Close Combat Vehicle: Canada to buy another AFV (& keeping LAV III & TLAV)
- Thread starter -dikweed-
- Start date
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,075
- Points
- 1,160
It is worth noting that the printed quotes only state we need to look for a new vehicle. The news article’s title is the only suggestion that this new vehicle will replace (as oppose to be employed in addition to) the LAV. Particularly interesting given that I hear LAV III LE is being talked about on the horizon.dangerboy said:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Military ponders stronger combat vehicle
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080526/combat_vehicle_080526/20080526?hub=TopStories
Updated Mon. May. 26 2008 1:03 PM ET
The Canadian Press
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan -- The ever-increasing explosive power of roadside bombs in Afghanistan has Canada's Defence Department and the army examining the idea of buying larger, more heavily armoured vehicles to shuttle troops around the battlefield.
Defence sources in Ottawa say the department will consider "a more robust combat vehicle'' as it looks toward eventually replacing the hardy LAV III, which has done yeoman's service in the war-torn region.
Planning is only in the discussion stages, but high-level sources says "broader options'' than just a straight up purchase of more light armoured vehicles are being considered.
The idea would be to pick a vehicle "somewhere between a battle tank and a light (armoured) vehicle'' for soldiers to use in close combat.
Gen. Rick Hillier, the chief of defence staff, said recently that the military is starting to look for a replacement for the LAV III, given the way the Afghan war is chewing up the army's stock fighting vehicles.
The army is interested in buying the next generation of light armoured vehicle, known as the LAV-H, which is heavier, longer, better armoured and engineered with the lessons of Afghanistan in mind.
But defence sources say that consideration is also being given to acquiring some kind of tracked carrier, possibly between 30 to 35 tonnes in weight.
"The Americans, the Germans, the British and the Dutch, the Danes are all looking at their next families of vehicles (and) they'll probably be track,'' said one source.
American forces have for years used the M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle, which carries just as many soldiers and has the same 25 mm chain gun armament as a LAV. But the Bradley has much more armour to withstand bombs and runs on tracks, not wheels.
The Germans are developing a new generation of heavy tracked fighting vehicle with Puma, which is expected to begin entering service in 2010.
"There's quite a few out there,'' the source said.
The army is "interested in some other LAVs, but we're just looking at other options right now.''
Canadian soldiers worship their LAVs, but the Taliban have been progressively building bigger explosive charges to plant alongside paved roads, or bury in dried up riverbeds and trails that criss-cross Afghanistan's desert landscape.
The light vehicles handle well both on and off the road, except in boggy terrain where the added armoured and equipment has a tendency to weigh them down.
During an operation in mid-May, an entire platoon of LAV IIIs became stuck in the mud of a farm field on the outskirts of Kandahar City and had to wait for another unit to come and pull them out.
"There's only one swamp in Afghanistan and we had to find it,'' a soldier joked at the time.
Semi-friendly villagers gathered at the edge of the field to gawk at the helpless, huge vehicles, which the Afghans have nicknamed "green monsters.''
Some soldiers said tracked vehicles might not have gotten stuck and left them vulnerable to possible attack, but the point was debatable.
In this kind of hit-and-run war, soldiers know that speed means everything and that's why many of the troops were deeply skeptical of the suggestion that heavier tracked vehicles are the way to go.
Tracks can be more difficult to maintain than wheels, and in a rugged place like Afghanistan things are breaking all the time.
"If it's high maintenance in a country like this where everything has to be flown in because it's double landlocked, you can shut down a whole battle group waiting for parts,'' said Cpl. Darrell Rostek, of 7 Platoon, Charlie Company, of the 2 Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry battle group.
"Whereas this thing, it's wheeled. There are pros and cons for both, but you'd better pick the right one.''
A LAV III can still move and fight with more than half of its tires blown.
During Operation Medusa in the fall of 2006, Canadian commanders discovered the LAV IIIs had a tough time getting over the grapefield berms in the Panjwaii district.
It was one of the reasons the army chose to quickly deploy older, tracked Leopard C2 tanks. For that reason, some soldiers think something like an M2 Bradley fighting vehicle would be good addition, as long as the army maintained a mixture of wheeled and tracked vehicles.
"If it came out of the lessons learned, might as well give it try,'' said Cpl. Bryan Rowlandson, a reservist with the Calgary Highlanders.
"It doesn't hurt to try.''
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080526/combat_vehicle_080526/20080526?hub=TopStories
Updated Mon. May. 26 2008 1:03 PM ET
The Canadian Press
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan -- The ever-increasing explosive power of roadside bombs in Afghanistan has Canada's Defence Department and the army examining the idea of buying larger, more heavily armoured vehicles to shuttle troops around the battlefield.
Defence sources in Ottawa say the department will consider "a more robust combat vehicle'' as it looks toward eventually replacing the hardy LAV III, which has done yeoman's service in the war-torn region.
Planning is only in the discussion stages, but high-level sources says "broader options'' than just a straight up purchase of more light armoured vehicles are being considered.
The idea would be to pick a vehicle "somewhere between a battle tank and a light (armoured) vehicle'' for soldiers to use in close combat.
Gen. Rick Hillier, the chief of defence staff, said recently that the military is starting to look for a replacement for the LAV III, given the way the Afghan war is chewing up the army's stock fighting vehicles.
The army is interested in buying the next generation of light armoured vehicle, known as the LAV-H, which is heavier, longer, better armoured and engineered with the lessons of Afghanistan in mind.
But defence sources say that consideration is also being given to acquiring some kind of tracked carrier, possibly between 30 to 35 tonnes in weight.
"The Americans, the Germans, the British and the Dutch, the Danes are all looking at their next families of vehicles (and) they'll probably be track,'' said one source.
American forces have for years used the M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle, which carries just as many soldiers and has the same 25 mm chain gun armament as a LAV. But the Bradley has much more armour to withstand bombs and runs on tracks, not wheels.
The Germans are developing a new generation of heavy tracked fighting vehicle with Puma, which is expected to begin entering service in 2010.
"There's quite a few out there,'' the source said.
The army is "interested in some other LAVs, but we're just looking at other options right now.''
Canadian soldiers worship their LAVs, but the Taliban have been progressively building bigger explosive charges to plant alongside paved roads, or bury in dried up riverbeds and trails that criss-cross Afghanistan's desert landscape.
The light vehicles handle well both on and off the road, except in boggy terrain where the added armoured and equipment has a tendency to weigh them down.
During an operation in mid-May, an entire platoon of LAV IIIs became stuck in the mud of a farm field on the outskirts of Kandahar City and had to wait for another unit to come and pull them out.
"There's only one swamp in Afghanistan and we had to find it,'' a soldier joked at the time.
Semi-friendly villagers gathered at the edge of the field to gawk at the helpless, huge vehicles, which the Afghans have nicknamed "green monsters.''
Some soldiers said tracked vehicles might not have gotten stuck and left them vulnerable to possible attack, but the point was debatable.
In this kind of hit-and-run war, soldiers know that speed means everything and that's why many of the troops were deeply skeptical of the suggestion that heavier tracked vehicles are the way to go.
Tracks can be more difficult to maintain than wheels, and in a rugged place like Afghanistan things are breaking all the time.
"If it's high maintenance in a country like this where everything has to be flown in because it's double landlocked, you can shut down a whole battle group waiting for parts,'' said Cpl. Darrell Rostek, of 7 Platoon, Charlie Company, of the 2 Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry battle group.
"Whereas this thing, it's wheeled. There are pros and cons for both, but you'd better pick the right one.''
A LAV III can still move and fight with more than half of its tires blown.
During Operation Medusa in the fall of 2006, Canadian commanders discovered the LAV IIIs had a tough time getting over the grapefield berms in the Panjwaii district.
It was one of the reasons the army chose to quickly deploy older, tracked Leopard C2 tanks. For that reason, some soldiers think something like an M2 Bradley fighting vehicle would be good addition, as long as the army maintained a mixture of wheeled and tracked vehicles.
"If it came out of the lessons learned, might as well give it try,'' said Cpl. Bryan Rowlandson, a reservist with the Calgary Highlanders.
"It doesn't hurt to try.''
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,736
- Points
- 1,160
Keeping the horse on life support, I advocate a mixed fleet, wheeled replacement for the LAV and LAV-H seems a likely candidate. The Boxer is also an option but that is one big APC. I doubt the French VAB’s would be in the running
The tracked option leaves a choice between the Bradely, Puma, Warrior and CV90. Not sure if the Bradely still in production, decent vehicle, we would benefit from commonality with the US. Puma is new and very expensive, Warrior I don’t think is in production and would require a new turret/gun package. The CV90 is in production, in service and has multiple options for turret/gun plus a family of support vehicles on the same chassis, the price is fairly reasonable as well.
We are going to be living in interesting times and will likely find ourselves in several different types of theaters over the next 30 years carrying out different types of operations.
The tracked option leaves a choice between the Bradely, Puma, Warrior and CV90. Not sure if the Bradely still in production, decent vehicle, we would benefit from commonality with the US. Puma is new and very expensive, Warrior I don’t think is in production and would require a new turret/gun package. The CV90 is in production, in service and has multiple options for turret/gun plus a family of support vehicles on the same chassis, the price is fairly reasonable as well.
We are going to be living in interesting times and will likely find ourselves in several different types of theaters over the next 30 years carrying out different types of operations.
ArmyRick
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,326
- Points
- 1,010
I got to see the LAV H and the LAV recovery vehicle today. Not bad at all. The LAV H was impressive. Much better protection from IED.
As far as CV90, yes it is a great peice of kit but it has been around for over 10 years. Why not get on board with the US Army FCS Manned ground vehicle program?
This is a new series of vehicles (The NLOS C goes into limited production later this year) and its potential for growth is very high. It is new technology that we could take advantage of. Plus we would have commonality with one of our closet allies.
As far as CV90, yes it is a great peice of kit but it has been around for over 10 years. Why not get on board with the US Army FCS Manned ground vehicle program?
This is a new series of vehicles (The NLOS C goes into limited production later this year) and its potential for growth is very high. It is new technology that we could take advantage of. Plus we would have commonality with one of our closet allies.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
The Viking IS NOT like the CV90, its basically a modern, armored BV-206.
Royal Marine Viking
CV 90
The only similarity between the two is that they are tracked vehicles.
Royal Marine Viking
CV 90
The only similarity between the two is that they are tracked vehicles.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,736
- Points
- 1,160
ArmyRick said:
Judging by the success rate of the US Army's FCS stuff, I would rather see a proven design that is a known both in performance and cost. The Styker is an "intermin" vehicle till the FCS comes....................still waiting..............getting old............soon to retire..........if you get my point..
ArmyRick
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,326
- Points
- 1,010
Ah no. The concept of the stryker being the interim vehicle is outdated. The stryker will remain in service for quite a while. The FCS MGV first variant the NLOS C is coming into US Army service next year.
The remark about waiting..waiting..is not appropriate
Do you know how long it took them to design and develop the Bradley IFV? They started in the early 70s and if I understand history correctly, it was the early eighties that Bradley finally came on line.
The success of the FCS technology? Wait and watch. You wouldn't think it was appropriate to say the Bradley was a failure in 1979, would you?
The remark about waiting..waiting..is not appropriate
Do you know how long it took them to design and develop the Bradley IFV? They started in the early 70s and if I understand history correctly, it was the early eighties that Bradley finally came on line.
The success of the FCS technology? Wait and watch. You wouldn't think it was appropriate to say the Bradley was a failure in 1979, would you?
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,736
- Points
- 1,160
I don't remember saying the vehicle is a failure, but I have limited confidence in US military programs producing results on time and on budget.
ironduke57
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 230
You like our tank´s. You like our beer. So what´s the only right answer for you? You know that you want it!
PUMA FTW!
SCNR,
ironduke57 ;D
PUMA FTW!
SCNR,
ironduke57 ;D
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,736
- Points
- 1,160
MCG said:
Actually I am not keen on the Bradely, but it is a realistic contender and is being marketed with upgrades as we speak. I am a out and out CV90 fan to be honest.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,736
- Points
- 1,160
Yea, you ever get the impression that the designers would love to get rid of those pesky dismounts? Apparently the new recce version of the Bradely gave up the dismounts to allow for a armoured mast with a sensor suite.
- Reaction score
- 27,135
- Points
- 1,090
My nderstanding is that there have always been two versions of the Bradley - the M2, an IFV with dismounts, and the M3, a recce variant without.
(see, among other references, Wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Bradley)
(see, among other references, Wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Bradley)
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,736
- Points
- 1,160
dapaterson said:
I am no expert on the vehicle, a US army Officer posted this picture recently, (Manic Moran of Tanknet)
http://img505.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img1194ka6.jpg
