LAV III Recce Vehicles

[blackberet17]

Armoured School hosted the three Atlantic provinces-based Armd Recce units last March. I had a prior commitment, but heard great things. Commandant of the School was experimenting with using heavy armour for recce, i.e. L-2s, and having them go up against mixed recce of LAVs and Coyotes (maybe L-2s as well). Recce on Recce...

Obviously, the heavy slaughtered the light...but it was all JCATs and VBS. Done in the real sense, I wonder how it would have worked, with light recce sneaking and peeking vs grumbling loud tanks. Firepower, no match, of course, however...

 

[MedCorps]

To build on some of the comments that Kirkhill posted earlier in the thread. 

The UK Army has just undergone a large downsizing.  This resulting in a number of units being removed from their ORBAT. 

The one new cap badge that emerged from all of this downsizing is within the RAC and is the Scottish and North Irish Yeomanry (SNIY) which is light cavalry. They are mounted on mounted in light armoured vehicles (R-WMIKs, basically a Land Rover) and tasked with armoured recce duties.

As mentioned SNIY has been paired with the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards (SCOT DG) who have been recently re-rolled after 75 years from tanks to light cav and equipped with the Jackal 2.

See WMIK: http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/23594.aspx
See SNIY: http://www.army.mod.uk/armoured/regiments/28480.aspx
See Light Cav: http://www.army.mod.uk/armoured/regiments/35816.aspx
See Jackal 2: http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/23243.aspx

Cheers,

MC

 

[blackberet17]

As much as I like my crew heater (hee hee), Jackal 2 isn't a bad light recce veh. And a heck of a lot more SA than the LUVW.

 

[blacktriangle]

I readily admit. I'm not up on veh specs and the technical side of things. Tell me the platform(s) I have to work with, and I'll go do my job.

LAV III and TAPV. Glad to be of service - that will be on my brag sheet.

 

[Eland2]

Armoured School hosted the three Atlantic provinces-based Armd Recce units last March. I had a prior commitment, but heard great things. Commandant of the School was experimenting with using heavy armour for recce, i.e. L-2s, and having them go up against mixed recce of LAVs and Coyotes (maybe L-2s as well). Recce on Recce...

Obviously, the heavy slaughtered the light...but it was all JCATs and VBS. Done in the real sense, I wonder how it would have worked, with light recce sneaking and peeking vs grumbling loud tanks. Firepower, no match, of course, however...

Well, for quite a long time now, the German Army have used tanks in a recce role. At the same time, they maintain lighter recce assets like the Fennek armoured car. It seems to me that the Germans have thereby divided their recce resources into two categories: heavy, for use in situations where units have to fight for information, and light, for reconnoitering flank areas and other lower-risk areas in a nibble-around-the-edges-and-see-what-you-find way.

 

[Cloud Cover]

way, way put of my element here, but I keep seeing little contributions from Loachman [helicopters] which makes me think- where does aerial recce fit into this as part of the whole package? I mean to me it seems odd to send troops and vulnerable vehicles behind enemy lines to conduct any type of recce that drones can perform. Obviously a drone cannot perform all the functions of the dismounted recce troops, but can they not provide a lot of similar, useable data in real time with less risk?

 

 

[blackberet17]

LAV III and TAPV. Glad to be of service - that will be on my brag sheet.

PRes, so LUVW, until my CT goes through. Thanks tho

 

[Kirkhill]

What happened to the notion that Recce is a task that can be and has to be performed by all arms (and civilians) regardless of platform and is not a trade?

Isn't armoured recce, reconnaissance conducted by armoured forces inherently different than recce by infantry, by helo, by aircraft, UAV, satellite or civilian in a taxi?  (And yes, I would argue that reconnaissance can be conducted from a taxi - just keep your eyes open and report what you saw when the opportunity to report presents itself).

 

[Loachman]

way, way put of my element here, but I keep seeing little contributions from Loachman [helicopters] which makes me think- where does aerial recce fit into this as part of the whole package? I mean to me it seems odd to send troops and vulnerable vehicles behind enemy lines to conduct any type of recce that drones can perform. Obviously a drone cannot perform all the functions of the dismounted recce troops, but can they not provide a lot of similar, useable data in real time with less risk?

UAVs have their place, and also their limitations.

They cannot, for example, see through foliage, so anything hiding in woods will not be detected.

 

[MedCorps]

UAVs have their place, and also their limitations.

They cannot, for example, see through foliage, so anything hiding in woods will not be detected.

This is only now / a Canadian limitation.  It will not be long until LADAR is on Canadian UAV's. 

See: http://www.ll.mit.edu/mission/electronics/ait/flashladar.html for more information or talk to someone in the JUSTAS shop for more information.

MC

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I would not want to put all my eggs into one UAV basket, with the advent of battlefield Laser, UAV's would be a prime target of them, particularly ones broadcasting on a regular basis. Agaisnt a Taliban type enemy this would be excellent, against a near peer, we better have a lot of them.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

This is only now / a Canadian limitation.  It will not be long until LADAR is on Canadian UAV's. 

See: http://www.ll.mit.edu/mission/electronics/ait/flashladar.html for more information or talk to someone in the JUSTAS shop for more information.

MC

I think it should also be mentioned that UAV's will get smaller and also more capable as time goes on.  I envision Armoured Recce being equipped with some sort of handheld micro UAV that they haul out of the back of their vehicle and relay video/data back to their vehicle or transmit it back to a CP. 

Something like this:

or better yet this:

Instead of using a gigantic mast to see over obstacles, why not use a UAV?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

way, way put of my element here, but I keep seeing little contributions from Loachman [helicopters] which makes me think- where does aerial recce fit into this as part of the whole package? I mean to me it seems odd to send troops and vulnerable vehicles behind enemy lines to conduct any type of recce that drones can perform. Obviously a drone cannot perform all the functions of the dismounted recce troops, but can they not provide a lot of similar, useable data in real time with less risk?

What is a RPA/UAS/UAV going to do for a defile (bridge) drill? 

I remember doing route recce with Hotel c/s's before, they could do lots to assist but the defile wasn't considered 'clear' until a c/s was over and across.

They sure have a place, but boots on the ground will always be a 'must' (in the context of RPAZ stuff) IMO.  Another tool, a great one, but (also IMO) a UAS will never maintain the same amount of SA as a manned platform.

 

[Loachman]

I remember doing route recce with Hotel c/s's before, they could do lots to assist but the defile wasn't considered 'clear' until a c/s was over and across.

And that is why we would never report anything as "clear". It was always "appears clear".

UAV or anything else airborne is the same.

And I will believe no miracle claims about gee-whiz technology, including LADAR.

 

[GGHG_Cadet]

I envision Armoured Recce being equipped with some sort of handheld micro UAV that they haul out of the back of their vehicle and relay video/data back to their vehicle or transmit it back to a CP. 

We already have the Raven MUAS. It's a recent addition to the Recce sqns, so we're still learning how to employ them. At this time, there is one system (two vehicles) per squadron.

 

[Kirkhill]

And even if Recce passes uncontested there is nothing to say that the enemy has just lain doggo and waited for the Infantry to advance to contact.

 

[blackberet17]

What is a RPA/UAS/UAV going to do for a defile (bridge) drill? 

I remember doing route recce with Hotel c/s's before, they could do lots to assist but the defile wasn't considered 'clear' until a c/s was over and across.

They sure have a place, but boots on the ground will always be a 'must' (in the context of RPAZ stuff) IMO.  Another tool, a great one, but (also IMO) a UAS will never maintain the same amount of SA as a manned platform.

:goodpost:

 

[Eye In The Sky]

And even if Recce passes uncontested there is nothing to say that the enemy has just lain doggo and waited for the Infantry to advance to contact.

Lay-back patrols.  Not sure if we still do that, but we used to.

 

[Kilo_302]

The French are still producing more cavalry oriented designs, I'd be interested in getting thoughts on these two vehicles:


http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/06/sphinx-and-crab-at-eurosatory/

Do they reflect a major doctrinal difference versus Canadian and/or US approaches to armoured recce?

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

What is a RPA/UAS/UAV going to do for a defile (bridge) drill? 

I remember doing route recce with Hotel c/s's before, they could do lots to assist but the defile wasn't considered 'clear' until a c/s was over and across.

They sure have a place, but boots on the ground will always be a 'must' (in the context of RPAZ stuff) IMO.  Another tool, a great one, but (also IMO) a UAS will never maintain the same amount of SA as a manned platform.

The drills don't change but the tools most definitely will, UAVs are far more advanced in terms of actual employement than UGVs; however, some UGVs show some significant promise. 

Why even stovepipe it?  Why not have a recce platform that carries both a UGV and UAV platform which both transmit their data to the same uplink/feed.  The Recce vehicle now becomes a sort of mothership for these vehicles.  Some of this stuff is obviously "pie in the sky" but the military, with particular emphasis on the cavalry, is always slow to adapt to new technology.  We only need to look at the continued use of the horse in conventional warfare from about 1865 onwards, despite plenty of good examples of it being a bad idea, to show that this is indeed the case.