CASR has an interesting proposal regarding the CV90 and how the Canadian forces could benefit from its use.
This proposal is simple: borrow a small number of up-to-date, well-protected CV9040Cs from Sweden (as done with German Leopard 2A6M tank). Buy sufficient surplus CV9040Bs to take the place of CF wheeled LAVs for winter ops. Update CV9040B running gears but remove the dated turrets. Uparmour 'B hulls [3] to CV9040C standards, plating over turret rings. Substitute an existing CF Remote Weapon System [4] for vehicle self-defence (accompanying CV9040Cs will perform the direct-fire support role). The goal is twofold: field CCVs quickly in Kandahar and prove the CCV concept to Canadians.
What also stands out is how the Canadians have readily accepted the limitations of the Stryker like LAV-III.
Instead of upgrading it, they're willing to let this evolutionary tree dead end (as it should) and are moving in an entirely new direction.
I said before that the US Marine Corps should seriously consider the CV90 Armadillo as its Marine Personnel Carrier. Seems like the guys at CASR are thinking the same way with regards to their forces.
Note*
I found this after I wrote this piece. The people at BAE stated that the CV90 Armadillo wasn't in the running for the US Army GCV or the USMC Personnel Carrier Programs. Seems like my thoughts on the CASR proposal and the Armadillo looking tailor made is spot on. Check this out.
http://www.defensefile.com/Customisation/News/Military_Vehicles/Armoured_and_tracked_vehicles/Canadian_Close_Combat_Vehicle_Program_Collaboration.asp
Now we know. The CV90 Armadillo is for Canada!
you know theres been a constant battle between the idea of tracked vehicles and wheeled vehicles, whats your take on an infantry carrier or infantry fighting vehicle? i know the wheels do better on urban roads and tracks on off road.
ReplyDeletei love the design above though, it seems strong and stable. i wonder if we could fit the strykers mobile gun system on it and make a serious fire power out of a vehicle like that to support the infantry.
if you use band tracks on tracked vehicles then the advantage on roads almost disappears.
ReplyDeletethe question you should be asking isn't whether the MGS system can be fitted to the CV90...the question is can a 120mm version of it be fitted to the hull of an Abrams!
That would be a game changer. You would lose at least 30 tons of weight, keep the same horsepower and firepower and you'd have an almost revolutionary vehicle.
very true, what i have wondered is why we just do what the isrealis did and take the hull of an abrams, put a ligther turret on it (something like a remote cannon station or something) and make teh hull taller and make it into a IFV. i bet there are engines out there that would be able to have better gas mileage, i know the abrams suck up gas like no tomorrow but it would still be heavy but survivability would be amazing.
ReplyDeleteIt's the old 'right tool for the right job' discussion. During the '90s, SASO was the name of the game and patrolling urban areas (Bosnia, Africa, even Iraq) was done best with wheels. Plus those lighter LAVs were more easily (read: cheaper) to airlift overseas.
ReplyDeleteThe CV90 is becoming quite the allrounder: CV90120 with 120mm, CV9040AD SPAAG, C2/FO, engineer and recovery variants...
Using an all Namer/BMP-T type of heavy force would balloon fuel requirements, transport costs and require in-theatre AVLBs for weak bridges.
but arent our bradleys going to need replacing soon? i mean they are great vehicles in combat but with only 6/7 passengers, you need alot of them, and i think we need a vehicle that can carry people and fight.
ReplyDeleteis it just me or are we ignoring one of the finest land vehicles ever, the M113, i mean its been made in huge numbers, has a good history. it can be fitted with better armor, a remote turret, and upgraded network wise. i was disappointed when they let so many m113's sit idle in Kuwait and around the world to wait for those damn strykers and having our troops die in those humvees.
ReplyDelete