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

[Ostrozac]

I agree and it should share some common parts with the tanks.

That's only going to happen if we were to make a Heavy APC out of Leopard 2 hulls. This is probably possible, we could wave enough cash in front of Greece for them to put a hundred Leopard 2s on a cargo ship and send them to Montreal, or buy more from the Dutch, but there has never been an HAPC based on the Leopard 2, so coming up with the design would have to be a made in Canada thing, and therefore expensive.

I suppose the CV90 is the front-runner, but the whole CCV project makes limited sense to me. We probably don't need another medium-sized IFV, but if we do, shouldn't it have anti-tank missile capability?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The new German "light" general duty APC share parts with the Leo 1

 

[Matt_Fisher]

The new German "light" general duty APC share parts with the Leo 1

References?  Pics?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

"(..) FFG Flensburger Fahrzeugbau Gesellschaft mbH has presented its new armoured multi mission vehicle, currently named under the working title “G5”. The G5 is a tracked 25 tons vehicle, featuring an unrivalled combination of outstanding protection, high performance, huge payload and an inner volume, setting new standards in military markets. Designed for missions worldwide, FFG laid a special focus on the comprehensive multi role capability: The G5 consists of a standardised basic vehicle and different mission modules to be adapted to the vehicle according to each individual mission. These modules can be exchanged very easily, thus giving the customer an enormous flexibility in the deployment of the G5 while reducing costs to an absolute minimum.

The G5 features rubber tracks from Soucy and a 560 Hp high density powerpack. It can reach speeds up to 72 km/h with a range of 600 km. The internal volume is 14.5 cubic meters with a payload of up to 6.5 tons. It can transport up to 12 soldiers (...)."

http://www.ffg-flensburg.de/index.php?id=243&L=1

 

[Haletown]

another view . . .  kinda  113 like.

http://in.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=416218496&o=int&prev=sub&p=4

 

[Kirkhill]

More G5 pics

Thanks for the heads up on this one Colin.

Military Photos Link

 

[Kat Stevens]

A tracked personnel carrier??  Heretic, witch, unbeliever!!  Stone him!

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It has the redeeming qualities of a M113, basically a large armoured box. The drivers would be happy in a typical Shilo snow storm, not having to stick their heads out so much. Not sexy but practical.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

Thanks for the pics, but I don't see any technical data where it states that it shares components with the Leopard 1.

Besides that, I believe the spirit of the question discussed was whether there was an IFV, not an APC that's built of a Leopard 2 (or 1) chassis which at this point in time, there doesn't seem to be.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The G5 is powered by a turbocharged diesel engine, developing 560 hp. Engine is mounted at the front. Vehicle uses some suspension components of the Leopard 1 main battle tank. This armored personnel carrier is not amphibious

http://www.military-today.com/apc/g5.htm

 

[Infanteer]

Pretty bone standard - probably what we need.  I still believe that a tracked IFV should be in the 60 ton catagory - we're just wasting time with 20 tons on a track....

 

[Old Sweat]

Can anybody explain the reasoning behind adopting/developing lighter APCs such as the M113, FV 432 and the Bobcat as battle taxis in the post war period? The APCs used in 21st Army Group were adapted tank hulls - the defrocked Priest was a gunless SP adapted from the Sherman and the later ones were turretless Ram tanks. What caused the Western, or at least the ABC armies, to go for lighter option instead of an IFV?

 

[Infanteer]

That's a good question - likely worthy of investigation.

The Israelis moved away from that concept after they found out that APCs accompanying tanks meant dead APCs - the Namer was developed because existing designs did not possess the protection to conduct the assault with tanks.  I remain convinced that it is the proper concept for a "CCV".

 

[McG]

Early purpose built APCs (M59 and M75) were not that much lighter than war era Allies medium tanks - especially if one accounts for the elimination of the turret.  The big weight loss for APCs came when the M113 was designed to be amphibious.  A look at the British FV 430 series (which is not amphibious) shows a vehicle only slightly lighter than post war APCs.

 

[Old Sweat]

Early purpose built APCs (M59 and M75) were not that much lighter than war era Allies medium tanks - especially if one accounts for the elimination of the turret.  The big weight loss for APCs came when the M113 was designed to be amphibious.  A look at the British FV 430 series (which is not amphibious) shows a vehicle only slightly lighter than post war APCs.

True, but these APCs were lightly armoured. The M75 armour varied from 25mm to 27mm in thickness while the FV 432 had 12.7mm of armour. Much of the weight was because of the all steel construction. The British also had the Saracen wheeled APC, which I think served in armoured divisions at one time. Perhaps the answer lies in doctrine with western armies opting to fight on foot and therefore, at least in theory, not requiring protection against anything heavier than shell splinters and perhaps SA fire. I don't know the answer.

This may be a fruitful subject for a separate thread.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

There is a number of tasks that require significnat internal volume, which means more armour, more HP needed, wider tracks etc. It would be nice to have a full family of Leo2 hull based Namer type vehicles, it ain't going to happen on our forseeable budgets. our choices are to support the armour with trucks, tracked carriers or LAV like vehicles, I know which of the 3, I would pick. I suspect in the real world we will end up with a blend of all 3.

 

[a_majoor]

With an unlimited budget and no restrictions about where you had to buy things I would vote for the Merkava 1 as the CCV; the ammunition racks in the back are removable and the space can be used for an infantry section.

You now have a heavily armoured platform with the mobility and protection of a tank; the troops can use the 105mm cannon, multiple machine guns (coax, crew commander and loader's and the .50 HMG mounted on the main gun barrel), on board 60mm mortar and multi bank grenade launchers to provide intimate support. Since this is part of a combat team, the Merkava C1's would carry HE, smoke and canister rounds for the 105.

The RCAC will simply have to do with the Merkava C4 in this scenario....

 

[blacktriangle]

If the CCV were to go ahead, I'd also like to see something with high levels of protection such as the Namer. Basically just a battle taxi that has the mobility AND the protection to accompany MBT's.

Since that doesn't seem to be where the project is heading, I think we might be better of investing that money into LAV/LAV-H vehicles or not spend it at all.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Sparky's going to choke on this one, behold; The wheeled deathtrap, um I mean tracked...

http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/ausa-2012-gdls-introduces-tracked-stryker-concept/

 

[McG]

Sparky's going to choke on this one, behold; The wheeled deathtrap, um I mean tracked...

http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/ausa-2012-gdls-introduces-tracked-stryker-concept/

I suppose the assumption in a tracked Stryker is that all the ancillary equipment/fittings/components are the same as for the wheeled variant and therefore introduce economies of logistics/sustainment.  The drivetrain would be substantially different though.  About the only possibility for commonality would be the engine (though it would have to be mated to a different transmission and your maint elements would still have to carry separate packs in the field).