LAV III Recce Vehicles

[Eye In The Sky]

Definitely time to upgrade and get rid of our Bison variants, though.

Bison; that was what I thought would have been a decent recce veh out of the things we've had in our inventory the past few decades.  I've done (peacetime in Canada) recce in Iltis, track (M113), Bison and the G-Wag.  I have zero Coyote time, but I did work a very small bit on my Ptl Cmdr course back in '97 with the surv kit, which I would refer to as 'famil trg'.  Needless to say, it was impressive after only working previously with the Mk 1 eyeball, bino's and that old ground radar (name eludes me now). 

Bison pro's:

- fast (compared to track vehs)
- with a good driver, dropped tire pressures, etc it was loads better off the hard-stand than a jeep/G Wag ever thought of being.  Not as good as a panzer or track, but better than the Cougar/Grizz's, better than the Iltis (though that little effer would go thru more than a lot of people thought if you knew how to drive it), and the G-Wagon is never going to touch the Bison.
- quick transition from off road to hard-stand/hwy driving (if you stopped to actually adjust tire pressures...10 min halt parade and you're off). 
- flick a switch, change from 4 to 8 wheel drive.  same for marine drive.  quick, easy.
- "runflats" mean you weren't fucked immediately like you were if you broke/threw a track.
- was (on paper) a swimmer.  I only every did that in the little swim obstacle on the Gtown driving circuit but, in theory, it would do it.  It was a small obstacle back then that basically only covered prep/entering/exiting.  BUT..I still give it the tick in the box for amphib/swimmer. 
- lots of room for extra kit, if you wanted to add a NODLR, the tripod surv kit, room for extra diesel/rats/water/ammo..whatever you might need in the screen for extended periods. I found it a super piece of kit for an OP base.
- easy to Crew Command the veh.  With the position of the CC seat behind the driver like the Grizz (but 300% better than the grizz for CC comfort), you could fairly easily jump up and do a crest drill with just the top of your noggin coming over the crest.  No turret to consider.
- 2 air sentry hatches were good for Obs, for everything they did mounted.  easy enough for them to get in/out the back on their own when needed.  good set of eyes when reversing/jockeying/moving in a hide, etc. 
- some armour = some protection.  Looking at the Iltis and G-Wag on this one.
- internal/external storage.  even if you took the section box off the top, still decent.
- could pop smoke to run away behind.

Con's:

- no real firepower, but equal to the G-Wag and slightly worse than the Lynx with the .50
- less capable cross country than track (outweighed by the speed difference, IMO.  I got Bisons in lots of the same areas I was in with track...and mostly faired out okay.)
- when it was stuck..it was fuckin good and stuck.
- noise.  compared to the Iltis.  But a good driver could minimize that, help keep the jake brake from kicking in, etc.
- skill fade on the D & M side (for the PRES side).  They just didn't get enough time on the veh to know it, how to use and not use it.

The Iltis, while great for sneakin' around, easy to command in, great for finding the 'barely low ground' and being able to exploit it, etc, wasn't a great veh in any other way other than fuel economy.  But in the warm weather months, with all the tarp, doors, etc stripped off it, you could get some decent recce done with it...as long as you weren't required to go far from the hard-stand.

The G-Wagon.  Either you have to CC from the top and have an Obs who is looking thru a cab/window...which means you also are going to have to work the C6...or you put the Obs up top and now you have to CC from inside.  I didn't like it and the 'cons' of it compared to the Iltis (for a PRES recce veh or whatever) heavily outweighed the "pros". 

Overall, from my time in the mud recce world, given the choice I'd of taken a Bison over a Iltis/G-Wag/Grizz/Cougar/M113 any day of the week.  I always thought the Bison's only 2 real drawbacks from the Coyote with the mast and 25mm...but those are pretty substantial drawbacks and are somewhat balanced with the swim aspect to me.  I've no time in a Coyote other than gawkin' at them a few times. 

But, from the ones I'd been in before the jump to manicures and room service, I think we missed it not using the Bison more heavily in the mud recce stuff.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Bison; that was what I thought would have been a decent recce veh out of the things we've had in our inventory the past few decades...............................

Problem is, that once they were designated for the Reserves, and paid for as such, the Regs immediately took them over, for Ops purposes : and we never saw them again. The idea that the Reserves would use them as troop carriers and recce was a lie. They were never meant to belong to the Reserves. It was a financial scam to provide the Regs with a new vehicle they couldn't afford.

 

[MilEME09]

Problem is, that once they were designated for the Reserves, and paid for as such, the Regs immediately took them over, for Ops purposes : and we never saw them again. The idea that the Reserves would use them as troop carriers and recce was a lie. They were never meant to belong to the Reserves. It was a financial scam to provide the Regs with a new vehicle they couldn't afford.

Lesson learned, never trust your getting new kit till you physically have it. We've gotten to big and bulky with Recce vehicles IMO, time to go back to a small platform, like a Jeep, G-wagon, land rover etc... how can you recce the enemy after all if they know your watching from the sound of your engine in the distance?

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Thanks Lance :waiting: That just what I needed to hear

I knew that you would pick up and that little dig! >

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Problem is, that once they were designated for the Reserves, and paid for as such, the Regs immediately took them over, for Ops purposes : and we never saw them again. The idea that the Reserves would use them as troop carriers and recce was a lie. They were never meant to belong to the Reserves. It was a financial scam to provide the Regs with a new vehicle they couldn't afford.

Yup, the "MILLAV" I think it was originally called; Militia Light Armoured Veh".

It's too bad it went that way AND that more of them weren't produced.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

We've gotten to big and bulky with Recce vehicles IMO, time to go back to a small platform, like a Jeep, G-wagon, land rover etc... how can you recce the enemy after all if they know your watching from the sound of your engine in the distance?

We used to switch off in position.  Despite it being much quieter, you could hear an Iltis from a position or OP too, etc once they got in closer. 

Even the Iltis had a seemingly small (but was actually huge IMO) fault, because of its size limitations.  We'd often go out with tarp/doors off, windshield down/covered.  The only real place to secure the doorbag then was on top of the superstructure.  With all the kit required and a JAFO in the back, plus your tarp strapped in at the back,  you'd end up strapping shit like rucks onto the side of the superstructure.  It worked well for kit storage -it also worked well at nearly completely blocking in the view the JAFO had.  Pretty slick for recce.  Not sure what your air sentry would be looking at.  Made for a happy JAFO in the rain and cold though.  CC and dvr weren't too bad for being able to actually see something but the JAFO, a lot of the time, was limited in looking left/right/up, and didn't get the option to stand up.  We tried to leave door bags and tarps behind but weren't allowed most of the time (that was a CofC within the unit issue).

Very good little veh for doing sneak and peak, but had a large number of pro's AND con's.

G Wag, not even an option to remove 'doors and tarp'.  Like I said above, its a POS as a recce veh IMO. 

Bison would have worked for mud recce, could have added the surv suite on tripod (it had that option IIRC) for real ops, chuck in a NODLR.  At least then, the PRES would have been able to actually be useful at the troop level for trg, Dom Ops, and deployed.  The bridge/work-up training would have been substantially less when going out the door. 

 

[Kirkhill]

How about these requirements?

Light - capable of being carried for 50 km underneath a CH-147/CH-148/CH-149
Small - capable of being carried within a CH-147
Armoured - against 7.62mm and blast
All terrain - capable of traversing sand, marsh and snow at the speed of a marching soldier
              - capable of road travel in excess of 80 km/h

Capable of transporting automated weapon and surveillance systems with a maximum crew size of three
Fully exploiting current generation computing and network communications to minimize manpower and need for verbal communications.

Capable of being supplied by Canadian industry.....

Which brings to mind a question that has always bugged me:

When people are discussing 120mm mortar systems - why don't they include the Wiesel system for mounting in the back of either the Wiesel or a LAV or any other vehicle in the fleet?  Only two people (plus the driver), loaded under armour and a decent response time and rate of fire.
A bigger vehicle would only mean more ammunition available.

Edit: And I know it is not an original idea - Teddy Ruxpin 2005

Actually, I'm not sure I would suggest an airmobile APC.  We used the Wiesel to great effect in Kabul (both the cannon and TOW varieties) and it is easily transportable by heavy lift helicopter.  My feeling is that heliborne infantry use helicopters as their mobility - armoured vehicles should be present (if at all) to add firepower on the ground.  Wiesel does that very well.

http://army.ca/forums/threads/28436/post-239370.html#msg239370

 

[Eland2]

As someone who spent time, several decades ago, in a Reserve armoured recce unit that ran around in M38CDN and M151 jeeps, I thought I'd weigh in on this topic. Nothing of what I write here is based on a professional opinion, just my personal observations.

I have always thought that the Coyote was too big to do traditional 'mud recce'. Even the new TAPV seems a little large and ungainly for the task, although the Americans have used them with great success as basic patrol and route-proving vehicles.

But I seem to recall reading something somewhere that said the Coyote was never really designed for traditional recce. That is, with its tall mast and large sensors, it was actually designed to operate as a battlefield surveillance vehicle in peacekeeping deployments, capable of setting up semi-static OPs that could be moved on a moment's notice or at least relatively quickly. With its 25mm chain gun main armament, it could also provide peacekeepers a better means of self-defence if threatened or confronted by one or both of the warring factions.

Someone posting to this thread mentioned the Iltis and G-Wagen as recce platforms. The Iltis strikes me as something that could work in the right hands - at the very least it would do no worse than the M38CDN and M151 jeeps that preceded it. Like all jeep-type vehicles, it suffers from lack of armour protection, small payload and weapons handling capability as well as partially-compromised cross-country mobility.

The G-Wagen is another matter entirely. It was never designed to be a recce vehicle, but as a general purpose liaison vehicle that could ferry senior NCOs and officers around in rear-echelon and flank areas. The hard-top version that has been handed down to PRes units suffers from compromised mobility, and compromised visibility, which leads in turn to reduced situational awareness.

Someone also mentioned the Bison APC. I tend to agree that it would make a better mud recce vehicle if the LAVII platform was all you could use. As a general concept, it reminds me of the old open-topped M20 utility vehicles that the US Army used for some recce taskings during the later stages of the Second World War. At least you would have the ability to stow a full-scale assault troop in the back with room to spare for personal and other kit.

My personal preference would be to see something small and fast with good cross-country mobility, modest firepower and a decent sensor suite. If it had better anti-mine and anti-IED protection, the German-built Fennek would probably be my top choice for a recce vehicle. I would put the Wiesel at a close second. A modern-day redesign of the old Ferret could also work, too.

 

[a_majoor]

The Israeli "Combat Guard" (or Bodyguard, depending on the translation) is a demonstration of extreme engineering applied to this sort of task. It certainly has the ability to move cross country, can carry the modest sensor and weapons suites and (depending on the internal layout) can carry up to 8 troops. I'm sure the vehicle crews issued with this absolutely love roaring around the training area...

Something like this is well protected against most types of RPG's, mines and IED's, and could be outfitted with the lightweight "Trophy" counter ATGM system. I would think that a recce version should be able to house an RWS and a sensor system on a short mast (like the Fennek), and possibly one or two dismounts as well. If the sensor version is too cramped for dismounts, then carrying 4 dismounts in an accompanying vehicle (extra room for supplies to remain self sufficient for 72 hr) might be a alternative plan.

Something like this (but perhaps less extreme) is probably well within the capabilities of Canadian industry.

 

[Kirkhill]

The Israeli "Combat Guard" (or Bodyguard, depending on the translation) is a demonstration of extreme engineering applied to this sort of task. It certainly has the ability to move cross country, can carry the modest sensor and weapons suites and (depending on the internal layout) can carry up to 8 troops. I'm sure the vehicle crews issued with this absolutely love roaring around the training area...

Something like this is well protected against most types of RPG's, mines and IED's, and could be outfitted with the lightweight "Trophy" counter ATGM system. I would think that a recce version should be able to house an RWS and a sensor system on a short mast (like the Fennek), and possibly one or two dismounts as well. If the sensor version is too cramped for dismounts, then carrying 4 dismounts in an accompanying vehicle (extra room for supplies to remain self sufficient for 72 hr) might be a alternative plan.

Something like this (but perhaps less extreme) is probably well within the capabilities of Canadian industry.

Israeli Military Industries might have created the most extreme wheeled armored vehicle ever with their unveiling of the Combat Guard. This baby packs 54-inch tires, close to three feet of ground clearance, weighs eight tons and can go just about anywhere. Think rock crawler meets Stryker meets Lamborghini LM002 in Halo.

Too bleedin' 'eavy mate.  ;D  A Chinook won't get that thing off the ground much less a  Cyclone.

The parts of the puzzle 'ave to fit together.

 

[GK .Dundas]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6XTTfUr6I4
 
one of several videos on the Combat Guards

 

[Retired AF Guy]

How about a modified version of the old BRDM-1 which had a low silhouette, good cross-country capability, amphibious and could be modified to carry ATGM's. By modify I mean an updated hull ti give better protection from IEDs, side door for exiting/entry, etc.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

If I was going to have 8 tires, I wouldn't make 4 of them front tires off a tractor.  I dunno, I am one of those "don't make shit that breaks" type of guys, and retractable tires are in that bracket for me.

I've never been beside the BRDM 1, but the BRDM II isn't really that much shorter than a Bison.

 

[a_majoor]

Kirkhill, lack of air portability has not stopped the adoption of other recce vehicles like the Lynx, and I think a lot of helicopters would be hard pressed to lift most other types of purpose built recce vehicles.

Anyway, the Combat Guard looks like the sort of vehicle which "could" fulfill the various roles the TAPV program was initiated to cover, patrol vehicle, recce/surveillance vehicle, troop transport etc.

I just would not want to change the tires on that thing....

 

[GK .Dundas]

Kirkhill, lack of air portability has not stopped the adoption of other recce vehicles like the Lynx, and I think a lot of helicopters would be hard pressed to lift most other types of purpose built recce vehicles.

Anyway, the Combat Guard looks like the sort of vehicle which "could" fulfill the various roles the TAPV program was initiated to cover, patrol vehicle, recce/surveillance vehicle, troop transport etc.

I just would not want to change the tires on that thing....

As I recall the Lynx was capable of being airlifted by the Chinook and it weighs a little bit more then the Combat Guard. BTW in complete agreement with regarding changing the tires! :nod:

 

[George Wallace]

Kirkhill, lack of air portability has not stopped the adoption of other recce vehicles like the Lynx, a

Lynx was successfully dropped in the Airborne role.....So I would say it was quite air portable, air droppable.

 

[Kirkhill]

I erred.  The Combat Guard can be picked up by the CH-147F.  Just like the Lynx could.

However the largest helicopter immediately available for overseas deployments is likely to be the CH-148 Cyclone launched from a Halifax or a CSC.

If the CSC looks like HDMS Absalon then it will have two CH-148s (plus accompanying ships' aircraft) to lift whatever it can carry in its flex deck (boat deck).  That limits the vehicle size to 4.5 tonnes or so - the maximum rating of the CH-148 cargo hook.

Additional vehicles and troops could be flown in for air drop, LAPES (is that still used?), Tactical Landing or reinforcement in a secure environment.  But in that area we have continually pushed everything to the right.

In Paul Hellyer's day, when he bought 32 Hercs, the M113s and the Lynxes, as well as the L5 Pack Howitzers,  an entire infantry battle group with a light armoured squadron and an artillery battery could be picked up at one time with the available air lift.

The Hercs could carry the M113s, the Lynxs and the Ferrets, as well as the L5s, and either drop them or land them anywhere in Canada.  The CH-47 could recover them from wherever they were stranded to the nearest airstrip.  The Hercs could also carry the Kiowas internally.

Was it planned that way?  I dunno.  Perhaps some of the long service members can answer that.

Should it have been planned that way and should it be planned that way?  Yes.

Attached is a chart comparing vehicle curb/kerb weights to air transport cargo loads.

My suggestion is that if you want to continue to make yourselves useful you choose kit that not only protects you when properly employed but that can also be transported in a timely fashion with available resources.

The more useful you make yourselves the more frequently you are likely to be deployed and the more money and training resources will come your way.

The less mobile you are ... the reverse is likely.

 

[George Wallace]

However the largest helicopter immediately available for overseas deployments is likely to be the CH-148 Cyclone launched from a Halifax or a CSC.

You are completely overlooking our purchase of C-17s, with which we transported our Chinooks to and from Afghanistan, along with our Leopard 2s.

 

[Kirkhill]

I did not comment on them. That doesn't mean I overlooked them.

The difference between the Chinook and the Cyclone is that the Cyclone will be operating from a sovereign Canadian base, a ship, that the government can move to within 12 nm of any shore.  The Chinook needs a place for the C17 to land, ground on which it can be reassembled and checked out and time to do that.  As well as the disassembly at the point of origin.

Admittedly, once the Chinook is in theater, it can be used in conjunction with the Cyclones and could use the ships a Forward Refuelling Points.  But it needs a secure airhead to recover to.  And no ships currently in inventory or planned fit that bill.  The Chinook would have to operate from an allied strip 500 to 1500 km from the target.

I suggest that is going to add another week or so to the reaction time.  Cyclones operating from ships with embarked light infantry can react within hours.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

You are completely overlooking our purchase of C-17s, with which we transported our Chinooks to and from Afghanistan, along with our Leopard 2s.

You are completely overlooking our purchase of C-17s, with which we transported our Chinooks to and from Afghanistan, along with our Leopard 2s.

I don't envision any sort of vehicle larger than a ATV ever being carried by a CH47 Chinook.  Personally it's a waste of valuable flying time and space on what will surely be a very scarce resource, air mobility that is.  Any Task Force we send overseas, if it has an air component, will be based around an Air Maneuver Task Force consisting of 3-4 Chinooks and 6-8 Griffons for Escorts.  That's not enough to do any sort of carrying of vehicles, the chinooks would be better employed hauling fuel, ammo and supplies to troops and vehicles out in the battle space.

Going along with what George said, any recce vehicle we buy should be transportable by C130 and able to be used in the establishment of an airhead.  Using a country like Haiti for example (this is all of course hypothetical just so we are clear, we aren't going to invade Haiti ),  Perhaps the CAF may find itself responsible for securing the airhead, something we have already done in the past:

I would envision an airhead being established with a recce squadron being one of the first assets we would want to put on the ground with the probable mission task being "To Guard".