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

[tango22a]

GW:

Well maybe you won't have to have your "divot" replaced after all....

BZ for well thought out specs!

Cheers,

tango22a

 

[tango22a]

Chances are that I'm wrong, but the way I see it this is our LAST chance to get it right. If we blow it this time we might as well give up Recce as we now know it.

Ever since we canned the Lynx it has been all downhill. Coyote is/was an excellent surveillance vehicle, but it's no longer state of the art. Sensors are fine but do not replace feet/tracks on the ground.

To go along we will need an update on Tactics and Doctrine for this new vehicle. Hopefully something for both RegF and PRes Recce will come forward from this requirement.

I realize that you've got to cut your coat according to your cloth, but for G*d's sake don't make it necessary that we have to radically modify Recce Tactics and Doctrine to suit a totally unfit vehicle that we have been forced to accept, just because that's all there is.


(signed) An Old R011C Dinosaur

 

[McG]

I would NOT want to lose the 25mm unless it was replaced by a 30mm, or larger.

One of the things that has been getting attention (though not necessarily with TAPV) is reduced velocity medium caliber cannons.  Think of something between AGL (with lower muzzle velocities & higher trajectories) and more conventional IFV cannons (with very high velocities and designs focused on Sabot rounds for light armour on light armour battles).

Casings are shortened and propellant reduced.  In theory, you could still have Sabot ammunition but your chances of killing anything lightly armoured would be significantly reduced.  The advantages would be that more ammunition could be carried, platform rock would be reduced, and lighter vehicles could carry the weapon.  While KE projectiles become less useful, more CE projectiles would be used - HEDP-T, HEI-T,  and induction fuzed air-burst rounds.

It might not be perfect, but it may be an adequate compromise to keep some heavier firepower on a lighter vehicle.

 

[Infanteer]

One of the things that has been getting attention (though not necessarily with TAPV) is reduced velocity medium caliber cannons.  Think of something between AGL (with lower muzzle velocities & higher trajectories) and more conventional IFV cannons (with very high velocities and designs focused on Sabot rounds for light armour on light armour battles).

Casings are shortened and propellant reduced.  In theory, you could still have Sabot ammunition but your chances of killing anything lightly armoured would be significantly reduced.  The advantages would be that more ammunition could be carried, platform rock would be reduced, and lighter vehicles could carry the weapon.  While KE projectiles become less useful, more CE projectiles would be used - HEDP-T, HEI-T,  and induction fuzed air-burst rounds.

It might not be perfect, but it may be an adequate compromise to keep some heavier firepower on a lighter vehicle.

So....a fancy Cougar turret?

I can see the utility of the 300 IFV variants being used to ferry around CIMIC, Force Protection, Recce Dets, and all those folks.

Not too sure about the Recce Variants.  Will this throw a wrench into doctrine we've spent the last decade building with the surveillance/recce suite in the Coyote?  What about the TUA-LAV?  How is that being rolled into this?

Understanding that they want a little jeep car for Armoured Recce, but I was thinking that LAV III-Hs with an updated mast and more Guys in the Back, combined with Mortar and TOW LAVs as a "Cavalry Arm" would offer a more robust armoured reconnaissance capability

 

[McG]

So....a fancy Cougar turret?

More like a range reduced LAV 25 turret, but the weapon could also be mounted on RWS or unmanned turret.

Not too sure about the Recce Variants.  Will this throw a wrench into doctrine we've spent the last decade building with the surveillance/recce suite in the Coyote? 

I listened to a presentation by one of the most recent authors of the ground recce doctrine.  He seemed quite frustrated that there were a significant number of Coyote-isms that were pulling people away from enacting the actual doctrine.  He seemed most frustrated that many seemed to think "Surveillance" was a role/function as opposed to just being a task given to recce.  If Coyote has never properly fit our doctrine (even with a re-write in the last few years) then maybe a new platform is a good thing  ....  but I think the doctrine was flexible enough for Coyote to fit as long as commanders did not pigeon hole it into just a surveillance role.

What about the TUA-LAV?  How is that being rolled into this?

It is not.  It jwill continue to exist on the LAV III, and there will not be a TAPV-AT.  However I think the TAPV-Recce variant should have a fire & forget missile capability.

 

[TCBF]

- The limitations of the Coyote were more attributable to the shallow tactical backgrounds and lack of imagination of those who directed their tasks, rather than the limitations of the crews or their patrol, troop and squadron leadership.

- Combat Arms soldiers who never had the opportunity of functioning in a brigade-plus environment had little idea of what medium recce was intended to do.  To them, a Recce Sqn of Coyotes was a portable DEW Line.

- As for armament:  Experienced Infantry 'over here' have told me that they consider the 25mm their most important weapon.  "We live or die by the 25!"

- I grant that the above para would not apply to all elements, but those elements not using 25 are backed-up by elements with 25 (and 105, and 120...).

- In a recce context, there is no back up.  If you don't have it, you won't get it in time.

 

[McG]

Experienced Infantry 'over here' have told me that they consider the 25mm their most important weapon.  "We live or die by the 25!"

That is absolutly the case, and I've won a few heated arguments with individuals trying to convince me the wieght savings might be worth giving up the firepower.  In all cases, they failed to consider options which would offer the weight savings and keep (or increase) firepower.  I think the infantry should keep a proper medium caliber cannon, but a 35 - 40 mm might be a welcomed improvement.

For recce, there may be suitable firepower with a combination of MG, Fire & Forget AT Missile (x 2) and a reduced velocity 30 - 40 mm cannon.

 

[Infanteer]

- The limitations of the Coyote were more attributable to the shallow tactical backgrounds and lack of imagination of those who directed their tasks, rather than the limitations of the crews or their patrol, troop and squadron leadership.

- Combat Arms soldiers who never had the opportunity of functioning in a brigade-plus environment had little idea of what medium recce was intended to do.  To them, a Recce Sqn of Coyotes was a portable DEW Line.

And there it is - what is the doctrine that is driving this purchase?  I say this as a question as MCG highlighted, I am not too up to speed with Armoured Recce Doctrine and the new GMR Pam (although I should be).  However, I have worked close with, and even been in charge of, a few Coyotes and their flexibility was pretty handy.

With my magical doctrine wand, I see Armoured Recce (or medium recce, as TCBF termed it) as some sort of Cavalry in line with the Aussie Cavalry Regiment, US Cav with their M3s or the Marines with their LARs.  In the Brigade Group context or simply attached to a Battlegroup, it has the firepower, standoff and boots on the ground ability to act as a somewhat independent force.  Look at the US LAR Task Force's dash to Tikrit.

I like the buy of a TAPV for all the "other guys" (CIMIC, Infantry Recce, Force Protection, etc, etc) but in my world, I'd like a next Gen LAV fleet based recce that puts the TOW system to good use as well (having worked with that as well, and really enjoyed it).  Perhaps DLR and the doctrine guys have a different endstate envisioned.

My 2 Cents - feel free to pick apart.

 

[McG]

Reading Infanteer's post in the TAPV thread, I think his idea might be the smartest thing. Buy LAV H, put a new surv suite in them with some dismounts. Keep a turret. Take that money out of TAPV.

OK.

It is really nice that there are so many posting here with all kinds of suggestions.  Unfortunately, it is really grating on Armour Corps personnel when people who have absolutely no smic of what they are talking about, start making suggestions about what the Armour Corps needs.

LAV H with a Surv Suite and dismounts is just the latest example.  There is no room for dismounts with a Surv Suite in the back. 

If you don't have the knowledge and experience, you are only making a mockery of the discussion.  Your "outside the box" ideas are for the most part out of the ballpark in the realms of the Tinfoil Hat Brigade.

There may be no room for dismounts & a Surv Suite in the back of a Coyote, but the LAV H is a much bigger beast (even larger than LAV III).  However, while LAV H might fit Surv Suite & a few dismounts, the large size of the vehicle begins to cause problems for stealth & concealment. 

Today I saw a picture of the South African Krokodile.  It is a very recent design and appears to be a 6x6 evolution of the RG-31.  The vehicle has lost a lot of the RG-31's SUV look while appearing more like a real fighting vehicle.  It has two rear doors, appears to have a more stable CG, and apparently was designed with EFP threats in mind.  Unfortunately, aside from a brief mention in a Jane's article, I cannot find any other discussion of the vehicle.  The Krokodile could be completely inappropriate for our needs, or it could be a good fit.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

Today I saw a picture of the South African Krokodile.  It is a very recent design and appears to be a 6x6 evolution of the RG-31.  The vehicle has lost a lot of the RG-31's SUV look while appearing more like a real fighting vehicle.  It has two rear doors, appears to have a more stable CG, and apparently was designed with EFP threats in mind.  Unfortunately, aside from a brief mention in a Jane's article, I cannot find any other discussion of the vehicle.  The Krokodile could be completely inappropriate for our needs, or it could be a good fit.

Anyway you could get a scan of that picture of the Krokodile and post it on here, or reference the Jane's article in terms of publication and date?

 

[McG]

Anyway you could get a scan of that picture of the Krokodile and post it on here, or reference the Jane's article in terms of publication and date?

  It was on a table in a waiting room.  I'm not even sure of the date, except that it was recent.

 

[Pallas Athena]

Matt,

Was it the old Mechem Krocodil you were looking for (or is there a newer Krocodil)?

If the former, the Krokodil was a Mechem design, weighed 26 tonnes, and was supposed to be good for 15 kg beneath each wheel. It wasn't derived from the RG-31. IIRC, it was more closely related to the Ratel.

 

[McG]

The article was "Shaping up for the fight: vehicle design responses to challenge of mine warfare"  from Jane's International Defence Review 10-Mar-2009.  It identifies that "the Krokodil 6x6 experimental armoured carrier developed in South Africa ... has anti-EFP armour under the hull and at the sides of it."

The top picture above is the same as appeared in the Jane's article.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

Matt,

Was it the old Mechem Krocodil you were looking for (or is there a newer Krocodil)?

If the former, the Krokodil was a Mechem design, weighed 26 tonnes, and was supposed to be good for 15 kg beneath each wheel. It wasn't derived from the RG-31. IIRC, it was more closely related to the Ratel.

BZ for those pics!!!  I saw something very similar on the Force Protection (www.forceprotection.net) homepage circa 2004 and put in a call to their former CTO Garth Barrett (former CO of the C Squadron (Rhodesia) SAS) who told me it was an experimental APC done up for the SADF, but never went into production.  The one that was on the Force Protection website had 6 or 8 wheels (I can't remember for certain which?) and a remote or 1 man turret armed with a 20mm, which Barrett provided me with some background details on; It was heavy, i.e. 35 tons and non C-130 transportable, but armoured/protected well beyond anything else the South Africans had at the time and capable of carrying a full infantry section plus crew. 

Unfortunately, it seems as though Barrett has fallen off the face of the earth after his firing/quitting Force Protection then starting a rival company, Protected Vehicles Inc. which fell into some serious financial trouble 2 years ago, and he is no longer involved.  I've had no luck in finding any other information on that vehicle since the initial conversation I had with Barrett.

After doing some more research, I believe the vehicle was called the Mechem Gator, although there's a slough of other SA vehicles that were under development at the same time:
Iron Eagle 4x4
Mechem MC-90
Mechem Krokodil 6x6
Mechem Gator 8x8
Rooikat-2 ICV
MDB Mantis

Any information on these would be hugely appreciated.

 

[McG]

http://www.merx.com/English/SUPPLIER_Menu.Asp?WCE=Show&TAB=1&PORTAL=MERX&State=7&id=PW-%24%24BL-291-18920&FED_ONLY=0&hcode=nD9YVh6OIwXoPPJs5qFGZw%3D%3D

Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle (TAPV) Letter of Interest/Price and Availability

Trade Agreement: Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT)
Tendering Procedures: All interested suppliers may submit a bid
Attachment: None
Competitive Procurement Strategy: N/A - P&A/LOI Only
Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement: No
Nature of Requirements:
Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle (TAPV) Letter of Interest/Price
and Availability

W847L-090000/A
Perron, Helene
Telephone No. - (819) 994-9148


The Government of Canada has a requirement for the provision of
the Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle (TAPV) in multiple
configurations/variants. The TAPV is a wheeled combat vehicle
that will fulfill a wide variety of roles on the battlefield,
including but not limited to reconnaissance and surveillance,
security, command and control, cargo and armoured personnel
carrier. It will have a high degree of tactical mobility and
provide a very high degree of survivability to its crew.

The purpose of this Letter of Interest (LOI)/Price and
Availability (P&A) is to solicit information and feedback from
industry regarding possible provision of TAPVs. The information
may be used to support Canada's decision-making process such as
finalizing its requirements and determining its procurement
strategy.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

BAE Systems will be launching its RG35 (6x6?) armoured vehicle at the DSEI exhibition in London, tomorrow (Sept 8th, 2009) at 0930GMT.

http://www.baesystems.com/DSEi/RG35launch/index.htm
"BAE Systems will be launching and unveiling the first of a new class of vehicle at DSEi.

Manufactured in South Africa, it combines the high levels of survivability of the RG31 Mine Protected Vehicle with much of the tactical capability of a modern combat vehicle. The new platform incorporates a simple but effective one-person turret, which gives an excellent mix of protection and situational awareness."

The picture on the web page is probably not of the RG35 itself, but of BAE's FMTV/General Tactical Vehicle transport truck front end.

I expect that the RG35 will likely be one of the front runners for the TAPV competition.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

http://www.baesystems.com/Newsroom/N...098810917.html
BAE SYSTEMS DEBUTS NEW GENERATION FIGHTING VEHICLE

08 Sep 2009 | Ref. 167/2009
London, United Kingdom – BAE Systems launched the latest 6x6 addition to the battle-proven RG range at the Defence Systems & Equipment International (DSEi) exhibition today – the RG35 Mine Protected multi-purpose fighting vehicle.
RG35 combines the high levels of survivability of the RG31 Mine Protected Vehicle with much of the tactical capability of a modern combat vehicle.
RG35 incorporates the best of 30 years experience in mobility, protection and sustainability, while meeting current challenges and threats. It meets modern warfare protection requirements, but also offers tactical on- and off-road mobility.
“RG35 offers unprecedented versatility and will be equally suitable in peace support and conventional operations,” said Johan Steyn, Managing Director, BAE Systems Land Systems South Africa. “We continuously develop and enhance our vehicles to support our customers’ operational needs.”
The versatile RG35 can carry light and medium turrets and direct and indirect-fire weapons. It can also be configured in all the variants of a fighting unit (ambulance, weapon carriers, command posts and others) and can be customized in various sizes such as the 4x4 and 6x6, for various missions to meet customer needs.
RG35 is a 6x6 mine protected multi-purpose fighting vehicle 7.4 meters in length, 2.5 meters in width and 2,7 meters in height with a ground clearance of 458 millimeters. The RG35 gross vehicle mass is 33,000kg with a payload of 14,870kg and 15sqm volume under armour. The RG35 has a turning circle of 15m and seats driver plus 15 crew members.


http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/art...any-2009-09-08

New groundbreaking fighting vehicle from SA companyBy: Keith Campbell Published: 08 Sep 09
South Africa's Benoni-based mine-protected and armoured fighting vehicle company, BAE Systems Land Systems OMC, unveiled its latest design, the RG35, at the major British biennial defence exhibition Defence Systems and Equipment International (better known as DSEi) in London on Tuesday.

"We have combined a 4x4 mine-protected vehicle with a modern 8x8 combat vehicle," announced BAE Systems Land Systems South Africa MD Johan Steyn.

"It is groundbreaking. It is a new class of vehicle. The standard model is the 6x6 version. But we plan a family of vehicles, and we will have a 4x4 vehicle."

There is no launch customer for the RG35 yet, but the vehicle is likely to be submitted for the British Army's Light Protected Patrol Vehicle project. The company is confident that its new vehicle will win orders from around the world.

It was the 6x6 standard model that was unveiled in London. Its development is based on expertise gained, on the one hand, from the development of the Ratel and iKlwa armoured vehicles and, on the other, from the development of the RG31 mine-protected vehicle family. The basic V-shaped design of the hull is taken from the RG31.

Advances found in the RG35 include a side-mounted power pack, which can be replaced in just 30 minutes. Traditionally, armoured vehicle power packs have been either at the front or rear of the vehicle.

Furthermore, the vehicle has been designed to accommodate hybrid electric drive, once this becomes available. "It will be very easy to incorporate this drive into this vehicle," says Steyn.

Mounting the power pack on the side creates a large internal volume and the RG35's volume under armour is 15 cubic metres. The vehicle can carry a driver and up to 15 passengers. All critical systems are under armour, which was not the case with previous, mine-protected, vehicles. It has a dual unit air conditioning system, so that, if one unit is lost, the other is still available.

The RG35 has a payload of nearly 15 t. One of the benefits of this is that it makes it easy to attach add-on armour to the vehicle without overloading it. It has been so designed that an additional 120 mm of armour can be added to the hull bottom V, while the hull sides can take 50 mm of additional armour.

The basic version, displayed in London, is fitted with a new generation Overhear Manual Turret - Multiweapon, designed and developed by another unit of the company, Pretoria-based BAE Systems Land Systems Dynamics. However, a wide variety of alternative turrets will be available.

The RG35 will be available in a wide variety of versions, from the basic infantry-carrying combat vehicle, to command post vehicle, engineering vehicle, 120 mm mortar vehicle, anti-aircraft gun vehicle, recovery vehicle, and ambulance.

The 6x6 RG35 is 2,5 m wide, just over 7 m long, and 2,7 m high. It has a trubning circle of 15 m, which is less than that of an RG31.

The company has already produced the hull for the first 4x4 version of the vehicle, and plans to have the prototype 4x4 completed and operational by this time next year.

 

[McG]

Hopefully our TAPV requirement stipulates things such as max vehicle length, cross-country mobility & turn radius and not something so specific as only 4x4 is acceptable.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

More pics of the RG35

Interior and 1-man turret.

 

[X-mo-1979]

So I have to do recce in a vehicle with a g-dam 4 wheeled truck with a windshield and a rws?Can I get the red paint job option? I would have better effect on a ATV.

I want to see what happens when that hits 16 jugs and 2 AT mines.

I hope the Armd corp complete is going to sit down and figure out our role.And totally change our job.Mobility was lost going to wheel..where do they expect that thing to go?


I am really dissapointed.

Compliment the G-wagon?WTF.

It's fine and dandy if they are going to use recce as recce.However lets face it were going to be Infantry with a smaller vehicle. I.E how we have been used,not in our recce role at all.