Close Combat Vehicle: Canada to buy another AFV (& keeping LAV III & TLAV)

[SeanNewman]

One question I have regarding this purchase of the CCV's is how do you go about employing these into our present Battalion structures?

There has not been one all-inclusive fully-articulated plan released yet.

One issue is that the theoretical employment sees them employed somewhere between the LAVs and the Leopards, and in order to do that we need X hundred of them.  However, due to their cost we can only afford 1/3 X hundred of them.

So do we buy what we can afford just so we can say we have some of them?  As already discussed here, the con with this is that you're just getting that much further away from universality of fleet and you now have 100 different small fleet vehicles in the inventory.

Do you not buy any and then risk having to return the money in the budget because we didn't spend it?

Do you accept a lower quality version that we can afford to actually buy some useful numbers of and then risk another LSVW fiasco?

We await all these answers before we start discussing what units or sub-units would actually get them.

 

[canada94]

Good lord those machines are beautiful.

 

[McG]

Probably the most urgent requirement is to consolidate the many "mini fleets" for logistical efficiency. If we accept the LAV will be the workhorse, then the CCV chassis should be as multi functional as possible in order to roll up the various other pieces of kit out there.

Nice idea, but nope.  The CCV will not provide a platform to phase-out any of our mini-fleets.  It will be a new mini-fleet onto itself and dependant on retention of other existing fleets as no spectrum of support variants will be procured.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

And there lies the problem, the people procuring these things don't or are not allowed to consider the actual usage and required supporting vehicles. I know they make a CV-90 ARV, I have no doubt that the builders would be more than happy to modify that design towards a armoured engineering vehicle. The one thing I haven't seen in that family is turretless options with larger internal volume (raised roof) for tasks such as ambulance, CP, etc, etc. I suspect the modification would be quite doable and would result in a vehicle that could replace the TLAV. Of course without a contract specifying this work, it's all just dreaming.

 

[Oh No a Canadian]

'Pre-Qualified Bidders List' is announced, from Defence Watch.

- Artec GmbH

- BAE Systems Hägglunds AB

- General Dynamics Land Systems - Canada

- Nexter Systems

- Rheinmetall Landsysteme GmbH

Full story

 

[The Bread Guy]

Same, via MERX:

The following Respondents to the referenced SOIQ were found
compliant and form the Pre-Qualified Bidders List for the
upcoming Close Combat Vehicle (CCV) Request for Proposal,
(sorted alphabetically):

- Artec GmbH

- BAE Systems Hägglunds AB

- General Dynamics Land Systems - Canada

- Nexter Systems

- Rheinmetall Landsysteme GmbH

 

[Kat Stevens]

GDLS-C it is, then.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Major round-up piece in Defense Industry Daily:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Canada-Looks-to-Upgrade-Its-Armor-in-Afghanistan-05190/

In late November 2008, Canada’s Department of National Defence (DND) announced its intention to combine 3 programs into one general set of upgrades to its armored vehicle fleets. The C$ 5 billion (about $4.3 billion) meta-program would include (1) a “close combat vehicle,” in order to perform as a tracked Infantry Fighting Vehicle or Armored Personnel Carrier alongside Canada’s new Leopard 2A6 tanks; (2) a new “Tactical Armored Patrol Vehicle”; and (3) upgrades the existing LAV-III wheeled APC fleet. In July 2009, A 4th “FME” project was added to field dedicated Armored Engineering Vehicles based on the Leopard 2, along with engineering-related attachments for Canada’s new Leopard 2 tanks.

The “Close Combat Vehicle” appears to be the most urgent purchase, but the stated procurement approach isn’t structured to deliver urgency. As things stand, all contracts are scheduled to take effect after Canada is slated to end its Afghan mission. The LAV-IIIs showed limitations in key terrain within Afghanistan, and keeping them in the field requires a lot of maintenance. Canada’s M113 tracked APCs have been used successfully as a supplement, but the Canadians appear to be leaning toward a heavier vehicle for their future CCV…

    * The Close Combat Vehicle [updated]
    * The Tactical Armored Patrol Vehicle
    * LAV-IIIs, and the RESET/RECAP Imperative
    * Force Mobility Enhancement: Heavy Engineering
    * Contracts & Key Events [updated]
    * Additional Readings & Sources...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[ringo]

GDLS to build 600 Namer HAPC's for Israeli at Lima Ohio, IMHO the Namer would be the perfect vehicle to accompany Canada's Leo 2 MBT's,
Sole source the CCV contract have GDLS build 100 or so HAPC's at Lima for Canada, ship them to London Ont to fit Canada specific equipment.

 

[ArmyRick]

I would not be sole sourcing this one IMO. Unlike the CH47 and the Globemaster, the are many alternatives than just Namer. Another sole source project now would not really go over that well and for what little time we have in A-stan, it would still not end up in this theater.

 

[cphansen]

GDLS to build 600 Namer HAPC's for Israeli at Lima Ohio, IMHO the Namer would be the perfect vehicle to accompany Canada's Leo 2 MBT's,
Sole source the CCV contract have GDLS build 100 or so HAPC's at Lima for Canada, ship them to London Ont to fit Canada specific equipment.

I suspect the CV 90 family would produce a better balanced fighting team

I could see them as being used to produce a Light Armoured Regiment concept. I could see an effective squadron of two 7 vehicle recce troops,  1 assault troop, of 4 vehicles, one 120 mm automatic mortar troop of 4 vehicles and one Direct fire troop of 4 vehicles.

I could see a squadron HQ conisting of a command variant, 4 logistic support vehicles, a forward observation vehicle, 2 arvs and 2 ambulances.

There are enough different variants of the CV90 to fill these needs. For example the Armadillo could be used for the assault troop, the CV90 with the twin tube AMOS automatic mortars would be for the mortar troop, while the CV90120 would certainly fit the DFSV role

For the recce patrols, I would see two different types of vehicles, One type being basic eyeball recce, perhaps the CV90s with 1 25mm cannon while the other 3 vehicles would be enhanced with electronic LLTV, radar etc. This would allow the troop leader to have an enhanced recce wehicle which would permit them to better control/protect their troop and also have one patrol of enhanced recce vehicles.

I would expect the squadron to usually operate as 2 troop teams with a recce troop, 2 sectionds of assault troops, 2 mortar vehicles and 2 dfsv vehicles. This would definitely be a powerful formation.

Lets not forget these are IFVs so there is room for additional troops in them. I could see the recce vehicles having 6 man crews to allow for 24 / 7  operations

Just a few thoughts, what do you think, would this be an effective fighting team

 

[McG]

I suspect the CV 90 family would produce a better balanced fighting team

The project is not mandated to buy a family of vehicles.  All the discussion about the value of different vehicle families is irrelevant because this project has no mandate, no funding, and no authority to buy anything more than infantry section carriers and FOO vehicles.  Recce will be in some yet to be defined wheeled vehicle, the engineers and ambulances will still be in the no-longer good enough M113, the mortars will be in the back of a truck (needing to be dismounted to fire), the DFSV is the Leopard 2, and all support vehicles will be Leopard 2 variants (ARV & AEV), M113s, or trucks. 

 

[cphansen]

It's unfortunate the CV90 family would be a good opportunity to standardize on using one common vehicle frame, as far as I can see the main difference between the variants is the selected turret. What would it be worth to an advance to contact to have indirect and direct fire support available even while the tubes and guns are on the move. The AMOS automatic mortar system looks like a very useful system

 

[The Bread Guy]

Sounds like a bit of a "back to the start" step here:

.... Canada is concerned that respondent(s) of SOIQ W6508-10CC01/E may have been disadvantaged by SOIQ W6508-10CC01/D evaluation information, provided by Canada, in advance of the release of SOIQ W6508-10CC01/E.

It is Canada's intention to have a process offering maximum opportunity for suppliers to participate in this procurement in a fair environment. Therefore, another qualification process is being offered to potential suppliers for the Close Combat Vehicle Project.

This process will not cancel or supersede SOIQ W6508-10CC01/E.  The current CCV Pre-Qualified Bidders list posted on MERX since October 7, 2010 is still valid. These Pre-Qualified Bidders will not be required to resubmit response(s) for any vehicles that Canada has already qualified ....

Latest iteration of bid docs attached.

 

[The Bread Guy]

....with this about the MERX listing mentioned above:

The multi-billion dollar plan to buy new armoured vehicles for the Canadian Forces has run into yet more problems, with the government this time going back to industry to look for more companies interested in bidding.

The purchase of the Close Combat Vehicle or CCV is a key equipment program launched by the Conservative government in the summer of 2009.

But in late December Public Works put out a new solicitation to industry, noting that it was worried some companies may have been disadvantaged by the evaluation information they were provided about the program.

No explanation was provided on what evaluation information was causing the issue.

It is the third time in less than a year the CCV program has stumbled and the purchase is now a year behind schedule ....

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Likely because one of the major contenders failed the intial screening?

 

[Haletown]

There are a lot of reasons a Call for Proposals gets recalled or done over.

A common problem is too many of the "wills" get bumped up to "shalls" by eager-beaver technocrats  thinking they are doing the right thing but causing non-compliant responses.

 

[McG]

A common problem is too many of the "wills" get bumped up to "shalls" by ...

Those two terms mean the same thing, and recognized term that you are looking for is "mandatory selection criteria."

 

[Haletown]

Those two terms mean the same thing, and recognized term that you are looking for is "mandatory selection criteria."

Not in contract language . . .  .  Shalls carry a higher degree of compliance.  That is why the first thing a company does when they get a Call for Proposal is to slag out all the shalls & wills into a word.doc table for your compliance matrix.

The shalls are dealt with first, then the wills.

 

[dapaterson]

Not in contract language . . .  .  Shalls carry a higher degree of compliance.  That is why the first thing a company does when they get a Call for Proposal is to slag out all the shalls & wills into a word.doc table for your compliance matrix.

The shalls are dealt with first, then the wills.

"Shalls" and "Wills" are both imperatives; it's the "Mays" where the grey zone lives.