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

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

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
79
Points
530
GK .Dundas said:
This might be off topic slightly, but is it just me or is armoured recce different now from our current doctrine and we just haven't acknowledge it.  With modern IR airborne sensors on cheap UAV's, and surveillance packages that can look 10's of km away isn't the idea of a light armoured vehicle that sneaks and hides kinda dead in many ways?  US uses Bradleys for armoured recce, UK uses the new Ajax, Australia is buying the Boxer...  their doctrine is different granted.

Now I'm not arguing pros and cons of TAPV in the recce game, but the increase in armour from traditional light assets seems to follow the general trend in recce vehicles over the "English speaking" world at the very least.  Is our doctrine totally out of touch?  Is it kept alive because we can't be bothered to spend money on proper armoured recce equipment? Are the people here arguing about old ways of doing things that have less and less value?
I have to admit to a certain amount of confusion, myself. We really don't seem to purchase vehicles to fit with whatever doctrine we're using and then kind of force fit the vehicle into the doctrine. We certainly did with the Coyote and the TAPV seems similar.

Up til 2013 there was no RECCE doctrine. I don't know what's happened since then. We made it up as we went along depending on the task and available equipment. The Troop Leaders Guide to the Galaxy has been in 'draft' form since the 90's and I don't think It's been officially replaced yet, at least, I've not heard anything if it was. The last official version was the 70's one with the T-62 and PT-76 removed as our threats. There's been lots of draft and unofficial copies of stuff floating around. One of the first things any commanders course had to do was rewrite the  SOPs so that everyone, from different units, is on the same page. Some stuff stays the same, like a blind corner drill. Some other things change on a constant basis, like surveillance. There's a big difference in doing an OP screen from a hole, tied by sigs wire to your small sneak and peek vehicle or an OP screen of big, dirty noisy Coyotes. It almost seems like everything we do is by rote and we just add and subtract things based on resources and situations. If anything, it keeps everyone confused to what we do and how we do it.
 

Infanteer

Army.ca Myth
Staff member
Directing Staff
Donor
Reaction score
168
Points
780
Fishbone Jones said:
Up til 2013 there was no RECCE doctrine. I don't know what's happened since then.

B-GL-394-001 Ground Manoeuvre Reconnaissance is the Army's doctrine for manoeuvre reconnaissance (infantry and armoured recce).  It was written in 2008 and just recently updated in 2015.  It describes Armoured Reconnaissance organizations, tasks, and TTPs.
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
79
Points
530
Infanteer said:
B-GL-394-001 Ground Manoeuvre Reconnaissance is the Army's doctrine for manoeuvre reconnaissance (infantry and armoured recce).  It was written in 2008 and just recently updated in 2015.  It describes Armoured Reconnaissance organizations, tasks, and TTPs.

Thanks. We never saw it in 2008. And we never saw a copy by the time I retired. Last course I was on in 2010-11 didn't use it. That was a SSM course. Did they have a light recce role defined yet? THE RECONNAISSANCE SQUADRON IN BATTLE B-GL-305-002/FT-001 (CFP 305 (2)) is the reference I was speaking to. It just never seemed to get updated and that's the one that was the everyday reference for us. Perhaps I'm speaking of something different? If they finally got around to replacing it, that's a good thing. There was a book I recall, it was a weird bifold book. I don't recall exactly what it was about, but I do recall that we didn't use it.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
58
Points
530
Underway said:
This might be off topic slightly, but is it just me or is armoured recce different now from our current doctrine and we just haven't acknowledge it.  With modern IR airborne sensors on cheap UAV's, and surveillance packages that can look 10's of km away isn't the idea of a light armoured vehicle that sneaks and hides kinda dead in many ways? 

Sorry for a late reply, I just saw this reading thru the thread this morning.

Speaking from my experience on ops and ex's, yes the idea of 'sneak and peek' Armd Recce is extremely hard to do successfully if your OPFOR has airborne EO/IR, and even harder if they have imaging and GMTI RADAR, etc.  Darkness is my friend, not theirs on the ground.  RADAR doesn't much care if it is undercast or not.  Need to run your AFV in your patrol base to charge your batteries?  Nice, IR loves that sort of stuff.

How long those airborne assets will last over a modern battlefield, is a different discussion.

 

Infanteer

Army.ca Myth
Staff member
Directing Staff
Donor
Reaction score
168
Points
780
Eye In The Sky said:
How long those airborne assets will last over a modern battlefield, is a different discussion.

Yes, counter UAV/Sensor Aircraft is a hot topic, since it is so prominent in Western efforts to whack third world armies/insurgents.  For all the talk about stealth fighters, everyone talks about beating their stealth by taking out the unstealthy tankers and AWACS planes....
 

reveng

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
74
Points
480
Good post EITS.

Between modern airborne ISR, SIGINT/EW, and overhead capabilities I'm not super convinced that "sneak and peek" would work out so well against a peer or near peer OPFOR.

Sure these assets can be knocked out (not by us, mind you) but friendly forces face the same reality.

In the end what does that leave us with? A TAPV or LAV vs something like a T-14 or T-80? No thanks...
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
181
Points
680
standingdown said:
Good post EITS.

Between modern airborne ISR, SIGINT/EW, and overhead capabilities I'm not super convinced that "sneak and peek" would work out so well against a peer or near peer OPFOR.

Sure these assets can be knocked out (not by us, mind you) but friendly forces face the same reality.

In the end what does that leave us with? A TAPV or LAV vs something like a T-14 or T-80? No thanks...

Lower risk COA might be to hit those assets with indirect fire.  See Ukraine...  LAV's might do OK depending on the type of indirect fire as they are designed to withstand 155 shell fragments but a TAPV is done.  But that's the chess match I would guess.  It explains why the UK and AUS are going with heavier Recce elements. But TAPV isn't really a near peer vehicle design is it.  It's looks good for convoy escort, counter insurgency and peace support operations.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
84
Points
530
Bump

There is a Facebook rumour that the TAPV is having its operational scope, its uses expanded.  It is a curious expansion apparently.  It seems that it is being expanded into every other role than its intended roles at time of procurement.

Recce is right off the board.  Recce will get LAV 6.0  and LAV 6.0  LRSS.
 

McG

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
58
Points
530
Chris Pook said:
Bump

There is a Facebook rumour that the TAPV is having its operational scope, its uses expanded.  It is a curious expansion apparently.  It seems that it is being expanded into every other role than its intended roles at time of procurement.

Recce is right off the board.  Recce will get LAV 6.0  and LAV 6.0  LRSS.
I thought this news had been on the street for a few years?  The majority of TAPV were bought to institutionalize the role of RG31 in converting light infantry into pseudo mechanized infantry, but the infantry corps recognized this was a bad idea that would lead to something that was neither light infantry nor mech infantry (with none of the strengths but all the weaknesses of each).  That is why divisions were invited to concoct distribution plans that included the PRes (the Army Commander who initiated the project was adamant that he would never waste money buying an AFV for the PRes).

The plan to replace some Coyote with LAV 6 LRSS is also a few years along development, but Recce will continue to use TAPV because the Armd are not getting enough LRSS variants to fill-out all the squadrons they have.  So it will be mixed fleet recce.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
1,078
Points
910
MCG said:
The plan to replace some Coyote with LAV 6 LRSS is also a few years along development, but Recce will continue to use TAPV because the Armd are not getting enough LRSS variants to fill-out all the squadrons they have.  So it will be mixed fleet recce.

... which is awesome because it diversifies our risk.... right? :)
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
84
Points
530
MCG said:
I thought this news had been on the street for a few years?  The majority of TAPV were bought to institutionalize the role of RG31 in converting light infantry into pseudo mechanized infantry, but the infantry corps recognized this was a bad idea that would lead to something that was neither light infantry nor mech infantry (with none of the strengths but all the weaknesses of each).  That is why divisions were invited to concoct distribution plans that included the PRes (the Army Commander who initiated the project was adamant that he would never waste money buying an AFV for the PRes).

The plan to replace some Coyote with LAV 6 LRSS is also a few years along development, but Recce will continue to use TAPV because the Armd are not getting enough LRSS variants to fill-out all the squadrons they have.  So it will be mixed fleet recce.

Perhaps it is just now percolating out to the civvy world?  You have jogged my memory on previous discussions on this site but the "rumour" to which I referred seemed to indicate that the infantry employment was off the table as well.  The TAPV seems now likely to be a Liaison & Utility Vehicle and Rover across all arms.
 

Loch Sloy!

Jr. Member
Reaction score
10
Points
130
We sure spent a lot of money on a vehicle we don't know what to do with.

At least we could have purchased some of the Infantry Section Carrier versions (give them to reserve armoured so they can taxi reserve infantry around) or better yet some of the mortar variants so we could actually move our 81mm mortars around...

I would have even preferred we replace the milcots rather than buy TAPV.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
84
Points
530
Loch Sloy! said:
We sure spent a lot of money on a vehicle we don't know what to do with.

At least we could have purchased some of the Infantry Section Carrier versions (give them to reserve armoured so they can taxi reserve infantry around) or better yet some of the mortar variants so we could actually move our 81mm mortars around...

I would have even preferred we replace the milcots rather than buy TAPV.

Personally I would rather the money have been spent on 500 Bisons - Empty LAV IIs.
 

McG

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
58
Points
530
Chris Pook said:
Personally I would rather the money have been spent on 500 Bisons - Empty LAV IIs.
At this point, we would be better with LAV 6 in RWS variants ... call it a "Bison 2" if that helps.  End result would be fewer fleets to manage, train, and support.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
84
Points
530
MCG said:
At this point, we would be better with LAV 6 in RWS variants ... call it a "Bison 2" if that helps.  End result would be fewer fleets to manage, train, and support.

Seen.

 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
84
Points
530
The mini-TAPV - the 7 tonne JLTV

Blind Spots and Loud Noises: Report Finds Problems With New JLTVs

https://www.military.com/dodbuzz/2019/02/25/blind-spots-and-loud-noises-report-finds-problems-new-jltvs.html

Big, noisy, ugly, hard to see out of, hard to get out of and hard to get ahold of your kit. 

And the Army has to leave the armour behind because the Chinook doesn't lift as much as the Stallion.

Aside from that - the answer to a maiden's prayer.
 

AlDazz

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
60
Some very good discussion on the TAPV and it's potential rolls.  Have to say this seems to be vehicle ordered for the last war that is looking for a real job.  I watching some video from 5 Div and noticed that it has jerry can mounts on lower rear of the hull. Don't we still back into hide locations?  What were they thinking?
 

Spencer100

Sr. Member
Reaction score
8
Points
180
You a project is done when you get to Windsor  LOL

https://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/windsor-regiment-shows-off-new-tactical-armoured-patrol-vehicle

 

OceanBonfire

Sr. Member
Reaction score
11
Points
230
ACSV production has started:

Production of Armoured Combat Support Vehicles Begins

anRCw1H.jpg


Production on the first Armoured Combat Support Vehicle (ACSV) has begun in London, Ontario at the General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada manufacturing facilities. These new vehicles will fulfill a variety of combat support roles such as that of Troop/Cargo Vehicle (TCV), ambulance, command post, and mobile repair and recovery.

The contract for this project was awarded last September, and since then, a number of subcontracts have been awarded by General Dynamics to allow work to start. These subcontracts represent over $137 million in investments to more than 30 Canadian businesses from coast to coast to coast, creating and sustaining over 400 jobs across the country.

This is a big step forward as the government continues to deliver on Strong, Secure, Engaged, Canada’s first fully costed and funded defence policy. As per the Industrial and Technological Benefits Policy, General Dynamics will re-invest an amount equal to the value of the contract to create and sustain well-paying jobs across the country.

These vehicles will replace the current fleets of M113 Tracked Light Armoured Vehicle (TLAV) and the LAV II Bison. The first vehicle is expected roll off the production line this December, with deliveries occurring through February 2025. Testing, training, and procurement of spare parts will be required before the initial vehicles are distributed to Canadian Armed Forces bases in 2022.


https://www.facebook.com/CanadianForces/photos/a.1524483394445524/2951245298435986/

https://twitter.com/CanadianForces/status/1290726907307347970

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2020/08/production-of-armoured-combat-support-vehicles-begins.html
 
Top