The perfect platform for the Canadian Military.

[McBrush]

In the perfect world what would you choose to enhance the capabilities of the Army?
Here are some points for your choice.

    1. Must be in current production. ie. CV90
    2. You can add to it, with current production equipment. ie. up gun
    3. No futuristic or concept systems. ie. no light sabers
    4. All changes must be realistic ie. 25mm gun to a 30mm gun, no 140mm guns on a AVGP
    5. Cost is not a issue
    6. Have fun!

Here is my opinion. For the TAPV

    1 Panhard VBL
    2 Increase the length  150cm and add a third axle and the width by 40 cm
    3 Increase the thickness of the Armour by 50%
    4 Add a additional prop for amphibious operations
    5 For the Inf. a 1 m. turret rebuilt to use a 40mm AGL, .50 cal, two Eyrx missiles  fully stabilized with modern           
        night vision equipment, upgrade the Armour. This will allow for a crew of 2 and 5 dismounts. Two vehicles per inf. section
    6 For the Recce, a two man fully stabilized turret using a low recoil 25mm gun, .50 cal and two star-streak missiles and the
        latest surveillance system. It will have a crew of 4
    7 Upgrade the power train to a North American diesel
    8  Add a laser detection system
    9  Add the Trophy 2 anti missile system
    10 Add a winch
 
  Well what do you want for the Army ?

 

[a_majoor]

Actually with the amount of modifications you are asking for an entirely new vehicle (and given the small size of any order the CF makes, it would cost as much as an entirely drawn from scratch vehicle as well).

From a meta viewpoint, I would get rid of the notion you should buy tiny fleets of specialty vehicles and go for a family based on a common chassis. The CV-90 is a great example of this, you can order a gun tank (CV90-120), IFV, SPAAG and FOO/FAC vehicles right off the shelf, and with a package that size you should have enough leverage to get a good discount. Continuing with the theme, using the CV90 chassis for engineer vehicles, CP's, ambulances and various other sundry tasks increases the unit price advantage, as well as creating large logistical savings as well (using common parts, training and support for a large family. The downside is each individual variant might not be the "best" at doing things (a CV90-120 gun tank does not mount the armour protection of a Leopard 2, and a recce version of a CV90-40 might not be as stealthy as a dedicated recce platform), but there are ways of working around these issues. Numbers do count.

Consider that Canada was estimated to need up to 1400 LAVs in various configurations, and you can see the advantages of family of vehicles approach. While I am personally partial to the idea of adopting the CV90 family, there are other potential "families" out there, allowing for the potential of competition between various manufacturers and large cost savings for us.

 

[cupper]

Along that same line, you also have the British CVR(T) and it's dozen or so variants.

For a heavier armour system you could look at the Warrior. I would include the Bradley here as well, but there were no real variants that I am aware of.

One question that comes to mind, is it better to go tracked or wheeled? Pros and cons of either?

 

[aesop081]

    2 Increase the length  150cm and add a third axle and the width by 40 cm

In essence, you are breaking your own rule #1.

3 Increase the thickness of the Armour by 50% 

Why ? With increased armour thickness, comes increased weight and decreased mobility. Rather that do what you propose, and since you are designing an entire new vehicle, might as well change the slope of the current armour (add thickness without adding anything) or use a new type of armour.

   

 

[Jarnhamar]

 
  Well what do you want for the Army ?

Land Raider, crusader pattern.

 

[ArmyRick]

Star wars AT-AT and AT-ST

 

[Jarnhamar]

Star wars AT-AT and AT-ST

Yea now we're talking.


A mobile HQ type vehicle with;
- a built in CCP/medical station
- heavy duty electronics suite with jamming capabilities  (inc GPS).
- couple cannons. a few large machinegun platforms.
- even throw in a laptop and projection screen for those fancy briefs people like to make.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Star wars AT-AT and AT-ST

Even those got mobility issues, AT-ST on uneven or shifting terrain a walker could quickly become unbalanced enough to fall over

;D

 

[GAP]

Even those got mobility issues, AT-ST on uneven or shifting terrain a walker could quickly become unbalanced enough to fall over

;D

or little furry teddybears could wrap ropes around your legs and trip you up....not to mention the two crashing logs on ropes meeting with you in the middle....... ;D

 

[a_majoor]

or little furry teddybears could wrap ropes around your legs and trip you up....not to mention the two crashing logs on ropes meeting with you in the middle....... ;D

See, that's why hovertanks are so important....

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Along that same line, you also have the British CVR(T) and it's dozen or so variants.

Have you ever been in one?  Trust me, we do not want the CVR(T) - same same for the Warrior.  North Americans are substantially lager than Brits - we simply don't fit.

 

[Kirkhill]

Have you ever been in one?  Trust me, we do not want the CVR(T) - same same for the Warrior.  North Americans are substantially lager than Brits - we simply don't fit.

On that score: What is the Gurkha carrying capacity of a LAV III?  Assuming bench seating.  >

 

[cupper]

On that score: What is the Gurkha carrying capacity of a LAV III?  Assuming bench seating.  >

Standing up, sitting down, or stacked like fire wood? It makes a difference.

 

[McBrush]

The point of this post is, no matter what platform is chosen, there will be objections. Now who does the choosing? In a perfect world we (the military)would be part of the development process. Lets hope the CCV will be a proven platform, using the latest and most recent tech. I just think back to the Leo. C1 in the 70's. Keep going and keep it real or a Jedi will get you. There are so meany out there opinions please, may be big brother is watching.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I found it odd that the CV90 family never adopted a engineering vehicle, I saw a photo of either a testbed or mockup of one. Also never saw any with a raised compartment. I would have thought a command or support version with just an light RWS on a raised compartment would have been a good fit into the family.

 

[McG]

In the perfect world what would ...

In the "perfect world" we would spend a little less time fussing about the "perfect platform" and a little more time concerning ourselves with the properly balanced fleet.
We have too many unnecessary special purpose or micro fleets.  This stems from a number of places: we buy the “mission vehicles” and neglect all the support vehicles either to fit within a funding envelope or because we forgot; we rush to buy “shiny” equipment solution with niche platforms for problems that could have been tackled with doctrine, TTP or training solutions; and we develop tunnel vision looking at one platform without consideration for the remainder of the fleet within which it will operate.

This leads to AVGP support vehicles being held in service to sustain Coyote & LAV III long after the fleet was retired.  It leads to Bison support vehicles being pressed into sustaining LAV III fleets.  It may lead to the CCV being unable to operate separately from Leopard 2 for want support vehicles, and it will now mean we have two fleets of vehicle (CCV and TLAV/MTVE) where we probably only need one to augment and support the Leopard 2.

 

[Bzzliteyr]

I always wondered why we didn't keep the M113 family even though we kept the M113 family?

I mean, with the new rubber track system and upgrades it seems like it would be a perfect on route/off road vehicle that has the potential for swimming and can keep up with most MBTs.  The Lynx (with upgrades) could have remained and either platform could have been tweaked to fit a surveillance system.

No?

 

[dogger1936]

I always wondered why we didn't keep the M113 family even though we kept the M113 family?

I mean, with the new rubber track system and upgrades it seems like it would be a perfect on route/off road vehicle that has the potential for swimming and can keep up with most MBTs.  The Lynx (with upgrades) could have remained and either platform could have been tweaked to fit a surveillance system.

No?

Always thought the M113 with a surv suite would work excellent. Rubber track is so quiet; would have worked great as a recce vehicle.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

I always wondered why we didn't keep the M113 family even though we kept the M113 family?

I mean, with the new rubber track system and upgrades it seems like it would be a perfect on route/off road vehicle that has the potential for swimming and can keep up with most MBTs.  The Lynx (with upgrades) could have remained and either platform could have been tweaked to fit a surveillance system.

No?

The T-LAV/MTVL FOV is too heavy to swim...... at least that's what they told us when I did the trials with T&E

 

[Bzzliteyr]

The T-LAV/MTVL FOV is too heavy to swim...... at least that's what they told us when I did the trials with T&E

Which is where the upgraded M113 comes in.  We could have kept some of them.