Topic: Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle - RG-31 and LAV Coyote Replacement

[dapaterson]

USAR/ANG have equipment in depots where troops fall on to the equipment.  Our attempt at that resulted in Meaford, hardly a model to emulate.

Equipment sustainment costs increase as the number of vehicles increase.  Economy of scale may mean some minor savings, but a widely dispersed fleet will counter many of those savings.

Claims of easier maintenance have been made for every equipment buy.  Someday those claims may turn out to be true.  Until then, ensuring servicability of vehicles, sensors and weapons systems are operational will require a significant amount of effort, and will require skillsets not present in the Reserves (EO Tech, among others).

The assertion:

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

displays an ignorance of defence procurement and processes.  Acquisitions are made with approvals for the overall budget, not year-by-year.    ADM(Mat) manages the capital budget year-by-year, knowing in advance which projects are scheduled to expend what amounts, and making in-year adjustments to balance the program - but those in-year adjustments do not impact overall project budgets; they may defer expenditures or accelerate them.


Finally, prior to any capital project there are detailed analysses conducted to assess not only per unit acquisition costs but also sustainment costs.  Quantities purchased are not selected by some dark cabal conspiring against the Reserves (not even D Armd does that); rather, they are made assessing available capital and O&M funds and identifying what is possible within allocated funding envelopes.  Demand for funds outstrips supplies; therefore, priorities are established and assigned.

[Digger Hale]

If it makes you all feel a little better, we're having the same arguments in Australia about vehicles and whats going to replace the ASLAV.
The plan, according to DMO, is that the Army is to get a "universal vehicle" under the Land 400 project that can be fitted with a suite of different set ups. Thus, Cavalry will have a different turret on their chassis then the Infantry and the Engineers will have a different set up completely but still the same chassis. It'll have the ability to be fitted with tracks OR wheels.
 If they find this magical vehicle it'll be happy days but I cant see it happening.
The one man turret thing is something people here talk about as well. Anyone who's been in a turret knows its ridiculous. The French built fantastic tanks in the 1930's but gave them a one man turret. This was proved to be a bad idea by the Germans. The Russians built the BMP-1 with a one man turret then replaced it with the BMP-2 because the one man turret didnt work. We're supposed to learn from the mistakes of the past but people seem to quickly forget those lessons. They dont see some poor bugger, caged into a tight metal box, trying to send reports and returns over the net, direct a driver, scan for targets, load a gun bigger then 12.7mm then engage a target on his own. Its a bad idea and I hope its realised.

I like the ASLAV and I think its a grand vehicle but its not designed for what we do with it. I'm not sure how you treat yours out bush but we haven't really changed to much of our thinking since the Cav regiments got rid of the M113's. Its not unusual for the Regiment to finish our end of year 4 or 5 week bush exercise and have exhausted the ADF's supply of LAV tyres and prop shafts. Its a great vehicle but its not made to be driven through close country and bush. The greatest LAV driver in the world will still blow a tyre when he's told to drive through thick scrub, regardless of how thick you make the tyre's walls.

Someone said it best earlier, this next replacement is probably going to be our last go at it. If we get it wrong then Cavalry/Recce will cease to function in the role we're supposed to play. And I really hope that both our countries pick the right vehicle. Something small, quick, tracked and with a decent two man turret and gun.

[Thucydides]

Clever engineers can usually come up with fantastic concepts which crash and burn in the real world. A particular favorite of mine is the XM-808"twister", which can be thought of as a BV-206 running on wheels (as a first approximation). Each half was a separate vehicle, powered by a Chrysler engine (a 440 Hemi option wasn't offered, alas) with high degrees of articulation in each unit's suspension and a very high degree of freedom in the "yoke" that joined each half.

You can only imagine the maintainance nightmare this could have been...

The idea of a "universal vehicle" isn't really that bad, so long as expectations can be curbed. Running on wheels and tracks may be a bit much (Walter Christie may be the only person ever to have done this with some degree of success), but some vehicles like the "Centurio" and our own LAV 3 do have the ability to be kitted out for multiple roles (The Centurio tank destroyer can act as a heavy APC by removing the rear ammunition rack and substituting four soldiers, while innumerable LAV prototypes have been built for all kinds of roles). If tracks are desired, the venerable M-113 is still going strong in armies throughout the world, built and rebuilt in innumerable variations and roles, a modern "M-113" design incorporating decades of lessons learned and modern material science would probably fit the bill nicely for a tracked vehicle.

A LAV H hull mounting a CV-CT gun turret would make a very effective "Cavalry" type patrol vehicle and recce DF vehicle, and would be fairly quick and easy to put into service, its complimentary partners would be a regular LAV-H for the crunchies and a LAV-H hull with a surveillance suite where the dismounts go.

Not a 100% solution (especially for advocates of "Mud Recce"), but in terms of fleet management, logistics and training, this might be as good as it can get.

[George Wallace]

A Recce DF Vehicle?  A Tank Destroyer maybe, but not a Recce DF Vehicle.  Anti-Tank or Assault Gun perhaps, but definitely not Recce.

[MarkOttawa]

Well, if we are so determined on "interoperability" (as with the F-35)...from Defense Industry Daily recap:

M-ATV: A Win, at Last, for Oshkosh
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/M-ATV-A-Win-at-Last-for-Oshkosh-05602/

...
Oshkosh Defense’s M-ATV candidate secured a long-denied MRAP win, and the firm continues to remain ahead of production targets. The initial plan expected to spend up to $3.3 billion to order 5,244 M-ATVs for the US Army (2,598), Marine Corps (1,565), Special Operations Command (643), US Air Force (280) and the Navy (65), plus 93 test vehicles. FY 2010 budgets and purchases have pushed this total even higher, and orders now stand at over 8,000…

Mark
Ottawa

[Matt_Fisher]

BAE has posted some photos of the Alligator 6x6 which is one of their entries for the TAPV competition.

[Thucydides]

This looks like the SEP prototype from several years back. Is Canada seriously considering a vehicle with serial electric drive?

Very advanced concept, and (if anyone is actually putting long term thinking into effect) the potential basis of a family of vehicles. Yes, I know, the program has no mandate etc. How is it that we can see the advantages of this, but it can't be sold that way in Ottawa?

[Matt_Fisher]

This looks like the SEP prototype from several years back. Is Canada seriously considering a vehicle with serial electric drive?

Very advanced concept, and (if anyone is actually putting long term thinking into effect) the potential basis of a family of vehicles. Yes, I know, the program has no mandate etc. How is it that we can see the advantages of this, but it can't be sold that way in Ottawa?

The BAE Alligator 6x6 is a further development of the SEP program.  It has done away with the electric drive and uses a conventional powertrain drive system, as per the 8x8 SEP which was BAE's submission for the British FRES program (won by GDLS-Europe's Pirahana V, then subsequently cancelled).

[ArmyRick]

Did the British FRES program get cancelled? That means the Scimitar/spartan family is going on to serve 40 years+. Well now our allies know how we feel at times.

[Matt_Fisher]

FRES Specialist (Recce) has been awarded to GDLS Europe with their ASCOD vehicle, which competed against a modified (shortened by 1 roadwheel) recce version of the CV90.

The 'utility' portion of FRES which was intended to replace the FV432 and Saxon APCs (?) with an 8x8 wheeled vehicle.  The vehicles that competed were the Nexter VBCI, the GD Pirahana V, and the ARTEC Boxer.

[ArmyRick]

Is FRES cancelled with the brit budget cuts or is it still a go?

[Matt_Fisher]

For the timebeing FRES-Specialist (CVR-T recce replacement) is still a go.  FRES-Utility (Saxon, FV-432) has been cancelled for the timebeing.  However, with the budget reviews still ongoing, I wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing gets binned, only to start again in a couple years under a new mandate/program name.

[Thucydides]

For those who can't wait (or want something different from what the usual suspects are offering):

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/02/darpa-wants-your-help-experimental.html#

DARPA wants your help - Experimental Crowd-derived Combat-derived Vehicle (XC2V) Design Challenge
ShareExperimental Crowd-derived Combat-derived Vehicle (XC2V) Design Challenge

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) seeks to engage the crowd for its latest challenge. The Experimental Crowd-derived Combat-support Vehicle (XC2V) Design Challenge, facilitated by Local Motors, Inc. asks individuals to conceptualize a vehicle body design for two different missions—Combat Reconnaissance and Combat Delivery & Evacuation.

This is an opportunity for servicemembers, race and auto enthusiasts, and those with an interest and talent in engineering, materials, industrial design, etc., to support the warfigther by contributing to the future of military vehicle manufacturing, win up to $10,000, and see their design become a reality in the form of a fully functioning concept vehicle.

This competition provides experts, novices and the curious the opportunity to provide input to the final design of the vehicle. Whether you provide a design or just vote on the best submission, you can contribute.

The challenge begins today, and final submissions are due March 3, 2011.

Local motors has a page and details

Requirements

Engineering Requirements:

* Use Local Motors tubular steel chassis that has: •18" (45cm) of independent Front Suspension travel •20" (50cm) Rear Suspension Travel • Solid Rear axle, rear wheel drive • Front and Rear stabilizer bars and rear Watts link setup. The suspension mounting points, engine location, base chassis, wheelbase, and track width should not be changed in any way)
* This proof of concept vehicle will use the GM LS3 V8 powertrain. If this vehicle were to go into production, the actual powertrain would vary.
* Passengers: up to 5 including the possibility of carrying 3 passengers plus their gear in the prone position for evacuations.
* Incorporate a Modular Multiple Payload system that is able to meet the needs of one or several of the mission sets put forth in the design brief.
* Location to carry supplies both inside and/ or on the exterior of the vehicle. The Maximum Payload is: 1200 lbs (544kg)
* Maximum Towing capacity: 4000 lbs (1,814kg)

Engineering Guidelines:

* Vehicle should be highly mobile. Keep the side rails high.
* Visibility is key: This vehicle should have the ability to have visibility like a control tower. This would help a Tactical Air Liaison Officer (TALO) help communicate with and see incoming aircraft.
* Some place from where the vehicle can be defended if necessary
* Easy ingress and egress for the driver and co driver
* Best survivability possible for the occupants - Diver and co-driver locations cannot be changed, however the vehicle could be wider, and packs could be mounted on the outside-- every centimeter of distance from the exterior of the vehicle to the passenger increases the chances of survivability.
* Potential location for 360 degree, horizon to horizon protection.

Deliverables:

* To Note: The XC2V Challenge Ignition kit will be released on Friday, February 3rd at 12:00h est (UTC-05:00h)
Your Deliverables are what you submit to Local Motors. Before hitting the final submit button, please double check that you have met all of the Engineering requirements, and have incorporated the following onto your design board:

* Must incorporate the following orthographic package illustrations:
- Profile view
- Front/Rear / Combo view
- Top (half or full)

(You may use the 3D CAD Data to help you generate these images, or use the provided chassis package and draw your vehicle body over top of these. To keep it to scale, you may use the DesignPackage.PDF file included in the ignition kit). Your entry will not be accepted if you modify the chassis wheelbase, or track width in any way.
* Must incorporate Oscar provided in ignition kit, to show scale and packaging.
* 3 Design views: Front 3/4, Rear 3/4, one of your choosing.
* Multiple design boards will be accepted for this competition. (Up to 10 design boards)
Make sure that your design boards are no larger than 2000 px wide.
* Please Label all functions and design additions on all boards.
* Please make sure you include your Name on all boards.

Prizes:

1st Place $7500 plus your design turned into a functioning concept vehicle.
2nd. Place: $1500
3rd Place: $1000

[milnews.ca]

The news release:

Oshkosh Defense, a division of Oshkosh Corporation (NYSE:OSK), today unveiled its prototype for Canada’s Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle (TAPV) program, as well as the company’s plans to work with its subsidiary, London Machinery, Inc. (LMI), to leverage that company’s new facility in London, Ontario, in pursuit of Canadian Department of National Defence (DND) vehicle programs.

LMI, the leading manufacturer of concrete mixer trucks in London, Ontario, provides local advanced manufacturing capabilities and a highly skilled workforce to the Oshkosh Defense and General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada team’s bids for the TAPV and Medium Support Vehicle System (MSVS) programs.

“Our team has thoughtfully reviewed draft RFPs for the TAPV and MSVS programs, and we are aligning our operations to DND requirements for highly-protected vehicles and long-term maintenance and support for the vehicles,” said Andy Hove, Oshkosh Corporation executive vice president and president, Oshkosh Defense. “Our plans will deliver significant value to DND by leveraging proven technology and support capabilities while providing industrial and regional benefits to contribute to the Canadian economy.” ....

Company pix attached.

[Sythen]

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2011/06/20110601-191112.html

OTTAWA -- As Canada's troops prepare to come home from Afghanistan with their battered kit, the federal government is moving ahead with plans to buy the army a whole new fleet of armoured vehicles.
One of the contenders for the Canadian Forces' new tactical armoured patrol vehicles was on display at a defence industry trade show here Wednesday.

Textron's TAPV, a descendant of the U.S. army's ASV M11-17, is a four-man mean-looking four-by-four machine that is built to withstand IED blasts and can reach speeds of 100 km/h. Company officials describe it as a workhorse.

"It's a very, very tested vehicle. We've been developing this vehicle for five years, and we've blown up a lot of them. That's the only way you know it's safe," said Textron's Neil Rutter, adding thousands of the older U.S. variant have been used in Iraq and Afghanistan. "We know that this vehicle can equal it (the U.S. variant) and probably surpass it for reliability."

Textron is one of six companies short-listed to submit bids to the government in August.

[SevenSixTwo]

Is it just me or does Textron's vehicle look a little "Russian" like. Seems to be it would add complication on AFV recognition but I am no expert on that.


I just recognize the front end as common Russian shape.

[George Wallace]

Is it just me or does Textron's vehicle look a little "Russian" like. Seems to be it would add complication on AFV recognition but I am no expert on that.


I just recognize the front end as common Russian shape.

And what do you think of the German Fuchs, or the French VAB?

[Colin P]

I was hoping for a modern version  of this

[SevenSixTwo]

And what do you think of the German Fuchs, or the French VAB?

Very surprised, but at the same time the Fuchs and VAB can move in water (justification in shape?). Looks like the hull of a BRDM.

I am assuming the Textatron vehicle doesn't go in water?



Maybe, it's just me but I think it's a little silly shaping AFV's that look similar to Russian AFV's unless the design is fundamentally necessary and an advantage (Probably why the T-50 and J-20 look so much like the F-22).

[CDN Aviator]

s unless the design is fundamentally necessary and an advantage

So you have already made the assumption that it was not ?

[recceguy]

Very surprised, but at the same time the Fuchs and VAB can move in water (justification in shape?). Looks like the hull of a BRDM.

I am assuming the Textatron vehicle doesn't go in water?



Maybe, it's just me but I think it's a little silly shaping AFV's that look similar to Russian AFV's unless the design is fundamentally necessary and an advantage (Probably why the T-50 and J-20 look so much like the F-22).

Like in dissipating a mine blast?

[Snaketnk]

Most of the Americans who were using the MATV overseas seemed to like it. It's not a troop carrier, and it's not a fighting vehicle. The only real use I saw for it was as a super-armoured humvee. Definitely had better off road capability than the RG-31s and Cougars.

[Grizzly]

I was hoping for a modern version  of this

You're in luck then Colin. The RG-35 being offered by BAE is the intended replacement for the Ratel, and it is similar in appearance. It comes in 6x6 and the 4x4 RPU version. CASR has some good pics of it, even if their opinions sometimes are a bit controversial.

http://www.casr.ca/bg-army-tapv-bae-rg35-rpu.htm

[MCG]

You're in luck then Colin. The RG-35 being offered by BAE is the intended replacement for the Ratel, and it is similar in appearance. It comes in 6x6 and the 4x4 RPU version.

I like the idea of a vehicle that comes in 6x6 and 4x4 configurations.  That is about the only way that I can see one vehicle type replacing everything from G-Wagon through RG31 and Bison.

[Colin P]

Actually it's a Malaysian Simba, but likely it has it's roots in the Ratel. According to the Malays they are getting long in the tooth and need replacing. Apparently the crews gets about 5 rds of main gun ammo a year to shoot so they are not as effective as they could be.

Drivers position


they also have a recovery version