Author Topic: Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle - RG-31, LAV Coyote, and (partial) G-Wagon Replacement  (Read 390531 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline standingdown

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 56,465
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,401
Good post EITS.

Between modern airborne ISR, SIGINT/EW, and overhead capabilities I'm not super convinced that "sneak and peek" would work out so well against a peer or near peer OPFOR.

Sure these assets can be knocked out (not by us, mind you) but friendly forces face the same reality.

In the end what does that leave us with? A TAPV or LAV vs something like a T-14 or T-80? No thanks...

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 19,640
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 871
Good post EITS.

Between modern airborne ISR, SIGINT/EW, and overhead capabilities I'm not super convinced that "sneak and peek" would work out so well against a peer or near peer OPFOR.

Sure these assets can be knocked out (not by us, mind you) but friendly forces face the same reality.

In the end what does that leave us with? A TAPV or LAV vs something like a T-14 or T-80? No thanks...

Lower risk COA might be to hit those assets with indirect fire.  See Ukraine...  LAV's might do OK depending on the type of indirect fire as they are designed to withstand 155 shell fragments but a TAPV is done.  But that's the chess match I would guess.  It explains why the UK and AUS are going with heavier Recce elements. But TAPV isn't really a near peer vehicle design is it.  It's looks good for convoy escort, counter insurgency and peace support operations.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 201,475
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,463
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Bump

There is a Facebook rumour that the TAPV is having its operational scope, its uses expanded.  It is a curious expansion apparently.  It seems that it is being expanded into every other role than its intended roles at time of procurement.

Recce is right off the board.  Recce will get LAV 6.0  and LAV 6.0  LRSS.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 207,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,739
Bump

There is a Facebook rumour that the TAPV is having its operational scope, its uses expanded.  It is a curious expansion apparently.  It seems that it is being expanded into every other role than its intended roles at time of procurement.

Recce is right off the board.  Recce will get LAV 6.0  and LAV 6.0  LRSS.
I thought this news had been on the street for a few years?  The majority of TAPV were bought to institutionalize the role of RG31 in converting light infantry into pseudo mechanized infantry, but the infantry corps recognized this was a bad idea that would lead to something that was neither light infantry nor mech infantry (with none of the strengths but all the weaknesses of each).  That is why divisions were invited to concoct distribution plans that included the PRes (the Army Commander who initiated the project was adamant that he would never waste money buying an AFV for the PRes).

The plan to replace some Coyote with LAV 6 LRSS is also a few years along development, but Recce will continue to use TAPV because the Armd are not getting enough LRSS variants to fill-out all the squadrons they have.  So it will be mixed fleet recce.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 227,215
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,950
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
The plan to replace some Coyote with LAV 6 LRSS is also a few years along development, but Recce will continue to use TAPV because the Armd are not getting enough LRSS variants to fill-out all the squadrons they have.  So it will be mixed fleet recce.

... which is awesome because it diversifies our risk.... right? :)
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 201,475
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,463
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
I thought this news had been on the street for a few years?  The majority of TAPV were bought to institutionalize the role of RG31 in converting light infantry into pseudo mechanized infantry, but the infantry corps recognized this was a bad idea that would lead to something that was neither light infantry nor mech infantry (with none of the strengths but all the weaknesses of each).  That is why divisions were invited to concoct distribution plans that included the PRes (the Army Commander who initiated the project was adamant that he would never waste money buying an AFV for the PRes).

The plan to replace some Coyote with LAV 6 LRSS is also a few years along development, but Recce will continue to use TAPV because the Armd are not getting enough LRSS variants to fill-out all the squadrons they have.  So it will be mixed fleet recce.

Perhaps it is just now percolating out to the civvy world?  You have jogged my memory on previous discussions on this site but the "rumour" to which I referred seemed to indicate that the infantry employment was off the table as well.   The TAPV seems now likely to be a Liaison & Utility Vehicle and Rover across all arms.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Loch Sloy!

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 860
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 62
We sure spent a lot of money on a vehicle we don't know what to do with.

At least we could have purchased some of the Infantry Section Carrier versions (give them to reserve armoured so they can taxi reserve infantry around) or better yet some of the mortar variants so we could actually move our 81mm mortars around...

I would have even preferred we replace the milcots rather than buy TAPV.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords.
--Ben Franklin

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 201,475
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,463
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
We sure spent a lot of money on a vehicle we don't know what to do with.

At least we could have purchased some of the Infantry Section Carrier versions (give them to reserve armoured so they can taxi reserve infantry around) or better yet some of the mortar variants so we could actually move our 81mm mortars around...

I would have even preferred we replace the milcots rather than buy TAPV.

Personally I would rather the money have been spent on 500 Bisons - Empty LAV IIs.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Loch Sloy!

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 860
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 62
Quote
Personally I would rather the money have been spent on 500 Bisons - Empty LAV IIs.

100% agree! New pick-up trucks just seemed more likely.  ::)
Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords.
--Ben Franklin

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 207,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,739
Personally I would rather the money have been spent on 500 Bisons - Empty LAV IIs.
At this point, we would be better with LAV 6 in RWS variants ... call it a "Bison 2" if that helps.  End result would be fewer fleets to manage, train, and support.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 201,475
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,463
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
At this point, we would be better with LAV 6 in RWS variants ... call it a "Bison 2" if that helps.  End result would be fewer fleets to manage, train, and support.

Seen.

"Wyrd bið ful aræd"