• 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)

Roger that, lanes are open and flexible! Now back to our regular programming.
 
dangerboy said:
Armoured vehicles hit their limits
Military to seek replacements for LAVs soon, Hillier says
 
...

"I think we're going to have to look at what we can do in the army for a fleet of fighting vehicles," Gen. Hillier said. "So, I think that's what we need to work through right now and be able to offer our minister, and therefore the government of Canada, some recommendations on."
It is worth noting that the printed quotes only state we need to look for a new vehicle.  The news article’s title is the only suggestion that this new vehicle will replace (as oppose to be employed in addition to) the LAV.  Particularly interesting given that I hear LAV III LE is being talked about on the horizon.
 
Military ponders stronger combat vehicle

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080526/combat_vehicle_080526/20080526?hub=TopStories

Updated Mon. May. 26 2008 1:03 PM ET

The Canadian Press

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan -- The ever-increasing explosive power of roadside bombs in Afghanistan has Canada's Defence Department and the army examining the idea of buying larger, more heavily armoured vehicles to shuttle troops around the battlefield.

Defence sources in Ottawa say the department will consider "a more robust combat vehicle'' as it looks toward eventually replacing the hardy LAV III, which has done yeoman's service in the war-torn region.

Planning is only in the discussion stages, but high-level sources says "broader options'' than just a straight up purchase of more light armoured vehicles are being considered.

The idea would be to pick a vehicle "somewhere between a battle tank and a light (armoured) vehicle'' for soldiers to use in close combat.

Gen. Rick Hillier, the chief of defence staff, said recently that the military is starting to look for a replacement for the LAV III, given the way the Afghan war is chewing up the army's stock fighting vehicles.

The army is interested in buying the next generation of light armoured vehicle, known as the LAV-H, which is heavier, longer, better armoured and engineered with the lessons of Afghanistan in mind.

But defence sources say that consideration is also being given to acquiring some kind of tracked carrier, possibly between 30 to 35 tonnes in weight.

"The Americans, the Germans, the British and the Dutch, the Danes are all looking at their next families of vehicles (and) they'll probably be track,'' said one source.

American forces have for years used the M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle, which carries just as many soldiers and has the same 25 mm chain gun armament as a LAV. But the Bradley has much more armour to withstand bombs and runs on tracks, not wheels.

The Germans are developing a new generation of heavy tracked fighting vehicle with Puma, which is expected to begin entering service in 2010.

"There's quite a few out there,'' the source said.

The army is "interested in some other LAVs, but we're just looking at other options right now.''

Canadian soldiers worship their LAVs, but the Taliban have been progressively building bigger explosive charges to plant alongside paved roads, or bury in dried up riverbeds and trails that criss-cross Afghanistan's desert landscape.

The light vehicles handle well both on and off the road, except in boggy terrain where the added armoured and equipment has a tendency to weigh them down.

During an operation in mid-May, an entire platoon of LAV IIIs became stuck in the mud of a farm field on the outskirts of Kandahar City and had to wait for another unit to come and pull them out.

"There's only one swamp in Afghanistan and we had to find it,'' a soldier joked at the time.

Semi-friendly villagers gathered at the edge of the field to gawk at the helpless, huge vehicles, which the Afghans have nicknamed "green monsters.''

Some soldiers said tracked vehicles might not have gotten stuck and left them vulnerable to possible attack, but the point was debatable.

In this kind of hit-and-run war, soldiers know that speed means everything and that's why many of the troops were deeply skeptical of the suggestion that heavier tracked vehicles are the way to go.

Tracks can be more difficult to maintain than wheels, and in a rugged place like Afghanistan things are breaking all the time.

"If it's high maintenance in a country like this where everything has to be flown in because it's double landlocked, you can shut down a whole battle group waiting for parts,'' said Cpl. Darrell Rostek, of 7 Platoon, Charlie Company, of the 2 Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry battle group.

"Whereas this thing, it's wheeled. There are pros and cons for both, but you'd better pick the right one.''

A LAV III can still move and fight with more than half of its tires blown.

During Operation Medusa in the fall of 2006, Canadian commanders discovered the LAV IIIs had a tough time getting over the grapefield berms in the Panjwaii district.

It was one of the reasons the army chose to quickly deploy older, tracked Leopard C2 tanks. For that reason, some soldiers think something like an M2 Bradley fighting vehicle would be good addition, as long as the army maintained a mixture of wheeled and tracked vehicles.

"If it came out of the lessons learned, might as well give it try,'' said Cpl. Bryan Rowlandson, a reservist with the Calgary Highlanders.

"It doesn't hurt to try.''
 
Keeping the horse on life support, I advocate a mixed fleet, wheeled replacement for the LAV and LAV-H seems a likely candidate. The Boxer is also an option but that is one big APC. I doubt the French VAB’s would be in the running
The tracked option leaves a choice between the Bradely, Puma, Warrior and CV90. Not sure if the Bradely still in production, decent vehicle, we would benefit from commonality with the US. Puma is new and very expensive, Warrior I don’t think is in production and would require a new turret/gun package. The CV90 is in production, in service and has multiple options for turret/gun plus a family of support vehicles on the same chassis, the price is fairly reasonable as well.

We are going to be living in interesting times and will likely find ourselves in several different types of theaters over the next 30 years carrying out different types of operations. 
 
I got to see the LAV H and the LAV recovery vehicle today. Not bad at all. The LAV H was impressive. Much better protection from IED.

As far as CV90, yes it is a great peice of kit but it has been around for over 10 years. Why not get on board with the US Army FCS Manned ground vehicle program?

This is a new series of vehicles (The NLOS C goes into limited production later this year) and its potential for growth is very high. It is new technology that we could take advantage of. Plus we would have commonality with one of our closet allies.
 
If you look at the British Military current events, you'll find that the Brits are starting to have a problem with their "VIKING" which is like the CV90....
Same problems as we are currently witnessing with the LAVIIIs

Fears for patrol vehicles as blast kills serviceman in Afghanistan
May 27, 2008 Michael Evans, Defence Editor
Article Link

A British serviceman has been killed in an explosion in southern Afghanistan, the Ministry of Defence said yesterday.

He was killed when his Viking vehicle was caught in a blast north of Sangin, Helmand province. His next of kin have been informed. Two other soldiers were injured and taken to Camp Bastion, the main British base, for medical treatment.

The death brings the number of British personnel killed in Afghanistan since 2001 to 97.

The attack adds to growing concerns over the vulnerability of British patrol vehicles to hidden devices.

The underside of armoured vehicles deployed in Helmand has proven to be highly susceptible to mines buried by the Taleban, and the Ministry of Defence is preparing to add extra armour to key vehicles. The relatively new Viking armoured troop-carrying vehicle – which was built for the Royal Marines for use in Norway but is now being used across desert routes in northern Helmand – has proven to be vulnerable to the mines, which are suspected of being supplied from Iran. Five Vikings have been destroyed by mines.

Although the Viking is well armoured on its sides, the mines have penetrated the armour underneath, placing the driver at greatest risk. The Army faced the same risk in the case of Warrior armoured vehicles in Iraq, which, for similar reasons, were found to be vulnerable to mines. An extra layer of armour had to be fitted to the belly of the Warriors. MoD sources said that similar steps were being taken to improve the armour on the Vikings.
More on link



 
geo said:
If you look at the British Military current events, you'll find that the Brits are starting to have a problem with their "VIKING" which is like the CV90....
Same problems as we are currently witnessing with the LAVIIIs

I no expert but I believe the British Army "Viking" is one of those articulated Swedish tracked carriers,  . . not in the CV family

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/viking/

 
ArmyRick said:
I got to see the LAV H and the LAV recovery vehicle today. Not bad at all. The LAV H was impressive. Much better protection from IED.

As far as CV90, yes it is a great peice of kit but it has been around for over 10 years. Why not get on board with the US Army FCS Manned ground vehicle program?

This is a new series of vehicles (The NLOS C goes into limited production later this year) and its potential for growth is very high. It is new technology that we could take advantage of. Plus we would have commonality with one of our closet allies.

Judging by the success rate of the US Army's FCS stuff, I would rather see a proven design that is a known both in performance and cost. The Styker is an "intermin" vehicle till the FCS comes....................still waiting..............getting old............soon to retire..........if you get my point.. :)
 
Ah no. The concept of the stryker being the interim vehicle is outdated. The stryker will remain in service for quite a while. The FCS MGV first variant the NLOS C is coming into US Army service next year.

The remark about waiting..waiting..is not appropriate

Do you know how long it took them to design and develop the Bradley IFV? They started in the early 70s and if I understand history correctly, it was the early eighties that Bradley finally came on line.

The success of the FCS technology? Wait and watch. You wouldn't think it was appropriate to say the Bradley was a failure in 1979, would you?
 
I don't remember saying the vehicle is a failure, but I have limited confidence in US military programs producing results on time and on budget.
 
Colin P said:
...  I have limited confidence in US military programs producing results on time and on budget.
So you would prefer to recommend something that is 30 years old & nearing (if not at) the end of its growth potential?
Colin P said:
the Bradely
 
You like our tank´s. You like our beer. So what´s the only right answer for you? You know that you want it!

PUMA FTW!

SCNR,
ironduke57 ;D

 
MCG said:
So you would prefer to recommend something that is 30 years old & nearing (if not at) the end of its growth potential?

Actually I am not keen on the Bradely, but it is a realistic contender and is being marketed with upgrades as we speak. I am a out and out CV90 fan to be honest.
 
I would put the PUMA IFV as my second choice to the MGV series. My only heart ache with Puma is that it only carries 6 dismounts.
 
Yea, you ever get the impression that the designers would love to get rid of those pesky dismounts? Apparently the new recce version of the Bradely gave up the dismounts to allow for a armoured mast with a sensor suite.
 
My nderstanding is that there have always been two versions of the Bradley - the M2, an IFV with dismounts, and the M3, a recce variant without.

(see, among other references, Wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Bradley)
 
dapaterson said:
My nderstanding is that there have always been two versions of the Bradley - the M2, an IFV with dismounts, and the M3, a recce variant without.

(see, among other references, Wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Bradley)

I am no expert on the vehicle, a US army Officer posted this picture recently, (Manic Moran of Tanknet)

http://img505.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img1194ka6.jpg
 
MCG said:
The M3 had dismounts but much fewer than the M2.

- Normally in the past, a vehicle crew of five (hence ten men on a Boeselager Team).
 
Back
Top