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

[MilEME09]

But then you have to look at if it's fighting out of engagements, up to what do you want it to be able to fight off, dismounts? IFV's? or upto MBT's? which would require a bigger and bigger platform the larger you go for what you want to fight off. Something around the 20mm range could offer whats needed against everything upto light armour. If you want to fight off a MBT now we are either going a bigger gun or adding ATGM capabilities (which IMO would be the better option for keeping the vehicle light).  Maybe not even a guided missile, how much damage could a CRV-7 rocket pod do to an armoured target?

 

[McG]

If you want to fight off a MBT now we are either going a bigger gun or adding ATGM capabilities (which IMO would be the better option for keeping the vehicle light).  Maybe not even a guided missile, how much damage could a CRV-7 rocket pod do to an armoured target?

You are not really adding anything new to this discussion:

If you want anti-armour punch on a light vehicle, then give it a missile or two.

Don't do CRV-7.  Get Spike, Javlin, TOW or Milan.  The fire and forget option would be desirable for a vehicle that is not intended as a tank hunter.

 

[MilEME09]

Would a Javlin's top attack feature not be best in that case? the recce vehicle could be behind the crest of a hill for example, pop out fire and gone. Though in this day and age I bet a dismounted soldier could spot for the vehicle. I suggested the CRV-7 simply for it's light weight because you don't have bulky fire control computers, i've heard of a laser guided version designated CRV-7PG, though that still requires a laser on target from a soldier, vehicle or drone.

 

[McG]

TOW and Spike also do top-attack.  Each missile has its trade-offs.  Any one could work, but a Recce crewman is the best guy to speak on the characteristic the best missile will have.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The CF is always going to struggle as we will not know for sure where and against whom/what our next fight will be. Could be peacekeeping/making, could be COIN, could be a bush war in Africa, or a peer to peer fight in eastern Europe or even a near peer in the ME. Picking equipment to meet all that is difficult and your not going to get a coherent long term defense policy from our politicians that's worth the paper it's written on. Hence the reason I want see a good mix of vehicles and start pushing tactical vehicles out to the Reserves(along with working trucks). Eventually your going to need everything we have.

 

[Eland2]

Why a 75mm? why direct fire role? why not a high velocity 57mm? or turn something like the TAPV into a mortor carrier?

The TAPV itself would not make a good mortar carrier platform. Not without extensive modification of the basic vehicle design, anyway. The vehicle is probably too light for such a role.

The Swedish and the Finns got together and created a wheeled mortar carrier based on a Patria XA-series wheeled APC. It's called AMOS (Advanced MOrtar System). It incorporates two semi-automatic 120mm mortars housed within a turret. It offers indirect fire and some direct fire capability. Clearly, something like the AMOS would be totally unsuitable as a recce vehicle, but it could be used to provide fire support for recce units that have to fight for information. But then a tank already fulfills that role quite nicely.

Here's a photo of the AMOS:

 

[a_majoor]

If that turret can be dropped into a LAV, then we can kill several birds with one stone using the LAV 6.0 chassis: LAV 6.0 replacements for Coyotes, and LAV 6.0 hulled fire support vehicles mounting these mortars for both the Infantry and as FSV's for recce squadrons (as noted they can fire both DF and IF when needed). Of course the Recce squadrons would have a Coyote replacement using a surveillance mast, and one without but with a few crunchies in the back, for 3 flavors of the LAV 6.0 hull.

I believe a single barrel version of the turret also exists, which would be lighter and less maintenance intensive (and while not providing such a weight of fire, could remain in the field longer before needing to be re bombed).

 

[Kirkhill]

1x C17 = 18x Iltis

1x C17 = 2x LAV

 

[George Wallace]

If that turret can be dropped into a LAV, then we can kill several birds with one stone using the LAV 6.0 chassis:

There were already turreted mortar systems installed on LAV for export to the UAE around ten or fifteen years ago.  If you want a LAV with a turret similar to a KV 2, that was the baby.

 

[Ostrozac]

The TAPV itself would not make a good mortar carrier platform. Not without extensive modification of the basic vehicle design, anyway. The vehicle is probably too light for such a role.

You don't need much weight for a mortar carrier, and TAPV is a pretty big vehicle. TAPV is 17 tons. We used the 13 ton Bison as an 81mm carrier for years. And the Americans use the M1129 variant of the Stryker/LAV-3 as a 120mm mortar carrier -- it clocks in at 16 tons (no turret helps). But I agree that the LAV platform is a proven mortar carrier -- I don't think anyone's ever even tried putting a mortar on the M1117/TAPV family of vehicles.

I've been away from the brigades for a while. Is TAPV going to be the gun tractor for the M777? Or is our towed artillery going with soft-skinned gun tractors? If the latter, then that raises yet another argument for having some kind of protected indirect fire weapon -- and my vote would be for a LAV-3 mortar carrier.

I'm less excited about cap-badge wars or calibre, I just want an indirect fire weapon that can possibly survive being hit by enemy artillery fire without its' trucks catching on fire. If we can't get M109 or self-propelled mortars, then I guess we're hauling 81mm in the back of an APC just like in the 70's.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

LAV III with a 120mm mortar equipping a couple of the RCHA batteries makes perfect sense, the platform is already in use and our major ally is already using the mortar, meaning parts, ammo and upgrades will be around for some time to come. Mobile and protected indirect fire support for the armoured units. Actual set up costs won't be that great and intial training on the Mortar can be done in the US. Also would be a stepping stone to bringing in a towed 120mm to give to the Reserves to supplement the remaining 105mm's.

 

[OldSolduer]

All good for the artillery Colin, but the Armoured Recce guys need a vehicle.
L
Us dudes in the Reserve Infantry, we love to go for long walks -looking for a guy named Charlie - but sometimes we need a lift.
We really could use an upgraded MLVW and not those stupid MSVS monstrosities.

 

[MilEME09]

All good for the artillery Colin, but the Armoured Recce guys need a vehicle.
L
Us dudes in the Reserve Infantry, we love to go for long walks -looking for a guy named Charlie - but sometimes we need a lift.
We really could use an upgraded MLVW and not those stupid MSVS monstrosities.

Given the way the trend with vehicles is, high off the ground, that isn't going to change any time soon, hope you enjoy ladders off the back of the trucks.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

For all of the bemoaning, the Spartan was likely a doable approach to solving that issue. A battle taxi with some cross country performance, some protection against mines at an affordable price.

 

[Eland2]

For all of the bemoaning, the Spartan was likely a doable approach to solving that issue. A battle taxi with some cross country performance, some protection against mines at an affordable price.

Just wanted to point out the picture shows a Saxon APC, not a Spartan. Nevertheless, it looks like the Saxon acquitted itself rather nicely. The Saxons weren't designed for front-line service, they were mainly employed to ferry infantry to rear-echelon areas in Germany, and from there the infantry would disperse to their assigned positions.

Here's a picture of a Spartan:

 

[Mountie]

You don't need much weight for a mortar carrier, and TAPV is a pretty big vehicle. TAPV is 17 tons. We used the 13 ton Bison as an 81mm carrier for years. And the Americans use the M1129 variant of the Stryker/LAV-3 as a 120mm mortar carrier -- it clocks in at 16 tons (no turret helps). But I agree that the LAV platform is a proven mortar carrier -- I don't think anyone's ever even tried putting a mortar on the M1117/TAPV family of vehicles.

Here is a link to a TAPV based 81mm mortar.  The Commando is the base line vehicle the TAPV was developed from.

http://legacy.pitchengine.com/textronsystems/textronmarinelandsystemsintroducestwonewvehiclestoitscommandotmfamilyofvehicles

 

[Old EO Tech]

Given the way the trend with vehicles is, high off the ground, that isn't going to change any time soon, hope you enjoy ladders off the back of the trucks.

The only smaller-ish type wheeled vehicle I see coming eventually will be the LSVW replacement, though I'm betting it'll still be in the 2.5-5 ton range, but still much smaller than the MLVW/HLVW replacements.  Might be the only new vehicle suited to actually moving troops close to A1/F ech and be somewhat tactically low profile.  All the other LVM vehicles are designed to be resource movers really from the FSG/B ech/A2 ech etc.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

My bad, I meant Saxon

 

[Underway]

What's the current plan for infantry or armoured assault troops to use the TAPV?

I was reading an article on infantry sections across ABCA organizations and how they relate to their vehicles.  There were some thoughts on TAPV employment in there.

My COA's for standard section organization:

A)  - Employ 2 TAPV per section and increase the section size to 12 total (4 dismounts+ 2 crew * 2 TAPV per section),
      - Everyone in this organization is from the same platoon or troop
      - for infantry this creates extra pers for dismounted operations without vehicles should the vehicles not be required
      - allows for more easy integration of the TAPV as an extension of combat power
      -has a nice symmetry to it with two evenly organized assault groups per section that will fit current force organization


B)  - Same as above but driver and gunner are troopers and dismounts are infantry
        - would have to increase the number of vehicles per platoon to 10 vice 8 to fit in normal platoon size  (A section, B section, C section, D section, E section) 
        -perhaps this would allow E section to take on speciality roles (MG section, sharp shooters, scouts whatever....)
        - this formation would more likely have the TAPV operate in an APC role, get the troops near the objective and then they fight their way there, TAPV would not be considered part of   
          the section, but could/should provide fire support and/or Zulu harbour

C)  - mix of the above, TAPV crew would be troopers but the infantry platoon would be smaller, only 4 sections of 8 dismounts.
      - APC role tactics, TAPV is not considered integral to the section.

 

[Old EO Tech]

What's the current plan for infantry or armoured assault troops to use the TAPV?

I was reading an article on infantry sections across ABCA organizations and how they relate to their vehicles.  There were some thoughts on TAPV employment in there.

My COA's for standard section organization:

A)  - Employ 2 TAPV per section and increase the section size to 12 total (4 dismounts+ 2 crew * 2 TAPV per section),
      - Everyone in this organization is from the same platoon or troop
      - for infantry this creates extra pers for dismounted operations without vehicles should the vehicles not be required
      - allows for more easy integration of the TAPV as an extension of combat power
      -has a nice symmetry to it with two evenly organized assault groups per section that will fit current force organization


B)  - Same as above but driver and gunner are troopers and dismounts are infantry
        - would have to increase the number of vehicles per platoon to 10 vice 8 to fit in normal platoon size  (A section, B section, C section, D section, E section) 
        -perhaps this would allow E section to take on speciality roles (MG section, sharp shooters, scouts whatever....)
        - this formation would more likely have the TAPV operate in an APC role, get the troops near the objective and then they fight their way there, TAPV would not be considered part of   
          the section, but could/should provide fire support and/or Zulu harbour

C)  - mix of the above, TAPV crew would be troopers but the infantry platoon would be smaller, only 4 sections of 8 dismounts.
      - APC role tactics, TAPV is not considered integral to the section.

I think this discussion is a bit theoretical on the CA side as unless something radical is about to happen with PY's, we do not have Infantry Pioneers or Armoured Assault Troops, and no plans to change that.  Our TAPV's are being used for transport for Cbt Spt Coy, ie Recce Pl and Sniper Pl.  And TAPV in concert with LAV6 Recce vehicles are going to be used by the Armoured Recce Squadrons.  How they are going to be used in the LIB is still not all that clear other than creating a motorized LI Coy...and to be honest the LIB don't want the TAPV as it's a vehicle without doctrine to support it's use.