Tuesday, December 07, 2010

Dingo 2 not loved by Norway's Troops.


Thanks Jonathan!

via Defense News...

In Norway, Anger Over Dingo Vehicle Buy


By GERARD O’DWYER


HELSINKI
— The Norwegian govern­ment’s decision to “rush through” an order for 20 Dingo 2 armored personnel vehicles has drawn accu­sations from opposition parties that the Ministry of Defense (MoD) picked a vehicle type spurned by its ground forces in Afghanistan.

On Nov. 18, the opposition con­servative party, Høyre, sent 13 ques­tions to the ministry, expressing doubts that the Dingo 2 would offer adequate protection.

“We want to know why so much money was spent on a vehicle which our troops in Afghanistan do not feel safe in,” said Ivar Kristiansen, a Høyre representative on the Norwe­gian parliament’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. “There is also the risk that the Dingo 2 may be used as a route-clearing vehicle. It has never been used by any force in such a role.” In a Nov. 26 written response, De­fense Minister Grete Faremo de­fended the decision but conceded that defense chief Gen. Harald
Sunde had expressed a preference for U.S. company Oshkosh’s MRAP all-terrain vehicle (M-ATV).

Faremo said the selection was made by Forsvarets Logistikkorgan­isasjon (FLO), Norway’s defense lo­gistics organization, and endorsed by Forsvarets Operative Hoved­kvarter, the armed forces’ opera­tional headquarters.

She said the Dingo 2 was the best available vehicle for improving Norwegian forces’ overall protection against improvised bombs and oth­er explosives. Delaying the purchase would expose Norwegian soldiers to an unnecessary and unacceptable high risk, she said.

“This has been a rapid acquisition under severe time pressure, and I’m happy with the result,” Faremo said in her statement. “I recognize that not all our soldiers in Afghanistan agree with the choice of vehicle, but I must emphasize that the Dingo 2 was the only acceptable option that could be deployed now.” Faremo said the FLO would test the Dingo 2’s suitability for clearing routes.
On Oct. 29, the MoD signed an ini­tial $25 million contract for 20 Din­go 2s with Germany’s Krauss-Maffei Wegmann. Three weeks later, the first vehicle entered service with Norway’s troops in Afghanistan.

The quick move angered opposi­tion groups and divided military opinion, said Jan Arild Ellingsen, the Progress Party’s spokesman on defense.

“The jury is out on whether the Dingo 2 is the best armored vehicle in Afghanistan of its type,” Ellingsen said. “This seems like a costly tem­porary solution. We have received honest feedback from our troops in Afghanistan, and the general feeling is that they do not have confidence in this vehicle.” He said the Army’s weapons test­ing center wrote to the MoD on Oct. 18 advising the government against the purchase of the Dingo 2, Ellingsen said.

The Armed Forces Command, in response, stated that the testing cen­ter has changed its position after re­ceiving additional technical data on the Dingo 2 from the FLO and now
supports the purchase.

Ellingsen said the MoD should have considered the Oshkosh M-ATV, the armored fighting vehicle designed for U.S. Army use among the prevailing threats and moun­tainous terrain in Afghanistan.

Faremo said the MoD was in­formed by U.S. Central Command that the vehicle would not be avail­able to purchase or lease before 2012.

The operational headquarters com­mander, Maj. Gen. Bernt Brovold, confirmed that the military had been interested in the M-ATV but that U.S. officials said it was not yet available. Brovold said Norwegian forces in Afghanistan needed an armored ve­hicle quickly, and the Dingo 2’s V­shaped hull and elevated chassis would do the job.

“The Dingo 2 is a maneuverable heavy vehicle with a surprisingly quick acceleration,” he said. “It pro­vides improved protection for our soldiers.” Ellingsen said the “rushing through” of the Dingo 2 purchase represents a knee-jerk response to
rising Norwegian casualties in Afghanistan.

AFC figures reveal around 200 separate attacks on Norwegian forces in the first 10 months of 2010. These include around 20 roadside bombs, including a June blast that killed four soldiers traveling in an Iveco light multirole vehicle on pa­trol in Faryab province.

Nine Norwegian soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan since 2004.

“Our soldiers deserve the best ar­mored vehicle protection,” Ellingsen said. “This means using the same ve­hicles that the Americans do. We should buy or lease. What is very clear is that Army personnel and the military’s weapons testing unit are not convinced by the Dingo 2.” Faremo said such critical com­ments and assessments were based on general opinions and inaccurate data that failed to take full account of the Dingo 2’s absolute technical qualities and capabilities.

Belgium, which has ordered 220 Dingo 2 units, already deploys the vehicle in Afghanistan. It is also in service with the militaries of Ger­many, Austria, Luxembourg and the Czech Republic.
from the electronic version of DefenseNews.com
Wow.  I always had a neutral opinion of the Dingo 2 and at worst thought it was as good as the other MRAPs out there.  Now I'm not so sure.  Hopefully a European reader will be able to let us know if this is politics or an actual issue.  

5 comments :

  1. http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/artikkel.php?artid=10010922

    http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/artikkel.php?artid=10011529

    http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/artikkel.php?artid=10010783

    As far as I can tell the army procured the Dingo 2 as a complement to the Iveco LMV which is already in service. And that it was the only vehicle available (KMW delivered the first batch of ten vehicles three weeks after they had been awarded the contract). A Norwegian soldier then complained that the Dingo 2 can't be used for road clearance, something he isn't used for in neither the German, Belgian, Austrian or Czech Army (soldiers also complained that they need better UAVs, more IED specialists, ...). To me it seems more like the typical political games between the government and the opposition. German soldiers usually call for more Dingos and are satisfied with its performance (so far no soldier driving in a Dingo was killed).

    ReplyDelete
  2. One of the other gripes about the Dingo2 is that it has a special flat bottom plate instead of the traditional V-shaped hull to deflect blasts.
    It has proven to have similar protective levels compared to a V-hull.
    Of course it's just a matter of time untill a heavy enough IED punches through, and then the debate will start all over again.

    ReplyDelete
  3. i think what they're talking about (as far as the Dingo is concerned) is that the US military has been down this road before and our vehicles are more proven...

    i don't know if i follow that logic because i'm a big fan of what Thales Australia is doing with their offering..especially in all the different variants and having settled on one platform...

    ReplyDelete
  4. How about a Dutch (they're in the process of leaving) to Norwegian, Bushmaster transfer?

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Dingo does not come close to traditional MRAPS in terms of protection and is not suitable as a route clearing vehicle, a role for wich the Husky and Buffalo are usually used. Norway could have procured any number of US MRAP designs but instead they chose to endanger the lives of their troops.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.