U.K to replace CVR(T) - will Ireland ?

aindriu80

I just have seen the following :

UK places GBP3.5 billion Scout SV order

The United Kingdom has ordered 589 General Dynamics UK Scout Specialist Vehicle (SV) platforms in a GBP3.5 billion (USD5.8 billion) contract announced on 3 September...........Scout SV will replace the British Army's Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) - CVR(T) - family of vehicles, which have been in service since the 1970s.

Are there any plans to replace the CVR(T) in the Irish Defence Forces ? They are getting a bit old now and seeing that we don't have that many of them surely we could order a replacement.

sparky42

aindriu80 wrote: »

I just have seen the following :

UK places GBP3.5 billion Scout SV order

Are there any plans to replace the CVR(T) in the Irish Defence Forces ? They are getting a bit old now and seeing that we don't have that many of them surely we could order a replacement.

I don't think it will matter (why we didn't pick up some of the surplus Scorpions when the UK was getting rid of them is a different question), wouldn't it make more sense to buy more MOWAG's maybe more 30mm, or the 105mm variant? Share the logistic chains, training systems?

Sure as hell the UK choice isn't going to be cost viable, depending on the way you calculate it, it's going to be £6 million a unit at least, so £84 million/€100+ million for a one for one replacement program and then support costs...

aindriu80

sparky42 wrote: »

I don't think it will matter (why we didn't pick up some of the surplus Scorpions when the UK was getting rid of them is a different question), wouldn't it make more sense to buy more MOWAG's maybe more 30mm, or the 105mm variant? Share the logistic chains, training systems?

Sure as hell the UK choice isn't going to be cost viable, depending on the way you calculate it, it's going to be £6 million a unit at least, so £84 million/€100+ million for a one for one replacement program and then support costs...

The commonality with the MOWAG's would make a lot of sense but we should have some tracks with a gun. I don't think the D.F would pick what the U.K picked. €100m is a lot when we don't even make the bare minimum on defence spending.

sparky42

aindriu80 wrote: »

The commonality with the MOWAG's would make a lot of sense but we should have some tracks with a gun. I don't think the D.F would pick what the U.K picked. €100m is a lot when we don't even make the bare minimum on defence spending.

Why tracks with a gun, if you can get wheeled with just as an effective a system and reduce lifespan costs? Have the Scorpions ever deployed on missions? We don't have the budgets for "fleet's within fleets", we have the MOWAG platform I say stick with it.

aindriu80

sparky42 wrote: »

Why tracks with a gun, if you can get wheeled with just as an effective a system and reduce lifespan costs? Have the Scorpions ever deployed on missions? We don't have the budgets for "fleet's within fleets", we have the MOWAG platform I say stick with it.

They brought the scorpions to the Leb maybe a decade ago. They work. No action though.

sparky42

aindriu80 wrote: »

They brought the scorpions to the Leb maybe a decade ago. They work. No action though.

I didn't remember that (and I wasn't being a smart ass about it), but again in such a deployment, different spares, or common spares? Given our budgets everything that reduces costs should be looked at (just one of the reasons I'm happy to see the 20's go from the Navy)

OS119

another MOWAG buy would make more operational sense as others have said - a single supply, maintainance and training chain being the obvious reason - and 'go anywhere' tracks make little sense if the rest of the force can't follow...

that said, i am unconvinced by the 30mm gun - 30mm makes a right mess of stuff, no doubt about it - but 30mm has a much shorter range than a large number of the commonly used insurgent weapons (82mm mortar, 107mm rocket etc..), and its not brilliant at penetrating mud-built structures.

Larbre34

Anything with a 100mm+ gun if they are serious about the combat in combat/recce vehicle.

The Austrian/Spanish ASCOD LT105 is very nice, couple of squads of them could be negotiated as a nice EU stimulus!

Heraldoffreeent

Larbre34 wrote: »

Anything with a 100mm+ gun if they are serious about the combat in combat/recce vehicle.

The Austrian/Spanish ASCOD LT105 is very nice, couple of squads of them could be negotiated as a nice EU stimulus!

The Scout SV that the BA are buying is a varient of ASCOD.

Heraldoffreeent

aindriu80 wrote: »

They brought the scorpions to the Leb maybe a decade ago. They work. No action though.

The Scorps were never deployed abroad.

sparky42

Larbre34 wrote: »

Anything with a 100mm+ gun if they are serious about the combat in combat/recce vehicle.

The Austrian/Spanish ASCOD LT105 is very nice, couple of squads of them could be negotiated as a nice EU stimulus!

What Recce vehicle mounts a 100mm+ weapon? The UK's new Scout system isn't going to (using the Cased 40mm they have developed),nor off the top of my head any of the currently developing generation of IFV's baseline with a 100mm+ weapon (ie Puma, CV90 family (yes they have 100mm+ but the majority of platforms don't)

Heraldoffreeent

sparky42 wrote: »

What Recce vehicle mounts a 100mm+ weapon? The UK's new Scout system isn't going to (using the Cased 40mm they have developed),nor off the top of my head any of the currently developing generation of IFV's baseline with a 100mm+ weapon (ie Puma, CV90 family (yes they have 100mm+ but the majority of platforms don't)

Well, The US tried some heavy on the stryker, but seeing as how that didn't progress too far I guess we know the answer to "What about a Mowag with a 100mm+ Gun ?" question.

sparky42

Heraldoffreeent wrote: »

Well, The US tried some heavy on the stryker, but seeing as how that didn't progress too far I guess we know the answer to "What about a Mowag with a 100mm+ Gun ?" question.

On the other hand the CM 32 that Timoney was involved in is suggested to be fitted with a 105mm in some variants, in the case of the US could it just be because they have an abundance of M-1's and plenty of fire support that made it not viable to develop?

arybvtcw0eolkf

aindriu80 wrote: »

They brought the scorpions to the Leb maybe a decade ago. They work. No action though.

We've never taken the Scorpion's overseas.

OS119

sparky42 wrote: »

...What Recce vehicle mounts a 100mm+ weapon?...

this is where the problem lies - the clearly demarked catagories just don't translate from one Army to another.

the UK SV with its 40mm gun will be acting as part of a package, a package that will include MBT's, IFV's, Artillery, AH etc.. same goes for the Swedish CV90 and all the others - but in Irish service it won't, it'll be the big sharp stick that with Javelin will be pretty much all the commander has.

so, while a 100+mm gun is just pointless duplication in other armies, its probably quite a good idea in an Irish context - or, at least, having something reasonably well protected with high mobility capable of firing a big (guided?) round a long way is probably a good idea...

Javelin is great, but it does cost €70,000 a shot - you can image that firstly not many get taken anywhere, and that secondly the guidance surrounding its use does not start with 'go for it, use as many as you like..'.

Heraldoffreeent

sparky42 wrote: »

On the other hand the CM 32 that Timoney was involved in is suggested to be fitted with a 105mm in some variants, in the case of the US could it just be because they have an abundance of M-1's and plenty of fire support that made it not viable to develop?

Its possible, although I'm wondering if sticking a 100/120mm gun on what is a relatively smallish platform a workable solution.
Yeah I think the Thai Military have a CM 32 with a fairly large Gun, but how the cm compares to the Mowag, and how successful that variant is I'm not sure.

galwaycyclist

sparky42 wrote: »

What Recce vehicle mounts a 100mm+ weapon? The UK's new Scout system isn't going to (using the Cased 40mm they have developed),nor off the top of my head any of the currently developing generation of IFV's baseline with a 100mm+ weapon (ie Puma, CV90 family (yes they have 100mm+ but the majority of platforms don't)

There is a version of the Rooikat with a 105mm gun
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rooikat
Edit: better link
http://www.military-today.com/artillery/rooikat_105.htm

sparky42

galwaycyclist wrote: »

There is a version of the Rooikat with a 105mm gun
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rooikat
Edit: better link
http://www.military-today.com/artillery/rooikat_105.htm

I think that might be more for South African needs, besides isn't it nearly 10 tons heavier than the MOWAG's?

galwaycyclist

sparky42 wrote: »

I think that might be more for South African needs, besides isn't it nearly 10 tons heavier than the MOWAG's?

No the South Africans use a 76mm version based on their analysis of their needs. Somebody else on this thread has presented an analysis that the Irish Army may have similar needs to that which is filled by the Rooikat 105.

I am not a mechanical engineer. However I suspect that adding a 105mm turret, and ammunition, to a mowag chassis would result in a vehicle that is heavier than a standard mowag.

Edit: Now that I look it up the US Stryker based mobile gun system is not a whole pile heavier than the base model.

galwaycyclist

sparky42 wrote: »

What Recce vehicle mounts a 100mm+ weapon? The UK's new Scout system isn't going to (using the Cased 40mm they have developed),nor off the top of my head any of the currently developing generation of IFV's baseline with a 100mm+ weapon (ie Puma, CV90 family (yes they have 100mm+ but the majority of platforms don't)

There is also the AMX10RC, wheeled, 105mm gun and over 250 in service with the french. Same weight range as the mowag/stryker.


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AMX_10_RC

Garzard

Larbre34 wrote: »

Anything with a 100mm+ gun if they are serious about the combat in combat/recce vehicle.

The Austrian/Spanish ASCOD LT105 is very nice, couple of squads of them could be negotiated as a nice EU stimulus!

With the right budget, one idea could be to split an order between another few 30mm MOWAG's to add to the 6 we currently have to make up a full Medium Reece squadron of say 12 or so, then a Heavy Reece squadron comprising of the CV90 105 / LT105 to replace the Scorpions and AML-90's. The latter would have the advantage of operational commonality with the British which can only be a good thing but unlike the CV 90, the general ASCOD hasn't yet been combat proven AFAIK.

As others have said before though, given the huge costs that come with heavy tracked vehicles it would make more operational + logistical sense for us to keep to MOWAG's or something similar but without Active Protection Systems are they really any use against your general RPG and above?

Manic Moran

Heraldoffreeent wrote: »

Well, The US tried some heavy on the stryker, but seeing as how that didn't progress too far I guess we know the answer to "What about a Mowag with a 100mm+ Gun ?" question.

Eh? M1128 MGS is in current service. And the 105 can be quite handy.

The argument in favor of retaining some tracked vehicles is the retention of institutional knowledge on how to operate them. That said, if the things never get deployed, there's much less return on what, today, is a very expensive piece of kit.

The other concern is that CVR(T)s by definition are designed for reconnaissance. Ireland, I think, uses them as tanks. With the new British vehicles being even more recon-focused, is there even a position for them in Irish service?

Manic Moran

Heraldoffreeent wrote: »

Well, The US tried some heavy on the stryker, but seeing as how that didn't progress too far I guess we know the answer to "What about a Mowag with a 100mm+ Gun ?" question.

Eh? M1128 MGS is in current service. And the 105 can be quite handy.

The argument in favor of retaining some tracked vehicles is the retention of institutional knowledge on how to operate them. That said, if the things never get deployed, there's much less return on what, today, is a very expensive piece of kit.

The other concern is that CVR(T)s by definition are designed for reconnaissance. Ireland, I think, uses them as tanks. With the new British vehicles being even more recon-focused, is there even a position for them in Irish service?

sparky42

Course the other option would have been perhaps pick up some of the CVR(T)'s cheap from the UK like Latvia is doing.

OS119

sparky42 wrote: »

Course the other option would have been perhaps pick up some of the CVR(T)'s cheap from the UK like Latvia is doing.

wouldn't bother - i'm a fan, but in a battlespace where the letters IED are more common than the letters SAM its just not a runner - it just hasn't got the protection, and never could have, that the politics of modern operations require.

for me mobility beats armour, the best defence against the IED is to not drive over it, and 20, 30, 40 ton beasts just limit mobility more and more - but the politics of casualty avoidance demand more armour, regardless of it being both self-defeating and a developmental cul-de-sac. the enemy just need to tie more 155mm shells together, but what happens when we get to the 100 ton IFV that won't go on a C-17 and uses 2000 litres of fuel a day?

sparky42

OS119 wrote: »

wouldn't bother - i'm a fan, but in a battlespace where the letters IED are more common than the letters SAM its just not a runner - it just hasn't got the protection, and never could have, that the politics of modern operations require.

for me mobility beats armour, the best defence against the IED is to not drive over it, and 20, 30, 40 ton beasts just limit mobility more and more - but the politics of casualty avoidance demand more armour, regardless of it being both self-defeating and a developmental cul-de-sac. the enemy just need to tie more 155mm shells together, but what happens when we get to the 100 ton IFV that won't go on a C-17 and uses 2000 litres of fuel a day?

Fair argument (though didn't the UK up armour some of the CVR(T)'s that were deployed in Afghanistan?) and yes you have a point about how much armour that you can reasonably add on. I was just thinking didn't the UK Scorpions get new engines that our few don't have? Though they did take the Scorpions out of service from memory?

OS119

sparky42 wrote: »

Fair argument (though didn't the UK up armour some of the CVR(T)'s that were deployed in Afghanistan?) and yes you have a point about how much armour that you can reasonably add on. I was just thinking didn't the UK Scorpions get new engines that our few don't have? Though they did take the Scorpions out of service from memory?

the Scorpians left service donkeys years ago - we replaced the engines, found they worked and then took the rebuilt wagons out of service...

we still use the Scimitar - a Scorpion with a 30mm gun instead of the 76mm gun - that also has a new deisel engine that does the business, its been up-armoured and the hull has been remodelled to some degree. they did very in Afghanistan and are likely to stay in service until 2017 or so, or whenever the hell the abortion that is FRES plays out...

personally i think a new, rebuilt Scimitar is the way forward - design it with a V shaped hull from the start, bigger engine, similar armour, 40mm gun and you've a very fast, hard hitting, very mobile 10/12 ton air transportable asset - its not brilliantly protected against IED's but it doesn't have to be, because it doesn't need to travel on roads...

Garzard

sparky42 wrote: »

What Recce vehicle mounts a 100mm+ weapon? The UK's new Scout system isn't going to (using the Cased 40mm they have developed),nor off the top of my head any of the currently developing generation of IFV's baseline with a 100mm+ weapon (ie Puma, CV90 family (yes they have 100mm+ but the majority of platforms don't)

The B1 Centauro looks like a nice example from reading the links, while €1.6m sounds relatively cheap in comparison to anything tracked, it would lose the tracked and advantage of higher protection. In fairness though our DF has almost always favoured the lighter stuff, probably due to the lower cost & manoeuvrability that comes with it.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/centauro/

http://www.military-today.com/artillery/centauro_b1.htm

galwaycyclist

Garzard wrote: »

The B1 Centauro looks like a nice example from reading the links, while €1.6m sounds relatively cheap in comparison to anything tracked, it would lose the tracked and advantage of higher protection. In fairness though our DF has almost always favoured the lighter stuff, probably due to the lower cost & manoeuvrability that comes with it.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/centauro/

http://www.military-today.com/artillery/centauro_b1.htm

The Japanese Ground Self Defense Force are also in the process of replacing a proportion of their MBTs with a wheeled, 8x8 105mm armed Maneuver Combat Vehicle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuver_Combat_Vehicle

http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/japan-cutting-tanks-replacing-with.html

Garzard

galwaycyclist wrote: »

The Japanese Ground Self Defense Force are also in the process of replacing a proportion of their MBTs with a wheeled, 8x8 105mm armed Maneuver Combat Vehicle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuver_Combat_Vehicle

http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/japan-cutting-tanks-replacing-with.html

It's a nice choice and the Type 74's are long overdue a replacement. The MCV wouldn't be an option for us though anytime soon thanks to the Japanese export ban.

sparky42

Garzard wrote: »

It's a nice choice and the Type 74's are long overdue a replacement. The MCV wouldn't be an option for us though anytime soon thanks to the Japanese export ban.

They've done away with that or at least lessened it, they are currently in talks with Australia for joint production of their SSK's for example, and supplying the power packs for the Turkish MBT's from memory.

Manic Moran

Garzard wrote: »

It's a nice choice and the Type 74's are long overdue a replacement. The MCV wouldn't be an option for us though anytime soon thanks to the Japanese export ban.

Type 10 is replacing Type 74. MCV is not an MBT and should not be seen as one. That said, despite my own concerns about the new strategic doctrine for MCV it's capabilities may well prove useful in other contexts.