Sunday, June 06, 2010

CV90 Armadlillo. An answer for the Canadian Close Combat Vehicle requirement?


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.
Do you notice how similar the mythical CCV is to the CV90 Armadillo?  Its almost startling!

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!

Chris got it half right!


Chris Rawley of Information Dissemination got it half right in his article on "USMC expands CAS capabilities".  In the comments section (where some of his assertions are questioned) he makes this statement...
It was a suggestion, not a mix-up. Why not arm the Greyhounds? What other sea-based long dwell armed ISR does the navy currently employ? Land-based armed ISR is fine until host-nation country ABC decides it doesn't want to base platforms flying strike ops into country XYZ.
Well he's right to want more carrier based ISR.  He's right to want to utilize platforms that we do have for a variety of missions.  Where he's wrong is the platform he suggests.  The C-2 Greyhound?  Really?  Seriously?

We had...and have the perfect platform for the emerging threats that we're facing.  We simply retired them too soon. Way too soon.

What was that platform?

The S-3 Viking and the ES-3A Shadow.  The Viking was capable of carrying out air support (at least as its being done now...at 15000 feet with smart bombs)...anti-surface warfare...it carried harpoons regularly....aerial refueling...it carried buddy tanks and freed up Hornets and Super Hornets for strike and air defense missions...and in its latest and greatest form, it was a capable ISR platform.

Chris was right...he just picked the wrong airplane!

Just plain cool.

Under water free fall!  This guy is crazy cool.  I like the sound track too.