Canadian American Strategic Review



CCV Overview



CCV Project

Background – Future Combat Systems – Close Combat Vehicle Project

Close Combat Vehicle (CCV) Project  –  Keeping up with Leopard Tanks in a new IFV
The CCV Project sought companions for Leopard tanks with better-protection and superior mobility in poor conditions than the CF's existing  LAV III. That suggested a tracked infantry fighting vehicle and several potential candidates were mooted. By its nature, the IFV has a medium-calibre gun armament and fewer dismounts than APCs. [1]

CCV Project: On-Again, Off-Again, Quits
A short-list of potential CCV suppliers was published [2] but DND/PWGSC rejected all candidates. This resulted in the relaunch of the CCV Project  NPP/SOIQ process as well as a winnowing of the field. At present, the announced candidates are BAE Hägglund's CV9035 and two wheeled vehicles,  Nexter's VBCI 25/30 and  GDLS-Canada's Piranha 5. The presence of wheeled IFVs in the CCV contest came as something as a surprise, not least to DND. But this is what comes from allowing potential suppliers to 'educate' their customer.

The CCV Project had the standard Canadian approach of IRB offsets with some local  'skill-building' added  to the mix. This was to consist of  hulls  from foreign manufacturers  matched with domestically-produced  turret systems. The arrangement is the same as for Danish CV9035s (but, in that case, the hull- provider is neighbouring  Sweden ). The DND approach was odd. Remote-turrets are now a glutted market, gaining Canada little. But all three potential CCV suppliers surprised DND by promising  full vehicle assembly in Canada. Bidders for CCV were expected to provide test hulls for blast trials at their own cost, although the media focused on DND's trial expenses of  $40M.

"She Blowed up real good!" CCV Project whittling and blasting
In August 2011, each of the potential CCV suppliers provided test vehicles (or 'Risk Reduction Units' ) for blast and other trials to be performed at the US Army  Aberdeen Test Center.  Once the tests were completed in Oct 2011, a CCV contract for was anticipated.[3] That didn't happen. The CCV Project dragged on until 20 Dec 2013 when the CDS,  Gen Tom Lawson, announced that CCV was dead. cancelled. Insisting that this was not a budgetary issue, the CDS was backed by Army Commander, LGen Marquis Hainse, who claimed LAV UP will protect troops just as well as CCV. That was the line taken by Michael Byers and Stewart Webb [4] who at least mentioned tractibility, unlike LGen Hainse.

[1] The CF refers to its LAV III as an Infantry Section Carrier. But the term ISC has also applied to two other LAV types, the old Bison and new LAV-RWS (ex-LAV TUA conversions) – both turretless. So, although the standard LAV III may act as an ISC, it's armed liked an IFV.

[2] Companies pre-qualified by DND/PWGSC for CCV bidding were: Artec (a KMW/Rheinmetall joint venture); BAE Systems Hägglunds; General Dynamics Land Systems - Canada; Nexter Systems; and Rheinmetall Landsysteme. Most  then announced Canadian partner firms.

[3] The result was to be an initial delivery of  8  CCVs within 24 months, followed by the remaining 100 CCVs within 48 months.  As usual with recent DND projects, slippages had no effect on this theoretical schedule. Nor did it help that the CCV budget was raided for TAPV.

[4] Stuck in a Rut: Harper government overrides Canadian Army, insists on buying outdated equipment by Michael Byers and Stewart Webb, 18 Sept 2013, produced by the Rideau Institute and Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Available as a 3.27 MB, 40 page PDF.