Cavalry fighting vehicle inspired by the UAE

[Bearpaw]

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]

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]

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