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

[MilEME09]

And who will maintain the vehicles?  Who will pay for spares for an orphan fleet?  What role will the vehicles perform?

The reserves can maintain them so long as we are given the support to do so, spare parts would come from unit budgets, roles could easily be used as Command & Control, as training tool for Recce units, with modification you could turn one into a MRT, an engineering vehicle, or any role we might need. With the reserves being focused on domestic ops but still providing augmentation to the reg force training tools to ease the transition between the two. Not to mention Dom ops could mean anything, while its armour isn't potentially needed its platform could be useful because it's a heavy vehicle, well heavy compared to a Milcot, and it's wheeled. I doubt a tracked fleet would ever be seen in the reserves.

 

[dangerboy]

It is not an easy vehicle to get people qualified on and maintain their proficiency, especially with regards to the turret.  25mm ammo is not cheap and if you don't practise your turret drills you can lose them quickly.  The regular force has a hard enough time fighting skill fade I don't think that the reserves no mater how dedicated they are would be able to do it effectively.

 

[MilEME09]

It is not an easy vehicle to get people qualified on and maintain their proficiency, especially with regards to the turret.  25mm ammo is not cheap and if you don't practise your turret drills you can lose them quickly.  The regular force has a hard enough time fighting skill fade I don't think that the reserves no mater how dedicated they are would be able to do it effectively.

Well then lets strip the turrets off them (doubt we would need them any way accept as a crew training aid) , or dummy rounds, though I'm a reserve weapons tech so i dont even know if the 25mm on the Coyote or the LAV III for that matter have dummy rounds for training

 

[dangerboy]

Well then lets strip the turrets off them (doubt we would need them any way accept as a crew training aid) , or dummy rounds, though I'm a reserve weapons tech so i dont even know if the 25mm on the Coyote or the LAV III for that matter have dummy rounds for training

They have drill rounds for the 25mm.

 

[Franko]

It would go the same way the Cougars went, being used and abused and never repaired until they were required for a Reg Force course or a mission.

Same thing is happening now with the LUVW fleet. Pres units are being tasked to provide vehicles through CFTPO and they do. Most are in fair shape, however, there is always some that never make it out of EFCC and inspections due to them being in a bad state of repair. Not blaming anyone in particular, just know about it first hand in dealing with it on a yearly basis. It is what it is.

Can't imagine a Coyote, a multi million dollar vehicle, being properly maintained and exercised in order for it to be a runner/ gunner. Who will do the monthly checks? Who will do the 1136s that take well over two weeks to be completed? What about the infrastructure to support them? A troop of Coyotes takes about 3000L in one day of hard driving. Where's the FARR going to come from because Jerry cans won't cut it. How about the hangers to house them? Can't leave them in a snow bank, they are an A vehicle and have priority for hanger space, just under tanks. The list goes on and on.

Then the are getting people qualified. D&M courses run about a month, same for gunnery. Speaking of gunnery courses, where are the sims going to be housed? You're going to need a building that is purpose built to house them with a dedicated power supply.

Then there a the career courses. ARCC for commanders is the same length as it is for PRes students, but the cost will go up in maintenance, fuel and ammunition for each student. They'd have to complete the move, shoot , communicate ranges as well. The course can't be modulized either for that platform. VOR rate won't allow for it. If you tried it, it could take years for someone to finally be qualified to command it. Then of course there is skill fade. By the time the area concentrations are done, the troops would barely be getting back into the groove of things.

Same question was raised when we got the Leo 2s....what will become of the Leo C2s? Can't the reserves have them? Same issues arise.

Now if the CF had a budget three times the amount it has now......but we don't and everyone is in the budget crunch and you want Coyotes?

Dream on.....

 

[Fishbone Jones]

It would go the same way the Cougars went, being used and abused and never repaired until they were required for a Reg Force course or a mission.

Same thing is happening now with the LUVW fleet. Pres units are being tasked to provide vehicles through CFTPO and they do. Most are in fair shape, however, there is always some that never make it out of EFCC and inspections due to them being in a bad state of repair. Not blaming anyone in particular, just know about it first hand in dealing with it on a yearly basis. It is what it is.

Can't imagine a Coyote, a multi million dollar vehicle, being properly maintained and exercised in order for it to be a runner/ gunner. Who will do the monthly checks? Who will do the 1136s that take well over two weeks to be completed? What about the infrastructure to support them? A troop of Coyotes takes about 3000L in one day of hard driving. Where's the FARR going to come from because Jerry cans won't cut it. How about the hangers to house them? Can't leave them in a snow bank, they are an A vehicle and have priority for hanger space, just under tanks. The list goes on and on.

Then the are getting people qualified. D&M courses run about a month, same for gunnery. Speaking of gunnery courses, where are the sims going to be housed? You're going to need a building that is purpose built to house them with a dedicated power supply.

Then there a the career courses. ARCC for commanders is the same length as it is for PRes students, but the cost will go up in maintenance, fuel and ammunition for each student. They'd have to complete the move, shoot , communicate ranges as well. The course can't be modulized either for that platform. VOR rate won't allow for it. If you tried it, it could take years for someone to finally be qualified to command it. Then of course there is skill fade. By the time the area concentrations are done, the troops would barely be getting back into the groove of things.

Same question was raised when we got the Leo 2s....what will become of the Leo C2s? Can't the reserves have them? Same issues arise.

Now if the CF had a budget three times the amount it has now......but we don't and everyone is in the budget crunch and you want Coyotes?

Dream on.....

That goes the other way too, young fella  .

We send perfectly good vehicles away every summer to the schools and they are not the same when we get them back.

If we get them back, big if sometimes, they are normally months late. Missed training opportunities abound with that scenario and we have few to give up.

So let's not get slagging each other.

Could the Reserves use something better than a LUVW, probably.

Are all up combat vehicles, surplus or not, what's required?

Resounding 'NO'. Money, plain and simple is the serial killer in the argument.

Maintenance, training, etc all become bit players after that.

I'm an old tanker and have worked on lots of platforms. Armoured vehicles are a wash for the Reserves to keep at home and work on.

 

[Franko]

That goes the other way too, young fella  .

We send perfectly good vehicles away every summer to the schools and they are not the same when we get them back.

If we get them back, big if sometimes, they are normally months late. Missed training opportunities abound with that scenario and we have few to give up.

Oh, for sure. There are issues, however, they are not with the Schools for the most part.

Sometimes we don't even receive vehicles due to the state that they are in. They stay at EFCC and get fixed, only to be returned never used to the home unit.

It's EFCC and the outgoing inspections that are the hold up for PRes units waiting for them. As for the state they are in when they are received back at their home unit, they should be S Class and clean and have all their EIS with them as well.

That's how we turn them in. How they are received on the other end after the process....well, obviously not as good as they should be. But that's a discussion over beers.   

 

[McG]

It is not an easy vehicle to get people qualified on and maintain their proficiency, especially with regards to the turret.  25mm ammo is not cheap and if you don't practise your turret drills you can lose them quickly. 

TAPV will have neither turret nor 25 mm.  It will be a dual RWS (AGL and MG).

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Still means a Reservist going to a support base to become a gunner and then, probably, never firing it again. Or at most, maybe once a year..........with blanks... on ex. No simulators at Res units. The TAPV will be held at support bases, i.e. Meaford (for Ontario) and not at individual Res units. They will be under Area control and CBO issue and maint. Just like our Cougars and Grizzlies were. They became useless junk under that system. Total waste of time, money and resources.

But that's just my opinion

 

[McG]

… and the Army has stated it will not buy AFV for the PRes.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

… and the Army has stated it will not buy AFV for the PRes.

...however, we've been told that places like Meaford will hold a few for our use.

Total waste of time and resources, including just going there to use the limited capability we'll be allowed to exploit.

I suppose the geegaw factor will work for the young, first time tryers of the thing. I anticipate they will quickly become jaded when they see all the horseshit they have to endure from the Support Centre and CBO, just to put a few kilometers on it for a weekend.

Anyway, this is an old arguement, just a different vehicle.

And I have a movie and some aged scotch to enjoy

 

[McG]

...however, we've been told that places like Meaford will hold a few for our use.

That is a change from the previous party line.  Is there anything supporting this in the project documentation?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

That is a change from the previous party line.  Is there anything supporting this in the project documentation?

You can call it really strong rumour, heard first hand.

My movie is about too start.

L8r 8)

 

[dapaterson]

The reserves can maintain them so long as we are given the support to do so, spare parts would come from unit budgets, roles could easily be used as Command & Control, as training tool for Recce units, with modification you could turn one into a MRT, an engineering vehicle, or any role we might need. With the reserves being focused on domestic ops but still providing augmentation to the reg force training tools to ease the transition between the two. Not to mention Dom ops could mean anything, while its armour isn't potentially needed its platform could be useful because it's a heavy vehicle, well heavy compared to a Milcot, and it's wheeled. I doubt a tracked fleet would ever be seen in the reserves.

So, with Reg F VOR rates very high, where will this support come from?  DND is already cutting contractors and closing ASUs.  No free people to send to support these vehicles - indeed, divesting fleets is intended to save personnel and streamline maintenance.

As for spares from unit budgets - have you any idea of the cost of spares?  It's not like you can mosey on down to Canadian Tire and pick up Motomaster parts for a LAV.

Repurposing vehicles is also expensive - the NRE is one of the biggest costs, and with a small fleet, you've got very few platforms to spread that cost over.

 

[Seyek]

I've had this thought rolling around in my head for a while and wondered what the more knowledgeable people on here would think of it, since there's an option for additional vehicles (100 I believe?) what if we exercised some of that option, adding those vehicles to the pool available for reserve units as a dedicated training/deployment stock, and purchased some additional vehicles based off whatever LSVW replacement gets adopted, using the base chassis/drivetrain from it with a new body to simulate that of a TAPV, and spot for a C6 on top. Would allow for everyone to get used to employing the TAPV, and can train up the RWS and specific driving skills during workup training and annual courses. You could then use them to deploy platoons/companies of reservists for overseas in addition to individual augments, for force protection or what have you. The TAPV training vehicles would make for capable training and dom ops vehicles, and could even be deployed overseas in a low threat environment I suppose. Plus there'd be some extra vehicles around in case Reg Force needs to draw on them, with the reserves still able to use the TAPV trainers to maintain much of the skills and experience to use them. The whole idea is based on a similar one I've seen here in the past, using an LSVW based vehicle as an RG trainer. Of course this would all be dependent on somehow getting enough money to fund it, but LSVW replacements need to be bought anyway and are relatively inexpensive compared to a TAPV or training to turn the Coyotes into reserve vehicles.

 

[MilEME09]

The TAPV is planned for a Recce and utility varient, potentially that utility varient could become an LS replacement and be modified into a CP, MRT, line, comms, or what ever varient needed. Now Texton hasn't published fuel range and such on their official data sheet, but at 38,000 lbs its a heavy beast, now i wonder what its range is, if we can get 500-800 out of it then it could be used as an LS replacement

 

[ArmyRick]

Seyek,

A few Issues
1. Using an LS type vehicle as an RG trainer? Slippery slope to go on. We used Cougars as "tank trainers" and before you know it, it was a operational vehicle (UNPROFOR and IFOR). Luckily none of them got dragged into a 76mm vs 125mm fight.

2. The bigger issue is personnel to maintain them (crewman, veh tech, fcs tech, weapons tech, mat techs). Where do we generate these personnel? AFV or armoured vehicles of any type need to be maintained or they turn to scrap. Where do we generate those PY? Eight years ago, it would have been a do able solution to say Class B a bunch of guys but them days are over.

3. The centralized depot for each area could work but too many X factors pop up (CBO wants them cleaned spotlessly and on their timings, TSR fights for them, ) again MONEY and pers to look after them become the issue.

I will say my armoured brothers have a tough issue to deal with (realistic training) as for us Infantry grunts, give us Rifles, Machine guns, grenades, some other support weapons and a piece of earth, viola, infantry training accomplished!

 

[PPCLI Guy]

The TAPV is planned for a Recce and utility varient, potentially that utility varient could become an LS replacement and be modified into a CP, MRT, line, comms, or what ever varient needed.

Ummmm....really?  Why would we do that?  And where is that in the SOR?  And what would the employment concept be?

 

[Franko]

Ummmm....really?  Why would we do that?  And where is that in the SOR?  And what would the employment concept be?

Stop shattering his dreams will ya!     

 

[GAP]

op: