The armoured combat vehicle and the future of the armoured corps.

The ACV Concept Paper is a good document that was long overdue. There are, however, two issues in the paper that require clarification. First and foremost the ACV project is designed to replace the Leopard tank and not, as the paper states, the Cougar, which has already effectively been taken out of service by the Equipment Rationalization Plan (ERP). The second key issue is the intent to pursue a two-phase acquisition of ACV, with the second phase building on the success and lessons learned from the first. I feel that a single capital acquisition has more chance of success than a twophase approach. The Airforce and the Navy have both have both experienced success in adhering to single-issue strategic acquisition policies. Splitting our effort into two purchases will set us up for failure. We need to clearly define what we need and stick to our guns. The focus of the ACV must be on warfighting. The current political climate and strategic situation have probably provided us with the right opportunity to state the Armoured Corps', indeed the Army's, requirement for a warfighting ACV.

It is going to be somewhere between 2005 and 2010 before any ACV can be fielded. The ERP has thrust upon us an organizational and equipment plan designed to carry us through the transition period. No one will argue the logic of retiring the Cougar early from the Regular Force because of our problems with National Procurement. This was a wise decision. The organizational and equipment decisions embodied in the ERP were not based on any doctrinal considerations but simply on fiscal factors. Specifically, it was decided to reduce the reconnaissance (recce) troops in the brigade recce squadron and regimental headquarters (RHQ) …