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

[AC 011]

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.

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.

I don't have access to those layouts, though it would be interesting to see how the +8 could be squeezed in there. Maybe something involving bench seats? If the blast mitigating seats weren't there, a bench seat which incorporates the t-case cover could possibly be made to work. Not that I'd want to sit there though.

An 80% solution would be great. But honestly, at this point, I'd take being able to field even just 1x 4-car troop.

 

[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

I found a video, prepared by the BCR. It clearly shows the post ahead of the Gunner's position.

It would still be nice to find an interior shot, or panorama even.

 

[RedFive]

Is it this video?

It has some pretty good interior shots.

 

[Kirkhill]

Is it this video?

It has some pretty good interior shots.

It is. And I apparently forgot to link to it in my posts.... DOH!

Thanks for the link.

It would be nice to see the space behind and beside the Gunner though.

 

[Underway]

Just 12 months ago, there were still people who would have dismissed any arguments that NATO armies might possibly find themselves in conflict with Russia. Insugencies and small wars were the new way of things. Those same people will likely see the TAPV as exactly adequate to fight another war vs the Taliban. The idea that the CA must prepare primarily for a war against the Taliban has infected other projects over the last 15 years, and we still have projects in the pipes that are optimized to sustain Kandahar. It’s not right, but it is where we are.

I'm so glad the RCN isn't preparing to fight the Taliban.

Ships of the desert are not the same as the ones I'm qualified to operate on...

 

[AC 011]

It would be nice to see the space behind and beside the Gunner though.

A Google image search for "tapv interior" will bring up a few photos that give a good idea of the layout around the gunner's seat.

 

[Kirkhill]

A Google image search for "tapv interior" will bring up a few photos that give a good idea of the layout around the gunner's seat.

I've spent a bit of time doing exactly that. Either I'm not finding the same photos you are or else there is no space around the gunner's seat.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Is it this video?

It has some pretty good interior shots.

That's a great recruiting video, seriously. Well done.

On the other hand, the overall impression it gave me of the TAPV might be reflected in the word 'lumbering', which is kind of the opposite of what I thought you wanted for armoured reconnaissance.

 

[Kirkhill]

That's a great recruiting video, seriously. Well done.

On the other hand, the overall impression it gave me of the TAPV might be reflected in the word 'lumbering', which is kind of the opposite of what I thought you wanted for armoured reconnaissance.

The procedures for clearing and loading the weapons looked a little sub optimal as well. Looked kind of drafty out there.

 

[Kirkhill]

@AC 011

If I'm not mistaken that is the CC's seat. That joystick - is that for the RWS? Duplicating the Gunner's controls?




By the way, you seem to have improved my Googlefu.

 

[Kirkhill]

TAPV photo series.

WarWheels.net - Tactical Armored Patrol Vehicle (TAPV) Photos

Tactical Armored Patrol Vehicle (TAPV) Photos courtesy of Don Allen

warwheels.net

 

[Kirkhill]

2+8 in a TAPV - Maybe if they are Gurkhas.

 

[GR66]

2+8 in a TAPV - Maybe if they are Gurkhas.

Obviously we just need to buy a BIGGER TAPV!

 

[OldSolduer]

I keep saying to all those who will listen that every time the CAF gets something new - I am looking at you Army - some people think the new stuff carries more. This will be the case here. The bright sparks who write doctrine rarely have to apply it.

 

[FJAG]

TAPV photo series.

WarWheels.net - Tactical Armored Patrol Vehicle (TAPV) Photos

Tactical Armored Patrol Vehicle (TAPV) Photos courtesy of Don Allen

warwheels.net

Thanks for those. In short - knowing that a whole bunch of bright engineers and tankers spent a lot of time on designing the interior - it looks sub-optimal at best.

There are a few things that come to mind right off the bat.

1. The TAPV looks to me like an ideal vehicle for carrying the surveillance package which we've put into the LRSS while the LRSS comes with a turreted gun and the space for more dismounts than the TAPV can carry. A TAPV RSS would easily fit the required crew for such a system. If we swapped the RSS to the TAPV hull it would free up 66 LAVs to reroll as armed scouting vehicles (throwing in a few more dismounts and ATGMs) (and who decided that 66 LRSS could replace 141 Coyotes? And what happened to the 141 Coyote surveillance packages anyway?)

2. The TAPV could become a 120mm mortar carrier using the rear passageway for the stowage of the mortar with the front for a four person det and ammo racks. With a bit more work it might even be suitable for an internal mortar under armour.

3 The TAPV could easily be converted or used for a UAV or UCAV det; an ATGM det; an artillery gun detachment; and possibly an AD det.

 

[McG]

The TAPV looks to me like an ideal vehicle for carrying the surveillance package …

That was the original plan. Something caused the Army to abandon that. Could be that the TAPV is not a viable platform for the surveillance package.

 

[AC 011]

@AC 011

If I'm not mistaken that is the CC's seat. That joystick - is that for the RWS? Duplicating the Gunner's controls?


View attachment 73882

By the way, you seem to have improved my Googlefu.

Yes. That's the CC position. RWS controls are duplicated, but with Commander override.

 

[Kirkhill]

And that is an amazing pile of gear piled higher and higher on top.

The CC has an amazing set of surveillance gear available. But the Gunner is using the same gear.
And the guns.... do they have a viable amount of ammunition for fire support if the gunner has to exit the vehicle to reload?

 

[Kirkhill]

That was the original plan. Something caused the Army to abandon that. Could be that the TAPV is not a viable platform for the surveillance package.

Were they looking at something like this? Separating the Observer station with its own mast and turret from the RWS? That would make a lot of sense. It would also reduce the height, complexity and weight of the RWS.

 

[daftandbarmy]

View attachment 73886View attachment 73888View attachment 73887

And that is an amazing pile of gear piled higher and higher on top.

The CC has an amazing set of surveillance gear available. But the Gunner is using the same gear.
And the guns.... do they have a viable amount of ammunition for fire support if the gunner has to exit the vehicle to reload?

The guns would look better if one was at least a 30mm flavour