FRES 2: The Revenge aka MIV

Yes it is largely built off the US designed base but a lot of components are Canadian made, drive line parts, armor/ballistic protection, A/C, RWS among others, with the prime contractor being Textron Canada.
The RWS is a Kongsberg product which Canada had already selected as the standard RWS to use for parts and service reasons. It is only "Canadian" in that Kongsberg briefly had a warehouse in Canada where they were pulled out of the boxes and bolted together and tested before being sent on to be mounted on the TAPVs.

And "prime contractor" in this case simply means the Textron sales, liaison, and support office in an office tower in downtown Ottawa. Any defence contractor going after a big enough contract (500 vehicles in this case) will set up a sales office locally. It's not a design or manufacturing site though.

The important point is that contrary to what you were told, the Textron TAPV was designed and built in the US, not in Canada. There were several Canadian made options under consideration, but the Textron vehicle was selected over them.

Overall this is perhaps a good example of how just "buying American" doesn't remove the risk of ending up with something that was both very expensive and very unsatisfactory.
 
The RWS is a Kongsberg product which Canada had already selected as the standard RWS to use for parts and service reasons. It is only "Canadian" in that Kongsberg briefly had a warehouse in Canada where they were pulled out of the boxes and bolted together and tested before being sent on to be mounted on the TAPVs.

And "prime contractor" in this case simply means the Textron sales, liaison, and support office in an office tower in downtown Ottawa. Any defence contractor going after a big enough contract (500 vehicles in this case) will set up a sales office locally. It's not a design or manufacturing site though.

The important point is that contrary to what you were told, the Textron TAPV was designed and built in the US, not in Canada. There were several Canadian made options under consideration, but the Textron vehicle was selected over them.

Overall this is perhaps a good example of how just "buying American" doesn't remove the risk of ending up with something that was both very expensive and very unsatisfactory.
I'm only going off what the Canadians had to say, and they seemed to think they "Assembled" enough bits to consider it Canadian made or at least sell it to the population that way.
 
The TAP-V has a problem in keeping the brown side down facing the road. maybe better drivers might help
Looks to me more like a centre of gravity problem. Sort of like the Gen-1 Mercedes A-Class hatchbacks, which spent more time on their roofs than their wheels because Mercedes completely screwed up the design.
 
I'm only going off what the Canadians had to say, and they seemed to think they "Assembled" enough bits to consider it Canadian made or at least sell it to the population that way.
The official DND and government line is that it is a "Canadian" vehicle, and that the project itself was a procurement success.

With regards to the former, as I said the original decision was controversial because it was chosen over Canadian made options, so the government were keen on pointing out any Canadian input which went into it. It was kitted out with the optional equipment that Canada selected, but the problems with the vehicle as reported in the press are not related to those components, but rather to the basic vehicle itself which was designed and built in the US and testing was done in the US at the Aberdeen Proving Ground.

The point I was addressing though was the claim that the TAPV was the result of buying something that was "Canadian" instead of buying something off the shelf from abroad. Rather, the opposite is true and it is a very good example of how a decision to simply buy something made in the US can go badly wrong and how this is not a magic solution to procurement problems.
 
The RWS is a Kongsberg product which Canada had already selected as the standard RWS to use for parts and service reasons. It is only "Canadian" in that Kongsberg briefly had a warehouse in Canada where they were pulled out of the boxes and bolted together and tested before being sent on to be mounted on the TAPVs.

And "prime contractor" in this case simply means the Textron sales, liaison, and support office in an office tower in downtown Ottawa. Any defence contractor going after a big enough contract (500 vehicles in this case) will set up a sales office locally. It's not a design or manufacturing site though.

The important point is that contrary to what you were told, the Textron TAPV was designed and built in the US, not in Canada. There were several Canadian made options under consideration, but the Textron vehicle was selected over them.

Overall this is perhaps a good example of how just "buying American" doesn't remove the risk of ending up with something that was both very expensive and very unsatisfactory.
I'm only going off what the Canadians had to say, and they seemed to think they "Assembled" enough bits to consider it Canadian made or at least sell it to the population that way.
The official DND and government line is that it is a "Canadian" vehicle, and that the project itself was a procurement success.

With regards to the former, as I said the original decision was controversial because it was chosen over Canadian made options, so the government were keen on pointing out any Canadian input which went into it. It was kitted out with the optional equipment that Canada selected, but the problems with the vehicle as reported in the press are not related to those components, but rather to the basic vehicle itself which was designed and built in the US and testing was done in the US at the Aberdeen Proving Ground.

The point I was addressing though was the claim that the TAPV was the result of buying something that was "Canadian" instead of buying something off the shelf from abroad. Rather, the opposite is true and it is a very good example of how a decision to simply buy something made in the US can go badly wrong and how this is not a magic solution to procurement problems.
In fairness, if assembly is occurring in Canada then that would possibly satisfy the rules on country of origin.

But of course, this is based on an existing design which is very very very different from being an existing design.

If a manufacturer/country is bespoking a vehicle that bring huge risk to the project.

We learnt that with our nearest thing to this, our LTAV.

We made (IMHO) the specs extremely particular, which meant there was no vehicle suitable at the first attempt and as the market matured we went at a 2nd attempt and bought a “based on”..... ie completely different (so different that it is reported that each individual is unique (and I’m not talking about the registration plate))

Looks to me more like a centre of gravity problem. Sort of like the Gen-1 Mercedes A-Class hatchbacks, which spent more time on their roofs than their wheels because Mercedes completely screwed up the design.
In fairness, that is a major issue with most mine protected vehicles. Many have very high ground clearance and as a result a high CoG. Many also just have a high CoG.
 
In fairness, if assembly is occurring in Canada then that would possibly satisfy the rules on country of origin.

But of course, this is based on an existing design which is very very very different from being an existing design.
Based on as in the DND put out a spec and invited tenders. Textron looked at what they had and thought they could sell it to Canada if they just added more protection (both mine protection and armour) and beefed up the suspension. The underlying basic design goes back quite a ways and Textron have repeatedly increased the weight over the years as new models were brought out with improved protection.

Canada would have put out a spec which said "we want this Stanag protection level, that RWS, these radios and reconnaissance kit, etc." and a number of companies responded with proposals they said would work. Of those companies, the Textron proposal was selected.

If a manufacturer/country is bespoking a vehicle that bring huge risk to the project.

We learnt that with our nearest thing to this, our LTAV.

We made (IMHO) the specs extremely particular, which meant there was no vehicle suitable at the first attempt and as the market matured we went at a 2nd attempt and bought a “based on”..... ie completely different (so different that it is reported that each individual is unique (and I’m not talking about the registration plate))


In fairness, that is a major issue with most mine protected vehicles. Many have very high ground clearance and as a result a high CoG. Many also just have a high CoG.
According to official sources, everything is fine and there aren't any problems with the TAPV. I don't have inside information but from what I have seen I suspect there are two fundamental problems. Once is that the Textron vehicle has been repeatedly increased in weight through successive development through different models to where they are today, and the basic platform is simply past the point where they needed to start again from a clean sheet of paper. It has also become increasingly top heavy in the process.

The other is that the concept behind the TAPV project seems to be wrong to begin with. The DND tried to replace two very different vehicles, the Coyote Reconnaissance vehicle (an older model LAV) and the smaller RG-31 with one vehicle which could do both jobs.

For the imagined reconnaissance role the TAPV simply doesn't have as much internal hull space to fit all the desired kit as the Coyote did. The result of that appears to be that some LAVIIIs have had to be outfitted to fill that role, and they are now trying to figure out how they can make use of the reconnaissance version of the TAPV. Given its height and general bulk, it's not exactly stealthy.

For the utility role, the TAPV is huge compared to the RG-31 while having limited space, limiting its usefulness as well.

I suspect that a better solution would have been to not try to make one vehicle platform perform two different jobs, and to have replaced the Coyote with an upgraded LAVIII and the RG-31 with something closer to itself in size.
 
For those who - like me - may be unfamiliar with the vehicle . . . (1)

Published by Matsimus, on 01 June 2018.

Canadian Army TAPV - Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle

"The Textron TAPV (Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle) is an armoured car currently in use by the Canadian Army. It is based on the M1117 Armoured Security Vehicle, developed for use by the military police of the US Armed Forces.

The Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle (TAPV) program began in 2009, and in 2012 the contract was awarded to Textron Systems, Inc. On August 16, 2016, Textron systems delivered the first Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle (TAPV) to the Canadian Army. An eventual 500 vehicles will be purchased, with the option to order an additional 100".

 
For those who - like me - may be unfamiliar with the vehicle . . . (2)

Published by: Shaw TVOkanagan, on 26 January 2018.

"The BC Dragoons have added a new vehicle to their fleet. It's called a Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle and is to be a replacement for the G-Wagon".

 
For those who - like me - may be unfamiliar with the vehicle . . . (1)

Published by Matsimus, on 01 June 2018.

Canadian Army TAPV - Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle

"The Textron TAPV (Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle) is an armoured car currently in use by the Canadian Army. It is based on the M1117 Armoured Security Vehicle, developed for use by the military police of the US Armed Forces.

The Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle (TAPV) program began in 2009, and in 2012 the contract was awarded to Textron Systems, Inc. On August 16, 2016, Textron systems delivered the first Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle (TAPV) to the Canadian Army. An eventual 500 vehicles will be purchased, with the option to order an additional 100".

As he mentions in the video, he apparently got in trouble for the first version of his video and had to take it down and replace it with something less critical.
 
[QUOTE="dragon825, post: 9314792, member: 57220"]looking at the 6x6 version was my idea about 10 pages back, he's even used the same photo the bastard![/QUOTE]

Not your idea, I'm sorry to say.
Here is a model of the Krauss Maffei GTK design concept from 1996.
GTK 6x6c.jpg
 
For those who - like me - may be unfamiliar with the vehicle . . . (2)

Published by: Shaw TVOkanagan, on 26 January 2018.

"The BC Dragoons have added a new vehicle to their fleet. It's called a Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle and is to be a replacement for the G-Wagon".

Some chubsters in view there!
 
Based on as in the DND put out a spec and invited tenders. Textron looked at what they had and thought they could sell it to Canada if they just added more protection (both mine protection and armour) and beefed up the suspension. The underlying basic design goes back quite a ways and Textron have repeatedly increased the weight over the years as new models were brought out with improved protection.

Canada would have put out a spec which said "we want this Stanag protection level, that RWS, these radios and reconnaissance kit, etc." and a number of companies responded with proposals they said would work. Of those companies, the Textron proposal was selected.


According to official sources, everything is fine and there aren't any problems with the TAPV. I don't have inside information but from what I have seen I suspect there are two fundamental problems. Once is that the Textron vehicle has been repeatedly increased in weight through successive development through different models to where they are today, and the basic platform is simply past the point where they needed to start again from a clean sheet of paper. It has also become increasingly top heavy in the process.

The other is that the concept behind the TAPV project seems to be wrong to begin with. The DND tried to replace two very different vehicles, the Coyote Reconnaissance vehicle (an older model LAV) and the smaller RG-31 with one vehicle which could do both jobs.

For the imagined reconnaissance role the TAPV simply doesn't have as much internal hull space to fit all the desired kit as the Coyote did. The result of that appears to be that some LAVIIIs have had to be outfitted to fill that role, and they are now trying to figure out how they can make use of the reconnaissance version of the TAPV. Given its height and general bulk, it's not exactly stealthy.

For the utility role, the TAPV is huge compared to the RG-31 while having limited space, limiting its usefulness as well.

I suspect that a better solution would have been to not try to make one vehicle platform perform two different jobs, and to have replaced the Coyote with an upgraded LAVIII and the RG-31 with something closer to itself in size.
Based on as in the DND put out a spec and invited tenders. Textron looked at what they had and thought they could sell it to Canada if they just added more protection (both mine protection and armour) and beefed up the suspension. The underlying basic design goes back quite a ways and Textron have repeatedly increased the weight over the years as new models were brought out with improved protection.

Canada would have put out a spec which said "we want this Stanag protection level, that RWS, these radios and reconnaissance kit, etc." and a number of companies responded with proposals they said would work. Of those companies, the Textron proposal was selected.


According to official sources, everything is fine and there aren't any problems with the TAPV. I don't have inside information but from what I have seen I suspect there are two fundamental problems. Once is that the Textron vehicle has been repeatedly increased in weight through successive development through different models to where they are today, and the basic platform is simply past the point where they needed to start again from a clean sheet of paper. It has also become increasingly top heavy in the process.

The other is that the concept behind the TAPV project seems to be wrong to begin with. The DND tried to replace two very different vehicles, the Coyote Reconnaissance vehicle (an older model LAV) and the smaller RG-31 with one vehicle which could do both jobs.

For the imagined reconnaissance role the TAPV simply doesn't have as much internal hull space to fit all the desired kit as the Coyote did. The result of that appears to be that some LAVIIIs have had to be outfitted to fill that role, and they are now trying to figure out how they can make use of the reconnaissance version of the TAPV. Given its height and general bulk, it's not exactly stealthy.

For the utility role, the TAPV is huge compared to the RG-31 while having limited space, limiting its usefulness as well.

I suspect that a better solution would have been to not try to make one vehicle platform perform two different jobs, and to have replaced the Coyote with an upgraded LAVIII and the RG-31 with something closer to itself in size.
While it is based on the existing proven design the changes including dimensions and weight can make it a very different beast with regard to performance.

We (Ireland) were very particular in our specs, therefore a vehicle design had to be altered to Meet them. Of course we were to have a small production run and would have been the sole customer which increased the price.

We bought the RG32M LTV “Outrider” (simply LTAV to us). As far as I know we are the sole customer with a total of 27 vehicles.

It is based on the combat proven RG32M Scout/Galten, which has a production run of over 800.

The changes include being double the weight, over 2 metres longer, being wider and higher, carry 2 less personnel.

All that is open source.

We should have bought a proven in service design.
 
I happened to come across the following, which is something that may interest a number of people. It is a survey of the global market for armoured vehicles in 2018. Basically, it is a summary of what features customers in various parts of the world think are important, and what various countries are buying and selling.

I think it is well worth reading from the perspective of knowing what is on the market and who is buying what.
http://rfventures.co/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/iq2018.pdf
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Does the Matilda ll ring any bells... Must think we're fcuking shrimps
Except that PhotEx, as usual, is pontificating from his posterior.
The Warrior isn't limited to the CT40 - the Warrior Lethality Improvement Programme (up to 2009) was evidence enough of that if the Warrior 2000 and, to a lesser extent, the Desert Warrior weren't already.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
C Army Reserve 3
TheIronDuke The NAAFI Bar 84
schweik The NAAFI Bar 45

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top