Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bulldog APC

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

  • Bulldog APC

    I was watching the BBC news lately and the British Government were boasting about how the troops in A-Stan and Iraq would be better protected in the new Bulldog APC.




    Looking at it, It looked vaguely familiar....

    Yes indeed the NEW Apc is no more than an Up Armoured FV432, which was supposed to have been retired from the British Army when the Warrior IFV was introduced. £85m to upgrade the 1000 that were not sold to private citizens for use as fairground attractions....

    The FV430 series was introduced in the 1960s. Production ended in 1971(It was originally known as "Trojan"



    Can you imagine what would happen if the Irish DF were to put a lick of new paint on the Landsverks and send them out to Lebanon?

    Bulldog vehicles on patrol in Basra
    5 Feb 07
    The first delivery of the upgraded FV430 Mk3 Bulldog vehicles arrived in Iraq just before Christmas and have become the Royal Green Jacket's (recently formed up as The Rifles) vehicle of choice for carrying out patrols in Basra City.


    The upgraded FV430 Mk3 Bulldog vehicles on patrol in Basra City, Iraq
    [Picture: Cpl Andy Benson, RAF]
    The vehicle's additional armour provides enhanced safety for driver, commander and troops while other features include air conditioning and an improved engine and transmission for peak performance and reliability.

    The Bulldog's ability to turn around within its own length gives vehicle commanders more agility and flexibility which can prove vital in coping with the unexpected in the Basrah’s narrow streets.

    The Royal Green Jackets Battalion (newly formed up as The Rifles), based at Basra Palace, is the first unit to use the Bulldogs on operations and the vehicle has already proved its worth with many of the soldiers.

    Rifleman Keith Murphy, said:

    "We were on patrol in downtown Basra when we came under contact. We drove through but were hit by a roadside bomb. It exploded when it hit the body armour of the vehicle but didn’t penetrate through."


    The FV430 Mk3 Bulldog in Iraq
    [Picture: Cpl Andy Benson (RAF)]
    Bulldog driver, Rifleman Stuart Strachan, said:

    "It's a lot easier and very simple, just like a Go Kart, quite quick and easy to handle.

    "It's a great bit of kit. As a driver it gives me a bit of cover as well and it can move a lot better. It provides better protection on the ground and it’s more effective."

    Vehicle Commander, Corporal Scott Hodgkinson, who has experience in Bosnia and Afghanistan said:

    "It out rates all the other vehicles I've been in before in my whole army career whether it be Snatch, Saxon or normal Landrover."

    Drivers from the Royal Green Jackets spent a month in Catterick last year learning to drive the vehicles before they deployed to theatre in early November 2006.

    The delivery to theatre came after successful trials in the UK and the Middle East confirmed the Mk 3 vehicles were as reliable and robust as expected. More deliveries will be made to operations in Iraq as well as Afghanistan.
    http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/De...rolInBasra.htm

    However not everyone is impressed. The delays in introducing the Cougar "Mastiff" Mine Resistant Ambush Protected(MRAP)...



    Thus we do await the delivery of the Mastiffs in theatre, which are better equipped to deal with this threat. But, as the delays mount (no doubt in part arising from the insistence on carrying out modifications which could and should have been done in theatre - or even on the ship coming over) can it really be a coincidence that, on the same day that another soldier is killed while taking part in a Warrior patrol, the MoD posts a long "puff" about the newly introduced Bulldog (pictured)?

    Once again, also, one worried out the MoD writers. The describe the Bulldog as an FV430 Mk3. But there is no such thing as an FV430 – there is the FV430 series, or family of vehicles, of which the Bulldog is one, an up-armoured FV432. And then we get Associated Press, which published the picture of the Warrior shown above, giving it the caption: "A British soldier stands in front of a tank in Basra …".
    I am sorry to say it but it appears to me that the UK government have not come much further from the attitude in the First World war that their military were little more than "Cannon Fodder"


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

  • #2
    The RGJs are a light infantry unit. Before the FV432s, they had nothing more heavily armoured than a Snatch Land Rover. They're not replacing Warriors with the things, they're giving otherwise unmechanised units some APCs by dragging them out of storage, or re-roling other ones such as the Artillery or Engineering vehicles. Much like the M113 in US service, the FV-432 was never fully replaced by the Warrior, maintaining a heavy presence in support roles. Nothing dramatic or conspiratorial about it.

    NTM
    Last edited by California Tanker; 18 February 2007, 07:41.
    Driver, tracks, troops.... Drive and adjust!!

    Comment


    • #3
      Would you be pleased if you were Given a Sherman instead of an Abrams?

      My point is they are dressing it up as a "new" APC.


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

      Comment


      • #4
        The Bulldog's are set to serve well into the future, they are still a good vehicle offering good value for the UK tax payer. Consider the fact that the MOD still hasn't decided on the future multi role APC for the Armed forces.
        We upgraded our AML 60's and 90's and pressed them for overseas service with no extra protection.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Goldie fish View Post
          Would you be pleased if you were Given a Sherman instead of an Abrams?

          My point is they are dressing it up as a "new" APC.
          If all I had at the time was a Willys Jeep? It's still an upgrade in terms of armour and firepower.

          NTM
          Driver, tracks, troops.... Drive and adjust!!

          Comment


          • #6
            Hi all
            Perhaps they are taking a leaf out of the Israelis handbooks, with their Zeldas. A basic 432 or an M113 is a dead duck.
            regards
            GttC

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by California Tanker View Post
              The RGJs are a light infantry unit. Before the FV432s, they had nothing more heavily armoured than a Snatch Land Rover. They're not replacing Warriors with the things, they're giving otherwise unmechanised units some APCs by dragging them out of storage, or re-roling other ones such as the Artillery or Engineering vehicles. Much like the M113 in US service, the FV-432 was never fully replaced by the Warrior, maintaining a heavy presence in support roles. Nothing dramatic or conspiratorial about it.
              I think the problem isn't the equipment being used but the Spin being put on it by the MoD

              It would be similiar to Taking a M1A1, giving it a new lick of paint and saying "The new M1A9 is the latest in armoured warfare and absolves us of the need to buy any new tanks for the next 100 years - see, we're great"

              The vehicle is a sound concept. It still does the job. There is noting wrong with it but it is merely an uparmoured APC. It is NOT a new vehicle and does not allow the MoD to say that they are doing everything possible to provide protection for British troops.
              Last edited by Docman; 19 February 2007, 12:50.

              Comment


              • #8
                As far as I am aware, no new M1's are being built. In-service vehicles are completely stripped and remanufactured to a higher spec, emerging from this process as the M1A2. Upgrading of armoured vehicles is common with total service lifespans running into decades. How long did the Centurion tanks serve with the Israelis and the South Africans? As for the Bulldog, the huge amount of "applique" armour surely takes the original FV432 to a much higher level of protection against RPG(given the shape of the side armour) and IED's. Would you turn down an offer of 200 of these for the Army?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Quick question for those who actually know something about this stuff, what are the 'poles' (Antennae?, sensors?) mounted around the GPMG station for? They look like sensors of some kind.

                  Secondly, I assume theres a new engine in there to lug all that applique around? Otherwise mobility would be seriously compromised.

                  There is noting wrong with it but it is merely an uparmoured APC
                  So they took an old vehicle, upgraded it with a shedload of armour, (presumably) a new power pack, and used it to equip troops previously moved around by what is in effect a Civilian vehicle with light armour?

                  Personally, I can't see anything wrong with the idea - the basic vehicle is sound, with the level of armour it has now they are a huge step up from Landies. They're probably more surviveable than a Stryker with slatted armour (or a PIII!) in the case of an IED* or RPG attack. I'd hardly be offended if someone ordered me to ride around in one of those instead of a Land Rover. "What, you mean I have to sit in something thats much more likely to save my life but is an upgrade of an older APC? No thanks, I'll have a new Nissan Patrol, 07 D, thats what I want"



                  And if people are offended by 'spin', well, time to grow a slightly thicker skin ...

                  *Ok, except maybe an IED buried under the road surface.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I think people are missing the point here. British Squaddies have for a long time been complaining about the amount of spin that is coming from the MoD.

                    There have been suggestions that the only Journalists that the MoD will talk to are uneducated in the field that they are undertaking and so will follow the Govt line on everything as they know no better. Reputable Military Journalists are excluded from Press Conferences as they will only ask the Hard questions the MoD does not want to answer.

                    There is nothing wrong with the Bulldog. It is a fine vehicle and much needed and should be seen as a effective stopgap on the road to improved vehicles. However The spin is that it IS a new vehicle and the end result.

                    An equivalent in Ireland would be the Irish Army buying the PRR radio and declaring that it is so effective that we don't need any more radios. Yes the PRR is brilliant at what it does but it is merely a Section radio and needs to be supported by a plethora of other systems in order to maximise its potential.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      They are part of a jamming system. The system is supposed to jam the firing signal of an ied. They are the transmittors for it and can be seen mounted on Warriors aswell.
                      "Those who have long enjoyed such privileges as we enjoy forget in time that men have died to win them." - Franklin D. Roosevelt

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        How do you get this ...

                        However The spin is that it IS a new vehicle and the end result.
                        from this ...

                        "The first delivery of the upgraded FV430 Mk3 Bulldog"
                        (bold is mine).

                        There is no claim that the vehicles are new, or that they are 'tanks' (that comes down to ignorant journalism). All thats happening is that this is being dragged into the larger (and serious) discussion about protective equipment and funding for UK forces, and used as a stick to beat the UK Govt and MOD with, regardless of the facts. It is a step forward, and will more than likely save lives. Is it an omnipotent HoverTank? Nope, but it will protect infantry, which is the whole point. Strikes me that some balance might be required here lads.

                        And as for
                        "Once again, also, one worried out the MoD writers. The describe the Bulldog as an FV430 Mk3. But there is no such thing as an FV430"
                        There is now;

                        http://www.publicservice.co.uk/pdf/d...ider%20ATL.pdf
                        Last edited by Aidan; 20 February 2007, 16:16.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Doesnt seem like the MOD are saying anything untrue in that article to be fair
                          What are you cackling at, fatty? Too much pie, that's your problem.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Aidan View Post
                            How do you get this ...



                            from this ...



                            (bold is mine).

                            There is no claim that the vehicles are new, or that they are 'tanks' (that comes down to ignorant journalism). All thats happening is that this is being dragged into the larger (and serious) discussion about protective equipment and funding for UK forces, and used as a stick to beat the UK Govt and MOD with, regardless of the facts. It is a step forward, and will more than likely save lives. Is it an omnipotent HoverTank? Nope, but it will protect infantry, which is the whole point. Strikes me that some balance might be required here lads.

                            And as for

                            There is now;

                            http://www.publicservice.co.uk/pdf/d...ider%20ATL.pdf

                            Well, to be fair to Goldie and Docman, the MOD's website does refer to them as new:


                            http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/De...nIraqvideo.htm

                            and

                            http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/De...fTheRifles.htm

                            But it does, elsewhere, refer to an upgrade.
                            www.twitter.com/mickthehack

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Could this be because the Mk 3 is a new designation in the line of vehicles?? As it does have a new engine and drive train and extra armour. I know it is technically the same vehicle. Would one class say, the F/A 18D and the F/A 18E as two different Aircraft, or as a new improvement on past models?
                              What are you cackling at, fatty? Too much pie, that's your problem.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X