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

[Fishbone Jones]

We were told by no less than the Area Commander, in December, that they would place some in Meaford for our use.

I was also at a Corps conference where we were told we might be lucky enough to see the back end, if we went on Ex with the Regs.

Ho hum. Push me, pull you. Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be). I'm not losing any sleep until the army starts taking delivery. Then I expect it will have many of the earmarks of the Bison fiasco.

However, again, I really don't care. It's not a recce vehicle, so it's of limited, if any, use to me anyway.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

When the TAPV project was quite young (and even before it existed), the then Army Comd was very clear in his position - the Army would not invest anything in armoured fighting vehicles for the Reserves.  I would question who ever told you the Reserves would be getting TAPV - I don't imagine things have changed that much.

Obviously, things have changed. The proposed distribution list is only a couple of months old, and it clearly states that TAPV's would be distributed to the four ATC's for the Reserves.

(mind you, the document clearly states "proposed", so nothing is firm!) ;D

 

[Infanteer]

The Infantry Battalions, the Armoured Regiments, CTC and the Area TCs are indeed the intended recipients.  I do not know what the planned use of the ATC stocks is.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Guess AATC L-33 will finally be used for what it was intended for......

;D

 

[McG]

Interesting the first iterations of the SOR (v 1.0 to 1.2 with the most recent being June 2010) all make no mention of Reserves.  However the subsequent update (v 1.3, March 2012) has inserted PRes in several points.  This is a very recent change.

 

[Sprinting Thistle]

The current (draft) plan has 27 allocated to each of the four LFA TCs dedicated to P Res trg.  I will caveat this by stating that the plan is not set in stone and other options are being reviewed. 

 

[Tank Troll]

When the TAPV project was quite young (and even before it existed), the then Army Comd was very clear in his position - the Army would not invest anything in armoured fighting vehicles for the Reserves.  I would question who ever told you the Reserves would be getting TAPV - I don't imagine things have changed that much.

Tecnicaly speaking they are sticking to what they said a TAPV isn't a AFV

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Sort of like the mid 1930's; "That's not a tank, it's a Cavalry combat car" 

 

[Kirkhill]

The Army's "Legacy" Protected vehicles are all geared towards combat in the open field in rough terrain.

The TAPV seems to be in line with the Civil Insurrection type of vehicles favoured by the SADF, the Gendarmerie, the Carabinieri, the Guardia Civil....

Just the thing to prevent having to put "Tanks in the streets".  Brilliant ACP (Aid to the Civil Power) Vehicle

 

[Ostrozac]

The Textron TAPV seems to have been selected as the vehicle. It seems a little big to me, at 17 tons and 6.8m long, almost as big as a LAV-3. It just doesn't strike me as a "patrol" vehicle. But I grew up with the M113, so I guess everything is big to me.

I assume the RWS will carry a C6 and/or C16?

 

[m2austin]

I assume the RWS will carry a C6 and/or C16?

Sounds like the TAPV may come mounted with a Kongsberg M153 RWS meaning it could be equipped with an M2, C16 AGL or C6 (looks like they may have fixed some C6 ammo issues in this version).

 

[McG]

Sounds like the TAPV may come mounted with a Kongsberg M153 RWS meaning it could be equipped with an M2, C16 AGL or C6 (looks like they may have fixed some C6 ammo issues in this version).

No.  The SOR called for a twin RWS that mounted an MMG and AGL simultaneously.  Apparently, there is currently no such RWS operational in the world.  Ours will be a first.

 

[cupper]

No.  The SOR called for a twin RWS that mounted an MMG and AGL simultaneously.  Apparently, there is currently no such RWS operational in the world.  Ours will be a first.

Yee Haw. Our troops get to be guinea pigs.

 

[m2austin]

No.  The SOR called for a twin RWS that mounted an MMG and AGL simultaneously.  Apparently, there is currently no such RWS operational in the world.  Ours will be a first.

Do we have any proof of this besides a concept picture?

 

[McG]

Proof of what?

 

[Ostrozac]

The tech datasheet posted on Textron's TAPV website states the following:

"Due to its unrivaled accuracy, firepower, and reliability, the dual-weapon PROTECTOR RWS has been selected for integration on the TAPV." The accompanying picture shows an RWS with a C6, an automatic grenade launcher, and lots of optics.

 

[m2austin]

Proof of what?

Twin mounted AGL and GPMG.

Seems like it would require a bit of programming to get both weapons firing off the same screen.

 

[McG]

Twin mounted AGL and GPMG.

Seems like it would require a bit of programming to get both weapons firing off the same screen.

We asked for something that doesn't exist.  The winning company has to make it a reality.  What proof are you looking for?

 

[Infanteer]

I have a picture somewhere of a dual mounted 50 cal/Javelin RWS that I took at a trade show.  So they do exist (in trial version, anyways).

 

[McG]

I have a picture somewhere of a dual mounted 50 cal/Javelin RWS that I took at a trade show.  So they do exist (in trial version, anyways).

That has been around for a while.  GDLS likes to show it on the Stryker, but I don't know if anyone has bought it.
What I've never seen even in prototype is an RWS with two types of guns - that is what we asked for.  I assume that somewhere in industry, a company has built a concept model or working prototype, but nobody has a "two gun" RWS.

... although, one could make an argument that the Samson turret is an RWS with MG and medium caliber cannon.