Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,251
- Points
- 1,160
They mentioned a larger engine, to cope with the added weight and power requirements.
Close Combat Vehicle: Canada to buy another AFV (& keeping LAV III & TLAV)
- Thread starter -dikweed-
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 7,972
- Points
- 1,160
I see that they were/are thinking of adding additional road wheels.
Why not keep the complexity down and follow Christie's example? Just use the four large road wheels as they stand and ditch the return rollers.
It would end up looking like a Cruiser or a T34.
Why not keep the complexity down and follow Christie's example? Just use the four large road wheels as they stand and ditch the return rollers.
It would end up looking like a Cruiser or a T34.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 14,917
- Points
- 1,140
ArmyRick said:
Looks and actual performance are two different things, young Jedi.
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 2,978
- Points
- 1,160
It does look cool and it does look like a nice candidate for a CCV program, but "look" (as already stated) is not an indicator of performance.ArmyRick said:
... and the need for CCV is a whole other question. Personally, I am not convinced that we need a CCV. I think we could get much better milage investing in our existing LAV and TLAV families of vehicles (even increasing fleet sizes if we determine it is needed), and we would not be forcing ourselves to stretch O&M dollars to yet another vehicle micro-fleet.
- Reaction score
- 26,544
- Points
- 1,090
MCG said:
Hopefully that fleet investment would include support variants...
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 2,978
- Points
- 1,160
Like the Mobile Tactical Vehicle Cargo (MTVC) that was dropped from the scope of the TLAV project when we decided to divest M109 and Leopards?dapaterson said:
Or maybe LAV based ambulances & CPs to fill roles that will be lost when the Bison retires?
I hope so too.
- Reaction score
- 10,173
- Points
- 1,260
ArmyRick said:
Reread the last few posts. The argument was made that we are adding an additional fleet of questionable value to the infantry corps while, at the same time, essential capabilities such as mortars and anti-armour are being divested for lack of funds.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
The infantry corps does not and will not operate in a bubble.... :deadhorse: we will need engineer variants as well as it is very unlikely that we will get pioneers back any time soon, if ever... :stirpot:Infanteer said:
Moot point anyway, Kirkhill should have asked "how many 40mm..."
(I was looking for smiley for diving for cover...)
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
Short, if not totally satisfactory answer:
GDLS is offering another version of the LAV with a bigger gun as the CCV. My answer is why not just buy 118 additional LAV III with the latest upgrades built in. We get additional capabilities without having to invest in additional logistics and training, and 118 LAV IIIs are probably cheaper than 118 Phirana's with 30mm cannons (the GDLS offering), much less the French wheeled vehicle or the CV-90.
This does not address the need or desire for support varients, CP and ambulances and so on, but we could suggest that bringing the fleet to over 500 vehicles could create a critical mass for follow on purchases to replace the 200 odd Bisons. There is also the possibility of follow on orders once everyone gets past the OMG moment when the see what the TAPV realy is (hint; it isn't a recce vehicle or APC/IFV wannabe)
GDLS is offering another version of the LAV with a bigger gun as the CCV. My answer is why not just buy 118 additional LAV III with the latest upgrades built in. We get additional capabilities without having to invest in additional logistics and training, and 118 LAV IIIs are probably cheaper than 118 Phirana's with 30mm cannons (the GDLS offering), much less the French wheeled vehicle or the CV-90.
This does not address the need or desire for support varients, CP and ambulances and so on, but we could suggest that bringing the fleet to over 500 vehicles could create a critical mass for follow on purchases to replace the 200 odd Bisons. There is also the possibility of follow on orders once everyone gets past the OMG moment when the see what the TAPV realy is (hint; it isn't a recce vehicle or APC/IFV wannabe)
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 2,978
- Points
- 1,160
While your proposal is an investment in an existing fleet as I suggest, it is only marginally better than going ahead with the CCV idea. Treasury Board really does not like it (and the tax payers shouldn't either) when the the CF presents the case to spend $ X millions of dollars on new systems and then returns after buying the systems to say that another $ X millions are required to get all the supporting/enabling equipment that we neglected to mention the first time around.Thucydides said:
We cannot build ourselves a fleet of 500 LAV platforms and then hope the government accepts the existence of that fleet justifies spending more money to get even more LAV platforms. Aside from the fact that hope is not a CoA, we should expect that such an approach would, in fact, backfire and bring us the ire of the government.
We might need more LAV section vehicles. Some of that could be achieved though upgrading the existing vehicles that we do not currently plan to put through the mid-life upgrade (yes, we are planning to upgrade only part of the existing fleet). If more are required then by those numbers, but ensure any needed support platforms are also identified and included in that procurement.
We do not need to make all our investments in LAV either. We also have TLAV/MTVL which is very capable family of vehicles.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,251
- Points
- 1,160
As I said if the CCV is going to be wheeled do as you suggest just buy more LAV's. However as the key element seemed to be that they work closely with the Leopards as an intergrated whole, then getting wheeled is just plain dumb. I can see the TAPV and the LAV's working fairly well together. In essence it seems to me we need a "light brigade" and a "Heavy brigade" to meet the all the various potential scenarios which can play out over the next 20 years. Both will need an APC and both will need support vehicles. So far the heavies have the engineering and recovery on tracks which is good, but lack a suitable replacement for the TLAV. The light side needs a suitable replacement for the Bison and more engineering and recovery support vehicles that are wheeled and armoured. In a perfect world they would also have a DF vehicle with a large calibre gun.
Nothing to say that the two can't play together or that a blend of the two would be sent on the next expedition. So I see the need for 3 new fleets. The CCV as tracked APC, a Tracked support vehicle and a replacement for the Bison. The good news is that it would be fairly easy to make a Bison replacement on the LAV chassis, really making it one large fleet, as would the wheeled engineering and recovery vehicles. So the light side can get away with 2 types and perhaps a 3rd counting the G-wagons.
The heavies have a fairly good selection of APC/IFV's to choose from. However none of the offerings seem to offer a fully rounded fleet including supply, recovery and engineering. The CV-90 family seems to come closest. Which means the heavies will need a minimun of 3 fleets, 4 if any engineering assest remain on Leo 1 chassis's.
Nothing to say that the two can't play together or that a blend of the two would be sent on the next expedition. So I see the need for 3 new fleets. The CCV as tracked APC, a Tracked support vehicle and a replacement for the Bison. The good news is that it would be fairly easy to make a Bison replacement on the LAV chassis, really making it one large fleet, as would the wheeled engineering and recovery vehicles. So the light side can get away with 2 types and perhaps a 3rd counting the G-wagons.
The heavies have a fairly good selection of APC/IFV's to choose from. However none of the offerings seem to offer a fully rounded fleet including supply, recovery and engineering. The CV-90 family seems to come closest. Which means the heavies will need a minimun of 3 fleets, 4 if any engineering assest remain on Leo 1 chassis's.
- Reaction score
- 26,544
- Points
- 1,090
Infanteer said:
It's easy to find MLVW parts.
Just drive along behind one, and you can pick them up as they fall off.
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 2,978
- Points
- 1,160
When they are being used, reliability is good. Like any vehicle, if you forget about them for 5 months in the unit parking lot, they will hold it against you when you try to use them again. Keep in mind that these are not the M113A2 that many have experience with, and upgrades did not stop with the project. There have been continued improvements based on performance in Afghanistan and domestic survivability experiments.Infanteer said:
I know guys, haven recently given these vehicles a go for a few weeks in the mountains, who are now stating they prefer the MTVE over the ELAV.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,251
- Points
- 1,160
MCG said:
My understanding is that they are all rebuilds of existing hulls, correct? In which case how much life is left in them? going by the way most of our fleet buys are going, better to lay the groundwork early before there is a crisis.
