# Close Combat Vehicle: Canada to buy another AFV (& keeping LAV III & TLAV)



## -dikweed-

*Lock if already posted*

Canada may become the first export customer for Germany's brand-new Puma tracked infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) -- at least that is what the Puma's manufacturers believe.

"We are seeing high-level interest within the Canadian Department of National Defence (DND) in a possible future acquisition of Puma," says a senior executive in Rheinmetall Defence.

Together with Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW), Rheinmetall has developed the Puma and is currently ramping up series production of 405 Pumas, worth around 3 billion euros ($4.5 billion) for the German armed forces.

"Canada almost went to an all-wheeled armored vehicle force. But operational experience in Afghanistan has shown that tracked combat vehicles are indispensable," says Duncan Hills, director government relations and industrial benefits for Rheinmetall Canada.

According to Hills, wheeled vehicles such as Canada's LAV III (an 8x8 armored wheeled vehicle) have experienced mobility problems in Afghanistan, particularly when having to deal with difficult off-road terrain or when having to negotiate irrigation ditches.

Protection has also proven to be an issue, with several roadside bomb attacks against LAVs resulting in high casualties.

The Puma, with its shaped hull and modular add-on armor, would provide enhanced protection for its up to nine occupants, Hills says.

The Puma is just one of several land systems products that Rheinmetall is promoting in Canada. Others are the PzH 2000 self-propelled 155-mm./52-cal. howitzer, the Gefas modular protected wheeled vehicle, the Buffalo and Kodiak armored engineer vehicles, and the C-RAM army air defense system.

Canada already has leased 20 KMW-built Leopard 2A6M main battle tanks from the German government for deployment to Afghanistan, and is taking over 100 surplus Leopard 2s from the Netherlands.

However, this last project is suffering from delays associated with the installation of Canadian army radios into the former Dutch tanks, sources close to the program tell Ares.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3addf8eb2f-200a-4a65-beb4-d5407e4dc40d

________________________________


(Edited by Moderator to correct typo in thread title.)


----------



## Mike Baker

> The Puma, with its shaped hull and modular add-on armor, would provide enhanced protection for its up to nine occupants, Hills says.



Well, if that is indeed true, I can see why the Gov are looking into these vehicles.


----------



## ArmyRick

Did anybody on our end of the ocean hint a such a purchase?


----------



## geo

Beauty!


----------



## Mike Baker

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Did anybody on our end of the ocean hint a such a purchase?


Not in the article, only what the manufacturers of the PUMA are saying:



> Canada may become the first export customer for Germany's brand-new Puma tracked infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) -- at least that is what the Puma's manufacturers believe.
> 
> "We are seeing high-level interest within the Canadian Department of National Defence (DND) in a possible future acquisition of Puma," says a senior executive in Rheinmetall Defence



But dang, they sure do look hot


----------



## -dikweed-

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Did anybody on our end of the ocean hint a such a purchase?



There is always rumors that the LAV III isnt performing well (pretty bogus rumors in my opinion).

But how are they going to justify to the public? "Oh yeah, sorry we spent billions building a fleet of wheeled LAVS, but they can't move well enough on anything else than a level road- probably should have picked up on that during the prototype stage huh?"


----------



## dapaterson

Even if we were to buy them, think about timelines for acquisition.  The Urgent Operational Requirement for C-130Js will take almost 5 years from "We need it " to "First plane in Trenton".

And, unlike the Leo 2s, we wouldn't be buying refurbished equipment off the lot - we'd be awaiting the production line to produce our vehicles, in competition with anyone else buying the same kit.

I suspect that if we do buy the Puma, the private entring St Jean today may someday be a crew commander on the first one we receive... if he or she sees them at all.


----------



## -dikweed-

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Even if we were to buy them, think about timelines for acquisition.  The Urgent Operational Requirement for C-130Js will take almost 5 years from "We need it " to "First plane in Trenton".
> 
> And, unlike the Leo 2s, we wouldn't be buying refurbished equipment off the lot - we'd be awaiting the production line to produce our vehicles, in competition with anyone else buying the same kit.
> 
> I suspect that if we do buy the Puma, the private entring St Jean today may someday be a crew commander on the first one we receive... if he or she sees them at all.



Also, as I understand it...the PUMA is INCREDIBLY expensive, and the fact that there is only confirmed orders for 400 vehicles is not going to drive down the economies of scale
However, its possible to turn that beast into a 43 ton armored mini-behemoth- the protection level compared to the LAV III would be stupendous


----------



## KevinB

And then they build a bigger bomb...

  I've seen blown out M1A2 TUSK's getting worked on here -- if its built by humans it can be twice as easily be destroyed by humans.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

I wouldn't necessarily put this one in the bag for KMW/Rheinmetall, as BAE Systems will likely be very competitive with CV90.


----------



## retiredgrunt45

The PUMA looks surprisingly similar to the German Marder 1. Very nice vehicle!!! I really hope we go back to a tracked AFV. The LAV's are very good, but there's nothing quite like a tracked vehicle when you need to go into those spots were only tracks dare tread.


----------



## GAP

Is there not a tracked version of the LAVIII that solves that problem?


----------



## geo

Nope,


----------



## COBRA-6

IMHO_* IF * _ Canada purchases a tracked IFV I think it would be a limited buy (probably in numbers equal to the tank purchase) to suppliment the LAV-III and compliment the LEO-2, not to replace the LAV-III entirely.


----------



## Haletown

The secret government file is called "Bearhead II" and the deal involves a manufacturing facility in rural Cape Breton.


Sorry, couldn't resist.


----------



## Infanteer

COBRA-6 said:
			
		

> IMHO_* IF * _ Canada purchases a tracked IFV I think it would be a limited buy (probably in numbers equal to the tank purchase) to suppliment the LAV-III and compliment the LEO-2, not to replace the LAV-III entirely.



As much as I love multiple fleets of a few vehicles - I suspect you're on track here (no pun intended).  I would hope a small Canadian buy of either a Puma or a CV90 would feature a 25mm Bushmaster as opposed to a 30 to ensure commonality of ammo.

The LAVIII, the Leopard, and any tracked carrier are all about to swept up in the next iteration of the FCS (I can't recall what it's name is this time) - an all singing, all dancing chassis for the Army.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Wonder if LFTEU will be doing user trials on them  ??? If so I want in on it.  ;D


----------



## OldSolduer

Nice pictures. IF this comes to fruition, I'd love to be on the trials as well. Good looking machine.


----------



## a_majoor

Infanteer said:
			
		

> As much as I love multiple fleets of a few vehicles - I suspect you're on track here (no pun intended).  I would hope a small Canadian buy of either a Puma or a CV90 would feature a 25mm Bushmaster as opposed to a 30 to ensure commonality of ammo.
> 
> The LAVIII, the Leopard, and any tracked carrier are all about to swept up in the next iteration of the FCS (I can't recall what it's name is this time) - an all singing, all dancing chassis for the Army.



Current name: Future Family of Combat Vehicles (FFCV). Throw on the music please........................


----------



## George Wallace

Haletown said:
			
		

> The secret government file is called "Bearhead II" and the deal involves a manufacturing facility in rural Cape Breton.
> 
> 
> Sorry, couldn't resist.



Seeing as that nearly happened back in the 70's.


----------



## LordOsborne

I read up about the Puma on Wikipedia and a few other open-source defence sites, and it looks like the turret is designed to accomodate a Euromissile Spike-LR ATGM. I'm going along with what Infanteer said WRT the cannon, namely that we'd probably swap the 30mm for our 25mm. Would it be logical to assume we'd do the same with the ATGM armament; ie, use TOW-2 instead of Spike? If we did that, would it make our LAV-TOW obsolete?


----------



## Pencil Tech

Wow, it seems just like yesterday everything was going to be wheeled.   :


----------



## retiredgrunt45

> Wow, it seems just like yesterday everything was going to be wheeled.



Seems our experience in Afghanistan changed some minds. 

Of course there is a use for each type, but a track is much more versatile but the con is it's more maintenace intensive to maintain a set of tracks opposed to a set of wheels.

I've driven both and I believe in the Superior versatility and mobility of a tracked AFV over a wheeled, even with the added maitenance there are still more advantages to using a track. I know you really can't compare the old Grizzly or cougar to the LAVIII, but the concept is still the same. 

But at the moment it's still only a pipe dream, so i'll beleive it when I see it happen.


----------



## Tow Tripod

Lets just hope that the PUMA doesn't have the same track pad idea as the M113. In Croatia we would do 8 hours of maintenance for a 8 hour patrol. Lets have a change track pad afternoon/night!!! I do like the idea of a 30mm cannon.Make it big.Would anyone have any pictures of the inside of this vehicle??

TOW TRIPOD


----------



## George Wallace

Tow Tripod said:
			
		

> Lets just hope that the PUMA doesn't have the same track pad idea as the M113.



Not a 'Track Guy' are ya.  The PUMA probably has the German Diehl Track, just like the M113 and Leopards.

Obviously you have never worked with the old American and British Track that had 'Drift Pins',  Now that track really sucked.  So don't complain.


----------



## Rodahn

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Obviously you have never worked with the old American and British Track that had 'Drift Pins',  Now that track really sucked.  So don't complain.



Thanks for the memories George........


----------



## LordOsborne

Tow Tripod said:
			
		

> Lets just hope that the PUMA doesn't have the same track pad idea as the M113. In Croatia we would do 8 hours of maintenance for a 8 hour patrol. Lets have a change track pad afternoon/night!!! I do like the idea of a 30mm cannon.Make it big.*Would anyone have any pictures of the inside of this vehicle??*
> TOW TRIPOD



German-language picture info page on the Puma:

http://www.rommelkiste.de/Fahrzeuge/Puma/Puma.html


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Ya know, I'm "interested in" Angelina Jolie...doesn't mean she'll go out with me though...

Let's all say it together..."TLAV"...live it, learn it, love it...


----------



## Haletown

related . . . .   article on TLAV/IFV armaments.

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WLIP.htm


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Tow Tripod said:
			
		

> Lets just hope that the PUMA doesn't have the same track pad idea as the M113. In Croatia we would do 8 hours of maintenance for a 8 hour patrol. Lets have a change track pad afternoon/night!!! I do like the idea of a 30mm cannon.Make it big.Would anyone have any pictures of the inside of this vehicle??
> 
> TOW TRIPOD



*IF* we get them we would probably have the new inservice track installed (depending on the weight of the vehicle)


----------



## vonGarvin

Stats on the _Schützenpanzer Puma_
Gross weight:  41 tonnes
Length: 7.4 m
*Width: 3.7 m*
Height: 3.1 m
Engine: 800 Horses
Speed: 70kph (forward), 30 kph (reverse)
Crew: 3 (veh) 6 (GIBs)
Turret: unmanned, remote controlled, hunter killer capability (IMHO, "very nice" - in best Borat voice, naturally)
Main armament: Mk 30-2/ABM, 30mm
Ammo: 30 mm APFSDS-T, and KETF "Air burst" with time fuze
Secondary armament: MG 4, 5.56mm and 76.2 mm Grenade launchers
To me, it sounds as though it were designed with the Leo 2A6 in mind:
Leo:
Weight: 62.3 tonnes
Length: 7.7 m
*Width: 3.7 m* (sound familiar?  If not, look up)
Height: 3.0 m


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> Stats on the _Schützenpanzer Puma_
> Gross weight:  41 tonnes
> Length: 7.4 m
> *Width: 3.7 m*
> Height: 3.1 m
> Engine: 800 Horses
> Speed: 70kph (forward), 30 kph (reverse)
> Crew: 3 (veh) 6 (GIBs)
> Turret: unmanned, remote controlled, hunter killer capability (IMHO, "very nice" - in best Borat voice, naturally)
> Main armament: Mk 30-2/ABM, 30mm
> Ammo: 30 mm APFSDS-T, and KETF "Air burst" with time fuze
> Secondary armament: MG 4, 5.56mm and 76.2 mm Grenade launchers
> To me, it sounds as though it were designed with the Leo 2A6 in mind:
> Leo:
> Weight: 62.3 tonnes
> Length: 7.7 m
> *Width: 3.7 m* (sound familiar?  If not, look up)
> Height: 3.0 m



Hmm.... seems the new inservice track can hold the weight of a Puma


----------



## ironduke57

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> Stats on the _Schützenpanzer Puma_
> ...
> *Width: 3.7 m*
> ...
> To me, it sounds as though it were designed with the Leo 2A6 in mind:
> Leo:
> ...
> *Width: 3.7 m* (sound familiar?  If not, look up)
> ...



Not really. Both where designed to be transportable by train in there basic version without problem. (That the don´t get stuck in Tunnels or hinder another train on neighboring tracks.)

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## vonGarvin

ironduke57 said:
			
		

> Not really. Both where designed to be transportable by train in there basic version without problem. (That the don´t get stuck in Tunnels or hinder another train on neighboring tracks.)
> 
> Regards,
> ironduke57


Well, that is my point exactly.  When we were acquiring the Leo 2A6, I was invovled in a staff discussion about modifying existing hangers (which were designed for the Leo C1).  When I told my tanker friends that they were virtually the same width, I was almost laughed out of the room, until the armour corps Major said "Yeah, you're right.  It's all about the trains, right?"  I simply nodded.  Even though my detractors suggested that part of the 20-some tonne mass difference would account for a much wider tank, I simply pointed out that the Leo 2A6 was probably a bit longer, and the turret was certainly MUCH larger than that on the Leo 1, thus accounting for the majority of the mass difference.

I wonder if the tracks are the same width, thus making mine breaching a bit simpler?


----------



## McG

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Hmm.... seems the new inservice track can hold the weight of a Puma


Which track are you thinking of?  The only new track that I am aware of is the TLAV and MTVL rubber tracks (and last I heard only the TLAV track was deployed).



			
				ironduke57 said:
			
		

> Not really. Both where designed to be transportable by train in there basic version without problem. (That the don´t get stuck in Tunnels or hinder another train on neighboring tracks.)


There's a standard NATO template that goes with that too.


----------



## McG

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> I wonder if the tracks are the same width, thus making mine breaching a bit simpler?


No.  That's why there is the mine plough extension mini-project.


----------



## ironduke57

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> ... "Yeah, you're right.  It's all about the trains, right?"  I simply nodded.  ...



Bit OT: The funny thing is that normal (western) railway width goes back to the roman chariot´s and so it´s basicly the width of two horse ass´s.  ;D

SCNR,
ironduke57


----------



## vonGarvin

ironduke57 said:
			
		

> Bit OT: The funny thing is that normal (western) railway width goes back to the roman chariot´s and so it´s basicly the width of two horse ass´s.  ;D
> 
> SCNR,
> ironduke57


That is common for most new technologies.  They go with what they know!  LOL
Now, about the Puma.....

Puma is german for cougar, no? ;D


----------



## ironduke57

Yes.

Regards,
ironduke57

edit: Fascinating how much attention this topic got.


----------



## Edward Campbell

ironduke57 said:
			
		

> Bit OT: The funny thing is that normal (western) railway width goes back to the roman chariot´s and so it´s basicly *the width of two horse ass´s.*  ;D
> 
> SCNR,
> ironduke57



I know, and _waaaaaay_ back when I served with both of them.


----------



## TCBF

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I know, and _waaaaaay_ back when I served with both of them.



 ;D

if I may be so bold as to paraphrase Berthold Brecht:

"The b_tch that bore (them both) is in heat again!"


----------



## Nfld Sapper

MCG said:
			
		

> Which track are you thinking of?  The only new track that I am aware of is the TLAV and MTVL rubber tracks (and last I heard only the TLAV track was deployed).
> There's a standard NATO template that goes with that too.



That and another track (look on T&E DIN page for the other) the second one is over engineered for the TLAV/MTVL/M113A3 Fleet.

MCG I can pm you the other track if you can find it on the T&E site.


----------



## Kat Stevens

ironduke57 said:
			
		

> Not really. Both where designed to be transportable by train in there basic version without problem. (That the don´t get stuck in Tunnels or hinder another train on neighboring tracks.)
> 
> Regards,
> ironduke57



Thanks for the flashback: mile long trains and the Train Meister with those little magnetic alignment flags... "A millimeters too far right..."


----------



## Gunner98

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> Now, about the Puma...Puma is german for cougar, no? ;D



 ^-^"Puma" is the Quechua (Andes) word for the animal. "Cougar" is a derivative of the Tupi (old Brazilian language) word "suasuarana," which means "deer-like" (in color). "Panther" is the Greek word for the animal. "Lion" comes from the Greek word "leon". 8)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I wonder how the cross country performance compares to the CV90? For me the ability to work in deep snow would be an important aspect for a Canadian IFV, (in case Toronto has another snowday )

A larger calibre gun than the 25mm might give a wider variety of ammo to be used.


----------



## geo

Didn't the Brits opt for a 30mm on their Warriors - which are clip fed instead of belt fed?
Sometimes bigger isn't always better


----------



## dapaterson

Colin P said:
			
		

> I wonder how the cross country performance compares to the CV90? For me the ability to work in deep snow would be an important aspect for a Canadian IFV, (in case Toronto has another snowday )
> 
> *A larger calibre gun than the 25mm might give a wider variety of ammo to be used.*



Also potentially useful in a Toronto context...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

You are thinking of the RADEN 30mm Cannon, it first appeared on the Fox Armoured car and then that turret was grafted onto the Scorpian and called the Scimatar. It was Circa late 50's/ early 60's. An excellent gun for confined turrets considering the size of the breech, although the Fox turret has about 30 slots for clips, 3 or 5 rds, can't remember which, also a very accurate gun. They gave the warrior the same gun to "ease the logistical burden" The downside is that their new IFV has a very old gun system on it. The 25mm is a great gun, but if we are getting a new IFV, how about we choose a intergrated platform rather than grafting a gun onto it that may not give the vehicle the capabilities it needs. A study should be done to determine if there is a gap between the current weapon systems, does any of the offered systems fill that gap and how it all relates to the intended role of the vehicle.


----------



## geo

You make perfect sense there Colin.... 
Planning ahead instead of going half c?&*ked...


----------



## Matt_Fisher

FWIW, the PUMA does not use the British L21A1 Rarden, but rather the 30 mm MK 30-2/ABM.


----------



## JasonH

I too would love to see us get the CV-90, pure sex  ;D


----------



## stegner

This may be a stupid question but do the Leo 2's and the Puma's have any common parts?  After all they are both made by Kraus Maffei Wegmann.


----------



## vonGarvin

stegner said:
			
		

> This may be a stupid question but do the Leo 2's and the Puma's have any common parts?  After all they are both made by Kraus Maffei Wegmann.


Maybe internally installed components, but probably not very much.  The Leo hull is a design that is over 30 years old


----------



## McG

stegner said:
			
		

> This may be a stupid question but do the Leo 2's and the Puma's have any common parts?  After all they are both made by Kraus Maffei Wegmann.


Don't know for certain, but you might want to check if they are both able to take the Euro-pack.


----------



## OldSolduer

OK this may seem stupid but what is a Euro Pack?


----------



## ironduke57

He probably mean´s the EuroPowerPack. An proposed engine (MTU 883) and transmission (Renk HSWL 295TM) combination for tanks and other Armoured vehicle´s. And I don´t think the Europowerpack could be used in the Puma as the Puma already uses an engine out of the newer MTU 892 series.(Again smaller, more economical and more powerful then the 883 series.)

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## Rayman

Im *guessing* the Gefas is Rheinmetalls entry for the LARV project. Im suprised with all the talk there was no mention of the Fennek.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

Arius said:
			
		

> Not sure what the 40 Cdo adds to the debate...  They are Naval Infantry with fairly old landing crafts and don't have the vehicules to go around and carry heavy stuff - Hence the Quad on the right.   The mortar is a 51mm I would think...  Bit sad actually.  Their 51 and 81 do fit in their original employment concept.  They did an "amphibious" op in one of the reservoir I think.  Royal Marines are exceedingly tough soldiers but they could use some heavy mech in Afghanistan as they are not equipped for long drawn out operations.



Funny, most of the Brits I know think that the Canadians are working on the wrong end of the spectrum by becoming too tied to their vehicles.  As an aside, if you note, most British casualties in Afghanistan are as a result of direct action contacts, whereas Canadian casualties are from IEDs.


----------



## Arius

Very true Matt.  The light infantry concept has a hard time in Canada these days because when we deploy them as the core of a Battle Group we end up having to mech them to the max.  It happened again with 3R22R during the current deployment.  Heavy armor is coming back in vogue and you can bet that the new fleet of vehicles will be the most mines/IED resistant we've seen yet.  Nobody wants to take the heat if we lose one guy because he may have been saved by a layer of kevlar or add-on armor.  Heavy armor and heavy firepower will be the name of the game for quite a while.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

What is the size of the Brit AOR and how much manpower do they have? On a side note I have heard they are getting heavier equipment there as well.


----------



## Mackie

Don't compare the PUMA with CV90 series. 
The CV90 is a classic IFV design and a excellent plattform. 30mm, 40mm, 120mm. 
In 2002 Germany canceled the Panther Project. The Panther was also an classic IFV design like the Marder.
Iraq and A'stan showed new requirements on troop transport and we developed the PUMA. Based on an older multi platform project, KMW realized the PUMA in a short period. 

The Puma is expensive but is equipped with a lot modern electronics like MUSS, against AT missiles.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

Mackie said:
			
		

> Don't compare the PUMA with CV90 series.



I think for acquisition purposes that will be unavoidable.


----------



## ironduke57

Mackie said:
			
		

> Don't compare the PUMA with CV90 series.
> The CV90 is a classic IFV design and a excellent plattform. 30mm, 40mm, 120mm.
> In 2002 Germany canceled the Panther Project. The Panther was also an classic IFV design like the Marder.
> Iraq and A'stan showed new requirements on troop transport and we developed the PUMA. Based on an older multi platform project, KMW realized the PUMA in a short period.
> 
> The Puma is expensive but is equipped with a lot modern electronics like MUSS, against AT missiles.



Sorry to correct you, but what you call the Panther project IS the Puma. Panther and then Igel where just possible name´s for it. First it was Panther, but someone decided it would be not political correct (regarding WW2 Panther). Then it should be called Igel. Luckily someone noticed that that name sucked. And now it´s finaly called Puma. 

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## signatory

Colin P said:
			
		

> Hopefully one day you will see Canadian Flags on CV-90's for real!!!



Well for my first post I can report that Canada has at least asked to borrow CV90 from Sweden  8)

For tests. Our ground warfare school is now preparing to train canadian crews. 

This is a result of the Bold Quest experience... 

source: Armed forces budget review 
snapshot: http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/7475/kanadad3dl0.jpg
http://www2.mil.se/sv/Dokument/Arsredovisningar/Post.aspx


----------



## evil drunken-fool

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> I think for acquisition purposes that will be unavoidable.



I believe Canada is acquiring a CV90 for testing purposes.  With the interest that has also been shown in the PUMA, I am sure Canada is looking at making an order in the near future, and I can't see us getting both.


----------



## Sig_Des

Steel Horse said:
			
		

> I believe Canada is acquiring a CV90 for testing purposes.



Have you got a source for this?


----------



## Mackie

ironduke57 said:
			
		

> Sorry to correct you, but what you call the Panther project IS the Puma. Panther and then Igel where just possible name´s for it. First it was Panther, but someone decided it would be not political correct (regarding WW2 Panther). Then it should be called Igel. Luckily someone noticed that that name sucked. And now it´s finaly called Puma.



It's correct that the Puma/Igel based on the Panther. But the Panther design was very different. More firepower, less armor. 
That's my intention. IEDs and RPGs changed the thinking about armor. 

Respectfully,
Mackie


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Steel Horse said:
			
		

> I believe Canada is acquiring a CV90 for testing purposes.  With the interest that has also been shown in the PUMA, I am sure Canada is looking at making an order in the near future, and I can't see us getting both.



:  I can't see us getting _either_.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> :  I can't see us getting _either_.



Well we didn't expect to be using leopard 2A6M's either, this government has an interest in re-equipping the military.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Colin P said:
			
		

> Well we didn't expect to be using leopard 2A6M's either, this government has an interest in re-equipping the military.



Lemme see....  No capital project, no noise on the armour net, no potential or articulated requirement, no place in the strategic structural plan, no articulated operational shortfall, no place in future manning requirements...

The source for CV90s is one line in the Swedish defence budget (21 Feb 08), where the Swedes state they had a query regarding a Canadian loan - nothing more.  There may be potential interest in the vehicle as a trial, but that's a long way from a desire to purchase.

Then again, what do I know?  :


----------



## Royal

signatory said:
			
		

> Well for my first post I can report that Canada has at least asked to borrow CV90 from Sweden  8)]


----------



## Royal

looks like I messed up the quote thing.  hmmmm

Well, this is not the only place that I have heard this pop-up.  It seems that we might be a little more interested than we first thought.  The big question is how intersted?  There are lots of variants and lots of possible systems (like the SEP).

I would like us to look at writing out what we want and then look to who can provide it, then start trying it.  I get pretty sick of GOBI that causes us to "borrow" some to try....  I am a big fan of S%$t or get off the pot, but lets be realistic, borrowing one without deciding what "things" we need it to do is like sitting to S%$t, wiping, then doing it in your drawers.  Now lets see if we like it and it meets our needs.  Do we want to get stuck in the middle of a buy for something that doesn't fit our needs? (ADO = distance, which means you need speed.  CV-90 IFV has a top speed of 70K, when new and bare, probably 50k or less with cbt ld and 5 years old.)

IT OS POSSIBLE TO BUY FROM OTHER SOURCES BESIDES THE "GLOSSY"!!!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Lemme see....  No capital project, no noise on the armour net, no potential or articulated requirement, no place in the strategic structural plan, no articulated operational shortfall, no place in future manning requirements...
> 
> The source for CV90s is one line in the Swedish defence budget (21 Feb 08), where the Swedes state they had a query regarding a Canadian loan - nothing more.  There may be potential interest in the vehicle as a trial, but that's a long way from a desire to purchase.
> 
> Then again, what do I know?  :



Well I am not privy to the NDHQ rumour mill and may be blowing smoke from my arse, but i certainly hope that I am right and you are wrong, not for personal reasons, but because I think the CV90 is a decent piece of kit that would go well with our leopards and allow us to field both light and heavy forces.


----------



## McG

Colin P said:
			
		

> Well I am not privy to the NDHQ rumour mill and may be blowing smoke from my arse, but i certainly hope that I am right and you are wrong, ... because I think the CV90 is a decent piece of kit that would go well with our leopards and allow us to field both light and heavy forces.


What capability gap would it fill?  What doctrinal role would it take?  Where would the support fleet come from?  Is it the best vehicle for our requirements?  Hell, what are our requirements and how do we measure which vehicle meets them?  Rushing off to buy a major fleet because "because I think the CV90 is a decent piece of kit" could land us with the wrong decent piece of kit (in which case maybe we'd be better without it).


----------



## TCBF

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Not a 'Track Guy' are ya.  The PUMA probably has the German Diehl Track, just like the M113 and Leopards.
> 
> Obviously you have never worked with the old American and British Track that had 'Drift Pins',  Now that track really sucked.  So don't complain.



- I recall "Drift Pins" were the tools we hit with a hammer to drive out the "Track Pins" that connected the track shoes together.  The shoes had to be at the right angle for the rubber bushings in the shoes to line up with the hexagonal (octagonal?) track pins.  The track pads each had a threaded post centered on their back, making them a bunch of weird 'bolts'.  They were each secured to their respective shoes by a nut.  A real beauty to change in the mud, and awful once that mud froze...


----------



## evil drunken-fool

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> The source for CV90s is one line in the Swedish defence budget (21 Feb 08), where the Swedes state they had a query regarding a Canadian loan - nothing more.



I am going on other people's translations, but it seems as though there is more to it then just a query regarding a loan.  Something about the the "MSS" (not sure exactly who/what that is) preparing to train Canadian crews.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Hey, if someone somewhere is willing to buy a sexy new vehicle, then I'm all for it _provided_ there is, as MCG pointed out, a coherent plan and a valid operational requirement.  Thus far, there is no evidence of either behind Puma or CV90.  

As for this "loan" from the Swedes, who knows?  It could easily be something like a DRE anti-mine trial, a loan to trial fit GD comms gear in support of a marketing plan, anything.  Or, as I suspect, its some of our guys kicking tires (or in this case track).

I do know that the Army (and the Armour Corps in particular) has its hands full with Leopard II fielding - let alone bringing on yet _another_ incompatible vehicle firing non-Canadian standard ammunition.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MCG said:
			
		

> What capability gap would it fill?  What doctrinal role would it take?  Where would the support fleet come from?  Is it the best vehicle for our requirements?  Hell, what are our requirements and how do we measure which vehicle meets them?  Rushing off to buy a major fleet because "because I think the CV90 is a decent piece of kit" could land us with the wrong decent piece of kit (in which case maybe we'd be better without it).



As I have said elsewhere, we are cursed with having 2 distinct and opposing requirements, the domestic defence and the need for an expeditionary force that could be fielded anywhere from the tropics to the Arctic, from peacekeeping, peacemaking and all out war. Whatever happens, we will not have the time to create more capability, so I see the need for at least one heavy element equipped with heavier tracked vehicles and rest in lighter vehicles such as the LAV and it's successors. So far the CV90 has seem to have demonstrated a good cross country ability in snow and still successfully operated in the tropics. It has already been intergrated with Leo2's by other country with some similarities to our needs (Sweden). 

While the gun is different, a some point you are going to have to move on beyond what we are currently using, the CV90 could be fitted with the same gun as the LAV, but it would seem to be a waste of the platform abilities, the larger calibre guns do offer more options for fuzing and higher HE content. The Warrior was fitted with the same gun as the Scimitar to be "standard" with the rest of the fleet and now you have a large modern platform using a decent but old gun with a limited rate of fire.

As far as doctrine goes, the CV90 is in service and by people we can consider allies, a review of doctrinal lessons already learned can be done, so we don't reinvent the wheel. I think the LAV is a great piece of kit, but I know it is not a wonder weapon and like all is constrained by it's design to certain roles which it does well. the CV90 (or similar) would give us a far broader doctrine and tactical ability to bring to the mix. Our army maintained a much more diverse equipment roster in the field in WWII, Korea and Cold war Germany without the benefits of computerized logistical systems. Lets face it, if we can't handle having a tracked IFV, MBT and the LAV fielded at once, then our supply & logistical system is completely broken. 

The CV90 family also offers a fairly complete family to support operations, IFV, engineering, SPG, Direct fire, HQ, ADA and I suspect they could also build a resupply vehicle on the chassis. Of all the contenders in this field, I suspect it is the most capable and flexible and comes with the knowledge that it is in service and seen service in a variety of climates.


----------



## Garett

More to come on this soon, I don't know what I can put on an open forum.

I think the issue is having a veh that can operate well alongside the Leopard 2 in a Cbt Tm.


----------



## McG

Colin P said:
			
		

> Lets face it, if we can't handle having a tracked IFV, MBT and the LAV fielded at once, then our supply & logistical system is completely broken.


You've over simplified what it takes to support a fleet.  You've also forgetten some of our fleets such as Gen II LAV (Bison & Coyote), TLAV, MTVL, RG-31, Cougar, etc.



			
				Garett said:
			
		

> I think the issue is having a veh that can operate well alongside the Leopard 2 in a Cbt Tm.


You mean as in having comparable tracked mobility?  Something like a TLAV or MTVL?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MCG said:
			
		

> You've over simplified what it takes to support a fleet.  You've also forgetten some of our fleets such as Gen II LAV (Bison & Coyote), TLAV, MTVL, RG-31, Cougar, etc.



It still pales to what we had to deal with previously, in WWII, we were using around 4-5 different gun  tanks, 5-6 different light wheeled and tracked vehicles, 4 or more artillery pieces, numerous specialized engineering and amphibious vehicles. Not to mentioned all of the various civilian vehicles and the 5+standard military pattern trucks types. All of these in huge quantise. Korea was somewhat better with only about 1 to 2 tank types in service at any one time. 

With the use of modern computers, warehousing software, inventory tracking tags and a very small fleet of vehicles, not to mention some very dedicated and smart people. The logistical issues of supporting a vehicle like the CV90 are quite doable. Will it strain the system at first, yes, mainly because the supporting systems have been allowed to decay by various governments. Those support systems like the rest of the military needs beefing up, not a fun job for those who have to juggle all of the conflicting purities.


----------



## McG

Colin P said:
			
		

> It still pales to what we had to deal with previously, in WWII, we were using around 4-5 different gun  tanks, 5-6 different light wheeled and tracked vehicles …..


That does not prove much when one considers that, in WW II, we fielded two armies with massive tails & equipment that was easier to maintain.  What about the fact that we are no longer fighting an enemy along a linear front and all the new challenges this introduces to logistics?



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> With the use of modern computers, warehousing software, inventory tracking tags and a very small fleet of vehicles ...


Logistics is far more than just inventory tracking.  Space is required in warehouses & on trucks.  If you throw yet another truck into the mix, where do you put its unique spares, parts & tools?  How does the echelon carry all this new stuff plus everything required for the existing fleets?  There may be a requirement for more stockpiling in theatre, and this would mean more CSS PYs at the expense of combat arms.

What about training?  In addition to operators, Veh Techs & EO Techs will need training on this vehicle and all the other micro fleets.  Where does one find the time to do both initial & continuation training?  Who teaches?  We might need to take PYs from somewhere in order to create this instructional capability. 

It will require its own unique recovery vehicle, which is yet another truck to look after the first plus the manpower to crew it.

Yes it could be achievable to sustain yet another truck.  However, just because something can be done does not mean that it should be done.    



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> As I have said elsewhere, we are cursed with having 2 distinct and opposing requirements, the domestic defence and the need for an expeditionary force that could be fielded anywhere from the tropics to the Arctic, from peacekeeping, peacemaking and all out war.


This tells me nothing.  What is the requirement for a CV90 that cannot be filled my an existing vehicle fleet?



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> Whatever happens, we will not have the time to create more capability, …


True, but this adds nothing to your argument.



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> so I see the need for at least one heavy element equipped with heavier tracked vehicles and rest in lighter vehicles such as the LAV and it's successors.


I assume you want me to infer that the heavier tracked vehicle must be CV90.  If my assumption is correct, why must it be CV90?  Why not TLAV (which we already support & will continue to support) in Combat Teams with Leopard 2?



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> It has already been intergrated with Leo2's by other country with some similarities to our needs (Sweden).


Which needs are similar?  Does Canada currently have a deficiency in meeting one of these common needs?



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> While the gun is different . . .


Irrelevant argument against logistical challenges.  As I said, “achievable” does not equal “should do.”  



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> As far as doctrine goes, the CV90 is in service and by people we can consider allies, a review of doctrinal lessons already learned can be done, so we don't reinvent the wheel.


This would be a start point for TTPs, but does not answer the question: which doctrinal capability will the vehicle fill?



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> I think the LAV is a great piece of kit, but I know it is not a wonder weapon and like all is constrained by it's design to certain roles which it does well. the CV90 (or similar) would give us a far broader doctrine and tactical ability to bring to the mix.


This is probably the closest you have come to addressing the issue, but you’ve still missed it.  What are the roles that the LAV and/or TLAV cannot fill & for which you feel we need the CV90?



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> Of all the contenders in this field, I suspect it is the most capable and flexible and comes with the knowledge that it is in service and seen service in a variety of climates.


Again, it may be good kit but is it the right kit?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

What capability does it offer?

First and foremost it offers the same level of tactical mobility cross country that the Leopard 2 enjoys, while at the same time bring with it serious amount of firepower and protection. Our current fleet has lightly armed and armoured track vehicles that are modernized APC’s nearing the end of their developmental lifespan. Outside of our MBT’s the LAV’s offer the only serious direct fire support weapons available. The ammunition for the LAV weapon (going from public sources)  is constrained by size from offering a wider range of option, particularly in fuzing and actually HE content. 

It’s pretty clear to me that LAV is not capable of keeping up with the leopards in serious cross country work and the MTVL and TLAV’s offer minimal firepower and will not be able to survive against a fairly well armed opponent. An IFV fills this gap in capability in my eyes.


Going by publicly released information

Comparing the CV90 to other IFV’s (I am leaving out ex-Warsaw Pact type vehicles, as it is highly unlikely we would consider them)

The Marder II  never went beyond prototype stage, so it is hard to determine it’s real ability.

The CV90 family offers better cross country performance than the Bradley or Warrior

The Bradley offers a good gun and a OK troop troop carrying compartment, the family of vehicles is somewhat limited, although there are attempts to build out more variants. The pluses for it is easy access to assembly lines and parts. Vehicle is somewhat top heavy and reaching it’s max weight, limiting development.

The Warrior seems to have a decent troop compartment, but is equipped with a out of date gun and would need a complete turret redesign for ourselves.

The CV90 size offers a lot of turret options as indicated by the different configurations purchased. 

The CV90 has been in service both in Arctic and tropical conditions, so provides us with real life information to develop tactics and support requirements.

The CV90 offers a significant family of vehicles, which could replace the current fleet of tracks. The major gap in the fleet would be a tracked resupply vehicle, something similar to the British Stormer could be developed.

The CV90 is already in service with 3 NATO countries and a couple of non-NATO ones, this offers a chance of group buys for spares and economies of scale for costs. Group buys of specialized vehicles might be possible.

 This link will help showing the variants (yea I know wiki is “flexible” on facts) 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Vehicle_90

Yes I realize these are “sales brochures from the company”
The ARV
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcnKHeevuks

Mobility
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAsR7m1wXM0&feature=related

AMOS mortar system

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzC_ajWRV4Q&feature=related

I think this is the ADA version?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxH-gXWZrLk&feature=related

Not a complete argument but the best I can do at work.


----------



## McG

Colin P said:
			
		

> Not a complete argument but the best I can do at work.


Not by far.



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> It’s pretty clear to me that LAV is not capable of keeping up with the leopards in serious cross country work and the MTVL and TLAV’s offer minimal firepower and will not be able to survive against a fairly well armed opponent. An IFV fills this gap in capability in my eyes.


So, we have the LAV with its speed & firepower to go long distances and operate independent of the tanks.  We also have the TLAV which is able to move cross country and carry infantry to fight in conjunction with the tanks.  If I catch what you are saying, we need the CV90 to operate with tanks because it has more firepower.  Is firepower really the essential factor in choosing to buy a new interim vehicle which is dedicated to carrying infantry to fight with the tanks(and while keeping all the old fleets)?

You are not really touching on requirements either.  Speed, range, effects on specific targets, survivability vs specific threats, # troops on board, etc, etc.  

To be fair, it is not that I am specifically against the CV90.  I am against the idea of a new unnecessary micro fleet on top of all our existing fleets.


----------



## blacktriangle

Just a question...

If this is indeed being looked at, would it be due to the LAV III shortage, or is there actually a need for such a vehicle?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I agree about your last concern, however I will ask, how many Western armies or ex-Warsaw pact countires operate MBT's without IFV's in the supporting role? I suspect the number of not, are in the minority and not for tactical reasons.

The modernized M113 fleet are decent armoured trucks, their main advantage is the ability to carry a full squad. the downside is the protection level of these vehicle is much less than the tanks they support and protection of our troops is a critical factor due to the political ramifications involved. If the BG we face start getting better ATGM's and training from Hezbollah or co. Then we may regret not having a better armoured option. The M113 family has come pretty close to it's maxed weight already and barring a major breakthrough in armour technology will be obsolete fairly soon. Report of using them seems to vary from positive to negative, so I am not sure what our current users think of them. While they could be improved with the RWS from the Stykers, their weapons will struggle to be effective at the ranges the MBT will likely wish to engage at.

  IFV's by their nature compromise the squad size, this could be negated by having some of the vehicles fitted with RWS instead of turrets, keeping some turreted, this raise the problem of mixed squad size. Another option could be something like the IDF Namer, where the protection for the troops is about as good as it gets, but the Namer is optimized for Urban ops, the CV90 and type and more general duty.

it is clear that we will have modern MBT's for at least 20 years (I am giving any future Liberal government the benefit of the doubt here, don't ask why...hell even I don't know) We don't have a vehicle that keep up and fight with tanks we have, this is a problem that will require addressing. Even if we ordered them today, the CV90's would be showing up around 2011, when we might be pulling back from frontline duty in Afghanistan. so that will help with the manpower issue, plus a revitalized somewhat larger military full of combat Veterans will be a much different place than the military of the 80's or 90's. the next 20+ years I suspect are going to be nasty and I suspect within 5 years after our drawdown/pullout, we will be getting dragged into something else, where out worn out LAV's may not do as well.


----------



## NavyShooter

Arius said:
			
		

> Very true Matt.  The light infantry concept has a hard time in Canada these days because when we deploy them as the core of a Battle Group we end up having to mech them to the max.  It happened again with 3R22R during the current deployment.  Heavy armor is coming back in vogue and you can bet that the new fleet of vehicles will be the most mines/IED resistant we've seen yet.  Nobody wants to take the heat if we lose one guy because he may have been saved by a layer of kevlar or add-on armor.  Heavy armor and heavy firepower will be the name of the game for quite a while.



Ok,  I'm gonna step out of my lane here (feel free to re-direct me if you see fit...)

Unless we fast track the procurement of a new tracked vehicle, (Puma/CV-90, either of them) they will not be likely to see service in Afghanistan....correct?  Even if the mandate to stay gets extended to 2011, that's still only 3 years from now.

I guess in my mind, it would boil down to us getting prepared for the War we're in now, but may not be when we get them?  

Do we need the tracked capability now, in Afghanistan, or is there a long-term need for it? 

As a non-tanker, my views are just shots in the dark I guess, so apply salt profusely....

NavyShooter


----------



## Matt_Fisher

I think that as with the tanks, we may be looking at a lease/buy option, but this is purely speculation on my part; i.e. We lease CV9040s from Sweden as they may be immediately available for the Afghanistan mission, and commit to a buy of a more modern version (i.e. CV9035) as they become available.


----------



## T.S.Rea

Curious if there has been any attempt to use the Leopard I hulls as austere IFV in Afghanistan much like a similar practice by the Canadian Army in WWII Holland, or if there is any plan or hints of future plans to retain the hulls for simple conversion to more workable form regardless of whether or not they remain in the active force or are kept in a minimum maintained state by the reserves so they are immediately available for active service.

Similar question regarding the AEV's based on the Leopard I hull.

Don't know much about the Puma, but at first glance it looks to use LII suspension parts and maybe a LI engine (a quick guess, I didn't actually research this at all).

I think a mixed fleet of LAV/MTVL makes the most realistic proposition, but I would not for a moment argue against something better armoured on a minimum basic scale.  Heavy armour has proven itself again in Afghanistan.  

There is a lot of potential in examining rebuilt and converted hybrids, not the least of which is that we have original vehicles and the funding for components and parts would be an easier sell.

The result may not be what some on this board may like to see, but some vehicles available now and in the future is better than none at all, since you know they are going to be prime candidates for the axe once the immediate demands in Afghanistan are ended.

If you disagree with this view thats fine by me, just looking over all the angles.


----------



## T.S.Rea

The simple conversions that I was alluding to would have involved some number of cut and reweld operations to produce a straightforward heavy armoured transporter, an APC really, not an IFV, and meant to operate in close cooperation with the LII's on convoy escort and similar operations.  Obviously, just pulling the turret off the LI would not be a very satisfactory solution, but the weight reduction would allow adding a couple of inches of steel to the bottom amongst other relatively ad hoc enhancements.

Its odd that you would mention Chechnya, since it is this conflict that I would have thought an example of why such a conversion would make some sense.  The Russians found their BMP's and similar types wanting, and converted numbers of old T-54's in the same manner I was suggesting, and they were successful enough they actually later developed an IFV around a hull of similar characteristics.  The Puma might not even exist were it not for the Russian experience.

Evidently you don't live in Ontario, the Dragoons were clearing snow in the constricted areas of downtown where there is little space to put snow, and the only reason they were doing that was due to budgetary irresponsibility by politicians in the city with regard to snow melters that most Canadian cities would be too small to even require, not because it was some great natural disaster.  It was a bit of joke for most Torontonians.  Had as much snow this year as I remember as a kid back thirty-forty years ago, no problem removing it this year despite it being 2-3 times more than 1998.  Was not living in the GTA in 1998, but I doubt the RCD were anywhere near Jane & Finch or most of the three hundred square mile area the city boundaries encompass.  I realize you offered a disclaimer, but my experience with working with a lot of Portugese that were in Angola in the 1970's hefting slaughtered carcasses into makeshift graves gives me a different perspective of many of these people.  A few idle youth in some very small areas do not present a problem on anything remotely close to the scale of what you may think.  Newspapers write stories to sell newspapers.

I don't think the analogy to cars goes very far (sounds like The General redux, he ain't perfect but certainly not without a lot of due respect), like comparing a shovel to a bobcat.  The type is still operated and supported by many armies using much older production models, although the whole question of automotive maintenance costs would be a valid criticism but that would apply just as much to a new built IFV of tank size.  The Israelis did not have any problem with rebuilding Centurions, T-62's, and M60's, and an APC conversion is not nearly as complex.  Career types at NDHQ might have no knowledge or experience at welding armour steel, but it ain't as difficult as you have been conditioned to think.  We used to have a tank maintenance depot, and the lack of movement that I am aware of on reestablishing one gives one pause to wonder what the post conflict plans are for heavy armour in general.

Probably going to need an LII ARV, I don't know how well they are managing with the limited torque and power of the LI ARV.  Might be some opportunity to combine some CEV functions into an overpowered LII hull, but that is more a nuts and bolts detail issue for a generic cost-benefit analysis.  I was curious as to whether anything had been done in that regard, but that is more an issue related to the gepanzerte tiger than it is to a heavy IFV.

Considering how many years it has been and no lift helicopters, CV90's. Puma's, et.al. may provide a better IFV solution but I honestly don't think it is very realistic given the costs and the time scale of many years.  Moreover, an LI APC might actually entrench the operational use of a heavy IFV type as part of a heavy armoured cavalry unit(s) and lead to a purchase some years from now to a few squadrons of Pumas, just as we have destroyer leaders with a wide-area AAW capability that we did not have before but is considered a basic fleet requirement now (even though there has been little news on a DDG or similar replacement).

Don't agree with much of your take on it, but I respect it since it offered some challenge to respond. I certainly agree with the very basic notion of maintaining units with heavy armour that would have to include IFV's, my inclination being toward the heavier 40 ton Puma rather than 25 ton CV90's or Bradley's.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

We don't use the term destroyer leaders anymore in the navy. For the CF destroyers already have flagship capbilities, that is their purpose plus AAD.


----------



## T.S.Rea

Ya, I know, just using destroyer leader as a generic term


----------



## a_majoor

T.S.Rea said:
			
		

> The Israelis did not have any problem with rebuilding Centurions, T-62's, and M60's....



.... because they have little choice. Israel needs large quantities of modern AFV's and other warfighting equipment in order to continue to exist as a State. Few nations will deal with Israel, and her own industrial base isn't large enough to churn out new stuff fast enough to completely replace items on a one for one basis. It would be interesting to compare the number of Magach 7 conversions that can be made for the price of a single Merkava 4, for example. Even the Achzarit exists as an economy measure; the Arab world kindly left hundreds of T-55's in the Sinai and Golan heights, so using the hulls as the basis for an HAPC made more sense than creating something new.

Indeed, given the basic design and R&D work is already done and tens of thousands of T-55's are available throughout the world, it would probably be easier and cheaper for Canada to set up an Achzarit assembly line and build our own than try to do a Leopard 1 conversion from scratch!


----------



## Mackie

I am German and it's interesting to see that you are interested about the Puma. 
Perhaps you should know that the German military is extremely focused on the ground forces. Panzers are know everybody. ^^ 
In my opinion the Puma is only developed to care technology capabilities in tracked vehicles. The CV90 meets the German army requirements 100% and is half expensive. 
The Puma is newer and in some things better, especially armor, but not superior. An CV90 armor kit for urban combat and blast mines should be the cheaper solution. 
The Puma is made for asymmetric combat. Without armor kit it is the same protection like the CV90. 
Another reason is the A400M. Perhaps the main reason for the Puma. You have C17s and JSS. 

interesting pics about armor:

CV90 Back





CV9035 MKII back





Puma Back






CV9035 MK III





Puma C Level:


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

T.S.Rea said:
			
		

> Ya, I know, just using destroyer leader as a generic term



For whom? It was popular during the Second World War but after that it went bye-bye. There is no such designation any longer.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Mackie
I see the CV90 door has been altered, I don't think it had the hatch in it before did it? I seem to remember the early versions had a swinging hatch instead of a drop down one?

The Russian were trying to flog a MBT that allowed for 4 dismounts each in their own little hole, I think it was a T-64 if I recall correctly, none of the soldiers in the pictures seemed terribly thrilled at the idea.


----------



## a_majoor

Several Russian HAPC's are floating around for the well heeled customer. The BMP-T is a fairly straightforward conversion of a T-55, although the infantry have to dismount over the sides.  I recall reading about a similar sort of conversion for a T-72 hull mounting a BMP-3 turret and having Russian infantrymen stuck in odd places (two were seated on either side of the driver in front of the turret!). The Ukrainians have offered a T-84 tank with a heavily modified engine compartment allowing for up to 4 infantrymen to be carried in the back. 

Most of these conversions do not seem well thought out from an Infantry perspective, and can be seen as economy measures for the Russian Army.

Even the Achzarit is an economy measure for the IDF, as HAPC's built from Merkava mechanicals are fabulously expensive. (The most inexpensive conversion of all is to remove the ammunition racks from the rear compartment of a Merkava, and seat a section of Infantry there. The trade off is the main gun only has what is available in the bustle).


----------



## dangerboy

Armoured vehicles hit their limits
Military to seek replacements for LAVs soon, Hillier says
  
David ******** 
The Ottawa Citizen 


Tuesday, May 06, 2008


Canada's armoured vehicles are limited in the amount of protection they can carry, so the military is starting to look for a replacement in the near future, Gen. Rick Hillier says.

The chief of the defence staff says the LAV-3s are excellent and many improvements have been made to ensure that troops in Afghanistan are better protected.

However, Gen. Hillier also points out that the LAV-3's suspension and other technical aspects of the vehicle have been pushed to the limit by the improvements. That, in turn, prevents more armour or other systems from being installed.

"I think we're going to have to look at what we can do in the army for a fleet of fighting vehicles," Gen. Hillier said. "So, I think that's what we need to work through right now and be able to offer our minister, and therefore the government of Canada, some recommendations on."

The wheeled LAV-3s are the backbone of the army's combat fleet.

Gen. Hillier said military personnel were examining what types of vehicles might fit the bill for a new armoured vehicle, including "what's on the market or what's in development right now that could be on the market pretty soon."

He didn't provide details on how much such a program would cost. That figure would depend on how many vehicles were ordered.

The U.S. military is developing a fleet of armoured vehicles for the future, but Gen. Hillier suggested that program was too far off for Canada's needs. He said his preference was to continue purchasing off-the-shelf equipment that could be delivered relatively quickly.

General Dynamics Land Systems Canada, which makes the LAV family of vehicles, is already positioning itself for any future program.

In mid-April, the company gave a demonstration of the prototype of its new vehicle, the LAV-H (the H stands for high capacity) to military officials in Ottawa.

Tom de Faye, General Dynamics' director of business development, said the firm used its own money to come up with the prototype, which includes improvements over the company's light-armoured vehicles now in use in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Many of the improvements centre on increasing the vehicle's protection against improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, and boosting its mobility on the battlefield.

Mr. de Faye said the length of the vehicle had been extended and it had been outfitted with a more robust suspension, wheels, brakes, steering system and engine. Addition protection has been installed to the bottom of the vehicle to protect crews from landmines and IEDs.

Mr. de Faye said the improvements meant the LAV-H could carry 4,500 kilograms extra. That could be anything from more armour to weapons to fuel.

The last of 651 LAVs ordered in the 1990s and considered the backbone of the army's combat fleet were recently delivered to the Canadian military, officials with General Dynamics said.

When the LAVs were designed, Mr. de Faye said, they did not take into account IEDs as a threat on the battlefield. Such bombs are responsible for many of the deaths the Canadian military has suffered in Afghanistan.

In a Jan. 10 report leaked to the Citizen, army commander Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie acknowledged the Afghanistan mission was putting incredible stress on the LAV fleet and that the vehicles were at their limit.

"The mainstay, the family of Light-Armoured Vehicles, has essentially run out of room (or to be more precise, the ability to carry more protection)," the general pointed out in the army's 2008 business plan.

Lt.-Gen. Leslie suggested improvements could be made to the LAV-3s as they were being overhauled and rebuilt.

General Dynamics set up a production line in Edmonton in 2006 and has already been working on LAVs for the army, Mr. de Faye said.

Because the Canadian Forces have a substantial amount of money already invested in the LAV fleet, Mr. de Faye said the firm designed the improvements for the LAV-H to be capable of being retrofitted on the existing vehicles.

Mr. de Faye also said there could be a market for the improvements in the United States since the U.S. military operates the Stryker, a variant of the LAV-3.
Article link


----------



## geo

I see LAV-Hs in our future.... considering that General Dynamics has maintained the former General motors Diesel plant in Ontario that produced the LAV III and the Stryker..... else - why would they maintain the capacity here in Canada?


----------



## ArmyRick

I saw a picture of the LAV H, it looks very similar to the stryker APC.


----------



## McG

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> I saw a picture of the LAV H, it looks very similar to the stryker APC.


The Stryker is closer to our LAV III than to the LAV H.  LAV H has heavier armour & much improved suspension/mobility.  Don't be thrown off by the lack of turret on the prototype.  If a customer wants LAV H with some form of IFV turret, you can bet GDLS will put one on.


----------



## ArmyRick

Roger that. On closer inspection of the photos, you can notice some differences from the outside.

I think it would be awesome if our country starting replacing the LAVIII series in the next couple of years.

We used the M113 for what? 40 years.

The Grizzly? 30 years.

I was watching on the Military channel were they were re-building "old" M1A1 Abrams MBT. Guess what? They were only 15-20 years old. In CF terms thats still infancy for an AFV.


----------



## George Wallace

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> I was watching on the Military channel were they were re-building "old" M1A1 Abrams MBT. Guess what? They were only 15-20 years old. In CF terms thats still infancy for an AFV.



Our Leopard 1's purchased in 1977 were in for "re-builds" in 1985.  It is a normal occurrence for military equipment.  What is unusual is the lengths of time that we are able to keep them on the road/in the air/at sea.  Look at any of our fleets of vehicles, land, sea or air, and compare their lifespans in the CF to what you would find on civilians fleets.


----------



## Mackie

About protection.^^ 
http://www.ibd-deisenroth-engineering.de/amap-sc.html


----------



## geo

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> We used the M113 for what? 40 years.



Umm... we're still using em.  Stripped down and reassembled - longer & a delco Turret, the T-LAV is just another M113


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

geo said:
			
		

> Umm... we're still using em.  Stripped down and reassembled - longer & a delco Turret, the T-LAV is just another M113



Including overseas.


----------



## geo

Huh?

Well - yeah - definitively being used in Afghanistan.
Like a timex watch - takes a licking and keeps on ticking


----------



## a_majoor

The overall size and mass of combat vehicles needs to come down, or we will be in a situation where our forces have bacome immobilized. Tactically, jumbo sized vehicles will have difficulty fitting into urban and complex terrain, be more difficult to hide and likely get stuck more often once they leave the roads. Operationally and strategically, they will stress the logistics system due to increased demand for transport, fuel and special maintainence and recovery needs. One only has to look at late WWII German AFV's and the proposed Allied countervehicles to see the problem (the 1980 era "Block III" program of the US Army and the escalating weights of MRAPs and AFV's tell us the cycle is ongoing).

While I am not against extra protection, we need to look at finding other ways to protect vehicles and platforms. Material science can provide some help, materials like "Spectrashield", M5 fiber, ceramic composites and aerogels can be used to provide passive protection with much less weight than high density steel armour. Preferential protection of crew stations and vehicle layouts which place vehicle mass in the way of potential threats (like the Merkava using the engine block to prevent frontal penetration of the crew compartment) is next, followed by signature control (making vehicles harder to spot by technical means; i.e. thermal blankets and radar absorbant coverings). Active measures like increasing situational awareness and active defenses should also be part of the plan (although I am not very keen on most current active defense systems since they threaten dismounted troops and personell in the area).

I would like to think that effective vehicles can be made in the size/weight range of the CV-90 family (including the CV 90120 tank) which can provide the right balance of mobility, firepower and protection for our troops in the future, and lighten the load on our logistics system at the same time.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The overall size and mass of combat vehicles needs to come down, or we will be in a situation where our forces have bacome immobilized. Tactically, jumbo sized vehicles will have difficulty fitting into urban and complex terrain, be more difficult to hide and likely get stuck more often once they leave the roads. Operationally and strategically, they will stress the logistics system due to increased demand for transport, fuel and special maintainence and recovery needs. One only has to look at late WWII German AFV's and the proposed Allied countervehicles to see the problem (the 1980 era "Block III" program of the US Army and the escalating weights of MRAPs and AFV's tell us the cycle is ongoing).
> 
> While I am not against extra protection, we need to look at finding other ways to protect vehicles and platforms. Material science can provide some help, materials like "Spectrashield", M5 fiber, ceramic composites and aerogels can be used to provide passive protection with much less weight than high density steel armour. Preferential protection of crew stations and vehicle layouts which place vehicle mass in the way of potential threats (like the Merkava using the engine block to prevent frontal penetration of the crew compartment) is next, followed by signature control (making vehicles harder to spot by technical means; i.e. thermal blankets and radar absorbant coverings). Active measures like increasing situational awareness and active defenses should also be part of the plan (although I am not very keen on most current active defense systems since they threaten dismounted troops and personell in the area).
> 
> I would like to think that effective vehicles can be made in the size/weight range of the CV-90 family (including the CV 90120 tank) which can provide the right balance of mobility, firepower and protection for our troops in the future, and lighten the load on our logistics system at the same time.



The problem with the high tech material stuff, is the impossibility of field repair of structural components and with the small number of vehicles now being bought, a loss of 10% of your fleet for an extended period is really going to hurt. I realize that welding/tapping armour plate is a really pain, but it is not impossible to do in theatre.


----------



## NavyShooter

Interesting to note that they're looking at replacing the LAV's already....but nothing in the pipes beyond a mid-life refit for our Frigates, and no Destroyer replacement that I've heard of yet.

Buying Tanks and AFV's off the shelf is a fairly simplistic process.

Buying Ships off the shelf is not....with the way our ships are getting rode, I'm hoping that they're thinking down the roads of replacement sooner rather than later.

Hopefully new AFV's doesn't push off new ships....

NS


----------



## ironduke57

Hmm. The LAV H would be an IMHO relative cheap and easy way of upgrading your LAV 3 fleet. But only if most of the actual fleet could be upgraded/ is upgrade worthy. On the other side I could think that KMW/Rheinmetall could make an especially good price for an eventual first international PUMA user.

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## Michael OLeary

ironduke57 said:
			
		

> Hmm. The LAV H would be an IMHO relative cheap and easy way of upgrading your LAV 3 fleet. But only if most of the actual fleet could be upgraded/ is upgrade worthy. On the other side I could think that KMW/Rheinmetall could make an especially good price for an eventual first international PUMA user.
> 
> Regards,
> ironduke57



I don't believe the LAV H is an upgrade of existing vehicles. If I am not mistaken, it's a new vehicle, although with parts compatibility in most areas other than the major changes.


----------



## McG

The LAV H is based on a "5.5 suspension" to which all of our LAV could be upgrade (the 3.0 suspension vehicles would require some hull work that would not be needed on our 3.5 suspension vehicles).  However, bringing the whole vehicle up to LAV H standard would require major hull mods at least along the lines of turning an M113 into an MTVL.  I don't think we would get our value out of a complete LAV H upgrade, but suspension and maybe a few other automotive & armour improvements could be a more reasonable option.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Interesting to note that they're looking at replacing the LAV's already....but nothing in the pipes beyond a mid-life refit for our Frigates, and no Destroyer replacement that I've heard of yet.
> 
> Buying Tanks and AFV's off the shelf is a fairly simplistic process.
> 
> Buying Ships off the shelf is not....with the way our ships are getting rode, I'm hoping that they're thinking down the roads of replacement sooner rather than later.
> 
> Hopefully new AFV's doesn't push off new ships....
> 
> NS



I would imagine funds are being allocated with a focus on incremental casualty-reduction.  Since at present we are taking significant ground casualties and there is no apparent naval threat on the horizon, it makes sense to me that ground forces would take precedence.  That doesn't in any way negate your point about it being negligent not to continue with the long-term planning required for naval asset replacement....it's just it's a second tier priority for as long as we have too many good young men coming home in caskets from Afghanistan.


Matthew.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

The problem is waiting and if you wait to long you lose a capability, you lose a capability you lose that ability to operate the systems that are part of that capability.


----------



## a_majoor

While it is true that fixing vehicles with advanced materials might be difficult to do, this can be addressed at the design stage by making vehicles and armour modular. We can see something of this now, with things like ERA blocks and armour tiles bolted to existing vehicles and new vehicles like the PUMA and Merkava 4 designed to accommodate purpose built upgrade kits to tailor levels of protection.

In my mind, I can picture a future AFV built out of a modular space frame, with components bonded to the frame by various means. Think of how Saturn cars are built (although an AFV would require a much more sophisticated system to undergo the rigours of military duty while still being soldier friendly for the mechs). Some advanced materials might actually be easier to fix in the field: super polymers like Spectra and M5 can be glued; the ARV needs to bring replacement patches and a big tube of epoxy!

The other thing that rethinking designs should do is concentrate on vehicle layout. Castles were not equally strong all over, but had layers of defence leading to the "Keep". The crew of a modern AFV should be in a "Keep", with layers of systems and armour surrounding this, so even very powerful weapons that can destroy the vehicle will have less of a chance of killing or injuring the crew, while keeping weight and size down to reasonable levels.


----------



## NavyShooter

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> I would imagine funds are being allocated with a focus on incremental casualty-reduction.  Since at present we are taking significant ground casualties and there is no apparent naval threat on the horizon, it makes sense to me that ground forces would take precedence.  That doesn't in any way negate your point about it being negligent not to continue with the long-term planning required for naval asset replacement....it's just it's a second tier priority for as long as we have too many good young men coming home in caskets from Afghanistan.
> 
> 
> Matthew.



Point well made, and I fully understand that while we're in a shooting war, we need to get the best to the boys (and girls) on the sharp end.

Back to my lane.

NS


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

There was an interesting show I saw awhile ago on future military equipment where they mention some kind of plastic armour that can be easily fixed in the field and provided the same protection as a MBT (or something to that effect).


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Point well made, and I fully understand that while we're in a shooting war, we need to get the best to the boys (and girls) on the sharp end.
> 
> Back to my lane.
> 
> NS



I don't believe in lanes.  Open debate and even argument is the only way I've ever seen to come to truly effective solutions.

I should add I'm not military.  I'm a business exec with a consulting thing on the side....and the one thing I've learned over time is to listen to everyone, especially those outside their lanes as they often have a bird's eye view of what's going on, and make observations that often get missed when you're standing too close to the problem (the old 'can't see the forest for the trees' proverb).  

Case in point - I had a front-line food service worker come up with a marketing solution last week that may be worth $100,000 to one of my clients.  My value?  The fact I was smart enough to ask a person for ther opinion, that most people wouldn't (because they were out of their lane)....and then be able to convert it into a tangible turn-key costed proposal.

Bottom Line:  I listen to everyone.  Even if 95% of what they say is wrong, the all-important skillset is being able to filter through that to the 5% that is applicable, then integrating into your existing model solution, and updating it as necessary.


Matthew.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Thucydides said:
			
		

> While it is true that fixing vehicles with advanced materials might be difficult to do, this can be addressed at the design stage by making vehicles and armour modular. We can see something of this now, with things like ERA blocks and armour tiles bolted to existing vehicles and new vehicles like the PUMA and Merkava 4 designed to accommodate purpose built upgrade kits to tailor levels of protection.
> 
> In my mind, I can picture a future AFV built out of a modular space frame, with components bonded to the frame by various means. Think of how Saturn cars are built (although an AFV would require a much more sophisticated system to undergo the rigours of military duty while still being soldier friendly for the mechs). Some advanced materials might actually be easier to fix in the field: super polymers like Spectra and M5 can be glued; the ARV needs to bring replacement patches and a big tube of epoxy!
> 
> The other thing that rethinking designs should do is concentrate on vehicle layout. Castles were not equally strong all over, but had layers of defence leading to the "Keep". The crew of a modern AFV should be in a "Keep", with layers of systems and armour surrounding this, so even very powerful weapons that can destroy the vehicle will have less of a chance of killing or injuring the crew, while keeping weight and size down to reasonable levels.



Everything you stated is being kicked around, one of the problems with the Keep concept is that while you save the crews, the vehicle is more vulnerable to battle damage, except for the US, most NATO countries barely have the vehicles numbers to support operations and thanks to the accountants never enough spare parts to repair the damaged vehicles.
 From what I have seen from the various projects using super materials, is that the only way to gain significant weight savings & cost savings is to build the vehicle with the material itself forming the hull. The problem is that any structural damage is then very hard to fix as strength and armour integrity is in the fibers and bonding. I am no expert in the field, but this inability to fix in the field has been the major stumbling block for the various designs kicking around. 

Finding a lightweight armour material that can be easily attached to a RHA hull will certainly help the ever increasing weight issue. Part of the problem is that the add on armour that is good at stopping one type of threat is not great at others and the weight penalty of placing to many layer is prohibitive.


----------



## ArmyRick

Roger that, lanes are open and flexible! Now back to our regular programming.


----------



## McG

dangerboy said:
			
		

> Armoured vehicles hit their limits
> Military to seek replacements for LAVs soon, Hillier says
> 
> ...
> 
> "I think we're going to have to look at what we can do in the army for a fleet of fighting vehicles," Gen. Hillier said. "So, I think that's what we need to work through right now and be able to offer our minister, and therefore the government of Canada, some recommendations on."


It is worth noting that the printed quotes only state we need to look for a new vehicle.  The news article’s title is the only suggestion that this new vehicle will replace (as oppose to be employed in addition to) the LAV.  Particularly interesting given that I hear LAV III LE is being talked about on the horizon.


----------



## kilekaldar

Military ponders stronger combat vehicle

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080526/combat_vehicle_080526/20080526?hub=TopStories

Updated Mon. May. 26 2008 1:03 PM ET

The Canadian Press

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan -- The ever-increasing explosive power of roadside bombs in Afghanistan has Canada's Defence Department and the army examining the idea of buying larger, more heavily armoured vehicles to shuttle troops around the battlefield.

Defence sources in Ottawa say the department will consider "a more robust combat vehicle'' as it looks toward eventually replacing the hardy LAV III, which has done yeoman's service in the war-torn region.

Planning is only in the discussion stages, but high-level sources says "broader options'' than just a straight up purchase of more light armoured vehicles are being considered.

The idea would be to pick a vehicle "somewhere between a battle tank and a light (armoured) vehicle'' for soldiers to use in close combat.

Gen. Rick Hillier, the chief of defence staff, said recently that the military is starting to look for a replacement for the LAV III, given the way the Afghan war is chewing up the army's stock fighting vehicles.

The army is interested in buying the next generation of light armoured vehicle, known as the LAV-H, which is heavier, longer, better armoured and engineered with the lessons of Afghanistan in mind.

But defence sources say that consideration is also being given to acquiring some kind of tracked carrier, possibly between 30 to 35 tonnes in weight.

"The Americans, the Germans, the British and the Dutch, the Danes are all looking at their next families of vehicles (and) they'll probably be track,'' said one source.

American forces have for years used the M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle, which carries just as many soldiers and has the same 25 mm chain gun armament as a LAV. But the Bradley has much more armour to withstand bombs and runs on tracks, not wheels.

The Germans are developing a new generation of heavy tracked fighting vehicle with Puma, which is expected to begin entering service in 2010.

"There's quite a few out there,'' the source said.

The army is "interested in some other LAVs, but we're just looking at other options right now.''

Canadian soldiers worship their LAVs, but the Taliban have been progressively building bigger explosive charges to plant alongside paved roads, or bury in dried up riverbeds and trails that criss-cross Afghanistan's desert landscape.

The light vehicles handle well both on and off the road, except in boggy terrain where the added armoured and equipment has a tendency to weigh them down.

During an operation in mid-May, an entire platoon of LAV IIIs became stuck in the mud of a farm field on the outskirts of Kandahar City and had to wait for another unit to come and pull them out.

"There's only one swamp in Afghanistan and we had to find it,'' a soldier joked at the time.

Semi-friendly villagers gathered at the edge of the field to gawk at the helpless, huge vehicles, which the Afghans have nicknamed "green monsters.''

Some soldiers said tracked vehicles might not have gotten stuck and left them vulnerable to possible attack, but the point was debatable.

In this kind of hit-and-run war, soldiers know that speed means everything and that's why many of the troops were deeply skeptical of the suggestion that heavier tracked vehicles are the way to go.

Tracks can be more difficult to maintain than wheels, and in a rugged place like Afghanistan things are breaking all the time.

"If it's high maintenance in a country like this where everything has to be flown in because it's double landlocked, you can shut down a whole battle group waiting for parts,'' said Cpl. Darrell Rostek, of 7 Platoon, Charlie Company, of the 2 Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry battle group.

"Whereas this thing, it's wheeled. There are pros and cons for both, but you'd better pick the right one.''

A LAV III can still move and fight with more than half of its tires blown.

During Operation Medusa in the fall of 2006, Canadian commanders discovered the LAV IIIs had a tough time getting over the grapefield berms in the Panjwaii district.

It was one of the reasons the army chose to quickly deploy older, tracked Leopard C2 tanks. For that reason, some soldiers think something like an M2 Bradley fighting vehicle would be good addition, as long as the army maintained a mixture of wheeled and tracked vehicles.

"If it came out of the lessons learned, might as well give it try,'' said Cpl. Bryan Rowlandson, a reservist with the Calgary Highlanders.

"It doesn't hurt to try.''


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Keeping the horse on life support, I advocate a mixed fleet, wheeled replacement for the LAV and LAV-H seems a likely candidate. The Boxer is also an option but that is one big APC. I doubt the French VAB’s would be in the running
 The tracked option leaves a choice between the Bradely, Puma, Warrior and CV90. Not sure if the Bradely still in production, decent vehicle, we would benefit from commonality with the US. Puma is new and very expensive, Warrior I don’t think is in production and would require a new turret/gun package. The CV90 is in production, in service and has multiple options for turret/gun plus a family of support vehicles on the same chassis, the price is fairly reasonable as well. 

We are going to be living in interesting times and will likely find ourselves in several different types of theaters over the next 30 years carrying out different types of operations.


----------



## ArmyRick

I got to see the LAV H and the LAV recovery vehicle today. Not bad at all. The LAV H was impressive. Much better protection from IED. 

As far as CV90, yes it is a great peice of kit but it has been around for over 10 years. Why not get on board with the US Army FCS Manned ground vehicle program?

This is a new series of vehicles (The NLOS C goes into limited production later this year) and its potential for growth is very high. It is new technology that we could take advantage of. Plus we would have commonality with one of our closet allies.


----------



## geo

If you look at the British Military current events, you'll find that the Brits are starting to have a problem with their "VIKING" which is like the CV90....
Same problems as we are currently witnessing with the LAVIIIs



> Fears for patrol vehicles as blast kills serviceman in Afghanistan
> May 27, 2008 Michael Evans, Defence Editor
> Article Link
> 
> A British serviceman has been killed in an explosion in southern Afghanistan, the Ministry of Defence said yesterday.
> 
> He was killed when his Viking vehicle was caught in a blast north of Sangin, Helmand province. His next of kin have been informed. Two other soldiers were injured and taken to Camp Bastion, the main British base, for medical treatment.
> 
> The death brings the number of British personnel killed in Afghanistan since 2001 to 97.
> 
> The attack adds to growing concerns over the vulnerability of British patrol vehicles to hidden devices.
> 
> The underside of armoured vehicles deployed in Helmand has proven to be highly susceptible to mines buried by the Taleban, and the Ministry of Defence is preparing to add extra armour to key vehicles. The relatively new Viking armoured troop-carrying vehicle – which was built for the Royal Marines for use in Norway but is now being used across desert routes in northern Helmand – has proven to be vulnerable to the mines, which are suspected of being supplied from Iran. Five Vikings have been destroyed by mines.
> 
> Although the Viking is well armoured on its sides, the mines have penetrated the armour underneath, placing the driver at greatest risk. The Army faced the same risk in the case of Warrior armoured vehicles in Iraq, which, for similar reasons, were found to be vulnerable to mines. An extra layer of armour had to be fitted to the belly of the Warriors. MoD sources said that similar steps were being taken to improve the armour on the Vikings.
> More on link


----------



## Haletown

geo said:
			
		

> If you look at the British Military current events, you'll find that the Brits are starting to have a problem with their "VIKING" which is like the CV90....
> Same problems as we are currently witnessing with the LAVIIIs



I no expert but I believe the British Army "Viking" is one of those articulated Swedish tracked carriers,  . . not in the CV family 

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/viking/


----------



## RCR Grunt

The Viking IS NOT like the CV90, its basically a modern, armored BV-206.

Royal Marine Viking

CV 90

The only similarity between the two is that they are tracked vehicles.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> I got to see the LAV H and the LAV recovery vehicle today. Not bad at all. The LAV H was impressive. Much better protection from IED.
> 
> As far as CV90, yes it is a great peice of kit but it has been around for over 10 years. Why not get on board with the US Army FCS Manned ground vehicle program?
> 
> This is a new series of vehicles (The NLOS C goes into limited production later this year) and its potential for growth is very high. It is new technology that we could take advantage of. Plus we would have commonality with one of our closet allies.



Judging by the success rate of the US Army's FCS stuff, I would rather see a proven design that is a known both in performance and cost. The Styker is an "intermin" vehicle till the FCS comes....................still waiting..............getting old............soon to retire..........if you get my point..


----------



## ArmyRick

Ah no. The concept of the stryker being the interim vehicle is outdated. The stryker will remain in service for quite a while. The FCS MGV first variant the NLOS C is coming into US Army service next year.

The remark about waiting..waiting..is not appropriate

Do you know how long it took them to design and develop the Bradley IFV? They started in the early 70s and if I understand history correctly, it was the early eighties that Bradley finally came on line.

The success of the FCS technology? Wait and watch. You wouldn't think it was appropriate to say the Bradley was a failure in 1979, would you?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I don't remember saying the vehicle is a failure, but I have limited confidence in US military programs producing results on time and on budget.


----------



## McG

Colin P said:
			
		

> ...  I have limited confidence in US military programs producing results on time and on budget.


So you would prefer to recommend something that is 30 years old & nearing (if not at) the end of its growth potential?





			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> the Bradely


----------



## ironduke57

You like our tank´s. You like our beer. So what´s the only right answer for you? You know that you want it! 

PUMA FTW!

SCNR,
ironduke57 ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MCG said:
			
		

> So you would prefer to recommend something that is 30 years old & nearing (if not at) the end of its growth potential?



Actually I am not keen on the Bradely, but it is a realistic contender and is being marketed with upgrades as we speak. I am a out and out CV90 fan to be honest.


----------



## ArmyRick

I would put the PUMA IFV as my second choice to the MGV series. My only heart ache with Puma is that it only carries 6 dismounts.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Yea, you ever get the impression that the designers would love to get rid of those pesky dismounts? Apparently the new recce version of the Bradely gave up the dismounts to allow for a armoured mast with a sensor suite.


----------



## dapaterson

My nderstanding is that there have always been two versions of the Bradley - the M2, an IFV with dismounts, and the M3, a recce variant without.

(see, among other references, Wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Bradley)


----------



## McG

The M3 had dismounts but much fewer than the M2.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

dapaterson said:
			
		

> My nderstanding is that there have always been two versions of the Bradley - the M2, an IFV with dismounts, and the M3, a recce variant without.
> 
> (see, among other references, Wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Bradley)



I am no expert on the vehicle, a US army Officer posted this picture recently, (Manic Moran of Tanknet)

http://img505.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img1194ka6.jpg


----------



## TCBF

MCG said:
			
		

> The M3 had dismounts but much fewer than the M2.



- Normally in the past, a vehicle crew of five (hence ten men on a Boeselager Team).


----------



## a_majoor

In terms of availability, logistics and commonality, I would vote for the CV-90 family. What the article does not state is we will need various support vehicles to go along with any sort of IFV, and the CV-90 family has already been the basis for everything from CPs to tanks, so the idea of getting armoured ambulances, ARVS, AAA systems, DF and IF support and engineering vehicles at the same time for a relatively low initial cost and ongoing O&M makes a huge amount of sense. (I would even be in favor of getting CV 90120 tanks, but that argument has already been settled!)

PUMAS are very nice, but they cost twice as much as the CV 90 per unit and do not come in any developed varients. The FCS is still mostly a paper system and is plagued with escalating costs; based on the article it seems we cannot (or do not want to) wait for things to get sorted on the FCS front.

I think we can afford to go for the "big buy" approach, FCS support vehicles can also support LAV equipped troops, while there are few LAV support varients, and not all would be able to support a tracked IFV (such as a hypothetical LAV ARV)


----------



## ironduke57

An pic of an uptodate modell of the Puma from this years ILA:







It´s the first pic showing the Spike launcher. (Box on the left side of the turret.)

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## ArmyRick

Thats a pretty faint looking vehicle!


----------



## ironduke57

Better? 





I was always a fan of the Marder 2, but the cold war ended ten years too early. (The same for more then one other mil project.)
And know we have to live with what we get. A feeling you should know.

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Is it me or does the turret in the model look like it has been moved backwards or is that a larger bustle?


----------



## ironduke57

Colin P said:
			
		

> Is it me or does the turret in the model look like it has been moved backwards or is that a larger bustle?



Looking at the modell and on the following pic´s I don´t think so.
- http://www.rommelkiste.de/Fahrzeuge/Puma/Puma.html

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Great link!!
Nice vehicle, although I don't know if I would let those muddy infantry types muddy my new toy!! Doesn't seem like a lot of room for the dismounts gear inside. But it does seem to have better headroom than the CV90.


----------



## ironduke57

Colin P said:
			
		

> ... Doesn't seem like a lot of room for the dismounts gear inside. ...



It isn´t as bad as it looks like as most of there gear is stored centrally in an rack below the turret. (To reduce the risk that loose things injures someone if hit by a mine.) IMHO you can see the rack here:
- http://www.rommelkiste.de/Fahrzeuge/Puma/puma11.jpg

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## a_majoor

An interesting (if somewhat bizzare) alternative to super polymers and other exotic materials is super strength........paper! Layering on a sort of papermache overcoat would be quick and easy, and utilizing engineered forms (like the paper core in the surfboard) would provide even greater strength using low cost materials. This would still be a form of add on armour rather than the primary structure.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/06/stronger-paper-and-rapid-manufacturing.html



> June 12, 2008
> *Stronger paper and rapid manufacturing*
> 
> A new kind of paper is stronger than cast iron and could be used to reinforce conventional paper, produce extra-strong sticky tape or help create tough synthetic replacements for biological tissues, says Lars Berglund from the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden.
> 
> Despite its great strength, Berglund's "nanopaper" is produced from a biological material found in conventional paper: cellulose. This long sugar molecule is a principal component of plant cell walls and is the most common organic compound on Earth. Wood is typically about half cellulose, mixed with other structural compounds.
> 
> Cellulose is extracted from wood to make paper, is the basis of cellophane, and has also recently been used by materials scientists developing novel plastic materials. But they have used it only as a cheap filler material, ignoring its mechanical properties.
> 
> However, the mechanical processes used to pulp wood and process it into paper damage the individual cellulose fibres, greatly reducing their strength. So Berglund and colleagues have developed a gentler process that preserves the fibres' strength.
> 
> The new method involves breaking down wood pulp with enzymes and then fragmenting it using a mechanical beater. The shear forces produced cause the cellulose to gently disintegrate into its component fibres. The end result is undamaged cellulose fibres suspended in water.
> 
> *It also means that the 214 megapascal strength paper (versus 1 megapascal for regular paper).*
> 
> There is already a person who used 3D modelling and computerized cutting to create a cardboard based surfboard covered with epoxy.
> 
> The new paper made only from plant cellulose would be cheaper and strong enough for many applications.
> 
> Here is a link to video showing the assembly of the cardboard surfboard
> 
> Previous discussion on new ideas for a manufacturing and construction revolution. The new nanopaper will enable more rapid manufacturing with cheaper materials.
> 
> FURTHER READING
> Feature on cardboard surfboard in surfer magazine
> He looked to aerospace blogs for insight into the strength-to-weight ratio as it relates to design and how to graphically manipulate lines and rib interactions for his cardboard cores. "I'd look for the math that explained how to apply curves using programming language. Sheldrake cut the cardboard-core surfboard pieces using the stone company's laser cutter.



BTW Steel has a strength of @ 250 megapascals, so we are talking about amazingly strong material here


----------



## TCBF

Thucydides said:
			
		

> ... BTW Steel has a strength of @ 250 megapascals, so we are talking about amazingly strong material here



- Anyone consider using this as a building material?  Replace 2 X 4s and other dimensional lumber?


----------



## a_majoor

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Anyone consider using this as a building material?  Replace 2 X 4s and other dimensional lumber?



I believe a lower tech version of this idea is known as "Engineered wood". I don't believe that current engineered wood products have the equivalent strength of steel, so it is certainly worth researching this process. Shelters, ISO containers and packaging made from  214 megapascal strength paper would probably have a huge impact on the logistics train as well.


----------



## AIC_2K5

CANADIAN FORCES LOOKS AT CV90 FOR NEW CLOSE COMBAT VEHICLE 

http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/defencewatch/archive/2008/11/17/canadian-forces-looks-at-cv90-for-new-close-combat-vehicle.aspx


The Defence Department and the Canadian Army are looking at the CV90 as a possible candidate for a new close combat vehicle (aka infantry fighting vehicle).

The close combat vehicle program, which has yet to receive approval, would see the acquisition of new vehicles to accompany Leopard 2 tanks into the field. 

Defence sources say the current LAV-3 does not have the mobility needed for the job in off-road conditions. The likely preferred option is to go for a tracked vehicle. The equipment program is one of three new projects that will be presented to Defence Minister Peter MacKay. 

The CV90 had been previously looked at by the Army when it was first in development but there were concerns about its cost. But now the vehicle has proven itself and is in service with a number of armies, making it more attractive to the Canadian Forces, according to several sources.

The CV90 family has been developed to meet the requirements in six different countries; Sweden, Norway, Finland, Switzerland, Holland and Denmark, according to officials with BAE, the firm that builds the vehicles. The latest version is called 9035 MkIII and is sold to Holland and Denmark.

There are a number of variants in the CV90 family. CV9030 was originally developed to meet the requirements of the Norwegian army and is outfitted with the Bushmaster II cannon in the 30 mm two man turret. It also carries an add on armour kit.

The CV9030 MkII is a further development of the CV9030 design to meet the Swiss and Finnish armies requirements. It is equipped with the digitized Vehicle Information System (VIS) and also a fully stabilized 30/40 mm Bushmaster II/Mk44 cannon, according to BAE

CV9040 is in service with the Swedish Army; it carries an eight men section and is fitted with a Bofors 40 mm cannon. The CV9040 is primarily deployed with the Main Battle Tank in the Swedish Mechanized Brigades.

The CV90 has been used overseas in Liberia and in Afghanistan. Norwegian troops in Mazar-e-Sharif used the vehicles in a counterattack against insurgents in late 2007. It was also used this May against Taliban in Badghis Province. The Norwegian news media reported as many as 65 insurgents were killed in that battle.

According to globalsecurity.org the 40 mm Bofors auto cannon assures lethality to all other light armored vehicles and even offers a chance to kill enemy tanks from flanking positions with its APFSDS-T ammo.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

As I mentioned elsewhere, Sweden is looking to downsize their armour force, might be a good time to be shopping for these vehicles.


----------



## DevoBab

I am all for getting this vehicle if it makes sense to do so, but does it make sense? The LAV IIIs are obviously being used more than ever thought, and are taking a lot of wear and tear. With that, the LAV fleet is going to be upgraded from what I've been reading. So with that, the CV90 would take part of the load of the LAVs and go places that the LAVs can't. So, even if Sweden is looking to sell off some of its numbers, would they be available soon enough and in enough numbers to make an impact in Afghanistan? Even if a deal is struck, wouldn't it take a while to get everything sorted out, get the deal approved then make any Canadianization changes the CF sees fit?
There used to be an issue with cost of the CV90s, but from what I read and hear it has been used in combat so the CF is looking at it seriously again, but has the cost come down in any significant way? Or is it simply a matter of proving it is worth the price tag?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The problem with the LAV's appears to be the ability to keep up with the Leo's cross country, when we were planning on getting the MGS, this was not going to be an issue, however now that we have a relevant tank force, the need for an tracked APC or IFV is becoming apparent again.


----------



## McG

We have tracked APCs.  They are the TLAV and the MTVL.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Which are coming to the end of their lives and the ability to be upgraded. Unless you profess to the "SuperGavin" religion?  ;D


----------



## McG

While I most certainly don't subscribe to the "Gavin" foolery, I do know that the upgraded & up-armoured TLAV and MTVL are far superior beasts than most give them credit for.  They will also continue to serve after Coyote and Bison have retired.


----------



## daftandbarmy

How about if we just keep the current vehicles, but invest more in selecting, training and supporting our crews?

It's What's Inside That Counts

November 17, 2008: If you look at the history of armored vehicle design over the last 70 years, you'll note that victory tends to come to the side with the better crews, not the superior vehicle designs. For a long time, this played little role in the design of new armored vehicles. But now it is becoming a crucial factor. 

We are living in a watershed era as far as armored vehicle design is concerned. The vehicles that entered service at the end (1991) of the Cold War are still with us. Little new is in the works. Older designs, especially wheeled armored vehicles, are coming back into fashion. The U.S. Army Stryker is a variant of the LAV vehicle the U.S. Marine Corps acquired two decades earlier. Europeans have been building and selling (worldwide) such vehicles since the end of World War II. 

There is plenty of talk and speculation about radical new tank designs, but nothing has really been done. Part of the delay is financial. The end of the Cold War led to a sharp drop in military spending, especially the funding of armored vehicle design and development. Then there is the flood of new technologies, many of which have been difficult to combine into a convincing new vehicle design. 

In short, the big tanks, and high tech infantry fighting vehicles of today are difficult to replace. The current vehicles get the job done, and proposed new designs offer high risk (of battlefield failure) and low probability of successfully replacing what is already available. 

Meanwhile, we have a nagging problem with superior people always beating superior technology. There are many examples. Early in World War II, the Germans had inferior tanks, yet they won spectacular victories using better trained and led crews, in 1940 and 41. Then comes 1944, when the U.S. was fighting the Germans in France. There, superior American crews, using inferior tanks, defeated the German tanks. In the 1956 and '67 Arab-Israeli wars, the Arabs had superior tanks, and more of them, but were quickly defeated by superior Israeli crews. At the very end of the Cold War, in Kuwait, the world saw what superior tanks, and crews, could do. 

Thus the future of armored warfare would appear to depend more on crew, than vehicle, quality. Given the current lack of radical new tank designs, and budgets to move them through development, crew quality has become the new decisive weapon for armored forces. 

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/articles/20081117.aspx


----------



## McG

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Early in World War II, the Germans had inferior tanks, yet they won spectacular victories using better trained and led crews, in 1940 and 41.


Let's assume the inferiority of German tanks & the superiority of German crews is a given.  There is still a lot more to the equation here.  Well above the relevance of crew skills, there were doctrinal & operational decisions on where and how to employ tanks.  The french had thier tanks (generally) in the wrong place doing the wrong thing ... so, lets give the German's credit for better doctrine on top of thier superior crew skills.

I also understand that German armour benefited from an abundance of available radio while allied armour suffered from a significant lack of radio.  The superior communications lead to improved command, control and situational awarness.  The result was that technology gave the Germans a much tighter OODA loop.

... makes me think that the "inferior" German tank may infact have been the superior technology in armoured warfare for those years (despite how it faired against other tanks for mobility, firepower and protection).


----------



## Matt_Fisher

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> How about if we just keep the current vehicles, but invest more in selecting, training and supporting our crews?
> 
> It's What's Inside That Counts
> 
> November 17, 2008: If you look at the history of armored vehicle design over the last 70 years, you'll note that victory tends to come to the side with the better crews, not the superior vehicle designs. For a long time, this played little role in the design of new armored vehicles. But now it is becoming a crucial factor.
> 
> We are living in a watershed era as far as armored vehicle design is concerned. The vehicles that entered service at the end (1991) of the Cold War are still with us. Little new is in the works. Older designs, especially wheeled armored vehicles, are coming back into fashion. The U.S. Army Stryker is a variant of the LAV vehicle the U.S. Marine Corps acquired two decades earlier. Europeans have been building and selling (worldwide) such vehicles since the end of World War II.
> 
> There is plenty of talk and speculation about radical new tank designs, but nothing has really been done. Part of the delay is financial. The end of the Cold War led to a sharp drop in military spending, especially the funding of armored vehicle design and development. Then there is the flood of new technologies, many of which have been difficult to combine into a convincing new vehicle design.
> 
> In short, the big tanks, and high tech infantry fighting vehicles of today are difficult to replace. The current vehicles get the job done, and proposed new designs offer high risk (of battlefield failure) and low probability of successfully replacing what is already available.
> 
> Meanwhile, we have a nagging problem with superior people always beating superior technology. There are many examples. Early in World War II, the Germans had inferior tanks, yet they won spectacular victories using better trained and led crews, in 1940 and 41. Then comes 1944, when the U.S. was fighting the Germans in France. There, superior American crews, using inferior tanks, defeated the German tanks. In the 1956 and '67 Arab-Israeli wars, the Arabs had superior tanks, and more of them, but were quickly defeated by superior Israeli crews. At the very end of the Cold War, in Kuwait, the world saw what superior tanks, and crews, could do.
> 
> Thus the future of armored warfare would appear to depend more on crew, than vehicle, quality. Given the current lack of radical new tank designs, and budgets to move them through development, crew quality has become the new decisive weapon for armored forces.
> 
> http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/articles/20081117.aspx



Part of this article is accurate and part of it is generalizations and speculation that most people who've studied the tactics of the Second World War would say is bunk, some of which is pointed out by MCG. 

German tanks were more lightly armoured, and lightly armed than their French adversaries, but their tactical employment, and command and control methods were far more effective than the French, but not necessarily the skill of the individual crews.  Further on into the war, again it wasn't necessarily that the Allied tank crews were more proficient than the Germans, but rather there were more of them and more tanks, and the Allies could more easily absorb losses.  If in fact you look at the competency of the crew skills, the edge was probably towards the Germans who had more combat experience and veterans of the Eastern Front than their Allied adversaries, who for the most part were 'combat virgins'.

In Regard to TLAV or MTVL, I don't think they really qualify in terms of firepower that the CCV program is looking for.  As support and specialist vehicles, they certainly have their place, but unless some kind of serious modification is done to the vehicle to give it more firepower than what they currently have (.e. Remote Weapons Station or turret with a 25mm, 30mm, or 35mm), these vehicles probably don't qualify as a serious CCV candidate.


----------



## Old Sweat

Matt

I certainly support your comment re the article and the quality of the crew being more important than the quality of the vehicle. As luck would have it, I have been researching the number of German AFVs deployed in Normandy in 1944. The best figure I can come up with using a highly respected source is 2248 tanks and SPs; of this figure only about 150 were Tigers. By early-August when the Allies broke out of their lodgement, the Tigers had been reduced to less than fifty, and very few of these were able to withdraw across the Seine. The inexorable military rule that God is on the side of the big battalions prevails.

The TLAV and MTVL are useful supporting vehicles, but do not really belong fighting with the big boys. Can they be upgraded further, especially in terms of firepower, I suspect so, but is it worth it? That is a question for those with better information to decide.


----------



## geo

A lot had to do with terrain.... Tigers and Panthers did well on the Steppes of the easter front.  The advantages that they enjoyed there evaporated somewhat in France, Belgium & Holland


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> The TLAV and MTVL are useful supporting vehicles, but do not really belong fighting with the big boys. Can they be upgraded further, especially in terms of firepower, I suspect so, but is it worth it? That is a question for those with better information to decide.



OS, the TLAV FOV comes with either the Grizzly Turret (equiped with a 50cal and C-6 IIRC) and the RWS platform (C-6 AFAIK), can they be upgraded maybe..... there ain't alot of space to store extra ammo for say a 25mm inside the vehicle and the location of the family hatch/drivers hatch and the cooling fan in _my_ opinion precludes the addition of a different turret.

Maybe retrofit the turret to accept twin 50's might be a possible solution. Anyone who deals with the TLAV FOV on a daily basis care to comment on this?


----------



## AIC_2K5

VIEWPOINTS FROM NDHQ ON THE CLOSE COMBAT VEHICLE 

http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/defencewatch/archive/2008/11/19/viewpoints-from-ndhq-on-the-close-combat-vehicle.aspx

The KMW Puma and the CV90 seem to be the odds on favorites in regards to the Army’s proposed close combat vehicle/infantry fighting vehicle project.

But if this project does proceed, it is likely something will have to give elsewhere. 

My article and blog posting on the close combat vehicle has elicited some interesting emails from folks at headquarters in Ottawa (their names, of course, have not been included to protect them from career suicide).

One individual from NDHQ suggested purchasing used CV-90s from the Swedes. Here is what that person wrote:

“I doubt that they have 250-odd units that they would be willing to part with. But perhaps we could get a few dozen to begin with and then put in and order or more. This is what Sweden (and Greece, Spain) did for the Leo 2: acquire a few used models before undertaking domestic production.

I agree that the KMW Puma would be another candidate. In its most heavily-armoured guise it seems to be the only infantry carrier that matches the army's suggested weight profile (35 tonnes). But one other advantage of CV-90 is its proven suitability for winter operations. See YouTube for some telling footage of its ability to negotiate deep snow, leaving the M2/3 Bradley looking rather forlorn.

Other candidates could be the Austrian/Spanish Pizarro, the Italian Dardo, and the up-gunned British Warrior, but I think these are all dark horses.

One unanswered question is how the army will be able to logistically support yet another major system in the inventory. Something's gotta give. What shall it be? Will the M-113 variants finally be retired? Will we dispose of the Nyalas after 2011? Clearly some reflection is needed here before the fleet is rationalized post-Afghanistan. It is certainly true that protection is a worthwhile objective, but our small force will have great difficulty muddling through if the range of vehicles expands any further.”

Here is another take on the situation, this one from a larger strategic perspective from an NDHQ inhabitant:

“On the politico-strategic level, this confirms the repudiation of the former CDS's vision for the future structure of the army. We will still field a largely medium-weight force. But having a small but heavy armour/infantry component suggests that we're not ready to consign true manoeuvre warfare to the history books. Even "muscular" peacekeeping has called on these types of forces, so one could argue that the army is simply trying to cover all the bases.

Whether it can afford to do so in the current fiscal climate is uncertain. Frankly there is too much danger in launching omnibus acquisitions projects encompassing several types of (in this case) armoured vehicles. If there is opposition to one project, then all will be delayed indefinitely or cancelled. (Recall the vain attempt to secure approval for several new aircraft fleets when Bill Graham was Minister.) 

The CLS should consider this only as part of an army-wide vehicle rationalization program. In other words, if he really wants an IFV, he must be ready to respond to calls to give something up. (The retirement of the M-113 may be an option, but they were recently re-built at great cost, and the Aussies are keeping theirs to operate alongside their Abrams tanks. Is there a lesson here?)

As far as the capability itself is concerned, in choosing a vehicle the army would do well to heed the experience of Soviet/Russian forces in some of their recent conflicts. (To be sure, no technology can substitute for questionable strategy and tactical incompetence, but there are things that can at least give one's troops a better shot at success.) Having an automatic gun or grenade launcher that can hyper-elevate will allow engagement of targets along mountain roads or where multi-story buildings may conceal firing positions. (Tanks guns were largely irrelevant in such close quarters because they could not elevate.) 

Also, the ability to mount active protection systems - either fitted as part of the original order or as a "fitted for but not with" arrangement - should be considered because our forces will seldom have advanced warning of ambushes or the location of IEDs. The Achilles heel of so many future operations will be the public's willingness to accept casualties. Giving the troops the ability to ride in and out of danger is money well spent. 

But will the money materialize while the government struggles with a deficit? 

Optics are everything, and cut-backs in non-discretionary spending will be hard to justify so the army can get a new piece of kit (trucks excepted, perhaps). Should this project be accorded high priority when deliveries would takes place only after our departure from Afghanistan (unless we buy second-hand now)? 

Finally, DND has proven unable to spend the money allocated to it. It sent $500-million in unspent funds back to the treasury last year! Unless our procurement system is brought into the 20th (never mind the 21st) century, coming back to the trough for more money is going to be a dicey proposition.”



*“On the politico-strategic level, this confirms the repudiation of the former CDS's vision for the future structure of the army. We will still field a largely medium-weight force. But having a small but heavy armour/infantry component suggests that we're not ready to consign true manoeuvre warfare to the history books."*


----------



## The Bread Guy

Mods - feel free to move/merge as you see fit....

Latest in Canada's CCV Hunt, via MERX (first item in post)
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/87498/post-857850.html#msg857850



> ".... The Government of Canada (GOC) has a requirement for a Close Combat Vehicle (CCV) to provide increased tactical mobility, enhanced firepower and a high level of survivability to its crew in order to conduct close combat operations in a medium or high threat environment.  The purpose of this Letter of Interest and Request for Price and Availability (LOI/P&A) is to communicate the Canadian Forces (CF) initial requirements and solicit information and feedback from the industry regarding the provision of the CCV. The information may be used to support the GOC's decision-making process such as finalizing its requirements and determining its procurement strategy ...."



More related discussion here:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?action=post;topic=60697.75;num_replies=75


----------



## ironduke57

New pic of an PUMA mobility trial vehicle:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/SPz_Puma_Mobilit%C3%A4tsversuchfahrzeug_VS2.jpg (3264 × 2448)

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Have they started limited production yet or just a few trial vehicles? It would be interesting to compare mobilty of the Puma against the CV90 in the real world.


----------



## Oh No a Canadian

ironduke57 said:
			
		

> New pic of an PUMA mobility trial vehicle:
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/SPz_Puma_Mobilit%C3%A4tsversuchfahrzeug_VS2.jpg (3264 × 2448)
> 
> Regards,
> ironduke57



I wonder if the 6th Wheel (?) is a permanent change or they are jusr experimenting with different options

http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/data/503/puma_2.jpg


----------



## ironduke57

Colin P said:
			
		

> Have they started limited production yet or just a few trial vehicles?...


AFAIK there are only trial vehicles ATM.



			
				Oh No a Canadian said:
			
		

> I wonder if the 6th Wheel (?) is a permanent change or they are jusr experimenting with different options ...


AFAIK it is an permanent change. The 5 roadwheel solution lead to an uneven stress distribution and had to be abandoned. (The change to 6 roadwheels happend already in middle of 08.)

Maybe I will be able to post some more pix and an vid in the next day´s.

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Colin P said:
			
		

> Have they started limited production yet or just a few trial vehicles? It would be interesting to compare mobilty of the Puma against the CV90 in the real world.



According to this news release  the Puma should enter service next year.


----------



## ironduke57

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> According to this news release  the Puma should enter service next year.


I wouldn´t bet on that.

More pix:

- http://img4.abload.de/img/vs-2_mob_puma_front_se8xmq.jpg
- http://img4.abload.de/img/vs-4mob_puma_laufwerkyy5x.jpg
- http://www.abload.de/img/vs-4mob_puma_laufwerk_iakz.jpg

- http://www.milpic.de/SGT/BT009.jpg
- http://www.milpic.de/SGT/BT010.jpg
- http://www.milpic.de/SGT/BT016.jpg

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## ironduke57

And two more:











(And some offtopic pix from the same event. (Open House of the WTD 41)
http://www.milpic.de/SGT/BT001.jpg
http://www.milpic.de/SGT/BT002.jpg
http://www.milpic.de/SGT/BT003.jpg
http://www.milpic.de/SGT/BT004.jpg
http://www.milpic.de/SGT/BT005.jpg
http://www.milpic.de/SGT/BT006.jpg
http://www.milpic.de/SGT/BT007.jpg
http://www.milpic.de/SGT/BT008.jpg
http://www.milpic.de/SGT/BT011.jpg
http://www.milpic.de/SGT/BT012.jpg
http://www.milpic.de/SGT/BT013.jpg
http://www.milpic.de/SGT/BT014.jpg
http://www.milpic.de/SGT/BT015.jpg
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a394/Panzerwolf/Trier/Dsc_6980.jpg )


Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## a_majoor

Colin P said:
			
		

> Have they started limited production yet or just a few trial vehicles? It would be interesting to compare mobilty of the Puma against the CV90 in the real world.



Not quite as simple as it sounds. The CV-90 comes in dozens of different varients (which one do we want?) and the PUMA has at least 3 protection levels; with level "C" add-on armour bringing the beast up to the size and weight of a Leopard 1 tank (but protected against RPG's and other bad things).

While the PUMA is very impressive, from a resource standpoint I'm still inclined to think the CV-90 is a better choice for Canada; the base vehicle costs about 1/3 of a base PUMA, the CV-90 is in service with several nations so there is a base of experience and supply and the CV 90 is conceptually more versatile, already existing or prototyped as an ICV, SPAAG, FOO/FAC, engineer section carrier and medium tank (CV-90120). With some determination and hard work, we "could" consolodate into two fleets; a LAV based wheeled fleet with a wide range of varients and a tracked fleet based off the CV-90 platform.

I'll wake up from this dream soon.....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I like the CV-90 as well and realize the advantage of getting a vehicle that is part of a “fleet” Personally I wished we had leased 20 or so CV-90 at the same time as the leopard 2. This would given us a chance to understand what are needs might be in order to ensure we get the right vehicle. 

The Puma seems to be positioned between the CV-90 and Namer in regards to role and protection. For mobility trials it would have to be done with vehicles armoured roughly to the same level, likely 2 tests one with just basic hull armour and the 2nd with add on armour. I suspect the CV-90 will win in the first, but the Puma being designed for a greater weight might do better in the 2nd test. 

I don’t see the Puma getting the same level of variants as the customer base is more limited, this would be a downside in rgards to choice I suspect.


----------



## GAP

Mod edited to comply with Milnet.ca policy.

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## tango22a

Hang on to your 'roids as we bid goodbye to the CCVL. They're just starting to lay the groundwork for saying "Sorry! but we won't fund it, regardless of our previous promises!" As soon as we decamp from Afghanistan if you think the funding is low now watch it be diverted away since "You're NOT in a firefight so WE are going to spend the money elsewhere!!"


tango22a


----------



## combatbuddha

Typical.
Reminds me of the old days.
"the cold war is over folks....cut EVERYTHING" LOL


----------



## ballz

It certainly does seem as if the world is going to stop turning in 2011/whenever we are no longer in Afghanistan.


----------



## VIChris

Sure, no sense in getting the equipment now and training people up on it's use and maintenance now right? Why would we want to do silly things like put it through it's paces and revise it now before it's needed? We can just wait until Canada has committed troops to Operation Whatever's Next and are 6 months into it before starting another procurement process. Seems logical to me.


----------



## tango22a

Lordy, Lordy.....This thread just drips sarcasm!....though I agree with its tone.


tango22a


----------



## OldSolduer

Not ANOTHER "Peace" dividend.....

Look where the last one got us....


----------



## tango22a

I'll tell you what the so-called "Peace" dividend is going to get us:

-Minimisation of the CF
-Collapse of the PRes  (ALL Branches) due to funding constraints and the needs of the RegF to sustain itself.
-Run down of equipment holdings and spare part holdings ( just run 'em into the ground, then write them off. With NO replacements in the pipeline)
- cancellation of equipment contracts especially LAV refurbs and replacements and NO tank upgrades
-Draw down of manning levels to < 66% (mainly due to VRs and retirements and cutbacks in recruiting
- Moth balling and perhaps outright sale of Ships and Aircraft. Wouldn't be surprised if the c-177s, part of the c-130J purchase and some, if not all, Chinooks.
-Closure of CFBs and consolidation of services to maybe 6-8 major bases: Esquimalt, Wainwright/ Cold Lake, Winnipeg/Shilo, Petawawa, Valcartier/ Quebec, possibly Bagotville or Trenton, Gagetown and Halifax.
-Deferment of ANY major equipment purchases with a majority of the mobile equipment on a care and maintenance programme to reduce costs.
- Rampant growth of NDHQ to absorb RegF bodies from the CBGs and Land areas. "Never,never have so few been led by so many!!"

And the list goes on and on and..........

MARK MY WORDS......Though I truly hope in this case I am wrong!

The Bureaucrats are already squabbling over and dividing the money to be saved! This slippage on the CCVL is only the tip of the iceberg, Ladies and Gentlemen! "We don't need them because we are "Peacekeepers" and we are not involved in a "shooting" war" will be their rationale. 


tango22a

Edited for clarity and spelling


----------



## dapaterson

On the other hand, devil's advocate here, isn't a bit of due diligence in order before spending $2 billion.

Or should we do like we did with the tanks, and drop $650M on tanks that won't be usable for 5+ years...

Just a thought...


----------



## blacktriangle

tango22a said:
			
		

> I'll tell you what the so-called "Peace" dividend is going to get us:
> 
> -Minimisation of the CF
> -Collapse of the PRes  (ALL Branches) due to funding constraints and the needs of the RegF to sustain itself.
> -Run down of equipment holdings and spare part holdings ( just run 'em into the ground, then write them off. With NO replacements in the pipeline)
> - cancellation of equipment contracts especially LAV refurbs and replacements and NO tank upgrades
> -Draw down of manning levels to < 66% (mainly due to VRs and retirements and cutbacks in recruiting
> - Moth balling and perhaps outright sale of Ships and Aircraft. Wouldn't be surprised if the c-177s, part of the c-130J purchase and some, if not all, Chinooks.
> -Closure of CFBs and consolidation of services to maybe 6-8 major bases: Esquimalt, Wainwright/ Cold Lake, Winnipeg/Shilo, Petawawa, Valcartier/ Quebec, possibly Bagotville or Trenton, Gagetown and Halifax.
> -Deferment of ANY major equipment purchases with a majority of the mobile equipment on a care and maintenance programme to reduce costs.
> - Rampant growth of NDHQ to absorb RegF bodies from the CBGs and Land areas. "Never,never have so few been led by so many!!"
> 
> And the list goes on and on and..........
> 
> MARK MY WORDS......Though I truly hope in this case I am wrong!
> 
> The Bureaucrats are already squabbling over and dividing the money to be saved! This slippage on the CCVL is only the tip of the iceberg, Ladies and Gentlemen! "We don't need them because we are "Peacekeepers" and we are not involved in a "shooting" war" will be their rationale.
> 
> 
> tango22a
> 
> Edited for clarity and spelling



So pretty much business as usual pre 2005?


----------



## brihard

If the post-Afghanistan military pruning does start in the NCR, they're doing it wrong. Sorry, but I simply cannot conceive that all the overweight commands are needed. "Commander's intent";  the protection, through force or the credible threat thereof, of Canada's physical sovereignty and such national interests as are deemed by Parliament. Everything secondary to our ability to our ability to deliver sudden, deliberate, violent death to a specific time and place MUST be subordinate to that role.

Step on toes, offend people, crush bureaucratic empires. So be it. The individuals affected will find a way to make themselves useful to the CF in a new capacity (starting with passing an EXPRES test), or they can take their pension and bugger off. We're a small population with a huge geography and significant interests, and we punch above our weight, but we've been operating at a level not indefinitely sustainable. We need to expand our capabilities, and if it's to be a zero-sum game, so be it. Trim the fat.


----------



## ballz

Brihard said:
			
		

> The individuals affected will find a way to make themselves useful to the CF in a new capacity *(starting with passing an EXPRES test)*



That is pure f**kin gold haha


----------



## dapaterson

dapaterson said:
			
		

> On the other hand, devil's advocate here, isn't a bit of due diligence in order before spending $2 billion.
> 
> Or should we do like we did with the tanks, and drop $650M on tanks that won't be usable for 5+ years...
> 
> Just a thought...



For the record:  I'm not arguing that the capabilites aren't needed - I'm arguing that the Army's track record is horrible - unable to plan properly, leaving us with 100 hanger queen Leo 2s because of our poor planning - so if we haven't gripped that part of the equation yet, how will adding 100+ more armoured vehicles help?

"The fault lies not with our stars, but with ourselves." wrote the Bard; although, in this case, perhaps a big part of the problem is our stars (or maple leaves...).


----------



## OldSolduer

I have to agree with dapaterson here.

We have met the enemy....and he is us!


----------



## tango22a

Brihard:

The problem is that there are TOO MANY vested interests concerned with maintaining things as they are. "Jobs for the BOYS" is one of them. If there are cutbacks to CBGs and Land Force Areas you will probably see an exponential increase to the manning tables of NDHQ to provide employment for those displaced. Cut operations to the bone but bloat up the HQs with unneeded bodies. It happens every time there is a draw down in operations.....BTDT!!


tango22a (Certified Cynic)


----------



## tango22a

Dapaterson:

Perhaps we should just scrap the Leos and write off our investment and our capabilities, limited as they are. Beating swords into plowshares should please the left-leaning bureaucrats. Any money saved could be invested in man-carried foot bridge sections, 'cause when they get done with US we are going to be a strictly Light Infantry Armed Forces since the bureaucrats feel that's the way we should be equipped since it's the CHEAPEST way to go!!!


Certified Cynic


----------



## tango22a

We might just consider MERX for 1/4 ton SMP, 3/4 ton SMP and 2 1/2 ton SMP because the bureaucrats feel that's ALL we need for viability!!


Certified Cynic


----------



## McG

tango22a said:
			
		

> We might just consider MERX for 1/4 ton SMP, 3/4 ton SMP and 2 1/2 ton SMP because the bureaucrats feel that's ALL we need for viability!!


To be fair, even back when there seemed to be all the money we could want, there was at least a health number of pers within the military wondering why we were throwing $2 billion at yet another vehicle at the same time as we were underfunding tanks (to the point were we will have an un-deployable training fleet), LAV III refit (to the point where not all vehicles will be upgraded and there will be an un-deployable training fleet), etc.

If this project is in danger, that is probably because the soldiers responsible for allocating those capital dollars have decided they can get better military value by instead investing CCV dollars in Leopard, LAV III, mortars, or some other such thing.


----------



## dapaterson

Sigh.  Who said cheapest?  Who said divest?

I'm saying the well-paid help in LStL and 17-18-19NT need to develop workable plans.  It is their job, after all.

So far, we grabbed a bunch of Leo 2s and parked them.  Incurring costs and not providing troops in Canada a training platform - or even, really, a timeline for when it will be realized.  Purchasing equipment without a plan serves no one's interests, costs significant dollars, and atracts OAG attention we can do without.


----------



## tango22a

Gentlemen:

Let's face it, somebody dropped the ball.......BIG Time!!!  All I know is that on civvy street he/she would surely be handed his/her walking papers. His/her immediate supervisors would be in for a major blast of s**t from on high. Will this happen in this case?.......Surely you jest! Everybody in the CoC is in default CYA mode.

Maybe if the CoC was given a major shakeup some of the dead wood would fall to the ground and be recognized for what it is. Saying "We blew it!" or "Would someone out there please show us how to budget" WON"T cut it this time.

If you merit the axe then you should get the axe, even if you are at a rarefied level in the CoC.


Certified Cynic


----------



## Sprinting Thistle

Unfortunately the CF is oriented towards commodity purchase rather than strategic long term planning.  Without a plan, how can the forces determine needs and allocate resources?  In the absence of a plan, the CF just buys things.  The government has not given enough direction to the CF on what it expects the forces to do.  The last such direction was the CFDS which is light on direction but heavy on commodity acquisition.  So, without governmental direction, the CF has not produced a strategic plan on where it wants to go now and into the future.  Force 2028 hasn't produced the necessary guidance.  And, there is a cascade effect.  Since the CF hasn't produced a strategic plan, the environmental commands are without direction.  They are then left to their own devices to plan acquisitions and assign resources within their area.  The staffs do the best they can within their areas but without clear direction and a plan to follow, how can they achieve efficiencies in effort and resources?


----------



## tango22a

It all goes back to what I said in Reply #19: If you merit the axe you should get the axe regardless of position.

The RegF with cutbacks to Class B is forcing people to choose whether to CT or lose their job. This will cream off the best and brightest from the PRes and a major rebuilding will have to occur which will take years and may NEVER happen. With the draw down after Afghanistan, just you watch the CF's budget shrink dramatically! Why should soldiers suffer financial losses just because the CF cannot keep its house in order? Some of these people depend on their pay for school tuition,etc. If they can't pay their bills without  Class A pay, then you are going to see a lot of VRs as they are forced to seek other employment.

Somebody out there has got to step up and take responsibility for this massive upgefucht, and then another massive effort will have to be made to fix the problem......SOONEST!!


LET THE HEADS FALL WHERE THEY MAY!


Certified Cynic


----------



## dimsum

A bit of a thread hijack (thinking air vice land equipment), but with this coming I think/believe that the JUSTAS project *may* end up being delayed once again.  With the pullout of forces in Afghanistan, the biggest customer for our UAVs is gone and chances are the powers that be will be more reluctant to look at approving a large-scale project such as a UAV system.  The overland and maritime surveillance patrol missions, the expected missions for JUSTAS, can be done with Auroras, and while it's cheaper in the long run for UAVs, the upfront costs of infrastructure, systems, satellite bandwidth and other stuff may make people think twice when lives aren't necessarily on the line.

My  :2c:


----------



## George Wallace

Dimsum said:
			
		

> A bit of a thread hijack (thinking air vice land equipment), but with this coming I think/believe that the JUSTAS project *may* end up being delayed once again.  With the pullout of forces in Afghanistan, the biggest customer for our UAVs is gone and chances are the powers that be will be more reluctant to look at approving a large-scale project such as a UAV system.  The overland and maritime surveillance patrol missions, the expected missions for JUSTAS, can be done with Auroras, and while it's cheaper in the long run for UAVs, the upfront costs of infrastructure, systems, satellite bandwidth and other stuff may make people think twice when lives aren't necessarily on the line.
> 
> My  :2c:



I am sure that they already had other plans for these systems before sending them off to Afghanistan.


----------



## tango22a

POST DELETED with Apologies To ALL especially Tango2Bravo for my RANT


tango22a


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

tango22a said:
			
		

> Gentlemen and Ladies:
> 
> Is there not a sort of implied contract between the CF and a person they hire? The CF agrees to kit you and then train you and employ you .... If you sign on the dotted line. On civvy street if an employer says "Sure, we'll hire you.....But we will NOT guarantee training so you can do your job or even a job if we are able to train you!", You can be d**n sure the prospective employee would rapidly say "F**k You!!" and start looking for another  job!
> 
> 
> All you naysayers can hang me out to dry for B**ching but I really couldn't give a flying f**k what you think! "BOHICA" Just DOESN'T impress me much anymore
> 
> Whatever happened to "Loyalty Up and Loyalty Down"
> 
> 
> Certified Cynic



Are you posting in the right thread? In addition, I am not a mod here, but your use of profanity and posting style do not lend themselves to discusion. Why don't you hire out space in a newspaper if all you want to do is yell and don't want to hear anything contrary to your view?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

t22a,

It's about time you wound your neck in. We've had just about enough of your constant ranting and vitrol. You've stated your point. You're being ignored. Get over it. Ranting even louder is not going to change things. Go take a pill and get away from the keyboard, or at least unplug it and type to your heart's content. There is being a cynic and then there is being an obnoxious boor. I'm sure there are other forums where your righteous indignation would be more welcome.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## ironduke57

A bit late but here is the vid I mentioned:
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj9QiVri13Q
(A bit shaky.)
------------------------------------------
Also the armor level B was already dropped years ago as the C level was small enough that the PUMA is with it inside the train space clearance. Also the basic armor level A is on the same level as the uparmored CV90. So were the upgrade potential of the CV90 ends the one of the PUMA just starts.

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## Dean22

I have been researching the CV90 and Puma for a while and in my unprofessional opinion on the matter of tanks (I only know kinetic mathematics and basic tank warfare principles) I would say the CV90 fits Canada's wants and needs and will most likely be the victor unless the program is cut or the CV90 fails IED/Anti-mine testing (which, I have read in a news article is what the Canadian military is currently testing on a Risk Reduction Unit.

http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/defencewatch/archive/2009/11/04/the-risk-reduction-unit-blowing-up-a-close-combat-vehicle-for-the-canadian-army.aspx


CV90 vs. Puma


CV90 Armament:
(Export Version)
30mm Bushmaster II Autocannon (Lack's anti-air capabilities according to experts (AHEAD rounds) only 1.24g) (200 RTF, 200 storage)
(Secondary) 7.62 Browning Machine gun (Retains the ability to shoot through some buildings/armoured cover)

(Variants)
40mm Bofors Autocannon (has anti-tank and anti-air capabilities) (24 rounds per magazine)
35/50 Bushmaster III Cannon
105mm tank gun/turret (however the odds of Canada buying this variant are about the same as Canada purchasing the MGS in my opinion)
120mm Rheinmetall (Same L55 as the Leo 2's and with the newest round available has been argued to be stronger than American Abrams DU rounds)
AAV 40mm Bofors Autocannon and can elevate gun higher


Puma Armament 

30mm Bushmaster II Autocannon (Lack's anti-air capabilities according to experts (AHEAD rounds) only 1.24g) (200 RTF, 200 storage)
(Secondary) 5.56mm HK MG4 higher ROF, less penetration, crew can use ammo in personal weapons. 1000 RTF, 1000 in storage. (can be changed to MG3).
EuroSpike Spike LR missile launcher. (Needed for anti-tank/bunker kill capabilities so Canada would need to purchase these in a modern war or hope the accompanying Leo 2's kill all armour threats.)


CV90 Protection

Protects against 14.5mm armour-piercing rounds and frontally against 30mm APFSDS rounds.
Additional armour kits protects all around from 30mm APFSDS.
Unknown IED/hollow-charge defense capabilities but vehicle is battle tested and almost no casualties have been suffered with the vehicle so it can be assumed that the vehicle is good to go against RPG's since one of it's engagements encountered several RPG's. However, IED testing is on-going.
Smoke Grenade Launchers (unknown #)
Cannot make 450mm ground clearance with the stabilized 40mm Bofors gun.
Unknown Crew Survivability.
IR Suppressing Paint.
High elevation target.
Crew can be hit in the turret in the hull down position unlike Puma.
Unknown if Infantry have rear sight view.
Unknown if vehicle can equip Trophy/Quick kill systems.


Puma Protection

Protects against 14.5mm armour-piercing rounds and frontally against 30mm APFSDS rounds.
Additional armour kits protects all around from 30mm APFSDS.
Not battle tested but is "said" to defeat hollow charges.
Is said to defeat shaped charges and explosives up to 22 pounds while, retaining the 450mm clearance.
Smoke Launchers on vehicle (unknown #)
Crew compartment is one "box" so crew can "replace" each other.
Infantry can "slightly" open back door to scout/shoot from.
IR Suppressing Paint.
External Gas Tanks (good idea or bad idea? It was a bad idea on the Tiger Mk 1 in World War 2 and caused many deaths of the vehicle)
Vehicle is a low target.
Crew cannot be hurt in the hull down position as turret is unmanned.
Infantry have a rear sight view.
Designed so it can equip the Trophy/Quick kill systems.


CV90 Mobility

Speed of 70km/hr means vehicle can keep up with Leopard 2's.
Operational Range 320km.
410 kW Engine
Amazing mobility in snow and hot weather conditions. (So no matter what it can always keep up with the Leo's)
8 Troopers in back and very roomy from the looks of videos (Soldiers do not have to crawl out of the back and can simply jump out almost standing). (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8PzFICkVSU)
Vehicle weighs 23 tonnes at basic weight.
Easier to transport then Puma.


Puma Mobility

Speed of 70km/hr means vehicle can keep up with Leopard 2's.
Operational Range of 600km.
800 kW engine.
6 Troopers in vehicle and soldiers practically have to crawl out of the Puma.
31.5 Tonnes at basic weight.
Unknown off road capabilities.
Designed to have Three Puma's + armour kits aboard four A400's
Capacity of the A400 is 37,000 kg while the Capacity of the C-130J Super Hercules is 19,090 kg which, can be an issue for Canada if vehicles are transported that way.
Puma "seems" to bounce while driving as if it's "hitting" waves. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3bG3x0Jwbs)

*Cost of 1 CV90 = $6,524,804 CAD
Cost of 1 Puma = $11,071,500 CAD

Cost of 100 CV90's = $652,480,400 CAD
Cost of 100 Puma's = $1,107,150,000 CAD*



P.S. I know this is an IFV but do you guys think this will be an Infantry soldier vehicle purchase or an Armoured soldier vehicle purchase.

It just seems like a crime against nature to buy these for Infantry soldiers while, the Armoured soldiers are using Coyotes.

Also, why do Infantry soldiers drive IFV's in the CF where all over the world IFV's are driven by Armoured soldiers everywhere else?


----------



## Rick Goebel

Dean 22 said:

"Also, why do Infantry soldiers drive IFV's in the CF where all over the world IFV's are driven by Armoured soldiers everywhere else?"

I'm not sure where this comes from as British infantry drive Warriors and US infantry drive Bradleys.


----------



## Dean22

Rick Goebel said:
			
		

> Dean 22 said:
> 
> "Also, why do Infantry soldiers drive IFV's in the CF where all over the world IFV's are driven by Armoured soldiers everywhere else?"
> 
> I'm not sure where this comes from as British infantry drive Warriors and US infantry drive Bradleys.



I thought Cavalry Scouts drove Bradleys. Also, the Puma is part of the German Armoured core.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

You thought wrong to a certain extent... there are two versions of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle...

The M2 Bradley IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle) and M3 Bradley CFV (Cavalry Fighting Vehicle) are American infantry fighting vehicles manufactured by BAE Systems Land and Armaments, formerly United Defense.

As with other infantry fighting vehicles, the Bradley is designed to transport infantry with armor protection while providing covering fire to suppressing enemy troops and armored vehicles. The M2 holds a crew of three: a commander, a gunner and a driver; as well as six fully equipped soldiers. The M3 mainly conducts scout missions and carries two scouts in addition to the regular crew of three.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Dean22 said:
			
		

> I thought Cavalry Scouts drove Bradleys. Also, the Puma is part of the German Armoured * core.  *



For the last time. It's Armoured *CORPS*!!


----------



## Dean22

Sorry Corps*

By the way very interesting video on the effectiveness of the 40mm bofors L70 stabilized gun on the CV90.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3hC0vsZ5-8


----------



## Dean22

Jeez, if they were going to put a hold on this purchase then what were all those reserve "cuts" for?

By the way does the Puma/CV90/Marder only replace Infantry soldier's LAV III or does it also replace the Coyote? (Yes, I know Coyote is surveillance and the other vehicles are troop carriers but you can just as easily replace the back of the vehicle???)


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

The CV90 could replace the Coyote, but that is/was not the intent. There is a separate project for that (TAPV).


----------



## Michael OLeary

Dean22 said:
			
		

> Jeez, if they were going to put a hold on this purchase then what were all those reserve "cuts" for?



It's not like we were writing a $2 billion cheque this year to buy them.  Postponing the project only saves us current costs for ongoing work in preparation for the bidding process.  Not big savings now, but the decision does delay some costs as well as push the big expense off into the future.


----------



## COBRA-6

Dean22 said:
			
		

> By the way does the Puma/CV90/Marder only replace Infantry soldier's LAV III or does it also replace the Coyote? (Yes, I know Coyote is surveillance and the other vehicles are troop carriers but you can just as easily replace the back of the vehicle???)



The 108 or so CCV's would have augmented the LAV III fleet, not replaced it. 

Also, the CCV may have been a wheeled veh like a Boxer or VBCI in addition to the tracked vehs you mentioned...


----------



## Dean22

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> The CV90 could replace the Coyote, but that is/was not the intent. There is a separate project for that (TAPV).



You mean armoured soldiers will be using a truck (TAPV) for recce instead of the Coyote?      

While, the British will be using the CV90 with a different gun for recce?

http://www.casr.ca/doc-news-cv90-demonstrator.htm


If TAPV is a Truck or Car and most armoured soldiers begin using that instead of the Coyote I think i'll scratch off armoured soldier as a future choice especially since I am too tall to drive tanks.


----------



## Dean22

COBRA-6 said:
			
		

> The 108 or so CCV's would have augmented the LAV III fleet, not replaced it.
> 
> Also, the CCV may have been a wheeled veh like a Boxer or VBCI in addition to the tracked vehs you mentioned...



I didn't know they were looking at wheeled variants since I thought the entire program was made so that IFV's could support Main Battle tanks at the same speed as a MBT and over the same terrain (since the LAV 3 fleet according to project cannot go over rough terrain well enough to keep up with tanks).

http://www.casr.ca/bg-army-close-combat-vehicle.htm

I just read the main candidates off of that website (CV90, Puma, Marder).

I am rooting for the CV90.


----------



## McG

Dean22 said:
			
		

> Jeez, if they were going to put a hold on this purchase then what were all those reserve "cuts" for?


"They" cannot legally move money between Vote 1 and Vote 5.  Reserve pay cannot be converted into capital procurement funds.


----------



## AndyRad

Now from what i have read on the CV90,  my opinion seems to carry across that such a vehicle like that could fill multiple roles, as such:
IFV: CV9030
ANTI-AIR: CV9040 AAV (TriAD)
RECCE: CV90 with the upgraded IR package

What I like about this possibility is the simplicity in logistics with it, more common spares across more trades. Probably give the VEH-techs a bit of a break. Not to mention that it is a mean looking vehicle!!


----------



## Dean22

AndyRad said:
			
		

> Now from what i have read on the CV90,  my opinion seems to carry across that such a vehicle like that could fill multiple roles, as such:
> IFV: CV9030
> ANTI-AIR: CV9040 AAV (TriAD)
> RECCE: CV90 with the upgraded IR package
> 
> What I like about this possibility is the simplicity in logistics with it, more common spares across more trades. Probably give the VEH-techs a bit of a break. Not to mention that it is a mean looking vehicle!!



I believe it has command, recovery and medical versions as well. Not to mention the gun can be changed for different anti-tank capabilities (30mm, 40mm, 105mm, 120mm).

The only bad thing I have noticed about it vs. the Puma is the engine of the CV90 does half the distance and half the power of the Puma but the same speed (Puma weighs a lot more though). Also, the CV90 needs exterior armour kits and it's IED capabilities are currently being tested.


----------



## aesop081

Dean22 said:
			
		

> It just seems like a crime against nature to buy these for Infantry soldiers while, the Armoured soldiers are using Coyotes.



You just dont know when to be quiet do you ?



> Also, why do Infantry soldiers drive IFV's in the CF where all over the world IFV's are driven by Armoured soldiers everywhere else?



Wrong.

You are not only outside your lane but should have your permit revoked.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Dean22 said:
			
		

> It just seems like a crime against nature to buy these for Infantry soldiers while, the Armoured soldiers are using Coyotes.
> 
> Also, why do Infantry soldiers drive IFV's in the CF where all over the world IFV's are driven by Armoured soldiers everywhere else?



Guess by the same token you would ask why are all other trades driving all the trucks instead of the MSE Ops......



Anyways I would suggest you go on listen-silence as you are definetly well outside your lane with no hope of an Echo C/S support.....


----------



## ballz

So nobody else is worried that these vehicles being put on an indefinite "hold" means that we probably won't be getting them and that it's a sign of things (peace-dividends I believe they call them around here) to come?

Obviously I'm not in the know but as soon as I read the article I expected a bunch of "oh ****, here we go again..." comments from those who were around in the 90s.


----------



## AndyRad

Well me being a hopeful Crewman i had  similar thoughts to that. Having just finished reading Gen. Hillier's book and reading up on the dark times of DND cuts in the late 80's through the 90's that now they can pick on the CF since out commitment to Afghanistan is winding down we don't need Future Armour and other big budget items...

not trying to derail it

end rant


----------



## COBRA-6

ballz said:
			
		

> So nobody else is worried that these vehicles being put on an indefinite "hold" means that we probably won't be getting them and that it's a sign of things (peace-dividends I believe they call them around here) to come?



Frankly, no. As nice as many of the CCV candidates are, there are far better places to spend $2B than on 108 of these. Also, LAV upgrade will improve the capability of our LAV III fleet significantly.


----------



## McG

AndyRad said:
			
		

> Now from what i have read on the CV90,  my opinion seems to carry across that such a vehicle like that could fill multiple roles, as such:
> IFV: CV9030
> ANTI-AIR: CV9040 AAV (TriAD)
> RECCE: CV90 with the upgraded IR package
> 
> What I like about this possibility is the simplicity in logistics with it, more common spares across more trades. Probably give the VEH-techs a bit of a break. Not to mention that it is a mean looking vehicle!!





			
				Dean22 said:
			
		

> I believe it has command, recovery and medical versions as well. Not to mention the gun can be changed for different anti-tank capabilities (30mm, 40mm, 105mm, 120mm).


It really doesn't matter if one vehicle comes in 101 variants and can do everything we might ever want.  The project was never mandated or resourced to provide more than 2 or 3 variants.  We would still be stuck with a patch-work mixed platform fleet with all the added logistic burden that such cobble work results in.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> So nobody else is worried that these vehicles being put on an indefinite "hold" means that we probably won't be getting them and that it's a sign of things (peace-dividends I believe they call them around here) to come?


It was a lot of good money being thrown at only a marginal idea.  Even in the recent "days of plenty" those were resources that could be better spent somewhere else.


----------



## ArmyRick

Keep in mind and I am sure our government does to some extent, Afghanistan mission may wind down in 2011 but no one really knows when and where we are going to end up. 

In the year 2000, I am sure nobody in the CF (including myself) had any idea that we would end up in Afghanistan...

The future is unpredictable.

With that mind, we need to maintain flexibility (keep armoured vehicles, helicopters, etc, etc).


----------



## MarkOttawa

TAPVs on the chopping block too? A reasonable fear I think:

CANADIAN ARMY’S CCV NEAR DEATH BUT WILL THE TACTICAL ARMORED PATROL VEHICLE SOON FOLLOW?
http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/defencewatch/archive/2010/01/22/canadian-army-s-ccv-near-death-but-will-the-tactical-armored-patrol-vehicle-soon-follow.aspx

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor

Being a very small army, it is probably more practical to go for economies of scale rather than botique buys of military hardware.

I remember reading a long time ago that Canada had identified the need for between 12 and 1800 LAV's (presumably this would cover the replacement of every sort of armoured vehicle other than tanks). Now the LAV is a versatile platform, and putting an order for 1000+ vehicles will give us a lot of leverage over the producer. As well, mass production leads to lower prices, while orders in the low 100's spread over several years gives rise to hand built vehicles and the sort of costing that leads to (why are Austin Martin's so much more expensive than Porshe's, for example?).

So let's fish or cut bait. We need vehicles and we need them soon. LAV-H production is lined up for us already, and most of the varients have been prototyped or are familier to GDLS through the production of other LAV varients like the Coyote, Bison, LAV-25 and numerous "nice to have" prototypes. Crank out the hulls and if GDLS cannot produce the sub varients get bids from other companies that can take the hulls and make them to our liking.

LAV-H varients will not be as well protected as an IFV, nor will they be the ideal engineer section carrier, or 100% what the Armoured Corps might want for a recce vehicle, but they are better than having nothig at all or running superannuated vehicle hulls into the ground through overuse and fatigue. I won't get into upping the potential orders to 2000+ by building for the Reserve and making protected logistics vehicles using the LAV hull as a basis, but forward thinkers should see the potential there...


----------



## ironduke57

Could an/the pro ASCOD decision in GB have an influence on the CCV program?

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## The Bread Guy

This from MERX - highlights mine:


> The Department of National Defence (DND) has a requirement for the provision of up to 138 Close Combat Vehicles (CCV) in various configurations, which includes an optional quantity of up to thirty (30) vehicles. The CCV will provide a high level of crew protection, incorporating mine blast resistance and protection against both Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) and ballistic threats. The CCV will incorporate a protected main weapon station to engage and defeat the enemy.
> 
> *The initial series of deliveries will include a minimum quantity of eight ( 8 ) CCV with the initial Integrated Logistic Support (ILS) package, required within twenty-four (24) months after contract award. The delivery of the remaining 100 vehicles must be completed within forty-eight (48) months after contract award. *Along with the initial eight ( 8 ) vehicles, the contractor will be required to provide interim support including repair and overhaul and deployed technical support. The option to procure an additional quantity of up to thirty (30) CCV may be exercised at the sole discretion of Canada within four (4) years after contract award. Further, the contractor will be required to provide long-term In-Service Support (ISS) services for approximately twenty-five (25) years to commence after the interim support period.
> 
> The CCV must be an integrated, supportable, existing or upgraded version of a Military Off-the-Shelf (MOTS) BASE VEHICLE and MOTS TURRET, each of which is in production for and/or in service with another military recognized by DND as of the closing date of this Solicitation of Interest and Qualification (SOIQ) ....  Closing:  2010-06-10 02:00 PM Eastern Daylight Saving Time EDT ....


_Reference Number  	PW-$CCV-002-19968
Solicitation Number 	W6508-10CC01/D_


----------



## Colin Parkinson

What does "MOTS" stand for? I looked at the PWGS document and they litter it with acronyms that they don't spell out, but they do for some, that document would never get past my boss, no document sent out with acronyms undefined.


----------



## vonGarvin

I _imagine_ it means "Military Off The Shelf", eg: an existing military vehicle that meets the requirements, vice COTS ("Commercial Off The Shelf") for civi products that can be "militarised".


----------



## The Bread Guy

Colin P said:
			
		

> What does "MOTS" stand for? ....





			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> I _imagine_ it means "Military Off The Shelf", eg: an existing military vehicle that meets the requirements, vice COTS ("Commercial Off The Shelf") for civi products that can be "militarised".



Yup:


> .... The CCV must be an integrated, supportable, existing or upgraded version of a Military Off-the-Shelf (MOTS) BASE VEHICLE and MOTS TURRET ....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Oops, time to go crawl under a rock, that's what I get for posting with no coffee ans two screaming kids.  :sorry:


----------



## Wookilar

"The CCV must be an integrated, supportable, existing or upgraded version of a Military Off-the-Shelf (MOTS) BASE VEHICLE and MOTS TURRET, each of which is in production for and/or in service with another military recognized by DND."

I really hope that THIS time, SOMEONE in Ottawa remembers that in order to SUPPORT armoured vehs, you need to be able to RECOVER them! Buy a bloody Recovery variant for it you clowns!!! As much as I loved 88W, she couldn't haul a LAV III safely let alone something heavier.

Wook


----------



## Matt_Fisher

I believe the rationale is that the Leo 2 ARV variant will be used to support the CCV as they _supposed_ to be employed in a battlegroup/combat team in conjunction with tanks.


----------



## Wookilar

While a good idea, the numbers simply are not there.

How many Leopard ARV's, new and old, do we have? 4? (I honestly do not remember).

With the numbers of vehicles they are proposing to buy, that solution will not work. Then we will have two families of vehs that we cannot recover effectively, especially in battlefield conditions.

Wook


----------



## COBRA-6

The FME project is delivering more Leo2 ARVs.


----------



## George Wallace

Wookilar said:
			
		

> While a good idea, the numbers simply are not there.
> 
> How many Leopard ARV's, new and old, do we have? 4? (I honestly do not remember).



There were one ARV per Sqn in the RCD, which numbered five in the RCD alone.  Then there was a couple with the Engineers, and a few more at Svc Bn, CFB Gagetown Base Maint, RCEME School in Borden, and the Armour School.  I would say a minimum of ten.   :-\


----------



## dapaterson

Engineers have AEVs, not ARVs.


----------



## George Wallace

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Engineers have AEVs, not ARVs.



Yes.........and to recover those AEVs and AVLBs, they had at least one ARV.


----------



## McG

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Yes.........and to recover those AEVs and AVLBs, they had at least one ARV.


No we did not have an ARV.  When the Leopard 1 was first retired, 1 CER was offered ARV from the LdSH  ... this was tuned down because the AEV was a better recovery vehicle anyway & the HL Hvy MRT did everything else that we might have asked from an ARV.

In any case, there will be no more Leopard 1 ARV, so they do not matter in the new calculus for recovery of CCV & Leopard 2.  Even with FME, the vision did not call for enough new ARV to satisfy all the new fleets.

... though maybe that vision has changed in the last 10 months.


----------



## Wookilar

It happened with the LAV III project. We were all told it wouldn't, but I knew it would. Call me cynical I guess.

The logistical implications paid attention to (of any new purchase) are not sexy, do not make headlines and probably will not get you promoted.

Logistical implications ignored ....well, keeping a fleet of anything on the road is pretty near impossible when you don't have the parts, tools and equipment. Not exactly planning to win, is it? Buying a fleet of vehs and not having any idea (or consideration) or how that veh will be supported is just plain stupid. You gain, what a dozen more guns at most.

Winching a veh onto an Arnes trailer isn't exactly the best tactical solution for anyone. It can be a rather painful process and in many instances, it should be impossible to accomplish.

Wook


----------



## a_majoor

An out of the box candidate (or thought experiment anyway); the Korean K21.

Essentially an M-2 on steroids, the most interesting feature is the hull is apparently built out of some sort of fiberglass composite material, bringing the weight down to 26 tonnes while still reportedly being able to resist 30mm against the frontal armour and 14.5mm vs the side armour. A PUMA in Class"A" protection weighs 31.5 tonnes, while the base CV-9040 weighs @ 23 tonnes, but only provides protection vs 14.5mm.

Other advantages are the relatively low price per unit, Korea's reputation for building rugged and reliable material, and political gains from reaching out to Korea as opposed to our traditional Euro-centric position. Disadvantages include building a totally new supply chain, and possibly a monster price increase to "Canadianize" the beast or build it under license here.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Interesting, not sure I would be keen to cross a river under fire with those inflatable tubes, lose one and suspect that vehicle will tilt badly and downflood.


----------



## a_majoor

How "amphibious" a vehicle should be is an interesting question. I suspect any true CCV with the protection of a medium tank would be unable to float or swim at all (PUMA, Achzarit, BTR-T etc.), while vehicles which can swim well are compromised in the protection department (PT-76 light tank, AAV7). 

To make the CCV even lighter, the turret could be replaced by a RWS capable of mounting an automatic cannon, and there have been advances in materials technology that bring titanium into play as a cost effective material, as well as advanced ceramics to substitute for steel (read the MRAP Light thread to see more). Advanced powertrains could cut the weight even more, but in the end, a CCV will still be a large and bulky machine (partly in order to carry sufficient ammunition for the weapons systems and the troops, and to carry enough troops to make the assault).

A composite hulled K-21 clone with an RWS built in sufficient quantities to get economy of scale might actually make a lot of sense to replace the Bison and TLAV (and if we were ambitious, create a family of vehicles like the LAV or CV90).


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Protecting the volume required for 8 fully equipped troops and turret/RWS will always be the limiting factor to reducing weight. Darn physics always getting in the way of great ideas.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Round-up article in _Defense Industry Daily_ on planned new armoured vehicle purchases:

FLCV: Canada Looks to Upgrade Its Armor
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Canada-Looks-to-Upgrade-Its-Armor-in-Afghanistan-05190/



> In late November 2008, Canada’s Department of National Defence (DND) announced its intention to combine 3 programs into one general set of upgrades to its armored vehicle fleets. The C$ 5 billion (about $4.3 billion) meta-program would include (1) a “close combat vehicle,” in order to perform as a tracked Infantry Fighting Vehicle or Armored Personnel Carrier alongside Canada’s new Leopard 2A6 tanks; (2) a new “Tactical Armored Patrol Vehicle”; and (3) upgrades the existing LAV-III wheeled APC fleet. In July 2009, A 4th “FME” project was added to field dedicated Armored Engineering Vehicles based on the Leopard 2, along with engineering-related attachments for Canada’s new Leopard 2 tanks.
> 
> The “Close Combat Vehicle” appears to be the most urgent purchase, but the stated procurement approach isn’t structured to deliver urgency. As things stand, all contracts are scheduled to take effect after Canada is slated to end its Afghan mission. “Tanks for the Lesson: Leopards, too, for Canada” discussed the LAV-IIIs’ limitations in key terrain within Afghanistan, and keeping them in the field requires a lot of maintenance. Canada’s M113 tracked APCs have been used successfully as a supplement, but the Canadians appear to be leaning toward a heavier vehicle for their future CCV…
> 
> * The Close Combat Vehicle
> * The Tactical Armored Patrol Vehicle
> * LAV-IIIs, and the RESET/RECAP Imperative [updated]
> * Force Mobility Enhancement: Heavy Engineering
> * Contracts & Key Events [updated]
> * Additional Readings & Sources
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Interesting that according to Defense Watch that the Puma wouldn't be offered as it is out of the weight class in the bid information.


----------



## Grizzly

I'm still wondering what Rheinmetall is planning on offering if it isn't offering the Puma. According to Defence Watch, the Boxer is being offered as a wheeled solution, but I have no idea what the tracked solution might be. I hope it isn't refurbished Marders. Maybe they partner with General Dynamics and offer the ASCOD  2 as they did in the UK.


----------



## Infanteer

I'm tracking a pretty interesting argument that states that the current IFV is a poor design and that anything that is designed to keep up with and fight along with Main Battle Tanks against a conventionally armed foe should be armoured like a tank and that we're just begging for casualties by sending Light Armoured Vehciles behind tanks (if they make it, as wheels always tend to get stuck first).  The Israeli Namur is pointed to as the ideal IFV.

If one buy's that argument (and it seems to make sense), then the program above seems logical except that the "CCV" would ideally be something based upon a Leo2 hull with some sort of RWS.


----------



## McG

Infanteer said:
			
		

> If one buy's that argument (and it seems to make sense), then the program above seems logical except that the "CCV" would ideally be something based upon a Leo2 hull with some sort of RWS.


With the powerpack filling the rear, that would require troop egress through either the top or front of the vehicle.  We'd be better getting a different hull with common parts to the Leopard 2 (ie. common tracks, road-wheels, suspension, engine (maybe also transmission for the whole pack), commander's hatch, episcopes, etc, and a unique hull).


----------



## blacktriangle

Considering the resource restraints we face and are likely to face in the future - Does anyone else feel that it might be more prudent to sink CCV funds (assuming it has been funded and is to go ahead?) into an expanded LAV III reset or maybe a more pressing capital project? 

I'm not questioning the need as much as I am questioning the long term plan for the vehicles. 

How many deployed vehicles could we realistically sustain with a buy of 108-138? 

Thanks for any insight.


----------



## a_majoor

A while ago I tried to look at the logical development of vehicles to incorporate economy of scale (bringing the LAV or CV-90 model to the next level), and came up with these ideas:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27679/post-179914.html#msg179914 (Wheel units as building blocks)
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27679/post-185595.html#msg185595 (on fighting abilities with enhanced electronics and long range weapons)
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27679/post-188549.html#msg188549 (the entire program, including admin vehicles for economies of scale)

While they are obviously looking at wheeled vehicles of the LAV class, there is no reason the concept couldn't be extended further to tracked AFV's. The end result might even be something like a "Christie" tank of the 1920's, capable of running on it's powered road wheels (at least in an emergency). The modern technology showcased by the Korean IFV demonstrates that weight and mass are no longer limitations, only volume cannot be reduced without reducing the effectiveness of the vehicle.

Our overall problem when working on programs like the CCV is a sort of "stovepipe" mentality, where every solution seems to be made in isolation from every other. While each individual solution might be the "ideal" answer to that particular problem, the process of meshing everything together generates more friction, and the long term costs of running multiple mini fleets of vehicles (or ships or aircraft for that matter) probably outweigh the short term costs of making large buys of standardized vehicles and equipment.


----------



## The Bread Guy

This from the _Ottawa Citizen_:


> The multibillion-dollar plan to buy new armoured vehicles for the military, launched with much fanfare last year by the government, has already run into a roadblock, with every vehicle offered now being rejected by Public Works and the Defence Department.
> 
> The two departments are now scrambling to fix the problem that defence sources say was caused by poorly written requirements produced by inexperienced procurement officials.
> 
> The vehicles rejected include some of those being used in combat by Canada's allies in Afghanistan.
> 
> The issue with the Close Combat Vehicle procurement centres around the Defence Department's requirement that firms prove that the armour on their vehicles can meet a particular military standard. But the specification being used by DND is so new that the vehicles, while already meeting some of the toughest NATO standards of protection, have not been tested to the new level.
> 
> Public Works and the Defence Department will now rewrite the qualifications to drop the reference to the specific standard, instead using existing NATO armour protection levels, sources say ....


----------



## The Bread Guy

The latest from MERX:


> .... Close Combat Vehicle Project
> 
> Preamble
> 
> This solicitation cancels and supersedes previous solicitation number W6508-10CC01/D dated April 26, 2010 with a closing of June 25, 2010 at 14h00.
> 
> Due to an urgent requirement this solicitation W6508-10CC01/E is being posted for 15 days only.
> 
> Respondents wishing to receive the IBM Rational DOORS CD package, as outlined in this solicitation, should make their request as soon as possible to the Contracting Authority.
> 
> Interested respondents should review this solicitation in its entirety prior to responding.
> 
> Requirement
> 
> The Department of National Defence (DND) has a requirement for the provision of 108 Close Combat Vehicles (CCV) in various configurations, with an option to procure up to thirty (30) additional vehicles.
> 
> The initial series of deliveries and logistics requirements will be specified in detail in the RFP. The option to procure an additional quantity of up to thirty (30) CCV may be exercised at the sole discretion of Canada within four (4) years after contract award. Further, the contractor will be required to provide long-term In-Service Support (ISS) services for approximately twenty-five (25) years to commence after the interim support period.
> 
> The CCV must be an integrated, supportable, existing or upgraded version of a Military Off-the-Shelf (MOTS) BASE VEHICLE and MOTS TURRET, each of which is in production for and/or in service with another military recognized by DND as of the closing date of this Solicitation of Interest and Qualification (SOIQ).
> 
> Procurement Approach
> 
> The procurement approach for the Close Combat Vehicle is in two discrete phases. The first phase, referred to as the Solicitation of Interest and Qualification (SOIQ), will be the pre-qualification of potential bidders. Those Respondents who qualify will be registered on a CCV Pre-Qualified Bidders List.  The second phase, referred to as the Request for Proposal (RFP), will invite those firms who are registered on the CCV Pre-Qualified Bidders List to submit a proposal.
> 
> This SOIQ is subject to the provisions of the Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT).
> 
> No further Notices of Proposed Procurement (NPP) will be issued on GETS/MERX after this SOIQ ....



More details on what they need in attached excerpt from bid documents.


----------



## McG

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Due to an urgent requirement this solicitation W6508-10CC01/E is being posted for 15 days only.


Is somebody hoping to get these into Afghanistan?


----------



## je suis prest

The short turn-around reflects the fact that all the bidders have, in fact,already presented their proposals.  This new request is an attempt to fix the technical problem that afflicted the previous request, which resulted in all bids being thrown out.  I don't think the 15-day period reflects any intention to proceed more expeditiously than had been planned, it is simply an attempt not to lose any more ground as a result of the mistake made in the bidding process by the procurement office.


----------



## McG

je suis prest said:
			
		

> The short turn-around reflects the fact that all the bidders have, in fact, already presented their proposals.  This new request is an attempt to fix the technical problem that afflicted the previous request, which resulted in all bids being thrown out.  I don't think the 15-day period reflects any intention to proceed more expeditiously than had been planned, it is simply an attempt not to lose any more ground as a result of the mistake made in the bidding process by the procurement office.


The desire to maintain a schedule does not honestly reflect an "urgent requirement."  If you are correct, this declared urgency may sour another round of bidding (with time & money impacts on the CF).

From the F-35 thread:





			
				Petamocto said:
			
		

> A very similar story with the TAPV/CCV, it's kid of a "Hey these things are cool, how many can we afford and we'll find out where to put them after" as opposed to "In order to have X capability, we need Y units to have it with Z vehicles" and then goign shopping for whatever you can get.


The staff will, no doubt, have done an excellent job finding & developing a question for this answer.  Unfortunately, putting the answer ahead of the question always risks not addressing the key issue - what do we need.


----------



## a_majoor

Probably the most urgent requirement is to consolidate the many "mini fleets" for logistical efficiency. If we accept the LAV will be the workhorse, then the CCV chassis should be as multi functional as possible in order to roll up the various other pieces of kit out there.

We would then have the LAV III (and should procure new LAV III hulls to replace the Coyote's and Bison's), and a multi-purpose tracked hull to provide protected mobility. The CV-90 family is probably closest to the ideal, and is inexpensive enough to consider (especially a large buy to replace all the TLAVs as well). The Korean K-21 is interesting for its use of composite materials, and a turretless version would also provide a roomy hull to fill all the jobs the TLAV does as well.

A small fleet of uberspecialized vehicles is still needed for jobs that cannot be done by ordinary vehicles, such as armoured engineer vehicles (Pionierpanzer 3 Kodiak) bridge layers and recovery vehicles, as well as enhanced mobility vehicles for Canada's northern flank (BV-206 or ST Bronco) and maybe ATV's (look up this thread)


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

One question I have regarding this purchase of the CCV's is how do you go about employing these into our present Battalion structures? Will some Battalions utilize just the CCV?  Will we have a Coy of CCV in each Mech Battalion?  Or will they merely just be used when required i.e. substituted for the LAVs?


----------



## SeanNewman

Stymiest said:
			
		

> One question I have regarding this purchase of the CCV's is how do you go about employing these into our present Battalion structures?



There has not been one all-inclusive fully-articulated plan released yet.

One issue is that the theoretical employment sees them employed somewhere between the LAVs and the Leopards, and in order to do that we need X hundred of them.  However, due to their cost we can only afford 1/3 X hundred of them.

So do we buy what we can afford just so we can say we have some of them?  As already discussed here, the con with this is that you're just getting that much further away from universality of fleet and you now have 100 different small fleet vehicles in the inventory.

Do you not buy any and then risk having to return the money in the budget because we didn't spend it?

Do you accept a lower quality version that we can afford to actually buy some useful numbers of and then risk another LSVW fiasco?

We await all these answers before we start discussing what units or sub-units would actually get them.


----------



## canada94

Good lord those machines are beautiful.


----------



## McG

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Probably the most urgent requirement is to consolidate the many "mini fleets" for logistical efficiency. If we accept the LAV will be the workhorse, then the CCV chassis should be as multi functional as possible in order to roll up the various other pieces of kit out there.


Nice idea, but nope.  The CCV will not provide a platform to phase-out any of our mini-fleets.  It will be a new mini-fleet onto itself and dependant on retention of other existing fleets as no spectrum of support variants will be procured.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

And there lies the problem, the people procuring these things don't or are not allowed to consider the actual usage and required supporting vehicles. I know they make a CV-90 ARV, I have no doubt that the builders would be more than happy to modify that design towards a armoured engineering vehicle. The one thing I haven't seen in that family is turretless options with larger internal volume (raised roof) for tasks such as ambulance, CP, etc, etc. I suspect the modification would be quite doable and would result in a vehicle that could replace the TLAV. Of course without a contract specifying this work, it's all just dreaming.


----------



## Oh No a Canadian

'Pre-Qualified Bidders List' is announced, from Defence Watch.



> - Artec GmbH
> 
> - BAE Systems Hägglunds AB
> 
> - General Dynamics Land Systems - Canada
> 
> - Nexter Systems
> 
> - Rheinmetall Landsysteme GmbH



Full story


----------



## The Bread Guy

Same, via MERX:


> The following Respondents to the referenced SOIQ were found
> compliant and form the Pre-Qualified Bidders List for the
> upcoming Close Combat Vehicle (CCV) Request for Proposal,
> (sorted alphabetically):
> 
> - Artec GmbH
> 
> - BAE Systems Hägglunds AB
> 
> - General Dynamics Land Systems - Canada
> 
> - Nexter Systems
> 
> - Rheinmetall Landsysteme GmbH


----------



## Kat Stevens

GDLS-C it is, then.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Major round-up piece in _Defense Industry Daily_:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Canada-Looks-to-Upgrade-Its-Armor-in-Afghanistan-05190/



> In late November 2008, Canada’s Department of National Defence (DND) announced its intention to combine 3 programs into one general set of upgrades to its armored vehicle fleets. The C$ 5 billion (about $4.3 billion) meta-program would include (1) a “close combat vehicle,” in order to perform as a tracked Infantry Fighting Vehicle or Armored Personnel Carrier alongside Canada’s new Leopard 2A6 tanks; (2) a new “Tactical Armored Patrol Vehicle”; and (3) upgrades the existing LAV-III wheeled APC fleet. In July 2009, A 4th “FME” project was added to field dedicated Armored Engineering Vehicles based on the Leopard 2, along with engineering-related attachments for Canada’s new Leopard 2 tanks.
> 
> The “Close Combat Vehicle” appears to be the most urgent purchase, but the stated procurement approach isn’t structured to deliver urgency. As things stand, all contracts are scheduled to take effect after Canada is slated to end its Afghan mission. *The LAV-IIIs showed limitations in key terrain* within Afghanistan, and keeping them in the field requires a lot of maintenance. Canada’s M113 tracked APCs have been used successfully as a supplement, but the Canadians appear to be leaning toward a heavier vehicle for their future CCV…
> 
> * The Close Combat Vehicle [updated]
> * The Tactical Armored Patrol Vehicle
> * LAV-IIIs, and the RESET/RECAP Imperative
> * Force Mobility Enhancement: Heavy Engineering
> * Contracts & Key Events [updated]
> * Additional Readings & Sources...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## ringo

GDLS to build 600 Namer HAPC's for Israeli at Lima Ohio, IMHO the Namer would be the perfect vehicle to accompany Canada's Leo 2 MBT's, 
Sole source the CCV contract have GDLS build 100 or so HAPC's at Lima for Canada, ship them to London Ont to fit Canada specific equipment.


----------



## ArmyRick

I would not be sole sourcing this one IMO. Unlike the CH47 and the Globemaster, the are many alternatives than just Namer. Another sole source project now would not really go over that well and for what little time we have in A-stan, it would still not end up in this theater.


----------



## cphansen

ringo said:
			
		

> GDLS to build 600 Namer HAPC's for Israeli at Lima Ohio, IMHO the Namer would be the perfect vehicle to accompany Canada's Leo 2 MBT's,
> Sole source the CCV contract have GDLS build 100 or so HAPC's at Lima for Canada, ship them to London Ont to fit Canada specific equipment.



I suspect the CV 90 family would produce a better balanced fighting team

I could see them as being used to produce a Light Armoured Regiment concept. I could see an effective squadron of two 7 vehicle recce troops,  1 assault troop, of 4 vehicles, one 120 mm automatic mortar troop of 4 vehicles and one Direct fire troop of 4 vehicles.

I could see a squadron HQ conisting of a command variant, 4 logistic support vehicles, a forward observation vehicle, 2 arvs and 2 ambulances.

There are enough different variants of the CV90 to fill these needs. For example the Armadillo could be used for the assault troop, the CV90 with the twin tube AMOS automatic mortars would be for the mortar troop, while the CV90120 would certainly fit the DFSV role

For the recce patrols, I would see two different types of vehicles, One type being basic eyeball recce, perhaps the CV90s with 1 25mm cannon while the other 3 vehicles would be enhanced with electronic LLTV, radar etc. This would allow the troop leader to have an enhanced recce wehicle which would permit them to better control/protect their troop and also have one patrol of enhanced recce vehicles.

I would expect the squadron to usually operate as 2 troop teams with a recce troop, 2 sectionds of assault troops, 2 mortar vehicles and 2 dfsv vehicles. This would definitely be a powerful formation.

Lets not forget these are IFVs so there is room for additional troops in them. I could see the recce vehicles having 6 man crews to allow for 24 / 7  operations

Just a few thoughts, what do you think, would this be an effective fighting team


----------



## McG

SherH2A said:
			
		

> I suspect the CV 90 family would produce a better balanced fighting team


The project is not mandated to buy a family of vehicles.  All the discussion about the value of different vehicle families is irrelevant because this project has no mandate, no funding, and no authority to buy anything more than infantry section carriers and FOO vehicles.  Recce will be in some yet to be defined wheeled vehicle, the engineers and ambulances will still be in the no-longer good enough M113, the mortars will be in the back of a truck (needing to be dismounted to fire), the DFSV is the Leopard 2, and all support vehicles will be Leopard 2 variants (ARV & AEV), M113s, or trucks.


----------



## cphansen

It's unfortunate the CV90 family would be a good opportunity to standardize on using one common vehicle frame, as far as I can see the main difference between the variants is the selected turret. What would it be worth to an advance to contact to have indirect and direct fire support available even while the tubes and guns are on the move. The AMOS automatic mortar system looks like a very useful system


----------



## The Bread Guy

Sounds like a bit of a "back to the start" step here:


> .... Canada is concerned that respondent(s) of SOIQ W6508-10CC01/E may have been disadvantaged by SOIQ W6508-10CC01/D evaluation information, provided by Canada, in advance of the release of SOIQ W6508-10CC01/E.
> 
> It is Canada's intention to have a process offering maximum opportunity for suppliers to participate in this procurement in a fair environment. Therefore, *another qualification process is being offered to potential suppliers for the Close Combat Vehicle Project.*
> 
> This process will not cancel or supersede SOIQ W6508-10CC01/E.  The current CCV Pre-Qualified Bidders list posted on MERX since October 7, 2010 is still valid. These Pre-Qualified Bidders will not be required to resubmit response(s) for any vehicles that Canada has already qualified ....


Latest iteration of bid docs attached.


----------



## The Bread Guy

....with this about the MERX listing mentioned above:


> The multi-billion dollar plan to buy new armoured vehicles for the Canadian Forces has run into yet more problems, with the government this time going back to industry to look for more companies interested in bidding.
> 
> The purchase of the Close Combat Vehicle or CCV is a key equipment program launched by the Conservative government in the summer of 2009.
> 
> But in late December Public Works put out a new solicitation to industry, noting that it was worried some companies may have been disadvantaged by the evaluation information they were provided about the program.
> 
> No explanation was provided on what evaluation information was causing the issue.
> 
> It is the third time in less than a year the CCV program has stumbled and the purchase is now a year behind schedule ....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Likely because one of the major contenders failed the intial screening?


----------



## Haletown

There are a lot of reasons a Call for Proposals gets recalled or done over.

A common problem is too many of the "wills" get bumped up to "shalls" by eager-beaver technocrats  thinking they are doing the right thing but causing non-compliant responses.


----------



## McG

Haletown said:
			
		

> A common problem is too many of the "wills" get bumped up to "shalls" by ...


Those two terms mean the same thing, and recognized term that you are looking for is "mandatory selection criteria."


----------



## Haletown

MCG said:
			
		

> Those two terms mean the same thing, and recognized term that you are looking for is "mandatory selection criteria."




Not in contract language . . .  .  Shalls carry a higher degree of compliance.  That is why the first thing a company does when they get a Call for Proposal is to slag out all the shalls & wills into a word.doc table for your compliance matrix.

The shalls are dealt with first, then the wills.


----------



## dapaterson

Haletown said:
			
		

> Not in contract language . . .  .  Shalls carry a higher degree of compliance.  That is why the first thing a company does when they get a Call for Proposal is to slag out all the shalls & wills into a word.doc table for your compliance matrix.
> 
> The shalls are dealt with first, then the wills.



"Shalls" and "Wills" are both imperatives; it's the "Mays" where the grey zone lives.


----------



## a_majoor

Happened to stumble across some old books by Richard Simpkin (Antitank, and Human Factors in Mechanized Warfare, in case you are interested). He had some pretty forward looking ideas back in the early 1980's, which still have not been attempted AFAIK.

I was a bit amused by some of the more Technicolour stuff, like a rotating "pod" for the commander and gunner to move in synchronization with the weapons pod, and evidently the Russians are big fans, since they actually adopted a version of his ICV weapons layout (30mm cannon, 76mm low pressure cannon and a GPMG: compare that to a BMP 3). If an IFV or ICV _really_ needs that much punch, I'd go for a 105mm cannon mounted on a CV-CT turret myself (which is maybe why I'm not designing and building these things  ;D)

On a more sensible note, he also advocated fr a family of vehicles approach, but his version can be imagined as a Marder sized "pickup truck", with various modules that could be attached to the permanent structure in order to create an ICV, fire support vehicle, CP, SPAAG or SAM platform etc. Other innovative ideas include a "male" docking probe in the front of all vehicles and a corresponding "female" port in the back for rapid battlefield recovery, magazine carriage of all vehicle ammunition natures and a "robot arm" system on the fuel bowsers to assist in rapidly refuelling vehicles, even under NBCW conditions.

Anyway, these were some thoughts from a very original thinker. The reality is not quite what he would have expected (although he was quite concerned about all around protection form mines, guns. ATGMs and top attack weapons, MRAP type patrol vehicles would have pleased him, I think)
Read his stuff and compare his thinking with what we have today. Very interesting if you can get them.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Interesting, one of the things that came out of the run into Baghdad was the ability to refuel and rearm under fire. I remember messing around with a photoshop idea of a Styker with a flatdeck rear with protected moduler supply containers and jettisonable fuel pods. Possible equipped with a HIAB and small RWS for self defense. The idea is similar to the Stormer resupply vehicle.
I like the docking station concept, Murphy’s law says that it would be damaged. A simple version would look similar to a train coupling surrounded by guide plates.
I believe the Conqueror tank was the first to use a independent crew commander station, that was more or less a separate pod that rotated independent of the turret, so the TC could search for targets while the gunner was engaging the previously selected target. I looked briefly into one and if I recall the TC cupola was complete with it’s own turret basket.


----------



## a_majoor

I'm just going from memory now, but Simpkin's crew "pod" actually sat in the front compartment of the vehicle, beside the driver and behind the engine, while the gun pod was on the upper deck (behind the driver in the artist's impression). A large hatch in the sponson allowed the magazine to be inserted/ejected for the IFV version (and I am thinking there was provision for access from the troop compartment in case you needed to clear a stoppage of hand bomb the guns for some reason).

Simpkin's reasoning for the crew "pod" was informed by the Conqueror; crew commanders apparently got disoriented being pointed in different directions from the gun, with Simpkin's system the crew commander and gunner were looking in the same direction as the gun regardless of the vehicle and weapon orientation. An interesting mechanical solution, although I doubt the Veh techs and FCS techs would appreciate that. far better a low profile turret if you need to be up there with the guns, or some sort of RWS hunter/killer sight arrangement (or today a series of cameras feeding information to a screen in front of the crew...).

Interesting speculation, but any sensible short list would have to be existing systems with a relatively low cost; I would guess a version of the CV90
family (CV9035 MkIII for a full fledged IFV, or the CV90 Armadillo for a well protected ICV), but who knows what political factors will also come into play?


----------



## Kirkhill

dapaterson said:
			
		

> "Shalls" and "Wills" are both imperatives; it's the "Mays" where the grey zone lives.



I'm with DAP:

And just to expand the grammar lesson  ;D  -  Will and May or ... Shall and *Should* as in it "It shall contain a holder for a bottle of Brown Sauce.  It should contain a Coffee Pot."


----------



## Kirkhill

Thucydides said:
			
		

> ---Interesting speculation, but any sensible short list would have to be existing systems with a relatively low cost; I would guess a version of the CV90
> family (CV9035 MkIII for a full fledged IFV, or the CV90 Armadillo for a well protected ICV), but who knows what political factors will also come into play?



An interesting point about how big a gun SHOULD be on an IFV chassis.  One thing that came out of the MGS discussion was that the reduction in crew (33%) associated with adding an autoloader for 105s wasn't a reasonable trade off against the number of rounds carried. (18? IIRC).  

7.62, 12.7, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40mm (grenade and light artillery) all seem to work well because they carry a reasonable number of rounds and support autoloaders that don't have high MRBFs.

The 105 had both low numbers and a high MRBF (at least initially according to the "press").

Which leaves the "gap" between 40mm and 105mm to be usefully exploited.  This includes the 57 - 76 and 90 mm categories.

The 90 is essentially a Tank gun, like the 105 and 120.  A fairly big  and heavy round.

The 76 has found a home at sea, as has the 57mm.

The 57 (or 6 pounder as it was when introduced in WW2 as an infantry AT round) has always been a favourite of mine, as has the Israeli-Italian 60mm (a 57 in a necked down 76 shell?) resulting in the Hyper Velocity round.    

I still think that Otomelara's 60mm system had a lot to offer as a compromise.  It couldn't out range an MBT - but on the other hand American 25mms were taking out older Iraqi MBTs.


----------



## a_majoor

How well you design the system also impacts on the ability to carry kit (including rounds). The MGS only had provision for 18 rounds in a hard to access pedestal. The CV-CT 105mm turret is designed to "drop in" a LAV or similar AFV and also holds 18 or so rounds in the bustle, and if you clear out the rear compartment for a LAV DFSV or Cavalry vehicle, there is now room for 36 or more rounds of 105mm. The Striv 103 "S" tank could carry 50 rounds of 105mm ammunition inside an incredibly compact vehicle.

For any modern IFV/ICV there should be at least two weapons; an area effect weapon and a point target weapon. _How_ you deal with these two target sets is wide open, larger calibre weapons can use multiple ammunition types, or small calibre weapons can be supplemented by add on missile launchers, or other kit can be added or even bodged together (Russian troops reportedly lashed their AGS 30 grenade launchers to the turret roofs of BMP-1's to provide the sort of rapid suppressive fire the low velocity 76mm cannon was incapable of providing. The 30mm cannon on the BMP-2 provided the same capabilities built into the vehicle...).

While having a 105mm cannon might be exciting for the IFV commander and his crew, I think that sort of thing will draw the crew into using the IFV like a tank, with pretty bad results. (placing infantry in the tank, like removing the ammunition racks from the back of a Merkava and packing in a section, or having a four man "close protection team" in the back of a Centurio tank destroyer is a different proposition; they allow the crew commander to do his job without being disturbed by annoying people with RPG's). In various other threads it has been suggested that large quantities of ammunition are needed for shooting in the attack, which suggests a smaller calibre round is the best choice in order to maximize ammunition in a given volume.

Of course we are now laying out the parameters after the fact, instead we might end up with a CV90C-1 MkIII mounting the turrets from the LAVIII ("for commonality"),  engines built in a GM factory in Oshawa for "Industrial offset" and suspension parts built by Bombardier (for the usual reasons).


----------



## McG

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Of course we are now laying out the parameters after the fact, ...


Sadly, the whole of the CCV is going to be laid-out after the fact.  The employment concept is simply a one-for-one substitution off CCV where we would have used LAV III ISC, but (as of December) we still had not determined a force generation concept ... it makes one wonder how we decided on a quantity to buy when we still don't know how many we need.

Given the number of times this has derailed and the clear fact it will not be going to a BG in Afghanistan, maybe we can give-up the ghost that this is an urgent requirement.  We could then step-back and do the thorough analysis of our needs for a full family of vehicles in both the force employment and force generation roles - we won't be doing ourselves great favours with a permanent new micro fleet.

When we go out with the RFP, we could leave a greater time window such that potential bidding companies would have time for the engineering & systems integration of mature technologies that we want in our vehicle but which may not be in their MOTS platform.
We would then have the vehicle we need, with the variants we need (both to acheive operational effects and to sustain/support the fleet), and in the quantities that we need.


----------



## McG

Here is the latest on the CCV:


> *Peter MacKay back in hot seat with latest DND procurement bungle*
> John Ivison
> National Post
> 19 April 2012
> 
> Yet another defence procurement embarrassment is about to hit the Conservative government, which is already reeling from criticism of its handling of the F-35 purchase by the Auditor-General.
> 
> It is understood that the $2-billion competition to chose a supplier for up to 138 armoured infantry fighting vehicles may have to start all over again after the Department of Public Works intervened in the tender process.
> 
> ...
> 
> The $2-billion close combat vehicle project has highlighted the tension between National Defence and Public Works.
> 
> The new, medium-weight infantry support vehicle is intended to fill the gap between the LAV IIIs that were hit so often by improvised explosive devices in Afghanistan and the Leopard C2 tank.
> 
> Three bidders were chosen – French giant Nexter, General Dynamics Land Systems and BAE/Hagglunds – but sources suggest that all failed tests set by National Defence. A bidders’ conference was convened by DND to discuss price and technical modifications. However, the meeting was cancelled by the independent Fairness Monitor, which deemed it may have been unfair to bidders that did not make it onto the short-list and expose the government to lawsuits.
> 
> The process has now ground to a halt and Public Works Minister, Rona Ambrose, wants it to start over again, to avoid accusations of bid-rigging. National Defence is believed to prefer to modify the specifications and move forward with the existing bidders.
> 
> ...


http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/04/19/john-ivison-peter-mackays-defence-reign-could-end-with-latest-dnd-embarrassment/

Stand-by for more delays, or maybe the idea will just go away.


----------



## ArmyRick

Maybe we should get on board with US Army's latest project attempt http://www.army-technology.com/projects/ground-combat-vehicle-gcv

I have never agreed with public works picking our kit.


----------



## daftandbarmy

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Maybe we should get on board with US Army's latest project attempt http://www.army-technology.com/projects/ground-combat-vehicle-gcv
> 
> I have never agreed with public works picking our kit.



62.5 tons? Really?

That number stood out for me, likely as a result of my model building career (which likely explains why I married later in life).

Tiger I: Weight 56.9 tonnes or 62.72 tons


----------



## Colin Parkinson

That's a HPC, basically a MBT hull with space for a section of infantry and gear (hopefully) rather than turret. I understood this contract to be looking at vehicles more like the Boxer or CV-90


----------



## ArmyRick

Except the contract is being re-done by public works (A process I totally do not agree with). Since its from ground up and it will be a few years anyways, why not have Canada get on board with the Ground Combat Vehicle? 
-New Technology, new concept (CV90 will be around 20 years old by the time we finally select a CCV)
-It will create controversy (I am begining to think thats almost as much a pro as it a con!)
-Maybe we can get in on building some up here or parts of it up here in the North (that always pleases politicians)

Thoughts, ideas?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

If we do go down this route, you will want a more mobile and better protected vehicle than the LAV, otherwise you get all the problems and none of the advantages. Since these vehicles are meant to support tanks I see the armament being in the 25mm range with possibly some ATGM abillity (Javalin?) But the ability to carry a full section would be the most important aspect, with perhaps only a RWS on top. Sounds more like the Boxer than the CV-90 which is a IFV. personally I have a soft spot for the CV-90, but t's getting on as a design, which is not always a bad thing. 

I can see the LAV and it's succesors going places where it will not have tanks to support it, so I think at some point we will need a fire support version hopefully based on the same chassis.


----------



## McG

Colin P said:
			
		

> If we do go down this route, you will want a more mobile and better protected vehicle than the LAV ... the ability to carry a full section would be the most important aspect, with perhaps only a RWS on top.


We already have that vehicle in both the TLAV and the MTVL.


----------



## ArmyRick

I think I like the Ground Combat Vehicle. They could call it the M35, a rather fitting number if it creates contraversy!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MCG said:
			
		

> We already have that vehicle in both the TLAV and the MTVL.



As I recall their protection is actually less than the LAV from mines/ied and projectiles? the purpose of the CCV is to accompany tanks and I remember that anyone other than the tanks and ATGM's were to 'strip away" the APC's and IFV's from the oncoming hordes. Hence the reason the CCV would have to operate in a higher threat environment.


----------



## GnyHwy

I like this comment the most.  "National Defence is believed to prefer to modify the specifications and move forward with the existing bidders."

How the heck do you think the process works?  You ask for the world, and as they cannot produce, you negotiate the requirements. Do they expect us to reopen bids everytime we change a spec?  There are thousands of them.

As far as the role of the CCV?  It accompanies tanks for destruction of enemy positions.  

Think of an assault the same as taking down an old garage, you start with a sledgehammer (tanks and CCVs), but eventually have to use other tools to finish the job (all the LAV variants).


----------



## Kirkhill

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> .....
> 
> Do they expect us to reopen bids everytime we change a spec?  ---



Short Form? Based on my experience with government tenders?  Yes.

More hours for bureaucrats - more lunches - more factory visits.


----------



## dapaterson

Here's the problem:  We asked for the world.  Certain companies did not bid because they knew they did not meet the spec.  In other words, they were honest about their capabilities.

Now, we're asking for a less capable platform.  So, Company X that did not bid on the original spec may have a platform that they feel meets the revised spec.  Should we penalize them for not wasting our time the first time around with a platform that didn't meet the old spec?  "Sorry, you didn't lie about your capabilities the first time 'round, so we won't consider you now."


And why are PWGSC the bad guys here?  DND/CF wrote the impossible to achieve spec, or at least signed off on it.


----------



## McG

Colin P said:
			
		

> As I recall their (TLAV & MTVL] protection is actually less than the LAV from mines/ied and projectiles?


The CF has done a lot of survivability testing of vehicles since we started taking casualties.  The evidence does not support what many assumed they knew on differences between LAV and the current TLAV.


----------



## Kirkhill

And if DND wrote a "possible" spec they would be accused of tailoring the spec to fit a particular beast.

Every project, every piece of kit, every flaming boot in the system is the sum total of a multitude of compromises.
Every engineer involved in all of the above comes to an understanding with his marketing department, his accountants, his clients, his lawyers of what the considered sum total of compromises is.  They then produce a piece of kit, put it on the market and see if there are any takers.

When you, the consumer, review the market then you might decide that you want the best of Ferrari's compromises, the best of Rhinemetall's compromises and the best of Bombardier's compromises.  But nobody makes a flying 60 tonne tank that goes 200 mph.

So instead you leave the specs open.

Thus you end up with the TAPV project with vehicles being offered from 7 tonnes (Nexter-Withdrawn) to 29 tonnes (Force Protection Truck).

Close the specs to the workable compromise - tailoring
Open the specs to all competitors - unworkable competition.

WRT the CCV - howcum Norway can decide to add 43 CV9035s and upgrade the rest of their fleet without this aggro?

I don't suppose I should expect anything else from a system where soldiers are getting exemptions for their own boots, load carrying gear and even the furniture and gizmos on their rifles.

Apparently even the simplest stuff is impossible.  If you can't buy a good pair of $200 boots how can you be expected to buy a $3,000,000 CCV or a $100,000,000 aircraft or a (Gawdelpus) $1,000,000,000 boat.

'Pologies for the rant.  Not really directed at anyone.  I just came out of the civvy world version of this same discussion,  and those dogs can't be kicked.

Cheers, Chris.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Thanks MCG that's very interesting, I know the details are OPSEC, but is the TLAV equipped with proper seating for crew and passengers in regards to Mine blast injuries?


----------



## JorgSlice

Why not something like the RG-31 or MRAP? Slap on the 76mm potato launcher like the ol' cat Cougar AVGP or even the 25mm pom-pom that the current LAV-III uses and you have yourself a mine protected vehicle capable of transporting a section and can blow stuff up! (and, it doesn't weigh as much as a Leopard MBT either!)


----------



## OldSolduer

I am not a procurement guy, a design engineer  or anything like that. For soldiers, in a vehicle they want:

Protection - includes a weapon of some sort to shoot back
Power - to move it quickly. If it isn't quick its dead.
Simplicity of use and maintenance
And for heaven sake a ramp vice a tailgate. Knees and ankles get sore.

Can we not get this done?


----------



## a_majoor

I think Kirkhill is closest to the answer (at least the answer to "why?"). People like myself would probably catalogue shop by reading Jane's Defense Quarterly, maybe go to AUSA to kick a few tires (metaphorically) and if a real interest exsisted, maybe get a test drive on a few exercises to see if the machine matches the press releases.

My own mental "specs" for the desired kit are done in fairly broad strokes, and I am always open for kit bashing, especially home grown upgrades that can be rapidly applied to the existing kit (bolted on armour, or a new radio system etc.). This should be simplicity itself; in 
WWII all parties were able to get new generations of kit in service (and in large numbers) using pens and paper for both the design and procurement. Consider it now takes more than 10 years to field a new rucksack, the CF-35 is the end result of a program which began in the 1980's and the Big Honking Ship was identified as a real need at least a decade ago (probably longer) yet only exists as a series of PowerPoint slides....

Far too many people have their fingers in the pie, and this creates a series of perverse incentives to provide "input" to make your own role bigger, more consultation, more redesign etc. By the time the CCV comes into service, it may already be obsolete due to the rapid changes in military technology.

/rant


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Colin P said:
			
		

> Thanks MCG that's very interesting, I know the details are OPSEC, but is the TLAV equipped with proper seating for crew and passengers in regards to Mine blast injuries?



When I did trials with them years ago they still had those bench seats in the rear.....things might have changed since then......


----------



## GnyHwy

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And why are PWGSC the bad guys here?  DND/CF wrote the impossible to achieve spec, or at least signed off on it.



I agree, but we got to start somewhere, and it should be a high standard.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Close the specs to the workable compromise - tailoring
> Open the specs to all competitors - unworkable competition.



Very true.



			
				JorgSlice said:
			
		

> Why not something like the RG-31 or MRAP? Slap on the 76mm potato launcher like the ol' cat Cougar AVGP or even the 25mm pom-pom that the current LAV-III uses and you have yourself a mine protected vehicle capable of transporting a section and can blow stuff up! (and, it doesn't weigh as much as a Leopard MBT either!)



Sorry, but none of those vehicles could carry a tanks laundry and keep up.  As well, we already have 25mm; we need something in between 25mm and 120mm.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> My own mental "specs" for the desired kit are done in fairly broad strokes, and I am always open for kit bashing, especially home grown upgrades that can be rapidly applied to the existing kit (bolted on armour, or a new radio system etc.).



Bolt on armour is a good thing in my mind.  Hard steel for the superstructure and bolt on all the fancy stuff.  It leaves room for upgrades in the future and aids in speedy repair.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> This should be simplicity itself; in WWII all parties were able to get new generations of kit in service (and in large numbers) using pens and paper for both the design and procurement.



I agree, but back then the military was the designers and the engineers, and probably dictated in most cases who was going to build it.  That is no longer the case; hence why we can't get anything done.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Far too many people have their fingers in the pie, and this creates a series of perverse incentives to provide "input" to make your own role bigger, more consultation, more redesign etc. By the time the CCV comes into service, it may already be obsolete due to the rapid changes in military technology.



Unfortunately, you are likely correct.  The 100% isn't going to happen, and someone is going to take the lumps; hopefully it isn't the troops using whatever machine we decide on.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Luckily, Canada _invented _ the APC so we should get this right first time, right?  ;D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_(armoured_personnel_carrier)


----------



## a_majoor

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Luckily, Canada _invented _ the APC so we should get this right first time, right?  ;D
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_(armoured_personnel_carrier)



But we're also out of practice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobcat_(armoured_personnel_carrier)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> I agree, but we got to start somewhere, and it should be a high standard.
> 
> Very true.
> 
> Sorry, but none of those vehicles could carry a tanks laundry and keep up.  As well, we already have 25mm; we need something in between 25mm and 120mm.



For a CCV accompanying tanks, why do you need something bigger than 25mm, even the Boxer is not going that route. Bigger gun means less internal volume which means less troops and gear. 25mm backing up the 120mm with some ATGM support as well  is a good combo for fighting any conventional threat. I agree the LAV will need something with a larger gun than 25mm to back them up. If we do peacekeeping in the future will there be a politcal will to deploy tanks? It seems from my reading even for most historical UN deployments we brought heavier weapons than the UN wanted, which generally turned out to be a good idea.


----------



## Kalatzi

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Luckily, Canada _invented _ the APC so we should get this right first time, right?  ;D
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_(armoured_personnel_carrier)



We played a big role, but invent? - No ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_personnel_carrier


----------



## GnyHwy

Colin P said:
			
		

> For a CCV accompanying tanks, why do you need something bigger than 25mm, even the Boxer is not going that route. Bigger gun means less internal volume which means less troops and gear. 25mm backing up the 120mm with some ATGM support as well  is a good combo for fighting any conventional threat. I agree the LAV will need something with a larger gun than 25mm to back them up. If we do peacekeeping in the future will there be a politcal will to deploy tanks? It seems from my reading even for most historical UN deployments we brought heavier weapons than the UN wanted, which generally turned out to be a good idea.



You could make an argument for the 25mm, but the 25mm is limited to ammunition types, adn we already have those; even going up to a 30mm opens up options.  I am going to avoid the wheel vs. track debate which I am sure has been done to death on other threads.  Going larger opens up all kinds of possibilities.  As far as troops and gear you are right, we need the room for that, which is why this vehicle will likely be a bit of a monster.  ATGMs are fine, but by pure definition they are meant for antitank, are more suited for defence or delay, and lack offensive capability.  I am dismissing the need for ATGMs because we should have them; I am saying that they don't necessarily belong on the CCV.  I believe the intent to be having a highly mobile and hard hitting force, which is why we're doing it relatively small numbers.  

The UN role is whole nether nut to crack, and falls about 15 levels above most of our pay grades, but from what I understand, the difference of role between Peacekeeping (if it exists anymore), Peacebuilding and Peacemaking, coupled with the potential threat will dictate what we bring to the show.  For pure peacekeeping, all we really need for vehicles is big trucks and maybe some TAPV type vehicles.  Here is short read that I found that speaks to the ambiguity. http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection-R/LoPBdP/EB-e/prb0406-e.pdf


----------



## Kirkhill

How about strapping on a 7-pack of APKWS 70mm rocket/missiles (or maybe two - one on each side)? Take a look at the range of warheads, the weight of fire, the speed of response, the physical range (out to 8 km) as well as the ability to supply both precision fire and area support.

Consider the ability of adjacent, but dispersed, Troops, to cover each other during movements.  Both a Lt Anti armour weapon, a bunker buster and an artillery system capable of dispensing HE, Flechettes, WP, Smk and Ill.

It is a takeaway from the late, unlamented, overburdened and top-heavy MMEV that would be doable.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> You could make an argument for the 25mm, but the 25mm is limited to ammunition types, adn we already have those; even going up to a 30mm opens up options.  I am going to avoid the wheel vs. track debate which I am sure has been done to death on other threads.  Going larger opens up all kinds of possibilities.  As far as troops and gear you are right, we need the room for that, which is why this vehicle will likely be a bit of a monster.  ATGMs are fine, but by pure definition they are meant for antitank, are more suited for defence or delay, and lack offensive capability.  I am dismissing the need for ATGMs because we should have them; I am saying that they don't necessarily belong on the CCV.  I believe the intent to be having a highly mobile and hard hitting force, which is why we're doing it relatively small numbers.
> 
> The UN role is whole nether nut to crack, and falls about 15 levels above most of our pay grades, but from what I understand, the difference of role between Peacekeeping (if it exists anymore), Peacebuilding and Peacemaking, coupled with the potential threat will dictate what we bring to the show.  For pure peacekeeping, all we really need for vehicles is big trucks and maybe some TAPV type vehicles.  Here is short read that I found that speaks to the ambiguity. http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection-R/LoPBdP/EB-e/prb0406-e.pdf



In a perfect world I would want a CCV with a 40mm in a manned turret and 8 fully equipped soldiers plus a 2 man crew and protection levels against projectiles and mines much greater than the LAV, oh yea and all within a 30 ton limit..... 8)

In my mind the CCV does not deploy without tanks, so the gun needs to fill a role that the 120mm can not do well. As I recall the 25mm was able to penetrate the side of a Iraq T-72, which means it can harm frontally most light armoured vehicles.
ATGM would similar to Javelin I believe the Boxer may have a post to accept this missile? (If not I am sure someone will be along shortly to correct me) The Tanks need infantry to protect them, so for me the ability to carry infantry takes precedence over the gun.


----------



## GnyHwy

Colin P said:
			
		

> In a perfect world I would want a CCV with a 40mm in a manned turret and 8 fully equipped soldiers plus a 2 man crew and protection levels against projectiles and mines much greater than the LAV, oh yea and all within a 30 ton limit..... 8)



I think that is doable, but instead of stating what size calibre you want, try stating what effect you want on the other end.


----------



## OldSolduer

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> I think that is doable, but instead of stating what size calibre you want, try stating what effect you want on the other end.



Kill people that want to kill you? Because as an infantryman, the less bad folks around when we dismount, the better.


----------



## Journeyman

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Kill people that want to kill you?


Jim, Jim, Jim....... :not-again:   You can't say that on an NDHQ PowerPoint.  

We want to influence the enemy's ability to self-actualize.   :nod:




			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> .....what types of vehicles?  How many, because that determines how much ammo do we need it to carry?


  Nature/number of ammo?  _~meh~_  The Loggies will magically make that happen.


Edit: OK, _now _ I'm going back to reading.


----------



## dapaterson

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Kill people that want to kill you? Because as an infantryman, the less bad folks around when we dismount, the better.



Kill people?  So it's an AP role for the armament?  Or do we want to take out vehicles as well?  If so, what types of vehicles?  How many, because that determines how much ammo do we need it to carry?


----------



## ArmyRick

What about the CTA 40mm being implemented on the British warrior upgrades.

It's effects on targets include different ammo types (HE, APFSDS 2 main types)

Its volume is reduced compared to Bofors 40mm. 

40mm projectiles are pretty deadly. I see CCV taking on most combat tasks/missions independant *except* for requirements to defeat a heavily defended enemy (Properly prepared position of enenmy or re-enforced buildings) or an armoured threat, then they will need MBT and form a combat team.


----------



## OldSolduer

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Jim, Jim, Jim....... :not-again:   You can't say that on an NDHQ PowerPoint.
> 
> We want to influence the enemy's ability to self-actualize.   :nod:
> 
> Nature/number of ammo?  _~meh~_  The Loggies will magically make that happen.
> 
> 
> Edit: OK, _now _ I'm going back to reading.



My apologies for offending your sensibilites.....whatever ....



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Kill people?  So it's an AP role for the armament?  Or do we want to take out vehicles as well?  If so, what types of vehicles?  How many, because that determines how much ammo do we need it to carry?



As long as it "self actualizes" bad folk that aim to kill or maim our guys. I know its simplistic, but I r an infuntree guy...short words, small sentences please..... :soldier:


----------



## a_majoor

Going at it a bit sideways, back in the 80's the Swedish STRV 2000 project came up with a tank carrying a 140mm canon firing APDSFS against tanks and a coaxial 40mm canon for everything else. A 40mm projectile is large enough to carry a useful HE load, an APDSFS dart for light armour and today  programmable munitions like AHEAD for use against infantry or air targets (helicopters or UAV's). While the tank never came to fruition, the CV9040 is the Swedish IFV, which suggests the analysis for the STRV 2000 is still valid today.

The combination of 120mm tank guns against hard targets like tanks and prepared fortifications and 40mm CCV cannon against everything else (with dismounted infantry to go after everything that got missed the first time) seems to be a good combination. The downside (as noted) is there won't be as many rounds of 40mm in a CCV carrying a 40mm (especially if you have a dual feed cannon and two natures of ammunition), but this might be mitigated by using telescoped rounds like the CTWS 40 cannon project. Good fire control and training to make each round count works wonders as well.

For Kirkhill, while the rockets would be useful, perhaps a separate artillery version carrying rocket pods (like the MLRS) would be more useful, along with a version carrying a mortar. Actually an entire family of vehicles could/should be developed on the CCV chassis, (Engineer, Artillery, CP, Amb, ATGM, SPAAG, etc.) but we all know where that idea will go...


----------



## The Bread Guy

More of the latest from one of the Sunday AM news shows:


> A $2-billion procurement contract for about 100 new Close Combat Vehicles for the military has been restarted after the latest bids didn't meet technical requirements, a Conservative MP says.
> 
> The decision prompted opposition parties to accuse the government and defence bureaucrats of bungling yet another large procurement contract for the military, citing the recent F-35 fighter jet controversy.
> 
> B.C. Tory MP Andrew Saxton, a member of the public accounts committee, told CTV Question Period Sunday none of the vehicles "met the standard requirements to do the job."
> 
> Companies bidding on the contract were told Friday they would have to resubmit their proposals under new criteria.
> 
> It's the second time in less than a year the proposed vehicles were rejected by the Department of National Defence.
> 
> NDP defence critic Jack Harris said it's another example of government incompetence when it comes to large-scale purchases for the armed forces.
> 
> "They say they're going to buy an off-the-shelf piece of equipment because it's cheaper and therefore they can get it approved, and then they go and look at them and decide they want to actually modify things," he told Question Period from St. John's, Nfld.
> 
> "The auditor general previously told them this is wrong, they didn't follow their own rules and the same thing has happened here," he said Sunday.
> 
> The Close Combat Vehicle (CCV) program was announced in 2009. The military wants to purchase about 108 of the CCVs, with an option to buy an additional 30, and use them to accompany Leopard tanks in future combat missions.
> 
> Saxton said the new round of bidding proves the government's procurement system is working.
> 
> "That's what we have to do to make sure we get the right equipment for our men and women in uniform and to make sure the process remains open and fair," he said.
> 
> He denied there was any attempt at bid-rigging in the DND and said again the vehicles didn't meet the requirements of the army ....


CTV.ca, 29 Apr 12


----------



## McG

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> What about the CTA 40mm being implemented on the British warrior upgrades.


... and if CCV does go with 40 mm cannons, lets ensure they can do air-burst munitions so that the CCV Coy can divest itself of Pl level CASW.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

This thread is starting to sound vaguely reminiscent of the Pentagon Wars. :warstory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon_Wars


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Ah yes, the it will do everything vehicle!



> Col. Robert Laurel Smith: In summation, what you have before you is...
> Sgt. Fanning: A troop transport that can't carry troops, a reconnaissance vehicle that's too conspicuous to do reconnaissance...
> Lt. Colonel James Burton: And a quasi-tank that has less armor than a snow-blower, but carries enough ammo to take out half of D.C. THIS is what we're building?


----------



## GnyHwy

recceguy said:
			
		

> This thread is starting to sound vaguely reminiscent of the Pentagon Wars. :warstory:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon_Wars



Awesome movie.  I think the CCV needs "portholes so the fellas can stick their guns out and shoot people".


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Scope Creep - Project Management 

 ;D


----------



## GnyHwy

Here are some project management maxims.

1. No major project is ever installed on time, within budget, or with the same
staff that started it. Yours will not be the first.

2. Projects progress quickly until they are 90% complete, and remain at 90%
forever.

3. Fuzzy project objectives are good: they avoid the embarrassment of
estimating corresponding costs.

4. When things are going well, something will go wrong.
               - When things cannot get worse, they will.
               - When things seem to be going well, you are overlooking something.

5. If project content is allowed to change freely, then the rate of change will
exceed the rate of progress.

6. No system is ever fully debugged. Attempts to debug only introduce new and
harder to find faults

7. A carelessly planned project will take three times longer to complete than
expected.
               - A well planned project only takes twice as long.

8. Project teams detest progress reporting because it vividly manifests their lack
of progress.


----------



## Kirkhill

From National Defense Magazine  - 

Yanks test driving Bradley, Stryker, Narmer and CV90 at White Sands with Nexter's VBCI and the Puma to follow.

Interesting write up on the project expectations and how procurement might be handled.


----------



## The Bread Guy

The latest (highlighted) from a newly-posted CF Backgrounder:





> The Close Combat Vehicle (CCV) will provide the Canadian Forces with a medium-weight armoured vehicle that is both very well protected and tactically (off-road) mobile.
> 
> Unlike the other vehicles in the Family of Land Combat Vehicles, the CCV is not replacing a vehicle in the current Canadian Forces fleet.  The CCV’s fundamental purpose is to bridge the gap between the current light (5-25 tonnes) and heavy armoured (45 tonnes +) vehicle fleets by providing the Canadian Army with an operational capability that can predominantly operate with the Main Battle Tanks and the other Canadian Forces armoured vehicles within a high-threat environment.
> 
> This vehicle’s protection and enhanced mobility and firepower will improve our troops’ survivability and combat effectiveness in executing the Canada First Defence Strategy (CFDS) missions throughout the full spectrum of conflicts
> 
> The CCV project will involve the procurement of 108 CCV, to include Infantry Fighting Vehicle, Forward Observation Officer, Engineer Reconnaissance, and Tactical Command configurations.  The project scope also includes the option to procure up to 30 additional vehicles, as well as the development and implementation of an in-service support contract.
> 
> *Following the conclusion of a Solicitation of Interest and Qualification (SOIQ), a Request for Proposals (RFP) was released to the Pre-Qualified Bidders. There were no technically compliant bids received in response to the original RFP. A second RFP was issued to the five Pre-Qualified Bidders in April 2012 and will close in August 2012. Contract award is expected in 2013.*
> 
> The Government of Canada’s Industrial and Regional Benefits policy applies to this project, meaning that the winning company must generate economic activity in Canada, dollar for dollar equal to the contract value.


Nothing recent on MERX, but attached find an "Amended Pre-Qualified Bidders List for CLOSE COMBAT VEHICLE (CCV) Project" as of April 2011.


----------



## FoverF

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Canada-Looks-to-Upgrade-Its-Armor-in-Afghanistan-05190/#tactical-armored-patrol-vehicle


From above link:



> The first time, all contenders were reportedly eliminated from the Canadian competition for not meeting the armor requirements. That’s an odd outcome when a defense department is supposedly aiming its RFP at military-off-the-shelf vehicles.



"We want an existing platform that outperforms all existing platforms."


----------



## seawolf

I really like this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=dkvPdSITdH4&NR=1


----------



## cupper

seawolf said:
			
		

> I really like this guy:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=dkvPdSITdH4&NR=1



The first part reminded me of a wildlife documentary. 

Where can I get one of these?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I wonder if the casing ejection system can be counted as a "Close in defense system"?


----------



## The Bread Guy

.... now online with a tiny change from the last one (change highlighted):  





> .... Following the conclusion of a Solicitation of Interest and Qualification (SOIQ), a Request for Proposals (RFP) was released to the Pre-Qualified Bidders. There were no technically compliant bids received in response to the original RFP. A second RFP, issued to the five Pre-Qualified Bidders in April 2012, *closed in early September 2012*. Contract award is expected in 2013 ....


Latest version also attached if link doesn't work for you.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I see one of the identified bids is the French 8x8 APC/IFV. Seriously why even bother with this if you are going wheeled? Just buy another batch of LAV's and be done with it. If it's going to follow the Leopards it needs tracks, end of story.


----------



## Infanteer

Yeah, that`s a question I`ve never seen sufficiently answered....


----------



## a_majoor

Here is a tidbit from the CASR site. It seems that the Army did not define what they wanted very closely, hence we are now looking at one tracked and two wheeled offerings. Given time and money issues, the Piranha 5 IFV idea _ might_ get in through the side door as some sort of upgunned LAV-H variant (which would make sense if the LAV fleet was to finally standardize on one version of the LAV hull at least...). Adding 108 vehicles to an existing fleet has certain logistics benefits as well.

http://www.casr.ca/ft-ccv-program-reset.htm



> *CCV Redux –  'Reset' for the Canadian Army's Close Combat Vehicle*
> 
> Stephen Priestley, CASR Researcher Update 05 Sept 2012: After the reset, bids are again being accepted for the revised CCV RFP.
> 
> The Close Combat Vehicle project is to be 'reset'. That is what procurement officers do when their egg-juggling act goes awry. Now they need to make decisions that they failed to make before and reverse the choices they did make. The only problem is that industry has been footing the bill over the years for comparative testing and 'Canadianizing' (or , in some cases, prototyping). And being out of pocket, it's hard to imagine that industry will be best pleased by further wobbles in an already wonky procurement program  that promises a limited return.
> 
> Like all modern defence agencies,  DND is trapped  by procurement trends and  trade treaties. When the DND requirements are too closely tailored,  planners run the risk of accusations of either using those specs to 'single-source' a rigged competition or simply not examining all of
> the options. The latter appeals to the bureaucratic mind set but is a tar-pit for decision-makers.
> 
> What the  CCV Project Management Office requested  from industry was defined mainly by weight (30-45t) and high levels of protection. The rest were primarily automotive standards. That left the door open for wheeled as well as tracked armoured vehicles. It has also forced industry to choose between submitting a wheeled or tracked candidate for the CCV contest.
> 
> Nexter was first to submit a wheeled vehicle – the 8-wheeled VBCI. But Nexter had no choice since it no longer produces a tracked IFV.[1] General Dynamics' situation was different. They produce both a tracked IFV (the Austrian-Spanish ASCOD) and wheeled (the Swiss Piranha 5 IFV). General Dynamics chose to withhold ASCOD and submit their Piranha 5 IFV. Looked at one way, that  'opening up' of the CCV contest has actually limited the candidate choices.
> 
> A CCV contest between tracked contenders might have been interesting. Both ASCOD and the Swedish CV90 series are proven vehicles and currently in production. Since the German's new SPz Puma was never submitted for CCV, the third possibility was rebuilt ex-Bundeswehr SPz Marders. But the 'used' Marder CCV option never got a look in ... which is highly ironic.
> 
> Rheinmetall proposed an extensively redesigned Marder in the form of their IFV/CCV. With its massive up-armouring and 30mm Lance turret,  the IFV/CCV had been modified out of all recognition. Indeed, the IFV/CCV mods were far more extensive than the changes applied to CF modernized  Leopard 2A4/2A4M CANs. So, by DND logic, moderately upgraded German tanks are a good thing while extensively-upgraded IFVs are clearly inadequate in some way.
> 
> Military planners usually argue that leaving design decisions to industry can result in better than anticipated outcomes. A cynic might ask whether that is likely to occur with a potential order for 108 vehicles. The IFV/CCV suggests that, in straightened economic times, industry may just be hungry enough to make it happen.  Likely Rheinmetall was banking on the small numbers of CCV being ordered making heavily-rebuilt Marders a more attractive proposition.
> 
> This is not, by the way, a recommendation of  Rheinmetall's  IFV/CCV or other rebuilt Marder concepts. Rather it is meant to point out the DND's inconsistancy in recoiling in horror at the idea of rebuilt IFVs bought to accompany rebuilt tanks. It's also to emphasize the importance of timing. The perfect is the enemy of the good ... but so is dithering. DND was offered rebuilt Swedish Army CV9040s in the past as well.  Had  DND nibbled, their CCV concept might have been proven in Kandahar. [2]  Instead,  CCV PMO is just far enough along to be embarassing.
> 
> Returning to the current state of affairs rather than 'might-have-beens', whither  Rheinmetall? To some degree, Rheinmetall's IFV/CCV could  be seen as a mere conveyance for their Lance MTS turret. In the end, Rheinmetall thought it more prudent to throw their lot in with General Dynamics. GDLSC's Piranha 5 IFV would carry a  Lance turret armed  with Rheinmetall 30mm gun and Rheinmetall would submit no hull at all. Again, DND's choices for CCV were reduced.
> 
> As with dieters near candy shops, the best option for those with decision-making disorders is to reduce the options. So, how could DND and the CCV PMO have simplified their own lives?
> 
> Specifying the CCV weight-range was wise since it eliminated any vehicles in the 'Heavy APC' category (which could most easily carry the weight of armour protection CCV demanded ). [3] Specifying a high mobility was essential since the raison d'être for CCV is accompanying the CF Leopard 2 tanks. In other words, DND wanted a reliable, well-protected IFV. Until recently, that meant a tracked vehicle. That changed when the French Army accepted Nexter's wheeled VBCI to accompany Leclerc tanks (also made by Nexter). So why was DND caught off guard?
> 
> Failing to dictate a specific type of running gear meant that CCV devolved into the old debate of  'tracks versus wheels'. Makers of  wheeled IFVs must argue that  just because the CF LAV IIIs had some mobility 'issues' in Afghanistan does not mean that their wheeled MAV cannot keep up with the tanks. Makers of  tracked  IFVs  must argue that just  because such vehicles are, by nature, closer to the ground, does not mean that they cannot be adequately protected from IEDs. This debate fascinates mil-tech nerds but CCV Project Management Office should have come down on one side or the other before ever issuing the CCV Request for Proposals.
> 
> A lesser area of confusion is in main armament. DND specified no calibre let alone a preferred weapon type. Their uncertainty isn't all that surprising. At present, none of the NATO armies can seem to agree on the most desirable calibre for IFV armaments. The difference is that each NATO army specified a chosen calibre nonetheless.  And the operative word  there is 'chose'.
> 
> The CCV PMO had four questions to ask itself:
> • Does an IFV accompanying tanks armed with 120mm cannons need a medium-calibre gun?
> • If yes, has the CF's in-service 25mm rounds performed adequately in combat?
> • If yes, has the CF's in-service M242 auto-cannon performed adequately in combat?
> • If yes, has the CF's in-service 2-man Delco LAV-25 turret performed adequately in combat?
> 
> There are, of course, sub-questions and qualifiers to go along with those four questions. For the first question, the tanks may not require a medium-calibre back-up but troops dismounting from the CCV might. The remaining questions are all tied in with the armament choice made for the LAV-UP program. When CCV was launched, no such choice had been made. Now it has – LAV-UPs will retain their 25mm M242 in an improved Delco turret. Either that decision should have been made sooner  or  the chosen CCV armament calibre should have dictated armament for LAV-UP. Instead, the CCV PMO threw the entire main armament choices over to industry.
> 
> Nexter hedged its bets, submitting both a VCBI-25  (using the current 25mm round, albeit with a different cannon model) and a VCBI-30 with 30mm Bushmaster II (an enlarged version of the in-service M242 'chain-gun'). All other competitors went with guns bigger than 25mm –  30mm for the GDLSC Piranha 5 IFV and withdrawn ARTEC Boxer  (as well as the unsubmitted  SPz Puma, IFV/CCV, and ASCOD), and 35mm Bushmaster III  for  BAE Hägglunds'  CV9035 MkIII.
> 
> Interestingly, all of the current CCV candidates feature manned turrets. In the midst of  all this, Defence Research and Development Canada did a bunch of tests on vehicle centres of gravity to determine the 'pros and cons' of remotely-operated turrets for medium-calibre guns. Again, all very interesting, but hadn't the CF's Kandahar experience shown that heads-up situational awareness was paramount in assymetrical warfare?  If yes, any C/G concerns are surely moot.
> 
> As it sits, DND has two wheeled candidates and a single tracked candidate to consider for its CCV contest. It would be sensible if the CCV PMO had concluded that armament commonality with LAV-UP was important. If it did, at present,  DND could only choose the VCBI-25. On the other hand,  if the CCV PMO has decided  that tracks  (or equivalent mobility)  are essential, it could only choose the CV9035 MkIII. In the current procurement climate, neither choice would be acceptable – open as they'd be to claims of contract rigging. This late in the day, any major changes to the CCV requirement demands a program 'reset'. It's a drastic step. Having dodged key decisions this long, the CCV PMO doesn't fancy the resulting options. But a decision has now been made. Apparently, the CCV PMO has decided to postpone further decision-making.
> 
> [1]  IFV stands for 'Infantry Fighting Vehicle', a term from the Cold War.  The original concept was that infantry would fight from inside their IFVs before dismounting has been abandoned. Modern IFVs have begun to eclipse armoured personnel carriers. By comparison, the IFV may carry fewer dismounts than an APC but those troops are supported by heavier gun armament.
> 
> [2] CASR has commented on used CV9040s before. One was a CV9040 lease/purchase option, another was CV9040 'interim' CCVs and their possible upgrades (also exploring RWS options).
> 
> [3] Heavy APCs tend to be tank hulls converted  to carry infantry. DND toyed with the HAPC concept as the Heavy Infantry Assault Vehicle but the HIAV seems to have been abandoned.


----------



## a_majoor

Small side excursion; Rheinmetall Infantry Fighting Vehicle Close Combat Vehicle (IFV CCV).

Essentially a totally rebuilt Marder, it might have been a contender given the small number we wanted, but the company did not offer this. Not sure I like the "shot trap" under the turret, but otherwise this seems to be a well thought out "modern" IFV:


----------



## OldSolduer

Colin P said:
			
		

> I see one of the identified bids is the French 8x8 APC/IFV. Seriously why even bother with this if you are going wheeled? Just buy another batch of LAV's and be done with it. If it's going to follow the Leopards *it needs tracks*, end of story.



I agree and it should share some common parts with the tanks.


----------



## Ostrozac

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I agree and it should share some common parts with the tanks.



That's only going to happen if we were to make a Heavy APC out of Leopard 2 hulls. This is probably possible, we could wave enough cash in front of Greece for them to put a hundred Leopard 2s on a cargo ship and send them to Montreal, or buy more from the Dutch, but there has never been an HAPC based on the Leopard 2, so coming up with the design would have to be a made in Canada thing, and therefore expensive. 

I suppose the CV90 is the front-runner, but the whole CCV project makes limited sense to me. We probably don't need another medium-sized IFV, but if we do, shouldn't it have anti-tank missile capability?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The new German "light" general duty APC share parts with the Leo 1


----------



## Matt_Fisher

Colin P said:
			
		

> The new German "light" general duty APC share parts with the Leo 1



References?  Pics?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

_"(..) FFG Flensburger Fahrzeugbau Gesellschaft mbH has presented its new armoured multi mission vehicle, currently named under the working title “G5”. The G5 is a tracked 25 tons vehicle, featuring an unrivalled combination of outstanding protection, high performance, huge payload and an inner volume, setting new standards in military markets. Designed for missions worldwide, FFG laid a special focus on the comprehensive multi role capability: The G5 consists of a standardised basic vehicle and different mission modules to be adapted to the vehicle according to each individual mission. These modules can be exchanged very easily, thus giving the customer an enormous flexibility in the deployment of the G5 while reducing costs to an absolute minimum.

The G5 features rubber tracks from Soucy and a 560 Hp high density powerpack. It can reach speeds up to 72 km/h with a range of 600 km. The internal volume is 14.5 cubic meters with a payload of up to 6.5 tons. It can transport up to 12 soldiers (...)." _ 

http://www.ffg-flensburg.de/index.php?id=243&L=1


----------



## Haletown

another view . . .   kinda  113 like.

http://in.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=416218496&o=int&prev=sub&p=4


----------



## Kirkhill

More G5 pics















Thanks for the heads up on this one Colin.

Military Photos Link


----------



## Kat Stevens

A tracked personnel carrier??  Heretic, witch, unbeliever!!  Stone him!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It has the redeeming qualities of a M113, basically a large armoured box. The drivers would be happy in a typical Shilo snow storm, not having to stick their heads out so much. Not sexy but practical.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

Thanks for the pics, but I don't see any technical data where it states that it shares components with the Leopard 1.

Besides that, I believe the spirit of the question discussed was whether there was an IFV, not an APC that's built of a Leopard 2 (or 1) chassis which at this point in time, there doesn't seem to be.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

_ The G5 is powered by a turbocharged diesel engine, developing 560 hp. Engine is mounted at the front. Vehicle uses some suspension components of the Leopard 1 main battle tank. This armored personnel carrier is not amphibious_

http://www.military-today.com/apc/g5.htm


----------



## Infanteer

Pretty bone standard - probably what we need.  I still believe that a tracked IFV should be in the 60 ton catagory - we're just wasting time with 20 tons on a track....


----------



## Old Sweat

Can anybody explain the reasoning behind adopting/developing lighter APCs such as the M113, FV 432 and the Bobcat as battle taxis in the post war period? The APCs used in 21st Army Group were adapted tank hulls - the defrocked Priest was a gunless SP adapted from the Sherman and the later ones were turretless Ram tanks. What caused the Western, or at least the ABC armies, to go for lighter option instead of an IFV?


----------



## Infanteer

That's a good question - likely worthy of investigation.

The Israelis moved away from that concept after they found out that APCs accompanying tanks meant dead APCs - the Namer was developed because existing designs did not possess the protection to conduct the assault with tanks.  I remain convinced that it is the proper concept for a "CCV".


----------



## McG

Early purpose built APCs (M59 and M75) were not that much lighter than war era Allies medium tanks - especially if one accounts for the elimination of the turret.  The big weight loss for APCs came when the M113 was designed to be amphibious.  A look at the British FV 430 series (which is not amphibious) shows a vehicle only slightly lighter than post war APCs.


----------



## Old Sweat

MCG said:
			
		

> Early purpose built APCs (M59 and M75) were not that much lighter than war era Allies medium tanks - especially if one accounts for the elimination of the turret.  The big weight loss for APCs came when the M113 was designed to be amphibious.  A look at the British FV 430 series (which is not amphibious) shows a vehicle only slightly lighter than post war APCs.



True, but these APCs were lightly armoured. The M75 armour varied from 25mm to 27mm in thickness while the FV 432 had 12.7mm of armour. Much of the weight was because of the all steel construction. The British also had the Saracen wheeled APC, which I think served in armoured divisions at one time. Perhaps the answer lies in doctrine with western armies opting to fight on foot and therefore, at least in theory, not requiring protection against anything heavier than shell splinters and perhaps SA fire. I don't know the answer.

This may be a fruitful subject for a separate thread.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

There is a number of tasks that require significnat internal volume, which means more armour, more HP needed, wider tracks etc. It would be nice to have a full family of Leo2 hull based Namer type vehicles, it ain't going to happen on our forseeable budgets. our choices are to support the armour with trucks, tracked carriers or LAV like vehicles, I know which of the 3, I would pick. I suspect in the real world we will end up with a blend of all 3.


----------



## a_majoor

With an unlimited budget and no restrictions about where you had to buy things I would vote for the Merkava 1 as the CCV; the ammunition racks in the back are removable and the space can be used for an infantry section.

You now have a heavily armoured platform with the mobility and protection of a tank; the troops can use the 105mm cannon, multiple machine guns (coax, crew commander and loader's and the .50 HMG mounted on the main gun barrel), on board 60mm mortar and multi bank grenade launchers to provide intimate support. Since this is part of a combat team, the Merkava C1's would carry HE, smoke and canister rounds for the 105. 

The RCAC will simply have to do with the Merkava C4 in this scenario....


----------



## blacktriangle

If the CCV were to go ahead, I'd also like to see something with high levels of protection such as the Namer. Basically just a battle taxi that has the mobility AND the protection to accompany MBT's. 

Since that doesn't seem to be where the project is heading, I think we might be better of investing that money into LAV/LAV-H vehicles or not spend it at all.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Sparky's going to choke on this one, behold; The wheeled deathtrap, um I mean tracked...

http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/ausa-2012-gdls-introduces-tracked-stryker-concept/


----------



## McG

Colin P said:
			
		

> Sparky's going to choke on this one, behold; The wheeled deathtrap, um I mean tracked...
> 
> http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/ausa-2012-gdls-introduces-tracked-stryker-concept/


I suppose the assumption in a tracked Stryker is that all the ancillary equipment/fittings/components are the same as for the wheeled variant and therefore introduce economies of logistics/sustainment.  The drivetrain would be substantially different though.  About the only possibility for commonality would be the engine (though it would have to be mated to a different transmission and your maint elements would still have to carry separate packs in the field).


----------



## Colin Parkinson

They mentioned a larger engine, to cope with the added weight and power requirements.


----------



## ArmyRick

Wow! It looks cool!


----------



## Kirkhill

I see that they were/are thinking of adding additional road wheels.

Why not keep the complexity down and follow Christie's example?  Just use the four large road wheels as they stand and ditch the return rollers.

It would end up looking like a Cruiser or a T34.


----------



## OldSolduer

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Wow! It looks cool!



Looks and actual performance are two different things, young Jedi.


----------



## McG

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Wow! It looks cool!


It does look cool and it does look like a nice candidate for a CCV program, but "look" (as already stated) is not an indicator of performance.

... and the need for CCV is a whole other question.  Personally, I am not convinced that we need a CCV.  I think we could get much better milage investing in our existing LAV and TLAV families of vehicles (even increasing fleet sizes if we determine it is needed), and we would not be forcing ourselves to stretch O&M dollars to yet another vehicle micro-fleet.


----------



## McG

Colin P said:
			
		

> They mentioned a larger engine, to cope with the added weight and power requirements.


The added weight is blamed on the steel tracks.  I wonder if GDLS considered rubber track.


----------



## dapaterson

MCG said:
			
		

> It does look cool and it does look like a nice candidate for a CCV program, but "look" (as already stated) is not an indicator of performance.
> 
> ... and the need for CCV is a whole other question.  Personally, I am not convinced that we need a CCV.  I think we could get much better milage investing in our existing LAV and TLAV families of vehicles (even increasing fleet sizes if we determine it is needed), and we would not be forcing ourselves to stretch O&M dollars to yet another vehicle micro-fleet.



Hopefully that fleet investment would include support variants...


----------



## McG

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Hopefully that fleet investment would include support variants...


Like the Mobile Tactical Vehicle Cargo (MTVC) that was dropped from the scope of the TLAV project when we decided to divest M109 and Leopards?
Or maybe LAV based ambulances & CPs to fill roles that will be lost when the Bison retires?
I hope so too.


----------



## Kirkhill

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Hopefully that fleet investment would include support variants...



 >


How many rounds of 60mm bombs and their accompanying tubes could a CCV-ARV buy?  


 :stirpot:


----------



## ArmyRick

What??? Dude, where are you going with this? I am not following. Get the puppets out and explain it to me in small speak please.


----------



## Infanteer

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> What??? Dude, where are you going with this? I am not following. Get the puppets out and explain it to me in small speak please.



Reread the last few posts.  The argument was made that we are adding an additional fleet of questionable value to the infantry corps while, at the same time, essential capabilities such as mortars and anti-armour are being divested for lack of funds.


----------



## PanaEng

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Reread the last few posts.  The argument was made that we are adding an additional fleet of questionable value to the infantry corps while, at the same time, essential capabilities such as mortars and anti-armour are being divested for lack of funds.


The infantry corps does not and will not operate in a bubble....  :deadhorse:  we will need engineer variants as well as it is very unlikely that we will get pioneers back any time soon, if ever... :stirpot:
Moot point anyway, Kirkhill should have asked "how many 40mm..."   

(I was looking for smiley for diving for cover...)


----------



## a_majoor

Short, if not totally satisfactory answer:

GDLS is offering another version of the LAV with a bigger gun as the CCV. My answer is why not just buy 118 additional LAV III with the latest upgrades built in. We get additional capabilities without having to invest in additional logistics and training, and 118 LAV IIIs are probably cheaper than 118 Phirana's with 30mm cannons (the GDLS offering), much less the French wheeled vehicle or the CV-90.

This does not address the need or desire for support varients, CP and ambulances and so on, but we could suggest that bringing the fleet to over 500 vehicles  could create a critical mass for follow on purchases to replace the 200 odd Bisons. There is also the possibility of follow on orders once everyone gets past the OMG moment when the see what the TAPV realy is (hint; it isn't a recce vehicle or APC/IFV wannabe)


----------



## McG

Thucydides said:
			
		

> ... why not just buy 118 additional LAV III with the latest upgrades built in.
> 
> This does not address the need or desire for support varients, CP and ambulances and so on, but we could suggest that bringing the fleet to over 500 vehicles  could create a critical mass for follow on purchases to replace the 200 odd Bisons. ...


While your proposal is an investment in an existing fleet as I suggest, it is only marginally better than going ahead with the CCV idea.  Treasury Board really does not like it (and the tax payers shouldn't either) when the the CF presents the case to spend  $ X millions of dollars on new systems and then returns after buying the systems to say that another $ X millions are required to get all the supporting/enabling equipment that we neglected to mention the first time around.

We cannot build ourselves a fleet of 500 LAV platforms and then hope the government accepts the existence of that fleet justifies spending more money to get even more LAV platforms.  Aside from the fact that hope is not a CoA, we should expect that such an approach would, in fact, backfire and bring us the ire of the government.

We might need more LAV section vehicles.  Some of that could be achieved though upgrading the existing vehicles that we do not currently plan to put through the mid-life upgrade (yes, we are planning to upgrade only part of the existing fleet).  If more are required then by those numbers, but ensure any needed support platforms are also identified and included in that procurement.

We do not need to make all our investments in LAV either.  We also have TLAV/MTVL which is very capable family of vehicles.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

As I said if the CCV is going to be wheeled do as you suggest just buy more LAV's. However as the key element seemed to be that they work closely with the Leopards as an intergrated whole, then getting wheeled is just plain dumb. I can see the TAPV and the LAV's working fairly well together. In essence it seems to me we need a "light brigade" and a "Heavy brigade" to meet the all the various potential scenarios which can play out over the next 20 years. Both will need an APC and both will need support vehicles. So far the heavies have the engineering and recovery on tracks which is good, but lack a suitable replacement for the TLAV. The light side needs a suitable replacement for the Bison and more engineering and recovery support vehicles that are wheeled and armoured. In a perfect world they would also have a DF vehicle with a large calibre gun.

Nothing to say that the two can't play together or that a blend of the two would be sent on the next expedition. So I see the need for 3 new fleets. The CCV as tracked APC, a Tracked support vehicle and a replacement for the Bison. The good news is that it would be fairly easy to make a Bison replacement on the LAV chassis, really making it one large fleet, as would the wheeled engineering and recovery vehicles. So the light side can get away with 2 types and perhaps a 3rd counting the G-wagons.

The heavies have a fairly good selection of APC/IFV's to choose from. However none of the offerings seem to offer a fully rounded fleet including supply, recovery and engineering. The CV-90 family seems to come closest. Which means the heavies will need a minimun of 3 fleets, 4 if any engineering assest remain on Leo 1 chassis's.


----------



## McG

Why does the TLAV need to be replaced?  It is one of our best protected vehicles and has outstanding mobility.  Why buy a whole new fleet as opposed to investing in the TLAV/MTVL fleet?


----------



## Infanteer

How's it for reliability.  I could argue that the MLVW is a great B Vehicle, but the fact that I can't find a part for one renders it useless.


----------



## dapaterson

Infanteer said:
			
		

> How's it for reliability.  I could argue that the MLVW is a great B Vehicle, but the fact that I can't find a part for one renders it useless.




It's easy to find MLVW parts.


Just drive along behind one, and you can pick them up as they fall off.


----------



## McG

Infanteer said:
			
		

> How's it for reliability.


When they are being used, reliability is good.  Like any vehicle, if you forget about them for 5 months in the unit parking lot, they will hold it against you when you try to use them again.  Keep in mind that these are not the M113A2 that many have experience with, and upgrades did not stop with the project.  There have been continued improvements based on performance in Afghanistan and domestic survivability experiments.

I know guys, haven recently given these vehicles a go for a few weeks in the mountains, who are now stating they prefer the MTVE over the ELAV.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MCG said:
			
		

> Why does the TLAV need to be replaced?  It is one of our best protected vehicles and has outstanding mobility.  Why buy a whole new fleet as opposed to investing in the TLAV/MTVL fleet?



My understanding is that they are all rebuilds of existing hulls, correct? In which case how much life is left in them? going by the way most of our fleet buys are going, better to lay the groundwork early before there is a crisis.


----------



## Kirkhill

PanaEng said:
			
		

> The infantry corps does not and will not operate in a bubble....  :deadhorse:  we will need engineer variants as well as it is very unlikely that we will get pioneers back any time soon, if ever... :stirpot:
> Moot point anyway, Kirkhill should have asked "how many 40mm..."
> 
> (I was looking for smiley for diving for cover...)



I was originally looking for "Fleeeeeee!!"


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Infanteer said:
			
		

> How's it for reliability.  I could argue that the MLVW is a great B Vehicle, but the fact that I can't find a part for one renders it useless.



Which says nothing about its reliability, and everything about our procurement / life cycle management system.


----------



## Infanteer

...and a broken or absent procurement/LCM system means that I can't rely on the vehicle.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Nice to know we are not alone. If we are bound and determined to get a CCV, frankly we should just tag onto to whatever the US gets. At least there will be spare parts.

US would save $14 billion buying German combat vehicle
By Tony Capaccio and Nick Taborek
Bloomberg
http://www.stripes.com/news/us/us-would-save-14-billion-buying-german-combat-vehicle-1.214797

Published: April 3, 2013
Puma
The U.S. Army would save $14 billion and get a better combat vehicle by choosing the German-made Puma over a tank-like Ground Combat Vehicle intended to replace the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the Congressional Budget Office said.
Wikipedia

The U.S. Army would save $14 billion and get a better combat vehicle by choosing a German-made transport over versions being developed by BAE Systems Plc and General Dynamics Corp., the Congressional Budget Office said.

Buying the German-made Puma was one of several options outlined in a report yesterday as improvements over the Army’s current plan for a tank-like Ground Combat Vehicle intended to replace the Bradley Fighting Vehicle.

“Although none of those alternatives would meet all of the Army’s goals” for the Ground Combat Vehicle, “all are likely to be less costly and less risky in terms of unanticipated cost increases and schedule delays,” the nonpartisan CBO said.

The Puma, made by a joint venture of Krauss-Maffei Wegmann GmbH based in Munich and Rheinmetall AG based in Dusseldorf, “is slightly more capable” than the Ground Combat Vehicle and might also be purchased “at only half the cost,” according to the report. It can accommodate six passengers, not the nine- member squad the Army considers a key capability, according to the CBO.

BAE, based in London, and General Dynamics, based in Falls Church, Virginia, are competing to produce the replacement for the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. Previous plans called for both companies to continue development work beyond 2014, after which one probably would have been selected for the production phase.

Strategy Revision

Frank Kendall, the Pentagon’s undersecretary for acquisition, directed a revision to this strategy in January, allowing for more companies to compete to enter engineering and manufacturing development and a chance to produce the vehicle.

The budget office pegged the latest cost estimate for about 1,748 vehicles at $29 billion through 2030 when priced in fiscal 2013 dollars. Previous estimates ran to as much as $40 billion.

In another option, the CBO said upgrading Bradley vehicles, made by BAE, would result in platforms “more lethal” in combat and would keep soldiers alive “at about the same rate” as the proposed new vehicle.

The Bradley carries seven passengers. Canceling the Ground Combat Vehicle development program and buying upgraded Bradleys instead would save $9 billion from 2014 to 2030, according to the CBO. That option would require adding a more powerful engine, additional armor and an extra gun to the Bradley.

According to the CBO report, the Ground Combat vehicle would have 1,500 horsepower and weigh 50 to 65 tons. That compares with the upgraded Bradley at 800 horsepower and 35 to 41 tons, and the Puma at 1,073 horsepower and 35 to 47 tons.

Army spokesman Matthew Bourke said in a response to the CBO report that, after extensive assessments last year of existing U.S. and foreign vehicles, the service concluded that options in meeting its requirements are limited.

“The Army continues to fine-tune the vehicle requirements to support cost targets while continuing to evaluate” what combat requirements can be adjusted that “better align with the goal of an affordable and achievable vehicle,” Bourke said in an e-mailed statement.


----------



## GnyHwy

“The Army continues to fine-tune the vehicle requirements to support cost targets while continuing to evaluate” what combat requirements can be adjusted that “better align with the goal of an affordable and achievable vehicle,” Bourke said in an e-mailed statement.


A very good summary of the vicious circle that is the CCV.  And  all of this must be done without favouring a certain manufacturer.


----------



## Kirkhill

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> “The Army continues to fine-tune the vehicle requirements to support cost targets while continuing to evaluate” what combat requirements can be adjusted that “better align with the goal of an affordable and achievable vehicle,” Bourke said in an e-mailed statement.
> 
> 
> A very good summary of the vicious circle that is the CCV.  And  all of this must be done without favouring a certain manufacturer.



But the CBO apparently does favour a certain manufacturer - Rheinmetall....


----------



## GnyHwy

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> But the CBO apparently does favour a certain manufacturer - Rheinmetall....



They're allowed to and probably do so a lot.  If we followed their lead (F-35 cough cough), we would be breaking the rules, no matter if the idea is good or not.


----------



## cupper

Awww, come on. What's wrong with Bombardier? ;D


----------



## KevinB

cupper said:
			
		

> Awww, come on. What's wrong with Bombardier? ;D


Nothing - they make a great SkiDoo...

   Not really good with a jeep type though.   ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

> Armadillo Delivered
> 
> 
> (Source: BAE Systems; issued April 18, 2013)
> 
> 
> 
> We have delivered a new variant of our CV90 Armadillo, finished in traditional Danish Army camouflage, to the Danish Army Oksbol base for competitive evaluation to meet Denmark's armored personnel carrier requirement
> 
> Class-leading protection and optimum mission flexibility
> 
> Trials - involving five different vehicles - begin mid-April and will continue until September with contract scheduled for February next year. First deliveries will be in 2015.
> 
> Armadillo offers class-leading protection and optimum mission flexibility. A “hot” production line (CV90 is in build for Norway) and six existing operators mean a proven low-risk solution, both for initial purchase and long-term sustainment and upgrade.
> 
> Denmark is looking to replace its existing M113s in a deal which will also include a 15-year innovative support contract.
> 
> Armadillo is a turretless version of CV90 with ballistic and mine protection which exceed Stanag 4a/b. Removal of the turret gives six tonnes of “spare” payload for further protection or other purposes on top of its "fighting configuration" while its state-of-the-art electronic architecture allows “plug and play” of new systems.








Danish Armadillo Video  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHjlEVHhI7s

Edit to tidy up links Fail


----------



## Colin Parkinson

some pics
http://www.military-today.com/apc/cv90_armadillo.htm


----------



## Jammer

Don't count on this vehicle coming to fruition...it's on the hit list.


----------



## Canadian.Trucker

Jammer said:
			
		

> Don't count on this vehicle coming to fruition...it's on the hit list.


Within Canada or Denmark?  I hadn't heard of the new AFV program being cancelled yet for the Army, but I could be wrong.


----------



## Jammer

For Canada....Let's just say "a little birdie told me"


----------



## a_majoor

Jammer said:
			
		

> Don't count on this vehicle coming to fruition...it's on the hit list.



An Armadillo can curl up into a small ball and present a protected surface to all aspects; so can bureaucrats. It should be interesting to watch.

op:


----------



## The Bread Guy

Bumped with the latest from a couple of lefty think tanks:


> A report on the planned procurement of Close Combat Vehicles has just been released by the Rideau Institute and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
> 
> “Stuck in a Rut: Harper government overrides Canadian Army, insists on buying outdated equipment” was written by University of British Columbia political science professor Michael Byers and defence analyst Stewart Webb (a visiting research fellow at the Rideau Institute and research associate at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives).
> 
> The government intends to buy 108 new heavily armoured “Close Combat Vehicles” (CCVs) to accompany Canada’s Cold War–era Leopard tanks into battle. In 2013, the need for these vehicles must be questioned. Modern counterinsurgency doctrine emphasizes the winning of “hearts and minds,” which is difficult to do with heavy armour.
> 
> The CCV procurement is also redundant – because 550 of Canada’s LAV IIIs are currently undergoing comprehensive upgrades that will improve their survivability and manoeuvrability while extending their lifespan to 2035. The upgraded LAV IIIs are, in fact, nearly as heavily armed and armoured as the proposed CCVs.
> 
> Estimated cost of the CCV project is $2 billion. Reportedly, the Canadian Army has told the government that it does not need or want the vehicles and would rather use the money for other purposes, such as maintaining training levels during a time of deep budget cuts.
> 
> As Professor Byers explains, “By spending $2 billion on vehicles the Canadian Army neither wants nor needs, the Harper government is abdicating its responsibility to equip and train our soldiers properly, and to provide fiscal accountability.”
> 
> The Treasury Board is meeting tomorrow, September 19, to make a final decision on the CCV project.



You can download the report (3.3 MB 42 pages) here.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

yea because Byers so has our best interests at heart......


----------



## GnyHwy

"Canadian Army has told the government that it does not need or want the vehicles".

I wonder what context that is in.  Is it that we don't need or want a CCV; or that we don't need or want the options that have been presented to us?  I see those as two very different things.


----------



## McG

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> "Canadian Army has told the government that it does not need or want the vehicles".
> 
> I wonder what context that is in.  Is it that we don't need or want a CCV; or that we don't need or want the options that have been presented to us?  I see those as two very different things.


I believe we do not need and cannot afford it.


----------



## daftandbarmy

[quote author=MCG link=topic=70177/post-1258194# :

But we DO need boot bands, and they're STILL not issuing them. Sigh  :crybaby:


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> MCG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New pants have velcro and a built in adjustable elastic band, YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID  ;D
Click to expand...


----------



## CBH99

Forgive me if this has been covered before, BUT...

Why not just buy 108 new LAVs?

The upgraded LAV 3/LAV-H concept is a more heavily armoured vehicle, with pretty impressive speed/mobility still.

For the many benefits of fleet commonality, and the fact that they are locally built - why not just buy 108 additional LAVs?  Could replace the vehicles that have been lost over the years.


----------



## PuckChaser

CBH99 said:
			
		

> For the many benefits of fleet commonality, and the fact that they are locally built - why not just buy 108 additional LAVs?  Could replace the vehicles that have been lost over the years.



And replace the few units that are still using the Bison platform, making it far easier to maintain A vehicle fleets if all you have is TAPV, LAV, Leo2 and the EROC vehicles.


----------



## GnyHwy

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Why not just buy 108 new LAVs?



Not even sure if that is possible.  Not saying that is a bad idea, but it goes against the intent of the project, which was to deliver a new capability.  If a new capability is not possible or not needed, then moving the money (if possible) to the LAV 6.0 could be beneficial.  It could be a colossal waste too.  I am sure GDLS wouldn't mind.

I have no doubt that the LAV 6.0 project will not have enough money to do everything they want; I doubt any project ever does.

Even a 1/4 of the CCV budget would probably produce some significant improvements with the 6.0.  At the least it could be used for a shittonne of ammo


----------



## KevinB

IMHO Canada (at least the GOFO's and Politicians) should come to grips it will never be willing to afford a true Mechanized Armored Combat Force.  The LAV 6.0 etc would to me, appear to be the best bang for its buck in the terms of being able to fund a capability that does not ruin the Army with hidden costs (yet another orphan vehicle procured in small numbers to be tactically useless).

 OR if Canada wants CCV - it needs to understand it is going down to 1 Brigade Group.


----------



## Haletown

We need a vehicle that can keep up with the Leo 2's.

Wheels just do not cut it off any road.

Tracks is the way to go.


----------



## McG

Haletown said:
			
		

> We need a vehicle that can keep up with the Leo 2's.
> 
> Wheels just do not cut it off any road.
> 
> Tracks is the way to go.


CCV will most likely be wheeled.


----------



## Infanteer

Haletown said:
			
		

> We need a vehicle that can keep up with the Leo 2's.
> 
> Wheels just do not cut it off any road.
> 
> Tracks is the way to go.



Any experience in a LAV?  With tank-infantry combat teams?


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Haletown said:
			
		

> We need a vehicle that can keep up with the Leo 2's.
> 
> Wheels just do not cut it off any road.
> 
> Tracks is the way to go.



Uhuh.

Do you have any combat experience with the LAV?
 Note how little I post in the F35 shill booster discussion thread,


----------



## MilEME09

Tracked vehicles have their place however not in the Canadian Army's inventory outside of the TLAV. Though the bids were thrown out, of the previous vehicles submitted 3 were wheeled IFV's, those wont win because we already have the LAV III fleet that's now upgraded, your better off buying more LAV's. This leaves the CV90 and the Puma both tracked AFV's, the LAV III beats both in terms of mobility, firepower if even, and armour i'd give to the upgraded LAV III. The LAV III is perfectly suited to support the leopard, this contract is dead and useless in my opinion


----------



## McG

TLAV and LAV III are where we should be investing the money that will be flushed into CCV.  Extend the LAV III upgrade to the whole fleet, buy a few more LAV III (include support variants & Bison replacement), and upgrade the TLAV family with a single (not a mix of RWS and 1 m turret) stabilized weapons system with thermal and II sights.


----------



## a_majoor

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Tracked vehicles have their place however not in the Canadian Army's inventory outside of the TLAV. Though the bids were thrown out, of the previous vehicles submitted 3 were wheeled IFV's, those wont win because we already have the LAV III fleet that's now upgraded, your better off buying more LAV's. This leaves the CV90 and the Puma both tracked AFV's, the LAV III beats both in terms of mobility, firepower if even, and armour i'd give to the upgraded LAV III. The LAV III is perfectly suited to support the leopard, this contract is dead and useless in my opinion



Not sure what you are basing this on. The tracked IFV's have superior cross country mobility, superior firepower (the basic CV90 has a 40mm cannon in Swedish service, and NATO nations with the CV90 have bought the CV9035 version with a 35mm cannon. The PUMA comes with a 30mm automatic cannon) and potentially a _lot_ more armour protection (the PUMA with the level "C" armour package wieghs 43 tons and is probably better protected than our former Leopard 1 tanks).

These are the arguments "for" a CCV, which puts the LAV III and TLAV out of contention for the close combat or assault roles.

The arguments here are for the praticality of spending a huge amount of money for a very limited _capability_ (a fistfull of CCVs might make a great Clint Eastwood film, but won't help the commander very much), rather than the vehicle per se. There are actually very good arguments for an all tracked fleet, including improved capabilities, new capabilties that don't exist now and commonality for training and logistics support, which is another giant issue with the Canadian Army and Forces in general, but in the realm of what is possible, an all LAV III based fleet is the cost effective and useful solution.


----------



## Old EO Tech

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Tracked vehicles have their place however not in the Canadian Army's inventory outside of the TLAV. Though the bids were thrown out, of the previous vehicles submitted 3 were wheeled IFV's, those wont win because we already have the LAV III fleet that's now upgraded, your better off buying more LAV's. This leaves the CV90 and the Puma both tracked AFV's, the LAV III beats both in terms of mobility, firepower if even, and armour i'd give to the upgraded LAV III. The LAV III is perfectly suited to support the leopard, this contract is dead and useless in my opinion



I'd like to see your data to support your statement that a wheeled AFV has better overall mobility than a tracked vehicle.  And the Upgraded LAV has no more firepower than the current turret, so as configured it would not meet the intent of the CCV, which needs the increased firepower of a 35-40mm round to meet the SOR.

I'm not saying that the LAVUp could not have taken on some of the roles of the planned CCV, but with the increased weigh already, following tanks over soft ground will be an exercise in recovery....if we had a recovery vehicle capable of pulling the LAVUp :-(


----------



## Old EO Tech

MCG said:
			
		

> TLAV and LAV III are where we should be investing the money that will be flushed into CCV.  Extend the LAV III upgrade to the whole fleet, buy a few more LAV III (include support variants & Bison replacement), and upgrade the TLAV family with a single (not a mix of RWS and 1 m turret) stabilized weapons system with thermal and II sights.



I agree with this idea, we definitely need to retire the Bison fleet, and make upgraded LAV3 versions for Recovery, Ambs, CP's and EW vehicles.

And TLAV's could be further upgraded and have a 35mm RWS or one man turret, to do what the CCV was intented to do at a much reduced cost.


----------



## Ostrozac

As I see it, one of the issues is that when the capabilites were thought up for TAPV, LAV III-Upgraded and CCV, they were originally described to me as Light Infantry Fighting Vehicle, Medium Infantry Fighting Vehicle, and Heavy Infantry Fighting Vehicle. That gives the infantry a toolbox to select from when building a force for a mission. Which makes some sense. Options can be good.

With the adoption of a "light" TAPV that is bigger than I had expected, at 17 tons, and the potential adoption of a "heavy" wheeled CCV as small as 30 tons, they simply may not offer different enough capabilities from the 25 ton LAV III-Upgraded to give real options. Instead we may end up with Medium (-), Medium and Medium (+) IFVs, all of which have similar protection, mobility, and logistics footprints, but require different ammo, training, tools and parts.

Now, if the TAPV was a 12 ton Dingo, and the CCV was a 44 ton Achzarit -- those would be truly different options from the LAV III. But as it stands, I see all three vehicles converging to give a medium weight capability -- and we probably don't need three different fleets of Medium IFV -- so put me with the camp that wants more LAV III instead of CCV.


----------



## Haletown

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Uhuh.
> 
> Do you have any combat experience with the LAV?
> Note how little I post in the F35 shill booster discussion thread,



Nah, LAV's were not even a pipe dream when I was playing silly bugger, but here are some guys who probably do.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/2wheels98.pdf


If we are looking for an infantry vehicle that  can keep up with and fight with the Leo2s, tracks would appear to be the better options.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Meanwhile, from the replacement for MERX, the latest on LAV III front:


> .... The Department of National Defence (DND) has a requirement to procure 1793 units of a turret mounted Machine Gun Swing Mount (MGSM) for Light Armoured Vehicle III (LAV III) 25 MM Turrets. This procurement also includes an irrevocable option to procure up to 207 additional units of the MGSM any time within the performance of the Contract. This requirement does not include a requirement in terms of resources nor timeline for design, development nor testing.
> 
> The proposed MGSM must be based on a proven technology, which has been designed, tested and trialed as well as fielded on a
> Military vehicle ....


Some more details/specs in the Statement of Work here.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Haletown said:
			
		

> Nah, LAV's were not even a pipe dream when I was playing silly bugger, but here are some guys who probably do.
> 
> http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/2wheels98.pdf
> 
> 
> If we are looking for an infantry vehicle that  can keep up with and fight with the Leo2s, tracks would appear to be the better options.



Well, if we apply the same principles to our APCs that we have applied to battle fitness preparation i.e. the FORCE test, we would make sure that _everyone _ has LAVs, right?  ;D

 Just in case you're looking for this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Remember the cartoons of the Grizzlies stuck in a mudhole while being passed by a Leo? I think the caption was "Why don't you boat people go home"

I think the LAV has been a great buy, but it's not really meant to keep up with tanks going across countryside. The wear and tear on the LAV fleet would be quite high. I remember doing an exercise with 3rd herd and watching them drag a 5/4 ton CP behind a M113 so it could keep up with the rest of the battery, I suspect that vehicle was a couple of inches longer by the end of Ex. 

If we buy another wheeled vehicle for this we are truly, truly stupid. Either go with a well protected track or just get more LAV's


----------



## Canadian.Trucker

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, from the replacement for MERX, the latest on LAV III front:Some more details/specs in the Statement of Work here.



Interesting that they are looking for this as I thought the pintle mount was already being replaced by the plats (sp?) mount, at least we had the plats mount on all of our LAV's overseas and they worked great.

I'm inclined to agree with us getting more LAV's vice another platform in an age of budget reduction and cost cutting measures.  However, I also agree that if we are looking at a vehicle to keep up with and support the MBT's then tracked is going to perform better offroad in multiple situations than a wheeled vehicle would.  I never did operate with the MBT's in our LAV's so I cannot speak from personal experience, but our TLAV was much more capable and frequently used by myself whenever we needed a vehicle to do recovery of our LAV's, the Brits vehicles and another situation that arose where we were doing some heavy manoeuvring offroad instead of our LAV's.


----------



## McG

Colin P said:
			
		

> Remember the cartoons of the Grizzlies ...
> ... them drag a 5/4 ton CP behind a M113


Of course, a LAV III is neither an AVGP nor a truck.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

MCG said:
			
		

> TLAV and LAV III are where we should be investing the money that will be flushed into CCV.  Extend the LAV III upgrade to the whole fleet, buy a few more LAV III (include support variants & Bison replacement), and upgrade the TLAV family with a single (not a mix of RWS and 1 m turret) stabilized weapons system with thermal and II sights.



This is definitely not my lane so I'm going to try to set this up as more of a question...

It appears that there's a strong difference in opinion over the need for CCV.  

Since it appears unlikely that Canada will be involved in a large armour-on-armour clash any time soon (especially since air power appears to now be the dominant force in anti-armour operations), can those involved elaborate on why the view the CCV as essential/non-essential given the probability that our forces will continue to be deployed in 'Failed States' operations where the primary threats are IED's.

Second question is something that I posted early on in the Afghan operations which is that I didn't understand why we would spill blood to clear a road, then not have the assets to maintain 24-hour surveillance over that space following the clearance.  At the time I had hypothesized tethered blimps, towers, UAV's as the surveillance tools.  In that context, and again in the context of stabilization op's, would the money for CCV be better spent on a combination of LAV/TPAV upgrades and surveillance tools than CCV's which in essence just become a larger more expensive IED target if you continually allow your roads to be re-mined?

I apologize that I think I crossed into a point-of-view at the end of this, but I'm looking for experienced opinions as these are things way outside my lane and the only way I'll learn is if I ask.


Thanks guys, Matthew.


----------



## GnyHwy

Haletown said:
			
		

> Nah, LAV's were not even a pipe dream when I was playing silly bugger, but here are some guys who probably do.
> 
> http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/2wheels98.pdf
> 
> 
> If we are looking for an infantry vehicle that  can keep up with and fight with the Leo2s, tracks would appear to be the better options.



I think you've made their point.  You're bringing a 20 year old argument.  

I know this has been done to death, and I am not suggesting that wheels are better.  All I am suggesting is that tracks being better than wheels isn't a hard fact anymore, and it's certainly not a safe assumption.  Suspension systems, tire design, central inflation systems, and sensors tighten that gap up quite a bit.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Assuming track tech has stood still in that time? What is the growth potential of tracks vs wheels in regards to ground pressure? What is on the doable retrofit horizon for both techs? I don't want to do a "combatreformtardmoment" between the 2. I think having both will serve our purposes well for the next 20 years. God knows where they will send us(collective) next.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> Assuming track tech has stood still in that time? What is the growth potential of tracks vs wheels in regards to ground pressure? What is on the doable retrofit horizon for both techs? I don't want to do a "combatreformtardmoment" between the 2. I think having both will serve our purposes well for the next 20 years. God knows where they will send us(collective) next.



And the related question: How will you get them there?


----------



## ringo

The Netherlands selling 44 used CV9035NL Canada bought used MBT's why not used CCV's, if Canada were to buy the JSS Karel Doorman maybe The Netherlands would throw in the CV9035NL for free.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> And the related question: How will you get them there?



For you special deal.... 8)


----------



## GnyHwy

Colin P said:
			
		

> What is the growth potential of tracks vs wheels in regards to ground pressure?



Growth potential is nil for tracks unless you make the surface area bigger or make the vehicle lighter. 

For wheels, tire inflation systems can lower tire pressures to create plenty of surface area.  

Another feature are nitrogen struts, giving the ability to go gangsta, and raise up, away from the threat.  Further, by raising the rear shocks and lowering the front ones, you can peek over hill in a hull down position, better than a track, where your barrel will be pointed at the sky.

Once again, I am not saying wheels are better.  I am just bringing the other side of the argument, which a lot of people don't believe exists; I am here to tell eveyone that it does.

Your welcome.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

sorry, badly worded my post (such as ground pressure reduction) But also what is the growth potential of tracks in regard to weight creep? In other words I suspect that tracks will handle weight creep better than wheeled. Not to mention that tracks are continuing to evolve as well as wheels.


----------



## OldSolduer

Let's try this:

Let's decide what kind of Army we want to be first, then kit it out :facepalm: accordingly,.

Just my cynical 2 cents.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Same for RCN and RCAF:
http://cdfai3ds.wordpress.com/2013/03/18/mark-collins-what-is-the-rcn-for/
http://cdfai3ds.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/mark-collins-shrinking-nato-navies/
http://cdfai3ds.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/mark-collins-french-defence-white-paper-cuts-and-canada/ [see end]
http://cdfai3ds.wordpress.com/2013/08/15/mark-collins-defence-capabilities-vs-resources-the-middle-power-conundrum-canada-in-particular/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GnyHwy

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Let's decide what kind of Army we want to be first, then kit it out :facepalm: accordingly,.



We do know what kind of Army we want to be.  A multi-role net-centric multi-faceted technologically advanced adaptive diverse modern and flexible force.  ;D


----------



## dapaterson

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> We do know what kind of Army we want to be.  A multi-role net-centric multi-faceted technologically advanced adaptive diverse modern and flexible force.  ;D



You left out JIMP-enabled.


----------



## a_majoor

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> Growth potential is nil for tracks unless you make the surface area bigger or make the vehicle lighter.
> 
> For wheels, tire inflation systems can lower tire pressures to create plenty of surface area.
> 
> Another feature are nitrogen struts, giving the ability to go gangsta, and raise up, away from the threat.  Further, by raising the rear shocks and lowering the front ones, you can peek over hill in a hull down position, better than a track, where your barrel will be pointed at the sky.
> 
> Once again, I am not saying wheels are better.  I am just bringing the other side of the argument, which a lot of people don't believe exists; I am here to tell eveyone that it does.
> 
> Your welcome.



Any technology that reduces weight will work when upgrading any platform (for example, using lightweight ceramic composite materials for hatches, the ramp and interior partitions), and of course can be incorporated in new builds right from the start. The Korean K-21 has a hull built from some sort of composite material that allows it to shrug off 30mm across the frontal arc and 14.5mm HMG at all aspects in a 25 ton package. A vehicle similar in size and shape to a LAV built from the same materials would be considerably lighter if provided the same protection as the current LAV, or have much better protection at the current weight.

Ground pressure and wheel travel count for a lot; one reason the ACHZARIT can move at a considerably faster speed than the base T-55 (despite being heavier) is the upgraded track and suspension, using hydraulic dampers to control wheel motion. The Swedish "S" tank demonstrated the ability to "Kneel" in the 1950's, the Russian BMD could "kneel" to be fitted aboard an aircraft, and the Korean K-2 MBT can control the position of each individual roadwheel to kneel, stand up or do whatever else the driver wants to do.

Technology does change, and we should be aware of how it can not only affect current designs through upgrades and refits, as well as how it can be incorporated in new construction. IF the entire Canadian AFV fleet were to go on a diet by replacing components with equally strong but much lighter composite parts, there would be better cross country mobility _and_ a considerable saving in fuel consumption, for example. Of course, there are so few examples of most types of vehicles that each hatch and fitting would almost be handmade by a skilled artisan (another reason to go for larger fleets and families of vehicles).

Just glancing at the statistics, I am amazed that the Koreans were not invited to demonstrate the K-21 (it also has advanced sensors and a 40mm cannon, in addition to impressive mobility and protection), or that they were not interested in putting the K-21 up for tender.


----------



## The Bread Guy

A little something from out of left field - an American analyst with a blog post in support of the CCV.  Here's the interesting part for me:


> .... I write all this in preview of some forthcoming work. Earlier this summer, my team received some funding to study the historical and economic basis for a Canadian CCV. We had generally been of the opinion for some time that a heavier IFV would be valuable for the Army, and our research soundly confirmed this view for us. Later this fall, we plan to publish our final report, Canada’s Close Combat Vehicle: Evaluating the Need in Light of Campaign Experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq, to help make that case.


Wonder where the $ came from?

A hat tip to Canadian Defence Matters blog for spotting & sharing this.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Any technology that reduces weight will work when upgrading any platform (for example, using lightweight ceramic composite materials for hatches, the ramp and interior partitions), and of course can be incorporated in new builds right from the start. The Korean K-21 has a hull built from some sort of composite material that allows it to shrug off 30mm across the frontal arc and 14.5mm HMG at all aspects in a 25 ton package. A vehicle similar in size and shape to a LAV built from the same materials would be considerably lighter if provided the same protection as the current LAV, or have much better protection at the current weight.
> 
> Ground pressure and wheel travel count for a lot; one reason the ACHZARIT can move at a considerably faster speed than the base T-55 (despite being heavier) is the upgraded track and suspension, using hydraulic dampers to control wheel motion. The Swedish "S" tank demonstrated the ability to "Kneel" in the 1950's, the Russian BMD could "kneel" to be fitted aboard an aircraft, and the Korean K-2 MBT can control the position of each individual roadwheel to kneel, stand up or do whatever else the driver wants to do.
> 
> Technology does change, and we should be aware of how it can not only affect current designs through upgrades and refits, as well as how it can be incorporated in new construction. IF the entire Canadian AFV fleet were to go on a diet by replacing components with equally strong but much lighter composite parts, there would be better cross country mobility _and_ a considerable saving in fuel consumption, for example. Of course, there are so few examples of most types of vehicles that each hatch and fitting would almost be handmade by a skilled artisan (another reason to go for larger fleets and families of vehicles).
> 
> Just glancing at the statistics, I am amazed that the Koreans were not invited to demonstrate the K-21 (it also has advanced sensors and a 40mm cannon, in addition to impressive mobility and protection), or that they were not interested in putting the K-21 up for tender.



From what I have read some of the more exotic armours don't stand up well to repeated hits, so they may shrug off the intail attack, but start to fail faster on the next, so you still need a base armour to mount the fancier stuff to, so it's replaceable.


----------



## a_majoor

This is true for some sorts of armour, but AFAIK the K-21 IFV has an all composite vehicle shell, and I have posted several examples of experimental technologies on the Recent warfare Technologies thread that also have the potential to make unitary structures out of strong and lightweight materials. My particular favorite is using a wet layup process to manipulate a titanium compound, then processing it so the finished product is metallic titanium, which is as strong as steel but weighs 1/3 as much.

Realistically, even an "old" vehicle like a Leopard 1 with a 105mm cannon will strike a target with _13 million foot pounds_ of energy, so really your main effort is to dissipate the strike so the crew can survive and possibly exit the vehicle. I suspect that there is no realistic materials science solution to hits from 40mm+ projectiles, and especially not for multiple strikes (the ARES 75mm automatic cannon of the 1980's and an Israeli 60mm automatic cannon firing 3 round bursts used that principle and could kill typical Soviet tanks from that period).

Lightwight vehicles built from high strength materials offer other advantages besides protection, including better fuel economy, better cross country performance and potentially longer service lives (outside of combat) because of their intrinsic strength and (in the case of composites) resistance to corrosion.


----------



## Kirkhill

Another bolt from the bleu....

What is the degree of commonality between the GDLS Piranha 5 and the LAV III Up?

Initially it made no sense to me to put the Piranha 5 into a "tracked" vehicle competition but now? Lemonade from lemons?

IF the requirement for a CCV is a lower priority now than it was when you were busting through mud walls and poppy fields (the Afghan bocage?)

BUT you are still stuck spending 2.1 BCAD on a CCV

And IF the wheeled vehicles are an 80% solution

And IF the Bisons need replacing 

THEN, what about this?

Buy the GDLS - Piranha 5,  

Add them to the mix of vehicles (in the same manner the Bisons are scattered)

Have GDLS remove the Delco turrets from a suitable number of LAV IIIs for Bison roles and then have DEW add the Delco Turrets to the TLAVs.

OR if the Delco turrets are deemed still serviceable have them transferred to the Piranha 5s.

Meanwhile, in exchange for all the extra work GDLS can give you a sweetheart deal on some Bronco MTVs.


----------



## a_majoor

I don't think the Piranha 5 is any more compatable with the LAV III (any version) than a LAV III is with a Coyote or Bison. The other thing about the offer was the Piranha 5 was being offered with a much different turret carrying a 35mm cannon, so swapping turrets would not really solve a lot of issues.

The Piranha 5 solution wold simply ensure another incompatable mini fleet exists in Canada, and would be the worst of all possible worlds for operational purposes, even if it supplies bucketloads of corporate crony capitalist gravy to GDLS.

Since it seems higher is going to blunder through with this, we may as well take a note froms Shakespear " If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well , it were done quickly"


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Surprised no one had printed this earlier. Reprinted under the usual caveats of the Copyright Act.



> Byers & Webb: Putting politics before soldiers
> 
> Michael Byers and Stewart Webb, National Post | 23/09/13 | Last Updated: 19/09/13 4:37 PM ET
> 
> The Air Force has almost been grounded by botched efforts to replace Sea King helicopters, search-and-rescue planes and fighter jets. The Navy has nearly been sunk by ham-fisted efforts to build new support vessels and Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships, and refit second-hand submarines. Now it’s the Army’s turn, as the Harper government prepares to burden our soldiers with Close Combat Vehicles they neither want nor need.
> 
> After the Cold War, the Army’s mission shifted from preparing for a “symmetric” war with the Soviet Union, to confronting “asymmetric” threats from terrorists and insurgents. As part of this shift, the Army decided to retire its Leopard tanks. As Chief of the Defence Staff General Rick Hillier explained in 2003: “Tanks are a perfect example of extremely expensive systems that sit in Canada because they are inappropriate to the operations we conduct daily around the world.”
> 
> Three years later, Stephen Harper appointed a former tank commander as his first minister of National Defence. Gordon O’Connor immediately ordered that the tanks be kept in service.
> 
> In September 2006, Canadian soldiers led Operation Medusa — a more-or-less conventional offensive aimed at re-taking areas of Kandahar Province under Taliban control. More than 400 insurgents were killed in battles in which they engaged the Canadians directly. O’Connor, thinking the rest of the war would be fought on similar terms, deployed some of Canada’s Leopard tanks to Afghanistan. He also acquired 120 newer tanks from Germany and the Netherlands, and sent some of them as well.
> 
> It was a bad decision. The Taliban soon switched from stand-and-fight to guerrilla tactics. They also adopted a new weapon of choice — the improvised explosive device (IED).
> 
> Tanks have flat underbellies that do not deflect the blast from an IED. This weakness is compounded by the fact that most of the armour is located in the front and side sections, not underneath. Nor are there satisfactory solutions to these problems, since the low-slung design of a tank makes it difficult to add more amour and impossible to add a deflective V-shaped hull.
> 
> O’Connor’s error was exacerbated when the United States published a new field manual on counterinsurgency in December 2006. The lead author was General David Patraeus, who was appointed head of U.S. forces in Iraq in 2007 and head of U.S. Central Command in 2008. Central Command includes both Iraq and Afghanistan, and the new “Petraeus Doctrine” was implemented in both theatres. The doctrine calls for soldiers to engage with and support local people so as to erode any incentive they might have to side with insurgents.
> 
> It is difficult to “win hearts and minds” from behind heavy armour. When the Afghan government expressed a desire to acquire tanks, General Adam Findlay, the deputy chief of operations for the International Security Assistance Force, dismissed the request: “We are making a counter-insurgency force and we have our Afghan partners asking for things we would call ‘high-end war fighting’ – tanks and what have you.”
> 
> But the Harper government, instead of moving away from heavy armour and towards modern counterinsurgency, is stuck in the rut that Gordon O’Conner carved out. It is preparing to spend $2-billion on 108 Close Combat Vehicles (CCVs) that are designed to accompany tanks into conventional battles.
> 
> According to the government’s specifications, the CCVs must be able to carry at least five infantry for at least 450 km at a maximum speed of at least 60 km/h, and provide protection against heavy machine gun fire and IEDs of up to 10 kg. They must be equipped with a cannon having a calibre of at least 25 mm.
> 
> Remarkably, Canada already has vehicles that can do all this and more,in the form of 550 LAV (Light Armoured Vehicle) IIIs that are currently undergoing $1-billion in upgrades at the General Dynamics plant in London, Ont.
> 
> The LAV IIIs, built in the late 1990s, have a maximum range of 450 km and maximum speed of 100 km/hr. They can carry seven infantry and are equipped with a 25 mm cannon. They provide protection against heavy machine gun fire and, as part of the upgrades, are being equipped with a double V-shaped hull to protect against IEDs. The upgrades will extend the lifespan of the LAV IIIs to 2035. On top of the LAV IIIs, the Army is about to receive 500 new, lighter and faster Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicles — as the result of a $1.25-billion contract signed in 2012.
> 
> All of which raises the question: Why spend another $2-billion on 108 CCVs that are designed to accompany outmoded tanks and would, in any event, add little to the Army’s capabilities?
> 
> Is it really worth $2-billion to preserve an illusion of competence?
> 
> The Army, to its credit, has reportedly told the Harper government that it neither wants nor needs CCVs. It would rather use the funds for training, at a time when budget cuts are forcing such activities to be curtailed.
> 
> In May, the Ottawa Citizen reported that the Harper government was pressing ahead nevertheless, because it was “worried that the cancellation would give it yet another military procurement black eye.”
> 
> According to the Citizen: “Industry representatives have been told that a winning bidder has been identified. That winning company will be announced when it suits the Conservative government’s public relations plan.”
> 
> The announcement may be imminent. But before it’s made, the Tories must answer one question: Is it really worth $2-billion to preserve an illusion of competence, at the cost of an Army that cannot afford to train?
> 
> National Post
> 
> *Michael Byers holds the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia. Stewart Webb is a visiting research fellow with the Rideau Institute. They are the authors of a report entitled “Stuck in a Rut,” published by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.*



 Article Link


----------



## GnyHwy

Just to back it up a bit and bring context.  There has been some back and forth leading up to this, between the writers Byers and Webb and Nexter's Mike Duckworth.

The recent back and forth started with this.  http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National%20Office/2013/09/Stuck_in_a_Rut.pdf  "Stuck in Rut" which essentially implies as our decisions to bring back tanks was cold war thinking (even though it was for Afghan) and since the CCV is suppose to accompany tanks, the decision for CCV is outdated and illogical. We all know that it isn't that simple, and the debate between do we optimize for COIN or Conventional will likely never end.

The following was a rebuttal from Nexter's Mike Duckworth.  Asking if we were in fact using Cold war doctrine for this decision and how the LAV 6.0 doesn't match up the way Byers and Webb would like you to believe.



> The Case For Purchasing The Close Combat Vehicle For The Canadian Army
> By Mike Duckworth
> 
> Senior Vice President with Nexter
> 
> Defence Watch Guest Writer
> 
> Last week, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives – Rideau Institute (CCPA-RI) published a report entitled “Stuck in a Rut” which recommends the cancellation of the Department of National Defence’s Close Combat Vehicle (CCV) program. As one of the competing companies which designs and manufactures vehicles intended to protect soldiers, Nexter Systems through Nexter Canada feels it has an obligation to speak out in the interests of providing Canadians with accurate and reliable information on this important public policy matter.
> 
> We also hope that the other companies involved in the CCV competition – General Dynamics Land Systems and BAE-Hagglunds – will join us in supporting this crucial procurement program.
> 
> Nexter is limited for security reasons on what we can say about military vehicle specifications. However, we would like to offer some general remarks on the CCV program both to support the Government’s decision to proceed with this important procurement and to dispel what we believe are inaccurate and ill-informed comments from the CCPA-RI study.
> 
> The 40 page CCPA-RI report recommends the cancellation of CCV based on two principal arguments:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.     That CCV is based upon outdated Cold War main battle tank (MBT) doctrine; and
> 
> 
> 
> 2.     That the Light Armoured Vehicle III Upgrade (LAV III UP) satisfies the CCV program requirements.
> 
> 
> 
> Is CCV based on out dated Cold War Doctrine?
> 
> In the CCPA-RI study, much criticism is levelled at the Canadian Government for maintaining its tank fleet and for the decision to deploy Canadian Leopard tanks in Afghanistan. MBTs are cited as being counterproductive to the new Counter Insurgency (COIN) doctrine deployed in the later years of the Afghan conflict.  By extrapolation, the report concludes that CCV has no place in this new COIN doctrine.
> 
> But what is COIN? Within military thinking, COIN can be considered as one phase of a conflict or indeed one type of response doctrine. Certainly COIN has been brought into sharp focus in recent years in Afghanistan as coalition forces have sought to rebuild that nation through hearts and minds campaigns working with local populations, security sector capacity building and reform and governance support. However, even in COIN operations, the MBT has a role to play. The presence of tanks can serve as a persuasive disincentive for armed groups and insurgents seeking to de-stabilize a town or village where the ability to employ overwhelming force is an important confidence building measure for local populations seeking safety and security. Equally, where a security situation has deteriorated, tanks can be one tool among many used to re-establish stability.
> 
> However, COIN is not a “one size fits all” response to all potential conflicts in the future.  While symmetric threats from major powers are still possible, they are highly unlikely. However, asymmetric or dissymmetric flash points continue to exist. While Afghanistan is an example of the former, the current situation in Syria is a case in point for the latter. There remain extremely well equipped unstable nations that possess naval, land, and air power in addition to chemical and biological weapons. And while these military forces would be insufficient to defend against a large scale military intervention by NATO, they are capable of inflicting suffering on their own civilian populations and threatening neighbouring countries. Is the CCPA-RI study suggesting that air and naval power are the only tools required? One would hope not because most militaries would see that as both unrealistic and ineffective. Instead, virtually all NATO countries maintain a spectrum of capability that includes tanks and heavy armour, artillery, mortars as well as light armoured and reconnaissance vehicles.
> 
> As noted, the CCPA-RI report criticizes the Canadian Government for deploying Leopard tanks in Afghanistan. Far from being alone in this approach, both Denmark (Leopard A5) and the US Marines (Abrams M1AI) deployed theirs. The CCPA-RI report suggests that the UK took a positive decision not to send their Challengers, but also concedes that the British used both Danish and Canadian tanks. Here’s what some of our allies have to say about the use of tanks in COIN operations. Kaptajn Bjarne B. Hundevad, Squadron Chief of 2 ESK (the Danish Army’s Second Tank Squadron wrote in a paper in April 2009 that:
> 
> “The Leopard 2A5 DK is a robust and accurate weapons system. It’s not that such vehicles cannot be knocked out. But Leopard 2A5s have yet to suffer any serious damage in Afghanistan. Moreover, these tanks add firepower and have boosted ISAF morale. The Taliban is terrified by the tanks.”
> 
> As the US was about to deploy tanks in November 2010, MGen Richard Mills, the US Marine commander in Afghanistan, told the BBC that: “Tanks are hardly a weapon of desperation but simply another tool to wage COIN [counterinsurgency efforts] in an effective way that will save Afghan and Coalition lives.” In another interview with the Army Times in December of that year, he said:
> 
> “The tank, with its optics, with its stand-off distance, with its battle armor, gives me a very, very good tool that I can use once again to bring very, very precise fires on the insurgents and ensure that civilian casualties don’t rise, an issue that we are very concerned about here.”
> 
> So far from being a relic of the past, recent experience shows how heavy armour and its associated precision fire power still have a place in the initial phase of winning a war as in the First and Second Gulf War and indeed within COIN operations in Afghanistan.
> 
> Does LAV III UP satisfy the CCV requirements?
> 
> The requirement of medium and heavy armour vehicles in the military commander’s toolkit, capable of contributing to high intensity combat situations is vital.  The CCV backgrounder (updated on 6th September) on the Department of National Defence website states:
> 
> “The experience of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) and that of other nations in operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon and other operational theatre demonstrates the requirement for a new highly survivable medium-weight (25-45 tonnes) armoured Close Combat Vehicle (CCV). The threats of mines, Improvised Explosive Devices, Explosively Formed Projectiles and anti-armour weapons have proliferated and are likely to be faced in most medium to high-threat missions. A more robust vehicle with both passive and active protection appropriate to the mission will likely be required frequently in the future.
> 
> The CCV is intended to overcome the aforementioned deficiencies in capabilities as well as fulfill future operational concept requirements. Changes in recent years to the threats facing the CAF on operations have led to increased attention on protection.
> 
> The CCV project will provide the CAF with a medium-weight armoured vehicle that is both highly protected and tactically mobile. The CCV will bridge the gap between the current light (5-25 tonnes) and heavy armoured (45 tonnes +) vehicle fleets therefore providing the Canadian Army with an operational capability that can operate in intimate support of the Main Battle Tank or independently within a high-intensity environment.
> 
> This project is part of the family of land combat vehicles, announced in July 2009, and provides the Canadian Army with a flexible, multi-purpose capability enabling the CAF to respond effectively and successfully to the full spectrum of military operations.”
> 
> Many other countries have also opted for a heavier infantry fighting vehicle (either tracked or wheeled) very similar to what Canada is acquiring through the CCV program. These include: the United States, Britain, France, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Spain, Italy, Norway, Poland and Austria.  These medium weight vehicles ensure that dismounted troops can be delivered safely to a tactical objective in a high tempo high threat combat environment in support of, or supported by MBTs.
> 
> The LAV III entered service with the Canadian Army in 1999. The LAV III Upgrade Program was initiated in 2009 with the first production contract awarded in 2011. It is intended to extend the life of these vehicles to 2035. Central to the LAV III UP program is the development of the Double ‘V’ Hull (DVH). When the limitations of the US Stryker (LAV III in US service) against IEDs became evident, the development of an improved blast protection system commenced soon after.  In 2009/2010 at the time of inception of the CCV program, initial results of the DVH analysis and testing were already demonstrating that the DVH concept improved the protection of the LAV III.  While the details of DVH performance are quite rightly restricted, we can surmise that the decision to press ahead with CCV was taken in the full knowledge of DVH protection capability. As a general comment, we at Nexter can certainly attest to the high priority the Canadian Government gives to protecting its soldiers through the CCV program.
> 
> Associated with the DVH solution is an increase of vehicle mass.  The LAV III Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) is 38000 lbs (or 17.3 tonnes).  The GVW of LAV UP is quoted as 55,000 lbs (or 25 tonnes) representing an increase of 44%. To compensate for this increase in weight, a new more powerful engine has been provided passing from 350 HP to 450 HP representing a 28% increase or an effective decrease in the power to weight ratio of LAVIII to LAV III UP.  In reality, the GVW is more often the safe design limit. Consequently, it can be expected that LAV III UP will be initially fielded at something less than 25 tonnes – somewhat less than the medium weight protection required by the CCV.
> 
> Crucial to the CCV is its mobility performance in the most demanding environments and terrain. Its mobility requirements are extremely challenging to the point that both tracked vehicles and the latest generation of wheeled platforms were evaluated alongside each other.
> 
> CCVs are larger medium weight vehicles than LAV III UP. A simple physical comparison of the three CCV competitors against the LAV III UP is instructive in this regard. The CCV will also provide both increased individual crew and stowage volume inside the vehicle. This ensures that missions of extended durations can be undertaken in increased comfort.  Personal equipment stowage inside the vehicle forms part of the vehicle’s combat efficiency.
> 
> Closing Statement
> 
> In common with other modern forces around the world, Canada has defined the CCV as its medium weight vehicle.  As noted above, many countries have capability in the medium weight vehicle range, characterised by their ability to support tanks or conduct independent missions in high intensity environments.
> 
> The LAV III Upgrade Program clearly provides important and much needed incremental improvements to the original LAVIII vehicle fleet which is the work horse of the Canadian Army. However, the upgraded LAV IIIs are still not comparable to the more robust, well protected CCV



After this was Byers and Webb's article which is was posted above by AF Guy

While they both leave out the inconvenient truths to their arguments, I tend to lean toward Mr. Duckworth's argument, simply because it is more factual and less rhetorical.


----------



## McG

Of course Nexter would object to any arguments that would see them unable to charge us a premium for what is at best a small incremental improvement over what we already have.
We would be better off upgrading the whole LAV III fleet to a common standard and buying a few more.  
This will just be a training and maintenance burden:


----------



## Navy_Pete

I think I would argue that regardless of the capabilities provided, we can't afford the CCV currently without cutting one of the navy or air force procurements entirely.

The old tankers in particular are becoming dangerous to operate; it's a nearly 50 year old high pressure steam plant that the guys don't get proper training on how to maintain them.

The sea kings are in relatively better shape due to the airworthiness maintenance requirements, but still, giant maintenance pig.

Up to the big giant heads, but seeing as we have no money, they really need to closely evaluate the actual requirements.  You could also easily argue that AOPs won't provide much bang for the buck, but that's probably better for a different thread.


----------



## GnyHwy

MCG said:
			
		

> Of course Nexter would object to any arguments that would see them unable to charge us a premium for what is at best a small incremental improvement over what we already have.
> We would be better off upgrading the whole LAV III fleet to a common standard and buying a few more.
> This will just be a training and maintenance burden:



While Nexter is correct in their analysis of the 6.0, the hole in their argument is that their proposal doesn't meet it either; it only comes closer.

I tend to agree with your reasoning to put the money in the 6.0.  The investment in the 6.0 would probably produce the most net gain vs. the least amount of risk.  And since the 6.0 project will inevitably run out of money well before they meet all their objectives, giving the money to them seems reasonable to me.  That extra money would likely do a tonne of good with the first two years of implementation training as well.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

I think GDLS has this project in the bag and it will get the go-ahead whether the army truly wants anything to do with them or not.  I think the government's real motive is to use this contract as a way to market GDLS vehicles on the international market place.  Having a 108 vehicle micro-fleet doesn't do our army a whole lot of good but it certainly serves the purpose of providing a great capability display for our defense industry to market their tech and armoured vehicles to interested foreign parties.  

Canada recently signed a contract with the Colombian Army for brand new LAV-III's so who is to say other armies looking to upgrade their armoured vehicle fleets won't come looking this way.


----------



## Kirkhill

Another thought that keeps recurring is this business of managing "micro-fleets".

In what way is Canada different than Norway, Denmark, Australia, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Finland or even the UK?

All of them are managing "micro-fleets" of Tanks and IFVs, not to mention artillery systems, engineer plant and even aircraft.  They are struggling.  Yes.  But they are adapting.

The only countries that buy Heavy Armour by the bushel basket are Americans (Abrams and Bradley plants struggling to stay open) and the Chinese.

Everybody else is working to keep a minimal capability within their grasp for those occasions when it comes in handy (just like a bulldozer or crane or RTFL or Scharnhorst's axe).  

The problem seems to be the management of the available assets and a propensity for insisting that everybody be equipped as if they are at 5 minutes NTM for every mission.

Why is the army's need to manage a mixed fleet of tanks, ccvs, bulldozers and front end loaders any different than Volker-Stevins need to manage graders, dozers, asphalt strippers and layers, and excavators?

I'm not talking about the operators and their willingness to continue picking up their paycheck while taking fire.  I am wondering about the "mechanics' of procuring, supplying, maintaining and renewing a fleet of mixed bits and pieces of equipment.   Why is it so difficult?  Especially in the Canadian Forces?

It is not a unique challenge.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Another thought that keeps recurring is this business of managing "micro-fleets".
> 
> In what way is Canada different than Norway, Denmark, Australia, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Finland or even the UK?
> 
> All of them are managing "micro-fleets" of Tanks and IFVs, not to mention artillery systems, engineer plant and even aircraft.  They are struggling.  Yes.  But they are adapting.
> 
> The only countries that buy Heavy Armour by the bushel basket are Americans (Abrams and Bradley plants struggling to stay open) and the Chinese.
> 
> Everybody else is working to keep a minimal capability within their grasp for those occasions when it comes in handy (just like a bulldozer or crane or RTFL or Scharnhorst's axe).
> 
> The problem seems to be the management of the available assets and a propensity for insisting that everybody be equipped as if they are at 5 minutes NTM for every mission.
> 
> Why is the army's need to manage a mixed fleet of tanks, ccvs, bulldozers and front end loaders any different than Volker-Stevins need to manage graders, dozers, asphalt strippers and layers, and excavators?
> 
> I'm not talking about the operators and their willingness to continue picking up their paycheck while taking fire.  I am wondering about the "mechanics' of procuring, supplying, maintaining and renewing a fleet of mixed bits and pieces of equipment.   Why is it so difficult?  Especially in the Canadian Forces?
> 
> It is not a unique challenge.



It is difficult because we continue to pretend we have symmetry when it doesn't actually exist.  It is our reluctance to change the way our forces are structured which makes it difficult for us to manage these micro-fleets.  We would rather have skeleton battalions and regiments sitting in skeleton brigades then re-structure our force to align it with our present resources and capabilities.

Interestingly, the nations you mentioned above have all adapted their forces in a variety of ways to meet their present resource and equipment constraints.

For example:

The Norwegian Army has formed its Battalions into "Battlegroups" consisting of 1 Sqn of tanks, 1 Sqn of Cavalry/Recce, 2 Mech Inf Coy's.  

The Australian's are taking all their vehicles and giving them to the Armoured Corps and forming Armoured Cavalry Regiments, each with M1A1's, LAV's and Bushmaster's.  The infantry no longer have vehicles but will hitch a ride with the ACR's when req'd

The Dutch choose to specialize their forces with one of their Bde's forming a light air assault bde, akin to the Brit Armies 16th Air Assault Bde. The Dutch also have no problem disbanding units in the face of budget reductions, they are disbanding one of their infantry battalions to save money.

The Dane's reformed their army from one based around mobilization to one that is permanently available and on active duty.  They also have had no problem getting rid of units and eliminating entire brigades.


----------



## McG

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Why is the army's need to manage a mixed fleet of tanks, ccvs, bulldozers and front end loaders any different than Volker-Stevins need to manage graders, dozers, asphalt strippers and layers, and excavators?


There are many things that make the challenges and requirements different.  Parts and technical information for civilian heavy equipment is not subject to ITARS.  The equipment is not the same cost, the use of standard commercial parts in the design is not the same, the availability of local qualified mechanics is not the same ... 

The military operates its equipment in different places under conditions where turning to a local shop for parts is not an option nor is turning to a local mechanic for repair work an option.  Even at home, there are a lot more bulldozers and self-propelled scrapers generating a deeper pool of capable mechanics down in the industrial section of town.

The logistics is different.  Every additional fleet deployed on an operation generates its own demand for a supply of spare parts to be deployed with it.  This stresses our air lines of communication.  And when we go to the field, we need trucks to move all this parts (which means more pers in the tail).  The comercial builder does not have to worry about the global stratigic to tactical level supply chain for his equipment.


----------



## Kirkhill

The Dane's also recognized they couldn't fit 8 butts into the seven seats available in the CV90 or Piranha and so they decided to reduce the section size to 6.

Then,

Noting they didn't have a very big army in any event they decided to convert all their infantry sections to 6.  The infantry could then be employed light, with M113s, Piranhas or with CV90s.

As you say Drew.  They adapt.


----------



## Kirkhill

MCG said:
			
		

> There are many things that make the challenges and requirements different.  Parts and technical information for civilian heavy equipment is not subject to ITARS.  The equipment is not the same cost, the use of standard commercial parts in the design is not the same, the availability of local qualified mechanics is not the same ...
> 
> The military operates its equipment in different places under conditions where turning to a local shop for parts is not an option nor is turning to a local mechanic for repair work an option.  Even at home, there are a lot more bulldozers and self-propelled scrapers generating a deeper pool of capable mechanics down in the industrial section of town.
> 
> The logistics is different.  Every additional fleet deployed on an operation generates its own demand for a supply of spare parts to be deployed with it.  This stresses our air lines of communication.  And when we go to the field, we need trucks to move all this parts (which means more pers in the tail).  The comercial builder does not have to worry about the global stratigic to tactical level supply chain for his equipment.



C'mon McG.

Perhaps you want to try that argument on These Guys and the mining industry they serve.

Or perhaps these guys















I challenge you to determine whether that site is in Alberta, Colorado, Russia or Mongolia.

Other folks are deploying far more broadly, far more frequently with far more esoteric kit than you lot ever do.


----------



## a_majoor

Moving back a few posts, this article demonstrates that China, at least, has advanced the art of using composite materials in large vehicles. The curb weght of 4.5 tons may be a typo, but a composite vehicle is certainly going to be much lighter than an all steel one.

The gains from using lightweight construction techniques (and retrofitting them wherever possible in existing fleets) is highlighted as well. The only current vehicle using this sort of construction in service is the Korean K-21, but there is no reason that we can't delay the CCV program by asking for this sort of weight reduction as well (If we are really trying to sell vehicles using the CCV program, then this sort of R&D work would make whatever vehicle emerges quite competative on the open market).  

http://en.ce.cn/Insight/201309/16/t20130916_1508220.shtml



> *Lightweight car demand boosts carbon fiber market*
> Last Updated: 2013-09-16 15:05 | CE.cn  Save  Print   E-mail
> By Liu Songbai
> 
> At the beginning of this year, China's first self-dumping truck equipped with a carriage that is made of carbon fiber composite material was completed. The truck is 8.6 meters long, with a load capacity of 50 tons and a curb weight of 4.8 tons, 29 percent lighter than a truck with a metal carriage. This marked the first successful use of composite material in the carriage of heavy-duty truck in China, signifying that China has achieved new breakthroughs in using composite materials in reducing the weight of automobiles, opening up a "blue sea" for the use of carbon fiber.
> 
> Weight reduction becoming the trend of automobile development
> 
> Automobile weight reduction refers to the reduction of the overall weight of the automobile on the precondition of guaranteeing the strength and safety performance of the automobile, so as to improve the power performance of the automobile, reduce fuel consumption, and cut down emission pollution. Researches show that if a car's weight is reduced by 10 percent, its fuel efficiency can increase by 6 to 8 percent; when the overall weight of a car is cut down by 100kg, its oil consumption per 100km will be reduced by 0.3 to 0.6 liters; a reduction of 1 percent of the weight of a car can reduce oil consumption by 0.7 percent. Besides, a reduction of 100kg in a car's weight can reduce carbon dioxide emission by about 5g per kilometer. Experts say that the auto industry is facing severe resource and environment challenges, and automobile weight reduction has become the trend of the development of the global auto industry.
> 
> A lot of hope is pinned on carbon fiber to achieve automobile weight reduction. With low energy consumption for its manufacturing, light weight, high strength, high designability, high resistance against erosion, and desirable molding effect, carbon fiber is an ideal material for automobile weight reduction, its application potential particularly huge in electric automobile.
> 
> "Weight reduction, fuel conservation, and environmental friendliness are the main efficiency index of the auto industry, therefore, the application of carbon fiber in this field has attracted great attention from states around the world and relevant companies. For instance, the USA spends about US$ 200 million every year on the execution of a five-year development plan for car bodywork weight reduction; Japan's Nissan and Honda will work with Toray to develop new carbon fiber materials for car bodywork. It is estimated that the auto industry's demand for carbon fiber may increase to 9,300 tons in 2019", said Wu Jianbo, a researcher of the Industry Planning Institute of China Machinery Marketing Academy.
> 
> For China, the significance of car weight reduction is even greater. On one hand, China is a giant automobile consumer. As of the end of 2012, China had an automobile population of 120 million units, which is increasing by 15.1 million units annually, and the trend is poised to continue. Such a large car population creates a huge pressure on energy and the environment. According to the China Low-carbon Economy Development Report released this year, automobile emission and road dust accounts for 50 percent of the source of PM2.5 in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Region; relevant reports released by the Ministry of Environmental Protection also show that automobile emission has become the major source of atmospheric pollution in some big and medium-sized cities. On the other hand, the Chinese government has promised to, by 2020, achieve reduction of carbon dioxide emission per unit GDP by 40 to 50 percent compared with that of 2005. This is undoubtedly a strenuous mission. "This creates a huge market for the development of carbon fiber composite material car parts", said Duan Xiaoping, president of China Chemical Fibers Association.
> 
> Chinese companies should seize the opportunity
> 
> Experts point out that China's automobile weight reduction brings a rare development opportunity. For one thing, after years' research and study, China has achieved breakthroughs in key automobile weight reduction technologies such as design and evaluation of automobile weight reduction, modularized design and application technology of fiber reinforced plastic, and integrated application of multiple weight reduction technologies for the purpose of whole-vehicle weight reduction. For another thing, policy support has been increased. China has promulgated the Development Plan for the Energy-saving and New Energy Automobile Industry (2012-2020) and the 12th Five-year Development Plan for the New Materials Industry, giving explicit encouragement to the development and application of automobile weight reduction technology; the Investment Guide for Industry Reform and Upgrading published by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology also places automobile weight reduction on a prominent position of the auto industry.
> 
> Some companies have made excellent achievements in weight reduction. Changzhou Shenying Carbon Plastic Composite Material Co., Ltd. has spent RMB 330 million Yuan on building a production line of carbon-fiber car roof, engine cover, and bumper that has an annual production capacity of 200,000 units; Great Wall and Chery have also worked with foreign companies to promote the use of light materials.
> 
> Experts believe that with the continuous development of China's carbon fiber industry and the guiding of energy conservation, emission reduction, and car weight reduction, carbon fiber may become a leader of the "weight-losing revolution" of the auto world.



Some other notes. There are a lot of composite fibers out there besides carbon fiber with similar properties, and ceramic composite materials are also possible. Even titanium can be used, a "wet layup" process has been demonstrated that is relatively fast and cheap: http://Forums.Army.ca/forums/threads/91633/post-923922.html#msg923922.


----------



## McG

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> C'mon McG.
> 
> Perhaps you want to try that argument on These Guys and the mining industry they serve.
> 
> ...
> 
> Other folks are deploying far more broadly, far more frequently with far more esoteric kit than you lot ever do.


And what do they spend to do it?  There is big money in mining and they will spend what we cannot afford.

... and yes, my argument that the equipment is not subject to ITARs is still accurate.  That means far few restrictions on who can be qualified to fix it, and far few restrictions on supply and handling parts.


----------



## Kirkhill

MCG said:
			
		

> And what do they spend to do it?  There is big money in mining and they will spend what we cannot afford.
> 
> ... and yes, my argument that the equipment is not subject to ITARs is still accurate.  That means far few restrictions on who can be qualified to fix it, and far few restrictions on supply and handling parts.



OK.

So your concerns are budget and security.

Since neither of us know the budget for such a camp let's set our assumptions aside.  You assume that it is very expensive.  I wonder how it compares to the budget for, for example, the HQ for a Divisional level Joint Exercise.  I think it is worth testing as a paper exercise.

On the security front - surely that can be managed?

Are there any ITAR problems with tires, tracks, transmissions or engines?  Water purifiers?  Tents?  Generators?

EO/Wpns/LCIS I can see being different matters and while they may encompass the biggest dollars are they the biggest contributors to support PYs?


----------



## AmmoTech90

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Are there any ITAR problems with tires, tracks, transmissions or engines?  Water purifiers?  Tents?  Generators?



Unfortunately we (the military) don't make the ITAR/CTAT regulations.  Empty ammo cans are controlled goods and cannot be passed to uncleared civilians to work on.


----------



## Kirkhill

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> Unfortunately we (the military) don't make the ITAR/CTAT regulations.  Empty ammo cans are controlled goods and cannot be passed to uncleared civilians to work on.



OK.  I Give.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> OK.  I Give.



On the plus side the US is currently updating their ITAR list to make it more focused on actual weapon systems and ammo and excluded a lot of the nuts and bolts that were in there before (not an exaggeration, had an actual bolt catalogued as ITAR because it was used to hold down an ITAR cabinet).

Controlled goods is different then ITAR though, and includes all the other NATO and other restrictions, some of which are similar to ITAR.  In general though, it's easy to get cleared to handle CG; but one of the secondary reasons for ITAR is that R&O activities generally go back to the OEM, so it keeps a lot of the ongoing repair work in the US.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Yea you mean I might actually be able to order grip screws for a Sig from the US now? Now I can Allah ackbar without duct tape.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Sure, as soon as the Dept of State pushes the changes through congress and the senate!  :facepalm:


----------



## The Bread Guy

A _Globe & Mail National Post_ columnist is sharing an interestingly-worded Tweet:


> Rumours that the $2B Close Combat Vehicle program has been cancelled are greatly exaggerated. Story to come.


----------



## McG

I don't like the sound of that.
Cancelation would be a good thing.


----------



## The Bread Guy

I've got zero inside info, but even a casual viewing of "Yes, Minister" tells me there's more than one way to "cancel" a project.  Maybe even some that make it possible for someone speaking to a columnist to say, "no, it's not _completely_ off the table ...."


----------



## Kirkhill

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I've got zero inside info, but even a casual viewing of "Yes, Minister" tells me there's more than one way to "cancel" a project.  Maybe even some that make it possible for someone speaking to a columnist to say, "no, it's not _completely_ off the table ...."



Hark! I hear a Royal Commission in the offing...... ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well contracts have been pulled from the table minutes before offering. So pretty much anything could happen. maybe Irving or a Quebec shipyard told them that they can build the CCV domestically.....


----------



## The Bread Guy

Colin P said:
			
		

> Well contracts have been pulled from the table minutes before offering. So pretty much anything could happen. maybe Irving or a Quebec shipyard told them that they can build the CCV domestically.....





			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Hark! I hear a Royal Commission in the offing...... ;D


Ya see?  Between these and  "an asteroid could hit the project team, killing them all and affecting project continuity", there's LOADS of loopholes in the "it's still a go" rationale ;D


----------



## MilEME09

just because its not cancelled, doesn't mean any one is actually working on it


----------



## The Bread Guy

1)  One take:


> It's going to cost the Canadian Army more than planned to house new armoured vehicles, and commanders fear they won't be able to afford basic upkeep of the fleet in the future, internal government documents say.
> 
> Reports prepared for former associate defence minister Bernard Valcourt lay out in stark detail the pitfalls associated with the purchase of 108 close combat vehicles — a program whose future is being debated at the highest levels of the Harper government.
> 
> Defence sources say cabinet may be called upon to ultimately decide the fate of the $2.1-billion program, which has apparently already passed through the federal Treasury Board.
> 
> The vehicles were conceived at the height of the war in Afghanistan as the army looked for better protection from increasingly powerful roadside bombs and booby traps, but some critics now say the program's time has passed .... Specific questions were posed to National Defence about the future of the program, as well as the concerns outlined in the documents. Public Works provided a terse response: "We continue to work with the Department of National Defence on this file." ....


The Canadian Press, 10 Oct 13

2)  Another view - highlights mine ....


			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> A _Globe & Mail National Post_ columnist is sharing an interestingly-worded Tweet:
> 
> 
> 
> Rumours that the $2B Close Combat Vehicle program has been cancelled are greatly exaggerated. Story to come.
Click to expand...

And here's his column, shared in accordance with the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act....


> The Conservative government is said to be intent on avoiding another military procurement embarrassment, as it prepares a Throne Speech expected to overhaul the way Canada buys military equipment.
> 
> At the centre of the latest potential procurement controversy is the $2-billion contract to purchase 108 Close Combat Vehicles (CCVs) for the Canadian Army. The speculation in Ottawa is that the government has been urged by the army to cancel the deal to buy the armoured vehicles so that it can use the money to offset budget cuts.
> 
> However, *senior government officials confirm that the process is still alive and there have been no talks between the departments of Public Works and National Defence to cancel it.
> 
> The other rumour in Ottawa is that the government’s project management board picked the winning bidder last March, but that the decision was overturned in favour of London, Ont.-based General Dynamics Land Systems Canada, after two southern Ontario ministers were appointed to the departments overseeing the acquisition — Rob Nicholson at Defence and Diane Finley at Public Works.
> 
> The other bidders are French company Nexter Systems and Anglo-Swedish defence contractor, BAE Systems Hagglunds.
> 
> But government sources say that there has been no re-evaluation of the bids since the spring.*
> 
> The purchase of the CCVs is particularly touchy for the government, after the well-publicized problems with the F35 joint strike fighter and the three-decade process to replace the Sea King ship-borne helicopters.
> 
> The CCV procurement is already around two years late, after it was sent back to the drawing board in 2012 because none of the three medium-weight infantry support vehicles passed the Department of National Defence’s mandatory requirements.
> 
> The Conservatives re-issued a request for proposals and sources suggest that the government is determined to ensure a fair, smoothly run contest this time around — even as critics like the former chief of the defence staff, Rick Hillier, suggest the Forces don’t need CCVs because they will soon have upgraded LAV 111s that will be nearly as heavily armoured.
> 
> *The CCV contract is scheduled to be discussed by Treasury Board next month, although officials say it may yet be derailed by the army’s insistence that the $2-billion would be better spent maintaining existing capabilities.
> 
> But there is pressure on the government to follow through with the contract, and ensure a competitive process, because the three bidders have each spent tens of millions of dollars over the last four years pitching their vehicles.
> 
> French president François Hollande is understood to have raised the CCV issue with Stephen Harper when the two men met, and the Prime Minister is said to have assured him the contest will be fair.*
> 
> While General Dynamics Land Systems already has a manufacturing plant in London, the other bidders would be required to build their vehicles in Canada as part of the industrial and regional benefit offsets program. In addition, the in-service support over the 25 year life-span of the vehicles, which accounts for around half the cost, will be supplied by Canadian operations that partner with the winning bidder.
> 
> Proponents of the CCV say that Canada’s experience in Afghanistan, where we lost soldiers at three times the rate of many allies, proves that the LAVs are too light to protect against anti-tank mines. The CCV was identified as a way of bridging the gap between the LAV and the Leopard tanks that were bought by the military in 2007.
> 
> Next week’s Throne Speech is expected to promise the government will streamline the way it buys military gear. Michael Den Tandt of Postmedia News reported in February that the government is weighing whether to set up a new agency under a single minister, or a secretariat of bureaucrats from all the departments involved.


----------



## Journeyman

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> ....government officials confirm that the _process_ is still alive ......


Now that is eminently possible.  The acquisition is cancelled, but the cubicle-dwellers and retired-military "contractors" are still collecting their pay, beavering away......


----------



## The Bread Guy

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Now that is eminently possible.  The acquisition is cancelled, but the cubicle-dwellers and retired-military "contractors" are still collecting their pay, beavering away......


Well said, Sir Humphrey!


----------



## Kirkhill

The Government has two problems.  One is the domestic politics issue.  The other is its credibility as a purchaser.

The first is easier to fix than the second.

To fix the first all that is necessary is to declare the obvious:  the system is so badly screwed up in process that it can't deliver what is needed when it is needed.  Arguably the CCV was necessary in 2006.  In 2006 there was a willing buyer and willing sellers.  Process got in the way.  By the time the Process was navigated there was no longer a need.

The process need to be fixed.  The Government can argue they are fixing it. Again. Until the next time.

The bigger problem is constantly burning vendors is not good practice.  Sooner or later they want to see some money spent.


----------



## McG

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> In 2006 there was a willing buyer and willing sellers.


There was not a "buyer" until Jan 2008.  Right from the begining, we knew we would be out of Kandahar before CCV was delivered.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> To fix the first all that is necessary is to declare the obvious:  the system is so badly screwed up in process that ....


In this case, I would argue that it was not process that fail.  Ill concieved requirements doomed the project regardless of what process might have been followed.  From the very start, the CCV project could only deliver the wrong thing or nothing.


----------



## Kirkhill

MCG said:
			
		

> There was not a "buyer" until Jan 2008.  Right from the begining, we knew we would be out of Kandahar before CCV was delivered.
> In this case, I would argue that it was not process that fail.  Ill concieved requirements doomed the project regardless of what process might have been followed.  From the very start, the CCV project could only deliver the wrong thing or nothing.



I'll take your point on the timing but I stand by my point on process.

It is my understanding that once the Leo 1s were fielded it was determined that the LAVs couldn't keep up in the final movements through the fields around the villages and compounds.  Initially that prompted the deployment of the TLAVs and the start of the search for something more robust.

My argument is that less time should have been spent sweating the details and a UOR issued to lease/buy/beg/borrow/steal 16 CV90s.  This would have filled a perceived gap immediately and also have allowed the unit to be observed in action and a determination made on incorporating it in the long term plan.

You did that with many other pieces of kit (M777 and MRAPs come to mind).  It was also the form for most of the other armies out there.  Everybody was looking at everybody else's kit to see what worked better than their's.  Everybody was buying/trading penny-packets of vehicles and trying out new and old kit in unconventional roles.

It was your version of the Spanish Civil War.

After the war rationalization occurs.  This is true after every war.  People look at the results and decide everybody should club their hair and march at 120 paces to the minute.

The Americans, Brits, Aussies... Scandinavians, Dutch, French, Germans.... they are all going through the same exercise that you lot are.  The difference is that they bought when they needed them and are divesting of those they don't.

The CCV project is one that filled a speculative gap, the lack of a tracked vehicle like the CV90, and was never proven in Canadian service.  Now you don't know if the gap existed, if the CV90 would have filled the gap, if it was a significantly useful piece of kit to justify taking it into the inventory in large or small numbers and supporting it.  Now you are back to the same sterile pre-war arguments about tracks and wheels, light and heavy, without the benefit of hard data that fielding a small number of vehicles in a "timely" (there's that word again) fashion.

Timeliness is a function of Process.


----------



## GnyHwy

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> My argument is that less time should have been spent sweating the details and a UOR issued to lease/buy/beg/borrow/steal 16 CV90s.  This would have filled a perceived gap immediately and also have allowed the unit to be observed in action and a determination made on incorporating it in the long term plan.



Perceived is good choice of words.  We knew we needed something, we just weren't sure what, other than something better.  At the time, it would have been difficult to communicate those ideas expediently, hence the lengthy process of identifying capability gaps and writing requirements to fill those gaps.

I have a strong suspicion that if we had bought them, and tried to use them to their best ability, that we would have found very little difference other than a tilted or tainted opinion.  There would have been very little proof of concept, either good or bad.  The one thing that would have been proved is that we would have struggled to train persons and maintain them, which may have been a good reason to nix any UOR talk.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> You did that with many other pieces of kit (M777 and MRAPs come to mind).  It was also the form for most of the other armies out there.  Everybody was looking at everybody else's kit to see what worked better than their's.  Everybody was buying/trading penny-packets of vehicles and trying out new and old kit in unconventional roles.



Those two pieces don't really help your argument.  The M777 is a howitzer that we knew we could take on relatively easily and it didn't need a proof of concept check.  The MRAP was bought expediently and now we are essentially giving them away, which is hardly a success story.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The Americans, Brits, Aussies... Scandinavians, Dutch, French, Germans.... they are all going through the same exercise that you lot are.  The difference is that they bought when they needed them and are divesting of those they don't.



Not sure about their processes.  If they are more agile, then maybe there is something to be learned, but I don't think buying and divesting with flavours of the year is good for anyone.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The CCV project is one that filled a speculative gap, the lack of a tracked vehicle like the CV90, and was never proven in Canadian service.  Now you don't know if the gap existed, if the CV90 would have filled the gap, if it was a significantly useful piece of kit to justify taking it into the inventory in large or small numbers and supporting it.  Now you are back to the same sterile pre-war arguments about tracks and wheels, light and heavy, without the benefit of hard data that fielding a small number of vehicles in a "timely" (there's that word again) fashion.
> 
> Timeliness is a function of Process.



The gap still exists and we have defined it quite accurately.  I agree with what MCG has eluded to, the CV90 can't fill it, just the same as the other bidders can't fill it; and being a track, believe it or not, doesn't have a lot to do with it.  It is just likely that the "real" solution would probably be a track. 

If there was a fault in our process, it wasn't necessarily timeliness.  It was either setting our standards too high, or lowering those standards when no one came forward to try and achieve them.  Maybe both.


----------



## Kirkhill

Points taken Gunny but....



			
				GnyHwy said:
			
		

> Perceived is good choice of words.  We knew we needed something, we just weren't sure what, other than something better.  At the time, it would have been difficult to communicate those ideas expediently, hence the lengthy process of identifying capability gaps and writing requirements to fill those gaps.



How long did it take to write up the UORs for the Gwagens and RG31s to replace the Iltis?  Did you know that you needed the G-Wagen and not something else?  Or was it just something, anything, better?  If so why was the RG31 rapidly fielded shortly after the Gwagen was introduced?  And didn't the RG31 go through a couple of iterations after it was fielded?




			
				GnyHwy said:
			
		

> I have a strong suspicion that if we had bought them, and tried to use them to their best ability, that we would have found very little difference other than a tilted or tainted opinion.  There would have been very little proof of concept, either good or bad.  The one thing that would have been proved is that we would have struggled to train persons and maintain them, which may have been a good reason to nix any UOR talk.



Again, that didn't seem to be a problem with Gwagens and RG31s.  Nor Leo 2s, LAV-RWS, anything with an RWS, nor AHSVS.  Nor the M777 or even the CH-47D.  Workarounds were found.



			
				GnyHwy said:
			
		

> Those two pieces don't really help your argument.  The M777 is a howitzer that we knew we could take on relatively easily and it didn't need a proof of concept check.  The MRAP was bought expediently and now we are essentially giving them away, which is hardly a success story.



If I understand correctly you were the first force to field the M777 in action.  So while it wasn't a proof of concept issue where was the CF's  knowledge base on operations and maintenance of the system?  As to the MRAP, is it necessarily a bad thing to buy, try and divest, in a timely fashion, rather than ponder imponderables indefinitely?  You bought it. You tried it.  It field some gaps and left some others.  It may not have been any better than the LAVs but it extended the life of the LAV fleet if nothing else.  And maybe it saved a life or two in the process.   It does seem to have had an impact on the LAV upgrade programme with the decision to fit all the LAVs with V bottoms.



			
				GnyHwy said:
			
		

> Not sure about their processes.  If they are more agile, then maybe there is something to be learned, but I don't think buying and divesting with flavours of the year is good for anyone.



The Brits went through the Landrover, the Snatch Landrover, the Pinzgauer, a whole kennel of dogs (Jackal 1 and 2, Coyote, Bulldog, Mastiff, Wolfhound, Foxhound .....) the BvS10 and the Warthog, not to mention re-engineered FV432s and Scimitars trying to sort out their problems.  The Dutch bought Aussie kit, the Danes bought Canadian kit and the Yanks bought whatever they could get their hands on.  Which pretty much replicates WW1, WW2 and Korea.

Planning is over-rated.  Once you get to the 70% solution that is as good as you are going to get.  Accountants detest that fact but it doesn't make it any less of a reality.




			
				GnyHwy said:
			
		

> The gap still exists and we have defined it quite accurately.  I agree with what MCG has eluded to, the CV90 can't fill it, just the same as the other bidders can't fill it; and being a track, believe it or not, doesn't have a lot to do with it.  It is just likely that the "real" solution would probably be a track.



I take your point on the utility of a heavier solution than the CV90.  But how do you get it to the field?  Or, like the old time trebuchets, do we assemble lego blocks in theater to create monsters? 




			
				GnyHwy said:
			
		

> If there was a fault in our process, it wasn't necessarily timeliness.  It was either setting our standards too high, or lowering those standards when no one came forward to try and achieve them.  Maybe both.



We can agree here on this:  Flexibility is not quality enjoyed by government planners.


----------



## McG

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> How long did it take to write up the UORs for the Gwagens ... ?


GWagons were not UORs.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> And didn't the RG31 go through a couple of iterations after it was fielded?


We only did one buy and that is vehicle that served until we left Kandahar and it is the vehicle still in Kabul.

The CCV project was never a UOR.  Your arguments based on it being a UOR don't hold up.  From the start of the project there was no idea that this vehicle would see Afghanistan.  It would be yet another platform in the permanent fleet.


----------



## Kirkhill

MCG said:
			
		

> GWagons were not UORs.
> We only did one buy and that is vehicle that served until we left Kandahar and it is the vehicle still in Kabul.
> 
> The CCV project was never a UOR.  Your arguments based on it being a UOR don't hold up.  From the start of the project there was no idea that this vehicle would see Afghanistan.  It would be yet another platform in the permanent fleet.



I will stand corrected on the Gwagons and the RG31.   But surely that makes the process case stronger?  Apparently the Gwagons could be delivered in a timely fashion without the benefit of the UOR.  Therefore delay does not have to be endemic in the conventional process, if all the horses are pulling in the same direction.  You have to admit, that regardless of the forms used, for a period of time, kit deemed necessary was being sourced and delivered expeditiously.  Therefore, it is possible.  It may not thrill the Auditor-General or the good burghers of Canada and Westmount but it is possible.

As to the CCV:  I know it wasn't a UOR, and I screwed up if I made it sound like that.  My argument is that one way the advocates of the CCV project generally, and the CV90 in particular, could have advanced their cause would have been to make arrangements to acquire a limited number of vehicles for a limited time to see if it was a fit*.  It seems to me as if many projects were advanced in exactly that manner over the last decade or so.  

I agree that the proliferation of mini-micro-fleets would have, and probably did, increase some aspects of the maintenance and logistics burden in Afghanistan.  But it also provided valuable insight into capabilities, how they might be employed and which should be retained.

I have no special brief for the CCV, in any of its guises.  I am a continuing fan of "horses for courses" and so I see the merit in having a variety of tools at hand.  But equally I understand that on occasion you are better off using what is available, even if it operates outside its design envelope, rather than wishing for something you don't have and may only use once.

*to the topic - I know the Danes deployed CV9035s to Afghanistan in 2010, and the Norwegians deployed them as early as 2007.    Did Canadians have an opportunity to operate with them or alongside them or glean any information from the way allies employed them in similar operations and terrain that the Canadians experienced?


----------



## a_majoor

The IDF looks at how to deal with issues of deploying armoured forces in close terrain and comes up with an alternative solution to the CCV (although this article does not say how they use the HAPC's they do have in this construct). Perhaps rethinking the question will come up with different solutions (not necessarily a solution like this). Thanks to SMA for pointing this article out on another thread:

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20131029/DEFREG04/310290016/Israel-Revamps-Armored-Units-Urban-Brush-Battles



> *Israel Revamps Armored Units for Urban, Brush Battles*
> Oct. 29, 2013 - 01:05PM   |   By BARBARA OPALL-ROME   |   Comments
> 
> TEL AVIV — Starting next month, select draftees inducted into Israel’s Armored Corps will undergo training for eventual deployment in new multi-discipline companies designed to support future battalions of main battle tanks (MBTs).
> 
> The new specialty companies, each composed of reconnaissance, observation and mortar platoons, will form an integral part of future armored battalions, which consist of two active-duty MBT companies and a third MBT company from the Israel Defense Force (IDF) reserves.
> 
> The merger of traditional infantry missions into Israel’s future armored order of battle is part of an Army-wide revamp aimed at retiring older-model Merkava MBTs and optimizing Israel’s maneuvering ground forces for urban and heavily forested arenas.
> 
> Under the plan, mortar platoons will be equipped with Keshet, an M113-based, autonomous, self-propelled 120mm mortar by Elbit Systems, according to Brig. Gen. Shmuel Olansky, IDF chief armor officer.
> 
> “We’re building in every battalion of the Armored Corps a supporting company of infantry equipped with Keshet, which knows how to provide destructive firepower at a high rate,” Olansky said in a report posted Oct. 24 on the IDF’s Hebrew-language website.
> 
> New mortar platoons, together with new reconnaissance and observation platoons, will operate “shoulder-to-shoulder” with MBT battalions, Olansky said.
> 
> In an interview with Shachar Ruppin of the IDF spokesman’s office, Olansky said budget cuts and changing battle conditions were driving the revamp, which will allow the retirement of older-model MBTs as it brings on new infantry support cadres.
> 
> “Retirement of older tanks is a process that is being implemented after lengthy discussions and simulations,” Olansky said. “It allows us, in parallel, to equip ourselves with essential combat support elements.”
> 
> Maj. Arieh Berger, operations officer for the Armored Corps’ first brigade slated for the revamp, said infantry support elements will be equipped with advanced command-and-control systems for rapid transfer of targeting data to armored formations. The revamp, he said, will maximize the IDF’s ability to operate in closed and built-up areas.
> 
> “There are no more battles where tanks face off against other tanks on an exposed hill,” Berger said in the IDF-posted story. “These new forces will be able to direct tank battalions between homes of villages or into brush, according to our needs.”



Creating integrated combined arms units an evolution I see happening in all armies, and this is one path that can take the forces down that road as well.


----------



## PanaEng

Program to be cancelled or postponed indefinitely:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/government-won-t-buy-new-2b-armoured-vehicles-for-army-1.2470689

Fixed link - mods


----------



## Jarnhamar

> It's not clear whether the government will announce tomorrow that it has cancelled the program, or whether it will simply run out the clock and allow the program to die once current industry bids expire on Dec. 23



And because it's Christmas, the three contenders will wait until January to sue the government.


----------



## MilEME09

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> And because it's Christmas, the three contenders will wait until January to sue the government.



Agreed its plain as day to see the defense industry is getting really sick of Canada's shit so to speak. I would be surprised if companies stopped bidding on Canadian contracts until a change of government


----------



## NavyShooter

Would a change of government also result in a change of our procurement system???

I think not....that would require a bit more housecleaning than just changing around the Members of Parliament...

NS


----------



## Old Sweat

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Agreed its plain as day to see the defense industry is getting really sick of Canada's crap so to speak. I would be surprised if companies stopped bidding on Canadian contracts until a change of government



This has been a recurring complaint about military procurement for as long as I can remember. Projects will start with all sorts of hoopla and then collapse because the government of the day decides to shift its priorities elsewhere. Look at the maritime helicopter and the fixed wing search and rescue along with oh how so many ship building programs. Compared to them, the CCV is small potatoes.


----------



## ArmyRick

I agree, their has to be complete paradigm shift amongst government procurement policies, procedures and practices. A big house cleaning session is in order too.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

We (the CF) are not blameless here.  We routinely set out to buy 100 1976 K5 Blazers, and by the time we finish tinkering, we can afford to buy 2 Porsche Cayennes....


----------



## FSTO

They best thing that could happen would be an EMP and collective amnesia of all procurement personnel and records of Canadian military purchases. A complete reset without any corporate knowledge of the cluster that our current system staggers under is the only way to go.


----------



## FSTO

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> We (the CF) are not blameless here.  We routinely set out to buy 100 1976 K5 Blazers, and by the time we finish tinkering, we can afford to buy 2 Porsche Cayennes....



And how many times have we cheapened out on equipment and which in the end costs more to modify because we cheapened out rather than buying the top of the line model in the first place!


----------



## PPCLI Guy

FSTO said:
			
		

> And how many times have we cheapened out on equipment and which in the end costs more to modify because we cheapened out rather than buying the top of the line model in the first place!



I don't know.  How many times?

Don't bother bringing up the Ross rifle, and the LSVW did exactly what we bought it to do.

As to "cheaping out instead of buying the top end model" give me 550 LAV Ups at half the cost of 108 CCVs any day.

Just saying.


----------



## MilEME09

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I don't know.  How many times?
> 
> Don't bother bringing up the Ross rifle, and the LSVW did exactly what we bought it to do.
> 
> As to "cheaping out instead of buying the top end model" give me 550 LAV Ups at half the cost of 108 CCVs any day.
> 
> Just saying.



On the issue of the LS though we did Canadianize it which did add to the cost, kinda like what we did with the FCS for the leopard 1, and that turned out to be a problem we had to spend more money to fix. Perhaps we need to put up the white flag and get help from our NATO Allies and see how they do procurement


----------



## devil39

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I don't know.  How many times?
> 
> Don't bother bringing up the Ross rifle, and the LSVW did exactly what we bought it to do.
> 
> As to "cheaping out instead of buying the top end model" give me 550 LAV Ups at half the cost of 108 CCVs any day.
> 
> Just saying.



I have a Ross Rifle...awesome piece of kit.....just not for the trenches of WWI.  

What about TAPV?  What would you trade that for?


----------



## MilEME09

*Defence Department kills $2B order for military combat vehicles*



> OTTAWA -- The Canadian Army has scrapped a $2-billion order for new armoured vehicles -- the latest in a series of troubled procurements.
> 
> Gen. Tom Lawson, the chief of defence staff, announced Friday the cancellation of an order for 108 close-combat vehicles.
> 
> "We've recommended to the government of Canada not to proceed with the procurement process for the close-combat vehicle," Lawson said.
> Related Stories
> 
> Two more navy defence ships taken out of service
> Canada 'just can’t get around' army cuts, Hillier says
> Top soldier says Canada 'well ahead' other NATO countries on veterans' issues
> 
> Photos
> DND scraps armoured vehicles project
> 
> Gen. Tom Lawson, the chief of defence staff, speaks during a press conference in Ottawa, Friday, Dec. 20, 2013.
> Close-combat vehicles
> 
> The new upgraded Light Armoured Vehicle is unveiled at a news conference at a General Dynamics facility in London, Ont., on Thursday, Jan. 24, 2012. (Mark Spowart / THE CANADIAN PRESS)
> 
> Bids by three defence contractors -- Nexter, BAE Systems Inc. and General Dynamics Land Systems Inc. -- had been set to expire on Monday.
> 
> The program had been hanging in the balance for months after the army signalled it was worried about whether it could afford to train crews and operate and maintain the new vehicles in a time of tight money. Budget restraints have slashed baseline funding by 22 per cent.
> 
> Improvements to the military's light-armoured vehicles will provide the same level of protection to soldiers in the field as the close-combat vehicles would have, said Lt.-Gen. Marquis Hainse, commander of the army.
> 
> Lawson said he's satisfied the military has the capability to handle any mission.
> 
> "I have complete confidence that the army remains fully capable of supporting any operation that the government of Canada may assign to the Canadian Armed Forces," he said.
> 
> Having yet another major military purchase go down the drain could be a political black eye for the Conservatives, who have struggled to deliver on an extensive list of military equipment.
> 
> In addition to the armoured vehicles, National Defence and Public Works in the summer of 2012 cancelled and subsequently restarted a program to buy 1,500 military trucks for the military.
> 
> Following news of the cancellation, the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries called for a review of the government's procurement process.
> 
> "It must be a difficult day for the companies directly affected," association president Tim Page said in a statement. "They've spent a considerable amount of money to position their products to win the competition on the basis of a stated need that now is no longer required.
> 
> "The situation is evidence of a compelling need for urgent consideration and articulation of a renewed and affordable Canada First Defence Strategy, as committed to by the government in the throne speech."
> 
> Retired lieutenant-general Andrew Leslie, who led the Canadian Army through almost the entire Afghan war, said the close combat-vehicle was an essential capability for a military that intends to fight not only an all-out war, but also future insurgencies where homemade bombs will be major weapons.
> 
> Leslie says the cancellation means the army will go into future conflicts less well-equipped than it should be.
> 
> The close-combat vehicles are 36-tonne machines which can carry troops and also fight like a light tank.
> 
> Experience in Afghanistan showed the army's existing light-armoured vehicles, while capable, were vulnerable to ever more powerful bombs -- a lesson insurgent groups around the world have learned and will likely put into practice in the any new conflict.
> 
> "This decision and others has put the lives of Canadian Forces personnel at unnecessary risk," said Leslie, who will run for the Liberals in an Ottawa-area riding in the next federal election.
> 
> Leslie said he doesn't buy the argument that National Defence can no longer afford the program when it continues to underspend its budget by roughly a $1 billion a year.
> 
> He also said it was appalling that neither Defence Minister Rob Nicholson, nor Public Works Minister Diane Finley stepped forward to take responsibility for what was clearly a political decision.
> 
> "This is nonsense,"Leslie said. "This program was approved by the government and personally endorsed by (former defence minister) Peter MacKay and the prime minister.
> 
> "It is their job to explain it, not members of the Canadian Forces. Where are they? I don't see them."



While I do somewhat agree with Leslie's comments, I do believe this was a project doomed to fail


----------



## Journeyman

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> While I do somewhat agree with Leslie's comments, I do believe this was a project doomed to fail


And by not buying Starship Troopers' kit, "this decision and others has put the lives of Canadian Forces personnel at unnecessary risk"   anic: 

Leslie is now speaking only as a politician -- in sound bytes, as a member of an Opposition Party.  :boring:


CCV?  *Good riddance* to unnecessary fleet/maintenance/training/garrisoning diversification.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Interesting - I wonder why the Minister got his own statement ....


> The Government of Canada, based on the recommendation of the Canadian Armed Forces, has decided not to proceed with the Close Combat Vehicle (CCV) procurement project. Significant capability improvements have served to address a number of force protection concerns that existed when the CCV project was first conceived.
> 
> (....)
> 
> “After a careful review of priority military requirements and given improved capabilities across the Canadian Armed Forces due to significant Government investment, the Canadian Armed Forces recommended that the Government not proceed with this acquisition. We accepted the military’s recommendation.”
> 
> Rob Nicholson
> Minister of National Defence ....


.... and the generals (CDS and Army boss) their own?


> The Family of Land Combat Vehicles (FLCV) program is delivering a suite of new combat capabilities with the goal of ensuring that the Canadian Army will continue to be strong, proud and ready to serve Canada and Canadians.
> 
> The program to date has included upgraded Light Armoured Vehicles, the Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle, Armoured Engineering Vehicles, and the Close Combat Vehicle known as the CCV.
> 
> The Family of Land Vehicles program has been a complex undertaking and has taken time. Throughout that time, we continuously assessed and validated the program’s success in matching new equipments capabilities with the identified requirements of each project. It was this ongoing assessment that led us to consider a change in course.
> 
> The CCV platform was envisioned to bridge the protection, mobility, and firepower gap between a Light Armoured Vehicle and a Main Battle Tank. However, since the beginning of the Land Combat Vehicles program in 2009, we have seen significant capability that have addressed the protection concerns. The capabilities of the Upgraded Light Armoured Vehicle III are far superior to what was originally envisioned. Additionally, considerable investment in our Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance capabilities; significant advances in Counter-IED; and the Canadian Army's improvements in its tactics, techniques and procedures have all resulted in significant mitigation of tactical risk to our soldiers in deployed combat operations.
> 
> Based on this assessment, and the fundamental principle that the Canadian Armed Forces do not procure capabilities unless they are absolutely essential to the attainment of our mandate – the mandate outlined in the Canada First Defence Strategy – we recommended that the Government of Canada not proceed with the procurement process for the Close Combat Vehicle.
> 
> We have complete confidence that the Army remains fully capable of supporting any operation that the Government of Canada may assign to the Canadian Armed Forces.


----------



## daftandbarmy

The 'F' in Infantry stands for two things, and one of them is 'Footborne'. 

That way it's easier to sneak up on the bad guys and break all their stuff.  :camo:


----------



## eme411

Interesting that this has happened now after the CF has scraped over 400 M-113's , we should really jump onto some of the US contracts or see what they have to sell, ie. we can go back to the 5/4 CUCV , here we were driving our 76 5/4 's into the ground and we could have purchased more CUCV's than we did, with almost no conversion courses , easy access to parts and kits for the vehicles,  some of the coms units had the rad van pods switched to the CUCV without major rework, instead we spend all that money on the LS that comes from Europe ,(Logistics here, where are your parts going to come from in a major conflict???) and as it turned out was a turd, remember why they closed LETE? Back to the CUCV, they are still coming out of the US DOD 30 years on, Then we move onto the LUVW , don't try to invent the wheel , you want a HUMVEE (a dumb , stupid tough truck with mountains of parts close at hand (logistics here) then buy a HUMVEE, no here we go again, buy something in Europe that rolls over, burns up, needs Steve Jobs to come fix it because it's loaded with computers to get it to go down the road, no parts, expensive, (logistics here), next one , MSVS, 6 wheel drive garbage truck chassis with a Military box painted green, can't go into the training area for fear of burning the forest down when the engine emission system goes into re-gen mode ,or get the truck stuck, (my fire fighter buddies are just living in fear when one of their new trucks goes into re-gen when they are standing parked at a curb and someone walks by), thank god the ML is still in service , a tough simple truck , parts all over the world , M-35 series has been in service for more than 60 years, you know what they say , if it ain't broke ,we could have purchased the US M-35A3 fleet ,(logistics here), many of the parts in our system would still fit the A3, minor conversion course . This is where we need to take a long look at the ways the IDF and US Army run there vehicle fleets, look at what our enemy runs in there vehicle fleets , almost always vehicles of Russian origins , very simple and very tough, in the end if their vehicles are going down the road with min. effort (logistics here ) and ours are not , very simply we die, remember WW2 German horse transport vs. the 2 1/2 cargo truck, armour or truck the kid from south shore NS or interior BC need to be able to fix fast and move.


----------



## UnwiseCritic

Based on this assessment, and the fundamental principle that the Canadian Armed Forces do not procure capabilities unless they are absolutely essential to the attainment of our mandate – *the mandate outlined in the Canada First Defence Strategy – *we recommended that the Government of Canada not proceed with the procurement process for the Close Combat Vehicle.

Reference the bolded - Does the 1st defence strategy not seem outdated? Whether or not scrapping the CCV is a good idea or not is beyond me. But shouldn't the forces have an updated strategy to make better informed decisions if were going to base them on such a strategy.


----------



## The Bread Guy

UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> .... shouldn't the forces have an updated strategy to make better informed decisions if were going to base them on such a strategy.


 :nod:


----------



## cupper

UnwiseCritic said:
			
		

> Based on this assessment, and the fundamental principle that the Canadian Armed Forces do not procure capabilities unless they are absolutely essential to the attainment of our mandate – *the mandate outlined in the Canada First Defence Strategy – *we recommended that the Government of Canada not proceed with the procurement process for the Close Combat Vehicle.
> 
> Reference the bolded - Does the 1st defence strategy not seem outdated? Whether or not scrapping the CCV is a good idea or not is beyond me. But shouldn't the forces have an updated strategy to make better informed decisions if were going to base them on such a strategy.



How many times do we have to say it - *STOP TRYING TO APPLY LOGIC TO GOVERNMENT POLICY*


----------



## a_majoor

Since we now have a pause until 2016 before thinking about new projects, maybe we can actually work out what we actually need and how we are going to use it. Three years should be enough time, right?


----------



## PuckChaser

We'll sole-source what we need the next time a shooting match starts. It won't be perfect, and it won't be there at the start, but its the typical Canadian way of procurement.


----------



## UnwiseCritic

cupper said:
			
		

> How many times do we have to say it - *STOP TRYING TO APPLY LOGIC TO GOVERNMENT POLICY*



You'll have to say it until the day I become one of them. The battle for my mind continues. And once the things they do start to make sense it probably just means I've lost it. Not them becoming smart.  Man I hate anything government related...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> We'll sole-source what we need the next time a shooting match starts. It won't be perfect, and it won't be there at the start, but its the typical Canadian way of procurement.



Actually the leasing idea was quite impressive in how quick it worked, as long as all the western armies don't intend to lease equipment, it should work.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

From tanknet

In addition to the 44 CV90/35 bought earlier from Netherlands Estonia buys 35 CV90 hulls and 2 driver training vehicles from Norway.
The hulls are going to be transported to Estonia and then converted to various roles.  Article mentions med-evac, indirect fire support (120mm mortars), command, communications, AA, logistics as possible uses. 

EDIT: the price was practically free 0.6M EUR from the lot

It's due to the ongoing CV90 upgrade project where the turrets of our old CV9030Ns are refurbished/upgraded and then fitted to new MKIII hulls. As for the old hulls, funds only allowed for the convertion of 32 of these to CEVs and multi-role/mortar carriers, which leaves us with alot of surplus MKI hulls, and in Norway that means they're up for sale.

The hulls from Norway are  older (MkI from 2000 or so) than MkIII  bought from Netherlands.
I believe the Netherlands deal was 113M EUR for 44 CV90 + support vehicles: two Biber  armored vehicle launched bridges, two armored recovery vehicles, and two armored engineering vehicles. So depending how you value support stuff somewhere 2-2.5M EUR per CV90.


----------

