South African firm wins Irish Army vehicle contract

trentf

South African firm wins Irish Army vehicle contract


By Don Lavery


Sunday December 14 2008

A fleet of South African-designed armoured vehicles is to protect Irish troops on dangerous peace missions abroad from the threat of attack by improvised bombs, gunfire and mines.

BAE Systems South Africa has won a contract to equip the Defence Forces with an initial fleet of 27 RG-32M 4x4 vehicles, after a tough evaluation of three designs which saw them compete in two-month field trials in the Curragh and the Glen of Imaal ranges.

The South African firm beat off competition from Mowag of Switzerland, with their Eagle IV, and the Iveco Panther of Italy, recently adopted by the British Army.

The new vehicles, called light tactical armoured vehicles, are being bought for €19.6m for an initial 27 vehicles, with an option to buy a similar number.

Although they had been sought as long ago as 2000, the lack of such a vehicle was highlighted in the Lebanon earlier this year, when two Irish soldiers had a lucky escape after their unarmoured vehicle was caught in a blast from a roadside bomb.

The new vehicles will operate alongside the 80-strong fleet of Mowag armoured personnel carriers, many of which are in used in Chad and Kosovo by Irish units. The RG-32M, described as a "mine-hardened patrol vehicle", is used by several armies.

The Irish vehicles will be used for a variety of roles, including transporting the Javelin anti-armour missile, surveillance, communications and target acquisition. They will be armed with a remotely operated turret with a .5 heavy machinegun or a 40mm automatic grenade launcher.

The vehicles will be delivered over a three-year period, beginning in 2009. Defence Minister Willie O'Dea said: "Force protection remains a key issue in overseas peace support operations and it is very important that vehicles such as these are made available to our personnel."

It's not the first time South Africa has won Defence contracts here -- in the last decade, it modernised the Army's fleet of Panhard armoured cars, and supplied 60mm Vektor mortars.

- Don Lavery




Now all thats needed is to actually buy more of them and aircraft that can actually support troops and defend our airspace and maybe we can call it a defence force then.

Run_to_da_hills

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iRLbtjUcnc

Hard Larry

Oh FFS I only talked to a guy the other day who tested these cars, he said they all gave the Eagle a big thumbs up. Looks like the procurment board gave the Eagle a big finger.

Ah sure feck it just another vehicle for me to drive the stones out of

twinytwo

i take it so that this is a good buy then?

enda1

I hope no Somalie pirates have heard the news...

Borneo Fnctn

trentf wrote: »

South African firm wins Irish Army vehicle contract


By Don Lavery


Sunday December 14 2008

A fleet of South African-designed armoured vehicles is to protect Irish troops on dangerous peace missions abroad from the threat of attack by improvised bombs, gunfire and mines.

BAE Systems South Africa has won a contract to equip the Defence Forces with an initial fleet of 27 RG-32M 4x4 vehicles, after a tough evaluation of three designs which saw them compete in two-month field trials in the Curragh and the Glen of Imaal ranges.

The South African firm beat off competition from Mowag of Switzerland, with their Eagle IV, and the Iveco Panther of Italy, recently adopted by the British Army.

The new vehicles, called light tactical armoured vehicles, are being bought for €19.6m for an initial 27 vehicles, with an option to buy a similar number.

Although they had been sought as long ago as 2000, the lack of such a vehicle was highlighted in the Lebanon earlier this year, when two Irish soldiers had a lucky escape after their unarmoured vehicle was caught in a blast from a roadside bomb.

The new vehicles will operate alongside the 80-strong fleet of Mowag armoured personnel carriers, many of which are in used in Chad and Kosovo by Irish units. The RG-32M, described as a "mine-hardened patrol vehicle", is used by several armies.

The Irish vehicles will be used for a variety of roles, including transporting the Javelin anti-armour missile, surveillance, communications and target acquisition. They will be armed with a remotely operated turret with a .5 heavy machinegun or a 40mm automatic grenade launcher.

The vehicles will be delivered over a three-year period, beginning in 2009. Defence Minister Willie O'Dea said: "Force protection remains a key issue in overseas peace support operations and it is very important that vehicles such as these are made available to our personnel."

It's not the first time South Africa has won Defence contracts here -- in the last decade, it modernised the Army's fleet of Panhard armoured cars, and supplied 60mm Vektor mortars.

- Don Lavery




Now all thats needed is to actually buy more of them and aircraft that can actually support troops and defend our airspace and maybe we can call it a defence force then.

Aren't you the guy from the conspiracy theories forum? How are the Lizard people these days?

Manic Moran

The RG-32 isn't a particularly poor vehicle, mind. The South Africans have always made a decent wheeled armoured vehicle, with particular attention to mine resistance.

NTM

trentf

jackpalance wrote: »

Aren't you the guy from the conspiracy theories forum? How are the Lizard people these days?

Why don't you take a look in the mirror and tell me

Borneo Fnctn

trentf wrote: »

Why don't you take a look in the mirror and tell me

There's no such thing as a lizard person you bleedin' crazy. You don't have to wear tin foil hats.

trentf

:rolleyes: we are discussing military issues in a military forum try and stick to the issue if you have something you want to discuss separately then put it in the correct forum..if you can control yourself...

arybvtcw0eolkf

jackpalance wrote: »

Aren't you the guy from the conspiracy theories forum? How are the Lizard people these days?

Why not go over to that forum and find out for yourself.

Try to keep the discussion on topic please.

diverdriver

The RG-32 isn't a particularly poor vehicle, mind. The South Africans have always made a decent wheeled armoured vehicle, with particular attention to mine resistance.

Googling it, I note it's a development of the RG-31, which is in successful service with the no less than the US Army and Marine Corps and Canada. That bodes well for it in service. I just hope it wasn't bought because it was the cheapest.

iceage

19.6 milllion, first batch of 27.....how many are they getting in totol, does anybody know?

Actually, did I just read that right?? I was never good at math.......

Manic Moran

diverdriver wrote: »

Googling it, I note it's a development of the RG-31, which is in successful service with the no less than the US Army and Marine Corps and Canada. That bodes well for it in service. I just hope it wasn't bought because it was the cheapest.

It's one of the MRAP family that the US bought. At the time, the US was buying from anyone who had a mine resistant vehicle for sale and the production capacity to build them. Now that the rush is over, they're paying a lot more attention to the purchases, and I'm not sure how well the smaller RGs are doing.

NTM

trentf

iceage wrote: »

19.6 milllion, first batch of 27.....how many are they getting in totol, does anybody know?

Actually, did I just read that right?? I was never good at math.......

The proposal is to acquire an initial twenty-seven vehicles (17 for overseas missions and 10 at home for training). They are allowing for the option to acquire up to another twenty-seven vehicles over the next few years to meet any further requirements, depending on the threat faced by the Defence Forces in operational deployments.

The version the army is getting is the RG-32M. Looks pretty versatile which is good for the defence forces

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzXnWFHZum8&feature=related

christophicus

Hard Larry wrote: »

Oh FFS I only talked to a guy the other day who tested these cars, he said they all gave the Eagle a big thumbs up. Looks like the procurment board gave the Eagle a big finger.

For nubs like me is this a good thing or a bad thing ?

Hard Larry

christophicus wrote: »

For nubs like me is this a good thing or a bad thing ?

No mate its just me venting anger at the Army rumour mill (even though it was a good source)

In my view the Army, already has MOWAG APCs, why not buy MOWAG Eagles as well? I don't know a whole lot about the new vehicles but surely there has to be similarities between the 2 if they are made by the same company.

runningman

Hard Larry wrote: »

In my view the Army, already has MOWAG APCs, why not buy MOWAG Eagles as well? I don't know a whole lot about the new vehicles but surely there has to be similarities between the 2 if they are made by the same company.

They have 2 types of Iveco trucks - so why didn't they buy the Iveco.......

Hard Larry

runningman wrote: »

They have 2 types of Iveco trucks - so why didn't they buy the Iveco.......

My source says the Iveco they tested was a heap of dirt

Hard going to drive it, AFAIK one of them even flipped during testing due to a problem beyond the drivers control.

In fact now I think about it its a wonder the Procurement board didn't go for the Iveco

diverdriver

Reading other websites. It seem the Iveco isn't quite what it should be. There is even a picture of one destroyed by an IED in Afghanistan.

As for the Mowag Eagle, isn't that based on the chassis of the HMMV. Have you seen how wide those things are? Imagine trying to drive that thing on roads around the Glen of Imaal?

Manic Moran

diverdriver wrote: »

As for the Mowag Eagle, isn't that based on the chassis of the HMMV. Have you seen how wide those things are? Imagine trying to drive that thing on roads around the Glen of Imaal?

No wider than an Iveco truck or Piranha APC.

Eagle IV is based off the Duro chassis, apparently.

NTM

Fishtits

Given that they wandered as far as South Africa to find this thing (not bad BTW) thank the heavens that they didn't return home with this dud http://www.armour.co.za

Gunny Hartman

Hard Larry wrote: »

In my view the Army, already has MOWAG APCs, why not buy MOWAG Eagles as well? I don't know a whole lot about the new vehicles but surely there has to be similarities between the 2 if they are made by the same company.

You would think there wouldn't be a whole lot of differences but the bouchers, the armoured EOD wagons they are made by our friends at MOWAG and they are a heap of dirt. I have a few more colourful words about them but I will keep them to myself.

As always lads, we all know this that no matter what the word from the troops is, It's the senior brass in charge of the contract who will decide which vehicle is going to be procured. It always seems to be the middle of the road one in regards to the cost...

concussion

The RG 32 is used by Australia, Saudi Arabia, Finland and Sweden among others. I reckon if it can operated well in those environments it will stand up to where we'll be taking it. Also, as Ireland has spent the last year training with Sweden in the Nordic Battlegroup it stands to reason that some experience of the vehicle has been already acquired.

expectationlost

https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2026/01/24/defence-forces-retires-disastrous-armoured-fleet-as-it-looks-to-french-replacements/

The LTAVs, known as RG32M Outriders, were purchased in 2009 from the now defunct BAE Systems Land Systems South Africa for just under €20 million or €726,000 each. They out-performed similar vehicles from Switzerland and Italy in Irish field tests.

Problems with the vehicles were evident from the start. Users reported severe reliability and maintenance issues including electrical connections not matching up and driveshafts shearing off.

“The problem was they bought an immature platform which had not been vetted in the field by bigger militaries. Then they started adding loads on to them, which made them more complicated and less reliable.”

Cyclingtourist

Hope they've learned lessons from this procurement. Time for a new vehicle and excluding a UK supplier shouldn't be automatic.

jonnybigwallet

Them French jobbies look the biz to me. Handy for delivery,spares and support via Rosslare

Larbre34

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124175364#Comment_124175364

Whether people like it or not, the UK have been quietly black-balled from EU defence procurement as one of many shadow punishments for Brexit.

And really I have no problem with that, after all, why should they get their cake and eat it too?

The EU offered them access to the €150 Billion (and ultimately €800 Billion) bonanza for a subscription of €2 Billion. The UK counter-offered €82 million, or just 4.1% of that, and so the EU shut their laptops and said 'we have nothing else to discuss here'.

Now according to the Financial Times, the Brits are looking to restart talks, but between their attitude and their recent track record (Ajax), I wouldn't give them the steam off my proverbial at this current moment.

Cyclingtourist

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124176443#Comment_124176443

"And really I have no problem with that, after all, why should they get their cake and eat it too?"

Any Irish cake would be extremely small. We should consider any UK possibility on grounds of cost and proven suitability.

sparky42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124176504#Comment_124176504

proven suitability? We got the cheapest and least capable OPVs as possible in modern times. Other than that pretty much the list of U.K. defence procurement for themselves alone has been a dumpster fire time after time after time. Even without Brexit fallout why go to them?

Cyclingtourist

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124176647#Comment_124176647

I'm merely advocating that UK not be automatically excluded.