- Reaction score
- 27,337
- Points
- 1,090
Maybe the project they are describing is CANSOF.
Infantry Vehicles
- Thread starter KevinB
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 1,648
- Points
- 1,060
- Reaction score
- 8,269
- Points
- 1,160
Oshkosh and Procurement - only it is the US complaining
www.army-technology.com
Oshkosh Defense was contracted to provide the MCWS upgrade to 269 Stryker 8×8 combat vehicles. Credit: Oshkosh Defense
GAO: US Army should improve acquisition processes after Stryker upgrade issues - Army Technology
The US Army sought to improve the combat capabilities of the Stryker 8x8 vehicles after analysis found a disparity compared to rivals.
www.army-technology.com
Oshkosh Defense was contracted to provide the MCWS upgrade to 269 Stryker 8×8 combat vehicles. Credit: Oshkosh Defense
PrairieFella
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 811
- Points
- 760
So what are we thinking about the reference in the new policy update? LAV700s would probably be the top contender unless they soup up the engine and build new turrets for the LAV6.0s. Major problem with the LAV700s is I doubt out ACSV wreckers would be rated for the extra 4-5 tonnes the LAV700 presents.
Also, what the fuck is the point of a wheeled IFV that weighs more than a Bradley and is taller than a Leo 2? Man is the LAV700 a monster.
In my perfect world track would be king but we all know that's not happening.
Also, what the fuck is the point of a wheeled IFV that weighs more than a Bradley and is taller than a Leo 2? Man is the LAV700 a monster.
In my perfect world track would be king but we all know that's not happening.
- Reaction score
- 21,842
- Points
- 1,260
GDLS builds tracks.
I’d think that London could be swapped over to making their tracked lines - admittedly in my world
- GDLS would make M1A3’s in London and somewhere else someone could make T-IFV’sPrairieFella
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 811
- Points
- 760
The government will never buy track again, at least not anytime soon. Not useful enough for the squishy stuff like domops or peacekeeping +(whatever that means anymore). The only reason we got the Leopards is people were dying in Afghanistan without DFS, they would have killed the tanks for those shitty MGS without a second thought otherwise.GDLS builds tracks.
I’d think that London could be swapped over to making their tracked lines - admittedly in my world
- Reaction score
- 8,269
- Points
- 1,160
Tracks for domops and peacekeeping - and warfighting. Just have to wait for the current government to move on.
PrairieFella
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 811
- Points
- 760
I don't disagree, but it's not me you have to convince.
markppcli
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 6,133
- Points
- 1,260
In niche applications.
I’d take a hard pass on being in any variant of the BV moving to an objective.
I don’t really understand people in here assuming that wheeled IFVs are some kind of Canadian soft govt decision. A substantial plurity of NATO countries operate them: France, Poland, the Italians all have modern wheeled IFVs. They’re completely workable options and they are absolutely suitable for war fighting. Probably more that a fucking Bv 206.
- Reaction score
- 8,269
- Points
- 1,160
The French, Italians and Poles all have countries criss-crossed with roads.
markppcli
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 6,133
- Points
- 1,260
Much like every country we’ve engaged in combat operations in.
- Reaction score
- 21,842
- Points
- 1,260
They also operate tracked systems too.
My issue is not with the LAV itself, but the fact that Canada tries to employ it in multiple roles that it is ill suited for.
markppcli
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 6,133
- Points
- 1,260
Not the French, the AMX 10p was replaced by the VCBI.
My response was more aimed at the suggestion a Bv 206 could replace a LAV.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 32,044
- Points
- 1,160
That's what the UK and others have done, as the BvS 10, for some applications:
BvS 10
Some 33 British Vikings, fitted with slat armour, were deployed to Afghanistan at the end of summer 2006 when the Royal Marines relieved the Parachute Regiment in Helmand province. Their low ground pressure is not enough to trigger most of the anti-tank mines in use in Afghanistan, but they have proved vulnerable to improvised explosive devices (IEDs).[citation needed] Viking was subsequently upgraded with higher levels of Armour protection. Vikings were complemented with the Singapore Technologies Kinetics (STK) BRONCO known as Warthog within the UK military.[3]
UK follow-on orders[edit]
In May 2007 the Ministry of Defence placed an order with BAE Systems Hägglunds for a further 21 units, some of which are to be used as an equipment transporter for the new Thales Watchkeeper unmanned aerial vehicle.[4]Additionally on 26 June 2008 the MoD announced the purchase of an additional 14 Viking BvS10 vehicles at a cost of £14 million, including nine repair recovery vehicles, one command vehicle and four troop carriers, for deployment to Afghanistan.[5] In January 2009, nine more vehicles were ordered.[citation needed]
Ninety-nine Vikings were revamped in a £37 million project, further improving their firepower, armour and protection. This upgrade was due be completed in 2014[6][7] The upgrade was completed in April 2016.[8]
BvS10 - Wikipedia
markppcli
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 6,133
- Points
- 1,260
Respectfully it’s not what they did at all. They up armoured the Vikings because that’s what 3 Cdo had. While in Afghanistan they proved to be effective and they stayed, frankly because they were already there. While it was deployed, it wa employed alongside other vehicles by the “armour support group” and functioned more in a QRF role. They have since expanded the fleet. At no point were these intended to operate as an IFV. It’s has not, in any way, shape, or form, replaced an APC or IFV. It’s is, as I posted above, a niche vehicle fulfilling a niche role. In this case it’s arctic mobility to the British Military’s arctic force - the Royal Marines. But you knew all this.That's what the UK and others have done, as the BvS 10, for some applications:
BvS 10
Some 33 British Vikings, fitted with slat armour, were deployed to Afghanistan at the end of summer 2006 when the Royal Marines relieved the Parachute Regiment in Helmand province. Their low ground pressure is not enough to trigger most of the anti-tank mines in use in Afghanistan, but they have proved vulnerable to improvised explosive devices (IEDs).[citation needed] Viking was subsequently upgraded with higher levels of Armour protection. Vikings were complemented with the Singapore Technologies Kinetics (STK) BRONCO known as Warthog within the UK military.[3]
UK follow-on orders[edit]
In May 2007 the Ministry of Defence placed an order with BAE Systems Hägglunds for a further 21 units, some of which are to be used as an equipment transporter for the new Thales Watchkeeper unmanned aerial vehicle.[4]
Additionally on 26 June 2008 the MoD announced the purchase of an additional 14 Viking BvS10 vehicles at a cost of £14 million, including nine repair recovery vehicles, one command vehicle and four troop carriers, for deployment to Afghanistan.[5] In January 2009, nine more vehicles were ordered.[citation needed]
Ninety-nine Vikings were revamped in a £37 million project, further improving their firepower, armour and protection. This upgrade was due be completed in 2014[6][7] The upgrade was completed in April 2016.[8]
BvS10 - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 32,044
- Points
- 1,160
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,846
- Points
- 1,160
The French also had to focus on their colonial holdings in Africa, which wheeled AFV do very well. The reality is that we need a lighter wheeled APC for the "light brigade" and a tracked IFV for the "Medium/Heavy brigade". The current model of LAV need to be renamed as the MAV (Medium Armoured Vehicle), because it's sure the hell is no longer light.
PrairieFella
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 811
- Points
- 760
In my head canon we have 1CMBG as a heavy brigade, equipped with a full regiment of Leo 2s or M1A2 Abrams tanks and div recce squadron+ equipped with CV90105, CV9030s, CV90RWS Multi BK mortar carriers and some LUVs/Side-by-sides for assault troop and mud recce tasks. three battalions equipped with CV9030s and a couple platoons per battalion CV90RWS Multi BK for internal mortars. For arty I'd pick Archer or Caesar and maybe some MLRS is were feeling bold. I don't know enough about GBAD to comment.
The LAV has reached that trap where it's too heavy to be used in a light brigade and too light to be very useful in a heavy brigade. 4XX can take the medium brigade task and strap whatever shit they want to LAVs, mortars, SPIKE, new guns, whatever they want.
Tldr: I like CV90s
IKnowNothing
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,186
- Points
- 990
I think a lot of it comes down to the platform wearing 3 decades worth of bad implementations across two different fleet recapitalizations.
Thousand LAV Army Volume 1 was too light, and tried to create doctrine around a purchase decision (direct fire trinity)
Thousand LAV Army Volume 2 was conceived in a world of nothing but COIN Ops, and didn't purchase to fulfill doctrine leaving capability gaps across the board.
Thousand LAV Army Volume 3 doesn't have to repeat those mistakes
- Reaction score
- 8,269
- Points
- 1,160
Remember that Thousand LAV Army Volume I actually replaced Thousand TLAV Army (M113 APC) which saw the M113 employed both as an armoured ATV and as a Troop Carrier for following along after the Centurions/Leo 1s.
If the original LAVs were too light then so were the M113s. Although other armies added Marders, Bradleys and Warriors to their tool boxes 50 years ago they never stopped using M113s as well.
