Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[IKnowNothing]

Taking a more pragmatic approach I'd suggest we'd have a better concentration of effort (and more focused equipment/vehicle recapitalization plan) if we were to have three symmetric Mechanized Brigades. I'd suggest each with 1 x Armoured Regiment and 2 x LAV Battalions per Brigade. I'd convert the 3rd Battalions of each Regiment into 30/70 LAV Battalions. This would free up some existing Infantry PYs to fill out the remaining 100/0 LAV Battalions and at the same time begin the restructuring of the Reserves into a more deployable force.

In my dream world I'd have all three of the Armoured Regiments as Tank Regiments, but I honestly don't see the GOC replacing our existing fleet of 82 tanks with the approx. 150 that would be needed. Realistically I see them upgrading/replacing the existing fleet with similar numbers so I'd go with 3 x Cavalry Regiments each with 1 x Tank Squadron. That would allow all three Brigades to practice tank/infantry co-operation and if required we could pool the three Tank Squadrons into a single Tank Regiment.

Was thinking similar

Changes
-making the 3 CMBG Cavalry regiments 2x squadrons and standing up a 4th RCAC Regiment with 3 full, co-located tank squadrons. Have a coy LAV set at the same location to allow for fly in square combat team training. Increased economy of effort to maintain tank capability
-the RegF coy from the 3rd 30/70 Bn retains the light/QRF tasking, but the whole Bn is equipped and trained for Styker/UK Mech (Mastiffs) protected mobility infantry. Cut the added cost and training complexity of turrets and the mounted fight

Wartime bde either has the tank regiment slotted in as the 3rd maneuver unit, or a battalion of non-IFV mech infantry


Sideline- I also really like the UK infantry nomenclature of Armoured -> Mechanized -> Light.

 

[KevinB]

I wonder how the GDLS/MOWAG license regime holds up here in Canada?

Is the LAV6 sufficiently different to the LAVIII that Swiss interests are not involved? Or is the ACSV acceptable because it doesn't have a turret?

Denmark to send armored personnel carriers, heavy mortars to Ukraine

Denmark will send 25 Piranha III wheeled armored personnel carriers and M10 heavy mortars to the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Olfi Danish media outlet reports. — Ukrinform.

www.ukrinform.net

Latest Developments in Ukraine: April 30

Latest developments in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine

www.voanews.com

Switzerland blocks Denmark from sending Piranha III armoured vehicles to Ukraine

According to reports, Denmark had planned to hand over 20 Swiss-made armoured personnel carriers to Ukraine, however, Switzerland has blocked the request because ‘they do not want to supply weapons to…

euroweeklynews.com

Swiss veto Danish request to send armoured vehicles to Ukraine

The Swiss government has vetoed Denmark's request to send Swiss-made armoured personnel carriers to Ukraine, citing its neutrality policy of not supplying arms to conflict zones.

www.reuters.com

Swiss could green-light Denmark sending weapons to Ukraine - The Copenhagen Post

Government committee agreed this week to drop an export ban of Swiss-produced military equipment to Ukraine

cphpost.dk

Piranha caught in the same trap as Leopards and Gepards.

As I understand it, DD GM went their own route on the 8x8's starting with the LAV-25 and Bison that didn't really on MOWAG.
So GDLS is free and clear on their LAV fleets as they are now solely US and Canadian designs.

 

[KevinB]

With regard to the highlighted portion...do we REALLY have two core skills - light infantry and mechanized infantry - or do we really just have three Infantry Battalions that we're too cheap to provide vehicles for?

Not at all. There have been ebbs and flows in the LIB's, but they are more than just mirrors of the 1st and 2nd BN's without LAV's.
There is a huge difference between the capabilities of the two - IF the Light units are allowed to train as actual light entities.

To be honest, due to the risk aversion of our Government I can't really see us deploying a truly light force (i.e. not mounted in protected vehicles) in any type of peace support operations and in case of any major peer conflict I'm sure our focus will be on deploying our mechanized forces.

Armored Vehicles take time to move - even more so with Canada's limited movement fleets (Air and Sea).
Light Forces can rapidly deploy with Assets the CAF already has. Properly Equipped Light Forces can be formidable entities if employed correctly.

My impression is that we don't really have the doctrine or the required equipment/enablers/logistics capability to deploy an effective Light Battle Group or Brigade to a peer conflict at the same time as we're also surging our Mechanized forces.

You have zero ability to surge a Mech Battle Group.

The only inherent capability of our Light Battalions that we can really leverage is the ability to deploy them rapidly by air due to the lack of heavy vehicles. Is this not something that can be overcome in Europe by pre-positioning equipment for the NATO mission and if urgently required elsewhere could we not deploy our Mechanized infantry without their vehicles and have the heavy equipment follow?

If you look at the original US response to Russian build up in Ukraine - we surged XVIII Airborne Corps, and V Corps units (who had prepositioned vehicles) the Light units where able to move into positions in Poland weeks before the Heavy units managed to get their equipment into position.

Does trying to split our focus on two different skill sets (light and mechanized infantry) not dilute our capabilities in both when we are short on both personnel and equipment?

I think the biggest Fallacy that Canadians make is that they actually have CMBG's

Taking a more pragmatic approach I'd suggest we'd have a better concentration of effort (and more focused equipment/vehicle recapitalization plan) if we were to have three symmetric Mechanized Brigades. I'd suggest each with 1 x Armoured Regiment and 2 x LAV Battalions per Brigade. I'd convert the 3rd Battalions of each Regiment into 30/70 LAV Battalions. This would free up some existing Infantry PYs to fill out the remaining 100/0 LAV Battalions and at the same time begin the restructuring of the Reserves into a more deployable force.

I think a significantly more realistic take would be cutting the Brigades into Asymetrical Bde's each with 3 Maneuver Elements, as opposed to the sort of 4 methods tried now.
1 Bde would get 1 Tank Reg't and 2 Infantry Bn (LAV) 1 Heavy Combat Engineer Reg't, and an 18 Gun M109A7 RCHA
2 Bde would get 3 Infantry Bn Light, 1 Combat Engineer Regiment Light, a 18gun M777 RCHA
5 Bde would get 1 Cav Reg't and 2 Inf Bn (LAV), 1 Combat Engineer Regiment LAV, and a Wheeled SPA RALC

In my dream world I'd have all three of the Armoured Regiments as Tank Regiments, but I honestly don't see the GOC replacing our existing fleet of 82 tanks with the approx. 150 that would be needed. Realistically I see them upgrading/replacing the existing fleet with similar numbers so I'd go with 3 x Cavalry Regiments each with 1 x Tank Squadron. That would allow all three Brigades to practice tank/infantry co-operation and if required we could pool the three Tank Squadrons into a single Tank Regiment.

I would amend the dream to have:
1 Bde an Armored Bde - with 2 Tank Reg't and transition the Inf to CV90 BN's
The LAV from 1 would go to creating a 2nd CAV Bde like 5.

6 CCSB would be segmented in 3 modes to offer support to all Bde's and have a Heavy Tracked side, a Light, and a LAV based component.

 

[GR66]

Not at all. There have been ebbs and flows in the LIB's, but they are more than just mirrors of the 1st and 2nd BN's without LAV's.
There is a huge difference between the capabilities of the two - IF the Light units are allowed to train as actual light entities.

Armored Vehicles take time to move - even more so with Canada's limited movement fleets (Air and Sea).
Light Forces can rapidly deploy with Assets the CAF already has. Properly Equipped Light Forces can be formidable entities if employed correctly.

You have zero ability to surge a Mech Battle Group.

If you look at the original US response to Russian build up in Ukraine - we surged XVIII Airborne Corps, and V Corps units (who had prepositioned vehicles) the Light units where able to move into positions in Poland weeks before the Heavy units managed to get their equipment into position.

I understand what you are saying here about LIBs vs Mech Battalions but my point is that a true "Light" capability requires more than just a bunch of infantry that aren't in vehicles. There are a lot of support elements and specialized kit that are required to make them effective. I'm simply questioning if we have that currently...or if there is a realistic prospect of our getting our Light Battalions to that point given all of our other competing priorities.

If the answer is NO then I'd argue that there isn't much difference between rapidly deploying one of our Light Battalions and rapidly deploying one of our LAV Battalions without their vehicles. And IF there is no real difference between the two then why not standardize our organization and just have LAV Battalions?

I think a significantly more realistic take would be cutting the Brigades into Asymetrical Bde's each with 3 Maneuver Elements, as opposed to the sort of 4 methods tried now.
1 Bde would get 1 Tank Reg't and 2 Infantry Bn (LAV) 1 Heavy Combat Engineer Reg't, and an 18 Gun M109A7 RCHA
2 Bde would get 3 Infantry Bn Light, 1 Combat Engineer Regiment Light, a 18gun M777 RCHA
5 Bde would get 1 Cav Reg't and 2 Inf Bn (LAV), 1 Combat Engineer Regiment LAV, and a Wheeled SPA RALC

I'm perfectly fine with the above IF your Light Brigade actually has what is required to effectively fight as a Light force. And that almost certainly includes significantly more RCAF assets than we currently have. If not then I'd have 2 Brigade mirror 5 Brigade.

I would amend the dream to have:
1 Bde an Armored Bde - with 2 Tank Reg't and transition the Inf to CV90 BN's
The LAV from 1 would go to creating a 2nd CAV Bde like 5.

We do like to dream on here. I'm still doubtful that we'll see any tracked IFVs or any meaningful increase in the size of our tank fleet any time soon. Too many other competing priorities for the required dollars while LAVs and 82 tanks are seen as "good enough".

 

[KevinB]

I understand what you are saying here about LIBs vs Mech Battalions but my point is that a true "Light" capability requires more than just a bunch of infantry that aren't in vehicles. There are a lot of support elements and specialized kit that are required to make them effective. I'm simply questioning if we have that currently...or if there is a realistic prospect of our getting our Light Battalions to that point given all of our other competing priorities.

I agree with you. Frankly I’m not sure they will, but I’m equally sure that the LAV forces won’t either.

If the answer is NO then I'd argue that there isn't much difference between rapidly deploying one of our Light Battalions and rapidly deploying one of our LAV Battalions without their vehicles. And IF there is no real difference between the two then why not standardize our organization and just have LAV Battalions?

Which works fine for Peace Support Operations, but for combat missions the LAV ain’t a solid choice.

I'm perfectly fine with the above IF your Light Brigade actually has what is required to effectively fight as a Light force. And that almost certainly includes significantly more RCAF assets than we currently have. If not then I'd have 2 Brigade mirror 5 Brigade.

Medium weight forces are neither fish nor fowl.

We do like to dream on here. I'm still doubtful that we'll see any tracked IFVs or any meaningful increase in the size of our tank fleet any time soon. Too many other competing priorities for the required dollars while LAVs and 82 tanks are seen as "good enough".

I’m doubtful Canada could currently field a Bde of effective combat power.

Frankly I’d rather ship 100% of the LAV to Ukraine with all the Leo’s and rebuild 2 Reg Force Bde’s. 1 Heavy and 1 Light each with all the trimmings. Then work at fixing the PRes and make a Total Force System work to try to make some semblance of a 30/70 2 Bde Heavy Force with 1 Bde of equipment pre deployed.

I’d cut CA personnel numbers to get proper equipment

 

[GR66]

I agree with you. Frankly I’m not sure they will, but I’m equally sure that the LAV forces won’t either.

I see a greater chance of the Army properly (or at least a "Canadianized" version of properly ) recapitalizing ONE of our force types (LAV of Light) vs achieving both. I'm guessing that the choice between the two would be the LAV forces because a) GDLS in London and b) LAV ATGMs and LAV SHORAD look better on news reels than MANPADS.

Which works fine for Peace Support Operations, but for combat missions the LAV ain’t a solid choice.

Medium weight forces are neither fish nor fowl.

Yet the LAV is what we have. They were just recently upgraded to the 6.0's and support versions are still coming off the line in London. Politically I can't see the Army or the GOC turning around and saying "Oops...we spent all that money on a vehicles that's not fit for combat so we're going to shelve them and buy something completely new".



On the bright side (if there is one these days) I think the probability of direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is still pretty low (because Russia knows they can't win) so most likely we'll fall back into the Cold War pattern of proxy conflicts in periphery states. A LAV-based medium force might actually do well (or at least adequately) in many/most of these scenarios

I’m doubtful Canada could currently field a Bde of effective combat power.

Frankly I’d rather ship 100% of the LAV to Ukraine with all the Leo’s and rebuild 2 Reg Force Bde’s. 1 Heavy and 1 Light each with all the trimmings. Then work at fixing the PRes and make a Total Force System work to try to make some semblance of a 30/70 2 Bde Heavy Force with 1 Bde of equipment pre deployed.

I’d cut CA personnel numbers to get proper equipment

I'd agree that two properly equipped and fully manned Brigades would be better than three "skeleton" Brigades that are short personnel and key enablers. That would however mean that you're basically abandoning the idea of deploying a full Brigade until such time as the Reserves are properly trained and equipped as a deployable force...but frankly SSE doesn't call for a Brigade-sized deployment anyway so does that really change anything the current situation in reality (beyond what most of us here WISH the Army could do)?

 

[FJAG]

Yet the LAV is what we have. They were just recently upgraded to the 6.0's and support versions are still coming off the line in London. Politically I can't see the Army or the GOC turning around and saying "Oops...we spent all that money on a vehicles that's not fit for combat so we're going to shelve them and buy something completely new".

With that approach you are right, but with a different approach it might work.

We previously had authority for the CCV with enough for two battalions. That was cancelled on the representation that the LAV III upgrade to LAV 6.0 was producing a vehicle as good as the CCV. Whether right or wrong the government was prepared to put into play two additional heavy mech battalions.

We can easily make cogent arguments for a restructured force where one or two IFV battalions are needed for Europe in the current climate. Whether we repurpose two of the existing LAV battalion's equipment to the current light battalions or to several reserve battalions as training vehicles and equipment reserves I'll leave aside for the time being.

A similar argument exists for artillery. No matter which way you cut it, 24 M777s in three regiments is entirely inadequate, especially with the state of reserve force artillery. A program for expanding that with suitable systems could easily be justified if it gets high enough on the army's priority list for a push upward. As a start 18 + SP systems (6 for Europe, 12 in Canada) would at least allow for upping the two other regiments to either 2 6-gun M777 batteries each or 3 x 4-gun batteries each.

 

[GR66]

With that approach you are right, but with a different approach it might work.

We previously had authority for the CCV with enough for two battalions. That was cancelled on the representation that the LAV III upgrade to LAV 6.0 was producing a vehicle as good as the CCV. Whether right or wrong the government was prepared to put into play two additional heavy mech battalions.

We can easily make cogent arguments for a restructured force where one or two IFV battalions are needed for Europe in the current climate. Whether we repurpose two of the existing LAV battalion's equipment to the current light battalions or to several reserve battalions as training vehicles and equipment reserves I'll leave aside for the time being.

It's the two highlighted parts where I see the big political issue. The GOC was willing to pony up the money for 2 x CCV Battalions. However, the Army in its infinite wisdom said "Nay Nay!" Let's instead upgrade our LAV III's to LAV 6.0's...they'll be just a good as a CCV, we'll get six instead of two Battalions AND the work will go to GDLS in London rather than a foreign manufacturer. Of course the GOC went for it!

Even if the CAF leadership does get the cahones to say "ummm...about those LAV 6.0's...we might have been wrong about them being just as good as the CCVs so can we please go back and pick Door #1 instead?" what do you think the response of the GOC will be? They were in effect lead down the garden path by an Army that believed either it would never have to fight a major war again, or was trying to curry political favour by suggesting a CCV alternative that was better for political optics than for military utility.

I think a turn-around on that will likely be extremely tough. The Liberals already look like idiots on the Sea King replacements and the F-35 debacle. Even though the LAV deal was under Harper they will still wear it just like they did on the LAVs to Saudi Arabia deal. Asking for CCVs now while the CSC program and F-35 purchases are ongoing, NORAD upgrades are pending and a whole bunch of other purchases will be required (SHORAD, AD, Artillery, etc.) I think would be political poison.

A similar argument exists for artillery. No matter which way you cut it, 24 M777s in three regiments is entirely inadequate, especially with the state of reserve force artillery. A program for expanding that with suitable systems could easily be justified if it gets high enough on the army's priority list for a push upward. As a start 18 + SP systems (6 for Europe, 12 in Canada) would at least allow for upping the two other regiments to either 2 6-gun M777 batteries each or 3 x 4-gun batteries each.

I think the argument for more artillery is a different story. Artillery systems have been a major ongoing focus by the mainstream media throughout the Ukraine war. Upgrading our artillery I think will be a much easier sell. Especially since we're adding capabilities rather than replacing a platform that is unsuitable.

 

[FJAG]

It's the two highlighted parts where I see the big political issue. The GOC was willing to pony up the money for 2 x CCV Battalions. However, the Army in its infinite wisdom said "Nay Nay!" Let's instead upgrade our LAV III's to LAV 6.0's...they'll be just a good as a CCV, we'll get six instead of two Battalions AND the work will go to GDLS in London rather than a foreign manufacturer. Of course the GOC went for it!

I think in fairness, the LAV 6 UP contract was given in 2011 for 550 vehicles - enough for all 6 battalions - and the CCV not cancelled until 2013. I think what had more to do with the CCV being cancelled is that it was championed by Leslie and Dan Ross and by 2013 they were both gone as CLS and ADM (Mat). A different regime was in place with different priorities.

Even if the CAF leadership does get the cahones to say "ummm...about those LAV 6.0's...we might have been wrong about them being just as good as the CCVs so can we please go back and pick Door #1 instead?" what do you think the response of the GOC will be? They were in effect lead down the garden path by an Army that believed either it would never have to fight a major war again, or was trying to curry political favour by suggesting a CCV alternative that was better for political optics than for military utility.

I'm not as down on the LAV as some people. I don't believe its a proper IFV to operate with Leo2s, but I think they have many useful purposes including full spectrum warfare but more in the sense of the way that the Stryker was envisioned to operate. I have no problem understanding the viewpoints of those who think it has even more value. I certainly wouldn't replace them with IFVs; I'd expand the fleets and keep every LAV we have in addition to IFVs.

I think a turn-around on that will likely be extremely tough. The Liberals already look like idiots on the Sea King replacements and the F-35 debacle. Even though the LAV deal was under Harper they will still wear it just like they did on the LAVs to Saudi Arabia deal. Asking for CCVs now while the CSC program and F-35 purchases are ongoing, NORAD upgrades are pending and a whole bunch of other purchases will be required (SHORAD, AD, Artillery, etc.) I think would be political poison.

Compared to ships and the F-35, IFVs and SP artillery is a drop in the capital budget. But then NORAD renewal - so priorities.

I think the argument for more artillery is a different story. Artillery systems have been a major ongoing focus by the mainstream media throughout the Ukraine war. Upgrading our artillery I think will be a much easier sell. Especially since we're adding capabilities rather than replacing a platform that is unsuitable.

That's what I'd like to believe. I've been disappointed before. I just hope that when we do we go for a proper survival piece of kit and not some gun-on-a-truck, make-believe thing.

 

[dapaterson]

Dan Ross never understood that he was in the delivery, not requirements definition, business. He was also one of the most reliable sources "DND sources report that..." quotes for the media ever.

 

[GR66]

I think in fairness, the LAV 6 UP contract was given in 2011 for 550 vehicles - enough for all 6 battalions - and the CCV not cancelled until 2013. I think what had more to do with the CCV being cancelled is that it was championed by Leslie and Dan Ross and by 2013 they were both gone as CLS and ADM (Mat). A different regime was in place with different priorities.

I'm not as down on the LAV as some people. I don't believe its a proper IFV to operate with Leo2s, but I think they have many useful purposes including full spectrum warfare but more in the sense of the way that the Stryker was envisioned to operate. I have no problem understanding the viewpoints of those who think it has even more value. I certainly wouldn't replace them with IFVs; I'd expand the fleets and keep every LAV we have in addition to IFVs.

Compared to ships and the F-35, IFVs and SP artillery is a drop in the capital budget. But then NORAD renewal - so priorities.

As much as I'd like to see a tracked IFV to go with some new tanks I simply don't see this government (or likely even the next government) putting defence dollars into that particular priority any time in the near future. The LAVs simply have too much of that "new car smell" left on them and I think politicians will see Russia as a spent military for the next while so will instead focus on NORAD, CSCs, subs?, F-35s, P-8's, etc. that are more China oriented (hopefully along with the Ukraine war poster children - artillery, HIMARS, UAVs and AD).

I also don't have as much as a hate on for the LAVs as some here. With the proper support variants I think they're quite suitable for may roles including the ones we're most likely to face in a Cold War II type environment.

That's what I'd like to believe. I've been disappointed before. I just hope that when we do we go for a proper survival piece of kit and not some gun-on-a-truck, make-believe thing.

It you expect the worst then maybe sometimes you'll be pleasantly surprised!

 

[markppcli]

If we’re looking at items to be replaced / procured for the Canadian Army I’d argue the priorities should look something like:

1. GBAD
2. More and Self propelled artillery
3. ATGMs /w carrier vehicles
4. A TAPV replacement celebrated with the drawing and quartering of those responsible the billions wasted on it.
5. A replacement or augmentation of the Leo 2 fleet. Some were in the being of 120 to allow for two regiments with two Sqns, training stocks, and a war / forward deployed stock.

After that we need a refurbishment of all our small arms, LSVW replaced, and the soldiers load bearing / protective equipment is very dated as well. The LAV isn’t even in my top ten.

 

[GR66]

If we’re looking at items to be replaced / procured for the Canadian Army I’d argue the priorities should look something like:

1. GBAD
2. More and Self propelled artillery
3. ATGMs /w carrier vehicles
4. A TAPV replacement celebrated with the drawing and quartering of those responsible the billions wasted on it.
5. A replacement or augmentation of the Leo 2 fleet. Some were in the being of 120 to allow for two regiments with two Sqns, training stocks, and a war / forward deployed stock.

After that we need a refurbishment of all our small arms, LSVW replaced, and the soldiers load bearing / protective equipment is very dated as well. The LAV isn’t even in my top ten.

Numbers 1-3 really need to be simultaneous as missing any one of those three really makes us sitting ducks in a peer conflict.

Comms and improved/increased/redundant/dispersed logistics (and massively increased war stocks) need to happen at the same time too.

4 & 5 could then follow together. A good recce vehicle is needed to support the tanks.

 

[FJAG]

If we’re looking at items to be replaced / procured for the Canadian Army I’d argue the priorities should look something like:

1. GBAD
2. More and Self propelled artillery
3. ATGMs /w carrier vehicles
4. A TAPV replacement celebrated with the drawing and quartering of those responsible the billions wasted on it.
5. A replacement or augmentation of the Leo 2 fleet. Some were in the being of 120 to allow for two regiments with two Sqns, training stocks, and a war / forward deployed stock.

After that we need a refurbishment of all our small arms, LSVW replaced, and the soldiers load bearing / protective equipment is very dated as well. The LAV isn’t even in my top ten.

No arguments except on 4 TAPV. I can see dozens of uses for it in ways that we aren't now. A four wheeled armoured vehicle with a 4-5 crew capacity could work for all kinds of crew served weapons from mobile AD teams to UAV teams, hell I could even see it as a mortar carrier of sorts, anything but a recce vehicle and where a full-sized LAV isn't needed. We have them. Don't waste them; repurpose them.

 

[Prairie canuck]

No arguments except on 4 TAPV. I can see dozens of uses for it in ways that we aren't now. A four wheeled armoured vehicle with a 4-5 crew capacity could work for all kinds of crew served weapons from mobile AD teams to UAV teams, hell I could even see it as a mortar carrier of sorts, anything but a recce vehicle and where a full-sized LAV isn't needed. We have them. Don't waste them; repurpose them.

Give Ukraine a hundred or so, they'll be happy to show how it can be used.

 

[dapaterson]

ERC, CHER and LVM are individually more important to the Army than tanks.

 

[Kirkhill]

Quadcopters armed with rifles and grenades used by US BluFor and OpFor.

Army testing out new armed quadcopter for training

The Army wants to prepare its soldiers for drone fights of the future, and one of its program executive offices is busy putting prototype training systems through their paces.

defensescoop.com

 

[markppcli]

No arguments except on 4 TAPV. I can see dozens of uses for it in ways that we aren't now. A four wheeled armoured vehicle with a 4-5 crew capacity could work for all kinds of crew served weapons from mobile AD teams to UAV teams, hell I could even see it as a mortar carrier of sorts, anything but a recce vehicle and where a full-sized LAV isn't needed. We have them. Don't waste them; repurpose them.

Too tall, too under armoured, too unreliable, and right now too grounded.

 

[Kirkhill]

Too tall, too under armoured, too unreliable, and right now too grounded.

25 inches of ground clearance vs 18 inches with the M1117.

And despite the inadequate armour 18 tonnes vs 13 tonnes for the M1117.

Too high and overloaded.

A start would be to drop the suspension 7 inches, remove the extra armour and all the clutter on the roof.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I get that a tracked IFV is not the absolute most pressing thing. However you could do it not as a normal competition, but just state that it will be either the CV 90 or the Bradley, then have the companies give delivery schedules, costs, maintenance support, training support and spare part options. Choose based upon those issues not on the vehicle itself, just state they both met requirements and get the two to sign an agreement of no post decision lawsuit, regarding not being selected. As both production lines are open, they can send us a small initial number which go to one unit who transitions to them and gives their LAV's to other units. That unit becomes the SME of those vehicles and eventually supports anyone else that gets them. If we went Bradley, the ammunition is already in the system, the turret is apparently pretty similar to the LAV's , except for the TOW's. The CV90 will add a new ammunition type and a different turret layout, but I suspect anyone trained on a LAV turret will transition fairly quickly.