Domestic and Arctic Mobility Enhancement Project

[KevinB]

Or you go to the updated version of Bv206 Hagglund which is smaller to fit better into a C-130 but still armoured and has a turret gun:

BvS10 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Key for me is that is being used by multiple European countries and the USA and in some larger number purchases. There are also several hundred on order for other countries.

Bingo

The only question to me is how many do we need to buy. There are 201 Canadian Ranger Patrol groups....do you start with a minimum of two per group? 3? Then decide what you want pre-positioned at places like Yellowknife/Churchill/Iqaluit for training. Nice thing is that you don't need heavy transport to move them around...a pick up with a gooseneck trailer can haul one so they're much easier to shift around than Amour units.

Say a bare Min 3 / Patrol Group, that is 603. Then 10% min for training and 10% spares - so another ~ 122, gets you to 725.
10 for the EME guys and you are at 735, and you aren't yet moving any Cbt Arms folks.

For context Germany is looking at a fleet of 640. What would Canada need with it's Artic aspects?

If one wants to give arctic mobility to say an Infantry Bn - you need another 80 min, so honestly I think 1,200 would be a good start for Canada.

 

[Kirkhill]

Did you mean the ski capable C130?

If so, no. Canada has relied on the US Air National Guard 109th Air Wing from New York to provide that capability.
We obviously have ski capable twin otters but the actual C130s doing so are all US.

The 109th is the only such formation in the US and they are quite busy between both poles.

It was the ski-landing capability that I was interested in. It seems to me like it should be a skill set found in at least some part of the RCAF. It would open up a lot more deployment options.

 

[Kirkhill]

Bingo

Say a bare Min 3 / Patrol Group, that is 603. Then 10% min for training and 10% spares - so another ~ 122, gets you to 725.
10 for the EME guys and you are at 735, and you aren't yet moving any Cbt Arms folks.

If one wants to give arctic mobility to say an Infantry Bn - you need another 80 min, so honestly I think 1,200 would be a good start for Canada.

No arguments.

The FAMOUS/MTLB is interesting as much for a future industrial development as an imminent supply objective. I'd like to see some Canadian companies get serious about producing at least one world beating piece of kit designed to fit our needs.

We are looking at kit produced by Swedes, Finns, Swiss, South Africans and Singaporeans. I have to believe that we could do at least as well as any of those countries IF WE FOCUSED PEOPLE AND MONEY on the task at hand. Is it coincidence that all those countries I listed expect the people doing the designing and building to actually be riding in them when they are exposed to bullets and IEDs?

 

[Kirkhill]

PS - DAME is DOMESTIC and ARCTIC Mobility.

Those 10 territorial entities would find the BvS10 (Viking or Beowulf) just as useful as the Rangers would find them in managing local emergencies - Floods, fires, ice, snow, mud, washouts, off road, cut lines, marshes....

One Transport Company's worth per each of the 10 territorial service battalions with enough lift for a battalion - if 80 then 800 - call it 1500 nationally.

 

[Fabius]

Domestic is not really being used in this case to mean outside the Arctic. It’s being used to mean non armed and non armoured and not intended for use in expeditionary war fighting missions.

There will be a few scattered around at bases like Cold Lake etc. but the number aimed at being procured is under 150 unless the project gets more money which I doubt.
If the Army modernization team plans all unfold I would expect that the fielding plan will need to be heavily amended as well.

 

[PrairieFella]

Domestic is not really being used in this case to mean outside the Arctic. It’s being used to mean non armed and non armoured and not intended for use in expeditionary war fighting missions.

There will be a few scattered around at bases like Cold Lake etc. but the number aimed at being procured is under 150 unless the project gets more money which I doubt.
If the Army modernization team plans all unfold I would expect that the fielding plan will need to be heavily amended as well.

You might see 150 "DAME" domestically and a few hundred "EAME" for expeditionary ops. Wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

 

[Kirkhill]

Domestic is not really being used in this case to mean outside the Arctic. It’s being used to mean non armed and non armoured and not intended for use in expeditionary war fighting missions.

There will be a few scattered around at bases like Cold Lake etc. but the number aimed at being procured is under 150 unless the project gets more money which I doubt.
If the Army modernization team plans all unfold I would expect that the fielding plan will need to be heavily amended as well.

Perrin Beatty was closer to the mark in 1987

The Wednesday Report - Issue - TWR48V3

TWR48V3 - Issue 48, Volume 3 - The Wednesday Report - Canada's Aerospace and Defence Weekly - TWR - Editor: Micheal John O'Brien Editorial and news on Canadian aerospace and defence, The Wednesday Report, TWR, Canada's Aerospace and Defence Weekly, MPRM Group Limited, Micheal John O'Brien...

www.thewednesdayreport.com

BV-206 NTV PROJECT GETS PROD FROM ACTION-ORIENTED ALBERTA FIRM​

Lack of activity on Mobile Command's Northern Terrain Vehicle (NTV) acquisition programme has prompted Hagglunds Foremost Inc. of Calgary, Alberta to issue a discussion paper in the hope of generating political support for the project. In July 1988, DND approved an acquisition of 820 Swedish BV-206 northern terrain vehicles to be used for territorial defence tasks. The same fiberglass hulled, rubber tracked over-snow vehicles was successfully used by the Canadian Air Sea Transportable (CAST) Brigade.
Hagglunds Foremost Inc. (HF) was formed in February 1989 as a joint venture between Hagglunds Vehicle AB of Sweden, manufacturer of the BV-206, and Canadian Foremost Ltd. of Calgary, Alberta to produce the vehicle in Canada. By early 1989, the firm had actually started converting Swedish technical drawings to Canadian standards and had sent out a number of information packages to potential subcontractors in expectation of a contract award by March 1990. Then came the April 1989 budget cuts. The NTV programme was reduced by half and delayed indefinitely. The company began to cut its staff. Since April the project has remained frozen. An increasingly uncertain HF is awaiting a contract to begin project definition and the NTV Project Management Office (PMO) is waiting for funding to proceed with a Canadianization study to determine which Canadian parts can be used with the BV-206. HF, on its own initiative, issued its paper.

820 Bv206 and 199 Bison for the defence of Canada.

Not a bad mix then and not a bad mix now.

 

[Fabius]

You might see 150 "DAME" domestically and a few hundred "EAME" for expeditionary ops. Wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

Maybe, but there’s been no discussion of doing so.
If we were do do so properly we would also need to have thought put into what unit or formation we want to be based on this vehicle type, with the full suite of vehicle sub types then being procured.
ISC, CP, Amb, MRT, Mortar, AD, Recce/Surv, Cargo.

That supposes though the unit or formation being configured as a motorized element, Arctic capable. Not a light element with Arctic mobility enhancement. A subtle but drastic nuance.

DAME is specifically enhancement only.

 

[Kirkhill]

Bv206 - 99 kW, 6.9 x 1.87 x 2.4 m, 4500 kg
Bv206S - 130 kW, 6.9 x 2.0 x 2.0 m, 7000 kg

BvS10 Viking - 210 kW, 8.0 x 2.25 x 2.45 m, 8500 kg
BvS10 Beowulf - 210 kW, 8.0 x 2.2 x 2.5 m, 7500 kg (+ 8000 kg payload)

C130J Cabin - 16.76 x 3.02 x 2.74

FAMOUS-MTLB - 7.2 x 2.9 x 2.0, 11,500 kg (+ 3500 kg payload)

...

Looks like you should be able to get 2 of any of the BVs into a C130J30, if they are empty.

 

[lenaitch]

PS - DAME is DOMESTIC and ARCTIC Mobility.

Those 10 territorial entities would find the BvS10 (Viking or Beowulf) just as useful as the Rangers would find them in managing local emergencies - Floods, fires, ice, snow, mud, washouts, off road, cut lines, marshes....

One Transport Company's worth per each of the 10 territorial service battalions with enough lift for a battalion - if 80 then 800 - call it 1500 nationally.

If you want to allocate them to Ranger units you'd best factor in the cost of a place to keep them and training somebody to maintain them.

 

[Kirkhill]

If you want to allocate them to Ranger units you'd best factor in the cost of a place to keep them and training somebody to maintain them.

Sounds right.

Useful model? RNLI at the Lizard

 

[GK .Dundas]

If you want to allocate them to Ranger units you'd best factor in the cost of a place to keep them and training somebody to maintain them.

Just the same way they do for the Reserve For....oh wait ... Maybe a little better then that

 

[Kirkhill]

Maybe, but there’s been no discussion of doing so.
If we were do do so properly we would also need to have thought put into what unit or formation we want to be based on this vehicle type, with the full suite of vehicle sub types then being procured.
ISC, CP, Amb, MRT, Mortar, AD, Recce/Surv, Cargo.

That supposes though the unit or formation being configured as a motorized element, Arctic capable. Not a light element with Arctic mobility enhancement. A subtle but drastic nuance.

DAME is specifically enhancement only.

If we decided to outfit an entity for mobility and equipped it with skidoos, pickups or boats would we require a tactical appreciation first with all sorts of specializations or would we be happy to got them mobile?

The fate of Perrin Beattie's 199 Bison suggests that any vehicle is better than no vehicle. Kit can be brought inside, stowed on top, hung from the sides or dragged behind.

 

[lenaitch]

If we decided to outfit an entity for mobility and equipped it with skidoos, pickups or boats would we require a tactical appreciation first with all sorts of specializations or would we be happy to got them mobile?

The fate of Perrin Beattie's 199 Bison suggests that any vehicle is better than no vehicle. Kit can be brought inside, stowed on top, hung from the sides or dragged behind.

Logic would dictate that if we spend money to give an entity mobility, then we want them mobile.

Allocating anything with armour to Ranger units would be a waste unless it is intended that the equipment be pre-positioned for the use of others.

 

[Kirkhill]

Logic would dictate that if we spend money to give an entity mobility, then we want them mobile.

Allocating anything with armour to Ranger units would be a waste unless it is intended that the equipment be pre-positioned for the use of others.

I agree entirely - The unarmoured Beowulf version of the BvS10 would make more sense for them rather than the armoured Viking version.
The old Bv206 as used by the RCR in Afghanistan and still currently in service is also unarmoured.

Personally I think that the unarmoured version would also be adequate for those reserve Transport Companies I was thinking about. Some portion of them could be purchased as the Viking version (10-20% of the domestic fleet). Perhaps the entirety of the expeditionary fleet could/should be armoured.

Going back to the Challenge and Commitment fleet - all of those 820 NTV Bv206s were to be unarmoured. The Bison gave the militia some tactical mobility in a small arms environment, a capability exploited by the RCMP during the Gustafsen Lake blockade.

Apparently the Bison was also considered to be adequately tactical for the needs of the regular force.

 

[foresterab]

If you want to allocate them to Ranger units you'd best factor in the cost of a place to keep them and training somebody to maintain them.

I'm pretty familiar with the Bv206's as they're a common site for crew transport on wildfire.

None of the operators are mechanics...often just a farm kid tossed into the machine and told to go to work. It's the simplicity of the design that attracts my attention as much as anything. The one down side is the brake system is less than perfect when dealing with going down steep slopes.

 

[foresterab]

PS - DAME is DOMESTIC and ARCTIC Mobility.

Those 10 territorial entities would find the BvS10 (Viking or Beowulf) just as useful as the Rangers would find them in managing local emergencies - Floods, fires, ice, snow, mud, washouts, off road, cut lines, marshes....

One Transport Company's worth per each of the 10 territorial service battalions with enough lift for a battalion - if 80 then 800 - call it 1500 nationally.

100% agree there is a large component that can overlap domestic operations. But I'd rather the CAF purchase for possible overseas options rather than civilian needs.

Hence why I think of only buying armoured versions. Total overkill for many missions...but then the machine is there if needed instead of trying to source a new one.

 

[Kirkhill]

100% agree there is a large component that can overlap domestic operations. But I'd rather the CAF purchase for possible overseas options rather than civilian needs.

Hence why I think of only buying armoured versions. Total overkill for many missions...but then the machine is there if needed instead of trying to source a new one.

But we buy all sorts of unarmoured logistics vehicles for both domestic and expeditionary needs. Why should this be any different? Do we assume that if it has tracks it will be driven into a storm of bullets or subject to the blast of high explosive miss?

We need tracks, as you know better than most, just to navigate our countryside in a passenger conveyance.

And if we are going to be getting more bucks to play with I would be pumping up the logistics side and emphasizing it more than we do currently. We spend a lot of time arguing over the MBTs and IFVs while at the same time bemoaning that there are no trucks. Those trucks would also raise the profile of the Army during civil emergencies and make even the Molitia more useful.

 

[Kirkhill]

PS I consider the Beowulf BvS10 as analogous to the factory F550/Ram5500. The Viking is broadly comparable to the Senator.

The Viking descends from the Bv206S. The S stands for armoured in Swedish.

The 206S is an unarmoured vehicle to which armour was added.
The Viking BvS10 is an uprated version of the 206S.
The Beowulf BvS10 is an armoured vehicle stripped of its armour.

We should be able to move on that type of spectrum.
...

Stretching the analogy further the Bv206 is to the Beowulf as the F150 is to the F550.

 

[foresterab]

But we buy all sorts of unarmoured logistics vehicles for both domestic and expeditionary needs. Why should this be any different? Do we assume that if it has tracks it will be driven into a storm of bullets or subject to the blast of high explosive miss?

We need tracks, as you know better than most, just to navigate our countryside in a passenger conveyance.

And if we are going to be getting more bucks to play with I would be pumping up the logistics side and emphasizing it more than we do currently. We spend a lot of time arguing over the MBTs and IFVs while at the same time bemoaning that there are no trucks. Those trucks would also raise the profile of the Army during civil emergencies and make even the Molitia more useful.

100% understand the argument made. I'm just thinking back on the many different previous purchases where only the bare minimum "combat" type vehicle was purchased for the needs of the day and there was no surplus of available units to account for attrition or loss. And one thing I've learned is young energetic youth let loose with off highway vehicles results in breakage and loss.

Do Canadian Ranger Patrol Groups need armoured units? Probably not especially given the lack of support weaponry they are issued to make the vehicle into a tactical unit. Could an unarmoured version be excellent units for both military and civilian response roles....definitely.

If the 1980's purchase was 880 unarmoured Bv206's to me that is the minimum order size we're talking. If our European allies are only operating armoured units and we're going soft skin there is a miss match of force capacity and/or loss replacement to be considered. I'd much rather be willing to walk into the NATO meeting and indicate there is a strategic reserve of these units in use in Canada that could be used to offset combat losses if required while new ones are being built than offer up subpar alternatives.

In my dream world one of the core missions for the CAF is transport...because short of the US invading it will be transport of resources/munitions/key force elements to the theater as key. If you're going to be a small force then what is the most useful option out there...hence my dream of expanded heavy lift air transport (good for anywhere in the world) and force enabler type units such as long range artillery, hospitals, intelligence roles and high impact ground forces. If we're ordering a 1000 units is there a deal to be made to produce them here in Canada as a steady stream of new units rather than a single year lump purchase.