# Pak to get 40 MRAP vehicles



## PDFChamp

* [URL]http://djournal.com/bizbuzz/2017/02/17/navistar-gets-35m-contract-west-point-built-armored-vehicles/[/URL]*
*[URL='http://djournal.com/bizbuzz/2017/02/17/navistar-gets-35m-contract-west-point-built-armored-vehicles/'][/URL]*
*[URL='http://djournal.com/bizbuzz/2017/02/17/navistar-gets-35m-contract-west-point-built-armored-vehicles/'][/URL]*
*Navistar gets $35M contract for West Point-built armored vehicles *
By Dennis Seid | February 17, 2017


*These 40 appears to be part of 160 MRAPs Pakistan ordered back in 2014 from surplus stock.*
*In the recent past, Pakistan had been linked to Turkish MRAPs also.*






Navistar Defense received a $35 million U.S. Navy contract to produce 40 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected MaxxPro Dash DXM vehicles for Pakistan. The Maxx Pro Dash DXM is a lighter MRAP variant designed for greater maneuverability on the battlefield. Photo courtesy of Navistar Defense







*



Navistar Defense* has been awarded a $35 million contract by the U.S. Navy to build 40 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) *MaxxPro Dash DXM* vehicles.

The U.S. Department of Defense said the work will be done at Navistar’s plant in West Point, as well as in Pakistan, and is expected to be completed by October 2018.

Navistar was the lone bidder on the contract, which was posted online.

Last May, Navistar was awarded a $29.7 million U.S. Army contract modification to upgrade 250 MRAPs. That work in West Point is expected to be finished by this May.

The MaxxPro Dash DXM is a lighter version of Navistar’sMRAP family, which features a V-shaped hull that deflects blasts from IEDs, or improvised explosive devices. The MRAPs also are designed to withstand ballistic arms fire and mine blasts.

Since 2000, Navistar has built more than 9,000 MaxxPro MRAPs.






* Additional Notes and Comments from Quwa.org*

*Notes & Comments:*

Pakistan’s MRAP requirements stem from its decade-plus long – and ongoing – counterinsurgency (COIN) campaign in its Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). From bolstering the Army’s air combat arm to enhancing the training and equipment available to infantry, Pakistan has been improving its capacity for COIN. MRAPs have been viewed as key elements for supporting the armoured transport requirement.

In 2014, Pakistan ordered 160 MaxxPro Dash MRAPs from the United States for use as part of Zarb-e-Azb (its current operation), though it had intended to procure a large number from surplus U.S. stocks.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## PDFChamp

@Bilal Khan (Quwa) 

Bilal, can you shed some light on MRAP acquisitions. There were stories last year of acquiring Turkish ones as well. How critical are these now considering we needed them in 2014?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rajput Warrior

What about Hamza MCV.

Couldn't it do the job too or will it be used in an IFV role?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 313baberali

Navistar Defense LLC, LwuGhM
Illinois, was awarded a $35,077,157 firm-fixed-price, foreign military sales contract (Pakistan) for the procurement of 40 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) MaxxPro Dash DXM foreign military sales vehicles, various support items, and contractor logistics and technical support services. *Bids were solicited via the Internet with one received*. Work will be performed in West Point, Mississippi; and Pakistan, with an estimated completion date of Oct. 31, 2018. Fiscal 2010 other funds in the amount of $35,077,157 were obligated at the time of the award. Army Contracting Command – Tank and Automotive, Warren, Michigan, is the contracting activity (W56HZV-17-C-0038). https://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/1086534
About Navistar *Reset* program








General highlights

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Lurch Adams

MRAPS have dubious utility in any situation apart from occupation/patrolling of insurgency-hit areas. If and when they are required, they would be required in sufficient numbers. Otherwise they gather dust and it makes no sense to acquire expensive foreign-made ones. Every country with such requirements should design and procure their own locally. The cost savings will be enormous.



Rajput Warrior said:


> What about Hamza MCV.
> 
> Couldn't it do the job too or will it be used in an IFV role?



I see no reason as to why it can't be modified for that purpose. It would definitely make sense, creating fresh demand and economies of scale.


----------



## Rajput Warrior

Lurch Adams said:


> MRAPS have dubious utility in any situation apart from occupation/patrolling of insurgency-hit areas. If and when they are required, they would be required in sufficient numbers. Otherwise they gather dust and it makes no sense to acquire expensive foreign-made ones. Every country with such requirements should design and procure their own locally. The cost savings will be enormous.
> 
> 
> 
> I see no reason as to why it can't be modified for that purpose. It would definitely make sense, creating fresh demand and economies of scale.


It would be much more expensive,costly to maintain,heavier.
So i guess it will only be used in IFV role.


----------



## Lurch Adams

Rajput Warrior said:


> It would be much more expensive,costly to maintain,heavier.
> So i guess it will only be used in IFV role.



They could retain the basic chassis and add whatever underside protection is required. Of course, a preliminary cost-benefit analysis will be required to determine the savings made thereby.

There are multiple options in the market really. AFAIK, the Burraq MRAP is still in development. That ought to be a cost effective option. MRAPS are no use in small numbers, unlike fighter jets or even tanks. And everyone is not like US that bought huge number of MRAPS at atrocious price and then gifted them to their police after withdrawing from Iraq.


----------



## Thəorətic Muslim

A.S.I.M said:


> How critical are these now considering we needed them in 2014?



They aren't suitable for conventional warfare, if that's what your asking.

This buy is probably for replenishment of stocks. Depending on how much of the country the GHQ wants to engage in open counter-terrorism ops, the ones it currently has are too few.



Lurch Adams said:


> There are multiple options in the market really. AFAIK, the Burraq MRAP is still in development. That ought to be a cost effective option. MRAPS are no use in small numbers, unlike fighter jets or even tanks. And everyone is not like US that bought huge number of MRAPS at atrocious price and then gifted them to their police after withdrawing from Iraq.



A lot are being scrapped because the Pentagon either bought too many, Afghanistan or Iraq don't want them, or noone wants to buy them.

There are also different categories of MRAPs, Pakistan may have better economies on smaller categories but the larger ones will have to be imported. But every vehicle in a convoy isn't a MRAP, even the US only has a few lead and trailing MRAPs vehicles in convoys.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Lurch Adams

Thəorətic Muslim said:


> They aren't suitable for conventional warfare, if that's what your asking.
> 
> This buy is probably for replenishment of stocks. Depending on how much of the country the GHQ wants to engage in open counter-terrorism ops, the ones it currently has are too few.
> 
> 
> 
> A lot are being scrapped because the Pentagon either bought too many, Afghanistan or Iraq don't want them, or noone wants to buy them.
> 
> There are also different categories of MRAPs, Pakistan may have better economies on smaller categories but the larger ones will have to be imported. But every vehicle in a convoy isn't a MRAP, even the US only has a few lead and trailing MRAPs vehicles in convoys.



My principle objection to expensive MRAP procurement is their limited operational use. Ideally, any military should not be in a situation where insurgents/enemies can carry on deploying mines and IEDs at will. APCs and sometimes even IFVs are usually deployed in most military scenarios, and if the conflict zone is too hot then the infantry loves it's tanks. MRAPs are neither here nor there, too less for really hostile areas and overkill for deployment in most civilian areas. That is why IMO focus should be on mostly smaller, cost-effective options. 

This could be a limited purchase, and as you rightly pointed out makes sense for use as convoy vanguard.

What would be interesting is if there are any MRAP options available in modular vehicles. In APC vehicles, Patria AMV and Havoc 8x8 are comprehensive and versatile platforms. Anything similar will work fine for MRAPs as well, if it could be developed cheaper. And due to modular nature the platform could be used for other general/specialized purposes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

A.S.I.M said:


> @Bilal Khan (Quwa)
> 
> Bilal, can you shed some light on MRAP acquisitions. There were stories last year of acquiring Turkish ones as well. How critical are these now considering we needed them in 2014?


It seems that Pakistan has been buying small numbers from numerous sources, mainly to plugin specific operational needs more so than to build a large fleet.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Foxtrot Delta

Which mrap model exactly would it be? Cougar? 4x4 or 6x6? Some other model?


----------



## tarrar

Great but what about replacing the death trap Toyota pickups? They need to be replaced with better vehicles which can protect our infantry & others.


----------



## Foxtrot Delta

tarrar said:


> Great but what about replacing the death trap Toyota pickups? They need to be replaced with better vehicles which can protect our infantry & others.


*Dong feng EQ2050 perhaps*


----------



## FalconsForPeace

*US firm to make 40 armoured trucks for Pakistan*

An American truck and engine making company has won a $35 million contract to deliver 40 armoured vehicles to Pakistan from its plant in West Point, Mississippi.



The US Army announced the contract, saying Navistar International Corporation, based in Lisle, Illinois, had made the only bid for the mine-resistant and ambush-protected MaxxPro Dash DXM trucks.

Work is supposed to be done at Navistar’s plant in West Point, as well as in Pakistan, and is estimated to be finished by October 31, 2018, according to US media reports.

Although the West Point plant had laid off all its workers in 2013, it has since won a series of contracts to build or refurbish vehicles for the US Army and foreign militaries.

Spokeswoman Amy McCaskill says the new contract, combined with existing work, means the plant will maintain its current 340 employees.

http://nation.com.pk/national/19-Feb-2017/us-firm-to-make-40-armoured-trucks-for-pakistan


----------



## imranyounus

The story in nation news paper also says some work to be done in Pakistan to. Can any one tell what exactly it means. Further we need buraq to be developed we need such vehicles for police and paramilitaries forces like FC and rangers and can't afford expensive vehicles for such uses.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taygibay

https://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/1086534

Navistar Defense LLC, Lisle, Illinois, was awarded a $35,077,157 firm-fixed-price, foreign military sales contract (Pakistan) for the procurement of 40 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) MaxxPro Dash DXM foreign military sales vehicles, various support items, and contractor logistics and technical support services. Bids were solicited via the Internet with one received. Work will be performed in West Point, Mississippi; and Pakistan, with an estimated completion date of Oct. 31, 2018. Fiscal 2010 other funds in the amount of $35,077,157 were obligated at the time of the award. Army Contracting Command – Tank and Automotive, Warren, Michigan, is the contracting activity (W56HZV-17-C-0038).

https://www.navistardefense.com/NavistarDefense/vehicles/maxxpromrap/maxxpro_dash_dxm

Respectively the allotment and the beast.

Always go to the source for information,
it cuts down on the trolling later on, Tay.

P.S. Great convo and day all!

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Pioneerfirst

I do not know what our policy makers are doing, 900K for each is too much. I have some knowledge of Pakistan's industrial capabilities and I am sure every part of this vehicle except engine and transmission can be made in Pakistan in under a year time.All we need is some help in designing. I am sure we can made 200 vehicles in 35 Million.


----------



## Stealth



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Stealth

View attachment 378381

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jhungary

Lurch Adams said:


> My principle objection to expensive MRAP procurement is their limited operational use. Ideally, any military should not be in a situation where insurgents/enemies can carry on deploying mines and IEDs at will. APCs and sometimes even IFVs are usually deployed in most military scenarios, and if the conflict zone is too hot then the infantry loves it's tanks. MRAPs are neither here nor there, too less for really hostile areas and overkill for deployment in most civilian areas. That is why IMO focus should be on mostly smaller, cost-effective options.
> 
> This could be a limited purchase, and as you rightly pointed out makes sense for use as convoy vanguard.
> 
> What would be interesting is if there are any MRAP options available in modular vehicles. In APC vehicles, Patria AMV and Havoc 8x8 are comprehensive and versatile platforms. Anything similar will work fine for MRAPs as well, if it could be developed cheaper. And due to modular nature the platform could be used for other general/specialized purposes.



Maybe I can shred some light on this.

THe days when I was in Afghanistan, we do not have MARP (it was introduced to conventional force in 2007) so for a grunt to do patrol worl prior to 2007 (I was in Iraq in 2003 and Afghan in 2005) you will need be on a Humvee (up armoured or not) Then you go around the "Hot Spot" and dismount, walk up to the hotspot in a squad armed with metal detector, go around and sweep the hot spot, after that, either you are blown to pieces, or nothing happen, then you mount up, and drive to another hot spot, and check it again.

The problem is, we do not do that for us, we do it for the people who are using that road. You cannot set up roadblock every 20 meters and have the RB watch the road 24 hours a day. Meaning, they can strike you when you are not expected, and you will be not expected.

And no.........You never use IFV or Tanks in that environment without infantry support. Tanks and IFV are death trap if you do not move it with infantry. And military solution in this sceanrio would be what I just said, which is for you to dismount and check hotspot. You ram a tank in there, you will lost a tank. You ram a tank in with infantry support, you will ended up losing both.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Lurch Adams

jhungary said:


> Maybe I can shred some light on this.
> 
> THe days when I was in Afghanistan, we do not have MARP (it was introduced to conventional force in 2007) so for a grunt to do patrol worl prior to 2007 (I was in Iraq in 2003 and Afghan in 2005) you will need be on a Humvee (up armoured or not) Then you go around the "Hot Spot" and dismount, walk up to the hotspot in a squad armed with metal detector, go around and sweep the hot spot, after that, either you are blown to pieces, or nothing happen, then you mount up, and drive to another hot spot, and check it again.
> 
> The problem is, we do not do that for us, we do it for the people who are using that road. You cannot set up roadblock every 20 meters and have the RB watch the road 24 hours a day. Meaning, they can strike you when you are not expected, and you will be not expected.
> 
> And no.........You never use IFV or Tanks in that environment without infantry support. Tanks and IFV are death trap if you do not move it with infantry. And military solution in this sceanrio would be what I just said, which is for you to dismount and check hotspot. You ram a tank in there, you will lost a tank. You ram a tank in with infantry support, you will ended up losing both.



I fully understand your experience. Which is why I mentioned scenarios. Afghanistan and Iraq scenarios are not what most militaries expect to encounter on a regular basis. So procuring limited no. of these MRAPs makes sense to lead convoys as previously mentioned. However, large-scale procurement, if made, has to be cost-effective because it is not something which one would require in regular front lines. 

I guess it all boils down to the kind of deployment Pak army is expecting over next decades. They are not in the position of the US/NATO where overseas deployment in conflict zones may be expected at short notice. And if they feel they need lots of protection during domestic assignments against mines and IEDs then there is something to be said about that as well.


----------



## IceCold

jhungary said:


> You ram a tank in there, you will lost a tank. You ram a tank in with infantry support, you will ended up losing both.



Can you elaborate on the above part a bit more? Pardon my ignorance but how exactly would you ram a tank and with what exactly if by ram you mean ramming literally?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jhungary

Lurch Adams said:


> I fully understand your experience. Which is why I mentioned scenarios. Afghanistan and Iraq scenarios are not what most militaries expect to encounter on a regular basis. So procuring limited no. of these MRAPs makes sense to lead convoys as previously mentioned. However, large-scale procurement, if made, has to be cost-effective because it is not something which one would require in regular front lines.
> 
> I guess it all boils down to the kind of deployment Pak army is expecting over next decades. They are not in the position of the US/NATO where overseas deployment in conflict zones may be expected at short notice. And if they feel they need lots of protection during domestic assignments against mines and IEDs then there is something to be said about that as well.



The problem is, when a country is at war, it can, literally descent into that scenario. Iraq and Afghansitan is a representation of insurgency. It used to be, in the old day, a 4th generation warfare, which mean you will only face insurgency with a non-state actor, but the experience we had with ISIS told us the world have move on to 4GW+ where insurgency can be in a form of State Actor.

Now, this is not about what and where or when you fight, but about how you fight, no matter what kind of war situation you had, you will always had people try to ambush your convoy, and place IED on your MSR or ASR. the problem is even if you avoid using these routes, you cannot stop other people using it, and in this case, you will be responsible for other people, and you will need to clear them for these folks.

Large scale procurment may seems odd but when you are fighting an enemy which will resort to laying mine and IED over your support route, then these thing would come in handy, and if you don't have them in stock (Be it in large number) then you either don't resupply your troop, or you will be wasting a lot of resource just to resupply your troop.

Sorry I was not quite clear (or if you don't really understand what did I say) as I am a bit drunk right now...



IceCold said:


> Can you elaborate on the above part a bit more? Pardon my ignorance but how exactly would you ram a tank and with what exactly if by ram you mean ramming literally?



Ram is what I like to say. Ram mean you use a tank to lead a column and charge into an ambush or IED hotspot.

Because Tank and IFV is hard to see out of, and you will easily get blown up by an IED in a tank if you march in a tank without infantry support, but if you do march your troop infront of your tank, then you will ended up losing both because it will blog down the tank from all the scanning and detecting metal. And it will give time your enemy to lay a well executed ambush. (Ambush and Time not usually go together)

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Lurch Adams

jhungary said:


> The problem is, when a country is at war, it can, literally descent into that scenario. Iraq and Afghansitan is a representation of insurgency. It used to be, in the old day, a 4th generation warfare, which mean you will only face insurgency with a non-state actor, but the experience we had with ISIS told us the world have move on to 4GW+ where insurgency can be in a form of State Actor.
> 
> Now, this is not about what and where or when you fight, but about how you fight, no matter what kind of war situation you had, you will always had people try to ambush your convoy, and place IED on your MSR or ASR. the problem is even if you avoid using these routes, you cannot stop other people using it, and in this case, you will be responsible for other people, and you will need to clear them for these folks.
> 
> Large scale procurment may seems odd but when you are fighting an enemy which will resort to laying mine and IED over your support route, then these thing would come in handy, and if you don't have them in stock (Be it in large number) then you either don't resupply your troop, or you will be wasting a lot of resource just to resupply your troop.
> 
> Sorry I was not quite clear (or if you don't really understand what did I say) as I am a bit drunk right now...
> 
> 
> 
> Ram is what I like to say. Ram mean you use a tank to lead a column and charge into an ambush or IED hotspot.
> 
> Because Tank and IFV is hard to see out of, and you will easily get blown up by an IED in a tank if you march in a tank without infantry support, but if you do march your troop infront of your tank, then you will ended up losing both because it will blog down the tank from all the scanning and detecting metal. And it will give time your enemy to lay a well executed ambush. (Ambush and Time not usually go together)


 
Your response is well appreciated. As a war veteran you have much idea of the ground reality as opposed to armchair analysts like myself.

As you said, the nature of deployment has changed. It is for Pak army to decide what type of engagements they are expecting in the near future. If they feel that they need active deployment in KPK/FATA or Balochistan, then these purchases make obvious sense.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jhungary

Lurch Adams said:


> Your response is well appreciated. As a war veteran you have much idea of the ground reality as opposed to armchair analysts like myself.
> 
> As you said, the nature of deployment has changed. It is for Pak army to decide what type of engagements they are expecting in the near future. If they feel that they need active deployment in KPK/FATA or Balochistan, then these purchases make obvious sense.



It come down to one sentense - Better safe then sorry. As we move from 4GW to 4GW+ the line is kind of blur together, and there are no guarantee that even a fair country will not come down to raising insurgency, if you don't have these equipment in stock, then when this does happen, you will be "sticking your thumb up your arse" in another word, be in shit........


----------



## Basel

Foxtrot Delta said:


> *Dong feng EQ2050 perhaps*



It don't look like MRAP, no V shape hull design too.


----------



## Zarvan

Paramount MRAP




Ejder 4 X 4

Somebody please tell me what is so special about these USA MRAP which these MRAP I have posted about can't do. Or dollars are very special !!!!!!!!!!!!! We can get these MRAP with TOT. Still we keep running after USA for GOD sake How long we are going to keep running after them

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Aawish

We could have easily got at least 200 MRAPS out of a total 762 MRAPs that USA used in Afghanistan and now giving for free to Egypt under Foreign Military Financing (FMF), if our foreign office would have played their cards right. 

http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2016/10/01/united-states-delivers-egyptian-army-batch-mrap-vehicles/

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## YeBeWarned

@jhungary with respect to current events in Pakistan-Afghan border , do you think it will be a good Decision for Pakistan to send its ground troops within 20-30 KM inside Afghanistan to eliminate the threat or using Artillery will be a better solution ? and how can we use these MRAPS in this Operation ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## denel

Foxtrot Delta said:


> *Dong feng EQ2050 perhaps*


This is a death trap; flat surface..... friend, read up on basic physics principals and v shape.



Zarvan said:


> Paramount MRAP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ejder 4 X 4
> 
> Somebody please tell me what is so special about these USA MRAP which these MRAP I have posted about can't do. Or dollars are very special !!!!!!!!!!!!! We can get these MRAP with TOT. Still we keep running after USA for GOD sake How long we are going to keep running after them


Paramount, Nyala, Mamba.... they are all same pedigree..... This is what you need. Man, i am disappointed to see rubbish from US makers while basic good solutions that can be achieved with unimog chassis. When we could do it in the 70' it is shocking to see that this conversation is being had 40 years later... Just call up my former employer or Paramount or buy the surplus Casspirs/buffels in thousands which are in storage.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## jhungary

Starlord said:


> @jhungary with respect to current events in Pakistan-Afghan border , do you think it will be a good Decision for Pakistan to send its ground troops within 20-30 KM inside Afghanistan to eliminate the threat or using Artillery will be a better solution ? and how can we use these MRAPS in this Operation ?



You need to stabilise your border, before you can quell the internal insurgency.

Several years ago, I have said the problem in afghanistan is that thee remote border between Pakistan and Afghanistan is too open, when the US pushes Taliban from Afghanistan, they melt back over to Pakistan, but when the Pakistani try to push TTP out, they went into Afghanistan. The mutual support is there, but we need to push together to squeeze out the Tali. Both NATO and Pakistan did not do that, hence the problem presist today. What we are doing in the last 16 years of war is to pushes Taliban back and forth from Afghanistan and Pakistan. That's it, we did not eleminate anything during all those year ....

For the situation now, Pakistan need to close (really close) its border with Afghanistan and limit the foot traffic between the two country, the the insurgency will lose momentum in the south. I would probably push the Fronntier Corp into key area, stopping the crossing, then using Special Force and hit Key region in FATA area, eventually if both hold, you will have a less chaotic Southern/Western region.

Intrude into Afghanistan can be done if you can control your border, otherwise you push, they melt, you are simply repeating what the ISAF did during the last 17 years.

MRAPS can be used to transfer SF unit safely into and out of the hot spot. It alsoo help Pakistan by keeping the road open inside Pakistan so people are freely able to move within these area, this will increase trust and win hearts and minds for the government.

the situation does not allow a pin point artillery strike, it's always a manuever warfare, you need to use light infantry or special force for the job, then march the army in and stabilise the region after SF dislodge the hotspot. This is what I see as the only way to go.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## YeBeWarned

jhungary said:


> You need to stabilise your border, before you can quell the internal insurgency.
> 
> Several years ago, I have said the problem in afghanistan is that thee remote border between Pakistan and Afghanistan is too open, when the US pushes Taliban from Afghanistan, they melt back over to Pakistan, but when the Pakistani try to push TTP out, they went into Afghanistan. The mutual support is there, but we need to push together to squeeze out the Tali. Both NATO and Pakistan did not do that, hence the problem presist today. What we are doing in the last 16 years of war is to pushes Taliban back and forth from Afghanistan and Pakistan. That's it, we did not eleminate anything during all those year ....
> 
> For the situation now, Pakistan need to close (really close) its border with Afghanistan and limit the foot traffic between the two country, the the insurgency will lose momentum in the south. I would probably push the Fronntier Corp into key area, stopping the crossing, then using Special Force and hit Key region in FATA area, eventually if both hold, you will have a less chaotic Southern/Western region.
> 
> Intrude into Afghanistan can be done if you can control your border, otherwise you push, they melt, you are simply repeating what the ISAF did during the last 17 years.
> 
> MRAPS can be used to transfer SF unit safely into and out of the hot spot. It alsoo help Pakistan by keeping the road open inside Pakistan so people are freely able to move within these area, this will increase trust and win hearts and minds for the government.
> 
> the situation does not allow a pin point artillery strike, it's always a manuever warfare, you need to use light infantry or special force for the job, then march the army in and stabilise the region after SF dislodge the hotspot. This is what I see as the only way to go.



Pakistan has closed borders with Afghanistan, after the recent waves of Attacks .. there is a thread running that 11 terrorist killed during the illegal incursion but we lost two of our men in duty too ..
Close down the border to the extent we can, but you are in Afghanistan so you know better than anyone about the harsh terrain of Pak-Afghan border , there are caves , mountains and rivers which is very hard to block and than there is a problem of sympathetic people on both sides of border ..

I agree with you that US and Pakistan need to push them both together to crush them once and for all, but as our COAS recently called American forces Commander in Afghanistan, maybe there was some sort of acceptance shown from US that Pakistan can target the elements inside Afghanistan , American can be very useful with their drones in that Area .. you think there can be a mutual high end Operation to squeeze the Terrorist from both sides ?

https://defence.pk/threads/border-security-kills-11-crossing-in-from-afghanistan.478910/
sorry for a bit off - Topic ..

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## jhungary

Starlord said:


> Pakistan has closed borders with Afghanistan, after the recent waves of Attacks .. there is a thread running that 11 terrorist killed during the illegal incursion but we lost two of our men in duty too ..
> Close down the border to the extent we can, but you are in Afghanistan so you know better than anyone about the harsh terrain of Pak-Afghan border , there are caves , mountains and rivers which is very hard to block and than there is a problem of sympathetic people on both sides of border ..
> 
> I agree with you that US and Pakistan need to push them both together to crush them once and for all, but as our COAS recently called American forces Commander in Afghanistan, maybe there was some sort of acceptance shown from US that Pakistan can target the elements inside Afghanistan , American can be very useful with their drones in that Area .. you think there can be a mutual high end Operation to squeeze the Terrorist from both sides ?
> 
> https://defence.pk/threads/border-security-kills-11-crossing-in-from-afghanistan.478910/
> sorry for a bit off - Topic ..



This is actually why I said this is a movement war, it's a manuever war.

Pakistan treated the current border as a static/convvention warfare, the thing is, you don't need to actual secure the whole border, but monitor and react to the intrusion and fight with speed and mobility along with good intelligence. Trying to secure the whole border (which is what you guys are currently doing) meaning you won't have enough hand to go thru every inch, and most of the time, your border guard is doing nothing because not all of along the border are active. You are simply wasting resource to try and secure the whole border.

What you need to do is to block the choke point and then using those point and start collecting intel by any mean you can, and have forces ready to face anything at anytime within anywhere at your border. Only then you can secure the border.

I don't think there are much chances now for US to work with Pakistan, the first thing being US is gradually ignoring afghanistan and trying to refocus elsewhere, and then the US stock has slummed since the 2001 invasion in afghanistan, in 2004 or 2005 maybe we can do something about it, but after 2010, there are virtually no chance for US and Pakistan to work together. Even if both country want to start something, US Forces in Pakistan is not as big as before and cannot influence anywhere but the ground they are standing on. I doubt the US force can actually launch an offensive now in Afghanistan with the current number.

On the other hand, drone strike is a good way to stop the insurgency, as you basically target individual, but flying US drone inside Pakistan would sees as an intrusion of Pakistan sovereignty, and US will never allow other country to fly its drone, that mean you need to use the Chinese drone more and start targetting HPT

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## YeBeWarned

jhungary said:


> This is actually why I said this is a movement war, it's a manuever war.
> 
> Pakistan treated the current border as a static/convvention warfare, the thing is, you don't need to actual secure the whole border, but monitor and react to the intrusion and fight with speed and mobility along with good intelligence. Trying to secure the whole border (which is what you guys are currently doing) meaning you won't have enough hand to go thru every inch, and most of the time, your border guard is doing nothing because not all of along the border are active. You are simply wasting resource to try and secure the whole border.
> 
> What you need to do is to block the choke point and then using those point and start collecting intel by any mean you can, and have forces ready to face anything at anytime within anywhere at your border. Only then you can secure the border.
> 
> I don't think there are much chances now for US to work with Pakistan, the first thing being US is gradually ignoring afghanistan and trying to refocus elsewhere, and then the US stock has slummed since the 2001 invasion in afghanistan, in 2004 or 2005 maybe we can do something about it, but after 2010, there are virtually no chance for US and Pakistan to work together. Even if both country want to start something, US Forces in Pakistan is not as big as before and cannot influence anywhere but the ground they are standing on. I doubt the US force can actually launch an offensive now in Afghanistan with the current number.
> 
> On the other hand, drone strike is a good way to stop the insurgency, as you basically target individual, but flying US drone inside Pakistan would sees as an intrusion of Pakistan sovereignty, and US will never allow other country to fly its drone, that mean you need to use the Chinese drone more and start targetting HPT



Thanks for your detailed Reply

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sucha Kuggu

Unless its a gift, we should master the art our self. not a rocket since.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Foxtrot Delta

denel said:


> This is a death trap; flat surface..... friend, read up on basic physics principals and v shape.
> 
> 
> Paramount, Nyala, Mamba.... they are all same pedigree..... This is what you need. Man, i am disappointed to see rubbish from US makers while basic good solutions that can be achieved with unimog chassis. When we could do it in the 70' it is shocking to see that this conversation is being had 40 years later... Just call up my former employer or Paramount or buy the surplus Casspirs/buffels in thousands which are in storage.


That picture of EQ2050 was suggested as a Toyota pickup replacement. Please read carefully before you write something. Morons everywhere 



Basel said:


> It don't look like MRAP, no V shape hull design too.


You too read carefully . it was a Reply to replacement of Toyota pick up. Not mrap.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## denel

Foxtrot Delta said:


> That picture of EQ2050 was suggested as a Toyota pickup replacement. Please read carefully before you write something. Morons everywhere
> 
> 
> You too read carefully . it was a Reply to replacement of Toyota pick up. Not mrap.


stop using foul language. what is it with you? Look at yourself in mirror first.


----------



## Zarvan

*Serbia Unveils New Milosh 4×4 Armoured Multi-Purpose Combat Vehicle at IDEX 2017*







Milosh BOV M16 armoured multi-purpose combat vehicle . Photo by *Petar Vojinovic*
Serbia’s Yugoimport-SDPR unveiled the Milosh BOV M16 armoured multi-purpose combat vehicle at IDEX 2017 exhibition.

The Milosh BOV M16 is a new tactical armoured combat vehicle designed and manufactured by Yugoimport-SDPR in SDPR “Complex Battle Systems” factory in Velika Plana, Serbia.

The BOV M16 vehicle features a V-shaped hull design, integrating floating floor plates and blast mitigation seating to provide protection against mines and improvised explosive devices (IED).

The base vehicle has a length of 5.42m, width of 2.48m and height of 2.3m. Its gross weight ranges between 12,000kg and 14,000kg.

Milosh has a maximum speed of 110km/h and a cruising range of 600km.

The BOV M16 4X4 is an ideal platform for various applications such as “Reconnaissance”, “Command and Control” and “Homeland Security”. Ergonomic design makes operations easy.






http://defence-blog.com/army/serbia...ulti-purpose-combat-vehicle-at-idex-2017.html


----------



## HAIDER

Pakistan has given Navistar Defence, a US manufacturer, a $35 million contract to produce 40 mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) MaxxPro Dash DXM vehicles for, IHS Jane's Defence Weekly reported on Wednesday.





A MaxxPro Dash. The US Army has awarded Navistar Defense a USD35 million contract to build 40 of these MRAPs for Pakistan. — IHS Jane's


The US Department of Defence (DoD) announced the deal in a statement issued on Feb 16.

Awarded under a US Foreign Military Sales contract, the deal also includes various support items, contractor logistics, and technical support services, the defence journal reported.

The project is set to be completed by October 2018. Work on the project will take place in West Point, Mississippi, and Pakistan.

Contract bids were solicited via the internet, with Navistar Defence's the only one received.
dawn.com

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ali_raza

nice edition


----------



## cloud4000

Didn't Pakistan acquire MRAPs from US EDA as well? Is this an additional order?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## NakedLunch

HAIDER said:


> The project is set to be completed by October 2018. Work on the project will take place in West Point, *Mississippi, and Pakistan.*



Does that mean there will be production in Pakistan as well?


----------



## war&peace

NakedLunch said:


> Does that mean there will be production in Pakistan as well?


Well as per my info, Pakistan never got anything under ToT from USA. For technology transfer, we have to look elsewhere i.e. Turkey, China or some European nations like France, SA, Brazil...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## NakedLunch

war&peace said:


> Well as per my info, Pakistan never got anything under ToT from USA. For technology transfer, we have to look elsewhere i.e. Turkey, China or some European nations like France, SA, Brazil...




That's why I was a little surprised because the article clearly says that a production site will be in Pakistan as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## war&peace

NakedLunch said:


> That's why I was a little surprised because the article clearly says that a production site will be in Pakistan as well.


Would you like to share where and in which article because I didn't read any such line in the link shared by OP.


----------



## NakedLunch

war&peace said:


> Would you like to share where and in which article because I didn't read any such line in the link shared by OP.




This is a direct quote lifted from the article above. Line 4/5 or 6/7 depending on where you start the article from.

*'Work on the project will take place in West Point, Mississippi, and Pakistan.'*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## war&peace

NakedLunch said:


> This is a direct quote lifted from the article above. Line 4/5 or 6/7 depending on where you start the article from.
> 
> *'Work on the project will take place in West Point, Mississippi, and Pakistan.'*


Oh I see, but production yes, but ToT no..they won't reveal the formula but of course if the order is large enough then it would be cheaper to produce it locally while the material and components will come from USA..I guess.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## MarcsPakistan

cloud4000 said:


> Didn't Pakistan acquire MRAPs from US EDA as well? Is this an additional order?


It's an additional order 
Bcz there is one MRAP (as shown in the picture above) at our Base MM Alam Mianwali 
This one is a huge I'll say


----------



## Path-Finder

Strange there were rumors of Turkish Kirpi being acquired but I suppose we already have these in service so they decided to increase the numbers!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MarcsPakistan

Path-Finder said:


> Strange there were rumors of Turkish Kirpi being acquired but I suppose we already have these in service so they decided to increase the numbers!


Yes we already had these.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Baloch Pakistani

Path-Finder said:


> Strange there were rumors of Turkish Kirpi being acquired but I suppose we already have these in service so they decided to increase the numbers!


I don't know much about MRAP's but i've seen videos of turkish MRAP's blown into pieces with many dead soldiers. Some MRAP's were even unidentifiable after the blasts. Are these american MRAP's better?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Path-Finder

Baloch Pakistani said:


> I don't know much about MRAP's but i've seen videos of turkish MRAP's blown into pieces with many dead soldiers. Some MRAP's were even unidentifiable after the blasts. Are these american MRAP's better?


No MRAP is death proof but even American MRAP's have been blown to bits, all depends on how big the IED was.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## khansaheeb

We need more apache attack helicopters or equivalent.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## !eon

Someone in office has collected a lot of money in kickback!


----------



## Zarvan

Hassan Man said:


> RIP locally produced MRAP's in development.


No MRAP in in development



Baloch Pakistani said:


> I don't know much about MRAP's but i've seen videos of turkish MRAP's blown into pieces with many dead soldiers. Some MRAP's were even unidentifiable after the blasts. Are these american MRAP's better?


No MRAP not even a Tank can stand 100 KG IED blast. The IED used by kurds most have 100 KG weight nothing can stand that

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## jhungary

Baloch Pakistani said:


> I don't know much about MRAP's but i've seen videos of turkish MRAP's blown into pieces with many dead soldiers. Some MRAP's were even unidentifiable after the blasts. Are these american MRAP's better?



To state this very clear in the beginning, I was in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2003 and 2005 respectively, but I was never in a MRAP. what I am about to say is my own opinion and people I know have been to one of these MRAP.

There are basically 3 sizes for MRAP, small, medium and large, all 3 have different uses and different level of protection.

Small MRAP (such as Caiman or Cougar 4x4) are designed for troop transport, it was to be used in low intensity conflict, its protection come from its thinner hull armor as well as it's chassis shape that were used to deflect the blast

Medium MRAP (such as Cougar 6x6) were used to provide Casevac , convoy duty, combat engineering and EOD vehicle. It's hull armor provide medium protection, used to medium to high risk area.

Large MRAP (such as Buffalo) is specialized Engineering Vehicle, they are designed to deal with maximum protection, and high risk area, if you are sending in one of these, that mean the road is mined or IED'ed for sure. These type of vehicle is used to Clear IED trap or mine in a known infected area.

MRAP is not god, however, it could withstand a 155mm artillery shell (which is about 41kg) projectile head on. (ie exploded underneath the MRAP)

But how do you detonate the shell also count, if you trigger the shell by rolling over it on its side, then the wheel and the axel would also take some blast damage and hence in basic theory, you can withstand a bigger blast.

The different between MRAP and IFV or Tank is, MRAP is driving like a truck, where you have a high driver seat angle, you can look at the road in front of you at about 4 to 5 ft distant. However, if you are in a tank or IFV (I used to be in a Bradley) even if you are turning out (meaning your torso seat outside the driver seat) at most you can see is 15 to 20 ft ahead of you, what happen on the road between your IFV and 20 ft ahead is basically hidden by the IFV own chassis. If you turn in, you can only see the road ahead a long way ahead of you (maybe 40 to 50 ft) as you are looking at the road in a periscope.

The most important defense for IED is situational awareness. If you see something wrong in the road ahead of you, then you know there are going to be an IED on that road hidden somewhere, so how much you can see out of in a MRAP, IFV and a Tank is actually more important than how much blast damage you can take in a tank or IFV, because the bigger the IED was, the easier you can spot them, but if you cannot look at the road ahead, then it doesn't matter if the IED is as big as a refrigerator, when you cannot see it, you are gonna get it.

This cougar is suspected had hit by a 500lb bomb IED







Hope this help

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## khanasifm

Initially pa, paf and PN etc were getting 160-180 part of Eda from Afghanistan stock and were used not new, this is new build order so either Eda were not good or available or pak order new instead of accepting all used ???


----------



## Inception-06

jhungary said:


> The problem is, when a country is at war, it can, literally descent into that scenario. Iraq and Afghansitan is a representation of insurgency. It used to be, in the old day, a 4th generation warfare, which mean you will only face insurgency with a non-state actor, but the experience we had with ISIS told us the world have move on to 4GW+ where insurgency can be in a form of State Actor.
> 
> Now, this is not about what and where or when you fight, but about how you fight, no matter what kind of war situation you had, you will always had people try to ambush your convoy, and place IED on your MSR or ASR. the problem is even if you avoid using these routes, you cannot stop other people using it, and in this case, you will be responsible for other people, and you will need to clear them for these folks.
> 
> Large scale procurment may seems odd but when you are fighting an enemy which will resort to laying mine and IED over your support route, then these thing would come in handy, and if you don't have them in stock (Be it in large number) then you either don't resupply your troop, or you will be wasting a lot of resource just to resupply your troop.
> 
> Sorry I was not quite clear (or if you don't really understand what did I say) as I am a bit drunk right now...
> 
> 
> 
> Ram is what I like to say. Ram mean you use a tank to lead a column and charge into an ambush or IED hotspot.
> 
> Because Tank and IFV is hard to see out of, and you will easily get blown up by an IED in a tank if you march in a tank without infantry support, but if you do march your troop infront of your tank, then you will ended up losing both because it will blog down the tank from all the scanning and detecting metal. And it will give time your enemy to lay a well executed ambush. (Ambush and Time not usually go together)




Welcome to PDF, by the way, how do you see the role of old Pakistani Type-59 Tanks as a fire support element for Infantry? Would it make sense to bring old stocks back to live just for this role? (actually, we are doing it on the western front).



Zarvan said:


> Paramount MRAP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ejder 4 X 4
> 
> Somebody please tell me what is so special about these USA MRAP which these MRAP I have posted about can't do. Or dollars are very special !!!!!!!!!!!!! We can get these MRAP with TOT. Still we keep running after USA for GOD sake How long we are going to keep running after them



I think it because we already have now 100 US-Type-Mraps and the Army wants one type/source to save costs!



!eon said:


> Someone in office has collected a lot of money in kickback!



Care to explain or discuss?



khanasifm said:


> Initially pa, paf and PN etc were getting 160-180 part of Eda from Afghanistan stock and were used not new, this is new build order so either Eda were not good or available or pak order new instead of accepting all used ???



We are taking EDA and new I guess!


----------



## Army research

Basically we got many from eda, fmf etc now we purchasing new as we already have the infrastructure to support these


----------



## jhungary

Ulla said:


> Welcome to PDF, by the way, how do you see the role of old Pakistani Type-59 Tanks as a fire support element for Infantry? Would it make sense to bring old stocks back to live just for this role? (actually, we are doing it on the western front).



As a Cavalryman myself (well, at least half of my training goes toward a cavalryman), I do not support using armored vehicle as a static defence or as a support element, like a mobile howitzer.

Do bear in mind that a howitzer is a support weapon, hence a defensive weapon. An amoured vehicle, regardless of its age, was designed to give offensive capability, you use it to run and gun. If you are using the older Type-59 in an infantry support role, it will be slow and loud, also while you blogged down your progress between your armor and infantry, the armor itself did not offer enough protection for modern Mobile AT Platform. Which means they cannot be effective as a mobile gun or supporting role, instead it would simply act as a big target for your enemy to shoot.

There are several way you can make these old tank works, I believe you guys are converting the T-54 and Type 59 into Al-Zarrar, you can also do what the Brits and American do by putting the gun into an APC or IFV and make it a mobile gun platform. Or simply use them as engineering vehicle. I would not perfer to use them as infantry support weapon.

but then that's just me  I cannot speak for everyone

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## denel

Baloch Pakistani said:


> I don't know much about MRAP's but i've seen videos of turkish MRAP's blown into pieces with many dead soldiers. Some MRAP's were even unidentifiable after the blasts. Are these american MRAP's better?


Just standard issue Buffels are perfect for the job; just check with Sri Lanka. THere are thousands of surplus Buffels in storage for sale.

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/South_Africa/Buffel.php

You will see the first mine proof vehicle which was from VW beetle; this was designed in Rhodesia (now Zim). Buffel is the oupa of mine proof vehicles that followed it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Windjammer

*Navistar, the US-based truck major who had a joint venture with tractor and utility vehicle maker Mahindra & Mahindra, has bagged a contract to supply armoured trucks to the Pakistan Army 

Swaraj Baggonkar Moneycontrol News *

_*Navistar, the US-based truck major who had a joint venture with tractor and utility vehicle maker Mahindra & Mahindra , has bagged a contract to supply armoured trucks to the Pakistan Army.*_ 
The US Department of Defense issued a USD 35 million contract for supplying 40 MaxxPro Dash DXM mine-resistant, armoured trucks to Pakistan. 
While Indian companies are ramping up their presence across several armies around the world they are, however, barred from supplying defence products to Pakistan. Exports of passenger vehicles to the neighbouring country, too, are banned. Mahindra and Navistar had a long running partnership for two joint ventures in India that made trucks, buses and high capacity diesel engines. The JV developed trucks from scratch for the Indian market under the brand Mahindra Navistar. In 2012, however, the US company expressed its willingness to exit the joint ventures as it wanted to focus on the US market. In the following year M&M purchased Navistar’s stakes in the two JVs for an undisclosed sum. Break-up of the Mahindra-Navistar JV could be partly attributed to the fact that Navistar wanted to pursue international military contracts including those emerging from Pakistan awarded by the US. Such deals could have progressively created hurdles for M&M’s very own defence ambitions. Pakistan has been using mine-resistant ambush protected (MRAP) vehicles as part of its claimed counter insurgency operations in the federally administered tribal areas (FATA). Pakistan had sought surplus MRAPs from US stocks in Afghanistan under the Excess Defence Articles (EDA) programme. However, they failed to materialise. Mahindra, meanwhile, is aggressively bidding for Indian defence contracts chasing deals meant to serve all the three units Army, Airforce and Navy. The Mumbai-based company has also bid for the mammoth Rs 60,000 crore contract to build 2,600 units of Future Infantry Combat Vehicles (FICV). Tata Motors is amongst the other bidders for the project.

Read more at: http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/bu...-pakistan_8574221.html?utm_source=ref_article

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## xyxmt

Pakistan Suzuki has a joint venture with Suzuki of Japan that does not mean Pak Suzuki can tell their parent what to do

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Roybot

What a retarded article, so Navistar broke up its partnership with M&M so that it could bag a 35 million dollar deal for Pakistan

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Windjammer

Roybot said:


> What a retarded article, so Navistar broke up its partnership with M&M so that it could bag a 35 million dollar deal for Pakistan


Comprehension issues.....

Break-up of the Mahindra-Navistar JV could be partly attributed to the fact that* Navistar wanted to pursue international military contracts* including those emerging from Pakistan awarded by the US.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Roybot

Windjammer said:


> Comprehension issues.....
> 
> Break-up of the Mahindra-Navistar JV could be partly attributed to the fact that* Navistar wanted to pursue international military contracts* including those emerging from Pakistan awarded by the US.



Its still a retarded article. If am not wrong Pakistan army uses Indian owned Land Rovers as well.

Navistar exited the partnership way back in 2012, to insinuate that it did so in the hope of bagging some obscure US order meant for PA 5 years down the line is ridiculous.

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com...int-ventures-for-rs-175-cr/article4213031.ece

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## monitor

Roybot said:


> Its still a retarded article. If am not wrong Pakistan army uses Indian owned Land Rovers as well.


 
That because they were probably bought before land rover bought by Indian company.


----------



## Cool_Soldier

India would not be able to void this deal.
India is now a days pissing off by itself as most of its policies to isolate Pakistan are getting failed.


----------



## monitor

Windjammer said:


> *Navistar, the US-based truck major who had a joint venture with tractor and utility vehicle maker Mahindra & Mahindra, has bagged a contract to supply armoured trucks to the Pakistan Army
> 
> Swaraj Baggonkar Moneycontrol News *
> 
> _*Navistar, the US-based truck major who had a joint venture with tractor and utility vehicle maker Mahindra & Mahindra , has bagged a contract to supply armoured trucks to the Pakistan Army.*_
> The US Department of Defense issued a USD 35 million contract for supplying 40 MaxxPro Dash DXM mine-resistant, armoured trucks to Pakistan.
> While Indian companies are ramping up their presence across several armies around the world they are, however, barred from supplying defence products to Pakistan. Exports of passenger vehicles to the neighbouring country, too, are banned. Mahindra and Navistar had a long running partnership for two joint ventures in India that made trucks, buses and high capacity diesel engines. The JV developed trucks from scratch for the Indian market under the brand Mahindra Navistar. In 2012, however, the US company expressed its willingness to exit the joint ventures as it wanted to focus on the US market. In the following year M&M purchased Navistar’s stakes in the two JVs for an undisclosed sum. Break-up of the Mahindra-Navistar JV could be partly attributed to the fact that Navistar wanted to pursue international military contracts including those emerging from Pakistan awarded by the US. Such deals could have progressively created hurdles for M&M’s very own defence ambitions. Pakistan has been using mine-resistant ambush protected (MRAP) vehicles as part of its claimed counter insurgency operations in the federally administered tribal areas (FATA). Pakistan had sought surplus MRAPs from US stocks in Afghanistan under the Excess Defence Articles (EDA) programme. However, they failed to materialise. Mahindra, meanwhile, is aggressively bidding for Indian defence contracts chasing deals meant to serve all the three units Army, Airforce and Navy. The Mumbai-based company has also bid for the mammoth Rs 60,000 crore contract to build 2,600 units of Future Infantry Combat Vehicles (FICV). Tata Motors is amongst the other bidders for the project.
> 
> Read more at: http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/bu...-pakistan_8574221.html?utm_source=ref_article




It's unclear why navister would break the JV with MM which could offer bigger contract then Pakistan. Even if they were with Indian company they could participate ever military deal except Pakistan. One reason maybe a joint venture between Indian and US company could tarnish US Navister.


----------



## Windjammer

Roybot said:


> Its still a retarded article. If am not wrong Pakistan army uses Indian owned Land Rovers as well.
> 
> Navistar exited the partnership way back in 2012, to insinuate that it did so in the hope of bagging some obscure US order meant for PA 5 years down the line is ridiculous.
> 
> http://www.thehindubusinessline.com...int-ventures-for-rs-175-cr/article4213031.ece


Seems you are replying without even reading the article, no where it mentions that Navistar parted in hope for the PA order, it wanted to tap into US market and also landed the PA order.

* In 2012, however, the US company expressed its willingness to exit the joint ventures as it wanted to focus on the US market.*


----------



## Roybot

Windjammer said:


> Seems you are replying without even reading the article, no where it mentions that Navistar parted in hope for the PA order, it wanted to tap into US market and also landed the PA order.
> 
> * In 2012, however, the US company expressed its willingness to exit the joint ventures as it wanted to focus on the US market.*



I am only objecting to the part about US order for PA being even a remote reason for the exit, it wasn't.


----------



## Windjammer

monitor said:


> It's unclear why navister would break the JV with MM which could offer bigger contract then Pakistan. Even if they were with Indian company they could participate ever military deal except Pakistan. One reason maybe a joint venture between Indian and US company could tarnish US Navister.


The joint products were exclusively for the Indian commercial market, not sure if they made any trucks for the Indian army but as you said, tagging the Indian maker along may have not been successful on the international arena, anyhow this is the beast they are manufacturing to supply PA.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Path-Finder

Windjammer said:


> The joint products were exclusively for the Indian commercial market, not sure if they made any trucks for the Indian army but as you said, tagging the Indian maker along may have not been successful on the international arena, anyhow this is the beast they are manufacturing to supply PA.


commercial market? really? indian army already has a mrap.


----------



## Windjammer

Path-Finder said:


> commercial market? really? indian army already has a mrap.


What are you trying to say, I'm only going by what's mentioned in the article.

*Mahindra and Navistar had a long running partnership for two joint ventures in India that made trucks, buses and high capacity diesel engines.*


----------



## Hassan Guy

So?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TOPGUN

This is well needed for the safety of our boys .


----------



## Path-Finder

Windjammer said:


> What are you trying to say, I'm only going by what's mentioned in the article.
> 
> *Mahindra and Navistar had a long running partnership for two joint ventures in India that made trucks, buses and high capacity diesel engines.*


I thought MRAP were for commercial use. But Navistar are also a truck maker as well. I completely forgot.


----------



## Windjammer

Path-Finder said:


> I thought MRAP were for commercial use. But Navistar are also a truck maker as well. I completely forgot.



Domestic.....
Commercial.....
Military!!!!!


----------



## xyxmt

Roybot said:


> I am only objecting to the part about US order for PA being even a remote reason for the exit, it wasn't.



thats because an Indian cannot think beyond Pakistan, once they read the Word Pakistan it keep hitting rational part of their brain making is dis-functional


----------



## khanasifm

Another bull@#$% from indo pak


----------



## Pakistani E

Hassan Guy said:


> So?



Bhai are you always high?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indika

Windjammer said:


> The joint products w*ere exclusively for the Indian commercial market,* not sure if they made any trucks for the Indian army but as you said, tagging the Indian maker along may have not been successful on the international arena


Joint venture is only for Indian market ,nothing prevents navistar from competing in international markets. In international market they are on their own. They cannot sell products developed with M&M in international market without their permission.



Roybot said:


> Its still a retarded article. If am not wrong Pakistan army uses Indian owned Land Rovers as well.
> 
> Navistar exited the partnership way back in 2012, to insinuate that it did so in the hope of bagging some obscure US order meant for PA 5 years down the line is ridiculous.
> 
> http://www.thehindubusinessline.com...int-ventures-for-rs-175-cr/article4213031.ece


It makes no sense, it is like saying pepsi exited pakistan market bcos they have a partner ship in India. All the major brands have local partnership and they have no bearing on their international activities. Maruti Suzuki cannot object to suzuki manufacturing in pakistan nor pakistan suzuki do the same.


----------



## lutfishah

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...llied-forces-mrap-requirements-300420713.html


----------

