LAV III Recce Vehicles

[VinceW]

An additional 66 LAV 3's are being upgraded to be recce vehicles where are they going to go to the Armour Regiments or the Mechanized Infantry Battalions?

http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsgdls-c-wins-canadian-armys-lav-iii-rss-upgrade-contract
http://www.gdlscanada.com/index.php/news/2012

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

LAVs are a horrible option as a recce vehicle. To big, to loud.

 

[George Wallace]

:

Here we go again.....





[EDIT to add:  AND do not compare a Recce Vehicle with a SURVEILLANCE Vehicle.  Two completely different vehicles and roles.]

 

[McG]

The plan, at least a few years ago, was that this would be the vehicle to mount the surveillance suite (potentially with a newer mast).  It would go into recce sqns.

It represents 66 fewer section carriers on top of those LAV III not getting an upgrade.

 

[VinceW]

:

Here we go again.....





[EDIT to add:  AND do not compare a Recce Vehicle with a SURVEILLANCE Vehicle.  Two completely different vehicles and roles.]

So the Coyote isn't a recce vehicle then?

 

[63 Delta]

So the Coyote isn't a recce vehicle then?

While opinions may very on how good of a Recce vehicle the Coyote was, for all intents and purposes it is a Recce vehicle.

 

[George Wallace]

The plan, at least a few years ago, was that this would be the vehicle to mount the surveillance suite (potentially with a newer mast).  It would go into recce sqns.

It represents 66 fewer section carriers on top of those LAV III not getting an upgrade.

Although I can see the merit in mounting an improved surv suite in a LAV III, the idea of robbing Peter to pay Paul is wrong.

If the plan was to replace the Coyote with refurbished LAV III, at the same time replacing the LAV III with the LAV UP / 6.0 for the INF Bns, then it is flawed in that we would still have two different fleets, likely with not to much in the way of commonality
of parts. 

 

[George Wallace]

While opinions may very on how good of a Recce vehicle the Coyote was, for all intents and purposes it is a Recce vehicle.

I will agree that it is a Surveillance Vehicle.  I will never agree that it is a good vehicle for Recce.  The only vehicle as large as the Coyote that I would remotely consider a Recce Vehicle is the Luchs.  You can go read my comments in the Armour Bulletin ( around 1989) on this.

[Edit to add]

Article is in Spring 1991 Edition of the Armour Bulletin, page 5:  http://nebula.wsimg.com/adb0932627f423c31224ecde2e699b17?AccessKeyId=FA39D23B8C57ECBEF009&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

Interesting replies in Letters to the Editor in Autumn 1992 Edition of Armour Bulletin:  http://nebula.wsimg.com/c12d0c9cf12dd23115429f0b5062f2bb?AccessKeyId=FA39D23B8C57ECBEF009&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

 

[McG]

Although I can see the merit in mounting an improved surv suite in a LAV III, the idea of robbing Peter to pay Paul is wrong.

If the plan was to replace the Coyote with refurbished LAV III, at the same time replacing the LAV III with the LAV UP / 6.0 for the INF Bns, then it is flawed in that we would still have two different fleets, likely with not to much in the way of commonality
of parts. 

The LAV III Recce will be the same 6.0 standard that the infantry are getting.  The mix fleet problem comes from some existing LAV III variants will not upgrade to the 6.0 standard.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Which variants?  That seems odd.

 

[McG]

Which variants? 

I suspect ISC, but I do not know.

That seems odd.

That is actually the Army's standard path when the requirement does not fit the budget: buy fewer systems or upgrade only part of the fleet.  It is why we started with a LAV III fleet too small for our requirements in the late 90s, and why we have three models of Leopard 2 MBT today.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

The idea in 2008 was for TAPV to replace Coyote one for one. Part of the plan was to put the new surveillance system on the TAPV. I believe that that proved impractical, so the solution was to use LAVs to mount the new suite on a one per Patrol basis.

The planned Recce Troop organization has eight cars: two TAPV in the Tp HQ and three mixed Patrols. Each Patrol would have one TAPV and one LAV Recce. The Recce Squadron would have three Recce Troops. How this will actually unfold has yet to be seen, and I imagine local commanders will come up different ways to organize once they get their hands on the vehicles in the field.

As an aside I quite liked the Coyote, and I would have been happy with an all-LAV Recce squadron. It's big, but it is quite flexible.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I recall an exercise about 15 years ago, on the economy around Meaford. My troop was mounted in Iltis and the RCD supplied an enemy force mounted in Coyote. We were able to near pinpoint the location of the enemy, all along the trace, by the noise, tire tracks and smoke. Not to mention how many time the Mk 1 eyeball was able to confirm.

There was another where I had a patrol of Iltis working for RCD HQ Sqn on their TacEval against the Recce Sqn. We were able to penetrate the Coyote screen and get right in behind them (less than 100 mtrs). My driver changed into his jogging suit and went for a run past a Coyote patrol, where they obliged the 'curious civilian' by showing him the inside of the surveillance vehicle and explained the Troop screen layout. We then egressed, undetected, back and gave our report. There was much surprise when the HQ CP reported the positions of the recce screen to higher.

Big, smoky, noisy Coyote and LAV? Surveillance, yes. Recce? Not so much. Unless you intend to fight for your info, which kind of defeats the purpose of seeing without being seen.

 

[blackberet17]

Big, smoky, noisy Coyote and LAV? Surveillance, yes. Recce? Not so much. Unless you intend to fight for your info, which kind of defeats the purpose of seeing without being seen.

Yep.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I recall an exercise about 15 years ago, on the economy around Meaford. My troop was mounted in Iltis and the RCD supplied an enemy force mounted in Coyote. We were able to near pinpoint the location of the enemy, all along the trace, by the noise, tire tracks and smoke. Not to mention how many time the Mk 1 eyeball was able to confirm.

There was another where I had a patrol of Iltis working for RCD HQ Sqn on their TacEval against the Recce Sqn. We were able to penetrate the Coyote screen and get right in behind them (less than 100 mtrs). My driver changed into his jogging suit and went for a run past a Coyote patrol, where they obliged the 'curious civilian' by showing him the inside of the surveillance vehicle and explained the Troop screen layout. We then egressed, undetected, back and gave our report. There was much surprise when the HQ CP reported the positions of the recce screen to higher.

Big, smoky, noisy Coyote and LAV? Surveillance, yes. Recce? Not so much. Unless you intend to fight for your info, which kind of defeats the purpose of seeing without being seen.

A fifteen year old anecdote, when you were part of the evaluation of the new vehicle and structure is not what I would make a judgement on. Changing into civies in our own country is a nice trick, not sure how it relates.

In my experience on both exercises (instrumented and otherwise) and operations the Coyote (and LAV) did very well as a Recce vehicle. All of this, though, is besides the point.

 

[George Wallace]

A fifteen year old anecdote, when you were part of the evaluation of the new vehicle and structure is not what I would make a judgement on. Changing into civies in our own country is a nice trick, not sure how it relates.

In my experience on both exercises (instrumented and otherwise) and operations the Coyote (and LAV) did very well as a Recce vehicle. All of this, though, is besides the point.

As you know me, and having been a Jeep, Lynx and Coyote Comdr, I have to agree with many of recceguys comments.  One fact he left out, and may not know about, is the fact that the Coyote when running the Surv Suite, eats up a lot of power.  Thus, it has to recharge its batteries at regular intervals.  Noise is a serious problem for any Recce Screen.  (A solution would be taking up more space with an auxiliary generator.)

The Coyote is a superior Surveillance platform, with and excellent gun, and a valuable tool in a Recce Sqn or Regt.  It is NOT a good Recce vehicle.  It is large.  It is wheeled and not as maneuverable over all terrain as a tracked vehicle.  It has a long nose with its main armament on the rear third of the vehicle, which is problematic when approaching crests, not to mention the Comdr is not likely to see something before the driver in many cases of cresting or going around corners.  It is noisier (exhaust) than a LAV III.

Some of the other suggestions I have seen to replace the Coyote, have also been far less than stellar.  Much of our Recce Doctrine has been changed to suit whatever vehicle the Government finds the cheapest.  We are not looking at any vehicles that fit our Doctrine.  Completely the opposite, we are changing our Doctrine to suit the vehicle.  In my opinion, from our 'old' Recce Doctrine days, an ideal Recce vehicle should be small, quiet, fast, able to traverse all terrain and ideally capable to ford or swim.  Large wheeled vehicles like the Coyote and LAV III don't fill those criteria.  Might as well learn how to do Recce in a Greyhound bus.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

In my opinion, from our 'old' Recce Doctrine days, an ideal Recce vehicle should be small, quiet, fast, able to traverse all terrain and ideally capable to ford or swim. 

You mean like this one: http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.route6x6.com/photogallery/images/pg102.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.route6x6.com/photogallery/generalphotos.html&h=384&w=576&tbnid=0Y8VVOXH7LTMqM:&zoom=1&docid=w1RrTubQ1dWaHM&ei=NyTAVO6hINP3ggTO74LIAg&tbm=isch&client=safari&ved=0CCMQMygGMAY

 

[blacktriangle]

Against a sophisticated enemy with air power, persistent ISR, modern EW, and a few motivated Int guys…I don't think vehicles on either side of the argument will fair too well.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

As you know me, and having been a Jeep, Lynx and Coyote Comdr, I have to agree with many of recceguys comments.  One fact he left out, and may not know about, is the fact that the Coyote when running the Surv Suite, eats up a lot of power.  Thus, it has to recharge its batteries at regular intervals.  Noise is a serious problem for any Recce Screen.  (A solution would be taking up more space with an auxiliary generator.)

The Coyote is a superior Surveillance platform, with and excellent gun, and a valuable tool in a Recce Sqn or Regt.  It is NOT a good Recce vehicle.  It is large.  It is wheeled and not as maneuverable over all terrain as a tracked vehicle.  It has a long nose with its main armament on the rear third of the vehicle, which is problematic when approaching crests, not to mention the Comdr is not likely to see something before the driver in many cases of cresting or going around corners.  It is noisier (exhaust) than a LAV III.

Some of the other suggestions I have seen to replace the Coyote, have also been far less than stellar.  Much of our Recce Doctrine has been changed to suit whatever vehicle the Government finds the cheapest.  We are not looking at any vehicles that fit our Doctrine.  Completely the opposite, we are changing our Doctrine to suit the vehicle.  In my opinion, from our 'old' Recce Doctrine days, an ideal Recce vehicle should be small, quiet, fast, able to traverse all terrain and ideally capable to ford or swim.  Large wheeled vehicles like the Coyote and LAV III don't fill those criteria.  Might as well learn how to do Recce in a Greyhound bus.

Actually George, I had one of the first surveillance courses.

A fifteen year old anecdote, when you were part of the evaluation of the new vehicle and structure is not what I would make a judgement on. Changing into civies in our own country is a nice trick, not sure how it relates.

In my experience on both exercises (instrumented and otherwise) and operations the Coyote (and LAV) did very well as a Recce vehicle. All of this, though, is besides the point.

T2B,

I did recce for nigh on 30 years, Lynx, Ferret, etc. You obfuscate, but don't give any relevant reasoning yourself. Besides an ad hominem attack on my experience.

As to experience, your own, did you ever do any substantial recce on any platform besides Coyote? By substantial, I mean a couple of years actually working with that platform and not some course or familiarization. Jeep, Ferret, Lynx or Iltis?

It's pretty easy to judge others when you aren't that familiar with the concept of real recce. Not one that was bent and twisted to meet the expectations of the Coyote.

It's a one trick pony with no real flexibility.

You remember flexibility right? One of the basic tenants of recce.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

T2B,

I did recce for nigh on 30 years, Lynx, Ferret, etc. You obfuscate, but don't give any relevant reasoning yourself. Besides an ad hominem attack on my experience.

As to experience, your own, did you ever do any substantial recce on any platform besides Coyote? By substantial, I mean a couple of years actually working with that platform and not some course or familiarization. Jeep, Ferret, Lynx or Iltis?

It's pretty easy to judge others when you aren't that familiar with the concept of real recce.
[/quote]

Clearly I have offended you. I don't think it's ad hominim to question your example. I wasn't speaking about you but rather that using an example from a field evaluation trial at the entry of the vehicle's service is not doing justice to the subsequent 15 years of Coyote operations. I don't know what your experience is.

As for your question about my own experience I'll give a thumbnail. I was a Recce Tp Leader on Iltis. I was in the SHQ of a Recce Sqn on operations. I commanded a BG Recce squadron that included Coyotes and LUVWs. I was the 2IC of an armoured regiment for two years that included two Maple Resolves where we were essentially a Recce BG. Now, if I had been tasked to submit points or attend a working group on Recce vehicle design I would certainly have sent one of my WOs/MWOs from the Sqn as the true SME. I think I understand the limits of my experience.

Regarding tactics and employment, though, I've seen Recce Tps and Sqns with Coyotes and LAVs perform very well on instrumented exercises in Wainwright both on my side and the enemy (Red and Blue). As a Sqn Comd my WOs used their experience to get the most out of the Coyote, including knowing when to dismount to check over the next ridge. At the Mech BG level the LUVWs were severely challenged to work in front if the advance, even with a generous time to Recce before HHour. The Coyotes had the mobility, protection, firepower and mounted optics to be able to work in front of the advance. I would then vector my LUVW Tp and Pl in behind the Coyotes to develop contacts. Coyotes or LAVs for all, though, would have worked great.

You assert that anyone who has only served on Coyote has no real Recce experience. That's quite the statement.