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

[Kirkhill]

And if DND wrote a "possible" spec they would be accused of tailoring the spec to fit a particular beast.

Every project, every piece of kit, every flaming boot in the system is the sum total of a multitude of compromises.
Every engineer involved in all of the above comes to an understanding with his marketing department, his accountants, his clients, his lawyers of what the considered sum total of compromises is.  They then produce a piece of kit, put it on the market and see if there are any takers.

When you, the consumer, review the market then you might decide that you want the best of Ferrari's compromises, the best of Rhinemetall's compromises and the best of Bombardier's compromises.  But nobody makes a flying 60 tonne tank that goes 200 mph.

So instead you leave the specs open.

Thus you end up with the TAPV project with vehicles being offered from 7 tonnes (Nexter-Withdrawn) to 29 tonnes (Force Protection Truck).

Close the specs to the workable compromise - tailoring
Open the specs to all competitors - unworkable competition.

WRT the CCV - howcum Norway can decide to add 43 CV9035s and upgrade the rest of their fleet without this aggro?

I don't suppose I should expect anything else from a system where soldiers are getting exemptions for their own boots, load carrying gear and even the furniture and gizmos on their rifles.

Apparently even the simplest stuff is impossible.  If you can't buy a good pair of $200 boots how can you be expected to buy a $3,000,000 CCV or a $100,000,000 aircraft or a (Gawdelpus) $1,000,000,000 boat.

'Pologies for the rant.  Not really directed at anyone.  I just came out of the civvy world version of this same discussion,  and those dogs can't be kicked.

Cheers, Chris.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Thanks MCG that's very interesting, I know the details are OPSEC, but is the TLAV equipped with proper seating for crew and passengers in regards to Mine blast injuries?

 

[JorgSlice]

Why not something like the RG-31 or MRAP? Slap on the 76mm potato launcher like the ol' cat Cougar AVGP or even the 25mm pom-pom that the current LAV-III uses and you have yourself a mine protected vehicle capable of transporting a section and can blow stuff up! (and, it doesn't weigh as much as a Leopard MBT either!)

 

[OldSolduer]

I am not a procurement guy, a design engineer  or anything like that. For soldiers, in a vehicle they want:

Protection - includes a weapon of some sort to shoot back
Power - to move it quickly. If it isn't quick its dead.
Simplicity of use and maintenance
And for heaven sake a ramp vice a tailgate. Knees and ankles get sore.

Can we not get this done?

 

[a_majoor]

I think Kirkhill is closest to the answer (at least the answer to "why?"). People like myself would probably catalogue shop by reading Jane's Defense Quarterly, maybe go to AUSA to kick a few tires (metaphorically) and if a real interest exsisted, maybe get a test drive on a few exercises to see if the machine matches the press releases.

My own mental "specs" for the desired kit are done in fairly broad strokes, and I am always open for kit bashing, especially home grown upgrades that can be rapidly applied to the existing kit (bolted on armour, or a new radio system etc.). This should be simplicity itself; in
WWII all parties were able to get new generations of kit in service (and in large numbers) using pens and paper for both the design and procurement. Consider it now takes more than 10 years to field a new rucksack, the CF-35 is the end result of a program which began in the 1980's and the Big Honking Ship was identified as a real need at least a decade ago (probably longer) yet only exists as a series of PowerPoint slides....

Far too many people have their fingers in the pie, and this creates a series of perverse incentives to provide "input" to make your own role bigger, more consultation, more redesign etc. By the time the CCV comes into service, it may already be obsolete due to the rapid changes in military technology.

/rant

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Thanks MCG that's very interesting, I know the details are OPSEC, but is the TLAV equipped with proper seating for crew and passengers in regards to Mine blast injuries?

When I did trials with them years ago they still had those bench seats in the rear.....things might have changed since then......

 

[GnyHwy]

And why are PWGSC the bad guys here?  DND/CF wrote the impossible to achieve spec, or at least signed off on it.

I agree, but we got to start somewhere, and it should be a high standard.

Close the specs to the workable compromise - tailoring
Open the specs to all competitors - unworkable competition.

Very true.

Why not something like the RG-31 or MRAP? Slap on the 76mm potato launcher like the ol' cat Cougar AVGP or even the 25mm pom-pom that the current LAV-III uses and you have yourself a mine protected vehicle capable of transporting a section and can blow stuff up! (and, it doesn't weigh as much as a Leopard MBT either!)

Sorry, but none of those vehicles could carry a tanks laundry and keep up.  As well, we already have 25mm; we need something in between 25mm and 120mm.

My own mental "specs" for the desired kit are done in fairly broad strokes, and I am always open for kit bashing, especially home grown upgrades that can be rapidly applied to the existing kit (bolted on armour, or a new radio system etc.).

Bolt on armour is a good thing in my mind.  Hard steel for the superstructure and bolt on all the fancy stuff.  It leaves room for upgrades in the future and aids in speedy repair.

This should be simplicity itself; in WWII all parties were able to get new generations of kit in service (and in large numbers) using pens and paper for both the design and procurement.

I agree, but back then the military was the designers and the engineers, and probably dictated in most cases who was going to build it.  That is no longer the case; hence why we can't get anything done.

Far too many people have their fingers in the pie, and this creates a series of perverse incentives to provide "input" to make your own role bigger, more consultation, more redesign etc. By the time the CCV comes into service, it may already be obsolete due to the rapid changes in military technology.

Unfortunately, you are likely correct.  The 100% isn't going to happen, and someone is going to take the lumps; hopefully it isn't the troops using whatever machine we decide on.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Luckily, Canada invented the APC so we should get this right first time, right?  ;D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_(armoured_personnel_carrier)

 

[a_majoor]

Luckily, Canada invented the APC so we should get this right first time, right?  ;D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_(armoured_personnel_carrier)

But we're also out of practice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobcat_(armoured_personnel_carrier)

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I agree, but we got to start somewhere, and it should be a high standard.

Very true.

Sorry, but none of those vehicles could carry a tanks laundry and keep up.  As well, we already have 25mm; we need something in between 25mm and 120mm.

For a CCV accompanying tanks, why do you need something bigger than 25mm, even the Boxer is not going that route. Bigger gun means less internal volume which means less troops and gear. 25mm backing up the 120mm with some ATGM support as well  is a good combo for fighting any conventional threat. I agree the LAV will need something with a larger gun than 25mm to back them up. If we do peacekeeping in the future will there be a politcal will to deploy tanks? It seems from my reading even for most historical UN deployments we brought heavier weapons than the UN wanted, which generally turned out to be a good idea.

 

[Kalatzi]

Luckily, Canada invented the APC so we should get this right first time, right?  ;D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_(armoured_personnel_carrier)

We played a big role, but invent? - No ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_personnel_carrier

 

[GnyHwy]

For a CCV accompanying tanks, why do you need something bigger than 25mm, even the Boxer is not going that route. Bigger gun means less internal volume which means less troops and gear. 25mm backing up the 120mm with some ATGM support as well  is a good combo for fighting any conventional threat. I agree the LAV will need something with a larger gun than 25mm to back them up. If we do peacekeeping in the future will there be a politcal will to deploy tanks? It seems from my reading even for most historical UN deployments we brought heavier weapons than the UN wanted, which generally turned out to be a good idea.

You could make an argument for the 25mm, but the 25mm is limited to ammunition types, adn we already have those; even going up to a 30mm opens up options.  I am going to avoid the wheel vs. track debate which I am sure has been done to death on other threads.  Going larger opens up all kinds of possibilities.  As far as troops and gear you are right, we need the room for that, which is why this vehicle will likely be a bit of a monster.  ATGMs are fine, but by pure definition they are meant for antitank, are more suited for defence or delay, and lack offensive capability.  I am dismissing the need for ATGMs because we should have them; I am saying that they don't necessarily belong on the CCV.  I believe the intent to be having a highly mobile and hard hitting force, which is why we're doing it relatively small numbers. 

The UN role is whole nether nut to crack, and falls about 15 levels above most of our pay grades, but from what I understand, the difference of role between Peacekeeping (if it exists anymore), Peacebuilding and Peacemaking, coupled with the potential threat will dictate what we bring to the show.  For pure peacekeeping, all we really need for vehicles is big trucks and maybe some TAPV type vehicles.  Here is short read that I found that speaks to the ambiguity. http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection-R/LoPBdP/EB-e/prb0406-e.pdf

 

[Kirkhill]

How about strapping on a 7-pack of APKWS 70mm rocket/missiles (or maybe two - one on each side)? Take a look at the range of warheads, the weight of fire, the speed of response, the physical range (out to 8 km) as well as the ability to supply both precision fire and area support.

Consider the ability of adjacent, but dispersed, Troops, to cover each other during movements.  Both a Lt Anti armour weapon, a bunker buster and an artillery system capable of dispensing HE, Flechettes, WP, Smk and Ill.

It is a takeaway from the late, unlamented, overburdened and top-heavy MMEV that would be doable.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

You could make an argument for the 25mm, but the 25mm is limited to ammunition types, adn we already have those; even going up to a 30mm opens up options.  I am going to avoid the wheel vs. track debate which I am sure has been done to death on other threads.  Going larger opens up all kinds of possibilities.  As far as troops and gear you are right, we need the room for that, which is why this vehicle will likely be a bit of a monster.  ATGMs are fine, but by pure definition they are meant for antitank, are more suited for defence or delay, and lack offensive capability.  I am dismissing the need for ATGMs because we should have them; I am saying that they don't necessarily belong on the CCV.  I believe the intent to be having a highly mobile and hard hitting force, which is why we're doing it relatively small numbers. 

The UN role is whole nether nut to crack, and falls about 15 levels above most of our pay grades, but from what I understand, the difference of role between Peacekeeping (if it exists anymore), Peacebuilding and Peacemaking, coupled with the potential threat will dictate what we bring to the show.  For pure peacekeeping, all we really need for vehicles is big trucks and maybe some TAPV type vehicles.  Here is short read that I found that speaks to the ambiguity. http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection-R/LoPBdP/EB-e/prb0406-e.pdf

In a perfect world I would want a CCV with a 40mm in a manned turret and 8 fully equipped soldiers plus a 2 man crew and protection levels against projectiles and mines much greater than the LAV, oh yea and all within a 30 ton limit..... 8)

In my mind the CCV does not deploy without tanks, so the gun needs to fill a role that the 120mm can not do well. As I recall the 25mm was able to penetrate the side of a Iraq T-72, which means it can harm frontally most light armoured vehicles.
ATGM would similar to Javelin I believe the Boxer may have a post to accept this missile? (If not I am sure someone will be along shortly to correct me) The Tanks need infantry to protect them, so for me the ability to carry infantry takes precedence over the gun.

 

[GnyHwy]

In a perfect world I would want a CCV with a 40mm in a manned turret and 8 fully equipped soldiers plus a 2 man crew and protection levels against projectiles and mines much greater than the LAV, oh yea and all within a 30 ton limit..... 8)

I think that is doable, but instead of stating what size calibre you want, try stating what effect you want on the other end. 

 

[OldSolduer]

I think that is doable, but instead of stating what size calibre you want, try stating what effect you want on the other end.

Kill people that want to kill you? Because as an infantryman, the less bad folks around when we dismount, the better.

 

[Journeyman]

Kill people that want to kill you?

Jim, Jim, Jim....... :not-again:  You can't say that on an NDHQ PowerPoint. 

We want to influence the enemy's ability to self-actualize.  :nod:

.....what types of vehicles?  How many, because that determines how much ammo do we need it to carry?

  Nature/number of ammo?  ~meh~  The Loggies will magically make that happen.


Edit: OK, now I'm going back to reading. 

 

[dapaterson]

Kill people that want to kill you? Because as an infantryman, the less bad folks around when we dismount, the better.

Kill people?  So it's an AP role for the armament?  Or do we want to take out vehicles as well?  If so, what types of vehicles?  How many, because that determines how much ammo do we need it to carry?

 

[ArmyRick]

What about the CTA 40mm being implemented on the British warrior upgrades.

It's effects on targets include different ammo types (HE, APFSDS 2 main types)

Its volume is reduced compared to Bofors 40mm.

40mm projectiles are pretty deadly. I see CCV taking on most combat tasks/missions independant except for requirements to defeat a heavily defended enemy (Properly prepared position of enenmy or re-enforced buildings) or an armoured threat, then they will need MBT and form a combat team.

 

[OldSolduer]

Jim, Jim, Jim....... :not-again:  You can't say that on an NDHQ PowerPoint. 

We want to influence the enemy's ability to self-actualize.  :nod:

  Nature/number of ammo?  ~meh~  The Loggies will magically make that happen.


Edit: OK, now I'm going back to reading. 

My apologies for offending your sensibilites.....whatever ....

Kill people?  So it's an AP role for the armament?  Or do we want to take out vehicles as well?  If so, what types of vehicles?  How many, because that determines how much ammo do we need it to carry?

As long as it "self actualizes" bad folk that aim to kill or maim our guys. I know its simplistic, but I r an infuntree guy...short words, small sentences please..... :soldier: