Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
VictorTroska

Iveco/BAE LMV & MLV

Recommended Posts

Big news for our guys in Afghanistan...we just bought 2 Iveco LMVs for them (about 500 thousand Euros),and soon we are planing to buy 7 more and if all goes well total number of LMVs will be about 70,which is big deal for our army. smile_o.gif

As far as i know LMVs and MLVs are big success for the Iveco and BAE companies and they are one of the best Light Vehicles today.Italy has more then 2000 of them,British army more then 400 (Brits have MLV,made by BAE but is based on the Iveco design) ,there is also Belgium with more then 400,Norway (they replaced Mercedes G-wagons) etc.

--------------------------------------------------

Some info:

2lmvjh4.th.jpg lmvsf3.th.jpg fclvmlvtg0.th.jpg 21203fw1.th.jpg  

The Multirole Light Vehicle (MLV) is a new family of light armored 4x4 vehicles available in soft-skinned or armored versions. It is based on the Iveco LMV vehicle, of which 2,500 are in production for the Italian Army.

The UK version accommodates up to four fully equipped troops, while the Italian version can take five.

A stretched version will be able to carry seven troops under armor.

Belgium also selected the LMV for its Light Armored tactical Vehicle (LATV) 440 vehicle program.

The MLV has a gross weight of 6,500kg (STANAG level 3 protection) and a payload in excess of 1,200 kg.

It uses a 3,000cc Iveco 186 Bhp diesel engine and fully automatic 6 speed gearbox.

Some of the vehicles are expected to be armed with the Enforcer remote controlled weapon systems.

The FCLV's system of choice was based on RAFAEL's RCWS design and is armed with 5.56/7.62/12.7mm Machine Guns / 40mm Automatic Grenade Launcher, to be provided by AEI.

The MLV Protection system meets various levels, from STANAG level 1 to STANAG level 4, which was required by the Italian Army.

The Italian MLVs use the latest version AMAP composite armor, protection while the British version uses lower level of protection.

The armoring system uses appliqué armor panels, placed between the inner and outer hull.

This concept provides for protection upgrade capability, to meet changing mission requirements, as well as introduction of new, lightweight materials as they become available.

The crew is also protected from mines of up to 6kg under the wheels. The MLV can be fitted with a mission configured overhead weapon station, equipped with day and night vision.

The British Army has ordered 486 MLVs designated "Panther" for its Command and Liaison Vehicle program (CLV).

In this role, MLVs will be used for a wide range of battlefield missions, with variants for infantry, artillery, armor, engineer and signals users, and will replace the ageing vehicles such as Saxon, Spartan, FV-430 and unarmored Land-Rovers.

By 2005 Alvis is expected to introduce specific MLV based prototypes for each of the mission configurations, while production of the vehicles is expected between 2006 and 2009. According to the 140 million pound procurement contract, the British MOD has options to buy 400 additional vehicles.

The program's cost will also be enhanced by support services to be provided over the life of the vehicle.

The Panther is equipped with a remotely controlled Defender 7.62mm Self-Defense Weapon Station (SDW) equipped with 7.62 machine gun and a day/night sight.

The vehicle on display was configured as a command vehicle, equipped with multiple Bowman radios, and situational display for the commander. Other displays are serving the driver's station and weapon station's operator.

First production Panthers are due for delivery in mid-2006, in time for the vehicle's entry to service in 2007. Up to 15 variants of the Panther are expected to be used by the British Army, and Royal Air Force Regiment.

The Iveco Lightweight Multipurpose Vehicle (LMV) is a highly innovative armoured scout and liaison 4x4 vehicle. The lightweight, anti-mine tactical vehicle incorporates the following key features:

-High strategic mobility, i.e. transportable by C-130J and C-27J/C.160 aircraft and CH-47 and CH53 heavy lift helicopters.

-High tactical mobility with fast maximum road speed coupled with optimal off-road characteristics and cross-country performance.

-High protection levels against anti tank land mines, favouring crew protection over vehicle integrity.

-Modular construction enabling protection levels to be tailored to meet a variety of mine and ballistic threats.

-Low vehicle profile and signature, minimising optical, thermal and radar detection risk.

----------------------------------------------------------

From what i have seen and read these vehicles are great patrol cars,and they offer good protection against road mines and small arms fire...only thing i didnt like is optional armor kit which u have to buy to have better protection,which is quite expensive.

What do u think about these vehicles,advantages or disvantages,comparation vs humvee or other similar vehicles,price,usage etc. ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the british panthers were meant to be in service now (althought limited), but are still undergoing trials - from all accounts they apparently look good and sound good on paper, but are dogged with reliability issues... whilst they're better than a land rover in terms of functionality and protecttion, you cant beat a work horse like the rovers for reliability and ease of use. Something about the electrics last I heard about it

  [b said:
Quote[/b] ]British army more then 400 (Brits have MLV,made by BAE but is based on the Iveco design)

intended to have that many... currently there are but a handful and like i said they're anything but ready... they're a nice bit of kit, sure... but at GBP 400,000 a pop, whereas a WMIK is GBP 40,000 their price better be worth it. Considering the recent purchases/upgrades of existing kit by the MoD, these panthers are most deffinatly not expected to be rolled out that soon, and i doubt even more they'll see any sort of front line role, mainly because of their cost, and more so that they'll become VIP transport vehicles before the squaddies get them.

all in all i'm going to wait to see how they fare in action... a few of the UKF guys saw a couple of them playing around at bovington one year... assuming the problems are sorted, then they'll be useful, but I can't help but feel that the money could be better spent, and that the troops that really need them may not ever see them in favour of the 'important' members of the army.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The British Army have 7 Panthers on trial at the moment but there is a batch of 50 due to arrive any time (allegedly) to complete mass trials and then be fitted with the operational whizz-bangs for them to be ready for service by the summer - assuming all the bugs have been ironed out. Rock Apes probably won't be too impressed with them though, as the roof prohibits sunbathing/posing possibilities and there aren't enough places to hang GPMGs.

They are not, and never were, intended to be a patrol vehicle. As a support vehicle, weapons platform, mobile OP etc. they'll probably be very good, but for infantry patrols they're too bulky, de-busing is so slow you'd have to arrive at a contact 5 minutes early just to get everyone out and their complexity eliminates them from a lot of FR. Considering their size, they're also surprisingly cramped.

In comparison with HMMWVs there is no contest, FCLV are better in all areas, Humvees are awful, which is why there are very few of them in AFG. For a single role infantry vehicle I would probably opt for RG-31 which is around 100,000 Euros cheaper, carries 11 and has better land-mine protection, but if a multi-variant vehicle is required then the LMVs are a good choice.

In the same price range there is also the choice of 6x6 Pinzgauer PPV which are exceptionally good bits of kit. 2.5tn payload/14 man capacity, go like a well greased weasel and will happily drive over anything they're pointed at, all while being field maintainable and, if you install the extra fuel tanks, 2000+km range. We're using a cheaper unarmoured version with improved wading depth and the only complaint is the lack of a BV, but they do have a radio.

BvS10 (Viking) is also available at that price with good armour, anti-personnel mine resistant undercarriage and a footprint light enough not to set off heavier mines, they carry four up front, eight in the back and are fully amphibious. Not that useful in an urban setting, though.

All things considered, I would say the LMVs will be very good in their intended role and, as part of a complementary suite of vehicles, are a sensible purchase.

The big problem with all this increase in armour, though, is providing suitably qualified drivers. Even some up-armoured Land Rovers are now so heavy as to need a C class license.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  (scary @ Feb. 12 2007,02:23) said:
BvS10 (Viking) is also available at that price with good armour, anti-personnel mine resistant undercarriage and a footprint light enough not to set off heavier mines, they carry four up front, eight in the back and are fully amphibious. Not that useful in an urban setting, though.

nice bit of kit that...

what do you reckon to the new kit though, in the form of the vector mastiff and bulldog? With these new purchases I saw the panthers taking a very back seat in the role of things... although so far I've only seen the bulldog actually going out and doing the work it was designed for... not seen head nor tail of the mastiff or the vector since the MoD paraded them on salisbury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  (VictorTroska @ Feb. 10 2007,21:56) said:
From what i have seen and read these vehicles are great patrol cars,and they offer good protection against road mines and small arms fire...only thing i didnt like is optional armor kit which u have to buy to have better protection,which is quite expensive.

What do u think about these vehicles,advantages or disvantages,comparation vs humvee or other similar vehicles,price,usage etc. ?

The Iveco LMV is a bit overhyped. All of a sudden a lot of European countries start buying the LMV which is, to my knowledge, still not tested in combat. It seems that Europe is jumping on the big LMV bandwagon. It certainly has its advantages over non-armoured vehicles but there are many other better products available for a price way lower.

The 400k price is just absurd. It's way overpriced. To give a small comparison: casspirs are going around 100k as well as the RG-31 and the Reva. The Cougar by Force Protection is going around for 350k, the LMV is no match for the LMV. I don't know about mobility but in terms of protection and reliability the Cougar scores way better than the LMV.

I don't really get all the hype around the LMV, maybe because it's a European product? Wouldn't be the first time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  (Messiah @ Feb. 12 2007,10:27) said:
what do you reckon to the new kit though, in the form of the vector mastiff and bulldog? With these new purchases I saw the panthers taking a very back seat in the role of things... although so far I've only seen the bulldog actually going out and doing the work it was designed for... not seen head nor tail of the mastiff or the vector since the MoD paraded them on salisbury.

I don't understand why the LMV is still considered when the Cougar/Mastiff is clearly a better choice, both quality wise and looking at the price. Can anybody explain that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

still not sure why the MoD decided to place heavy duty plates over the side of the cougar/mastiff, rendering the firing ports useless (edit, rockape reliably informs me that the firing ports are useless to begin with... hot brass pinging around inside isnt great)

im not sure either, other than the panther would be a more obvious direct replacement of the aging land rover fleet, although at 10x the price. The new trio of vehicles are more designed to replace the saxons/snatches in their roles, and free up the warriors.

like i said, and scary, no squaddie is going to see one of these for a long time, it'll all be the big wigs using them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  (Messiah @ Feb. 12 2007,16:58) said:
still not sure why the MoD decided to place heavy duty plates over the side of the cougar/mastiff, rendering the firing ports useless (edit, rockape reliably informs me that the firing ports are useless to begin with... hot brass pinging around inside isnt great)

Depends with how many people you're inside the vehicle, and if you use a brass catcher. To be honest I don't think it will be a big problem.

  [b said:
Quote[/b] ]like i said, and scary, no squaddie is going to see one of these for a long time, it'll all be the big wigs using them.

Lots of money down the drain that's for sure.

EDIT: stupid typo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest RKSL-Rock
  (Ironsight @ Feb. 12 2007,16:10) said:
Depends with how many people you're inside the vehicle, and if you use a brass catcher. To be honest I don't think it will be a big problem.

Using a brass catcher on an SA80 or LSW isnt practical.  You cant mount the retaining ring on either weapon as it clashes with the bolt.  So for the UK to have firing ports its pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  (Ironsight @ Feb. 12 2007,15:48) said:
  (Messiah @ Feb. 12 2007,10:27) said:
what do you reckon to the new kit though, in the form of the vector mastiff and bulldog? With these new purchases I saw the panthers taking a very back seat in the role of things... although so far I've only seen the bulldog actually going out and doing the work it was designed for... not seen head nor tail of the mastiff or the vector since the MoD paraded them on salisbury.

I don't understand why the LMV is still considered when the Cougar/Mastiff is clearly a better choice, both quality wise and looking at the price. Can anybody explain that?

I don't know why you're weighing Mastiff and Panther up against each other, they're not being purchased under the same circumstances and aren't being bought to perform the same role.

Mastiff (and Vector) were bought quickly as an off the shelf patrol vehicle for our lads given that Snatches were a bag of bollocks at what the MoD initially expected them to do in Iraq. They are intended to move a fair few people around, with the best balance between maneuverability and protection.

The requirement for Panther was set out years ago, before Iraq IIRC, and decided upon a few years later (2004 I think, certainly before Mastiff was around). The contract was set up after the MoD decided Land Rovers and CVR(t)s weren't best suited for the role of a Command and Liaison Vehicle; a very specialised role that's was last done properly my the Ferret armoured car.

The MoD had a proper set of requirements that various companies designed vehicles for in an effort to win the contract. There was no requirement that the vehicle be normally used as a general service vehicle (i.e troop patrols and transport) to replace general service Land Rovers, in any theater, or area of the armed foces. scary's described the intended role of Panther pretty well.

This is why the Panther contract appears to be moving slower than the UOR for Mastiff and Vector; there is no urgent demand for Panther's role in Iraq or Afghanistan, it's development is going though all (SUV) IPT procurement phases.

Panther's procurement is more along similar lines to the current FRES program that will one day replace the CVR(t) and FV-430 series, though slightly quicker due to the limited role of Panther, and the smaller number of vehicles required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  (da12thMonkey @ Feb. 12 2007,18:49) said:
  (Ironsight @ Feb. 12 2007,15:48) said:
  (Messiah @ Feb. 12 2007,10:27) said:
what do you reckon to the new kit though, in the form of the vector mastiff and bulldog? With these new purchases I saw the panthers taking a very back seat in the role of things... although so far I've only seen the bulldog actually going out and doing the work it was designed for... not seen head nor tail of the mastiff or the vector since the MoD paraded them on salisbury.

I don't understand why the LMV is still considered when the Cougar/Mastiff is clearly a better choice, both quality wise and looking at the price. Can anybody explain that?

I don't know why you're weighing Mastiff and Panther up against each other, they're not being purchased under the same circumstances and aren't being bought to perform the same role.

Don't get me wrong, but wouldn't the Mastiff would be perfectly able to fulfill the LMV's role? Both vehicles have been running in a number of the same competitions.

Anyway thanks for clearing up the different purposes for the vehicles. That kinda explains why different vehicles are selected by the UK. But that still doesn't explain why other countries (like Croatia) select it as a patrol vehicle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  (Messiah @ Feb. 12 2007,09:27) said:
  (scary @ Feb. 12 2007,02:23) said:
BvS10 (Viking) is also available at that price with good armour, anti-personnel mine resistant undercarriage and a footprint light enough not to set off heavier mines, they carry four up front, eight in the back and are fully amphibious. Not that useful in an urban setting, though.

nice bit of kit that...

Absolutley hoofing bit of kit, they've shrugged off a few RPGs with barely a scratch and they are the only vehicle that hasn't got stuck in the ground. And the air-con works.

The Cloggies recently put in an order for ~70, some of which are a new ambulance variant, which is good news. As Royal essentially designed them, the RN own almost 50% of the intellectual rights and gets a nice little paycheque in return. A procurement scheme with BigAndExpensive that actually worked out financially beneficial has got to be a first.

  [b said:
Quote[/b] ]what do you reckon to the new kit though, in the form of the vector mastiff and bulldog? With these new purchases I saw the panthers taking a very back seat in the role of things... although so far I've only seen the bulldog actually going out and doing the work it was designed for... not seen head nor tail of the mastiff or the vector since the MoD paraded them on salisbury.

Vectors look good to me. I doubt I'll get to use one as they're a pongo thing but, as I said before, our unarmoured/marinised version is excellent. I've seen the Vectors being thrown around and they seem quite happy with all the armour. Extra windows in the back would probably have been useful, or perhaps an extra hatch for top cover.

Mastiff I'm not too sure about. They're well armoured but they're enormous and I doubt their weight and suspension won't severely hamper them x-country. One of the considerations was that they should be less intimidating than CVR(t). Obviously no one actually looked at one, they just assumed that tracks=straight from the fiery pits of Hades; wheels=cute and fluffy. The other offering from Force Protection appear much more useful to me, Cheetah looks like an ideal alternative to SNATCH.

Bulldog is probably the best option while waiting for FRES which is likely to be at least ten years away. It provides a familiar vehicle with a vastly improved power pack, steering unit and armour. It even gets a more warry name.

As da12thMonkey said, Panther is just part of a normal procurement program, unlike the UOR of Mastiff/Vector. There was a round hole noticed years ago and Panther is the round peg to fit it. I doubt many will be deployed in Iraq, possibly a few will be in AFG, but most will be in UK/Germany and probably a batch in BATUS.

  (da12thMonkey @ Feb. 12 2007,12:49) said:
...the current FRES program that will one day replace the CVR(t) and FV-430 series...

Ahh, but don't forget what the masters in the ivory tower said: 'FRES, CVF, JSF' - choose two. A confusing thing to say considering the latter two are totally reliant on each other.

We could end up with a bicycle, a canoe and a pigeon.

  (Ironsight @ Feb. 12 2007,18:42) said:
Don't get me wrong, but wouldn't the Mastiff would be perfectly able to fulfill the LMV's role? Both vehicles have been running in a number of the same competitions.

No it wouldn't, they're a completely different class of vehicle. You don't need a 20tn chuffing big thing to carry a few comms systems when a much more discreet and mobile 6.5tn vehicle can do it. Because of the terrain and roads in AFG, Mastiff is pretty much not an option there anyway.

  [b said:
Quote[/b] ]Anyway thanks for clearing up the different purposes for the vehicles. That kinda explains why different vehicles are selected by the UK. But that still doesn't explain why other countries (like Croatia) select it as a patrol vehicle.

It depends on what future plans the country has: they may want the option of multiple variants for different roles, and especially with a smaller military, it can work out cheaper to buy one expensive vehicle in six different variants than to buy six different cheaper vehicles.

If they only have the one vehicle in different variants covering many roles then it only requires one support infrastructure to operate and maintain them all and one training facility for the crews. Six different vehicles would require six different support infrastructures and six different training facilities and they wouldn't be able to swap crews between vehicles without additional training.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  [b said:
Quote[/b] ]The Cloggies recently put in an order for ~70, some of which are a new ambulance variant, which is good news. As Royal essentially designed them, the RN own almost 50% of the intellectual rights and gets a nice little paycheque in return. A procurement scheme with BigAndExpensive that actually worked out financially beneficial has got to be a first.

sounds like lord drayson is actually using his noggin for once

  [b said:
Quote[/b] ]Vectors look good to me. I doubt I'll get to use one as they're a pongo thing but, as I said before, our unarmoured/marinised version is excellent. I've seen the Vectors being thrown around and they seem quite happy with all the armour. Extra windows in the back would probably have been useful, or perhaps an extra hatch for top cover.

you not concerned about the box like nature of it? Surely a shaped charge is going to leave a nasty hole with that preverbial barn door to aim at? I've managed to dig up very little info about the vector and mastiff though, so my views are merely from visual indications.

  [b said:
Quote[/b] ]Obviously no one actually looked at one, they just assumed that tracks=straight from the fiery pits of Hades; wheels=cute and fluffy

hahaha - too right, the mastiff looks like a lumbering rhino with the extra armour and mesh the MoD decided to bolt on... If it does the job though, then I guess its still a good investment.

  [b said:
Quote[/b] ]Bulldog is probably the best option while waiting for FRES which is likely to be at least ten years away. It provides a familiar vehicle with a vastly improved power pack, steering unit and armour. It even gets a more warry name.

lol, 'warry' name indeed... much more british than the vector at least. I read a recent report from troops using it saying they'd come under some IED attacks and the vehicles had simple shrugged it off and moved on out of contact, and like you said under the makeup its still a 432 so a familiar vehicle that REME can keep going easily (hopefully)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×