Armoured Recce Vehicle

[X-mo-1979]

Let's face it.The coyote isnt going anywhere.Other people love our surv equipment,even with its huge issues I will not get into.

Honestly lets look at what we can do for really cheap.

T-lav,rubber track,RWS.
Thats my idea of a great recce vehicle.Put a surv suite in the back,ton's of room.And yes they do stop 50 cal .

 

[geo]

I just remember the days of reconnaissance using "snoop and scoot".  Using Lynx or 1/4 tons jeeps/ Iltis.  While the Coyote has an incredible array of surveillance equipment, the vehicle itself is big & bulky AND pert hard to miss. 

Something the size of the french VBL de reconnaissance strikes me an appropriate vehicle.  Rubber wheels, RWS

 

[X-mo-1979]

coyote aint a recce vehicle.Its a observation vehicle and nothing more.
Iltis/jeep recce I believe is gone.I hope to never see it again,no matter how much fun it was (had a blast in the iltis) recent op's such as Afganistan have shown it is not a suitable.

VBL is nice,but I wonder why since we have many T-lav's why we couldnt use them?
I was amazed the first time I heard (or rather lack of noise) of a T-lav flying down the road.We wee hauling Lav's out everywhere with it.An impressive peice of kit.

 

[Fencer_1983]

Just remember that it's a fluff show and nothing more.     

That might be so, but I think it's silly to dismiss UGV technology.  Maybe it won't completely eclipse manned recce in 15-20 years time, but unmanned vehicles will become the mainstay of reconnaissance in the not too distant future - just the same way unmanned missions are now the mainstay of space exploration.

In today's conflicts where the public is so sensitive to casualties and public opinion is vital to the stability of our missions, doing everything we can to mitigate the danger to our soldiers is critical.  Although minimizing casualties has always been a high priority, it is now that much more important... thus one reason for unmanned capabilities.

There are numerous other advantages to UGVs.  Like I said before, the size reduction that results from being unmanned is a huge advantage when it comes to concealability.  In addition, a UGV is not limited by the frailty of the human body.  As long as the equipment and structure are up to par, the UGV will be able to traverse terrain or operate in hazardous environments (ie. NBC) unsuitable for humans.  As hybrid or other engine technology progresses, the period of time a UGV can remain in the field will continue to increase. Napoleon said, "An army marches on its stomach" -- well, an army that has no stomach is going to march much longer.  A UGV will be able to remain in the field much longer than any manned vehicle.

UGVs obviously will require some degree of human interaction in order to interpret the data, repair the vehicles, and so forth.  But why put men and women in harms way if there isn't a need to do so?  Of course some future missions may still require personnel out in the field, and obviously there will be a need to find new manned vehicles for such purposes too.  But it is only a matter of time before most, if not all, missions can be done by unmanned or autonomous vehicles.  I do not like the idea of replacing people with machines one bit (heck I wish we were still fighting with swords hehe), but it is something that will happen and we have to come to terms with it if we're going to stay on top.

 

[Reccesoldier]

From a purely philosophical point of view I hope that we will never go in this direction.

The best thing about war is that it is so bloody and destructive that we fear and loathe it, and therefore only undertake it when it is absolutely necessary.

 

[Kirkhill]

Reccesoldier: I don't think you need to worry about that.  If war does become a "spectator" sport, like Soccer, you can be sure that the violence will move to the stands.

 

[a_majoor]

Another potential compromise vehicle is the M-1117 series, developed from the V-150 "Commando" of yore.

Positive features are relatively small size, decent protection, the ability to mount some serious firepower and carry enough people to have some dismounted scouts available when needed (or other dismounted pers, depending on what you are doing); or the space can be used for extra kit, consumable s etc. Logistically, it has a large existing supply line and uses many parts from other existing vehicles.

Negatives include the lack of sophisticated sensors or optronics, and a turning circle about as large as a LAV III. It also has windows (although smaller than found in  the armoured SUV's sometimes proposed), rather than the "heads up" carriage deemed most essential by our recce SME's, although the crew can and should be trained to go hatches up. Some of the negative features can be engineered out of the vehicle (different axles, suspension and so on will fix the turning circle issue, for example), but the expense of doing so (and making the "C-1117" incompatible with the global supply chain for the M-1117) might be prohibitive.

 

[TCBF]

Let's face it.The coyote isnt going anywhere.Other people love our surv equipment,even with its huge issues I will not get into.

Honestly lets look at what we can do for really cheap.

T-lav,rubber track,RWS.
Thats my idea of a great recce vehicle.Put a surv suite in the back,ton's of room.And yes they do stop 50 cal .

- The M-113 family is also the best vehicle we have for northern operations.  Our reserve Recce Regiments should get a patrol each to train on.

 

[Rayman]

- The M-113 family is also the best vehicle we have for northern operations.  Our reserve Recce Regiments should get a patrol each to train on.

Maybe even some BV-206s while were at it? Take the tops off and you got a tracked, small open top vehicle. Of course there would have to be up armour installed...

 

[TCBF]

Maybe even some BV-206s while were at it? Take the tops off and you got a tracked, small open top vehicle. Of course there would have to be up armour installed...

- Take the tops off?  You been outside lately?

 

[Rayman]

Yeah but then we have nice big reflective windows to worry about.

 

[chrisf]

You've clearly never been in a BV206 in the arctic... any vehicle in the arctic?

 

[geo]

Maybe even some BV-206s while were at it? Take the tops off and you got a tracked, small open top vehicle. Of course there would have to be up armour installed...

Up armour the thing AND take off the top??  aren't you contradicting yourself?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Maybe even some BV-206s while were at it? Take the tops off and you got a tracked, small open top vehicle. Of course there would have to be up armour installed...

BV 206 and the 210 (armoured?) are likely the best options for Northern troops, My undrstanding is that the CV90 beat both the Bradely and MVTL (modernized M-113) in winter trials.

 

[X-mo-1979]

BV 206 and the 210 (armoured?) are likely the best options for Northern troops, My undrstanding is that the CV90 beat both the Bradely and MVTL (modernized M-113) in winter trials.

Where,when,and what was tested?

TCBF-I know the east coast reserves Get plenty of driving experience supporting gagetown.Good idea for Ontario however,ship 2 per regiment.
Even if it was the older variants it would be just as good for a familiarisation.
(However...fleet management....)

 

[geo]

Lord knows there are plenty of M113s parked on Farnham...

However, given the amount of Mtce most of the M113s would require, these would never find their way to individual units.  Pools in the various MTCs could be possible, I guess

 

[chrisf]

I was wondering about this the other day (And any moderator can feel free to split this off into another thread) but would the M113s or T-LAVs make an effective vehicle for the territorial defence batallions/IRUs that are being stood up?

My thinking on it was this... they don't need heavy armor, and while there's not a pressing need for for light armor, couldn't hurt to have. They'd get a big heavy tracked vehicle which right away is useful in emergency situations for high-mobility, kit one or two per district as an ARV, and maybe a SEV or at least equip a few with a plow. They could additionally be offered to local law enforcement as an armored augmentation when required (Crowd control, stand-offs etc), and they could even be included in any local response plan to a CBRN attack. Value added, lend them to res armoured units/res engineer units when not needed for emergency response.

 

[chrisf]

In a similiar vein to my previous question, can I assume the M548s have long since been disposed of?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

In a similiar vein to my previous question, can I assume the M548s have long since been disposed of?

I wonder now with the purchase of new tanks shouldn't we be looking for a tracked resupply vehicle to support them?

How about a T-LAV with the hull cut to a flat deck behind the driver with Hiab and pallet system?

 

[geo]

In a similiar vein to my previous question, can I assume the M548s have long since been disposed of?

Some cargo carriers & Queen Marys are parked in with the 113s,... not TLAVs...

Some time ago, I was walking past the workshops and they were working on what Colin was musing about.... the box was pert much cut away and replaced by a cargo bed.  Haven't a clue what it was intended for but... someone was trying something out.