New MBT(Leo 2, M1A2, or Challenger 2), new light tank (Stingray), or new DFSV (M8 or MGS)?

[Kirkhill]

OK, I get it. Tanks Tanks Tanks. They must select for single-mindedness in the RCAC.

On the off-chance that there is an alternative view out there I will labour onwards.

Devil39 laid out the FCS as an alternative to the MGS but Franko countered that the Yanks might end up doing a "Comanche" on it before it could be fielded. Entirely possible the Americans have a recent tradition of grandiose weapons systems that never make to the field, and those that do often end up looking like camels, ie horses designed by committee.

The fact the current US Army Chief of Staff has basically said he is up to his backside in alligators just now and doesn‘t have much time for Future Systems doesn‘t give much encouragement as to FCS delivery.

One system that you might end up finding in the inventory in the near future could be this Swedish one.

The Yanks seem to be coming more amenable to buying systems off shore, and I would be willing to bet that this one will be on the production line before the FCS. Its listed under new projects at this web site.

http://www.alvishagglunds.se/default.asp

Its a hybrid-electric vehicle with individually driven wheels. It can be tracked or wheeled, do pivot turns in both versions, convert from wheels to tracks and be short-tracked in virtually any configuration. Would that suit you Franko?

One thing the Swedes have going for them that the Yanks are short of is a lot of bright young mechanical engineers that also know what it is like to ride inside a black box while other people make loud noises outside. Courtesy of their national service. Note that the APC version is designed to carry 12 infanteers. As for a gun - you could probably put a LRF 120 on an uprated platform. Would that suit you better?

Still thats all Next Generation. What do we do with what we have?


Devil has got me convinced that the LAVIII/Javelin combination gives the infantry all the fire support/manoeuvre capability necessary for peacekeeping/peace support operations.

Recce 41 infos that the armour is likely to take over all the vehicle driving roles and that the ADATS will be reroled to the RCAC.

With that:

1 Would the RCAC accept RCR badged blackhats or would all the vehicles be held by the RCAC with vehicles/infanteers being cross attached/posted as necessary?

2 Would RCAC also handle light patrol/recce vehicles in the 1-5 tonne classe?

3 If you are driving LAV IIIs, LAV TUAs and LAV ADATS how might you allocate those resources when the infantry is equipped with CG84, Eryx and Javelin?

4 Given the strong ATGM capability backed with the 25mm capability is there a need for a defensive tank calibre rifle in the mix?

5 US Master Gunner says what he needs is speed and elevation. Presumably he would appreciate flexibility, weight of shot and speed of response. Wouldn‘t the AMOS 120mm twin-barrelled mortar fit his needs? It can also engage targets in direct fire mode. That would be in line with the armament choice of the CIBUA Leopard.

6 Given the mix of vehicles that the RCAC will end up supporting and roles performed how would you feel about having all the existing regiments expanded but converted solely to wheels while the 8CH is stood up as a regular force regiment and made entirely responsible for all tracked/tank forces while based at Wainwright, Suffield or Shilo? By my reckoning if the RCAC takes over all vehicle roles each regiment would have to find 2-3 recce squadrons, 3-5 infantry support/transport squadrons and 1-2 support squadrons before worrying about manning a tank squadron.

I kind of favour the Suffield option above. The opportunity to cross-train with the Brits might fit into some plans I have heard rumoured. Namely forming some type of reaction force with the Brits and maybe the ANZACs.

7 Which is the better organization? Mixed vehicle squadrons/troops that are ready for immediate tactical employment or single vehicle squadrons/troops that are formed into tactical teams as the situation demands?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Cheers all

 

[Kirkhill]

By the way it seems that it is not just members of this site trying to come to grips with the situation.


www.canada.com/OwenSound/story.html?id=f528c609-a401-4878-bfc3-cd2874cd7f1b
Forces‘ new tank under fire

a journalist
CanWest News Service


Sunday, March 07, 2004
ADVERTISEMENT



The Liberal government‘s much-vaunted plan to spend $660 million to replace the Leopard tank won‘t give the Canadian Forces any new capabilities and could saddle it with a soon to be outdated vehicle, warns an article to be published in the army‘s professional journal.

Generals and Defence Minister David Pratt have heralded the purchase of the Stryker Mobile Gun System, or MGS, as a sign the military is marching into a high-tech future. The proposed deal, highlighted in the government‘s throne speech, will also increase the army‘s ability to work with U.S. forces since the Stryker gun system is also being bought by the Pentagon, according to senior military leaders.

But an article in the upcoming issue of The Army Doctrine and Training Bulletin notes that the Stryker represents only a stop-gap measure for the U.S. before it starts fielding a more futuristic family of armored vehicles around 2015. Once that happens the American military, with its large budget, can either continue using the Strykers in other roles or simply get rid of them.

But the budget-conscious Canadian Forces doesn‘t have that option, according to the article by Lt.-Col. J.A. Summerfield. It will operate the Strykers for more than 20 years and after spending hundreds of millions of dollars to buy the vehicles it will not likely have the funds to then purchase the futuristic system the Americans plan to field, he argues.

"This is especially disturbing when the (mobile gun) system in question does not provide a marked improvement over existing systems," the article notes.

But Col. Mike Kampman, the army‘s director of strategic planning, said the army intends to install digitized equipment on board the Strykers, improving their ability to send and receive information.

And the Stryker‘s low profile turret allows the vehicle‘s crew to position themselves more safely inside the main body of the MGS, he said.

"That is new technology and it‘s a significant improvement in the protection of the crew," Kampman said.

of the turret.

Based on discussions with his U.S. Army counterparts, he believes that the Stryker will form a key part of the American military capability over the coming years. "They‘re intending to have MGS in their inventory for quite some time," Kampman added.

In addition, the Pentagon is already looking at improving the Stryker by possibly installing a larger gun on its chassis or a missile system, he added.

The Stryker, adds Summerfield, provides no improvement in firepower or protection over the Leopard tank it is to replace. He has suggested that the army consider buying a 120mm mortar system outfitted on an armored carrier. Such a system would be able to lay down an enormous amount of fire at long ranges to destroy armored vehicles and tanks.

But Col. Mike Kampman, the army‘s director of strategic planning, said the Strykers do represent an improvement in technology. The army intends to install digitized equipment on board the Strykers, improving their ability to transmit and receive information well beyond that available with the Leopards.

The Stryker‘s low profile turret allows the vehicle‘s crew to position themselves more safely inside the main body of the MGS. "That is new technology and it‘s a significant improvement in the protection of the crew," Kampman said of the turret.

Based on discussions with his U.S. Army counterparts, he believes that the Stryker will form a key part of the American military capability over the coming years. "They‘re intending to have MGS in their inventory for quite some time," Kampman added.

In addition, the Pentagon is already looking at improving the Stryker by possibly installing a larger gun on its chassis or a missile system, he added.

Kampman argues that it is too risky for the Canadian army to wait until the U.S. decides what its futuristic vehicle will look like. "The United States Army has not sorted out its mind on where they‘re going with the future combat system," he said.

He acknowledged, however, that Summerfield‘s article presented an interesting concept with the purchase of the large mortar system but added that any such acquisition would have to fit into the army‘s budget.

Canadian military leaders believe they are leading the way by switching from heavy forces outfitted with tanks to lighter and more versatile ones backed up by armored vehicles on wheels. But critics, inside and out of the army, see the purchase of the MGS as simply a move to save the government money and warn that doing away with tanks will put soldiers at risk.

Kampman, however, said that Canadian research is now underway to improve the armor on the MGS to provide additional protection for troops.

Few armies, so far, are following Canada‘s lead in switching from heavy tracked armored vehicles. The Australian military recently announced it would buy new tanks while a recent Canadian military analysis of the Iraq war credited U.S. tanks with providing much of the backbone for the invasion force.

Ottawa Citizen

 

[Kirkhill]

MY BAD. Sorry for the double post. Accidental double-tap.

 

[Recce41]

As of right now, ALL Coyotes are coming over to the Armour. The Res Armour Regts will take up the Light Recce Role. All Assault Troops will remain but will be the CounterRecce Force.
No Kirkhill, no one will rebadge. The Armour Support Sqns were in the works back in 98. They would be all the Cougar Sqns. Rerolled to Cav Sqns. Just as the Aussies and US. In both of their Armies. Armour fellas crew the Lavs and Bradleys.
Canada requires a light tank, not a MBT. We have always been the Johnnie come late Army. If we loose the know how of fighting the Combat team fight we will loose it.
The new FIBUA course running in Sept will be the first of many what if courses. Personal will be the FIBUA, MONT, FICT experts.
The Aussie fought out the hard way about not having tanks. They are buying Leo2s. We could have bought new old ones. But we fixed the crap we had.

 

[Kirkhill]

Thanks Recce41

The Armour Support Squadrons from Cougar Squadrons. Do you mean just the Reg Force Squadrons? Weren‘t they converted to the DFSV variant of the Coyote? How many of those Squadrons are in the current Orbat? Would these Squadrons also man the TUAs and/or the ADATS?

Do others agree that our need is for a light tank?
Would something like the CV9030, CV90120 team fit the bill? These vehicles fall into the 25 tonne class.

Kirkhill

 

[RCD]

Just to let you know Kirkhill. During the 76 Olympics we had an RCR 106-team attached to us& they had BLACK berets. B-sqn 8CH.

 

[Kirkhill]

That‘s curious. Were they permanent attachments?


And Recce41 if the reserve take over the light recce role is there no regular force need for light recce troops?

 

[Slim]

Mr Kirkhill

Since I‘m done with the "Tanks" chant, I would like to pass on that when the LDSH(RC) deployed to Bosnia the first time they took the tow under armour crewed by armour types and had quite alot of success with it, augmenting their normal to&e.

Maybe not the best example but it is a real world one. The local militias screamed like babies when the TUA showed up because they had nothing that could touch it!

Slim

 

[Franko]

First things first...not going to touch Col Kampman‘s statements with a 10 ft pole...for obviouse reasons. George knows why

As for Kirkhill‘s suggestion for the new AFV...I‘m hoping it was the CV90/120 and not the BV-206

The entire debate here is consistantly this...

The MGS would be better off as an enhancement of the combat team...not the basis of the entire organization. Besides it‘s starting to sound as if the US came to the same conclusion.

The Coyote‘s coming over to the Corps is a good thing Recce 41...keeps the grunts from mucking up Div Recce..Recce by Death, eh?

As for the ADATS coming to the Corps...thought they were being junked completly, costs and all being the big concern.

As for Kirkhill‘s suggestion No.6...that was proposed over 4 years ago...
*looking around...scratching his head*

Nope...don‘t see it. Good idea though.

No.7 is being worked on at a higher level...can‘t wait to see the mess

Kampman argues that it is too risky for the Canadian army to wait until the U.S. decides what its futuristic vehicle will look like. "The United States Army has not sorted out its mind on where they‘re going with the future combat system," he said.

So I guess were are not taking the lead from the US now...it‘s about time.

Hate to do this at this time but I must....
*Franko stands on the soapbox..crowd groans*

Kirkhill...as for our single mindness, we work as a team...it‘s been beat into us from day one to do just that. I certainly hope you wouldn‘t want it any other way.

Remember...we might not agree with what you say, perhapse disagree entirly...

...but we will die to protect your right to your POV. Keep that in mind

We just want to be able to fight the fight in a vehicle that will be able to do just that. Unfortunatly right now, we are about to be handed a lemon and asked to do our job in it. As our proud heritage in the CF has always been I must add...

Lemonaide anyone?

Let‘s keep this debate going troops, it‘s getting better by the day...

Speaking of which...21 days!

Regards

 

[Slim]

Franko

Did I see a post that said 4 million for an M1A2 and 9 million for an MGS?!

Say it aint so!!

Slim

 

[Franko]

Slim...M1A1 not A2. Yes that‘s the pricing. The Aussies already have a deal for that price...

Here is ome more fuel for the fire....

Controversy Surrounds Army‘s Stryker
Jon E. Dougherty, NewsMax.com
Wednesday, Jan. 28, 2004
The U.S. Army‘s newest armored vehicle, the Stryker, is plagued with problems and fraught with dangers for crewmen, say military watchdogs and other organizations who have examined the wheeled vehicle‘s performance record.
Also, critics and analysts have questioned the Defense Department‘s procurement of the vehicle as well as the Pentagon‘s decision to build it, adding the military has ignored warnings about the Stryker‘s perceived vulnerability and overall survivability in combat.

According to an analysis by the Project On Government Oversight, or POGO, one of the Pentagon‘s own testing officials sent the defense agency a letter warning the $3 million-per-copy Stryker Interim Armored Vehicle wasn‘t ready for deployment in Iraq.

POGO says Tom Christie, the Pentagon‘s director of Operational Testing and Evaluation, recommended in a classified letter the Army refrain from sending the vehicles overseas because they could be susceptible to rocket-propelled grenade [RPG] fire or other explosions â “ a recommendation the Army rejected.

But, POGO analysts noted, "The Stryker has already failed to protect soldiers from one of these weapons."

"A Stryker passed over an improvised explosive device planted in a road in Iraq" on Dec. 13, POGO noted in an assessment. "The device detonated, injuring a soldier who barely managed to escape as fire engulfed the engine compartment."

Maj. Gary Tallman, a Pentagon spokesman, told NewsMax the Strykers deployed in the Iraqi theater so far had achieved a 90 percent operational readiness.

"Overall performance you can characterize as excellent," Tallman said. Regarding damage, "it has shown it‘s survivability â “ based on what it‘s encountered so far â “ has been high," he added.

Strykers from the 3rd Brigade, Second Infantry Division based in Fort Lewis, Wash., were sent to Iraq in December. The were outfitted with an extra layer of armor and a steel cage intended to offer more protection against insurgents armed with RPG‘s, which added another 5,000 pounds to their overall weight, making them less nimble, critics say.

In terms of damage and casualties, Tallman said those have been light so far. "There have been three known IED [improved explosive device] incidents," such as roadside bombs, involving Strykers, he said.

In the first, "the vehicle was severely damaged, but the only injury to the crew was a broken leg," Tallman said. In the second, a wheel was blown off "but the vehicle continued under it‘s own power, which was part of its design." In the third, "there was moderate damage sustained, but the vehicle was recovered" with minor injuries to the crew.

He said he was not aware of any RPG strikes on any Strykers, adding the vehicles had been outfitted with slat armor since being deployed to Iraq.

Good to Go?

The Army says its first new fighting vehicle in 20 years is well-suited for its task and denies it is a problem child for the military. And, the Pentagon says it is a good replacement for the tracked M-113 armored personnel carrier, which was designed around the time of the Korean War.

In announcing his decision in 1999 to procure the Stryker, Shinseki, who questioned the soldiers who had driven it, repaired it and maneuvered it through miles of pine forest at Fort Polk, in west-central Louisiana, brushed aside concerns about its survivability on the battlefield.

"It‘s not a question of how much armor you can put on it," Shinseki said, adding Iraqi paramilitaries had destroyed two M1 tanks in the first Gulf war by firing at its more vulnerable rear.

"The idea is to avoid taking a hit in the first place," said the four-star general, noting the Stryker‘s greatly increased mobility.

Jim Garamone, a reporter for the Armed Forces Press Service and a former M-113 driver, wrote approvingly of the Stryker following a test drive in October 2003 at Fort Lewis. He said "wheeled vehicles offer many advantages, and the Army is developing the Stryker to exploit them."

"The difference between a Stryker and an M-113 is like the difference between a Yugo and a Rolls Royce Silver Ghost," Garamone wrote.

He also said the Stryker handled better than the M-113, was much faster (with a top speed of 60 m.p.h.), had better armor, and could carry more troops. "My only complaints," Garamone wrote, "There‘s no CD player in the dashboard and no place to hang my fuzzy dice."

In comments at Fort Lewis June 6, 2002 â “ the 58th anniversary of D-Day, the invasion of Europe in World War II â “ Adm. Thomas Fargo, commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, praised the Stryker as a necessary weapon for the next generation of warfighters.

"This armor vehicle helps meet one of the important priorities I see for Pacific Command - that is, promoting change and improving our Asia-Pacific defense posture for the future," Fargo said.

"Deployability, mobility, knowledge superiority â “ these are the kind of capabilities that make the joint force, a lethal force in the 21st century," he added. "The Stryker Brigade will bring these capabilities to Pacific Command ground forces, not just here, but eventually to ground forces in Alaska and Hawaii as well."

Stryker supporters say other armored vehicles like the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and the M1 Abrams, the U.S. military‘s main battle tank, still have some problems after two decades‘ worth of use. They say every vehicle has limitations, including tanks, and that soldiers should know these limitations. And they say despite advances in weapons and armor, soldiers and crewmen still get killed in armored vehicles.

Finally, they believe Stryker‘s new armor is better than the armor used in M-113s. And they like the speed advantage offered by the Stryker over the older tracked vehicle.

Not Convinced

Still, longtime weapons analysts and military pros remain unconvinced the Stryker will deliver its promised benefits once heavily engaged in battle.

Lonnie T. Shoultz, a Vietnam combat vet with the 101st Airborne Division, former Green Beret and fraud investigator for the U.S. Treasury Department, says among other problems, the Stryker fails to meet its original transport specifications. When top Defense Department brass figured that out, they simply changed the requirements, he said.

Initially, the Army called for its Stryker to be deployable by C-130 transport aircraft, and be ready to fight as soon as it was unloaded. But, Shoultz says in a lengthy analysis for MilitaryCorruption.com, a Web site that monitors defense-related issues, that requirement was changed in "mid-stream."

When the Army "learned that General Dynamics could not lighten the ‘Stryker‘ and make it meet its contracted weight, instead of leaning on the contractor to perform up to standard in the contract, Army liaison personnel approached all Congressional points of contact and convinced them that they never ‘really, actually meant‘ flying the Stryker in Air Force C-130s was required," he said.

"There is a reason that Congress mandated the Strykers use C-130s. If a Stryker brigade is to be deployed anywhere in 96 hours, as promised by Shinseki, the Air force would have to use all of its 500 c-130s to transport the 308 Stryker variants in a brigade.," Shoultz writes. "The Air Force only has a little less than 120 C-17s. They cannot allot all of them to the Army's Strykers ..."

Shoultz also said tracked vehicles are much more mobile in the long run than the eight-wheeled Stryker. He said during tests the latter would often become mired in thick, deep mud and sand, though the tracked M-113 could get through easily.

He also suggested the M-113s could have been re-outfitted with modern technology included in the Stryker, for a fraction of the cost, and were more easily deployed than Stryker.

Cousins in Trouble

Another early sign of trouble are problems being encountered by similar vehicles manufactured for the New Zealand army. Dubbed the LAV III, six of 15 brand-new vehicles delivered to the country‘s armed forces have been fraught with mechanical problems.

According to a Jan. 21 report in the New Zealand Herald, the problems include:


The breakdown of a turbo unit;
A broken heater;
A faulty auxiliary power unit;
A broken axle;
An oil leak;
Transfer gear-case unserviceable.
New Zealand Defense Minister Mark Burton has defended the vehicles‘ reliability, saying the glitches were minor and even expected in a new vehicle.

But other officials, including lawmakers, say question its reliability, especially after learning of the defects.

New Zealand is buying 105 LAV IIIs, which are manufactured by General Dynamics Land Systems Canada, to replace the army‘s fleet of aging M-113s. The first batch of 15 arrived in-country in November, but a month later, the Herald said, only six of the more than $6 million-per-copy vehicles were operational.

The paper said the problem vehicles had travelled between 172 and 1,456 miles.

"I would not accept it on a Toyota Landcruiser," said New Zealand First MP and former Army officer Ron Mark. "We should not accept it on an LAV III. Given their much-vaunted performance in the Canadian theatre, I‘m surprised we are having any of these problems.

"The public were told these vehicles were tried and tested around the world and we were not buying a prototype," he said.

So again...is this going to be what we are going to expect with the MGS purchase?

We‘ll have to wait and see...

Regards

 

[Kirkhill]

Slim and Franko

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I appreciate the hearing and the info.

Also Franko, I do appreciate the opportunity to express my views here and ask questions. And I greatly appreciate you and your mates for the task that you have volunteered to do.

My crass comments about the RCAC come from the short period of my misspent youth as junior subby of mud-munchers as well as being the son and grandson of infanteers.

I wouldn‘t be wanting the CF to be doing without the RCAC. You save lives.

Cheers, out.

 

[Recce41]

Kirkhill
The concept of Cav Sqns were around in 98-99 with the Reg Cougar Sqns. It was to be 1 Sqn Cougars or a DFS veh and 1 Coy of Inf together in back. The concept would have worked if the vehs were there. But we all know there is no room in a Cougar.
The new Recce Sqns will/May have a 8 car Troop. 3 Scout Ptls of Coyotes and a HQ Ptl with the Micro UAV and Anti Armour TOW Det in LavIIIs.
There are many light 20-30 ton, 105/120mm, track vehs that would fill the Tank role. And be Airtrans portable or Dropable. Remember the old Sheridan, with the 3/73 Armour 82AB. This will keep the knowledge of Tank War fair and could also be deployed as a light fighting force.
The Aussie buying Tanks should tell the Goverment, keep a War Fighting force, light or not.

 

[Kirkhill]

Hi Recce41

Could that 8-vehicle recce troop be extended to the Cav Sqns now that the LAVIII is available?

Reason for the question is the mismatch I perceive between the 7 passenger capability of the LAVIII and the 8-man section (2x4 man dets) the infantry appears to be standardizing/have standardized on. First off am I right on the LAVIII or could it comfortably carry a full 8-man section?

It seems to me that a 2-car patrol carrying a section between them (1 det/team each) might also be a workable concept. That would result in one platoon per troop and about 24-28 cars to the squadron. Is that the type of thing that‘bs on the cards? Platoon commanders/2ics and weapons dets could be distributed amongst the vehicles rather than being concentrated in one vehicle.

Also with respect to the LAV-TUA I suppose that the addition of the HE round to the HEAT rounds already carried reduces the need for the MGS ever to be brought into service.

As to light vehicles I take your point, there are a number on the market in the 20-25 tonne range.

Do you have any potential candidates in mind?

 

[Garry]

My turn.

First off, I have NO intention of dying to protect anyone‘s right to freedom of speech- but I will happily give every opportunity for some other SOB to die for his country. (sorry, couldn‘t resist)

Second, any argument that includes the word "Sheridan" that doesn‘t refer to the General hinself has allready lost. Iwas a neat idea, but a terrible concept.

lastly, the missile/chain gun combination seems to be a good one. NOT as good as a tank, but at least has a chance of survival.

The Israelis seemed to do well with Infantry in the back, may be an idea- I‘ve always really liked the idea of a combat team, vice individual elements coming together- may be a great way around the problem...except that driving up to the objective has always seemed dumb...tactics would be tough to work out!

Next!

Cheers-Garry

 

[Franko]

I‘ll have to get back to you on that one Kirkhill...

I‘ve always thought MBT for HIC...

I‘ll do a bit of research

Regards

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/2116/lighttanks.htm

Would this have been a better and more acceptable choice for our armoured regiments?

 

[onecat]

Yeah I think if M8 goes into production, it would be way better than the LAv-105/MGS. BUt its tracked and it‘s a tank and that does work with the Liberals and people they apoint to make the dscission in the CF so it won‘t happen.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I was looking at a M8 AGS prototype last week, complete except for the sight. It is quite comfortable for the crew, with good access, but the hull appeared to be quite thin. considering the MGS weighs in at around 52,000 lbs combat weight, this will give the designers some room to add new armour, also apparently the Hybrid drives are now smaller. Looking at old web sites I would say that the MGS turret is actually older than the AGS design.

 

[Infanteer]

This caught my eye.

One such configuration could include a crew compartment for a 4-Soldier fire team akin to the IDF‘s Merkava heavy tank. With the Hybrid Electric Drive's flexibility, a better center of gravity and space utilization is realized. Weight reduction and related mission equipment stowage improvements are also gained. With such a propulsion and power management system, Soldiers will have a long range, extremely fast, and silent killer, with a reduced logistics tail.

A fusion of the IFV and the MBT? Possible?