CASR

Canadian
American
Strategic
Review

Blast  Resistant  Vehicles  –  CF Armoured Fighting Vehicles  –  October 2006 Blast-Resistant Vehicles For Beginners – Tweaking the APV Canadian Armoured Patrol Vehicles: Buy More, Build Better Stephen Priestley, Researcher, Canadian American Strategic Review (CASR) On 07 Oct 2006, the Canadian Forces suffered its first fatality involving the Armoured Patrol Vehicle (RG-31 Nyala). Details are sketchy –  the APV was struck by a roadside bomb, landmine or both. Newspaper head- lines decried the “failure” of the “ much vaunted” CF APVs.  Since the RG-31 Nyala is, in effect, the grand- child of  South Africa’s Casspir, it is worth a digress- ion to re-assess the APV in a cooler light  and  to speculate on the Nyala’s future. “... It’s neither one thing nor the other ...  actually,  it’s a collection of  things ...” There can be no such thing as an invulnerable armoured fighting vehicle. As with all such projects, AFVs are composed entirely of design compromises. Mobility is traded  for thickness of armour, protection is weighed against  logistical concerns. When another IED-damaged  RG-31 limped back into the compound at Kandahar, the original design concept was vindicated. The attack on a blast-resistant vehicle was a first for the CF  but a common story elsewhere.  In India, a prototype Casspir replacement was attacked during its trials. The vehicle was damaged but its crew unhurt, and success was declared. Guerrillas paired a larger mine with a roadside IED, blew the vehicle in two, killing its crew. The limitations of a vehicle type must be understood and escalation by opponents anticipated and countered. The South African originators of the Casspir faced  less sophisticated  landmines. Early successes were misleading. When the ‘bush war’ shifted into Angola, those mine-protected APCs faced modern AFVs for the first time. Casspir was easy prey for Cuban tanks. The lesson was clear:  mines were one thing,  projectiles another. Accepting the Limitations of  Specialization  and  Moving on to Tweak the Breed The reason for the vulnerability of South African blast-resistant vehicles to direct fire are obvious  –  the design has been skewed  almost entirely to protection from landmines. The upper hull reflects the police duties of the original vehicles – large armour-glass windows line the sides and  the thin armour plating is nearly vertical (thus offering little protection from  full-sized rifle bullets  let alone larger calibres ). The RG-31 Nyala’s strength  is in the 43° angle of its lower hull. If an IED’s blast is directed  from below,  there is every reason for confidence.  A blast from the side, is another matter. Both vertical plates and windows make the crew vulnerable  to  side blast effects including splinters.  While listing the downsides of existing  mine-resistant types, we  must  remember  that  they remain vastly most ‘survivable’ than all other  light vehicles in CF service. There is room for improvements in the RG-31’s design but any such changes must be of a very minor nature  –  RG-31s are in demand [1] and  more APVs are needed. A simple modification would be slat armour to protect windows against RPGs [2]  but this does nothing  for direct blast effects. More  radical change without a major structural change may be possible.  Upright  side  armour could be ‘scabbed over’ with angled plates [3] to better deflect  both blast effects (side-on) and light projectiles. Glancing Blows  or   Up and Over – A New Angle for Blast Resistance Vehicles? To accomodate such armour ‘panniers’, the RG-31 would need to sacrifice much of  its external stowage. Visibility would be reduced for the driver. Windows for the troops in the rear, eliminated totally. So, once again, we’re back to trade-offs and design compromises. The windows of the APV are an advantage for ‘hearts and minds’  but a liability around  RPGs or  roadside bombs.  We may be able to modify the design to suit both missions but, even then, Canadians will need to accept that military missions will invariably mean casualties. In the words of the CDS, “the risk can never be reduced to zero.” [1] General Dynamics has announced a US $27M contract for its GDLS-C division to supply the US Army with 60 new RG-31 Mk5s with options on 34 more. The US Army already has 148 RG-31 Chargers in service (these engineering vehicles were delivered in 2005 ). The latest  Mk5 variant has both increased power and payload. [2] There are as many detractors of the “birdcage” as there are supporters of slats. Armour glass has proven vulnerable to RPGs (perhaps laminated glass types more so than modern glass-clad polycarbonates).  Still, in more traditional peacekeeping roles, there are advantages to ‘seeing and being seen’– even if from behind ‘bars’. [3] The point here is to extend the 43° angle of the lower hull to the widest point – ie: the outside edge of the tires – then, the plate is angled back to the roof line. As envisoned, these panels would be bolted over the existing structure. Complicating things are the driver’s side windows. As a retrofit, design of the scabbed-on panel would be greatly simplified  if those forward-most  side windows remained vertical. Next in this In Detail Review –  What’s in a Name?  the Blast-Resistant Hybrids