• 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)

PanaEng said:
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:
Moot point anyway, Kirkhill should have asked "how many 40mm..."  ;)

(I was looking for smiley for diving for cover...)

I was originally looking for "Fleeeeeee!!"  :)
 
Infanteer said:
How's it for reliability.  I could argue that the MLVW is a great B Vehicle, but the fact that I can't find a part for one renders it useless.

Which says nothing about its reliability, and everything about our procurement / life cycle management system.
 
...and a broken or absent procurement/LCM system means that I can't rely on the vehicle.  :P
 
Nice to know we are not alone. If we are bound and determined to get a CCV, frankly we should just tag onto to whatever the US gets. At least there will be spare parts.

US would save $14 billion buying German combat vehicle
By Tony Capaccio and Nick Taborek
Bloomberg
http://www.stripes.com/news/us/us-would-save-14-billion-buying-german-combat-vehicle-1.214797

Published: April 3, 2013
Puma
The U.S. Army would save $14 billion and get a better combat vehicle by choosing the German-made Puma over a tank-like Ground Combat Vehicle intended to replace the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the Congressional Budget Office said.
Wikipedia

The U.S. Army would save $14 billion and get a better combat vehicle by choosing a German-made transport over versions being developed by BAE Systems Plc and General Dynamics Corp., the Congressional Budget Office said.

Buying the German-made Puma was one of several options outlined in a report yesterday as improvements over the Army’s current plan for a tank-like Ground Combat Vehicle intended to replace the Bradley Fighting Vehicle.

“Although none of those alternatives would meet all of the Army’s goals” for the Ground Combat Vehicle, “all are likely to be less costly and less risky in terms of unanticipated cost increases and schedule delays,” the nonpartisan CBO said.

The Puma, made by a joint venture of Krauss-Maffei Wegmann GmbH based in Munich and Rheinmetall AG based in Dusseldorf, “is slightly more capable” than the Ground Combat Vehicle and might also be purchased “at only half the cost,” according to the report. It can accommodate six passengers, not the nine- member squad the Army considers a key capability, according to the CBO.

BAE, based in London, and General Dynamics, based in Falls Church, Virginia, are competing to produce the replacement for the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. Previous plans called for both companies to continue development work beyond 2014, after which one probably would have been selected for the production phase.

Strategy Revision

Frank Kendall, the Pentagon’s undersecretary for acquisition, directed a revision to this strategy in January, allowing for more companies to compete to enter engineering and manufacturing development and a chance to produce the vehicle.

The budget office pegged the latest cost estimate for about 1,748 vehicles at $29 billion through 2030 when priced in fiscal 2013 dollars. Previous estimates ran to as much as $40 billion.

In another option, the CBO said upgrading Bradley vehicles, made by BAE, would result in platforms “more lethal” in combat and would keep soldiers alive “at about the same rate” as the proposed new vehicle.

The Bradley carries seven passengers. Canceling the Ground Combat Vehicle development program and buying upgraded Bradleys instead would save $9 billion from 2014 to 2030, according to the CBO. That option would require adding a more powerful engine, additional armor and an extra gun to the Bradley.

According to the CBO report, the Ground Combat vehicle would have 1,500 horsepower and weigh 50 to 65 tons. That compares with the upgraded Bradley at 800 horsepower and 35 to 41 tons, and the Puma at 1,073 horsepower and 35 to 47 tons.

Army spokesman Matthew Bourke said in a response to the CBO report that, after extensive assessments last year of existing U.S. and foreign vehicles, the service concluded that options in meeting its requirements are limited.

“The Army continues to fine-tune the vehicle requirements to support cost targets while continuing to evaluate” what combat requirements can be adjusted that “better align with the goal of an affordable and achievable vehicle,” Bourke said in an e-mailed statement.
 
GnyHwy said:

But the CBO apparently does favour a certain manufacturer - Rheinmetall....
 
Kirkhill said:
But the CBO apparently does favour a certain manufacturer - Rheinmetall....

They're allowed to and probably do so a lot.  If we followed their lead (F-35 cough cough), we would be breaking the rules, no matter if the idea is good or not.
 
cupper said:
Awww, come on. What's wrong with Bombardier? ;D
Nothing - they make a great SkiDoo...

  Not really good with a jeep type though.  ;D
 


Armadillo Delivered


(Source: BAE Systems; issued April 18, 2013)
 


We have delivered a new variant of our CV90 Armadillo, finished in traditional Danish Army camouflage, to the Danish Army Oksbol base for competitive evaluation to meet Denmark's armored personnel carrier requirement

Class-leading protection and optimum mission flexibility

Trials - involving five different vehicles - begin mid-April and will continue until September with contract scheduled for February next year. First deliveries will be in 2015.

Armadillo offers class-leading protection and optimum mission flexibility. A “hot” production line (CV90 is in build for Norway) and six existing operators mean a proven low-risk solution, both for initial purchase and long-term sustainment and upgrade.

Denmark is looking to replace its existing M113s in a deal which will also include a 15-year innovative support contract.

Armadillo is a turretless version of CV90 with ballistic and mine protection which exceed Stanag 4a/b. Removal of the turret gives six tonnes of “spare” payload for further protection or other purposes on top of its "fighting configuration" while its state-of-the-art electronic architecture allows “plug and play” of new systems.

250px-Mantelet.defensif.3.png


Danish Armadillo Video  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHjlEVHhI7s

Edit to tidy up links Fail
 
Don't count on this vehicle coming to fruition...it's on the hit list.
 
Jammer said:
Don't count on this vehicle coming to fruition...it's on the hit list.
Within Canada or Denmark?  I hadn't heard of the new AFV program being cancelled yet for the Army, but I could be wrong.
 
Jammer said:
Don't count on this vehicle coming to fruition...it's on the hit list.

An Armadillo can curl up into a small ball and present a protected surface to all aspects; so can bureaucrats. It should be interesting to watch.

:pop:
 
Bumped with the latest from a couple of lefty think tanks:
A report on the planned procurement of Close Combat Vehicles has just been released by the Rideau Institute and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

“Stuck in a Rut: Harper government overrides Canadian Army, insists on buying outdated equipment” was written by University of British Columbia political science professor Michael Byers and defence analyst Stewart Webb (a visiting research fellow at the Rideau Institute and research associate at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives).

The government intends to buy 108 new heavily armoured “Close Combat Vehicles” (CCVs) to accompany Canada’s Cold War–era Leopard tanks into battle. In 2013, the need for these vehicles must be questioned. Modern counterinsurgency doctrine emphasizes the winning of “hearts and minds,” which is difficult to do with heavy armour.

The CCV procurement is also redundant – because 550 of Canada’s LAV IIIs are currently undergoing comprehensive upgrades that will improve their survivability and manoeuvrability while extending their lifespan to 2035. The upgraded LAV IIIs are, in fact, nearly as heavily armed and armoured as the proposed CCVs.

Estimated cost of the CCV project is $2 billion. Reportedly, the Canadian Army has told the government that it does not need or want the vehicles and would rather use the money for other purposes, such as maintaining training levels during a time of deep budget cuts.

As Professor Byers explains, “By spending $2 billion on vehicles the Canadian Army neither wants nor needs, the Harper government is abdicating its responsibility to equip and train our soldiers properly, and to provide fiscal accountability.”

The Treasury Board is meeting tomorrow, September 19, to make a final decision on the CCV project.

You can download the report (3.3 MB 42 pages) here.
 
"Canadian Army has told the government that it does not need or want the vehicles".

I wonder what context that is in.  Is it that we don't need or want a CCV; or that we don't need or want the options that have been presented to us?  I see those as two very different things.

 
GnyHwy said:
"Canadian Army has told the government that it does not need or want the vehicles".

I wonder what context that is in.  Is it that we don't need or want a CCV; or that we don't need or want the options that have been presented to us?  I see those as two very different things.
I believe we do not need and cannot afford it.
 
[quote author=MCG link=topic=70177/post-1258194# :

But we DO need boot bands, and they're STILL not issuing them. Sigh  :crybaby:
 
Back
Top