Indirect Fires Modernization Project - C3/M777 Replacement

[KevinB]

And turreted 120 weighs more and is bigger making it harder for your LAV to get into your Herc... another precondition for the US medium force. The extra weight also means fewer rounds on board as well as less room for the 81 and its rounds.

The Styker 2.0 doesn't fit in the Herc - so it doesn't matter.
The idea of the Medium weight force died at the Bison...

 

[Kirkhill]

The Styker 2.0 doesn't fit in the Herc - so it doesn't matter.
The idea of the Medium weight force died at the Bison...

Fair.

Kind of why I prefer the new Patria CAVS over the ACSV.

15.5 tonnes empty with a max weight of up to 24 tonnes.

You don't have to max out the payload if you don't want.

At 15.5 tonnes you are only using 80% of the Herc's load factor. A fair planning cushion.

 

[KevinB]

Fair.

Kind of why I prefer the new Patria CAVS over the ACSV.

Reminds me of the GI Joe APC toy from the 80's.

15.5 tonnes empty with a max weight of up to 24 tonnes.

You don't have to max out the payload if you don't want.

At 15.5 tonnes you are only using 80% of the Herc's load factor. A fair planning cushion.

I would prefer 8 wheels - I'm allergic to the 6x6's after the AVGP series.
Frankly I go back to the LAV 2.0 Bison as being the optimal medium wheeled armored vehicle (MWAV for lack of a better term).
It had a rear ramp (key performance parameter) which the AVGP's did not (not sure what sort of idiot puts doors on armored vehicles).
It was amphibious (admittedly with prep).

Yes the single V hull wasn't as durable as the double V on the LAV 6.0 and Stryker 2.0, but I'm of the opinion that the LAV shouldn't be a juggernaut designed to take massive IED's. You want small arms resistance up to and including 7.62x54R APIT (and ideally frontal 14.5mm protection), as well as splinter protection from shells and bombs. It is a Protected Mobility Vehicle not an IFV.

• Up Armor it for theatre dependent threats
• Slat Armor for sharp charge stand off as well (loss of Herc mobility on that while installed).
• Addition of a RWS for 40mm and .50 and that solves most of the firepower requirements for that role.

Then you go in on a Tracked Heavy IFV for your assault force to work with Tanks.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

There has been a number of very capable 6x6, the AVGP was a civil defense vehicle at first and I think the lack of heavier suspension hurt it.

 

[Kirkhill]

Reminds me of the GI Joe APC toy from the 80's.

I would prefer 8 wheels - I'm allergic to the 6x6's after the AVGP series.
Frankly I go back to the LAV 2.0 Bison as being the optimal medium wheeled armored vehicle (MWAV for lack of a better term).
It had a rear ramp (key performance parameter) which the AVGP's did not (not sure what sort of idiot puts doors on armored vehicles).
It was amphibious (admittedly with prep).

Yes the single V hull wasn't as durable as the double V on the LAV 6.0 and Stryker 2.0, but I'm of the opinion that the LAV shouldn't be a juggernaut designed to take massive IED's. You want small arms resistance up to and including 7.62x54R APIT (and ideally frontal 14.5mm protection), as well as splinter protection from shells and bombs. It is a Protected Mobility Vehicle not an IFV.

• Up Armor it for theatre dependent threats
• Slat Armor for sharp charge stand off as well (loss of Herc mobility on that while installed).
• Addition of a RWS for 40mm and .50 and that solves most of the firepower requirements for that role.

Then you go in on a Tracked Heavy IFV for your assault force to work with Tanks.

There has been a number of very capable 6x6, the AVGP was a civil defense vehicle at first and I think the lack of heavier suspension hurt it.

I think the problem with the AVGP was that it was 4+2 arrangement. There was a long gap between the steering wheels at the front and the four at the back.



The CAVS 6x6 evenly distributes the load.




....

Mind, I like the Bison configuration of the LAV II as well. And it is already Canadian made and worked well.

The only difference is that the driver and VC will be a bit cosier in the CAVS.

 

[Kirkhill]

https://www.dsca.mil/Press-Media/Major-Arms-Sales/Article-Display/Article/4320012/canada-m142-high-mobility-artillery-rocket-systems

Canada – M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems​

The Government of Canada has requested to buy twenty-six (26) M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS); one hundred thirty-two (132) M31A2 Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) Unitary pods with Insensitive Munitions Propulsion System (IMPS); one hundred thirty-two (132) M30A2 GMLRS Alternative Warhead (AW) pods with IMPS; thirty-two (32) M403 Extended Range (ER) GMLRS AW pods with IMPS; thirty-two (32) M404 ER GMLRS Unitary pods with IMPS; and sixty-four (64) M57 Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) pods. The following non-MDE items will be included: Low Cost Reduced Range Practice Rocket pods; interactive electronic technical manuals; integration support services; spare parts; tool kits; test equipment; contractor logistics support; training; training equipment; technical assistance; technical publications; transportation; Type 1 radios (AN/PRC-160 and AN/PRC-167); 7800I intercom equipment; Simple Key Loaders (SKL); U.S. Government and contractor technical, engineering, and logistics personnel services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $1.75 billion.

Meanwhile



1 pod on a JLTV
2 pods on a ZETROS
4 pods on an HEMTV

All autonomous.

Autonomous Launchers Make Impact As Army Requirements Grow

Missile-armed autonomous launchers from Oshkosh Defense and Raytheon DeepFires were out in force at the Association of the U.S. Army’s (AUSA) main annual symposium. Missile-armed autonomous launchers from Oshkosh Defense and Raytheon DeepFires were out in force at the Association of the U.S...

www.twz.com