Infantry Vehicles

[Dana381]

Some of it specifically falls within the NATO definition of "defence expenditure", and a lot of it could be shoehorned in. Just as other member countries will tally their Ukraine expenses using that metric, so should Canada.

What that 2% NATO commitment includes

https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2022/6/pdf/220627-def-exp-2022-en.pdf

"NATO defines defence expenditure as payments made by a national government specifically to meet the needs of its armed forces, those of Allies or of the Alliance. A major component of defence expenditure is payments for Armed Forces financed from within the Ministry of Defence (MoD) budget. Armed Forces include Land, Maritime and Air forces as well as Joint formations such as Administration and Command, Special Operations Forces, Medical Service, Logistic Command, Space Command, Cyber Command, etc. They might also include "Other Forces" like Ministry of Interior troops, national police forces, gendarmerie, carabinieri, coast guards etc. In such cases, expenditure is included only in proportion to the forces that are trained in military tactics, are equipped as a military force, can operate under direct military authority in deployed operations, and can, realistically, be deployed outside national territory in support of a military force. Also, expenditure on Other Forces financed through the budgets of ministries other than MoD is included in defence expenditure.

Pension payments made directly by the government to retired military and civilian employees of military departments is included regardless of whether these payments are made from the budget of the MoD or other ministries.

Expenditure for peacekeeping and humanitarian operations (paid by MoD or other ministries), the destruction of weapons, equipment and ammunition, contributions to eligible NATO managed trust funds, and the costs associated with inspection and control of equipment destruction are included in defence expenditure.

Research and development (R&D) costs are included in defence expenditure. R&D costs also include expenditure for those projects that do not successfully lead to production of equipment.

Expenditure for the military component of mixed civilian-military activities is included, but only when the military component can be specifically accounted for or estimated.

Expenditure on NATO common infrastructure is included in the total defence expenditure of each Ally only to the extent of that nation's net contribution. War damage payments and spending on civil defence are both excluded from the NATO definition of defence expenditure."

Be that as it may It still seems like a cheating way to fulfill an obligation.

 

[Kirkhill]

Updates on the CV90

CV90 with combined anti-tank anti-aircraft sight, drone and Akeron MP missiles along with the autocannon.

CV90 MkIV

For a Medium Weight Force - why not just focus on the CV90 for infantry, recce and fire support and ditch the MBT?

If you must have an MBT here is the Leo 2A7

 

[Kirkhill]

The Akeron MP referenced above

Akeron MP - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Specifications
Mass	15 kg (33 lb): round in launch tube 11 kg (24 lb): tripod, firing post and battery
Length	1.3 m (4.3 ft)
Diameter	140 mm (5.5 in)
Warhead	Tandem HEAT
Blast yield	Can penetrate 1,000 mm of RHA[3] Can penetrate 2,000 mm of concrete
Engine	solid-fuel rocket, two phase thrust (soft launch)
Operational range	150 m – 5 km
Guidance system	infrared homing, television guidance[4]
Launch platform	Man-portable launcher Vehicle-launched Sea-launched

 

[markppcli]

I question have been wondering what is the difference in basic armor between the Bradley and the Lav 6? What is the difference with add on armor? We have talked about how the Bradly is a IFV and the Lav is a APC. How we deploy the LAV as a IFV. Truly besides tracks what makes a Bradly that much more protected?

It’s a good questions; since our own documentation and manuals put that lav as being able to take 30mm off the front. So the difference is frankly minor.

As a point you have a bunch of people who don’t use the LAV, and have never used it or trained on it, calling it an APC and one person who’s spent a lot of time on it calling it an IFV. Make of that what you will lol.

 

[KevinB]

It’s a good questions; since our own documentation and manuals put that lav as being able to take 30mm off the front. So the difference is frankly minor.

As a point you have a bunch of people who don’t use the LAV, and have never used it or trained on it, calling it an APC and one person who’s spent a lot of time on it calling it an IFV. Make of that what you will lol.

I wouldn’t call it an IFV.
Not just because I’m of the opinion IFV’s have ATGM’s

Granted I’ve not used the LAV 6.0, but I was a qualified LAV III CC/Gunner and I don’t see the 6.0’s Cross Country Mobility getting better with the added weight…

The Stryker should have at least equal if not better mobility than the 6.0 due to decrease weight and resulting ground pressure, and it can’t compete to the Bradley off route.

Hence why I don’t see it as an optimal Armor support IFV.

Also since Canada doesn’t have APDSFS-DU like we do down here, the 25mm cannon doesn’t have the same penetration, and combined with the lack of ATGM’s, it isn’t really a great IFV. Combined with the significant lack of ATGM’s in the CA and lack of Tanks the CA has, you are in a bad spot in an Armor environment.

 

[GR66]

For a Medium Weight Force - why not just focus on the CV90 for infantry, recce and fire support and ditch the MBT?

OK, this is the cranky, cynical, pre-caffeine me coming out but maybe the correct question actually is not what should we replace our Leopards with but should we replace our Leopards at all?

We HAVE 82 x Leopard tanks currently and by all accounts even our 2A4 "training" tanks should be highly effective against anything our enemies are fielding. And what condition are those tanks in? We're spending around $23 Billion USD on defence annually and we can't seem to maintain the tank force we already have in fighting condition. What good is a tank Regiment if when the balloon goes up we can't actually deploy it for combat? What do we spend annually in order to maintain the capability to deploy a Squadron of tanks?

Are new Leopard 2A7's or M1A2's going to be LESS maintenance intensive than our existing fleet? How long before those new tanks are equally rusted out as our existing ones? We're seeing the same thing on the RCN side with the rust out of the CPF's. Will the culture suddenly change once the CSC's arrive and suddenly we'll stop cutting corners and keep them in tip top condition?

Are we actually kidding ourselves by believing that the will and money are there to actually maintain an Army that is capable across the full range of military capabilities? That desperate hope so far has left us with a marginally deployable Armoured capability, an anemic and vulnerable towed artillery branch, an Infantry Corps lacking in anti-armour weapons, a total absence of any GBAD, dated Comms, insufficient logistics support, minimal rotary wing air support, a Reserve force without direction and equipment, etc., etc., etc.

At what point is the "juice not worth the squeeze" in order to maintain capabilities that are really just capabilities on paper rather than truly combat effective capabilities that we can actually deploy when needed?

If the Public/Government/Military Leadership will simply isn't there to fund (and maintain long term) a full spectrum capable Army (and Navy and Air Force) then at some point does it make more sense to concentrate your resources and efforts into making those forces/capabilities that you DO maintain as effective as possible?

When the time comes to actually deploy for combat could the argument be made that for example a force consisting of 6 x Regular Force LAV-based Battle Groups that are fully manned and equipped with DFS, ATGM, GBAD, SP Mortar and EW variants are actually more effective than what we have now? Is having a force that while maybe not able to fulfill every possible role but is highly effective in fulfilling those roles it is meant to face actually better than a force that while "technically" designed to face the full spectrum of roles but is actually lacking in the capabilities to do any of them effectively?

So I guess the actual first question that needs to be asked is "do we expect there to be a change in the attitude of the Public and the Government toward national defence and defence spending"? If the answer to that is NO, then perhaps we need to change the discussions around what direction the Army should take in restructuring.

[/rant]

 

[Kirkhill]

For our Northlands (70% of the country) tracks make more sense than wheels. Mobility trumps everything. Firepower is more important than protection.

The other Northerners, who actually live in their Norths and are facing a "live" enemy are fielding forces with a few tanks (Leopards), CV90s and lots of Bandvagns. As well as strong coastal fleets of small boats.

We don't actually face a live threat, at least not on the ground, but at very least we should have the ability to move over our own ground and be able to provide fire support to whatever troops we deploy up there.

The LAVs will work great in the farmlands accessible by highway. They could benefit from a tracked force to assist when the going gets hard. The tracked force could also find utility overseas AND domestically.

The key issue in deployability is weight. Tanks, although well protected, are heavy. One MBT weighs the same as 2-3 CV90s or 8 BvS10s. Or 2 LAVs.

A key element for any Canadian force then, IMO, is the ability to deploy light and then uparmour when the situation demands.

Out of all of this I find myself wondering if the LAVs shouldn't be left to the Infantry and the Artillery while the RCAC moves to a combination of the CV90 FOV and an LUV force.

 

[GR66]

For our Northlands (70% of the country) tracks make more sense than wheels. Mobility trumps everything. Firepower is more important than protection.

The other Northerners, who actually live in their Norths and are facing a "live" enemy are fielding forces with a few tanks (Leopards), CV90s and lots of Bandvagns. As well as strong coastal fleets of small boats.

We don't actually face a live threat, at least not on the ground, but at very least we should have the ability to move over our own ground and be able to provide fire support to whatever troops we deploy up there.

The LAVs will work great in the farmlands accessible by highway. They could benefit from a tracked force to assist when the going gets hard. The tracked force could also find utility overseas AND domestically.

The key issue in deployability is weight. Tanks, although well protected, are heavy. One MBT weighs the same as 2-3 CV90s or 8 BvS10s. Or 2 LAVs.

A key element for any Canadian force then, IMO, is the ability to deploy light and then uparmour when the situation demands.

Out of all of this I find myself wondering if the LAVs shouldn't be left to the Infantry and the Artillery while the RCAC moves to a combination of the CV90 FOV and an LUV force.

1) I have a tough time envisioning a situation where we would be deploying MBTs or CV-90s domestically. As you stated above "We don't actually face a live threat, at least not on the ground" so to my mind having a specific capability to meet what is admittedly a non-existent threat doesn't make any sense. Given the size of our North air mobility and light vehicles (e.g. BvS10's) make much more sense as an investment in Arctic domestic security than AFVs.

2) In light of the RCN shipbuilding plan, F-35's, NORAD recapitalization and investment in key missing capabilities like GBAD, ATGMs, Artillery, UAVs, etc. I simply don't believe (despite what I personally might wish) that the GOC will purchase a new fleet of tracked IFVs. They MAY be pressured politically by the US/public opinion into either upgrading or replacing our MBT fleet, but that is likely all. I'd be willing to bet significantly that the CA will be a LAV-based fleet for the foreseeable future.

To be clear, this isn't the road forward that I'd like to see. It's simply what I believe will actually be the case. Given that reality, how does that affect the decisions that are to be made regarding future force restructuring?

 

[Kirkhill]

1) I have a tough time envisioning a situation where we would be deploying MBTs or CV-90s domestically. As you stated above "We don't actually face a live threat, at least not on the ground" so to my mind having a specific capability to meet what is admittedly a non-existent threat doesn't make any sense. Given the size of our North air mobility and light vehicles (e.g. BvS10's) make much more sense as an investment in Arctic domestic security than AFVs

I agree. My point is that CV90s, without the plussed up armour would be easier to move into our North if the unlikely ever happened. And the fact that we could get support up there probably makes the unlikely even less likely - which is no bad thing.

In the meantime CV90s could be seen as an adjunct to our expeditionary offerings, operating alongside or instead of our LAVs.

Twofer.

2) In light of the RCN shipbuilding plan, F-35's, NORAD recapitalization and investment in key missing capabilities like GBAD, ATGMs, Artillery, UAVs, etc. I simply don't believe (despite what I personally might wish) that the GOC will purchase a new fleet of tracked IFVs. They MAY be pressured politically by the US/public opinion into either upgrading or replacing our MBT fleet, but that is likely all. I'd be willing to bet significantly that the CA will be a LAV-based fleet for the foreseeable future.

To be clear, this isn't the road forward that I'd like to see. It's simply what I believe will actually be the case. Given that reality, how does that affect the decisions that are to be made regarding future force restructuring?

I also agree with you here.

In reality I expect to see these before I see any CV90s or Bradleys.

BAE Systems and Rheinmetall team to offer go-anywhere vehicles to Canada

Rheinmetall Canada will display the BAE Systems BvS10 all-terrain vehicle at the CANSEC defense exhibition in Ottawa on May 28-29, 2014. The move follows a teaming agreement signed by the two companies as part of a future bid for the Marginal Terrain Vehicles (MTV) program in Canada offering the...

www.rheinmetall.ca

BvS10 Beowulf Cold Weather All-Terrain Vehicle (CATV), USA

BvS10 Beowulf is a tracked all-terrain vehicle manufactured by BAE Systems. It belongs to the family of BvS10 and Bv206 vehicles.

www.army-technology.com

 

[markppcli]

I wouldn’t call it an IFV.
Not just because I’m of the opinion IFV’s have ATGM’s

So if a BMP 2 isn’t fitted with its ATGM is it no longer an IFV? Is the Warrior an IFV? How about a Marder or AMX-10p?

Granted I’ve not used the LAV 6.0, but I was a qualified LAV III CC/Gunner and I don’t see the 6.0’s Cross Country Mobility getting better with the added weight…

The Stryker should have at least equal if not better mobility than the 6.0 due to decrease weight and resulting ground pressure, and it can’t compete to the Bradley off route.

I can’t compare to Bradley but outside of like significant hills, I don’t get much mobility differences between the 6 and 3. Keep in mind they made adjustments to the engine so the power to weight ratio is adjusted.

Hence why I don’t see it as an optimal Armor support IFV.

Also since Canada doesn’t have APDSFS-DU like we do down here, the 25mm cannon doesn’t have the same penetration, and combined with the lack of ATGM’s, it isn’t really a great IFV. Combined with the significant lack of ATGM’s in the CA and lack of Tanks the CA has, you are in a bad spot in an Armor environment.

Doing some research only the US used DU 25mm so your arguments on ATGM and DU seem to come down to “it’s not a bradly therefore not an IFV.”

 

[ArmyRick]

So if a BMP 2 isn’t fitted with its ATGM is it no longer an IFV? Is the Warrior an IFV? How about a Marder or AMX-10p?


I can’t compare to Bradley but outside of like significant hills, I don’t get much mobility differences between the 6 and 3. Keep in mind they made adjustments to the engine so the power to weight ratio is adjusted.

Doing some research only the US used DU 25mm so your arguments on ATGM and DU seem to come down to “it’s not a bradly therefore not an IFV.”

I think part of what he is getting at is IFV should really keep pace with Abrams/Leo2 tanks (modern MBT), I am a dinosaur of the M113 era, so please enlighten us, can LAV6 keep up with Leo 2? Or terrain dependant?

On armour defence capability (DEFENCE, as anti-armour vehicles are dedicated and employed differently, I used to be a TOW guy) I will admit, it takes very little to add some sort of AT missile to a turret (for defence).

 

[KevinB]

So if a BMP 2 isn’t fitted with its ATGM is it no longer an IFV? Is the Warrior an IFV? How about a Marder or AMX-10p?

Notice I said ‘isn’t just because’

I can’t compare to Bradley but outside of like significant hills, I don’t get much mobility differences between the 6 and 3. Keep in mind they made adjustments to the engine so the power to weight ratio is adjusted.

P2W isn’t the only issue. Main issue I see is the ground pressure.

Doing some research only the US used DU 25mm so your arguments on ATGM and DU seem to come down to “it’s not a bradly therefore not an IFV.”

Bradley not Bradly

No my argument is pretty much solely tracks with tracks, wheels with wheels.

The LAV has a purpose, I just don’t think working in combined arms with Tanks is its ideal role.

 

[Kirkhill]

Notice I said ‘isn’t just because’

P2W isn’t the only issue. Main issue I see is the ground pressure.

Bradley not Bradly

No my argument is pretty much solely tracks with tracks, wheels with wheels.

The LAV has a purpose, I just don’t think working in combined arms with Tanks is its ideal role.

I'll kind of split a bit on this one.

If the decision is made to go with wheels, which provide operational mobility on highways, then tracked fire support vehicles (tanks, IFVs and arty) need to be supplied with their own wheels - transporters - to keep up with the wheeled LAVs.

The same would be true for Abrams, Bradleys, CV90s, Leos or K9s. Or, for that matter Mobile Protected Firepower vehicles.

Of course, you're going to need a bigger boat.....

 

[GR66]

I'll kind of split a bit on this one.

If the decision is made to go with wheels, which provide operational mobility on highways, then tracked fire support vehicles (tanks, IFVs and arty) need to be supplied with their own wheels - transporters - to keep up with the wheeled LAVs.

The same would be true for Abrams, Bradleys, CV90s, Leos or K9s. Or, for that matter Mobile Protected Firepower vehicles.

Of course, you're going to need a bigger boat.....

There are of course wheeled options for fire support vehicles like Italy's Centauro II. I'd imagine same turret could be mounted on a LAV 6.0 hull.

Tracked with tracked and wheeled with wheeled as @KevinB says makes sense to me. Even better if all the vehicles (IFV, DFS, Mortar, ATGM, GBAD, Recce, etc.) can all use the same chassis.

 

[FJAG]

I think part of what he is getting at is IFV should really keep pace with Abrams/Leo2 tanks (modern MBT), I am a dinosaur of the M113 era, so please enlighten us, can LAV6 keep up with Leo 2? Or terrain dependant?

Very terrain dependent. I did battle runs in Shilo with Leo1s. Shilo is flat-ass prairie without plowed fields and the like but even M113s had trouble keeping up. Marders floated right along side.

On armour defence capability (DEFENCE, as anti-armour vehicles are dedicated and employed differently, I used to be a TOW guy) I will admit, it takes very little to add some sort of AT missile to a turret (for defence).

Again, when the Marders came out with the Milan adapted to the turret they changed tactics a tad and you found ATGM equipped Marders going out as flank guards. I never saw them use missiles with the assaulting group - that's what the tanks were there for. Even after the main assaults, grenadiers would consolidate on or beyond the objectives and set up defenses with dismounted Milans while the Marders concentrated guarding the flanks.

Shilo was somewhat scripted but still, this was in the time of the 9 month draftee and the exercise was the culmination of what they had learned.

All that said. The weapon systems today are much more sophisticated and I can see ATGMs these days being used more like WW2 anti-tank guns were during the assault to leapfrog forward with assaulting infantry and tanks to set up overwatch positions. This is one of the reasons I tend to like keeping heavier anti-armour weapons out of the rifle platoons and in supporting anti-armour detachments. It's two tasks happening simultaneously and its better to have two elements each of which has to concentrate on only one task at a time.

 

[Blackadder1916]

All that said. The weapon systems today are much more sophisticated and I can see ATGMs these days being used more like WW2 anti-tank guns were during the assault to leapfrog forward with assaulting infantry and tanks to set up overwatch positions. This is one of the reasons I tend to like keeping heavier anti-armour weapons out of the rifle platoons and in supporting anti-armour detachments. It's two tasks happening simultaneously and its better to have two elements each of which has to concentrate on only one task at a time.

Corps 86's Chimera enters the chat.

Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer

Hi, Reading the Corps 86 program, I came accross the "Chimera" tank destroyer concept. I made some research, but the only visual I could find was that one, taken from a model: Do you know if there are any drawing or sketch from the author of the concept, about what it would have looked...

army.ca

 

[FJAG]

I had more these type of things in mind:

To be replaced by something like this - only better:

 

[daftandbarmy]

Corps 86's Chimera enters the chat.

Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer

Hi, Reading the Corps 86 program, I came accross the "Chimera" tank destroyer concept. I made some research, but the only visual I could find was that one, taken from a model: Do you know if there are any drawing or sketch from the author of the concept, about what it would have looked...

army.ca

 

[Colin Parkinson]

So what is the ground pressure difference between a LAV 3 and 6?

 

[KevinB]

So what is the ground pressure difference between a LAV 3 and 6?

16.95 t versus 28.6 t
So almost 12 t difference spread around the 8 wheels, I’m not sure what the surface area of the wheel is that touches the ground in standard config - but regardless it is a significant difference.