Innovative Designs for UK Light Patrol Vehicle

#1
Innovative Designs Pursue new Opportunities for Light Patrol Vehicle

Armored vehicle designers and manufacturers in the UK are scrambling to develop light armored vehicles aimed to replace the lightly armored 4x4 Land Rover Snatch light patrol vehicle, operated by the British forces in Afghanistan. Driven throughout the large countryside on the notoriously IED infested roads of Afghanistan, soldiers riding the Snatch became painfully vulnerable to lethal ambushes and IED attacks, raising increased public scrutiny of the vehicle and its ineffective combat usage. Last February, the MOD Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S) organization started the process to replace the Snatch with an all-protected, yet compact and highly maneuverable, lightly protected patrol vehicle (LPPV). The initial phase will require up to 400 new vehicles to be delivered by 2010-2011.



The SPV400 designed by Supacat uses the highly mobile and agile chassis of the Jackal applied with modular protected capsule. Artist concept: Supacat.

At DSEi 2009, four companies introduced potential contenders for the new role – Team Z introduced the Zephyr, Force Protection Europe, teamed with Ricardo Inc to market the Ocelot and the new Supacat Protected Vehicle SPV 400 is proposed by the company, that has already fielded the Jackal. A German team formed by armored vehicle manufacturers Krauss Mafaei and Rheinmetall Defense is also pursuing the British LPPV opportunity, proposing their new Armoured Multi Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) – with the first prototype unveiled at the show. The team expects the vehicle to be fully developed in time for the final selection processThe modular design and common, protected chasis was one of the main innovations of the AMPV, as it was launched last year at the ILA airshow in Germany.

http://www.defense-update.com/features/2009/sept/170909_lppv_armoredvehicles.html
 
#3
that backend looks a bit bare doesn't it!

furthermore, with properly armoured vehicles, the amount of space inside is about half what it appears from the outside. I mean, take Mastiff. Looks like a bloody lorry from the outside, about a the same interior as a Snatch. So with that thing being snatch-size on the outside... that either means there's about enough space inside to fit your webbing and pet dog, or the armour isn't quite up to the ballsy standards set by the British Public.

yes, I know it's lightweight... but certainly in the public's eyes safety comes far before speed and manouverability. And it seems to be that a lot of these UORs and vehicle upgrades are done largely because the public are p*ssed off and less because the Army actually asked for it.

my point largely being: the procurement people seem to be on a quest to satisfy the reaction of the media and the public, as well as ensure safety for the soldiers. If the public didn't know about the deaths, lack of equipment, unsuitability of equipment etc... do you think the government would be pushing so hard for upgrades? I think not.

subsequently, if this is the case, then surely the government would be on a sole mission to provide vehicles to protect the guys, and not so much to cruise around the battlefield at great speed.

or better still sort this fecking helicopter situation out. after all, they cruise around at great speed, climb sheer cliffs without a problem, and rarely hit IEDs... all whilst carrying loads of people.
 
#4
therealbigdizzle said:
that backend looks a bit bare doesn't it!

furthermore, with properly armoured vehicles, the amount of space inside is about half what it appears from the outside. I mean, take Mastiff. Looks like a bloody lorry from the outside, about a the same interior as a Snatch. So with that thing being snatch-size on the outside... that either means there's about enough space inside to fit your webbing and pet dog, or the armour isn't quite up to the ballsy standards set by the British Public.

yes, I know it's lightweight... but certainly in the public's eyes safety comes far before speed and manouverability. And it seems to be that a lot of these UORs and vehicle upgrades are done largely because the public are p*ssed off and less because the Army actually asked for it.

my point largely being: the procurement people seem to be on a quest to satisfy the reaction of the media and the public, as well as ensure safety for the soldiers. If the public didn't know about the deaths, lack of equipment, unsuitability of equipment etc... do you think the government would be pushing so hard for upgrades? I think not.

subsequently, if this is the case, then surely the government would be on a sole mission to provide vehicles to protect the guys, and not so much to cruise around the battlefield at great speed.

or better still sort this fecking helicopter situation out. after all, they cruise around at great speed, climb sheer cliffs without a problem, and rarely hit IEDs... all whilst carrying loads of people.
Now I would have thought the US and UK defense industry would point out what is needed and not needed? Silly me. :cry: :roll:
 
#5
jumpinjarhead said:
therealbigdizzle said:
that backend looks a bit bare doesn't it!

furthermore, with properly armoured vehicles, the amount of space inside is about half what it appears from the outside. I mean, take Mastiff. Looks like a bloody lorry from the outside, about a the same interior as a Snatch. So with that thing being snatch-size on the outside... that either means there's about enough space inside to fit your webbing and pet dog, or the armour isn't quite up to the ballsy standards set by the British Public.

yes, I know it's lightweight... but certainly in the public's eyes safety comes far before speed and manouverability. And it seems to be that a lot of these UORs and vehicle upgrades are done largely because the public are p*ssed off and less because the Army actually asked for it.

my point largely being: the procurement people seem to be on a quest to satisfy the reaction of the media and the public, as well as ensure safety for the soldiers. If the public didn't know about the deaths, lack of equipment, unsuitability of equipment etc... do you think the government would be pushing so hard for upgrades? I think not.

subsequently, if this is the case, then surely the government would be on a sole mission to provide vehicles to protect the guys, and not so much to cruise around the battlefield at great speed.

or better still sort this fecking helicopter situation out. after all, they cruise around at great speed, climb sheer cliffs without a problem, and rarely hit IEDs... all whilst carrying loads of people.
Now I would have thought the US and UK defense industry would point out what is needed and not needed? Silly me. :cry: :roll:
no, absolutely, they do.

however, my point being - they are likely putting greater effort into doing so because the public and media are watching and scrutinising so much more than they were 10 years ago.

subsequently, one would expect an industry who are working hard to protect their reputation from said scrutiny to focus largely in the areas of public and media interest. which is unarguably troop deaths and injuries, and not the mobility of ground troops.

I'm not arguing on the importance of anything or suggest they do anything else, I'm just observing the fact that whilst the government work in procurement of equipment and vehicles seems to have been influenced, and if anything accelerated by public and media involvement and scrutiny, they would focus their efforts in the areas in which said scrutiny has arisen.
 
#6
therealbigdizzle said:
jumpinjarhead said:
therealbigdizzle said:
that backend looks a bit bare doesn't it!

furthermore, with properly armoured vehicles, the amount of space inside is about half what it appears from the outside. I mean, take Mastiff. Looks like a bloody lorry from the outside, about a the same interior as a Snatch. So with that thing being snatch-size on the outside... that either means there's about enough space inside to fit your webbing and pet dog, or the armour isn't quite up to the ballsy standards set by the British Public.

yes, I know it's lightweight... but certainly in the public's eyes safety comes far before speed and manouverability. And it seems to be that a lot of these UORs and vehicle upgrades are done largely because the public are p*ssed off and less because the Army actually asked for it.

my point largely being: the procurement people seem to be on a quest to satisfy the reaction of the media and the public, as well as ensure safety for the soldiers. If the public didn't know about the deaths, lack of equipment, unsuitability of equipment etc... do you think the government would be pushing so hard for upgrades? I think not.

subsequently, if this is the case, then surely the government would be on a sole mission to provide vehicles to protect the guys, and not so much to cruise around the battlefield at great speed.

or better still sort this fecking helicopter situation out. after all, they cruise around at great speed, climb sheer cliffs without a problem, and rarely hit IEDs... all whilst carrying loads of people.
Now I would have thought the US and UK defense industry would point out what is needed and not needed? Silly me. :cry: :roll:
no, absolutely, they do.

however, my point being - they are likely putting greater effort into doing so because the public and media are watching and scrutinising so much more than they were 10 years ago.

subsequently, one would expect an industry who are working hard to protect their reputation from said scrutiny to focus largely in the areas of public and media interest. which is unarguably troop deaths and injuries, and not the mobility of ground troops.

I'm not arguing on the importance of anything or suggest they do anything else, I'm just observing the fact that whilst the government work in procurement of equipment and vehicles seems to have been influenced, and if anything accelerated by public and media involvement and scrutiny, they would focus their efforts in the areas in which said scrutiny has arisen.
I apologize--I do actually agree with you but was trying (and obviously failing miserably) to be a bit ironic.
 
#9
I believe that the South Africans have more than a few ideas about how to produce mine protected vehicles. However, of course that would be too simple, cost effective, and not involve thorowinf huge amounts of cash at BAe.
 
#10
That SPV400 looks strangely like a slightly shortened version of Panther to me
 
#11
lofty_lofty said:
That SPV400 looks strangely like a slightly shortened version of Panther to me
Perhaps the idea is to go ahead and lop off a bit ahead of time instead of waiting for terry to do it with an IED.
 
#12
Just what size/type of blast is a Light Patrol Vehicle supposed to withstand?

Is it going to be better protected than say, SPARTAN?

At the risk of being a bit silly, what happens if you put more angled armour underneath SAXON, relocate the driver to above/behind the engine, up armour the crew compartment over the rear axle bringing all the crew into a central "pod"?

Much of the top armour weight could be binned and replaced with composites if they would be lighter or more blast resistant.



It might actually make it into something a bit more useful. There's no shortage of them knocking about.

An engine upgrade (for power) should be straightforward given the mechanical layout.
 
#14
jumpinjarhead said:
therealbigdizzle said:
jumpinjarhead said:
therealbigdizzle said:
that backend looks a bit bare doesn't it!

furthermore, with properly armoured vehicles, the amount of space inside is about half what it appears from the outside. I mean, take Mastiff. Looks like a bloody lorry from the outside, about a the same interior as a Snatch. So with that thing being snatch-size on the outside... that either means there's about enough space inside to fit your webbing and pet dog, or the armour isn't quite up to the ballsy standards set by the British Public.

yes, I know it's lightweight... but certainly in the public's eyes safety comes far before speed and manouverability. And it seems to be that a lot of these UORs and vehicle upgrades are done largely because the public are p*ssed off and less because the Army actually asked for it.

my point largely being: the procurement people seem to be on a quest to satisfy the reaction of the media and the public, as well as ensure safety for the soldiers. If the public didn't know about the deaths, lack of equipment, unsuitability of equipment etc... do you think the government would be pushing so hard for upgrades? I think not.

subsequently, if this is the case, then surely the government would be on a sole mission to provide vehicles to protect the guys, and not so much to cruise around the battlefield at great speed.

or better still sort this fecking helicopter situation out. after all, they cruise around at great speed, climb sheer cliffs without a problem, and rarely hit IEDs... all whilst carrying loads of people.
Now I would have thought the US and UK defense industry would point out what is needed and not needed? Silly me. :cry: :roll:
no, absolutely, they do.

however, my point being - they are likely putting greater effort into doing so because the public and media are watching and scrutinising so much more than they were 10 years ago.

subsequently, one would expect an industry who are working hard to protect their reputation from said scrutiny to focus largely in the areas of public and media interest. which is unarguably troop deaths and injuries, and not the mobility of ground troops.

I'm not arguing on the importance of anything or suggest they do anything else, I'm just observing the fact that whilst the government work in procurement of equipment and vehicles seems to have been influenced, and if anything accelerated by public and media involvement and scrutiny, they would focus their efforts in the areas in which said scrutiny has arisen.
I apologize--I do actually agree with you but was trying (and obviously failing miserably) to be a bit ironic.
sorry, the double-sarcasm fooled me...
 
#15
EX_STAB said:
Just what size/type of blast is a Light Patrol Vehicle supposed to withstand?

Is it going to be better protected than say, SPARTAN?

At the risk of being a bit silly, what happens if you put more angled armour underneath SAXON, relocate the driver to above/behind the engine, up armour the crew compartment over the rear axle bringing all the crew into a central "pod"?

Much of the top armour weight could be binned and replaced with composites if they would be lighter or more blast resistant.



It might actually make it into something a bit more useful. There's no shortage of them knocking about.

An engine upgrade (for power) should be straightforward given the mechanical layout.
moving an engine, and drivers compartment isnt the simplest task.

its not just something you can bolt on the sides, like our friends at the MoD seem to be fond of historically.
 
#17
therealbigdizzle said:
sorry, the double-sarcasm fooled me...
Again, sorry-in spite of my better nature, I suppose I have become infected with the same malady that appears to have brought so many other posters to these threads low. :D
 
#18
therealbigdizzle said:
EX_STAB said:
Just what size/type of blast is a Light Patrol Vehicle supposed to withstand?

Is it going to be better protected than say, SPARTAN?

At the risk of being a bit silly, what happens if you put more angled armour underneath SAXON, relocate the driver to above/behind the engine, up armour the crew compartment over the rear axle bringing all the crew into a central "pod"?

Much of the top armour weight could be binned and replaced with composites if they would be lighter or more blast resistant.



It might actually make it into something a bit more useful. There's no shortage of them knocking about.

An engine upgrade (for power) should be straightforward given the mechanical layout.
moving an engine, and drivers compartment isnt the simplest task.

its not just something you can bolt on the sides, like our friends at the MoD seem to be fond of historically.
I realise that, I used to work on Bedfords and built special vehicles for a living many moons ago. It's still do-able.
 
#19
Tiger-Monkey2 said:
I believe that the South Africans have more than a few ideas about how to produce mine protected vehicles. However, of course that would be too simple, cost effective, and not involve thorowinf huge amounts of cash at BAe.
Nice soundbite, but ignores three key facts:

1) OMC, the principle SA manufacturer of MPVs (RG-31 et al) are now owned by BAe
2) The Cougar (upon which Mastiff is based) was built on SA technology
3) At least one of the LPPV bids has been part designed by people with more than a bit of experience of the 'good old days' in SA...
 
#20
EX_STAB said:
Just what size/type of blast is a Light Patrol Vehicle supposed to withstand?

Big ones. Which in a <7 tonne vehicle, is why the designs must be innovative by default

Is it going to be better protected than say, SPARTAN?

Without going into too much detail, yes. And given the likely threats it will face, by some considerable margin.

At the risk of being a bit silly, what happens if you put more angled armour underneath SAXON, relocate the driver to above/behind the engine, up armour the crew compartment over the rear axle bringing all the crew into a central "pod"?

You get a vehicle which is less well protected than Mastiff/Ridgback, but significantly less agile than the Snatch (which LPPV is intended to replace), even if you did upgrade the powertrain.

Much of the top armour weight could be binned and replaced with composites if they would be lighter or more blast resistant.

But then you'd have to replace pretty much the entire moncoque body of the Saxon - so why not design from scratch?
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
K Jobs Offered 1
K Jobs (Discussion) 0
Spanish_Dave Jobs (Discussion) 18

Similar threads

Latest Threads