New contract for Irish army 'Humvees'

darkman2

Read an article last week that a contract for 60 new humvee style vehicles will be signed before the end of the year. This was suppose to happen a couple of years ago as part of the defence forces wish list. It was decided to buy 15 more Mowag APC's instead. Now looks like these vehicles are on the way.

elvis jaffacake

yep the LTAV (Light Tactical Armoured Vehicle), it'll be hopefully much more then a HUMVEE though, google Mowag Eagle IV, to see what the favorite vehicle is:D

darkman2

Is this what they are going to procure for the defence forces or are you just suggesting it?

cushtac

darkman2 wrote:

Is this what they are going to procure for the defence forces or are you just suggesting it?

It will almost certainly be offered by the manufacturer. It is allegedly well thought of by the DF and it would have parts commonality with the Duro's already in DF service. I'd br surprised if it didn't make the shortlist at least.

Borneo Fnctn

I believe there are 8 Hummers currently in possession of the DF. Must have been doing trials on them.

testicle

jackpalance wrote:

I believe there are 8 Hummers currently in possession of the DF. Must have been doing trials on them.

To my knowledge, there was at least one, possibly 2. I believe they have been reurnted. Found to be unsuitable for the task that they were being trialled for at the time.

christophicus

Is it just that they were too expensive or are those Mowag's better?

Borneo Fnctn

testicle wrote:

To my knowledge, there was at least one, possibly 2. I believe they have been reurnted. Found to be unsuitable for the task that they were being trialled for at the time.

I stand corrected. I heard they were found unsuitable alright. I saw one of them at an exhibition in the RDS. Fearsome looking motor.

micdug

christophicus wrote:

Is it just that they were too expensive or are those Mowag's better?

HMMWV is a 27 year old design, for an unarmoured support vehicle for the US Army in a cold war scenario (i.e. following tanks). A replacement process is moving ahead in the US to replace it as it is completely unsuited to current requirements. I'm surprised the DF even bothered looking at it unless they were looking to buy second hand from the US or a free holiday to the states. Just out of interest the HMMWV came out of a design study by Lamborghini - perhaps we should ask them, though this is what the US Army thinks: http://www.lamborghiniregistry.com/LM002/UdayHussein.html
This is what is being looked at as a possibility after feedback from Mess-o-potania...
http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/237903/military_vehicle_illustrating_new_combat_options/index.html


What needs to be looked at are the DF requirements. In Ireland, a cheap and effective means of transporting small numbers of troops is required. I really don't see what the problem with the Nissan Patrols are - we don't need and most people don't want to see huge lumbering HMMWV type vehicles escorting cash. No DF troop column has been attacked since the civil war (I would be interested in being corrected on this though, anyone have any additional about this?)so no need for armour, no mines (potholes could be a risk though?) and in a small country where you are never too far from barracks... just not needed.

Abroad, on missions we normally undertake, U.N. Peacekeeping (not peace enforcing) the greatest threat to our troops are land mines and the odd small arms. On these missions its important to be self sufficient and you can move away from base quite a distance so need to carry sufficient supplies.
My suggestion would be something like the Australian Army are rolling out - the Bushmaster.
It would seem ideal as a self contained long distance patrol vehicle in third world environments with excellent mine and small arms protection and good crew comfort. Best of all the suspension has been designed by Timoney in County Meath, so we could call it an "Irish" Vehicle (as Irish as the soccer team anyway).http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/armoured/timoney/

I think the Mowag just does not fulfill either role effectively, overkill for Ireland, not substantial enough for Peacekeeping. My 2 cents..

micdug

http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product.php?prodID=713

cushtac

micdug wrote:

What needs to be looked at are the DF requirements. In Ireland, a cheap and effective means of transporting small numbers of troops is required. I really don't see what the problem with the Nissan Patrols are - we don't need and most people don't want to see huge lumbering HMMWV type vehicles escorting cash. No DF troop column has been attacked since the civil war (I would be interested in being corrected on this though, anyone have any additional about this?)so no need for armour, no mines (potholes could be a risk though?) and in a small country where you are never too far from barracks... just not needed.

The LTAV is not and never was supposed to fill a domestic requirement for an armoured vehicle. It's for overseas service.

micdug wrote:

Abroad, on missions we normally undertake, U.N. Peacekeeping (not peace enforcing) the greatest threat to our troops are land mines and the odd small arms. On these missions its important to be self sufficient and you can move away from base quite a distance so need to carry sufficient supplies. My suggestion would be something like the Australian Army are rolling out - the Bushmaster. It would seem ideal as a self contained long distance patrol vehicle in third world environments with excellent mine and small arms protection and good crew comfort.

Ireland has taken part in several missions with a more robust mandate than the traditional peacekeeping one, that's not to say that peacekeeping is any safer. To the best of my knowledge, the only recent missions where the army had to cover long ranges was Eiritrea & Liberia. In all other cases they've been operating close enough to a base, and even if they're not they bring trucks along to carry the stores (troops would be mostly travelling in the APCs). The Bushmaster, even though it is bigger than the Eagle IV & similar types, cannot carry the same amount of stores as a truck and would not be suited to the role.

Besides which, the LTAV requirement was not for a long-range patrol vehicle. Rather it was for a light armoured vehicle to fill numerous command, liason & utility roles. The Bushmaster might be considered too big for the role, useful though it is.

micdug wrote:

I think the Mowag just does not fulfill either role effectively, overkill for Ireland, not substantial enough for Peacekeeping. My 2 cents..

Looking at the standard fits, the Eagle IV has better ballistic protection (STANAG level 2 vs. the Bushmaster's level 1) while the Bushmaster has better mine protection (STANAG level 3 vs. 2a on the Eagle). Both have add-on armour packages for ballistic & mine protection, but I don't know how the extra weight would affect the vehicles performance.

darkman2

micdug wrote:

HMMWV is a 27 year old design, for an unarmoured support vehicle for the US Army in a cold war scenario (i.e. following tanks). A replacement process is moving ahead in the US to replace it as it is completely unsuited to current requirements. I'm surprised the DF even bothered looking at it unless they were looking to buy second hand from the US or a free holiday to the states. Just out of interest the HMMWV came out of a design study by Lamborghini - perhaps we should ask them, though this is what the US Army thinks: http://www.lamborghiniregistry.com/LM002/UdayHussein.html
This is what is being looked at as a possibility after feedback from Mess-o-potania...
http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/237903/military_vehicle_illustrating_new_combat_options/index.html


What needs to be looked at are the DF requirements. In Ireland, a cheap and effective means of transporting small numbers of troops is required. I really don't see what the problem with the Nissan Patrols are - we don't need and most people don't want to see huge lumbering HMMWV type vehicles escorting cash. No DF troop column has been attacked since the civil war (I would be interested in being corrected on this though, anyone have any additional about this?)so no need for armour, no mines (potholes could be a risk though?) and in a small country where you are never too far from barracks... just not needed.

Abroad, on missions we normally undertake, U.N. Peacekeeping (not peace enforcing) the greatest threat to our troops are land mines and the odd small arms. On these missions its important to be self sufficient and you can move away from base quite a distance so need to carry sufficient supplies.
My suggestion would be something like the Australian Army are rolling out - the Bushmaster.
It would seem ideal as a self contained long distance patrol vehicle in third world environments with excellent mine and small arms protection and good crew comfort. Best of all the suspension has been designed by Timoney in County Meath, so we could call it an "Irish" Vehicle (as Irish as the soccer team anyway).http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/armoured/timoney/

I think the Mowag just does not fulfill either role effectively, overkill for Ireland, not substantial enough for Peacekeeping. My 2 cents..

TBH my opinion from a military perspective would be this:

If were not even going to have any air defence then we better get what we can on the ground because first priority for government should be the protection of the state. Remember just before WW2 people said it would never happen. Lets face it - we made an arse of ourselves back then but we were not as unlucky as other 'neutral' nations who were walked over because they neglected defence. Its worth thinking about for any eventuality is possible.

micdug

I have not seen the RFP so stand corrected on what they put into it - is it on any website (presume gov procurement)?

At basic spec Eagle IV has better ballistics, but the Bushmaster was designed to be uparmoured depending on the mission without affecting performance dramatically, and can be upgraded to Level 3 as the dutch have for theirs. I would say that the Mine Protection/IED is key, as that is very difficult to retrofit or improve later on e.g. sticking sandbags on the floor. The only way to significantly improve this protection is to increase height from ground and a shaped hull, both of which the Bushmaster has.

The key here is flexibility. The DF can't afford to have more than two or three types of vehicle, and I think the Bushmaster gives far greater flexibility than the Eagle for not a huge increase in size/cost. Certainly on the Util size, Engineering, Ambulance, C&C versions are available (and it is sized to cope). The Eagle is specifically designed in the recon role. It's also based on the HMMWV design and concept (and chassis) which I think has had its day.....

P.S. re stores - thats what the trailer is for (and their is quick release within the cabin):)

Manic Moran

They blew up an LM-02? Barbarians.

They must have had the only platoon in the entire US Army not to have a car nut in it.

NTM

Zambia

Seriously lads why would you not just get a load of Toyota Hi-Lux's or landCruisers beef up the armour around them.

Even the Nissan range is good.

Good petrol economy (what isnt compared to a Hummer)
Reliable
Fast
Cheaper than what your all talking about.

However as I am not going to be taking fire in them, I wopuld of course bow to other interests.
.

AbusesToilets

AFAIK that demonstration vehicle is based off of an F-150 frame with all the fancy stuff stuck onto it.Looks a bit too top heavy to me.Some US army units are also looking at some south african vehicles as possible replacements for the hmmmv's,the names of which escape me at present.I know one of the concerns about them is that they are too top heavy and thus prone to roll overs. This might be it,but again i'm not 100% positive

As an aside,how do you put images in your posts?I know how to do it with youtube videos but not images.

elvis jaffacake

micdug wrote:

I have not seen the RFP so stand corrected on what they put into it - is it on any website (presume gov procurement)?

At basic spec Eagle IV has better ballistics, but the Bushmaster was designed to be uparmoured depending on the mission without affecting performance dramatically, and can be upgraded to Level 3 as the dutch have for theirs. I would say that the Mine Protection/IED is key, as that is very difficult to retrofit or improve later on e.g. sticking sandbags on the floor. The only way to significantly improve this protection is to increase height from ground and a shaped hull, both of which the Bushmaster has.
The Bushmaster was designed to be a battle taxi for the Australian outback, but it was so good at the job the Dutch have bought it for Astan, but it would not fill Irelands requirements, our needs are for an LTAV, basically an armoured land rover, I know thats a gross simplifacation, so bear with me, our LTAV's will have several missions, liason, recce, even an engineer mission, for those mission's the Dutch have the Fennek (plus other vehicles), a futuristic looking vehicle, but then the Dutch can handle multiple vehicles for different missions, we can't, we have to get the best vehicle to do several things
It's also based on the HMMWV design and concept (and chassis) which I think has had its day.....
No the Eagle I,II,III were based on the HMMWV, the Eagle IV is based on the much more capable Duro Chassis, which is already in use here in the EOD's Duro II vehicles, it's an extremely capable design, far more so then any Humvee[/I

.....

cushtac

micdug wrote:

I have not seen the RFP so stand corrected on what they put into it - is it on any website (presume gov procurement)?

This is what was in the press:

Tom Brady
Security Editor
http://www.unison.ie/irish_independe...issue_id=12181


THE Government has taken a major step towards preparing the Defence Forces for a key role in Europe.

Defence Minister Willie O'Dea announced yesterday that a multi million euro contract was being placed for the purchase of a fleet of 66 light tactical armoured vehicles.

The vehicles will be used to boost the capability of the Army to carry out a range of tasks, including surveillance, reconnaissance, target acquisition, communications and acting as a weapons platform.

Firms competing for the contract have been told by the Department of Defence that the vehicles must be capable of being adapted for:

* A chemical, biological, radiation and nuclear role in protection and detection.

* The fitting of add-on armour panels without adversely affecting its operational performance.

The criteria are based on an examination of the performance of similar vehicles with other armies in war-torn zones overseas.

The vehicles must be able to be fitted with 12.7mm heavy machineguns, 66mm smoke dischargers for close defence, and 40mm automatic grenade launchers - although the latter are available at present to the elite Army Ranger Wing only.

They must also provide protection against a mine blast and have capability to carry ground surveillance radar equipment.

On a visit to the Defence Forces training headquarters at the Curragh yesterday, Mr O'Dea said the new fleet would complement the work of the 65 Mowag armoured personnel carriers delivered in the past few years at a cost of €84m.

Department officials this week began issuing documentation to interested suppliers, and proposals must be back in the department early next month with the aim of placing a contract before year-end.

micdug wrote:

At basic spec Eagle IV has better ballistics, but the Bushmaster was designed to be uparmoured depending on the mission without affecting performance dramatically, and can be upgraded to Level 3 as the dutch have for theirs. I would say that the Mine Protection/IED is key, as that is very difficult to retrofit or improve later on e.g. sticking sandbags on the floor. The only way to significantly improve this protection is to increase height from ground and a shaped hull, both of which the Bushmaster has.

Mowag offer increased mine protection to the same level as that of the Bushmaster as an option.

micdug wrote:

The key here is flexibility. The DF can't afford to have more than two or three types of vehicle, and I think the Bushmaster gives far greater flexibility than the Eagle for not a huge increase in size/cost. Certainly on the Util size, Engineering, Ambulance, C&C versions are available (and it is sized to cope). The Eagle is specifically designed in the recon role. It's also based on the HMMWV design and concept (and chassis) which I think has had its day.....

The DF isn't looking for two or three types of vehicle, it's looking for a light tactical vehicle capable of filling a few different roles (ambulance not being one of them.) The Eagle IV is based on the Duro chassis, not the Hummer.

micdug wrote:

P.S. re stores - thats what the trailer is for (and their is quick release within the cabin):)

Again, it's not an armoured truck they're looking for.

Judt

With regards to peacekeeping, whether or not you'll run over mines and so forth, I think the DF are looking forward to the next war (well, mission, we don't like to call anything a war or battle) as they should be doing - the yanks went into Iraq with the Humvee, which the Brits thought was God On Wheels compared to their dinky yoke, and Humvee's started getting blown up left and right.

Now, we've not faced an enemy who uses IED's and all that nasty crap. Yet. Now I'm not suggesting that the Army Rumour Wing would be correct in stating that we're heading off to more deserty climates in the near future, I would say that even out in the bush in Africa you could have some chap looking at what's going on in Successful Insurgent Warfare Weekly and say to himself "Hmm..."

So, the army does - in my opinion - need something of that size that's up-armoured for its overseas missions. Better we learn the mistakes of Britain and America than have to wheel four of our own guys home in twenty small boxes and end up doing the same.

Zambia

Judt wrote:

With regards to peacekeeping, whether or not you'll run over mines and so forth, I think the DF are looking forward to the next war (well, mission, we don't like to call anything a war or battle) as they should be doing - the yanks went into Iraq with the Humvee, which the Brits thought was God On Wheels compared to their dinky yoke, and Humvee's started getting blown up left and right.

This is a clip from the Iraqi Resistance. Its not graphic but you have to be over 18 to view it I also suspect some of it may be super imposed explosions.

You will need a you tube account to see it.

It does show what can hit a vehicle in a modern conflict of this nature.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZviiy2NcZs

Judt

Aye, sure isn't the reason they're getting nervous about sending over Prince Harry in his light tank because these new, more advanced, devices (made in Iran, they suspect) are starting to take out main battle tanks and all?

Still, even the old fashioned method of packing a crateload of explosives into the side of the road works wonders on a light vehicle. You need all the protection you can get - that's why simple, stupid things, like having body armour on the sides as well as back and front has been saving lives. Good to see the Irish DoD getting the message.

Zambia

Judt wrote:

Aye, sure isn't the reason they're getting nervous about sending over Prince Harry in his light tank because these new, more advanced, devices (made in Iran, they suspect) are starting to take out main battle tanks and all?

Still, even the old fashioned method of packing a crateload of explosives into the side of the road works wonders on a light vehicle. You need all the protection you can get - that's why simple, stupid things, like having body armour on the sides as well as back and front has been saving lives. Good to see the Irish DoD getting the message.

Chances are however the expolosions we saw in that clip woul rip apart anything put forward so far.

However on a side link to that there was a Hummer taking a round in the side by a RPG it seemed to handle it ok but it wont ever pass another MOT.

Judt

All about the crew inside surviving.

Zambia

Judt wrote:

All about the crew inside surviving.

Well any of the suggestions put forward are better than the current land rovers the Brits use in Iraq

Judt

Zambia232 wrote:

Well any of the suggestions put forward are better than the current land rovers the Brits use in Iraq

Exactly. Though the Brits use some new yoke (I can't remember the name of it, just saw it on BBC one night); Looks exceptionally boxy, but whatever works right?

Ohh, and that's "The land rovers the Brits use, quite similar to the ones we use" remember

Zambia

Judt wrote:

Exactly. Though the Brits use some new yoke (I can't remember the name of it, just saw it on BBC one night); Looks exceptionally boxy, but whatever works right?

Ohh, and that's "The land rovers the Brits use, quite similar to the ones we use" remember

Think that may be the Bull dog , that last death in Basra was some poor kid hoping out of one.

And yes should the PDF ever go to Iraq, I would suggest something more robust.

Judt

Well, we're never going near there I would say. But people in one part of the world tend to learn the lessons of people in other parts of the world. I blame the internet. But the point is that I'd rather we anticipate the IED's than re-learn all the hard lessons of Britain and America, wherever we happen to be.