Friday, February 20, 2015

Setback for Canada's Tactical Armored Patrol Vehicle (TAPV)

Thanks for the link Jonathan!


via Ottawa Citizen.
The deliveries of the Canadian Army’s Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle (TAPV) has been delayed, Department of National Defence officials tellDefence Watch.
Deliveries of TAPVs were expected to begin in September 2014, and be completed by mid-2016.
But those deliveries have been pushed back and the first TAPVs are now expected to begin early 2016, DND noted in an earlier email to Defence Watch. (DND spokeswoman Ashley Lemire confirmed Thursday that early 2016 is still the timing for the first delivery)
The reason for the late delivery?
Issues with steering and other “design” aspects which were discovered last year.

“A first round of testing successfully identified design challenges,” DND noted. “This additional time will allow for a further testing and refining of the complex and inter-related designs of the vehicle’s structure, suspension, and steering.”
Perhaps I've been jaded by my experience with the ACV.  With that program its obvious to a monkey that the Marine Corps has delayed that program to the point where it should be canceled because of budget issues brought on by the F-35 (also known as the procurement trainwreck).

Having said all that, while Textron is on my "bad list" I still don't see something as simple as steering issues affecting a vehicle that is 99% off the shelf.  Armor protection?  I could see that.  Weapon integration issues?  Makes sense.  But an issue with steering?  Naw.  It just doesn't sound right.  Canada has been active in the fight against ISIS.  I'm betting that budget woes are the real culprit here.

Sidenote:  Speaking of the USMC and the ACV.  I wonder if corporations still have their original design teams working on the vehicle?  Remember when a "hot project" is being fought for corporations bring on their best people in all departments to get it done.  The longer that program languishes the sooner the company decides to move all those hotshots onto other projects.  Do we still have A teams working the ACV/MPC program or the JV team?

34 comments :

  1. Yeah, something smell weird in that. Textron and steering problems... they are not the "new guy" in that business, they have lot of know-how in building those vehicles and they would not make such mistakes. I put my bets on cash problem on Canadian side.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Maybe some issues if they changed armor design and it affected the weight balance and distribution too much.

    OFFTOPIC : https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B-R_-V3IEAAV--r.jpg - Russians officially got their hands on some US tech. And unlike ISIS, they actually can learn from it, reverse engineer it and make copies of it. Or sell the info to Chinese.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hmmm... looks like AT/TPQ-48, not too much to learn from it, rather popular and simple system.

    ReplyDelete
  4. And this design don't look revolutionnary... and very friendly to french VAB

    ReplyDelete
  5. Textron is selling an updated Cadillac Cage Commando V-100 that was first used in the 60's. Its about as modern as those Saxons Ukrainans bought . I admit there is a lot of lipstick and plastic surgery on the Textron

    ReplyDelete
  6. Actually, China have also invested in ASW warfare. Assets include Y-8X maritime patrol (their equivalent to the Orion/Poseidon; towed array sonar on their 054 Frigates, and the Z-18F (with dipping sonar, sonobouys, and 4 lightweight torpedoes). Lastly, they are building a series of fixed underwater acoustic sensors off its coast (their equivalent of SOSUS)/.

    ReplyDelete
  7. V-100 is not produced for a long time now, it's successor the M1117 is highly praised vehicle that enter the service in 1999. The newest addition to the Commando family, the Elite is similar to V-100 like sea lion to African lion.

    ReplyDelete
  8. if you say so



    ''In 1999, the United States Army
    began buying a limited number of M1117s (originally the ASV-150) for
    the Military Police Corps. This purpose-built ASV was derived from Cadillac Gage's previous Commando family of AFV which was used in Vietnam for base security.
    The ASV 150 is a much improved version the earlier Cadillac Gage
    100/150, with improved armor protection and better maneuverability due
    to the use of Timoney's independent suspension system''


    In any case Is still not very impresive rear eshelon vehicle especialy now that its so large that its not viable as a scout car.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Now all it's count if it can ride in tough terrain (yes it can) do have a proper ballistic protection for it's class (yeas it have) and do it have guts and equipment to work as security and patrol vehicle... definitely it has. As a scout it's even better with telescopic pole with detection systems and ability to control small UAV. Everything pack in modern proven chassis... you really don't need anything more for that task.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Or unreasonable expectations. IIRC Germany had a few problems selling their subs in the past because they "rolled on the surface". Which is natural for a sub because they are not designed to travel on the surface. It could be that Canada expected them to turn on a dime.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Nexeter will show on IDEX the VBCI with 40mm turret... this will be interesting. I always thought that 25mm gun is just wasting the potential of this desing,

    ReplyDelete
  12. No they did not... on the picture you see a wrack of M1117, under the picture you see description that this is a M1117... and "this" vehicle is Commando Elite not M1117.

    ReplyDelete
  13. the diagram shows plenty of defensive armament against missile attack. It looks like they're pretty serious about not letting it get hit as well. Meanwhile....what's the situation with the Zumwalt? Another 25-year money hole full of pork-barreled concept technology that won't be perfected until America is relying on them to protect us?

    ReplyDelete
  14. you're pretty much spot on. it has the same problems that all these projects have. added requirements, delayed production, increased costs...you know the deal. by the time they're finished they'll probably cost as much as a small aircraft carrier.

    ReplyDelete
  15. and the enemy will have a half-dozen ways to defeat her countermeasures sink her.

    ReplyDelete
  16. yep. but i can tell by your tone that you're not even surprised. considering the current administration, the people that they've placed in power, along with the corruption in the defense industry and this is simply par for the course.

    ReplyDelete
  17. China enemies currently don't have supersonic antiship missile : CIWS works ! US enemies have them, both russia and china... And USa blieve that enemies will be sunk / shot down before being in range : So it's coherent with US doctrine...

    ReplyDelete
  18. The excellent multi view speculative drawing was one modified by Jeff Head early last year -- however since that time, the configuration of the radars, smoke stack, and much of the hull itself has been shown to be inaccurate and as we had pictures of the 055 mock up at Wuhan.

    The most accurate speculative drawing of 055 I've seen so far is this, although the top of the integrated mast is incomplete and there doesn't appear to be a rear radar.
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Type_055_destroyer.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  19. so we're seeing an evolutionary design that is based on the TYpe 052D?

    ReplyDelete
  20. The PLAN actually has quite a force of sizable SSKs.


    There's obviously the 12 Kilos they have, but more importantly is the 12+ 3,600 ton Yuans they have which all feature AIP, and of course there are the dozen or so older and slightly smaller Songs that remain in service, not to mention obsolete Mings. Yuans are a few hundred tons smaller than Soryus, but they're by no means a small boat, and bigger than Scorpenes -- they're about the displacement of a RAN Collins SSK.


    You're definitely correct in saying undersea warfare is the USN's biggest glaring advantage over the PLAN atm, however all the PLAN's newly commissioned principal surface combatants have much improved ASW capabilities as well, including full set sonar suites including bow, towed array and towed variable depth sonars, aboard the 1,400 ton 056A, to the 4,000 ton 054A, as well as the 8,000 ton 052D.
    New helicopters in the Z-20 and Z-18 will provide much needed replacement of older ASW helicopters like Z-9s and Kamovs, while the Y-8GX6 ASW MPA will look to enter this year and I expect it to be a high priority in terms of production.
    Add to that the installation of a westpac SOSUS for the PLAN as well as their own continuing SSK and SSN development and well forged submarine operating experience, and I expect within the next five years we will see quite a surge in overall PLAN ASW capability. While it may not be fully competitive with the USN in that time, the commissioning of new ASW capability will definitely be much accelerated for the PLAN than USN.

    ReplyDelete
  21. 052D's hull is basically the same one as the 052, 052B, and 052C which preceded it. 055 will have a new clean sheet, much larger hull.


    Certain 052D subsystems will be translated over onto the 055, or at least the initial production version. The same QC-280 gas turbines of which there are two on 052D will be seen on 055 (four expected), the same Type 346A APAR on 052D will almost definitely be on 055, as will the 130mm DP gun, CIWS, etc. The new common VLS introduced on 052D will also be on 055 in much larger number, and I expect it to be as prevalent in the PLAN's future surface combatants as Mk-41 VLS is for USN ships.
    But they're also introducing brand new subsystems; like new radars, an integrated mast, new helicopters, much improved command/control capabilities and likely a much larger CIC and more capable combat system overall, with greater informatization overall.


    Basically they're leveraging some of their newest in service technology as well as brand new next generation technology and putting it in a big, new hull, but designing the hull with space left over so they can add new stuff into the hull either as a refit or as a different variant altogether (such as IEPS, rail guns, DEW).

    ReplyDelete
  22. fighting a shipboard fire is no fun. Fighting a shipboard fire while your ship is under fire can only be worse.....especially when your automated ship with reduced crew size (to save costs) takes a hit that leaves too few sailors physically capable of manning the guns AND fighting the fires at the same time.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I suspect that there are CDN Gov't budget issues in regards to TAPV. Federal election this fall 2015, the Conservative party will want to make everything look rosy budget wise, thus push it out until 2016.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Offtopic. Solomon I have a question . Dont you think our governments (the west, mainly US and western europe) are being a little bit to confident, not to say arrogant about our strenght and the weakness of our potential enemies? With a few notable exceptions like your blog, most of the articles I read go something like these: China cant stop the F35, China is a paper dragon, China army is made of junk waiting to be shot down by our brave servicemen. Russia is like brazil with nukes and etc. etc. But after reading post like this one, I wonder arent we making a possible deadly mistake?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Tony Williams ( I believe it was him ) speculated a wile ago what would happen if CIWS protection became

    ReplyDelete
  26. well yeah! but a few things. if the US military came out and said that China was rapidly catching up and in some areas equalled our power then you would see panic in Japan, alarm in Australia and downright fear among the American people. i have wondered what it would do to the American psyche if what i suspect is true was suddenly made known to the average air head walking around with his head down looking at his mobile phone.


    the next thing is that we have military officials that are both political and military officers. what do you think would happen to the Obama administration if on his watch it was announced that the US was militarily weaker than China? he would plumment in the polls, and his party would be wrecked for a generation so there is a political aspect to this too.


    finally there is a glimmer of hope. we have to think that not everyone in the Pentagon is an idiot. we have to believe that if a blogger like me can see signs of trouble that they do too. and that leads to the hope. we have to hope that the black budget contains all sorts of technological advancements that are unknown to the public and to China that could change the course of a future war. the stealth helicopter? that was rather mundane but what else is there hidden from view?

    ReplyDelete
  27. In the SCS , the US Navy doesn't stand much of a chance against the PLAN. The USN Nuclear subs are extremely Noisy relative to the ultra silent AIP Equipped PLAN Subs.

    The USN Subs will be detected 100s of miles away.

    It is akin Mustangs vs Lexus. There is no comparisons...lol

    ReplyDelete
  28. i'm not even a sub guy but i know that statements is filled with simplicity and riddled with error. first by definition (as i understand it) AIP equipped subs are for the most part dependent on diesel engines for normal operations.....using batteries for only short periods. additionally its thought these type boats are useful mainly (certainly not only) for coastal operations. long story short they're slow, they're short legged, they don't dive as deep and they're stuck by the coast.


    sub warfare is not my area, but considering your statement i don't think its yours either.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Your statement about AIP is really outdated.

    A modern AIP equipped sub can travel up to 20 knots using its batteries for4 to 6 weeks.

    No matter how fast or deep the nuclear sub goes, it cannot outrun a torpedo...lol.

    Even an old Swedish Gotland class AIP sub wreaked havoc against the USN.
    The Gotland is a 1990s technology sub.

    Think what a modern AIP sub can achieve.

    http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/sweden-has-a-sub-thats-so-deadly-the-us-navy-hired-it-t-1649695984

    To date , the USN does not have one single AIP sub. Perhaps they lack the technology to build one ? Surely not ? ;)

    ReplyDelete
  30. first i could careless what foxtrotalpha has to say. they're clowns and don't take defense matters seriously. the guy is a charlatan. next. proof?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Furthermore, without investing heavily in Anti submarine technologies like Posiedons and Orions and all the related equipment that they carry, the Chinese will be pretty hamstrung in front of a capable determined Submarine force.

    ReplyDelete
  32. textron is trying to sell a very much outdated design that might have been ok in 60's but not in 21st century

    As for steering issues that is what you get when you take old truck and stick on a toon of additional weight hugely oversized tires to it to improve mobility and mine protection.

    Wonder if its as prone to loosing wheels
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9c4CxwnTqE

    ReplyDelete
  33. In Colombia 3 soldiers died in this new vehicle

    http://www.webinfomil.com/2015/02/blindado-m1117-pegaso-colombia-destruido.html?m=1

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.