MOWAG replacement

[pym]

One of the problems the DF could have with larger vehicles that may not be suitable for small rural roads, or urban streets, is that it would probably mean the troops dismounting - wheras the Bundeswehr could send in a more suitable vehicle from the get go - e.g. the Mowag Eagle, LAPV's, or if they want to do Recce, the Fennek.

No-one's arguing against better protected vehicles, but size and weight does come with penalties and if that's the path the DF goes down, then IMO the obvious thing is a lot more LTAV's, or LTAV replacements are going to be needed. Try selling that to the DoD after spending the guts of €400m on 88 Boxers.

[X-RayOne]

One of the problems the DF could have with larger vehicles that may not be suitable for small rural roads, or urban streets

FFS!!!!......if you are talking about this in an Irish context, then things have gone pretty much to rats%*t if we are deploying MOWAGS in Irish towns and the like.

Secondly, pick any overseas deployment for pretty much the last 15+ years (with the exception of Lebanon, which is a fall back easy selection from Gov / DoD point of view) and most of the risk to troops has been IEDs or direct arms fire from range, e.g. 7.62, 12.5mm +, rpg's.....

......protection from actual threats is/should be the priority rather than can the vehicle drive down the main road of Michael Healy Rae's fiefdom!!!

[DeV]

It isn't a deciding factor, no one is suggesting it is - but it is a factor!

If you can't get the physically get the vehicle to where the troops need to be, the vehicle won't protect them when the troops are there

[apc]

It isn't a deciding factor, no one is suggesting it is - but it is a factor!

If you can't get the physically get the vehicle to where the troops need to be, the vehicle won't protect them when the troops are there

So what happens now? We had the Landsverk Unimog which was 2.2m wide, then the Panhard which was 2.4m wide now we have a Mowag that is slightly wider at 2.6/2.8m so the Mowag cant fit down the lanes that the panhard used to, what do we do if the MOWAG "needs" to deploy its passengers at the bottom of the lane?

Ambulances, fire engines have gotten substantially bigger over the years and have had to cope, why not the defence forces and anyway and increase of .3m ( 13") is not hugh, you might scrap a few ditches but your in a 30 ton armoured box.

Maybe this might do

[Graylion]

Brilliant idea and seem perfectly suited to the kind of operations the defence force do. Infairness we used the panhards for years overseas which were only 4x4s and the SISU 6x6 and from what i can gather they are not more than 2.55m wide which will apease all the people worried if we will fit down the highways and by ways. Heres more on them

"The Griffon layout is standard with the powerpack at the front, the crew in the middle and the troops compartment at the rear. The Griffon will have a weight of around 24,500 kg. and has been designed to offer a high level of off-road performance and a high level of ballistic protection through its modular armour system (up to NATO STANAG 4569 Level 4). At Eurosatory 2014, Renault Trucks Defense (RTD) has displayed its BMX-01 which seems to be 80% of the design of the new Griffon, according to some representatives of RTD. The Griffon will replace the standard armoured personnel carrier of the French Army, the VAB. In armoured personnel carrier configuration, the Griffon is capable to carry a total of 11 soldiers including driver, commander, gunner and 8 infantrymen. In option, the vehicle could be equipped with add-on armour to increase ballistic and mine protection.

The Jaguar EBRC will be fitted with a two-man turret 40 CTAS armed with one 40mm CTC cannon with Ammunition Handling System (AHS). The 40mm cannon will have a maximum range of 1,500 m. The 40 CTC can incorporate multiple natures of ammunition within the same ammunition handling system which gives the vehicle the capability to quickly engage threats across the modern battlefield spectrum including those within urban environments. The 40 mm cannon can fire a full range of ammunition as the APFSDS-T, TP-T, TPRR-T, GPR-PD-T, GPR-AB-T and A3B. The turret is fully stabilized in azimuth and elevation thanks to the GCE (Gun Control Equipment) which enable the vehicle to fire on the move. The GCE include the elevation azimuth drive motors, encoders, gyroscopes, accelerometers and electronic control unit. A remote weapon sttaion armed with a 7.62mm machine gun is mounted on the top of the turret. Each side of the turret will be fitted with MMP (Missile Moyenne Portée - Medium Range Missile) missile designed by the French Company MBDA. The MMP missile is a fire-and-forget missile with lock-on before launch and automatic self-guidance and which has a maximum range of 4,000m. Four smoke grenade dischargers are mounted at the front each side of the turret.


The Jaguar EBRC is based on 6x6 all-terrain vehicle chassis with the turret mounted at the centre of the hull. We can suppose that the hull of the Jaguar EBRC will have the same level of protection (NATO STANAG 4569 Level 4) as the Griffon VBMR which is also include in the EBMR Scorpion program of the French army. The STANAG 4569 Level 4 provides protection against fire of small arms 14.5mmx114 AP, 155mm artillery shell splinters at 30m and mine blast protection of 10 kg TNT under the wheel. The 40 CTAS turret offers the same level of protection. The driver is seated at the front center of the hull. He has a single-piece hatch which is provided with three day periscopes. The gunner of the Jaguar EBRC is seated on the right of the turret with the commander on the left, both being provided with a single-piece hatch cover and day periscopes."

That is my thinking. The French excel in the kind of operation the Army tends to do ...

[GoneToTheCanner]

French equipment tends to get used for very long service periods in their own army; when they say the tank/APC/truck/fighter will serve for thirty years, they mean it, so their kit tends to be very practical and combat proven. It wouldn't be a bad choice to go French.

[DeV]

How long were the Panhards (M3, AML60s/20s and AML90s) in service (un armoured but how long have ACMATs been in service (relatively recently newly purchased by ARW as well)?

I wouldn't have there is a dislike of French equipment.

Griffon and Jaguar aren't in service yet - 2018/2020

[Graylion]

When is the Mowag replacement due?

[DeV]

When is the Mowag replacement due?

No year given in WP

[ias]

It's funny to see the Griffon being proposed, it is almost the exact same spec as the Timoney MP66, which was one of two designs offered to the DF when the Piranha was chosen (the other being a development of the Mark 8/CM31 6x6 ifv).

[Jaque'ammer]

I thought the Timoney didn't have the rear ramp, which was why we didn't just buy a bunch of SISU's either

[EUFighter]

When the Mowags were procured many complained that we did not need them. Today looking back we see that they have been used hard, so hard we are no talking about their replacement. This should lead us requiring more. No one send their troops out in Landies anymore. The numbers should also be higher as the AML'S were never replaced and the Scorpions will also soon be 40years old.
There we should have a high low mix, 80 modern 8x8 and the same number of MRAP's.
For the 8x8, the choice is large, Boxer, Piranha V, AMV, CM32, LAV6.0, Terrex etc. All are available in a number of variants, APC, IFV, Command, Ambulance, Fire Support with 90 or 105mm. Even the 105 Light gun could be replaced with version mounting the Denel T7 turret.
For the MRAP, we have the MP66/Bushmaster, M-ATV, Survivor R, etc. Naturally we would all like to see the MP66/bushmaster win this part.
This mix would not only give us more vehicles but also more flexibility in the tasking of vehicles. Both can go areas that the other can't.

[DeV]

It's funny to see the Griffon being proposed, it is almost the exact same spec as the Timoney MP66, which was one of two designs offered to the DF when the Piranha was chosen (the other being a development of the Mark 8/CM31 6x6 ifv).

Very few specs for the Griffon available

[DeV]

The numbers should also be higher as the AMV'S were never replaced

AMVs???

There we should have a high low mix, 80 modern 8x8 and the same number of MRAP's.
For the 8x8, the choice is large, Boxer, Piranha V, AMV, CM32, LAV6.0, Terrex etc. All are available in a number of variants, APC, IFV, Command, Ambulance, Fire Support with 90 or 105mm. Even the 105 Light gun could be replaced with version mounting the Denel T7 turret.
For the MRAP, we have the MP66/Bushmaster, M-ATV, Survivor R, etc. Naturally we would all like to see the MP66/bushmaster win this part.
This mix would not only give us more vehicles but also more flexibility in the tasking of vehicles. Both can go areas that the other can't.

The DF is too small to have 2 types of APCs

If we were getting a few battalions worth of each then possibly but we would be better off getting better APCs with a good level of mine and IED protection.

At the most maybe a few MRAPs for the Engrs, SRCT etc

[na grohmiti]

It isn't a deciding factor, no one is suggesting it is - but it is a factor!

If you can't get the physically get the vehicle to where the troops need to be, the vehicle won't protect them when the troops are there

You can't win a debate like that. If the vehicle is too big, then ALSO have a smaller vehicle. Its like the old one about the landmine next to the pothole, because the pothole would be avoided, so then the landmine goes into the pothole because the miner knows the target will know he plants the landmine next to the pothole and will avoid the pothole.... etc.

The key is having the correct armoured vehicle for all the required tasks, rather than trying to jam one unsuitable vehicle into all required tasks