# You're getting it......for whatever purpose (RG-31 with RWS)



## Kirkhill (30 Nov 2005)

The headline is occasioned by the speculation as to whether this vehicle was to be a recce vehicle, a command and liaison vehicle or a troop carrier.

Regardless of its actual role I am sure it will be put to good use.

A million bucks a vehicle eh?.   Well, cheaper than a LAV and everything is pretty pricey these days.   The RWS alone goes for something around $250,000.

Good luck with them.




> General Dynamics Awarded $60 Million Contract to Supply RG-31 Mine Protected Vehicles to the Canadian Military
> 
> 
> (Source: General Dynamics Land Systems â â€œ Canada; issued Nov. 29, 2005)
> ...



http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.16836444.1133365624.Q43JeMOa9dUAAHHX65o&modele=jdc_34

Here's a link to a brochure on the Kongsberg RWS.

http://www.kongsberg.com/dokumenter/protechxproductark/kda/english/Protector_RWS_04.pdf

And to the RG-31

http://www.baesystemsomc.co.za/Default.aspx?tabid=648


----------



## McG (30 Nov 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The headline is occasioned by the speculation as to whether this vehicle was to be a recce vehicle, a command and liaison vehicle or a troop carrier.


It will be all the above.


----------



## Tebo (1 Dec 2005)

From the maker at http://www.baesystemsomc.co.za/Default.aspx?tabid=648, the RG-31 is the mine-protected vehicle of choice of peacekeepers.  Fantastic. It also finds favour with NGOs because of it's non-threatening stature.

Now I have a question.  Does anyone know if this vehicle has an option for firing ports?


----------



## KevinB (1 Dec 2005)

Its also favoured by Blackwater and other PSC's as well as the South African Army -- hardly what I would call the bastion of Peacekeepers...


 Not sure if we subsrcibed to the firing port versions.  A few of out Engineer brethern who crewed the Nyala's in Afghan could tell you.


----------



## McG (1 Dec 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Not sure if we subsrcibed to the firing port versions.   A few of out Engineer brethern who crewed the Nyala's in Afghan could tell you.


Assuming that the new vehicles are the same package as what we already have.  Given the RWS, I am certain that we are getting different packages.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Dec 2005)

This may be another characteristicallly silly question/observation but...

Given that you may be getting some different variants, and if so not all variants need be supplied with the RWS system is it fair to ask if this pig could be a "stealth" vehicle in an urban environment?

LAVs and Bradleys look like military vehicles and stand out in a street-scape at a considerable distance.  You can easily pick them out in the middle of a bunch of sedans, pickups and trucks.  This thing (in addition to not looking so "aggressive") also looks pretty much like a truck, especially if it doesn't have the RWS mounted.  Coated with a layer of dust, is it going to make it easier for troops to approach more closely and more unobtrusively when operating in cities?  It does seem likely that it will more easily blend in with the scenery ....


----------



## Big Red (1 Dec 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Given that you may be getting some different variants, and if so not all variants need be supplied with the RWS system is it fair to ask if this pig could be a "stealth" vehicle in an urban environment?
> 
> LAVs and Bradleys look like military vehicles and stand out in a street-scape at a considerable distance.   You can easily pick them out in the middle of a bunch of sedans, pickups and trucks.   This thing (in addition to not looking so "aggressive") also looks pretty much like a truck, especially if it doesn't have the RWS mounted.   Coated with a layer of dust, is it going to make it easier for troops to approach more closely and more unobtrusively when operating in cities?   It does seem likely that it will more easily blend in with the scenery ....



NO, you can see them coming a mile away even when painted white, grey, black, blue, red.  The vehicle is twice as tall as a normal car.


----------



## Big Red (1 Dec 2005)

Tebo said:
			
		

> From the maker at http://www.baesystemsomc.co.za/Default.aspx?tabid=648, the RG-31 is the mine-protected vehicle of choice of peacekeepers.   Fantastic. It also finds favour with NGOs because of it's non-threatening stature.
> 
> Now I have a question.   Does anyone know if this vehicle has an option for firing ports?



It has an option for every single window on the vehicle to have a firing port, including the front ones. It's also available with two turrets, choose what you want to mount.

I'm really suprised the CF has ordered this many so quickly without any political squabbling. I'd certainly rather ride in one than a G-wagon if I were doing convoy escort. Not sure all 60 of them needed to be the high end models, but if someone wants the spend the cash, who's to argue?


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Dec 2005)

> NO, you can see them coming a mile away even when painted white, grey, black, blue, red.  The vehicle is twice as tall as a normal car.



Shot down in flames again. ;D.

Thanks.


----------



## armybuck041 (1 Dec 2005)

I for one think this is great news....

Having spend lots of time in both the Mamba as a Recce Driver on Palladium Roto II and the Nyala as the Engr Recce Sgt on Athena Roto III, I can't think of a more well rounded, safer and rugged vehicle.


----------



## Big Red (1 Dec 2005)

Hopefully the new ones are something closer to this.


----------



## Tebo (2 Dec 2005)

Thanks for the course correction KevinB.  Apparently, I see red when confronted with 'peace keeper' and Canada.  The logistics and protection of a LUV-W light coy seemed a little dubious, this makes far more sense.  Dare I say common sense?


----------



## KevinB (2 Dec 2005)

Big Red -- unfortunately we subscribed to the hide inside your vehicle RWS.  
   So much for being out and observing...

The CF is doing the GWagon Fishbowl routine again.  - We will lose more troops since they cannot "smell the flowers" than we woudl with an open gunner like your pic.

Anyone who has seen the SOF Hummers - they are open and bristling with guns  -- people tend not to mess with them - for they are mostly (right XXXX  ;D - wait for his book) paying attention and going to see IED's or VBIED's before they are hit with them - and kill anyone dumb enough to get in a sa fight with them.

 The Fishbowl routine has people deaf dumb and stupid.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Dec 2005)

A field expedient solution without looking at the problem. Yes, it is protection for the crew against certain threats, but how are they to do their job using that vehicle? (A whole nes set of TTPs needs to be developed for certain). 

As a recce vehicle, it is difficult to see just how the crew can use it effectively. To paraphrase another thread, is this thing "Sabre" or "Stealth"?


----------



## couchcommander (2 Dec 2005)

Question here,

I am confused as to how this new vehicle is going to be employed? My previous understanding of the Nyala was that it was a specialist vehicle used for route clearing, as it had excellent mine resistance.

With the purcahse of 50 (?) of them, I am now wondering exactly how these vehicles will fit into operations, as compared to the G-Wagons, LAVIII's and Coyotes? (In short, what will they be used for in Afghanistan? And yes, don't worry, I do realize that G-Wagons, LAV III's, and Coyotes are different vehicles , but it seems like this might be intended to take some roles typically assigned to these different vehicles and integrate them into one platform.... or not????) 

EDIT:

The mine resistance is really impressive, but they don't give specific data on the armouring for the sides of the vehicle other than small arms (does that mean 7.62 AP?). I would hope given that it's supposed to be able to resist massive tank mines, and weighs like 11 tons, the armouring overall would be greater than something like a Duro, maybe even Bison equivalent (I don't know, anyone?)? If it does, and combined with the capability of the RWS (day/night capability and IR), range, speed, capacity for GIBs, lower profile than LAV III, more manouverable... might it be the answer to our hunt in the "Maybe new Recce vehicle" thread????

The entire fishbowl thing seems as though it would be manageable, to me (heh), comments?


----------



## KevinB (2 Dec 2005)

It will replace the G Wagon for most patrol functions in my understanding.

 So you will have LAV, Coyote and Nyala's operating "outside the wire"  -- plus some GWagons C&R's - but I am guessing they will get pushed into CIMIC, and ADMIN roles...

  

couch -- I've done the Iltis/SUV thing and the Fishbowl GWagon -- give me the SUV (plus my hair looks better in them  )


----------



## McG (2 Dec 2005)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> My previous understanding of the Nyala was that it was a specialist vehicle used for route clearing, as it had excellent mine resistance.


No.  It was not used form route clearing.  Short of hitting a mine (which you do not want to do even in a Nyala), the vehicle has no way of clearing mines from the ground.  It was used for route recces intended to determine the mine threat (though even many Engr incorrectly reffered to this as "route prooving").



			
				couchcommander said:
			
		

> I am confused as to how this new vehicle is going to be employed?


Replace the G-Wagon as the light section vehicle, liaison vehicle, etc.  It will also continue to be used by engr for recce of the ground.


----------



## DG-41 (2 Dec 2005)

> liaison vehicle



Whoohoo! Combat LO! 

So maybe we train in GWagon recce and then deploy in this thing? The extra armour (over a GWagon) is nice, and it looks like it has a bunch of roof hatches.

Sure 'nuff is big though. 

Should I be concerned that half the pics showed stuck/rolled vehicles?

DG


----------



## McG (2 Dec 2005)

Looks like we have gone with a new RWS for the RG-31.  Same one as the US Stryker: http://www.kongsberg.com/dokumenter/protechxproduktark/kda/english/Protector_RWS_04.pdf

(The current system: http://www.oerlikon.ca/en/products/arme/pws.htm)


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Dec 2005)

Interesting to note that the factory blurb says that the Javelin ATGM has already been integrated into the system.   Would that be of any interest to the   Recce types or the Inf Combat Support types?


----------



## KevinB (2 Dec 2005)

Not unless someone is trying to fit this system into a role it is not made for...

 PSO/COIN issues are forcing the Militaries to adapt to a more flexible structure that what a standard TO&E would consist of, however you cannot use these systems to plug and play into a warfighting role.  We would be bankrupted trying to shoehorn the Nyala into replacing the LSVW and/or GWagon.  

It was bought to comfort the powers that be that they have done all they can to stop casualties to our side from IED's.  It is capable for some roles -- But really if you think you going to get into a furball -- take a LAV.  If your playing hearts and minds use soft skins like the locals... Or at least vehicles that look like soft skins.


----------



## Infanteer (2 Dec 2005)

On the topic of Javelins and RWS - here is a RWS station that mounted a Javelin and an M2 .50 cal HMG that was displayed at the AUSA show.  Might be a nice thing to top our vehicle with....


----------



## KevinB (2 Dec 2005)

Will it take the HK GMG ?


----------



## armybuck041 (3 Dec 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> It was bought to comfort the powers that be that they have done all they can to stop casualties to our side from IED's.  If your playing hearts and minds use soft skins like the locals... Or at least vehicles that look like soft skins.


You talk about stopping IED casulties like its a bad thing? Almost every contingent I worked with would have given their left arm for a Nyala, including those riding around in open top G-wagons. Open top vehicles bristling with weapons are no deterrent or concern to a pressure plate IED or a Spider Device initiated by a Cell Phone or FRS from a safe distance. The only CF Troops in the Kandahar area that require open top soft skins already have them. So if you really want to ride around in one, start doing your application for the farm.



			
				KevinB said:
			
		

> It is capable for some roles -- But really if you think you going to get into a furball -- take a LAV.


No thanks... The most effective weapon on my LAV III in Afghanistan was my C-8. 

I see all the armchair quarterbacks are in full swing with this.


----------



## armybuck041 (3 Dec 2005)

DG-41 said:
			
		

> Should I be concerned that half the pics showed stuck/rolled vehicles?



No, not at all. I get paid to find roads and designate them. Sometimes you get stuck.

FWIW, all we had to do to the rolled one was tip it back on to its wheels, top up the oil, and then we drove it away.


----------



## aesop081 (3 Dec 2005)

armybuck041 said:
			
		

> I see all the armchair quarterbacks are in full swing with this.



They just dont have your perspective.....I was glad to see all the pics....wish i had been there with you ( beleive it or not i miss those days sometimes) .  I may be overhead soon though !!


----------



## armybuck041 (3 Dec 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> It was used for route recces intended to determine the mine threat (though even many Engr incorrectly reffered to this as "route prooving").



I agree that Designation (Route Recce) and Clearance are two separate tasks, but it can and has been used for Route Proving/Proofing after a Clearance Op. 
  

Driving over a High Risk uncleared route would be very dumb regardless of the vehicle. Even though its mine "hardened", past incidents have shown that occupants don't exactly walk away from a mine strike either.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Dec 2005)

> I see all the armchair quarterbacks are in full swing with this.



It's right comfortable back here..


----------



## KevinB (3 Dec 2005)

armybuck041 said:
			
		

> I see all the armchair quarterbacks are in full swing with this.



 :'(    You've hurt my feelings.


----------



## armybuck041 (3 Dec 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> :'(    You've hurt my feelings.



Hey don't get me wrong, its just day after day I see people slam equipment on here, or pick it apart so bad it leaves the slightly less educated confused. I think that this purchase is a step in the right direction. Feedback about the G-Wagons made its way upstairs and I think they came up with a reasonable compromise with this. 

Listen up ney sayers:

Its not a fish bowl. 

It can be fought out of quite easily with Small Arms from its 9 hatches.

It has more blast/frag protection that a LAV III. Yes, the glass is very thick and strong. We shot a spare panel with a .50 Cal to answer our own curiousities.

It provides the complete crew and passengers with much more situational awareness than any other A-Veh.

And you didn't have to wait 10 years to get it.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Dec 2005)

At bottom Armybuck you've described the most important aspect of any kit and that is that the folks using it are comfortable with it so that they can get the job done.

Cheers.


----------



## KevinB (3 Dec 2005)

ArmyBuck -- my issue is with the RWS - I cant stand them.  Add in the fact some risk adverse commander will order hatches down, I saw a Col make LAV and Coyote crews unload their MBGD's due to his worry they might go off accidentally.  I understand the desire to mitigate damage from IED's - I've seen the damage they can do.  The issue with the RWS - is the same problem as crews running the LAV with the battle overide on  with troops out the family hatches, as well as lack of SA if they are buttoned up.  

 I've done both the soft skin and hard skin driving in Afghan -- my preference is for soft skin above the drivers doors in a green vehicle and in a civilian pattern laminate (shoot out) windows with armoured floor and doors.  

I even sat in a Nyala once


----------



## Infanteer (3 Dec 2005)

Well, I may as well chime in from the armchair.   

This thing seems to fit the bill to me.   I was discussing this with Matt Fisher the other day, the idea of the "in between" vehicle for SASO operations (what we are essentially conducting.   Soft-skin, open vehicles have their advantages and are the vehicle of choice in low threat environments where hearts-and-minds is the key.   When we are in full on warfighting, a LAV or similar Fighting Vehicle is desired, as were more concerned about mobility and firepower to deliver shock to the enemy.   This vehicle sits in the middle of the two - because it sits in the middle of the two it may fit the bill for Security And Stability Operations (SASO) or COunterInsurgency Operations (COIN) where, although hearts-and-minds is still important, the overlying concern is security against a very active and deadly enemy force.   You are establishing presence to tell the enemy that you are not going home - you will most likely draw attacks while attempting to find ways to undermine his capability and will to fight.   Trying to conduct this "middle-ground" operation with too little or too much force protection and firepower may be counter-productive.

To date, 633 of the 2127 US servicemen killed Iraq have been caused by IEDs (30%).   When you remove the 514 non-hostile fatalities, that means that IED's account for over 1/3 of all KIA's in Iraq (the breakdown is here, you use the filter to narrow things down).   It is the single largest killer of Coalition soldiers in Iraq - to me this high number means that IED's aren't simply another tactic of the Insurgency, but a whole campaign in its own right.

Of the 147 Coalition hostile deaths in Afghanistan, 34 were from IEDs (data can be found here).   That is nearly a quarter of all KIA in Afghanistan (23%)   The attack that killed Sgt Short and Cpl Beerenfenger is listed as the first IED attack in Afghanistan (I'm not sure if how it is officially listed with us).   Even more alarming is that almost all the IED attacks occurred in 2004 and 2005, two years after the invasion and rout of the Taliban.   This indicates that Afghan insurgents (and foreign fighters as well) have learned from (or even been to) the Iraqi Insurgency and the toll that the IED campaign is taking on us there and have imported a very deadly and effective technique to fight against us in Afghanistan   :-\.

Of course, these figures don't include the other typical insurgency techniques we see - mines, RPG attacks, suicide bombers and ambushes.   These would only bump the already high percentages up even more.  As well, the wounded in these attacks aren't addressed, but I can only imagine how high those numbers are.

LtCol Dave Banks' interviews of US soldiers deployed to Afghanistan highlighted the importance of mobility operations in this "middle-ground" environment of an active insurgency.   If we are going to be conducting mobility operations, we want to be able to do so without inviting the deadly toll that IEDs, mines, and ambushes, which are the enemies primary offensive tactics.   This indicates the need for a vehicle that can take the punishment but still offer us more flexibility and effective presence than an armoured fighting vehicle.   Light, soft skin vehicles simply disintergrate in the face of an effective IED attack - those movies that Hadji puts on the internet tell us as much.   The RWS debate is important, as it sacrifices a bit of situational awareness for more force protection, but I think that if in general, this vehicle lives up to its press (which it seems to, according to those in the know) then perhaps it is the right vehicle to have heading into this "middle ground" of active insurgency.

My 2 cents from the armchair,
Infanteer


----------



## armybuck041 (3 Dec 2005)

KevinB, I totally agree with you on the topic of RWS. Half of our new APC's have them and no doubt it encourages people to stare at a monitor instead of scanning their surroundings. But, if it becomes too dangerous to ride heads up, it does provide the crew with some options. Based on the numbers, it seems only some of these new RG-31's will have them. 

Infanteer, exactly.... That was the direction I was heading with my posts but didn't have all the numbers to back it up. Although I am not an IEDD Operator, by way of my position I worked in very close proximity or sometimes in conjunction with them. While in Kandahar I had an opportunity to see first hand the type of devices being found/confiscated in local area by the US CEXC Cell. The insurgent success' and technology in Iraq has made its way into Afghanistan. In the majority of these attacks, the initiator of the device is never found. Our own little SOP's were that we drove hatches open with a C-9 up in the urban areas and then buttoned up for the highways where past IED attacks had occurred. If an attack is successful its almost guarenteed they will use that area again. Jalalabad Hwy in Kabul and Hwy 4 in Kandahar come to mind. The book "When the Bear went over the Mountain" makes quite a few references to the fact that the Soviets were hit in the same places in almost exactly the same way, over and over again until they started to employ countermeasures to prevent it. 

So many people on this forum talk of the need for soft skin vehicles, while US Troops are scrambling to find steel to bolt to their Humvee's and buying RG-31's and other similar vehicles because of the IED success in Iraq. We need to hoist these lessons learned aboard as we too will soon be facing this threat much more often.  
  
Lastly, we (Combat Engineers) need to start doing a better job educating the remainder of the Army on these new threats and how they are employed. We have trained everyone to react to a Balkans style mine strike and not an IED attack. A crews reaction the first few seconds after an IED attack scanning for secondary hostile actions may be the difference between...... 
Unfortunately the SANDI Drills don't really highlight this need and train pers to be looking out for other mines and not an insurgent crawling into position with an RPG.


----------



## DG-41 (3 Dec 2005)

I'm not a huge fan of the RWS either, but I *am* a huge fan of the sensors on them. Thermal imaging and high magnification? Sign me up!

It looks like a better recce vehicle than GWagon. It's not *exactly* what I'd want were I given blank slate, but it's better than what I expected.

So when does my troop show up?



DG


----------



## KevinB (3 Dec 2005)

armybuck041  -- okay now I like your posts.  ;D

   FWIW you had best get that info out to the 031 trade -


I do like the Nyala, it offers much more than a GWagon for both room and protection - I just wish at the same time the HkGMG could have been fitted and a hard point for a C9 or C6 been fitted by the rear two family hatches -- if you've ever tried to shoot a weapon off a moving vehicle its a fricken nightmare even if its fixed -- and its a ready built disaster off hand.


----------



## armybuck041 (3 Dec 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> armybuck041   -- okay now I like your posts.   ;D
> 
> FWIW you had best get that info out to the 031 trade -
> 
> I do like the Nyala, it offers much more than a GWagon for both room and protection - I just wish at the same time the HkGMG could have been fitted and a hard point for a C9 or C6 been fitted by the rear two family hatches -- if you've ever tried to shoot a weapon off a moving vehicle its a fricken nightmare even if its fixed -- and its a ready built disaster off hand.



I will be heavily involved with the pretraining for TF3-06, and intend to work with the IEDD lads to develop some realistic scenarios based on actual attacks in the Kandahar Region.


----------



## armybuck041 (3 Dec 2005)

EDIT


----------



## a_majoor (3 Dec 2005)

So if I am reading this correctly, the RG-31 is in essence a new generation M-113 type Battle Taxi, with mobility and firepower upgrades to operate in the "new" environment. 

There is nothing wrong with a "Battle Taxi" per se, and if this is indeed the case, I would say why not build the fleet to provide protected mobility to everyone who needs it? Echelon vehicles, CP's, and Reserve units are among the users who could benefit, and a big production run of several hundred RG-31s would provide economies of scale, as well as the critical mass of experience to suggest and impliment the mods mentioned above. This would also allow the LAVs to be reallocated, reducing some of the stress caused by so called "Whole Fleet" management.

Of course this still leaves some gaps in our fleet, but every bit counts.


----------



## blacktriangle (3 Dec 2005)

If this vehicle is taking the g wagon's place for most patrols, will this mean that the reserves will see g wagons soon? Or more of them then originally intended for the reserves?  >


----------



## armybuck041 (3 Dec 2005)

I think that this is more a case of fulfilling an immediate requirement not unlike the Chinook purchase plans, rather than the initial steps to a complete overseas restructuring. The RG-31 will fill a niche, like some of the above posters mentioned, between Peacekeeping and full on Armed Conflict. Who knows where it will go in the long run.....

I doubt that using RG-31's will put more LUVW's in the hands of the Reserves. What it will do it put more Infanteers into the AOO without having to rely solely on either the LAV III or G-Wagon. Its all good.


----------



## KevinB (3 Dec 2005)

Perhaps one of the best things it will do is not announce "ENGINEER" everytime a Nyala travels.

  

As for the GWagon for reserves -- I keep saying get ready for BISON 2...   The OP usage miles them out sooner with the armour than was expected.  Everything else in being rotated through "fleet management" 

I for one would buy into a Nyala purchase like Art said - specifically replacing all the LSVW's as well.  


I'm still in shock to the fact the CF bought something "we" (as a corporate whole) like (my exceptions to the RWS aside)


----------



## blacktriangle (3 Dec 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Perhaps one of the best things it will do is not announce "ENGINEER" everytime a Nyala travels.
> 
> 
> 
> As for the GWagon for reserves -- I keep saying get ready for BISON 2...




 :'( So-

Does anyone think my mom's subaru will make a good recce vehicle?


----------



## Infanteer (3 Dec 2005)

This has definately been a great discussion; I wonder if equal vigor was applied by those who made the purchase.... :blotto:


----------



## couchcommander (3 Dec 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> couch -- I've done the Iltis/SUV thing and the Fishbowl GWagon -- give me the SUV *(plus my hair looks better in them  * )



Well I mean that's the most important thing, isn't it?

And from the ultimate armchair general (as, of course, I am the couch commander), given what was said in some of the threads (maybe recce, saber for stealth), to me it seems like this vehicle has some worth to it (ultimately experience will determine that). 

My 2 cents.


----------



## Infanteer (3 Dec 2005)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> And from the ultimate armchair general (as, of course, I am the couch commander), given what was said in some of the threads (maybe recce, saber for stealth), to me it seems like this vehicle has some worth to it (ultimately experience will determine that).



Whew...now everything is good to go with your nod of approval.


----------



## couchcommander (3 Dec 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Whew...now everything is good to go with your nod of approval.



Damn right (do you disagree with something I said?). 

I'd love to stay, but now I need to go approve some Hercs for purchase in a different thread.


----------



## Mountie (3 Dec 2005)

Sounds like another great purchase by the CDS, good for him.  He's finally getting the equipment the CF needs and seems to be getting it fast.

I'm just curious why the RWS and not the Protected Weapons Station (PWS) already in use by the CF?


----------



## Infanteer (3 Dec 2005)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> (do you disagree with something I said?)



It's about signal:noise.


----------



## McG (4 Dec 2005)

Mountie said:
			
		

> I'm just curious why the RWS and not the Protected Weapons Station (PWS) already in use by the CF?


From a (at the time) GM Defence technician, the PWS was chosen for the LAV Pioneer because the RWS was too short to fire overtop of some components mounted on the rear deck (auger/crane and hydraulic hoses) & give 360 degree coverage.  One contract was done to cover LAV Pioneer & TLAVs.  The Nyala does not have the same requirement for a higher wpn station.

Does anyone know if it (RWS) is stabilized?


----------



## Mountie (5 Dec 2005)

Thanks for the reply.  However, I thought the PWS was shorter than the RWS but I could be wrong.  And the RWS can be stabilized.  But the variant currently in use on the US Stryker is not.  The newest version, or rather the next version, will be stabilized.  According to the manufaturer's website anyways.


----------



## McG (5 Dec 2005)

Will ours be stabalized?


----------



## Mountie (5 Dec 2005)

I'm not sure.  I can't seem to find that.  All the manufacturers website said is the next generation RWS will be stabilized and the US Stryker Brigades will be updating to this variant.  It didn't say which variant we were getting.


----------



## Eland (5 Dec 2005)

armybuck041 said:
			
		

> Hey don't get me wrong, its just day after day I see people slam equipment on here, or pick it apart so bad it leaves the slightly less educated confused. I think that this purchase is a step in the right direction. Feedback about the G-Wagons made its way upstairs and I think they came up with a reasonable compromise with this.
> 
> Listen up ney sayers:
> 
> ...



I agree wholeheartedly that the RG31 purchase is a very good (and big) step in the right direction. I remember learning about the RG31 a few years back and finding myself wondering why the military wasn't acquiring a whole fleet of them. In my estimation, the RG31 would be near-perfect for army reserve infantry, armour and artillery units, because it could operate as an APC, recce vehicle, mini-CP, signals vehicle, gun tractor and liaison vehicle all rolled into one, without requiring you to create expensive variants to fulfill each of the roles. The big bonus is that the RG31's armour would let such units operate in conditions where the more traditional soft-skinned vehicles typically employed in these roles could not.

At a million bucks a crack, the price can't be beat. I mean, think of it this way. It cost the military some $1.2 billion to acquire 651 LAV-III APC's, of which only 313 are actually intended to carry infantry. That works out to around $2.5 ~ 3 million a copy depending on its role, to support one understrength brigade group of 2,400 troops. The same money applied to an RG31 purchase might let you buy 1200 vehicles and support 9,600 infantry troops if all of the vehicles were used solely as APC's.

In fairness to the LAV III, the one weakness of the RG-31 is its inability to carry heavier armament like a 25mm Chain Gun or TUA turret. But I still question the wisdom of trying to shoehorn wheeled, relatively lightly armoured vehicles like the LAV III into combat roles intended for better-armoured tanks and tracked infantry fighting vehicles which carry 30 or 40mm main guns.

The British Army used armoured Land Rovers and Humber trucks (AKA 'pigs') in Northern Ireland as APC's and patrol vehicles and had great success with them in counter-revolutionary/counter-terrorist warfare in urban settings. Since the RG31's could be thought of as Humber 'pigs' on steroids, they seem perfectly suited to the work the army needs to do in Afghanistan.


----------



## Mountie (15 Dec 2005)

Would variants of the RG-31 or the more modern RG-32M be suitable replacements for some Grizzly, Bison or LAV-III support variants?  The US Army Stryker brigades use soft-skinned HMMWVs for command posts at the battalion headquarters and mortar platoon headquarters in their infantry battalions.  Would an armoured RG-31 or RG-32M command post, radio re-broadcast vehicle, electronic warfare vehicle, etc be a suitable subsititute or very lightly armoured Grizzly and soft-skinned LSVW CPs, RRB vehicles, EW vehicles, etc.

The RG-31 already comes in the armoured ambulance variant, the armoured van could easily be configured to a CP, etc.


----------



## JonathanTM (30 Dec 2005)

Don't know.

But I do know that rolling and a million dollar vehicle looks like alot of fun...







Dam near makes me want to join right now.


----------

