Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle - RG-31, LAV Coyote, and (partial) G-Wagon Replacement

[Eye In The Sky]

I've got a copy of a ppt somewhere, when I find, I'll post.

In it, it outlines the TAPV "plan", and what I remember most, as it affects us here on the East Coast, was 27xTAPV are to be centralized at Gagetown, for use by the PRes Armour units in the AO. Similar plan for Valcartier, Pet, and Wainwright, I just don't remember the numbers.

The Armour School and/or the RegF Armour units in Gage/Val/Pet/Wain would have their allocation, for their uses.

Pipe dream indeed, specially if this goes the way of the Coyote, etc., i.e., originally "purchased" for PRes units, yet used and loved by RegF, so PRes said bye-bye when they were taken away and moved to the Iltis/Buick/LUVW...

I recall being told that 2 turret trainers were going to the QCA for coyote trg back a few years ago.  How did that fair out??

Some folks in the PRes have lofty dreams and ideas that are not realistic and they wont listen to common sense.  We got Bison for the F Ech one ARCON and because the folks who had no time on the veh wouldnt listen to those of us that did, the Sqn quickly proved it wasnt really ready for an AFV.  That all fell on the shoulders of class A cowboys and key peoplenot listening to a few of us that knew the veh. 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

You forgot the Bison as well

Look at blackberets quote in my post and the TFTFY

;D

 

[Infanteer]

In it, it outlines the TAPV "plan", and what I remember most, as it affects us here on the East Coast, was 27xTAPV are to be centralized at Gagetown, for use by the PRes Armour units in the AO. Similar plan for Valcartier, Pet, and Wainwright, I just don't remember the numbers.

Incorrect.  TAPVs are to be allocated to ATCs for use by other elements on the road to high readiness that would require the vehicle (think FP, CIMIC, etc) to train on but do not normally hold them.

 

[Old EO Tech]

Incorrect.  TAPVs are to be allocated to ATCs for use by other elements on the road to high readiness that would require the vehicle (think FP, CIMIC, etc) to train on but do not normally hold them.

That is what I understand as well.  I seen the planned dist as well, and yes there was a large training fleet to be in Edmonton, now in WX I believe.  There was nothing in that document about them being for PRes but being used for units in RTHR training and perhaps driver/crew training for the DTC.  So as not to burn out the TAPV used by units.  Remembering that the support contract for TAPV obligates the OEM to guarantee a specific MTBF, but also obligates CAF to limit the usage to a certain threshold each year.

 

[Franko]

I've got a copy of a ppt somewhere, when I find, I'll post.

In it, it outlines the TAPV "plan", and what I remember most, as it affects us here on the East Coast, was 27xTAPV are to be centralized at Gagetown, for use by the PRes Armour units in the AO. Similar plan for Valcartier, Pet, and Wainwright, I just don't remember the numbers.

The Armour School and/or the RegF Armour units in Gage/Val/Pet/Wain would have their allocation, for their uses.

Pipe dream indeed, specially if this goes the way of the Coyote, etc., i.e., originally "purchased" for PRes units, yet used and loved by RegF, so PRes said bye-bye when they were taken away and moved to the Iltis/Buick/LUVW...

Laughable at best. If it ever does happen that the 8CH get to play with them, I can't wait to see the look on their CO's face when he gets the bill for parts and fuel.

It isn't going to happen, at least not in this fiscal atmosphere.

Regards

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Laughable at best. If it ever does happen that the 8CH get to play with them, I can't wait to see the look on their CO's face when he gets the bill for parts and fuel.

It isn't going to happen, at least not in this fiscal atmosphere.

Regards

It is laughable.  Giving the Reserves a vehicle such as the TAPV serves no useful purpose as it doesn't generate an actual capability and the Reserves have no way to support the vehicle.  People can dream all they want but need to be brought back down to reality.  The Reserves serve a useful purpose in that they provide bodies to beef up the Army in times of need but they don't generate capability as they have no actual cohesive structure.

Units in the reserves aren't even real units, just a bunch of independent companies, squadrons and batteries (in some cases they are closer to platoon/troop strength).  We can't generate any sort of combat capability with an organization like this so why would we give them the latest and greatest military kit.

If the Reserves were reformed and units were merged to bring them up to something near battalion/regiment strength and had some sort of cohesion, I would be more willing to give them better kit.  If the Reserves want to continue to exist as a large shell organization and only serve the purpose of providing bodies to beef up the Regs in times of need, sorry no good kit for you.

This is not a knock on Reservists themselves as I have met many fantastic Reservists.  It's a knock on the archaic structure that the Reserves currently exist in.

 

[OldSolduer]

It is laughable.  Giving the Reserves a vehicle such as the TAPV serves no useful purpose as it doesn't generate an actual capability and the Reserves have no way to support the vehicle.  People can dream all they want but need to be brought back down to reality.  The Reserves serve a useful purpose in that they provide bodies to beef up the Army in times of need but they don't generate capability as they have no actual cohesive structure.

Units in the reserves aren't even real units, just a bunch of independent companies, squadrons and batteries (in some cases they are closer to platoon/troop strength).  We can't generate any sort of combat capability with an organization like this so why would we give them the latest and greatest military kit.

If the Reserves were reformed and units were merged to bring them up to something near battalion/regiment strength and had some sort of cohesion, I would be more willing to give them better kit.  If the Reserves want to continue to exist as a large shell organization and only serve the purpose of providing bodies to beef up the Regs in times of need, sorry no good kit for you.

This is not a knock on Reservists themselves as I have met many fantastic Reservists.  It's a knock on the archaic structure that the Reserves currently exist in.

I agree with this. Any vehicle more complicated than a basic truck is beyond our capabilities.

 

[Kirkhill]

The argument needs to split the difference.

The Reserves (AND the Regs) should be buying more (ie larger quantities) of simpler equipment and focusing the the effort on complex equipment (ie don't issue complex equipment broadly - have units fall in on complex equipment for training and operations with a smaller specialist force of operators - model - helicopter squadrons).

WRT the TAPV.

I would argue that that vehicle is one of the few armoured vehicles in the Canadian inventory that would have a use in DomOps (ie Aid to the Civil Power - armed support). In fact it makes more sense as a DomOps vehicle than as an expeditionary vehicle.

As an expeditionary vehicle the TAPV makes a good C&R/LOC vehicle.

Conversely the LAVs and Leos and M113s have more application overseas than domestically.

Now if the Regs are going to do DomOps then have them fall in on TAPVs.  If the Reserves are doing DomOps have them fall in on TAPVs.

By the way - Do all TAPVs require the RWS system?  What is the price if only the optics are included?  What is the price if the turret is removed completely?  What happens to the training and maintenance bills when those things are removed?

Treat the TAPVs the same way as the Bv206s.

And issue the Reserves standard civilian vehicles.  They will support local training and be useful in local DomOps (Humanitarian and Disaster Relief Ops.)

 

[McG]

The discussion of PRes capability, organization and equiping has been moved here:  http://army.ca/forums/threads/24381/post-1326450.html#msg1326450

 

[blackberet17]

TFTFY

Thanks! I couldn't remember which one it was while typing

 

[cameron]

What Kirkhill suggests is exactly what I had in mind.  A version of the TAPV for the Reserves with many of the bells and whistles removed.

 

[Franko]

What Kirkhill suggests is exactly what I had in mind.  A version of the TAPV for the Reserves with many of the bells and whistles removed.

...and yet the main issue will remain - who will repair/ recover it? Do said reserve units have the budget for it? How about facilities?

There's more to it than taking them out for a drive and washing them and no one has actually addressed that.

Regards

 

[McG]

What Kirkhill suggests is exactly what I had in mind.  A version of the TAPV for the Reserves with many of the bells and whistles removed.

The ANA have a TAPV with all "of the bells and whistles removed" but it is still causing them maintenance problems  ... and maintenance is not even the closest alligator to this proposal.

The Army has divested half of its support vehicles and is bulldozing buildings because there is no money.  How do you propose financing a PRes dumb-down TAPV?

 

[Kirkhill]

If the ANA is having difficulty with a "simple" TAPV does that speak to the suitability for the TAPV for expeditionary service, the quality of the TAPV generally or the problems associated with taking illiterate peasant farmers in flip-flops and putting them behind the wheel of 9 17 tonne pickup truck?

As much as I understand that the Reserves do not have the skills of the Regulars I believe I could reasonably expect a better outcome with 16 year old Albertan behind the wheel of a TAPV than I could with a 30 year old Kandahari poppy farmer.

I would see the TAPVs (and other specialist vehicles like Bv206s and RHIBs) centrally held.  The may need a wider geographic dispersion than envisioned in the plan that would hold 25 to 26 TAPVs at each of Aldershot, Valcartier, Meaford and Wainwright.  But they should still be centrally held and intended to relocate by road over a 4 to 6 hour radius.

Recovery - I agree wreckers are required.  Perhaps they can supplied by part timers (Class A or Volunteers) with full time (Class B, C or Reg) support provided from the Reserve Service Battalions (which I would be converting to Transport Coys but that is another discussion).

Repair?  What line?  What is necessary to fill the gap between gassing up, checking the fluids, giving it a wash and maybe changing the tyres and the domestic support covered under the In Service Support contract signed by Textron and its sub-suppliers?  Can that gap be filled by B/C Reservists, or Regs, or even the local Caterpillar or Brandt dealerships?

With respect to the cost: 100 hours of Reg operation cross country and 100 hours of Res operation (silly jokes aside) is not going to show up  differently on the government costing.  If all the vehicles are owned by the Regs then all of the costs will be apportioned to the Regs by the government.  If the government intends the Res to use 25% of the fleet then the Res budget will have to be adjusted to reflect that.  But the government is paying the piper in both cases. 

Mayhap that gives them some opportunity to call the tune.

Edit (My error on weight)

 

[McG]

So, your proposal is fewer TAPV for the RegF so that some can go to the PRes?

 

[Infanteer]

A version of the TAPV for the Reserves with many of the bells and whistles removed.

That's called the Silverado Milcot.

 

[Kirkhill]

No.  My proposal is to follow the Army 2013 plan to distribute the TAPV which intended 25 at Wainwright, 26 at Meaford, 25 at Valcartier and 26 at Aldershot with the remainder in the Regs.

As an alternative perhaps all of those could go to the Regs and the 100 vehicle "option" could be exercised - or perhaps more could be purchased of a simpler variant for the Reserves.

And while the Silverado MilCOTS meets my own personal expectations for a Reserve Force general utility vehicle (perhaps upgraded to the 350/3500 standard) I see nothing wrong with the government dispersing armoured cars around its domains.

When the Grizzly came into service it was widely speculated that one of its advantages was that it appealed to Trudeau as an alternative to Tanks in the Streets in the event of a civil insurgency.

The coppers are acquiring their own APCs.  Perhaps an alternate solution is the creation of Armoured Transport Troops/Sqn/Coys in the Reserves that could assist in ACP tasks with armoured but unarmed transport.

Edit to add a general point of clarification:

None of my suggestions are aimed a robbing Peter to pay Paul.  I want to see the Regs fully manned at their authorized strength, well trained and well equipped.  I am not proposing taking any kit away from the Reg Forces.  To be clear. 

I am looking for better ways to use the money that is provided to the Regs and I believe centralization of kit and generalization of training is one valid strategy for accomplishing that.

I am also looking for better ways to utilize the Reserves/Militia with the funding they have to make them more useful to the government and the community at large as well as making them a pool of serviceable augmentees for the Regs.

Even after looking for efficiencies I expect that more money will be needed and I hope that more money will be provided - but I am reluctant to bate my breath while I wait.

 

[birdgunnnersrule]

Repair?  What line?  What is necessary to fill the gap between gassing up, checking the fluids, giving it a wash and maybe changing the tyres and the domestic support covered under the In Service Support contract signed by Textron and its sub-suppliers?  Can that gap be filled by B/C Reservists, or Regs, or even the local Caterpillar or Brandt dealerships?

Maintenance support for the TAPV is no different than most other fleets.  Maintenance will continue to be a 1st and 2nd line responsibility of the Army.  If you could explain to me what a TAPV without the bells and whistle's consist of, I would be quite interested.  Of course it is free and would not be a new variant that would have to be configuration managed thus costing additional NRE work, etc.......   

 

[Kirkhill]

TAPV without bells and whistles = TAPV without the Rheinmetall Remote Weapons Station.

This

instead of this.

Textron contracted to supply 500 TAPVs with Rheinmetall RWS for MCAD 603. 

http://textrontapv.ca/2013/08/canadian-tactical-armoured-patrol-vehicle-program-starts-pre-production-vehicle-testing-and-training/

Textron subcontracted with Rheinmetall to supply engineering services and the RWS at MCAD 152

http://textrontapv.ca/2012/10/textron-systems-and-rheinmetall-canada-announce-205-million-contract/

In addition there is a 5 year ISS programme that Textron is providing for MCAD 105 of which MCAD 53 is going to Rheinmetall. 

Do all Aussie Bushmasters have RWSs?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

and 26 at Aldershot

They'd be wasted there.  If anywhere in 5 Div...Gagetown would be the spot.