|
|
A Modest Proposal
— Upgraded RG-31 APV as Interim TAPV APC? |
|
Tackling Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicles – Semi-Silk Purse from an RG-31 Semi-Sow's Ear
A reader with experience who prefers anonymity has suggested an 'interim' solution for the TAPV infantry
carrier requirement. One vehicle TAPV is to replace is the four-year-old RG-31 Armoured Patrol Vehicle. The RGs in Afghanistan have seen hard use and, as might be expected
of traditional blast-resistant vehicles with 'live' axles, RGs are less tractable than LAVs. The US approach is
to replace its RG-31's 'live' axles with bolt- on Oshkosh TAK-4 independant suspension kits. [1]
|
|
|
The CF's Armoured Patrol Vehicles are known as RG-31 Mk3s to their South African maker. As delivered (right), CF
RG-31s were fitted with AxleTech's Series 4000 which are, by any standards, an excellent axle. But these axles
were never intended to take a speed bump at 70 km/h as they were asked to in Kandahar. The result was
broken front axles [2] Nor were 'live' axles up to quick turns as a series of accidents (left) including roll-overs
of new CF RG-31 APVs demonstrated all too well. |
|
|
OshKosh B'gosh – Exhanced Mobility for the CF's RG-31 Mk3 APV
TAK-4 suspension kits are being shipped to USMC RG-31 Mk5 units deployed overseas for installation in the field.
Once TAK-4 kits are in place, the vehicles become RG-31 Mk5EMs – for 'Enhanced Mobility'.
The CF's RG-31 Mk3, an earlier version of the same vehicle, could have its 'mobility enhanced' just as
easily with TAK-4s. [3] Kits could be shipped direct to Kandahar for installation in the field –
either by CF personnel or contractors. RG-31 mobility limitations would be solved at a
stroke. |
|
|
Many initial complaints about RG-31s revolved around the M151 remote weapons station. [4] One problem was light emission from the gunner's screen. Easily
remedied with 'black-out' screens, this draws attention to the vehicle's side windows. While desirable in peacekeeping,
they increase the crew's vulnerability. A simple fix is to replace the armour glass with steel plating. Already
done on the RG-31 Mk5E [5], this would be another bolt-on upgrade of an existing component. Of course, plating over
the window opening gives little further protection from large IEDs. So what else can be done in the field to protect
an RG-31?
|
|
|
Our reader suggested add-on side armour (as proposed in our blast- resistant vehicle article ) to deflect blast from the side. Unfortunately, that would take
time to develop.[6] An alternative would be to fit side armour panels (as done with other US MRAP vehicle
types). The end goal is an interim TAPV which can be fielded quickly to demonstrate the validity of TAPV to
Canadians. What better way than upgrading CF vehicles already in Afghanistan? |
|
|
[1] Oshkosh's TAK-4 is used on a range of vehicles including MTVR and HEMTT A3 heavy trucks, new M-ATVs, and planned
for JLTV.
[2] On 15 April 2007, Murray Brewster of CP reported that replacing broken front axles "on at least 10" APVs had
"cost roughly $500,000". The picture of the rolled RG-31 APV was taken in Kandahar Province on 26 July
2007 by Associated Press photographer Allauddin Khan.
[3] In Feb 2010, US Marine Corps Systems Command awarded GDLS-Canada a US$29.2M contract for 127 TAK-4 kits for
RG-31 MK5EMs. That works out to US$230k per vehicle. Assuming the same unit cost, TAK-4 kits
for 75 CF RG-31s would cost US$17.2M or CAN $17.6M.
[4] The Kongsberg M151 RWS lacked stabilization. There were also software glitches and electrical problems. The latter
stemmed from the initial IOR order RG-31s having 100 amp alternators. When both RWS and the IED jammer systems were
activated, the alternator 'cooked '. Side windows are regarded as useful in peacekeeping, allowing the crew to
'see and be seen'. However, in combat, windows are a liability – demonstrated in Oct 2006, when an
APV gunner ( Tpr Mark Wilson, RCD ) was killed when the window beside him failed in an IED blast.
[5] RG-31 designations are confusing. Maker, BAE Land Systems OMC (GDLS-C acts as North American distributor), uses
the suffix 'E' to designate extended-body versions of the RG-31 Mk5, while RG-31EMs (E now for Extended, M for
Mobility) have the original short body.
[6] When writing the blast-resistant
vehicle article, we envisioned AMAP-IED panels. But IBD Deisenroth hasn't tailored AMAP for
RGs.
|
|