Heavy armour for Afghanistan?

[Grim901]

BAE are offering CV90, the other contender is ASCOD. Lessons from Afghanistan have confirmed the need for tracked, not wheeled recce vehicles. My understanding is the Recce and Warrior upgrade is now a priority with 2bn being allocated out of the original 16bn FRES budget (total 3000 vehicles). The credit crunch now means any wheeled FRES utility vehicles other than MRAP's will be confined to the waste paper bin.

That's good news. The utility variant at least needs to be split between wheeled and tracked variants and have the protection levels rethought.

I wonder which ASCOD version GD sends to the evaluation.
The Ulan has the better armor and the engine to support the additional weight but we talk about a scout vehicle and so a lighter weight might be preferred (aka the Pizarro layout).

The newest versions of the CV90 Mk.III, while offering a good protection, weight up to 35 tons making them considerably heavier than both ASCOD versions which are in service.

Interesting competition indeed.

To get the thread a little bit back on topic.
The most loved vehicle in the north is the Fennek due to it having the ability to spot and classify enemy units much better than anything else.
Sad to say it also makes it a primary target for the guerillas.

When using a scout like this in a scenario like Afghanistan you face a dilemma. A vehicle like the Fennek is much more vulnerable than a heavy scout vehicle but because of that it also has the ability to join on long range patrols which is a mission that cannot be fullfilled by heavy tracked scouts.

35 tons?? Hell no. That is absurd. And are they offering the CV90 without the troop carrying capacity, i'd always thought of it as an IFV.

 

[Waylander]

The weight is for the latest Mk.III version (for example in use with the dutch and danes) not for the early ones. But one shoudl assume that they offer their most modern version.

And yes it is an IFV. Just like the ASCOD. That doesn't contradict the intended use as a scout.
The US use the M3 Bradley as their scout.
And there is nothing wrong with it. They have a small 3 men squad in the back for dismounted scout duties.

Such a heavy Scout has some advantages. It is able to screen the own forces from enemy scouts which is not possible with a light scout and is able to carry the mentioned dismount squad which comes handy in some situations.

I am just thinking if a wheeled IFV, maybe on the Piranha or Boxer chassis, wouldn't mix the best of both worlds and be a better scout vehicle than somethin on a heavy tracked AFV chassis.

 

[StevoJH]

Ouch, CV90 is like 4 times the weight of Scimitar. Arent the scouts in the UK Recon units mounted in CVR(T) APC's that move with the Scimitar's?

 

[riksavage]

Ouch, CV90 is like 4 times the weight of Scimitar. Arent the scouts in the UK Recon units mounted in CVR(T) APC's that move with the Scimitar's?

I don’t think weight is a critical factor; the recce role after all was traditionally to screen heavy armour and lookout for the apposing enemy forces. The vehicle in question needed to be quick, agile and have the firepower to take-on enemy recce units doing the same, the old scimitar was ideal and it could be air-dropped, its light weight resulted in it having less ground pressure than a man, so it wouldn't set off AT mines. Today the role has expanded, recce units now operate independently in support of infantry in the light tank role, they need to be able to resist RPG/IED strikes and be capable of sustaining not just the basic crew, but additional FAC/TAC/EOD personnel. By selecting an APC chassis over a light tank you add flexibility. As long as it’s C17 liftable I don’t see a problem.

 

[Waylander]

I don’t think weight is a critical factor; the recce role after all was traditionally to screen heavy armour and lookout for the apposing enemy forces. The vehicle in question needed to be quick, agile and have the firepower to take-on enemy recce units doing the same, the old scimitar was ideal and it could be air-dropped, its light weight resulted in it having less ground pressure than a man, so it wouldn't set off AT mines. Today the role has expanded, recce units now operate independently in support of infantry in the light tank role, they need to be able to resist RPG/IED strikes and be capable of sustaining not just the basic crew, but additional FAC/TAC/EOD personnel. By selecting an APC chassis over a light tank you add flexibility. As long as it’s C17 liftable I don’t see a problem.

Interestingly in some countries the recon units haven't reached the weight which they had during cold war.

In the Bundeswehr the armored recon units consisted of the Luchs (8 wheeled, amphibious, 20mm gun) and Leopard II tanks giving them the ability to effectively screen ones own units and to perform recon by fire missions.
These days the light Fennek, while being much more capable in spotting the enemy, cannot perform these tasks anymore and armored and mechanized infantry units have to dispatch some of their own vehicles for the task.

The US Army went a similar way. Their Armored Cavalry Squadrons where very heavy and could take on a serious enemy forces without immediate need for support by the fighting echelons.
Up till OIF in 2003 they slowly changed the recce mission and started using light vehicles and even Humvees. This proved to be a rather bad idea as these recon teams where to vulnerable and they began to use heavier units again.
But one has to remember that in a big theater like Afghanistan the lighter forces also performed well with their ability to go on long range recon patrols and because of their smaller logistical footprint.

Because of that I would propose to use a wheeled IFV as a recon vehicle.
For example a Piranha or Boxer chassis.
Give it a decent 25-30mm gun and retain the ability to swim. Modifiy it to run smoother and quieter just like other modern recon vehicles (Some of the are extremely quiet). One can also replace up to three of the passenger seats with a modern retractable sensor mast as well as additional ammunition, spares and supplies.
If one really wants to one can also put a Spike launcher or something similar onto it but I don't think that is essential and should be optional with just some kits available. The same goes for an additional add-on armor kit which could be applied when the vehicles are used in a support role.

With such a vehicle one would IMHO have a recon unit which could perform anything from traditional recon missions to screening missions, long range patrols, fire support for light units and peacekeeping patrols.
And the logistical footprint is still smaller than that of a heavy tracked IFV.

 

[Grim901]

I can't agree on a wheeled vehicle. All our operational experience is telling us to stick with tracked. All you have to do is google "stuck LAV" and you'll see the problems the Canadiains have been having.

I don't know what it's like in Northern Afghanistan, but Helmand has shown that tracked vehicles are incredibly useful.

The MOD may still be trying for a wheeled AFV, but they haven't totally lost it and are getting a tracked recce vehicle. It would go against all British experience to do it differently. And no ffence to the Germans, but Britain has had much more experience with recce vehicles over the last 25 years. (Kosovo, Falklands, Sierra Leone, Iraq, Afghanistan etc.)

@rik: 1 vehicle per C17 is not exactly great. especially not whenthese things are supposed to support the mobile light forces and air brigade etc. I know we need a heavier vehicle now, but 35 tons is excessive. It is basically half that of an MBT. I don't think they could really justify going above 20 tons. With the airlift situation in Britain it'd make it incredibly hard to rapidly deploy them. I'd aim for 15 tons to get 2 onto a C17/A400M.

 

[Waylander]

I never said that one should try to go for only wheeled vehicles in Afghanistan. I think my prior posts made that clear.

But I just don't think that one should buy a heavy tracked recce vehicle just because wheeled vehicles have problems in one current operation.
The recce vehicle first of all has to be a good recce vehicle in a general sense and not a suitable fire support platform for one special conflict.
You propose to go the heavy way with all it's advantages and disadvantages because of Afghanistan. That is a very narrow way of looking at a possible future recce vehicle.
First why do you want to use a recce vehicle as the primary fire support and maneuver unit in Afghanistan? The UK has enough Warriors and Challis available to fullfill this role if it wants without needing to push a recce vehicle into a very narrow role which is not part of the original idea of a recce vehicle and which can easily covered by other vehicles, notably the combat vehicles. That's what they are for and using a recce vehicle instead is just pure waste.
And with the warrior in theater a recce vehicle based on a modern IFV would only bring minor improvements to the force mix in Afghanistan. In the end you use an IFV add capabilities to another IFV.

Many of the advantages a heavy tracked IFV has for supporting troops in Afghanistan are disadvantages when it comes to being a good recce vehicle. That is range, sound, logistical footprint, sensor layout, weight, no ability to swim, too much unnecessary room (The squad compartment) etc.

And your idea of going for a 15 ton vehicle should make you a natural supporter of a wheeled recce vehicle.
A tracked vehicle with 15 tons is roughly the same size like a BMP-1 or M113A3.
And I wouldn't want to go onto a recce or fire support mission in one of those. They include the worst of both worlds. Much too light for an effective modern tracked vehicle.
Getting a good recce vehicle which can also fullfill some other roles when needed in the 15-20 ton range is much easier than to get a tracked vehicle in the same weight class.

And my ideas have nothing to do with what the Bundeswehr uses. It is the other way around. I think that with the Fennek as our only recce vehicle for the next years we are too lightly equipped in our armored recce units. Some mission are just not doable with such a light vehicle.

 

[Grim901]

I never said that one should try to go for only wheeled vehicles in Afghanistan. I think my prior posts made that clear.

But I just don't think that one should buy a heavy tracked recce vehicle just because wheeled vehicles have problems in one current operation.
The recce vehicle first of all has to be a good recce vehicle in a general sense and not a suitable fire support platform for one special conflict.
You propose to go the heavy way with all it's advantages and disadvantages because of Afghanistan. That is a very narrow way of looking at a possible future recce vehicle.
First why do you want to use a recce vehicle as the primary fire support and maneuver unit in Afghanistan? The UK has enough Warriors and Challis available to fullfill this role if it wants without needing to push a recce vehicle into a very narrow role which is not part of the original idea of a recce vehicle and which can easily covered by other vehicles, notably the combat vehicles. That's what they are for and using a recce vehicle instead is just pure waste.
And with the warrior in theater a recce vehicle based on a modern IFV would only bring minor improvements to the force mix in Afghanistan. In the end you use an IFV add capabilities to another IFV.

Many of the advantages a heavy tracked IFV has for supporting troops in Afghanistan are disadvantages when it comes to being a good recce vehicle. That is range, sound, logistical footprint, sensor layout, weight, no ability to swim, too much unnecessary room (The squad compartment) etc.

And your idea of going for a 15 ton vehicle should make you a natural supporter of a wheeled recce vehicle.
A tracked vehicle with 15 tons is roughly the same size like a BMP-1 or M113A3.
And I wouldn't want to go onto a recce or fire support mission in one of those. They include the worst of both worlds. Much too light for an effective modern tracked vehicle.
Getting a good recce vehicle which can also fullfill some other roles when needed in the 15-20 ton range is much easier than to get a tracked vehicle in the same weight class.

And my ideas have nothing to do with what the Bundeswehr uses. It is the other way around. I think that with the Fennek as our only recce vehicle for the next years we are too lightly equipped in our armored recce units. Some mission are just not doable with such a light vehicle.

First off, a recce vehicle is much easier to get deployed than a Challenger, but as my first post in the thread would show, i'm a supported of putting them into Afghanistan if it'll help. I mean all that mainly in the political sense, as well as logistics problems.

Next, as my prior posts should make clear, I'm not advocating a heavy IFV, I still can't see benefits of using CV90 as a base with all that weight and a troop compartment to replace an 8 ton light tank and replicate the exact capability given by Warrior. When I set 15 tons as a goal it was because it would give designers almost twice the weight to play with to make the new light tank much more survivable, MRAP's manage extreme survivability at less weight than that.

My original thinking for tracked is not only based on Afghanistan, to me a tracked vehicle is much more versatile in just about any theatre. The negatives of a tracked vehicle usually relate to cost (of logistics etc) where as a wheeled vehicle has situations it simply can't do. I'd rather have a costly vehicle that will fight where I need it, than a cheap wheeled one that performs poorly in some situations.

I don't believe that outside of UOR's, that Britain should be buying items solely for Afghanistan, as you seem to think i'm advocating. Lots of cheap helo's are great for Afghanistan, but put them in a warzone with an enemy with S2A capabilities and you'll regret going cheap pretty quickly. I believe versatility is vital for our armed forces, anyone who believes that all we need is COIN gear for the next 25-30 years is beyond stupid/psychic. Having said that, we shouldn't be buying army vehicles that aren't well suited to Afghanistan either, with indications that Britain could be in theatre there for up to 15 years it would be crazy to buy vehicles that would have to sit in Britain until a war came along more suited to their abilities.

Basically, I don't believe there is an off the shelf vehicle that suits out needs yet, very few current vehicles were good enough for the conflicts we've found ourself in recently, hence the MRAP rush of the last 2-3 years. I think that Britain needs to take some lessons from the MRAP designers then go and build a recce vehicle/light tank accordingly. And when they do they need to take into account where we are now and where else we may need to fight. Writing t now, it seems obvious to say, but no one seems to be doing it, instead advocating vehicles that are unsuitable, such as wheeled LAV's that can be shredded or stuck in mud, or CV90's that are unnecessarily unwieldy and still may not hold up against the IED/mine threat.

 

[Waylander]

The problem with tracked vehicles is not just the higher logistical footprint and operating costs but the fact that doing long range patrols as well as convoy defense is not really possible with it.
The next problem is the acoustical footprint.
IMO a recce vehicle shouldn't anounce it's presence by the sheer sound of it's tracks. It is much easier to make wheeled vehicles whistle than tracked ones.

One cannot take an MRAP as an example for which kind of protection could be possible in a light recce vehicle.
These vehicle while having a good protection against mines as well as a reasonable protection against other weapons which might get employed by guerillas they are not what I would call extremely agile or good in rough terrain.
These vehicles also don't include anything bigger than a RWS with a 12.7mm. No turret with a decent gun as well as no optronics which are needed for a recce vehicle.
And a Ridgback already weights round about 15 tons with a Mastiff weighting even more.

I gave you the examples. A tracked vehicle with a weight of 15 tons is roughly a M113A3 or a BMP-1. And we all know about their ability to take damage and survive mines/IEDs.
A Piranha IV in an IFV configuration weights 25 tons. And you think a recce vehicle with 15-20 tons is going to be tougher?
You are saying a LAV vehicle gets shredded easily. Anything lighter isn't going to meet your criterais either.

And I am not arguing because of the costs. A modern recce vehicle on a Piranha IV chassis is not going to be cheap either.

And you always come back to the argument of fighting. While I also want to see recce vehicles having a basic armament with more power than a small RWS I don't know why you insist on making the recce vehicle a premium frontline vehicle. That's what real frontline vehicles are for.

You also mention versatility.
But versatility won't be given with a 15-20 ton recce vehicle on tracks just as it won't be given with a heavy tracked IFV version.
You are not going to get everything you want from a tracked scout into a vehicle of 15-20 tons.

 

[Grim901]

I was just using MRAP's as an example. The mine/IED protection levels probably won't need to be as high as that, but there are relatively easy design features to incorporate in a new build vehicle that will enhance protection without adding too much weight. I'm thinking of V-shaped hulls specifically here.

I agree that getting the required protection etc. might be impossible at the weight I set, it could well be necessary to go higher than that, but a goal does need to be there, but perhaps one that is ok to break to meet other goals. The problem with saying that we won't be able to do this for that much weight is that no one has tried to do much of this for quite a long time. The BMP-1 and M113 are very old vehicles I think you'd agree? The vehicles (light tanks) that are intended to be replaced are very old. It might be that advances in armour technology (of which Britain is at the forefront) could make it more feasible than we think. It may not.

It certainly wouldn't be a cheap option, but I think that a new build vehicle could be a much better idea here those currently suggested. Or at least see what companies can come up with as prototypes trying to meet strict weight and protection parameters. I'm certain we'd get a lot closer to the vehicle we need than the current offers.

Finally, I think that the vehicle will end up with the new Warrior turret/gun so it's going to pack a punch either way. It just seems silly to be putting it on an IFV to effectively make another warrior with a new hull. But to be honest, i'd rather see that than a wheeled vehicle.

They may be quieter, but it still comes back to mobility for me. Who needs a nice quiet wheeled vehicle when it can only approach the enemy on nice flat, solid ground. (overstatement but you get the idea). A tracked vehicle certainly can do long range patrols and convoy protection, why would you say they can't? The current British vehicles have quite long unrefueled range.

I'm actually trying to work out now what it is you're advocating Waylander, could you clarify. You argue against tracked vehicles, but you also argue against the light weight. Then you say that it won't need to pack much of a punch and be silent. Right now I have to picture a LAV, covered in as much armour as can be bolted on, with a 50 cal. on top.

 

[Firn]

Some interesting arguments in this topic

First I wanted to say that there is of course no ideal recce vehicle - the conditions set by the mission, the terrain, the weather the timetable, the enemy might favour temporarily one platform as part of the system over antother.

Said that for a medium force a recce vehicle on the base of the main wheeled carrier might make a lot of sense, especially in circumstances like in Afghanistan. It offers the ability of a highly protected payload both in men and equipment in a relative maneuverable package with potentially high enough combat power to support small operations.

But once again the specific platform must fit into the systems that the armed forces need to suit their specific needs.

 

[Waylander]

First of all I want to say that I don't want to sound rude or look like I am talking down on you. After rereading my last posts I think that it may look like that but this is uninented and me not being a native speaker is responsible for that.

I was just using MRAP's as an example. The mine/IED protection levels probably won't need to be as high as that, but there are relatively easy design features to incorporate in a new build vehicle that will enhance protection without adding too much weight. I'm thinking of V-shaped hulls specifically here.

A good mine protection is possible to integrate into a wheeled medium weight vehicle. Actually wheeled vehicles have the advantage of being able to limb on when they run over a mine/IED even when they lose some of their wheels whereas a thrown track immobilizes a tracked vehicle completely.

I agree that getting the required protection etc. might be impossible at the weight I set, it could well be necessary to go higher than that, but a goal does need to be there, but perhaps one that is ok to break to meet other goals. The problem with saying that we won't be able to do this for that much weight is that no one has tried to do much of this for quite a long time. The BMP-1 and M113 are very old vehicles I think you'd agree? The vehicles (light tanks) that are intended to be replaced are very old. It might be that advances in armour technology (of which Britain is at the forefront) could make it more feasible than we think. It may not.

Sure one improved protection on older vehicles, designed new versions or put completely new vehicles into service.
And the history of tracked vehicles shows that they don't get lighter even with modern technologies.
The BMP-3, while offering a considerable better protection than the BMP-1, now weights round about 20 tons. And it is still one of the worst all around protected vehicles out there with no special mine resistance or even the ability to withstand a .50cal on the sides.
The CV90 grew heavier with every new version or mine protection kit and is now at the mentioned weight you criticize.
A Puma is going to offer what you seem to want. A heavy all around protection, good mine/IED protection, good mobility and a decent weapons loadout.
And all that on just 43 tons.

It certainly wouldn't be a cheap option, but I think that a new build vehicle could be a much better idea here those currently suggested. Or at least see what companies can come up with as prototypes trying to meet strict weight and protection parameters. I'm certain we'd get a lot closer to the vehicle we need than the current offers.

Finally, I think that the vehicle will end up with the new Warrior turret/gun so it's going to pack a punch either way. It just seems silly to be putting it on an IFV to effectively make another warrior with a new hull. But to be honest, i'd rather see that than a wheeled vehicle.

They may be quieter, but it still comes back to mobility for me. Who needs a nice quiet wheeled vehicle when it can only approach the enemy on nice flat, solid ground. (overstatement but you get the idea). A tracked vehicle certainly can do long range patrols and convoy protection, why would you say they can't? The current British vehicles have quite long unrefueled range.

With long range patrols I don't mean the typical lonely scouting mission against conventional enemy forces but the kind of long range missions the ISAF forces in A-stan perform. These are made up of relatively light wheeled vehicles where a tracked vehicle is not a good companion due to it being not able to do the same road marches like the rest of the group.
The same applies to convoy protection where the usual speed is even higher.
Tracked vehicles just wear down faster during such marches. And even while some tracked vehicles are able to go at relatively high speed everything above 50km/h is close to being panefull to the crew and will reduce their combat effectiveness very fast. And even these 50km/h roadmarches are no fun in a tracked vehicle.
You also cannot go over the argument of noise so easily. As we are talking about a recce vehicles who's main mission it still is to sneak into range of the enemy and spy on them I think it is very much needed.
From own experience I can say that one hears even a small tracked vehicle (Like a Wiesel or Bv206) at a considerable distance as a dismount. But one can get utterly surprised by a whistling wheeled vehicle.

I'm actually trying to work out now what it is you're advocating Waylander, could you clarify. You argue against tracked vehicles, but you also argue against the light weight. Then you say that it won't need to pack much of a punch and be silent. Right now I have to picture a LAV, covered in as much armour as can be bolted on, with a 50 cal. on top.

I never actually said that it doesn't need some punch and I think I gave decent examples of what I am advocating for.
And that is defenitely not an old LAV with a .50 cal on board.
I am talking about a modern wheeled IFV chassis (Like Piranha IV/V, Boxer or VBCI). The Piranha and the VBCI weight round about 23-26 tons with a turret on them (25-30mm gun).
A Boxer without a turret even weights 33 tons but offers considerable better protection.
One can reduce some of the capacity to carry dismounts to implement a retractable mast with modern optronics. Use the available mine protection kits (In the case of the Boxer it is already included, the others would become heavier than the basic versions) and maybe include an active defense system in the future (Like AMAP-ADS).

As you can see we have a vehicle here which nearly has everything you want. It is well armored all around (In case of the Boxer even more than some proper tracked IFVs), packs enough punch, is able to carry a small scout squad, has a good mobility, can be made to whistle and has the necessary tracking devices.
Even when wheeled you see that such a vehicle will weight 25 tons upwards. Make it tracked and it is going to be even heavier.
And it is far away from just being an old LAV with some add-on armor and a .50cal.

You set the goal of getting a vehicle in the 15-20 ton range and I just wanted to show that you don't get a decent protected vehicle with this weight, especially not when you want to have a tracked one.

The vehicles I mention are all very new and show what is possible these days. A totally new design is not going to offer more capabilities

And costs are crucial. As with all armed forces in europe the UK has to look for a solution as cheap as possible or otherwise we may not see any new vehicle entering service.

And sure in the end it comes down to you not wanting a wheeled vehicle.
What I want to argue for is that one shouldn't forget that it is going to be a recce vehicle.
You should ask yourself in which situations does a scout vehicle really needs tracks and when are wheels more handy. Naturally such a vehicle needs to get employed properly.

 

[Firn]

I think that this was a very good post, Waylander.

The LAV 25 proved to be a very good platform in Afghanistan, due to a number of reasons. The excellent gun, relative small footprint and the large number of dismounts were some of them. However the Leo II was considered to be superior in the overwatch, and part of the reason was the far better optronic suite, especially the indipendent periscope for the commander proved once again it's worth.

The Fennek is a specialized recce vehicle with excellent sensors but seems to a bit too light for some of the task in Afghanistan. The relative low IED protection resulting from understandable design choices (low ground clearance, flat bottom) conflicting with it seems to be a main issue. And for that weight class you can go only so far even with the best design.

All in all the points seem to validate the idea that a sensible recce vehicle can be based on the platform of an wheeled APC/IFV (LAV, Boxer). Indeed it already has proven it's worth. That doesn't mean that a lighter scout vehicle based on a vehicle like the Bushmaster doesn't make sense. And it doesn't mean that a heavy tracked vehicle is a bad recce vehicle - as Waylander pointed out the Leo II was expected to partly assume that role. But for the current situation and for a lot of others a LAV or Boxer recce version seems to be a sensible solution.

 

[Grim901]

Excellent posts Waylander and Firn. First off, I'll say i'm generally not a fan of the LAV and i've read of quite a few incidents in Afghanistan where the Canadians have been having issues that a tracked vehicle wouldn't have. That forms the basis for my thinking on wheeled/tracked vehicles. In several recent conflicts where Britain has deployed Scimitars it has often done it in a way that a wheeled vehicle couldn't. Finally the LAV basically won FRES-U, but then the company messed the MoD around by bidding and ignoring a crucial part of the contract with no intention of adhering to it, so I think they should be discounted from FRES until they start actually working with the customer. But let's move on.

As for tracked vehicles being unable to perform patrol and escort duties, I must disagree. I read several accounts of convoy operations in Iraq where Scimitars were present and kept up well with Land Rovers etc. Also tak into account that what you'd call a road does not exist in most of Afghanistan, especially in Helmand. Roads are in terrible conditions that have severly limted speed and movement for wheeled vehicles. Heavy vehicles are also limited by the useless bridges.

Sorry haven't finished, will do so later.

 

[dpgu800]

TANKs OK, IFVs BETTER.

As far as mountain warfare goes, I guess tanks wouldn't do much good except for establishing safe passage for the units actually being deployed into the mountains. But, not in the mountains, when your raiding a village or securing highways and etc., I'm sure they prove to be effective in some way, as long as the operational space is occupied by human presence. For example, if the forces are surrounding a village and attempt to trap and destroy the enemies inside of the village, even if they could get indirect fire support from artillery and mortar, tank's direct support can be much more useful and effective.

And, as far as IFVs go, I think they must be more useful in and adaptive to the combat situations in Afghanistan, than the tanks. IFVs are not only excellent means of combat transportation but also useful presence in place where the tanks cannot operate or where they prove to be ineffective. I'm not sure about hauling the tanks inside of the villages being raided, but I think operating alongside with IFVs in urban situation might be more viable, since they act almost like a moving machine gun fortification and such.

 

[Waylander]

Excellent posts Waylander and Firn. First off, I'll say i'm generally not a fan of the LAV and i've read of quite a few incidents in Afghanistan where the Canadians have been having issues that a tracked vehicle wouldn't have. That forms the basis for my thinking on wheeled/tracked vehicles. In several recent conflicts where Britain has deployed Scimitars it has often done it in a way that a wheeled vehicle couldn't. Finally the LAV basically won FRES-U, but then the company messed the MoD around by bidding and ignoring a crucial part of the contract with no intention of adhering to it, so I think they should be discounted from FRES until they start actually working with the customer. But let's move on.

As for tracked vehicles being unable to perform patrol and escort duties, I must disagree. I read several accounts of convoy operations in Iraq where Scimitars were present and kept up well with Land Rovers etc. Also tak into account that what you'd call a road does not exist in most of Afghanistan, especially in Helmand. Roads are in terrible conditions that have severly limted speed and movement for wheeled vehicles. Heavy vehicles are also limited by the useless bridges.

Sorry haven't finished, will do so later.

For sure wheeled vehicles have had some problems in A-stan. But, and I am repeating myself, the Canadians experienced these problems when they employed the LAVs in a direct support role. That's not how, most of the time, a recce vehicle should be employed. For this role one has IFVs or light AFVs for support of light troops.
I am the first who says that whoever wants to effectively support the forces in souther A-stan should employ limited numbers of tracked MBTs and IFVs in a support role.
Bt not the recce vehicles.

And a Scimitar with it's 8 tons is not usable as an example. A much heavier vehicle (and that's what you get when you want the needed equipment + good protection) is not going to come even close to the usability on long range patrols compared to a Scimitar.
There is a reason why nobody os using many tracked vehicles for this kind of role unimportant if they are in theater or not.

I think you still miss the point that we are talking about a general recce vehicle which should be excellent at performing scout missions in most circumstances. It should also be able to perform some secondary tasks (we mentioned them before and I don't think direct fire support of combat troops should be high on that list).
You can't use the Canadian experience with their LAVs as an example.
The LAV is their primary and only IFV. They only have these vehicles. For sure they are afacing problems when the only thing they can employ is such a wheeled vehicle. But this only has a limited connection to how a good recce vehicle should look like.
The same applies for you saying that wheeled vehicles faced problems in current conflicts.

I think you are thinking of what kind of vehicle should generally support the British troops in the current conflicts and what could be an ideal general platform for many future FRES vehicles.

 

[Grim901]

For sure wheeled vehicles have had some problems in A-stan. But, and I am repeating myself, the Canadians experienced these problems when they employed the LAVs in a direct support role. That's not how, most of the time, a recce vehicle should be employed. For this role one has IFVs or light AFVs for support of light troops.
I am the first who says that whoever wants to effectively support the forces in souther A-stan should employ limited numbers of tracked MBTs and IFVs in a support role.
Bt not the recce vehicles.

And a Scimitar with it's 8 tons is not usable as an example. A much heavier vehicle (and that's what you get when you want the needed equipment + good protection) is not going to come even close to the usability on long range patrols compared to a Scimitar.
There is a reason why nobody os using many tracked vehicles for this kind of role unimportant if they are in theater or not.

I think you still miss the point that we are talking about a general recce vehicle which should be excellent at performing scout missions in most circumstances. It should also be able to perform some secondary tasks (we mentioned them before and I don't think direct fire support of combat troops should be high on that list).
You can't use the Canadian experience with their LAVs as an example.
The LAV is their primary and only IFV. They only have these vehicles. For sure they are afacing problems when the only thing they can employ is such a wheeled vehicle. But this only has a limited connection to how a good recce vehicle should look like.
The same applies for you saying that wheeled vehicles faced problems in current conflicts.

I think you are thinking of what kind of vehicle should generally support the British troops in the current conflicts and what could be an ideal general platform for many future FREMM vehicles.

FREMM? The Franco-Italian Frigates? You mean FRES?

Anyway, I don't know why but I looked at the problem differently today and i'll concede the point.

 

[Waylander]

Ah, brainfart, sorry.

That's the problem with acronyms...

 

[Grim901]

Ah, brainfart, sorry.

That's the problem with acronyms...

No problem, we all do it.

Apparently the Panther was supposed to form part of the new Reconnaissance element in a similar role to the Fennek. I suppose since the recce element has been split into a v.light and heavy subcategory the extra weight on a CV90 won't be as much of an issue anymore.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Gross Vehicle Weight is one of the most abused traits of combat vehicles. The requirements for different types of vehicles is to do with the different ways one can conduct reconnaissance.

Light vehicles (Landrovers, Hummers, Fenneks, Panthers etc) are good for more surveillance orientated reconnaissance where the recce element takes advantage of terrain to set up a static overwatch position and maintain eyes on an AO. The light vehicle is good for this because of its low profile and high mobility to exploit terrain while staying hidden. They are also good enough for the mission and since they are much cheaper than a heavier, armed vehicle save a lot of money and logistics overhead.

Armoured cars, IFV type ‘cavalry fighting vehicles’ are good for a more aggressive style of reconnaissance where the recce element pushes into the areas occupied by the enemy and ‘fights for information’. By probing enemy positions you can expose their location by drawing fire and getting close enough to find them. This requires a good gun and some armour and a lot of mobility. Such a vehicle is also good for other traditional cavalry roles like flank screening, counter-reconnaissance and raiding.

The changing nature of technology is really making the manned surveillance role obsolete. FCS Brigades will replace these units with UAVs, UGVs and UGSes. Rather than risk a Hummer with four soldiers to set up an observation point (OP) the unmanned systems can do it. On the flip side the current operational environment of counter insurgency in western and central Asia requires good use of lightweight surveillance vehicles for patrolling the ‘human’ terrain (ie talking to people) that unmanned systems can’t do (to qualify a UGV can talk to someone if fitted with a microphone and speaker unit but isn’t going to do very well at establishing contacts with an Afghani villiager...).