Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Light Tactical Armoured Vehicle: Second attempt.

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

  • Originally posted by apc View Post
    What would such a vehicle be specced like.
    Do we want 4x4, 6x6 or 8x8?
    What armament should it have ?
    What crew should it have?
    How many demounts are required?
    What sensors should it have?
    What other facilities are required ( load carrying, extra equipment, drone etc )?
    Why not just buy it first, we can work out all those details after....
    For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by apc View Post
      What would such a vehicle be specced like.
      Do we want 4x4, 6x6 or 8x8?
      What armament should it have ?
      What crew should it have?
      How many demounts are required?
      What sensors should it have?
      What other facilities are required ( load carrying, extra equipment, drone etc )?
      That would be an ecumenical matter.

      Seriously though, to answer this question, the role of the Cavalry Corps needs to be looked at closely and some hard questions asked. Are we, as an Defence Force, going to need a tank turret on wheels going forward, how big a gun do we require, are the Cavalry going to be a purely medium recce force. If medium recce is the goal, what is the best practice elsewhere? The Brits are upping to the Ajax platform and ditching the Scimitar, should we do the same with a Mowag like platform as has already been done? Do we go for a lighter platform like the LGS Fennek with a .5 or 40mm RWS and all the sensors we can fit on it and move away from dedicated dismounts. Do we go with a mix of the two? Or, do the Cavalry move towards being big guns on wheels predominantly and reduce to one recce troop per Squadron with the others being armor. Somebody more qualified than I will no doubt answer these questions, but I do think that a meaningful doctrinal conversation needs to happen in the upper echelons to figure out where the Cavalry will fit in the Combat Support going forward.
      What are you cackling at, fatty? Too much pie, that's your problem.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
        Why not just buy it first, we can work out all those details after....
        Because you don’t want to purchase what you need?

        Comment


        • The dismounts means much more flexibility and there is much more to the Cav than medium recce

          Comment


          • Originally posted by DeV View Post
            Because you don’t want to purchase what you need?
            Whoosh.
            For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
              Whoosh.
              Your implying that we make the doctrine fit the vehicle

              Our doctrine is based on NATO doctrine. The doctrine informs the type purchased (to a degree)

              Comment


              • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                Your implying that we make the doctrine fit the vehicle

                Our doctrine is based on NATO doctrine. The doctrine informs the type purchased (to a degree)
                Hahaha, I don't know what's funnier. That you think the DF have doctrine or that somehow if there was doctrine that it is based on NATO

                Comment


                • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                  Your implying that we make the doctrine fit the vehicle

                  Our doctrine is based on NATO doctrine. The doctrine informs the type purchased (to a degree)
                  It was my attempt at humor, pedantic pat. Clearly lost on you.
                  For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by TangoSierra View Post
                    Hahaha, I don't know what's funnier. That you think the DF have doctrine or that somehow if there was doctrine that it is based on NATO
                    You obviously haven’t read it

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                      You obviously haven’t read it
                      No, we've read it, that's how we know it doesn't exist.

                      Irish doctrine is a political doctrine - and it's two words long: easy, cheap.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
                        Whoosh.
                        I was just about to post the exact same thing!!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by ropebag View Post
                          No, we've read it, that's how we know it doesn't exist.

                          Irish doctrine is a political doctrine - and it's two words long: easy, cheap.
                          In that case you obviously haven’t read it

                          Comment




                          • Project LAND 400 Phase 2 will acquire 225 Combat Reconnaissance Vehicles (CRV) to replace the Australian Light Armoured Vehicle (ASLAV) – and a recent gathering of all the vehicles, plus an Abrams tank, at Mount Bundey live-fire range gave an insight into the scale of things to come.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                              You obviously haven’t read it
                              Originally posted by DeV View Post
                              In that case you obviously haven’t read it
                              Can you contribute anything else to the discussion? Summarise said doctrine if it exists. If it isn't for public, then stop talking about it. Nothing can be gained by telling us it exists, if we dont have access to the content.
                              If anyone else did this, there would be nice red writing under the post.
                              For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by na grohmití View Post
                                Can you contribute anything else to the discussion? Summarise said doctrine if it exists. If it isn't for public, then stop talking about it. Nothing can be gained by telling us it exists, if we dont have access to the content.
                                If anyone else did this, there would be nice red writing under the post.
                                Have a look at Military.ie and that will give you some of the basics and then look up manoeuvre warfare

                                Part of the problem with the LTAV (from a Cav point of view) is that it doesn’t take account of doctrine (plus there aren’t enough CRVs & MRVs)
                                Last edited by DeV; 28 February 2018, 20:34.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X