PDA

View Full Version : Light Tactical Armoured Vehicle: Second attempt.



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

Goldie fish
17th April 2007, 22:23
Given that the Decision has been taken to re open the LTAV selection process here is what we know from the last time. What vehicles currently in production fit this profile?
I am only assuming that the criteria for selection has not changed.

Tom Brady
Security Editor
http://www.unison.ie/irish_independe...issue_id=12181


THE Government has taken a major step towards preparing the Defence Forces for a key role in Europe.

Defence Minister Willie O'Dea announced yesterday that a multi million euro contract was being placed for the purchase of a fleet of 66 light tactical armoured vehicles.

The vehicles will be used to boost the capability of the Army to carry out a range of tasks, including surveillance, reconnaissance, target acquisition, communications and acting as a weapons platform.

Firms competing for the contract have been told by the Department of Defence that the vehicles must be capable of being adapted for:

* A chemical, biological, radiation and nuclear role in protection and detection.

* The fitting of add-on armour panels without adversely affecting its operational performance.

The criteria are based on an examination of the performance of similar vehicles with other armies in war-torn zones overseas.

The vehicles must be able to be fitted with 12.7mm heavy machineguns, 66mm smoke dischargers for close defence, and 40mm automatic grenade launchers - although the latter are available at present to the elite Army Ranger Wing only.

They must also provide protection against a mine blast and have capability to carry ground surveillance radar equipment.

On a visit to the Defence Forces training headquarters at the Curragh yesterday, Mr O'Dea said the new fleet would complement the work of the 65 Mowag armoured personnel carriers delivered in the past few years at a cost of €84m.

Department officials this week began issuing documentation to interested suppliers, and proposals must be back in the department early next month with the aim of placing a contract before year-end.

The RFP’s requirement is for up to 66 LTAV’s.

Is the bid to include the weapons as well as the weapon station?

Each LTAV must have a remote weapons station, which must be armed with a minimum of a 7.62mm MG. The weapon must be supplied and must be a current Defence Forces service weapon, i.e. FN 7.62mm MG or Browning 12.7mm M2.

The only difference between the Target Acquisition variant and the Surveillance/ Reconnaissance variant is the addition of the Ground Surveillance Radar.

The Engineer variant will be capable of carrying Class 1 Explosives (up to 100 kg of plastic explosive PE No 4 or equivalent RDX based bulk explosive) and 50 electric detonators with 1 cubic metre of storage for general engineer equipment.

The vehicles will have CBBN protection (NBC + Radiological).

The Infantry vehicle will carry 4 troops (including the driver).

The sensor suite may be different from that offered by a specific vehicle manufacturer.

The differential lock mechanism may be incorporated in the Transmission or Axel casings.

The minimum required on road range is 450 km. The minimum required off road range is 250 km

The crew restraint system will consist of a four-point seat belt configuration for each component.

The requirement is for a European NATO Jump Starter Socket Inter Vehicle Type. This Jump Start Lead Set incorporates a pair of (one at each end) 16mm 24 Volt POS (+) centre Pole contact with a 40mm external 24 Volt Neg (-) contact connection.

The standard International tow-hitch (12 - pin) suitable for military use must be included as well as the 7-pin plug. The weight to be towed should not exceed 3.5 tons.

The vehicle must be fitted with a weapons station of proven design with wide proliferation. The requirement is for a weapons station which must provide a level of armoured protection for the crew not less than that afforded by the vehicle. In this context either a Remote Weapons Station or a manned Turret will be considered.

The vehicle must be capable of fitting the radios (SINCGARS, Harris, Motorila)i.e. not have them fitted but have space for them, with the addendum that all wiring (looms) necessary to operate the equipment must be pre-installed. There must be no retro-fitting of wiring etc.


Must be fitted with a day/night surveillance suite. All vehicles will have a similar remote weapons station or manned turret), flexibility of the weapon station will be a consideration e.g. is it possible to change the weapon quickly with a similar weapon or remove it temporarily. The weapons station must be armed with a minimum of a 7.62mm MG but should have the ability to accept a 12.7mm HMG. Regarding the GSR, the vendor is invited to submit all options, which will then be examined and decided upon during the tendering process.

mutter nutter
18th April 2007, 00:18
Will we keep it to Western vehicles only?, I mean the Russian and Eastern Europeans have some new vehicles that would fit the bill but they would be outsiders in the evaluation at best.

mugs
18th April 2007, 00:35
This came to my mind sticking with Panhard and go with the VBL
http://www.hellas.org/military/army/images/vbl-1.jpg
http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/supplement/lav/lav_panhard_vbl.shtml

mutter nutter
18th April 2007, 01:08
This came to my mind sticking with Panhard and go with the VBL
http://www.hellas.org/military/army/images/vbl-1.jpg
http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/supplement/lav/lav_panhard_vbl.shtml

Too small for my money..

yooklid
18th April 2007, 01:34
Fennec?

mutter nutter
18th April 2007, 01:43
Fennec?
pricy, isn't the Fennek like 1.1 mill a piece plus it's very specialised,

mutter nutter
18th April 2007, 01:55
Barring a major change in requirements or whatever, my money is on a fight bettween the Eagle IV and the Iveco MLV, with maybe another vehicle involved, the new French VBL, Dingo or something like the Isreali Golan, but thats more like an armoured minivan, there are literally dozens of LTAVS on the market now, but will the DF really want something Russian or Slovakian

Goldie fish
18th April 2007, 04:44
Driver plus 4 passengers?

Come-quickly
18th April 2007, 08:48
VBL, Fennec etc are recce vehicles.

The point of the LTAV competition is to provide an armoured General Service vehicle which can carry out tasks that would other wise be carried out by GS 4x4s in addition to the specialised versions mooted which are frequently a cost cutting alternative to projected requirements for the PIII fleet.

The VBL or VB2L aren't really optimised for a CS and work party to be continuously loading and unloading. The ideal for this is a four door with hatchback. Hence the preference expressed for the Eagle and MLV series of vehicles which presumably have the power and adaptability to carry specialised kit like surveillance radars but are mostly useful for carrying four bayonets and their bergens either on patrol or behind the FEBA in conventional CSS scenarios.

I'm sure HPT would have his own extensive input about the practicalities of climbing in and out of the various vehicles...which is almost as important a consideration as the actual performance of the vehicle.

thebig C
18th April 2007, 10:14
Barring a major change in requirements or whatever, my money is on a fight bettween the Eagle IV and the Iveco MLV, with maybe another vehicle involved, the new French VBL, Dingo or something like the Isreali Golan, but thats more like an armoured minivan, there are literally dozens of LTAVS on the market now, but will the DF really want something Russian or Slovakian

I agree that it will probably come down to a choice between the Mowag Eagle IV and the Iveco MLV (Panther is the British Army version). However I would be surprised if they don't update the specs, in view of all the combat experience from Iraq and Afghanistan during the past couple of years.

There are some interesting points in the information re the specs that GF supplied above:

"The vehicles will be used to boost the capability of the Army to carry out a range of tasks, including surveillance, reconnaissance, target acquisition, communications and acting as a weapons platform."
That suggests that it will be more than just an armoured utility vehicle. The first three tasks - surveillance, reconnaissance and target acquisition, tend to go together alright, but what exactly does 'communications' mean? And 'acting as a weapons platform'? Does that mean that the vehicle's weapons are not just for self-defence?

"The only difference between the Target Acquisition variant and the Surveillance/ Reconnaissance variant is the addition of the Ground Surveillance Radar.... The Engineer variant will be capable of carrying Class 1 Explosives (up to 100 kg of plastic explosive PE No 4 or equivalent RDX based bulk explosive) and 50 electric detonators with 1 cubic metre of storage for general engineer equipment.... The Infantry vehicle will carry 4 troops (including the driver)."
Does that mean that there will be a number of distinct sub-types? How many of each? Or will the vehicle be configurable as necessary to fulfil different roles? Is it only the Infantry vehicle that has to be able to carry four people?

How will the new vehicle work with the Piranhas at a tactical level? Would the LTAVs be intended for patrolling and convoy escort work? Given the wide range of possible tasks, I sometimes wonder if more than one vehicle type is necessary.

Final thought: the original competition was halted because they said the market was not mature at that stage (or something like that). If anything the market for light armoured vehicles - both in terms of what they are for, and the vehicles available on the market - has proliferated enormously since then, and become even more confusing rather than less. Why revive it now? Nothing to do with an election in the offing, I hope...

trellheim
18th April 2007, 10:45
I don't normally dip into vehicle threads as you know but are these things for Cav or Inf ?

ackack
18th April 2007, 11:07
I don't normally dip into vehicle threads as you know but are these things for Cav or Inf ?

going off the original post, i would say both.

Duffman
18th April 2007, 11:20
The Infantry vehicle will carry 4 troops (including the driver).



An infantry vehicle capable of carrying just 3 troops....I'm presuming this is not for transport but for some form of armoured support? As if it was for recce roles it would fall under the cavs jurisdiction?

hedgehog
18th April 2007, 11:42
Since we started training properly in the Recce Game

it was an Infantry role

by that I mean the CTR

and not the drive 10 miles out and have a quick gander

FMolloy
18th April 2007, 11:43
That suggests that it will be more than just an armoured utility vehicle. The first three tasks - surveillance, reconnaissance and target acquisition, tend to go together alright, but what exactly does 'communications' mean? And 'acting as a weapons platform'? Does that mean that the vehicle's weapons are not just for self-defence?

I would argue that being able to do all of the above, as well the other roles, is the very definition of 'utility'. As for the 'acting as a weapons platform' bit, I wouldn't dwell on it. It was written by a journo for mass consumption, it has to sound cool. The weapons fit given is fairly standard.


Does that mean that there will be a number of distinct sub-types? How many of each? Or will the vehicle be configurable as necessary to fulfil different roles? Is it only the Infantry vehicle that has to be able to carry four people?

I'd say it'll be configurable rather than sub-variants. The surveillance one might be the exception to that.


How will the new vehicle work with the Piranhas at a tactical level? Would the LTAVs be intended for patrolling and convoy escort work?

The DF doesn't have them yet, so it's impossible to say. And when they do get them it might very well be operational info.


Given the wide range of possible tasks, I sometimes wonder if more than one vehicle type is necessary.

What possible tasks make you think this is the case & why?


Final thought: the original competition was halted because they said the market was not mature at that stage (or something like that). If anything the market for light armoured vehicles - both in terms of what they are for, and the vehicles available on the market - has proliferated enormously since then, and become even more confusing rather than less. Why revive it now? Nothing to do with an election in the offing, I hope...

I doubt very much the election is the reason, the public don't care enough about defence to be swayed by something like this.

ZULU
18th April 2007, 12:34
VBL has a bigger brother - The VBR

http://www.panhard.fr/anglais/index.htm

Tech Specs

http://www.panhard.fr/anglais/VBR/CT_VBR.htm

Seems to meet the criteria laid down. Has space for 4 + extra 5 passengers / payload

Not sure about the armament options though. RWS would seem like it could be retro fitted.

1300Nm Torque at 1200rpm is some pulling power!! (Though it is a 7.2L Diesel/Jet Fuel)

http://www.armyrecognition.com/europe/France/vehicules_a_roues/Panhard/VBR/VBR_Panhard_Wheeled_Armoured_Vehicle_France_05.jpg

ZULU
18th April 2007, 12:38
Heres another interesting thing I found

Like the idea of the seat arrangement

thebig C
18th April 2007, 12:58
Heres another interesting thing I found

Like the idea of the seat arrangement


Yeah, it's a good idea to have everyone facing outwards, covering all sectors. But it only seems to have provision for one weapon? And there might be a problem with legroom for the people facing to the sides? Maybe the side-facing seats could be staggered, to provide extra legroom? Or else they'll be seats for 'shorties' only...

Duffman
18th April 2007, 15:14
Recce is not a role exclusive to the Cavalry Corps.

Does that mean that the Inf is getting kitted out with LTAV's just for this purpose of Recce? Makes far too much sense to be true!

ZULU
18th April 2007, 15:34
Found this after a little digging. Looks very similar to Irelands Budget and requirements.


Autumn 2005

Armoured Patrol Vehicles (update):

Four contenders for a Danish Army 4 x 4 armoured patrol vehicle (APV) requirement are undergoing trails in Denmark. The Danish Army Materiel Command earlier in 2005 issued an invitation to tender for the APV to 11 companies, including AM General (US), BAE Systems, Land Systems OMC (South Africa), IVECO Defence Vehicle Division (Italy), Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (Germany), MOWAG (Switzerland), Panhard (France), Patria Vehicles (Finland), Renault Trucks Defense (France), Rheinmetall Landsysteme (Germany), Sabiex (Belgium) and Textron Marine & Land Systems (US).
Of these, four replied and the Danish Army is now testing the BAE Systems Land Systems OMC RG-32M, the MOWAG Eagle IV, the Panhard armoured reconnaissance vehicle (VBR) and the Textron Marine & Land Systems Guardian M1117 Armored Security Vehicle (ASV).
Key APV user requirements include the ability to carry five people including the driver and to be fitted with an overhead weapon station that will be provided as government-furnished equipment.
The 4 x 4 vehicle is also required to be armour protected, including the engine compartment and have a minimum payload of 2,000 kg.
The Danish Army currently operates a fleet of 36 MOWAG Eagle I 4 x 4 APVs based on a modified AM HMMWV chassis, which have seen extensive service at home and overseas. These were delivered from 1995 in two batches, 10 and then 26.
The Danish Defence Agreement for the period 2005 until 2009 states that the country will improve its military capability in order to participate in international military operations. The procurement of these APVs and other purchases will enable this objective to be met.
Following extensive trials in Denmark it is expected that the Army Materiel Command will award a contract for the selected vehicle by the end of this year. The APV programme is currently funded at 425 million DKr. (USD 70 million), which covers the supply of about 85 vehicles, weapons, communications equipment, training and integrated logistic support.
The BAE Systems Land Systems RG-32M is the latest model of the proven RG-32 and has already been selected and is in quantity production for the Swedish Army.
The MOWAG Eagle IV is the latest generation vehicle and is a follow on to the earlier Eagle I, II and III of which 485 have been built for the domestic and export market. It is based on the MOWAG Duro chassis with greater payload than the earlier vehicles.
The Panhard VBR has been developed as private venture for a vehicle with greater capacity and internal volume than the current production VBL reconnaissance vehicle, of which over 2,000 have been built for the home and export markets.
Textron Marine & Land Systems is currently in quantity production of the ASV for the US Army and Iraq (the company was awarded a contract to deliver 43 vehicles for the Iraqi Civil Intervention Force in 2004) where it has seen extensive operational use.

(Jane's Defence Weekly, September 2005)

ZULU
18th April 2007, 15:46
Here's the result

Look at the price they got them for: 85 + all the extras for US$ 38 million (28Million Euro)
Should keep the bean counters happy


Denmark selects the EAGLE IV as their new Armoured Patrol Vehicle

Hjørring, Denmark - On December 09, 2005 the Danish Army Materiel Command (DAMC) and MOWAG GmbH – a General Dynamics company – signed a contract for the delivery of 85 units plus a small number for training and logistic reserve EAGLE IV 4x4 Armoured Patrol Vehicles (APV), including initial logistic support and services with a total value of close to 50 Million Swiss Francs (approx. US$ 38 Million). After five contracts for EAGLE I 4x4 and PIRANHA III 8x8 between 1995 and 2004, this contract adds the latest development of the Swiss company to the fleet of MOWAG vehicles operated by the Danish Army.


In May 2005 the Danish Army Materiel Command (DAMC) had announced the procurement Program for new Danish Army Armoured Patrol Vehicles. Key requirements included the ability to carry 5 people, be fitted with an Overhead Weapon Station and provide ballistic and mine protection to the crew and engine compartment.

Out of 11 companies that were selected to bid, four finally received an invitation to send their vehicles to undergo trials in Denmark . In September and October 2005, customer tests over an 8000 km distance were conducted including extensive off-road driving in all types of terrain, long distance on-road driving including German Autobahn, testing at the tough WTD 41 test facilities in Trier , Germany and troop trials on the isle of Bornholm . The outstanding performance of the EAGLE IV in the areas of on- and off road mobility, driving safety, crew comfort and vehicle versatility at an affordable price made the EAGLE IV the winner in this competition.

MOWAG's CEO, Simon T. Honess, was proud and pleased about the selection of the EAGLE IV by Denmark , and he declared: „This contract is a great success for MOWAG as it marks a further proof of our customers' confidence in the performance and reliability of our products and company.

The EAGLE IV, to be equipped with an Overhead Weapon Station, Communication and Battle Management System and various other equipment will further enhance the military capability of Denmark to participate in international operations. The threat situation in such missions specifically calls for a high level of protection for the vehicle crews against mines and ballistic weapons. With the EAGLE IV, the technology-minded company from Kreuzlingen , Switzerland offers a new product based on the well proven DURO family of vehicles, which fulfils this high-ranking requirement of protection, comfort and mobility.

Production will take place at MOWAG's facility in Kreuzlingen and deliveries will commence in August 2006. Danish companies will be involved in the supply of various components and assemblies.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Facts about the EAGLE IV 4x4

With the EAGLE IV MOWAG is on the way to set another standard in the domain of armoured wheeled vehicles in the weight class up to 8 tons. The EAGLE IV is 5.37 m long, 2.16 m wide and offers seating space for 4-5 people. On the road, the EAGLE IV reaches a speed of 110 km/h; it manages gradients of up to 60% and obstacles with a height of up to 40 cm. The 245 HP Cummins engine, in connection with the Allison 5-speed automatic transmission, the unique De Dion axles with patented Roll Stabilizer, the tire pressure regulation system, and permanent all-wheel drive give the EAGLE IV an incomparable mobility both on- and off road.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

www.mowag.ch

ZULU
18th April 2007, 15:59
Sweden Testing SA RG-32M

http://www.aftonbladet.se/atv/player.html?catID=10&clipID=1413

Come-quickly
18th April 2007, 17:55
These vehicles already have their role defined, as I said in my last post they are there to carry out roles carried out by non armoured vehicles in the past.

It has an infantry role:
Namely carrying kit back and forth from the F to A1 echelon same as in every other western army...like when you see senior NCOs driving around in a GS for three days on an exercise

It has a Cav role:
Carrying Recce teams in the same way a GS does

It has an Arty role:
Carrying radars that would have been towed by a GS or TCV in the past

It has an Engr Role:
Carrying Pioneer and EOD teams forward with specialist stores that would have been carried by a TCV or GS in the past

It has a CIS Role:
Being fitted for radio


As for weapons carrying, if they can fit a travel box for a Carl Gustav or an 81mm LB or a HMG in the boot...it is a weapons carrier.

Finally and mostly it is wanted for patrolling through potentially unsafe areas while on operations where a PIII is a bit on the big side and not really great for giving all round visibility in a hurry.
This is where the four doors with openable windows is really rather a must.

thebig C
18th April 2007, 22:19
Yet another stretched VBL lookalike is the Japanese ‘Light Armoured Combat Vehicle’, a 4.5 ton vehicle, 13.8 feet long and with a crew of four. It is fitted with a 160hp diesel engine, allowing it to reach top speeds of 100km/h. It can be carried by a CH-47J helicopter or C-130H transport aircraft for emergency air-drops.

The gun mount on the roof can be fitted with a 5.56mm MINIMI machine gun or Type 01 Light Anti-Tank Guided Missile. Vehicles deployed to the Iraq town of Samawa in 2004 were fitted with reinforced bullet-proof windshields and extra equipment such as wire cutters. Many vehicles also featured an armoured cover around the gun mount for extra protection.

Presumably the vehicle could be fitted with an RWS, like other vehicles in this class. The bigger problem is the Japanese ban on weapons exports... But then again, we already have Nissan Patrols....

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=13195&d=1157936155

More pics at

http://www15.tok2.com/home/lttom/military-powers_jgsdf/other/military-powers_keisokou.htm

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=91081 (scroll down)

mutter nutter
19th April 2007, 02:04
Maybe I should just get together a list of vehicles that would fit the role, post photos and spec for each and see where we go from there


The Russians have several vehicles that would do the job, but would we want them from Russia?

hptmurphy
19th April 2007, 10:42
I think you can forget about any panhard related products..army tied them selves up in knots with Panhard contracts for 30 years..they won't go down that road again..any VBL was tested 15 years ago..two small it was intended to replace the AML in the recce role.The cavs comitment to CTR has turned the requirement on its head..so bigger vehicle that VBL type needed.

on similar note...loks like our new general service vehicle and FFRs will be a land Rover product..so the word on the street is.

ZULU
19th April 2007, 11:37
Finally and mostly it is wanted for patrolling through potentially unsafe areas while on operations where a PIII is a bit on the big side and not really great for giving all round visibility in a hurry.
This is where the four doors with openable windows is really rather a must.


And thus effectively reducing your ARMOURED LTAV into another Nissan. Thats what A/C is for. Visibility is the ability to see, which you can do through windows, you dont need to roll them down and put your arm out the side!!

Below I've posted a template for people to use if suggesting a vehicle for consideration. I hope it will provide the clearest way of establishing the best units quickly and efficiently

ZULU
19th April 2007, 12:25
[Insert Pictures Here - Preferrably Black and white tech drawing showing dimensions and one colour photo of it in use]


[Vehicle Name here] ------------------ UNIT Price in Euro:

[Vehicle Manufacturer here]

Contract Requirements ------------- Yes / No --------Details

Armament
(min 7.62mm)

Armour
(7.62AP Protect min)
(Add on Capable)

CBRN Protect/Detect

Range
(250offR / 450onR)

Passengers
(4min)

Payload
(1m³ min) (150kg)

Tow Weight
(3.5Ton)

NATO Std Equip
(Tow hitch / Electrical Req)

Communications capable

Day/Night Sensor suite

X-RayOne
19th April 2007, 12:46
"Visibility is the ability to see, which you can do through windows, you dont need to roll them down and put your arm out the side!!"

ha..ha...ha...ha.ha....brilliant. i love it. don't forget being able to see through the cool sun glasses too!!!

Craghopper
19th April 2007, 12:55
Too small for my money..

We had that on trail in the late 90's..so I doubt its in the running..

Come-quickly
19th April 2007, 13:49
And thus effectively reducing your ARMOURED LTAV into another Nissan. Thats what A/C is for. Visibility is the ability to see, which you can do through windows, you dont need to roll them down and put your arm out the side!!

Below I've posted a template for people to use if suggesting a vehicle for consideration. I hope it will provide the clearest way of establishing the best units quickly and efficiently

Yes an armoured Nissan with armoured windows which can be rolled down when required, the idea of openable windows is that you can reach out and touch the natives, have objects passed out or in, stick your head out for a look around and so on.

Piranha's also have airconditioning and visual aids to let you steer it while under armour this does not mean that the crew don't need to turn out sometimes.

It is a matter of practicality and convenience.

And exactly who are posting vehicles for the consideration of? Do you have a lot more sway with the procurement boards than you have been leading us to assume?

ZULU
19th April 2007, 14:31
Yes an armoured Nissan with armoured windows which can be rolled down when required, the idea of openable windows is that you can reach out and touch the natives, have objects passed out or in, stick your head out for a look around and so on.

As far as I can recall, there was a trip to Eritrea that got a couple of DF personnel in trouble because of them wanting to "Touch the natives"

Objects to be passed in = Bullets, at high velocity. Grenades, CB threats such as Gas, Blood.

Sticking your head out for a look = getting it chopped or shot off. Thats what a RWS is for.

Doors can be used in your shopping trip role as well you know

You really haven't thought this one through have you? :tongue: :biggrin:


Piranha's also have airconditioning and visual aids to let you steer it while under armour this does not mean that the crew don't need to turn out sometimes.

Yes - Thats what turrets and RWS are for.


It is a matter of practicality and convenience.

Practical being a CBRN hermetic seal is easier around the door frame rather than around the door and window. If you had experience of pressure vessel design you would see that you need a certain gasket pressure through use of a bolt circle to effectively seal an appature.


And exactly who are posting vehicles for the consideration of? Do you have a lot more sway with the procurement boards than you have been leading us to assume?

I have no sway with any of the DF procurment boards.

ZULU
19th April 2007, 14:50
http://www.armyrecognition.com/europe/France/vehicules_a_roues/Panhard/VBR/VBR_Panhard_Wheeled_Armoured_Vehicle_France_03.jpg


Panhard VBR ------------------ UNIT Price in Euro: Unknown

Panhard

Contract Requirements ------------- Yes / No --------Details

Armament
(min 7.62mm) ------------------ YES ------------- 7.62 GPMG, 0,50cal MG, ATM's, 40mm AGL

Armour ------------------- YES -------------- Protection Level 2 STANAG 4569, optional Levels 3 and 4 Mines protection level 2B
Add on Armour capability unknownbut large engine should be able to cope
(7.62AP Protect min)
(Add on Capable)

CBRN Protect/Detect ------------- YES------------NC filtration system, Amphib

Range ------------------------------YES------------- over 800Km onR
(250offR / 450onR)

Passengers -----------------------YES------------- Able to accomodate 8 full kit troops + 1 driver
(4min)

Payload---------------------------YES -------------- 2400kg total (passengers included)
(1m³ min) (150kg)

Tow Weight ----------------------YES---------------218hp with 1300Nm @ 1200rpm
(3.5Ton)

NATO Std Equip -----------------Unknown---------
(Tow hitch / Electrical Req)

Communications capable--------Unknown-----------

Day/Night Sensor suite--------YES--------- RWS with IR/LI equip

ZULU
19th April 2007, 15:10
http://www.army-technology.com/contractor_images/mowag/eagle_IV.jpg

Eagle IV------------------ UNIT Price in Euro: Denmark paid 330,000 extras included

MOWAG

Contract Requirements ------------- Yes / No --------Details

Armament -----------------------YES--------------RWS with 7.62mm, 0.50cal, AGL Customer specific C4ISTAR-, Weapon- and other systems
(min 7.62mm)

Armour ---------------------------YES--------------STANAG 4569Ballistic: level 2 Mine: level 2a System add-on armour to level 3 a+b

(7.62AP Protect min)
(Add on Capable)

CBRN Protect/Detect--------YES--------NBC overpressure system

Range ---------------------------YES----------650km OnR
(250offR / 450onR)

Passengers ------------------YES------------- 4 passengers
(4min)

Payload ---------------------YES---------------2200kg at level 2a protection Customer specific roof and cargo module configuration
(1m³ min) (150kg)

Tow Weight ----------------YES---------------245hp 750Nm
(3.5Ton)

NATO Std Equip -------------YES-------------Tow hitch and Batt Elec etc
(Tow hitch / Electrical Req)

Communications capable----YES-----------SINGR Capable

Day/Night Sensor suite[/QUOTE]------YES------Through RWS Equip

thebig C
19th April 2007, 16:19
Big collection of 'urban patrol vehicles' pictures - including many under discussion here - at http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=70508

Come-quickly
19th April 2007, 17:42
As far as I can recall, there was a trip to Eritrea that got a couple of DF personnel in trouble because of them wanting to "Touch the natives"

Objects to be passed in = Bullets, at high velocity. Grenades, CB threats such as Gas, Blood.

Sticking your head out for a look = getting it chopped or shot off. Thats what a RWS is for.

Doors can be used in your shopping trip role as well you know

You really haven't thought this one through have you? :tongue: :biggrin:



Yes - Thats what turrets and RWS are for.



Practical being a CBRN hermetic seal is easier around the door frame rather than around the door and window. If you had experience of pressure vessel design you would see that you need a certain gasket pressure through use of a bolt circle to effectively seal an appature.



I have no sway with any of the DF procurment boards.

Your first point is irrelevant.

You seem to think that troops on operations spend their whole time being shot at which even in relatively hot areas like afghan is not the case.

Your smug and superior replies belie a distinct lack of realism in your thinking.

I would concede that I have no technical knowledge of pressure sealing but I doubt that the Army is going to compromise day to day operational utility in pursuit of a higher level. Similiarly it seems highly unlikely that these vehicles will feature any sort of overpressure system as standard.

RWS are a means of coping when you are underfire, not a replacement for windows.

Again this is not a fighting vehicle, it is a Utility vehicle with some built in armour protection and the ability to return fire from under protection if neccesary.

Truck Driver
19th April 2007, 18:07
Would CIT operations be a consideration in the selection of these vehicles?
Or would we be sticking with the existing setup at the moment (namely 4 WD's)?

Murph, heard a couple of months that a Land Rover vehicle (type unknown to my source) was being trialled.

Can someone enlighten me why we went from Land Rover to Nissan in the 90's?
Cost? Reliability? All of the above?

I didn't hold an AF154 at that point, so such things didn't bother me.

And if this was the reason why we changed in the first instance, is it that Land Rover have gotten their act together and produced a superior product?

[Mod: See seperate thread for discussion about the possible return of Land Rovers]

ZULU
19th April 2007, 20:13
You seem to think that troops on operations spend their whole time being shot at which even in relatively hot areas like afghan is not the case.

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


Your smug and superior replies belie a distinct lack of realism in your thinking.

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.


I would concede that I have no technical knowledge of pressure sealing but I doubt that the Army is going to compromise day to day operational utility in pursuit of a higher level. Similiarly it seems highly unlikely that these vehicles will feature any sort of overpressure system as standard.

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.


RWS are a means of coping when you are underfire, not a replacement for windows.

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" ?


Again this is not a fighting vehicle, it is a Utility vehicle with some built in armour protection and the ability to return fire from under protection if neccesary.

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.

mutter nutter
19th April 2007, 20:23
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


Don't mean to be picky ZULU, but I think it's Light Tactical Armoured Vehicle:smile:

ZULU
19th April 2007, 20:30
:wink: :smile: My bad - Just my thinking on the vehicles intended role. If you need to be armoured your going to be shot at, and hence return fire. (Out your armoured roll down window, wearing sunglasses and smoking a cigarette :biggrin: :biggrin: :tongue: )

Of course you can't use the word Assault in your contract - the Greens and Crusties would have a field day

mutter nutter
19th April 2007, 20:41
:wink: :smile: My bad - Just my thinking on the vehicles intended role. If you need to be armoured your going to be shot at, and hence return fire. (Out your armoured roll down window, wearing sunglasses and smoking a cigarette :biggrin: :biggrin: :tongue: )

Of course you can't use the word Assault in your contract - the Greens and Crusties would have a field day

Cool is good....and screw the crusties, run them over with the nice new LTAV and smother the Greenies with the exhaust:biggrin:

BTW, another new vehicle that might be in the running, the Renault Sherpa 3
http://www.renault-trucks-defense.com/sherpa_3a_2000814_0.html?lang=en

mutter nutter
19th April 2007, 20:42
No hotlinking allowed I think.

mutter nutter
19th April 2007, 20:44
http://img45.imageshack.us/img45/7646/sherpa2armyrecognitionezz3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

ZULU
19th April 2007, 20:46
Cool is good....and screw the crusties, run them over with the nice new LTAV and smother the Greenies with the exhaust:biggrin:

I'll have you know the MOWAG Eagle IV is EURO 4 emissions compliant!!! :biggrin: :tongue:

mutter nutter
19th April 2007, 20:54
I'll have you know the MOWAG Eagle IV is EURO 4 emissions compliant!!! :biggrin: :tongue:

They could test the RWS on them......just sayin.

Come-quickly
19th April 2007, 21:45
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.

spider pig
19th April 2007, 23:26
Would the DF be looking for something that could mount a javelin or something of the kind to be fitted on?

Goldie fish
19th April 2007, 23:41
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..

ZULU
19th April 2007, 23:43
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.

thebig C
19th April 2007, 23:49
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:

http://www.kongsberg.com/images/artikler/32980/javelin.jpg

Goldie fish
19th April 2007, 23:51
Just one javelin? What happens after you fire your missile? Draw straws to see who gets out to reload?

Barndoor
19th April 2007, 23:52
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?

Goldie fish
19th April 2007, 23:55
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

CS Gass
19th April 2007, 23:59
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

thebig C
20th April 2007, 00:03
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.

Come-quickly
20th April 2007, 00:08
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.

mutter nutter
20th April 2007, 00:17
Maybe you both should move on or open your own thread to debate who knows more, I don't think anyone else here cares....

FMolloy
20th April 2007, 00:18
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.

mutter nutter
20th April 2007, 00:22
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.

ZULU
20th April 2007, 00:33
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

mutter nutter
20th April 2007, 00:56
The Dutch also use Fenniks

Indeed they do,but the Fennek is for a different mission, the Bushmaster is basically an armoured taxi, which is the basic requirement for the LTAV...but it's probably on the upper size of things for the contract.

Come-quickly
20th April 2007, 01:09
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

Because it was a request made by many early users of the Eagle and Dingo series of vehicles, I did however subsequently consult a proffessional (admittedly a tankie not a user of this type of vehicle) who advised that rolling windows would be a serious compromise of the armour protection.

I also consulted them on the matter of reversing cameras etc.

You might try asking people in the know some time.

thebig C
20th April 2007, 09:53
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...

...Indeed they do,but the Fennek is for a different mission, the Bushmaster is basically an armoured taxi, which is the basic requirement for the LTAV...but it's probably on the upper size of things for the contract.

There's nothing light about the British Mastiff!

Could the Fennek not do the reconnaissance, surveillance, targeting mission very well - that's what it was primarily designed for - and many others too? "In December 2001, a contract was signed for the combined procurement of 612 Fennek vehicles: 202 reconnaissance, 130 MRAT (medium range antitank) and 78 general purpose versions for the Royal Netherlands Army; 178 reconnaissance, 24 combat engineer and four artillery observer versions for the German Army." (www.army-technology.com/projects/fennek/)

This discussion to my mind highlights the difficulties of selecting an LTAV. There is (a) the wide spectrum of possible roles/tasks; (b) the proliferation of possible vehicles: there are dozens on the market now; and (c) the fundamental question of whether the LTAV is to be an armoured transport/utility vehicle, or a fighting vehicle. (Although it is said in Iraq that every utility vehicle has to be a tactical vehicle, so maybe the distinction is disappearing.)

Maybe the discussion would be helped if the vehicles could be grouped into different categories, e.g. defined by weight limits? Or crew/passenger numbers? Or cost?.....

ZULU
20th April 2007, 10:48
Because it was a request made by many early users of the Eagle and Dingo series of vehicles, I did however subsequently consult a proffessional (admittedly a tankie not a user of this type of vehicle) who advised that rolling windows would be a serious compromise of the armour protection.

I also consulted them on the matter of reversing cameras etc.

You might try asking people in the know some time.


Denmark were users of the MOWAG Eagle I and II nad decided on 85 Eagle IV's for their replacement. Notice the windows on the door. Bolted all round.

http://www.armyrecognition.com/europe/Angleterre/Exhibition/DSEI_2005/pictures/Eagle_IV_DSEI_2005_ArmyRecognition_01.jpg


I think you should take some of your own advice about consulting people in the know.


admittedly a tankie not a user of this type of vehicle

Hugs and Kisses if your feeling "cock bashed" :biggrin: :rolleyes:

Docman
20th April 2007, 10:54
Denmark were users of the MOWAG Eagle I and II nad decided on 85 Eagle IV's for their replacement. Notice the windows on the door. Bolted all round.

I suppose, if you want to meet & greet, you can always open the door....

ZULU
20th April 2007, 11:10
Here is the STANAG 4569 standard that the LTAV's are likely to have to follow. Probably Level II or III+

http://www.generalarmour.com/pagesGA/protectionlevel.htm#stanag4569

On a further note. STANAG 4569 Level II Ballistic Glass is usually in the region of 50-65 mm thick.

Even IF you wanted to roll down these, you would need room in the Armoured door (90-100mm thick) for linkages, gears, motors etc. Not to mention you lose the performance of a seal

spider pig
20th April 2007, 11:36
http://www.defense-update.com/products/j/jltv.htm

mutter nutter
20th April 2007, 17:58
There's nothing light about the British Mastiff!

The Mastiff is a big boy yes, although the 4x4 varient is a lot smaller, I'm just putting out there 2 ends of the spectrum on how big an LTAV can go

Could the Fennek not do the reconnaissance, surveillance, targeting mission very well - that's what it was primarily designed for - and many others too? "In December 2001, a contract was signed for the combined procurement of 612 Fennek vehicles: 202 reconnaissance, 130 MRAT (medium range antitank) and 78 general purpose versions for the Royal Netherlands Army; 178 reconnaissance, 24 combat engineer and four artillery observer versions for the German Army." (www.army-technology.com/projects/fennek/)
Yes the Fennek has been bought for different missions, but, the Germans have also bought the Dingo I&II, the Mungo and maybe buying the Iveco MLV, all of those could be classed as LTAVs, and in Irelands case, we can't buy 3 or 4 different classes of vehile to fill the requirement, we have to pick one and make it work
This discussion to my mind highlights the difficulties of selecting an LTAV. There is (a) the wide spectrum of possible roles/tasks; (b) the proliferation of possible vehicles: there are dozens on the market now; and (c) the fundamental question of whether the LTAV is to be an armoured transport/utility vehicle, or a fighting vehicle. (Although it is said in Iraq that every utility vehicle has to be a tactical vehicle, so maybe the distinction is disappearing.)

Well in Iraq the US has had to armour virtually every vehicle they have thats goes outside a base, from trucks and plant, to humvees, my view on what we need here is a purpose built vehicle Eagle IV or what ever, not some bolt on kit to an unarmoured HUMVEE type vehicle, if it cost's more, so be it, even in relativly benign UN missions it's getting more and more dangerous, never mind the more robust operations the EUBG's might take on

Maybe the discussion would be helped if the vehicles could be grouped into different categories, e.g. defined by weight limits? Or crew/passenger numbers? Or cost?.....
Agreed, maybe on size/weight we could break them down

mutter nutter
20th April 2007, 17:59
http://www.defense-update.com/products/j/jltv.htm
cool, but a while away yet, decade at least:frown:

mutter nutter
20th April 2007, 18:08
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Cougar_4x4_Iraq_2004.jpg
Couger 4x4, big boy, but maybe on pure armour might be in contention

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/30/RG-31_damaged_by_a_mine.jpg
RG-31 after a mine strike

http://img363.imageshack.us/img363/4129/rg32marmyrecognitionidemz1.jpg
RG-32m

X-RayOne
20th April 2007, 18:40
i seem to remember something like the RG-32m on trial in the leb when i was over there once.

story went it was rejected by irish because centre of gravity too high from normal use.

the fijians, or some other contingent, loved them though. ring a bell with anybody?

mutter nutter
20th April 2007, 20:05
http://www.mil.se/int/images/local/klickbar1.jpg
Just an example of what hapenes to a lightly armoured civilian 4x4 (Toyota land cruiser) Swedish got hit Yesterday in Afghanistan, 1 injured

Come-quickly
20th April 2007, 20:08
Denmark were users of the MOWAG Eagle I and II nad decided on 85 Eagle IV's for their replacement. Notice the windows on the door. Bolted all round.

[p://www.armyrecognition.com/europe/Angleterre/Exhibition/DSEI_2005/pictures/Eagle_IV_DSEI_2005_ArmyRecognition_01.jpg[/IMG]


I think you should take some of your own advice about consulting people in the know.



Hugs and Kisses if your feeling "cock bashed" :biggrin: :rolleyes:

You may have noticed that I recognised that fact a post ago.

In all your gloating you seem to have neatly brushed over the fact that you completely misjudged the roles of these vehicles And indeed had been working from an incorrect interpretation of the acronym.

Perhaps you should learn that this is a discussion not an ALP competition. I have brought some knowledge and some opinion, in places where my opinions were questioned, I sought more knowledgable opinions and accepted them where appropriate. Perhaps you could try something similar.

Docman, openable hatches on doors mean being able to get things in and out without having to open the whole door. The reaching out and touching the natives line comes from German Dingo patrols in the balkans who complained that they had to get out of the vehicle or completely

The Danish eagles deployed to Afghan with the first two "Recon" battalions had to have their turrets stripped as they made the vehicles dangerously top heavy and paid too high a price in awareness for the protection they offered.
This is reminiscent of some AFV crews in the American Phase of the Vietnam war who chose to remove ballistic plates from pintle mounted weapons in order to increase their FOFs.

You will also note that the Eagle IV does indeed feature four doors and a boot. The question of hatch windows comes down to the variant and buyer preference.
I have been firmly corrected by non walts that the roll down armoured window is strictly for rappers.

Mutter's post above is a fine example of what Ltavs are for, protection from unexpected threats while carrying out non teeth roles.

mugs
20th April 2007, 20:10
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Cougar_4x4_Iraq_2004.jpg
Couger 4x4, big boy, but maybe on pure armour might be in contention

To me that looks of similar size to the piranhas

mutter nutter
20th April 2007, 20:12
To me that looks of similar size to the piranhas
You ever been right up beside a Piranha?...lot bigger then that:biggrin: , but as I said, the Couger is on the very upperscale of size that could be a LTAV

Goldie fish
20th April 2007, 20:13
Looks RG31 ish.

mugs
20th April 2007, 20:14
http://www.army-technology.com/contractor_images/iveco/2-LMV.jpg

Anyone no anything about this Iveco? specifications I mean

Goldie fish
20th April 2007, 20:39
Thats the MLV the British Army are using.

Come-quickly
20th April 2007, 21:01
Thats the MLV the British Army are using.

As I understand it the unit cost on the British FCLVs is going to be somewhere in excess of £1m.

That could be due to do dodgy defence offsets and additional fit outs though.

paul
20th April 2007, 21:05
if you have ever seen a humvee you know how big the couger is by this

thebig C
20th April 2007, 21:23
Further to the suggestion that vehicles under consideration should be separated into different categories, because there is such a variety on the market, the Bundeswehr were looking for wheeled armoured vehicles in three weight categories: (i) maximum 5 tonnes; (ii) 5 - 10 tonnes; and (iii) 10 - 13 tonnes. Would it be helpful to group LTAV candidates as either 'light', 'medium', or 'heavy', using these limits?

thebig C
20th April 2007, 21:56
What does the L in LTAV mean?

I was waiting for someone to say that... Look back through this thread and its predecessor and you'll see vehicles that range from 3.5t to >20t. The USMC and the Australians call their versions of the Piranha LAVs. Unfortunately, these terms are not well-defined...

thebig C
20th April 2007, 22:47
Information on quite a few of the likely contenders:

http://www.deagel.com/Tactical-Vehicles.htm

spider pig
21st April 2007, 11:48
The cougar looks as if it would be akward to get in and out of...i mean it a fairly high vehicle

spider pig
21st April 2007, 11:51
I have been firmly corrected by non walts that the roll down armoured window is strictly for rappers.

.

The US army had role down windows in Somalia and it was said that it made the vehicle more vulnerable to small arms fire beacause of the gap in the door for the window to go into.

Fintan
21st April 2007, 16:13
That was to shoot back aswell tripper

hedgehog
21st April 2007, 17:27
What does the L in LTAV mean?

I always thought it was light

as in Ligth tactical armoured vehicle

But I could be very wrong

eelmonster
21st April 2007, 18:22
I always thought it was light

as in Ligth tactical armoured vehicle

But I could be very wrong

i think it was a rhetorical question.

hedgehog
21st April 2007, 18:25
i think it was a rhetorical question.

shite it was at that

SOrry Kermit for jumping the gun

I was actually dead chuffed with my self that I actually knew something

in these how long / what calibre/ how thick is the armour etc type

threads,

eelmonster
21st April 2007, 18:28
I was actually dead chuffed with my self that I actually knew something

in these how long / what calibre/ how thick is the armour etc type

threads,

haha. i thought the exact same thing when i saw it first too.

thebig C
21st April 2007, 21:48
I suppose, if you want to meet & greet, you can always open the door....

... or the roof hatch..

http://www.emgfa.pt/elementos/Imagens/49/5135141642002M11%20Kosovo.jpg

Portuguese Panhard M-11 (VBL) in Kosovo.

mugs
22nd April 2007, 19:50
Was doing a bit of zipping around the interweb and came across this.
http://www.panhard.fr/anglais/A4avl/img/fond_home.jpg
The Panhard A4 AVL http://www.panhard.fr/anglais/A4avl/CTA4.htm

http://www.panhard.fr/anglais/A5/img/fond_home.jpg
and the A5 AVXL. http://www.panhard.fr/anglais/A5/CTA5.htm

Barry
22nd April 2007, 20:02
... or the roof hatch..
Yes, up well above eye level, wearing a big vehicle helmet, and with a machine gun in front of you. A great way to win hearts and minds! Not to mention being a nice big target for a sniper.

thebig C
22nd April 2007, 21:22
Yes, up well above eye level, wearing a big vehicle helmet, and with a machine gun in front of you. A great way to win hearts and minds! Not to mention being a nice big target for a sniper.

Ah now, it's easy to be critical... (I should know)

As you get older you learn that life is about compromises, picking the best out of a selection of imperfect alternatives, getting the balance right... Take the case of an LTAV on a peacekeeping/peace enforcement mission, for example. You want a show of force, to deter the bad guys and provide security for the community, but you don't want to imtimidate ordinary people or provoke them into siding with the enemy. You want your troops to be as secure as possible too, but you also want positive interaction with the local people, both to win their support for your mission and to pick up some intelligence.

As you can see from some of the earlier posts in this thread, there was a discussion about whether or not the LTAV should have openable windows. One of the advantages of being able to open the window was said to be that you could interact with the 'natives' (not sure if that's a politically correct term..). However apparently this is not feasible with an armoured vehicle and thick bulletproof windows. Someone remarked that you could always meet and greet by opening the door of the vehicle. The roof hatch is another, possibly more secure option.

Don't people expect soldiers to wear helmets and have guns? And snipers will always be a risk, unless you're buttoned up in an MBT the whole time.

DeV
23rd April 2007, 21:57
The troops could always dismount and have a proper chat with the locals?

Would having a wind-down armoured window not increase the armour protection of the actual door?

Seriously though, armour is heavy. The Dingo has hydraulic assisted doors which apparently are prone to breakage. Not sure if this problem has been fixed.

ZULU
23rd April 2007, 22:09
Would having a wind-down armoured window not increase the armour protection of the actual door?


And leave a big open hole where it once was!! :biggrin:

It complicates every thing. Hydraulic hoses going into doors. You lose seal if deflected by bullet strike. Not to mention increasing the price, maintenance and chances of it breaking half way down :biggrin: :biggrin:

Can we just all forget about the roll down windows. Otherwise it will develop into whether the LTAV should be a convertible:biggrin:

Just look at every vehicle posted on this page. See NO ROLL DOWN WINDOWS!

Goldie fish
23rd April 2007, 22:13
Vision blocks for everyone. Or that hatch in the side like the M3 had...

spider pig
23rd April 2007, 22:56
That was to shoot back aswell tripper

I do realise that. But it still proves that you are minimising your balistic protection. the round were coming through the door before any windows were put down.

Pod
24th April 2007, 12:20
Was doing a bit of zipping around the interweb and came across this.
http://www.panhard.fr/anglais/A4avl/img/fond_home.jpg
The Panhard A4 AVL http://www.panhard.fr/anglais/A4avl/CTA4.htm

http://www.panhard.fr/anglais/A5/img/fond_home.jpg
and the A5 AVXL. http://www.panhard.fr/anglais/A5/CTA5.htm

For a french vehicle that is f..ugly!:biggrin:
lools like 60's gun truck

spider pig
24th April 2007, 13:28
I agree. We would become known as the guys that drive the ugly trucks.

luchi
24th April 2007, 15:06
If they were painted grey they could pass for PSNI land rovers

Seriously though how often is such a vehicle needed.

Is this just Willie looking for more toys for the boys

mugs
24th April 2007, 16:59
Is this just Willie looking for more toys for the boys

*pft* let him :rolleyes:

spider pig
24th April 2007, 17:06
If they were painted grey they could pass for PSNI land rovers

Seriously though how often is such a vehicle needed.

Is this just Willie looking for more toys for the boys


Are you complaining about getingnew toys:eek:

hedgehog
24th April 2007, 17:19
If they were painted grey they could pass for PSNI land rovers

Seriously though how often is such a vehicle needed.

Is this just Willie looking for more toys for the boys

anything that adds not only to our protection but to

our safety

cannot be simply dismissed as a toy

But in reality I am sure you were simply joking

Goldie fish
24th April 2007, 19:38
If they were painted grey they could pass for PSNI land rovers

Seriously though how often is such a vehicle needed.

Is this just Willie looking for more toys for the boys

I take it you don't have a Copy of the TAMS then.

The Thing
24th April 2007, 19:55
If they were painted grey they could pass for PSNI land rovers

Seriously though how often is such a vehicle needed.

Is this just Willie looking for more toys for the boys


Perhaps you'd like to go off the metal roads in South Lebanon and put your theory to the test that armored vehicles are just toy's for the boy's.
I guess you haven't served overseas then....?

yooklid
24th April 2007, 20:08
If they were painted grey they could pass for PSNI land rovers

Seriously though how often is such a vehicle needed.

Is this just Willie looking for more toys for the boys

DON'T FEED THE TROLL!

CS Gass
24th April 2007, 22:15
Feck all visibility out of the A4/A5 AVXL, surely that would go against it i know the windows need to be small for obvious reasons but still arent they a wee bit too small?

thebig C
28th April 2007, 22:35
The Panther Command and Liaison Vehicle (Iveco LMV) is described on the UK MOD website as a replacement for the Ferret Scout Car. "Since this was taken out of service in the early 1990s, the roles have been performed by a mixture of vehicles, including the Scimitar family, FV430, Saxon and LandRover, none of which are fully suited for these roles."

Interestingly, the website lists these very specific roles for the Panther:


- Liaison Officers for Armoured, Armoured Recce and Armoured Infantry Units
- Commander’s vehicle for Engineer Troops, Anti-Tank, Mortar and supporting fire platoons
- REME asset co-ordination
- RAF Regt Field Squadron tasks, RAF EOD
- Rebroadcast on BattleGroup nets and Regimental Signal Officers
- Route proving for Close and General Support Engineer units
- Battery Reconnaissance Officer.

I wonder how this list relates to the tasks of the LTAV.

thebig C
29th April 2007, 22:21
When the Belgians selected the Iveco LMV a couple of years ago, these were the other contenders:

* AUTOMOTIVE TECHNIK Ltd-PINZGAUER 4x4 (Royaume-Uni)
* LAND SYSTEMS OMC-RG32M (Afrique du Sud)
* PANHARD-A4 Fast (France)
* RENAULT-SHERPA 2,5 (France)
* SANTANA-PS-10 (Espagne)
* URO-VAMTAC (Espagne)
* LANDROVER DEFENDER 110 (Royaume-Uni)

Belgium is getting an initial tranche of 440 vehicles, with another 180 at a later stage. Cost is around €200,000 each, a lot less than the UK appear to be paying.

Goldie fish
29th April 2007, 22:56
Possibly because Alvis are building the British ones?

I thought Pinzgauer were made in Germany?

The URO Vamtac was the "Humvee" seen in Dublin and the Curragh some months ago being "evaluated"

California Tanker
29th April 2007, 23:11
I had a gander at a the Panther than the MOD was playing with at ATDU, but being ATDU, wasn't allowed take pics.

As configured, it's basically a wheeled command vehicle, and isn't suited for liaison/runabout or scouting roles at all. Very nicely equipped for a battalion commander though.

NTM

hptmurphy
30th April 2007, 04:22
Pinzgauer Production was shifted to the UK last year

thebig C
30th April 2007, 23:15
http://www.congedatifolgore.com/gallery/dipaola.afganistan/images/immagine004.jpg

Following deployment to western Afghanistan late last year, one of the Italian Army’s Iveco LMVs was damaged by an IED on March 25. None of its passengers were injured, although it’s not clear if this was due to the protection capabilities of the vehicle.

The Iveco LMV is called the the VTLM (Veicolo Tattico Leggero Multiruolo) or Light Tactical Multi-Role Vehicle, in the Italian Army, but it’s also been christened the ‘Lince’ (Lynx). Unit cost for the Italian Army’s Iveco LMV is €274,000, but they are buying 1,150 initially, maybe more later, and Italian Linces do not have an RWS.

The Iveco LMV defeated the Mowag Eagle IV among others in last year’s Norwegian LTAV competition. The Norwegians are paying €320,000 each for 25 vehicles for patrol and reconnaissance tasks in Afghanistan, with an option for a further 47. Again they appear to be unarmed. The Iveco vehicles are intended to fill the span between the unarmored G-wagens and the CV9030 IFVs.

http://www.mil.no/multimedia/archive/00090/lmh-iveco2_90161a.JPGhttp://www.mil.no/multimedia/archive/00090/lmh-iveco7_90162a.JPG

Tribunius
3rd May 2007, 00:40
This is just some more of the article above.

“It is not confirmed whether the superior protection provided by the VTLM made a difference in this particular case, but the fact remains that it’s an effective design, as proven by the order placed by the U.K. for the vehicle,” said Alberto Scarpitta, defense editor for the Italian publication Analisi Difesa.
“The creation of an insulated capsule for passengers and the distancing of engine parts from the capsule is a reflection of how the vehicle was designed from scratch to resist mines, unlike the Humvee,” Scarpitta said.
Also separate from the capsule are the rear cargo compartment and the fuel tank, which are designed to separate in the event of an explosion. Built by Bolzano-based Iveco, the VTLM also features a V-shaped underside to deflect blasts, seats fixed to the roll bar instead of the floor, and armor skins — from German firm IBD — that can be swapped out depending on danger levels.
The arrival of the 4.8-meter long, 2.2-meter wide VTLM in Afghanistan and Lebanon has reduced the pressure on two more vulnerable Italian vehicles, the VM-90 and the Puma, the latter a light scout vehicle designed during the 1980s.

The complete article can be found at the link below

http://defensenews.com/story.php?F=2697031&C=europe

thebig C
5th May 2007, 22:15
I had a gander at a the Panther than the MOD was playing with at ATDU, but being ATDU, wasn't allowed take pics.

As configured, it's basically a wheeled command vehicle, and isn't suited for liaison/runabout or scouting roles at all. Very nicely equipped for a battalion commander though.

NTM


This is the problem I have with the Irish LTAV specs, insofar as they are known: they are trying to get one vehicle to cover a very broad range of roles. IMHO, the ideal solution would be (i) a Mowag Eagle/Iveco LMV type vehicle, for the combat support roles, and (ii) a fighting vehicle - a scout car or armoured car - for the combat roles. I know this would probably cost more and would cause logistical complications, but it would enhance effectiveness.

Goldie fish
6th May 2007, 05:43
Good idea in principle, but the problem is there are very few "scout cars" in the traditional sense in production any more that are not also in the Mowag Eagle class. Its not what the market requires any more. Instead you have something like the Eagle, fitted with RWS.

thebig C
6th May 2007, 09:07
Good idea in principle, but the problem is there are very few "scout cars" in the traditional sense in production any more that are not also in the Mowag Eagle class. Its not what the market requires any more. Instead you have something like the Eagle, fitted with RWS.


Yes, you're right, there aren't too many options when it comes to smaller wheeled fighting vehicles. At one end of the spectrum would be my old favourite, the Panhard VBL, with a turret or RWS, total weight about 4 tonnes. At the other end would be the U.S. Army's M1117, weighing in at around 13 tonnes.

The M1117 story shows how the market is changing rapidly. It was initially used by the U.S. Military in small numbers and limited roles, but now they're buying them by the thousand and it's the standard convoy escort vehicle in Iraq.

http://images.usatoday.com/money/_photos/2006/05/02/inside-textron-large.jpg

More info. at http://www.textronmarineandland.com/pdfs/datasheets/asv_datasheet.pdf

Goldie fish
6th May 2007, 12:02
That looks familiar. Is it an old design?

mugs
6th May 2007, 12:15
Yes it is, they used a similar, less armoured version, in Vietnam. I see a picture of it last night actually.

http://www.geocities.com/afpmuseum/bkv100a.jpg

pym
6th May 2007, 13:54
Interesting opinion piece on replacing the HMMWV

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/008317.php

Goldie fish
6th May 2007, 14:54
Thought as much. Brits bring back the FV432 with a new name and more armour, US bring back the Commando in the same way. Isn't having surplus stock great.

thebig C
6th May 2007, 16:21
Thought as much. Brits bring back the FV432 with a new name and more armour, US bring back the Commando in the same way. Isn't having surplus stock great.


Whatever about the FV432, the M1117s are new builds. It's a development of the original design, same as the Mowag Piranha III is a development of a design from the early 1970s. It was one of four vehicles considered in 2005 by the Danish Army, before they finally settled on the Mowag Eagle IV.

Details at http://www.textronmarineandland.com/pdfs/datasheets/asv_datasheet.pdf

ias
6th May 2007, 17:15
The ASV 150/M1117 are not upgrades of old vehicles as the FV 432 has been, they are completely new build vehicles, with new armour, drivetrain, electronics, and their Timoney designed independent suspension.

The hull design is an update of the old LAV 100 hull!

IAS

ias
11th May 2007, 22:04
I see that the Americans are talking about replacing their LTAVs with MRAPs!

Maybe the DF should consider the Bushmaster instead of LTAVs (back on my hobby horse).

IAS

thebig C
12th May 2007, 10:44
I see that the Americans are talking about replacing their LTAVs with MRAPs!

Maybe the DF should consider the Bushmaster instead of LTAVs (back on my hobby horse).

IAS

It's as big as a Piranha, but not as well armoured, and as a 4x4 rather than an 8x8, it probably doesn't have the same off-road ability. Given that the Army has Piranhas, why buy Bushmasters?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7b/OBW_Bushmaster_ADF.jpg

ias
13th May 2007, 20:32
They're cheaper, have better mine protection and apparently (according to some Aussie reports I've read) are more manoeuvrable in urban situations,... plus they are Irish.

Remember the Yanks have the Stryker and LAV II, the Aussie's the ASLAV (Piranha II) and they believe they need a MRAP (same goes for the Dutch, Canadians, Swedes etc.).

Yes, the Bushmaster/MP44 could do with better armour and a spall liner, but that easily corrected in a new production run (say an armoured package from IBD).

IAS

California Tanker
13th May 2007, 22:07
They're cheaper, have better mine protection and apparently (according to some Aussie reports I've read) are more manoeuvrable in urban situations,... plus they are Irish.


Not really. ADI bought the design from Perry Engineering. Timoney are basically a subcontractor for the suspension design, a claim which Timoney can make on many other vehicles.

NTM

spider pig
13th May 2007, 22:52
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Cougar_4x4_Iraq_2004.jpg


Ther is an article on the cougar in this months "Combat and Survival". Its a good read if you are interested. The brits have a variant which they call the "Mastiff". It says in the article that it is not likely to replace the british LTAVs ( Composite Armour Vehicle variant of the 110s) because of the sheer size and weight as well as very poor off road abilities.

ias
14th May 2007, 01:04
Sorry CT but I'm afraid you're wrong on this. The MP44 was designed by Timoney, Perry Engineering bought a license to build it. ADI subsequently bought Perry Engineering (or at least their defence business) and through collaboration with Timoney developed the Bushmaster.

Timoney have built a hull about seven years ago, using mild steel plate, of the MP66, a 6x6 version of the Bushmaster, ADI have proposed such a variant but not built it yet. This vehicle is almost identical to the Bushmaster but longer, with 4 forward wheels and 2 rear wheels.

On off-road performance, apparently the Bushmaster has very good off-road performance for a 4x4 (due to Timoney's independent suspension).

IAS

thebig C
14th May 2007, 11:21
The Bushmaster and similar vehicles - this is the Malaysian Def Tech AV4 - seem to be a bit big for the LTAV requirement. However if they're a lot cheaper than a Piranha, maybe the Army might consider buying 150 - 200, to equip at least one battalion in each brigade, seeing as the Piranhas appear to be almost exclusively for overseas deployment and training for such deployments.

http://www.altair.com.pl/files/raport/0506/m15.jpg

California Tanker
14th May 2007, 16:58
Sorry CT but I'm afraid you're wrong on this. The MP44 was designed by Timoney, Perry Engineering bought a license to build it. ADI subsequently bought Perry Engineering (or at least their defence business) and through collaboration with Timoney developed the Bushmaster.


Hmm.

I'll go beat my sources on the head with a large trout.

NTM

thebig C
14th July 2007, 23:59
And leave a big open hole where it once was!! :biggrin:

It complicates every thing. Hydraulic hoses going into doors. You lose seal if deflected by bullet strike. Not to mention increasing the price, maintenance and chances of it breaking half way down :biggrin: :biggrin:

Can we just all forget about the roll down windows. Otherwise it will develop into whether the LTAV should be a convertible:biggrin:

Just look at every vehicle posted on this page. See NO ROLL DOWN WINDOWS!


Came across this pic. (Note the RH front door window.) Nice vehicle.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/JGSDF_Light_Armored_vehicle_20070107-02.JPG

pym
15th July 2007, 20:14
Very nice looking vehicle indeed, shame they're Japanese though. They still have strict rules which basically ban the export of their military wares.

Some more pics of the Japanese LAV here:
http://www66.tok2.com/home2/tankguy/jgsdf03/keisoukou.html
http://www15.tok2.com/home/lttom/military-powers_jgsdf/other/military-powers_keisokou.htm
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=91081

I wonder how it performs and whether licensed production would be allowed in a "neutral" country.

On a side note, being Japanese it's a Right hand drive. Useful domestically - perhaps not so much abroad?

EDIT: A bit of googling turned up this about the Komatsu LAV's performance:
Each can carry four soldiers at a maximum speed of 60 mph for more than 200 miles without refueling.

They were deployed to Iraq and interestingly when fitted with a Gun on the top, while obviously not as safe as a RWS, the soldier was quite well protected:
http://files.blog-city.com/files/O05/149826/p/f/jgsdf_lav_art.jpg

Goldie fish
15th July 2007, 23:34
Nice little funnel for a grenade there.

thebig C
15th July 2007, 23:35
Very nice looking vehicle indeed, shame they're Japanese though. They still have strict rules which basically ban the export of their military wares......




I heard that too... But the Army has Nissan Patrols.. Where do they draw the line? Switzerland can't export arms either, but that was circumvented with the Air Corps' PC-9Ms.

ZULU
16th July 2007, 00:20
Came across this pic. (Note the RH front door window.) Nice vehicle.


I take it you also saw the gas piston on the OUTSIDE that actuates the hatch, the locking latch on the inside and the outer hinges that are exposed. Not to mention the fact I said roll down windows not hatch :tongue:

pym
16th July 2007, 00:51
Nice little funnel for a grenade there.

Fair point

Goldie fish
16th July 2007, 08:38
Irish Army nissan Partols are assembled in Spain.

hptmurphy
16th July 2007, 14:16
For use in Iraq the Jap LAV is fitted with an open top turret mounting a .5 or similar with slope inwards sides.....now theres a funnel for grenades....down the hatch!!!!

Nice little machine though.

Interesting to note that the Japanese had to change their constitution to allow them operate overseas.....and the Japanese navy as it stands or JMSDF is now greater in numbers than the RN....

So maybe their stance on exports will change giving that they're getting over their insecurties regarding moving outside the home land.

mutter nutter
16th July 2007, 16:16
The Japanese LAV is nice, but you'd have to compare it with what other more "experenced" armed forces came up with, the Germans for instance, none of their seems like dozens of different LAV's now, come with opening windows of any kind, the French Brits Italians all of them with actual war/peacekeeping experience had that experience to draw on, the Japanese untill very recently did not, you can see it in other quirky things they have done, their new armoured recce vehicle for instance has no amphibious capability at all, so it can't cross any rivers deeper then about .8 meteres, silly in a country criss crossed with rivers, nevermind going to forign coutries with large rivers and water courses

thebig C
16th July 2007, 19:10
I take it you also saw the gas piston on the OUTSIDE that actuates the hatch, the locking latch on the inside and the outer hinges that are exposed. Not to mention the fact I said roll down windows not hatch :tongue:

Yes, that's one of the reasons I posted the pic: openable windows that aren't 'roll-down'. Another alternative....


Irish Army nissan Partols are assembled in Spain.

Maybe they could assemble the Komatsu LAVs too?


The Japanese LAV is nice, but you'd have to compare it with what other more "experenced" armed forces came up with, the Germans for instance, none of their seems like dozens of different LAV's now, come with opening windows of any kind, the French Brits Italians all of them with actual war/peacekeeping experience had that experience to draw on, the Japanese untill very recently did not, you can see it in other quirky things they have done, their new armoured recce vehicle for instance has no amphibious capability at all, so it can't cross any rivers deeper then about .8 meteres, silly in a country criss crossed with rivers, nevermind going to forign coutries with large rivers and water courses


Could that not be also said about the new Piranha for the Cav?

mutter nutter
16th July 2007, 22:57
I'm pretty sure the new mowags can ford more then .8 of a meter

FMolloy
16th July 2007, 23:23
According to the Mowag site, Piranah's fording depth is 1.5m.

mutter nutter
16th July 2007, 23:32
According to the Mowag site, Piranah's fording depth is 1.5m.
yep, almost twice the depth, .8 of a meter isn't even 3 feet....small rivers they must have:wink:

Gunner75
21st July 2007, 16:49
Saw some interesting footage on YouTube on the Golan MRAP seemed to offer decent mine and IED protection. Do you think this would be worth a look at when considering the new LATV''s?

thebig C
12th August 2007, 16:12
The German Army will be deciding on its new light tactical vehicles during the next few months.

The result of the competition for up to 2,000 4x4 wheeled Group 1 Geschütze Führungs und Functionsfahrzeug (GFF) vehicles is expected to be announced in December. Group 1 vehicles must have a maximum payload of 1t, be able to carry four troops, be transportable inside a CH-53G and must feature some ballistic and mine protection.

Four candidates are currently on trial:

the Achleitner Survivor (a variant of the G-Wagen);
a version of the Krauss-Maffei Wegmann Mungo;
the Rheinmetall Defence Gavial (a variant of the French Panhard A4 AVL);
and the Volkswagen Frettchen (an armoured version of the Touareg).


The competition for 1,000-2,000 Group 2 vehicles is between the Rheinmetall Caracal (a version of the Iveco Light Multi-purpose Vehicle - the British Panther) and the MOWAG Eagle IV. Group 2 vehicles must have a gross weight of 5.3-7.5t, a payload of 1-2t and a certain level of ballistic and mine protection. Two vehicles must be air transportable in a C-160 Transall or C-130 Hercules.

thebig C
20th August 2007, 23:11
The Czech Minister for Defence announced today that the selection procedure for the new light armored vehicle has been cancelled, as none of the vehicles has fully met their requirements.

Sound familiar?

ZULU
11th October 2007, 18:55
http://www.millenworks.com/html/aboutus/news/MillenWorks%20Light%20Utility%20Vehicle%20Data%20S heet%20Oct%202007.pdf

hptmurphy
11th December 2007, 22:02
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/puma/

The 4x4 would have my vote given the specs and its track history, reasonably successful production run and would possibly replace Panhard AMLs

the weapons fit is good and is currently in production

seem to meet all the criteria.

Goldie fish
12th December 2007, 02:42
I see €6.5m has been set aside for this project in the Estimates for 2008...

California Tanker
14th December 2007, 22:17
My squadron is trying to figure out just what the hell to do with the new M1151s (Super-heavy HMMWVs) we just got. Supposedly it's our light recon vehicle, we have a few of them in the same platoon as a few Bradleys.

Problem is that the thing is so heavily armoured, it's not even road-legal in the US due to axle loading limits. We presume it'll sink like a rock as soon as we take it offroad on anything except hard desert. Since we have 'em, we'll play with them, but we're not entirely sure what people were thinking when they sent them our way.

NTM

Orion
14th December 2007, 23:08
I see €6.5m has been set aside for this project in the Estimates for 2008...

Does that fund the entire fleet or the first batch?

How do they arrive at Euro 6.5m if they don't have a vehicle in mind.

Just interested in the procurement process.

Goldie fish
14th December 2007, 23:32
Its a surprise to me too. Its an initial figure. Presumably they'll need to get vehicles of the type for chad from somewhere, quickly. Handy to have the money lyin about.

mutter nutter
14th December 2007, 23:48
well the Brit's new Panther vehicles worked out at around 400k! each, so let's hope the DF are better negociators on this, 200k each seems reasonable for the type they want, so

CTU
15th December 2007, 00:11
Does that fund the entire fleet or the first batch?

How do they arrive at Euro 6.5m if they don't have a vehicle in mind.

Just interested in the procurement process.

from the DOD press release


a €6.5m initial down payment on Light Tactical Armoured Vehicles;

http://www.defence.ie/WebSite.nsf/Release+ID/4FE0508D41427942802573A8005EB204?OpenDocument

hptmurphy
16th December 2007, 00:02
Panther is equivalent to Bushmaster which is being used as an armoured convoy protection vehicle by the Aussies at a humongous development cost..and its not an LTAV and certainly not runner as an recce vehicle, These vehicles are only re hash's of a 60's concept of the bedford RL MPV and the Casipir...


If ypu want light tactical vehicles you have to think lower than something based on a truck chassis most of the current vehiclesare in the medium truck class..think outside that box!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWeLZ86sUYA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qchf-A_wetM&feature=related

****..I learned to drive in one of these.

This is wher the concept came from

http://www.atlantisalliance.com/photos/bw34.htm

also this was a fore runner

http://www.atlantisalliance.com/photos/bw35.htm


and really back to basics

http://www.atlantisalliance.com/photos/bw77.htm

FMolloy
16th December 2007, 13:34
Panther is equivalent to Bushmaster which is being used as an armoured convoy protection vehicle by the Aussies at a humongous development cost..and its not an LTAV and certainly not runner as an recce vehicle, These vehicles are only re hash's of a 60's concept of the bedford RL MPV and the Casipir...


The Bushmaster is a fair bit bigger than the Panther:

Link to Panther's Specs (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/future/specs.html)

Link to Bushmaster's Specs (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bushmaster/specs.html)

hptmurphy
16th December 2007, 20:06
I wasn't being specific about specs just they all start to look the same now..big boxy bullet magnets..hardly suitable for LTAV or recce vehicles.

These just remind me of the Humber PIG and are all starting to look alike.

FMolloy
16th December 2007, 20:21
I wasn't being specific about specs just they all start to look the same now..big boxy bullet magnets..hardly suitable for LTAV or recce vehicles.

The Puma is pretty much the same size as the Panther, does that make it a big bullet magnet too?

ODIN
16th December 2007, 20:30
I've said it before, IMO, the french VBL is the best option for a recce vehicle....

hptmurphy
16th December 2007, 21:02
We tried the VBL some time ago in the early 90's far too limited. Was considered as a replacement for the AML's.

http://www.protectedvehicles.com/products_protector.html

this is what I mean about every thing looking the same.

I suppose operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have changed opinions on whats needed.

I think we have to go back and look what the definition of what is actually required.
Are we looking for a recce vehicle with armour... a scout car , a successor to the AML or a mini APC for insertion work.?

Should it be an internal security vehicle type , should it replace the recce roles currently carried out by softskins how big should it be?

the DF's spec while precise doesn't actually specify who will use them, is it to be an infantry specific vehicle....is it to be a drop vehicle for CTR teams, should it be an armoured patrol vehicle.

A lot the above meet these criteria but most have been specifically designed with internal secrity ops in mind which is fine if you have various other vehicles to do day to day work and larger APCs for section deployment

So are we looking for something between Nissans and Mowag ? Given the budget waht is the actual reality of what we can buy..and in enough numbers to give them a credible role of their own.
No point in buying a handful of top spec vehicles that will never have to carry out all the roles envisaged by the manufacturer while we could buy a medium spec vehicle in greater numbers that are more general role specific.

I'm not arguing the specifics of any particular vehicle but the requirement is so loosley defined that its hard to envisage any of the above been made available in significant numbers because of budgetary constrictions.

Given the amount of money spent on Mowags and given that they are relatively small number s we have purchased and they are very flexible do we really need another top of the range vehicle at huge expense per unit or should we and move oout of the box and buy in numbers that reflect the needs and bear in mind that we have Large APCs to carry out the real heavy duty work.

I know that this will raise the question of purchasing sub requirement vehicles but there is no point in having twenty over spec vehicles as opposed to 40 mid range vehicles.

Personally I think the Mowags were far to expensive for what they are and would be against heading down the same road in search for a secondary armoured vehicle.

Lives versus cost....the more lives you can put in armour as opposed to a few in high spec vehicles would be my argument. Think of the immediate threat and not get hung up on the what ifs.

Given the high maintaince and attrition rates in the mowags , would it be worth it going down the road of having a top of the range vehicle which becomes a drain on resources due to high cost of maintainence?

Orion
16th December 2007, 21:14
from the DOD press release



http://www.defence.ie/WebSite.nsf/Release+ID/4FE0508D41427942802573A8005EB204?OpenDocument

Thanks for the link CTU.

hptmurphy
16th December 2007, 21:20
€6.5 million downpayment..hmm interesting.

Wonder what is the overall projected cost of the project?

How many vehicles are required?

What is the DF s requirement as opposed to what the minister will pay for?

What is the projected time scale of the project?

Can these vehicles be purchase off the shelf or will they have the usual Irish quirks that will hold up delivery?
Will they be available for the proposed deployment to Chad?

How far down the procurement road is the DF ? or is it just begining?




The Czech Minister for Defence announced today that the selection procedure for the new light armored vehicle has been cancelled, as none of the vehicles has fully met their requirements.

Sound familiar?

Kills me as it does I tend to agree with this point of view and think it might be an excuse to spend the budget on more Mowags...wouldn't be the firts time this has happened given that two years ago ther was a budget of €25million to buy a Cav specific vehicle and we ended up with more Mowags.

ZULU
16th December 2007, 21:47
China VBL knock off, the VN3 family

http://www.strategycenter.net/imgLib/20070323_04a.jpg

Piranha
18th December 2007, 15:08
I would say that the tender is wide ranging I think loosely defined is a bad description Murph. With my knowledge of tender processes within my industry wide ranging tenders do have some pro's a wider reaching tender would attracted a wide variety of bids at different price ranges giving greater choice. I don’t think the dept. or the army are looking for an AML replacement I’d say it’s a vehicle to replace the Nissans when out on patrol with the MOWAG's overseas and in training at home. I’ve seen Nissans on patrol with the MOWAG’s in different TV and press pictures. I reckon you will see more MOWAG's with the 30mm turrets as the AML 20’s replacement maybe not in the near future but that seems to be thinking AML 90 would be a different animal again something like a the Pandur 6x6 with the 90mm gun. It says in the start post that it’s to be equipped with no greater than a 12.7mm so that rules out AML replacements in my book. If the Nutter is right and 200k is a good price per unit 6.5 million would buy you 33 units. This is about right as I seem to remember a total of 66 units mentioned earlier on and if this was a first instalment it would probably be agreed with whoever wins the competition that half the money would be paid up front with the other half being paid when the last units are delivered. This protects the dept. from ripped off so to speak due to bankruptcy of the company, failure to delivery, failure to delivery on time etc. Also how about this vehicle seems to tick most of the boxes.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/cobra/

Jetjock
18th December 2007, 23:17
Pirana
Correct the 6.5m figure is in fact the initial down payment. Standard procedure by the dept. It is not possible to deduce a final number from this figure as it is impossible to know at the current time whether it is 50% payment or indeed more or less . Remember, the Gulfstream Govt jet was paid for over a number of years. Ten if I remember correctly.

Goldie fish
18th December 2007, 23:21
That Otokar Cobra sure is Ugly though...

paul
18th December 2007, 23:52
Who says the army is about looks,if it works use it.

luchi
19th December 2007, 00:11
Who says the army is about looks,if it works use it.

Not true.

when it comes to mil veh ugly is good but I am sure GF is well aware of the importance of appearance.

84Mac
19th December 2007, 10:17
Is the BAE Landsystems RG32M Galten out of the running ?
Considering the Swedes have them ( And they were deployed with the
Nordic Battlegroup I believe) Purchased 98 vehicles for €21 million.
Would it fit the bill ?

Goldie fish
19th December 2007, 21:55
I think it would.

hptmurphy
19th December 2007, 21:56
I think at a political level several suppliers are going to be put out of the link...and unfortuneately OTOKAR and their landrover derived products will fit in to that sphere unless there is some progress made with there attempts to gain entry to the EU.

In fairness I think this size vehicle is what can be realitically expected rather than the top shelf products previously posted.

It has to be borne in mind that the AMLs were used as recce vehicles which were self sufficent in fire support and were used as part of a 'troop' consisting of a dismountable element.

The thinking has moved on a touch to now incorporate that these detachments should have troop carrying vehicles which can defend them selves. hence the MOWAG with the RWS and 30mm turret

The concept of armoured scout cars has always been a bit of a grey area with the Army unless you want to include Beaverettes.

The concept of low cost versatile armoured vehicles should have been adressed before but again the greater need of the Mowag was served...I just wonder will the concept survive the upcoming financial winter of discontent.

madmark
19th December 2007, 22:52
very nice that will do people that will do

DeV
20th December 2007, 16:41
If the spec is the same as the last one and nothing suits it. If a vehicle that doesn't meet full spec is purchased it will go to the High Court.

Goldie fish
20th December 2007, 18:05
Not quite true.
Didn't the minister decide to defer the tender untel the market had matured? You can translate that as "we didnt want any prototypes". Wait until the Brits have their LTAVs in service and operational, see if they got what they paid for, then learn from their mistakes.

Any of the offered machines could have fit the bill, but some had not really been tried and tested operationally.
No doubt the panel of experts on the selection board made their recommendations. These recommendations may stand. However by revisiting it now, we may know more about certain, newer models, as other nations may have selected them. The Eagle IV and the Iveco for example.

Goldie fish
20th December 2007, 22:32
Has anyone who frequents other military boards heard anything about the Panther CLV Used by the British Army? I heard the Norwegians have them also, which might mark them as a top choice for us, NBG etc?

http://kr.img.blog.yahoo.com/ybi/1/24/56/shinecommerce/folder/8/img_8_8711_5?1166843711.jpg

mutter nutter
20th December 2007, 22:35
Only that no one seems to know what they are going to be used for now GF with all the other armoured vehicles being bought under UOR's, rumour is the first batch is just sitting in storage, they are not armoured enough for use...just what I've read.

Goldie fish
20th December 2007, 22:53
The Cougar is taking most of th eOperational use I suppose, and its too risky to try them out in A-Stan, until the bugs, if any, are sorted I suppose.

California Tanker
20th December 2007, 23:01
When I first saw a Panther at Bovvy, they were being purchased only as mobile command vehicles, and well-equipped ones at that. I guess their purchases may have been expanded since.

NTM

mutter nutter
20th December 2007, 23:15
The Cougar is taking most of th eOperational use I suppose, and its too risky to try them out in A-Stan, until the bugs, if any, are sorted I suppose.
Plus the 180 new armoured vehicles being ordered now, and vectors, Mastiffs ect ect....who know's they could end up selling the Panthers at second hand prices with nothing on the clocks:rolleyes:

Craghopper
20th December 2007, 23:15
When I first saw a Panther at Bovvy, they were being purchased only as mobile command vehicles, and well-equipped ones at that. I guess their purchases may have been expanded since.

NTM

Did you post a pic of your "new ride" on here yet:wink:

California Tanker
20th December 2007, 23:28
Yes.

Fireplace
21st December 2007, 15:14
What about the Panhard VBR?. It's size seems to be right. It's developed from the VBL. The sloped armour could provide some protection from RPGs as the ASV's armour has done in some circumstances for the Americans.

Goldie fish
21st December 2007, 18:32
What about the Panhard VBR?. It's size seems to be right. It's developed from the VBL. The sloped armour could provide some protection from RPGs as the ASV's armour has done in some circumstances for the Americans.



http://forum.irishmilitaryonline.com/showpost.php?p=159500&postcount=18

Well we only got forty years service out of the last Panhards we bought...:biggrin:

spider
21st December 2007, 21:29
From ARRSE -

Mastiff contacted by IED, no injuries...

http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/index.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=85003#1695332

Those things must be well built !!

Piranha
23rd December 2007, 18:26
I think at a political level several suppliers are going to be put out of the link...and unfortuneately OTOKAR and their landrover derived products will fit in to that sphere unless there is some progress made with there attempts to gain entry to the EU

According to Wikipedia Slovenia has ordered 10 Cobras and they’re an EU country it also says that the vehicle is more or less based on components from a HMMWV. Checked out the home page found this if you can see passed the Turkish commentary and cheesy sound track she seem like a capable vehicle watch the whole video they do a couple of survivability tests. I’m no explosives expert but it seems to be able to take a lot of punishment.

Web page: http://www.otokar.com/en/products/product_detail.aspx?urun=44
Video link: http://www.otokar.com/video/cobra.mpg

The only reason I keep coming back to the cobra is it reasonable priced 10 units of 2.6m USD that by my rouge cals is about 10 units for 1.7m euro (open to correction on this one) and from the specs I’ve posted before and video seem capable.

http://www.otokar.com/en/media_relations/p_haber_detay.aspx?haber=46

Goldie fish
24th December 2007, 05:33
Being based on a HMMWV is only an advantage if you already use the HMMWV.
Which we don't.
Interesting write up on the Iveco in this months "Military Machines".

Piranha
24th December 2007, 14:23
Goldie I’m aware we don’t use the HMMWV. My point was what it is uses parts from a fairly proven design. Granted I didn’t state that very clearly in my original post.

Goldie fish
24th December 2007, 16:53
I understand that, however I think the advantage of it being based on the Hummer is only to those who are already users of said vehicle. Parts commonality, maintenance etc. Better off for us going for a type with a transmission train we are already familiar with, if possible.

Is the Hummer really a "Proven" design? Or is it just one that has been built in very large numbers for a specific purpose? Its width for example poses no advantage at all to armies who don't use tanks like the Abrams.

No doubt Cal Tanker will correct me.

California Tanker
24th December 2007, 18:04
A quick hunt around shows that a MOWAG is about a half-meter wider than a Hummer. (And actually, the Strykers with their extra armour are wider than Abrams) If 'width of largest equipment in use' is a defining factor, the Ireland should have no issues with Hummers.

I don't think there's much doubt that the HMMWV's chassis is capable: Just look at the number of knock-offs that unrelated companies have made. The issue comes into when you start turning the vehicle into something it shouldn't be, like the Americans have done with the M1151. Just too much armour for the thing, it's turning into a medium wheeled armoured vehicle, not a light one which is just supposed to stop 155mm fragments and small arms. That said also, the HMMWV's chassis is a twenty-plus-year-old design: There may well be better out there. On the other hand, buying a replacement suspension component for something used by a quarter of the modern world has got to be cheaper than buying one for some obscure vehicle used by three countries, due to simple economies of scale of the production facility. And if the worst comes to the worst, you can always barter with some other country you're next to.

NTM

Craghopper
24th December 2007, 18:41
What about the Panhard VBR?. It's size seems to be right. It's developed from the VBL. The sloped armour could provide some protection from RPGs as the ASV's armour has done in some circumstances for the Americans.

They trailed them in the mid 90's IIRC.. correction..it was the VBL

sledger
26th December 2007, 18:05
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/puma/

The 4x4 would have my vote given the specs and its track history, reasonably successful production run and would possibly replace Panhard AMLs

the weapons fit is good and is currently in production

seem to meet all the criteria.

The PUMA 4x4 certainly seems to be a good contender. Janes Armour & Artillery 2003 mentions that it was specifically designed as a reconnaissance vehicle.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Lancieri_di_Aosta_Training.jpg


http://www.military-today.com/apc/puma_l2.jpg

However it is worth reviewing the requirements from the last competition.

From the DOD website:

The RFP’s requirement is for up to 66 LTAV’s.

Each LTAV must have a remote weapons station, which must be armed with a minimum of a 7.62mm MG. The weapon must be supplied and must be a current Defence Forces service weapon, i.e. FN 7.62mm MG or Browning 12.7mm M2.

The only difference between the Target Acquisition variant and the Surveillance/ Reconnaissance variant is the addition of the Ground Surveillance Radar.

The Engineer variant will be capable of carrying Class 1 Explosives (up to 100 kg of plastic explosive PE No 4 or equivalent RDX based bulk explosive) and 50 electric detonators with 1 cubic metre of storage for general engineer equipment.

The vehicles will have CBBN protection (NBC + Radiological).

The Infantry vehicle will carry 4 troops (including the driver).

The sensor suite may be different from that offered by a specific vehicle manufacturer.

The differential lock mechanism may be incorporated in the Transmission or Axel casings.

The minimum required on road range is 450 km. The minimum required off road range is 250 km

The crew restraint system will consist of a four-point seat belt configuration for each component.

The requirement is for a European NATO Jump Starter Socket Inter Vehicle Type. This Jump Start Lead Set incorporates a pair of (one at each end) 16mm 24 Volt POS (+) centre Pole contact with a 40mm external 24 Volt Neg (-) contact connection.

The standard International tow-hitch (12 - pin) suitable for military use must be included as well as the 7-pin plug. The weight to be towed should not exceed 3.5 tons.

The vehicle must be fitted with a weapons station of proven design with wide proliferation. The requirement is for a weapons station which must provide a level of armoured protection for the crew not less than that afforded by the vehicle. In this context either a Remote Weapons Station or a manned Turret will be considered.

The vehicle must be capable of fitting the radios (SINCGARS, Harris, Motorila)i.e. not have them fitted but have space for them, with the addendum that all wiring (looms) necessary to operate the equipment must be pre-installed. There must be no retro-fitting of wiring etc.

Must be fitted with a day/night surveillance suite. All vehicles will have a similar remote weapons station or manned turret), flexibility of the weapon station will be a consideration e.g. is it possible to change the weapon quickly with a similar weapon or remove it temporarily. The weapons station must be armed with a minimum of a 7.62mm MG but should have the ability to accept a 12.7mm HMG. Regarding the GSR, the vendor is invited to submit all options, which will then be examined and decided upon during the tendering process.

easyrider
1st January 2008, 23:38
Has anyone who frequents other military boards heard anything about the Panther CLV Used by the British Army? I heard the Norwegians have them also, which might mark them as a top choice for us, NBG etc?



Saw on another site that the Spanish, Czechs and Croats have also ordered the Iveco MLV.

Fireplace
5th January 2008, 14:53
These photos may be of interest. Italian LMV hit by IED in Afghanistan. No lives lost as was the case in another such attack.

Tadpole
7th January 2008, 21:03
Guys,
Sorry if this is a dumb question. I realise the first LTAV competition was cancelled due to the market not being mature. This thread was started in April when the competition was due to be restarted. I have trawled the thread and had a quick look on etenders but can find no notices for the competition. Has it gone ahead or are the tenders yet to be released?
If it has gone ahead what kind of time frame are we looking at before seeing something on the ground?

paul
13th January 2008, 22:31
These photos may be of interest. Italian LMV hit by IED in Afghanistan. No lives lost as was the case in another such attack.


What model LTAV is that?

Goldie fish
13th January 2008, 22:40
Iveco LMV.

easyrider
14th January 2008, 13:12
The Iveco LMV seems to be the de facto standard LTAV for EU armies. AFAIK, they are in service or on order with Italy, the UK, Norway, Spain, Belgium, Czech Republic and Croatia. Also in the running for a German Army contract. The DF can't go too far wrong if they decide on this model and place an order. The sooner the better, before another Nissan gets hit and maybe next time the crew won't be so lucky... Could be a case of downright negligence on the part of DFHQ if someone does get seriously hurt or even killed through lack of a proper vehicle for the job.

Fireplace
14th January 2008, 16:16
What model LTAV is that?

Standard Iveco with 3.2 wheelbase (3.5m available). Italian vehicles with STANAG level 4 have higher levels of protection than British Panthers. It's interesting that the Italians favour them over the Puma(in which they have lost men in Iraq and Afghanistan).

As ever, there may be questions about how hard they were hit but the vehicle does seem to have some desirable features - passenger capsule separated from front engine and rear cargo/fuel compartments as well as having a v-shaped hull.

Come-quickly
16th February 2008, 19:55
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml?xml=/motoring/2008/02/16/nosplit/mflmv116.xml

Truck Driver
16th February 2008, 20:05
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml?xml=/motoring/2008/02/16/nosplit/mflmv116.xml

Would be an interesting sight on a CIT escort.

Have noted that to drive this, a member of the DF would have to possess a C1
classification on his/her AF154 - as it is 7.1 T in weight... i.e; have a TCV licence.

That in iteslf would severely limit the DF's driving pool straight off for driving this
beast

But it certainly would be a useful addition to the DF for say, the Chad mission.
The Ford 350's the ARW have are certainly well armed, but they don't provide
anywhere near the ballistic protection that would be needed in a firefight.
Compare the two....

THIS:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/graphics/2008/02/16/mflmv2.jpg

VERSUS THIS:

http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/2920/irish1kh1.jpg

Can't tell from the photo if this machine will be decked out with a suppresive fire weapon - although that does look like a cupola on the roof of it, to allow a gunner to stand while operating a weapon

EDIT:
Having read the article more thoroughly, I see you can get a remotely operated 7.62mm MG upgrade on the vehicle for the princely sum of ST£405,000. Seems like a massive jump from ST£225,000 for what amounts to a GPMG and a Bowman radio comms system.

I also note that the author seems to be contradicting himself. In the "We Like" section, he mentions:

Manoeuvrability, power, stunning off-road performance, unthreatening appearance, modern safety and protection systems, easy to drive and surprisingly comfortable.

In the "We Dislike" section, he says:

Sharp edges inside and loads of places to lose Biros.
Performance and handling make it easy to get yourself in a lot of trouble.
Hard to win hearts and minds from behind two inches of ceramic, composite
armour and it's difficult to bring down fire with pinpoint accurancy when you're
not looking down the barrel. Not enough payload.

ex pat 007
16th February 2008, 20:28
The main threat for lightly armored vehicles come from the IED/mine threat usually implaced in choke points on an MSR. The fords look like off road driving would be no problem.

easyrider
16th February 2008, 20:56
Part of the extra cost of the UK's version seems to be the infamous Bowman... And the Irish LTAV specs include an RWS or a turret - maybe a turret would be a lot cheaper?

But the bottom line is that some such vehicle is needed, and now!

Come-quickly
16th February 2008, 21:46
Truck Driver, the LTAVs would not be used in place of GS vehicles. They are needed to carry out some roles that FFRs and GS vehicles are currently used for in the mech (w) bn/bde gp because there is nothing better currently in service.

Comparing the LTAV which is a liaison and patrol vehicle designed to operate as part of large(ish) forces with the ARW's specialised Long Range vehicles makes no sense.

No one is going to use an F-350 to carry out Battalion CSS functions and no one is going to use an LTAV to do long range recce patrols.

Goldie fish
17th February 2008, 00:20
TD, Surely a vehicles such as this will fit into the same category as the Mowags and Panhards in the DF? It will be driven my the same people who used to drive the 5.5 tonne Panhard AMLs in any case, for the most part, so no problem there, Cav won't have to wait for the transport gurus to decide how it should be driven, they'll do the training with the cav school, same as the Mowags. As I understand, there is no longer a requirement to have the TCV done before doing a Panhard driving course, as it is not a troop carrying vehicle(as the Mowag might be). You do need to have the Basic Nissan 154 though.

My understanding is it should replace the Nissan GS in the Cav, as the GS only existed in its role because there was nothing else out there. Mowags to replace panhards.

DeV
17th February 2008, 12:30
The LTAV is intented to replace the GS/FFR in some roles (in infantry, engineers, etc). The training & necessary 154s is inline with civilian driving licence legislation.

Depends on the corps the student in from, weight of the LTAV, carrying capacity. You ar correct on Cav personnel driving non-troop carrying armoured vehicles. But in the case of infantry driving the LTAV they will need to have done nissan, minibus and truck before they do module 4 (for armoured vehicles). But that could change.

madmark
17th February 2008, 20:32
the commando based on the F350 chassis

Come-quickly
17th February 2008, 21:22
I'm not a technical expert, but a cursory glance at the picture and specs would suggest that this vehicle is not at all suited for the LTAV purpose.

Both in terms of protection and fitout.

madmark
17th February 2008, 21:32
I'm not a technical expert, but a cursory glance at the picture and specs would suggest that this vehicle is not at all suited for the LTAV purpose.

Both in terms of protection and fitout.

neither am i but its light and somewhat armoured

easyrider
8th March 2008, 09:59
Wasn't it in the LTAV specs that at least some of the vehicles had to have a retractable sensor mast?

http://www.otomelara.it/EN/Common/images/photogallery/land/vistars_b.jpg

Goldie fish
8th March 2008, 10:21
No more Manpacking the ground radar....

paul g
12th March 2008, 00:38
Given the first tender, the following choice is quite intresting.



Thales has been selected as prime contractor for Luxembourg Army tactical reconnaissance capability. The Protected Recce Vehicle (PRV) contract calls for delivery of a tactical reconnaissance capability integrated with KMW Dingo 2 vehicles for the Luxembourg Army.

The Luxembourg Ministry of Defence mandated the NATO Maintenance & Supply Agency (NAMSA) to conduct the competitive procurement procedure for this programme. Prime contractor responsibility was awarded to Thales. The company will deliver 48 vehicles by the end of 2010.

The PRV contract will provide the Luxembourg military with a tactical reconnaissance capability that is particularly well suited to allied operations. Key requirements include the interoperability of the solution under development, combined with mobility, protection and observation capabilities.

This tactical reconnaissance capability will be integrated on Dingo 2 4×4 vehicles from Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW), which offer the high level of mobility and protection required by the Luxembourg forces.

The vehicles will be equipped with:

* A protection system based on the Protector remote-operated turret from Kongsberg, combined with laser detection systems and smoke grenade launchers.

* A complete observation system, including a long-range system integrated with a telescopic mast (already selected by France and Belgium), guaranteeing protection, discretion and rapid deployment thanks to all-weather optronic sensors and an off-vehicle surveillance system with Sophie MF handheld thermal cameras

* A C4I system based on proven HF/VHF communication equipment (PR4G, TRC 3700 HF) and a tactical situation awareness system (T-BMS) to allow vehicle integration with an interoperable reconnaissance unit.

These subsystems will be interconnected via an innovative open electronic architecture called the Open Information Communication System, designed to optimise integration and enable information exchange both within vehicles and externally. This innovative architecture reduces integration risks, speeds up the tempo of operations, manages all platform systems in real time and allows optimised support services.

luchi
12th March 2008, 23:25
Would be an interesting sight on a CIT escort.

Have noted that to drive this, a member of the DF would have to possess a C1
classification on his/her AF154 - as it is 7.1 T in weight... i.e; have a TCV licence.

That in iteslf would severely limit the DF's driving pool straight off for driving this
beast


That depends on how the vehicle is classed. cargo or TC
Cat D1 is 8-16 pass, Cat D is 16+ more than 9m
Cat C1 is cargo 4 to 7.5T and Cat C is 10T+
If it is a STCV ie less than 8 seats then since even though exceeds 4T it does not required a C1.
so only B required.

But if it is intended for Cav use then D.Cav can decide what AF154 is actually required.



TD, Surely a vehicles such as this will fit into the same category as the Mowags and Panhards in the DF? It ....................................... As I understand, there is no longer a requirement to have the TCV done before doing a Panhard driving course, as it is not a troop carrying vehicle(as the Mowag might be). You do need to have the Basic Nissan 154 though.
.

Like Dev I thought all Panhard etc would be Mod 4. But with the breaking up of the mod3 I can see why D.Cav would jump from Mod2 to Mod4 in this case.


The LTAV is intented to replace the GS/FFR in some roles (in infantry, engineers, etc). The training & necessary 154s is inline with civilian driving licence legislation..

The AF154 is not in line with civvi legislation. It comes close but still not there.

Goldie fish
20th March 2008, 19:55
No tenders yet?

Shall we wait till we lose our soft skin vehicles to ieds in chad first? Do nothing, and hopefully the problem will go away...

Come-quickly
21st March 2008, 15:22
I think shrinking budget + our necks being out in Chad and Kosovo = much potential for bad.

Don't you.

I note the yanks are trialling new vehicles in this class against future requirements, but given current operational pressures and the likelihood that the Defence Budget is going to dwindle we should purchase something off the shelf on a UOR basis.

Fireplace
22nd March 2008, 15:51
Just how much has the market matured since the last attempt? As far as I'm aware the newer vehicles being developed(US MRAP etc.) are all much larger than anything that could be described as an LTAV. It wouldn't be a surprise if the eventual selection was available the first time.

Goldie fish
22nd March 2008, 16:10
However, unlike last time out, we shouldnt be the first customers of this type of vehicle. For example, there are long delays geting the British Armys Iveco LTV into service.

The Blue Max
23rd March 2008, 11:30
I know this has been mentioned before but the RG-32 M Galten which is in service with the Swedish Military are partners in the NBG. I have attached some pics of them in Swedish service and they seem to a middle ground between the Mowag/Iveco LATVs and something like the Cougar/Bushmaster.

It can be fitted with normal weapon station upto RWS

Goldie fish
23rd March 2008, 11:38
Based on the South African Landmine experience in Angola, I believe. Definitely tried and tested.

Come-quickly
23rd March 2008, 12:15
As long as it allows all round vis.

Goldie fish
23rd March 2008, 12:20
As long as it allows all round vis.

You won't get an armoured vehicle with that that doesnt use a RWS...

easyrider
3rd April 2008, 23:18
I see the German Army selected the Mowag Eagle IV, 486 being bought, deliveries to start this year.

http://danskpanser.dk/images/EagleIV_6stor.jpg

mutter nutter
4th April 2008, 00:10
I know this has been mentioned before but the RG-32 M Galten which is in service with the Swedish Military are partners in the NBG. I have attached some pics of them in Swedish service and they seem to a middle ground between the Mowag/Iveco LATVs and something like the Cougar/Bushmaster.

.
It can be fitted with normal weapon station upto RWSI don't know, the Swedish military don't seem to like it, there are some "problems" with it...maybe it's just their one's but still.

Come-quickly
11th April 2008, 20:13
Anyone else see the Mowag Advert on the back of this month's An Cosantor and dream of a world where we bought 100 Eagle IVs and 100 Duros (armoured and unarmoured) off the shelf instead of pssing about?

Goldie fish
11th April 2008, 20:31
No... lets wait and see what the rest of the world does first. It seems to be the same with our foreign policy...
The Duro would be Ideal for the Gardai...

Come-quickly
11th April 2008, 20:51
I thought the Gardai would be angling for Pzhv 2000s and Leo2A6s...at least if they are going to match the Media Gang panic.

Seriously though, upping the order for the LTVs and getting some sort of economy of scale/customer power with Mowag by getting a significant number of Duros at the same time would mean that for instance, Cavalry units could continue to retain indigineous armour long after the AMLs rust apart.

Goldie fish
11th April 2008, 21:23
As it stands, PDF squadrons have no "Real" armoured vehicles. I understand new entrants to the units do not even learn the Panhard any more, moving straight on to the "virtual" Piranha. They are just waiting for the Reserve Cav units to take them out of the way.
The 90 isn't going overseas any more. The Last COS decided that. No point in wasting time training on a non deployable asset if most of your training is based on a scenario that deploys you overseas.

The experience in Chad could decide all too quickly what LTAV is purchased, and how soon, if at all.

chapofdryans
11th April 2008, 22:03
so there are no amls going to chad:eek:

doesn't that mean we lose any sort of fire power we have

apod
12th April 2008, 08:17
No point bringing the things if every time you go on a long range patrol(like in liberia) they break down.Nothing more embarrasing for the cav lads then having to ride in the back of a truck cos their AML is on a drops pallet!:eek:

chapofdryans
12th April 2008, 11:56
Oh that would be embarrassing, did they bring the mrv instead to have some sort of fire power or just the crv's with .5's and 40mm grenade launchers

Goldie fish
12th April 2008, 12:39
The CRVs were seen on the news clip being loaded on the ship, I didn't see any MRVs.

chapofdryans
12th April 2008, 13:59
i would think they didnt as there is very few of them at the moment.

DeV
12th April 2008, 15:48
As it stands, PDF squadrons have no "Real" armoured vehicles. I understand new entrants to the units do not even learn the Panhard any more, moving straight on to the "virtual" Piranha. They are just waiting for the Reserve Cav units to take them out of the way.
The 90 isn't going overseas any more. The Last COS decided that. No point in wasting time training on a non deployable asset if most of your training is based on a scenario that deploys you overseas.

The experience in Chad could decide all too quickly what LTAV is purchased, and how soon, if at all.

Have you read the Cav article in the latest An Cosantoir?

Goldie fish
12th April 2008, 15:56
Yep. Both Cav articles in fact
And there are some glaring errors in each of them.

Come-quickly
12th April 2008, 16:44
How unlike An Cosantoir....oh wait.

Frankly I think it is more than a little undesirable for Cav Sqns to become manpower offices insteead of operational units.

The LTAVs would at least stop the Squadron capabilities from slipping backwards. Well minus the loss of some large calibre weapons.

chapofdryans
12th April 2008, 18:16
Where would these errors be,as i wound'nt know.

hptmurphy
12th April 2008, 22:30
Anyone else see the Mowag Advert on the back of this month's An Cosantor and dream of a world where we bought 100 Eagle IVs and 100 Duros (armoured and unarmoured) off the shelf instead of pssing about

Wouldn't read to much into the add as they have alsosadvertised Meko Blohm and Voss products and S60's in the past.

DeV
17th April 2008, 18:43
A tender competition for light tactical armoured vehicles was cancelled in 2005 on foot of a recommendation by the military project evaluation team that the procurement project be deferred until the market for such vehicles was more mature. The military authorities indicated at the time that a suitably configured armoured personnel carrier platform would meet their needs in the interim. It was in that context that the contract for the supply of 15 additional Piranha armoured vehicles was placed in December 2005. The military authorities have now advised that the market for light tactical armoured vehicles has developed considerably since 2005. Accordingly, it is proposed to run a fresh tender competition for the purchase of this class of vehicle in the latter part of this year.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/DDebate.aspx?F=JUS20070403.xml&Page=1&Ex=61#N61

Goldie fish
17th April 2008, 19:01
That was already posted, Last year.

easyrider
17th April 2008, 22:54
Was the request for tenders ever issued?

Goldie fish
18th April 2008, 04:10
Not yet.

Fireplace
21st April 2008, 18:56
The French army have received the first 30 Panhard(Auverland) PVPs from an order of 314.

http://www.defense.gouv.fr/var/dicodrefonte/storage/images/media/images/terre/abe/petit_vehicule_protege__1/livraison_pvp/1000630-1-fre-FR/livraison_pvp.jpg4

TempPeck
28th April 2008, 15:13
I don't know, the Swedish military don't seem to like it, there are some "problems" with it...maybe it's just their one's but still.

Problems? What kind of problems?

airmanjack
9th May 2008, 14:45
Finally, it's game on for the second time!

The specs for the vehicle read a hell of a lot like the Mowag Eagle.......


http://www.defence.ie/website.nsf/document+id/2D3F7AAEC4EFCA2D802574440031A060

Goldie fish
17th May 2008, 04:52
Its Up on the EDA site also.
(EDA-1719)


The Department of Defence / Defence Forces has a requirement to source a fleet of Light Tactical Armoured Vehicles (LTAV) that will fulfil a number of distinct roles, within the full spectrum of operations both at home and overseas. The vehicles will be required to carry out a range of tasks including command, control and communications, light reconnaissance, target acquisition tasks and to act as a weapon platform.

The procurement of the LTAV’s will be carried out in three phases with the 2nd and 3rd phase optional from the Department’s perspective.

The initial requirement (Phase 1) is to procure 27 vehicles. These 27 LTAVs will consist of Standard (15), Surveillance and Target Acquisition (4), Intelligence/Surveillance/Reconnaissance (6) and Communications and Information Services (2) variants.

The requirement for Phase 2, subject to the option being exercised, is for the supply of up to 17 additional vehicles as follows.

Should the option be accepted, it will be exercised during Year 2 (2010) and will require delivery of the 17 additional vehicles in 2011. It should be noted that the Department reserves the right to change or modify the final configuration of the additional vehicles with regard to developments that may arise in the interim and from experience gained in service with the initial vehicles. This will be a matter for negotiation with the successful tenderer.

The requirement for Phase 3, again subject to the option being exercised, is for the supply of up to 10 additional vehicles as follows.
Should the option be accepted, it will be exercised during Year 3 (2011) and will require delivery of the 10 additional vehicles in 2012.

54 Vehicles in 3 stages.
30 Standard Variants
8 Surv & Target Aq
12 ISR
4 CIS

Variant........................................... ........... Year 1 (2009)..........Year 2 (2010)
Standard.......................................... .....................15........................... ..-
Surveillance &Target Acquisition (STA)....................NIL...................... .......4
Intelligence/ Surveillance/ Reconnaissance (ISR).....NIL.............................6
Communications and Information Services (CIS)...........1.............................1
Total – Phase 1................................................. .... 16 ...........................11

Variant........................................... .............................................Year 3 (2011)
Standard.......................................... .................................................. ....10
Surveillance &Target Acquisition (STA)............................................. ..........2
Intelligence/ Surveillance/ Reconnaissance (ISR)........................................4
Communications and Information Services (CIS)...........................................1
Total – Phase 2................................................. ......................................17


Variant........................................... ..............................................Year 4 (2012)
Standard.......................................... .................................................. ......5
Surveillance &Target Acquisition (STA)............................................. ...........2
Intelligence/ Surveillance/ Reconnaissance (ISR).........................................2
Communications and Information Services (CIS)............................................1
Total – Phase 3................................................. ......................................10



Vehicle Trials are to begin here by Wednesday 13th August 2008

Goldie fish
17th May 2008, 05:12
LTAV Specifications(Maybe it's time to Create a new, waffle free thread?)


ESSENTIAL AND DESIRABLE CHARACTERISTICS OF
LIGHT TACTICAL ARMOURED VEHICLE (LTAV)

It is essential that the proposed vehicle must possess the following minimum functional characteristics:



ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS

1.PROTECTION

The vehicle must be fitted with spall liners and provide the following levels of protection:


a Armour

(1) Assault Rifles, armour piercing steel core. Distance 30m, Angle azimuth 360 degrees, and elevation 0-30 degrees.

(2) Ammunition 7.62mm x 39 API BZ; velocity - 695 m/s. (STANAG 4569 level 2).

(3) Splinter, Artillery splinter 155mm at estimated range burst 80m, angle azimuth 360 degrees, elevation 0 – 22 degrees. (STANAG 4569 level 2).

b. Mine Protection


(1)Protection against mine explosion (min 6 Kgs explosive TNT blast) pressure activated AT mine
(a) under any wheel location (STANAG 4569 level 2a) and
(b) under centre (STANAG 4569 level 2 b)

(2)Must have an internal design optimised to minimise secondary explosions and fire from fuel, ammunition and explosives.
c. CBRN


(1)The vehicle must be capable of operating in a CBRN environment.

d. ECM


(1)The vehicle must be capable of supporting an ECM system of Input power 800W with 125W RF, and must be capable of mounting an additional seven (7) antenna on the roof of the vehicle. (The ECM equipment will be provided as GFE)
2.MOBILITY, PERFORMANCE, CAPACITY The vehicle must:


a.Mobility


(1) Have a Gross Vehicle Design Weight, which does not exceed 9 tonnes.
(2) Have a four (4)-wheel configuration with all wheel drive.
(3) Have an Automatic transmission with differential-lock.
(4) Have external jump-start facility with inter-vehicle starter socket (STANAG 4074 Type II) and allow trickle charging of the vehicles batteries from an external source via the inter vehicle starting receptacle.
(5) Have power assisted steering.
(6) Be fitted with a self-recovery 30m winch.
(7) Be fitted with a NATO international tow-hitch with the required ‘D’ rating for towing a combat laden vehicle of the same type.
(8) Have a central tyre inflation system (CTIS) capable of selecting tyre pressure while on the move, inflation and deflation of tyres on any chosen wheel, with a driver dashboard mounted gauge indicating the pressure of individual tyres. The system must provide for isolation of a defective leaking tyre.
(9) The tyres fitted must be suitable for use in cross-country terrain and
road operations and be capable of being fitted with anti-skid snow chains.
(10) Be fitted with run flat tyres capable of running for 50Km at 50km/h and be designed for the carriage of a spare wheel.
(11) Have a Steering wheel located either centrally or on the left side of the vehicle.
(12) Be fitted with front and rear emergency recovery points (STANAG 4019) and be capable of being towed for distances up to 50km without preparation.
(13) Be equipped with appropriate On Board Tools (OBD) and towing equipment to include a towing bar.
(14)Have all necessary tie down and lifting requirements fitted
for transportation by Road, Rail, Sea and Air (Fixed wing and Helicopter).
(15) Lighting
(a) Be fitted with external lighting including a reversing light that
complies with 76/756/EEC.
(b) Be fitted with a pair of blackout marker lights which must be fitted to the front of the vehicle, one at each side in close proximity to the normal width marker lights.
(c) Be fitted with a pair of combination blackout indicator, marker and stoplights fitted to the rear of the vehicle, one at each side in close proximity to the normal taillights.
(d) Be fitted with reflectors, which must be easily removed or covered for tactical operations.
(e) Be supplied with white and blue lighting for the driver and occupants’ compartments.
(f) Have driver warning/ gauge lights capable of being dimmed.
(g) Have a 360° searchlight fitted to the standard variant, operated from within the vehicle.
(h) Have a flexibly-mounted map reading light provided for the vehicle Front Right passenger with a variable brightness control, the ability to select white or blue light, the ability to remain in the position set by the vehicle commander during normal operation of the vehicle including a ‘parked’ or ‘not in use’ position.
(i) Have a circuit selector switch fitted to provide the
following functions:-


(i) Normal Lighting. This setting must allow the normal use of all lights. The horn and warning lights or buzzers must operate in this mode.

(ii)Reduced Lighting. This setting must allow the use of only the reduced headlight in addition to the blackout lighting.

(iii)Blackout Lighting. This setting must allow the use of only the blackout marker, blackout stop/tail, instrument and map reading lights. All warning lights must operate in this mode and all other lights must not operate in this mode.

(iv)Switches controlling the white lights must be fitted with a
positive interlock to prevent inadvertent operation during blackout.

(v)Opening of any door or hatch must automatically switch off the
lights inside the occupants compartment when the vehicle is
operated in blackout mode.b.Performance


(1) Have a diesel engine (F-54, EN 590) developing a power to weight ratio of at least 25:1 hp/t (DIN).
(2) The range of the vehicle must have a minimum of 600 km on road and 300 km off road.
(3) Be fitted with a modern effective braking system complying with EU Directives 98/12/EC and 71/320/EEC as amended.
(4)Have the capability of running on F-34/F-35 fuel.
(5) Have a road speed not less than 100 km/h at gross vehicle design weight.
(6) Have a capability to negotiate 60% gradient and 30% side slope.
(7) Have an angle of approach of at least 40° and an angle of departure of at least 45° and the capability of negotiating a vertical step of at least 400 mm.
(8) Have a fording depth of not less than 0.8m without preparation.
(9) Have a vehicle blackout capability to facilitate night driving.
(10) Must be capable of performing in temperatures between -32 to +44 degrees centigrade, without preparation (STANAG 2895 A2, B2, C1).
(11) Have an anti-lock braking system.
(12) Have an audible warning system for low battery voltage for the vehicle technical batteries.
(13) Have a ‘NATO Standard’ light socket as per STANAG 4007 ED 2.
(14) Be capable of idling frequently for two-hour periods without
significantly affecting its performance, reliability or durability
(15) Have a hand throttle fitted to allow the engine to be
operated above the idle speed during specific tasks, e.g. battery
charging
(16) Provide retardation, by means of a torque converter or ratio
lockup(s) or add-on retarders, so that the service brakes do not
have to be used when descending a 60% slope, except for the
purpose of bringing the vehicle to a complete stop
(17) Have a minimum braking efficiency of not less than 45% of the design gross weight of the vehicle and must not be significantly degraded subsequent to cross country and or fording/ amphibious operations
(18) Have a parking brake capable of holding the combat laden
vehicle on a 60% slope facing forward or rearward.
(19) Be fitted with quick release couplings for removal of all fluid
carrying pipelines of the power pack.
(20) Have batteries that are maintenance free and readily
accessible for daily checks and in a location where they are
protected from debris, which may fly up from the wheels

c.Capacity


(1) Have a seating capacity to carry four (4) personnel including the driver, on the Standard Variant with their standard operational equipment (minimum weight per person including equipment 150Kgs.).

(2)Have a payload capacity of 1.4 tonnes to satisfy the requirements of each vehicle variant, inclusive of personnel equipment, at STANAG 4569 level 2a, with full fuel tank, on-board tools and all equipments fitted for vehicle compliance with the essential characteristics.

(3) The vehicle must be fitted with four (4) individual seats, including driver seat, which are forward facing capable of seating four (4) personnel wearing standard Infantry equipment. The seats must be of such design to give maximum protection to the occupant and to minimize the effect of blast shock to the crews.

(4) All driver and occupant task functions must be anthrop metrically designed (UK standards) to permit safe operation by 5th to 95th percentile male or female personnel.

Goldie fish
17th May 2008, 05:22
3.ARMAMENT


a. Remote Weapons System

(1)The standard and ISR variants must be fitted to accept and operate a Remote Weapons System, inclusive of wiring, mount and ancillary equipment.
(2)The standard and ISR variants must be fitted with a hatch to permit crew access to the RWS, located to the rear of the mount for the RWS. The hatch must be fitted with a ring capable of rotating through 360°, fitted with a traverse lock. This hatch is also required on the STA and Comms. Variant.
(3)The Remote Weapons System must be the Kongsberg Protector M151 RWS in service with the Defence Forces and will be provided as Government Furnished Equipment (GFE).

b. Pintle Mount
The hatch/ring specified in para 3.a. (2) must be capable of being fitted with a Pintle mount on all vehicle variants. The pintle mount must not interfere with the fitting of a Remote Weapons Station. The pintle mount must be of proven design with wide proliferation, in service and not a prototype:


(1) Which must be fitted with a standard 7.62mm cradle including ammunition box holder and frontal protection ballistic shield.
(2) Which must be supplied and fitted with a 7.62 mm MG.
(3) Which must be accessible from a vehicle hatch. Location of pintle must take account of hatch location(s) and ease of use.
(4) Weapon must be a current Defence Forces service weapon.

c. Smoke Dischargers
The vehicle must be capable of being fitted with smoke dischargers (66mm).
The dischargers should not interfere with the fitting of a Remote Weapons
Station. The dischargers must be of proven design with wide proliferation, in
service and not a prototype.


4.COMMUNICATIONS

The vehicle must have


a.The capability to accept further electrical communications equipment
at 12 V and 24 V DC.
b.A complete electrical power and equipment footprint table provided within the design implementation phase.
c.A minimum of four (4) NATO standard external five (5) bolt antenna mounting brackets with the capability to accept additional cabling and external antennas.
d. Antenna mounts with the following characteristics


1)Located as far as is physically possible from the vehicle crew without degradation of the RF signal.
2)Maximum Earthing straps to allow flexibility in the installation of equipment.
3) Additional wiring capability throughout the vehicle without
any requirement for further drilling of the vehicle e. The ability to accept variant specific radio equipment.

f. Be capable of supporting as a minimum the following communications systems:


(1) Radio


(a) SINCGARS 1702E VHF Radios in AN/VRE 92 configuration (Two (2) Radios) using TRM, Two RF PA’s and individual antennae for each radio.
(b) Harris HF 5800-H Radio 125W Vehicular Configuration
using RF/5832H/PA Amplifier and RF5382H external Antenna
coupler
(c) Motorola GM360 (5/25W) VHF/UHF Vehicular configuration.
(d) Panasonic CF-30 Ruggedised Laptop solution to include docking
station.
(2) Intercom System


Be capable of fitting the Defence Forces Ireland, 24V Rovis intercom system in a ring configuration using a combination of MCS/L, FFCS/L, & RIT/D modules as supplied by BAE systems.

(3) Data Stations


(a) Be capable of mounting a minimum of One (1) Panasonic
CF-30 ruggedised laptop solution, to include docking station.
(b)Be capable of allowing the use of all computers and monitors
while on the move or stationary.
(c) Have a power source for the operation and continuous charging of
all C3 systems.
(d)Be capable of being continuously connected to vehicle’s
radio equipment suite.
(4) Electrical


(a) Have 24V electrical system as to Mil Std 1275 A (AT)
minimum.
(b)Have Individual electrical circuit and 24v battery pack for C2
and C3 capable of supporting all communications equipment.
(c)EMC Compatibility to Mil Std 461, Mil Std 461E, as amended.
(d)Provide for electrical expansion of at least 25% based on final
electrical power table.5.HEALTH AND SAFETY

The vehicle must:


a.Conform ergonomically and technically to all current EU Health and Safety standards.
b.Conform to 70/157/EEC, as amended, with regard to noise emissions.
c.Be fitted with an effective cabin heating system.
d.Be fitted with an effective cabin air conditioning system.
e.Be fitted with an effective crew restraint system with minimum four (4)-point harness system. The harness restraint system must incorporate an approved quick-release mechanism.
f.Be fitted with an engine fire detection and suppression system including a warning light on activation.
g.Be fitted with internal crew operated hand held fire extinguishers. Fire resistant materials must be used inside the vehicle. Materials that emit toxic fumes when heated must not be used inside the vehicle.
h.Be fitted with effective crew escape mechanism.
i.All components must be manufactured from asbestos free material.
j.Proposed antennae locations to provide crew RF safety as per manufacturers specifications without degradation of RF transmission.
k.Engine exhaust fumes and engine cooling air efflux must be directed in such a way that, in normal operation, neither causes the vehicle occupants to breathe exhaust fumes or engine efflux. Engine exhaust fumes and engine cooling air efflux must be directed in such a way so as not to raise dust.
l.Provide a ride quality, which does not lead to damage to equipment or injury to personnel and of sufficient quality to ensure that the performance of all personnel in the vehicle do not suffer degradation from motion sickness when the vehicle is driven for a two-hour period over cross-country.
m.Each door/hatch must be designed to be opened and closed internally and externally when the vehicle is stationary on level ground, or on ground sloping less than 30%.
n.A means of securing each door/hatch in the open and closed position must be provided. All doors/hatches must be capable of being combat locked. The combat-locking system provided must be capable of being overridden in an emergency from the outside of the vehicle.
o. At least one exit point (door or hatch) must be capable of being opened when the vehicle is resting on either side or on its roof. At least one hatch must have the provision for the fitting of an external locking device.
p.The vehicle must comply with the Safety, Health and Welfare At Work Act 2005, the Safety, Health and Welfare At Work (General Applicant) Regulations 2007 and all EU Regulations/Directives relating to Health and Safety.

Goldie fish
17th May 2008, 05:25
6.ERGONOMICS

The following instrumentation must be provided for the driver: -


a.Speedometer.
b.Tachometer.
c.Odometer with a trip facility.
d.Fuel gauge.
e.Battery charging indicator
f.Battery condition indicator.
g.Engine oil pressure gauge.
h.Engine coolant temperature gauge.
i.Transmission oil temperature.
j.Engine hour meter.
k.Devices that warn the driver of low coolant level, low oil pressure and high coolant temperature in the engine and of high oil temperature in the transmission.
l.No driver control function, other than steering, must require a two handed operation.


7.SURVEILLANCE


a.The RWS suite must be the Kongsberg Protector M151 RWS in service with the Defence Forces.
b.Must be capable of supporting the RAID-M CBRN Detection System currently in service with the Defence Forces.

8.VARIANTS The overall requirement will consist of four (4) distinct variants. The selection of variants must include:


a. Standard Variant


(1) Must be capable of accepting and supporting the Kongsberg Protector M151 Remote Weapons Station in service with the Defence Forces.
(2) Must be capable of the carriage of the Javelin anti-armour system complete with stowage for two (2) missiles

b.Surveillance & Target Acquisition Variant


(1) Must incorporate an autonomous north pointing system.
(2) Must be fitted with a day/night Surveillance and Target Acquisition (STA) suite incorporated in a pan ‘n’ tilt head capable of being elevated and retracted.
(3) Must be capable of being fitted for and operating the AMSTAR Ground Surveillance Radar.
(4) Must be capable of being fitted with an Artillery indirect Fire Control System, which will require a 24V supply to power the system.
(5) Must be capable of being fitted with communications package, including SINCGARS 1702E VHF Radios in AN/VRE 92 configuration (Two (2) Radios) using TRM Two RF PA’s and individual antennae for each radio. Also Harris HF 5800-H Radio 125W Vehicular Configuration using RF/5832H/PA Amplifier and RF5382H external Antenna coupler


c.Intelligence/Surveillance/Reconnaissance (ISR) Variant


(1) Must be fitted with the Kongsberg Protector M151 RWS surveillance and weapons suite. The vehicle manufacturer will be responsible for the integration of the RWS into the vehicle.
(2) Must be capable of carrying ISR detachment associated equipment, comprising of Amstar.
(3)Must be capable of being fitted with communications package,
including SINCGARS 1702E VHF Radios in AN/VRE 92
configuration (Two (2) Radios) using TRM, Two RF PA’s and
individual antennae for each radio. Also Harris HF 5800-H Radio
125W Vehicular Configuration using RF/5832H/PA Amplifier and
RF5382H external Antenna coupler

d.Communications Variant


The vehicle must be capable of supporting:

(1) Dual SINCGARS 1702E VHF Radios in AN/VRE 92 configuration using TRM, Four RF PA’s and individual antennae for each radio. (Two TRM’s with 4 1702E Radios all L/R).
(2) Harris HF 5800-H Radio 125W Vehicular Configuration using RF/5832H/PA Amplifier and RF5382H external Antenna coupler
(3) Motorola GM360 (5/25W) VHF/UHF vehicular Configuration.
(4) BGAN COTM Solution
(5) Communications mast capable of a minimum of 3m extension above the vehicle
(6) Panasonic CF-30 Ruggedised Laptop solution to include
docking station.

Goldie fish
17th May 2008, 05:38
9.MAINTENANCE AND LOGISTICS


a. The vehicle must:


(1) Not be a prototype.

(2) Have a proven in service international reliability record.

(3) Have a 24-month warranty period from the date of successful completion of acceptance procedures in Ireland. Replacement components fitted under warranty shall also be covered for a further period of 24 months on replacement. If systematic or repeat errors occur in 10% of the fleet, they shall be covered for a period of 60 months on reporting.

b. Cleaning


(1) The vehicle must be designed so that there are no recesses where water could collect and cause corrosion.

(2) The exterior of the vehicle must be capable of undergoing a cleaning process, which includes the use of high pressure water jets (working pressure 150 bar), without causing damage to any components exposed to the water jet.

(3) The interior of the vehicle must be capable of undergoing a cleaning process without causing damage to the components concerned.

c. Kongsberg Remote Weapons System


(1) The Kongsberg RWS must be provided with a full and detailed itemised spare parts listing.


(a) This list should include the lead-time to availability (LTTA) of each individual component relating to the RWS.

(b) The list provided should include a unit price and prices based on increased quantities.(2) The Kongsberg RWS must be provided with certification that all RWS components are of the latest design (year of delivery) and that the specification is current and will not be discontinued.

(3) The Kongsberg RWS must be provided with a detailed itemised list of all Special Tools and Test Equipment (STTE) including:


(a) All diagnostic equipment used in the maintenance of the RWS up to Third Echelon.

(b) A pricing list and LTTA of all STTE.

(c) The STTE manual must clearly specify the task that each STTE item is required for and the Echelon at which it will be required.

(d) Each STTE item must be clearly numbered and referenced in the manual.

(e)In the event of agreed modifications post delivery of RWS, the manufacturer will provide amended spare parts, maintenance and crew manuals as required during the projected service life of the RWS, at no extra cost to the Defence Forces. (4)Have support manuals in English, in hard copy and digital format for:


a.Crew (operators manual)
b.Repair technicians up to 3rd echelon level (maintenance manual)
c.Technical stores and repair technicians (spare parts manual)

(5)The purchase of spare parts and STTE should be direct from Kongsberg.

9.c deleted by DoD