If both tasks can't be met, then IMHO this bolded part is the right answer. Simply because the UK was, is and will be an island country.ArmChairCivvy wrote:JLTV is the easy bit; we'll just need to decide 'how many'. And that's a direct function of what kind of units, and how many of them.
To work that out we'll need to decide which is the biggest threat (sure, they work in combination - a rank ordering is what I'm after):
- is it Putin's tanks doing a foray into Poland, and do we provide a recce screen for other nations' tank brigades, or...
- or his subs in the Atlantic and bombers in the North ( a UK ship building renaissance if this is the right answer)
OK, will continue on the IR thread
Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1701
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
Well, if only we could be an island again,. Were it not for the mistaken construction of the CHANNEL TUNNEL”, we still would be.
Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
Cost & load carrying. The latter being the reason for the steel bodied Foxhound not being produced (not sure it ever got to trials), the extra weight of the steel reduced load carrying even further. There's also top loading concerns on Foxhound, I don't think it could mount a RWS without falling over - another MVP requirement.ArmChairCivvy wrote:As it stands, yes. And I have a faint recollection that trials with a steel-bodied version did not go wellJensy wrote:Is it cost
- a bit like the as such good (and British) ATV being made into a portee and loaded with the American 'lightweight' 155. Looked good, but axels broke when going x-country
Thanks for info on the portee. I've wondered what killed the idea. Well apart from it being rather dated.
Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
The upgraded Aussie M1's don't exist either. Landrover's exists in their thousands, no need to make anymore for a while. I seem to remember their replacement date was 2030+. Production level Ajax variants seems to work fine in the last video's I saw, it's Lynx that's still in development. Besides, won't the Korean vehicle Redback (sp?) win the competition?SD67 wrote:Problem is CH3 doesn't exist, LandRover 100/90 are no longer in production, Ajax doesn't work yet after a decade of development. JLTV ok I can see the point thereRon5 wrote:Of that list, I would only consider Boxer for the UK. The rest are rather overpriced and average.ArmChairCivvy wrote:France looked at Hawkei, but the likelihood of a line in Europe...? It was all about local content for Australia, too, as the type of vehicle is required in numbers.SD67 wrote:M1, Lynx, Boxer, Bushmaster, Hawkei, G-Wagen
Boxer - Bushmaster have enough cost differential to warrant two different vehicles across many roles, but otherwise I would stick to the (Army's) knitting if we are not to wave good-bye to any type of armoured vehicle production on these islands. (Wasn't Bushmaster at least designed in Ireland? ... ticks the 'islands' box)
CH3 > Aussie standard M1
JLTV > Hawkei and cheaper
Landrover > G-Wagen because the UK has zillions of them already
Lynx is too expensive and a huge target
Bushmaster wasn't the first choice of the UK SF
Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
Of course, nobody can predict future conflicts but for me, the one very nice thing about JLTV is that it pretty much works everywhere. They have useful roles in heavy armor brigade, Strike formations & COIN ops. Versatile. Can add value everywhere except for amphib & airborne and those seem to be going out of fashion. It's a decent little armored truck with some cross country ability and a decent small weapons platform for escort, recce & COIN. What's not to love?ArmChairCivvy wrote:JLTV is the easy bit; we'll just need to decide 'how many'. And that's a direct function of what kind of units, and how many of them.
To work that out we'll need to decide which is the biggest threat (sure, they work in combination - a rank ordering is what I'm after):
- is it Putin's tanks doing a foray into Poland, and do we provide a recce screen for other nations' tank brigades, or...
- or his subs in the Atlantic and bombers in the North ( a UK ship building renaissance if this is the right answer)
OK, will continue on the IR thread
Oh yes, not made in the UK and not available in a 6x6. I sure hope they're working on some alleviation to those. Can but hope.
Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
Little known fact: there's a big plughole and plug half way through. One good tug on the chain and au revoir France.Scimitar54 wrote:Well, if only we could be an island again,. Were it not for the mistaken construction of the CHANNEL TUNNEL”, we still would be.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1701
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
But the ships that once provided the connection (to wherever may have been required) are no longer available in the numbers that would be necessary. An early indication of the then forthcoming “Euro-blindness” and lack of strategic and tactical vision.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
I agree and could not comprehend the US army justification for cutting their order (numbers): Was designed for another Iraq??Ron5 wrote: the one very nice thing about JLTV is that it pretty much works everywhere. They have useful roles in heavy armor brigade, Strike formations & COIN ops. Versatile.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
From the US Army's standpoint, they wanted to pump more funding unto their next generation AFV and other programmes. They probably decided the old Humvees could still do the job in some places and so reducing the JLTV numbers to raise cash must have made sense. Using argument that the JLTV was designed simply to fight wars like those in Iraq may have just been to justify it to the White House, Senate and Congress, aiming to capitalise on the growing non interventionist doctrine and/or war weariness taking hold in certain offices.
Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
What was UK SF first choice ? the US AGMS Pandur ?Ron5 wrote:ArmChairCivvy wrote:Bushmaster wasn't the first choice of the UK SFSD67 wrote:M1, Lynx, Boxer, Bushmaster, Hawkei, G-Wagen
Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
I believe so.madhon wrote:What was UK SF first choice ? the US AGMS Pandur ?Ron5 wrote:ArmChairCivvy wrote:Bushmaster wasn't the first choice of the UK SFSD67 wrote:M1, Lynx, Boxer, Bushmaster, Hawkei, G-Wagen
Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
Would look good on UK JLTV's. Maybe with the British Venom gun & LMM/Starstreak.
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... adis-inc-1
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... adis-inc-1
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1304
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
What's the appeal of the Pandur?Ron5 wrote:I believe so.madhon wrote:What was UK SF first choice ? the US AGMS Pandur ?Ron5 wrote:ArmChairCivvy wrote:Bushmaster wasn't the first choice of the UK SFSD67 wrote:M1, Lynx, Boxer, Bushmaster, Hawkei, G-Wagen
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1304
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
Put that on a JLTV and the politicians will start calling it a tank. Bad move for the army budget.Ron5 wrote:Would look good on UK JLTV's. Maybe with the British Venom gun & LMM/Starstreak.
Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
US Special Forces use it.RunningStrong wrote:What's the appeal of the Pandur?
Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
Yeah looks exactly like a tank (eyes roll) ...RunningStrong wrote:Put that on a JLTV and the politicians will start calling it a tank. Bad move for the army budget.Ron5 wrote:Would look good on UK JLTV's. Maybe with the British Venom gun & LMM/Starstreak.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1304
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
Yes, I know that, but on paper it appears to be unremarkable. I'm interested to know why it's preferred over say a Canadian AVGP? Or even Bushmaster for that matter.Lord Jim wrote:US Special Forces use it.RunningStrong wrote:What's the appeal of the Pandur?
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
At 13 t it's a mountain ponyRunningStrong wrote:Yes, I know that, but on paper it appears to be unremarkable. I'm interested to know why it's preferred over say a Canadian AVGP? Or even Bushmaster for that matter.Lord Jim wrote:US Special Forces use it.RunningStrong wrote:What's the appeal of the Pandur?
... but has other limitations: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50864567
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1304
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
Not surprising, by the time you had a mine blast floor, blast seats and a spall liner, you've quickly filled a lot of space. Don't agree with the F16 comparison though! Most Pandur drivers will be the junior member of the crew so it's a bottle neck for anyone in the unit.ArmChairCivvy wrote:At 13 t it's a mountain ponyRunningStrong wrote:Yes, I know that, but on paper it appears to be unremarkable. I'm interested to know why it's preferred over say a Canadian AVGP? Or even Bushmaster for that matter.Lord Jim wrote:US Special Forces use it.RunningStrong wrote:What's the appeal of the Pandur?
... but has other limitations: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50864567
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
What is the enlistment age (as for getting into combat units)?? [ ]RunningStrong wrote: Most Pandur drivers will be the junior member of the crew
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
Isn't there a newer version of the 6x6 Pandur that has these enhancements built in but without the height restrictions of legacy vehicles that have been modernised?
Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
We could re learn a lot of lessons by looking at what France has done with project scorpion and there refreshing of there entire armoured vehicle fleet.
Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
They didn't have a total waste of oxygen, Drayson, decide a UK amored industry wasn't in the national interest so he closed it all down. Can't even make a gun barrel bigger than a rifle in the UK anymore. Pathetic twerp.SW1 wrote:We could re learn a lot of lessons by looking at what France has done with project scorpion and there refreshing of there entire armoured vehicle fleet.
Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
Didn't US SF spec their own version?Lord Jim wrote:Isn't there a newer version of the 6x6 Pandur that has these enhancements built in but without the height restrictions of legacy vehicles that have been modernised?
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
I think so; they did show up a lot in the footage from Syria, until the Trumpeter called the 'retreat' tuneCaribbean wrote:Didn't US SF spec their own version?Lord Jim wrote:Isn't there a newer version of the 6x6 Pandur that has these enhancements built in but without the height restrictions of legacy vehicles that have been modernised?
- the 4x4s that followed got pushed around by BTRs so now they have Bradleys (with a bit more traction). What comes to mind is S.Lebanon where the UN peacekeepers were closing roads for safety zones and Merkavas then came around for a push/ pull competition, against the 6x6s
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)