Steyr

cushtac

newby.204 wrote: »

Care to elaborate on that one cush??

The DF has bought helmets, ammunition and UAVs from Israeli companies.

newby.204

see now i should know that, but i didnt aw well now i do!!

OS119

foxshooter243 wrote: »

...........dont be gettin carried away lads youse have never fought in your lives................

not all contributors to this thread are members of Armies that are uninvolved in conflict.

before making such a blanket statement, it would have been wise to do a little reading....

CCCP^

cushtac wrote: »

We've already bought quite a lot from Israel.

Have we? What have we bought from these people? I thought in 2006 when Israel again messed around in Lebanon, we denied even the use of our territory to Israel when the US wanted to ship weapons to them. I can't find anything on the internet about arm's deals between our two countries.

arybvtcw0eolkf

CCCP^ wrote: »

Have we? What have we bought from these people? I thought in 2006 when Israel again messed around in Lebanon, we denied even the use of our territory to Israel when the US wanted to ship weapons to them. I can't find anything on the internet about arm's deals between our two countries.

Well its happened, and tough sh*t Paddy (Christy Moore).

And I for one am happy to trade with Israel.

CCCP^

cushtac wrote: »

The DF has bought helmets, ammunition and UAVs from Israeli companies.

Our helmet's don't appear to be those equipped by the Israeli's. Ammunition maybe. UAVs? I seriously doubt that. Are we buying from the state of Israel or Israeli companies?

arybvtcw0eolkf

CCCP^ wrote: »

Our helmet's don't appear to be those equipped by the Israeli's. Ammunition maybe. UAVs? I seriously doubt that. Are we buying from the state of Israel or Israeli companies?

The new UAV was bought from an Israeli company.

Not sure about the new helmet, but the 'old' kevlar helmet is Israeli made, as is a lot of other stuff we use.

CCCP^

Wow, it's actually true - http://ireland.indymedia.org/article/83667

Although Indymedia is at best disputable, the article comes from a newspaper article - the Indo.

arybvtcw0eolkf

CCCP^ wrote: »

Wow, it's actually true - http://ireland.indymedia.org/article/83667

Although Indymedia is at best disputable, the article comes from a newspaper article - the Indo.

Eretz Israel.

Shalom.

cushtac

CCCP^ wrote: »

Our helmet's don't appear to be those equipped by the Israeli's. Ammunition maybe. UAVs? I seriously doubt that. Are we buying from the state of Israel or Israeli companies?

The helmets are made by Rabintex, the same crowd that made the old Izzie: http://www.rabintex.com/pdf/ireland.pdf

The UAVs are coming from Aeroanutics Defense Systems: http://www.aeronautics-sys.com/

I don't know which company sold the DF the ammo, but they definitely bought some off an Israeli company in the past.

Manic Moran

I'll give this to the Irish procurement system: They don't play favourites when they buy, and on the rare occasions they spend cash, they spend it on the best thing going. The Irish government's primary responsibility is to its people and its soldiers, not the affairs of other countries. Unless you wish to argue that Irish soldiers should not be equipped to the highest standards.

NTM

Flying

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'll give this to the Irish procurement system: They don't play favourites when they buy, and on the rare occasions they spend cash, they spend it on the best thing going. The Irish government's primary responsibility is to its people and its soldiers, not the affairs of other countries. Unless you wish to argue that Irish soldiers should not be equipped to the highest standards.

NTM

Well I agree in part the new body armour system they got they f*cked up big time, they apparently ordered to many (100's) midget sizes of body armour they would'nt fit a smurf and can't get there money back.

And this body armour is tailored to the induvidual.

The Steyr and USP were good buys, not the Mowag though.

Manic Moran

What's wrong with the Mowag?

NTM

-aurora

from what ive heard the mowags are great

arybvtcw0eolkf

-aurora wrote: »

from what ive heard the mowags are great

You heard that from a minority of one.

I'll say what anyone who's been to Lebanon (pre this last war) ...''they should'a went with the SISU''.

Manic Moran

I'm still curious as to why. Mechanically they're pretty similar to the US Strykers, and the US troops love the things.

NTM

arybvtcw0eolkf

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm still curious as to why. Mechanically they're pretty similar to the US Strykers, and the US troops love the things.

NTM

Mechanically they've been a pain in the ass here.

Flying

Remember the craic in Eritrea with them.

They look nice but I would go with the SISU anyday

arybvtcw0eolkf

Flying wrote: »

Remember the craic in Eritrea with them.

They look nice but I would go with the SISU anyday

You, me and everyone else except the guy who decided the buy the damn things.

Grim.

Mairt wrote: »

You, me and everyone else except the guy who decided the buy the damn things.

they just go with the cheapest option or what?

arybvtcw0eolkf

Grim. wrote: »

they just go with the cheapest option or what?

Haven't a clue.

Manic Moran

What were the mechanical issues? Drivetrain, power plant, or suspension? If the latter, do you think it's because they went with the super-duper hydraulic system instead of the more standard most people bought? Few nations are reporting problems with Piranhas, most are buying new ones to replace old, for example Canada.

NTM

Irish_Army01

From what I've been told, they spent more time with the fitters in Liberia than out on patrol.

balrog

the reason the mowags were off the road most of the time. we were doing over twice the reccommend miles between. not enough spare vehciles to allow a proper service and time for parts to be flown in.

Manic Moran

That could be a problem. We did the same thing to our tanks, they were being run into the ground. "We don't have time to put them down for maintenance, we need them outside the wire." Within two months the 14-tank company was down to two functional tanks.

When I got attached to the Stryker unit in Mosul, it was a different kettle of fish entirely. They were absolutely religious about keeping to the services schedule. If you had to go out the wire, you did it with one less vehicle. As a result, they had a readiness rate of some 98%.

NTM

Flying

Manic Moran wrote: »

That could be a problem. We did the same thing to our tanks, they were being run into the ground. "We don't have time to put them down for maintenance, we need them outside the wire." Within two months the 14-tank company was down to two functional tanks.

When I got attached to the Stryker unit in Mosul, it was a different kettle of fish entirely. They were absolutely religious about keeping to the services schedule. If you had to go out the wire, you did it with one less vehicle. As a result, they had a readiness rate of some 98%.

NTM

That does'nt sound healthy at all

Irish_Army01

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm still curious as to why. Mechanically they're pretty similar to the US Strykers, and the US troops love the things.

NTM

New Stryker Faring Poorly in Field

Military.com | By Christian Lowe | January 29, 2008

BAQUBAH, Iraq - The newest version of the Army’s popular Stryker combat vehicle is garnering poor reviews here from Soldiers assigned to man its tank-like hull.

The General Dynamics Corp.-built Mobile Gun System looks like a typical eight-wheeled Stryker, except for a massive 105mm gun mounted on its roof. The gun fires three different types of projectiles, including explosive rounds, tank-busters and a "canister round" that ejects hundreds of steel pellets similar to a shotgun shell. But while the system looks good on paper and the Army’s all for it, Soldiers with the 4th Battalion of the 9th Infantry Regiment -- one of the first units to receive the new vehicle for their deployment to Iraq -- don’t have a lot of good things to say about it.

"I wish [the enemy] would just blow mine up so I could be done with it," said Spec. Kyle Handrahan, 22, of Anaheim, Calif., a tanker assigned to Alpha Company, 4/9’s MGS platoon. "It’s a piece," another MGS platoon member chimed in. "Nothing works on it."

The gripes stem from a litany of problems, including a computer system that constantly locks up, extremely high heat in the crew compartment and a shortage of spare parts. In one case, a key part was held up in customs on its way to Iraq, a problem one Soldier recognizes is a result of a new system being pushed into service before it’s ready.
"The concept is good, but they still have a lot of issues to work out on it," said Sgt. 1st Class Nathan Teimeier, Alpha, 4/9’s MGS platoon sergeant and a tanker by trade.

According to a Jan. 28 report by Bloomberg News, the 2008 Pentagon Authorization bill included language limiting funds for the MGS pending an Army report on fixes to the vehicle’s growing list of problems. The Pentagon’s director of Operational Test and Evaluation said in his annual report the vehicle was "not operationally effective," Bloomberg reported.
Soldiers here say the searing heat in the vehicles -- especially during Iraq’s blazing summer -- forces them to wear a complicated cooling suit that circulates cold water through tubing under their armor. Ironically, Soldiers often complain the suit makes them cold, Teimeier said, adding to their vehicular woes.

Despite the poor review from DoD auditors, the Army is standing by its vehicle, Bloomberg reported.
"The Army has determined that the MGS is suitable and operationally effective," Army spokesman, Lt. Col. Martin Downie, told the financial news service.

Where there is no debate is in the lethality of the vehicle’s firepower. But Soldiers in the middle of a tough counterinsurgency fight here in Diyala province say commanders are reluctant to use the vehicle’s lethal gun on enemy strongholds out of concern of killing or wounding civilians. As a result, many of the dozens of MGS vehicles go unused while precision air strikes have become increasingly prevalent -- along with the usual Soldier-driven raids.

That’s got MGS drivers here frustrated. Not only do they have to deal with a complex system that gives them fits, but when it is working, they’re not allowed to employ the vehicle in combat. "You can kick down doors and risk losing our guys," Handrahan said. "Or I can just knock down the building from a [kilometer] away and call it a day."

SEE LINK;
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/...160981,00.html

the locust

Introducing a new rifle is a mammoth task and has a big effect on the forces' effectiveness even if the rifle was state of the art. I don't think there is a need for any m4's or HK rifles, stick with the Aug bullpup rifle it has no major disadvantages like the SA80 had, next generation AUG would be ideal for the defense forces.
5.56mm gets the job done for whats needed.

newby.204

nice but way too many bits and bobs to be trustin ptes to clean and maintain, price emans they will never ever go with that as standard issue!!

Manic Moran

Irish_Army01 wrote: »

New Stryker Faring Poorly in Field

You'll note that only refers to the troublesome 105mm gun-armed-variant, whose weapon system has been causing issues for years. (Apparently they decided to mount a gravity-fed autoloader upside-down to get it to fit in a C-130, and things went downhill from there). I wasn't too impressed with the thing just from sitting in the simulator either. Ergonomics at the gunner's station (which obviously is radically different from the other vehicles in the series) suck.

The other nine variants, particularly the APC and medevac versions, are getting rave reviews from the troops. Indeed, I think part of the problem is that the MGS tankers are comparing their vehicles to the other nine. Look at the problems complaining about heat, for example. "Oh my, the temperatures in Iraq in a closed vehicle (There are fewer hatches on MGS than any other variant) are such that we need to wear a cooling vest". Gee. Why are the TIE-Fighter Vests (As we call them), so well known amongst US tankers, do you think? Perhaps because no vehicle other than the Strykers and later HMMWVs and trucks have air conditioning? OK. so the computers need a thermal management system, this was an oversight, but it's easily corrected, just like the other minor flaws which Stryker displayed since its introduction, such as not having a colour monitor for the gunsight. You'll note that none of the complaints are about the reliability of the vehicle chassis itself. And even at that, the lads being supported seem to appreciate it.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=728_1201373855

NTM