UK Defence Forum

I doubt it makes any meaningful difference: BAE Systems AB aren't subcontracted by Patria for the construction of the vehicles for Sweden despite of what BAE's involvement is on the S.African vehicles. Skania and SSAB (not to be confused with SAAB) are subcontracted instead.

The OEM for S.African 'Badger' is Denel, not BAE Land Systems OMC or Patria so the contract is arranged by them; but Denel aren't the ones marketing AMV to the UK. To have a UK/EU subsidiary of BAE subcontracted to Patria in the manner that OMC are to Denel, would be something that Patria would have to choose to do since they're the OEM for the EU market.

It seems a RAF A400m as been sent to the U.S To take part in loading trails of the Stryker as part of ongoing UK evaluation of the vehicle. .

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... nt-417161/

i think they are trying to sell in US as well

At least they can claim made in America now

I didn't get that "made in America"?

ArmChairCivvy wrote:I didn't get that "made in America"?

Airbus have just opened a factory in America in an attempt to secure more of the American market, and as we know, Americans love made in America.

I'll continue on Airbus thread.....

................

Nice.
Also traveling with the foxhound as a support vehicle. 2 worthy competitors to be the future of the army.

should have bought Piranah years ago both as scimitar replacement and as Wheeled APC

marktigger wrote:should have bought Piranah years ago both as scimitar replacement and as Wheeled APC

Not so sure when one considers how much they have improved over the last 7 yrs or so => 25 yr service life, look at the Stryker remanufacture costs the US is facing now!

the coyote would have been a sensible choice to replace the scimitar with other members of the CVRT family replaced by other members of he piranah family. and the LAVIII would have been a superb saxon replacement.

Bae just won the competition for the US marines new 8x8 amphibious vehicle. How about a few hundred of those for the UK?

Wouldn't need to bother with river or canal bridges when deploying. Guaranteed not to leak.

Ron5 wrote:Bae just won the competition for the US marines new 8x8 amphibious vehicle. How about a few hundred of those for the UK?

Wouldn't need to bother with river or canal bridges when deploying. Guaranteed not to leak.

I am a big fan of vehicles that can self deploy, also gives them an advantage once deployed like you say. Something similar would get my vote.

Ron5 wrote:Bae just won the competition for the US marines new 8x8 amphibious vehicle. How about a few hundred of those for the UK?

Wouldn't need to bother with river or canal bridges when deploying. Guaranteed not to leak.

The BAE-Iveco team is just one of two finalists, for now, the other being SAIC. The final selection will come later on. The base vehicle is the Iveco SuperAV, enlarged to achieve the "95 percentile" soldier population as from USMC requirement.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/breaki ... /76312760/

Gabriele wrote:

Ron5 wrote:Bae just won the competition for the US marines new 8x8 amphibious vehicle. How about a few hundred of those for the UK?

Wouldn't need to bother with river or canal bridges when deploying. Guaranteed not to leak.

The BAE-Iveco team is just one of two finalists, for now, the other being SAIC. The final selection will come later on. The base vehicle is the Iveco SuperAV, enlarged to achieve the "95 percentile" soldier population as from USMC requirement.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/breaki ... /76312760/

Seems I was a tad premature there. Hope Bae wins.

Ron5 wrote:Bae just won the competition for the US marines new 8x8 amphibious vehicle. How about a few hundred of those for the UK?

Wouldn't need to bother with river or canal bridges when deploying. Guaranteed not to leak.

Would it be guaranteed to be able to climb out of a canal once it's in?

mr.fred wrote:

Ron5 wrote:Bae just won the competition for the US marines new 8x8 amphibious vehicle. How about a few hundred of those for the UK?

Wouldn't need to bother with river or canal bridges when deploying. Guaranteed not to leak.

Would it be guaranteed to be able to climb out of a canal once it's in?

Is that harder than climbing out of a river? Not too many navigable canals here.

Ron5 wrote:Is that harder than climbing out of a river? Not too many navigable canals here.

Usually, on account of the vertical banks. There are sometimes slipways but those are almost as easy to deny as bridges.

Getting in is easy enough

Thanks, that looked fun.

................

Here's hoping that the LAV 6 is not the only concept GD plans to bring to the table. I'm personally hoping to see the Piranha V make a return to proceedings. Not only is that LAV largely, completely untried and untested (part of a long running family or no) it certainly won't win any beauty contests and its profile looks to be humungous!

On a separate note, i have been thinking about whether the Army will perhaps afford consideration to the new MIV receiving something other than a .50 in terms of armament? If precedent is anything to go by many of our partners are either already looking to up-gun their own wheeled platforms (Stryker) or are beginning to worry about having not taken the opportunity to have done so (Denmark). Surely it will be something we have to consider in time, too? Better to make those kinds of decisions now than later down the line IMHO.

LAV, Piranha, Stryker, aren't they all just variants of each other anyway?

GD could certainly make a good offering, they will already have a UK production facility in place, plus its what the Americans have.

Not that it really matters, but I don't think it looks too bad either.

back when the canadians were buying them GKN were turning them out for the saudis. There was a hope that the British Govt would form proper mechanised Brigades and replace the Saxon......then the wall came down

Yes Stryker, Piranha and the LAV are all related - cousins if you will. It has already been mooted that the Stryker will be submitted to the MIV tender and presumably Piranha V (or another variant thereof) will also make a return. What with the intention to seemingly submit the LAV 6 as well then it would very much seem that we will at least be looking at trying 3 very similar vehicles (all from GDLS) against each other alongside what anybody else offers up too (VCBI, talk of perhaps the AV-81 Terrex and the Patria AMV/Rosomak too IIRC).

Just a word of note however but this LAV variant isn't actually operated by anyone, yet. It is not much more than a technology demonstrator as present so if we were to buy in to it, we would be the first. Our cousins obviously operate the Stryker which is based on the earlier LAV III (the most common LAV variant AFAIK) and the related Piranha V (a semi-independent spin-off of the LAV line) has landed a couple of recent successes among our European partners (Denmark and Spain) whilst earlier variants (Piranha III + variants) are operated widely across Europe.

You are right, it doesn't matter, but i still think it looks ugly as sin. It's profile however, which looks huge, might be an issue.

Bear in mind scale is always extremely difficult to judge with military vehicles from pictures. It astonished me to learn how big the VBCI was, for example, when its sharp lines normally imply it's quite small.

How it looks might not always be exactly true.

Personally, I wouldn't mind ones that are compatible with developments on the Stryker variants of the chassis. Being able to hop on board with such developments would be very useful. Perhaps even those 105mm's now that the Challengers are getting gutted. (Again)