RG-31 ideal for the PRes?

[DG-41]

My Regiment had the honour of hosting the D ARMOUR at our Regimental Mess Dinner this weekend.

The plan to send all-Reserve Recce troops on rotos, employed as actual recce troops, is supported at the highest levels and is moving forward.

DG

 

[Armymedic]

is supported at the highest levels and is moving forward.

if I had a looney for every time I heard that....

 

[a_majoor]

is supported at the highest levels and is moving forward.

Infanteer, why were you being so coy about this?  ;D

 

[geo]

could very well see the Armd Recce drivers, crew commanders & gunners working with the Infantry & the Engineers...
There are plenty of oportunities for foot patrols for the Infantry to carry out in the hills surrounding Kandahar & the Pakistani border... the Infantry & engineers have their hands full.
large areas linked by ribbons of highway offer plenty of oportunities for Light RECCE formations.... you've trained in the field.... go ahead and Lead... by all means - lead the way IMHO.

 

[KevinB]

My Regiment had the honour of hosting the D ARMOUR at our Regimental Mess Dinner this weekend.

The plan to send all-Reserve Recce troops on rotos, employed as actual recce troops, is supported at the highest levels and is moving forward.

DG

:

I'd love to hear CLS and CDS's thoughts on this...

 

[geo]

I wouldn't

 

[John Nayduk]

One way or another, I'd like to know. 
If we are training to do a job that is not required of us, then it's time to go to a different unit or turn in my kit.  I'm not going to keep lying to my troops and wasting my time training for nothing.

 

[McG]

The role of Res Armd recce could be to augment the infantry recce (but not to form sub-sub units of thier own).  Eventually, the recce platoons may lack the manpower to provide all the capability desired for a given BG.  However, while not neccisarily able to cover all the tasks of the infantry recce, a 2-3 car reserve patrol could certainly do some and reduce the burden on the infantry recce tms.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

If that's the case then, why not re-role them as infantry units so that permanent bonds with the infantry recce. community are formed?

 

[geo]

One way or another, I'd like to know.  
If we are training to do a job that is not required of us, then it's time to go to a different unit or turn in my kit.   I'm not going to keep lying to my troops and wasting my time training for nothing.

Recceguy,
don't think that you guys are out of a job..... not by a long shot

The Infantry Recce guys are best suited for foot recces while you guys are trained for motorised/mech recce drills, tactics & doctrine. If given enough time, your boys can train & team up with the Coyote crews - otherwise, go out & get close...

 

[Spanky]

Geo, that's what we want to do.  That's what our chain of command is telling us we will be doing.  If our chain of command is wrong, (it wouldn't be the first time), and the observations and opinions of the more respected, senior and experienced posters in this thread are correct, then another recce guy is asking some very valid questions.  :brickwall:

 

[geo]

New show, new doctrine for a number of branches... some things will take time to get their act together.

Can tell you that the Engr branch was really impressed when they "canned" the Pioneers and gave the Engineers the job without providing the additional hands.
Can we do it - yeah, done it and then some BUT some of our boys are being pulled in a number of different directions at the same time.

Infantry did not really have the concept of "battle captains".... something the Armd developed & specialised in. You guys have a job out there - if you want it.

 

[John Nayduk]

I have heard rumours of combining all RECCE tasks into one MOC.  Of course they are just rumours and everyone will fight to protect their piece of the pie while trying to grab as much of everyone else's as possible.  Sort of like a Royal Canadian Reconnaissance Corp. 
Of course, this doesn't help the present situation where our guys not going to be deployed to do what they are training for.

 

[a_majoor]

I have heard rumours of combining all RECCE tasks into one MOC.   Of course they are just rumours and everyone will fight to protect their piece of the pie while trying to grab as much of everyone else's as possible.   Sort of like a Royal Canadian Reconnaissance Corp.  
Of course, this doesn't help the present situation where our guys not going to be deployed to do what they are training for.

That might work if we also rolled things into a combined arms "Cavalry" Corps in place of the Armoured. Then again, I have heard runors that I will either be the next CDS or GG....

 

[Kirkhill]

GG's Mine I tell you, All Mine.  ;D

 

[Matt_Fisher]

Back to the original topic...

CASR approached me to do a 'Modest Proposal' on my opinion that the LSVW may make a workable RG-31 trainer for the reserves.

They broke it into 2-3 stages of development:

Stage 1:  LSVW with centre mounted troop bench and pedestal mount for C-6/C-9.
Stage 2:  LSVW fitted with fibreglass/sheet metal mock up of RG-31 troop compartment
Stage 3:  Training RWS fitted to RG-31 mock up.

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/mp-rg31trainer.htm

 

[geo]

I like it.

Hate the LSVW but this workaround could work with other cargobed trucks
additional benefit would be that placing the spare tire on the side would eliminate the arm breaker spare release lever.

 

[a_majoor]

Matt inadvertently brought yet another example of how stovepiped and mixed up our system has become.

The RG-31 is (if I remember correctly) built from a modified UNIMOG chassis. When we bought "replacement" LUVWs we ended up purchasing MILCOTS Chevy Silverados and Mercedes "G-Wagons". How much better if the replacement for the LSVW had been the UNIMOG, which would lead to a commonality of parts and training with the RG-31, and of course UNIMOGS kitted out to act as RG-31 simulators would be much more useful and realistic. I wonder if it is too late to start buying UNIMOGS as an in theater prioraty.....

Actually, given the size of the RG-31, the UNIMOG model it is built on would make an excelent MLVW replacement.

Matt's proposal on a UNIMOG:

 

[McG]

The RG-31 is (if I remember correctly) built from a modified UNIMOG chassis.

No the hull is the chassis.  However, the manufacturer did attempt to maximize the use of UNIMOG parts in the Mamba.  I'm not sure it this carried over to the Nyala.

 

[a_majoor]

No the hull is the chassis.   However, the manufacturer did attempt to maximize the use of UNIMOG parts in the Mamba.   I'm not sure it this carried over to the Nyala.

I stand corrected. The point about planning for commonality still stands, though. Buying MILCOTS with their very limited ability to be converted into anything else was expensive and a loss of flexibility. Buying RG-31s in a penny packet for Afghanistan is a short term and expedient solution to be sure, but will be very expensive to sustain in the long run. (Can you imagine having to abandon them in Afghanistan when we end the mission because it is too expensive to support them here?)

If RG-31s were bought in large numbers for the PRES and as support vehicles for the CF, or UNIMOGS were bough in large numbers to act as CSS platforms (or both) then we would have a sustainable fleet, large stocks of parts, a pool of trained users and maintainers and the depth of experience to make the most out of these pieces of kit. As it stands right now, the first time most people will ever see them is either in pre training or when they get off the plane, a very short time to get familier, much less add to the stock of corporate knowledge and make things better with new mods or TTPs.