Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Light Tactical Armoured Vehicle: Second attempt.

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by ZULU View Post
    What does a hot area got to do with the amount of times being shot at? These vehicles are (Building up the smug and sarcastic attitude) Light TACTICAL ASSAULT VEHICLES

    Tactical = Method for attaining a specific goal
    Assault = A military attack on an objective



    My lack of realistic thinking is only the same thinking as almost every other Armed forces engaged in tactical assault missions AND peacekeeping/enforcing

    Those armed forces are armouring their "show the love to the locals" vehicles due to the asymmetric warfare now being faced.



    Thats not the only type of knowledge your lacking. The DF requirements specifically state a CBRN protect and detect ability. This is most easily achieved by an over-pressure system, but this needs power to perform. Fail safes such as one way valves and seals are the other way.

    These are not utility vehicles. They are LTAVs. They have a definite role. Recon, assault, CSS (Eng), Convoy protection.



    Are you actually saying that a RWS mounted on an elevated position with IR/LI capabilities is no match for "sticking your head out the window and having a gander" ?



    This is where you should stop, read up on the DF contract specifications and the global trend for armoured vehicles.

    IMO - You should stop trying to compare a Nissan that you drive to the range in and a LTAV that is used in a Recon/CSS/Assault role.
    You are going by the spec + your imagination.

    Try reversing around a corner with RWS.

    The vehicle has no assault role. Its intended role in the Defence forces has been fully specified for at least three years
    The capability to be fitted with CBRN kit is not the same as every vehicle having it.

    So far you have been more condescending and shown a slighter grasp of what is required on each post.

    I suggest you stop taking things personally and stop making presumptive posts in a public forum. If I hadn't once been in the habit of making such empty headed posts myself I would be offended.
    "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

    Comment


    • #47
      Would the DF be looking for something that could mount a javelin or something of the kind to be fitted on?
      Sir I cant find my peltors........Private they are on your face

      Comment


      • #48
        Probably not. Anti Armour weapons on a vehicle become a target once you get off the first shot. Even the AML 90 had a survivability rating of 2 shots. One shot would annoy the tank you fired on, the second may stop him, if your lucky, maybe even kill him, but tanks rarely travel alone.... so the hunter becomes the hunted. Better off keeping the RWS for firing at armed troops and soft skinned vehicles..


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

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Come-quickly View Post

          The vehicle has no assault role. Its intended role in the Defence forces has been fully specified for at least three years
          The capability to be fitted with CBRN kit is not the same as every vehicle having it.
          Minister for Defence (Mr. M. Smith):
          The Defence Forces commenced a programme to acquire Mowag AP-light armoured vehicles in 1999. To date 40 of these vehicles have been received and a further 25 vehicles are scheduled for delivery in 2004. The total cost of the programme is in the region of €84 million.
          In addition to this programme, the Defence Forces has a requirement for a smaller light armoured vehicle, designated as a light tactical vehicle which can be used to protect troops engaged in peace support operations in areas where the larger Mowag APC would be inappropriate. For instance, the movement of one to three personnel in high risk confined areas and general surveillance work are among the key roles of the vehicle. Funding for this programme must be considered in the context of the larger APC programme and the changed financial situation and it has been agreed with the military authorities that the programme for the acquisition of the vehicles will not proceed for the present. In the meantime, the Defence Forces will continue to conduct further studies in relation to the type and specification of vehicle required

          Tuesday, 4 November 2003
          Try reversing around a corner with RWS.
          Are we not able to reverse without sticking our heads out windows? I think you'll find mirrors and a rear camera will allow people to drive backwards just fine.
          "The Question is not: how far you will take this? The Question is do you possess the constitution to go as far as is needed?"

          Comment


          • #50
            RWS+Javelin

            Originally posted by Tripper View Post
            Would the DF be looking for something that could mount a javelin or something of the kind to be fitted on?
            There's a version of the Kongsberg Protector RWS fitted to some of the Piranhas that can include a Javelin:

            Last edited by thebig C; 8 August 2007, 11:05.

            Comment


            • #51
              Just one javelin? What happens after you fire your missile? Draw straws to see who gets out to reload?


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

              Comment


              • #52
                In light of the experience with IED's, mines, .50 cal rounds etc etc to cut through such vehicles like butter can it be asked what exactly the point of these cars is? I mean I understand that a Mowag etc is alot harder to move around, maintain & costs more but in narrow pure force protection terms should it be the case that if theres any risk of a threat in the area, take the Mowag & if its safe take the FFR? I mean, why not spend the money on more Mowags instead. It just seems that these days people are looking at these cars like they offer significant armoured protection, when basically it's being proven from all the kills in Iraq & elsewhere that they're pretty pointless when compared squarely with the protection taking an APC offers...If it's a light recce system then use the new Mowags or the chasis the Danger boys use...Aren't these vehicles realistically just a jack of all trades and good at nothing?

                Comment


                • #53
                  Perhaps we are limiting our choices to the same machines that were unsuccessful the first time round? Perhaps a larger machine, with a smaller capacity to the mowag, such as the Dingo or RG31


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

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    same argument could be extended to apc's when theres kids with rpg's in town, i think they serve the purpose of providing cover for the rare time someone does throw some rounds at you. Given our role in many overseas missions, if its that hot that there are 50cal rounds and larger flying around we probably wouldnt go in to town to say hi to the locals with an apc either. These things are ideal for when are area is fairly stable but its still adviseable to be on the safe side and have some protection from small arms instead of a scenario where someone gets pissed off and riddles an ffr with ak rounds thus catching us with our dpm's around our ankles

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      self-defence

                      Originally posted by Goldie fish View Post
                      Just one javelin? What happens after you fire your missile? Draw straws to see who gets out to reload?
                      Well, it's a lot better than nothing if there are tanks in the vicinity. One Javelin hit should be enough to disable or kill a tank. And I would hope that LTAVs in a combat zone would operate in sections of two or three cars at least.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        One relevant point about openable windows - is that it does greatly reduce the ballistic performance as the glass can flex.

                        An alternative is to have armoured slots in the doors.

                        Zulu, why are you highlighting that section? It says nothing that conflicts with what I have been saying.

                        As for reversing by cameras alone, fine but the cameras will still have limited range of movement and therefore will not always do the job.

                        At this point perhaps you should stop trying to cockbash me and move on.
                        Last edited by Come-quickly; 20 April 2007, 01:10.
                        "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

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Maybe you both should move on or open your own thread to debate who knows more, I don't think anyone else here cares....
                          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

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by carrington View Post
                            Well, it's a lot better than nothing if there are tanks in the vicinity. One Javelin hit should be enough to disable or kill a tank. And I would hope that LTAVs in a combat zone would operate in sections of two or three cars at least.
                            I doubt very much they'll be using the Javellin in an RWS, it's more flexible to carry the team in the LTAV & let them dismount to use it.
                            "The dolphins were monkeys that didn't like the land, walked back to the water, went back from the sand."

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              If we were to expand our defintion of what a LTAV could be, it could be a Bushmaster like the Dutch said, their selection process went down to 2 vehicles, the Bushmaster and the Iveco MLV, or maybe even the British Mastiff or it's smaller 4x4 version, it's a pretty wide selection of vehicles now to choose from, the DF might pick something completly unexpected that we would never think of here.
                              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

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Come-quickly

                                Why are you such an advocate in windows that can roll down if you know this reduces their ballistic performance?

                                I was highlighting the fact that they are to be seen to be used in high risk confined areas much like those now being faced by armed forces who are now looking at evolving their vehicles

                                Your reversing around corners without windows is a non issue. Most of the vehicles presented offer more than enough visibility all round + mirrors + Elevated camera on RWS.

                                Mutter-Nutter

                                The Dutch also use Fenniks
                                "The Question is not: how far you will take this? The Question is do you possess the constitution to go as far as is needed?"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X