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

[McG]

I saw a picture of the LAV H, it looks very similar to the stryker APC.

The Stryker is closer to our LAV III than to the LAV H.  LAV H has heavier armour & much improved suspension/mobility.  Don't be thrown off by the lack of turret on the prototype.  If a customer wants LAV H with some form of IFV turret, you can bet GDLS will put one on.

 

[ArmyRick]

Roger that. On closer inspection of the photos, you can notice some differences from the outside.

I think it would be awesome if our country starting replacing the LAVIII series in the next couple of years.

We used the M113 for what? 40 years.

The Grizzly? 30 years.

I was watching on the Military channel were they were re-building "old" M1A1 Abrams MBT. Guess what? They were only 15-20 years old. In CF terms thats still infancy for an AFV.

 

[George Wallace]

I was watching on the Military channel were they were re-building "old" M1A1 Abrams MBT. Guess what? They were only 15-20 years old. In CF terms thats still infancy for an AFV.

Our Leopard 1's purchased in 1977 were in for "re-builds" in 1985.  It is a normal occurrence for military equipment.  What is unusual is the lengths of time that we are able to keep them on the road/in the air/at sea.  Look at any of our fleets of vehicles, land, sea or air, and compare their lifespans in the CF to what you would find on civilians fleets.

 

[Mackie]

About protection.^^
http://www.ibd-deisenroth-engineering.de/amap-sc.html

 

[geo]

We used the M113 for what? 40 years.

Umm... we're still using em.  Stripped down and reassembled - longer & a delco Turret, the T-LAV is just another M113

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Umm... we're still using em.  Stripped down and reassembled - longer & a delco Turret, the T-LAV is just another M113

Including overseas.

 

[geo]

Huh?

Well - yeah - definitively being used in Afghanistan.
Like a timex watch - takes a licking and keeps on ticking

 

[a_majoor]

The overall size and mass of combat vehicles needs to come down, or we will be in a situation where our forces have bacome immobilized. Tactically, jumbo sized vehicles will have difficulty fitting into urban and complex terrain, be more difficult to hide and likely get stuck more often once they leave the roads. Operationally and strategically, they will stress the logistics system due to increased demand for transport, fuel and special maintainence and recovery needs. One only has to look at late WWII German AFV's and the proposed Allied countervehicles to see the problem (the 1980 era "Block III" program of the US Army and the escalating weights of MRAPs and AFV's tell us the cycle is ongoing).

While I am not against extra protection, we need to look at finding other ways to protect vehicles and platforms. Material science can provide some help, materials like "Spectrashield", M5 fiber, ceramic composites and aerogels can be used to provide passive protection with much less weight than high density steel armour. Preferential protection of crew stations and vehicle layouts which place vehicle mass in the way of potential threats (like the Merkava using the engine block to prevent frontal penetration of the crew compartment) is next, followed by signature control (making vehicles harder to spot by technical means; i.e. thermal blankets and radar absorbant coverings). Active measures like increasing situational awareness and active defenses should also be part of the plan (although I am not very keen on most current active defense systems since they threaten dismounted troops and personell in the area).

I would like to think that effective vehicles can be made in the size/weight range of the CV-90 family (including the CV 90120 tank) which can provide the right balance of mobility, firepower and protection for our troops in the future, and lighten the load on our logistics system at the same time.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The overall size and mass of combat vehicles needs to come down, or we will be in a situation where our forces have bacome immobilized. Tactically, jumbo sized vehicles will have difficulty fitting into urban and complex terrain, be more difficult to hide and likely get stuck more often once they leave the roads. Operationally and strategically, they will stress the logistics system due to increased demand for transport, fuel and special maintainence and recovery needs. One only has to look at late WWII German AFV's and the proposed Allied countervehicles to see the problem (the 1980 era "Block III" program of the US Army and the escalating weights of MRAPs and AFV's tell us the cycle is ongoing).

While I am not against extra protection, we need to look at finding other ways to protect vehicles and platforms. Material science can provide some help, materials like "Spectrashield", M5 fiber, ceramic composites and aerogels can be used to provide passive protection with much less weight than high density steel armour. Preferential protection of crew stations and vehicle layouts which place vehicle mass in the way of potential threats (like the Merkava using the engine block to prevent frontal penetration of the crew compartment) is next, followed by signature control (making vehicles harder to spot by technical means; i.e. thermal blankets and radar absorbant coverings). Active measures like increasing situational awareness and active defenses should also be part of the plan (although I am not very keen on most current active defense systems since they threaten dismounted troops and personell in the area).

I would like to think that effective vehicles can be made in the size/weight range of the CV-90 family (including the CV 90120 tank) which can provide the right balance of mobility, firepower and protection for our troops in the future, and lighten the load on our logistics system at the same time.

The problem with the high tech material stuff, is the impossibility of field repair of structural components and with the small number of vehicles now being bought, a loss of 10% of your fleet for an extended period is really going to hurt. I realize that welding/tapping armour plate is a really pain, but it is not impossible to do in theatre.

 

[NavyShooter]

Interesting to note that they're looking at replacing the LAV's already....but nothing in the pipes beyond a mid-life refit for our Frigates, and no Destroyer replacement that I've heard of yet.

Buying Tanks and AFV's off the shelf is a fairly simplistic process.

Buying Ships off the shelf is not....with the way our ships are getting rode, I'm hoping that they're thinking down the roads of replacement sooner rather than later.

Hopefully new AFV's doesn't push off new ships....

NS

 

[ironduke57]

Hmm. The LAV H would be an IMHO relative cheap and easy way of upgrading your LAV 3 fleet. But only if most of the actual fleet could be upgraded/ is upgrade worthy. On the other side I could think that KMW/Rheinmetall could make an especially good price for an eventual first international PUMA user.

Regards,
ironduke57

 

[Michael OLeary]

Hmm. The LAV H would be an IMHO relative cheap and easy way of upgrading your LAV 3 fleet. But only if most of the actual fleet could be upgraded/ is upgrade worthy. On the other side I could think that KMW/Rheinmetall could make an especially good price for an eventual first international PUMA user.

Regards,
ironduke57

I don't believe the LAV H is an upgrade of existing vehicles. If I am not mistaken, it's a new vehicle, although with parts compatibility in most areas other than the major changes.

 

[McG]

The LAV H is based on a "5.5 suspension" to which all of our LAV could be upgrade (the 3.0 suspension vehicles would require some hull work that would not be needed on our 3.5 suspension vehicles).  However, bringing the whole vehicle up to LAV H standard would require major hull mods at least along the lines of turning an M113 into an MTVL.  I don't think we would get our value out of a complete LAV H upgrade, but suspension and maybe a few other automotive & armour improvements could be a more reasonable option.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Interesting to note that they're looking at replacing the LAV's already....but nothing in the pipes beyond a mid-life refit for our Frigates, and no Destroyer replacement that I've heard of yet.

Buying Tanks and AFV's off the shelf is a fairly simplistic process.

Buying Ships off the shelf is not....with the way our ships are getting rode, I'm hoping that they're thinking down the roads of replacement sooner rather than later.

Hopefully new AFV's doesn't push off new ships....

NS

I would imagine funds are being allocated with a focus on incremental casualty-reduction.  Since at present we are taking significant ground casualties and there is no apparent naval threat on the horizon, it makes sense to me that ground forces would take precedence.  That doesn't in any way negate your point about it being negligent not to continue with the long-term planning required for naval asset replacement....it's just it's a second tier priority for as long as we have too many good young men coming home in caskets from Afghanistan.


Matthew. 

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

The problem is waiting and if you wait to long you lose a capability, you lose a capability you lose that ability to operate the systems that are part of that capability.

 

[a_majoor]

While it is true that fixing vehicles with advanced materials might be difficult to do, this can be addressed at the design stage by making vehicles and armour modular. We can see something of this now, with things like ERA blocks and armour tiles bolted to existing vehicles and new vehicles like the PUMA and Merkava 4 designed to accommodate purpose built upgrade kits to tailor levels of protection.

In my mind, I can picture a future AFV built out of a modular space frame, with components bonded to the frame by various means. Think of how Saturn cars are built (although an AFV would require a much more sophisticated system to undergo the rigours of military duty while still being soldier friendly for the mechs). Some advanced materials might actually be easier to fix in the field: super polymers like Spectra and M5 can be glued; the ARV needs to bring replacement patches and a big tube of epoxy!

The other thing that rethinking designs should do is concentrate on vehicle layout. Castles were not equally strong all over, but had layers of defence leading to the "Keep". The crew of a modern AFV should be in a "Keep", with layers of systems and armour surrounding this, so even very powerful weapons that can destroy the vehicle will have less of a chance of killing or injuring the crew, while keeping weight and size down to reasonable levels.

 

[NavyShooter]

I would imagine funds are being allocated with a focus on incremental casualty-reduction.  Since at present we are taking significant ground casualties and there is no apparent naval threat on the horizon, it makes sense to me that ground forces would take precedence.  That doesn't in any way negate your point about it being negligent not to continue with the long-term planning required for naval asset replacement....it's just it's a second tier priority for as long as we have too many good young men coming home in caskets from Afghanistan.


Matthew.   

Point well made, and I fully understand that while we're in a shooting war, we need to get the best to the boys (and girls) on the sharp end.

Back to my lane.

NS

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

There was an interesting show I saw awhile ago on future military equipment where they mention some kind of plastic armour that can be easily fixed in the field and provided the same protection as a MBT (or something to that effect).

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Point well made, and I fully understand that while we're in a shooting war, we need to get the best to the boys (and girls) on the sharp end.

Back to my lane.

NS

I don't believe in lanes.  Open debate and even argument is the only way I've ever seen to come to truly effective solutions.

I should add I'm not military.  I'm a business exec with a consulting thing on the side....and the one thing I've learned over time is to listen to everyone, especially those outside their lanes as they often have a bird's eye view of what's going on, and make observations that often get missed when you're standing too close to the problem (the old 'can't see the forest for the trees' proverb). 

Case in point - I had a front-line food service worker come up with a marketing solution last week that may be worth $100,000 to one of my clients.  My value?  The fact I was smart enough to ask a person for ther opinion, that most people wouldn't (because they were out of their lane)....and then be able to convert it into a tangible turn-key costed proposal.

Bottom Line:  I listen to everyone.  Even if 95% of what they say is wrong, the all-important skillset is being able to filter through that to the 5% that is applicable, then integrating into your existing model solution, and updating it as necessary.


Matthew.   

 

[Colin Parkinson]

While it is true that fixing vehicles with advanced materials might be difficult to do, this can be addressed at the design stage by making vehicles and armour modular. We can see something of this now, with things like ERA blocks and armour tiles bolted to existing vehicles and new vehicles like the PUMA and Merkava 4 designed to accommodate purpose built upgrade kits to tailor levels of protection.

In my mind, I can picture a future AFV built out of a modular space frame, with components bonded to the frame by various means. Think of how Saturn cars are built (although an AFV would require a much more sophisticated system to undergo the rigours of military duty while still being soldier friendly for the mechs). Some advanced materials might actually be easier to fix in the field: super polymers like Spectra and M5 can be glued; the ARV needs to bring replacement patches and a big tube of epoxy!

The other thing that rethinking designs should do is concentrate on vehicle layout. Castles were not equally strong all over, but had layers of defence leading to the "Keep". The crew of a modern AFV should be in a "Keep", with layers of systems and armour surrounding this, so even very powerful weapons that can destroy the vehicle will have less of a chance of killing or injuring the crew, while keeping weight and size down to reasonable levels.

Everything you stated is being kicked around, one of the problems with the Keep concept is that while you save the crews, the vehicle is more vulnerable to battle damage, except for the US, most NATO countries barely have the vehicles numbers to support operations and thanks to the accountants never enough spare parts to repair the damaged vehicles.
From what I have seen from the various projects using super materials, is that the only way to gain significant weight savings & cost savings is to build the vehicle with the material itself forming the hull. The problem is that any structural damage is then very hard to fix as strength and armour integrity is in the fibers and bonding. I am no expert in the field, but this inability to fix in the field has been the major stumbling block for the various designs kicking around.

Finding a lightweight armour material that can be easily attached to a RHA hull will certainly help the ever increasing weight issue. Part of the problem is that the add on armour that is good at stopping one type of threat is not great at others and the weight penalty of placing to many layer is prohibitive.