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

[Old Sweat]

Agreed its plain as day to see the defense industry is getting really sick of Canada's crap so to speak. I would be surprised if companies stopped bidding on Canadian contracts until a change of government

This has been a recurring complaint about military procurement for as long as I can remember. Projects will start with all sorts of hoopla and then collapse because the government of the day decides to shift its priorities elsewhere. Look at the maritime helicopter and the fixed wing search and rescue along with oh how so many ship building programs. Compared to them, the CCV is small potatoes.

 

[ArmyRick]

I agree, their has to be complete paradigm shift amongst government procurement policies, procedures and practices. A big house cleaning session is in order too.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

We (the CF) are not blameless here.  We routinely set out to buy 100 1976 K5 Blazers, and by the time we finish tinkering, we can afford to buy 2 Porsche Cayennes....

 

[FSTO]

They best thing that could happen would be an EMP and collective amnesia of all procurement personnel and records of Canadian military purchases. A complete reset without any corporate knowledge of the cluster that our current system staggers under is the only way to go.

 

[FSTO]

We (the CF) are not blameless here.  We routinely set out to buy 100 1976 K5 Blazers, and by the time we finish tinkering, we can afford to buy 2 Porsche Cayennes....

And how many times have we cheapened out on equipment and which in the end costs more to modify because we cheapened out rather than buying the top of the line model in the first place!

 

[PPCLI Guy]

And how many times have we cheapened out on equipment and which in the end costs more to modify because we cheapened out rather than buying the top of the line model in the first place!

I don't know.  How many times?

Don't bother bringing up the Ross rifle, and the LSVW did exactly what we bought it to do.

As to "cheaping out instead of buying the top end model" give me 550 LAV Ups at half the cost of 108 CCVs any day.

Just saying.

 

[MilEME09]

I don't know.  How many times?

Don't bother bringing up the Ross rifle, and the LSVW did exactly what we bought it to do.

As to "cheaping out instead of buying the top end model" give me 550 LAV Ups at half the cost of 108 CCVs any day.

Just saying.

On the issue of the LS though we did Canadianize it which did add to the cost, kinda like what we did with the FCS for the leopard 1, and that turned out to be a problem we had to spend more money to fix. Perhaps we need to put up the white flag and get help from our NATO Allies and see how they do procurement

 

[devil39]

I don't know.  How many times?

Don't bother bringing up the Ross rifle, and the LSVW did exactly what we bought it to do.

As to "cheaping out instead of buying the top end model" give me 550 LAV Ups at half the cost of 108 CCVs any day.

Just saying.

I have a Ross Rifle...awesome piece of kit.....just not for the trenches of WWI. 

What about TAPV?  What would you trade that for?

 

[MilEME09]

Defence Department kills $2B order for military combat vehicles

OTTAWA -- The Canadian Army has scrapped a $2-billion order for new armoured vehicles -- the latest in a series of troubled procurements.

Gen. Tom Lawson, the chief of defence staff, announced Friday the cancellation of an order for 108 close-combat vehicles.

"We've recommended to the government of Canada not to proceed with the procurement process for the close-combat vehicle," Lawson said.
Related Stories

    Two more navy defence ships taken out of service
    Canada 'just can’t get around' army cuts, Hillier says
    Top soldier says Canada 'well ahead' other NATO countries on veterans' issues

Photos
DND scraps armoured vehicles project

Gen. Tom Lawson, the chief of defence staff, speaks during a press conference in Ottawa, Friday, Dec. 20, 2013.
Close-combat vehicles

The new upgraded Light Armoured Vehicle is unveiled at a news conference at a General Dynamics facility in London, Ont., on Thursday, Jan. 24, 2012. (Mark Spowart / THE CANADIAN PRESS)

Bids by three defence contractors -- Nexter, BAE Systems Inc. and General Dynamics Land Systems Inc. -- had been set to expire on Monday.

The program had been hanging in the balance for months after the army signalled it was worried about whether it could afford to train crews and operate and maintain the new vehicles in a time of tight money. Budget restraints have slashed baseline funding by 22 per cent.

Improvements to the military's light-armoured vehicles will provide the same level of protection to soldiers in the field as the close-combat vehicles would have, said Lt.-Gen. Marquis Hainse, commander of the army.

Lawson said he's satisfied the military has the capability to handle any mission.

"I have complete confidence that the army remains fully capable of supporting any operation that the government of Canada may assign to the Canadian Armed Forces," he said.

Having yet another major military purchase go down the drain could be a political black eye for the Conservatives, who have struggled to deliver on an extensive list of military equipment.

In addition to the armoured vehicles, National Defence and Public Works in the summer of 2012 cancelled and subsequently restarted a program to buy 1,500 military trucks for the military.

Following news of the cancellation, the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries called for a review of the government's procurement process.

"It must be a difficult day for the companies directly affected," association president Tim Page said in a statement. "They've spent a considerable amount of money to position their products to win the competition on the basis of a stated need that now is no longer required.

"The situation is evidence of a compelling need for urgent consideration and articulation of a renewed and affordable Canada First Defence Strategy, as committed to by the government in the throne speech."

Retired lieutenant-general Andrew Leslie, who led the Canadian Army through almost the entire Afghan war, said the close combat-vehicle was an essential capability for a military that intends to fight not only an all-out war, but also future insurgencies where homemade bombs will be major weapons.

Leslie says the cancellation means the army will go into future conflicts less well-equipped than it should be.

The close-combat vehicles are 36-tonne machines which can carry troops and also fight like a light tank.

Experience in Afghanistan showed the army's existing light-armoured vehicles, while capable, were vulnerable to ever more powerful bombs -- a lesson insurgent groups around the world have learned and will likely put into practice in the any new conflict.

"This decision and others has put the lives of Canadian Forces personnel at unnecessary risk," said Leslie, who will run for the Liberals in an Ottawa-area riding in the next federal election.

Leslie said he doesn't buy the argument that National Defence can no longer afford the program when it continues to underspend its budget by roughly a $1 billion a year.

He also said it was appalling that neither Defence Minister Rob Nicholson, nor Public Works Minister Diane Finley stepped forward to take responsibility for what was clearly a political decision.

"This is nonsense,"Leslie said. "This program was approved by the government and personally endorsed by (former defence minister) Peter MacKay and the prime minister.

"It is their job to explain it, not members of the Canadian Forces. Where are they? I don't see them."

While I do somewhat agree with Leslie's comments, I do believe this was a project doomed to fail

 

[Journeyman]

While I do somewhat agree with Leslie's comments, I do believe this was a project doomed to fail

And by not buying Starship Troopers' kit, "this decision and others has put the lives of Canadian Forces personnel at unnecessary risk"  anic:

Leslie is now speaking only as a politician -- in sound bytes, as a member of an Opposition Party.  :boring:


CCV?  Good riddance to unnecessary fleet/maintenance/training/garrisoning diversification.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Interesting - I wonder why the Minister got his own statement ....

The Government of Canada, based on the recommendation of the Canadian Armed Forces, has decided not to proceed with the Close Combat Vehicle (CCV) procurement project. Significant capability improvements have served to address a number of force protection concerns that existed when the CCV project was first conceived.

(....)

    “After a careful review of priority military requirements and given improved capabilities across the Canadian Armed Forces due to significant Government investment, the Canadian Armed Forces recommended that the Government not proceed with this acquisition. We accepted the military’s recommendation.”

Rob Nicholson
Minister of National Defence ....

.... and the generals (CDS and Army boss) their own?

The Family of Land Combat Vehicles (FLCV) program is delivering a suite of new combat capabilities with the goal of ensuring that the Canadian Army will continue to be strong, proud and ready to serve Canada and Canadians.

The program to date has included upgraded Light Armoured Vehicles, the Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle, Armoured Engineering Vehicles, and the Close Combat Vehicle known as the CCV.

The Family of Land Vehicles program has been a complex undertaking and has taken time. Throughout that time, we continuously assessed and validated the program’s success in matching new equipments capabilities with the identified requirements of each project. It was this ongoing assessment that led us to consider a change in course.

The CCV platform was envisioned to bridge the protection, mobility, and firepower gap between a Light Armoured Vehicle and a Main Battle Tank. However, since the beginning of the Land Combat Vehicles program in 2009, we have seen significant capability that have addressed the protection concerns. The capabilities of the Upgraded Light Armoured Vehicle III are far superior to what was originally envisioned. Additionally, considerable investment in our Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance capabilities; significant advances in Counter-IED; and the Canadian Army's improvements in its tactics, techniques and procedures have all resulted in significant mitigation of tactical risk to our soldiers in deployed combat operations.

Based on this assessment, and the fundamental principle that the Canadian Armed Forces do not procure capabilities unless they are absolutely essential to the attainment of our mandate – the mandate outlined in the Canada First Defence Strategy – we recommended that the Government of Canada not proceed with the procurement process for the Close Combat Vehicle.

We have complete confidence that the Army remains fully capable of supporting any operation that the Government of Canada may assign to the Canadian Armed Forces.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The 'F' in Infantry stands for two things, and one of them is 'Footborne'.

That way it's easier to sneak up on the bad guys and break all their stuff.  :camo:

 

[eme411]

Interesting that this has happened now after the CF has scraped over 400 M-113's , we should really jump onto some of the US contracts or see what they have to sell, ie. we can go back to the 5/4 CUCV , here we were driving our 76 5/4 's into the ground and we could have purchased more CUCV's than we did, with almost no conversion courses , easy access to parts and kits for the vehicles,  some of the coms units had the rad van pods switched to the CUCV without major rework, instead we spend all that money on the LS that comes from Europe ,(Logistics here, where are your parts going to come from in a major conflict???) and as it turned out was a turd, remember why they closed LETE? Back to the CUCV, they are still coming out of the US DOD 30 years on, Then we move onto the LUVW , don't try to invent the wheel , you want a HUMVEE (a dumb , stupid tough truck with mountains of parts close at hand (logistics here) then buy a HUMVEE, no here we go again, buy something in Europe that rolls over, burns up, needs Steve Jobs to come fix it because it's loaded with computers to get it to go down the road, no parts, expensive, (logistics here), next one , MSVS, 6 wheel drive garbage truck chassis with a Military box painted green, can't go into the training area for fear of burning the forest down when the engine emission system goes into re-gen mode ,or get the truck stuck, (my fire fighter buddies are just living in fear when one of their new trucks goes into re-gen when they are standing parked at a curb and someone walks by), thank god the ML is still in service , a tough simple truck , parts all over the world , M-35 series has been in service for more than 60 years, you know what they say , if it ain't broke ,we could have purchased the US M-35A3 fleet ,(logistics here), many of the parts in our system would still fit the A3, minor conversion course . This is where we need to take a long look at the ways the IDF and US Army run there vehicle fleets, look at what our enemy runs in there vehicle fleets , almost always vehicles of Russian origins , very simple and very tough, in the end if their vehicles are going down the road with min. effort (logistics here ) and ours are not , very simply we die, remember WW2 German horse transport vs. the 2 1/2 cargo truck, armour or truck the kid from south shore NS or interior BC need to be able to fix fast and move.

 

[UnwiseCritic]

Based on this assessment, and the fundamental principle that the Canadian Armed Forces do not procure capabilities unless they are absolutely essential to the attainment of our mandate – the mandate outlined in the Canada First Defence Strategy – we recommended that the Government of Canada not proceed with the procurement process for the Close Combat Vehicle.

Reference the bolded - Does the 1st defence strategy not seem outdated? Whether or not scrapping the CCV is a good idea or not is beyond me. But shouldn't the forces have an updated strategy to make better informed decisions if were going to base them on such a strategy.

 

[The Bread Guy]

.... shouldn't the forces have an updated strategy to make better informed decisions if were going to base them on such a strategy.

:nod:

 

[cupper]

Based on this assessment, and the fundamental principle that the Canadian Armed Forces do not procure capabilities unless they are absolutely essential to the attainment of our mandate – the mandate outlined in the Canada First Defence Strategy – we recommended that the Government of Canada not proceed with the procurement process for the Close Combat Vehicle.

Reference the bolded - Does the 1st defence strategy not seem outdated? Whether or not scrapping the CCV is a good idea or not is beyond me. But shouldn't the forces have an updated strategy to make better informed decisions if were going to base them on such a strategy.

How many times do we have to say it - STOP TRYING TO APPLY LOGIC TO GOVERNMENT POLICY

 

[a_majoor]

Since we now have a pause until 2016 before thinking about new projects, maybe we can actually work out what we actually need and how we are going to use it. Three years should be enough time, right?

 

[PuckChaser]

We'll sole-source what we need the next time a shooting match starts. It won't be perfect, and it won't be there at the start, but its the typical Canadian way of procurement.

 

[UnwiseCritic]

How many times do we have to say it - STOP TRYING TO APPLY LOGIC TO GOVERNMENT POLICY

You'll have to say it until the day I become one of them. The battle for my mind continues. And once the things they do start to make sense it probably just means I've lost it. Not them becoming smart. Man I hate anything government related...

 

[Colin Parkinson]

We'll sole-source what we need the next time a shooting match starts. It won't be perfect, and it won't be there at the start, but its the typical Canadian way of procurement.

Actually the leasing idea was quite impressive in how quick it worked, as long as all the western armies don't intend to lease equipment, it should work.