Adding a Missile capability to the LAV III

[Infanteer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.