MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)

[MdB]

http://www.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/researchtech/afvt/mmev_e.asp

The Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle Technology Demonstration project will help define a future Army force structure, and demonstrate and evaluate a revolutionary armoured vehicle concept using a human-in-the-loop distributed virtual environment.

MMEV Background
A major transformation is underway in the conduct of land operations. The US Army is transforming to a technologically advanced "Objective Force", investing heavily in network-centric command and control, multi-role munitions and platforms, and robotics. Similarly, the Canadian Army is exploring ways to exploit technological advances to ensure maximum combat effectiveness on the future battlefield. Canadian Army transformation must also consider interoperability with the US Objective Force.

Project Description
The earlier Future Armoured Vehicle Systems (FAVS) TD project identified a vehicle concept with the capability to fight in direct, indirect, and air-defence roles. This concept, the Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle, was included in the Canadian Future Army Model Experiment war games, which explored concepts, organizations and doctrine in open and urban terrain. The MMEV was tactically decisive, showing enormous promise for dramatically improving combat effectiveness, while improving flexibility of employment and reducing crew size and logistic requirements.

The Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle TD project will create a Multi-Mission Virtual Vehicle (MMVV), with multi-mission capabilities in a net-centric environment, and using unmanned organic and tactical air and ground vehicles for remote target identification and engagement. The MMVV will be created in the existing Armoured Vehicle Test Bed (AVTB), and the virtual environment will be used to evaluate technologies, battlefield effectiveness of the multi-mission capability, and interoperability issues with US forces. The major goals of the MMEV TD project are:

Predict battlefield effectiveness of multi-mission capability in various scenarios, including operations in urban terrain
Assess the ability of a two and three-man crew to operate an MMEV
Determine effectiveness of individual advanced technologies
Help define the future army force framework using linked large-scale simulations
Identify cost, schedule, and risk drivers of the related future Army technologies
Explore interoperability issues and technological implications with the US Objective Force
Using the virtual environment, any technology type and performance could be simulated. To ensure that he results of the MMEV TD project are believable, however, the identification and characterization of suitable technologies is critical to the success of MMEV TD.

In addition to the virtual experimentation, constructive evaluations will be done of the MMEV concept using Task Network Modelling, OneSAF, and Janus.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Here's the release:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/news_e.asp?cat=&y=&m=&page=1

MMEV is a LAV III chassis with a modified ADATS turret.  It should also have CRV-7 (unguided) rockets, a Hellfire-like non line of sight missile and a coax, all on the same platform.  I have more details at work, but am left shaking my head trying to figure out under what circumstance we'd risk putting this high value target in harm's way and under what tactical scenario we would use its rather dubious capabilities...

Note the number of vehicles and the program cost.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Seems like a lot for very little- a running theme. IIRC, the number of 33 vehicles is predicated on the acquisition of another system? 

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Yup.  Makes me wonder how many "used" M1A2s, Leo IIA5s, CV90s or other more sensible vehicles we could have bought for $750m.  I'm not a believer in the "system of systems" being touted by the brain trust, and have serious doubts about the very viability of this thing...but that's for another thread.

 

[Infanteer]

MMEV is a LAV III chassis with a modified ADATS turret.   It should also have CRV-7 (unguided) rockets, a Hellfire-like non line of sight missile and a coax, all on the same platform.   I have more details at work, but am left shaking my head trying to figure out under what circumstance we'd risk putting this high value target in harm's way and under what tactical scenario we would use its rather dubious capabilities

Good grief - it seems that turret is going to shake itself to pieces.

Isn't a tank capable of doing all of this?

 

[Infanteer]

I'm not a believer in the "system of systems" being touted by the brain trust, and have serious doubts about the very viability of this thing...but that's for another thread.

Yeah, this one:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/18535.0.html

MarkC's comments are especially illuminating.

Well, there goes another billion dollars.  

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Good grief - it seems that turret is going to shake itself to pieces.

Isn't a tank capable of doing all of this?

The non-line of sight stuff, no.  Everything else, yes. (and before some ADATS apologist jumps aboard to claim, yet again, a 7000m+ engagement range, I'd be interested to see how that range is reduced when there isn't a perfectly clear direct line of sight and plenty of time to acquire a target).

Thanks for the link to the old thread - it was posted slightly before my time on this site.  MarkC - as usual - has the right of it.  I'll admit to being very confused as to what is intended for direct fire in the Canadian Army and simply do not understand the thinking that has gone into the decisions that have been made - and I do planning for a living.  The list of things wrong with the "MMEV" is so long that I'd be typing for an hour... yet, here we go... Another contract to Oerlikon and another "one of" vehicle that has no conceivable tactical use.

Now I'm depressed....  :'(

 

[Infanteer]

The non-line of sight stuff, no.

I think there was some discussion on the armour forum about new munitions, through-the-tube missiles and what not, that would allow a tank (whether it be a 30ton CV90 or a 70 ton M1) to do the NLOS stuff.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

I see this has been merged...

Doubtless there's ample technology out there for a "through the barrel" NLOS round.  Again, I wonder how many such rounds, plus the tanks to fire them, we could buy (off the shelf) with $750m. 

MMEV, like the MGS is touted as being Herc liftable, but I have my doubts (MGS almost certainly is not in practical terms).  Aside from the tactical considerations, I seriously question the wisdom of procuring another "Canada only" high-tech vehicle.  Because it's a conversion, foreign sales are virtually impossible and it uses extremely expensive components.  I'm still shaking my head.

 

[Infanteer]

I'm still shaking my head.

Don't worry, I am too (as I say Ross Rifle to myself over and over again).... :brickwall:

 

[George Wallace]

I have seen photos of the prototype and that turret sure raises it's center of gravity....and we all know how sometimes gravity really sucks.  We have seen several rollovers with the LAV III's resulting in deaths.  This prototype has an even larger turret.  Very scary impression in my mind when I think of this aspect of the vehicle. 

ADATS was toted as being a top of the line AD resource when we built the plant in Quebec.  The US looked at it and decided against purchasing it.  We only produced a small quantity for ourselves (Wasn't that in the range of only ten or so?)  Is this going to be a similar 'boondoggle'?  Six to Ten vehicles wouldn't even defend a Bde effectively, so either produce enough to cover all our requirements or don't produce any and rely on other nations assets.  We used to rely on German Gepards when we were deployed in NATO. 

In the end, it still appears that Politics is still having an effect on our purchases.

 

[CBH99]

Just to correct you George, something about 40 ADATS were produced, and 36 fielded.  Don't ask me what happened to the other 4 systems - spare parts perhaps?  I know Thailand purchased 3 mobile systems similar to ours, and 1 static system.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

$750 million?  For 33 vehicles? 

$22.73 million per vehicle?

That is the absolute stupidest thing I have heard in a long time.  What a waste of money.




Matthew.  :crybaby:

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Just to correct you George, something about 40 ADATS were produced, and 36 fielded.   Don't ask me what happened to the other 4 systems - spare parts perhaps?   I know Thailand purchased 3 mobile systems similar to ours, and 1 static system.

I believe - and will immediately stand corrected by any bird gunner with better knowledge - that we bought 36 systems total.  Of those, a significant number (12?) were stored at Oerlikon at DND expense for quite some time.

If memory serves, we maintain nine systems in service at any given time.  Don't ask me what we do with the rest....  As I said, I'm certainly not an expert here, so would appreciate an AD gunner with better knowledge engaging.

CDN Blackshirt:  I don't like the vehicle at all, but must point out that the $750 includes systems integration, command posts, trials and the support package.  Still pretty expensive, though.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

CDN Blackshirt:   I don't like the vehicle at all, but must point out that the $750 includes systems integration, command posts, trials and the support package.   Still pretty expensive, though.

I simply do not understand the need for NDHQ to invent and custom-build extremely expensive kit which are bound to have horrible teething problems when we have such a limited procurement budget.  I've got to be honest, a lot of this nonsense seems to be guys making stuff up to keep themselves employed as opposed to providing the best and most cost-effective solution for the Forces.

My biggest problem with this entire program is I don't think they're putting themselves in the enemies' shoes.

You are a Taliban commander.... 

You have at your disposal:
(12) guerilla fighters with AK-47's
(5) guerilla fighters with RPG-7's
(2) engineers who know enough to rig an IED with some old soviet-era artillery shells

Your objective is to drive out "the Crusaders"

Key principle: 
"They are weak and a few casualties will scare them back where they came from...."

Choice of Targets in order of preference in order to minimize my own casualties:
1)  Supply Trucks (preferably unescorted)
2)  G-Wagons
3)  Coyotes
4)  LAV-III's
5)  MMEV

In short, the enemy (not us) will choose the time, the place and the target of the ambush.  The only thing we can do is uparmour the vehicles we do have to minimize initial casualties, then ensure that we have immediate firepower on as many vehicles as possible to guarantee we kill the attackers (assuming they aren't using IED's which is a big IF, since in Iraq the Sunnis have gone to two primary tactics to kill Americans - IED's and Suicide Bombers, neither of which the MMEV does anything to address).

My alternate plan for the $750 million currently allocated to MMEV would be based on buying into the American Ground Standoff Mine Detection System FCS (GSTAMIDS FCS) system (interim solution: the Buffalo â ” Mine Protected Clearance Vehicle (MPCV)), RG-32's (with the new G-wagen turrets) to replace G-wagens, and some type of heavily armoured supply/logistics vehicles (again preferably with turrets).  Other than that, birdcage the LAV's, and procure UAV's to maintain 24/7 battlespace surveillance over our area of operations (preferably tied into the new M777's and the US Marine's Dragonfire Mortar System).




Matthew.  ???

 

[Kirkhill]

Another weapons system potentially compatible with the MMEV.

BAE Systems 70mm Laser-Guided Rocket Achieves Two Direct Hits
 
 
(Source: BAE Systems; issued Sept. 29, 2005)
 
 
NASHUA, N.H. --- Two BAE Systems laser-guided rockets, developed for the Advanced Precision Kill Weapons System II (APKWS II) competition, recently completed successful flight tests at the U.S. Army's Yuma Proving Ground, Ariz. The 70mm rockets scored direct hits on laser-designated stationary and moving targets. 

Meanwhile, BAE Systems announced it will bid as prime contractor for this fall's APKWS II competition and has partnered with Northrop Grumman Corp. as systems integrator. 

"The BAE Systems/Northrop Grumman partnership will be well positioned to meet the Army's needs for a low-cost, low-collateral-damage precision rocket," said Frank Wilson, director of Missile Seekers for BAE Systems. "The back-to-back successful flights, part of our ongoing test program, demonstrate the readiness of our technology improvements and our commitment to fielding a highly capable system." 

Rockets were fired from a ground-based M260 launcher during the Arizona flight tests. The first was a 1.5km shot, demonstrating short-range performance, and the second was a 3.3km shot at a moving target. Both made direct hits. 

BAE Systems developed a Distributed Aperture Semi-Active Laser Seeker (DASALS) for the original APKWS effort, "and we have continued to improve and mature the seeker to achieve a low-risk, cost-effective solution that provides the best value to the war fighter," Wilson said. 


BAE Systems is an international company engaged in the development, delivery, and support of advanced defense and aerospace systems in the air, on land, at sea, and in space. The company designs, manufactures, and supports military aircraft, combat vehicles, surface ships, submarines, radar, avionics, communications, electronics, and guided weapon systems. 

-ends- 

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34

 

[CBH99]

$22.73 million per vehicle is absolutely ridiculous.  Why not just purchase more LAV TUA  (Since thats essentially a role MMEV will play, no?) and bring back soldier-operated SAM systems.  Would this not essentially fulfill the same role that MMEV is intended for, at a fraction of the price?

Perhaps this alternative wouldn't fulfill the MMEV's abilities exactly.  But, it would sure be a helluva lot cheaper and still get pretty similar results.

 

[Kirkhill]

I don't know about the validity of your LAV-TUA/MANPAD solution but I do think that we are in danger of having a committee create a camel for cavalry that wanted a horse.

 

[ArmyRick]

22 million per vehicle? Could we not purchse a moderate attack chopper for that price and stick 8 x hellfires on it?

 

[Kirkhill]

Costs (Kosten)
Per-unit cost of the upgrade from A to D-standard is put at 5,2 million US-Dollars (of which nearly half is for the radar).
The first 232 helicopters for the US Army were ordered in a multi-year contract worth 1,9 billion US-Dollars. Lot 6 production of 52 AH-64Ds was priced at 412,14 million US-Dollars, meaning a modification cost of 7,9 million US-Dollars per helicopter.
A new Apache sold for approximately 20 million US-Dollars in mid 1998.

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRAH-64D.htm