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

[McG]

Yes.........and to recover those AEVs and AVLBs, they had at least one ARV.

No we did not have an ARV.  When the Leopard 1 was first retired, 1 CER was offered ARV from the LdSH  ... this was tuned down because the AEV was a better recovery vehicle anyway & the HL Hvy MRT did everything else that we might have asked from an ARV.

In any case, there will be no more Leopard 1 ARV, so they do not matter in the new calculus for recovery of CCV & Leopard 2.  Even with FME, the vision did not call for enough new ARV to satisfy all the new fleets.

... though maybe that vision has changed in the last 10 months.

 

[Wookilar]

It happened with the LAV III project. We were all told it wouldn't, but I knew it would. Call me cynical I guess.

The logistical implications paid attention to (of any new purchase) are not sexy, do not make headlines and probably will not get you promoted.

Logistical implications ignored ....well, keeping a fleet of anything on the road is pretty near impossible when you don't have the parts, tools and equipment. Not exactly planning to win, is it? Buying a fleet of vehs and not having any idea (or consideration) or how that veh will be supported is just plain stupid. You gain, what a dozen more guns at most.

Winching a veh onto an Arnes trailer isn't exactly the best tactical solution for anyone. It can be a rather painful process and in many instances, it should be impossible to accomplish.

Wook

 

[a_majoor]

An out of the box candidate (or thought experiment anyway); the Korean K21.

Essentially an M-2 on steroids, the most interesting feature is the hull is apparently built out of some sort of fiberglass composite material, bringing the weight down to 26 tonnes while still reportedly being able to resist 30mm against the frontal armour and 14.5mm vs the side armour. A PUMA in Class"A" protection weighs 31.5 tonnes, while the base CV-9040 weighs @ 23 tonnes, but only provides protection vs 14.5mm.

Other advantages are the relatively low price per unit, Korea's reputation for building rugged and reliable material, and political gains from reaching out to Korea as opposed to our traditional Euro-centric position. Disadvantages include building a totally new supply chain, and possibly a monster price increase to "Canadianize" the beast or build it under license here.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Interesting, not sure I would be keen to cross a river under fire with those inflatable tubes, lose one and suspect that vehicle will tilt badly and downflood.

 

[a_majoor]

How "amphibious" a vehicle should be is an interesting question. I suspect any true CCV with the protection of a medium tank would be unable to float or swim at all (PUMA, Achzarit, BTR-T etc.), while vehicles which can swim well are compromised in the protection department (PT-76 light tank, AAV7).

To make the CCV even lighter, the turret could be replaced by a RWS capable of mounting an automatic cannon, and there have been advances in materials technology that bring titanium into play as a cost effective material, as well as advanced ceramics to substitute for steel (read the MRAP Light thread to see more). Advanced powertrains could cut the weight even more, but in the end, a CCV will still be a large and bulky machine (partly in order to carry sufficient ammunition for the weapons systems and the troops, and to carry enough troops to make the assault).

A composite hulled K-21 clone with an RWS built in sufficient quantities to get economy of scale might actually make a lot of sense to replace the Bison and TLAV (and if we were ambitious, create a family of vehicles like the LAV or CV90).

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Protecting the volume required for 8 fully equipped troops and turret/RWS will always be the limiting factor to reducing weight. Darn physics always getting in the way of great ideas.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Round-up article in Defense Industry Daily on planned new armoured vehicle purchases:

FLCV: Canada Looks to Upgrade Its Armor
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Canada-Looks-to-Upgrade-Its-Armor-in-Afghanistan-05190/

In late November 2008, Canada’s Department of National Defence (DND) announced its intention to combine 3 programs into one general set of upgrades to its armored vehicle fleets. The C$ 5 billion (about $4.3 billion) meta-program would include (1) a “close combat vehicle,” in order to perform as a tracked Infantry Fighting Vehicle or Armored Personnel Carrier alongside Canada’s new Leopard 2A6 tanks; (2) a new “Tactical Armored Patrol Vehicle”; and (3) upgrades the existing LAV-III wheeled APC fleet. In July 2009, A 4th “FME” project was added to field dedicated Armored Engineering Vehicles based on the Leopard 2, along with engineering-related attachments for Canada’s new Leopard 2 tanks.

The “Close Combat Vehicle” appears to be the most urgent purchase, but the stated procurement approach isn’t structured to deliver urgency. As things stand, all contracts are scheduled to take effect after Canada is slated to end its Afghan mission. “Tanks for the Lesson: Leopards, too, for Canada” discussed the LAV-IIIs’ limitations in key terrain within Afghanistan, and keeping them in the field requires a lot of maintenance. Canada’s M113 tracked APCs have been used successfully as a supplement, but the Canadians appear to be leaning toward a heavier vehicle for their future CCV…

    * The Close Combat Vehicle
    * The Tactical Armored Patrol Vehicle
    * LAV-IIIs, and the RESET/RECAP Imperative [updated]
    * Force Mobility Enhancement: Heavy Engineering
    * Contracts & Key Events [updated]
    * Additional Readings & Sources
...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Interesting that according to Defense Watch that the Puma wouldn't be offered as it is out of the weight class in the bid information.

 

[Grizzly]

I'm still wondering what Rheinmetall is planning on offering if it isn't offering the Puma. According to Defence Watch, the Boxer is being offered as a wheeled solution, but I have no idea what the tracked solution might be. I hope it isn't refurbished Marders. Maybe they partner with General Dynamics and offer the ASCOD  2 as they did in the UK.

 

[Infanteer]

I'm tracking a pretty interesting argument that states that the current IFV is a poor design and that anything that is designed to keep up with and fight along with Main Battle Tanks against a conventionally armed foe should be armoured like a tank and that we're just begging for casualties by sending Light Armoured Vehciles behind tanks (if they make it, as wheels always tend to get stuck first).  The Israeli Namur is pointed to as the ideal IFV.

If one buy's that argument (and it seems to make sense), then the program above seems logical except that the "CCV" would ideally be something based upon a Leo2 hull with some sort of RWS.

 

[McG]

If one buy's that argument (and it seems to make sense), then the program above seems logical except that the "CCV" would ideally be something based upon a Leo2 hull with some sort of RWS.

With the powerpack filling the rear, that would require troop egress through either the top or front of the vehicle.  We'd be better getting a different hull with common parts to the Leopard 2 (ie. common tracks, road-wheels, suspension, engine (maybe also transmission for the whole pack), commander's hatch, episcopes, etc, and a unique hull).

 

[blacktriangle]

Considering the resource restraints we face and are likely to face in the future - Does anyone else feel that it might be more prudent to sink CCV funds (assuming it has been funded and is to go ahead?) into an expanded LAV III reset or maybe a more pressing capital project?

I'm not questioning the need as much as I am questioning the long term plan for the vehicles.

How many deployed vehicles could we realistically sustain with a buy of 108-138?

Thanks for any insight.

 

[a_majoor]

A while ago I tried to look at the logical development of vehicles to incorporate economy of scale (bringing the LAV or CV-90 model to the next level), and came up with these ideas:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27679/post-179914.html#msg179914 (Wheel units as building blocks)
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27679/post-185595.html#msg185595 (on fighting abilities with enhanced electronics and long range weapons)
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27679/post-188549.html#msg188549 (the entire program, including admin vehicles for economies of scale)

While they are obviously looking at wheeled vehicles of the LAV class, there is no reason the concept couldn't be extended further to tracked AFV's. The end result might even be something like a "Christie" tank of the 1920's, capable of running on it's powered road wheels (at least in an emergency). The modern technology showcased by the Korean IFV demonstrates that weight and mass are no longer limitations, only volume cannot be reduced without reducing the effectiveness of the vehicle.

Our overall problem when working on programs like the CCV is a sort of "stovepipe" mentality, where every solution seems to be made in isolation from every other. While each individual solution might be the "ideal" answer to that particular problem, the process of meshing everything together generates more friction, and the long term costs of running multiple mini fleets of vehicles (or ships or aircraft for that matter) probably outweigh the short term costs of making large buys of standardized vehicles and equipment.

 

[The Bread Guy]

This from the Ottawa Citizen:

The multibillion-dollar plan to buy new armoured vehicles for the military, launched with much fanfare last year by the government, has already run into a roadblock, with every vehicle offered now being rejected by Public Works and the Defence Department.

The two departments are now scrambling to fix the problem that defence sources say was caused by poorly written requirements produced by inexperienced procurement officials.

The vehicles rejected include some of those being used in combat by Canada's allies in Afghanistan.

The issue with the Close Combat Vehicle procurement centres around the Defence Department's requirement that firms prove that the armour on their vehicles can meet a particular military standard. But the specification being used by DND is so new that the vehicles, while already meeting some of the toughest NATO standards of protection, have not been tested to the new level.

Public Works and the Defence Department will now rewrite the qualifications to drop the reference to the specific standard, instead using existing NATO armour protection levels, sources say ....

 

[The Bread Guy]

The latest from MERX:

.... Close Combat Vehicle Project

Preamble

This solicitation cancels and supersedes previous solicitation number W6508-10CC01/D dated April 26, 2010 with a closing of June 25, 2010 at 14h00.

Due to an urgent requirement this solicitation W6508-10CC01/E is being posted for 15 days only.

Respondents wishing to receive the IBM Rational DOORS CD package, as outlined in this solicitation, should make their request as soon as possible to the Contracting Authority.

Interested respondents should review this solicitation in its entirety prior to responding.

Requirement

The Department of National Defence (DND) has a requirement for the provision of 108 Close Combat Vehicles (CCV) in various configurations, with an option to procure up to thirty (30) additional vehicles.

The initial series of deliveries and logistics requirements will be specified in detail in the RFP. The option to procure an additional quantity of up to thirty (30) CCV may be exercised at the sole discretion of Canada within four (4) years after contract award. Further, the contractor will be required to provide long-term In-Service Support (ISS) services for approximately twenty-five (25) years to commence after the interim support period.

The CCV must be an integrated, supportable, existing or upgraded version of a Military Off-the-Shelf (MOTS) BASE VEHICLE and MOTS TURRET, each of which is in production for and/or in service with another military recognized by DND as of the closing date of this Solicitation of Interest and Qualification (SOIQ).

Procurement Approach

The procurement approach for the Close Combat Vehicle is in two discrete phases. The first phase, referred to as the Solicitation of Interest and Qualification (SOIQ), will be the pre-qualification of potential bidders. Those Respondents who qualify will be registered on a CCV Pre-Qualified Bidders List.  The second phase, referred to as the Request for Proposal (RFP), will invite those firms who are registered on the CCV Pre-Qualified Bidders List to submit a proposal.

This SOIQ is subject to the provisions of the Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT).

No further Notices of Proposed Procurement (NPP) will be issued on GETS/MERX after this SOIQ ....

More details on what they need in attached excerpt from bid documents.

 

[McG]

Due to an urgent requirement this solicitation W6508-10CC01/E is being posted for 15 days only.

Is somebody hoping to get these into Afghanistan?

 

[je suis prest]

The short turn-around reflects the fact that all the bidders have, in fact,already presented their proposals.  This new request is an attempt to fix the technical problem that afflicted the previous request, which resulted in all bids being thrown out.  I don't think the 15-day period reflects any intention to proceed more expeditiously than had been planned, it is simply an attempt not to lose any more ground as a result of the mistake made in the bidding process by the procurement office.

 

[McG]

The short turn-around reflects the fact that all the bidders have, in fact, already presented their proposals.  This new request is an attempt to fix the technical problem that afflicted the previous request, which resulted in all bids being thrown out.  I don't think the 15-day period reflects any intention to proceed more expeditiously than had been planned, it is simply an attempt not to lose any more ground as a result of the mistake made in the bidding process by the procurement office.

The desire to maintain a schedule does not honestly reflect an "urgent requirement."  If you are correct, this declared urgency may sour another round of bidding (with time & money impacts on the CF).

From the F-35 thread:

A very similar story with the TAPV/CCV, it's kid of a "Hey these things are cool, how many can we afford and we'll find out where to put them after" as opposed to "In order to have X capability, we need Y units to have it with Z vehicles" and then goign shopping for whatever you can get.

The staff will, no doubt, have done an excellent job finding & developing a question for this answer.  Unfortunately, putting the answer ahead of the question always risks not addressing the key issue - what do we need.

 

[a_majoor]

Probably the most urgent requirement is to consolidate the many "mini fleets" for logistical efficiency. If we accept the LAV will be the workhorse, then the CCV chassis should be as multi functional as possible in order to roll up the various other pieces of kit out there.

We would then have the LAV III (and should procure new LAV III hulls to replace the Coyote's and Bison's), and a multi-purpose tracked hull to provide protected mobility. The CV-90 family is probably closest to the ideal, and is inexpensive enough to consider (especially a large buy to replace all the TLAVs as well). The Korean K-21 is interesting for its use of composite materials, and a turretless version would also provide a roomy hull to fill all the jobs the TLAV does as well.

A small fleet of uberspecialized vehicles is still needed for jobs that cannot be done by ordinary vehicles, such as armoured engineer vehicles (Pionierpanzer 3 Kodiak) bridge layers and recovery vehicles, as well as enhanced mobility vehicles for Canada's northern flank (BV-206 or ST Bronco) and maybe ATV's (look up this thread)

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

One question I have regarding this purchase of the CCV's is how do you go about employing these into our present Battalion structures? Will some Battalions utilize just the CCV?  Will we have a Coy of CCV in each Mech Battalion?  Or will they merely just be used when required i.e. substituted for the LAVs?