That was part of it but part of it these things are so fucking fragile people are super risk averse when it comes to them. Can't loan them to unit X for IT purposes like gunnery training because on the off-chance it breaks, it'll be down for months if not years.
Environmental won’t approve pretty much any tbh big that’s has petroleum in it as a live fire target anymore.
breakingdefense.com
Canadian opportunity....
EXCLUSIVE: 4 Nordic nations in talks for joint procurement of infantry fighting vehicles - Breaking Defense
"We’re aiming for cross-development, cross-buying and cross-use basically, because we need to align and ease up the supply chains and be able to sustain the vehicles," Maj. Gen. Jonny Lindfors, Commander of the Swedish Army, told Breaking Defense.
Meanwhile the largest and most advanced military on earth, with a few of the best battle proven IFVs, is right next door - along with all the industrial supply chain to support such a vehicle.
And, unlike other country's vehicles, probably come with proper coffee cup holders
Fitted for not with
breakingdefense.com
www.defensenews.com
So, if the XM-30 is being dropped as a replacement for the Bradley then is the intention to life-extend the Bradleys and keep the AMPV as M113 replacements or is it to develop the turreted AMPV versions into Bradley replacements so you have a single tracked fleet in the ABCT's?
www.defenseone.com
breakingdefense.com
Not sure if this has been posted before, but an interesting series of articles in the Summer 2024 British Army Review on accelerating modernization.
I'm not sure how much more one needs in defence policy. Our current direction is clear enough. Leading a multi-national brigade in Latvia and "other stuff." One needs to build a plan around that and to me that's not difficult. It encompasses a heavy mechanized force as the main expeditionary element in Latvia and light and medium mechanized forces for that "other stuff."
Yes to all of this but at present replacing the LAV 6.0 isn’t a high priority. Is it ideal? Probably not, but it works. FWIW the Danes also operate Piranhas V, 300 vs 44 CV90, which are LAVs.In a previous post I floated the idea of Canada possibly getting CV90's as our tracked IFV in order to simplify logistics with our partners in Latvia (Multinational Division North is lead by Denmark and includes the Danish 1st Brigade, the Latvian Mechanized Brigade and our Canadian-lead Multinational Brigade - Latvia).
Both Denmark (with it's 1st Brigade and a rotational Mechanized Infantry Battalion in our Multinational Brigade) and Sweden (supplying the other rotational Mechanized Infantry Battalion for our Brigade) use the CV90 (and Leopards).
The four Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden) have just announced that they will be joining together in a joint procurement of a single, common IFV (most likely a CV90 variant, but others are being at least considered). The intent is for all four countries to get the exact same model - no national variants - in order to gain the advantage of volume as well as simplified logistics between the Nordic nations. Maybe it might make sense for Canada to consider joining the program?
EXCLUSIVE: 4 Nordic nations in talks for joint procurement of infantry fighting vehicles - Breaking Defense
"We’re aiming for cross-development, cross-buying and cross-use basically, because we need to align and ease up the supply chains and be able to sustain the vehicles," Maj. Gen. Jonny Lindfors, Commander of the Swedish Army, told Breaking Defense.
Of course the other option to always consider is commonality with the great military Costco of the South...aka the USA and join in on their Bradley replacement project which seems to be moving forward at a reasonable pace:
Army moves ahead on plans to replace storied Bradley Fighting Vehicle
The program to replace the venerable Bradley infantry fighting vehicle is expected to cost $45 billion.
I guess the main question for Canada is whether we see our Latvia commitment as the primary focus for our Mechanized forces (in which case a joint CV90 procurement with our Latvian partners might make sense) or if we see expanding our deployable Mechanized capability beyond manning (and maintaining) our Latvia commitment to at least an additional Brigade (or up to a full Division) in which case commonality with the US would make more sense.
Regardless of which vehicle we might go with (if we even proceed with a tracked LAV replacement), in my opinion we should replace the planned fly-over Light Battalion to round our our Latvia Brigade with a pre-positioned Mechanized Battalion and keep our Light Battalions focused on possible non-Latvia deployments (to the Arctic or Indo-Pacific for example).
Like most things CAF-related it's hard to make a call when there is really no clear sense of where our Defence policy objectives are going.
I think encouraging BAE to have Bradley/AMPV facilities in Canada would be amazing.I'm not sure how much more one needs in defence policy. Our current direction is clear enough. Leading a multi-national brigade in Latvia and "other stuff." One needs to build a plan around that and to me that's not difficult. It encompasses a heavy mechanized force as the main expeditionary element in Latvia and light and medium mechanized forces for that "other stuff."
IMHO, tying oneself to the CV90 because some Scandinavians have them won't simplify your logistics chain. It will still be based off-shore and in countries that are at risk and provide limited production chains which need to be shared amongst several users. (As an aside I doubt they will come up with a common standard vehicle without too much compromising)
Personally I'd take the AMPV option which now seems to be developing a vehicle fleet of multiple options (such as an IFV and various CS models) based around a common tracked chassis with common turret/weapon options.
It would be worthwhile if some of those CS weapon options be adopted to our current ACSV low-hull chassis as well so that commonality inside the vehicles exists between the heavy and mech fleets. (It strikes me that we could easily adapt the ExMEP universal top plate concept to the ACSV to allow commonality of turret/weapon systems)
It would be particulalry useful if we also made a BAE production/assembly plant in SW Ontario a condition of the AMPV. We need a broader long-term sustainment infrastructure in Canada.
