Infantry Vehicles

[Colin Parkinson]

Problem with a "Tracked LAV" is you have an orphan fleet. I go either Bradley or CV90, that way we have commonality of parts and training. Both have a family of vehicles, although the CV 90 family is bigger. The CV90 could be assembled here.

 

[GR66]

Exactly. Why buy European manufactured equipment when we have the the world's biggest Armoury/Arsenal as our neighbour. It's a no brainer to spend a few million more at GDLS on a tracked LAV and what could be the answer to acquiring tracked vehicles.
Rebuild some M1s under License in CANADA at GDLS
Build Tracked LAVs in CANADA at GDLS
Sole sourced Canadian content.

Be prepared to HEAVILY subsidize any Canadian production of armoured vehicles then. We simply don't order enough to keep a line running and most of the vehicles you'd be looking at already have production elsewhere so export opportunities would likely be very limited (I'm sure any CV90 or other licensing agreement would be designed to prevent us from competing against the parent company).

The one option I see as being potentially viable if we 100% feel the need for domestic production would be to have GDLS Canada produce the Griffin III IFV which is the General Dynamics submission for the US Army's Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) program. It uses the same basic hull as the Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) direct fire support vehicle that has already been selected by the US for their IBCTs.

IF we were to act quickly (i.e. BEFORE the OMFV decision is made in the US) you could not only get production here, but if the Griffin III is selected by the US we could possibly get some of that production as well if a line is already in place in London. The risk would be that the US selects a different vehicle and we are left with an orphan fleet (and miss out on logistical commonality with the US Army).

 

[Prairie canuck]

Problem with a "Tracked LAV" is you have an orphan fleet. I go either Bradley or CV90, that way we have commonality of parts and training. Both have a family of vehicles, although the CV 90 family is bigger. The CV90 could be assembled here.

It's not an orphaned fleet if the manufacturer is in your back yard. Choosing a CV90 whose parts chain extends overseas is considerably more orphaned. Besides, tell me the US (marines?) wouldn't be very interested in a tracked LAV that's in production and in service by a US/Can manufacturer.

 

[Kirkhill]

Exactly. Why buy European manufactured equipment when we have the the world's biggest Armoury/Arsenal as our neighbour. It's a no brainer to spend a few million more at GDLS on a tracked LAV and what could be the answer to acquiring tracked vehicles.
Rebuild some M1s under License in CANADA at GDLS
Build Tracked LAVs in CANADA at GDLS
Sole sourced Canadian content.

Or swap London's Advanced Reconnaissance Vehicles for Lima's M1s (or GDLS's MPF vehicle)

With three prototypes in hand, Marines ready for recon vehicle testing

The Marine Corps will test three options for its Advanced Reconnaissance Vehicle in early 2023, now that all competitors have turned in their vehicles.

www.defensenews.com

The GDLS ARV appears to be a Stryker/LAV type vehicle in the 15 to 20 tonne range.

 

[IKnowNothing]

It's not an orphaned fleet if the manufacturer is in your back yard. Choosing a CV90 whose parts chain extends overseas is considerably more orphaned. Besides, tell me the US (marines?) wouldn't be very interested in a tracked LAV that's in production and in service by a US/Can manufacturer.

The fleet size of "non-orphaned" non us fleets isnt so big. Something like 1280 CV90's, less than 800 warriors, 1000 ascods.

If Canada fully committed to giving something like the Griffin full "LAV" treatment with a full suite of vehicles for 3 cmbg's (cav regiment, 2x mech bn, coy+ bde reserve) with proper cs companies, thats what, 600+ before getting to engineer, recovery, acsv replacements, etc?

 

[childs56]

I am pretty certain the countries who Currently own LAV fleets would be happy to order Tracked versions. It is similar to when Canada was introducing the LAV III initially. Not much interest in the platform elsewhere due to it not being tracked. A few live examples of its level of protection, agility and bam the US orders a pile.

I really really like the CV90, it seems to be a good platform, multi versed easily changed over for various missions. But It is a overseas foreign designed and built platform. It would take more convincing of the Canadian Market to buy and build those here then to manufacture a platform designed and built this side of the pond. Plus it would be compatible with the turrets an program's that have been in development for the LAV series all along. which are tied in with the US.

 

[KevinB]

Exactly. Why buy European manufactured equipment when we have the the world's biggest Armoury/Arsenal as our neighbour. It's a no brainer to spend a few million more at GDLS on a tracked LAV and what could be the answer to acquiring tracked vehicles.
Rebuild some M1s under License in CANADA at GDLS
Build Tracked LAVs in CANADA at GDLS
Sole sourced Canadian content.

GD and the DoD are not going to stand up an Abrams line in Canada for 100 tanks.

GDLS has a lot more practical options for a tracked IFV than T LAV.

 

[KevinB]

I am pretty certain the countries who Currently own LAV fleets would be happy to order Tracked versions. It is similar to when Canada was introducing the LAV III initially. Not much interest in the platform elsewhere due to it not being tracked. A few live examples of its level of protection, agility and bam the US orders a pile.

I really really like the CV90, it seems to be a good platform, multi versed easily changed over for various missions. But It is an overseas foreign designed and built platform. It would take more convincing of the Canadian Market to buy and build those here then to manufacture a platform designed and built this side of the pond. Plus it would be compatible with the turrets a program's that have been in development for the LAV series all along. which are tied in with the US.

BAE is an NATO based multinational, with the best record in tracked IFV’s: Bradley and CV90.

You’d be pissing up a rope trying to argue that a concept vehicle from GDLS London would be a better option.

Better option would be to put a BAE factory somewhere in Quebec to built CV90’s…

 

[childs56]

BAE is an NATO based multinational, with the best record in tracked IFV’s: Bradley and CV90.

You’d be pissing up a rope trying to argue that a concept vehicle from GDLS London would be a better option.

Better option would be to put a BAE factory somewhere in Quebec to built CV90’s…

Not really much of a concept vehicle the hull is already proven, the track system is new to the hull but definitely a workable solution I would think part of a already in use drive system.

I doubt very much BAE would open a line here in Canada. In the chance they did we would have to finance the cost 100%, where we already have a line building LAVs.
Either way we need to figure out a better domestic system then we have.

 

[GR66]

BAE is an NATO based multinational, with the best record in tracked IFV’s: Bradley and CV90.

You’d be pissing up a rope trying to argue that a concept vehicle from GDLS London would be a better option.

Better option would be to put a BAE factory somewhere in Quebec to built CV90’s…

I still think we should wait for the outcome of the OMFV program. The fact that GD already has the MPF contract which uses the same basic hull as the Griffin III they are offering might give them a little boost just due to commonality.

Interesting as well that BAE is offering a new design rather than a CV90 variant as they "didn't see an existing vehicle that had the space and the growth” to meet army requirements, That suggests that BAE might believe that they've taken the CV90 platform as far as it's able to go. If we were to go with the CV90 would it be a case of jumping on an excellent platform decades after it was cutting edge and everyone else is already looking to replace theirs?

 

[Prairie canuck]

The fleet size of "non-orphaned" non us fleets isnt so big. Something like 1280 CV90's, less than 800 warriors, 1000 ascods.

If Canada fully committed to giving something like the Griffin full "LAV" treatment with a full suite of vehicles for 3 cmbg's (cav regiment, 2x mech bn, coy+ bde reserve) with proper cs companies, thats what, 600+ before getting to engineer, recovery, acsv replacements, etc?

I'm certainly not advocating for the wholesale replacement of Wheeled LAVs. I would advocate for replacing 200 (or so) wheeled with tracked.

 

[Prairie canuck]

GD and the DoD are not going to stand up an Abrams line in Canada for 100 tanks.

GDLS has a lot more practical options for a tracked IFV than T LAV.

If the US says no then order new builds but as suggested lend 30 - 40 M1's for training until the new builds arrive.
Would the US not be encouraged to see it's neighbour switch to American and North American built equipment? Of course they would..
GDLS has other tracked options but the LAV's are already built here and there's a prototype so start a partial second line to build tracked versions.

POLITICs usurps "other options" when you can stamp a "made in Canada" tag on the hull.

As with how LAV IIIs were upgraded, up-armored, to the LAV6 the TLAV would likely experience the same and a block heater would be standard.

 

[KevinB]

If we were to go with the CV90 would it be a case of jumping on an excellent platform decades after it was cutting edge and everyone else is already looking to replace theirs?

Sounds right

 

[Spencer100]

If your aim is support Canadian industry. Canada basically has 4 options. GDLS with their large Canadian footprint. BAE systems with their global systems on offer everything from Bradley to CV90 (you may even in a open bid see them completing against each other.) Rheinmetall with a Quebec base and the German offers. Then last Nexter (would maybe team with Arquus to give them the Volvo, Mack and Provost Car CDN content.)

You support GDLS-Canada with builds out of the London plant. Childs54 option of a tracked LAV would be the only one that gets Canada export manufacturing. Its a long shot. Canada would have to pay for the R&D as the tracked LAV is not fully formed. Plus I would think the SA export contract uproar puts Canadian exports in a bad light.

All the other options you may get a "final assembly" in a plant in Canada. Rheinmetall has a plant in Quebec. Nexter could assemble at Provost. BAE would have to partner or build a new plant. All these options see you tool up to build the CDN requirement then close. There would be no export opportunities.

So I would suggest the better course would be have the international companies support a global site of excellence in Canada for a product line they are doing. IE GDLS is easy its the LAV. BAE could be anything say suspensions. etc.

 

[IKnowNothing]

I'm certainly not advocating for the wholesale replacement of Wheeled LAVs. I would advocate for replacing 200 (or so) wheeled with tracked.

I think that's two fundamentally different discussions with very different timelines. 200 tracked IFV's to run a mixed fleet with the LAV's would fit in with short term capability filling and need to get in line with the current laundry list of priorities. If were to have a high enough backing to jump the queue it would also likely have enough urgency to see us want to fill as quickly as possible and go off the shelf, in which case a lease/purchase combo of in stock Brads would make more sense.

Domestic Griffin III/ Tracked LAV / whatever production is a long term play requiring some foresight and vision for the Army to be, and based on timelines only represents a slightly ahead of schedule full fleet recapitalization. We've shown a strong leaning towards being willing field a single weight, single chassis force, and were one election away from that fleet being tracked (TH-495). Given the current geopolitical climate there could/should be arguments made for the next version of that being weighted more towards peer warfighting than PSO.

Timeline
Lets say this vision for a Griffin army had weight behind it, with the political backing to make sure it got to GDLS-C. ACSV project runs to 2024/25. 21 months to conceptualize, define requirements, gain that political backing, get go ahead, develop variants. Extremely optimistic.

Start production in 2025, start with the hottest fire (RCAC- clapped out Leo's, undergunned LAV's, TAPV's) plus necessesary support vehicles, ~180 CAV Recce + 20 Recovery/Engineering etc. 200 vehicles easily into 2027. Again probably optimistic.

2027 you're starting production of your ~500 ISC's, OPV's, Mortar carriers, AT etc. for the RCIC battalions by the time you're done that you're in the 2030's, pulling the 6.0's off the line with no more than a handful of years left in the lifespan (refurbish for sale, reserves?)

If we go down the road to domestic tracked IFV production the wholesale replacement of the 6.0 fleet will be required.

 

[Rifleman62]

POLITICs usurps "other options" when you can stamp a "made in Canada Quebec" tag on the hull.

 

[KevinB]

Not really much of a concept vehicle the hull is already proven, the track system is new to the hull but definitely a workable solution I would think part of a already in use drive system.

GDLS took it off their website last month...
There is a massive difference between wheeled suspensions and tracked systems - and the bottom 1/3rd of the hull would be an entirely different vehicle.

I doubt very much BAE would open a line here in Canada. In the chance they did we would have to finance the cost 100%, where we already have a line building LAVs.

Business is business, one can pretty much guarantee if CV90 had won CCV, then BAE would have built a plant to supplement their European build sites for it.

Either way we need to figure out a better domestic system then we have.

The biggest issue to Canadian production is always limited production runs for CA usage, abrupt changes in direction, and Canadian Export variations that tend to change depending on the whims of the PMO. Because of that few if any Multinational Defense companies are going to expand more into Canada, and very few Canadian based companies are going to risk sinking a lot of capital into solo ventures.

One of the reason why I think it would be wiser to jump into bed early with US DOD programs, to gain economic offset from subcontracts - is it ideal no, and I think Canada needs a robust domestic defense industry, but I also don't see the monies to support that coming any time soon, as most Canadians would prefer more social programs to defense spending.
So to keep the best value for dollar in DND, buying into US programs and early is the best COA, until a national mindset change occurs (if ever).

 

[Spencer100]

GDLS took it off their website last month...
There is a massive difference between wheeled suspensions and tracked systems - and the bottom 1/3rd of the hull would be an entirely different vehicle.


Business is business, one can pretty much guarantee if CV90 had won CCV, then BAE would have built a plant to supplement their European build sites for it.


The biggest issue to Canadian production is always limited production runs for CA usage, abrupt changes in direction, and Canadian Export variations that tend to change depending on the whims of the PMO. Because of that few if any Multinational Defense companies are going to expand more into Canada, and very few Canadian based companies are going to risk sinking a lot of capital into solo ventures.

One of the reason why I think it would be wiser to jump into bed early with US DOD programs, to gain economic offset from subcontracts - is it ideal no, and I think Canada needs a robust domestic defense industry, but I also don't see the monies to support that coming any time soon, as most Canadians would prefer more social programs to defense spending.
So to keep the best value for dollar in DND, buying into US programs and early is the best COA, until a national mindset change occurs (if ever).

That is the smart thing is go junior partner. But then you get the F-35. Canada as a level 2 partner was getting an outsized piece of the sub system so much so there was complaint from the other level 2 partners.

This would be especially true in the automotive as in ground type systems. Canada's automotive system companies are still world class. It would most likely help some too.

Two large Automotive tier one Magna and Linamar plus others. FYI Magna owns and runs the plant the G-wagons are built. There is still one truck manufacturing plant in Canada, Paccar in Quebec. The Volvo AB divisions Provost Car and Nova Bus in Quebec build buses and coaches. Bus are also built in Winnipeg by New Flyer (Canadian owned!) There is still some Contruction, Ag industrial and mining manufacturing in Canada. CaseNH, Arva, London (Oshkosh) John deere etc.

The Detroit 3 automotive companies. Ford has 2 engine plants, one assembly plant. GM two assembly plants Ingersoll and Oshawa. One powertrain plant. (not really helpful but Honda and Toyota each have two sites with a Toyota wheel plant in BC.) Stellantis (Chrysler, Dodge, Ram, Fiat, Jeep, Lancia, Opel, Peugeot, Vauxhall, Maserati etc.) Has two assembly plants and a casting plant.

There are many upfitters from Ambulances and to mining equipment. Plus companies like DEW engineering to give Canadian content. Rheinmetall Canada also. They are more service type locations.

Plus GDLS-Canada with the London Plant.

 

[childs56]

GDLS took it off their website last month...

I wonder if it has to do with the AJAX issues they are having. I mean if you built another system that works as advertised it might make their AJAX issues look worse.

There is a massive difference between wheeled suspensions and tracked systems - and the bottom 1/3rd of the hull would be an entirely different vehicle.

I am guessing they figured that out.

Business is business, one can pretty much guarantee if CV90 had won CCV, then BAE would have built a plant to supplement their European build sites for it.


The biggest issue to Canadian production is always limited production runs for CA usage, abrupt changes in direction, and Canadian Export variations that tend to change depending on the whims of the PMO. Because of that few if any Multinational Defense companies are going to expand more into Canada, and very few Canadian based companies are going to risk sinking a lot of capital into solo ventures.

We already have a GDLDS plant in Canada that builds LAVS so it would make sense to continue using that plant to build upon similar platforms.

One of the reason why I think it would be wiser to jump into bed early with US DOD programs, to gain economic offset from subcontracts - is it ideal no, and I think Canada needs a robust domestic defense industry, but I also don't see the monies to support that coming any time soon, as most Canadians would prefer more social programs to defense spending.
So to keep the best value for dollar in DND, buying into US programs and early is the best COA, until a national mindset change occurs (if ever).

 

[Spencer100]

I wonder if it has to do with the AJAX issues they are having. I mean if you built another system that works as advertised it might make their AJAX issues look worse.

I am guessing they figured that out.

We already have a GDLDS plant in Canada that builds LAVS so it would make sense to continue using that plant to build upon similar platforms.

The tracked LAV was really just a model. It was like a concept car at an auto show. Most concept cars can not be driven and or not production ready.
More of design model to gage customer interest. If some one bit they would have said we will work on it. And here is the R&D bill for it. I doubt they even motored though any courses. But maybe they did.

That being said I would think idea of sticking with GDLS Canada as a lead supplier has merit. But then you get into single bidder problem for politicians.

Saw a piece yesterday abput Quebec politicians upset about the Senator from Rshel purchases for Ukraine and that there was no bidding done. So any industrial planning for Make in Canada in the end are useless.

The NSS plan even got in trouble because of Davey. Plus I bet you see ton more bitching before the first CSC is started. And then even after the first batch again.

Even with fire arms and Colt Canada as the center of excellence and made in Canada how that pistol replacement going? How long to replace the Lee Enfield for the Rangers? And that's just a bolt action rifle.

Military and industrial policy in this country are never going to work.

Look even the government daring Bombardier before it imploded was told to not invest in Military products. Or they would not receive the grants and loans for the different planes they designed and built. And for most part they did not. Sold the missile business right after they purchased it. Did not really go after Military work. Had the infamous CF18 MRO contract and the pilot training but also sold them.