A Grizzly for Kandahar (& other Grizzly uses)

[Ex-Dragoon]

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/mp-grizzlyprt.htm

Interesting article in recyclingthe AVGP for convoy duties.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Methinks someone out there is looking for a quick contract.  Although the idea has some merit. Beats giving them to some tinpot dictator in Africa.

 

[TCBF]

We could always use Cougars!

;D

Tom

 

[Fishbone Jones]

If there were any breech rings left

 

[TCBF]

Breech Rings, HA!

M113 is probably just the thing they need.  The most flex veh we have.  time to think out of the box...

Tom

 

[MJP]

The last sentence of the first paragraph has this line.

Will PRTs [1] require a  CF armoured logistics vehicle ?

We already have them there, in the form of the Bison.  Why give us another armoured vehicle nature to sustain in a theater where supplies can only be flown in.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Why think out of the box.   LOL all you have to do is climb out of it.
Plus i hear the upgraded version goes like a bat out of h**l.

It does, but that's not the point.  As MJP pointed out, there are plenty of Bisons (and other vehicles) in theatre to do these functions and they work just fine.  Supporting another vehicle at an air head wouldn't serve much purpose.

As an aside, the Yanks (A Coy, 1/4th Infantry) had M113s in Kabul during their time there as election support forces.  Never turned a track...

 

[Armymedic]

Don't look now, but the next M113's you will see driving around Kabul will be from ANA's 2nd Kandak 3 rd Brigade. They have an MTT here from South Carolina training up the entire Bn on the entire M113 family....

It won't be long before the combined T62-M113 battle group is into the action.

Grizzlies(AVGPs) are antiquated garbage, if they are going to Afghanistan, they should be donations to the ANA, not used for PRT.

Besides PRT is not supposed to have armoured vehicles...scares away the civie aid workers apparently...

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

It's a moot point anyway...  Most of the serviceable Grizzlies should be headed to Sudan in our effort to "equip" the African Union...

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Wouldn't Grizzles and Bisons be better served as enemy force in Wainwright instead of using LAV's?  Or is that the case already.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

I believe the decision's been made by the Army Commander to delete the entire AVGP fleet and to cancel all these rather nebulous rebuild projects.  There are none with OPFOR in Wainwright and only a few were intended to go to the Battle Group suite there. 

Cheers,

TR

 

[TCBF]

"We already have them there, in the form of the Bison.  Why give us another armoured vehicle nature to sustain in a theater where supplies can only be flown in."

- before we landed in Kandahar in 2002, I had asked if the route up from Karachi would be opened soon.  I was basically called an idiot.  Three months later, all of these Pak trucks start convoying in with sea-cans on their backs. 

Tom

 

[McG]

Wouldn't Grizzles and Bisons be better served as enemy force in Wainwright instead of using LAV's?  

That would make more sense than stripping those LAV III from units that might deploy in that type of vehicle.

 

[mcnutt_p]

We already have them there, in the form of the Bison.   Why give us another armoured vehicle nature to sustain in a theater where supplies can only be flown in.

When I was in Pet, I was working SPSS with the RCD's prior to my switch to Armd from the Inf. Trying to get parts for kit in Canada is a pain in the cock at the best of times.

Putting the Grizzly in to theater would be a logistical nightmare, for everyone.

10 Reason why it would be bad logistically
1. Acquiring enough AVGP's
2. CentralizingEquipment
3. Making purposed mod's
4. Training crews on mod's
5. Transport to Montreal or Halifax
6.   Loading
7.   Unloading
9.   Transporting to Afghanistanfrom port.
9.   Acquiring stores while in Afghanistan
10. Maintinace

McNutt

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

That would make more sense than stripping those LAV III from units that might deploy in that type of vehicle.

You're obviously not a believer in "Whole Fleet Management"!    Better to have vehicles parked than with the units... :

The long and short of it is that the AVGP is kaput, so this discussion is an exercise in semantics.  The Huskies got a lease on life for a year or so, largely due to the lack of an immediate replacement.

 

[McG]

You're obviously not a believer in "Whole Fleet Management"!

Even if it is the only option, I think it has room for improvment.  Keeping the AVGP fleet for CMTC OPFOR would be one of those improvments.

The Huskies got a lease on life for a year or so, largely due to the lack of an immediate replacement.

Is there a plan in the pipes to replace these?

 

[JackD]

Hello - I'm new here - so I do apologise people on this thread are saying that these grizzlies and cougars are going to be ditched.... shouldn't they be passed onto the reserves as they are paid for - yes long in the tooth but aren't there enough of this vehicles around to equip some units for training purposes? Is there truly a problem with having a two tier army - the latest equipment for the regs, older but serviceable equipment for the reserve forces - or does this question enter the tangle of what the reserve force is supposed to be?

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Even if it is the only option, I think it has room for improvment.   Keeping the AVGP fleet for CMTC OPFOR would be one of those improvments.

Perhaps.  However, the rebuild program was cancelled in its entirety.  To retain Grizzlies would require reactivation of that (or a similar) project.  I suppose the vehicles could be re-engined.  The problem is that OPFOR doesn't use large numbers of vehicles, so we'd be running an orphan fleet of 20 or so AVGPs...

Is there a plan in the pipes to replace these?

  Yup, Bison MRT.

... shouldn't they be passed onto the reserves as they are paid for - yes long in the tooth but aren't there enough of this vehicles around to equip some units for training purposes? Is there truly a problem with having a two tier army - the latest equipment for the regs, older but serviceable equipment for the reserve forces - or does this question enter the tangle of what the reserve force is supposed to be?

There are all sorts of problems with keeping AVGP in service.  First, these vehicles are, to be blunt, junk.  The Cougars especially are on their last legs and use an obsolete gunnery system.  Drivetrains are shot.  Remember that these will soon be thirty years old!  Second, there is zero capacity in the Reserve Force to maintain such burdensome vehicles on their own.  That means centralized storage and maintenance, which has been tried before, rather unsuccessfully IMHO.  Finally, no Reserve unit currently has a role which would require issue of Cougar/Grizzly.

And yes, the question does enter the minefield of that the Reserves are supposed to do...

 

[JackD]

Thanks for your reply - I was from the era of the 25 or so year old 21/2 ton and  8 or so year old m113 - The grizzly was rather young then - I rather thought there was a program of continuous up-date and thought it little more than an armoured truck. I didn't think it so maintenance intensive. I hope the days haven't come back when a 5 ton with a sign on the side stating "T-64" substitutes for the real thing - and that I experienced as a reg force sapper.

 

[ArmyRick]

As I said with M113, the same for the Grizz (I have worked with grizzlies alot too)

GOOD BYE AND GOOD RIDANCE