# Split - Armoured Recce Vehicle now political discussions on War on Terror.



## geo (5 Dec 2007)

Unfortunately, while all the traditional powers are fighting their war on terror, not much money is being spent designing the next generation of combat vehicles intended to fight a traditional war against a major super power like the Warsaw Pact or China's asian sphere of economical prosperity.


----------



## ONTrecce (5 Dec 2007)

But do you think that there is the possibility of another major conflict between two major nations? in WWI and WWII a nation's economy was pretty much seperated from another's, but with today's global economy so intertwined, a war between say US and China would have a devestating effect on the world economy.  I think (personal opinion here) that future warfare will be fought through proxy wars...and today's "terror" tuned vehicles and weapons would probably fight the roll well (fast moving urban combat)


----------



## geo (6 Dec 2007)

At present, asside from North Korea, no country is prepared to throw their entire economy & manpower into the fray.  Any new fight will have to come in "on budget" and not costing too many lives.  The prospect of throwing away thousands of lives in a single battle would not be palatable to the public.


----------



## Panzer Grenadier (6 Dec 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> At present, as side from North Korea, no country is prepared to throw their entire economy & manpower into the fray.  Any new fight will have to come in "on budget" and not costing too many lives.  The prospect of throwing away thousands of lives in a single battle would not be palatable to the public.



I fear that mentality would still apply even in a global conflict (IE. WWIII)


----------



## geo (6 Dec 2007)

isn't WWIII = the War on terror.... Islam VS everyone else?


----------



## Panzer Grenadier (6 Dec 2007)

I thought it was WWIII - CHINA vs the World? And the War on Terror was something else.  It could be WWIII - Islam vs everyone else and WWIV - China vs everyone else.


----------



## geo (6 Dec 2007)

(sarcastic tone ?) China is friends with everyone else so long as China can sell to everyone else & leave them and their middle kingdom alone to do whatever the Hell they want to do...  I don't really see them going to war with anyone else - xcept maybe themselves, anytime soon.


----------



## Panzer Grenadier (6 Dec 2007)

And in that (Chinese civil war) could drag in a lot of other players.  But this sounds like another thread for another day.  Back to topic, I attended the CANSEC convention at the Ottawa congress centre in 2005 where the Eagle IV was present.  It was a monstrous vehicle, with the tires nearly as tall as myself.  An armoured monster that thing was.   I don't know how well an Armoured Recce Vehicle it would make with its height, but I am out of my lanes when it comes to knowledge about armoured recce vehicles.  From what limited knowledge I do have, I would endorse the Fennek.


----------



## Franko (6 Dec 2007)

Topic now split.

Regards

*The Army.ca staff*


----------



## a_majoor (6 Dec 2007)

Prior to WWI, the global economy was even more tightly integrated than it would be at anytime before (and not again until the mid to late 1980's); many people confidently predicted that this integration of economic interests would make war impossible. There are other motivating forces besides trade:



> As we know,
> There are known knowns.
> There are things we know we know.
> We also know
> ...


----------



## DannyD (6 Dec 2007)

Oh yeah, that famous speech by Rumsfeld...

Makes me laugh every time...   :rofl:


----------



## wannabe SF member (7 Dec 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> isn't WWIII = the War on terror.... Islam VS everyone else?



When you say Islam you do mean radicals/extremists and not the entire religion i hope


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Dec 2007)

Future combat vehicles ? Oh, you mean science fiction vs reality. The premise of FCS for example or any other future combat vehicle is dictated by current technology. It isnt possible to make a 24t armored vehicle with the same survivabilty as an MBT. Maybe in 20-30 years but not now. The 70t MBT isnt going the way of the dinosaur any time soon. I know that the US Army has been looking at a follow on to the Abrams with a larger main gun but that wasnt going anywhere as long as Rumsfeld was in the building.

I think the future may see more Afghanistans than Iraq's. But no Army can be one dimensional. It has to be configured to operate in full spectrum operations to use a much beloved phrase. The US Army has been successful since WW2 in adapting to threats as they appear. We were equiped to fight the Russians in Europe but then came the so called brush fire wars of Korea/Vietnam and the limited actions of Grenada/Panama but then post Cold War we were able to deploy our heavy forces in the desert of the middle east and then back to counter-insurgency post invasion of Iraq. Afghanistan is the type of future action I like small footprint conventional forces and SoF/advisors working with allied forces. Unfortunately for the war planner you have to have a flexible force to take on any mission that we might be tasked with.

How does this translate to the Canadian Army ? We already see this flexibility being rebuilt from just a peacekeeping only to something more. The heavy force is now in place to compliment the light armor force with a significant special operations capability. It is probably time to look for a LAV replacement with a V hull I should think with attention to counter the effects of blast from IED's/mines. Improved armor. Do you keep the current gun or go with a 40mm gun like the CV90 ? The vehicle should be deployable by air but in reality will be deployed by sea. This is where the Navy comes in. They are hard pressed right now just to modernize its current surface fleet but also needs to address the needs of the Army. What design is best to create very fast ro-ro type ships. Would an SES [surface effect] design work or maybe a trimaran type hull ? If you could build a cargo vessel with +50k speeds you could rapidly deploy anywhere in the world.

In short I dont want airlift to determine the size/capability of my armor vehicles, rather lets design a delivery platform to rapidly deploy the heavy force.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Dec 2007)

"It isnt possible to make a 24t armored vehicle with the same survivabilty as an MBT. Maybe in 20-30 years but not now."

But by that time that technology will be applied to a 70 tonne vehicle to make it even more impervious.  We already know how to transport, support and employ 70 tonne vehicles.

A few years back the Israelis figured out how to make a 60mm round equivalent in effect to the 105mm round of the day making light tanks more useful on the battlefield.  That lasted just long enough for the same technology to be employed to 105mm rounds - there went the advantage - and then to the 120mm round.

FCS is a great device for developing new solutions and technologies which can be incrementally applied to existing systems.  Eventually the evolved product will look nothing like the original model but neither will it look anything like the flights of fancy envisaged in FCS.


----------



## geo (8 Dec 2007)

Chawki Bensalem said:
			
		

> When you say Islam you do mean radicals/extremists and not the entire religion i hope


Of course.
Problem is that the radicals and extremists are the only ones speaking out.  They are hogging all the attention and by hook, crook and the threat of violence, they are usurping the moderate's place.


----------

