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

[a_majoor]

In terms of availability, logistics and commonality, I would vote for the CV-90 family. What the article does not state is we will need various support vehicles to go along with any sort of IFV, and the CV-90 family has already been the basis for everything from CPs to tanks, so the idea of getting armoured ambulances, ARVS, AAA systems, DF and IF support and engineering vehicles at the same time for a relatively low initial cost and ongoing O&M makes a huge amount of sense. (I would even be in favor of getting CV 90120 tanks, but that argument has already been settled!)

PUMAS are very nice, but they cost twice as much as the CV 90 per unit and do not come in any developed varients. The FCS is still mostly a paper system and is plagued with escalating costs; based on the article it seems we cannot (or do not want to) wait for things to get sorted on the FCS front.

I think we can afford to go for the "big buy" approach, FCS support vehicles can also support LAV equipped troops, while there are few LAV support varients, and not all would be able to support a tracked IFV (such as a hypothetical LAV ARV)

 

[ironduke57]

An pic of an uptodate modell of the Puma from this years ILA:

It´s the first pic showing the Spike launcher. (Box on the left side of the turret.)

Regards,
ironduke57

 

[ArmyRick]

Thats a pretty faint looking vehicle!

 

[ironduke57]

Better?

I was always a fan of the Marder 2, but the cold war ended ten years too early. (The same for more then one other mil project.)
And know we have to live with what we get. A feeling you should know.

Regards,
ironduke57

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Is it me or does the turret in the model look like it has been moved backwards or is that a larger bustle?

 

[ironduke57]

Is it me or does the turret in the model look like it has been moved backwards or is that a larger bustle?

Looking at the modell and on the following pic´s I don´t think so.
- http://www.rommelkiste.de/Fahrzeuge/Puma/Puma.html

Regards,
ironduke57

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Great link!!
Nice vehicle, although I don't know if I would let those muddy infantry types muddy my new toy!! Doesn't seem like a lot of room for the dismounts gear inside. But it does seem to have better headroom than the CV90.

 

[ironduke57]

... Doesn't seem like a lot of room for the dismounts gear inside. ...

It isn´t as bad as it looks like as most of there gear is stored centrally in an rack below the turret. (To reduce the risk that loose things injures someone if hit by a mine.) IMHO you can see the rack here:
- http://www.rommelkiste.de/Fahrzeuge/Puma/puma11.jpg

Regards,
ironduke57

 

[a_majoor]

An interesting (if somewhat bizzare) alternative to super polymers and other exotic materials is super strength........paper! Layering on a sort of papermache overcoat would be quick and easy, and utilizing engineered forms (like the paper core in the surfboard) would provide even greater strength using low cost materials. This would still be a form of add on armour rather than the primary structure.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/06/stronger-paper-and-rapid-manufacturing.html

June 12, 2008
Stronger paper and rapid manufacturing

A new kind of paper is stronger than cast iron and could be used to reinforce conventional paper, produce extra-strong sticky tape or help create tough synthetic replacements for biological tissues, says Lars Berglund from the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden.

Despite its great strength, Berglund's "nanopaper" is produced from a biological material found in conventional paper: cellulose. This long sugar molecule is a principal component of plant cell walls and is the most common organic compound on Earth. Wood is typically about half cellulose, mixed with other structural compounds.

Cellulose is extracted from wood to make paper, is the basis of cellophane, and has also recently been used by materials scientists developing novel plastic materials. But they have used it only as a cheap filler material, ignoring its mechanical properties.

However, the mechanical processes used to pulp wood and process it into paper damage the individual cellulose fibres, greatly reducing their strength. So Berglund and colleagues have developed a gentler process that preserves the fibres' strength.

The new method involves breaking down wood pulp with enzymes and then fragmenting it using a mechanical beater. The shear forces produced cause the cellulose to gently disintegrate into its component fibres. The end result is undamaged cellulose fibres suspended in water.

It also means that the 214 megapascal strength paper (versus 1 megapascal for regular paper).

There is already a person who used 3D modelling and computerized cutting to create a cardboard based surfboard covered with epoxy.

The new paper made only from plant cellulose would be cheaper and strong enough for many applications.

Here is a link to video showing the assembly of the cardboard surfboard

Previous discussion on new ideas for a manufacturing and construction revolution. The new nanopaper will enable more rapid manufacturing with cheaper materials.

FURTHER READING
Feature on cardboard surfboard in surfer magazine
He looked to aerospace blogs for insight into the strength-to-weight ratio as it relates to design and how to graphically manipulate lines and rib interactions for his cardboard cores. "I'd look for the math that explained how to apply curves using programming language. Sheldrake cut the cardboard-core surfboard pieces using the stone company's laser cutter.

BTW Steel has a strength of @ 250 megapascals, so we are talking about amazingly strong material here

 

[TCBF]

... BTW Steel has a strength of @ 250 megapascals, so we are talking about amazingly strong material here

- Anyone consider using this as a building material?  Replace 2 X 4s and other dimensional lumber?

 

[a_majoor]

- Anyone consider using this as a building material?  Replace 2 X 4s and other dimensional lumber?

I believe a lower tech version of this idea is known as "Engineered wood". I don't believe that current engineered wood products have the equivalent strength of steel, so it is certainly worth researching this process. Shelters, ISO containers and packaging made from  214 megapascal strength paper would probably have a huge impact on the logistics train as well.

 

[AIC_2K5]

CANADIAN FORCES LOOKS AT CV90 FOR NEW CLOSE COMBAT VEHICLE

http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/defencewatch/archive/2008/11/17/canadian-forces-looks-at-cv90-for-new-close-combat-vehicle.aspx


The Defence Department and the Canadian Army are looking at the CV90 as a possible candidate for a new close combat vehicle (aka infantry fighting vehicle).

The close combat vehicle program, which has yet to receive approval, would see the acquisition of new vehicles to accompany Leopard 2 tanks into the field.

Defence sources say the current LAV-3 does not have the mobility needed for the job in off-road conditions. The likely preferred option is to go for a tracked vehicle. The equipment program is one of three new projects that will be presented to Defence Minister Peter MacKay.

The CV90 had been previously looked at by the Army when it was first in development but there were concerns about its cost. But now the vehicle has proven itself and is in service with a number of armies, making it more attractive to the Canadian Forces, according to several sources.

The CV90 family has been developed to meet the requirements in six different countries; Sweden, Norway, Finland, Switzerland, Holland and Denmark, according to officials with BAE, the firm that builds the vehicles. The latest version is called 9035 MkIII and is sold to Holland and Denmark.

There are a number of variants in the CV90 family. CV9030 was originally developed to meet the requirements of the Norwegian army and is outfitted with the Bushmaster II cannon in the 30 mm two man turret. It also carries an add on armour kit.

The CV9030 MkII is a further development of the CV9030 design to meet the Swiss and Finnish armies requirements. It is equipped with the digitized Vehicle Information System (VIS) and also a fully stabilized 30/40 mm Bushmaster II/Mk44 cannon, according to BAE

CV9040 is in service with the Swedish Army; it carries an eight men section and is fitted with a Bofors 40 mm cannon. The CV9040 is primarily deployed with the Main Battle Tank in the Swedish Mechanized Brigades.

The CV90 has been used overseas in Liberia and in Afghanistan. Norwegian troops in Mazar-e-Sharif used the vehicles in a counterattack against insurgents in late 2007. It was also used this May against Taliban in Badghis Province. The Norwegian news media reported as many as 65 insurgents were killed in that battle.

According to globalsecurity.org the 40 mm Bofors auto cannon assures lethality to all other light armored vehicles and even offers a chance to kill enemy tanks from flanking positions with its APFSDS-T ammo.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

As I mentioned elsewhere, Sweden is looking to downsize their armour force, might be a good time to be shopping for these vehicles.

 

[DevoBab]

I am all for getting this vehicle if it makes sense to do so, but does it make sense? The LAV IIIs are obviously being used more than ever thought, and are taking a lot of wear and tear. With that, the LAV fleet is going to be upgraded from what I've been reading. So with that, the CV90 would take part of the load of the LAVs and go places that the LAVs can't. So, even if Sweden is looking to sell off some of its numbers, would they be available soon enough and in enough numbers to make an impact in Afghanistan? Even if a deal is struck, wouldn't it take a while to get everything sorted out, get the deal approved then make any Canadianization changes the CF sees fit?
There used to be an issue with cost of the CV90s, but from what I read and hear it has been used in combat so the CF is looking at it seriously again, but has the cost come down in any significant way? Or is it simply a matter of proving it is worth the price tag?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The problem with the LAV's appears to be the ability to keep up with the Leo's cross country, when we were planning on getting the MGS, this was not going to be an issue, however now that we have a relevant tank force, the need for an tracked APC or IFV is becoming apparent again. 

 

[McG]

We have tracked APCs.  They are the TLAV and the MTVL.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Which are coming to the end of their lives and the ability to be upgraded. Unless you profess to the "SuperGavin" religion?  ;D

 

[McG]

While I most certainly don't subscribe to the "Gavin" foolery, I do know that the upgraded & up-armoured TLAV and MTVL are far superior beasts than most give them credit for.  They will also continue to serve after Coyote and Bison have retired.

 

[daftandbarmy]

How about if we just keep the current vehicles, but invest more in selecting, training and supporting our crews?

It's What's Inside That Counts

November 17, 2008: If you look at the history of armored vehicle design over the last 70 years, you'll note that victory tends to come to the side with the better crews, not the superior vehicle designs. For a long time, this played little role in the design of new armored vehicles. But now it is becoming a crucial factor.

We are living in a watershed era as far as armored vehicle design is concerned. The vehicles that entered service at the end (1991) of the Cold War are still with us. Little new is in the works. Older designs, especially wheeled armored vehicles, are coming back into fashion. The U.S. Army Stryker is a variant of the LAV vehicle the U.S. Marine Corps acquired two decades earlier. Europeans have been building and selling (worldwide) such vehicles since the end of World War II.

There is plenty of talk and speculation about radical new tank designs, but nothing has really been done. Part of the delay is financial. The end of the Cold War led to a sharp drop in military spending, especially the funding of armored vehicle design and development. Then there is the flood of new technologies, many of which have been difficult to combine into a convincing new vehicle design.

In short, the big tanks, and high tech infantry fighting vehicles of today are difficult to replace. The current vehicles get the job done, and proposed new designs offer high risk (of battlefield failure) and low probability of successfully replacing what is already available.

Meanwhile, we have a nagging problem with superior people always beating superior technology. There are many examples. Early in World War II, the Germans had inferior tanks, yet they won spectacular victories using better trained and led crews, in 1940 and 41. Then comes 1944, when the U.S. was fighting the Germans in France. There, superior American crews, using inferior tanks, defeated the German tanks. In the 1956 and '67 Arab-Israeli wars, the Arabs had superior tanks, and more of them, but were quickly defeated by superior Israeli crews. At the very end of the Cold War, in Kuwait, the world saw what superior tanks, and crews, could do.

Thus the future of armored warfare would appear to depend more on crew, than vehicle, quality. Given the current lack of radical new tank designs, and budgets to move them through development, crew quality has become the new decisive weapon for armored forces.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/articles/20081117.aspx

 

[McG]

Early in World War II, the Germans had inferior tanks, yet they won spectacular victories using better trained and led crews, in 1940 and 41.

Let's assume the inferiority of German tanks & the superiority of German crews is a given.  There is still a lot more to the equation here.  Well above the relevance of crew skills, there were doctrinal & operational decisions on where and how to employ tanks.  The french had thier tanks (generally) in the wrong place doing the wrong thing ... so, lets give the German's credit for better doctrine on top of thier superior crew skills.

I also understand that German armour benefited from an abundance of available radio while allied armour suffered from a significant lack of radio.  The superior communications lead to improved command, control and situational awarness.  The result was that technology gave the Germans a much tighter OODA loop.

... makes me think that the "inferior" German tank may infact have been the superior technology in armoured warfare for those years (despite how it faired against other tanks for mobility, firepower and protection).