# Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle - RG-31, LAV Coyote, and (partial) G-Wagon Replacement



## Matt_Fisher

In light of this announcement discussed here http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/87516.0.html
I'm posting the backgrounder paper that was provided at the MNDs speech today at CFB Gagetown

_BACKGROUNDER
BG - 09.017  July 8, 2009

TACTICAL ARMOURED PATROL VEHICLE

The Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle (TAPV) is a general utility combat vehicle that can fulfill a variety of roles on the battlefield, such as reconnaissance and surveillance, command and control, and cargo and armoured personnel carrier.  The TAPV will provide both a very high degree of protection to the crew while remaining highly mobile.  The TAPV is designed to tackle tough terrain, providing troops with a cross-country capability to give greater flexibility in choosing routes.

The TAPV will replace the Armoured Patrol Vehicle (RG-31), the LAV 2 (Coyote) and will complement the Light Utility Vehicle Wheeled (G-Wagon).

There will be two variants of vehicles procured under this project.  The first is the reconnaissance (recce) variant, which will replace the Coyote Reconnaissance Vehicle.  The Recce variant will have a crew of four and will be equipped with either a one-man turret or a Remote Weapon Station (RWS).  The second variant, the general utility vehicle, will be the new armoured personnel carrier.  With a crew of three, the vehicle can carry an additional four equipped passengers and will be fitted with a RWS.

The TAPV project will procure 500 vehicles with an option for an additional 100.  Specifically, the Canadian Forces will acquire up to 200 of the Recce variant and up to 300 of the general utility variant.  Deliveries will begin in 2012 and initial operational capability is expected a year later.

The procurement process will be a competitive military off-the-shelf acquisition.  A letter of interest  (LOI) and price and availability (P&A) will be issued shortly to identify potential bidders.  The definition phase of the project will include a solicitation of interest and qualification (SOIQ) and a request for proposals (RFP).  Contract award is expected by spring 2011.

The Industrial and Regional Benefits policy is applied to this procurement, which means the wining company must generate economic activity in Canada, dollar for dollar equal to the contract value._


----------



## Matt_Fisher

As announced yesterday by the MND, the Army will be looking to replace the RG-31 Armoured Patrol Vehicle and the LAV Coyote Reconnaissance and Surveillance Vehicle with what is currently known as the 'Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle' (TAPV).

The following is the from backgrounder paper which I picked up at the announcement proceedings yesterday.

_BACKGROUNDER
BG - 09.017  July 8, 2009

TACTICAL ARMOURED PATROL VEHICLE

The Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle (TAPV) is a general utility combat vehicle that can fulfill a variety of roles on the battlefield, such as reconnaissance and surveillance, command and control, and cargo and armoured personnel carrier.  The TAPV will provide both a very high degree of protection to the crew while remaining highly mobile.  The TAPV is designed to tackle tough terrain, providing troops with a cross-country capability to give greater flexibility in choosing routes.

The TAPV will replace the Armoured Patrol Vehicle (RG-31), the LAV 2 (Coyote) and will complement the Light Utility Vehicle Wheeled (G-Wagon).

There will be two variants of vehicles procured under this project.  The first is the reconnaissance (recce) variant, which will replace the Coyote Reconnaissance Vehicle.  The Recce variant will have a crew of four and will be equipped with either a one-man turret or a Remote Weapon Station (RWS).  The second variant, the general utility vehicle, will be the new armoured personnel carrier.  With a crew of three, the vehicle can carry an additional four equipped passengers and will be fitted with a RWS.

The TAPV project will procure 500 vehicles with an option for an additional 100.  Specifically, the Canadian Forces will acquire up to 200 of the Recce variant and up to 300 of the general utility variant.  Deliveries will begin in 2012 and initial operational capability is expected a year later.

The procurement process will be a competitive military off-the-shelf acquisition.  A letter of interest  (LOI) and price and availability (P&A) will be issued shortly to identify potential bidders.  The definition phase of the project will include a solicitation of interest and qualification (SOIQ) and a request for proposals (RFP).  Contract award is expected by spring 2011.

The Industrial and Regional Benefits policy is applied to this procurement, which means the wining company must generate economic activity in Canada, dollar for dollar equal to the contract value._

I had the chance to speak with the Project Manager and the Deputy Project Director from the ADM Mat and DLR side of things about what they were looking for and this is the response I got:

The TAPV program is looking at what the US is doing with JLTV, however they generally want more protection to be incorporated into the TAPV.  Size of the JLTV may also be an issue in that the APC version of TAPV has a requirement (at this time) to carry 3 crew plus 4 passengers, whereas the JLTV's largest configuration carries 2 crew plus 4 passengers.

I didn’t get an answer out of them in terms of the armament package they’re looking at for the recce variant, although I’d imagine that the Armoured Corps would be pushing hard not to give up the 25mm, however they may be pushed into using something like a triple armed setup, whereby they have a C6, CASW 40mm AGL, and some sort of ATGM (i.e. Javelin) all mounted and operated from a single RWS.  Or it could be aone man turreted, or remote operated 25mm or 30mm (depending on the direction that the LAV III weapons system upgrade goes.

If JLTV is too small and too light for their requirement, something like the Sabiex Iguana may be a candidate:  http://www.sabiex.com/iguana/
-The Iguana is originally a South African designed vehicle, manufactured in Belgium.  BAE Systems recently purchased the manufacturing and marketing rights for the Iguana, and are rebranding it as the RG-34;  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RG-34

I could also see General Dynamics looking to make a mini-LAV aka Mowag Spy MkII http://www.warwheels.net/SPY_4x4INDEX.html     http://www.warwheels.net/Piranha1_4x4INDEX.html albeit much more modernised in terms of powerpack, suspension, and protection.

Another potential candidate may be some of Oshkosh's original conceps for the JLTV which seemed to be on the 'bigger' side of things with respect to the model of the JLTV-APC that they had done up:
http://defense-update.com/products/j/jltv.htm
http://www.defensereview.com/defrev-exclusive-oshkosh-truck-joint-light-tactical-vehicle-jltv-concepts/


----------



## George Wallace

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> I could also see General Dynamics looking to make a mini-LAV aka Mowag Spy MkII http://www.warwheels.net/SPY_4x4INDEX.html     http://www.warwheels.net/Piranha1_4x4INDEX.html albeit much more modernised in terms of powerpack, suspension, and protection.



This is a step backwards; pre-AVGP.  They would require a lot of upgrading.  They are also less manoeuvrable than the AVGP was, which we all know in the Corps, was not all that great.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

George Wallace said:
			
		

> This is a step backwards; pre-AVGP.  They would require a lot of upgrading.  They are also less manoeuvrable than the AVGP was, which we all know in the Corps, was not all that great.



George, you're probably right in more ways than one;
GDLS will likely be too busy with JLTV bidding, LAV III and Stryker upgrades and maintenance to have the design and manufacturing bandwidth to come up with a mini-LAV 4x4 for the 500-600 vehicles that the Canadians are discussing purchasing.

It is interesting though to see that in the last 30 years, armoured recce's off-road mobility has gone from excellent with the tracked Lynx, to good/acceptable with the 8x8 wheeled Coyote, now to a potential wheeled 4x4.  I'm thinking that the TAPV program will be putting far more emphasis on protection and survivability from IEDs and mine strikes than it will be placing on off-road tactical mobility.


----------



## ArmyRick

Maybe there is a compromise? The Pandur II 6 x 6 version?


----------



## TCBF

- Replacing the Coyote would free up 203 turrets for our LAV 3 fleet, but at what cost?

- Smaller and better sensors are avail for a new veh (remember D Armd was 'ordered' by BF to buy a 'cheap and simple' Lynx replacement.  D Armd disobeyed and tricked up the Coyotes).

- My biggest complaint with the Coyote was that is was under-powered and perhaps under armoured - though better armoured than the Lynx.   It did NOT have the cross-country mobility of the Lynx.  I would NOT want to lose the 25mm unless it was replaced by a 30mm, or larger.

- It sounds like todays new craze is the IED resistant armoured truck. 

- A one man turret is a mistake.  A crew comd should not be gunning.  The guy in the veh with the best all round view should be commanding.


----------



## George Wallace

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Replacing the Coyote would free up 203 turrets for our LAV 3 fleet, but at what cost?
> 
> - Smaller and better sensors are avail for a new veh (remember D Armd was 'ordered' by BF to buy a 'cheap and simple' Lynx replacement.  D Armd disobeyed and tricked up the Coyotes).
> 
> - My biggest complaint with the Coyote was that is was under-powered and perhaps under armoured - though better armoured than the Lynx.   It did NOT have the cross-country mobility of the Lynx.  I would NOT want to lose the 25mm unless it was replaced by a 30mm, or larger.
> 
> - It sounds like todays new craze is the IED resistant armoured truck.
> 
> - A one man turret is a mistake.  A crew comd should not be gunning.  The guy in the veh with the best all round view should be commanding.



I agree.

Not only should the guy in the veh with the best all round view be the commander, but his gunner should also have that same all round view.  That means two people as one can not do both jobs.  The Commander commands the gun, he does not man it.

I disapprove any Recce or Surveillance vehicle having a Remote Weapons Station for its Main Armament.  This takes away from the SA of the C/C and Gunner.  Not something that one desires in these roles.

Taking away their effective means of Self-defence, neuters them.  You might as well just make them 'Dismounts'.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

As nutty as this sounds I'll throw it out there:

Take a one man turret and put the commander physically inside it so that he can poke his head out the hatch for better situational awareness as required.  Have the gunner seated inside the hull at a weapons system console from where he/she can aim and fire the gun independently from the commander.  That way the commander isn't tied up gunning the vehicle, but can maintain independence from the gunning duties.  For when the commander needs to button up, put an indepdent commander's hunter/killer type sight sysem on the turret so he/she can scan independently from the gunner.

The only downside is that potentially the IAs and stoppages for any gun drills would have to be performed by the commander, but no system is entirely perfect.


----------



## George Wallace

Sounds like a Grizzly.  Problem is......the turret cuts off approx 180 degrees of the commander's SA.

The C/C should have visual on with his gunner to observe what they are doing.  

Hunter/Killer sights are great.  They are expensive.  They probably of of little use in the Recce/Surv roles.  More useful for vehs used in a more aggressive role.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Sounds like a Grizzly.  Problem is......the turret cuts off approx 180 degrees of the commander's SA.
> 
> The C/C should have visual on with his gunner to observe what they are doing.
> 
> Hunter/Killer sights are great.  They are expensive.  They probably of of little use in the Recce/Surv roles.  More useful for vehs used in a more aggressive role.



Not Grizzlyesque in the sense that the gunner was in the turret with the commander seated behind the driver, but imagine the positions reversed; Commander in turret, just commanding, with the gunner seated in the hull, manning a remote console station which controlled the gun actions and turret traverse.


----------



## George Wallace

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> Not Grizzlyesque in the sense that the gunner was in the turret with the commander seated behind the driver, but imagine the positions reversed; Commander in turret, just commanding, with the gunner seated in the hull, manning a remote console station which controlled the gun actions and turret traverse.


<Insert Smilie here>

That would put the Commander at the mercy of where the Gunner would traverse.  Keeping one's orientation in a turret is hard enough.  Having someone else traversing you at their wims is compounding an existing problem.


----------



## George Wallace

Just another point on "turrets":  A turret on the rear third of the vehicle, a la LAV/Coyote, is not as effective as one located near/closer to the front.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

So does anybody care to offer speculation as to what vehicles may be considered for the TAPV?

I'm going to throw out this laundry list:

The newly selected Oshkosh M-ATV
http://www.oshkoshdefense.com/defense/products~matv~home.cfm

winner of the US JLTV contest..either: 

Lockheed Martin 
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/features/jltv/index.html

BAE Systems/Navistar 
http://thevalanx.com/

General Dynamics/AM General  
http://www.generaltacticalvehicles.com/

Or from the European side of things:

Rheinmetall GEFAS
http://www.rheinmetall-detec.de/index.php?fid=4731&qid=&qpage=0&lang=3&query=gefas

Nexter Aravis
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/aravis-armoured/

KMW Fennek 2 (GP F2-T)
http://www.defense-update.com/newscast/0508/news/news1205_rws.htm

...and this has just scratched the surface of the 4x4 side of things.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

George Wallace said:
			
		

> <Insert Smilie here>
> 
> That would put the Commander at the mercy of where the Gunner would traverse.  Keeping one's orientation in a turret is hard enough.  Having someone else traversing you at their wims is compounding an existing problem.



And how different is that from any other armoured vehicle with a turret, whereby the commander gives the gunner his arcs, and tells him to traverse them and then pops up to observe, all-the-while the turret is traversing back and forth?


----------



## George Wallace

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> And how different is that from any other armoured vehicle with a turret, whereby the commander gives the gunner his arcs, and tells him to traverse them and then pops up to observe, all-the-while the turret is traversing back and forth?



He still has physical control of his Gunner.   >  A quick boot to the back of his head (tank) or the long reach over the ammo bin (LAV/Coyote) will usually solve minor problems.  When the Gunner is removed from physical contact of the C/C he can make unpredictable movements more numerously than if the C/C has that control on him.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

And why wouldn't such a system as I'm proposing have a commander's override?  That way if the Gunner needs to have his traverse corrected, the CC can do so.

Like it or not, it's been made pretty clear that the TAPV will not have a 2 man turret, so we can bitch and moan its demise and the lack of SA that the CC will have as such, however there are probably some workable solutions out there that fall within the 1 man turret or RWS requirements being put forth.


----------



## George Wallace

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> Like it or not, it's been made pretty clear that the TAPV will not have a 2 man turret, so we can bitch and moan its demise and the lack of SA that the CC will have as such, however there are probably some workable solutions out there that fall within the 1 man turret or RWS requirements being put forth.



And once again, the end user will have no say in what he gets.

Once again, doctrine and tactics will have to be modified to make up for shortcomings in the equipment someone with absolutely no background in the job requirements of that Trade will have decided to purchase.  


Once again..........


----------



## dapaterson

George Wallace said:
			
		

> And once again, the end user will have no say in what he gets.
> 
> Once again, doctrine and tactics will have to be modified to make up for shortcomings in the equipment someone with absolutely no background in the job requirements of that Trade will have decided to purchase.
> 
> 
> Once again..........



Actually, there are a number of Armd folks working such projects - but they are also aware of the dollar value limitations and other activities that circumscribe options.  Backseat QB'ing is easy - actually getting something close to the requirement is a much bigger challenge, and sometimes (unfortunately) we have to compromise.


----------



## tango22a

Sounds like a losing proposition from the get go.Mind you I'm probably out of my lane and into the median.Having LIMITED experience with both Cougar and Grizzly turrets, both these turrets raised the work-load of the crew commander to new heights and lowered his situational awareness to new lows. Both turrets were set back too far. You had to expose the front of the  vehicle past the turret to allow the CC to maintain his situational awareness. Can't say anything about the LAV since I've never even been in one.

I can see why the turret is mounted where it is due to design constraints. With a one-man turret and the CC as gunner the work-load would be too intense. With an RWS or one man turret with a gunner the CC loses about 50% of his situational awareness due to a blind spot created by the RWS or turret. As one can see you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

I always liked the Lynx for situational awareness because even with the CCs hatch open you could cover all your arcs.

Having been retired for over 20 years I hope my old Dinosaur ramblings haven't hi-jacked or disrupted this thread.

tango22a

Edited for Grammar, Spelling and Punctuation errors.


----------



## George Wallace

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Actually, there are a number of Armd folks working such projects - but they are also aware of the dollar value limitations and other activities that circumscribe options.  Backseat QB'ing is easy - actually getting something close to the requirement is a much bigger challenge, and sometimes (unfortunately) we have to compromise.



I hate to say it, but being Armd doesn't necessarily mean that they have good insight as to the requirements. 

I can go back to the construction of a Tank Hangar in Petawawa in 1994.  I looked at the foundation that was laid prior to us departing on Tour and knew right away that a tank would not fit through those hangar doors.  Someone had done one of two things:  Not done the specs on the tanks that would be housed in the building; or decided to save several thousand dollars by shaving a few feet off the door widths.  In the end, on our return, the hangar could not house tanks, the multi-million dollar overhead crane was not installed and a whole new hangar had to be constructed to house both the tanks and crane.

Yes, one has to realize that dollar restraints may have a great influence on a capital project, but the wrong, or perhaps incompetent, people working on it is a greater problem.

What do we want in a Recce Vehicle?

I would say it has to be:

Manoeuvrable (Tracked);
Amphibious (A Recce Vehicle will not have Engineer Bridging Sections following them everywhere.);
Armament well forward for SA (Preferably a two man turret.);
Armament of suitable calibre for self-defence; 
Speed; and
Size (Small enough to navigate small streets and alleys and through all terrain).

For a Surveillance vehicle I would say we need the same features so that it can get into those out of the way locations, but it would have to be a little larger to accommodate the Surveillance Suite.


However, my concept of DND financing, and that of the Government, are at opposite poles.


----------



## tango22a

GW:

Well maybe you won't have to have your "divot" replaced after all....

BZ for well thought out specs!

Cheers,

tango22a


----------



## tango22a

Chances are that I'm wrong, but the way I see it this is our LAST chance to get it right. If we blow it this time we might as well give up Recce as we now know it. 

Ever since we canned the Lynx it has been all downhill. Coyote is/was an excellent surveillance vehicle, but it's no longer state of the art. Sensors are fine but do not replace feet/tracks on the ground.

To go along we will need an update on Tactics and Doctrine for this new vehicle. Hopefully something for both RegF and PRes Recce will come forward from this requirement.

I realize that you've got to cut your coat according to your cloth, but for G*d's sake don't make it necessary that we have to radically modify Recce Tactics and Doctrine to suit a totally unfit vehicle that we have been forced to accept, just because that's all there is.


(signed) An Old R011C Dinosaur


----------



## McG

TCBF said:
			
		

> I would NOT want to lose the 25mm unless it was replaced by a 30mm, or larger.


One of the things that has been getting attention (though not necessarily with TAPV) is reduced velocity medium caliber cannons.  Think of something between AGL (with lower muzzle velocities & higher trajectories) and more conventional IFV cannons (with very high velocities and designs focused on Sabot rounds for light armour on light armour battles).

Casings are shortened and propellant reduced.  In theory, you could still have Sabot ammunition but your chances of killing anything lightly armoured would be significantly reduced.  The advantages would be that more ammunition could be carried, platform rock would be reduced, and lighter vehicles could carry the weapon.  While KE projectiles become less useful, more CE projectiles would be used - HEDP-T, HEI-T,  and induction fuzed air-burst rounds.

It might not be perfect, but it may be an adequate compromise to keep some heavier firepower on a lighter vehicle.


----------



## Infanteer

MCG said:
			
		

> One of the things that has been getting attention (though not necessarily with TAPV) is reduced velocity medium caliber cannons.  Think of something between AGL (with lower muzzle velocities & higher trajectories) and more conventional IFV cannons (with very high velocities and designs focused on Sabot rounds for light armour on light armour battles).
> 
> Casings are shortened and propellant reduced.  In theory, you could still have Sabot ammunition but your chances of killing anything lightly armoured would be significantly reduced.  The advantages would be that more ammunition could be carried, platform rock would be reduced, and lighter vehicles could carry the weapon.  While KE projectiles become less useful, more CE projectiles would be used - HEDP-T, HEI-T,  and induction fuzed air-burst rounds.
> 
> It might not be perfect, but it may be an adequate compromise to keep some heavier firepower on a lighter vehicle.



So....a fancy Cougar turret?

I can see the utility of the 300 IFV variants being used to ferry around CIMIC, Force Protection, Recce Dets, and all those folks.

Not too sure about the Recce Variants.  Will this throw a wrench into doctrine we've spent the last decade building with the surveillance/recce suite in the Coyote?  What about the TUA-LAV?  How is that being rolled into this?

Understanding that they want a little jeep car for Armoured Recce, but I was thinking that LAV III-Hs with an updated mast and more Guys in the Back, combined with Mortar and TOW LAVs as a "Cavalry Arm" would offer a more robust armoured reconnaissance capability


----------



## McG

Infanteer said:
			
		

> So....a fancy Cougar turret?


More like a range reduced LAV 25 turret, but the weapon could also be mounted on RWS or unmanned turret.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Not too sure about the Recce Variants.  Will this throw a wrench into doctrine we've spent the last decade building with the surveillance/recce suite in the Coyote?


I listened to a presentation by one of the most recent authors of the ground recce doctrine.  He seemed quite frustrated that there were a significant number of Coyote-isms that were pulling people away from enacting the actual doctrine.  He seemed most frustrated that many seemed to think "Surveillance" was a role/function as opposed to just being a task given to recce.  If Coyote has never properly fit our doctrine (even with a re-write in the last few years) then maybe a new platform is a good thing   ....  but I think the doctrine was flexible enough for Coyote to fit as long as commanders did not pigeon hole it into just a surveillance role.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> What about the TUA-LAV?  How is that being rolled into this?


It is not.  It jwill continue to exist on the LAV III, and there will not be a TAPV-AT.  However I think the TAPV-Recce variant should have a fire & forget missile capability.


----------



## TCBF

- The limitations of the Coyote were more attributable to the shallow tactical backgrounds and lack of imagination of those who directed their tasks, rather than the limitations of the crews or their patrol, troop and squadron leadership.

- Combat Arms soldiers who never had the opportunity of functioning in a brigade-plus environment had little idea of what medium recce was intended to do.  To them, a Recce Sqn of Coyotes was a portable DEW Line.

- As for armament:  Experienced Infantry 'over here' have told me that they consider the 25mm their most important weapon.  "We live or die by the 25!"

- I grant that the above para would not apply to all elements, but those elements not using 25 are backed-up by elements with 25 (and 105, and 120...).

- In a recce context, there is no back up.  If you don't have it, you won't get it in time.


----------



## McG

TCBF said:
			
		

> Experienced Infantry 'over here' have told me that they consider the 25mm their most important weapon.  "We live or die by the 25!"


That is absolutly the case, and I've won a few heated arguments with individuals trying to convince me the wieght savings might be worth giving up the firepower.  In all cases, they failed to consider options which would offer the weight savings and keep (or increase) firepower.  I think the infantry should keep a proper medium caliber cannon, but a 35 - 40 mm might be a welcomed improvement.

For recce, there may be suitable firepower with a combination of MG, Fire & Forget AT Missile (x 2) and a reduced velocity 30 - 40 mm cannon.


----------



## Infanteer

TCBF said:
			
		

> - The limitations of the Coyote were more attributable to the shallow tactical backgrounds and lack of imagination of those who directed their tasks, rather than the limitations of the crews or their patrol, troop and squadron leadership.
> 
> - Combat Arms soldiers who never had the opportunity of functioning in a brigade-plus environment had little idea of what medium recce was intended to do.  To them, a Recce Sqn of Coyotes was a portable DEW Line.



And there it is - what is the doctrine that is driving this purchase?  I say this as a question as MCG highlighted, I am not too up to speed with Armoured Recce Doctrine and the new GMR Pam (although I should be).  However, I have worked close with, and even been in charge of, a few Coyotes and their flexibility was pretty handy.

With my magical doctrine wand, I see Armoured Recce (or medium recce, as TCBF termed it) as some sort of Cavalry in line with the Aussie Cavalry Regiment, US Cav with their M3s or the Marines with their LARs.  In the Brigade Group context or simply attached to a Battlegroup, it has the firepower, standoff and boots on the ground ability to act as a somewhat independent force.  Look at the US LAR Task Force's dash to Tikrit.

I like the buy of a TAPV for all the "other guys" (CIMIC, Infantry Recce, Force Protection, etc, etc) but in my world, I'd like a next Gen LAV fleet based recce that puts the TOW system to good use as well (having worked with that as well, and really enjoyed it).  Perhaps DLR and the doctrine guys have a different endstate envisioned.

My 2 Cents - feel free to pick apart.


----------



## McG

popnfresh said:
			
		

> Reading Infanteer's post in the TAPV thread, I think his idea might be the smartest thing. Buy LAV H, put a new surv suite in them with some dismounts. Keep a turret. Take that money out of TAPV.





			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> OK.
> 
> It is really nice that there are so many posting here with all kinds of suggestions.  Unfortunately, it is really grating on Armour Corps personnel when people who have absolutely no smic of what they are talking about, start making suggestions about what the Armour Corps needs.
> 
> LAV H with a Surv Suite and dismounts is just the latest example.  There is no room for dismounts with a Surv Suite in the back.
> 
> If you don't have the knowledge and experience, you are only making a mockery of the discussion.  Your "outside the box" ideas are for the most part out of the ballpark in the realms of the Tinfoil Hat Brigade.


There may be no room for dismounts & a Surv Suite in the back of a Coyote, but the LAV H is a much bigger beast (even larger than LAV III).  However, while LAV H might fit Surv Suite & a few dismounts, the large size of the vehicle begins to cause problems for stealth & concealment.  

Today I saw a picture of the South African Krokodile.  It is a very recent design and appears to be a 6x6 evolution of the RG-31.  The vehicle has lost a lot of the RG-31's SUV look while appearing more like a real fighting vehicle.  It has two rear doors, appears to have a more stable CG, and apparently was designed with EFP threats in mind.  Unfortunately, aside from a brief mention in a Jane's article, I cannot find any other discussion of the vehicle.  The Krokodile could be completely inappropriate for our needs, or it could be a good fit.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

MCG said:
			
		

> Today I saw a picture of the South African Krokodile.  It is a very recent design and appears to be a 6x6 evolution of the RG-31.  The vehicle has lost a lot of the RG-31's SUV look while appearing more like a real fighting vehicle.  It has two rear doors, appears to have a more stable CG, and apparently was designed with EFP threats in mind.  Unfortunately, aside from a brief mention in a Jane's article, I cannot find any other discussion of the vehicle.  The Krokodile could be completely inappropriate for our needs, or it could be a good fit.



Anyway you could get a scan of that picture of the Krokodile and post it on here, or reference the Jane's article in terms of publication and date?


----------



## McG

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> Anyway you could get a scan of that picture of the Krokodile and post it on here, or reference the Jane's article in terms of publication and date?


  It was on a table in a waiting room.  I'm not even sure of the date, except that it was recent.


----------



## Pallas Athena

Matt,

Was it the old Mechem Krocodil you were looking for (or is there a newer Krocodil)?

If the former, the Krokodil was a Mechem design, weighed 26 tonnes, and was supposed to be good for 15 kg beneath each wheel. It wasn't derived from the RG-31. IIRC, it was more closely related to the Ratel.


----------



## McG

The article was "Shaping up for the fight: vehicle design responses to challenge of mine warfare"  from Jane's International Defence Review 10-Mar-2009.  It identifies that "the Krokodil 6x6 experimental armoured carrier developed in South Africa ... has anti-EFP armour under the hull and at the sides of it."

The top picture above is the same as appeared in the Jane's article.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

Pallas Athena said:
			
		

> Matt,
> 
> Was it the old Mechem Krocodil you were looking for (or is there a newer Krocodil)?
> 
> If the former, the Krokodil was a Mechem design, weighed 26 tonnes, and was supposed to be good for 15 kg beneath each wheel. It wasn't derived from the RG-31. IIRC, it was more closely related to the Ratel.



BZ for those pics!!!  I saw something very similar on the Force Protection (www.forceprotection.net) homepage circa 2004 and put in a call to their former CTO Garth Barrett (former CO of the C Squadron (Rhodesia) SAS) who told me it was an experimental APC done up for the SADF, but never went into production.  The one that was on the Force Protection website had 6 or 8 wheels (I can't remember for certain which?) and a remote or 1 man turret armed with a 20mm, which Barrett provided me with some background details on; It was heavy, i.e. 35 tons and non C-130 transportable, but armoured/protected well beyond anything else the South Africans had at the time and capable of carrying a full infantry section plus crew.  

Unfortunately, it seems as though Barrett has fallen off the face of the earth after his firing/quitting Force Protection then starting a rival company, Protected Vehicles Inc. which fell into some serious financial trouble 2 years ago, and he is no longer involved.  I've had no luck in finding any other information on that vehicle since the initial conversation I had with Barrett.

After doing some more research, I believe the vehicle was called the Mechem Gator, although there's a slough of other SA vehicles that were under development at the same time:
Iron Eagle 4x4
Mechem MC-90 
Mechem Krokodil 6x6 
Mechem Gator 8x8
Rooikat-2 ICV
MDB Mantis 

Any information on these would be hugely appreciated.


----------



## McG

http://www.merx.com/English/SUPPLIER_Menu.Asp?WCE=Show&TAB=1&PORTAL=MERX&State=7&id=PW-%24%24BL-291-18920&FED_ONLY=0&hcode=nD9YVh6OIwXoPPJs5qFGZw%3D%3D


> *Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle (TAPV) Letter of Interest/Price and Availability*
> 
> Trade Agreement: Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT)
> Tendering Procedures: All interested suppliers may submit a bid
> Attachment: None
> Competitive Procurement Strategy: N/A - P&A/LOI Only
> Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement: No
> Nature of Requirements:
> Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle (TAPV) Letter of Interest/Price
> and Availability
> 
> W847L-090000/A
> Perron, Helene
> Telephone No. - (819) 994-9148
> 
> 
> The Government of Canada has a requirement for the provision of
> the Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle (TAPV) in multiple
> configurations/variants. The TAPV is a wheeled combat vehicle
> that will fulfill a wide variety of roles on the battlefield,
> including but not limited to reconnaissance and surveillance,
> security, command and control, cargo and armoured personnel
> carrier. It will have a high degree of tactical mobility and
> provide a very high degree of survivability to its crew.
> 
> The purpose of this Letter of Interest (LOI)/Price and
> Availability (P&A) is to solicit information and feedback from
> industry regarding possible provision of TAPVs. The information
> may be used to support Canada's decision-making process such as
> finalizing its requirements and determining its procurement
> strategy.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

BAE Systems will be launching its RG35 (6x6?) armoured vehicle at the DSEI exhibition in London, tomorrow (Sept 8th, 2009) at 0930GMT.

http://www.baesystems.com/DSEi/RG35launch/index.htm
_"BAE Systems will be launching and unveiling the first of a new class of vehicle at DSEi.

Manufactured in South Africa, it combines the high levels of survivability of the RG31 Mine Protected Vehicle with much of the tactical capability of a modern combat vehicle. The new platform incorporates a simple but effective one-person turret, which gives an excellent mix of protection and situational awareness."_

The picture on the web page is probably not of the RG35 itself, but of BAE's FMTV/General Tactical Vehicle transport truck front end.

I expect that the RG35 will likely be one of the front runners for the TAPV competition.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

http://www.baesystems.com/Newsroom/N...098810917.html
BAE SYSTEMS DEBUTS NEW GENERATION FIGHTING VEHICLE

08 Sep 2009 | Ref. 167/2009 
London, United Kingdom – BAE Systems launched the latest 6x6 addition to the battle-proven RG range at the Defence Systems & Equipment International (DSEi) exhibition today – the RG35 Mine Protected multi-purpose fighting vehicle. 
RG35 combines the high levels of survivability of the RG31 Mine Protected Vehicle with much of the tactical capability of a modern combat vehicle.
RG35 incorporates the best of 30 years experience in mobility, protection and sustainability, while meeting current challenges and threats. It meets modern warfare protection requirements, but also offers tactical on- and off-road mobility.
“RG35 offers unprecedented versatility and will be equally suitable in peace support and conventional operations,” said Johan Steyn, Managing Director, BAE Systems Land Systems South Africa. “We continuously develop and enhance our vehicles to support our customers’ operational needs.”
The versatile RG35 can carry light and medium turrets and direct and indirect-fire weapons. It can also be configured in all the variants of a fighting unit (ambulance, weapon carriers, command posts and others) and can be customized in various sizes such as the 4x4 and 6x6, for various missions to meet customer needs.
RG35 is a 6x6 mine protected multi-purpose fighting vehicle 7.4 meters in length, 2.5 meters in width and 2,7 meters in height with a ground clearance of 458 millimeters. The RG35 gross vehicle mass is 33,000kg with a payload of 14,870kg and 15sqm volume under armour. The RG35 has a turning circle of 15m and seats driver plus 15 crew members.


http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/art...any-2009-09-08

New groundbreaking fighting vehicle from SA companyBy: Keith Campbell Published: 08 Sep 09 
South Africa's Benoni-based mine-protected and armoured fighting vehicle company, BAE Systems Land Systems OMC, unveiled its latest design, the RG35, at the major British biennial defence exhibition Defence Systems and Equipment International (better known as DSEi) in London on Tuesday.

"We have combined a 4x4 mine-protected vehicle with a modern 8x8 combat vehicle," announced BAE Systems Land Systems South Africa MD Johan Steyn.

"It is groundbreaking. It is a new class of vehicle. The standard model is the 6x6 version. But we plan a family of vehicles, and we will have a 4x4 vehicle."

There is no launch customer for the RG35 yet, but the vehicle is likely to be submitted for the British Army's Light Protected Patrol Vehicle project. The company is confident that its new vehicle will win orders from around the world.

It was the 6x6 standard model that was unveiled in London. Its development is based on expertise gained, on the one hand, from the development of the Ratel and iKlwa armoured vehicles and, on the other, from the development of the RG31 mine-protected vehicle family. The basic V-shaped design of the hull is taken from the RG31.

Advances found in the RG35 include a side-mounted power pack, which can be replaced in just 30 minutes. Traditionally, armoured vehicle power packs have been either at the front or rear of the vehicle.

Furthermore, the vehicle has been designed to accommodate hybrid electric drive, once this becomes available. "It will be very easy to incorporate this drive into this vehicle," says Steyn. 

Mounting the power pack on the side creates a large internal volume and the RG35's volume under armour is 15 cubic metres. The vehicle can carry a driver and up to 15 passengers. All critical systems are under armour, which was not the case with previous, mine-protected, vehicles. It has a dual unit air conditioning system, so that, if one unit is lost, the other is still available. 

The RG35 has a payload of nearly 15 t. One of the benefits of this is that it makes it easy to attach add-on armour to the vehicle without overloading it. It has been so designed that an additional 120 mm of armour can be added to the hull bottom V, while the hull sides can take 50 mm of additional armour.

The basic version, displayed in London, is fitted with a new generation Overhear Manual Turret - Multiweapon, designed and developed by another unit of the company, Pretoria-based BAE Systems Land Systems Dynamics. However, a wide variety of alternative turrets will be available.

The RG35 will be available in a wide variety of versions, from the basic infantry-carrying combat vehicle, to command post vehicle, engineering vehicle, 120 mm mortar vehicle, anti-aircraft gun vehicle, recovery vehicle, and ambulance.

The 6x6 RG35 is 2,5 m wide, just over 7 m long, and 2,7 m high. It has a trubning circle of 15 m, which is less than that of an RG31.

The company has already produced the hull for the first 4x4 version of the vehicle, and plans to have the prototype 4x4 completed and operational by this time next year.


----------



## McG

Hopefully our TAPV requirement stipulates things such as max vehicle length, cross-country mobility & turn radius and not something so specific as only 4x4 is acceptable.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

More pics of the RG35

Interior and 1-man turret.


----------



## X-mo-1979

So I have to do recce in a vehicle with a g-dam 4 wheeled truck with a windshield and a rws?Can I get the red paint job option? I would have better effect on a ATV.

I want to see what happens when that hits 16 jugs and 2 AT mines.

I hope the Armd corp complete is going to sit down and figure out our role.And totally change our job.Mobility was lost going to wheel..where do they expect that thing to go?


I am really dissapointed.

Compliment the G-wagon?WTF.

It's fine and dandy if they are going to use recce as recce.However lets face it were going to be Infantry with a smaller vehicle. I.E how we have been used,not in our recce role at all.


----------



## a_majoor

The problem that I see after re reading post #1 several times is the requirements are for two separate classes of vehicles, hence the weird compromises.

The only way I can see to fulfill the various requirements, be somewhat affordable and "made in Canada" would be to go to one of the various LAV proposals which resembled a "pick up truck", allowing the vehicle to fulfill the logistics and troop lift functions, and provides a space to fit "pods" for the recce function. A sensor suite and spaces for some dismounts inside the pod would be good.

As for the front half, I would suggest it be built "full width" like the front part of the YPR-765. This would provide room for the crew with the turret or RWS to be in the forward 1/3 of the vehicle as some posters desire.


----------



## Infanteer

A LAV truck?  Seems neat - the Aussies did it with the Bushmaster, which still remains my favorite....


----------



## McG

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Compliment the G-wagon?WTF.


That means it will replace the G-Wagon in pretty much every theatre of Ops with an enemy threat, but we will not buy enough to completely replace the G-Wagon. The Army will not buy an armoured vehicle for the PRes, so the G-Wagon will remain there.  The G-Wagon will also still be used on domestic operations & perhaps some of the most permissive international operations (maybe Haiti, certainly not Afghanistan or Sudan).

... and finally, because we probably won't buy enough, the G-Wagon may regularly be used as a TAPV training substitute for the regular force.


----------



## X-mo-1979

MCG said:
			
		

> That means it will replace the G-Wagon in pretty much every theatre of Ops with an enemy threat, but we will not buy enough to completely replace the G-Wagon. The Army will not buy an armoured vehicle for the PRes, so the G-Wagon will remain there.  The G-Wagon will also still be used on domestic operations & perhaps some of the most permissive international operations (maybe Haiti, certainly not Afghanistan or Sudan).
> 
> ... and finally, because we probably won't buy enough, the G-Wagon may regularly be used as a TAPV training substitute for the regular force.



Thanks!Kinda what I figured.
I am not impressed with that vehicle at all.Nor is many people I have been talking to.

What ever happened to consulting the people who are going to be using the equipment on the battlefield?



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> That means it will replace the G-Wagon in pretty much every theatre of Ops with an enemy threat,



So this is not the coyote replacement?I'm a little confused.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Updating the necrothread with this from MERX - sorting out who should even be able to bid (highlights mine):


> .... REQUIREMENTS
> 
> The Department of National DEFENCE (DND) has a requirement for a fleet of Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicles, with an estimated initial purchase of 500 and an option for up to 100 additional vehicles.  DND also has a requirement for logistics support for the life expectancy of the TAPV, estimated at 25 years.
> 
> The TAPV is a wheeled combat vehicle that will fulfill a wide variety of roles on the battlefield. Canada requires one platform, comprised of two variants: the General Utility variant and the Reconnaissance variant. It will have a high degree of tactical mobility and provide a very high degree of survivability to its crew.
> 
> PROCUREMENT MILESTONES
> 
> The estimated procurement milestones are as follows:
> 
> Request for Proposal (RFP) Release        Fall 2010
> TAPV Acquisition Contract Award        Fall 2011
> TAPV Support Contract Award            Fall 2011
> *Initial Operating Capability            2013
> Completion of TAPV Deliveries            2015*
> 
> PURPOSE OF SOIQ
> 
> The purpose of this SOIQ is to qualify vehicles as well as their Original Equipment Manufacturers through a formal evaluation of selected mandatory technical requirements. Canada encourages a supplier pre-qualification process when complex procurements will likely result in high proposal preparation costs to industry. By using a pre-qualification phase to initiate the procurement process, respondents evaluated as not having sufficient technical capabilities to carry out the project are informed before they undertake the effort and expense of preparing a response to a complete RFP ....



.zip file of Selected Vehicle System Requirements Annex attached, exclusive to Milnet.ca.


----------



## rikomili

Hello everybody,

I've heard that the Canadian Army wanted to acquire tactical armored patrol vehicles to replace its LAV-II Coyote 

and RG 31.

Does anybody know which vehicles are involved in the competition (I guess 4 wheeled vehicles like the M-ATV are) ?

Thanks in advance!


----------



## ArmyRick

Do a search! This has been discussed to death.


----------



## rikomili

Sorry sorry, 
I know who the main competitors are (ASV 1117, Bushmaster, Dingo 2, RG31 MK6, M-ATV...), but i was wondering whether there were an official list or something like that.

Anyway i'll search by myself if it's not the place to ask that!


----------



## George Wallace

Try looking in this site:  MERX


----------



## Matt_Fisher

TAPV dedicated thread 
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/87547.0.html

Mods, maybe this topic should be locked, or merged into the thread above.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

Looks like the TAPV is likely to be armed with a CASW equipped remote weapon station:
http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/defencewatch/default.aspx

Delays in the CASW procurement are likely to in turn delay acquisition of TAPV until it can be announced what the winning CASW submission is so that the TAPV bidders can develop an RWS to work with it.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

I heard that as well, Matt.

The TAPV will be equipped with a RWS mounting a 40mm AGL.

Just what a recce vehicle needs..... :


----------



## Matt_Fisher

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> I heard that as well, Matt.
> 
> The TAPV will be equipped with a RWS mounting a 40mm AGL.
> 
> Just what a recce vehicle needs..... :



I am wondering whether or not the Armoured Corps is strategically trying to f*ck themselves time and time again in terms of vehicle procurement;

Rewind several years ago when they essentially sold out on the concept of MBTs in favour of the MGS, which turns out to be extremely short sighted.  Had we not gotten involved in a shooting war to validate the usefulness of a tracked, heavily armoured, direct fire support vehicle (aka Main Battle Tank), we'd have retired our tank capability.

Now currently, we're looking at getting rid of an 8x8 armoured platform that is capable of tactical cross country movement (albeit not as good as a tracked platform) with a 25mm 2 man turret which allows for decent crew commander situational awareness and weapon system lethality.
The vehicle we're looking at replacing it with will likely have significantly poorer tactical cross country mobility, not be sufficiently armed to counter enemy armour threats, and lack the situational awareness capability that a dedicated turret provides.

Interestingly, DRDC Valcartier recently published the findings of a study whereby they compared the 25mm GDLS Delco turret against the Nanuk RWS as well as a remote turret concept, and the Delco turret came out on top in all areas studied.

I'm not against TAPV as an RG-31 replacement, but as a Coyote replacement it seems to be pretty underwhelming in all areas except IED/EFP IED/AT Mine protection levels.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

I couldn't agree more.  Situational awareness is critical in a recce vehicle. Unless, of course, we are going to buy another surveillance vehicle instead of a recce vehicle....

I wonder who in the Corps came up with that idea?


----------



## Matt_Fisher

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> I wonder who in the Corps came up with that idea?



I have a sneaky suspicion that the Armoured Corps will try and sequester a small number (squadron's worth) of CCVs for a 'heavy' Recce element in an armoured battlegroup the case Canada finds itself in a shooting war with a heavily armed/armoured adversary where higher levels of protection, mobility, and firepower than what the TAPV affords are deemed necessary.

Whilst nothing is on the books officially about this, we've seen this sort of shift of vehicles from who they are initially procured for to someone else, i.e. Bison APC initially purchased for militia infantry units, then snatched up by the reg force as a utility APC.


----------



## The Bread Guy

This, from MERX, in response to a question asking for a clarification on the timeline:


> ..... Q) Can you clarify the period for the draft RFP release? Can you specify the period of the RFP closing date?
> 
> A) We anticipate that the draft RFP will be released during Summer 2010.   We anticipate that the formal RFP will be released during Fall 2010. The period of time for which the formal RFP will remain open remains to be determined ....



Latest bid package update attached.


----------



## The Bread Guy

New solicitation deadline, according to one of the recent amendments (attached):  2 Jun 10 (instead of 26 May 10).


----------



## MarkOttawa

_Torch_ post:

Canadian military procurement madness: The TAPV?
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/05/canadian-military-procurement-madness.html



> Spend more to assemble it here instead of buying from the original equipment manufacturer....
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


----------



## Recon 3690

can anybody say Ferret or maybe just a M38A1 with a C5 GPMG & a Carl G?
what are these mental midgets thinking? a recce vehicle needs tracks, stealth, speed, a self defence weapons system and the ability to find the enemy. I am not sure of the necessity of dismounts?
It looks like they are more interested in a heavily armoured staff car for the brass to ride around in than a proper recce vehicle, there is a reason the British are still using the Scimitar for recce it has tracks, a low silhouette, its fast, and has a 30mm punch in a package not a lot bigger than a G-Wagon. So just what are we getting for our tax dollars?


----------



## Recon 3690

It seems used, up armoured Marders with the rear compartment converted for the electronics suite would be a better choice, not the best but better


----------



## Recon 3690

Heres some oldies for you, are we going backwards?
WW II Fox


----------



## Recon 3690

Ferret


----------



## McG

Recon 3690 said:
			
		

> ... what are these mental midgets thinking?


Well, if any are/were reading, they are probably now thinking to ignore anything you might post.  Try following the site's guidance on tone & content.  Not only does this keep the level of discussion higher, it will increase the chances of decision makers paying attention to any  insights that you post.



			
				Recon 3690 said:
			
		

> Heres some oldies for you, are we going backwards?


So what?  I can post pictures of successful wheeled recce vehicles.  Compared to the Fennik, many other armys with tracked vehicles must be "going backwards" ... right?  Let's try to stick to real arguments and not all _showman flash_.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

If the recce variant of the TAPV was able to be split into its own separate program, the newly released Panhard Sphinx might make a very interesting candidate:
http://www.armyrecognition.com/french_army_france_wheeled_armoured_vehicle_uk/sphinx_panhard_ebrc_armoured_vehicle_reconnaissance_combat_technical_data_sheet_specifications_uk.html


----------



## The Bread Guy

From this news release:


> Force Protection Industries, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Force Protection Inc., a leading designer, developer and manufacturer of survivability solutions and provider of total life cycle support for those products, and SNC-Lavalin Defense Contractors, Inc., a Canadian-based provider and one of the leading engineering and construction groups in the world, today announced the formation of a strategic partnership to collaborate on the solution for the Canadian Government's Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle ("TAPV") program.
> 
> Force Protection Industries, Inc. previously announced that it has been selected by the Canadian Government as one of the competitor companies to provide up to 600 vehicles and related long term support services, with contract award to the final selected bidder in 2011.
> 
> Randy Hutcherson, Chief Operating Officer for Force Protection Industries, Inc., said, "We are very pleased to partner with SNC-Lavalin, a highly-respected and experienced company in the Canadian defence sector, to provide the winning solution for the TAPV project. Force Protection Industries and SNC are committed to providing the Canadian Forces with the safest, most reliable vehicle while investing in Canadian industry. We are looking forward to working with SNC as they have a wide range of capabilities and experience that will help shape the winning technical, support, and industrial and regional benefit solution for the Canadian government that will help save the lives of Canadian soldiers."
> 
> Peter Langlais, Senior Vice President and General Manager for SNC, commented, "Force Protection is bringing its expertise in design and supportability for its highly successful Cougar vehicles as the platform for the TAPV solution. Cougars are currently in use by Canada and have been instrumental in ensuring the safe transport of the men and women of the Canadian Forces. The Cougar TAPV will be specifically designed to meet the Canadian Government's requirements. The primary manufacturing and supportability will be completed in Canada, and Force Protection and SNC will work closely together with other Canadian partners to ensure that Canadian troops get the best possible solution available in terms of safety and performance, as well as a great value for the government." ....


----------



## REDinstaller

I don't think the Sphinx is going to be upto replacing the Coyote sensor wise. It has a crew of 3, hard to man sensors when they all have tasks to carry out. A 4 man veh with a turret would be better, then there is always the ability to have a GIB as an extra set of eyes to the rear.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

Out of the TAPV candidates that were submitted during the SOIQ the pre-qualified bidders are shortlisted to:

BAE Systems Hägglunds AB, Sweden--Alligator 6x6

BAE Systems Land Systems OMC, South Africa--RG-31 Mk5 EM

BAE Systems Land Systems OMC, South Africa --RG35 RPU

Force Protection Industries, Inc, USA --Cougar 4x4

Force Protection Industries, Inc, USA --Cougar 6x6

Nexter Systems, France --Aravis

Oshkosh Corporation, USA --M-ATV

Textron Marine and Land Systems, USA --MSV (Mobile Survivable Vehicle)

Thales Australia (response submitted through Thales Canada Inc.) --Bushmaster

Out of these candidates, about the only one that looks more like a dedicated AFV instead of an MRAP type truck is the BAE Alligator 6x6:   http://www.baesystems.com/Sites/ProductLaunches2010/Video/Alligator6x6/index.htm


----------



## Lance Wiebe

I checked out all of the contenders......I'm not convinced that any of them will make a decent recce vehicle.  Surveillance vehicle, maybe.


----------



## McBrush

I must agree with Lance. Looking at all the Platforms I cant help but think of the log. issues the Res. Force would deal with. I do believe they will get some. It reminds me of the AVGP's. Having served on them and the Lynx. As I recall the roll of Recce. included Rear Area Security,Flank Guard,Convoy Escort,Screen etc.. Correct me if I am wrong Today they also in the RCD/12RBC have Direct Fire Support Sqn's. I believe in order to replace the Coyote you need all the current capabilities plus more.  The biggest upgrade would have to be the main gun. In the Convoy Escort, Rear Area Security the platform will provide close in Direct Fire Support, in a combined arms task force operation. Given the contenders I believe the only plateform that could support a 2 man turret would be the  BAE Alligator. The short fall would be no room for a Surveillance System. As for the main gun upgrade the Mk. 3 90mm or the Israeli 60mm HVG in order to keep it off the shelf. I believe the auto loading system for the 60mm should be the choice as the Crew Commander would have the ability to maintain Situational Awareness as they have now on the Coyote. The army needs to go forward not back ! Others have made the same observation and I totally agree.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

There won't be a log problem for the Reserves. As of this years Corps Conference, they aren't slated to receive any.


----------



## McG

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> Out of these candidates, about the only one that looks more like a dedicated AFV instead of an MRAP type truck is the BAE Alligator 6x6:   http://www.baesystems.com/Sites/ProductLaunches2010/Video/Alligator6x6/index.htm


I think we definately need an AFV and not a truck.  Looking at the Alligator, we may as well call on GDLS to build us a lower-profile 6x6 LAV III so that we could at least recieve logistic benefits from the common parts & training.



			
				McBrush said:
			
		

> ...I cant help but think of the log. issues the Res. Force would deal with. I do believe they will get some.


Actually, under the previous CLS the Army was very clear that it would not be buying armoured vehicles for the PRes.  I doubt that has changed and the PRes will not have to deal with any logistic issues related to TAPV.



			
				McBrush said:
			
		

> The biggest upgrade would have to be the main gun.


We've had some other discussions on firepower for TAPV (Recce) above:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/87547/post-855985.html#msg855985


----------



## McBrush

No offense to anyone. Back in the day as a Strat. in Recce Sqn. My favorite song was 6 weeks in a leaky boat. LOL  My Lynx pulled out more stuck 6x6's  be it a Cougar or Grizzly, then any ARV did for tracks in a tank Reg. But I agree we do not need a truck. But why a 6x6 go with the LAV III H and do a proper replacement with a upgraded gun. Thanks for the correction on PRes. I was under the impression they would get some. And also on the main gun link. Cheers


----------



## George Wallace

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> I couldn't agree more.  Situational awareness is critical in a recce vehicle. Unless, of course, we are going to buy another surveillance vehicle instead of a recce vehicle....
> 
> I wonder who in the Corps came up with that idea?



I know someone whose name began with a "K" who thought the Coyote and ISTAR where the greatest things since sliced bread.


----------



## a_majoor

I still call BS on the idea that the reserve cannot handle dedicated AFV's like the Alligator or LAV III.

Once again, I will point out the US National Guard only trains one weekend a month, but uses M-1 Abrams tanks, M-2 Bradley IFV's, MLRS and Paladin SP artillery etc. Swedish troops finish thier period of conscription and then are placed in reserve, they undergo two weeks training _a year_, but can operate CV-90 IFV's and Striv 122 tanks (Leopard 2 A-5 with improved protection and other modifications), and the IDF up to one month annually, although not all reservists are called up on any particular year. Our troops generally train one night a week, one weekend a month and deploy for concentration for @ 2 weeks during the summer, a far greater amount of time than these other reserve forces.

Buying larger quantities of vehicles for the Reserves will increase the pool of skilled operators, mechanics and so on, as well as lower unit costs through economies of scale. This process could also break us free of "managed readiness" by allowing for bulk buys of equipment to ensure that everyone has the equipment needed, so increasing the breadth and depth of the forces as a whole. Modern equipment is far mor robust and easier to service than past generation, so the dedicated full time staff needed to pull weekly maintainence would not necessarily break the bank either.

This purchasing of equipment in penny packets to stay under a yearly budget threshold, and denying the equipment to the Reserve simply increases costs over the long term, and narrows the breadth and depth of the Armed Forces, particularly in the Armoured trade, as George eloquently reminds us.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

Whilst in agreement in principal with what Thucydides is saying about reserve competency, the biggest issue the CFs would have to overcome is the inclusion/incorporation of the necessary EME/Log support assets at the reserve unit level which would allow any sort of 'sophisticated' vehicle/weapon system to be maintained.


----------



## George Wallace

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> Whilst in agreement in principal with what Thucydides is saying about reserve competency, the biggest issue the CFs would have to overcome is the inclusion/incorporation of the necessary EME/Log support assets at the reserve unit level which would allow any sort of 'sophisticated' vehicle/weapon system to be maintained.



Along with a Reg F or Class B posn or two to provide 'continuity' in labour on any projects.


----------



## dapaterson

USAR/ANG have equipment in depots where troops fall on to the equipment.  Our attempt at that resulted in Meaford, hardly a model to emulate.

Equipment sustainment costs increase as the number of vehicles increase.  Economy of scale may mean some minor savings, but a widely dispersed fleet will counter many of those savings.

Claims of easier maintenance have been made for every equipment buy.  Someday those claims may turn out to be true.  Until then, ensuring servicability of vehicles, sensors and weapons systems are operational will require a significant amount of effort, and will require skillsets not present in the Reserves (EO Tech, among others).

The assertion:



> This purchasing of equipment in penny packets to stay under a yearly budget threshold, and denying the equipment to the Reserve simply increases costs over the long term



displays an ignorance of defence procurement and processes.  Acquisitions are made with approvals for the overall budget, not year-by-year.    ADM(Mat) manages the capital budget year-by-year, knowing in advance which projects are scheduled to expend what amounts, and making in-year adjustments to balance the program - but those in-year adjustments do not impact overall project budgets; they may defer expenditures or accelerate them.


Finally, prior to any capital project there are detailed analysses conducted to assess not only per unit acquisition costs but also sustainment costs.  Quantities purchased are not selected by some dark cabal conspiring against the Reserves (not even D Armd does that); rather, they are made assessing available capital and O&M funds and identifying what is possible within allocated funding envelopes.  Demand for funds outstrips supplies; therefore, priorities are established and assigned.


----------



## Trooper Hale

If it makes you all feel a little better, we're having the same arguments in Australia about vehicles and whats going to replace the ASLAV.
The plan, according to DMO, is that the Army is to get a "universal vehicle" under the Land 400 project that can be fitted with a suite of different set ups. Thus, Cavalry will have a different turret on their chassis then the Infantry and the Engineers will have a different set up completely but still the same chassis. It'll have the ability to be fitted with tracks OR wheels.
 If they find this magical vehicle it'll be happy days but I cant see it happening.
The one man turret thing is something people here talk about as well. Anyone who's been in a turret knows its ridiculous. The French built fantastic tanks in the 1930's but gave them a one man turret. This was proved to be a bad idea by the Germans. The Russians built the BMP-1 with a one man turret then replaced it with the BMP-2 because the one man turret didnt work. We're supposed to learn from the mistakes of the past but people seem to quickly forget those lessons. They dont see some poor bugger, caged into a tight metal box, trying to send reports and returns over the net, direct a driver, scan for targets, load a gun bigger then 12.7mm then engage a target on his own. Its a bad idea and I hope its realised.

I like the ASLAV and I think its a grand vehicle but its not designed for what we do with it. I'm not sure how you treat yours out bush but we haven't really changed to much of our thinking since the Cav regiments got rid of the M113's. Its not unusual for the Regiment to finish our end of year 4 or 5 week bush exercise and have exhausted the ADF's supply of LAV tyres and prop shafts. Its a great vehicle but its not made to be driven through close country and bush. The greatest LAV driver in the world will still blow a tyre when he's told to drive through thick scrub, regardless of how thick you make the tyre's walls. 

Someone said it best earlier, this next replacement is probably going to be our last go at it. If we get it wrong then Cavalry/Recce will cease to function in the role we're supposed to play. And I really hope that both our countries pick the right vehicle. Something small, quick, tracked and with a decent two man turret and gun.


----------



## a_majoor

Clever engineers can usually come up with fantastic concepts which crash and burn in the real world. A particular favorite of mine is the XM-808"twister", which can be thought of as a BV-206 running on wheels (as a first approximation). Each half was a separate vehicle, powered by a Chrysler engine (a 440 Hemi option wasn't offered, alas) with high degrees of articulation in each unit's suspension and a very high degree of freedom in the "yoke" that joined each half.

You can only imagine the maintainance nightmare this could have been...

The idea of a "universal vehicle" isn't really that bad, so long as expectations can be curbed. Running on wheels and tracks may be a bit much (Walter Christie may be the only person ever to have done this with some degree of success), but some vehicles like the "Centurio" and our own LAV 3 do have the ability to be kitted out for multiple roles (The Centurio tank destroyer can act as a heavy APC by removing the rear ammunition rack and substituting four soldiers, while innumerable LAV prototypes have been built for all kinds of roles). If tracks are desired, the venerable M-113 is still going strong in armies throughout the world, built and rebuilt in innumerable variations and roles, a modern "M-113" design incorporating decades of lessons learned and modern material science would probably fit the bill nicely for a tracked vehicle.

A LAV H hull mounting a CV-CT gun turret would make a very effective "Cavalry" type patrol vehicle and recce DF vehicle, and would be fairly quick and easy to put into service, its complimentary partners would be a regular LAV-H for the crunchies and a LAV-H hull with a surveillance suite where the dismounts go. 

Not a 100% solution (especially for advocates of "Mud Recce"), but in terms of fleet management, logistics and training, this might be as good as it can get.


----------



## George Wallace

A Recce DF Vehicle?  A Tank Destroyer maybe, but not a Recce DF Vehicle.  Anti-Tank or Assault Gun perhaps, but definitely not Recce.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Well, if we are so determined on "interoperability" (as with the F-35)...from _Defense Industry Daily_ recap:

M-ATV: A Win, at Last, for Oshkosh
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/M-ATV-A-Win-at-Last-for-Oshkosh-05602/



> ...
> Oshkosh Defense’s M-ATV candidate secured a long-denied MRAP win, and the firm continues to remain ahead of production targets. The initial plan expected to spend up to $3.3 billion to order 5,244 M-ATVs for the US Army (2,598), Marine Corps (1,565), Special Operations Command (643), US Air Force (280) and the Navy (65), plus 93 test vehicles. FY 2010 budgets and purchases have pushed this total even higher, and orders now stand at over 8,000…



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Matt_Fisher

BAE has posted some photos of the Alligator 6x6 which is one of their entries for the TAPV competition.


----------



## a_majoor

This looks like the SEP prototype from several years back. Is Canada seriously considering a vehicle with serial electric drive?

Very advanced concept, and (if anyone is actually putting long term thinking into effect) the potential basis of a family of vehicles. Yes, I know, the program has no mandate etc. How is it that we can see the advantages of this, but it can't be sold that way in Ottawa?


----------



## Matt_Fisher

Thucydides said:
			
		

> This looks like the SEP prototype from several years back. Is Canada seriously considering a vehicle with serial electric drive?
> 
> Very advanced concept, and (if anyone is actually putting long term thinking into effect) the potential basis of a family of vehicles. Yes, I know, the program has no mandate etc. How is it that we can see the advantages of this, but it can't be sold that way in Ottawa?



The BAE Alligator 6x6 is a further development of the SEP program.  It has done away with the electric drive and uses a conventional powertrain drive system, as per the 8x8 SEP which was BAE's submission for the British FRES program (won by GDLS-Europe's Pirahana V, then subsequently cancelled).


----------



## ArmyRick

Did the British FRES program get cancelled? That means the Scimitar/spartan family is going on to serve 40 years+. Well now our allies know how we feel at times.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

FRES Specialist (Recce) has been awarded to GDLS Europe with their ASCOD vehicle, which competed against a modified (shortened by 1 roadwheel) recce version of the CV90.

The 'utility' portion of FRES which was intended to replace the FV432 and Saxon APCs (?) with an 8x8 wheeled vehicle.  The vehicles that competed were the Nexter VBCI, the GD Pirahana V, and the ARTEC Boxer.


----------



## ArmyRick

Is FRES cancelled with the brit budget cuts or is it still a go?


----------



## Matt_Fisher

For the timebeing FRES-Specialist (CVR-T recce replacement) is still a go.  FRES-Utility (Saxon, FV-432) has been cancelled for the timebeing.  However, with the budget reviews still ongoing, I wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing gets binned, only to start again in a couple years under a new mandate/program name.


----------



## a_majoor

For those who can't wait (or want something different from what the usual suspects are offering):

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/02/darpa-wants-your-help-experimental.html#



> *DARPA wants your help - Experimental Crowd-derived Combat-derived Vehicle (XC2V) Design Challenge*
> ShareExperimental Crowd-derived Combat-derived Vehicle (XC2V) Design Challenge
> 
> The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) seeks to engage the crowd for its latest challenge. The Experimental Crowd-derived Combat-support Vehicle (XC2V) Design Challenge, facilitated by Local Motors, Inc. asks individuals to conceptualize a vehicle body design for two different missions—Combat Reconnaissance and Combat Delivery & Evacuation.
> 
> This is an opportunity for servicemembers, race and auto enthusiasts, and those with an interest and talent in engineering, materials, industrial design, etc., to support the warfigther by contributing to the future of military vehicle manufacturing, win up to $10,000, and see their design become a reality in the form of a fully functioning concept vehicle.
> 
> This competition provides experts, novices and the curious the opportunity to provide input to the final design of the vehicle. Whether you provide a design or just vote on the best submission, you can contribute.
> 
> The challenge begins today, and final submissions are due March 3, 2011.
> 
> Local motors has a page and details
> 
> Requirements
> 
> Engineering Requirements:
> 
> * Use Local Motors tubular steel chassis that has: •18" (45cm) of independent Front Suspension travel •20" (50cm) Rear Suspension Travel • Solid Rear axle, rear wheel drive • Front and Rear stabilizer bars and rear Watts link setup. The suspension mounting points, engine location, base chassis, wheelbase, and track width should not be changed in any way)
> * This proof of concept vehicle will use the GM LS3 V8 powertrain. If this vehicle were to go into production, the actual powertrain would vary.
> * Passengers: up to 5 including the possibility of carrying 3 passengers plus their gear in the prone position for evacuations.
> * Incorporate a Modular Multiple Payload system that is able to meet the needs of one or several of the mission sets put forth in the design brief.
> * Location to carry supplies both inside and/ or on the exterior of the vehicle. The Maximum Payload is: 1200 lbs (544kg)
> * Maximum Towing capacity: 4000 lbs (1,814kg)
> 
> Engineering Guidelines:
> 
> * Vehicle should be highly mobile. Keep the side rails high.
> * Visibility is key: This vehicle should have the ability to have visibility like a control tower. This would help a Tactical Air Liaison Officer (TALO) help communicate with and see incoming aircraft.
> * Some place from where the vehicle can be defended if necessary
> * Easy ingress and egress for the driver and co driver
> * Best survivability possible for the occupants - Diver and co-driver locations cannot be changed, however the vehicle could be wider, and packs could be mounted on the outside-- every centimeter of distance from the exterior of the vehicle to the passenger increases the chances of survivability.
> * Potential location for 360 degree, horizon to horizon protection.
> 
> Deliverables:
> 
> * To Note: The XC2V Challenge Ignition kit will be released on Friday, February 3rd at 12:00h est (UTC-05:00h)
> Your Deliverables are what you submit to Local Motors. Before hitting the final submit button, please double check that you have met all of the Engineering requirements, and have incorporated the following onto your design board:
> 
> * Must incorporate the following orthographic package illustrations:
> - Profile view
> - Front/Rear / Combo view
> - Top (half or full)
> 
> (You may use the 3D CAD Data to help you generate these images, or use the provided chassis package and draw your vehicle body over top of these. To keep it to scale, you may use the DesignPackage.PDF file included in the ignition kit). Your entry will not be accepted if you modify the chassis wheelbase, or track width in any way.
> * Must incorporate Oscar provided in ignition kit, to show scale and packaging.
> * 3 Design views: Front 3/4, Rear 3/4, one of your choosing.
> * Multiple design boards will be accepted for this competition. (Up to 10 design boards)
> Make sure that your design boards are no larger than 2000 px wide.
> * Please Label all functions and design additions on all boards.
> * Please make sure you include your Name on all boards.
> 
> Prizes:
> 
> 1st Place $7500 plus your design turned into a functioning concept vehicle.
> 2nd. Place: $1500
> 3rd Place: $1000


----------



## The Bread Guy

The news release:


> Oshkosh Defense, a division of Oshkosh Corporation (NYSE:OSK), today unveiled its prototype for Canada’s Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle (TAPV) program, as well as the company’s plans to work with its subsidiary, London Machinery, Inc. (LMI), to leverage that company’s new facility in London, Ontario, in pursuit of Canadian Department of National Defence (DND) vehicle programs.
> 
> LMI, the leading manufacturer of concrete mixer trucks in London, Ontario, provides local advanced manufacturing capabilities and a highly skilled workforce to the Oshkosh Defense and General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada team’s bids for the TAPV and Medium Support Vehicle System (MSVS) programs.
> 
> “Our team has thoughtfully reviewed draft RFPs for the TAPV and MSVS programs, and we are aligning our operations to DND requirements for highly-protected vehicles and long-term maintenance and support for the vehicles,” said Andy Hove, Oshkosh Corporation executive vice president and president, Oshkosh Defense. “Our plans will deliver significant value to DND by leveraging proven technology and support capabilities while providing industrial and regional benefits to contribute to the Canadian economy.” ....


Company pix attached.


----------



## Sythen

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2011/06/20110601-191112.html



> OTTAWA -- As Canada's troops prepare to come home from Afghanistan with their battered kit, the federal government is moving ahead with plans to buy the army a whole new fleet of armoured vehicles.
> One of the contenders for the Canadian Forces' new tactical armoured patrol vehicles was on display at a defence industry trade show here Wednesday.
> 
> Textron's TAPV, a descendant of the U.S. army's ASV M11-17, is a four-man mean-looking four-by-four machine that is built to withstand IED blasts and can reach speeds of 100 km/h. Company officials describe it as a workhorse.
> 
> "It's a very, very tested vehicle. We've been developing this vehicle for five years, and we've blown up a lot of them. That's the only way you know it's safe," said Textron's Neil Rutter, adding thousands of the older U.S. variant have been used in Iraq and Afghanistan. "We know that this vehicle can equal it (the U.S. variant) and probably surpass it for reliability."
> 
> Textron is one of six companies short-listed to submit bids to the government in August.


----------



## SevenSixTwo

Is it just me or does Textron's vehicle look a little "Russian" like. Seems to be it would add complication on AFV recognition but I am no expert on that.


I just recognize the front end as common Russian shape.


----------



## George Wallace

SevenSixTwo said:
			
		

> Is it just me or does Textron's vehicle look a little "Russian" like. Seems to be it would add complication on AFV recognition but I am no expert on that.
> 
> 
> I just recognize the front end as common Russian shape.



And what do you think of the German Fuchs, or the French VAB?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I was hoping for a modern version  of this


----------



## SevenSixTwo

George Wallace said:
			
		

> And what do you think of the German Fuchs, or the French VAB?



Very surprised, but at the same time the Fuchs and VAB can move in water (justification in shape?). Looks like the hull of a BRDM.

I am assuming the Textatron vehicle doesn't go in water?



Maybe, it's just me but I think it's a little silly shaping AFV's that look similar to Russian AFV's unless the design is fundamentally necessary and an advantage (Probably why the T-50 and J-20 look so much like the F-22).


----------



## aesop081

SevenSixTwo said:
			
		

> s unless the design is fundamentally necessary and an advantage



So you have already made the assumption that it was not ?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

SevenSixTwo said:
			
		

> Very surprised, but at the same time the Fuchs and VAB can move in water (justification in shape?). Looks like the hull of a BRDM.
> 
> I am assuming the Textatron vehicle doesn't go in water?
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, it's just me but I think it's a little silly shaping AFV's that look similar to Russian AFV's unless the design is fundamentally necessary and an advantage  (Probably why the T-50 and J-20 look so much like the F-22).



Like in dissipating a mine blast?


----------



## Snaketnk

Most of the Americans who were using the MATV overseas seemed to like it. It's not a troop carrier, and it's not a fighting vehicle. The only real use I saw for it was as a super-armoured humvee. Definitely had better off road capability than the RG-31s and Cougars.


----------



## Grizzly

Colin P said:
			
		

> I was hoping for a modern version  of this



You're in luck then Colin. The RG-35 being offered by BAE is the intended replacement for the Ratel, and it is similar in appearance. It comes in 6x6 and the 4x4 RPU version. CASR has some good pics of it, even if their opinions sometimes are a bit controversial.

http://www.casr.ca/bg-army-tapv-bae-rg35-rpu.htm


----------



## McG

Grizzly said:
			
		

> You're in luck then Colin. The RG-35 being offered by BAE is the intended replacement for the Ratel, and it is similar in appearance. It comes in 6x6 and the 4x4 RPU version.


I like the idea of a vehicle that comes in 6x6 and 4x4 configurations.  That is about the only way that I can see one vehicle type replacing everything from G-Wagon through RG31 and Bison.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Actually it's a Malaysian Simba, but likely it has it's roots in the Ratel. According to the Malays they are getting long in the tooth and need replacing. Apparently the crews gets about 5 rds of main gun ammo a year to shoot so they are not as effective as they could be.

Drivers position




they also have a recovery version


----------



## Grizzly

I'm not so sure Colin. The Simba is a 4x4 vehicle as seen here http://www.military-today.com/apc/simba.htm. The one you posted looks like a Ratel to me, but I'm not an expert. We should pop it into the afv recognition thread to see if anyone else can shed some insight. 
Regardless, I think it's usefull that the RG-35 come is different wheel bases too since it allows greater versatility. However, all of the TAPV candidates have a rather high profile it seems. Will this be an issue when used as a recce / scout vehicle?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I took the pictures at the Pt Dickson museum, the plaque said Simba if I recall correctly. I think the confusion comes from both the British vehicle named Simba and the Malaysian Military also having a vehicle named Simba. It appears that the Malaysian Military bought 180 of these vehicles equipped with a LP 90MM gun. I will confirm this with a Malaysian friend of mine on another forum.


----------



## Kirkhill

Grizzly and Colin:

The Ratel look-a-like is the SIBMAS APC developed by BN Constructions Ferroviaires Metalliques of Belgium in 1976.  It was purchased by Malaysia in 1981 with deliveries of 162 Cockerill 90 armed Fire Support Vehicles between 1983 and 1985 

At least according to my well-thumbed Jane's Tank Recognition Guide - 1996


----------



## Grizzly

Good call guys. Yup, I found the entry in Janes too. Definitely the Belgian / Malaysian SIMBAS, though boy does it look similar to the Ratel. Having two vehicles with such similar names really is confusing. Anyway, thanks for the clarification!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

My Malaysian friend confirmed it's the SIBMAS, sorry for the confusion, I blame the heat and lack of beer  :nod:

They also operate the Condor and Simba which just makes it that much more fun. If you think we have logistical issues imagine being in charge of maintaining the Malaysian armoured fleet with vehicles from around the world.


----------



## GK .Dundas

Colin P said:
			
		

> My Malaysian friend confirmed it's the SIBMAS, sorry for the confusion, I blame the heat and lack of beer  :nod:
> 
> They also operate the Condor and Simba which just makes it that much more fun. If you think we have logistical issues imagine being in charge of maintaining the Malaysian armoured fleet with vehicles from around the world.


You people have obviously never followed the trial and tribulations of  of being a logistics officer in the Thai military. Where the country's Generals and Admirals are pretty well allowed  to buy almost ANYTHING that strikes their fancy ....


----------



## The Bread Guy

An update:


> Oshkosh Defense, a division of Oshkosh Corporation, today delivered the Oshkosh Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle (TAPV) to Aberdeen Test Center in Maryland where the Canadian Department of National Defence (DND) will conduct mobility, survivability and weapons testing. Oshkosh Defense’s response to the TAPV solicitation was submitted to the Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) last week …. The TAPV is intended to replace the Armoured Patrol Vehicle (APV) and the Coyote reconnaissance vehicle, to help ensure the Canadian Army remains capable of effective training, supporting domestic operations and sustaining deployed forces as part of the Canada First Defence Strategy. The Oshkosh TAPV, which is based on the company’s proven Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected All-Terrain Vehicle (M-ATV) platform, leverages a mission-proven chassis and the patented TAK-4® independent suspension system used on more than 20,000 military-class vehicles, which have proven highly-effective in some of the most extreme operating environments, including Afghanistan.  In independent testing conducted to date, the Oshkosh TAPV has undergone on- and off-road durability validation, successfully met ballistic and other survivability threat requirements (including the use of steel-pot method for NATO STANAG blast tests), and completed extensive live-fire demonstrations of the fully integrated dual Remote Weapon Station (RWS).  The combination of these activities demonstrates the effectiveness, maturity and reliability of the Oshkosh TAPV ….


Company news release, 29 Aug 11


----------



## The Bread Guy

> Force Protection Industries, Inc., a FORCE PROTECTION, INC. group company, today announced the submission of a bid and test vehicle to the Canadian Forces for the Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle (TAPV) project.
> 
> *Force Protection is offering the Canadian Forces a 6x6 variant of the battle proven Cougar wheeled combat vehicle developed by Force Protection to meet the TAPV requirements.* Force Protection will be the design authority and have overall responsibility for the acquisition contract to supply the TAPV vehicles and maintain configuration control.
> 
> As Force Protection's main Canadian partner, CAE will have overall responsibility for the comprehensive in-service support (ISS) solution, including: vehicle operator and mission training systems; engineering information environment; fleet management services; systems engineering support; and, lifecycle and integrated logistics support services. CAE will also be responsible for assembling a pan-Canadian team of companies to develop and support any country-specific requirements for Canada's replacement fleet of tactical armored patrol vehicles ....


Company news release, 1 Sept 11


----------



## PuckChaser

Force Protection better make their Cougar vehicle offroad far better than it does right now. Its a great MRAP, but apparently is just a slug moving cross-country.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Force Protection better make their Cougar vehicle offroad far better than it does right now. Its a great MRAP, but apparently is just a slug moving cross-country.



Citations needed please.


----------



## Kirkhill

Now that the TAPV programme has shaken out and test vehicles are being delivered can anyone tell me if it is an "F", "A" or (in a world of armoured Tank Transporters) even a "B" vehicle?

Edit: The Coyote Role seems to have been allocated to the LAV III Upgrade with the LRSS on board - so the TAPV will not be a Coyote.

The Textron/Rheinmetall/Kongsberg submission looks to me to be the only one that could pass the sniff test as an F Echelon vehicle that might be compatible with a Recce force.

The rest of them look like Landrovers on steroids, Humber "Pigs" or armoured Deuce and a Halfs.  All of which have their uses (ACP, Rovers, Liaison Vehicles) and are useful and necessary pieces of kit to have on hand.  

But for the life of me I can't see building a recce force or a light battalion around a "Pig".









Generally speaking, I believe, vehicles like that are assigned to operational battalions on an as needed basis and are not their primary vehicles.


----------



## PuckChaser

recceguy said:
			
		

> Citations needed please.



Personal friend who spent 7 months in one.


----------



## Snaketnk

I've done patrols in the things; it's basically immobilized by a speedbump. Over the course of several months the act of going over speedbumps was enough to shake whole sections of the vehicle loose. I remember one vehicle in our camp had the fuel tank held on with cargo straps. It's astounding how bad it is off road. 

Riding in the back of an MSVS on a hole-riddled training area road is more smooth than being in the back of a Cougar.

Within the city, because of it's adversity to speedbumps, short trips would triple in length if we included Cougars in our patrols.


----------



## REDinstaller

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Now that the TAPV programme has shaken out and test vehicles are being delivered can anyone tell me if it is an "F", "A" or (in a world of armoured Tank Transporters) even a "B" vehicle?
> 
> Edit: The Coyote Role seems to have been allocated to the LAV III Upgrade with the LRSS on board - so the TAPV will not be a Coyote.
> 
> The Textron/Rheinmetall/Kongsberg submission looks to me to be the only one that could pass the sniff test as an F Echelon vehicle that might be compatible with a Recce force.
> 
> The rest of them look like Landrovers on steroids, Humber "Pigs" or armoured Deuce and a Halfs.  All of which have their uses (ACP, Rovers, Liaison Vehicles) and are useful and necessary pieces of kit to have on hand.
> 
> But for the life of me I can't see building a recce force or a light battalion around a "Pig".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Generally speaking, I believe, vehicles like that are assigned to operational battalions on an as needed basis and are not their primary vehicles.



The TAPV would be classed as an "A" veh. This is due to the armour being integral to the veh. A "B" veh would have an add on kit available to provide armour for it, along with the fact it would be a type of logistic or liaison veh.


----------



## McG

Tango18A said:
			
		

> The TAPV would be classed as an "A" veh. This is due to the armour being integral to the veh. A "B" veh would have an add on kit available to provide armour for it, along with the fact it would be a type of logistic or liaison veh.


I believe the intent of the question was not in regards to the typical "A fleet" and "B fleet" terms that we use.  Rather, it was to ask if the potential TAPV platforms were most suitable for operating in the F, A or B echelons.


----------



## REDinstaller

If thats the case then is should be a "F" ech veh.


----------



## McG

Tango18A said:
			
		

> If thats the case then is should be a "F" ech veh.


Yes, it should be.  Kirkhill's assessment is that only one of he prospective options actually looks fit to be in an F ech.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Now that the TAPV programme has shaken out and test vehicles are being delivered can anyone tell me if it is an "F", "A" or (in a world of armoured Tank Transporters) even a "B" vehicle?
> 
> Edit: The Coyote Role seems to have been allocated to the LAV III Upgrade with the LRSS on board - so the TAPV will not be a Coyote.
> 
> The Textron/Rheinmetall/Kongsberg submission looks to me to be the only one that could pass the sniff test as an F Echelon vehicle that might be compatible with a Recce force.
> 
> The rest of them look like Landrovers on steroids, Humber "Pigs" or armoured Deuce and a Halfs.  All of which have their uses (ACP, Rovers, Liaison Vehicles) and are useful and necessary pieces of kit to have on hand.
> 
> But for the life of me I can't see building a recce force or a light battalion around a "Pig".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Generally speaking, I believe, vehicles like that are assigned to operational battalions on an as needed basis and are not their primary vehicles.



the pig is an interesting vehicle, they were converted in a hurry from the Humber general purpose truck as there was a shortage of wheeled armour to use in Northern Ireland, a rather successful conversion. There was also a AT version fitted with the SS11 I think.


----------



## The Bread Guy

> Oshkosh Defense, a division of Oshkosh Corporation (NYSE:OSK), announced today that the company will open a new office in Ottawa, Ontario, to support vehicle programs for the Canadian Department of National Defence (DND).
> 
> “We are committed to supporting the DND’s vehicle programs and creating programs of lasting value for the Canadian economy,” said Serge Buchakjian, senior vice president and general manager of International Programs for Oshkosh Defense. “Our presence in Ottawa will enable regular dialogue and long-term collaboration – from the initial production through vehicle sustainment.”
> 
> The Oshkosh office in Ottawa will provide program management, industrial and regional benefits management, engineering, contract management, and purchasing support for Canadian programs.
> 
> The office expands Oshkosh Corporation’s established presence through Ontario-based London Machinery, Inc. (LMI), a subsidiary that was founded in Canada in 1905. LMI will provide advanced vehicle manufacturing capabilities including assembly, subsystem integration and final acceptance testing for DND programs. Work will be performed by LMI’s highly skilled workforce, applying the latest manufacturing methods and quality processes at the company’s 140,000-square-foot facility. Oshkosh also is teamed with General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada to provide in-country vehicle support and system integration.
> 
> The new office also increases the global presence of Oshkosh Defense. The company has offices around the world, including locations in North America, Europe and the Middle East.
> 
> Oshkosh is currently pursuing the DND’s Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle (TAPV) program, which will replace the Armoured Patrol Vehicle (APV) and the Coyote reconnaissance vehicle.
> 
> Oshkosh delivered its TAPV to Aberdeen Test Center in Maryland in August for DND mobility, survivability and weapons testing. The fully integrated Oshkosh TAPV is based on the proven Oshkosh Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected All-Terrain Vehicle (M-ATV) platform and is customized to the Canadian Forces’ requirements ....


Company news release, 9 Jan 12


----------



## BDTyre

Snaketnk said:
			
		

> I've done patrols in the things; it's basically immobilized by a speedbump. Over the course of several months the act of going over speedbumps was enough to shake whole sections of the vehicle loose. I remember one vehicle in our camp had the fuel tank held on with cargo straps. It's astounding how bad it is off road.
> 
> Riding in the back of an MSVS on a hole-riddled training area road is more smooth than being in the back of a Cougar.
> 
> Within the city, because of it's adversity to speedbumps, short trips would triple in length if we included Cougars in our patrols.



The same was true of the Nyalas. If we had one at the lead, it would force everyone to keep it slow; if we had one at the rear, the next vehicle up would often call up that the rear vehicle was following behind.  

As lead vehicle, we hit an unseen bump in a Nyala at speed - the whole read end lifted off the ground and slammed down with such force that the convoy commander at first though it was a contact.


----------



## AutoEngineer

I believe that both the Cougar and Nyala vehicles currently in service employ a solid axle/leaf spring suspension system.  Both of the vehicles have available upgrades to include independent suspensions which improve the ride quality and off road mobility of the platform and the details are easily found on the internet.  Cost to retrofit is the significant downside to the upgrades, but it would improve the noted Cougar/Nyala ride quality and off road issues on the forum.


----------



## Jarnhamar

The RG31 is an APC designed to be driven on roads or hard pack flat surfaces. They're not designed to keep up to LAV3's off road-which is why so many of them got busted up in Afghanistan.  

Agree about the speed bumps. We had some special drivers who despite having driven the same road twice a day for 3 months would forget where the speed bumps are, hammer over them, and either screw up the vehicle or bang around the people inside. Or both.

At the end of the day it's a patrol vehicle not a fighting vehicle or convoy escort vehicle. It's primary job is to protect it's occupants from mines bullets and the odd zerg.


----------



## Zatonskikh

Oshkosh Defense has unveiled the prototype for Canadas TAPV program, here is the article:

it is by: Noam Eshel
 February 20, 2011 16:03


Oshkosh Defense unveiled its prototype for Canada's Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle (TAPV) program, as well as the company's plans to work with its subsidiary, London Machinery, Inc. (LMI), to leverage that company's new facility in London, Ontario, in pursuit of Canadian Department of National Defence (DND) vehicle programs.

Oshkosh Defense and General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada teamed for the TAPV program, which will replace the 4×4 RG-31 mine protected Armoured Patrol Vehicle (APV) and the Light Armored Vehicle LAV-2 6×6 Coyote reconnaissance vehicle.

The two companies also are teamed up for the MSVS program, which will replace the Medium Logistics Vehicles, Wheeled (MLVW) fleet. This new fleet will be used by the Regular Forces and the Canadian Army Reserves in a wide range of roles – from support during domestic emergencies, to deployed operations.

Oshkosh will serve as the prime contractor for both programs. The company plans to leverage proven vehicle platforms and advanced technologies for proposal submissions, including the MRAP All-Terrain Vehicle (M-ATV) and the Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement (MTVR).

Here is a link to the aticle: http://defense-update.com/20110220_oshkosh-tapv.html


----------



## Zatonskikh

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/104692/post-1117736.html#msg1117736
Check this out, TAPV really doesnt seem so bad, although the CF might not be using it in its proper role  like they tend to do. 
:deadhorse:


----------



## BDTyre

I wonder if Oshkosh addressed any of the issues I'd heard of with the American M-ATV. Initial reports were that the doors either blew off too easily, leaving the crew exposed after a hit, or not at all, leaving them trapped.


----------



## The Bread Guy

.... via a fresh, new Backgrounder (also attached in case link doesn't work):


> The Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle (TAPV) is a wheeled combat vehicle that can fulfill a variety of roles on the battlefield, such as reconnaissance and surveillance, security, command and control, cargo and armoured personnel carrier. The TAPV will provide a very high degree of protection to the crew while remaining highly mobile. The TAPV is designed to tackle tough terrain, providing troops with a cross-country capability, and a greater flexibility in choosing routes.
> 
> The TAPV will replace the Armoured Patrol Vehicle (RG-31), the Coyote reconnaissance vehicle (LAV 2) and will complement the Light Utility Vehicle Wheeled (G-Wagon).
> 
> There will be two variants of vehicles procured under this project. The first is the reconnaissance (recce) variant, which will replace the Coyote reconnaissance vehicle. The recce variant will have a crew of three and seating for an additional equipped passenger. The second variant, the general utility vehicle, will have a crew of three and seating for an additional three equipped passengers.  Both vehicles will be equipped with a Remote Weapon Station.
> 
> The TAPV project will procure 500 vehicles with an option for an additional 100. Specifically, the Canadian Forces will acquire up to 197 of the recce variant and up to 307 of the general utility variant. Deliveries will begin in 2014 and initial operational capability is expected that year.
> 
> The final Request for Proposals was released to the seven pre-qualified bidders on March 15, 2011.  Bid closure was August 29, 2011, and four bids were received.  Evaluation, including physical testing at Aberdeen Test Centre, started September 6, 2011.
> 
> The Government of Canada’s Industrial and Regional Benefits policy applies to this procurement, which means the winning company must generate economic activity in Canada, dollar for dollar equal to the contract value.


----------



## AmmoTech90

> Unlike the other vehicles in the Family of Land Combat Vehicles, the CCV is not replacing a vehicle in the current Canadian Forces fleet.



Serious question, so other than Coyote, what is TAPV replacing?  We have (or had) ~200 Coyotes, still have the majority of LAVs, and now ~100 CCV.  So 400 TAPVs replacing 200 Coyotes?  Or are TAPV also supposed to fill a G-Wagon role?


----------



## R031button

TAPV will also replace the RG 31, which has taken on roles previously filled by G Wagons


----------



## GnyHwy

Another way to look at it is, the Coyotes were only used by Armd Recce for "Bde Recce" (yeah I know they were cut down to the Cbt Tms).  The TAPV will likely be sent out as a recce vehicle for many other units, as well as the Armd ones.


----------



## ArmyRick

I am not a Arm Recce dude, so bear with me. Can TAPV also be part of Force Protection role as well? Or do we stick to LAV with RWS?


----------



## GnyHwy

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> I am not a Arm Recce dude, so bear with me. Can TAPV also be part of Force Protection role as well? Or do we stick to LAV with RWS?



I believe that is the intent.  They will have decent protection, and some sort of firepower, whether it be a .50, and/or 40mm.  Here is a recent link I just found that talks about all the projects and variants, with links to the contenders. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Canada-Looks-to-Upgrade-Its-Armor-in-Afghanistan-05190/#tactical-armored-patrol-vehicle


----------



## The Bread Guy

Bumped with CBC speculation about announcement today:





> Two federal cabinet ministers will be at CFB Gagetown on Friday afternoon for an announcement related to new military equipment.
> 
> Fisheries Minister Keith Ashfield, the Conservative MP for Fredericton, and Julian Fantino, the associate minister of national defence, will be at the New Brunswick military base.
> 
> The two are making an announcement related to new equipment for the Canadian Forces.
> 
> They are expected to award a contract to replace the army's fleet of armoured patrol vehicles.
> 
> The federal government says jobs will be created across Canada for skilled workers to build the patrol vehicles.
> 
> Dieppe's Malley Industries partnered with a U.S. firm to bid on a $1-billion contract to build 750 armoured military vehicles for the Department of National Defence.
> 
> The company said winning that contract would mean 120 new jobs and as many as 500 others through spinoff work.


A DND Info-machine media advisory says an announcement by Canada's defence acquisition czar is set for later today in Gagetown.


----------



## Kirkhill

Malley Industries TAPV?

That would seem to be two to Navistar.   (TAPV and MSVS-MilCOTS).

Got me to wondering about the trifecta and whether or not they could secure that based on a commonish mechanical package.

But here is the Navistar entry  for the MSVS-SMP competition:



> May 7/12: Navistar on SMP. Discussions with Navistar provide an MSVS SMP update. Overall, the firm has been working toward MSVS bids of various types for about 6.5 years. That certainly adds a lot of expense for bidders, which must be recovered somehow.
> 
> Their alliance with the Czech Republic’s Tatra will offer the ATX8 8×8 heavy truck, powered by Navistar’s MaxxForce D 12.4 engine and Allison 4500SP transmission. There had been some thought given to offering the 6×6 ATX6, if Canada wanted a split buy of up-armored vs. unarmored vehicles. Since the requirements are that every vehicle must be able to take additional armor, and that the same vehicle must be used for both standard cargo and specialty load handling variants, the ATX8 is their offering. The truck includes the Tatra Tactical Chassis Technology suspension system, whose central backbone tube houses driveline components, and provides an anchor for independently driven half-axles. The independent suspension at each wheel position is air spring, and leaf springs can be added if exceptionally high payloads are required. Maximum payload is 21.1 tonnes/ 23.25 tons.
> 
> Navistar representatives told DID that they’re seeing very similar specifications in other competitions around the world, and they expect to bid slight variants of their Canadian SMP offering in a number of countries.



Tatra ATX6
Tatra ATX8

Anyone care to weigh in on whether or not the mechanics of these three vehicles (TAPV, MSVS-MilCOTS, MSVS-SMP - Timberwolf, Navistar 6000, Tatra ATX6-8) are sufficiently close as to be considered a logistically common family?


----------



## PuckChaser

They're logistically common that everyone is going to need an air brakes course to drive anything bigger than a GWagon soon.


----------



## Kirkhill

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Malley Industries TAPV?
> 
> That would seem to be two to Navistar.   (TAPV and MSVS-MilCOTS).
> 
> Got me to wondering about the trifecta and whether or not they could secure that based on a commonish mechanical package.
> 
> But here is the Navistar entry  for the MSVS-SMP competition:
> 
> Tatra ATX6
> Tatra ATX8
> 
> Anyone care to weigh in on whether or not the mechanics of these three vehicles (TAPV, MSVS-MilCOTS, MSVS-SMP - Timberwolf, Navistar 6000, Tatra ATX6-8) are sufficiently close as to be considered a logistically common family?



Disregard all previous.....



> Ottawa company lands $1.25M armoured vehicle contract
> 
> Textron Systems Canada Inc. will supply Canadian Forces with 500 new vehicles
> 
> CBC News
> 
> Posted: Jun 8, 2012 8:07 AM ET
> 
> Last Updated: Jun 8, 2012 2:21 PM ET
> 
> The Timberwolf, the Canadian Forces Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle, that Malley Industries is hoping will be assembled in Dieppe.forceprotection.net
> 
> An Ottawa company has landed a $1.25-million contract to replace the army's fleet of armoured patrol vehicles, federal officials announced at a military base in New Brunswick Friday afternoon.
> 
> Textron Systems Canada Inc. will supply 500 vehicles to the Canadian Forces, with the option for another 100, said Fisheries Minister Keith Ashfield, the Conservative MP for Fredericton, and Julian Fantino, the associate minister of national defence.
> 
> The first tactical vehicles are expected to be delivered in 2014, they told the crowd gathered at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown in Oromocto.
> 
> The federal government says jobs will be created across Canada for skilled workers to build the patrol vehicles.
> 
> Dieppe's Malley Industries was not part of the winning bid.
> 
> The company had partnered with a U.S. firm to bid on a $1-billion contract to build 750 armoured military vehicles for the Department of National Defence.
> 
> The company said winning that contract would have meant 120 new jobs and as many as 500 others through spinoff work.
> 
> Related
> 
> Malley Industries fights for defence contract



Textron TAPV

I wonder why CBC raises Malley at all?

Anyway.  Had me fooled.


----------



## dapaterson

CBC would have sent local journalists to cover the story.  New Brunswick journalist would put the New Brunswick angle front and centre.


----------



## Kirkhill

dapaterson said:
			
		

> CBC would have sent local journalists to cover the story.  New Brunswick journalist would put the New Brunswick angle front and centre.



Thanks for that DAP.


----------



## PuckChaser

We got a steal of a deal according to CBC: $1.25 million for 500 vehicles? $2500 a piece.  >


----------



## The Bread Guy

And here's the official word from the DND Info-machine:





> The Honourable Julian Fantino, Canada’s Associate Minister of National Defence, today welcomed the decision by the Government of Canada that Textron Systems Canada Inc., of Ottawa, Ontario, has been selected to provide the Canadian Army with 500 Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicles (TAPV). This successful awarding of two contracts resulted from a fair, open and transparent competitive process. These contracts will support the Canadian Army by providing them with the new equipment they need, while creating jobs across our country.
> 
> “Today’s milestone once again demonstrates our commitment to supporting our brave men and women in uniform, while creating and supporting skilled jobs across Canada,” said the Honourable Julian Fantino, Associate Minister of National Defence. “Our investments in the Canadian Army now will provide our troops with the modern equipment they need to conduct their missions safely and effectively for decades to come.”
> 
> The TAPV project is one of four Family of Land Combat (FLCV) projects announced at CFB Gagetown in July 2009. These new vehicles represent an improvement over our Canadian Army’s LAVII (Coyote) and the Armoured Patrol Vehicles (RG-31) with the delivery of a strengthened degree of survivability to its crew.  Once in service, these vehicles will perform a number of critical roles, including reconnaissance and surveillance, command and control, and cargo and armoured personnel carrier.
> 
> “Today’s announcement is great news for our soldiers,” said Brigadier-General C.C. Thurrott, Commander of Land Force Atlantic Area (LFAA). “These vehicles will provide the men and women of the Canadian Army with an excellent multi-role combat capability, protecting them from a variety of threats, while enabling them to remain mobile and agile when executing a wide variety of missions.”
> 
> Today’s announcement is subject to the Government of Canada’s Industrial Regional Benefits policy, supporting skilled Canadian workers and economic growth.  One hundred per cent of the value of these contracts must be re-invested by Textron Systems Canada Inc. in the Canadian economy – a total of $708.7 million.
> 
> This agreement commits the contractor to re-investing at least 25 per cent of the acquisition contract of $603.3 million and 40 per cent of the sustainment contract of $105.4 million in the creation of new skilled work in the manufacture and long-term support of the TAPV in Canada. Total project costs associated with this procurement approved by Treasury Board is $1.25 billion.
> 
> “Our government is delivering results on its objectives of giving the Canadian Forces the tools they need, while creating skilled jobs,” said Minister Fantino. “Canada currently has over 60 major procurements subject to our industrial regional benefit policy, with over $22 billion in industrial regional benefit activity underway.”
> 
> There are approximately five years of in-service support included in the support contract, with options extend by 20 one-year periods to cover the life expectancy of the vehicle, estimated at 25 years.
> 
> First deliveries of the TAPV are expected in 2014. Full Operational Capability is expected in 2016.  Announcements of Canadian companies whose skilled workers are benefitting from additional work created by this important investment in the CF will be forthcoming in due course.


----------



## Tank Troll

Yay another peice of junk, to big for Recce not big enough for a infantry section to fit in. Always one war behind. :facepalm:


----------



## Kirkhill

How about "General Utility?

As in B echelon?  Command and "Semi-Tactical" (TV's predecessors used to love that phrase) Reconnaissance?  Gun Tractor?

LAVs and CCVs seem to me to be at least as well suited to Recce as these machines.  And at 17 tonnes AUW (at least according to CASR) and over 3 m OAH, exclusive of the RWS, it would appear that early entry forces would have to rely on the 4 C17s to bring them in at the rate of 2 or 3 apiece.  Roughly the rate at which they could bring in the LAVs and the CCVs.

Perhaps we have to wait and see what happens with the LSVW replacement project?


----------



## Tank Troll

The new Recce Sqn look is going to mix these in with the LAV III surveillance vehicles. So much for sneak and peak.


----------



## noneck

What will the distribution of these be and will the Mo be getting any?


----------



## Miller97

sweet..another big POS, shoulda got the M-ATV.


----------



## Snaketnk

Yet another purchase that makes me want to stop paying my taxes. God forbid we use something that's been proven and had the kinks worked out already.


----------



## GK .Dundas

This purchase to put it mildly qualifies as an act of stupidity on several levels.The vehicles are to large and have too high of a silhouette for recce at least sneak and peek , They also lack the firepower to do recce by fire and I could go and on .
This make the AVGP purchases actually look good.You know part of me is hoping this was either blatant political interference or some Deputy Minister is about to retire to some tropical country that has no extradition treaty with us.
 The alternative is the NDHQ couldn't plan and stage a piss up at a brewery.Not a pleasant thought considering what they are responsible for defence of the nation. :


----------



## George Wallace

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> This purchase to put it mildly qualifies as an act of stupidity on several levels.The vehicles are to large and have too high of a silhouette for recce at least sneak and peek , They also lack the firepower to do recce by fire and I could go and on .
> This make the AVGP purchases actually look good.




I agree with you in that they are not going to do 'sneak and peek' well, which is what we used to use as the Canadian doctrine, and mention that it has not been Canadian doctrine to 'recce by fire'.  

Not too much can make the AVGP purchase look good, except that it eventually led to the LAV III.

On another note; I was just informed recently that 'Spec Fire' was against the Geneva Conventions.  True or not, it still is an interesting note.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Let the Canadian industrial backlash begin!





> Tempers are flaring after two London companies were denied a $1.25 billion contract with the Canadian Military building armoured vehicles.
> 
> London Machinery Inc and General Dynamics Systems Canada were both up for the long term project which could last 25 years.
> 
> The government instead awarded the job to the Canadian division of Textron Systems.
> 
> And critics are speaking out.
> 
> Local MP Irene Mathyssen says she is appalled and it makes no sense to take the investment out of the country.
> 
> CAW President Ken Lewenza said it was a slap in the face.
> 
> Lewenza said it shows a lack of sensitivity to the manufacturing job losses in the area.
> 
> The vehicles will be built in Louisiana instead of London.
> 
> But Textron says the job will still have economic spinoffs for Canada - seven other Canadian firms will act as suppliers.


CJBK London, 9 Jun 12


----------



## Snaketnk

If these thing have the kind of suspension I've experienced with other Mine Protected vehicles (and judging from their little promo video it is) We won't be allowed to take these off road for fear of shaking them to pieces and killing the crew.


----------



## Kirkhill

Before getting too bent out of shape, (for little reason in my case as a by-stander), I keep being drawn back to the fact that the Bison, an AVGP with the missing wheel put back where it belonged, was originally procured for the Militia as an Infantry Section Carrier.

Those Carriers have carried precious few sections of infantry from the Militia, unless they were attached to a deployed Regular Force unit.
They have all since been converted to support vehicles.

These TAPVs, now that they are in the system, may go through the same life-changing experience.  When reality intrudes on the plan are there any guesses as to what these vehicles may actually end up being used for?


----------



## GnyHwy

In the interest of fair debate, I will take the other side to keep this from being and endless slag.  I'm not sure if we made the right choice, but I will take other side nonetheless.

First off, the title is a bit misleading.  The TAPV will not be replacing the Coyote; it is replacing the RG, which filled the gap that the G-Wagon couldn't.  This gap could briefly be described as the capability to patrol without getting annihilated by the first ambush that it encountered.  The RG was a quick fix that filled a gap, and we bought it in haste, and with full understanding that we wouldn't be keeping it.

The Coyote is being replaced by the LAV Up Recce Variant.  While we all see the importance of "sneak and peek", if it in fact exists, we also have to protect the troops inside, which is a priority.  We could all make the argument that if you're not seen, then you won't be hit, but that is impractical given the tasks of presence patrols and convoy escorts that the vehicle is most likely to perform.  Was the picture below what everyone was expecting?

As far a recce by fire, I'll leave that to the CCV, if it ever happens.  A true recce by fire vehicle is likely going to be a monster (40 tonne +) once you add in all the protection and firepower that it will need.

As far as the firepower of the Textron vehicle, I doubt it will be lacking.  Not all TAPVs will be equal, but the ones where firepower is required, you will likely see a .50 cal and 40mm AGL combo.  That seems sufficient to me.

Lastly, in response to the question of the reserves getting them?  Since this has evolved from the G-Wagon, it seems reasonable, and I would like to see at least one unit per brigade area get them if possible.  Convoy escort tasks will never go away, and I feel the reserves could fill that role, if they have the proper training.


----------



## cupper

Just from what I saw in the promo vid, it seems that there could be a stability / roll over problem with higher speed manouvers.

And seriously, the spare tire to be mounted on the roof? That's going to be fun.


----------



## DELTADOG13

Interesting to read that the Bison was never used for what it was intended......an armoured vehicle for the Reserves. Back in the early 90's when it was procured, the Reserves did receive them. I was in the units that were assigned them. I was both in the West Nova Scotia Regiment and the 1st Bn The Royal New Brunswick Regiment, which had a Mechanized role. I remember quite vividly rolling up and down the Lawfield Corridor in both a Bison and an M113 on multiple exercises over many years. Regardless of the role assigned to the Reserves in a true Mechanized or Motorized role, the TAPV with be pre-positioned at the Area Trg Centres for the use of the Reserve Brigades. I would also assume as it is wheeled that some will have to be assigned to the units for PCF courses. The same as the Coyote was in in its early days with the PEIR.  

We'll have to see what happens. Another operation requiring the stripping of these vehicles from the Reserves to man this possible mission may happen. As it did for the Bison in Afghanistan. :threat:

WAIT OUT!
DD13


----------



## m2austin

Text deleted in accordance with Army.ca policy

*Milnet.ca Staff*

Anyone here have any comments on this unit?






Image from cbc.ca <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/topstories/2012/06/08/tapv.jpg">Here</a>


----------



## m2austin

^Ack.

Here is similar information authored by a different source.

Sourced from CBC.ca, 9 June 2012, Link <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2012/06/08/nb-gagetown-ashfield-fantino-621.html">Here</a>



> *Ottawa company lands $1.25B armoured vehicle contract*
> Textron Systems Canada Inc. will supply Canadian Forces with 500 new vehicles
> CBC News
> Posted: Jun 8, 2012 8:07 AM ET
> 
> An Ottawa company has landed a $1.25-billion contract to replace the army's fleet of armoured patrol vehicles, federal officials announced at a military base in New Brunswick Friday afternoon.
> 
> Textron Systems Canada Inc. will supply 500 vehicles to the Canadian Forces, with the option for another 100, said Fisheries Minister Keith Ashfield, the Conservative MP for Fredericton, and Julian Fantino, the associate minister of national defence.
> 
> The first tactical vehicles are expected to be delivered in 2014, they told the crowd gathered at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown in Oromocto.
> 
> The fleet is scheduled to be fully operational in 2016.
> 
> The federal government says jobs will be created across Canada for skilled workers to build the patrol vehicles.
> 
> *Improved protection for soldiers*
> 
> The Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle (TAPV) is an updated model of the one Textron's parent company currently produces for the American military.
> 
> The TAPV is specifically designed to protect soldiers from land mines and improvised explosive devices (IEDs) — major causes of death for Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.
> 
> Fantino believes the upgraded vehicles will give soldiers a greater sense of security.
> 
> "We have learned many lessons through our combat operations in Afghanistan, one of which being the importance of armoured vehicles in protecting our soldiers from today's threats in operations," he said.
> 
> Major Carl Gendron, one of the experts who evaluated the four competing bids for the contract, said the TAPV is a tough vehicle.
> 
> "It has sustained 10 kilograms of explosive under the wheels and eight under the hull. So it makes it extremely resilient to IEDs," said Gendron.
> 
> The TAPV, which has a weapon system that's controlled from inside the vehicle, will replace the Coyote reconnaissance vehicles and an armoured vehicle called the RG-31.
> 
> Of the 500, about 200 will be used as reconnaissance vehicles, while the remainder will be personnel carriers.
> 
> The TAPV can, however, be reconfigured for various roles, said Brigadier-General Chris Thurrott.
> 
> "One of the interesting things about this contract are the packages that have been put in place to allow for replacements, to allow for adjustments," he said.
> 
> "So what you have is a pool of specialist equipment, some which is already prepared for vehicles for specific roles and other ones that will allow us to adjust."
> 
> *New Brunswick company loses bid*
> 
> Dieppe's Malley Industries was one of four other bidders who were beat out by Textron Systems Canada.
> 
> Malley had partnered with a U.S. firm, Force Protection, to bid on a $1-billion contract to build 750 armoured military vehicles for the Department of National Defence.
> 
> Force Protection designed the patrol vehicles, while Malley hoped to assemble them.
> 
> "It's one of those things," said Steen Gunderson, general manager of Malley Industries. "We're looking for the region to grow. We're looking for sectors such as this to grow, and today, unfortunately, is a sad day."
> 
> The company said winning that contract would have meant 120 new jobs and as many as 500 others through spinoff work.
> 
> "Support industries, supply chain industries would have seen significant benefits," he said.
> 
> Malley Industries congratulated Textron on its success. Gunderson said Malley's involvement in the bid was a positive experience because they were able to make connections with a number of big companies such as Lockheed Martin and Elbit.
> 
> "We've got some alliances there that we put a lot of sweat and time into these things, and I think these relationships will grow as well."


----------



## Edward Campbell

There's already a lengthy discussion of the TAPV here.


----------



## ArmyRick

While alot of people are screaming fowl and bad choice, etc, etc.

here is a consideration. The new TAPV is based on a vehicle very much an upgraded ASV (M1117 I Believe). The yanks have been using it for years and seem interested in keep using it. Is their something the americans know that we do not?


----------



## Lance Wiebe

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> While alot of people are screaming fowl and bad choice, etc, etc.
> 
> here is a consideration. The new TAPV is based on a vehicle very much an upgraded ASV (M1117 I Believe). The yanks have been using it for years and seem interested in keep using it. Is their something the americans know that we do not?



The Textron variant is the oldest vehicle design in the competition, by far. The first variant was used by the USAF for air field defense in Vietnam. While it is new produced, it is still close to being a 50 year old design. While this may be a good thing, it makes me think of, say, new produced AMC Gremlins, or Pinto's......new produced wouldn't improve those much.

I also understand that both variants will have an RWS with a 40mm AGL and a C6.

A recce tp in a recce Sqn will have both LAV Recce (surveillance) and the TAPV. I kind of think that there may have to be some doctrinal changes....and I wonder what role the Armour Reserve Units will be given once they get these?

I also think that we had better spend some time training drivers; at 2.6 meters high, and a heavy RWS mounted high, this vehicle will be very tricky to drive on anything but improved roads.


----------



## m2austin

> I also think that we had better spend some time training drivers; at 2.6 meters high, and a heavy RWS mounted high, this vehicle will be very tricky to drive on anything but improved roads.



Anyone who drove (read: wrecked) an RG-31 in Panjwaii should have nothing to fear. And by this, I speak from the experience of my sect. setting the fastest turnaround time with them - under six hours from repaired, back into Medusa, back on a flatbed with a snapped axle.

Really hope this unit is able to off-road.


Chimo


----------



## PuckChaser

Glad everyone giving a statement to the media lists how much explosives the vehicle can sustain and at what points, so our enemies can add +5 and know its going to work...


----------



## Underway

I think there is some confusion on how to actually do armoured recce here, or at least the Cdn/NATO doctrine.

Canada DOES NOT do recce by fire for armoured recce.  Recce requires at a minimum 4 dismounts to do properly.  This is the problem with the Coyote in the first place.  It was an excellent surveillence package but a bad recce one as it didn't carry enough dismounts and was too big to go many places.  I know a number of guys who would rather to recce in G-Wagons as they are very good a sneaking around relatively speaking.  Armoured recce when done properly is to maintain contact with the enemy while not being in contact with the enemy.  This means if you are getting hit with or engaging in heavy fire you are doing it wrong adn should be popping smoke and running away.  You park your vehicles (usually 2-4) back a ways and then move to your recce position on foot.  Then when you need to you get back in your vehicle and move to a new place.  Read "The Bear and the Dragon" by Tom Clancey for a good fictional example of how to do this (russian armoured recce).

Armoured recce is used to define the movement, size and type of the enemy.  It is also used to identify routes, jump off points and inital objectives or starting objectives.  In order to ID routes properly you have to get out of the vehicle and look at, test the ground to see if the follow on troops vehicle can pass.  Also route checks for IED's, minefields, hazards and obstacles require you to get out of the vehicle.  The number 4 here is key again, as these sorts of searches and support work best with half a dismounted section per vehicle, something we learned before afghanistan only to be reinforced when looking for IED's.  Idealy for routes you want a wheeled vehicle doing recce for wheels and tracks doing recce for tracks.

The recce platoon (infantry) are used to take starting objectives, and further define the enemy.  They also are the BG commanders manouver element.  Armoured recce traditionaly belong to an OC.

So in looking at the purchase here I can't say that its a bad choice.  We've got the 4 dismounts required, .50cal/C6 and 40mil GL combined RWS to give it some serious suppressive firepower vs other light vehicles and dismounts which is all it really needs.  It seems to have good mobility helped by the wheel hight/suspension, and that will also increase survivability vs mines/IED's as the best armour is distance.  There are some concerns regarding the height but all the competators had height issues IMHO.  It also has the ability to plunk on a surveillence package. 
Without the extra stuff required for recce then it has the space available to move troops around the battlespace or carry what they need.

It's wheeled so it will be doing recce for LAV's, Bison family, Cougars, Huskies, Buffalo's etc...  I don't think we have the luxury of having two types of recce for tracks and otherwise so we will have to make due.  The reserves will have to make due with continuing to do armoured recce in G-wagons without turret rings.  

All in all not a bad purchase considering what the requirements were, the other competition that bid on the process and the fact that  the RG-31 and Coyotes will be retired.  Now if we can just fix those engine fires on the new ML's...

http://www.casr.ca/bg-army-tapv-textron-msv.htm

here for a pic of the suveillence possibilites

http://defense-update.com/features/2009/october/msv_m1117_141009.html


----------



## Tank Troll

First off thanks for that insight and instruction on how to do Armour Recce. I think I will reread that book you recommend by Tom Clancy. A fiction writer has so much to offer to me when I'm doing my job for real, especially Russian Recce tactics, (know your enemy and all)  

Now I'm a little confused does BG stand for Brigade Commander or Battle Group commander. Either way I'm sure last time I was in Recce Sqn (it was from and Armoured Regiment   ) we worked for the the Brigade/ Battle Group Commander and 60 (the Infantry Recce dudes) worked directly for the unit Commander they belonged to. The Armour units have a 60 element all so. I don't however remember working for and OC, unless my patrol was handing over a contact, or leadind him to an assembly area, or he was passing through my VCP. All though after being in the Armour Corp for 29 years I've banged my head a number of times and have had a few concussions my memory is not what it use to be.  

I'm also sure last time I dismounted with my patrol there was 3 other guys with me. Me Commander 1, My gib 2, My Jr C/S gib 3, and his Gunner 4,  Yaaaay there is your magic number 4. 

Again remember, head trauma, concussions, and old age, but having my Op base 2-4 km from my Op seems a loooong way to go to get back in a hurry if I have to colapse my screen, plus my optic cable is only 200m long.

I see you manged to name off several task for Recce and the kinda roll of recce but it wouldn't get you a passing mark on the final exam for DP3 ARCC

How about Flank Security, or Point Recce, or Area Recce? How well will this Vehicle perform in those rolls? Well lets break down the acronym TAPV. 
Tactical
Armoured
Patrol
Vehicle

Hmmmmm didn't see the word Recce in there anywhere? I guess it will not do well in these areas. Saw the word Patrol there hmmmmmm wonder what that could mean?

Couple of other question aren't IEDs hazards? Can mines be used as IEDs? If there are a whole bunch together is it a IED field, or is it a mine field?

Psst don't tell any one I have 6 LUVW with turret rings on them, shhhhhh!!!  Those other dudes on the Island have 16, and them guys in NB, have like 18 or so, and we are all reservist.  We got told that we will be allowed to play with the big boys toys also.......... but they also told us they were only borrowing our bisions.

You are right about distance being the best armour for IEDs, I personally like to have at least a Km distance from them, or more if possible.  :nod:

Wait,wait I do remember working for an OC....................naaaaa doesn't count he was my OC when I was in Recce Sqn.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Last I looked 60 was armoured recce.

My call sign.


----------



## Jarnhamar

M2A said:
			
		

> Anyone who drove (read: wrecked) an RG-31 in Panjwaii should have nothing to fear. And by this, I speak from the experience of my sect. setting the fastest turnaround time with them - under six hours from repaired, back into Medusa, back on a flatbed with a snapped axle.
> 
> Really hope this unit is able to off-road.
> 
> 
> Chimo



Because the rg31 isn't supposed to replace a lav 3.
Not even close.


----------



## Franko

Underway said:
			
		

> I think there is some confusion on how to actually do armoured recce here, or at least the Cdn/NATO doctrine.



As someone that is a SME on this, I'm already chuckling.



> Armoured recce is used to define the movement, size and type of the enemy.  It is also used to identify routes, jump off points and inital objectives or starting objectives.



We do alot more than that. Nice general overview though.



> In order to ID routes properly you have to get out of the vehicle and look at, test the ground to see if the follow on troops vehicle can pass.  Also route checks for IED's, minefields, hazards and obstacles require you to get out of the vehicle.  The number 4 here is key again, as these sorts of searches and support work best with half a dismounted section per vehicle, something we learned before afghanistan only to be reinforced when looking for IED's.  Idealy for routes you want a wheeled vehicle doing recce for wheels and tracks doing recce for tracks.



So now we're working in an Afghanistan environment and we should stay that course and not return to our wartime doctrine?

Why a wheeled vehicle for roads and a track vehicle for tracks? Bit over the top to split a fleet and hinder your mobility.



> They also are the BG commanders manouver element.  Armoured recce traditionaly belong to an OC.



No. The Recce Sqn belongs to the Brigade commander.



> So in looking at the purchase here I can't say that its a bad choice.  We've got the 4 dismounts required, .50cal/C6 and 40mil GL combined RWS to give it some serious suppressive firepower vs other light vehicles and dismounts which is all it really needs.  It seems to have good mobility helped by the wheel hight/suspension, and that will also increase survivability vs mines/IED's as the best armour is distance.  There are some concerns regarding the height but all the competators had height issues IMHO.  It also has the ability to plunk on a surveillence package.
> Without the extra stuff required for recce then it has the space available to move troops around the battlespace or carry what they need.



Again, more retoric about the last war and not our doctrine. You clearly have no back ground in Armoured Recce or if you do it's a  basic understanding.

Regards


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Underway said:
			
		

> I think there is some confusion on how to actually do armoured recce here, or at least the Cdn/NATO doctrine.
> 
> Canada DOES NOT do recce by fire for armoured recce.    Armoured recce when done properly is to maintain contact with the enemy while not being in contact with the enemy.  Armoured recce is used to define the movement, size and type of the enemy.  It is also used to identify routes, jump off points and inital objectives or starting objectives.



Canadian doctrine does indeed allow for recconnaissance by fire. This can be found in Ground Manouevre Reconnaissance. Recce by fire comes with all sorts of limitations, but it is a method that can be employed if the estimate of the situation calls for it. I am not advocating that we employ recce by fire as out go-to method, but I am wondering what authority/experience you are drawing on to make your proclamations?

Regarding armoured recce and infantry recce, both will use this platform. Armoured recce Troops will be composite (a Patrol will have one LAV and one TAPV) while the infantry recce will be purely TAPV based.  Armoured recce (also called "medium recce") finds the enemy while infantry recce (also called "close recce") defines the enemy. Armoured recce usually, but not always, works for a formation commander while infantry recce works for a battalion commander. Armoured recce would report that an enemy company was in given location, with some information on the general layout of the platoons and the major obstacles. Infantry recce would provide a detailed breakdown of the enemy positions. The practice sees some overlap between infantry and armoured recce, but the theory works.

Now, I do agree that recce troops (of all kinds) must be prepared to dismount. This is true regardless of platform. Even with Coyotes my Patrol Commanders were usually dismounting short of crestlines to get a look on foot first. Time permitting, they performed much of their work on foot, but in fairly close proximity to their vehicles.


----------



## cupper

Here is a question for all those who have the background and experience:

What war are we looking at fighting with respect to this purchase?

Are we still looking at the massed armies on the German frontier from the Cold War, are we looking at involvement in low level conflicts between third world nations / factions, or are we looking at going back to peace making / peace keeping missions?

Or does it even matter? Is this platform adaptable enough to be useful in any level of conflict?


----------



## brihard

cupper said:
			
		

> Here is a question for all those who have the background and experience:
> 
> What war are we looking at fighting with respect to this purchase?
> 
> Are we still looking at the massed armies on the German frontier from the Cold War, are we looking at involvement in low level conflicts between third world nations / factions, or are we looking at going back to peace making / peace keeping missions?
> 
> Or does it even matter? Is this platform adaptable enough to be useful in any level of conflict?



I could see this being useful as a patrol vehicle / battle taxi in roles such as convoy escort, MILOBS, peacekeeping presence patrols, moving around of smaller elements (IA, OMLT, stuff like that) and so on and so forth. For a conventional conflict though? Too big for recce, too soft for a real fight...

Don't get me wrong, nice to have in the toolbox if we assume a major power war isn't imminent.


----------



## ArmyRick

Is this a tail wagging the dog type of situation?

Here is a thing-a-mi-gig, find a use for it.


----------



## McG

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Is this a tail wagging the dog type of situation?
> 
> Here is a thing-a-mi-gig, find a use for it.


Maybe.  Sometimes good ideas come from outside the process and we get a piece of outstanding kit that we really need (the new Leopards would be an example).  Other times, someone decides we are going to get a square peg - the requirements folk then spend a lot of time massaging that peg to best fit a round hole, but the initial idea always constrains the end product so the right fit is never achieved.


----------



## GnyHwy

MCG said:
			
		

> the requirements folk then spend a lot of time massaging that peg to best fit a round hole, but the initial idea always constrains the end product so the right fit is never achieved.



Very true!  The reqs folks do have good intentions, and they are not far from operational troops; they were operational troops not too long ago.  Yes, they have pressure from high above, but they strive to make the best solution possible.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

These vehicle would likely also be a good fit for some of the Armoured Reserve units, not over taxing on the logistical system and can drive to the training areas. 

Question does any of the reg force units do the "classic sneak and peek recce" anymore? I knew it was the core mission for the reserve armoured units in their M38's and iltises.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Underway said:
			
		

> I think there is some confusion on how to actually do armoured recce here, or at least the Cdn/NATO doctrine.



I don't think you know the audience here then.  Some of the folks here have _forgotten_ more about Armd Recce than most people will ever know.



> Armoured recce when done properly is to maintain contact with the enemy while not being in contact with the enemy.


 Huh?  How do you maintain contact while not being in contact?  

I think you mean the "see without being seen" stuff.  Maintain contact, avoid en detection/observation kinda thing?  



> You park your vehicles (usually 2-4) back a ways and then move to your recce position on foot.  Then when you need to you get back in your vehicle and move to a new place.



Wha?  I've done RAPZ stuff before and not  dismounted.  I've also dismtd at times as well.  You do not HAVE to dismt to gain obs.  What is the degree of search?  Rate of adv?  Do they allow for a dismount every bound?

Just a few points after beating thru some cobwebs while reading your post.  There is a much broader scope to Armd Recce than your post presents (recce vs surveillance, adv, def, retrograde ops, a long list IIRC).  The way its done and kit its done with should take into consideration more than just IEDs in Afghanistan, IMO, but I've been away from the blackhat world for a few years.  

I was also amused to see a Tom Clancy book referred to as a recce PAM ???  When I did this stuff, I carried my SOPs and a Recce Tp Ldr's manual around for ref.  I guess times have changed.   ;D

 :2c:


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Colin P said:
			
		

> These vehicle would likely also be a good fit for some of the Armoured Reserve units, not over taxing on the logistical system and can drive to the training areas.
> 
> Question does any of the reg force units do the "classic sneak and peek recce" anymore? I knew it was the core mission for the reserve armoured units in their M38's and iltises.



What is "classic sneak and peek recce?" Reg F armoured recce units do not seek to be seen when conducting recce tasks. Coyotes and LAVs can be stealthy. After two series of force on force training with a mixed LUVW/Coyote Sqn in many instance the enemy saw the LUVWs first due to windshields and the requirement for the LUVWs to stick to tracks/roads. A Coyote can stop short of a crest or corner and dismount a patrol to peek around the same as a LUVW can.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

My experiance is with the BCR's using mostly jeeps and occasional  Lynx's to sneak up gullies and ruts to get close and spy on the enemy without being seen.


----------



## Franko

Colin P said:
			
		

> My experiance is with the BCR's using mostly jeeps and occasional  Lynx's to sneak up gullies and ruts to get close and spy on the enemy without being seen.



If you do your job correctly in Recce, the enemy will never know he's being constantly observed.


----------



## George Wallace

Nerf herder said:
			
		

> No. The Recce Sqn belongs to the Brigade commander.



Well as you well know, I am a 'Cold Warrior' and of the Armour variety.......Recce Sqn does belong to an OC.......and together they belong to the Bde/BG Comd.    


Nerf herder and Recceguy......perhaps we can go back to Ferrets, or the more recent versions of the Fox, with more speed, quieter, etc. but only a three man crew. .........or.......


----------



## Jarnhamar

Colin P said:
			
		

> My experiance is with the BCR's using mostly jeeps and occasional  Lynx's to sneak up gullies and ruts to get close and spy on the enemy without being seen.



I was always under the assumption the farther away you can effectively recce an objective from the better. Amateurs get close.


----------



## Tank Troll

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> I was always under the assumption the farther away you can effectively recce an objective from the better. Amateurs get close.



This is some what true, how ever in the reserves usually the only optics we have are Binos and Mk I eyeballs so the need to get closer is there. I found with the Coyote serv gear it order to use it effectively you need to be a good ways away.  This was do to noise from the gear, the engine of the Vehicle to keep it powered, and tear down time. You also have the problem of light reflecting of the optics and the camming of the gear is tricky as well, more so the mast than the remote. By being that far away you can be limited to how much of the objective you can see.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> This is some what true, how ever in the reserves usually the only optics we have are Binos and Mk I eyeballs so the need to get closer is there. I found with the Coyote serv gear it order to use it effectively you need to be a good ways away.  This was do to noise from the gear, the engine of the Vehicle to keep it powered, and tear down time. You also have the problem of light reflecting of the optics and the camming of the gear is tricky as well, more so the mast than the remote. By being that far away you can be limited to how much of the objective you can see.



Fair enough. The "amateur's get close" was originally pointed out to me by a friend in the jtf  ( I should have put that in quotations originally too. )

They're obviously going to have a few more options than the reserves.


----------



## George Wallace

The further away you are, the more obstructions you will have interfering with what you are observing.  I take it your "jtf" friend was more likely alluding to sneaking in and actually touching, rather than close enough to observe.


----------



## Franko

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> By being that far away you can be limited to how much of the objective you can see.



But that can be mitigated by co ord with other patrols to ensure you attain at least 90% coverage if it's a pri 1 NAI.


----------



## Tank Troll

Nerf herder said:
			
		

> But that can be mitigated by co ord with other patrols to ensure you attain at least 90% coverage if it's a pri 1 NAI.



Yes it can.


----------



## Jarnhamar

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The further away you are, the more obstructions you will have interfering with what you are observing.  I take it your "jtf" friend was more likely alluding to sneaking in and actually touching, rather than close enough to observe.



Why did you put quotations around jtf?

He was referring to using optics and electronics to remain as far away from target as possible while observing.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> He was referring to using optics and electronics to remain as far away from target as possible while observing.



Not all recce troops, especially Reserve ones, have the luxury of those high speed pieces of equipment, short of the Mk1 eyeball and our usual crappy issue binos. A lot of us would give a left nut to have the shopping capabilities that the JTF does, however, we're just regular old troops that have to use what we've got.


----------



## Jarnhamar

It's too bad the armored reserves don't get better equipment, I find they can be way more utilized than they are.  Give them some decent optics and they can be a very low profile very far seeing group that has intimate familiarity with local areas.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> It's too bad the armored reserves don't get better equipment, I find they can be way more utilized than they are.  Give them some decent optics and they can be a very low profile very far seeing group that has intimate familiarity with local areas.



It's not so much us, but the others, especially Infantry. They don't have a schmick about how easy we can make their job for them. When we show up, no one knows how to utilize us or what we do. Most times they just send us off and tell us to keep busy with whatever it is we do and make sure we're back at endex. We don't even get built into the battle plan.


----------



## Tank Troll

Or they send us off to sit in an OP for the whole EX, usually some postion were you can get a vehicle close to, let  alone set up a proper OP Base. The other fun one is Convoy escort with 1 maybe 2 patrols and 15 to 20 trucks.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

We did one ex against the US Rangers, the BCR's had Lynx's for the ex and setup in a defensive position with 105mm, Lynx, 105, Lynx. The BCR's had NVG on the Lynx's and we pretty much wiped out the Rangers as they tried to attack us.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Colin P said:
			
		

> We did one ex against the US Rangers, the BCR's had Lynx's for the ex and setup in a defensive position with 105mm, Lynx, 105, Lynx. The BCR's had NVG on the Lynx's and we pretty much wiped out the Rangers as they tried to attack us.



Sorry Colin, but you'll have to date that as someone may think you're talking about something that's happened in the last 20 years.

That was then, this is now.

Those were completely different times and not even relevent to today's situation.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Here is an interesting article from Eeben Barlow, its a little old (2009) but still relevant to this discussion.

http://eebenbarlowsmilitaryandsecurityblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/is-ifv-mpvmrap-or-visa-versa.html



> IS AN IFV AN MPV/MRAP OR VISA VERSA?
> 
> I have noticed a disturbing trend in today’s counter insurgency (COIN) orientated conflicts – IFV’s are being deployed as MPVs/MRAPs and visa versa. Whereas this is not only a serious deployment error, it poses a grave danger to the lives of the occupants of the IFVs and MPVs/MRAPs.


----------



## cupper

recceguy said:
			
		

> It's not so much us, but the others, especially Infantry. They don't have a schmick about how easy we can make their job for them. When we show up, no one knows how to utilize us or what we do. Most times they just send us off and tell us to keep busy with whatever it is we do and make sure we're back at endex. We don't even get built into the battle plan.



So how do you change the mindset, or educate the higher echelons?

I know that some of the functions of various unit types are covered as part of the JLC/CLC courses I took way back when (80's). It covered the role of various units (Armd, Atry, Recce, Infantry, Service Support), how they function, etc. It was used more as topics for the Instructional Technique module, but each student had to take one unity type and develop and teach.

I assume that something like this would also be covered in the various Officer courses.

But how do you implement such, when higher levels would tend to ignore what they were taught earlier?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

cupper said:
			
		

> So how do you change the mindset, or educate the higher echelons?
> 
> I know that some of the functions of various unit types are covered as part of the JLC/CLC courses I took way back when (80's). It covered the role of various units (Armd, Atry, Recce, Infantry, Service Support), how they function, etc. It was used more as topics for the Instructional Technique module, but each student had to take one unity type and develop and teach.
> 
> I assume that something like this would also be covered in the various Officer courses.
> 
> But how do you implement such, when higher levels would tend to ignore what they were taught earlier?



It gets stressed time and again.

Unfortunately, you can lead a horse to water............................

But I don't want to create a tangent. Let's just say we reiterate it all the time, get eye rolls and move on.


----------



## George Wallace

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> Serious question, so other than Coyote, what is TAPV replacing?  We have (or had) ~200 Coyotes, still have the majority of LAVs, and now ~100 CCV.  So 400 TAPVs replacing 200 Coyotes?  Or are TAPV also supposed to fill a G-Wagon role?



Along with the previous speculation, one will/must remember that the Coyotes were clawed back from the Infantry Recce Platoons and sent to the Armour Units.  Even with those Coyotes, the Armour units did not have enough to fully equip their Sqns.  So, just stating 400 replacing 200 may not be the proper perspective to be looking at these numbers.

Perhaps, not having done any number crunching of ORBATS, this will also equip the INF Recce Platoons as well.  Again, just speculation.


----------



## Tank Troll

Some are going to the Reserves as well.............aleast that's what we were told.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

And; according to the distribution list (proposed) that I saw, the Infantry are most definitely getting them. So, the ATC's, Infantry and Armour will all be using them.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

We've been told a few will be pooled at Meaford for our use. Won't be any held at home by Res units here.

Back to the old CBO Cougar fiasco likely. That and because of the distance, Meaford doesn't work for us.


----------



## George Wallace

recceguy said:
			
		

> We've been told a few will be pooled at Meaford for our use. Won't be any held at home by Res units here.
> 
> Back to the old CBO Cougar fiasco likely. That and because of the distance, Meaford doesn't work for us.



Ah!  Meaford.  Where the Civies have no problems driving the SMPs and AFVs, but military have to jump through all kinds of hoops, checks and balances, and stacks of paperwork to draw a vehicle.  Wonderful system.


----------



## McG

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> Some are going to the Reserves as well.............aleast that's what we were told.


When the TAPV project was quite young (and even before it existed), the then Army Comd was very clear in his position - the Army would not invest anything in armoured fighting vehicles for the Reserves.  I would question who ever told you the Reserves would be getting TAPV - I don't imagine things have changed that much.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

We were told by no less than the Area Commander, in December, that they would place some in Meaford for our use.

I was also at a Corps conference where we were told we might be lucky enough to see the back end, if we went on Ex with the Regs.

Ho hum. Push me, pull you. Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be). I'm not losing any sleep until the army starts taking delivery. Then I expect it will have many of the earmarks of the Bison fiasco. 

However, again, I really don't care. It's not a recce vehicle, so it's of limited, if any, use to me anyway.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

MCG said:
			
		

> When the TAPV project was quite young (and even before it existed), the then Army Comd was very clear in his position - the Army would not invest anything in armoured fighting vehicles for the Reserves.  I would question who ever told you the Reserves would be getting TAPV - I don't imagine things have changed that much.


Obviously, things have changed. The proposed distribution list is only a couple of months old, and it clearly states that TAPV's would be distributed to the four ATC's for the Reserves.

(mind you, the document clearly states "proposed", so nothing is firm!) ;D


----------



## Infanteer

The Infantry Battalions, the Armoured Regiments, CTC and the Area TCs are indeed the intended recipients.  I do not know what the planned use of the ATC stocks is.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Guess AATC L-33 will finally be used for what it was intended for......

 ;D


----------



## McG

Interesting the first iterations of the SOR (v 1.0 to 1.2 with the most recent being June 2010) all make no mention of Reserves.  However the subsequent update (v 1.3, March 2012) has inserted PRes in several points.  This is a very recent change.


----------



## Sprinting Thistle

The current (draft) plan has 27 allocated to each of the four LFA TCs dedicated to P Res trg.  I will caveat this by stating that the plan is not set in stone and other options are being reviewed.


----------



## Tank Troll

MCG said:
			
		

> When the TAPV project was quite young (and even before it existed), the then Army Comd was very clear in his position - the Army would not invest anything in armoured fighting vehicles for the Reserves.  I would question who ever told you the Reserves would be getting TAPV - I don't imagine things have changed that much.



Tecnicaly speaking they are sticking to what they said a TAPV isn't a AFV


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Sort of like the mid 1930's; "That's not a tank, it's a Cavalry combat car"


----------



## Kirkhill

The Army's "Legacy" Protected vehicles are all geared towards combat in the open field in rough terrain.

The TAPV seems to be in line with the Civil Insurrection type of vehicles favoured by the SADF, the Gendarmerie, the Carabinieri, the Guardia Civil....

Just the thing to prevent having to put "Tanks in the streets".  Brilliant ACP (Aid to the Civil Power) Vehicle


----------



## Ostrozac

The Textron TAPV seems to have been selected as the vehicle. It seems a little big to me, at 17 tons and 6.8m long, almost as big as a LAV-3. It just doesn't strike me as a "patrol" vehicle. But I grew up with the M113, so I guess everything is big to me.

I assume the RWS will carry a C6 and/or C16?


----------



## m2austin

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> I assume the RWS will carry a C6 and/or C16?



Sounds like the TAPV may come mounted with a Kongsberg M153 RWS meaning it could be equipped with an M2, C16 AGL or C6 (looks like they may have fixed some C6 ammo issues in this version).


----------



## McG

M2A said:
			
		

> Sounds like the TAPV may come mounted with a Kongsberg M153 RWS meaning it could be equipped with an M2, C16 AGL or C6 (looks like they may have fixed some C6 ammo issues in this version).


No.  The SOR called for a twin RWS that mounted an MMG and AGL simultaneously.  Apparently, there is currently no such RWS operational in the world.  Ours will be a first.


----------



## cupper

MCG said:
			
		

> No.  The SOR called for a twin RWS that mounted an MMG and AGL simultaneously.  Apparently, there is currently no such RWS operational in the world.  Ours will be a first.



Yee Haw. Our troops get to be guinea pigs.


----------



## m2austin

MCG said:
			
		

> No.  The SOR called for a twin RWS that mounted an MMG and AGL simultaneously.  Apparently, there is currently no such RWS operational in the world.  Ours will be a first.



Do we have any proof of this besides a concept picture?


----------



## McG

Proof of what?


----------



## Ostrozac

The tech datasheet posted on Textron's TAPV website states the following:

"Due to its unrivaled accuracy, firepower, and reliability, the dual-weapon PROTECTOR RWS has been selected for integration on the TAPV." The accompanying picture shows an RWS with a C6, an automatic grenade launcher, and lots of optics.


----------



## m2austin

MCG said:
			
		

> Proof of what?



Twin mounted AGL and GPMG. 

Seems like it would require a bit of programming to get both weapons firing off the same screen.


----------



## McG

M2A said:
			
		

> Twin mounted AGL and GPMG.
> 
> Seems like it would require a bit of programming to get both weapons firing off the same screen.


We asked for something that doesn't exist.  The winning company has to make it a reality.  What proof are you looking for?


----------



## Infanteer

I have a picture somewhere of a dual mounted 50 cal/Javelin RWS that I took at a trade show.  So they do exist (in trial version, anyways).


----------



## McG

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I have a picture somewhere of a dual mounted 50 cal/Javelin RWS that I took at a trade show.  So they do exist (in trial version, anyways).


That has been around for a while.  GDLS likes to show it on the Stryker, but I don't know if anyone has bought it.
What I've never seen even in prototype is an RWS with two types of _guns_ - that is what we asked for.  I assume that somewhere in industry, a company has built a concept model or working prototype, but nobody has a "two gun" RWS.

... although, one could make an argument that the Samson turret is an RWS with MG and medium caliber cannon.


----------



## kmetcalf

Not to necro but I have a serious question:

How will doctrine (in terms of debus) be altered by having the exit hatches between the front and rear wheels as opposed to on the rear of the vehicle.  Is there an internal gangplank that can be thrown down to assist with exiting the vehicle or are guys jumping out each side with their section to get on line as quickly as possible?  Have tests been conducted with exiting while moving?

I've seen pictures of MRAP (Nyala) in Afghanistan arranged in a circle like a wagon train in the wild west.  A coil would probably allow personnel to exit on the opposite side of the vehicle from the enemy contact.  Still, showing the side of the vehicle like that for too long presents a much bigger target than a frontal advance with troops doing a debus from the rear.

Oh, and is it safe to say this thing will have NBC protection?


----------



## George Wallace

kmetcalf said:
			
		

> How will doctrine (in terms of debus) be altered by having the exit hatches between the front and rear wheels as opposed to on the rear of the vehicle.  Is there an internal gangplank that can be thrown down to assist with exiting the vehicle or are guys jumping out each side with their section to get on line as quickly as possible?  Have tests been conducted with exiting while moving?



I can see that your only experience here is looking at pictures.  To include a 'center exit', like we would find on a BTR 80, would involve a totally redesigned vehicle.  It would not be possible with the LAV III.  As for exiting the vehicle while moving........well, how about you get a Crewcab and take the doors off, drive across an open field (with or without Tank ruts) at say 30 to 45 km/hr and give your friends the opportunity to jump out the side or back; and tell us how it worked out.  Some of us have a little experience at this and it is not for the faint of heart.




			
				kmetcalf said:
			
		

> I've seen pictures of MRAP (Nyala) in Afghanistan arranged in a circle like a wagon train in the wild west.  A coil would probably allow personnel to exit on the opposite side of the vehicle from the enemy contact.  Still, showing the side of the vehicle like that for too long presents a much bigger target than a frontal advance with troops doing a debus from the rear.



Pictures.     In most tactical situations, armour vehicles will point their 'best/thickest' armour towards the greatest threat and their 'main guns' outwards, as well for all around defence.  



			
				kmetcalf said:
			
		

> Oh, and is it safe to say this thing will have NBC protection?



This could likely be a given.  Most armour vehicles today are designed for NBC protection, with filters and overpressure systems.


----------



## Franko

George Wallace said:
			
		

> This could likely be a given.  Most armour vehicles today are designed for NBC protection, with filters and overpressure systems.



Funny thing is, it's only the tanks that have an actual system. None of the other platforms have an over pressure system.

Regards


----------



## Infanteer

kmetcalf said:
			
		

> How will doctrine (in terms of debus) be altered by having the exit hatches between the front and rear wheels as opposed to on the rear of the vehicle.  Is there an internal gangplank that can be thrown down to assist with exiting the vehicle or are guys jumping out each side with their section to get on line as quickly as possible?  Have tests been conducted with exiting while moving?



You didn't think we had doctrine that drove capability development and procurement, did you?   :rofl:

This platform will bring a motorized capability to the Infantry.  It isn't exactly intended to roll in a mechanized battlefield behind tanks to debus assaulting infantry.  Drills will need to be developed for dismounting under contact though, but I could see that being getting out of the side not getting shot at.


----------



## Kirkhill

Infanteer said:
			
		

> You didn't think we had doctrine that drove capability development and procurement, did you?   :rofl:



So cynical. So young.  'Tis a terrible thing.   >


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

kmetcalf said:
			
		

> Not to necro but I have a serious question:
> 
> How will doctrine (in terms of debus) be altered by having the exit hatches between the front and rear wheels as opposed to on the rear of the vehicle.  Is there an internal gangplank that can be thrown down to assist with exiting the vehicle or are guys jumping out each side with their section to get on line as quickly as possible?  Have tests been conducted with exiting while moving?
> 
> I've seen pictures of MRAP (Nyala) in Afghanistan arranged in a circle like a wagon train in the wild west.  A coil would probably allow personnel to exit on the opposite side of the vehicle from the enemy contact.  Still, showing the side of the vehicle like that for too long presents a much bigger target than a frontal advance with troops doing a debus from the rear.
> 
> Oh, and is it safe to say this thing will have NBC protection?



Good job chewing on some tactical questions, but do not think of this vehicle replacing the LAV III for the infantry. Think of it replacing the LUVW (GWagon). We had infantry riding around in Iltis and GWagons overseas, and the TAPV will be filling this type of roll. There was no rear ramp on an LUVW - you got out the side through the doors. You didn't jump out of a moving GWagon, nor would you jump out of a moving LAV for that matter!

As Infanteer noted, drills will be developed by troops once these vehicles hit the ground. This will happen at a number of levels from individual soldier drills to company level tactics, techniques and procedures. I suggest that in an ambush situation with small arms pinging off the side that the TAPVs will drive through the kill zone while the RWS machine guns and grenade launchers suppress the enemy. The infantry could get out past the kill zone and return to deal with the enemy (or not). If you can't get through and you have to dismount you are in a bad situation, but the same would hold true in a LAV getting out the back.


----------



## GAP

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> As Infanteer noted, drills will be developed by troops once these vehicles hit the ground. This will happen at a number of levels from individual soldier drills to company level tactics, techniques and procedures. I suggest that in an ambush situation with small arms pinging off the side that the TAPVs will drive through the kill zone while the RWS machine guns and grenade launchers suppress the enemy. The infantry could get out past the kill zone and return to deal with the enemy (or not). If you can't get through and you have to dismount you are in a bad situation, but the same would hold true in a LAV getting out the back.



As one little bunny who has gone through that situation only in an Amtrac, which opened on the front, you are so right when you say "If you can't get through and you have to dismount you are in a bad situation"

It's all doable, with varying results. That's what the development of doctrine is for......


----------



## Colin Parkinson

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I can see that your only experience here is looking at pictures.  To include a 'center exit', like we would find on a BTR 80, would involve a totalls redesigned vehicle.  It would not be possible with the LAV III.  As for exiting the vehicle while moving........well, how about you get a Crewcab and take the doors off, drive across an open field (with or without Tank ruts) at say 30 to 45 km/hr and give your friends the opportunity to jump out the side or back; and tell us how it worked out.  Some of us have a little experience at this and it is not for the faint of heart.
> 
> 
> Pictures.     In most tactical situations, armour vehicles will point their 'best/thickest' armour towards the greatest threat and their 'main guns' outwards, as well for all around defence.
> 
> This could likely be a given.  Most armour vehicles today are designed for NBC protection, with filters and overpressure systems.



As I recall, the LAV prototype did have a centre exit, but it was dropped at some point.
http://www.internationalmovie.com/images/vehicles/Armour/info-LAV.jpg


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> Good job chewing on some tactical questions, but do not think of this vehicle replacing the LAV III for the infantry. Think of it replacing the LUVW (GWagon). We had infantry riding around in Iltis and GWagons overseas, and the TAPV will be filling this type of roll. There was no rear ramp on an LUVW - you got out the side through the doors. You didn't jump out of a moving GWagon, nor would you jump out of a moving LAV for that matter!
> 
> As Infanteer noted, drills will be developed by troops once these vehicles hit the ground. This will happen at a number of levels from individual soldier drills to company level tactics, techniques and procedures. I suggest that in an ambush situation with small arms pinging off the side that the TAPVs will drive through the kill zone while the RWS machine guns and grenade launchers suppress the enemy. The infantry could get out past the kill zone and return to deal with the enemy (or not). If you can't get through and you have to dismount you are in a bad situation, but the same would hold true in a LAV getting out the back.



We don't need to re-write the book on the employment of these vehicles.  Vehicles like this have been used by other armies in combat and the tactics really aren't that difficult to grasp.  A TAPV (MRAP essentially) is not an IFV and should not be used as such.  An IFV is designed to accompany armoured forces and add to a shock-effect of an armoured attack.  IFVs should not be operated in a piece-meal manner against unconventional forces as despite the improved armour they have, especially against Anti-Armour weapons, they are not designed to withstand blasts from mines or IED`s.

The function of the MRAP is to provide transport to troops in areas that have a high probability of ambush from small arms fire, landmines and IED's.  Soldiers should be able to fight from this vehicle, either with their own weapons or, in the case of the TAPV, with crew served weapons.  

The TAPV will be used to transport troops to debussing point where the troops will dismount and advance towards the enemy on foot.  Thus, these vehicles will provide the CF with an important capability which is critically lacking in some of our units, especially when we look at the mobility limitations that our LIB`s currently face.  As well, with the expectation that the type of conflicts the CF can expect to be engaged in for the foreseeable future are low-intensity conflicts against unconventional forces it is only logical that we acquire a vehicle such as the TAPV.

My fear is that we don`t spend the time to develop the doctrine  and we treat these vehicles as just another vehicle to accompany the tanks on the assault.  I`m also afraid that the LIB`s don`t utilize them to their full potential and they end up sitting in the vehicle yard unused.


----------



## George Wallace

Colin P said:
			
		

> As I recall, the LAV prototype did have a centre exit, but it was dropped at some point.
> http://www.internationalmovie.com/images/vehicles/Armour/info-LAV.jpg



Those are Striker prototype photos.   You will notice the placement of the turret.  Now the next question is are those actually exits, or just access doors, like on the LAV through which you would reload your ammo?  To me, these doors do not seem to serve as effective exits, other than emergency rollover exits.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

Something just doesn't look right about that vehicle, even as a Styker prototype.  

Why the large spacing between the intermediate road wheels?

Also, the underside of the hull doesn't look like a typical LAV/Pirahna type APC.


----------



## Kirkhill

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> Something just doesn't look right about that vehicle, even as a Styker prototype.
> 
> Why the large spacing between the intermediate road wheels?
> 
> Also, the underside of the hull doesn't look like a typical LAV/Pirahna type APC.



The look more like BTR knock-offs than MOWAG products.


----------



## ironduke57

Na not really BTR like, but there is a resemblance to the OT-64.

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Stymiest said:
			
		

> We don't need to re-write the book on the employment of these vehicles.
> 
> My fear is that we don`t spend the time to develop the doctrine  and we treat these vehicles as just another vehicle to accompany the tanks on the assault.



So which is it? Do we just pick up the book on the doctrine for the employment of these vehicles or do spend the time to develop the doctrine? You seem to be saying both...I was part of a DLCD experiment two years ago in 2 RCR that explored, in part, how to use the TAPV. Simulation has its limits, but based on what I saw I am an confident that good minds will come up with something useful.

I do not think that anyone has suggested using this vehicle as a LAV replacement in combat team quick attacks. Having said that I do not disagree with your points in the middle. Used properly these could make the non-LAV battalions much more flexible. If the infantry end up parking them, though, we'll take more...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The owner claims it's a prototype and the turret appears to be off of a Grizzly. Never seen it up close so I can't say more than what's in the pictures.


----------



## McG

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Colin P said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I recall, the LAV prototype did have a centre exit, but it was dropped at some point.
> http://www.internationalmovie.com/images/vehicles/Armour/info-LAV.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those are Striker prototype photos.   You will notice the placement of the turret.
Click to expand...

How do you figure that?  The Stryker is evolved from the LAV III, and the vehicle in the photos (if actually in the LAV evolutionary chain) predates the LAV III.  It has more in common with AVGP and Bison.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> So which is it? Do we just pick up the book on the doctrine for the employment of these vehicles or do spend the time to develop the doctrine? You seem to be saying both...I was part of a DLCD experiment two years ago in 2 RCR that explored, in part, how to use the TAPV. Simulation has its limits, but based on what I saw I am an confident that good minds will come up with something useful.
> 
> I do not think that anyone has suggested using this vehicle as a LAV replacement in combat team quick attacks. Having said that I do not disagree with your points in the middle. Used properly these could make the non-LAV battalions much more flexible. If the infantry end up parking them, though, we'll take more...



I think we need to rationalize what we want these vehicles to do with some sort of Force Employment Concept i.e. how do we see them integrating into the systems we already have.  I know the LIB`s are receiving a large chunk of these vehicles; however, as to how we envision them being employed and supported I haven`t heard anything come down the pipeline other than how many roughly each coy is supposed to receive.  

Inevitably with the LIBs outfitted with a large number of vehicles supply considerations will grow larger, meanwhile PY`s have been cut in all the LIB`s so you are now having to look after more resources with a substantially reduced CSS component.  As always the boys will make it work I just hope someone is actually considering these things, such as the fact that the LIBs only have One Fuel Truck and One Recovery Vehicle (which has limited off-road capability).

As for the actual employment of the vehicles well I think doctrinally we can take a lot from what went down in Afghanistan but also how other armies have used these vehicles.  I am sure there are some big brains working on this though.


----------



## Tank Troll

I think we should mothball it or sell it of to some other chump and try again. One war behind just like always


----------



## Colin Parkinson

And that will never change. Which tells me is you need a mix fleet of wheeled and tracked, with the wheeled being the LAV’s and this vehicle and the tracked being the tanks and CCV (which hopefully will also be tracked) That way we can come to the fight heavy, light or a bit of both. 
We aren’t going to get the time to equip ourselves for the next fight and where/when that will be is anyone’s guess.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> And that will never change. Which tells me is you need a mix fleet of wheeled and tracked, with the wheeled being the LAV’s and this vehicle and the tracked being the tanks and CCV (which hopefully will also be tracked) That way we can come to the fight heavy, light or a bit of both.
> We aren’t going to get the time to equip ourselves for the next fight and where/when that will be is anyone’s guess.



Agreed entirely. And we (Canadians broadly and the CF in particular) are just going to have to suck up the logistics bill as a cost of doing business.

The CF is not the only organization in the world, let only the only defence force, small or large, that has to battle with that reality.  

It would be really, really nice if there was a magical Swiss Army Knife that did everything for me  but I have yet to find it.  And those that I have are becoming so big as to be unusable due to their size.


----------



## dapaterson

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Agreed entirely. And we (Canadians broadly and the CF in particular) are just going to have to suck up the logistics bill as a cost of doing business.



Good. With a hard cap of the Reg F at 68000 and reductions to planned defence expenditures, an increased support bill means money and people to provide that support will have to come from somewhere else.  So, with mulitple fleets requiring multiple spares and multiple sets of different tooling and multiple maintainers, where will we find other divestments to pay for them?

It's glib and ignoring reality to say "Well, that's just a cost of doing business."  Someone has to pay those costs - and no one, to date, has identified where the money and people to pay the bill will come from.  Option B, of course, is to have fleets of vehicles broken, rusting and unusable...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Good. With a hard cap of the Reg F at 68000 and reductions to planned defence expenditures, an increased support bill means money and people to provide that support will have to come from somewhere else.  So, with mulitple fleets requiring multiple spares and multiple sets of different tooling and multiple maintainers, where will we find other divestments to pay for them?
> 
> It's glib and ignoring reality to say "Well, that's just a cost of doing business."  Someone has to pay those costs - and no one, to date, has identified where the money and people to pay the bill will come from.  Option B, of course, is to have fleets of vehicles broken, rusting and unusable...



Which is why we have massive amounts of vehicles sitting in VOR right now.  It seems that some people forget that "Administration" is in fact a Principle of War.  Mind you I think what is needed is less *****ing and whining and more proactive approaches to things.  I know when I first arrived at the 3rd Bn people were commonly complaining about various equipment deficiencies, supply problems, etc.  However, nobody was taking the actual time to address any of these issues with paperwork i.e. UCRs or having any focus groups to come up with ideas to solve the problems.  Their has been a significant change over the past year initiated by the leadership at my Bn and their is a new sort of Can-Do attitude in how we as an organization approach things and the results speak for themselves.

This biggest problem with any large organization is that often times higher ups are unaware of the problems faced by subordinate units, commands, organizations, etc.  Their needs to be two-way communication all along the chain of command.  This is why following the administrative process is so critical because its the only way to identify deficiencies and sort them out.

Truth be told, as a young officer, before the current chain of command under Col Quick at my Bn came in I and my peers had no idea what a UCR was or how to properly staff one.  We would simply say "This is Junk" the CO really pushed down the importance of administration and it had a very positive effect IMO.  Its up to us to provide recommendations on this stuff to the leadership.  If they don't take our recommendation for whatever reason then tough but I think part of the problem is people aren't following through with this process when identifying deficiencies and are simply saying, like you said dapaterson, "Well, that's just the cost of doing business".


----------



## Kirkhill

DAP ... it is not JUST a cost of doing business.  It is THE cost of doing business.

Just like politicians would rather open a new hospital than staff, maintain and keep existing ones technically relevant so they would rather buy Leo2s and CC-177s than staff, maintain and upgrade old Lynxes. 

(Why Lynxes you ask? Because an air transportable, LAPESable, Chinookable, amphibious vehicle that was as useful in the Canadian North as it was in the Fulda Gap is as relevant now as it was in 1964.  Add a modern Cat engine to it for fleet commonality, beef up the suspension and add band tracks and you have done to the M114 exactly that which has been done to its equally aged sisters the M113s.   Curiously the Old M113s at 9 to 12 tonnes weight were more deployable, and thus more useful than the New M113s at 15 to 18 tonnes weight and the New LAV-Hs which are going to drive towards 25 tonnes, or even the TAPVs at 14 tonnes.  New and Improved does not always equal better.  It may just mean that the old screw driver was damaged when it was used as a hammer).

If there is a cap on PYs and Dollars, and I know there is, then the solution, for a peacetime army, is to do less of everything.  Not to start ditching capabilities.

Also, the solution, can be found in part by putting Reg Force personnel into the most highly skilled trades that need to be performed in the face of the enemy,  in part by outsourcing to the civilian world fleet maintenance (with DND QC on-site - just like a federal meat inspector at a packing plant), and in part by tasking the reserves with tasks that they can learn in the very limited hours available to them.  I would suggest that transport drivers, basic infantry skills and basic vehicle patrol/command and gunnery skills are all possibilities.

As Stymiest says Administration is a Principle of War.  

For a Peace Time army, Administration has to be emphasized.

The Operational Force will never be big enough.  It will always have to be augmented, from national resources like the Reserves, by co-operation with Allies, and by having the civilian world engaged where and when necessary.

One of the world's most successful campaigns ever, "Corporal Jack" Churchill's march to Blenheim from the Netherlands was predominantly supported by civilian suppliers and transport.

Churchill earned his nickname with the troops precisely because they felt that he understood and cared for their needs as well as their Corporals.  They appreciated new shoes at regular intervals on the march so that the weren't marching barefoot, as happened to many other armies, including British ones, as much as 150 years later (heck 250 years if you include the Chindits in Burma).


----------



## dapaterson

Kirkhill:  You still haven't identified what to stop and what to change to free up the needed resources.  Even doing less of X,Y and Z is a capability divestment - you can do less of those things, or your skills in doing so are not as great.  Pretending otherwise is intellectual dishonesty.

We cannot afford the Army we want; I'd argue we can't even afford the Army we have.  Something has to give.  And continuing to add additional equipment with supporting it erodes existing capabilities and does not provide the capability promised when the shiny new items were acquired.  Support considerations should be part of the plan before contracts are signed, not an afterthought once new equipment shows up.


(I suspect that we are more or less in violent agreement, just using different terms.  "Divestment" is laden with emotion, but it is the best word I know of to describe the conscious decision to stop doing one thing, or to do less of another.)


----------



## McG

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> If there is a cap on PYs and Dollars, and I know there is, then the solution, for a peacetime army, is to do less of everything.  Not to start ditching capabilities.


Sun Tzu warned that "to be prepared everywhere is to be weak everywhere."  If we choose to spread all our resources only 1 inch thick in order to cover every capability, then we can expect our capacity in each of those areas to be comparatively weak.



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> I suspect that we are more or less in violent agreement, just using different terms.  "Divestment" is laden with emotion, but it is the best word I know of to describe the conscious decision to stop doing one thing, or to do less of another.


Perhaps "trade-off"?  We need to trade-off in some areas in order to develop strength in other areas.


----------



## Jarnhamar

I can see the TAPV being a range safety vehicle. A staff car.  A fake LAV...

I'd like to see it used as a battlefield transport, moving troops around under protection quickly (including moving recce teams).  Force protection for convoy security.

We use the MSVS for transport all the time but we will never use it overseas so we need to train how we fight.  We don't have anything to use instead of the MSVS though and I'm sure we won't get enough TAPVs to move around whole companies at a time.


----------



## Kirkhill

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Kirkhill:  You still haven't identified what to stop and what to change to free up the needed resources.  Even doing less of X,Y and Z is a capability divestment - you can do less of those things, or your skills in doing so are not as great.  Pretending otherwise is intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> We cannot afford the Army we want; I'd argue we can't even afford the Army we have.  Something has to give.  And continuing to add additional equipment with supporting it erodes existing capabilities and does not provide the capability promised when the shiny new items were acquired.  Support considerations should be part of the plan before contracts are signed, not an afterthought once new equipment shows up.
> 
> 
> (I suspect that we are more or less in violent agreement, just using different terms.  "Divestment" is laden with emotion, but it is the best word I know of to describe the conscious decision to stop doing one thing, or to do less of another.)




We are in violent agreement DAP.  

I agree we can't afford the army we want, not on the budget available.  Therefore we will have to divest ourselves of something(s).

And McG you and Sun Tzu are equally correct.

However I suspect that even Sun Tzu would have accepted that a tradesman does better work with a full toolbox, even if he doesn't need all of them every day.  There is nothing wrong with cleaning and oiling them and putting an edge on them and then storing them against the day they might come in handy.  Maybe you don't need 200 Torx wrenches but it would be nice to have a couple on hand, especially since you already paid for them.

Warehousing isn't that expensive.

My next suggestion is probably heretical.  A smaller percentage of the trigger pullers in the Regular Force (and yes, less means less, fewer operations, shorter duration, smaller objectives) and more reliance on the youngsters in the militia to beef up numbers when and as required... but again that means two things:

Give the Reserves realistic training mandates that can be accomodated within the time and dollars available (basically Yes Sir, No Sir, Three Bags Full Sir and can you hit that target?).

When sustained operations are anticipated start moving Reserve Volunteers into the long term training cycle early.

What that model suggests is maintain all of the command structure, all the way down to the section level but decrease the size of the Peace Time section and beef it up on Operations.

As to the employment of the TAPV, isn't it essentially complementary to the existing wheeled fleet, to be inserted into the same theatres and requiring the same logistic effort to deploy it and support it?.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

In fact part of the military's problem was not lack of money but lack of ability to spend it. I think you all recall having to lapse money back to the TB?
Not to mention having to do things like a a CEAA screening for each exercise. There are lots of non-pointy end things that can be carefully trimmed and hopefully empowering the unit commanders with more authority to spend their budgets as needed and being able to source locally stuff. The annoyance of having to wait months for parts not in the system for a our 3 ton stake truck, when we finally used regimental funds to buy the parts at local parts store and rebuilt the engine ourselves.


----------



## cupper

How about sticking a light bar on top, and pawning them off on the MP's? ;D


----------



## Matt_Fisher

cupper said:
			
		

> How about sticking a light bar on top, and pawning them off on the MP's? ;D



The TAPV that Textron is selling Canada is a lengthened version of the M1117 Armored Security Vehicle that they (Textron) have supplied over 1800 to the US Army's Military Police.


----------



## Hurricane

Well, if it has brakes that are proportionate to the size/weight of the vehicle and axle tubes that don't bend because of the weight being greater than they can handle it is already going to be better then the RG.


----------



## blacktriangle

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> Armoured recce Troops will be composite (a Patrol will have one LAV and one TAPV)



I have been following this thread with interest for some time. What role exactly would the TAPV play in a composite patrol? A dismount bus? Most of the Armd SME's on here don't seem too impressed with the choice of vehicle, so I'm just trying to get my head around how it would actually be employed in conjunction with a LAV/Coyote. So the Coyotes are still on the way out, but will be replaced by a LAV UP with an improved surv suite? 

Thanks.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Spectrum said:
			
		

> I have been following this thread with interest for some time. What role exactly would the TAPV play in a composite patrol? A dismount bus? Most of the Armd SME's on here don't seem too impressed with the choice of vehicle, so I'm just trying to get my head around how it would actually be employed in conjunction with a LAV/Coyote. So the Coyotes are still on the way out, but will be replaced by a LAV UP with an improved surv suite?
> 
> Thanks.



Each Patrol will have a LAV UP with the Surv Gear. How the TAPV and LAV will work together will depend on the situation. I expect each will have a four man crew. The Recce TAPV will not just be a dismount bus, although of course Armd Recce Patrols always have the option of kicking out a dismounted element.

The TAPV could take the lead bound, or could observe while the LAV advances. I'd have to actually go out and play with a TAPV to make definitive recommendations, but I did run mixed Coyote/LUVW troops for a few exercises.


----------



## Ostrozac

But what advantage is there to having dissimilar vehicle types within a patrol? Isn't there the risk that if the TAPV has inferior cross country mobility and the LAV is slower on the road that the patrol is held to the worst of both worlds when selecting routes?

To my mind mixing vehicle types within a patrol makes no particular sense. Now complete LAV or TAPV troops or squadrons make more sense, assigning areas according to which platform is more suitable.


----------



## PuckChaser

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> the LAV is slower on the road



After chasing them around Kandahar for 7 months, I can say that LAVs will never be slow on the road, at least when they're driven by Canadians. I can see the TAPV being not as mobile x-country, but that remains to be seen once we get them and bash them around Gagetown/Wainwright/Petawawa.


----------



## McG

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> But what advantage is there to having dissimilar vehicle types within a patrol? Isn't there the risk that if the TAPV has inferior cross country mobility and the LAV is slower on the road that the patrol is held to the worst of both worlds when selecting routes?


More likely, the LAV becomes a mobility casualty, and the TAPV cannot recover the bigger vehicle.


----------



## Franko

MCG said:
			
		

> More likely, the LAV becomes a mobility casualty, and the TAPV cannot recover the bigger vehicle.



In that case, 5C's come into play and the Ech is sent up in a conventional context. The ARV will move anything that requires it.



			
				Ostrozac said:
			
		

> ....and the LAV is slower on the road that the patrol is held to the worst of both worlds when selecting routes?



Don't know where you're getting your info, but they are faster than a Coyote.

Also, all that is taken into consideration by the Ptl Commander and his estimate.


----------



## Tank Troll

Nerf herder said:
			
		

> In that case, 5C's come into play and the Ech is sent up in a conventional context. The ARV will move anything that requires it.





Hopefully there is a Tank Sqn deployed or there is no ARV for you, bring out flatbed truck and cross your fingers you don't get bumped again while your waiting or during the recovery.


----------



## Franko

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> Hopefully there is a Tank Sqn deployed or there is no ARV for you, bring out flatbed truck and cross your fingers you don't get bumped again while your waiting or during the recovery.



MRV then. Again, we're talking a conventional context and if it's bad enough, they'll either have to hold tight and wait or BiP it and carry on.

49C should have something in the Ech that can take care of a recovery in a somewhat timely fashion, depending on how bad it is.

Regards


----------



## Tank Troll

Nerf herder said:
			
		

> MRV then. Again, we're talking a conventional context and if it's bad enough, they'll either have to hold tight and wait or BiP it and carry on.
> 
> 49C should have something in the Ech that can take care of a recovery in a somewhat timely fashion, depending on how bad it is.
> 
> Regards



Your right 49c has to have something to haul deadheads back. If the Engineers are there with their leopard fleet then some one will have an ARV, there was one in Bosnia till 2000.


----------



## Armynewsguy

The Enhanced Recovery Capability project (DLR 8-6)  is working on fielding a recovery solution for LAV UP, TAPV, CCV and all wheeled vehicles.


----------



## cupper

Nerf herder said:
			
		

> they'll either have to hold tight and wait or BiP it and carry on.



When I was on my reserve TQ-3 course way back when, on the recovery portion, they kept looking at me funny when I kept selecting the BiP option, even for a flat tire.

They just had no sense of haha.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It kind of boggles the mind that they never built/bought a ARV version of the LAV III, since at the time we were getting rid of the tank, what did they intend to use for recovery in midst of a battle?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Colin P said:
			
		

> It kind of boggles the mind that they never built/bought a ARV version of the LAV III, since at the time we were getting rid of the tank, what did they intend to use for recovery in midst of a battle?



Unicorns?


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> But what advantage is there to having dissimilar vehicle types within a patrol? Isn't there the risk that if the TAPV has inferior cross country mobility and the LAV is slower on the road that the patrol is held to the worst of both worlds when selecting routes?
> 
> To my mind mixing vehicle types within a patrol makes no particular sense. Now complete LAV or TAPV troops or squadrons make more sense, assigning areas according to which platform is more suitable.



Hopefully they have comparable cross country mobility. I do not believe that the Surv gear can fit in the TAPV. The mixed patrol lets us have a sensor suite in every patrol. Nothing stops commanders, though, from organizing their squadrons to meet the task.


----------



## GnyHwy

Colin P said:
			
		

> It kind of boggles the mind that they never built/bought a ARV version of the LAV III, since at the time we were getting rid of the tank, what did they intend to use for recovery in midst of a battle?



That is because in all the CAXs that have been run in the past several years, we always win, and don't lose any troops or vehicles either.  We don't need an ARV, you just have to tell that puckster to reset.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I hope/pray that the lessons learned about battlefield recovery that was acquired are kept and addressed. Sad when you think that the Germans in WWII had spent more time on this issue than we do now. In fact their recovery and repair units where instrumental in keeping the Panzer divisions equipped with tank, some that had been damaged, recovered and repaired a dozen time.

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt08/german-tank-maintenance-recovery.html


----------



## a_majoor

Maybe we should spend more time looking at what the M1117 actually does for the US armed forces, then we might have a better idea of how best to use it here.

The M1117 is an evolved version of the "Commando" armoured car of the Viet Nam war era, which was then used for such tasks as airfield security and convoy escort. Perhaps not surprisingly, M1117's today are used by the US Military police for perimeter security and convoy escort tasks. Since threats have become much bigger and badder since the 1960's, the M1117 is also much bigger and heavier than a V-150 "Commando" to carry more armour and more firepower.

So we have a security vehicle with the mobility to keep up with convoys, carry a small dismounted security team (it has a rear hatch, BTW) take a hit and punch back pretty hard. Adapting the platform to take a small recce team does not seem to be too big of a stretch, assuming it has reasonable cross country mobility. Other tasks for small teams needing protected mobility could include IA (CIMIC, PSYOPS teams), perhaps FOO/FACs (although advertising your presence in a different vehicle might make you an attractive target) and other specialties might come to mind.

This is a pretty limited subset of things you could do. The M1117 is not designed to be a front line AFV (so the idea of zooming around with the rest of the combat team is a bit of a non starter right away), nor does it have the ability to carry lots of people or "stuff", so you need to think carefully about what exactly you want to do and what tools you will have available. Once we wrap our heads around that, then we should have a much better picture of what the M1117 can actually be used for in the CF.


----------



## Tank Troll

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Once we wrap our heads around that, then we should have a much better picture of what the M1117 can actually be used for in the CF.




Hard target, boat anchor, paper weight,  just a few ideas of the top of my head.


----------



## Franko

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The M1117 is not designed to be a front line AFV (so the idea of zooming around with the rest of the combat team is a bit of a non starter right away), nor does it have the ability to carry lots of people or "stuff", so you need to think carefully about what exactly you want to do and what tools you will have available. Once we wrap our heads around that, then we should have a much better picture of what the M1117 can actually be used for in the CF.



Too bad it's going to be used doctrinally about 35-45 km beyond the FEBA then.

Regards


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The M1117 is not designed to be a front line AFV (so the idea of zooming around with the rest of the combat team is a bit of a non starter right away), nor does it have the ability to carry lots of people or "stuff", so you need to think carefully about what exactly you want to do and what tools you will have available. Once we wrap our heads around that, then we should have a much better picture of what the M1117 can actually be used for in the CF.



What exactly is a "front line AFV?" If you mean able to fight toe to toe with other AFVs then the M1117 is certainly not one. As a recce platform, however, the M1117 might just have what is required to be up front. Mobility will likely be the biggest consideration. We'll have to see how it performs cross country.


----------



## Kirkhill

Some WW2 British Recce Regiment  Organizations.

Mixed and matched vehicles within the same Regiment, Squadron and even Troop seem to have been more the rule than the exception.

In addition to other roles how about adding a Platoon of TAPVs to each Service Battalion as armoured liaison vehicles, convoy escort, armoured transport, armoured light tractors?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Nerf herder said:
			
		

> Too bad it's going to be used doctrinally about 35-45 km beyond the FEBA then.
> 
> Regards



You mean the same job we used to do with the Ferret? ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Kinda of reminds me of a evolution of the Vixen which was to replace the Ferret.


----------



## GK .Dundas

I"m surprised they didn't look at either the French VBL or the Dutch /German Fennek .


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> I"m surprised they didn't look at either the French VBL or the Dutch /German Fennek .



I am not a project guy, but what makes you think they didn't look at those vehicles? My understanding is that they cast their net pretty wide. Bear in mind, though, that just because a vehicle exists in another army doesn't mean it can purchased today.


----------



## a_majoor

"Not a front line AFV" was in reference to comments about how the Infantry could not debus effectively from the M1117; thats not what its for.

The cross country mobility aspect needs to be looked at closely, the M1117 is quite large and heavy and has only 4 wheels, so ground pressure is going to be an issue.


----------



## Kirkhill

recceguy said:
			
		

> You mean the same job we used to do with the Ferret? ;D









New from Panhard - citadel, all wheel steering, 3 crew - and light enough for a Chinook.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> New from Panhard - citadel, all wheel steering, 3 crew - and light enough for a Chinook.



That is quite a bit larger, likely far more noisier and has an effective gun.

Those three reasons alone take it out of the Ferret category.

However, it likely doesn't also use a forward\ reverse lever to enable it to utilize a five speed transmission to make the vehicle go as fast backwards as it does forwards either 

But I get your point.


----------



## GnyHwy

I could barely fit my leg into a Ferret, let alone a tac vest and rifle.  I guess the concept of the Ferret is still there (whatever than means), but the Ferret is about the same size as the box lunches that feed this beast.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> I could barely fit my leg into a Ferret, let alone a tac vest and rifle.  I guess the concept of the Ferret is still there (whatever than means), but the Ferret is about the same size as the box lunches that feed this beast.



Which is why crewmen were armed with pistols and SMGs ;D


----------



## GnyHwy

recceguy said:
			
		

> Which is why crewmen were armed with pistols and SMGs ;D



I've fired the SMG.  I think I'd rather have a water gun filled with lemon juice.  ;D


----------



## MJP

recceguy said:
			
		

> Which is why crewmen were armed with pistols and SMGs ;D


LOL too true.  I like to think they also had the best weapon in the form of a radio and the ability to use it to great effect.  



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> However, it likely doesn't also use a forward\ reverse lever to enable it to utilize a five speed transmission to make the vehicle go as fast backwards as it does forwards either



Although the ability to go fast forward and in reverse probably didn't hurt...


----------



## Fishbone Jones

MJP said:
			
		

> LOL too true.  I like to think they also had the best weapon in the form of a radio and the ability to use it to great effect.
> 
> Although the ability to go fast forward and in reverse probably didn't hurt...



Armoured recce has always considered our radio to be our main weapon and we take pride in being able to use it more effectivley than most.

We always liked the idea of being capable of getting out of trouble faster than we got ourselves into it. ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson

recceguy said:
			
		

> That is quite a bit larger, likely far more noisier and has an effective gun.
> 
> Those three reasons alone take it out of the Ferret category.
> 
> However, it likely doesn't also use a forward\ reverse lever to enable it to utilize a five speed transmission to make the vehicle go as fast backwards as it does forwards either
> 
> But I get your point.



That's more of a Fox than a Ferret, which going by UK 1960 recce model was part of the plan, Ferrets, backed by Saladins, Foxes and Scorpions doing recce.


----------



## Tank Troll

Ferrets mmmmmm louder inside than out side, finger eating driver vision flap/ hatch, what ever it was called. All wheeled drive with open drive shafts running down either side of your legs. Reverse tilted steering wheel to real mess with you sense of normalicy and preselect gears with selection pedal (not a clutch). No room to put kit any where other than skinny little wheel shaped bins, and "a la gypsy" strapped, tied, wrapped around the vehicle.  No heater, windshield, or crew comfort, all that and capable of 60 mph on non radial tires.  Now that was a recce vehicle!


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> Ferrets mmmmmm louder inside than out side, finger eating driver vision flap/ hatch, what ever it was called. All wheeled drive with open drive shafts running down either side of your legs. Reverse tilted steering wheel to real mess with you sense of normalicy and preselect gears with selection pedal (not a clutch). No room to put kit any where other than skinny little wheel shaped bins, and "a la gypsy" strapped, tied, wrapped around the vehicle.  No heater, windshield, or crew comfort, all that and capable of 60 mph on non radial tires.  Now that was a recce vehicle!



There's a difference between using one day in and day out as opposed to sitting in a museum display to gain experience.


----------



## Tank Troll

Never sat in one in a museum. We had 4 at the Strathcona's that we rebuilt and ran on a regular bases with the Historical vehicle Troop. I never had to live out of one in the field but from driving it and working on it one can easily see the pros and cons of the vehicle compared to other Armour vehicles that I have used and done trials on.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Sharing the TAPV regional benefits bounty....


> The Honourable Bernard Valcourt, Associate Minister of National Defence, Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency) (La Francophonie) and Member of Parliament for Madawaska-Restigouche, today announced that Rheinmetall Canada has been awarded an important contract by Textron Systems Canada Inc. to provide the Canadian Army with new and improved Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicles.
> 
> ( .... )
> 
> The Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicles project is one of four Family of Land Combat projects announced at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown in July 2009. These new vehicles offer a strengthened degree of safety and protection for crew members over our Canadian Army’s Light Armoured Vehicle II (Coyote) and the Armoured Patrol Vehicles (RG-31).  Once in service, these vehicles will perform a number of critical roles, including reconnaissance and surveillance, command and control, and cargo and armoured personnel transportation.
> 
> This $205 million subcontract is a result of the Government of Canada’s $708.7 million contract award to Textron Systems Canada Inc. and is a prime example of the high quality work Canadian industry is carrying out as a result of the Government of Canada's Industrial and Regional Benefits policy. When Textron Systems Canada Inc. was awarded the contract for the Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicles, it committed to ensure that 100 per cent of the contract’s value would be directed to activities of benefit to Canada.  The subcontract award announced today is expected to sustain and create dozens of high quality, skilled jobs in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Québec.
> 
> ( .... )
> 
> Rheinmetall Canada will perform critical engineering, production and in-service support work at its facility in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Québec. During the production phase of the Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicles fleet, Rheinmetall will perform the final assembly and test of the vehicles.  Rheinmetall will also integrate essential sub-systems such as the Remotely Controlled Weapon Station (a system installed on a combat vehicle which allows the user to safely operate the system’s weapons from inside the vehicle) the Vehicle Navigation System (a system that provides the user with information on its location, direction of movement and destination with or without external aids such as GPS in order to enhance the vehicle crew’s positional awareness) and the Driver Vision Enhancement System (this system consists of two sensors (one forward and one rear) and a display screen which provides the driver with thermal imaging views of the external forward and rear images). Further, the company will be the primary in-service support hub for the vehicle fleet during its service life ....


DND/CF Info-machine, 30 Oct 12


----------



## Tank Troll

Yay an other vehicle built in Quebec


----------



## GK .Dundas

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> Yay an other vehicle built in Quebec


 And of course the major question is ,will we be offered the usual options of either non functional brakes or rust?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

By combining regional expertise's, we can get squeaky brakes that rust and seize. The main problem is how do we reproduce a bilingual "squeal"?


----------



## cupper

I wonder how they will improve on the design to make it more difficult to do any 1st and 2nd line repairs.

I know Bombardier did a really great job with the ML's and the Iltis.


----------



## ArmyRick

Enough complaining already! If they get the vehicles to squeal loudly in both official languages and it rust equally fast in Quebec and the rest of Canada, then its been done politically correct and thus forth Canadianly   :facepalm:


----------



## The Bread Guy

MORE industrial benefits, this time for a London, Ontario company....


> The Honourable Bernard Valcourt, Associate Minister of National Defence, Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency) (La Francophonie) and Member of Parliament for Madawaska-Restigouche, today announced a significant subcontract that will sustain and create high-quality jobs while providing the Canadian Army with new and improved Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicles.
> 
> Kongsberg Protech Systems Canada has been awarded this $100 million contract by Rheinmetall Canada Inc. in support of the Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle project which will help to sustain 16 jobs and create approximately 16 more jobs – doubling the workforce at KONGSBERG Canada’s London, Ontario production facility.
> 
> (....)
> 
> The Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicles project is one of four ‘Family of Land Combat’ projects announced at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown in July 2009. These new vehicles offer an increased degree of safety and protection for crew members over our Canadian Army’s Light Armoured Vehicle II (Coyote) and the Armoured Patrol Vehicles (RG-31).  Once in service, these vehicles will perform a number of critical roles, including reconnaissance and surveillance, command and control, and cargo and armoured personnel transportation.
> 
> This subcontract is a result of the Government of Canada’s $708.7 million contract award to Textron Systems Canada Inc. and is an example of the high quality work being carried out by the Canadian defence and security industry. Thanks to the Government of Canada's Industrial and Regional Benefits policy, when Textron Systems Canada Inc. was awarded the contract for the Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicles, they committed to ensure that 100 per cent of the contract’s value would be invested into the Canadian economy ....


----------



## Kirkhill

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> MORE industrial benefits, this time for a London, Ontario company....



I sense a strategy unfolding  

708 MCAD on TAPVs creates all these contracts with all these companies all over Canada (Ontario and Quebec in particular) and all these jobs
1215 MCAD on Upgrading LAV IIIs creates all these contracts with all these companies all over Canada (Ontario and Quebec in particular) and all these jobs
9000 MCAD on CF-35s creates all these contracts with all these companies all over Canada (Ontario and Quebec in particular) and all these jobs


----------



## GK .Dundas

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I sense a strategy unfolding
> 
> 708 MCAD on TAPVs creates all these contracts with all these companies all over Canada (Ontario and Quebec in particular) and all these jobs
> 1215 MCAD on Upgrading LAV IIIs creates all these contracts with all these companies all over Canada (Ontario and Quebec in particular) and all these jobs
> 9000 MCAD on CF-35s creates all these contracts with all these companies all over Canada (Ontario and Quebec in particular) and all these jobs


 Also know as business as usual............the real Government motto isn't " Mari Usque Ad Mare" it's " Got Pork?"


----------



## MilEME09

May of missed this while readying the thread but any one know whats going to happen to the Coyote fleet? I'd like to see some of them reach the reserves in various roles our vehicle fleet is lackin in something similar to what the reg force uses to train on.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> Also know as business as usual............the real Government motto isn't " Mari Usque Ad Mare" it's " Got Pork?"



sort of translates to "Da nobis pecunia" according to Google translate from "give us money"


----------



## dapaterson

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> May of missed this while readying the thread but any one know whats going to happen to the Coyote fleet? I'd like to see some of them reach the reserves in various roles our vehicle fleet is lackin in something similar to what the reg force uses to train on.



And who will maintain the vehicles?  Who will pay for spares for an orphan fleet?  What role will the vehicles perform?


----------



## MilEME09

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And who will maintain the vehicles?  Who will pay for spares for an orphan fleet?  What role will the vehicles perform?



The reserves can maintain them so long as we are given the support to do so, spare parts would come from unit budgets, roles could easily be used as Command & Control, as training tool for Recce units, with modification you could turn one into a MRT, an engineering vehicle, or any role we might need. With the reserves being focused on domestic ops but still providing augmentation to the reg force training tools to ease the transition between the two. Not to mention Dom ops could mean anything, while its armour isn't potentially needed its platform could be useful because it's a heavy vehicle, well heavy compared to a Milcot, and it's wheeled. I doubt a tracked fleet would ever be seen in the reserves.


----------



## dangerboy

It is not an easy vehicle to get people qualified on and maintain their proficiency, especially with regards to the turret.  25mm ammo is not cheap and if you don't practise your turret drills you can lose them quickly.  The regular force has a hard enough time fighting skill fade I don't think that the reserves no mater how dedicated they are would be able to do it effectively.


----------



## MilEME09

dangerboy said:
			
		

> It is not an easy vehicle to get people qualified on and maintain their proficiency, especially with regards to the turret.  25mm ammo is not cheap and if you don't practise your turret drills you can lose them quickly.  The regular force has a hard enough time fighting skill fade I don't think that the reserves no mater how dedicated they are would be able to do it effectively.



Well then lets strip the turrets off them (doubt we would need them any way accept as a crew training aid) , or dummy rounds, though I'm a reserve weapons tech so i dont even know if the 25mm on the Coyote or the LAV III for that matter have dummy rounds for training


----------



## dangerboy

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Well then lets strip the turrets off them (doubt we would need them any way accept as a crew training aid) , or dummy rounds, though I'm a reserve weapons tech so i dont even know if the 25mm on the Coyote or the LAV III for that matter have dummy rounds for training



They have drill rounds for the 25mm.


----------



## Franko

It would go the same way the Cougars went, being used and abused and never repaired until they were required for a Reg Force course or a mission.

Same thing is happening now with the LUVW fleet. Pres units are being tasked to provide vehicles through CFTPO and they do. Most are in fair shape, however, there is always some that never make it out of EFCC and inspections due to them being in a bad state of repair. Not blaming anyone in particular, just know about it first hand in dealing with it on a yearly basis. It is what it is.

Can't imagine a Coyote, a multi million dollar vehicle, being properly maintained and exercised in order for it to be a runner/ gunner. Who will do the monthly checks? Who will do the 1136s that take well over two weeks to be completed? What about the infrastructure to support them? A troop of Coyotes takes about 3000L in one day of hard driving. Where's the FARR going to come from because Jerry cans won't cut it. How about the hangers to house them? Can't leave them in a snow bank, they are an A vehicle and have priority for hanger space, just under tanks. The list goes on and on.

Then the are getting people qualified. D&M courses run about a month, same for gunnery. Speaking of gunnery courses, where are the sims going to be housed? You're going to need a building that is purpose built to house them with a dedicated power supply. 

Then there a the career courses. ARCC for commanders is the same length as it is for PRes students, but the cost will go up in maintenance, fuel and ammunition for each student. They'd have to complete the move, shoot , communicate ranges as well. The course can't be modulized either for that platform. VOR rate won't allow for it. If you tried it, it could take years for someone to finally be qualified to command it. Then of course there is skill fade. By the time the area concentrations are done, the troops would barely be getting back into the groove of things.

Same question was raised when we got the Leo 2s....what will become of the Leo C2s? Can't the reserves have them? Same issues arise.

Now if the CF had a budget three times the amount it has now......but we don't and everyone is in the budget crunch and you want Coyotes?

Dream on.....


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Nerf herder said:
			
		

> It would go the same way the Cougars went, being used and abused and never repaired until they were required for a Reg Force course or a mission.
> 
> Same thing is happening now with the LUVW fleet. Pres units are being tasked to provide vehicles through CFTPO and they do. Most are in fair shape, however, there is always some that never make it out of EFCC and inspections due to them being in a bad state of repair. Not blaming anyone in particular, just know about it first hand in dealing with it on a yearly basis. It is what it is.
> 
> Can't imagine a Coyote, a multi million dollar vehicle, being properly maintained and exercised in order for it to be a runner/ gunner. Who will do the monthly checks? Who will do the 1136s that take well over two weeks to be completed? What about the infrastructure to support them? A troop of Coyotes takes about 3000L in one day of hard driving. Where's the FARR going to come from because Jerry cans won't cut it. How about the hangers to house them? Can't leave them in a snow bank, they are an A vehicle and have priority for hanger space, just under tanks. The list goes on and on.
> 
> Then the are getting people qualified. D&M courses run about a month, same for gunnery. Speaking of gunnery courses, where are the sims going to be housed? You're going to need a building that is purpose built to house them with a dedicated power supply.
> 
> Then there a the career courses. ARCC for commanders is the same length as it is for PRes students, but the cost will go up in maintenance, fuel and ammunition for each student. They'd have to complete the move, shoot , communicate ranges as well. The course can't be modulized either for that platform. VOR rate won't allow for it. If you tried it, it could take years for someone to finally be qualified to command it. Then of course there is skill fade. By the time the area concentrations are done, the troops would barely be getting back into the groove of things.
> 
> Same question was raised when we got the Leo 2s....what will become of the Leo C2s? Can't the reserves have them? Same issues arise.
> 
> Now if the CF had a budget three times the amount it has now......but we don't and everyone is in the budget crunch and you want Coyotes?
> 
> Dream on.....



That goes the other way too, young fella  . 

We send perfectly good vehicles away every summer to the schools and they are not the same when we get them back.

If we get them back, big if sometimes, they are normally months late. Missed training opportunities abound with that scenario and we have few to give up.

So let's not get slagging each other.

Could the Reserves use something better than a LUVW, probably.

Are all up combat vehicles, surplus or not, what's required?

Resounding 'NO'. Money, plain and simple is the serial killer in the argument.

Maintenance, training, etc all become bit players after that.

I'm an old tanker and have worked on lots of platforms. Armoured vehicles are a wash for the Reserves to keep at home and work on.


----------



## Franko

recceguy said:
			
		

> That goes the other way too, young fella  .
> 
> We send perfectly good vehicles away every summer to the schools and they are not the same when we get them back.
> 
> If we get them back, big if sometimes, they are normally months late. Missed training opportunities abound with that scenario and we have few to give up.



Oh, for sure. There are issues, however, they are not with the Schools for the most part. 

Sometimes we don't even receive vehicles due to the state that they are in. They stay at EFCC and get fixed, only to be returned never used to the home unit. 

It's EFCC and the outgoing inspections that are the hold up for PRes units waiting for them. As for the state they are in when they are received back at their home unit, they should be S Class and clean and have all their EIS with them as well.

That's how we turn them in. How they are received on the other end after the process....well, obviously not as good as they should be. But that's a discussion over beers.


----------



## McG

dangerboy said:
			
		

> It is not an easy vehicle to get people qualified on and maintain their proficiency, especially with regards to the turret.  25mm ammo is not cheap and if you don't practise your turret drills you can lose them quickly.


TAPV will have neither turret nor 25 mm.  It will be a dual RWS (AGL and MG).


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Still means a Reservist going to a support base to become a gunner and then, probably, never firing it again. Or at most, maybe once a year..........with blanks... on ex. No simulators at Res units. The TAPV will be held at support bases, i.e. Meaford (for Ontario) and not at individual Res units. They will be under Area control and CBO issue and maint. Just like our Cougars and Grizzlies were. They became useless junk under that system. Total waste of time, money and resources.

But that's just my opinion


----------



## McG

… and the Army has stated it will not buy AFV for the PRes.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

MCG said:
			
		

> … and the Army has stated it will not buy AFV for the PRes.



...however, we've been told that places like Meaford will hold a few for our use.

Total waste of time and resources, including just going there to use the limited capability we'll be allowed to exploit.

I suppose the geegaw factor will work for the young, first time tryers of the thing. I anticipate they will quickly become jaded when they see all the horseshit they have to endure from the Support Centre and CBO, just to put a few kilometers on it for a weekend.

Anyway, this is an old arguement, just a different vehicle.

And I have a movie and some aged scotch to enjoy


----------



## McG

recceguy said:
			
		

> ...however, we've been told that places like Meaford will hold a few for our use.


That is a change from the previous party line.  Is there anything supporting this in the project documentation?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

MCG said:
			
		

> That is a change from the previous party line.  Is there anything supporting this in the project documentation?



You can call it really strong rumour, heard first hand.

My movie is about too start.

L8r 8)


----------



## dapaterson

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> The reserves can maintain them so long as we are given the support to do so, spare parts would come from unit budgets, roles could easily be used as Command & Control, as training tool for Recce units, with modification you could turn one into a MRT, an engineering vehicle, or any role we might need. With the reserves being focused on domestic ops but still providing augmentation to the reg force training tools to ease the transition between the two. Not to mention Dom ops could mean anything, while its armour isn't potentially needed its platform could be useful because it's a heavy vehicle, well heavy compared to a Milcot, and it's wheeled. I doubt a tracked fleet would ever be seen in the reserves.



So, with Reg F VOR rates very high, where will this support come from?  DND is already cutting contractors and closing ASUs.  No free people to send to support these vehicles - indeed, divesting fleets is intended to save personnel and streamline maintenance.

As for spares from unit budgets - have you any idea of the cost of spares?  It's not like you can mosey on down to Canadian Tire and pick up Motomaster parts for a LAV.

Repurposing vehicles is also expensive - the NRE is one of the biggest costs, and with a small fleet, you've got very few platforms to spread that cost over.


----------



## Seyek

I've had this thought rolling around in my head for a while and wondered what the more knowledgeable people on here would think of it, since there's an option for additional vehicles (100 I believe?) what if we exercised some of that option, adding those vehicles to the pool available for reserve units as a dedicated training/deployment stock, and purchased some additional vehicles based off whatever LSVW replacement gets adopted, using the base chassis/drivetrain from it with a new body to simulate that of a TAPV, and spot for a C6 on top. Would allow for everyone to get used to employing the TAPV, and can train up the RWS and specific driving skills during workup training and annual courses. You could then use them to deploy platoons/companies of reservists for overseas in addition to individual augments, for force protection or what have you. The TAPV training vehicles would make for capable training and dom ops vehicles, and could even be deployed overseas in a low threat environment I suppose. Plus there'd be some extra vehicles around in case Reg Force needs to draw on them, with the reserves still able to use the TAPV trainers to maintain much of the skills and experience to use them. The whole idea is based on a similar one I've seen here in the past, using an LSVW based vehicle as an RG trainer. Of course this would all be dependent on somehow getting enough money to fund it, but LSVW replacements need to be bought anyway and are relatively inexpensive compared to a TAPV or training to turn the Coyotes into reserve vehicles.


----------



## MilEME09

The TAPV is planned for a Recce and utility varient, potentially that utility varient could become an LS replacement and be modified into a CP, MRT, line, comms, or what ever varient needed. Now Texton hasn't published fuel range and such on their official data sheet, but at 38,000 lbs its a heavy beast, now i wonder what its range is, if we can get 500-800 out of it then it could be used as an LS replacement


----------



## ArmyRick

Seyek,

A few Issues
1. Using an LS type vehicle as an RG trainer? Slippery slope to go on. We used Cougars as "tank trainers" and before you know it, it was a operational vehicle (UNPROFOR and IFOR). Luckily none of them got dragged into a 76mm vs 125mm fight.

2. The bigger issue is personnel to maintain them (crewman, veh tech, fcs tech, weapons tech, mat techs). Where do we generate these personnel? AFV or armoured vehicles of any type need to be maintained or they turn to scrap. Where do we generate those PY? Eight years ago, it would have been a do able solution to say Class B a bunch of guys but them days are over.

3. The centralized depot for each area could work but too many X factors pop up (CBO wants them cleaned spotlessly and on their timings, TSR fights for them, ) again MONEY and pers to look after them become the issue.

I will say my armoured brothers have a tough issue to deal with (realistic training) as for us Infantry grunts, give us Rifles, Machine guns, grenades, some other support weapons and a piece of earth, viola, infantry training accomplished!


----------



## PPCLI Guy

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> The TAPV is planned for a Recce and utility varient, potentially that utility varient could become an LS replacement and be modified into a CP, MRT, line, comms, or what ever varient needed.



Ummmm....really?  Why would we do that?  And where is that in the SOR?  And what would the employment concept be?


----------



## Franko

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Ummmm....really?  Why would we do that?  And where is that in the SOR?  And what would the employment concept be?



Stop shattering his dreams will ya!


----------



## GAP

op:


----------



## MilEME09

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Ummmm....really?  Why would we do that?  And where is that in the SOR?  And what would the employment concept be?



I was simply pointing out that it would cost saving to make it, as a new platform coming in could be used to cover a large range of roles, and having it based off the same vehicle would save cost. This is just a reservists pipe dream though, We'll never get anything more then what we have. Reserve budgets, and personal even with RSS more then likely dont have the people to maintain a fleet, then again from what I've heard about some parts of the reg force, the bare minimum is the standard. I once had a reg force tech tell me he did what I did on a wednesday night in an entire week, and he wasn't joking. That said I know thats not the norm.


----------



## McG

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I was simply pointing out that it would cost saving to make it, as a new platform coming in could be used to cover a large range of roles, and having it based off the same vehicle would save cost.


Not when we attempt to engineer new roles into a platform after it has been selected.  If you want cost savings, you need to identify the requirement up front, plan for the increased number of platforms required, and include the additional capabilities/functions in the initial request for proposals.  What you are suggesting now actually drives costs higher.


----------



## MilEME09

> Monday, March 25, 2013
> 
> The “Spotlight on Army Equipment” series explores the range of tools used by the Canadian Army, including vehicles, weapons and communications equipment. Check back often to learn more!
> 
> Ottawa, Ontario — The Canadian Army is acquiring 500 Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicles (TAPV) to fill a variety of roles in operations at home and abroad.
> 
> TAPV will have two variants, the General Utility and the Recce. They will be highly mobile, highly protected, and the majority will be equipped with a Dual Remote Weapons System. A portion of the fleet that will be used for driver training and limited domestic tasks will not incorporate the weapons system.
> 
> The Army will acquire 307 of the General Utility variant, which will be able to play a role in operations across Canada in support of security tasks, such as international summits or events, assistance after natural disasters, and sovereignty operations.
> 
> The Recce variant of TAPV, although identical to the General Utility variant in mobility, protection and firepower, has a larger bank of auxiliary batteries to allow it to conduct silent watch activities for longer periods of time.
> 
> The Army will acquire 193 of this variant, which will work with the Light Armoured Vehicle Upgrade (LAV UP) Recce in patrols of two (one of each vehicle) to conduct both long and short range surveillance tasks. These two-vehicle teams will replace the current Long Range Surveillance System which is mounted on the Coyote, providing superior mobility and protection for future surveillance and reconnaissance operations.
> 
> On international operations, the Army will use both TAPV variants for command and control, liaison, force protection, patrols, convoy escort, and the transportation of troops and VIPs.
> 
> The TAPV offers a high degree of protection for its occupants, an important factor for expeditionary missions, given the prevalence of the use of mines and IEDs. The use of these weapons is expected to continue into the future, which will mean an ongoing requirement for this kind of highly protected vehicle.
> 
> The TAPV also incorporates cross-country mobility. This enhanced mobility enables it to operate in a range of environments, including dry plains, mud fields, snow, and ice conditions. This capability affords additional IED protection as it provides the crew with flexibility in choosing routes. In fact, the TAPV can avoid roads altogether, making it harder for opposing forces to predict routes and place IEDs accordingly.
> 
> First deliveries of both variants of the TAPV are expected to begin in 2014.




The part about domestic operations perked my interest, since under their new plan the reserves will take care of 90% of domestic ops, in theory at least. So does this mean my gleaming pipe dream of reservists getting trained on these come true?


----------



## Matt_Fisher

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> The part about domestic operations perked my interest, since under their new plan the reserves will take care of 90% of domestic ops, in theory at least. So does this mean my gleaming pipe dream of reservists getting trained on these come true?



It's a serious stretch that the Army PR news machine is saying the one of the TAPV's primary mission tasks is natural disaster response. 

As for actual PRes training on the TAPV, as per the fielding plan previously mentioned in this thread, the PRes Armoured units will likely start running PCF courses for TAPV D&M, and RWS Gunner once the vehicle is fielded.  Unit level training will likely be coordinated through the area training centers, i.e.  annual gun camps and recce. sqn level exercises;  It'll probably be very similar to back in the 70's and 80's when PRes Armoured Recce units used the Jeep/Iltis for local training and the Lynx during area concentrations and gun camps.

As for PRes Inf and other trades getting trained on TAPV, I'd bet that situation would mirror how RG-31 training was done for guys deploying overseas as part of the work-up cycle.


----------



## Kirkhill

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> It's a serious stretch that the Army PR news machine is saying the one of the TAPV's primary mission tasks is natural disaster response.



Google Natural Disaster Looting.....

The job that nobody wants.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

True, but I was called out for the hurricane relief a couple of years ago and wpns were not authorized...I really can't see it being an issue here in canada, in the US for sure though...


----------



## Old EO Tech

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> It's a serious stretch that the Army PR news machine is saying the one of the TAPV's primary mission tasks is natural disaster response.
> 
> As for actual PRes training on the TAPV, as per the fielding plan previously mentioned in this thread, the PRes Armoured units will likely start running PCF courses for TAPV D&M, and RWS Gunner once the vehicle is fielded.  Unit level training will likely be coordinated through the area training centers, i.e.  annual gun camps and recce. sqn level exercises;  It'll probably be very similar to back in the 70's and 80's when PRes Armoured Recce units used the Jeep/Iltis for local training and the Lynx during area concentrations and gun camps.
> 
> As for PRes Inf and other trades getting trained on TAPV, I'd bet that situation would mirror how RG-31 training was done for guys deploying overseas as part of the work-up cycle.



That is great for the PRes operators.  But who is going to support these vehicles?  The already stretched RegF Svc Bn's?  It's a long way from Edmonton to Medicine Hat for Maint trips :-/   The best solution is to concentrate them in Area Training Centres like the old MTC in Wainwright, were the Base had the resources to support the Vehicles.


----------



## sandyson

From Defence IQ today-International Armoured Vehicle News Roundup:

"Textron Marine & Land Systems has completed and shipped four pre-production Canadian Forces Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicles (TAPV) to locations in the United States and Canada for a series of testing and training activities."

Maybe it will happen.


----------



## Infanteer

Contract has already been signed, buds.


----------



## dapaterson

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Contract has already been signed, buds.



Then again, so was the contract for the EH-101...


----------



## Kirkhill

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Then again, so was the contract for the EH-101...



Stop teasing the animals..... >


----------



## MilEME09

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> That is great for the PRes operators.  But who is going to support these vehicles?  The already stretched RegF Svc Bn's?  It's a long way from Edmonton to Medicine Hat for Maint trips :-/   The best solution is to concentrate them in Area Training Centres like the old MTC in Wainwright, were the Base had the resources to support the Vehicles.



That said Reg Force Svc BN's are still stretched, even if concentrated in a place like Wainwright. Though my solution for this would be to get Reserve Tech's trained on the TAPV, so that they can come in on Class B contracts (short or long term) to relieve pressure so to speak on the reg force. Not Ideal since you might only get 1 tech show up in a given summer or something but another set of hands is still better then no extra help. Either way with budget cuts, I doubt there is much money to pull in Reservists on Class be, and given the amount of time it takes to train techs both reg force and Pres, I don't see any short term solution that can work out.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Having a guy with some mechanical background training working with the guy that has taken the course is a good idea. Repairs go faster and seepage of knowledge takes place regardless of certificates or not. Focus your type training on the guys who are bright and generally good at passing on knowledge.


----------



## Tank Troll

This is true on the tanks the crew does most of the work and the Mecs do the tecnical stuff. The more responsiblity give to the crew/Driver the more time freed up for the Tecs.


----------



## MilEME09

So I just read from the Canadian army facebook feed some troops out in 5 div went to valcartier and got a chance to get their hands on the TAPV as part of its trials, any one on here one of the lucky one and can give an impression of the vehicle?


----------



## Canadian.Trucker

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> This is true on the tanks the crew does most of the work and the Mecs do the tecnical stuff. The more responsiblity give to the crew/Driver the more time freed up for the Tecs.


True for us too where anytime one of my LAV's went into the shop for work the driver (+ another driver usually) would go with the vehicle to do the bulk of the work with assistance and direction from the veh tech's.  Allowed the driver to learn and know more about their vehicle, and improve turn around times for my LAV's so I could get them back out and working.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

That's a great idea, simple and logical, however no doubt someone would come along and say "Oh no, much more important that he takes the Harassment and Diversity course"


----------



## Tank Troll

Depends on the unit and the person in charge. Use to be in the Strats if you sent a vehicle to the shop and no driver then it didn't get fixed. If the WO/Sgt doesn't have the balls to say Trooper/Pte so and so isn't going to be there for(insert what ever BS training) because he is in maintenance working on his vehicle. He will be there for the make up one at a latter date, then yeah that happens also.


----------



## Hankyone

Two TAPVs passed close by while I was in Val last week, and hearing them brake before I saw em I could have swore they were LSVWs


----------



## TCBF

dangerboy said:
			
		

> It is not an easy vehicle to get people qualified on and maintain their proficiency, especially with regards to the turret.  25mm ammo is not cheap and if you don't practise your turret drills you can lose them quickly.  The regular force has a hard enough time fighting skill fade I don't think that the reserves no mater how dedicated they are would be able to do it effectively.



- Ten years. I left that turret as a Coyote Troop Warrant in the Spring of 2003 and climbed into it as a Squadron Sergeant-Major on a LAV 3 the Winter of 2013.  Skill fade? I am the poster boy for skill fade.


----------



## cameron

Just a question, as this vehicle is supposed to replace some of the G-Wagons, will reserve units in the RCAC be equipped with it as well?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

cameron said:
			
		

> Just a question, as this vehicle is supposed to replace some of the G-Wagons, will reserve units in the RCAC be equipped with it as well?



Likely only through MTCs and not much luck of it then either.


----------



## Infanteer

It is not intended to replace G-Wagon.  The TAPV is a replacement for the RG-31 and the Coyote.


----------



## MilEME09

Infanteer said:
			
		

> It is not intended to replace G-Wagon.  The TAPV is a replacement for the RG-31 and the Coyote.



not a 100% replacement no, it replaces it in the recce role over seas where the G-wagon is not suitable due to its none existent armour (well practically)


----------



## McG

Early versions of at least some project documentation did explicitly state that the TAPV would displace G-Wagon in some roles.  The Comd LFC at that time also explicitly stated that he "would not buy any armoured vehicles for the reserves."

Project documentation may have evolved, and opinions may have changed as Army Commanders changed.  But, that was the state of things in the beginning.


----------



## Infanteer

The Army Implementaion Plan and the SOR spell it out in clear terms that this is a replacement for the RG-31 and the Coyote.  IIRC, the LVM will cover the LSVW and G-Wagon replacements.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Will the army, even in the Reserves ever again practice recce the way it did with Ferrets and Jeeps? If so a soft top G-wagon with a semi-armoured bottom would likely be the way to go for the reserves.


----------



## McG

... And RG-31 was an interim platform to do what G-Wagon was doing (and the Iltis before that).
I suspect Jowz valley had a lot to do with gaining support for the RG-31 buy.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Colin P said:
			
		

> Will the army, even in the Reserves ever again practice recce the way it did with Ferrets and Jeeps? If so a soft top G-wagon with a semi-armoured bottom would likely be the way to go for the reserves.



Reserve Recce has always worked that way (mud recce as per Ferret and jeep). Only the platform has changed over time.

The Troop Leaders Guide to the Galaxy (Recce Sqn Ops) with the pictures of PT-76, T-62, etc is still the bible. They keep telling us (for the last twenty years) the doctrine is going to change. There's been drafts, interims, etc but nothing has stuck. Some methods of doing things have changed slightly, but the doctrine remains fairly untouched.

I don't see the Regs going back to sneak and peek, they like the big loud, smoking, diesel powered LAVs for recce


----------



## cameron

A related question, what opportunities are there for armour soldiers and officers in the reserves to train on the vehicles used by the regular force (apart from overseas deployments as individual augmentees)?


----------



## Infanteer

At this point, slim to none.  Without a reason to have a reservist on that course, why would the reserve unit pay the cost or the regular force unit cough up the spot?


----------



## cameron

The quoted text below is on the website of the South Albert Light Horse Association, on their equipment page.  As it has been said by some here on Army.ca that the Reserves are not likely to get the TAPV, is this wishful thinking on the part of SALH, have they been misinformed or do they know something?

"The future of reconnaissance is the just announced TAPV programme.  This vehicle will eventually make its way to the SALH and will replace the G-Wagon in the future.  Although the exact version of the TAPV is not yet confirmed, below is one of the options being examined."


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

cameron said:
			
		

> The quoted text below is on the website of the South Albert Light Horse Association, on their equipment page.  As it has been said by some here on Army.ca that the Reserves are not likely to get the TAPV, is this wishful thinking on the part of SALH, have they been misinformed or do they know something?
> 
> "The future of reconnaissance is the just announced TAPV programme.  This vehicle will eventually make its way to the SALH and will replace the G-Wagon in the future.  Although the exact version of the TAPV is not yet confirmed, below is one of the options being examined."



Completely false.  The TAPV's are to equip the Light Infantry Bn's and replace the Coyote's in the Armd Regt's.  You can do the math and realise there isn't much left after that.


----------



## McG

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Completely false.


That statement is true today, and it was true when the project started.  TAPV was never going to the PRes.


----------



## MilEME09

MCG said:
			
		

> That statement is true today, and it was true when the project started.  TAPV was never going to the PRes.



Exactly, PRes doesn't need it, dont get me wrong as a PRes soldier I would love to see a TAPV CP varient to replace our LSVW CP but thats a pipe dream. PRes Recce has no use for a TAPV they accomplish what they need to with the G-wagon.


----------



## dangerboy

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> PRes Recce has no use for a TAPV.



And a lot of people are saying the same thing for the Reg force ;D


----------



## MilEME09

dangerboy said:
			
		

> And a lot f people are saying the same thing for the Reg force ;D



It really depends on the threat level IMO, in a low threat environment the G-wagon works fine, but if we jumped into a high threat environment I'm sure many would rather a TAPV.


----------



## blackberet17

I've got a copy of a ppt somewhere, when I find, I'll post.

In it, it outlines the TAPV "plan", and what I remember most, as it affects us here on the East Coast, was 27xTAPV are to be centralized at Gagetown, for use by the PRes Armour units in the AO. Similar plan for Valcartier, Pet, and Wainwright, I just don't remember the numbers.

The Armour School and/or the RegF Armour units in Gage/Val/Pet/Wain would have their allocation, for their uses.

Pipe dream indeed, specially if this goes the way of the Coyote, etc., i.e., originally "purchased" for PRes units, yet used and loved by RegF, so PRes said bye-bye when they were taken away and moved to the Iltis/Buick/LUVW...


----------



## Fishbone Jones

blackberet17 said:
			
		

> I've got a copy of a ppt somewhere, when I find, I'll post.
> 
> In it, it outlines the TAPV "plan", and what I remember most, as it affects us here on the East Coast, was 27xTAPV are to be centralized at Gagetown, for use by the PRes Armour units in the AO. Similar plan for Valcartier, Pet, and Wainwright, I just don't remember the numbers.
> 
> The Armour School and/or the RegF Armour units in Gage/Val/Pet/Wain would have their allocation, for their uses.
> 
> Pipe dream indeed, specially if this goes the way of the Coyote Bison, etc., i.e., originally "purchased" for PRes units, yet used and loved by RegF, so PRes said bye-bye when they were taken away and moved to the Iltis/Buick/LUVW...



TFTFY 

I've told the same thing by Generals and others in high positions. In Ontario's case some will be pooled at Meaford for the PRes here. However, we've been strung along and lied to before to placate the Regimental Senates and to keep people from quitting until it's to late. Then it's 'Oh, we've had a change of plans.....'

As to vehicles like the Cougar, we had ours, until the Regs started breaking theirs. We got their broken stuff and they took our good ones. That is until they decided they needed all of them. Then we got the word that we were being rerolled to Recce (again) and didn't need them, instead of the truth, being we're taking them all so you might as well do Recce. 8)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

You forgot the Bison as well


----------



## Eye In The Sky

blackberet17 said:
			
		

> I've got a copy of a ppt somewhere, when I find, I'll post.
> 
> In it, it outlines the TAPV "plan", and what I remember most, as it affects us here on the East Coast, was 27xTAPV are to be centralized at Gagetown, for use by the PRes Armour units in the AO. Similar plan for Valcartier, Pet, and Wainwright, I just don't remember the numbers.
> 
> The Armour School and/or the RegF Armour units in Gage/Val/Pet/Wain would have their allocation, for their uses.
> 
> Pipe dream indeed, specially if this goes the way of the Coyote, etc., i.e., originally "purchased" for PRes units, yet used and loved by RegF, so PRes said bye-bye when they were taken away and moved to the Iltis/Buick/LUVW...



I recall being told that 2 turret trainers were going to the QCA for coyote trg back a few years ago.  How did that fair out??

Some folks in the PRes have lofty dreams and ideas that are not realistic and they wont listen to common sense.   We got Bison for the F Ech one ARCON and because the folks who had no time on the veh wouldnt listen to those of us that did, the Sqn quickly proved it wasnt really ready for an AFV.   That all fell on the shoulders of class A cowboys and key peoplenot listening to a few of us that knew the veh.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Colin P said:
			
		

> You forgot the Bison as well



Look at blackberets quote in my post and the TFTFY 

 ;D


----------



## Infanteer

blackberet17 said:
			
		

> In it, it outlines the TAPV "plan", and what I remember most, as it affects us here on the East Coast, was 27xTAPV are to be centralized at Gagetown, for use by the PRes Armour units in the AO. Similar plan for Valcartier, Pet, and Wainwright, I just don't remember the numbers.



Incorrect.  TAPVs are to be allocated to ATCs for use by other elements on the road to high readiness that would require the vehicle (think FP, CIMIC, etc) to train on but do not normally hold them.


----------



## Old EO Tech

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Incorrect.  TAPVs are to be allocated to ATCs for use by other elements on the road to high readiness that would require the vehicle (think FP, CIMIC, etc) to train on but do not normally hold them.



That is what I understand as well.  I seen the planned dist as well, and yes there was a large training fleet to be in Edmonton, now in WX I believe.  There was nothing in that document about them being for PRes but being used for units in RTHR training and perhaps driver/crew training for the DTC.  So as not to burn out the TAPV used by units.  Remembering that the support contract for TAPV obligates the OEM to guarantee a specific MTBF, but also obligates CAF to limit the usage to a certain threshold each year.


----------



## Franko

blackberet17 said:
			
		

> I've got a copy of a ppt somewhere, when I find, I'll post.
> 
> In it, it outlines the TAPV "plan", and what I remember most, as it affects us here on the East Coast, was 27xTAPV are to be centralized at Gagetown, for use by the PRes Armour units in the AO. Similar plan for Valcartier, Pet, and Wainwright, I just don't remember the numbers.
> 
> The Armour School and/or the RegF Armour units in Gage/Val/Pet/Wain would have their allocation, for their uses.
> 
> Pipe dream indeed, specially if this goes the way of the Coyote, etc., i.e., originally "purchased" for PRes units, yet used and loved by RegF, so PRes said bye-bye when they were taken away and moved to the Iltis/Buick/LUVW...



Laughable at best. If it ever does happen that the 8CH get to play with them, I can't wait to see the look on their CO's face when he gets the bill for parts and fuel.

It isn't going to happen, at least not in this fiscal atmosphere.

Regards


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Nerf herder said:
			
		

> Laughable at best. If it ever does happen that the 8CH get to play with them, I can't wait to see the look on their CO's face when he gets the bill for parts and fuel.
> 
> It isn't going to happen, at least not in this fiscal atmosphere.
> 
> Regards



It is laughable.  Giving the Reserves a vehicle such as the TAPV serves no useful purpose as it doesn't generate an actual capability and the Reserves have no way to support the vehicle.  People can dream all they want but need to be brought back down to reality.  The Reserves serve a useful purpose in that they provide bodies to beef up the Army in times of need but they don't generate capability as they have no actual cohesive structure. 

Units in the reserves aren't even real units, just a bunch of independent companies, squadrons and batteries (in some cases they are closer to platoon/troop strength).  We can't generate any sort of combat capability with an organization like this so why would we give them the latest and greatest military kit.

If the Reserves were reformed and units were merged to bring them up to something near battalion/regiment strength and had some sort of cohesion, I would be more willing to give them better kit.  If the Reserves want to continue to exist as a large shell organization and only serve the purpose of providing bodies to beef up the Regs in times of need, sorry no good kit for you.

This is not a knock on Reservists themselves as I have met many fantastic Reservists.  It's a knock on the archaic structure that the Reserves currently exist in.


----------



## OldSolduer

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> It is laughable.  Giving the Reserves a vehicle such as the TAPV serves no useful purpose as it doesn't generate an actual capability and the Reserves have no way to support the vehicle.  People can dream all they want but need to be brought back down to reality.  The Reserves serve a useful purpose in that they provide bodies to beef up the Army in times of need but they don't generate capability as they have no actual cohesive structure.
> 
> Units in the reserves aren't even real units, just a bunch of independent companies, squadrons and batteries (in some cases they are closer to platoon/troop strength).  We can't generate any sort of combat capability with an organization like this so why would we give them the latest and greatest military kit.
> 
> If the Reserves were reformed and units were merged to bring them up to something near battalion/regiment strength and had some sort of cohesion, I would be more willing to give them better kit.  If the Reserves want to continue to exist as a large shell organization and only serve the purpose of providing bodies to beef up the Regs in times of need, sorry no good kit for you.
> 
> This is not a knock on Reservists themselves as I have met many fantastic Reservists.  It's a knock on the archaic structure that the Reserves currently exist in.


I agree with this. Any vehicle more complicated than a basic truck is beyond our capabilities.


----------



## Kirkhill

The argument needs to split the difference.

The Reserves (AND the Regs) should be buying more (ie larger quantities) of simpler equipment and focusing the the effort on complex equipment (ie don't issue complex equipment broadly - have units fall in on complex equipment for training and operations with a smaller specialist force of operators - model - helicopter squadrons).

WRT the TAPV.

I would argue that that vehicle is one of the few armoured vehicles in the Canadian inventory that would have a use in DomOps (ie Aid to the Civil Power - armed support). In fact it makes more sense as a DomOps vehicle than as an expeditionary vehicle.

As an expeditionary vehicle the TAPV makes a good C&R/LOC vehicle.

Conversely the LAVs and Leos and M113s have more application overseas than domestically.

Now if the Regs are going to do DomOps then have them fall in on TAPVs.  If the Reserves are doing DomOps have them fall in on TAPVs.

By the way - Do all TAPVs require the RWS system?  What is the price if only the optics are included?  What is the price if the turret is removed completely?  What happens to the training and maintenance bills when those things are removed?

Treat the TAPVs the same way as the Bv206s.

And issue the Reserves standard civilian vehicles.  They will support local training and be useful in local DomOps (Humanitarian and Disaster Relief Ops.)


----------



## McG

The discussion of PRes capability, organization and equiping has been moved here:  http://army.ca/forums/threads/24381/post-1326450.html#msg1326450


----------



## blackberet17

recceguy said:
			
		

> TFTFY



Thanks! I couldn't remember which one it was while typing


----------



## cameron

What Kirkhill suggests is exactly what I had in mind.  A version of the TAPV for the Reserves with many of the bells and whistles removed.


----------



## Franko

cameron said:
			
		

> What Kirkhill suggests is exactly what I had in mind.  A version of the TAPV for the Reserves with many of the bells and whistles removed.



...and yet the main issue will remain - who will repair/ recover it? Do said reserve units have the budget for it? How about facilities?

There's more to it than taking them out for a drive and washing them and no one has actually addressed that. 

Regards


----------



## McG

cameron said:
			
		

> What Kirkhill suggests is exactly what I had in mind.  A version of the TAPV for the Reserves with many of the bells and whistles removed.


The ANA have a TAPV with all "of the bells and whistles removed" but it is still causing them maintenance problems  ... and maintenance is not even the closest alligator to this proposal.

The Army has divested half of its support vehicles and is bulldozing buildings because there is no money.  How do you propose financing a PRes dumb-down TAPV?


----------



## Kirkhill

If the ANA is having difficulty with a "simple" TAPV does that speak to the suitability for the TAPV for expeditionary service, the quality of the TAPV generally or the problems associated with taking illiterate peasant farmers in flip-flops and putting them behind the wheel of 9 17 tonne pickup truck?

As much as I understand that the Reserves do not have the skills of the Regulars I believe I could reasonably expect a better outcome with 16 year old Albertan behind the wheel of a TAPV than I could with a 30 year old Kandahari poppy farmer.

I would see the TAPVs (and other specialist vehicles like Bv206s and RHIBs) centrally held.  The may need a wider geographic dispersion than envisioned in the plan that would hold 25 to 26 TAPVs at each of Aldershot, Valcartier, Meaford and Wainwright.  But they should still be centrally held and intended to relocate by road over a 4 to 6 hour radius.

Recovery - I agree wreckers are required.  Perhaps they can supplied by part timers (Class A or Volunteers) with full time (Class B, C or Reg) support provided from the Reserve Service Battalions (which I would be converting to Transport Coys but that is another discussion). 

Repair?  What line?  What is necessary to fill the gap between gassing up, checking the fluids, giving it a wash and maybe changing the tyres and the domestic support covered under the In Service Support contract signed by Textron and its sub-suppliers?  Can that gap be filled by B/C Reservists, or Regs, or even the local Caterpillar or Brandt dealerships?

With respect to the cost: 100 hours of Reg operation cross country and 100 hours of Res operation (silly jokes aside) is not going to show up  differently on the government costing.  If all the vehicles are owned by the Regs then all of the costs will be apportioned to the Regs by the government.  If the government intends the Res to use 25% of the fleet then the Res budget will have to be adjusted to reflect that.  But the government is paying the piper in both cases.  

Mayhap that gives them some opportunity to call the tune.

Edit (My error on weight)


----------



## McG

So, your proposal is fewer TAPV for the RegF so that some can go to the PRes?


----------



## Infanteer

cameron said:
			
		

> A version of the TAPV for the Reserves with many of the bells and whistles removed.



That's called the Silverado Milcot.


----------



## Kirkhill

No.  My proposal is to follow the Army 2013 plan to distribute the TAPV which intended 25 at Wainwright, 26 at Meaford, 25 at Valcartier and 26 at Aldershot with the remainder in the Regs.

As an alternative perhaps all of those could go to the Regs and the 100 vehicle "option" could be exercised - or perhaps more could be purchased of a simpler variant for the Reserves.

And while the Silverado MilCOTS meets my own personal expectations for a Reserve Force general utility vehicle (perhaps upgraded to the 350/3500 standard) I see nothing wrong with the government dispersing armoured cars around its domains.

When the Grizzly came into service it was widely speculated that one of its advantages was that it appealed to Trudeau as an alternative to Tanks in the Streets in the event of a civil insurgency.

The coppers are acquiring their own APCs.  Perhaps an alternate solution is the creation of Armoured Transport Troops/Sqn/Coys in the Reserves that could assist in ACP tasks with armoured but unarmed transport.

Edit to add a general point of clarification:

None of my suggestions are aimed a robbing Peter to pay Paul.  I want to see the Regs fully manned at their authorized strength, well trained and well equipped.  I am not proposing taking any kit away from the Reg Forces.  To be clear.  

I am looking for better ways to use the money that is provided to the Regs and I believe centralization of kit and generalization of training is one valid strategy for accomplishing that.

I am also looking for better ways to utilize the Reserves/Militia with the funding they have to make them more useful to the government and the community at large as well as making them a pool of serviceable augmentees for the Regs.

Even after looking for efficiencies I expect that more money will be needed and I hope that more money will be provided - but I am reluctant to bate my breath while I wait.


----------



## birdgunnnersrule

Repair?  What line?  What is necessary to fill the gap between gassing up, checking the fluids, giving it a wash and maybe changing the tyres and the domestic support covered under the In Service Support contract signed by Textron and its sub-suppliers?  Can that gap be filled by B/C Reservists, or Regs, or even the local Caterpillar or Brandt dealerships?

Maintenance support for the TAPV is no different than most other fleets.  Maintenance will continue to be a 1st and 2nd line responsibility of the Army.   If you could explain to me what a TAPV without the bells and whistle's consist of, I would be quite interested.  Of course it is free and would not be a new variant that would have to be configuration managed thus costing additional NRE work, etc.......


----------



## Kirkhill

TAPV without bells and whistles = TAPV without the Rheinmetall Remote Weapons Station.

This







instead of this.






Textron contracted to supply 500 TAPVs with Rheinmetall RWS for MCAD 603.  

http://textrontapv.ca/2013/08/canadian-tactical-armoured-patrol-vehicle-program-starts-pre-production-vehicle-testing-and-training/

Textron subcontracted with Rheinmetall to supply engineering services and the RWS at MCAD 152

http://textrontapv.ca/2012/10/textron-systems-and-rheinmetall-canada-announce-205-million-contract/

In addition there is a 5 year ISS programme that Textron is providing for MCAD 105 of which MCAD 53 is going to Rheinmetall.   

Do all Aussie Bushmasters have RWSs?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> and 26 at Aldershot



They'd be wasted there.  If anywhere in 5 Div...Gagetown would be the spot.


----------



## Kirkhill

Just a point of clarification on the use of the TAPVs by the PRes.

I can't remember how I came by this but back in 2010 their was a plan for Force 2013 to allocate TAPVs to the PRes via the ATCs.

See the attachment below.  It is a slide from the PowerPoint presentation detailing the PRes vehicle holdings.

I accept that this is an old plan and that plans change.... but once upon a time there was a plan.


----------



## PuckChaser

In 2010 we probably could have afforded the PRes budget increase. Weren't we also planning on having a dual fleet of IFVs (lav and ccv) around then too?


----------



## Kirkhill

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> In 2010 we probably could have afforded the PRes budget increase. Weren't we also planning on having a dual fleet of IFVs (lav and ccv) around then too?



Affirm.


----------



## Infanteer

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Just a point of clarification on the use of the TAPVs by the PRes.
> 
> I can't remember how I came by this but back in 2010 their was a plan for Force 2013 to allocate TAPVs to the PRes via the ATCs.
> 
> See the attachment below.  It is a slide from the PowerPoint presentation detailing the PRes vehicle holdings.
> 
> I accept that this is an old plan and that plans change.... but once upon a time there was a plan.



You missed my earlier post.  TAPVs to the reserves was never in the mix.  See your picture - no TAPVs in the TBG allocation.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Incorrect.  TAPVs are to be allocated to ATCs for use by other elements on the road to high readiness that would require the vehicle (think FP, CIMIC, etc) to train on but do not normally hold them.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I see that we have an option of 100 more and with the money being turned back, we could order those for the reserves without the RWS to save money, tech support and reduce the weight on the vehicle. By the way what is the side slope ability of the beast?


----------



## Newt

The TAPV is not the platform that PRes Armour needs right now, IMO.

To respond to DomOps PRes needs a platform that is located at least in the same city, if not right on the armoury floor. If there's another Op Lentus we can't tell the civilian leaders that we need to hire a bus, drive 2-4 hours to the nearest ATC, sign out the TAPV's, and the drive 2-4 hours back; we need to be mounted up and rolling out as fast as possible.

How much time would be spent after endex cleaning the TAPV's to sign them back in to the ATC? That's precious time that could be spent doing more training. Better to have something that could be taken to a civilian car wash on the way home instead.

There's a good article in the 2013 Armour Bulletin that I think spells out quite nicely what PRes Armour needs, and it reads closer to getting the Jeep J8 (or similar) than TAPV.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

We can't maintain things at the unit/brigade level because we have gutted them of the resources to do so. At the end of the day a armoured wheeled vehicle is still just a truck that's a pain to work on. It's not rocket science, unless you make the process look like it is.


----------



## McG

Colin P said:
			
		

> I see that we have an option of 100 more and with the money being turned back, we could ...


Again, we have tossed away half of our support vehicle fleet and we are razing buildings because there is no money to sustain capital.  The option for 100 more does not matter if you have no funding plan.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

With the money we turn back could easily fill the gaps. Sooner or later and I suspect sooner, they are going to be crying out for more vehicles, support and armoured.


----------



## Loachman

Crying is irrelevant if nobody listens or cares.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Until large amount of fecal matter hits the rotary device and then it's a case of us saying "We tried to tell you".


----------



## McG

MCG said:
			
		

> Again, we have tossed away half of our support vehicle fleet and we are razing buildings because there is no money to sustain capital.  The option for 100 more does not matter if you have no funding plan.





			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> With the money we turn back could easily fill the gaps. Sooner or later and I suspect sooner, they are going to be crying out for more vehicles, support and armoured.


The money you identify is capital funds, the vehicles need operating funds to be sustained.  Assuming the funds could be made available to buy TAPV without sacrificing something somewhere else (a dangerous assumption), all you have identified is the means to buy 100 new vehicles to site in the divestment graveyards and rot beside MLVWs and HLVWs that we have determined are beyond our means to keep.

If money is found to buy and maintain vehicles, the B fleet needs reinvestment long before a new toy for PRes.


----------



## PuckChaser

Colin P said:
			
		

> Until large amount of fecal matter hits the rotary device and then it's a case of us saying "We tried to tell you".



I strongly doubt the PRes getting shiny TAPVs is the lynch-pin to collapse the whole reserve system.

A bigger "I told you so" moment is going to happen when the PRes no longer has serviceable LSVW/HLVWs (the MRT and wrecker to support your new toys) due to lack of parts, but that's going to be an Army-wide issue (and covered in another thread).


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MCG said:
			
		

> The money you identify is capital funds, the vehicles need operating funds to be sustained.  Assuming the funds could be made available to buy TAPV without sacrificing something somewhere else (a dangerous assumption), all you have identified is the means to buy 100 new vehicles to site in the divestment graveyards and rot beside MLVWs and HLVWs that we have determined are beyond our means to keep.
> 
> If money is found to buy and maintain vehicles, the B fleet needs reinvestment long before a new toy for PRes.



I seen capital money spent on all sorts of things, including salary. Replacing the B fleet is simply a matter of will, the M1078 FMTV 2.5 ton Cargo Truck should be used to replace the medium fleet. Milcots pickups should be purchased on a ongoing basis so no truck is more than 7-10 years old, this is standard practice in most commercial fleets. If you do this your service costs will be less in the long run. Plus it provides jobs for the local economy which makes the politicians happy. Service battalions should have a large wrecker and smaller one based on a pickup. All service battalions should be able to swap out major components in the field, including axles, motors, transmissions and do minor repairs. If Joe's logging can do it out in the bush, so can our Service Battalions.


----------



## Dissident

Rumor is that the PRes MPs is lined up to get TAPVs c. 2017. Anyone has insight on this?


----------



## dangerboy

The last distribution plan that I saw (dated March 2014) did not have any MP units (Reg or Reserve) receiving any TAPV.  It had the majority going to Infantry and Armoured units (Regular Force) and some going to the Div training Centres and some going to EME school and Op stock.


----------



## Kat Stevens

We did the UXO clearance for the ground the TAPV barn was supposed to sit on in Pet, across from the LAV barn, two years ago.  Has any dirt been turned on the site yet?  Curiosity question only.


----------



## cupper

NinerSix said:
			
		

> Rumor is that the PRes MPs is lined up to get TAPVs c. 2017. Anyone has insight on this?



They'd look kinda funny with a set of red and blues on them.


----------



## MilEME09

cupper said:
			
		

> They'd look kinda funny with a set of red and blues on them.



gotta protect the timmies and doughnuts in the back  >


----------



## MilEME09

Under a AI request its been discovered that the TAPV has been delayed over 15 months now due to critical problems with its steering and other critical components that have appeared during off road testing. According to the Ottawa citizen it cause testing to be cancelled until the problems were fixed.


----------



## Eland2

Colin P said:
			
		

> I seen capital money spent on all sorts of things, including salary. Replacing the B fleet is simply a matter of will, the M1078 FMTV 2.5 ton Cargo Truck should be used to replace the medium fleet. Milcots pickups should be purchased on a ongoing basis so no truck is more than 7-10 years old, this is standard practice in most commercial fleets. If you do this your service costs will be less in the long run. Plus it provides jobs for the local economy which makes the politicians happy. Service battalions should have a large wrecker and smaller one based on a pickup. All service battalions should be able to swap out major components in the field, including axles, motors, transmissions and do minor repairs. If Joe's logging can do it out in the bush, so can our Service Battalions.



Many years ago, I was chatting with a friend who happened to be an ex- Regular Force armoured officer. We were debating about the issue of acquiring new vehicles versus maintaining an existing fleet until it is too old to remain viable in any meaningful sense. He tried to tell me that it made more financial sense to endlessly repair the 5/4-ton pickup trucks the military had at the time, rather than buy new.

On an intuitive level, his argument seemed to make sense. What he seemed to neglect is the fact that while endlessly repairing something like a 5/4-ton truck presents a smaller financial hit at least initially, over the long haul it costs more. If you keep that truck 20 years (i.e. well past a reasonable service life given the pounding military vehicles have to take) and keep replacing parts, you will, in the final analysis, have spent almost as much money as it would cost to acquire something new and keep it for a more reasonable period of time, without gaining any greater utility or capability. A newer vehicle may have technological or other engineering enhancements that will make it more effective than retaining an obsolete vehicle for the sake of appearing to save money. In saying so, I am not advocating that the military replace its tanks every year. I personally would like to see a system where the military has reasonably up to date equipment rather than forever having to make do with stuff that is worn out and can only do half the job.

Mind you, I am fully aware that one of the reasons why our military often cannot replace kit when it should be replaced is because of our slow, cumbersome, and horribly messed-up military procurement system.


----------



## Tibbson

Is it a "horribly messed-up military procurement system" or is it a system imposed upon us by the government owing to overall government regulations?  I often hear how messed up our system is but I also hear how other departments have similar issues...they just are not the easy target DND is.


----------



## Eland2

MCG said:
			
		

> One of the things that has been getting attention (though not necessarily with TAPV) is reduced velocity medium caliber cannons.  Think of something between AGL (with lower muzzle velocities & higher trajectories) and more conventional IFV cannons (with very high velocities and designs focused on Sabot rounds for light armour on light armour battles).
> 
> Casings are shortened and propellant reduced.  In theory, you could still have Sabot ammunition but your chances of killing anything lightly armoured would be significantly reduced.  The advantages would be that more ammunition could be carried, platform rock would be reduced, and lighter vehicles could carry the weapon.  While KE projectiles become less useful, more CE projectiles would be used - HEDP-T, HEI-T,  and induction fuzed air-burst rounds.
> 
> It might not be perfect, but it may be an adequate compromise to keep some heavier firepower on a lighter vehicle.



As a thought exercise, I've been toying with the idea of whether a 75mm grenade launcher (as opposed to a standard 40mm AGL) would resolve the dilemma you have noted. The 40mm AGL is already seen as capable of laying down considerable suppressive fire and even providing some limited anti-armour capability. A bigger grenade might increase anti-armour capability without increasing weapon size, weight or ammunition space requirements tremendously. 

I have trouble seeing how the ATK LW25 25mm chain gun, with its super-short barrel, will be able to provide the answer. As you point out, reduced propellant loads and short barrels usually mean compromised performance.


----------



## Eland2

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> Is it a "horribly messed-up military procurement system" or is it a system imposed upon us by the government owing to overall government regulations?  I often hear how messed up our system is but I also hear how other departments have similar issues...they just are not the easy target DND is.



Whether government regulations are at fault or not, it is a messed up system that doesn't operate the way it should. It still amazes me how we managed to get nearly-new Leopard 2 tanks in record time, and all that was needed to break the inevitable logjam in the procurement system was the issuance of an Urgent Operational Requirement. It was a fortuitous thing that the Dutch were getting out of the tank business at the time and they had some Leopard 2A4's sitting in storage that were barely used.

Maybe the simple answer is rather than engage in endless trialling of candidates, and endless contract definition exercises undertaken with the aim of Canadianizing military kit as much as possible or gaining industrial offsets, we should be setting down a list of basic requirements that kit must meet. Then we should be asking ourselves, "does this item meet Canadian Army doctrinal and operational standards, and can our soldiers use it in the field effectively, without having to extensively modify the item so it becomes suitable for use?" Too many times I've seen procurement projects delayed because of a need to Canadianize things.

There's a lot to be said for going the MOTS route if the item meets basic requirements right off the bat and only minimal modifications are required.


----------



## OldSolduer

IMO it's a mixture of us having a poor idea of what we would like, muddled by politics and a horrible procurement process.


----------



## Infanteer

Eland2 said:
			
		

> was the issuance of an Urgent Operational Requirement.



That's not what UOR stands for.  It's Unforecasted Operational Requirement.


----------



## George Wallace

Eland2 said:
			
		

> Maybe the simple answer is rather than engage in endless trialling of candidates, and endless contract definition exercises undertaken with the aim of Canadianizing military kit as much as possible or gaining industrial offsets, we should be setting down a list of basic requirements that kit must meet. Then we should be asking ourselves, "does this item meet Canadian Army doctrinal and operational standards, and can our soldiers use it in the field effectively, without having to extensively modify the item so it becomes suitable for use?" Too many times I've seen procurement projects delayed because of a need to Canadianize things.



One other thing we have faced in the past two or three decades has been the purchase of equipment that required Corps to redefine their roles and drastically rethink and change their SOPs.


----------



## McG

Eland2 said:
			
		

> As a thought exercise, I've been toying with the idea of whether a 75mm grenade launcher (as opposed to a standard 40mm AGL) would resolve the dilemma you have noted. The 40mm AGL is already seen as capable of laying down considerable suppressive fire and even providing some limited anti-armour capability. A bigger grenade might increase anti-armour capability without increasing weapon size, weight or ammunition space requirements tremendously.


You are basically proposing the old AVGP Cougar.  It is not a good idea.  If you want anti-armour punch on a light vehicle, then give it a missile or two.


----------



## MilEME09

MCG said:
			
		

> You are basically proposing the old AVGP Cougar.  It is not a good idea.  If you want anti-armour punch on a light vehicle, then give it a missile or two.



So bring the LAV TUA back into regular use? Or make the LAV 6 like the Bradley and strap a couple missiles to the turret?


----------



## 63 Delta

Whatever happened to the LAV TUA turrets? Are they in storage somewhere? 

Were all the turrets made before the completion of the final LAV3 RWS?


----------



## Franko

Eland2 said:
			
		

> Whether government regulations are at fault or not, it is a messed up system that doesn't operate the way it should. It still amazes me how we managed to get nearly-new Leopard 2 tanks in record time, and all that was needed to break the inevitable logjam in the procurement system was the issuance of an Urgent Operational Requirement. It was a fortuitous thing that the Dutch were getting out of the tank business at the time and they had some Leopard 2A4's sitting in storage that were barely used.



Wrong. All hulls made in 1985. Storage was sub par. 

Barely used? Hardly. Same thoughts could be said about our subs. 

Stick to your arcs, you don't know shit about the tanks. 

Regards


----------



## Eland2

MCG said:
			
		

> You are basically proposing the old AVGP Cougar.  It is not a good idea.  If you want anti-armour punch on a light vehicle, then give it a missile or two.



Agreed. The Cougar always struck me as a rather weird vehicle that was neither fish nor fowl. It seemed to be a reconnaissance vehicle and a fire support vehicle and neither at the same time, a cheap alternative for a government that was unwilling to buy modern main battle tanks but was also trying to avoid losing the corporate memory that comes from having a long-standing armoured establishment based on tanks. 

My idea was based on the fact that technology has advanced since the days of the Cougar, and grenade launchers do seem to be an effective suppressive fire weapon, so why not make the grenades a bit bigger?


----------



## Eland2

Nerf herder said:
			
		

> Wrong. All hulls made in 1985. Storage was sub par.
> 
> Barely used? Hardly. Same thoughts could be said about our subs.
> 
> Stick to your arcs, you don't know crap about the tanks.
> 
> Regards



Pardon me, but I was going by what media accounts, including DND publications, had stated about the condition of the tanks. I remember reading something to the effect that the tanks that were in storage had about 400km on their odometers. I should have qualified what I meant when I said the tanks were 'nearly new'. What I had read led me to believe the tanks were in effectively close to new condition despite having been manufactured about 30 years ago. Thanks for setting me straight.


----------



## Franko

Eland2 said:
			
		

> Pardon me, but I was going by what media accounts, including DND publications, had stated about the condition of the tanks. I remember reading something to the effect that the tanks that were in storage had about 400km on their odometers. I should have qualified what I meant when I said the tanks were 'nearly new'. What I had read led me to believe the tanks were in effectively close to new condition despite having been manufactured about 30 years ago. Thanks for setting me straight.



Storage is harder on tanks than you think. Seals dry out, etc etc. 

At least we have modern tanks again. 

Regards


----------



## QM

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> Is it a "horribly messed-up military procurement system" or is it a system imposed upon us by the government owing to overall government regulations?  I often hear how messed up our system is but I also hear how other departments have similar issues...they just are not the easy target DND is.



I would say you are on target. The un-scientific (snarky?) generalizations - all of them somewhat true but not actually founded when viewed from a professional perspective- are that of the four big agencies involved in military procurement, (1) DND wants to buy the best kit available regardless of cost, (2) PWGSC wants to ensure a fair process to the point of ridiculousness and protect the GoC from any potential lawsuits, again to the point of ridiculousness, (3) Industry Canada wants jobs for Canadians and doesn't care about the quality of what is bought, so long as it means jobs for Canadians, and (4) the Treasury Board wants to ensure value for dollar but has no idea how much extra money the resultant processes and their associated years (and years) of work, costs taxpayers. All of those are over-generalizations, but each Department has its reputation... and sometimes that one (or two or three) major projects that makes the papers for the wrong reason, negatively impacts the hundreds of other projects that are doing things right, and causes them more work (and thus more time).

Devising checks and balances for all these competing but complementary inter-Departmental requirements has resulted in a procurement structure that takes a decade or more to complete most capital equipment projects, as each and every gateway and each and every agency fulfilling a 'challenge function' requires that their checklists be formally documented, validated, analysed, ad nauseum. This is true even for projects that are procuring existing equipment, already in-service with another military. Its a long process to put an 'x' beside each of the hundreds of boxes that must be checked off along the way. Say something different in year 6 than you do in year 3, and you get delayed. Try to change an element of your requirement half way through (even for a valid reason) and you get delayed. Realize that the years of delays have caused the cost of your project to exceed initial estimates, and you get delayed. Fail to adequately answer a ridiculous question asked  by an ill-informed but key gatekeeper or, God forbid, a Cost Analyst, and you get delayed. Face an un-forecasted election just as your bid prices expire, and you get delayed. Sigh.

So yes, its not 'the military' that is at fault. Frankly we are the ones who know what kit we need and what costs are realistic to buy that kit and deliver the full capability (with a couple high-profile exceptions that cause pain for everyone - F35 cough cough, used subs cough cough, FWSAR cough cough, etc); but we aren't the only ones with a say on how the taxpayers' dollars are spent. The resultant ponderous,  kafka-esque government procurement system is indeed, as you say, messed up. But for whatever reason, we never read about PWGSC being boneheads or Industry Canada causing us to spend more money for a lower quantity of (occasionally) lower quality (but made in Canada) gear. Its only DND that gets bad publicity. Ya, an easy target for an anti-military press that doesn't understand how government works. Did I already say 'sigh'?? Lol. 

The good news is that DND remains in the driver's seat no matter what, and the project directors and their supporting staff in NDHQ do a great job of keeping the other departments on target and, to the extent possible, on time. So we do wind up with very good kit. Not always the best kit in the world, but very good kit. Its due to the hard work and perseverance of individuals, though, as they steer the files through an amazingly complex system.


----------



## Old EO Tech

HULK_011 said:
			
		

> Whatever happened to the LAV TUA turrets? Are they in storage somewhere?
> 
> Were all the turrets made before the completion of the final LAV3 RWS?



Last I heard both the turrets and the ITAS systems are in storage in Montreal.  The ITAS were deployed as night vision to A-gan starting in 2008, with no missiles.  But since then the turrets and ITAS have been in limbo.  I'm honestly not sure what that Army plans to do with them, but I do know that there are no LAV TUA planned as part of LAVUp...


----------



## MilEME09

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Last I heard both the turrets and the ITAS systems are in storage in Montreal.  The ITAS were deployed as night vision to A-gan starting in 2008, with no missiles.  But since then the turrets and ITAS have been in limbo.  I'm honestly not sure what that Army plans to do with them, but I do know that there are no LAV TUA planned as part of LAVUp...



Thats a shame, but probably due to the budget, the TUA is a good system that does have its uses in a conventional field of battle. Problem is DND has no priorities, outline of what it wants the CF to fight or look like. Without that kit will remain in storage, and priorities mismanaged, it becomes a loose/loose situation for everyone


----------



## McG

Eland2 said:
			
		

> My idea was based on the fact that technology has advanced since the days of the Cougar, and grenade launchers do seem to be an effective suppressive fire weapon, so why not make the grenades a bit bigger?


AGL effects are also derived from their rate of fire.  If you try to put an automatic 76 mm on a light vehicle, such as the TAPV, then you will run into trouble with ammo stowage and platform stability.


----------



## MilEME09

MCG said:
			
		

> AGL effects are also derived from their rate of fire.  If you try to put an automatic 76 mm on a light vehicle, such as the TAPV, then you will run into trouble with ammo stowage and platform stability.



Why a 75mm? why direct fire role? why not a high velocity 57mm? or turn something like the TAPV into a mortor carrier?


----------



## McG

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Why a 75mm?


Because a proposal for a 75 mm is what I was responding to.



			
				MilEME09 said:
			
		

> why not a high velocity 57mm?


Because you run into a problem of platform stability.



			
				MilEME09 said:
			
		

> why direct fire role? ... or turn something like the TAPV into a mortor carrier?


Sure, but now you are talking about a vehicle of a different role.  We've been discussing a vehicle intended for recce, with a requirement to fight out of (or through) direct fire engagements.


----------



## MilEME09

But then you have to look at if it's fighting out of engagements, up to what do you want it to be able to fight off, dismounts? IFV's? or upto MBT's? which would require a bigger and bigger platform the larger you go for what you want to fight off. Something around the 20mm range could offer whats needed against everything upto light armour. If you want to fight off a MBT now we are either going a bigger gun or adding ATGM capabilities (which IMO would be the better option for keeping the vehicle light).  Maybe not even a guided missile, how much damage could a CRV-7 rocket pod do to an armoured target?


----------



## McG

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> If you want to fight off a MBT now we are either going a bigger gun or adding ATGM capabilities (which IMO would be the better option for keeping the vehicle light).  Maybe not even a guided missile, how much damage could a CRV-7 rocket pod do to an armoured target?


You are not really adding anything new to this discussion:





			
				MCG said:
			
		

> If you want anti-armour punch on a light vehicle, then give it a missile or two.


Don't do CRV-7.  Get Spike, Javlin, TOW or Milan.  The fire and forget option would be desirable for a vehicle that is not intended as a tank hunter.


----------



## MilEME09

Would a Javlin's top attack feature not be best in that case? the recce vehicle could be behind the crest of a hill for example, pop out fire and gone. Though in this day and age I bet a dismounted soldier could spot for the vehicle. I suggested the CRV-7 simply for it's light weight because you don't have bulky fire control computers, i've heard of a laser guided version designated CRV-7PG, though that still requires a laser on target from a soldier, vehicle or drone.


----------



## McG

TOW and Spike also do top-attack.  Each missile has its trade-offs.  Any one could work, but a Recce crewman is the best guy to speak on the characteristic the best missile will have.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The CF is always going to struggle as we will not know for sure where and against whom/what our next fight will be. Could be peacekeeping/making, could be COIN, could be a bush war in Africa, or a peer to peer fight in eastern Europe or even a near peer in the ME. Picking equipment to meet all that is difficult and your not going to get a coherent long term defense policy from our politicians that's worth the paper it's written on. Hence the reason I want see a good mix of vehicles and start pushing tactical vehicles out to the Reserves(along with working trucks). Eventually your going to need everything we have.


----------



## Eland2

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Why a 75mm? why direct fire role? why not a high velocity 57mm? or turn something like the TAPV into a mortor carrier?



The TAPV itself would not make a good mortar carrier platform. Not without extensive modification of the basic vehicle design, anyway. The vehicle is probably too light for such a role. 

The Swedish and the Finns got together and created a wheeled mortar carrier based on a Patria XA-series wheeled APC. It's called AMOS (Advanced MOrtar System). It incorporates two semi-automatic 120mm mortars housed within a turret. It offers indirect fire and some direct fire capability. Clearly, something like the AMOS would be totally unsuitable as a recce vehicle, but it could be used to provide fire support for recce units that have to fight for information. But then a tank already fulfills that role quite nicely.

Here's a photo of the AMOS:


----------



## a_majoor

If that turret can be dropped into a LAV, then we can kill several birds with one stone using the LAV 6.0 chassis: LAV 6.0 replacements for Coyotes, and LAV 6.0 hulled fire support vehicles mounting these mortars for both the Infantry and as FSV's for recce squadrons (as noted they can fire both DF and IF when needed). Of course the Recce squadrons would have a Coyote replacement using a surveillance mast, and one without but with a few crunchies in the back, for 3 flavors of the LAV 6.0 hull.

I believe a single barrel version of the turret also exists, which would be lighter and less maintenance intensive (and while not providing such a weight of fire, could remain in the field longer before needing to be re bombed).


----------



## Kirkhill

1x C17 = 18x Iltis

1x C17 = 2x LAV


----------



## George Wallace

Thucydides said:
			
		

> If that turret can be dropped into a LAV, then we can kill several birds with one stone using the LAV 6.0 chassis:



There were already turreted mortar systems installed on LAV for export to the UAE around ten or fifteen years ago.  If you want a LAV with a turret similar to a KV 2, that was the baby.


----------



## Ostrozac

Eland2 said:
			
		

> The TAPV itself would not make a good mortar carrier platform. Not without extensive modification of the basic vehicle design, anyway. The vehicle is probably too light for such a role.



You don't need much weight for a mortar carrier, and TAPV is a pretty big vehicle. TAPV is 17 tons. We used the 13 ton Bison as an 81mm carrier for years. And the Americans use the M1129 variant of the Stryker/LAV-3 as a 120mm mortar carrier -- it clocks in at 16 tons (no turret helps). But I agree that the LAV platform is a proven mortar carrier -- I don't think anyone's ever even tried putting a mortar on the M1117/TAPV family of vehicles.

I've been away from the brigades for a while. Is TAPV going to be the gun tractor for the M777? Or is our towed artillery going with soft-skinned gun tractors? If the latter, then that raises yet another argument for having some kind of protected indirect fire weapon -- and my vote would be for a LAV-3 mortar carrier.

I'm less excited about cap-badge wars or calibre, I just want an indirect fire weapon that can possibly survive being hit by enemy artillery fire without its' trucks catching on fire. If we can't get M109 or self-propelled mortars, then I guess we're hauling 81mm in the back of an APC just like in the 70's.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

LAV III with a 120mm mortar equipping a couple of the RCHA batteries makes perfect sense, the platform is already in use and our major ally is already using the mortar, meaning parts, ammo and upgrades will be around for some time to come. Mobile and protected indirect fire support for the armoured units. Actual set up costs won't be that great and intial training on the Mortar can be done in the US. Also would be a stepping stone to bringing in a towed 120mm to give to the Reserves to supplement the remaining 105mm's.


----------



## OldSolduer

All good for the artillery Colin, but the Armoured Recce guys need a vehicle. 
L
Us dudes in the Reserve Infantry, we love to go for long walks -looking for a guy named Charlie - but sometimes we need a lift. 
We really could use an upgraded MLVW and not those stupid MSVS monstrosities.


----------



## MilEME09

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> All good for the artillery Colin, but the Armoured Recce guys need a vehicle.
> L
> Us dudes in the Reserve Infantry, we love to go for long walks -looking for a guy named Charlie - but sometimes we need a lift.
> We really could use an upgraded MLVW and not those stupid MSVS monstrosities.



Given the way the trend with vehicles is, high off the ground, that isn't going to change any time soon, hope you enjoy ladders off the back of the trucks.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

For all of the bemoaning, the Spartan was likely a doable approach to solving that issue. A battle taxi with some cross country performance, some protection against mines at an affordable price.


----------



## Eland2

Colin P said:
			
		

> For all of the bemoaning, the Spartan was likely a doable approach to solving that issue. A battle taxi with some cross country performance, some protection against mines at an affordable price.



Just wanted to point out the picture shows a Saxon APC, not a Spartan. Nevertheless, it looks like the Saxon acquitted itself rather nicely. The Saxons weren't designed for front-line service, they were mainly employed to ferry infantry to rear-echelon areas in Germany, and from there the infantry would disperse to their assigned positions.

Here's a picture of a Spartan:


----------



## Mountie

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> You don't need much weight for a mortar carrier, and TAPV is a pretty big vehicle. TAPV is 17 tons. We used the 13 ton Bison as an 81mm carrier for years. And the Americans use the M1129 variant of the Stryker/LAV-3 as a 120mm mortar carrier -- it clocks in at 16 tons (no turret helps). But I agree that the LAV platform is a proven mortar carrier -- I don't think anyone's ever even tried putting a mortar on the M1117/TAPV family of vehicles.



Here is a link to a TAPV based 81mm mortar.  The Commando is the base line vehicle the TAPV was developed from.

http://legacy.pitchengine.com/textronsystems/textronmarinelandsystemsintroducestwonewvehiclestoitscommandotmfamilyofvehicles


----------



## Old EO Tech

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Given the way the trend with vehicles is, high off the ground, that isn't going to change any time soon, hope you enjoy ladders off the back of the trucks.



The only smaller-ish type wheeled vehicle I see coming eventually will be the LSVW replacement, though I'm betting it'll still be in the 2.5-5 ton range, but still much smaller than the MLVW/HLVW replacements.  Might be the only new vehicle suited to actually moving troops close to A1/F ech and be somewhat tactically low profile.  All the other LVM vehicles are designed to be resource movers really from the FSG/B ech/A2 ech etc.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

My bad, I meant Saxon


----------



## Underway

What's the current plan for infantry or armoured assault troops to use the TAPV?

I was reading an article on infantry sections across ABCA organizations and how they relate to their vehicles.  There were some thoughts on TAPV employment in there.

My COA's for standard section organization:

A)  - Employ 2 TAPV per section and increase the section size to 12 total (4 dismounts+ 2 crew * 2 TAPV per section),
       - Everyone in this organization is from the same platoon or troop
       - for infantry this creates extra pers for dismounted operations without vehicles should the vehicles not be required
       - allows for more easy integration of the TAPV as an extension of combat power
       -has a nice symmetry to it with two evenly organized assault groups per section that will fit current force organization


B)  - Same as above but driver and gunner are troopers and dismounts are infantry
        - would have to increase the number of vehicles per platoon to 10 vice 8 to fit in normal platoon size  (A section, B section, C section, D section, E section)  
        -perhaps this would allow E section to take on speciality roles (MG section, sharp shooters, scouts whatever....)
        - this formation would more likely have the TAPV operate in an APC role, get the troops near the objective and then they fight their way there, TAPV would not be considered part of     
          the section, but could/should provide fire support and/or Zulu harbour

C)  - mix of the above, TAPV crew would be troopers but the infantry platoon would be smaller, only 4 sections of 8 dismounts.
      - APC role tactics, TAPV is not considered integral to the section.


----------



## Old EO Tech

Underway said:
			
		

> What's the current plan for infantry or armoured assault troops to use the TAPV?
> 
> I was reading an article on infantry sections across ABCA organizations and how they relate to their vehicles.  There were some thoughts on TAPV employment in there.
> 
> My COA's for standard section organization:
> 
> A)  - Employ 2 TAPV per section and increase the section size to 12 total (4 dismounts+ 2 crew * 2 TAPV per section),
> - Everyone in this organization is from the same platoon or troop
> - for infantry this creates extra pers for dismounted operations without vehicles should the vehicles not be required
> - allows for more easy integration of the TAPV as an extension of combat power
> -has a nice symmetry to it with two evenly organized assault groups per section that will fit current force organization
> 
> 
> B)  - Same as above but driver and gunner are troopers and dismounts are infantry
> - would have to increase the number of vehicles per platoon to 10 vice 8 to fit in normal platoon size  (A section, B section, C section, D section, E section)
> -perhaps this would allow E section to take on speciality roles (MG section, sharp shooters, scouts whatever....)
> - this formation would more likely have the TAPV operate in an APC role, get the troops near the objective and then they fight their way there, TAPV would not be considered part of
> the section, but could/should provide fire support and/or Zulu harbour
> 
> C)  - mix of the above, TAPV crew would be troopers but the infantry platoon would be smaller, only 4 sections of 8 dismounts.
> - APC role tactics, TAPV is not considered integral to the section.



I think this discussion is a bit theoretical on the CA side as unless something radical is about to happen with PY's, we do not have Infantry Pioneers or Armoured Assault Troops, and no plans to change that.  Our TAPV's are being used for transport for Cbt Spt Coy, ie Recce Pl and Sniper Pl.  And TAPV in concert with LAV6 Recce vehicles are going to be used by the Armoured Recce Squadrons.  How they are going to be used in the LIB is still not all that clear other than creating a motorized LI Coy...and to be honest the LIB don't want the TAPV as it's a vehicle without doctrine to support it's use.


----------



## Underway

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> How they are going to be used in the LIB is still not all that clear other than creating a motorized LI Coy...and to be honest the LIB don't want the TAPV as it's a vehicle without doctrine to support it's use.



A case of manning the equipment vs equipping the men?


----------



## GnyHwy

TAPV, although considered a light vehicle, doesn't translate to a LIB IMO. 

Manning the vehicle, plus the minimal troop and equipment capacity makes it poor choice for a LIB.  They would probably rather large capacity trucks or helos.  

And short of that, they would probably rather walk, with an air delivery for sustainment equipment after the fact.


----------



## Underway

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> TAPV, although considered a light vehicle, doesn't translate to a LIB IMO.
> 
> Manning the vehicle, plus the minimal troop and equipment capacity makes it poor choice for a LIB.  They would probably rather large capacity trucks or helos.
> 
> And short of that, they would probably rather walk, with an air delivery for sustainment equipment after the fact.



True, Old EO probably hit the nail on the head with their usage for other jobs,  CIMIC, Psyops, DnS, PRT,  Sigs, convoy, MPs etC.... But I' won't be surprised if they do get assigned to LIB and try to squash them into some sort of org, someone posted earlier that the Van Doos were trying to situate the estimate on TAPV deployment to LIBs.  I think it could work but it needs to be experimented with.


----------



## GnyHwy

There is a use for TAPVs in an LIB.  Just not as a prime mover.  

From my hearsay, 5 Bde is always willing to experiment and give things a shot.


----------



## George Wallace

Underway said:
			
		

> True, Old EO probably hit the nail on the head with their usage for other jobs,  CIMIC, Psyops, DnS, PRT,  Sigs, convoy, MPs etC.... But I' won't be surprised if they do get assigned to LIB and try to squash them into some sort of org, someone posted earlier that the Van Doos were trying to situate the estimate on TAPV deployment to LIBs.  I think it could work but it needs to be experimented with.



The only use I would see them in the LIB would be as a replacement for the Jeep/Iltis/G Wagen; as Rovers and perhaps CO's Tac.  Other than as a B Ech vehicle, CIMIC, Psyops, etc. would be a good choice of where to send them.


----------



## KerryBlue

Anyone know anything about the TAPV at ASU Ottawa? I noticed on the sign in sheet lots of Textron people coming and going. Was walking around trying to get some good pictures of the Husky and Buffalo and saw the back barn door open and the rear end of the TAPV.


----------



## PuckChaser

Could be DLCSPM working on comms installs? They need to make a fleet-wide standard and have it pass a technical inspection before TCCCS goes into the vehicles.


----------



## George Wallace

KerryBlue said:
			
		

> .......... Was walking around trying to get some good pictures of the Husky and Buffalo and saw the back barn door open and the rear end of the TAPV.



Ummmmmm?

 >


----------



## KerryBlue

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Ummmmmm?
> 
> >



The CWO in charge told me I could walk around and take all the photos I wanted outside of the fence so I did lol  ;D


----------



## TCBF

Anyone miss LETE yet?


----------



## Old EO Tech

TCBF said:
			
		

> Anyone miss LETE yet?



That picture looks like it was taken at MTD(LESC), in Uplands, which is what is left of LETE, but now part of QETE.  A few years ago I worked in that very sprung shelter.


----------



## KerryBlue

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> That picture looks like it was taken at MTD(LESC), in Uplands, which is what is left of LETE, but now part of QETE.  A few years ago I worked in that very sprung shelter.



It was.  :subbies:


----------



## The Bread Guy

Bumped with the latest from the info-machine:


> The Canadian Army (CA) is preparing to take delivery of the new Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle (TAPV) by the end of 2016. The fleet of 500 vehicles will be distributed across seven bases and 24 units. 2nd Canadian Division will be the first formation to operate the TAPV, which will be part of a High Readiness Training Cycle culminating in Exercise MAPLE RESOLVE 2018.
> 
> The CA expects to declare full operational capability by mid-2020, following training of all operators, and completion of user trials and exercises confirming operational readiness.
> 
> Brigadier-General S.M. Cadden, Chief of Staff Army Strategy, expresses the Army’s building excitement for fielding this new fleet.
> 
> “"The Army has closely followed the testing of this vehicle. We currently have over a dozen Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) personnel participating in testing activities, and they are relaying very positive feedback,"” he said. “"We are looking forward to fielding the TAPV to units."”
> 
> The TAPV, built by Textron Systems Canada Inc., was chosen after a rigorous evaluation process that included testing for mobility, firepower, survivability and human factors, as well as a paper-based evaluation of other technical and financial criteria.
> 
> The TAPV will be delivered in two variants: General Utility and Reconnaissance. The only differences between variants are their internal design and certain pieces of equipment. The Reconnaissance variant will be fielded to armoured reconnaissance squadrons, infantry reconnaissance platoons and the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps School.
> 
> A notable feature of the TAPV is its very high level of protection and survivability against enemy threats, which includes improvised explosive devices, explosively-formed projectiles, and anti-armour weapons. The Textron Systems vehicle far exceeds the Army’s essential requirements for protection levels, thereby offering an additional degree of confidence for operators when entering enemy theatre.
> 
> In addition to offering a higher degree of protection, the vehicle will be highly mobile. It is designed to effectively travel long distances on both roads and cross-country terrain. At just under 18,597 kilograms in weight, this light armoured vehicle can perform a wide variety of roles and tasks, including reconnaissance and surveillance, security (patrolling and escort), command and control, and armoured transport of personnel and equipment. Four TAPVs can be transported simultaneously by a CC-177 Globemaster III, providing good strategic mobility ...


----------



## MilEME09

Given how hard it is to timely procure vehicles, anyone think DND might exercises the option to pick up 100 more TAPVs? as per the contract? also here is the delivery schedule


----------



## Kirkhill

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Given how hard it is to timely procure vehicles, anyone think DND might exercises the option to pick up 100 more TAPVs? as per the contract? also here is the delivery schedule



When did they stand up the 2nd RCR Regiment?


----------



## MilEME09

Must be where the budget keeps going, super secret black ops 2nd RCR


----------



## McG

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Given how hard it is to timely procure vehicles, anyone think DND might exercises the option to pick up 100 more TAPVs?


Why?  To have more of the wrong vehicle?  We have already decided that we do not want the TAPV in the largest role for which we bought it and each area is now inventing jobs for the ones we are committed to buying.


----------



## MilEME09

MCG said:
			
		

> Why?  To have more of the wrong vehicle?  We have already decided that we do not want the TAPV in the largest role for which we bought it and each area is now inventing jobs for the ones we are committed to buying.


We do have a history of making do with what we have. 100 more could mean 100 less of some older high maintenance cost vehicles out of service. Is it a good recce vehicle? No but we can find plenty of other uses, heck give me an hour and I can probably figure out how to turn one into a light armoured MRT or a list of other roles

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## McG

We would be doing ourselves a disservice by buying the wrong vehicle because it is easy.  The money could be better invested by rolling it into the project intended to replace Bisons with new armoured MRTS and other support vehicles.  Or, use the money to correct for the LAV UP project being not sufficiently funded to bring all LAV III to LAV 6.0 standard.

Don't spend money just because you have any easy button.


----------



## TCBF

We could put the money into a complete rebuild of the Coyote fleet.


----------



## PuckChaser

Why would we rebuild the Coyote? It's nowhere close to being able to take a blast from an IED, barely handles landmines.


----------



## MilEME09

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Why would we rebuild the Coyote? It's nowhere close to being able to take a blast from an IED, barely handles landmines.



Isn't that why they were making a Recce variant of the LAV 6? haven't seen details on it, doubt it has the same kit as the Coyote.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Why would we rebuild the Coyote? It's nowhere close to being able to take a blast from an IED, barely handles landmines.



Any vehicle you build, 'they' will just build a bigger IED.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It's the kit on the Coyote that makes it special not the vehicle itself, correct?


----------



## Loachman

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Any vehicle you build, 'they' will just build a bigger IED.



But at least they have to sweat more.

More time to dig a big one in? More time to be caught by something passing silently overhead...


----------



## PuckChaser

Loachman said:
			
		

> But at least they have to sweat more.
> 
> More time to dig a big one in? More time to be caught by something passing silently overhead...


Also narrows the skillsets. Any idiot can stack a few mines. It takes some sort of training and know-how to build an EFP rigged via long distance wire to RC receiver. You force them towards technology, and it's easier to target their limited assets, and spend more resources per device.


----------



## RCPalmer

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Also narrows the skillsets. Any idiot can stack a few mines. It takes some sort of training and know-how to build an EFP rigged via long distance wire to RC receiver. You force them towards technology, and it's easier to target their limited assets, and spend more resources per device.



That assumes that the "innovation" is towards a higher tech solution.  Your example is kind of an edge case.  Most of the the evolution in IED techniques in Afghanistan went the other way (simpler and bigger), defeating our technology and our armor.   We are better off to focus on tactics that make us less vulnerable to IEDs rather than make a variety of vehicle compromises in the name of "perfect" protection underfoot.


----------



## PuckChaser

You're never going to find the perfect vehicle, but going from a flat, thin hull (Coyote, Bison) to a V-shaped hull (LAV3/6, Nyala) can mitigate some issues without completely reducing mobility. The enemy TTPs were changing as we brought out vehicles, but that all takes time and effort. You'd see it as the effectiveness of the IEDs would diminish, they'd take a few months to figure something out, try it, and if it worked start attempting to mass produce.

To get a little bit back on topic, dumping money to refit the Coyote and Bison would be a fools errand, as we'd likely spend just as much as buying new vehicles. Their technology is just too dated to upgrade properly. I never felt safe in my Bison overseas (it was a jingle-truck to start with), I knew if we hit something, at minimum myself and my driver were dead unless we got lucky and the blast was under the engine on the right side. I think we also picked the wrong vehicle in the Texron truck, as our no-risk-is-acceptable-risk culture at NDHQ wanted the biggest and most armoured thing they could find. Mobility was likely 8 or 9th down the list.


----------



## Journeyman

My complaint is buying a two-storey vehicle and saying it's for recce.

I guess you could conceal behind lifeguard stands..... or escarpments.... or put it in the museum beside the LSVW and the Iltis.


----------



## RCPalmer

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You're never going to find the perfect vehicle, but going from a flat, thin hull (Coyote, Bison) to a V-shaped hull (LAV3/6, Nyala) can mitigate some issues without completely reducing mobility. The enemy TTPs were changing as we brought out vehicles, but that all takes time and effort. You'd see it as the effectiveness of the IEDs would diminish, they'd take a few months to figure something out, try it, and if it worked start attempting to mass produce.
> 
> To get a little bit back on topic, dumping money to refit the Coyote and Bison would be a fools errand, as we'd likely spend just as much as buying new vehicles. Their technology is just too dated to upgrade properly. I never felt safe in my Bison overseas (it was a jingle-truck to start with), I knew if we hit something, at minimum myself and my driver were dead unless we got lucky and the blast was under the engine on the right side. I think we also picked the wrong vehicle in the Texron truck, as our no-risk-is-acceptable-risk culture at NDHQ wanted the biggest and most armoured thing they could find. Mobility was likely 8 or 9th down the list.



With regards to evolving vehicles to counter the IED threat, all I would offer for consideration is that while these evolutions were quite costly and time consuming for us, the enemy counters were generally cheap and easy.  

I'm not advocating any kind of long term refit for the Coyote or Bison, and I agree that we should not tie ourselves to the underside protection technology of the 1980s. Both of those fleets are past their best before date.  I was more talking about the set of compromises in the next vehicle, and as you say we have given up a lot in the name of protection for a vehicle that doesn't appear to be particularly usable in any of its planned roles.  In spite of its size, it has limited firepower, can't carry troops, and doesn't appear to be anyone's first choice for a recce vehicle.  It wasn't like there weren't other options.  Armored Recce could have focused on the LAV-Recce platform while the other roles could have been filled by a true "carrier" such as LAV-H, or Bushmaster.  We could have even gone for the "stretch" TAPV to build some flexibility into the platform.


----------



## George Wallace

RCPalmer said:
			
		

> With regards to evolving vehicles to counter the IED threat, all I would offer for consideration is that while these evolutions were quite costly and time consuming for us, the enemy counters were generally cheap and easy.
> 
> I'm not advocating any kind of long term refit for the Coyote or Bison, and I agree that we should not tie ourselves to the underside protection technology of the 1980s. Both of those fleets are past their best before date.  I was more talking about the set of compromises in the next vehicle, and as you say we have given up a lot in the name of protection for a vehicle that doesn't appear to be particularly usable in any of its planned roles.  In spite of its size, it has limited firepower, can't carry troops, and doesn't appear to be anyone's first choice for a recce vehicle.  It wasn't like there weren't other options.  Armored Recce could have focused on the LAV-Recce platform while the other roles could have been filled by a true "carrier" such as LAV-H, or Bushmaster.  We could have even gone for the "stretch" TAPV to build some flexibility into the platform.



Perhaps we are really over thinking this whole problem.  Armour vehicle development is very much the same as computer related system development.  Once a concept has been refined and goes into production, it is already obsolete.  As already witnessed in the majority of Canada's Defence procurements, it usually takes nine or more years to actually receive the 'item'.  By that time the item is already obsolete by nine years.  

Those who remember the purchase of the Leopard 1, and later the AVGP, the Armour philosophy behind those vehicles was the "Swiss Cheese" effect; that large caliber rounds would enter and exit the vehicles with minimum spalling and ricocheting around inside.  Direct Fire and Mines were the main concern in those days.  Afghanistan brought about the concerns that the threat was more of IEDs than Direct Fire.  As has been mentioned, the more armour you add to a vehicle to defeat IEDs is not only costly and time consuming in development, but so quickly and easily defeated by making larger explosive IEDs.

Perhaps, we should have a look back at the Post WW II years, cheaper, lighter, more easily mass produced vehicles would serve the purpose.  Would the enemy waste a large explosive IED on a small vehicle?  Would the cost of the IED become more than the vehicle that they intend to destroy/cripple?  Would it be cheaper to have a large fleet of vehicles opposed to a few heavily modified vehicles?  All questions that likely have to be asked.  Whether or not they are contemplating that line of thought is another question.

Historically, since the dawn of armies, weapons have been developed to defeat every defence conceived.  Historically, defensive capabilities have always lagged behind the means to defeat those defences when looking at development timelines.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MOBILITY, protection and firepower. Seems one is lost to gain the other. Mobility that allows you not to be so constrained forces the enemy to consider more avenues of approach, diluting their efforts. The more I read about the various IED threats is that defeating them with more and more armour on a vehicle becomes a losing scenario. Not sacrificing mobility to protection seems the best way to go and spending the money on active countermeasures.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> MOBILITY, protection and firepower. Seems one is lost to gain the other. Mobility that allows you not to be so constrained forces the enemy to consider more avenues of approach, diluting their efforts. The more I read about the various IED threats is that defeating them with more and more armour on a vehicle becomes a losing scenario. Not sacrificing mobility to protection seems the best way to go and spending the money on active countermeasures.



I remember reading an article about some poor American soldier who was so happy that he had his MRAP to protect him because he had been blown up multiple times during his tours.  

My immediate thought was: Why?  Why do you persist in running up and down the same rabbit runs so that your movements can be plotted?  I get that there may be places where manoeuvre is constrained by terrain.  

The alternative, it seemed to me, was to stay away from the rabbit runs and use vehicles that aren't so constrained.  Landrovers didn't work so well in towns and on roads but still seemed to be acceptable in the deserts.  Same thing for the Jackal and Coyote.


----------



## RCPalmer

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I remember reading an article about some poor American soldier who was so happy that he had his MRAP to protect him because he had been blown up multiple times during his tours.
> 
> My immediate thought was: Why?  Why do you persist in running up and down the same rabbit runs so that your movements can be plotted?  I get that there may be places where manoeuvre is constrained by terrain.
> 
> The alternative, it seemed to me, was to stay away from the rabbit runs and use vehicles that aren't so constrained.  Landrovers didn't work so well in towns and on roads but still seemed to be acceptable in the deserts.  Same thing for the Jackal and Coyote.



It is definitely a "tool in the toolbox" scenario. The mobility, firepower and protection tradeoffs are significant, and to George's point, there are a lot of advantages in the quantity afforded by cheaper, lighter and simpler vehicle options.  It appears that the problems that we had with vehicles were more about how the tools were employed, which is more of a command thing than a procurement thing, rather than the vehicles themselves.  

I would assert that throughout the Afghan war, there was still a place for a "jeep" (ie small a lightly unarmored or unarmored wheeled vehicle) as a patrol vehicle.  In Kandahar City for example, moving from G-Wagon based patrolling to RG-31/LAV based patrolling reduced the available patrol routes and increased associated IED templating by an order of magnitude.  In spite of the controversy around Brits patrolling in Land Rovers, and the fact that they slowly introduced vehicles with additional protection where they were needed, to the best of my knowledge they still used Land Rovers quite effectively in situations where the threat could be managed.  

That said, in a COIN environment there are likely to be some elements of the force stuck on a few MSRs, whether that be due to canalizing terrain, or in the case of CSS elements, the limited mobility of some heavier B Veh.  Those folks are going to be extremely vulnerable to IED attacks, and they will need vehicles with protection tailored to that scenario.  My issue is not so much that we have decided that we need vehicles with those characteristics so much as we have tied some fairly disparate missions into a single vehicle (that we are buying a bunch of and spending a lot of taxpayer money on) that is not well suited to any of them.  

-Is it a sneak and peak recce vehicle? Not really, but we will use it for that.
-Is it a section carrier? Definitely not, though we are going to be forced to employ them that way.
-Is it useful as a protected support vehicle (CP, Mortar, Ambulance, etc.)?  No, but we will probably figure out a way to use them that way too.
-Is it a "Jeep"?  No, but it is likely the closest thing to a jeep our soldiers will find themselves driving in a high threat theater.
-CSS Convoy Escort? The TAPV actually looks like a decent vehicle for road bound CSS convoy escort, but that seems more like a niche capability that could be covered off by LAV, or perhaps a small UOR purchase to address a specific threat environment.


----------



## ueo

This question (why the same rabbit run) MUST be the basis for all future discussion. Its just that important, vehicles with varied capacities for armor etc etc are all going to get blown up if we do not somehow get it through our heads that to become predictable is to die. We get a bigger better vehicles  at great expense, the bad guys add another 20 lbs of easily available explosive and mines the predicted route. Who wins? This idea was, at one time, the basis for all infantry patrolling, never use the same route twice as somebody will notice and pain shall follow. :2c:


----------



## George Wallace

New promo video (probably from CANSAC demo):

https://www.facebook.com/CANArmy/videos/1005190726239572/


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Not having been in one, I am curious what the ability to view all around it is/blind spots to observation.  Having optics are great but you get a 'straw' view.  And everyone can get sucked into looking down that straw to the detriment of SA.


----------



## Franko

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Not having been in one, I am curious what the ability to view all around it is/blind spots to observation.  Having optics are great but you get a 'straw' view.  And everyone can get sucked into looking down that straw to the detriment of SA.



Heaven forbid we get an actual recce vehicle, like a Fennek or Weisel.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Might be the LCF...how do they look with a nice UN flag on the antenna?   ^-^

Might be a good question to ask "Army Ed".  He should be all spun up on all things armour recce!


----------



## a_majoor

From the catalogue shopping department, the "Combat Guard" concept of the Israeli army looks like it would be a great platform for recce with it's high speed, high mobility and protection. At 8 tons it is half the weight of a TAPV yet can carry an eight man section, so using it as the base platform for an entire family of light vehicles would allow for economies of scale (it can act as a section carrier, be fitted out as a mortar carrier, ATGM platform and so on).

A version with the sensor suite or mast and a second one with the dismounts for close recce would not be too difficult, and the vehicle is designed to mount an RWS, so it has the ability to protect itself as a minimum (and adding something like a Javelin launcher deals with those annoying enemy AFVs that come to disturb the party).


----------



## PuckChaser

Does the 8 man section have to man the driver/cc seats as well? Might be the photo angle but looks pretty small to fit a dismount section in there. Coyote replacement potential for sure though.


----------



## quadrapiper

How loud is it, at cruising or creeping about speeds? Didn't see anything on Youtube without music or voice when the vehicle was running.


----------



## Underway

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Not having been in one, I am curious what the ability to view all around it is/blind spots to observation.  Having optics are great but you get a 'straw' view.  And everyone can get sucked into looking down that straw to the detriment of SA.



Last I spoke to a RCD MWO, I think the blind spots issue for "observation" was relatively minor.  To do recce properly you need dismounts and to get out of the vehicle and LOOK (so I was told, emphasis his, swear words removed...).  Can't do recce properly mounted.  I'm sure someone here will correct my if I'm off base.  But are these TAPV recce vehicles or observation vehicles.  There is a big difference between sitting in one spot and watching vs doing recce I would think.  I don't know if traditional armoured recce has a place in peace support or counter insurgency operations (which I'm sure TAPV will be pretty good at).  Observation certainly does.  Now with UAV's is traditional roles for armoured recce dying on the vine?  Can a TAPV do them effectively?


----------



## George Wallace

Underway said:
			
		

> Last I spoke to a RCD MWO, I think the blind spots issue for "observation" was relatively minor.  To do recce properly you need dismounts and to get out of the vehicle and LOOK (so I was told, emphasis his, swear words removed...).  Can't do recce properly mounted.  I'm sure someone here will correct my if I'm off base.  But are these TAPV recce vehicles or observation vehicles.  There is a big difference between sitting in one spot and watching vs doing recce I would think.  I don't know if traditional armoured recce has a place in peace support or counter insurgency operations (which I'm sure TAPV will be pretty good at).  Observation certainly does.  Now with UAV's is traditional roles for armoured recce dying on the vine?  Can a TAPV do them effectively?



To do RECCE you need to use all your senses; not just vision.  Enclosed in an armoured vehicle, or using a UAV, takes away your sense of HEARING, and to lesser, but just as important, SMELL and TOUCH.  When you do not have 360 degrees of vision, you are greatly hampered.  If you can't hear what is out there, you are even more hampered.  If you don't smell changes in the air, you may really be screwed.  Touch (although rather minor) could be anything from direction of wind, to any other factor that may affect your detecting a threat or approaching a threat.  

Size of the vehicle that you are using, and the noise it produces, are factors that affect if you are able to go undetected or not.   Do you want to be like an elephant bowling through the countryside, or a ferret hidden in the long grass?

The Armour Corps has been plagued for the past four decades with buying vehicles, not to match the Doctrine, but matching the Doctrine to the vehicles it buys.  This is one (or more) instance where 'Change' is not necessarily good, nor ideal.  Changes to Armour Doctrines, not only affect the way the Armour Corps does business, but all the other Cbt Arms and Support Arms.


----------



## Kirkhill

George:

Is part of the problem embedded in the identity of the Corps:  the Armoured Corps?

Would the issue be addressed differently if it were still the Cavalry Corps?

Armour is all about protection and specifically breaking sieges.  I think I can make a case that Armour could be primarily and engineering asset.

If troopers were still riding their vehicles rather than being encased in their vehicles, how would the Corps' tactics change?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

George Wallace said:
			
		

> To do RECCE you need to use all your senses; not just vision.  Enclosed in an armoured vehicle, or using a UAV, takes away your sense of HEARING, and to lesser, but just as important, SMELL and TOUCH.  When you do not have 360 degrees of vision, you are greatly hampered.  If you can't hear what is out there, you are even more hampered.  If you don't smell changes in the air, you may really be screwed.  Touch (although rather minor) could be anything from direction of wind, to any other factor that may affect your detecting a threat or approaching a threat.



So a Reece mantra would be like: "No one controls my fate, especially not one who smells of garlic and attacks downwind!"


----------



## Underway

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The Armour Corps has been plagued for the past four decades with buying vehicles, not to match the Doctrine, but matching the Doctrine to the vehicles it buys.  This is one (or more) instance where 'Change' is not necessarily good, nor ideal.  Changes to Armour Doctrines, not only affect the way the Armour Corps does business, but all the other Cbt Arms and Support Arms.



This seems like a self inflicted wound.  RECCE vehicles by the national procurement budget are very cheap relative to other procurements we are currently arguing about (Fighter and ship programs).  They would be a rounding error on one of those.  The TAPV is goodreplacement for the RG and some of the other lighter vehicles in the fleet but as you so eloquently put it, is probably an elephant for RECCE.  I'm sure with a mast as a mobile OP it's a fine Coyote replacement.  But from what you said the G-Wagon is a better RECCE vehicle.

So why is this?  Is the doctrine held and applied by the NCO's and the officers forget it when they are promoted or something?  What are they teaching you on AOC these days?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Underway said:
			
		

> Last I spoke to a RCD MWO, I think the blind spots issue for "observation" was relatively minor.  To do recce properly you need dismounts and to get out of the vehicle and LOOK (so I was told, emphasis his, swear words removed...).  Can't do recce properly mounted.  I'm sure someone here will correct my if I'm off base.  I don't know if traditional armoured recce has a place in peace support or counter insurgency operations (which I'm sure TAPV will be pretty good at).  Observation certainly does.  Now with UAV's is traditional roles for armoured recce dying on the vine?  Can a TAPV do them effectively?



I used to do mud recce (it's been a few years, so the drills, etc I am talking about may have been superseded or changed); I don't consider any blind spot to observation a good thing, but I'd be more concerned if they were between 9 to 3 o'clock.  Yes, there are times you dismount doing recce and other times you don't, but that has SFA to be blind spots to the pers remaining mounted.  If I am dismounted doing a defile drill, the mounted pers aren't doing the same thing and watching/eyes on the same area as I am.  

You certainly can do armd recce properly while mounted.  There are drills the require pers to dismount (defile, gap, blind corner, etc) during a recce.  There are also degrees of search (am I observing into the gap, or do I need to physically walk the gap itself.  DOS normal, DOS intense) that determine how much dismtd stuff you do, and a Rate of Advance you have to consider or suddenly you might have the main body looking at you, 100m to your rear with a 'holy f**kballs, get moving!!!!!' look on their face.  Well, not really.  4 or 49 would likely have told you to get your shit together long before that happened.  Point being, you have to move fwd at a certain rate (depending on the task and en, of course).

It's like the difference between doing a route recce hatches up or hatches down.  Much better observation hatches up, and better observation = armd recce doing their job better.



> But are these TAPV recce vehicles or observation vehicles.  There is a big difference between sitting in one spot and watching vs doing recce I would think.



Recce vehicles are by nature of armd recce tasks "observation vehicles".  Recce also does O.P.s (Observation Posts).  I've done dismounted and mounted O.P.s and you want at least 2 heads out of hatches to do it properly.  

An Armoured Recce Sqn can do a fairly sizeable mixed bag of tasks.  RAPZ (Route, Area, Point, Zone) Recce's are just part of it.  Flank surveillance or flank guard if reinforced.  Rear Area Security.  TCPs.  O.P. screens.  Convoy/VIP Escort.  

Recce Sqns/Troops can be doing a Route Recce one minute, get radio orders to move into a mounted O.P. screen the next.  So they may be changing from "sitting in one spot" to "doing moving, mounted recce" in a very short timeframe.  Even during a mounted route recce that is "Normal degree of search", they are changing between sitting in one spot/watching and what you call "doing recce" between bounds.  Leapfrog is a tactical movement we used lots where you would leap ahead past the lead callsign 1 tactical bound, who is sitting in a position of observation watching and listening ahead into the area you are going to move into (the "bound", the next position forward, dominating ground, where you can be supported either visually or by the main armament of the callsign to your rear).  This can be done down to the patrol (2 veh's) level, with one veh moving, one veh stationary observing/covering.  There is no easy distinction for Armd Recce between 'observing' and 'doing recce', they are both part of each other.

I've done mud recce in a few different veh's, the GWagon included and I thought it was garbage as a recce veh.  The design rendered the observer incapable of actually observing; the crew commander needs to be out the hatch, the doors and windshield didn't drop like it did in the Iltis, there was no air sentry hatch like a Bison or family hatch like a track for the observer to poke his/her head out of.  It was crap for mud recce. 

For ability to observe and as George points out LISTEN, dismount and mount quickly, to creep along quietly and do the "see without being seen" stuff, the Iltis had some strengths.  It had zero protection, not as good mobility as a track or 8 wheel AFV (but she would still go places with a good driver).  

Everyone has a big hard-on these days for 'sensors'.  EO/IR etc are good but they are STRAWS.  You have GREAT SA on one little particular spot, that's it.  Recce veh's do not want the limited SA a UAV has (most of them, at this time).  

I've said before and I'll say it again...the Bison was a great mud recce veh.  8 wheel drive, capable of swimming.  You could be doing x-country at 10km/hour, flip a few switches to turn on your marine drive and raise your splash guard, ford across a waterway, flip a few switches down, and be doing 120km/h now down a MSR all inside a few minutes.  There was room for kit;  NODLRs, the dismtd version of the Coyote mast, ammo, water, rats, batteries, you name it.  It was limited to a C6 on the slew ring, but you could carry some extra SRAAWs and you usually had comm's with a Golf c/s.

The problem is/has been IMO that we do not buy veh's that support doctrine, we get veh's and then have to adjust doctrine/TTPs around them.  Back-arsewards.

Last point;  I've been on a route recce before (on exercise in the Lawfield) and detected an En callsign when they started up...behind us.  IMO you need to be able to observe (as much as possible) all around, and hear.  We were in a Bison on that particular trace, and if we'd been sitting in our posn of obs with the diesel idling, I doubt we would have heard them.  My Obs/JAFO was in one of the air sentry hatches with his headset off one of his ears, and he heard it.   :2c:

The Iltis was awesome for ability to see/hear all around you.  You just died quickly in it from any threat (even c/s Bear who was after your rations  :nod


----------



## Kirkhill

> There was room for kit;  NODLRs, the dismtd version of the Coyote mast, ammo, water, rats, batteries, you name it.  It was limited to a C6 on the slew ring, but you could carry some extra SRAAWs and you usually had comm's with a Golf c/s.



One of my pet peeves is the notion of permanently fixing gear to vehicles.  It removes a lot of options.  There may be advantages but now the capabilities of the attached system are no longer available unless you can get the attached 20 tonne anchor into position as well.


----------



## George Wallace

Underway said:
			
		

> So why is this?  Is the doctrine held and applied by the NCO's and the officers forget it when they are promoted or something?  What are they teaching you on AOC these days?



Procurement is not always done following the advice of the end users, NCO or officer.  Often we have people making the decisions on what to buy solely on costs, not advice of the SME's.


----------



## George Wallace

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> So a Reece mantra would be like: "No one controls my fate, especially not one who smells of garlic and attacks downwind!"



Well.....you smell something sweet in the air that could be a sign of a chemical agent, then you know what to do......although the smell coming off the CC, depending on what they ate, could throw you off at times as well.   [

Sulfur Mustard - includes mustard gas, usually odorless and colorless in pure form but yellowish-brown with an odor reminiscent of the mustard plant, garlic, or horseradish when used in warfare

Chlorine Gas - pale greenish gas with a suffocating, unpleasant odor, similar to chlorine bleach

3-quinuclidinyl benzilate (QNB or NATO BZ or Iraqi Agent 15) - odorless incapacitating agent

Lewisite - WWI blister agent that smells strongly of geraniums

Phosgene Oxime - blister agent with an irritating smell, though somewhat of mown hay or cut green corn

arin - extremely toxic odorless nerve agent

VX - probably the most toxic nerve agent, odorless

Soman - nerve gas that smells like Vicks VapoRub or rotting fruit, depending on who you ask

Tabun - highly toxic nerve agent with a faint fruity smell, though odorless when pure

Zyklon B - hydrogen cyanide-containing blood agent, famous for its use in Nazi death camps, which has a bitter almond odor (not everyone has the ability to smell it though)

Hydrogen Sulfide - blood agent that smells of rotten eggs

Adamsite or DM - odorless riot control agent that causes vomiting and sneezing

CS Gas - tear gas, odorless


----------



## MilEME09

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> One of my pet peeves is the notion of permanently fixing gear to vehicles.  It removes a lot of options.  There may be advantages but now the capabilities of the attached system are no longer available unless you can get the attached 20 tonne anchor into position as well.



Not to mention said kit may need power from your vehicle, which limits your operating time, or you are taking batteries to operate longer, which weighs you down.


----------



## George Wallace

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> George:
> 
> Is part of the problem embedded in the identity of the Corps:  the Armoured Corps?
> 
> Would the issue be addressed differently if it were still the Cavalry Corps?
> 
> Armour is all about protection and specifically breaking sieges.  I think I can make a case that Armour could be primarily and engineering asset.
> 
> If troopers were still riding their vehicles rather than being encased in their vehicles, how would the Corps' tactics change?



The Armour Corps can only do what it can with what the Government provides.  If the Government does not want to listen to the SMEs and buy something that they perceive as being a cost effective solution, they will and the Corps must adjust their MO to that purchase.  

Within the Corps, there are some problems with the abilities of some to do only one aspect, Armour or Recce, with some capable of doing both.  The Armour side almost disappeared when we sold the Centurions and purchase less than half the number of Leopard 1's, and then made worse when we were retiring the Leo 1's.  In 1980, the majority of the Armour Corps was doing Recce.  The purchase of the Cougar, was supposed to retain some "Tanker skills" but it was not a tank and did not operate like one cross country.  Skill fade set in.  

Tanks are there to engage the enemy with direct fire in support of the Infantry, with the support of the Engineers and Artillery.  Tanks are the best anti-tank system in the game.  They are not artillery, although they are capable of indirect fire.  They are not "Siege Machines" that the Engineers could employ, but they do have some capabilities against fortifications and other structures.  Tanks are also, with two or three radios, a useful tool in a Cbt Team.

Recce is to seek and report, not get into a fire fight.  Their weapons do not have to be heavy calibre, but a defensive tool if needed.  Their major weapon are their radios and the skills of the crew to remain undetected.  "Recce by Death" is one thing: either the Recce reports regularly with their updates or contacts; or they disappear from the Net and the CP knows that they were hit by something.  Either way, they have indicated where the enemy are.  

For years the debate to make them two separate Trades has gone on.  Fine if you have the guarantee that there will always be Tanks for the Armour and Recce Vehicles for the Recce; but our Government makes no such guarantees.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Not to mention said kit may need power from your vehicle, which limits your operating time, or you are taking batteries to operate longer, which weighs you down.



There is the option, too, of running your engine for XX minutes every X hours; not ideal in all situations, of course.  But better than having no comm's in the OP Base or becoming lay-back instead of conducting a withdrawl in ctc.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Typically, with mud recce, when you move to your next position of observation, you have a good look around, make sure of your spot, then switch off. You stay that way until it's your turn to move again.

As to size and type of vehicles, I found nothing worse for recce than the big, black exhaust spewing, jake brake noise of the current vehicles trying to do 'sneak and peek.'

I did mud recce in Ferret for years. If you want to do mud recce, that is the type of vehicle that should be used. We could go miles, quietly, in most any condition, without replen for three days. That is critical because armoured recce is operating medium recce in an area 30-40 km ahead of the FEBA or to the extent of the Brigade's AoI. They are, minimum, Brigade assets or Div. Not Regimental.

From the CFP 305 (2)



> 106. Concept
> 
> 1. Canadian doctrine holds that brigade level reconnaissance units should be lightly armed
> for self-protection, mounted in fast and agile vehicles, equipped with extensive radio
> communications and organized to operate a large number of sub-units in surreptitious
> reconnaissance. (Sounds like a Coyote, Lav 6.0 or a TAPV right? NOT! :facepalm
> 
> 2. Although, in garrison, the reconnaissance squadron will be an integral part of the
> armoured regiment, in operations it will normally operate independently under the direct control
> of the brigade commander.
> 
> 3. The reconnaissance squadron is required to provide information to the brigade
> commander and most tasks will involve reconnaissance or surveillance. Without important
> augmentation in firepower, the squadron has almost no capability to impose delay on a
> determined enemy. It can observe, report, maintain contact and provide warning, but little more.



However, no doctrine exists for mud recce. We've been winging it for, at least, 40 years. The Troop Leader's Guide to the Galaxy (The Reconnaissance Squadron in Battle) CFP 305 has not been updated since 1979, IIRC. Last I looked it still showed the T-62 and PT-76 as our main threat. Interim, draft doctrine has been attempted at times, but never got to the Queen's Printers.


----------



## blackberet17

I may have mentioned this before, but it ties in to the current shape of the discussion.

If there is to be advocating for separating the Corps into two animals - Tanks, Recce - then maybe the idea of "heavy recce" needs to find a new home, too. This was practiced at an ex the Armour School hosted two years ago for the three maritime PRes Armd Recce units (Hal R, PEIR, 8CH). Tanks were used with LAVs and Coyotes - and I think a couple of LUVWs (I missed it, I was on course), to test the School Comd's idea of heavy recce.

Recce by nature is sneak and peek. Or so I was taught. Not bash and smash. Unless someone decides "light recce" and "heavy recce" REALLY need to start finding their way into the Corps vernacular and doctrine...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Maybe a good place to start is a (reinforced with panzers) 60 Tp?  The 'concept' is already there (flank guard).


----------



## Eye In The Sky

recceguy said:
			
		

> As to size and type of vehicles, I found nothing worse for recce than the big, black exhaust spewing, jake brake noise of the current vehicles trying to do 'sneak and peek.'



Situation dependant, but I'd be willing to trade off some of the noise a Bison makes for the stuff it did 'better';  more stores, protection, mobility, an actual place to mount the GPMG.  A boiler vessel...who doesn't love hot dogs in the OP base without having to fire up a stove?   ;D

Although, with that said, I am just picking from the stuff we have had recently or have now.  I'd do something different if it was up to me.  I was a fan of the VBL myself.  One ea of the turret/turretless versions per Ptl.  50 cal in the turret.


----------



## Eland2

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Situation dependant, but I'd be willing to trade off some of the noise a Bison makes for the stuff it did 'better';  more stores, protection, mobility, an actual place to mount the GPMG.  A boiler vessel...who doesn't love hot dogs in the OP base without having to fire up a stove?   ;D
> 
> Although, with that said, I am just picking from the stuff we have had recently or have now.  I'd do something different if it was up to me.  I was a fan of the VBL myself.  One ea of the turret/turretless versions per Ptl.  50 cal in the turret.



I always thought that the VBL would have been a good recce platform for reserve armoured units. It's small, appears to be capable of doing mud
recce at a basic level if the terrain isn't too rough, and I doubt that it would cost anywhere near as much as the TAPVs do. So it would probably be fairly cheap to maintain and operate. It's rather jeep-like, so armoured recce crews used to running around in jeeps would likely not have to go through a substantial period of adaptation to learn how to operate the vehicle, nor would they have to adjust their TTP's much. 

It can also accommodate a proper mount for a .50cal HMG, and at the very least a GPMG, unlike the jeeps of yore which had a jury-rigged 
pintle mount located on the crew commander's side of the vehicle and could accommodate only a GPMG. 

I agree that the vehicle doesn't look like it has much room for stores or creature comforts like a boiling vessel. However, reserve recce units 
tend not to need to be self-sustaining in the field for much beyond 24 - 48 hours, so they could probably make do with only enough room to store two days' worth of rations and water plus a Coleman stove or two.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

We should have bought the VBL in the 90's, a similar vehicle would be a good replacement for the Reserves G-wagons.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Eland2 said:
			
		

> I agree that the vehicle doesn't look like it has much room for stores or creature comforts like a boiling vessel. However, reserve recce units
> tend not to need to be self-sustaining in the field for much beyond 24 - 48 hours, so they could probably make do with only enough room to store two days' worth of rations and water plus a Coleman stove or two.



6 pers, dismtd OP screen.  Need 2 x sleeping bags.  extra socks/t shirts/gitch & 1 x spare combat ea;  1 x duffle bag worth of stuff per crew.  Get rid of the old 2 burner stove for space if required for space.  MSR Whisperlite will do fine.  1 x pressure cooker.  rats, water, batteries, ammo, radios etc would take up the rest of the space.  Heck, add a small trailer if you really need it.   Very easy to estab and occupy the screen for 72 hours if you cut out the non-essentials.  Anything beyond 72, you have your RV for 49C or whoever to drop off the stuff you need, a relatively short hump back to your Base and you're good to go again (except for being sleep-fucked).  It is really easy to chuck an extra jerry can of water between your legs for the drive in.  On ex, for morale, do crew cooked rat drops every 2nd day in the RV.  Voila.

And...I didn't meant VBL for just Res mud recce.  Embed it into D Sqn and 60 Tp as well.  A TOW, AT mine, or round from any MBT is going to take out a CRV anyways.  Harder for them to find you to hit you if they can't hear or see you.

 :2c:


----------



## Kirkhill

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> 6 pers, dismtd OP screen.  Need 2 x sleeping bags.  extra socks/t shirts/gitch & 1 x spare combat ea;  1 x duffle bag worth of stuff per crew.  Get rid of the old 2 burner stove for space if required for space.  MSR Whisperlite will do fine.  1 x pressure cooker.  rats, water, batteries, ammo, radios etc would take up the rest of the space.  Heck, add a small trailer if you really need it.   Very easy to estab and occupy the screen for 72 hours if you cut out the non-essentials.  Anything beyond 72, you have your RV for 49C or whoever to drop off the stuff you need, a relatively short hump back to your Base and you're good to go again (except for being sleep-fucked).  It is really easy to chuck an extra jerry can of water between your legs for the drive in.  On ex, for morale, do crew cooked rat drops every 2nd day in the RV.  Voila.
> 
> And...I didn't meant VBL for just Res mud recce.  Embed it into D Sqn and 60 Tp as well.  A TOW, AT mine, or round from any MBT is going to take out a CRV anyways.  Harder for them to find you to hit you if they can't hear or see you.
> 
> :2c:



Just curious.

Do you need to jam 6 pers into one vehicle?  Or am I misreading you?  What is wrong with the original French model (replicated in Canadian Lynxes and British CVRs of 2 vehicles with 3 pers each?


----------



## cavalryman

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Just curious.
> 
> Do you need to jam 6 pers into one vehicle?  Or am I misreading you?  What is wrong with the original French model (replicated in Canadian Lynxes and British CVRs of 2 vehicles with 3 pers each?


Recce works in 2 car patrols, not as single cars, ergo 3 troopers per car = 6


----------



## Kirkhill

cavalryman said:
			
		

> Recce works in 2 car patrols, not as single cars, ergo 3 troopers per car = 6



Thanks for the clarification. Appreciated.


----------



## Underway

Doing a bit of digging around for armoured recce vehicles I came up with a very different set of lists and obviously approaches to recce.

US Marines, Australia us the LAV-25 for their recce elements, Australia used to use a Land Rover as well but has discontinued in favour of the G-Wagon.  The Aussies program to buy new recce vehicles are looking at the LAV 6.0 as a possible replacement for the LAV-25 so they are considering heavier recce elements than they currently have.

US Army uses Bradley's and Strykers.  The Stryker recce elements include an attached UAV call sign.

Germans and Dutch use Fennek's, and for "light recce" with the Germans the Dingo (with a bunch of variants like ground surface radar etc...).

British will be using a CV90 variant based upon their new vehicle competition, but are currently using the Scimitar.

Seems to me like a TAPV will be lighter than most vehicles listed here (Strykers, LAV's).  Why use a LAV for recce if its so damn heavy, big, noisy etc... and has all the flaws that have been listed earlier?  Only the Dutch/Germans seem to want to do recce with a doctrine similar to the "Canadian" way even though the Dingo is also relatively large vehicle.  Are other recce elements from other countries supposed to fight and not give way?  Perhaps everyone else knows something that we don't?  And if so isn't the TAPV close to the LAV-25 than the Fennek?  Or is it a neither fish nor fowl argument?


----------



## blackberet17

The Fennek appears to be a decent light recce vehicle (just from reading a few sites, incl http://www.armyrecognition.com/germany_german_army_wheeled_armoured_vehicle_uk/fennek_kmw_4x4_reconnaissance_armoured_vehicle_technical_data_sheet_specifications_pictures_video.html).

The Dingo sounds like a TAPV on steroids.

At least the Fennek has the low profile, basic armour, maneuverability, and observation suite (incl the windows forward) to be a more suitable "sneak and peek" veh than the TAPV.

Interesting how the Dingo 2 at 8.8 to 11 tons is almost half the weight of the TAPV (almost 15 000kg or 16 US tons). I haven't read all the specs, but yikes.


----------



## Kirkhill

https://www.facebook.com/ToyoTires/videos/1047629058625022/

George Wallace!  This ones for you.   [


----------



## George Wallace

Saw that.  Was wondering what kind of gun they had mounted on it, until they shot out the grappling hook to get up that hill.  Definitely has a lot of mods on it.


----------



## Kirkhill

Did the original Ferret have "free-wheeling" spares?  I thought that was kind of a cool feature on the Toyo version - reduces the risk of high-centering.


----------



## George Wallace

It only had one spare, and it was fixed.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

very much a Soviet and interwar feature, although as I recall the DAF trucks similar


----------



## Kirkhill

I recall the BRDMs have retractable belly wheels and I seem to recall a Dutch recce car with high axle, metal shod wheels that were powered sitting in about the same location as that shown on the Toyo Ferret.   But both of those added mechanical complexity and weight.  I like the relatively simple solution of just allowing the "spares" to free-wheel.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It only had one spare, and it was fixed.



With a 22 beer can stowage bin in the centre.  ;D  The driver and CC would have to down the other two during stowage.

We had Michelin(?) run flats. I don't think the Toyos are runflats.


----------



## George Wallace

recceguy said:
			
		

> With a 22 beer can stowage bin in the centre.  ;D  The driver and CC would have to down the other two during stowage.
> 
> We had Michelin(?) run flats. I don't think the Toyos are runflats.



Sadly the days that we bombed up with Green Grenades (Blue, depending on location) are long gone.

 [


----------



## MilEME09

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Sadly the days that we bombed up with Green Grenades (Blue, depending on location) are long gone.
> 
> [



and yet vehicles still have space for them, procurement priorities aren't matching reality again eh?


----------



## George Wallace

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> and yet vehicles still have space for them, procurement priorities aren't matching reality again eh?



They have thought of installing microwaves in  some vehicles these days, but not coolers specifically designed to maintain the grenades at a properly constant and cool temperature.


----------



## Eland2

blackberet17 said:
			
		

> The Fennek appears to be a decent light recce vehicle (just from reading a few sites, incl http://www.armyrecognition.com/germany_german_army_wheeled_armoured_vehicle_uk/fennek_kmw_4x4_reconnaissance_armoured_vehicle_technical_data_sheet_specifications_pictures_video.html).
> 
> The Dingo sounds like a TAPV on steroids.
> 
> At least the Fennek has the low profile, basic armour, maneuverability, and observation suite (incl the windows forward) to be a more suitable "sneak and peek" veh than the TAPV.
> 
> Interesting how the Dingo 2 at 8.8 to 11 tons is almost half the weight of the TAPV (almost 15 000kg or 16 US tons). I haven't read all the specs, but yikes.



The Fennek indeed does appear to be a decent recce vehicle, although I wonder how well it stands up to mines or IED's. From the way it is configured, it's definitely meant for classic sneak 'n peek mud recce taskings.

The Fennek was designed long before IED's became a feature of the tactical landscape, so to speak, and from just looking at it, I can't see any indication that it has any anti-IED protective features. That said, the Germans and the Dutch seem to have been able to use their Fenneks in Afghanistan with a fair bit of success, although I don't know how often they encountered IED threats in their area of operations.

Personally, I think the Fennek would be a fantastic vehicle for reserve armoured recce units, and an excellent replacement for the G-Wagens they currently use. The Fennek has a lot more payload capability and is designed to operate for up to five days without needing replenishment of POL and other stores.


----------



## Jarnhamar

With the tech level and availability of STANO/ISTAR in the world today isn't it much harder for recce elements to hide and employ stealth? Coupled with the battlefield being saturated with portable anti-armor weapons (thanks Russia and USA) wouldn't it make more sense to lean towards more heavily armored vehicles used in a recce role. With beefed up surveillance and comms packages.


----------



## George Wallace

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> With the tech level and availability of STANO/ISTAR in the world today isn't it much harder for recce elements to hide and employ stealth? Coupled with the battlefield being saturated with portable anti-armor weapons (thanks Russia and USA) wouldn't it make more sense to lean towards more heavily armored vehicles used in a recce role. With beefed up surveillance and comms packages.



Surveillance is not up front with the Fighting Echelons.  They are "in depth".  They "look over".


----------



## George Wallace

Eland2 said:
			
		

> The Fennek indeed does appear to be a decent recce vehicle, although I wonder how well it stands up to mines or IED's. From the way it is configured, it's definitely meant for classic sneak 'n peek mud recce taskings.



How about the Wiesel 2?






Wiesel 2 AWC - Argus reconnaissance vehicle


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> With the tech level and availability of STANO/ISTAR in the world today isn't it much harder for recce elements to hide and employ stealth? Coupled with the battlefield being saturated with portable anti-armor weapons (thanks Russia and USA) wouldn't it make more sense to lean towards more heavily armored vehicles used in a recce role. With beefed up surveillance and comms packages.



We had a great discussion regarding this about ten years ago springing from an article named "Trading the Sabre for Stealth."  I think that you have a point - US commanders during Gulf War 1, for example, ended up not leading with their HMMVW-mounted scouts due to their vulnerability to all manner of enemy fire. 

Regarding the TAPV itself, it could work well in a place like Mali. If a 3rd battalion ends up going somewhere like that they will suddenly want those TAPV!  I observed a wide variety of recce/patrol vehicles with the UN recently in Southern Lebanon. The Italians had a nice "truck" for patrolling, while the French had both the little VBL and some much larger wheeled AFVs.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> With the tech level and availability of STANO/ISTAR in the world today isn't it much harder for recce elements to hide and employ stealth? Coupled with the battlefield being saturated with portable anti-armor weapons (thanks Russia and USA) wouldn't it make more sense to lean towards more heavily armored vehicles used in a recce role. With beefed up surveillance and comms packages.



It is pretty hard to hide (completely) from things like airborne IR, just to name one.  Hides, FUPs, attack positions, etc stood out like 'campfires at night' to me during MR, or Ex CG on the east coast.  Not just veh's, dismtd pers are the same deal.  Your OP, LP, sentry positions...are all fair game.  Night is a 1 camera usually game (IR).  Day time, now I've got 2 more I can use.  Airborne ISR is a game changer IMO.

 Can the ground be 100% covered from the air?  If you have enough platforms, crews, if the weather is excellent across the battlespace...lots of ifs.


----------



## McG

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> The Italians had a nice "truck" for patrolling, while the French had both the little VBL and some much larger wheeled AFVs.


Was that an Iveco product with a striking similarity to our LSVW?


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

MCG said:
			
		

> Was that an Iveco product with a striking similarity to our LSVW?



It was an IVECO 4x4, but it was not an LSVW! I am not saying that we should go buy that one. It was, though, of a pattern similar to what we are calling the TAPV. It was very useful for patrolling in that environment.


----------



## McG

I was thinking VM90 or VM90P, but I now suspect you are talking about the LVM.  It is a decent looking truck.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

MCG said:
			
		

> I was thinking VM90 or VM90P, but I now suspect you are talking about the LVM.  It is a decent looking truck.



They were indeed LMVs (Light Multi-Role Vehicles) - good armoured trucks and effective at patrolling. My point here is not that we should buy these particular armoured 4x4. Rather, I am suggesting that the original intended role of the TAPV (essentially patrolling/liaison) is a relevant one. If we end up with soldiers on a blue helmet mission in Africa I imagine that the TAPVs will be quite useful.


----------



## MilEME09

Well looks like the first 6 finally arrived in gagetown.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Quick question; is there any kind of a air sentry or family hatch on the rear of the veh?


----------



## McG

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Quick question; is there any kind of a air sentry or family hatch on the rear of the veh?


The engine fills that space.

http://www.armyrecognition.com/us_army_wheeled_and_armoured_vehicle_uk/m1117_asv_guardian_security_armoured_vehicle_personnel_carrier_data_sheet_description_information_uk.html


----------



## Ludoc

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Quick question; is there any kind of a air sentry or family hatch on the rear of the veh?



The back of the vehicle is taken up by the engine. About half way back sits the rear sentry and they have a hatch. 

You can see where the sentry sits in one of the pictures I have (tried to) attached. The other shows the hatch open, it is immediately behind the RWS.


----------



## cupper

How much of a problem is having the spare tire on the roof going to be?


----------



## Kirkhill

Not half as much of a problem as recovering the flat to the roof I would think.


----------



## Ludoc

cupper said:
			
		

> How much of a problem is having the spare tire on the roof going to be?


I am very much looking forward to an exasperated Maint Sgt giving a safety brief to the Sqn the Thursday after some guy has the bright idea that standing the tire up and rolling it off the top of the vehicle would be a great time saver.


----------



## RedcapCrusader

cupper said:
			
		

> How much of a problem is having the spare tire on the roof going to be?



Well, we all know how great the LSVW spare tire system is....


----------



## Fishbone Jones

We had a very simple and effective system on the Queen Mary to get the generator up and down. There was the arm, couple of pulleys and some rope.     No fancy course or qualification  and less time to teach. Unlike the LSVW.


----------



## MilEME09

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Not half as much of a problem as recovering the flat to the roof I would think.



I foresee someone trying to fit it inside for the screw it factor, on the bright side, you have a flat, warm engine deck to sleep on


----------



## George Wallace

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> Well, we all know how great the LSVW spare tire system is....



Or carrying a spare on the LAV's.....Strapped to the front glaces plate or across the rear.  Even with the AVGP's there was the problem with the spare mounted, sometimes up top.  So this is not a new "Good Idea Faerie" occurrence in our AFV usage.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> We had a very simple and effective system on the Queen Mary to get the generator up and down. There was the arm, couple of pulleys and some rope.     No fancy course or qualification  and less time to teach. Unlike the LSVW.



It looks like there is a system on the roof already; folded down next to the RG RWS, above the Driver.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

I think that's the RWS system George....

As can be seen from this picture.....


----------



## George Wallace

I am not looking at the RWS, but at the arm that is folded down beside it, in front of tire, just back of Dvr hatch.  Seen on both those vehicles.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Seen I was looking in the wrong spot, I see the SWR on it now...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Ludoc said:
			
		

> The back of the vehicle is taken up by the engine. About half way back sits the rear sentry and they have a hatch.
> 
> You can see where the sentry sits in one of the pictures I have (tried to) attached. The other shows the hatch open, it is immediately behind the RWS.



ah does not have the narrow rear passage way like it's grandfather the V100/V150


----------



## a_majoor

The shoehorning of everything imaginable into a relatively small vehicle (with an awkward internal layout) is bound to cause problems in service. I had the opportunity to look at some proposals to fit out the TAPV for use in IA (particularly as a patrol vehicle for PSYOPS teams) and the results were not pretty (especially since we would essentially have to rewrite the doctrine to fit a team into the space provided in a TAPV, or use two per team). 

Sadly, we are probably stuck with this for the next 25 years before a clean sheet of paper approach can be instituted.


----------



## RedcapCrusader

I wonder if the tire is a blindspot for the RWS. Not necessarily it's sights, but it's barrel.

Looks to me you'd have to get the GIB to cover that arc with a pistol.


----------



## The Bread Guy

This from the Info-machine ...


> *Canadian Army conducts its first training on the new Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle*
> 
> August 18, 2016 – Ottawa – National Defence / Canadian Armed Forces
> 
> Keeping with the Government of Canada’s commitment to providing Canadian Armed Forces personnel with the equipment and training they need to carry out important missions at home and abroad, the first six Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicles (TAPV) arrived at 5th Canadian Division Support Base Gagetown on Friday, August 12.
> 
> Starting next week, the 5th Canadian Division Support Base Gagetown will start the first iteration of training on the new vehicle. The initial cadre training for operators and maintainers will be provided by Field Service Representatives from Textron Systems Canada Inc. with oversight provided by the Canadian Army’s Directorate of Land Requirements and the Combat Training Centre.
> 
> Following inspection and acceptance of the vehicles, the Canadian Army is now preparing to operate the TAPV. This initial cadre training is another phase in the delivery and fielding of this important vehicle. The TAPV is part of a fleet of multipurpose vehicles to be used in both domestic and expeditionary operations. They are mobile and provide a high degree of protection for the crew.
> Quotes
> 
> “As a former member of the Canadian Army reserves, I can speak first-hand to the importance of reaching this milestone in the TAPV project.  The rigorous testing that was involved in preparation to receive these vehicles has resulted in a design that will help to ensure our Canadian Armed Forces are well-equipped and properly sustained to succeed at operations.”
> Harjit S. Sajjan, Minister of National Defence
> 
> The delivery of the first six Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicles to the Canadian Army demonstrates our Government’s commitment to provide our men and women in uniform with the right equipment to do their jobs, while ensuring that taxpayers are getting the best value for their money.”
> Judy M. Foote, Minister of Public Services and Procurement Canada
> 
> “The design, purpose and the variety of roles the TAPV was built to perform will only enhance the capability of the Canadian Army and ensure our soldiers have the equipment required to perform their role in support of operations.”
> Brigadier-General Derek A. Macaulay, Chief of Staff Army Strategy, Canadian Army Headquarters
> 
> Quick Facts
> 
> In June 2012, Textron Systems Canada Inc. (Ottawa, Ontario) was awarded two contracts. One contract was for the acquisition of 500 vehicles, valued at $603.4 million, and the second contract was for vehicle support valued at $105.4 million.
> The Department of National Defence will procure a total of 500 vehicles with final delivery expected in December 2017. There is also an option for an additional 100 vehicles.
> The TAPV will partially replace the Coyote Light Armoured Vehicle, completely replace the Armoured Patrol Vehicle RG-31 and complement the Light Utility Vehicle Wheeled.
> The TAPV was acquired with the view to perform a variety of battlefield roles, including but not limited to, reconnaissance, surveillance, security, command and control, cargo and as a protected troop transport. The vehicle’s mobility and crew protection characteristics enable it to be employed within a wide spectrum of potential operational environments.
> The TAPV was chosen after a rigorous evaluation process that included testing for mobility, firepower, survivability and human factors, as well as a paper-based evaluation of other technical and financial criteria.
> The TAPV will provide a very high degree of protection to the crew while remaining highly mobile. It is designed to tackle tough terrain in any environment, providing troops with a cross-country capability, and a greater flexibility in traversing various routes.
> 
> - 30 -


----------



## Kirkhill

Does the CC have a duplicate set of controls for the RWS?  Can he/she see what the gunner sees?


----------



## CBH99

...NOT trying to turn this political in the slightest, just an observation...

But, Judy Foote - hate to break it to you.  Your government had nothing to do with this project.  While I understand you are the Minister now in charge of procurement, you had absolutely nothing to do with this procurement - other than to be minister when the vehicles were finally delivered.

Great job though, at patting yourself on your own back.


----------



## cupper

CBH99 said:
			
		

> ...NOT trying to turn this political in the slightest, just an observation...
> 
> But, Judy Foote - hate to break it to you.  Your government had nothing to do with this project.  While I understand you are the Minister now in charge of procurement, you had absolutely nothing to do with this procurement - other than to be minister when the vehicles were finally delivered.
> 
> Great job though, at patting yourself on your own back.



Yeah, but she's also taking heat for the crap pay system she got saddled with by the previous group. So just think of it as taking the good with the bad.


----------



## PuckChaser

I would say the Tories did that too, but did we have any procurement projects started in the late 1990s they could take credit for?

Also interesting that the TAPV "partially" replaces the Coyote. LAV6 as the other half replacement?


----------



## Ludoc

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Also interesting that the TAPV "partially" replaces the Coyote. LAV6 as the other half replacement?


Yes, there is going to be a Recce version of the LAV 6 showing up in the next year or so. It is designated the LRSS, unfortunately I don't remember what it stands for. Having talked to some guys in the know (I am currently posted to a Recce Sqn) it's new surveillance gear is supposed to be pretty impressive.


----------



## dangerboy

Ludoc said:
			
		

> It is designated the LRSS, unfortunately I don't remember what it stands for.



If I remember correctly from the briefing I received, it stands for Long Range Surveillance Suite.


----------



## MilEME09

Ludoc said:
			
		

> Yes, there is going to be a Recce version of the LAV 6 showing up in the next year or so. It is designated the LRSS, unfortunately I don't remember what it stands for. Having talked to some guys in the know (I am currently posted to a Recce Sqn) it's new surveillance gear is supposed to be pretty impressive.



So basically Recce Squadron is going from G-wagon/Coyote to TAPV/LAV 6LRSS, geez why not just give them a leopard with improved optics at this rate, keeps getting bigger and bigger


----------



## PuckChaser

Ludoc said:
			
		

> Yes, there is going to be a Recce version of the LAV 6 showing up in the next year or so. It is designated the LRSS, unfortunately I don't remember what it stands for. Having talked to some guys in the know (I am currently posted to a Recce Sqn) it's new surveillance gear is supposed to be pretty impressive.



Ack, thanks. Was hoping they weren't going to keep an orphan fleet of 'Yotes around, and glad they're upgrading the surv suite with the vehicle. Probably the only time 2 projects talked together in the history of modern CAF procurement.


----------



## blackberet17

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Ack, thanks. Was hoping they weren't going to keep an orphan fleet of 'Yotes around, and glad they're upgrading the surv suite with the vehicle. Probably the only time 2 projects talked together in the history of modern CAF procurement.



Jinxed it!


----------



## McG

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Ack, thanks. Was hoping they weren't going to keep an orphan fleet of 'Yotes around, and glad they're upgrading the surv suite with the vehicle. Probably the only time 2 projects talked together in the history of modern CAF procurement.


Given that the LAV 3 was upgraded to LAV 6 with enough left-over parts to assemble LAV 3 monuments, it is unfortunate that the Coyote (a LAV 2) was not upgraded to LAV 6 in the same way.

... or maybe it is not too late for that idea.


----------



## George Wallace

MCG said:
			
		

> Given that the LAV 3 was upgraded to LAV 6 with enough left-over parts to assemble LAV 3 monuments, it is unfortunate that the Coyote (a LAV 2) was not upgraded to LAV 6 in the same way.
> 
> ... or maybe it is not too late for that idea.



The Chassis are different.


----------



## McG

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The Chassis are different.


The same is true of a LAV 3 to LAV 6.  That is why there is a whole LAV 3 remaining as a monument when the upgrade is complete.


----------



## Loachman

Correct. Extremely little of the "old" vehicle survives into the new one. It is an upgrade in name only.

The replacement-by-another name is cheaper than what the US Marines are doing, which is an upgrade.


----------



## George Wallace

Loachman said:
			
		

> The replacement-by-another name is ........



 >

Our Federal Government is getting quite good at that in all Departments in the last decade.  Job Cuts got a whole new misleading name, if I recall correctly..... [


----------



## blackberet17

Shhhh! Workforce adjustment is like the Scottish play which shall not be named.

Or that Rowling dude, Volde--


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

You mean Ma...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h--HR7PWfp0&list=RDh--HR7PWfp0&index=1


----------



## blackberet17

Heh heh heh heh heh. Haven't seen that in ages, thanks!


----------



## dapaterson

Is it a bad thing that, even without clicking on the link, I know what it is and can see Rowan Atkinson, Hugh Laurie et al in my mind's eye?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

No:

It just means that, in the immortal words of Gilbert and Sullivan, you've "become an Englishman".


----------



## dapaterson

You mean https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKXtv2_IaCY


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Quite so, Old Chap.


----------



## cupper

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Is it a bad thing that, even without clicking on the link, I know what it is and can see Rowan Atkinson, Hugh Laurie et al in my mind's eye?



If you stay in long enough, you can become the very model of a modern Major General.  [


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> You mean Ma...
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h--HR7PWfp0&list=RDh--HR7PWfp0&index=1



"With this pricked thumb,
Something wicked this way comes."


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Well, it is what you get for asking for a "double, double", not of the Timmie's type, but of toil and trouble!

(Also, my Shakespeare is a little rusty, but I think it's in the plural. My recollection is: 

By the pricking of my thumbs,
Something wicked this way comes:
Open locks;
Whoever knocks!" 

But I could be wrong)


----------



## Kirkhill

In the name of merciful heaven.  I feel inadequate.  I was only born in Britain.   ;D


----------



## Underway

So how are the TAPV working out? Now that we've had them for almost 6 months.  What are the early results of how they work and pros/cons.

Also here is a nice article discussing some of the issues with using them:

http://natoassociation.ca/adapting-with-the-times-a-look-at-the-tapv-as-an-armoured-reconnaissance-vehicle/


----------



## MilEME09

Any one else notice we keep getting bigger with vehicles, our MSVS's are as big as the HL's and yet are a ML replacement, TAPV is bigger then the Coyote, I'm all for protection but whats the point if you are the biggest target on the block.


----------



## George Wallace

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Any one else notice we keep getting bigger with vehicles, our MSVS's are as big as the HL's and yet are a ML replacement, TAPV is bigger then the Coyote, I'm all for protection but whats the point if you are the biggest target on the block.



They are also losing cross-country capabilities......As if wars are fought on hard standing........ :


----------



## Eye In The Sky

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Any one else notice we keep getting bigger with vehicles, our MSVS's are as big as the HL's and yet are a ML replacement, TAPV is bigger then the Coyote, I'm all for protection but whats the point if you are the biggest target on the block.



On the flip side...protection is important too.  Most weapons and sensor (in the air, at least) will see your heat signature regardless of your size.  If I can't see your heat signature, I have a shot as seeing you on a few different RADAR modes if there is an undercast layer, etc.   Rare to find a battlespace with no airborne ISR operating over it.  The ability for things like Reapers to loiter for a longggggggggg time, locate/track/classify/designate/target an AFV is only improving.  Cross-cueing between various assets is fairly lethal for ground targets as well.

I'm not that up to snuff on ground based *anti-AFV* man portable system anymore, but surely there are thermal/IR SSMs there days that the protection is designed to increase survivability from these days, not to mention VBIEDs which are pretty common on the battlefields of today as well.

Case in point...2 examples.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEjL8nnu5j8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33Am3GE3a1I


----------



## Kirkhill

But can you really armour-plate yourself to invulnerability?  Or is it really just matter of choosing between piling on the armour so that you can get closer to the objective before having to dismount and, ont the other hand, not being able being able to get close to the objective because you are so big you can be seen at long ranges and so heavy you can't navigate the terrain?

I am not convinced that there is any vehicle out there that can survive for long against top-attack weapons of any caliber launched by any platform.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

That's the real crappy end of the crap stick, isn't it?  Deciding what threat to worry about, knowing you can't defeat them all, or even some of them.  If there is the ability to kill MBTs, well...how do you decide between level of protection against speed/mobility?  Are you even trying to protect against the air threat, or just the ground stuff (below .50cal rounds, fragmentation from arty, etc)?


----------



## Kirkhill

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> That's the real crappy end of the crap stick, isn't it?  Deciding what threat to worry about, knowing you can't defeat them all, or even some of them.  If there is the ability to kill MBTs, well...how do you decide between level of protection against speed/mobility?  Are you even trying to protect against the air threat, or just the ground stuff (below .50cal rounds, fragmentation from arty, etc)?



It is often argued that the machine-gun killed the old cavalry but the old cavalry, which relied on mass and required concentration to deliver effect had already proved itself vulnerable to English archers, Spanish musketeers and British Shrapnel (from 1804).  The internal combustion engine gave the concept a new lease on life because more horses could be harnessed to carry the plate for one Knight - but at a heck of a capital cost.

Now the capital cost keeps going up, resulting in fewer targets (sorry, vehicles) with a tendency to try and put more people under cover (thereby concentrating forces while they are ineffective).

The historical solution to the problem has been dispersal while increasing lethality by concentrating effective fires.

The Agincourt bowmen gave way to the Spanish Tercio which gave way to the 
lines of Gustav Adolph and Maurice of Nassau which gave way to Wellingtons two rank firing lines which gave way to Craufurd's rifles.   And the artillery evolved to the netted system of fires from distributed firing points we have today.

The secret to winning, in my humble opinion, is The Shell Game - only you increase the number of shells and peas and make the peas more lethal.  Or putting it another way - firepower and mobility over protection and increase the numbers available (possible by reducing the costs of the vehicles).


----------



## MilEME09

So role how we did in WWII with shermans, the concept i mean, mass produce tons of vehicles which may not have the best protection, but gets the job done.


----------



## Old Sweat

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> So role how we did in WWII with shermans, the concept i mean, mass produce tons of vehicles which may not have the best protection, but gets the job done.



In my opinion the Allies made a major error in sealing the Sherman design so they fought the rest of the war with a tank that was successful in 1942, but was outmatched by improved German models of the Mk IV as well as Panthers and Tigers by 1944. Reflect on how Normandy could have gone if our tanks had guns equivalent to the 76s on the Mk IVs and Panthers, let along the 88s on the Tigers.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> The secret to winning, in my humble opinion, is The Shell Game - only you increase the number of shells and peas and make the peas more lethal.  Or putting it another way - firepower and mobility over protection and increase the numbers available (possible by reducing the costs of the vehicles).



And there are some new kinds of peas out there now that can disrupt, and other peas that can kill...

Mini-versions of systems like this could very well be the cam and concealment of the future.


----------



## MilEME09

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> In my opinion the Allies made a major error in sealing the Sherman design so they fought the rest of the war with a tank that was successful in 1942, but was outmatched by improved German models of the Mk IV as well as Panthers and Tigers by 1944. Reflect on how Normandy could have gone if our tanks had guns equivalent to the 76s on the Mk IVs and Panthers, let along the 88s on the Tigers.



Which is why we never deployed the Ram II to Europe, while the 6 pdr gun wasn't bad, it wasn't good either, Canadian forces experimented with a 25 pdr AT gun in 1942 but the british told us it was a dumb idea and a waste of resources, in hind site a 25 pdr AT gun would of dealt with most axis armour for the rest of the war. I do agree with you though, serious political infighting delayed Pershing from getting to europe, ditto for delays in the centurion program.


----------



## Old Sweat

And the Brits missed a propaganda coup as the 25-pounder had a calibre of 88mm.


----------



## Underway

The vehicles are getting bigger and heavier for a few reasons IMHO:

1)  We (as a society) are terrified of casualties, therefore to reduce casualties we make bigger vehicles with more armour

2)  We are incapable of explaining to the gov't and/or public the advantages of hide and peak - look at how the SOF Ultralight vehicles are being received (they don't have any doors!! OMG 1011011!!! they will all bee DED!!!)

3) Traditional mud armoured recce is not in vogue right now.  Its surveillance armour combined with UAV's that are all the rage.  Surveillance packages generally need bigger vehicles to work from.

4)  In a modern warfare situation, it has been hypothesized that ATGMs and IED's have made the battlefield   too deadly for anything but heavily armored vehicles.


> “In the two most recent cases of hybrid warfare — the 2006 Second Lebanon War and Operation Cast Lead in Gaza — heavy armored formations were the only units able to maneuver on a battlefield where an adversary had an effective standoff weapons capability, particularly [anti-tank guided missiles] and [man-portable air-defense systems].”



5) We've learned hard lessons that in a peace support operation, mines and IED's provide the most probable threat.  Lighter vehicles are very susceptible to these types of attacks and mobility generally, doesn't help against them.

6) With new thermal tech, Battlefield Surveillance Radars that ignore folliage etc.. how can you hide a small vehicle?  Just assume you can't and use a big armoured one.

7) If you are going to only have a few vehicle types in your fleet with variants then you might as well make them big and armoured.

 :2c:


----------



## George Wallace

Underway said:
			
		

> 7) If you are going to only have a few vehicle types in your fleet with variants then you might as well make them big and armoured.



The unfortunate part of this logic is:

there are more munitions out there to kill this small amount of vehicles; whereas

if you had a large number of troops and vehicles, the numbers of targets being engaged have increased and the amount of munitions required to neutralize them would become too cumbersome for a defending force to have on hand at that particular moment.  

People die in war.  We have to accept that we will have casualties.  A small number of highly trained troops in a small number of vehicles would become cannon fodder.  A large number of qualified troops, in a large number of vehicles, would likely provide a greater chance of success, than the few heavily armed/protected vehicles in the fleets we tend to be drifting towards.  Cold War Warriors would understand this concept.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Maybe we can contract a company to finish designing and manufacturing Germany's WW2 era 1000-ton Krupp P 1000 "Ratte".


----------



## Karel Doorman

For G-wagon(partial) replacement "we"(Dutch)bought about 550(if i got the number right,but thereabout) of these "Tonka" trucks  [lol:   for our army and special forces.(It's designed by a former Paris-Dakar racer)

Maybe an idea for Canada aswell?Ladies and Gentleman may i introduce "the Vector"


https://youtu.be/x4nLbHXccTM


----------



## MilEME09

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Maybe we can contract a company to finish designing and manufacturing Germany's WW2 era 1000-ton Krupp P 1000 "Ratte".


Why not build the Chimera AFV from the corp 86 report? Might as well, and while we are at it, a LAV 6 mortor carrier, armoured ambulance, ARV, TOW, and MMEV.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> In my opinion the Allies made a major error in sealing the Sherman design so they fought the rest of the war with a tank that was successful in 1942, but was outmatched by improved German models of the Mk IV as well as Panthers and Tigers by 1944. Reflect on how Normandy could have gone if our tanks had guns equivalent to the 76s on the Mk IVs and Panthers, let along the 88s on the Tigers.



The design continued to evolve, the problem was that neither the senior unit leadership or the Ordnance Board correctly anticipated the threat of the newer German tanks, few as there were. The 76mm on the US Sherman was actually capable of more penetration and MV, but at the price of more barrel wear, they choose to preserve the barrel at the expense of performance. They also did not see the need for the 76mm Shermans to be part of the invasion, partly due to less than expected performance of the gun. There was some semi-justified concern about having 2 types of tank ammo required, but the Brits worked it out with 3 types (6 pdr, 75 and 17pdr) Another issue was the US rejection of the tactical doctrine of placing a Firefly in each troop, preferring to cluster TD's together. It would have been better to have at least 1 76mm armed Sherman with higher M/V ammo per troop in the US armored units.


----------



## Old Sweat

The Anglo-Canadian forces also were at a disadvantage because of the 76mm mounted on the majority of the Shermans in Normandy. See the tables on pages 374 and 375 of No Holding Back in Appendix A The Dilemma of Normandy. I got thinking about this again because a Brit military history magazine asked me to do a short article on Who Killed Michael Wittmann? Unfortunately there is a school of thought in the UK that considers any attempt to suggest it was not the 1st Northamptonshire Yeomanry as akin to an attempt to repeal the Magna Carta, so  I an unlikely to be invited to the Palace for tea anytime soon.


----------



## a_majoor

The quantity vs quality argument raises its ugly head again.

We are getting caught up focusing on the individual interactions (such as tank vs tank in Normandy). While individually a Tiger or Panther was far superior to a Sherman, the reality is the Germans had far fewer of them because building and supporting them was resource intensive, and they were overwhelmed or rendered irrelevant by the sheer numbers of allied tanks (they could not possibly destroy or even stop all of them, there were not enough Panthers and Tigers to block every conceivable armoured approach), not to mention Allied fighter bombers hunting them from the sky and Allied strategic forces working to cripple the logistical infrastructure of Germany. Now the shoe is on the other foot: NATO in general has gone for quality over quantity, and *we* stand to be overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of enemy ISTAR platforms, ATGM's and more traditional weapons (in one thread someone mentioned the most feared tank killer is the "Sprut" anti tank cannon, essentially a very updated version of the deadly "88" of WWII fame).

In one sense, we need to stop going down the rabbit hole of more armour, bigger guns etc. This is starting to look like the "Infantry Revolution" of the 14-1500's, when easy to use weapons like crossbows and then firearms, and new tactics, like pike formations, allowed masses of conscripted and relatively untrained men to take to the field and prevail against fully armoured knights (men at arms, Janissaries, Samurai) who required expensive kitting and a lifetime of training to be effective. Our bespoke military forces are like these knights of old, running into crossbowmen supported by pikes more and more often. One day soon we will be encountering "cannon" for the first time......

The TAPV is an awful example of this, it weighs 17 tons, holds 5 men (in very cramped conditions) and is pretty limited in cross country mobility. The Israeli "Combat Guard" _may_ represent a possible direction to go, weighing only 8 tons, able to carry 8 troops, having high cross country mobility and using active rather than passive armour to defeat ATGMs. We could conceivably argue for MTV's like the Bronco (just go where other people are less likely to follow), even smaller ATV's or even look at man portable weapons that provide light infantry the sort of serious firepower to make people think twice about tangling with the troops (accepting that operational and strategic mobility becomes an issue).

This really becomes an argument about doctrine and the organizational models that we need to adopt inn order to achieve the desired effects, rather than catalogue shopping for shiny kit (which I am horribly guilty of myself). Since the TAPV was seemingly purchased without a very clear understanding of what the desired effect of having these vehicles was supposed to provide the Army, it should be no surprise that no one can particularly think of how to employ it, and attempts to issue it out (like to the Light Infantry Battalions) have met with failure since it clearly isn't the right tool for that job. Retroactively rewriting doctrine to reflect the capability of the vehicle is counterproductive, to say the least.


----------



## GR66

Maybe lighter vehicles could benefit in an indirect way as well.  Our Army simply isn't large enough to play a decisive role in a major conflict.  That's no criticism of the skill and ability of our forces, but should a major war break out the brigade group that we could realistically deploy and sustain would really be a fairly small portion of the overall force.

In many ways the real contribution we make is political.  Putting our forces on the line together with our allies sends a signal to potential enemies that they must be prepared to face ALL of the West if they choose to fight.  

If that's the case, then perhaps a light force that can more quickly be deployed to a potential flash point and possibly act as a deterrent to a potential enemy could have a greater impact than a slower to deploy, heavy force.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

With shaped charge technology now known and utilised by the most unadvanced foes, there are only 2 solutions:

1.  You need your detection gear at the front of all movements to clear the the roads your guys will be using.

2.  You need a combination of aerostats above those roadways and ground mounted cameras along those roadways that we're responsible for to provide 24/7 overwatch so bad guys can't come back and plant more IED's after your detection gear has passed.  

If you do that, the vehicle armor used becomes much less important....


Matthew.


----------



## Underway

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Since the TAPV was seemingly purchased without a very clear understanding of what the desired effect of having these vehicles was supposed to provide the Army, it should be no surprise that no one can particularly think of how to employ it, and attempts to issue it out (like to the Light Infantry Battalions) have met with failure since it clearly isn't the right tool for that job. Retroactively rewriting doctrine to reflect the capability of the vehicle is counterproductive, to say the least.



I think that maybe we are coming at it from the _assumption _that the army had no idea what the desired effect was.  Perhaps the army got exactly what it wanted.  They wanted a more mobile RG-31 and they got one.  The priority was protection, followed by mobility, then the rest of the criteria.

Perhaps the army looked at what the main strategic weakness of the CA was and decided to get a vehicle that would mitigate that.  The weakness is casualties.  We take casualties and that has a strategic impact on the mission (as the population and gov't crawl over each other in their faux grief to prove who cares more about the troops). The RG-31 was bought for one purpose which was to move soldiers around the battlefield with minimal casualties from IED's and mines.

The CA looks at the missions the gov't normally wants us to do.  Put out/monitor brush fires all over the world.  The TAPV seems like it will be great for peace support, driving CIMIC and weapons inspection teams around, convoy escort duties and I'm sure it will work well as a _surveillence vehicle_.  I don't think anyone is arguing that it won't work for those operations.  

You also seem pretty quick to point out the Infantry don't know what to do with the vehicle and it's a failure. These types of vehicles often end up in the support roles vice the take and hold ones. The infantry like to pretend that they won't be doing those roles and tend to ignore that they could be working in a PRT type or FOB security setting.   _*I think they probably know exactly what to do with the vehicle. They just and don't like the type of jobs that the use of them entails.*_. I have seen no evidence yet that it's a failure.   It's 6 months into receipt of the vehicles.  That was basically why I asked the question earlier to update the thread.  What are the experiences with it and thoughts about employment now that some had time with the vehicle?  Offroad mobility, ergonomics, whatever....  Give us a review.


----------



## quadrapiper

Any rough ideas how the TAPV is likely to stack up as far as durability while cutting about on the sort of mission Underway describes? Will it be cheaper to maintain, on a miles-travelled basis, than other, more puissant vehicles?


----------



## Eland2

Underway writes:



> The TAPV seems like it will be great for peace support, driving CIMIC and weapons inspection teams around, convoy escort duties and I'm sure it will work well as a surveillence vehicle.



The M1117, on which the TAPV is based, was designed expressly for most of the roles you mention. US Army MP units used M1117's extensively in Iraq and Afghanistan for convoy escort and routine patrols. Some people don't recognize that routine patrols are not reconnaissance taskings and end up conflating surveillance with recce. Patrols are a form of surveillance and a means of maintaining the security of already-pacified areas.

Given that the TAPV is a pretty tall vehicle and has only modest cross-country mobility, it'll probably do OK as a recce vehicle in a pinch, but will do much better as a vehicle to ferry small numbers of troops, escort convoys, and carry out surveillance missions. 

In my (admittedly non-professional) estimation, the ideal recce vehicle is fast, has good cross-country mobility and is relatively small (so as to be harder to see and hit). It will have sufficient firepower to force enemy infantry to get their heads down and take out enemy recce vehicles of similar size and capability, and  enough armour protection to protect the crew against small arms fire, light and heavy machine gun fire, grenade launchers and shrapnel from artillery air-burst rounds. In an ideal world, it would have the capability to withstand light cannon fire, at least across the frontal arc of the vehicle.

Such a vehicle would also have the sensors and opto-electronic equipment needed to detect and monitor targets located up to distances of 8km or so, if the decision is made to set up a semi-static OP. Otherwise the sensors and opto-electronic equipment should allow the crew to detect and track enemy forces and movements while the vehicle is on the move. 

I realize I've probably more or less just described the Coyote, without respect to its relatively large size and the size and complexity of its surveillance gear.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The French solution 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





The APC version


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Eland2 said:
			
		

> In my (admittedly non-professional) estimation, the ideal recce vehicle is fast, has good cross-country mobility and is relatively small (so as to be harder to see and hit). It will have sufficient firepower to force enemy infantry to get their heads down and take out enemy recce vehicles of similar size and capability, and  enough armour protection to protect the crew against small arms fire, light and heavy machine gun fire, grenade launchers and shrapnel from artillery air-burst rounds. In an ideal world, it would have the capability to withstand light cannon fire, at least across the frontal arc of the vehicle.



I've been out of the recce game for a while, but I'll add:

- a good comms suite (double banked, RRB capability).  I'd beef up my veh battery capacity; nothing gives your OP base away like a running veh charging its batteries.

- swimmable and capable of fording at non-prepared site (tracked?  wheeled?)

- storage space.  should be able to store the veh for 3 days worth of fuel/food/ammo/rats/batteries and everything else you need for the multitude of tasks you could bounce between.



> Such a vehicle would also have the sensors and opto-electronic equipment needed to detect and monitor targets located up to distances of 8km or so, if the decision is made to set up a semi-static OP. Otherwise the sensors and opto-electronic equipment should allow the crew to detect and track enemy forces and movements while the vehicle is on the move.
> 
> I realize I've probably more or less just described the Coyote, without respect to its relatively large size and the size and complexity of its surveillance gear.



The Coyote surv suite isn't used when on the move (that I know of, at least).  Semi-statis (I think you mean Mounted?) O.P.s, it would be nice to have a IR/TI turrent, there may be times when something like a GMTI radar would work, other times it wouldn't.  

I always was a fan of the mobility of the Bison.  It could swim, it could do 120km on hardstand, stop, flick a few switches and be going cross country and *almost* as capable as a track with good use of ground and a switched on driver.  I always thought the loss of some cross country mobility compared to tracked was an easy trade off for never having to worry about throwing/breaking a track, speed, and 8 wheels with run-flats in them.  What the Bison lacked was firepower and surveillance *stuff*, but with a TOW on it and the surveillance suit a la backpack would have increased its ability some.

Both are loud, so if you're trying to do sneak and peak, its harder than it was with the Iltis.

I never thought the G-Wagon was suited to either task (surv or recce).   :2c:


----------



## Underway

Seeing a lot of TAPV rolling around flooded neighborhoods in Quebec on the news.  Nice to see the high ground clearance is good for something!  Any feedback from troops using them there yet?


----------



## Kirkhill

Just looking at Colin's post above.  

I continue to be amazed by proliferation of stuff.   I see nothing but corners and weak points.  Bullet traps.  Dust traps. Optics. Bearings. Pivot points.  Grease points.

King for a day solution to managing armoured vehicles.  Replace HE artillery rounds with paint bombs with non-skid sand mixed in.  Maybe add a bit of napalm for effect.   Those things aren't going to be much use if they are covered in sticky carbonized gritty muck that is still burning.


----------



## MilEME09

To many computer sims, not enough talking to experts, or maybe the troops who would actually use the kit


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

The TAPV was procured to provide a battlefield mobility solution for the Army.  Vehicles of its ilk have been used by others very successfully in low intensity conflicts around the world for decades.





















The vehicles were created to eliminate the need to do this:






I would even classify the French VAB as a variant of Patrol Vehicle, they seem to do just fine rolling around the desert:






Heck, the Brits figured out fairly quickly in NI the importance of having a vehicle that could get troops from Point A to Point B safely.






The French, South Africans, Portuguese, British, etc. Have all figured out what an Armoured Patrol Vehicle is good for, why is the Canadian Army having trouble wrapping their head around the problem?


----------



## medicineman

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The TAPV was procured to provide a battlefield mobility solution for the Army.  Vehicles of its ilk have been used by others very successfully in low intensity conflicts around the world for decades.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The vehicles were created to eliminate the need to do this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would even classify the French VAB as a variant of Patrol Vehicle, they seem to do just fine rolling around the desert:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heck, the Brits figured out fairly quickly in NI the importance of having a vehicle that could get troops from Point A to Point B safely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The French, South Africans, Portuguese, British, etc. Have all figured out what an Armoured Patrol Vehicle is good for, why is the Canadian Army having trouble wrapping their head around the problem?



The problem is/appears to be (optics wise anyway) that Canadian staffers (or their overseers) like to over think problems, [perhaps to] perpetuate them and then come up with unrealistic expectations of what we want or need at the pointy end...add to that our procurement process is like watching molasses crawl up hill in the dead of winter.  For some reason, everyone wants to take a relatively simple thing and make it complicated.  Army example - the C16...Medical example - the UNMO medical kit (pet project of mine that some knobber turned from something simple and small into something enormous and completely out to lunch MR).

 :2c: for what it's worth.

MM


----------



## Underway

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The TAPV was procured to provide a battlefield mobility solution for the Army.  Vehicles of its ilk have been used by others very successfully in low intensity conflicts around the world for decades.
> 
> ....some pictures went here......
> 
> The French, South Africans, Portuguese, British, etc. Have all figured out what an Armoured Patrol Vehicle is good for, why is the Canadian Army having trouble wrapping their head around the problem?



It doesn't seem that the mobility issue was the one that's causing the discussion problem (though they don't carry a lot of troops extra), it's the recce usage of these vehicles which most (and rightly so) are taking umbrage with.  They are going to be good for low-intensity conflicts (if Mali ever happens).  But for armoured recce well the jury is defn' out.


----------



## Remius

Underway said:
			
		

> Seeing a lot of TAPV rolling around flooded neighborhoods in Quebec on the news.  Nice to see the high ground clearance is good for something!  Any feedback from troops using them there yet?



Had a chat with a few 12 RBC types out there on OP Lentus.  Their take on it was cautiously pleased.  Essentially they haven't had enough time to play with them to make a full assessment but they really liked the mobility and handling and that they could get in and out of tight spots.  Time will tell I guess.  It's also incredibly quiet.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

medicineman said:
			
		

> The problem is/appears to be (optics wise anyway) that Canadian staffers (or their overseers) like to over think problems, [perhaps to] perpetuate them and then come up with unrealistic expectations of what we want or need at the pointy end...add to that our procurement process is like watching molasses crawl up hill in the dead of winter.  For some reason, everyone wants to take a relatively simple thing and make it complicated.  Army example - the C16...Medical example - the UNMO medical kit (pet project of mine that some knobber turned from something simple and small into something enormous and completely out to lunch MR).
> 
> :2c: for what it's worth.
> 
> MM



We have a habit of taking things that are shit simple and making mountains out of mole hills.  The C16 is a prime example, great direct fire weapon yet we procure this super complicated computer system to solve a problem that doesn't exist if we had just bought an automatic grenade launcher and also bought a new mortar system (literally one of the cheapest most utilitarian weapons systems on the battlefield).  Probably would have cost less money.



			
				Underway said:
			
		

> It doesn't seem that the mobility issue was the one that's causing the discussion problem (though they don't carry a lot of troops extra), it's the recce usage of these vehicles which most (and rightly so) are taking umbrage with.  They are going to be good for low-intensity conflicts (if Mali ever happens).  But for armoured recce well the jury is defn' out.



Actually it is a mobility issue that's causing problems.  We needed a vehicle that could get people from point A to point B over mined/booby-trapped roads and through ambushes, which is exactly what these vehicles are designed to do, Namibians and Rhodesians used to use these types of vehicles not only as machines of war but also as school buses for their kids because the rebels would mine/boobytrap the MSRs, just like the Taliban would use IEDs.  One of the reasons I always laugh at us talking about use of IEDs in Afghanistan as if this was some revolutionary new way of warfare?  Nope it's been going on since the Algerian War, but we just paid no attention because the Canadian Army had basically ZERO experience in counter insurgency operations before Afghanistan.  

What we are seeing in the Canadian Army is an institutional clash of cultures, the institution is fixated on conventional warfare in Europe because that is what it had known up until our brief foray in to counter insurgency warfare circa 2006-2011.  The infantry didn't want the TAPV because it wasn't an IFV, they see no use for anything that can't accompany tanks across the LD.  Likewise, rather than trying to work with the TAPV, the Armoured Corps see's it as a lemon because it isn't a recce vehicle or a tank.

The infantry may have shot themselves in the foot though because you can fit six TAPV's in a C17, how many LAV 6.0 can you carry?  If the Armoured Corps were smart, they would remarket themselves as rapidly deployable Armoured Cavalry Regiments


----------



## Kirkhill

But Humpty -

Adjusting to the TAPV would mean adjusting the section to fit 36 people into 6 vehicles.

How are you going to squeeze 10 bodies into 6 seats?  And what are you going to do with the 2 spare vehicles?


Now, if you asked me (and nobody is so I will volunteer myself),  if you asked me,  I might be considering something like 3 sections of 2 vehicles with one section being the Cmd and Spt section.  The 2 sections have a vehicle team of 4 (2 drivers, 2 gnr/cc) and 2 fireteams of 4.  The C&S section has the PL and the P2 with their drivers and 8 spare seats for the odds and sods.

But that wouldn't conform to doctrine.  Would it?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> But Humpty -
> 
> Adjusting to the TAPV would mean adjusting the section to fit 36 people into 6 vehicles.
> 
> How are you going to squeeze 10 bodies into 6 seats?  And what are you going to do with the 2 spare vehicles?
> 
> 
> Now, if you asked me (and nobody is so I will volunteer myself),  if you asked me,  I might be considering something like 3 sections of 2 vehicles with one section being the Cmd and Spt section.  The 2 sections have a vehicle team of 4 (2 drivers, 2 gnr/cc) and 2 fireteams of 4.  The C&S section has the PL and the P2 with their drivers and 8 spare seats for the odds and sods.
> 
> But that wouldn't conform to doctrine.  Would it?



The vehicle doesn't conform to doctrine anyways.  My personal opinion is we bought a lemon because we didn't conceptualize what we wanted before we bought it.  We could rip the inside apart to make it conform to what we actually want now that we've bought it, already did it with the LAV III so why should this vehicle be any different.  

Rhodesia Army based their sections around bricks of four because that's what they could fit in an Alouette helicopter.  Platoons were usually 8 bricks of 4.  4 bricks would fly by helicopter, other 4 would follow by ground.


----------



## blacktriangle

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> 4 bricks would fly by helicopter, other 4 would follow by ground.



So for us, does that equate to 4 bricks in rental vehicles, and 4 bricks on foot?


----------



## medicineman

Spectrum said:
			
		

> So for us, does that equate to 4 bricks in rental vehicles, and 4 bricks on foot without boots?



FTFY

MM


----------



## Karel Doorman

Colin P said:
			
		

> The French solution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The APC version



That's the one the belgian army is going to get. [


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Spectrum said:
			
		

> So for us, does that equate to 4 bricks in rental vehicles, and 4 bricks on foot?



My whole point is that they were flexible and reoriented their doctrine according to the tools they had available and to the mission at hand.

On the front of kit, we're in a very sad state in terms of the kit we have conforming to an overarching force employment concept for the Regular Force, I'm not even going to talk about the Reserve Force because at this point they exist to provide GIBs only.

The Mixed TAPV/LAV 6.0 Recce Sqns are a prime example.  Does the Army need seven recce squadrons?  Put all the LAV 6.0s in one Squadron for each Regiment and pool the TAPVs in to Armoured Cavalry Squadrons.  The TAPV would make a great vehicle for pursuit operations in low intensity conflict.






EDIT:  Early I said six TAPV could be transported by C17, it is in fact four due to the modifications we made to the Commando Elite series through Canadianization


----------



## Tow Tripod

I have heard through the grapevine that there is the possibility that the TAPV could be coming to Aldershot, Nova Scotia. I heard the plan is to bring up to 7 vehicles so that the Halifax Rifles would set up a training cadre. Imagine armoured reserve soldiers training on an armoured vehicle one hour away from Halifax. That could be a home run with regards to recruitment of reserve soldiers in Nova Scotia. 
Anybody else hear these plans?

Tow Tripod


----------



## Rifleman62

Imagine armoured reserve soldiers training on a new modern armoured vehicle one hour away from Halifax.


----------



## MilEME09

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Imagine armoured reserve soldiers training on a new modern armoured vehicle one hour away from Halifax.



thats apparently exactly what's happening, I'll believe it when I see it, but a couple might be heading this way to the PRes


----------



## Fishbone Jones

As per normal, you'll send them away on summer tasking and you'll never see them again.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The vehicle doesn't conform to doctrine anyways.  My personal opinion is we bought a lemon because we didn't conceptualize what we wanted before we bought it.



I don't understand your comment.

If doctrine was already written for g-wagon and rg-31, coyote, how is this different?

Thanks for elaboration.


M.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> I don't understand your comment.
> 
> If doctrine was already written for g-wagon and rg-31, coyote, how is this different?
> 
> Thanks for elaboration.
> 
> 
> M.



Because our Armoured Recce doctrine is still based around sneak and peek, neither the LAV 6.0 or TAPV are designed to do that.  

The LAV 6.0 is an IFV that we bolted a surveillance suite to and the TAPV is an MRAP designed to traverse mined/boobytrapped roads and drive through ambushes.  It's purpose is to get people from Point A to Point B unscathed.  

Mind you, I think our Armoured Doctrine is about 30 years out of date.  We'd do better retooling our Armoured Regiments in to ACRs.  

The TAPV will make a great vehicle for pursuit operations in the Desert supporting heliborne infantry but it's not much of a recce vehicle.


----------



## Loachman

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The TAPV will make a great vehicle for pursuit operations in the Desert supporting heliborne infantry but it's not much of a recce vehicle.





			
				Remius said:
			
		

> Had a chat with a few 12 RBC types out there on OP Lentus.  Their take on it was cautiously pleased.  Essentially they haven't had enough time to play with them to make a full assessment but they really liked the mobility and handling and that they could get in and out of tight spots.  Time will tell I guess.  It's also incredibly quiet.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Followup.....

Is there any talk of integrating light vertical drones with the TAPV?

It would seem that such integration along with the mast-based sensors would allow for greater standoff distances which would minimize the impact of the larger silhouette.


Thanks, M.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Point taken; however, I would hardly take satisfaction in flood fighting as a gauge of whether it's effective in combat operations.  It's an MRAP that we said is a Recce vehicle.



			
				Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Followup.....
> 
> Is there any talk of integrating light vertical drones with the TAPV?
> 
> It would seem that such integration along with the mast-based sensors would allow for greater standoff distances which would minimize the impact of the larger silhouette.
> 
> 
> Thanks, M.



I'd like to see us acquire Javelin.  You can mount them on the Protector RWS system used by the TAPV.  You can even mount hellfires on the Protector RWS. Combined with a UAV, even a micro one, it would prove a potent weapon system.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

This is kind of as segue into procurement, but structurally can the army not request "force enhancement" funding as part of an operations tasking and budget?

Example:  

Liberal government  says:  "You need to send a battlegroup to Latvia."

Army replies: "Absolutely.  But to perform the role you've asked we need to direct source the following items:  (24) Javelin ATGM launchers with (98) missiles with associated training systems, (12) Sky Ranger Turrets to be refit to LAV 6 chassis, and (128) sets of Saab Barracuda Camouflage systems."

Thus eliminating all the RFQ, regional benefits, bidding nonsense?


M.


----------



## CBH99

A vertically launched, small UAV that can stay fairly low & quiet...acquire targets...and then be engaged with a ATGM of some sort, fired from the TAPV turret?  

Now that sounds like a good idea.  Great for Recce with the UAV option, and able to take out more than just soft skinned vehicles & enemy personnel if SHTF.

**I'm pleased to hear they are a lot more quiet than I would have thought.

Smart thinking.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Hoe about small vertical uav plus Spike NLOS (as opposed to an ATGM requiring line of sight)?  The Israelis have already mounted on vehicles much smaller than TAPV.


----------



## Loachman

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Point taken; however, I would hardly take satisfaction in flood fighting as a gauge of whether it's effective in combat operations.  It's an MRAP that we said is a Recce vehicle.



Remius did not say that flood relief ops had been their entire experience with the vehicle to date. If "mobility and handling", ability to "get in and out of tight spots", and quietness were described favourably that would indicate that they've had at least a little chance to play with it in the field. Troops are more likely to complain about shortcomings than laud positive aspects, so any lack of complaints also indicates something.

I await further user reviews, of course, but the only one seen so far is not that bad.


----------



## McG

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> If doctrine was already written for g-wagon and rg-31, coyote, how is this different?


Doctrine was not written for RG-31.  We bought the vehicle to do a job for the mission in Afghanistan.  Then for some reason the army staff college started teaching that it was the platform for the light company in an independent BG and for the light Bn in a CMBG … but doctrine was not written for it.  Then somebody decided since we had it in Afghanistan we needed to institutionalize it with an enduring platform, and the distribution fit the staff college organization model … and still no doctrine was written.  Then, the infantry corps persuaded the army that the TAPV was a bad doctrinally for the light infantry, but we had already committed to buying at this point, so it is coming.


----------



## blacktriangle

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Mind you, I think our Armoured Doctrine is about 30 years out of date.



The whole concept of "sneak and peak" is a non-starter against a technologically advanced adversary. I've watched similar conversations on here for over a decade and they generally seem to ignore the realities of enemy EW and ISR capabilities. 

Without serious attention to signature management, and lacking support from GBAD or a Gen 5 fighter - you might as well do your recce in a tank. At least it hits hard and has protection (and you will need it, very fast)

 :2c:


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Spectrum said:
			
		

> The whole concept of "sneak and peak" is a non-starter against a technologically advanced adversary. I've watched similar conversations on here for over a decade and they generally seem to ignore the realities of enemy EW and ISR capabilities.
> 
> Without serious attention to signature management, and lacking support from GBAD or a Gen 5 fighter - you might as well do your recce in a tank. At least it hits hard and has protection (and you will need it, very fast)
> 
> :2c:


 :goodpost:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Spectrum said:
			
		

> The whole concept of "sneak and peak" is a non-starter against a technologically advanced adversary. I've watched similar conversations on here for over a decade and they generally seem to ignore the realities of enemy EW and ISR capabilities.
> 
> Without serious attention to signature management, and lacking support from GBAD or a Gen 5 fighter - you might as well do your recce in a tank. At least it hits hard and has protection (and you will need it, very fast)
> 
> :2c:



I've said this before in other threads.  If the sky is clear, someone will see you on foot from miles away on IR.  A vehicle running...good luck.  If the sky isn't clear, and I have GMTI and SAR radar abilities, I can still see you.

Cam and concealment is going, and should already be starting to, expand well beyond helmet skrim, cam paint and foliage on vehicles.  Airborne ISR is scary good and getting better.


----------



## Kirkhill

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I've said this before in other threads.  If the sky is clear, someone will see you on foot from miles away on IR.  A vehicle running...good luck.  If the sky isn't clear, and I have GMTI and SAR radar abilities, I can still see you.
> 
> Cam and concealment is going, and should already be starting to, expand well beyond helmet skrim, cam paint and foliage on vehicles.  Airborne ISR is scary good and getting better.



Given multi-spectral analysis is camouflage particularly useful?  Or, should you just revert to scarlets in the field?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I don't see a reason to stop using traditional cam and concealment...but the benefit of it is (IMO) severely degraded if someone has IR.  IR also has limitations, but unless you are completely out of sight, its hard to conceal yourself from it...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPMZZ2nJ_nI


----------



## blacktriangle

This concept seems to check some of the boxes that I'd want if I was going up against Russia or China:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_TPzN1s9FQ

A few things I'd have to read up on or tweak perhaps, but overall a step in the right direction. 

You will notice it looks nothing like a jeep, MRAP, or LAV.


----------



## a_majoor

The CV90120 which it is based on would also do nicely (and removing one of the ammo racks would give you room for 2 dismounts), and the ROK's K-21 IFV now has a 120mm armed tank variant as well.


----------



## Underway

Spectrum said:
			
		

> The whole concept of "sneak and peak" is a non-starter against a technologically advanced adversary. I've watched similar conversations on here for over a decade and they generally seem to ignore the realities of enemy EW and ISR capabilities.
> 
> Without serious attention to signature management, and lacking support from GBAD or a Gen 5 fighter - you might as well do your recce in a tank. At least it hits hard and has protection (and you will need it, very fast)
> 
> :2c:



So in your opinion then the LAV Recce option and the TAPV recce are fine, with their attached surveillance packages (big mast and all that)?  Doesn't matter that the vehicles are big and noisy because we are either going to be far away using EO/IR on a mast peering over terrain, or are armoured/armed enough to fight our way out of a light vehicle or infantry engagement.  Perhaps outfit the TAPV with a small RPV and don't go anywhere near the enemy formations.  I can see that working on paper.

But that seems like armoured surveillance to me, not armoured recce (_disclaimer: navy guy talking out of his a** here, take opinion with dose of salt_).  Can't really find or prove routes/terrain by sitting in one spot.  Air recce doesn't find minefields (generally) or prove the terrain that vehicles and infantry can move over.  Nor do they do all the other various things that boots on the ground do (identify jumping off points and securing them etc...some possible confusion with Recce Platoon jobs here...again navy guy).  If that was the case then Afghanistan would have been a cakewalk with all the air surveillance and air recce elements we had.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> The CV90120 which it is based on would also do nicely (and removing one of the ammo racks would give you room for 2 dismounts), and the ROK's K-21 IFV now has a 120mm armed tank variant as well.


My only issue with a 120mm light tank is that 120mm encourages you to hunt bear when you should only be able to deal with wascally wabbits.  Perhaps a 105mm version would be better as it can kill anything as light as itself, support infantry with direct fire but not be able to duel a tank.  And would leave enough space for 2 dismounts.

The UK might have it right with the Ajax as their armoured recce element.  40mm is stronger than most other IFV and recce element armour.  ATGM don't seem very Canadian budget or doctrine wise, so Bradley is right out. Perhaps a ground launched version of CRV7 instead.

Third hand info:  combat support elements like the TAPV, Recce not so much (big, noisy).  Any newer first hand info now that more have been delivered and they were used in the Quebec floods?


----------



## Kirkhill

Options for 120 mm gun mounts - 

The Gun on a Trailer







The Gun in a Tank






Future development options

The Gun on the back of a Truck






The Gun in an aluminum fire starter






4 different ways of getting the gun into the field so that it can punch holes in stuff.

I understand some people like to keep a bit of metal between them and the enemy.  Personally I prefer a hill.


----------



## Underway

Gun on a truck is my favourite.  At least it's pointed in the right direction so you can shoot at the tank while running away!

Just looked up the Australian LAND 400 program.  Their phase 2 competitors are the AMV35 and Boxer which are designated Combat Reconnaissance Vehicles.  Australia wants STANAG level 6 armour on the base model for their recce elements (which is why LAV 6.0 didn't make the cut).  Everyone seems to be going heavy.  Maybe we aren't heavy enough or are just doubling down on a middleweight force with some heavy elements.


----------



## Kirkhill

Underway said:
			
		

> Gun on a truck is my favourite.  At least it's pointed in the right direction so you can shoot at the tank while running away!
> 
> Just looked up the Australian LAND 400 program.  Their phase 2 competitors are the AMV35 and Boxer which are designated Combat Reconnaissance Vehicles.  Australia wants STANAG level 6 armour on the base model for their recce elements (which is why LAV 6.0 didn't make the cut).  Everyone seems to be going heavy.  Maybe we aren't heavy enough or are just doubling down on a middleweight force with some heavy elements.



Roger that on the truck.  Same here.

And with respect to the heavy vehicle - I would like to go on record as suggesting that the next vehicle project be named Mantlet.  "A mantlet was a large shield or portable shelter used for stopping projectiles in medieval warfare. It could be mounted on a wheeled carriage, and protected one or several soldiers."






PROTECTION, Movement, (FIREPOWER)


----------



## suffolkowner

http://www.mandusgroup.com/artillery_solutions/hawkeye_105mm.php

mount this on TAPV or LAV?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

So as a highly mobile self-propelled artillery?

Do they have a precision 105mm yet that would work?

If not, would it not be better to use a 120mm mortar?

Just to further that thought, I always wondered if it would make sense to create a second variant of the TAPV.  So the initial variate carries out surveillance, while the second variant carries out fire support support.  So take the existing design chassis from the surveillance variant, then modify a new variant with either the 120mm mortar, or with something like Spike-NLOS (not sure if anyone has seen the Israeli light design, but if they can mount 8 missiles on a Sandcat Truck, they should be able to mount at least that many on a TAPV).  Add a light C-RAM component and an integrated light UAV and ensure the whole unit would be C-17 deployable. [Off Topic: Still disappointed we didn't purchase more C-17's while they were available].


----------



## Colin Parkinson

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> http://www.mandusgroup.com/artillery_solutions/hawkeye_105mm.php
> 
> mount this on TAPV or LAV?



or this http://defenceindustry.co.za/2017/08/01/bae-sa-igg-uae-agrab-mk2-120mm-mobile-mortar-system/


----------



## daftandbarmy

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Options for 120 mm gun mounts -
> 
> The Gun on a Trailer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Gun in a Tank
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Future development options
> 
> The Gun on the back of a Truck
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Gun in an aluminum fire starter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4 different ways of getting the gun into the field so that it can punch holes in stuff.
> 
> I understand some people like to keep a bit of metal between them and the enemy.  Personally I prefer a hill.



You forgot 'The Beast' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvis_Saladin

I worked with Saladins on exercise in Cyprus. Noisy, but impressive!


----------



## Underway

Is there even enough space to put a 120mm mortar system onto/in a TAPV?  They look huge but I question their ergonomics and available internal space.  I suppose you could put a bunch of stuff in that area that leads to the rear "exit".

Video of a TAPV upclose  No internal layout shots unfortunately.


Reserve unit using an actual armoured vehicle instead of a glorified SUV.  Wonders never cease.


----------



## LightFighter

Underway said:
			
		

> Is there even enough space to put a 120mm mortar system onto/in a TAPV?  They look huge but I question their ergonomics and available internal space.  I suppose you could put a bunch of stuff in that area that leads to the rear "exit



There’s no room for a 120mm mortar IMO in the TAPV.  The cargo space is quite limited, especially if your crew/dismounts have day bags in the rear compartment in addition to ration boxes, ammo, etc.  

IMO, the TAPV is more suited to force protection/convoy escort role, and a urban patrol vehicle.  I can’t comment if it’s a viable vehicle for Recce or not as I’m not Recce. 


A better vehicle platform for a mortar would be a LAV without the turret.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Pickle Rick said:
			
		

> IMO, the TAPV is more suited for urban patrols and force protection/convoy escort.  I can’t comment if it’s a viable vehicle for Recce or not as I’m not Recce.



Not having driven this rig (nor will I ever...), I can't help but think it is not particularly well suited to x-country movement.  4 x roadwheels, and lots of weight, isn't necessarily a good combination.  Lots of weight and stuck = really stuck (usually).  I've done recce in jeeps, Bisons, M113 off the hardstand and of them all, my personal favorite for movement ability and flexibility was the Bison.  It could swim, it went from 4 to 8 wheel driver in a jiffy, it could do highway speeds one minute and then be crossing very challenging terrain in 8 wheel drive 1 minute later.  8 wheels all with power, it took some effort or bad luck to get it stuck IMO (or a driver who was too lazy to drop the TPs to 25 knowing they were going x-country);  I've had them on the go in pretty much everything from summer mud to winter snow banks.   It was also easy to command, with the CC seat right behind the driver, hatches for the air/NBC sentry/JAFOs, it had some protection from small arms, fragmentation, the weather and bears  ;D.  I could stand on the 'hood' beside the driver and edge the veh forward to just peak over a ridge...from the pictures, it looks like it will be impossible to get just a set of eyes over the ridge in a TAPV before the RWS/etc is visible on the crestline.

just some initial thoughts...however, I am sure the blackhatters are figuring out how to 'make it work' just like they did with the G Wagon and Coyote.




> A better vehicle platform for a mortar would be a LAV without the turret.



Like an improved Bison.


----------



## Franko

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Not having driven this rig (not will I ever...), I can't help but think it is not particularly well suited to x-country movement.  4 x roadwheels, and lots of weight, isn't necessarily a good combination.  Lots of weight and stuck = really stuck (usually).  I've done recce in jeeps, Bisons, M113 of the hardstand and of them all, my personal favorite for movement ability and flexibility was the Bison.  It could swim, it went from 4 to 8 wheel driver in a jiffy, it could do highway speeds one minute and then be crossing very challenging terrain in 8 wheel drive 1 minute later.  8 wheels all with power, it took some effort or bad luck to get it stuck IMO (or a driver who was too lazy to drop the TPs to 25 knowing they were going x-country);  I've had them on the go in pretty much everything from summer mud to winter snow banks.   It was also easy to command, with the CC seat right behind the driver, hatches for the air/NBC sentry/JAFOs, it had some protection from small arms, fragmentation, the weather and bears  ;D.  I could stand on the 'hood' beside the driver and edge the veh forward to just peak over a ridge...from the pictures, it looks like it will be impossible to get just a set of eyes over the ridge in a TAPV before the RWS/etc is visible on the crestline.
> 
> just some initial thoughts...however, I am sure the blackhatters are figuring out how to 'make it work' just like they did with the G Wagon and Coyote.
> 
> 
> Like an improved Bison.



I can tell you with some certainty that the TAPVs faired better cross country than the Coyotes and LAVs this fall on the crew commander course. You know there is a formula for figuring out ground resistance and the ability for a wheeled vehicle to go across soft ground right?

Also, commanding an unstabilized vehicle right behind the driver is the same as a TAPV, literally a joke.

Regards


----------



## a_majoor

Questions about the suitability of the TAPV for x country movement, carriage of 105mm cannon or 120mm mortars etc. are really a result of our shoddy doctrinal development. If we don't have a clear understanding of what it is we are supposed to do, and how to do it, then we will end up with unsuitable vehicles and equipment, in numbers which are unsuitable (too many or too few) and spend decades lashing things together in an attempt to make things work.

This is reflected in the endless arguments on these threads. Chris Pook is an advocate for Technicals and ATV's. I generally favour one or two weight classes up (Combat Guard, Broncos and CV-90 family) while there are advocates for much heavier vehicles as well (Leopards, PUMA's and so on). With the current state of our doctrine and government policy, the weird result is that _all of us_ are correct, so long as we stick to our starting premises, and there is nothing in the CF doctrine which really says that any of us are incorrect........


----------



## Underway

Nerf herder said:
			
		

> I can tell you with some certainty that the TAPVs faired better cross country than the Coyotes and LAVs this fall on the crew commander course. You know there is a formula for figuring out ground resistance and the ability for a wheeled vehicle to go across soft ground right?



There seemed to be quite the effort in ensuring mobility and protection in this vehicle.  Not so much for the hiding part.  Nice to hear that it's working out on the mobility aspect at the very least.



> Also, commanding an unstabilized vehicle right behind the driver is the same as a TAPV, literally a joke.


I don't follow, not being armoured.  Can you elaborate/illuminate what you are referring to?


----------



## McG

Underway said:
			
		

> I don't follow, not being armoured.  Can you elaborate/illuminate what you are referring to?


The "unstabilized vehicle" is a vehicle without a stabilized weapon system.  It cannot effectively fight and move at the same time. This is not an acceptable standard on the modern battlefield, but we still by vehicles with unstabalized weapon systems.


----------



## Mortar guy

MCG said:
			
		

> The "unstabilized vehicle" is a vehicle without a stabilized weapon system.  It cannot effectively fight and move at the same time. This is not an acceptable standard on the modern battlefield, but we still by vehicles with unstabalized weapon systems.


But the DWRS is stabilized.


----------



## McG

But the original  comment was made about the Bison. The fact that we are still doing it is demonstrated in the LAV 6 Engr which is just fielded without a stabilized weapon system.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Nerf herder said:
			
		

> I can tell you with some certainty that the TAPVs faired better cross country than the Coyotes and LAVs this fall on the crew commander course. You know there is a formula for figuring out ground resistance and the ability for a wheeled vehicle to go across soft ground right?



That's good news then;  you know me, I've been away from this game for a few years now *but* I still remember the x-country ability difference between a track, Cougar/Grizz, a jeep and a Bison. 

The formula...either wasn't around when I did this stuff or it was something I'd never seen.  I'd guess some of it relates to pounds per square inch, tire width, length between axles etc...I've seen when it doesn't work out so well and a 6 wheeled AVGP get stuck in places a ride on lawnmower could make it thru  ;D.

Glad the new rigs aren't useless x-country...I did see your posts earlier in the year on the FB and you weren't swearing too much about them so figured they must be 'ok'.  

Ref my concern/comments about "turret down" stuff...sensors are good and all *BUT* they are also straws.  Most EO/IR or TI systems are 'straws' and you don't get a very wide FOV even with the Wide lense.  Sometimes you will see something with the Mk1 that your turret won't pick up because it doesn't have peripheral vision.  We still man windows with crewmembers and use binos and NVGs because of this on the Aurora fleet.    (Not necessarily for you, but for others who haven't operated sensors and crewed a CRV/AFV before)

Curious what the RCACs thoughts are on replacing a 25mm armed veh with one that only has a C6 and 40mm gren launcher; not to mention the surv mast (I haven't seen anything about it having the same suite as a Coyote).

So lots of mobility for their size, protection for the crew and a nice big glowing target for folks like me looking down from above.   8)


----------



## MilEME09

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Curious what the RCACs thoughts are on replacing a 25mm armed veh with one that only has a C6 and 40mm gren launcher; not to mention the surv mast (I haven't seen anything about it having the same suite as a Coyote).




My understanding is there is a LAV UP RECCE variant, which will have the mast, however what they said at announcement years ago, and what we have on the ground are two different things.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> So lots of mobility for their size, protection for the crew and a nice big glowing target for folks like me looking down from above.   8)



Yep. If only you had rockets under your wings.  ;D


----------



## Spencer100

Hey here is a tour of the TAPV from a very "high" level  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoQPTECtwCk


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Yep. If only you had rockets under your wings.  ;D



Yup...have to settle for a radio and the ability to talk to people who can throw punches.   :not-again:


----------



## Kirkhill

Thucydides said:
			
		

> ...
> This is reflected in the endless arguments on these threads. Chris Pook is an advocate for Technicals and ATV's. I generally favour one or two weight classes up (Combat Guard, Broncos and CV-90 family) while there are advocates for much heavier vehicles as well (Leopards, PUMA's and so on). With the current state of our doctrine and government policy, the weird result is that _all of us_ are correct, so long as we stick to our starting premises, and there is nothing in the CF doctrine which really says that any of us are incorrect........



Awwww!! Thucydides mentioned me!   ;D

Just a minor point.  I do advocate the use of  "Technicals and ATVs".  But I also advocate the use of Very Heavy Armoured Vehicles of the Narmer HIFV variety.  My biggest problem is with the adoption of a Medium Weight vehicle as the sole/principal platform and then trying to expand its operational envelope well beyond its design capabilities.

I think where I tend to come adrift from most on the discussion is on the vehicle maintenance and support front.  I can't get myself too worked up about the perils of a mixed fleet.  To do so is the equivalent, in my view, of demanding that a tradesman get rid of all his power tools and make do with a single hammer because hammers are cheap, easy to replace and require minimal training.

So I prefer horses for courses and my "stable" sees a mixture of ponies, hunters and carthorses (none of your racers thank you).   I would be starting from a position of spending a third of my budget on each type and anticipate being able to buy lots of ponies but not as many hunters and carthorses.   Based on that then assign the requisite manpower.  With a defined set of capabilities then the government can start picking and choosing where and when it wants to use them.

At least you would know that whatever the situation you were sent into your commanders had a good enough selection of tools at hand to give you a reasonable prospect of success.


By the way, on the light front - and related to the discussion about truck mounted guns 









> The HMMWV/Hawkeye Howitzer System incorporates advances in protection, payload, suspensions and life-cycle sustainment – at an affordable price to meet the unique expeditionary requirements of global customers. It exemplifies the steady evolution of the HMMWV based on customer feedback, battlefield experiences, and innovation.
> 
> The new AM General Hawkeye is based on a M1152A1 Humvee with a crew cab at the front and cargo platform at the rear fitted a 105 mm howitzer . The 105 mm cannon uses an hybrid soft recoil technology allows weapon to be paired with AM General HMMWV.
> 
> The 105mm cannon is fitted on a circular platform offering the possibility to fire on 360° with a range of 11,500 m with standard ammunition and 16,000 m with extended range artillery ammunition. It can be also used for direct fire with a maximum range of 2,000 m.
> 
> This artillery system uses a digital fire control system including a digital camera for direct fire. The howitzer is electronically controlled for elevation and azimuth which works with the digital fire control system.
> 
> In firing position two hydraulic jacks are lowered on the ground at the front of the vehicle and two large spades at the rear. A total of 4 to 6 ammunitions can be carried on the vehicle. To increase the number of ammunition another Humvee in cargo variant can be used as to carried additional ammunition.
> 
> The HMMWV/Hawkeye Howitzer 105mm howitzer can be ready to fire in less than 2 minutes with a total crew of 4 people.



https://www.armyrecognition.com/ausa_2016_show_daily_news_tv_coverage_report/am_general_unveils_new_105mm_lightweight_self-propelled_howitzer_based_on_m1152a1_humvee_10310163.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_3f-cv3rR4


----------



## a_majoor

I was more under the impression that you were mostly concerned with the mechanics of "getting there", since deploying heavyweight (or even medium) armoured vehicles overseas is slow, difficult and expensive. My main objection to mixed fleets isn't so much that they are mixed (Combat Guards, Broncos and CV-90 platforms are pretty mixed) but the CF's habit of having "micro" fleets which are far too small to be truly viable, or have platforms which are only marginally related. Our holdings of LAV series vehicles is insanely expensive because it is essentially 3 or 4 different fleets all masquerading as the "same" family (Bisons, Coyote's, LAV 3 and LAV6.0 have very little in common with each other).

But underneath all that is "why" we are buying particular vehicles. Many readers will remember the great tank debate of the early 2000's, where the CF was set to eliminate its tank holdings in favour of a gun platform based on the LAV MGS chassis, and the putative MMEV as a long range fire support companion. The true horror of the decision wasn't that it was not possible, but rather no thought seemed to have been given as to how this was actually supposed to work (i.e. doctrine). This is in addition to having two tiny fleets of very expensive, complicated and essentially bespoke vehicles to man and support should the concept have ever been adopted.....The TAPV seems to have gone through the same experience, with it being offered as an APC for the Light Infantry Battalions at one point, despite it being rather unsuitable for the role. If it is going to be passed from hand to hand like that, one has to wonder why it was purchased in the first place (i.e. what role was it meant to fulfill)?

Of course this isn't even the only example, as the endless saga of Canada's quest for a replacement fighter is demonstrating now, or the "Big Honking Ship" project which evaporated, or the "debates" around Canada purchasing nuclear submarines, or just what sorts of ships and forces we need for the arctic, etc. etc. One fine day we may end up with grown ups in charge, who do clearly see and articulate a Canadian Grand Strategy, or at least clearly define the National Interest, and from there define what roles and missions of Canada's Armed forces will be, and what levels of manning and equipment are needed to achieve these ends.


----------



## Kirkhill

Thucydides said:
			
		

> *I was more under the impression that you were mostly concerned with the mechanics of "getting there", since deploying heavyweight (or even medium) armoured vehicles overseas is slow, difficult and expensive.* My main objection to mixed fleets isn't so much that they are mixed (Combat Guards, Broncos and CV-90 platforms are pretty mixed) but the CF's habit of having "micro" fleets which are far too small to be truly viable, or have platforms which are only marginally related. Our holdings of LAV series vehicles is insanely expensive because it is essentially 3 or 4 different fleets all masquerading as the "same" family (Bisons, Coyote's, LAV 3 and LAV6.0 have very little in common with each other).
> 
> But underneath all that is "why" we are buying particular vehicles. Many readers will remember the great tank debate of the early 2000's, where the CF was set to eliminate its tank holdings in favour of a gun platform based on the LAV MGS chassis, and the putative MMEV as a long range fire support companion. The true horror of the decision wasn't that it was not possible, but rather no thought seemed to have been given as to how this was actually supposed to work (i.e. doctrine). This is in addition to having two tiny fleets of very expensive, complicated and essentially bespoke vehicles to man and support should the concept have ever been adopted.....The TAPV seems to have gone through the same experience, with it being offered as an APC for the Light Infantry Battalions at one point, despite it being rather unsuitable for the role. If it is going to be passed from hand to hand like that, one has to wonder why it was purchased in the first place (i.e. what role was it meant to fulfill)?
> 
> Of course this isn't even the only example, as the endless saga of Canada's quest for a replacement fighter is demonstrating now, or the "Big Honking Ship" project which evaporated, or the "debates" around Canada purchasing nuclear submarines, or just what sorts of ships and forces we need for the arctic, etc. etc. One fine day we may end up with grown ups in charge, who do clearly see and articulate a Canadian Grand Strategy, or at least clearly define the National Interest, and from there define what roles and missions of Canada's Armed forces will be, and what levels of manning and equipment are needed to achieve these ends.



Not a totally incorrect statement.  I am/was concerned about the mechanics of getting there - and if a QRF is desired then light gear is necessary to travel long distances quickly.  But if the force is to be a persistent force then time is no longer a barrier and, at the same time, the enemy will be concentrating forces demanding heavier protection. The light kit then needs to be swapped out for heavy kit.

I'm not sure that I really see the advantage of a medium force.


----------



## Underway

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Bisons, Coyote's, LAV 3 and LAV6.0 have very little in common with each other.



Good thing we are getting rid of the Coyote's and converting/replacing all the LAV 3 to LAV 6 standards.  TAPV replaces 2 vehicles in the Coyote and RG-31 (and some of the Cougars I think).  I don't know if the Bison ambulance and Command variants are staying in the fleet.  I assume so.  But a Bison Amb is much easier and cheaper to run then a full LAV from what I understand and I haven't heard of a LAV ambulance yet (maybe we have one or maybe we are getting them).

Also don't forget the entire TLAV fleet.  Really when you think about it discounting the specialist engineering vehicles (Husky, Cougar etc...) The army will have 4 main armoured vehicles.  LAV 6, TAPV, TLAV and Leopard.  There are a few "micro" fleets but every army has those because you just can't common hull everything.

As for the rest of your post, yah I agree, purchases should match doctrine.  In this case though I think the TAPV purchase matched experience.  

If we had of had these in Afghanistan there probably would have been more lives saved on the roads.  TAPV could have done convoy escort, moved VIP's around, provided vehicles for CIMIC, POMLET, OMLET and PSYOPS teams. It would have replaced RG's and freed up LAV 3, LAV LORIT and in some cases TLAV's to do other work more suited to their vehicle than tooling around Kandahar city moving DFAIT pers to meetings with the mayor.  

There were full infantry platoons outfitted with RG's in theatre.  In my direct experience the PRT Commander and General Vance's TAC were rolling in RG's as LAV's were needed to fight the war in the nasty places like Panjwai.  NSE would have loved TAPV for their escort duties, and probably so would have the Route Survey crew instead of the Cougar "battle buses" they used to protect the Husky VMMD and Buffalo.

So yah, seems like a mismatch for a lot of tasks that we might be trying to fit it into, but it's going to be a good vehicle for so many others that we completely forgot, discounted, discovered or didn't remember were important.  The infantry get the TAPV because lots of these tasks are ones the infantry will be assigned despite the fact that lots of these organizations didn't quite fit into the tradition brigade "doctrine".


----------



## daftandbarmy

The TAPV: when life hands you lemons, squirt the juice in your eyes.  :nod:


----------



## Kirkhill

Underway - that is an interesting and novel perspective for me.  And useful too.

But what you seem to be describing is a vehicle that in times gone by might have been employed by the Royal (Canadian) Army Service Corps rather than the Infantry.  The Infantry would have been passengers.


----------



## Old Sweat

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Underway - that is an interesting and novel perspective for me.  And useful too.
> 
> But what you seem to be describing is a vehicle that in times gone by might have been employed by the Royal (Canadian) Army Service Corps rather than the Infantry.  The Infantry would have been passengers.



Or operated by the Armoured Corps as was the case with the British and Canadian "Kangaroo" regiments in the Second World War.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Underway said:
			
		

> Good thing we are getting rid of the Coyote's and converting/replacing all the LAV 3 to LAV 6 standards.  TAPV replaces 2 vehicles in the Coyote and RG-31 (and some of the Cougars I think).



I'd be curious to see what capabilities, if any, the Coyote had that the TAPV won't and here what some folks still sporting black berets think of replacing one with the other.


----------



## Franko

Underway said:
			
		

> Good thing we are getting rid of the Coyote's and converting/replacing all the LAV 3 to LAV 6 standards.  TAPV replaces 2 vehicles in the Coyote and RG-31 (and some of the Cougars I think).  I don't know if the Bison ambulance and Command variants are staying in the fleet.  I assume so.  But a Bison Amb is much easier and cheaper to run then a full LAV from what I understand and I haven't heard of a LAV ambulance yet (maybe we have one or maybe we are getting them).
> 
> Also don't forget the entire TLAV fleet.  Really when you think about it discounting the specialist engineering vehicles (Husky, Cougar etc...) The army will have 4 main armoured vehicles.  LAV 6, TAPV, TLAV and Leopard.  There are a few "micro" fleets but every army has those because you just can't common hull everything.
> 
> As for the rest of your post, yah I agree, purchases should match doctrine.  In this case though I think the TAPV purchase matched experience.
> 
> If we had of had these in Afghanistan there probably would have been more lives saved on the roads.  TAPV could have done convoy escort, moved VIP's around, provided vehicles for CIMIC, POMLET, OMLET and PSYOPS teams. It would have replaced RG's and freed up LAV 3, LAV LORIT and in some cases TLAV's to do other work more suited to their vehicle than tooling around Kandahar city moving DFAIT pers to meetings with the mayor.
> 
> There were full infantry platoons outfitted with RG's in theatre.  In my direct experience the PRT Commander and General Vance's TAC were rolling in RG's as LAV's were needed to fight the war in the nasty places like Panjwai.  NSE would have loved TAPV for their escort duties, and probably so would have the Route Survey crew instead of the Cougar "battle buses" they used to protect the Husky VMMD and Buffalo.
> 
> So yah, seems like a mismatch for a lot of tasks that we might be trying to fit it into, but it's going to be a good vehicle for so many others that we completely forgot, discounted, discovered or didn't remember were important.  The infantry get the TAPV because lots of these tasks are ones the infantry will be assigned despite the fact that lots of these organizations didn't quite fit into the tradition brigade "doctrine".



You clearly have no idea what the role of the Coyote, LAV or TAPV are, nor what armour doctrine is when it comes to recce and its doctrine is at all.

EITS - it's bridging a gap in capabilities. Unfortunately, the corps is being somewhat hamstringed in capabilities WRT firepower however, we both know recce isn't platform dependant. The firepower issue is being looked at and luckily enough the project is looking to expand its capabilities. Time will tell what we will get. Once the LAV 6 surv platform is sorted out I'm sure the books will get rewritten again. Seeing how it hasn't been updated since the 1960s anyways, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

As for the infantry battalions, rumour has it that they don't want them at all....but that's only rumour and not in my lane.

Regards


----------



## Underway

Nerf herder said:
			
		

> You clearly have no idea what the role of the Coyote, LAV or TAPV are, nor what armour doctrine is when it comes to recce and its doctrine is at all.
> 
> EITS - it's bridging a gap in capabilities. Unfortunately, the corps is being somewhat hamstringed in capabilities WRT firepower however, we both know recce isn't platform dependant. The firepower issue is being looked at and luckily enough the project is looking to expand its capabilities. Time will tell what we will get. Once the LAV 6 surv platform is sorted out I'm sure the books will get rewritten again. Seeing how it hasn't been updated since the 1960s anyways, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.
> 
> As for the infantry battalions, rumour has it that they don't want them at all....but that's only rumour and not in my lane.



I don't know much about armour or armour recce and never said I did. Nor did I comment on the armoured side of the house.  You seem to have read the post with an eye to only the armoured use of the vehicles.  

In my experience we operated with LAV, LORITS, RG's and Cougars on daily basis during my tour,  I think I can say I know with some confidence in that context what their role was, their weaknesses and the tasks we were assigned.  I listed them all above.  The CIMIC teams were rolling in RG's or displacing infantry from a LAV seat, many of the POMLET were with the Americans in Hummers of all things if they had a vehicle at all.  PSYOPS was in a TLAV and so was OMLET.  NSE was using a combo of vehicles that were crewed by a similarly weird combo of reserve infantry, armour for much of their escorts.  Route survey were dealing with the Cougar as an escort.  TAC's for non battle group call signs were often composed of similarly weird combos because that was what was available.  I think that this mishmash of vehicles and experiences was noted and a vehicle was purchased that could properly equip pers to deal with these organizations and circumstances.

So tell us.  What's the role of the TAPV in the armoured context.  The non-gov't version. The entire last half of this thread is discussing its possible uses and reasons for purchase where you apparently could have summed it up in a paragraph or two.  It would ruin the fun of the discussion but it would answer plenty of questions.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Nerf herder said:
			
		

> EITS - it's bridging a gap in capabilities. Unfortunately, the corps is being somewhat hamstringed in capabilities WRT firepower however, we both know recce isn't platform dependant. The firepower issue is being looked at and luckily enough the project is looking to expand its capabilities. Time will tell what we will get. Once the LAV 6 surv platform is sorted out I'm sure the books will get rewritten again. Seeing how it hasn't been updated since the 1960s anyways, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.
> Regards



Ack...so, just to keep this straight in my head, is the surv suite being ported over to the LAV 6 or is it a new suite?

I like to keep a general idea of how it's all changed, changing...we've done some cooperative trg with ground units over the last few years (limited and not at all capitalized on, IMO...Greenwood is a stone's throw away from the Trg area over your way as an example...) and understanding how you guys do it on the ground lets us support from above much better, I think.  

I did a Common Ground once with 3 riders from the inf recce course, they perked up when I asked them stuff like "do you want to look into that gap" and "we can loiter on the entry to that long defile...".  IMPACT let us improve on the ground game even more, but not with our own ground forces.


----------



## Ludoc

I am not a Black Hatter but am in an armoured unit and just left Recce Sqn. Having talked to the guys using this equipment these are some initial impressions:

The TAPVs while weighing more than a Coyote and having less wheels are surprising adapt at off road driving. The big fear of them being bogged down every time they leave the hard pack appears unfounded.

The optics on the RWS are fantastic, in some ways better than what is currently in the surv suites. The lack of a mast sucks but what is on the vehicles is pretty good.

There seems to be less room in the vehicles to store stuff, most notably the cockpit(for want of a better word) doesn't have as much space as the turret did to place things. However, that is probably due to the fact that the vehicles are new and we just have not worked out the best way to utilize the space. 

Not being able to just cruise around with a head out the of the top of the vehicle really restricts the crew commander's situational awareness. Sure the crew is more protected, but I know many of the guys in Recce would be happy to give that up for peripheral vision and the ability to turn to face any direction quickly.

Having the reserves trained on the same platform as the Ref force will be a boon to the corps going forward. Being able to say to a reserve unit "If you bring a car with for dudes(or broads) we can plug them into a a Tp as a G c/s" will be pretty amazing. Giving them access to the level of training (Regimental or Brigade level) we do regularly will only help future interoperability. Even if they can only offer one or two pers, if those pers are drivers/gunners/crew commanders for the platform we own will make it way easier to employ them in a manner that is beneficial both for those members and the gaining units.

The loss of the mast sucks but not every Coyote had a mast. Those with masts will be replaced (eventually) by the LRSS. 

It is a shame to lose the ability provided by the remote kits (For those not familiar with Recce, basically the ability to dismount and place all the mast optics in an OP). However with equipment like the coral c, vector binos, and the Raven the vast majority of the capability lost with the remote kit is easily replaceable in lighter, more portable and higher resolution devices. 

Lastly, the TAPV have one huge advantage over the Coyotes: they are new. Not having been beet to hell over the last 20+ years they are going to be inherently more reliable than the current fleet. The Coyotes are a great platform but they have been used hard. With the age of the equipment it is a lot of work and luck to keep each one on the road. A vehicle that works is always better than one that does not.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And just so we are all tracking:

The LRSS6 will have a brand new surv suite. By all accounts it is a huge improvement over the old system. 

The new system will allow the operators to see things in colour instead of green scale. 

It will also allow the vehicle to be moved (at a reasonable speed) with the mast up. (Not useful in all situatuions but it does provide a new capability and flexibility.)

There is a rumour that the vehicles will be able to wirelessly share video. (Amazing if they can but as a Sig I will believe that when I see it.)

The LRSS are, like all new equipment, not on schedule. They will arrive when they arrive so Coyotes will be in service for quite some time yet.


----------



## Franko

Underway said:
			
		

> I don't know much about armour or armour recce and never said I did. Nor did I comment on the armoured side of the house.  You seem to have read the post with an eye to only the armoured use of the vehicles.
> 
> In my experience we operated with LAV, LORITS, RG's and Cougars on daily basis during my tour,  I think I can say I know with some confidence in that context what their role was, their weaknesses and the tasks we were assigned.  I listed them all above.  The CIMIC teams were rolling in RG's or displacing infantry from a LAV seat, many of the POMLET were with the Americans in Hummers of all things if they had a vehicle at all.  PSYOPS was in a TLAV and so was OMLET.  NSE was using a combo of vehicles that were crewed by a similarly weird combo of reserve infantry, armour for much of their escorts.  Route survey were dealing with the Cougar as an escort.  TAC's for non battle group call signs were often composed of similarly weird combos because that was what was available.  I think that this mishmash of vehicles and experiences was noted and a vehicle was purchased that could properly equip pers to deal with these organizations and circumstances.



The role of recce in a secondary role is to do convoy escorts. Due to the lack of manpower and vehicles this couldn't be done for the most part during operations in Panjwaii/ Zhari. Hence why it was passed off to NSE. 

The last real convoy escorts done on a regular interval happened during Op Archer from Kabul to Kandahar.

As for the TACs rolling about unprotected, getting hit or stuck, again yet another task as a part of RAS for a 60 unit. Shouldn't have happened at all, but you know how that goes.



> So tell us.  What's the role of the TAPV in the armoured context.  The non-gov't version. The entire last half of this thread is discussing its possible uses and reasons for purchase where you apparently could have summed it up in a paragraph or two.  It would ruin the fun of the discussion but it would answer plenty of questions.



It will be utilized as a patrol vehicle in a two or three car patrol teamed up with a LAV 6 LRSS. Thought you would've figured that out with the Coyotes being replaced and divested by 2020.

Regards


----------



## Underway

Nerf herder said:
			
		

> It will be utilized as a patrol vehicle in a two or three car patrol teamed up with a LAV 6 LRSS. Thought you would've figured that out with the Coyotes being replaced and divested by 2020.



Thanks.  I did understand that patrol vehicle part with the Coyote replacement, however I did not know that they will be teamed with a LAV in the same patrol.  That part is new to me.  I thought that one would have preferred to use one vehicle type in a grouping and have both TAPV patrols and LAV patrols instead of mixed.  I can see the advantages of mixing though as they would each bring a different tool to the table.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Meanwhile, in Russia:  

Russia BRM-3K Armoured Reconnaissance Vehicle With 57mm Autocannon Firing Tests 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkCHLgmK4nM


----------



## Franko

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, in Russia:
> 
> Russia BRM-3K Armoured Reconnaissance Vehicle With 57mm Autocannon Firing Tests
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkCHLgmK4nM



Horrible gunnery technique.


----------



## BDTyre

Underway said:
			
		

> NSE was using a combo of vehicles that were crewed by a similarly weird combo of reserve infantry, armour for much of their escorts.



My tour was the first to receive the LAV-RWS, and my platoon was exactly as you described it. Our preference was for the LAV-RWS but they had to split those between us and the PRT, so we ended up being a mixture of LAV and RG. Each IC and 2IC had their preference so we had no SOP for escort, it just depended upon who went out that day. We started off with two TLAVs but actually pawned one to OMLT in exchange for an extra RG, but I think the remaining TLAV only ever left the wire once during my tour.


----------



## McG

And all LAV RWS will be converted to other variants by the end of LAV UP, because it was a useful vehicle and we don’t need that.


----------



## Underway

MCG said:
			
		

> And all LAV RWS will be converted to other variants by the end of LAV UP, because it was a useful vehicle and we don’t need that.



Makes it sound like LAV 6.0 isn't a useful variant   8).  The LAV RWS IIRC has the improved belly armour and shock mounted seating similar to the LAV UP, just no turret.


----------



## McG

Underway said:
			
		

> Makes it sound like LAV 6.0 isn't a useful variant   8).  The LAV RWS IIRC has the improved belly armour and shock mounted seating similar to the LAV UP, just no turret.


Your statement is like you listen to someone claim a screwdriver is useful and you then accuse the individual of calling hammers useless. The fact that LAV 6 is not a variant asside (it is a new model with several variants of its own). The variant you are thinking of is the infantry section carrier (ISC), which is the baseline variant of LAV III, LORIT, and LAV 6.

It is possible to have LAV 6 ISC and RWS. They are different tools for different jobs. If you are not an infantry section, then there is a good chance you could get more capability without the turret and with more free space in the hull.

The exact roll of people mover that used to be filled by RG-31 could better be filled by a LAV 6 RWS than by the TAPV that we bought. 2 CER has been using RWS variants in CP roles where the 25 mm of a typical LAV 6 C2 would otherwise sit unutilized.


----------



## Kirkhill

LAV 6.0 RWS - Isn't that actually congruent with the 199 Bison that were removed from Militia Service to supply all the support vehicles that the Army didn't buy when they bought the Grizzlies, Cougars and Coyotes?


----------



## McG

The project to replace Bison and TLAV variants has not started and both vehicle fleets are in service.  There is currently no plan to buy are modify older vehicles into a LAV 6 RWS.

The CAF has already stated it will not go out and buy LAV 6 variants for the Armoured Combat Support Vehicle (ACSV) in order to please PSPC ... sort of a process drives the requirements (or tail wags the dog) sort of thing.


----------



## Franko

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> LAV 6.0 RWS - Isn't that actually congruent with the 199 Bison that were removed from Militia Service to supply all the support vehicles that the Army didn't buy when they bought the Grizzlies, Cougars and Coyotes?



Cougars, Grizzleys and Huskeys were purchased in the late 70s for both Reg and militia use and divested in 2005.

Bisons were purchased in 1990 for militia use but fleet management changed that for Reg force use and militia use and are still in use.

Coyotes were purchased in 1996/7 for Reg force use only and will be divested in the near future.


They were all separate projects.

Regards


----------



## Kirkhill

Nerf herder said:
			
		

> Cougars, Grizzleys and Huskeys were purchased in the late 70s for both Reg and militia use and divested in 2005.
> 
> Bisons were purchased in 1990 for militia use but fleet management changed that for Reg force use and militia use and are still in use.
> 
> Coyotes were purchased in 1996/7 for Reg force use only and will be divested in the near future.
> 
> 
> They were all separate projects.
> 
> Regards



Seen

The Bisons were purchased as cheap people carriers for the Militia - and to keep London employed after they finished building LAV-25s for the USMC and the Saudi National Guard.

They were then utilized in exactly the support roles that the USMC had originally had them designed for when they purchased their original fleet.

My point was in support of McG's point - that the CA, CAF, DND, PSPC, TB and Uncle Tom Cobley and all do a pisspoor job of ensuring logistics and support when buying fleets.  Something with a big gun on it looks really impressive in front of the cameras.  Especially if it doesn't have to go very far.

And the Coyote looks an awful lot like a USMC/SANG LAV-25 with a periscope.


----------



## Franko

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> And the Coyote looks an awful lot like a USMC/SANG LAV-25 with a periscope.



A Leopard 2A4M or a Leo 2A5 looks an awful lot like a Leo 2A6M to a layman.

They are about as different as a coyote and a LAV 25 are.

Regards


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> The Bisons were purchased as cheap people carriers for the Militia - and to keep London employed after they finished building LAV-25s for the USMC and the Saudi National Guard.



Short read on some history...http://canadianmilitaryhistory.ca/the-canadian-army-and-the-procurement-of-the-bison-a-short-history-by-frank-maas/


----------



## Colin Parkinson

BCD's show off their new TAPV

https://globalnews.ca/news/3985364/b-c-dragoons-tour-kelowna-streets-in-armoured-vehicle/


----------



## Kirkhill

So is that one of the 25 that were going to be held at each of the Area Training Centres or is that one of the vehicles that were never going to be allowed into Reserve hands?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I just chanced upon that article you have posted above, Colin.

I think its hilarious that one of the proposed "More Stories" at the bottom of the Global News article is tilted: "Those New Crossover SUVs Will Take Your Breath Away".
 ;D


----------



## Cloud Cover

I saw some these in Vernon last week. Huge vehicle for what purpose?


----------



## George Wallace

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> I saw some these in Vernon last week. Huge vehicle for what purpose?



TARGET!


----------



## RedcapCrusader

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> I saw some these in Vernon last week. Huge vehicle for what purpose?



For transportation...


----------



## McG

There is at least one armoured regiment employing them as cavalry to attack, block, guard, and “any job a tank can do”.


----------



## daftandbarmy

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> For transportation...



I'm guessing you could fit about four anorexics in there, so assume they would be meant as transportation for Gurkhas


----------



## .Fred

Having just finished Maple resolve (veh tech), most of our work has been Tapv's. I think only 6 coyotes came in for 2nd line stuff and most came in because of poor operator maintenance and bad 1st line diagnostic.

Tapv's on the other hand.. Oh lord.

I hope we get rid of them quick.

Sent from my LG-H831 using Tapatalk


----------



## MJP

.Fred said:
			
		

> I hope we get rid of them quick.



You're new here aren't ya


----------



## Jarnhamar

MCG said:
			
		

> There is at least one armoured regiment employing them as cavalry to attack, block, guard, and “any job a tank can do”.



For real?


----------



## Kirkhill

MJP said:
			
		

> You're new here aren't ya



Donate them to Mali...


----------



## daftandbarmy

.Fred said:
			
		

> Having just finished Maple resolve (veh tech), most of our work has been Tapv's. I think only 6 coyotes came in for 2nd line stuff and most came in because of poor operator maintenance and bad 1st line diagnostic.
> 
> Tapv's on the other hand.. Oh lord.
> 
> I hope we get rid of them quick.
> 
> Sent from my LG-H831 using Tapatalk



Are you kidding? Think of the position power the TAPV has just handed the maintenance branches!  :nod:


----------



## .Fred

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Are you kidding? Think of the position power the TAPV has just handed the maintenance branches!  :nod:


Rceme always had a position over the maintenance, but the leadership isnt there.

Sent from my LG-H831 using Tapatalk


----------



## MJP

.Fred said:
			
		

> Rceme always had a position over the maintenance, but the leadership isnt there.
> 
> Sent from my LG-H831 using Tapatalk



I hardly think someone with less than 3 years of experience in the RCEME Corps can speak accurately on the Corps leadership or lack thereof.  I'll go to a just past OJT mechanic if my truck breaks because that is your lane and I value the work the techs do.


----------



## McG

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> For real?


For real.  I have even seen a TAPV based firebase for a BG deliberate attack.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

MCG said:
			
		

> For real.  I have even seen a TAPV based firebase for a BG deliberate attack.



Somebody sure gets points for creativity. I will give them that.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

MCG said:
			
		

> For real.  I have even seen a TAPV based firebase for a BG deliberate attack.



Nothing like using a vehicle armed with weapons that have less range and stopping power than the vehicles they are supporting  :rofl:


----------



## daftandbarmy

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Nothing like using a vehicle armed with weapons that have less range and stopping power than the vehicles they are supporting  :rofl:



As long as they're drawing fire away from the Infantry  :nod:


----------



## Kirkhill

Failing donating them to Mali you could always attach snow-plows/barricade breakers to them and turn them over to the local authorities.... just the thing for Toronto's emergency services.

Just follow Germany's example.


----------



## .Fred

Unless you come in as a skilled tradesmen and bypass said ojt. But what do you know about it dear Log?





			
				MJP said:
			
		

> I hardly think someone with less than 3 years of experience in the RCEME Corps can speak accurately on the Corps leadership or lack thereof.  I'll go to a just past OJT mechanic if my truck breaks because that is your lane and I value the work the techs do.



Sent from my LG-H831 using Tapatalk


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

MCG said:
			
		

> For real.  I have even seen a TAPV based firebase for a BG deliberate attack.



We'd need to know more about the situation - was it a 3rd Battalion dismounted attack against a dismounted but dug-in enemy? Then a TAPV firebase with C16s could actually be a fairly good idea. I recall being on exchange with the USMC and the Heavy Guns Platoon was usually a firebase with HMMVW-mounted Mk19s and 50 cals. 

Heck, if I was a tank squadron Battle Captain commanding a Firebase for a BG attack I would actually find some value from attached TAPVs with C16s to provide suppression while my tanks deal with hard targets. 

Now, trying to fight other vehicles with it is an entirely different story!


----------



## McG

It was a mechanized BG and the enemy position was fighting with Stryker TOW and Stryker MGS.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

MCG said:
			
		

> It was a mechanized BG and the enemy position was fighting with Stryker TOW and Stryker MGS.



Seriously? That is an excellent way to lose a lot of TAPVs, quickly.


----------



## daftandbarmy

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Seriously? That is an excellent way to lose a lot of TAPVs, quickly.



Maybe that's the whole point?


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

MCG said:
			
		

> It was a mechanized BG and the enemy position was fighting with Stryker TOW and Stryker MGS.



Was anything else in the firebase? Were there Leopards in the BG attack somewhere?

I'm grasping at straws now...

Still, TAPV is not a terrible way to get a C16 around. It can contribute to the fight. Just not every fight...


----------



## daftandbarmy

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> Was anything else in the firebase? Were there Leopards in the BG attack somewhere?
> 
> I'm grasping at straws now...
> 
> Still, TAPV is not a terrible way to get a C16 around. It can contribute to the fight. Just not every fight...



Good point. It would have been useful at Isandlwana  :nod:


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> Was anything else in the firebase? Were there Leopards in the BG attack somewhere?
> 
> I'm grasping at straws now...
> 
> Still, TAPV is not a terrible way to get a C16 around. It can contribute to the fight. Just not every fight...



I completely agree. C16 can be a very effective suppression weapon against dismounted infantry. Against dug in armour?


----------



## GK .Dundas

Let's be brutally honest for a moment.
 The TAPV was not purchased to do Recce it was bought because it's the most likely vehicle to survive the most massive IED blast because the gutless wonders who make up our political leadership are Sh*t scared  of ANY casualties and an equally gutless number of senior officers who seemed to be preoccupied with their future employment prospects and their pensions. 
Now if we'd been looking for a wheeled armored vehicle to fulfill the recce/ light cavalry role it would probably look like a Fennek or a VBL but not a TAPV.
Mind you as someone mentioned earlier it does make a marvelous C16 carrier ...........Let that sink in for a moment. Does that mean we have just purchased several hundred Artillery Tractors for... a 40 mm......grenade launcher?


----------



## Kirkhill

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> Let's be brutally honest for a moment.
> The TAPV was not purchased to do Recce it was bought because it's the most likely vehicle to survive the most massive IED blast because the gutless wonders who make up our political leadership are Sh*t scared  of ANY casualties and an equally gutless number of senior officers who seemed to be preoccupied with their future employment prospects and their pensions.
> Now if we'd been looking for a wheeled armored vehicle to fulfill the recce/ light cavalry role it would probably look like a Fennek or a VBL but not a TAPV.
> Mind you as someone mentioned earlier it does make a marvelous C16 carrier ...........Let that sink in for a moment. Does that mean we have just purchased several hundred Artillery Tractors for... a 40 mm......grenade launcher?



There is a family resemblance....


----------



## Kirkhill

Curious layout....

Is it just me or does that seem to be the most inefficient use of space possible?

What happens if the VC took over the Gunner's duties?   Could the space in the rear be reconfigured?


----------



## Underway

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> Let's be brutally honest for a moment.
> The TAPV was not purchased to do Recce it was bought because it's the most likely vehicle to survive the most massive IED blast because the gutless wonders who make up our political leadership are **** scared  of ANY casualties and an equally gutless number of senior officers who seemed to be preoccupied with their future employment prospects and their pensions.



Casualties are our greatest strategic liability on any mission.  Our soldiers inside that vehicle are a larger investment in time and money then the vehicle itself.  I have no problems with the prioritization of armoured protection.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Underway said:
			
		

> Casualties are our greatest strategic liability on any mission.  Our soldiers inside that vehicle are a larger investment in time and money then the vehicle itself.  I have no problems with the prioritization of armoured protection.



Problem is the lives that may get saved against IEDs may be lost when it's employed out of it's capabilities. Like a firebase.  

TAPV will have a max effective range of 2000meters.  A BMP2-M with Kornets has a 5500 meter range (or 8000m/10'000m range with the EM) and those missiles can take out our tanks.
If LAV3s are working in the firebase with TAPVs they'll loose at least 1000 meters of range.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Problem is the lives that may get saved against IEDs may be lost when it's employed out of it's capabilities. Like a firebase.
> 
> TAPV will have a max effective range of 2000meters.  A BMP2-M with Kornets has a 5500 meter range (or 8000m/10'000m range with the EM) and those missiles can take out our tanks.
> If LAV3s are working in the firebase with TAPVs they'll loose at least 1000 meters of range.



While I agree that the TAPV can get into trouble if employed outside its capabilities, I disagree that a firebase task is necessarily out of those capabilities. Nothing is going to outrange the threat long-range missiles, so I am not sure what the point you are making is. In any case, the TAPV in a firebase is not there to hunt BMP2s or knock out tanks. There are other systems to do that.  

I would also have serious questions about the utility of a LAV3 in a firebase 3000 from the objective they are supposed to be suppressing. 

Picture yourself as the CO of an infantry battalion conducting a dismounted attack against an enemy force of company size that does not have AFVs either. Are you going to refuse the use of eight or so TAPVs with C16s in a firebase at 1500m? Even a mechanized attack could benefit from the firepower of those C16s, but of course the TAPVs should not be there alone. If we are launching the assault then the tanks that became the firebase should have already killed the visible enemy armour. The tanks being joined by TAPVs with C16s to help provide the suppression effect during the assault would not be a bad thing.   


I am not saying that the TAPV is a front-line AFV. I am saying that we should be careful about dismissing things that we hear about devoid of context.


----------



## Jarnhamar

I think we're the only country that still imagines enemy light infantry digging positions in the open without AFV support.

I mentioned the Kornet because we're all about fighting Russians  people with eastern bloc hardware and I'm assuming (perhaps incorrectly) a BG (as per the point that started this convo) is going to square off against enough guys with some serious kit and not just some light infantry sans support.

Would I say no to TAPVs? No idea. I'd guess ammo for them would be a problem in the firebase? There's not a terrible amount of room inside them. 
We could always drop a TOW2 system on it and double the range but ammo storage would be an even bigger issue.
I'm not very impressed with the AGLS. I think someone decided we WILL use 40mm AGLS and now we're making it fit.
Edit: but I'm open to being totally wrong with my opinion. 
I don't want to sound like I'm dismissing your experience or anything, it's a lot more than mine in this area of course.


----------



## Underway

This might be off topic slightly, but is it just me or is armoured recce different now from our current doctrine and we just haven't acknowledge it.  With modern IR airborne sensors on cheap UAV's, and surveillance packages that can look 10's of km away isn't the idea of a light armoured vehicle that sneaks and hides kinda dead in many ways?  US uses Bradleys for armoured recce, UK uses the new Ajax, Australia is buying the Boxer...  their doctrine is different granted.

Now I'm not arguing pros and cons of TAPV in the recce game, but the increase in armour from traditional light assets seems to follow the general trend in recce vehicles over the "English speaking" world at the very least.  Is our doctrine totally out of touch?  Is it kept alive because we can't be bothered to spend money on proper armoured recce equipment? Are the people here arguing about old ways of doing things that have less and less value?


----------



## GK .Dundas

Underway said:
			
		

> This might be off topic slightly, but is it just me or is armoured recce different now from our current doctrine and we just haven't acknowledge it.  With modern IR airborne sensors on cheap UAV's, and surveillance packages that can look 10's of km away isn't the idea of a light armoured vehicle that sneaks and hides kinda dead in many ways?  US uses Bradleys for armoured recce, UK uses the new Ajax, Australia is buying the Boxer...  their doctrine is different granted.
> 
> Now I'm not arguing pros and cons of TAPV in the recce game, but the increase in armour from traditional light assets seems to follow the general trend in recce vehicles over the "English speaking" world at the very least.  Is our doctrine totally out of touch?  Is it kept alive because we can't be bothered to spend money on proper armoured recce equipment? Are the people here arguing about old ways of doing things that have less and less value?
> I have to admit to a certain amount of confusion, myself. We really don't seem to purchase vehicles to fit with whatever doctrine we're using and then kind of force fit the vehicle into the doctrine. We certainly did with the Coyote and the TAPV seems similar.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Underway said:
			
		

> Casualties are our greatest strategic liability on any mission *outside of a general war scenario that does not require a strategically decisive engagement with a peer, near peer, foe to be successful*



FTFY


----------



## Cloud Cover

Would TAPV roll over in similar situation? https://youtu.be/U3D_C-s5iQQ


----------



## Rifleman62

Nice target.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Saw a picture of one of our TAPV's on fire by the roadside?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> This might be off topic slightly, but is it just me or is armoured recce different now from our current doctrine and we just haven't acknowledge it.  With modern IR airborne sensors on cheap UAV's, and surveillance packages that can look 10's of km away isn't the idea of a light armoured vehicle that sneaks and hides kinda dead in many ways?  US uses Bradleys for armoured recce, UK uses the new Ajax, Australia is buying the Boxer...  their doctrine is different granted.
> 
> Now I'm not arguing pros and cons of TAPV in the recce game, but the increase in armour from traditional light assets seems to follow the general trend in recce vehicles over the "English speaking" world at the very least.  Is our doctrine totally out of touch?  Is it kept alive because we can't be bothered to spend money on proper armoured recce equipment? Are the people here arguing about old ways of doing things that have less and less value?
> I have to admit to a certain amount of confusion, myself. We really don't seem to purchase vehicles to fit with whatever doctrine we're using and then kind of force fit the vehicle into the doctrine. We certainly did with the Coyote and the TAPV seems similar.



Up til 2013 there was no RECCE doctrine. I don't know what's happened since then. We made it up as we went along depending on the task and available equipment. The Troop Leaders Guide to the Galaxy has been in 'draft' form since the 90's and I don't think It's been officially replaced yet, at least, I've not heard anything if it was. The last official version was the 70's one with the T-62 and PT-76 removed as our threats. There's been lots of draft and unofficial copies of stuff floating around. One of the first things any commanders course had to do was rewrite the  SOPs so that everyone, from different units, is on the same page. Some stuff stays the same, like a blind corner drill. Some other things change on a constant basis, like surveillance. There's a big difference in doing an OP screen from a hole, tied by sigs wire to your small sneak and peek vehicle or an OP screen of big, dirty noisy Coyotes. It almost seems like everything we do is by rote and we just add and subtract things based on resources and situations. If anything, it keeps everyone confused to what we do and how we do it.


----------



## Infanteer

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> Up til 2013 there was no RECCE doctrine. I don't know what's happened since then.



B-GL-394-001 Ground Manoeuvre Reconnaissance is the Army's doctrine for manoeuvre reconnaissance (infantry and armoured recce).  It was written in 2008 and just recently updated in 2015.  It describes Armoured Reconnaissance organizations, tasks, and TTPs.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Infanteer said:
			
		

> B-GL-394-001 Ground Manoeuvre Reconnaissance is the Army's doctrine for manoeuvre reconnaissance (infantry and armoured recce).  It was written in 2008 and just recently updated in 2015.  It describes Armoured Reconnaissance organizations, tasks, and TTPs.



Thanks. We never saw it in 2008. And we never saw a copy by the time I retired. Last course I was on in 2010-11 didn't use it. That was a SSM course. Did they have a light recce role defined yet? THE RECONNAISSANCE SQUADRON IN BATTLE B-GL-305-002/FT-001 (CFP 305 (2)) is the reference I was speaking to. It just never seemed to get updated and that's the one that was the everyday reference for us. Perhaps I'm speaking of something different? If they finally got around to replacing it, that's a good thing. There was a book I recall, it was a weird bifold book. I don't recall exactly what it was about, but I do recall that we didn't use it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Underway said:
			
		

> This might be off topic slightly, but is it just me or is armoured recce different now from our current doctrine and we just haven't acknowledge it.  With modern IR airborne sensors on cheap UAV's, and surveillance packages that can look 10's of km away isn't the idea of a light armoured vehicle that sneaks and hides kinda dead in many ways?



Sorry for a late reply, I just saw this reading thru the thread this morning.

Speaking from my experience on ops and ex's, yes the idea of 'sneak and peek' Armd Recce is extremely hard to do successfully if your OPFOR has airborne EO/IR, and even harder if they have imaging and GMTI RADAR, etc.  Darkness is my friend, not theirs on the ground.  RADAR doesn't much care if it is undercast or not.  Need to run your AFV in your patrol base to charge your batteries?  Nice, IR loves that sort of stuff.

How long those airborne assets will last over a modern battlefield, is a different discussion.


----------



## Infanteer

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> How long those airborne assets will last over a modern battlefield, is a different discussion.



Yes, counter UAV/Sensor Aircraft is a hot topic, since it is so prominent in Western efforts to whack third world armies/insurgents.  For all the talk about stealth fighters, everyone talks about beating their stealth by taking out the unstealthy tankers and AWACS planes....


----------



## blacktriangle

Good post EITS.

Between modern airborne ISR, SIGINT/EW, and overhead capabilities I'm not super convinced that "sneak and peek" would work out so well against a peer or near peer OPFOR. 

Sure these assets can be knocked out (not by us, mind you) but friendly forces face the same reality. 

In the end what does that leave us with? A TAPV or LAV vs something like a T-14 or T-80? No thanks...


----------



## Underway

standingdown said:
			
		

> Good post EITS.
> 
> Between modern airborne ISR, SIGINT/EW, and overhead capabilities I'm not super convinced that "sneak and peek" would work out so well against a peer or near peer OPFOR.
> 
> Sure these assets can be knocked out (not by us, mind you) but friendly forces face the same reality.
> 
> In the end what does that leave us with? A TAPV or LAV vs something like a T-14 or T-80? No thanks...



Lower risk COA might be to hit those assets with indirect fire.  See Ukraine...  LAV's might do OK depending on the type of indirect fire as they are designed to withstand 155 shell fragments but a TAPV is done.  But that's the chess match I would guess.  It explains why the UK and AUS are going with heavier Recce elements. But TAPV isn't really a near peer vehicle design is it.  It's looks good for convoy escort, counter insurgency and peace support operations.


----------



## Kirkhill

Bump

There is a Facebook rumour that the TAPV is having its operational scope, its uses expanded.  It is a curious expansion apparently.  It seems that it is being expanded into every other role than its intended roles at time of procurement.

Recce is right off the board.  Recce will get LAV 6.0  and LAV 6.0  LRSS.


----------



## McG

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Bump
> 
> There is a Facebook rumour that the TAPV is having its operational scope, its uses expanded.  It is a curious expansion apparently.  It seems that it is being expanded into every other role than its intended roles at time of procurement.
> 
> Recce is right off the board.  Recce will get LAV 6.0  and LAV 6.0  LRSS.


I thought this news had been on the street for a few years?  The majority of TAPV were bought to institutionalize the role of RG31 in converting light infantry into pseudo mechanized infantry, but the infantry corps recognized this was a bad idea that would lead to something that was neither light infantry nor mech infantry (with none of the strengths but all the weaknesses of each).  That is why divisions were invited to concoct distribution plans that included the PRes (the Army Commander who initiated the project was adamant that he would never waste money buying an AFV for the PRes).

The plan to replace some Coyote with LAV 6 LRSS is also a few years along development, but Recce will continue to use TAPV because the Armd are not getting enough LRSS variants to fill-out all the squadrons they have.  So it will be mixed fleet recce.


----------



## daftandbarmy

MCG said:
			
		

> The plan to replace some Coyote with LAV 6 LRSS is also a few years along development, but Recce will continue to use TAPV because the Armd are not getting enough LRSS variants to fill-out all the squadrons they have.  So it will be *mixed fleet* recce.



... which is awesome because it diversifies our risk.... right?


----------



## Kirkhill

MCG said:
			
		

> I thought this news had been on the street for a few years?  The majority of TAPV were bought to institutionalize the role of RG31 in converting light infantry into pseudo mechanized infantry, but the infantry corps recognized this was a bad idea that would lead to something that was neither light infantry nor mech infantry (with none of the strengths but all the weaknesses of each).  That is why divisions were invited to concoct distribution plans that included the PRes (the Army Commander who initiated the project was adamant that he would never waste money buying an AFV for the PRes).
> 
> The plan to replace some Coyote with LAV 6 LRSS is also a few years along development, but Recce will continue to use TAPV because the Armd are not getting enough LRSS variants to fill-out all the squadrons they have.  So it will be mixed fleet recce.



Perhaps it is just now percolating out to the civvy world?  You have jogged my memory on previous discussions on this site but the "rumour" to which I referred seemed to indicate that the infantry employment was off the table as well.   The TAPV seems now likely to be a Liaison & Utility Vehicle and Rover across all arms.


----------



## Loch Sloy!

We sure spent a lot of money on a vehicle we don't know what to do with. 

At least we could have purchased some of the Infantry Section Carrier versions (give them to reserve armoured so they can taxi reserve infantry around) or better yet some of the mortar variants so we could actually move our 81mm mortars around...

I would have even preferred we replace the milcots rather than buy TAPV.


----------



## Kirkhill

Loch Sloy! said:
			
		

> We sure spent a lot of money on a vehicle we don't know what to do with.
> 
> At least we could have purchased some of the Infantry Section Carrier versions (give them to reserve armoured so they can taxi reserve infantry around) or better yet some of the mortar variants so we could actually move our 81mm mortars around...
> 
> I would have even preferred we replace the milcots rather than buy TAPV.



Personally I would rather the money have been spent on 500 Bisons - Empty LAV IIs.


----------



## Loch Sloy!

> Personally I would rather the money have been spent on 500 Bisons - Empty LAV IIs.



100% agree! New pick-up trucks just seemed more likely.  :


----------



## McG

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Personally I would rather the money have been spent on 500 Bisons - Empty LAV IIs.


At this point, we would be better with LAV 6 in RWS variants ... call it a "Bison 2" if that helps.  End result would be fewer fleets to manage, train, and support.


----------



## Kirkhill

MCG said:
			
		

> At this point, we would be better with LAV 6 in RWS variants ... call it a "Bison 2" if that helps.  End result would be fewer fleets to manage, train, and support.



Seen.


----------



## Kirkhill

The mini-TAPV - the 7 tonne JLTV



> Blind Spots and Loud Noises: Report Finds Problems With New JLTVs



https://www.military.com/dodbuzz/2019/02/25/blind-spots-and-loud-noises-report-finds-problems-new-jltvs.html

Big, noisy, ugly, hard to see out of, hard to get out of and hard to get ahold of your kit.  

And the Army has to leave the armour behind because the Chinook doesn't lift as much as the Stallion.

Aside from that - the answer to a maiden's prayer.


----------



## AlDazz

Some very good discussion on the TAPV and it's potential rolls.  Have to say this seems to be vehicle ordered for the last war that is looking for a real job.  I watching some video from 5 Div and noticed that it has jerry can mounts on lower rear of the hull. Don't we still back into hide locations?  What were they thinking?


----------



## Spencer100

You a project is done when you get to Windsor  LOL

https://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/windsor-regiment-shows-off-new-tactical-armoured-patrol-vehicle


----------



## OceanBonfire

ACSV production has started:



> *Production of Armoured Combat Support Vehicles Begins*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Production on the first Armoured Combat Support Vehicle (ACSV) has begun in London, Ontario at the General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada manufacturing facilities. These new vehicles will fulfill a variety of combat support roles such as that of Troop/Cargo Vehicle (TCV), ambulance, command post, and mobile repair and recovery.
> 
> The contract for this project was awarded last September, and since then, a number of subcontracts have been awarded by General Dynamics to allow work to start. These subcontracts represent over $137 million in investments to more than 30 Canadian businesses from coast to coast to coast, creating and sustaining over 400 jobs across the country.
> 
> This is a big step forward as the government continues to deliver on Strong, Secure, Engaged, Canada’s first fully costed and funded defence policy. As per the Industrial and Technological Benefits Policy, General Dynamics will re-invest an amount equal to the value of the contract to create and sustain well-paying jobs across the country.
> 
> These vehicles will replace the current fleets of M113 Tracked Light Armoured Vehicle (TLAV) and the LAV II Bison. The first vehicle is expected roll off the production line this December, with deliveries occurring through February 2025. Testing, training, and procurement of spare parts will be required before the initial vehicles are distributed to Canadian Armed Forces bases in 2022.
> 
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/CanadianForces/photos/a.1524483394445524/2951245298435986/
> 
> https://twitter.com/CanadianForces/status/1290726907307347970
> 
> https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2020/08/production-of-armoured-combat-support-vehicles-begins.html


----------



## dapaterson

ACSV is a LAV hull - this probably should be on the LAV 6.0 thread, not the TAPV thread (GDLS vs Textron).


----------



## RedFive

I searched this topic prior to asking to question and didn't find an answer, so forgive me if it was covered any I missed it. I see in some of the old announcements about the TAPV 500 were purchased with 100 options.

Does anybody know if those options were exercised? Were they RWS versions or the slick tops?

Also, I know reviews on the vehicle have been poor, does anybody know if any efforts have/are being made to improve on it? Besides renaming (restructuring? I haven't received the lastest versions of the course content for Armour Reserve yet) Reserve Armoured Recce units to Armoured Cavalry?


----------



## Underway

RedFive said:


> Also, I know reviews on the vehicle have been poor, does anybody know if any efforts have/are being made to improve on it? Besides renaming (restructuring? I haven't received the lastest versions of the course content for Armour Reserve yet) Reserve Armoured Recce units to Armoured Cavalry?


I haven't seen a proper balanced "review" yet.  I've seen bitching but that does not constitute a review.  In my _limited_ discussions with a few armoured MWO's there are pros and cons to the TAPV.  They see value in the vehicle, it's surprisingly mobile and proved useful in the domestic operations it was deployed on.   The negatives are well known at this point (signature -noise-size, crew numbers etc..). 

Honestly, as an outsider, I think some of the initial roles envisioned for the vehicles are wrong.  I don't think the Army got a lemon, they just bought a security/escort vehicle and were hoping it could do recce.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Underway said:


> I haven't seen a proper balanced "review" yet.  I've seen bitching but that does not constitute a review.  In my _limited_ discussions with a few armoured MWO's there are pros and cons to the TAPV.  They see value in the vehicle, it's surprisingly mobile and proved useful in the domestic operations it was deployed on.   The negatives are well known at this point (signature -noise-size, crew numbers etc..).
> 
> Honestly, as an outsider, I think some of the initial roles envisioned for the vehicles are wrong. * I don't think the Army got a lemon, they just bought a security/escort vehicle and were hoping it could do recce.*



Or we just didn't make up our mind, and got what we deserved: The Waffle Wagon...

A compromising Situation... TAPV

"A key problem facing potential TAPV bidders was that they were effectively being asked to replace two vehicle types from opposite ends of the capability, mobility and protection scales – the RG31 Mk3 and the Coyote LAV. At the LOI stage, the short-lived benefit for potential bidders was that there was no specific requirement for the Recce and Gen Util variants to be based on a common platform. However, the general consensus of opinion within industry was that while two distinct variants of the same base vehicle (ie: 4x4 and 6x6) might ultimately be acceptable to DND, the clear optimum solution of two totally differing vehicle platforms would never be."






						1847-A-compromising-Situation...-TAPV| FrontLine Defence
					






					defence.frontline.online


----------



## Underway

daftandbarmy said:


> Or we just didn't make up our mind, and got what we deserved: The Waffle Wagon...
> 
> A compromising Situation... TAPV
> 
> "A key problem facing potential TAPV bidders was that they were effectively being asked to replace two vehicle types from opposite ends of the capability, mobility and protection scales – the RG31 Mk3 and the Coyote LAV. At the LOI stage, the short-lived benefit for potential bidders was that there was no specific requirement for the Recce and Gen Util variants to be based on a common platform. However, the general consensus of opinion within industry was that while two distinct variants of the same base vehicle (ie: 4x4 and 6x6) might ultimately be acceptable to DND, the clear optimum solution of two totally differing vehicle platforms would never be."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1847-A-compromising-Situation...-TAPV| FrontLine Defence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> defence.frontline.online


And what did we actually end up with?  The RG31 with higher mobility and lower troop transport capability.

I think it's pretty obvious that the Recce elements will be replaced by stealth (pun intended) with the LAV Recce going to be the only option available for Reg F elements in the future.  Just keep sending GDLS contracts without competition and no one gets hurt.

And thus we'll end up with LAV-based platform commonality.  

Though with those masts are they really recce vehicles?  Or are they surveillance vehicles that can be used for recce?


----------



## Kirkhill

Its too bad there wasn't a light-weight, air-transportable, tracked vehicle with high road speeds, capable of mounting cannons and missiles.



CVR(T) FV101 - Scorpion 90 (Indonesian Army)

Is it really obsolete if there is no replacement with similar capabilities?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Kirkhill said:


> Its too bad there wasn't a light-weight, air-transportable, tracked vehicle with high road speeds, capable of mounting cannons and missiles.
> 
> View attachment 66126
> 
> CVR(T) FV101 - Scorpion 90 (Indonesian Army)
> 
> Is it really obsolete if there is no replacement with similar capabilities?



Whoa... I like the size of that cannon. It's definitely no 30mm pop gun.

FWIW, they're really good in the snow and boggy ground too. They also fit nicely on a landing craft, and in the back of a Herc on an platform for parachuting or lape-sing.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Cockerill® CSE 90LP - John Cockerill  I have seen one of these 90mm Scorpions at Port Dickson, the gun is a bit much for the poor hull and you can see signs of cracking. To be fair these were old Scorpions refitted and used hard.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin Parkinson said:


> Cockerill® CSE 90LP - John Cockerill  I have seen one of these 90mm Scorpions at Port Dickson, the gun is a bit much for the poor hull and you can see signs of cracking. To be fair these were old Scorpions refitted and used hard.



I once got a chance to drive one around Salisbury Plain for awhile (no, I did not steal it) and it was awesome. 

Jazzed up Jaguar engine... vroom vroom!


----------



## Rifleman62

We tested out the army's new JLTV at Fort Dix New Jersey. This vehicle will replace the Humvee as the light infantry's primary tactical vehicle.


----------



## armrdsoul77




----------



## calculus

armrdsoul77 said:


>


Yikes. Hope the troops are OK. Watching the video, however, I'm not sure my SUV wouldn't have rolled over either...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Is this accurate for when this happened?

Canadian Forces Training Video Series. Provided to the Department of National Defence, 2018.


----------



## KevinB

One of the OMFV candidates appeared to be BAE but was right beside GDLS’s Bradley M2A4 - so I need to confirm tomorrow when the booths are setup correctly   As it has a very Bradley like track layout and the size is very very similar but with room for a lot of troops compared to the Bradley due to the front left placed 1 man turret  - appears to have room for 12 dismounts


----------



## GR66

KevinB said:


> One of the OMFV candidates appeared to be BAE but was right beside GDLS’s Bradley M2A4 - so I need to confirm tomorrow when the booths are setup correctly   As it has a very Bradley like track layout and the size is very very similar but with room for a lot of troops compared to the Bradley due to the front left placed 1 man turret  - appears to have room for 12 dismounts  View attachment 73500


That's BAE's AMPV (Armored Multi Purpose Vehicle) which the US Army's M113 replacement.  

GDLS's entry into the OMFV competition is the Griffin III.  It has a 50mm cannon and only fits 6 x dismounts.


----------



## FJAG

KevinB said:


> One of the OMFV candidates appeared to be BAE but was right beside GDLS’s Bradley M2A4 - so I need to confirm tomorrow when the booths are setup correctly   As it has a very Bradley like track layout and the size is very very similar but with room for a lot of troops compared to the Bradley due to the front left placed 1 man turret  - appears to have room for 12 dismounts  View attachment 73500


Get a bunch of interior shots for whatever looks good. 

🍻


----------



## Colin Parkinson

GR66 said:


> That's BAE's AMPV (Armored Multi Purpose Vehicle) which the US Army's M113 replacement.
> 
> GDLS's entry into the OMFV competition is the Griffin III.  It has a 50mm cannon and only fits 6 x dismounts.
> View attachment 73501


meanwhile in other countries








						Czechia And Slovakia Jointly Found a Way to Replace More Than 400 of Their BMP-1 and BMP-2
					

The armies of both countries will even train together to […]



					military.binodon24live.com


----------



## OldSolduer

The CAF will be lucky to get a Bren Gun Carrier as a new vehicle judging by how long its taken to buy a new pistol.


----------



## Kirkhill

armrdsoul77 said:


>





TAPV
ASV
Lengthm6.816Widthm2.752.6Height-Hullm2.392.215Height - OAm3.212.6Height - Turretm0.820.385Clearancem0.6350.46Weightkg18,50013,400Tires16.00 R20 XZL14.00 R20XZLRWS/TurretOff Centre Right FrontDead Centre5 Tonnes heavierSitting 6 inches higherStanding 2 feet tallerTurret off center right front instead of Dead CenterTires rated for 55 mph (89 km/h) not 110 km/h



The ASV vs the TAPV

Here is the government approved TAPV summary



And the government approved layouts



So when I compare the TAPVs (which the CAF doesn't like) to the ASVs (which, apparently the Americans do like - when properly applied) I find the following:

The TAPV, which sits on the same wheel base as the ASV, with the same hubs and similar tires (same radius but wider thus more air volume) weighs 5 tonnes more than the ASV.   The TAPV has a ground clearance of two feet (24 inches) while the ASV rides 6 inches lower with a ground clearance of "only" 18 inches.  This puts the top of the TAPV hull 6 inches higher than the top of the ASV hull.

On top of the ASV hull the Americans put a one man turret, similar to that previously found on our ancient Grizzlies.  In fact it is a descendent of the Grizzly turret because we adopted the Grizzly turret from the V150 Commando that was the 1970s ancestor of the ASV.  That turret has a low profile and leaves a lot of mass inside the vehicle.  The turret is located right dead center.    Just like the gunner.  

All of the above tends to give the ASV a low center of gravity.

Meanwhile the TAPV has moved the "turret", which is taller, further forwards and outboard, mounting it on the top, right, front of the hull.   To my untutored eye that would seem to move the pendulum mass and, together with the increased overall mass, and the increased ride height, would both raise the Center of Mass and increase the instability.

I'm starting to think that the spare tire being mounted on the roof is there, on the top, left, rear, is placed there to counter-balance the positioning of the RWS.  An impression enhanced by the tire slightly overhanging the hull.   But surely hanging a mass on the left and balancing it with a mass on the right is only going to increase the tendency to sway once a sway starts?

As to the speed of the vehicle - the tires are cross country tires that can operate on the highway.  They are not highway tires.  The government says the vehicle can operate at 110 km/h.  But Michelin only rates the tires for 55 mph or 88 km/h.



Finally, and curiously, although the design team (PWGSC, DND, CAF, CA, Textron, Rheinmetall, Kongsberg) relocated the turret from the relatively stable Top Dead Center position of the original turret, they left the gunner, with all the extra space that the turret would normally occupy, in place in the center of the crew compartment.

Now, if it were me, and assuming that the extra 5 tonnes of weight was necessary, I might be inclined to the following:

Replace the turret with the RWS in the Top Dead Center position.  There are four roof hatches for the gunner to service it if necessary.
Move the spare wheel from the roof to the center front on the forward glacis.
Lower the ground clearance from 24 inches back to the original ASV height of 18 inches
Reduce the highway speed from 110 km/h to 90 km/h, maybe even 80 km/h.

Finally that gunner.  move that seat forwards between the front wheels and just behind the two front seats.

Moving the gunner, would open up the compartment for more troops.  5 certainly, leaving a 3+5 configuration.  Although Textron originally stated that as an APC, with a 2 man crew, the rear compartment could seat 8 for a 2+8 configuration.

It may be appropriate to just ditch the entire project.  It's somebody else's money after all.   But when it's your own money the tendency is to admit a mistake and do what you can to fix it so you can get an 80% solution out of it.


----------



## Kirkhill

TAPV Part 2

Some of the trials TAPV photographs.

It strikes me that had development stopped somewhere close to these, then some of the reported problems might have been set aside



And if there were to be an RWS, perhaps with different placement, perhaps another selection might have been appropriate.










						PROTECTOR Remote Weapon Systems
					

KONGSBERG is the world’s leading provider of Remote Weapon Systems (RWS) and has to date delivered more than 20.000 PROTECTOR Remote Weapon Systems to 28 nations.




					www.kongsberg.com
				




Something lighter perhaps? - Like the RS-2 Protector Lite? - Here mounted (Dead Center) on a UGV



Or at least something with a lower profile? - Like the RS-4 LPF - 




Here is a CFPAO approved Matsimus video on the TAPV.






A couple of interesting comments attached to the video



> Drove the prototypeM1117 guardian(U.s. Version) used as scout vehicles and gun trucks. Convoy security in Iraq from 06-07. Some reason concerns of roll overs came up. Fully inclosed turrets where held in mainly by gravity, so if it goes upside down, the turret came out.  Mk19 auto-grenade launcher as a primary was restricted from use in urban environments.  So secondary weapon(Browning m2) became the primary.  Can personally attest to it's survival rating against I.e.d.s. I'd be goo in a bag mailed home, if not for textron's vehicle. If I had the money i'd buy a stripped down version for use.





> First unlike many of the people who commented on this I am still serving and I work at the Armd School which is the Centre of Excellence for the TAPV.  Matsimus has relied too much on the Textron talking points. Although Textron makes Commando Armored Vehicles that have seating capacity for 7 dismounts over and above the crew the Commando variant that Canada calls the TAPV only has seating capacity for 6 total in the general propose vehicle, 3 crew and 3 dismounts. The Recce variant has seating for 5 as extra batteries required it to lose a seat. Not a big loss since the crew complement in the Recce Orbat is 4. Again although Textron makes a Recce variant of the Commando the CAF did not buy the items like the surveillance tower and an independent crew commander's sight that would have made our Recce vehicle better suited to do Recce with. As I said Textron makes variations to the vehicle that would have made it more conducive to Recce and wanted to sell those variations to us but the CAF chose not to buy them.
> 
> Now in reality there ended up being 3 projects that were thrown into the one project that they bought the TAPV to fill. The Armd Corps has been looking to buy a "Light Recce Vehicle" since the mid 90s to compliment the Coyote (not replace it). Later on the Infantry Corps wanted a "Patrol Carrier" for 1 coy of their Light Battalions and then after our Afghanistan experience the CAF wanted to replace the G-Wagon in conflict zones as the run about vehicle. Somehow all three projects got moulded into one. The Textron Commando that we now know as TAPV was bought to answer all three needs. The 100 or so that were going to the Infantry were rejected because the Infantry decided that with only 3 dismounts the vehicle did not meet their needs. Although the Armd Corps took delivery of the vehicles it was much larger than the Light Recce Vehicle we were looking for. Also as has been pointed out by others, the weapon system is not configured for what the Armd Corps does ( Recce or anything else). This leaves the Run About vehicle in a conflict zone. It actually works very well for that as the original vehicle was designed for the US Army Military Police to drive around the Vietnam countryside without getting their butts shot off.
> 
> So some of the strengths of the vehicle. First one is crew protection. Textron claims that it has THE BEST crew protection of any 4 wheeled light armed vehicle in service with any military today. I believe it. This ended up being the single most important requirement from the CAF point of view and Textron had to redesign the vehicle several times to answer that requirement. The second strength, much to everyone's surprise, is the cross country mobility. Some of the crew who have used it cross country say it's as good as the Coyote, some say it is better. This consistent review from just about everyone initially surprised me but then I realized that the vehicle looks like a Damned Tree Farmer, so I guess it makes sense that it's good cross country.
> 
> As for the distribution throughout the Armd Corps, 17 of the approximately 27 F-Echelon vehicles in the Reg F Recce Sqn is now the TAPV. So approx 60%. The Armd Reserves have been included in the TAPV distribution so that the Reg F and Reserve side of the Corps now share a deployment vehicle. The TAPV is now the default PCF vehicle for the basic Crewman course for both sides of the Corps.


----------



## Kirkhill

Playtime.  A 3 + 6 configuration.  I think it would fit.  It would also work with the LAVs.


----------



## AmmoTech90

Kirkhill said:


> Playtime.  A 3 + 6 configuration.  I think it would fit.  It would also work with the LAVs.
> 
> 
> View attachment 73803


But why.  Please provide your reasoning for this.


----------



## McG

Kirkhill said:


> Playtime.  A 3 + 6 configuration.  I think it would fit.  It would also work with the LAVs.
> 
> 
> View attachment 73803


You seem to have removed a fairly large box from behind the gunner to craft your proposal. What is the box and is it necessary?


----------



## Kirkhill

McG said:


> You seem to have removed a fairly large box from behind the gunner to craft your proposal. What is the box and is it necessary?



The box, to my understanding, is the power supply for the weapons system/turret.  I proposed putting that box, if it is necessary, in the passageway in the right rear of the vehicle, adjacent to the engine compartment.

To my understanding that compartment is underutilized and is primarily an interior access to the engine compartment.  I was also given to understand by MarkPPCLI that that compartment is not accessible from the interior.  You have to get out of the vehicle, if I understand correctly, to open the external door to access the passage.

My inclination, until demonstrated otherwise, is to make the most efficient use of the available space.



AmmoTech90 said:


> But why.  Please provide your reasoning for this.



My understanding is that we have these vehicles and they are now searching for homes.

The RCAC doesn't like them for recce for a variety of reasons.  The RCIC doesn't like them because they are too heavy for light troops and too small (ie don't carry enough troops) for medium troops.  Other Corps are trying to figure out how to use them effectively.

My first inclination is to clear the decks.  Both the top of the hull and the interior.

A vehicle of that size is first and foremost a transport of some sort.  I see it as an armoured pickup truck.

I have taken the gunner out of the truck bed and moved him up into the crew compartment.  Which seat he occupies, or if he occupies any seat at all, is irrelevant to me.  I would be more inclined to leave it as a driver/co-driver arrangement with the co-driver manning a centrally mounted RWS for self defence.   

In the rear you have room for 6, maybe 7 people.  Or an HMI console and a couple of seats or...  In other words, a 4WD LAV.  Something that could be put in the hands of the Reserves to replace the Bisons that were purloined decades ago.

Although, I am sure that if the Reserves managed to fix them the Regs would be asking for them back.

I believe it could be made into an 80% solution as a General Utility vehicle.


----------



## Kirkhill

Here is where I would be inclined to find space for the components in the box in the crew compartment.  If access is needed then it could be through the bulkhead of the crew compartment or through this passageway.


----------



## McG

Canada has lost at least one soldier because they could not get through ann obstructed egress path that was designed into their AFV. Before deciding that we can fill this space with kit, I would want to know there are adequate other paths to get out when the vehicle is on fire or filling with water.


----------



## Kirkhill

McG said:


> Canada has lost at least one soldier because they could not get through ann obstructed egress path that was designed into their AFV. Before deciding that we can fill this space with kit, I would want to know there are adequate other paths to get out when the vehicle is on fire or filling with water.



Four roof hatches and two large side doors.  More doors than a LAV or a Leo. No?


----------



## Kirkhill

From MarkPPCLI









						Informing the Army’s Future Structure
					

Wiesel video.  I still like it.  It is more like a Bren Carrier than a tank.    Edit to add a full length video on the Wiesel and its variants - unfortunately it is in German with no sub-titles.




					www.army.ca
				






Kirkhill said:


> WRT TAPV
> 
> Can somebody explain what this is for? Is it stowage? A maintenance corridor? Alternate exit? Wasted space?
> 
> View attachment 71931
> 
> 
> View attachment 71932
> 
> Positioned as it is behind the seat for "the rear sentry" - who is inside and facing forwards - it appears much like the closet under my grandma's stairs. Small, cramped, oddly shaped, inaccessible and not much use for anything.
> Click to expand...






> *It’s a maintenance corridor that gets used for storage since there’s fuck all space in the TAPV*. The inside of the TAPV, as a side effect being rear engined, really makes it’s a sup optimal weapons carrier. Mind you it’s also a sub optimal APC, Recce vehicle, SUV, frankly I’m not really sure what it’s optimal for beyond rolling over and lighting on fire.





> Jul 11, 2022
> 
> Add bookmark
> #4,423
> Maintenance corridor isn’t accessible from the inside. I get you mean a redesign but they intended to keep the chassis realistically unchanged


----------



## daftandbarmy

Kirkhill said:


> From MarkPPCLI
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Informing the Army’s Future Structure
> 
> 
> Wiesel video.  I still like it.  It is more like a Bren Carrier than a tank.    Edit to add a full length video on the Wiesel and its variants - unfortunately it is in German with no sub-titles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.army.ca



Beautiful 



> "frankly I’m not really sure what it’s optimal for beyond rolling over and lighting on fire."


----------



## Kirkhill

The Commando V100 and the AVGP Grizzly

The only difference is the driver has swapped ends.  The Grizzly is a Commando in reverse.


----------



## AC 011

Kirkhill said:


> The box, to my understanding, is the power supply for the weapons system/turret.  I proposed putting that box, if it is necessary, in the passageway in the right rear of the vehicle, adjacent to the engine compartment.



That box has nothing to do with the weapon system.  The "box" is the transfer case cover, so it has to stay.  Any volume which could be regained by redesigning the cover would be nowhere close to enough to accommodate additional seating. 

The MPU and MOS for the RWS are both behind and to the right of the commander's seat.

The gunner cannot be pushed as far forward as you've shown.  There's a post from floor to roof there.  And it


----------



## Kirkhill

AC 011 said:


> That box has nothing to do with the weapon system.  The "box" is the transfer case cover, so it has to stay.  Any volume which could be regained by redesigning the cover would be nowhere close to enough to accommodate additional seating.
> 
> The MPU and MOS for the RWS are both behind and to the right of the commander's seat.
> 
> The gunner cannot be pushed as far forward as you've shown.  There's a post from floor to roof there.  And it



Thank you very much.  Not the first plan of mine to have gone astray.  It is still embarrassing.   But I learn as I go. 

By any chance do you have access to the layouts that would accommodate the 2+8 seating arrangement compatible with claims attributed to Textron? Do you know if such layouts exist?

Still looking for an 80% solution for these vehicles.

Thanks again.


----------



## Kirkhill

Here is the link to the Textron site with the Commando and all its variants.   It includes reference to a 3+7 crew configuration.

But there are no drawings, layouts or interior configurations.

I'm happy enough to have discovered that all my assumptions are wrong.  Still curious as to what the right answers are.









						Commando® Family of Products
					

Enhanced combination of lethality, survivability, mobility and sustainability




					www.textronsystems.com


----------



## KevinB

Kirkhill said:


> Here is the link to the Textron site with the Commando and all its variants.   It includes reference to a 3+7 crew configuration.
> 
> But there are no drawings, layouts or interior configurations.
> 
> I'm happy enough to have discovered that all my assumptions are wrong.  Still curious as to what the right answers are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Commando® Family of Products
> 
> 
> Enhanced combination of lethality, survivability, mobility and sustainability
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.textronsystems.com


Give to Ukraine to make a field expedient bridge...


----------



## OldSolduer

This is the first real look I have had at one of these. Things that make you go hmmmm is the TAPV. I would need to actually see one and examine it to form an opinion. What I will say is who the hell designed this thing and why was it bought?


----------



## KevinB

OldSolduer said:


> This is the first real look I have had at one of these. Things that make you go hmmmm is the TAPV. I would need to actually see one and examine it to form an opinion. What I will say is who the hell designed this thing and why was it bought?


The Road to Hell is often paved by good intentions.

   They had them in Iraq - as convoy escort vehicles for the MP's, that role seemed to work very well -- just for some reason Canada decided to modify those and get a configuration that makes zero sense.


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> The Road to Hell is often paved by good intentions.
> 
> They had them in Iraq - as convoy escort vehicles for the MP's, that role seemed to work very well -- just for some reason Canada decided to modify those and get a configuration that makes zero sense.




This is what was on offer for the Recce role by the competition....







						Timberwolf Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle | Military-Today.com
					

The Timberwolf mine resistant ambush protected vehicle was developed by Force Protection Inc to meet Canadian Tactical Armored Patrol Vehicle (TAPV) requirement for a protected reconnaissance, surveillance command and control vehicle.



					www.military-today.com
				




Canada had difficulty attracting top notch suppliers.

As to the Commando - as I recall it was originally rescued because there was a perceived need for armour.  HMMWVs were being detonated and penetrated all over Iraq.  If your company could slap armour plate on your vehicle you made a sale.   Textron's Commando had an open production line.  It was, I'm assuming, better than a HMMWV.


----------



## OldSolduer

Kirkhill said:


> Canada had AND CONTINUES TO HAVE difficulty attracting top notch suppliers.


I could not resist editing this.  Cheers!!


----------



## KevinB

Kirkhill said:


> This is what was on offer for the Recce role by the competition....
> 
> View attachment 73837
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timberwolf Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle | Military-Today.com
> 
> 
> The Timberwolf mine resistant ambush protected vehicle was developed by Force Protection Inc to meet Canadian Tactical Armored Patrol Vehicle (TAPV) requirement for a protected reconnaissance, surveillance command and control vehicle.
> 
> 
> 
> www.military-today.com


Which looking at the bidders I wonder WTF was in the SOW.
   Garbage Out in Requirements, means Garbage into the Field Force...


Kirkhill said:


> Canada had difficulty attracting top notch suppliers.
> 
> As to the Commando - as I recall it was originally rescued because there was a perceived need for armour.  HMMWVs were being detonated and penetrated all over Iraq.  If your company could slap armour plate on your vehicle you made a sale.   Textron's Commando had an open production line.  It was, I'm assuming, better than a HMMWV.


Better is a terrible word, as it doesn't allow comparison for different roles.  The Commando with the M2 and Mk19 in the 3+7 Vanguard was IIRC what the Army got down here.
  For a Convoy Escort or Airfield Security vehicle it appeared to offer a great deal more than the Hummer, however I had no direct interaction with the folks using them.   They didn't offer what I would want for certain roles that I do have familiarity with - and the GMV Hummer offer a better system for that.


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> Which looking at the bidders I wonder WTF was in the SOW.
> Garbage Out in Requirements, means Garbage into the Field Force...
> 
> Better is a terrible word, as it doesn't allow comparison for different roles.  The Commando with the M2 and Mk19 in the 3+7 Vanguard was IIRC what the Army got down here.
> For a Convoy Escort or Airfield Security vehicle it appeared to offer a great deal more than the Hummer, however I had no direct interaction with the folks using them.   They didn't offer what I would want for certain roles that I do have familiarity with - and the GMV Hummer offer a better system for that.


Ponies and Carthorses.


----------



## KevinB

Kirkhill said:


> Ponies and Carthorses.


And yet some folks decide to just buy a Mule...

The fact is one vehicle will not be able to do everything - and while it makes a solid talking point for commonality etc - it glosses over a lot of missing mission capabilities.

- See the all singing and dancing LAV 6.0 

Honestly I really wonder what the Armoured Corps was smoking in their requirement writing - as neither of the options make any sense for the role.
 I tend to think that CCA would have given them a more relevant base vehicle (assuming it was a CV90 style system) to work from, as opposed to a vehicle that was designed to do secondary tasks and have no direct combat role (the Commando).


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> And yet some folks decide to just buy a Mule...
> 
> The fact is one vehicle will not be able to do everything - and while it makes a solid talking point for commonality etc - it glosses over a lot of missing mission capabilities.
> 
> - See the all singing and dancing LAV 6.0
> 
> Honestly I really wonder what the Armoured Corps was smoking in their requirement writing - as neither of the options make any sense for the role.
> I tend to think that CCA would have given them a more relevant base vehicle (assuming it was a CV90 style system) to work from, as opposed to a vehicle that was designed to do secondary tasks and have no direct combat role (the Commando).



I don't know that you can blame the RCAC .  I think this guy sums it up pretty well.



> Now in reality *there ended up being 3 projects that were thrown into the one project *that they bought the TAPV to fill. *The Armd Corps has been looking to buy a "Light Recce Vehicle" since the mid 90s to compliment the Coyote (not replace it).* Later on *the Infantry Corps wanted a "Patrol Carrier" for 1 coy of their Light Battalions* and then after our Afghanistan experience* the CAF wanted to replace the G-Wagon in conflict zones as the run about vehicle.* Somehow *all three projects got moulded into one*. The Textron Commando that we now know as *TAPV was bought to answer all three needs*. The 100 or so that were going to the Infantry were r*ejected because the Infantry decided that with only 3 dismounts the vehicle did not meet their needs*. Although the *Armd Corps took delivery of the vehicles it was much larger than the Light Recce Vehicle we were looking for.* Also as has been pointed out by others, the weapon system is not configured for what the Armd Corps does ( Recce or anything else). *This leaves the Run About vehicle in a conflict zone. It actually works very well for that* as the original vehicle was designed for the US Army Military Police to drive around the Vietnam countryside without getting their butts shot off.











						Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle - RG-31, LAV Coyote, and (partial) G-Wagon Replacement
					

ACSV is a LAV hull - this probably should be on the LAV 6.0 thread, not the TAPV thread (GDLS vs Textron).




					www.army.ca
				




The RCIC wanted a Patrol Carrier - They were using the 7.3 tonne, 2+6 RG-31 Nyala to some benefit I understand.  They got an 18 tonne, 3+3 TAPV.

The RCAC wanted a Light Recce Vehicle - Perhaps something along the lines of the Panhard VBL or the Fennek?   A vehicle in the 4 to 10 tonne range with a crew of 3 that would work well with both the LAV and Lt elements.

And the CAF wanted an armoured runabout - Perhaps along the lines of the IVECO LMV?  A 6.5 tonne vehicle with a crew of 1 + 3 to 6.

The magic number, I believe, was around the 7 tonne mark of the JLTV/IVECO LMV-Panther.  

Or the JLTV.  Which is now in the Light Utility Vehicle area?



> The (LUV) project must also fill a key logistics role. The Navistar Medium Support Vehicle System MILCOTS trucks have a 10-tonne cargo capacity and the Logistics Vehicle Modernization project is expected to deliver a light truck in the five-tonne range to replace the Western Star LSVW. But to transport the increasingly heavier gear of small units on base or on operations, LUV must bridge a gap below the much larger MSVS and LVM vehicles with something around two tonnes.
> 
> As a reconnaissance platform that is often operating with the fighting forces, the LUV will need built-in or bolt-on armour protection from improvised explosive devices and small arms fire and the mobility to travel off-road. Conversely, it’s also the vehicle for Course Warrant Officers conducting training courses at home where weapons, armour and mobility can be set aside.
> 
> Furthermore, it will be the prime vehicle for signallers to lay communication cable, and may be tasked to provide tactical support to light infantry forces.








						More than just a truck | Canadian Army Today
					






					canadianarmytoday.com


----------



## KevinB

Kirkhill said:


> I don't know that you can blame the RCAC .  I think this guy sums it up pretty well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle - RG-31, LAV Coyote, and (partial) G-Wagon Replacement
> 
> 
> ACSV is a LAV hull - this probably should be on the LAV 6.0 thread, not the TAPV thread (GDLS vs Textron).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.army.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The RCIC wanted a Patrol Carrier - They were using the 7.3 tonne, 2+6 RG-31 Nyala to some benefit I understand.  They got an 18 tonne, 3+3 TAPV.
> 
> The RCAC wanted a Light Recce Vehicle - Perhaps something along the lines of the Panhard VBL or the Fennek?   A vehicle in the 4 to 10 tonne range with a crew of 3 that would work well with both the LAV and Lt elements.


The Infantry said F no, which is what the Armoured should have done...



Kirkhill said:


> And the CAF wanted an armoured runabout - Perhaps along the lines of the IVECO LMV?  A 6.5 tonne vehicle with a crew of 1 + 3 to 6.
> 
> The magic number, I believe, was around the 7 tonne mark of the JLTV/IVECO LMV-Panther.


Again I see a vehicle that was bought that met absolutely none of the needs/wants/desires (in short requirements) for the vehicle.
  Who in the F does that?


Kirkhill said:


> Or the JLTV.  Which is now in the Light Utility Vehicle area?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More than just a truck | Canadian Army Today
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> canadianarmytoday.com


I foresee another train wreck fast approaching, mainly because the CA doesn't seem to be able to put pen to paper and articulate actual needs in the form of requirement documents.


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> Again I see a vehicle that was bought that met absolutely none of the needs/wants/desires (in short requirements) for the vehicle.
> Who in the F does that?



A two year bureaucrat who wants his ticket punched?


----------



## dapaterson

A retired Artillery GOFO dictating requirements to the Army?


----------



## Kirkhill

When you have nothing it is hard to figure out what gaps you are going to have to fill when you buy stuff that you have never worked with before.  I can see why there is a degree of angst over the Logistics Vehicles Modernization project and starting with the meat of the curve - the Medium.  But they had to start somewhere.  I'm not bothered about the starting point so much as I am about the speed of developments since that time - and for that matter before that time.

Edit:  Or.... it's not the decision, it's the indecision.


----------



## McG

KevinB said:


> Honestly I really wonder what the Armoured Corps was smoking in their requirement writing - as neither of the options make any sense for the role.


They probably did not get a choice to separate their requirement from the pseudo-MRAP that someone in NDHQ wanted.



Kirkhill said:


> The RCIC wanted a …


No they did not. They did not ask for it. Someone else had a good idea that the Infantry needed something to institutionalize the “capability” that was the RG-31.


----------



## Kirkhill

> Later on *the Infantry Corps wanted a "Patrol Carrier" for 1 coy of their Light Battalions* and then after our Afghanistan experience* the CAF wanted to replace the G-Wagon in conflict zones as the run about vehicle.*



The source of my error.  See above.


----------



## KevinB

Kirkhill said:


> When you have nothing it is hard to figure out what gaps you are going to have to fill when you buy stuff that you have never worked with before.


It's actually very easy -- go play with your allies -- see what works and what doesn't, that allows you a good start to write the Requirements.



McG said:


> They probably did not get a choice to separate their requirement from the pseudo-MRAP that someone in NDHQ wanted.
> 
> 
> No they did not. They did not ask for it. Someone else had a good idea that the Infantry needed something to institutionalize the “capability” that was the RG-31.


That's a problem that really should never have existed - the Nyala was a niche system that clearly didn't apply to any sort of large scale conflict.


----------



## McG

KevinB said:


> That's a problem that really should never have existed - the Nyala was a niche system that clearly didn't apply to any sort of large scale conflict.


Just 12 months ago, there were still people who would have dismissed any arguments that NATO armies might possibly find themselves in conflict with Russia.  Insugencies and small wars were the new way of things. Those same people will likely see the TAPV as exactly adequate to fight another war vs the Taliban. The idea that the CA must prepare primarily for a war against the Taliban has infected other projects over the last 15 years, and we still have projects in the pipes that are optimized to sustain Kandahar.  It’s not right, but it is where we are.


----------



## daftandbarmy

KevinB said:


> It's actually very easy -- go play with your allies -- see what works and what doesn't, that allows you a good start to write the Requirements.
> 
> 
> That's a problem that really should never have existed - the Nyala was a niche system that clearly didn't apply to any sort of large scale conflict.



Pretty effective for South African bush wars where, of course, the opposition was largely light infantry with no heavy armour, artillery, engineering or air support....









						RG-31 Nyala - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




So pretty much the perfect choice for Peacekeeping!


----------



## KevinB

daftandbarmy said:


> Pretty effective for South African bush wars where, of course, the opposition was largely light infantry with no heavy armour, artillery, engineering or air support....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RG-31 Nyala - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So pretty much the perfect choice for Peacekeeping!


Yeah -- I don't understand why so many Armies take thew wrong lessons learned and enjoy applying them...


----------



## KevinB

McG said:


> Just 12 months ago, there were still people who would have dismissed any arguments that NATO armies might possibly find themselves in conflict with Russia.  Insugencies and small wars were the new way of things. Those same people will likely see the TAPV as exactly adequate to fight another war vs the Taliban. The idea that the CA must prepare primarily for a war against the Taliban has infected other projects over the last 15 years, and we still have projects in the pipes that are optimized to sustain Kandahar.  It’s not right, but it is where we are.


I'd suggest those folks should have been retired long ago 

Want to have a BN worth of stuff that is niche - sure park it in Montreal in a dusty depot for someone to keep the rust off, but the focus of any Army should be High Intensity Peer fighting - and that doesn't mean that Canada should view the Taliban as a peer...


----------



## daftandbarmy

KevinB said:


> I'd suggest those folks should have been retired long ago
> 
> Want to have a BN worth of stuff that is niche - sure park it in Montreal in a dusty depot for someone to keep the rust off, but the focus of any Army should be High Intensity Peer fighting - and that doesn't mean that Canada should view the Taliban as a peer...



Dude, you don't get the Trudeau Government, do you? 

Liberals give themselves more time to meet five-year-old peacekeeping pledge​









						Liberals give themselves more time to meet five-year-old peacekeeping pledge
					

The federal Liberal government has quietly given itself more time to provide a 200-soldier force for peacekeeping, which Prime Minister Justin Trudeau first pledged to the United Nations nearly five years ago.




					www.ctvnews.ca


----------



## Kirkhill

McG said:


> Those same people will likely see the TAPV as exactly adequate to fight another war vs the Taliban.





Well, it would likely be a fair fight - although I would give the Afghan turret the edge.  Could we check with them to find out how many troops they carry?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

McG said:


> Just 12 months ago, there were still people who would have dismissed any arguments that NATO armies might possibly find themselves in conflict with Russia.  Insugencies and small wars were the new way of things. Those same people will likely see the TAPV as exactly adequate to fight another war vs the Taliban. The idea that the CA must prepare primarily for a war against the Taliban has infected other projects over the last 15 years, and we still have projects in the pipes that are optimized to sustain Kandahar.  It’s not right, but it is where we are.


Keep in mind the same situation existed in the reverse in June 2001. Tell the Army you be fighting a COIN war in Central Asia for a decade, taking causalities and killing bad guys, with Leopard 2 tanks, leased Mi-17's and Chinooks. They would laugh you out of the room. The lesson is that we are terrible at predicting the next war we be in. That is the message that needs to be sent to the politicians. Prepare well or suffer.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin Parkinson said:


> Keep in mind the same situation existed in the reverse in June 2001. Tell the Army you be fighting a COIN war in Central Asia for a decade, taking causalities and killing bad guys, with Leopard 2 tanks, leased Mi-17's and Chinooks. They would laugh you out of the room. The lesson is that we are terrible at predicting the next war we be in. That is the message that needs to be sent to the politicians. Prepare well or suffer.



Green with envy... our usual posture 




			https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canadian-troops-not-green-with-envy-1.333360


----------



## OldSolduer

KevinB said:


> I'd suggest those folks should have been retired long ago
> 
> Want to have a BN worth of stuff that is niche - sure park it in Montreal in a dusty depot for someone to keep the rust off, but the focus of any Army should be High Intensity Peer fighting - and that doesn't mean that Canada should view the Taliban as a peer...


Prepared for A war. Peer or near peer. 

Fight THE war whatever it is.


----------



## AmmoTech90

Kirkhill said:


> My understanding is that we have these vehicles and they are now searching for homes.


Ah, I thought you were suggesting face to face seating for the LAV.


----------



## Kirkhill

AmmoTech90 said:


> Ah, I thought you were suggesting face to face seating for the LAV.



I was totally screwed up.....but not that screwed up.


----------



## AC 011

Kirkhill said:


> Thank you very much.  Not the first plan of mine to have gone astray.  It is still embarrassing.   But I learn as I go.
> 
> By any chance do you have access to the layouts that would accommodate the 2+8 seating arrangement compatible with claims attributed to Textron? Do you know if such layouts exist?
> 
> Still looking for an 80% solution for these vehicles.
> 
> Thanks again.





Kirkhill said:


> Thank you very much.  Not the first plan of mine to have gone astray.  It is still embarrassing.   But I learn as I go.
> 
> By any chance do you have access to the layouts that would accommodate the 2+8 seating arrangement compatible with claims attributed to Textron? Do you know if such layouts exist?
> 
> Still looking for an 80% solution for these vehicles.
> 
> Thanks again.


I don't have access to those layouts, though it would be interesting to see how the +8 could be squeezed in there.  Maybe something involving bench seats?  If the blast mitigating seats weren't there, a bench seat which incorporates the t-case cover could possibly be made to work.  Not that I'd want to sit there though.  

An 80% solution would be great.  But honestly, at this point, I'd take being able to field even just 1x 4-car troop.


----------



## Kirkhill

AC 011 said:


> That box has nothing to do with the weapon system.  The "box" is the transfer case cover, so it has to stay.  Any volume which could be regained by redesigning the cover would be nowhere close to enough to accommodate additional seating.
> 
> The MPU and MOS for the RWS are both behind and to the right of the commander's seat.
> 
> The gunner cannot be pushed as far forward as you've shown.  There's a post from floor to roof there.  And it



I found a video, prepared by the BCR.  It clearly shows the post ahead of the Gunner's position. 

It would still be nice to find an interior shot, or panorama even.


----------



## RedFive

Is it this video?

It has some pretty good interior shots.


----------



## Kirkhill

RedFive said:


> Is it this video?
> 
> It has some pretty good interior shots.



It is.  And I apparently forgot to link to it in my posts.... DOH!

Thanks for the link.  

It would be nice to see the space behind and beside the Gunner though.


----------



## Underway

McG said:


> Just 12 months ago, there were still people who would have dismissed any arguments that NATO armies might possibly find themselves in conflict with Russia.  Insugencies and small wars were the new way of things. Those same people will likely see the TAPV as exactly adequate to fight another war vs the Taliban. The idea that the CA must prepare primarily for a war against the Taliban has infected other projects over the last 15 years, and we still have projects in the pipes that are optimized to sustain Kandahar.  It’s not right, but it is where we are.


I'm so glad the RCN isn't preparing to fight the Taliban.

Ships of the desert are not the same as the ones I'm qualified to operate on...


----------



## AC 011

Kirkhill said:


> It would be nice to see the space behind and beside the Gunner though.



A Google image search for "tapv interior" will bring up a few photos that give a good idea of the layout around the gunner's seat.


----------



## Kirkhill

AC 011 said:


> A Google image search for "tapv interior" will bring up a few photos that give a good idea of the layout around the gunner's seat.



I've spent a bit of time doing exactly that.  Either I'm not finding the same photos you are or else there is no space around the gunner's seat.


----------



## daftandbarmy

RedFive said:


> Is it this video?
> 
> It has some pretty good interior shots.



That's a great recruiting video, seriously. Well done.

On the other hand, the overall impression it gave me of the TAPV might be reflected in the word 'lumbering', which is kind of the opposite of what I thought you wanted for armoured reconnaissance.


----------



## Kirkhill

daftandbarmy said:


> That's a great recruiting video, seriously. Well done.
> 
> On the other hand, the overall impression it gave me of the TAPV might be reflected in the word 'lumbering', which is kind of the opposite of what I thought you wanted for armoured reconnaissance.



The procedures for clearing and loading the weapons looked a little sub optimal as well.  Looked kind of drafty out there.


----------



## Kirkhill

@AC 011

If I'm not mistaken that is the CC's seat.  That joystick - is that for the RWS?  Duplicating the Gunner's controls?




By the way, you seem to have improved my Googlefu.


----------



## Kirkhill

TAPV photo series.






						WarWheels.net - Tactical Armored Patrol Vehicle (TAPV) Photos
					

Tactical Armored Patrol Vehicle (TAPV) Photos courtesy of Don Allen



					warwheels.net


----------



## Kirkhill

2+8 in a TAPV - Maybe if they are Gurkhas.


----------



## GR66

Kirkhill said:


> 2+8 in a TAPV - Maybe if they are Gurkhas.


Obviously we just need to buy a BIGGER TAPV!


----------



## OldSolduer

I keep saying to all those who will listen that every time the CAF gets something new - I am looking at you Army - some people think the new stuff carries more. This will be the case here. The bright sparks who write doctrine rarely have to apply it.


----------



## FJAG

Kirkhill said:


> TAPV photo series.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WarWheels.net - Tactical Armored Patrol Vehicle (TAPV) Photos
> 
> 
> Tactical Armored Patrol Vehicle (TAPV) Photos courtesy of Don Allen
> 
> 
> 
> warwheels.net


Thanks for those. In short - knowing that a whole bunch of bright engineers and tankers spent a lot of time on designing the interior - it looks sub-optimal at best.

There are a few things that come to mind right off the bat. 

1. The TAPV looks to me like an ideal vehicle for carrying the surveillance package which we've put into the LRSS while the LRSS comes with a turreted gun and the space for more dismounts than the TAPV can carry. A TAPV RSS would easily fit the required crew for such a system. If we swapped the RSS to the TAPV hull it would free up 66 LAVs to reroll as armed scouting vehicles (throwing in a few more dismounts and ATGMs) (and who decided that 66 LRSS could replace 141 Coyotes? And what happened to the 141 Coyote surveillance packages anyway?)

2. The TAPV could become a 120mm mortar carrier using the rear passageway for the stowage of the mortar with the front for a four person det and ammo racks. With a bit more work it might even be suitable for an internal mortar under armour.

3 The TAPV could easily be converted or used for a UAV or UCAV det; an ATGM det; an artillery gun detachment; and possibly an AD det. 

🍻


----------



## McG

FJAG said:


> The TAPV looks to me like an ideal vehicle for carrying the surveillance package …


That was the original plan. Something caused the Army to abandon that. Could be that the TAPV is not a viable platform for the surveillance package.


----------



## AC 011

Kirkhill said:


> @AC 011
> 
> If I'm not mistaken that is the CC's seat.  That joystick - is that for the RWS?  Duplicating the Gunner's controls?
> 
> 
> View attachment 73882
> 
> By the way, you seem to have improved my Googlefu.



Yes.  That's the CC position.  RWS controls are duplicated, but with Commander override.


----------



## Kirkhill

And that is an amazing pile of gear piled higher and higher on top.

The CC has an amazing set of surveillance gear available.   But the Gunner is using the same gear.    
And the guns.... do they have a viable amount of ammunition for fire support if the gunner has to exit the vehicle to reload?


----------



## Kirkhill

McG said:


> That was the original plan. Something caused the Army to abandon that. Could be that the TAPV is not a viable platform for the surveillance package.


Were they looking at something like this?  Separating the Observer station with its own mast and turret from the RWS?  That would make a lot of sense.  It would also reduce the height, complexity and weight of the RWS.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Kirkhill said:


> View attachment 73886View attachment 73888View attachment 73887
> 
> And that is an amazing pile of gear piled higher and higher on top.
> 
> The CC has an amazing set of surveillance gear available.   But the Gunner is using the same gear.
> And the guns.... do they have a viable amount of ammunition for fire support if the gunner has to exit the vehicle to reload?



The guns would look better if one was at least a 30mm flavour


----------



## FJAG

McG said:


> That was the original plan. Something caused the Army to abandon that. Could be that the TAPV is not a viable platform for the surveillance package.


It strikes me you only need three things for a viable RSS - a stable platform for the mast; enough space for the control station inside; and an adequate power supply for the system. Can't see any of those being a problem for the TAPV.

While TAPV has a component for a recce vehicle, the LRSS goes back as far as 2009 and by 2010 had decided to put the RSS capability into 66 vehs of the LAV UP programme. By 2017 the discussion in Waypoint 2017 was that the TAPV was being evaluated only for its reconnaissance role. The discussion tended to talk about an LRSS as a surveillance base with TAPVs scouting around.

I'm not sure if the original TAPV plan ever considered a masted version or if it and the LRSS were always viewed as a pair to replace the Coyotes.

🍻


----------



## Kirkhill

daftandbarmy said:


> The guns would look better if one was at least a 30mm flavour



That supposes that you actually want to fight from that thing.


----------



## RedFive

daftandbarmy said:


> That's a great recruiting video, seriously. Well done.
> 
> On the other hand, the overall impression it gave me of the TAPV might be reflected in the word 'lumbering', which is kind of the opposite of what I thought you wanted for armoured reconnaissance.


Credit for that belongs mainly with 39 CBG, they have a couple of very motivated multimedia types who have done great work making us look good. That video is one off a series that was made about different trades available in 39 CBG.


----------



## OldSolduer

What is the consensus regarding the TAPV? A bust? A piece of crap? 

The tunnel thing is a bit weird to me. Not really user friendly IMO.


----------



## Kirkhill

OldSolduer said:


> What is the consensus regarding the TAPV? A bust? A piece of crap?
> 
> The tunnel thing is a bit weird to me. Not really user friendly IMO.


I still think they got it backwards.   In the MOWAG-GDLS LAV series that tunnel is where the driver and the CC sit - beside the engine.


----------



## Kirkhill

Kirkhill said:


> The Commando V100 and the AVGP Grizzly
> 
> The only difference is the driver has swapped ends.  The Grizzly is a Commando in reverse.
> 
> View attachment 73834View attachment 73833


----------



## KevinB

Kirkhill said:


> I still think they got it backwards.   In the MOWAG-GDLS LAV series that tunnel is where the driver and the CC sit - beside the engine.


Well just the Grizzly family. The LAV puts the CC in the turret where they belong.


----------



## Kirkhill

OldSolduer said:


> What is the consensus regarding the TAPV? A bust? A piece of crap?
> 
> The tunnel thing is a bit weird to me. Not really user friendly IMO.



An 18 tonne Jeep?


----------



## GK .Dundas

Kirkhill said:


> An 18 tonne Jeep?


Damn! 
That's it !
It's a jeep designed by a committee.


----------



## OldSolduer

GK .Dundas said:


> Damn!
> That's it !
> It's a jeep designed by a committee.


From what I have seen it is NOT an infantry section vehicle. Many have made suggestions about its employment so I won't go into it.


----------



## GK .Dundas

Actually if we're looking for a recce  vehicles, we've had at least three choices for wheeled recce recce starting in the early 80s with the Cadillac Gage commando scout, the French VBL and finally endimg with in the Dutch German Fennec.in the 00s


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> Well just the Grizzly family. The LAV puts the CC in the turret where they belong.


And the Bison.


----------



## FJAG

GK .Dundas said:


> Actually if we're looking for a recce  vehicles, we've had at least three choices for wheeled recce recce starting in the early 80s with the Cadillac Gage commando scout, the French VBL and finally endimg with in the Dutch German Fennec.in the 00s


When you can stand next to your car and look over its top, it's right-sized for recce.










🍻


----------



## daftandbarmy

FJAG said:


> When you can stand next to your car and look over its top, it's right-sized for recce.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 🍻



Ferret enters the chat 





			Ferret Scout Car – www.captainstevens.com


----------



## KevinB

DND apparently thought that meant Boy Scout Car…


----------



## OldSolduer

My wife's Challenger might make a decent urban recce vehicle - but arming it might be a challenge.


----------



## MilEME09

As dumb as it sounds, as I know the technology isn't perfect yet, but if you had an electric vehicle the size of a ferret, it would probably make a very good recce vehicle. Best I've seen for an electrical tactical vehicle though has a 1000 hour charge but is the size of a large MRAP.


----------



## KevinB

MilEME09 said:


> As dumb as it sounds, as I know the technology isn't perfect yet, but if you had an electric vehicle the size of a ferret, it would probably make a very good recce vehicle. Best I've seen for an electrical tactical vehicle though has a 1000 hour charge but is the size of a large MRAP.


I think diesel electric hybrid is the best model. 
   Mainly as electric only has some significant logistics hurdles that aren’t ready to be overcome quite yet. 

I do think that 3 personnel are about the min for a vehicle, in a 2 car det, that allows for 6 pers and continual 24hr operations for a period of time.  That allows for 1 observation and 1 security/admin, and 4 on rest when not needed, any fewer bodies and you run into lack of bodies to conduct routine tasks over time. 

Something like the VBL makes a great deal of sense in that role if your just looking at a LAV medium formation.  It however doesn’t provide any real sort of dismounts, so I don’t think it’s the sole solution for a Recce vehicle for a Cavalry Sqn.


----------



## McG

KevinB said:


> I think diesel electric hybrid is the best model.


Yes. The plug-in electric car is not an option for field operations (not even for a short weekend FTX). The hybrid vehicle is its own generator. Install more batteries than the typical hybrid and switch for a pure EV mode that can be activated when silence is required.

Eventually, this should be an option for all field vehicles. Shut-down drills associated with hide/harbour occupation should evolve  to become a convoy switching to silent running for final approach and occupation.


----------



## GK .Dundas

KevinB said:


> I think diesel electric hybrid is the best model.
> Mainly as electric only has some significant logistics hurdles that aren’t ready to be overcome quite yet.
> 
> I do think that 3 personnel are about the min for a vehicle, in a 2 car det, that allows for 6 pers and continual 24hr operations for a period of time.  That allows for 1 observation and 1 security/admin, and 4 on rest when not needed, any fewer bodies and you run into lack of bodies to conduct routine tasks over time.
> 
> Something like the VBL makes a great deal of sense in that role if your just looking at a LAV medium formation.  It however doesn’t provide any real sort of dismounts, so I don’t think it’s the sole solution for a Recce vehicle for a Cavalry Sqn.


I believe the VBL comes in a stretched variant. Carries 2-3 more people.


----------



## GR66

GK .Dundas said:


> I believe the VBL comes in a stretched variant. Carries 2-3 more people.


It's likely the VB2L Command Post variant you're referring to.

From Wikipedia:


> *VB2L POSTE DE COMMANDEMENT*: ("VBL Long") Command version. Lengthened version[17] that operates a VHF system with two PR4G radios, a HF System with one SSB radio for long range and a Radio/intercom system for the crew. Its armament is a ring-mount fitted with a 7.62 mm machine gun (1400 rounds). Specific equipment: A work station with map board and folding table, additional batteries to meet the requirements of the radio and auxiliary services giving up to 8 hours additional endurance, and a folding seat for 4th crew member.[18]



Some pics here.  Even with some reconfiguration looks like it would be very difficult to fit more than the 4th crew member in.


----------



## Kirkhill

GK .Dundas said:


> I believe the VBL comes in a stretched variant. Carries 2-3 more people.



Equally the LAV came in a shortened variant.  Carried  7 fewer people.  (With the driver and the CC sitting in the tunnel beside the engine)








						Army Guide
					

Army Guide - information about the main battle tanks, armoured vehicles and armament of the land forces and also the information concerning other army subjects - SPY, Reconnaissance Vehicle, Armoured Vehicles



					www.army-guide.com
				




7700 kg, 
4.55 m long, 1.66 m high 2.6 m wide
0.39 m (15") ground clearance
Crew of 3


----------



## KevinB

I still think at this point some of the smaller vehicle sneaky stuff can be done by UCV and UAS.   With over watch / control from a CV90 sized system (or even a LAV for those of you wheeled folks). 

The TAPV being neither fish nor fowl.


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> I still think at this point some of the smaller vehicle sneaky stuff can be done by UCV and UAS.   With over watch / control from a CV90 sized system (or even a LAV for those of you wheeled folks).
> 
> The TAPV being neither fish nor fowl.



I'm not disagreeing.  I'm looking at the Short LAV or the long VBL as an armoured hatchback/station-wagon/SUV.  Driver and CC up front with room in the back for 1 or two bodies and some extra kit like an HMI station, rucks and some heavier weapons and uavs.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

KevinB said:


> I still think at this point some of the smaller vehicle sneaky stuff can be done by UCV and UAS.   With over watch / control from a CV90 sized system (or even a LAV for those of you wheeled folks).
> 
> The TAPV being neither fish nor fowl.


That was the concept the Brits had with the Ferret, Fox and Saladin/Scorpion. to bad the Vixen never made it into service, would have been good for the Armoured Reserves.


----------



## Kirkhill

Getting back to the TAPV.  The discussion about Hybrids triggered me.  Positively.

Here's the Ford F150 hybrid drive train.  It strikes me that that tunnel at the back provides lots of room for a major battery pack and electric motor (with ancillary gearbox).    The additional weight might even level up the vehicle by balancing out the weight of the engine on the driver's side.



Some other minor modifications -

Larger wheel hubs to shorten the sidewalls of the tires
Lower the ride height 6 inches to that of the M1117 ASV
Strip the RWS back to just the C6 and reconfigure to a lower profile - strictly for self defence and operated by the CC/Co-Driver
Move the spare wheel to the front glacis.
Remove the Gunner's position.

Give the Driver and the CC the best seats in the house - rather than riding on movable stools.
Place two rear facing seats outboard behind the Driver and CC.
Place four folding web seats across the rear wall of the compartment.

2+6 Protected Mobility Vehicle.



I pushed the rear bulkhead forwards to include the transfer case.
The guys on the rear bulkead have about 3 to 4" between their shoulders.

An overweight Foxhound.


----------



## GR66

We could just drop them from the Recce role and keep them for use by MP's, convoy security, security force assistance & training missions, advisors to counter-insurgency missions, etc.

They are useful in certain roles.  Hang on to them and use them when required.  Don't try to find a way to shoehorn them into a role for which they are not really suited.  Get the proper vehicles to fulfill those roles.

🤷‍♂️


----------



## KevinB

GR66 said:


> We could just drop them from the Recce role and keep them for use by MP's, convoy security, security force assistance & training missions, advisors to counter-insurgency missions, etc.
> 
> They are useful in certain roles.  Hang on to them and use them when required.  Don't try to find a way to shoehorn them into a role for which they are not really suited.  Get the proper vehicles to fulfill those roles.
> 
> 🤷‍♂️


You and your logic.


----------



## IKnowNothing

GR66 said:


> We could just drop them from the Recce role and keep them for use by MP's, convoy security, security force assistance & training missions, advisors to counter-insurgency missions, etc.
> 
> They are useful in certain roles.  Hang on to them and use them when required.  Don't try to find a way to shoehorn them into a role for which they are not really suited.  Get the proper vehicles to fulfill those roles.
> 
> 🤷‍♂️


Like I said in F2025, 1x LAV Inf Bde, rest of LAV's to RCAC to build Cavalry regiments, TAPV's to 2x Light Inf Bde's to draw for COIN / Protected Mobility when needed. Round pegs in round holes.


----------



## KevinB

IKnowNothing said:


> Like I said in F2025, 1x LAV Inf Bde, rest of LAV's to RCAC to build Cavalry regiments, TAPV's to 2x Light Inf Bde's to draw for COIN / Protected Mobility when needed. Round pegs in round holes.


It’s not a round peg though.  It’s a square peg trying to be smashed into a round hole for the Infantry.


----------



## IKnowNothing

KevinB said:


> It’s not a round peg though.  It’s a square peg trying to be smashed into a round hole for the Infantry.


Is it that off shape for COIN/Chapter 6 and other low(er) intensity conflict?  Giving survivable wheels for convoy escort, route recce, getting from A->B, laison etc to otherwise light units?


----------



## KevinB

IKnowNothing said:


> Is it that off shape for COIN/Chapter 6 and other low(er) intensity conflict?  Giving survivable wheels for convoy escort, route recce, getting from A->B, laison etc to otherwise light units?


It may get to A to B, but it doesn’t let anyone off at B…
   Give it to the Service Bn’s and MP’s.   
Convoy Escort and Local Defense Tasks are it’s only bread and butter


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> It may get to A to B, but it doesn’t let anyone off at B…
> Give it to the Service Bn’s and MP’s.
> Convoy Escort and Local Defense Tasks are it’s only bread and butter



And when you say Local Defense Tasks you mean Base Security.  Right?

That's the reason you don't need a spare wheel.  You are always in reach of Base Maintenance.


----------



## McG

Kirkhill said:


> And when you say Local Defense Tasks you mean Base Security.  Right?
> 
> That's the reason you don't need a spare wheel.  You are always in reach of Base Maintenance.


Not base, but BSA & DSA.


----------



## GK .Dundas

I have always suspected that the CA is convinced that they will never fight a conflict any farther away from their barracks then twenty minutes....OK, maybe 30 .


----------



## Kirkhill

McG said:


> Not base, but BSA & DSA.



Define please.  For the uninformed.


----------



## McG

Brigade Support Area
Division Support Area

In a capable Army, these are mobile and follow the fighting formation that they support. Bases are fixed infrastructure.


----------



## Kirkhill

McG said:


> Brigade Support Area
> Division Support Area
> 
> In a capable Army, these are mobile and follow the fighting formation that they support. Bases are fixed infrastructure.


Thanks - fixed infrastructure.  Like Airfields, ports, railway yards, factories and warehouses.  Got it.


----------



## McG

Bases are fixed. The BSA & DSA are not.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

I think after looking at various wars and the big one going on right now. Recce is not going to be done by any armoured vehicle, it is going to be done by small hand held drones.  Forward group, launches said drone from a relative safe area, it over flies the area of concern.  Transmits it view back to the troops that launched it or a higher HQ  and they recover the drone if required, make a plan for the attack or or defence of the area they control.  They get real time intell, very little risk to the troops, cheaper than building a recce vehicle and equipping it with troops, weapons and spy gear. Drones today have great cameras, image quality beyond belief, they can fly in almost any weather,  almost silent,  and more than one set of eyes can view the feed at the same time.  The enemy already knows the satellite over flight times, unless they redirect or retask a satellite to an area.  Drones can fly over at any time of day, range of drones is getting better, from 15 minutes  to now hours depending on the power source.  Digital Cameras are getting better every day.  12 years of Nikon DSLR 3/4 sensor cameras have gone from 6 MP to 24.2, a 24 MP picture from 1200 feet is  and beyond is possible   So I think more of the recce work will be done with troops using drones and pre planned flight paths.  All programed even before the drone is launched. 
Attached picture was taken from the CN Tower, 343 meters up or 1122 feet, taken with a nikon d3200 18-55 lens (crappy starter lens).  24.2MP. But I can see the runway at what use to be CFB Toronto, a better quality lens and it would not blur out as much. That is a 12km away from the airport. Good glass and I wonder how much better I could see.  This why I am thinking recce vehicles are going to be gone 

I was Inf before I was Fin clerk,now out,  so I am looking from the outside in.


----------



## KevinB

FormerHorseGuard said:


> I think after looking at various wars and the big one going on right now. Recce is not going to be done by any armoured vehicle, it is going to be done by small hand held drones.  Forward group, launches said drone from a relative safe area, it over flies the area of concern.  Transmits it view back to the troops that launched it or a higher HQ  and they recover the drone if required, make a plan for the attack or or defence of the area they control.  They get real time intell, very little risk to the troops, cheaper than building a recce vehicle and equipping it with troops, weapons and spy gear. Drones today have great cameras, image quality beyond belief, they can fly in almost any weather,  almost silent,  and more than one set of eyes can view the feed at the same time.  The enemy already knows the satellite over flight times, unless they redirect or retask a satellite to an area.  Drones can fly over at any time of day, range of drones is getting better, from 15 minutes  to now hours depending on the power source.  Digital Cameras are getting better every day.  12 years of Nikon DSLR 3/4 sensor cameras have gone from 6 MP to 24.2, a 24 MP picture from 1200 feet is  and beyond is possible   So I think more of the recce work will be done with troops using drones and pre planned flight paths.  All programed even before the drone is launched.
> Attached picture was taken from the CN Tower, 343 meters up or 1122 feet, taken with a nikon d3200 18-55 lens (crappy starter lens).  24.2MP. But I can see the runway at what use to be CFB Toronto, a better quality lens and it would not blur out as much. That is a 12km away from the airport. Good glass and I wonder how much better I could see.  This why I am thinking recce vehicles are going to be gone
> 
> I was Inf before I was Fin clerk,now out,  so I am looking from the outside in.


I think you are correct to a point -- a lot of former Recce tasks have been taken over by ISR UAS.
   But "Recce" tasks as far as Inf and more importantly Armor go is not just ISR.
I think UCV and UAS will do a lot of tasks in the upcoming years, but you cannot conduct some of the mission sets with UCV/UAS at this point in time.   
   The Un-crewed systems will allow a buffer area - but manned systems are still needed.


----------



## GR66

KevinB said:


> I think you are correct to a point -- a lot of former Recce tasks have been taken over by ISR UAS.
> But "Recce" tasks as far as Inf and more importantly Armor go is not just ISR.
> I think UCV and UAS will do a lot of tasks in the upcoming years, but you cannot conduct some of the mission sets with UCV/UAS at this point in time.
> The Un-crewed systems will allow a buffer area - but manned systems are still needed.


I agree.  And with force concentrations being smaller than they were in WWI/WWII you still need to move between the areas where troops are concentrated.  I'm picturing a modern Recce vehicle being a low profile hybrid-electric drive vehicle which can provide protection against small arms and shell fragments, has built-in sensor capabilities for observation, has a self-defence weapon and acts as a sort of mother ship carrier for small UGVs/UAVs which will extend their sensing range while keeping undetected themselves.  Likely 3-4 crew (driver, crew commander and 1-2 UGV/UAV operators/dismounted scouts).


----------



## GK .Dundas

I'm glad everyone has found my bit on logistics to be funny.
The problem is that I was quite serious.
Watching Afghanistan albeit from a distance I was rather disturbed when I noticed several foul ups that shouldn't have occurred.
The most publicly noticable was the mad rush to acquire 25mm ammo just before a major operation . That just should not have happened 
Don't get me wrong I think the Logistic people performed miracles. The thing is, they shouldn't of had to.


----------



## KevinB

GK .Dundas said:


> I'm glad everyone has found my bit on logistics to be funny.
> The problem is that I was quite serious.
> Watching Afghanistan albeit from a distance I was rather disturbed when I noticed several foul ups that shouldn't have occurred.
> The most publicly noticable was the mad rush to acquire 25mm ammo just before a major operation . That just should not have happened
> Don't get me wrong I think the Logistic people performed miracles. The thing is, they shouldn't of had to.


Oh actually I think while it was a funny comment it was spot on, and I doubt many others would disagree...


----------



## Kirkhill

TAPV replacement?

RG-32M Scout - currently operated by Finland (74) and Sweden (380)

4.45 tonnes, 4.97m x 2.06m x 2.05m (LxWxH), 

Crew of 1+4












						RG-32 Scout - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## YZT580

GR66 said:


> I agree.  And with force concentrations being smaller than they were in WWI/WWII you still need to move between the areas where troops are concentrated.  I'm picturing a modern Recce vehicle being a low profile hybrid-electric drive vehicle which can provide protection against small arms and shell fragments, has built-in sensor capabilities for observation, has a self-defence weapon and acts as a sort of mother ship carrier for small UGVs/UAVs which will extend their sensing range while keeping undetected themselves.  Likely 3-4 crew (driver, crew commander and 1-2 UGV/UAV operators/dismounted scouts).


Other than for political approval why would you waste money and carrying capacity on hybrid drives?   The logistics for refueling in combat are bad enough without hauling along your charging system and the self-contained systems add an unnecessary, expensive, and an additional source of mechanical failure to a vehicle that when you gotta go you gotta go now.


----------



## GR66

YZT580 said:


> Other than for political approval why would you waste money and carrying capacity on hybrid drives?   The logistics for refueling in combat are bad enough without hauling along your charging system and the self-contained systems add an unnecessary, expensive, and an additional source of mechanical failure to a vehicle that when you gotta go you gotta go now.


Stealth.  Noise and heat signature.


----------



## KevinB

YZT580 said:


> Other than for political approval why would you waste money and carrying capacity on hybrid drives?   The logistics for refueling in combat are bad enough without hauling along your charging system and the self-contained systems add an unnecessary, expensive, and an additional source of mechanical failure to a vehicle that when you gotta go you gotta go now.


Diesel electric hybrids can charge their own batteries. Most of the Mil hybrids can run on either system alone if one is damaged. 

As @GR66 pointed out for Military vehicles there are a lot of reasons why Hybrid systems are being desired.


----------



## YZT580

KevinB said:


> Diesel electric hybrids can charge their own batteries. Most of the Mil hybrids can run on either system alone if one is damaged.
> 
> As @GR66 pointed out for Military vehicles there are a lot of reasons why Hybrid systems are being desired.


thanks to you both.  And that more than makes up for the added complications?


----------



## McG

Hybrid vehicles charge themselves, use less fuel (good for range & reduced logistics), can achieve higher torque (good for ploughing & acceleration), can operate silently for periods of time, can achieve equal performance with smaller engines (good for weight management & for crew hearing), will have a reduced heat signature (good to avoid detection & targeting).


----------



## KevinB

YZT580 said:


> thanks to you both.  And that more than makes up for the added complications?


GD has been working on this for a while - as have other Mil item providers - complexity is a relative term these days for Engines, but there are a lot of redundancies built in that shock ensure that it is anymore problematic than the standard internal combustion engine.

Also note the US Army has seen significant strains on engine power of a number of the fleet due to the needed energy output for a lot of the newer systems (communication and data stream as well as others).
   The Stryker has gotten a new engine - and Bradley's as well - plus recaps to new systems coming on line as to what their power outputs are at both running, and idle loads.


----------



## Underway

OldSolduer said:


> What is the consensus regarding the TAPV? A bust? A piece of crap?
> 
> The tunnel thing is a bit weird to me. Not really user friendly IMO.


Not overly popular on here, but I have yet to speak to someone who actually uses them in the Strats, 12 RBC or RCD's.  

Internal security vehicles they are good as far as I can tell (NSE type stuff), and they are suprisingly mobile across country, as well as being able to hide in places LAV's often can't.  

But mechanical issues pop up and though they aren't unreliable they aren't reliable either.

I don't think a section carrier or RECCE vehicle are where they will stay.  Probably very good in counter insurgency type missions, not so good in near peer.
Then again the Ukrainians did a thunder run with basically trucks and light vehicles....


----------



## daftandbarmy

Underway said:


> Not overly popular on here, but I have yet to speak to someone who actually uses them in the Strats, 12 RBC or RCD's.
> 
> Internal security vehicles they are good as far as I can tell (NSE type stuff), and they are suprisingly mobile across country, as well as being able to hide in places LAV's often can't.
> 
> But mechanical issues pop up and though they aren't unreliable they aren't reliable either.
> 
> I don't think a section carrier or RECCE vehicle are where they will stay.  Probably very good in counter insurgency type missions, not so good in near peer.
> Then again the Ukrainians did a thunder run with basically trucks and light vehicles....



Reddit has spoken 

the LAV system is a swiss army knife, especially since GDLSC has offered to make a variant for pretty much everything, they even made an armored refueller LAV. A LAV 6 can transport people, has better optics than a TAPV, can shoot at things with more than an upsized potato cannon, go offroad, and has the same crew requirement.

Oh yeah and the LAV doesn't need to be stored in a climate controlled building. Seriously if a TAPV is left in the rain or cold for too long it breaks.

The TAPV has one singular use, its a quick setup gate checkpoint with a heater and aircon.


__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/tcdld5


----------



## KevinB

Underway said:


> Not overly popular on here, but I have yet to speak to someone who actually uses them in the Strats, 12 RBC or RCD's.
> 
> Internal security vehicles they are good as far as I can tell (NSE type stuff), and they are suprisingly mobile across country, as well as being able to hide in places LAV's often can't.


They do some some issues the LAV doesn’t have cross country due to the rather obscenely high CoG.   



Underway said:


> But mechanical issues pop up and though they aren't unreliable they aren't reliable either.
> 
> I don't think a section carrier or RECCE vehicle are where they will stay.  Probably very good in counter insurgency type missions, not so good in near peer.
> Then again the Ukrainians did a thunder run with basically trucks and light vehicles....


Just because UKR did it, doesn’t mean it was a good model.  I’m sure if UKR had LAV 6.0’s they would have used them instead.


----------

