Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dingo 2 - successor of HMMWV?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Dingo 2 - successor of HMMWV?

    Is the dingo 2 currently the best 4x4 armored utility vehicle around the world? It surpasses HMMWV in protection and performance. It's on the level of a Stryker (Israel rejected Stryker in favor of dingo 2!), but at only third of the cost. USMC has evaluated it and in a week US bought the license (Cadillac Gage Textron) and some experts predict sales of dingo 2 to reach 20.000 vehicles. In Europe they are also selling very well (Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Israel...). Has German know-how done it again?

    info link: http://www.systems.textron.com/pdf/p..._datasheet.pdf

  • #2
    Originally posted by SloMax
    Is the dingo 2 currently the best 4x4 armored utility vehicle around the world? It surpasses HMMWV in protection and performance. It's on the level of a Stryker (Israel rejected Stryker in favor of dingo 2!), but at only third of the cost. USMC has evaluated it and in a week US bought the license (Cadillac Gage Textron) and some experts predict sales of dingo 2 to reach 20.000 vehicles. In Europe they are also selling very well (Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Israel...). Has German know-how done it again?

    info link: http://www.systems.textron.com/pdf/p..._datasheet.pdf
    SloMax,
    I don't know if the Dingo2 is the best 4x4 in the world military market.

    As far as protection, it's based model appears to be at the same level as the HMMWV. To increase it's ballistic protection, an add-on-armor package is required. I'm sure it can get to 14.5mm. However, at 26,000lbs for the base model, that's 65000lbs for every tire, and any add on packages will only increase the ground pressure PSI. With only a 218 HP engine, I don't think that it could handle the weight of RPG protection, not to mention the fact that it would add probably around another 3,000lbs to an already heavy load. By comparison with 14.5mm AP protection, slat armor, and a full combat load of soldiers and equipment, the Stryker is distributing 5500lbs per tire. You'd have to look at the tire size, but I don't see the Dingo having tires that are larger than the Strykers, so it won't have same offroad capabilities. Not to mention that the loss of a single tire stops the vehicle in its tracks, um, wheels.

    I'm not sure why the Israelis decided not to go with the Stryker, but I can assure you that they didn't decide to go with the Dingo2 instead (they could be buying it to serve another role, but not that of a APC). While I am a big fan of the Stryker, I can think of several reasons if I were an Israeli why I wouldn't take the Stryker. The Stryker was designed to provide maximum protection, fuel mileage, and reliability in a package that could fly on a C130 and conduct long range operational movements. Israel doesn't have those strategic considerations. In the time takes to move a Stryker unit to an airfield, the Israelis could drive from Gaza to the West Bank. With internal lines of communications, gas mileage isn't a consideration and moving spare parts isn't a challenge. They are operating from fixed, permanent installations and can stock as much fuel and spare parts as they need. If I were an Israeli general, I'd armor an APC as much as possible and then only worry about how to best put in the digital equipment. They are pursuing APCs based on a Merkava chassis the last I read.
    "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

    Comment


    • #3
      HP ratings are extremely misleading when determining pulling capacity.

      HP is torque x RPM, so it's not particularly relevant to low speed ops such as those conducted by military vehicles.

      What one needs to see is the torque rating, and at what RPM it's delivered.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by M21Sniper
        HP ratings are extremely misleading when determining pulling capacity.

        HP is torque x RPM, so it's not particularly relevant to low speed ops such as those conducted by military vehicles.

        What one needs to see is the torque rating, and at what RPM it's delivered.
        Thanks for taking me to school. Maybe that's why I own a minivan and not a truck ;)
        "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

        Comment


        • #5
          No problem Sir. I'm a gear head, and spent 5 years as an auto tech(that's what i used my GI Bill money for, auto/diesel training).

          The typical Semi tractor trailer only has about 250hp, but usually about 1000 lb-ft of torque(and sometimes more), but a low RPM operating range, which is why the HP rating is so low.
          Gearing is also another huge factor.

          A vehicle with a 3:1 rearend gearing and a 2:1 1st gear ratio(effective 5:1 final drive) multiplies the torque/HP rating as follows:

          250hp x 2:1 trans gearing= 500hp, x 3:1 rearend gearing = 1500hp effective HP.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by shek
            Thanks for taking me to school. Maybe that's why I own a minivan and not a truck ;)
            It gets me everytime that we drove $500K+ vehicles at work and 8 year old 2nd hand minivans at home (can't see spending $30K on a van, I just will not do it - my old Mustang yeah, but not a van. I refuse to do it)

            Comment


            • #7
              shek, thanks for your info.
              It is interesting how the opinions differ. In military magazine which are available in my country (quite a few) there is a lot of compliments and praise for Dingo 2. On the other hand many experts regard Stryker and specially Future Combat System (FCS) as a failure (Light weight air transportable design – sufficient (heavy) armor, don’t go together). I read a lot of articles on this issue (I'm a subscriber to one of those magazines) and they all have low regards for Stryker and FSC. One example: Strikers unsatisfactory armor protection...they had to weld on the caged armor...because of up-armoring the engine is to weak...mine protection... The FSC is even lower regarded...as a dead end.

              Comment


              • #8
                LOL, i 'drove' a pair of $65 Panama Jungle boots. ;)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by SloMax
                  shek, thanks for your info.
                  It is interesting how the opinions differ. In military magazine which are available in my country (quite a few) there is a lot of compliments and praise for Dingo 2. On the other hand many experts regard Stryker and specially Future Combat System (FCS) as a failure (Light weight air transportable design – sufficient (heavy) armor, don’t go together). I read a lot of articles on this issue (I'm a subscriber to one of those magazines) and they all have low regards for Stryker and FSC. One example: Strikers unsatisfactory armor protection...they had to weld on the caged armor...because of up-armoring the engine is to weak...mine protection... The FSC is even lower regarded...as a dead end.
                  I'm not trying bash the Dingo. It sounds like a good vehicle. The fact sheet didn't state what its AP and AT mine protection is, so I can't compare its survivability to the HMMWV.

                  As far as the FCS vehicles, those are in concept form only, so the critics are criticizing paper (except for a few first generation demonstrator vehicles). Whether the FCS program can be pulled off, I don't know, but I think that people will be surprised with the results 10-20 years from now when it is supposed to be fielded. Heck, the tank was declared dead after the 1973 Yom Kippur War, and then the Brits invented Chobham armor (I guess I should use armour since it's a British invention, but hey, I'm American!), and you have survivable MBTs that use passive armor as its main protection system.

                  Finally, most vocal critics of the Stryker have never ridden in one or performed operations with one. Much of the critical information out there is either bad, outdated (may have been true in the initial phase of the program, but no longer is), or blown out of context. That doesn't mean that there aren't valid criticisms, but there are plenty of invalid ones. I'll happily answer specific questions you have about the Stryker as long as it won't provide specifics that can be used by insurgents fighting the SBCT, but with the amount of open source information, there's little that hasn't been touched already.
                  "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    This thing looks more like a competitor to the Cassipir than to the HMMWV.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by shek
                      Thanks for taking me to school. Maybe that's why I own a minivan and not a truck ;)
                      Heh, I don't get it.

                      I know this one rich guy (who gave me like $1000 in documentaries, each with Chinese subtitles), who has a 4-door Mercedes with a supercharged twin-turbo 650 HP aftermarket engine that's got 790 lb. feet of torque. 0-60 in 3.52 seconds, 0-120 in just under 10.

                      Still nothing compared to top Thrill Dragster.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        What dont you get?

                        I'll expain it to ya.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by M21Sniper
                          What dont you get?

                          I'll expain it to ya.
                          Why he has a minivan instead of a truck.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Alright well that i can't explain. ;)

                            LOL...i have a V-8 Porsche. :)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by sniperdude411
                              Why he has a minivan instead of a truck.
                              It's a more practical vehicle for the needs of the family. If I had enough cash and a 3 car garage, then I would have a truck.
                              "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X