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

[vonGarvin]

MGS in the US Army will be manned by tankers.

Thanks.  Thought it sounded odd when I heard that it would be manned by infantrymen.

Cheers

 

[George Wallace]

If the MGS (Stryker) had its bugs worked out, and it was proven to be stable (ie not overly top heavy) then i would fully endorse it. The LAVIII has proven itself in A-stan.... The MGS would give us a new capability... a desent balance between an MBT and a LAVIII.... the relative ease with which the MGS can be air transported is an attractive feature, however, it is not and can not and should not replace the MBT...

Those are good points to remember.  It would be another tool in the toolbox, but as you say, it fits into a place between the MBT and LAV III.  It is not a tank, and should not replace a tank (but we have gone over this so many times already.).

I will disagree with you on the relative ease with which the MGS can be air transported.  In order to meet the requirements, the MGS has had a lot of its equipment and armour removed or reduced.  I would hesitate to crew one of these now.  Add-on armour would have to be sent into Theatre and added on there, a very time consuming affair that negates the whole purpose of having an easily mobile/transportable piece of kit.  Getting it into Theatre and then not being able to use it until it is up-armoured is senseless (to be polite). 

Employment of the MGS is another question.  Do we employ it as a Tank Destroyer or as an Assault Gun?  Wouldn't either of those roles be more in line with Artillery or Infantry than Armour?  Or are we going to make Armour the 'Bus Drivers' of all LAV family vehicles?  (Again questions we have hashed out in these forums in the past.)

 

[Desert Fox]

I wasnt aware that the MGS has been stripped down to such a degree... i was merely refering to the fact that a LAV type vehicle is easier to move around then a MBT.... but from what your saying the MGS is more of a paper weight then anything else..... In terms of deployment, i'm not sure what i can be used for really, im a 031 death tech light... so things with wheels and tracks make me go   so in terms of what i can be used for, i think thats it right there, it offers versatility if anything.... Granted as it stands now, its sorta a bastard child that hasn't quiet earned a name for itself....

 

[ArmyRick]

Mortar Guy, are you sure about your statement that MGS will be manned by tankers in the US army? In the Stryker Brigade Combat Teams They list 3 MGS as part of every stryker infantry company. So basically these tankers will be posted to the Infantry?

 

[aesop081]

....... i can post pictures too, however, in mine I am wearing arid CADPAT, and the pic wasnt taken in some training area.....

Aren't you special........


:

There was an army before afghanistan there Mr bigshot.......there will still be one after too.......

 

[tomahawk6]

The Stryker has performed quite well in Iraq and has proven to be survivable in an urban environment. I think the Canadians should stick to the LAV as it suits your operational needs. The Stryker is only armed with a .50 cal which has worked fine, I would rather have the 25mm gun that is found on the Marine LAV.

 

[Mortar guy]

Mortar Guy, are you sure about your statement that MGS will be manned by tankers in the US army? In the Stryker Brigade Combat Teams They list 3 MGS as part of every stryker infantry company. So basically these tankers will be posted to the Infantry?

Yeah, it's crewed by MOS 19K R4 (armor crewmen) who are trained at Fort Knox (Armor School - Specifically 2/81 Armor of the 1st Armor Training Brigade). See here: http://www.knox.army.mil/school/1atb/

Cheers,

MG

 

[McG]

Considering how cheap the Bisons are, we ought to be buying them by the bazillion for reserve infantry units, with engineer, signals, CP and field ambulance variants for the support units.

. . . or maybe buy RWS LAV III to replace the Bisons that the regular force have, then cascade those Bisons to the PRes?

Those [Bison & Coyote] production lines are closed down and the expense of retooling would outweigh the practicality of building them. 

Are you certain?  I thought Second generation LAV were still being offered to export markets & that the USMC was considering expanding its fleet.

Even the stripped down Coyote version is too much for the Reserves to handle. 

Was the Cougar too much for the PRes?

MMEV is a moot point, that project died with the MGS.

It is still alive, but all the way back to the concept development stage (so no longer committed to ADATS on a LAV III).

MGS in the US Army will be manned by tankers.

but not employed as a tank.

. . . thats the problem with the MGS, Canada has the intent of using it to replace the MBT.

Canada had the intent of replacing the MBT with a combination TUA LAV, MGS LAV and MMEV LAV.  Okay, so TUA existed along side tanks for years.  However keep in mind that the US SBCT will employ a combination of MGS and TOW.

Where as our American friends use it with the MBT., rather then in lieu of....

Actually, they will use it where forces would previously have gone with nothing.  Much of this project was inspired by the first Gulf War.  A division of light infantry held the farthest flank (no tanks) and, had Iraqi armour attacked, the Americans could very well have suffered catastrophic causalities.  This is why light forces were converted to the SBCTs.  The US will not use the MGS to replace tanks, but it will use the MGS & Stryker TOW where the absence of tanks would have cause great problems in the past.

Employment of the MGS is another question.  Do we employ it as a Tank Destroyer or as an Assault Gun?

The LAV TUA should be the "tank destroyer," but why not both roles (or some sub-set of both roles) for the MGS?  Don’t feel constrained by the capabilities of LAV MGS either.  The DFSV-Wheeled might be something else entirely.

The Stryker has performed quite well in Iraq and has proven to be survivable in an urban environment. I think the Canadians should stick to the LAV as it suits your operational needs. The Stryker is only armed with a .50 cal which has worked fine, I would rather have the 25mm gun that is found on the Marine LAV.

Some mix of turrets & RWS would be nice though.  Different bits for different functions, but still on a common platform.

 

[a_majoor]

Quote from: davidhmd on December 01, 2006, 08:18:11

MMEV is a moot point, that project died with the MGS
It is still alive, but all the way back to the concept development stage (so no longer committed to ADATS on a LAV III).

So what sort of concept are they developing now? MMEV as originally conceived seemed to be an amalgamation of 3 or 4 ideas (long range fire support, air defence, long range surveillance and battlefield network node), so it would be interesting to see which one(s) they pick.

 

[vonGarvin]

A_Majoor:
I think the "MMEV" that still exists is the "Multi Mission Effects VEST".  As pointed out to me, it was made to be used everywhere, but useful nowhere:
GARRISON: Can't make it a uniform load for the Sergeant-Major's Parade
FIELD: Have to bring along a LAV or an A-1 ech to have enough to live in the field
COMBAT: Can't carry enough to be effective


;D

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Quote from: davidhmd on December 01, 2006, 08:18:11
So what sort of concept are they developing now? MMEV as originally conceived seemed to be an amalgamation of 3 or 4 ideas (long range fire support, air defence, long range surveillance and battlefield network node), so it would be interesting to see which one(s) they pick.

Speaking of which, has anyone seen "Rocketman" recently?  My recollection he was an Oerlikon guy who occasionally dropped in to tell us all of the wonders that would be the MMEV....

Honestly, there's got to be some creative vehicles that could be built on the LAV-III platform that haven't been built yet.  Based on the counterinsurgency work going on now, a UAV (surveillance) grouping seems like it would be interesting....

One of the concepts I just thought of now was as follows:
1)  Two LAV-III's with Flat Beds and small cranes.  Each carries (2) Seamos-equivalent VTOL UAV's (prerequisite is they must carry thermals and be able to calculate GPS positions with their sensor array - of note, I suggested the Seamos layout just because it doesn't have the tail rotor of the Firescout which takes up space and could reduce carrying capacity per vehicle from 2 to 1).
2)  Two Integrated LAV-III's to act as control centres.  One specializes in flight control, whilst the other specializes in data analysis (Note - you then need to build a datalink to a satphone PDA or equivalent so anything relevant can be beamed to the commander-in-charge in realtime).  Based on his call, you then datalink into your fire control which then feeds into your M777's or HIMARS depending upon range from base.
3)  An add-on group could composed of two LAV-III with automated mortar system.  To me the AMOS makes the LAV-III too top-heavy like the MMEV was, but there were pics of the new German Mortar app (I think it was for Weisel) that had all the bits to the rear of the vehicle that looked very interesting.  In such a fashion as long as you gave appropriate authorization to the commander of that grouping, they could provide immediate fire suport on any identified target rather than having to wait for M777 or HIMARS fire to arrive.

In terms of operational use, you could use the UAV's in a couple of ways:
1)  Perimeter patrols using thermal imaging to ensure no Taliban are laying mines in areas adjacent to the bases in the middle of the night
2)  Patrol Escort.  That is have them lead the ground patrol into an area and keep overwatch should any Taliban try to maneouvre around the patrol.

I should add, I went with (4) as a base number of UAV's per unit, because I thought that would be about right in order to keep one in the air at all times, should the situation warrant it.


Matthew.   

 

[ArmyRick]

As far as the LAV 120mm mortar? There is the GDLS demo version with a turret but there is also the Stryker Mortar Carrier with a 120mm mortar in the back. It holds approximately 62 rounds (Don't go by the info found on combatreform.com).

Its not top heavy and would be good to go.

Speaking of MGS, did anybody cacth the recent story on army.mil about the 1-38th testing their MGS on live fire exercises?

go to http://www.army.mil/-news/2006/12/08/897-crews-test-latest-stryker-vehicle/

 

[vonGarvin]

"It's going to be a good asset for the brigade as an infantry-support vehicle." (my emphasis)

This from the article.  TAKE NOTE: this is NOT a tank.  SOMEONE please remind the liberals and NDP this when they finally stumble across this article and scream in the House of Commons "Why are we sending 30+ year old relics to fight when we could have these wonder machines?"

 

[McG]

"Why are we sending 30+ year old relics to fight when we could have these wonder machines?"

Why can't we have both?  Each has its own role.

 

[vonGarvin]

Why can't we have both?  Each has its own role.

Two words why we can't have both: limited resourced (read: money)

 

[McG]

Two words why we can't have both: limited resourced (read: money)

Well, we already have the tanks (sunk cost), and we had money for the MGS last summer . . .  so it seems money is not the barrier . . .

 

[vonGarvin]

Well, to be honest, in our case, it's an either/or situation.  The tank is more versatile than an MGS.  The Leo C2 is superior in terms of Firepower, Mobility and Protection
FIREPOWER: both have 105mm gun, but the leo carries more ammo and can fire faster
MOBILITY: the MGS can go faster on roads, but that's it
PROTECTION: no contest.

 

[a_majoor]

There really is a need for a fire support vehicle to compliment the LAV III, and Air Defence remains a gaping hole in our force structure, so some sort of DFSV and SPAAG or Integrated AD system on a LAV III chassis is arguably a good idea.

There are workable turret systems which can be dropped into a LAV III chassis, and the Blazer SPAAG system was in service with the USMC until fairly recently (I understand they have replaced them with something based on the HMMVW chassis), so there are working proof of concept vehicles out there. Indirect fire is also lacking, and once again, the LAV family has lots of available proof of concept vehicles, ranging from 81mm mortar carriers on the Bison to 120mm mortar carriers with power operated turrets and a 105mm SP also built on a LAV III chassis.

This is not to say that tanks, 155mm howitzers and all the other tools of war are not needed, but given the core of the force is built around the LAV III, supporting vehicles should also be similar from a logistical and operational perspective, which the heavy equipment available to use once the light/medium forces have shaped the battlefield and isolated the enemy.

 

[Kirkhill]

Is it still reasonable to consider the LAVIII/Helo force as a manoeuvre force for controlling the "Spaces between"  while the Armour supplies the spine to Infantry based assault forces?

As Arthur has suggested before - the LAV III team, especially when equipped with heavy direct supporting fire, indirect fire support (mortars? helos? CP-140s with JDAMs? HIMARS with GMRLS?) and its own air defence bubble, all of which can keep up with the LAVs would make a great cavalry team - especially in conjunction with a still lighter "constabulary" force as discussed elsewhere.

 

[a_majoor]

Make the distinction by calling the medium force a Cavalry team and a heavy force an Assault team.