Canada's tanks

[KevinB]

That's not what I take away from the RUSI article posted by @FJAG yesterday

Post in thread 'GBAD - The return of 'FOBS''

15 Oct 2024

New paper by Watling and Bronk: "Protecting the Force from UAS".

https://static.rusi.org/protecting-the-force-from-uncrewed-uas.pdf

• FJAG

• 

....

The new battle impacts every vehicle and every echelon, every VP and every formation and demands new C2 relations between existing organizations and the creation of some new organizations.

It depends on one's perspective I suppose.

I disagree with several of RUSI's points, mostly about the Bde being the controller in several areas, but that could be an outlook of scale from the US Army to a smaller force like the British, and quibbling on terminology about what "controller" means, the other aspect is that unless a lot of other NATO militaries the US Army hands AD and C-UAS assets off to Infantry and Armor personnel down to the Platoon level.

At the Division level we have an AD Bn, and ADAM cells at the Bde, but down to the Platoon level we have an AD Det (11B's that are trained on Stinger and on the ADAM net). So we already have the backbone for Platoon based AD and C-UAS, it isn't new.

We've also being playing musical chairs with Bradley formations in 6 and 8 vehicle Platoons, inside the CAB's.
One of the concepts has been to have AMPV's augment Bradleys - and realistically I suspect that the AMPV will eventually replace both the M113 as was intended, and the Bradley (and say good bye to XM-30) with various turreted options for the AMPV that BAE has been touting out recently and the large additions to AMPV orders this upcoming FY.

Last year BAE unveiled the AMPV C-UAS prototype (using the Leonardo MSHORASD RWiP turret) and it was successfully tested in January of this year, this year LocMart had their Diemos DE C-UAS/SHORAD system on one - as well as the other large defense companies had their C-RAM systems on them (and Strykers).
@FJAG the ExMEP 'Universal Top Plate' you mentioned earlier

Photo Credit to Breaking Defense

DCGS-A already has the ability to share information amongst the vehicles - given we already trust 11B's at the E-5 and higher level to engage in the AD battle with Stingers, and we have a network to identify and track targets, various mounted gun and DE systems aren't a step past that.

I would argue that if you have a CAB (regardless of combination) that if you have 6 IFV's in a platoon, that it isn't a far jump to have 1-2 of those turrets be a C-RAM/C-UAS/SHORAD system, even if you stick to 4 tracks, the 30mm gun on the AMPV above is pretty potent, but you could also have the 35mm SkyRanger Turret or the like, that can do secondary direct fire missions, and a full sensor package at the Coy level.



So yes for some Armies that have silo'd their capabilities, or gutted their AD capabilities it could be a long hard road - but in the grand scheme, when you see what you already need for an Armored Force in terms of vehicles and logistics support -- the AD/C-RAM/C-UAS isn't (or shouldn't be) the long pole in the tent...

 

[Kirkhill]

It depends on one's perspective I suppose.

I disagree with several of RUSI's points, mostly about the Bde being the controller in several areas, but that could be an outlook of scale from the US Army to a smaller force like the British, and quibbling on terminology about what "controller" means, the other aspect is that unless a lot of other NATO militaries the US Army hands AD and C-UAS assets off to Infantry and Armor personnel down to the Platoon level.

At the Division level we have an AD Bn, and ADAM cells at the Bde, but down to the Platoon level we have an AD Det (11B's that are trained on Stinger and on the ADAM net). So we already have the backbone for Platoon based AD and C-UAS, it isn't new.

We've also being playing musical chairs with Bradley formations in 6 and 8 vehicle Platoons, inside the CAB's.
One of the concepts has been to have AMPV's augment Bradleys - and realistically I suspect that the AMPV will eventually replace both the M113 as was intended, and the Bradley (and say good bye to XM-30) with various turreted options for the AMPV that BAE has been touting out recently and the large additions to AMPV orders this upcoming FY.

Last year BAE unveiled the AMPV C-UAS prototype (using the Leonardo MSHORASD RWiP turret) and it was successfully tested in January of this year, this year LocMart had their Diemos DE C-UAS/SHORAD system on one - as well as the other large defense companies had their C-RAM systems on them (and Strykers).
@FJAG the ExMEP 'Universal Top Plate' you mentioned earlier
View attachment 88509
Photo Credit to Breaking Defense

DCGS-A already has the ability to share information amongst the vehicles - given we already trust 11B's at the E-5 and higher level to engage in the AD battle with Stingers, and we have a network to identify and track targets, various mounted gun and DE systems aren't a step past that.

I would argue that if you have a CAB (regardless of combination) that if you have 6 IFV's in a platoon, that it isn't a far jump to have 1-2 of those turrets be a C-RAM/C-UAS/SHORAD system, even if you stick to 4 tracks, the 30mm gun on the AMPV above is pretty potent, but you could also have the 35mm SkyRanger Turret or the like, that can do secondary direct fire missions, and a full sensor package at the Coy level.



So yes for some Armies that have silo'd their capabilities, or gutted their AD capabilities it could be a long hard road - but in the grand scheme, when you see what you already need for an Armored Force in terms of vehicles and logistics support -- the AD/C-RAM/C-UAS isn't (or shouldn't be) the long pole in the tent...

Judging from the near universal panic among armed forces, in particular Western forces, air defence at any and all levels is not particularly well developed.

And I am not sure that your own chain of command shares your confidence in the readiness of the force to fight the AD/C-UAS battles, at least not if judging by the OSINT available.

 

[KevinB]

Judging from the near universal panic among armed forces, in particular Western forces, air defence at any and all levels is not particularly well developed.

And I am not sure that your own chain of command shares your confidence in the readiness of the force to fight the AD/C-UAS battles, at least not if judging by the OSINT available.

I'm not saying we are ready. We have major gaps in systems -- we have the C2 backbone to plug them in - but not the equipment
Right now the Stryker MSHORAD and Avenger are our primary vehicles for AD/C-UAS/C-RAM for Maneuver formations.

There is a huge gap for Armored Forces, as well as Light Forces as far as equipment for those roles.
On the dismounted side - we have Stinger, or the Microwave Drone gun, and everyone and their dog firing with pers weapons.

From GWOT we have a lot of static site C-RAM systems that would be pretty effective against most UAS, but none of those can do anything without a static position (one wonders why we didn't send a few thousand of the CONEX box C-RAM setups to Ukraine).

Doctrinally, we are sound, but on the coal face we are unprepared* if this issue comes at scale.

*UAS do require a degree of Air Parity or more to operate effectively, so there is a lot of questions to if an opponent could operate drones against the US Army deployed with the USAF.

 

[FJAG]

Judging from the near universal panic among armed forces, in particular Western forces, air defence at any and all levels is not particularly well developed.

And I am not sure that your own chain of command shares your confidence in the readiness of the force to fight the AD/C-UAS battles, at least not if judging by the OSINT available.

Doctrinally, we are sound, but on the coal face we are unprepared* if this issue comes at scale.

*UAS do require a degree of Air Parity or more to operate effectively, so there is a lot of questions to if an opponent could operate drones against the US Army deployed with the USAF.

I disagree with you, @Kirkhill and mostly agree with you, @KevinB.

Air defence doctrine amongst NATO countries is well developed and is sound especially vis-a-vis traditional air threats. It has faltered in that keeping up equipment in the peace dividend era struck many countries hard, including the US which mothballed many of its tactical systems or relegated a fragment of them to the reserves. Canada went to an extreme and ash-canned its air defence equipment and units a bit over a decade ago but still has the doctrine and a few folks with the core competencies as well as some equipment in 4 RCA(GS).

For Canada, since the 1970s, air defence has been a brigade resource in the form of Blowpipe of Javelin batteries. Effectively that meant a "brigade controlled" resource that would be deployed and activated based on the brigade commander's priorities.

I'm generally of the belief that air defence (writ large against traditional air targets) should remain a brigade (and higher) controlled resource in order to provide maximum response with the least chance of fratricide. I don't see that same need with C-UAS systems and in fact centralized control could be ineffective. Personally, I'm not sure at this point in time to what level we need to decentralize. The effects of some of the C-UAS systems are very limited and the risk to downing one of our $80 million aircraft and highly skilled pilot are low. Bringing down a friendly UAV may be inconvenient but not disastrous. OTOH I'm not an advocate of a total "Weapons Free" environment either. I think that will take some study and wargaming to get the right mix. One thing that I'm a 100% sure of is that getting the right organization and TTPs in place will be harder than most people think. Ukraine is a bad example. One gets the idea these things develop organically through trial and error in the field - they don't. Two minute video clips on Facebook do not tell the whole story.

Where I disagree with you @KevinB is the air parity issue. I don't think air superiority has any major effect on UAS operations because of the few aircraft, their limited C-UAS weaponry and the small size and large number of UAS that can be active in a given area at any time. Yes we'll lose some but not enough to be an issue. I know that there are companies developing C-UAS rockets etc for use by helicopters etc, but quite frankly, I think this is chumming the waters to get a share of the C-UAS industrial feeding frenzy. In practical terms are we going to risk F-35s or Apaches to go UAS hunting? I doubt it. I'll put my money on ground based EW and C-UAS systems.

 

[KevinB]

@FJAG my point is if the you or the enemy have Air Superiority or Supremacy then that one is most probably also conducting SEAD, EW and Ground Attack missions as well.

Very few folks are going to try to run a UAS, get them to the AO or even making them when someone is actively trying to drop a warhead on their forehead…

 

[FJAG]

@FJAG my point is if the you or the enemy have Air Superiority or Supremacy then that one is most probably also conducting SEAD, EW and Ground Attack missions as well.

Agreed

Very few folks are going to try to run a UAS, get them to the AO or even making them when someone is actively trying to drop a warhead on their forehead…

I don't see why they wouldn't.

Yup, I can see that you are being degraded and keeping your head down but you'd still need to concern yourself with what is going on on the ground around you and try to take whatever defensive measures that you can. UAS might be one of the few tools that you can sneak in under the umbrella. One thing abut air resources; they aren't infinite and can't be everywhere all the time, even in a superiority/supremacy situation.

 

[KevinB]

@FJAG I view the lone UAS to a terror threat as opposed to a LSCO issue.

Regardless I do support increasing the AD/C-RAM/C-UAS capabilities we have, and expanding their integration at lower levels.

 

[GR66]

I'm generally of the belief that air defence (writ large against traditional air targets) should remain a brigade (and higher) controlled resource in order to provide maximum response with the least chance of fratricide. I don't see that same need with C-UAS systems and in fact centralized control could be ineffective. Personally, I'm not sure at this point in time to what level we need to decentralize. The effects of some of the C-UAS systems are very limited and the risk to downing one of our $80 million aircraft and highly skilled pilot are low. Bringing down a friendly UAV may be inconvenient but not disastrous. OTOH I'm not an advocate of a total "Weapons Free" environment either. I think that will take some study and wargaming to get the right mix. One thing that I'm a 100% sure of is that getting the right organization and TTPs in place will be harder than most people think. Ukraine is a bad example. One gets the idea these things develop organically through trial and error in the field - they don't. Two minute video clips on Facebook do not tell the whole story.

My temptation would be to devolve C-UAS systems down to the same level that is deploying those systems. For example, if Sections are using micro-UAV's for "over the ridge and behind that building" type recce then give them access to a handheld system capable of taking down the same (a microwave rifle or automatic shotgun perhaps). If Platoons are using DJI-style quadcopters then issue them something capable of taking them down, etc.

 

[GR66]

And back to the tank replacement topic, apparently new Leopards ARE available in a fairly reasonable timeframe...the thing is, you have to actually place an order for them...

Netherlands to buy 46 Leopard 2A8 tanks

The Dutch Ministry of Defense announced plans to acquire 46 Leopard 2A8 battle tanks as part of a broader effort to restore and modernize the nation’s armored capabilities. The first units are expected to be delivered in 2027, with the full fleet operational by 2030. This investment, ranging...

defence-blog.com

 

[KevinB]

And back to the tank replacement topic, apparently new Leopards ARE available in a fairly reasonable timeframe...the thing is, you have to actually place an order for them...

Netherlands to buy 46 Leopard 2A8 tanks

The Dutch Ministry of Defense announced plans to acquire 46 Leopard 2A8 battle tanks as part of a broader effort to restore and modernize the nation’s armored capabilities. The first units are expected to be delivered in 2027, with the full fleet operational by 2030. This investment, ranging...

defence-blog.com

46 tanks over 3 years and starting 3 years from now isn't exactly what I would call a reasonable timeframe.

 

[GR66]

46 tanks over 3 years and starting 3 years from now isn't exactly what I would call a reasonable timeframe.

Will Canada even have a Statement of Requirements completed in that same six year period?

 

[suffolkowner]

46 tanks over 3 years and starting 3 years from now isn't exactly what I would call a reasonable timeframe.

Is it worse than what we are doing?

Will Canada even have a Statement of Requirements completed in that same six year period?

the 2A6M's are getting upgraded at $4M a pop
we did just sign a long term service agreement

 

[FJAG]

... the 2A6M's are getting upgraded at $4M a pop
we did just sign a long term service agreement

Being upgraded to what? First that I've heard of this. Is this just for the Latvia fleet?

 

[suffolkowner]

Being upgraded to what? First that I've heard of this. Is this just for the Latvia fleet?

What’s new in Canada’s upgraded Leopard 2A6MC2 Main Battle Tank?

What’s new in Canada’s upgraded Leopard 2A6MC2 Main Battle Tank?

armyrecognition.com

https://twitter.com/x/status/1846304930828886500

havent watched the video yet but may be of interest

2A6M's being upgraded to the same standard as the 2A4MC2's

how that compares?

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

The Leo 2A6Ms are being upgraded through Turret Repair and Overhaul in New Brunswick. The tank in the picture is the reference tank in Germany. I am not an engineer, but I think that reference tanks are used as a guide/blueprint for the rest.

The Leo 2A6Ms will receive upgraded electronic turret systems as part of this. A subtle but important upgrade. The R&O will also extend the life of the tank and improve serviceability.

 

[FJAG]

The Leo 2A6Ms are being upgraded through Turret Repair and Overhaul in New Brunswick. The tank in the picture is the reference tank in Germany. I am not an engineer, but I think that reference tanks are used as a guide/blueprint for the rest.

The Leo 2A6Ms will receive upgraded electronic turret systems as part of this. A subtle but important upgrade. The R&O will also extend the life of the tank and improve serviceability.

The article cited by @suffolkowner was very helpful but left me a touch confused with this para:

Additionally, Canada awarded KMW a separate contract worth $76 million in June 2022 to repair, overhaul, and convert 20 Leopard 2A6M tanks to align with the 2A4M configuration. The modifications include updating optics, fire control systems, and user interfaces with more modern components, as the existing analog technology is considered obsolete.

I take it from this that Canada's A4 and A6 will share the same digital fire control etc system now but the A4 will retain the L44 barrel while the A6 will retain the L55. Basically from a crewman's point of view the operations inside the turret will be functionally the same.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Cannon stays the same for the A6Ms undergoing the turret R&O (55 calibre barrel). Can’t confirm if the turret interior/ fire control will be 100% identical between the A4M and the upgraded A6M.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Cannon stays the same for the A6Ms undergoing the turret R&O (55 calibre barrel). Can’t confirm if the turret interior/ fire control will be 100% identical between the A4M and the upgraded A6M.

Anything on the horizon for bringing the A4's to A4MCAN/ C2?

 

[IKnowNothing]

This is my point. We only have enough tanks to deploy and sustain a single Tank Squadron for a combat deployment (the 15 x 2A4M's already in Latvia plus an additional 20 x 2A6M's in Canada). That squadron is already tasked to eFP Latvia with our LAV Company(+) and our Allied units.

Though- that 15 number was set while that 20 A6M's were off the board for overhaul and upgrades, the completion of which leads to some interesting possibilities.

1. 34 A4's+5A4M's was enough to sustainably meet domestic training/generation needs- it stands to reason that 34+5+5A6M's would do so as well, leaving the option of adding 15 A6M's to Latvia (flyover contingent?)
2. 1, but instead of Latvia the 15 available combat tanks are tasked to part of a 2nd combined arms battlegroup to be shipped over
3. 34 A4's + 5A4M's was an unsustainable stop gap, the availability of the A6's lets us shift to a more sustainable 34+9+9, leaving 11+11 for full doctrinal squadron+ spares in Latvia
4. Somewhere between 1 & 2, full squadron+ 1-2 additional troops and/or spares (25-28 total tanks in Latvia)

Still no to deploying full tank regiment or heavy combined arms Bde, but better than a combat team - especially if the infantry can match the expansion

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Anything on the horizon for bringing the A4's to A4MCAN/ C2?

I'd be really out in front of my skis if I tried to answer that!

I will say, though, that in 2008 to get the armour package as-configured (particularly the belly armour) the work had to be done in Germany. The interior turret stuff, though, could be done in New Brunswick. I am sure that some bright engineers/plant design folks could figure out a way to put on some form of armour upgrade in New Brunswick.