Should Canada adopt the LAV III (AKA: Stryker) as its primary armoured vehicle family?

[Lance Wiebe]

Sorry, 12Alfa, I missed that one!

Where is it?

 

[12alfa]

Re: Canada should adopt the LAV III as its sole armoured vehicle?
« Reply #7 on: January 26, 2001, 13:33:00 » 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not to dampen our armour friends.  But has anyone taken the time to really look at the actual upgrade.

Remember the pictures of our first kick at the CAT trophy in Germany using borrowed Leopard 1A1's, Belgique I believe, they had the original round frying pan turret.  Our tankers won.

Tadda, if you examine the turrets of the up grade to the C2, it is a 1A1 turret with a complete add on of angular bins and armour add on's.

We may have made them look aesthetically pleasing and give our iron fist the impression of new kit, but in reality folks, we have stepped back two generations for a turret.

Next up, with our shrinking Bge capabilities and the advent of the LAV family, there was talk of Two light Bge (LAV) Gps, with one back Heavy (tracked).

I have my doubts.  Especially with the rumours of a Bge being disbanded.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Ah.  An ill-informed post by an ill-informed person.

I checked his profile.  Joined Jan 2001, last active Feb 2001. 

Obviously tried to stir up some smelly stuff, and then quit when not successful, or maybe was banned.

 

[Southby]

I'm a civy, currently a reserve applicant (just to get that out of the way). I did do searches for the topics but couldnt find any.... so...


I was just watching CBC, and they had a small blurb on some training at Wainwright (Just got the end part, something about their 'minds being focused on the poor submariner) and then it went onto show some LAV III's, saying how "The Canadian forces are upgrading all their old armoured vehicles to this LAV III variant..." and then how the "Leopard tanks are being REPLACED by a modified version that has the 25mm gun replaced with a bigger 105mm gun, and it will be called the striker (stryker)...."

basically, I'm just curious if this is just CBC political garbage, or is there more truth to it?  I was under the understanding that the submarines were getting shelved for now (unfortunately, but hopefully they get them back out soon), the coyotes and such were getting upgraded, and that the leopards were getting mothballed (a sad case indeed) and the strykers were going to be bought in, not to replace the tanks, but more so as a heavy assault vehicle instead....

Could some one please point me in the direction of more correct info or reply with their opinion.

 

[a_majoor]

As users of the LAV family since the 1970s, Canada should be in a position to modify the vehicle to maximise the effectiveness of the LAV III and its variants. The LAV series is known to have deficiencies in mobility and protection, as well as firepower in the MGS version. Modifications designed to address these issues will have benefits for the users of LAVs, and some of the R&D can be paid for if the US adopts these ideas for the STRYKER family. In the ideal world, retrofits of existing LAVs will be followed by new builds to the 3.5 standard (the Army calculated a need for over 1000 additional LAV variants), leading to an even more capable LAV 4 which would provide many of the capabilities of the FCS at a portion of the cost.

Mobility The LAV's cross country mobility can be improved by increasing the engine power. A larger engine has logistics implications, but hybrid electric systems are now developed to the point of being mass produced for cars and light trucks. Electric engines can provide the extra power for acceleration, pulling out of mud, or silent run ups, allowing the LAV 3.5 to have a smaller diesel engine.

An improved suspension is also required, and Canadian research into active suspension can provide the LAV 3.5 with greater cross country stability and performance, as well as reducing crew fatigue. See http://www.dres.dnd.ca/ResearchTech/Products/MilEng_Products/RD95010/index_e.html

Ground pressure affects cross country performance, so the LAV 3.5 needs to go on a diet. The turret can be replaced by an overhead weapons mount (see illustration: http://www.sfu.ca/casr/mp-lavpws.htm ), and steel components should be replaced with lightweight composites wherever possible. Very wide profile tires to reduce ground pressure will also enhance cross country performance.

Protection Up armouring the LAV should be done by selectively adding armour to vital spots on the vehicle, while reducing visual, thermal, audible and electronic signatures. Fitting flush stowage bins along the sides of the vehicle will reduce radar signature, for example, while also providing a certain "stand off" protection of the armour envelope.

More drastic internal changes could include placing vehicle systems in the front 60 degree arc to add their mass to the armour envelope. A round which penetrates the armour still has to punch through other "stuff" before penetrating the crew compartment. An overhead "umbrella" can be added to the OWS to protect against top attack munitions.

A major rebuild would be to centre the engine in bow, with the driver and crew commander on either side of the transmission, and the gunner under the overhead weapons station. All the crew will be below the turret ring for added protection when hull down. Crew ergonomics will also have to be improved for crash and impact protection, including "form fitting" seats and harness systems to keep all the passengers and crew firmly attached to the seat.

Firepower All versions of the LAV will need fully stabilized weapons mounts to allow the crews to fire on the move. The 25mm chain gun might be a bit much for an infantry carrier, perhaps an HMG/AGL combination would be more useful? The laws of physics limits the size of weapon a light vehicle can fire without ill effects (unless a very exotic weapon like the "High/Low pressure gun is adopted). Various cannons from 60-75mm have been developed for this sort of application, including the ARES 75mm cannon firing telescoped ammunition. This weapon could fire in 3 round bursts, and coupled to the right fire control system was considered capable of engaging T-72 tanks or Hind helicopters with a good probability of success. (unfortunately, I can't find the citation).

Other To operate effectively, the crew needs an information display system which is "clean" and doesn't overwhelm them. They also need good all around vision, which may have to come through the use of cameras and the weapons sight, since the crew is below the turret ring. Active protection on the lines of the Russian ARENA or DROZOD system might be worth looking into.

 

[a_majoor]

LAV 3.5.1

The problem with late night posts is you start loosing track of your thread:

Firepower (cont) To suppliment any direct fire assets, the LAV 3.5 needs a brace of fire and forget missiles on the OWS. Javelin, Gill/Spike or even Stingers (depending on the circumstances) will allow the LAV crew to deal with unexpected point or hard targets. This should be considered a defensive system only, and not a means for the LAV crew to shoot in an attack.

 

[12alfa]

LAV 3.5.1

The problem with late night posts is you start loosing track of your thread:

Firepower (cont) To suppliment any direct fire assets,

As we have seen in studies, reports, war-gaming etc, the Lav is not a tank. Up gunning it with ATGM's will I would think make the crew think they are a MBT, they already think this now. The Lav needs tanks in there support if they want to make it to the obj. An ATGM is an offensive wpn to battle tanks, if so they have little chance in battling other forces in this area in a Lav. For a AFV to need ATGM's one would think the enemy is not using ak's but rather MBT's,a Lav moving in this area with out tanks is fool hardy.
Lets use them for what there designed for, a personal carrier, a taxi. It is not a tank, and to use them in this role when no other army does makes for bad tactics.
Tell me, would you do battle with t-72's in a Lav with ATGM's? =T-72 many rounds, Lav with ATGM's with 2-4 launchers, somehow it doesn't seem fair does it.

I think the US has the correct idea, no turret and a small wpn station on there Striker's, and the tanks doing the tank work.

How did we get to the point where we think a Lav will fill the role of the tank by placing ATGM's on the veh?
.

 

[a_majoor]

As we have seen in studies, reports, war-gaming etc, the Lav is not a tank. Up gunning it with ATGM's will I would think make the crew think they are a MBT, they already think this now.

I fully agree, the LAV is not a tank, but in the absence of real tanks, the LAV crews need something to protect themselves. I was careful to state the Fire and Forget missiles were a defensive system, and not to be used to shoot in the attack. High standards of training and discipline will help keep LAV crews from going "tank hunting"

I think the US has the correct idea, no turret and a small wpn station on there Striker's, and the tanks doing the tank work.

How did we get to the point where we think a Lav will fill the role of the tank by placing ATGM's on the veh?

The LAV 3.5 idea does consider the 25mm chain gun is a bit much for an infantry carrier, an OWS will provide a bit more interior room, lower wight and lower profile for the LAV. How did we get to the point of suggesting Fire and Forget ATGM's on a LAV? Ask Mr Martin....

 

[McG]

Putting fire & forget missiles on a LAV will not automatically force the crew to fight like a tank.   They will fight the way they are trained.   Fire & forget would allow for a "shoot & scoot" approach to self defence.   In a chance encounter with enemy armour, mountend infantry platoons & companies could employ integral   antitank missiles to facilitate breaking contact.   The objective being to hand off the fight & get behind the dedicated tank killing platforms.

I think the US has the correct idea, no turret and a small wpn station on there Striker's, and the tanks doing the tank work.

I think you missed the US idea.   Tanks are not a part of the Stryker brigades.   They are a part of the legacy brigades.   Each type of brigade is suited to a different type of fight.

 

[Mountie]

Those that think the Stryker isn't any good should read some of the articles coming from the 3rd Bde, 2nd US Infantry Division (first SBCT) from Iraq.  I just searched "Strykers in Iraq" or the unit itself and found several articles.  Many by civilian newspapers interviewing troops.  Many had their doubts when they first received the Stryker but now they love them.  They say the speed and quietness of the vehicle make up for the lighter armour and lighter firepower. They are able to sneak up and deploy their troops before anyone knows what's happening.  Let's also remember, a medium infantry battalion is just basically a light infantry battalion mounted in Strykers.  It is not a replacement for heavy mechanized infantry.  It is more of a replacement for the light infantry that is too vulnerable in peace support operations.  The medium battalion is made to ride into battle and then fight dismounted with limited fire support from the Stryker's RCWS.  So when we are comparing and judging, try comparing the Stryker to the HMMWV or the LUVW that light units use.  That is what they have really replaced. 

And I'm just curious.  The one thing I read more on this site, is crying about losing the tanks.  When do you think the Canadian Army is going to use tanks?  Kosovo was the one and only time Canadian tanks were operationally deployed since Korea.  Same with the M109A4+, when have they been deployed lately? 

A complete LAV-III fleet is the way to go.  As I heard quoted by an American, "the LAV-III is the M113 of the 21st Century".  You can have everything you need all in one fleet; Mobile Gun System to replace the tanks, and 120mm Armoured Mortar System (turreted) and 105mm Denel SPH to replace the M109 and LG1, plus all the APC variants to replace all the M113, Grizzly and Bison vehicles.  I would also take those expensive and space consuming turrets off the infantry section carriers and replace them with an improved Protected Weapons Station.  I read about the PWS on the manufacturer's site.  A laser designator and stabilization system are option.  Add these to the PWS and equip it with a .50cal HMG or a 40mm grenade launcher and you have a Canadianized Stryker.  This would allow for 9 dismounts to be carried, or an 8-man section and extra ammo, food and water.  This would also eliminate the debate over who should command the vehicle and who should dismount to command the section.  Like the M113, the Stryker only needs one vehicle commander/gunner.  But at the same time, when the section is mounted the section commander has a crew commander's station to occupy to the left of the gunner.   

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Mountie, I envy you. 

Once upon a time I believed everything I read, too.

But then I grew up, got some experience, listened to those that were more experienced than me.  I now no longer believe it when I read a manufacturers blurb.

Sigh.  The innocence of youth.

 

[a_majoor]

Mountie is getting into the "Combat Team of Tomorrow" territory http://army.ca/forums/threads/22245.0.html , which is good, since the ideas are very closely related.

The speed and relative silence of a LAV compared to an M-2 or Leopard gives us some ability to unhinge the enemy by out flanking and out manoeuvring him, like the Stryker Brigade in Iraq

They are able to sneak up and deploy their troops before anyone knows what's happening.

Attacking the enemy's morale is as important as physically destroying him, just harder to "measure" until they throw down their guns and run away. The LAV 3.5 ideas are an attempt to improve on what we have, so we can get the good (road speed, quiet movement) without too much of the bad (being stuck on roads, lack of protection).

Let's also remember, a medium infantry battalion is just basically a light infantry battalion mounted in Strykers. It is not a replacement for heavy mechanized infantry. It is more of a replacement for the light infantry that is too vulnerable in peace support operations. The medium battalion is made to ride into battle and then fight dismounted with limited fire support from the Stryker's RCWS. So when we are comparing and judging, try comparing the Stryker to the HMMWV or the LUVW that light units use. That is what they have really replaced.

Our own Mech brigades were not all that heavy even "in the day", so if there is a way to get an acceptable LAV DFVS (either a better gun like the ARES 75, or some sort of missile system like FOG-M or LOSAT), then we are almost back to where we were in the 1980s.

I had actually tried to start LAV 3.5 as its own thread, since the technical issues involved in product improving the LAV family will feed back into the organizational and tactical issues raised in other threads, but this is good too.

 

[Franko]

Ignorance is bliss.... 'eh Lance?

Let's just go out and get some of these be all, end all vehicles....the MGS must be the best of 'em all!

....wait a tick!    ......failed most trials...... based on theory that was thrown out in WW2....


OUTSTANDING PURCHASE!  :

Regards

 

[Mountie]

I'm not saying I believe everything that I read.  Just made a comment on a few articles I read.  And they were not from the manufacturer.  The articles were from civilian newspapers.  Sure, the soldiers being interviewed may have been forced to make those comments, who knows. 

The LAV-III can't be too bad.  It has been purchased by a lot of countries the US, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.  And the British have showed interest in 1,500 LAV-IIIs and LAV-IVs for their Future Rapid Effecst System.  Surely they must have done a little research and testing.  The Germans and Dutch have also purchased the Boxer Multi-Role Armoured Vehicle, which is similar to the LAV-III.  The French are building the VBCI which is similar to the LAV-III or LAV-IV.  The Germans have used the wheeled Luchs recce vehicle and the Fuchs APC for decades.  As have the French used the VAB and the AMX-10RC recce vehicle, the British the Saxon APC and Fox recce vehicle and the CF the AVGP, Bison and Coyote.  Its not like wheeled armoured vehicles are a new and untried concept.  If you were to put tracks on the LAV-III instead of wheels everyone would have thought it was the best thing since sliced bread.  I'm not saying tracks wouldn't have been a good thing.  The British Stormer tracked light APC might have been a great alternative to the LAV-III, but the fact is that the LAV-III is here to stay.  Just acknowledge that it has some good points.  Its better than the old M113s and AVGPs that our guys operated in Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo and Somalia.   

 

[Lance Wiebe]

The LAV III has many strengths, and just as many weaknesses.  One of the great weaknesses is the fact that as wheeled vehicles gain weight, they lose cross country mobility.  The US and most other countries have done a great many things to reduce weight while enhancing effectiveness.  Our LAV, with its 25mm cannon, is at the very tip of the maximim weight that a wheeled vehicle is useful.  Add more weight, and you end up with a vehicle useless for cross country mobility.  Both the MGS and the proposed MMEV will be well beyond the usefull weight point.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that the LAV III is the vehicle that we will be using well in to the future (as long as we keep the current policy of not using it from Jan - Apr in the field).  The LAV III is next to useless in deep snow.....The main argument is the fact that it is being touted as the end all and be all.  The MGS, any Artillery variants, and the MMEV will all be restricted to limited cross country capability, which is not what a military really wants.

Check out the mobility and duties expected of the Centuaro and the Rooikat.  Quite different from "replacing the tank and M109"...

 

[a_majoor]

The LAV III has many strengths, and just as many weaknesses. One of the great weaknesses is the fact that as wheeled vehicles gain weight, they lose cross country mobility. The US and most other countries have done a great many things to reduce weight while enhancing effectiveness. Our LAV, with its 25mm cannon, is at the very tip of the maximum weight that a wheeled vehicle is useful. Add more weight, and you end up with a vehicle useless for cross country mobility. Both the MGS and the proposed MMEV will be well beyond the usefull weight point.

Ground pressure affects cross country performance, so the LAV 3.5 needs to go on a diet. The turret can be replaced by an overhead weapons mount (see illustration: http://www.sfu.ca/casr/mp-lavpws.htm ), and steel components should be replaced with lightweight composites wherever possible. Very wide profile tires to reduce ground pressure will also enhance cross country performance.

Most of the suggestions in LAV 3.5 were "top of the head" suggestions to trim the weight and reduce ground pressure, taking the continued use of the LAV for at least a generation. Which ones would be most feasible and useful in your opinion?

One of the various computer studies described in the ADTB had a notional MMEV mounting an "electro-thermal cannon", giving it the ability to fire high velocity rounds for direct fire engagements, but also lower velocity rounds in "howitzer" like engagements as a form of SP artillery (presumably using less current). If we want an "all singing and dancing" MMEV, ditch the missile route and go for a gun solution. A very simple and effective MMEV for the first generation would be a direct fire platform with a fairly decent on board ammunition supply. Modify the gun mount and cradle for high angle fire, and supply both high velocity "tank" rounds and low velocity "smart" rounds. The low velocity rounds can use a "stub" casing that fits the breech of the gun, without the full propelling charge of a high velocity round.

"Smart" rounds have been around for a while, with the 155mm "copperhead" laser sensing round introduced in the 1980's, and the 120mm STRIX infared seeking mortar round in Swedish service today. The UK also experimented with the 81mm "Merlin" mortar round, which used a form of on board radar. If we really want missiles, the LAHAT through tube missile can be fired from a gun for 8km direct engagements, and 13 km indirect engagements.

CASR also posted an interesting gun concept, using the cast off 155 barrels from the M-109 as a starting point. http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-mgs.htm

IF we want to go the MMEV route, go all the way and replace SP artillery, Anti-Armour systems and direct fire artillery with one gun armed vehicle. Distribution of ammunition determines the role that particular vehicle will perform (direct or indirect fire), sorting out lots of logistical issues (although creating a few new ones). The "three headed monster" we are creating now will have so many difficulties in terms of interoperability, logistics, etc. that it may be best to get a clean sheet of paper and start over. The LAV chassis is versatile enough to support something along these lines so long as we can be content with calibres ranging from 60mm-90mm.

 

[Kirkhill]

Distribution of ammunition determines the role that particular vehicle will perform (direct or indirect fire), sorting out lots of logistical issues (although creating a few new ones). The "three headed monster" we are creating now will have so many difficulties in terms of interoperability, logistics, etc. that it may be best to get a clean sheet of paper and start over

I take exception here. 

ARTY is inherently a Multi-Mission Effects capability.  The Gun/Mortar/Rocket is simply a method of delivering the "Weapon" of choice to the desired location to achieve a particular effect.  Sometimes that is by direct fire, as in anti-tank, anti-air and field gun roles, sometimes it is indirect.  It can be an area effect or a precise effect.  It can be an observed target, a designated target or a blind target.

Forget the platform here.  MMEV isn't about the platform.  It is about an ability to deliver a variety of munitions to a particular target depending on circumstances. It is about the ability to select the mix of munitions depending on the mission.

Right now arty can select from HE, ICM, DPICM, flechette, SMK,Ill, Pamphlets and Nukes, as well as various precision guided weapons. 

The Apache AH64 that enamours us all is so desirable because it can handle a number of fire support tasks.  It has it 8 km Hellfires and its 30mm cannon. It can also handle the Hydra-70 70mm rocket series which carries all the payloads mentioned above.

The new UK lightweight MRLS system will fire not just 30 km MRL rockets, it will also fire 70 km GMRL missiles, 300 km ATACMs missiles and 70 km Polyphem fibre optic missiles.

The Tracer recce system was designed as a platform for both the Hellfire with an 8  km range and also the new Brimstone variant with a 32 km range.  Both missiles can be fired man-in-the-loop or fire-and-forget.  The Brimstone can be fired from ground mounts, helos and fast air.  Just as the Hydra-70 can - both dumb and guided versions.

Perhaps it would help if we stopped thinking of the MMEV as a underarmoured, wheeled tank replacement that is going to go toe-to-toe with "real" tanks and instead think of it as what it is.  A wheeled, lightly armoured self-propelled artillery piece that is going to stand back anything from 8 to 30 km from the FEBA (depending on the missiles that the Government buys) and launch a large number of precision-guided, discriminating, fire and forget rounds into the battle space in front of you.  Sitting in your Coyote 5 km away from the enemy tanks, out of range of their guns and hull down you will be able to lase the incoming rounds onto the target.    If you are in close country or cities, the tanks might sneak up on you then the infanteers with the Javelin CLDs can launch their own weapons or can lase incoming rounds onto them, or for that matter onto bunkers or buildings.

I admit that the LAV is not an assault vehicle.  It looks to be a great transport vehicle, patrol vehicle (in the right circumstances) or battlefield support vehicle. 

And with respect to wheels over tracks for support vehicles why do you need tracks if you are able to do your job from 30 km away? Can't you find good firing positions within range with that kind of flexibility? 

Tracks in general are designed to distribute weight over a large surface area.  Wheeled light vehicles can go most places on the planet.  Some places you do need tracks, as on the BV206.  But just because you have tracks doesn't mean that you can go all the places the Bv206 can go.  Tanks and M113s get bogged down too.  (By the way some of the places the Bv206 can go foot traffic can't go either).  Tanks were equipped with tracks so that they could carry a heavy weight of armour over ground that the armour could not cross otherwise.  The ground was crossable on foot.  Where the foot couldn't go the tanks got bogged down anyways.

I believe in the need for heavy armoured assault vehicles. I also believe that the greatest weight of protection can be carried on a tracked vehicle.

I do not believe that all vehicles in well rounded, multi-purpose formation need to be tracked, especially for the types of jobs being asked not just of you but of all armies. 

The one thing that I would like to see in the new army units/battle groups/what-have-you would be one tracked subunit team complete with its own wheeled transport so that it could keep up with the rate of advance of the LAVs and deploy as required.  PUMA/CV90/SEP/Dardo  vehicles in the 25-35 tonne range.  As well I would like to see more use made of the Bv206/Bv206s/S10 series of vehicles.

By way of closing, perhaps we would do better not to think of the MMEV as a tank replacement in a square combat team, but rather as the mortar replacement which is to be used in support of the TUAs/MGSs and their laser designators.  Those vehicles also have a direct fire capability that can handle a variety of battlefield threats.

Rant ends......

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Some thoughts, in no particular order....

The MGS was purpose built with a new light weight 105 mm cannon, capable of firing all natures of NATO ammunition.  Canada opted out of this, because we still have a couple of hundred M68/L7 barrels laying around.  Just because they weigh three times the amount of the designed barrel, didn't matter to the PMO team at all.  Cost, not capability was, and is, the sole factor considered.  The fact that the weapon mount, and the vehicle suspension was designed for a lighter weight system also doesn't matter.  The US Army has no intention of using M68 barrels on their MGS, BTW.  That the vehicle top heavy weight also has caused the US Army to place restrictions on its use doesn't matter, either.

The MMEV may, indeed, become a vehicle that will work wonders from several map sheets away.  Who knows?  No design team has sat down yet, indeed, no statement of requirement as of yet.  It will be at least a decade before we see a vehicle of this type.  Therefore, the over weight top-heavy MGS, accompanied by the TOW variant will do without.  Also no requirement for a wheeled artillery vehicle yet, the towed pieces we own will do fine.

The MMEV, TOW, and MGS may, just may, be able to do the mission of tanks on the defense side, but have absolutely zero capability when forced to do anything on the move, such as on the assault, or even retrograde ops.

Although the MMEV may be able to fire from the next province in the future, it might be nice to give it the capability of leaving a parking lot before it is in a fire position.  It simply cannot move in the winter cross country, and will have limited cross country capability any other time.  Even with such super capable vehicles, which will obviously be the very best in the world, we actually may have to engage some country or organisation that may even have such things as smart artillery rounds, or even UAV's.  We just might want the ability to manouever away from the mall parking lots......

I don't really have anything against the LAV III family of vehicles.  I do have strong thoughts (anyone notice) on basing our entire army on one platform.  I don't agree with the powers that be that we will never, ever, required to operate alone, that we will always work with allies with capabilities we don't have.  That says to me that we are seconding command of our future forces away now, to our allies.  I wouldn't mind seeing maybe two light brigade size forces equipped with this family of vehicles, with one Brigade size force as air mobile, and on brigade size force as heavy.

Also, GD has announced that the MGS will be produced in the USA, not in London.  No "buy Canadian" argument there!

In the future, EMP weapons may even make the LAV family even more worthwhile.

I do have another thought, though.  Why in tarnation did we, as an army, spend hundreds of millions of dollars upgrading the tank, rebuilding the Cougars, and developing the so-called TLAV, just to park them all?  An army always screaming about having no money seems to have had plenty to waste in the recent past.

Speaking of waste, why are SSM's in Recce Squadrons being issued LAV III's, in a Coyote Squadron?  Just so mechs have to be dual qualified, more spare parts carried, seeing as how they use 85% different parts, or what?  Does this make any sense?  Well, I suppose as much sense as using a multi-million dollar Coyote to conduct route recces........

 

[Kirkhill]

ex

The MGS was purpose built with a new light weight 105 mm cannon, capable of firing all natures of NATO ammunition.  Canada opted out of this, because we still have a couple of hundred M68/L7 barrels laying around.  Just because they weigh three times the amount of the designed barrel, didn't matter to the PMO team at all.  Cost, not capability was, and is, the sole factor considered.  The fact that the weapon mount, and the vehicle suspension was designed for a lighter weight system also doesn't matter.  The US Army has no intention of using M68 barrels on their MGS, BTW.  That the vehicle top heavy weight also has caused the US Army to place restrictions on its use doesn't matter, either.

Just plain dumb....

The MMEV may, indeed, become a vehicle that will work wonders from several map sheets away.  Who knows?  No design team has sat down yet, indeed, no statement of requirement as of yet.

Exactly, so why not look around at what is available and what is on the realistic horizon and see what can be used to plug identified gaps in the system of systems when it is applied to specific scenarios?

It will be at least a decade before we see a vehicle of this type.

Unfortunately you are probably right but it doesn't have to be that way.  If there is one thing we should be pressuring the government to do is to improve the procurement process. Regardless of kit.

Therefore, the over weight top-heavy MGS, accompanied by the TOW variant will do without. Also no requirement for a wheeled artillery vehicle yet, the towed pieces we own will do fine.

Considering what the gee-whiz types are coming up with and have developed for arty, precisely to fill in gaps in capabilities, isn't it a bit premature to suggest that arty might not be able to offer some answers?  Wheels and range mean that arty can bring fire to more areas of the battlefield.  Precision means with greater effect.  What am I missing?

The MMEV, TOW, and MGS may, just may, be able to do the mission of tanks on the defense side, but have absolutely zero capability when forced to do anything on the move, such as on the assault, or even retrograde ops.

Inclined to agree with you here.

Although the MMEV may be able to fire from the next province in the future, it might be nice to give it the capability of leaving a parking lot before it is in a fire position.  It simply cannot move in the winter cross country, and will have limited cross country capability any other time.  Even with such super capable vehicles, which will obviously be the very best in the world, we actually may have to engage some country or organisation that may even have such things as smart artillery rounds, or even UAV's.  We just might want the ability to manouever away from the mall parking lots......

I sense sarcasm here...............

I don't really have anything against the LAV III family of vehicles.  I do have strong thoughts (anyone notice) on basing our entire army on one platform.  I don't agree with the powers that be that we will never, ever, required to operate alone, that we will always work with allies with capabilities we don't have.  That says to me that we are seconding command of our future forces away now, to our allies.  I wouldn't mind seeing maybe two light brigade size forces equipped with this family of vehicles, with one Brigade size force as air mobile, and on brigade size force as heavy.

Actually, in total agreement here.

Also, GD has announced that the MGS will be produced in the USA, not in London.  No "buy Canadian" argument there!

If the purchase goes ahead then this wouldn't be a bad thing.  A diminution of "buy Canadian" could only speed up procurement and reduce costs.  However I think while the assembly will be done in the States its likely that things like the fire control system could be done here in Canada and that that would be part of the negotiation slowing up decisions, as in the case of the ALAAWS.

In the future, EMP weapons may even make the LAV family even more worthwhile.

You jest?

I do have another thought, though.  Why in tarnation did we, as an army, spend hundreds of millions of dollars upgrading the tank, rebuilding the Cougars, and developing the so-called TLAV, just to park them all?  An army always screaming about having no money seems to have had plenty to waste in the recent past.

Lack of a workable, budgetted long-term plan maybe?

Speaking of waste, why are SSM's in Recce Squadrons being issued LAV III's, in a Coyote Squadron?  Just so mechs have to be dual qualified, more spare parts carried, seeing as how they use 85% different parts, or what?  Does this make any sense?  Well, I suppose as much sense as using a multi-million dollar Coyote to conduct route recces........

Finally, and with great relief as far as you're concerned no doubt, I have no opinion.....

Cheers Lance

 

[a_majoor]

Perhaps it would help if we stopped thinking of the MMEV as a underarmoured, wheeled tank replacement that is going to go toe-to-toe with "real" tanks and instead think of it as what it is.  A wheeled, lightly armoured self-propelled artillery piece that is going to stand back anything from 8 to 30 km from the FEBA (depending on the missiles that the Government buys) and launch a large number of precision-guided, discriminating, fire and forget rounds into the battle space in front of you.  Sitting in your Coyote 5 km away from the enemy tanks, out of range of their guns and hull down you will be able to lase the incoming rounds onto the target.    If you are in close country or cities, the tanks might sneak up on you then the infanteers with the Javelin CLDs can launch their own weapons or can lase incoming rounds onto them, or for that matter onto bunkers or buildings.

I actually have no disagreement about that part, but when I am advancing with the troops I would like to have the fastest response time possible, which means some sort of direct fire capability. (We can all agree this should be considered in a Cavalry type context of flanking, screening and economy of force, rather than direct assaults against prepared positions)

The gun armed MMEV is an idea of getting that capability without having to field even more sub types of the LAV family, just issue them to direct fire units (Armoured regiments, Anti-Armour platoons) with a load of high velocity ammunition, Artillery units with "smart" rounds and base bleed ammunition, and develop some AD ammunition for the Air Defenders. We go from three types of direct fire platforms and any number of indirect fire platforms to one "gun LAV", the LAV infantry carrier, and ideally a LAV 3 based surveillance platform. Other variants are possible as well, but there should be 85% commonality between them.