Author Topic: Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle - RG-31, LAV Coyote, and (partial) G-Wagon Replacement  (Read 390922 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Matt_Fisher

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 18,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,148
  • Former Marine
In light of this announcement discussed here http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,87516.0.html
I'm posting the backgrounder paper that was provided at the MNDs speech today at CFB Gagetown

BACKGROUNDER
BG - 09.017  July 8, 2009

TACTICAL ARMOURED PATROL VEHICLE

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

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

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

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

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

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

Offline Matt_Fisher

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 18,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,148
  • Former Marine
Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle - RG-31 and LAV Coyote Replacement
« Reply #1 on: July 09, 2009, 08:36:03 »
As announced yesterday by the MND, the Army will be looking to replace the RG-31 Armoured Patrol Vehicle and the LAV Coyote Reconnaissance and Surveillance Vehicle with what is currently known as the 'Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle' (TAPV).

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

BACKGROUNDER
BG - 09.017  July 8, 2009

TACTICAL ARMOURED PATROL VEHICLE

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 436,375
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,578
  • Crewman
I could also see General Dynamics looking to make a mini-LAV aka Mowag Spy MkII http://www.warwheels.net/SPY_4x4INDEX.html     http://www.warwheels.net/Piranha1_4x4INDEX.html albeit much more modernised in terms of powerpack, suspension, and protection.


This is a step backwards; pre-AVGP.  They would require a lot of upgrading.  They are also less manoeuvrable than the AVGP was, which we all know in the Corps, was not all that great.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline Matt_Fisher

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 18,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,148
  • Former Marine
This is a step backwards; pre-AVGP.  They would require a lot of upgrading.  They are also less manoeuvrable than the AVGP was, which we all know in the Corps, was not all that great.

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

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

Offline ArmyRick

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 26,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,957
  • What the????
Maybe there is a compromise? The Pandur II 6 x 6 version?
I am NOT a privileged white man by virtue of being male or white. I am privileged because I am alive and exercising my right to be who I am!

Offline TCBF

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,939
- Replacing the Coyote would free up 203 turrets for our LAV 3 fleet, but at what cost?

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

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

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

- A one man turret is a mistake.  A crew comd should not be gunning.  The guy in the veh with the best all round view should be commanding.
"Disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda."   - Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axeworthy at a Gun Control conference in Oslo, Norway in 1998.


"I didn’t feel that it was an act of violence; you know, I felt that it was an act of liberation, that’s how I felt you know." - Ann Hansen, Canadian 'Urban Guerrilla'(one of the "Squamish Five")

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 436,375
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,578
  • Crewman
- Replacing the Coyote would free up 203 turrets for our LAV 3 fleet, but at what cost?

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

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

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

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

I agree.

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

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

Taking away their effective means of Self-defence, neuters them.  You might as well just make them 'Dismounts'.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline Matt_Fisher

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 18,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,148
  • Former Marine
As nutty as this sounds I'll throw it out there:

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

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

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 436,375
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,578
  • Crewman
Sounds like a Grizzly.  Problem is......the turret cuts off approx 180 degrees of the commander's SA.

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

Hunter/Killer sights are great.  They are expensive.  They probably of of little use in the Recce/Surv roles.  More useful for vehs used in a more aggressive role.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline Matt_Fisher

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 18,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,148
  • Former Marine
Sounds like a Grizzly.  Problem is......the turret cuts off approx 180 degrees of the commander's SA.

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

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

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

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 436,375
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,578
  • Crewman
Not Grizzlyesque in the sense that the gunner was in the turret with the commander seated behind the driver, but imagine the positions reversed; Commander in turret, just commanding, with the gunner seated in the hull, manning a remote console station which controlled the gun actions and turret traverse.
<Insert Smilie here>

That would put the Commander at the mercy of where the Gunner would traverse.  Keeping one's orientation in a turret is hard enough.  Having someone else traversing you at their wims is compounding an existing problem. 
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 436,375
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,578
  • Crewman
Just another point on "turrets":  A turret on the rear third of the vehicle, a la LAV/Coyote, is not as effective as one located near/closer to the front.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2009, 15:27:05 by George Wallace »
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline Matt_Fisher

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 18,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,148
  • Former Marine
So does anybody care to offer speculation as to what vehicles may be considered for the TAPV?

I'm going to throw out this laundry list:

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

winner of the US JLTV contest..either:

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

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

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

Or from the European side of things:

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

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

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

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



Offline Matt_Fisher

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 18,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,148
  • Former Marine
<Insert Smilie here>

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

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

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 436,375
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,578
  • Crewman
And how different is that from any other armoured vehicle with a turret, whereby the commander gives the gunner his arcs, and tells him to traverse them and then pops up to observe, all-the-while the turret is traversing back and forth?

He still has physical control of his Gunner.   >:D  A quick boot to the back of his head (tank) or the long reach over the ammo bin (LAV/Coyote) will usually solve minor problems.  When the Gunner is removed from physical contact of the C/C he can make unpredictable movements more numerously than if the C/C has that control on him.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline Matt_Fisher

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 18,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,148
  • Former Marine
And why wouldn't such a system as I'm proposing have a commander's override?  That way if the Gunner needs to have his traverse corrected, the CC can do so.

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

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 436,375
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,578
  • Crewman
Like it or not, it's been made pretty clear that the TAPV will not have a 2 man turret, so we can ***** and moan its demise and the lack of SA that the CC will have as such, however there are probably some workable solutions out there that fall within the 1 man turret or RWS requirements being put forth.

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

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


Once again..........
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline dapaterson

    Mostly Harmless.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 437,775
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,198
And once again, the end user will have no say in what he gets.

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


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

Actually, there are a number of Armd folks working such projects - but they are also aware of the dollar value limitations and other activities that circumscribe options.  Backseat QB'ing is easy - actually getting something close to the requirement is a much bigger challenge, and sometimes (unfortunately) we have to compromise.
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline tango22a

    Just \"LOVES\" being kicked to the curb!!

  • R011C Dinosaur
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 46,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 432
  • Lurker in the shadows
Sounds like a losing proposition from the get go.Mind you I'm probably out of my lane and into the median.Having LIMITED experience with both Cougar and Grizzly turrets, both these turrets raised the work-load of the crew commander to new heights and lowered his situational awareness to new lows. Both turrets were set back too far. You had to expose the front of the  vehicle past the turret to allow the CC to maintain his situational awareness. Can't say anything about the LAV since I've never even been in one.

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

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

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

tango22a

Edited for Grammar, Spelling and Punctuation errors. 
« Last Edit: July 09, 2009, 23:37:45 by tango22a »
DISCLAIMER: THE IDEAS AND OPINIONS EXPRESSED HEREIN ARE MINE AND MINE ALONE! NO ONE OTHER THAN MYSELF IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM!

CYNIC .... with a CAPITAL C
Character assassinations a specialty
Still crazy after all these years!!!

Dead Horse Beater......Par Excellence!

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 436,375
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,578
  • Crewman
Actually, there are a number of Armd folks working such projects - but they are also aware of the dollar value limitations and other activities that circumscribe options.  Backseat QB'ing is easy - actually getting something close to the requirement is a much bigger challenge, and sometimes (unfortunately) we have to compromise.

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

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

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

What do we want in a Recce Vehicle?

I would say it has to be:

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

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


However, my concept of DND financing, and that of the Government, are at opposite poles.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline tango22a

    Just \"LOVES\" being kicked to the curb!!

  • R011C Dinosaur
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 46,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 432
  • Lurker in the shadows
GW:

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

BZ for well thought out specs!

Cheers,

tango22a
DISCLAIMER: THE IDEAS AND OPINIONS EXPRESSED HEREIN ARE MINE AND MINE ALONE! NO ONE OTHER THAN MYSELF IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM!

CYNIC .... with a CAPITAL C
Character assassinations a specialty
Still crazy after all these years!!!

Dead Horse Beater......Par Excellence!

Offline tango22a

    Just \"LOVES\" being kicked to the curb!!

  • R011C Dinosaur
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 46,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 432
  • Lurker in the shadows
Chances are that I'm wrong, but the way I see it this is our LAST chance to get it right. If we blow it this time we might as well give up Recce as we now know it.

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

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

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


(signed) An Old R011C Dinosaur
« Last Edit: July 10, 2009, 12:06:44 by tango22a »
DISCLAIMER: THE IDEAS AND OPINIONS EXPRESSED HEREIN ARE MINE AND MINE ALONE! NO ONE OTHER THAN MYSELF IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM!

CYNIC .... with a CAPITAL C
Character assassinations a specialty
Still crazy after all these years!!!

Dead Horse Beater......Par Excellence!

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 207,050
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,739
I would NOT want to lose the 25mm unless it was replaced by a 30mm, or larger.
One of the things that has been getting attention (though not necessarily with TAPV) is reduced velocity medium caliber cannons.  Think of something between AGL (with lower muzzle velocities & higher trajectories) and more conventional IFV cannons (with very high velocities and designs focused on Sabot rounds for light armour on light armour battles).

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

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

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 167,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,130
  • Honey Badger FTW!
One of the things that has been getting attention (though not necessarily with TAPV) is reduced velocity medium caliber cannons.  Think of something between AGL (with lower muzzle velocities & higher trajectories) and more conventional IFV cannons (with very high velocities and designs focused on Sabot rounds for light armour on light armour battles).

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

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

So....a fancy Cougar turret?

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

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

Understanding that they want a little jeep car for Armoured Recce, but I was thinking that LAV III-Hs with an updated mast and more Guys in the Back, combined with Mortar and TOW LAVs as a "Cavalry Arm" would offer a more robust armoured reconnaissance capability
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 207,050
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,739
So....a fancy Cougar turret?
More like a range reduced LAV 25 turret, but the weapon could also be mounted on RWS or unmanned turret.

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

What about the TUA-LAV?  How is that being rolled into this?
It is not.  It jwill continue to exist on the LAV III, and there will not be a TAPV-AT.  However I think the TAPV-Recce variant should have a fire & forget missile capability.