# MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)



## Herecomesthegun

He, im new here well atleast at posting, i've been reading posts/discussions here for a while anyways ive realized alot of people speculate the MMEV will be ADATS mounted on a LAV lll chasiss, even CASR thinks so. http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-vehlavmmev.htm
However this site here shows an image of the MMEV concept, and well their aint no adats!
http://www.drdc-rddc.dnd.ca/newsevents/spotlight/0403_e.asp
Please tell me what you think about the type of vehicle you think it will be and also what you thing the advantages and disadvantages of the MMEV will be


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Persoanlly, I see nothing but headaches for this all-singing all-dancing vehicle.

First off, direct fire is the role of armour.  Indirect fire (NLOS) belongs to the artillery, and air defense belongs to the artillery.

Secondly, the NLOS is supposed to be controlled by recce, painting targets with laser designators.  Um, just who will assign priorities, just who will control  when and where who paints the targets, and where does electronic security come in?

Who assigns the priorities for vehicle use?  Do we use it primarily for air defense?  NLOS?  

Where is it positioned?  After all, the range apparently, is 8 KM for NLOS and AD, although this may be improved.

I think that there's more questions than answers.

I'm also wondering just how expensive a all-singing all-dancing piece of equipment will be, both to operate and maintain.


----------



## 30 for 30

I think if we find ourselves without tanks in 2010 MMEV will be needed to compliment MGS and the LAV TOW. If the MMEV has ADATS missles or similar weapons (up to now most concepts have included these) then it will bring an important punch to the battlefield: long range (8-12 kms) tank-killing ability. If all we have is LAV based systems I think it will be important to be able to take out enemy armour at a distance that is far enough that enemy MBTs won't be able to hit us and thus wipe us out. I think ADATS missles are hugely expensive, mind you, which could present a problem.


----------



## Yard Ape

That link shows a low profile MGS.   The Army's plan for the MMEV is to use ADATS.   I have seen the presentations, and someone has even posted the concept pictures to this site:






Here is one thread on it:
http://army.ca/forums/threads/1580.0


----------



## ags281

Hmm... the picture on the R&D site looks remarkably like a hotrod shop grabbed an MGS, resulting in it being lowered and sectioned.  : Looks like it's going to be a tight squeeze inside there.


----------



## Herecomesthegun

YardApe, the picture you posted has adats along with some other arnament, could you explain what they areif you know?


----------



## Yard Ape

The MMEV will expand on the ADATS to use more munition types (in the picture there are rocket pods & different missile types).

There is no final design that I know of, so everything is just someones vision of what could be.


----------



## Kirkhill

Yard Ape and Here Comes the Gun

The concept mockup seems to include the Hydra-70 modules and a pair of Hellfires.  

Hydra -70 is a system that uses the 70 mm rocket commonly used on Helicopters for ground support. One variant, the CRV-7, can also be used on the CF-18 for ground support.   It used to be manufactured by B ristol Aerospace in Winnipeg, don't know if it still is.

CRV-7 and the usual variants are unguided rockets. 
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/hydra-70.htm

The US is working on a guided version to take out soft and lightly armoured targets at long range. It is call the APKMS Advanced Precision Kill Missile System. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/apkws.htm

Incidentally the 70mm rocket (2.75")  was originally designed as an anti-air capability - designed to establish a wall of steel between the target and an incoming missile.

It has previously been hung on to  LAV-25 turrets, along with TOWs by the USMC.  It has also been hung onto  the LAV-AD along with the Gatling gun and Stingers.

Starting to sound like a Multi-Missions Effect Capability.

I presume the idea on an Afghanistan type mission is to take along one squadron that can be assigned by troops to specific tasks rather than having to take in separate troops and batteries of LAV-TOWs, MGSs, ADATS, AMOS-120s, etc.

Actually this kind of begs a question - could a couple of pairs of TOWs  or Hydra-70 boxes be hung on the outside of the MGS?  Assuming weight alllowances of course.


 :-\


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

I need to ask a dumb question....

If you're not going to be carrying troops why wouldn't you use the LAV-II chassis as per Coyote instead?

It's lighter.   

It would be Herc Transportable.

....and you could use the existing LAV-AD as the base for development.










Thanks in advance,



Matthew.


----------



## Herecomesthegun

Now if I understandd correctly the MMEV, Tow UnderArmour, and MGS will be used together to gain direct fire capability. I also grasp the concept that different missiles coud be used
in the system, however the range would still be in the 8km mark...Icant help but wonder how this short range could be of anyuse if the vehicle was be used for anti-tank capability.


----------



## Kirkhill

> the range would still be in the 8km mark...Icant help but wonder how this short range could be of anyuse if the vehicle was be used for anti-tank capability.



Herecomesthegun

Could you clarify your concern here?  I am at a bit of a loss when you describe 8km in the direct fire anti-tank role as short range.

Reference some of the weapons systems that might be combined in the MMEV.

105mm  rifle  2-4 km  depending on target 
120 mm cannon/rifle 4-5km depending on target
120mm Halat (cannon launched laser guided missile) about 6 km

Javelin ATGM 2.5 km
TOW ATGM 3.75 km
Hellfire ATGM >5km
Joint Common Missile >5km
ADATS (Anti-tank role >8km)

Stinger Anti-Aircraft Missile (1-8km)
Starstreak Anti-Air Missile (5 km)
ADATS (Anti-Air role >8km)

Hydra-70  5-10 km (Direct Fire)
                 10-15 km (Indirect Fire)


I don't think the idea behind the MMEV is that all vehicles should be identically configured all the time. I think the idea is that like an AH-64 the commander can take a squadron/battery of vehicles into the field along with a few containers of various weapons and munitions and configure the vehicles to meet various threats.

The Hydra-70 alone would be a useful piece of kit having HE, HEAT, Flechette, WP and RP smoke, IR and Whilte Light Illuminating Rounds.  It can be employed to thicken AT defenses (direct fire or sub-munitions) APers (HE or Flechette) Anti-Air (Flechette) or as a poor mans mobile artillery.

I can just see the fight over cap-badges now  > ;D

Cheers


----------



## Kirkhill

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> the range would still be in the 8km mark...Icant help but wonder how this short range could be of anyuse if the vehicle was be used for anti-tank capability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herecomesthegun
> 
> Could you clarify your concern here?   I am at a bit of a loss when you describe 8km in the direct fire anti-tank role as short range.
> 
> Reference some of the weapons systems that might be combined in the MMEV.
> 
> 105mm   rifle   2-4 km   depending on target
> 120 mm cannon/rifle 4-5km depending on target
> 120mm Halat (cannon launched laser guided missile) about 6 km
> 
> Javelin ATGM 2.5 km
> TOW ATGM 3.75 km
> Hellfire ATGM >5km
> Joint Common Missile >5km
> ADATS (Anti-tank role >8km)
> 
> Stinger Anti-Aircraft Missile (1-8km)
> Starstreak Anti-Air Missile (5 km)
> ADATS (Anti-Air role >8km)
> 
> Hydra-70   5-10 km (Direct Fire)
> 10-15 km (Indirect Fire)
> 
> 
> I don't think the idea behind the MMEV is that all vehicles should be identically configured all the time. I think the idea is that like an AH-64 the commander can take a squadron/battery of vehicles into the field along with a few containers of various weapons and munitions and configure the vehicles to meet various threats.
> 
> The Hydra-70 alone would be a useful piece of kit having HE, HEAT, Flechette, WP and RP smoke, IR and Whilte Light Illuminating Rounds.   It can be employed to thicken AT defenses (direct fire or sub-munitions) APers (HE or Flechette) Anti-Air (Flechette) or as a poor mans mobile artillery.
> 
> I can just see the fight over cap-badges now   > ;D
> 
> Cheers
> 
> PS   I can't find the reference just now but I seem to recall that a single rocket was equivalent in effect to a 105mm round.   Therefore a seven round pack on a vehicle would supply the local commander equivalent fire-power to a C3 battery firing one round for effect. 4 packs distributed around an 8 car recce troop   could be a useful back pocket capability
> 
> (4-6 of the FerretIIs being discussed (perhaps 7.62 and Javelins) , 0-2 Coyote-Masts/Cmd (7.62,25,Starstreak?) , 2 MMEVs configured with 2x105mm rifles, 4 TOWs or Hellfires or Joint Common Missiles between them and 4 7-packs of Hydra-70s with various warheads (smoke, HE,illuminating).   The MMEVs and Coyotes in overwatch might give the guys in the Ferrets a greater sense of comfort.
> 
> On the other hand the combination of gun and missile on one vehicle could result in cases where the gun would be rendered surplus to requirements   and undesirable weight if the commander needs arty support from stand-off ranges.
> 
> Perhaps the answer is to have the abiltity to hang missiles from the MGS as well supplying the ADATS platform with the ability to launch the same missiles along with their existing missiles.
> 
> Kind of like that answer :-\
Click to expand...


----------



## Herecomesthegun

well, its seems to mee with that data you posted kirkhill that its a very capable vehicle, 
and the fact that the army plans to procure the MMEV with MGS and TOW Under Armour which have been 
planned to work collaborately , I just cant see why people are complaining about replaing the Leopard C2s??
Could you please give some insight into my question?


----------



## Kirkhill

I am the wrong person to ask I am afraid, George Wallace, Slim, Franko or Ex-Dragoon could fill you in better.

I think though that the difference is in capability.   Infantry occupies.   Artillery Destroys. Armour Assaults. ie it gets up close and personal with a defended locality so that it can be occupied   rather than just destroyed.

The MMEV system or systems, whatever they end up to be and however they are armed, are direct fire artillery systems, they destroy threats.

The assault requires heavily armoured APCs (armoured not armed), preferably with tracks, to carry infantry onto the objective. It also requires tanks, with tracks and heavy armour, to accompany the assault forces onto the objective to supply direct fire support in the face of enemy fire.

When not used for the assault they are also capable of swanning around the countryside engaging like-minded cavalry men in tanks.  Cheers George.

Just a reminder Herecomethegun, as far as I know the MMEV is a "concept" vehicle.   The platform has yet to be decided as has the weapons mix.   Despite the fact there are many capable platforms and weapons systems out there and potentially in the pipeline nobody knows yet how such a system would perform in practice and in which situations it would be an asset and in which situations it would be a liability.

 Cheers


----------



## Lance Wiebe

One of my big worries is that the MMEV and the YUA are basically defense-orientated vehicles.  By that, I mean that because they cannot fire on the move, they cannot be used in the assault.  While the MGS can fire on the move, its mobility is restricted because it is a very large, top-heavy vehicle on wheels.

In todays warfare, stationary vehicles are dead vehicles.

Trying to replace the tank with cheap alternatives is a concept that anyonein a command position should realise is a stupid concept.

And if, as the pundits say, that Canada will never go to war, then why are we talking about the MMEV?

If we are going to equip and train for war, then lets do it right!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I have been out of the Armoured Corps for 10 years and the idea of replacing a tank with a lightly armoured wheeled vehicle just seems to obviously wrong. A wheeled force backed up with heavy armour I can see. We are the only nation replacing an effective tank with wheeled LAVs, the other countries of the world must be envious of this _brilliant_ idea and can't wait to implement it for their militaries. :  Guess what it isn't a good idea, who else is going the same. No one thats who, it will only end up getting people killed if we continue along this path.


----------



## Slim

I hear that the Conservatives have promised to scrap the silly thing and go get us more tanks.


----------



## ags281

> I hear that the Conservatives have promised to scrap the silly thing and go get us more tanks.



 indeed! If we're working on getting lift, just design those lift capabilities to take whatever tank we need to get the job done. Equipment to suit doctrine, not the other way around!

I'd trust the conservatives with a minority, but not with a majority. This type of equipment issue just might still get by in the compromise process, while some of the less sensible policies would have to be cut. Actually, a Liberal minority would see some necessary equipment programs as well (with a large Conservative share of the seats a close second to them that is), so either way. Minority is what we need for this mandate: there are quite a few MP's out there who could use a few years of reminding that the absolute power of a majority can be taken away by the people if taken for granted. Well, that and the fact that it would be more tempting for a majority (Conservative or other) to give up their promise of free votes and electoral reform. Ok, perhaps too far off topic... stopping there


----------



## Herecomesthegun

It seems to me that alot of people disaprove of the MGS, TOW, and the MMEV partially because they are wheeled, but speed is propbably one of the most important aspects of war. Besides our foreign policy is shifting to the idea of bringing piece to the middle east (heh, that rymes) and tracked vehiles shoudnt do very well in the desert enviroment of the midleeast or atleast i think 
, In my opinion we should go along with having a wheeled force.


----------



## Infanteer

Thanks kiddo.



> It seems to me that alot of people disaprove of the MGS, TOW, and the MMEV partially because they are wheeled, but speed is propbably one of the most important aspects of war.



All the speed in the world will do you know good if your vehicle is a flaming wreck.  Survivability, offered by a level of armour only tracked chassis can support, is another one of those aspects of war you seem to know.



> Besides our foreign policy is shifting to the idea of bringing piece to the middle east (heh, that rymes)



Please direct us to that policy shift, Mr Axworthy



> tracked vehiles shoudnt do very well in the desert enviroment of the midleeast or atleast i think



Tracks spread the weight of a vehicle out over a larger surface area, and hence are less likely to get stuck in the sand.  Now why don't you zip it and try and learn something instead of cluttering up discussions with your blahblah.


----------



## ags281

> but speed is propbably one of the most important aspects of war.... In my opinion we should go along with having a wheeled force.



Speed is very useful for some things. But not for all things. I have no problem with wheeled vehicles. They can be extremely useful at tasks such as recce, where avoiding a fight is the idea, or at getting in and out fast. However, when you're talking about a real life decent fight, strapping the biggest gun in the world to a jeep will still only get you a blown-up jeep with a big gun on it at the end of the day. 

Whoever is making these decisions is forgetting that in the real world ENEMIES FIRE BACK. Not only can an MGS not take a hit like a real tank, but it will be confined to roads in most places, making it predictable. Predictable = dead. We might as well do away with green and paint a fluorescent bull's eye on them instead. 

Wheeled vehicles definately have a role to play in our forces. Pretending to be tanks is not one of them, and will get people - either our troops, the people we are supposed to be protecting, or both -   killed if we ever try to use them as tanks. Should we have a wheeled force? Absolutely. Should we have a 100% all-wheel-and-only-wheel force? Absolutely not.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

The MGS can provide valuable service.  Think flank security, rear are security, DFSV tasks with Recce elements, and so on.  They can replace tanks in some roles, but they cannot replace tanks in all roles.

A mix of tanks and MGS would relieve the tanks of some of their tasks, and that is a good thing.  Tanks are expensive to operate and maintain, and having to pull them out of the front line for rear area security duties may not make a lot of sense.  The same as placing MGS in the front line doesn't make a lot of sense!


----------



## ags281

Well said Lance


----------



## Infanteer

I remember reading a good statement that a wheeled force offers an armed force superb operational mobility that tracked vehicles cannot provide - The LAR dash north to Tikrit from Baghdad comes to mind.


----------



## Kirkhill

Horses for courses.


----------



## Yard Ape

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Yard Ape and Here Comes the Gun
> 
> The concept mockup seems to include the Hydra-70 modules and a pair of Hellfires.


That may be what the picture shows, but threre is no telling what the final procuct will use.  We may find it includes LOSAT, and I've heard a lot of talk of non-line of sight munitions (but will that happen now that the US is killing thier program?).


----------



## Kirkhill

Right enough Yard Ape.

It seems to be something of a notional concept at this time.  Somebody thinking that they can turn a land platform into as versatile a platform as a CF-18 or an AH-1.  Something that you can mount any current weapon onto and upgrade it with whatever comes along.

Something of a logisticians wet dream maybe?


----------



## a_majoor

On 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.


----------



## McG

a_majoor said:
			
		

> 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 "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.


Would an MMEV gun system still be able to function in a AD role?   As we strip away all our other AD capabilities, I feel that an MMEV evolved from ADATS would allow us to retain some level of AD capability.



			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> LOSAT and FOG-M are potentially as destabilizing as the introduction of the HMS Dreadnaught was to the capital fleets of the world in the early part of the last century.


LOSAT is still line of sight and its range is considerably shorter than ADATS   of FOGM.   However, it does promise greater lethality to armour than current missiles.   I think this has potential to replace TOW in our envisioned system of systems.   I do not think it enters into the equation as an MMEV alternative (and while the option would exist to arm an MMEV with a LOSAT type missile, this would push a long range asset very far forward).

The Non-line of Sight (NLOS) characteristics of the FOGM is what I typically hear of when the MMEV concept comes up.   I believe that this and traditional ADATS missiles are the way to go.   I like ADATS because it is dual role, and even in the direct fire role it has greater reach than most anti-armour systems.  Ideally, there would be options available in guidance of NLOS missiles.   Target designators mounted on Coyote surveillance masts, target designators carried in infantry sections and platoons, and GPS are all options.

Mounting short-range line-of-sight weapons on the MMEV would be foolish and lead to its quick destruction in battle.

 So, we are still left with a â Å“three headed monsterâ ? but with LOSAT and a ADATS/NLOS MMEV we would have a much more capable monster.


----------



## a_majoor

So many factors:

A gun armed MMEV can have some AD ability with the right weapon and mount, like the Israeli rapid fire 60mm, or the ARES 75. A larger calibre weapon might use a through tube missile or a "shotgun" type round. Since AD involves looking up, I would issue the MMEV chassis to AD units along with AD ammunition, rather than try to have Armoured crewmen trying to do that and fight the ground battle at the same time.

LOSAT is potentially destabilising because it can "snap shoot", unlike other missiles with their long engagement times. The US Army had also demonstrated a LOSAT armed Hummer which could pick up four separate targets then volley fire all four LOSATS. This parallel engagement capability can destroy multiple targets faster than a tank with its serial engagement capability. Future LOSAT type missiles will have improved range, less bulk, greater manoeuvrability etc.



> Ideally, there would be options available in guidance of NLOS missiles.  Target designators mounted on Coyote surveillance masts, target designators carried in infantry sections and platoons, and GPS are all options.



To make best use of these systems, consider a USMC LAV coy. One platoon is up front scouting, while the remaining infantry are one bound behind. One bound back is the LAV-TOW platoon, followed by the LAV mortar platoon. The Coy commander is up front with the Infantry, while the 2I/C trails the mortar platoon in the "C Cubed", a bison like command and control post. The future Canadian LAV combat team might look the same, with a gun or DF missile armed MMEV where the TOW platoon is, and a mortar or FOG-M platoon one bound behind them. Other variations are possible.


----------



## McG

We seem to agree on where we would find the NLOS missile systems, however I still see this as being a part of the MMEV package.  I think we both see LOSAT where TOW is now, possibly with a cannon based DFSV that employs smart munitions.

Maybe our only difference is the vehicle we choose to call MMEV?


----------



## a_majoor

McG said:
			
		

> We seem to agree on where we would find the NLOS missile systems, however I still see this as being a part of the MMEV package. I think we both see LOSAT where TOW is now, possibly with a cannon based DFSV that employs smart munitions.
> 
> Maybe our only difference is the vehicle we choose to call MMEV?



The real reason we can find areas to disagree is there is no "real" definition of the MMEV, so we are  projecting our desires onto a faintly sketched in canvas.

One big issue that I am thinking about is logistics. It seems much simpler to a mere Infantryman like myself to supply the right kind of ammo for the job, rather than trying to find the right vehicle (as well as parts and ammo). A here and now analogy is the venerable "Carl G". I can use HEAT-RAP against armoured targets, or HEDP (High Explosive-Dual Purpose) rounds to defeat bunkers, breach walls or even take out APC's and the like in an emergency. A gun MMEV solution seems the simpler and more effective way of doing business.


----------



## Kirkhill

Given that all systems are trying to do a number of different things these days is there merit to looking at TUA/DFSV/MMEV/Arty systems just as Short/Medium/Long Range Fire Support Vehicles that may be mounted on Light/Medium/Heavy platforms? All of them could/would mount combinations of weapons systems that could be adjusted to meet different battlefield requirements.

Ground based versions of Fixed Air and Helos.  Attach necessary impedimenta for each mission.


----------



## a_majoor

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Given that all systems are trying to do a number of different things these days is there merit to looking at TUA/DFSV/MMEV/Arty systems just as Short/Medium/Long Range Fire Support Vehicles that may be mounted on Light/Medium/Heavy platforms? All of them could/would mount combinations of weapons systems that could be adjusted to meet different battlefield requirements.
> 
> Ground based versions of Fixed Air and Helos. Attach necessary impedimenta for each mission.



Exactly so! Since we are going to a medium platform by default, then we need a flexible weapons system(s) to cover the short/medium/long range fire support missions. A Gun-LAV is one possible solution, which I think might be flexible enough to meet many of these goals, but I can also see missile carriers as well. If we want to go the missile route, then a DF missile system like LOSAT is needed to cover the point targets and "snap shooting" needs, while FOG-M type missiles can cover the medium/long range needs.

Guns or fast missiles are a must simply because I can't wait ten minutes for a FOG-M launched 60 km away to arrive. That sort of weapon is designed for the defense or deliberate assault. Various hybrid solutions can and should also be examined. I made a speculative post on Combat team of tomorrow where the MMEV troop would be one bound behind the Infantry with a mix of LOSAT and FOG-M, while a mortar platoon operates another bound behind, but is only loaded out for area support (HE, Smk, Illum), leaving the point targets to the MMEV. Substitute "Gun" for LOSAT/FOG-M and we arrive at a similar solution.

The MMEV, or Fire Support Vehicle (since our speculations have really changed the LAV/ADATS idea) is not, and should never be considered, a tank substitute. If it is flexible, capable of fire on the move and has at least the same cross country mobility as the rest of the LAV family, then we can start to reorient the Army's mech formations into a "Cavalry" type organization, capable of performing patrolling, flanking, screening and economy of force tasks. Digging people out of prepared positions and urban strong points may end up being the task of dismounted Infantry in the style of Ortona or battling through the Netherlands, rather than "thunder runs" to disrupt and demoralize the enemy. As long as we are stuck with the "troika" and the sort of thinking behind that idea, we will be a defense only formation, and probably not welcomed on coallition or PSO type operations which require more.


----------



## Kirkhill

I agree with you and others on the need for a gun in the short range role.  Nothing seems to beat the gun for accuracy and speed of response in the Direct Fire role in the 1- 5 km range.  As well as the ability to get off multiple observed rounds and adjust rapidly.

I would question point a direct fire missile like the 5km LOSAT/CKEM or even the 4km TOW on the same platform as the 10-15km EFOGM though.  To me it makes more sense to group the EFOGM type of missile with 120mm mortars or 105mm guns (current generation).  They all operate out to 15 km or so and the EFOGM gives both a precision kill capability to the Arty as well as a real time recce/taget verification capability as the gunner can see the target he is hitting.

Similarly the notion of marrying the Polyphem 60km Fibre Optic Missile with the MRLS/GMRLS or even Long Range 155mm/Naval Gunfire makes sense. 

I take it as a given that all arms will be operating various UAVs.

The question is what to do with direct fire missiles and a related question is what about missiles like the Hellfire/Brimstone that can be used in both Direct Fire Fire&Forget mode as well as Designated and Self Targeting modes.

I would suggest that the Gun/CKEM-LOSAT-TOW combination is the Short range 1-5 km vehicle mounted solution, thickened by Javelin/ALAAWS man-portable systems.

The next layer of cover would be 105mm C3s /120mm AMOS-type mortars /EFOGM at 10-15 km.

The next bound back is the 105mm Denel - 155mm / Brimstone / MRLS at 30-40 km

Behind that is Naval Gunfire / Polyphem / GMRLS at 60-70 km.

The 8 km Hellfire presents me with a bit of a problem because its range is intermediate between my short range band and my medium range band.  Also it is capable of both direct and indirect fire. So who to use it?

I am going to suggest that we have a good basis for both fighting and understanding the short-range battle.  That is the infantry/armoured model that is virtually unchanged since the introduction of the SS-11 into the Canadian mechanized brigade group.  It is the direct-fire, close combat fight.  And I will stipulate right here, right now, that when lots of metal is flying around the battlefield and you have no place to hide a lot of solid metal between me and all that flying metal would be a comforting thing.  Tracks can carry a greater weight of protective metal than wheels. Tracks, protective metal, a gun - sounds like a tank.  

Thing is, infanteers trying to get to the same place the tank is shooting at would probably like the same amount of metal surrounding them that surrounds the tankers.  That protection is more important to them and their ability to conduct operations than a gun/gun crew/ammunition taking up space.  I am a real fan of the Elgins converted RAMS for an APC.  It supplied the infantry with the exact same protection and mobility as the tanks it accompanied.  It had no other role other than to transport troops.

If we are going to have 70 tonne tanks then supply the infantry with 70 tonne armoured trucks on tracks.

I stipulate all of the above. But lets move on from there.

It seems to me that it is in the area of fire support that the CF is most deficient.  Not just in terms of number of tubes but in terms of types of ammunition for the tubes, in terms of types of launchers, in terms of types of platforms (man-portable, towed, wheeled, tracked, naval, helo, fast air), in terms of experience working with them and in terms of a comprehensive doctrine that encompasses not just what is currently available and what is "on the drawing-boards".   The Canadian artillery doesn't seem to have changed much in practice since WWII and maybe even WWI.  My sense is that the Arty is perceived solely as a method of dumping large quantities of HE over large areas and creating large holes in the ground.  From where I sit it is actually in terms of fire support, Arty's principal function, that the Revolution in Military Affairs has its most effect.  Perversely this increasing effectiveness is seen in decreasing numbers of gunners and airmen as one gun/one aircraft is capable of doing more with one round than ever before, with fewer operators, fewer maintainers and fewer truck drivers.

But it seems that few of the combat arms types here, both Arty and Inf/Armd are looking at how Future Arty can be exploited and how it might shape the battlefield in the future.  I believe, at least in the CF, that is because of lack of exposure to Arty in training and lack of attention to that most war-like of arms.  If you don't think the Government likes tanks because of their war-like aura what must it think of the Guns and DPICMs and Flechettes, not to mention Gas and Nukes?  The Government has only reluctantly supplied WWII capabilities in this field.

I believe that Arty, and the Air Force, can do a lot more in terms of offering fire support than most folks here seem to credit.  I believe that those capabilities that are being exploited by the Yanks and the Brits, amongst others are the reason that they are comfortable reducing - not eliminating - the numbers of tanks that they field.  Effectively they feel that Arty can make the battlefield a safer place for Own Forces to operate.  

Because of increased ranges and increased precision it also means that one battery can supply fire support over a much larger area.  I believe that wheels are better suited than tracks to dominate large areas due to speed and low wear and tear.  This is especially true in relatively low intensity environments like the current situation in Iraq.  The pattern of employment of the Stryker Battalions seems to support that view.  They are effective in Mosul on standing patrols and they have been rapidly redeployed to Najaf, Samarra, Fallujah and back numerous times, relocating hundreds of kilometers a night.

LAVs and improved arty support will give the CF a significant set of deployable capabilities that are useful nationally and to our allies.

As an aside, if gunners were viewed as infanteers that serve guns and included in the combat arms mix rather than being relegated to combat support, it would give the CF another 3 or 4 deployable units.

To conclude, I am not saying we should do without tanks.  I would like you to have tanks, and for that matter heavy, tracked APCs.  We can debate from here to kingdom come how many tanks are needed and/or are affordable.  That's a separate discussion.  I am saying that LAVs, with an appropriate RANGE of fire support capabilities mounted on various platforms including MMEVs can safely cover many tasks that previously require a tank crew to stand in an open field and slug it out toe-to-toe with an opposing tank, relying on their skills and those of the engineering that designed and built their tank at least cost.

Can we all at least agree that at least this maxim is outdated?  "The best anti-tank weapon is another tank".


----------



## a_majoor

A heavy assault battlegroup would be nice for "nutcracker" operations, with a MERKAVA type gun tank, and either a MERKAVA derivative hull for the assault carrier and CEV, or an ACHZARIT to serve the same purpose. The IDF likes this just fine, since they have the ability to shrug off most small arms fire and bring heavy firepower right up to the target whenever needed. Perhaps a heavy assault group thread should be started for that discussion. Given the "medium" bias of our purchases and plans, we will need to stipulate the Canadian Army will not perform as the "nutcracker" in a coalition (and hope like hell it doesn't come to that in a Canadian only operation). 



> The 8 km Hellfire presents me with a bit of a problem because its range is intermediate between my short range band and my medium range band.   Also it is capable of both direct and indirect fire. So who to use it?



This sort of weapon blurs the distinction between the traditional arms, my solution would be to have combined arms "Manoeuvre Battalions" with everyone wearing the same cap badge. Longer range missiles like FOG-M still have utility in the combat team solution I have described. The recce troop, or a platoon of mounted Infantry will be operating one or two bounds up from the main body, so if they run into trouble, the Fire Support Troop will be able to respond without a long delay, either with Hellfire/Brimstone missiles being guided in by the recce or lead Infantry platoon, or FOG-M flying overhead and missile operators dropping them on targets. With EFOG-M, the combat teams can do lateral support to flanking teams as well. At closer ranges, the MMEV's can input target data from many sources and volley fire their LOSAT type missiles, taking out multiple targets in a matter of seconds rather than engaging in a protracted slugfest, or playing hide and seek while trying to "snipe" targets. (This is not to say serial engagements are impossible, but if the circumstances permit, the "shock and awe" effect of several bunkers or AFV's being destroyed almost at once will certainly have a demoralizing effect on the enemy). A weapon combining the speed and kinetic energy attack of LOSAT with the range and versatility of Hellfire/Brimestone will be a real winner on the battlefield.

Artillery may become a "virtual" trade, no longer having dedicated platforms (although the idea of 60Km + engagements is certainly an "artillery" platform) but rather managing fire effects in the battlespace by identifying targets, matching them to the appropriate weapons and coordinating assets. Perhaps this will allow direct assaults with LAV type vehicles moving forward under the cover of PGM fire, although I have doubts.


----------



## Kirkhill

I agree with almost everything you say but.............



> (and hope like heck it doesn't come to that in a Canadian only operation).



a fool's bet




> At closer ranges, the MMEV's can input target data from many sources and volley fire their LOSAT type missiles, taking out multiple targets in a matter of seconds rather than engaging in a protracted slugfest, or playing hide and seek while trying to "snipe" targets.



That makes the LOSAT/CKEM.....type of system a natural for an Anti-Tank Tp/Pl used in the same way that the TUA is currently (Note- I always liked the Swingfire concept of being able to have the crew dismount and launch the missiles while having retired a discrete distance from "the blue touch paper")




> Artillery may become a "virtual" trade, no longer having dedicated platforms (although the idea of 60Km + engagements is certainly an "artillery" platform) but rather managing fire effects in the battlespace by identifying targets, matching them to the appropriate weapons and coordinating assets.



Here I have my greatest difficulty.  Real missiles, rockets and rounds will be required.  They will be launched from real tubes and racks.  They will require real platforms.  All of which will require real people.  Arty has the historical and contemporary corporate knowledge to effectively employ these systems.  Infantry and Armoured are going to have their hands full on the close-combat, short range direct fire battle.  Let the Arty handle what they do very well the indirect, long-range battle.  And the fact that one system can be used in two different roles by two different arms doesn't seem to me to be a problem.  Its a logistical  advantage.



> Perhaps this will allow direct assaults with LAV type vehicles moving forward under the cover of PGM fire, although I have doubts.



I have doubts as well about using the LAV in direct assaults.  But I do think that with more and more effective artillery fire there will be more areas of the battlefield that the LAVs can roam without having to commit to a direct assault.  And in my mind that is ultimately what all of these discussions are about - how do you eliminate those obstacles that prevent people from getting out of their vehicles and putting their muddy size 12s on the ground and claiming it.

Cheers,


----------



## McG

There is no reason that we should not look to integrating targeting & surviellance systems to allow an MMEV to employ NLOS missiles in a volley fire attack.   Once over the target area the missiles could be guided in by target designators or vehicle recognition capabilities of the missiles.

LOSAT need not hold a monopoly on the volley fire capability.

As far as the short/medium/long/very-long range spectrum, I see the following break down:

Very-short (0 - 1000 m):   Infantry manportable weapons
Short range (1000 - 4000 m):   LOSAT and DFSV (employing variety of advanced munitions)
Med range: (5000 -15000 m):   Mortar and MMEV missile platform (primarilly NLOS but also AD and "longer" range direct fire out to 10 km)
Long range + (15000 m +): Arty fires.


----------



## Kirkhill

Looks good to me McG, I think you're very right on the volley fire issue and on the surveillance and targeting.   Maybe the basic principle is that the firers should have the ability to see their target.   They could also continue to fire indirectly bu seeing as how the technology is available to let them see where there rounds are landing why not give it to them? 

One slight quibble, if you extend your very short range out to 2000m you will also include the 60mm mortar and the Javelin (2500m).


----------



## a_majoor

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Artillery may become a "virtual" trade, no longer having dedicated platforms (although the idea of 60Km + engagements is certainly an "artillery" platform) but rather managing fire effects in the battlespace by identifying targets, matching them to the appropriate weapons and coordinating assets. Perhaps this will allow direct assaults with LAV type vehicles moving forward under the cover of PGM fire, although I have doubts.



I see I wasn't entirely clear. There would of course be "real" artillery with real gunners and real weapons systems. The more important role of Artillery will be resource management, for lack of a better term. Not only will shells or rockets or FOG-Ms be raining down on the enemy, but aircraft, helicopters, armed UAV's and the indirect fire assets of the combat team and battle group will also be there, ready to use. The "virtual artillery" would be able to use those assets, rather than their own dedicated platforms.

In the context of this thread, if a fire support troop is not in direct fire range of the target, the virtual artillery would be feeding target data to the MMEV so they could use FOG-M or guns in the indirect fire mode. Missile armed MMEVs would have the option of volley fire, and I am ashamed to admit I had not thought of this possibility, but now that McG has brought this up, I can see the "shock and awe" effect would be even greater ("where did that come from!"). The enemy would get another dose as the MMEVs closed to direct fire range and a volley of KE missiles slammed into the position at Mach 5, followed by dismounted Infantry.


----------



## Kirkhill

Before commenting further I wanted to post this information.   It is from the New Zealand Defence Plan Update.   I was particularly taken by the Area to be covered.



> Land Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance (ISR)
> Description
> 
> 8.1      This project proposes to equip the Army with an improved land Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance (ISR) capability.
> 
> Policy Value
> 
> 8.2      An improved land ISR capability will provide land forces with the ability to detect threats at greater distances and with greater certainty. An improved land ISR capability is an important element in operations where land forces face a demanding threat environment and need to know what is happening around them.
> 
> Capability Gap
> 
> 8.3      Land forces require integral capabilities to identify personnel and vehicles, both static and moving. Current ISR capabilities are limited to foot, vehicle and motorcycle patrols and include night vision and some ground sensors.* A significantly larger area, up to 100 by 60 square kilometres, will need to be observed when the LAV is introduced into service. *
> 
> Links to other Capabilities
> 
> 8.4      This project has links to the following projects and capabilities:
> 
> Special Operations Capability
> 
> Light Operational Vehicle
> 
> Light Armoured Vehicle
> 
> P-3 Upgrade
> 
> NZDF Helicopter Capability
> 
> Timing
> 
> 8.5      Implementation is expected in 2006 - 2007.
> 
> Current Status
> 
> 8.6      Preliminary work has been completed to determine how the land ISR needs fit within the broader NZDF ISR requirements. Work will now commence on developing options to meet specific land ISR requirements.
> 
> Costs
> 
> 8.7      This project is expected to cost $25 million - $52 million.



The New Zealanders have aquired 105 LAV IIIs with 25mm Bushmasters. Just like ours.   

Is it safe to assume that the area 100 km x 60 km would be a Battle Group Area of Operations? The KIWIs are probably not considering a Brigade AO with only 105 LAVs available to them totally and it seems unlikely to me that this would be the AO for a Company Combat Team.   If so what does that do this discussion of necessary fire support and the MMEVs?


As to your comment on the virtual Arty, thanks for clearing that up.   Put the way that you have now I can see it.   Need some Arty types to weigh in on this I guess but perhaps your needs would be met if each Arty regiment were to congregate all the FOOs and FDCs along with the ISTAR kit in one Battery and make pure Firing Batteries out of the rest of the unit.   As I understand it now the FOOs and the FDCs are integral to the Batteries - I believe part of the reason is it provides a direct link between the gunners doing the firing and the units they are supporting by having one of their own on the receiving end of their fire support.   The counter is the USMC has its ANGLICO companies and the Royal Artillery has its STA batteries, both dedicated to the type of tasking I think you are suggesting.

With respect to the MMEV and LOSAT/FOG-M, I think the problem that I am having is that all of the info that I have seen on the LOSAT is that it is a direct fired missile launched horizontally from a rail.   The FOG-M/EFOG-M/Polyphem missiles all seem to vertically launched from boxes.   It doesn't seem to me that both missiles would be compatible with the same vehicle, not on an interchangeable basis.
That doesn't mean that one unit couldn't be equipped with both systems, and the fact that both systems ultimately have the same job, the destruction of hard targets with precision fire, certainly suggests this as a possibility.   On the other hand the discrepancy in ranges suggests to me that they might be best treated as two separate entities as McG has also proposed.

Now, alternatively, if you want to look at one missile that could operate from the MMEVs in the way that you are thinking then perhaps we would be better off looking at the Hellfire/Brimstone missiles which can be fired in direct mode, in designated mode or self-targeted mode.   Hellfire again has a range of about 8 km while Brimstone can stand back 32 km - not a bad capability if a Battlegroup is to be responsible for a 100x60 km AO.

Interestingly a mock-up photo of the MMEV that McG posted some time ago (perhaps you could re-post that McG) showed it, IIRC, equipped with 70mm rocket pods, anti-aircraft missiles and Hellfire/Brimstone missiles.


----------



## ArmyRick

Art, Kirkhill and McG you guys bring some really good points to the table.. I like the ranging and dividing responsibilities (it keeps ALL our branches alive and it gives us some valuable purposes)..
How about idirect be both volley (traditional HE, WP and ILLUM rounds) and precision (like swiss STRIX 120mm guided mortar munitions)?
What do you guys think of splicing this into the new system of systems in the CF ?


----------



## Kirkhill

I think the 120mm mortar system is a great example of a MME capability.  As you point out it handles traditional HE Smk Ill tasks as well as having an Anti-tank PGM role with the Strix (I think you will find that that is manufactured in Sweden).  As well there are DPICM rounds for the 120mm and I have even heard tell of a FOG round - propulsion is just like any other mortar round, charges around the base, but it trails a Fibre Optic link and is supposed to be guidable.

Another advantage of the 120mm rounds are that launchers can vary from really lightweight towed launchers to the AMOS twin-barrelled turret with auto loader.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/pgmm.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m971.htm

These are American requirements for 120mm Mortar rounds, can't find the FOG version just now.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/hatm.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/losat.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/ckem.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/mgm-157.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/net-fires.htm

These are the LOSAT and  NLOS systems currently either in production or in testing.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/agm-114.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brimstone_missile

And finally Hellfire and Brimstone - I love that name.... ;D


----------



## ArmyRick

What's brimstone?


----------



## a_majoor

Brimestone is the traditional name for sulphur, and has biblical connotations ( God raining "Fire and Brimestone" on unbelievers). If you think back to your high school chemistry classes, you will remember the god awful smell of burning sulphur....

100 X 60 km is larger than many WW I battlefields, amazing how technology advances. Long range indirect fire assets can be missiles, smart mortar rounds artillery shells or whatever can come flying through the air. I use FOG-M because I think it is very versatile technology, a "FOG-P" (Fiber Optic Guided Projectile) is something I have never heard of before, but it would be interesting to see how it works. Even farther out ideas include electro-magnetic rail guns firing from DD-X ships, the round is projected right out of the atmosphere towards targets several hundred kilometers away. A satellite could theoretically be designed to de-orbit on command; if a few ounces of metal in a shaped charge warhead moving at @Mach 25 can destroy a tank, then a few kilograms of satellite moving at Mach 27 = "look out". Perhaps we need to start a fire support thread?

The actual size and shape of the missiles is really a technical issue. If we want or need to, we could design a common launcher for the DF and IF missiles or weapons, or design the missile characteristics into a common airframe, or have an "all in one" weapon like Brimestone. Looking at the capabilities, it would seem to be an excellent choice, especially if the fire control system can be adapted for individual (serial) engagements as well as volley (parallel) engagements. If future developments pushed its speed into LOSAT territory, then even the need for snap shooting DF targets can be met.


----------



## Kirkhill

Agreed on all points.

Another critical question in this discussion though is timeline.  When could we implement some of the things we are talking about?  I have been trying to stick with systems that are already in production or are in prototype-low rate initial production phases and are expected to be deployed in the next two years or so.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Last I heard from the Ottawa crowd is that they are looking at the 2012-2015 timeframe to implement the LAV-MMEV.  That's because no other army in the world is interested in such a vehicle, preferring to keep tracks.  So a lot of money is required for development.


----------



## AmmoTech90

Brimstone is a British version of the Hellfire.  It is fire and forget with a tandem warhead, designed to be launched from fast air rather than attack helocopters.


----------



## Kirkhill

Ammotech 90:

Can you confirm these manufacturer's claims?



> Advanced Anti-Armour Weapon.
> 
> 
> Operational requirement
> Around 30 countries now have more than 1,000 main battle tanks and 4,000 armoured vehicles of all types in operation or reserve.
> 
> To counter this threat, a range of anti-armour weapon systems is needed at all levels of the conflict. Direct fire weapons with support from attack helicopters can counter the short and medium engagement, but a flexible, highly accurate fast jet launched weapon is needed to counter the deep battlefield requirement and to provide immediate close air support, anywhere. The Brimstone advance anti-armour weapon has been developed to meet this requirement.
> 
> 
> The MBDA solution
> Modern main battle tanks are capable of sustaining the high rate of combat orders they receive in an optimal manner. Today, armoured combat units are more mobile and more discrete. They can be deployed more rapidly and can escape from the opponent's detection systems while benefiting from passive and active protection systems that are likely to put today's anti-tank systems in a no-win situation. The BRIMSTONE missile takes into account all these parameters. It has been designed in answer to the UK MoD's requirement for an air-to-surface stand-off anti-tank missile of the fire and forget type capable of being engaged from far inside the opponent's combat system. BRIMSTONE's high flexibility of use is unique in the world. *It can be launched from combat aircraft, light armoured vehicles and from the ground*. Its millimetric Wave radar seeker ensures target searching and identification 24 hours a day, in all weathers, and is not affected by the smoke and obscurants of today's modern battlefield.
> Brimstone is a fully autonomous, fire and forget anti-armour weapon, effective against all known and projected armoured threats. .
> 
> 
> MAIN FEATURES and ADVANTAGES
> 
> Launch Modes
> Indirect Mode is used when the targets are known and are out of sight of the attacking aircraft. The attack will usually have been planned in advance. If the aircraft has a databus between the cockpit and the weapons pylon, the aircrew can carry out mission planning or amendments en route to the release point. The engagement is set up so that the aircraft releases BRIMSTONE from a safe position, ensuring aircraft and aircrew survivability. The missile can be fired off boresight to facilitate use of terrain masking.
> 
> Direct Mode is where the pilot usually visually selects the target prior to weapon release, which may be assisted by an on-board sighting system. This mode is primarily intended for targets of opportunity or for self-defence against suddenly uncovered targets.
> 
> In both modes, BRIMSTONE supports off bore sight operation so the aircraft does not have to carry out any special manoeuvre prior to launch.
> 
> Once launched, BRIMSTONE is fully fire and forget. Autonomous on-board targeting algorithms means that there is no need for post launch target designation, allowing the attacking aircraft to retreat to a safe position. On leaving the launcher, the missiles are boosted to supersonic speed by the solid propellant rocket motor. The short burn time, minimum smoke design of the motor gives a reduced optical and infrared signature minimising the chance of Brimstone's detection by the target's Defensive Aids Suite (DAS).
> BRIMSTONE's millimetric Wave (mmW) radar seeker is able to operate in allweathers and throughout the 24 hour day. It is also not susceptible to battlefield obscurants such as smoke, dust, flares or chaff. A second function of the seeker is to give Brimstone a terrain avoidance capability, allowing it to cruise at a fixed height above the ground. It can be launched from ultra-low to high altitudes, allowing the pilot to select the launch altitude that avoids the possibility of successful attack from SAM systems. When launched from medium or high altitude, BRIMSTONE goes into a steep dive until it detects the ground below. The missile then pulls out to the cruise height.
> 
> Mid-course guidance is controlled by a digital autopilot and a highly accurate digital inertial measurement unit, giving the necessary high performance navigation required to locate the targets at long range and off-boresight operations.
> 
> 
> Salvo Firing
> When the target is a group or array of armoured vehicles, a broad attack front is required to engage the maximum number of vehicles. In such cases, multiple BRIMSTONE missiles can be fired in salvo, up to the entire platform load.
> 
> The missiles fly on separate paths that are spread out to cover the largest area.
> 
> Alternatively, missiles can be flown down the same corridor for the attack of in-line formations. A variety of engagement algorithms are used to eliminate the probability of hitting the same target more than once. For example, individual missiles can be commanded to hit sequentially numbered valid targets according to information passed from the aircraft before launch.
> 
> Target Engagement
> During the search phase of the engagement, BRIMSTONE's mmW seeker performs a comprehensive sweep on the ground directly ahead and to each side, searching for targets in its path. The advance mmW seeker constantly monitors the received radar signal, comparing it to a known target signature in its memory.
> It automatically rejects returns which do match (i.e. cars, buses, buildings) and continues searching and comparing until it identifies a valid target.
> The missiles can be programmed not to search for targets until they reach a given point, allowing them to safely overfly friendly forces. They can also be programmed to stop searching beyond the safe engagement area or to only accept a target in a restricted box area. This provides collateral damage control.
> 
> The BRIMSTONE seeker operates in the high mmW band providing a high-resolution radar return image of the target, allowing real time target recognition and classification using on-board algorithms.
> 
> Once identified, BRIMSTONE scans the target to optimise its aimpoint and to maximise its lethality.
> 
> BRIMSTONE emits a low power signal as it searches the ground just ahead of itself. Should the armoured target have a Defensive Aid Suite it will have little opportunity for successful deployment of countermeasures against the supersonic missile.
> 
> The BRIMSTONE warhead is a tandem shaped charge High-Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT) warhead. The front charge initiates any reactive armour on the Main Battle Tank and clears the path for the main charge. The warhead is capable of defeating all known and projected armoured threats.
> 
> 
> Launch Platforms
> BRIMSTONE has been designed to operate from all fast jet aircraft, such as the Harrier, Tornado, Eurofighter Typhoon, F-16, F/A-18 and Gripen. It is also suitable for operation on light attack aircraft such as the Hawk, F-5 and L-159.
> 
> *BRIMSTONE is suitable for operational deployment on helicopters, armoured vehicles and ground-based launchers. These launchers can be adapted to carry a mix of both BRIMSTONE and Hellfire missiles. Such a deployment is being offered to the British Army on the TRACER reconnaissance vehicle programme*
> Status of programme
> In November 1996 the UK MoD awarded MBDA the development and production contract for Brimstone. In October 2003, a successful series of test firings were carried out as part of the final stages of Brimstone's development phase. During one of these tests, a ripple test firing, three missiles successfully impacted on three different targets with an array of armoured vehicles.
> Brimstone will enter into service during the course of 2004.



http://www.mbda.co.uk/


----------



## AmmoTech90

Sure, you can lauch almost any weapon from almost any platform.  Some work better from other, for example a CRV7 rocket launched from fast air is going to have significantly higher velocity and therefore a bit more accuracy and shorter time of flight than one launched from the ground.   It also depends on the data bus used on the pylon.  Most US/NATO smart weapons use the MIL-STD-1760 bus I believe to pass info between the weapon and launch platform.  If the weapon is designed for that and has compatible rails/dispensers it should be fine.  For aircraft there is also seperation concerns.  I am not sure why Hellfire is not used on fast air.  Could be technical or it could be because the US has Maverick that fills a very similar niche but for fast air.


----------



## Kirkhill

Point taken AmmoTech90:

In particular, for both the CRV7 and the Brimstone range would probably be greater when launched from a platform moving at 500mph than from a stationary platform so the 32km range cited by Wikipedia may only apply to the Fast-Jet launch.  I notice the manufacturer doesn't specify a range in the public literature nor does Global Security, Federation of American Scientists or Army Technology.

As to why the Hellfire might not be used from Fast Air, could that be a range thing as well?   5-8 km at 800km/h doesn't leave a very large firing window I wouldn't think.

Maybe Inch or some of the other Air Force types could comment on that as well.


----------



## McG

I've been skeptical about rocket pods in MMEV concepts.  I just can't picture them having the right combination of reach & punch.


----------



## Kirkhill

Just compared the Hellfire and Brimstone dimensions

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/agm-114.htm
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/brimstone/

It looks like the two missiles are identical with the exception of the seeker which looks to be something like that used on the Merlin 81mm mortar round that wasn't adopted and the Strix round that is in service.  That would likely mean that a quoted range of 32 km is assuming launch from a fast jet while 5-8 km is from a stationary platform like a hovering helicopter or a ground platform.    That would mean that both missiles could expect to be launched from comparable positions on the battlefield - making it understandable to me why both missiles would be mixed on the same platform.  One missile is self designated, the other missile is laser designated.

As to the Rocket Pods on a MMEV.  I know that the Belgians , amongst others employed trucks with boxes of 40 70mm rockets in fire support. The range was somewhere round about 10 km and with each round having 1 kg payloads 40 rockets would deliver about as much HE as 3 rounds, battery fire from a 105 battery.


----------



## McG

What effect does that have on the ground?


----------



## a_majoor

> Another critical question in this discussion though is timeline.  When could we implement some of the things we are talking about?  I have been trying to stick with systems that are already in production or are in prototype-low rate initial production phases and are expected to be deployed in the next two years or so.



It seems insane that it takes so long to modify an already existing platform, especially in this age of computer assisted design/computer assisted manufacture. In the Second World War, entirely new generations of war machines were created virtually from scratch by teams of designers with pens and T squares. If we want to fast track the Fire Support Vehicle, here are some suggestions:

Gun LAV: first iteration replaces the 105mm with the ARES 75 (straight swap) to examine stability and recoil issues. Future modifications to interior for increased ammunition stowage (even though the telescoped 75mm round is much smaller than a 105, we still need more that going from 18 X 105mm to @ 22 X  75mm. At least 35 rounds must be carried internally).

Missile LAV: To max out on stowage, use a "Stryker" hull with the troop compartment cleaned out. Install a "pop-top" like the old BRDM-2 anti tank variants, so when the launcher is stowed, the hull is flush, but the top deck doubles as the top of the launcher when raised, for protection. Hellfire/Brimestone and CKEM are all about the same size, so we can hold a competition to choose the primary weapon, and have the option to change if tactics or countermeasures dictate. If a FOG-M is desired, tell the manufacturers to build them to the same size as the above.

Most of the systems exist already, and installing a databus designed for fighter aircraft should be no problem in the much larger hulls of armoured vehicles. I can't see a LAV pulling 9 gs either. Putting the program together, running trials and doing mods to address deficiencies shouldn't take more than two years, given the fact that almost everything described already exists as MOTS (AAI probably has the ARES prototype in storage somewhere). In fact, given the right incentives, the program should be fast and relatively inexpensive, and we could probably get a lot more Fire Support Vehicles than the MGS/LAV-TOW/MMEV for the same money. I would predict the trials could be done by early 2007, and service entry by 2008-09.


----------



## Kirkhill

> What effect does that have on the ground?



Took a little time to get back to you on this McG.   Wanted to get the numbers right.

There are three manufacturers of this system as far as I can determine, Bristol Aerospace of Winnipeg, BEI of Houston, Tx and FZ of Belgium.

The systems comprise a missile, made up of a rocket motor, a warhead/cargo round and a fuze.   The Americans are now building/developing a bolt-on guidance kit consisting of a laser seeker and a system designed to move the guidance fins in flight.

Depending on motor choice, warhead weight and launch angle in the ground to ground role the various motors have ranges varying from about 6000m to 14000m.

Warheads include various HE, HEAT, DPICM, Penetrating and Flechette types as well as WP, RP, Ill, IR and Chaff.   They have proven effectiveness, again depending on warhead on everything from personnel, light vehichles, light armour, armour up to 400mm and also against light aircraft ( the missile was originally developed as an air to air weapon - the flechette is apparently particularly effective acting like a shot-gun - it could be useful in the anti-UAV role).

The most common HE warhead, the 10 pdr as the Americans call it (@3.85 kg with 1.04 kg of comp B-4) has a burst radius of 10 m   (314 m2)   but can be lethal up to 50 m (7850 m2).   The DPICM round carries 9 submunitions each with a 10 m burst radius.   

The Belgians claim that their 40 round launcher, the LAU-97 that could be mounted on the back of a vehicle like the Pinzgauer with a 1.2 tonne payload, that 1 launcher would cover an area of 200 x 300 m (60,000 m2) with 40x8000 fragments or 320,000 fragments.   With flechettes the area would be inundated with 40x1180 flechettes or 47,200 flechettes.

NATO standard launchers are 7 and 19 round pods.   4 19 round pods can be carried by one AH-64.   6 19 round pods can be carried on a C1 Howitzer bed or on the back of any vehicle with a 2.5 tonne payload.   1 pod, loaded, weighs about 600 pounds. 6 pods would weigh 3600 pounds or 1.6 tonnes.   Allow about another tonne for elevating and traversing mass and electric motors.

I believe that if a flat-bed LAV were procured, similar to the MTVL logistics, or fitters, variants where you have a 2-3 person crew pod and an open deck in the rear, and that a powered pedestal mount were installed that had 6 "hard points" on it similar to the AH-64 or even our CF18s then we could create a mini-MRLS system for a Combat Team commander to fight the 5-15 km battle.

The Commander would have available as options Unguided and Guided HE, DPICM, HEAT, Penetrating, Flechette, SMK, Ill, IR and Chaff rounds, as well as the Hellfire Laser designated Anti-Tank round and the Brimstone Self-Designating Anti-tank round.   He would have anti-pers, anti-armour, anti-structure and even anti-UAV/helo capabilities.   4 vehicles would supply 456 ready to fire 70 mm rounds or   something like 72 Hellfire/Brimstone rounds.   Essentially he would have on hand the underwing firepower of 9 6 AH-64s.   Available to him, under his command, ready regardless of weather.   It would replace the 120mm mortar system in the planning.

Cheers

Error on my part 6 MMEVs with 6 hardpoints could carry the same weight of ordnance as 9 AH-64s with 4 hardpoints.   Or 4 MMEVs would carry the load of 6 AH-64s.

And just a final note - the 200x300m footprint for the 40 round launcher (60,000 m2) would require 30 rounds of Denels new, improved prefragmented 105mm rounds which have an effective area of 2000 m2 each.   
My old 309(3) info states that the burst radius for the 81mm round is 40 m (or 5,000 m2).   

If true info then 2x19 70mm rounds =38 or about 60,000x38/40 = 57,000 m2.   That would require 12? rounds of 81mm   or about 30? rounds of the improved 105mm?

Comparing effect is obviously difficult but comparing loadout is much easier.   

http://www.clw.org/cat/newswire/nw083100.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/hydra-70.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/apkws.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ah-64.htm

By the way, why does it take a crew of 3-4 to drive, navigate and fight a ground vehicle but only a crew of 1 or 2 to fly, navigate and fight a helicopter or aircraft?


----------



## a_majoor

All this catalogue shopping still is not answering the fundamental question of "what is an MMEV?"  Looking over the posts, about the only thing anyone agrees on is it isn't a tank. If an MMEV is a form of SP artillery, then some of the systems suggested here are inappropriate, while if the MMEV is meant to provide direct fire support to the combat team, then the artillery/area munitions are not very helpful.

I am going to throw this in the ring: "The MMEV is a precision fire support platform, which is capable of destroying point targets in  support of the close combat elements of the battlegroup." I am further going to stipulate the Army formations (of whatever size) will be optimized for Cavalry operations, that is screening, flanking, economy of force, rear area security and the ability to act as the exploitation force in conjunction with heavy elements.

Given these parameters, the MMEV could be armed with either a gun system (CASR 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), or a missile platform primarily armed with LOSAT/CKEM/Brimestone type missiles, and indirect fire missiles like FOG-M carries for NLOS targets, flanking unit support and so on. Indirect fire would be the province of mortars and artillery, which would be given the job of providing area fire in support of the close combat elements, with the secondary role of neutralizing point targets with PGM's.

Logistically, the MMEV would be loaded up with LOS/NLOS munitions in support of the mission, a higher proportion of FOG-M in complex terrain, or LOS in clear terrain. The mortars and artillery would have the traditional HE/Smk/Ilum, with a portion of "smart" rounds like STRIX to cover complex terrain.

Kirkhill is right in suggesting we need area coverage with a "mini MLRS", and maybe that system will supplement or replace the mortar platoon, or exist in artillery along with EFOG-M with really long range capabilities to cover the 100X60 Km "box". I still feel the idea of a mini combat team along the lines of a USMC LAV Coy provides the flexibilityand the built in firepower to respond quickly to deal with many situations. One can only imagine the scene in a combat team armed with MGS/LAV-TOW and MMEV when the call "Ambush Left!" comes in.

Using these parameters and also stipulating the ability to shoot on the move provides what I think is the "right" answer to the MMEV dielemma, and I hope the powers that be are at least giving this some consideration.


----------



## pbi

> First off, direct fire is the role of armour.  Indirect fire (NLOS) belongs to the artillery, and air defense belongs to the artillery



This type of thinking is rooted in "the way we've always done it", and nicley protects the jobs of the Cavalry and Gunners. Technology will, I think, very soon render this outlook OBE. We need to focus less on protecting branch ricebowls and more on what gives us the effect we need for the ops we are likely to take on. I have some misgivings about MMEV but I think it is a step in the right direction. Cheers.


----------



## Kirkhill

The point about catalogue shopping is that there are an awful lot of solutions out there. Somebody I know used live by the expression "Anything is possible, if cash."

We do not lack for technical solutions.  There are a myriad of them and not all of them are ridiculously expensive and beyond our means.  A lot of people much brighter than me, with much better views of the catalogs and better senses of what is required can produce much better answers.

At bottom I believe that the most important discussion on this board is the one about Regimental structures, roles and rice bowls.  Everything else follows on from that.

Once you have a sense of the battles you will be asked to fight and jobs you will be asked to do and the bodies and dollars you have to work with then you check out the catalogs.  Look at what effects can be delivered, the kit that can deliver the effect and then the vehicles necessary to deliver the kit.  After that you can divvy up the work amongst the cap badges.

The thing is the structure and cap badges you are operating under were basically formalized in year 5 of a 6 year war, in a world of vacuum tubes and slide rules where your ONLY option for finding the enemy was to fumble forward until you bumped into him.  Then your buddies killed im and if you were lucky the stretcher bearers following along behind would clear you off the battlefield in a few hours.

The Americans are demonstrating that technology works.  Fallujah wasn't Ortona, much less Stalingrad or Berlin and the Fedayeen weren't Fallschirmjager but kill ratios of 20 and 30 to 1 are still pretty impressive.  Yes they used heavy fire power, and they have even used some tanks, but most of the work has been the guy on foot fumbling forward.  Thing is technology is reducing the amount of fumbling and also reducing the ability of the enemy to run away.

Technology isn't going to eliminate the fumbling and the dying but it would be ludicrous not to look at what technology offers.


----------



## pbi

> Technology isn't going to eliminate the fumbling and the dying but it would be ludicrous not to look at what technology offers.



Exactly. Both the Armour and the Artillery branches are themselves products of this very argument. And if it brings us a system that can reliably engage in both the direct and indirect modes, with adequate destructive power, then we seriously need to ask ourselves why we need to perpetuate separate branches to deliver these capabalities.  Cheers.


----------



## Kirkhill

> Both the Armour and the Artillery branches are themselves products of this very argument



Actually a pretty good case could be made for the position that the Tank was not an outgrowth of the Cavalry (who had to be forced to give up their horses) but actually of the Artillery.  The job that the Tanks first took over was moving batteries Machine Guns and Field Guns over broken terrain to support the advance of the Infantry.  Up until the advent of the tank the only other option was for gunners to drag Vickers guns on 100 lb sledges,  while their mates on the 13 and 18 pounder field guns tried to haul their pieces out of emplacements, across shell holes and mud in the face of enemy fire with no protection.  

The Brits fought an internal battle for years, up until the 1960's about Cavalry tanks and Infantry tanks.  The Cavalry wanted fast, light vehicles to skirt the battlefield.  The Infantry wanted slow, heavily armoured vehicles to support the assault.  This mirrored the differences between the Field Artillery with their 18 pounders and the Horse Artillery with their 13 pounders. 

They eventually "compromised" on the Medium tank and the Gun-Howitzer.  All the Tanks were turned over to horse soldiers, and the distinction between Horse and Field artillery disappeared while the Infantry developed their own artillery in the form of the Mortar.  The Mortar, also called the Trench Mortar, also called (in German parlance) the Grenade thrower - which started out life as a home made wooden catapult with springs designed so that soldiers could lob their home-made hand bombs over the lip of the Trench without having to expose themselves.

All technology is developed from a need to fill a hole and to stay one-up on the enemy.


----------



## a_majoor

This is a reprise of the "arms make the man" argument. 

I can forsee an era where mechanized units have identical TO&E's, and retain the cap badges and traditions as a means of molding their soldiers and maintaining esprit de corps. (This has the potential for some unintended humor: imagine the differences between the "Spit and Polish" 1 RCR manoeuvre battalion and the dashing "Cavalry" RCD manoeuvre battalion in 2 CMBG). This might not be a bad thing, since each manoeuvre battalion would have different "quiffs", which would make predicting their actions more difficult for the enemy, who (initially) would only see a Canadian manoeuvre battalion facing them. A less palatable alternative would be to wedge new capabilities into existing doctrinal structures ("These MMEV's belong in the AAP, and I don't want to hear any more about moveing them out of Combat Support Company. Do I make myself clear Mr Pook?")

On the other hand, if the different Regiments and Corps are too deeply dug in to buy into new doctrines to effectively use new kit, then perhaps we need to do what the Americans did in Gulf War One; drop a MOAB, then bulldozer the surviving bunkers. The Reserves are inherently flexible and willing to demonstrate the "can do" spirit, units would line up salivating just for the chance to try out new equipment and test new doctrines. You might think they are just as parochial as the Regs (and to some extent it is true), but as part timers they don't have "as" much institutional attachment as the Regs, as practical people who are students, business people and professionals outside the military they have a wider range of experience and more open viewpoints, and as soldiers starved for equipment, funds and, yes, recognition, they will jump through rings of fire for the chance to prove themselves.


----------



## twohig

All of these posts have some very good points, a lot of serious thought put into each point.   The problem is they are speculation, I do agree with most of your points, and being an air defender and being ADATS for the past 7 years, I do see the limitations and strengths of my system.   The big thing is again, we have no combat experience on the momodernattlefield, so all of our points that sound good on paper can easily be shredded on the battlefield.

The point I'm trying to make is we should look to who is using similar vehicles and tactics in actual combat and we can see what works and what will cost lives.   The Americans are learning this the hard way, why are we not trying to learn from their mistakes.   

I'm not saying that the points presented here are wrong, on the contrary they are mostly in line with lessons learned by the American army.   What I'm saying is that why don't our leaders seem to see these points and implement sop's accordingly.   

One good article on the benefits of armour, I mean tanks is this one.
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/04/11/talbot1104.asp?trk=nl


----------



## 12alfa

ATT;

Your right on the money.

We don't have the $ to build or plan, r&d any wpn system. Best way for us is to see what others are using in the same role and buy off the shelf.

We have our past history in buying systems that are shall we say sub-performance with the LSVW,ADATS, SUBS,etc.

People here are dreaming on systems we will never use, and will cost money and people.

Seems you and I are the only ones that can see the trees through the forest.


----------



## a_majoor

ATT58 said:
			
		

> All of these posts have some very good points, a lot of serious thought put into each point.  The problem is they are speculation, I do agree with most of your points, and being an air defender and being ADATS for the past 7 years, I do see the limitations and strengths of my system.  The big thing is again, we have no combat experience on the momodernattlefield, so all of our points that sound good on paper can easily be shredded on the battlefield.
> 
> The point I'm trying to make is we should look to who is using similar vehicles and tactics in actual combat and we can see what works and what will cost lives.  The Americans are learning this the hard way, why are we not trying to learn from their mistakes.
> 
> I'm not saying that the points presented here are wrong, on the contrary they are mostly in line with lessons learned by the American army.  What I'm saying is that why don't our leaders seem to see these points and implement sop's accordingly.
> 
> One good article on the benefits of armour, I mean tanks is this one.
> http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/04/11/talbot1104.asp?trk=nl



The biggest problem is that no other army in the world seems to be going in this direction. Even a Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) only uses two of the fire support systems we are slated to get (MGS and LAV-TOW), uses them in a different context (integral support to Infantry companies) and within a much larger doctrinal horizon (currently as a component of AirLand Battle, and as a way to develop the "Objective Force" in the 2015-2020 timeframe).

Since the MMEV is currently slated to be part of a "troika" of DF weapons for our future battlefield, we need to decide NOW what is needed, so the technical development of the vehicle and the tafctical development of doctrine and organization can take place. It would be a very sad day when troops show up to "stables" parade and see the MMEV for the very first time without any clue as to how it is used.

I hope these discussions filter into the higher echelons where these plans are being made, so they at least have an idea how the people on the ground see things. This isn't the forest for the trees, we are blocking out where we want the forest to be planted in the first place.


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,65885,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1

This was originally posted on the Stryker Robots thread but as a_majoor pointed out they are relevant to both the MMEV and the LAV threads as well and so are being reposted here.

More on robots.

The US are deploying armed versions of the little 6x6 bomb disposal crawlers to back up their Stryker equipped infantry units.  Also talking about robot ambulances.

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/6_1_1.asp?id=318

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/6_5.asp?Offset=3&sKeywords=&sConjuction=&sRadioButton=&sFromDate=&sToDate=
Scientists work on new generation of armoured vehicles 
VALCARTIER, Quebec - A group of scientists is working on what may become a new generation of Light Armoured Vehicles. (Video Story) 
Friday, October 29, 2004

And these links to related work being done by DRES on the LAVs


----------



## Wizard of OZ

And if, as the pundits say, that Canada will never go to war, then why are we talking about the MMEV?

If we are going to equip and train for war, then lets do it right!

The problem those that go to war are never the ones who purchase the stuff.


----------



## Kirkhill

Here's the lead weapon for the Multi Mission Effects Vehicle - the Joint Common Missile

16km range from a presumably stationary platform like a helicopter



> tri-mode seeker with imaging infrared, semi-active laser and millimeter wave radar capabilities for active and passive "fire-and-forget" and precision-strike targeting



In other words capable of being designated by the firer like TOW or Javelin, designated by an observer beyond the line-of-sight of the firer like Hellfire , launched blind into a designated target area and allowed to seek its own targets like Strix mortar rounds



Derivative of Hellfire it replaces TOW, Hellfire/Longbow/Brimstone as well as Maverick.  Designed for Helos and Aircraft but TOW and Hellfire/Longbow/Brimstone are all capable of ground-launch.


These plus Hydra-70/APKWS would give an amazing range of capabilities to a ground force.

One vehicle with 2.5 tonne payload can carry 6x19 round 70mm launchers for a total of 114 rounds or, presumably 6x4 Hellfire/Longbow/Brimstone/JCM carriers for a total of 24 rounds.

24 tank kills on one vehicle capable of launching beyond line of sight, 16 km from a grid reference target, and immediately moving.




Lockheed Martin Joint Common Missile Demonstrates Ability to Penetrate and Destroy Urban Targets 
  
  
(Source: Lockheed Martin; issued March 15, 2005)
  
  
 ORLANDO, FL. --- Lockheed Martin successfully tested its Joint Common Missile (JCM) multi-target warhead and fuze in a series of warhead penetration tests at the Redstone Technical Test Center, AL.  

The series of four tests was designed to assess the missile's ability to penetrate and destroy Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT) targets. The tests included detonation of the precursor warhead, penetration of a brick-over-block wall, and emergence of the intact warhead in an interior space, where in a tactical scenario the warhead would be detonated.  

"These tests are part of our ongoing effort to thoroughly demonstrate and validate the entire Joint Common Missile system, which will give our troops capabilities that simply do not exist today," said Steve Barnoske, JCM program director at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control. "Our rigorous testing program is intended to reduce cost and schedule risk for the military services and operational risk for the end-user," he added, noting that Lockheed Martin's aggressive risk reduction efforts were among the factors behind its selection as winner of the JCM competition.  

Air-gun test firings propelled four missile simulant test articles at tactical brick-over-block targets at velocities ranging from 574 to 902 feet-per-second (391 to 615 miles-per-hour) and at obliquity angles of 30 and 45 degrees. The main warhead case and the firing module both came through the wall intact.  

The tests evaluated multiple performance parameters and system capabilities, particularly the ability of the main warhead and the time-delay fuze that detonates it to penetrate the wall intact. The results of the live tests were also calibrated with the predictions of earlier simulations. All test objectives were achieved. The fuze was successfully tested earlier at Eglin Air Force Base, FL, via howitzer shots that blasted it through concrete walls.  

These tests demonstrate the successful penetration of a MOUT structure and the successful survival of the warhead structure and embedded firing module on the opposite side of the wall. It is part of an extensive risk reduction program under Phase 1 of the System Design and Development (SDD) contract.  

The SDD program builds on a firm foundation of extensive pre-contract risk reduction tests that Lockheed Martin performed in 2003 and 2004 including two successful warhead test series at Redstone in January 2004 and howitzer fuze tests in December 2003.  

The multi-target warhead and fuze, developed with General Dynamics-Ordnance and Tactical Systems (warhead) and PerkinElmer (fuze), applies cutting-edge technology to provide diverse-mission, multi-target capability. The JCM warhead and fuze provide both shaped-charge capability, to defeat armored targets; and blast fragmentation capability, for use against buildings, bunkers, small boats, lightly armored vehicles and other soft targets.  

The JCM program is on schedule and on budget in Phase 1, the risk mitigation segment of the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) contract. JCM was the first program to be approved by the Joint Requirements Oversight Committee (JROC) under the new Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) process.  

The JCM is the next-generation, multi-purpose, air-to-ground precision missile that will replace Hellfire, Longbow, Maverick and airborne TOW missiles in the U.S. arsenal. The long-term U.S. production run for the Army, Navy and Marine Corps is estimated at 54,000 missiles. In addition, the United Kingdom has also expressed interest in the new weapon and has been part of the development process.  

To deliver the multi-purpose warhead to its target, the Lockheed Martin JCM includes a tri-mode seeker with imaging infrared, semi-active laser and millimeter wave radar capabilities for active and passive "fire-and-forget" and precision-strike targeting. This increases crew survivability and minimizes collateral damage. To further enhance crew and aircraft survivability JCM has extended range capability for standoff engagements--16 kilometers (10 miles) for rotary-wing and 28 kilometers (17.5 miles) for fixed-wing aircraft. JCM's design also provides maximum modularity for growth.  

JCM builds on the heritage of the Hellfire missile family, which includes semi-active laser Hellfire/Longbow millimeter wave missiles, and the Javelin imaging infrared missile, all of which have been combat-proven in Afghanistan and Iraq, with a total of more than two thousand rounds expended.  

Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin employs about 130,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture and integration of advanced technology systems, products and services. The corporation reported 2004 sales of $35.5 billion.  


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


----------



## MrWhyt

> Here's the lead weapon for the Multi Mission Effects Vehicle - the Joint Common Missile



Sadly the JCM has been cancelled. http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=667305&C=landwar. It looked like a pretty useful weapon.


----------



## Kirkhill

I am confused. 


The defencenews item of 18 Feb says the budget team has recommended cancellation of the programme.

The Lockheed Martin press release of 15 Mar says the programme is on schedule and proceeding.

Is a recommendation a cancellation?  Or is LM working ahead on its own?


----------



## T.S.Rea

I would predict that the MMEV will be cancelled, since due to its excessive weight it will never be able to get to the conflict quickly enough to be relevant.  Leopards too heavy, Leopards left to rust.  M109's too heavy, M109's left to oxidize.  ADATS MMEV too heavy, ...  LAV's too heavy, ...  The high cost of developing a whole series of uniquely engineered components to tailor a vehicle to engage the high value targets that are not relevant to a post-battle environment will cause it to be cancelled once the development budgets start generating large overruns and its effectiveness and reliability flaws start becoming public.  The only reason it exists in the first place is because its the product of a Quebec based company with strong ties to NDHQ (which is certainly not an indictment of Quebecers to be clear).  Remember when ADATS was selected, and half the NDHQ project team went to work for them?

The point most of you appear to miss is that if it is not light enough to get to the conflict with the smallest possible logistical footprint, then it will be inevitable be cut.  How do you propose to move a 3600 ton LAV battalion group quickly to fix/rearguard the OPFOR prior to the sealift of 150,000+ tons of brigade equipment and supplies?  With at most 600 tons of airlift and 10,000 tons of sealift?  Fighting along roads, immobilized by simple automatic weapons fire, annihilated by virtually every weapon type in use, the ground slick with your blood?  How keen do you think the taxpayers will be when they are told of the tens of biilions of dollars all this is going to cost for a conflict that is only indirectly a strategic threat to Canada that could never justify that many casualties?  Trust the Americans to supply to all our defiiciencies, just like we trusted the British for air support at Dieppe?  Or continue along the present path to irrelevence, fanning the flames to yet another world war?

Light - Mobile - Effective - Relevant = Airborne Armoured Cavalry And Non-Lethal Warfare Units / Canadian Mobile Brigade Groups

But perhaps a little beyond the mathematically challenged people at NDHQ, who seem to have priorities all their own?


----------



## Kirkhill

T.S. Rea

I agree with your point entirely but I think that you miss one relevant point.  I am not convinced that the ADATS or even the LAV-ADATS is necessarily the MMEV.  ADATS has some of the attributes that the MMEV requires, long-range, direct AND indirect fire (due to networking one vehicle can designate while another launches), networked, multiple missions (air and armoured now but other weapons could be mounted).

I saw once an old M101 howitzer carriage that had been converted to hold 6 of those 19 round launch dispensers used by CF188s and helicopters to carry 70mm rockets.  Those rounds, with their direct and indirect firing options, precision kill variants or area suppression modes, various warheads are multi-mission effects systems themselves.

Now if those mounts to which those dispensers were attached were configured the same way that they are on aircraft then they could carry the same ordinance as the aircraft.  In the case of the helos that would mean that each mount could carry up to 4 ATGMs like TOW/Hellfire-Longbow-Brimstone or it could carry Anti-Air missiles like Stinger or Starstreak (can't remember the hard-point loading).

That would make M101 carriage fully configurable to meet the threat, light and transportable.   It would make it a Multi-Mission Effects System.

The same six hardpoints could be carried on any 2.5 tonne load carrying vehicle - soft-skinned or armoured.  Either and MLVW or a LAV-flatbed (an 8x8 pick-up with and armoured cab for a 2-3 man crew.

By the way the M101 carriage elevation and traverse was handled by electric motors and it was possible to wire a battery onto one network so that one gunner and a computer could select individual shots from 8x6x19=912 ready rounds or ripple them one after the other or fire them all off in one blast.

The LAV-ADATS may not be the required product for the MMEV role but there is nothing wrong with the MMEV concept.

Cheers.


----------



## T.S.Rea

The ADATS MMEV will probably weigh 40,000+lbs and cost hundreds of millions to properly develop, and billions more to purchase and support.  The excessive height and weight of it will restrict it to only the largest strategic airlifters which we will never have in any numbers if at all, and even strategic sealift will be complicated by height and weight.

It would offer little that any number of combinations of TOW, FOG-type, and a large array of available, developed, and future tactical missiles will offer in terms of range and performance, and most of these could be acquired off the shelf in a highly competitive environment.  Short-range air defence can be accomplished through the same systems; I see no distinction between a helicopter hovering at tree top level or the armoured vehicle fifty feet below it; there are no technical obstacles to create a showstopper situation, although the mix of missiles need to take these considerations into account and minor modifications made where practical and relevant.

Effective range is the direct effect of terrain (LOS), weapons range (LOS/NLOS), and communications networking (NLOS).  Terrain influence varies widely, from a few dozen metres up to as far as 10-15km (at which point delivery and targeting performance becomes prohibitive); the weapons must be available at platoon in order to react quickly enough.  ADATS MMEV would be masked by terrain much of the time, unable to respond quickly enough, likely not able to respond at all, and for a battalion group on the other side of the world not likely even present.  Economy of forces would necessitate some restriction to minimum effective availability at platoon, with rapid reinforcement available at company/battalion/brigade in both LOS and NLOS modes as relevant.

These tactical missiles can be mounted on large jeep/small truck sized vehicles, as like they are on Humvee's and similar vehicles.  They lack proper armour, but this is the result of them being merely bolted to the vehicles, rather than being optimized as armoured vehicles in their own right.  Reasonably inexpensive grades of aluminum/aluminum oxide matrix armours with sparing quantities of fibres, titanium, tungsten and other materials could provide protection up to Level III+.  Little would prevent the inclusion of the 25mm chain gun or the 40mm derivative into this vehicle as a very useful infantry support weapon, nor a mix of vehicle configurations based on cost, ammunition capacity, armour, C4ISR systems, and weight.  The major contributor of weight would be armour, but arranged in a boxed/girder type pattern, armour levels could be adjusted over wide ranges with large internal inserts and offer adequate structural strength within vehicle gross weights ranging from 6000-12000 lbs., allowing short-range transport by CH-148/CH-149, or CH-147's if any are actually bought.  Powered by a Volkswagen V10 diesel or similar engine with hybrid components taken from some of the Toyota or Honda types, and allied with suspension that can accept tracks and other traction/protection aids, the vehicle can be moved by tactical airlift in numbers, can be moved by helicopter over water or terrain obstacles, and fight in any environment with an abundance of horsepower, torque, and traction against any OPFOR.

The distinction between LOS/NLOS/BLOS is driven by terrain more than any other factor, and certainly not by arbitrarily set distances, and this should also dictate the command and control structure.  In this division, you achieve a workable and flexible means to divide the overlapping spheres of influence between platoon/company/battalion/brigade.  The Clausewitz work remains relevant today in as far as subdivision of units and allocation of LOS/BLOS firepower is concerned, and could provide the framework for pushing firepower taskings up and down the command structure projected on to the 3D battlespace.  Careful restriction of communications assets to ensure the free flow of essential minimums of pure numerical data in preference to pretty .jpegs and other bandwidth wasteful material will go a long way towards providing a well networked communications structure.  Most 3D materials required can and should be transferred prior to operations by hard wire or similar low-detectable direct wireless.  Powerpoint Rangers to be shot on sight.

A rotating sensor masthead with multiple apertures/phased polar filters feeding an IR sensor element would provide 360 degree detection with basic tracking range data.  On or off target laser rangefinding would provide final LOS fire solutions.  The physical arrangement would be somewhat resistant to bullet and fragment damage as well.  Correlation of tracks between vehicles (hard numbers only) would supplement situational awareness at platoon through to brigade, and could well be capable of providing tracks on any type of OPFOR NLOS firepower.  This description is a gross simplification that ignores several things (air control, IFF, etc.), but underlines the basic working principle involved.

A heavy support weapon would be required at battalion or in regiments.  Tactical missiles will increasingly fall prey to close-in defence weapons and an assortment of deception and screening tactics and technologies, and it would be foolish to abandon the big gun and high-speed armour piercing projectiles and heavy explosive types.  This type would form the complement to the lighter vehicles, and is described in my CASR article in moderately greater detail that some references have been made to in this posting.  Not every heavy support vehicle needs to assume the fully evolved form described there, and much greater numbers of vehicles could be afforded within a greatly reduced time-scale if it were developed as a series of progressive evolutions of the type.  It too would be transportable/moveable by C-130 or CH-147, although for the purposes of an airdrop/landing/movement they would have to be restricted to essential minimums.  Although moving anything by air is expensive, problematically weight critical, and subject to a number or perils, the tactical and strategic value of 500-600 tons of airborne armour lift would be a decisive edge in the form and pattern of fixing and flanking actions available. 

A small number of artillery guns, based on the M777 technology mounted on a modified heavy support type, could be allocated to support deployed battalions or brigades from individual guns up to a single reinforced regiment.  In addition to fortifying the volume of fire of field formations, the guns would be capable of providing support to the Tier 1 and Tier 2 units of JTF and airborne armour movements over ranges of 100-250km, depending on the cost and availability of projectiles that could be developed or purchased off the shelf from allies.  Although the projectiles would take several minutes to reach targets, they would remain far more responsive and just as quick as airpower or naval missiles.  Anything farther or heavier really should be a responsibility for the air force or navy, just as long range air defence otherwise would.  Artillery rockets would present a large logistical and cost burden, are not as flexible or point-accurate as tube artillery, do not necessarily provide any real increase in the rate/volume of fire, would require a separate set of loading and resupply equipment, and could encounter political resistance given that most are indiscriminate saturation weapons.

Logistics vehicles and heavily reworked M113's based on the single pattern of drivetrain components would provide the core of general transport.  This is rambling on too long, so I do not want to get into more detail on this.  I made a comparison of a theoretical detailed TO&E of a fully loaded Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group equipped with the LAVIII; mechanized infantry battalions weighed about 3600 tons, the Leopard regiment over 6000.  Direct substitution to a light formation with real actual armour resulted in weights of 1500 tons for mechanized infantry, 1700 tons for an intermediate cavalry, and 2000 tons for armoured gun system, and these are pessimistic and non-optimized estimates.  For the purposes of airdrop, 60-80% of these battalions with supplies could be airdropped or landed in a single 600 ton sortie, and there would be a wealth of flexibility in terms of tailoring the force to the particular operation.  By no stretch of the imagination am I advocating recklessly dropping armoured units into every crisis in the world that comes along, but primarily that there are instances every five or ten years where this capability would be warranted to a greater or lesser extent.

Security and stability operations will continue to be norm, and would be rendered far more safely with the integral core element of the airborne armoured battalions and regiments of the three Mobile Brigade Groups.  Non-lethal warfare units and capabilities will be needed to provide a full range of options to the SASO force across a broader spectrum of potential SASO types, especially since the tactics and doctrine are very much in their infancy, and dedicated units are needed to cautiously advance the methodology beyond a scattered collection of novel technologies and gadgets.

But I digress too much into detail.  I would agree with the core need for the capabilities of something described as an MMEV, but not with it as a distinct vehicle type, which I find rigid, linear, two-dimensional, and focused too much on firepower at the expense of the dynamic interactions of a unit in combat.


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050319-jcm.htm



> JCM project under the gun
> 
> In-Depth Coverage
> By Ken Rogers, The Messenger
> 
> The Joint Common Missile, a program targeted for termination in the Department of Defense budget, proceeds ahead of schedule, under budget - and under the gun.
> 
> Canceling the JCM contract, awarded last May to Lockheed Martin, would save the DOD more than $2.3 billion over six years. However, the range, versatility and accuracy of the missile has led some in the Pentagon - not to mention Lockheed officials and Alabama's Congressional delegation - to call for a closer look at the project.
> 
> A closer look may be all it takes to restore funding for the JCM, which would be built in Troy and central Florida.





> "I won't say that I agree with them," said Gen. Peter Schoomaker, Army chief of staff, "but I'm Ã…Â  looking at the decision."
> 
> Edwards disagreed with the assessment that JCM's capabilities can be met by existing programs.
> 
> "There are capability gaps that this system is specifically designed to fill," he said.
> 
> A recent test in front of Pentagon officials demonstrated JCM's ability to penetrate brick over block while keeping a warhead intact.
> 
> An upcoming test will demonstrated the range of the JCM, which is designed for 16 kilometers (10 miles) in helicopters. It is scheduled at White Sands (N.M.) in early May, Smith said.


----------



## Zipper

Wow. Good discussion.



			
				T.S.Rea said:
			
		

> Light - Mobile - Effective - Relevant = Airborne Armoured Cavalry And Non-Lethal Warfare Units / Canadian Mobile Brigade Groups



I would like to know more about what you mean by this? Isn't the idea of non-lethal and warfare a little opposed? Or is this some kind of Canadianism? 

As for the Airborne part. As we all know, the powers that be have said quite clearly that we are not going that route again. As you said, their own agenda.

Otherwise, I agree completely with the ADAT's assessment.

Kirk - Do you think the costs of development of a MMEV will be to much for us considering the US is not going this route as well?

Thanks


----------



## T.S.Rea

I am not specifically advocating 'Airborne' in the sense of any sort of elite formation like the previous Airborne Regiment, much of this national force capability would be available in the considerable different structuring, training, and roles of the units of the JTF.  Perhaps the phrasing I should have used was Rapidly Air Portable at Global Ranges With Appropriate Mobility and Armour Protection and Efficiently Disposed Allocations of Flexible and Effective Firepower, but thats a little wordy.  The role is the same one that the is intended for the U.S. Army's Stryker brigades, a strong force capable of being deployed rapidly to deter escalation of a conflict, which by extension must have a real combat capability to be effective.  As could be the case due to insufficient intelligence and the absence of perfect foresight, low and medium intensity conflicts could rapidly become hot, real fighting capacity would be necessary to minimize casualties or even just for survival.

Canadianism?  As a third-fourth generation Canadian of predominantly conservative stock, I take exception to the implied use of it as some sort of dirty word.  I have relatives who have died for this country in military service.  If the purpose of the OPFOR's in using military force is to achieve their political ends by force, and the purpose of the deployed Canadian force is to undermine that conflict's military objectives, it serves no purpose to go in and start shooting at everything in sight and merely become a part of some other countrys' war.  In order to increase the effectiveness of the deterence value of the deployed force, it is essential to possess a full spectrum of options in order to serve the objective of undermining the conflict, and issuing a few sponge grenades will no more serve that end than would allocating a few medium mortars and calling it artillery support.  I would accept any argument concerning the effectiveness of non-lethal doctrine in specific case examples, but not with underlying value of developed capabilities to serve this end, the on-going function of which is to apply lessons learned and become more effective.

Although the majority of Canadians are generally ignorant of the facts of military power, I would not for a moment second guess the intangible instincts of the people of this country on these matters.  I prefer to look behind the motives for the words of the overwhelming majority, and not get lost in the specific articulations of them or the rantings of a very small minority who offer superficially similar sentiments.  The military should reflect that will of the people, and not just serve the over-rationalized whims of its participants in isolation.

ADATS MMEV is stuck in the massed battles type of thinking of the Cold War, suited only for engaging tanks and aircraft on a linear battlespace, heavy, expensive, immobile, and irrelevant.


----------



## Kirkhill

Zipper:

I believe we may be missing the point on MMEV by focusing on the ADATS system as the final configuration.  I contend that an argument can be made that all successful weapons systems are effective at multiple missions.  A C3 howitzer is an effective Multiple Mission Effect System in the it can be fired in direct mode as an anti-tank and anti-personnel weapon or it can be fired indirectly launching various rounds, precision and dumb, obscuring and revealing the battlefield or supplying various lethal effects against a variety of targets.

Vehicles have missiles of various types bolted on to them, both with fire direction on board the vehicle and with the vehicle just being a travelling arsenal.  Midrange Missiles of the Hellfire, 70mm rocket, Stinger/Starstreak/Adats types have all been fought from ground vehicles.  Mixed stores hardpoints are the norm for the airforce.  I believe that Canada could integrate such a system.

The Coyote essentially gave the CF a ground mounted version of the capabilities of the Kiowa helicopter with its mast mounted surveillance device.  That was a successful Canadian integration.

T.S.Rea:

The old planning was indeed based on the linear battle and you are right that that is the environment in which the ADATS was created.  However the other characteristic of the old battlefield was a willingness to trade space for time.  In other words it was acceptable to give ground.  As long as you kept your front to the enemy it wasn't important how many German towns were abandoned.

The current reality allows for that but Medak and Srebrenica come to mind.  "Responsibilty to Protect" missions demand holding ground.  With 500,000 refugees clustered around the only water hole within a week's walk you have to go firm.  At that point locking the ADATs down to fixed positions, or at least limited areas of movement, and using them as anchorpoints in a defensive scheme doesn't seem ludicrous to me.

I don't know how well they would work in the manoeuvre battle but I suspect a system that doesn't require as much time to lock in and unlock would work better and a lighter system that doesn't guzzle as much gas or show up so hot on TI sight might also work better.  Right now we have the ADATS, the missiles are not getting any younger.  It seems not unreasonable to use the system, especially in the relatively benign environment of Wainwright, and figure out what if any capabilities it brings and what new avenues for consideration it opens up.

MHO.

Cheers.


----------



## T.S.Rea

Agreed.  The future battlespace and OPFOR's will become more vastly more variable and complex in nature, and I do not accept the notion that modern communications and sensors dedicated to long-range engagements against high-value targets only would be justified.  IMHO the requirement is for flexible systems that are functionally useful down to platoon level, but capable of effective integration as larger brigade formations for their strategic force in being deterrence value in addition to the distant prospect of actual deployment as such.

ADATS MMEV does not fit this requirement, nor could it be flexibly modified to do so.  An armoured gun system still would possess utility in non-lethal scenarios with its heavy  mass of Level III to full armoured protection, the capacity to deliver non-lethal agents such as ground lubricants or chemical irritants over very short ranges (vertical launch at very low velocity from the autoloader) or longer ranges through the tube, while still being capable of direct fire with APFSDS and guided types for anti-armour and anti-air use, indirect fire with guided rounds (Sadarm, Excalibur, Bonus, and various other munitions), or even well-directed fire with conventional 'dumb' rounds.  A gun tube is a flexible and efficient projector of munitions, especially when optimized as such.  Control of fires is a command function, driven by operational taskings and terrain influence.


----------



## a_majoor

This sounds a lot like many of the arguments in other threads (i.e. Canadian Armoured Cavalry, CV90 fan page, Should Canada retain MBTs, Combat Team of Tomorrow etc.)

There are several interrelated arguments here, and by picking one in isolation, you can advocate almost any position that you like. MBT's with modern electronics and through tube missiles make great MMEV's for example, because they can carry a large amount of ammunition, are well protected for DF engagements and so on. By this argument, we should start picking up all those retired American M-60 A3s and have them rebuilt to Israeli Magalch 7 standard and arm them with a mix of cannon ammunition and LAHAT missiles.

What we need to wrap our heads around is the fact that we have an existing fleet of AVGP and LAV varients, a big "sunk cost" in the LAV III (everything from logistics to training), the LAV series has certain advantages in terms of operational and strategic mobility when compared to other competing systems, and it in fact works (as the US Stryker brigades are showing in OIF). These factors strongly exclude other candidates, no matter how worthy they may appear to be in isolation.

As readers of this post know, I am no fan of LAV-ADATS, and would preffer to upgrade the LAV-TOW system to include data-links and a long range "Fire and Forget" missile battery to take on the MMEV role. I also like the idea of upgrading the LAV-TOW since (in my mind anyway) it is a battalion asset, which can be attached right down to the platoon level if need be, allowing for the fast response time T.S.Rea correctly points to. (LAV-TOW with a mixed battery of FOG-M and LOSAT in a platoon setting; FOG-M to shoot over those annoying buildings and terrain features, LOSAT to deal with the sudden appearence of hard targets.)


----------



## pbi

> The Americans are learning this the hard way, why are we not trying to learn from their mistakes



What makes you guys think we aren't doing that now? This is why we have Cdn LOs and Instructors at all the major US and British Army schools and development centres(and some in Australia), why we take part in things like ABCA, and why our Lessons Learned shop keeps in touch with the US Army CALL and the USMC equivalent. We have been doing this for years. It isn't that the Army doesn't try to keep up on what our Allies are doing: we do. It is that all of our recommendations, advice, etc don't cut much ice against the CF-internal struggles, the pork politics and the money issues that have traditionally driven our major defence purchases.

Cheers.


----------



## vonGarvin

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Heretical thought: CV 90/120 would not just be a gun tank, but have the elevation mechanism and gun cradle modified for high angle fire so it would be the MMEV. In the direct fire role, it would be loaded with high velocity "tank" rounds and through tube missiles. In the support role, it can fire 120mm rounds based on 120 mm mortar rounds (HE, Smoke, Illum, STRIX smart rounds) and through tube missiles like the LAHAT (anti tank engagements at a 13 km range). I recognize the 120mm cannon is designed for a high velocity round, but a 120mm low/medium velocity round can be fired using a "stub"   casing which fills the breech, but does not have the propellant load of an anti-tank round.


The problem is akin to trying to fix several problems with one solution.  If you want a vehicle system to be a direct fire system, then you have to ask what kind of effect do you wish?  Will it be for anti armour?  Anti personnel?  etc etc. 
Also, lets not forget _minimum_ range.  A TOW, for example, is virtually useless in a close in environment (say as found in Port au Prince or Kabul).  "Legacy" systems such as the M72 start to look good for short range, Behind "armour" effects (say Tommy the Terrorist is hiding in a building and you want to hit him, the M72 or even the ages old .50 cal look pretty good).
So, let's not try to find a single solution "Wunderwaffe" for several problems.


----------



## vonGarvin

Let's clarify something about "MMEV"
"Multi-Mission".  The thing is capable of doing several things, eg: direct fire, indirect fire, Anti-Air, etc.
"Effects".  This is a new word to (sort of) replace "firepower".  There are effects at the target end.  Could be destructive.  Could be psychological.
"Vehicle" (or Veh-HI-cle).  
Think of the AVGP family as being the basis for a pseudo Multi Mission Vehicle (no effects here).  The Grizzly, Husky and Cougar all have virtually identical hulls.  Put a 1 metre turret on it, call it a grizzly.  Put a scorpion turret on another, call it a cougar, etc.  Now, imagine a chassis from which you can pull out and replace the turret.  The fire control system is the same on it whether it is in the AD role, AT role, AP role, Surveillance role, whatever.  THAT, gentlemen, is an MMEV.  So, if we could, at will and within a short period of time, could pull out the 1 metre turret from a grizzly and replace it with a scorpion turret, that would have been a MMEV.  The ADATS is still ADATS.  Being called a MMEV?  Maybe, but that doesn't make it right.
Now, let us smoke..... :evil:


----------



## Zipper

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> Also, lets not forget _minimum_ range.   A TOW, for example, is virtually useless in a close in environment (say as found in Port au Prince or Kabul).



Thats a good point. Considering we seem to be backing away from the whole idea of "war" (aka. Cold war) and heading towards this concept of "limited engagements/peacemaking/aid agency protection" that frequently is in close terrain (and thus our choice of vehicles), it makes me wonder why we need a weapon that is only useful at long range with ideal sight lines (I know why we need it). Its almost like we're paying lip service to a capability of fighting a war while going further down the road to constabulary.

But then it is politics isn't it?

Isn't the foreign affairs review out this next week? The defense review shouldn't be far behind.


----------



## ArmyRick

Zipper, stick to what you know about 76mm pop guns. TOW is an old but still very effective weapon system. TOW has minimum range 150m and is great to use as an overwatch vehicle. Also its new range is 4 KM (TOW aero).


----------



## Zipper

Sounds good. I guess I'm not questioning TOW so much as how it is going to be used.

So I'll ask you then...

...How much confidence do you have in not only the new vehicles (MMEV, DFS, etc...)? But the new Strat formation?

Yes you'll have to work with what you get, and you'll do a bang up job I have no doubt. But...


----------



## ArmyRick

MMEV? Won't see it for a while, no problem.
Strat formation ? It makes some sense. I don't agree with putting all the DFS assetts in one regt but thats what they are doing. From talking to friends who have been on the more recent tours in A-stan, we in the infantry should really focus on CQB, instintive shooting, use of door charges, etc, etc.

As long as we do the level of Ops we are doing, I aint sweatin the heavy wpns not always being there.


----------



## Zipper

Ah Rick. Always a good Infantry soldier. 

I guess as a past tanker, I sweat the big stuff to much. Well, bigger then a 76. 

And while I am looking at any change in the military as something good, and any new equipment like a kid in a candy store, the changes that are proposed and happening for some reason just don't seem to sit right. 

Its like an itch you can't scratch.

Oh well, like my feelings really mean jack anyway.

Soldier on!


----------



## a_majoor

The max/min range question is answered with a gun tank like the CV 90120T, since firing a 120mm HEAT-MP (High Explosive Anti Tank-Multi Purpose) round gives you an effective minimum range of 0m, while a LAHAT through tube missile fired semi-indirect has a "reach out and touch someone" range of 13km.

The MGS may not be a suitable platform for a lot of reasons, but if we wave a magic wand and imagine all the engineering deficiencies have been solved you would have a weapons platform which could address a wide range of targets and scenarios simply by changing the ammunition load, from 105mm HE shells for bunker busting to through tube missiles for "sniping" at tanks and other hard targets. (A Leopard C-2 is an even better platform for this, but..... ) Gun based MMEVs also can switch to a higher rate of fire with shells if the situation requires.


----------



## vonGarvin

The MGS main deficiencies vis a vis the Leo are threefold (IMHO).
Firepower:  Sure, it's a 105mm, but the firepower _just ain't there_.  It holds what, 18 rounds?  Leo is 54 (or so I'm lead to believe).  Also, with the muzzle brake on the MGS, nobody, and I mean NOBODY better be near the thing when it fires (Can anyone say collateral damage?)  Sure the Leo hurts when you're near it, but the MGS is nuts.
Mobility:  In some situations, the MGS would be better.  Take an anti tank mine strike: MGS could, in theory, just drive away on the remaining wheels.  Might be enough to get out of a spot of trouble.  It's also much MUCH faster on roads and good, hard, solid ground.  But in Gagetown on a muddy day?  Gimme a Leo!!!!!!
Protection:  'nuff said.
But my main thing is that no one single platform can do "it all".   No matter who says what, we have _no idea_ what the next war will be like.  Some say that tanks are a cold war anachronism on the evening news.  Right after that, we see a "wave of steel" rolling on to Baghdad, 10 km wide and 20 km deep.  So, which is it?  I don't know that answer, but no one single platform will do it all.  
This is what kills me about the infantry (as just one example).  Five years ago the infantry battalion was capable of fighting on its own _for a limited time_.  It could deal with tanks (Anti Armour Platoon).  It could deal with obstacles (Pioneer Platoon).  It could find the enemy (Recce Platoon) and it could hit targets on the other side of mountains (Mortar Platoon).  Sure, the longest range weapon was only 5.6 km (C70A2 81mm HE round), but heck, that's alright.  Now the longest range weapon in ANY infantry battalion is the 60mm mortar!!! (2.8 km).
Perhaps the infantry battalion of old as part of a brigade with the other "plug and play" assets would provide the flexibility for "whatever happens next".  Or, perhaps instead of doing what we did (eliminate skill sets within corps of the combat arms), we should have slashed the third battalions.  Sure, fewer battalions, same number of soldiers, and heck, battalions never went on deployments, they were always _ad hoc_.  3RCR in Kabul was actually 1 and 3 RCR.  At least the skill sets of other infantry skills (anti armour, mortars, etc) would still be intact.
So, instead of MMEV, why not a MMEU (Multi Mission Effect Unit)?
Just food for thought....


Now, let us smoke :evil:


----------



## McG

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> So, instead of MMEV, why not a MMEU (Multi Mission Effect Unit)?


Don't confuse our force generation structure with how we will fight.  There will be all arms groupings with MMEV, TUA, MGS, UAV, mortars, infantry, engineers, etc.  The MMEV will always be a part of a a "MMEU" (as you've called it).  The MMEV will never be the alternative to all arms groupings.


----------



## vonGarvin

MCG said:
			
		

> Don't confuse our force generation structure with how we will fight.   There will be all arms groupings with MMEV, TUA, MGS, UAV, mortars, infantry, engineers, etc.   The MMEV will always be a part of a a "MMEU" (as you've called it).   The MMEV will never be the alternative to all arms groupings.


There were no MMEV, TUA, MGS or mortars in ATHENA (at least when I was there).  Maybe that's the problem, we _generate_ our forces one way, and then _employ them in a different way.  "Train as you would fight" as somebody somewhere once said._


----------



## McG

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> we _generate_ our forces one way, and then _employ them in a different way.   "Train as you would fight" as somebody somewhere once said._


_Indeed, and worthy of its own thread._


----------



## Wizard of OZ

So, let's not try to find a single solution "Wunderwaffe" for several problems.

Problem is we have people buying this equipment looking only at dollar value and not at capability.  Sure like anything we but forward three or four "wish list items"  but as things stand now the deceisons are made mostly by men who have never used or will never need to rely on this equipment.  And like a swiss army knife they see the more funcitons that one vehicle/man/equipment can fill the better even if it is not good at any but can be used at them all.

MOO


----------



## a_majoor

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> So, let's not try to find a single solution "Wunderwaffe" for several problems.
> 
> Problem is we have people buying this equipment looking only at dollar value and not at capability.   Sure like anything we but forward three or four "wish list items"   but as things stand now the deceisons are made mostly by men who have never used or will never need to rely on this equipment.   And like a swiss army knife they see the more funcitons that one vehicle/man/equipment can fill the better even if it is not good at any but can be used at them all.



This argument can cut in several different ways. The "Swiss army knife" model allows for some cleaner integration, since the Force Generators and Force employment models will be very similar. With the "troika", do you have a separate squadron for the MGS, TOW and MMEV? How about mixed troops, will they need separate troop sergeants to deal with the technical issues surrounding the different platforms? When you start mixing and matching sets of fire support vehicles in a combat team, who is going to sort out the different logistical requirments? (as an aside, I once saw a cartoon with the title "Before the invention of the Swiss Army Knife." The soldier in the picture was festooned with lanyards to hold all the various items....).

The advantage of the troika is that each vehicle can be tailored to meet a specific threat environment. Linear battles may occur in the future, so an ADATS based MMEV will shine then, while a gun based MGS is better at digging out opponents holed up in bunkers.

Since we have very limited resources, having one gun based MMEV platform makes the most sense to me, since we reduce the logistics and training burden, and streamline the organizational issues as well.


----------



## vonGarvin

a_majoor said:
			
		

> This argument can cut in several different ways. The "Swiss army knife" model allows for some cleaner integration, since the Force Generators and Force employment models will be very similar. With the "troika", do you have a separate squadron for the MGS, TOW and MMEV? How about mixed troops, will they need separate troop sergeants to deal with the technical issues surrounding the different platforms? When you start mixing and matching sets of fire support vehicles in a combat team, who is going to sort out the different logistical requirments? (as an aside, I once saw a cartoon with the title "Before the invention of the Swiss Army Knife." The soldier in the picture was festooned with lanyards to hold all the various items....).
> 
> The advantage of the troika is that each vehicle can be tailored to meet a specific threat environment. Linear battles may occur in the future, so an ADATS based MMEV will shine then, while a gun based MGS is better at digging out opponents holed up in bunkers.
> 
> Since we have very limited resources, having one gun based MMEV platform makes the most sense to me, since we reduce the logistics and training burden, and streamline the organizational issues as well.


There is merit to having a single platform, that's for sure, but we must be careful to avoid a weapon that is jack of all, master of none.  The beauty of the old Combat Team was its flexibility.  Each subunit had its own echelon, and granted it was a huge organisation (similar in size to a Motor Rifle Battalion of the now-defunct Group of Soviet Forces Germany).
An MMEV with modular plug in/pull out systems is one proposal for a future combat vehicle.  Sorta like the CV-90, but imagine you bring it into a shop and drive out with a different variant after minimal change over.  Sort of like how they change the power pack on a LAV.  A few hours (if that) and you have a brand new engine.  Imagine swapping a 25mm turret for a 120mm Smoothbore, of course, depending on need.  Having "one weapon do it all" is a bit problematic, and perhaps a few years down the road in realistic terms.


----------



## McG

Would you be more comfortable calling the "super-ADATS" a "multi-mission effects system"?

I see where you are going with the MMEV comments.   Would the Boxer meet your definition of MMEV?


----------



## vonGarvin

MCG said:
			
		

> Would you be more comfortable calling the "super-ADATS" a "multi-mission effects system"?
> 
> I see where you are going with the MMEV comments.   Would the Boxer meet your definition of MMEV?


The Boxer, as the image seems to illustrate, would indeed be "it".  Now, I don't know if a MMEV is what we need, but if we do, then something like that image would seem to fit the bill as opposed to a single platform designed to "do it all".


----------



## McG

The problem with switching out the entire back end is that you now required an expanded logistics capability to move the msn specific compartments to where they are needed in the battle (or you require the MMEV to leave battle to be reconfigured in some CSS station).  With a multi-mission effects system (vehicle mounted or not) you only need bring forward the new ammo type that is required.


----------



## SSL

I would have to argue with the idea that the people who are defining the requirements have never used nor will ever have to rely on the capabilities that are envisioned for the MMEV.  In fact the PD has 18 years of experience with the ADATS system, which is in effect a MMEV system due to its inherent GBAD, AT, STA and ESM capabilties.




			
				Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> So, let's not try to find a single solution "Wunderwaffe" for several problems.
> 
> Problem is we have people buying this equipment looking only at dollar value and not at capability.   Sure like anything we but forward three or four "wish list items"   but as things stand now the deceisons are made mostly by men who have never used or will never need to rely on this equipment.   And like a swiss army knife they see the more funcitons that one vehicle/man/equipment can fill the better even if it is not good at any but can be used at them all.
> 
> MOO


----------



## Hawker

Orelikon gets the contract:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1766

Sounds like the CF are going to get some more German kit


http://www.rheinmetall-detec.com/index.php?lang=3&fid=1396&action=pd


----------



## 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

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> 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

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> 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

Infanteer said:
			
		

> 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

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> 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

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> 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

CBH99 said:
			
		

> 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

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> 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 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


----------



## Kirkhill

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/35896.0.html

Came across this comment in the article mentioned in this thread - a modified ADATS turret (minus radar?, minus crew?) might be mounted on an MGS chassis (lower profile in back) to produce a vehicle with better stability than sticking ADATS on LAV III.


----------



## Bomber

Is it odd the way some believe that NDHQ is mentally retarded?  Do experienced officers normally leave units and say things like "we can do it better, for less, in Canada!"  Everyone is into this idea that NDHQ has a procure "Made in Canada" kit only mentality, that mentality is actually owned by the federal government and the general public.  Do you really in all honesty believe that Rick Hillier sits in his office and says "we need a new *****, now I could get one off the shelf, but that would get it to my soldiers on time and under budget, instead, I think I will procure it at such a pace that is doesn't actually reach the soldiers until the current requirement is no longer valid, and at such a  cost that the officers in charge of it will be publicly called out in the paper"  I have a strange feeling that this is not how it works, and my proof is the current wish list that the army is working off to equip OP ARCHER.  Everyone always has the answer, but only on the internet, so far, only a hand full of people on this forum have actually put their gripes on paper such as a UER, or even a simple memo addressed to the responsible parties.  Continue making comments and complaints about the kit, I do bring it up when I see the various officers in charge of the projects, but please understand the men working on these projects are not toothless idiots, bu are dedicated soldiers working to get you the equipment you require.  

Now that I have poured the gas, start flinging the matches


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

> the men working on these projects are not toothless idiots



To be honest, Bomber, I'm not sure anymore.  We have an Army that wrote an SOR so tight that only one vehicle - the much-vaunted MGS - could possibly fit the bill, all because of politics.  The MMEV appears to be designed by a committee without regard to any conceivable tactical use.  I know for a fact that some of the studies done in the late 1990s have been completely disregarded as we journey down the transformational road.  

My fear is that the "big thinkers" have captured the imagination of both the military leadership and, worse, the political leadership and we're procuring equipment against a "vision", rather than a hard, operational requirement.  The vision is based on big-Army, American-style thinking that may or may not apply to a Canadian context.  Of course, we must have "vision", but when it involves spending $750 million of the taxpayer's money on an untried, Canadian-only, "conceptual" vehicle I begin to have serious doubts as to where we're going.  The MMEV is a typical example of how little rational thought is being put into things in our rush to be seen to be transforming.  If it works, great, I'll be the first to pat Col ******* on the back.  If it doesn't, we'll be left with yet another example of how flawed procurement has been used in support of seriously flawed tactical concepts.

Again, back to the vehicle at hand.  What real thought has gone into it?  Do we really think that we're going to fire ADATS direct against targets over an 8km + engagement range?  Where on the planet can this be done?  Are we really going to risk such a vehicle to fire unguided rockets direct at targets?  Is the crew really going to be capable of operating four (ADATS, CRV-7, NLOS missile and anti-air) weapons systems simultaneously?  How tactically sound is having rockets and missiles slung out in the open on an armoured vehicle?  What is the support construct for such a complex, logistically intensive unit?  None of these have been answered.  Instead, we've slapped our hands together, said "great, another example of the CF on the cutting edge of the three block war!" and shovelled $750 million at a contractor without any real statement of what the tactical requirement is.

UCRs and memoranda are great for dealing with leaky raingear, but where you're saying the entire rationalization and construct is suspect (without any empirical proof), you're on less firm ground - hence the Internet venting.

My two cents,

Teddy


----------



## Kirkhill

Teddy:

I can't speak to your concerns about safety or advisability (admittedly an 8 km LOS shot seems a bit of a stretch unless a couple of hundred feet above surface) but your comment about mixing and matching ammo types intrigued me.

Don't the Apache drivers mix and match CRV-7s, LOS missiles like Hellfire, NLOS missiles like Longbow and DF weapons with their 30mm cannons?  How about the Air Force types with different load outs for different missions?  For that matter, even gunners use an increasingly varied assortment of bullets requiring different set up procedures to support various tasks.

I am still not sold on the MMEV concept any more than any one else is on these boards but I am not understanding the "complexity" argument, especially if these things are essentially going to be missile transporters operating behind the FEBA with others designating fall of shot and possibly even initiating the launch remotely.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Don't the Apache drivers mix and match CRV-7s, LOS missiles like Hellfire, NLOS missiles like Longbow and DF weapons with their 30mm cannons?   How about the Air Force types with different load outs for different missions?   For that matter, even gunners use an increasingly varied assortment of bullets requiring different set up procedures to support various tasks.



All true, but we spend millions of dollars and take years to train aircrew to utilize their systems effectively.  In this case, we'll have young crews - who can accomplish a lot, admittedly - trying to do all this without the benefit of a $30 million Spar Aerospace simulator and without the benefit of years and years of preparatory training.  We have an Army that cannot get all its soldiers to the rifle range once a year, let alone adequately train crews to be effective with four highly complex weapons systems on the same ground platform.  Bear in mind that because this is a "one of" vehicle, we're going to have to develop the entire training package - from scratch - and cannot borrow from anyone to do so.


----------



## Britney Spears

> UCRs and memoranda are *great* for dealing with leaky raingear,



You, sir, are either a true optimist, or in the Air Force .....


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

> You, sir, are either a true optimist...



Heh...I doubt if anyone's *ever * called me an optimist!!


----------



## Kirkhill

> We have an Army that cannot get all its soldiers to the rifle range once a year



Fair comment.


----------



## Mortar guy

The MMEV (and to a lesser degree the MGS) are, in my humble opinion, the prime examples of what is wrong with both our doctrine and procurement systems. Here are some things I know with a fair degree of certainty about this whole situation:

1) The Army is adopting new doctrine focussing on non-linear, asymmetric warfare in 'complex terrain'. Commonly known as three block war. Our own doctrine states that most fighting our Army will undertake in the future (or even now for that matter) will be in cities, forests, mountains and jungles against a guerrilla or insurgent type enemy. No one has yet been able to tell me how a lightly armoured, extremely expensive vehicle with limited mobility and weapons geared to destroying tanks at very long ranges is going to fight Tabliban insurgents in the mountains of Afghanistan etc.

2) The MGS was forced down our necks by politicians and was not the brainwave of someone in DLR. The Army looked at a light weight wheeled direct fire system in the mid to late nineties as a possible replacement for the Cougar and, maybe, the Leopard. An SOR was drawn up for this vehicle and GMDD in London did some initial conceptulization work on an Armoured Combat Vehicle (ACV). However, experiments showed that the ACV could not fight and survive on the modern battlefield so the project was shelved until technology could allow a 20 ton vehicle to fight and survive like a 60 ton tank. In the interim the Army spent a good chunk of change upgrading the Leo C1 to the C2 standard so that they could remain in use until 2015. Then, in 2003, out of nowhere the MND announces the MGS purchase and everyone who remembers the ACV project is scratching their heads. In fact, the SOR for the MGS wasn't realeased until one month _after_ the announcement of the purchase _and_ it was almost identical to the ACV SOR. The project staff literally did a find and replace on the SOR to put 'MGS' where 'ACV' used to be! So now we have a vehicle that has already proven it is not capable of meeting the requirements laid out in the SOR. Now, here is where I have a problem with the procurement/doctrine world. When the MGS/MMEV buy was forced down our necks we could have taken a hard look at the realities of modern warfare and the capabilites our Army would posses and written a decent 'concept of employment' for the direct fire system of systems. My argument here boils down to this: the MGS is a decent Assault Gun but is a shitty Tank Destroyer. In fact, the US Army lists the target set for their MGS as being bunkers, infantry in the open, soft skin and light armoured vehicles and its mission is to support assaulting infantry in close terrain. We, in our infinite wisdom, decided to employ the MGS as a tank destroyer in concert with other, similar, tank destroying vehicles (MMEV, TUA). The target set for the direct fire system of systems includes the T-72M tank first and foremost and the concepts I have seen in various briefings talk about 'range overmatch' against opponents thanks to the 8km range of the ADATS. This sounds distinctly like a system designed to fight the Soviet hordes on the rolling North German Plain rather than take on guerrillas with AKs, IEDs and Molotov cocktails. We should pull our heads out of our collectective posterior regions and start thinking about employing the MGS as an Assault Gun vs. as a Tank Destroyer.

3) The MMEV may 'brief well' on PowerPoint but actually making that thing work will not be as easy as photoshopping an ADATS turret onto a LAV hull! The presentations I have seen have shown the MMEV equipped with the ADATS missile (or Hellfire for direct fire), CRV7 rockets (laser guided a la LKPK), NLOS missiles and (get this) SLAMRAAM missiles. On top of this they want to mount a new 3D search radar and new EO system on the turret too. This is an unparalleled technical challenge that will end up costing us a hell of a lot more than we think (if it ever works). Each of the weapon systems mentioned above uses a different guidance system (laser beam rider, laser homing, fibre optic, radar/data link) and none have ever been integrated onto the same platform. On top of that, if you replace the radar and EO system, you will have to replace the display systems and computers too and then you have to squeeze all that kit into a LAV chassis or, worse yet an MGS chassis! Someone is dreaming in technicolour. The icing on the cake is that we then intend to employ this vehicle in a three block war scenario - a scenario where LOS is rarely more than 1 km, where the enemy is not considerate enought to drive around in the open in T72s and where one IED or RPG could easily destroy your extremely expensive and kill your highly trained crew.

So what? Well, here's what I propose:

Employ the MGS as an Assault Gun. In fact, buy more of them and ensure every Bde has some to train with - they are a decent piece of kit (not the best, mind you) if employed properly.

Keep at least some of the Leopards. There are still 66 good Leo hulls left that could be used to provide us with a decent direct fire capability that can survive better than the MGS/MMEV/TUA system on the battlefield. I would even say that they could be manned by the reserves but that is a whole other debate! My reasoning for this is that if we employ the MGS as an Assault Gun, we may want to keep a few Tank Destroyers around for those scenarios where we might need that capability (Korea, Syria, Iran etc.). Although asymmetrical warfare seems to be the way of the future, I'd hate to put all my eggs in one basket. Besides, the US Army swears by the Abrams in Iraq so maybe we could learn something from them.

Cancel the MMEV project as quickly as can be done. Long range (perhaps 'realistic long range' is better term) anti-armour fire can be handled by the TUA, especially with the 4.5km range TOW 2 Aero coming on line. The money saved could be redirected towards more MGS, O&M for the Leo fleet and improvements to the TUA. Hell, I am sure there would still be money left over in the SCIP to replace the Leos with surplus German Leo 2A4s (about 60 should do it), what with the Germans giving the things away for a song and a dance lately (reference recent Greek deal).

That's it. These are all just my opinions but as you may notice, this is something I feel very passionately about. I have read a much as I can get my hand on about this stuff and have come to the conlusions you see above. However, I know I don't have all the answers and would love to know what you guys think.

Pro Patria

MG

Scrap the MMEV project as fast a humanly possible. It does not make any sense in our day and age and


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Mortar Guy:

Great post and this reflects my thinking as well (aside from the fact that I think MGS is a POS that should be cancelled too).  I remember all too well the ACV fracas years ago and how long that project percolated along...  We need to give our collective heads a shake...


----------



## Slim

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Mortar Guy:
> 
> Great post and this reflects my thinking as well (aside from the fact that I think MGS is a POS that should be cancelled too).   I remember all too well the ACV fracas years ago and how long that project percolated along...   We need to give our collective heads a shake...




MGS = BAD!!


----------



## Bomber

I am diggin what mortar guy is saying, I have some questions to ask around the office now on Tuesday


----------



## Kirkhill

Mortar Guy seems to make sense to me for what its worth.

I keep forgetting that the MMEV is being touted as a DIRECT fire system.  INDIRECT missile based precision systems for the Arty, short (Hellfire), medium (Netfires NLOS-LS ) or long (GMRLS), all seem to offer capabilities that could be exploited in the three block war but you're right. That isn't what the MMEV is being sold as.


----------



## Infanteer

Mortar Guy, I'm digging it....


----------



## a_majoor

Mortarguy has condensed into one post what dozens of us have taken multiple threads and hundreds of posts to articulate. BZ!

Now perhaps if he could draw the attention of the "powers that be" to the site and in particular the many threads debating MGS, MMEV and employment concepts (Armoured Cavalry, Combat team of Tomorrow, Future Armour, Adopting the regiment as a regular force formation & exploring other new regimental systems, "Trading Saber for Stealth" or "Are We a One Trick Pony?", Our 'maybe' new recce vehicle, etc.) maybe people will see the alternatives out there.

Since the MGS only exists as US Army prototypes and the MMEV is still a "Photoshop" project, there is still time to prevent this train wreak from happening.


----------



## Mortar guy

Thanks very much for the great feedback guys! I have been working on a paper for submission to the Army Journal based on that rant and now that I know it will be well received (at least by some) I will polish it off and submit it. 

Pro Patria

MG


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Mortar guy:

Given that we black hats have been told to STFU on MGS and associated issues, it will be up to the infantry to carry the torch.  I look forward to seeing the article - some common sense would be welcome right now.

Teddy


----------



## Good2Golf

I think Mortar Guy has something going.  Personally, I would pitch MGS and MMEV v.anything and upgrade TUAV to TOW RF to take care of some of the longer ranges without the insane complexity, top-heaviness and questionable attempt to be everything to everybody that the MMEV appears to be being touted as.  Interestingly, it seems that some folks would like to think of MMEV as a Made-in-Canada version of FCS, but I'm not sure this is reasonable.  Also, as many have pointed out, I'm not sure that it's reasonable to expect it to take on such a loadout and employ the range of weapons it is supposed to carry in the direct mode.  ADATS, Hellfire & CRV-7 is quite a variety of armament to want to lob directly.  About the only one of those payloads I can reasonably see being employed in the direct mode is the CRV-7, and if that's the case, I'd consider mounting a LAU-7/LAU-5006 launcher on the LAV or TUAV's turret.  Anecdotally, while I was working in DAD, I had a US Stryker Brigade Combat Team battalion commander tell me he'd gladly trade their Stryker LAV and MGS 2-for-1 for our LAV III.  He was apparently a big fan of the 25mm Bushmaster.  Is it unreasonable to think that MGS for breaching, LAV for mounted/dismounted ops and TUAV w/CRV-7 for direct fire support?  Is it just me or is MMEV starting to smell like TCCCS?

Just wondering,
Duey


----------



## a_majoor

Duey said:
			
		

> Is it unreasonable to think that MGS for breaching, LAV for mounted/dismounted ops and TUAV w/CRV-7 for direct fire support?



Just one of the many concepts tossed around here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28401.0.html

MMEV as currently conceived seems to be either a solution looking for a problem; or the result of a comittee packing requirments from all different branches onto one platform (I'm only a bit surprised there is no 'dozer blade on the front hull).  The official definition of the MMEV (at least the last one I saw) is to provide fire effects:



> "through the use of a variety of munitions and the integration with other vehicles and sensor platforms through common data links"



which to my infantry mind suggests an SP artillery piece able to fire a wide variety of "Smart" and "Dumb" munitions both direct and indirect.

We could slap together a simple MMEV by putting the CT_CV turret http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28961/post-281321.html#msg281321 on a Leopard hull and arming it with 105mm through tube missiles, this would have the protection and mobility to do DF, has a 16 round bustle and a 38 (?) round "wine rack" in the hull for ammo storage, and the gun elevates to 420 for indirect fire (or sniping people off rooftops in DF mode).

Since Black hats have been told STFU about this and related (MGS) issues, Infantry can agitate for an SP "Bunker buster" for DF support, and Artillery can agitate for a protected SP for IF support. As long as the MMEV is just some photoshop and the occasional "test article", there is still time to prevent the "ADATS" solution from happening.


----------



## Kirkhill

The MMEV as relocatable artillery, substituting range for weight of armour in order to protect the crew, makes all the sense in the world to me.  

As an indirect fire back-up to the direct fire guns and missiles of the DF Squadrons, in the same sense that mortars back up the DF weapons of the infantry, then the MMEV made some sense.  

But looking for 8 km line of sight shots seems to be pretty limiting as to the terrain on which you could use this kit.  The amount of dead ground possible between launcher and the 8 km horizon suggests to this civvy that the crews might have some nasty surprises in their futures.


----------



## George Wallace

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> But looking for 8 km line of sight shots seems to be pretty limiting as to the terrain on which you could use this kit.   The amount of dead ground possible between launcher and the 8 km horizon suggests to this civvy that the crews might have some nasty surprises in their futures.


I think this is a result of the latest 'Warrior Analysts' harking to the Gulf War as the way warfare will be in the future.  I look at the Gulf Wars as being very bad examples of what war will look like in the future.  A large technologically advanced force crossing a flat open desert to attack a rather lesser technically advanced and organized force is an anomaly, not a standard for what is to come (even if it was twice).


----------



## Kirkhill

For my money George (speaking as a taxpayer) I would sooner take the money to be invested in this MMEV beast and buy you (well your mates anyway) your small recce vehicle, equip it with good sights, designators and comms.  Next step would then be to upgrade the arty with some of these longer ranged missiles that can stand in for close air support.  Recce squadron with arty in direct support.


----------



## Infanteer

George, I'll one-up Kirkhill and buy an M1 Abrams tank; saber squadron is direct support.... 8)


----------



## George Wallace

Well...If you insist.


----------



## a_majoor

Why stop at 8Km? A LAHAT through tube missile can hit targets out to 13 Km provided there is someone who can see and designate the target. If we want to engage "all aspect" targets an EFOG-M can go as far as the fiber optic reel allows, and does not require an active designaton by a forward observer, negating some forms of DAS and providing surprise for our team. There have been various forms of sensor fused gun and artillery munitions which can attack targets hunkered down in the low ground waiting for the ADATS to fly harmlessly over their heads as well.

The primary job of the MMEV is to provide long range covering fire (8Km), so the need for armour protection isn't as urgent, but enemy forces will be on the lookout for high value targets, and the battlefield situation may change suddenly, so a certain amount of protection and DF capability is a must for any military system. A converted Leopard hull as an MMEV has the huge advantage of a large and protected ammunition carrying capacity, along with a powerful engine and large protected volume (to hold and power all the gucci electronic devices), but even a LAV III hull with a suitable turret covers most of the issues we need to address.


----------



## vonGarvin

Infanteer said:
			
		

> George, I'll one-up Kirkhill and buy an M1 Abrams tank; saber squadron is direct support.... 8)


Why stop at Squadron?  I'd rather have a few regiments of heavy tanks.  Leopard 2A6 EX?  The Greeks are getting 170 Leopard 2 HEL (a version of the 2A6 EX) purchased in March 2003 for delivery between 2006 and 2009.  On top of this, they are getting 183 used Leopard 2A4 and 150 Leopard 1A5s (purchased on August of this year).  Do the math, and that's over five hundred tanks.  The Leo 2 HELs are 120mm L55 (vice the old L44 barrels).  I'm no math wizard, but that's a heck of a lot more power coming at you!  (The Tiger was 88mm L56, and look how powerful _it_ was!)
FACTS ABOUT GREECE: 
Population:  10,668,354 (July 2005 est.) 
GDP:  $226.4 billion (2004 est.) 
Federal Budget (Expenditures annually): $64.4 billion
Now, lets look at Canada, which is buying, not just over 500 tanks, but 66 (!) MGS thingys:
Population:  32,805,041 (July 2005 est.) 
GDP:  $1.023 trillion (2004 est.)
Federal Budget:  (Expenditures annually):  $144 billion
So, explain to me, if a country that spends 64.4 billion a year on everything (roads, sewers, healthcare, education, military, etc) buys 500 tanks,  why can't a country that has more than twice the budget get a thousand tanks?  (just looking at the math, people, looking at the math)
BTW: the Hellenic government runs a deficit budget, whilst Canada runs surpluses (Surpli?).

Garvin signing off and going for a smoke!  (Just might slam my head against a wall in the process)
 :brickwall:


----------



## Infanteer

...because Canada hasn't had a civil war and a bunch of shoot-outs with Turks in the last 50 years.


----------



## vonGarvin

Infanteer said:
			
		

> ...because Canada hasn't had a civil war and a bunch of shoot-outs with Turks in the last 50 years.


Neither has Spain, but they're getting tanks.  The US had a civil war well over a hundred years ago.  When's the last time Sweden was in a war?  (Check out the Leopard 2 Strv 122)  The question stands...no...I'll amend it.  So, explain to me, if a country that spends 64.4 billion a year on everything (roads, sewers, healthcare, education, military, etc) buys 500 tanks,  why can't a country that has more than twice the budget get *TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY TANKS* instead of 66(!) MGS!?!?!?!  And check out one of the reasons why the Swedes went with a modified Leopard 2A5 (modified): "The Leo 2A5 Improved was found to be as good as the Abrams, but at a lower total cost" (http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product.php?prodID=2019)
Enjoy!

Now, back to, you guessed it.... :brickwall:


----------



## George Wallace

Infanteer said:
			
		

> ...because Canada hasn't had a civil war and a bunch of shoot-outs with Turks in the last 50 years.


It was only thirty-one years ago since our last shoot-out with the Turks.  The CAR in Cyprus, 1974.


----------



## Guest

Got some more MMEV info... 

BTW.. this is NON-OPSEC PUBLIC DOMAIN

According to the last Oerlikon "info session" :

quote:

"To create the MMEV, ADATS turrets will be adapted to the GDLS Canadian built 8x8 Light Armoured Vehicle (LAV) chassis common to the CF's existing vehicles. "

"Equipped with the original ADATS missiles as well as with two other missiles types, the MMEV will be able to engage ground targets directly or indirectly in collaborative engagement scenarios with TOW under armour and the mobile gun system"

Here's a vid:  http://www.oerlikon.ca/images/MMEV.wmv 


Watch those CRV rockets fly.. from an ADATS! LOL

Would anyone call the other a Helfire?  looks like one

I've noticed they've slimmed down the turret, and improved the radar/EO (Should be no more unstable than a current LAV)

Maybe it won't suck so bad after all..

Anybody else copy this?


----------



## Kirkhill

The video doesn't appear to work but I took this picture off their site.  The missile mix appears to be 4x ADATS, 2x Hellfire/Brimstone, 2x7 70mm.  General range envelope 7 to 10 km direct and indirect regardless of munition.


----------



## Guest

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The video doesn't appear to work but I took this picture off their site.  The missile mix appears to be 4x ADATS, 2x Hellfire/Brimstone, 2x7 70mm.  General range envelope 7 to 10 km direct and indirect regardless of munition.



The video works if you "right click and save as" from I.E. Then rename to "*.wmv"

I'll describe some points, for those that can't play it.

Basically.. it's a mockup vid, showing stock footage with animation.

It does however show an interesting live fire test of the ADATS in a config I've never seen before.

In the vid.. it shows a current M113/ADATS config firing the 70mm "rockets" 

I assume these are the same unguided rockets used  by the AF

The terminology used for this sequence is " Low-Cost Precision Kill Rockets" Range: 8+ Km

Next sequence demos a "Ground Fire Ant-Armour Range Overmatch" Range: 8+ Km

Next we have " Non-Line of Sight" Engagement Capability " Range 8+ km

(This sequence involves an animation of an MMEV receiving target data from a Spwewer UAV, then launcing what appears to be a terrain following missle to target.)

Finally we have "Air Defence" Range: 10 km

Now, I realize that this is all just demo and animations.

However, if this things actually works.. I'd think it would be quite a potent platform. ADATS missle alone is a very fast, very lethal piece of kit.
(With a modern radar and fire control system.. it would be even more powerfull)

Since we are putting alot of eggs (read $$$)  in this particular basket.. I certainly hope it works.

I mean.. the way I see it, the only chance of success for  our DFS trio, pretty much rides on the MMEV's ability to "reach out and kill something".. BEFORE the MGS or TUA are in rangethemselves.. no?!?

Interesting times..

Oh.. notice the "tank" that gets hit by the MMEV Animation.. looks like an Abrams to me.  Hrmmm......


----------



## Kirkhill

Guest:

Thanks for the advice.

The Low Cost Precision Kill Weapons System is basically a standard 70mm rocket motor and warhead with a new front end that can home in on laser and fly it to the target.  Its supposed to be a lower cost version of the Hellfire for killing lower cost, more lightly armoured targets.

Cheers.


----------



## Eland

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> Neither has Spain, but they're getting tanks.  The US had a civil war well over a hundred years ago.  When's the last time Sweden was in a war?  (Check out the Leopard 2 Strv 122)  The question stands...no...I'll amend it.  So, explain to me, if a country that spends 64.4 billion a year on everything (roads, sewers, healthcare, education, military, etc) buys 500 tanks,  why can't a country that has more than twice the budget get *TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY TANKS* instead of 66(!) MGS!?!?!?!  And check out one of the reasons why the Swedes went with a modified Leopard 2A5 (modified): "The Leo 2A5 Improved was found to be as good as the Abrams, but at a lower total cost" (http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product.php?prodID=2019)
> Enjoy!
> 
> Now, back to, you guessed it.... :brickwall:



I feel the way you do, vonGarvin. Anytime I see a discussion involving tanks and the Canadian Army, I want to bang my head against the wall. Simply because I see too many military professionals (officers and other ranks) claiming that Canada doesn't need tanks, and repeating that claim like it's an article of faith.

To buttress the argument, these same people will trot out the following specious arguments:

_*"Tanks are obsolete."*_ Well, if this is true, then why have many G8 countries (European and otherwise) just bought new tanks, or nearly-new tanks, or are in the process of building new tanks? True, some countries (like the UK) are rationalizing their fleets, but they are by no means abandoning their tanks. Indeed, what now distinguishes Canada from other G8 countries is that it consistently refuses to do as other industrialized G8 nations do, and that is maintain defence forces sufficient to preserve their sovereignty and shoulder a share of the collective defence burden. In this respect Canada has been abjectly wanton and negligent. Canada would probably not be a G8 nation if it did not possess vast natural resources.

_*"Canada is vast, we couldn't afford to buy tanks in the numbers needed to defend that vastness."*_ Tanks were never designed to cover large salients. They are a maneuver weapon, intended to counter enemy armour, apply shock and render a decisive outcome as the infantry make contact. Even modest numbers of tanks can be decisive. But to expect the same of vehicles like MMEV and MGS, which are made vulnerable by lack of armour? Puhleasse!
_*
"Canada can't afford tanks. They are expensive to buy, operate and maintain, etc., etc." *_The cost of not having tanks in battle is always much greater in terms of blood and treasure. To say nothing of increasing the risk of losing battles because of blind faith in the idea that Canada's army will always be able to rely on coalition partners to do the heavy lifting. Well, what happens when the arrival of that 'heavy lifter' is delayed, or worse, it fails to arrive at all, at a juncture when Canadian troops find themselves caught flatfooted in combat? That happened in the Medak Pocket when the PPCLI  were waiting for French armour to show up. Lucky for them that the opposing side didn't decide to bring in reinforcements.

Canada is a wealthy nation. Something is terribly, terribly wrong when countries with one third of Canada's GDP can afford to buy tanks for their militaries. Relying on another country to defend us is not only unfair and horribly ignorant, it's a sure path to loss of sovereignty, even if the loss occurs on relatively benign terms. It's also dangerous to rely on the "nuclear umbrella", because there are many circumstances where any use of nuclear weapons is extremely ill-advised.
*
"Canada is too small (to need tanks)"*. Uh, what about Sweden, with less than one-third of Canada's population and GDP. Its terrain is similar to Canada's in many places, yet it doesn't prevent the Swedes from deploying tanks there. In fairness, the Swedes seem to prefer employing their Leos in the gently rolling, open farm country to the south of Stockholm, but tanks tend to be at their best in such places.
_*
"Canada is a peacekeeping nation. Tanks are inappropriate for peacekeeping duties; they are too aggressive".*_ Unfortunately, peacekeeping is an enterprise which died at the end of the Cold War. And anyway, Canada hasn't been able to claim the world's top peacekeeper spot for a long time now, having sunk to 34th on the list. The geostrategic environment which exists now involves asymmetrical warfare and peacemaking.  The Americans have found it necessary to deploy tanks to prosecute what is essentially a guerilla war in Iraq, putting the lie to the argument that tanks can only be employed in Fulda Gap-style confrontations between massed armies.
_*
"Canada will never be involved in another major war."*_ Funny, that's what we said at the end of World War One, and look what happened. By 1939, the Canadian Army was essentially unable to engage in combat beyond a nominal level. Indeed, if the US (or Israel) attacks Iran soon, there is a good chance Canada (and other countries) may find themselves inevitably embroiled in the conflict regardless of their efforts to avoid it. As in 1939, we won't be prepared.

I suspect that the opposition to tanks is borne of two elements. The first element is cultural, and the result of an attempt to cast Canada as this nice, inoffensive, non-attackable country with helpful Boy-Scouts-cum-soldiers. Tanks are necessarily incompatible with that mindset. The other element is ideological, supported by a government which disingenuously uses phrases like "peacekeeping" or "operations other than war" to avoid frightening an ill-informed populace which would like to continue believing in the fairy tale which says that the world is a safe place and that dialogue always works when seeking to deal with conflict. Mao was right when he said, "All power flows from the barrel of a gun." If you don't have that gun, well...

<rant mode off>


----------



## Armymatters

To wade into the debate:
Cancel the damned thing. You are trying to do WAY too much on one platform. We will have a jack-of-all-trades, master of none platform (just like JSS!) that does everything mediocre, but doesn't do anything well. 

+8km range? Can be done with a ground-launched variant of Hellfire or the future Joint Common Missile.
http://www.missilesandfirecontrol.com/our_news/factsheets/factsheet-HF_II-TURRET.pdf
http://www.missilesandfirecontrol.com/our_news/factsheets/factsheet-HF_II-SURF_LNCH.pdf

Non-Line of Sight Engagement Capability? AGM-114L variant, or the future Joint Common Missile. 
http://www.missilesandfirecontrol.com/our_news/factsheets/factsheet-HF_II-TURRET.pdf
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/cm.htm

Air Defence? Get the CLAWS (HUMRAAM) launcher, but mount it on a 2 1/2 ton truck instead of a HMMVW, and tow the MPQ-64 Sentinel behind the truck. Range of the air-launched AMRAAM is 75km, but the range is slightly less for HUMRAAM due to the fact it is ground launched. If you need something with a shorter range, get the Blazer turret and mount it on a LAV III. 
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/surface-launched/
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/blazer/

Someone else has developed, tested, and is either fielding or fielded all of the above systems. Additional commentary:
http://www.ciss.ca/Commentary_Transformation.pdf

MMEV does one thing good, and that is a decent pyrotechic show... that's about it.


----------



## Kirkhill

Armymatters:

I think the whole point of the exercise is to create 1 platform that as logistically compatible with some of the rest of the gear that is currently being operated and then switch out the missiles depending on the mission.  As stated before this is not a new concept - the Air Force has been doing this for years.  Rather than taking a variety of vehicles into theatre on the off-chance they might be needed,  then having some of them idle most of the time the idea seems to be to take one vehicle into theater with a variety of munitions and then configure the vehicle to the threat.  This might be a bit of a stretch for the organization but keep in mind Rommel converted his 88mm anti-aircraft batteries into anti-tank batteries in the Desert.  That probably gave some German gunners a moment's pause.

As to your missile selection:  

JCM is dead.  Check Global Security or Lockheed Martin if you prefer.

The Hellfire/AGM-114 series are intended to be used with the MMEV launcher. As are the Hydra 70 / LKPKWS.  The only thing missing from your wish list is the AMRAAM which is an entirely different asset than an 8 km Air Defence asset like the ADATS missiles (which we already possess).



> MMEV does one thing good, and that is a decent pyrotechic show... that's about it.



As to that crack - care to offer some personal experience, observation or third party report to support it?

MMEV may be over priced.  It may be too much of a reach.  It may underperform.  It may be all of those things. On the other hand it may work and it may be a key element in creating a comprehensive netcentric fire support system - which seems to be the intent and may explain the high cost of development.

One of the key aspects of the ADATS system as it stands just know (as I understand it) is that all ADATS vehicles in battery can be netted by cable so that the gunner on one vehicle can launch missiles from any vehicle. If that capability can be converted into a wireless capability and the net expanded to include Coyotes and LAVs then many things  would change.

Cheers,.


----------



## Armymatters

I am saying that purchasing off-the-shelf systems may be more economical in the long run. ADATS is a missile no ally is using or plans to use,. If you read the CISS report on MMEV and ADATS, they consider it a strategic orphan, meaning that we are alone if we want to support the system, and upgrade it. NATO interoperability should be emphasised; it drives down unit costs, and support costs. ADATS is a missile that has not given good value to the CF, despite its capabilites; the only deployment of ADATS is at the 2002 Kananaskis summit, where it protected the summit from errant private aircraft.

One must ask the following questions about ADATS: 
1. Is this item a necessary addition to the army's inventory?  Is interoperability with key allies enhanced by its acquisition?

2. Is the vehicle is meant for tasks that need not be undertaken, given the opposition Canadian troops are expected to face in the future? 

3. Finally, will it will offer strategic mobility improvements over its tracked predecessor?

My opinions are as follows:
1. The answer is no. ADATS is not essentially necessary due to the lack of deployment of the system. Regarding interoperability, ADATS is an aging system has won no foreign orders, nor does it have any prospect of doing so. No ally uses ADATS, meaning that it is a strategic orphan with our allies. 

The air defence role, can be filled easily by off-the-shelf equipment that allies are currently fielding and using on the battlefield. The USMC uses the Blazer turret as the LAV-AD, which gives USMC armoured divisions a potent air-defense platform for its armoured divisions. The USMC is also testing and developing CLAWS (HUMRAAM), and they have intention the field the system. The Norwegians also field a ground launched AMRAAM system: it is the Norwegian Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System (NASAMS), developed by Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace. NASAMS is a netcentric warfare system. Clearly, for netcentric air defence, there are systems already being used by our allies for that purpose. 

Lockheed's Hellfire turret and ground launched Hellfire system is also a netcentric warfare system; helicopters, soldiers with laser designators, and UAV's all interlink together to guide the Hellfire missile to the target. The system is also avaiable now, and can be easily be adapted to the LAV III and Coyote without serious modifications.

2. The answer is no. MMEV is not meant for the tasks that are expected of the CF. It offers only incremental improvements to the army'’s other direct fire support platforms, and is likely the most expensive way of neutralizing ground targets. MMEV emphasises its range over anything else, but it does not even entertain the possibility that Canada could be fighting anyone other than guerrillas and insurgents in the years ahead. General Hillier has said repeatedly that we face not “the bear”, but rather “a ball of snakes”. Such parties fight asymmetrically; their ambush/hit and-run tactics call upon small arms, light weapons and improvised explosive devices. They do not field (sizeable) armoured forces. They do not have unmanned air vehicles or cruise missiles, let alone air forces. Therefore, from where does the requirement for long-range direct fire originate?

During the Cold War, we had two vehicles for direct fire support: the Leopard tank and, later, the TOW Under Armour variant of the M-113. If two vehicles were judged adequate to fight Soviet tank armies, why does the army require a total of three vehicles (including two missile-carriers) for ground support in today’s strategic climate? Clearly, any post-Cold War operational scenario will be considerably less target-rich than the Fulda Gap of the 1980s. It does not make sense why MMEV is needed. As stated before, the system offers only incremental improvements to the army'’s other direct fire support platforms, and is likely the most expensive way of neutralizing ground targets. Adding MMEV would conceivably give the CF the ability to destroy targets at longer ranges, but there seem to be preciously few scenarios in which Canadians gunners will have an unobstructed tactical field of view for 8 km.

As if to stake out new operational territory for the MMEV, the DND announcement included a cryptic reference to its ability to strike targets behind hillsides using non-line-of-sight weapons. But none of the latter exist in the CF inventory. The procurement of, say, a fibre optic-guided missile (FOGM) might fit the bill but none are currently in allied service. It is therefore a statement against the  value of MMEV that its effectiveness over the current systems lies in a weapons package that either does not exist or may never exist.

3. Will MMEV offer strategic mobility improvements over its tracked predecessor? The answer is no. The only way to transport the MMEV and its accompanying vehicles is by sea, or by allied or chartered airlift This means that the costly transfer of the ADATS system and electronics to the LAV III chassis seems wholly unnecessary, as the latter offers no weight savings over the M-113. The MMEV will not be transportable on the C-130 Hercules – at least without the partial dismantling of the turret assembly. The vehicle will be top heavy, on a platform that is already known for being a bit top heavy, as tragically exemplified in the November 2005 rollover of a LAV III in Afghanistan, that killed one Canadian soldier and injured 4 others.



> One of the key aspects of the ADATS system as it stands just know (as I understand it) is that all ADATS vehicles in battery can be netted by cable so that the gunner on one vehicle can launch missiles from any vehicle. If that capability can be converted into a wireless capability and the net expanded to include Coyotes and LAVs then many things  would change.



The same can be said about ground launched variants of AMRAAM and Hellfire; with AMRAAM, it has been demostrated to be able to interlink with the AEGIS naval system, and will be able to interlink with an AWACS, and other ground radar systems. With Hellfire, the Coyote and the LAV III can be fitted with a laser designator to guide Hellfire missiles onto their targets. The same can be said about giving UAV's a laser designator, and soldiers a designator to point out targets for the missile. Lockheed Martin has already developed on its own the designator and the launch system. All we have to do is to buy it and we can get the system very quickly. I think every CF soldier can easily be trained on how to point a laser designator on a target and paint the target with the laser.


----------



## CF Supporter

Just discovered your site.  I enjoyed reading your comments and opinions on MMEV and its potential impact on the CF. However I would like to get some the facts straight, there seems to be too much shooting from the hip, namely on MMEV Configuration / Role, MMEV value and MMEV status.

(1) MMEV Configuration / Role is the result of 3 factors 
- Chronic under funding of DND, 
- Changing reality (3 block war, RMA), 
- Existing CF capability.  

Canada simply put can not afford a $25B/yr Defence budget - like it or not that's our reality - health care is about to suck up 50% of all governments expenses in the next few years.  This means that as for the navy and the air force, the army kit needs to become more multi-role and multi-missions while standardizing equipment and training in order to get more bang for the buck while remaining able to perform their mission This also means that Canada Army will restrict its capabilities and missions to what it can afford while remaining relevant to our partners and to our nation.  MMEV will provide a flexible, affordable and sustainable army tool to perform three key missions.  Think of it of low-cost attack helicopter on wheel working 24/7 at 1/3 of the price and minimum personnel to operate it.

MISSION A - joint operations, interoperability and Surveillance for Homeland Defence with NORAD, NATO and ABCA forces (3D Radar, Link 11/16, ASCC, Command Post) it is the only army system that gives you real-time 3rd dimension awareness (e.g. tell the friendly air force jocks in real-time where our forces are on the ground...and avoid fratecide - wish ADATS had been there before in Khandahar)

MISSION B - Protect our troops and vital points (including in Canada) against fast-air, cruise, UCAV etc... - Canada by treaty is obligated to have its own organic air-defence.  This is the only ground based air defence left in Canada (thanks to budget cut back) - 

MISSION C - Provide direct and Non-Line of Sight fire support against hardened target (tanks, bunker, Toyota trucks) up to 8km.  This is the holy Mary pass machine, which out-range out-gun anything out there, not the kit you put in front with the MGS, TUA.

CHANGING REALITY - as expeditionary forces the CF is limited to what it can carry and support.  Standard vehicle platforms but different payload configurations give commander in the field flexibility (contrary from some statement I read you don't do all the mission at once - you gear up for each mission).  Air Force and Navy are used to multi-mission - I guess the Army is still stuck in cap badges battles to its own detriment.

CF CAPABILITY - MMEV system is in fact modernisation on an ADATS (which was limited to AD because of Cap badge issue) but ADATS stands for Air Defence Anti-Tanks, 80% of the MMEV kit will come from Military Off the Shelf equipment.  A new system will imply facilities costs, retraining, new missiles, etc... Moreover, would cost at least twice as much. You don't need to buy the AD and 70mm rocket - there is plenty in stock in the system.

(2) MMEV Value - lets get the facts straight again
·	33 MMEV = $750M .... WRONG
·	33 MMEV, 5 ASCC, 5 Mobile Command Post, DND costs (incl PWGSC - taxes), spares Project Management, training, TTPs 
·	$750M = $200M Project management, engineering, spares, integration and tests, $400M equipment and $150M DND/PWGSC costs
·	P.S. ADATS was designed mid-1980 with mid-1980 computers - modernization means just that
·	Real-recurring cost per units $10M - similar systems costs much more
·	One independent system per mission (e.g. AD, radar, tanks, etc.) $10M each - excluding the ammo, infrastructure, retraining, etc.
·	Attack Helicopter costs:  $30M USD per unit, plus missiles, ground crew, and dealing with your air force buddies, and 4-6 hours reactions time if the weather is good

(3) MMEV Status - this is not a concept vehicle it is real - what new is the platform (LAV III) and the new sub-systems.  MMEV status will depends on if the army continue fighting between themselves, become indecisive once against and give the opportunity to the air force and the navy to grab the money for their priority while you guy still try to figure out what you want to do once again.

Sorry, if I appear blunt but it sadden me to see the army collapsing on itself once more because of internal doubt of caps badge fighting.  You deserve better.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Thanks for your "support"...and who are you? 

Ever conduct operations in the real world?   Work for Oerlikon do you?

A profile would be nice from someone who seems to be "setting facts straight"... Rather than quote from a brochure, tell us what this boondoggle is actually supposed to accomplish on the battlefield...  8 km - heh... $350000 missiles against "Toyota trucks" - heh... "effects" - heh.  The concept might work perfectly well on the range in Suffield or on some dreamer's desk in NDHQ - drag this thing into Afghanistan and watch what it can't do...

By the way, this is hardly a cap badge issue, as you seem to condescendingly think it is.  It's common sense:  this is a vehicle no one really wants and fewer really need.  Sum it up and spend the money elsewhere.


----------



## ArmyRick

There is a Multi-Mission Effects vehicle out there...




The US Army has been using it for years.....



It is called the AH-64 Apache.



Only its better than the LAV MMEV because it can go up and down, forwards and backwards, siode to side and travel at 300 KM/H. You get the picture.


----------



## a_majoor

Most of what is "offered" by the MMEV can be accomplished more cheaply and easily by taking (_insert favorite tank here_), and providing a load-out of advanced ammunition.

A tank can carry 30-40 rounds of 120mm ammunition under protection, giving the crew lots of choices:

Through tube missiles for those long range shots (LAHAT has a range of 13Km when fired semi indirect at a designated target).
APDSFS for hard or elusive targets (potentially even enemy helicopters)
HESH or HEAT-MP to defeat a wide range of targets, both hard and soft. The Americans use HEAT-MP, while the British and Canadians favor HESH.

Tanks and gun armed vehicles have a high rate of fire, so can engage multiple targets quickly, have protection against enemy weaponry and a drivetrain and suspension system which provide excellent cross country mobility. *To a lesser extent,* this can be accomplished with a LAV III based fire support vehicle packing a 105mm cannon and a similar choice of ammunition. Modern AFVs have day/night and thermal surveillance and sight systems to identify and track targets, and can be fitted with high bandwidth data transfer systems to trade target and situational awareness information.

As for the anti aircraft requirement, this is best done by a dedicated system or systems. The front line vehicles can thicken up the fire with their on board machine guns and (perhaps) the occasional main gun shot if opportunities arise, or if specialized AA shells or through tube missiles can be developed (probably cued from off board sensors).

As for the "3D" awareness, I'm not qualified to comment, but it seems to me that you would probably get better results cuing off AWACS or J-STARS type systems (or both) for wide ranging situational awareness.

You can get virtually everything described here in Military Off the Shelf (MOTS) form, and rather than try to wedge it in into a single vehicle, the sensitive electronic sensor systems can be distributed among many elements of the force and airborn platforms. The airborn antenna can be much larger than vehicle mounted ones.


----------



## Infanteer

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Thanks for your "support"...and who are you?
> 
> Ever conduct operations in the real world?   Work for Oerlikon do you?
> 
> A profile would be nice from someone who seems to be "setting facts straight"... Rather than quote from a brochure, tell us what this boondoggle is actually supposed to accomplish on the battlefield...  8 km - heh... $350000 missiles against "Toyota trucks" - heh... "effects" - heh.  The concept might work perfectly well on the range in Suffield or on some dreamer's desk in NDHQ - drag this thing into Afghanistan and watch what it can't do...
> 
> By the way, this is hardly a cap badge issue, as you seem to condescendingly think it is.  It's common sense:  this is a vehicle no one really wants and fewer really need.  Sum it up and spend the money elsewhere.



Checkmate....well played.  :warstory:


----------



## vonGarvin

a_majoor said:
			
		

> HESH or HEAT-MP to defeat a wide range of targets, both hard and soft. The Americans use HEAT-MP, while the British and Canadians favor HESH.


HESH requires a rifled barrel in order to make it work.  Failing that, it would have to get its spin from fins, perhaps.  The HEAT-MP (MP=Multi-Purpose) is one option, but the point is well taken: there are a variety of ammunition natures out there right now that can provide for multi mission effects (like the use of that buzz word?) 
Anyway, just wanted to clarify for the great unwashed out there the reason the brits (and us) use HESH: Brit 120mm is rifled, our 105mm is rifled, whereas tanks such as the M1 series (120mm variants) and Leo 2 series have smoothbore cannon. This was necessary at the time of their development as they were primarily designed to take out tanks at range.  Since sabot ammo is fin stabilised, there was no need for rifling, which only reduces the velocity of the round at longer ranges as energy is lost causes the projectile to spin.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

From Teddy Ruxpin:


> Work for Oerlikon do you?



That was exactly what I thought when I read it as well....


Matthew.


----------



## Mortar guy

Boondoggle is an understatement. I'm too tired to restate all the technical problems I have mentioned before so I'll just add this little bit:

Do any of you MMEV supporters out there realize how much an ADATS missile costs and how reliable they are? Or how about the training costs for the crew? We have a hard enough time keeping TOW gunners current.

Or how about the much more important doctrinal issues? How does the MMEV figure into the Global Wait On Terror? Is the MMEV appropriate for fighting the 'ball of snakes'? 

Can we afford to spend $800 million on 33 vehicles that are far too vulnerable to do the kinds of tasks we use our armoured vehicles for in Kandahar (patrols, escort etc.)?

Are there better things we could be spending money on? 

MG


----------



## Kirkhill

Does this have any bearing on the discussion? --- "No move West" for ADATS.

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/6_1_1.asp?id=1023



> Air defence in the fight and leading change
> Wednesday, April 26, 2006
> 
> 
> An air defence anti-tank system (ADATS) from 4 Air Defence Regiment (4 AD Regt, RCA) moving along a tank trail. 4 AD Regt, RCA, is stationed at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown, New Brunswick.
> 
> CFB GAGETOWN, New Brunswick — Airspace and air defence capability play an important part in the modernization of the Canadian Forces.
> 
> 
> Gunner Andrew Van Norden, in the driver's position in his ADATS, is a member of 119 Battery, 4 AD Regt, RCA.
> 
> Recently, at CFB Gagetown, the commander of Land Force Doctrine And Training System, Brigadier-General Stuart Beare, briefed the air defence community on the future of the trade.
> 
> Bgen Beare explained that the interim role of air defence is to generate Airspace Coordination Centres (ASCCs), generate the capacity to shoot down things that fly and integrate the direct fire team, as circumstances or requirements exist.
> 
> *"The Army commander decided no move of air defence capability West and no move of the 4th Air Defence Regiment in the near term," he added*.At the briefing, Warrant Officer Fred Frigault of the Field Artillery School noted that some of the trades have lost a lot of soldiers because they are unsure of the future of air defence.
> 
> The Army commander decided no move of air defence capability West and no move of the 4th Air Defence Regiment in the near term.
> 
> — Brigadier-General Stuart Beare
> 
> "The Field Artillery School will continue to generate all of the courses required to produce the ASCCs and shooter capabilities. The 4 AD Regt, RCA, is the force generator for the Army ASCCs and shooters and 210 Work Shop will continue to support both entities in the same manner in which it is now," said BGen Beare.
> 
> Major Ron MacEachern, of Land Force Development and Implementation, confirmed that an interim establishment with five ASCCs based in Moncton, New Brunswick, and three troops of four air defence anti-tank systems (ADATS) based out of Gagetown should become effective as of April 1, 2007.
> 
> Article by Sergeant Kyle Richards
> Photos by Master Corporal John Bradley and courtesy of Wikipedia


----------



## Armymatters

Mortar guy said:
			
		

> Do any of you MMEV supporters out there realize how much an ADATS missile costs and how reliable they are? Or how about the training costs for the crew? We have a hard enough time keeping TOW gunners current.



Just to give an idea of how expensive the ADATS missile is, it is about 300,000 bucks per missile. For comparison's sake, TOW has a per missile cost of $25000-45000, according to someone at Raytheon Missiles (all in US Dollars), which is 1/6 of ADATS. Hellfire is around $58,000 USD per missile, 1/5 of ADATS.

Also of note: The US Army *rejected* ADATS due to low reliability in field conditions, and instead went for the Bradley Stinger Fighting Vehicle instead. Kinda makes me wonder that if the US Army rejected it, why did we buy it?  ???

So I will agree with Mortar guy that perhaps there are better things to spend the $800 million dollars on than this.


----------



## ArmyRick

No move west? Whatever happened to this grand direct fire support regiment idea? Or is this getting binned with chuck at the helm now? Anybody who actually knows please answer? Cheers.


----------



## TCBF

So, this leaves us with a tried and proven combination of:

1. Tanks - rapid fire, direct fire (mostly), medium range.
2. Anti-tank vehs: direct fire, long range, slow rate of fire.
3. Air Defence vehs: for SHORAD, a mix of guns and missles.

The revolution is dead.

Tom


----------



## Mortar guy

Long live the revolution!

How about this:

Direct fire:

Light/Assault Gun for Afghanistan-type missions - 66 x MGS
Heavy for conventional warfighting - ~60 x Leopard C2 (replaced in 2015)
ATGM - 33 x LAV TUA

Air Defence:

34 x ADATS with minimal modifications (to be replaced by CLAWS/SLAMRAAM circa 2010)

NLOS:

NLOS-LS with PAM and LAM or HIMARS with GMLRS

Drop the MMEV project altogether and use that money to buy CLAWS/SLAMRAAM and HIMARS/NLOS-LS.

Eh? Eh?

MG


----------



## Mortar guy

Not sure what VT1 is and I wasn't proposing SLAMRAAM on the ADATS chassis. I meant, buy CLAWS/SLAMRAAM MOTS from the US. As is.

Spike ER only has an 8km range. PAM has 70km, as does GMLRS and LAM has a 200km + range. Hell with HIMARS and ATACMS, you can accurately hit targets from just  under 300km. Besides, the Spike ER requires some pretty skillful operators to fire NLOS as the missile must be flown to where you think the target is, the target must be acquired and then you have to steer the missle to the target. I think the Spike ER is a great long-range ATGM but using it for NLOS would be stretching it a bit I think.

MG


----------



## a_majoor

TCBF said:
			
		

> So, this leaves us with a tried and proven combination of:
> 
> 1. Tanks - rapid fire, direct fire (mostly), medium range.
> 2. Anti-tank vehs: direct fire, long range, slow rate of fire.
> 3. Air Defence vehs: for SHORAD, a mix of guns and missles.
> 
> The revolution is dead.
> 
> Tom



Tweaking the ammo mix for tanks to include through tube missiles like LAHAT, or spending the money to bring sensor fused munitions (like STAFF) to fruition will close off the need for option two. The marriage of sensor fused "smart" rounds and breach loading mortar technology should give us an direct/indirect fire, all aspect (long and short range), high rate of fire option as well.

These options should be nowhere near as expensive as new MMEV's, retooling the ADATs production line, integrating yet another munition on the ADATS turret etc. I am willing to put the savings into a CV-90 family of tanks, mortar carriers and AD vehicles though.


----------



## George Wallace

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Tweaking the ammo mix for tanks to include through tube missiles like LAHAT, or spending the money to bring sensor fused munitions (like STAFF) to fruition will close off the need for option two. The marriage of sensor fused "smart" rounds and breach loading mortar technology should give us an direct/indirect fire, all aspect (long and short range), high rate of fire option as well.



I've got to disagree with you on this.  Although it is nice to have the capability for tube launched missiles in tanks, it would slow down their rate of fire.  To abandon the second option/layer in the Defence or Offence is not a good option.  Like in overlapping arcs of fire, each have their role to play, and overlap the other's role.  To take one out of the equation, weakens the whole.


----------



## a_majoor

I'm sending an unclear message as usual  

The idea of long range coverage by ATGM is essential, but the limitation (slow rate of fire) makes this less desirable. Tanks with through tube missiles would have the slow rate of fire limitation with current technology, but sensor fused munitions and other "smart" rounds would provide the long range/high rate of fire option we want. Much of this technology was being developed in the 1980s and 1990s under such programs as STAFF and TERM, so the basic technology is out there. As an aside, it doesn't have to be tanks that are the exclusive purveyors of this sort of fire, these rounds could also be adapted to be fired from conventional artillery or the Infantry could be issued an SP assault gun that uses these rounds in the anti-armour role (a _real_ role for the MGS or similar vehicle). High speed ATGMs like LOSAT would also fit the requirement if we can afford for multiple tools in the toolbox.

The other aspect I was thinking of is the use of mortar launched rounds in this role. Mortars also provide a high rate of fire, and have a potentially long range (particularly in 120mm). The fact the round will be high in the air when the seeker becomes active gives it a wide field of view, so you can discover potential targets before they come in range of your forces (or you come in range of them). Smart mortar rounds also negate a lot of the enemy ability to hide in defiles and behind other terrain features that mask them from our DF systems. 

When viewed in this light, the "all singing and dancing" MMEV doesn't bring anything really different to the table, and uses the most difficult possible method to get there.

(Second aside: many posts back it was asked how an MMEV would fit in a full spectrum environment pitted against a "technical". If that is one of the primary threats, than a SPAAG such as the "Blazer" turret fitted to a LAV, armed with a 25mm Gatling cannon and a pod of 70mm rockets to replace the Stingers would certainly be the vehicle of choice)


----------



## MdB

a_majoor said:
			
		

> As an aside, it doesn't have to be tanks that are the exclusive purveyors of this sort of fire, these rounds could also be adapted to be fired from conventional artillery or the Infantry could be issued an SP assault gun that uses these rounds in the anti-armour role (a _real_ role for the MGS or similar vehicle). High speed ATGMs like LOSAT would also fit the requirement if we can afford for multiple tools in the toolbox.



The German 155 mm self-propelled artillery M109 seems to fit the bill with a 350 km autonomy and a range of 24.5 km (up to 40 with "smart" rounds) AND a semi-automatic loading system that enable to fire 6 rounds per minute.

The only thing is that I don't see any rounds following a moving target. Maybe I missed that in the many preceding posts. Or, the 155 mm rounds would be like the mortar rounds with the heat detecting device that could steer the round inside a certain area.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Rocketman:

Some good info here and I really do appreciate your posts and point of view.  No worries, I have no desire to whip out my copy of Janes' and go "shopping".

However, I really must question (again - heh) what we're doing here.  What operational requirement is there for 36 ADATS on steroids?  In the current operational environment, I might be able to make a case for retaining a small number of systems for air defence purposes - using the current stock of missiles and the current chassis - for specific scenarios (the 2010 Olympics come to mind).  It now appears (given the cancellation of the 4 AD move, etc.) that this will be an air defence system (as much as ADATS is, at any rate).  One has to question what threats the system is to engage, particularly in a coalition setting.

This thread has pointed out some glaring deficiencies with the platform (at least as originally advertised), one of which you highlight - close protection.  I would submit that no amount of coaxial firepower is going to be capable of providing self defence for such a high value asset.  If you're firing a C-6 from an ADATS-type vehicle, you're in big trouble.  If you want the vehicle to go into harm's way, the missile containers (plus any sensor suites) need to be fully armoured, it must be easily supportable (not trailing an HL tanker, in other words), it cannot be overly top heavy (as a LAV III with ADATS is certain to be) and it has to have an effective close-in self-defence capability.

So, are we to "suck it up", and field a system simply to keep Oerlikon in business?  It seems to me that we've been doing that for some time now.  Again, this appears to me to be a system looking for a mission, rather than the other way around.  Canada is not a big enough player in this game to develop its own extremely expensive systems that cannot be sold anywhere else.  Witness our previous experience with the original ADATS....

Personally, I'd cancel the thing, keep an orphan ADATS troop in service for AD tasks and tell Oerlikon to pound salt - definition contract or not.  It would be worth the $150m just to rationalize our direct fire capability in a coherent manner, something we're certainly not doing now.

My 2 cents, as always.

TR


----------



## a_majoor

Hmmmm, you want a serious shopping list Rocket Man? From the sounds of your post, MMEV will be primarily an AA weapon with a secondary duty of overwatch (given the radar and E/O suite you are implying). Given that, and the other conditions laid down (i.e. must be a LAV, requires self defense capabilities) then here are some suggestions:

Plan A

1. The turret should have a similar layout to the Blazer SPAAG/missile combination. While the 25mm Gatling gun is good from one logistics standpoint (i.e. shares ammunition), the rate of fire induces a lot of others. We are also implying overwatch capabilities so go big on the gun, maybe the 35mm Skyranger cannon firing AHEAD ammunition and a coaxial C-6. The turret should be derived from the Wegmann type turret to achieve a low profile and maximize crew protection.

2. Starstreak makes an excellent choice for the missile in both the AA and DF roles, it is a very fast supersonic missile so should deliver considerable KE to the target. Starstreak probably won't kill a tank, but could certainly disrupt the FCS, and cause considerable damage to lesser targets beyond the range of the 35mm.

3. Interchangeable pods, so if the situation is clear (i.e. Afghanistan, where there is little or no air threat), then the Starstreaks can be swapped out for a nice extended range missile like Spike LR (4000m range) or Spike ER (8000m range). Of course there should be an option for "Pod A" to carry one missile type and "Pod B" to carry the other if the situation is a bit confused.

4. Phased array antenna to reduce the amount of mechanical "bits" required.

Plan B

1. CV_CT turret for the beast, it has a 12 or 16 round bustle for the 105mm main cannon (fed by an autoloader) and has room for at least 16 more rounds in the hull (probably a lot more).

2. Focus the R&D money to perfecting 105mm "smart" ammunition for long range engagements against hard targets. The old STAFF and TERM programs in the United States were developing several types of smart ammunition and DRES also has some programs along these lines.

3. More R&D on smart shells or through tube missiles optimised for AA work (a giant sized AHEAD shell, so to speak). If this is impractical, then a missile pod for the AA weapons as in Plan A

4. Phased Array antenna.

I would not be so set on the 35km+ range for the radar, it probably makes more sense to go with a compact radar/FCS system and cue the weapon with off board sensors. You will need to do this with NLOS attacks on ground targets anyway, we will just need to devote enough bandwidth to accept input from ASCC assets as well. Besides, the ground environment is hard on electronics, so uncooled TI systems and fairly simple radar sets will probably last longer and work more reliably for the soldiers using them.

As an aside, given the volume of the systems and ammunition being carried, and the electrical requirements of the radar, electro-optical suite and computers, has any consideration been given to swapping out the MMEV power pack for a hybrid system?


----------



## TCBF

"The project team is all ears, guys... where should they go?"

- Back to the drawing board?

 ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

OK, how about this one:

These things are supposed to be netted in in any event.  Why not put the sensors on one vehicle and just put a launcher on the others?  This would reduce the weight and height of the vehicles and would allow the operators to stay away from all those smokey trails.  2 sensor vehicles plus 4 launchers = 1 troop.  Don't mount any missiles with less than a 5 km range - 10+ would be better and plan on siting these things with the artillery well behind the fight.  C6s and 50s in the crew commander's hatch for local defence.

As for the MGS, if they are already committed to the vehicles but the turret is a bust think about mounting a_majoor's "cause celebre" the CV-CT 105.

On the tanks, use "my grandfather's axe" principle.  We replaced the turret on the Leo 1s.  Now replace the hulls and drives.  In 5 years time you can put a new turret on your new hull and still use the original 1972 serial number.  My Grandfather's Axe lives on.

Cheers.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

I'll throw something way outside the box and see if it's worthy of discussion or not.

If the LAV-III chassis is incapable of provide MBT-like anti-tank firepower along with high quality anti-aircraft capabilities in one chassis, what about reversing the process and determining what Canadian Forces do need, and if those chassis can be fit to perform those roles.

Specifically, what happens if you created a "Theatre Control" group composed of LAV-III chassis fitted out to provide a protective bubble around deployed Canadian Troops. 

If we've got 34 chassis, let's start with the assumption we'll produce (4) groups of (8) vehicles.

In every 8-pack you'd include:
(1) Dedicated LAV with OTS phased array radar - AN//MPQ-53 phased array radar?  (4 total)
(2) Dedicated LAV with OTS missile system with ABM capability - PAC-3? (8 total)
(2) Dedicated LAV with HIMARS 6-pack (8 total) 
(3) Dedicated LAV's to launch, control, recover Surveillance UAV's and/or with tethered balloon-mounted surveillance cameras (12 total)

In short, give the theatre commander an 8-pack of complimentary vehicles to provide a previously unavailable surveillance, detection and destruction zone....because as others have said, I simply cannot figure any way to beef-up a LAV-III to make it a stand-alone weapons system.

On a side note, I would very much like to see a direct fire weapon added to compliment the 25mm on the standard LAV-III.  Specifically, I'd like to see what the Spike ER Penetrate, Blast & Fragmentation warhead can do....


Matthew.   

P.S.  I've been typing this for 5-minutes and sure enough I hit preview, I get the red warning, and Kirkhill's stolen my thunder.  Screw you hippy!   ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

'Pologies most humble Blackshirt - but "Hippie?"  You go too far. ;D


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

You had it coming....


Matt.   :nana: :nana: :nana:


----------



## Infanteer

Rocket Man said:
			
		

> Then again, it wouldn't be a "M"MEV anymore, would it?  Imagine how bothered the Project Office would be if they had to change all their stationary!



Just add an "s" to the end of the title.


----------



## TCBF

" Power mgt is really going to suck on this vehicle.  Not only that, but we're considering throwing an active suspension on the thing too, to provide autolevelling and on-the-move surveillance and engagement capabilities (obviously not the laser-beam rider, but possibly for another missile).  The hybrid configuration that would be required to provide all that power would have to be based on a turbine, similar to the existing ADATS PPU."

- Noisy, high-idling stationary power hungry vehicles in a tactical non-linear environment do not contain crews - only dead men awaiting their own throat slitting at the convenience of the enemy.

Tom


----------



## Kirkhill

Just thinking a bit more about this and considering the implications of distributing capabilities on different platforms.

Couldn't these vehicles (34) be configured as launchers and brigaded with the Coyotes for INdirect fire support. As I understand it the Coyotes have a 10-20 km surveillance range which is to be enhanced by adding UAVs.  Combining munitions with an 8-14 km range  (Spike-ER/Hellfire/Brimstone, Starstreak/Crotale VT-1, CRV-7/APKWS) on one launcher, a Multi-Mission EFFECTS Vehicle, with the sensor capability of the Coyote Squadron and similar mobility - might that not make some sense?

Then, as a-majoor, Blackshirt and others have suggested add a missile capability to the existing LAVIIIs and supplement with a functional DFS vehicle for the close battle (<5km).

Next layer back from Coyote/MMEV is M777/Netfires/Himars-GMRLS (40-100 km),  What is a compatible Air Defence Missile with comparable range?

The Theatre Control group presumably would be dealing with munitions and sensors at the >250 km range. 

As I understand the current "jargon" effects are what happens to the guy at the receiving end.  Therefore any vehicle that can deliver multiple munitions against multiple types of targets is delivering multiple effects.

If you turn these vehicles into Indirect Fire Support Vehicles - Missile then they are still MMEVs and you don't have to change the stationary.

Cheers again.


----------



## LordOsborne

I just wanted to post a picture of a concept MMEV, a version I hadn't seen before, having gone off of the ones from CASR. I found it while perusing through Jane's website. I do apologize, if it is a repost. seems rather ungainly and obviously heavy from the top. the inclusion of a PWS seems like an odd afterthought, given its location.


----------



## McG

PatrickO said:
			
		

> I just wanted to post a picture of a concept MMEV


Not seen.  Are you hot linking to a picture in the subscriber section?



			
				Captain Sensible said:
			
		

> HESH requires a rifled barrel in order to make it work.  Failing that, it would have to get its spin from fins,


Or change to a fuze that is not armed by spinning.  The HESH main charge is not dependant on spin to function.  The fin system could be the same one used to keep HEAT going straight once it leaves a smooth bore.


----------



## LordOsborne

I realise that I was in fact linking to the subscriber section. I took a look at the CASR MMEV page, and realised they had updated it. The Janes picture was a larger version of the picture in the bottom right-hand corner on this page:

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-mmev-project.htm


----------



## jimderfuhrer

Canadian government and Oerlikon Contraves/Rheinmetall developed a new technology and mobile system called " MMEV " ( Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle ) this vehicle is a new version of ADATS but this time the ADATS will be integrated into a 8×8 wheeled LAV III. 





The MMEV equipement :
- 4x Air Defense Anti-Tank System
- 2x CRV7
- 2x IRIS-T
- 1x SAGEM Sperwer
- 1x Protector M151 7.62 mm machine gun
- 1x X-Tar 3D radar
- 2x Skyshield 35mm

The MMEV was Designed in 2005 and will be introduced in Canadian forces in 2010 it is a ADATS Variants but modernized (nothing new maybe his system like the Links 11/15 and X-tar 3D radar). The MMEV is a anti-tank/anti-aircraft like the ADATS but more moderns is the only Multi-System in the world, built by the German industry Rheinmetall and Oerlikon Contraves.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=D2Wa2skbj08 here is a promotional video about the MMEV system. And yes the pictures is a fake one because  the MMEV isn't yet ready you can see a half production here http://www.armyrecognition.com/europe/France/Eurosatory/Eurosatory_2006/pictures/pictures_2006/MMEV_ArmyRecognition_Eurosatory_2006.JPG it is only a cheap demonstration of our future MMEV system. Some nation like turkey think buying some Canadian MMEV


----------



## George Wallace

Nice PhotoShop, but not good enough to not be an obviouse PhotoShop job.

As for this topheavy vehicle being announced as going into production, well that seems to be a mistake.


----------



## geo

Dunno.... was going by the workshop's work in progress parking the other day - saw a bunch of Engineer APCs in line for their turn at a rejuvenation cure.  At their side were a bunch of APCs with TOW spraypainted on their rear ramp.... can mean one of 2 things - either it couldn't make it under it's own means OR vehicle destined for TOW and possibly TUA 

WRT the MMEVs - thought the MMEV LAV hulls have been returned to regular service as LAVIIIs - make up for some of the war losses


----------



## dapaterson

geo said:
			
		

> Dunno.... was going by the workshop's work in progress parking the other day - saw a bunch of Engineer APCs in line for their turn at a rejuvenation cure.  At their side were a bunch of APCs with TOW spraypainted on their rear ramp.... can mean one of 2 things - either it couldn't make it under it's own means OR vehicle destined for TOW and possibly TUA
> 
> WRT the MMEVs - thought the MMEV LAV hulls have been returned to regular service as LAVIIIs - make up for some of the war losses



If they're in for refit, I suspect "TOW" is an instruction, not a destination.


----------



## TCBF

- The more systems we plie onto a vehicle, the more time the vehicle will spend in a maint bay.


----------



## a_majoor

I thought the MMEV was dead and gone (like the MGS). 

This is like some grade "B" zombie movie........("Dawn of the System of Systems", or maybe "28 hulls later"....)  >


----------



## PuckChaser

TCBF said:
			
		

> - The more systems we plie onto a vehicle, the more time the vehicle will spend in a maint bay.



That perfectly sums up the Bisons I drove overseas.... 3 engine+tranny replacements in 7 months....


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

The MMEV's passed on! This vehicle is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet it's maker! It's a stiff! Bereft of life, It rests in peace!  It's metabolic processes are now 'istory! It's off the twig! It's kicked the bucket, It's shuffled off it's mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-VEHICLE!!

(Apologies to Monty Python)

IIRC, the hulls originally destined for MMEV are now being converted to LAV RWS...but I've been wrong before.


----------



## geo

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> IIRC, the hulls originally destined for MMEV are now being converted to LAV RWS...but I've been wrong before.


considering some of the LAV III losses we've incurred, I would venture to say that we have enough "spare" turrets & chain guns to fit onto the MMEV LAV hulls.


----------



## geo

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> That perfectly sums up the Bisons I drove overseas.... 3 engine+tranny replacements in 7 months....



Hope that isn't a demonstration of your driving skills >


----------



## PuckChaser

geo said:
			
		

> Hope that isn't a demonstration of your driving skills >



 I only got to drive once! Trying to remember if we went in for repairs after that.  8)


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

geo said:
			
		

> considering some of the LAV III losses we've incurred, I would venture to say that we have enough "spare" turrets & chain guns to fit onto the MMEV LAV hulls.



No, as I understand it, there's no effort to "rebuild MMEV" into a true LAV III.  They're RWS.


----------



## a_majoor

Perhaps we should reboot this concept a bit. There is still a need for a long range surveillance system, which the 3D radar system was supposed to provide. We do have a couple of "holes" in our firepower; long range DF and the ability to prosecute aircraft and aerial targets. Any military vehicle needs to have a robust self defense capability.

Putting these factors together would seem to point heavily towards a SPAAG/missile combination (and accept the long range DF is either a very secondary vehicle task or something provided by upgrading the Leopard 2). I would favor deleting the long range DF task, and using the networking capability to hand off target data derived from the SPAAG's long range surveillance radar. The automatic cannon(s) or Gatling gun of the SPAAG provides the close self defense capability, and some SAMs do provide a limited ability to engage ground targets (I am thinking Starstreak, with its ability to cover 6000m in 5 seconds and KE equal to a 40mm round).

However since AA seems to be a very small player these days, I suspect we don't have a large or strong enough institutional backing to get anything like this off the ground.


----------



## ironduke57

Regarding an SPAAG for the CF. The WILDCAT turret could be an relative easy to integrate solution. Could be probably integrated on your existing LAV platform.



> Krauss-Maffei project- initially based on Transport Panzer-1: 5 different fire control options available from V1 clear weather to V5 all-weather-fire-control & auto tracking. Fitted with 2x30mm Mauser Mk30-F cannons each with 250 rounds - fires 800 rounds per minute. range approx 3000m - S.Korea's Flying Tiger K-30 was based on the Wildcat. 4 Stinger, Mistral or Igla could added at the sides (2x2)



Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## jhayjhay0918

The possibility has been took for the excessive height and weight of it will restrict it to only the largest strategic airlifters .



_________________
Refrigerator filter[/URL]    


[Edit to remove link in Signature line for a Sales Site.]


----------



## Kirkhill

JJ - Teddy has something to say to you....
 ;D


			
				Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> The MMEV's passed on! This vehicle is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet it's maker! It's a stiff! Bereft of life, It rests in peace!  It's metabolic processes are now 'istory! It's off the twig! It's kicked the bucket, It's shuffled off it's mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-VEHICLE!!
> 
> (Apologies to Monty Python)
> 
> IIRC, the hulls originally destined for MMEV are now being converted to LAV RWS...but I've been wrong before.


----------



## Vimy_gunner

Hope this isn't a retarded question, but I was curious what are all the land vehicles manned by the Artillery?  From what I know, Lav III is one of them, but do Gunners use any others?  Other than the regular trucks to haul the howitzers around.

Have to say the Lav III looks cool!


----------



## SabreTrooper

After reading this, a couple of things come to mind.  ADATS seems kind of irrelevant considering our current operational taskings.  We never to seem to have enough of the right equipment for whatever we are tasked to do.  Finally a "multi-mission" vehicle strikes me kind of like a Swiss Army Knife, you can do lots with it, just not particularly well.  I had hopes that with the LAVIII we'd finally have a chassis that was capable of plugging in modular equipment so we could adapt it to the required role.  Maybe the manufacturer who comes up with a chassis like this will be well rewarded.  With budgets being the way they are, having one very usable chassis where you could plug in an AT mod if the threat is armour, an AA mod if the threat is air...or if we need to do recce/surveilance then you have a mod for that.  It seems we are always trying to adapt non-adaptable equipment to meet the mission...so maybe we need to have the equipment designed to be adaptable.  Not having been in Afghanistan, I image though the terrain is ideally only suited to mules.  But then what happens if we have to go back into the Balkans or we wind up with another "conventional" enemy in the near future, we can't afford to have equipment for every possibility.  Just my thought on the matter.  Thank you!


----------



## xiaofan

There was a 8X8 variant of Wildcat SPAAG. The prototype is or was a marriage between Wildcat turret and Mowag Shark Weapons Carrier chassis. The vehicle was market throughout the 1980's and 1990's. 

According to some source this vehicle was tested in Canada early in 1984.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

xiaofan said:
			
		

> There was a 8X8 variant of Wildcat SPAAG. The prototype is or was a marriage between Wildcat turret and Mowag Shark Weapons Carrier chassis. The vehicle was market throughout the 1980's and 1990's.
> 
> According to some source in this vehicle  was tested in Canada early in 1984.



Which sources?


----------



## F.I.R.S.T.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=3948.0

I'm looking for other links.


----------



## xiaofan

F.I.R.S.T. said:
			
		

> http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=3948.0
> 
> I'm looking for other links.



There one other source mentioned the same thing. However looks like it has been copy from secretprojects.co.uk or other way around. 

http://stingraysrotorforum.activeboard.com/forum.spark?aBID=126840&p=3&topicID=37129502


----------



## Kirkhill

Its alive........

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omxwpiOKL6A


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Well, that was...interesting.

I am not precisely sure what problem they are trying to solve with that device.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Well, that was...interesting.
> 
> I am not precisely sure what problem they are trying to solve with that device.



Possibly something akin to the TUA?

Either way, it's only an ground to ground platform, so not really the MMEV concept.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I do like the Russian approach, gun/missile launcher. In a short high intensity war you are going to run out of missiles fast and no guarantee of early resupply,  the gun leaves you with some AA defense and will likely be good for smallish UAV's and helicopters. Not to mention ground targets. It also allows some live fire training for the gunners when there is no budget to fire real missiles.


----------



## Kirkhill

To be honest I prefer this approach







50 ready rounds available to be launched direct from the limber and sent 8 km down range to take out point targets or saturate area targets.

Forget your 120mm mortars.  81mm for the dismounted infantry.  70mm Hydra (APKWSII - DAGR - LOGIR) for close support arty and 155mm/GMRLS for general support.

Now that gives multiple mission effects.







And on the related subject of Vehicles and what is appropriate -












Fielding a force based on SUVs and Pickups with Duallies.


----------



## MilEME09

Who knows maybe the renewed tension with Russia might revive the project due to the need for local area air defense from pesky Mi-24s?


----------



## a_majoor

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Who knows maybe the renewed tension with Russia might revive the project due to the need for local area air defense from pesky Mi-24s?



In that case, you should probably get these instead, since they have already been taken into service (LAV 25 BLAZER SPAAG).

The sand coloured one has a radar and replaces the Stinger pods with the Mistral, but other small MANPADS and SAM's could be substituted if desired.


----------



## McG

Who uses those?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

MCG said:
			
		

> Who uses those?



The US Marine corps, although I didn't believe that they accepted the LAV-AD system into active service.  It had been intended as the replacement for the linebacker.

As for the need for a GBAD capability, I do believe (for more than just emotional reasons based on my name) that we require this capability.  I know that DLR is looking at a C-RAM system such as Skyshield as C-RAM is the current flavour of the day, and the MRR is supposed to come in next year and will act as an AD radar (though the purchase says CB primary it seems more likely to be an AD asset).  There is a push to acquire a RBS-70 BOLIDE missile system (8km range, 5000m ceiling, full networked) that would be man portable and vehicle mounted (like the avenger).  

UAS, aviation, and PGMs represent a large threat to Canadian forces deployed on expeditionary operations.  IF our doctrine, as represented in ADO 2021 calls for information domination how can be not have the ability to deny a prospective enemy their ability to collect info?  It really is counter intuitive to our doctrine, particularly on a dispersed battlefield where small echelons, if identified, can be cut off.

Now, does Canada need a complete Regiment of AD? Not really.  However, perhaps the answer is to create a large, modularized AD Battery (5-6 troops) similar to the modular US AD Bde to provide C-RAM and GBAD capabilities to an expeditionary force as required, with the ASCC capability provided by the composite batteries of 4 GS Regt or integral to the Div and Bdes (as is done in the US system).


----------



## blacktriangle

The fact that we don't have some form of MANPADS has always blown my mind. 

I see MANPADS/C-RAM and their associated sensor platforms (in addition to ESM/ECM) as a logical part of the "protective bubble" around our deployed forces. 

My non-expert opinion though - I don't think we need or want some multi billion dollar turret bolted on top of a LAV...


----------



## CBH99

Bird_gunner,

I can't quote anything specific from your post as I am still not very good at using this IPAD.  

But a range if 8km seems extremely short, given the weapons that can be launched from opposing aircraft can be launched from a much greater distance?

I agree that the CF NEEDS an AD capability, hands down.  And it doesn't have to be prohibitively expensive or complicated.  A simple, cost effective solution should be relatively easy to find, fund, and field.  

What are your thoughts on a range capability though?  8km seems short.  Even if the CF went with a MANPAD system, would it not be easy to have something with a 20km range to it?  (ADATS was 10km, and that seemed limited too.)

I'm not a SME by any means, curious to hear your opinion on it.


----------



## blacktriangle

Although not addressed to me (and again, not a SME either) I would say it would come down to fuel, complexity and cost of systems required. Check out the size and weight of some the Naval SAMs like the SM-2 or ESSM. Not exactly going to shoulder launch one. 

I'd be far more inclined to have friendly fighters engage the enemy aircraft, and have GBAD counter any munitions that slip through the defensive shield (as well as low flying helicopters or UAVs). I'd want something that is realistic in terms of size, cost and complexity so that's it's ACTUALLY procured, and able to easily be deployed alongside our forces as needed. 

Look forward to what the actual AD guy has to say.


----------



## MilEME09

For against helicopters, why not say the British Marksman anti-aircraft system, CV90AAV, or the German Gepard, we have tons a leo 1 hulls now with the Leo 2 coming in. While I don't think we should have AD regiments, perhaps every Artillery Regiment might have a Company sized AD element.


----------



## blacktriangle

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> why not say the British Marksman anti-aircraft system, CV90AAV, or the German Gepard



...size, complexity, costs. I'd rather something that will actually be there when it is needed, not parked in Gagetown or Wx.


----------



## MilEME09

Spectrum said:
			
		

> ...size, complexity, costs. I'd rather something that will actually be there when it is needed, not parked in Gagetown or Wx.



So some kind of shoulder fired weapon? or a simple towed AAA system any one could be trained on?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Bird_gunner,
> 
> I can't quote anything specific from your post as I am still not very good at using this IPAD.
> 
> But a range if 8km seems extremely short, given the weapons that can be launched from opposing aircraft can be launched from a much greater distance?
> 
> I agree that the CF NEEDS an AD capability, hands down.  And it doesn't have to be prohibitively expensive or complicated.  A simple, cost effective solution should be relatively easy to find, fund, and field.
> 
> What are your thoughts on a range capability though?  8km seems short.  Even if the CF went with a MANPAD system, would it not be easy to have something with a 20km range to it?  (ADATS was 10km, and that seemed limited too.)
> 
> I'm not a SME by any means, curious to hear your opinion on it.



The range of 8km is short, but the effectiveness of the range of the AD system is based on the Line of weapon release of the gun or missile system being utilized (In AD planning, the weapon is more important than the delivery system). So, in planning we would determine, based on the platforms what sort of munition is likely to be used against the assets that we are given as the AD priorities.  We then reverse engineer how we would anticipate the air platform or delivery system to attack our defended assets including weapon stand off ranges (line of weapon release).  We would then ensure that the deployment of the AD systems is far enough forward to intercept the air platform before it reaches the LWR.  If not possible than passive AD measures are recommended.  With C-RAM (and the former 35mm Gun Skyguard) we now have the added capability of engaging munitions with longer stand off ranges improving the overall AD capability.

Further, for the most part, GBAD assets, including SHORAD, MANPAD, and HIMAD (Patriot) will be netted together with Naval and Air Force AD fighters to create an integrated air defence system.  To this end, the Area air defence commander can actively pair targets with the best system for intercept.  For example, fighter against fighter, SHORAD against helicopter and UAS, VSHORAD against aviation or UAS, C-RAM against cruise or ballistic missiles, etc. 

 For most conventional PGMs the stand off range is anywhere from 2-10km, with the plane needing to stay, at minimum, 1km off the deck for delivery.  Cruise missiles or HAR missiles can have ranges up to 100's of KM, so C-RAM and gun systems would be more appropriate.  Also, consider the paradigm that to use precision munitions the enemy has to be able to target our asset with a precise grid.  The ability to stop him from gaining this intelligence (via UAS, recce helo, etc) significantly degrades his ability to use long range precision weapons.

As for ranges, there are some AD systems such as SLAAMRAAM that have extended ranges up to 20000m, but most MANPAD systems are limited to the 2-8 km range. A 8 KM missile, for our threat model, with a C-RAM "backstop" would provide the range.  In reality, the system must also be netted into the IADS to be optimally employed, so vehicle mounted systems are preferable.

Mil EME- The British systems tend to be single purpose whereas we would be better with multi-purpose missile system.  For example, the star streak is designed to knock out hinds- it fires 3 hyper sonic darts to puncture the hull.  While effective against this threat it is only minimally effective against air and UAS targets, and has no application against munitions.  The RBS 70, with a proximity fuze, can effectively engage more targets.

The idea of keep a battery of AD in the CS arty regiments is a COA that is being floated.  For example, the C-RAM capability would be kept at 4 GS Regt as the "Div" AD asset with the radars and the MANPAD would be with the CS regiment.  The advantage is that we achieve traditional tiering.  The disadvantages are that AD units have rarely faired well when paired with their Field arty peers (often ending up as driver pool) and that this model takes away operational flexibility to "mix and match" expeditionary capabilities based on the threat or to Force generate AD troops for domestic tasks.  For example, if we deploy in an A-stan scenario than the MANPAD battery in the CS regiment would not deploy with the rest of the regiment, whereas the C-RAM and radars may deploy.  If we create a modularized AD Battery/mini regiment than we can task tailor more effectively and maximize training by not dispersing assets.

What we need is a C-RAM/gun capability and a simple, easy to deploy MANPAD/missile system, not another ADATS.


----------



## MilEME09

For the gun capability would you prefer to see a fixed towed system or something mounted on a vehicle as a SPAAG? Would the MANPADS be AD only or all trades would get training on how to use them? Coming from a CSS unit where we are in charge of rear area security technically by doctrine I'd want to have an asset to protect me from air.


----------



## a_majoor

I would tend to support the Starstreak SAM as a short range weapon, it has a 6000m range and can cover the distance in @ 5 seconds, SACLOS guidance and laser beam guidance (very hard to jam) and is man portable and also be able to be fired from vehicle mounted posts. Naval and AAM versions have also been developed and demonstrated.

Starstreak should be considered the last or second to last layer of an air defense network (a rapid fire cannon or HMG, or perhaps a variation of stand off systems like Trophy or ARENA would be the final layer), at least for this generation. Solid state lasers with powers of over 100Kw have been demonstrated, so vehicle mounted weapons class lasers for air defense should appear in the near future.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I would tend to support the Starstreak SAM as a short range weapon, it has a 6000m range and can cover the distance in @ 5 seconds, SACLOS guidance and laser beam guidance (very hard to jam) and is man portable and also be able to be fired from vehicle mounted posts. Naval and AAM versions have also been developed and demonstrated.
> 
> Starstreak should be considered the last or second to last layer of an air defense network (a rapid fire cannon or HMG, or perhaps a variation of stand off systems like Trophy or ARENA would be the final layer), at least for this generation. Solid state lasers with powers of over 100Kw have been demonstrated, so vehicle mounted weapons class lasers for air defense should appear in the near future.



Thuc,

I would disagree with the starstreak as being a good fit for Canada.  The pre-eminent threat from the air is UAS, particularly small and mini.  While mini UAS will likely be a AAAD task due to it's size (with early warning provided to the AAAD unit by the ASCC) SUAS and TUAS will remain GBAD targets along with aviation.  Starstreak, because of it's 3 darts does not offer much of a capability for engaging small targets such as a SUAS, particularly at a range of over 2000m (which by that time the UAS has already likely gotten any info it requires).  The darts seperate and have little surface area, meaning they require a direct hit.  A proximity fuze, such as found on a RBS 70, offers a better hit ratio for smaller targets while having the ability to be set to impact for helicopters and other targets.  Plus, RBS 70 has a range of 8000m and a fully digitized/netted C2 suite (whereas the Brits still use the old Manual early warning system/Bingo for early warning) that can provide the det commander, even when dismounted, with the entire air picture.

For the C-RAM task the future does appear to be DEW, however, guns still have some relevance if helicopters or infantry/armour approach the defended asset... the 35mm were a hell of a direct fire weapon


----------



## Colin Parkinson

AD detachments using Manpads like the old Blowpipe troops would not be hard to sustain and with simulators being much better nowadays, you can get better practice in without the expense of firing missiles all the time. With the gradual withdraw of the 105mm from Reserves troops, equipping some of them with a light towed gun in a calibre such as 25mm  which can use existing ammo as well as dedicated AD ammo would help build some corporate knowledge about AD into the CF and with minimal training costs and support issues. Some of the Reserves can also be UAV troops using lightweight UAV's and with a small research budget to create new mini-tactical UAV themselves.


----------



## a_majoor

Throwing out Starstreak because it is small and light enough to be a MANPADS and its high resistance to countermeasures. Not mentioned in the initial post is the high KE punch, Starstreak makes a hell of an field expedient ATGM against the surprise appearance of LAV's, IFV and APC class targets (striking with the energy of a 40mm shell). In an ideal world it could be layered in with other systems like the RBS-70, or perhaps issued with different warheads rather than the three darts.

There really is no one solution to the problem, for us perhaps something like the USMC BLAZER turret on a LAV 3 hull with an updated sensor suite and loading the left pod with Starstreaks and the right pod with RBS-70's, while retaining the 25mm Gatling gun would cover most SHORAD tasks. The Israeli SPYDER system uses two different types of missile on the same launcher for much the same reason, although there is no gun system integrated. (SPYDER is not directly comparable since it covers out to 15 Km).


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

not that we would ever acquire a Russian system, but the "Pantsyr" AD system the Russians have is quite capable and would in fact meet our needs.

The Pantsyr is employed as a Counter PGM system by the Russians to defend their key assets that they anticipate us using PGMs/cruise missiles against, including AD Radars, C2 nodes, etc based on their lessons learned from the 2 US wars with Iraq.

The system is mounted on a BTR chassis and equipped with short range missiles as well, and is fully network capable


----------



## Kirkhill

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Throwing out Starstreak because it is small and light enough to be a MANPADS and its high resistance to countermeasures. Not mentioned in the initial post is the high KE punch, Starstreak makes a hell of an field expedient ATGM against the surprise appearance of LAV's, IFV and APC class targets (striking with the energy of a 40mm shell). In an ideal world it could be layered in with other systems like the RBS-70, or perhaps issued with different warheads rather than the three darts.
> 
> There really is no one solution to the problem, for us perhaps something like the USMC BLAZER turret on a LAV 3 hull with an updated sensor suite and loading the left pod with Starstreaks and the right pod with RBS-70's, while retaining the 25mm Gatling gun would cover most SHORAD tasks. The Israeli SPYDER system uses two different types of missile on the same launcher for much the same reason, although there is no gun system integrated. (SPYDER is not directly comparable since it covers out to 15 Km).



Why does every appreciation jump from manportable to accepting the logistical burden of a 55,000 lb platform to mount equipment that only weighs 1 to 2000 lbs?

You can't get a useful sized force (meaning adequately armed) anyplace in the world in a reasonable time when you make that assumption.  You need ships and months of prep and/or a prepositioned force.  And we're not buying ships that will do that nor do we seem inclined to take half of our vehicle stocks and park them in a warehouse in some one else's country.  And we haven't addressed the cost of supplying diesel and tyres for behemoths of that size.  (And no - a 38,000 lb TAPV does not offer an improvement).

Why don't we start by figuring out how many rounds it takes to defend a given area against a specific type of assault, then work out the lightest tactical carriage for the weapon with ammo,  reduce the crew to 2 and figure out how many we can get into how few aircraft and helicopters?

55,000 lbs and you deliver a 25mm gun with a couple of hundred rounds and a GPMG to the battlefield?  Or an anti-aircraft or anti-tank missile with characteristics not much better than those that can be carried over the shoulder?  

I get the need for protection but lightly armed, heavily protected vehicles, especially in the absence of long range rapid transport, has all the mobility, and strategic utility, of the Maginot line.


----------



## a_majoor

There are a lot of factors, and of course the CF is missing a lot of the pieces to create a fully integrated system (like transport).

But driving around the battlefield in a vehicle which has different mobility and protection characteristics than the systems you are allegedly protecting will give rise to many other problems. I'm sure that the pending introduction of the TLAV to Infantry battalions will drive that point home for this generation. 

Yes, many shoulder fired missiles are man portable, and in many applications missiles like Starstreak can be dismounted for use as a MANPAD as well. But (sticking with the Starstreak for the moment) a vehicle like the Stormer can carry 8 missiles and 8 reloads, so a vehicle crew can prosecute multiple targets and provide persistent coverage. Add a sensor system and linkage to larger systems and the vehicle mounted system becomes far more capable. Using the vehicle to integrate multiple systems (like the Blazer turret with a gun, Starstreak and RBS-70) allows the system to cover a wider range of threats than a single system alone.

I do feel your pain with the size/weight issue of the vehicles themselves, but looking ahead (very far ahead for us, I'm afraid), we can consider the ROK's K-21, which is largely built from composite materials and quite a bit lighter than comparable vehicles like the PUMA. There are reasons to believe that whatever replaces the LAV will be much lighter while having a comparable level of protection.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Why does every appreciation jump from manportable to accepting the logistical burden of a 55,000 lb platform to mount equipment that only weighs 1 to 2000 lbs?
> 
> You can't get a useful sized force (meaning adequately armed) anyplace in the world in a reasonable time when you make that assumption.  You need ships and months of prep and/or a prepositioned force.  And we're not buying ships that will do that nor do we seem inclined to take half of our vehicle stocks and park them in a warehouse in some one else's country.  And we haven't addressed the cost of supplying diesel and tyres for behemoths of that size.  (And no - a 38,000 lb TAPV does not offer an improvement).
> 
> Why don't we start by figuring out how many rounds it takes to defend a given area against a specific type of assault, then work out the lightest tactical carriage for the weapon with ammo,  reduce the crew to 2 and figure out how many we can get into how few aircraft and helicopters?
> 
> 55,000 lbs and you deliver a 25mm gun with a couple of hundred rounds and a GPMG to the battlefield?  Or an anti-aircraft or anti-tank missile with characteristics not much better than those that can be carried over the shoulder?
> 
> I get the need for protection but lightly armed, heavily protected vehicles, especially in the absence of long range rapid transport, has all the mobility, and strategic utility, of the Maginot line.



The biggest requirement for a vehicle is to ensure that the system has the sensors and data link capability to make it interoperable within the integrated air defence network (multinational, joint service, etc).  For the AD this is more critical than most arms (and this is not a dig) as engagements move immensely quickly.  Imagine, the reaction time for an ADATS det against mid level FAs was 10 seconds with 25 km cueing.  That means if an aircraft picked up in Saint John the Det has a total of 30 seconds from flash to bang.  

The datalink integration, requiring a Multifunctional Information Distribution System (MIDS) or EPLRS if there is not integral sensor, is what gives the det the extra time to effectively engage.  Even in cases where the enemy isn't jets but something like a SUAV, the ability to cue from a radar to a dispersed MANPAD det is critical as, in all likelihood, the det cannot physically see the UAV let along engage it.  Finally, for the system to be used effectively, particularly in an ADO environment, it requires integration into the Area Air Defence Commander's Area air defence plan.  Without integration its basically blind.

Vehicles also offer the potential for better FLIR, EO, and passive AD sensor suites that can offer survivability for the det and better engagement accuracy than holding the missile.

PLUS, dismounted doesn't normally offer a Cooker-Boiling Unit and plugging a coffee maker in is next to impossible (unless you deploy to Lawfield shack!).


----------



## McG

What is the possibility that any and all RWS through the battlefield could be linked to such a system through EPLRS and a GPS?  Obviously it does nothing for fast air, but it could turn every call sign into a remotely cued gun against helicopters and TUAV.


----------



## TCBF

MCG said:
			
		

> What is the possibility that any and all RWS through the battlefield could be linked to such a system through EPLRS and a GPS?  Obviously it does nothing for fast air, but it could turn every call sign into a remotely cued gun against helicopters and TUAV.



- A 'Hammer's Slammer' solution. Might work with beam weapons, but has a serious downside when it starts to empty bins of cased (or even caseless) ammunition that someone needs to fill before taking the next bound. Not to mention crew hydraulic/electric safety issues. I don't need my turret traversing when I am dismounting or mounting - or filling my bins from the last surprise burst.


----------



## McG

Obviously, the vehicle crew would have to have some control - approving the fire and disengaging the system completely when it would impede other tasks or be dangerous.


----------



## Hudyma

Was having a chat with a MCpl on my DP1 this summer about Canada's air defense capability.  Is there any hope we will see some incarnation of the ADATs in the near future?


----------



## McG

No.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

MCG said:
			
		

> No.



 Too much need for pips and crowns I guess. 2019 isn't too far off


----------



## a_majoor

Reviving a necrothread because this seems to provide an alternative path for a multi purpose vehicle. The enabler here is the development of a 50mm chaingun, along with advanced ammunition to go along with this. A LAV class vehicle can easily mount the turret, and the crew compartment becomes the ammunition hopper and holds some of the electronics for the GBAD role.

Of course the 50mm cannon can deal out death and destruction to ground targets as well (either AHEAD type programmable ammunition, which is also used for the AA role, or in a dual feed configuration APDSFS or HEAT/MP rounds. The vehicle can carry far more rounds (even 50mm rounds) than a comparable sized vehicle mounting missiles, can engage targets more quickly than the vast majority of missile rounds, and each individual round is cheaper than a missile.

Farther in the future, the same technology being adapted from electromagnetic railguns to make high velocity conventional artillery rounds also works for something like this, if a 155 can potentially fore 70km using this type of aerodynamic ammunition, the range for the 50mm in GBAD ode could also be significantly increased as well.

http://www.nextbigfuture.com./2015/10/antidrone-weapons-50mm-cannon-high.html

http://dtic.mil/ndia/2012armaments/Wednesday14027hart.pdf


----------



## a_majoor

The US Army's SHORAD is being upgraded, but it looks like they have found a much easier and more cost effective idea to get some of the same benefits that the MMEV was supposed to provide. I would imagine this could also be adapted for small diameter artillery rockets or missiles (like the Griffon, perhaps?):

https://strategypage.com/htmw/htada/articles/20170221.aspx



> *Air Defense: No Quick Fix For SHORAD*
> 
> February 21, 2017: The U.S. Army, faced with a renewed Russian threat in Europe and growing use of helicopter gunships by China and UAVs by everyone wants to increase its SHORAD (short-range air defense system) capabilities. SHORAD was much less of an issue after the Cold War ended because the major air threat (the Soviet Union) was gone. Whatever was left could be handled by MANPADS (Man Portable Air Defense Missile Systems) like Stinger. By 2004 the U.S. Army had only 24 SHORAD batteries (each equipped with 24 Avenger vehicles) and now there are only nine, seven of them in the National Guard.
> 
> The Stinger missile is also used by Avenger. These are hummers with a turret mounted on the back. The turret contains two missile pods (each containing four Stingers). Under one pod there is an M3P .50 caliber (12.7mm) machine gun. The weapons operator has use of a FLIR (night vision device) and a laser range finder to locate targets. The machine-gun, however, can't be depressed sufficiently to fire at ground targets towards the front of the vehicle. The missiles have a range of 4.5 kilometers, the machine-gun about half that.
> 
> Avenger is a relatively new system, introduced to replace the much older (1960s) Chaparral in the 1990s. The older system was basically an M113 armored vehicle with the top and side armor removed and a launcher holding four early model Sidewinder air-to-air missiles in the rear. These Sidewinders were reconfigured for use from the ground and called MIM-72. The U.S. Army bought 600 Chaparral vehicles from 1969 to 1997. Also mounted on the vehicle were an optical sight for the helping to find and aim (in the general direction of) the target aircraft. The original MIM-72 had a range of 8,000 meters and was still a heat seeking missile. Later versions of the Sidewinder were used and the final version had a range of 10,000 meters and a much more effective heat seeker (able to detect the target from any angle, not just the rear where the hot exhaust was). Chaparral never got much use and was replaced by the Avenger in the United States. Other nations, like Taiwan, still use Chaparral.
> 
> Meanwhile the U.S. Army has been developing a new SHORAD internally because it is expected to cost a third of what it would if a defense contractor was used. The new system is the MML (Multi-Mission Launcher) which is fifteen tube launcher mounted on a standard flatbed 6x6 army truck (Medium Tactical Vehicle). The MML cells can fire either a Stinger anti-aircraft missile, a Sidewinder anti-aircraft missile, a Hellfire laser guided missile or any number of future missiles. MML is to be a key component of the IFPC Inc 2-I (Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment 2-Intercept) system. This is an air defense system for destroying UAVs and cruise missiles as well as faster moving rockets and artillery/mortar shells. Since some specialized high-speed interceptor missiles have yet to finish development the IHPC won’t be ready for service until the end of the decade. The other components (radar and fire control) will also be truck mounted.
> 
> As far as the immediate SHORAD problem is concerned MML may not be the solution, at least in the near term. Right now MML is not ready for production and the major impediment appears to be integrating MML with existing (or planned) radar and security (IFF, Identify Friend or Foe) systems.


----------



## MilEME09

With the Defense minister saying air defense is one of 18 priority projects, and the fact that the LAV 6.0 chassis was to fix some of the stability issues that really showed up in the LAV III MMEV concept. Could we see the MMEV revived on a LAV 6.0 platform?


----------



## Underway

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> With the Defense minister saying air defense is one of 18 priority projects, and the fact that the LAV 6.0 chassis was to fix some of the stability issues that really showed up in the LAV III MMEV concept. Could we see the MMEV revived on a LAV 6.0 platform?



I'm thinking to change it to a specific AA system and you probably have a winner.  I would assume a SHORAD for dealing with drones, helos and CAS issues.  Those ADAT systems were pretty expensive, now an orphan system and are probably pretty out of date.  After talking to pilots who went up against it in exercises it was terrifying (one pilot told me, "if they see you, they kill you and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it") but that was before Laser Dazzler defense systems.

But the concept is sound and gives more work to GDLS-London.  At least there would be commonality in training and parts for the drivers and maintainers to some extent.

US marines have an interesting system for the LAV-AD which combines a Gatling gun with stinger or mistral missiles (Blazer AD system).  That might be a place to start, as a gun is cheaper to shoot down smaller drones with then a million dollar missile.  And if you can depress it far enough....


----------



## Kirkhill

Complementary to a GBAD system - Vehicles with AD systems rather than AT systems




> Laser In Front, Grunts In Back: Boeing Offers Anti-Aircraft Vehicles
> By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR.
> on August 02, 2017 at 1:35 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boeing photo
> Stryker vehicle armed with anti-aircraft missiles.
> 
> 
> ARLINGTON: Need to shoot down Daesh drones or Russian gunships? Boeing is offering the Army an array of ways to do it, from laser-armed 8×8 Strykers to missile-launching MATV trucks and tracked Bradleys.
> 
> This September, the Army plans a “shoot off” of competing anti-aircraft systems as it tries to rebuild battlefield air defenses it largely disbanded since 9/11. Boeing’s not the only contender, but it’s been the most aggressive in showing its wares. A new anti-aircraft Stryker will debut at next week’s Space & Missile Defense Symposium in Huntsville, Ala., but that’s just one of several designs they’re prototyping. The aerospace giant has worked with makers of military vehicles – Oshkosh for the MATV, General Dynamics for Stryker, BAE for Bradley — to integrate its weapons systems on their war machines in ways that give the Army multiple options.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boeing
> M-ATV with anti-aircraft missiles.
> What the Army wants is Maneuver SHORAD: Short-Range Air Defense systems that can keep up with frontline combat units and survive in combat, unlike Patriot and THAAD batteries, which have longer range but are heavier and are not armored. It particularly wants Maneuver SHORAD it can afford, so installing existing weapons on existing vehicles is a lot more attractive than developing silver bullets from scratch. And, finally, the Army would love vehicles that can both carry SHORAD systems and still fulfill other roles, like troop transport.
> 
> Happily for the Army, Boeing and other companies have made laser weapons much more compact. You still need a dedicated vehicle for a 50- to 300-kilowatt weapon suitable for downing helicopters, airplanes, or (at the high end) cruise missiles, but 2- to 5-kW weapons with proven drone-killing capability can fit in existing combat vehicles. The 2 kW laser Stryker that starred in a recent Army exercise has room for several infantryman in back, but that’s a test configuration not optimized to be compact, Leary said: A properly integrated production model could fit a full nine-man squad, same as a regular Stryker.
> 
> The whole system – laser, beam director, power and cooling – is so compact you could install it on a wide range of vehicles without crowding out their other missions, Boeing executive Jim Leary told reporters this morning. Most of the time, these laser-accessorized vehicles would just go about their normal roles. But whenever an enemy tried to spy on US units with the kind of low-cost, low-altitude drones that are proliferating rapidly worldwide, there’d be someone around who could laser them out of the sky. That would stop Daesh-style drone attacks in low-tech wars and make it harder for a high-end enemy like Russia to spot targets for airstrikes and artillery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Army photo
> Army laser-armed Stryker at Fort Sill.
> 
> Actually shooting down incoming artillery rockets, helicopter gunships, and strike aircraft, however, would require more powerful weapons. For now, that means missiles – although work is progressing rapidly on lasers. The Army’s current air defense vehicle is the Avenger, basically an unarmored Humvee with Stinger missiles mounted in pods, but that vehicle isn’t tough enough and that missile isn’t potent enough for a war with, say, Russia.
> 
> So Boeing, which built the original Avenger, is repurposing its turret and fire control to fire other missiles from other vehicles. As we’ve reported, the upgraded system can fire variants of both the Hellfire – made famous by Predator strikes – and the AIM-9X – used on jet fighters. What we haven’t reported in detail before is how it fits on different vehicles. There are tradeoffs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boeing photo
> Bradley vehicle with anti-aircraft missiles.
> Boeing has worked with Oshkosh to install the upgraded Avenger turret on an MATV armored truck – the older brother of the new JLTV – and with General Dynamics to install it on a Stryker. In each case, Leary said, the missiles take up the whole back of the vehicle, replacing the passenger compartment. These would be dedicated anti-aircraft vehicles.
> 
> The M2 Bradley is a little different. There the anti-aircraft missiles would replace the TOW anti-tank missiles carried on the side of the turret (and use the same room for reloads), similar to the old M6 Linebacker. The fire control systems would be integrated into those already on the Bradley, Leary said. The anti-aircraft Bradley would retain its 25 mm chaingun, its machineguns, and its capacity to carry infantry, so it could still do all its regular missions except for killing tanks and busting bunkers.
> 
> Leary didn’t say this, but it strikes me the Army today has far more ways to kill tanks than to kill aircraft. Converting one Bradley in every four-vehicle platoon would trade a tolerable 25 percent decrease in anti-tank missiles for a new and much needed capacity for air defense – without affecting the number of infantry or scouts. Stryker units and light infantry would still need to spring for dedicated air defense vehicles, but the heavy brigades crucial to any major war would not. US armor bristling with air defense might just make the Kremlin reconsider in a crisis.



http://breakingdefense.com/2017/08/laser-in-front-grunts-in-back-boeing-offers-anti-aircraft-vehicles/?utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=54920210&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--aRFZGNzz2WzGprjHG7SLch6-R8LWO_FTOQvdewFBHea8HcmQZ24jnXV97CSvBSPZdIzGlJP5B


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Anyone think of this
http://www.henderson-tele.com/royal-signals/vby/vba/v04b_files/humber-pig-1620-multiflag-peh-2.jpg

When they saw this
http://army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbreakingdefense.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F3%2F2017%2F08%2FMATV-MSL-300x234.jpg&hash=19884a5ed525d365bf718cb919ee6353


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Complementary to a GBAD system - Vehicles with AD systems rather than AT systems
> 
> 
> http://breakingdefense.com/2017/08/laser-in-front-grunts-in-back-boeing-offers-anti-aircraft-vehicles/?utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=54920210&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--aRFZGNzz2WzGprjHG7SLch6-R8LWO_FTOQvdewFBHea8HcmQZ24jnXV97CSvBSPZdIzGlJP5B



Room in the back to transport the detachment would be nice. ADATS had up to a 9 pers details and needed a limber vehicle for transport.

Infantry still are not the appropriate combat arm for GBAD for tge many reasons noted in the AD thread.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I suspect in a decade, lasers will be the AD weapon of choice for small UAV's. Even a 2 minute recharge between burst would likely be acceptable. When Swarms become more common then a mix of gun (40mm with proximity fuzes) and lasers. The benefit of lasers will be lack of falling shell fragments when defending over an urban area, particularly during operations against domestic terror attacks by drone.


----------



## a_majoor

More on the Boeing/Stryker combination. Mounting this turret on a LAV derivative which uses the bulk of the LAV 6.0 hull, suspension and drivetrain would be the "best" solution for logistical compatibility if Canada were to consider this, although it would be a monster of a vehicle in terms of size and weight:

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/08/goodbye-mig-boeing-general-dynamics-debut-anti-aircraft-stryker/



> Goodbye, MiG: Boeing, General Dynamics Debut Anti-Aircraft Stryker
> By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR.
> on August 09, 2017 at 11:21 AM
> 
> HUNTSVILLE, ALA.: If you fly Russian MiG fighters, Sukhoi attack jets, or Hind helicopters, your life just got a little harder — and in the event of war, potentially much shorter. At the Space & Missile Defense conference here, General Dynamics rolled out the latest variant of their eight-wheel-drive Stryker armored vehicle, with the troop compartment that’s normally in the back replaced with a Boeing-built anti-aircraft turret. Scroll down for our photos of the vehicle, dubbed the Maneuver SHORAD (Short-Range Air Defense) Launcher, or MSL Stryker.
> 
> Evolved from the Cold War era Avenger, which mounted Stinger missiles on Humvee, the new turret can mount a wider array of more powerful weapons:
> 
> AI-3s, a ground-launched version of the AIM-9 missiles used by US fighters, with significantly better range and maximum altitude than the old Stinger.
> Longbow Hellfires, originally an anti-tank missile, made famous as the favored weapon of the Predator drone, and suitable for both ground targets and low-flying aircraft like helicopter gunships.
> Hydra 2.75 inch guided rockets;
> 0.50 caliber machineguns;
> and even low-powered lasers capable of burning out quadcopters and other small drones.
> 
> The vehicle on display at Huntsville’s Werner von Braun Center mounts Hellfires on one side and AI-3s on the other, as well as a specialized electro-optical sensor on top. But the GD Stryker is just one of a family of anti-aircraft vehicles that Boeing is developing with various partners, as heavy as BAE’s tracked Bradleys and as light as Oshkosh’s Joint Light Tactical Vehicles. A JLTV with anti-aircraft missiles and a machinegun will debut at the enormous Association of the US Army annual conference in Washington, DC this October.
> 
> The MSL Stryker’s turret, with two AI-3s (modified AIM-9s) on one side, four Hellfires on the other, and a sensor on top.
> The mission for all these vehicles: highly mobile air defense that can keep pace with frontline units and survive in combat zones– what the Army calls Maneuver SHORAD. There’s been no successful airstrike on US Army forces since 1953, when a North Korean biplane flying low and slow slipped through US defenses, Since 1991, the Army has focused on missile defense and disbanded anti-aircraft units, assuming Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps pilots will rule the air and keep enemy aircraft off their backs.
> 
> That assumption no longer holds. On the low end, proliferating drones present targets too low and slow for jet fighters to intercept. On the high end, advanced adversaries like Russia and China have developed anti-aircraft missiles that can keep US planes at bay and sophisticated fighters that can challenge US pilots for control of the air. The new threats are driving all of the services to seek countermeasures, especially a new concept for all-service operations known as Multi-Domain Battle.
> 
> But we can’t carry out any kind of operations if our forces are bombed and strafed every time they try to move, like the German reinforcements struggling to reach the D-Day beaches in 1944. That’s what Maneuver SHORAD — and the new Stryker vehicle — are all about. If friendly fighters can’t keep enemy aircraft at bay, the ground troops will shoot them down themselves.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I'm guessing the weight of the turret is not as great as the weight of the hull removed and it seems most of it's weigh is in the lower hull. What I am not seeing is where are the reloads?


----------



## Rifleman62

An armoured trailer like the Churchill Crocodile???


----------



## MilEME09

Colin P said:
			
		

> I'm guessing the weight of the turret is not as great as the weight of the hull removed and it seems most of it's weigh is in the lower hull. What I am not seeing is where are the reloads?



Or potentially a small ready rack of only a couple missiles, only accessed from the out side of course. It does look like you would need a follow on vehicle with more missiles though.


----------



## Kirkhill

> Key Points
> 
> • All-carbon launcher base weighs 19 kg
> • Final development expected in 18-24 months
> 
> Rheinmetall is developing a new lightweight remote-controlled missile launcher designed to equip a range of 4x4 and 6x6 tactical mobility vehicles with a short-range surface-to-air or surface-to-surface ready-to-fire capability.
> 
> Designed to reduce the weight burden on, and be easily integrated with, forward deployed tactical platforms in an air defence/strike role, the Remote Control Lightweight Missile Mount (abbreviated as RCLM) features an all-carbon lightweight frame, weighing some 19 kg. This frame supports an RCLM base platform, including motors and electronics package to weights of between 100 kg and 140 kg. In addition, the RCLM frame and base platform can support a mission payload of up to 150 kg - including missiles (numbers depending on size of the missile, and weight of the maximum payload), launcher, launch tubes, and sensor package.
> 
> "Compared to previously available vehicle-mounted missile launching system, this represents a reduction in weight in the order of some 50%," Johannes Höeggemeier, vice-president for sales, Stabilized Platforms in Rheinmetall's Mission Equipment business unit told IHS Jane's .
> 
> The RCLM system is not committed to any specific missile or missile producer, Höeggemeier said. "The new launcher can integrate a variety of surface-to-air and surface-to-surface effectors - examples include the [Raytheon FIM-92] Stinger and [MBDA] Mistral in the surface-to-air role, and the [MBDA KFK] Enforcer, [Rafael Advanced Defence Systems] Spike SR, or even the [MBDA] MMP [Missile Moyenne Portée]." Höeggemeier said the RCLM launcher could be configured for four or six effectors, depending on customer requirement.
> 
> Powered by a 24/28V direct current in accordance with MIL-STD-1275B, the RCLM - which can be mounted either on the roof or the loading bed of smaller vehicles - is operated from within the vehicle. Roof-mounted radio antennae and/or an IFF (identification, friend or foe) sensor can also be integrated as part of the RCLM package.



http://www.w54.biz/showthread.php?193-Remotely-Operated-Weapons&p=64273&viewfull=1







HIMARS-MML launching Hellfire.


And then there is the Kongsberg MML which is compatible with the AIM-9, the AIM-120 and the ESSM - all currently in Canadian Service.


----------

