Close Combat Vehicle: Canada to buy another AFV (& keeping LAV III & TLAV)

[Colin Parkinson]

You've over simplified what it takes to support a fleet.  You've also forgetten some of our fleets such as Gen II LAV (Bison & Coyote), TLAV, MTVL, RG-31, Cougar, etc.

It still pales to what we had to deal with previously, in WWII, we were using around 4-5 different gun  tanks, 5-6 different light wheeled and tracked vehicles, 4 or more artillery pieces, numerous specialized engineering and amphibious vehicles. Not to mentioned all of the various civilian vehicles and the 5+standard military pattern trucks types. All of these in huge quantise. Korea was somewhat better with only about 1 to 2 tank types in service at any one time.

With the use of modern computers, warehousing software, inventory tracking tags and a very small fleet of vehicles, not to mention some very dedicated and smart people. The logistical issues of supporting a vehicle like the CV90 are quite doable. Will it strain the system at first, yes, mainly because the supporting systems have been allowed to decay by various governments. Those support systems like the rest of the military needs beefing up, not a fun job for those who have to juggle all of the conflicting purities.

 

[McG]

It still pales to what we had to deal with previously, in WWII, we were using around 4-5 different gun  tanks, 5-6 different light wheeled and tracked vehicles …..

That does not prove much when one considers that, in WW II, we fielded two armies with massive tails & equipment that was easier to maintain.  What about the fact that we are no longer fighting an enemy along a linear front and all the new challenges this introduces to logistics?

With the use of modern computers, warehousing software, inventory tracking tags and a very small fleet of vehicles ...

Logistics is far more than just inventory tracking.  Space is required in warehouses & on trucks.  If you throw yet another truck into the mix, where do you put its unique spares, parts & tools?  How does the echelon carry all this new stuff plus everything required for the existing fleets?  There may be a requirement for more stockpiling in theatre, and this would mean more CSS PYs at the expense of combat arms.

What about training?  In addition to operators, Veh Techs & EO Techs will need training on this vehicle and all the other micro fleets.  Where does one find the time to do both initial & continuation training?  Who teaches?  We might need to take PYs from somewhere in order to create this instructional capability.

It will require its own unique recovery vehicle, which is yet another truck to look after the first plus the manpower to crew it.

Yes it could be achievable to sustain yet another truck.  However, just because something can be done does not mean that it should be done.   

As I have said elsewhere, we are cursed with having 2 distinct and opposing requirements, the domestic defence and the need for an expeditionary force that could be fielded anywhere from the tropics to the Arctic, from peacekeeping, peacemaking and all out war.

This tells me nothing.  What is the requirement for a CV90 that cannot be filled my an existing vehicle fleet?

Whatever happens, we will not have the time to create more capability, …

True, but this adds nothing to your argument.

so I see the need for at least one heavy element equipped with heavier tracked vehicles and rest in lighter vehicles such as the LAV and it's successors.

I assume you want me to infer that the heavier tracked vehicle must be CV90.  If my assumption is correct, why must it be CV90?  Why not TLAV (which we already support & will continue to support) in Combat Teams with Leopard 2?

It has already been intergrated with Leo2's by other country with some similarities to our needs (Sweden).

Which needs are similar?  Does Canada currently have a deficiency in meeting one of these common needs?

While the gun is different . . .

Irrelevant argument against logistical challenges.  As I said, “achievable” does not equal “should do.” 

As far as doctrine goes, the CV90 is in service and by people we can consider allies, a review of doctrinal lessons already learned can be done, so we don't reinvent the wheel.

This would be a start point for TTPs, but does not answer the question: which doctrinal capability will the vehicle fill?

I think the LAV is a great piece of kit, but I know it is not a wonder weapon and like all is constrained by it's design to certain roles which it does well. the CV90 (or similar) would give us a far broader doctrine and tactical ability to bring to the mix.

This is probably the closest you have come to addressing the issue, but you’ve still missed it.  What are the roles that the LAV and/or TLAV cannot fill & for which you feel we need the CV90?

Of all the contenders in this field, I suspect it is the most capable and flexible and comes with the knowledge that it is in service and seen service in a variety of climates.

Again, it may be good kit but is it the right kit?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

What capability does it offer?

First and foremost it offers the same level of tactical mobility cross country that the Leopard 2 enjoys, while at the same time bring with it serious amount of firepower and protection. Our current fleet has lightly armed and armoured track vehicles that are modernized APC’s nearing the end of their developmental lifespan. Outside of our MBT’s the LAV’s offer the only serious direct fire support weapons available. The ammunition for the LAV weapon (going from public sources)  is constrained by size from offering a wider range of option, particularly in fuzing and actually HE content.

It’s pretty clear to me that LAV is not capable of keeping up with the leopards in serious cross country work and the MTVL and TLAV’s offer minimal firepower and will not be able to survive against a fairly well armed opponent. An IFV fills this gap in capability in my eyes.


Going by publicly released information

Comparing the CV90 to other IFV’s (I am leaving out ex-Warsaw Pact type vehicles, as it is highly unlikely we would consider them)

The Marder II  never went beyond prototype stage, so it is hard to determine it’s real ability.

The CV90 family offers better cross country performance than the Bradley or Warrior

The Bradley offers a good gun and a OK troop troop carrying compartment, the family of vehicles is somewhat limited, although there are attempts to build out more variants. The pluses for it is easy access to assembly lines and parts. Vehicle is somewhat top heavy and reaching it’s max weight, limiting development.

The Warrior seems to have a decent troop compartment, but is equipped with a out of date gun and would need a complete turret redesign for ourselves.

The CV90 size offers a lot of turret options as indicated by the different configurations purchased.

The CV90 has been in service both in Arctic and tropical conditions, so provides us with real life information to develop tactics and support requirements.

The CV90 offers a significant family of vehicles, which could replace the current fleet of tracks. The major gap in the fleet would be a tracked resupply vehicle, something similar to the British Stormer could be developed.

The CV90 is already in service with 3 NATO countries and a couple of non-NATO ones, this offers a chance of group buys for spares and economies of scale for costs. Group buys of specialized vehicles might be possible.

This link will help showing the variants (yea I know wiki is “flexible” on facts)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Vehicle_90

Yes I realize these are “sales brochures from the company”
The ARV
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcnKHeevuks

Mobility
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAsR7m1wXM0&feature=related

AMOS mortar system

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzC_ajWRV4Q&feature=related

I think this is the ADA version?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxH-gXWZrLk&feature=related

Not a complete argument but the best I can do at work.

 

[McG]

Not a complete argument but the best I can do at work.

Not by far.

It’s pretty clear to me that LAV is not capable of keeping up with the leopards in serious cross country work and the MTVL and TLAV’s offer minimal firepower and will not be able to survive against a fairly well armed opponent. An IFV fills this gap in capability in my eyes.

So, we have the LAV with its speed & firepower to go long distances and operate independent of the tanks.  We also have the TLAV which is able to move cross country and carry infantry to fight in conjunction with the tanks.  If I catch what you are saying, we need the CV90 to operate with tanks because it has more firepower.  Is firepower really the essential factor in choosing to buy a new interim vehicle which is dedicated to carrying infantry to fight with the tanks(and while keeping all the old fleets)?

You are not really touching on requirements either.  Speed, range, effects on specific targets, survivability vs specific threats, # troops on board, etc, etc. 

To be fair, it is not that I am specifically against the CV90.  I am against the idea of a new unnecessary micro fleet on top of all our existing fleets.

 

[blacktriangle]

Just a question...

If this is indeed being looked at, would it be due to the LAV III shortage, or is there actually a need for such a vehicle?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I agree about your last concern, however I will ask, how many Western armies or ex-Warsaw pact countires operate MBT's without IFV's in the supporting role? I suspect the number of not, are in the minority and not for tactical reasons.

The modernized M113 fleet are decent armoured trucks, their main advantage is the ability to carry a full squad. the downside is the protection level of these vehicle is much less than the tanks they support and protection of our troops is a critical factor due to the political ramifications involved. If the BG we face start getting better ATGM's and training from Hezbollah or co. Then we may regret not having a better armoured option. The M113 family has come pretty close to it's maxed weight already and barring a major breakthrough in armour technology will be obsolete fairly soon. Report of using them seems to vary from positive to negative, so I am not sure what our current users think of them. While they could be improved with the RWS from the Stykers, their weapons will struggle to be effective at the ranges the MBT will likely wish to engage at.

 IFV's by their nature compromise the squad size, this could be negated by having some of the vehicles fitted with RWS instead of turrets, keeping some turreted, this raise the problem of mixed squad size. Another option could be something like the IDF Namer, where the protection for the troops is about as good as it gets, but the Namer is optimized for Urban ops, the CV90 and type and more general duty.

it is clear that we will have modern MBT's for at least 20 years (I am giving any future Liberal government the benefit of the doubt here, don't ask why...hell even I don't know) We don't have a vehicle that keep up and fight with tanks we have, this is a problem that will require addressing. Even if we ordered them today, the CV90's would be showing up around 2011, when we might be pulling back from frontline duty in Afghanistan. so that will help with the manpower issue, plus a revitalized somewhat larger military full of combat Veterans will be a much different place than the military of the 80's or 90's. the next 20+ years I suspect are going to be nasty and I suspect within 5 years after our drawdown/pullout, we will be getting dragged into something else, where out worn out LAV's may not do as well.

 

[NavyShooter]

Very true Matt.  The light infantry concept has a hard time in Canada these days because when we deploy them as the core of a Battle Group we end up having to mech them to the max.  It happened again with 3R22R during the current deployment.  Heavy armor is coming back in vogue and you can bet that the new fleet of vehicles will be the most mines/IED resistant we've seen yet.  Nobody wants to take the heat if we lose one guy because he may have been saved by a layer of kevlar or add-on armor.  Heavy armor and heavy firepower will be the name of the game for quite a while.     

Ok,  I'm gonna step out of my lane here (feel free to re-direct me if you see fit...)

Unless we fast track the procurement of a new tracked vehicle, (Puma/CV-90, either of them) they will not be likely to see service in Afghanistan....correct?  Even if the mandate to stay gets extended to 2011, that's still only 3 years from now.

I guess in my mind, it would boil down to us getting prepared for the War we're in now, but may not be when we get them? 

Do we need the tracked capability now, in Afghanistan, or is there a long-term need for it?

As a non-tanker, my views are just shots in the dark I guess, so apply salt profusely....

NavyShooter

 

[Matt_Fisher]

I think that as with the tanks, we may be looking at a lease/buy option, but this is purely speculation on my part; i.e. We lease CV9040s from Sweden as they may be immediately available for the Afghanistan mission, and commit to a buy of a more modern version (i.e. CV9035) as they become available.

 

[T.S.Rea]

Curious if there has been any attempt to use the Leopard I hulls as austere IFV in Afghanistan much like a similar practice by the Canadian Army in WWII Holland, or if there is any plan or hints of future plans to retain the hulls for simple conversion to more workable form regardless of whether or not they remain in the active force or are kept in a minimum maintained state by the reserves so they are immediately available for active service.

Similar question regarding the AEV's based on the Leopard I hull.

Don't know much about the Puma, but at first glance it looks to use LII suspension parts and maybe a LI engine (a quick guess, I didn't actually research this at all).

I think a mixed fleet of LAV/MTVL makes the most realistic proposition, but I would not for a moment argue against something better armoured on a minimum basic scale.  Heavy armour has proven itself again in Afghanistan. 

There is a lot of potential in examining rebuilt and converted hybrids, not the least of which is that we have original vehicles and the funding for components and parts would be an easier sell.

The result may not be what some on this board may like to see, but some vehicles available now and in the future is better than none at all, since you know they are going to be prime candidates for the axe once the immediate demands in Afghanistan are ended.

If you disagree with this view thats fine by me, just looking over all the angles.

 

[T.S.Rea]

The simple conversions that I was alluding to would have involved some number of cut and reweld operations to produce a straightforward heavy armoured transporter, an APC really, not an IFV, and meant to operate in close cooperation with the LII's on convoy escort and similar operations.  Obviously, just pulling the turret off the LI would not be a very satisfactory solution, but the weight reduction would allow adding a couple of inches of steel to the bottom amongst other relatively ad hoc enhancements.

Its odd that you would mention Chechnya, since it is this conflict that I would have thought an example of why such a conversion would make some sense.  The Russians found their BMP's and similar types wanting, and converted numbers of old T-54's in the same manner I was suggesting, and they were successful enough they actually later developed an IFV around a hull of similar characteristics.  The Puma might not even exist were it not for the Russian experience.

Evidently you don't live in Ontario, the Dragoons were clearing snow in the constricted areas of downtown where there is little space to put snow, and the only reason they were doing that was due to budgetary irresponsibility by politicians in the city with regard to snow melters that most Canadian cities would be too small to even require, not because it was some great natural disaster.  It was a bit of joke for most Torontonians.  Had as much snow this year as I remember as a kid back thirty-forty years ago, no problem removing it this year despite it being 2-3 times more than 1998.  Was not living in the GTA in 1998, but I doubt the RCD were anywhere near Jane & Finch or most of the three hundred square mile area the city boundaries encompass.  I realize you offered a disclaimer, but my experience with working with a lot of Portugese that were in Angola in the 1970's hefting slaughtered carcasses into makeshift graves gives me a different perspective of many of these people.  A few idle youth in some very small areas do not present a problem on anything remotely close to the scale of what you may think.  Newspapers write stories to sell newspapers.

I don't think the analogy to cars goes very far (sounds like The General redux, he ain't perfect but certainly not without a lot of due respect), like comparing a shovel to a bobcat.  The type is still operated and supported by many armies using much older production models, although the whole question of automotive maintenance costs would be a valid criticism but that would apply just as much to a new built IFV of tank size.  The Israelis did not have any problem with rebuilding Centurions, T-62's, and M60's, and an APC conversion is not nearly as complex.  Career types at NDHQ might have no knowledge or experience at welding armour steel, but it ain't as difficult as you have been conditioned to think.  We used to have a tank maintenance depot, and the lack of movement that I am aware of on reestablishing one gives one pause to wonder what the post conflict plans are for heavy armour in general.

Probably going to need an LII ARV, I don't know how well they are managing with the limited torque and power of the LI ARV.  Might be some opportunity to combine some CEV functions into an overpowered LII hull, but that is more a nuts and bolts detail issue for a generic cost-benefit analysis.  I was curious as to whether anything had been done in that regard, but that is more an issue related to the gepanzerte tiger than it is to a heavy IFV.

Considering how many years it has been and no lift helicopters, CV90's. Puma's, et.al. may provide a better IFV solution but I honestly don't think it is very realistic given the costs and the time scale of many years.  Moreover, an LI APC might actually entrench the operational use of a heavy IFV type as part of a heavy armoured cavalry unit(s) and lead to a purchase some years from now to a few squadrons of Pumas, just as we have destroyer leaders with a wide-area AAW capability that we did not have before but is considered a basic fleet requirement now (even though there has been little news on a DDG or similar replacement).

Don't agree with much of your take on it, but I respect it since it offered some challenge to respond. I certainly agree with the very basic notion of maintaining units with heavy armour that would have to include IFV's, my inclination being toward the heavier 40 ton Puma rather than 25 ton CV90's or Bradley's.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

We don't use the term destroyer leaders anymore in the navy. For the CF destroyers already have flagship capbilities, that is their purpose plus AAD.

 

[T.S.Rea]

Ya, I know, just using destroyer leader as a generic term

 

[a_majoor]

The Israelis did not have any problem with rebuilding Centurions, T-62's, and M60's....

.... because they have little choice. Israel needs large quantities of modern AFV's and other warfighting equipment in order to continue to exist as a State. Few nations will deal with Israel, and her own industrial base isn't large enough to churn out new stuff fast enough to completely replace items on a one for one basis. It would be interesting to compare the number of Magach 7 conversions that can be made for the price of a single Merkava 4, for example. Even the Achzarit exists as an economy measure; the Arab world kindly left hundreds of T-55's in the Sinai and Golan heights, so using the hulls as the basis for an HAPC made more sense than creating something new.

Indeed, given the basic design and R&D work is already done and tens of thousands of T-55's are available throughout the world, it would probably be easier and cheaper for Canada to set up an Achzarit assembly line and build our own than try to do a Leopard 1 conversion from scratch!

 

[Mackie]

I am German and it's interesting to see that you are interested about the Puma.
Perhaps you should know that the German military is extremely focused on the ground forces. Panzers are know everybody. ^^
In my opinion the Puma is only developed to care technology capabilities in tracked vehicles. The CV90 meets the German army requirements 100% and is half expensive.
The Puma is newer and in some things better, especially armor, but not superior. An CV90 armor kit for urban combat and blast mines should be the cheaper solution.
The Puma is made for asymmetric combat. Without armor kit it is the same protection like the CV90.
Another reason is the A400M. Perhaps the main reason for the Puma. You have C17s and JSS.

interesting pics about armor:

CV90 Back

CV9035 MKII back

Puma Back

CV9035 MK III

Puma C Level:

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Ya, I know, just using destroyer leader as a generic term

For whom? It was popular during the Second World War but after that it went bye-bye. There is no such designation any longer.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Mackie
I see the CV90 door has been altered, I don't think it had the hatch in it before did it? I seem to remember the early versions had a swinging hatch instead of a drop down one?

The Russian were trying to flog a MBT that allowed for 4 dismounts each in their own little hole, I think it was a T-64 if I recall correctly, none of the soldiers in the pictures seemed terribly thrilled at the idea.

 

[a_majoor]

Several Russian HAPC's are floating around for the well heeled customer. The BMP-T is a fairly straightforward conversion of a T-55, although the infantry have to dismount over the sides.  I recall reading about a similar sort of conversion for a T-72 hull mounting a BMP-3 turret and having Russian infantrymen stuck in odd places (two were seated on either side of the driver in front of the turret!). The Ukrainians have offered a T-84 tank with a heavily modified engine compartment allowing for up to 4 infantrymen to be carried in the back.

Most of these conversions do not seem well thought out from an Infantry perspective, and can be seen as economy measures for the Russian Army.

Even the Achzarit is an economy measure for the IDF, as HAPC's built from Merkava mechanicals are fabulously expensive. (The most inexpensive conversion of all is to remove the ammunition racks from the rear compartment of a Merkava, and seat a section of Infantry there. The trade off is the main gun only has what is available in the bustle).

 

[dangerboy]

Armoured vehicles hit their limits
Military to seek replacements for LAVs soon, Hillier says
 
David ********
The Ottawa Citizen


Tuesday, May 06, 2008


Canada's armoured vehicles are limited in the amount of protection they can carry, so the military is starting to look for a replacement in the near future, Gen. Rick Hillier says.

The chief of the defence staff says the LAV-3s are excellent and many improvements have been made to ensure that troops in Afghanistan are better protected.

However, Gen. Hillier also points out that the LAV-3's suspension and other technical aspects of the vehicle have been pushed to the limit by the improvements. That, in turn, prevents more armour or other systems from being installed.

"I think we're going to have to look at what we can do in the army for a fleet of fighting vehicles," Gen. Hillier said. "So, I think that's what we need to work through right now and be able to offer our minister, and therefore the government of Canada, some recommendations on."

The wheeled LAV-3s are the backbone of the army's combat fleet.

Gen. Hillier said military personnel were examining what types of vehicles might fit the bill for a new armoured vehicle, including "what's on the market or what's in development right now that could be on the market pretty soon."

He didn't provide details on how much such a program would cost. That figure would depend on how many vehicles were ordered.

The U.S. military is developing a fleet of armoured vehicles for the future, but Gen. Hillier suggested that program was too far off for Canada's needs. He said his preference was to continue purchasing off-the-shelf equipment that could be delivered relatively quickly.

General Dynamics Land Systems Canada, which makes the LAV family of vehicles, is already positioning itself for any future program.

In mid-April, the company gave a demonstration of the prototype of its new vehicle, the LAV-H (the H stands for high capacity) to military officials in Ottawa.

Tom de Faye, General Dynamics' director of business development, said the firm used its own money to come up with the prototype, which includes improvements over the company's light-armoured vehicles now in use in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Many of the improvements centre on increasing the vehicle's protection against improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, and boosting its mobility on the battlefield.

Mr. de Faye said the length of the vehicle had been extended and it had been outfitted with a more robust suspension, wheels, brakes, steering system and engine. Addition protection has been installed to the bottom of the vehicle to protect crews from landmines and IEDs.

Mr. de Faye said the improvements meant the LAV-H could carry 4,500 kilograms extra. That could be anything from more armour to weapons to fuel.

The last of 651 LAVs ordered in the 1990s and considered the backbone of the army's combat fleet were recently delivered to the Canadian military, officials with General Dynamics said.

When the LAVs were designed, Mr. de Faye said, they did not take into account IEDs as a threat on the battlefield. Such bombs are responsible for many of the deaths the Canadian military has suffered in Afghanistan.

In a Jan. 10 report leaked to the Citizen, army commander Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie acknowledged the Afghanistan mission was putting incredible stress on the LAV fleet and that the vehicles were at their limit.

"The mainstay, the family of Light-Armoured Vehicles, has essentially run out of room (or to be more precise, the ability to carry more protection)," the general pointed out in the army's 2008 business plan.

Lt.-Gen. Leslie suggested improvements could be made to the LAV-3s as they were being overhauled and rebuilt.

General Dynamics set up a production line in Edmonton in 2006 and has already been working on LAVs for the army, Mr. de Faye said.

Because the Canadian Forces have a substantial amount of money already invested in the LAV fleet, Mr. de Faye said the firm designed the improvements for the LAV-H to be capable of being retrofitted on the existing vehicles.

Mr. de Faye also said there could be a market for the improvements in the United States since the U.S. military operates the Stryker, a variant of the LAV-3.
Article link

 

[geo]

I see LAV-Hs in our future.... considering that General Dynamics has maintained the former General motors Diesel plant in Ontario that produced the LAV III and the Stryker..... else - why would they maintain the capacity here in Canada?

 

[ArmyRick]

I saw a picture of the LAV H, it looks very similar to the stryker APC.