• 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

A vertically launched, small UAV that can stay fairly low & quiet...acquire targets...and then be engaged with a ATGM of some sort, fired from the TAPV turret? 

Now that sounds like a good idea.  Great for Recce with the UAV option, and able to take out more than just soft skinned vehicles & enemy personnel if SHTF.

**I'm pleased to hear they are a lot more quiet than I would have thought.

Smart thinking.
 
Hoe about small vertical uav plus Spike NLOS (as opposed to an ATGM requiring line of sight)?  The Israelis have already mounted on vehicles much smaller than TAPV.
 
Humphrey Bogart said:
Point taken; however, I would hardly take satisfaction in flood fighting as a gauge of whether it's effective in combat operations.  It's an MRAP that we said is a Recce vehicle.

Remius did not say that flood relief ops had been their entire experience with the vehicle to date. If "mobility and handling", ability to "get in and out of tight spots", and quietness were described favourably that would indicate that they've had at least a little chance to play with it in the field. Troops are more likely to complain about shortcomings than laud positive aspects, so any lack of complaints also indicates something.

I await further user reviews, of course, but the only one seen so far is not that bad.
 
Cdn Blackshirt said:
If doctrine was already written for g-wagon and rg-31, coyote, how is this different?
Doctrine was not written for RG-31.  We bought the vehicle to do a job for the mission in Afghanistan.  Then for some reason the army staff college started teaching that it was the platform for the light company in an independent BG and for the light Bn in a CMBG … but doctrine was not written for it.  Then somebody decided since we had it in Afghanistan we needed to institutionalize it with an enduring platform, and the distribution fit the staff college organization model … and still no doctrine was written.  Then, the infantry corps persuaded the army that the TAPV was a bad doctrinally for the light infantry, but we had already committed to buying at this point, so it is coming.
 
Humphrey Bogart said:
Mind you, I think our Armoured Doctrine is about 30 years out of date. 

The whole concept of "sneak and peak" is a non-starter against a technologically advanced adversary. I've watched similar conversations on here for over a decade and they generally seem to ignore the realities of enemy EW and ISR capabilities.

Without serious attention to signature management, and lacking support from GBAD or a Gen 5 fighter - you might as well do your recce in a tank. At least it hits hard and has protection (and you will need it, very fast)

:2c:
 
Spectrum said:
The whole concept of "sneak and peak" is a non-starter against a technologically advanced adversary. I've watched similar conversations on here for over a decade and they generally seem to ignore the realities of enemy EW and ISR capabilities.

Without serious attention to signature management, and lacking support from GBAD or a Gen 5 fighter - you might as well do your recce in a tank. At least it hits hard and has protection (and you will need it, very fast)

:2c:
:goodpost:
 
Spectrum said:
The whole concept of "sneak and peak" is a non-starter against a technologically advanced adversary. I've watched similar conversations on here for over a decade and they generally seem to ignore the realities of enemy EW and ISR capabilities.

Without serious attention to signature management, and lacking support from GBAD or a Gen 5 fighter - you might as well do your recce in a tank. At least it hits hard and has protection (and you will need it, very fast)

:2c:

I've said this before in other threads.  If the sky is clear, someone will see you on foot from miles away on IR.  A vehicle running...good luck.  If the sky isn't clear, and I have GMTI and SAR radar abilities, I can still see you.

Cam and concealment is going, and should already be starting to, expand well beyond helmet skrim, cam paint and foliage on vehicles.  Airborne ISR is scary good and getting better.
 
Eye In The Sky said:
I've said this before in other threads.  If the sky is clear, someone will see you on foot from miles away on IR.  A vehicle running...good luck.  If the sky isn't clear, and I have GMTI and SAR radar abilities, I can still see you.

Cam and concealment is going, and should already be starting to, expand well beyond helmet skrim, cam paint and foliage on vehicles.  Airborne ISR is scary good and getting better.

Given multi-spectral analysis is camouflage particularly useful?  Or, should you just revert to scarlets in the field?
 
I don't see a reason to stop using traditional cam and concealment...but the benefit of it is (IMO) severely degraded if someone has IR.  IR also has limitations, but unless you are completely out of sight, its hard to conceal yourself from it...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPMZZ2nJ_nI

 
This concept seems to check some of the boxes that I'd want if I was going up against Russia or China:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_TPzN1s9FQ

A few things I'd have to read up on or tweak perhaps, but overall a step in the right direction.

You will notice it looks nothing like a jeep, MRAP, or LAV.





 
The CV90120 which it is based on would also do nicely (and removing one of the ammo racks would give you room for 2 dismounts), and the ROK's K-21 IFV now has a 120mm armed tank variant as well.
 
Spectrum said:
The whole concept of "sneak and peak" is a non-starter against a technologically advanced adversary. I've watched similar conversations on here for over a decade and they generally seem to ignore the realities of enemy EW and ISR capabilities.

Without serious attention to signature management, and lacking support from GBAD or a Gen 5 fighter - you might as well do your recce in a tank. At least it hits hard and has protection (and you will need it, very fast)

:2c:

So in your opinion then the LAV Recce option and the TAPV recce are fine, with their attached surveillance packages (big mast and all that)?  Doesn't matter that the vehicles are big and noisy because we are either going to be far away using EO/IR on a mast peering over terrain, or are armoured/armed enough to fight our way out of a light vehicle or infantry engagement.  Perhaps outfit the TAPV with a small RPV and don't go anywhere near the enemy formations.  I can see that working on paper.

But that seems like armoured surveillance to me, not armoured recce (disclaimer: navy guy talking out of his a** here, take opinion with dose of salt).  Can't really find or prove routes/terrain by sitting in one spot.  Air recce doesn't find minefields (generally) or prove the terrain that vehicles and infantry can move over.  Nor do they do all the other various things that boots on the ground do (identify jumping off points and securing them etc...some possible confusion with Recce Platoon jobs here...again navy guy).  If that was the case then Afghanistan would have been a cakewalk with all the air surveillance and air recce elements we had.

Thucydides said:
The CV90120 which it is based on would also do nicely (and removing one of the ammo racks would give you room for 2 dismounts), and the ROK's K-21 IFV now has a 120mm armed tank variant as well.
My only issue with a 120mm light tank is that 120mm encourages you to hunt bear when you should only be able to deal with wascally wabbits.  Perhaps a 105mm version would be better as it can kill anything as light as itself, support infantry with direct fire but not be able to duel a tank.  And would leave enough space for 2 dismounts.

The UK might have it right with the Ajax as their armoured recce element.  40mm is stronger than most other IFV and recce element armour.  ATGM don't seem very Canadian budget or doctrine wise, so Bradley is right out. Perhaps a ground launched version of CRV7 instead.

Third hand info:  combat support elements like the TAPV, Recce not so much (big, noisy).  Any newer first hand info now that more have been delivered and they were used in the Quebec floods?
 
Options for 120 mm gun mounts -

The Gun on a Trailer

rapira_2.jpg


The Gun in a Tank

Leopard2A6M_Canada_03.jpg


Future development options

The Gun on the back of a Truck

KG9gnOguxcGLzJo2X8jvl9wNytwppzONnyFq0js5odA.jpg


The Gun in an aluminum fire starter

90mm.jpg


4 different ways of getting the gun into the field so that it can punch holes in stuff.

I understand some people like to keep a bit of metal between them and the enemy.  Personally I prefer a hill.
 
Gun on a truck is my favourite.  At least it's pointed in the right direction so you can shoot at the tank while running away!

Just looked up the Australian LAND 400 program.  Their phase 2 competitors are the AMV35 and Boxer which are designated Combat Reconnaissance Vehicles.  Australia wants STANAG level 6 armour on the base model for their recce elements (which is why LAV 6.0 didn't make the cut).  Everyone seems to be going heavy.  Maybe we aren't heavy enough or are just doubling down on a middleweight force with some heavy elements.
 
Underway said:
Gun on a truck is my favourite.  At least it's pointed in the right direction so you can shoot at the tank while running away!

Just looked up the Australian LAND 400 program.  Their phase 2 competitors are the AMV35 and Boxer which are designated Combat Reconnaissance Vehicles.  Australia wants STANAG level 6 armour on the base model for their recce elements (which is why LAV 6.0 didn't make the cut).  Everyone seems to be going heavy.  Maybe we aren't heavy enough or are just doubling down on a middleweight force with some heavy elements.

Roger that on the truck.  Same here.

And with respect to the heavy vehicle - I would like to go on record as suggesting that the next vehicle project be named Mantlet.  "A mantlet was a large shield or portable shelter used for stopping projectiles in medieval warfare. It could be mounted on a wheeled carriage, and protected one or several soldiers."

500px-Mantelets.defensifs.png


PROTECTION, Movement, (FIREPOWER)



 
http://www.mandusgroup.com/artillery_solutions/hawkeye_105mm.php

mount this on TAPV or LAV?
 
So as a highly mobile self-propelled artillery?

Do they have a precision 105mm yet that would work?

If not, would it not be better to use a 120mm mortar?

Just to further that thought, I always wondered if it would make sense to create a second variant of the TAPV.  So the initial variate carries out surveillance, while the second variant carries out fire support support.  So take the existing design chassis from the surveillance variant, then modify a new variant with either the 120mm mortar, or with something like Spike-NLOS (not sure if anyone has seen the Israeli light design, but if they can mount 8 missiles on a Sandcat Truck, they should be able to mount at least that many on a TAPV).  Add a light C-RAM component and an integrated light UAV and ensure the whole unit would be C-17 deployable. [Off Topic: Still disappointed we didn't purchase more C-17's while they were available].
 
suffolkowner said:
http://www.mandusgroup.com/artillery_solutions/hawkeye_105mm.php

mount this on TAPV or LAV?

or this http://defenceindustry.co.za/2017/08/01/bae-sa-igg-uae-agrab-mk2-120mm-mobile-mortar-system/
 
Chris Pook said:
Options for 120 mm gun mounts -

The Gun on a Trailer

rapira_2.jpg


The Gun in a Tank

Leopard2A6M_Canada_03.jpg


Future development options

The Gun on the back of a Truck

KG9gnOguxcGLzJo2X8jvl9wNytwppzONnyFq0js5odA.jpg


The Gun in an aluminum fire starter

90mm.jpg


4 different ways of getting the gun into the field so that it can punch holes in stuff.

I understand some people like to keep a bit of metal between them and the enemy.  Personally I prefer a hill.

You forgot 'The Beast' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvis_Saladin

I worked with Saladins on exercise in Cyprus. Noisy, but impressive!
 
Back
Top