• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Informing the Army’s Future Structure

Would this not fit on the TAPV?
I imagine the back blast from the APKWS at high angles wouldn’t be great for a centre mounting like in the TAPV. I’m not a huge fan of VAMPIRE, to be it’s far far too specialized and APKWS requires coded laser guidance which will be a mess ina more crowded battlefield field, you’d have to coordinate coding across a spectrum of users to ensure you don’t end up dropping PGMs on your counter drone rocket launcher as an example. I’d rather have something like MSHORAD that can handle multiple threats.
 
I imagine the back blast from the APKWS at high angles wouldn’t be great for a centre mounting like in the TAPV. I’m not a huge fan of VAMPIRE, to be it’s far far too specialized and APKWS requires coded laser guidance which will be a mess ina more crowded battlefield field, you’d have to coordinate coding across a spectrum of users to ensure you don’t end up dropping PGMs on your counter drone rocket launcher as an example. I’d rather have something like MSHORAD that can handle multiple threats.
OK, so the preferred system is the MSHORAD. Can that system be mounted on a couple TAPVs?
They may require a pop up rack from a stored position to an active one quickly to minimize the height. The spare will have to go on the front.
I'm just trying to find more uses for the TAPV since they're "in stock" and it saves purchasing another vehicle. Just as an example: 40 TAPVs gives you 20 systems, radar on one and missiles on the other and gives some separation between them.

Unless the ACSV is the preferred unit. It could likely carry both the missile and radar so 20 vs 40 but no separation.
 
OK, so the preferred system is the MSHORAD. Can that system be mounted on a couple TAPVs?
They may require a pop up rack from a stored position to an active one quickly to minimize the height. The spare will have to go on the front.
I'm just trying to find more uses for the TAPV since they're "in stock" and it saves purchasing another vehicle. Just as an example: 40 TAPVs gives you 20 systems, radar on one and missiles on the other and gives some separation between them.

Unless the ACSV is the preferred unit. It could likely carry both the missile and radar so 20 vs 40 but no separation.
Or just put it on a LAV like down here…
 
Or just put it on a LAV like down here…
We already have uses for all of our LAVs. We have TAPVs just hanging around looking for a job.

In a perfect world I'd see LAVs too, if for no other reason than room for more reloads.

🍻
 
We already have uses for all of our LAVs. We have TAPVs just hanging around looking for a job.

In a perfect world I'd see LAVs too, if for no other reason than room for more reloads.

🍻
Sadly due to the version the CAF bought, I don’t see a lot of roles for the TAPV other than MP Route marking and Escort roles - which would require the MP trade to actually do field work again.

So maybe D&S work for airfields or Convoy Escort work with the Svc Bn’s.
 
Sadly due to the version the CAF bought, I don’t see a lot of roles for the TAPV other than MP Route marking and Escort roles - which would require the MP trade to actually do field work again.

So maybe D&S work for airfields or Convoy Escort work with the Svc Bn’s.

Put 'wings' on them and they'd probably make great Internal Security vehicles, like the venerable Humber Pig.

The way things are going these days in Canada, we're going to need 'em ;)

 
We already have uses for all of our LAVs. We have TAPVs just hanging around looking for a job.

In a perfect world I'd see LAVs too, if for no other reason than room for more reloads.

🍻

When all else fails chop and channel the TAPVs until you have a safe vehicle that is useful in some situations.
 
We already have uses for all of our LAVs. We have TAPVs just hanging around looking for a job.

In a perfect world I'd see LAVs too, if for no other reason than room for more reloads.

🍻

I respect the desire to see them used for something / anything of value. The problem is that the locations you could mount a weapon to are going to cause complications with the locations of the engine / back blast / ect
 
When all else fails chop and channel the TAPVs until you have a safe vehicle that is useful in some situations.
That's where I think we've lost our sense of initiative as Canadians. We accept the kit they give us and generally don't muck around with it.

If you get a piece of gear that's a pig at what it was supposed to do then you start experimenting to find something that it's useful for. I still wonder who thought that a 9 foot vehicle with a tire and a crane on top would make a good reconnaissance vehicle ... or any other functions that the project description set as objectives.

reconnaissance and surveillance, security, command and control, and armoured transport of personnel and equipment.

I respect the desire to see them used for something / anything of value. The problem is that the locations you could mount a weapon to are going to cause complications with the locations of the engine / back blast / ect

Maybe. I'm one of them Missouri "show me" folks. I see four wheels, an engine and a cab with everything else negotiable to a cutting torch and a modicum of engineering.

My guess is that notwithstanding the criticism of this vehicle on web forums like this one, the folks that run the Army still think that there is value in the vehicle as is and aren't about to put any effort into modifications for specialty uses.

🍻
 
That's where I think we've lost our sense of initiative as Canadians. We accept the kit they give us and generally don't muck around with it.

If you get a piece of gear that's a pig at what it was supposed to do then you start experimenting to find something that it's useful for. I still wonder who thought that a 9 foot vehicle with a tire and a crane on top would make a good reconnaissance vehicle ... or any other functions that the project description set as objectives.





Maybe. I'm one of them Missouri "show me" folks. I see four wheels, an engine and a cab with everything else negotiable to a cutting torch and a modicum of engineering.

My guess is that notwithstanding the criticism of this vehicle on web forums like this one, the folks that run the Army still think that there is value in the vehicle as is and aren't about to put any effort into modifications for specialty uses.

🍻
Well they’re all grounded right now so I doubt they see a whole lot of value in them beyond being able to count them as a vehicle.
 
Well they’re all grounded right now so I doubt they see a whole lot of value in them beyond being able to count them as a vehicle.
What's wrong with them anyway? I mean the grounding not the general issues.

🍻
 
What's wrong with them anyway? I mean the grounding not the general issues.

🍻
Parts as I understand it, in fairness I’m arms length to them so I’m usually a step behind the latest goings on. I know we have a gunner course for them starting next week not sure how that’s going on. I’ll find out for you though.
 
Parts, which since you got a bespoke version probably aren’t common with the fleet down here.
 
I found this article and was looking for a place to put it when lo and behold this conversation drifts back into logistics.

The article grabbed me because of three things

Rudyard Kipling
Ancient Aphorisms
The merits of passing a fault in favour of the 70% solution


The Gods of the Copybook Headings smiled beatifically on the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps last week. For poet Rudyard Kipling the simple headings British schoolchildren copied over and over to learn penmanship in yesteryear expressed eternal truths about life. Truths such as “Stick to the Devil you know,” or “If you don’t work you die.” Flout the precepts imprinted on a copybook’s pages, warned Kipling, and “As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn / The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!” In other words, there’s a fateful cost to self-delusion.

Reality endures, and it doesn’t care whether you believe in it or not. Take heed.


Admiral Samuel Paparo gets Kipling’s brand of wisdom, or so it seems. The U.S. Pacific Fleet commander told the U.S. Naval Institute’s WEST 2023 symposium in San Diego that the Navy can no longer make efficiency the North Star of combat logistics. “Operating in uncontested environments,” he observed, “our logistics enterprises operate on business principles.” But when war clouds gather over theaters like the Western Pacific, “we’ve got to think less in terms of maximum efficiency and more in terms of maximum effectiveness.”

Huzzah!

Admiral Paparo’s words marked his—and, I hope, the navy’s as a whole—rediscovery of a bleak, stubborn, permanent verity of naval warfare. Namely, that naval overseers cannot count on having precisely calibrated amounts of supplies delivered from rear areas to expeditionary forces on demand in times of war.

They have to set aside the peacetime U.S. Navy’s cult of efficiency to thrive in wartime. After all, foes such as China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) have every incentive to break the U.S. joint force’s distended supply chain across the Pacific Ocean.

The logic of attacking enemy supply routes is impeccable. Disrupting a fighting force’s logistics train starves it of ordnance, fuel, stores, and spare parts, along with support services such as repair and medical care. Draining a force of supplies drains it of battle power, the next best thing to defeating it in action. Deprived of warmaking kit, it vacates the scene of action—leaving its antagonist holding the contested ground by default.

That’s good enough for China. PLA commanders will take the W however they can get it, as indeed they should. Why fight a pitched battle if you can win by assaulting lumbering tankers or ammunition ships?

Now,just-in-time” supply chains make perfect sense in the business world (Edit - one of the great myths of the modern era), where the law safeguards the movement of matériel from one place to another. Honda and Toyota compete in the marketplace, not—one hopes—by bombing rivals’ supply chains. So, barring a calamity like a global pandemic, management can count on factors of production showing up when needed, and in the right quantity. Just-in-time logistics keeps waste to a minimum, holding down costs and boosting profit in the process.

Efficiency is how firms prosper.

But no police force safeguards military movement when war rages. Martial institutions inhabit an entirely different competitive world from business, and that world is inimical to efficiency. To be sure, officialdom might get away with just-in-time practices in tranquil times.

And if tranquil times go on long enough—say, for thirty years following the Cold War—naval commanders might convince themselves that permissive surroundings will last forever. They might come to regard perpetual peace at sea as the natural order of things. And if they succumb to this fallacy, they might redesign the logistics system to deliver the bare minimum of beans, bullets, and black oil to the fleet upon request.

In so doing they spend precious taxpayer dollars efficiently.

In short, efficiency is seductive. Keeping surplus matériel on hand appears wasteful, and lawmakers understandably balk at deliberately funding waste out of the public treasury. But excess inventory is a prime need in wartime, when just enough for peacetime operations is too little in all likelihood, and when too much might be enough.

When an antagonist is doing its damnedest to degrade your supply chain, subtracting vital goods from your armory, only an excess of material support promises a decent shot at having enough of everything where you need it, when you need it.

And staging superior force at the scene of combat at the right time is what field generalship—or admiralship, if that’s a word—is all about.

So an excess of most everything—armaments, fuel and stores, spare parts, repair capability, and on and on—might be enough to offset losses that mount as hostile forces lash out at friendly supply bases, along with transport ships and aircraft that haul goods into the battle zone. This is the new, old reality of sea warfare.

One hopes Paparo succeeds at restoring an older, flinty-eyed, more realistic mindset to the U.S. Navy as it competes strategically and girds for war. As the late, great Anglo-American strategist Colin Gray put it tartly, “history reminds those willing to be reminded that bad times always return, and that every war-free period is actually an interwar era.”

Thus spake the Gods of the Copybook Headings. Abide by their wisdom and flourish; ignore them and suffer the consequences.


Dr. James Holmes is J. C. Wylie Chair of Maritime Strategy at the Naval War College and a Nonresident Fellow at the Brute Krulak Center for Innovation & Future Warfare, Marine Corps University. The views voiced here are his alone.
 
#C-UAS, #RWS, #30mm, #AOPS, #LAV, #Facilities, #Spike-NLOS - Overlaps.


“We developed enhanced capability for the typhoon family, focusing on the 30mm, because of its caliber and also because of [its ability to use] different types of rounds such as the air burst munition,” Tavor said.

The system offers the operator fire correction, which can minimize the number of rounds needed to down a UAV. The system fires bursts of 10 rounds, and the company says one or two bursts is enough to down a drone threat.

The company also noted that drone swarms are an issue that forces must address “one by one, and do it fast.” “[W]e’ve enhance the magazine from 200 to 400 rounds so you don’t need to load it too often,” the company added.

The capability is operational and the company is offering it to customers as an upgrade to existing systems. It has a range of approximately 3 kilometers (1.9 miles).
 
Parts as I understand it, in fairness I’m arms length to them so I’m usually a step behind the latest goings on. I know we have a gunner course for them starting next week not sure how that’s going on. I’ll find out for you though.
It would be weird to ground an entire fleet for lack of parts. Usually there is a specific safety issue or issues that would ground an entire fleet. There are no recent Land Safety Advisory (DWAN only) on the TAPV but there may be some sort of non-safety related notification in the system that needs to be actioned

There are some recent Land Tech Bulletins but none are grounding the fleet nor do I believe DLEPS 3 would use tech bulletins to ground a fleet
Parts, which since you got a bespoke version probably aren’t common with the fleet down here.

TBH, sometimes parts are identical, but sold under different NSNs for reasons associated with increasing vendor profit.
The contract is just as weird as the vehicle as we the CAF own none of the spare parts (less batteries, tires and filters IIRC) until it is issued to a work order. We set it up separately in our system and it uses Textron part numbers vice NSNs. There may be vehicle specific parts for Cdn variants vs other users so both points might be valid.

It does make parts availability challenging at times as they are only supposed to be held at 2nd/3rd line. Any part needed that isn't held in stock is either on a 7 (critical parts) or 30 day schedule (non-critical) once ordered to go from the OEM to the depot(s). Add in the time needed at 3rd/2nd line for processing and shipment to get the to the end units on top of that and it can make parts an issue for sure.

The upside is we don't have to create a contract every time we need new parts.

Excellent recent LCMM presentation (DWAN Only) that lays out TAPV support in much greater detail.
 
It would be weird to ground an entire fleet for lack of parts. Usually there is a specific safety issue or issues that would ground an entire fleet. There are no recent Land Safety Advisory (DWAN only) on the TAPV but there may be some sort of non-safety related notification in the system that needs to be actioned

There are some recent Land Tech Bulletins but none are grounding the fleet nor do I believe DLEPS 3 would use tech bulletins to ground a fleet



The contract is just as weird as the vehicle as we the CAF own none of the spare parts (less batteries, tires and filters IIRC) until it is issued to a work order. We set it up separately in our system and it uses Textron part numbers vice NSNs. There may be vehicle specific parts for Cdn variants vs other users so both points might be valid.

It does make parts availability challenging at times as they are only supposed to be held at 2nd/3rd line. Any part needed that isn't held in stock is either on a 7 (critical parts) or 30 day schedule (non-critical) once ordered to go from the OEM to the depot(s). Add in the time needed at 3rd/2nd line for processing and shipment to get the to the end units on top of that and it can make parts an issue for sure.

The upside is we don't have to create a contract every time we need new parts.

Excellent recent LCMM presentation (DWAN Only) that lays out TAPV support in much greater detail.
I’m probably just off on my information. I know we had some unit specific grounds after a couple safety instances and I just took word of mouth reference it being fleet wide. Double check my info and it’s online with no fleet wide grounding. My mistakes. @FJAG im wrong in short.
 
Back
Top