Preserving Army Fleets

[FJAG]

HEMTT A4, has 8x8 mission modularity, in what you want from a cargo vehicle.
But the Boxer is no more than a MLVW 6x6 with armor - a lot of its modules seem to have some from the good idea fairy. It would be a terrible LAV substitute.

My thought is that it adds some complexity to the design, probably robs some space and will, in all probability never be used.

I’m not sold on RWS, it makes sense in some vehicles - but an IFV role ain’t one of them IMLTHO.
I’d rather have an optionally manned turret that is quickly reconfigured - sure it’s bigger, but when one doesn’t need to be buttoned up, one has significantly better local SA than a RWS.

I like configurability between weapons stations as well. My thoughts on manned v unmanned turrets has a lot to do with the fact that in Ukraine it appears if a lot of turret hits result in catastrophic explosions within the crew compartment. I'd prefer something that's a bit more blow away and increases the chance of crew survival. Guess we'll see better in the studies coming out of this one.

 

[KevinB]

My thought is that it adds some complexity to the design, probably robs some space and will, in all probability never be used.

I like configurability between weapons stations as well. My thoughts on manned v unmanned turrets has a lot to do with the fact that in Ukraine it appears if a lot of turret hits result in catastrophic explosions within the crew compartment. I'd prefer something that's a bit more blow away and increases the chance of crew survival. Guess we'll see better in the studies coming out of this one.

Acknowledged, but we test stuff

Hitting a LAV, Bradley etc isn’t going to set the ammo high order like Russian stuff.

RWS have some advantages in terms of silhouette, but the XBox’ish controller system and screen isn’t a solid replacement for being able to look around when not buttoned up.

Rather than a RWS - I’d rather have a UCV
That I can use as a loyal wingman or scout.

 

[FJAG]

Acknowledged, but we test stuff

Hitting a LAV, Bradley etc isn’t going to set the ammo high order like Russian stuff.

RWS have some advantages in terms of silhouette, but the XBox’ish controller system and screen isn’t a solid replacement for being able to look around when not buttoned up.

Rather than a RWS - I’d rather have a UCV
That I can use as a loyal wingman or scout.

I've been watching videos on Ripsaw for many years now. I'm quite surprised it hasn't gone into service in some form or other by now.

 

[ArmyRick]

I've been watching videos on Ripsaw for many years now. I'm quite surprised it hasn't gone into service in some form or other by now.

Probably because it is out of the box thinking. That scares bureaucrats

 

[Underway]

The robotics, control and AI for traversing complicated ground aren't there yet. Guaranteed those things get hung up on a pile of terrain that a vehicle with a driver in it would not get hung upon. And its reliability isn't there yet. When the gun jams after 3 rounds what are you gonna do?

We won't even put autoloaders in tanks yet.

 

[IKnowNothing]

My lofty idea:

Donate a chunk of our LAV6 fleet (if we should), build new ones (jobs) and build out the variants.

New ATGM add-ons to some of the turrets. Buy some 40MM+ATGM/AA turrets for an interim IFV and testbed for the next APC/IFV in the Medium Cavalry role.

Offer GDLS 30+years of business in Canada if they stay and design something new, or offer the same deal to Rheinmetall for the BOXER. BOXER seems like a great "NATO APC" and it's already in use with many new variants and a common hull.

If GDLS refuses, retool the plant to build GDELS's Eagle in 4x4 and 6x6, which looks like a great domestic solution to the LSVW/G-Wagon/Milcots replacement.

If we're looking at lofty fleet ideas involving donating LAV's and Rheinmetall, let's swing for the fences. Adopt the Asymmetric Army proposal and put the heavy brigade in KF41's, grab some of the production for the Aussie order.

 

[Underway]

If we're looking at lofty fleet ideas involving donating LAV's and Rheinmetall, let's swing for the fences. Adopt the Asymmetric Army proposal and put the heavy brigade in KF41's, grab some of the production for the Aussie order.

Did the Lynx even win that competition? I thought they delayed the decision again.

Lets be honest. If you want to swing for the fences Canada's best choice for a tracked IFV (because we already have a decent wheeled one) is the CV90 MkIV.

As far as preserving fleets is concerned, I think that we don't need to do that right now. We're understaffed to the point where if we mobilized the PRes we would probably be just able to backfill what the Regiments already have in stock...

 

[KevinB]

The robotics, control and AI for traversing complicated ground aren't there yet. Guaranteed those things get hung up on a pile of terrain that a vehicle with a driver in it would not get hung upon. And its reliability isn't there yet. When the gun jams after 3 rounds what are you gonna do?

We won't even put autoloaders in tanks yet.

Admittedly if a M242 Bushmaster goes down in a LAV/Bradley there isn’t much you can do in combat. It’s going to need to retire clear it in a lot of cases, but reliability rates for those are pretty high - which I suspect is one reason UCV’s have focused on those and ATGM’s.

I’ve seen some UCV terrain tests, and lately I have more faith in the automated systems than a human driver - as the sensors near the tracks give them a lot better SA of the actual ground.

The biggest issues on the Army side seem to be major concerns over armed autonomous vehicles ever since Picatinny’s robot swept the crowd with a loaded M240 at the 2006 NDIA FirePower event. How to ensure one can remain in control of the system and ensure no blue on blue occur.

I’m afraid of Skynet too, but I do see a huge need for these sorts of systems to augment ground firepower and reduce human exposure.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Did the Lynx even win that competition? I thought they delayed the decision again.

Lets be honest. If you want to swing for the fences Canada's best choice for a tracked IFV (because we already have a decent wheeled one) is the CV90 MkIV.

As far as preserving fleets is concerned, I think that we don't need to do that right now. We're understaffed to the point where if we mobilized the PRes we would probably be just able to backfill what the Regiments already have in stock...

I thought it was a done deal, but looks like that was in error.

"lofty.. swing for the fences" was moreso a combination of the dream that an asymmetric army would translate into an asymmetric vehicle fleet chosen for their respective roles rather than one LAV fits all, coupled with the glimmer of hope that sweet sweet Montreal jobs takes it a sliver past a pipe dream.

 

[Dale Denton]

Slovakia offers its fleet of T-72M tanks to Ukraine in exchange for Leopard 2 MBTs​

POSTED ON SUNDAY, 08 MAY 2022 17:15

According to information published by the Polish Defense website “Defence 24" on May 7, 2022, during a press conference that was held at the Silacz air force base in Slovakia, Slovak Defense Minister Jaroslav Nad said that Slovakia is ready to donate 30 Soviet-made T-72M main battle tanks or BMP tracked armored IFVs (Infantry Fighting Vehicles) to Ukraine in exchange for German-made Leopard 2 tanks.

Would be an easy way to indirectly assist UKR with our oldest or roughest Leopard 2s and replenish with whatever you will: M1s, Newer used Leo2s, something else.

 

[Underway]

Slovakia offers its fleet of T-72M tanks to Ukraine in exchange for Leopard 2 MBTs​

POSTED ON SUNDAY, 08 MAY 2022 17:15



Would be an easy way to indirectly assist UKR with our oldest or roughest Leopard 2s and replenish with whatever you will: M1s, Newer used Leo2s, something else.

I would just buy them direct from someone else, and supply them to Slovakia. Ours have all been upgraded to a 2A_ CAN standard AFAIK, or are in the process of that upgrade.

Slovakia can then do what they like with them. Upgrade, modify etc...

 

[McG]

I would just buy them direct from someone else, and supply them to Slovakia. Ours have all been upgraded to a 2A_ CAN standard AFAIK, or are in the process of that upgrade.

We have three different types of Leopard 2 and no funded plans to make them all common.

 

[IKnowNothing]

We have three different types of Leopard 2 and no funded plans to make them all common.

How does that shake out?
My understanding is
2A4+ CAN - baseline with Canadianized electronics and other "tweaks"
2A4M CAN- above plus greater protection
2A6M CAN- above plus L55 main gun, more angular turret armour

 

[Underway]

We have three different types of Leopard 2 and no funded plans to make them all common.

Hence the 2A_ fill in the blank.

My understanding is
2A4+ CAN - baseline with Canadianized electronics and other "tweaks"
2A4M CAN- above plus greater protection
2A6M CAN- above plus L55 main gun, more angular turret armour

Not sure the + is required, they are training tanks... Here is a good article on the situation with the tanks.

As far as commonality I thought that the life extension program was potentially going to increase commonality, at least for everything but the gun caliber. It's not uncommon for LEX's to turn into such things.

 

[Kirkhill]

Unmanned Ripsaws but no RWS on LAVs.
UCVs but retaining 3 man crews on LAVs and 4 man crews on Tanks.
Just in Case manning of Guns rather than minimally manning Archers and HIMARS.
Large Sections and Platoons rather than Small Companies.
Trucks for CQs rather than UAVs and ATVs....

We are not using available technology to exploit available man-power.

And I will ignore the opportunity to discuss RCAF/CA co-operation.

 

[armrdsoul77]

In case anyone needs a refresher.

 

[Kirkhill]

Sorry. Thought ancient post was current. Comment withdrawn.

 

[KevinB]

Sorry. Thought ancient post was current. Comment withdrawn.

Maybe it should be current.

 

[ueo]

Or they get towed to Poland for depot level refurb.

We are currently in planning to move most of our depots and depot level refurbishment facilities out of Germany to Poland for several reasons.

Ummm what? What reason? just a dumb army guy.

 

[KevinB]

Ummm what? What reason? just a dumb army guy.

As I understand it two main reasons 1) Larger USA presence in Poland 2) Poland getting Abrams.
Poland being closer to Russia as well - it is a shorter road move if Push comes to Shove...