# LAV III Recce Vehicles



## VinceW

An additional 66 LAV 3's are being upgraded to be recce vehicles where are they going to go to the Armour Regiments or the Mechanized Infantry Battalions?

http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsgdls-c-wins-canadian-armys-lav-iii-rss-upgrade-contract
http://www.gdlscanada.com/index.php/news/2012


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

LAVs are a horrible option as a recce vehicle. To big, to loud.


----------



## George Wallace

:

Here we go again.....





[EDIT to add:  AND do not compare a Recce Vehicle with a SURVEILLANCE Vehicle.  Two completely different vehicles and roles.]


----------



## McG

The plan, at least a few years ago, was that this would be the vehicle to mount the surveillance suite (potentially with a newer mast).  It would go into recce sqns.

It represents 66 fewer section carriers on top of those LAV III not getting an upgrade.


----------



## VinceW

George Wallace said:
			
		

> :
> 
> Here we go again.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [EDIT to add:  AND do not compare a Recce Vehicle with a SURVEILLANCE Vehicle.  Two completely different vehicles and roles.]



So the Coyote isn't a recce vehicle then?


----------



## 63 Delta

VinceW said:
			
		

> So the Coyote isn't a recce vehicle then?



While opinions may very on how good of a Recce vehicle the Coyote was, for all intents and purposes it is a Recce vehicle.


----------



## George Wallace

MCG said:
			
		

> The plan, at least a few years ago, was that this would be the vehicle to mount the surveillance suite (potentially with a newer mast).  It would go into recce sqns.
> 
> It represents 66 fewer section carriers on top of those LAV III not getting an upgrade.



Although I can see the merit in mounting an improved surv suite in a LAV III, the idea of robbing Peter to pay Paul is wrong. 

If the plan was to replace the Coyote with refurbished LAV III, at the same time replacing the LAV III with the LAV UP / 6.0 for the INF Bns, then it is flawed in that we would still have two different fleets, likely with not to much in the way of commonality 
of parts.


----------



## George Wallace

HULK_011 said:
			
		

> While opinions may very on how good of a Recce vehicle the Coyote was, for all intents and purposes it is a Recce vehicle.



I will agree that it is a Surveillance Vehicle.  I will never agree that it is a good vehicle for Recce.  The only vehicle as large as the Coyote that I would remotely consider a Recce Vehicle is the Luchs.  You can go read my comments in the Armour Bulletin ( around 1989) on this.

[Edit to add]

Article is in Spring 1991 Edition of the Armour Bulletin, page 5:  http://nebula.wsimg.com/adb0932627f423c31224ecde2e699b17?AccessKeyId=FA39D23B8C57ECBEF009&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

Interesting replies in Letters to the Editor in Autumn 1992 Edition of Armour Bulletin:  http://nebula.wsimg.com/c12d0c9cf12dd23115429f0b5062f2bb?AccessKeyId=FA39D23B8C57ECBEF009&disposition=0&alloworigin=1


----------



## McG

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Although I can see the merit in mounting an improved surv suite in a LAV III, the idea of robbing Peter to pay Paul is wrong.
> 
> If the plan was to replace the Coyote with refurbished LAV III, at the same time replacing the LAV III with the LAV UP / 6.0 for the INF Bns, then it is flawed in that we would still have two different fleets, likely with not to much in the way of commonality
> of parts.


The LAV III Recce will be the same 6.0 standard that the infantry are getting.  The mix fleet problem comes from some existing LAV III variants will not upgrade to the 6.0 standard.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Which variants?  That seems odd.


----------



## McG

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Which variants?


I suspect ISC, but I do not know.



			
				Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> That seems odd.


That is actually the Army's standard path when the requirement does not fit the budget: buy fewer systems or upgrade only part of the fleet.  It is why we started with a LAV III fleet too small for our requirements in the late 90s, and why we have three models of Leopard 2 MBT today.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

The idea in 2008 was for TAPV to replace Coyote one for one. Part of the plan was to put the new surveillance system on the TAPV. I believe that that proved impractical, so the solution was to use LAVs to mount the new suite on a one per Patrol basis.

The planned Recce Troop organization has eight cars: two TAPV in the Tp HQ and three mixed Patrols. Each Patrol would have one TAPV and one LAV Recce. The Recce Squadron would have three Recce Troops. How this will actually unfold has yet to be seen, and I imagine local commanders will come up different ways to organize once they get their hands on the vehicles in the field.

As an aside I quite liked the Coyote, and I would have been happy with an all-LAV Recce squadron. It's big, but it is quite flexible.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I recall an exercise about 15 years ago, on the economy around Meaford. My troop was mounted in Iltis and the RCD supplied an enemy force mounted in Coyote. We were able to near pinpoint the location of the enemy, all along the trace, by the noise, tire tracks and smoke. Not to mention how many time the Mk 1 eyeball was able to confirm.

There was another where I had a patrol of Iltis working for RCD HQ Sqn on their TacEval against the Recce Sqn. We were able to penetrate the Coyote screen and get right in behind them (less than 100 mtrs). My driver changed into his jogging suit and went for a run past a Coyote patrol, where they obliged the 'curious civilian' by showing him the inside of the surveillance vehicle and explained the Troop screen layout. We then egressed, undetected, back and gave our report. There was much surprise when the HQ CP reported the positions of the recce screen to higher.

Big, smoky, noisy Coyote and LAV? Surveillance, yes. Recce? Not so much. Unless you intend to fight for your info, which kind of defeats the purpose of seeing without being seen.


----------



## blackberet17

recceguy said:
			
		

> Big, smoky, noisy Coyote and LAV? Surveillance, yes. Recce? Not so much. Unless you intend to fight for your info, which kind of defeats the purpose of seeing without being seen.



Yep.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

recceguy said:
			
		

> I recall an exercise about 15 years ago, on the economy around Meaford. My troop was mounted in Iltis and the RCD supplied an enemy force mounted in Coyote. We were able to near pinpoint the location of the enemy, all along the trace, by the noise, tire tracks and smoke. Not to mention how many time the Mk 1 eyeball was able to confirm.
> 
> There was another where I had a patrol of Iltis working for RCD HQ Sqn on their TacEval against the Recce Sqn. We were able to penetrate the Coyote screen and get right in behind them (less than 100 mtrs). My driver changed into his jogging suit and went for a run past a Coyote patrol, where they obliged the 'curious civilian' by showing him the inside of the surveillance vehicle and explained the Troop screen layout. We then egressed, undetected, back and gave our report. There was much surprise when the HQ CP reported the positions of the recce screen to higher.
> 
> Big, smoky, noisy Coyote and LAV? Surveillance, yes. Recce? Not so much. Unless you intend to fight for your info, which kind of defeats the purpose of seeing without being seen.



A fifteen year old anecdote, when you were part of the evaluation of the new vehicle and structure is not what I would make a judgement on. Changing into civies in our own country is a nice trick, not sure how it relates.

In my experience on both exercises (instrumented and otherwise) and operations the Coyote (and LAV) did very well as a Recce vehicle. All of this, though, is besides the point.


----------



## George Wallace

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> A fifteen year old anecdote, when you were part of the evaluation of the new vehicle and structure is not what I would make a judgement on. Changing into civies in our own country is a nice trick, not sure how it relates.
> 
> In my experience on both exercises (instrumented and otherwise) and operations the Coyote (and LAV) did very well as a Recce vehicle. All of this, though, is besides the point.



As you know me, and having been a Jeep, Lynx and Coyote Comdr, I have to agree with many of recceguys comments.  One fact he left out, and may not know about, is the fact that the Coyote when running the Surv Suite, eats up a lot of power.  Thus, it has to recharge its batteries at regular intervals.  Noise is a serious problem for any Recce Screen.  (A solution would be taking up more space with an auxiliary generator.)

The Coyote is a superior Surveillance platform, with and excellent gun, and a valuable tool in a Recce Sqn or Regt.  It is NOT a good Recce vehicle.  It is large.  It is wheeled and not as maneuverable over all terrain as a tracked vehicle.  It has a long nose with its main armament on the rear third of the vehicle, which is problematic when approaching crests, not to mention the Comdr is not likely to see something before the driver in many cases of cresting or going around corners.  It is noisier (exhaust) than a LAV III.

Some of the other suggestions I have seen to replace the Coyote, have also been far less than stellar.   Much of our Recce Doctrine has been changed to suit whatever vehicle the Government finds the cheapest.  We are not looking at any vehicles that fit our Doctrine.  Completely the opposite, we are changing our Doctrine to suit the vehicle.  In my opinion, from our 'old' Recce Doctrine days, an ideal Recce vehicle should be small, quiet, fast, able to traverse all terrain and ideally capable to ford or swim.   Large wheeled vehicles like the Coyote and LAV III don't fill those criteria.  Might as well learn how to do Recce in a Greyhound bus.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

George Wallace said:
			
		

> In my opinion, from our 'old' Recce Doctrine days, an ideal Recce vehicle should be small, quiet, fast, able to traverse all terrain and ideally capable to ford or swim.



You mean like this one: http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.route6x6.com/photogallery/images/pg102.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.route6x6.com/photogallery/generalphotos.html&h=384&w=576&tbnid=0Y8VVOXH7LTMqM:&zoom=1&docid=w1RrTubQ1dWaHM&ei=NyTAVO6hINP3ggTO74LIAg&tbm=isch&client=safari&ved=0CCMQMygGMAY


----------



## blacktriangle

Against a sophisticated enemy with air power, persistent ISR, modern EW, and a few motivated Int guys…I don't think vehicles on either side of the argument will fair too well.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

George Wallace said:
			
		

> As you know me, and having been a Jeep, Lynx and Coyote Comdr, I have to agree with many of recceguys comments.  One fact he left out, and may not know about, is the fact that the Coyote when running the Surv Suite, eats up a lot of power.  Thus, it has to recharge its batteries at regular intervals.  Noise is a serious problem for any Recce Screen.  (A solution would be taking up more space with an auxiliary generator.)
> 
> The Coyote is a superior Surveillance platform, with and excellent gun, and a valuable tool in a Recce Sqn or Regt.  It is NOT a good Recce vehicle.  It is large.  It is wheeled and not as maneuverable over all terrain as a tracked vehicle.  It has a long nose with its main armament on the rear third of the vehicle, which is problematic when approaching crests, not to mention the Comdr is not likely to see something before the driver in many cases of cresting or going around corners.  It is noisier (exhaust) than a LAV III.
> 
> Some of the other suggestions I have seen to replace the Coyote, have also been far less than stellar.   Much of our Recce Doctrine has been changed to suit whatever vehicle the Government finds the cheapest.  We are not looking at any vehicles that fit our Doctrine.  Completely the opposite, we are changing our Doctrine to suit the vehicle.  In my opinion, from our 'old' Recce Doctrine days, an ideal Recce vehicle should be small, quiet, fast, able to traverse all terrain and ideally capable to ford or swim.   Large wheeled vehicles like the Coyote and LAV III don't fill those criteria.  Might as well learn how to do Recce in a Greyhound bus.



Actually George, I had one of the first surveillance courses.





			
				Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> A fifteen year old anecdote, when you were part of the evaluation of the new vehicle and structure is not what I would make a judgement on. Changing into civies in our own country is a nice trick, not sure how it relates.
> 
> In my experience on both exercises (instrumented and otherwise) and operations the Coyote (and LAV) did very well as a Recce vehicle. All of this, though, is besides the point.



T2B,

I did recce for nigh on 30 years, Lynx, Ferret, etc. You obfuscate, but don't give any relevant reasoning yourself. Besides an ad hominem attack on my experience.

As to experience, your own, did you ever do any substantial recce on any platform besides Coyote? By substantial, I mean a couple of years actually working with that platform and not some course or familiarization. Jeep, Ferret, Lynx or Iltis?

It's pretty easy to judge others when you aren't that familiar with the concept of real recce. Not one that was bent and twisted to meet the expectations of the Coyote.

It's a one trick pony with no real flexibility.

You remember flexibility right? One of the basic tenants of recce.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

T2B,

I did recce for nigh on 30 years, Lynx, Ferret, etc. You obfuscate, but don't give any relevant reasoning yourself. Besides an ad hominem attack on my experience.

As to experience, your own, did you ever do any substantial recce on any platform besides Coyote? By substantial, I mean a couple of years actually working with that platform and not some course or familiarization. Jeep, Ferret, Lynx or Iltis?

It's pretty easy to judge others when you aren't that familiar with the concept of real recce.
[/quote]

Clearly I have offended you. I don't think it's ad hominim to question your example. I wasn't speaking about you but rather that using an example from a field evaluation trial at the entry of the vehicle's service is not doing justice to the subsequent 15 years of Coyote operations. I don't know what your experience is.

As for your question about my own experience I'll give a thumbnail. I was a Recce Tp Leader on Iltis. I was in the SHQ of a Recce Sqn on operations. I commanded a BG Recce squadron that included Coyotes and LUVWs. I was the 2IC of an armoured regiment for two years that included two Maple Resolves where we were essentially a Recce BG. Now, if I had been tasked to submit points or attend a working group on Recce vehicle design I would certainly have sent one of my WOs/MWOs from the Sqn as the true SME. I think I understand the limits of my experience.

Regarding tactics and employment, though, I've seen Recce Tps and Sqns with Coyotes and LAVs perform very well on instrumented exercises in Wainwright both on my side and the enemy (Red and Blue). As a Sqn Comd my WOs used their experience to get the most out of the Coyote, including knowing when to dismount to check over the next ridge. At the Mech BG level the LUVWs were severely challenged to work in front if the advance, even with a generous time to Recce before HHour. The Coyotes had the mobility, protection, firepower and mounted optics to be able to work in front of the advance. I would then vector my LUVW Tp and Pl in behind the Coyotes to develop contacts. Coyotes or LAVs for all, though, would have worked great. 

You assert that anyone who has only served on Coyote has no real Recce experience. That's quite the statement.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

I personally think the Coyote is a better surveillance vehicle than a recce vehicle; although it is capable of conducting recce ops. 
Way back when, the 8CH, 12 RBC and LdSH had a Sqn of Ferrets and a Sqn of Lynx. Like Recceguy, I spent time on both. The Ferret was fast, quiet, small and was quite maneuverable. It mounted no optics, had no firepower to speak of (C5) to get itself out of trouble, and in adverse terrain conditions (deep snow, extremely rough terrain, swamp and so on) it just sucked. As a "sneak and peek" recce type vehicle, it was hard to beat on good ground. It also excelled (as one would expect) on route recces, rear area security, and other such tasks.
The lynx was much noisier, had no optics, and somewhat better firepower with the .50. But it was unstoppable in almost any kind of terrain. and could take advantage of extremely rough ground to get in to positions to set up OP's where no one in their right mind would think to look for them. It was also much lighter armoured than the ferret....
The Coyote, as mentioned by T2B, has reasonably good optics and a fairly capable gun. But it suffers in it's mobility the same way the Ferret did. The same way any wheeled vehicle would suffer.  
Recce, of course, has many and widely varied tasks. The Coyote is capable of doing most of them very well, and even excels at some of them. But it suffers from being wheeled. My own feeling is that conducting advance to contact in inclement terrain conditions limits to a great extent the Crew Commanders' options. Which also makes the enemies job just that much easier.....
Sorry for re-hashing so much stuff, I felt that there might be one or two people around here not that familiar with Lynx's and Ferrets.Not everyone is as old as Dave and George! (and myself)


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> Not everyone is as old as Dave and George! (and myself)



Thanks Lance :waiting: That just what I needed to hear


----------



## Loachman

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> The lynx ... set up OP's where no one in their right mind would think to look for them.



Like the middle of huge and deep farm manure piles in Germany.

I hovered upwind.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

I'm not a Recce guy so I won't get into specific TTPs but I don't think it's necessarily fair to say the Coyote is a bad recce vehicle,  after all, it was originally designed as a recce vehicle for the Marine Corps.  This being said, the Marines concept of reconnaissance, along with much of their other doctrine is quite different from ours.

The Marine Light Armored Reconaissance Battalions (LAR Bn), from my understanding, is designed to conduct reconnaissance-in-force and actively seeks out the enemy and harrasses them in order to attrit them before they are confronted by the main body.  The LAV-25 is a perfectly suitable vehicle for this task.

If your concept of Recce is sneaking and peeking, than maybe you need a vehicle that is more quiet, has a smaller signature and is more maneuverable.  If your concept of Recce is going out and luring the enemy into a gunbattle, than the LAV-25 is a perfectly suitable vehicle for this.

 :2c:


----------



## Kirkhill

Like Drew - not my game but...

If you're in BC hillcrests, trees and rocks offer hull down positions every couple of meters.

If you're in Shilo, Dundurn, Suffield or Wainwright hill crests are kilometers apart.

On the other hand the valleys between the hillcrests in BC are really deep allowing a tall vehicle with poor optics to get up close if it is quiet.  On the prairies the valleys are shallow so a short, noisy vehicle, or even a tall noisy one can work - so long as it has great optics.

On the prairies you may be belly down behind a hill and still be 100 m behind the crest.

2 more pesos.


----------



## blackberet17

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> I personally think the Coyote is a better surveillance vehicle than a recce vehicle; although it is capable of conducting recce ops.
> Way back when, the 8CH, 12 RBC and LdSH had a Sqn of Ferrets and a Sqn of Lynx. Like Recceguy, I spent time on both. The Ferret was fast, quiet, small and was quite maneuverable. It mounted no optics, had no firepower to speak of (C5) to get itself out of trouble, and in adverse terrain conditions (deep snow, extremely rough terrain, swamp and so on) it just sucked. As a "sneak and peek" recce type vehicle, it was hard to beat on good ground. It also excelled (as one would expect) on route recces, rear area security, and other such tasks.
> The lynx was much noisier, had no optics, and somewhat better firepower with the .50. But it was unstoppable in almost any kind of terrain. and could take advantage of extremely rough ground to get in to positions to set up OP's where no one in their right mind would think to look for them. It was also much lighter armoured than the ferret....
> The Coyote, as mentioned by T2B, has reasonably good optics and a fairly capable gun. But it suffers in it's mobility the same way the Ferret did. The same way any wheeled vehicle would suffer.
> Recce, of course, has many and widely varied tasks. The Coyote is capable of doing most of them very well, and even excels at some of them. But it suffers from being wheeled. My own feeling is that conducting advance to contact in inclement terrain conditions limits to a great extent the Crew Commanders' options. Which also makes the enemies job just that much easier.....
> Sorry for re-hashing so much stuff, I felt that there might be one or two people around here not that familiar with Lynx's and Ferrets.Not everyone is as old as Dave and George! (and myself)



Sounds like an (imperfect) mix of what you'd find in a LUVW.

Small. Fast Relatively quiet (when the fan and crew heater aren't running).
Reasonably good over certain terrain (forget deep snow, swamp, or extremely rough - although, there are a few tracks I DIDN'T think we'd get through, and did).
No optics, short of the binos on the CComd/Gunner's neck.
C6, so "decent" firepower. Even better when you toss in an M72 and Carl G to make things interesting.

Really, my only gripe about the vehicle is it's too damn tall for its wheel-base. Ok, maybe I have more gripes, but I'll save those for another cup of java. Oh, and it breaks down too often and too easily. And top heavy. And...

Light recce, sneak and peek role, rear area, suitable vehicle. Other than that, drawing board where are you!?


----------



## George Wallace

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Like Drew - not my game but...
> 
> If you're in BC hillcrests, trees and rocks offer hull down positions every couple of meters.
> 
> If you're in Shilo, Dundurn, Suffield or Wainwright hill crests are kilometers apart.
> 
> On the other hand the valleys between the hillcrests in BC are really deep allowing a tall vehicle with poor optics to get up close if it is quiet.  On the prairies the valleys are shallow so a short, noisy vehicle, or even a tall noisy one can work - so long as it has great optics.
> 
> On the prairies you may be belly down behind a hill and still be 100 m behind the crest.
> 
> 2 more pesos.



Please.  

Have you ever done a "Crest Drill" with a large vehicle that has the commander located in a turret on the back third of the vehicle?  The option to dismount a crew member works fine ONCE.  Doing a long Route Recce over fifty miles/kilometers (take your pick) and dismounting a crew member for every crest, not to mention every defile, lateral, corner, gap, bridge, ford, etc. will soon have the Bde Comdr on your case within an hour.

The LAV 25 that the Marines use is not a Coyote.  It is 'First Generation' and has a marine drive and trim vane with which they can swim ashore from ships at sea.   As Drew points out, their philosophy of Recon is not the same as our philosophy of Recce.  They are willing to risk contact and fight for their info.  The Germans are the same way; they fight for their info.  The German Luchs is large, fast, well armed and very quiet.  The Luchs also has two drivers, one front and one rear, who have the capability to drive the vehicle just as fast in 'Reverse' as in 'Drive'.  (Note:  Those familiar with the Luchs may remember the problem with their brakes making the same noise our LSVW brakes make.  The Germans solved that problem.)


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Please.
> 
> Have you ever done a "Crest Drill" with a large vehicle that has the commander located in a turret on the back third of the vehicle?  The option to dismount a crew member works fine ONCE.  Doing a long Route Recce over fifty miles/kilometers (take your pick) and dismounting a crew member for every crest, not to mention every defile, lateral, corner, gap, bridge, ford, etc. will soon have the Bde Comdr on your case within an hour.
> 
> The LAV 25 that the Marines use is not a Coyote.  It is 'First Generation' and has a marine drive and trim vane with which they can swim ashore from ships at sea.   As Drew points out, their philosophy of Recon is not the same as our philosophy of Recce.  They are willing to risk contact and fight for their info.  The Germans are the same way; they fight for their info.  The German Luchs is large, fast, well armed and very quiet.  The Luchs also has two drivers, one front and one rear, who have the capability to drive the vehicle just as fast in 'Reverse' as in 'Drive'.  (Note:  Those familiar with the Luchs may remember the problem with their brakes making the same noise our LSVW brakes make.  The Germans solved that problem.)



Exactly George, two very different philosophies.  The Marines aren't only willing to risk contact, if they can destroy the enemy with their recce, they will.  US Army Cavalry works the exact same way.  It was Recce elements in Bradley's that destroyed the Republican Guard at the Battle of 73 Easting during the Gulf War.  The Cav crested a hill and came upon the Republican Guard in a reverse slope defensive position.  Rather than stopping the advance and waiting for heavy armour, they drove right through them and lit them up. 

We had a US Army Scout Cavalry come up for the last Ex MAPLE RESOLVE and they caught a lot of people by surprise when, rather than attempting to break contact when they were engaged, they would turn towards their attackers and immediately counter-attack.


----------



## blacktriangle

When was the last time "sneak and peek" Armd Recce was used in a high intensity conflict between conventional forces? 

Just curious if anyone has any good examples from the last 10-15 years or so.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Spectrum said:
			
		

> When was the last time "sneak and peek" Armd Recce was used in a high intensity conflict between conventional forces?
> 
> Just curious if anyone has any good examples from the last 10-15 years or so.



The only modern conflict I can think of where this would have occurred is probably the South African Border War and even then, a lot of Armoured Recce units didn't operate like our doctrine says in the traditional sneak & peek sense as the war had aspects of both insurgency and conventional warfare.  Koevet (South West African Police Paramilitary Tracking Unit) operated from Casspir Armoured Vehicles across the bush and would track OPFOR down and then call in Fireforce (Airmobile forces) to finish them off.  This could be considered a sneak and peek operation in one sense.

At the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale in 1987/88, which was one of the largest battles of the South African Border War.  South African Reconnaissance elements didn't initially engage Angolan/Cuban Forces and sat and waited (unseen).  It was only after they observed the sloppiness/poor soldiering of the Cubans/Angolans did they decide to engage.  South African Armoured Recce used the Ratel 90 whose 90mm cannon could engage and destroy the T-55's used by the Cubans/Angolans.


----------



## Kirkhill

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Please.
> 
> Have you ever done a "Crest Drill" with a large vehicle that has the commander located in a turret on the back third of the vehicle?  The option to dismount a crew member works fine ONCE.  Doing a long Route Recce over fifty miles/kilometers (take your pick) and dismounting a crew member for every crest, not to mention every defile, lateral, corner, gap, bridge, ford, etc. will soon have the Bde Comdr on your case within an hour.
> 
> The LAV 25 that the Marines use is not a Coyote.  It is 'First Generation' and has a marine drive and trim vane with which they can swim ashore from ships at sea.   As Drew points out, their philosophy of Recon is not the same as our philosophy of Recce.  They are willing to risk contact and fight for their info.  The Germans are the same way; they fight for their info.  The German Luchs is large, fast, well armed and very quiet.  The Luchs also has two drivers, one front and one rear, who have the capability to drive the vehicle just as fast in 'Reverse' as in 'Drive'.  (Note:  Those familiar with the Luchs may remember the problem with their brakes making the same noise our LSVW brakes make.  The Germans solved that problem.)



No, I haven't.  A point of which both of us are fully aware.  However I do regularly drive over hills on the prairies and observe oncoming vehicles.

The length of time that it takes from a vehicle's roof line to be visible to the time that its lights, much less its tires, are visible is measured in minutes (well fractions thereof 15 to 45 seconds).  At a two mile a minute closing rate that suggests that the angle of the slope behind the crest puts the hull down position some hundreds of meters or more beyond the local skyline.

I agree that dismounting somebody to belly up to a crest half a kilometer away would be time consuming.  That's why on the prairies I would imagine that optics are more important than the vehicles.

Conversely, in BC, every turn is an adventure.  Same across Superior and in the Kawarthas.  There the vehicle, I would guess, is more important than the optics.

By the way... Which is Ukraine more like? Petawawa or Shilo?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> By the way... Which is Ukraine more like? Petawawa or Shilo?



judging by the picture of the Donetsk Airport I saw yesterday, neither!  It looks a heck of a lot like the Décarie Expressway in Montreal  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> judging by the picture of the Donetsk Airport I saw yesterday, neither!  It looks a heck of a lot like the Décarie Expressway in Montreal  ;D



Mid Rush Hour....


----------



## George Wallace

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> No, I haven't.  A point of which both of us are fully aware.  However I do regularly drive over hills on the prairies and observe oncoming vehicles.



OK.  Now move into the back seat and drive from there, and you will start to get the idea.     >


----------



## blacktriangle

A diverse tool box of capabilities would seem the most flexible, but maybe that's just me. From an outsider's perspective, I see inherent strengths and weaknesses in "sneak and peek", "fighting for info" and pure surveillance. 

With that said, we are a small army with limited resources - a LAV III with a surveillance suite might not be the worst choice out there (although I see one HUGE potential issue, but I will have to do more research on that)


----------



## George Wallace

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Exactly George, two very different philosophies.  The Marines aren't only willing to risk contact, if they can destroy the enemy with their recce, they will.  US Army Cavalry works the exact same way.  It was Recce elements in Bradley's that destroyed the Republican Guard at the Battle of 73 Easting during the Gulf War.  The Cav crested a hill and came upon the Republican Guard in a reverse slope defensive position.  Rather than stopping the advance and waiting for heavy armour, they drove right through them and lit them up.
> 
> We had a US Army Scout Cavalry come up for the last Ex MAPLE RESOLVE and they caught a lot of people by surprise when, rather than attempting to break contact when they were engaged, they would turn towards their attackers and immediately counter-attack.



Oh.  I know.  We had an American ITV Troop from one of the Cav units attached to our Recce Sqn one Reforger.  We had to constantly tell them that they were NOT TO ENGAGE.

As for how we (Canadians) do Armour Recce; it is not unusually to land up in an OP Screen and then find ourselves twenty to forty kilometers behind enemy lines.  A large vehicle to get to those locations and hide in those locations is a hindrance.   That we have not had a large conflict where large enemy mechanized forces have been involved does not mean that that role has not been practiced.  If you look at what we did in Afghanistan, when patrols were sent out to perform OP tasks, the large Vehicles with masts were dead giveaways.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Spectrum said:
			
		

> A diverse tool box of capabilities would seem the most flexible, but maybe that's just me. From an outsider's perspective, I see inherent strengths and weaknesses in "sneak and peek", "fighting for info" and pure surveillance.
> 
> With that said, we are a small army with limited resources - a LAV III with a surveillance suite might not be the worst choice out there (although I see one HUGE potential issue, but I will have to do more research on that)



It also fits into our idea of being able to project a medium weight force


----------



## George Wallace

Spectrum said:
			
		

> A diverse tool box of capabilities would seem the most flexible, but maybe that's just me. From an outsider's perspective, I see inherent strengths and weaknesses in "sneak and peek", "fighting for info" and pure surveillance.
> 
> With that said, we are a small army with limited resources - a LAV III with a surveillance suite might not be the worst choice out there (although I see one HUGE potential issue, but I will have to do more research on that)



We are a small army with very limited resources, and tight budgets.  Often we will see purchases made by persons who have no idea what the 'end users' actually need, which will then dictate a change to policies/doctrines.

We currently have one of, if not the, best surv suites in the world.  It fills one of your three criteria above.  When it comes to fighting for info, then it is the Recce and Surv pers who will direct the 'big guns' in to get it; be they the Infantry, tanks, arty or some other arm, or a special unit that specializes in the more 'surgical' methods.   Armour Recce's main weapon is its radios.


----------



## blacktriangle

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> It also fits into our idea of being able to project a medium weight force



It sure is nice to get another capability onto a LAV-III platform, but it was sad to read (earlier in this thread) that not all will be upgraded to the same level. 

Definitely time to upgrade and get rid of our Bison variants, though.


----------



## Kirkhill

George Wallace said:
			
		

> OK.  Now move into the back seat and drive from there, and you will start to get the idea.     >



Good enuff.  Butting out ..... for a moment.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Spectrum said:
			
		

> Definitely time to upgrade and get rid of our Bison variants, though.



Bison; that was what I thought would have been a decent recce veh out of the things we've had in our inventory the past few decades.  I've done (peacetime in Canada) recce in Iltis, track (M113), Bison and the G-Wag.  I have zero Coyote time, but I did work a very small bit on my Ptl Cmdr course back in '97 with the surv kit, which I would refer to as 'famil trg'.  Needless to say, it was impressive after only working previously with the Mk 1 eyeball, bino's and that old ground radar (name eludes me now).   

Bison pro's:

- fast (compared to track vehs)
- with a good driver, dropped tire pressures, etc it was loads better off the hard-stand than a jeep/G Wag ever thought of being.  Not as good as a panzer or track, but better than the Cougar/Grizz's, better than the Iltis (though that little effer would go thru more than a lot of people thought if you knew how to drive it), and the G-Wagon is never going to touch the Bison.
- quick transition from off road to hard-stand/hwy driving (if you stopped to actually adjust tire pressures...10 min halt parade and you're off).  
- flick a switch, change from 4 to 8 wheel drive.  same for marine drive.  quick, easy.
- "runflats" mean you weren't fucked immediately like you were if you broke/threw a track.
- was (on paper) a swimmer.  I only every did that in the little swim obstacle on the Gtown driving circuit but, in theory, it would do it.  It was a small obstacle back then that basically only covered prep/entering/exiting.  BUT..I still give it the tick in the box for amphib/swimmer.  
- lots of room for extra kit, if you wanted to add a NODLR, the tripod surv kit, room for extra diesel/rats/water/ammo..whatever you might need in the screen for extended periods. I found it a super piece of kit for an OP base.
- easy to Crew Command the veh.  With the position of the CC seat behind the driver like the Grizz (but 300% better than the grizz for CC comfort), you could fairly easily jump up and do a crest drill with just the top of your noggin coming over the crest.  No turret to consider.
- 2 air sentry hatches were good for Obs, for everything they did mounted.  easy enough for them to get in/out the back on their own when needed.  good set of eyes when reversing/jockeying/moving in a hide, etc.  
- some armour = some protection.  Looking at the Iltis and G-Wag on this one.
- internal/external storage.  even if you took the section box off the top, still decent.
- could pop smoke to run away behind.

Con's:

- no real firepower, but equal to the G-Wag and slightly worse than the Lynx with the .50 
- less capable cross country than track (outweighed by the speed difference, IMO.  I got Bisons in lots of the same areas I was in with track...and mostly faired out okay.)
- when it was stuck..it was fuckin good and stuck.
- noise.  compared to the Iltis.  But a good driver could minimize that, help keep the jake brake from kicking in, etc.
- skill fade on the D & M side (for the PRES side).  They just didn't get enough time on the veh to know it, how to use and not use it.

The Iltis, while great for sneakin' around, easy to command in, great for finding the 'barely low ground' and being able to exploit it, etc, wasn't a great veh in any other way other than fuel economy.  But in the warm weather months, with all the tarp, doors, etc stripped off it, you could get some decent recce done with it...as long as you weren't required to go far from the hard-stand.

The G-Wagon.  Either you have to CC from the top and have an Obs who is looking thru a cab/window...which means you also are going to have to work the C6...or you put the Obs up top and now you have to CC from inside.  I didn't like it and the 'cons' of it compared to the Iltis (for a PRES recce veh or whatever) heavily outweighed the "pros".  

Overall, from my time in the mud recce world, given the choice I'd of taken a Bison over a Iltis/G-Wag/Grizz/Cougar/M113 any day of the week.  I always thought the Bison's only 2 real drawbacks from the Coyote with the mast and 25mm...but those are pretty substantial drawbacks and are somewhat balanced with the swim aspect to me.  I've no time in a Coyote other than gawkin' at them a few times.  

But, from the ones I'd been in before the jump to manicures and room service, I think we missed it not using the Bison more heavily in the mud recce stuff.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Bison; that was what I thought would have been a decent recce veh out of the things we've had in our inventory the past few decades...............................



Problem is, that once they were designated for the Reserves, and paid for as such, the Regs immediately took them over, for Ops purposes : and we never saw them again. The idea that the Reserves would use them as troop carriers and recce was a lie. They were never meant to belong to the Reserves. It was a financial scam to provide the Regs with a new vehicle they couldn't afford.


----------



## MilEME09

recceguy said:
			
		

> Problem is, that once they were designated for the Reserves, and paid for as such, the Regs immediately took them over, for Ops purposes : and we never saw them again. The idea that the Reserves would use them as troop carriers and recce was a lie. They were never meant to belong to the Reserves. It was a financial scam to provide the Regs with a new vehicle they couldn't afford.



Lesson learned, never trust your getting new kit till you physically have it. We've gotten to big and bulky with Recce vehicles IMO, time to go back to a small platform, like a Jeep, G-wagon, land rover etc... how can you recce the enemy after all if they know your watching from the sound of your engine in the distance?


----------



## Lance Wiebe

recceguy said:
			
		

> Thanks Lance :waiting: That just what I needed to hear



I knew that you would pick up and that little dig! >


----------



## Eye In The Sky

recceguy said:
			
		

> Problem is, that once they were designated for the Reserves, and paid for as such, the Regs immediately took them over, for Ops purposes : and we never saw them again. The idea that the Reserves would use them as troop carriers and recce was a lie. They were never meant to belong to the Reserves. It was a financial scam to provide the Regs with a new vehicle they couldn't afford.



Yup, the "MILLAV" I think it was originally called; Militia Light Armoured Veh".

It's too bad it went that way AND that more of them weren't produced.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> We've gotten to big and bulky with Recce vehicles IMO, time to go back to a small platform, like a Jeep, G-wagon, land rover etc... how can you recce the enemy after all if they know your watching from the sound of your engine in the distance?



We used to switch off in position.   Despite it being much quieter, you could hear an Iltis from a position or OP too, etc once they got in closer.  

Even the Iltis had a seemingly small (but was actually huge IMO) fault, because of its size limitations.  We'd often go out with tarp/doors off, windshield down/covered.  The only real place to secure the doorbag then was on top of the superstructure.  With all the kit required and a JAFO in the back, plus your tarp strapped in at the back,  you'd end up strapping shit like rucks onto the side of the superstructure.  It worked well for kit storage -it also worked well at nearly completely blocking in the view the JAFO had.  Pretty slick for recce.  Not sure what your air sentry would be looking at.  Made for a happy JAFO in the rain and cold though.  CC and dvr weren't too bad for being able to actually see something but the JAFO, a lot of the time, was limited in looking left/right/up, and didn't get the option to stand up.  We tried to leave door bags and tarps behind but weren't allowed most of the time (that was a CofC within the unit issue).

Very good little veh for doing sneak and peak, but had a large number of pro's AND con's.

G Wag, not even an option to remove 'doors and tarp'.  Like I said above, its a POS as a recce veh IMO.  

Bison would have worked for mud recce, could have added the surv suite on tripod (it had that option IIRC) for real ops, chuck in a NODLR.  At least then, the PRES would have been able to actually be useful at the troop level for trg, Dom Ops, and deployed.  The bridge/work-up training would have been substantially less when going out the door.


----------



## Kirkhill

How about these requirements?

Light - capable of being carried for 50 km underneath a CH-147/CH-148/CH-149
Small - capable of being carried within a CH-147
Armoured - against 7.62mm and blast
All terrain - capable of traversing sand, marsh and snow at the speed of a marching soldier 
              - capable of road travel in excess of 80 km/h

Capable of transporting automated weapon and surveillance systems with a maximum crew size of three
Fully exploiting current generation computing and network communications to minimize manpower and need for verbal communications.

Capable of being supplied by Canadian industry.....
















Which brings to mind a question that has always bugged me:

When people are discussing 120mm mortar systems - why don't they include the Wiesel system for mounting in the back of either the Wiesel or a LAV or any other vehicle in the fleet?  Only two people (plus the driver), loaded under armour and a decent response time and rate of fire.
A bigger vehicle would only mean more ammunition available.

Edit: And I know it is not an original idea - Teddy Ruxpin 2005



> Actually, I'm not sure I would suggest an airmobile APC.  We used the Wiesel to great effect in Kabul (both the cannon and TOW varieties) and it is easily transportable by heavy lift helicopter.  My feeling is that heliborne infantry use helicopters as their mobility - armoured vehicles should be present (if at all) to add firepower on the ground.  Wiesel does that very well.



http://army.ca/forums/threads/28436/post-239370.html#msg239370


----------



## Eland2

As someone who spent time, several decades ago, in a Reserve armoured recce unit that ran around in M38CDN and M151 jeeps, I thought I'd weigh in on this topic. Nothing of what I write here is based on a professional opinion, just my personal observations. 

I have always thought that the Coyote was too big to do traditional 'mud recce'. Even the new TAPV seems a little large and ungainly for the task, although the Americans have used them with great success as basic patrol and route-proving vehicles. 

But I seem to recall reading something somewhere that said the Coyote was never really designed for traditional recce. That is, with its tall mast and large sensors, it was actually designed to operate as a battlefield surveillance vehicle in peacekeeping deployments, capable of setting up semi-static OPs that could be moved on a moment's notice or at least relatively quickly. With its 25mm chain gun main armament, it could also provide peacekeepers a better means of self-defence if threatened or confronted by one or both of the warring factions. 

Someone posting to this thread mentioned the Iltis and G-Wagen as recce platforms. The Iltis strikes me as something that could work in the right hands - at the very least it would do no worse than the M38CDN and M151 jeeps that preceded it. Like all jeep-type vehicles, it suffers from lack of armour protection, small payload and weapons handling capability as well as partially-compromised cross-country mobility.

The G-Wagen is another matter entirely. It was never designed to be a recce vehicle, but as a general purpose liaison vehicle that could ferry senior NCOs and officers around in rear-echelon and flank areas. The hard-top version that has been handed down to PRes units suffers from compromised mobility, and compromised visibility, which leads in turn to reduced situational awareness.

Someone also mentioned the Bison APC. I tend to agree that it would make a better mud recce vehicle if the LAVII platform was all you could use. As a general concept, it reminds me of the old open-topped M20 utility vehicles that the US Army used for some recce taskings during the later stages of the Second World War. At least you would have the ability to stow a full-scale assault troop in the back with room to spare for personal and other kit.

My personal preference would be to see something small and fast with good cross-country mobility, modest firepower and a decent sensor suite. If it had better anti-mine and anti-IED protection, the German-built Fennek would probably be my top choice for a recce vehicle. I would put the Wiesel at a close second. A modern-day redesign of the old Ferret could also work, too.


----------



## a_majoor

The Israeli "Combat Guard" (or Bodyguard, depending on the translation) is a demonstration of extreme engineering applied to this sort of task. It certainly has the ability to move cross country, can carry the modest sensor and weapons suites and (depending on the internal layout) can carry up to 8 troops. I'm sure the vehicle crews issued with this absolutely love roaring around the training area...

Something like this is well protected against most types of RPG's, mines and IED's, and could be outfitted with the lightweight "Trophy" counter ATGM system. I would think that a recce version should be able to house an RWS and a sensor system on a short mast (like the Fennek), and possibly one or two dismounts as well. If the sensor version is too cramped for dismounts, then carrying 4 dismounts in an accompanying vehicle (extra room for supplies to remain self sufficient for 72 hr) might be a alternative plan.

Something like this (but perhaps less extreme) is probably well within the capabilities of Canadian industry.


----------



## Kirkhill

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The Israeli "Combat Guard" (or Bodyguard, depending on the translation) is a demonstration of extreme engineering applied to this sort of task. It certainly has the ability to move cross country, can carry the modest sensor and weapons suites and (depending on the internal layout) can carry up to 8 troops. I'm sure the vehicle crews issued with this absolutely love roaring around the training area...
> 
> Something like this is well protected against most types of RPG's, mines and IED's, and could be outfitted with the lightweight "Trophy" counter ATGM system. I would think that a recce version should be able to house an RWS and a sensor system on a short mast (like the Fennek), and possibly one or two dismounts as well. If the sensor version is too cramped for dismounts, then carrying 4 dismounts in an accompanying vehicle (extra room for supplies to remain self sufficient for 72 hr) might be a alternative plan.
> 
> Something like this (but perhaps less extreme) is probably well within the capabilities of Canadian industry.





> Israeli Military Industries might have created the most extreme wheeled armored vehicle ever with their unveiling of the Combat Guard. This baby packs 54-inch tires, close to three feet of ground clearance, *weighs eight tons* and can go just about anywhere. Think rock crawler meets Stryker meets Lamborghini LM002 in Halo.



Too bleedin' 'eavy mate.  ;D  A Chinook won't get that thing off the ground much less a  Cyclone.

The parts of the puzzle 'ave to fit together.


----------



## GK .Dundas

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6XTTfUr6I4
  
 one of several videos on the Combat Guards


----------



## Retired AF Guy

How about a modified version of the old BRDM-1 which had a low silhouette, good cross-country capability, amphibious and could be modified to carry ATGM's. By modify I mean an updated hull ti give better protection from IEDs, side door for exiting/entry, etc.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

If I was going to have 8 tires, I wouldn't make 4 of them front tires off a tractor.  I dunno, I am one of those "don't make shit that breaks" type of guys, and retractable tires are in that bracket for me. 

I've never been beside the BRDM 1, but the BRDM II isn't really that much shorter than a Bison.


----------



## a_majoor

Kirkhill, lack of air portability has not stopped the adoption of other recce vehicles like the Lynx, and I think a lot of helicopters would be hard pressed to lift most other types of purpose built recce vehicles.

Anyway, the Combat Guard looks like the sort of vehicle which "could" fulfill the various roles the TAPV program was initiated to cover, patrol vehicle, recce/surveillance vehicle, troop transport etc.

I just would not want to change the tires on that thing....


----------



## GK .Dundas

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Kirkhill, lack of air portability has not stopped the adoption of other recce vehicles like the Lynx, and I think a lot of helicopters would be hard pressed to lift most other types of purpose built recce vehicles.
> 
> Anyway, the Combat Guard looks like the sort of vehicle which "could" fulfill the various roles the TAPV program was initiated to cover, patrol vehicle, recce/surveillance vehicle, troop transport etc.
> 
> I just would not want to change the tires on that thing....


 As I recall the Lynx was capable of being airlifted by the Chinook and it weighs a little bit more then the Combat Guard. BTW in complete agreement with regarding changing the tires! :nod:


----------



## George Wallace

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Kirkhill, lack of air portability has not stopped the adoption of other recce vehicles like the Lynx, a



Lynx was successfully dropped in the Airborne role.....So I would say it was quite air portable, air droppable.


----------



## Kirkhill

I erred.  The Combat Guard can be picked up by the CH-147F.  Just like the Lynx could.

However the largest helicopter immediately available for overseas deployments is likely to be the CH-148 Cyclone launched from a Halifax or a CSC.

If the CSC looks like HDMS Absalon then it will have two CH-148s (plus accompanying ships' aircraft) to lift whatever it can carry in its flex deck (boat deck).  That limits the vehicle size to 4.5 tonnes or so - the maximum rating of the CH-148 cargo hook.

Additional vehicles and troops could be flown in for air drop, LAPES (is that still used?), Tactical Landing or reinforcement in a secure environment.  But in that area we have continually pushed everything to the right.

In Paul Hellyer's day, when he bought 32 Hercs, the M113s and the Lynxes, as well as the L5 Pack Howitzers,  an entire infantry battle group with a light armoured squadron and an artillery battery could be picked up at one time with the available air lift.

The Hercs could carry the M113s, the Lynxs and the Ferrets, as well as the L5s, and either drop them or land them anywhere in Canada.  The CH-47 could recover them from wherever they were stranded to the nearest airstrip.  The Hercs could also carry the Kiowas internally.

Was it planned that way?  I dunno.  Perhaps some of the long service members can answer that.

Should it have been planned that way and should it be planned that way?  Yes.

Attached is a chart comparing vehicle curb/kerb weights to air transport cargo loads.

My suggestion is that if you want to continue to make yourselves useful you choose kit that not only protects you when properly employed but that can also be transported in a timely fashion with available resources.

The more useful you make yourselves the more frequently you are likely to be deployed and the more money and training resources will come your way.

The less mobile you are ... the reverse is likely.


----------



## George Wallace

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> However the largest helicopter immediately available for overseas deployments is likely to be the CH-148 Cyclone launched from a Halifax or a CSC.



You are completely overlooking our purchase of C-17s, with which we transported our Chinooks to and from Afghanistan, along with our Leopard 2s.


----------



## Kirkhill

I did not comment on them. That doesn't mean I overlooked them.

The difference between the Chinook and the Cyclone is that the Cyclone will be operating from a sovereign Canadian base, a ship, that the government can move to within 12 nm of any shore.  The Chinook needs a place for the C17 to land, ground on which it can be reassembled and checked out and time to do that.  As well as the disassembly at the point of origin.

Admittedly, once the Chinook is in theater, it can be used in conjunction with the Cyclones and could use the ships a Forward Refuelling Points.   But it needs a secure airhead to recover to.  And no ships currently in inventory or planned fit that bill.  The Chinook would have to operate from an allied strip 500 to 1500 km from the target.

I suggest that is going to add another week or so to the reaction time.  Cyclones operating from ships with embarked light infantry can react within hours.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You are completely overlooking our purchase of C-17s, with which we transported our Chinooks to and from Afghanistan, along with our Leopard 2s.





			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> You are completely overlooking our purchase of C-17s, with which we transported our Chinooks to and from Afghanistan, along with our Leopard 2s.



I don't envision any sort of vehicle larger than a ATV ever being carried by a CH47 Chinook.  Personally it's a waste of valuable flying time and space on what will surely be a very scarce resource, air mobility that is.  Any Task Force we send overseas, if it has an air component, will be based around an Air Maneuver Task Force consisting of 3-4 Chinooks and 6-8 Griffons for Escorts.  That's not enough to do any sort of carrying of vehicles, the chinooks would be better employed hauling fuel, ammo and supplies to troops and vehicles out in the battle space.

Going along with what George said, any recce vehicle we buy should be transportable by C130 and able to be used in the establishment of an airhead.  Using a country like Haiti for example (this is all of course hypothetical just so we are clear, we aren't going to invade Haiti  ),  Perhaps the CAF may find itself responsible for securing the airhead, something we have already done in the past: 






I would envision an airhead being established with a recce squadron being one of the first assets we would want to put on the ground with the probable mission task being "To Guard".


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The G-wagon can also be had in a soft top version and likely partly armored, there is also the British Jackal


----------



## Eye In The Sky

What is this 'Cyclone' thing being talked about??   >


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

While we all have a favourite Recce vehicle, the point now is to find the best way to integrate TAPV and LAV Recce in a mixed Troop. 

Kirkhill,

I think it is completely wrong to base your requirements for a Recce vehicle on what can be lifted by a helicopter. We do not deploy that way. We are not a Marine Corps (and note that they use LAVs). Stuff moves by unglamourous shipping to a port, and then maybe by C17 or contract air to the airhead if applicable. 

Cheers,

T2B


----------



## Loachman

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You are completely overlooking our purchase of C-17s, with which we transported our Chinooks to and from Afghanistan, along with our Leopard 2s.



We didn't take Chinooks to Afghanistan, and we did not bring them back.


----------



## Kirkhill

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> While we all have a favourite Recce vehicle, the point now is to find the best way to integrate TAPV and LAV Recce in a mixed Troop.
> 
> Kirkhill,
> 
> I think it is completely wrong to base your requirements for a Recce vehicle on what can be lifted by a helicopter. We do not deploy that way. We are not a Marine Corps (and note that they use LAVs). Stuff moves by unglamourous shipping to a port, and then maybe by C17 or contract air to the airhead if applicable.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> T2B



While the Marine Corps uses LAVs for Recce they also have ships to carry them, LCUs, LCACs, HSVs and Helicopters to take them to shore







Is that the way they generally do business? No.
Can they do business that way? Yes.

My point on sizing the recce vehicle for air portability is that there has been a lot of talk about limited budgets and multiple fleets.  Given that then I am suggesting that the RCAC look at a lighter solution for Recce that is deployable by a larger number of platforms and is more useful in a variety of terrains.

The fact that lighter is smaller and that it plays to Mr. Wallace's preferred types of vehicles is just an unfortunate coincidence.  >

A couple of final points on deployment - I trust we never have to deploy a battle group to Eureka, but it would be nice to know we have the capability.

As well, there was some concern about lack of vision,  it would be nice to know that we could repeat this operation:



> Nicosia - 1974
> 
> On 1 Apr 1974, 1 Commando Group (1 Commando and 1 Airborne Field Squadron, Canadian Military Engineers), were sent on the Regiment's first peacekeeping mission, a 9-month tour of duty on Cyprus as the Canadian contingent of United Nations Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP). On 6 Apr the Group was tasked with the Nicosia sector. In Canada, 2 Commando and 3 Mechanized Commando continued normal training.
> 
> On 15 Jul, the Greek Cypriot National Guard staged a coup and overthrowing president Archbishop Makarios III; UNFICYP forces were placed on alert. Five days later, on 20 Jul 1964, the Turkish army invaded in response to the overthrow, officially claiming they wished to protect the Turkish minority on the island. Airborne and amphibious operations (including 1,000 Turkish paratroopers) landed Turk soldiers near Nicosia and Kyrenia; Greek forces used the positions of the United Nations peacekeepers to shield themselves while conducting defensive operations, and UN observation posts were necessarily abandoned as Turkish forces opened fire on them.
> 
> The Airborne soldiers, with British support, took command of the international airport to deny further troop movement, then intervened with patrols to prevent escalation of the conflict. The remainder of the Canadian Airborne were deployed to Cyprus as the UN forces tried to establish a cease-fire. On 2 Aug 1974, Colonel Lessard, the Commanding Officer of the Canadian Airborne Regiment, established a heavy patrol schedule, along with re-establishment of UN observation posts and where necessary the removal of both Greek and Turkish roadblocks.
> 
> On 14 Aug 1974, a new invasion by the Turks began to actively target the UN soldiers; after two days a ceasefire was established with both Greeks and Turks preparing defensive positions. The Airborne continued their patrols, between the soldiers of both sides, as well as assisting with aid to civilian refugees and the prisoner of war exchanges between the two sides.
> 
> During the hostilities, Private Lionel Gilbert Perron, age 20, and Private Joseph Jean Claude Berger, age 21 both of 1 Commando, were killed and 30 Airborne soldiers were wounded. Perron was killed on 6 Aug 1974 and Berger on 10 Sep 1974. They were the first combat casualties suffered by the Canadian Army since the Korean War but unfortunately not the last Canadian soldiers to die on operations in the 20th Century.
> 
> Eventually, two Stars of Courage and six Medals of Bravery were awarded for actions during this operation. Five members of 1 Airborne Field Squadron were also made Members of the Order of Military Merit. Their work had involved reconstruction and repair duties, as well as the clearance of mines and creation of safe lanes through minefields. The last members of 1 Commando returned to Canada on 12 Dec 1974.



Final thought - 

In the event of NEO operation - would it not be useful to be able to pick up Canadians from a remote airhead, secured by Canadians, rather than having them move with the madding crowd, along congested roads, to the ports and airports that are being shelled?


----------



## Kirkhill

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> What is this 'Cyclone' thing being talked about??   >



Alright.... Sea King if you prefer.


----------



## cupper

Found this little gem while doing a search for various recce vehicles.

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2013/07/the-c-quad-recce-vehicle/

At first I figured it would be a humourous sidebar, but then thought that combined with a slightly larger vehicle such as the Jackal to carry the additional stores, heavier armament providing overwatch while two or three quads moved further forward could be a viable option.

But I'm no expert on recce operations, just what I was taught on my CLC way back in the dark ages.

Thoughts?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin P said:
			
		

> The G-wagon can also be had in a soft top version and likely partly armored, there is also the British Jackal



Too bad we don't have something like this anymore: purpose designed for recce, armoured and armed, airportable, and can be parachuted strapped to a platform. And cheap.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HooVh_HtHZU


----------



## Colin Parkinson

This was to be the replacement for the Ferret. There are lots of options, the real key is nailing down what the role is and what is absolutely must have and what will you sacrifice for it. Have listened to many experienced recce types, it seems the surveillance portion was/is to be covered by the Coyote and replacement LAV III. But there is no current dedicated recce vehicle. So we need to know the tactical use of that vehicle which will dictate the requirements (open topped, turret, armament, tracked vs wheeled) I personal like the way the Brits set the recce units with 3 types to create a layered screen with ability to observe and to fight as required.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

We have a dedicated Recce vehicle - the Coyote. We will soon have two dedicated Recce Vehicles: LAV Recce and the TAPV. Searching the web for our pet favourite Recce vehicle is fun and all, but at the end of the day it is left to the reconnaissance units to find the best TTPs for the Recce vehicles that we have.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> We have a dedicated Recce vehicle - the Coyote. We will soon have two dedicated Recce Vehicles: LAV Recce and the TAPV. Searching the web for our pet favourite Recce vehicle is fun and all, but at the end of the day it is left to the reconnaissance units to find the best TTPs for the Recce vehicles that we have.



I agree T2B.  Personally, I have some reservations about a mixed troop which seems to be the way the Armd Corps wants to go with this.  Here is a question for you; will the LAV 6.0, when it is upgraded with the surveillance suite, have the ability to still accommodate a couple of dismounts in the back?

Perhaps each Regiment could form a Recce sqn based off the TAPV while also forming a "Cavalry" Sqn based off the LAV 6.0?  I would envision this Recce sqn operating more like a USMC LAR or even 1 REC of th French Army.  Somethi like this might even provide the opportunity to sneak back in TOW/Javelin in the near future which would be a great capability for this LAV based Cav Sqn to have? This to me would seem preferable than mixing fleets in a troop, which seems like it would be a logistical burden on the echelons.  Looking for your thoughts on this?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> We have a dedicated Recce vehicle - the Coyote. We will soon have two dedicated Recce Vehicles: LAV Recce and the TAPV. Searching the web for our pet favourite Recce vehicle is fun and all, but at the end of the day it is left to the reconnaissance units to find the best TTPs for the Recce vehicles that we have.



So you plan on sending the Coyote or it's LAV III to poke through holes in the enemy lines? I'm not recce but that seems to be a waste of a resource to me. The distinction of recce and surveillance seem pretty clear even to a Herbie like me. I spent my time watching the BCR's doing great recce with the M38's. One appears to be passive surveillance within the general safety of our own frontlines and the other a active if stealthy acquisition of information by probing beyond our frontlines or flanks. Is that a fair statement?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Colin P said:
			
		

> So you plan on sending the Coyote or it's LAV III to poke through holes in the enemy lines? I'm not recce but that seems to be a waste of a resource to me. The distinction of recce and surveillance seem pretty clear even to a Herbie like me. I spent my time watching the BCR's doing great recce with the M38's. One appears to be passive surveillance within the general safety of our own frontlines and the other a active if stealthy acquisition of information by probing beyond our frontlines or flanks. Is that a fair statement?



It works for the Marines and US Army so why not?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Likely as they have replacements, we will not be able to sustain many losses. How many are going to have the full suite attached?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> We have a dedicated Recce vehicle - the Coyote. We will soon have two dedicated Recce Vehicles: LAV Recce and the TAPV. Searching the web for our pet favourite Recce vehicle is fun and all, but at the end of the day it is  should be left to the reconnaissance units to find the best TTPs recce vehicles for the Recce vehicles  TTPs that we have.



 ;D


----------



## Lance Wiebe

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> I agree T2B.  Personally, I have some reservations about a mixed troop which seems to be the way the Armd Corps wants to go with this.


Royal Drew; I'm pretty sure that this is not the way the Armour Corps wanted to go.  The TAPV was never a requirement for the Corps, in fact, I'm not sure the Army had a requirement for it. In my opinion, the TAPV is being bought so there would be a rational excuse to cut down the number of expensive surveillance vehicles. The TAPV is going to be a terrible recce vehicle, little situational awareness, limited mobility, high silhouette and (again, my opinion) a poor choice of weapon.


----------



## Eland2

Colin P said:
			
		

> So you plan on sending the Coyote or it's LAV III to poke through holes in the enemy lines? I'm not recce but that seems to be a waste of a resource to me. The distinction of recce and surveillance seem pretty clear even to a Herbie like me. *I spent my time watching the BCR's doing great recce with the M38's.* One appears to be passive surveillance within the general safety of our own frontlines and the other a active if stealthy acquisition of information by probing beyond our frontlines or flanks. Is that a fair statement?



One of the advantages the M38's had aside from being small and therefore harder to see and hit, is that you could drive them up to a spot where you could observe the enemy without being detected, fix the grid reference, then quickly double back a tactical bound or two and then call in a fire mission. 

The enemy would never quite be able to find out how their location was pinned down, as you would be long gone by the time their counter-recce elements had probed the tactical bounds that you had covered. Not that this would necessarily matter, as the first thing the enemy would do is call in a counter-battery fire mission once the origin of the incoming rounds had been figured out. But the bottom line is that the enemy would have been forced to needlessly deploy their own recce elements only to find nothing.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Eland2 said:
			
		

> One of the advantages the M38's had aside from being small and therefore harder to see and hit, is that you could drive them up to a spot where you could observe the enemy without being detected, fix the grid reference, then quickly double back a tactical bound or two and then call in a fire mission.
> 
> The enemy would never quite be able to find out how their location was pinned down, as you would be long gone by the time their counter-recce elements had probed the tactical bounds that you had covered. Not that this would necessarily matter, as the first thing the enemy would do is call in a counter-battery fire mission once the origin of the incoming rounds had been figured out. But the bottom line is that the enemy would have been forced to needlessly deploy their own recce elements only to find nothing.



We are talking about a vehicle that is as old as my father, not really relevant on today's battlefield, I dare say.  I hate to say this but any vehicle we buy has to first and foremost, be survivable.  An M38 is nowhere near the type of vehicle we need and you may as well order mor body bags if you send guys out on patrol in one.  We had how many LAV's destroyed overseas?  Some people died but imagine if all those guys were in an M38.  

Sorry but conducting reconnaissance on today's battlefield in an M38 is a stupid idea.


----------



## Kirkhill

Interesting dialog from ARRSE 2013 - On the occasion of the Light Dragoons transferring from Scimitars to Jackals.



> Ok that makes a little more sense that I initially thought, BUT what is it a light cav regiment can bring to a battle that an infantry unit mounted on Jackals cant?
> Or am I seeing this wrong? When you say they would be more specialised on the jackals, do you mean like for example they would go ahead of a main force and do recce, with the capability to camp out in their jackals and fight in minor engagements etc? I think the role sounds really good I just don't understand what the role will be if you get me, can you elaborate. It's a case of always wanted to join the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards but don't want to be doing a job any infanteer could do.
> 
> Many thanks





> As I have stated elsewhere:
> 
> As a member of the Light Dragoons Regimental Association, I got the Journal in the Spring. Back from AFG for the last time at the end of last year, they have handed back CVR(T)s for the last time and will be first regiment into the light cavalry role, which is apt since Eliot's light Horse (Eliot's Light Dragoons / 15th Light Dragoons / Hussars / 15th/19th Hussars / Light Dragoons) were raised in 1759, the first regiment in the British Army to be raised as light cavalry: the circle is complete.
> 
> The Journal makes it clear that currently nobody knows for sure what the role will really be, so the LD, as first in, will make up the role as they go along. So in my considered opinion, the next few years could be really interesting for the LD as Light Cav, but maybe somewhat less so for Scots DG.
> 
> One upside of reroling the Scots DG is that you will get precious little time to be crew bitch as suggested elsewhere. I joined 15/19H in NI a few months before they reroled as Armd Recce and because I was as well trained as (or better than) most of the sweats, I was always treated as an equal.





> Except that's not what is happening. LD, by virtue of their position in the training and deployment cycle, are first to actually try things out, but the concept of employment is being hashed out by all three regiments. Nobody has their paws on it exclusively, and things will chop and change for the next few years as we work out the job between us all.



http://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/mbt-crewman-or-light-cav.201923/page-4



> You may not still be waiting but avoid buying QRL bits from the PRI!
> 
> I understand they will be Armd Recce on clapped out CVR until Scout comes in!
> 
> I also undertand that rather like LC the doctrine for use of Scout in AR is still to be written!
> 
> Thank god for CR2 at least we know how it works (or do we, RTR is currently writing new doctrine for use of MBT in future peer to peer ops, why one would want to go to war with ones peers is beyond me, pick on the little shit in the corner is far better!).



http://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/mbt-crewman-or-light-cav.201923/page-5


----------



## daftandbarmy

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> We are talking about a vehicle that is as old as my father, not really relevant on today's battlefield, I dare say.  I hate to say this but any vehicle we buy has to first and foremost, be survivable.  An M38 is nowhere near the type of vehicle we need and you may as well order mor body bags if you send guys out on patrol in one.  We had how many LAV's destroyed overseas?  Some people died but imagine if all those guys were in an M38.
> 
> Sorry but conducting reconnaissance on today's battlefield in an M38 is a stupid idea.



So the Germans and Dutch have got it wrong then?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fennek


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

TAPV emphasizes blast protection (IEDs) - it was acquired due to Afghanistan. Their was plenty of debate about priorities (mobility vs protection etc) at the RCAC working groups I attended. Again, it was originally hoped to put the surveillance suite on the the TAPV. As an aside, the Fennek was used as an example of what TAPV could be like. I haven't worked with TAPV, so we'll have to see how the mobility aspect works out.

There is tremendous variation in Recce vehicles, perhaps more so than in other types of vehicles. Based on our situation, I would have preferred all LAV. We were dreaming of the CV90 as a Recce veh for heavy forces when the CCV project was alive... At the end of the day the professionals get on with the job with the tools at hand. Following up on RoyalDrew's comments, I imagine some commanders will consider grouping their LAVs together - we'll have to see.

I've attended Recce courses in the US Army and worked with their scout and cavalry elements. They do not see their scouts as expendable. They sneak and peek with M3 Bradley's, dismounting at danger areas etc. My wartime experience is in COIN, but I have plenty of exercise experience in conventional force on force Recce. Coyotes and LAVs can absolutely conduct Recce.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Eland2 said:
			
		

> One of the advantages the M38's had aside from being small and therefore harder to see and hit, is that _you could drive them up to a spot where you could observe the enemy without being detected, fix the grid reference, then quickly double back a tactical bound or two and then call in a fire mission_.



 ???

Doesn't that mean you aren't maintaining contact and therefore not able to confirm enemy disposition, not to mention you aren't able to send corrections if needed?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> So the Germans and Dutch have got it wrong then?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fennek



No, the Fennek has at least some form of protection.  The M38 is an open top jeep, very different.


----------



## Loachman

But we still put troops out on foot...


----------



## George Wallace

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> No, the Fennek has at least some form of protection.  The M38 is an open top jeep, very different.



Just an example of misunderstanding what the requirements are.  Not denigrate one vehicle over another, or suggest one vehicle over another, but a good Recce Vehicle will have as a minimum the commander "out of the vehicle" in that (s)he is not enclosed totally in a "cab", but able to see and HEAR (most important) what is going on outside.  The commander, as a minimum number of crew, must be able to HEAR what is going on around them outside of the vehicle.  You can not do that inside of an enclosed vehicle.  

You need to be able to use all your senses in Recce.  To take away your sense of hearing will denigrate your capabilities.

(This has been hashed over in other discussions on what Armour Recce does and needs.)


----------



## George Wallace

Loachman said:
			
		

> But we still put troops out on foot...



40 km behind enemy lines is a long and time consuming hump.   ;D


----------



## Loachman

Yes.

The choice is between slow and tired troops, or fast and less-fatigued ones. The level of protection is the same.

If armour reduces effectiveness for the sake of physical protection, then protection is really illusory.


----------



## blackberet17

Armour should not reduce effectiveness...if the right vehicle is determined for the task assigned.

Based solely on what I have seen and heard of the TAPV, it is NOT a Armd Recce veh. It has too high a profile and too small a view port, is too large for urban ops (which Armd Recce doesn't really like to do anyway, i.e. moving through built-up areas), and the CComd's senses, as argued by GW, are limited - again partly due to such a small view port (which is larger in a frigging G-Wag by comparison!), but also because of the hatch above the Comd...it's right in front of the RWS loc, and is supposedly to remain shut the majority of the time...if it hasn't been welded shut already...because of the blast protection blah blah etc.

So...there HAS to be a veh out there which allows for the sneak and peek recce, while offering a (to-be-quantified/acceptable) level of crew blast protection, which can be fast and quiet.

I readily admit. I'm not up on veh specs and the technical side of things. Tell me the platform(s) I have to work with, and I'll go do my job.


----------



## McG

Does the TAPV not have hatches that allow both crew comd and driver to operate heads up?  The hatches are certainly in the photos, and I have seen other images of US variants being operated this way.


----------



## Eland2

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> We are talking about a vehicle that is as old as my father, not really relevant on today's battlefield, I dare say.  I hate to say this but any vehicle we buy has to first and foremost, be survivable.  An M38 is nowhere near the type of vehicle we need and you may as well order mor body bags if you send guys out on patrol in one.  We had how many LAV's destroyed overseas?  Some people died but imagine if all those guys were in an M38.
> 
> Sorry but conducting reconnaissance on today's battlefield in an M38 is a stupid idea.



I never meant to suggest that M38 jeeps would make acceptable recce vehicles. I was pointing out the fact that they had speed and small size in their favour against the backdrop that reflected all of their other flaws. 

There is no question that M38 jeeps are totally inadequate as serious recce vehicles, especially in today's environment of increased and progressively more lethal threats. Even when the M38's were used by Canadian reserve recce units from the 1950s until the mid-1990s, they were inadequate for the job. They were the end result of a succession of governments that were too cheap to provide reserve units with equipment that was genuinely suited to the job they were expected to do.

The expectation was that Canada would never have to make much of a contribution in the next major war, as the Americans would pretty well do it all for us. Accordingly, the choice to not make proper investments in military hardware for reserve units was made.

It is really a stroke of great fortune that as a country, Canada never had to engage in the kind of serious combat that would have required it to draw heavily on its reserve forces in the time period I mention. I say this because had the opposite been true, the end result would have been that Canada would not have been able to make proper use of already underprepared and underequipped reserve units, or it would have ended up consigning soldiers in large numbers to almost certain death and defeat. 

We have already seen what happens when soft-skinned, open-top (or even hardtop) jeeps get deployed to places like the former Yugoslavia and Afghanistan. They usually get shot up pretty good, as do their crews, or they get blown up by IEDs.

Any vehicle can be used to do recce taskings. However, one must be aware of their inherent limitations before deploying them, and be prepared to accept the consequences if the vehicles used lack sufficient firepower, armour protection, and cross-country mobility to really do the job right. No one vehicle will ever offer the perfect solution, anyway.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Loachman said:
			
		

> But we still put troops out on foot...



Agreed, but that doesn't mean while they are moving from Point A to Point B, they shouldn't have some form of protection.  the South Africans were the ones who first made extensive use of MRAPs in the 1980s fighting guerrillas in South West Africa.  Some of their reconnaissance units used the very sort of MRAPs we are righting off as "No use to us!" 

Our problem is we don't obey the rules of the road when it comes to employing MRAPs and treat MRAPs like IFVs or vice-versa.  

When it comes to Armoured Recce, the days of sneaking and peeking are over as far as I am concerned.  Especially with the advanced optics and weapons available on today's IFV's, Tanks and the big one we are forgetting, Helicopters.  The optics are what I am most concerned with and after that, firepower.  If you want to sneak around, awesome, but you better carry a big boom stick while you do that sneaking.  

We need to remember that the enemy gets a vote as well.  The Americans and Brits went into Iraq and the Ghan with unarmoured Humvee's and Land Rovers, there is a reason they quickly started bolting plates on and up armouring their vehicles.  Driving around in an M38 Jeep on exercise is one thing, doing it in a far away land where you don't know the territory and your enemy does is totally different.  

That was against an asymmetric threat, now take that M38 Jeep and put it up against a LAV III with a 200rd per min stabilized 25mm chain gun with thermal imaging and see how well it fares.  My thinking is we need to revisit our doctrine, not the type of vehicles we are buying.

In summation, if you don't have a big gun and good optics, you are no use to me as Armoured Recce.  If I wanted someone to go out and drive around in a jeep doing Recce, I'd get an Infantry Recce Pl to do it.


----------



## blacktriangle

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Agreed, but that doesn't mean while they are moving from Point A to Point B, they shouldn't have some form of protection.  the South Africans were the ones who first made extensive use of MRAPs in the 1980s fighting guerrillas in South West Africa.  Some of their reconnaissance units used the very sort of MRAPs we are righting off as "No use to us!"
> 
> Our problem is we don't obey the rules of the road when it comes to employing MRAPs and treat MRAPs like IFVs or vice-versa.
> 
> When it comes to Armoured Recce, the days of sneaking and peeking are over as far as I am concerned.  Especially with the advanced optics and weapons available on today's IFV's, Tanks and the big one we are forgetting, Helicopters.  The optics are what I am most concerned with and after that, firepower.  If you want to sneak around, awesome, but you better carry a big boom stick while you do that sneaking.
> 
> We need to remember that the enemy gets a vote as well.  The Americans and Brits went into Iraq and the Ghan with unarmoured Humvee's and Land Rovers, there is a reason they quickly started bolting plates on and up armouring their vehicles.  Driving around in an M38 Jeep on exercise is one thing, doing it in a far away land where you don't know the territory and your enemy does is totally different.
> 
> That was against an asymmetric threat, now take that M38 Jeep and put it up against a LAV III with a 200rd per min stabilized 25mm chain gun with thermal imaging and see how well it fares.  My thinking is we need to revisit our doctrine, not the type of vehicles we are buying.
> 
> In summation, if you don't have a big gun and good optics, you are no use to me as Armoured Recce.  If I wanted someone to go out and drive around in a jeep doing Recce, I'd get an Infantry Recce Pl to do it.



Good post. I am still waiting for recent examples to be put forth that show the value of "sneak and peak" outside of SOF and Recce Pl/Snipers. And for those that will pull the "radio is the main weapon of Armd Recce" - don't forget that against a foe with advanced capabilities, radio waves speak louder than diesel engines. I hope you don't plan on setting up an OP for any extended period - you will find rounds falling on you, or bad guys knocking. 

Too bad they can't scrape up enough LAV III to completely fill out Armd Recce. To me, patrols consisting of 1 x LAV III with surv suite, and a second LAV (perhaps with a couple dismounts in the back) seems far more flexible than a mixed patrol. I also see logistical disadvantages of the mixed concept. 

But as T2B says, we get what we get and have to figure out how to make it work.


----------



## George Wallace

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Agreed, but that doesn't mean while they are moving from Point A to Point B, they shouldn't have some form of protection.  the South Africans were the ones who first made extensive use of MRAPs in the 1980s fighting guerrillas in South West Africa.  Some of their reconnaissance units used the very sort of MRAPs we are righting off as "No use to us!"
> 
> Our problem is we don't obey the rules of the road when it comes to employing MRAPs and treat MRAPs like IFVs or vice-versa.
> 
> When it comes to Armoured Recce, the days of sneaking and peeking are over as far as I am concerned.  Especially with the advanced optics and weapons available on today's IFV's, Tanks and the big one we are forgetting, Helicopters.  The optics are what I am most concerned with and after that, firepower.  If you want to sneak around, awesome, but you better carry a big boom stick while you do that sneaking.
> 
> We need to remember that the enemy gets a vote as well.  The Americans and Brits went into Iraq and the Ghan with unarmoured Humvee's and Land Rovers, there is a reason they quickly started bolting plates on and up armouring their vehicles.  Driving around in an M38 Jeep on exercise is one thing, doing it in a far away land where you don't know the territory and your enemy does is totally different.
> 
> That was against an asymmetric threat, now take that M38 Jeep and put it up against a LAV III with a 200rd per min stabilized 25mm chain gun with thermal imaging and see how well it fares.  My thinking is we need to revisit our doctrine, not the type of vehicles we are buying.
> 
> In summation, if you don't have a big gun and good optics, you are no use to me as Armoured Recce.  If I wanted someone to go out and drive around in a jeep doing Recce, I'd get an Infantry Recce Pl to do it.



Well.....We could go the way the Germans did.  They retired their Luchs in their Reconnaissance Regiments and replaced them with Leopard 1's, cascaded down as the Armour Regiments were equipped with Leopard 2.


----------



## Infanteer

I think I've seen this argument....

http://army.ca/forums/threads/35526.0.html


----------



## Eye In The Sky

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> When it comes to Armoured Recce, the days of sneaking and peeking are over as far as I am concerned.  Especially with the advanced optics and weapons available on today's IFV's, Tanks and the big one we are forgetting, Helicopters.  The optics are what I am most concerned with and after that, firepower.  If you want to sneak around, awesome, but you better carry a big boom stick while you do that sneaking.



Optics (eg IR) are a game changer.  Also, in addition to what most people think of when they think "optics" (thermal, IR, EO, etc) I will throw in imaging radars.  They can see you from a great distance, thru weather, etc.  Even though it's not passive, if you can't reach out and touch it there isn't much you can do about it.  Fuse that data into a weapons system/operator...

If a sensor operator can see a person on IR at night wayyy wayyy up there, they sure can see your AFV.  And they can.  Be careful lighting that smoke in your dismounted OP.


----------



## a_majoor

Just a side note, came across some pictures of the German "Luchs" 8X8 recce vehicle of the cold war era. The only reason it could do recce, despite being about as big as a LAVIII was it's 8X8 independent suspension, 8X8 steering (all the wheels steered!) and mid engine configuration with the radio operator/aux driver in the rear able to drive the vehicle out of trouble in a pinch.

The turret was well forward, so the commander could get firepower going right away if he saw something, rather than back about 2/3 of the way as george points out on a LAV:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

and can swim as well


----------



## dogger1936

Give me a toyota helix and a pair of Binos and I'd be a happy recce soldier in Astan. Recce can be done from any Vehicle' and contrary to popular belief we do dismount as required to complete the job. My favorite vehicle I have done recce with was a route recce mounted in a leo 2. Best recce vehicle ever.


----------



## MilEME09

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> Give me a toyota helix and a pair of Binos and I'd be a happy recce soldier in Astan. Recce can be done from any Vehicle' and contrary to popular belief we do dismount as required to complete the job. My favorite vehicle I have done recce with was a route recce mounted in a leo 2. Best recce vehicle ever.



Well thats putting the Armoured in armoured recce


----------



## dogger1936

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Well thats putting the Armoured in armoured recce



Meanwhile recce Sqn was dismounted doing infantry stuff. Employment of armd recce in the battlefield was near non existent as they were employed as a battalion up in Argandab. Many times we asked for their over-watch capabilities etc but they could never supply a patrol due to their commitments.A valuable commanders asset was lost on our tour due to a manpower issue (not enough infantry to cover the north) in my humble opinion. Having said that we came under heavy contact that route recce (Taliban road) and had the firepower to destroy and carry on with the task.


----------



## blackberet17

Armoured School hosted the three Atlantic provinces-based Armd Recce units last March. I had a prior commitment, but heard great things. Commandant of the School was experimenting with using heavy armour for recce, i.e. L-2s, and having them go up against mixed recce of LAVs and Coyotes (maybe L-2s as well). Recce on Recce...

Obviously, the heavy slaughtered the light...but it was all JCATs and VBS. Done in the real sense, I wonder how it would have worked, with light recce sneaking and peeking vs grumbling loud tanks. Firepower, no match, of course, however...


----------



## MedCorps

To build on some of the comments that Kirkhill posted earlier in the thread.  

The UK Army has just undergone a large downsizing.  This resulting in a number of units being removed from their ORBAT.  

The one new cap badge that emerged from all of this downsizing is within the RAC and is the Scottish and North Irish Yeomanry (SNIY) which is light cavalry. They are mounted on mounted in light armoured vehicles (R-WMIKs, basically a Land Rover) and tasked with armoured recce duties. 

As mentioned SNIY has been paired with the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards (SCOT DG) who have been recently re-rolled after 75 years from tanks to light cav and equipped with the Jackal 2.

See WMIK: http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/23594.aspx
See SNIY: http://www.army.mod.uk/armoured/regiments/28480.aspx
See Light Cav: http://www.army.mod.uk/armoured/regiments/35816.aspx
See Jackal 2: http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/23243.aspx

Cheers, 

MC


----------



## blackberet17

As much as I like my crew heater (hee hee), Jackal 2 isn't a bad light recce veh. And a heck of a lot more SA than the LUVW.


----------



## blacktriangle

blackberet17 said:
			
		

> I readily admit. I'm not up on veh specs and the technical side of things. Tell me the platform(s) I have to work with, and I'll go do my job.



LAV III and TAPV. Glad to be of service - that will be on my brag sheet.


----------



## Eland2

blackberet17 said:
			
		

> Armoured School hosted the three Atlantic provinces-based Armd Recce units last March. I had a prior commitment, but heard great things. Commandant of the School was experimenting with using heavy armour for recce, i.e. L-2s, and having them go up against mixed recce of LAVs and Coyotes (maybe L-2s as well). Recce on Recce...
> 
> Obviously, the heavy slaughtered the light...but it was all JCATs and VBS. Done in the real sense, I wonder how it would have worked, with light recce sneaking and peeking vs grumbling loud tanks. Firepower, no match, of course, however...



Well, for quite a long time now, the German Army have used tanks in a recce role. At the same time, they maintain lighter recce assets like the Fennek armoured car. It seems to me that the Germans have thereby divided their recce resources into two categories: heavy, for use in situations where units have to fight for information, and light, for reconnoitering flank areas and other lower-risk areas in a nibble-around-the-edges-and-see-what-you-find way.


----------



## Cloud Cover

way, way put of my element here, but I keep seeing little contributions from Loachman [helicopters] which makes me think- where does aerial recce fit into this as part of the whole package? I mean to me it seems odd to send troops and vulnerable vehicles behind enemy lines to conduct any type of recce that drones can perform. Obviously a drone cannot perform all the functions of the dismounted recce troops, but can they not provide a lot of similar, useable data in real time with less risk?


----------



## blackberet17

Spectrum said:
			
		

> LAV III and TAPV. Glad to be of service - that will be on my brag sheet.



PRes, so LUVW, until my CT goes through. Thanks tho


----------



## Kirkhill

What happened to the notion that Recce is a task that can be and has to be performed by all arms (and civilians) regardless of platform and is not a trade?

Isn't armoured recce, reconnaissance conducted by armoured forces inherently different than recce by infantry, by helo, by aircraft, UAV, satellite or civilian in a taxi?  (And yes, I would argue that reconnaissance can be conducted from a taxi - just keep your eyes open and report what you saw when the opportunity to report presents itself).


----------



## Loachman

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> way, way put of my element here, but I keep seeing little contributions from Loachman [helicopters] which makes me think- where does aerial recce fit into this as part of the whole package? I mean to me it seems odd to send troops and vulnerable vehicles behind enemy lines to conduct any type of recce that drones can perform. Obviously a drone cannot perform all the functions of the dismounted recce troops, but can they not provide a lot of similar, useable data in real time with less risk?



UAVs have their place, and also their limitations.

They cannot, for example, see through foliage, so anything hiding in woods will not be detected.


----------



## MedCorps

Loachman said:
			
		

> UAVs have their place, and also their limitations.
> 
> They cannot, for example, see through foliage, so anything hiding in woods will not be detected.



This is only now / a Canadian limitation.  It will not be long until LADAR is on Canadian UAV's.  

See: http://www.ll.mit.edu/mission/electronics/ait/flashladar.html for more information or talk to someone in the JUSTAS shop for more information. 

MC


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I would not want to put all my eggs into one UAV basket, with the advent of battlefield Laser, UAV's would be a prime target of them, particularly ones broadcasting on a regular basis. Agaisnt a Taliban type enemy this would be excellent, against a near peer, we better have a lot of them.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

MedCorps said:
			
		

> This is only now / a Canadian limitation.  It will not be long until LADAR is on Canadian UAV's.
> 
> See: http://www.ll.mit.edu/mission/electronics/ait/flashladar.html for more information or talk to someone in the JUSTAS shop for more information.
> 
> MC



I think it should also be mentioned that UAV's will get smaller and also more capable as time goes on.  I envision Armoured Recce being equipped with some sort of handheld micro UAV that they haul out of the back of their vehicle and relay video/data back to their vehicle or transmit it back to a CP.  

Something like this:








or better yet this:






Instead of using a gigantic mast to see over obstacles, why not use a UAV?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> way, way put of my element here, but I keep seeing little contributions from Loachman [helicopters] which makes me think- where does aerial recce fit into this as part of the whole package? I mean to me it seems odd to send troops and vulnerable vehicles behind enemy lines to conduct any type of recce that drones can perform. Obviously a drone cannot perform all the functions of the dismounted recce troops, but can they not provide a lot of similar, useable data in real time with less risk?



What is a RPA/UAS/UAV going to do for a defile (bridge) drill?  

I remember doing route recce with Hotel c/s's before, they could do lots to assist but the defile wasn't considered 'clear' until a c/s was over and across.

They sure have a place, but boots on the ground will always be a 'must' (in the context of RPAZ stuff) IMO.  Another tool, a great one, but (also IMO) a UAS will never maintain the same amount of SA as a manned platform.


----------



## Loachman

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I remember doing route recce with Hotel c/s's before, they could do lots to assist but the defile wasn't considered 'clear' until a c/s was over and across.



And that is why we would never report anything as "clear". It was always "appears clear".

UAV or anything else airborne is the same.

And I will believe no miracle claims about gee-whiz technology, including LADAR.


----------



## GGHG_Cadet

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> I envision Armoured Recce being equipped with some sort of handheld micro UAV that they haul out of the back of their vehicle and relay video/data back to their vehicle or transmit it back to a CP.



We already have the Raven MUAS. It's a recent addition to the Recce sqns, so we're still learning how to employ them. At this time, there is one system (two vehicles) per squadron.


----------



## Kirkhill

And even if Recce passes uncontested there is nothing to say that the enemy has just lain doggo and waited for the Infantry to advance to contact.


----------



## blackberet17

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> What is a RPA/UAS/UAV going to do for a defile (bridge) drill?
> 
> I remember doing route recce with Hotel c/s's before, they could do lots to assist but the defile wasn't considered 'clear' until a c/s was over and across.
> 
> They sure have a place, but boots on the ground will always be a 'must' (in the context of RPAZ stuff) IMO.  Another tool, a great one, but (also IMO) a UAS will never maintain the same amount of SA as a manned platform.



 :goodpost:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> And even if Recce passes uncontested there is nothing to say that the enemy has just lain doggo and waited for the Infantry to advance to contact.



Lay-back patrols.  Not sure if we still do that, but we used to.


----------



## Kilo_302

The French are still producing more cavalry oriented designs, I'd be interested in getting thoughts on these two vehicles:


http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/06/sphinx-and-crab-at-eurosatory/

Do they reflect a major doctrinal difference versus Canadian and/or US approaches to armoured recce?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> What is a RPA/UAS/UAV going to do for a defile (bridge) drill?
> 
> I remember doing route recce with Hotel c/s's before, they could do lots to assist but the defile wasn't considered 'clear' until a c/s was over and across.
> 
> They sure have a place, but boots on the ground will always be a 'must' (in the context of RPAZ stuff) IMO.  Another tool, a great one, but (also IMO) a UAS will never maintain the same amount of SA as a manned platform.













The drills don't change but the tools most definitely will, UAVs are far more advanced in terms of actual employement than UGVs; however, some UGVs show some significant promise.  

Why even stovepipe it?  Why not have a recce platform that carries both a UGV and UAV platform which both transmit their data to the same uplink/feed.  The Recce vehicle now becomes a sort of mothership for these vehicles.  Some of this stuff is obviously "pie in the sky" but the military, with particular emphasis on the cavalry, is always slow to adapt to new technology.  We only need to look at the continued use of the horse in conventional warfare from about 1865 onwards, despite plenty of good examples of it being a bad idea, to show that this is indeed the case.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Loachman said:
			
		

> And that is why we would never report anything as "clear". It was always "appears clear".
> 
> UAV or anything else airborne is the same.
> 
> And I will believe no miracle claims about gee-whiz technology, including LADAR.



Same for armoured recce. Never commit


----------



## Kirkhill

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> The drills don't change but the tools most definitely will, UAVs are far more advanced in terms of actual employement than UGVs; however, some UGVs show some significant promise.
> 
> Why even stovepipe it?  Why not have a recce platform that carries both a UGV and UAV platform which both transmit their data to the same uplink/feed.  The Recce vehicle now becomes a sort of mothership for these vehicles.  Some of this stuff is obviously "pie in the sky" but the military, with particular emphasis on the cavalry, is always slow to adapt to new technology.  We only need to look at the continued use of the horse in conventional warfare from about 1865 onwards, despite plenty of good examples of it being a bad idea, to show that this is indeed the case.



Still, you were right to note the "conventional" aspect of horses in war.  The horse has had many "unconventional" uses since then.  Strangely enough those "unconventional" uses look awfully "traditional" - moving small raiding parties of well armed men over broken ground rapidly....Afghanistan SOF types, the Eastern Partisan Wars of WW2 and, in a slightly different context, Burma mules by Chindits and eventually "conventional" forces.

One might be inclined to say "horses for courses" .......


----------



## quadrapiper

Enjoying the discussion - excellent window into a world I know nothing about.

RoyalDrew, Kirkhill - could I interest you in a self-fueling, soldier-focused personnel/material transport system with onboard optical and aural sensors, some self-repair capability, and a fleet-based self-replication capability?


----------



## Kirkhill

Quadrapiper:

Absolutely.  

Please remit costs of purchase or lease, estimated costs of Operation and Maintenance, training costs if appropriate, decommissioning costs, liabilities and estimated time of delivery.

A Product Data sheet listing specifications would be useful.

Range
Speed
Useable Load (excluding fuel and maintenance items)
Range of Sensors

We thank you for your interest.  ;D


----------



## SeaKingTacco

You forgot O&M costs for the next 40 years...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Why not have a recce platform that carries both a UGV and UAV platform which both transmit their data to the same uplink/feed.



I think the answer lies here.   8)


----------



## Kirkhill

MedCorps said:
			
		

> To build on some of the comments that Kirkhill posted earlier in the thread.
> 
> The UK Army has just undergone a large downsizing.  This resulting in a number of units being removed from their ORBAT.
> 
> The one new cap badge that emerged from all of this downsizing is within the RAC and is the Scottish and North Irish Yeomanry (SNIY) which is light cavalry. They are mounted on mounted in light armoured vehicles (R-WMIKs, basically a Land Rover) and tasked with armoured recce duties.
> 
> As mentioned SNIY has been paired with the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards (SCOT DG) who have been recently re-rolled after 75 years from tanks to light cav and equipped with the Jackal 2.
> 
> See WMIK: http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/23594.aspx
> See SNIY: http://www.army.mod.uk/armoured/regiments/28480.aspx
> See Light Cav: http://www.army.mod.uk/armoured/regiments/35816.aspx
> See Jackal 2: http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/23243.aspx
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> MC



Further to Light Dragoons and Jackals and Light Cavalry utility ....



> The Light Dragoons Lead Light Cavalry Charge
> (Source: British Army; issued March 03, 2015)
> The punch packed by The Light Dragoons, a light cavalry regiment tasked to provide the Army’s eyes and ears on the battlefield, has been tested.
> 
> Exercise WESSEX STORM has seen the unit carrying out live fire training on the rain-lashed STANTA ranges near Thetford, close to their base at Swanton Morley in Norfolk. Deploying on Jackal 2 and Coyote armoured vehicles, the soldiers are training alongside 3rd Regiment Royal Horse Artillery, 21 Engineer Regiment and 2nd Battalion The Royal Gurkha Rifles.
> 
> As well as bringing to bear the firepower of their vehicles’ Grenade Machine Guns, Heavy Machine Guns and General Purpose Machine Guns, the Light Dragoons have worked with fire support from Apache attack helicopters, 3 RHA’s 105mm Light Guns and the Gurkha’s 81mm mortars.
> 
> The 400-strong battlegroup will now move to Salisbury Plain for a two-week-long simulated mission against an enemy force. The overall aim is to test the Light Dragoons’ progress in developing their new role as light cavalry. As part of the Army 2020 reforms, the unit has swapped CVRT Scimitar armoured fighting vehicles for Jackals and Coyotes and boosted its skills as dismounted infantry.
> 
> Working within the Adaptable Force, light cavalry provide highly mobile reconnaissance troops tasked to find battle winning information and exploit opportunities to engage the enemy, as well as work with and train foreign armies.
> 
> The Light Dragoons’ Commanding Officer Lieutenant Colonel James Senior said: “Exercise WESSEX STORM represents a superb opportunity for The Light Dragoons to operate alongside our attached arms in a challenging exercise. It is the first time the Jackal has been used in a light cavalry role and we have been working very hard in readiness for the exercise. I am absolutely sure we will come away with an enhanced understanding of how the light cavalry capability has developed.”
> 
> The Light Dragoons, known as ‘England’s Northern Cavalry’, recruits from the North East of England and Yorkshire.
> 
> Trooper Craig Griffiths, 24 from Peterlee in Co Durham, is a Coyote driver who has been in the Army for two years. He said: “Jackals and Coyotes are fantastic vehicles, because they can go over virtually any terrain at speed, they’re easy to maintain and pack a heavy punch.
> 
> “Every time we come out on exercise we’re learning and getting better at our new role. We started last week with firing from a static vehicle and have worked up towards having the whole squadron of 28 vehicles moving and firing together. We’ve done everything by day and then at night, with darkness adding an extra complication.”
> 
> HMG gunner Lance Corporal Luke Peacock, 26 from Doncaster, said: “Reconnaissance has always been our business and becoming light cavalry is just about doing it in a different way. We’ve got new vehicles, changed our tactics to suit them and worked on our infantry skills.
> 
> “This has been good training that’s tested us and the vehicles. I’m part of B Squadron’s HQ troop, so while the main force goes forward to scout or attack an objective we hang back to provide co-ordination and a reserve.”
> 
> LCpl Peacock, who has been in the Army for four years, deployed to Afghanistan in 2012 when The Light Dragoons provided the Brigade Reconnaissance Force for Op HERRICK 16.
> 
> -ends-



Link to Defense Aerospace


----------



## MilEME09

A attempt to silence the beast? from Canadian defense review



> Revision Military, a world leader in integrated, purpose-built soldier solutions, has won a $20 million, multi-year contract through General Dynamics Land Systems Canada to provide Energy Storage Systems to retrofit RECCE 6.0 LAV vehicles that will silently power on-board sensor suites. The Revision system, built around its Nerv Centr™ SWatPack™ scalable battery system, is capable of operating in a wide range of hot and cold temperatures and climatic conditions beyond the objective eight-hours of Silent Watch powering time. The Revision battery system provides more silent watch time than 30 standard 6T format AGM batteries at less than half the weight.
> 
> This fully customized, ballistic-protected solution re-purposes the winch pocket on the RECCE 6.0 LAV vehicles to house this optimized energy storage with a plug-and-play modular solution that can be serviced in the field.
> 
> “Both the silent watch energy storage solution and winning this contract are a testament to the Revision team of experts from the industrial designers, engineers and software programmers to the technical support and product management personnel who worked together to ensure a unique result for the Canadian DND” said Jonathan Blanshay, CEO of Revision. He further stated, “Power is possibly one of the most critical elements for success on the battlefield today, whether for the individual soldier to ensure uninterrupted performance of his powered gear or for situations where silent delivery of power in varying conditions over an eight hour time frame is essential. Revision is a solutions provider that employs science, cutting-edge technology and an innovation-driven approach to solving complex battlefield problems. We are excited to demonstrate our capabilities in the field of energy storage and power management with this contract.”
> 
> In February 2014, Revision expanded its capabilities by adding Energy Storage and Power Management to its roster of integrated optics and armor technologies.  Development of scalable, upgradable vehicular power management and energy storage capabilities is a natural extension for Revision as the principles behind the design of this example, the Silent Watch Battery System, draw on the philosophy of providing technologically advanced products that focuses on meeting mission needs. This design philosophy has allowed Revision to deliver numerous protective products to individual soldiers from lightweight helmets to integrated facial protection, ballistic eyewear and personal power systems.
> 
> Revision also offers the SharePack® System, an innovative energy storage solution which integrates flexible and scalable power provision and management capabilities into a conformal man-worn unit.  The unit can store, deliver, harvest and provide power to a broad range of electronic devices and can be recharged quickly by equipment such as a solar blanket, vehicle outputs or energy harvested from the operational environment.



http://www.canadiandefencereview.com/news.php/news/1779


----------



## George Wallace

???



> This fully customized, ballistic-protected solution re-purposes the winch pocket on the RECCE 6.0 LAV vehicles to house this optimized energy storage with a plug-and-play modular solution that can be serviced in the field.



Does this mean that the 6.0 LAV will not have a winch?


----------



## MilEME09

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ???
> 
> Does this mean that the 6.0 LAV will not have a winch?



atleast not the RECCE varient unless it gets moved


----------



## Old EO Tech

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ???
> 
> Does this mean that the 6.0 LAV will not have a winch?



That is exactly what what it means, there is not other spot to put a winch on a LAV3/6.  Now even with the normal ISC/CP LAV6 only 1 in 4 get a winch, so maybe the SSM's LAV in RECCE Sqn will have the only winch :-/


----------



## George Wallace

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> That is exactly what what it means, there is not other spot to put a winch on a LAV3/6.  Now even with the normal ISC/CP LAV6 only 1 in 4 get a winch, so maybe the SSM's LAV in RECCE Sqn will have the only winch :-/



Of the vehicles that I would imagine that needed a winch the most, above all others, it would be Recce; as they are often well removed from the rest of a BG/Bde/Corps.  They would be the ones most likely to have to conduct "self-recovery" due to their location and distance from the Main Force.  If they are 'stuck' behind enemy lines, sending in the SSM's LAV or any other recovery vehicle would be out of the question.  Not a problem in peacetime training, but a more serious matter in an actual conflict.

I originally read this article to imply that these batteries were much more capable and efficient than the existing batteries used and were to replace them in the hull.  If they are replacing a winch/placed in a winch housing, then they are not replacing, but being added to/supplementing the existing batteries.  If it is a matter of auxiliary equipment to charge these batteries, then why not on or in the stowage bin?


----------



## Old EO Tech

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Of the vehicles that I would imagine that needed a winch the most, above all others, it would be Recce; as they are often well removed from the rest of a BG/Bde/Corps.  They would be the ones most likely to have to conduct "self-recovery" due to their location and distance from the Main Force.  If they are 'stuck' behind enemy lines, sending in the SSM's LAV or any other recovery vehicle would be out of the question.  Not a problem in peacetime training, but a more serious matter in an actual conflict.
> 
> I originally read this article to imply that these batteries were much more capable and efficient than the existing batteries used and were to replace them in the hull.  If they are replacing a winch/placed in a winch housing, then they are not replacing, but being added to/supplementing the existing batteries.  If it is a matter of auxiliary equipment to charge these batteries, then why not on or in the stowage bin?



They likely want them protected under armour.  And yes, what I thought when I read the article was that this extra power storage was on top of the standard batteries, in order to not have to start the engine for up to 8 hours during surv ops.  The Coyote had all sorts of issues with batteries being killed by the surveillance system and was the first vehicle to get gel batteries that only somewhat helped with that issue.

I agree that Recce vehicles are the hardest to tactically recover safely, but I'm betting that this is the least of the evils solution within a limited project funding...


----------



## Kirkhill

Now that they have boosted the loaded weight of the LIGHT Armoured Vehicle to 55,000 lbs (25 tonnes) how big does the winch have to be?  Would it fit inside the existing compartment?  And could it self-recover in any event?  Isn't recovery one of the issues that the Logistics Vehicle Modernization programme is struggling with?


----------



## George Wallace

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Now that they have boosted the loaded weight of the LIGHT Armoured Vehicle to 55,000 lbs (25 tonnes) how big does the winch have to be?  Would it fit inside the existing compartment?  And could it self-recover in any event?  Isn't recovery one of the issues that the Logistics Vehicle Modernization programme is struggling with?



Although, I agree that someone should get off their butt on the Logistic Vehicle Modernization program and a proper Recovery Vehicle; unless it is an armoured recovery vehicle capable of working on the FEBA with A Ech AFVs, it will not be of any use.  That said, Logistics vehicles of any type will not move twenty or forty kilometers behind enemy lines to recover a Recce LAV.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Although, I agree that someone should get off their butt on the Logistic Vehicle Modernization program and a proper Recovery Vehicle; unless it is an armoured recovery vehicle capable of working on the FEBA with A Ech AFVs, it will not be of any use.  That said, Logistics vehicles of any type will not move twenty or forty kilometers behind enemy lines to recover a Recce LAV.



BIP and start walking.


----------



## Old EO Tech

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Although, I agree that someone should get off their butt on the Logistic Vehicle Modernization program and a proper Recovery Vehicle; unless it is an armoured recovery vehicle capable of working on the FEBA with A Ech AFVs, it will not be of any use.  That said, Logistics vehicles of any type will not move twenty or forty kilometers behind enemy lines to recover a Recce LAV.



I'm pretty sure that the Enhanced Recovery Capability project is looking at both a LAV6 stryker type MRV, and a new heavy Wrecker.  But either way the ERC is not scheduled to procure anything until 2023....


----------



## George Wallace

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure that the Enhanced Recovery Capability project is looking at both a LAV6 stryker type MRV, and a new heavy Wrecker.  But either way the ERC is not scheduled to procure anything until 2013....





THEY'RE LATE!

 >


----------



## George Wallace

Seriously.  There are major problems, as we have discussed in so many other threads, with procurement.


----------



## cupper

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Now that they have boosted the loaded weight of the LIGHT Armoured Vehicle to 55,000 lbs (25 tonnes) how big does the winch have to be?  Would it fit inside the existing compartment?  And could it self-recover in any event?  Isn't recovery one of the issues that the Logistics Vehicle Modernization programme is struggling with?



Give me a lever and I can move the world.

Or in this case, enough cable and snatch blocks.


----------



## Old EO Tech

George Wallace said:
			
		

> THEY'RE LATE!
> 
> >



By bad...fixed


----------

