- Reaction score
- 10,358
- Points
- 1,360
daftandbarmy said:
Close Combat Vehicle: Canada to buy another AFV (& keeping LAV III & TLAV)
- Thread starter -dikweed-
- Start date
Forgive me if this has been covered before, BUT...
Why not just buy 108 new LAVs?
The upgraded LAV 3/LAV-H concept is a more heavily armoured vehicle, with pretty impressive speed/mobility still.
For the many benefits of fleet commonality, and the fact that they are locally built - why not just buy 108 additional LAVs? Could replace the vehicles that have been lost over the years.
Why not just buy 108 new LAVs?
The upgraded LAV 3/LAV-H concept is a more heavily armoured vehicle, with pretty impressive speed/mobility still.
For the many benefits of fleet commonality, and the fact that they are locally built - why not just buy 108 additional LAVs? Could replace the vehicles that have been lost over the years.
- Reaction score
- 4,899
- Points
- 1,160
CBH99 said:
And replace the few units that are still using the Bison platform, making it far easier to maintain A vehicle fleets if all you have is TAPV, LAV, Leo2 and the EROC vehicles.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
CBH99 said:
Not even sure if that is possible. Not saying that is a bad idea, but it goes against the intent of the project, which was to deliver a new capability. If a new capability is not possible or not needed, then moving the money (if possible) to the LAV 6.0 could be beneficial. It could be a colossal waste too. I am sure GDLS wouldn't mind.
I have no doubt that the LAV 6.0 project will not have enough money to do everything they want; I doubt any project ever does.
Even a 1/4 of the CCV budget would probably produce some significant improvements with the 6.0. At the least it could be used for a shittonne of ammo
- Reaction score
- 22,370
- Points
- 1,260
IMHO Canada (at least the GOFO's and Politicians) should come to grips it will never be willing to afford a true Mechanized Armored Combat Force. The LAV 6.0 etc would to me, appear to be the best bang for its buck in the terms of being able to fund a capability that does not ruin the Army with hidden costs (yet another orphan vehicle procured in small numbers to be tactically useless).
OR if Canada wants CCV - it needs to understand it is going down to 1 Brigade Group.
OR if Canada wants CCV - it needs to understand it is going down to 1 Brigade Group.
MilEME09
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,866
- Points
- 1,210
Tracked vehicles have their place however not in the Canadian Army's inventory outside of the TLAV. Though the bids were thrown out, of the previous vehicles submitted 3 were wheeled IFV's, those wont win because we already have the LAV III fleet that's now upgraded, your better off buying more LAV's. This leaves the CV90 and the Puma both tracked AFV's, the LAV III beats both in terms of mobility, firepower if even, and armour i'd give to the upgraded LAV III. The LAV III is perfectly suited to support the leopard, this contract is dead and useless in my opinion
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,302
- Points
- 1,160
TLAV and LAV III are where we should be investing the money that will be flushed into CCV. Extend the LAV III upgrade to the whole fleet, buy a few more LAV III (include support variants & Bison replacement), and upgrade the TLAV family with a single (not a mix of RWS and 1 m turret) stabilized weapons system with thermal and II sights.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
MilEME09 said:
Not sure what you are basing this on. The tracked IFV's have superior cross country mobility, superior firepower (the basic CV90 has a 40mm cannon in Swedish service, and NATO nations with the CV90 have bought the CV9035 version with a 35mm cannon. The PUMA comes with a 30mm automatic cannon) and potentially a lot more armour protection (the PUMA with the level "C" armour package wieghs 43 tons and is probably better protected than our former Leopard 1 tanks).
These are the arguments "for" a CCV, which puts the LAV III and TLAV out of contention for the close combat or assault roles.
The arguments here are for the praticality of spending a huge amount of money for a very limited capability (a fistfull of CCVs might make a great Clint Eastwood film, but won't help the commander very much), rather than the vehicle per se. There are actually very good arguments for an all tracked fleet, including improved capabilities, new capabilties that don't exist now and commonality for training and logistics support, which is another giant issue with the Canadian Army and Forces in general, but in the realm of what is possible, an all LAV III based fleet is the cost effective and useful solution.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
MilEME09 said:
I'd like to see your data to support your statement that a wheeled AFV has better overall mobility than a tracked vehicle. And the Upgraded LAV has no more firepower than the current turret, so as configured it would not meet the intent of the CCV, which needs the increased firepower of a 35-40mm round to meet the SOR.
I'm not saying that the LAVUp could not have taken on some of the roles of the planned CCV, but with the increased weigh already, following tanks over soft ground will be an exercise in recovery....if we had a recovery vehicle capable of pulling the LAVUp :-(
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
MCG said:
I agree with this idea, we definitely need to retire the Bison fleet, and make upgraded LAV3 versions for Recovery, Ambs, CP's and EW vehicles.
And TLAV's could be further upgraded and have a 35mm RWS or one man turret, to do what the CCV was intented to do at a much reduced cost.
As I see it, one of the issues is that when the capabilites were thought up for TAPV, LAV III-Upgraded and CCV, they were originally described to me as Light Infantry Fighting Vehicle, Medium Infantry Fighting Vehicle, and Heavy Infantry Fighting Vehicle. That gives the infantry a toolbox to select from when building a force for a mission. Which makes some sense. Options can be good.
With the adoption of a "light" TAPV that is bigger than I had expected, at 17 tons, and the potential adoption of a "heavy" wheeled CCV as small as 30 tons, they simply may not offer different enough capabilities from the 25 ton LAV III-Upgraded to give real options. Instead we may end up with Medium (-), Medium and Medium (+) IFVs, all of which have similar protection, mobility, and logistics footprints, but require different ammo, training, tools and parts.
Now, if the TAPV was a 12 ton Dingo, and the CCV was a 44 ton Achzarit -- those would be truly different options from the LAV III. But as it stands, I see all three vehicles converging to give a medium weight capability -- and we probably don't need three different fleets of Medium IFV -- so put me with the camp that wants more LAV III instead of CCV.
With the adoption of a "light" TAPV that is bigger than I had expected, at 17 tons, and the potential adoption of a "heavy" wheeled CCV as small as 30 tons, they simply may not offer different enough capabilities from the 25 ton LAV III-Upgraded to give real options. Instead we may end up with Medium (-), Medium and Medium (+) IFVs, all of which have similar protection, mobility, and logistics footprints, but require different ammo, training, tools and parts.
Now, if the TAPV was a 12 ton Dingo, and the CCV was a 44 ton Achzarit -- those would be truly different options from the LAV III. But as it stands, I see all three vehicles converging to give a medium weight capability -- and we probably don't need three different fleets of Medium IFV -- so put me with the camp that wants more LAV III instead of CCV.
PPCLI Guy said:
Nah, LAV's were not even a pipe dream when I was playing silly bugger, but here are some guys who probably do.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/2wheels98.pdf
If we are looking for an infantry vehicle that can keep up with and fight with the Leo2s, tracks would appear to be the better options.
- Reaction score
- 4,591
- Points
- 1,260
Meanwhile, from the replacement for MERX, the latest on LAV III front:
Some more details/specs in the Statement of Work here.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 33,577
- Points
- 1,160
Haletown said:
Well, if we apply the same principles to our APCs that we have applied to battle fitness preparation i.e. the FORCE test, we would make sure that everyone has LAVs, right? ;D
Just in case you're looking for this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 12,390
- Points
- 1,160
Remember the cartoons of the Grizzlies stuck in a mudhole while being passed by a Leo? I think the caption was "Why don't you boat people go home"
I think the LAV has been a great buy, but it's not really meant to keep up with tanks going across countryside. The wear and tear on the LAV fleet would be quite high. I remember doing an exercise with 3rd herd and watching them drag a 5/4 ton CP behind a M113 so it could keep up with the rest of the battery, I suspect that vehicle was a couple of inches longer by the end of Ex.
If we buy another wheeled vehicle for this we are truly, truly stupid. Either go with a well protected track or just get more LAV's
I think the LAV has been a great buy, but it's not really meant to keep up with tanks going across countryside. The wear and tear on the LAV fleet would be quite high. I remember doing an exercise with 3rd herd and watching them drag a 5/4 ton CP behind a M113 so it could keep up with the rest of the battery, I suspect that vehicle was a couple of inches longer by the end of Ex.
If we buy another wheeled vehicle for this we are truly, truly stupid. Either go with a well protected track or just get more LAV's
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
milnews.ca said:
Interesting that they are looking for this as I thought the pintle mount was already being replaced by the plats (sp?) mount, at least we had the plats mount on all of our LAV's overseas and they worked great.
I'm inclined to agree with us getting more LAV's vice another platform in an age of budget reduction and cost cutting measures. However, I also agree that if we are looking at a vehicle to keep up with and support the MBT's then tracked is going to perform better offroad in multiple situations than a wheeled vehicle would. I never did operate with the MBT's in our LAV's so I cannot speak from personal experience, but our TLAV was much more capable and frequently used by myself whenever we needed a vehicle to do recovery of our LAV's, the Brits vehicles and another situation that arose where we were doing some heavy manoeuvring offroad instead of our LAV's.
