Infantry Vehicles

[markppcli]

Except Reg F TEE is in excess of what's supportable, so there need to be reductions to divest low priority TEE so that the combined BTL/SUTL/ATL/SPHL/TEE all fit within the authorized ceiling.

But that would take leadership, and it's easier to kick the can down the road - "Next time the government gives permission to grow the Reg F we can address the structural imbalance!"

Force 2025s death it a nutshell

 

[markppcli]

For the Reserve, something similar, but the fact that it is domestic plays a big part. Industry is a case of use it or lose it. As you note I said buy them in batches and get rid of them at 10 years, bit by bit they be improved and we have far more options than we do currently and the Government in 10 years get to gift some to various nations or causes.

I am vehemently against “for the reserves” procurement:

1- it will not stay that way; see Bison and Cougar

2- it degrades interoperability or creates a training scar.

3 - with our limited budget we should not be spending money in non operational tactical equipment.

Lastly if it’s biggest draw is “domestic” vs serves a need we really have, and does a damn good job of it, the. I don’t want it.

 

[Furniture]

I am vehemently against “for the reserves” procurement:

1- it will not stay that way; see Bison and Cougar

2- it degrades interoperability or creates a training scar.

3 - with our limited budget we should not be spending money in non operational tactical equipment.

Lastly if it’s biggest draw is “domestic” vs serves a need we really have, and does a damn good job of it, the. I don’t want it.

Fair points, but what if it's a domestic armoured car, or Milverado/G Wagon?

The CAF always wants perfect, and ends up with too few outdated systems by the time we get the project off the ground. Would too many imperfect systems actually be worse than status quo?

Right now my occupation is three or four equipment failures from seriously impacting flight operations for at least one Wing, mostly because people had/have unrealistic expectations regarding kit performance.

I'm not arguing that we don't need standards, just that standards need to be realistically achievable given the political and financial constraints we have.

 

[markppcli]

Fair points, but what if it's a domestic armoured car, or Milverado/G Wagon?

The CAF always wants perfect, and ends up with too few outdated systems by the time we get the project off the ground. Would too many imperfect systems actually be worse than status quo?

Right now my occupation is three or four equipment failures from seriously impacting flight operations for at least one Wing, mostly because people had/have unrealistic expectations regarding kit performance.

I'm not arguing that we don't need standards, just that standards need to be realistically achievable given the political and financial constraints we have.

I guess my response is what need is being met here ? In inventory we have 500 TAPV and 616 LAV 6s with over 300 ACSV on order.

This Senator, to me, isn’t required. And if we are going to buy “extra” then let it be something we actually need. I want to add when you look at the video of the rebranded Azov guys, they are clearly not intending to role into an attack. Unless the Ukrainians are making it a habit to role single file into a defended urban area in transport trucks.

 

[Kirkhill]

I am vehemently against “for the reserves” procurement:

1- it will not stay that way; see Bison and Cougar

2- it degrades interoperability or creates a training scar.

3 - with our limited budget we should not be spending money in non operational tactical equipment.

Lastly if it’s biggest draw is “domestic” vs serves a need we really have, and does a damn good job of it, the. I don’t want it.

Fine - it isn't a tactical vehicle.

It's a Log Adm variant of the LVM (L) or the Light Utility Vehicle. Some variants may benefit from some levels of armour protection.

STANAG 4569​

Level 1
Kinetic Energy
7.62×51mm NATO Ball (Ball M80) at 30 meters with velocity 833 m/s[1][2]

5.56×45mm NATO Ball (SS109) at 30 meters with a velocity of 900 m/s

5.56×45mm NATO Ball (M193) at 30 meters with a velocity of 937 m/s

Protection against all three threats must be provided.

Grenade and Mine Blast
Hand grenades, unexploded artillery fragmenting submunitions, and other small anti personnel explosive devices detonated under the vehicle.

Artillery
20 mm FSP (simulating 155 mm threat) at 520 m/sec from a distance of 100 meters. (Due to very low probability of a large fragment retaining enough velocity at these distances, STANAG 4569 makes this optional.)[3]

Angle: azimuth 360°; elevation: 0–18°

Off hand I would suggest the Senator is a runner for the LUV and the Ford/Chevy/Dodge 550/5500 series is a contender for the LVM(L) project which includes a modularized requirement for a TCV capability.

And I would sooner buy domestic than rely on the Germans and the Swiss to supply us with parts.

 

[Furniture]

I guess my response is what need is being met here ? In inventory we have 500 TAPV and 616 LAV 6s with over 300 ACSV on order.

This Senator, to me, isn’t required. And if we are going to buy “extra” then let it be something we actually need. I want to add when you look at the video of the rebranded Azov guys, they are clearly not intending to role into an attack. Unless the Ukrainians are making it a habit to role single file into a defended urban area in transport trucks.

Fair again, and I realize I'm outside my lane by about half a continent, my point is only that often times the CAF gets bogged down in perfect, and ends up with nothing.

I'll slink back into lurking...

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I am vehemently against “for the reserves” procurement:

1- it will not stay that way; see Bison and Cougar

2- it degrades interoperability or creates a training scar.

3 - with our limited budget we should not be spending money in non operational tactical equipment.

Lastly if it’s biggest draw is “domestic” vs serves a need we really have, and does a damn good job of it, the. I don’t want it.

Except that it's likely we will be in a new Cold/Hot war phase for the next generation and that type of warfare if it goes hot, will as we have seen consumes equipment at a fearful rate. It's also clear that the Reserves cannot handle anything more complex than this at this point. Historical the Regs raid the Reserves when sent as a expeditionary force, currently the only thing to take is the TAPV, at least these vehicles would be better than what we did, by piling on way to much armour and gear onto the poor G-wagon. These vehicles could be maintained by the Reserves with local commercial support, anything better is going to sit there awaiting parts and maintainers.
We are going to get a lot of feedback on these and we can learn from the Ukrainians on how to employ them and how not. It's also likely they will be improved based on what is learned over there.
I be happy to give the Reserves Canadian made LAV III's , but we all know how that will turn out. If you had to load up and go now, would you prefer these or armoured G-wagons and LSVW's?

 

[markppcli]

Fine - it isn't a tactical vehicle.

It's a Log Adm variant of the LVM (L) or the Light Utility Vehicle. Some variants may benefit from some levels of armour protection.

View attachment 75718

View attachment 75719

View attachment 75720


View attachment 75721

View attachment 75723



Off hand I would suggest the Senator is a runner for the LUV and the Ford/Chevy/Dodge 550/5500 series is a contender for the LVM(L) project which includes a modularized requirement for a TCV capability.

And I would sooner buy domestic than rely on the Germans and the Swiss to supply us with parts.

Okay but if it’s not a tactical vehicle why pay the premium for it being armoured ? This is a great vehicle for its job: keeping police tactical units safe on approach. I don’t see that role being relevent in the CAF with 1100 IFVs and APCs in inventory.

(I’d actually prefer we get our parts from Germany, wouldn’t need to wait for parts shipments to Latvia but that’s maybe a specific case.)

Except that it's likely we will be in a new Cold/Hot war phase for the next generation and that type of warfare if it goes hot, will as we have seen consumes equipment at a fearful rate. It's also clear that the Reserves cannot handle anything more complex than this at this point.

Well actually they’re maintaining TAPVs as we speak, and have maintained cougars in the past.

Historical the Regs raid the Reserves when sent as a expeditionary force, currently the only thing to take is the TAPV, at least these vehicles would be better than what we did, by piling on way to much armour and gear onto the poor G-wagon. These vehicles could be maintained by the Reserves with local commercial support, anything better is going to sit there awaiting parts and maintainers.

That’s supposition; and would require parts / maintenance contracts to be established via a small firm all over the country. Hard enough getting parts for Chevy silverados.

We are going to get a lot of feedback on these and we can learn from the Ukrainians on how to employ them and how not. It's also likely they will be improved based on what is learned over there.

You won’t be able to turn these things into an adequately protected armoured vehicle without ripping it apart. Look at that video you posted; do you really suppose they were intending to hit that village in single file along a road like that? Even behind armour ? In Sentinels and an armoured flat bed truck? Of course not, and I do t take it as an example of their frontline use. It’s an 8 seat vehicle that they were given and they’ll use it because they have no choice.

I be happy to give the Reserves Canadian made LAV III's , but we all know how that will turn out.

No we don’t. Also the reserves and regs don’t own the vehicles; the army does and they’ll be employed as operational requirements dictate.

If you had to load up and go now, would you prefer these or armoured G-wagons and LSVW's?

Oh I’m in a mechanized Bde I’ll be be in a LAV don’t you worry.

 

[markppcli]

Fair again, and I realize I'm outside my lane by about half a continent, my point is only that often times the CAF gets bogged down in perfect, and ends up with nothing.

I'll slink back into lurking...

I don’t disagree; I just also don’t think we should jump on “hey it’s made in Canada !” See rifles, boots, webbing, and shovels in WW1.

 

[dapaterson]

I don’t disagree; I just also don’t think we should jump on “hey it’s made in Canada !” See rifles, boots, webbing, and shovels in WW1.

I admire your timeframe limitation.

 

[markppcli]

I admire your timeframe limitation.

I’m sure I could pick other examples, Wet Weather Boots / anything peerless makes, but it seemed more fitting.

 

[Furniture]

I’m sure I could pick other examples, Wet Weather Boots / anything peerless makes, but it seemed more fitting.

Anything made by Logistik Unicorp would work... I have three sets of NCDs that have the same size on the label, none of them fit the same. Same for DEU items like pants and shirts...

I also agree with "made in Canada", but as an outsider I see value in Brinks level armour over unarmoured. 60% is better than 0%.

 

[markppcli]

Anything made by Logistik Unicorp would work... I have three sets of NCDs that have the same size on the label, none of them fit the same. Same for DEU items like pants and shirts...

I also agree with "made in Canada", but as an outsider I see value in Brinks level armour over unarmoured. 60% is better than 0%.

I drove a Brinks truck for a bit; that armour is way closer to 0 that 60. As @KevinB pointed out, those things will get shredded by Russian LMGs.

 

[GR66]

Anything made by Logistik Unicorp would work... I have three sets of NCDs that have the same size on the label, none of them fit the same. Same for DEU items like pants and shirts...

I also agree with "made in Canada", but as an outsider I see value in Brinks level armour over unarmoured. 60% is better than 0%.

Why sink the money into a 60% vehicle fleet that will require it's own logistics and support system but can't do the full job? I'd rather buy more LAVs so you have extra that the Reserves can train on and have war stocks available to cover combat losses and support potential force expansion in case of a major conflict.

More of the top end vehicles we have rather than a 60% solution. No additional logistical burden. Like-for-like replacement of combat losses. Standardized training for Reg Force and Reserves (even if the Reserves have to wait until their pre-deployment work-up training before getting serious time on them). Sure you'll get less of them than you would the Senators, but your getting a more suitable combat vehicle. Reserves should be expected to deploy with the same equipment as the Reg Force even if has to be held/maintained by the Reg Force in peacetime if the Reserves are unable to do so right now.

 

[Furniture]

Why sink the money into a 60% vehicle fleet that will require it's own logistics and support system but can't do the full job? I'd rather buy more LAVs so you have extra that the Reserves can train on and have war stocks available to cover combat losses and support potential force expansion in case of a major conflict.

More of the top end vehicles we have rather than a 60% solution. No additional logistical burden. Like-for-like replacement of combat losses. Standardized training for Reg Force and Reserves (even if the Reserves have to wait until their pre-deployment work-up training before getting serious time on them). Sure you'll get less of them than you would the Senators, but your getting a more suitable combat vehicle. Reserves should be expected to deploy with the same equipment as the Reg Force even if has to be held/maintained by the Reg Force in peacetime if the Reserves are unable to do so right now.

The reality is, we won't buy enough LAVs. We won't buy enough of whatever other type of top end vehicle you want either.

We'll buy just enough modern LAVs to sustain a boutique mission in Latvia, or Lithuania, but leave the rest of the CAF with nothing. Canada will buy half as many top end systems as we require, and pretend we are a real military. All the while the few people who deploy with those systems will clap and say all is well...

Canada needs 1000 good enough systems, but we buy 10 perfect systems and pretend all is well, because the 500 troops deployed right now have  just enough.

 

[childs56]

The argument that Reserve forces can not maintain any type of armored vehicle is silly. Any Heavy Duty Mechanic can fix a Armored vehicle( almost every town, city and village has at least one if not many more) As for the electronics side of things. Throw out a contract to local instrumentation firm, have them on call to fix, repair and maintain the " sophisticated" electronics. Right now and been for many years as in always the Military has been short of staff for the services. More so after the downsizing since the Cold War ended. They need to open up contracts to firms to repair equipment much like they do for the Civie pattern vehicles. Maybe offer jobs as a Reservist to gain experience maintaining these vehicles but pay for all their schooling, plus pay them when they go to school a bonus. Lots of HD and Millwrights out there who would be interested in working on these units.

Canada could fix 90% of their procurement/ sustainability problems if they allowed fair open contracts.
They could go into a low rate order of 10 new LAVs a year for the life of the plant. You would in theory order lets say 500 new lavs and tack on 10 per year for the next 10 years. Between all the overhaul and other sales this could be sustainable. The numbers could be adjusted as required.

 

[KevinB]

I’m sure I could pick other examples, Wet Weather Boots / anything peerless makes, but it seemed more fitting.

Griffon…

 

[Dana381]

The argument that Reserve forces can not maintain any type of armored vehicle is silly. Any Heavy Duty Mechanic can fix a Armored vehicle( almost every town, city and village has at least one if not many more) As for the electronics side of things. Throw out a contract to local instrumentation firm, have them on call to fix, repair and maintain the " sophisticated" electronics. Right now and been for many years as in always the Military has been short of staff for the services. More so after the downsizing since the Cold War ended. They need to open up contracts to firms to repair equipment much like they do for the Civie pattern vehicles. Maybe offer jobs as a Reservist to gain experience maintaining these vehicles but pay for all their schooling, plus pay them when they go to school a bonus. Lots of HD and Millwrights out there who would be interested in working on these units.

Canada could fix 90% of their procurement/ sustainability problems if they allowed fair open contracts.
They could go into a low rate order of 10 new LAVs a year for the life of the plant. You would in theory order lets say 500 new lavs and tack on 10 per year for the next 10 years. Between all the overhaul and other sales this could be sustainable. The numbers could be adjusted as required.

I'm a heavy truck mechanic, every company everywhere is short mechanics. Why would any of them join the reserves and get paid less than their regular job for the same work?

Not to mention the extra duties like reserve training and drill. Just the pain to get and maintain security clearance to be allowed to work on armoured vehicles.

Also I don't even like working on my own vehicles on the weekend, I want to do anything else.

As for the electronics forget getting locals to fix them, it wouldn't be allowed as the technology is often top secret.

 

[KevinB]

I guess my response is what need is being met here ? In inventory we have 500 TAPV and 616 LAV 6s with over 300 ACSV on order.

To me it appears that you have more LAV than troops.

1 LAV / Section
4 LAV / Platoon
14 (or 16?) / Coy
So less than 70 LAV / Bn

9 BN of Inf (though really only troops for 5-6, and three Bn are supposed to be LI)

This Senator, to me, isn’t required. And if we are going to buy “extra” then let it be something we actually need. I want to add when you look at the video of the rebranded Azov guys, they are clearly not intending to role into an attack. Unless the Ukrainians are making it a habit to role single file into a defended urban area in transport trucks.

110%

So at most there are 630 LAV ISV positions in the Infantry, and realistically only ~360
But then each BN should also have
8x 120mm Mortar Carrier LAV
8x Anti-Armor LAV
6x LAV-Recce
6x LAV DFS
4x LAV FIST
So 32 additional LAV variant vehicles for each BN for an additional 192 for 6 BN or 288 for 9.
Not counting CP, Recovery, Cargo or Ambulance requirements.

I didn’t even take a swing at the Engineer, Arty, Armored, or other trades LAV requirements.

I intentionally ignored the PRes for vehicles, as I suspect that IF Canada had 3 Complete CMBG worth of LAV systems, every available PRes soldier would be needed to crew them gives the manning of the Regular force at this point.

 

[markppcli]

To me it appears that you have more LAV than troops.

1 LAV / Section
4 LAV / Platoon
14 (or 16?) / Coy

Close ,15

So less than 70 LAV / Bn

I think it works out to around 55 or so?

9 BN of Inf (though really only troops for 5-6, and three Bn are supposed to be LI)





110%

So at most there are 630 LAV ISV positions in the Infantry, and realistically only ~360

I think that number is inclusive of CP, FO, and Eng vehicles.

But then each BN should also have
8x 120mm Mortar Carrier LAV
8x Anti-Armor LAV
6x LAV-Recce
6x LAV DFS
4x LAV FIST
So 32 additional LAV variant vehicles for each BN for an additional 192 for 6 BN or 288 for 9.

Couldn’t agree more, irritating they aren’t included in the ACSV purchase.

Not counting CP, Recovery, Cargo or Ambulance requirements.

ACSVs

I didn’t even take a swing at the Engineer, Arty, Armored, or other trades LAV requirements.

I intentionally ignored the PRes for vehicles, as I suspect that IF Canada had 3 Complete CMBG worth of LAV systems, every available PRes soldier would be needed to crew them gives the manning of the Regular force at this point.

I think we do have the LAV numbers, I certainly have never been short of physical LAVs, can’t speak to the other Bde.


I will say that the idea that reserves can’t maintain them is rooted in how we structure the reserves in the present vs how we could have them structured. But that’s a different topic.