Welcome to Military Nuts. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Name:   Password:


Google Only search Militarynuts.com

 

 V200 Replacement for Protected Response Vehicle, New PRV
999gripen
Posted: Mar 5 2015, 05:40 PM


2nd Sergeant
*

Group: Members
Posts: 163
Member No.: 22,125
Joined: 12-August 13



At long last , a replacement for V200 role of Protected Response Vehicle
Top
bdique
Posted: Mar 5 2015, 08:18 PM


Captain
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1,873
Member No.: 20,323
Joined: 12-December 08



Are they the same ones used in Afghanistan?


--------------------
From the gunner's seat: The Green and Black Screen
Top
spiderweb6969
Posted: Mar 5 2015, 08:42 PM


Major
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2,194
Member No.: 111
Joined: 5-February 05



Where did you get the news?


--------------------
user posted image
Top
saito2
Posted: Mar 5 2015, 08:50 PM


3rd Sergeant
*

Group: Members
Posts: 51
Member No.: 195
Joined: 18-November 05



It was posted on CyberPioneer Facebook page. The vehicle look like BAE Caiman.

https://www.facebook.com/cyberpioneer.conne...?type=1&theater

This post has been edited by saito2 on Mar 5 2015, 09:20 PM
Top
bcoy
Posted: Mar 5 2015, 09:03 PM


Warrant Officer
*

Group: Members
Posts: 569
Member No.: 42
Joined: 20-June 04



From Cyberpioneer -

The Singapore Army will be replacing the V200 vehicles (40 years in service) with Protected Response Vehicles, while The Republic of Singapore Air Force will be replacing its Super Puma helicopters (30 years in service) over the next decade.
Top
evo
Posted: Mar 6 2015, 10:30 AM


Warrant Officer
*

Group: Members
Posts: 528
Member No.: 59
Joined: 4-July 04



that's a renault badge on the PRV

googled; should be the Renault Higuard
http://www.renault-trucks-defense.eu/Secur...HIGUARD/HIGUARD

thought we could have chosen a M1117 or something like that; MRAP-type vehicle not very good for cross country terrain leh


--------------------
Top
Sayaret
Posted: Mar 6 2015, 10:55 AM


Major
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2,588
Member No.: 202
Joined: 13-December 05



Perhaps the choice of this is due to costs considerations.....
But am sure the V200 would be kept in storage and not scrapped


--------------------
"My posts are solely based on personal perspectives and not targeted at any minority nor majority parties' interests. Will not be liable for others' mis-interpretations nor inability to comprehend"
Top
999gripen
Posted: Mar 6 2015, 06:23 PM


2nd Sergeant
*

Group: Members
Posts: 163
Member No.: 22,125
Joined: 12-August 13



This is indeed a surprising choice for the SAF.

The Higuard design philosophy is probably based on the original MRAP requirements as many of these 1st gen MRAPs were generally quite large and had high c.gs
In actual operations, they were deemed to be not very suitable for off-road use as they were top heavy & had high incidence of rolling over. Their size and weight also made them difficult to operate in narrow and poor roads.

Looks like a large armored truck.

Top
FIVE-TWO
Posted: Mar 7 2015, 09:42 AM


Lt. Colonel
*

Group: Members
Posts: 3,041
Member No.: 14,635
Joined: 25-May 08



QUOTE (999gripen @ Mar 6 2015, 06:23 PM)
This is indeed a surprising choice for the SAF.

The Higuard design philosophy is probably based on the original MRAP requirements as many of these 1st gen MRAPs were generally quite large and had high c.gs
In actual operations, they were deemed to be not very suitable for off-road use as they were top heavy & had high incidence of rolling over. Their size and weight also made them difficult to operate in narrow and poor roads.

Looks like a large armored truck.

and to think that for us who operate in M113s, we already consider the V200 high cg and unwieldy when we see them in Area D.
Top
Grunt
Posted: Mar 7 2015, 11:15 AM


Captain
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1,057
Member No.: 20,595
Joined: 4-January 09



^^Read up on Australia's past Project Bushranger program, to understand up coming large multi-year buy (and may include a production contract to follow or it could be already signed) and current concerns on the evolving battlespace, once the forward defence plan has been executed.

HiGuards are a bit bigger in internal volume than the MaxxPros and closer to the Bushmasters in volume, to meet our army's support needs (aka a protected mobility vehicle — for field defence squadrons, CSS to accompany the Terrex equipped battalions; and other logistics support units at Brigade level or higher) — HiGuards are 6x6 vehicles (with 2 rear axles) that have armoured cabs that are STANAG 4569 — 3a/b level for mine protection, while retaining 4 ton payload capacity. Volume and weight (margin for growth) are important considerations to meet mission requirements that will evolve, once it is used in operations and to impose one’s will on any prospective adversary — an important element of coalition soldiering in the small wars in Iraqi and Afghanistan. Six years in Afghanistan helped the SAF understand the issues of risk, and survivability, where the operating environment it operated in evolved over time. In the future, even the logistics involved in keeping a peacekeeping force resupplied might need to survive against IEDs and small arms fire in their normal CSS supply run.

This is my first and last post on this topic, here — hopefully David will be willing to explain more in his blog at a later date. I am certainly not willing. So good luck with the discussion.

This post has been edited by Grunt on Mar 8 2015, 02:31 PM
Top
spiderweb6969
Posted: Mar 7 2015, 11:27 AM


Major
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2,194
Member No.: 111
Joined: 5-February 05



What about the RBS 70? Retire together with the V200 or carry around by troop as before or fit on something else? Anyone got any idea?


--------------------
user posted image
Top
warspite
Posted: Mar 7 2015, 12:11 PM


Staff Sergeant
*

Group: Members
Posts: 399
Member No.: 8
Joined: 16-June 04



I understand that the Air Force had upgraded their V200s in recent years with new engine and weaponry. Wonder if these will be replaced as well....
Top
bdique
Posted: Mar 8 2015, 09:48 AM


Captain
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1,873
Member No.: 20,323
Joined: 12-December 08



Something occured to me: anyone remembers the uparmoured 5 tonners that were featured about 5 years back? I wonder if that was an SAF early attempt to develop the PRV concept...


--------------------
From the gunner's seat: The Green and Black Screen
Top
blockhead
Posted: Mar 9 2015, 12:09 AM


3rd Sergeant
*

Group: Members
Posts: 87
Member No.: 198
Joined: 26-November 05



So does this mean that unprotected land rovers/ford everests are going to get an armoured counterpart?
Top
bdique
Posted: Mar 9 2015, 09:58 AM


Captain
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1,873
Member No.: 20,323
Joined: 12-December 08



QUOTE (blockhead @ Mar 9 2015, 12:09 AM)
So does this mean that unprotected land rovers/ford everests are going to get an armoured counterpart?

Probably not, I mean even armoured units still use soft-skinned vehicles for admin movement, I can't see why there too will be a need for armoured admin vehicles.

That being said, there is so little open source info on how the SAF uses V200. Guess this PRV is what they meant during last year's budget when Ng En Hen said that SAF will be more mechanised.


--------------------
From the gunner's seat: The Green and Black Screen
Top
999gripen
Posted: Mar 17 2015, 12:24 PM


2nd Sergeant
*

Group: Members
Posts: 163
Member No.: 22,125
Joined: 12-August 13



2013 to 2014 SIPRI Arms Transfers lists SG's purchase of 12 Marauders from South Africa.

Now this is clearly a very much better V200 replacement in the PRV role than the Higuard ( if really this was purchased by the SAF in the first place ).
Curiously there is no listing for the purchase of Higuards.
Perhaps the picture posted in Facebook is incorrect ?





Top
Shotgun
Posted: Mar 18 2015, 11:02 PM


Captain
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1,926
Member No.: 238
Joined: 3-March 06



QUOTE (bdique @ Mar 9 2015, 09:58 AM)
QUOTE (blockhead @ Mar 9 2015, 12:09 AM)
So does this mean that unprotected land rovers/ford everests are going to get an armoured counterpart?

Probably not, I mean even armoured units still use soft-skinned vehicles for admin movement, I can't see why there too will be a need for armoured admin vehicles.

That being said, there is so little open source info on how the SAF uses V200. Guess this PRV is what they meant during last year's budget when Ng En Hen said that SAF will be more mechanised.
Top
999gripen
Posted: Mar 19 2015, 04:27 PM


2nd Sergeant
*

Group: Members
Posts: 163
Member No.: 22,125
Joined: 12-August 13



Thanks Shotgun.
So it will indeed be the Higuard to replace the V200s as PRVs.

That leaves the question of what the Marauders are for - unless it is inaccurate reporting on SIPRIs part.


Top
« Next Oldest | General Discussion | Next Newest »


Topic Options



Hosted for free by zIFBoards* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.0534 seconds | Archive

Google Only search Militarynuts.com