My basic point was compatibility - I just wanted to emphasize that whatever we buy, for whatever task, it is not sufficient just to look at an individual component (like the Bv206) in isolation from other elements of the system within which it might be employed.
In this particular case, I am shamelessly stealing ideas put forward by others on this site and that yankee chap that keeps on ranting about Gavins and the Air Mech Battle. Don't like his conclusions about the M113 vs LAV but he does have a point about air mobility.
I have been brought to see the world as consisting of two primary environments. Settled and Unsettled. The settled areas have all the cities, fields, roads and people. The unsettled areas have none of the above. As the world urbanizes and people give up nomadic lifestyles they move into the settled areas. While the settled areas are expanding somewhat, the settleable areas are broadly limited by geography (lack of heat, too much heat, lack of water, too much water or snow etc). The net effect is that while the earth's population is growing it is my belief that overall more of the earth is becoming UNinhabited, unsettled.
Such open areas, historically, have become havens for people that don't like the restrictions of urban life and prefer to live by their own rules, outside the law. They often end up at the very least as threats to trade and commerce. Occasionally they grow as communities and become large enough and successful enough to challenge existing communities and force themselves onto the world stage as a new country.
Any government that wants to protect its settled citizens, and also protect its resource base as well as trade and commerce needs to be able to control both its settled areas and its unsettled areas. In some respects controlling the settled areas in easier than the unsettled areas in that, IF the government is supported by its citizens, then the settled areas are in large part self-policing. Citizens control the behaviour of other citizens through gossip and disapproving looks more effectively than police and courts, or the army, can control behaviour. Even in rural areas where farms are miles apart the presence of a fence and the knowledge that a farmer might be in the area watching acts as a deterrent to anti-social behaviour by most citizens.
In unsettled areas there are no such checks. It then falls to the government to create that sense of "territoriality" by establishing a presence in the unsettled areas. One way to do this is by establishing a regular, and frequent programme of surface patrols. This was the original concept behind the Mounties. They put a man in uniform, indicating he had the support of the state behind him, on a horse, to give him mobility, and then sent him out to meet people and remind them of whose territory this was, whose laws were in effect and the consequences of disobeying those laws.
This is the much derided constabulary duty ( "when constabulary duty's to be done, to be done, a policeman's lot is not an 'appy one, 'appy one" - pace Gilbert and Sullivan).
While much emphasis is being put on controlling people in urban settings, internationally (domestically things are pretty well in hand), that is after all where a small number of terrorists can have a great impact and can blend in relatively easily with the crowd, there is also a threat from all those wide open spaces that governments aren't controlling. The unsettled areas, both on land and at sea, while they may not be able to support millions of people they can easily support tens and possibly even hundreds in isolated communities. These areas need to be patrolled. The navies of the world handle the high seas. These are rightly seen as international territory - everybody's problem, everybody's responsibility and controlling them is in the interest of a large number of very wealthy governments.
On land the problem is more complex because all the land between settled areas has been carved up by borders to create jurisdictions for governments of settled areas. These borders offer them areas in which to expand, to harvest resources and to communicate with neighbouring settlements. They also are areas that they have to ensure that people follow their laws. Poor countries, with few resources and large territories can't do this and need help (whether they realize it or want it or not - if they can't control their borders and a threat to their neighbours arises within their jurisdiction then they can reasonably expect that their neighbour will take action to eliminate the threat - just as a frustrated neighbour may trespass to cut down the weeds in an untended vacant lot).
One means by which Canada can contribute to "securing" the world, permitting trade and commerce and reducing the opportunities for outlaws to get established, is by contributing to this patrolling of the wilds, just as it contributes to patrolling the high seas.
This patrolling does not require large concentrated bodies of troops. It does require large numbers of troops. It does require a strong, mobile reaction force to back up the patrols. It also requires patrols to be strong enough to discourage action by anything less than a force supported by state assets. By this I mean that the patrol needs to be big enough to handle a few guys with machine guns and RPGs on its own. If somebody is able to organize a platoon of tanks to oppose the patrol then things are moving rapidly beyond the realm of your run of the mill constabulary duties and somebody needs to make a phone call.
The characteristics of these types of constabulary patrols are presence, mobility and personal contact.
Presence demands that somebody be in the area to assert the government's claim. Mobility is necessary to make best use out of that individual and allow territory to be covered. Personal contact is required to allow those in the area to decide whether they find the government's representative trustworthy. If there is no personal contact they will ultimately assume the worst.
So we need troops on the ground in wild areas. They need the means to move where there are no roads and no gas stations. And they need to be able to reside in their areas of interest for extended periods of time. They also need timely support.
Helicopters are often touted as a solution to this type of problem but I see them as only part of the solution. A pure helicopter force fails on the personal contact front and is severely challenged on the presence front. The folks on the ground don't get a chance to meet the inhabitants of that noisy beast flying overhead at all hours and are thus likely to start thinking nasty thoughts, to the detriment of the crew's welfare. As well helicopters are expensive to operate therefore patrols are likely to be infrequent.
By contrast a surface force is relatively cheap to keep in the area. It doesn't require gas to keep it from crashing, just to move it. The options for supplying mobility to a force are wheels, tracks, hulls and aircushions. Aircushions are almost as expensive as helicopters. Wheels are useful in many parts of the world and not so much in others. Canada is one of those areas where they are not so useful. That leaves tracks and hulls. Both of these are useful both domestically and internationally. They allow much of the unsettled area of the world to be patrolled by exploiting rivers, and lakes as well as some very difficult terrain, regardless of season.
However they suffer from limitations. Boats can only travel on water. They don't cross land so well. Tracks, generally, can't travel great distances before they were out, they tend to be slow and, for all their capabilities, there is terrain that they can't cross.
The Bv206, which marries the hull of a boat with tracks can handle most terrain in most seasons but it is slow, requires gas and needs tracks and repairs as much as any vehicle. While it can cross water it can't compete with a boat on water.
Fortunately it and rigid hull inflatable boats are both transportable by helicopters. By marrying a Bv206/RHIB force with a helicopter like the CH-47 to lift them over obstacles then there is very little terrain that could not be patrolled. The CH-47, together with smaller helos like the CH-146 and fixed wing aircraft like the C27J/C295/C130 could support a Bv206/RHIB based force in the field indefinitely. It would also allow the force to be repositioned as needed to increase its area of influence. The aircraft are all capable of carrying the Bv206 and the RHIB and may be capable of airdropping them. The CH-47 can recover them from anywhere to a suitable landing strip where they can be reloaded onto the aircraft.
Unfortunately the Bv206 and the RHIB are not armoured and thus at risk to small arms fire from discontented locals. There are however armoured versions of the Bv206, theBv206S and the BvS10 which handle and maintain similarly to the Bv206 and are air portable. The Swedes have also developed armoured patrol boats (Stridsbats) that are probably sufficiently similar to the RHIB that forces trained and organised on RHIBs could also manage to operate with Stridsbats after some conversion training. They too fall in the weight envelope for air deployment.
What all of this suggests to me is an opportunity to create this light infantry force, equipped to operate in hostile terrain overseas in armoured vehicles and supported by CH-147/CH47/C27J/C130J, but which could usefully train domestically and simultaneously enhance national sovereignty claims by conducting patrols in our own bush and arctic. Operations of such a force in conjunction with Naval assets, whether JSS, amphibious transports or troop carrying ice-breakers could also be part of the mix. The Stridsbats/RHIBs would function equally well operating from those vessels in the arctic, on the Great Lakes or amongst West Coast islands. They would be equally at home on the St-Lawrence, Lake Winnipeg or the MacKenzie river. Internationally they would work in any of the worlds tropical rivers and deltas. Borneo, Malaya and Vietnam were all riverine wars. Iraq has its own riverine problems - in fact most settled areas are characterized by the presence of rivers.
There would be employment. If only to assist in supplying port security to the Navy.
Ramble ends.
You asked for it Gordon. ;D
