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

[ballz]

So nobody else is worried that these vehicles being put on an indefinite "hold" means that we probably won't be getting them and that it's a sign of things (peace-dividends I believe they call them around here) to come?

Obviously I'm not in the know but as soon as I read the article I expected a bunch of "oh ****, here we go again..." comments from those who were around in the 90s.

 

[AndyRad]

Well me being a hopeful Crewman i had  similar thoughts to that. Having just finished reading Gen. Hillier's book and reading up on the dark times of DND cuts in the late 80's through the 90's that now they can pick on the CF since out commitment to Afghanistan is winding down we don't need Future Armour and other big budget items...

not trying to derail it

end rant

 

[COBRA-6]

So nobody else is worried that these vehicles being put on an indefinite "hold" means that we probably won't be getting them and that it's a sign of things (peace-dividends I believe they call them around here) to come?

Frankly, no. As nice as many of the CCV candidates are, there are far better places to spend $2B than on 108 of these. Also, LAV upgrade will improve the capability of our LAV III fleet significantly.

 

[McG]

Now from what i have read on the CV90,  my opinion seems to carry across that such a vehicle like that could fill multiple roles, as such:
IFV: CV9030
ANTI-AIR: CV9040 AAV (TriAD)
RECCE: CV90 with the upgraded IR package

What I like about this possibility is the simplicity in logistics with it, more common spares across more trades. Probably give the VEH-techs a bit of a break. Not to mention that it is a mean looking vehicle!!

I believe it has command, recovery and medical versions as well. Not to mention the gun can be changed for different anti-tank capabilities (30mm, 40mm, 105mm, 120mm).

It really doesn't matter if one vehicle comes in 101 variants and can do everything we might ever want.  The project was never mandated or resourced to provide more than 2 or 3 variants.  We would still be stuck with a patch-work mixed platform fleet with all the added logistic burden that such cobble work results in.

So nobody else is worried that these vehicles being put on an indefinite "hold" means that we probably won't be getting them and that it's a sign of things (peace-dividends I believe they call them around here) to come?

It was a lot of good money being thrown at only a marginal idea.  Even in the recent "days of plenty" those were resources that could be better spent somewhere else.

 

[ArmyRick]

Keep in mind and I am sure our government does to some extent, Afghanistan mission may wind down in 2011 but no one really knows when and where we are going to end up.

In the year 2000, I am sure nobody in the CF (including myself) had any idea that we would end up in Afghanistan...

The future is unpredictable.

With that mind, we need to maintain flexibility (keep armoured vehicles, helicopters, etc, etc).

 

[MarkOttawa]

TAPVs on the chopping block too? A reasonable fear I think:

CANADIAN ARMY’S CCV NEAR DEATH BUT WILL THE TACTICAL ARMORED PATROL VEHICLE SOON FOLLOW?
http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/defencewatch/archive/2010/01/22/canadian-army-s-ccv-near-death-but-will-the-tactical-armored-patrol-vehicle-soon-follow.aspx

Mark
Ottawa

 

[a_majoor]

Being a very small army, it is probably more practical to go for economies of scale rather than botique buys of military hardware.

I remember reading a long time ago that Canada had identified the need for between 12 and 1800 LAV's (presumably this would cover the replacement of every sort of armoured vehicle other than tanks). Now the LAV is a versatile platform, and putting an order for 1000+ vehicles will give us a lot of leverage over the producer. As well, mass production leads to lower prices, while orders in the low 100's spread over several years gives rise to hand built vehicles and the sort of costing that leads to (why are Austin Martin's so much more expensive than Porshe's, for example?).

So let's fish or cut bait. We need vehicles and we need them soon. LAV-H production is lined up for us already, and most of the varients have been prototyped or are familier to GDLS through the production of other LAV varients like the Coyote, Bison, LAV-25 and numerous "nice to have" prototypes. Crank out the hulls and if GDLS cannot produce the sub varients get bids from other companies that can take the hulls and make them to our liking.

LAV-H varients will not be as well protected as an IFV, nor will they be the ideal engineer section carrier, or 100% what the Armoured Corps might want for a recce vehicle, but they are better than having nothig at all or running superannuated vehicle hulls into the ground through overuse and fatigue. I won't get into upping the potential orders to 2000+ by building for the Reserve and making protected logistics vehicles using the LAV hull as a basis, but forward thinkers should see the potential there...

 

[ironduke57]

Could an/the pro ASCOD decision in GB have an influence on the CCV program?

Regards,
ironduke57

 

[The Bread Guy]

This from MERX - highlights mine:

The Department of National Defence (DND) has a requirement for the provision of up to 138 Close Combat Vehicles (CCV) in various configurations, which includes an optional quantity of up to thirty (30) vehicles. The CCV will provide a high level of crew protection, incorporating mine blast resistance and protection against both Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) and ballistic threats. The CCV will incorporate a protected main weapon station to engage and defeat the enemy.

The initial series of deliveries will include a minimum quantity of eight ( 8 ) CCV with the initial Integrated Logistic Support (ILS) package, required within twenty-four (24) months after contract award. The delivery of the remaining 100 vehicles must be completed within forty-eight (48) months after contract award. Along with the initial eight ( 8 ) vehicles, the contractor will be required to provide interim support including repair and overhaul and deployed technical support. The option to procure an additional quantity of up to thirty (30) CCV may be exercised at the sole discretion of Canada within four (4) years after contract award. Further, the contractor will be required to provide long-term In-Service Support (ISS) services for approximately twenty-five (25) years to commence after the interim support period.

The CCV must be an integrated, supportable, existing or upgraded version of a Military Off-the-Shelf (MOTS) BASE VEHICLE and MOTS TURRET, each of which is in production for and/or in service with another military recognized by DND as of the closing date of this Solicitation of Interest and Qualification (SOIQ) ....  Closing:  2010-06-10 02:00 PM Eastern Daylight Saving Time EDT ....

Reference Number  PW-$CCV-002-19968
Solicitation Number W6508-10CC01/D

 

[Colin Parkinson]

What does "MOTS" stand for? I looked at the PWGS document and they litter it with acronyms that they don't spell out, but they do for some, that document would never get past my boss, no document sent out with acronyms undefined.

 

[vonGarvin]

I imagine it means "Military Off The Shelf", eg: an existing military vehicle that meets the requirements, vice COTS ("Commercial Off The Shelf") for civi products that can be "militarised". 

 

[The Bread Guy]

What does "MOTS" stand for? ....

I imagine it means "Military Off The Shelf", eg: an existing military vehicle that meets the requirements, vice COTS ("Commercial Off The Shelf") for civi products that can be "militarised".

Yup:

.... The CCV must be an integrated, supportable, existing or upgraded version of a Military Off-the-Shelf (MOTS) BASE VEHICLE and MOTS TURRET ....

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Oops, time to go crawl under a rock, that's what I get for posting with no coffee ans two screaming kids.  :sorry:

 

[Wookilar]

"The CCV must be an integrated, supportable, existing or upgraded version of a Military Off-the-Shelf (MOTS) BASE VEHICLE and MOTS TURRET, each of which is in production for and/or in service with another military recognized by DND."

I really hope that THIS time, SOMEONE in Ottawa remembers that in order to SUPPORT armoured vehs, you need to be able to RECOVER them! Buy a bloody Recovery variant for it you clowns!!! As much as I loved 88W, she couldn't haul a LAV III safely let alone something heavier.

Wook

 

[Matt_Fisher]

I believe the rationale is that the Leo 2 ARV variant will be used to support the CCV as they supposed to be employed in a battlegroup/combat team in conjunction with tanks.

 

[Wookilar]

While a good idea, the numbers simply are not there.

How many Leopard ARV's, new and old, do we have? 4? (I honestly do not remember).

With the numbers of vehicles they are proposing to buy, that solution will not work. Then we will have two families of vehs that we cannot recover effectively, especially in battlefield conditions.

Wook

 

[COBRA-6]

The FME project is delivering more Leo2 ARVs.

 

[George Wallace]

While a good idea, the numbers simply are not there.

How many Leopard ARV's, new and old, do we have? 4? (I honestly do not remember).

There were one ARV per Sqn in the RCD, which numbered five in the RCD alone.  Then there was a couple with the Engineers, and a few more at Svc Bn, CFB Gagetown Base Maint, RCEME School in Borden, and the Armour School.  I would say a minimum of ten.  :-\

 

[dapaterson]

Engineers have AEVs, not ARVs.

 

[George Wallace]

Engineers have AEVs, not ARVs.

Yes.........and to recover those AEVs and AVLBs, they had at least one ARV.