Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Panhard AML

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

  • Originally posted by CTU View Post

    While technically there wasn't a recession in 2001, there was a slowdown in economic growth in the aftermath of Foot & Mouth (spring/summer 01) and 9/11 that lasted until 2003.
    And yet that period say Bn Gp level exercises, the exercise of the option of another 25 MOWAGs, Javelin purchase, PC9 purchase and intro of DPM

    Comment


    • Originally posted by DeV View Post

      And yet that period say Bn Gp level exercises, the exercise of the option of another 25 MOWAGs, Javelin purchase, PC9 purchase and intro of DPM
      What was the reason given at the time for not exercising the full option of the extra 40 at the time? (I know eventually all 80 were acquired, but where the CAV replacement vehicles originally going to be part of that planned first 80 - I'm sure this was brought up before on the board around the time the last 15 and LTAVs where acquired)

      The failed MLH tender and cancellation of the the second attempt was around that time too and PC9 IIRC was post slowdown - 2004 (Celtic Tiger 2)

      Also wasn't all that supposed to be financed by the closure of the first round of Barracks post White Paper 1?
      It was the year of fire...the year of destruction...the year we took back what was ours.
      It was the year of rebirth...the year of great sadness...the year of pain...and the year of joy.
      It was a new age...It was the end of history.
      It was the year everything changed.

      Comment


      • My understanding is the failed MLH contract created funding for the 2nd batch of Piranhas.
        For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by CTU View Post

          What was the reason given at the time for not exercising the full option of the extra 40 at the time? (I know eventually all 80 were acquired, but where the CAV replacement vehicles originally going to be part of that planned first 80 - I'm sure this was brought up before on the board around the time the last 15 and LTAVs where acquired)

          The failed MLH tender and cancellation of the the second attempt was around that time too and PC9 IIRC was post slowdown - 2004 (Celtic Tiger 2)

          Also wasn't all that supposed to be financed by the closure of the first round of Barracks post White Paper 1?
          Don’t know to be honest, I think the something like 65-80 was the number of APCs (and variants) required for 1 fully mechanised APC Bn

          Comment



          • Now if there is a board at the moment looking at AFV’s for later in the deecade one thing they’ll have to take into consideration is the war in the Ukraine. One way to judge its intensity is that since the 20th of February more Russian and Ukrainian soldiers have been killed in action than the Americans have lost in all their wars since 1953, and that is a conservative estimate, (I suspect that Russian casualties might be significantly higher) Its only going to intensify, and it will drag us all in as it gets worse and in my opinion it will.

            I’d argue that a board considering armour for the defence forces will have to assume that by the end of this decade there is the distinct possibility that an Irish battalion overseas will have engage and defeat a near peer opponent as part of an international coalition or at the very least engage in high intensity peace support operations at a higher tempo and greater threat environment than we have experienced before.


            Thirdly that the war in the Ukraine has proven is that vehicles that were designed for the cold war battlefield are too lightly armoured for the modern battlefield, and that technology is rapidly changing the battlefield. Go on telegram and you’ll see videos of commercial drones that were bought for a few hundred destroying main battle tanks worth millions with home made hand grenades down hatches etc. Look at the number of tank destroyed by loitering munitions especially the switchblade 600, which has the same warhead as a javelin missile but is actually a tenth of the price. Weapons are being used in the /ukraine that were unthinkable to the lads who were on the original mowag board , after all in 1995 hardly anybody used the internet. Thus a board will have to recognise that any future Armoured vehicle will have to acquire sufficient variants of a type that and will have to be future proofed to adapt to emerging technology.
            The advances in anti armour missiles and drones mean that nothing under 70t offers any protection. That's before you get into the drones that are basically a loitering 155mm round which no amount of armour plate will save you from

            But there is still value in protection against splinters and small arms fire. And still value in local fire superiority.
            Last edited by Come-quickly; 17 November 2022, 01:06.
            "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


            • I agree. You want your troops to feel that they have a fighting chance going into action in a wheeled or tracked vehicle, so that the chance of being killed by a randomer with an AK or a PK, while you are sat in your vehicle, is reduced. Also, that you have a fighting chance against IEDs. Im sure Ukraine would happily ditch their old BTRs if they had replacements, but they are familiar with them and will keep them running.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
                I agree. You want your troops to feel that they have a fighting chance going into action in a wheeled or tracked vehicle, so that the chance of being killed by a randomer with an AK or a PK, while you are sat in your vehicle, is reduced. Also, that you have a fighting chance against IEDs. Im sure Ukraine would happily ditch their old BTRs if they had replacements, but they are familiar with them and will keep them running.
                CODF recommendation being STANAG Level 4

                Comment


                • Originally posted by DeV View Post

                  CODF recommendation being STANAG Level 4
                  Like the M1117
                  "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

                  Working...
                  X