PDA

View Full Version : New Mowag Piranhas in action



Capt Fantastic
11th April 2011, 02:15
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43jmcl8D3Mo&feature=player_embedded

The new mowags are looking pretty fine.

Just though i would bring this to yer attention in case any of ye missed it.

Hope you enjoy.

Vickers
11th April 2011, 11:04
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43jmcl8D3Mo&feature=player_embedded

The new mowags are looking pretty fine.

Just though i would bring this to yer attention in case any of ye missed it.

Hope you enjoy.

Thank you but this has already been posted

http://forum.irishmilitaryonline.com/showpost.php?p=330362&postcount=443

PzBrig15
2nd June 2011, 11:54
Hello User ,

So i hope you would see intersting Pictures of the MOWAG Piranha IIIC . I had see very specially Versions with 90 mm Turret and with 30 mm turret ( IFV ) . The Belgian Army had these Versions in use.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pzbrig15/5765779519/in/photostream

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pzbrig15/5765779945/in/photostream

and a APC ( Armoured Personal Carrier )

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pzbrig15/5766188844/in/photostream

PzBrig15
20th July 2011, 20:16
Hello Forum-User ,
please can anybody help me ???
In my Database I had list the new Mowag Piranha IIIC Belgium Army with 276 Vehicles .
138x AIV Base Line
64x AIV Infantry Vehicle
19x DF30 with 30mm Turret
18x DF 90mm with 90mm Turret
14x Version Command Post
8x Version Genie
6x Version Medical
9x Recovery Vehicle

but many Informations (u.a. Wikipedia) are tell : Order 242
What is now right ??? Had anyone the complete Orderlist ???

Rhodes
30th January 2012, 21:13
MOWAG's

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oFt4RY4Hcsw?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oFt4RY4Hcsw?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

PzBrig15
26th June 2012, 23:33
I had visit the Belgium Medium Brigade by Leopaoldsburg . So I had make a intersting Pictures- Thread.
I hope you interested the Pictures by the follow LINK
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pzbrig15/sets/72157630269931188/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pzbrig15/sets/72157630269931188/

GoneToTheCanner
27th June 2012, 19:08
Just leave the keys of the leopards and the thing with the 90mm and walk away. we won't tell...

regards
GttC

PzBrig15
27th June 2012, 23:45
I was a old Leopard 1 / 2 Enthusiast and active Soldier by these Cold War Time , but I had see the Piranha and get a instruction of these Weapon systems. I must said : For these new modern times these are a intersting System. For the Budget of a little Country ( belgium) a taff Think .

GoneToTheCanner
28th June 2012, 11:57
This is the new modified Mowag. Money is tight so old equipment will be recycled....

PzBrig15
30th June 2012, 21:50
and here are a Add on by the MOWAG Piranha IIIC DF90 / Belgium Army ( Landcomponent)

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f56/Eurocopter-2008/IMG_2210.jpg

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f56/Eurocopter-2008/IMG_2169.jpg

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f56/Eurocopter-2008/IMG_1047.jpg

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f56/Eurocopter-2008/IMG_1046.jpg

all Pictures of the Day of the Belgium Landcomponent at the follow LINK :

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pzbrig15/sets/72157630269931188/

Victor
1st July 2012, 12:13
Rather tall, isn't it?

PzBrig15
27th October 2012, 23:57
The Belgium Army / Landcomponent did use the Piranha IIIC DF90 by a Exercise at a Live Fireing Range at Germany
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f56/Eurocopter-2008/IMG_8843.jpg

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f56/Eurocopter-2008/IMG_0128.jpg

and with the little caliber 30mm / the DF 30 ( Direct-Fire Vehicle)
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f56/Eurocopter-2008/IMG_0297.jpg

The High-Res Version of these Pictures :

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pzbrig15/8128597893/in/photostream

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pzbrig15/8110043251/in/photostream

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pzbrig15/8113854167/in/photostream

Goldie fish
10th February 2013, 14:51
<iframe width="853" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/I8-vC3CbpHg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Published on Feb 10, 2013


Mowag Armoured Personnel Carrier Driving Course

PzBrig15
7th May 2013, 19:54
the MOWAG Piranha IIIC , Belgium Army by a Presentation on their Opendeur ( Open House)
DF90 / Direct Fire 90 mm Caliber
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f56/Eurocopter-2008/IMG_0378_zps5568b848.jpg (http://s45.photobucket.com/user/Eurocopter-2008/media/IMG_0378_zps5568b848.jpg.html)

<a href="http://s45.photobucket.com/user/Eurocopter-2008/media/IMG_0360_zps228694e1.jpg.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f56/Eurocopter-2008/IMG_0360_zps228694e1.jpg" border="0" alt=" photo IMG_0360_zps228694e1.jpg"/></a>

Come-quickly
10th May 2013, 10:40
Panzer: Have there been any independent or critical reports on its actual performance though?

Aidan
10th May 2013, 11:27
Is that an APU on the left rear of the hull? Also, is there any public data available on the applique armour? Those are big flat surfaces for any gunner to be shooting at.

Just checked - the Belgian guns are the medium pressure (MP) version of the 90mm. The LP version wasn't a million miles from the one on the AML, with a mv of around 1200m/s for its APFSDS (a 2.5kg projectile with a diameter of 20mm), and which had very marginal penetration against tanks, even older ones (T-55 etc) from the front. It might have better behind armour effects, but as an anti tank weapon, it's about on a par with the 30mm Bushmaster the DF use. The MP seems better, with an mv of 1350m/s for the APFSDS, which should do 150mm RHAE at 2km - a bit back from even a 50 year old L7/M68, but not terrible. CMI advertise it as having 'similar' anti-tank capabilities to 105mm systems - in this case 'similar' appears to mean a bit 'worse', and on a platform that is very vulnerable to anything above 7.62mm ...

http://www.armyrecognition.com/belgium_belgian_light_heavy_weapons_uk/lcts90_weapon_system_90_mm_turret_armoured_armored _cockerill_gun_vehicle_design_development_product. html

paul g
10th May 2013, 12:17
Is that an APU on the left rear of the hull? Also, is there any public data available on the applique armour? Those are big flat surfaces for any gunner to be shooting at.

Just checked - the Belgian guns are the medium pressure (MP) version of the 90mm. The LP version wasn't a million miles from the one on the AML, with a mv of around 1200m/s for its APFSDS (a 2.5kg projectile with a diameter of 20mm), and which had very marginal penetration against tanks, even older ones (T-55 etc) from the front. It might have better behind armour effects, but as an anti tank weapon, it's about on a par with the 30mm Bushmaster the DF use. The MP seems better, with an mv of 1350m/s for the APFSDS, which should do 150mm RHAE at 2km - a bit back from even a 50 year old L7/M68, but not terrible. CMI advertise it as having 'similar' anti-tank capabilities to 105mm systems - in this case 'similar' appears to mean a bit 'worse', and on a platform that is very vulnerable to anything above 7.62mm ...

http://www.armyrecognition.com/belgium_belgian_light_heavy_weapons_uk/lcts90_weapon_system_90_mm_turret_armoured_armored _cockerill_gun_vehicle_design_development_product. html

its not designed to fight tanks, its designed to support infantry units in low intensity conflicts. For that mission its fine, as it will mainly be firing HE, HESH, cannister and smoke rounds

You've got an obsession with these vehicles engaging tanks, in reality they're there to support infantry units fight third world units armed with technicals abnd light armoured vehicles.

Come-quickly
10th May 2013, 12:28
I'd be more curious about its stability, mobility, load and fcs.

Can it smashy smashy pop up targets on the move I.e. as close in dfs on an advance to contact or when in a Liberia style coy gp patrol

Aidan
10th May 2013, 13:29
You've got an obsession with these vehicles engaging tanks, in reality they're there to support infantry units fight third world units armed with technicals abnd light armoured vehicles.

When the reason for going with a large direct fire weapon (as opposed to an autocannon) is generally pointed out to be the effectiveness of the system in an anti-tank role, then it seems rational to start by having a look at it's effectivess in that role. For the Belgians, this replaces the Leo 1 and they were far from comfortable with the decision for a load of reasons, this being one (another being the widespread perception that the only reason this turret was purchased was to give a hand to the MECAR and CMI facilities in Belgium). This is a good outline.

http://www.lalibre.be/index.php?view=article&art_id=210132


The question of weight, mobility and optics are every bit as important in the real world, given that it would likely have a role as a convoy escort or as a QRF role (where the Q matters). Mobility off road would be key in most of its roles, and that turret has a lot of weight, stacked very high up. Mechanical reliability is also going to be a factor, given the weight of the thing over the standard PIII - haven't the Irish ones had issues with axles and hubs? How is this going to manage if deployed somewhere typically third world, working off road for long periods with such high axle loads? Armour matters too, and not just because of the size of the thing, or because it is unlikely to have to deal with tanks. After all, a 'gunner' might be using a 23mm ZSU-2 on the back of a Hilux (or even a 12.7mm), and he's going to aim for the most dangerous target - this beast.

Strikes me that there is a gap in the market here for Mowag - take the engine, drive train, suspension, axles etc from a PIII/PIV, and put them all in a lower, better armoured chassis than the PIIIC/H, and put a mid mounted turret on the thing, capable of taking anything from a 25mm, through 40mm CTA, to 105mm. It would resolve any stability or visual profile issues that arise from customers plonking a turret on top of an already quite tall apc, be better protected, but allow the benefit of commonality of mechanical and electrical systems across with existing customer PIII fleets. Bingo, an AMX-10RC for the 2020s, but cheaper to run.

paul g
10th May 2013, 13:36
Aidan the canadians did a really good review into this type of vehicle back in 1998, have a look its on the web at

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/DLCD-DCSFT/pubs/archive/No%20number%20-%20Armour%20Combat%20Vehicle%20Concept%20Paper%201 9%20May%201998.pdf

The large weapon is there for infantry support, that is why the Americans developed the MGS, its there to fire HESH, cannister and Smoke to support infantry units, they use Stryker TOW or M-1 Abrams to engage MBT.

if you think about the DF, the battalion for any future operations will be pretty similar to the one in the lebanon at the monent, two infantry companies and a Recce company with a battalion Support group; if you're going to have a Direct fire Support Cability at all, it will fit in the Recce Company, as an extra troop to support the infantry companies.

Now personally I think that there is a role for Direct fire support, but I'd rather see a mortar carrier bought first and the mowag fleet updated.

Aidan
10th May 2013, 14:23
Interesting paper.

However, it is worth noting that both the Americans and Canadians have cancelled their MGS order, and both now use MBTs in the fire support role in Afghanistan. The Canadians went so far as to have their Leopard 2s shipped straight there, despite the lack of an armoured threat, such was their desire to have a tank in theatre (after starting off with their Leopard 1s). The future tank, in both cases, is a tank (and to be fair, supplemented by a mix of LAVIIIs/Strykers, Bradleys and air support).

In simple terms, the majority of western countries have not pursued the concept of landing a big gun on an APC and using that to supplement or replace a tank. There are reasons for this.

Rhodes
10th May 2013, 15:00
The LP version wasn't a million miles from the one on the AML, with a mv of around 1200m/s for its APFSDS (a 2.5kg projectile with a diameter of 20mm), and which had very marginal penetration against tanks, even older ones (T-55 etc) from the front. It might have better behind armour effects, but as an anti tank weapon, it's about on a par with the 30mm Bushmaster the DF use.

I don't know of hand what the effects on armour of the AML 90 or MRV but a HEAT round from an AML 90 wound penetration twice the thickness of armour the MRVs 30mm gun could.

The French are planning on moving away from the big gun on their recce vehicles, replacing both the ERC 90 and AMX 10 with a vehicle armed with a 40mm gun and multi target missile.

Come-quickly
10th May 2013, 15:01
Aidan, all valid points. But I kind of think your reply is non sequitur to Paul's last.

paul g
10th May 2013, 15:15
However, it is worth noting that both the Americans and Canadians have cancelled their MGS order, and both now use MBTs in the fire support role in Afghanistan. The Canadians went so far as to have their Leopard 2s shipped straight there, despite the lack of an armoured threat, such was their desire to have a tank in theatre (after starting off with their Leopard 1s). The future tank, in both cases, is a tank (and to be fair, supplemented by a mix of LAVIIIs/Strykers, Bradleys and air support).

.

yep, actually quite sad to see the men who spent their careers dreaming of fighting kursk mk 2 reduced to providing direct fire support to mere infantrymen.

What is it, three danish leopards and about 14 abrams in total in Afganistan? Out of how many armoured vehicles?

Jungle
10th May 2013, 15:36
yep, actually quite sad to see the men who spent their careers dreaming of fighting kursk mk 2 reduced to providing direct fire support to mere infantrymen.

"Mere Infantrymen" :rolleyes: My tanker friends, including the last Tank Sqn Commander in Kandahar, did not seem to mind their DFS role. Actually, they thought that was much better than operating some "tank-wannabes" and showing the flag on peacekeeping missions (we did that for far too long...). Armies are designed and trained for combat; everything else is a side show.


What is it, three danish leopards and about 14 abrams in total in Afganistan? Out of how many armoured vehicles?

If you look at it in raw numbers only, you gotta point... but you shouldn't; we deployed 20 MBTs to Kandahar until 2011, and the effects they brought were disproportionate to their numbers.

Come-quickly
10th May 2013, 15:50
http://youtu.be/W95fNqbFABM
As a fan of the big gun concept, the lack of enthusiasm for throwing a few shapes in their advertising for this version is cause for disappointment.

paul g
10th May 2013, 16:05
"[I]
If you look at it in raw numbers only, you gotta point... but you shouldn't; we deployed 20 MBTs to Kandahar until 2011, and the effects they brought were disproportionate to their numbers.


Buit you can't get away from raw numbers, there are less than 20 MBT in Afghanistan with ISAF and were never more than 40 in the first place, intresting that the brits left their MBT behind but brought their MBT based engineering vehicles.

I'ver no doubt that Canadian MBT were very effective especially in the fighting around September 2006 when they were taking on enterenched Taliban forces, but the key system was the 105mm and the ability to fire HESH, would the MGS not have performed that task as well.

And you cant get away from the fact that comparable armies in size to ireland don't deploy MBT and have got rid of their large fleets.

If you look at the infantry battalion ireland can deploy overseas (and there was a really good series of articles on the unit in An cosantoir over the past few months) , then there are areas like the battalion mortar platoon and engineering platoon along with casuality evacuation that are as, if not more important than direct fire support in any environment, where we could do with improving out capabilities in before thinking about direct fire support

Aidan
10th May 2013, 16:05
Out of how many armoured vehicles?

Thousands. How many of these were APCs with large calibre direct fire weapons lobbed up top?

There are and were plenty of autocannon and HMG equiped ASLAVs, LAVs, Strykers etc (and CV90, Marder and Bradleys too). Thats my point - big gunned wheeled vehicles are not in favour anywhere in the developed world really - the MRV the DF here use is pretty much the ame answer as everyone else arrives at too, unless you happen to have a factory building 90mm turrets and another making the ammunition for it - in your country. I'm not arguing for a second that the DF should operate MBTs (in fact, I haven't really been talking about the DF at all in this thread), just that there are huge compromises associated with this type of weapons system, and that two countries that put a lot of thought into a highly evolved version of one (the MGS) have both walked away from it, not because the mission changed, but simply because it didn't stack up.

Jungle
10th May 2013, 16:53
I'ver no doubt that Canadian MBT were very effective especially in the fighting around September 2006 when they were taking on enterenched Taliban forces, but the key system was the 105mm and the ability to fire HESH, would the MGS not have performed that task as well.

I think the key ability was the level of protection they brought.


And you cant get away from the fact that comparable armies in size to ireland don't deploy MBT and have got rid of their large fleets.

They did, but for financial reasons, not because other systems are better. They are jeopardizing long term security capabilities for short term financial gains; I understand the economic climate in some countries, but once a capability is gone, it is extremely difficult to stand it up again. Until it bites you in the ass...

Some countries could have bought a Sqn+ of modern MBTs to replace their Regt's worth in order to maintain the capability, without spending an enormous sum of money. Buying more tanks becomes a lot easier then reintroducing them in your inventory.

acmatman
1st July 2013, 20:18
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCXwgPZXScM

Flamingo
2nd July 2013, 16:57
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCXwgPZXScM

I'm glad I don't have the job of washing that afterwards!

The real Jack
21st October 2013, 22:48
http://images.defensetech.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/photo-5.jpg


Early next year, Army maneuver officials at Fort Benning, Ga., will test Stryker vehicles armed with new stabilized 30mm cannons in an effort to increase the firepower of the service’s all-wheeled infantry carriers. In February, the Army’s Maneuver Center of Excellence will conduct a “proof on concept” test using company’s worth of Styker Vehicles equipped with Kongsberg Protech Systems new Medium Caliber Remote Weapons Station, said Carl Sundin II, who is in charge of senior business development for Army programs at Kongsberg, at the Association of the United States Army’s 2013 Annual meeting and Exposition. Kongsberg began working with Stryker maker General Dynamics Land Systems on the MCRWS in 2008. The company also makes the M151 RWS that’s currently on the Stryker. Army officials at Benning’s Maneuver Center announced the service’s plan to “up-gun” Stryker vehicles in September based on lessons learned from combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. Stryker Brigade Combat Teams first saw combat in Iraq in late 2003. The highly-mobile infantry force is equipped with potent variants such as the 105mm Mobile Gun System and anti-tank guided missile. But most Stryker vehicles are infantry carriers armed with .50 caliber machine guns or MK19 automatic grenade launchers. The Medium Caliber Remote Weapon Station looks like a turret mounted on top of a Stryker, but Kongsberg officials maintain that a true turret would consist of a basket that extends down into the vehicle and eat up a lot of space. “That would detract from the main mission of the Stryker — to transport a nine-man infantry squad,” Sundin said, describing how a true turret would make the Stryker “look a lot like a Bradley inside, holding four to five men tops.” The MCRWS can also be loaded from the inside of the vehicle, but the current configuration eliminates one of the Stryker’s four top hatches. Read more: http://defensetech.org/2013/10/21/army-to-test-kongsbergs-new-gun-on-stryker/#ixzz2iOaS7jcp Defense.org

12

Jungle
19th November 2013, 03:24
We are starting to take delivery of the upgraded LAV-IIIs, now called LAV-6:

http://wpmedia.blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2013/01/lavedit.jpg

GDLS calls it LAV UP:

LAV UP (http://www.gdlscanada.com/index.php/products/light-armoured-vehicles-lav/lav-up)


The program will upgrade 550 LAV IIIs of Canada's fleet in four variants: the Infantry Section Carrier, Command Post, Observation Post Vehicle and Engineer variants. Each will undergo a comprehensive upgrade aimed at extending their lifecycle to 2035. The upgrades will be performed at facilities in London, Ontario, and Edmonton, Alberta, and will extend from 2012 to 2017.


These upgrades will allow for significant improvements in survivability, mobility and lethality. Survivability enhancements include switching to a Double-V Hull offering inherent and weight efficient protection from mine and IED threats as well as energy-attenuating seats at all crew locations. A more powerful 450hp engine is included as well as upgrades to the drivetrain and suspension. Turret sights will be upgraded to extend their range and gun control electronics are being improved to reduce crew workload. The fully upgraded vehicle weighs 55,000lbs (25,000kg), but testing has demonstrated that its mobility is comparable to or better than the original high-mobility 38,000lb APC vehicle that the upgrade is based on.

An option for 66 additional vehs has since been exercised, bringing the total to 616 upgraded LAVs. The initial LAV-III order was for 650 vehs, and 13 were destroyed in Afghanistan.

RoyalGreenJacket
19th November 2013, 16:46
We are starting to take delivery of the upgraded LAV-IIIs, now called LAV-6:

http://wpmedia.blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2013/01/lavedit.jpg

GDLS calls it LAV UP:

LAV UP (http://www.gdlscanada.com/index.php/products/light-armoured-vehicles-lav/lav-up)



An option for 66 additional vehs has since been exercised, bringing the total to 616 upgraded LAVs. The initial LAV-III order was for 650 vehs, and 13 were destroyed in Afghanistan.

we are seriously lacking in such a vehicle. why we don't just buy the licence to manufacture this in the UK by GKN or similar is beyond me, we have wasted so much time and money on FRES, it's sacrilege.

northie
19th November 2013, 18:48
I could be wrong but fres not supposed to include a vehicle such as this, the preferred tender was the Mowag Pirhana 5..............

DeV
19th November 2013, 20:54
we are seriously lacking in such a vehicle. why we don't just buy the licence to manufacture this in the UK by GKN or similar is beyond me, we have wasted so much time and money on FRES, it's sacrilege.

That was the plan with FRES (and probably part of the problem)!


I could be wrong but fres not supposed to include a vehicle such as this, the preferred tender was the Mowag Pirhana 5..............

The MOWAG Evolution was selected as preferred bidder for the Utility Vehicle in 2008, which was then withdrawn due to failing to reach agreement on commercial conditions.

That vehicle developed into the Piranha V (selected by the Canadians).

DeV
21st January 2017, 23:06
Can the 90mm MOWAGs carry any troops?

na grohmiti
21st January 2017, 23:50
Can the 90mm MOWAGs carry any troops?

Crew of three only.

apc
23rd January 2017, 13:06
Can the 90mm MOWAGs carry any troops?

Would that not come down to the space the turret basket takes up and the requirement for ammunition. The B1 Centauro had accommodation for 2 - 4 soldiers. Ok so that was designed as a Tank Destroyer that evolved into an IFV but surely the Turret basket doesnt take up the whole crew compartment in a MOWAG

na grohmiti
23rd January 2017, 19:29
The Turret basket takes up a considerable space on the Piranha MRV, and its only a 2 man turret for a light cannon. The 90 is a far larger turret.

apc
24th January 2017, 12:04
The Turret basket takes up a considerable space on the Piranha MRV, and its only a 2 man turret for a light cannon. The 90 is a far larger turret.

Looking at pistures of the belgian Mowags with the CMI 90mm turret it doesnt seem to take up all the room in the back although extra ammunition would. I think ready ammunition is carried in the bustle
<a href="http://www.flickriver.com/photos/pzbrig15/6205522234/">View on black</a>

<a href="http://www.flickriver.com/photos/pzbrig15/6205522234/">View on black</a>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VD411tvBwUE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBUF-txQdGs

EUFighter
25th January 2017, 06:03
The Hitfist turret fitted to the MRV has a cage with a diameter of 1.4m, the Hitfact turret which can take up to a 120mm gun has a diameter of 2m. Therefore if you can get 6 troops in the back of a MRV then 4 should be possible when fitted with a 120mm gun! Also the newest generation vehicles like the Piranha V, Terrex and AMV are all larger than our Piranha IIIH.

DeV
25th January 2017, 08:33
I wonder if BREXIT will effect the MOU with the UK?

And how long will their MIV take to deliver ?

apc
25th January 2017, 12:47
The Hitfist turret fitted to the MRV has a cage with a diameter of 1.4m, the Hitfact turret which can take up to a 120mm gun has a diameter of 2m. Therefore if you can get 6 troops in the back of a MRV then 4 should be possible when fitted with a 120mm gun! Also the newest generation vehicles like the Piranha V, Terrex and AMV are all larger than our Piranha IIIH.

They would be a great addition and give an extra deterent on peacekeeping duties

Rocinante
12th April 2017, 18:43
I can't see if this has been mentioned here already but, in General dynamics 2016 report they mention Ireland in the context of ordering new Piranhas. It seems to indicate new builds.
pg 4
http://www.generaldynamics.com/sites/default/files/2016-GD-Annual-Report.pdf

Sparky42
13th April 2017, 21:09
I can't see if this has been mentioned here already but, in General dynamics 2016 report they mention Ireland in the context of ordering new Piranhas. It seems to indicate new builds.
pg 4
http://www.generaldynamics.com/sites/default/files/2016-GD-Annual-Report.pdf

Given the speech in the Daíl stating that the contract is €50 million I doubt that there's new hulls, guessing more that they were limited in what they could say.

apod
14th April 2017, 10:57
The refit involves stripping the existing cars down to the hull and building from scratch nearly.

na grohmiti
14th April 2017, 12:24
The refit involves stripping the existing cars down to the hull and building from scratch nearly.

Good practice. The US have been doing the same with M1 Abrams for years. The Armour is usually perfect and just needs a shot blast and repaint. Better then to rebuild transmission and drivetrain outright. Easier to do than part refit. You are building a new car around the original armour.

GoneToTheCanner
14th April 2017, 20:16
A proper overhaul, not a sporadic half arsed job, would leave the cars as good as new and fit for overseas service. If they do it right, the electronics would be up to date and future proofed.

sofa
14th April 2017, 20:37
Will there be any work done on the hulls, ie V shaped.?

Sparky42
14th April 2017, 20:53
Considering we're only paying €50 million how much of a rebuild can that pay for?

apod
14th April 2017, 21:14
Folks,
For those of us who have IKON. It's all there.
For those who don't, sorry but the exact details are not for public discussion just yet.However lets just say that with the upgrade the only original parts will be the hulls.

The new,old, cars will be a massive improvement and will greatly enhance the situational awareness and force protection of the crews and dismounts;):biggrin:

na grohmiti
15th April 2017, 10:46
Considering we're only paying €50 million how much of a rebuild can that pay for?

Quite a lot, considering each car only cost over €1m.

na grohmiti
13th April 2018, 21:45
I see the CoS posted some photos of the Mowag upgrades on twitter earlier. The "minister" and he are in Switzerland visiting GD Land systems.
Earlier this week they were visiting Pilatus.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Pleased to visit <a href="https://twitter.com/GD_LandSystems?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@GD_LandSystems</a> ???????? with Minister Kehoe &amp; view upgrade of <a href="https://twitter.com/defenceforces?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@defenceforces</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MOWAG?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MOWAG</a> Armoured fleet. Improving force protection &amp; situational awareness for our soldiers <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/%C3%93glaighnah%C3%89ireann?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc %5Etfw">#ÓglaighnahÉireann</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/JoinOurTeam?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#JoinOurTeam</a> @<a href="https://t.co/uHA2MhSmUi">https://t.co/uHA2MhSmUi</a> <a href="https://t.co/qqgVq1qaTy">pic.twitter.com/qqgVq1qaTy</a></p>&mdash; DF Chief of Staff (@DF_COS) <a href="https://twitter.com/DF_COS/status/984881518383255553?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 13, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

DeV
13th April 2018, 22:10
I see the CoS posted some photos of the Mowag upgrades on twitter earlier. The "minister" and he are in Switzerland visiting GD Land systems.
Earlier this week they were visiting Pilatus.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Pleased to visit <a href="https://twitter.com/GD_LandSystems?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@GD_LandSystems</a> ???????? with Minister Kehoe & view upgrade of <a href="https://twitter.com/defenceforces?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@defenceforces</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MOWAG?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MOWAG</a> Armoured fleet. Improving force protection & situational awareness for our soldiers <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/%C3%93glaighnah%C3%89ireann?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ÓglaighnahÉireann</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/JoinOurTeam?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#JoinOurTeam</a> @<a href="https://t.co/uHA2MhSmUi">https://t.co/uHA2MhSmUi</a> <a href="https://t.co/qqgVq1qaTy">pic.twitter.com/qqgVq1qaTy</a></p>— DF Chief of Staff (@DF_COS) <a href="https://twitter.com/DF_COS/status/984881518383255553?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 13, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


Is that a different RWS?

na grohmiti
13th April 2018, 22:35
It certainly appears to be. In fact it looks very much like the version seen recently at Eurostatory, with a Javelin mount alongside the main gun armament.
http://mb.cision.com/Public/2217/2027715/abaf8594a203a72d_800x800ar.jpg
http://mb.cision.com/Public/2217/2027715/a4afc604d0f68892_800x800ar.jpg

GoneToTheCanner
14th April 2018, 01:42
How is that Javelin and gun and optics protected from the elements?

na grohmiti
14th April 2018, 05:19
How is that Javelin and gun and optics protected from the elements?

They come with a canvas cover....

Rhodes
14th April 2018, 13:54
The new Dual RWS is for 12.7 HMG and 7.62 MAG, giving the same firepower as the old turret its replacing.

na grohmiti
14th April 2018, 14:01
The new Dual RWS is for 12.7 HMG and 7.62 MAG, giving the same firepower as the old turret its replacing.

What's on the hull front next to the drivers hatch?

Rhodes
14th April 2018, 14:27
What's on the hull front next to the drivers hatch?

A camera, part of a system giving 360 vision day and night around the vehicle.

apod
13th May 2018, 15:16
A camera, part of a system giving 360 vision day and night around the vehicle.

This should make the situation clearer.(You like what I did there??:biggrin:)
https://armadainternational.com/2017/11/cst-as-selected-for-irish-mod-lsas-program/

apod
18th May 2018, 06:44
First upgraded cars are back from GDELS.

na grohmiti
6th July 2019, 13:59
This'll be an excellent bit of kit to have.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">As part of the <a href="https://twitter.com/DF_Engineers?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@DF_Engineers</a> equipment development plan, two Rapidly Emplaced Bridge Systems (REBS) will be received in 2019/20. These systems will greatly increase mobility for the <a href="https://twitter.com/defenceforces?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@defenceforces</a>, particularly for Overseas Operations and will assist local authorities in <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ATCA?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ATCA</a> <a href="https://t.co/PPgu5shOaS">pic.twitter.com/PPgu5shOaS</a></p>&mdash; Defence Forces Corps of Engineers (@DF_Engineers) <a href="https://twitter.com/DF_Engineers/status/1147152014486515712?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 5, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

It won't be attached to a Mowag here though, it'll be a DROPS package. Shame.

DeV
6th July 2019, 14:47
This'll be an excellent bit of kit to have.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">As part of the <a href="https://twitter.com/DF_Engineers?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@DF_Engineers</a> equipment development plan, two Rapidly Emplaced Bridge Systems (REBS) will be received in 2019/20. These systems will greatly increase mobility for the <a href="https://twitter.com/defenceforces?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@defenceforces</a>, particularly for Overseas Operations and will assist local authorities in <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ATCA?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ATCA</a> <a href="https://t.co/PPgu5shOaS">pic.twitter.com/PPgu5shOaS</a></p>— Defence Forces Corps of Engineers (@DF_Engineers) <a href="https://twitter.com/DF_Engineers/status/1147152014486515712?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 5, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

It won't be attached to a Mowag here though, it'll be a DROPS package. Shame.

So attached to a 8x8 DROPS in same way?

apc
7th July 2019, 00:36
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4977Oed1AU

na grohmiti
7th July 2019, 09:18
Here's another, longer clip of it being deployed from DROPS.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1STGOR_mf_E" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>