• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Infantry Vehicles

I think there’s probably an element of them simply not being able to. Of course what exactly the dozen odd TAPVs each artillery regiment is supposed to have are for is a question for the ages.
That was part of it but part of it these things are so fucking fragile people are super risk averse when it comes to them. Can't loan them to unit X for IT purposes like gunnery training because on the off-chance it breaks, it'll be down for months if not years.
 
Again my half facetious suggestion that they'd make wonderful hard targets on a range rears its head.
 
Again my half facetious suggestion that they'd make wonderful hard targets on a range rears its head.
Environmental won’t approve pretty much any tbh big that’s has petroleum in it as a live fire target anymore.
 
Canadian opportunity....


Meanwhile the largest and most advanced military on earth, with a few of the best battle proven IFVs, is right next door - along with all the industrial supply chain to support such a vehicle.

And, unlike other country's vehicles, probably come with proper coffee cup holders ;)
 
Meanwhile the largest and most advanced military on earth, with a few of the best battle proven IFVs, is right next door - along with all the industrial supply chain to support such a vehicle.

And, unlike other country's vehicles, probably come with proper coffee cup holders ;)

There is that. But do they have Boiling Vessels?
 
In a previous post I floated the idea of Canada possibly getting CV90's as our tracked IFV in order to simplify logistics with our partners in Latvia (Multinational Division North is lead by Denmark and includes the Danish 1st Brigade, the Latvian Mechanized Brigade and our Canadian-lead Multinational Brigade - Latvia).

Both Denmark (with it's 1st Brigade and a rotational Mechanized Infantry Battalion in our Multinational Brigade) and Sweden (supplying the other rotational Mechanized Infantry Battalion for our Brigade) use the CV90 (and Leopards).

The four Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden) have just announced that they will be joining together in a joint procurement of a single, common IFV (most likely a CV90 variant, but others are being at least considered). The intent is for all four countries to get the exact same model - no national variants - in order to gain the advantage of volume as well as simplified logistics between the Nordic nations. Maybe it might make sense for Canada to consider joining the program?


Of course the other option to always consider is commonality with the great military Costco of the South...aka the USA and join in on their Bradley replacement project which seems to be moving forward at a reasonable pace:


I guess the main question for Canada is whether we see our Latvia commitment as the primary focus for our Mechanized forces (in which case a joint CV90 procurement with our Latvian partners might make sense) or if we see expanding our deployable Mechanized capability beyond manning (and maintaining) our Latvia commitment to at least an additional Brigade (or up to a full Division) in which case commonality with the US would make more sense.

Regardless of which vehicle we might go with (if we even proceed with a tracked LAV replacement), in my opinion we should replace the planned fly-over Light Battalion to round our our Latvia Brigade with a pre-positioned Mechanized Battalion and keep our Light Battalions focused on possible non-Latvia deployments (to the Arctic or Indo-Pacific for example).

Like most things CAF-related it's hard to make a call when there is really no clear sense of where our Defence policy objectives are going.
 
FWIW, I wouldn’t be holding my breath for XM-30. There is a rumor it’s been defunded for FY25 as more money has been allocated to AMPV, including previously unplanned Turreted versions.
 
FWIW, I wouldn’t be holding my breath for XM-30. There is a rumor it’s been defunded for FY25 as more money has been allocated to AMPV, including previously unplanned Turreted versions.
So, if the XM-30 is being dropped as a replacement for the Bradley then is the intention to life-extend the Bradleys and keep the AMPV as M113 replacements or is it to develop the turreted AMPV versions into Bradley replacements so you have a single tracked fleet in the ABCT's?
 
So, if the XM-30 is being dropped as a replacement for the Bradley then is the intention to life-extend the Bradleys and keep the AMPV as M113 replacements or is it to develop the turreted AMPV versions into Bradley replacements so you have a single tracked fleet in the ABCT's?

I suggest a clue may be found here -

At the Army’s mainstay conference, Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George said the service won’t hesitate to cut programs that don’t support its modernization goals—and will no longer buy programs “for ten years at a time.” The service has canceled programs it invested billions in, like the Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft program, or FARA—an effort once hailed as the service’s No. 1 aviation priority. And FARA’s end might not be the final dramatic program move the Army makes, service officials have warned.

"Even if it was a requirement in the past. Even if it was a program of record, we may have to stop buying it," George said on Tuesday at the AUSA conference.


....

Iteration is probably the future. Working with what is on hand and modifying it as quickly and cheaply as possible to keep up with the tactical changes necessitated by the weekly morphs resulting from the EW/UAS/C-UAS battles.

Multi-decade programmes of record are not solving real-world problems.

...

Every successful battle starts with an Operations Order. Early battles are fought on the basis of doctrine. Later battles are driven more by Situation and solutions are found that diverge from doctrine. Doctrine is then driven by the last successful Operations Order. In peacetime it can be a long time between tests of doctrine.
 
Another example of the move to Iteration -

Maj. Gen. Frank Lozano, the Army’s program executive officer for missiles and space, on Monday announced the service’s intent to walk away from the effort, called the Lower-Tier Future Interceptor (LTFI). Instead of buying a new interceptor, which Lozano called “very expensive,” the Army will upgrade the PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement currently made by Lockheed Martin, he told Defense News.

 
The Brits too are leaning into Iteration.

Not sure if this has been posted before, but an interesting series of articles in the Summer 2024 British Army Review on accelerating modernization.


🍻

“We must learn to make the most
of what we have now. The Armed
Forces of Ukraine have shown
how this can be done... they
have scavenged inventory and
integrated old with new, iterated
software hacks to mesh systems
that deliver targeting cycles aided
by machine learning, fought
drone warfare at scale and
pieced together a sophisticated
layered air defence system.”

General Sir Roly Walker, Chief of General Staff
 
Suggestion for the Canadian Army

Start with the next TAPV Iteration - fix the 500 vehicles that are available and render them useful.
 
Like most things CAF-related it's hard to make a call when there is really no clear sense of where our Defence policy objectives are going.
I'm not sure how much more one needs in defence policy. Our current direction is clear enough. Leading a multi-national brigade in Latvia and "other stuff." One needs to build a plan around that and to me that's not difficult. It encompasses a heavy mechanized force as the main expeditionary element in Latvia and light and medium mechanized forces for that "other stuff."

IMHO, tying oneself to the CV90 because some Scandinavians have them won't simplify your logistics chain. It will still be based off-shore and in countries that are at risk and provide limited production chains which need to be shared amongst several users. (As an aside I doubt they will come up with a common standard vehicle without too much compromising)

FWIW, I wouldn’t be holding my breath for XM-30. There is a rumor it’s been defunded for FY25 as more money has been allocated to AMPV, including previously unplanned Turreted versions.

Personally I'd take the AMPV option which now seems to be developing a vehicle fleet of multiple options (such as an IFV and various CS models) based around a common tracked chassis with common turret/weapon options.

It would be worthwhile if some of those CS weapon options be adopted to our current ACSV low-hull chassis as well so that commonality inside the vehicles exists between the heavy and mech fleets. (It strikes me that we could easily adapt the ExMEP universal top plate concept to the ACSV to allow commonality of turret/weapon systems)

It would be particulalry useful if we also made a BAE production/assembly plant in SW Ontario a condition of the AMPV. We need a broader long-term sustainment infrastructure in Canada.

🍻
 
In a previous post I floated the idea of Canada possibly getting CV90's as our tracked IFV in order to simplify logistics with our partners in Latvia (Multinational Division North is lead by Denmark and includes the Danish 1st Brigade, the Latvian Mechanized Brigade and our Canadian-lead Multinational Brigade - Latvia).

Both Denmark (with it's 1st Brigade and a rotational Mechanized Infantry Battalion in our Multinational Brigade) and Sweden (supplying the other rotational Mechanized Infantry Battalion for our Brigade) use the CV90 (and Leopards).

The four Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden) have just announced that they will be joining together in a joint procurement of a single, common IFV (most likely a CV90 variant, but others are being at least considered). The intent is for all four countries to get the exact same model - no national variants - in order to gain the advantage of volume as well as simplified logistics between the Nordic nations. Maybe it might make sense for Canada to consider joining the program?


Of course the other option to always consider is commonality with the great military Costco of the South...aka the USA and join in on their Bradley replacement project which seems to be moving forward at a reasonable pace:


I guess the main question for Canada is whether we see our Latvia commitment as the primary focus for our Mechanized forces (in which case a joint CV90 procurement with our Latvian partners might make sense) or if we see expanding our deployable Mechanized capability beyond manning (and maintaining) our Latvia commitment to at least an additional Brigade (or up to a full Division) in which case commonality with the US would make more sense.

Regardless of which vehicle we might go with (if we even proceed with a tracked LAV replacement), in my opinion we should replace the planned fly-over Light Battalion to round our our Latvia Brigade with a pre-positioned Mechanized Battalion and keep our Light Battalions focused on possible non-Latvia deployments (to the Arctic or Indo-Pacific for example).

Like most things CAF-related it's hard to make a call when there is really no clear sense of where our Defence policy objectives are going.
Yes to all of this but at present replacing the LAV 6.0 isn’t a high priority. Is it ideal? Probably not, but it works. FWIW the Danes also operate Piranhas V, 300 vs 44 CV90, which are LAVs.
 
I'm not sure how much more one needs in defence policy. Our current direction is clear enough. Leading a multi-national brigade in Latvia and "other stuff." One needs to build a plan around that and to me that's not difficult. It encompasses a heavy mechanized force as the main expeditionary element in Latvia and light and medium mechanized forces for that "other stuff."

IMHO, tying oneself to the CV90 because some Scandinavians have them won't simplify your logistics chain. It will still be based off-shore and in countries that are at risk and provide limited production chains which need to be shared amongst several users. (As an aside I doubt they will come up with a common standard vehicle without too much compromising)



Personally I'd take the AMPV option which now seems to be developing a vehicle fleet of multiple options (such as an IFV and various CS models) based around a common tracked chassis with common turret/weapon options.

It would be worthwhile if some of those CS weapon options be adopted to our current ACSV low-hull chassis as well so that commonality inside the vehicles exists between the heavy and mech fleets. (It strikes me that we could easily adapt the ExMEP universal top plate concept to the ACSV to allow commonality of turret/weapon systems)

It would be particulalry useful if we also made a BAE production/assembly plant in SW Ontario a condition of the AMPV. We need a broader long-term sustainment infrastructure in Canada.

🍻
I think encouraging BAE to have Bradley/AMPV facilities in Canada would be amazing.

Not sure if Ontario is the best place Politically - albeit it makes the most sense in terms of production and distribution for supplies etc.

Maybe the ideal world would have a BAE BV/BsV facility in Quebec, a BAE AMPV/Bradley plant near GDLS in London and offset with a GDLS tank facility in Alberta.

Plus a bunch of munitions plants across Canada.
 
I'm not sure how much more one needs in defence policy. Our current direction is clear enough. Leading a multi-national brigade in Latvia and "other stuff." One needs to build a plan around that and to me that's not difficult. It encompasses a heavy mechanized force as the main expeditionary element in Latvia and light and medium mechanized forces for that "other stuff."
SSE and ONSAF are peacetime defence policies. Neither address the elephant in the room that you like to note which is mobilization for wartime.

There's a huge difference in how we need to organize and equip the CA between simply sustaining the existing Multi-National Brigade deployment in Latvia in a conflict and ramping up to a full all-Canadian Brigade Group or even Divisional deployment for a war.

The "other stuff" is pretty vague as well. If we truly are at a point where the potential for a full-scale conflict with Russia or China (possibly even both at the same time) is a serious risk then it the GOC and CAF should have a clear plan as to what we expect to be able to deploy as well as a solid plan to sustain it.
 
Yes to all of this but at present replacing the LAV 6.0 isn’t a high priority. Is it ideal? Probably not, but it works. FWIW the Danes also operate Piranhas V, 300 vs 44 CV90, which are LAVs.
Notwithstanding my preference for a tracked IFV to work with tanks in a heavy brigade, I'm fully with keeping the six battalions of LAV 6 and ACSV that we are currently holding. In my book they make two very useful mech brigades if supported by something better than the M777 like a wheeled 155 and are provided with ample ATGM and AD systems as a baseline.

SSE and ONSAF are peacetime defence policies. Neither address the elephant in the room that you like to note which is mobilization for wartime.
IMHO (and General Belzile's) a defence policy that only looks at a peacetime situation without a plan to grow for a major conflict is negligence at the highest level of the political leadership, the bureaucracy and the military itself.

There's a huge difference in how we need to organize and equip the CA between simply sustaining the existing Multi-National Brigade deployment in Latvia in a conflict and ramping up to a full all-Canadian Brigade Group or even Divisional deployment for a war.
Yes there is. We do the former. We should be prepared for the latter.

The "other stuff" is pretty vague as well. If we truly are at a point where the potential for a full-scale conflict with Russia or China (possibly even both at the same time) is a serious risk then it the GOC and CAF should have a clear plan as to what we expect to be able to deploy as well as a solid plan to sustain it.
I don't think we need to be "truly at a point where the potential for a full-scale conflict with Russia and China) ... is a serious risk." It should merely be a point where it is a serious enough possibility so that it calls for credible deterrence.

The gold standard of deterrence and assurance is a defensive posture that confronts the adversary with the prospect of operational failure as the likely consequence of aggression.<sup></sup>

Deterrence figures in the SSE:

The re-emergence of major power competition has reminded Canada and its allies of the importance of deterrence. ... A credible military deterrence serves as a diplomatic tool to prevent conflict and should be accompanied by dialogue. NATO allies ... have been re-examining how to deter a wide spectrum of challenges to the international order by maintaining advanced conventional military capabilities that could be used in the event of a conflict with a “near-peer.” (Emphasis added).
Looking merely at a force large enough to fulfill peacetime deployments falls far short of what are essentially peacetime deployment and deterrence needs. Those are two very different things and, IMHO, the latter is what needs to be properly addressed. I'll go a tiny step further. IMHO, we have a sufficiently large enough PY and ARes structure to do that. We are far too short in equipment and organization.



https://army.ca/forums/#_ednref1 Ochmanek, David et al. “U.S. Military Capabilities and Forces for a Dangerous World” RAND Corp 2017 at p. 45 https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1782-1.html

🍻
 
Notwithstanding my preference for a tracked IFV to work with tanks in a heavy brigade, I'm fully with keeping the six battalions of LAV 6 and ACSV that we are currently holding. In my book they make two very useful mech brigades if supported by something better than the M777 like a wheeled 155 and are provided with ample ATGM and AD systems as a baseline.
For what? Unfortunately without an ATGM nor Depleted Uranium rounds for the 25mm cannon, they cannot conduct much anti armor work effectively. So you end up requiring the very few tanks Canada has to do AT work as the Infantry cannot.

They combined with the fact the 8x8 LAV 6.0 isn’t as mobile cross country as the tanks, you end up with some significant mobility issues, not to mention overwatch and support issues.

It wouldn’t be so awful if Canada hadn’t ditched the M113 TUA but…

Canada’s Army isn’t a LSCO force.



IMHO (and General Belzile's) a defence policy that only looks at a peacetime situation without a plan to grow for a major conflict is negligence at the highest level of the political leadership, the bureaucracy and the military itself.
Solution mothball most of the LAV for mobilization or the PRes, and get a T-IFV

Get a lot more tanks, as 1 Bde worth of tanks (ish) isn’t enough for a wartime Bde let alone the fact you have 3 Bde’s that all play at being CMBG’s.
 
Back
Top