Irish Military Online is in no way affiliated with the Irish Defence Forces. It is in no way sponsored or endorsed by the Irish Defence Forces or the Irish Government. Opinions expressed by the authors and contributors of this site are not necessarily those of the Defence Forces. If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Where would it be useful for Cav in their Recce role?
IMHO it would make a good replacement of the P3 CRV. I know there are a lot of fanboys of the Fennek, which is a good recce vehicle but for me it lacks something it fore-barer the Luchs could do, swim. Not all the World is made of vast areas of dry desert, most of the world has rivers and as we have again seen recently being able to get across them is important. And IMHO for recce vehicles this is even more important. Just look at the BRDM-2 and how long it has been in service.
The USMC want a vehicle with a crew of 2 with 5 dismounts but it would probable be better with 3 crew and 4 dismounts with the third crew member being a systems/weapon operator. It seems that the other contender GDLS will offer a new version of the LAV-25, the new double hull version of the LAV-II. But I think the Cottonmouth will give it a good run for it's money.
The CRV and MRVs both got the same upgrade. Cav are not looking at another converted APC to fill their AFV requirement. The Jaguar is what they are drooling over.
"Let us be clear about three facts. First, all battles and all wars are won in the end by the infantryman. Secondly, the infantryman always bears the brunt. His casualties are heavier, he suffers greater extremes of discomfort and fatigue than the other arms. Thirdly, the art of the infantryman is less stereotyped and far harder to acquire in modern war than that of any other arm." ------- Field Marshall Wavell, April 1945.
The CRV and MRVs both got the same upgrade. Cav are not looking at another converted APC to fill their AFV requirement. The Jaguar is what they are drooling over.
In fairness, Jaguar is an extremely capable well armoured, affordable and well armed vehicle
In fairness, Jaguar is an extremely capable well armoured, affordable and well armed vehicle
Affordable???? Each unit is at least €6m each. I will admit it is well armed but the CTA gun is a big unknown and its inability to swim is a major step backwards. It is always said you should never design for the last war but this is what the French have done. They have designed it to go running around the deserts of Africa. Even the Piranha have a swim kit, may nit be fitted but it is available.
Affordable???? Each unit is at least €6m each. I will admit it is well armed but the CTA gun is a big unknown and its inability to swim is a major step backwards. It is always said you should never design for the last war but this is what the French have done. They have designed it to go running around the deserts of Africa. Even the Piranha have a swim kit, may nit be fitted but it is available.
Specific requirement was €1 million each (to the French)
Belgians are getting 60 Jaguars and 417 Griffons for €1.1 billion (2017 prices) including spares, training etc
the CTA appears to have shorter barrel life but packs a bigger punch….. not forgetting it also carries MMP anti-tank missiles (fire & forget and guided options) with a range of 4+ km
very very few amphibious vehicles any more - I assume that this is directly correlated to increased weight as a result of increased armour protection
The tactical usefulness of an amphib is outweighed by its exposure when afloat. Particularly in the recce role. Better off with something that can ford anything not greater than its own hull height. After that you need to be calling the bridge builders anyway.
There is a good reason why there is no modern equivalent of the DUKW.
For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.
the problem with the CTA 40mm is that its very new technology and there are very few users, with the cancelation of the warrior upgrade and the fact that General Dymnamics are blaming the 40mm gun for the problems with Ajax it could end up with only Belgium and France using it on thier jaguar vehicles.. A key thing for the CTA40mm will be if the brits order it for their boxer MICV project, if they dont and unless there is another major order then the ammunition will be expensive, but the performance is not that much better than 30mm
the americans have 50mm version of their bushmaster in development that is going to be fitted on the bradley replacement, its got a lot in common with the 30mm Mk44 we have in service, the ammunition will be far cheaper, and it will offer far enhanced performance
look at what the americans are doing with the stryker units in europe for fire support, getting rid of the mobile gun system and using 30mm unmanned turrets with dual rws similar to the ones we got in the mowag upgrade, thats the way to go
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
Comment