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

[McG]

The LAV III has been an excellent vehicle and back when this thread was started it would have been an excellent platform to replace all AVGP and Bison in the CF inventory.  However, with the Future Family of Combat Vehicles project, I think we can aim for a new platform that uses improvements in technology to avoid many of the trade-offs that were required in the LAV III.

The FFCV should have the tactical mobility of a tank and the operationa & stratigic mobility of the LAV III.  However, given that both the US (with FCS) and the UK (with FRES) are still working on the solution to this platform requirement, I think we should be cautions in rushing ahead to introduce a new vehicle now.  Yet, I understand there is a desire to push forward quickly so that FFCV can head-off problems that may (if the current tempo continues) eventually come from LAV fleet attrition.

As I've said, the LAV III is a very good vehicle.  If attrition rates require we replace lost LAV II and LAV III, then I would recomend an interim LAV III purchase (does attrition replacement have to be considered a major capitol project or can we consider it O&M?)  GDLS & LAV users have been learning from operational use of the LAV III & Stryker.  A new 5.5 suspension system will allow these vehicles to carry much more weight in armour, and GDLS has developed a LAV IIH (effectively a next generation) that will take advantage of the 5.5 suspension to allow for a greatly increased survivability package.  Other companies have other solutions to increase the max vehicle weight potential of the LAV III.

As it is clear the vehicle still has life in it, we should continue to rely on the LAV III (or IIIH) until the right platform is available for FFCV. 

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Would that be the 10x10 LAV I have seen as a prototype? Rather than wait for the "super special AFV that can do everything, I will be happy with an upgraded LAV III or IV (if they are making those) Of course it's easy for me to make these recommnadation as I am not riding in them.

The LAV 10x10 with the GIAT turret and 105mm gun seems like a good fire support vehicle (in addition to the Leo2's) Has anyone actually seen that prototype?

 

[McG]

It is not the 10 x 10.  The hull is modified, but unless you get out the measuring tape, you will not see a difference between the III and the IIIH.

 

[dapaterson]

As I've said, the LAV III is a very good vehicle.  (does attrition replacement have to be considered a major capitol project or can we consider it O&M?) 

Sidebar:

The acquisition of additional LAV II would be a capital acquisition, not O&M.  I do not know whether or not it would be consisdered a major crown project or not - that depends on a number of issues.  It might be possible to work the acquisition system to purchase replacements from a sole-source vendor; the total dollar value usually dictates whether a project is designated as "Major Crown" or not.

A project is deemed to be a Major Crown Project (MCP) when its estimated cost will exceed $100M and the TB would assess the project as high risk. TB may direct that projects with total projected cost less than $100M but with a high risk assessment be managed as an MCP. Further TB reserves the right to require any project exceeding the minister's delegated project approval authority to be managed as an MCP.

If we purchase additional LAV III, since the infrastructure is in place the acquisition cost would be significantly lower per unit - no new barns to build, no change to ammo natures or types, no new training to develop... so with a limited buy we might be able to sneak in under the MCP cap.  There would stil be significant work required.

 

[McG]

The acquisition of additional LAV II would be a capital acquisition, not O&M.

but you would only be maintaining the already approved fleet strength.

 

[dapaterson]

but you would only be maintaining the already approved fleet strength.

Nice try, but no.

The Capital Equipment component of the DSP aggregates all projects valued over $5M that are created for the acquisition of new equipment / systems (assets), for the life extension (beyond one year) of existing assets and for the enhancement of capabilities of existing assets.

"New" equipment does not refer to capabilites previously not resident in the CF, but rather to anything shiny and new off the assmebly line (or shiny and refurbished).

Capital vs O&M is a red herring in this instance; there are still contracting regulations etc that come into play whether you spend vote 1 (O&M) or vote 5 (capital) funds.  This would be vote 5 since the equipment has a useful life measured in years and exceeds certain thresholds.

Capital vs O&M is an accounting question that doesn't really impact on process; it's the dollar values that cause headaches and process bloat.

 

[Kirkhill]

dapaterson:

How many LAV IIIs could you buy for 99 MCAD?
How many UORs can the CDS issue annually?
Would an annual discrete, unbudgeted, buy of 99 MCAD worth of LAV IIIs every year for the next five years be considered an MCP?

I love looking for ways to beat accountants.

 

[McG]

To add to my previous thoughts on keeping the LAV III until the right vehicle is ready, everything that goes through re-fit in Edmonton should be upgraded to the 3.5 suspension (for now but to the 5.5 suspension when it is available).  This will give us the option of more up-armour on what we already own (and no need to remove important things like turrets to do it).

Nice try, but no.

What about as an MR?  We could re-order individualy as LAV (any generation) are declared BER.

Would an annual discrete, unbudgeted, buy of 99 MCAD worth of LAV IIIs every year for the next five years be considered an MCP?

Anything over $ 30 million must go to Treasury Board for approval.  The CLS can only okay $ 1 million projects (and I think the CDS has the same limit)

 

[dapaterson]

Lots of fun ideas.  But $99M per year over 5 years constitutes a $495M contract - well into MCP territory.  Splitting into 5 contracts would be considered "contract splitting" and not get through the system - and would incur tremendous amounts of additional work, and possibly increase cost, as the supplier would have 5 contracts to manage.  Volume tends to get slightly better pricing as well.

 

[Kirkhill]

More info on the Stryker and its survivability.

This article is by Michael Yon.  The Stryker story starts about half way down. Insurgent video of the attack is included.

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/superman.htm

 

[Allen]

FYI:

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/08-03-2007/0004639056&EDATE=

Not really new, but chassis formerly intended to be TUA.

Interesting that they are putting RWS on these ones instead of a turret.

 

[McG]

The information I have received was that these would be hulls intended for MMEV (which died) and not TUA.

Interesting that they are putting RWS on these ones instead of a turret.

Not so surprising when you consider that we need vehicles with the extra room in the back which only comes from not having a turret.  It is why we still have Bison in Afghanistan.  Interesting (or perhaps frightening) is listening to people suggest we should replace the turrets with RWS on section carriers (so that we can increase the weight of armour).

These LAV III RWS are good news.  Making the whole fleet RWS would be stupid.

 

[WLSC]

These LAV III RWS are good news.  Making the whole fleet RWS would be stupid.

Yap... +1 on this

 

[prom]

General Dynamics Awarded CAD$49 Million Contract to Supply LAV III Infantry Section Carriers to Canadian Forces
 
 
(Source: General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada; issued Aug. 3, 2007)

Link
 
 
LONDON, Ontario --- The Canadian Department of National Defence has awarded a CAD$49.2 million (approximately USD$46.3 million) contract to General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada to provide 33 LAV III Infantry Section Carriers. General Dynamics Land Systems, the Canadian company's parent corporation, is a business unit of General Dynamics. 

Under this contract, General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada will modify 33 existing LAV III chassis to an infantry section carrier configuration and integrate a Remote Weapon Station on to the converted chassis. The LAV III chassis were originally manufactured under a previous contract for LAV III TOW Under Armour (TUA) vehicles. Rheinmetall Canada of Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec, will supply the Remote Weapon Station, which will feature a universal gun cradle capable of mounting 5.56, 7.62 and 12.7 mm armaments and a cooled thermal sight system. 

Dr. Sridhar Sridharan, senior vice-president of General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada, said, "As Canada's leading armoured vehicle manufacturer, our workforce is committed and proud to support the Canadian Forces. The modification of these LAV III vehicles will provide the army with additional capability as they conduct their challenging overseas missions." 

The delivery of the LAV III Infantry Section Carriers will occur from June 2008 to March 2009.


reproduced under fair dealings etc.

 

[dapaterson]

These are not new vehicles - read the release.  we're just converting some existing chassis to the Infantry Section Carrier configuration.  So we're merely moving the holes in the fleet from one type to another.

 

[McG]

The next question, when are we going to expand our number of LAV IIIs to properly flesh out the units where one three companies are sharing one company's worth of LAVs?

I have been told that we will not do this.  We will put the infantry vehicle at the head of priorety for FFCV & get an all new vehicle in sufficient numbers.  At least, that was the plan being pushed from DLCD to DLR.

These are not new vehicles - read the release.  we're just converting some existing chassis to the Infantry Section Carrier configuration.  So we're merely moving the holes in the fleet from one type to another.

We are not moving 'holes.'  These hulls were bought through the TUA project in anticipation of the MMEV project.  MMEV fell through and now there were hulls with no future or 'hole' to fill.

 

[geo]

DAP,
I believe CSA105 was making reference to the number of LAVIII troop carriers that have become BERd.  The "addition" of formerly designated TUA LAVs to the troop carrier fleet should just about top us up to original troop carriers.
Valid question though is:.... with the push to grow the combat arms - pointy end of the stick - where is the rolling stock for them to use?  The fleet management system that rotates LAVs, APCs and anything else you care to think about, from one unit to another is probably responsible for wrecking more vehicles than it's saving.  Vehicles with assigned drivers/crews fare a lot better in the long run VS pooled vehicles where drivers don't give a rat's a$$

of course..... IMHO!

 

[dapaterson]

McG:  There were other options on the table for those chassis besides making them into ISCs; ultimately we're still shuffling deck chairs while the orchestra plays "Autumn".

Geo:  We're stuck with what we've got; our options then become permanent have/have not units, or a bothersome rotation system, where units prepping for operations get equipment and others do not.  I  think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks the stastus quo is optimal; unfortunately, without new vehicles, we're locked into a "least bad" paradigm.

 

[McG]

ultimately we're still shuffling deck chairs while the orchestra plays "Autumn".

Aren't you just full of the pesimistic drama today.  Go back to my comment on the FFCV.  That is not deck chairs.

 

[dapaterson]

Aren't you just full of the pesimistic drama today.  Go back to my comment on the FFCV.  That is not deck chairs.

Maybe I shouldn't post without sufficient caffeine in my system.

But I'm always leery of promises that future projects will fix all our problems and make everything good.  Given the US experience with FCS and the Brits with FRES, I'm not at all sanguine that FFCV will arrive on time, on target, or with all the pieces promised.  We may instead get another IRIS - late, over budget, and less equipment than planned.

See, for example, the DID feature articles on FCS and FRES:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/fcs-rolls-on-boeing-receives-another-219m-01249/

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/uk-issues-several-fres-transformational-armored-vehicle-contracts-01130/