Author Topic: Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle - RG-31, LAV Coyote, and (partial) G-Wagon Replacement  (Read 414093 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Matt_Fisher

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 19,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,149
  • Former Marine
Looks like the TAPV is likely to be armed with a CASW equipped remote weapon station:
http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/defencewatch/default.aspx

Delays in the CASW procurement are likely to in turn delay acquisition of TAPV until it can be announced what the winning CASW submission is so that the TAPV bidders can develop an RWS to work with it.

Offline Lance Wiebe

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 5,275
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 925
  • Retired WO
I heard that as well, Matt.

The TAPV will be equipped with a RWS mounting a 40mm AGL.

Just what a recce vehicle needs..... ::)
"It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who served beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protestor to burn the flag." - Charles M. Province

Offline Matt_Fisher

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 19,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,149
  • Former Marine
I heard that as well, Matt.

The TAPV will be equipped with a RWS mounting a 40mm AGL.

Just what a recce vehicle needs..... ::)

I am wondering whether or not the Armoured Corps is strategically trying to **** themselves time and time again in terms of vehicle procurement;

Rewind several years ago when they essentially sold out on the concept of MBTs in favour of the MGS, which turns out to be extremely short sighted.  Had we not gotten involved in a shooting war to validate the usefulness of a tracked, heavily armoured, direct fire support vehicle (aka Main Battle Tank), we'd have retired our tank capability.

Now currently, we're looking at getting rid of an 8x8 armoured platform that is capable of tactical cross country movement (albeit not as good as a tracked platform) with a 25mm 2 man turret which allows for decent crew commander situational awareness and weapon system lethality.
The vehicle we're looking at replacing it with will likely have significantly poorer tactical cross country mobility, not be sufficiently armed to counter enemy armour threats, and lack the situational awareness capability that a dedicated turret provides.

Interestingly, DRDC Valcartier recently published the findings of a study whereby they compared the 25mm GDLS Delco turret against the Nanuk RWS as well as a remote turret concept, and the Delco turret came out on top in all areas studied.

I'm not against TAPV as an RG-31 replacement, but as a Coyote replacement it seems to be pretty underwhelming in all areas except IED/EFP IED/AT Mine protection levels.

Offline Lance Wiebe

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 5,275
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 925
  • Retired WO
I couldn't agree more.  Situational awareness is critical in a recce vehicle. Unless, of course, we are going to buy another surveillance vehicle instead of a recce vehicle....

I wonder who in the Corps came up with that idea?
"It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who served beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protestor to burn the flag." - Charles M. Province

Offline Matt_Fisher

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 19,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,149
  • Former Marine
I wonder who in the Corps came up with that idea?

I have a sneaky suspicion that the Armoured Corps will try and sequester a small number (squadron's worth) of CCVs for a 'heavy' Recce element in an armoured battlegroup the case Canada finds itself in a shooting war with a heavily armed/armoured adversary where higher levels of protection, mobility, and firepower than what the TAPV affords are deemed necessary.

Whilst nothing is on the books officially about this, we've seen this sort of shift of vehicles from who they are initially procured for to someone else, i.e. Bison APC initially purchased for militia infantry units, then snatched up by the reg force as a utility APC.

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 430,915
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 22,311
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
A few more details on timing of TAPV project
« Reply #55 on: April 26, 2010, 20:57:26 »
This, from MERX, in response to a question asking for a clarification on the timeline:
Quote
..... Q) Can you clarify the period for the draft RFP release? Can you specify the period of the RFP closing date?

A) We anticipate that the draft RFP will be released during Summer 2010.   We anticipate that the formal RFP will be released during Fall 2010. The period of time for which the formal RFP will remain open remains to be determined ....

Latest bid package update attached.
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 430,915
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 22,311
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
New solicitation deadline, according to one of the recent amendments (attached):  2 Jun 10 (instead of 26 May 10).
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 74,480
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,644
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Torch post:

Canadian military procurement madness: The TAPV?
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/05/canadian-military-procurement-madness.html

Quote
Spend more to assemble it here instead of buying from the original equipment manufacturer....

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Recon 3690

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 83
can anybody say Ferret or maybe just a M38A1 with a C5 GPMG & a Carl G?
what are these mental midgets thinking? a recce vehicle needs tracks, stealth, speed, a self defence weapons system and the ability to find the enemy. I am not sure of the necessity of dismounts?
It looks like they are more interested in a heavily armoured staff car for the brass to ride around in than a proper recce vehicle, there is a reason the British are still using the Scimitar for recce it has tracks, a low silhouette, its fast, and has a 30mm punch in a package not a lot bigger than a G-Wagon. So just what are we getting for our tax dollars?

Offline Recon 3690

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 83
It seems used, up armoured Marders with the rear compartment converted for the electronics suite would be a better choice, not the best but better
« Last Edit: July 14, 2010, 08:14:01 by Recon 3690 »

Offline Recon 3690

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 83
Heres some oldies for you, are we going backwards?
WW II Fox

Offline Recon 3690

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 83
Ferret

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 208,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,777
... what are these mental midgets thinking?
Well, if any are/were reading, they are probably now thinking to ignore anything you might post.  Try following the site's guidance on tone & content.  Not only does this keep the level of discussion higher, it will increase the chances of decision makers paying attention to any  insights that you post.

Heres some oldies for you, are we going backwards?
So what?  I can post pictures of successful wheeled recce vehicles.  Compared to the Fennik, many other armys with tracked vehicles must be "going backwards" ... right?  Let's try to stick to real arguments and not all showman flash.

Offline Matt_Fisher

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 19,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,149
  • Former Marine
If the recce variant of the TAPV was able to be split into its own separate program, the newly released Panhard Sphinx might make a very interesting candidate:
http://www.armyrecognition.com/french_army_france_wheeled_armoured_vehicle_uk/sphinx_panhard_ebrc_armoured_vehicle_reconnaissance_combat_technical_data_sheet_specifications_uk.html


Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 430,915
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 22,311
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Partnership w/SNC-Lavalin
« Reply #64 on: July 28, 2010, 12:21:20 »
From this news release:
Quote
Force Protection Industries, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Force Protection Inc., a leading designer, developer and manufacturer of survivability solutions and provider of total life cycle support for those products, and SNC-Lavalin Defense Contractors, Inc., a Canadian-based provider and one of the leading engineering and construction groups in the world, today announced the formation of a strategic partnership to collaborate on the solution for the Canadian Government's Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle ("TAPV") program.

Force Protection Industries, Inc. previously announced that it has been selected by the Canadian Government as one of the competitor companies to provide up to 600 vehicles and related long term support services, with contract award to the final selected bidder in 2011.

Randy Hutcherson, Chief Operating Officer for Force Protection Industries, Inc., said, "We are very pleased to partner with SNC-Lavalin, a highly-respected and experienced company in the Canadian defence sector, to provide the winning solution for the TAPV project. Force Protection Industries and SNC are committed to providing the Canadian Forces with the safest, most reliable vehicle while investing in Canadian industry. We are looking forward to working with SNC as they have a wide range of capabilities and experience that will help shape the winning technical, support, and industrial and regional benefit solution for the Canadian government that will help save the lives of Canadian soldiers."

Peter Langlais, Senior Vice President and General Manager for SNC, commented, "Force Protection is bringing its expertise in design and supportability for its highly successful Cougar vehicles as the platform for the TAPV solution. Cougars are currently in use by Canada and have been instrumental in ensuring the safe transport of the men and women of the Canadian Forces. The Cougar TAPV will be specifically designed to meet the Canadian Government's requirements. The primary manufacturing and supportability will be completed in Canada, and Force Protection and SNC will work closely together with other Canadian partners to ensure that Canadian troops get the best possible solution available in terms of safety and performance, as well as a great value for the government." ....
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline Tango18A

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 1,587,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 887
I don't think the Sphinx is going to be upto replacing the Coyote sensor wise. It has a crew of 3, hard to man sensors when they all have tasks to carry out. A 4 man veh with a turret would be better, then there is always the ability to have a GIB as an extra set of eyes to the rear.

Offline Matt_Fisher

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 19,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,149
  • Former Marine
Out of the TAPV candidates that were submitted during the SOIQ the pre-qualified bidders are shortlisted to:

BAE Systems Hägglunds AB, Sweden--Alligator 6x6

BAE Systems Land Systems OMC, South Africa--RG-31 Mk5 EM

BAE Systems Land Systems OMC, South Africa --RG35 RPU

Force Protection Industries, Inc, USA --Cougar 4x4

Force Protection Industries, Inc, USA --Cougar 6x6

Nexter Systems, France --Aravis

Oshkosh Corporation, USA --M-ATV

Textron Marine and Land Systems, USA --MSV (Mobile Survivable Vehicle)

Thales Australia (response submitted through Thales Canada Inc.) --Bushmaster

Out of these candidates, about the only one that looks more like a dedicated AFV instead of an MRAP type truck is the BAE Alligator 6x6:   http://www.baesystems.com/Sites/ProductLaunches2010/Video/Alligator6x6/index.htm
« Last Edit: July 28, 2010, 15:06:06 by Matt_Fisher »

Offline Lance Wiebe

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 5,275
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 925
  • Retired WO
I checked out all of the contenders......I'm not convinced that any of them will make a decent recce vehicle.  Surveillance vehicle, maybe.
"It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who served beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protestor to burn the flag." - Charles M. Province

Offline McBrush

  • Guest
  • *
  • 260
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15
I must agree with Lance. Looking at all the Platforms I cant help but think of the log. issues the Res. Force would deal with. I do believe they will get some. It reminds me of the AVGP's. Having served on them and the Lynx. As I recall the roll of Recce. included Rear Area Security,Flank Guard,Convoy Escort,Screen etc.. Correct me if I am wrong Today they also in the RCD/12RBC have Direct Fire Support Sqn's. I believe in order to replace the Coyote you need all the current capabilities plus more.  The biggest upgrade would have to be the main gun. In the Convoy Escort, Rear Area Security the platform will provide close in Direct Fire Support, in a combined arms task force operation. Given the contenders I believe the only plateform that could support a 2 man turret would be the  BAE Alligator. The short fall would be no room for a Surveillance System. As for the main gun upgrade the Mk. 3 90mm or the Israeli 60mm HVG in order to keep it off the shelf. I believe the auto loading system for the 60mm should be the choice as the Crew Commander would have the ability to maintain Situational Awareness as they have now on the Coyote. The army needs to go forward not back ! Others have made the same observation and I totally agree.

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -7245.

  • "Some people will only like you if you fit inside their box. Don't be afraid to shove that box up their ass."
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 281,362
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,683
    • Army.ca
There won't be a log problem for the Reserves. As of this years Corps Conference, they aren't slated to receive any.
Corruption in politics doesn't scare me.
What scares me is how comfortable people are doing nothing about it.

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 208,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,777
Out of these candidates, about the only one that looks more like a dedicated AFV instead of an MRAP type truck is the BAE Alligator 6x6:   http://www.baesystems.com/Sites/ProductLaunches2010/Video/Alligator6x6/index.htm
I think we definately need an AFV and not a truck.  Looking at the Alligator, we may as well call on GDLS to build us a lower-profile 6x6 LAV III so that we could at least recieve logistic benefits from the common parts & training.

...I cant help but think of the log. issues the Res. Force would deal with. I do believe they will get some.
Actually, under the previous CLS the Army was very clear that it would not be buying armoured vehicles for the PRes.  I doubt that has changed and the PRes will not have to deal with any logistic issues related to TAPV.

The biggest upgrade would have to be the main gun.
We've had some other discussions on firepower for TAPV (Recce) above:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,87547.msg855985.html#msg855985

Offline McBrush

  • Guest
  • *
  • 260
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15
No offense to anyone. Back in the day as a Strat. in Recce Sqn. My favorite song was 6 weeks in a leaky boat. LOL  My Lynx pulled out more stuck 6x6's  be it a Cougar or Grizzly, then any ARV did for tracks in a tank Reg. But I agree we do not need a truck. But why a 6x6 go with the LAV III H and do a proper replacement with a upgraded gun. Thanks for the correction on PRes. I was under the impression they would get some. And also on the main gun link. Cheers

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 436,850
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,600
  • Crewman
I couldn't agree more.  Situational awareness is critical in a recce vehicle. Unless, of course, we are going to buy another surveillance vehicle instead of a recce vehicle....

I wonder who in the Corps came up with that idea?

I know someone whose name began with a "K" who thought the Coyote and ISTAR where the greatest things since sliced bread.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 195,720
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,741
  • Freespeecher
Re: Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle - RG-31 and LAV Coyote Replacement
« Reply #73 on: August 01, 2010, 14:33:28 »
I still call BS on the idea that the reserve cannot handle dedicated AFV's like the Alligator or LAV III.

Once again, I will point out the US National Guard only trains one weekend a month, but uses M-1 Abrams tanks, M-2 Bradley IFV's, MLRS and Paladin SP artillery etc. Swedish troops finish thier period of conscription and then are placed in reserve, they undergo two weeks training a year, but can operate CV-90 IFV's and Striv 122 tanks (Leopard 2 A-5 with improved protection and other modifications), and the IDF up to one month annually, although not all reservists are called up on any particular year. Our troops generally train one night a week, one weekend a month and deploy for concentration for @ 2 weeks during the summer, a far greater amount of time than these other reserve forces.

Buying larger quantities of vehicles for the Reserves will increase the pool of skilled operators, mechanics and so on, as well as lower unit costs through economies of scale. This process could also break us free of "managed readiness" by allowing for bulk buys of equipment to ensure that everyone has the equipment needed, so increasing the breadth and depth of the forces as a whole. Modern equipment is far mor robust and easier to service than past generation, so the dedicated full time staff needed to pull weekly maintainence would not necessarily break the bank either.

This purchasing of equipment in penny packets to stay under a yearly budget threshold, and denying the equipment to the Reserve simply increases costs over the long term, and narrows the breadth and depth of the Armed Forces, particularly in the Armoured trade, as George eloquently reminds us. 
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Matt_Fisher

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 19,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,149
  • Former Marine
Re: Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle - RG-31 and LAV Coyote Replacement
« Reply #74 on: August 03, 2010, 11:03:54 »
Whilst in agreement in principal with what Thucydides is saying about reserve competency, the biggest issue the CFs would have to overcome is the inclusion/incorporation of the necessary EME/Log support assets at the reserve unit level which would allow any sort of 'sophisticated' vehicle/weapon system to be maintained.