Our 'maybe' new recce vehicle

[a_majoor]

Interesting perspectives on the Fennik as the Germans use it, but if the surveillance aspect were dispensed with and a more powerful weapons station substituted, then we are now looking at a 21rst century version of the Ferret. I suppose the VBL can do, but it doesn't seem as well developed for the job. I suppose if we really want to do a shopping trip for a small recce vehicle, then the OTOCAR Cobra could also come under consideration, or perhaps a Cadillac Gage V-100 or 150. On the other hand, a "periscope" that allows you to take a quick look over obstructions has a lot to commend it as well.

I am still more inclined towards the idea of a "Patrol LAV" which transports some dismounted patrolmen (since "Scouts" is an Americanism  ). As Recce 41 reminds us, the key thing is to be able to see. The LAV has the mobility to get to where we are interested in seeing (perhaps directed by a surveillance system), can "see" with the FCS, but most importantly, brings some dismounted soldiers into play to do patrols, OPs and so on. Nothing like having eyes on with four extra pairs of eyes.

If getting around and dropping off patrols was all we needed, then a MILCOTS would do, but in addition to moving around and taking a look, the "Patrol LAV" would have the ability to provide a level of protection to the crew, and a weapons system (systems really, since the patrolmen could dismount and bring small arms and anti armour weapons into action)  that allows them to break contact, or take offensive action when the need arises. A small purpose built scout car has these virtues, but very limited ability to carry dismounted patrolmen, and a warmed over truck like the Duro lacks protection, firepower, and troop carrying capability.

As couchcommander and others have pointed out, anything "green" stands out, so we need to consider that we are operating at an information deficit (not information superiority or a "transparent battlefield") as long as we are operating in an overt manner. Covert operations can be done by regular troops (BGen Frank Kitson created fake Mau Mau gangs in Kenya using British troops, so anything really is possible), Special Forces (SAS and "14 Int Det" were known to work undercover in Northern Ireland), or paramilitary forces (CIA operatives), but this really is way beyond "Armoured" territory.

 

[Slim]

The LAV has the mobility to get to where we are interested in seeing (perhaps directed by a surveillance system), can "see" with the FCS, but most importantly, brings some dismounted soldiers into play to do patrols, OPs and so on.

I know that this opinion that I'm about to voice is not a popular one BUT...Haing done recce for my entire career in a Lynx, I believe that I am catagorically justified in pointing out that tracks still have wheels beat hands down in the recce mode...Especially in the recce mode as you never quite know what you're going to get into.

I have been in some OP bases that a wheeled veh, no matter how capable, would never have been able to reach.

just food for thought...

Slim

 

[KevinB]

*shamless Plug for ISTAR Patrol LAV - Armoured Crew and Inf dismounts...  ;D

Slim - tracks yes - but short of BV206 we are no longer a tracked Army -- and it ain't a recce vehicle - fine for ski-jorring behind - but not recce.

 

[Slim]

*shamless Plug for ISTAR Patrol LAV - Armoured Crew and Inf dismounts...   ;D

Slim - tracks yes - but short of BV206 we are no longer a tracked Army -- and it ain't a recce vehicle - fine for ski-jorring behind - but not recce.

Too true old bean

But if we're REALLY in the recce by stealth and mobility business... :

 

[a_majoor]

I know that this opinion that I'm about to voice is not a popular one BUT...Haing done recce for my entire career in a Lynx, I believe that I am catagorically justified in pointing out that tracks still have wheels beat hands down in the recce mode...Especially in the recce mode as you never quite know what you're going to get into.

I have been in some OP bases that a wheeled veh, no matter how capable, would never have been able to reach.

just food for thought...

*shamless Plug for ISTAR Patrol LAV - Armoured Crew and Inf dismounts...  ;D

Slim - tracks yes - but short of BV206 we are no longer a tracked Army -- and it ain't a recce vehicle - fine for ski-jorring behind - but not recce.

Kevin is right Slim, although I agree with you with the need for tracks, we don't have them and don't seem to be getting any, so I am trying to offer a solution based on using our current suite of equipment, and things that are in the realm of possibility (the Fennik is wheeled, the Weisel is not).

 

[Slim]

Kevin is right Slim, although I agree with you with the need for tracks, we don't have them and don't seem to be getting any, so I am trying to offer a solution based on using our current suite of equipment, and things that are in the realm of possibility (the Fennik is wheeled, the Weisel is not).

Sigh...I know.

What can you do... :

 

[Jantor]

Hello everyone,

  I thought I'd post this link http://igverkenning.nl/for the lurkers (like me  ;D). The website is Dutch so just scroll down to the link called invisible eyes. It's a Rapidshare download movie that shows two Fenniks on a simulated recce. I got this off Militaryphotos.net


Buz

 

[Infanteer]

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.

"From the experts who brought you the Maginot Line!" 

 

[couchcommander]

"From the experts who brought you the Maginot Line!"  

lol, I'm not sure you who were insulting there (probably me), but FYI the Maginot Line held..... it just didn't quite go far enough (and sucessfully tied up most of the reserve strength of the French Army, so after their lines in belgium were pierced, they were ******). so

Edit: not saying it was a good idea, but still

 

[Reccesoldier]

Am I the only person here who has a problem with doing Recce inside a fishbowl?

IMO all the vehicles proposed so far have the same crucial flaw, they are SUV like varriations, comfortable because the crew is largely removed from the weather and dangerous because the crew is removed from the environment.

To say that Armoured Recce (especially in the mounted patroling role) is the eyes and ears of the Bde is still true, but to have crews bottled up inside a big SUV destroys at least some situational awareness.

Windows make poor armour, windows cause glare, windows can obscure the vision of those inside (driving into a rising or setting sun), windows that can not be rolled down limit hearing, windows that can be rolled down have to be rolled up in danger.

Windows are for houses not AFV's/APV's

I'd much rather see some modern equivalent of the Ferret or Fox scout car than some soon to be in the dealership for $100,000 yuppie SUV.

I agree with the idea that we have to purchase our equipment to fufill the third block of the three block war, the other two will be served well enough by the warfighting kit.

 

[George Wallace]

I've been away for three days, practicing my "Why things are Seen?" skills and on return, after reading the last few pages of this thread, I see the discussion has been degraded by impute from people who have no "Recce" experience.  Sorry guys, but not to insult you, "If you haven't done the job, don't start commenting on how it should or should not be done!"  I don't mind questions, but don't try to tell someone who does the job, and has the training and experience to do the job, how you figure it should be done. 

CC

You seem to have the idea, as you moniker suggests, that we do our jobs and have fat a$$es in the performance of doing that job.  Sorry, but we do have to get out of our vehicles; and that is quite often.  We have to be able to hide our vehicles for short or long periods of time.  We need a vehicle that we can park on the verges of a road, or in a ditch, and have it virtually disappear, as we do a vehicle patrol (A Route Recce.).

Andrew

We can not perform that job in an LAV or Stryker Variant.  They are too large and not designed for the role of Recce.  Some of your suggestion is more to do with Mech/Motorized Infantry, not Recce.  A LAV is not a Luchs with the advantage of a Driver in the rear and the same amount of gears in Reverse as Forward.  Reluctantly, the Luchs is the only large vehicle I would accept in a Recce role.

Reccesoldier and I go back a long way, as do Recce41 and Lance, as do a few others here and although many may consider us, with their snide remarks about Warrant Officers and such, as perhaps being "dinosaurs", we have the experience of doing the job both overtly and covertly.  We have some pretty good ideas of what vehicles, wheeled or tracked, would be most suitable for the job.  When Slim and Teddy Ruxpin speak from experience, we listen.  We are open minded and do accept reasonable questions from those who do not have the exerience, but we also do have the right to tell them they are RTFOTL.

 

[Kirkhill]

Fennek : Duro : Puma (Italian wheeled 4x4)

Crew 3 : 4 : 7 (2-3 + 4)
GVW (tonnes) 10.0 : 7.6   : 5.7
Payload (tonnes) ¦nbsp; 3.0 according to Defence Update : 2.4 : undefined

Protection (calibre) 7.62mm AP (higher optional) : STANAG 4569 Level 3 (Ballistic) + Level 2a (mines) optional : small arms and shell fragments

Armament ¦nbsp; ROWS:ROWS:Pintle Mount (or ROWS?)

Length (m) ¦nbsp; 5.71 : 5.09 : 5.108
Width (m) 2.49 : 2.16 : 2.09
Height - roof (m) 1.79 : 2.16 : 1.678 (hull), 1.900 (hatch top)
Power (kW/tonne) 17.9 : 24 : 23
Speed - road (km/h) 115 : 120 : >100

Gradient (%) ¦nbsp; 60 : 60 : >60
Side Slope (%) 35 : 40 : 30

Turning Circle Diameter (m) 12.6 : 14.5 : 12

Range - road (km) 860 : 480 : Unknown

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/puma/

Puma seems to be the only wheeled vehicle that employs the design principles that George, reccesoldier and others have stipulated (ie NO WINDOWS).

Like Fennek and Duro - it can be defeated by any Anti-Materiel Rifle - but it is a less visible target in the field, more visible in town I would think.

Unfortunately it is brought to you by the same people as brought you the LSVW - IVECO.

 

[Infanteer]

Am I the only person here who has a problem with doing Recce inside a fishbowl?

IMO all the vehicles proposed so far have the same crucial flaw, they are SUV like varriations, comfortable because the crew is largely removed from the weather and dangerous because the crew is removed from the environment.

To say that Armoured Recce (especially in the mounted patroling role) is the eyes and ears of the Bde is still true, but to have crews bottled up inside a big SUV destroys at least some situational awareness.

Windows make poor armour, windows cause glare, windows can obscure the vision of those inside (driving into a rising or setting sun), windows that can not be rolled down limit hearing, windows that can be rolled down have to be rolled up in danger.

Windows are for houses not AFV's/APV's

I'd much rather see some modern equivalent of the Ferret or Fox scout car than some soon to be in the dealership for $100,000 yuppie SUV.

I agree with the idea that we have to purchase our equipment to fufill the third block of the three block war, the other two will be served well enough by the warfighting kit.

Thank you. 

 

[Infanteer]

I've been away for three days, practicing my "Why things are Seen?" skills and on return, after reading the last few pages of this thread, I see the discussion has been degraded by impute from people who have no "Recce" experience.   Sorry guys, but not to insult you, "If you haven't done the job, don't start commenting on how it should or should not be done!"   I don't mind questions, but don't try to tell someone who does the job, and has the training and experience to do the job, how you figure it should be done.  

....

Reccesoldier and I go back a long way, as do Recce41 and Lance, as do a few others here and although many may consider us, with their snide remarks about Warrant Officers and such, as perhaps being "dinosaurs", we have the experience of doing the job both overtly and covertly.   We have some pretty good ideas of what vehicles, wheeled or tracked, would be most suitable for the job.   When Slim and Teddy Ruxpin speak from experience, we listen.   We are open minded and do accept reasonable questions from those who do not have the exerience, but we also do have the right to tell them they are RTFOTL.

These responses were most likely in response to being written off by others.   Couchcommander (with no experience) and Matt Fisher (probably up there with the most experience seeing how he's been in a war) were both rather snidely derided for raising questions about what we're doing.   Sure, CC may not have the experience, but I think he's been tactful thus far (until provoked) and Teddy has done a reasonable job in steering him in the right direction when wrong.

You are correct, deference and respect should be payed to the voice of experience - I've argued this many times.   But this doesn't mean that it cannot be questioned.   This is a forum for reasoned debate, not blind obedience to the school.   When told that they should, I think it is completely valid to bring up examples of where established doctrine (The Truth) was shown to be completely wrong.   I don't have much experience at all with the concept (worked with the Coyotes a couple time and "recced" around with a jeep - that's it!), but in discussions with those who do, along with some basic intuition and drawing from the data presented in the "Saber and Stealth" paper (which seems to be a credible source) I feel there is a legitimate issue to be argued here and I haven't seen much of an attempt to address the concerns raised in the Article and the arguments that have come out of it (you can basically say that this thread and the Saber for Stealth one are one and the same).

As well, the BTDT's seem to have a diverging opinion on what is needed.   I've noticed that Lance, Reccesoldier, Matt, Slim and Teddy have all given differing ideas on what is needed.   The rest of the soldiers, who may not be directly tied to the Corps, have also provided fair and reasoned input.   All ideas need to be criticised and compared based upon their validity, not on who proposed them.

Anyways, back on track (or wheels, whichever you prefer  ).
Infanteer

 

[Kirkhill]

Anyways, back on track (or wheels, whichever you prefer  ).

As a hot air fan I prefer Hovercraft.  I empathise with the whine.

 

[DG-41]

Am I the only person here who has a problem with doing Recce inside a fishbowl?

No, you aren't. I'm very curious about how recce is supposed to work in a mostly-sealed-up GWagon, and I'm planning (at this point, with no experience with the vehicle yet) to do all my crew commanding/troop leading out the hatch.

We can not perform that job in an LAV or Stryker Variant.  They are too large and not designed for the role of Recce.

I haven't seen/tried a LAVIII variant (so I don't have any feel for the size of LAVIII/Stryker) but I've done recce in Bison and that worked just fine. And when I look at my copy of Jane's, I see a lot of vehicles of similar size and contruction to Bison/Coyote in recce service with other countries.

So while you won't catch me arguing for bigger vehicles over smaller ones, I totally don't buy that something Coyote-sized is unsuitable for the job.

In fact, given the choice between Coyote, or a fishbowl (even if the fishbowl is smaller) I'll take Coyote.

DG

 

[a_majoor]

I will accept that I have an Infantry bias, and the Fennik might be alluring because of the high LCF, but Infanteer is correct in the sense that we are staking out positions without too much definition.

My bias towards a larger "Patrol Lav" is pretty firmly based on the "Trading Sabres for Stealth" paper, talking to Matt Fisher and reading about the experiences of the SBCTs in Iraq, understanding of recce from my side of the house and the desire to find an "in house" solution to the recce conumdrum. I realize there are lots of people who believe the LAV is too large (and it is a big vehicle to be sure), but size gives you some capabilities you don't get in the "Ferret scout car" analogues that have been proposed, and TTPs can be developed to work around some of the disadvantages of using a LAV. If I wanted to blue sky a bit, the AVGP Grizzley should undergo a total rebuild to become the patrol vehicle, since it has the internal volume for the four man dismounted patrolmen, and can get an updated powerpack, suspension, electonics and so on to give the mobility, protection and firepower we desire in a smaller package.

As for smaller vehicles, I will admit I do not have experience on a Lynx or Ferret (besides seeing them in action in Cyprus and on EX), but besides the catalogue shopping, I havn't really seen the supporting arguments (i.e. a Ferret type vehicle is smaller and less visible, but we need to do X and Y to operatie in humanitarian and SASO OPS because they have distinctive profiles and only carry Z dismounts....). It seems the only thing we really agree on is the fact that SUVs and modified trucks do not have what it takes to be a recce vehicle.

 

[KevinB]

I am going to restate my position again. 

In trying to encompasse Inffy's and Art's comments on the what - then then the how and why.
In my Infanteers mind (mine not that other guy's mind) recce task are done for a few reasons - but with the end state we wanted to know something about something we did not before.  To do that you need boots on the ground (in general terms I will admit rubber on pavement works for route stuff).

I gave up prepping for WWIII a long ago - at least as far as memorising the vehicle formations etc of tank divisions versus motorized rifle divisions.  And I still feel that prepping to overtake Europe is insane.  So looking at local conflicts that can escalate into Mid intensity - and extremely localised High Intensity activity.  So anything other than that we can dumb it down.

We need an armoured vehicle that offers increased crew surivivability - specifically a halon type fire supresion system, a robust fire control system able to engage both individual combatants up close, crowds in close, and effectively out range enemy armour or "technical" vehicles to further increase platform survivability.

Secondly it needs to be able to disgorge or carry a dismounted ability (sorry Tread Heads - unless driving down a road ATC;ing you need both a foot borne local protection element and eyes and ears working with black cadillac's)


And since where are Canadian it cannot be tracked... :

 

[couchcommander]

I've been away for three days, practicing my "Why things are Seen?" skills and on return, after reading the last few pages of this thread, I see the discussion has been degraded by impute from people who have no "Recce" experience.  

I was hoping that fresh ideas might bring alternate perspectives to a situation with which the established military forces seem to have having some difficulty getting a handel on (not you gentlemen, this entire army "transformation" idea that western armies are trying to deal with).

Sorry guys, but not to insult you, "If you haven't done the job, don't start commenting on how it should or should not be done!"   I don't mind questions, but don't try to tell someone who does the job, and has the training and experience to do the job, how you figure it should be done.  

I apologize if I have offended you or anyone here, I have in no way meant to take away from your abilities. Once again though, in my humble opinion, this might be a time to take in some input from different groups of people to ADD TO your already extensive knowledge.

CC

You seem to have the idea, as you moniker suggests, that we do our jobs and have fat a$$es in the performance of doing that job.   Sorry, but we do have to get out of our vehicles; and that is quite often.  

Oh no I had always been under the impression there was a lot of dismounted operations as part of even armoured recce.

EDIT: The moniker is something I have been using for more than a decade. The inspiration was quite literal, ie I command my couch (and not much else, ) or alternatively it has also been taken to mean I command from my couch (in the spirit of the armchair general or armchair revolutionary, a more derogatory but still humours and acceptable take). There is actually a long history of the couch commander, which I would be more than willing to share.... heh.

We have to be able to hide our vehicles for short or long periods of time.  We need a vehicle that we can park on the verges of a road, or in a ditch, and have it virtually disappear, as we do a vehicle patrol (A Route Recce.).

Fair enough, and as I said I can definately see where this would be employed in a more conventional setting or even in a non-urban environment. However, how would this work within a hostile urban environment (or are you saying that we just wouldn't, in which case, fair enough)? One of the two points I have been pushing is that given our current operational environments, the ability of a military vehicle to "hide" (at least in hostile urban areas) is neglegable, regardless of the platform, so (on to my second point), ones focus must then turn to the ability of the vehicle to operate without being able to hide (ie it must have the ability to adequately defend itself and at the same time be able to support dismounted patrols, which, as has been pointed out many times, are one of the best recce tools availible)

Reccesoldier and I go back a long way, as do Recce41 and Lance, as do a few others here and although many may consider us, with their snide remarks about Warrant Officers and such, as perhaps being "dinosaurs"

My remark was not directed to you personally, however I apologize if it offended you. It was meant simply to point out that there are alternate perspectives that may be worth considering. And though as you mentioned it was a little snide, I felt it was appropriate given the circumstances surrounding it.

  We have some pretty good ideas of what vehicles, wheeled or tracked, would be most suitable for the job.   When Slim and Teddy Ruxpin speak from experience, we listen.   We are open minded and do accept reasonable questions from those who do not have the exerience, but we also do have the right to tell them they are RTFOTL.

Indeed I agree, I just ask that, if possible, you take the time to explain why something I said was RTFOTL.

Thanks for your time,

 

[Infanteer]

I agree with Kevin and Art - I think the Armoured Corps, as the other half of the maneuver force in the Army is capable of manning more than an SUV and a camera.