Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Light Tactical Armoured Vehicle: Second attempt.

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

  • Rocinante
    replied
    Sisu gtp.
    Last edited by Rocinante; 22 October 2022, 23:52.

    Leave a comment:


  • GoneToTheCanner
    replied
    As an aside, don't SISU make a very nice equivalent?

    Leave a comment:


  • GoneToTheCanner
    replied
    Originally posted by DeV View Post

    also the specs of the LTAV tender were so specific nothing on the market matched them so whatever was picked was going to be uniquely Irish

    unless the RG32M LTV was already been marketed at the time (could be wrong but don’t think it was)
    I had a tour of an RG32M in the Curragh once. The Base Workshop lads were very pissed off with the vehicle's unreliability because it reflected badly on them. One NCO said that parts supply was very slow and that the bigger Mowags took priority and that the engine bay was crammed and difficult to gain access and one particular item was the provision of a total of five radiators and intercoolers within and all it took was a leak from one to have the car VOR. He also lamented the shortage of vehicles electricians and people with electronic skills.

    Leave a comment:


  • ODIN
    replied
    Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
    Mr Murphy has more pressing matters lately now that the angry mob he once cheered has now turned its sights on him.
    That's the right wing angry mob, I think he's still got the lefties on side. Hey, maybe he'll be looking for an LTAV for personal protection going forward!

    Leave a comment:


  • na grohmiti
    replied
    Mr Murphy has more pressing matters lately now that the angry mob he once cheered has now turned its sights on him.

    Leave a comment:


  • ODIN
    replied
    Originally posted by TangoSierra View Post

    Padme/Anakin Meme: So the DoD/DF are contracting out to NATO, the Software Defined Radio Project +100Million, the Multi Role Vessel Project +200Million, etc etc. Right? Right?
    Do you want Paul Murphy's head to literally explode with talk like that?

    Click image for larger version

Name:	download.jpg
Views:	690
Size:	81.2 KB
ID:	735949

    Leave a comment:


  • na grohmiti
    replied
    Originally posted by TangoSierra View Post

    Padme/Anakin Meme: So the DoD/DF are contracting out to NATO, the Software Defined Radio Project +100Million, the Multi Role Vessel Project +200Million, etc etc. Right? Right?
    Meme Generator - Imgflip

    Your best effort please.​

    Leave a comment:


  • TangoSierra
    replied
    Originally posted by paul g View Post
    [FONT=Calibri]A

    What people also might notice is that its actually NATO's procurement agency who is managing this deal for Luxembourg as their ministry of defence don’t have the expertise to manage contract this scale and size ;its an approach used by Portugal and other small countries. The department of defence here simply don’t have the necessary expertise to tender for multiple large projects, they only have the bandwidth to do one large project at a time, especially in an environment like the arms industry where there are not really that many contracts but getting a large one means that you’re on the gravy train for decades as Arms manufacturers make their money comes from spare parts. if you make the slightest mistakes the loosing tenders will drag you to court, which is why many countries tend to outsource it these days.
    Padme/Anakin Meme: So the DoD/DF are contracting out to NATO, the Software Defined Radio Project +100Million, the Multi Role Vessel Project +200Million, etc etc. Right? Right?

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    Originally posted by paul g View Post
    A couple of points to make here

    Firstly as to the cost the cost of the eagle v that’s over 20 years service life, it also includes a RWS the scorpion battle management system along with an ied jammer etc which adds massively to the price

    Compared to the RG-32M LTV virtually all the LTAV’s of this generation had problems, the British panther , based on the LMV was a total lemon and Belgium had massive problems with their lMV fleet. The original Rg-32 and the version that the swedes bought were designed to protect against soviet anti tank mines, the Tm46 in particular and drew on experience in Rhodesia and Namibia . by the time our tender for published there was a totally different threat environment for IEDs which were getting bigger and the original rg32M and others of its generation such as the panther lacked the protection that was thought necessary for the battlefield

    Also, the Rg-32M LTv was bought in 2009 from BAE a big multi national. Despite their name they are largely focused on the American market and at the time 92008/09) they had bought the rights to the design of the RG31/RG-32 from oMC land systems in south Africa and were coining it in by selling the RG 31 to the us military on an industrial level for the war in Iraq. BAE hoped to replicate their success with the rg31 with the Rg-32M LTV for the war in Afghanistan, hence why the vehicle was marketed as the outrider except instead of the anticipated large order from the us army for the Rg outrider the Americans opted for another design.

    Bae then sold the rights to the Rg32M LTv to Denel which resulted in the Df having to source spares for a vehicle that they were the sole users off from the south African state manufacturer notorious for corruption and innefficency instead of a large American multi national that was also servicing a big US military contract.

    What people also might notice is that its actually NATO's procurement agency who is managing this deal for Luxembourg as their ministry of defence don’t have the expertise to manage contract this scale and size ;its an approach used by Portugal and other small countries. The department of defence here simply don’t have the necessary expertise to tender for multiple large projects, they only have the bandwidth to do one large project at a time, especially in an environment like the arms industry where there are not really that many contracts but getting a large one means that you’re on the gravy train for decades as Arms manufacturers make their money comes from spare parts. if you make the slightest mistakes the loosing tenders will drag you to court, which is why many countries tend to outsource it these days.
    also the specs of the LTAV tender were so specific nothing on the market matched them so whatever was picked was going to be uniquely Irish

    unless the RG32M LTV was already been marketed at the time (could be wrong but don’t think it was)

    Leave a comment:


  • paul g
    replied
    A couple of points to make here

    Firstly as to the cost the cost of the eagle v that’s over 20 years service life, it also includes a RWS the scorpion battle management system along with an ied jammer etc which adds massively to the price

    Compared to the RG-32M LTV virtually all the LTAV’s of this generation had problems, the British panther , based on the LMV was a total lemon and Belgium had massive problems with their lMV fleet. The original Rg-32 and the version that the swedes bought were designed to protect against soviet anti tank mines, the Tm46 in particular and drew on experience in Rhodesia and Namibia . by the time our tender for published there was a totally different threat environment for IEDs which were getting bigger and the original rg32M and others of its generation such as the panther lacked the protection that was thought necessary for the battlefield

    Also, the Rg-32M LTv was bought in 2009 from BAE a big multi national. Despite their name they are largely focused on the American market and at the time 92008/09) they had bought the rights to the design of the RG31/RG-32 from oMC land systems in south Africa and were coining it in by selling the RG 31 to the us military on an industrial level for the war in Iraq. BAE hoped to replicate their success with the rg31 with the Rg-32M LTV for the war in Afghanistan, hence why the vehicle was marketed as the outrider except instead of the anticipated large order from the us army for the Rg outrider the Americans opted for another design.

    Bae then sold the rights to the Rg32M LTv to Denel which resulted in the Df having to source spares for a vehicle that they were the sole users off from the south African state manufacturer notorious for corruption and innefficency instead of a large American multi national that was also servicing a big US military contract.

    What people also might notice is that its actually NATO's procurement agency who is managing this deal for Luxembourg as their ministry of defence don’t have the expertise to manage contract this scale and size ;its an approach used by Portugal and other small countries. The department of defence here simply don’t have the necessary expertise to tender for multiple large projects, they only have the bandwidth to do one large project at a time, especially in an environment like the arms industry where there are not really that many contracts but getting a large one means that you’re on the gravy train for decades as Arms manufacturers make their money comes from spare parts. if you make the slightest mistakes the loosing tenders will drag you to court, which is why many countries tend to outsource it these days.
    Last edited by paul g; 18 September 2022, 20:15.

    Leave a comment:


  • na grohmiti
    replied
    When everyone else is back using armoured scout cars, we'll have LTAVs

    Leave a comment:


  • ODIN
    replied
    I wonder will we ever get LTAVs...you know, ones that work!

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    of course there is also the Irish factor

    The 27 (RG32M LTV) LTAVs (plus the option (not exercised) for 27 more) cost us €20 m in 2009

    A month previous to that Sweden had ordered another 60 (upgraded) RG32M (on top of the 200 they already had) for € 18m


    https://forum.irishmilitaryonline.co...834#post350834
    Last edited by DeV; 17 September 2022, 12:23.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post

    Even assuming the unit cost is €2m each (based on what our LTAV cost) predicting €3m lifetime costs isn't saying much about expected reliability. If you buy a car for €30K, would you expect to spend €45k on parts & servicing in its lifetime?
    paint it green and it costs three times the price

    a quick Google tells me DoD went to tender in 2014 (which was subsequently cancelled) for LTAV spares - 2 years supply of spares was assessed as costing € 0.75 m to €1.5 m (lot of inflation since then)

    let’s spilt it difference and say €1m every 2 years for 20 years that’s €20m in spares alone

    Luxembourg contract possibly includes some servicing and would include disposal as well

    Leave a comment:


  • na grohmiti
    replied
    Originally posted by DeV View Post

    https://defencebelgium.com/2022/09/1...mmer-et-dingo/

    includes full life support for 15-20 years
    Even assuming the unit cost is €2m each (based on what our LTAV cost) predicting €3m lifetime costs isn't saying much about expected reliability. If you buy a car for €30K, would you expect to spend €45k on parts & servicing in its lifetime?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X