OUR PIRHANA APCS = EXPENSIVE SITTING DUCKS?

Avgas

OUR PIRHANA APCS = EXPENSIVE SITTING DUCKS?

Looking to start another discussion, or more likely a row, with this one.

In fact my theme is the same one as the ‘I can’t believe we need new rifles one’, etc, which I started previously.

My theme is:
COMPLACENCY = DEAD PEOPLE (OUR PEOPLE)

THE ORTHODOX VIEW

I assume a majority in the DF love the Pirhana vehicle. It is usually regarded as a state of the art piece of kit. They look the biz! They give us lots of cred abroad on PK missions because they’re big, expensive and well regarded. Highly mobile, fairly roomy and a ramp….far from the cramped misery of the smaller Panhard M3….

We got them because many other armies were getting similar kit…the US have their Stryker and the Canadians the LAV (both related in design terms to our Pirhana). As wheeled APCs go…our Pirhana’s are pretty much regarded as Rolls Royce material.

That is the orthodox view.

BUT….are they really so hot?

ex_infantry man

i would,nt call them expensive sitting ducks to be honest!!! afaik there,s run flat tyres on the mowags and all round armoured plating so to some it up if **** hits the fan you can be safe in knowing the driver will get the hell out of the hot spot!!!

Avgas

Okay maybe I was a bit OTT with the sitting ducks line...BUT....hear me out?

Yes, I acknowledge that our existing Pirhanas have decent small arms protection.

They even have ‘some resistence to mines and IEDs’, and that was one reason we got them. From experience with the SISU’s in the Leb and seeing LAV type vehicles in Somalia, many DF staff became convinced in the mid to late 1990s that something like the Pirhana was the state of the art.

One source suggests Pirhana IV can withstand an 8kg TNT mine-level 3 protection in NATO standards. I’ve no data for our Pirhana IIIs but I think it would be closer to a 6kg blast under each wheel-or level 2 protection in NATO terminology.

Our Pirhana’s are supposed to have a triple layered floor, the bottom one being v-shaped and the seats are suspended from the roof to provde further protection so that any under floor blast transmit less of its force to the troops inside.


IN FACT….OUR PIRHANAS ARE COMPARATIVELY UNDERPROTECTED.

Note this mine resistence capability of Pirhana IIIs is far from outstanding. To be specific it is below NATO STANAG 4569 Level 4, but between Levels 2 and 3.

By way of comparison, the Irish Timoney Technologies part-designed, but Singapore built, TEREX wheeled APC can apparently withstand a 12kg TNT explosion.

NOTE this is a different vehicle from the Timoney designed BUSHMASTER used by the Australians, and others. I’ve no data on that, but I would assume its resistence to mine/IEDs is at least as good, if not better than our Pirhana IIIs. However, its bodywork would probably have weaker protection compared to a Pirhana III as regards AP MG rds and shell splinters…it only has above NATO level 1 body armour

(BTW One of these vehicles was destroyed in an IED attack in Astan during March of this year…RIP).

The crucial point to note here is that the TERREX appears to be clearly above NATO STANAG level 4a which specifies that an under wheel blast of 10kg HE should be survivable. The TERREX has been available since several years back-it is by now means a brand new vehicle.

Interestingly one source on the South African derived RG-32M scout vehicle, which we will be getting this year (around 27 of them it seems), states that it provides a level of protection of up to 6kg HE blast under any wheel.
In other words this vehicle is also well below NATO STANAG 4569 Level4 , although it does meet what many regard as an adeqaute Level 2 standard of protection.

It all depends of how one defines adequate.

BUT we have just purchased two very expensive vehicle types which meet NATO armour standard level 2 and maybe level 3…when its clear we could have chosen vehicles with level 4 protection
(at least for mines-the levels are different for different threats).

Consider by way of comparison the more specialist wheeled COUGAR MRAP (Mine resistent armour protected) vehicle, in use with USArmy and USMC in Iraq since 2006-7. It can withstand 13.6kg of TNT under its wheels and 6.8kg under the floor. The 4x4 version of the Cougar weighs just 14.5t.

Food for thought, no?

Your friendly Avgas.

Avgas

Opsec just occurred to me!

Please remember in any post for anyone from a DF background, whether past or present, NOT to provide undue levels of detail or to specifically confirm or deny a particular detail of Irish DF tactics of technology which might crop up…remember this is a public forum....

Opsec should be respected.

However, it should not prevent a discussion about areas of POSSIBLE weakness in our Pirhanas and how they MIGHT be improved..…..so at times perhaps we can use the slightly WALT formula ...'if we accept your argument that such and such MAY be the case.... without confirming or denying it to be...etc......

Hope that is a help....?

Avgas.

AbusesToilets

Thing to remember though is that in the rush for more protection, a huge amount of mobility is being sacrificed for dubious gains. The current gen of RGs being used in Afghanistan weigh close to 40,000lbs without weapons etc. They are top heavy, prone to roll overs and very restricted in their ability to go off road.
The whole philosophy of mounted operations has moved away from avoiding getting blown up to surviving the blast, which is the wrong way to go imo. It takes very little for the enemy to put a bigger boom in the ground but to slap more armor onto a vehicle just further restricts your mobility and thus your ability to fight the enemy on your terms.
There is a strong culture of risk aversion permeating in the US military and others as well i'm sure, which is having a negative effect on soldiers ability to fight. You can see it in their vehicles, their body armor, the current apologetic mind set pervading in the leadership. They fear the negative press of people getting hurt, so the result is making troops carry more weight in armor and turning supposedly light transport vehicles into slow moving armored targets.

concussion

Jackal anyone?

Avgas

Good posts...BUT....we're still stuck with our Pirhana IIIHs, Pirhana MRVs and the little R32Ms...... we don't have the big heavy MRAPs you mention/imply.

That roll over problem doesn't apply to us....

The last roll-over misbehaving vehicle we had were the scutty little UNIMOGS..:)...

What is better?

To have a vehicle that will meet and exceed NATO STANAG level 4a under wheel and even stand 50kg blast in proximity (a good MRAP) BUT may roll over if you drive it too fast/of push it off road too heavy

OR

An underprotected Irish Pirhana IIIH that a 16 year old and his pals with RPGs can take out with help from a 10kg IED BUT you can relax because it won't roll over and it has a lovely ramp?


Bottom line:

We have NONE of the better IED protection MRAPs have
We have NONE of the uparmoured Stryker/LAV analogous to our Pirhanas
Our vehicles are exposed and OUR PEOPLE will be at risk unless we update and LEARN.

What I hear here is the old argument that speed and mobility will protect our troops.

Well.......not on easy to target roads it won't and our Pirhanas are mainly road bound....in Astan and Iraq especially that is their main use profile (ok less so in Astan becaus there are less roads)....

YES they can go off road better than anything wheeled before (no debate)....

YES they seem to have done okay in Chad re mobility (I've no details) ...

BUT they lack a more robust off road capability you only really find with tracks....especially when you have to uparmour them...and yes you really have to.


"There is a strong culture of risk aversion permeating in the US military and others as well i'm sure, which is having a negative effect on soldiers ability to fight... They fear the negative press of people getting hurt, so the result is making troops carry more weight in armor and turning supposedly light transport vehicles into slow moving armored targets."

US and other forces are not afraid of fighting and dying, which in fairness I don't think your alleging AbusesToilets. These people are brave.

You ignore the STRATEGIC effect of combat losses. Both Iraq and Astan have limited support at home. Its an all volunteer army. Both are essentially WARS OF ATTRITION. They have already probably lost the war in political terms in Astan and Iraq because they failed to address in part the ATTRITIONAL STRATEGY based on certain tactics, of which IED mining is a chief one.

If you check out iCasulties website: http://icasualties.org/OEF/index.aspx

Last year IED deaths in Astan were 275. in 2008 they were 152. This year alone there have been 84.

RIP.

These levels are not politically sustainable and the T'ban know it.

Would you seriously have the US return to riding in unarmoured HUMVEES or the BA in Snatchrovers...?

And why are the Canadians using and loving Leopards...and the Danes and Dutch CV90s...the trend is to go HEAVIER...not lighter.



Av.

AbusesToilets

Avgas wrote: »

Good posts...BUT....we're still stuck with our Pirhana IIIHs, Pirhana MRVs and the little R32Ms...... we don't have the big heavy MRAPs you mention/imply.

That roll over problem doesn't apply to us....

The last roll-over misbehaving vehicle we had were the scutty little UNIMOGS..:)...

What is better?

To have a vehicle that will meet and exceed NATO STANAG level 4a under wheel and even stand 50kg blast in proximity (a good MRAP) BUT may roll over if you drive it too fast/of push it off road too heavy

OR

An underprotected Irish Pirhana IIIH that a 16 year old and his pals with RPGs can take out with help from a 10kg IED BUT you can relax because it won't roll over and it has a lovely ramp?


Bottom line:

We have NONE of the better IED protection MRAPs have
We have NONE of the uparmoured Stryker/LAV analogous to our Pirhanas
Our vehicles are exposed and OUR PEOPLE will be at risk unless we update and LEARN.

What I hear here is the old argument that speed and mobility will protect our troops.

Well.......not on easy to target roads it won't and our Pirhanas are mainly road bound....in Astan and Iraq especially that is their main use profile (ok less so in Astan becaus there are less roads)....

YES they can go off road better than anything wheeled before (no debate)....

YES they seem to have done okay in Chad re mobility (I've no details) ...

BUT they lack a more robust off road capability you only really find with tracks....especially when you have to uparmour them...and yes you really have to.


"There is a strong culture of risk aversion permeating in the US military and others as well i'm sure, which is having a negative effect on soldiers ability to fight... They fear the negative press of people getting hurt, so the result is making troops carry more weight in armor and turning supposedly light transport vehicles into slow moving armored targets."

US and other forces are not afraid of fighting and dying, which in fairness I don't think your alleging AbusesToilets. These people are brave.

You ignore the STRATEGIC effect of combat losses. Both Iraq and Astan have limited support at home. Its an all volunteer army. Both are essentially WARS OF ATTRITION. They have already probably lost the war in political terms in Astan and Iraq because they failed to address in part the ATTRITIONAL STRATEGY based on certain tactics, of which IED mining is a chief one.

If you check out iCasulties website: http://icasualties.org/OEF/index.aspx

Last year IED deaths in Astan were 275. in 2008 they were 152. This year alone there have been 84.

RIP.

These levels are not politically sustainable and the T'ban know it.

Would you seriously have the US return to riding in unarmoured HUMVEES or the BA in Snatchrovers...?

And why are the Canadians using and loving Leopards...and the Danes and Dutch CV90s...the trend is to go HEAVIER...not lighter.



Av.

The MRAPs are based off of the RG32/33 series of vehicles, they added more armor(weight) and stiffened suspension among other things. The issue I have with them, besides there lack of mobility, is the mindset they present. It is a defensive, reactionary attitude that seeks to take the hit rather than avoid it to begin with. The war in Afghanistan won't be won by driving down the roads, you have to get out among the populace and pursue the enemy into his strongholds. You can't do that in a tank, at least not in Afghanistan. It wouldn't be that bad if they just pushed out more Striker type vehicles, at least then you would get better firepower and mobility. Instead troops are stuck with vehicles that give you the worst of both.

I think part of the problem regarding casualties, besides the public's perception that low casualty rates are the norm in war, is that there has been little tangible progress for the lives lost. Which is result of poor leadership, both political and militarily.

Anyway, getting back on topic, I think that more mobility is better value than more armor. It's the timeless balancing act between Protection, Firepower and Mobility, and for me the last two outweigh the first. Certainly in respect to a fight of Afghanistan's type. The examples of the Canadians and Dutch (who almost done more than the Taliban to **** up the war effort) are most likely based close to urban environments and established LOCs. They don't do well when you have to go chase guys across rivers, through tight valleys and up mountains.

Avgas

[I]"The war in Afghanistan won't be won by driving down the roads, you have to get out among the populace and pursue the enemy into his strongholds. You can't do that in a tank, at least not in Afghanistan."[/I]

Some good pts but....don't agree with you.

I find your position a bit contradictory.

You want them off roads....BUT presumably wheeled?
You feel Tanks are no good for this fight...BUT you want to close with and destroy them...
You prefer mobility over protection BUT this risks conflating mobility with protection...(its not in itself)

IMHO.....

Tracks, whether CV90s or improved M113s, are generally better off road than wheels, especially if your going to dismount/close in for combat from the vehicle.

AND They are actually using Tanks very successfully. See this Canadian report on how they've used Leopards, which is full of tactical insights: http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_10/iss_4/CAJ_vol10.4_03_e.pdf

BTW Tanks and tracks were even used successfully in PK ops in Bosnia by the Danish (Leopard 1s) and tracked APCs (M113s, Warriors, PV302s) all worked well in that theatre as well from a PK perspective.

Going off road systematically is a WISE AND GOOD TACTIC but....it probably requires a large fleet of tracked MICVs and logistics vehicles and especially armoured engineer vehicles (the most critical asset).

AND.........

You can never ever go fully off road.

Roads will still have to be used some of the time, if not actually a lot of the time. The idea of a force which used say 80% tracked vehicles and avoided roads 80% of the time is not very plausibe if only for simple economics. A more realistic ratio might be 30-40% off road and 70-60% on road. The reality is that if roads are in theatre they will be used and will have to be used/patroled and kept clear.

Note, that even if tracked vehicles were used to keep our soldiers free of risks, IEDs could still be used against civilian and aid vehicles on public roads-which could undermine any PK mission indirectly.

So going off-road can be part of the answer but not the whole answer.

I will explain in a further post exactly why and how I think our VEHICLE PROTECTION IS TOO WEAK.......:)

Av.

Avgas

Our Pirhanas today have what was considered 10 years ago a good standard of protection.

We got our first Pirhanas in 2001 and the tenders were issued in the late 1990s.

Today, after experience in Iraq and Astan its clear that level of protection is simply not good enough.

A much higher standard of protection is definitely required, and not just from IEDS.

So how are our Pirhana’s arguably deficient in armour protection?

I will describe over coming posts a number of issues…but for now here is a a TO DO LIST of things which MAY need fixing with our Pirhanas…

NO SLAT/CAGE ARMOUR TO PROTECT FROM RPGS

NO REACTIVE ARMOUR TO REDUCE OTHER HEAT WARHEADS

NO ADVANCED DEFENSIVE AIDS SUITE (DAS) (ATGW/IED JAMMERS, DECOYS ETC.)

NO ADVANCED IFF (Interogation Friend or Foe) SYSTEMS TO PREVENT FRIENDLY FIRE INCIDENTS.

ARE WE DRAWING THE RIGHT LESSONS ON TATICAL INNOVATIONS/CHANGES TO DEFEAT IEDS FROM IRAQ/ASTAN?

NO MODERNISATION OF OUR PIRHANAS IN LIGHT OF EXPERIENCE IN RECENT CONFLICTS
(Where Similar US/Canadian Vehicles have had a mixed performance.)

punchdrunk

upgrade the mowag's? no chance!

here's what will happen

new overseas mission chosen

a mowag runs over a mine or gets hit by I.E.D

several fatalities cause outrage in daíl,on joe duffy,and in the Herald/Sun

Minister blames his predecessor,resigns but it's only a temporary sidestep

token upgrade for fleet is bought,as funding is tight

business as usual

lesson is swiftly forgotten by the DOD

punchdrunk

I also said long ago that we should upgrade the scorpions
like the UK did with the scimitar recently 5.9 ltr diesel etc
and also upgrade with the Oto Melara 30 mm used on the Mowags
(more useful in insurgency,and it's got ammo and training commonality with the mowag)
it would make for a great little recce tank

but we're just going to run them into the ground I'd say :rolleyes:

Avgas

Your right Punchdrunk....this should all be in WALT...because IMHO nobody in authority politically, in the civil service, or even in the DF itself has the Cojones to take LEADERSHIP on an issue like this...and there is the not trivial issue of the fact that WE HAVE NO MONEY.....

BUT...call me naive ......can't we at least raise the issue a bit so that somebody may just vaguely think a few years from now of updating the level of protection from what I suspect is today a pretty austere baseline level of protection.....

By raising the issue of improved protection here one can help lay a foundation for the issue to be raised more formally in later days...within the proper DF community....well......maybe.....

Also remember even with minimal money small things can be done...

One example.....

SLAT ARMOUR COULD BE IMPROVISED BY DEPOTS THEMSELVES AT COST.

Maybe in later posts I might suggest a few other relatively low cost ways of improving things......

We've always been a Yellow Pack Defence Forces....perhaps we could turn that realization/acceptance into the mother of invention/improvement?


Gasman Av.

punchdrunk

DF could raise plenty of money if it closed barracks/ranges that are underused!
for the size of the country we have a ridiculous amount of troops dotted all over the joint,unfortunately we've missed the boat on getting premium prices for the land but say the brugha for example could still be worth a pretty penny,even now

Local-womanizer

Avgas wrote: »

By raising the issue of improved protection here one can help lay a foundation for the issue to be raised more formally in later days...within the proper DF community....well......maybe.....

There within lies the problem though, only issues like this are considered within the DF. Politicians wouldent understand,let alone care about reactive armour or DAS on our Mowags. " Ah sure, its not like they are in Iraq or anything"

In fairness,I wouldent expect much from a Minister who is not even qualified in the line of work to put much thought into improving and up-grading the DF.

Good threads though, good to stoke up sensible debate and interest among readers here. Who knows,some of us could go on to be Defence minister,god forbid though!!

Avgas

I’d second a few barracks closing as long as it didn’t mean people living/working in portacabins…….it would have to be phased, planned and thought out well [everything we're not good at!]…and like you said Property is dead in Ireland for the next…maybe 50 years..who knows….

I’m now thinking more about the BORAT OPTION.

The unspoken assumption of what passes for Irish DF procurement has been that we’re staying with western/EU suppliers and not getting nothing from those shifty Russians, crafty Chinese or paranoid North Koreans.

Why should we accept that assumption?

(Ok…I really was joking about North Korea).

Note both Finland and even Sweden operate some old Warsaw pact equipment. For example, Sweden has purchased in quantity during the 1990s from Germany, ex-DDR Russian tracked MTLB vehicles (which are well regarded).

Many NATO members such as Poland or Hungary operate a mix of ex-Warsaw pact/Russian type gear and new western systems.

So it is normal to be a bit BORAT.

NATO is so used to it and just gets over/around it.

So why be snobby and assume western European or North American gear is the best/only show in town?

Its an interesting exercise to consider what one could get if we had less scruples or we were just much more assertive and creative in how and what we procure.

In particular note that Bulgaria, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech republic (etc.) all produce armoured vehicles which are usually significantly cheaper than what is offered from Swiss, French or German suppliers, etc. They’re all fellow EU states now, and very much kosher for that. So why have we not considered their offerings?

One cannot simply dismiss their offerings as crap gear.

Their Eurovision entries may be distinctly iffy…but they produce reasonable AFVs.

One example of a basic light vehicle is the Polish TUR (possible frontrunner for the bad marketing name of the year prize-winner 2010..as it reminds of turd).



Its got an IVECO yeah okay a Fiat type engine…(stop smirking!), weight around 6-7t and can carry 5 soldier-persons. They claim it can be armoured up to NATO level 3 protection….and interestingly the manufactuers claim it can withstand a 6kg TNT blast under the wheel arch…which is more or less the same as the RG32m vehicles we’re paying top dollar for……

The Poles also have developed there own DAS softkill system of countermeasures….or so they claim.

Even if you see such kit as the ALDI/LIDL option in terms of military gear…maybe that is exactly where we’re all shopping these days… so….maybe its time to see this as the wave of the future in the next decade….?

If we do procure anything at all for the DF more menancing than staplers in the next decade…it could well be the case that we’d be depending on our BORAT buddies for ‘bang for buck’.

Sobering.

(Time now for Avgas’s nightcap of a nice Polish beer from Dunnes. Value!).

Morpheus

I dont know why some of this stuff isnt built designed etc in ireland, expanding the arms industry here at a time like this could create jobs and in the end benefit our own military forces.

AbusesToilets

Avgas wrote: »

[I]"The war in Afghanistan won't be won by driving down the roads, you have to get out among the populace and pursue the enemy into his strongholds. You can't do that in a tank, at least not in Afghanistan."[/I]

Some good pts but....don't agree with you.

I find your position a bit contradictory.

You want them off roads....BUT presumably wheeled?
You feel Tanks are no good for this fight...BUT you want to close with and destroy them...
You prefer mobility over protection BUT this risks conflating mobility with protection...(its not in itself)

IMHO.....

Tracks, whether CV90s or improved M113s, are generally better off road than wheels, especially if your going to dismount/close in for combat from the vehicle.

AND They are actually using Tanks very successfully. See this Canadian report on how they've used Leopards, which is full of tactical insights: http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_10/iss_4/CAJ_vol10.4_03_e.pdf

BTW Tanks and tracks were even used successfully in PK ops in Bosnia by the Danish (Leopard 1s) and tracked APCs (M113s, Warriors, PV302s) all worked well in that theatre as well from a PK perspective.

Going off road systematically is a WISE AND GOOD TACTIC but....it probably requires a large fleet of tracked MICVs and logistics vehicles and especially armoured engineer vehicles (the most critical asset).

AND.........

You can never ever go fully off road.

Roads will still have to be used some of the time, if not actually a lot of the time. The idea of a force which used say 80% tracked vehicles and avoided roads 80% of the time is not very plausibe if only for simple economics. A more realistic ratio might be 30-40% off road and 70-60% on road. The reality is that if roads are in theatre they will be used and will have to be used/patroled and kept clear.

Note, that even if tracked vehicles were used to keep our soldiers free of risks, IEDs could still be used against civilian and aid vehicles on public roads-which could undermine any PK mission indirectly.

So going off-road can be part of the answer but not the whole answer.

I will explain in a further post exactly why and how I think our VEHICLE PROTECTION IS TOO WEAK.......:)

Av.

You're wrong with respect to tracks vs wheels. You can't climb up a boulder strewn mountainside with a tank or travel along a narrow mountain pass the way you can with a GMV or similar class of vehicle. They are designed with different roles in mind, and if the fight you are focusing on involves going out into that type of terrain, like Afghanistan, heavy tracked vehicles are not the answer. In addition to their physical restrictions, they also require a lot more support on the backside, in terms of maintenance and fuel. You can go farther, for longer and reach more areas in a GMV than you can in an Abrams. Now in an urban fight, heavy armor is much better, in terms of protection and firepower. You have to tailor your requirements to your needs, which is why you are unlikely to come across a one size fits all solution.

You can and should seek to go off road at all times, certainly in a rural environment. General TTPs of the Taliban is to en place IEDs along previously traveled routes. If you take a different path everytime you make yourself that much harder of a target. With a wheeled vehicle that's not too difficult, not so the heavier RG or armored type. So you are then required to armor up to survive the strike you can't avoid. In the race between bigger bang and more armor the advantage is firmly with the former.

iceage

Agree with Morpheus, is it not possible for the DF to up armour in house? Would keep the Engineers busy. Avgas, how much for one of these cheapo Russian/Polish APV's? If we buy 5 do we get the 6th one free??

Now for the real realm of Walt cos the country is broke as we all know, We'd need someome who can haggle for a good deal, a real horse trader of a buyer needed for this deal maybe Jackie Ray whats his name from Kerry, he'd know a good buy because sure as eggs are eggs these new badboys would need to be superceded within the next 5 years. Also as to tracks, Germanys Puma CCV maybe....bit pricey I'd reckon for ten or twelve of those.

syklops

Opsec just occurred to me!

lol.

Avgas

Found this quote through simple Google search so ya know may not be totally reliable.

“AMZ Kutno have made three Tur vehicles so far. They are being tested on training grounds. The company negotiates with the army sending them to Afghanistan for the trials. It also has a significant advantage over other offers - is is cheaper. Its unofficial price is 200 thousand euros, while the Eagle IV costs 400 thousands, RG-31 Mk5 - 300 thousands and LMV in a so-called base version - 250 thousands euros.”

Source: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?117515-News-humor-or-anything-else-related-to-Polish-military/page23

I’d say you could have 3 for a million Euro decked out to meet NATO SATNAG 3 all round….problem is we probably need a STANAG level 4 all round to become a new baseline…or at least level 4a for mine blast..

But the rough price comparison above gives an idea…anything from 50 to 20 per cent cheaper than western gear……

Avgas

TRACKS AND WHEELS NOT TRACKS VERSUS WHEELS

“You're wrong with respect to tracks vs wheels. You can't climb up a boulder strewn mountainside with a tank or travel along a narrow mountain pass the way you can with a GMV or similar class of vehicle.”

I’m NOT a ‘it has to be tracks or nothing’ man.

A tracks versus wheels debate is not very sensible-you need BOTH. I don’t want to go from my own OP so much into that side-issue. You’ll find huge theological disputes online between true believers of either camp. Who has time for that?

There is the guy we all know who posts about M113 "Gavins" or some such. His pet thing. As it happens many of his criticisms are OTT, but as often he also makes good pts.

Tracks REALLY ARE better for a majority of COMBAT MOBILITY (i.e moving under fire and giving fire) in many situations. The Israelis found out that half-tracks couldn’t cut it any more in the Sinai in 67 and 73 (partly because they were so knackered).

The BA found the handful of Scorpions and Scimtars they brought to the Falklands were V. Useful…and used them as taxis where no other vehicle (other than a helicopter) would do. Then they used them in direct combat as well.

The example you give of a boulder field on a mountain…well really…. Are you seriously go up that with a Pirhana or a Snatchrover…? Depends on the boulder size, quantity and the gradient…..you would have to go so slow in any vehicle that you would be an easy target… serious gradients/mountains have always been terrain chiefly for infantry, mules, maybe some quad type thingees, and of course….. helicopters……

A narrow mountain path….?

Most wheeled vehicles cannot pivot in place…..when you fit birdcage to a Stryker you’ve widened the clearance they need to guess what..…something like a Zelda or a Brad.

Anyhow one of the big complaints of Strykers crews was getting stuck in narrow mountain roads, getting ambushed and finding it either hard/impossible to turn…I think they have pivot steering…if they need it.

Tanks and Tracks can fight in hilly ground or mountains?

Tell that to the Israelis. Basalt boulders were endemic on parts of the Golan heights-they brought Zeldas and tanks up there to certain routes….and yes they lost vehicles to fire and several shed tracks……but imagine how they would have fared with Pirhanas or Strykers!

I’ll just use this quote from IDF tanky person (it seems):

Incidently it is a common mistake to think that the Achzarit was designed for urban warfare. It was not. It was intended for Combined Arms warfare in a heavy threat environment. Similarly the tank based low intensity warfare carriers such as the Nagmashot, Nagmachon and Nakpadon were designed for use in the hills of Lebanon, not the narrow streets of Hebron or Gaza.

From http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-15059.html


One of the biggest problems for tanks in hilly terrain is gun elevation/depression….as much as basic mobility.

Also don’t forget use of tanks in mountains in Korea. Again another quote:

“We all had praise for the tanks we used. On difficult Korean mountain country the tanks never let us down, either in mobility or fire power. Without the Centurians of the 8th.Kings Royal Irish Hussars the outcome might well have been the annihilation of the entire brigade.”

From: http://www.weaponsofwwii.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2193

Leadership

There is a common saying in the military "Fit for Role" and the Phirhana role is a battle field taxi. There is no doubt it is a very good at that role but what is the role of a battle field taxi? Well its to get troops to and from the FEBA providing small arms and shrapnel protection on the way.

For peace keeping it provides a limited function due to the limits of the protection. You do not need high mobility for what are mostly static operations with limited patrols and sporadic engagements.

For the Irish role I would agree its an expensive sitting duck IMO but only because Ireland does not have the right support vehicles to back it up.

Avgas

I kinda agree with your post but would also offer the following....

There is a common saying in the military "Fit for Role" and the Phirhana role is a battle field taxi. There is no doubt it is a very good at that role but what is the role of a battle field taxi? Well its to get troops to and from the FEBA providing small arms and shrapnel protection on the way.

In the 4th Gen non-linear wars there is no well defined FEBA. They can hit you on base/safe areas with vehicle suicide IEDS. That is one reason why you need a higher average standard of protection and a phase out of soft skinned support vehicles which really are sitting ducks.

For peace keeping it provides a limited function due to the limits of the protection. You do not need high mobility for what are mostly static operations with limited patrols and sporadic engagements.

Mobility is v. important for PK. You need to be doing continual recce..observation is bread and butter in PK. You need convoys not just for your own people but for Humanitarian aid....and you will need to use and keep roads open.....and if you face a serious opponent(s) you will need off road combat mobility to dodge ambushes, do patrols in force with suprise, etc.

For the Irish role I would agree its an expensive sitting duck IMO but only because Ireland does not have the right support vehicles to back it up

Actually the Pirhana MRV is a serious piece of kit..but we only have a handful. Even if we had more they would not prevent possible easy kills.....for example how would our IVECO or Scania trucks fare in a convoy ambush....? US has learned it has to up armour its in theatre truck fleet...many are heading towards NATO STANAG level 2 or 3...roughly akin to the new RG32m we're buying. BA are doing likewise I believe.

My outsider's impression is that our trucks have no protection whatsoever-we'll just leave it at that and not be more specific whether I'm right or wrong.

gizmo555

By Don Lavery

Saturday April 17 2010

New South African-made armoured vehicles, intended to protect Irish troops from land mines and improvised bombs on UN missions, were put on display yesterday.

The first two of 27 RG-32m armoured vehicles from BAE OMC have been delivered to the Curragh and the rest are scheduled to follow over the next few months.

The Irish Defence Forces is the first army in the world to order the new vehicle in a €20m contract.

Its features include a V-shaped hull which helps to protect soldiers from land-mine attack.

The effect of the lack of such a vehicle was underlined in 2008 when two Irish soldiers had a lucky escape in Lebanon when their unarmoured 4X4 was caught in a roadside blast.

The new vehicles first deployment will be with the EU Nordic Battlegroup in 2011.

The nine-tonne car will be used for a variety of tasks including carrying the Javelin guided missile, surveillance, communications and target acquisition.

- Don Lavery
Irish Independent

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/new-armoured-vehicles-go-on-parade-2141978.html

iceage

Took long enough, They were announced late 2008.

Avgas

Good post Gizmo555 and Good news.

It is a good piece of kit. Although it would be better for us if we had 80 of these and 27 Pirhanas BUT its the other way around.

If my Christian Brothers training in SUMS is correct, they work out at a cool 740,000 euro each.......Mama Mia!

I won't ruin the party by mentioning THE BORAT option (see post above)

I won't spoil the show by saying they "seem to have" only NATO STANAG level 2a protection..maybe 3...when we probably need level 4a (yes even for a scout vehicle).
NOTE: I have no actual knowledge of the level of protection from an official perspective my view is just an informed guess based on open source stuff from Janes, etc.

Being a journalist he totally missed the real story that a few of them will carry a state of the art Israeli ISTAR package....or maybe DF press were earning their pips by keep that connection on the sidelines... (it was raised in the Dáil!)

Oh and we still have a fleet of 80 Pirhanas which really need to be uparmoured (at least say 30-40 of them)...

And we have a fleet of trucks that need armour protection as well.

A lot done, more to do?

Now....when did we hear that before?

Avgas

Thought I'd try and keep this going....

SLAT ARMOUR BLUES

Our Pirhanas have no hull mounted slat armour which can reduce the risks of simple RPGs weapons getting an easy kill.

It is true that many within the US military no longer place a great deal of faith in it as a type of armour….(see http://www.armytimes.com/legacy/new/0-ARMYPAPER-759767.php) mainly because its really only useful at stopping about 60-50% of RPG7 or RPG2 strikes…..it will NOT defend from other HEAT warheads and other projectiles…

It also makes their Strykers hard to drive..clearance and stability problems…

BUT AS AN INTERIM AND IMPROVISED SOLUTION it has saved lives….

This armour works by disrupting the fusing mechanism of most RPGs, and as such prevents the warhead properly firing at all, rather than deflecting the blast.

Some sources suggest the weight of a slat armour kit is 5,000kg but others suggest it is more than this. Another source notes the BAe make a light weight aluminium version. See: https://www.strategyworld.com/dls/articles/20085284920.asp

Most US Stykers in Iraq and Astan now have these slat armour kits. The Americans appear to be moving towards a phase out and replacement with Reactive Armour slabs (which are much more costly).


I couldn’t find prices for US Slat armour kits….but this piece provides some indications and suggest that a cost per Ib in dollars for slat armour would be $20 a ib..... and for reactive armour it would be $40 a lb….…(see: http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articles/20060821.aspx?comments=Y)

Given that a full ‘skirt’ of birdcage is often cited at weighing at 7,000ibs this suggests a price tag of about $140,000 (104,000 Euro) which sounds okayish…..maybe less with discounts for bulk and troops usually fit them in the field…etc.

If we procured say 40 kits for half our Pirhana fleet that might cost…5.6m Euro…serious monzo given where we are at with NAMA, Volcanic Ash and Twink in trouble (again).

BUT could not improvised mesh/slat armour kits be developed in house by depots themselves?

Such kits were also improvised by the BA in NI in the 1970s and 80s.

Saw some nice steel pipe down at B&Q the other day.............

Avgas

I know our Pirhana IIIH are NOT strykers... its true!

They are actually WORSE in terms of protection and have none of the gizmos like BLUE FORCE TRACKER etc...

So the discussion about Stryker shortcomings and successes is relevant to my OP about our Pirhana.

Here are TWO LINKS...

FIRST an interesting link which describes us stryker shortcomings….

http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/stryker.html

SECOND, an official US army site that puts a different, mainly positive and more up to date perspective on things. In fairness it has some criticial posts and points out their new Stryker A1 will have proper V shaped hulls…..BTW admitting that mine/IED protection needs to be significantly improved (probably above STANAG 4a).

But I suspect this site is mainly a PR exercise given the criticisms of the vehicle stateside.

http://www.strykernews.com/

Judge for yourself.

Avgas

Becoming a bit of solo run up the field now.....nobody interested I guess?

Just some more cud to chew......

I am not aware whether Irish Pirhanas have add-on kits which give extra protection from heavier sniper weapons (in 12.7 and 14.5mm) and from HMGs and even cannons (20-23mm). Doubtless that is an OPSEC matter, but I get a bit worried.

Such heavy wepaons are often carried by your discerning thug in jeep like vehicles (technicals) throughout Somalia, Chad and other places where you can’t play decent golf but might have to keep the peace.

The Pirhana IV version does seem to have a basic hull intrinsic armour level which is proof against 14.5mm all over and 25mm in the front. US Army basic Stryker vehicles which are analgous to Pirhana IIIs (but above in ways) are quoted as having overall protection from 14.5mm rds. Not sure about ours.

The problem is these kits are usually MEGA MONEY and we’ve blown all the confirmation envelope on executive apartments in Moate (or NAMA).

In any event, what these add-on armour tiles ONLY do is provide protection against heavy machine gun (or heavy sniper) AP rds.

For that reason alone the next step up is probably some type of Reactive Armour.

I have never seen such fitted on Irish Pirhanas. Let us just then assume that this type of armour is not fitted, leaving open the possibility that something like this might be in issue but cannot be confirmed/denied for reasons of OPSEC.

It is more usually called Explosive Reactive Armour (ERA). Many DF personnel will have seen Blazer ERA tiles mounted on Israeli tanks in the Leb in the 1980s and 1990s. It works by matching the blast of a single charge HEAT warhead (not just RPG7 rds) with a deflecting counter blast, although depending on the model, a full set of such ERA slabs can be both bulky and heavy.

However, today there are ‘friendly’ ERA kits. These variants of explosive reactive armour (ERA) have a much lower signature counter-blast and therefore are probably safe enough for use on peacekeeping vehicles where one important concern would be to avoid risks to nearby civilians.

For example, there is a German product CLARA ( Composite Lightweight Reactive Armour). Details of the CLARA kits can be found on: http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/359/

Such ERA slabs are not perfect. They will probably not protect against a tandem HEAT charge such as the RPG29 or RPG32 use, and they would not come cheap (my v. rough guess is anything from euro 300,000-500,000 per vehicle kit-or close between 33-50% the value of the vehicle!).

However, they would likely provide a wider range of protection than just slat armour plus ceramic tiles or even the baseline existing level of armour.

Another crowd in the (booming) business is a Swedish firm, see http://www.akerskrutbruk.se/website1/1.0.1.0/50/1/
Who offer similar add on modules for various threats, budgets and weights……While yet another German firm that produce good armour kits are IBD, see http://www.ibd-deisenroth-engineering.de/products.html

According to their website OUR FRIENDS the Swedes, the Finns and the Canadians all have IBD MEXAS panels fitted in various configurations to their Pirhana or similar vehicles.

No mention of EIRE:(

Manic Moran

You're wrong with respect to tracks vs wheels. You can't climb up a boulder strewn mountainside with a tank or travel along a narrow mountain pass the way you can with a GMV or similar class of vehicle.

In fairness, I really think that Scimitars or Wiesels or some similar light tracked vehicle would have been absolutely fantastic in our neck of the woods.

It is worth noting that the trend for wheeled APCs of late has moved to 'heavier' rather than 'lighter'. See the Boxer or VBCI for examples, both come in at some 25 tons.

NTM

punchdrunk

Manic Moran wrote: »

In fairness, I really think that Scimitars or Wiesels or some similar light tracked vehicle would have been absolutely fantastic in our neck of the woods.

It is worth noting that the trend for wheeled APCs of late has moved to 'heavier' rather than 'lighter'. See the Boxer or VBCI for examples, both come in at some 25 tons.

NTM

I agree! our scorpy's would be very usefull on missions if they got a new,smaller Gun
make them more like the scimitar

iceage

Scorpion would need to up armoured as well though wouldn't it. If not one of those big IED's from Terry would make a serious inpression on a crews breakfast.

Avgas, forget all this armour milarky, see can you think up an IED sniffing device thingy with a range of say, 300 mtrs. built it in Ireland, sell it to the Yanks, UK etc. Sorted. Oh and rats don't count someone already sussed that one out.;)

Afterthought...How many Scorpions are left in Ireland. OpSec and all that...a rough number.

Avgas

Forgive me Iceage

but a fella can't be doin without his nice slab of armour....

You'll always need some armour...what about a bog standard RPG...never mind the fancy ones that can't really be stopped....?

BTW great idea on the IED sniffer..and I'd 100% we R&D/build here.... US have stuff like that in various mods...various experiments...not open source for obvious reasons...apparently mixed results....although the homemade HE the Tban are brewing up should have chemical properties about which make it easier to sniff..... trouble is if the IED is over 500kg and you sniff it at 20m.... its no bloody good when the guy 1km fires the command line......:(


As an aside....have an older neighbour who has a pretty smart Spaniel who would just love to go to Helmand to find rabbits rather than do the paper run..... there is you best IED sniffer there for you !...

Well I jest of course (only in part..reminder for future thread "TACTICAL USE OF DOGS FOR IRISH DF....:))

Can't say the Scorp or Wiesel impress me for what Irish DF need, because I think a bit too small to carry extra armour.....you also want the thing to be able to carry various ploughs, rollers and flails for a spot of cross country EOD "as you go".... but of course that small size would make them handy for mountain roads...recce...I see that.

The big objection to all tracked vehicles is that they usually cost even more than our pricy Pirhanas, and yet for the IED threat they are no better intrinsically armoured underneath. Just even proposing it would maybe cause at least one heart seizure in the Dept. of Finance.

Indeed a basic M113 is certainly less protected than our Pirhana IIIs, even if it probably has overall better mobility cross country because its tracked (although it might be slower/noisy).

So If you want off road as a systematic tactical capability to counter IEDS, then tracks seem logical. That’s the nub or my argument.

The obvious candidate is actually surplus M113s ( forget calling them Gavins or any such nonsense! We could call them M113 O'Deas I suppose?)

Now, nobody serious would ever suggest we deploy soldiers in unmodified M113s or similar. The only game in town with tracked vehicles is therefore modifications…especially extra belly plates …just like the extra armour upgrade programmes that are underway for US Strykers and Canadian LAVs ( But NOT our Pirhana IIIs!).

The country with the most knowhow on this is Israel, who will happily sell you heavily modified tracked M113s, or the kits to modify them yourself, and although exact details are murky these do appear to offer much greater protection from RPGs, ATGWs and even IEDs. An example of what they think an M113 should now look like given threats can be found at: http://defense-update.com/products/u/urbanfighter.htm

That website CLAIMS that they can provide such vehicles for 10 per cent the cost of a brand new MRAP and it can be ready within DAYs…….

If doing business with Israel is not your cup of Chai then Canada and the USA all offer either brand new M113s modified (yep its still available!), or modified old M113s. And there would be loads of old M113s to buy-the US alone has apparently thousands in storage.

I freely admit that given our financial status for maybe the next 20 years….this discussion of tracked APCs for us…is BODERLINE WALT…….but you’ve got to live a little?

The reasoning is logical, if perhaps a bit OTT.

But then war is OTT?

Over the top is the world we are in.

Just think of that bloody ash!

Manic Moran

iceage wrote: »

Scorpion would need to up armoured as well though wouldn't it. If not one of those big IED's from Terry would make a serious inpression on a crews breakfast.

You can't uparmour a Scorp to a level that it would survive the size of blasts we saw in our AO in Afghanistan. But it would be wonderfully fast on the trails.

Avgas, forget all this armour milarky, see can you think up an IED sniffing device thingy with a range of say, 300 mtrs. built it in Ireland, sell it to the Yanks, UK etc. Sorted. Oh and rats don't count someone already sussed that one out.;)

If they did, they haven't gotten it to us in Afghanistan yet. Even our route-clearing packages found more IEDs by getting blown up.

Afterthought...How many Scorpions are left in Ireland. OpSec and all that...a rough number.

14, isn't it?

NTM

Morpheus

yes, 14 and its not opsec, its available on the web somewhere.

wasnt the EOD hobo robot designed / built in ireland?

iceage

Great piece of kit though, and as you say quick and nimble.

Avgas

Working through my PIRHANA TO DO LIST.......

FUTURE PROTECTION -DEFENSIVE AIDS SUITES (DAS)

As far as I’m aware our Pirhana have no proper advanced DAS system, which wouldn’t be that unusual because the technology is still evolving and most major armies don’t have many advanced working DAS suites on their APCs.

Our Pirhans do have normal smoke dischargers but nothing advanced, especially to deter from ATGW attacks. The problem with traditional smoke grenades is that they take time for a smoke screen to build, so that you need something much faster.

An advanced DAS has an automatic quick fire/response mode for smoke and can lay down a much deeper screen much faster.

Remember Many non-state actors now have advanced ATGWs or LAAWs (Hezbollah, Hamas, FARC..who appear to have AT4 SRAAWs, etc.).

DAS can be a relatively simple passive system or a complex active system, and they can also employ soft-kill or hard kill approaches. The latter is probably not suitable for us given PK and ACP roles being predominant for the Irish DF.

High tech versions of these DAS are found in Israeli and Russian service (and the US is developing a DAS system called QUICK KILL). These typically use small radars to detect incoming missiles or shells and automatically fire special fast grenades to destroy such warheads well away from the target vehicles.

Such systems are probably not relevant for Ireland, given their cost, complexity and risks to nearby civilians (never of great concern to either the Israeli or Russian armed forces it seems).

Some sources suggest an advanced DAS system would set you back between Euro 200-300,000!

However, over the next decade and beyond, further research is likely so that we will see lighter, perhaps cheaper and more robust systems which use more controlled blasts effects that pose less risks to civilians.

In particular the ‘soft kill’ DAS systems which detect attacks and deploy jamming and smoke obscurants to disrupt the attack, should be a key area of future interest to us.

Central to this is usually a Laser Warning Receiver (LWR)

A number of laser detection systems exist which tell the crew if they have been ‘painted’ by a laser guided missile-something they would want to know about sooner rather than later. The British use the Avimo Lird-2, the French uses a GIAT KBCM system.

BTW the same LWR would help in avoiding fratricide as a convoy OC could get a quick warning that they have been ‘painted’ and red smoke or whatever measures could be taken to try and get the strike averted.

The French have the GALIX system which also can be used for riot control. AFAIK the system is a 76mm calibre so I’m not sure if it would be compatible with our existing 66mm smoke dischargers. The GALIX range of munitions includes IR obscuring smoke, and IR decoys. The Germans have a more advanced system termed MUSS which includes a 76mm grenade discharger, four missile/laser sensors and an active IR jammer. It weighs less than 200kg.

All of these would be major money/complexity, but it is the trend of the future.

Other stuff we need to consider that falls within the EW and ECM/ESM category would be something like the Husky ground penetrating radar combined with rollars and its light enough to be mounted on a Humvee.

Something like that could be either bought (or maybe even improvised DIY) and fitted to a Pirhana ( you might only a half dozen or so)…

There are also a wide variety of radio frequency based jammers such as the WARLOCK system or SYMPHONY jammers….again radio jamming is not new, and it should be possible with a bit of money for DIY Irish variants to be improvised which will jam mobile phone cells and other radio frequencies….when needed.

We have some good electronics firms/people here in Ireland and within the DF...surely improv semi-DIY stuff could be evolved/trialled at lower costs than the big ticket items?

Avgas

Oh and while I'm at it........


PIRHANAS HAVE NO IFF/BLUE FORCES TRACKER/LINK 16 TO AVOID FRIENDLY FIRE.

There has been a revolution in situational awareness in the US armies and other advanced forces such as the BA and the French. Okay…that is overstating things….in fact traditional IFF and Combat ID methods remain in place and HUMAN SOPs in CID remain critical…there is no holy grail of a ‘silver bullet’ transponder that will prevent blue on blue in 100% of cases BUT the technology is evolving.

The US and some of its allies are using digitial battlespace data sharing and real time management systems which allow greater tactical sharing of a common battlespace ‘picture’ which can then be shared between troops on the ground, fire support, forward air controllers and air support assets as well, etc. The US have bluetracker and its has worked well in Iraq in 2003.

These systems are important in also preventing a ‘blue on blue’ incident…although they can never prevent basic human error…..

A reasonable short background to fratricide issues can be found at: http://www.army-technology.com/features/feature1403/

In 2003 there was the infamous incident where two A10 Thunderbolts attacked a British mechanized recce unit with light Scimtars….the British were relying of basic radio relays of their position to a FAC who together with the pilots failed to positively establish the presence of friendly forces position by exact grid refs. Nor were the pilots given the exact grid refs of the target and yet they commenced attack without such refs. Instead the pilots were told there were well away from friendlies and then to compound errors they pilots attacked a target without getting either clear grid refs or permission from the FAC!

The BA vehicles had orange HiViz roof panels, thermal/IR spectrum panels (TIPs) and Union Jacks. Crucially the BA TIPs on Scimtars were different from what US pilots (who were Air National Guard Reservists) were familiar with.

Extensive details from the BA Board on Inquiry can be found here is you’ve interest and time for a longish read:
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/887DE696-1DB9-4512-AF8E-2ECFED455356/0/boi_lcpl_hull.pdf

In this months An Cosantoir there is a nice photo of one our Pirhanas in Chad. It has a white UN panel on the rear and maybe a white panel (or something) on the roof. In fact the panel on the side is v. dirty. At 50m its obvious its an Irish UN PK vehicle (the soldiers with the blue sun hats help)....but at 1,000m....and flying fast in a Mirage F1 or some such?

Use of Hi Viz panels is probably tactically dubious these days in part because it can actually identify a vehicle to an enemy and in part because the Taliban have on at least one occasion used HiViz vest and panels to confuse US CAS assets into holding fire….and in the Iraq 2003 A10 incident the pilots mistakenly identified the orange ID panels as orange rockets (or at least they said that)! The BA Scimtar crews also used red smoke grenades after being hit and this was effective in getting the pilots to not attack a third time…but one has to wonder whether such an expedient could not be used by an adversary as well?

Since that incident the BA have sustained fatalities in at least three more ‘blue on blue’ incidents with US forces….and there have been fratricide incidents involvng BA and Danish Army and a serious Dutch army incident where their own people were killed….

Have we been lucky?
Is fratricide not so relevant for PK?
Is our doctrine and equipment to prevent fratricide state of the art?

OS119

Avgas wrote: »

Have we been lucky?
Is fratricide not so relevant for PK?
Is our doctrine and equipment to prevent fratricide state of the art?

1. very lucky.

2. any PK op where force force is used can involve B/B - force was used by UNPROFOR in Bosnia, KFOR in Kosovo, ISAF in Afghanistan, and INTERFET in East Timor, all PK opps in which Irish Troops participated.

3. i think Irish political doctrine on fratricide is more relevent than its military doctrine and equipment - if Irish troops are not sent to locations where any form of fighting might be required, the chances of B/B - and therefore the need for doctrinal and equipment meassures to combat it - are somewhat lessened...

quite whether the IA should continue to rely on the well-proven genius of the Irish political class to ensure that no PK OP ever goes wrong, or that the intellectually sublime assumptions/predictions they make before a PK OP is undertaken will always be correct, in order to not have Irish soldiers turned into a warm, pink mist in the future is perhaps another issue.

Avgas

Agree with your post OS119.. esp. point 3.

Yes your right it is mainly indirectly via a political doctrine (triple lock, neutrality confusions, money etc.) that we have so far avoided the more intense PK missions

(I'm not saying that Chad didn't have its moments, nor the Leb, etc.).

Successive Irish government being timid and indecisive have saved Irish DF lives (at the cost of other peoples' lives perhaps?)

But we've been lucky enough not to have ended up like the DUTCH BN in Srebrenicia...for NOW....

The problem is politicians are fickle...cynical animals...

YES for now we're broke and the DF are more or less grounded......

BUT who knows...5 years from now....maybe somebody senior in Govt. wants to earn brownie points for a big job in Brussels.......and the DF are asked to send a unit with other EU states on a UN mandate, say with Pirhanas, somewhere that is not quite Astan but not quite Chad either..... say somewhere like the border between Venezuala and Columbia... (pretty wild example...I admit)

Not highly probable but possible

My question is would Irish DF be worse off than others-MORE AT RISK of frat?

I think the answer is YES...because we are not NATO members and because we have a small and poorly resourced military....

The risk of error leading to fratricide is systematically greater the further you are away from NATO and especially US SOPs and technologies….

And the further you are away from ongoing joint training with THOSE who would provide fire and air support is vital to AVOID fratricide…..

And it would most likely be that your fire/air support would come from NON-IRISH DF elements........ it would likely be a FRENCH/EU or a NATO CAS package....to bail you out if there was a serious problem.

Also you need to spend money to keep in the technology game.....

The future is apparently…something like LINK16 which is now common for NATO air assets but not so common yet for land forces…..and crucially for us are we there at all?

I’m not sure if we are already Link 16 capable with regard to the type of signals gear we have/can fit to any mobile ground columns (whether on Pirhanas or the new RG32ms)….but if we aren’t….. then we should be presumably thinking about the capability of fitting additional communications gear…

Something like this maybe….. http://www.viasat.com/government-communications/data-links/midslvt2-link-16-tactical-ground-vehicle-terminal

Perhaps because we are not NATO such technology would be/has been denied to us? I don’t know, but I suspect that could be gotten around in some way.

One thing we could do that would cost much less money, is simply to train with NATO more/better to address this threat. Or at least send observers.

The UK hosted a big EX called URGENT QUEST in 2005 to trial and test new technology and SOPs for CID. One big idea that came out of that was the fitting of so called Anthea radar tags on vehicles (see http://www.ccnmag.com/article/athena_radar-responsive_tag)

Since then there have been ongoing BOLD QUEST exercises annually…(see http://www.ccidactd.com/).

Not sure if Irish DF have (or can) send observers BUT if we haven’t and its politically permissible…that surely that should be a critical trip for someone(s)…..?

In fairness, Blue on Blue, remains a huge problem for ALL ARMIES... The BA in particular have thrown bags of money and technology at the problem for the last decade and more....(for a UK perspective on CID and future trends can be found at: http://www.defencetalk.com/mod-committed-to-improving-combat-identification-for-uk-forces-11815/)

However, the House of Commons was v.critical of BA efforts to impove CID…(See http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmpubacc/486/486.pdf)

They lost 6 people to fratricide in Iraq 2003.

Despite all the money thrown at the problem it seems no great changes have arrived….the major BA line today is to rely on ‘greater situational awareness through the BOWMAN digitial data/radio network'….which has only fully been in place as of 2007…..

Now.......

If the BA are still more or less deficient in CID after taking fatalities and spending oggles of money and getting the new BOWMAN system up and running…

one has to wonder about Irish DF readiness?

Or am I just grumpy because of the ash?

Avgas

Just out of curiosity does Irish DF have a dedicated officer/team assigned to the entire issue of Friendly Fire?

Do NOT mention the name of anyone or give details....I would just like to know if such a job/outfit is/are in existence or not..?

Is it covered in annual training ex's as part of the scenario script....

(may not want to reply on that).

OS119

Avgas wrote: »

...one has to wonder about Irish DF readiness?

its all about training, and in particular training that involves different units/arms/forces/nations fighting on the same piece of real estate.

B/B very rarely happens in a single unit scenario - Support Coy doesn't tend to brass-up one of B Coy's rifle platoons, it happens when heavy wpns/artillery/air spt meet infantry or cavalry, usually from outside their own 'little world'.

even then it only really happens in two circumstances: when some poor bastard is screaming for support because he's about to be over-run and the guy listening makes a decision to fire knowing he hasn't got all the information/confirmation he'd normaly require before firing into an area that contains friendly forces, but believes that the risk to the boy on the ground is so severe that he has to shoot NOW and if he doesn't the the other bloke is going to die - and in situations where the rules are well-known, entirely sensible, explicit and somebody just disregards them completely.

nothing will stop the second, but if the UK/US/FRA/GER/DAN etc, who all carry out big combined/multi-national forces exercises, suffer from the effects of units grinding against each other then one has to ask serious questions about quite how effective - and 'safe' - the Irish practice of using other forces (French Air Force in Chad for example) as its 'big stick' would be in real life when, in comparison to those NATO forces, they do almost no combined forces/multi-national exercises.

the word 'frightening' springs to mind....

Avgas

see below

Avgas

Yep, OS119....agreed....frightening is a word that comes to mind...

mind you...the risk of B/B because Irish PK forces might need fire support from OTHERS...does actually make a strong logical case for the deployment of our own 105mm light guns (or even the Swiss 120mm mortars we have now!)...a bit nutty at first hear I accept...BUT it would mean an OC would have their own integral fire support which was 'theirs', in case of a real emergency and therefore you might not need to call in a French F1...only to have them dump on on us.......just a thought?

I can see the Arty boys loving that line.:)

Avgas

Towards the end of my Pirhana 'To do list'....now....

My question here is:

Are we learning lessons....the right lessons...from Astan and Iraq?

It might be argued that we have little to learn from these conflicts as they are high intensity COIN, and not really PK operations.

More naively, some of our general public, or our political class, may argue Irish soldiers would not be perceived as ‘occupiers’ and therefore we would not be targeted.

In fact we are part of the west/EU and would be seen as such.

Many national contingents are operating in Astan and Iraq under rules of engagement which are analogous to PK ROEs, and they do not seek active combat as part of their mandate (which may be UN specified).

Nonetheless, they can just easily get targetted with IEDs. Witness Germans ambushed on Good Friday in Astan.

In short we may be asked to do PK in a future context where there are other forces engaged in high intensity peace enforcement or COIN, even if we’re not.

That means our forces would be at risk and should expect a wide diversity of threats.

Just because it hasn’t happened in the past is no guarantee it won’t in future

I suggest we have s**t loads to learn from these conflicts.....

especially about what is the new standard in vehicle protection, about the IED threat(s), and most of all about tactics....

So....lads and ladies...what lessons should we learn to keep our Pirhana bound people safer and better able to do their jobs?

Old pennies for your thoughts?

Morpheus

Ive already suggested this somewhere before, that our own artillery should deploy at least a battery to our own bases when overseas.

Think of the protective footprint we would have around the camp with a handful of L119's PLUS both infantry and artillery would have trained integrally at home before deployment.

Its mad that this DOESNT happen, same as we arent deploying medium lift heli's.

OS119

Morphéus wrote: »

Ive already suggested this somewhere before, that our own artillery should deploy at least a battery to our own bases when overseas.

Think of the protective footprint we would have around the camp with a handful of L119's PLUS both infantry and artillery would have trained integrally at home before deployment.

Its mad that this DOESNT happen, same as we arent deploying medium lift heli's.

its not just the B/B dangers of the fire support packages that the 'un-jointed-ness' of Irish deployments throws up, its that, as it stands, the primary fighting unit of the Irish Army is the Infantry BattleGroup (Infantry Bn, with its own Arty Bty, Engineers, Signals, Log Spt and Cavalry/Armour) - yet no Irish officer has ever commanded such a force in an operational setting.

we've never tried it, but we expect to get it right first time should we ever need the Army to be able to fight in a moment of national survival.

i think Sir Humphrey would of described such a policy as 'couragous'.

Avgas

Agreed ...one lesson we need to communicate to the great Irish public is that PK does not = a nice sunny holiday

(even it usually does help develop the tan).

The lesson of the last decade is you need a full spectrum of capabilities in the event of hostile action on a PK mission...and that means a balanced coherent battle group that as OS119 points out has lived and trained together seamlessly....are we there yet?:rolleyes:

Arty in the form of 105 or 120mm was SO useful in Bosnia...could easily be again...and Helicopters are just ESSENTIAL....but because helis are so technically finicky and they are GOLDPLATED items....the bean counters will never likely allow them south of the Skellings......and AFAIK our Aw139s do NOT have the special sand filters you would need for even a short hop in the Sahara......

However, there are other tactical lessons to be learned IMHO...

The most basic one of all is to get the Irish public and politicians to understand that IEDS are now the major tactical threat of significance to IRISH DF on future PK ops....

I mean in the sense that they are the threat most likely to cause fatalities even if they could remain actually quite rare events....on a frequency basis we are more likely to encounter...bog standard "firing close" events, which are usually much less dangerous...and the Pirhana can handle small arms fire quite well...

Equally the threat of an idiot(s) with a basic RPG7 just chancing his luck against one our convoys...well he would have to be brave, lucky and foolish given that our Pirhanas could get him with mounted weapons....so again that threat of a conventional ambush can be sort of managed tactically in a more obvious way... far from perfect... because as I've pointed we don't even have the 50% solution of slat armour fitted......

BUT we are way exposed to the IED threat......

Both the Pirhanas and the RG32M could be taken out by quite simple and low scale IEDs...nothing fancy like a 500ib megabombs or an EFP IED would be needed.....just 10-15kgs of HE......

And yet that threat could be managed as well.

BlaasForRafa

Avgas wrote: »

Indeed a basic M113 is certainly less protected than our Pirhana IIIs, even if it probably has overall better mobility cross country because its tracked (although it might be slower/noisy).

So If you want off road as a systematic tactical capability to counter IEDS, then tracks seem logical. That’s the nub or my argument.

The obvious candidate is actually surplus M113s ( forget calling them Gavins or any such nonsense! We could call them M113 O'Deas I suppose?)

Now, nobody serious would ever suggest we deploy soldiers in unmodified M113s or similar. The only game in town with tracked vehicles is therefore modifications…especially extra belly plates …just like the extra armour upgrade programmes that are underway for US Strykers and Canadian LAVs ( But NOT our Pirhana IIIs!).

The country with the most knowhow on this is Israel, who will happily sell you heavily modified tracked M113s, or the kits to modify them yourself, and although exact details are murky these do appear to offer much greater protection from RPGs, ATGWs and even IEDs. An example of what they think an M113 should now look like given threats can be found at: http://defense-update.com/products/u/urbanfighter.htm

Forget about M113's, probably the best protected APC's at the moment are the Namers in Israeli service ie converted Merkava's.

I'm surprised no western nation has gone down the heavy APC route like the Nagmachon/Achzarit/Namer APCs. There must be plenty of older Challengers, Leopards or Abrams etc that could be converted.

OS119

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Forget about M113's, probably the best protected APC's at the moment are the Namers in Israeli service ie converted Merkava's.

I'm surprised no western nation has gone down the heavy APC route like the Nagmachon/Achzarit/Namer APCs. There must be plenty of older Challengers, Leopards or Abrams etc that could be converted.

they just aren't mobile enough, because of their weight the'd be limited to a fairly small number of bridges and roads - and that makes them even easier targets. you just make a bigger bomb - and you don't need a very big bomb to blow a track.

mobility makes planting IED's a real hit and miss affair - if your enemy can travel off road, can use any bridge and cross most obsticles then the chances of you laying an IED that someone is going to roll over is pretty slim. if you can then add to that with a DAS/ECM package that means 70% of the bombs you put in the right place either don't go off or explode prematurely, and then use V shapped hulls and all the other goodies to ensure that even if your enemy manages to lay an IED in the right place, and has the good fortune to have it go off at the right time, your soldiers 'walk away' with broken ankles, nose-bleeds and burst eardrums, then pretty soon your enemy is going to decide that IED's are a source of diminishing returns and try something else.