CASR

Canadian
American
Strategic
Review

Future Canadian Forces Armoured Vehicles –  Future Combat Systems –  January 2010 Armoured Vehicle Modernization After FCS:  Implications for Canada James Hasik  reviews DND's Procurement Plans in an American Light A summary of recommendations by James Hasik  *     The full version is now available. Editor :  In early April 2009, US Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, revealed that he intended to cancel the vehicle component of the US Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS) program. Once the cancellation of these Manned Combat Vehicle (MCV) hulls was made official, planning for future armour had to begin again. James Hasik has reviewed future vehicle options for the US. Of course, with the demise of the FCS ground vehicles went any chance of  using MCV hulls to satisfy future Canadian Forces requirements.  That FCS option may have been a long shot anyway. But this raises the question: Will the replacement for FCS MCV, the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV), play a significant part in DND's planned future armoured vehicle procurement? Here, Jim Hasik offers some suggestions for Canadian Forces vehicle modernization based on DND's existing plans for upgrades and new procurement.  Such recommendations spring from a detailed analysis of the opportunities presented and hurdles now faced by the US military in its future armoured vehicle procurement – both MRAP/M-ATV and  Ground Combat Vehicles. The US Army's  Future Armour Programs and their Implications  for the Canadian Forces The demise of the US Army's Future Combat System (FCS) program has opened opportunities for  more  practical  plans  for  armoured  vehicle  modernization.  The  US  Army  has  replaced its  formerly  all-encompassing  and  over-reaching  approach  with a suite of  separate  efforts to  update,  extend,  and  recapitalize its  fleet of  both wheeled and  tracked armoured vehicles. The large sums of  money being invested in even these more modest development efforts may be particularly useful beyond the needs of just the US Army. In particular, upgrades to the 8x8 Stryker and development of so many designs for the MRAP All Terrain Vehicle (M-ATV) and Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) programs may be very valuable to two vehicle projects for the Canadian Forces: LAV III modernization and the Tactical Armored Patrol Vehicle (TAPV). With the US Army already committed  to a developmental upgrade program  for at least seven brigades of wheeled Strykers, a tracked vehicle seems likely for the FCS replacement, the BCT Ground Combat Vehicle. If the particulars of the GCV RFP do lean that way, BAE Systems and General Dynamics may be relatively advantaged. BAE Systems [ through United Defense] has long experience with tracked  troop carriers in the US  with their  M113 and Bradley programs. More  significantly,   both  companies  have recent  experience  through  their   European operations with the the CV90 (at Hägglunds in Sweden ) and  the  ASCOD ( at  GDLS-E's Santa Bárbara in Spain and Steyr in Austria). Whoever  lands  the  GCV contract  is  quite likely  the  big  winner  of   the  next  decade. Update  14 Mar 2010:  Agence France-Presse has published  unconfirmed reports that General Dynamics Land Systems  has won the FRES SV contest with  its ASCOD 2  over  BAE's CV90. One dark horse candidate worth mentioning for GCV is the Puma from the PSM consortium of Krauss-Maffei Wegmann and  Rheinmetall. At 43 tons, Puma has enough steel underneath to withstand fairly impressive mine blasts.  The Puma features a remote turret armed with a 30mm cannon with an option for air-bursting rounds that can bracket soft targets with shrapnel from both sides, as well as integrated antitank missiles [Eurospike Spike using the MELLS system]. The level of  protection afforded in a military-off-the-shelf (MOTS) package is impressive. All of  these European GCV candidates are also potential candidates for  Canada's  Close Combat Vehicle Project. Regardless of the GCV outcome, US Army choices will ultimately affect  CCV. FCS,  BCT  Ground Combat Vehicles,  and  the Implications for the Canadian Land Forces With all this armoured vehicle development activity south of  the border,  can Canada's Land Forces find some way to benefit? Quite possibly. Three aspects of the Land Forces moderniz- ation plan outlined by the Department of  National  Defence are related to the US Army plans: A new  Close Combat Vehicle  ( CCV )  for the Canadian Forces The Department of  National Defence recently indicated that  it wanted  to move expeditiously with its planned $2.2B project for up to 138 tracked infantry carriers. Since whatever is chosen for the non-developmental CCV will have a projected weight of  30 to 45 tons, vehicles like the ASCOD, Puma, and  CV90  have been discussed  in the Canadian press as likely CCV options. This last vehicle, the CV90 series, has been particularly  well  spoken of,  with  its  large installed  base throughout  NATO and  the ' Partnership for  Peace ' countries, and  the positive experiences of  the CV9040Cs with Swedish  forces and  the  CV9030 NOs with Norwegian combat  troops  in Afghanistan. With respect to US assistance, the problem is that  –  despite the similarity in acronyms –  the development of a GCV in the United States is not likely to be helpful to DND's CCV Project, as the first of  the new US armoured vehicles are not projected  to be available until at  least 2017. Canadian combat troops may well begin withdrawing from Afghanistan in 2011, but  if  history serves as any guide, Canadian troops will continue to meet Canada's commitment to collective security elsewhere in the world, and shortly thereafter. The Canadian Forces just won't do the job with an American-designed vehicle – at least  not in the case of the Close Combat Vehicle. LAV  III  Modernization  –  Upgrading the CF's Primary  Wheeled  Light Armoured Vehicle The biggest win for Canada [both industrially and for CF procurement] is potentially in the US Army's resounding vote to continue funding  General Dynamics upgrades [1] of  their Stryker version of the LAV III. All of the features of the so-called Super Stryker demonstrator and the US Army's more recent contract request could be of interest to the Canadian Army. These are:   •  higher ground clearance and slight v-shaping to the rear hull   •  a remote 25 mm cannon turret   •  new suspension, new drivetrain, new brakes, and larger tires   •  a 450 horsepower diesel engine [ up from the LAV III's 350 hp diesel ], and   •  a new digital architecture for follow-on C4ISR systems. Together, these improvements would increase Stryker passenger capacity from seven to nine, improve battlefield connectivity, and increase the vehicle's maximum weight (presumably with- out loss of  mobility) to 27 tonnes –  which could permit the addition of  quite a bit of  modular armour. Much of  this work will be paid for by the US Army, which will allow Canada's DND to focus its  relatively scarcer  development funds on projects of  particular national importance. [1] Ed:  Super Stryker is  General Dynamics Land Systems' Stryker demonstrator called  the WCVD (Wheeled Combat Vehicle Demonstrator ).  It has passive armour by DEW, a Kongsberg MC RWS (Medium Calibre Remote Weapon Station), and a retractable Raytheon sensor mast. The "RWS" is more an unmanned  turret  à la the German Puma. Less noticeable is the improved suspension, new road wheels with wider tires, and LAV-H armour.] A new  Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle  ( TAPV ) The Canadian Army also plans to acquire, starting in 2012, some 200 reconnaissance and 300 utility TAPVs, with an option for a further hundred. The recce TAPV will carry either a remote or manned turret, and the utility TAPV a remote one. The TAPV Project is intended to replace both the recce Coyote and  RG-31 Armoured Patrol Vehicle. The successful bidder will bring a family of  MOTS vehicles. The list of potential candidates is long: Oshkosh's M-ATV springs to mind, but the BAE Systems Valanx,  Force Protection Cheetah, and several other vehicles designed for M-ATV, Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) demonstration, and related programs could also be very competitive. In short, the Canadian Army should have the pick of the litter. The rub here is that while the recce vehicle need carry only a crew of four, the utility vehicle must carry four passengers and three crew. That's one more crewman than is common in most patrol vehicles, though it's easily accommodated by the Canadian Forces' current RG-31 APV. DND's insistence on a requirement for four passengers in the utility TAPV variant could  limit options. Notably, the entry for the US  JLTV competition  from  Texton, Boeing, and  SAIC  featured a centerline steering wheel with three seats in front suiting crew requirements. In all probability, any of the other aforementioned vehicles could be easily stretched  for an additional seat or two aft. It  is just  that the set of alternatives would narrow a bit, and potentially become rather less  'off-the-shelf ', and  a bit  more costly. Implications  of  the  US  Army  Acquisitions  programs  for  CF  Land  Forces  Procurement   • The US GCV program is too far away and indeterminate to be of much use to better-defined and near-term Canadian needs. Since procurement and staff officers aren't  in plentiful supply, little attention should be paid to the GCV program to satisfy near-term Canadian requirements.   • The US Army's Stryker upgrade program is very interesting, and potentially very beneficial to the Army. Its parameters have already largely been established, so following its course and requesting release of  the relevant technical details to General Dynamics' Canadian facilities in London, Ontario is a straightforward, if demanding, liaison job.   •  The open management question  lies with the TAPV program.  With so much recent  devel- opment work in the US, Canadian needs can almost assuredly be met with a MOTS vehicle, as long as stated requirements accommodate the state of the industry's offerings. Understanding the details of  the market calls for a well-crafted request for information, and  a well-crafted RFI is the province of  any well-educated  procurement officer attuned  to commercial sensibilities. If this is indeed all managed well, the Canadian Forces could find itself in a few years with the most strategically appropriate and tactically valuable fleet of combat vehicles that it has had in decades,  and  for a very reasonable cost. *  James Hasik is a founder and principal of  Hasik Analytic LLC.  He is also a member of  the Council on Emerging National Security Affairs.  Jim Hasik can be reached at +1-512-299-1269.