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

[Matt_Fisher]

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

Part of this article is accurate and part of it is generalizations and speculation that most people who've studied the tactics of the Second World War would say is bunk, some of which is pointed out by MCG.

German tanks were more lightly armoured, and lightly armed than their French adversaries, but their tactical employment, and command and control methods were far more effective than the French, but not necessarily the skill of the individual crews.  Further on into the war, again it wasn't necessarily that the Allied tank crews were more proficient than the Germans, but rather there were more of them and more tanks, and the Allies could more easily absorb losses.  If in fact you look at the competency of the crew skills, the edge was probably towards the Germans who had more combat experience and veterans of the Eastern Front than their Allied adversaries, who for the most part were 'combat virgins'.

In Regard to TLAV or MTVL, I don't think they really qualify in terms of firepower that the CCV program is looking for.  As support and specialist vehicles, they certainly have their place, but unless some kind of serious modification is done to the vehicle to give it more firepower than what they currently have (.e. Remote Weapons Station or turret with a 25mm, 30mm, or 35mm), these vehicles probably don't qualify as a serious CCV candidate.

 

[Old Sweat]

Matt

I certainly support your comment re the article and the quality of the crew being more important than the quality of the vehicle. As luck would have it, I have been researching the number of German AFVs deployed in Normandy in 1944. The best figure I can come up with using a highly respected source is 2248 tanks and SPs; of this figure only about 150 were Tigers. By early-August when the Allies broke out of their lodgement, the Tigers had been reduced to less than fifty, and very few of these were able to withdraw across the Seine. The inexorable military rule that God is on the side of the big battalions prevails.

The TLAV and MTVL are useful supporting vehicles, but do not really belong fighting with the big boys. Can they be upgraded further, especially in terms of firepower, I suspect so, but is it worth it? That is a question for those with better information to decide.

 

[geo]

A lot had to do with terrain.... Tigers and Panthers did well on the Steppes of the easter front.  The advantages that they enjoyed there evaporated somewhat in France, Belgium & Holland

 

[Nfld Sapper]

The TLAV and MTVL are useful supporting vehicles, but do not really belong fighting with the big boys. Can they be upgraded further, especially in terms of firepower, I suspect so, but is it worth it? That is a question for those with better information to decide.

OS, the TLAV FOV comes with either the Grizzly Turret (equiped with a 50cal and C-6 IIRC) and the RWS platform (C-6 AFAIK), can they be upgraded maybe..... there ain't alot of space to store extra ammo for say a 25mm inside the vehicle and the location of the family hatch/drivers hatch and the cooling fan in my opinion precludes the addition of a different turret.

Maybe retrofit the turret to accept twin 50's might be a possible solution. Anyone who deals with the TLAV FOV on a daily basis care to comment on this?

 

[AIC_2K5]

VIEWPOINTS FROM NDHQ ON THE CLOSE COMBAT VEHICLE

http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/defencewatch/archive/2008/11/19/viewpoints-from-ndhq-on-the-close-combat-vehicle.aspx

The KMW Puma and the CV90 seem to be the odds on favorites in regards to the Army’s proposed close combat vehicle/infantry fighting vehicle project.

But if this project does proceed, it is likely something will have to give elsewhere.

My article and blog posting on the close combat vehicle has elicited some interesting emails from folks at headquarters in Ottawa (their names, of course, have not been included to protect them from career suicide).

One individual from NDHQ suggested purchasing used CV-90s from the Swedes. Here is what that person wrote:

“I doubt that they have 250-odd units that they would be willing to part with. But perhaps we could get a few dozen to begin with and then put in and order or more. This is what Sweden (and Greece, Spain) did for the Leo 2: acquire a few used models before undertaking domestic production.

I agree that the KMW Puma would be another candidate. In its most heavily-armoured guise it seems to be the only infantry carrier that matches the army's suggested weight profile (35 tonnes). But one other advantage of CV-90 is its proven suitability for winter operations. See YouTube for some telling footage of its ability to negotiate deep snow, leaving the M2/3 Bradley looking rather forlorn.

Other candidates could be the Austrian/Spanish Pizarro, the Italian Dardo, and the up-gunned British Warrior, but I think these are all dark horses.

One unanswered question is how the army will be able to logistically support yet another major system in the inventory. Something's gotta give. What shall it be? Will the M-113 variants finally be retired? Will we dispose of the Nyalas after 2011? Clearly some reflection is needed here before the fleet is rationalized post-Afghanistan. It is certainly true that protection is a worthwhile objective, but our small force will have great difficulty muddling through if the range of vehicles expands any further.”

Here is another take on the situation, this one from a larger strategic perspective from an NDHQ inhabitant:

“On the politico-strategic level, this confirms the repudiation of the former CDS's vision for the future structure of the army. We will still field a largely medium-weight force. But having a small but heavy armour/infantry component suggests that we're not ready to consign true manoeuvre warfare to the history books. Even "muscular" peacekeeping has called on these types of forces, so one could argue that the army is simply trying to cover all the bases.

Whether it can afford to do so in the current fiscal climate is uncertain. Frankly there is too much danger in launching omnibus acquisitions projects encompassing several types of (in this case) armoured vehicles. If there is opposition to one project, then all will be delayed indefinitely or cancelled. (Recall the vain attempt to secure approval for several new aircraft fleets when Bill Graham was Minister.)

The CLS should consider this only as part of an army-wide vehicle rationalization program. In other words, if he really wants an IFV, he must be ready to respond to calls to give something up. (The retirement of the M-113 may be an option, but they were recently re-built at great cost, and the Aussies are keeping theirs to operate alongside their Abrams tanks. Is there a lesson here?)

As far as the capability itself is concerned, in choosing a vehicle the army would do well to heed the experience of Soviet/Russian forces in some of their recent conflicts. (To be sure, no technology can substitute for questionable strategy and tactical incompetence, but there are things that can at least give one's troops a better shot at success.) Having an automatic gun or grenade launcher that can hyper-elevate will allow engagement of targets along mountain roads or where multi-story buildings may conceal firing positions. (Tanks guns were largely irrelevant in such close quarters because they could not elevate.)

Also, the ability to mount active protection systems - either fitted as part of the original order or as a "fitted for but not with" arrangement - should be considered because our forces will seldom have advanced warning of ambushes or the location of IEDs. The Achilles heel of so many future operations will be the public's willingness to accept casualties. Giving the troops the ability to ride in and out of danger is money well spent.

But will the money materialize while the government struggles with a deficit?

Optics are everything, and cut-backs in non-discretionary spending will be hard to justify so the army can get a new piece of kit (trucks excepted, perhaps). Should this project be accorded high priority when deliveries would takes place only after our departure from Afghanistan (unless we buy second-hand now)?

Finally, DND has proven unable to spend the money allocated to it. It sent $500-million in unspent funds back to the treasury last year! Unless our procurement system is brought into the 20th (never mind the 21st) century, coming back to the trough for more money is going to be a dicey proposition.”



“On the politico-strategic level, this confirms the repudiation of the former CDS's vision for the future structure of the army. We will still field a largely medium-weight force. But having a small but heavy armour/infantry component suggests that we're not ready to consign true manoeuvre warfare to the history books."

 

[The Bread Guy]

Mods - feel free to move/merge as you see fit....

Latest in Canada's CCV Hunt, via MERX (first item in post)
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/87498/post-857850.html#msg857850

".... The Government of Canada (GOC) has a requirement for a Close Combat Vehicle (CCV) to provide increased tactical mobility, enhanced firepower and a high level of survivability to its crew in order to conduct close combat operations in a medium or high threat environment.  The purpose of this Letter of Interest and Request for Price and Availability (LOI/P&A) is to communicate the Canadian Forces (CF) initial requirements and solicit information and feedback from the industry regarding the provision of the CCV. The information may be used to support the GOC's decision-making process such as finalizing its requirements and determining its procurement strategy ...."

More related discussion here:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?action=post;topic=60697.75;num_replies=75

 

[ironduke57]

New pic of an PUMA mobility trial vehicle:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/SPz_Puma_Mobilit%C3%A4tsversuchfahrzeug_VS2.jpg (3264 × 2448)

Regards,
ironduke57

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Have they started limited production yet or just a few trial vehicles? It would be interesting to compare mobilty of the Puma against the CV90 in the real world.

 

[Oh No a Canadian]

New pic of an PUMA mobility trial vehicle:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/SPz_Puma_Mobilit%C3%A4tsversuchfahrzeug_VS2.jpg (3264 × 2448)

Regards,
ironduke57

I wonder if the 6th Wheel (?) is a permanent change or they are jusr experimenting with different options

http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/data/503/puma_2.jpg

 

[ironduke57]

Have they started limited production yet or just a few trial vehicles?...

AFAIK there are only trial vehicles ATM.

I wonder if the 6th Wheel (?) is a permanent change or they are jusr experimenting with different options ...

AFAIK it is an permanent change. The 5 roadwheel solution lead to an uneven stress distribution and had to be abandoned. (The change to 6 roadwheels happend already in middle of 08.)

Maybe I will be able to post some more pix and an vid in the next day´s.

Regards,
ironduke57

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Have they started limited production yet or just a few trial vehicles? It would be interesting to compare mobilty of the Puma against the CV90 in the real world.

According to this news release the Puma should enter service next year.

 

[ironduke57]

According to this news release the Puma should enter service next year.

I wouldn´t bet on that.

More pix:

- http://img4.abload.de/img/vs-2_mob_puma_front_se8xmq.jpg
- http://img4.abload.de/img/vs-4mob_puma_laufwerkyy5x.jpg
- http://www.abload.de/img/vs-4mob_puma_laufwerk_iakz.jpg

- http://www.milpic.de/SGT/BT009.jpg
- http://www.milpic.de/SGT/BT010.jpg
- http://www.milpic.de/SGT/BT016.jpg

Regards,
ironduke57

 

[ironduke57]

And two more:

(And some offtopic pix from the same event. (Open House of the WTD 41)
http://www.milpic.de/SGT/BT001.jpg
http://www.milpic.de/SGT/BT002.jpg
http://www.milpic.de/SGT/BT003.jpg
http://www.milpic.de/SGT/BT004.jpg
http://www.milpic.de/SGT/BT005.jpg
http://www.milpic.de/SGT/BT006.jpg
http://www.milpic.de/SGT/BT007.jpg
http://www.milpic.de/SGT/BT008.jpg
http://www.milpic.de/SGT/BT011.jpg
http://www.milpic.de/SGT/BT012.jpg
http://www.milpic.de/SGT/BT013.jpg
http://www.milpic.de/SGT/BT014.jpg
http://www.milpic.de/SGT/BT015.jpg
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a394/Panzerwolf/Trier/Dsc_6980.jpg )


Regards,
ironduke57

 

[a_majoor]

Have they started limited production yet or just a few trial vehicles? It would be interesting to compare mobilty of the Puma against the CV90 in the real world.

Not quite as simple as it sounds. The CV-90 comes in dozens of different varients (which one do we want?) and the PUMA has at least 3 protection levels; with level "C" add-on armour bringing the beast up to the size and weight of a Leopard 1 tank (but protected against RPG's and other bad things).

While the PUMA is very impressive, from a resource standpoint I'm still inclined to think the CV-90 is a better choice for Canada; the base vehicle costs about 1/3 of a base PUMA, the CV-90 is in service with several nations so there is a base of experience and supply and the CV 90 is conceptually more versatile, already existing or prototyped as an ICV, SPAAG, FOO/FAC, engineer section carrier and medium tank (CV-90120). With some determination and hard work, we "could" consolodate into two fleets; a LAV based wheeled fleet with a wide range of varients and a tracked fleet based off the CV-90 platform.

I'll wake up from this dream soon.....

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I like the CV-90 as well and realize the advantage of getting a vehicle that is part of a “fleet” Personally I wished we had leased 20 or so CV-90 at the same time as the leopard 2. This would given us a chance to understand what are needs might be in order to ensure we get the right vehicle.

The Puma seems to be positioned between the CV-90 and Namer in regards to role and protection. For mobility trials it would have to be done with vehicles armoured roughly to the same level, likely 2 tests one with just basic hull armour and the 2nd with add on armour. I suspect the CV-90 will win in the first, but the Puma being designed for a greater weight might do better in the 2nd test.

I don’t see the Puma getting the same level of variants as the customer base is more limited, this would be a downside in rgards to choice I suspect.

 

[GAP]

Mod edited to comply with Milnet.ca policy.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[tango22a]

Hang on to your 'roids as we bid goodbye to the CCVL. They're just starting to lay the groundwork for saying "Sorry! but we won't fund it, regardless of our previous promises!" As soon as we decamp from Afghanistan if you think the funding is low now watch it be diverted away since "You're NOT in a firefight so WE are going to spend the money elsewhere!!"


tango22a

 

[combatbuddha]

Typical.
Reminds me of the old days.
"the cold war is over folks....cut EVERYTHING" LOL

 

[ballz]

It certainly does seem as if the world is going to stop turning in 2011/whenever we are no longer in Afghanistan.

 

[VIChris]

Sure, no sense in getting the equipment now and training people up on it's use and maintenance now right? Why would we want to do silly things like put it through it's paces and revise it now before it's needed? We can just wait until Canada has committed troops to Operation Whatever's Next and are 6 months into it before starting another procurement process. Seems logical to me.