Quote:
Originally Posted by David Wilkinson
....
By chance, a couple of years later, I spoke to the Textron Canada project chief and he assured me the army got exactly what they asked for. I guess my point is that the young soldiers knew what they needed to do their job, but other considerations got in the way during the procurement process. I just hope the Ukraine army appreciates the survivability enhancements.
|
From what I remember in the press and statements, the TAPV was specified to requirements heavily leaning on AFG experience with IEDs in LAVs and RG31s. It had to be as safe or safer from those threats. Since IEDs there tended to blow upwards, the belly and wheel arches are probably very substantial. Not sure if the same standard of an MRAP was used, but that is what I remember.
Secondly, no modern Canadian army vehicle can have enough electronics, so say the bosses and project people. Yes, the long range observation devices in the Coyote gave stellar service in Kosovo and around Kabul, but does every wheeled recce call sign have to be the land based equivalent of a low earth orbit sensor platform? It is possible to be too clever in life.