# Cavalry fighting vehicle inspired by the UAE



## a_majoor (20 Mar 2007)

Cavalry fighting vehicle inspired by the UAE

I read in a recent edition of Jane’s Defense Weekly that the UAE is considering a wheeled fighting vehicle to add a mobile, medium weight component to their force.

The design under consideration is the Finnish Patria AMV 8X8 mounting the complete BMP 3 turret. The vehicle is somewhat larger than a LAV III, mounts a 100mm main cannon, a 30mm automatic cannon and a coaxial machine gun. In addition to the three man crew it can also carry 8 fully equipped troops. All up weight is listed as 23.5 tonnes.

While the BMP 3 turret isn’t my idea of a proper fighting platform (how much ammunition can be held, how does the gunner work in such a confined space, how much protection is there?) the combination should raise some questions with us. Do we necessarily need a separate class of fire support vehicle? Would a combat team be more effective if all the combat vehicles could provide a degree of heavy firepower? Would increasing the amount of firepower available to the dismounted infantry make Urban Ops easier to conduct?

If a proper compact turret can be designed for LAV class vehicles that can pack heavy firepower for “when needed” situations (doesn’t have to involve a large caliber cannon, a bolt on rack of “fire and forget” missiles might do) then we have the potential in theory to create a Cavalry or Mounted Rifle type of formation. Each troop (or platoon if you prefer) has organic firepower, mobility and dismounted troops to patrol a wide area and deal with a fairly broad range of threats on their own.

This is an important consideration given the wide dispersion that is often found in today’s operations; sections and platoons can operate far outside of the range of their next higher level’s support weapons, or may need to transition seamlessly from (say) a CIMIC task to blasting an enemy force out of improvised strong points. A secondary consideration for deployed ops is a single unit with these attributes will not require the same large logistic and headquarters “overhead” as current battle groups created out of multiple units and formations. 

Our own LAV III has mobility, troop carrying capability and a fair amount of organic firepower. The prime lack is the ability to deal with hard point targets (which is what the 100mm cannon of the BMP 3 provides for the VDV and other members of the BMP 3 community). Western designers have a wide variety of guided missiles to choose from, such as the Javelin or the Gill/Spike family, or conceptually a mini LOSAT could do the trick as well. 
The commander needs to be able to “shoot from the hip” in fire and forget mode (for example when breaking an ambush), as well as having the option to deliberately engage targets (when shooting in an attack). I am picturing a launcher box with perhaps four missiles mounted in a convenient location on the turret, and adapting the FCS to provide target information hand-off between the missiles and the gunner. In the first Persian gulf war, American pilots learned to turn on the seeker heads of their Maverick missiles and feed the information from the missile back into the cockpit while the missile was still attached, making an improvised FLIR pod, so something similar could be done with a vehicle.

This might sound like a difficult proposition, but many of the “boxes” that bedevil the turret crew are not needed with a fire and forget missile, and I would take the position that many of the “boxes” could be placed on the hull floor or against the engine bulkhead; the key thing for the turret crew is the interface and a control panel/keyboard which everything else communicates to in the manner of a CI (or using Bluetooth; no need to have a vast wiring harness inside the vehicle). For that matter, many of the functions could be re written as software and the equivalent of a CF-28 Toughbook substitutes for many different pieces of hardware to create a more open and ergonomic turret.

In terms of use, the dismounted section could be tailored for the expected task and more ammunition or other equipment could be substituted in the rear compartment as needed. In low to medium threat density environments, a Cavalry or Mounted Rifle type force can operate independently shaping the battlespace, conducting convoy escort, rear area security and other operations short of a deliberate assault against prepared positions. The combination of speed, firepower and dismounted troops also gives the ability to perform the exploitation and pursuit tasks, and both mobile and fixed defense tasks can also be done as well.

The UAE’s experimental vehicle is only the latest and perhaps best developed example of this theme; the Merkava has the ability to hold up to a section when the rear ammunition racks are removed and the Centurio can hold a half section when its rear ammunition racks are removed. The M-3 Cavalry Fighting Vehicle version of the M-2 uses TOW missiles, for hard targets. The CV_CT turret carries a high pressure 105mm cannon and 16 rounds in the bustle for the autoloader, by deleting or shrinking the “wine rack” room for a half section might be found in a standard LAV III hull mounting that turret. 

Food for thought.


----------



## Trooper Hale (20 Mar 2007)

Havent we all seen that before though? M113 FSV/MRV's were used down here for a long time but eventually phased out. While the idea for a LAV FSV seems to be a good one, it would also require a lot of work and change for it to be employable in any role. Having the bigger weapon means that you cut the men out from being in the back, meaning you change the dynamic of the troop, meaning everything has to be reworked.
Whats the need for it? How many solid targets is Terry Taliban setting up for you to hit? While a 76mm or 100mm does have more kick then 25mm is there really a need for a bigger platform? Isnt that why the Leo's got sent over?  
I think that while it could be handy it isnt really feasible or overly useful in the scale of things.

EDIT! For the UAE this vehicle would be grand i suppose, i'm talking about a Canadian or Australian adaption.


----------



## Long in the tooth (20 Mar 2007)

Consider the UAE's biggest threat - the Saudis.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Mar 2007)

Piranha had a prototype 10x10 LAV with the GIAT turret on it mounting a French LP 105mm gun. This would seem to make sense for us as many of the parts would be common. They could use the gun from the MGS in the GIAT turret, but normally using a lower pressure round like HESH to aid in stability and lower wear and tear on the vehicle.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Mar 2007)

The question of dealing with hard targets is one of the reasons I found the UAE’s Cavalry Fighting Vehicle concept so interesting. We are dealing with enemy forces which can set up in improvised hard positions almost anywhere; walls, grape drying huts, houses; since the local construction is based around fairly thick brick and mud brick walls that are resistant to small arms fire.

The only way to deal with that today is bringing on heavy firepower in the form of tanks, attack helicopters, CAS or artillery, all of which require extra coordination, time and a bigger logistical tail being brought into the battle. This is fine when you are expecting it (a deliberate assault or advance to contact), but if you are doing something less aggressive (i.e. a presence patrol, escorting a CIMIC or PRT task) then driving around with tanks may not be the best plan. As well, LAV’s and tanks have very different mobility profiles, if you need to cover long distances quickly, then a LAV or something similar is much more appropriate. In those circumstances, the self contained ability to take out a hard target without waiting for help to arrive would be a great help to the troops on the ground.

These factors suggest a self contained Cavalry vehicle is an appropriate addition to the force mix, and like everything else it will be a compromise. A CFV will not have the same protection as a tank, nor will it house as many rounds of “heavy” ammunition as a DFSV, and perhaps it might not house as many troops as an APC/IFV. The design the UAE is considering clearly favors the mounted section, holding eight fully equipped troops. This implies that the BMP-3 turret only has whatever can be fitted into the ready racks, which given the size of the thing can’t be very much. On the other hand, the M-3 goes just the other way, holding only four dismounted scouts but carrying more TOW missiles and 25mm ammunition than the similar M-2.

This answers the second objection, a CFV does not need to be extensively redesigned from the parent vehicle. The M-3 is essentially an M-2 with extra internal stowage. The designer of the UAE proposal claimed the BMP 3 turret was fitted in an hour; a drop in modification. The CV_CT turret is also claimed to be a “drop in”, and if this is true, then we would have the ability to support the dismounted LAV section with 16 rounds of 105mm plus the coaxial machine gun without further work. Bolting on a launcher box of fire and forget missiles to the turret of a LAV is also a relatively simple modification with little direct impact on the mounted section.

More likely, changes to the mounted section would occur as a result of changes to TTP’s and doctrine. Extended patrols will require more on board stowage of rations and water, and a Cavalry unit might be deployed in more of a scouting/screening role, needing fewer dismounted troops.


----------



## KevinB (20 Mar 2007)

I have it on good authority that a mini-LOSAT is about 1M long and in the beta stage as being able to be a drop in (bolt on and soft and hardware upgrades)  to a LAV.  Makes an expensiive bunker buster or wall renovator but...


----------



## ArmyRick (20 Mar 2007)

I like the idea behind the BMP3 turret myself. Its creative and i am willing to bet the russians know a thing or two about what they were doing when the first built it.

100mm + 30mm + 7.62mm = Kick ass fire power combination IMO.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Mar 2007)

Having crawled through a BMP 1 & 2, I have no idea how they cramed it all in there.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Mar 2007)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Having crawled through a BMP 1 & 2, I have no idea how they cramed it all in there.



I would be pretty interested to see a crewman doing the "action" drill in a BMP-3, or watch them clear a stoppage. Things were pretty tight in a 1-M turret on a Grizzley, and it only mounted an M-2 and a GPMG C-5!

The idea of being able to deal with hard targets is the important thing here, so if the Canadian CFV snap shoots a missile or fires a 105mm cannon it is is more of a technicality than anything else.


----------



## ArmyRick (20 Mar 2007)

Art, what about a westernized version of a BMP3 turret? Put a highpowered 90mm, 7.62mm and 25mm chain gun? I am sure their are some creative engineer types out there who could make something like that work.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Mar 2007)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Art, what about a westernized version of a BMP3 turret? Put a highpowered 90mm, 7.62mm and 25mm chain gun? I am sure their are some creative engineer types out there who could make something like that work.



While I suppose it is possible, is it worth it when several off the shelf solutions are possible?

The important thing is to give the crew commander the ability to deal with a hard target, so a bolt on missile, a 105mm cannon, a BMP 3 turret or the crew commmander launching a nuclear hand grenade with a sling shot all provide different means to the same end. Western designed and built equipment is a known quantity, so I would favor that approach first unless there was no alternative.


----------



## Lance Wiebe (21 Mar 2007)

Keep in mind that the 100 mm on the BMP3 and the 105mm used on our tank have little in common.  The 100 mm cannon is a low pressure gun, more similar to the 76 of the cougar than the 105.  Art does have a good point, even a 100mm low pressure gun has a large enough shell to take out walls and such.

Personally, I like the idea of the drop in CT_CV turret better than trying to use a BMP3 turret.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Mar 2007)

This is the vehicle in IFV form. I havn't been able to google the picture of the version with the BMP 3 turret though....


----------



## a_majoor (28 Mar 2007)

If you have a good library or subscriber access on the web, the write up is in Jane's Defence Weekly; Feb 28 issue.

The vehicle was also diplayed at IDEX, but I didn't see a picture on that web site.

Happy hunting


----------



## brihard (30 Apr 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> If you have a good library or subscriber access on the web, the write up is in Jane's Defence Weekly; Feb 28 issue.
> 
> The vehicle was also diplayed at IDEX, but I didn't see a picture on that web site.
> 
> Happy hunting



If I'm not mistaken, Jane's is accessible in its entirety through the DIN.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (30 Apr 2007)

Here's a pic of it swimming, so pretty much all you can see is the turret...


----------



## Rowshambow (30 Apr 2007)

Having seen (prob like most of you) the BMP 2 Fire, I like it! They treat it as... well a machine gun (I know a novel idea). I like the 1 round ranging, and then the volley of 30 to 40 rounds, yes the chance of hitting the same spot twice is low, but it (like our 25mm) is a big machine gun! Now some of you will argue, the reason we only use the 3 round burst is to reduce barrel wear, droop etc. but really, lets use it for what it is!
I would like to see how they place all the ammo for the BMP3 turret, I have done my time on Leo's, Coyote's, Couger's and Griz's, and cannot fathom how to put all that ammo in a small turret! It is nice to know that you do have a variety if needed!


----------



## McG (12 May 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I have it on good authority that a mini-LOSAT is about 1M long and in the beta stage as being able to be a drop in (bolt on and soft and hardware upgrades)  to a LAV.  Makes an expensiive bunker buster or wall renovator but...


LOSAT is a kinetic Energy penetrator.  It would be a very expensive way to make very small holes in the walls or bunkers.  Not very helpfull though.  Something that uses explosive energy on the target is required.



			
				Hale said:
			
		

> While the idea for a LAV FSV seems to be a good one, it would also require a lot of work and change for it to be employable in any role.


The US Army has close to 30 of such a vehicle in Iraq now.  It is called the MGS.


----------



## a_majoor (17 May 2007)

Considering the drubbing the MGS concept got on this forum, I suspect calls to bring it into Canadian service will be met with a sharp blow to the head!

MGS seems to be one of those "it seemed like a good idea at the time" programs, and the primary problem is not so much the concept of a cannon armed LAV (since it is pretty close to the idea of the CFV mooted here), but rather the technical execution. The other drawback is the MGS is to be employed as an infantry support weapon in the SBCT, where it's limited armour and ammunition stowage are huge disadvantages when you are getting up close and personal with the enemy.

Mini LOSAT is just one possible solution to turning a regular LAV III into a CFV, the advantages are the ability to "snap shoot" a target, but the disadvantages are as noted. Another possible add-on would be the "Starstreak" missile, which moves at supersonic speed and covers 6000m in under 5 seconds. There is a considerable amount of KE and Starstreak is very small aand inexpensive, it is designed as a SAM but can also destroy ground targets like "Technicals" and M-113, although it would have even less utility as a bunker buster.
I would favor the Gill/Spike system, since it has a fire and forget mode, but also works as a FOG-M with the operator guideing it onto the target, and can take out bunkers and AFV's using its HEAT warhead.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Jul 2007)

Thinking about the issue of a CFV, perhaps the most practical solution is to look to improvements in cannon arnament.

We have seen discussions of the CV-CT turret in the Armour board, so we know it is possible to make a versatile turret with a high angle gun mount. The CV-CT is designed to mount a 105mm high pressure cannon with an autoloader and 16 ready rounds in the bustle (and 16 or more in the hull). The 105 has more than enough kinetic energy to deal with any target short of a tank, and 105mm rounds are available in most natures (HEAT, HEAT-MP, HESH, HE, Flechette, Smoke....) so there are plenty of tools available.
Longer term, sensor fused munitions or "smart" rounds would allow the CFV to go after a wider range of targets, and cooperative targeting and the "battlefield internet" can reveal targets that the CFV can reach using indirect fire, smart rounds or a combination of the two.

As an alternative, a smaller calibre cannon (the 60mm hypervelocity cannon or the ARES 75mm cannon prototyped in the 1980's) provides most of the same benefits. These weapons are/were designed to fire single shots and three round bursts, which might be more useful in "snap shooting" engagements in complex terrain. A 60 or 75mm HE round would still have pretty devastating effect on unarmoured targets, there is plenty of KE vs bunkers and targets up to IFV's, and this sort of weapon could have secondary use vs helicopters and aircraft with a cooperative targetting system and something like AHEAD ammunition. The smaller size of the rounds means more ammunition can be carried both in the bustle and in the vehicle as well. 

I am going to back off the mounting of weapons like FOG-M on the CFV, since it would make more sense to have them in support vehicles, while the CFV has the sensors and high speed firepower to deal with LOS targets. Yes, it can shoot a sensor fused munition over the crest of a hill, but this would be the way of dealing with a "meeting engagement" or to break contact.


----------



## Bearpaw (26 Jul 2007)

It is very interesting how similar the ideas of a_majoor are to some of my amateurish musings(I have no membership connection to CAF).

After a lot of reading on this and other boards/blogs I think that the LAV III vehicles could be made more effective by rearming some of them with a variety of weapons: 60mm HVGS, 35mm Gun, 60mm gun/mortar, automatic grenade launchers.  

A mechanized patrol unit(infantry platoon + LAV troop) could then deploy as follows:

Mechanized Patrol Unit (Captain + 2 Lt., 55 OR)

	2 LAV III-25mm					3+8(Commander, gunner, Drvr, Infantry section)
	2 LAV III-AGL + MG           			3+8(Commander, gunner, Drvr, Infantry section)
        1 LAV III-35mm + SPIKE-LR                       3+2(Commander, gunner, Driver, Inf.Lt., Radio Op)        
	1 LAV TCP 60mm Brandt-Thomson 60mm gun/mortar  	5  (Cpt.,Radio Op, Commander, Gunner, Drvr)
	1 LAV-III 60mm HVGS + SPIKE-LR			4 (LAV Lt., Commander, gunner, drvr)


1) need good turreted MG----perhaps a new 10mm medium-heavy MG?
2) Requip LAV-III with new AGL and MG turrets(2-man)
3) 60mm HVGS and SPIKE-LR give a reasonable level of anti-tank/armour capacity plus direct fire support
4) 35mm turret similar to CV9035 turret---gives some anti-helicopter capacity and direct fire support
5) 60 mm Gun/mortar gives direct fire support and some indirect fire capacity.

Any thoughts?  

Bearpaw


----------



## a_majoor (26 Jul 2007)

While this makes an interesting combat team, the idea is to be more self contained. The CFV would be able to move across the AOR, deliver dismounted troops to conduct patrols and have self contained firepower to deal with situations (meeting engagements, breaking contact) without having to either bring along more assets or wait for coordination and external assets to arrive. Think of a 4 car troop/platoon to do patrols, flank security, rear area security or convoy escort, and you'll see what I mean.

As well, from a logistical point of view, having a single weapons system that can engage a wide variety of targets would be easier to sustain than having the CQ carry a huge slew of different ammunition natures as you suggest. (To be fair, there would be a need to stock a range of different natures of shell for the CFV cannon, but it is always possible to just stock something like HEAT-MP which can be the 80% solution).


----------



## Bearpaw (26 Jul 2007)

If you are talking about a single vehicle type  as a CFV then I think the only LAV-based possibility that can carry a self-sustaining amount of ammunition is something like the LAV-III 35mm +SPIKE LR variant----35mm should give some ability to knock down walls, some anti-light armour capacity, some anti-helicopter ability plus some anti-tank ability from the SPIKE-LR.  
The ammunition capacity should be about 100-120 rounds of 35mm. Perhaps as many as 4 dismounts could be accomodated too.  

The problem I see is that too many roles/tasks in 1 vehicle-----this is a bit like the "JSS" of mechanized infantry!  The only way out of this is to look to the unit composition----I constructed many hypothetical units---from 20-man section-patrols to company-sized units of 200.  
The mechanized patrol unit I described above should be able to be deployed for 2-3 days in a moderate combat situation without recourse to external supply----if 2 or 3 1-ton "drop-trailers" were included in the deployment, then 5 or 6 days may be possible---really depends on the fuel use-rate.   

In Afghanistan,  the LAV-35mm is not as needed since the Taliban have no air assets but I would hope to see some of the LAV's re-turreted to use the AGL for close support.  

Another issue I think may be worth study is the turret-mounted MG-----7.62 is too light, 12.7mm is too heavy-----perhaps something in the
10mm range would work.  With a long barrel and selective fire-rate, it could almost serve as a long-range sniper weapon as I have read that the 25mm has sometimes been used as---the heavier ammunition is vehicle carried---perhaps up to 2000 rounds could be carried.

In any case, I think that your idea of re-evaluating the calibre of the the cannon is the correct line of thought----the MGS with 105mm could never be usefully employed on hillsides shooting sideways----the moment-arm from the cannon mount to the MGS centre of mass is too large===> rolling the vehicle would be a definite possibility.  The idea of the MGS is good----just the wrong calibre gun.  If the calibre of cannon is too large, the damping-time of the chassis oscillations could be an important survival factor too----I suspect that a good system should be able to fire 3 aimed rounds in about 5 or 6 seconds. 

Bearpaw


----------

