Thread: Dingo 2 - successor of HMMWV?

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.

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.

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

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.

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)