Our 'maybe' new recce vehicle

[couchcommander]

The problem with traditional light recce given our current operational environment in Afghanistan, as I see it (and hopefully others), is quite simply that we do not have the capability to go unnoticed in military pattern vehicles, no matter how quick, stealthy, or small a foot print they have. The moment they leave the base one should (and usually correctly) assume your movements are being tracked. With this information the enemy can avoid contact with you, or, if you present a target he thinks he can destroy with minimal casualties on his part, engage you when and where he chooses. The fact you are in a Gwagen or DURO will not change this fact. Gwagens and DURO's are simply lighter, easier targets to attack either conventionally with rockets and rifles, or unconventionally with IED's or suicide bombers.  You are still in a highly distringuishable vehicle trying to indentify enemy forces amongst a population that looks exactly the same as they do. They have the ability to decide when you come under attack, not the other way around.

As I, and others mentioned, this means that you HAVE to be able to absorb this attack, when it happens, where it happens, how it happens, as you will not be in control of the circumstances, and as well have the ability to continue to be operationally effective and not just a unit that needs to be rescued (as you will most likely end up dead if this is the case, which none of us want).

It was mentioned that using light recce might work better in the country side where the enemy cannot hide so readily. Yes, if this is the case then this is most definately true. However, even in the country you go through villages, winding roads, forests, and especially in afghanistan, mountainous terrain where you can't see around the next bend.

Whoever mentioned the fact that troops on the ground are still the best intelligence gathering tool I think was absolutely right, and, as many have mentioned, also present a much more difficult target for insurgents. This route, IMO, should be pursued as well.

Does this mean traditional light recce is done for? No. There are definately streets (many) in urban environments where a LAV will not fit, and in which case you will have to go with the best armoured vehicle you can, which is probably the duro (but hopefully supported by dismounted infantry). As well, light recce still has many applications in more conventional theaters where there is a more clearly identifiable force, and in peacekeeping in general. It's not that it's a bad doctrine, IMO, it just doesn't fit the theater.

....*awaits beheading*.....

 

[Britney Spears]

One question re: PR value of tanks.

If the local population were generally supportive of the occupation force, or at least, desire some modicum of security for their daily lives, would they not be heartened by the prescence of heavy murder machines? After all, both the insurgents and the local pupolation probably have a much better idea of what the real threat level is, so any psoturing or showmanship on your part isn't going to convince anyone, apart from the insurgents who may decide to step up attacks on lighter forces.


Ralph Zumbro, in his book Tank Sergent, notes in Vietnam that

1) The best way to anticipate an attack, gauge local enemy activity, and otherwise gather intelligence, was to observe and interact with local civillians. This is obvious.

2) Friendly local civillians, far from being intimidated,  generally felt more secure, were much happier and more willing to co-operate in the prescence of a visible show of strength and commitment such as a tank.

3) If a group of clean cut young men, walking down the street, become visibly shaken and intimidated when confronted by a tank, then they are most likely insurgents. If they instinctively start to flee in panic upon hearing the turrent motor traversing, then they are definetly insurgents, who have faced tanks in previous battles. 

How's that for "intelligence gathering"?

 

[Kirkhill]

I also refer to the "spaces in between"; hence why I posted the video of the HUMVEE getting nailed on a freeway in an open desert.

If you are on a free-way you are a target.  That is no place to be doing "recce by stealth".  You are a bump on a log waiting to be knocked off.  You may be doing route recce, you may be doing convoy escort, there may be a hundred and one legitimate reasons why you have to be stuck out there,  there may be other reasons that it is done that are less legitimate (faster and easier to get from point a to b).

What is the difference between driving down a freeway and following a trail in a forest? None.  In both cases you have made yourself observable and told the enemy where he can expect to find you in 5 minutes.

The old instruction to "get off the trail" seems as appropriate now as it did when a kindly warrant whispered it in my ear 20 years ago. 

Unfortunatly, I believe (and it is up for debate) that cities, along with other forms of complex physical terrain, are where our enemy will go. 

I agree that they will go to the cities.  They will also go to the open spaces like Tora Bora - complex terrain but open in the sense of devoid of people therefore with a lower general threat level.  In that environment look to the examples of the SAS (anytime), the LRDG and Popskis Private Army (WW2), American troops in Afghanistan in early campaign with the Norther Alliance in 2002, even current operations with Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan,  they aren't being done with Bradleys and Abrams and as far as I can see Afghanistan is mixed terrain, as much as Iraq is, with the added benefit of mountains.  There are urban communities, mountains and foothills, complex terrain that allow for close approach but equally long sight lines can be found in the desert plains as well as the mountains and foothills.  A 2000m sniper shot or whatever it was is not possible with short sight lines and that was in the mountains.

That you don't want to die?  I would assume the same message would be sent with a LAV.  If you don't want to harden, diffuse - send your scout/sniper - Light Infantry teams to meld into the local environment.

Precisely.  Unfortunately that is what the locals are risking all the time, in particular the local constabulary, and if you want their respect, a key condition to getting their co-operation I would think is to share some of their risks.  Also unfortunately I don't think you can engender a feeling of security in the local populace by generating a stealthy presence (isn't that an oxymoron? - sounds like something out of the Twilight Zone - not particularly comforting).  Presence seems necessary to generate a secure environment.  Presence means being seen. Unfortunately it also makes you a target. Shared risk however engenders respect.  I remember seeing a photograph from the early days in Basra of a very brave but shit-scared Iraqi policeman on patrol with British troops.  He was hugging the walls, had a rusty AK-47 and was wearing a blue shirt, no armoured vest.  The Brit troops on patrol with him were not just wearing Balmorals, they were also not wearing vests.  His risk was their risk.  They have since been ordered into armoured vests, armoured landrovers and Warriors to reduce casualties.  What effect though has that had on their ties to the locals?

All easy enough for me to say because when I volunteered 20 odd years ago nobody took me up on my offer and shot at me.  Those volunteering today have more than my respect.

He avoids our strengths by going there; the dumb ones who take to the field will face our strengths - we won't even have to worry about recceing them out because the USAF will wipe them off the map. 

Who said anything about fighting in the open? He has already targeted your lines of communication, your stores, your planning areas, your rest and recreation areas.  Where do you suppose his might be?  In the cities where he is always looking over his shoulder? Or out along the ratlines on the borders, over the mountains, across the deserts?  Thats one of the reasons for the current activity in Western Iraq,  smaller cities admittedly are included in the target set but as critical are the wide open spaces around the cities, towns and farms where the smugglers operate.

You are dead right in that when they are dumb enough to get caught in the open then the USAF can finish them off.  Isn't that an argument for patrols with low profiles, long range observational kit and good comms?

As to the open vs closed vehicle argument, whether this offers anything more than the g-wagen/LAV combo I will plead the fifth and stay shtoom.  Should have done so long ago no doubt.  At a guess though I am going to suggest that there are cultural differences at play here, not just between inf and armd but between hvy and recce.  And in that regard I am all for generating comfort.  Whatever it takes to make the individual soldier as comfortable as possible so that they will get the job done.

Some feel comfortable on foot behind a hill, some in a jeep with guns bristling in all directions, some in small vehicle with a bit or armour, some in a bigger one with a gun, some behind a lot of armour.  Personally the reason that I preferred the infantry was the fact the I have a tendency to claustrophobia and a fear of fire.  I loathed being stuck in back of Grizzly or M113 relying on somebody else to do my seeing for me.  Much preferred life with sore feet.  Thus Calg Highrs and not KOCR across the parade square.

Fortunately there is a need for all those types and each can be appropriately utilized in the right circumstances.

Whiskey asked "who invented the horse?"  Brilliant question.  Nobody invented the horse.  There was no design committee defining needs and wants, features and benefits (that job went to the committee that came up with the camel).  The horse was available.  It was grabbed and utilized.  TTPs took care of where, when and how to use it in different situations with idiots like Edward the Second using it in a bog at Bannockburn or the French in a muddy field at Agincourt.

Back to my well-beloved (but probably stale-dated) tag line - "horses for courses".

Cheers anyway.

 

[Kirkhill]

PS - the Duro appears to be better mine-protected than either the G-Wagen OR the LAV at Stanag 4569 Level 2a (isn't that a 12 lb mine?),  it is smaller than the LAV thus can fit in tighter places and it is more bullet proof than the G-Wagen (don't know how it compares to the LAV).  Yes it sacrifices ease of dismounting, ears in the wind and weapons bristling.  In exchange you get longer range optics, a heavy weapon and ready grenades all of which can be utilized not just under-armour but in a hull-down position.

Exhaling again.

 

[Infanteer]

The old instruction to "get off the trail" seems as appropriate now as it did when a kindly warrant whispered it in my ear 20 years ago.

Umm...okay, where are you going to go now?  What are we aiming it, driving all over the hinterlands where nobody and nothing is?  You're probably not going to need much protection for that - Hadji isn't going to put his IED out in the middle of nowhere.  As well, you're off-road, so your going to lose some mobility in a heavy box; would Kevin's suggestion of a "Chenowith"-style dune buggy be more appropriate for short duration off road missions?  Otherwise, use helicopters to spit out a patrol or fly a UAV over it.  If there are humans around, than the "get off the trail" analogy doesn't work, because you're back on the trail.

I agree that they will go to the cities.  They will also go to the open spaces like Tora Bora - complex terrain but open in the sense of devoid of people therefore with a lower general threat level.

The mountains of Afghanistan are incredibly complex environment - what they lack in human complexity they probably more than make up for with a much higher variance in microterrain.  Plus, unlike buildings, mountains offer many positions that are nearly indestructible to firepower - they simply have to be cleaned out.  Stephen Biddle's paper goes over this in detail.  If you are fighting in the mountains, you won't be needing a jeep, much less a LAV.  Helicopters, donkeys, and au pied is the way to go.  If you leave the mountains, you are back to the scenario presented by Iraq; incredibly complex urban terrain with empty spaces in between.

What effect though has that had on their ties to the locals?

I'm not sure, and I guess that's another debate altogether.  Stick them in a Warrior or stick them into a boxy, enclosed jeep; the effect is going to be the same, no?  You will get the opposite of putting them out on a foot patrol.

Who said anything about fighting in the open? He has already targeted your lines of communication, your stores, your planning areas, your rest and recreation areas.   Where do you suppose his might be?   In the cities where he is always looking over his shoulder? Or out along the ratlines on the borders, over the mountains, across the deserts?   Thats one of the reasons for the current activity in Western Iraq,   smaller cities admittedly are included in the target set but as critical are the wide open spaces around the cities, towns and farms where the smugglers operate.

I'd argue that yes the cities are where he is, because he doesn't have to look over his shoulder - he just keeps doing what he does as a shoemaker or whatever.  Abu Buckwheat over at Lightfighter has a book coming out on how these insurgent cells operate in cities; he's explained some of it over there.  Small groups of insurgents disperse in a neighbourhood under civilian guise - they come together for an operation, with cells coming together for larger targets.  The complex environment of the city is where they get their "operational screening" so to speak.

If we wish to interdict supplies and/or training in the hinterland, I guess that is another task you wish to analyse.  Wouldn't a LAV with dismounts be more effective?

You are dead right in that when they are dumb enough to get caught in the open then the USAF can finish them off.  Isn't that an argument for patrols with low profiles, long range observational kit and good comms?

Again, Kev's Chenowith "dune-buggy", or SOC-capable forces in their gun-trucks (pink panther anybody?) are going to be the way to find things if you are going out into the middle of nowhere to find buried treasure.

As to the open vs closed vehicle argument, whether this offers anything more than the g-wagen/LAV combo I will plead the fifth and stay shtoom.   Should have done so long ago no doubt.   At a guess though I am going to suggest that there are cultural differences at play here, not just between inf and armd but between hvy and recce.   And in that regard I am all for generating comfort.   Whatever it takes to make the individual soldier as comfortable as possible so that they will get the job done.

Comfort takes second place to effectiveness.  The original argument focused on the fact that this vehicle was simply another pony in a stable full of ponies.  Furthermore, it was argued that this pony didn't quite do what the other two ponies did rather well.

For the most part, you seem to be focusing on SASO/Insurgency/Peace Enforcement missions.  Do you think that this capability isn't much to offer in higher tempo warfighting operations?

 

[ArmyRick]

I saw this vehicle when GDLS brought it to meaford for a couple of days last spring.

 

[Kirkhill]

Umm...okay, where are you going to go now?  What are we aiming it, driving all over the hinterlands where nobody and nothing is?  You're probably not going to need much protection for that - Hadji isn't going to put his IED out in the middle of nowhere.  As well, you're off-road, so your going to lose some mobility in a heavy box; would Kevin's suggestion of a "Chenowith"-style dune buggy be more appropriate for short duration off road missions?  Otherwise, use helicopters to spit out a patrol or fly a UAV over it.  If there are humans around, than the "get off the trail" analogy doesn't work, because you're back on the trail.

I might be going to a position of observation, not driving all over anywhere, looking for what might be on the road or moving towards the road while keeping a safe amount of open ground around me.  And the fact that insurgents can't and won't lay IEDs everywhere is precisely the reason for moving on parallel routes or for keeping to open ground IMHO.

Foot soldiers and helos in the mountains versus jeeps/Duros whatever?  I don't know.  I've driven up the backside of a mountain in a Toyota Celica.  Damnear fell off the other side.  What course are you running your horse over?  Duros, by the way are heli transportable.  LAVs aren't.

LAVs with dismounts more effective in wide open areas? Perhaps.  I'm not doing the job.  Dune buggy, LAV, Duro, or G-Wagen.  As far as I can see all of them can and have been used to advantage in similar terrain.  Armoured Cars were used in the Western Desert in 1940 by O'Connor, cross country, to cut off the Italian army moving along the coast road.  Stirling's jeeps took the fight to the enemy ripping up airfields.  Rommels and Auchinleck's tanks both conducted wide flanking manoeuvres.  The Germans used and Armoured Car as a primary recce vehicle (name escapes me) in the same country.

Comfort? Not physical comfort.  Psychological comfort.

High intensity? What the heck is that anyway? All conflicts have their high-intensity phases, usually concurrent with one side or the other involved in an assault while the other defends.  Do I think it is reasonable to drive forward an assault mounted in jeeps?  No but David Stirling apparently did.  Mounted on foot? No but millions of Russians, Americans, Brits, Canadians, Germans and Aussies have, to name but a few. To hold ground from a hasty defence without armour for 3 days? No but 2 Para did at Arnhem in 1944.

It is a matter of suiting the available tools to the necessary tasks.  And not every job requires or benefits from the application of a sledge hammer.  I have seen a number of mechanics tool kits where they actually have two types of hammers and occasionally a screwdriver.

 

[Infanteer]

I'm not to sure where you are going now.   In an effort to keep the thread on course, I'll stick to my original 2 points:

1)   Do we need this vehicle?   What for?   Does it offer us a capability we don't already possess?

2)   By giving the Armoured Corps a beefed-up technical, there is an implict notion that the recce will be conducted from the platform.   How does your notion of "longer range optics, a heavy weapon and ready grenades all of which can be utilized not just under-armour but in a hull-down position" compare to the information presented that has the Americans pulling their HMMV equipped Light Cav forces off the line?   Is platform mounted, stealthy, close recce an option that is worth putting our limited resources into?   Is it a capability that is worth our time and effort?   I quote Lance:

So, if my argument is accepted, that "stealth" recce is best conducted "au pied", then we have need for two vehicles.   One to get the team in to a position to conduct their patrol, which can be done by the Gelandewagen, and the other vehicle to be used for the other traditional recce task, patrolling.   Now, my thoughts are that we need a well aromoured, mobile platform to conduct patrols.   It doesn't matter if the patrol is for route security, showing the flag, or whatever.   We need a tough vehicle that can be used, if necessary, to draw the bad guys out, and to intimidate.   Perhaps a tank?

 

[Recce41]

What I mean by fight is to go looking for a fight. Yes in an ambush, you fight. Recce has 15+ tasks in 3 zones.
1.RAPZ
2.RAS
3.Screen.
We use the Coyote for all three, but it is not the best veh. It is big, it sucks for RAPZ, RAS yes, Screen thats its high light. It does not matter if you are in a TANK,Coyote, or GW. If you get hit, you get hit. If its your time, its your time. I have learned train of thought from my father. You cannot outrun death.

 

[couchcommander]

What I mean by fight is to go looking for a fight. Yes in an ambush, you fight. Recce has 15+ tasks in 3 zones.
1.RAPZ
2.RAS
3.Screen.
We use the Coyote for all three, but it is not the best veh. It is big, it sucks for RAPZ, RAS yes, Screen thats its high light. It does not matter if you are in a TANK,Coyote, or GW. If you get hit, you get hit. If its your time, its your time. I have learned train of thought from my father. You cannot outrun death.

Recce41,

I think the question I am getting at is as follows:

Is the duro actually going to enhance our ability to perform RAPZ recce in Afghanistan given the terrain and nature of the threat?

IMO it seems as though this role would be better suited to a combination of armour, dismounted infantry, UAV, and Gwagen when there isn't enough physical space for a LAV. So basically, what does the duro offer that these systems do not (we have shown it will be no more inconspicuous or "stealthy" and will be as susceptible to attack as a big LAV, and really speed does not have a lot to do with things (see Infanteers video of the highway))?

 

[sjm]

As Couchcommander says in a PC kind of way; the best way to find the enemy has always been to drive your overly exposed butt into his killzone.  When it's your turn, it's your turn.

The WWW will tell you many things but Recce by fire is more fun.

Back on page 2 someone was leaning towards the small and fast idea. My favourite by far.

A moving target is harder to hit, take it from there...

The wpn of choice of the "evil-doers" seems to be always accompanied with a few RPGs.

RPGs are manufactured with very low quality control, most of the fuses require "hard" tgts to detonate.

I understand Crown Assets is dumping a bunch of Iltis really cheap.  A quick hunt through a few homegrown museums would turn up enough spare parts to rebuild a small fleet.

I loved the Iltis, what other veh would float through mud and if you rolled it over the driver could upright it while the co-driver got the Perk fired up.

If you coin to blow the Chenowth would be cool, the chicks dig that super charged testosterone dripping dune buggy, dude.

 

[DG-41]

Don't get me wrong, given the choice between survivable and not, I definately lean towards the survivable end of the spectrum. Plus I want a gun. Despite our longstanding fetish for "recce doesn't fight" historically that isn't true. Recce can, has, and will fight when necessary; it just has to be careful about picking its battles and to stand ready to disengage if the fight gets too big.

The gun in the LAV is a perfect recce gun. Small, light, reliable, and still packs a whomp. In fact, I think LAV and Stuart are pretty comparable when it comes to capabilities.

But while I lean towards something a little heavier than Iltis or GWagon (and hey, I *like* Coyote as a recce vehicle) I think you can also go too far on the protection spectrum, especially if you start paying a size or speed penalty. Coyote is probably as big as you can get, and there's a strong argument for going smaller.

I don't think you can count on being able to take a hit, not when Hadji and friends are occasionally killing Abrams. In fact, I don't want to surrender the initiative to the enemy; I want to wrest it away from him and make him dance to MY tune.

Ideally, I think I want something like the old British Fox - similar turret as the LAV, but in a smaller and quieter package. I want the gun, I want it stabilized, I want a thermal viewer, I want smoke grenades, I want enough room for me, my driver, JAFFO, and our kit, and I want enough armour so I can shrug off 7.62 (and 12.7 wouldn't break my heart)

Anyway, back to tactics:

So let's say Achmed (who has gate watch duty) calls Hadji on his cellphone to let him know that the Canadian patrol has just left Camp Hypothetical and it's time to pop the IED he has hidden in the culvert on the patrol route. Hadji takes up his overwatch station, primes his trigger, and his buddy Khalid grabs the video camera and moves to his overwatch station (as per what is becoming doctrine in Iraq).

Our heros come down the patrol route in their stealth recce vehicles, making no more noise than a normal car. Because both the troop leader and the patrol commander did proper detailed map recces as part of their battle procedure, they know the culvert is coming up (although they don't know there's a IED in it) Accordingly, 42F takes up a concealed position of observation on the culvert and the buildings beyond, rather than just bumbling along fat dumb and happy into Hadji's ambush.

At this point, both Hadji and our heroes have overwatch on the killing zone, and neither knows the other is there. Hadji, however, is expecting vehicles to go cruising along over his bomb, where 42F is expecting there to be a bad guy and a bomb at the culvert.

42E spots (perhaps with the aid of his thermal gunsight - I can dream a little) Khalid and his video camera, gets suspicious, and then spots Hadji and his binos. At this point, he doesn't know that Khalid and Hadji are necessarily bad guys, but binos and video cameras in conjuction with a spot to hide explosives warrant further attention. So he contacts the troop leader, who comes up with a plan to sneak two patrols around behind, and then detain and question the two suspects.

Because the vehicles are small enough and quiet enough, this part of the plan is executed. On command, 42E and 42F both pop forward into Hadji's view (but not into his kill zone) and when both Hadji and Khalid react, they cover both targets while the other patrols pop out from behind and nab them.

You could do this in Iltis (with some sort of portable FLIR), you could do it in GW, you *might* be able to do it in LAV (which is getting a touch on the big and loud side) You could also do it in Lynx, Ferret, or Stuart.

So I guess the real question is: how does this new vehicle differ from the recce version of the GW? If it's a little harder, has a lower CG, has a better hatch for the crew commander, has some sort of optics package for the crew commander, smoke grenade launchers, and is similar in size, speed, and noise signature, then I think it's a win.

DG 

 

[Lance Wiebe]

IF (that's a very big if) we, as an army, decide that we need a true reconnaissance vehicle to conduct recce as we practised it with Dingo's, Fox, Ferret, Lynx et al, that's one thing.  For a true cross country, highly mobile, light weight platform, it is almost impossible to beat the Weasel family of vehicles.  Working in pairs or in threes, with both 20mm cannon and TOW, it provides its own self-protection when necessary.  I still think that we should have bought this family of vehicles for the Reserves.  Somewhat stealthy, but carrying a respectable stick.  However, they are lousy at intimidating populations, they look like a go cart on tracks.  Cute little devils.

We already have a surveillance vehicle, so no need to cover that any further.

However, if we decide that we need a patrol vehicle to "show the flag" for peace keeping type operations, that's a whole different kettle of fish.  Any vehicle can "show the flag".  The big problem, it seems to me, is that we (Canadians in general) don't want to expose our soldiers to any risk while showing the flag.  So, we need an armoured vehicle.  Not necessarily armed, but protected.

Of course, showing the flag also can mean showing resolve and capability.  Sometimes that capabaility is even required.  So we now need a protected, armoured vehicle that is armed.  We can handle that, with the LAV III, although they end up costing a lot, what with breakdowns and rebuilds and such.  Occasionally, we may need a vehicle that is armed with something bigger than an overgrown machine gun.  Here, our masters are going to fill the need with the awful MGS. 

Here we see the crux of the argument that others have alluded to time and again.  What is good in peacekeeping is not neccessarily good in war, and the opposite is also true.  Tracks are undoubtedly best for mid to high intensity war, while wheels are best for operations other than war. 

As others have said; our masters in Ottawa should be deciding doctrine and requirements before buying equipment ad hoc.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

Sorry to burst your bubble there DG, but as someone who's had his share of IEDs and ambushes sprung on him, your scenario is a little too sterile for the real world.

The noise of the engine doesn't really make much difference.  

It's not like the insurgent hadji is alone in the countryside.  It's not like they're exclusively using culverts to hide IEDs in.  The side of the roads in Iraq are literally covered in trash heaps.  It's not too hard to hide an IED built out of 152mm shells in that.  It's to the point where they're casting IEDs in concrete sections of curbing so it's indistinguishable from the sidewalks.  Or Vehicle-Borne IEDs...on a busy road with alot of local traffic it's nearly impossible to tell which vehicle is 'bombed up'.  It's not until you've got a car or truck careening into your vehicle check point and your only defense is to lay a wall of lead in its advance, hoping the driver is killed before he has a chance to detonate. You've got to realize that there are tens, if not hundreds of other people milling about with their daily business.  There are just too many people to be watching all the time.  So, in likelihood he's going to remain hidden while observing you, initiating the IED and afterwards.  You're not going to know where or who triggered the IED.  After the IED goes off, you've then got the choice of detaining dozens of people who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.  If you detain them, you're just further pissing off the local population against your presence.  You question the people, but nobody knows anything and if they do, they're certainly not going to tell you anything.

You can do overwatch all day long on these routes, but the insurgents will always have the initiative.  It's about having a vehicle that has the ability to carry a dismounted recce. team, maintain a level of somewhat decent protection, have a protected weapons station (either turret or remote) and maintain decent road and cross country mobility.  When you start talking about a vehicle such as that, you're describing either a LAV-25 on the 'light' armoured spectrum, or if you go tracked you're talking CV-90, M-3 Bradley, Warrior, etc.

Alot of references to British and Australian recce. tactics/equipment being the same as the Canadian, but on the equipment side look at what they're using:
Aussies:  ASLAV-25 and an Aussie version of the Bison.  For longer range SAS, deep insertion type missions they're using a 6 wheeled land rover, but that doesn't fall into the 'conventional' recce. forces we've been discussing.
Brits:  Scimitar and Warrior, both a tracked AFV platform.  The Panther Command & Liason Vehicle (very similar in size/weight/configuration to the Duro/Eagle 4) is not intended as a recce. platform.  It is just as the name describes, a 'command and liason' vehicle...aka OC's rover.

 

[George Wallace]

Like Lance, I too have advocated the Weasel in the past.  It would be a great Recce Vehicle.  It is small.  It is fast.  It will easily fit within a CH 53, CH 47, EH101, etc. All would easily carry three.  Only draw back is our new policy of "NO TRACKS".  A big mistake on our part, as far as I am concerned.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Other advantages of the Weasel is that it is cheap (both to buy and operate), it is low maintenance, it is simple to use, and it fits in with our Reserve recce doctrine.  Even if we buy enough to equip each Armour Unit with a half squadron, it would go a long way to fulfill a lot of needs.  Such as giving the Reserve a new recruiting tool, a new mandate (ship a couple of patrols out with each deployment) and fill a niche that exists presently.

I don't want to hijack the thread, though.  We have to decide exactly what doctrine we are to follow before we start buying new vehicles. 

 

[Recce41]

Hello Lance/George
We at the Armour school do agree with you. But we will not be tracked. The role of the res is close Recce. Get in, dismount, Recce, get out. I may say Recce does not fight, but as I said, it will. But it is one of the last tasks in the 15. It will hold ground, it will attack, it will destroy the enemy. But it is not its primary role. We have to get away from WW2, Cyprus, Germany, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc they are theatres to use, but not to focus on. We have to adapt to the changing sit!
In 02 we used Tanks as Recce on the CTCC. This was a Recce by Force. We have to be flex. The plan is the Coyotes in a screen, Tow security, ADATs the air bubble, and the light guys moving forward, fast to spots that were seen by the Coyote, UAV, Air Recce. I and many of us in the Recce Cell at the school, would like a Weasel, but take a light wheeled if we have to. Compared to the big, useless Coyote.

 

[a_majoor]

Hello Lance/George
We at the Armour school do agree with you. But we will not be tracked. The role of the res is close Recce. Get in, dismount, Recce, get out. I may say Recce does not fight, but as I said, it will. But it is one of the last tasks in the 15. It will hold ground, it will attack, it will destroy the enemy. But it is not its primary role. We have to get away from WW2, Cyprus, Germany, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc they are theatres to use, but not to focus on. We have to adapt to the changing sit!

Unless we want to go the route of American Armoured Cavalry Regiments and divisions, I am pretty sure the fighting part is being able to effectively fight in self defence. If we want/need to put recce patrols in fast, dismount, recce, get out, then a LAV certainly gives you the speed, and also protects the patrol should they come under contact while getting in, recceing or getting out. It is not perfect protection, but it is far more than any "jeep" or truck derivative can offer.

In 02 we used Tanks as Recce on the CTCC. This was a Recce by Force. We have to be flex. The plan is the Coyotes in a screen, Tow security, ADATs the air bubble, and the light guys moving forward, fast to spots that were seen by the Coyote, UAV, Air Recce. I and many of us in the Recce Cell at the school, would like a Weasel, but take a light wheeled if we have to. Compared to the big, useless Coyote. 

If you believe the Coyote (and LAV) is too big, and tracks are not on, would a wheeled "scout car" like the Fennik or Fox work for you? This class of vehicles offer everything except the ability to carry a usable number of dismounted scouts. If this is the case, we still need a protected means of bringing dismounted scouts in and out of action.

 

[Recce41]

I hate the word Scouts, scouts are a American word to me. We have tooo many US crap words now. TASK FORCE< SCOUTS< and that damn star words for our general rank.
Sorry: but anything with a 3 man crew, fast, and can defend itself. I would like a veh that I can turn around on a dime and not a 8 pt turn.

 

[George Wallace]

No doubt you are just as thrilled with the title of this thread "Our 'maybe' new recon vehicle".  8 pt turns aren't as bad as the 28 pt turns we have to do with the LAV family.  ;D