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

[Colin Parkinson]

What role does the CAF have for a vehicle like that?

Honestly without a Military Police trade that does Convoy Escort or Perimeter Defense, this vehicle is pointless.

Well we can look good by giving them to Ukraine.

 

[GR66]

Well we can look good by giving them to Ukraine.

Look good to the Russians?

 

[Kirkhill]

What role does the CAF have for a vehicle like that?

Honestly without a Military Police trade that does Convoy Escort or Perimeter Defense, this vehicle is pointless.

Because there is no trade then there is no requirement?

Canada has no requirement to escort convoys or defend perimeters? Or just move bodies administratively behind the line of contact?

The video made three points that I found noteworthy.

One. The Commando was light. The TAPV isn't but could be.
Two. The M1117 could carry 8 dismounts. The TAPV can't.
Three. The M1117 was less susceptible to rollover than MRAPs. The TAPV is highly susceptible.

Fix the TAPV so that it is light, can carry 8 dismounts and doesn't roll over. In short, make it like it used to was.
If that means losing some of the capabilities that caused the problems, so be it. Better something than nothing.

And, for bonus points, Cappy noted that the original vehicle, like its Soviet counter part the BRDM, was amphibious....

 

[McG]

There is no modding the TAPV into a M1117. They look similar and share a lineage, but they are not the same vehicle. We could do the LAV III to LAV 6 shell game, but that is not a low-cost undertaking and I don’t see value for the money it would cost.

 

[GK .Dundas]

Somewhere either in this thread or one of the others involving the TAPV . I stated if we're really serious about finding a role for this vehicle, We could use them if all else failed we could use them as hard targets on various ranges.
At the time I was joking now I am starting to wonder if now it's just an idea whose time may have finally come.

 

[KevinB]

There is no modding the TAPV into a M1117. They look similar and share a lineage, but they are not the same vehicle. We could do the LAV III to LAV 6 shell game, but that is not a low-cost undertaking and I don’t see value for the money it would cost.

This is the biggest point that many haven’t grasped.

Frankly the only role I think they should be playing in Canada is given to the RCAF to provide a Base Security Vehicle.
For a Canadian Army vehicle they simply have too many negatives, to employ, while the RCAF has a need for something to ensure the F-35 Airfields can be secured and patrolled.

 

[Kirkhill]

This is the biggest point that many haven’t grasped.

Frankly the only role I think they should be playing in Canada is given to the RCAF to provide a Base Security Vehicle.
For a Canadian Army vehicle they simply have too many negatives, to employ, while the RCAF has a need for something to ensure the F-35 Airfields can be secured and patrolled.

So the Canadian Army took a perfectly functional vehicle and screwed it up? FUBAR?

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

The TAPV was acquired to meet the needs of Kandahar circa 2008 and any future Kandahars. It was meant to replace RG-31s and GWagons etc. It then expanded to try to cover reconnaissance as Coyotes were suffering significant losses and were at the limits of blast-proofing. I am not an engineer/designer, but designing vehicles that offer enhanced protection against IEDs/mines means making sacrifices. To allow for protective seating you can't just jam in as many people as the internal volume allows.

We have not gone to a theatre with similar parameters, but had we found ourselves in someplace like Mali with ground troops then the TAPV would have been a very suitable vehicle for CIMIC, LOs, convoy escort etc, patrols etc. I saw very similar vehicles (not TAPV but IVECO 4x4s etc) running around in southern Lebanon in 2014 doing very useful work on the Blue Line. Who knows what the future will bring in terms of deployments.

 

[GK .Dundas]

The TAPV was acquired to meet the needs of Kandahar circa 2008 and any future Kandahars. It was meant to replace RG-31s and GWagons etc. It then expanded to try to cover reconnaissance as Coyotes were suffering significant losses and were at the limits of blast-proofing. I am not an engineer/designer, but designing vehicles that offer enhanced protection against IEDs/mines means making sacrifices. To allow for protective seating you can't just jam in as many people as the internal volume allows.

We have not gone to a theatre with similar parameters, but had we found ourselves in someplace like Mali with ground troops then the TAPV would have been a very suitable vehicle for CIMIC, LOs, convoy escort etc, patrols etc. I saw very similar vehicles (not TAPV but IVECO 4x4s etc) running around in southern Lebanon in 2014 doing very useful work on the Blue Line. Who knows what the future will bring in terms of deployments.

The design process from the outside looking in seemed to have been driven by the need to get a jump on the race between a vehicles protection and the corresponding increase in IED size and effectiveness .
One of the other factors seems to have driven by fear of what could happen to the political health of the government of the day by increasing casualties leading to decrease in popular support for the war this leading to a drop in popular support for the government.
One of the impressions that I got was that there was a.greart deal of pressure to design an utterly IED proofed vehicle . In the past that looked like the designers were shooting for a vehicle that withstand an IED in the megaton range.
The TAPV is very much a a one trick pony a niche vehicle if you will.

 

[OldSolduer]

One of the impressions that I got was that there was a.greart deal of pressure to design AN utterly IED proofed vehicle . In the past that looked like the designers were shooting for a vehicle that withstand an IED in the megaton range.

That is a very impractical way of designing a vehicle. That will never happen, but the majority of people think it can.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The design process from the outside looking in seemed to have been driven by the need to get a jump on the race between a vehicles protection and the corresponding increase in IED size and effectiveness .
One of the other factors seems to have driven by fear of what could happen to the political health of the government of the day by increasing casualties leading to decrease in popular support for the war this leading to a drop in popular support for the government.
One of the impressions that I got was that there was a.greart deal of pressure to design an utterly IED proofed vehicle . In the past that looked like the designers were shooting for a vehicle that withstand an IED in the megaton range.
The TAPV is very much a a one trick pony a niche vehicle if you will.

We have those, as long as the passengers don't mind walking

 

[Kirkhill]

The TAPV was acquired to meet the needs of Kandahar circa 2008 and any future Kandahars. It was meant to replace RG-31s and GWagons etc. It then expanded to try to cover reconnaissance as Coyotes were suffering significant losses and were at the limits of blast-proofing. I am not an engineer/designer, but designing vehicles that offer enhanced protection against IEDs/mines means making sacrifices. To allow for protective seating you can't just jam in as many people as the internal volume allows.

We have not gone to a theatre with similar parameters, but had we found ourselves in someplace like Mali with ground troops then the TAPV would have been a very suitable vehicle for CIMIC, LOs, convoy escort etc, patrols etc. I saw very similar vehicles (not TAPV but IVECO 4x4s etc) running around in southern Lebanon in 2014 doing very useful work on the Blue Line. Who knows what the future will bring in terms of deployments.

Fair enough. Then give them the Green Godess treatment and put them into long term storage "come the day".

The Green Godess was a 1950s truck with a tank and a pump designed for civil defence that spent the best part of 50 years sitting in warehouses "just in case". They were hauled out whenever the fire service went on strike.

 

[FJAG]

Fair enough. Then give them the Green Godess treatment and put them into long term storage "come the day".

I honestly can't understand the negative reputation that this vehicle has.

Yup, I can see that it's not an adequate vehicle for reconnaissance, but in a vehicle poor army, especially on the reserve side, it makes an adequate training vehicle if nothing else. On top of that I can see numerous uses for it on deployments. If I look at an artillery battery for example I can see it filling the role of an arty recce vehicle, a troop sergeant major's vehicle, maybe even as the armoured detachment vehicle for a gun crew or even an MUAV det.

All that I've heard so far is it can roll over in certain situations - at this point the M152 and even LAVs enter the chat (why do you think we started putting roll bars on all of our M152s and Iltises in the 70s?). Do aggressive driving in unfriendly terrain and vehicles with soft or high suspensions can roll.

For an army that is vehicle poor some of us seem to be all too ready to throw 500 of our all too few armoured vehicles under the bus.

 

[GK .Dundas]

I honestly can't understand the negative reputation that this vehicle has.

Yup, I can see that it's not an adequate vehicle for reconnaissance, but in a vehicle poor army, especially on the reserve side, it makes an adequate training vehicle if nothing else. On top of that I can see numerous uses for it on deployments. If I look at an artillery battery for example I can see it filling the role of an arty recce vehicle, a troop sergeant major's vehicle, maybe even as the armoured detachment vehicle for a gun crew or even an MUAV det.

All that I've heard so far is it can roll over in certain situations - at this point the M152 and even LAVs enter the chat (why do you think we started putting roll bars on all of our M152s and Iltises in the 70s?). Do aggressive driving in unfriendly terrain and vehicles with soft or high suspensions can roll.

For an army that is vehicle poor some of us seem to be all too ready to throw 500 of our all too few armoured vehicles under the bus.

You have a good point in fact I suspect with some armoured units the have been without any sort of armor for 20 to 30 odd years. You'd probably have to do the withdrawal of the TAPV at gunpoint.
It's a pity that during the short period when DND was in love with all things French. We couldn't have bought the VBL.....Le sigh

 

[FJAG]

It's a pity that during the short period when DND was in love with all things French. We couldn't have bought the VBL.....Le sigh

Honestly, VBL has for a long time been my model of what a light, sneak and peak recce vehicle should be.

It probably doesn't meet the minimum mine survivability factor anymore, but I think with today's improvements in automotives and armour you could upgrade the protection within the same general form factor. At the end of the day armour protection, mobility and armament are always a trade-off and at some point there is a level of risk that has to be accepted.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Honestly, VBL has for a long time been my model of what a light, sneak and peak recce vehicle should be.

It probably doesn't meet the minimum mine survivability factor anymore, but I think with today's improvements in automotives and armour you could upgrade the protection within the same general form factor. At the end of the day armour protection, mobility and armament are always a trade-off and at some point there is a level of risk that has to be accepted.

The latest Senator is taking Ukrainian lessons into account, including better mine protection.

 

[FJAG]

The latest Senator is taking Ukrainian lessons into account, including better mine protection.

I like the Senator type of vehicle as well albeit not for sneak and peak recce where my unscientific rule of thumb is that if you can't look over the top of the vehicle when standing beside it then it's too large for recce.

I mentioned using TAPVs for some armoured carrier roles on the gun line of an artillery battery. A Senator would probably do as well in all of those roles, perhaps even better. It depends on the cross-country capability and armour protection afforded by the Senator v the TAPV.

 

[GK .Dundas]

Back in the day when we ran 68 &74 pattern jeeps for mud recce . We removed the windshields which ment the highest item in the vehicle was either the radio antenna mounts or a crewman's beret.
You could make one disappear in prairie field. By the use of terrain and skillfully draped cammo net.

 

[GR66]

Back in the day when we ran 68 &74 pattern jeeps for mud recce . We removed the windshields which ment the highest item in the vehicle was either the radio antenna mounts or a crewman's beret.
You could make one disappear in prairie field. By the use of terrain and skillfully draped cammo net.

What kind of counter-UAS systems did you have deployed with you?

 

[markppcli]

I honestly can't understand the negative reputation that this vehicle has.

Poor stability and maintenance / parts contract is a shit show.

Yup, I can see that it's not an adequate vehicle for reconnaissance, but in a vehicle poor army, especially on the reserve side, it makes an adequate training vehicle if nothing else. On top of that I can see numerous uses for it on deployments. If I look at an artillery battery for example I can see it filling the role of an arty recce vehicle, a troop sergeant major's vehicle, maybe even as the armoured detachment vehicle for a gun crew or even an MUAV det.

And they exist and are allotted for those roles, guess how many in 1 RCHA were functional for our last ex…

All that I've heard so far is it can roll over in certain situations - at this point the M152 and even LAVs enter the chat (why do you think we started putting roll bars on all of our M152s and Iltises in the 70s?). Do aggressive driving in unfriendly terrain and vehicles with soft or high suspensions can roll.

While I agree any vehicle can role over; the TAPV is especially unstable even when being driven. Y experienced AFV drivers from what’s I’ve seen. The fact that in multiple cases at units I was in, those roll Ives cause the electronic doors to open while rolling is one of my concerns. The electrical fires resulting in those doors locking is another.

For an army that is vehicle poor some of us seem to be all too ready to throw 500 of our all too few armoured vehicles under the bus.

I agree that we have it and we are stuck with it. I just want to point out that the TAPV isn’t universally disparaged simply because a bunch of us don’t like that it’s not perfect. It has serious issues in “driveability” and reliability. Part of that is contracting for sure, but it does effect the vehicle itself.

Also in reference to the Commando’s 8 dismounts, bear in mind that was for 1970s era south Vietnamese soldiers wearing belt kit. Not a chance are you fitting four Canadians in that crawl space.