Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Scorpion replacment?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Both of these vids appear to be, at the very least, export versions of the M1 "brewing up" - not quite the same as the US version - Depleted uranium armour being one of the biggest differences.

    Warning, lots of alan snackbar's unfortunately so if you watch, do so with the sound down.


    and another here
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5xKCzdhAC8
    "He is an enemy officer taken in battle and entitled to fair treatment."
    "No, sir. He's a sergeant, and they don't deserve no respect at all, sir. I should know. They're cunning and artful, if they're any good. I wouldn't mind if he was an officer, sir. But sergeants are clever."

    Comment


    • Buying leopard 1 off anybody would be crack smoking stupid, the ones canada have for sale are wrecks only fit for stripping for spare parts or targets. The only reason canada still has them is that the market in second hand leo 1 are south american countries whom trudeau would be reluctant to sell arms to.

      Anybody remember 9/11 and Irish air defence. The ADR had a proposal to acquire a mobile air defence system that would have been really useful overseas, then the twin towerrs happened and smithy, largely off his own bat, bought a load of EL70 from the dutch who sold paddy a pup as the guns and their radars were totally obsolete and fit only for the scrap head. They really saw the thick cnut coming. However the funds allocated for the really useful system was wasted on them.

      Unless we want to prepare for an armoured drive on lurgan so that we can seize the town and establish a corridor for refugees fleeing west belfast in case of a progrom, than we have no need for leo 1s
      Last edited by paul g; 8 February 2018, 13:29.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by paul g View Post
        Buying leopard 1 off anybody would be crack smoking stupid, the ones canada have for sale are wrecks only fit for stripping for spare parts or targets. The only reason canada still has them is that the market in second hand leo 1 are south american countries whom trudeau would be reluctant to sell arms to.

        Anybody remember 9/11 and Irish air defence. The ADR had a proposal to acquire a mobile air defence system that would have been really useful overseas, then the twin towerrs happened and smithy, largely off his own bat, bought a load of EL70 from the dutch who sold paddy a pup as the guns and their radars were totally obsolete and fit only for the scrap head. They really saw the thick cnut coming. However the funds allocated for the really useful system was wasted on them.

        Unless we want to prepare for an armoured drive on lurgan so that we can seize the town and establish a corridor for refugees fleeing west belfast in case of a progrom, than we have no need for leo 1s
        Absolutely but in fairness to the EL70s & Flycatcher, they were a step up from the L70 and ok for shooting down civvy aircraft in a 9/11 type scenario (but then again so would whatever system the ADR was looking at (which they probably wouldn’t have 1 of for what was paid for the EL70s)

        Comment


        • All i could find was an old article in the irish indo about having bought 24 Bofors EL-70, guided by Flycatcher radar with a range of 3.5kms, 6 x Bofors RBS-70 missile launchers with a range of 5km's.
          Most of those guns are now gate guardians aren't they? I'm almost sure that i read that we had a limited stock of missiles too, albeit upgraded versions.



          MOD: Fixed that for you.Don't discuss specific ammunition stocks.OPSEC.
          Carry on.
          Last edited by apod; 8 February 2018, 17:41.
          "He is an enemy officer taken in battle and entitled to fair treatment."
          "No, sir. He's a sergeant, and they don't deserve no respect at all, sir. I should know. They're cunning and artful, if they're any good. I wouldn't mind if he was an officer, sir. But sergeants are clever."

          Comment


          • they bought 32 EL70 around 2002, total waste of money, the dutch saw Smith coming. They couldn't shoot down an airlinerin a million years as they took hours to set up. The Dutch were relieved to see them go, as otherwise they would have to scrap them. They were originally designed for airbase defence by the dutch who were expecting migs and Sukois with dumb weapons flying over the base. By 2002 totally obsolete but we got them because Smithy was concerned that he be seen to so something and he also wanted the FCA involved. .


            The RBS70 was bought in the early 1980's they were in service when regan visited in 1984. Only six were originally bought and a some more were bought off Norway in 2008?

            The RBS 70 was a buy they got right, it is an effective missile and recent upgrades mean that its got a lot of life left in it. The new bolide missiles are perfect for hitting drones.

            Comment


            • MOD: While the numbers of each weapon system we have in the inventory is usually publicised(APC's,UAV's,Missile systems etc) the amounts of ammunition we have for each system is not for public knowledge.Let's keep it that way Ok.
              "Let us be clear about three facts. First, all battles and all wars are won in the end by the infantryman. Secondly, the infantryman always bears the brunt. His casualties are heavier, he suffers greater extremes of discomfort and fatigue than the other arms. Thirdly, the art of the infantryman is less stereotyped and far harder to acquire in modern war than that of any other arm." ------- Field Marshall Wavell, April 1945.

              Comment


              • The NS also gained a few L70 in that transaction. All L60 cannon which by then had been modified with rangefinder etc were replaced with a gun that was only slightly newer that brought the gunner back to mk 1 eyeball. Pointless when the replacement ships were already in the pipeline. What was worse is there was a danger that these "new" cannon would be mounted on the P60 class.
                Unfortunately our procurement of significant military equipment seems to be based on the advice of accountants and politicians instead of the military folk who are aware of requirements of current forces and capabilities of both current units and potential equipment.
                Cost should never be the heaviest weighted requirements when new military equipment is being tendered for.
                Last edited by na grohmiti; 8 February 2018, 18:16.
                For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                Comment


                • This talk about rbs 70 is actually relevant to the thread, as if the Ukraine is anything to go by then uavs and long range massed accurate artillery strikes will be a significant factor in future operations against the only possible Opfor and the ability to shoot down drones is a capability that needs to be developed at battalion level.

                  As I said and its not secret, the rbs70 is with the modernisation its undergone actually a really top system, and something like the mshorad that Saab have proposed is something that the Df should look at getting.
                  Last edited by paul g; 8 February 2018, 20:31.

                  Comment


                  • I don't know why people are so down on the L70; with the right ammunition and guidance, they are lethal to any fast jet that enters the engagement envelope and they are equally deadly as ground weapons. Weapons of the 37 and 40mm class keep turning up in conflicts worldwide, they keep making life dangerous for jets and helicopters (Falklands, Balkans, GW 1/2, Africa,etc) and they have a devastating effect as direct fire weapons, which is why modern AFVs are coming out with new versions of the Bofors firing new rounds. Even the old Russian 57mm gun is still being used because it can deliver a very deadly round. A layered AA defence should have elements of light and medium AA gun, light and medium SAM, backed up by a decent radar screen, so if the DF uses L70 and RBS 70, it's not doing half bad.....as for taking all day to set one up, a Bofors can be made ready to fire in a matter of a few minutes. If it takes longer to get it integrated with it's radar and the requisite plumbing, then that's the fault of the training system. Bearing in mind, that with the L70 gone, there are no gun alternatives in the DF unless the Navy hands over a few 20mms to the Army.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
                      I don't know why people are so down on the L70; with the right ammunition and guidance, they are lethal to any fast jet that enters the engagement envelope...
                      in an Irish context, what possible reason could a fast jet or AH have for getting within the engagement envelope of an AA gun?

                      you've no medium level reaching SAM's or fighters to make pootling about at 15,000ft remotely dangerous, so why would they go low when they can happily use PGM's against whatever its defending from well out of the reach of a gun, and lay waste to its radars from 20+km away using guided bombs, let alone missiles

                      by all means extol the virtues of an AA gun system within a comprehensive AD strategy where fighters and SAM's force attacking aircraft to fly low, but without that you may as well suggest that the ground is an effective AA weapon because attacking aircraft might accidentally fly into it.

                      the RBS70 system does at least have the benefit of being quickly deployable in that you could easily bundle the crew, launcher and half a dozen tubes into a helicopter and have it set up at a forward patrol base that was under an air threat, albeit sans radar, in a matter of minutes.

                      it could, in expensive extremis, also make a hell of a mess of a ground target at a decent range.

                      Comment


                      • My understanding was always that our aa regiment was based around point defence out to an umbrella that was never more than low level?
                        For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by apod View Post
                          MOD: While the numbers of each weapon system we have in the inventory is usually publicised(APC's,UAV's,Missile systems etc) the amounts of ammunition we have for each system is not for public knowledge.Let's keep it that way Ok.
                          Agreed, but in my defence, I wasnt trying to breach OPSEC, I merely got the number in the following newspaper article which is why i used it, however they may have meant to write launchers as opposed to missiles.

                          Local News from Dublin with Independent.ie. Get local Sport, Entertainment, Business & Lifestyle news for Dublin City, North and South Dublin.


                          ARMY chiefs are forking out €4.4m to upgrade more than a dozen anti-aircraft missiles.
                          The RBS 70s were deployed to protect visiting dignitaries like Britain’s Queen Elizabeth and US President Barack Obama against an air attack - but have never been fired on Irish soil.

                          The Defence Forces said the multi-million euro deal - coming as households brace themselves for another austerity budget - will keep the arsenal in operation for another 15 years. It includes new simulators for training purposes.

                          “The aim of air defence is to take out an enemy aircraft or deter them from hostile action,” an army spokesman said. “Their presence is to deter hostile action.”

                          targets

                          [b]It is understood the army has more than a dozen RBS surface to air missiles (SAMs), [b] which have a range of 8km and can hit targets up to 5,000m in the air.

                          Giraffe radar for the SAMs, together with Flycatcher radar for 40mn anti-aircraft guns, were used to protect an air exclusion zone for the Queen and Obama in 2011.

                          A quick reaction alert force of about 20 Rangers in three helicopters, and armed Air Corps PC-9 trainers used in combat air patrols, completed the aerial security bubble.

                          The PC-9s intercepted a civilian helicopter which strayed into the air exclusion zone and escorted it out of the area minutes before the Queen touched down on Irish soil.

                          “The RBS 70 has been used operationally for a variety of domestic security requirements, such as air defence in an aid to civil power role during high profile state visits, the EU Presidency and several security operations designated by government,” a spokesman for Defence Forces told The Herald.

                          They were first purchased as far back as the 1981, when world leaders such as Ronald Regan or Margaret Thatcher refused to visit Ireland until the air defence systems were in place.

                          The portable RBS 70s are described as being the backbone of the Defence Forces ground-based air defence (GBAD) capability and must be housed in climate controlled stores - but defence chiefs would not disclose their location or quantity for security reasons.

                          Overseas

                          They have only ever been fired during overseas training missions.

                          As well as being able to target fast moving aircraft, the missiles also boast the ability to engage low, slow and small targets such as unmanned aerial vehicles - which NATO considers as one of the foremost prevailing air threats.

                          They are used by 18 other countries and are manned by the army’s ground based artillery regiment to give extra protection and low level air defence to visiting dignitaries flying in to the country.

                          The cache has undergone several upgrades since purchased by defence chiefs in 1981, and again in 2006, as technology advanced. The latest revamp - to be paid out over several years includes specialist night sight so they can be fired 24/7 and during extreme weather.

                          “In their current configuration all DF-owned RBS 70 MANPADS will be rendered unserviceable in eight years time,” the Defence Forces said.

                          “However their lifespan will be increased by a further 15 years - to 2037 - by procuring upgrades to the sights and stands that are compatible with the new generation Bolide Missile and BORC night sight.”

                          Defence and security company Saab - which manufactured the missiles - yesterday revealed it had signed a contract to upgrade Ireland’s arsenal of RBS 70s for SEK40m (€4.4m).

                          The deal includes deliveries of improved firing units, new simulators, night vision equipment and associated weapons support.
                          Last edited by morpheus; 9 February 2018, 10:29.
                          "He is an enemy officer taken in battle and entitled to fair treatment."
                          "No, sir. He's a sergeant, and they don't deserve no respect at all, sir. I should know. They're cunning and artful, if they're any good. I wouldn't mind if he was an officer, sir. But sergeants are clever."

                          Comment


                          • MOD: The road to heaven is paved with good intentions and nobody is questioning your intent Morpheus.What I and the other MODS have to watch out for is specifics of certain capabilities being broadcasted here.That is why your post was edited simple as.
                            (To be fair I have read the article above and nowhere does it give out specific numbers of what we have.It mentioned 20 ARW as a QRF but that was after the Operation had taken place so no breach of OPSEC there)
                            "Let us be clear about three facts. First, all battles and all wars are won in the end by the infantryman. Secondly, the infantryman always bears the brunt. His casualties are heavier, he suffers greater extremes of discomfort and fatigue than the other arms. Thirdly, the art of the infantryman is less stereotyped and far harder to acquire in modern war than that of any other arm." ------- Field Marshall Wavell, April 1945.

                            Comment


                            • All this talk of Canadian leopard should give us some pause for thought, as to what shape future armoured vehicle procurement will take.

                              Look at Canada, it’s a G7 economy, major NATO contributor, larger army and they found it hard to deploy a reinforced battalion group to Afghanistan and sustain it in combat. This country couldn’t by itself sustain a deployment of such a sized force.

                              When we deploy overseas it will only be in conjunction with other likeminded western European states, where we will either be providing a company sized unit units such as an ISTAR task force or artillery battery, or else a core mechanised Infantry battalion. Therefore, the tank capability might come from elsewhere. For example, Canada has a LAV6 equipped battalion as part of NATO’s Forward battlegroup in Latvia, but it relies on support from a polish leopard 2 tank company, along with infantry companies from Italy and Spain.

                              If we’re going to deploy a full-spectrum capable, deployable mechanised infantry battalion group its should be capable of

                              battlefield manoeuvre, fire and mobility;
                              indirect fire support
                              combat engineering
                              ground based air defence
                              intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance
                              tactical command and control
                              combat service support.

                              If we take the first, the mowag, especially after its rebuild, is an ideal vehicle for what its intended for, an armoured vehicle that transports light infantry or reconnaissance teams to close proximity to the fight where they dismount and close to engage the enemy while providing limited fire support.

                              However, sticking a 90mm or 105mm gun on a mowag and employing it to provide direct fire support to manoeuvring light infantry forces against any type of credible opposition is a risky strategy, as the vehicle is simply not survivable in that environment, and despite the best efforts of various arms manufacturers it’s a concept that nobody has really bought into. Those that have ALA the Stryker MGS,have found it problematic to say the least.

                              Like it or not, the Americans have a lot of experience in light infantry combat over the past 17 years in a variety of terrains all of which is feeding into their mobile protected firepower project, which will probably end up as a tracked vehicle of about 35 tonnes. So, if we’re serious about replacing the scorpion it makes sense to look at what they’re looking at, or else recognise the real world environment and build on our existing strengths and capabilities
                              Last edited by paul g; 9 February 2018, 17:51.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by paul g View Post
                                All this talk of Canadian leopard should give us some pause for thought, as to what shape future armoured vehicle procurement will take.

                                Look at Canada, it’s a G7 economy, major NATO contributor, larger army and they found it hard to deploy a reinforced battalion group to Afghanistan and sustain it in combat. This country couldn’t by itself sustain a deployment of such a sized force.

                                When we deploy overseas it will only be in conjunction with other likeminded western European states, where we will either be providing a company sized unit units such as an ISTAR task force or artillery battery, or else a core mechanised Infantry battalion. Therefore, the tank capability might come from elsewhere. For example, Canada has a LAV6 equipped battalion as part of NATO’s Forward battlegroup in Latvia, but it relies on support from a polish leopard 2 tank company, along with infantry companies from Italy and Spain.

                                If we’re going to deploy a full-spectrum capable, deployable mechanised infantry battalion group its should be capable of

                                battlefield manoeuvre, fire and mobility;
                                indirect fire support
                                combat engineering
                                ground based air defence
                                intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance
                                tactical command and control
                                combat service support.

                                If we take the first, the mowag, especially after its rebuild, is an ideal vehicle for what its intended for, an armoured vehicle that transports light infantry or reconnaissance teams to close proximity to the fight where they dismount and close to engage the enemy while providing limited fire support.

                                However, sticking a 90mm or 105mm gun on a mowag and employing it to provide direct fire support to manoeuvring light infantry forces against any type of credible opposition is a risky strategy, as the vehicle is simply not survivable in that environment, and despite the best efforts of various arms manufacturers it’s a concept that nobody has really bought into. Those that have ALA the Stryker MGS,have found it problematic to say the least.

                                Like it or not, the Americans have a lot of experience in light infantry combat over the past 17 years in a variety of terrains all of which is feeding into their mobile protected firepower project, which will probably end up as a tracked vehicle of about 35 tonnes. So, if we’re serious about replacing the scorpion it makes sense to look at what they’re looking at, or else recognise the real world environment and build on our existing strengths and capabilities
                                So are we never going to deploy with the UN again?

                                Other than that absolutely agree but I suppose people are thinking for home use/deploy a troop overseas

                                The money spent on a squadron of MBTs would be much better spent on more MOWAGs of all types
                                Last edited by DeV; 9 February 2018, 18:24.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X