# Your LAV-TUAs Have Been Ordered - 33 by May 2006



## Kirkhill (24 Aug 2004)

> GD Awarded $23 Million Modification to Previously Awarded Canadian LAV III Contract
> 
> 
> (Source: General Dynamics; issued Aug. 23, 2004)
> ...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (24 Aug 2004)

Are they using 33 exisiting LAVIII chassis and putting on the TUA or is it 33 new build LAVIII chassis with a modified TUA?


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Aug 2004)

Good question.  I don't know.  I think it is the latter, refurbed turret on a new LAV III.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (24 Aug 2004)

Refurbished from where?



Matthew.   ???


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (24 Aug 2004)

I would assume from the M113 TUAs that are already in service.


----------



## Jungle (24 Aug 2004)

> will manufacture 33 LAV III TOW Under Armour vehicles equipped with refurbished and upgraded Kvaerner Eureka Armoured Launching Turrets.


From the article, it seems they will build the new chassis, and put existing turrets on them.


----------



## Gobsmacked (24 Aug 2004)

Jungle said:
			
		

> From the article, it seems they will build the new chassis, and put existing turrets on them.



Yes, refurbished/upgraded TUA out of the final batch of LAV-III ordered.
Contract covers Integration/Installation fee.

Per a 2003 BN, _'CONCEPT FOR PROCUREMENT OF THE US MOBILE GUN SYSTEM [MGS]'_
_"All ISC, CP and FOO vehicles have been built and purchased leaving 71 TUA_ (now 33 TUA & 33 MMEV-ADATS) _+ 39 PNR = 110 vehicles yet to be procured."_


----------



## Fusaki (25 Aug 2004)

Forgive my ignorance, but is there any reason TUA is better then the 105mm gun on a Stryker or vice versa? I'm under the impression that both weapons are designed for tank busting, but could someone give me a quick rundown of the benefits and downsides of each system? Does the Stryker shoot faster? Does TOW have a longer range?

Thanks.


----------



## 30 for 30 (25 Aug 2004)

TOW has better range than MGS. The data I have seen (http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/databases/mbt/mbt.asp#maxrange) suggests that TOW can beat any Soviet/Chinese tank in terms of range with its 3750m max flight, while I don't think MGS can out-range much, making it more suited to bunker-busting etc. This would suggest to me that TUAs are as important in the future DFS Regiment as MGS. I'm not sure an MGS 105mm could defeat many modern tanks. I've read that a common round will have a hard time penetrating the frontal armour of a T-72, and I believe this is why even our Leo C2s are not suitable for modern tank warfare.
The downside of TOW is the frequent reloading necessary. It also cannot "fire and forget", meaning the TUA makes itself vulnerable. 
Oh for a full regiment of Leo 2A6s...


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (25 Aug 2004)

RNW said:
			
		

> Oh for a full regiment of Leo 2A6s...



I'm pretty sure with British restructuring, there will be a good number of Challenger 2's we could pick up for a song.





Matthew.  ???


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Aug 2004)

Maybe some sort of Joint Training Establishment at BATUS in Suffield could be organized as well?   If we didn't want to be seen as being too inter-operable with the Americans.  Unfortunately we don't seem to want to be too interoperable with anybody.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (25 Aug 2004)

Call me crazy, but I still like the idea of the Commonwealth Brigade.

At the very least it would force compatibility of key systems with our British and Australian Allies, which
in turn pretty much guarantees compatibilty with the USA.




Matthew.


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Aug 2004)

Might have to spot a Battalion to the French Foreign Legion as well to get that accepted.   ;D


----------



## Big Bad John (26 Aug 2004)

It seems that a great many British Army armoured vehicles are fast becoming available...perhaps we Marines might even get enough to come up to strength of our TO&E.

Canadian Forces have been consistantly training with us at BATUS.


----------

