The Dutch also use Fenniks
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Light Tactical Armoured Vehicle: Second attempt.
Collapse
X
-
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
-
Originally posted by ZULU View PostCome-quickly
Why are you such an advocate in windows that can roll down if you know this reduces their ballistic performance?
I was highlighting the fact that they are to be seen to be used in high risk confined areas much like those now being faced by armed forces who are now looking at evolving their vehicles
Your reversing around corners without windows is a non issue. Most of the vehicles presented offer more than enough visibility all round + mirrors + Elevated camera on RWS.
Mutter-Nutter
The Dutch also use Fenniks
I also consulted them on the matter of reversing cameras etc.
You might try asking people in the know some time."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
-
different categories?
Originally posted by mutter nutter View PostIf we were to expand our defintion of what a LTAV could be, it could be a Bushmaster like the Dutch said, their selection process went down to 2 vehicles, the Bushmaster and the Iveco MLV, or maybe even the British Mastiff or it's smaller 4x4 version, it's a pretty wide selection of vehicles now to choose from, the DF might pick something completly unexpected that we would never think of here...
...Indeed they do,but the Fennek is for a different mission, the Bushmaster is basically an armoured taxi, which is the basic requirement for the LTAV...but it's probably on the upper size of things for the contract.
Could the Fennek not do the reconnaissance, surveillance, targeting mission very well - that's what it was primarily designed for - and many others too? "In December 2001, a contract was signed for the combined procurement of 612 Fennek vehicles: 202 reconnaissance, 130 MRAT (medium range antitank) and 78 general purpose versions for the Royal Netherlands Army; 178 reconnaissance, 24 combat engineer and four artillery observer versions for the German Army." (www.army-technology.com/projects/fennek/)
This discussion to my mind highlights the difficulties of selecting an LTAV. There is (a) the wide spectrum of possible roles/tasks; (b) the proliferation of possible vehicles: there are dozens on the market now; and (c) the fundamental question of whether the LTAV is to be an armoured transport/utility vehicle, or a fighting vehicle. (Although it is said in Iraq that every utility vehicle has to be a tactical vehicle, so maybe the distinction is disappearing.)
Maybe the discussion would be helped if the vehicles could be grouped into different categories, e.g. defined by weight limits? Or crew/passenger numbers? Or cost?.....Last edited by thebig C; 20 April 2007, 10:33.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Come-quickly View PostBecause it was a request made by many early users of the Eagle and Dingo series of vehicles, I did however subsequently consult a proffessional (admittedly a tankie not a user of this type of vehicle) who advised that rolling windows would be a serious compromise of the armour protection.
I also consulted them on the matter of reversing cameras etc.
You might try asking people in the know some time.
Denmark were users of the MOWAG Eagle I and II nad decided on 85 Eagle IV's for their replacement. Notice the windows on the door. Bolted all round.
I think you should take some of your own advice about consulting people in the know.
admittedly a tankie not a user of this type of vehicle"The Question is not: how far you will take this? The Question is do you possess the constitution to go as far as is needed?"
Comment
-
-
Here is the STANAG 4569 standard that the LTAV's are likely to have to follow. Probably Level II or III+
On a further note. STANAG 4569 Level II Ballistic Glass is usually in the region of 50-65 mm thick.
Even IF you wanted to roll down these, you would need room in the Armoured door (90-100mm thick) for linkages, gears, motors etc. Not to mention you lose the performance of a sealLast edited by ZULU; 20 April 2007, 11:14."The Question is not: how far you will take this? The Question is do you possess the constitution to go as far as is needed?"
Comment
-
Originally posted by carrington View PostThere's nothing light about the British Mastiff!
The Mastiff is a big boy yes, although the 4x4 varient is a lot smaller, I'm just putting out there 2 ends of the spectrum on how big an LTAV can go
Could the Fennek not do the reconnaissance, surveillance, targeting mission very well - that's what it was primarily designed for - and many others too? "In December 2001, a contract was signed for the combined procurement of 612 Fennek vehicles: 202 reconnaissance, 130 MRAT (medium range antitank) and 78 general purpose versions for the Royal Netherlands Army; 178 reconnaissance, 24 combat engineer and four artillery observer versions for the German Army." (www.army-technology.com/projects/fennek/)
Yes the Fennek has been bought for different missions, but, the Germans have also bought the Dingo I&II, the Mungo and maybe buying the Iveco MLV, all of those could be classed as LTAVs, and in Irelands case, we can't buy 3 or 4 different classes of vehile to fill the requirement, we have to pick one and make it work
This discussion to my mind highlights the difficulties of selecting an LTAV. There is (a) the wide spectrum of possible roles/tasks; (b) the proliferation of possible vehicles: there are dozens on the market now; and (c) the fundamental question of whether the LTAV is to be an armoured transport/utility vehicle, or a fighting vehicle. (Although it is said in Iraq that every utility vehicle has to be a tactical vehicle, so maybe the distinction is disappearing.)
Well in Iraq the US has had to armour virtually every vehicle they have thats goes outside a base, from trucks and plant, to humvees, my view on what we need here is a purpose built vehicle Eagle IV or what ever, not some bolt on kit to an unarmoured HUMVEE type vehicle, if it cost's more, so be it, even in relativly benign UN missions it's getting more and more dangerous, never mind the more robust operations the EUBG's might take on
Maybe the discussion would be helped if the vehicles could be grouped into different categories, e.g. defined by weight limits? Or crew/passenger numbers? Or cost?.....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
-
Originally posted by Tripper View PostDr. 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
-
i seem to remember something like the RG-32m on trial in the leb when i was over there once.
story went it was rejected by irish because centre of gravity too high from normal use.
the fijians, or some other contingent, loved them though. ring a bell with anybody?An army is power. Its entire purpose is to coerce others. This power can not be used carelessly or recklessly. This power can do great harm. We have seen more suffering than any man should ever see, and if there is going to be an end to it, it must be an end that justifies the cost. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain
Comment
-
Originally posted by ZULU View PostDenmark were users of the MOWAG Eagle I and II nad decided on 85 Eagle IV's for their replacement. Notice the windows on the door. Bolted all round.
[p://www.armyrecognition.com/europe/Angleterre/Exhibition/DSEI_2005/pictures/Eagle_IV_DSEI_2005_ArmyRecognition_01.jpg[/IMG]
I think you should take some of your own advice about consulting people in the know.
Hugs and Kisses if your feeling "cock bashed"
In all your gloating you seem to have neatly brushed over the fact that you completely misjudged the roles of these vehicles And indeed had been working from an incorrect interpretation of the acronym.
Perhaps you should learn that this is a discussion not an ALP competition. I have brought some knowledge and some opinion, in places where my opinions were questioned, I sought more knowledgable opinions and accepted them where appropriate. Perhaps you could try something similar.
Docman, openable hatches on doors mean being able to get things in and out without having to open the whole door. The reaching out and touching the natives line comes from German Dingo patrols in the balkans who complained that they had to get out of the vehicle or completely
The Danish eagles deployed to Afghan with the first two "Recon" battalions had to have their turrets stripped as they made the vehicles dangerously top heavy and paid too high a price in awareness for the protection they offered.
This is reminiscent of some AFV crews in the American Phase of the Vietnam war who chose to remove ballistic plates from pintle mounted weapons in order to increase their FOFs.
You will also note that the Eagle IV does indeed feature four doors and a boot. The question of hatch windows comes down to the variant and buyer preference.
I have been firmly corrected by non walts that the roll down armoured window is strictly for rappers.
Mutter's post above is a fine example of what Ltavs are for, protection from unexpected threats while carrying out non teeth roles.Last edited by Come-quickly; 20 April 2007, 20:10."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
-
Originally posted by mutter nutter View Post
Couger 4x4, big boy, but maybe on pure armour might be in contentionTheirs 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
-
Originally posted by mugs View PostTo me that looks of similar size to the piranhasDr. 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
Comment