# Fleet of armoured trucks plagued with problems



## GAP (16 Apr 2007)

Fleet of armoured trucks plagued with problems
Mon Apr 16 2007
Article Link 

OTTAWA -- At the height of fierce fighting in Afghanistan last summer, more than a quarter of Canada's new fleet of heavily armoured RG-31 Nyala patrol vehicles were in the shop with maintenance problems, army records show. 
The sturdy South African-built trucks, which resemble a sport utility vehicle on steroids, were beset with a series of electrical and software glitches, many relating to the roof-mounted, remote-controlled machine gun. 

The former director of the Nyala project at National Defence says the army aims to have 95 per cent availability for its fighting vehicles. 

"We were running into a couple of systemic problems," Mike Moggridge, who recently stepped down as program manager, said in an interview. 

"We do our best to provide the best performance. The only thing worse than trying to introduce a new piece of equipment into theatre during an operation is not to deliver that capability at all." 

Meanwhile, the bodies of two more Canadian soldiers were saluted Sunday for paying the ultimate price for serving their country.    
Relatives clutched one another as the dark grey military Airbus carrying the bodies of Master Cpl. Allan Stewart, 30, and Trooper Patrick Pentland, 23, touched down at CFB Trenton. 

The two soldiers from the Royal Canadian Dragoons, based at CFB Petawawa, Ont., were killed Thursday by a roadside bomb in southern Afghanistan. 

In terms of equipment, over the last 18 months, Canada has purchased 75 Nyalas at a cost of about $91 million. The big-wheeled trucks were hurried into service as the threat of Taliban roadside bombs became more intense
More on link


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Apr 2007)

First and formost I  loved the RG31. After guys started getting hit by suicide bombers with them, sometimes detonating right along side the vehicle and everyone inside walked away, you couldn't help but feel safe in them.

They did have some major problems with the electrical systems.  The alternator wasn't prepared or designed for the amount of power we tried to draw from them.  We found ways to fix it both on our own and especially from the mechanics.

speaking of which the mechanics in my opinion were hero's.  These guys never seemed to sleep, they were always always always working on vehicles, repairing them and making them better with all kids of improvements. 

As someone who has driven both the RG31 and G-wagon, and seen suicide bombers hit both vehicles, all I can say is thank God Canada bought the RG's and rushed them into service.  I'm not sure who's decision it ultimately was but they saved lives.


----------



## mover1 (16 Apr 2007)

This may seem like a bit of paranoia. 
Wouldn't a small thing like maintenance records expose a possible weakness to the wrong people. I know its a very moot point but shouldn't these records be kept under lock and key until AFTER we got out of Afghanistan.


----------



## McG (16 Apr 2007)

Would that mean that maintenance records in Canada should also be Confidential?  After all, one could extrapolate the down time of LAV III in Wainwright.


----------



## mover1 (16 Apr 2007)

No not necessarily. 
Afghanistan Waitright are two different spots in the world. Different factors are causing the down time. I was just wondering what the OPSEC rules (if any) were in place.

Otherwise we might as well just be placing our monthly VOR stats on the web for all to see.


----------



## Wookilar (17 Apr 2007)

It's seems to be one of those things where are procedures have not caught up with the "new" realities. 

All someone is doing is pulling data off of PlannEx. Now, how someone outside of Ottawa has access to that, I would like to know (other than those currently in theatre). I think that I would have to agree with mover1 that operational VOR's should be at least Protected B (and I thought all veh files already were Protected A).

edit: OK, just re-read the article. As for the CP's information source, all they are saying is "army records." Not Access to Information Act, not press release, just "army records" which, unless something brand new is being used, means someone gave PlannEx data to them. I do not think that is such a good idea. I'm all for free press and all that, but I think this is a bit irresponsible of the parties involved (mind you, it is the CP and we all know how much they care about soldiers lives. Their actions/words time and time again have proven that).


----------



## GerryCan (17 Apr 2007)

I for one think the RG-31 is garbage. The amount of time they need to be maintained is outrageous, and it seems that every time you turn around something different is broken. They're also very underpowered which makes taking them off-road an issue(especially along side LAV's). Plus riding anywhere inside the vehicle will eventually rattle out any fillings or dental work you got to Dag green because the vehicle rides about as good as a Lumber Wagon. Now I understand that they can take a decent blast which is a good thing obviously, but so can a LAV. I'd much rather see more money put into a vehicle that holds more, has more fire power(that works all the time) and is much more reliable to use in such a demanding area. Just my thoughts, I've disliked the vehicle from the day I started my course in Pet, to driving it in Kandahar.


----------



## McG (17 Apr 2007)

Wookilar said:
			
		

> I think that I would have to agree with mover1 that operational VOR's should be at least Protected B (and I thought all veh files already were Protected A).


This is not right.  Protected documents contain personal information.  Vehicle maintenance is not a PERSEC issue.  

Anything of an OPSEC neture would be Confidential as its lowest possible classification.  Other militaries have intelligently introduced "Restricted" or "FOUO" classifications (this would be stuff that could be distributed on DWAN but not on the internet), but we do not have anything of this sort in Canada.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Apr 2007)

> The amount of time they need to be maintained is outrageous, and it seems that every time you turn around something different is broken. They're also very underpowered which makes taking them off-road an issue(especially along side LAV's). Plus riding anywhere inside the vehicle will eventually rattle out any fillings or dental work you got to Dag green because the vehicle rides about as good as a Lumber Wagon. Now I understand that they can take a decent blast which is a good thing obviously, but so can a LAV. I'd much rather see more money put into a vehicle that holds more, has more fire power(that works all the time)



I guess you love it or hate it.
There were defiantly major issues.  The power being one. Very underpowered engine (lets put new ones in) The axles and suspension. Speaking of which for what the guys in the battle group tried to use them for, yes they were garbage.  You can't take an RG31 the same places, and at the same speed, as the lavs. We'd laugh when the lavs try and get into our convoy packets. We were like what? One lav has more firepower than our whole convoy.
As was explained to us, the RG31 is an Armored Patrol Vehicle, meaning (apparently) that they are designed for roads and hard surfaces. I considered the RG a replacement vehicle for the G wagon and for that I think it's 1000 times better. Force protection switched over. I think the MPs are now switched over?

The ride inside isn't smooth that's for sure. The seats too are out of control uncomfortable. Expect back problems, mine hurts from them. The G wagon compared is a beautiful ride, but I've seen one of their side doors sucked open in a blast. Very lucky crew inside.  We've had one death if I'm not mistaken in an RG31 and they've been hit quite a few times. One of the GM guys in KAF told us it was the first death in the RG31/Nyla in 15 years. *If* that's accurate that's a decent safety record.  I know it needs to be taken into consideration in the LAV you have guys out of the hatch but it still speaks for crew survivability.

I'd rather the room and firepower of a lav, I don't know who wouldn't.  It's probably a mater of the price difference, LAV availability and time to train the crews. You can train a soldier to drive and gun in the RG in 3 days.
Also I have to disagree with the LAVs firepower working all the time. We saw alot of them being brought back from the FOBs for quite a few mechanical problems, including turret/weapon systems problem.  In my 6 months of escorting convoy I found we brought back lavs 2, maybe 3 times as much as we did RG31s from the battlegroup.  Of course the battlegroup obviously had more LAVs then RGs so that would be a reason for the numbers too I guess.

The RGs STILL did have a lot of maintenance issues.


----------



## KevinB (18 Apr 2007)

FWIW they now make a Nyala variant on a Ford 550 chassis.  
  A lot of companies are running them for escort in Iraq - with a front and rear manned turret (with a M240 or PKM in each)  
People must remember any armoured vehicle will have more problems than a soft skin - due to the weight.

I've never been in a Cdn Nyala - but I was woefully underimpressed by the GWagon.
  
Hijack on
Several American companies are making armoured cars these days --- and the American Army are using a Cadillac-Gage 4x4 kinda mini Grizzly here with good effect -- the standard turret but with a .50 M2 and a 40mm Mk19.  crew of three/four.  Makes for a decently potent escort vehicle for the non Stryker units.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Apr 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> ...
> Hijack on
> Several American companies are making armoured cars these days --- and the American Army are using a Cadillac-Gage 4x4 kinda mini Grizzly here with good effect -- the standard turret but with a .50 M2 and a 40mm Mk19.  crew of three/four.  Makes for a decently potent escort vehicle for the non Stryker units.



Cadillac-Gage offered their Commando, or variants thereof, I guess, during the competition which led to us buying the Cougar (1970_ish_) - which led to GMDD developing the Bison and LAV III, and, and , and ...  I wonder if it (the current offering) is a variant of that design.  I believe it is/was widely used by US law enforcement agencies.


----------



## Old Sweat (18 Apr 2007)

Hijack continues . . .

During the mid-sixties the Commando surfaced, along with another light armoured vehicle from another company - Dodge perhaps, for use in COIN operations. I remember reviewing the correspondence when I was at HQ 4 CIBG, but nothing came of the project. There also was a vehicle under consideration named (I am not making this up), the Truck, Utility, High Mobility, One-and-a-quarter Ton1 1/4 ton. At least it was poetic.)

This is where the speculation begins. At that time we had a 'light brigade' named the SSF (the name didn't stick) at Petawawa commanded by Brigadier JA Dextraze. The AVGP family surfaced duirng Jadex's term as CDS, as did the renaming of 2 CBG as the SSF. I wonder if there is a connection?

Edited for spelling.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Apr 2007)

Further to the ongoing hijack ...

My memory, faulty as it is with _Somezeimers_ (I forget something almost all the time and almost everything some of the time), is that JayDex and the LAV were inextricably linked.

I seem to recall that JayDex wanted the SSF to have a mix of a parachute ‘regiment’ (it was, initially, if you recall, a French style regiment – regiment being used in the tactical organization sense) and a light mechanized (if that’s not a contradiction in terms) ‘regiment’ – air transportable, infantry heavy, with an organic ‘direct fire support vehicle.’

He was also fascinated with the idea that commercial _heavy duty_ ought to be ‘good enough’ for the CF.  He was the driving force behind the 1¼ Ton truck programme.  That project drove MGen H.C. Pitts half way 'round the bend because, while the initial, contracted, capital cost was, as Dextraze suggested, quite low, the final cost – capital and, especially life cycle cost – was much higher by the time we made ‘good enough’ equal ‘acceptable.’  I recall, for example, that we had to redesign and rebuild the vendor’s 24 volt electrical system because the vendor forgot about suppressing RF emissions from the drive train – making every truck a ‘radio’ of sorts with a strong enough signal to ‘jam’ nearby tactical radio receivers – not just in the same vehicles but, if memory serves, at a range of about 15 metres!

 That being said, JayDex had a fertile imagination and he shook up the entrenched establishment.  He was a bloody good CDS.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Apr 2007)

The Commando V-150 has been resurrected and is in use by US forces as a convoy escort, which it is pretty good at. On the other hand,  if the V-150 was pressed into service as a fire support vehicle for dismounted infantry, you would hear no end of complaints about its dismal performance, poor handling, heavy maintainence load etc.

All vehicles and equipment are designed to do a fairly limited range of tasks, so if the RG 31 is being pushed beyond its limits to gain the tactical edge in theater, then yes there will be problems. I suspect the biggest piece of the puzzle is the Armoured Patrol Vehicle concept is rather fuzzy, so there is no clear consensus as to what is needed for the role and how the role is supposed to be executed. Still the RG 31 is far better than most of the possible alternatives.


----------



## KevinB (18 Apr 2007)

I happen to like the 5/4 -- especially my love for it increased in hundredfold when the Loud Squeekey Vehicle Wheeled came into service.
  I


----------



## Jammer (5 May 2007)

The RG-31 I think is one of the best vehs we could have had over there. I know there were issues with the alternator whereby you could not run the RWS, A/C and the black box at the same time, but they had been resloved by the time I left in Feb.
The biggest problem was drivers...yes drivers! Know what the veh is capable of...you can't go full throttle though grape fields and not expect to break something...however a little more suspension would be nice.
On the whole...I think the RGs are being employed better now, minimizing down time


----------



## TheHead (7 May 2007)

The Nyala was garbage on an Operational sense and should be given to rear echelon elements for force protection.   

I was a Nyala gunner on Op Archer Roto 1 and the only thing that Vehicle was good for was #1 Breaking Down.  #2 Road moves on pavement.   I spent most of my time during night moves not scanning my arcs but telling my driver where to go since he couldn't see anything.   I commend the Military for the thought, since it was a hasty decision to save troops lives, but once again no tactical thought was put into this decision.   Unless things have been retrofitted (Like a STAB for the weapon, and many other key functions that were missing,broken or just left out  Roll Eyes )  than I hope those things are never used in a forward unit on combat operations.


----------



## George Wallace (7 May 2007)

Deja vu!

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/60542/post-564338.html#msg564338


----------



## TheHead (7 May 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Deja vu!
> 
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/60542/post-564338.html#msg564338



Yes I posted the same thing in a less active thread.  I'm sure it warrants your sarcasm also. Please stay on topic.  :


----------



## George Wallace (7 May 2007)

TheHead said:
			
		

> Yes I posted the same thing in a less active thread.  I'm sure it warrants your sarcasm also. Please stay on topic.  :



I suppose I could ding you for attitude, but instead I'll just say that redundant posts really don't help your case.  Some originality could have better served your subjective views.  Should I go around cleaning up repetative posts or just leave them........seeing as currently your post in the other topic is just two down below this topic at present......perhaps I should.  

Fleet of armoured trucks plagued with problems « 1 2  All »  GAP  18  998   Today at 14:53:27     by TheHead  

Family of Future Combat Vehicles   Bubbles  0  39   Today at 13:16:57     by Bubbles  

Canada buys Buffalo & Cougar MPV for Afghanistan   Allen  11  523   Today at 02:29:15     by TheHead   

 :


----------



## TheHead (7 May 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I suppose I could ding you for attitude, but instead I'll just say that redundant posts really don't help your case.  Some originality could have better served your subjective views.  Should I go around cleaning up repetative posts or just leave them........seeing as currently your post in the other topic is just two down below this topic at present......perhaps I should.
> 
> Fleet of armoured trucks plagued with problems « 1 2  All »  GAP  18  998   Today at 14:53:27     by TheHead
> 
> ...




So people who think the Nyalla are the greatest thing in the world but have no "Originality" for their views can post whatever they please praising the vehicle.  But when someone has something bad to say they need to make a huge elaborate thesis on why it's shit when experience isn't enough.    Good Logic George  :   I see a whole lot of hypocrisy going on here.


----------



## George Wallace (7 May 2007)

:  I suppose you can read and comprehend the English language, or is it a second language for you?  If English is a second language for you, then I can understand why you are misinterpreting what is posted.  It won't be the first time that a poster on these forums has faced these problems.

I have neither praised, nor condemned the Nyala.  I have just pointed out that your repeating the same sentences over and over do nothing to develop your argument.  If you were to use some more originality and elaborate more in the defence of your position you would be better off.  You can sit here all day and say it is crap over and over, but unless you stop being repetitive, you'll get nowhere.  

I have provided reference to your other post, in the other discusion, and although it is for all practical purposes identical to your post here, does open up room for two discusions along the same lines of thought that will eventually have to be merged.


----------



## TheHead (7 May 2007)

Jammer said:
			
		

> The RG-31 I think is one of the best vehs we could have had over there. I know there were issues with the alternator whereby you could not run the RWS, A/C and the black box at the same time, but they had been resloved by the time I left in Feb.
> The biggest problem was drivers...yes drivers! Know what the veh is capable of...you can't go full throttle though grape fields and not expect to break something...however a little more suspension would be nice.
> On the whole...I think the RGs are being employed better now, minimizing down time



  I disagree with your statement here.  Blaming the drivers is a scapegoat for an item purchased without any thought involved.   During tactical road moves you have no choice but to keep up with the convoy as a driver (Try arguing with a cocky Coy 2 i/c about the limitations of the Nyalla and you'll be doing shitter burning detail at FOB Robinson for a month).   During Night Road Moves with no headlights the drivers were severely handicapped due to the fact all the lights on the dashboard light up hampering his night vision capabilities and putting the crew and passengers in harms way. More than once we found ourselves cock eyes in a wadi or almost on the verge of rolling down a hill due to the fact our Platoon commander wouldn't allow us to drive lights on.

  Now to the second point.  Any Tactical road moves at night without headlights was wasted on the fact that the gunners display lights up the entire vehicle.   You're basically a slow moving target for timmy Taliban.

  Than there is the issue about kit.  Now I don't know about unit SOPs but when your section commander has the common sense of a brick the SOP was to keep your rucksacks in the Nyalla. How do  you fit 7 rucksacks on or in that thing?   We were forced to strap them to the sides/top/keep them inside all jammed in there.   Well this raises huge issues #1.  Any Rucksack on the top is an issue for the turrets mobility.
                                                                                                                                  #2.  Any Rucksack INSIDE the Nyalla becomes a projectile if hit with an IED/Mine.
                                                                                                                                  #3.  Any Rucksacks on the Side hurt the occupants vision through the windows.

   Than we have the RWS. An amazing piece of kit if you plan on staying on the pavement. The optics system is what we should now have in the LAV3.   Any Tactical Road moves off road, the thing is useless (Unless a stab has been incorporated now).  Also how fragile the RWS is a big issue a night sized rock will put that thing out of action.


----------



## TheHead (7 May 2007)

Also George I never stated YOU were talking about the Nyalla once did I?  I was stating that people in this thread who are praising it are also not developing their argument are they? 
Also please stop with the sarcasm it's petty  :  If you want a pissing match take this to PMs.   Thank you.


----------



## 3rd Herd (5 Aug 2007)

Mods free to Move:
The usual Disclaimer:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/05/nbook105.xml

Christopher Booker's notebook
By Christopher Booker, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:51am BST 05/08/2007
The death of a Pinzgauer driver 

More than once last year this column strongly questioned the decision by the Ministry of Defence to equip our troops in Afghanistan with 100 Pinzgauer Vector patrol vehicles. These are not "mine-protected", unlike various vehicles the MoD rejected for the role, such as the RG-31, made in South Africa by BAe Systems, or the Australian-built Bushmaster. To send such vehicles to a country with more mines than any other in the world seemed inexplicable.

As the Tory defence spokesman, Gerald Howarth MP, observes on his website, the Pinzgauer "does not provide much better protection than the Snatch Land Rover" that it was intended to replace.

The week before last, as reported by my colleague Dr Richard North on his website, www.eureferendum.com, three Nato patrol vehicles in Afghanistan were blown up by insurgents. The crews of a Canadian RG-31 and a Dutch Bushmaster escaped unhurt. When a British Pinzgauer was hit by a roadside bomb, one soldier died and two were seriously injured.

When I asked Pinzgauer to comment on this very unfortunate news, the company referred me to the MoD. The MoD said on Friday that it is "still investigating the incident".

What you are not allowed to know… 
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/
We can only speculate as to why that might be but, those with an idle moment might care to look at this entirely unrelated site which, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with the Booker story.

Remaining in speculation mode, the thought occurs that the MoD might possibly be keen to conceal details about what is known in the trade as a "cock-up", spending huge amounts of money on sending a dangerously vulnerable vehicle to Afghanistan, putting our troops unnecessarily at risk.

However, it surely cannot be because the MoD wants to conceal this information from the terrorists. They have been highly adept at producing detailed video training films, which they post on the internet, identifying coalition force vehicles, their weak points and the tactics for destroying them. Routinely, they film their own IED hits and post them on websites as well.

Thus, one might just speculate that the real concern of the MoD is to conceal their own failures from the British public and taxpayers, and from the soldiers who must ride in these "coffins on wheels", in procuring inadequate vehicles when cheaper, better vehicles are readily available.

See also:
Coffins on wheels
Monday, June 26, 2006
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/06/coffins-on-wheels.html
"Smith then remarks that the Canadians have bought the RG-31 for use in Afghanistan but, strangely, does not mention that the US has bought 148 for use in Iraq for protection against IEDs. "Ministers still defend the decision not to go for the RG-31," he then tells us, "It might have proven effective against land mines. It might be good enough for the Canadians. You might even be able to get it on the ground very quickly. But its profile is all wrong and it's just that bit too big for Basra."


----------



## Jammer (6 Aug 2007)

TheHead said:
			
		

> I disagree with your statement here.  Blaming the drivers is a scapegoat for an item purchased without any thought involved.   During tactical road moves you have no choice but to keep up with the convoy as a driver (Try arguing with a cocky Coy 2 i/c about the limitations of the Nyalla and you'll be doing shitter burning detail at FOB Robinson for a month).   During Night Road Moves with no headlights the drivers were severely handicapped due to the fact all the lights on the dashboard light up hampering his night vision capabilities and putting the crew and passengers in harms way. More than once we found ourselves **** eyes in a wadi or almost on the verge of rolling down a hill due to the fact our Platoon commander wouldn't allow us to drive lights on.
> 
> Now to the second point.  Any Tactical road moves at night without headlights was wasted on the fact that the gunners display lights up the entire vehicle.   You're basically a slow moving target for timmy Taliban.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (10 Aug 2007)

From what I have seen, the probems with the RG-31 are mostly reated to attempting to upgrade the machine and make it do things it was not designed to do. As a mine proof transport, it is a great machine (that's what it was made for, after all). Going cross country or adding extra kit to turn it into a fighting vehicle is asking for trouble, although the design seems adaptable enough to take some of these roles.

Like I said earlier, the entire concept of APV's isn't really defined, so I suspect you could cobble together almost anything and declare it to be an APV. The vast differences in size, weight, shape and fighting ability of various APV's in service would seem to point to that (you notice in many other categories of military equipment like AFV's, IFV's and even medium weight fighting machines the products that different nations build and use are actualy quite similar in size, weight and layout).

Until the role and use of APVs is defined, I think we will see lots of disagreements as to the utility and use of vehicles like the RG-31, Vector, Bushmaster, Cougar etc.


----------

