Close Combat Vehicle: Canada to buy another AFV (& keeping LAV III & TLAV)

[a_majoor]

Happened to stumble across some old books by Richard Simpkin (Antitank, and Human Factors in Mechanized Warfare, in case you are interested). He had some pretty forward looking ideas back in the early 1980's, which still have not been attempted AFAIK.

I was a bit amused by some of the more Technicolour stuff, like a rotating "pod" for the commander and gunner to move in synchronization with the weapons pod, and evidently the Russians are big fans, since they actually adopted a version of his ICV weapons layout (30mm cannon, 76mm low pressure cannon and a GPMG: compare that to a BMP 3). If an IFV or ICV really needs that much punch, I'd go for a 105mm cannon mounted on a CV-CT turret myself (which is maybe why I'm not designing and building these things  ;D)

On a more sensible note, he also advocated fr a family of vehicles approach, but his version can be imagined as a Marder sized "pickup truck", with various modules that could be attached to the permanent structure in order to create an ICV, fire support vehicle, CP, SPAAG or SAM platform etc. Other innovative ideas include a "male" docking probe in the front of all vehicles and a corresponding "female" port in the back for rapid battlefield recovery, magazine carriage of all vehicle ammunition natures and a "robot arm" system on the fuel bowsers to assist in rapidly refuelling vehicles, even under NBCW conditions.

Anyway, these were some thoughts from a very original thinker. The reality is not quite what he would have expected (although he was quite concerned about all around protection form mines, guns. ATGMs and top attack weapons, MRAP type patrol vehicles would have pleased him, I think)
Read his stuff and compare his thinking with what we have today. Very interesting if you can get them.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Interesting, one of the things that came out of the run into Baghdad was the ability to refuel and rearm under fire. I remember messing around with a photoshop idea of a Styker with a flatdeck rear with protected moduler supply containers and jettisonable fuel pods. Possible equipped with a HIAB and small RWS for self defense. The idea is similar to the Stormer resupply vehicle.
I like the docking station concept, Murphy’s law says that it would be damaged. A simple version would look similar to a train coupling surrounded by guide plates.
I believe the Conqueror tank was the first to use a independent crew commander station, that was more or less a separate pod that rotated independent of the turret, so the TC could search for targets while the gunner was engaging the previously selected target. I looked briefly into one and if I recall the TC cupola was complete with it’s own turret basket. 

 

[a_majoor]

I'm just going from memory now, but Simpkin's crew "pod" actually sat in the front compartment of the vehicle, beside the driver and behind the engine, while the gun pod was on the upper deck (behind the driver in the artist's impression). A large hatch in the sponson allowed the magazine to be inserted/ejected for the IFV version (and I am thinking there was provision for access from the troop compartment in case you needed to clear a stoppage of hand bomb the guns for some reason).

Simpkin's reasoning for the crew "pod" was informed by the Conqueror; crew commanders apparently got disoriented being pointed in different directions from the gun, with Simpkin's system the crew commander and gunner were looking in the same direction as the gun regardless of the vehicle and weapon orientation. An interesting mechanical solution, although I doubt the Veh techs and FCS techs would appreciate that. far better a low profile turret if you need to be up there with the guns, or some sort of RWS hunter/killer sight arrangement (or today a series of cameras feeding information to a screen in front of the crew...).

Interesting speculation, but any sensible short list would have to be existing systems with a relatively low cost; I would guess a version of the CV90
family (CV9035 MkIII for a full fledged IFV, or the CV90 Armadillo for a well protected ICV), but who knows what political factors will also come into play?

 

[Kirkhill]

"Shalls" and "Wills" are both imperatives; it's the "Mays" where the grey zone lives.

I'm with DAP:

And just to expand the grammar lesson  ;D  -  Will and May or ... Shall and Should as in it "It shall contain a holder for a bottle of Brown Sauce.  It should contain a Coffee Pot."

 

[Kirkhill]

---Interesting speculation, but any sensible short list would have to be existing systems with a relatively low cost; I would guess a version of the CV90
family (CV9035 MkIII for a full fledged IFV, or the CV90 Armadillo for a well protected ICV), but who knows what political factors will also come into play?

An interesting point about how big a gun SHOULD be on an IFV chassis.  One thing that came out of the MGS discussion was that the reduction in crew (33%) associated with adding an autoloader for 105s wasn't a reasonable trade off against the number of rounds carried. (18? IIRC). 

7.62, 12.7, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40mm (grenade and light artillery) all seem to work well because they carry a reasonable number of rounds and support autoloaders that don't have high MRBFs.

The 105 had both low numbers and a high MRBF (at least initially according to the "press").

Which leaves the "gap" between 40mm and 105mm to be usefully exploited.  This includes the 57 - 76 and 90 mm categories.

The 90 is essentially a Tank gun, like the 105 and 120.  A fairly big  and heavy round.

The 76 has found a home at sea, as has the 57mm.

The 57 (or 6 pounder as it was when introduced in WW2 as an infantry AT round) has always been a favourite of mine, as has the Israeli-Italian 60mm (a 57 in a necked down 76 shell?) resulting in the Hyper Velocity round.   

I still think that Otomelara's 60mm system had a lot to offer as a compromise.  It couldn't out range an MBT - but on the other hand American 25mms were taking out older Iraqi MBTs.

 

[a_majoor]

How well you design the system also impacts on the ability to carry kit (including rounds). The MGS only had provision for 18 rounds in a hard to access pedestal. The CV-CT 105mm turret is designed to "drop in" a LAV or similar AFV and also holds 18 or so rounds in the bustle, and if you clear out the rear compartment for a LAV DFSV or Cavalry vehicle, there is now room for 36 or more rounds of 105mm. The Striv 103 "S" tank could carry 50 rounds of 105mm ammunition inside an incredibly compact vehicle.

For any modern IFV/ICV there should be at least two weapons; an area effect weapon and a point target weapon. How you deal with these two target sets is wide open, larger calibre weapons can use multiple ammunition types, or small calibre weapons can be supplemented by add on missile launchers, or other kit can be added or even bodged together (Russian troops reportedly lashed their AGS 30 grenade launchers to the turret roofs of BMP-1's to provide the sort of rapid suppressive fire the low velocity 76mm cannon was incapable of providing. The 30mm cannon on the BMP-2 provided the same capabilities built into the vehicle...).

While having a 105mm cannon might be exciting for the IFV commander and his crew, I think that sort of thing will draw the crew into using the IFV like a tank, with pretty bad results. (placing infantry in the tank, like removing the ammunition racks from the back of a Merkava and packing in a section, or having a four man "close protection team" in the back of a Centurio tank destroyer is a different proposition; they allow the crew commander to do his job without being disturbed by annoying people with RPG's). In various other threads it has been suggested that large quantities of ammunition are needed for shooting in the attack, which suggests a smaller calibre round is the best choice in order to maximize ammunition in a given volume.

Of course we are now laying out the parameters after the fact, instead we might end up with a CV90C-1 MkIII mounting the turrets from the LAVIII ("for commonality"),  engines built in a GM factory in Oshawa for "Industrial offset" and suspension parts built by Bombardier (for the usual reasons).

 

[McG]

Of course we are now laying out the parameters after the fact, ...

Sadly, the whole of the CCV is going to be laid-out after the fact.  The employment concept is simply a one-for-one substitution off CCV where we would have used LAV III ISC, but (as of December) we still had not determined a force generation concept ... it makes one wonder how we decided on a quantity to buy when we still don't know how many we need.

Given the number of times this has derailed and the clear fact it will not be going to a BG in Afghanistan, maybe we can give-up the ghost that this is an urgent requirement.  We could then step-back and do the thorough analysis of our needs for a full family of vehicles in both the force employment and force generation roles - we won't be doing ourselves great favours with a permanent new micro fleet.

When we go out with the RFP, we could leave a greater time window such that potential bidding companies would have time for the engineering & systems integration of mature technologies that we want in our vehicle but which may not be in their MOTS platform.
We would then have the vehicle we need, with the variants we need (both to acheive operational effects and to sustain/support the fleet), and in the quantities that we need.

 

[McG]

Here is the latest on the CCV:

Peter MacKay back in hot seat with latest DND procurement bungle
John Ivison
National Post
19 April 2012

Yet another defence procurement embarrassment is about to hit the Conservative government, which is already reeling from criticism of its handling of the F-35 purchase by the Auditor-General.

It is understood that the $2-billion competition to chose a supplier for up to 138 armoured infantry fighting vehicles may have to start all over again after the Department of Public Works intervened in the tender process.

...

The $2-billion close combat vehicle project has highlighted the tension between National Defence and Public Works.

The new, medium-weight infantry support vehicle is intended to fill the gap between the LAV IIIs that were hit so often by improvised explosive devices in Afghanistan and the Leopard C2 tank.

Three bidders were chosen – French giant Nexter, General Dynamics Land Systems and BAE/Hagglunds – but sources suggest that all failed tests set by National Defence. A bidders’ conference was convened by DND to discuss price and technical modifications. However, the meeting was cancelled by the independent Fairness Monitor, which deemed it may have been unfair to bidders that did not make it onto the short-list and expose the government to lawsuits.

The process has now ground to a halt and Public Works Minister, Rona Ambrose, wants it to start over again, to avoid accusations of bid-rigging. National Defence is believed to prefer to modify the specifications and move forward with the existing bidders.

...

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/04/19/john-ivison-peter-mackays-defence-reign-could-end-with-latest-dnd-embarrassment/

Stand-by for more delays, or maybe the idea will just go away.

 

[ArmyRick]

Maybe we should get on board with US Army's latest project attempt http://www.army-technology.com/projects/ground-combat-vehicle-gcv

I have never agreed with public works picking our kit.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Maybe we should get on board with US Army's latest project attempt http://www.army-technology.com/projects/ground-combat-vehicle-gcv

I have never agreed with public works picking our kit.

62.5 tons? Really?

That number stood out for me, likely as a result of my model building career (which likely explains why I married later in life).

Tiger I: Weight 56.9 tonnes or 62.72 tons 

 

[Colin Parkinson]

That's a HPC, basically a MBT hull with space for a section of infantry and gear (hopefully) rather than turret. I understood this contract to be looking at vehicles more like the Boxer or CV-90

 

[ArmyRick]

Except the contract is being re-done by public works (A process I totally do not agree with). Since its from ground up and it will be a few years anyways, why not have Canada get on board with the Ground Combat Vehicle?
-New Technology, new concept (CV90 will be around 20 years old by the time we finally select a CCV)
-It will create controversy (I am begining to think thats almost as much a pro as it a con!)
-Maybe we can get in on building some up here or parts of it up here in the North (that always pleases politicians)

Thoughts, ideas?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

If we do go down this route, you will want a more mobile and better protected vehicle than the LAV, otherwise you get all the problems and none of the advantages. Since these vehicles are meant to support tanks I see the armament being in the 25mm range with possibly some ATGM abillity (Javalin?) But the ability to carry a full section would be the most important aspect, with perhaps only a RWS on top. Sounds more like the Boxer than the CV-90 which is a IFV. personally I have a soft spot for the CV-90, but t's getting on as a design, which is not always a bad thing.

I can see the LAV and it's succesors going places where it will not have tanks to support it, so I think at some point we will need a fire support version hopefully based on the same chassis.

 

[McG]

If we do go down this route, you will want a more mobile and better protected vehicle than the LAV ... the ability to carry a full section would be the most important aspect, with perhaps only a RWS on top.

We already have that vehicle in both the TLAV and the MTVL.

 

[ArmyRick]

I think I like the Ground Combat Vehicle. They could call it the M35, a rather fitting number if it creates contraversy!

 

[Colin Parkinson]

We already have that vehicle in both the TLAV and the MTVL.

As I recall their protection is actually less than the LAV from mines/ied and projectiles? the purpose of the CCV is to accompany tanks and I remember that anyone other than the tanks and ATGM's were to 'strip away" the APC's and IFV's from the oncoming hordes. Hence the reason the CCV would have to operate in a higher threat environment.

 

[GnyHwy]

I like this comment the most.  "National Defence is believed to prefer to modify the specifications and move forward with the existing bidders."

How the heck do you think the process works?  You ask for the world, and as they cannot produce, you negotiate the requirements. Do they expect us to reopen bids everytime we change a spec?  There are thousands of them.

As far as the role of the CCV?  It accompanies tanks for destruction of enemy positions. 

Think of an assault the same as taking down an old garage, you start with a sledgehammer (tanks and CCVs), but eventually have to use other tools to finish the job (all the LAV variants).

 

[Kirkhill]

.....

Do they expect us to reopen bids everytime we change a spec?  ---

Short Form? Based on my experience with government tenders?  Yes.

More hours for bureaucrats - more lunches - more factory visits.

 

[dapaterson]

Here's the problem:  We asked for the world.  Certain companies did not bid because they knew they did not meet the spec.  In other words, they were honest about their capabilities.

Now, we're asking for a less capable platform.  So, Company X that did not bid on the original spec may have a platform that they feel meets the revised spec.  Should we penalize them for not wasting our time the first time around with a platform that didn't meet the old spec?  "Sorry, you didn't lie about your capabilities the first time 'round, so we won't consider you now."


And why are PWGSC the bad guys here?  DND/CF wrote the impossible to achieve spec, or at least signed off on it.

 

[McG]

As I recall their (TLAV & MTVL] protection is actually less than the LAV from mines/ied and projectiles?

The CF has done a lot of survivability testing of vehicles since we started taking casualties.  The evidence does not support what many assumed they knew on differences between LAV and the current TLAV.