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

[STONEY]

IMHO a couple of LAV  120mm mortar carriers would have come in handy in the sandbox also.

Cheers

 

[McG]

One problem:  we've loaned the 100 remaining servicable Grizzlies to the African Union.  Wonder what kind of shape they'll be in when we get them back... 

Then maybe it is time to order up 100 turretless LAV III to replace the Grizzly.  We could buy them with all the new hull mods & in CP variants (thereby freeing all the current LAV III CPs to be section carriers).  I recommend we get the same RWS as the RG31 (to simplify training & supportability issues).

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

That's a decent idea and sounds much like the US Stryker (note:  decidedly not the MGS).  If we bought enough, we could replace the Bison in it's "APC" role (using that term loosely), and re-role that vehicle to more specialist variants...

We're short LAV IIIs, but do we really need ones with the full turret?  A point to ponder...

 

[Nug]

Without the turret basket in the way you would have a lot more room to place equipment and do a better layout of the compartment. Do you think the fact that the vehicle doesn't have the turret would draw unwanted attention?

 

[Kirkhill]

..... Do you think the fact that the vehicle doesn't have the turret would draw unwanted attention?

Probably not if there were a lot of them for General Duties and APCs - not just specialist and CP vehicles.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Kirkhill's right.  We use the Bison now for such things, and it doesn't seem to attract undue attention.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Plus the LAV hull without turret would be a fair bit cheaper, likely it would mean that every 4-5th hull is free compared to the current turreted LAV. Less wear and tear on the hull and things for the techs to fix. However it would be a good idea to build the hull so it can accept the turret and place the weapon system on a plate over the turret ring.

 

[McG]

Plus the LAV hull without turret would be a fair bit cheaper,

How do you come by your numbers?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I don't know the numbers for the LAV, but I have seen numbers for other AFV's and the turret,gun and FCS add up to quite a bit of the whole vehicle. to be frank the break-even point was a best guess hence the 4-5 range (turret & systems is worth 20-25% of total costs)

 

[TCBF]

"I Hope, does anyone really want them back?"

The RCHA do.  They made decent Gun Trackters.

Tom

 

[oskarm]

I don't know the numbers for the LAV, but I have seen numbers for other AFV's and the turret,gun and FCS add up to quite a bit of the whole vehicle. to be frank the break-even point was a best guess hence the 4-5 range (turret & systems is worth 20-25% of total costs)

In Polish Rosomak's IFV (AMV-360P) with Hitfact armed with 30mm ATK Bushmaster II gun the cost of turrent was 52% of the whole vehicle.   

 

[Kirkhill]

TR asked if you really needed full turrets on the LAVIIIs....presumably the alternative is considered to be the ROWS.  Can I stretch that a bit farther and ask if something like the Commander's hatch on  the old Lynx would be acceptable on administrative vehicles as something between the pintle mount and the ROWS.

http://www.afvnews.ca/-media/camouflage/lynx.gif
http://anzacsteel.hobbyvista.com/Armoured%20Vehicles/Images/canadianhussarsph_1.JPG

As I recall the HMG was solenoid operated from under armour.

The Recon Optical CROWS system seems to cost about US$300,000 a copy
(US$68,000,000/230 units -http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/08/68m-provides-remotelyoperated-machineguns-for-vehicles/index.php)

How would that compare to the cost of a Lynx hatch?

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Well, we've already mounted an RWS on the RG-31; coincidently, it's the same RWS as on the basic Stryker.

http://www.kongsberg.com/eng/kda/products/dynamicsystems/RemoteWeaponStation/

Again, the simplest thing to do would be to buy basic Stryker APCs fitted with the Kongsberg RWS.  This has the benefit of keeping the crew under armour and of having a platform that's already in CF service.  FWIW.

 

[geo]

Taking a step forward to the RWS is one thing
Taking a step back to a lynx 50 cal mount is another.

Get a common platform that is used across our vehicle fleet and be done with it.

 

[Kirkhill]

Teddy, I wasn't suggesting putting the CROWS in particular on - I merely used it as an example because I could come up with a price on it.

I brought up the price because of the mention of LAVs with turrets and LAVs without.  Just wondering if buying LAV-Bisons with a Lynx hatch vs a RWS would keep the costs down still further and still produce a useable Log/Adm vehicle.

 

[geo]

kirkhill,
On the road to the PRT in Kandahar, there really isn't any such thing as a log/admin vehicle.  The cost of the RWS isn't anything near the cost of a full blown turret

 

[Kirkhill]

Thanks Geo -

I'm expressing myself poorly.  I wasn't suggesting that log/adm moves were easy.  In fact just the opposite.  I was thinking that seeing as how all vehicles are now targets then perhaps there is a place for something like the Bison or the USMC's original LAV-Log which could be used to carry supplies to FOBs rather than using HLVWs for all the runs. 

I am not sure that the Lynx hatch would be that much cheaper than the RWS and I can well imagine the RWS to be much cheaper than a full blown turret.  That's pretty much why I was asking the question.

Cheers.

 

[a_majoor]

A LAV without a turret would be smaller and lighter than one with, which would make the LAV somewhat more mobile both tactically and strategically. How much of an advantage this would be overall is a matter for debate.

I am starting to wonder if we are getting overly wrapped around the axle over the entire vehicle thing; being tied to the roads is NOT a good thing in counter insurgency or conventional war. The destruction of GM-100 in French Indochina is a salutary example of what can go wrong, and the American experience in Mogadishu extracting TF Ranger from the snatch operation with a road bound convoy shows that although armour protection would be a plus, command and control issues are probably even more important (the convoy was under observation by a PC-3 Orion throughout the mission, but the convoluted communication chain meant that directions from the Orion were relayed to the convoy too late). An armoured vehicle disabled in the road would have stopped TF Ranger in the way disabled HMMVW's did not (they were pushed out of the way or down the road by following vehicles), but that falls into the realm of "what if".

We need to reduce the "footprint", and use our armoured vehicles more like a "cavalry" force or QRF. Our forces might take a page from Robert Kaplan who writes of American forces moving around Afghanistan in Toyota pick-up trucks.

Some thoughts

 

[McG]

the American experience in Mogadishu extracting TF Ranger from the snatch operation with a road bound convoy

You are limited in your cross country movement when inside of a city. 

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Let's stick with the LAV III.  Pickup trucks are great until the shooting starts.