# Adding a Missile capability to the LAV III



## Kirkhill

In the absence of the System of Systems (MGS AND TUA), and now that the Armoured Corps has got their Tanks back,  could we now take another look at heavying up inf support by adding a couple of missiles to the LAV turrets to complement the 25-40mm main weapon and the 7.62 coax?

The range of missiles currently available has expanded from TOW ATGM to TOW-Radio Frequency with both AT and Bunker Buster warheads, Javelin, Spike (SR, MR, LR and ER) and CKEM (Compact Kinetic Energy Missiles).


----------



## George Wallace

My view on missiles on the side of the Coyote/LAV M245 25mm turret is the same as for the MBGDs.  They are there for a "one time use" in the case of an emergency.  They can not safely be reloaded when under fire.  Once used, their benefits are lost.

Leave the missiles to the Anti-Armour Platoon.


----------



## vonGarvin

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Leave the missiles to the Anti-Armour Platoon.


We can't: they are no more.  They were cut by some brainiac somewhere in Ottawa :


----------



## George Wallace

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> We can't: they are no more.  They were cut by some brainiac somewhere in Ottawa :



Got the "neutered" feeling.


----------



## Franko

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> We can't: they are no more.  They were cut by some brainiac somewhere in Ottawa :



Hmmm...seem to recall seeing some Patricias still wearing the black beret in Edmonton. When did this happen?

Regards


----------



## vonGarvin

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> Hmmm...seem to recall seeing some Patricias still wearing the *black beret * in Edmonton. When did this happen?
> 
> Regards


You see?  That's part of the Armoured Regiment.  "TOW Platoons" used to be an infantry battalion sub-unit ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You just confirmed my statement.
> 
> The MGS should never have been thought of as a replacement for the tanks we had (not to be confused with a "Tank Replacement".), nor should they have been for the Armour Corps.  They would have been a great supplement to the Inf Bn Support Wpns Coys, as would the Mortars, HMGs, etc.
> 
> The Cougar was a mistake for the Armour Corps, and we also saw what happened with the "Tank Trainer" that was never to be deployed.  It was the match of a fine turret from one fine vehicle, to the hull of another fine vehicle, to create of a piece of junk (sorry for the rant).
> 
> The older members of the Armour Corps remember this.  They also looked at a vehicle that really did not teach or maintain key skills required of Armour soldiers, a vehicle that did not carry a large Ammo load and required a long amount of time to replenish, and a vehicle that was better suited for the Infantry as a support wpn.
> 
> The Armour Corps now has a great "Surveillance" platform, and is getting tanks once again.  They now need a good Recce veh.  The Armour Corps also has to start equipping the Armour Reserve Units with the same equipment as the Reg Force or Reservists will no longer be able to fill posns in Reg Armd units............which is the current state of affairs already, but continuing to get worse.
> 
> The MGS would not have done anything for Armd Reserves, other than provide a Gunnery platform to train on.  Driver skills would not be taught to the extent needed.  Commanders would learn all the wrong lessons for Veh SA.  All crews would learn bad lessons (as with the Cougar) on the use of ground and Tactics.  Maintenance would be a serious problem.   The list goes on and on, and it is compounded by the fact that the gap between Reserve Trg and Reg Trg in the Armour Corps is continuing to widen.



I always thought this would have made a decent recce vehicle to replace the Lynx
http://johnsmilitaryhistory.com/armorxm800.html


----------



## Franko

Only super Gavins will fill the bill!!

Regards


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> Hmmm...seem to recall seeing some Patricias still wearing the black beret in Edmonton. When did this happen?
> 
> Regards



They are going the way of the dodo (black beret Patricias that is).


----------



## Kirkhill

George Wallace said:
			
		

> My view on missiles on the side of the Coyote/LAV M245 25mm turret is the same as for the MBGDs.  They are there for a "one time use" in the case of an emergency.  They can not safely be reloaded when under fire.  Once used, their benefits are lost.
> 
> Leave the missiles to the Anti-Armour Platoon.



My take is that if 54 rounds of 105 available in 3x MGS to the Company Commander in the Stryker Battalion is enough to bust the bunkers available then wouldn't 28 missiles (2/LAV), and possibly a dedicated Missile Section with a couple of TUA be equally useful?

We're not talking a "Target Rich" environment here.  We're talking about roving patrols being able to deal with what they encounter without having to get D&B's "cast of thousands".


----------



## ArmyRick

TOW has a bunker buster missile, I don't know if we ever picked up (I haven't crewed a TUA in over 10 years now).

Just keep in mind, 105mm/120mm is alot cheaper than TOW, re-loads a lot faster and is stablizied on tanks.

TOW Aero though has a 4,000m reach.


----------



## a_majoor

While guns generally have the edge, I would not be adverse to supplementing them with NLOS missiles like FOG-M, Gill/Spike and so on which can "reach out and touch someone" when they are under cover from DF rounds (25mm or 120mm). Missiles under direct control of the local commander (be it platoon commander or Combat Team Commander) would allow the unit to directly attack and neutralize depth positions before the artillery/mortars/helicopters/aircraft arrive on target. It would certainly give our side the ability to rapidly shape the battlespace to our liking....

That being said, there is still the issue of who carries and controls them. Something like the AAP of old would seem to be ideal, but then again we run into the manning/manpower issues.


----------



## KellGunner

I personally think it would be a good addition to the LAV-III.  It would give the LAV an ability to take out a tank if it needed to.  That being said i do not think any LAV-II would want to go toe to toe with a tank but if they were advancing and came into contact with a tank they would want to be able to dispatch it without having to call it in.


----------



## ArmyRick

Um...ya...thanks. Have you read thoroughly on this subject or anything fresh to add?


----------



## KellGunner

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Um...ya...thanks. Have you read thoroughly on this subject or anything fresh to add?



Just saying that the added capabilities to the LAV-III is a great idea.  As well the TOW missiles we have in the system are for anti tank purposes, not buneker busting, though it will work due to the fact they have warheads with a couple of kilos of High Explosives, but its a HEAT warhead and not a general HE warhead.


----------



## Jarnhamar

I'm a fan of dismounting the infantry and having them take out the tanks.


----------



## TheHead

Having a TOW as part of the armament would have been great over in Afghanistan in 2006.  25mm just doesn't cut it against the compounds or built up structures.   I would have loved to shoot a Tow missle into that white cursed white building.   Thank God for the armour now.


----------



## George Wallace

And the question still stands:  Who is going to reload while under fire?  It is like using a musket to take on a MG post.  

If you want to have a TOW, put it on a TOW vehicle with a reload system under armour, not on the side of a 25 mm M242 Turret.


----------



## TheHead

I understand  your concern and I've had the bad experience of having to hop out of my LAV, under fire, jumping into the back grabbing the ammo and running with my tail between my legs back in the hatch (Thanks Kiwi). 

It would have just been nice to have a capablity to level a side of a compound than be able to rain some HEIT rounds into the breach.    

If someone is so concerned about reloading under fire they can always jockey for position into a safe location or forget about it.


----------



## George Wallace

TheHead said:
			
		

> If someone is so concerned about reloading under fire they can always jockey for position into a safe location or forget about it.



To jockey back (no standard distance to get to a safe location) will take the 25 mm out of action as well.   That would take two valued wpns systems out of action for an indeterminate time.  

Remember, if you mount a TOW on the turret of a Coyote or a LAV III, you also have to store extra missiles.  As is, there is limited space for the Inf Section, and even less with a Surv Suite.  

A TOW UA or TOW ITV would be a better vehicle.  There would be protection for the crew to reload.  There would be room to carry a larger number of missiles and not take up more of the limited space that the Inf Section already uses or the Surv Suite in a Coyote.


----------



## a_majoor

A fire and forget system to snap shoot hard targets that the 25mm cannot deal with has some utility, but the more I think on it the worse the idea of a TOW or FOG-M (my suggestion a few posts back) looks.

The commander or gunner will need to be able to "shoot from the hip" when the bunker unmasks or the tank rolls around the corner, which eliminates about 99% of the missiles out there. Even a Javelin needs a few moments for the seeker to get to operating temperature and lock on, and a Starstreak has the KE of a 40mm round, better than a 25mm, but not by that much...Conceptual missiles like mini-LOSAT *might* be able to fill the role if these issues are addressed.

A better alternative may be to go to a larger gun that can deal with the problem, in calibres like 60-75mm. Burst fire weapons of that size have been demonstrated as far back as the 1980's, and ideas like telescoped ammunition make storing and handling the ammunition practical in a medium vehicle. Large calibre rounds can also be more versatile; APDSFS for armour, HEAT-MP for hard and soft targets and HE for blasting holes in walls. This is also the calibre that smart rounds with useful warhead sizes are possible (mini versions of TERM and STAFF).


----------



## Kirkhill

I guess I'm going to plough old ground here.

Adding a pair of ATGMs to the outside of the LAV would give the Platoon Commander 8 rounds to launch before anybody had to reload anything.  They wouldn't be the VC's wpns but the Pl Cmdr's weapons.

But that would be true if the Pl were given a TUA to accompany the Pl on Patrol.  And with the TUA you have another vehicle to fuel and maintain and another driver, commander and gunner to feed.

I'm not thinking of a high intensity conflict here, not even HEAT rounds for AT engagements, just 8 of those 462 RF Bunkerbuster TOWs that were purchased for the TUAs.

I know we disagree....


Cheers.


----------



## KellGunner

I am seeing a few interesting ideas.

1) That adding a missile capability to the LAV-III is more of quick shot idea, which makes sense, to have reloads with the vehicle takes up space (TOW missiles are not small by any means)) and its dangerous to reload the system due to it not being under armour

2)  That a sort of missile system under armour is needed.

3) Tactics would have to be hammered out if indeed these vehicles were to have the capability.

What i am thinking is that the vehicle has 2 missiles (pick a system that would be compatible with the LAV) no more no less, it does not make sense to pack more as it may not be needed but you can always get more through the CQ or SQ.  I think its a good idea that the Pl Commander be in charge of commanding the us of these wepaons unless its a direct threat say from a tank no one saw.  Like its been said it gives the Pl Commander 8 missiles to use instead of the Vehicle Commander with just 2 plus reloads (which as I states probably wouldnt be a good idea unless the LAV-III was enlarged to accommodate a few extra missiles).


----------



## Kirkhill

If not the TOW (too heavy, too big, too few, too expensive - although we seem to have already bought them) then how about the 70 mm APKWS  (a 7 pack instead of 2 TOW - or perhaps a mix of APKWS and TOW distributed throughout the Pl/Tp)?

Note the comments about the marines in Fallujah wrt the capabilities of the 70mm.  And they are (or used to be) manufactured in Canada by Bristol Aerospace as the CRV-7.

And Thucydides....I've given up on the FOG-M, just as the US had.  The Netfires system promised to be more useful than FOG-M with greater capabilities so the FOG-M got scrapped.

Then the Netfires system got scrapped as well.....something about birds in the hand and bushes.


----------



## Kirkhill

And Bristol still does manufacture the CRV-7, as well as the CRV-PG in concert with Kongsberg:  A 12 km precision guided missile with AP and HE warheads that can be launched from the back of a Honda ATC apparently.


----------



## a_majoor

Just because the US has set aside the FOG-M does not mean anyone else has.

Gill/Spike and Dandy are Israeli FOG-M's, Brazil offers the Avibras FOG-MPM and the EU has the Polyphem with a range of 60km, an artillery weapon.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Maybe we just need a bolt-on 84 mm recoilless remote weapon system. Existing ammunition supply. Known weapons effects. With two or more barrels it could provide that desired bunker-busting capability and optimize the 84mm system for maximum range engagements without having section or platoon commanders get led into thinking they are ready to go toe-to-toe with MBTs.


----------



## chrisf

Crazy thought, but as long as it actually was the ammunition already inventory, it wouldn't expand the supply chain at all, and it gives dismounted troops the option dismounting the ammo as well...


----------



## George Wallace

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Maybe we just need a bolt-on 84 mm recoilless remote weapon system. Existing ammunition supply. Known weapons effects. With two or more barrels it could provide that desired bunker-busting capability and optimize the 84mm system for maximum range engagements without having section or platoon commanders get led into thinking they are ready to go toe-to-toe with MBTs.



Now this is getting to be a discussion that SPARKY would get into.


----------



## chrisf

No... wait... 84mm... T-LAVs... I think you're on to a brilliant idea here... T-LAVs can swim can't they?


----------



## a_majoor

Change Carl Gustav to AT-4 (more specifically an AT-4 CS [confined space]) which would be more appropriate as a fire and forget system mounted on the turret. The CS version would not cause so much damage to the vehicle or nearby dismounts, but the AT-4 does have limited range (@350m), unless it comes with a RAP round preloaded now. Even using turret optics, stabilization and the mass of the vehicle to brace the weapon, it is hard to imagine the effective range being farther than 600m, or more than 1500m if a RAP round exists.

I doubt the crew would be too interested in rolling up to 300m of a potential target that the 25mm is unable to deal with, but the basic idea would work with a longer ranged warhead.


----------



## DirtyDog

It's funny because I've seen several US Stryker commanders roll around with AT-4s up in their cupola.  Made me feel inadequate with just my pistol and rifle.

But then, they were often jealous of the 25.....

As far as the TOW on a LAV turret, how hard would it be to intergrate like on the Bradley?


----------



## George Wallace

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> As far as the TOW on a LAV turret, how hard would it be to intergrate like on the Bradley?



It's not hard at all.  It will add extra width and weight to the turret and therefore the vehicle.  It will remove approx four dismounts from the back.  It is too easy to do, but are the trade offs really worth it?


----------



## AC 011

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It's not hard at all.  It will add extra width and weight to the turret and therefore the vehicle.  It will remove approx four dismounts from the back.  It is too easy to do, but are the trade offs really worth it?



Actually, this was done several years ago.  Two integrated TOW launchers - one tube on either side of the turret.  Width impact to the vehicle as a whole was zero as the launchers were installed in place of the side racks.  Demos were done for a couple of countries, but none (as far as I know) were ever put into service.  Weight, crew, loss of other stowage space - not to mention $$ - probably had much to do with the decisions at the time.  If it's wanted, it would not be hard to dust it off, give it an upgrade to today's standards and drop it in.


----------



## DirtyDog

Andy011 said:
			
		

> Actually, this was done several years ago.  Two integrated TOW launchers - one tube on either side of the turret.  Width impact to the vehicle as a whole was zero as the launchers were installed in place of the side racks.  Demos were done for a couple of countries, but none (as far as I know) were ever put into service.  Weight, crew, loss of other stowage space - not to mention $$ - probably had much to do with the decisions at the time.  If it's wanted, it would not be hard to dust it off, give it an upgrade to today's standards and drop it in.


That's along the lines I was thinking.


----------



## a_majoor

Looking at the historical reasons for putting the TOW launcher on the M-2 really does not provide any reasons for us doing it today.

When the M-2 was being designed (mid to late 1970's), the overwhelming threat was mass armour attacks by Soviet forces, and the TOW handily outranged the 100 and 115mm cannons common on the T-55 and T-62 tanks in the Soviet inventory. For commanders faced with fighting a defensive battle against overwhelming odds, the extra firepower was welcome, and the trade offs seemed to be worth it.

Today, the vehicles no longer face overwhelming enemy tank formations, nor are the commanders  part of an integrated defense position, or for that matter, they will not be able to snipe enemy armour before the enemy can fire back. True there are threats the on board 25mm chain guns cannot deal with, and there may come a time when we will face a peer enemy with armour, but even then the TOW strapped top the side does not seem to be the appropriate response, given factors like range and the long time of flight (do you really want to sit exposed while the missile flies to target?). Any current solution needs to be very fast (acquire target, fire and time of flight)  and have enough range to keep the firing platform outside the effective range of their targets.

Various potential solutions exist, including fire and forget missiles with extended ranges, Kinetic Energy weapons like LOSAT that can be fired "from the hip", replacing the 25mm turret with a cannon armed turret (60mm to 105mm is possible) or bulking up the combat team with more dedicated platforms to fire missiles or cannon at DF targets. Each solution has its own pluses and minuses, something to keep in mind.


----------



## NavyShooter

I'll jump out of my lane for a sec with a quick question.

What capability are we currently lacking that this would provide?

If there is no well defined capability gap, why would we do it?

NS


----------



## dan7108

Not really qualified to speak on this topic, but I just happened to watch something that may be of interest.

http://www.history.ca/video/default.aspx

Greatest Tank Battles: "The Battle of 73 Easting"

Start watching around 1/2 way through the episode.


----------



## GnyHwy

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Today, the vehicles no longer face overwhelming enemy tank formations, nor are the commanders  part of an integrated defense position, or for that matter, they will not be able to snipe enemy armour before the enemy can fire back. True there are threats the on board 25mm chain guns cannot deal with, and there may come a time when we will face a peer enemy with armour, but even then the TOW strapped top the side does not seem to be the appropriate response, given factors like range and the long time of flight (do you really want to sit exposed while the missile flies to target?). Any current solution needs to be very fast (acquire target, fire and time of flight)  and have enough range to keep the firing platform outside the effective range of their targets.



I agree a lot with this.  In a defensive, it is a no brainer to have missiles, but in a meeting engagement, or offensive, they don't make sense to me.  It would be interesting to see a simulation to see if the ATGMs would have any positive effect;  they might even have a negative effect, for the reasons mentioned above by Thucydides. 

A tank round is fired at about 1800m/s, an ATGM is less than 300m/s.


----------



## McG

Since we're bringing this thread back to life after 2.5 years...


			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Remember, if you mount a TOW on the turret of a Coyote or a LAV III, you also have to store extra missiles.  As is, there is limited space for the Inf Section, and even less with a Surv Suite.





			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> And the question still stands:  Who is going to reload while under fire?


The question should not have still been standing as the answer was provided to you ~ 3 years prior.  Mounting TOW (or any heavy missile system) on a LAV does not immediately require that the system be re-loadable under fire nor even that there be re-load missiles inside the vehicle.


			
				MCG said:
			
		

> I think the idea of missiles on the LAV is excellent.  I think we also need to think of missiles more broadly than just anti-tank.  Each launcher type should have a range of potential payloads.  Top-attack TOW is probably not the way to go for grape-hut smashing.  However, a missile carrying a HESH or Thermobaric warhead would have smashed those things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> George Wallace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ArmyRick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a version of the Delco turret that has a TOW launcher on either side. …  I would like to know why we didn't do that in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> The missiles would have taken up room inside and cut down on the Dismounts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Missiles only would have displaced dismounts if the basic load exceeded what was in the tubes.  Each vehicle could carry two ready to fire missiles.  Reloading would occur only in a leaguer with missiles carried by the echlon.  Dedicated missile vehicles would carry additional missiles & the ability to reload under armour.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> George Wallace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ArmyRick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a version of the Delco turret that has a TOW launcher on either side. …  I would like to know why we didn't do that in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You would have to expose yourself to reload.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So don’t reload in contact.  Keep dedicated missile vehicles (like TUA) for this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> George Wallace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ArmyRick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a version of the Delco turret that has a TOW launcher on either side. …  I would like to know why we didn't do that in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The addition of a missile system to the turret, would have encouraged crews to take more chances in engaging MBTs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The solution to this is training.  Train the crews not to take chances engaging tanks.  Train the crews when to engage tanks and when not to engage tanks.  Otherwise, we may as well use this argument to get rid of SRAAW(L) and SRAAW(M).
Click to expand...

The actual question is why do we want the missiles on the vehicle.  Turning the LAV (or even the CCV for that matter) into a tank-hunting section carrier is not going to work.  However, a couple ready-to-fire missiles will do the trick if we want to increase the fire support the LAV is able to provide against fortified targets and if we want to provide an ability for the LAV to self-defend against a tank.


----------



## Infanteer

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> I agree a lot with this.  In a defensive, it is a no brainer to have missiles, but in a meeting engagement, or offensive, they don't make sense to me.  It would be interesting to see a simulation to see if the ATGMs would have any positive effect;  they might even have a negative effect, for the reasons mentioned above by Thucydides.
> 
> A tank round is fired at about 1800m/sec, an ATGM is less than 300m/s.



The suitability of a system for defensive engagements due to its characteristics does not preclude its use in an offensive scenario.  German formations in the Second World War commonly saw armoured units get the credit for decisive offensives when, in fact, it was the judicious manoeuvre of bulky, fixed anti-armour systems such as the 88.


----------



## ArmyRick

The 88 was a devasting peice of kit for ground and air targets.


----------



## Infanteer

Yes, and it was frequently used decisively on offensive operations.  It would be manouevred into a position on the advance where it could best support armour.


----------



## Kirkhill

An alternative to the Hellfire/TOW/Javelin series of Heavy AT weapons (1 or 2 on the outside), is strapping on a 4-Pack, or even a 7 Pack of DAGR-CRV7s / APKWS.

4x7 would mean 28 70mm missiles with 4.8 lb of Comp B HE, range (stationary mount) 8 km, velocity 700 m/s in a 4 car Troop.

DAGR


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Unless you guys have commanded an AFV, I'd suggest you tone things a bit.

A Crew Commander has enough stuff on his plate moving and fighting his AFV without you adding more shit for him to worry about.


----------



## Kirkhill

recceguy said:
			
		

> Unless you guys have commanded an AFV, I'd suggest you tone things a bit.
> 
> A Crew Commander has enough stuff on his plate moving and fighting his AFV without you adding more crap for him to worry about.



Heard.


----------



## McG

recceguy said:
			
		

> Unless you guys have commanded an AFV, I'd suggest you tone things a bit.


I've done it.  I'd still want the option of putting a heavy missile down-range.  My only preference is that my vehicle (not a dedicated AT platform) not have to guide the missile all the way to its target.  For that reason, Javelin & Gill become preferable to TOW.


----------



## McG

Adding to my last, I very recently found my LAV on the objective with a square combat team (including Leo C2 and Leo 2A4M CAN) after the tanks had punched when a simulated T72 revealed itself back to the right.  Despite all the 25 mm fire that would have quickly engaged that threat, the lack of any missile on the LAV would have made that a very bad day for the CF had it not been an exercise.

A few days later in the middle of a BG attack, I watched as one surviving simulated T72 of the counter-moves force snuck in from the depth of the rifle companies (well behind the two tank squadrons) and spent several min roving around before the crew were told to give-up & play dead.  Once again, this would have made for one very bad day for the CF.

Against a near-peer and even with tanks around, we will want the ability for our LAV to self-defend against a tank (and there are probably a few others recently returned from Wainwright who can confirm this).  In a counterinsurgency, we have already seen that it is desirable & occasionally necessary for our LAV to be able to defeat strong fortifications.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

MCG said:
			
		

> Adding to my last, I very recently found my LAV on the objective with a square combat team (including Leo C2 and Leo 2A4M CAN) after the tanks had punched when a simulated T72 revealed itself back to the right.  Despite all the 25 mm fire that would have quickly engaged that threat, the lack of any missile on the LAV would have made that a very bad day for the CF had it not been an exercise.
> 
> A few days later in the middle of a BG attack, I watched as one surviving simulated T72 of the counter-moves force snuck in from the depth of the rifle companies (well behind the two tank squadrons) and spent several min roving around before the crew were told to give-up & play dead.  Once again, this would have made for one very bad day for the CF.
> 
> Against a near-peer and even with tanks around, we will want the ability for our LAV to self-defend against a tank (and there are probably a few others recently returned from Wainwright who can confirm this).  In a counterinsurgency, we have already seen that it is desirable & occasionally necessary for our LAV to be able to defeat strong fortifications.



Guess that when you get the guys on the back deck with the 84....

 ;D


----------



## Infanteer

MCG said:
			
		

> I've done it.  I'd still want the option of putting a heavy missile down-range.  My only preference is that my vehicle (not a dedicated AT platform) not have to guide the missile all the way to its target.  For that reason, Javelin & Gill become preferable to TOW.



+1.  The Bradley is a perfect example of how an added missile system can be a great capability in a pinch.


----------



## a_majoor

McG has some great examples as to why a "shoot from the hip" system would be so valuable. Accepting shorter the shorter range of systems like Javelin or Gill/Spike vs the TOW or HELLFIRE allows the dismounts to take advantage of the system as well (the section can always dismount and carry the Javelin or Gill/Spike, but this would be much harder with heavy missiles like TOW, HELLFIRE or LOSAT).

The other way to go with future versions of the LAV would be to upgun the turret to 40mm (especially 4omm CTA, which is much more compact). This would give the vehicle on board firepower to deal with virtually all target sets from dismounted infantry in the open to APC's and field fortifications, as wel as providing a limited amount of protection against helicopters, UAV's and low flying aircraft.


----------



## DirtyDog

recceguy said:
			
		

> Unless you guys have commanded an AFV, I'd suggest you tone things a bit.
> 
> A Crew Commander has enough stuff on his plate moving and fighting his AFV without you adding more crap for him to worry about.


I have and I'd definitely support the idea of a missle system for all the relevant reasons that have been mentioned.

When guys bitch to me from the turret about how rough things are, I often ask them if they'd like to join us on the ground.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

In a conventional  war, life in the turret of a LAV may be very interesting and short.


----------



## Underway

Now now, if you guys get a missile you might be tempted to use it!


----------



## GnyHwy

Missles are deliberate.  Guns are now.


----------

