• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

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

KevinB

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Reaction score
10,374
Points
1,140
I think after looking at various wars and the big one going on right now. Recce is not going to be done by any armoured vehicle, it is going to be done by small hand held drones. Forward group, launches said drone from a relative safe area, it over flies the area of concern. Transmits it view back to the troops that launched it or a higher HQ and they recover the drone if required, make a plan for the attack or or defence of the area they control. They get real time intell, very little risk to the troops, cheaper than building a recce vehicle and equipping it with troops, weapons and spy gear. Drones today have great cameras, image quality beyond belief, they can fly in almost any weather, almost silent, and more than one set of eyes can view the feed at the same time. The enemy already knows the satellite over flight times, unless they redirect or retask a satellite to an area. Drones can fly over at any time of day, range of drones is getting better, from 15 minutes to now hours depending on the power source. Digital Cameras are getting better every day. 12 years of Nikon DSLR 3/4 sensor cameras have gone from 6 MP to 24.2, a 24 MP picture from 1200 feet is and beyond is possible So I think more of the recce work will be done with troops using drones and pre planned flight paths. All programed even before the drone is launched.
Attached picture was taken from the CN Tower, 343 meters up or 1122 feet, taken with a nikon d3200 18-55 lens (crappy starter lens). 24.2MP. But I can see the runway at what use to be CFB Toronto, a better quality lens and it would not blur out as much. That is a 12km away from the airport. Good glass and I wonder how much better I could see. This why I am thinking recce vehicles are going to be gone

I was Inf before I was Fin clerk,now out, so I am looking from the outside in.
I think you are correct to a point -- a lot of former Recce tasks have been taken over by ISR UAS.
But "Recce" tasks as far as Inf and more importantly Armor go is not just ISR.
I think UCV and UAS will do a lot of tasks in the upcoming years, but you cannot conduct some of the mission sets with UCV/UAS at this point in time.
The Un-crewed systems will allow a buffer area - but manned systems are still needed.
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,365
Points
1,160
I think you are correct to a point -- a lot of former Recce tasks have been taken over by ISR UAS.
But "Recce" tasks as far as Inf and more importantly Armor go is not just ISR.
I think UCV and UAS will do a lot of tasks in the upcoming years, but you cannot conduct some of the mission sets with UCV/UAS at this point in time.
The Un-crewed systems will allow a buffer area - but manned systems are still needed.
I agree. And with force concentrations being smaller than they were in WWI/WWII you still need to move between the areas where troops are concentrated. I'm picturing a modern Recce vehicle being a low profile hybrid-electric drive vehicle which can provide protection against small arms and shell fragments, has built-in sensor capabilities for observation, has a self-defence weapon and acts as a sort of mother ship carrier for small UGVs/UAVs which will extend their sensing range while keeping undetected themselves. Likely 3-4 crew (driver, crew commander and 1-2 UGV/UAV operators/dismounted scouts).
 

GK .Dundas

Sr. Member
Reaction score
495
Points
730
I'm glad everyone has found my bit on logistics to be funny.
The problem is that I was quite serious.
Watching Afghanistan albeit from a distance I was rather disturbed when I noticed several foul ups that shouldn't have occurred.
The most publicly noticable was the mad rush to acquire 25mm ammo just before a major operation . That just should not have happened
Don't get me wrong I think the Logistic people performed miracles. The thing is, they shouldn't of had to.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Reaction score
10,374
Points
1,140
I'm glad everyone has found my bit on logistics to be funny.
The problem is that I was quite serious.
Watching Afghanistan albeit from a distance I was rather disturbed when I noticed several foul ups that shouldn't have occurred.
The most publicly noticable was the mad rush to acquire 25mm ammo just before a major operation . That just should not have happened
Don't get me wrong I think the Logistic people performed miracles. The thing is, they shouldn't of had to.
Oh actually I think while it was a funny comment it was spot on, and I doubt many others would disagree...
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
4,706
Points
1,060
TAPV replacement?

RG-32M Scout - currently operated by Finland (74) and Sweden (380)

4.45 tonnes, 4.97m x 2.06m x 2.05m (LxWxH),

Crew of 1+4


1665369473077.png

 

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
626
Points
960
I agree. And with force concentrations being smaller than they were in WWI/WWII you still need to move between the areas where troops are concentrated. I'm picturing a modern Recce vehicle being a low profile hybrid-electric drive vehicle which can provide protection against small arms and shell fragments, has built-in sensor capabilities for observation, has a self-defence weapon and acts as a sort of mother ship carrier for small UGVs/UAVs which will extend their sensing range while keeping undetected themselves. Likely 3-4 crew (driver, crew commander and 1-2 UGV/UAV operators/dismounted scouts).
Other than for political approval why would you waste money and carrying capacity on hybrid drives? The logistics for refueling in combat are bad enough without hauling along your charging system and the self-contained systems add an unnecessary, expensive, and an additional source of mechanical failure to a vehicle that when you gotta go you gotta go now.
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,365
Points
1,160
Other than for political approval why would you waste money and carrying capacity on hybrid drives? The logistics for refueling in combat are bad enough without hauling along your charging system and the self-contained systems add an unnecessary, expensive, and an additional source of mechanical failure to a vehicle that when you gotta go you gotta go now.
Stealth. Noise and heat signature.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Reaction score
10,374
Points
1,140
Other than for political approval why would you waste money and carrying capacity on hybrid drives? The logistics for refueling in combat are bad enough without hauling along your charging system and the self-contained systems add an unnecessary, expensive, and an additional source of mechanical failure to a vehicle that when you gotta go you gotta go now.
Diesel electric hybrids can charge their own batteries. Most of the Mil hybrids can run on either system alone if one is damaged.

As @GR66 pointed out for Military vehicles there are a lot of reasons why Hybrid systems are being desired.
 

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
626
Points
960
Diesel electric hybrids can charge their own batteries. Most of the Mil hybrids can run on either system alone if one is damaged.

As @GR66 pointed out for Military vehicles there are a lot of reasons why Hybrid systems are being desired.
thanks to you both. And that more than makes up for the added complications?
 

McG

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
2,431
Points
1,160
Hybrid vehicles charge themselves, use less fuel (good for range & reduced logistics), can achieve higher torque (good for ploughing & acceleration), can operate silently for periods of time, can achieve equal performance with smaller engines (good for weight management & for crew hearing), will have a reduced heat signature (good to avoid detection & targeting).
 

KevinB

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Reaction score
10,374
Points
1,140
thanks to you both. And that more than makes up for the added complications?
GD has been working on this for a while - as have other Mil item providers - complexity is a relative term these days for Engines, but there are a lot of redundancies built in that shock ensure that it is anymore problematic than the standard internal combustion engine.

Also note the US Army has seen significant strains on engine power of a number of the fleet due to the needed energy output for a lot of the newer systems (communication and data stream as well as others).
The Stryker has gotten a new engine - and Bradley's as well - plus recaps to new systems coming on line as to what their power outputs are at both running, and idle loads.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,448
Points
1,040
What is the consensus regarding the TAPV? A bust? A piece of crap?

The tunnel thing is a bit weird to me. Not really user friendly IMO.
Not overly popular on here, but I have yet to speak to someone who actually uses them in the Strats, 12 RBC or RCD's.

Internal security vehicles they are good as far as I can tell (NSE type stuff), and they are suprisingly mobile across country, as well as being able to hide in places LAV's often can't.

But mechanical issues pop up and though they aren't unreliable they aren't reliable either.

I don't think a section carrier or RECCE vehicle are where they will stay. Probably very good in counter insurgency type missions, not so good in near peer.
Then again the Ukrainians did a thunder run with basically trucks and light vehicles....
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
14,807
Points
1,160
Not overly popular on here, but I have yet to speak to someone who actually uses them in the Strats, 12 RBC or RCD's.

Internal security vehicles they are good as far as I can tell (NSE type stuff), and they are suprisingly mobile across country, as well as being able to hide in places LAV's often can't.

But mechanical issues pop up and though they aren't unreliable they aren't reliable either.

I don't think a section carrier or RECCE vehicle are where they will stay. Probably very good in counter insurgency type missions, not so good in near peer.
Then again the Ukrainians did a thunder run with basically trucks and light vehicles....

Reddit has spoken ;)

the LAV system is a swiss army knife, especially since GDLSC has offered to make a variant for pretty much everything, they even made an armored refueller LAV. A LAV 6 can transport people, has better optics than a TAPV, can shoot at things with more than an upsized potato cannon, go offroad, and has the same crew requirement.

Oh yeah and the LAV doesn't need to be stored in a climate controlled building. Seriously if a TAPV is left in the rain or cold for too long it breaks.

The TAPV has one singular use, its a quick setup gate checkpoint with a heater and aircon.

https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/tcdld5
 

KevinB

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Reaction score
10,374
Points
1,140
Not overly popular on here, but I have yet to speak to someone who actually uses them in the Strats, 12 RBC or RCD's.

Internal security vehicles they are good as far as I can tell (NSE type stuff), and they are suprisingly mobile across country, as well as being able to hide in places LAV's often can't.
They do some some issues the LAV doesn’t have cross country due to the rather obscenely high CoG.

But mechanical issues pop up and though they aren't unreliable they aren't reliable either.

I don't think a section carrier or RECCE vehicle are where they will stay. Probably very good in counter insurgency type missions, not so good in near peer.
Then again the Ukrainians did a thunder run with basically trucks and light vehicles....
Just because UKR did it, doesn’t mean it was a good model. I’m sure if UKR had LAV 6.0’s they would have used them instead.
 
Top