PDA

View Full Version : LTAV First attempt.



Pages : [1] 2

andy
28th January 2003, 13:30
I was wondering if the tender went out for the light tatical veichles yet??

if so, whats the DF's options, what is likely to be in the running??

Thorpe
28th January 2003, 15:17
Mowag Eagle II (I would say is the front runner)
AV Technology Dragoon
Otokar Otobus Karoseri Sanayi AS Cobra
Textron Marine & Land Systems ASV 150

Goldie fish
29th January 2003, 01:11
The recent Book by Karl Martin mentioned the selection process briefly for the Light Tactical Vehicles(veh-hickle). The Mowag Eagle II and the Panhard VB2L are 2 of the long list.
Also up for consideration could be the following vehicles,which are in the running for The Belgian Recce 2001 programme and a similar UK competition,which they are calling
Future Command and Liason Vehicle .

1#Alvis Scarab.
http://www.mod.uk/img/modnews/images/fclv_alvis.jpg
The blurb says..

To reduce overall life-cycle costs, Scarab uses proven sub-systems wherever possible. For example, the engine and drive line is from the Mercedes-Benz UNIMOG 4 x 4 cross-country vehicle.
The crew of the Scarab depends on the mission, but is typically three who are seated at the front of the vehicle with the power pack at the rear. A wide range of weapon systems can be mounted on the roof including 7.62mm or 12.7mm machine guns, 20mm cannon or anti-tank guided weapons. Specialised sensor pods can also be fitted

2#Iveco MLV.
http://defence-data.com/storypic/ivecomlv.jpg
The Blurb says...

With a length just under 5000mm and weighing 6500kg, MLV is readily air-transportable in EH101 and CH-47 (2 vehicles)helicopters and C-130 aircraft(2 vehicles), for rapid deployment into any operational theatre.
MLV's engine is the Euro 3, Iveco Fl 0 185 BHP;(same as the new trucks?) the vehicle has automatic transmission, hydrosteering, off-road ABS, central tyre inflation system, independent suspension and, following brief preparation, can ford depths of 1.5m.
Armoured protection kits include underbelly mine protection, Additional anti-tank mine protection under wheel arches, 3600 protection against 7.62mm AP attack and protection against 155mm fragments.


3#ACMAT (Hunting-INSYS) VLRB.
http://www.mod.uk/img/modnews/images/fclv_hunting.jpg
This is an armoured Vehicle based on the ACMAT VLRA Truck as used By the Artillery and Vehicle Workshops. This version is being built in the UK by Hunting engineering. It can be fitted with applique armour though the basic design has protection from 7.62mm ball ammo and Anti Tank Mine protection. This is achieved through a Blast Deflecting under belly V-Type Plate.Powered by a Cummins Euro 3 instead of the Perkins engines of the VLRA.


4#VDS RG-32M.
http://www.mod.uk/img/modnews/images/fclv_vickers.jpg
Company Blurb..

Built to stringent technical and quality specifications, the RG-32 Scout has two variants: the five-seat Mine Hardened Patrol Vehicle (MHPV) and the seven-seat Estate version. The five-seat has a degree of mine hardening and the seven-seat version greater capacity. Each variant can be custom-built or modified to serve as asset-in-transit vehicles, escort or VIP transporters, as well as for a variety of military, paramilitary, police and peacemaking applications

Following a competition involving a wide variety of vehicles from an international field, the MOD has placed contracts with Hunting Engineering, Alvis Vehicles, and Vickers Defence, worth about £500,000 each, for a year-long Risk Reduction and Trials programme. A preferred contractor is due to be selected in 2003, with vehicles entering service in 2006
*Side note to all above..Alvis have combined with Vickers Defence,to make Alvis Vehicles,
Iveco Have combined with alvis To build the MLV
Some tendering process...*:rolleyes:

The Locally favoured types as mentioned earlier.
#Mowag Eagle II
http://www.mowag.ch/Images/Produkte/Eagle/Ablage_01/eagle_05_gross.gif
Mowag say..

The internationally successful AM General Hummer chassis forms the platform for the MOWAG EAGLE 4x4 Armoured Reconnaissance Vehicle.
The lightweight EAGLE 4x4 is ideally suited for reconnaissance, surveillance, liaison, escort, border patrol and police missions

#Panhard VB2L
http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/supplement/lav/PanhardVBL.jpg
The VB2L Is a VBL with a Long wheelbase
The Blurb...

There are two basic versions of the VBL: combat/ anti-tank with a three-person crew and armed with one 7.62mm machine gun; and intelligence/scout with a two-person crew and armed with one 7.62mm and one 12.7mm machine gun. The standard production VBL has a wheelbase of 2.45m, but the vehicle can also be built with a wheelbase of 2.7m, which increases the vehicle's internal volume.
Fully amphibious, the VBL is propelled in the water by a single propeller mounted under the rear of the hull. It has a maximum water speed of 4.5km/h.

Hope I have informed you somewhat.. :-patriot:

John
21st July 2003, 20:49
from defence-aerospace.com

UK Armored Vehicle Orders

(Source: Alvis issued July 17, 2003)

Alvis plc is pleased to announce that its UK subsidiary, Alvis Vickers, has today been selected as winner of the competition to supply the Future Command and Liaison Vehicle (FCLV) for the British Army.

Subject to final contract negotiations, Alvis Vickers will receive a contract valued at around £200m to supply almost 500 MLV vehicles. MLV is a 4x4 high mobility light armored vehicle providing protection against small arms fire and mines. The MLV is based on the Iveco LMV vehicle which has been developed for a major Italian Army program.

For the FCLV program Alvis Vickers will install UK mission equipment comprising principally a weapon station, armour pack and communication systems. MLV is a complete family of vehicles around 7 tons incorporating the latest automotive technology. It will be used in a wide range of Command and Liaison roles in the British Army, replacing a variety of older vehicles.

The demonstration phase of the program will run until 2005, and series deliveries will take place between 2006 and 2009. This extends the firm UK order book of Alvis Vickers, the principal current element of which is the Engineer Tank System which will be delivered 2005-2007.

MLV is a modular design which can readily be adapted to meet other requirements both in the UK and for export. Alvis Vickers has signed an agreement with Iveco which provides substantial rights in the export market. The prospects for additional sales of MLV beyond the core FCLV program are therefore good.

The UK MOD also announced today that it would not be continuing with the Multi-Role Armoured Vehicle (MRAV) program into a production phase as the vehicle is no longer considered suited to the changing requirements of the British Army.

The UK will negotiate withdrawal from the program at the earliest opportunity. Any longer term role for Alvis in MRAV will depend on the plans of the German and Dutch partners. In any event it would be a small role in comparison to the work which would have been involved in building vehicles for the UK.

Whilst the UK decision not to implement production of MRAV is a disappointment, Alvis needs to be flexible in the face of customer requirements changing in response to evolving threats.

The UK MOD is in the process of launching a project for a new family of light/medium armored vehicles known as the Future Rapid Effects System (FRES), which will absorb some of the roles previously foreseen for MRAV. Alvis Vickers is well placed to play a leading role in this project, and success in this, together with work on FCLV, will provide a strong medium and long-term UK workload for Alvis Vickers.

Moreover, both the FCLV vehicle and the FRES concept are perceived to be well attuned to the long-term requirements of the export market.

Nick Prest, Chairman and Chief Executive of Alvis plc, commented:

Winning FCLV is a demonstration of Alvis competitiveness and flexibility. It provides good long-term business for Alvis Vickers. Whilst the MOD’s decision not to take MRAV into a production phase is disappointing, Alvis’s prospects in the UK market remain very promising.

-ends-

Goldie fish
21st July 2003, 23:13
So is it the iveco model they are talking about? Not a bad machine,good survivability. There may be something about this in the archives somewhere..
Could be an interesting pointer to where out stalled light armoured vehicle could go.

Goldie fish
23rd July 2003, 07:06
there u go

andy
23rd July 2003, 10:08
Thanks lads,

I was on the 8Batt annual camp there and the ranger were giving us a talk. They told us that there were currently testing out the HUMVEE, I dont know if this means that the PDF are getting it?

Johnny2Stripes
1st August 2003, 13:02
nice site here:
http://www.mowag.ch/En/00_HomeEnglish/00-01_Frameset.htm

Probably saw it already!!

paul
3rd August 2003, 17:02
with regard to yhe Mowag Eagles- the danish armed forces have decided that they are no longer to be used in urban areas as the visibility through the windows is too restricted. Also they have encountered difficulties off road due to the low ground clearance.
It would seem that the MLV (iveco) would be a better choice on the grounds of component commonality:-patriot:

Goldie fish
3rd August 2003, 17:35
My sentiments exactly. Considering we use the Iveco in 2 other forms,and the type can be modified to suit the customers needs..it seems like the best machine for the job..

hptmurphy
12th August 2003, 16:57
like the look of the scarab.......anybody notice the passing resemblance to the Timoney or is it just my imagination.All probabilities point to the Eagle but like its big brother the Piranaha ....its too big for rural roads.

Come-quickly
12th August 2003, 17:00
Theres definitely some valkyr blood in the Scarab alright.

Johnny2Stripes
12th August 2003, 18:00
Anyone know why we arnt buying from Timoney - they are an Irish company...Are they still producing? :-patriot:

ias
12th August 2003, 21:09
Yes Timoney are still designing and producing if required, if you like to take a look at my site, still in the making, but some details on past and current Timoneys http://www.geocities.com/irisharmoredvehicles/

IAS

Goldie fish
13th August 2003, 05:40
Was watching clarkson the other night road test a humvee..not a bit practical. 6 litre engine,offroad it was doing less than 1mpg. Thats before you try and drive it and 4 only passengers down the narrow country roads(ie most military ones) of this and other countries.

Timoney still design,but do not build in this country. They were excluded from the APC competition as no prototypes were permitted. Probably for the better. While the old timoneys may have been ok at the time,why not leave this to the experts? The Piranha that was selected was based on a design first seen about 20 years ago,modified based on combat experience. Could timoney provide the same service?

ias
13th August 2003, 08:56
Timoney still perform low volume manufacturing in Ireland, apparently, with their facilities, they have a capacity to produce about 40 vehicles per year (single shift). The Terrex prototype was built in their plant, in Meath, for Singapore Technologies, my understanding is they were also building an MP66 prototype a couple of years ago (apparently the hull was completed but was not fitted with an engine or transmission).

Regarding experts, the Terrex has received excellent reviews around the world including Jane's and the Swiss publication Armada and there are two more prototypes currently under construction (location unknown at this time).

Interestingly, Taiwan just completed the first prototype of the 8x8 version of the CM31, which should be entering service in the not too distant future.

I assume that prototypes were excluded as the Army wanted well proven vehciles, and I don't think anyone would aqrgue that the Piranha III is not an excellent vehicle, however, it's ironic that it suffered a similar problem to the Timoney MkIV, problems with it's armour plate.

Whilst I agree, Mowag have far more experience in constructing armour vehicles, though the vast majority of Piranhas were constructed by other companies (GM Defense, Alvis etc.), I would hope that a Timoney design and/or bulid will not be ruled out of a future LTV competition.

Remember, "Just because it's Irish doesn't mean it's bad"!


IAS

John
13th August 2003, 11:14
http://timoney-technology.com/

Goldie fish
17th October 2004, 16:22
So now that we have a new minister,and all that extra cash was found behind the wardrobe,what are the chances that this programme too can get back on track?
The Panhards are not getting any newer...

SPOOKY
19th October 2004, 03:18
Don't forget the Dingo!
http://www.virto.com/euromil/2002/1202-dingo/
http://www.defense-update.com/products/d/dingo-kmw.htm
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?prod=16477&session=dae.5417927.1098126443.QXQUa8Oa9dUAAC0JXao&modele=jdc_1
ie. US FMS/FMF
http://www.panzerbaer.de/types/bw_atf_dingo.htm
http://www.panzerbaer.de/types/bw_atf_3_dingo_2-a.htm

or these for example
http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/vehicles/achleitner/achleitner5.html
http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/armoured/timoney/timoney2.html
(lets not forget the bushmaster.....)
http://www.ssss.com/NR/rdonlyres/50B199DE-1269-472D-BB90-FFFCB180AD2C/740/ArmorGWagen.pdf

the list goes on eg.
the UK armoured "SNATCH" landrover defender(available now in, 110 and 130 versions..)
http://www.mod.uk/linked_files/dlo/DLO_ISSUE_24_P1-14.pdf (pg. 4, sorry can't find better pic..)
and the Turkish version, more heavily armoured(can't remember what its called- cobra?)

The fact remains, unless you decide what you want
ie. weight limits, size limits, min. payload capacity, min. cross-country capability, level of armour protection, mine protection, min. fuel effciency, etc. then you can do diddly squat............

Goldie fish
19th October 2004, 03:28
http://www.defense-update.com/images/Dingo-ag.jpg
Dingo(similar to the South african design RG-32M seen above?)

The rest are more APC type, which were already through the process which the Piranha won. This competition seems to point towards a replacement for the panhard in an armoured recce role.

Well done on the research though.

hptmurphy
19th October 2004, 04:12
Given that the Cav now tasked with CTR ..wouldn't this change the type of vehicle required? We now require something that is fast but not necessarily armed to defend itself.

The days of brigade recce are numbered as was the intended role of the cavalry in this country so why are we specifically looking for this type of vehicle? Given the capabilities of the P111...it is well capable of carrying out the role...just buy a few more of them.

Actually if you look at it logically we no longer will have an independent army in the future...we will be an element of a multinational force incapable of operating as an independent defence force.....is this worth a thread of its own?

mutter nutter
19th November 2004, 21:52
since willie's announced that the next big buy is the light tactical vehicle, I thought we should see what you lad's would go for :smile:

Thorpe
19th November 2004, 22:22
Its been mentioned else where in poll, but here we go again, from talking to the folks in various squadrons around the country, the prefered choice is the Mowag Eagle.

Come-quickly
19th November 2004, 22:56
The DURO based Eagle would be nice as long as it came with about 200 Duros

ias
19th November 2004, 23:16
I am the only one that thinks that the Aussies are right in going for the heavier Bushmaster/MP44, fully mine protected, large capacity, also able to replace the M3 APCs? As there is almost no chance of the DF receiving both LTVs and APCs, for local and/or urban use abroad, does this extra flexibility not make sense?

IAS

ias
19th November 2004, 23:17
C-Q, if a Duro equaled a Euro then we may get 200 :tri:

IAS

Docman
19th November 2004, 23:47
I am the only one that thinks that the Aussies are right in going for the heavier Bushmaster/MP44, fully mine protected, large capacity, also able to replace the M3 APCs? As there is almost no chance of the DF receiving both LTVs and APCs, for local and/or urban use abroad, does this extra flexibility not make sense?

It is a question of Mission. The Irish LTV will likely serve a utility purpose as well as a Recce mission. A large Vehicle is likely to lead to the LTV being used for purposes other than what it was originally intended for. Better to stay focused. (What are the missions for the Irish LTV anyway?)

In saying that, since there will be a low number acquired, it is necessary for the LTV to be able to accomplish a number of missions (APC not one). It is necessary for it to be well armoured and operate a enclosed vehicle weapon (preferably turret mounted either .5 or 7.62).

Goldie fish
20th November 2004, 06:33
since willie's announced that the next big buy is the light tactical vehicle, I thought we should see what you lad's would go for :smile:

What did he say exactly? Where and when? I want details damn it!!! :eek:

Goldie fish
20th November 2004, 10:32
Keep in mind that the Eagle IV is based on the Mowag Duro,which was recently delivered to some EOD units,and is not in fact derived from the Humvee.
http://www.mowag.ch/En/02_ProdukteEn/EAGLE4x4En/EAGLE4x4En4/02-24_Frameset.htm

http://www.mowag.ch/Images/Produkte/Eagle/Ablage_01/eagleIV_02_gross.jpg

Also worth pointing out that our nearest neighbours have selected the Iveco MLV model,to be localised by Alvis, and they are naming it Panther,or cougar, or ginger tom, or some other feline predator...
These are armed with a remotely operated Roof mounted MG,removing the need for a heavy turret..not uncommon with vehicles of this size.
http://www.alvisvickers.co.uk/images/products/MLV14large.gif
http://www.alvisvickers.co.uk/products/product_details.cfm?product_id=27

Vehicles like the Dingo and Bushmaster are heading towards APC...which we already have.
Consider these as a replacment for the Panhard AML90 or soft skin Recce 4x4...

The typical "Armoured Car" if you like.

mutter nutter
20th November 2004, 20:44
What did he say exactly? Where and when? I want details damn it!!! :eek:
it was in several of the paper's the day before the finance estimate's were released, he said that the DOD would be putting out a tender early 2005 for an LTV too complement the Mowag's :smile:

ias
22nd November 2004, 03:36
Just saw in JDW, Oct. 27th issue, that the Belgiums are looking for a "Multi-Purpose Protected Vehicle" and have received at least 3 bids, the Bushmaster, the Dingo 2 and the RG-31. These vhicles are to fit between a LPV, a requirement for 620 of which 180 would have armour (could be equated to our "Jeep" requirement) and an AIFV/MGS, a requirement for 645 including 101 MGS (could be equated to our PIIIs).

This idea of a multi-purpose vehicle appeals to me as I doubt if the DF will ever get all the (specialised) equipment it really needs.

Regarding the AML replacement, according to an article some years back in An osantoir, this was always slotted for 2005 and was a different requirement to the LTVs (are the LTVs not primarily for the Infantry while the AML replacement will be for the Cavalry)?

IAS

andy
22nd November 2004, 18:49
Looks like it is the Eagle after all going by the article in news

http://www.irishmilitaryonline.com/board/showthread.php?t=4985


A request for the light armoured vehicles, similar to the Humvees used by US forces in Iraq, was made by the army in 2000 and they were the No1 item on a "shopping list" submitted to Mr Smith then. The cost could be €10-€15m.

FMolloy
22nd November 2004, 20:34
That was the Eagle III, the Eagle IV is a different beast altogether.

ias
22nd November 2004, 20:36
I think the "Jeep" and the LTV are two different requirements, with the Eagle being mentioned for the LTV.

IAS

pipper2b
28th November 2004, 04:45
the toyota condor is the obvious choice................

FMolloy
29th November 2004, 21:53
The Toyota Condor:

http://www.motoring.co.za/site/30/picdb/article0/e/2/13257 http://www.motoring.co.za/site/30/picdb/article2/9/7/13259

And the inside:

http://www.motoring.co.za/site/30/picdb/article1/4/9/13260

Goldie fish
29th November 2004, 22:13
That looks like a hi ace bus that has been raped by a land cruiser. Lets ignore any further suggestions from pipper2b

gaff85
5th December 2004, 11:08
Why was the fennick not mentioned?

Link to a dutch "topgear" road test of same (http://www.rtl.nl/(channel=rtl4,progid=autowereld)/system/media/wvx/automotor/rtlautowereld/miMedia/2004/week48/vrijdag_12_fennick_1.avi_plain.xml/wm364.wvx)

(Copied from Keypublishing, army forum)

Goldie fish
5th December 2004, 11:35
The Fennec evolved into the Scarab.

ias
5th December 2004, 21:16
The Fennek and Scarab while similar in appearance are two totally different designs. The Scarab was developed from a South African project and is based on the Unimog while Fennek was designed from the ground up by the Dutch and Germans. The Fennek is actually the far more successful of the two, commercially that is, with large orders from the Dutch and German armies while the Scarab has yet to be ordered by anyone.

If we buy a foreign design I have to say I would go for the Fennek.

IAS

Come-quickly
20th February 2005, 11:16
This vehicle presents a very interesting concept for cavalry operations, with the vehicles aimed in German Service to operate in pairs ahead of major formations using their day/night TV cameras and the light Aladin UAV to gather information.
The Crew is three, and the armour and windows offer protection against 7.62x51 AP and shell splinters.
Other roles including ATGM carrier are described in the article.
Compared to most current Cavalry vehicles the Fennek is lightly armed but it does offer much better info collection capabilities than say an AML 20...although HPT might be able to enlighten me as to whether the recce role described above would actually be tasked to AMLs or to FFRs.



FENNEK WHEELED ARMED RECONNAISSANCE VEHICLE, GERMANY
FENNEK WHEELED ARMED RECONNAISSANCE VEHICLE, GERMANY

The Fennek Armed Reconnaissance Vehicle, produced by Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) of Kassel, Germany and SP Aerospace and Vehicle Systems BV of The Netherlands (the ARGE Fennek consortium), has been developed for the Dutch and German Armies. The prototype vehicle completed field trials in April 2000. 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. The vehicle is in production and the first vehicle was delivered to the Netherlands in July 2003 and to Germany in December 2003. Deliveries will continue to 2008. The vehicles will replace M113 vehicles in the Dutch Army and Luchs ARVs in the German Army.

SP Aerospace was declared bankrupt in August 2004 and a new company, Dutch Defence Vehicle Systems (DDVS), has been set up by KMW to maintain the workshare in the Netherlands.

The Fennek is a light armoured 4WD reconnaissance vehicle, operated by a three-man crew and deployed in units of two vehicles. A scout party equipped with this vehicle is able to operate independently for a period of up to five days.

COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM

The Tactical Command and Control System (TCCS) enables the reconnaissance vehicles to be integrated into the reconnaissance data information, command and control system. This is accomplished by means of digitised maps showing the position of the host vehicle, the target and the current battlefield environment. These data are updated through HF and VHF radio data transmissions between the vehicle and the command post. EADS Radio Communications Systems of Ulm in Germany supplies the HRM 7000 short-wave radio system.

ARMAMENT

The Dutch reconnaissance vehicles are armed with a 12.7mm machine gun, German vehicles with a 40mm automatic grenade launcher. The Dutch MRAT versions will be fitted with the Rafael Gill anti-tank missile, recently ordered by the Netherlands. The gun mount is electrically controlled. The sighting system consists of a periscope derived from the PERI Z l7, which is currently in service. As an option the periscope can be upgraded with an image intensifier or other plug-in modules.

OBSERVATION

The reconnaissance vehicle's observation system is the Rheinmetall Defence Electronics (formerly STN Atlas Elektronik) BAA which comprises a thermal imager, a CCD day vision camera and a laser rangefinder and is installed in a sensor head mounted on an extendable mast. The sensor head can be controlled in azimuth and elevation and raised to a height of 3.29m above ground i.e. 1.5m above the vehicle roof. For observation from a concealed position, the sensor head can be tripod-mounted at an exposed location for remote operation up to 40m from the vehicle.

The sensor head is operated by means of the control unit in the vehicle or via the removed control unit from the concealed position. A hybrid navigation system consisting of an inertial unit and global positioning system (GPS) permits accurate determination of the vehicle position and the north direction. Determination of target coordinates is achieved using the system's laser rangefinder and azimuth and elevation measuring equipment, together with the navigation system.

The forward position of the driver's seat gives the driver a field of view greater than 180° through the windscreen and side windows. The rearview camera mounted at the back of the vehicle and a monitor integrated in the driver's instrument panel allow rapid evasive manoeuvres to be carried out. The driver can use the cable winch to recover his own or another vehicle.

SELF-PROTECTION

The vehicle has add-on all-round protection against 7.62mm AP rounds. Add-on armour protection can be selected to suit mission requirements. The crew compartment is protected against anti-personnel mines. Nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) warfare protection is integrated in the crew compartment air-conditioning system. The infrared signature is minimised through special exhaust ducting. The powerpack compartment is fitted with a fire extinguishing and warning system, which can be automatically or manually triggered.

PROPULSION

The 179kW Deutz diesel engine provides a range of 860km and maximum speed of 115km/h. The automatic transmission and transfer unit provides selectable 4WD and limited slip differential. The H-layout of the driveline allows a very low height, with the power being transmitted to the wheels via angular and wheel gears. The vehicle is able to negotiate 60% forward and 35% side slopes. The turning radius is 6.3m and the fording depth is 1m. A central tyre inflation system enables the driver to adjust tire pressure on the move to suit terrain conditions.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/fennek/images/fennek1.jpg
Source: http://www.army-technology.com/projects/fennek/

Goldie fish
20th February 2005, 20:21
I Understand the Fennec is one of the vehicles under consideration for the LTV.....but I havent slept in 15 hours,and wont for another 14,so I could be mistaken.

beenthere
20th February 2005, 20:28
I Understand the Fennec is one of the vehicles under consideration for the LTV.....but I havent slept in 15 hours,and wont for another 14,so I could be mistaken.

Is that legal ? The mind boggles :smile:

Goldie fish
20th February 2005, 20:52
Its not my employers fault that I had to be on the range today,and that I live in a house of inconsiderate noisemakers...

beenthere
21st February 2005, 10:53
Its not my employers fault that I had to be on the range today,and that I live in a house of inconsiderate noisemakers...

I Know the feeling, only done it myself last week, as for the noisemakers, the threat of no pocket money can work wonders :biggrin:

andy
21st February 2005, 15:44
double ear protection usually does the trick;)

THE LTV could be anything, the indo mentioned blackhawks numerous times and look what we ended up with !

Come-quickly
21st February 2005, 21:19
I cant see the Fennek being a contender for the LTV contract considering how it only carries three crew and even if you got all the sensor kit out it still wouldnt fit more than four at a squeeze.
Also most of the LTV candidates are a damnsite cheaper.

I dont see any sound logic in moving this topic to the LTV poll which has nothing to do with my questions/suppositions.

Goldie fish
21st February 2005, 21:44
The fennec had been mentioned in the thread about the LTV. OK? The only vehicle replacment program in the immediate future of the DF that the fennec could possibly be connected to is the LTV. The rest of your post we could have read ourselves had we followed the link.

There are no current plans for panhard replacments other than this. Other than the LTV poll the Fennek has no relevence to the DF

andy
5th March 2005, 11:02
Armoured vehicles boost for Forces' role in Europe



Tom Brady
Security Editor
http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1353699&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.

mutter nutter
5th March 2005, 12:43
nice, I thought they were just getting the basic vehicle, but it seem's like they want one that's very capable, and it look's like the 40mm AGL might no longer just be for the big kid's :tri:

andy
6th March 2005, 11:46
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.

Looks like the LTV is going to be used for target acquistion, I wasnt so sure it would. I just wonder is the government still going to rely on the Javlins to take out the target. :eek: Something armoured with a gun on top is a requirement IMO



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.

Are there plans to introduce a 40mm automatic grendade launcher to the PDF or something ?

Its going to be an excellent vehicle though:)

Goldie fish
6th March 2005, 12:11
Well since there is 40mm grenade ammo in stores already for the M203,why not. Incidentally,Thales,who made the turret for the Mowags,also make one with a 40mmAGL instead of a 12.7mm HMG...

andy
6th March 2005, 17:09
http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/image1.nsf/Lookup/200210494145/$file/mk19instructlo.jpg


It must be belt fed if its "automated". That would be some kick ass firepower. Slow rate of fire though.

I didnt know the 203 used the same ammo (doh)


Still, at the moment, target acquistion good , target neutralisation bad

Goldie fish
6th March 2005, 17:21
I am assuming that the 40mm M203 grenade is the same 40mm grenade used by this beast. No doubt i'll be corrected if i am incorrect.

andy
6th March 2005, 18:10
the 40mm seems to take up a lot of room up top. So maybe there will be a mixture of veichles with either 12.7mm and 40mm gernade launchers.

I take it that all vehicles will be all hard topped (?)

FMolloy
6th March 2005, 20:04
The Brits are going with a remote weapons station for their new armoured liason vehicle, an option for the LTV maybe?

gaff85
6th March 2005, 20:09
Taken from today Sunday's Indo,

The army is to have its biggest-ever fleet of armoured vehicles after a vital equipment programme was give the go-ahead by the defence minister Willie O'Dea, writes Don Lavery

A key programme to buy 66 new light tatctical armoured vehicles, which Defence Forces sought on a "shopping list" as long ago as 2000 to prepare for UN and EU roles, had been put on the long finger by the previous Govermnet,

The vechiles, broadly similar to the armourned Humvee 4x4 vehicles used by the US forces in Iraq, are needed for a range or roles by the Defence forces.

Once the antiwar movement see "broadly similar to the armourned Humvee 4x4 vehicles used by the US forces in Iraq", they are going to freak.

andy
6th March 2005, 21:44
cant see a remote system being purchased IMO.

SPOOKY
6th March 2005, 22:04
re. 40mm Grenade ammo.
Ask CL or one of the other yankee doodlers, but I thought that the ammo used for M203 & AGL use were not able to be intechanged
ie. that you couldn't break up a 40mm AGL belt for M203 use like you could a Minimi LMG 5.56mm belt for the M16/SA80/AUG.

This may be incorrect but can remember reading something about casing "rims" or somesuch and the Mk-19 development during the vietnam war....
May be different now though.....?

re. LTV
Can only really see the Dingo 2 or EagleIV at the mo.
Dingo is supposedly mine-proven in Afghanistan (Anti-personnel though.....) and been proven operationally with germans & UN for some years now........

but Eagle = MOWAG, so could be PIII advantages/DoD bias.....

May be different now though.....?

FMolloy
6th March 2005, 22:36
cant see a remote system being purchased IMO.

Why not? A turret will be heavy, perhaps just as expensive and a simple pintle mount offers no protection to the gunner.

andy
6th March 2005, 22:53
The vehicles must be able to be fitted with 12.7mm heavy machineguns

There is no real reason why not, its just that the article stated that it must be fitted(but the indo always seems to get it wrong). I think a mounted .5 would be very effective.

i see the swedes are developing their own, unmounted
http://www.nordac.org/default.asp?id=14&mnu=14
The programmable ammo is a good idea, more about that here http://defence-data.com/eurosatory2000/pagees27.htm

I hope the DF doesnt just go for a bog standard 40mm Gernade launcher.

Plus they can put on some decent sights on the .5. I think the brits have something in use

FMolloy
6th March 2005, 23:39
I think a mounted .5 would be very effective.

Would a .5 mounted on a remote weapon system, like the brits are getting, not be as effective?

andy
6th March 2005, 23:46
The problem I see is having to dismount soldiers to engage the enemy. Say you were in a moving along at speed taking fire ? No shoot and scoot. Just scoot !!

FMolloy
6th March 2005, 23:57
The problem I see is having to dismount soldiers to engage the enemy. Say you were in a moving along at speed taking fire ? No shoot and scoot. Just scoot !!

A remote weapons system is an unmanned turret that is aimed & fired from inside the vehicle, no one has to dismount to fire it. Have a look at the Fennec on page 2 of this thread, it's got one.

ex pat 007
7th March 2005, 01:05
The ammo for the 40mm AGL (Mk19) cannot be used with the M 203, see here:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/40.htm

andy
7th March 2005, 19:27
I wonder what kind of armour they are going to go with ? The DF should add its own (similar to the stuff posted here somewhere on this board) if the Eagle (or what ever vehicle) doesnt stop RPG and 12.7mm rounds

Come-quickly
7th March 2005, 21:28
Almost all vehicles in this class have protection against 7.62x51 AP or Ball and shell splinters this applies to the glass as well as the armour.

andy
7th March 2005, 23:00
i was watching RTE today, there was a short clip about the National Guard (US) getting trained up (only 6 weeks*eek*) for Iraq. There was one guy firing away on the M19. It looked very effective but not the fastest rate of fire. Did anyone see it?

I just mention the armour since I saw a few Humvees getting fried in baghdad on the T.V.

FMolloy
8th March 2005, 02:36
The Iveco vehicle the Brits chose can be up-armoured as required using a kit supplied by the manufacturer. This means they can tailor the armour to an extent.

Måk
8th March 2005, 10:42
Below should be two pix of the Mowag Eagle IV with the remote weapon station.

http://www.armyrecognition.com/moyen_orient/Emirats_arabe/IDEX_2003_Pictures_Gallery/IDEX_2005/pictures_3/Eagle_armyrecognition_idex_2005_01.jpg


http://www.armyrecognition.com/moyen_orient/Emirats_arabe/IDEX_2003_Pictures_Gallery/IDEX_2005/pictures_3/Eagle_armyrecognition_idex_2005_02.jpg

Regards

Måk

Måk
8th March 2005, 10:49
Pix of the new Iveco/ British vehicle with remote station.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/future/future11.html

Regards

Måk

Goldie fish
8th March 2005, 15:59
Can I get one of each please?

andy
8th March 2005, 19:00
the remote station seems like a far better system, crew isnt exposed and more room inside

Come-quickly
8th March 2005, 19:36
Can I get one of each please?
Careful, thats probably what we'll end up ordering....but reported seventeen times a year for the next ten years to make it seem like hospitals are being closed down to pay for them.

DeV
8th March 2005, 20:13
I wonder what kind of armour they are going to go with ? The DF should add its own (similar to the stuff posted here somewhere on this board) if the Eagle (or what ever vehicle) doesnt stop RPG and 12.7mm rounds

If Abrams are suffering from RPG rounds, there isn't alot you can do to make vehicles RPG proof, but small size, high speed and mesh.

Måk
10th March 2005, 22:08
Pix of the RG32M with RWS.

http://www.armyrecognition.com/moyen_orient/Emirats_arabe/IDEX_2003_Pictures_Gallery/IDEX_2005/pictures_4/RG32M_army_recognition_IDEX_2005_01.jpg

regards

Måk

Goldie fish
10th March 2005, 22:35
It occurrs to me that all possible contenders,Mowag,Iveco and the above,are very similar in configuration....i.e Heavily armoured jeep type vehicle. Is the school of thought moving away from scout car type vehicles such as the panhard AML to lightly armed vehicles such as the above?
A good run is better than a bad stand perhaps,when faced with a stronger enemy?

andy
11th March 2005, 00:04
If Abrams are suffering from RPG rounds, there isn't alot you can do to make vehicles RPG proof, but small size, high speed and mesh. Suffering ? I thought they were bouncing off them. Still, Mesh for RPG's kicks ass IMO.

DeV
14th March 2005, 14:23
From the DOD website:

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.

Goldie fish
14th March 2005, 22:06
I thought they were looking for about 150 initially..

mutter nutter
15th March 2005, 03:38
40mm AGL is a no go then?

ias
15th March 2005, 13:49
GF, is that not the "Jeep" requirement you're thinking of or do you suspect they'll roll the two together?

I still hope for an armoured G-Wagen and a medium armored 4x4 (e.g. Bushmaster/MP44, Dingo 2).

IAS

Goldie fish
15th March 2005, 14:01
No,I definitely remember in an earlier version of IMO a discussion that mentioned 150 vehicles with a buget of €250000 per vehicle.

John
15th March 2005, 16:34
No,I definitely remember in an earlier version of IMO a discussion that mentioned 150 vehicles with a buget of €250000 per vehicle.

I always had a figure of 60 in my head. Jim Cusack in the Irish Times had a figure of "at least 80" in an article in January 2001.

ias
15th March 2005, 17:41
John, agreed, I seem to remember a figure of 70/80 being mentioned also. If we look at the figures quoted it might give an indication:

"£25 million over three years for investment in light infantry tactical vehicles, modern effective anti-armour weapons, night vision equipment, engineer equipment and medical field equipment."

That's about €30 million, with €13 million spent on Javelin and let's say €5 million on the other equipment leaving about €12 million. An armoured G-Wagen costs about €120,000 and an ASV-150 about €750,000, probably the two extremes, and suppose they go for something at the lower end say €200,000 that would give 60 units, but maybe they've increased the budget.

So much for speculation maybe we should wait and see?

IAS

DeV
15th March 2005, 22:30
A Request for Tenders was published on 15 July for 4x4 jeeps for the DF which will be FFRs (Fitted For Radios).
The contract is worth between EUR 3 and 5 million.
The contract was for 90-100 vehicles.

IAS, those figures wouldn't include spares, training, VRT, VAT, transportation, etc

ias
16th March 2005, 13:32
Dev, probably not, they were intended to be indicative only in a loose attempt to estimate quantity.

My understanding is that military vehicles (real ones - not Nissans) are excluded from VRT by the way.

IAS

Goldie fish
30th March 2005, 04:59
In his recent visit to the Curragh DFTC, the minister referred to the competition for the selection of Light Tactical Armoured Vehicles....Thread edited accordingly.


at least we know they will be armoured now.... :biggrin:

http://ub2.homepagetools.com/boomer/UltraBoard.pl?Action=ShowPost&Board=army&Post=232&Idle=0&Sort=0&Order=Descend&Page=0&Session=

Goldie fish
30th March 2005, 06:11
Pix of the new Iveco/ British vehicle with remote station.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/future/future11.html

Regards

Måk

http://www.alvisvickers.co.uk/brochure/Mlv.pdf

ias
4th April 2005, 17:42
GF, can you post the details from the link, from here I get a network error (it's a long way maybe?).

Thks

FMolloy
12th April 2005, 01:57
Here's a pic of the new overhead weapons system the US are fitting to Hummers in Iraq:

http://homepage.eircom.net/~fiachramolloy/untitled.bmp

Here's the related article from the US Army's webite:

CROWS arrive in Iraq to keep gunners out of sight
By PFC Jerome Bishop

The new CROWS is currently being fielded to Humvees at LSA Anaconda to allow gunners to stay inside their up-armored vehicles while operating their weapon remotely.

LSA ANACONDA, Iraq (Army News Service, April 7, 2005) – The first group of 35 remotely-operated weapons for mounting on top of Humvees arrived in Iraq recently and the systems were divided among military police, Special Forces, infantry and transportation units.

The Common Remotely Operated Weapon Stations, or CROWS as they are known, provide crews the ability to locate, identify and engage targets with better accuracy and improved range, while keeping the gunner inside, protected by the vehicle’s up-armor.

The technology used on the CROWS is a variation of the remote-controlled crew-served weapons system already used on combat vehicles like the Bradley fighting vehicle and the M-1A1 Abrams tank.

“We will be fielding, in the next two years, over 300 systems,” said Maj. Frank Lozano, the program manager for the CROWS project on LSA Anaconda.

At LSA Anaconda, four CROWS were issued to 2nd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division from Ar Ramadi and the 155th Brigade Combat Team on FOB Kalsu. Prototypes were installed on vehicles belonging to the 42nd Military Police Brigade in December, Lozano said.

Since then, more CROWS have been installed, bringing the total up to nine systems serving troops at LSA Anaconda.

Presently in Iraq, CROWS are only assembled and fielded at LSA Anaconda. Crews are issued the system there and receive training on how to operate it, said Sgt. 1st Class Jeffrey Januchowski, the project’s training developer.

The nearly $200,000 system is designed to replace the turret gunner on Humvees to improve combat effectiveness, Lozano said.

CROWS allows Soldiers to operate successfully from within the safety of the Humvee’s armor, without being exposed to the threat of improvised explosive devices and small-arms fire.

“The important thing is increased survivability and increased lethality,” Lozano said.

The system incorporates a 15-inch color monitor with live video from cameras in the daytime and thermal imaging cameras in darkness.

Both cameras use a laser range finder, which allows the gunner to zoom on targets, lock onto them and maintain that lock accurately while the vehicle is in motion. The camera and the weapon can be used together or separately.

The camera allows the gunner to look one way with the weapon pointed another. This feature becomes particularly useful when observing suspicious subjects from a distance, Soldiers said, adding that way people are not scared off by a weapon pointed at them.

The gun itself is controlled by a joystick which gives the gunner 100-percent functionality, allowing the operator to control the weapon with just one hand. The weapon can be aimed up to 60 degrees above and 20 degrees below in front of the vehicle and can turn a full 360 degrees, allowing the gunner to see almost any threat no matter where it is located in relation to the vehicle.

With all the features used properly, the weapon can be used at 98-percent accuracy while the vehicle is in motion and the enemy on the run.

“The weapon is smart enough to know your movement, the earth’s movement and the enemy’s movements,” said Lozano.

CROWS is compatible with the M-2 .50-caliber machine gun, M-240B medium machine gun, MK-19 automatic grenade launcher and the M-249 squad automatic weapon.

The weapons operate off of a larger ammunition supply than that of the standard crew-served weapons, Lazano said. He said with larger combat loads, the weapon is reloaded less, keeping the crew inside the vehicle.

The system keeps gunners like Sgt. Darrin Hill, 98th Cavalry, 155th Brigade Combat Team, out of the turret where he had spent his days since being deployed in support of OIF.

“I think it’s a great system. For one, it gets me out of the turret; it gets (me) out of the kill zone,” Hill said. “I feel privileged to be able to learn how to use it.”

Goldie fish
12th April 2005, 05:26
Was that system not originally designed around a 25mm Hughes Chain Gun?

Steamy Window
14th April 2005, 12:57
Queries to DoD on LTAV tender here (http://www.defence.ie/website.nsf/Publication+ID/DFD3A59292BCF09680256FC40042DD0A?OpenDocument) and here (http://www.defence.ie/website.nsf/Publication+ID/4DCF09268ACEB2DE80256FD600533686?OpenDocument)

trellheim
14th April 2005, 13:08
Can of paint will mess it up... I see a future with paintball guns for real.

Goldie fish
14th April 2005, 21:03
RFP closing date end of business today then?

FMolloy
14th April 2005, 23:30
Can of paint will mess it up... I see a future with paintball guns for real.

A windscreen wiper & a washer full of paint stripper should sort that out.

Bosco
15th April 2005, 03:30
what about a nice el cheapo pointer laser should nicely screw it up unless it is shielded

Goldie fish
15th April 2005, 04:08
Keep to the topic please.

Goldie fish
23rd May 2005, 06:51
Surely a decision should be due any day now on the above? (66 vehicles)

ias
8th June 2005, 16:06
Timoney drops out of latest €20m Army contract for armoured cars - The Irish Independent says that one of the world's leading companies in designing and developing light armoured vehicles, Timoney Technology of Navan, has dropped plans to tender for an Irish Army contract worth more than €20m. The company had considered applying for the contract for 66 light armoured tactical vehicles for the Army as part of a consortium. But it has now confirmed that it will not proceed, and instead nine international companies will fight it out for the lucrative contract. The disenchantment with tender competitions run by the Department of Defence comes after a number of setbacks in securing business from the Irish military. These include modernising the Army's fleet of Panhard armoured cars, a contract which went to South Africa, and an €84m contract for new armoured personnel carriers. RTE Business May 20th, '05.

It seems the DF and/or the DoD really don't like Irish companies?


IAS

Steamy Window
8th June 2005, 16:15
Or perhaps what they offered just wasnt good enough and Timoney couldnt accept that...

Goldie fish
8th June 2005, 17:19
I think the days of buying irish just because they are irish is well gone. I'd prefer a tried and tested hong Kong built machine,with manuals in ancient greek, over a locally built untried prototype.

What have timoney to offer in any case? Where would they build it? Would they be capable of building the required quantity in as fast a time as the other competing tenders?

DeV
9th June 2005, 02:43
Given that Timoney doesn't really get involved in manufacture, just R&D, licencing etc, if a Timoney designed vehicle was selected it proberly wouldn't be manufactured here anyway!

Time to introduce complusory offsets as part of tendering I think???

ias
9th June 2005, 09:50
Apparently Timoney's plant was designed to produce up to 40 units per year (this was publised in relation to the 8x8 tender).

Regarding what they would have offered, if you read the RTE clip, they were to be part of a consortium, presumably to build a foreign design (maybe the Italian/British Panther?).

IAS

Goldie fish
10th June 2005, 00:15
It failed to reach the cut offs in the APC contract too,because it was offering a prototype vehicle,even though the tender specified that no prototype would be considered.

Perhaps it was trying the same stunt this time around,and then whinging when they fail to make the grade? from what i remember,its factory is not capable of the high output of vehicles required here.

California Tanker
10th June 2005, 21:15
The CROWS is great for escort or recon, but I don't see it being issued much to patrolling units. HMMWVs carry few enough troops as it is.

I know the DF trialled a Mk19 in the AML turret, I assume that the system is not actually in use anywhere?

NTM

Gunner Who?
11th June 2005, 02:35
There was a romour years ago that the belt and crozier brigade were very detemined to block any attempt at arms production start ups in Ireland. It seems they were mostly successful so buying Irish was a rare occasion indeed.

Goldie fish
11th June 2005, 03:20
Belt and crozier?

Gunner Who?
11th June 2005, 06:06
clergy

FMolloy
11th June 2005, 16:35
The crusties would be more like it.

Goldie fish
24th June 2005, 00:52
Any Progress made on this programme yet?

ias
7th July 2005, 16:19
I see the US just ordered another 724 ASV 150s (M1117) bringing the total orders for the type 1,118 (for the US Army and the new Iraq Army).

Seems somebody likes the vehicles that Timoney are involved in!


Apologies if slightly off topic, but it is related as the vehicle could be one of those under consideration as it has a similar profile to the Fennec.

IAS

hptmurphy
7th July 2005, 22:09
Its going to be an armend version of the pirana...the infantry have preordained this..the cav wanted a six wheeeler. The infantry overruled them. A procuremnet part went overseas yesterday with a procuremnet budget of 25 million euro!...This is straight from the horses mouth.

Goldie fish
7th July 2005, 22:14
€25m won't buy you many piranhas.(APC version cost us €1.25m each).

mutter nutter
7th July 2005, 23:53
I alway's thought that the LTAV was for something like a Mowag Eagle/Iveco Panther type vehicle not an apc sized machine?

Goldie fish
7th July 2005, 23:59
Perhaps HPTs source heard Mowag and assumed Pirhana?

FMolloy
8th July 2005, 01:15
Maybe he's talking about an AML replacement rather than an LTV.

Goldie fish
8th July 2005, 01:18
From what I hear,the AML replacement is the LTV.

Goldie fish
8th July 2005, 18:54
A tender competition for the acquisition of light tactical armoured vehicles commenced in February this year with the issue of a request for proposals document. Nine proposals have been received and are under examination from the technical perspective by a project evaluation team. The second stage will consist of a restricted tender stage involving successful companies from the first stage. The number of vehicles to be acquired will be decided at a later date.

http://www.irishmilitaryonline.com/board/showthread.php?t=6661

sledger
3rd September 2005, 15:12
€20m Army vehicle tender is cancelled
Irish Independent
03/09/2005

A €20m competition for a fleet of new armoured vehicles for the Army - described as a “key priority” by Defence Minister Willie O’Dea - has been cancelled, writes Don Lavery.

Up to 66 light-armoured tactical vehicles (LTAVs) for use by the Army were to have been bought by way of a tendering competition launched in February.

The vehicles are similar to US army Humvee jeeps but such vehicles have proved vulnerable to roadside bombs in Iraq.

The Department of Defence said yesterday that the competition had been cancelled in July because a suitable vehicle cannot be found for the Irish Defence Forces.

A department spokesman said the cancellation had happened on foot of a recommendation from a civil/military evaluation team.

Instead, the Army is looking at buying 15 more Mowag armoured personnel carriers from Switzerland at a cost of €20m.

Goldie fish
5th November 2005, 22:01
So is this competition dead or will the requirements be redrawn? I assume the requirement still exists for the vehicles?

madmark
5th November 2005, 23:36
the cav are going to be shafted looks like cav units are going to be using nissans for the reccie section forever

The Blue Max
6th November 2005, 00:04
That is not gospel the rumour is that a LTAV proposal is gone for good but who knows for definite what will happen sourses told me that The Cav are quite impressed withthe ARW Ford F-350 vechicle the defender seems to be out of window since the accident in Liberia but as per usual but if the Cavarlys Recce Units/Sections wanted a open top type recce vechicle it could come down to the usual issue of Price Per Unit i.e the cheapest e.g the F-350 Against The Landrover Defender Type.

madmark
6th November 2005, 03:57
take your pick if you were going out on the ground which one would you take

The Blue Max
6th November 2005, 04:33
If The Cav And Me had the choice it would be the MOWAG EAGLE that would win hands down (which it did) But unfortunatly it looks like it could be something similiar as Ford F-350 (Ricardo Developments) being operateted by the Cavarly Corps Recce Assets.

ias
6th November 2005, 12:14
Perhaps, following the deployment by both the US and Australia of heavier type vehicles to Iraq and Afghanistan, they'll go for a Medium Multi-Purpose Armoured Vehicle such as the Bushmaster, Dingo 2, etc. Austria and Belgium have both recently bought such a vehicle and Canada is currently running a competition for one.

IAS

Goldie fish
6th November 2005, 12:49
For the whole idea that I work better when in a comfortable envoronment, I'd prefer the Eagle 4 also.

It rains frequently in this country and unlike the fine members of the ARW, i have yet to be issued with raingear,and the thoughts of me zooming along the byroads of Kilworth or wicklow in an open topped vehicle of any sort in yesterdays weather, is a thought that only has Pneumonia and unwanted sick leave from work as a result.
Fine vehicles for a tropical or arid climate those F350s may be, but to me a jeep is a jeep, and an armoured car is an armoured car, and one cannot do the others job well.

The F350 is armed as it is because it expects to fight its way in and out of where it goes, or intimidate those who have the potential to become enemy by its superior firepower. But for recce?

Chief Bubblewrap
10th November 2005, 19:12
my suggestion, new U.S. army all terrain vehicle.

http://www.big-boys.com/pictures/picture1987.html

Goldie fish
10th November 2005, 20:15
We already have them in the Military Police....

criodan
19th December 2005, 06:44
Hi guys,

Just wondering if anyone knows what the new ships will be like and if there are any pics?

Also, when are they coming into service?

Do they have any anti aircraft capabilites and can they offer any fire support at all or are they just for fishing, drugs etc???

Have the new tactical vehicles been chosen yet?

Thanks for all your input!!

c

ias
19th December 2005, 08:47
The LTV competition has been cancelled due to question marks over the performane of this type of vehicle in both Iraq and Afghanistan, it was decided to use the funds to buy more Piranhas instead. One would imagine that there is probably a need for a Multi-Purpose, Mine-Protected, Medium Armoure Vehicle such as the Dingo, RG-31 or Bushmaster, vehicles of this type have recently been ordered by Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Sweden, UAE, UK and US

IAS

Big Al
19th December 2005, 10:46
AFV???

see link below

http://www.irishmilitaryonline.com/board/showthread.php?t=3456

andy
26th December 2005, 20:17
I think this order(new Mowags) was to to scratch the Light Tactical armoured vehicle and go with Mowags instead (in light of the road side bomb in Iraq)

FMolloy
26th December 2005, 22:09
What makes you think that Iraq has anything to do with this decision?

andy
27th December 2005, 15:03
I read in an article somewhere... It was from Irish military authorities saying that the APC offered more protection than the humvee etc . I think it might have been in the indo.

Goldie fish
23rd June 2006, 20:22
The tender competition for light tactical armoured vehicles was cancelled in July 2005 on foot of a recommendation from 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 that time that a suitable configured armoured personnel carrier platform would meet their needs in the interim and it was in that context that the contract for the supply of 15 additional Piranha armoured vehicles was signed in December 2005.


So the minister says...
Now to me they are saying what exactly?
"project be deferred until the market for such vehicles was more mature. "
Does that mean that there are not enough suitable machines out there, or that there are not enough of the type in use to make a judgement as to their usefulness? Why could the British Army accept the Iveco if this is the case? Could there experience in operating with armoured landrovers not be considered useful?
Unless I'm mistaken, there is still (and has always been) the need for a light armoured vehicle for the DF. As APCs get larger(Compare the 10+2 of the panhard to the 10+2 of the Piranha), surely an armoured "jeep type" vehicle is still a useful asset to a military force that finds itself deployed overseas to situations where a convoy is as likely to come under attack from lightly armed militia while at the same time requiring maximum visibility of its troops?
WHile the Mowags may provide good protection, could it be to the more uneducated masses that these vehicles could be empty, that there are no troops to protect them/prevent them doing what the UN force is preventing them from doing?

The LTAV concept in my eyes allows a recce to take place with the crew "buttoned up" while still retaining a visible presence of people, not machines to the outsider?

How long before the market "matures" sufficiently for the programme to be reopened?

DeV
23rd June 2006, 21:03
It means till there is a suitable LTAV on the market.

None of the submissions met the specifications required by the tender. That is way it was cancelled.

While I didn't see the tender documentation, I saw questions manufacturers had asked about the requirements. The requirements were VERY specific - it could have been a case of over-specification.

See Post 79.

ODIN
23rd June 2006, 21:55
A recce vehicle is needed, there is no doubt in my mind on this issue. The new mowags may fill the Cavs armoured role, but the CTR role in soft skins is just crazy. An armoured jeep is needed to drop a crew of 4 or so people out to do CTR and give them protection while doing this and OPs...the jeep should be able to carry a driver and 4 crew and enough kit to keep them sustained for 24 hours on the ground.

Goldie fish
25th June 2006, 16:40
On top of this, the newer nissans don't seem to be finding their way to the cav....

ODIN
25th June 2006, 21:17
On top of this, the newer nissans don't seem to be finding their way to the cav....

Not totally true, there are around 3 of them in 1 Cav

GoneToTheCanner
26th June 2006, 01:42
Hi all
Is it really a valid need that a vehicle be suitable for not intimidating the local populus of whatever shithole the UN finds itself in? Personally, I'd rather have something that scares the shit out of the local militia/bandit/gangster/freedom fighter/rebel, rather than some bean-tin that folds up at the first strike of a bullet. I'd be of the "more armour" persuasion, myself.Perhaps one of those ugly-but-efficient South African vehicles with the high, sloped sides and the good reputation for surviving mines. Buying vehicles that are Curragh-friendly and don't give the Turf Club conniptions is not serving the soldier well.
regards
Gttc

Goldie fish
26th June 2006, 01:51
Another way of looking at it. Section of 8 troops. Mowag brings them to x location. Smaller armoured vehicle can bring section to x and y location, still under armour.

BANDIT
26th June 2006, 09:42
Dear All,
I am not an ARV, APC LATV expert but I have had some varied experience in working with out of/ various types of armoured vehicles etc etc. While I obviously cannot predict what type of work Ireland will get involved with in the future do you not think that it would be reasonable to assume that the main threat in the UN Liberia peace type ops will be ambush by usually lightly armed militias, etc ( RPG, claymore would probably be the most powerful risk) .
You cannot keep yourself 100% safe from everything otherwise we would all be driving around in challengers.. , .
The dangers particularly in a place like Liberia where visibility alongside the road is in feet,
is that you are in cooping yourself up in a MOWAG, is that you are copped up , no contact with locals, cannot see out and are like a sardine can waiting to be popped open .
The South African Casspirs were high you could look out and were armed to the teeth with lots of MGs, a combination of Multiple rockets , mortars, grenade launchers and all personal weapons could also be used. They were not high tech in relation to elctronics , NCB etc , it was not necessary but they were survivable.
The armoured landies that the Brits used in the north were good cars and proved their worth.. Yes they could not survive a landmine but they were always available.. (Note I was not in the British Army)Stick a couple of mags on them , built up a few landcruisers with a 20mm on it and you have a fast vehicle with a reasoanable. weapon.

a little off the thread but perhaps relevent to discussions on gera and equipment nad over reliance on . Only recently I was speaking o a Somali who was in Baidoa when the Irish were there in 1990s. His observations were that the Irish were a transport company and did their job..
The Australians were in charge of security and they secured the town by basically being there all the time on foot day and night using basic good infantry coin tactics, they were replaced by bthe French who patrolled by vehicle, sat in their car , looking tough in their sunglases and security went gradually dowm, The yanks were there before the australians
with all their gear and could not get a handle on it..

Tank
26th June 2006, 10:24
If you are on a peacekeeping mission and you drive around in a heavily armoured vehicle all the time, you will over time create the impression that you need to drive around in such a vehicle because of a perceived threat level, and in some cultures even have the locals thinking you are scared of something. Most of the time you can leave the armoured vehicles for the hot situations, and patrol on foot or with a 4x4 for "normal" situations. The Aussie example above is borne out by British forces in Iraq, or operations in Bosnia and Kosovo.

All the same, I agree with some of the posts before, why a LTAV? You have the MOWAG in the background if you need it and a 4x4 Nissan (Or whatever) for the day to day stuff. Why bother with a LTAV? Over-armoured when you are trying to make things look normal and under-armoured when things get hot. Get better equipped MOWAGS from the money saved would be my opinion.

DeV
26th June 2006, 18:59
The LTAV was not an APC, it was to have specific roles, many of which are currently under taken in unarmoured Nissans. Ask yourself why the Brits have a LTAV?

- Light armoured protection for small specialist groups (eg engineers)
- Small, fast, manoeuvrable
- Easy to conceal
- Vision excellent compared to an MOWAG
- Troops can very easily dismount to talk to the locals (hearts & minds)
- In close country (eg jungle / built up areas) - troops will normally dismount

ODIN
27th June 2006, 02:02
I think myself and goldie are thinking more along the Cav role and the usefulness that a LATV would bring and the nessesity for such a vehicle with the purchase of the Mowags as an expected replacement (long overdue) for the AMLs in the support role. With the Cav being tasked CTR and other recce roles the need for an LATV has become greater

Tank
27th June 2006, 16:09
DeV, that's exactly what I'm saying. The LTAVs are essentially a lightly armoured 4x4 (A bit simplistically put I know), and could replace the unarmoured Nissans in situations that are too hot for an unarmoured vehicle. The Brits etc. are getting them for Iraq. But they're not really a subsitute for a fully armoured recce vehicle.

For me personally, I'd want more armour if I was doing CTR rather than less. So I would say an armoured recce vehicle is still preferable to an LTAV. The LTAV for me is only good to replace 4x4s in some situations.

Goldie fish
27th June 2006, 19:45
I think the issue here is that the Mowag is expected to carry out the tasks better done by a LTAV. Likewise, the Mowag will be expected to shortly do the duties of the armoured recce vehicle(Panhard).

The "Jack of all trades" notion never works.

DeV
27th June 2006, 19:47
"Master of none" also comes to mind - apart from the infantry role - ie APC, command, recovery, ambulance, etc

Goldie fish
27th June 2006, 20:02
Exactly. An APC is designed to carry infantry into battle... Its not designed to do recce and take on other armour along the way.

ollie
27th June 2006, 23:06
interesting to hear a british army nco on sky news this morning complaining about the lack of light armoured vehicles in basra. the landrovers are no good as they are soft skinned and under armoured and the warriors are too big and intimidating

DeV
29th June 2006, 19:10
The Brits in Iraq are being issued with armoured land rovers (as used in NI) but they are considered under armoured.

Goldie fish
29th June 2006, 19:13
Is their new LTAV (By Iveco)not designed to replace the armoured Landies?

DeV
29th June 2006, 19:38
Possibily be it hasn't yet.

The Blue Max
2nd July 2006, 14:19
Was Speaking to members of 3rd Bn B Coy on Tuesday in the Glen and the the Curragh and they informed me that Humvee has been trialed and tested by themselves and other units/coprs and that it was found not to meet the standard at the moment they are trialing a spainish made LATV im unsure of name, does anyone have any ideas of what LATV they are refering too???

mutter nutter
2nd July 2006, 15:40
Was Speaking to members of 3rd Bn B Coy on Tuesday in the Glen and the the Curragh and they informed me that Humvee has been trialed and tested by themselves and other units/coprs and that it was found not to meet the standard at the moment they are trialing a spainish made LATV im unsure of name, does anyone have any ideas of what LATV they are refering too???

VAMTAC Rebeco

Barry
2nd July 2006, 15:50
VAMTAC Rebeco
Those of you who have been around McKee recently might recognise this:
http://www.parque4x4.com.ar/recibidos/uro/Vamtac_URO_Spain_04.jpeg
Thanks for identifying it, mutter nutter!

mutter nutter
2nd July 2006, 15:51
ah you beat me too it Barry :)

Barry
2nd July 2006, 15:53
Loads more information and pictures here:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=42818

Goldie fish
2nd July 2006, 16:45
Looks like a Humvee to me.

Barry
2nd July 2006, 16:46
Smaller price tag, which in the eyes of the Department of Finance make it 20 times better than a Humvee

Goldie fish
2nd July 2006, 16:50
Price is one thing, but would the reasons the Humvee was rejected in the past(i.e too wide for irish roads)have any bearing?

The Blue Max
2nd July 2006, 18:02
The Humvee is actually not too wide for irish roads, actually the Mowag Piranha class of APC is officaly to wide for Irish roads but has been cleared by Department Of Defence to be used here the humvee would have no problem operating here and legaly fine for irish roads. Looking at the images on web there doesnt seem to be much armour of these spainish vehicles does any body know are or can they been fitted with armour etc...

FMolloy
13th July 2006, 14:16
The requirements were VERY specific - it could have been a case of over-specification.

It could be a case of writing the tender so no-one can meet the requirements & therefore it cannot be filled.


The dangers particularly in a place like Liberia where visibility alongside the road is in feet, is that you are in cooping yourself up in a MOWAG, is that you are copped up, no contact with locals, cannot see out and are like a sardine can waiting to be popped open.

There's plenty of pic from Libera showing MOWAGS with troops looking out from the rear hatches.

hptmurphy
15th July 2006, 00:53
Mowags can only operate here with an escort of military police motorcycles..or deployed from Drops or lowloaders!

as for the using the rear hatches..double edged sword..yes extra pair of eyse..but it restricts the use of the turret mounted weapon.

the only way tender specific vehicles can be supplied is to build specifically for the job. given the budget vailable this is not an option so..they just went out and bought more Mowag piranhas..as was posted this time last year..

Get over it..LTAV is not happening anytime soon...they blew the money in Switzerland a year ago..25 million euro..gone..but hey..we got some with a gun on it..its a start!

The Blue Max
15th July 2006, 07:42
I dont know about that, but that the Army seem have shown alot more interest in the spainish URB Humvee variant its has gone alot more extreme testing in the variant and the Army are keen on its design and way it is constructed using Forms of plastics and metal,armour etc... Just looking if the likes of the URB were purchased as interim LATV vehicle a small number of which could be purchased at a relitvel small price to cover interim deployments posssible even niche deployments etc.. until the vechicle that comes on the market that meets the requirments set down by the DOD and then they could purchase that and the URB could be kept for other purpose.

mutter nutter
30th August 2006, 19:29
it's called the Ghurka in use by Canada and the US apperently:cool:




The Gurkha, Kestrel and Balkan models are armoring kits based on the Ford F550
chassis. The Canadian Government deploys the Gurkha, as does the US military in
Iraq.

In August 2005, production commenced with the Kestrel and Gurkha models. With its
traditional SUV configuration of four side doors and a single rear luggage door, the
vehicle is armored to exceed the European B7 and floor protection that greatly exceeds
NATO Stanag 4569 level 1, along with excellent side load blast protection against IEDs.
Payload after armoring is in excess of 5000lbs.

The Kestrel is suitable for the internal security role, while the Gurkha has a significant
military role with its turret and cross-country wheels.

The design of the Kestrel and Gurkha was based on creating the maximum distance
and protection between the seat of a mine explosion and the cabin. The front wheel
stations are located away from the crew cabin and a “V” shape-armoring cell protects

the rear wheels, so that if a wheel detonates a mine, the
explosion is vented outwards, thus minimizing the damage to
the crew cabin. The front fenders and the hood are attached to
the chassis to further reduce the shock transmitted to the
cabin.

stanag 4569 under wheel blast

This vehicle is called the Ghurka. It has a top
speed of 155 km/h while having a 2,200 kg
payload. This is the vehicle to have right now in a
combat zone. It will get you out of trouble as fast
as it got you into it!

A number of features have also been incorporated into the design
to protect the cabin from an explosion of an underbelly mine. The
ground clearance has been maximized to allow maximum
dissipation of the blast. The location of heavy components under
the cabin floor has been avoided because they can be projected
through the cabin floor by a mine blast. The lower part of the
vehicle has THIKA MINEPLATE a layered sandwich structure that
collapses on detonation of a mine under the belly, thus absorbing
a high percentage of the energy.

The chassis has high resistance steel frame with longitudinal
reinforcements and tubular cross elements. Likewise, the walls
have a tubular framing system with armor applied to the interior
and outside of the frame with blast resistant materials within.

The internal features of the cabin further reduce residual and
secondary mine explosion effects on the crew. There are available
adjustable anti-mine front and rear seats. The seats are
suspended and not fixed directly to the floor, which avoids direct
transmission of the shockwave to the crew.

andy
30th August 2006, 20:25
it has no chance !

Darksaga
30th August 2006, 20:39
Pipe dream.
Allthough it would be sweet!!!

Goldie fish
6th September 2006, 00:51
Mowag has at last updated their website, with some much better photos, easier to naviagate and some great Movies.

Here is the promo for the Eagle IV
http://www.mowag.ch/Video/Video_E_EIV.htm

Goldie fish
23rd December 2006, 19:10
Just looking at the Auverland site, they have a Nice LTAV type vehicle...

Auverland A4 FAST


http://www.panhard.fr/anglais/A4/img/fond_home.jpg

http://www.panhard.fr/anglais/galerie/img/A4F/A4_fast_01.jpg

http://www.panhard.fr/anglais/galerie/img/A4F/A4_fast_03.jpg

http://www.panhard.fr/anglais/galerie/img/A4F/A4_fast_05.jpg

http://www.panhard.fr/anglais/A4/img/imgCTfast1.jpg

TYPE A4 FAST,

CHASSIS Tubular chassis with 120 x 60mm and 140 x 60mm rectangular tube
BODY 10/10mm steel metal body - AP mine protected floor (DM 31 type)



DIMENSIONS

Overall length 4 456 mm
Overall width 1 970 mm
Overall height 1 950 mm
Wheelbase 3 000 mm
Front and rear track 1 640 mm
Ground clearance 312 mm
WEIGHT

Tare weight 2 700 kg

Gross Vehicle Weight 4 000 kg
Payload 1 300 kg
Weight on front axle 2 000 kg
Weight on rear axle 2 500 kg




ENGINE Brand / Type
Engine architecture:4 cylinders in line
Injection type:Direct injection
Bore x Stroke:94,4 x 100 mm
Displacement:2 800 cc
Maximum power:107 Kw (146hp) (a) 3 600 Rpm

Maximum torque:320 Nm (a) 1 500 Rpm
Fuel IVECO / Turbo Diesel


PERFORMANCES
Maximum speed:130 Km/h
Approach angle:60°
Departure angle:48°
Slide slope:40°
Gradient:100 %
Fording:533 mm
Range:800 Km

GEAR BOX 5 speed gearbox


TRANSFER BOX Brand / Type

Ratio AUVERLAND / A.80 R
Non permanent 4 wd
configuration with 2 speed
transfer case


AXLES
Type:Rigid
Differential: Rear differential lock


SUSPENSION
Front and rear Coil springs and hydraulic shock absorbers
Anti roll bar


BRAKES
Type Servo assisted / ABS / Anti Skid system
Disk brakes


STEEERING
Principe Powered steering / Turning radius : 6,50m


FUEL TANK
Capacity 135 l


ELECTRICAL
EQUIPMENT
Instruments and black out lights in 24 volts /
Engine electronic in 12 volts (12/24 v converter)
24 volts Alternator and Starter /
Interference suppressor EG 13


TYRES 255 / 100 R 16


CREW 2 to 4 men depending on missions


STANDARD
EQUIPEMENT
Gearbox / Transfer protection


http://www.panhard.fr/anglais/A4/CTA4_fast.htm

Gasplug
23rd December 2006, 20:25
Looks like an up armoured version of the latest model land rover discovery...

Goldie fish
23rd December 2006, 20:50
:rolleyes:
Looks like an up armoured version of the latest model land rover discovery...

Do you wear glasses?

ackack
24th December 2006, 13:35
should have gone to specsavers

The Blue Max
27th December 2006, 20:24
Good to see the discussion still going on well in this forum and also that this very discussion is still high on pecking order in DFHQ for procurment in pipeline according to interview with COS in the News Section.

It certaily gives more life to subject! So heres to more debating and ideas hopefully in not this diestance future the Defence Forces will be the one on top coming out with a vehicle that meets it modern demands both domestically and internationally.

Silver
27th December 2006, 21:49
Mowags can only operate here with an escort of military police motorcycles..or deployed from Drops or lowloaders!


Interesting?!
I have seen Mowags (albeit with 'L' plates!) driving around The Curragh and Newbridge without any escorts?
In fact there were some complaints from residents of side streets that the Mowags should not be going down these narrow streets! :biggrin:

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

The Spanish-built URO LTV looks the biz alright!
I have seen pics of them on test around the streets of Dublin.

BTW, Should the Army not organise some sort of trade/test plates for such unregistered vehicles?
I know DF vehicles don't officially need to have any plates, but seeing as the always do 'wear' reg plates....should they not be allocated trade/test plates?

It need not be anything ott.......e.g. 'ARMY TEST 1', 'ARMY TEST 2' etc. on a plate ??
(i.e. plate would be signed in and out to test drivers so would be easy to trace who was actually driving and what vehicle was being used).

(The BA have a trade plate system)

hptmurphy
27th December 2006, 22:05
[QUOTE=The Blue Max;128270] actually the Mowag Piranha class of APC is officaly to wide for Irish roads but has been cleared by Department Of Defence to be used here QUOTE]

...so the case has changed..my post was correct...just some one granted an exemption

hptmurphy
27th December 2006, 22:08
The British Army system of registration is so complicated..it took a whole article in Classic Military Vehicles some time ago to explain it...at least the civilian registration sytem in use here is user friendly..if it ain't broke..don't fix it.

Goldie fish
28th December 2006, 00:52
Surely something unique to the DF could be introduced,such as a specific letter code for the DF or something? Why don't the British Military use civilian registrations?

I do remember a tale of a guy up in the Northwest who had the reg 88 RN 62 or similar. The fact that it was a Vauxhaul Senator, Navy in colour made his trips North for shopping, difficult, and easier, depending on who you encountered along the way.

What made it worse again, was he worked for Customs. White shirt, Braid curl on the shoulder or sleeves....

Silver
7th January 2007, 22:14
I'm not suggesting a BA-style registration system for the DF's, just a trade plate system for use when testing vehicles.

e.g. 101-DF-07 (e.g. same format as normal trade plates with 'DF' for Defence Forces)

Although, having said that, Goldie's idea of a specific DF reg system is interesting?! ....don't see a problem with it at all!

e.g.

07-DF-1,
07-DF-2,

etc etc etc

Steamy Window
7th January 2007, 22:25
Why not use the pre- 1986 number plate system?

Have the DF register any test vehicles in a county where the combinations (eg ABC 123) had not yet run out and just use that system. Seeing as the DF wouldnt have hundreds of vehicles over each year, such a system could run and run and run...

B Inman
7th January 2007, 22:31
I'm not suggesting a BA-style registration system for the DF's, just a trade plate system for use when testing vehicles.

e.g. 101-DF-07 (e.g. same format as normal trade plates with 'DF' for Defence Forces)

Although, having said that, Goldie's idea of a specific DF reg system is interesting?! ....don't see a problem with it at all!

e.g.

07-DF-1,
07-DF-2,

etc etc etc

DF spefic reg system seems like a simple system to concieve implement and operate...
but.. what about the bureaucrats both military and civilian.. wait until they have their say and a simple idea becomes a nightmare to implement and operate....

thebig C
27th February 2007, 11:09
Can the LTAV specs be viewed anywhere? I'd like to know exactly what they were looking for.

hptmurphy
27th February 2007, 22:49
The vehicles lsited on the Poll all show some of what is required but are all over priced and in some cases not totally suitable. The six wheeled version of the Mowag with a 25mm remote uperated weapon with a detcahment of 4 to 6 troops was what the Cavalry wanted..and what the money was vailbe for but the infantry requirement won out..and the 25million allocated was spent on the new vehicles soon to be delivered..as in the 8 wheeler witha 30mm.

IMO..the day of the cavalry specialised vehicle has passed...due to the greater need for auniversal APC..and the cav will have variants of this.

thebig C
28th February 2007, 13:31
Thanks for that.. I'm inclined to agree that the old distinctions are not as valid as they used to be. My main concern is that we only have sufficient numbers of combat vehicles to equip little more than one battalion. The Piranhas are first-class kit, but they are very expensive, and there are many situations in which they would be either unnecessary or unsuitable. We are unlikely to be buying lots more.

A relatively large number of smaller, cheaper vehicles is what is required, with similar mobility, armour and armament to the Piranhas. When you say "The vehicles listed on the Poll all show some of what is required but are all over priced and in some cases not totally suitable", I am curious as to the precise roles envisaged for the LTAV and the consequent vehicle requirements: my concern is that perhaps they were over-specced in the first place, which is why I would be interested to see the spec. document.

hptmurphy
1st March 2007, 00:06
The origins of the armoured infantry concept was to have one battalion..plus attachments ..armoured and mobile.

The spec as opposed to the reality of what outs there..if we had great enough demand we could build our own to our own spec...but..history has spoken!

thebig C
5th March 2007, 11:57
I'm curious as to why the Mowag Eagle IV was the clear winner in the LTAV poll - seems like a big heavy beast to me. Can anyone enlighten me?

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

FMolloy
5th March 2007, 13:44
It's a well-protected and capable vehicle that shares parts commonality with a type already in (albeit limited) DF use.

DeV
5th March 2007, 18:41
Its based on a truck chassis - the DURO.

Bosco
5th March 2007, 18:45
Now that is something I would love to drive.
Spent last weekend arseing around off road in a Izuzu Trooper. Best fun ever
But that just looks like a beast.
Drool

thebig C
5th March 2007, 18:49
Not surprised that it's based on a truck, it looks like a truck... I read on another site that Humvees and similar vehicles had problems in Bosnia and Afghanistan because they were too big for narrow streets.

Aidan
5th March 2007, 19:00
And it has a proper engine rather than the piece of crap in a Humvee (or variant) - 5.9l Cummins, been around for a while and updated to Tier II. Grunty. Combined with the transmission (5 speed Alison auto) and the suspension setup, it should be highly mobile.

Is there any likelihood of the LTAV competition being resurrected?

Bosco, see your Trooper and raise you a 3 litre LWB Landcruiser Colorado Auto, Me like.

thebig C
5th March 2007, 19:21
Thought the 'L' in LTAV stood for Light, not Large....

mutter nutter
5th March 2007, 20:08
And it has a proper engine rather than the piece of crap in a Humvee (or variant) - 5.9l Cummins, been around for a while and updated to Tier II. Grunty. Combined with the transmission (5 speed Alison auto) and the suspension setup, it should be highly mobile.

Is there any likelihood of the LTAV competition being resurrected?

Bosco, see your Trooper and raise you a 3 litre LWB Landcruiser Colorado Auto, Me like.
didn't Willie O'Dea or was it the COS say that was one of the next priorities along with new ships for the NS.

Goldie fish
5th March 2007, 21:07
There is still a requirment for these vehicles, as the new TAMs clearly indicate.

Hopefully events in Iraq and afghanistan will identify clearly what is required. The New BA LTV has an Iveco engine.

As armoured cars go, the Mowag Eagle IV is normal size. The angle makes it look bigger.
Overall length: 5.40 m
Height: 2.40 m
Overall width: 2.16 m
Wheelbase: 3.53 m

thebig C
5th March 2007, 22:51
Example of a light armoured vehicle:

http://nancyetroland.free.fr/public/PhotosMilitaires/VBL-Afganistan.jpg

Half the weight of a Mowag Eagle IV, shorter, narrower, lower (=less of a target), better off-road mobility, more manoeuvrability, cheaper?...

Goldie fish
5th March 2007, 23:29
..only carries three crew, less protection...

There is a larger version of that type, but its not in widespread use. It was included for consideration, see beginning of thread.

hptmurphy
6th March 2007, 00:10
Was considered as repalcement for the AMls afew years ago but troop carring and aramament was considered in sufficent. Idea for light tactical recon but not suitable insrting CTR teams....nice try. Tests carried out about 10 years ago.

Bosco
6th March 2007, 10:08
Bosco, see your Trooper and raise you a 3 litre LWB Landcruiser Colorado Auto, Me like.

Bitch:tongue:

thebig C
6th March 2007, 13:06
Thanks for the feedback - much appreciated. Can anyone tell me why the LTAV needs more than three crew members? AMLs have only three, as do Scorpions, British Army Scimitars and 'WIMIK' Land Rovers, German Wiesels, French VBLs and many more..., all of which are armed, armoured vehicles doing a similar job to the LTAV. The Swiss have a four-man crew in their Mowag Eagles but the fourth crew-member is a radio operator, which seems a bit unnecessary these days. Don't forget these vehicles would always operate in sections of two, three or four cars. And to complete the final stages of a CTR on foot, some or all of the crew can always dismount...

FMolloy
6th March 2007, 13:35
You're assuming that the LTAV would be only used for CTR. There's other roles which it could, and probably would, be used for - liason, transport of personnel etc.

ODIN
6th March 2007, 13:44
This is where the roles that the Cav are going to play come into question big time. If Recce is the main objective, then something that can carry a 4 man crew and has some sort of weapon to put down support fire may be the best option. The other route it the one with armoured vehicles like the new mowags which can fill the armoured role that is currently being done. Personally, I think that a look is needed at the formation of squadrons is needed, with an LATV similar to the French VBL being used in a four man variant with a GPMG/.5(if possible on top) being used as the recce element, with the new mowags being used in the support troop to come in if the sh1t hits the fan.

Another option would be having 3 of the VBL type to a troop with 1 mowag in support...but it is really up to the powers that be to make these calls...and the sooner they do the better...

A turret like this may be an option....if only it was a 4 man crew though

http://www.armyrecognition.com/europe/France/vehicules_a_roues/VBL/VBL_Grenade/VBL_lance_grenades_France_03.jpg

thebig C
6th March 2007, 15:23
If the vehicle is just for liaison and personnel transport, then something like a Land Rover, Nissan Patrol, Mercedes G-wagen etc. would do fine... My understanding was that the LTAV would be a combat vehicle, carrying out not just reconnaissance but patrol, convoy escort, fire support and many other combat missions.

There are many weapons options - LMG, HMG, AGL, ATGM, SAM - available for the VBL and other light combat vehicles, which can be mounted directly on the roof, in turrets, or in a remote-controlled weapon system, such as this example from Rafael (the Kongsberg RCWS can also be mounted on a VBL, and it can include a Javelin):

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/small_arms/rcws/rcws_vbl_2.jpg

FMolloy
6th March 2007, 18:19
better off-road mobility, more manoeuvrability

What makes you think the VBL has better off-road mobility & maneuvrability than the Eagle 4?


If the vehicle is just for liaison and personnel transport, then something like a Land Rover, Nissan Patrol, Mercedes G-wagen etc. would do fine

Not if you're driving about in area that's prone to mines or roadside bombs.


My understanding was that the LTAV would be a combat vehicle, carrying out not just reconnaissance but patrol, convoy escort, fire support and many other combat missions.

If it's going to be carrying out such roles why would you get a small vehicle with a limited payload?

DeV
6th March 2007, 18:37
The LTAV was not to replace the AMLs. They were to be armed with either HMG or (from memory, not sure) 40mm grenade launcher.

thebig C
6th March 2007, 19:02
"Relevant to off-road mobility, wheeled vehicles tend to have a ground pressure considerably higher than that of their tracked counterparts. The Mean Maximum Pressure (MMP), which is the average peak pressure under the tires of wheeled vehicles or under the road wheels of tracked vehicles, varies between 200 to 270 kN/m2 for the latter and 300 to 450 kN/m2 for the former. This implies inferior performance for wheeled vehicles on soft ground. There is at least one notable exception, however. The French Panhard VBL M-11 (a 4 x 4 vehicle weighing 3.55 t) has an MMP of only 220 kN/m2. In this case, a very light wheeled armored vehicle achieves an MMP in the range of tracked vehicles."
(http://www.comw.org/pda/0007wheels.html)

A light combat vehicle should be compact, light and agile, to enhance survivability. (It's not just about armour, although the VBL has a maximum armour thickness of 11mm and was designed from the beginning to be mine-resistant.) VBLs have successfully carried out the various combat missions mentioned - why do you need something bigger and heavier?

I think this discussion would be helped if we knew exactly what the LTAV specs are.

FMolloy
6th March 2007, 19:18
"Relevant to off-road mobility, wheeled vehicles tend to have a ground pressure considerably higher than that of their tracked counterparts. The Mean Maximum Pressure (MMP), which is the average peak pressure under the tires of wheeled vehicles or under the road wheels of tracked vehicles, varies between 200 to 270 kN/m2 for the latter and 300 to 450 kN/m2 for the former. This implies inferior performance for wheeled vehicles on soft ground. There is at least one notable exception, however. The French Panhard VBL M-11 (a 4 x 4 vehicle weighing 3.55 t) has an MMP of only 220 kN/m2. In this case, a very light wheeled armored vehicle achieves an MMP in the range of tracked vehicles."
(http://www.comw.org/pda/0007wheels.html)

That proves nothing, it mentions no vehicle other than the VBL and offers no comparisons.


A light combat vehicle should be compact, light and agile, to enhance survivability. (It's not just about armour, although the VBL has a maximum armour thickness of 11mm and was designed from the beginning to be mine-resistant.) VBLs have successfully carried out the various combat missions mentioned - why do you need something bigger and heavier?

Because it would not just be carrying out combat roles. It would be a liason vehicle, an engineers vehicle and all-round armoured taxi. It's got to be able to all of these things well enough, not just one of them brilliantly. Look at the Brit's purchase of the Iveco Panther - it's filling the command & liason role. The LTAV would be operating in a similar manner and would need a similar vehicle.


I think this discussion would be helped if we knew exactly what the LTAV specs are.

The closest thing we have is what DeV posted on page 4 of this thread & that's as good as it's going to get until they re-issue the tender.

thebig C
6th March 2007, 20:13
Yeah, the Iveco Panther looks like a good vehicle, but I saw somewhere that the British are paying £413,000 each (>€600,000); that would mean around €40 million for the 66 Irish LTAVs. Sounds like some very expensive taxis....

ZULU
6th March 2007, 20:14
This implies inferior performance for wheeled vehicles on soft ground. There is at least one notable exception, however. The French Panhard VBL M-11 (a 4 x 4 vehicle weighing 3.55 t) has an MMP of only 220 kN/m2. (http://www.comw.org/pda/0007wheels.html)


The Panhard VBL M-11 is also the exception in weight being the lightest in this discussion. The Iveco/Mowag is next at 6500kg with the dingo coming in at 8500Kg.

I'd be very suspicious of a 3550kg armoured vehicle of that size. Most big 4x4's are pushing 3 tons without armour

thebig C
6th March 2007, 21:47
Maybe the thing to do before looking at particular vehicles is to clarify what exactly are the intended roles. Some of the possible roles for a light armoured vehicle are:

reconnaissance/scout
observation/surveillance/intelligence-gathering
patrol
convoy escort
light IFV
liaison and command
artillery/mortar forward observation
fire support (LMG, HMG, AGL)
anti-tank (ATGMs)
anti-aircraft (SAMs)
weapons carrier (mortars, HMGs, anti-tank)

Any others?

By the way, can anyone tell me the significance of the ‘T’ (tactical) in LTAV? Has the distribution of the planned 66 LTAVs between the different corps/units been decided?

I think another part of the problem is the vast number of vehicles that are now available in this sector of the military market, many of which are optimised for some roles but perhaps are not that suitable for others. If a wide range of roles has to be covered, maybe it will be necessary to acquire more than one type of vehicle?

Goldie fish
7th March 2007, 02:55
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.

Hope this clarifies things somewhat. Where the cars would fit in to the operational scheme of things is found in the current TAMs, which, as a restricted document is not for discussion here.

Yeah, the Iveco Panther looks like a good vehicle, but I saw somewhere that the British are paying £413,000 each (>€600,000); that would mean around €40 million for the 66 Irish LTAVs. Sounds like some very expensive taxis....

Mowag piranha cost €1.5m, and thats just an armoured battle taxi. I think €25m was available for the LTAV in the past, which equates to about €350000 per vehicle.

thebig C
7th March 2007, 12:35
Thanks Goldie… €350,000 sounds a bit more reasonable to me, and the roles described in that article fit in with my understanding of the LTAV idea.

If it gets to the stage where they’re thinking of spending more than €600,000 on a command and liaison vehicle, maybe some of the money would be better spent buying light helicopters for the same purpose. My guess is they could be bought for around the same price as a Piranha. They could be deployed on overseas missions by the Naval Service’s new ‘green/blue’ ship..

thebig C
12th March 2007, 15:32
The Panhard VBL M-11 is also the exception in weight being the lightest in this discussion. The Iveco/Mowag is next at 6500kg with the dingo coming in at 8500Kg.

I'd be very suspicious of a 3550kg armoured vehicle of that size. Most big 4x4's are pushing 3 tons without armour

According to the Rheinmetall website, the Bundeswehr plans to procure a number of different all-wheel drive armoured vehicles armed for self-defence. The vehicles fall into three categories: Class 1 with a maximum weight of five tons, Class 2, weighing between five and ten tons, and Class 3, which weigh in at 10 to 13 tons.... Class 1 vehicles would be used as scout vehicles, for instance, or in a command or liaison capacity.

FMolloy
12th March 2007, 17:43
Another problem with the VBL is the number of doors - it's only got three. DeV's post on page 4 of this thread says the infantry variant of the LTAV has to carry 4 troops including the driver, I'd say 4 troops would have problems getting in & out of the military equivilant of a three-door hot hatch.

Panhard do a longer, four-door version which would be closer to the other vehicles in size & weight. That would be a better option than the current VBL.

thebig C
13th March 2007, 14:27
Another problem with the VBL is the number of doors - it's only got three. DeV's post on page 4 of this thread says the infantry variant of the LTAV has to carry 4 troops including the driver, I'd say 4 troops would have problems getting in & out of the military equivilant of a three-door hot hatch.

Panhard do a longer, four-door version which would be closer to the other vehicles in size & weight. That would be a better option than the current VBL.

Yes, you're right, the basic VBL is a 3-person vehicle. But it's a well-proven design with many advantages and a good track record, so if the requirement for accommodating 4 rules it out, my question is why the 4-person crew was specified? There is probably a good answer, I'm just curious to know what it is....

FMolloy
13th March 2007, 15:49
Maybe because 4 troops are roughly half a section? It's as good a reason as any.

paul
30th March 2007, 19:07
does anyone know how much bigger the EAGLE IV is compared to the newer patrol.is it much bigger or is it around the same size.

Goldie fish
30th March 2007, 19:38
Its like comparing a bicycle to a duck. You cant.

thebig C
30th March 2007, 21:38
does anyone know how much bigger the EAGLE IV is compared to the newer patrol.is it much bigger or is it around the same size.

The Eagle IV is 27cm longer, 34cm wider, 15cm higher, and weighs 7.6 tonnes, compared to the Patrol's 3 tonnes.

holdfast
31st March 2007, 10:29
is that contact dead or was the tendering process started again

Goldie fish
31st March 2007, 17:12
That tender ended with no successful bidder, and the allotted funds were redirected into the Purchase of the Cav Corps 15 new Mowags.

thebig C
1st April 2007, 22:35
Given that

(i) the LTAV project is dead;
(ii) the AMLs will soon disappear, replaced by the new Cavalry Mowags; and
(iii) the Scorpions will not be upgraded, nor will they be deployed overseas,

the only deployable armoured vehicles in the Irish Army will be the Mowags. At a minimum, should the Army not acquire some armoured Nissan Patrols, or G-wagens, or Landcruisers, or whatever, or get add-on armour packages for some of the existing 4x4s? As it stands, apart from the (big, heavy) Mowags, Oxfam and Trócaire probably have better armoured vehicles than the Army.

Goldie fish
1st April 2007, 22:40
I never thought I would say this, but I agree with carrington. Even the Armoured Landies used in NI would be the bare minimum required when it comes to an armoured vehicle.

FMolloy
1st April 2007, 22:42
Given that

(iii) the Scorpions will not be upgraded, nor will they be deployed overseas

Unless you're a senior PDF cav officer you've no way of knowing this.

hptmurphy
1st April 2007, 22:57
I think the army is moving on from upgardes and will buy even more mowags to replace the scorpions....

thebig C
1st April 2007, 23:00
Unless you're a senior PDF cav officer you've no way of knowing this.

Is it not a reasonable conclusion, given that

(i) they have never been deployed overseas to date;
(ii) the proposed upgrade has been under consideration for years yet nothing has happened;
(iii) the small number of Scorpions appears to have been acquired mainly for a training rather than an operational purpose?

Goldie fish
1st April 2007, 23:07
Is it not a reasonable conclusion, given that

(i) they have never been deployed overseas to date;
(ii) the proposed upgrade has been under consideration for years yet nothing has happened;
(iii) the small number of Scorpions appears to have been acquired mainly for a training rather than an operational purpose?

Just like the small number of helis you are suggesting we send overseas?

FMolloy
1st April 2007, 23:08
It's a reasonable assumption to make, but you've nothing to back up the certainty of your previous statement.

Parts
2nd April 2007, 23:03
...and you know whose mother Assumption is.

hedgehog
12th April 2007, 13:03
Has the new board been set up yet or are they still working with the old members

mutter nutter
12th April 2007, 13:09
I was just taking a quick count of how many different LTAV's there are on the market....I stopped counting at 14, and they still couldn't find one close enough to the specs?

hedgehog
12th April 2007, 13:37
stopped counting at 14, and they still couldn't find one close enough to the specs?


Maybe you stopped counting because it got harder for you to count

and after you hit 13 you ran out of fingers to help you

so how are things in Limerick these days

mutter nutter
12th April 2007, 13:50
Maybe you stopped counting because it got harder for you to count

and after you hit 13 you ran out of fingers to help you

so how are things in Limerick these days
I have toe's too you know....but that kind of complex maths is beyond me:tongue:


I assume it's fine there, I haven't seen any smoke on the horizon so I'm thinking it has not blown up yet.

hedgehog
12th April 2007, 13:52
sorry i thought you were a Limerick person

ah sure Clare is Limerick with out the quaintness or the Kitsch factor

Goldie fish
12th April 2007, 18:51
Getting back on topic, I can only assume that they couldnt find at the time a vehicle that fulfilled all the requirements, however with experience in Afghanistan and Iraq, demand for such a vehicle is greater, and in time, the choices will be greater, and those machines that were prototypes at the start of the LTAV programme, will now be tried and tested..

paul g
14th April 2007, 15:00
According to the minister on the 03/04/07 in the Dail select


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.

mutter nutter
14th April 2007, 15:13
Eagle IV FTW

mutter nutter
14th April 2007, 15:14
Can someone please edit the poll and add the newer vehicles that are around now, and take the scarab out.

ODIN
14th April 2007, 15:31
I wonder how many the Cav will get

Goldie fish
14th April 2007, 20:12
Can someone please edit the poll and add the newer vehicles that are around now, and take the scarab out.

Suggestions for new poll? We'll create a LTAV Mk 2 thread.

mutter nutter
14th April 2007, 22:25
Suggestions for new poll? We'll create a LTAV Mk 2 thread.

Ok, I'll get them together and make a new thread, I just thought you would not want me making a duplicate thread of this one:smile:

Goldie fish
14th April 2007, 22:43
No, In fairness, this one has run its course.

thebig C
17th April 2007, 11:53
(mod: maybe this should be moved to the new thread when it's up?)

Is this the perfect LTAV?

http://www.defensereview.com/stories/ausawintersymposium2007/GDLS%20Tech%20Demonstrator_5/DSC02575.JPG

It's the Advanced Ground Mobility Vehicle (AGMV), a prototype built by General Dynamics Land Systems (owners of Mowag) aimed at the U.S. military Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) program, which is to replace all the up-armored Humvees currently in operation.

It looks to me like a stretched, modernised version of the French VBL (as you know, I'm a fan). The blurb about the vehicle makes a big fuss about the "..diamond-shaped, integrally-armored monocoque capsule / crew compartment that incorporates a V-hull and inward-sloped upper side wall to direct the blast from a land mine / IED (Improvised Explosive Device) up and down the sides of the vehicle, rather than directly up through the bottom, like would happen with a flat-bottomed/flat-sided up-armored Humvee (HMMWV). The other half of the diamond is the aformentioned upper portion of the AGMV armored crew capsule/compartment that slopes inward. This inward-sloping upper portion, combined with the outer-sloping V-hull lower portion, greatly attenuates/mitigates the blast impact to the vehicle and occupants inside. It will most likely also assist in increasing crew survivability against enemy small arms threats."

This is a total copy of the essence of the VBL design. It's only taken the Americans 25 years and thousands of dead and injured servicemen to catch up. However it is much bigger than the VBL, and obviously it's systems are much more hi-tech. It's still only a prototype, and it could be a few years yet before the JLTV program leads to vehicles on the ground, but still, it does look just the job for the LTAV....

Jetjock
17th April 2007, 17:16
Its a tribute to the Irish Army that the need for such a vehicle was identified before the penny dropped with the "big boys".

DeV
17th April 2007, 18:33
This is a total copy of the essence of the VBL design. And many others

Goldie fish
17th April 2007, 20:07
I hate the "turret". Better off with RWS.

The updated version of the VBL (VB2L)was one of the original options available for consideration, However it was not in production at the time. It was one of the Contenders for the similar British Army LTV competition.
Its definitely an option this time out, I'm sure, but its one of many. I think that would be one of the smaller vehicles though.

thebig C
17th April 2007, 23:11
I hate the "turret". Better off with RWS.....

It's a very low profile turret alright. The vehicle is supposed to have an RWS. This is an interior pic., showing the gunner's screen and joystick, but maybe because it's only a prototype they haven't fitted the real thing?

http://www.defensereview.com/stories/ausawintersymposium2007/GDLS%20Tech%20Demonstrator_2/DSC02572.JPG

Goldie fish
17th April 2007, 23:27
Any chance you could resize those images?

hedgehog
17th April 2007, 23:33
whats the 2 screens either side of the wheel

ZULU
17th April 2007, 23:37
http://armyreco.ifrance.com/europe/allemagne/vehicules_a_roues/dingo/dingo_wheeled_armoured_vehicle_germany_05.jpg