Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[FJAG]

Because the LAV 6 upgrade essentially made that entire program redundant. The LAV is an IFV that people seem to ignore because it doesn't have tracks.

In a weird way, GDLS won the competition in the end. They were bidding the Piranha 5 as an option. Nexter was putting up another 8x8 VBCI and The CV90 was bid by BAE. The LAV 6 is basically a Piranha 5. So all of the army's LAV's were converted to one of the bidders. For cheaper than the actual project was going to cost.

I haven't actually seen a comparison of the cost figures as the LAV upgrade project ended up upgrading more LAVs then IFVs were being purchased. The IFVs would also have added additional vehicles to the fleet as the LAV UP looked to upgrading virtually all of the existing LAV IIIs which, unless I'm off track would have left us with all the Reg F battalions mechanized.

I don't dislike the LAV 6.0 at all. I think that it has its purpose and is good at it. OTOH I do not think that a wheeled IFV is as good for intimately integrated work with tanks. The tank and LAV battalion has limited road mobility because of the tanks and limited cross country mobility because of the LAVs. The LAV might perform reasonably on the plains of Shilo and Wainwright but put it into plowed fields in Europe; or hedgerows or the rubble of bombed out buildings or sodden clay fields, and the tanks will quickly leave the LAVs behind them.

Generally I agree though, given the right weapon systems and the right armour and the right engine, you can probably make a wheeled IFV as good as a tracked one. Until you get to traction part where they differ and the wheels win out on a practicable road network and the tracks win out in broken terrain. My personal preference is that with tracked tanks you want tracked IFVs. For a combined arms battalion you really only need four companies of tracked IFVs and a handful of tracked command and support vehicles. My guess is a hundred would probably do. That wouldn't break the bank and would free up enough LAVs to equip the light battalions in the other two brigades.

I also agree that what we have is LAVs, so let's make the best of what we have.

 

[suffolkowner]

I haven't actually seen a comparison of the cost figures as the LAV upgrade project ended up upgrading more LAVs then IFVs were being purchased. The IFVs would also have added additional vehicles to the fleet as the LAV UP looked to upgrading virtually all of the existing LAV IIIs which, unless I'm off track would have left us with all the Reg F battalions mechanized.

I don't dislike the LAV 6.0 at all. I think that it has its purpose and is good at it. OTOH I do not think that a wheeled IFV is as good for intimately integrated work with tanks. The tank and LAV battalion has limited road mobility because of the tanks and limited cross country mobility because of the LAVs. The LAV might perform reasonably on the plains of Shilo and Wainwright but put it into plowed fields in Europe; or hedgerows or the rubble of bombed out buildings or sodden clay fields, and the tanks will quickly leave the LAVs behind them.

Generally I agree though, given the right weapon systems and the right armour and the right engine, you can probably make a wheeled IFV as good as a tracked one. Until you get to traction part where they differ and the wheels win out on a practicable road network and the tracks win out in broken terrain. My personal preference is that with tracked tanks you want tracked IFVs. For a combined arms battalion you really only need four companies of tracked IFVs and a handful of tracked command and support vehicles. My guess is a hundred would probably do. That wouldn't break the bank and would free up enough LAVs to equip the light battalions in the other two brigades.

I also agree that what we have is LAVs, so let's make the best of what we have.

so a tracked LAV 6 then

Stryker+Tr Prototype Armored Personnel Carrier | Military-Today.com

The Stryker+Tr is currently being developed by General Dynamics Land Systems. It is a tracked version of the M1126 Stryker infantry carrier vehicle. The new APC is aimed at the US Army's requirement.

www.military-today.com

 

[FJAG]

so a tracked LAV 6 then

Stryker+Tr Prototype Armored Personnel Carrier | Military-Today.com

The Stryker+Tr is currently being developed by General Dynamics Land Systems. It is a tracked version of the M1126 Stryker infantry carrier vehicle. The new APC is aimed at the US Army's requirement.

www.military-today.com

Interesting vehicle. I wonder how much hull and automotive parts commonality it has with the LAV 6. I prefer a composite rubber track but an IFV might be on the border of being too heavy for today's technology although it has been fitted to the CV 90.

 

[suffolkowner]

Interesting vehicle. I wonder how much hull and automotive parts commonality it has with the LAV 6. I prefer a composite rubber track but an IFV might be on the border of being too heavy for today's technology although it has been fitted to the CV 90.

CANADIAN DEFENCE MATTERS

A blog about contemporary defence issues from a Canadian perspective.

jgmjgm516.blogspot.com

“ General Dynamics has created a tracked version of the Stryker. The vehicle keeps the highly survivable double-V hull, and tracks were attached using externally mounted suspension. It is considerably heavier at 70,000 lbs (35 tons), but the tracked suspension can handle up to 84,000 pounds (42 tons) to allow for additional armor, weapons, and cargo. Its power plant offers 700 horsepower and has the vehicle has greater than 60 percent commonality with wheeled Strykers. The Tracked Stryker also has greater fuel efficiency and a wider track and a wider track for better mobility than the M113.”

oh the fun we can have developing our own unique tracked IFV

 

[medic5]

Crazy idea, why not avoid any more uniqueness and just lease US equipment.

We can lease Bradleys for the tracked IFV, some Avengers for air defence, some Paladins for SP artillery, maybe whatever they are giving IBCTs to give more mobility to the light battalions?

Who knows, maybe leasing is an easier sell for the Liberals.

 

[MilEME09]

Crazy idea, why not avoid any more uniqueness and just lease US equipment.

We can lease Bradleys for the tracked IFV, some Avengers for air defence, some Paladins for SP artillery, maybe whatever they are giving IBCTs to give more mobility to the light battalions?

Who knows, maybe leasing is an easier sell for the Liberals.

Given the USMC just divested all their tanks and most tube arty, we could equipment all three Regiments plus even a few reserve units with tanks.

 

[medic5]

Given the USMC just divested all their tanks and most tube arty, we could equipment all three Regiments plus even a few reserve units with tanks.

Their M777s too.

Enough artillery to replace all the 105s. We could even expand our regular force regiments if we wanted to.

 

[GR66]

Crazy idea, why not avoid any more uniqueness and just lease US equipment.

Maybe this should be built into the procurement portion of Force 2025.

1. Equipment need identified
2. What are the Americans using and is it still in production?
3. Is there a truly legitimate reason that item can't work for Canada?
NO? - purchase the item
YES? - Look at the other options

Let's be honest, any combat deployment by Canada is almost certainly going to be in conjunction with the United States. While the US may have its own logistical challenges in a major war, their capability is still far beyond ours. In a real, high intensity shooting war we will quickly use up our stocks, have difficulty re-supplying and minimal capability to replace or expand. Using the same equipment as the US as much as possible would greatly simplify these issues.

 

[suffolkowner]

Maybe this should be built into the procurement portion of Force 2025.

1. Equipment need identified
2. What are the Americans using and is it still in production?
3. Is there a truly legitimate reason that item can't work for Canada?
NO? - purchase the item
YES? - Look at the other options

Let's be honest, any combat deployment by Canada is almost certainly going to be in conjunction with the United States. While the US may have its own logistical challenges in a major war, their capability is still far beyond ours. In a real, high intensity shooting war we will quickly use up our stocks, have difficulty re-supplying and minimal capability to replace or expand. Using the same equipment as the US as much as possible would greatly simplify these issues.

I think an already in allied use provision is being used in the Polaris replacement and HSVS program, so this may be a thing going forward. I don't know if I would want to limit myself just to American sources as they don't always get it right, however I can see from an Army perspective how the pros outweigh the cons more so than for the RCAF and of course the RCN needs tend to be bespoke. It is my understanding that we have been offered Bradleys and Humvee's for free before but have turned them down based on need and operational cost concerns.

 

[GR66]

I think an already in allied use provision is being used in the Polaris replacement and HSVS program, so this may be a thing going forward. I don't know if I would want to limit myself just to American sources as they don't always get it right, however I can see from an Army perspective how the pros outweigh the cons more so than for the RCAF and of course the RCN needs tend to be bespoke. It is my understanding that we have been offered Bradleys and Humvee's for free before but have turned them down based on need and operational cost concerns.

Clearly there are things that we wouldn't want to purchases just because the US is using them but a "perfect" bespoke solution might not look so perfect when you can't get any replacements, etc.

Specifying "already in other allied use" could be step 4 if it's determined that the US option won't work. The advantage of US vs other allied use is typically a) the US will almost always use an item in higher volume than the rest of our allies put together, b) In the case of of a major peer conflict in Europe/the Pacific US production facilities and utilities will be more likely to remain in production than facilities closer to the warzone (Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, Japan, Singapore, etc.) and c) the US is more likely to maintain significant quantities of war stocks than our other allies.

I'm certainly not opposed to putting Canadian produced military equipment at the head of the purchasing queue either so long as it's not a one-off production run/capability that can't continue/resume/ramp up when required.

 

[MilEME09]

Luckily I think we have finally learned our lesson and more and more contracts have included the provision that it has to be a proven platform in service with our allies. Good example is the current LVM program, the replacement for both the HLVW and the LSVW must be proven platforms.

We need to stop buying one offs, our budget can't afford it.

 

[blacktriangle]

The guys teaching ATL I spoke to informed me part of the “cavalry” change is 4 car troops, down from the doctrinal 8 Coyote Recce troop, which would align for the LAV Recce numbers.

I meant to ask this earlier - so in the end, they gave up on the idea of having composite LAV/TAPV Sqns, Tps & Ptls? Will they be incorporating more dismounts into the picture, or will it be manned like the Coyote used to be?

I read a paper recently indicating that Australia will be going down to 4 car troops with their Boxer CRVs. Sounded like more of a numbers game for them than anything else.

 

[markppcli]

I meant to ask this earlier - so in the end, they gave up on the idea of having composite LAV/TAPV Sqns, Tps & Ptls? Will they be incorporating more dismounts into the picture, or will it be manned like the Coyote used to be?

I read a paper recently indicating that Australia will be going down to 4 car troops with their Boxer CRVs. Sounded like more of a numbers game for them than anything else.

I imagine so? I didn't get a chance to have a long talk about it frankly.

 

[FJAG]

I meant to ask this earlier - so in the end, they gave up on the idea of having composite LAV/TAPV Sqns, Tps & Ptls? Will they be incorporating more dismounts into the picture, or will it be manned like the Coyote used to be?

I read a paper recently indicating that Australia will be going down to 4 car troops with their Boxer CRVs. Sounded like more of a numbers game for them than anything else.

I sometimes wonder where some of the math comes from. A recce troops used to have seven cars before it stepped down to five. At the same time a Russian recce platoon was three cars (pretty much like any platoon in the Russian inventory - tanks, infantry, artillery etc. - platoon commanders don't get their own ride, they're an extra body in the number 1 section's vehicle).

I expect there is some logic behind all of those: area to be covered; equipment available; redundancy for casualties; span of control and so on. Sometimes the numbers just seem a bit arbitrary or are based on "we've always done it that way".

 

[Underway]

I don't dislike the LAV 6.0 at all. I think that it has its purpose and is good at it. OTOH I do not think that a wheeled IFV is as good for intimately integrated work with tanks. The tank and LAV battalion has limited road mobility because of the tanks and limited cross country mobility because of the LAVs. The LAV might perform reasonably on the plains of Shilo and Wainwright but put it into plowed fields in Europe; or hedgerows or the rubble of bombed out buildings or sodden clay fields, and the tanks will quickly leave the LAVs behind them.

You would be surprised with how mobile LAV's can be. The routes they take are often different than the tracked vehicles but that's often just as much a factor of their higher centre of gravity than it is their wheels. In an 8x8 drive those things are remarkable.

That doesn't invalidate any concern regarding "matching" up the vehicles. They do limit each other somewhat. Guess we need to design an 8x8 tank then...

What does an IFV really need to separate itself in my mind it would need better protection than the LAV 6 but that doesn't necessarily need to come from the added weight of more armour does it?

LAV 6 has a good balance between mobility, protection and firepower. Everyone has their own opinion on which way it should go.

 

[MilEME09]

LAV 6 has a good balance between mobility, protection and firepower. Everyone has their own opinion on which way it should go.

So a LAV with say a 105 or 120mm direct fire gun..... ladies and gentlemen we just reinvented the MGS, we have gone full circle.

 

[Underway]

So a LAV with say a 105 or 120mm direct fire gun..... ladies and gentlemen we just reinvented the MGS, we have gone full circle.

I see you lean more the firepower side of things. I'm more of keeping centred on the triangle personally. I wouldn't say no to alternative weapons besides a gun (Spike missile tube or something).

 

[MilEME09]

I see you lean more the firepower side of things. I'm more of keeping centred on the triangle personally. I wouldn't say no to alternative weapons besides a gun (Spike missile tube or something).

Mobility is also important, perhaps a balance would be a 75mm or a 90mm main gun? And an active protection system

 

[GR66]

I know this is all "back of a napkin" thinking, but here's another shot at a Force 2025 force structure based on some of the comments in this thread.

3rd (Light) Infantry Battalions maintain their HQ and a single Company each to maintain a deployable rapid reaction capability. The rest of the 3rd Battalions are filled out by Reserve Regiments.

Each Reg Force Company is paired with a Reserve Regiment in order to provide Platoon/Troop/Battery level augmentation .

The extra Reserve Regiments in Ontario are formed into a single Light Brigade Group with the goal of equipping and training this unit to the point that this Brigade Group becomes fully deployable.

This proposal leaves enough Reserve Artillery Regiments to provide future SHORAD and HIMARS batteries as well as a light Infantry Battalion to provide force protection for the Canadian Combat Support Brigade.

In this plan only one Reserve Armoured Recce Regiment would have to be re-rolled as Infantry and one other Regiment would be surplus to the plan and could possibly be given a HUSAR role due to the earthquake and tsunami threats to BC.

Equipment goals for Force 2025 would be Tank Modernization, ATGMs, SHORAD and HIMARS.

 

[PuckChaser]

Just because I'm a bit biased, all of your divisions better be good at mission command because there's no Sigs assets at all...