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

[Kirkhill]

Playtime. A 3 + 6 configuration. I think it would fit. It would also work with the LAVs.

 

[AmmoTech90]

Playtime. A 3 + 6 configuration. I think it would fit. It would also work with the LAVs.


View attachment 73803

But why. Please provide your reasoning for this.

 

[McG]

Playtime. A 3 + 6 configuration. I think it would fit. It would also work with the LAVs.


View attachment 73803

You seem to have removed a fairly large box from behind the gunner to craft your proposal. What is the box and is it necessary?

 

[Kirkhill]

You seem to have removed a fairly large box from behind the gunner to craft your proposal. What is the box and is it necessary?

The box, to my understanding, is the power supply for the weapons system/turret. I proposed putting that box, if it is necessary, in the passageway in the right rear of the vehicle, adjacent to the engine compartment.

To my understanding that compartment is underutilized and is primarily an interior access to the engine compartment. I was also given to understand by MarkPPCLI that that compartment is not accessible from the interior. You have to get out of the vehicle, if I understand correctly, to open the external door to access the passage.

My inclination, until demonstrated otherwise, is to make the most efficient use of the available space.

But why. Please provide your reasoning for this.

My understanding is that we have these vehicles and they are now searching for homes.

The RCAC doesn't like them for recce for a variety of reasons. The RCIC doesn't like them because they are too heavy for light troops and too small (ie don't carry enough troops) for medium troops. Other Corps are trying to figure out how to use them effectively.

My first inclination is to clear the decks. Both the top of the hull and the interior.

A vehicle of that size is first and foremost a transport of some sort. I see it as an armoured pickup truck.

I have taken the gunner out of the truck bed and moved him up into the crew compartment. Which seat he occupies, or if he occupies any seat at all, is irrelevant to me. I would be more inclined to leave it as a driver/co-driver arrangement with the co-driver manning a centrally mounted RWS for self defence.

In the rear you have room for 6, maybe 7 people. Or an HMI console and a couple of seats or... In other words, a 4WD LAV. Something that could be put in the hands of the Reserves to replace the Bisons that were purloined decades ago.

Although, I am sure that if the Reserves managed to fix them the Regs would be asking for them back.

I believe it could be made into an 80% solution as a General Utility vehicle.

 

[Kirkhill]

Here is where I would be inclined to find space for the components in the box in the crew compartment. If access is needed then it could be through the bulkhead of the crew compartment or through this passageway.

 

[McG]

Canada has lost at least one soldier because they could not get through ann obstructed egress path that was designed into their AFV. Before deciding that we can fill this space with kit, I would want to know there are adequate other paths to get out when the vehicle is on fire or filling with water.

 

[Kirkhill]

Canada has lost at least one soldier because they could not get through ann obstructed egress path that was designed into their AFV. Before deciding that we can fill this space with kit, I would want to know there are adequate other paths to get out when the vehicle is on fire or filling with water.

Four roof hatches and two large side doors. More doors than a LAV or a Leo. No?

 

[Kirkhill]

From MarkPPCLI

Informing the Army’s Future Structure

Wiesel video. I still like it. It is more like a Bren Carrier than a tank. Edit to add a full length video on the Wiesel and its variants - unfortunately it is in German with no sub-titles.

www.army.ca

WRT TAPV

Can somebody explain what this is for? Is it stowage? A maintenance corridor? Alternate exit? Wasted space?

View attachment 71931


View attachment 71932

Positioned as it is behind the seat for "the rear sentry" - who is inside and facing forwards - it appears much like the closet under my grandma's stairs. Small, cramped, oddly shaped, inaccessible and not much use for anything.
Click to expand...

It’s a maintenance corridor that gets used for storage since there’s fuck all space in the TAPV. The inside of the TAPV, as a side effect being rear engined, really makes it’s a sup optimal weapons carrier. Mind you it’s also a sub optimal APC, Recce vehicle, SUV, frankly I’m not really sure what it’s optimal for beyond rolling over and lighting on fire.

• Jul 11, 2022

• Add bookmark
• #4,423

Maintenance corridor isn’t accessible from the inside. I get you mean a redesign but they intended to keep the chassis realistically unchanged

 

[daftandbarmy]

From MarkPPCLI

Informing the Army’s Future Structure

Wiesel video. I still like it. It is more like a Bren Carrier than a tank. Edit to add a full length video on the Wiesel and its variants - unfortunately it is in German with no sub-titles.

www.army.ca

Beautiful

"frankly I’m not really sure what it’s optimal for beyond rolling over and lighting on fire."

 

[Kirkhill]

The Commando V100 and the AVGP Grizzly

The only difference is the driver has swapped ends. The Grizzly is a Commando in reverse.

 

[AC 011]

The box, to my understanding, is the power supply for the weapons system/turret. I proposed putting that box, if it is necessary, in the passageway in the right rear of the vehicle, adjacent to the engine compartment.

That box has nothing to do with the weapon system. The "box" is the transfer case cover, so it has to stay. Any volume which could be regained by redesigning the cover would be nowhere close to enough to accommodate additional seating.

The MPU and MOS for the RWS are both behind and to the right of the commander's seat.

The gunner cannot be pushed as far forward as you've shown. There's a post from floor to roof there. And it

 

[Kirkhill]

That box has nothing to do with the weapon system. The "box" is the transfer case cover, so it has to stay. Any volume which could be regained by redesigning the cover would be nowhere close to enough to accommodate additional seating.

The MPU and MOS for the RWS are both behind and to the right of the commander's seat.

The gunner cannot be pushed as far forward as you've shown. There's a post from floor to roof there. And it

Thank you very much. Not the first plan of mine to have gone astray. It is still embarrassing. But I learn as I go.

By any chance do you have access to the layouts that would accommodate the 2+8 seating arrangement compatible with claims attributed to Textron? Do you know if such layouts exist?

Still looking for an 80% solution for these vehicles.

Thanks again.

 

[Kirkhill]

Here is the link to the Textron site with the Commando and all its variants. It includes reference to a 3+7 crew configuration.

But there are no drawings, layouts or interior configurations.

I'm happy enough to have discovered that all my assumptions are wrong. Still curious as to what the right answers are.

Commando® Family of Products

Enhanced combination of lethality, survivability, mobility and sustainability

www.textronsystems.com

 

[KevinB]

Here is the link to the Textron site with the Commando and all its variants. It includes reference to a 3+7 crew configuration.

But there are no drawings, layouts or interior configurations.

I'm happy enough to have discovered that all my assumptions are wrong. Still curious as to what the right answers are.

Commando® Family of Products

Enhanced combination of lethality, survivability, mobility and sustainability

www.textronsystems.com

Give to Ukraine to make a field expedient bridge...

 

[OldSolduer]

This is the first real look I have had at one of these. Things that make you go hmmmm is the TAPV. I would need to actually see one and examine it to form an opinion. What I will say is who the hell designed this thing and why was it bought?

 

[KevinB]

This is the first real look I have had at one of these. Things that make you go hmmmm is the TAPV. I would need to actually see one and examine it to form an opinion. What I will say is who the hell designed this thing and why was it bought?

The Road to Hell is often paved by good intentions.

They had them in Iraq - as convoy escort vehicles for the MP's, that role seemed to work very well -- just for some reason Canada decided to modify those and get a configuration that makes zero sense.

 

[Kirkhill]

The Road to Hell is often paved by good intentions.

They had them in Iraq - as convoy escort vehicles for the MP's, that role seemed to work very well -- just for some reason Canada decided to modify those and get a configuration that makes zero sense.

This is what was on offer for the Recce role by the competition....

Timberwolf Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle | Military-Today.com

The Timberwolf mine resistant ambush protected vehicle was developed by Force Protection Inc to meet Canadian Tactical Armored Patrol Vehicle (TAPV) requirement for a protected reconnaissance, surveillance command and control vehicle.

www.military-today.com

Canada had difficulty attracting top notch suppliers.

As to the Commando - as I recall it was originally rescued because there was a perceived need for armour. HMMWVs were being detonated and penetrated all over Iraq. If your company could slap armour plate on your vehicle you made a sale. Textron's Commando had an open production line. It was, I'm assuming, better than a HMMWV.

 

[OldSolduer]

Canada had AND CONTINUES TO HAVE difficulty attracting top notch suppliers.

I could not resist editing this. Cheers!!

 

[KevinB]

This is what was on offer for the Recce role by the competition....

View attachment 73837

Timberwolf Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle | Military-Today.com

The Timberwolf mine resistant ambush protected vehicle was developed by Force Protection Inc to meet Canadian Tactical Armored Patrol Vehicle (TAPV) requirement for a protected reconnaissance, surveillance command and control vehicle.

www.military-today.com

Which looking at the bidders I wonder WTF was in the SOW.
Garbage Out in Requirements, means Garbage into the Field Force...

Canada had difficulty attracting top notch suppliers.

As to the Commando - as I recall it was originally rescued because there was a perceived need for armour. HMMWVs were being detonated and penetrated all over Iraq. If your company could slap armour plate on your vehicle you made a sale. Textron's Commando had an open production line. It was, I'm assuming, better than a HMMWV.

Better is a terrible word, as it doesn't allow comparison for different roles. The Commando with the M2 and Mk19 in the 3+7 Vanguard was IIRC what the Army got down here.
For a Convoy Escort or Airfield Security vehicle it appeared to offer a great deal more than the Hummer, however I had no direct interaction with the folks using them. They didn't offer what I would want for certain roles that I do have familiarity with - and the GMV Hummer offer a better system for that.

 

[Kirkhill]

Which looking at the bidders I wonder WTF was in the SOW.
Garbage Out in Requirements, means Garbage into the Field Force...

Better is a terrible word, as it doesn't allow comparison for different roles. The Commando with the M2 and Mk19 in the 3+7 Vanguard was IIRC what the Army got down here.
For a Convoy Escort or Airfield Security vehicle it appeared to offer a great deal more than the Hummer, however I had no direct interaction with the folks using them. They didn't offer what I would want for certain roles that I do have familiarity with - and the GMV Hummer offer a better system for that.

Ponies and Carthorses.