want the problem of spares and maintenance of the Cougar?
    If this was the case, it would re-enforce the argument in our case to move everything of that size to a common platform.
    Last edited by Archimedes; 18th February 2014 at 15:01. Reason: added detail
    Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

  37. #425
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,699
    Post Thanks / Like
    I think the key word is 'was'... this was trialled a long time ago had it even been relatively successful it might have popped up before now. The Canadians have had PIII s a lot longer than most.

    On a smaller chassis it might have been viable but why write off troop carrying capability to mount an obselete weapons system.

    My memory might be fading but didn't we just get rid of wheeled weapons system of greater calibre in the recent past?
    Time for another break I think......

  38. Likes Goldie fish liked this post

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
  •