Infantry Vehicles

[FJAG]

In the article you posted in the Future Armour thread it talks about the evolving need for composite force structures. Maybe this type of mixed structure actually suits the evolving nature of dispersed warfare. Having the light "sense" elements more intimately tied to the heavier "close combat" elements (as well "strike" elements in the CS Company?) would allow you to shorten the kill chain.

If having this mix at the Battalion level is too far down the structure then maybe keeping our existing Infantry Brigade structure (1 x Light "Sense" Battalion, 2 x Mech "Close Combat" Battalions and an Artillery "Strike" Regiment). Similarly you could have an Armoured Brigade with 1 x Cavalry Regiment and 2 x Tank Regiments.

Food for thought.

That's one of many possibilities. It's this comment that really got me thinking:

It may be that what is now obsolete is the medium-weight vehicle – they offer an unhappy balance of insufficient physical protection and being too large for effective signature management by concealment and stealth.

We've thrown a lot of eggs into that medium-weight basket. I must admit I've always been a big sceptic of the LAV III while I thought the Stryker was a good idea. The big difference was that the 25mm turret makes you think of it as a fighting vehicle while the Stryker with just a small RWS is seen, IMHO more reasonably, as just an armoured personnel carrier not designed to be taken into harm's way but just to offer some protection while mobile.

The LAV 6 upped the protection to the point where Canadian commanders thought that the Close Combat Vehicle Project was no longer necessary. I think that was a misappreciation of both what an IFV is supposed to do and an armoured battle taxi can do when the fighting gets real. Like @KevinB, I'm sceptical of the value of the LAV6 as it is. Take away the turret, make more room for dismounts and add a small defensive RWS and perhaps an exterior rack of stand-off indirect fire 15 km missiles or loitering munitions and it might make a valuable infantry transport vehicle. For close combat I have other equipment in mind - But - it is what it is and the LAV6 is what we have so we need to find a use for it.

I have the same thoughts about TAPVs. Take them out of the front line but use them in the near-front line as weapons carriers for air defence a la M-SHORAD, or long range loitering munitions or even hauling trailers as logistics carriers where their armored protection is good enough for stray dumb artillery and the like. Just not with the recce forces. I still like the little low signature French VBLs or German Weasels for the sense function but tied into stand-off long range indirect or fire and forget weapons systems - strike as you call them - that can give them some bite.

 

[GR66]

That's one of many possibilities. It's this comment that really got me thinking:



We've thrown a lot of eggs into that medium-weight basket. I must admit I've always been a big sceptic of the LAV III while I thought the Stryker was a good idea. The big difference was that the 25mm turret makes you think of it as a fighting vehicle while the Stryker with just a small RWS is seen, IMHO more reasonably, as just an armoured personnel carrier not designed to be taken into harm's way but just to offer some protection while mobile.

The LAV 6 upped the protection to the point where Canadian commanders thought that the Close Combat Vehicle Project was no longer necessary. I think that was a misappreciation of both what an IFV is supposed to do and an armoured battle taxi can do when the fighting gets real. Like @KevinB, I'm sceptical of the value of the LAV6 as it is. Take away the turret, make more room for dismounts and add a small defensive RWS and perhaps an exterior rack of stand-off indirect fire 15 km missiles or loitering munitions and it might make a valuable infantry transport vehicle. For close combat I have other equipment in mind - But - it is what it is and the LAV6 is what we have so we need to find a use for it.

I have the same thoughts about TAPVs. Take them out of the front line but use them in the near-front line as weapons carriers for air defence a la M-SHORAD, or long range loitering munitions or even hauling trailers as logistics carriers where their armored protection is good enough for stray dumb artillery and the like. Just not with the recce forces. I still like the little low signature French VBLs or German Weasels for the sense function but tied into stand-off long range indirect or fire and forget weapons systems - strike as you call them - that can give them some bite.

That's the problem isn't it? We need lighter than the TAPV for the Light element and heavier than the LAV for the Heavy element. The vehicles we've gone "all in" on aren't suitable for either of the roles that seem to be evolving.

 

[KevinB]

That's the problem isn't it? We need lighter than the TAPV for the Light element and heavier than the LAV for the Heavy element. The vehicles we've gone "all in" on aren't suitable for either of the roles that seem to be evolving.

I’d argue it’s even worse than that.
Not only has the CAF gone ‘all in’ with the LAV, there are critical variant deficiencies in the LAV fleet and a number of ‘WTF’ variant acquisitions.

Based on the #s of LAV’s that @markppcli has posted there are less than 5 BN worth of ISC turreted LAV.
No Mortar variant
No ATGM variant
No M/SHORAD variant
Extremely limited numbers of LRSS variants

And an utterly bizarre number of Command Post Variants as well as the number of enormously large ASCV whose role one really needs to question the entire WHY of based on the size.

Furthermore with the Leo 2’s being acquired, the need for the LAV to be an active IFV increased, given no CCV acquisition. Which while the LAV 6.0 has significantly increase weight over the LAV III fleet, it’s still a wheeled platform - which has some significant mobility issues when trying to work in conjunction with Tanks.

 

[Kirkhill]

I never understood the inclusion of the Nexter and ARTEC submissions against the CV90. Unless someone really wanted to prove that Wheels were good enough and we should stick with GDLS London.

There were other options to trial against the CV90

Bradley
Puma
Lynx
ASCOD
Warrior

	Length	Width	Height	Mass
	m	m	m	kg
BAE CV90	6.55	3.1	2.7	37000	CCV Target
ARTEC Boxer	7.93	2.99	2.37	41000	CCV Competitor
Nexter VBCI	7.6	2.98	3	32000	CCV Competitor
LAV 6	7.83	3.25	3.27	28576	WAPC
LAV III	6.98	2.7	2.8	16950	WAPC
LAV II	6.5	2.6	2.6	13000	WAPC

 

[AC 011]

I never understood the inclusion of the Nexter and ARTEC submissions against the CV90. Unless someone really wanted to prove that Wheels were good enough and we should stick with GDLS London.

There were other options to trial against the CV90

Bradley
Puma
Lynx
ASCOD
Warrior

	Length	Width	Height	Mass
	m	m	m	kg
BAE CV90	6.55	3.1	2.7	37000	CCV Target
ARTEC Boxer	7.93	2.99	2.37	41000	CCV Competitor
Nexter VBCI	7.6	2.98	3	32000	CCV Competitor
LAV 6	7.83	3.25	3.27	28576	WAPC
LAV III	6.98	2.7	2.8	16950	WAPC
LAV II	6.5	2.6	2.6	13000	WAPC

The original CCV spec read like a product spec for the CV90. It was re-issued as a performance spec, and this opened the door for wheeled platforms to compete against the CV90.

I don't recall ARTEC being involved in CCV. By the time of the performance confirmation phase they were out. The final 4 were CV90, Piranha 5, and 2 flavours of VBCI.

 

[ArmyRick]

Hey haven't you figured out that canada loves to have lots of HQ bloat

@KevinB "And an utterly bizarre number of Command Post Variants..."

 

[daftandbarmy]

That's the problem isn't it? We need lighter than the TAPV for the Light element and heavier than the LAV for the Heavy element. The vehicles we've gone "all in" on aren't suitable for either of the roles that seem to be evolving.

The perfect Canadian Compromise then?

 

[Kirkhill]

The original CCV spec read like a product spec for the CV90. It was re-issued as a performance spec, and this opened the door for wheeled platforms to compete against the CV90.

I don't recall ARTEC being involved in CCV. By the time of the performance confirmation phase they were out. The final 4 were CV90, Piranha 5, and 2 flavours of VBCI.

Thanks for the correction on the ARTEC.

Was it the finding of the trials that there was no difference between tracks and wheels?

 

[IKnowNothing]

Anyone have any inkling as to would would have happened with LAV UP had CCV gone ahead? If we had a "true" IFV in inventory would the next generation of LAV been more Stryker like?

 

[KevinB]

Hey haven't you figured out that canada loves to have lots of HQ bloat

@KevinB "And an utterly bizarre number of Command Post Variants..."

Put three CAF officers in a room and two will split off to form a HQ…

 

[daftandbarmy]

Put three CAF officers in a room and two will split off to form a HQ…

And then stab the other guy in the back

 

[McG]

And an utterly bizarre number of Command Post Variants

Keep in mind that the LAV 6 CP is miss-named. It is a commander’s vehicle. COs, OCs, and sub-sub unit leaders in the F Ech ride in these. Only a minority (the ones used by infantry company 2ICs) are actually used as CPs.

Anyone have any inkling as to would would have happened with LAV UP had CCV gone ahead? If we had a "true" IFV in inventory would the next generation of LAV been more Stryker like?

The wants of LAV-UP were figured out before CCV was killed. If the project had gone to completion, we likely would have had two very similar 8x8 (the LAV 6 and something from different OEM).

 

[markppcli]

I’d argue it’s even worse than that.
Not only has the CAF gone ‘all in’ with the LAV, there are critical variant deficiencies in the LAV fleet and a number of ‘WTF’ variant acquisitions.

Based on the #s of LAV’s that @markppcli has posted there are less than 5 BN worth of ISC turreted LAV.
No Mortar variant
No ATGM variant
No M/SHORAD variant
Extremely limited numbers of LRSS variants

And an utterly bizarre number of Command Post Variants as well as the number of enormously large ASCV whose role one really needs to question the entire WHY of based on the size.

Furthermore with the Leo 2’s being acquired, the need for the LAV to be an active IFV increased, given no CCV acquisition. Which while the LAV 6.0 has significantly increase weight over the LAV III fleet, it’s still a wheeled platform - which has some significant mobility issues when trying to work in conjunction with Tanks.

Sorry the 5 Bn number only works out if you assume every LAV in the BN is an ISCC. In reality all the rifle platoons are in ISCC while the Coy and higher HQs roll in CPs. So the actually number in a Bn is 36 ISCC (4 per Pl, 12 per Coy) and then (excuse my poor accuracy) 9-12 ish CPs (3 per Coy plus odds and sods). So with the 278 we actually get to 7.72 Bns of ISCC. Of 6 Bns, plus a spare set, and some extras to fill various other roles.

 

[KevinB]

Sorry the 5 Bn number only works out if you assume every LAV in the BN is an ISCC. In reality all the rifle platoons are in ISCC while the Coy and higher HQs roll in CPs. So the actually number in a Bn is 36 ISCC (4 per Pl, 12 per Coy) and then (excuse my poor accuracy) 9-12 ish CPs (3 per Coy plus odds and sods). So with the 278 we actually get to 7.72 Bns of ISCC. Of 6 Bns, plus a spare set, and some extras to fill various other roles.

Roger
I had assumed the OC, LAV Capt from the Rifle Coy’s had ISC turreted LAV’s as well as 9’er and that Recce Platoon had some as it doesn’t makes sense (to me) to have all Recce vehicles as LRSS (inc Recce Squadrons).

I had also accounted for Cbt Spt Coy, but I’m not sure that’s a thing anymore?
As without Mortars, ADP, and Pioneers, I guess Recce would fall under HQ Coy?

 

[IKnowNothing]

The wants of LAV-UP were figured out before CCV was killed. If the project had gone to completion, we likely would have had two very similar 8x8 (the LAV 6 and something from different OEM).

The patent absurdity of the bold aside, did those wants contribute the decision to stick with the 25mm/ no ATGM and the lack of enabler variants- with the CCV supposed to deliver in that/those roles?

 

[KevinB]

Keep in mind that the LAV 6 CP is miss-named. It is a commander’s vehicle. COs, OCs, and sub-sub unit leaders in the F Ech ride in these. Only a minority (the ones used by infantry company 2ICs) are actually used as CPs.

What makes it different from the ISC?
I see seeing conflicting info - as Wiki says it has a raised roofline (a la ASCV) - but then picture show a turret and no external differences from the ISC?

 

[AC 011]

Thanks for the correction on the ARTEC.

Was it the finding of the trials that there was no difference between tracks and wheels?

The wheeled competitors met the mandatory mobility performance requirements for the program, so from that perspective track and wheel were the same.

Undoubtedly there were differences noted between tracks and wheels among the desirable requirements and would have been part of the process to break a tie.

 

[Kirkhill]

The wheeled competitors met the mandatory mobility performance requirements for the program, so from that perspective track and wheel were the same.

Undoubtedly there were differences noted between tracks and wheels among the desirable requirements and would have been part of the process to break a tie.

But the plug was pulled before the competition got that far?

 

[Kirkhill]

Keep in mind that the LAV 6 CP is miss-named. It is a commander’s vehicle. COs, OCs, and sub-sub unit leaders in the F Ech ride in these. Only a minority (the ones used by infantry company 2ICs) are actually used as CPs.

As commander's vehicles - including the Platoon Leader - does that mean that the F-Echelon CP is effectively an ISC with an extra radio?

The wants of LAV-UP were figured out before CCV was killed. If the project had gone to completion, we likely would have had two very similar 8x8 (the LAV 6 and something from different OEM).

I hope you are being ironic.... but somehow I know you're not.

 

[Kirkhill]

Kanada kauft weitere LAV - DOPPELADLER.COM

www.doppeladler.com

As I understood it the only real/true Queen Mary type CPs in the LAV Battalions were the Bison CPs. Everybody else got a turreted vehicle. Except the Recce platoon that got TAPVs instead.

The ACSV with the high roof seems to be the Bison CP replacement? @markppcli ?