Armoured Recce Vehicle

[R Stacey]

George,
  based on your last post in regards to publications we are both saying the same thing.  B-GL-394-001/FP-001 Recce in Battle dated Oct 99 was in final draft form but has yet to be approved.  If I am not mistaken I belive B-GL-394-002/FP-001 Recce and Surv Ops has replaced the above and.

There have been a number of new publications placed on the Army electronic library that may be of some interest to you.






Richard

 

[R Stacey]

George,
  we must have crossed paths at one time.  I was in Pet with the 8CH 83-85 A/Recce Sqn, C Sqn RCD Germany 85-87, Recce Sqn 8 CH Germany with Tom Falls 87-90, re badged Strathcona 1990 served Calgary and Edmonton with them, and Gagetown 2001-2003 at the School.  I work with both Chris and Tom at CMTC as well as Lee Boon from the Dragoons.




Richard

 

[George Wallace]

Say Hi! to all three and keep Lee off of E Bay.    ;D

 

[R Stacey]

George,
  Lee is to busy trying to come up some sadistic tactics for OPFOR.  I don't think I can keep him off E bay.  Looks like Chris is posted back to the regiment this summer.

I will say Hi to the guys for you.  I spoke with Tom a couple of hours ago.




Richard

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Thanks Richard,

Just goes to prove, if your not one of the Reg outfits, involved with Coyote, your not expected to know anything. I've been pushing ever since I saw the draft at the school ten years ago to get hold of a new doctrine. As recently as last year, we (the MO) were told there wasn't one. It would make sense if it was only coyote specific? If it is, then there would be no change to the mud recce. Oh well, you think I'd be used to it by now. Don't suppose there's a .pdf copy available somewhere, is there?

8CH - 70-72, 75-79
RCD - 72 - 75

 

[R Stacey]

recceguy,
  here is the link to the Army Electronic Library which avail on the internet and is avail to the public.  The New Recce Pub "Recce and Surveillance Ops" is not Coyote specific and refers to all Recce tasks based on new doctrine.

http://armyapp.dnd.ca/ael/publications_ie.asp?series=390_e




Richard

 

[DG-41]

I'm actually on side with Coyote being a good recce vehicle - although the points raised about its limitations are well taken.

But from my point of view, the Coyote's suitability as as recce vehicle, or its unsuitability, are completely irrelevant, for the simple reason that the vehicle is too expensive to equip everybody equally. Yeah, in 1996 I was promised a troop of Coyotes. That summer on Bison was supposed to be a work-up to getting Coyote, to familiarize us with the differences between working out of Iltis to working out of a proper AFV - and I'm happy to report that we adjusted just fine, thank you.

But those promised vehicles never arrived. The Reg Force got them, we didn't, and now there's this huge disparity between how the Regs and Reserves train, such that - even though the Reserves are perfectly capable soldiers - this is seen as a limiting factor on the deployability of Reservists.

OK, fair enough - so get us Bisons then. Cheap enough to be affordable, similar enough to Coyote to cover the dissimilar equipment gap and to keep logistics costs under control, capable enough in their own right (in some aspects, superior to Coyote) to be deployable. Win win win.

Seriously, who do I need to talk to?

DG

 

[R Stacey]

RecceDG,
   unfortunately all of the Bisons are being re roled into New Ambulances, MRT's, Buffalo Recovery veh, and Command Posts to fill the Gap after the cancelation of the AVGP fleet upgrades.  Below is a link to the FENNEK Recce Veh that I had the Opportunity to work with in Afghanistan.  It completed its Operational acceptance trials while I was in theatre and surpassed all of the expectations laid out in the final trial. I beleive it would fit the bill as a perfect Close Recce Veh for the Reserves as well as the Reg force.  Believe me its very quiet, extremely fast and has an excellent weapons station.  Its got outstanding cross country mobility for a wheeled veh and a phenominal turning radius. Yes its not tracked, but unfortunately we are getting away from track as much as I would prefer to have it. The surveillance package when not needed folds back into the rear left portion of the hull and does not invole the crew getting out of the veh to do it.  It can also come equiped with Mini UAV's that can be stored in the rear of the vehicle.  Its got phenominal range and provides 360 deg field of view for the Commander and Gunner and excellent observation for the driver.  This is an easy veh to maintain as stated by the crews and is very cheap given the capabilities and equipment it brings to the table.

Have a look at the link.


Comments



http://www.army-technology.com/projects/fennek/

 

[DG-41]

That's a neat little vehicle - 3 man crew instead of 4, but overall it looks pretty cool (I Googled around to look at more info)

But - can we afford enough of them to outfit the Reserves too?

If we can, hey, awesome, I'll take eight right now (and I've got enough people showing up to field a full eight car troop too) But if we can't, all we're doing is building in another capability gap that we won't be able to bridge.

As far as the existing Bisons being spoken for - no problem. The factory is just down the road maybe an hour and a half away. Fax me the purchase order for enough to equip everyone - or hell, just my eight - and I'll carry the order there in person. They can always build more.....

DG

 

[GK .Dundas]

But - can we afford enough of them to outfit the Reserves too?

If we can, hey, awesome, I'll take eight right now (and I've got enough people showing up to field a full eight car troop too) But if we can't, all we're doing is building in another capability gap that we won't be able to bridge.


DG

Some years back I was talking to reserve armour officer and he told me that if you gave him four tanks to park in his armoury vehicle park where they could be seen by the public.He could recruit and train a squadron's worth of tankers.In fact he thought he do it with just one tank!
We have this strange idea that you can actually maintain a reserve force with no equipment other then uniforms.
The early nineties and late eighties may have been the golden age of the reserves.
However the Fennek looks like a great way to improve upon reserve armoured recce units and give them a real capability.
The best use for for a milcot ?......targets on a range.
forgive the rant it was a bad day at work .

 

[a_majoor]

Some years back I was talking to reserve armour officer and he told me that if you gave him four tanks to park in his armoury vehicle park where they could be seen by the public.He could recruit and train a squadron's worth of tankers.In fact he thought he do it with just one tank!
We have this strange idea that you can actually maintain a reserve force with no equipment other then uniforms.

Too true. But the problem we are having now is kit is being purchased in a field expedient manner for specific tasks (50 X RG-31, 6 X M-777 howitzers etc) without looking beyond the immediate needs to see how this fits into the big picture. The worst case scenario is all this expensive kit will be abandoned since it exists in such small quantities there is no sense tying up the supply and maint chains to support penny packets of special equipment. If the powers that be thought it through, there could be a purchase order of over 300 armoured recce vehicles (of whatever sort) for the Regular and Reserves, which would give manufacturers incentive to compete, provide economy of scale, give users a critical mass to develop and refine TTPs, and make a nice recruiting aid as well.

However the Fennek looks like a great way to improve upon reserve armoured recce units and give them a real capability.

So long as we consider purchasing enough to be useful. Buying 16/area and parking them in Meaford, Wainright etc. would be just enough to tease and frustrate everyone without adding capability.

The best use for for a milcot ?......targets on a range.

What will the SSM use to bring hayboxes of coffee and donuts to the firing pad?  ;D

 

[GK .Dundas]

Too true. But the problem we are having now is kit is being purchased in a field expedient manner for specific tasks (50 X RG-31, 6 X M-777 howitzers etc) without looking beyond the immediate needs to see how this fits into the big picture. The worst case scenario is all this expensive kit will be abandoned since it exists in such small quantities there is no sense tying up the supply and maint chains to support penny packets of special equipment. If the powers that be thought it through, there could be a purchase order of over 300 armoured recce vehicles (of whatever sort) for the Regular and Reserves, which would give manufacturers incentive to compete, provide economy of scale, give users a critical mass to develop and refine TTPs, and make a nice recruiting aid.

So long as we consider purchasing enough to be useful. Buying 16/area and parking them in Meaford, Wainright etc. would be just enough to tease and frustrate everyone without adding capability.

What will the SSM use to bring hayboxes of coffee and donuts to the firing pad?  ;D

     g-wagons ?

 

[GK .Dundas]

George;
You're quite correct but that's how almost all of our procurement takes place . Either something comes up like an unexpected operational commitment. Or the bloody whatzit dies of old age.
Isn't that how we ended up with the Leos in that case it was a little bit of both if memory serves?
  Supposedly if one take the current nominal  ten standing brigades you could actually come up with  2.5 real brigades.Wouldn't it be useful if they could bring more to the table then just warm bodies?
  Best regards , Gordon

 

[Matt_Fisher]

Jane's International Defence Review
27 January, 2006

Canada develops new reconnaissance vehicle to strengthen light force capability

By Sharon Hobson

The Canadian Army is developing a new reconnaissance vehicle to fill the gap between the Mercedes Benz G-wagons and the Coyote Light Armoured Vehicle - Reconnaissance (LAV-Recce).

Lieutenant-General Marc Caron, Chief of the Land Staff, told IDR that among his equipment plans there is "another requirement that I need to fit. You've got the Coyote, [with its] surveillance and reconnaissance suite well-integrated, but sometimes the Coyote may be too big. So you need another smaller one - a mini-Coyote".

Work on this "mini-Coyote", or Light Armoured Reconnaissance Vehicle (LARV), is underway with plans to have it ready for the army in 2010-11, according to project director Major Frank Lozanski. The project is not yet funded but given the army's current operations in Afghanistan and its desire to enhance its light force capability, the project may receive a high priority.

"I guess what we're talking about is a vehicle somewhere around the size of a VBL [Panhard Vehicule Blinde Leger] or a Humvee or a RST-V [Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Targetting Vehicle]," said Maj Lozanski.

The LARV will carry a crew of three (maximum four), with common crew stations "allowing anybody in the vehicle to have access to any of the subsystems that are required to do any of the jobs anybody else is doing". Maj Lozanski said: "Obviously you can't drive the vehicle from the gunner's station, but there's no reason why, in theory at least, in an emergency that the driver couldn't fire the gun from his position." He added: "We're thinking about that for the Coyote as well."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ought to be good news for all the recce. by death, er, I mean recce by stealth types out there.  If they're going to go small, they should at least get something that's somewhat protected, has a high degree of mobility and has the provision to throw some dismounts into (even though the crew  requirement is for 3-4, 2 dismounts per callsign would be nice).
My suggestion:  Wiesel 2.  Large enough for a 4 man crew, surv. equipment, ammo, and stores, with capability for a remote-weapons station on the roof.  Its rubber track is less maintenance intensive than conventional track, can maintain good road speeds, and has excellent cross-country mobility, all in a weight that can be transported by a CH-47.

 

[DG-41]

Little behind the times, ain't ya Matt? We've already been discussing this in another thread.

Current scuttlebut is Fennek.

DG

 

[Matt_Fisher]

My apologies...do you have a link to that thread?

 

[a_majoor]

The Fennek?

What ever happened to the iron clad requirment it must be built by Bombardier or GD....

Actually the article left the impression the project is pretty wide open right now. Is this a firm prediction or just through the rumor control net?

 

[DG-41]

Here's the thread:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/36019.30.html

And I'm just bustin' your balls.

DG

 

[Maybee]

Hoping that this thread isn't entirely dead...Has anybody out there had a chance to sit in the Fennek? HEDGEHOG sounds like you may have had a chance to crawl around one...How easy is it to punch a dismounted guy out of it?

 

[a_majoor]

Reviving a somewhat old thread

Here is (yet) another design for a light patrol vehicle which looks like it has most of what "we" might want for a recce vehicle, mud or otherwise: IGUANA FV4, the new 4x4 armoured vehicle developed by Sabiex Engineers. http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/armoured/sabiex/

The image shows a 4 X 4 vehicle with the requisite "mine proof" shape; reasonable amounts of crew visibility without being an SUV, a cupola of some sort which could be replaced with a sensor or RWS, and a crew compartment for up to four soldiers (4+2 total).

This provides the basis for a fairly extensive range of recce vehicles; a basic mud recce vehicle with room for 72 hr supplies carried internally (4 man crew so you have the option of throwing a patrolman out when needed); a CP/RRB vehicle and even a sensor platform, with the rear crew compartment replaced with the mast or mast kit and operator station. More specialized versions like NBC recce can be developed as well, using the room in the back for the sensors and operator stations.

The best hope is this is inexpensive enough to purchase a large number for economy of scale, critical mass for training, TTP development and deployment and so on. If doctrine is changed to put convoy escort into the hands of the MP's or a Force Protection Platoon of the TPT COY; then even more could be purchased and greater economies afforded (not to mention freeing up more patrols for finding the bad guys).