Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Light Tactical Armoured Vehicle: Second attempt.

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

  • Light Tactical Armoured Vehicle: Second attempt.

    Given that the Decision has been taken to re open the LTAV selection process here is what we know from the last time. What vehicles currently in production fit this profile?
    I am only assuming that the criteria for selection has not changed.
    Tom Brady
    Security Editor
    http://www.unison.ie/irish_independe...issue_id=12181


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Department officials this week began issuing documentation to interested suppliers, and proposals must be back in the department early next month with the aim of placing a contract before year-end.
    The RFP’s requirement is for up to 66 LTAV’s.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

  • #2
    Will we keep it to Western vehicles only?, I mean the Russian and Eastern Europeans have some new vehicles that would fit the bill but they would be outsiders in the evaluation at best.
    Dr. Venture: Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?

    Dr. Venture: Dean, you smell like a whore

    Comment


    • #3
      This came to my mind sticking with Panhard and go with the VBL

      http://www.janes.com/defence/land_fo...hard_vbl.shtml
      Theirs not to make reply,
      Theirs not to reason why,
      Theirs but to do and die:
      Into the valley of Death
      Rode the six hundred.

      The Charge of the Light Brigade

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by mugs View Post
        This came to my mind sticking with Panhard and go with the VBL

        http://www.janes.com/defence/land_fo...hard_vbl.shtml
        Too small for my money..
        Dr. Venture: Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?

        Dr. Venture: Dean, you smell like a whore

        Comment


        • #5
          Fennec?
          Meh.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by yooklid View Post
            Fennec?
            pricy, isn't the Fennek like 1.1 mill a piece plus it's very specialised,
            Dr. Venture: Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?

            Dr. Venture: Dean, you smell like a whore

            Comment


            • #7
              Barring a major change in requirements or whatever, my money is on a fight bettween the Eagle IV and the Iveco MLV, with maybe another vehicle involved, the new French VBL, Dingo or something like the Isreali Golan, but thats more like an armoured minivan, there are literally dozens of LTAVS on the market now, but will the DF really want something Russian or Slovakian
              Dr. Venture: Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?

              Dr. Venture: Dean, you smell like a whore

              Comment


              • #8
                Driver plus 4 passengers?


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

                Comment


                • #9
                  VBL, Fennec etc are recce vehicles.

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

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

                  I'm sure HPT would have his own extensive input about the practicalities of climbing in and out of the various vehicles...which is almost as important a consideration as the actual performance of the vehicle.
                  "It is a general popular error to imagine that loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for it's welfare" Edmund Burke

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Eagle vs. Panther?

                    Originally posted by mutter nutter View Post
                    Barring a major change in requirements or whatever, my money is on a fight bettween the Eagle IV and the Iveco MLV, with maybe another vehicle involved, the new French VBL, Dingo or something like the Isreali Golan, but thats more like an armoured minivan, there are literally dozens of LTAVS on the market now, but will the DF really want something Russian or Slovakian
                    I agree that it will probably come down to a choice between the Mowag Eagle IV and the Iveco MLV (Panther is the British Army version). However I would be surprised if they don't update the specs, in view of all the combat experience from Iraq and Afghanistan during the past couple of years.

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

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

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

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

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

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I don't normally dip into vehicle threads as you know but are these things for Cav or Inf ?
                      "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

                      "No, they're trying to fly the tank"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by trellheim View Post
                        I don't normally dip into vehicle threads as you know but are these things for Cav or Inf ?
                        going off the original post, i would say both.
                        Blog

                        WHAT FLIES DIES

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Goldie fish View Post

                          The Infantry vehicle will carry 4 troops (including the driver).
                          An infantry vehicle capable of carrying just 3 troops....I'm presuming this is not for transport but for some form of armoured support? As if it was for recce roles it would fall under the cavs jurisdiction?
                          "Many a time a man's mouth broke his nose"

                          "Don't waste money buying expensive binoculars. Simply stand next to the object you wish to view."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Since we started training properly in the Recce Game

                            it was an Infantry role

                            by that I mean the CTR

                            and not the drive 10 miles out and have a quick gander
                            Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
                            Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
                            The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere***
                            The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
                            The best lack all conviction, while the worst
                            Are full of passionate intensity.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by carrington View Post
                              That suggests that it will be more than just an armoured utility vehicle. The first three tasks - surveillance, reconnaissance and target acquisition, tend to go together alright, but what exactly does 'communications' mean? And 'acting as a weapons platform'? Does that mean that the vehicle's weapons are not just for self-defence?
                              I would argue that being able to do all of the above, as well the other roles, is the very definition of 'utility'. As for the 'acting as a weapons platform' bit, I wouldn't dwell on it. It was written by a journo for mass consumption, it has to sound cool. The weapons fit given is fairly standard.

                              Originally posted by carrington View Post
                              Does that mean that there will be a number of distinct sub-types? How many of each? Or will the vehicle be configurable as necessary to fulfil different roles? Is it only the Infantry vehicle that has to be able to carry four people?
                              I'd say it'll be configurable rather than sub-variants. The surveillance one might be the exception to that.

                              Originally posted by carrington View Post
                              How will the new vehicle work with the Piranhas at a tactical level? Would the LTAVs be intended for patrolling and convoy escort work?
                              The DF doesn't have them yet, so it's impossible to say. And when they do get them it might very well be operational info.

                              Originally posted by carrington View Post
                              Given the wide range of possible tasks, I sometimes wonder if more than one vehicle type is necessary.
                              What possible tasks make you think this is the case & why?

                              Originally posted by carrington View Post
                              Final thought: the original competition was halted because they said the market was not mature at that stage (or something like that). If anything the market for light armoured vehicles - both in terms of what they are for, and the vehicles available on the market - has proliferated enormously since then, and become even more confusing rather than less. Why revive it now? Nothing to do with an election in the offing, I hope...
                              I doubt very much the election is the reason, the public don't care enough about defence to be swayed by something like this.
                              "The dolphins were monkeys that didn't like the land, walked back to the water, went back from the sand."

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X