Fleet of armoured trucks plagued with problems

[GAP]

Fleet of armoured trucks plagued with problems
Mon Apr 16 2007
Article Link

OTTAWA -- At the height of fierce fighting in Afghanistan last summer, more than a quarter of Canada's new fleet of heavily armoured RG-31 Nyala patrol vehicles were in the shop with maintenance problems, army records show.
The sturdy South African-built trucks, which resemble a sport utility vehicle on steroids, were beset with a series of electrical and software glitches, many relating to the roof-mounted, remote-controlled machine gun.

The former director of the Nyala project at National Defence says the army aims to have 95 per cent availability for its fighting vehicles.

"We were running into a couple of systemic problems," Mike Moggridge, who recently stepped down as program manager, said in an interview.

"We do our best to provide the best performance. The only thing worse than trying to introduce a new piece of equipment into theatre during an operation is not to deliver that capability at all."

Meanwhile, the bodies of two more Canadian soldiers were saluted Sunday for paying the ultimate price for serving their country.   
Relatives clutched one another as the dark grey military Airbus carrying the bodies of Master Cpl. Allan Stewart, 30, and Trooper Patrick Pentland, 23, touched down at CFB Trenton.

The two soldiers from the Royal Canadian Dragoons, based at CFB Petawawa, Ont., were killed Thursday by a roadside bomb in southern Afghanistan.

In terms of equipment, over the last 18 months, Canada has purchased 75 Nyalas at a cost of about $91 million. The big-wheeled trucks were hurried into service as the threat of Taliban roadside bombs became more intense
More on link

 

[Jarnhamar]

First and formost I  loved the RG31. After guys started getting hit by suicide bombers with them, sometimes detonating right along side the vehicle and everyone inside walked away, you couldn't help but feel safe in them.

They did have some major problems with the electrical systems.  The alternator wasn't prepared or designed for the amount of power we tried to draw from them.  We found ways to fix it both on our own and especially from the mechanics.

speaking of which the mechanics in my opinion were hero's.  These guys never seemed to sleep, they were always always always working on vehicles, repairing them and making them better with all kids of improvements.

As someone who has driven both the RG31 and G-wagon, and seen suicide bombers hit both vehicles, all I can say is thank God Canada bought the RG's and rushed them into service.  I'm not sure who's decision it ultimately was but they saved lives.

 

[mover1]

This may seem like a bit of paranoia.
Wouldn't a small thing like maintenance records expose a possible weakness to the wrong people. I know its a very moot point but shouldn't these records be kept under lock and key until AFTER we got out of Afghanistan.

 

[McG]

Would that mean that maintenance records in Canada should also be Confidential?  After all, one could extrapolate the down time of LAV III in Wainwright.

 

[mover1]

No not necessarily.
Afghanistan Waitright are two different spots in the world. Different factors are causing the down time. I was just wondering what the OPSEC rules (if any) were in place.

Otherwise we might as well just be placing our monthly VOR stats on the web for all to see.

 

[Wookilar]

It's seems to be one of those things where are procedures have not caught up with the "new" realities.

All someone is doing is pulling data off of PlannEx. Now, how someone outside of Ottawa has access to that, I would like to know (other than those currently in theatre). I think that I would have to agree with mover1 that operational VOR's should be at least Protected B (and I thought all veh files already were Protected A).

edit: OK, just re-read the article. As for the CP's information source, all they are saying is "army records." Not Access to Information Act, not press release, just "army records" which, unless something brand new is being used, means someone gave PlannEx data to them. I do not think that is such a good idea. I'm all for free press and all that, but I think this is a bit irresponsible of the parties involved (mind you, it is the CP and we all know how much they care about soldiers lives. Their actions/words time and time again have proven that).

 

[GerryCan]

I for one think the RG-31 is garbage. The amount of time they need to be maintained is outrageous, and it seems that every time you turn around something different is broken. They're also very underpowered which makes taking them off-road an issue(especially along side LAV's). Plus riding anywhere inside the vehicle will eventually rattle out any fillings or dental work you got to Dag green because the vehicle rides about as good as a Lumber Wagon. Now I understand that they can take a decent blast which is a good thing obviously, but so can a LAV. I'd much rather see more money put into a vehicle that holds more, has more fire power(that works all the time) and is much more reliable to use in such a demanding area. Just my thoughts, I've disliked the vehicle from the day I started my course in Pet, to driving it in Kandahar.

 

[McG]

I think that I would have to agree with mover1 that operational VOR's should be at least Protected B (and I thought all veh files already were Protected A).

This is not right.  Protected documents contain personal information.  Vehicle maintenance is not a PERSEC issue. 

Anything of an OPSEC neture would be Confidential as its lowest possible classification.  Other militaries have intelligently introduced "Restricted" or "FOUO" classifications (this would be stuff that could be distributed on DWAN but not on the internet), but we do not have anything of this sort in Canada.

 

[Jarnhamar]

The amount of time they need to be maintained is outrageous, and it seems that every time you turn around something different is broken. They're also very underpowered which makes taking them off-road an issue(especially along side LAV's). Plus riding anywhere inside the vehicle will eventually rattle out any fillings or dental work you got to Dag green because the vehicle rides about as good as a Lumber Wagon. Now I understand that they can take a decent blast which is a good thing obviously, but so can a LAV. I'd much rather see more money put into a vehicle that holds more, has more fire power(that works all the time)

I guess you love it or hate it.
There were defiantly major issues.  The power being one. Very underpowered engine (lets put new ones in) The axles and suspension. Speaking of which for what the guys in the battle group tried to use them for, yes they were garbage.  You can't take an RG31 the same places, and at the same speed, as the lavs. We'd laugh when the lavs try and get into our convoy packets. We were like what? One lav has more firepower than our whole convoy.
As was explained to us, the RG31 is an Armored Patrol Vehicle, meaning (apparently) that they are designed for roads and hard surfaces. I considered the RG a replacement vehicle for the G wagon and for that I think it's 1000 times better. Force protection switched over. I think the MPs are now switched over?

The ride inside isn't smooth that's for sure. The seats too are out of control uncomfortable. Expect back problems, mine hurts from them. The G wagon compared is a beautiful ride, but I've seen one of their side doors sucked open in a blast. Very lucky crew inside.  We've had one death if I'm not mistaken in an RG31 and they've been hit quite a few times. One of the GM guys in KAF told us it was the first death in the RG31/Nyla in 15 years. *If* that's accurate that's a decent safety record.  I know it needs to be taken into consideration in the LAV you have guys out of the hatch but it still speaks for crew survivability.

I'd rather the room and firepower of a lav, I don't know who wouldn't.  It's probably a mater of the price difference, LAV availability and time to train the crews. You can train a soldier to drive and gun in the RG in 3 days.
Also I have to disagree with the LAVs firepower working all the time. We saw alot of them being brought back from the FOBs for quite a few mechanical problems, including turret/weapon systems problem.  In my 6 months of escorting convoy I found we brought back lavs 2, maybe 3 times as much as we did RG31s from the battlegroup.  Of course the battlegroup obviously had more LAVs then RGs so that would be a reason for the numbers too I guess.

The RGs STILL did have a lot of maintenance issues.

 

[KevinB]

FWIW they now make a Nyala variant on a Ford 550 chassis. 
  A lot of companies are running them for escort in Iraq - with a front and rear manned turret (with a M240 or PKM in each) 
People must remember any armoured vehicle will have more problems than a soft skin - due to the weight.

I've never been in a Cdn Nyala - but I was woefully underimpressed by the GWagon.
 
Hijack on
Several American companies are making armoured cars these days --- and the American Army are using a Cadillac-Gage 4x4 kinda mini Grizzly here with good effect -- the standard turret but with a .50 M2 and a 40mm Mk19.  crew of three/four.  Makes for a decently potent escort vehicle for the non Stryker units.

 

[Edward Campbell]

... 
Hijack on
Several American companies are making armoured cars these days --- and the American Army are using a Cadillac-Gage 4x4 kinda mini Grizzly here with good effect -- the standard turret but with a .50 M2 and a 40mm Mk19.  crew of three/four.  Makes for a decently potent escort vehicle for the non Stryker units.

Cadillac-Gage offered their Commando, or variants thereof, I guess, during the competition which led to us buying the Cougar (1970ish) - which led to GMDD developing the Bison and LAV III, and, and , and ...  I wonder if it (the current offering) is a variant of that design. I believe it is/was widely used by US law enforcement agencies.

 

[Old Sweat]

Hijack continues . . .

During the mid-sixties the Commando surfaced, along with another light armoured vehicle from another company - Dodge perhaps, for use in COIN operations. I remember reviewing the correspondence when I was at HQ 4 CIBG, but nothing came of the project. There also was a vehicle under consideration named (I am not making this up), the Truck, Utility, High Mobility, One-and-a-quarter Ton1 1/4 ton. At least it was poetic.)

This is where the speculation begins. At that time we had a 'light brigade' named the SSF (the name didn't stick) at Petawawa commanded by Brigadier JA Dextraze. The AVGP family surfaced duirng Jadex's term as CDS, as did the renaming of 2 CBG as the SSF. I wonder if there is a connection?

Edited for spelling.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Further to the ongoing hijack ...

My memory, faulty as it is with Somezeimers (I forget something almost all the time and almost everything some of the time), is that JayDex and the LAV were inextricably linked.

I seem to recall that JayDex wanted the SSF to have a mix of a parachute ‘regiment’ (it was, initially, if you recall, a French style regiment – regiment being used in the tactical organization sense) and a light mechanized (if that’s not a contradiction in terms) ‘regiment’ – air transportable, infantry heavy, with an organic ‘direct fire support vehicle.’

He was also fascinated with the idea that commercial heavy duty ought to be ‘good enough’ for the CF.  He was the driving force behind the 1¼ Ton truck programme.  That project drove MGen H.C. Pitts half way 'round the bend because, while the initial, contracted, capital cost was, as Dextraze suggested, quite low, the final cost – capital and, especially life cycle cost – was much higher by the time we made ‘good enough’ equal ‘acceptable.’  I recall, for example, that we had to redesign and rebuild the vendor’s 24 volt electrical system because the vendor forgot about suppressing RF emissions from the drive train – making every truck a ‘radio’ of sorts with a strong enough signal to ‘jam’ nearby tactical radio receivers – not just in the same vehicles but, if memory serves, at a range of about 15 metres!

That being said, JayDex had a fertile imagination and he shook up the entrenched establishment.  He was a bloody good CDS.

 

[a_majoor]

The Commando V-150 has been resurrected and is in use by US forces as a convoy escort, which it is pretty good at. On the other hand,  if the V-150 was pressed into service as a fire support vehicle for dismounted infantry, you would hear no end of complaints about its dismal performance, poor handling, heavy maintainence load etc.

All vehicles and equipment are designed to do a fairly limited range of tasks, so if the RG 31 is being pushed beyond its limits to gain the tactical edge in theater, then yes there will be problems. I suspect the biggest piece of the puzzle is the Armoured Patrol Vehicle concept is rather fuzzy, so there is no clear consensus as to what is needed for the role and how the role is supposed to be executed. Still the RG 31 is far better than most of the possible alternatives.

 

[KevinB]

I happen to like the 5/4 -- especially my love for it increased in hundredfold when the Loud Squeekey Vehicle Wheeled came into service.
  I

 

[Jammer]

The RG-31 I think is one of the best vehs we could have had over there. I know there were issues with the alternator whereby you could not run the RWS, A/C and the black box at the same time, but they had been resloved by the time I left in Feb.
The biggest problem was drivers...yes drivers! Know what the veh is capable of...you can't go full throttle though grape fields and not expect to break something...however a little more suspension would be nice.
On the whole...I think the RGs are being employed better now, minimizing down time

 

[TheHead]

The Nyala was garbage on an Operational sense and should be given to rear echelon elements for force protection. 

I was a Nyala gunner on Op Archer Roto 1 and the only thing that Vehicle was good for was #1 Breaking Down.  #2 Road moves on pavement.  I spent most of my time during night moves not scanning my arcs but telling my driver where to go since he couldn't see anything.  I commend the Military for the thought, since it was a hasty decision to save troops lives, but once again no tactical thought was put into this decision.  Unless things have been retrofitted (Like a STAB for the weapon, and many other key functions that were missing,broken or just left out  Roll Eyes )  than I hope those things are never used in a forward unit on combat operations.

 

[George Wallace]

Deja vu!

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/60542/post-564338.html#msg564338 

 

[TheHead]

Deja vu!

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/60542/post-564338.html#msg564338 

Yes I posted the same thing in a less active thread.  I'm sure it warrants your sarcasm also. Please stay on topic.  :

 

[George Wallace]

Yes I posted the same thing in a less active thread.  I'm sure it warrants your sarcasm also. Please stay on topic.  :

I suppose I could ding you for attitude, but instead I'll just say that redundant posts really don't help your case.  Some originality could have better served your subjective views.  Should I go around cleaning up repetative posts or just leave them........seeing as currently your post in the other topic is just two down below this topic at present......perhaps I should. 

Fleet of armoured trucks plagued with problems « 1 2  All »  GAP  18  998  Today at 14:53:27    by TheHead 

Family of Future Combat Vehicles  Bubbles  0  39  Today at 13:16:57    by Bubbles 

Canada buys Buffalo & Cougar MPV for Afghanistan  Allen  11  523  Today at 02:29:15    by TheHead 

: