|
Background – Future Combat Systems – Close Combat Vehicle Project |
|
Update: 09 July 2009 – as part of $5B for LAV III upgrades/new armoured vehicles, 108 CCVs
are to be ordered (with options for 30 more).
|
|
CCV – Infantry Fighting Vehicle vs Infantry Section Carrier
The Close Combat Vehicle project can be seen as one outcome of the CF's ongoing wheels-vs-tracks debate. Under
'Medium- Weight Force', wheeled LAVs were the vehicle of choice. But, in Afghanistan, LAV IIIs had mobility
problems in both winter conditions and when facing steep irrigation ditches. A tracked CCV is to solve those problems,
providing new troop-carrying armoured vehicles able to keep up with Leopard tanks regard- less of terrain. But CCVs would not be LAV III
replacements – CCV is to be a tracked IFV, while LAV IIIs are wheeled ISC. [1]
|
|
|
As part of the larger Family of Land Combat Systems project, the Close Combat Vehicle would be related
to, if not the core of, a family of Future Combat Vehicles. This FCVS will dictate a CCV choice involving
either a potential for other roles or an existing range of special roles vehicles. CCV must also 'dovetail' with any
plans to upgrade or augment the LAV III fleet.
Commonality of drivetrains may be limited but there is potential to simplify training and spares through the
use of common turrets, remote weapon systems, and main guns. As such, DND has a difficult decision to make. Desirable
armament options are in flux but DND's choice must be made now.
|
|
|
Close Combat Vehicle Project – Candidates and Cast-Offs
Possible Close Combat Vehicle candidates have been publicly discussed ad nauseum. It is probably
simplest to eliminate the less probable CCV candidates. Likely safe to discount are two European IFVs, Italy's
Dardo and Spain's ASCOD Pizarro (or Ulan). Neither country has been willing to commit
their IFVs to combat in Afghanistan so, these vehicles cannot be said to be proven. There are also
political problems springing from the public perception of FWSAR (presented as a choice between Italian
and Spanish imports). [2] ASCOD has a Canadian connection but this is of little advantage. [3]
|
|
|
Also mentioned as a potential CCV is the existing CF TLAV M113. The donor M113 hull has spawned IFVs before but these are specialty builds not
conversions. Turreted M113 conversions (eg: Danish PNMK, left ) tend to be fire-support vehicles rather than
an IFV. [4] It's not that a TLAV IFV conversion is impossible but yet another upgrade for the 40-year old
CF 'Buckets' is unlikely to be the answer for CCV. Better protection and simpler upgrade jobs
can be found elsewhere. [5]
|
|
|
CCV Key Candidates – Puma, CV90, & Marder rebuilds
Until recently, the most probable CCV candidates were the German
Puma and Swedish CV90 series. Both vehicles are
excellent – Puma being the latest of its type but unproven, the CV90 having an extended family of
proven variants. In the aftermath of an economic meltdown, refurbishing used German Marder IFVs becomes more appealing. The down- sides to buying used are obvious.
But the alternative may be no CCV purchase at all. The requirement is there – IFVs that can stay with
the tanks regardless of terrain. The question is: what are citizens willing to bear?
|
|
|
[1] Although the CF terms its LAV III an Infantry Section Carrier, these vehicles are employed as IFVs. The
distinction is between a 'battle taxi' (the ISC or Armoured Personnel Carrier) and more heavily armed IFV with its
smaller complement of 'dismounts'. The LAV III is both.
[2] ASCOD is a Spanish-Austrian co-development of Santa Barbara Sistemas and Steyr-Daimler-Puch,
both companies owned by GDLS.
[3] ASCOD's connection with General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada may appear to be an advantage but DND may
also see more work for GDLS-Canada as a liability. GDLS-C would have to demonstrate that it could
accommodate LAV re-sets, LAV-H, and manage ASCOD.
[4] The AIFV series was a purpose-built, turreted IFV derivative of the M113. The Dutch used their YPR-765 PRI
AIFVs alongside M113s in Uruzgan Province. However, the 25mm cannon-armed YPR-765 PRIs are now
being phased-out in favour of the heavier-armed CV9030.
[5] The TLAV is proving its worth in Afghanistan but this has more to do with mobility than with inherent protection.
The quieter-running Soucy band tracks have proven their worth. However, even with add-on armour panels applied,
protection could be better. Partly that is a function of the reduced ground-clearance of all tracked vehicles.
But the aluminum armour in the aging TLAV hulls also has its detractors.
|
|