• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

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

Going at it a bit sideways, back in the 80's the Swedish STRV 2000 project came up with a tank carrying a 140mm canon firing APDSFS against tanks and a coaxial 40mm canon for everything else. A 40mm projectile is large enough to carry a useful HE load, an APDSFS dart for light armour and today  programmable munitions like AHEAD for use against infantry or air targets (helicopters or UAV's). While the tank never came to fruition, the CV9040 is the Swedish IFV, which suggests the analysis for the STRV 2000 is still valid today.

The combination of 120mm tank guns against hard targets like tanks and prepared fortifications and 40mm CCV cannon against everything else (with dismounted infantry to go after everything that got missed the first time) seems to be a good combination. The downside (as noted) is there won't be as many rounds of 40mm in a CCV carrying a 40mm (especially if you have a dual feed cannon and two natures of ammunition), but this might be mitigated by using telescoped rounds like the CTWS 40 cannon project. Good fire control and training to make each round count works wonders as well.

For Kirkhill, while the rockets would be useful, perhaps a separate artillery version carrying rocket pods (like the MLRS) would be more useful, along with a version carrying a mortar. Actually an entire family of vehicles could/should be developed on the CCV chassis, (Engineer, Artillery, CP, Amb, ATGM, SPAAG, etc.) but we all know where that idea will go...
 
More of the latest from one of the Sunday AM news shows:
A $2-billion procurement contract for about 100 new Close Combat Vehicles for the military has been restarted after the latest bids didn't meet technical requirements, a Conservative MP says.

The decision prompted opposition parties to accuse the government and defence bureaucrats of bungling yet another large procurement contract for the military, citing the recent F-35 fighter jet controversy.

B.C. Tory MP Andrew Saxton, a member of the public accounts committee, told CTV Question Period Sunday none of the vehicles "met the standard requirements to do the job."

Companies bidding on the contract were told Friday they would have to resubmit their proposals under new criteria.

It's the second time in less than a year the proposed vehicles were rejected by the Department of National Defence.

NDP defence critic Jack Harris said it's another example of government incompetence when it comes to large-scale purchases for the armed forces.

"They say they're going to buy an off-the-shelf piece of equipment because it's cheaper and therefore they can get it approved, and then they go and look at them and decide they want to actually modify things," he told Question Period from St. John's, Nfld.

"The auditor general previously told them this is wrong, they didn't follow their own rules and the same thing has happened here," he said Sunday.

The Close Combat Vehicle (CCV) program was announced in 2009. The military wants to purchase about 108 of the CCVs, with an option to buy an additional 30, and use them to accompany Leopard tanks in future combat missions.

Saxton said the new round of bidding proves the government's procurement system is working.

"That's what we have to do to make sure we get the right equipment for our men and women in uniform and to make sure the process remains open and fair," he said.

He denied there was any attempt at bid-rigging in the DND and said again the vehicles didn't meet the requirements of the army ....
CTV.ca, 29 Apr 12
 
ArmyRick said:
What about the CTA 40mm being implemented on the British warrior upgrades.
... and if CCV does go with 40 mm cannons, lets ensure they can do air-burst munitions so that the CCV Coy can divest itself of Pl level CASW.
 
Ah yes, the it will do everything vehicle!

Col. Robert Laurel Smith: In summation, what you have before you is...
Sgt. Fanning: A troop transport that can't carry troops, a reconnaissance vehicle that's too conspicuous to do reconnaissance...
Lt. Colonel James Burton: And a quasi-tank that has less armor than a snow-blower, but carries enough ammo to take out half of D.C. THIS is what we're building?
 
Here are some project management maxims.

1. No major project is ever installed on time, within budget, or with the same
staff that started it. Yours will not be the first.

2. Projects progress quickly until they are 90% complete, and remain at 90%
forever.

3. Fuzzy project objectives are good: they avoid the embarrassment of
estimating corresponding costs.

4. When things are going well, something will go wrong.
              - When things cannot get worse, they will.
              - When things seem to be going well, you are overlooking something.

5. If project content is allowed to change freely, then the rate of change will
exceed the rate of progress.

6. No system is ever fully debugged. Attempts to debug only introduce new and
harder to find faults

7. A carelessly planned project will take three times longer to complete than
expected.
              - A well planned project only takes twice as long.

8. Project teams detest progress reporting because it vividly manifests their lack
of progress.
 
From National Defense Magazine -

Yanks test driving Bradley, Stryker, Narmer and CV90 at White Sands with Nexter's VBCI and the Puma to follow.

Interesting write up on the project expectations and how procurement might be handled.
 
The latest (highlighted) from a newly-posted CF Backgrounder:
The Close Combat Vehicle (CCV) will provide the Canadian Forces with a medium-weight armoured vehicle that is both very well protected and tactically (off-road) mobile.

Unlike the other vehicles in the Family of Land Combat Vehicles, the CCV is not replacing a vehicle in the current Canadian Forces fleet.  The CCV’s fundamental purpose is to bridge the gap between the current light (5-25 tonnes) and heavy armoured (45 tonnes +) vehicle fleets by providing the Canadian Army with an operational capability that can predominantly operate with the Main Battle Tanks and the other Canadian Forces armoured vehicles within a high-threat environment.

This vehicle’s protection and enhanced mobility and firepower will improve our troops’ survivability and combat effectiveness in executing the Canada First Defence Strategy (CFDS) missions throughout the full spectrum of conflicts

The CCV project will involve the procurement of 108 CCV, to include Infantry Fighting Vehicle, Forward Observation Officer, Engineer Reconnaissance, and Tactical Command configurations.  The project scope also includes the option to procure up to 30 additional vehicles, as well as the development and implementation of an in-service support contract.

Following the conclusion of a Solicitation of Interest and Qualification (SOIQ), a Request for Proposals (RFP) was released to the Pre-Qualified Bidders. There were no technically compliant bids received in response to the original RFP. A second RFP was issued to the five Pre-Qualified Bidders in April 2012 and will close in August 2012. Contract award is expected in 2013.

The Government of Canada’s Industrial and Regional Benefits policy applies to this project, meaning that the winning company must generate economic activity in Canada, dollar for dollar equal to the contract value.
Nothing recent on MERX, but attached find an "Amended Pre-Qualified Bidders List for CLOSE COMBAT VEHICLE (CCV) Project" as of April 2011.
 
I really like this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=dkvPdSITdH4&NR=1

 
seawolf said:
I really like this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=dkvPdSITdH4&NR=1

The first part reminded me of a wildlife documentary. :D

Where can I get one of these?
 
.... now online with a tiny change from the last one (change highlighted): 
.... Following the conclusion of a Solicitation of Interest and Qualification (SOIQ), a Request for Proposals (RFP) was released to the Pre-Qualified Bidders. There were no technically compliant bids received in response to the original RFP. A second RFP, issued to the five Pre-Qualified Bidders in April 2012, closed in early September 2012. Contract award is expected in 2013 ....
Latest version also attached if link doesn't work for you.
 
I see one of the identified bids is the French 8x8 APC/IFV. Seriously why even bother with this if you are going wheeled? Just buy another batch of LAV's and be done with it. If it's going to follow the Leopards it needs tracks, end of story.
 
Yeah, that`s a question I`ve never seen sufficiently answered....
 
Here is a tidbit from the CASR site. It seems that the Army did not define what they wanted very closely, hence we are now looking at one tracked and two wheeled offerings. Given time and money issues, the Piranha 5 IFV idea might get in through the side door as some sort of upgunned LAV-H variant (which would make sense if the LAV fleet was to finally standardize on one version of the LAV hull at least...). Adding 108 vehicles to an existing fleet has certain logistics benefits as well.

http://www.casr.ca/ft-ccv-program-reset.htm

CCV Redux –  'Reset' for the Canadian Army's Close Combat Vehicle

Stephen Priestley, CASR Researcher Update 05 Sept 2012: After the reset, bids are again being accepted for the revised CCV RFP.

The Close Combat Vehicle project is to be 'reset'. That is what procurement officers do when their egg-juggling act goes awry. Now they need to make decisions that they failed to make before and reverse the choices they did make. The only problem is that industry has been footing the bill over the years for comparative testing and 'Canadianizing' (or , in some cases, prototyping). And being out of pocket, it's hard to imagine that industry will be best pleased by further wobbles in an already wonky procurement program  that promises a limited return.

Like all modern defence agencies,  DND is trapped  by procurement trends and  trade treaties. When the DND requirements are too closely tailored,  planners run the risk of accusations of either using those specs to 'single-source' a rigged competition or simply not examining all of
the options. The latter appeals to the bureaucratic mind set but is a tar-pit for decision-makers.

What the  CCV Project Management Office requested  from industry was defined mainly by weight (30-45t) and high levels of protection. The rest were primarily automotive standards. That left the door open for wheeled as well as tracked armoured vehicles. It has also forced industry to choose between submitting a wheeled or tracked candidate for the CCV contest.

Nexter was first to submit a wheeled vehicle – the 8-wheeled VBCI. But Nexter had no choice since it no longer produces a tracked IFV.[1] General Dynamics' situation was different. They produce both a tracked IFV (the Austrian-Spanish ASCOD) and wheeled (the Swiss Piranha 5 IFV). General Dynamics chose to withhold ASCOD and submit their Piranha 5 IFV. Looked at one way, that  'opening up' of the CCV contest has actually limited the candidate choices.

A CCV contest between tracked contenders might have been interesting. Both ASCOD and the Swedish CV90 series are proven vehicles and currently in production. Since the German's new SPz Puma was never submitted for CCV, the third possibility was rebuilt ex-Bundeswehr SPz Marders. But the 'used' Marder CCV option never got a look in ... which is highly ironic.

Rheinmetall proposed an extensively redesigned Marder in the form of their IFV/CCV. With its massive up-armouring and 30mm Lance turret,  the IFV/CCV had been modified out of all recognition. Indeed, the IFV/CCV mods were far more extensive than the changes applied to CF modernized  Leopard 2A4/2A4M CANs. So, by DND logic, moderately upgraded German tanks are a good thing while extensively-upgraded IFVs are clearly inadequate in some way.

Military planners usually argue that leaving design decisions to industry can result in better than anticipated outcomes. A cynic might ask whether that is likely to occur with a potential order for 108 vehicles. The IFV/CCV suggests that, in straightened economic times, industry may just be hungry enough to make it happen.  Likely Rheinmetall was banking on the small numbers of CCV being ordered making heavily-rebuilt Marders a more attractive proposition.

This is not, by the way, a recommendation of  Rheinmetall's  IFV/CCV or other rebuilt Marder concepts. Rather it is meant to point out the DND's inconsistancy in recoiling in horror at the idea of rebuilt IFVs bought to accompany rebuilt tanks. It's also to emphasize the importance of timing. The perfect is the enemy of the good ... but so is dithering. DND was offered rebuilt Swedish Army CV9040s in the past as well.  Had  DND nibbled, their CCV concept might have been proven in Kandahar. [2]  Instead,  CCV PMO is just far enough along to be embarassing.

Returning to the current state of affairs rather than 'might-have-beens', whither  Rheinmetall? To some degree, Rheinmetall's IFV/CCV could  be seen as a mere conveyance for their Lance MTS turret. In the end, Rheinmetall thought it more prudent to throw their lot in with General Dynamics. GDLSC's Piranha 5 IFV would carry a  Lance turret armed  with Rheinmetall 30mm gun and Rheinmetall would submit no hull at all. Again, DND's choices for CCV were reduced.

As with dieters near candy shops, the best option for those with decision-making disorders is to reduce the options. So, how could DND and the CCV PMO have simplified their own lives?

Specifying the CCV weight-range was wise since it eliminated any vehicles in the 'Heavy APC' category (which could most easily carry the weight of armour protection CCV demanded ). [3] Specifying a high mobility was essential since the raison d'être for CCV is accompanying the CF Leopard 2 tanks. In other words, DND wanted a reliable, well-protected IFV. Until recently, that meant a tracked vehicle. That changed when the French Army accepted Nexter's wheeled VBCI to accompany Leclerc tanks (also made by Nexter). So why was DND caught off guard?

Failing to dictate a specific type of running gear meant that CCV devolved into the old debate of  'tracks versus wheels'. Makers of  wheeled IFVs must argue that  just because the CF LAV IIIs had some mobility 'issues' in Afghanistan does not mean that their wheeled MAV cannot keep up with the tanks. Makers of  tracked  IFVs  must argue that just  because such vehicles are, by nature, closer to the ground, does not mean that they cannot be adequately protected from IEDs. This debate fascinates mil-tech nerds but CCV Project Management Office should have come down on one side or the other before ever issuing the CCV Request for Proposals.

A lesser area of confusion is in main armament. DND specified no calibre let alone a preferred weapon type. Their uncertainty isn't all that surprising. At present, none of the NATO armies can seem to agree on the most desirable calibre for IFV armaments. The difference is that each NATO army specified a chosen calibre nonetheless.  And the operative word  there is 'chose'.

The CCV PMO had four questions to ask itself:
  • Does an IFV accompanying tanks armed with 120mm cannons need a medium-calibre gun?
  • If yes, has the CF's in-service 25mm rounds performed adequately in combat?
  • If yes, has the CF's in-service M242 auto-cannon performed adequately in combat?
  • If yes, has the CF's in-service 2-man Delco LAV-25 turret performed adequately in combat?

There are, of course, sub-questions and qualifiers to go along with those four questions. For the first question, the tanks may not require a medium-calibre back-up but troops dismounting from the CCV might. The remaining questions are all tied in with the armament choice made for the LAV-UP program. When CCV was launched, no such choice had been made. Now it has – LAV-UPs will retain their 25mm M242 in an improved Delco turret. Either that decision should have been made sooner  or  the chosen CCV armament calibre should have dictated armament for LAV-UP. Instead, the CCV PMO threw the entire main armament choices over to industry.

Nexter hedged its bets, submitting both a VCBI-25  (using the current 25mm round, albeit with a different cannon model) and a VCBI-30 with 30mm Bushmaster II (an enlarged version of the in-service M242 'chain-gun'). All other competitors went with guns bigger than 25mm –  30mm for the GDLSC Piranha 5 IFV and withdrawn ARTEC Boxer  (as well as the unsubmitted  SPz Puma, IFV/CCV, and ASCOD), and 35mm Bushmaster III  for  BAE Hägglunds'  CV9035 MkIII.

Interestingly, all of the current CCV candidates feature manned turrets. In the midst of  all this, Defence Research and Development Canada did a bunch of tests on vehicle centres of gravity to determine the 'pros and cons' of remotely-operated turrets for medium-calibre guns. Again, all very interesting, but hadn't the CF's Kandahar experience shown that heads-up situational awareness was paramount in assymetrical warfare?  If yes, any C/G concerns are surely moot.

As it sits, DND has two wheeled candidates and a single tracked candidate to consider for its CCV contest. It would be sensible if the CCV PMO had concluded that armament commonality with LAV-UP was important. If it did, at present,  DND could only choose the VCBI-25. On the other hand,  if the CCV PMO has decided  that tracks  (or equivalent mobility)  are essential, it could only choose the CV9035 MkIII. In the current procurement climate, neither choice would be acceptable – open as they'd be to claims of contract rigging. This late in the day, any major changes to the CCV requirement demands a program 'reset'. It's a drastic step. Having dodged key decisions this long, the CCV PMO doesn't fancy the resulting options. But a decision has now been made. Apparently, the CCV PMO has decided to postpone further decision-making.

[1]  IFV stands for 'Infantry Fighting Vehicle', a term from the Cold War.  The original concept was that infantry would fight from inside their IFVs before dismounting has been abandoned. Modern IFVs have begun to eclipse armoured personnel carriers. By comparison, the IFV may carry fewer dismounts than an APC but those troops are supported by heavier gun armament.

[2] CASR has commented on used CV9040s before. One was a CV9040 lease/purchase option, another was CV9040 'interim' CCVs and their possible upgrades (also exploring RWS options).

[3] Heavy APCs tend to be tank hulls converted  to carry infantry. DND toyed with the HAPC concept as the Heavy Infantry Assault Vehicle but the HIAV seems to have been abandoned.
 
Small side excursion; Rheinmetall Infantry Fighting Vehicle Close Combat Vehicle (IFV CCV).

Essentially a totally rebuilt Marder, it might have been a contender given the small number we wanted, but the company did not offer this. Not sure I like the "shot trap" under the turret, but otherwise this seems to be a well thought out "modern" IFV:
 
Colin P said:
I see one of the identified bids is the French 8x8 APC/IFV. Seriously why even bother with this if you are going wheeled? Just buy another batch of LAV's and be done with it. If it's going to follow the Leopards it needs tracks, end of story.

I agree and it should share some common parts with the tanks.
 
Back
Top