New Vehicle Programs

[sabot41]

Good day all
just wondering black hatter thoughts on the role of the corps once all the new vehicle programs are fielded. Currently the Coyote is marked for elimination and replaced by TAPV...so does it become a true Armd asset??. Who mans the CCV.. turret and driver wise?? Will tanks make it to Pet or Val Cartier or will they stay west and east?? Many questions about the future of the corps and not much chatter, whats everyones thoughts moving fwd

tanks

 

[REDinstaller]

So far the Leo2s will only go to Edmonton with 2 Sqns, and to Gagetown with 1 Sqn. The CCV manning should work out just like the LAV3 fielding. With the crews being made up by the Units that own them. As for how the TAPV will be distributed, that is anyone's guess.

 

[SeanNewman]

CCV and TAPV are a very interesting project, with lots of key people talking about them at the Infantry Conference a couple months ago.

Basically, you need X vehicles to have Y capability, so if you can only afford 1/4 X vehicles because of money, is it worth it to get that fraction of a capability, or are you just creating yet another orphan vehicle taking you one step away from fleet standardization?

 

[REDinstaller]

You shouldn't have all roles covered by one platform. The LAV3 is way too large to be an effective Recce platform.

 

[SeanNewman]

You shouldn't have all roles covered by one platform.

Of course not, but it's worse to have 50 vehicles performing 10 roles.

 

[REDinstaller]

Welcome to fleet diversity. You can't have the perfect vehicle for all roles, but you have to make certain choices of what roles you want to cover to the best of each vehs ability, and some platforms with slight variations can cover less used roles when required.

 

[SeanNewman]

I've had this discussion with maintainers and with commanding officers overseas.

They are none-too-impressed when an orphan vehicle fleet goes down because of a certain bolt or widget

 

[REDinstaller]

Well we can't keep everything going at once. The Leo fleet in 2007 had issues with getting bearings for the support arms and return rolloer. Try imagining a hover tank in MSG. Every platform has its Achellies heel that once in a certain operating enviorment suddenly crops up and cripples a fleet of Vehs. What would you rather have...rusted out HLVWs or a few high capacity AHSVSs available to resup your Cbt tm?

 

[SeanNewman]

Completely different points being made here.

The HLVW being replaced by something like an AHSVS is what is supposed to happen, which is to say if there is a better vehicle for that theatre, you buy it.

The point I am making is that one capability should = 1 vehicle.  In an ideal world, there would not be 3 x Leo variants getting used as a MBT, and there shouldn't be 4-5 different IFV/APCs running around, either.

Enter the CCV: the answer to the question that nobody was asking, and worse, we can't afford enough of it to outfit how many we would need even if we were to find a niche for it.  But IMO what we're going to end up with is just another PITA to find bolts and widgets for.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not at all saying that you should have every Army vehicle on a LAV chassis, but I do think that it is better to drastically thin down the amount you have. 

If I were king, this is what I would aim for:

1 x large track chassis for my MBTs and full-size Engr-type vehicles.
1 x LAV-equivalent chassis as the backbone of many vehicles.
1 x large logistic truck platform
1 x jeep platform that can be anything from a staff car to C&R to a small logistic truck (smaller than the HUMVEE, though)
1 x general medium purpose light armoured tracked chassis
1 x ATV/side-by-side chassis for puttering, admin, and light recce

And that would be it.  Any combination of every need could be met by those, and there would be as much standardization of parts as humanly possible, right down to the LAVs and heavy trucks using the same tires, etc.

 

[REDinstaller]

What are the 3 Leo MBT variants??? There is only the MBT with dozer capability, and without. The ARV,AEV and AVBL are specialist variants required for Combat operations that enhance LAV3 mobility. The AHSVS has already been shipped to theater to assist the HLVW fleet, but was IOR'd so it isn't Canadianized. There needs to be 4-5 variants of the TLAV to enable a multitude of specialized tasks to be performed. And we need a wide ability when it comes to our logistics fleet. Moving 1 ton of stuff on a 10-20 ton platform is a waste of resources, the proverbial swatting a fly with a sledge hammer.

 

[McG]

What are the 3 Leo MBT variants??? There is only the MBT with dozer capability, and without.

Leopard C2, Leopard 2A4, Leopard 2A6 ... and only the C2 has some tanks with a dozer capability.

You shouldn't have all roles covered by one platform.

Welcome to fleet diversity. You can't have the perfect vehicle for all roles, but you have to make certain choices of what roles you want to cover to the best of each vehs ability, and some platforms with slight variations can cover less used roles when required.

Fleet diversity can go too far.  Multiple micro-fleets covering off on identical roles is not healthy.  It is also unhealthy to invest in specialized micro-fleets to fill niche roles that are well within the capabilities of existing fleets.  Right now, the Army seems to be going through a phase of buying yet another truck for every new problem we come upon.  This is not supportable or sustainable.

 

[REDinstaller]

The C2, Leo2A6M Can and Leo2A4 are not variants of each other. The C2 is a Leo1. The Leo2A4 has a hydraulic turret drive, and none are in service at this point. The Leo2A6M is a development of the A4, but not much of the A4 is left in the turret. The closest these A4s could get is to turn them into A5s. But this will take shipping them back to Europe as there are no facilities  that are suitable here in Canada.

 

[McG]

The C2, Leo2A6M Can and Leo2A4 are not variants of each other. The C2 is a Leo1. The Leo2A4 has a hydraulic turret drive, and none are in service at this point. The Leo2A6M is a development of the A4, but not much of the A4 is left in the turret. The closest these A4s could get is to turn them into A5s. But this will take shipping them back to Europe as there are no facilities  that are suitable here in Canada.

You are loosing yourself in the weeds, and apparently getting hung-up on the word "variant."  I suspect everybody in this thread is quite clear on what the Leopard C2, Leopard 2A4 and Leopard 2A6 are.  The point that Petamocto was making is that we have three different little fleets for MBTs (and even the long-term plan is to maintain two different fleets of MBT).  We should only have one fleet of MBT in sufficient numbers to meet our needs.

 

[REDinstaller]

Unfortunately we will never bring the A4s up to A6 standards. Too much cost. We will maintain a mixed fleet of Leo2s no matter what we do. Unloading the A6Ms is no solution either, they must be kept and used in order that they don't rust out. Sending them out west would be the best option as the humidity here is lower, and my Regt has many crews and maintainers trained on the A6Ms. So maint wouldn't be deferred.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

That is true, we are going to end up with three variants of the Leo 2.  The 2A4 "Training" version; the 2A4 "operations" version, and the 2A6M.

Two different turret drive systems, three different versions of the commander stations, and two different versions of the loaders control box. 

Sounds workable, doesn't it?

 

[Franko]

If the Bundeswehr can do it and make it work.....

Regards

 

[McG]

Unfortunately we will never bring the A4s up to A6 standards. Too much cost. We will maintain a mixed fleet of Leo2s no matter what we do.

With the mixed fleets, the "too much cost" to convert all to a common variant will be dwarfed buy the much higher life-cycle costs we will incur for not converting all to a common variant.

… and that is not getting into other issues like reduced depth in operational fleets, increased burdens on strategic & operational LoC for operations, increasing training requirements in pre-deployment, and on …

Micro-fleets will be an awful drain on our little army.

 

[George Wallace]

If the Bundeswehr can do it and make it work.....

Regards

The Bundeswehr has more manpower and equipment.  Their pers train on one type of equipment and then are employed with that type of equipment. 

We are much smaller, and often are trained on one type of equipment, then sent off to work on a completely different type. 

The Bundeswehr also cascades its equipment down.  Recce Bns received Leo 1 when the Armd Bns received Leo 2.  Reserve Bns received Leo 1 as the Recce Bns upgraded to better equipment, and so on.  We on the other hand, sell off our older fleets as we replace them.

 

[Franko]

The Bundeswehr has more manpower and equipment.  Their pers train on one type of equipment and then are employed with that type of equipment. 

We are much smaller, and often are trained on one type of equipment, then sent off to work on a completely different type. 

The Bundeswehr also cascades its equipment down.  Recce Bns received Leo 1 when the Armd Bns received Leo 2.  Reserve Bns received Leo 1 as the Recce Bns upgraded to better equipment, and so on.  We on the other hand, sell off our older fleets as we replace them.

Right now we have crews flip flopping from C2 to Leo2A6M without batting an eye George. Leo2A4 is not much of a leap from a C2 gunnery wise, nor is a Leo2A6. That's why the courses in Germany are conversion courses.

You have to sell it to me a bit better than that.         

Regards

 

[George Wallace]

Right now we have crews flip flopping from C2 to Leo2A6M without batting an eye George. Leo2A4 is not much of a leap from a C2 gunnery wise, nor is a Leo2A6. That's why the courses in Germany are conversion courses.

You have to sell it to me a bit better than that.         

Regards

I think that is what I said, so no disagreement there.

The Bundeswehr, however, having a larger Armour Corps, doesn't move its pers around like we do.  Therefore, they can have the luxury of several types of equipment and make it work much easier than we do.