Panther Protected Command Vehicle

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Panther Protected Command Vehicle

Post by RetroSicotte »

UK sells Panther fleet

http://www.janes.com/article/79677/uk-s ... ther-fleet
The UK Defence Equipment Sales Authority (DESA) has put the British Army’s entire fleet of Panther 4x4 vehicles on sale.

Fielded to meet a requirement for the Future Command and Liaison Vehicle (FCLV), the Panther is based on the Italian Iveco Light Multirole Vehicle (LMV), 401 of which were delivered to the British Army by 2009.

DESA is selling 395 Panthers in various configurations as some were upgraded using urgent operational requirement funding to provide a higher level of protection, rear view cameras, larger roof hatches, new rear cargo pods, and electronic devices to counter improvised explosive devices.
And there go 400 lifesaving vehicles in one quick swoop, just in time to cut the numbers so that the remaining ones can be replaced on a "one for one" basis in a Government soundbite.

So about that "rising defence budget"...

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7655
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Has liked: 80 times
Been liked: 218 times
England

Re: Panther Protected Command Vehicle

Post by SKB »

Image

Introduction
Iveco LMV (Light Multirole Vehicle) is a 4WD tactical vehicle developed by Iveco, and in service with several countries. After its adoption by the Italian Army under the name VTLM Lince (Lynx)(Veicolo-Tattico-Leggero-Multiruolo), it won the FCLV (Future Command and Liaison Vehicle) competition of the British Army as the Panther and has been adopted by the armies of Albania, Austria, Belgium, Norway, Russia and Spain. The Italian Army took vehicles to both Afghanistan and Lebanon. In Afghanistan, Lince vehicles have saved passengers' lives in several attacks with IEDs.


Design
The LMV uses modular armour packs to adjust its level of protection to its mission requirements. In regards to mine protection, the vehicle's ground clearance has been increased to 493 mm without increasing the overall height (less than 2 meters); it also uses suspended seats of aeronautical derivation, v-hull under body, and a collapsible sandwich structure in the floor to deflect and absorb mine blasts. Its exhaust is piped through its C-pillars, and its turbocharger is located underneath the engine to reduce its thermal signature. Mobility is helped by a run-flat system, allowing the vehicle to move even with completely deflated tyres. It is related to the Fiat Oltre concept car unveiled in 2005.

The LMV was designed in the 1990s and the first LMVs were produced in 2001 while the British Panthers were produced between 2006 and 2009.


British Variant - Panther
The Panther Command and Liaison Vehicle or Panther CLV is the British Army variant of the Iveco LMV. The Panther CLV came from the "Future Command and Liaison Vehicle" (FCLV) project. Design modifications were made by BAE Systems to allow assembly at BAE Systems Land Systems' factory in Newcastle upon Tyne. While the Panther seats four people, the VTLM Lince seats five.

Over 400 Panthers were assembled at BAE Systems factory in Newcastle upon Tyne under a £160 million contract. It was intended that the Panther would replace vehicles including Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (tracked) (CVRT), FV 432, Saxon and Land Rover Truck Utility Medium (TUM).

The armour protection is tuneable by the replacement of armour packs within the vehicle's external skin. The basic add-on armour pack provides ballistic protection against small arms fire and a heavier kit provides protection against heavy weapons to including mines.

Panther Command and Liaison Vehicles (CLV) are equipped with Enforcer RCWS weapons stations which were developed by SELEX Galileo. The weapons station can be armed with a 7.62mm or 12.7mm machine gun or a 40mm automatic grenade launcher.

The first Panthers were delivered to the 1st Mechanised Brigade (United Kingdom) and a small number underwent hot weather trials in Afghanistan.

British Army received most from 401 delivered Panther CLVs. Royal Air Force Regiment operates unknown number of vehicles.


Type: Infantry mobility vehicle
Place of origin: Italy
Production history: Designed 1990s, Produced: 2001-Present

Specifications
Weight: 6.5 tons (STANAG 4569 Level 3)
Price: €405,000
Length: 5,504 mm (216.7 in) (4,704 mm (185.2 in))
Width: 2,050 mm (80.7 in)
Height: 1,950 mm (76.8 in)
Crew : 1+4, 1+3 (Panther), 1+6 (Stretched Variant)
Armour: STANAG 4569 Level 1-4
Main armament: Remote Weapon System
Engine: Iveco F1D Common Rail EURO 3 136 kW (185 PS; 182 hp)
Payload capacity: 1,200 kg (2,600 lb)
Transmission: 6 speed automatic
Suspension: Independent, Double A-Arm
Ground clearance: 473 mm (18.6 in)
Operational range: 500 km (310 mi)+
Speed: > 130 km/h (81 mph)



james k
Member
Posts: 358
Joined: 31 Aug 2017, 16:51
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Panther Protected Command Vehicle

Post by james k »

Not very long ago it was heralded as the next great thing. No matter what they return after sale they'll be a rather considerable net loss for the MOD. The services have to stop chasing new kit and make better use of what they have or they'll enter a race to keep spending on new kit that the can never win. At present the MOD and senior officers behave less like guardians of the nations security and more like a bunch of shopping obsessed housewives.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2727
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Has liked: 77 times
Been liked: 265 times
United Kingdom

Re: Panther Protected Command Vehicle

Post by Timmymagic »

james k wrote:Not very long ago it was heralded as the next great thing. No matter what they return after sale they'll be a rather considerable net loss for the MOD. The services have to stop chasing new kit and make better use of what they have or they'll enter a race to keep spending on new kit that the can never win. At present the MOD and senior officers behave less like guardians of the nations security and more like a bunch of shopping obsessed housewives.
Panther has been an unmitigated disaster. There are a couple of UOR's as well as Panther that need a very close look at the procurement process and subsequent jobs given to people involved....

We could have had a decent capability instead of the Panther. The Alvis Scarab would have been perfect. Or one of the RG31 variants that were mine protected.

james k
Member
Posts: 358
Joined: 31 Aug 2017, 16:51
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Panther Protected Command Vehicle

Post by james k »

I would have thought Husky would have been a contender as it is of similar size and an adapted cabin would provide similar capability for less cash. I agree the existing procurement process is terrible and asking for trouble.
Timmymagic wrote:
james k wrote:Not very long ago it was heralded as the next great thing. No matter what they return after sale they'll be a rather considerable net loss for the MOD. The services have to stop chasing new kit and make better use of what they have or they'll enter a race to keep spending on new kit that the can never win. At present the MOD and senior officers behave less like guardians of the nations security and more like a bunch of shopping obsessed housewives.
Panther has been an unmitigated disaster. There are a couple of UOR's as well as Panther that need a very close look at the procurement process and subsequent jobs given to people involved....

We could have had a decent capability instead of the Panther. The Alvis Scarab would have been perfect. Or one of the RG31 variants that were mine protected.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16310
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 77 times
Been liked: 73 times
United Kingdom

Re: Panther Protected Command Vehicle

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Timmymagic wrote:Alvis Scarab would have been perfect. Or one of the RG31 variants that were mine protected.
Agree. Process seems to have taken over... and not delivering very good results
... of course, on a simple thing like housing, you can waste 10x the money... if you really try hard (and that's the Gvmnt, not the MoD, who had their hands tied)
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)

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: Panther Protected Command Vehicle

Post by Aethulwulf »

Panther is due to be replaced with MRV(P). MRV(P) will replace a number of current in-service vehicles. No one in the Army is going to mourn the loss of Panther!

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16310
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 77 times
Been liked: 73 times
United Kingdom

Re: Panther Protected Command Vehicle

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

not that loss, but all of the money (mis)spent
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)

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2533
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Has liked: 94 times
Been liked: 69 times
United Kingdom

Re: Panther Protected Command Vehicle

Post by Caribbean »

What were the issues with Panther? The Lince doesn't seem to have attracted the same reputation from other users, so what was different about the UK's version, or was it just that we used it for a different role, that it wasn't suited for?
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16310
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Has liked: 77 times
Been liked: 73 times
United Kingdom

Re: Panther Protected Command Vehicle

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Caribbean wrote:What were the issues with Panther?
Did the Ruskies ever accept the 700 they ordered?
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)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7286
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 317 times
Been liked: 351 times
United Kingdom

Re: Panther Protected Command Vehicle

Post by Lord Jim »

As a liaison vehicle it could do the job but the Army wanted a platform to do far more, and an Armoured SUV isn't the right platform. They could be recycled but removing most of the kit from the back and turning them into simpler patrol vehicle for base security for example with the RWS and four bodies in the back, but the MRV(P) will surpass it in all respects when it enters service. As pointed out another bodge job when it comes to vehicle procurement for the Army.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1040
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 34 times
Been liked: 38 times

Re: Panther Protected Command Vehicle

Post by RunningStrong »

A semi-sensible idea with a fleet that isn't short of variation.

Agreed that it's a monumental way to burn through budget.

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 608
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 5 times
United Kingdom

Re: Panther Protected Command Vehicle

Post by whitelancer »

I don't know whether Panther was a good vehicle or not, but it must be remembered that it was bought as a Command and liaison vehicle, replacing Land Rovers in that role. (Something that had been required since the 70s.) It certainly was not intended to be a combat vehicle as such. It should hardly be a surprise that pushing it into a role it was neither designed or suited for was not a success. Far worse where the examples of buying equipment specifically for Iraq & Afghanistan which then failed. The pinzgauer springs to mind. Given all the time money and effort that went into devising technical solutions to the problems encountered it may have been better to have expended some of that in devising better operational and tactical solutions. That at least is where I see the major problems lay.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2727
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Has liked: 77 times
Been liked: 265 times
United Kingdom

Re: Panther Protected Command Vehicle

Post by Timmymagic »

whitelancer wrote:The pinzgauer springs to mind.
I think you mean the Vector PPV rather than the normal Pinzgauer, which has a really good reputation with the troops.

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 608
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 5 times
United Kingdom

Re: Panther Protected Command Vehicle

Post by whitelancer »

What I was trying to explain was that the Vector specifically adapted from the Pinzguaer for service in Afghanistan was frankly useless and should never have been bought. It amazes me it was ever approved for service. The Panther on the other hand was intended for a completely different environment and role, and was pushed into doing something it was never intended for. In my opinion Vector was much the worse buy.

leonard
Member
Posts: 154
Joined: 21 May 2016, 17:52
Has liked: 45 times
Been liked: 49 times
Italy

Re: Panther Protected Command Vehicle

Post by leonard »

A happy Ukranian fellow with its recently repair brand new acquired vehicle

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7286
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 317 times
Been liked: 351 times
United Kingdom

Re: Panther Protected Command Vehicle

Post by Lord Jim »

Will we still need aplatform in the role currently undertake by the Panther when the next generation communications and data network enters service. Going by the PR, Ajax seems to have been touted as vital as the Army's first "Networked" platform, and a vital "Node" platform moving forward.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2727
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Has liked: 77 times
Been liked: 265 times
United Kingdom

Re: Panther Protected Command Vehicle

Post by Timmymagic »

Just a reminder of what we could have had instead of Panther...V-shaped hull...

Mind you if they'd have botched the systems integration like they did with Panther it could still have been a dogs breakfast...


User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3823
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 58 times
Been liked: 226 times
France

Re: Panther Protected Command Vehicle

Post by Tempest414 »

So what was so bad about Panther was it the hole package or some parts of it

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2727
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Has liked: 77 times
Been liked: 265 times
United Kingdom

Re: Panther Protected Command Vehicle

Post by Timmymagic »

Tempest414 wrote: 10 Jun 2022, 09:18 So what was so bad about Panther was it the hole package or some parts of it
Not the best vehicle, reliability not great, a lot of the RWS got pinched for other roles...but mainly it was too small for the Bowman kit they had to cram in to make it work. The integration of all that kit was a real mess (if you've seen a picture of the insides you'll know what I mean). It wasn't designed as an MRAP, more a lightly armoured Command and Liaison vehicle, but as soon as it entered service it became apparent that it wasn't going to be able to handle modern threats, particularly mines and IEDS.

There were rumours about senior people inveolved in the programme ending up with jobs at Iveco as well...

Basically the wrong vehicle won..complete fiasco of a procurement.
These users liked the author Timmymagic for the post (total 2):
Tempest414Lord Jim

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1040
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 34 times
Been liked: 38 times

Re: Panther Protected Command Vehicle

Post by RunningStrong »

Timmymagic wrote: 10 Jun 2022, 08:28 Just a reminder of what we could have had instead of Panther...V-shaped hull...

Mind you if they'd have botched the systems integration like they did with Panther it could still have been a dogs breakfast...

Low roofline, large wheels and V-hull. There's no way that's providing the necessary rear stowage and capacity that even Panther was lacking.


Biggest issue with Panther IMO was that it went from a Command and Liaison vehicle to trying to be a C2 MRAP, and it didn't have the growth capacity for all that extra protection and equipment. It became top heavy and unreliable.
These users liked the author RunningStrong for the post:
Tempest414

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3823
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 58 times
Been liked: 226 times
France

Re: Panther Protected Command Vehicle

Post by Tempest414 »

Maybe the better option would have been 1300 bushmasters built across 2 sites in the UK plus 200 built in Aus rather than buying Mastiff , Ridgeback , Husky and Panther

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7286
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 317 times
Been liked: 351 times
United Kingdom

Re: Panther Protected Command Vehicle

Post by Lord Jim »

In its role as a Command Vehicle, it carried not just a standard Bowmen radio, but the sufficient Bowman Radios etc. to be able to command a Battalion or Regiment. These ended up being far bulkier than the preceding Clansman sit up and had to be shoe horned into the Panther chassis. IT level of protection met the requirement of its contract, but this was let prior to te second Gulf War or our intervention in Afghanistan, if I remember rightly. But the time it we in service in umbers, the world had moved on and now we still use them as we have nothing else to carry out whatever role it now has, but I am pretty sure it would have been one of the first platforms replaced if the MRV(P) programme had been run in its original timeframe.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3823
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 58 times
Been liked: 226 times
France

Re: Panther Protected Command Vehicle

Post by Tempest414 »

Yes given that it is supposed to have sold on in 2018 we are still see them attached to forward deployed units

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1040
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 34 times
Been liked: 38 times

Re: Panther Protected Command Vehicle

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote: 10 Jun 2022, 20:50 In its role as a Command Vehicle, it carried not just a standard Bowmen radio, but the sufficient Bowman Radios etc. to be able to command a Battalion or Regiment. These ended up being far bulkier than the preceding Clansman sit up and had to be shoe horned into the Panther chassis.
No such thing as a 'standard' BOWMAN radio fitment across different platforms, they're all specific to role and platform.

Panther concept and entry into service was several years after BOWMAN entered service and was a basic requirement.

Post Reply