[Newsbot]

Title: Armoured vehicles purchase runs into new roadblock
Category: Military
Posted By: Hyack
Date: 2011-01-10 19:23:39
Canadian

[Canadian_Mind]

It's kind of funny that one of the rejected vehicles is the best protected and most powerful Infantry Fighting Vehicle ever produced, the Puma: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puma_(IFV)

[KorbenDeck]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

It's kind of funny that one of the rejected vehicles is the best protected and most powerful Infantry Fighting Vehicle ever produced, the Puma: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puma_(IFV)

I think Canada is looking for a non tracked vehicle because they are better in urban environments.

[Canadian_Mind]

KorbenDeck KorbenDeck:

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

It's kind of funny that one of the rejected vehicles is the best protected and most powerful Infantry Fighting Vehicle ever produced, the Puma: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puma_(IFV)

I think Canada is looking for a non tracked vehicle because they are better in urban environments.

The CCV program as it was described to me is to procure a vehicle that can perform manoeuvre ops alongside the Leopard 2, with the same capabilities of manoeuvrability and armoured protection as the Leopard 2 in any operation zone. The Puma was specifically designed to do this. The french vehicle (I believe it's the VBS) they were looking at is junk off road. It has more stability issues than a LAV III (rolls over like a Ford Explorer), and it's ground pressure is much higher, meaning it can't handle mud, sand, and snow as well as a tracked vehicle or even the LAV III.

Further, the LAV III is an effective urban ops platform, I don't understand why you'd buy another urban-ops oriented platform when you have one that works?

[1Peg]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

The CCV program as it was described to me is to procure a vehicle that can perform manoeuvre ops alongside the Leopard 2, with the same capabilities of manoeuvrability and armoured protection as the Leopard 2 in any operation zone.

A MBT to work along side a MBT.... If you want the same armoured protection....

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Further, the LAV III is an effective urban ops platform, I don't understand why you'd buy another urban-ops oriented platform when you have one that works?

I agree, the LAV 3 is very effective as well as the Coyote.


P.S.. Here is a short video of a LAV 3 mobility test....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyrDV-D1bLY

A tracked LAV with any damage to the tracks is doomed in any combat situation.

[Canadian_Mind]

The Puma, fully up armoured, weighs 42 tonnes with it's current armoured configuration. While a Leo 2 weighs 70-110 tonnes uparmoured (+/- a lot, depending on armour used, attachments, etc), the Puma actually has better battlefield manoeuvrability, with approximately half the frontal arc protection of a Leopard 2A6M Can, and many times the mine/IED protection factor.

The VBCI (correction on my earlier name), doesn't have the same levels of protection as the Puma, is easier to spot in a combat zone, and while it travels faster on road and has better maintenance cycle than tracked vehicles, it has dismal off road performance.

Another interesting one, which I don't think is even being looked at, is the Isreali Namer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namer_(vehicle)

It doesn't really fit the medium weight roll though, being 60 tonnes with base level armour, same as a Leopard2.

I know about the mobility tests of the LAV 25 and LAV 3.


As an armoured guy, I have a personal favourite, but what they get is what they get, if they get anything at all.

Now, if they botch the new recce vehicle purchase, I'm gonna be pissed.