Army Technology.com indicating Canada has ordered Javelin ATGM????

[MG34]

The Javelin is one of the systems that is in competition ,there are some issues with it that need ironing out first,the basic line is that we are waiting for the next generation to be produced and tested. One of the problems with the current javelin is that it cannot take the shock of being vehicle mounted,as one of the proposed roles is to have one mounted on the LAVIII turret in the manner that the Mlian has been mounted on the Marder 2,as a secondary armament to deal with tanks.Wether or not this requirement is dropped or not remains to be seen,but the latest info I have received is that the purchase will be put on hold until the next generation Javelin is perfected as the current system has some problems that require to be fixed.

 

[Kirkhill]

Funny how so many others seem to find it acceptable as is.

But after all, this is Canada.

 

[MG34]

In it's current form it cannot take the shock of being vehicle mounted,the next version will be improved with regards to both that and FCS,no sense buying a system that will be obsolete in a couple of years now is there. :

 

[Kirkhill]

True enough, assuming that it will only take a couple of years to debug the system and that we don't have an urgent mission requirement.  Would it not be conceivable that we buy a few to be used now and then purchase more when the upgrades come available?  I realize we like to buy 30 years supply all at once, but do we have to?

 

[Kirkhill]

On the other hand I just read the article on the Spike in the current CDR.   If the Spike is all that it is cracked up to be in the article I can actually see the merits of the Spike over the Javelin.   Particularly the ability to see the target from the missile and use it as a recce tool as well as an offensive tool - fire and forget OR update in flight according to real time info.   Meanwhile the Spike (2000m) Spike-LR (4000m) Spike-ER (8000m) results in commonality of training and parts.

Has the Spike system been ruled out entirely?   Or are we essentially waiting to have the Javelin developed so that it can perform like the Spike?

Tucking head back in and deciding to try and not be a total idiot.   :-\

 

[Mountie]

My thoughts exactly.  Isn't the SPIKE a better system?  Couldn't the SPIKE LR or ER also replace the TUA systems?  The SPIKE ER would provide better range than the TOW II, it would allow for commonality between the man-portable system and it could also be mounted on a light vehicle than the LAV-III.  The Israeli site describes it as being mountable on light combat vehicles.  As you can see in the picture the remote vehicle mount system is much smaller and appears much lighter than the TUA turret.  Mounting the SPIKE ER on a vehicle like the Eagle IV would be much cheaper than the TUA on the LAV-III.  Therefore, more systems could be procured.  The Eagle IV / Spike ER could be used in conjuction with 40mm CASW or .50 cal M2's mounted in Protected Weapons Stations on the Eagle IV.  12 Spikes and 6 CASW/M2 HMG equipped Eagle IVs could be used as small, mobile, fast anti-armour/direct fire support/recce teams in each infantry battalion, like the USMC Combined Anti-Armour Teams (CAAT).

 

[LordOsborne]

Hi, i've been reading along and i've been wondering if the ALAAWS winner will replace the Eryx... I know we haven't exactly had them for very long, and it would be kind of silly to ditch them right away, but does it make sense to keep them as well?

i know the CF has its way of designating anti-armour systems (like the short range M-72, Carl-g and then the Eryx), but do we need a guided short range missile and a guided long-range missile?

thanks for your input

pat

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Well look at it this way LO...would you want to be short a capability if you were involved in a battle.
*Sorry boys we can't engage those MBTs because the goverment under the direction of misguiuded opinion from the public removed our long range missiles, so we will have to keep being decimated until they come with in range*

or

*The tanks are in too close and our missiles don't have time to arm...wish we had some short range missiles*

 

[McG]

Hi, i've been reading along and i've been wondering if the ALAAWS winner will replace the Eryx... I know we haven't exactly had them for very long, and it would be kind of silly to ditch them right away, but does it make sense to keep them as well?

ALAAWS is going to be a medium range system.  That will rule out the Eryx SRAAW(H).

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

So medium range weapons can be used for short range work as well without worrying about a distance for the fuze to be armed?

 

[McG]

I would imagine so, but I'm not familiar with either missile that is being considered.  However, the last I heard was that short range and medium range systems will be expected to complement eachother and not one replace the other (like the layerd approach that is being taken with our DFS system of systems).

 

[AmmoTech90]

The real difference between short range and medium range now is cost, portability, and maximum range.  You can shoot a TOW at a target 65 metres away, Javelin at 50 metres, not whole lot of difference there as far as minimum ranges go.  None of the missiles in contention are individual weapons, they all need 2-3 pers to carry a useful load.  On the other hand none of them are much bigger (and in some cases smaller) than Eryx so 1/section is possible.
I can see the CF going dropping the Eryx (SRAAR(H)) and replacing it with a MRAAW, the ALAAWS.  The ALAAWS will do everything Eryx can (and more) and at a longer range.
A replacement for the M72A5-C1 should also be in the works, something along the lines of AT4 I would think (SRAAW(L)).  Probably not guided and cheap enough to issue on the scale the M72 is now.
So that would leave SRAAW(L) - Disposable, SRAAW(M) - Carl G, MRAAW(L/M) - ALAAWS, MRAAW(H) - ITAS-TOW, ADATS as the rocket/missile systems.

 

[LordOsborne]

yeah, thanks for clearing that up, AmmoTech and co.


pat

 

[baboon6]

Re the M72- the USMC is actually reintroducing it into service for use in Iraq. No armour threat there but it's great for taking out bunkers and buildings, and much lighter/portable than the AT4. There are also some interesting new M72 rounds, including thermobaric, look on the www.talleyds.com website (hope the URLs right).

 

[Infanteer]

A replacement for the M72A5-C1 should also be in the works, something along the lines of AT4 I would think (SRAAW(L)).   Probably not guided and cheap enough to issue on the scale the M72 is now.

Since the RPG-7 and it's variants have got so much notoriety n the last decade, I'm curious to know if any military forces are investigating a light and reloadable RPG-like weapons system to issue to individuals.

I know we've chucked the idea around in the Infantry forum a few times....

 

[AmmoTech90]

Well theres the Carl G M3 - 10 kg vice the 6.3 of the RPG-7
Panzerfaust 3 12.9kg (all up including round), Israeli B-300 at 8 kg loaded, South African FT5 (11.3kg loaded).

So there's a few systems kicking around.  The problem with re-usable launchers I think is the ammo.  Give everyone a M72/AT4 and you have 8 weapons.  Give one person a Carl G and you have 1 weapon with the ammo scattered among the section.  Granted the reloadable launchers are usually more accurate and effective (AT4 being the exception but its a heavy long piece of kit), so there's trade offs in everything.

 

[LordOsborne]

AmmoTech, i have a question about the AT-4 for you. you said it's probably the exception where accuracy is concerned, but i took a look at Baboon6's link to Talley Defence and they claim it's incredibly accurate. what's the problem with the AT-4?

thanks,
pat

 

[AmmoTech90]

What I meant is that the disposable AT4 is the exception to the rule that disposable launchers are less accurate and shorter ranged than reloadable ones.  The AT4 matches the range and accuracy of some reloadable launchers.  The LAW80 may fit in there too.  However these are the two largest disposable launchers I have ever seen though so obviously there is a trade off.

 

[jdmarshall]

ALAWS - Advanced Lightweight Anti-Armour Weapon System

http://www.merx.com/English/Supplier_Menu.asp?WCI=Form&WCE=Show&XID=696&State=7

W8476-050712/A
LaFleche, Monique
Telephone No. - (819) 997-8624
Fax No. - (819) 997-9685

Line1, GSIN:N1425AA, ALAWS

The Department of National Defence has a requirement for the
procurement and support of an Advanced Lightweight Anti-Armour
Weapon System (ALAWS) for the Canadian Land Forces.  The ALAWS
is required to provide an effective mid-range dismounted
fire-and-forget anti-armour weapon in support of light forces
operations.

This requirement is inclusive of the following:

a) delivery of quantity one hundred and eighty-three (183)
firing post assemblies (FPA);
b) delivery of quantity sixty-nine (69) outdoor trainers (OT);
c) delivery of quantity seventy-seven (77) indoor trainers (IT);
d) delivery of three hundred and eighteen (318) mechanical
trainers (MT);
e) delivery of quantity eight hundred and forty (840) launch
tube assemblies (LTA);
f) delivery of initial cadre operator and technician training;
g) delivery of spares, special tools and test equipment and
training aids;
h) delivery of logistic and optimized weapon support services
(OWSS);
i) provision of as-required repair & overhaul services and field
service representatives; and
j) delivery of all associated documentation and other related
support services.

The following requirements will be optional in any resultant
contract:

a) delivery of quantity thirteen (13) FPA's, quantity four (4)
OT's, quantity three (3) IT's, and quantity twelve (12) MT's;
b) additional operator and technician training courses; and
c) additional OWSS.

Anticipated delivery period is to take place during the
forty-eight (48) months following contract award.

Additional information including the Statement of Work and
Performance Specification is available as part of the RFP
package and will be distributed through MERX.

This is an un-funded requirement.  Any resultant contract will
only be awarded upon approval and receipt of funding.
Delivery Date Required:

 

[LordOsborne]

wow, i misread that. thanks for the clear up AmmoTech  :blotto: