Our 'maybe' new recce vehicle

[a_majoor]

No doubt you are just as thrilled with the title of this thread "Our 'maybe' new recon vehicle".  8 pt turns aren't as bad as the 28 pt turns we have to do with the LAV family.  ;D

We could build LAV hulls onto German Luchs 8x8 Recce Vehicle chassis (8 wheel drive, 8 wheel steering, 8 wheel independent suspension), and see a turning circle the size of a coffee cup  ;D

More seriously, if a small vehicle is what we want, then we should be looking at the Fennik or FOX, not a warmed over truck.

 

[Kirkhill]

I seem to recall hearing that the trouble with the Fox was that the turret made her top heavy.

 

[couchcommander]

The fennek looks like it has some real potential, anyone had any first hand experience with it?

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Couchcommander:

Look to my earlier posts on this thread.   Fennik looks cool.

It isn't "small", though, and is actually quite wide.   It has the benefit of being low profile, important for "stealth" recce.   If you're looking for a Fox/Ferret-like vehicle, Fennik isn't it.

However, the varient employed by the Germans is a surveillance vehicle - much like Coyote.   IMHO, it's a half-assed version of a Coyote - the surveillance suite isn't nearly up to par.   You can see the mast in the photo of the vehicle posted above.   The version I'm familiar with had only the barest minimum of armament (remote operated MG42 IIRC).

Edited to correct the weapons system (after Kirkhill's reminder!)

 

[Kirkhill]

Fennek : Duro

Crew 3 : 4
GVW (tonnes) 10.0 : 7.6
Payload (tonnes)   3.0 according to Defence Update : 2.4

Protection (calibre) 7.62mm AP (higher optional) : STANAG 4569 Level 3 (Ballistic) + Level 2a (mines) optional

Armament   ROWS:ROWS

Length (m)   5.71 : 5.09
Width (m) 2.49 : 2.16
Height - roof (m) 1.79 : 2.16
Power (kW/tonne) 17.9 : 24
Speed - road (km/h) 115 : 120

Gradient (%)   60 : 60
Side Slope (%) 35 : 40

Turning Circle Diameter (m) 12.6 : 14.5

Range - road (km) 860 : 480.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/fennek/specs.html
http://www.mowag.ch/Factsheets/EAGLE_IV4x4_en.pdf

Interestingly the Fennek was designed by DAF of Holland where the 3.29 m mast allows the vehicle to see over the highest points of land in the countryside (the dykes) and the wheels allow it to move rapidly along those same roads on top of the dykes that XXX Corps got shot up on while heading to Arnhem and the SAR got shot up on while operating around the Schelde.

http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn55-e.htm   Weapons like this will defeat both vehicles.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/35896.0.html  See also the article referred to on this thread and note the words of General Sorenson USA.

 

[Kirkhill]

http://www.haaland.info/denmark/apc/

From a Danish military vehicles site  - Eagle is similar to the Duro (Both built by Mowag - Duro - Eagle IV) but built on Hummer frames (Eagle I - standard Hummer, Eagle II - enhanced capability, Eagle III = Eagle II plus mast mounted site for Swiss Arty)  Danes using Eagle I I believe.

Eagle 

The Armoured escort vehicle was bought as a scout vehicle, but showed to be unefficient due to the small windows. The soldier operating the vehicle could not get a good view from inside. Today both this and the Mercedes GD240 with softtop are used as a scout vehicle.

From 2002 there is intended to buy a new scout vehicle. One of the candidates is the Dutch/German Fennek.

It is also used as an armoured escorte vehicle. A task more suitable for this armored car.

The car is in Danish service in Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia and Afghanistan.

 

[couchcommander]

Couchcommander:

Look to my earlier posts on this thread.   Fennik looks cool.

It isn't "small", though, and is actually quite wide.   It has the benefit of being low profile, important for "stealth" recce.   If you're looking for a Fox/Ferret-like vehicle, Fennik isn't it.

However, the varient employed by the Germans is a surveillance vehicle - much like Coyote.   IMHO, it's a half-assed version of a Coyote - the surveillance suite isn't nearly up to par.   You can see the mast in the photo of the vehicle posted above.   The version I'm familiar with had only the barest minimum of armament (remote operated MG42 IIRC).

Edited to correct the weapons system (after Kirkhill's reminder!)

I remember your post regarding the Fennek, I believe you were not approving of it's sensor suite and that it wasn't very flexible as a result. How does the sensor suite availible on the VBL compare to the Fennek's (or for that matter the Duro's as well), as well as crew protection?

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

That was my earlier point.

Fennik (German version anyway) and Coyote are surveillance vehicles, not "close" recce.  For close recce, you're looking for a vehicle that will enable you to put "eyes on" a target, perhaps steered towards that target by a surveillance vehicle.

To my mind, a close recce vehicle's sensor suite is of less importance in such a scenario.  What is more important is the lack of a signature (visual or otherwise), adequate protection, excellent communications and situational awareness, and a modicum of self-protection.  This doesn't suggest a Duro or similar vehicle to me, but it may well to others.  "Close" recce has made more than adequate use of jeeps, armoured cars and similar vehicles since it was invented in WW 2, so anything is possible.  I happen to like the VBL because it is small, has a measure of armour protection and can be fitted with a variety of weaponry.  I've also seen it in use, whereas I can't comment on a Duro.  I do recall that the Baltic States used Eagles in Bosnia and one time and weren't in love with them...  The Danes were using them in Kabul, but I never got an opinion.

My 2 cents, as always.

Teddy

 

[couchcommander]

Fennik (German version anyway) and Coyote are surveillance vehicles, not "close" recce.   For close recce, you're looking for a vehicle that will enable you to put "eyes on" a target, perhaps steered towards that target by a surveillance vehicle.

lol, I apologizse for not following along here, but how would such a vehicle be employed in Afghanistan (or other counter insurgency operations). Or are you speaking of it's use for other missions?

I apologize once again but I am just confused (and slightly amused) by the thought of this vehicle trying to "put eyes on" insurgents, without the aid of the ability to say, park behind a building and throw a mast up over it with a thermal imager on top (the amusing bit is when I get the thought of a VBL or something parked at the end of street in Kabul, where the largest thing around is a hut, and this big sign on it saying "You Can't See Me!").  Unless of course you mean to use it to transport a small dismounted recce unit to the area, and for it to go sneaking around (indeed a good thing to do)?

 

[Recce41]

lol, I apologizse for not following along here, but how would such a vehicle be employed in Afghanistan (or other counter insurgency operations). Or are you speaking of it's use for other missions?

I apologize once again but I am just confused (and slightly amused) by the thought of this vehicle trying to "put eyes on" insurgents, without the aid of the ability to say, park behind a building and throw a mast up over it with a thermal imager on top (the amusing bit is when I get the thought of a VBL or something parked at the end of street in Kabul, where the largest thing around is a hut, and this big sign on it saying "You Can't See Me!").   Unless of course you mean to use it to transport a small dismounted recce unit to the area, and for it to go sneaking around (indeed a good thing to do)?

Its a lot easier to park a small veh down a alley then a large veh. It is also easyier to park in a hole in the ground, behind a small hill.
CC what is you military experiance?

:evil: :tank:

 

[Lance Wiebe]

The Fennek and the Coyote are employed differently.  The Coyote is designed for surveillance, as we all know.  The Fennek is designed to conduct recce.  The mast can be thrown up in seconds, and the crew have a look over the hedgerow, or crest, or whatever.  The mast comes down, and on they go. 

As Teddy said, the surveillance suite is certainly not up to par with the Coyotes, but then again, it is not meant to be, either.  The Coyote takes a considerable amount of time to deploy its mast, it is certainly not going to raise the mast for a look around in every hull down position.  The Fennek can.  The Fennek also only has thermal and day on the mast, no radar. 

I don't think the Germans have totally figured out the best employment with the Fennek.  A friend told me that they have conducted trials with a Fennek working with two Weasels for their light recce, and also using a Fennek with tanks for heavy recce.  What I don't think you'll see is two Fennek conducting advance to contact all by themselves, similar to the way we use Coyotes.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Lance:

You're bang on, of course.  However, in Kabul we certainly used Fennik in the surveillance role.  The lack of radar wasn't a huge deal in built-up areas (there's a lot of clutter on Coyote radar in town) but would be in a different operational setting.

 

[Slim]

Lance:

You're bang on, of course.   However, in Kabul we certainly used Fennik in the surveillance role.   The lack of radar wasn't a huge deal in built-up areas (there's a lot of clutter on Coyote radar in town) but would be in a different operational setting.

Are we now using the Fennek or just in co-operatin with the Germans (or whomever owns the thing)?

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Sorry, Slim...By "we", I meant the Franco-German Brigade, with whom I was deployed at the time.  Should have been clearer.  The vehicles were German.

 

[Slim]

Sorry, Slim...By "we", I meant the Franco-German Brigade, with whom I was deployed at the time.   Should have been clearer.   The vehicles were German.

10-4 no harm done ;D

 

[couchcommander]

Its a lot easier to park a small veh down a alley then a large veh. It is also easyier to park in a hole in the ground, behind a small hill.
CC what is you military experiance?

:evil: :tank:

Re: the first bit about the small vehicle, yes of course, that much is true. But without a sensor suite and some survellance capability (other than a GIB with a hand held thermal imager), I am just having a hard time seeing where a vehicle such as this would be used, and what advantages it really has over the Fennek (of course I realize we need something smaller than the coyote to go running around in, but I think what I am getting at is maybe the VBL/DURO don't have all the capabilities we need, and are almost too small for our uses (lacking adequate protection (I am not 100% sure on the armouring of the VBL, but I suspect it is lesser than the Fennek), survelliance suites, range, etc.). Though a very small vehicle would indeed to be useful in more conventional situations to "put eyes on", as Teddy said, the enemy, as we have pointed out it is much more likely that the insurgents will have eyes on us first, and we have to utilitize our more advanced technology to try and overcome this. And finally, once again, no matter how small the vehicle, it's still going to stand out, so in reality the difference in ability to hide from the VBL to the Fennek, in Afghanistan, does not seem to me to be a lot.

Re: my military experience? heh, you're looking at it. Probably why I am confused.

However, at the same time I have spent the last 4 years studying military history. Basically what it means is I have a fair amount of theoretical knowledge, but very little (none) practical experience, which is why I value the opinion of those of you who have actually used and abused these vehicles, weapons, etc (which, at the same time, being a student, will not stop me from arguing with you if what you're saying doesn't make sense to me... it's not disrespect, I just want to figure out what, and most importantly, why you are saying what you are saying).

Why the :evil: :tank: ?

 

[Matt_Fisher]

CC what is you military experiance?

:evil: :tank:

Re: my military experience? heh, you're looking at it. Probably why I am confused.

However, at the same time I have spent the last 4 years studying military history. Basically what it means is I have a fair amount of theoretical knowledge, but very little (none) practical experience, which is why I value the opinion of those of you who have actually used and abused these vehicles, weapons, etc (which, at the same time, being a student, will not stop me from arguing with you if what you're saying doesn't make sense to me... it's not disrespect, I just want to figure out what, and most importantly, why you are saying what you are saying).

Why the :evil: :tank: ?

Recce41, out of curiosity, why do you use couchcommander's lack of military experience to debase his arguments.  Yet, you respond like this to someone who has experience and doesn't agree with your viewpoint:

OOOO I got shot at, so I have been. OOOO I was in Iraq, no I have not but who gives a rats a55.

:

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Re: the first bit about the small vehicle, yes of course, that much is true. But without a sensor suite and some survellance capability (other than a GIB with a hand held thermal imager), I am just having a hard time seeing where a vehicle such as this would be used, and what advantages it really has over the Fennek (of course I realize we need something smaller than the coyote to go running around in, but I think what I am getting at is maybe the VBL/DURO don't have all the capabilities we need, and are almost too small for our uses (lacking adequate protection (I am not 100% sure on the armouring of the VBL, but I suspect it is lesser than the Fennek), survelliance suites, range, etc.). Though a very small vehicle would indeed to be useful in more conventional situations to "put eyes on", as Teddy said, the enemy, as we have pointed out it is much more likely that the insurgents will have eyes on us first, and we have to utilitize our more advanced technology to try and overcome this. And finally, once again, no matter how small the vehicle, it's still going to stand out, so in reality the difference in ability to hide from the VBL to the Fennek, in Afghanistan, does not seem to me to be a lot.

Couchcommander:

I'll try to paint a (real life) tactical scenario for you.  You have to remember that any surveillance suite - even the advanced ones in a vehicle like Coyote - have limitations.  I won't get into the specifics, but I cited an example earlier:  radar has extreme limitations when used in a built up area, due to the clutter created by buildings, etc..

A surveillance vehicle is by its very nature a "stand off" platform.  It can acquire and identify targets from extreme ranges and pass that information up the chain for action.  In a lot of cases, though, the "stand off" nature of the vehicle is a drawback.  A target can easily be lost due to variations in terrain or, as I said, "clutter" created by buildings and the like.  IMHO, the ideal combination is a situation where the surveillance vehicle identifies the target, and "steers" a close recce vehicle to provide "eyes on".  The close recce vehicle can provide much more detailed information on the enemy in some cases and maintains continuous contact.

In other words, it's a partnership between the two types of vehicles.  If done properly, the "insurgents" won't have "eyes on" before we do - recce is very good at conducting covert observation posts and the like, particularly if assisted by a stand-off platform.  Work in RPVs and other reconnaissance means and you have a very good system of getting a broad tactical picture up the chain of command very rapidly.

Finally, on vehicles:  I have experience with the Iltis, G-wagon, Eagle I, VBL, and Fennik.  In the system I've described above, the VBL could work very well as the "close" vehicle, IMHO.  Capabilities have to be viewed in the entire tactical context.  However, it isn't the only solution, as I stated earlier - armies have used all sorts of platforms to conduct this task over the last sixty years or so...

Cheers,

Teddy

 

[Recce41]

Why, Because it would be like me telling a Gunner how to employ a M777. I have had RMC Students with a full history degree show on phase 3 and 4, and not have a clue how to be a Armour Officer or know anything about anything. So how the rats a55 would some history student know, what would work.
And you don't require high tech crap to do the job, just a set of binos and the M1 eye ball. Surv crap and not be used if it foggy, rain, smoke, snow, or just plain broken. I have done OPs that were Ks away and then had to pack up and sit on the NAI, to do the task. For just one of those reasons. If you cannot see it, your not doing your job. :evil: :tank:

 

[couchcommander]

Firstly thank you for your reponse Teddy,

I definately see where this would normally be employed, however I still have objections to using this type of doctrine in counter insurgency operations, but i doubt hashing it out over this thread will bring us to agreement on the topic (IMO you want to conduct eyes on survelliance against urban insurgent populations the only real way to do this is with spooks, ie non military personnel able to blend in with the population and thus go unnoticed, working, as you pointed out, in conjuction with regular military survellience. The moment you bring in a truck, everyone knows you are there). This of course would change depending on what type of insurgent we are talking about, the suicide bomber type, or the type roming the countryside in Nissans with AK-47s. In the latter case, yes indeed excatly what you have said would work very well (as long as, what I pointed out before, you had adequate protection against being ambushed yourself, and could indeed go relatively unnoticed). But yea, my opinion.

So how the rats a55 would some history student know, what would work.

Because I've spent all day long, for many years, reading about decorated Warrant Officers and the like who end up loosing perspective, objectivity, and an ability to adapt to a changing situation, despite the fact they are indeed VERY good at what they do. They just fail to take into account what they do may not exactly apply to the current situation.