Canada's tanks

[Colin Parkinson]

JLTV and Hummer have been ordered to stop production.

 

[KevinB]

JLTV and Hummer have been ordered to stop production.

SECDEF can’t actually do that.
Congressional funded budget line items can’t be removed by anyone but them.

He and the service secretaries can make recommendations, but at the end of the the House and Senate make the decisions via
Committee.

 

[PrairieFella]

SECDEF can’t actually do that.
Congressional funded budget line items can’t be removed by anyone but them.

He and the service secretaries can make recommendations, but at the end of the the House and Senate make the decisions via
Committee.

The President also can't cut appropriately funds or gulag people in El Salvador, but yet here we are.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

How about buying tanks while accepting their limitations and adjusting the composition and TTPs of the accompanying forces to cover the flanks (including the overhead) of the tanks?

Rather than piling capital, maintenance and training costs on to the tanks are there other ways to keep the costs, including training bills, down? Adding capabilities to the Regiment and the Brigade to supply better overwatch and fire support for example?

Well, the story of the tank has always been the story of combined arms. I am not sure what you are driving at?

My thought is, barring a true breakthrough in materials or powerplant, the current generation of tanks are good. New programs will likely result in lots of money spent for no real new capability. Looking at you Future Combat System. You know what you did.

I do not think that the tank needs to be able to operate alone against all threats. It does not need indirect fire, for example, even if there could be times when that is useful. I do think, though, that it needs protection against FPVs threats, and I think that that protection is achievable at an appropriate price in terms of money and complexity. It would not try to shoot down aircraft and helos.

I think that APS intended to defeat APFSDS was a blind-alley, but APS to defeat a Lancet is doable.

 

[Kirkhill]

Well, the story of the tank has always been the story of combined arms. I am not sure what you are driving at?

My thought is, barring a true breakthrough in materials or powerplant, the current generation of tanks are good. New programs will likely result in lots of money spent for no real new capability. Looking at you Future Combat System. You know what you did.

I do not think that the tank needs to be able to operate alone against all threats. It does not need indirect fire, for example, even if there could be times when that is useful. I do think, though, that it needs protection against FPVs threats, and I think that that protection is achievable at an appropriate price in terms of money and complexity. It would not try to shoot down aircraft and helos.

I think that APS intended to defeat APFSDS was a blind-alley, but APS to defeat a Lancet is doable.

I am agreeing with you.

I was just wondering if the current fascination with mounting missiles, UAVs and CUAS systems on every tank was the best course of action or if there was a better combined arms solution.

Cheers.

 

[PrairieFella]

Well, the story of the tank has always been the story of combined arms. I am not sure what you are driving at?

My thought is, barring a true breakthrough in materials or powerplant, the current generation of tanks are good. New programs will likely result in lots of money spent for no real new capability. Looking at you Future Combat System. You know what you did.

I do not think that the tank needs to be able to operate alone against all threats. It does not need indirect fire, for example, even if there could be times when that is useful. I do think, though, that it needs protection against FPVs threats, and I think that that protection is achievable at an appropriate price in terms of money and complexity. It would not try to shoot down aircraft and helos.

I think that APS intended to defeat APFSDS was a blind-alley, but APS to defeat a Lancet is doable.

I can't see a reason why any Trophy-type system can't work for drones. Same principle but the drone is slower with less warhead.

 

[Underway]

I can't see a reason why any Trophy-type system can't work for drones. Same principle but the drone is slower with less warhead.

Trophy works because of the parameters set into the detection system. "Anything closing on a steady bearing to the tank between speeds of X and Y shoot it". X and Y speeds are the missile expected speeds. When you expand the speed parameter you get things shot at like someone tossing you an apple or something, or a bird flying buy or rocks kicked up by the vehicle in front of you. A lot of false positives.

Also drones may not approach in a straight line or may come in very low speeds and hover. Its harder to program an automatic response for that because you start shooting things like a friendly soldier running towards your vehicle. I suppose you could modify a Trophy to be manually targeted and activated against a slow drone.

 

[PrairieFella]

Trophy works because of the parameters set into the detection system. "Anything closing on a steady bearing to the tank between speeds of X and Y shoot it". X and Y speeds are the missile expected speeds. When you expand the speed parameter you get things shot at like someone tossing you an apple or something, or a bird flying buy or rocks kicked up by the vehicle in front of you. A lot of false positives.

Also drones may not approach in a straight line or may come in very low speeds and hover. Its harder to program an automatic response for that because you start shooting things like a friendly soldier running towards your vehicle. I suppose you could modify a Trophy to be manually targeted and activated against a slow drone.

That'd probably be fine. CC gets an alarm and a feed, confirms the target and hits a button. I'm guaranteed to be oversimplifying but my gut tells me it would be doable.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I am agreeing with you.

I was just wondering if the current fascination with mounting missiles, UAVs and CUAS systems on every tank was the best course of action or if there was a better combined arms solution.

Cheers.

I am certainly not fascinated with mounting missiles and UAVs on every tank, and I am not tracking that major powers are looking at that? CUAS, though, is a broad capability. Some are quite simple to operate.

 

[Kirkhill]

I am certainly not fascinated with mounting missiles and UAVs on every tank, and I am not tracking that major powers are looking at that? CUAS, though, is a broad capability. Some are quite simple to operate.

Not you personally. But some of the glossies coming out of the suppliers seem to be piling on the systems.

 

[Kirkhill]

On the wheeled front we have the USMC led solutions -

GDLS LAV II / LAV-25 (Detroit 6V53T - 275 HP, 14 tonnes)
GDLS LAV III / Stryker (Caterpillar C7 - 350 HP, 18 tonnes)
BAE IVECO SuperAV (Iveco Cursor 16 - 700 HP, 32 tonnes)

And the open competition for the Advanced Reconnaissance Vehicle between

GDLS LAV 700 (Caterpillar C13 - 700 HP, 32 tonnes) and
Textron Cottonmouth (Engine ??, 17 tonnes)

....

For comparison the Boxer is a 40 tonne vehicle with a 700-800 HP engine.

...


Light end of the spectrum -

JLTV
Hummer
CUCV
ISV
Dragor
MRZR

Are all of those necessary?

Fleet rationalization of all types.

I forgot one other vehicle in the light spectrum. The USMC's M1161 Growler that was custom designed to be carried by the V-22 Osprey.

M1161 Growler - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

....

If the heavy force is settling in to the 35 (APC) to 55 (MBT) tonne range
And if, compromises in aid of transport, the Growler compromised to fit the V-22,
Then why not recognize the supply of C-130s on hand and accept the continued compromise that is the LAV as a Medium vehicle in the 15 tonne range?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Historically, concept vehicles, prototype AFV had all sorts of weapon systems hung onto them by the designer. Generally the systems that get bought are stripped of most of those "options"

 

[foresterab]

With regards to Leopards in 4 CMBG, the RCD had two manned squadrons of 19 tanks in Germany (A and B Sqn) with another tank squadron in storage at Lahr with caretaker staff. C Sqn was in Gagetown New Brunswick with its own tanks and they were the "flyover" squadron. If "the balloon went up" it was a matter of flying C Sqn personnel to Germany and marrying them up with the tanks to have a third squadron of tanks in 4 CMBG. So, Canada had four squadrons of tanks with three of them manned. Then there were the school tanks.

In 1985 as part of enhancements to CFE the third tank squadron was manned, which I think meant that the RCD had two C Sqns for a little while. The 8 CH rotated into Germany in 1987, keeping the three manned tank squadrons. C Sqn RCD stayed in Gagetown while the rest of the RCD went to Petawawa. This then morphed in theory when 1st Cdn Div was crafted. This plan saw 4 CMBG having two mech battalions and a tank regiment with two squadrons (who were in Germany already). 5 GBMC would then come over with their gear and C Sqn RCD (with their tanks). They would then take the third tank squadron from 8 CH. This would have given each brigade two squadrons of 19 tanks. This was never exercised with actual equipment. Interestingly, the planners kept the squadrons at 19 tanks but the regiments at two squadrons rather than reducing sqn size to get three sqns in a Regt.

All that to say, our maximal number of crewed tanks in a single place was three squadrons of 19 tanks (plus two in RHQ). Our doctrinal pubs, though, had four squadrons. This would been theoretically possible in the late 80s/early 90s, but never occurred.

Anyhoo.

As a guy who has never seen tanks in actual operation - just on trailers getting moved around the country or static display mounts I keep thinking of the WW2 debate - do we need the best tank...or enough of good enough. Do we need a new super tank or is 4,000 M4 Sherman tanks an acceptable compromise of production/shipping space/training a good trade off against 200 German Tigers.

Six months ago I would have said go down and offer to buy 300 M1A1 Abrams tanks. Whatever is "needed" plus a +50% inventory for losses/wearout.

Now I think of instead of buying the "best tanks" maybe the solution is to buy 400 K2 tanks from South Korea. Still aligns with both Asian and European use (as does the M1A1) but breaks a total dependancy from US arms. Now take whatever is need for the Latvia mission, double the stocks in Europe (50% in storage), and keep the remaining surplus in storage in Canada.

As the opening days of the Ukraine conflict showed it's not enough about having the top resources its also about "getting there first with the most men" and small dribs and drabs being chocked off by logistics issues are more likely to be casualties than pre formed units.

Aware the US would lose it's mind over the decision and that's where the APC discussion gets even more interesting on LAV vs. Bradly etc. Or maybe NORAD = only US airframes considered vs. NATO needs which is open slate?

 

[PrairieFella]

As a guy who has never seen tanks in actual operation - just on trailers getting moved around the country or static display mounts I keep thinking of the WW2 debate - do we need the best tank...or enough of good enough. Do we need a new super tank or is 4,000 M4 Sherman tanks an acceptable compromise of production/shipping space/training a good trade off against 200 German Tigers.

Six months ago I would have said go down and offer to buy 300 M1A1 Abrams tanks. Whatever is "needed" plus a +50% inventory for losses/wearout.

Now I think of instead of buying the "best tanks" maybe the solution is to buy 400 K2 tanks from South Korea. Still aligns with both Asian and European use (as does the M1A1) but breaks a total dependancy from US arms. Now take whatever is need for the Latvia mission, double the stocks in Europe (50% in storage), and keep the remaining surplus in storage in Canada.

As the opening days of the Ukraine conflict showed it's not enough about having the top resources its also about "getting there first with the most men" and small dribs and drabs being chocked off by logistics issues are more likely to be casualties than pre formed units.

Aware the US would lose it's mind over the decision and that's where the APC discussion gets even more interesting on LAV vs. Bradly etc. Or maybe NORAD = only US airframes considered vs. NATO needs which is open slate?

Frankly, if the US sees we're spending billions on recaptializing our armoured forces, they'll have no leg to stand on to complain. Our NATO commitment says we spend X on defence, it doesn't say spend X on the US. Frankly I don't even know if the Abrams is best option on the table objectively, not just by our needs.

 

[Underway]

Frankly, if the US sees we're spending billions on recaptializing our armoured forces, they'll have no leg to stand on to complain. Our NATO commitment says we spend X on defence, it doesn't say spend X on the US. Frankly I don't even know if the Abrams is best option on the table objectively, not just by our needs.

They will get our money. Aerospace and Naval. In particular high end munitions like Anti Ship missiles or air to air missiles. And comms.

 

[PrairieFella]

They will get our money. Aerospace and Naval. In particular high end munitions like Anti Ship missiles or air to air missiles. And comms.

Exactly. Buy what's best, if it's American, cool. If it's not, all the better.

 

[KevinB]

Trophy works because of the parameters set into the detection system. "Anything closing on a steady bearing to the tank between speeds of X and Y shoot it". X and Y speeds are the missile expected speeds. When you expand the speed parameter you get things shot at like someone tossing you an apple or something, or a bird flying buy or rocks kicked up by the vehicle in front of you. A lot of false positives.

Also drones may not approach in a straight line or may come in very low speeds and hover. Its harder to program an automatic response for that because you start shooting things like a friendly soldier running towards your vehicle. I suppose you could modify a Trophy to be manually targeted and activated against a slow drone.

Agreed...
Also they are within very specific arcs at a direct intersection path with the vehicle.
APS are getting better - but the majority of the sensors effectively give yes/no input criteria as far as speed and direction.

The end goal is to have ground base cooperative engagement between all sorts of ground vehicles that will be able to determine Red UAS from Blue, as well as defend against incoming RAM/UAS/DF, which will of course need a variety of different means to track and discriminate, as well as different counter systems for those variety of hostile threats.