Could someone explain why CAF wants LAV 10x10 with RCH, or at least link an article that explains their current wants? Noah mentioned them wanting the protection level of the LAV platform; is that greater or less than the K9? I don't actually know a ton about mobile artillery, but I assume they reduce the armour to compensate for the weight of the gun, and the fact they are supposed to be behind the front line, not on it. I thought that we were looking at tracked IFV to increase their usability in the artic, as a apposed to the wheeled LAVs, so I'm surprised that they would prefer a wheeled artillery platform over a tracked one.
Choosing the LAV platform allows more standardization in supply chains as they already have a lot in service, so can minimize the number of spare parts and training have to do.
This. Not the only reasons. The Army has centralized tracked maintinence with the Leos, so there is going to be a period of reintroduction to a tracked platform. Tracked platforms are also seen as more expensive and less transportable, another factor for Canada that might seem minor, but adds to the list. A LAV-based SPH also fits nicely in the middle, protected more than traditional trucked based system, shares commonality, able to keep with the LAV fleet. Kinda the 'best of both' sort of glasses.
If K-9 was to be built here for export, I could see our military opting for a split fleet of tracked K-9 and K-10 with the possibility of also procuring some hybrid LAV chassis/K9 gun systems/loaders wouldn't be difficult to ship LAV chassis to the K-9 factory for modifications especially if it's set up in Ontario. Just a thought.
Im intrigued. It seems like a bit of a hail mary move from Hanwha, but a very interesting proposition and sure to give Hanwha some extra points in their favor.
Could someone explain why CAF wants LAV 10x10 with RCH, or at least link an article that explains their current wants? Noah mentioned them wanting the protection level of the LAV platform; is that greater or less than the K9? I don't actually know a ton about mobile artillery, but I assume they reduce the armour to compensate for the weight of the gun, and the fact they are supposed to be behind the front line, not on it. I thought that we were looking at tracked IFV to increase their usability in the artic, as a apposed to the wheeled LAVs, so I'm surprised that they would prefer a wheeled artillery platform over a tracked one.
Choosing the LAV platform allows more standardization in supply chains as they already have a lot in service, so can minimize the number of spare parts and training have to do.
This. Not the only reasons. The Army has centralized tracked maintinence with the Leos, so there is going to be a period of reintroduction to a tracked platform. Tracked platforms are also seen as more expensive and less transportable, another factor for Canada that might seem minor, but adds to the list. A LAV-based SPH also fits nicely in the middle, protected more than traditional trucked based system, shares commonality, able to keep with the LAV fleet. Kinda the 'best of both' sort of glasses.
there was a speed standard set that the tracked vehicles couldnt meet
maybe an aversion to tracks in a non tracked forces
Funniest requirement since fire on the move got canned
If K-9 was to be built here for export, I could see our military opting for a split fleet of tracked K-9 and K-10 with the possibility of also procuring some hybrid LAV chassis/K9 gun systems/loaders wouldn't be difficult to ship LAV chassis to the K-9 factory for modifications especially if it's set up in Ontario. Just a thought.
Im intrigued. It seems like a bit of a hail mary move from Hanwha, but a very interesting proposition and sure to give Hanwha some extra points in their favor.
Hanwha is just throwing whatever they can out there by this point. They know it will resonate politically, which is the important thing.
Just a side note, Korea just tested a K-9 with a dual loader they claim now gives it the fastest fire rate in the world.