We've never actually used LUVWs for recce, they were purely training platforms. If I had to go outside the wire in a LUVW for a recce patrol I would be shitting bricks lol. Even then, the SENUP is a 12 person light APC/Armoured Car and not overly analogous to a LUVW, it's a lot closer in scope to an RG31 than a GWagon.
Idk man, I'm increasingly of the opinion that any cavalry vehicle should be 6x6 at minimum, tracked preferable. Honestly, the best thing I can think of for light cav that isn't tracked is just more Coyotes. The LAVII family is the perfect weight class to balance the armoured triangle of armour, mobility and firepower, just modernize the Coyote and add missiles.
For the tasks that you would normally assign Light Cav (screening, flank security, rear area security, & some more offensive/defensive actions depending on context) - on road mobility is more important than tracked/off road mobility, especially if the rest of the force is wheeled. You need the speed & endurance to move in & around a very large Area of Responsibility.
As for Roshel vs a Coyote... My conception of a good light Cav vehicle puts it at a max of 20K lbs... A bit smaller & lighter than a Coyote, hence a Roshel with a punchy armament. But yeah, if you went a bit heavier, a LAV 2/Coyote is a decent option, though it'd be more expensive to sustain & much more difficult to field & sustain in viable quantities to the Reserves...
What kind of punch could a Roshel add? It's an extremely limited platform for offensive operations. An RWS has its pros but as a guy with experience on turreted and RWS platforms, a turret beats the wheels off a pintle or RWS imo.
Further, cavalry needs to get offroad a fair amount with camouflage and stealth being the main form of protection for any light cavalry system. This is not achieved on-road. Poor off-road mobility from the Senator would hamper a light cav formation.
I like the Senator but it's much better as an A1/S2 Ech vehicle, not F ech.
& yet we've used G-Wagons in essentially that same role for 20 years. C&R variant with pintle C-6 - for sneak & peek Recce or TACSEC tasks… & not really great at either dye to armement & lack of optics (though a heck of a lot stealthier than TAPV).
Roshel Senators would be bigger, but the SENUP version is smaller than TAPV. Agreed you're not bombing off road at 70km/h like a tank, but being a wheeled platform didn't normally stop us grom getting where we wanted to go in a GWagon.
As for armament… I'd see 1 of 3 options (none an RWS):
A manual .50cal pintle/turret, but using FCS13 or similar, which at least enables thermal sighting, LRF & ballistic compensation (& a remite video feed to have CC also view the imagery).
Something like an updated 1m turret (with 50cal), with an actual FCS & stabilisation. This shouldn't be too hard to develop & would easily fit on the platform & payload if Senator.
25mm option, in a small 1 person turret - a la John cockerill 30mm turret on JLTV… it should be just small & light enough to fit on SENUP. Also, there's a lot if extra height in that platform… you should be able to make the VAV variant with a roif 3-6 inches lower, to mitigate the height & CoG increase from the turret.
& yet we've been using the G-Wagons for Recce since 2005... & Iltis before that (alongside Lynx while those were still with us). Off-road mobility is certainly still useful, but I don't think the high speed baja blasting a lot of people seem to envision is what's needed. You don't need to be fast off-road to disperse into the woodline for hides & harbours... As evidenced by thenfact that we regularly do this with G-Wagons, TAPVs, LAVs & our multitude of wheeled logistics platforms. I'm pretty confident SENUP would have about the same amount of off-road chops as our other wheeled fleets.
As for firepower, I concur on RWS. For some applications, like a personel carrier or Combat support vehicle not meant to really fight, go right ahead & mount an RWS (it's better than a pintle C6...)
For a fighting Cavalry vehicle, a turret of some description is the absolute minimum. That being said, there are 3 tiers of "turret" I think could be suitable for Light CAV (which would all provide more firepower than G-Wagon, & similar or better than TAPV). All could be mounted to SENUP, but yes, it would take a bit of design effort.
Minimum viable: 1 person manual turret (enclosed) with .50cal & ballistically compensated thermal optics (e.g. aimpoint FCS13RE) with remote displays for the gunner & CC.
Middle tier option: 1 person stabilized turret mounting a .50cal, with a proper FCS etc.
Top tier: 1 person stabilized turret with FCS for 25mm & coax C6.
1 person turrets are a concession for weight savings. You can take advantage of dual controls so that the gunner is in the hull, with the CC in the turret (better situational awareness), or vice-versa depending on situation and/or crew preference...
We've never actually used LUVWs for recce, they were purely training platforms. If I had to go outside the wire in a LUVW for a recce patrol I would be shitting bricks lol. Even then, the SENUP is a 12 person light APC/Armoured Car and not overly analogous to a LUVW, it's a lot closer in scope to an RG31 than a GWagon.
Now it's time for them to make a dedicated Light cavalry variant of the SENUP!
Show me the firepower!
Idk man, I'm increasingly of the opinion that any cavalry vehicle should be 6x6 at minimum, tracked preferable. Honestly, the best thing I can think of for light cav that isn't tracked is just more Coyotes. The LAVII family is the perfect weight class to balance the armoured triangle of armour, mobility and firepower, just modernize the Coyote and add missiles.
For the tasks that you would normally assign Light Cav (screening, flank security, rear area security, & some more offensive/defensive actions depending on context) - on road mobility is more important than tracked/off road mobility, especially if the rest of the force is wheeled. You need the speed & endurance to move in & around a very large Area of Responsibility.
As for Roshel vs a Coyote... My conception of a good light Cav vehicle puts it at a max of 20K lbs... A bit smaller & lighter than a Coyote, hence a Roshel with a punchy armament. But yeah, if you went a bit heavier, a LAV 2/Coyote is a decent option, though it'd be more expensive to sustain & much more difficult to field & sustain in viable quantities to the Reserves...
What kind of punch could a Roshel add? It's an extremely limited platform for offensive operations. An RWS has its pros but as a guy with experience on turreted and RWS platforms, a turret beats the wheels off a pintle or RWS imo.
Further, cavalry needs to get offroad a fair amount with camouflage and stealth being the main form of protection for any light cavalry system. This is not achieved on-road. Poor off-road mobility from the Senator would hamper a light cav formation.
I like the Senator but it's much better as an A1/S2 Ech vehicle, not F ech.
& yet we've used G-Wagons in essentially that same role for 20 years. C&R variant with pintle C-6 - for sneak & peek Recce or TACSEC tasks… & not really great at either dye to armement & lack of optics (though a heck of a lot stealthier than TAPV).
Roshel Senators would be bigger, but the SENUP version is smaller than TAPV. Agreed you're not bombing off road at 70km/h like a tank, but being a wheeled platform didn't normally stop us grom getting where we wanted to go in a GWagon.
As for armament… I'd see 1 of 3 options (none an RWS):
A manual .50cal pintle/turret, but using FCS13 or similar, which at least enables thermal sighting, LRF & ballistic compensation (& a remite video feed to have CC also view the imagery).
Something like an updated 1m turret (with 50cal), with an actual FCS & stabilisation. This shouldn't be too hard to develop & would easily fit on the platform & payload if Senator.
25mm option, in a small 1 person turret - a la John cockerill 30mm turret on JLTV… it should be just small & light enough to fit on SENUP. Also, there's a lot if extra height in that platform… you should be able to make the VAV variant with a roif 3-6 inches lower, to mitigate the height & CoG increase from the turret.
& yet we've been using the G-Wagons for Recce since 2005... & Iltis before that (alongside Lynx while those were still with us). Off-road mobility is certainly still useful, but I don't think the high speed baja blasting a lot of people seem to envision is what's needed. You don't need to be fast off-road to disperse into the woodline for hides & harbours... As evidenced by thenfact that we regularly do this with G-Wagons, TAPVs, LAVs & our multitude of wheeled logistics platforms. I'm pretty confident SENUP would have about the same amount of off-road chops as our other wheeled fleets.
As for firepower, I concur on RWS. For some applications, like a personel carrier or Combat support vehicle not meant to really fight, go right ahead & mount an RWS (it's better than a pintle C6...)
For a fighting Cavalry vehicle, a turret of some description is the absolute minimum. That being said, there are 3 tiers of "turret" I think could be suitable for Light CAV (which would all provide more firepower than G-Wagon, & similar or better than TAPV). All could be mounted to SENUP, but yes, it would take a bit of design effort.
Minimum viable: 1 person manual turret (enclosed) with .50cal & ballistically compensated thermal optics (e.g. aimpoint FCS13RE) with remote displays for the gunner & CC.
Middle tier option: 1 person stabilized turret mounting a .50cal, with a proper FCS etc.
Top tier: 1 person stabilized turret with FCS for 25mm & coax C6.
1 person turrets are a concession for weight savings. You can take advantage of dual controls so that the gunner is in the hull, with the CC in the turret (better situational awareness), or vice-versa depending on situation and/or crew preference...
Is that a manned turret or some sort of RWS on the Admiral?