# Army Technology.com indicating Canada has ordered Javelin ATGM????



## Cdn Blackshirt (9 Nov 2004)

Specifically it indicates 200 Launchers and 840 Missiles to be acquired.

Has this been formally announced?

Link:   *http://www.army-technology.com/projects/javelin/*




Matthew.   ???

P.S.   I really hope this is true....


----------



## foerestedwarrior (9 Nov 2004)

I was under the impressino that we had the javelin for quite a while, maby this is just increasing the arsenal.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Nov 2004)

Perhaps you are confusing the British Javelin Surface to Air Missile which we operate with the American Javelin Anti-Tank Missile which we have trialled.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (9 Nov 2004)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Perhaps you are confusing the British Javelin Surface to Air Missile which we operate with the American Javelin Anti-Tank Missile which we have trialled.



So is that a "yes" or a "no"?   

I certainly find it strange that the manufacturer would list such specific numbers if an order hadn't been placed.



Matthew.     ???


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Nov 2004)

Don't know on your point Blackshirt, sorry.

I do know that about a year ago the US issued a standard form saying that they authorized sales of Javelins to Canada in those kinds of amounts, but that didn't mean that Canada had bought them just that Canada could by them.

It seems to me that Ammotech 90 said that it was trialled against the Spike and did well but that no final decision had been made. 

I was just trying to sort out what seemed to be confusion on forestedwarriors part.

Cheers.


----------



## Da_man (9 Nov 2004)

Is this a replacement for the Carl G, or is it to be used for tank hunting?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (9 Nov 2004)

Sorry Kirkhill,

Seems I had a wee bit of a brainfart on that last post.   I meant to simply reply instead of quoting.   :-[

....but based on your responses, the short version is we're authorized to buy that number but still haven't signed anything?

Correct?

Thanks again,



Matthew.   ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Nov 2004)

Not to my knowledge.  


Anybody else know anything different?


----------



## Bartok5 (10 Nov 2004)

The ALAAWS Trial is still ongoing.  No procurement decision has been made, although I have been told by credible sources that Javelin has the edge over Gil for a variety of performance and procurement-related reasons.  There won't be a final decision leading to procurement for quite some time yet.  Once the trials selection is made (possibly in 05), the procurement process will take at least several more years to wind its way through Treasury Board approval and the molasses-like machinations of federal government contracting.  ALAAWS is definitely coming, but it won't be for a while yet......


----------



## Guardian (10 Nov 2004)

It's not the surface-to-air missile Javelin - the Army's planning on scaling back or phasing out that weapons system entirely. Air Defence is probably going all ADATS. Besides, 200 launchers would be far too many for our present requirements...


----------



## ArmyRick (16 Nov 2004)

If we acquire javelin, then I see it being the primary anti-tank dismounted Wpn
-fire and forget (operator ducks after launch)
-very fast time of flight (important)
-top attack missile

Now if the CF would only speed it up and get them because i want to fire one !!!


----------



## Matt_Fisher (17 Nov 2004)

Mark C said:
			
		

> The ALAAWS Trial is still ongoing.   No procurement decision has been made, although I have been told by credible sources that Javelin has the edge over Gil for a variety of performance and procurement-related reasons.   There won't be a final decision leading to procurement for quite some time yet.   Once the trials selection is made (possibly in 05), the procurement process will take at least several more years to wind its way through Treasury Board approval and the molasses-like machinations of federal government contracting.   ALAAWS is definitely coming, but it won't be for a while yet......



Mark is quite right on this one.  The major obstacle is the procurement details.  I was at a dinner party last saturday night and another one of the guests attending is with Public Works and Services at the Canadian Embassy here in DC and is specifically working on defence acquisitions.  This person told me that right now, there are a lot of hurdles in terms of coming to a meeting place between the requirements set forth by US Foreign Military Sales and Public Works in terms of Canadian content and development of the Javelin.  The US wants the system sold pretty much off the shelf, whereas Canada wants a certain portion of the system developed and manufactured in Canada.  Until the red tape is ironed out, the Javelin cannot be purchased.

Gotta love bureaucracy... :


----------



## AmmoTech90 (17 Nov 2004)

See this post for a bit more info...

http://army.ca/forums/threads/18443/post-94972.html#msg94972


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (24 Nov 2004)

Man a replacement for the Carl G would be great... since the Carl G is pretty much totally useless nowadays against 90% of the tanks on todays battlefield. Unless somehow your a godlike shot, and hit a tank coming up hill.... facing you... and it hasnt noticed you for some reason .... because its thermal and infra red are disabled... just because... and the drver is drunk and not paying attention... then maybe you could succeed  ;D


----------



## Bartok5 (25 Nov 2004)

JMackenzie,

You need to broaden your horizons and gain a bit more experience before spouting off about the continued utility of specific weapon systems.   Your comments regarding the 84mm quite clearly illustrate my point.   We all know that the Carl Gustav is largely incapable of obtaining a catstrophic kill against the latest generation of MBTs.   However, who is to say that we will necessarily be fighting an enemy equipped with T-92, M1A2 Abrams, Leclerc, Challenger II, Leopard II, etc?   Indeed, the likelihood of Canadian soldiers facing such an enemy force is remote in the extreme.   More likely, the current and anticipated operating environment will see Canadian elements faced with a non-peer, asymmetric enemy force perhaps (perhaps!) equipped with "monkey model" T-55s or T-72s.   

Notwithstanding the above, the issue of the 84mm's utility against main battle tanks is largely irrelevant.   We have the TOW and ERYX missile systems to deal with tanks, and will (hopefully soon) be augmenting those systems with ALAAWS.   The tanks that we realistically expect to face are not a problem.     The ERYX and ALAAWS will quite capably deal with the limited MBT threat.   Neither of those missile-based AT systems replaces the Carl Gustav.   

The predominant threat to Canadian soldiers on operations for the foreseeable future is Light Armoured Vehicles, armed "Technical" vehicles, VBIEDs, bunkers, caves, buidlings and other "hard targets".   The 84mm is ideal against those types of targets, and is far more applicable to short-range operations in complex/urban terrain than any of the current and planned AT missile systems.   The Carl Gustav's portability, comparative light weight, high rate of fire, wide range of ammo natures, mechanical simplicity, reliability, etc, make it one of the most versatile support weapons within the infantry inventory.   There is a reason that the U.S. Army Rangers purchased the M3 Carl Gustav in the 1990s.   There is a simiilar reason why the USMC retain similar capability in their SMAW.   All of that to say, you won't see the 84mm replaced by anything in the Canadian inventory for quite some time.   It is simply too useful and well-suited to our needs.

If your logic held true and the only reason for having anti-armour weapons was to destroy enemy tanks, then I might agree that the 84mm is past its prime.   Unfortunately, your comments are based on the false assumption that the Carl Gustav need be capable of destroying modern MBTs.   That is most definitely not the case.     Your apparent lack of understanding about extant threats within the modern operating environment and the relevant capabilities and limitations of infantry support weapons suggests to me that perhaps you should sit back and listen for a while, or at least stick to subjects that you know.....


----------



## Infanteer (25 Nov 2004)

No kidding.  As a former 84 Gunner, I can attest to the fact that its simplicity and versatility as a man-packed recoilless rifle[/i] provides the dismounted infantryman (or CS and CSS troops who may need some firepower in a pinch) with an excellent source of immediately available destructive power that the other small arms of the platoon are unable to provide.  As Mark C pointed out, this versatility extends to threats such as caves, bunkers, "technicals", buildings, and other hardened points - all from a weapon that is simple, relatively light, cheap, and very man portable.  As such, I can see it remaining in the hands of the infantryman for a while.

JMackenzie, as Mark C said, you'd probably be better off to stick to reading and learning then providing the board with all the tactical advice you derived from your DP1 course.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Nov 2004)

The Carl G is even more versatile in foreign service because of the huge variety of warheads you can get for it, the HEAT-RAP and HEDP combination the CF uses are only the tip of the iceberg. 

In another sadly disposed of issue of Infantry Journal, there was an article about a made in Canada device called "CLASS" which was an all in one day/night laser rangefinder sight with a built in ballistic computer. It could be fitted to a Carl G (among other weapons) and raised the first round hit probability by a huge amount, allowing the gunner to ring someone's bell at 1000m with a great deal of confidence. I have never heard of it again, anyone else have info?


----------



## Kal (7 Dec 2004)

I believe the CLASS aiming system was made by computing devices canada and was created in the early 90's.  I remember this from a Jane's Infantry weapons of the same time frame.  I would assume the system has been upgraded or replaced with a more effective sight, being that of the research and creation of the sighting system on Striker Grenade launcher, by CDC.  Other than that, you probably know just as much, if not more than I do.....


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Dec 2004)

http://www.gdc4s.com/Products/CDC/land/lightweight_video_sight.html

Good memory Kal.  It seems that CDC is still making it - they now call it a Lightweight Video Sight - good for any weapon ranging out to 2000m it seems, including the Striker 40 AGL.

IIRC the CLASS was also supposed to have been trialled by the Rangers at the same time as they acquired the CG84 Mk 3 with the fibre body.


----------



## CH1 (20 Jan 2005)

Here I thought the 84mm tube had already met its fate like the M72 & 3.5".  I thought that canada had already updated to the laser sight system on the 84.  This is terrible, I remember when the M72 & the CG came in.


----------



## MG34 (20 Jan 2005)

The Javelin is one of the systems that is in competition ,there are some issues with it that need ironing out first,the basic line is that we are waiting for the next generation to be produced and tested. One of the problems with the current javelin is that it cannot take the shock of being vehicle mounted,as one of the proposed roles is to have one mounted on the LAVIII turret in the manner that the Mlian has been mounted on the Marder 2,as a secondary armament to deal with tanks.Wether or not this requirement is dropped or not remains to be seen,but the latest info I have received is that the purchase will be put on hold until the next generation Javelin is perfected as the current system has some problems that require to be fixed.


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Jan 2005)

Funny how so many others seem to find it acceptable as is.

But after all, this is Canada.


----------



## MG34 (23 Jan 2005)

In it's current form it cannot take the shock of being vehicle mounted,the next version will be improved with regards to both that and FCS,no sense buying a system that will be obsolete in a couple of years now is there. :


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Jan 2005)

True enough, assuming that it will only take a couple of years to debug the system and that we don't have an urgent mission requirement.  Would it not be conceivable that we buy a few to be used now and then purchase more when the upgrades come available?  I realize we like to buy 30 years supply all at once, but do we have to?


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Jan 2005)

On the other hand I just read the article on the Spike in the current CDR.   If the Spike is all that it is cracked up to be in the article I can actually see the merits of the Spike over the Javelin.   Particularly the ability to see the target from the missile and use it as a recce tool as well as an offensive tool - fire and forget OR update in flight according to real time info.   Meanwhile the Spike (2000m) Spike-LR (4000m) Spike-ER (8000m) results in commonality of training and parts.

Has the Spike system been ruled out entirely?   Or are we essentially waiting to have the Javelin developed so that it can perform like the Spike?

Tucking head back in and deciding to try and not be a total idiot.   :-\


----------



## Mountie (3 Apr 2005)

My thoughts exactly.  Isn't the SPIKE a better system?  Couldn't the SPIKE LR or ER also replace the TUA systems?  The SPIKE ER would provide better range than the TOW II, it would allow for commonality between the man-portable system and it could also be mounted on a light vehicle than the LAV-III.  The Israeli site describes it as being mountable on light combat vehicles.  As you can see in the picture the remote vehicle mount system is much smaller and appears much lighter than the TUA turret.  Mounting the SPIKE ER on a vehicle like the Eagle IV would be much cheaper than the TUA on the LAV-III.  Therefore, more systems could be procured.  The Eagle IV / Spike ER could be used in conjuction with 40mm CASW or .50 cal M2's mounted in Protected Weapons Stations on the Eagle IV.   12 Spikes and 6 CASW/M2 HMG equipped Eagle IVs could be used as small, mobile, fast anti-armour/direct fire support/recce teams in each infantry battalion, like the USMC Combined Anti-Armour Teams (CAAT).


----------



## LordOsborne (4 Apr 2005)

Hi, i've been reading along and i've been wondering if the ALAAWS winner will replace the Eryx... I know we haven't exactly had them for very long, and it would be kind of silly to ditch them right away, but does it make sense to keep them as well?

i know the CF has its way of designating anti-armour systems (like the short range M-72, Carl-g and then the Eryx), but do we need a guided short range missile _and_ a guided long-range missile?

thanks for your input

pat


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (4 Apr 2005)

Well look at it this way LO...would you want to be short a capability if you were involved in a battle. 
*Sorry boys we can't engage those MBTs because the goverment under the direction of misguiuded opinion from the public removed our long range missiles, so we will have to keep being decimated until they come with in range*

or

*The tanks are in too close and our missiles don't have time to arm...wish we had some short range missiles*


----------



## McG (4 Apr 2005)

LordOsborne said:
			
		

> Hi, i've been reading along and i've been wondering if the ALAAWS winner will replace the Eryx... I know we haven't exactly had them for very long, and it would be kind of silly to ditch them right away, but does it make sense to keep them as well?


ALAAWS is going to be a medium range system.  That will rule out the Eryx SRAAW(H).


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (4 Apr 2005)

So medium range weapons can be used for short range work as well without worrying about a distance for the fuze to be armed?


----------



## McG (4 Apr 2005)

I would imagine so, but I'm not familiar with either missile that is being considered.  However, the last I heard was that short range and medium range systems will be expected to complement eachother and not one replace the other (like the layerd approach that is being taken with our DFS system of systems).


----------



## AmmoTech90 (4 Apr 2005)

The real difference between short range and medium range now is cost, portability, and maximum range.  You can shoot a TOW at a target 65 metres away, Javelin at 50 metres, not whole lot of difference there as far as minimum ranges go.  None of the missiles in contention are individual weapons, they all need 2-3 pers to carry a useful load.  On the other hand none of them are much bigger (and in some cases smaller) than Eryx so 1/section is possible.
I can see the CF going dropping the Eryx (SRAAR(H)) and replacing it with a MRAAW, the ALAAWS.  The ALAAWS will do everything Eryx can (and more) and at a longer range.
A replacement for the M72A5-C1 should also be in the works, something along the lines of AT4 I would think (SRAAW(L)).  Probably not guided and cheap enough to issue on the scale the M72 is now.
So that would leave SRAAW(L) - Disposable, SRAAW(M) - Carl G, MRAAW(L/M) - ALAAWS, MRAAW(H) - ITAS-TOW, ADATS as the rocket/missile systems.


----------



## LordOsborne (4 Apr 2005)

yeah, thanks for clearing that up, AmmoTech and co.


pat


----------



## baboon6 (5 Apr 2005)

Re the M72- the USMC is actually reintroducing it into service for use in Iraq. No armour threat there but it's great for taking out bunkers and buildings, and much lighter/portable than the AT4. There are also some interesting new M72 rounds, including thermobaric, look on the www.talleyds.com website (hope the URLs right).


----------



## Infanteer (6 Apr 2005)

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> A replacement for the M72A5-C1 should also be in the works, something along the lines of AT4 I would think (SRAAW(L)).   Probably not guided and cheap enough to issue on the scale the M72 is now.



Since the RPG-7 and it's variants have got so much notoriety n the last decade, I'm curious to know if any military forces are investigating a light and reloadable RPG-like weapons system to issue to individuals.

I know we've chucked the idea around in the Infantry forum a few times....


----------



## AmmoTech90 (6 Apr 2005)

Well theres the Carl G M3 - 10 kg vice the 6.3 of the RPG-7
Panzerfaust 3 12.9kg (all up including round), Israeli B-300 at 8 kg loaded, South African FT5 (11.3kg loaded).

So there's a few systems kicking around.  The problem with re-usable launchers I think is the ammo.  Give everyone a M72/AT4 and you have 8 weapons.  Give one person a Carl G and you have 1 weapon with the ammo scattered among the section.  Granted the reloadable launchers are usually more accurate and effective (AT4 being the exception but its a heavy long piece of kit), so there's trade offs in everything.


----------



## LordOsborne (7 Apr 2005)

AmmoTech, i have a question about the AT-4 for you. you said it's probably the exception where accuracy is concerned, but i took a look at Baboon6's link to Talley Defence and they claim it's incredibly accurate. what's the problem with the AT-4? 

thanks, 
pat


----------



## AmmoTech90 (7 Apr 2005)

What I meant is that the disposable AT4 is the exception to the rule that disposable launchers are less accurate and shorter ranged than reloadable ones.  The AT4 matches the range and accuracy of some reloadable launchers.  The LAW80 may fit in there too.  However these are the two largest disposable launchers I have ever seen though so obviously there is a trade off.


----------



## jdmarshall (7 Apr 2005)

ALAWS - Advanced Lightweight Anti-Armour Weapon System

http://www.merx.com/English/Supplier_Menu.asp?WCI=Form&WCE=Show&XID=696&State=7

W8476-050712/A
LaFleche, Monique
Telephone No. - (819) 997-8624
Fax No. - (819) 997-9685

Line1, GSIN:N1425AA, ALAWS

The Department of National Defence has a requirement for the
procurement and support of an Advanced Lightweight Anti-Armour
Weapon System (ALAWS) for the Canadian Land Forces.  The ALAWS
is required to provide an effective mid-range dismounted
fire-and-forget anti-armour weapon in support of light forces
operations.

This requirement is inclusive of the following:

a)	delivery of quantity one hundred and eighty-three (183)
firing post assemblies (FPA);
b)	delivery of quantity sixty-nine (69) outdoor trainers (OT);
c)	delivery of quantity seventy-seven (77) indoor trainers (IT);
d)	delivery of three hundred and eighteen (318) mechanical
trainers (MT);
e)	delivery of quantity eight hundred and forty (840) launch
tube assemblies (LTA);
f)	delivery of initial cadre operator and technician training;
g)	delivery of spares, special tools and test equipment and
training aids;
h)	delivery of logistic and optimized weapon support services
(OWSS);
i)	provision of as-required repair & overhaul services and field
service representatives; and
j)	delivery of all associated documentation and other related
support services.

The following requirements will be optional in any resultant
contract:

a)	delivery of quantity thirteen (13) FPA's, quantity four (4)
OT's, quantity three (3) IT's, and quantity twelve (12) MT's;
b)	additional operator and technician training courses; and
c)	additional OWSS.

Anticipated delivery period is to take place during the
forty-eight (48) months following contract award.

Additional information including the Statement of Work and
Performance Specification is available as part of the RFP
package and will be distributed through MERX.

This is an un-funded requirement.  Any resultant contract will
only be awarded upon approval and receipt of funding.
Delivery Date Required:


----------



## LordOsborne (7 Apr 2005)

wow, i misread that. thanks for the clear up AmmoTech  :blotto:


----------

