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

[LightFighter]

Is there even enough space to put a 120mm mortar system onto/in a TAPV?  They look huge but I question their ergonomics and available internal space.  I suppose you could put a bunch of stuff in that area that leads to the rear "exit

There’s no room for a 120mm mortar IMO in the TAPV.  The cargo space is quite limited, especially if your crew/dismounts have day bags in the rear compartment in addition to ration boxes, ammo, etc. 

IMO, the TAPV is more suited to force protection/convoy escort role, and a urban patrol vehicle.  I can’t comment if it’s a viable vehicle for Recce or not as I’m not Recce.


A better vehicle platform for a mortar would be a LAV without the turret.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

IMO, the TAPV is more suited for urban patrols and force protection/convoy escort.  I can’t comment if it’s a viable vehicle for Recce or not as I’m not Recce.

Not having driven this rig (nor will I ever...), I can't help but think it is not particularly well suited to x-country movement.  4 x roadwheels, and lots of weight, isn't necessarily a good combination.  Lots of weight and stuck = really stuck (usually).  I've done recce in jeeps, Bisons, M113 off the hardstand and of them all, my personal favorite for movement ability and flexibility was the Bison.  It could swim, it went from 4 to 8 wheel driver in a jiffy, it could do highway speeds one minute and then be crossing very challenging terrain in 8 wheel drive 1 minute later.  8 wheels all with power, it took some effort or bad luck to get it stuck IMO (or a driver who was too lazy to drop the TPs to 25 knowing they were going x-country);  I've had them on the go in pretty much everything from summer mud to winter snow banks.  It was also easy to command, with the CC seat right behind the driver, hatches for the air/NBC sentry/JAFOs, it had some protection from small arms, fragmentation, the weather and bears  ;D.  I could stand on the 'hood' beside the driver and edge the veh forward to just peak over a ridge...from the pictures, it looks like it will be impossible to get just a set of eyes over the ridge in a TAPV before the RWS/etc is visible on the crestline.

just some initial thoughts...however, I am sure the blackhatters are figuring out how to 'make it work' just like they did with the G Wagon and Coyote.

A better vehicle platform for a mortar would be a LAV without the turret.

Like an improved Bison.

 

[Franko]

Not having driven this rig (not will I ever...), I can't help but think it is not particularly well suited to x-country movement.  4 x roadwheels, and lots of weight, isn't necessarily a good combination.  Lots of weight and stuck = really stuck (usually).  I've done recce in jeeps, Bisons, M113 of the hardstand and of them all, my personal favorite for movement ability and flexibility was the Bison.  It could swim, it went from 4 to 8 wheel driver in a jiffy, it could do highway speeds one minute and then be crossing very challenging terrain in 8 wheel drive 1 minute later.  8 wheels all with power, it took some effort or bad luck to get it stuck IMO (or a driver who was too lazy to drop the TPs to 25 knowing they were going x-country);  I've had them on the go in pretty much everything from summer mud to winter snow banks.  It was also easy to command, with the CC seat right behind the driver, hatches for the air/NBC sentry/JAFOs, it had some protection from small arms, fragmentation, the weather and bears  ;D.  I could stand on the 'hood' beside the driver and edge the veh forward to just peak over a ridge...from the pictures, it looks like it will be impossible to get just a set of eyes over the ridge in a TAPV before the RWS/etc is visible on the crestline.

just some initial thoughts...however, I am sure the blackhatters are figuring out how to 'make it work' just like they did with the G Wagon and Coyote.


Like an improved Bison.

I can tell you with some certainty that the TAPVs faired better cross country than the Coyotes and LAVs this fall on the crew commander course. You know there is a formula for figuring out ground resistance and the ability for a wheeled vehicle to go across soft ground right?

Also, commanding an unstabilized vehicle right behind the driver is the same as a TAPV, literally a joke.

Regards

 

[a_majoor]

Questions about the suitability of the TAPV for x country movement, carriage of 105mm cannon or 120mm mortars etc. are really a result of our shoddy doctrinal development. If we don't have a clear understanding of what it is we are supposed to do, and how to do it, then we will end up with unsuitable vehicles and equipment, in numbers which are unsuitable (too many or too few) and spend decades lashing things together in an attempt to make things work.

This is reflected in the endless arguments on these threads. Chris Pook is an advocate for Technicals and ATV's. I generally favour one or two weight classes up (Combat Guard, Broncos and CV-90 family) while there are advocates for much heavier vehicles as well (Leopards, PUMA's and so on). With the current state of our doctrine and government policy, the weird result is that all of us are correct, so long as we stick to our starting premises, and there is nothing in the CF doctrine which really says that any of us are incorrect........

 

[Underway]

I can tell you with some certainty that the TAPVs faired better cross country than the Coyotes and LAVs this fall on the crew commander course. You know there is a formula for figuring out ground resistance and the ability for a wheeled vehicle to go across soft ground right?

There seemed to be quite the effort in ensuring mobility and protection in this vehicle.  Not so much for the hiding part.  Nice to hear that it's working out on the mobility aspect at the very least.

Also, commanding an unstabilized vehicle right behind the driver is the same as a TAPV, literally a joke.

I don't follow, not being armoured.  Can you elaborate/illuminate what you are referring to?

 

[McG]

I don't follow, not being armoured.  Can you elaborate/illuminate what you are referring to?

The "unstabilized vehicle" is a vehicle without a stabilized weapon system.  It cannot effectively fight and move at the same time. This is not an acceptable standard on the modern battlefield, but we still by vehicles with unstabalized weapon systems.

 

[Mortar guy]

The "unstabilized vehicle" is a vehicle without a stabilized weapon system.  It cannot effectively fight and move at the same time. This is not an acceptable standard on the modern battlefield, but we still by vehicles with unstabalized weapon systems.

But the DWRS is stabilized.

 

[McG]

But the original  comment was made about the Bison. The fact that we are still doing it is demonstrated in the LAV 6 Engr which is just fielded without a stabilized weapon system.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I can tell you with some certainty that the TAPVs faired better cross country than the Coyotes and LAVs this fall on the crew commander course. You know there is a formula for figuring out ground resistance and the ability for a wheeled vehicle to go across soft ground right?

That's good news then;  you know me, I've been away from this game for a few years now *but* I still remember the x-country ability difference between a track, Cougar/Grizz, a jeep and a Bison.

The formula...either wasn't around when I did this stuff or it was something I'd never seen.  I'd guess some of it relates to pounds per square inch, tire width, length between axles etc...I've seen when it doesn't work out so well and a 6 wheeled AVGP get stuck in places a ride on lawnmower could make it thru  ;D.

Glad the new rigs aren't useless x-country...I did see your posts earlier in the year on the FB and you weren't swearing too much about them so figured they must be 'ok'. 

Ref my concern/comments about "turret down" stuff...sensors are good and all *BUT* they are also straws.  Most EO/IR or TI systems are 'straws' and you don't get a very wide FOV even with the Wide lense.  Sometimes you will see something with the Mk1 that your turret won't pick up because it doesn't have peripheral vision.  We still man windows with crewmembers and use binos and NVGs because of this on the Aurora fleet.    (Not necessarily for you, but for others who haven't operated sensors and crewed a CRV/AFV before)

Curious what the RCACs thoughts are on replacing a 25mm armed veh with one that only has a C6 and 40mm gren launcher; not to mention the surv mast (I haven't seen anything about it having the same suite as a Coyote).

So lots of mobility for their size, protection for the crew and a nice big glowing target for folks like me looking down from above.  8)

 

[MilEME09]

Curious what the RCACs thoughts are on replacing a 25mm armed veh with one that only has a C6 and 40mm gren launcher; not to mention the surv mast (I haven't seen anything about it having the same suite as a Coyote).

My understanding is there is a LAV UP RECCE variant, which will have the mast, however what they said at announcement years ago, and what we have on the ground are two different things.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

So lots of mobility for their size, protection for the crew and a nice big glowing target for folks like me looking down from above.  8)

Yep. If only you had rockets under your wings.  ;D

 

[Spencer100]

Hey here is a tour of the TAPV from a very "high" level 

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

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Yep. If only you had rockets under your wings.  ;D

Yup...have to settle for a radio and the ability to talk to people who can throw punches.  :not-again:

 

[Kirkhill]

...
This is reflected in the endless arguments on these threads. Chris Pook is an advocate for Technicals and ATV's. I generally favour one or two weight classes up (Combat Guard, Broncos and CV-90 family) while there are advocates for much heavier vehicles as well (Leopards, PUMA's and so on). With the current state of our doctrine and government policy, the weird result is that all of us are correct, so long as we stick to our starting premises, and there is nothing in the CF doctrine which really says that any of us are incorrect........

Awwww!! Thucydides mentioned me!  ;D

Just a minor point.  I do advocate the use of  "Technicals and ATVs".  But I also advocate the use of Very Heavy Armoured Vehicles of the Narmer HIFV variety.  My biggest problem is with the adoption of a Medium Weight vehicle as the sole/principal platform and then trying to expand its operational envelope well beyond its design capabilities.

I think where I tend to come adrift from most on the discussion is on the vehicle maintenance and support front.  I can't get myself too worked up about the perils of a mixed fleet.  To do so is the equivalent, in my view, of demanding that a tradesman get rid of all his power tools and make do with a single hammer because hammers are cheap, easy to replace and require minimal training.

So I prefer horses for courses and my "stable" sees a mixture of ponies, hunters and carthorses (none of your racers thank you).  I would be starting from a position of spending a third of my budget on each type and anticipate being able to buy lots of ponies but not as many hunters and carthorses.  Based on that then assign the requisite manpower.  With a defined set of capabilities then the government can start picking and choosing where and when it wants to use them.

At least you would know that whatever the situation you were sent into your commanders had a good enough selection of tools at hand to give you a reasonable prospect of success.


By the way, on the light front - and related to the discussion about truck mounted guns

The HMMWV/Hawkeye Howitzer System incorporates advances in protection, payload, suspensions and life-cycle sustainment – at an affordable price to meet the unique expeditionary requirements of global customers. It exemplifies the steady evolution of the HMMWV based on customer feedback, battlefield experiences, and innovation.

The new AM General Hawkeye is based on a M1152A1 Humvee with a crew cab at the front and cargo platform at the rear fitted a 105 mm howitzer . The 105 mm cannon uses an hybrid soft recoil technology allows weapon to be paired with AM General HMMWV.

The 105mm cannon is fitted on a circular platform offering the possibility to fire on 360° with a range of 11,500 m with standard ammunition and 16,000 m with extended range artillery ammunition. It can be also used for direct fire with a maximum range of 2,000 m.

This artillery system uses a digital fire control system including a digital camera for direct fire. The howitzer is electronically controlled for elevation and azimuth which works with the digital fire control system.

In firing position two hydraulic jacks are lowered on the ground at the front of the vehicle and two large spades at the rear. A total of 4 to 6 ammunitions can be carried on the vehicle. To increase the number of ammunition another Humvee in cargo variant can be used as to carried additional ammunition.

The HMMWV/Hawkeye Howitzer 105mm howitzer can be ready to fire in less than 2 minutes with a total crew of 4 people.

https://www.armyrecognition.com/ausa_2016_show_daily_news_tv_coverage_report/am_general_unveils_new_105mm_lightweight_self-propelled_howitzer_based_on_m1152a1_humvee_10310163.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_3f-cv3rR4

 

[a_majoor]

I was more under the impression that you were mostly concerned with the mechanics of "getting there", since deploying heavyweight (or even medium) armoured vehicles overseas is slow, difficult and expensive. My main objection to mixed fleets isn't so much that they are mixed (Combat Guards, Broncos and CV-90 platforms are pretty mixed) but the CF's habit of having "micro" fleets which are far too small to be truly viable, or have platforms which are only marginally related. Our holdings of LAV series vehicles is insanely expensive because it is essentially 3 or 4 different fleets all masquerading as the "same" family (Bisons, Coyote's, LAV 3 and LAV6.0 have very little in common with each other).

But underneath all that is "why" we are buying particular vehicles. Many readers will remember the great tank debate of the early 2000's, where the CF was set to eliminate its tank holdings in favour of a gun platform based on the LAV MGS chassis, and the putative MMEV as a long range fire support companion. The true horror of the decision wasn't that it was not possible, but rather no thought seemed to have been given as to how this was actually supposed to work (i.e. doctrine). This is in addition to having two tiny fleets of very expensive, complicated and essentially bespoke vehicles to man and support should the concept have ever been adopted.....The TAPV seems to have gone through the same experience, with it being offered as an APC for the Light Infantry Battalions at one point, despite it being rather unsuitable for the role. If it is going to be passed from hand to hand like that, one has to wonder why it was purchased in the first place (i.e. what role was it meant to fulfill)?

Of course this isn't even the only example, as the endless saga of Canada's quest for a replacement fighter is demonstrating now, or the "Big Honking Ship" project which evaporated, or the "debates" around Canada purchasing nuclear submarines, or just what sorts of ships and forces we need for the arctic, etc. etc. One fine day we may end up with grown ups in charge, who do clearly see and articulate a Canadian Grand Strategy, or at least clearly define the National Interest, and from there define what roles and missions of Canada's Armed forces will be, and what levels of manning and equipment are needed to achieve these ends.

 

[Kirkhill]

I was more under the impression that you were mostly concerned with the mechanics of "getting there", since deploying heavyweight (or even medium) armoured vehicles overseas is slow, difficult and expensive. My main objection to mixed fleets isn't so much that they are mixed (Combat Guards, Broncos and CV-90 platforms are pretty mixed) but the CF's habit of having "micro" fleets which are far too small to be truly viable, or have platforms which are only marginally related. Our holdings of LAV series vehicles is insanely expensive because it is essentially 3 or 4 different fleets all masquerading as the "same" family (Bisons, Coyote's, LAV 3 and LAV6.0 have very little in common with each other).

But underneath all that is "why" we are buying particular vehicles. Many readers will remember the great tank debate of the early 2000's, where the CF was set to eliminate its tank holdings in favour of a gun platform based on the LAV MGS chassis, and the putative MMEV as a long range fire support companion. The true horror of the decision wasn't that it was not possible, but rather no thought seemed to have been given as to how this was actually supposed to work (i.e. doctrine). This is in addition to having two tiny fleets of very expensive, complicated and essentially bespoke vehicles to man and support should the concept have ever been adopted.....The TAPV seems to have gone through the same experience, with it being offered as an APC for the Light Infantry Battalions at one point, despite it being rather unsuitable for the role. If it is going to be passed from hand to hand like that, one has to wonder why it was purchased in the first place (i.e. what role was it meant to fulfill)?

Of course this isn't even the only example, as the endless saga of Canada's quest for a replacement fighter is demonstrating now, or the "Big Honking Ship" project which evaporated, or the "debates" around Canada purchasing nuclear submarines, or just what sorts of ships and forces we need for the arctic, etc. etc. One fine day we may end up with grown ups in charge, who do clearly see and articulate a Canadian Grand Strategy, or at least clearly define the National Interest, and from there define what roles and missions of Canada's Armed forces will be, and what levels of manning and equipment are needed to achieve these ends.

Not a totally incorrect statement.  I am/was concerned about the mechanics of getting there - and if a QRF is desired then light gear is necessary to travel long distances quickly.  But if the force is to be a persistent force then time is no longer a barrier and, at the same time, the enemy will be concentrating forces demanding heavier protection. The light kit then needs to be swapped out for heavy kit.

I'm not sure that I really see the advantage of a medium force.

 

[Underway]

Bisons, Coyote's, LAV 3 and LAV6.0 have very little in common with each other.

Good thing we are getting rid of the Coyote's and converting/replacing all the LAV 3 to LAV 6 standards.  TAPV replaces 2 vehicles in the Coyote and RG-31 (and some of the Cougars I think).  I don't know if the Bison ambulance and Command variants are staying in the fleet.  I assume so.  But a Bison Amb is much easier and cheaper to run then a full LAV from what I understand and I haven't heard of a LAV ambulance yet (maybe we have one or maybe we are getting them).

Also don't forget the entire TLAV fleet.  Really when you think about it discounting the specialist engineering vehicles (Husky, Cougar etc...) The army will have 4 main armoured vehicles.  LAV 6, TAPV, TLAV and Leopard.  There are a few "micro" fleets but every army has those because you just can't common hull everything.

As for the rest of your post, yah I agree, purchases should match doctrine.  In this case though I think the TAPV purchase matched experience. 

If we had of had these in Afghanistan there probably would have been more lives saved on the roads.  TAPV could have done convoy escort, moved VIP's around, provided vehicles for CIMIC, POMLET, OMLET and PSYOPS teams. It would have replaced RG's and freed up LAV 3, LAV LORIT and in some cases TLAV's to do other work more suited to their vehicle than tooling around Kandahar city moving DFAIT pers to meetings with the mayor. 

There were full infantry platoons outfitted with RG's in theatre.  In my direct experience the PRT Commander and General Vance's TAC were rolling in RG's as LAV's were needed to fight the war in the nasty places like Panjwai.  NSE would have loved TAPV for their escort duties, and probably so would have the Route Survey crew instead of the Cougar "battle buses" they used to protect the Husky VMMD and Buffalo.

So yah, seems like a mismatch for a lot of tasks that we might be trying to fit it into, but it's going to be a good vehicle for so many others that we completely forgot, discounted, discovered or didn't remember were important.  The infantry get the TAPV because lots of these tasks are ones the infantry will be assigned despite the fact that lots of these organizations didn't quite fit into the tradition brigade "doctrine".

 

[daftandbarmy]

The TAPV: when life hands you lemons, squirt the juice in your eyes.  :nod:

 

[Kirkhill]

Underway - that is an interesting and novel perspective for me.  And useful too.

But what you seem to be describing is a vehicle that in times gone by might have been employed by the Royal (Canadian) Army Service Corps rather than the Infantry.  The Infantry would have been passengers.

 

[Old Sweat]

Underway - that is an interesting and novel perspective for me.  And useful too.

But what you seem to be describing is a vehicle that in times gone by might have been employed by the Royal (Canadian) Army Service Corps rather than the Infantry.  The Infantry would have been passengers.

Or operated by the Armoured Corps as was the case with the British and Canadian "Kangaroo" regiments in the Second World War.