Author Topic: Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle - RG-31, LAV Coyote, and (partial) G-Wagon Replacement  (Read 402726 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 140,695
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,646
So lots of mobility for their size, protection for the crew and a nice big glowing target for folks like me looking down from above.   8)

Yep. If only you had rockets under your wings.  ;D

Offline Spencer100

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 10,510
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 395
Hey here is a tour of the TAPV from a very "high" level  :D

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


Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 222,015
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,806
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Yep. If only you had rockets under your wings.  ;D

Yup...have to settle for a radio and the ability to talk to people who can throw punches.   :not-again:
Everything happens for a reason.

Sometimes the reason is you're stupid and make bad decisions.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 206,785
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,690
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
...
This is reflected in the endless arguments on these threads. Chris Pook is an advocate for Technicals and ATV's. I generally favour one or two weight classes up (Combat Guard, Broncos and CV-90 family) while there are advocates for much heavier vehicles as well (Leopards, PUMA's and so on). With the current state of our doctrine and government policy, the weird result is that all of us are correct, so long as we stick to our starting premises, and there is nothing in the CF doctrine which really says that any of us are incorrect........

Awwww!! Thucydides mentioned me!   ;D

Just a minor point.  I do advocate the use of  "Technicals and ATVs".  But I also advocate the use of Very Heavy Armoured Vehicles of the Narmer HIFV variety.  My biggest problem is with the adoption of a Medium Weight vehicle as the sole/principal platform and then trying to expand its operational envelope well beyond its design capabilities.

I think where I tend to come adrift from most on the discussion is on the vehicle maintenance and support front.  I can't get myself too worked up about the perils of a mixed fleet.  To do so is the equivalent, in my view, of demanding that a tradesman get rid of all his power tools and make do with a single hammer because hammers are cheap, easy to replace and require minimal training.

So I prefer horses for courses and my "stable" sees a mixture of ponies, hunters and carthorses (none of your racers thank you).   I would be starting from a position of spending a third of my budget on each type and anticipate being able to buy lots of ponies but not as many hunters and carthorses.   Based on that then assign the requisite manpower.  With a defined set of capabilities then the government can start picking and choosing where and when it wants to use them.

At least you would know that whatever the situation you were sent into your commanders had a good enough selection of tools at hand to give you a reasonable prospect of success.


By the way, on the light front - and related to the discussion about truck mounted guns



Quote
The HMMWV/Hawkeye Howitzer System incorporates advances in protection, payload, suspensions and life-cycle sustainment – at an affordable price to meet the unique expeditionary requirements of global customers. It exemplifies the steady evolution of the HMMWV based on customer feedback, battlefield experiences, and innovation.

The new AM General Hawkeye is based on a M1152A1 Humvee with a crew cab at the front and cargo platform at the rear fitted a 105 mm howitzer . The 105 mm cannon uses an hybrid soft recoil technology allows weapon to be paired with AM General HMMWV.
 
The 105mm cannon is fitted on a circular platform offering the possibility to fire on 360° with a range of 11,500 m with standard ammunition and 16,000 m with extended range artillery ammunition. It can be also used for direct fire with a maximum range of 2,000 m.

This artillery system uses a digital fire control system including a digital camera for direct fire. The howitzer is electronically controlled for elevation and azimuth which works with the digital fire control system.

In firing position two hydraulic jacks are lowered on the ground at the front of the vehicle and two large spades at the rear. A total of 4 to 6 ammunitions can be carried on the vehicle. To increase the number of ammunition another Humvee in cargo variant can be used as to carried additional ammunition.

The HMMWV/Hawkeye Howitzer 105mm howitzer can be ready to fire in less than 2 minutes with a total crew of 4 people.

https://www.armyrecognition.com/ausa_2016_show_daily_news_tv_coverage_report/am_general_unveils_new_105mm_lightweight_self-propelled_howitzer_based_on_m1152a1_humvee_10310163.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_3f-cv3rR4
« Last Edit: December 21, 2017, 12:19:54 by Chris Pook »
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 195,580
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,733
  • Freespeecher
I was more under the impression that you were mostly concerned with the mechanics of "getting there", since deploying heavyweight (or even medium) armoured vehicles overseas is slow, difficult and expensive. My main objection to mixed fleets isn't so much that they are mixed (Combat Guards, Broncos and CV-90 platforms are pretty mixed) but the CF's habit of having "micro" fleets which are far too small to be truly viable, or have platforms which are only marginally related. Our holdings of LAV series vehicles is insanely expensive because it is essentially 3 or 4 different fleets all masquerading as the "same" family (Bisons, Coyote's, LAV 3 and LAV6.0 have very little in common with each other).

But underneath all that is "why" we are buying particular vehicles. Many readers will remember the great tank debate of the early 2000's, where the CF was set to eliminate its tank holdings in favour of a gun platform based on the LAV MGS chassis, and the putative MMEV as a long range fire support companion. The true horror of the decision wasn't that it was not possible, but rather no thought seemed to have been given as to how this was actually supposed to work (i.e. doctrine). This is in addition to having two tiny fleets of very expensive, complicated and essentially bespoke vehicles to man and support should the concept have ever been adopted.....The TAPV seems to have gone through the same experience, with it being offered as an APC for the Light Infantry Battalions at one point, despite it being rather unsuitable for the role. If it is going to be passed from hand to hand like that, one has to wonder why it was purchased in the first place (i.e. what role was it meant to fulfill)?

Of course this isn't even the only example, as the endless saga of Canada's quest for a replacement fighter is demonstrating now, or the "Big Honking Ship" project which evaporated, or the "debates" around Canada purchasing nuclear submarines, or just what sorts of ships and forces we need for the arctic, etc. etc. One fine day we may end up with grown ups in charge, who do clearly see and articulate a Canadian Grand Strategy, or at least clearly define the National Interest, and from there define what roles and missions of Canada's Armed forces will be, and what levels of manning and equipment are needed to achieve these ends.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 206,785
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,690
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
I was more under the impression that you were mostly concerned with the mechanics of "getting there", since deploying heavyweight (or even medium) armoured vehicles overseas is slow, difficult and expensive. My main objection to mixed fleets isn't so much that they are mixed (Combat Guards, Broncos and CV-90 platforms are pretty mixed) but the CF's habit of having "micro" fleets which are far too small to be truly viable, or have platforms which are only marginally related. Our holdings of LAV series vehicles is insanely expensive because it is essentially 3 or 4 different fleets all masquerading as the "same" family (Bisons, Coyote's, LAV 3 and LAV6.0 have very little in common with each other).

But underneath all that is "why" we are buying particular vehicles. Many readers will remember the great tank debate of the early 2000's, where the CF was set to eliminate its tank holdings in favour of a gun platform based on the LAV MGS chassis, and the putative MMEV as a long range fire support companion. The true horror of the decision wasn't that it was not possible, but rather no thought seemed to have been given as to how this was actually supposed to work (i.e. doctrine). This is in addition to having two tiny fleets of very expensive, complicated and essentially bespoke vehicles to man and support should the concept have ever been adopted.....The TAPV seems to have gone through the same experience, with it being offered as an APC for the Light Infantry Battalions at one point, despite it being rather unsuitable for the role. If it is going to be passed from hand to hand like that, one has to wonder why it was purchased in the first place (i.e. what role was it meant to fulfill)?

Of course this isn't even the only example, as the endless saga of Canada's quest for a replacement fighter is demonstrating now, or the "Big Honking Ship" project which evaporated, or the "debates" around Canada purchasing nuclear submarines, or just what sorts of ships and forces we need for the arctic, etc. etc. One fine day we may end up with grown ups in charge, who do clearly see and articulate a Canadian Grand Strategy, or at least clearly define the National Interest, and from there define what roles and missions of Canada's Armed forces will be, and what levels of manning and equipment are needed to achieve these ends.

Not a totally incorrect statement.  I am/was concerned about the mechanics of getting there - and if a QRF is desired then light gear is necessary to travel long distances quickly.  But if the force is to be a persistent force then time is no longer a barrier and, at the same time, the enemy will be concentrating forces demanding heavier protection. The light kit then needs to be swapped out for heavy kit.

I'm not sure that I really see the advantage of a medium force.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 20,635
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 919
Bisons, Coyote's, LAV 3 and LAV6.0 have very little in common with each other.

Good thing we are getting rid of the Coyote's and converting/replacing all the LAV 3 to LAV 6 standards.  TAPV replaces 2 vehicles in the Coyote and RG-31 (and some of the Cougars I think).  I don't know if the Bison ambulance and Command variants are staying in the fleet.  I assume so.  But a Bison Amb is much easier and cheaper to run then a full LAV from what I understand and I haven't heard of a LAV ambulance yet (maybe we have one or maybe we are getting them).

Also don't forget the entire TLAV fleet.  Really when you think about it discounting the specialist engineering vehicles (Husky, Cougar etc...) The army will have 4 main armoured vehicles.  LAV 6, TAPV, TLAV and Leopard.  There are a few "micro" fleets but every army has those because you just can't common hull everything.

As for the rest of your post, yah I agree, purchases should match doctrine.  In this case though I think the TAPV purchase matched experience. 

If we had of had these in Afghanistan there probably would have been more lives saved on the roads.  TAPV could have done convoy escort, moved VIP's around, provided vehicles for CIMIC, POMLET, OMLET and PSYOPS teams. It would have replaced RG's and freed up LAV 3, LAV LORIT and in some cases TLAV's to do other work more suited to their vehicle than tooling around Kandahar city moving DFAIT pers to meetings with the mayor. 

There were full infantry platoons outfitted with RG's in theatre.  In my direct experience the PRT Commander and General Vance's TAC were rolling in RG's as LAV's were needed to fight the war in the nasty places like Panjwai.  NSE would have loved TAPV for their escort duties, and probably so would have the Route Survey crew instead of the Cougar "battle buses" they used to protect the Husky VMMD and Buffalo.

So yah, seems like a mismatch for a lot of tasks that we might be trying to fit it into, but it's going to be a good vehicle for so many others that we completely forgot, discounted, discovered or didn't remember were important.  The infantry get the TAPV because lots of these tasks are ones the infantry will be assigned despite the fact that lots of these organizations didn't quite fit into the tradition brigade "doctrine".

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 241,885
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,605
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
The TAPV: when life hands you lemons, squirt the juice in your eyes.  :nod:
"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
  • *
  • 206,785
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,690
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Underway - that is an interesting and novel perspective for me.  And useful too.

But what you seem to be describing is a vehicle that in times gone by might have been employed by the Royal (Canadian) Army Service Corps rather than the Infantry.  The Infantry would have been passengers.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Old Sweat

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 218,985
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,822
Underway - that is an interesting and novel perspective for me.  And useful too.

But what you seem to be describing is a vehicle that in times gone by might have been employed by the Royal (Canadian) Army Service Corps rather than the Infantry.  The Infantry would have been passengers.

Or operated by the Armoured Corps as was the case with the British and Canadian "Kangaroo" regiments in the Second World War.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 222,015
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,806
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Good thing we are getting rid of the Coyote's and converting/replacing all the LAV 3 to LAV 6 standards.  TAPV replaces 2 vehicles in the Coyote and RG-31 (and some of the Cougars I think). 

I'd be curious to see what capabilities, if any, the Coyote had that the TAPV won't and here what some folks still sporting black berets think of replacing one with the other.
Everything happens for a reason.

Sometimes the reason is you're stupid and make bad decisions.

Offline Nerf herder

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 24,856
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,053
  • The usual suspect.
Good thing we are getting rid of the Coyote's and converting/replacing all the LAV 3 to LAV 6 standards.  TAPV replaces 2 vehicles in the Coyote and RG-31 (and some of the Cougars I think).  I don't know if the Bison ambulance and Command variants are staying in the fleet.  I assume so.  But a Bison Amb is much easier and cheaper to run then a full LAV from what I understand and I haven't heard of a LAV ambulance yet (maybe we have one or maybe we are getting them).

Also don't forget the entire TLAV fleet.  Really when you think about it discounting the specialist engineering vehicles (Husky, Cougar etc...) The army will have 4 main armoured vehicles.  LAV 6, TAPV, TLAV and Leopard.  There are a few "micro" fleets but every army has those because you just can't common hull everything.

As for the rest of your post, yah I agree, purchases should match doctrine.  In this case though I think the TAPV purchase matched experience. 

If we had of had these in Afghanistan there probably would have been more lives saved on the roads.  TAPV could have done convoy escort, moved VIP's around, provided vehicles for CIMIC, POMLET, OMLET and PSYOPS teams. It would have replaced RG's and freed up LAV 3, LAV LORIT and in some cases TLAV's to do other work more suited to their vehicle than tooling around Kandahar city moving DFAIT pers to meetings with the mayor. 

There were full infantry platoons outfitted with RG's in theatre.  In my direct experience the PRT Commander and General Vance's TAC were rolling in RG's as LAV's were needed to fight the war in the nasty places like Panjwai.  NSE would have loved TAPV for their escort duties, and probably so would have the Route Survey crew instead of the Cougar "battle buses" they used to protect the Husky VMMD and Buffalo.

So yah, seems like a mismatch for a lot of tasks that we might be trying to fit it into, but it's going to be a good vehicle for so many others that we completely forgot, discounted, discovered or didn't remember were important.  The infantry get the TAPV because lots of these tasks are ones the infantry will be assigned despite the fact that lots of these organizations didn't quite fit into the tradition brigade "doctrine".

You clearly have no idea what the role of the Coyote, LAV or TAPV are, nor what armour doctrine is when it comes to recce and its doctrine is at all.

EITS - it's bridging a gap in capabilities. Unfortunately, the corps is being somewhat hamstringed in capabilities WRT firepower however, we both know recce isn't platform dependant. The firepower issue is being looked at and luckily enough the project is looking to expand its capabilities. Time will tell what we will get. Once the LAV 6 surv platform is sorted out I'm sure the books will get rewritten again. Seeing how it hasn't been updated since the 1960s anyways, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

As for the infantry battalions, rumour has it that they don't want them at all....but that's only rumour and not in my lane.

Regards
Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords.--Ben Franklin

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion."
    -Norman Schwartzkopf

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 20,635
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 919
You clearly have no idea what the role of the Coyote, LAV or TAPV are, nor what armour doctrine is when it comes to recce and its doctrine is at all.

EITS - it's bridging a gap in capabilities. Unfortunately, the corps is being somewhat hamstringed in capabilities WRT firepower however, we both know recce isn't platform dependant. The firepower issue is being looked at and luckily enough the project is looking to expand its capabilities. Time will tell what we will get. Once the LAV 6 surv platform is sorted out I'm sure the books will get rewritten again. Seeing how it hasn't been updated since the 1960s anyways, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

As for the infantry battalions, rumour has it that they don't want them at all....but that's only rumour and not in my lane.

I don't know much about armour or armour recce and never said I did. Nor did I comment on the armoured side of the house.  You seem to have read the post with an eye to only the armoured use of the vehicles. 

In my experience we operated with LAV, LORITS, RG's and Cougars on daily basis during my tour,  I think I can say I know with some confidence in that context what their role was, their weaknesses and the tasks we were assigned.  I listed them all above.  The CIMIC teams were rolling in RG's or displacing infantry from a LAV seat, many of the POMLET were with the Americans in Hummers of all things if they had a vehicle at all.  PSYOPS was in a TLAV and so was OMLET.  NSE was using a combo of vehicles that were crewed by a similarly weird combo of reserve infantry, armour for much of their escorts.  Route survey were dealing with the Cougar as an escort.  TAC's for non battle group call signs were often composed of similarly weird combos because that was what was available.  I think that this mishmash of vehicles and experiences was noted and a vehicle was purchased that could properly equip pers to deal with these organizations and circumstances.

So tell us.  What's the role of the TAPV in the armoured context.  The non-gov't version. The entire last half of this thread is discussing its possible uses and reasons for purchase where you apparently could have summed it up in a paragraph or two.  It would ruin the fun of the discussion but it would answer plenty of questions.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 222,015
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,806
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
EITS - it's bridging a gap in capabilities. Unfortunately, the corps is being somewhat hamstringed in capabilities WRT firepower however, we both know recce isn't platform dependant. The firepower issue is being looked at and luckily enough the project is looking to expand its capabilities. Time will tell what we will get. Once the LAV 6 surv platform is sorted out I'm sure the books will get rewritten again. Seeing how it hasn't been updated since the 1960s anyways, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.
Regards

Ack...so, just to keep this straight in my head, is the surv suite being ported over to the LAV 6 or is it a new suite?

I like to keep a general idea of how it's all changed, changing...we've done some cooperative trg with ground units over the last few years (limited and not at all capitalized on, IMO...Greenwood is a stone's throw away from the Trg area over your way as an example...) and understanding how you guys do it on the ground lets us support from above much better, I think. 

I did a Common Ground once with 3 riders from the inf recce course, they perked up when I asked them stuff like "do you want to look into that gap" and "we can loiter on the entry to that long defile...".  IMPACT let us improve on the ground game even more, but not with our own ground forces. 
Everything happens for a reason.

Sometimes the reason is you're stupid and make bad decisions.

Offline Ludoc

  • Member
  • ****
  • 12,555
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 125
I am not a Black Hatter but am in an armoured unit and just left Recce Sqn. Having talked to the guys using this equipment these are some initial impressions:

The TAPVs while weighing more than a Coyote and having less wheels are surprising adapt at off road driving. The big fear of them being bogged down every time they leave the hard pack appears unfounded.

The optics on the RWS are fantastic, in some ways better than what is currently in the surv suites. The lack of a mast sucks but what is on the vehicles is pretty good.

There seems to be less room in the vehicles to store stuff, most notably the cockpit(for want of a better word) doesn't have as much space as the turret did to place things. However, that is probably due to the fact that the vehicles are new and we just have not worked out the best way to utilize the space.

Not being able to just cruise around with a head out the of the top of the vehicle really restricts the crew commander's situational awareness. Sure the crew is more protected, but I know many of the guys in Recce would be happy to give that up for peripheral vision and the ability to turn to face any direction quickly.

Having the reserves trained on the same platform as the Ref force will be a boon to the corps going forward. Being able to say to a reserve unit "If you bring a car with for dudes(or broads) we can plug them into a a Tp as a G c/s" will be pretty amazing. Giving them access to the level of training (Regimental or Brigade level) we do regularly will only help future interoperability. Even if they can only offer one or two pers, if those pers are drivers/gunners/crew commanders for the platform we own will make it way easier to employ them in a manner that is beneficial both for those members and the gaining units.

The loss of the mast sucks but not every Coyote had a mast. Those with masts will be replaced (eventually) by the LRSS.

It is a shame to lose the ability provided by the remote kits (For those not familiar with Recce, basically the ability to dismount and place all the mast optics in an OP). However with equipment like the coral c, vector binos, and the Raven the vast majority of the capability lost with the remote kit is easily replaceable in lighter, more portable and higher resolution devices.

Lastly, the TAPV have one huge advantage over the Coyotes: they are new. Not having been beet to hell over the last 20+ years they are going to be inherently more reliable than the current fleet. The Coyotes are a great platform but they have been used hard. With the age of the equipment it is a lot of work and luck to keep each one on the road. A vehicle that works is always better than one that does not.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And just so we are all tracking:

The LRSS6 will have a brand new surv suite. By all accounts it is a huge improvement over the old system.

The new system will allow the operators to see things in colour instead of green scale.

It will also allow the vehicle to be moved (at a reasonable speed) with the mast up. (Not useful in all situatuions but it does provide a new capability and flexibility.)

There is a rumour that the vehicles will be able to wirelessly share video. (Amazing if they can but as a Sig I will believe that when I see it.)

The LRSS are, like all new equipment, not on schedule. They will arrive when they arrive so Coyotes will be in service for quite some time yet.

Offline Nerf herder

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 24,856
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,053
  • The usual suspect.
I don't know much about armour or armour recce and never said I did. Nor did I comment on the armoured side of the house.  You seem to have read the post with an eye to only the armoured use of the vehicles. 

In my experience we operated with LAV, LORITS, RG's and Cougars on daily basis during my tour,  I think I can say I know with some confidence in that context what their role was, their weaknesses and the tasks we were assigned.  I listed them all above.  The CIMIC teams were rolling in RG's or displacing infantry from a LAV seat, many of the POMLET were with the Americans in Hummers of all things if they had a vehicle at all.  PSYOPS was in a TLAV and so was OMLET.  NSE was using a combo of vehicles that were crewed by a similarly weird combo of reserve infantry, armour for much of their escorts.  Route survey were dealing with the Cougar as an escort.  TAC's for non battle group call signs were often composed of similarly weird combos because that was what was available.  I think that this mishmash of vehicles and experiences was noted and a vehicle was purchased that could properly equip pers to deal with these organizations and circumstances.

The role of recce in a secondary role is to do convoy escorts. Due to the lack of manpower and vehicles this couldn't be done for the most part during operations in Panjwaii/ Zhari. Hence why it was passed off to NSE.

The last real convoy escorts done on a regular interval happened during Op Archer from Kabul to Kandahar.

As for the TACs rolling about unprotected, getting hit or stuck, again yet another task as a part of RAS for a 60 unit. Shouldn't have happened at all, but you know how that goes.

Quote
So tell us.  What's the role of the TAPV in the armoured context.  The non-gov't version. The entire last half of this thread is discussing its possible uses and reasons for purchase where you apparently could have summed it up in a paragraph or two.  It would ruin the fun of the discussion but it would answer plenty of questions.

It will be utilized as a patrol vehicle in a two or three car patrol teamed up with a LAV 6 LRSS. Thought you would've figured that out with the Coyotes being replaced and divested by 2020.

Regards
Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords.--Ben Franklin

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion."
    -Norman Schwartzkopf

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 20,635
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 919
It will be utilized as a patrol vehicle in a two or three car patrol teamed up with a LAV 6 LRSS. Thought you would've figured that out with the Coyotes being replaced and divested by 2020.


Thanks.  I did understand that patrol vehicle part with the Coyote replacement, however I did not know that they will be teamed with a LAV in the same patrol.  That part is new to me.  I thought that one would have preferred to use one vehicle type in a grouping and have both TAPV patrols and LAV patrols instead of mixed.  I can see the advantages of mixing though as they would each bring a different tool to the table. 

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 241,885
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,605
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Meanwhile, in Russia:  :o

Russia BRM-3K Armoured Reconnaissance Vehicle With 57mm Autocannon Firing Tests

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkCHLgmK4nM
"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 Nerf herder

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 24,856
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,053
  • The usual suspect.
Meanwhile, in Russia:  :o

Russia BRM-3K Armoured Reconnaissance Vehicle With 57mm Autocannon Firing Tests

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkCHLgmK4nM

Horrible gunnery technique.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords.--Ben Franklin

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion."
    -Norman Schwartzkopf

Offline CanadianTire

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 9,324
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 795
NSE was using a combo of vehicles that were crewed by a similarly weird combo of reserve infantry, armour for much of their escorts. 

My tour was the first to receive the LAV-RWS, and my platoon was exactly as you described it. Our preference was for the LAV-RWS but they had to split those between us and the PRT, so we ended up being a mixture of LAV and RG. Each IC and 2IC had their preference so we had no SOP for escort, it just depended upon who went out that day. We started off with two TLAVs but actually pawned one to OMLT in exchange for an extra RG, but I think the remaining TLAV only ever left the wire once during my tour.

"Theirs not to reason why/Theirs but to do and die." - Tennyson

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 207,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,762
And all LAV RWS will be converted to other variants by the end of LAV UP, because it was a useful vehicle and we don’t need that.

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 20,635
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 919
And all LAV RWS will be converted to other variants by the end of LAV UP, because it was a useful vehicle and we don’t need that.

Makes it sound like LAV 6.0 isn't a useful variant   8).  The LAV RWS IIRC has the improved belly armour and shock mounted seating similar to the LAV UP, just no turret.

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 207,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,762
Makes it sound like LAV 6.0 isn't a useful variant   8).  The LAV RWS IIRC has the improved belly armour and shock mounted seating similar to the LAV UP, just no turret.
Your statement is like you listen to someone claim a screwdriver is useful and you then accuse the individual of calling hammers useless. The fact that LAV 6 is not a variant asside (it is a new model with several variants of its own). The variant you are thinking of is the infantry section carrier (ISC), which is the baseline variant of LAV III, LORIT, and LAV 6.

It is possible to have LAV 6 ISC and RWS. They are different tools for different jobs. If you are not an infantry section, then there is a good chance you could get more capability without the turret and with more free space in the hull.

The exact roll of people mover that used to be filled by RG-31 could better be filled by a LAV 6 RWS than by the TAPV that we bought. 2 CER has been using RWS variants in CP roles where the 25 mm of a typical LAV 6 C2 would otherwise sit unutilized.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 206,785
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,690
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
LAV 6.0 RWS - Isn't that actually congruent with the 199 Bison that were removed from Militia Service to supply all the support vehicles that the Army didn't buy when they bought the Grizzlies, Cougars and Coyotes?
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 207,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,762
The project to replace Bison and TLAV variants has not started and both vehicle fleets are in service.  There is currently no plan to buy are modify older vehicles into a LAV 6 RWS.

The CAF has already stated it will not go out and buy LAV 6 variants for the Armoured Combat Support Vehicle (ACSV) in order to please PSPC ... sort of a process drives the requirements (or tail wags the dog) sort of thing.