Snatch Landys to be replaced?

#2
Oh, an 'emergency review' how nice. How long will that take to conclude that they're not fit for purpose do you think?

I have to say, watching some of the footage available on the web, I'm somwhat less than convinced by the armoured shopping trolley-alike

The Mastiff series seem to be OK. If they're working.
 
#3
Interesting to note though, how quick the media are to pick on Snatch as 'inadequate', yet also big-up big boys' GI Joe toys like Jackal...

Obviously the missing part of the existing vehicle capability triumvirate:

Firepower
Protection
Mobility

Allyness
 
#5
Thunderer said:
Are there any vehicles which will protect its users from EFPs? If there aren't then it doesn't matter which vehicle is used.
Bollox. Think 'degree' here, while no vehicle is impregnable, there are many better platforms that the lads should have, but don't.

Four more to the alter of war on the cheap.
 
#6
seem to remember that this is what armourd cars were used for from like 1914 untill about 1990ish. Fox replaced the Ferret but Snatch was a lot cheaper. Politico's v Defence spending, you know who wins
 
#7
PE4rocks

I bow to your greater knowledge since my fighting was done decades ago, but if EFPs are being used then surely nothing can be done?

Can a parallel be drawn with RUC officers getting blown up in unmarked vehicles. Would placing them in APCs have saved their lives, would they have preferred to have used a more robust machine? Were the four who died trying to lesson the impact of their arrival in a village by not using war machines as I have seen being argued?

Before you accuse me of being Sven I am not arguing a government (or quasi government) line, I am just exploring different avenues.
 
#8
tonto108 said:
seem to remember that this is what armourd cars were used for from like 1914 untill about 1990ish. Fox replaced the Ferret but Snatch was a lot cheaper. Politico's v Defence spending, you know who wins
Different roles. You can't transport troops/personnel in the back of a Fox or Ferret, like you can in a Snatch LR. Thats without going into the 'profile' issues.
 
#9
From the same link above.

Says it all really.

The latest available figures were for 2005/6 and showed expenditure of £730 million on "hotels, restaurants and transportation" with £330 million spent on "motor vehicles and parts".
 
#10
Busta-Gut said:
From the same link above.

Says it all really.

The latest available figures were for 2005/6 and showed expenditure of £730 million on "hotels, restaurants and transportation" with £330 million spent on "motor vehicles and parts".
Far be it from me to speak for MoD spin doctors - the very thought would cause some of them to run screaming from the room. However, for what its worth this is what they say on that issue (my bold):

Hospitality expenses compared with equipment budget

The Daily Mirror claims that "Defence Bosses splashed out £730 million on meals, hotels and taxis – more than twice the bill for troop vehicles". All expenditure is subject to strict published guidelines. Closer examination of the "Hotels, Restaurants and Transportation" category referred to in the article reveals that in fact some £471 million (65%) of the £730 million was spent directly on freighting of armoured vehicles and equipment, and supporting transportation for troop movements and transportation to current arenas of conflict.

To single out the £330M estimated to be spent on "Motor Vehicles and Parts" as the only money we spend on military vehicles is also seriously flawed. Expenditure on tanks and armoured vehicles is classified (along with small arms, ballistic missiles and ammunition) as "Weapons and Ammunition" and a large element of the £1030million spent in this category was direct spend on the manufacture of tanks and other armoured fighting vehicles.

The Ministry of Defence has delivered equipment valued at more than £10billion in the last three years. £4.5billion was delivered to the Armed Forces during 2006/07. We are committed to providing our outstanding Armed Forces with the best possible support and allow them to continue the many successes they have had on operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
#11
I know my memory is not what it could be, but was it not the same media who are now shouting about how inadequate Snatch wagons are the same lot who told the nation how shocking it was that the MOD was disposing of "air conditioned" Snatches at auction in 2003 instead of sending them out to Iraq so that soldiers didn't cook in Saxons?
 
#13
There's a famous saying - "The best is the enemy of the good". In other words, go for the ideal solution and you knacker your chances of getting something workable quickly. If we had a really powerful motor and a frame that would accept additional sheets of composite armour we could upscale and downscale vehicles in the face of particular threats. Obviously there would be an upper limit, but it would mean that the balance between speed and protection could be shaded depending on the environment. A system like that would always have weaknesses in some circumstances, but starting with the basics - we need extreme power/torque and a means to hang protection - and we might have a quick adaptable solution for the long term.
 
#14
in 2003 air con snatches would have had a role they don't now
 
#15
brighton hippy said:
in 2003 air con snatches would have had a role they don't now
Is probably the correct answer.
 
#16
gobby the system that you describe is known as 'Scalable Armour' and our cousins from across the pond are currently kicking off programmes like this across their Army and USMC.

In essence the vehicle is produced with A Scale Armour and should it be required to operate in a high threat environment it can be reconfigured using B Scale Armour (and I assume a C scale etc).
 
#17
See_You_Next_Tuesday said:
gobby the system that you describe is known as 'Scalable Armour' and our cousins from across the pond are currently kicking off programmes like this across their Army and USMC.

In essence the vehicle is produced with A Scale Armour and should it be required to operate in a high threat environment it can be reconfigured using B Scale Armour (and I assume a C scale etc).
Quite so. But;

1. If we had built/bought FRES when it was required (ie years ago) then we would be in that situation.

2.As it is now, we are buying off the shelf(ish) then doing the add ons.

If you want examples, look at CR2 & WR. In real terms, nailing bits onto an existising ground platform is relatively cheap and quick, but when you have to procure as well...
 
#18
PE4rocks said:
brighton hippy said:
in 2003 air con snatches would have had a role they don't now
Is probably the correct answer.
I wasn't disputing that in the slightest in my post, merely pointing out that the British media (mostly tabloid) seem to have now conveniently forgotten the fact that they were, to a greater extent, responsible for snatch wagons being out there in the first place because they were 'good' (quick) instead of 'the best' (slow).
 
#19
Thunderer said:
PE4rocks

I bow to your greater knowledge since my fighting was done decades ago, but if EFPs are being used then surely nothing can be done?
Heh, so was mine. Something can always be done, if the options are available

Thunderer said:
Can a parallel be drawn with RUC officers getting blown up in unmarked vehicles.
Don't think so.


Thunderer said:
Would placing them in APCs have saved their lives, would they have preferred to have used a more robust machine?
Dunno, was such a beast available?

Thunderer said:
Were the four who died trying to lesson the impact of their arrival in a village by not using war machines as I have seen being argued?
Reverse that argument?
Did using a poorly protected vehicle increase the chance of it being targeted?


Thunderer said:
Before you accuse me of being Sven I am not arguing a government (or quasi government) line, I am just exploring different avenues.
Let he who is without sin... :D So am I, but <rant on> it will take several acts of shocking indecency with the Prostitutes Collective of Central London to convince me that as a direct result of government parsimony, misplaced priorities, lack of joined up politico-military action and political waste on a huge scale that prevents our lads having the accomodation, equipment, vehicles, rations that they clearly need. <r /off>
 
#20
SNATCH didn't come into service until about 1994. SNATCH 2 (the one being used in Iraq and Afghanistan) didn't come into service until about 2000.
From the same article.

I did ask this in the other thread srrounding this subject last night but they are too busy bitch slapping the Civil Serpants around. :lol:

In NI, Were Air Portable landies called "Snap" ?

My memory is not serving me well.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top