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

[Recon 3690]

Heres some oldies for you, are we going backwards?
WW II Fox

 

[Recon 3690]

Ferret

 

[McG]

... what are these mental midgets thinking?

Well, if any are/were reading, they are probably now thinking to ignore anything you might post.  Try following the site's guidance on tone & content.  Not only does this keep the level of discussion higher, it will increase the chances of decision makers paying attention to any  insights that you post.

Heres some oldies for you, are we going backwards?

So what?  I can post pictures of successful wheeled recce vehicles.  Compared to the Fennik, many other armys with tracked vehicles must be "going backwards" ... right?  Let's try to stick to real arguments and not all showman flash.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

If the recce variant of the TAPV was able to be split into its own separate program, the newly released Panhard Sphinx might make a very interesting candidate:
http://www.armyrecognition.com/french_army_france_wheeled_armoured_vehicle_uk/sphinx_panhard_ebrc_armoured_vehicle_reconnaissance_combat_technical_data_sheet_specifications_uk.html

 

[The Bread Guy]

From this news release:

Force Protection Industries, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Force Protection Inc., a leading designer, developer and manufacturer of survivability solutions and provider of total life cycle support for those products, and SNC-Lavalin Defense Contractors, Inc., a Canadian-based provider and one of the leading engineering and construction groups in the world, today announced the formation of a strategic partnership to collaborate on the solution for the Canadian Government's Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle ("TAPV") program.

Force Protection Industries, Inc. previously announced that it has been selected by the Canadian Government as one of the competitor companies to provide up to 600 vehicles and related long term support services, with contract award to the final selected bidder in 2011.

Randy Hutcherson, Chief Operating Officer for Force Protection Industries, Inc., said, "We are very pleased to partner with SNC-Lavalin, a highly-respected and experienced company in the Canadian defence sector, to provide the winning solution for the TAPV project. Force Protection Industries and SNC are committed to providing the Canadian Forces with the safest, most reliable vehicle while investing in Canadian industry. We are looking forward to working with SNC as they have a wide range of capabilities and experience that will help shape the winning technical, support, and industrial and regional benefit solution for the Canadian government that will help save the lives of Canadian soldiers."

Peter Langlais, Senior Vice President and General Manager for SNC, commented, "Force Protection is bringing its expertise in design and supportability for its highly successful Cougar vehicles as the platform for the TAPV solution. Cougars are currently in use by Canada and have been instrumental in ensuring the safe transport of the men and women of the Canadian Forces. The Cougar TAPV will be specifically designed to meet the Canadian Government's requirements. The primary manufacturing and supportability will be completed in Canada, and Force Protection and SNC will work closely together with other Canadian partners to ensure that Canadian troops get the best possible solution available in terms of safety and performance, as well as a great value for the government." ....

 

[REDinstaller]

I don't think the Sphinx is going to be upto replacing the Coyote sensor wise. It has a crew of 3, hard to man sensors when they all have tasks to carry out. A 4 man veh with a turret would be better, then there is always the ability to have a GIB as an extra set of eyes to the rear.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

Out of the TAPV candidates that were submitted during the SOIQ the pre-qualified bidders are shortlisted to:

BAE Systems Hägglunds AB, Sweden--Alligator 6x6

BAE Systems Land Systems OMC, South Africa--RG-31 Mk5 EM

BAE Systems Land Systems OMC, South Africa --RG35 RPU

Force Protection Industries, Inc, USA --Cougar 4x4

Force Protection Industries, Inc, USA --Cougar 6x6

Nexter Systems, France --Aravis

Oshkosh Corporation, USA --M-ATV

Textron Marine and Land Systems, USA --MSV (Mobile Survivable Vehicle)

Thales Australia (response submitted through Thales Canada Inc.) --Bushmaster

Out of these candidates, about the only one that looks more like a dedicated AFV instead of an MRAP type truck is the BAE Alligator 6x6:  http://www.baesystems.com/Sites/ProductLaunches2010/Video/Alligator6x6/index.htm

 

[Lance Wiebe]

I checked out all of the contenders......I'm not convinced that any of them will make a decent recce vehicle.  Surveillance vehicle, maybe.

 

[McBrush]

I must agree with Lance. Looking at all the Platforms I cant help but think of the log. issues the Res. Force would deal with. I do believe they will get some. It reminds me of the AVGP's. Having served on them and the Lynx. As I recall the roll of Recce. included Rear Area Security,Flank Guard,Convoy Escort,Screen etc.. Correct me if I am wrong Today they also in the RCD/12RBC have Direct Fire Support Sqn's. I believe in order to replace the Coyote you need all the current capabilities plus more.  The biggest upgrade would have to be the main gun. In the Convoy Escort, Rear Area Security the platform will provide close in Direct Fire Support, in a combined arms task force operation. Given the contenders I believe the only plateform that could support a 2 man turret would be the  BAE Alligator. The short fall would be no room for a Surveillance System. As for the main gun upgrade the Mk. 3 90mm or the Israeli 60mm HVG in order to keep it off the shelf. I believe the auto loading system for the 60mm should be the choice as the Crew Commander would have the ability to maintain Situational Awareness as they have now on the Coyote. The army needs to go forward not back ! Others have made the same observation and I totally agree.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

There won't be a log problem for the Reserves. As of this years Corps Conference, they aren't slated to receive any.

 

[McG]

Out of these candidates, about the only one that looks more like a dedicated AFV instead of an MRAP type truck is the BAE Alligator 6x6:  http://www.baesystems.com/Sites/ProductLaunches2010/Video/Alligator6x6/index.htm

I think we definately need an AFV and not a truck.  Looking at the Alligator, we may as well call on GDLS to build us a lower-profile 6x6 LAV III so that we could at least recieve logistic benefits from the common parts & training.

...I cant help but think of the log. issues the Res. Force would deal with. I do believe they will get some.

Actually, under the previous CLS the Army was very clear that it would not be buying armoured vehicles for the PRes.  I doubt that has changed and the PRes will not have to deal with any logistic issues related to TAPV.

The biggest upgrade would have to be the main gun.

We've had some other discussions on firepower for TAPV (Recce) above:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/87547/post-855985.html#msg855985

 

[McBrush]

No offense to anyone. Back in the day as a Strat. in Recce Sqn. My favorite song was 6 weeks in a leaky boat. LOL  My Lynx pulled out more stuck 6x6's  be it a Cougar or Grizzly, then any ARV did for tracks in a tank Reg. But I agree we do not need a truck. But why a 6x6 go with the LAV III H and do a proper replacement with a upgraded gun. Thanks for the correction on PRes. I was under the impression they would get some. And also on the main gun link. Cheers

 

[George Wallace]

I couldn't agree more.  Situational awareness is critical in a recce vehicle. Unless, of course, we are going to buy another surveillance vehicle instead of a recce vehicle....

I wonder who in the Corps came up with that idea?

I know someone whose name began with a "K" who thought the Coyote and ISTAR where the greatest things since sliced bread.

 

[a_majoor]

I still call BS on the idea that the reserve cannot handle dedicated AFV's like the Alligator or LAV III.

Once again, I will point out the US National Guard only trains one weekend a month, but uses M-1 Abrams tanks, M-2 Bradley IFV's, MLRS and Paladin SP artillery etc. Swedish troops finish thier period of conscription and then are placed in reserve, they undergo two weeks training a year, but can operate CV-90 IFV's and Striv 122 tanks (Leopard 2 A-5 with improved protection and other modifications), and the IDF up to one month annually, although not all reservists are called up on any particular year. Our troops generally train one night a week, one weekend a month and deploy for concentration for @ 2 weeks during the summer, a far greater amount of time than these other reserve forces.

Buying larger quantities of vehicles for the Reserves will increase the pool of skilled operators, mechanics and so on, as well as lower unit costs through economies of scale. This process could also break us free of "managed readiness" by allowing for bulk buys of equipment to ensure that everyone has the equipment needed, so increasing the breadth and depth of the forces as a whole. Modern equipment is far mor robust and easier to service than past generation, so the dedicated full time staff needed to pull weekly maintainence would not necessarily break the bank either.

This purchasing of equipment in penny packets to stay under a yearly budget threshold, and denying the equipment to the Reserve simply increases costs over the long term, and narrows the breadth and depth of the Armed Forces, particularly in the Armoured trade, as George eloquently reminds us. 

 

[Matt_Fisher]

Whilst in agreement in principal with what Thucydides is saying about reserve competency, the biggest issue the CFs would have to overcome is the inclusion/incorporation of the necessary EME/Log support assets at the reserve unit level which would allow any sort of 'sophisticated' vehicle/weapon system to be maintained. 

 

[George Wallace]

Whilst in agreement in principal with what Thucydides is saying about reserve competency, the biggest issue the CFs would have to overcome is the inclusion/incorporation of the necessary EME/Log support assets at the reserve unit level which would allow any sort of 'sophisticated' vehicle/weapon system to be maintained.

Along with a Reg F or Class B posn or two to provide 'continuity' in labour on any projects.

 

[dapaterson]

USAR/ANG have equipment in depots where troops fall on to the equipment.  Our attempt at that resulted in Meaford, hardly a model to emulate.

Equipment sustainment costs increase as the number of vehicles increase.  Economy of scale may mean some minor savings, but a widely dispersed fleet will counter many of those savings.

Claims of easier maintenance have been made for every equipment buy.  Someday those claims may turn out to be true.  Until then, ensuring servicability of vehicles, sensors and weapons systems are operational will require a significant amount of effort, and will require skillsets not present in the Reserves (EO Tech, among others).

The assertion:

This purchasing of equipment in penny packets to stay under a yearly budget threshold, and denying the equipment to the Reserve simply increases costs over the long term

displays an ignorance of defence procurement and processes.  Acquisitions are made with approvals for the overall budget, not year-by-year.    ADM(Mat) manages the capital budget year-by-year, knowing in advance which projects are scheduled to expend what amounts, and making in-year adjustments to balance the program - but those in-year adjustments do not impact overall project budgets; they may defer expenditures or accelerate them.


Finally, prior to any capital project there are detailed analysses conducted to assess not only per unit acquisition costs but also sustainment costs.  Quantities purchased are not selected by some dark cabal conspiring against the Reserves (not even D Armd does that); rather, they are made assessing available capital and O&M funds and identifying what is possible within allocated funding envelopes.  Demand for funds outstrips supplies; therefore, priorities are established and assigned.

 

[Trooper Hale]

If it makes you all feel a little better, we're having the same arguments in Australia about vehicles and whats going to replace the ASLAV.
The plan, according to DMO, is that the Army is to get a "universal vehicle" under the Land 400 project that can be fitted with a suite of different set ups. Thus, Cavalry will have a different turret on their chassis then the Infantry and the Engineers will have a different set up completely but still the same chassis. It'll have the ability to be fitted with tracks OR wheels.
If they find this magical vehicle it'll be happy days but I cant see it happening.
The one man turret thing is something people here talk about as well. Anyone who's been in a turret knows its ridiculous. The French built fantastic tanks in the 1930's but gave them a one man turret. This was proved to be a bad idea by the Germans. The Russians built the BMP-1 with a one man turret then replaced it with the BMP-2 because the one man turret didnt work. We're supposed to learn from the mistakes of the past but people seem to quickly forget those lessons. They dont see some poor bugger, caged into a tight metal box, trying to send reports and returns over the net, direct a driver, scan for targets, load a gun bigger then 12.7mm then engage a target on his own. Its a bad idea and I hope its realised.

I like the ASLAV and I think its a grand vehicle but its not designed for what we do with it. I'm not sure how you treat yours out bush but we haven't really changed to much of our thinking since the Cav regiments got rid of the M113's. Its not unusual for the Regiment to finish our end of year 4 or 5 week bush exercise and have exhausted the ADF's supply of LAV tyres and prop shafts. Its a great vehicle but its not made to be driven through close country and bush. The greatest LAV driver in the world will still blow a tyre when he's told to drive through thick scrub, regardless of how thick you make the tyre's walls.

Someone said it best earlier, this next replacement is probably going to be our last go at it. If we get it wrong then Cavalry/Recce will cease to function in the role we're supposed to play. And I really hope that both our countries pick the right vehicle. Something small, quick, tracked and with a decent two man turret and gun.

 

[a_majoor]

Clever engineers can usually come up with fantastic concepts which crash and burn in the real world. A particular favorite of mine is the XM-808"twister", which can be thought of as a BV-206 running on wheels (as a first approximation). Each half was a separate vehicle, powered by a Chrysler engine (a 440 Hemi option wasn't offered, alas) with high degrees of articulation in each unit's suspension and a very high degree of freedom in the "yoke" that joined each half.

You can only imagine the maintainance nightmare this could have been...

The idea of a "universal vehicle" isn't really that bad, so long as expectations can be curbed. Running on wheels and tracks may be a bit much (Walter Christie may be the only person ever to have done this with some degree of success), but some vehicles like the "Centurio" and our own LAV 3 do have the ability to be kitted out for multiple roles (The Centurio tank destroyer can act as a heavy APC by removing the rear ammunition rack and substituting four soldiers, while innumerable LAV prototypes have been built for all kinds of roles). If tracks are desired, the venerable M-113 is still going strong in armies throughout the world, built and rebuilt in innumerable variations and roles, a modern "M-113" design incorporating decades of lessons learned and modern material science would probably fit the bill nicely for a tracked vehicle.

A LAV H hull mounting a CV-CT gun turret would make a very effective "Cavalry" type patrol vehicle and recce DF vehicle, and would be fairly quick and easy to put into service, its complimentary partners would be a regular LAV-H for the crunchies and a LAV-H hull with a surveillance suite where the dismounts go.

Not a 100% solution (especially for advocates of "Mud Recce"), but in terms of fleet management, logistics and training, this might be as good as it can get.

 

[George Wallace]

A Recce DF Vehicle?  A Tank Destroyer maybe, but not a Recce DF Vehicle.  Anti-Tank or Assault Gun perhaps, but definitely not Recce.