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

[dapaterson]

ACSV is a LAV hull - this probably should be on the LAV 6.0 thread, not the TAPV thread (GDLS vs Textron).

 

[RedFive]

I searched this topic prior to asking to question and didn't find an answer, so forgive me if it was covered any I missed it. I see in some of the old announcements about the TAPV 500 were purchased with 100 options.

Does anybody know if those options were exercised? Were they RWS versions or the slick tops?

Also, I know reviews on the vehicle have been poor, does anybody know if any efforts have/are being made to improve on it? Besides renaming (restructuring? I haven't received the lastest versions of the course content for Armour Reserve yet) Reserve Armoured Recce units to Armoured Cavalry?

 

[Underway]

Also, I know reviews on the vehicle have been poor, does anybody know if any efforts have/are being made to improve on it? Besides renaming (restructuring? I haven't received the lastest versions of the course content for Armour Reserve yet) Reserve Armoured Recce units to Armoured Cavalry?

I haven't seen a proper balanced "review" yet. I've seen bitching but that does not constitute a review. In my limited discussions with a few armoured MWO's there are pros and cons to the TAPV. They see value in the vehicle, it's surprisingly mobile and proved useful in the domestic operations it was deployed on. The negatives are well known at this point (signature -noise-size, crew numbers etc..).

Honestly, as an outsider, I think some of the initial roles envisioned for the vehicles are wrong. I don't think the Army got a lemon, they just bought a security/escort vehicle and were hoping it could do recce.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I haven't seen a proper balanced "review" yet. I've seen bitching but that does not constitute a review. In my limited discussions with a few armoured MWO's there are pros and cons to the TAPV. They see value in the vehicle, it's surprisingly mobile and proved useful in the domestic operations it was deployed on. The negatives are well known at this point (signature -noise-size, crew numbers etc..).

Honestly, as an outsider, I think some of the initial roles envisioned for the vehicles are wrong. I don't think the Army got a lemon, they just bought a security/escort vehicle and were hoping it could do recce.

Or we just didn't make up our mind, and got what we deserved: The Waffle Wagon...

A compromising Situation... TAPV

"A key problem facing potential TAPV bidders was that they were effectively being asked to replace two vehicle types from opposite ends of the capability, mobility and protection scales – the RG31 Mk3 and the Coyote LAV. At the LOI stage, the short-lived benefit for potential bidders was that there was no specific requirement for the Recce and Gen Util variants to be based on a common platform. However, the general consensus of opinion within industry was that while two distinct variants of the same base vehicle (ie: 4x4 and 6x6) might ultimately be acceptable to DND, the clear optimum solution of two totally differing vehicle platforms would never be."

1847-A-compromising-Situation...-TAPV| FrontLine Defence

defence.frontline.online

 

[Underway]

Or we just didn't make up our mind, and got what we deserved: The Waffle Wagon...

A compromising Situation... TAPV

"A key problem facing potential TAPV bidders was that they were effectively being asked to replace two vehicle types from opposite ends of the capability, mobility and protection scales – the RG31 Mk3 and the Coyote LAV. At the LOI stage, the short-lived benefit for potential bidders was that there was no specific requirement for the Recce and Gen Util variants to be based on a common platform. However, the general consensus of opinion within industry was that while two distinct variants of the same base vehicle (ie: 4x4 and 6x6) might ultimately be acceptable to DND, the clear optimum solution of two totally differing vehicle platforms would never be."

1847-A-compromising-Situation...-TAPV| FrontLine Defence

defence.frontline.online

And what did we actually end up with? The RG31 with higher mobility and lower troop transport capability.

I think it's pretty obvious that the Recce elements will be replaced by stealth (pun intended) with the LAV Recce going to be the only option available for Reg F elements in the future. Just keep sending GDLS contracts without competition and no one gets hurt.

And thus we'll end up with LAV-based platform commonality.

Though with those masts are they really recce vehicles? Or are they surveillance vehicles that can be used for recce?

 

[Kirkhill]

Its too bad there wasn't a light-weight, air-transportable, tracked vehicle with high road speeds, capable of mounting cannons and missiles.



CVR(T) FV101 - Scorpion 90 (Indonesian Army)

Is it really obsolete if there is no replacement with similar capabilities?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Its too bad there wasn't a light-weight, air-transportable, tracked vehicle with high road speeds, capable of mounting cannons and missiles.

View attachment 66126

CVR(T) FV101 - Scorpion 90 (Indonesian Army)

Is it really obsolete if there is no replacement with similar capabilities?

Whoa... I like the size of that cannon. It's definitely no 30mm pop gun.

FWIW, they're really good in the snow and boggy ground too. They also fit nicely on a landing craft, and in the back of a Herc on an platform for parachuting or lape-sing.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Cockerill® CSE 90LP - John Cockerill I have seen one of these 90mm Scorpions at Port Dickson, the gun is a bit much for the poor hull and you can see signs of cracking. To be fair these were old Scorpions refitted and used hard.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Cockerill® CSE 90LP - John Cockerill I have seen one of these 90mm Scorpions at Port Dickson, the gun is a bit much for the poor hull and you can see signs of cracking. To be fair these were old Scorpions refitted and used hard.

I once got a chance to drive one around Salisbury Plain for awhile (no, I did not steal it) and it was awesome.

Jazzed up Jaguar engine... vroom vroom!

 

[Rifleman62]

We tested out the army's new JLTV at Fort Dix New Jersey. This vehicle will replace the Humvee as the light infantry's primary tactical vehicle.

 

[armrdsoul77]

 

[calculus]

Yikes. Hope the troops are OK. Watching the video, however, I'm not sure my SUV wouldn't have rolled over either...

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Is this accurate for when this happened?

Canadian Forces Training Video Series. Provided to the Department of National Defence, 2018.

 

[KevinB]

One of the OMFV candidates appeared to be BAE but was right beside GDLS’s Bradley M2A4 - so I need to confirm tomorrow when the booths are setup correctly As it has a very Bradley like track layout and the size is very very similar but with room for a lot of troops compared to the Bradley due to the front left placed 1 man turret - appears to have room for 12 dismounts

 

[GR66]

One of the OMFV candidates appeared to be BAE but was right beside GDLS’s Bradley M2A4 - so I need to confirm tomorrow when the booths are setup correctly As it has a very Bradley like track layout and the size is very very similar but with room for a lot of troops compared to the Bradley due to the front left placed 1 man turret - appears to have room for 12 dismounts View attachment 73500

That's BAE's AMPV (Armored Multi Purpose Vehicle) which the US Army's M113 replacement.

GDLS's entry into the OMFV competition is the Griffin III. It has a 50mm cannon and only fits 6 x dismounts.

 

[FJAG]

One of the OMFV candidates appeared to be BAE but was right beside GDLS’s Bradley M2A4 - so I need to confirm tomorrow when the booths are setup correctly As it has a very Bradley like track layout and the size is very very similar but with room for a lot of troops compared to the Bradley due to the front left placed 1 man turret - appears to have room for 12 dismounts View attachment 73500

Get a bunch of interior shots for whatever looks good.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

That's BAE's AMPV (Armored Multi Purpose Vehicle) which the US Army's M113 replacement.

GDLS's entry into the OMFV competition is the Griffin III. It has a 50mm cannon and only fits 6 x dismounts.
View attachment 73501

meanwhile in other countries

Czechia And Slovakia Jointly Found a Way to Replace More Than 400 of Their BMP-1 and BMP-2

The armies of both countries will even train together to […]

military.binodon24live.com

 

[OldSolduer]

The CAF will be lucky to get a Bren Gun Carrier as a new vehicle judging by how long its taken to buy a new pistol.

 

[Kirkhill]

		TAPV	ASV
Length	m	6.81	6
Width	m	2.75	2.6
Height-Hull	m	2.39	2.215
Height - OA	m	3.21	2.6
Height - Turret	m	0.82	0.385
Clearance	m	0.635	0.46
Weight	kg	18,500	13,400
Tires		16.00 R20 XZL	14.00 R20XZL
RWS/Turret		Off Centre Right Front	Dead Centre
5 Tonnes heavier
Sitting 6 inches higher
Standing 2 feet taller
Turret off center right front instead of Dead Center
Tires rated for 55 mph (89 km/h) not 110 km/h

The ASV vs the TAPV

Here is the government approved TAPV summary



And the government approved layouts



So when I compare the TAPVs (which the CAF doesn't like) to the ASVs (which, apparently the Americans do like - when properly applied) I find the following:

The TAPV, which sits on the same wheel base as the ASV, with the same hubs and similar tires (same radius but wider thus more air volume) weighs 5 tonnes more than the ASV. The TAPV has a ground clearance of two feet (24 inches) while the ASV rides 6 inches lower with a ground clearance of "only" 18 inches. This puts the top of the TAPV hull 6 inches higher than the top of the ASV hull.

On top of the ASV hull the Americans put a one man turret, similar to that previously found on our ancient Grizzlies. In fact it is a descendent of the Grizzly turret because we adopted the Grizzly turret from the V150 Commando that was the 1970s ancestor of the ASV. That turret has a low profile and leaves a lot of mass inside the vehicle. The turret is located right dead center. Just like the gunner.

All of the above tends to give the ASV a low center of gravity.

Meanwhile the TAPV has moved the "turret", which is taller, further forwards and outboard, mounting it on the top, right, front of the hull. To my untutored eye that would seem to move the pendulum mass and, together with the increased overall mass, and the increased ride height, would both raise the Center of Mass and increase the instability.

I'm starting to think that the spare tire being mounted on the roof is there, on the top, left, rear, is placed there to counter-balance the positioning of the RWS. An impression enhanced by the tire slightly overhanging the hull. But surely hanging a mass on the left and balancing it with a mass on the right is only going to increase the tendency to sway once a sway starts?

As to the speed of the vehicle - the tires are cross country tires that can operate on the highway. They are not highway tires. The government says the vehicle can operate at 110 km/h. But Michelin only rates the tires for 55 mph or 88 km/h.



Finally, and curiously, although the design team (PWGSC, DND, CAF, CA, Textron, Rheinmetall, Kongsberg) relocated the turret from the relatively stable Top Dead Center position of the original turret, they left the gunner, with all the extra space that the turret would normally occupy, in place in the center of the crew compartment.

Now, if it were me, and assuming that the extra 5 tonnes of weight was necessary, I might be inclined to the following:

Replace the turret with the RWS in the Top Dead Center position. There are four roof hatches for the gunner to service it if necessary.
Move the spare wheel from the roof to the center front on the forward glacis.
Lower the ground clearance from 24 inches back to the original ASV height of 18 inches
Reduce the highway speed from 110 km/h to 90 km/h, maybe even 80 km/h.

Finally that gunner. move that seat forwards between the front wheels and just behind the two front seats.

Moving the gunner, would open up the compartment for more troops. 5 certainly, leaving a 3+5 configuration. Although Textron originally stated that as an APC, with a 2 man crew, the rear compartment could seat 8 for a 2+8 configuration.

It may be appropriate to just ditch the entire project. It's somebody else's money after all. But when it's your own money the tendency is to admit a mistake and do what you can to fix it so you can get an 80% solution out of it.

 

[Kirkhill]

TAPV Part 2

Some of the trials TAPV photographs.

It strikes me that had development stopped somewhere close to these, then some of the reported problems might have been set aside



And if there were to be an RWS, perhaps with different placement, perhaps another selection might have been appropriate.

PROTECTOR Remote Weapon Systems

KONGSBERG is the world’s leading provider of Remote Weapon Systems (RWS) and has to date delivered more than 20.000 PROTECTOR Remote Weapon Systems to 28 nations.

www.kongsberg.com

Something lighter perhaps? - Like the RS-2 Protector Lite? - Here mounted (Dead Center) on a UGV



Or at least something with a lower profile? - Like the RS-4 LPF -




Here is a CFPAO approved Matsimus video on the TAPV.

A couple of interesting comments attached to the video

Drove the prototypeM1117 guardian(U.s. Version) used as scout vehicles and gun trucks. Convoy security in Iraq from 06-07. Some reason concerns of roll overs came up. Fully inclosed turrets where held in mainly by gravity, so if it goes upside down, the turret came out. Mk19 auto-grenade launcher as a primary was restricted from use in urban environments. So secondary weapon(Browning m2) became the primary. Can personally attest to it's survival rating against I.e.d.s. I'd be goo in a bag mailed home, if not for textron's vehicle. If I had the money i'd buy a stripped down version for use.

First unlike many of the people who commented on this I am still serving and I work at the Armd School which is the Centre of Excellence for the TAPV. Matsimus has relied too much on the Textron talking points. Although Textron makes Commando Armored Vehicles that have seating capacity for 7 dismounts over and above the crew the Commando variant that Canada calls the TAPV only has seating capacity for 6 total in the general propose vehicle, 3 crew and 3 dismounts. The Recce variant has seating for 5 as extra batteries required it to lose a seat. Not a big loss since the crew complement in the Recce Orbat is 4. Again although Textron makes a Recce variant of the Commando the CAF did not buy the items like the surveillance tower and an independent crew commander's sight that would have made our Recce vehicle better suited to do Recce with. As I said Textron makes variations to the vehicle that would have made it more conducive to Recce and wanted to sell those variations to us but the CAF chose not to buy them.

Now in reality there ended up being 3 projects that were thrown into the one project that they bought the TAPV to fill. The Armd Corps has been looking to buy a "Light Recce Vehicle" since the mid 90s to compliment the Coyote (not replace it). Later on the Infantry Corps wanted a "Patrol Carrier" for 1 coy of their Light Battalions and then after our Afghanistan experience the CAF wanted to replace the G-Wagon in conflict zones as the run about vehicle. Somehow all three projects got moulded into one. The Textron Commando that we now know as TAPV was bought to answer all three needs. The 100 or so that were going to the Infantry were rejected because the Infantry decided that with only 3 dismounts the vehicle did not meet their needs. Although the Armd Corps took delivery of the vehicles it was much larger than the Light Recce Vehicle we were looking for. Also as has been pointed out by others, the weapon system is not configured for what the Armd Corps does ( Recce or anything else). This leaves the Run About vehicle in a conflict zone. It actually works very well for that as the original vehicle was designed for the US Army Military Police to drive around the Vietnam countryside without getting their butts shot off.

So some of the strengths of the vehicle. First one is crew protection. Textron claims that it has THE BEST crew protection of any 4 wheeled light armed vehicle in service with any military today. I believe it. This ended up being the single most important requirement from the CAF point of view and Textron had to redesign the vehicle several times to answer that requirement. The second strength, much to everyone's surprise, is the cross country mobility. Some of the crew who have used it cross country say it's as good as the Coyote, some say it is better. This consistent review from just about everyone initially surprised me but then I realized that the vehicle looks like a Damned Tree Farmer, so I guess it makes sense that it's good cross country.

As for the distribution throughout the Armd Corps, 17 of the approximately 27 F-Echelon vehicles in the Reg F Recce Sqn is now the TAPV. So approx 60%. The Armd Reserves have been included in the TAPV distribution so that the Reg F and Reserve side of the Corps now share a deployment vehicle. The TAPV is now the default PCF vehicle for the basic Crewman course for both sides of the Corps.