# The perfect platform for the Canadian Military.



## McBrush (9 Jun 2012)

In the perfect world what would you choose to enhance the capabilities of the Army? 
Here are some points for your choice.

    1. Must be in current production. ie. CV90
    2. You can add to it, with current production equipment. ie. up gun
    3. No futuristic or concept systems. ie. no light sabers
    4. All changes must be realistic ie. 25mm gun to a 30mm gun, no 140mm guns on a AVGP
    5. Cost is not a issue
    6. Have fun!

 Here is my opinion. For the TAPV

     1 Panhard VBL
     2 Increase the length  150cm and add a third axle and the width by 40 cm 
     3 Increase the thickness of the Armour by 50% 
     4 Add a additional prop for amphibious operations
     5 For the Inf. a 1 m. turret rebuilt to use a 40mm AGL, .50 cal, two Eyrx missiles  fully stabilized with modern            
        night vision equipment, upgrade the Armour. This will allow for a crew of 2 and 5 dismounts. Two vehicles per inf. section
     6 For the Recce, a two man fully stabilized turret using a low recoil 25mm gun, .50 cal and two star-streak missiles and the 
        latest surveillance system. It will have a crew of 4
     7 Upgrade the power train to a North American diesel
     8  Add a laser detection system
     9  Add the Trophy 2 anti missile system
    10 Add a winch 
  
  Well what do you want for the Army ?


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jun 2012)

Actually with the amount of modifications you are asking for an entirely new vehicle (and given the small size of any order the CF makes, it would cost as much as an entirely drawn from scratch vehicle as well).

From a meta viewpoint, I would get rid of the notion you should buy tiny fleets of specialty vehicles and go for a family based on a common chassis. The CV-90 is a great example of this, you can order a gun tank (CV90-120), IFV, SPAAG and FOO/FAC vehicles right off the shelf, and with a package that size you should have enough leverage to get a good discount. Continuing with the theme, using the CV90 chassis for engineer vehicles, CP's, ambulances and various other sundry tasks increases the unit price advantage, as well as creating large logistical savings as well (using common parts, training and support for a large family. The downside is each individual variant might not be the "best" at doing things (a CV90-120 gun tank does not mount the armour protection of a Leopard 2, and a recce version of a CV90-40 might not be as stealthy as a dedicated recce platform), but there are ways of working around these issues. Numbers do count.

Consider that Canada was estimated to need up to 1400 LAVs in various configurations, and you can see the advantages of family of vehicles approach. While I am personally partial to the idea of adopting the CV90 family, there are other potential "families" out there, allowing for the potential of competition between various manufacturers and large cost savings for us.


----------



## cupper (9 Jun 2012)

Along that same line, you also have the British CVR(T) and it's dozen or so variants.

For a heavier armour system you could look at the Warrior. I would include the Bradley here as well, but there were no real variants that I am aware of.

One question that comes to mind, is it better to go tracked or wheeled? Pros and cons of either?


----------



## aesop081 (9 Jun 2012)

McBrush said:
			
		

> 2 Increase the length  150cm and add a third axle and the width by 40 cm



In essence, you are breaking your own rule #1.




> 3 Increase the thickness of the Armour by 50%




Why ? With increased armour thickness, comes increased weight and decreased mobility. Rather that do what you propose, and since you are designing an entire new vehicle, might as well change the slope of the current armour (add thickness without adding anything) or use a new type of armour.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Jun 2012)

McBrush said:
			
		

> Well what do you want for the Army ?



Land Raider, crusader pattern.


----------



## ArmyRick (9 Jun 2012)

Star wars AT-AT and AT-ST


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Jun 2012)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Star wars AT-AT and AT-ST



Yea now we're talking.


A mobile HQ type vehicle with;
- a built in CCP/medical station
- heavy duty electronics suite with jamming capabilities  (inc GPS). 
- couple cannons. a few large machinegun platforms.
- even throw in a laptop and projection screen for those fancy briefs people like to make.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (10 Jun 2012)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Star wars AT-AT and AT-ST



Even those got mobility issues, AT-ST on uneven or shifting terrain a walker could quickly become unbalanced enough to fall over

 ;D


----------



## GAP (10 Jun 2012)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Even those got mobility issues, AT-ST on uneven or shifting terrain a walker could quickly become unbalanced enough to fall over
> 
> ;D



or little furry teddybears could wrap ropes around your legs and trip you up....not to mention the two crashing logs on ropes meeting with you in the middle....... ;D


----------



## a_majoor (10 Jun 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> or little furry teddybears could wrap ropes around your legs and trip you up....not to mention the two crashing logs on ropes meeting with you in the middle....... ;D



See, that's why hovertanks are so important....


----------



## PPCLI Guy (10 Jun 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> Along that same line, you also have the British CVR(T) and it's dozen or so variants.



Have you ever been in one?  Trust me, we do not want the CVR(T) - same same for the Warrior.  North Americans are substantially lager than Brits - we simply don't fit.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Jun 2012)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Have you ever been in one?  Trust me, we do not want the CVR(T) - same same for the Warrior.  North Americans are substantially lager than Brits - we simply don't fit.



On that score: What is the Gurkha carrying capacity of a LAV III?   Assuming bench seating.  >


----------



## cupper (10 Jun 2012)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> On that score: What is the Gurkha carrying capacity of a LAV III?   Assuming bench seating.  >



Standing up, sitting down, or stacked like fire wood? It makes a difference.


----------



## McBrush (10 Jun 2012)

The point of this post is, no matter what platform is chosen, there will be objections. Now who does the choosing? In a perfect world we (the military)would be part of the development process. Lets hope the CCV will be a proven platform, using the latest and most recent tech. I just think back to the Leo. C1 in the 70's. Keep going and keep it real or a Jedi will get you. There are so meany out there opinions please, may be big brother is watching.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Jun 2012)

I found it odd that the CV90 family never adopted a engineering vehicle, I saw a photo of either a testbed or mockup of one. Also never saw any with a raised compartment. I would have thought a command or support version with just an light RWS on a raised compartment would have been a good fit into the family.


----------



## McG (11 Jun 2012)

McBrush said:
			
		

> In the perfect world what would ...


In the "perfect world" we would spend a little less time fussing about the "perfect platform" and a little more time concerning ourselves with the properly balanced fleet.
We have too many unnecessary special purpose or micro fleets.  This stems from a number of places: we buy the “mission vehicles” and neglect all the support vehicles either to fit within a funding envelope or because we forgot; we rush to buy “shiny” equipment solution with niche platforms for problems that could have been tackled with doctrine, TTP or training solutions; and we develop tunnel vision looking at one platform without consideration for the remainder of the fleet within which it will operate.

This leads to AVGP support vehicles being held in service to sustain Coyote & LAV III long after the fleet was retired.  It leads to Bison support vehicles being pressed into sustaining LAV III fleets.  It may lead to the CCV being unable to operate separately from Leopard 2 for want support vehicles, and it will now mean we have two fleets of vehicle (CCV and TLAV/MTVE) where we probably only need one to augment and support the Leopard 2.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (11 Jun 2012)

I always wondered why we didn't keep the M113 family even though we kept the M113 family?

I mean, with the new rubber track system and upgrades it seems like it would be a perfect on route/off road vehicle that has the potential for swimming and can keep up with most MBTs.  The Lynx (with upgrades) could have remained and either platform could have been tweaked to fit a surveillance system.

No?


----------



## dogger1936 (11 Jun 2012)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> I always wondered why we didn't keep the M113 family even though we kept the M113 family?
> 
> I mean, with the new rubber track system and upgrades it seems like it would be a perfect on route/off road vehicle that has the potential for swimming and can keep up with most MBTs.  The Lynx (with upgrades) could have remained and either platform could have been tweaked to fit a surveillance system.
> 
> No?



Always thought the M113 with a surv suite would work excellent. Rubber track is so quiet; would have worked great as a recce vehicle.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (11 Jun 2012)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> I always wondered why we didn't keep the M113 family even though we kept the M113 family?
> 
> I mean, with the new rubber track system and upgrades it seems like it would be a perfect on route/off road vehicle that has the potential for swimming and can keep up with most MBTs.  The Lynx (with upgrades) could have remained and either platform could have been tweaked to fit a surveillance system.
> 
> No?



The T-LAV/MTVL FOV is too heavy to swim...... at least that's what they told us when I did the trials with T&E


----------



## Bzzliteyr (11 Jun 2012)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> The T-LAV/MTVL FOV is too heavy to swim...... at least that's what they told us when I did the trials with T&E



Which is where the upgraded M113 comes in.  We could have kept some of them.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (11 Jun 2012)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Which is where the upgraded M113 comes in.  We could have kept some of them.



Which we did... Upgraded M113 = T-LAV/MTVL FOV


----------



## Bzzliteyr (11 Jun 2012)

And they can't swim?  Or they "can't swim"? I always wonder why we eliminated that ability from our forces?  Just cause we hadn't done it in a long time doesn't mean we can't forsee doing it in the future.

While I am here: what about the Wiesel?  There's a nice surveillance version?  I see those as very flexible vehicles with mulitple platforms up to TOW variant and probably more.  The crew size reduction plays a small factor but they are nice little trucks.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (11 Jun 2012)

MTVL/T-LAV FOV have no trim viens or props or shoruds over the tracks... but it does have the grizzly turret......


----------



## Bzzliteyr (11 Jun 2012)

Yes, but having the trim vanes put back shouldn't be a difficult thing to do.  The M113 family was water propelled by tracks.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (11 Jun 2012)

MTVL FOV Weight, max GVW 40,000 lb (18,140 kg) 

M113-A3  Maximum weight  31,000 lb. (14,061 kg)

Not sure but I think the weight difference might be enough to say they can't swim... besides wasn't the water up to the top of the haul when the M113-A2's where swimming?


----------



## GAP (11 Jun 2012)

I don't know about the M113's, but the amtracs we used were right up there, and we always referred to them as 44K pds of pig iron... ;D

we were always amazed when we got across a river....


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Jun 2012)

Being in a swimming M113 was conducive to becoming religious. That being said the Italian marines have a version designed for beach landings. A 2" layer of dense foam glued to the sides would work, but would also burn nicely.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (11 Jun 2012)

Colin P said:
			
		

> but would also burn nicely.



Won't the hull burn nicely on its own anyhow?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Jun 2012)

Yep a foam and metal fire, how nice....

I wonder how much a tank say 2" thick welded onto the sides would weigh, the outer skin would not need to be to thick, the tank could have ribs making watertight compartments and cover the sides. By my guesstimate that would add 511 pounds of buoyancy on each side.


----------



## cupper (11 Jun 2012)

Are they even making the 113 any more? Or are they overhauling old chassis for new systems and variants?

Once the American plan to phase it's fleet out in 2018, I suspect that there won't be any new units being made, if they are indeed still in "brand new" production.

It would be an interesting engineering exercise to take the same basic platform design and update it with current era power plants, drive train, armor and so forth, and equip it with current weapon systems.


----------



## ArmyRick (11 Jun 2012)

Their are experimental designs of the M113 that have done just that. Please lets stop talking M113 before Mike Sparks appears out of thin air to tell us how it can do anything from flying to beach landing to all inclusive vacations....


----------



## a_majoor (11 Jun 2012)

The M-113 was a great vehicle for its time and role (battle taxi), and the design was very robust and flexible, so you could make all kinds of variants. The British came up with a somewhat similar (if a lot smaller) solution with the CVR(T) family, the Russians had the MT-LB and the Swedish CV-90 is perhaps the latest go round of that idea.

There are some roles where specialization does not hurt; if I was Generalissimo and had unlimited funds I would increase the Leopard 2 fleet of tanks in preference to the CV90-120 (and with the financial situation in Greece and Spain, that idea might be doable now!). Working in the Arctic and difficult terrain isn't feasible with conventional vehicles; something along the lines of a BV-206 or the STK Bronco would be needed if we were to start operating in large numbers in the Arctic. Even the logistical truck fleet would not be based around one type of truck (OTOH, any type of truck would have to be milspec so you actually could drive off the hardpack), but again, a family fleet of trucks with some commonality in training, logistics and support would go a long way to stretching the defense dollar.

The example of the BV-206 also shows how starting assumptions change the outcome. If we are truly committed to the Canada First policy as initially articulated by the Conservative Government, then buying tanks and CCV's should actually be a much lower priority than buying vehicles capable of operating in the arctic and various sorts of logistical and engineering vehicles optimized for DOMOPS missions. We would also be considering what sorts of platforms require minimal maintenance so Reserve units could simply pack up and drive out to meet DOMOPS missions without absorbing a lot of logistical overhead.

So there is no "perfect" platform; there is however a sensible way of looking at vehicle purchases which includes "families" for lower unit prices, common logistics and support, and ensuring that you identify all the verious pieces before you put pen to paper and end up forgetting or foregoing the various support verions of the vehicles you intend to use.


----------

