Is the LAV 3 amphibious?

[Curtis.Waters]

Is the LAV 3 amphibious like the LAV 25? If not would it be worth it to upgrade it to be amphibious? It makes sense because of the Navy's Amphibious Assault Ship Project.

 

[PuckChaser]

Is the LAV 3 amphibious like the LAV 25? If not would it be worth it to upgrade it to be amphibious? It makes sense because of the Navy's Amphibious Assault Ship Project.

I'm not an armoured vehicle guru, but I don't think its super easy to "upgrade" something to be amphibious. LAV 25 is more closely aligned with the Bison/Coyote, whereas the Bison used to be amphibious capable.

 

[Infanteer]

Our Navy does not have an Amphibious Assault Ship Project.

Our LAVs are not swimmers.  We don't need that capability as we have armoured bridging capability....oh wait.

 

[MilEME09]

It makes sense because of the Navy's Amphibious Assault Ship Project.

Just to get you on the right track, this "project" is nothing more then rumour based on comments made years ago, the RCN at this time has no interest in Amphibious Assault Ships

 

[Curtis.Waters]

A few years back our navy was looking into purchasing two Mistral class ships, the program may have been canceled. I looked further into this and from what I have found the LAV III lacks only a snorkel and propulsion system to be amphibious.

 

[Tank Troll]

A few years back our navy was looking into purchasing two Mistral class ships, the program may have been canceled. I looked further into this and from what I have found the LAV III lacks only a snorkel and propulsion system to be amphibious.

Actually it takes more than that to make it amphibious. It all so needs to be water tight (big thing there) it also needs a bilge pump and drainage system, it would need a trim vain, and a boat like hull. It would also need to be designed so that it was evenly balanced when it was buoyant (floating) It would need a steering system for when it was swimming.  So to make it amphibious you would need to design it from the ground up to have that capability, which isn't worth the cost compared to the return.

 

[caocao]

I remember when i took my Grizzly across a fjord in Norway...those were the days!

 

[McG]

The Canadian LAV III is not amphibious.  However, the OEM has done the engineering and prototyping work to build an amphibious variant.  You can google images of the Mowag Pirhana III with LAV 25 turret swimming.  I do not know but suspect that the amphibious LAV III must make trade-offs of armour if compared with our LAV III.

 

[Old Sweat]

The Canadian LAV III is not amphibious.  However, the OEM has done the engineering and prototyping work to build an amphibious variant.  You can google images of the Mowag Pirhana III with LAV 25 turret swimming.  I do not know but suspect that the amphibious LAV III must make trade-offs of armour if compared with our LAV III.

Another solution, and not a ideal one, is a flotation screen. This was used most notably with the World War Two Sherman Duplex Drive tank, but was available for the M109 and the British FV 432 APC. This still does not address the issue of how to propel and steer the vehicle. The Sherman had propellers and rudders while the others relied on their tracks for both, as did our screenless M113A1s. I believe our Grizzlies and Cougars had propellors by am prepared to be wrong on this.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I believe our Grizzlies and Cougars had propellors by am prepared to be wrong on this.

Yep, it was called the *Marine Drive* which was also on the Bison.  They also had a rudder system for steering (slightly different config).

 

[George Wallace]

Another solution, and not a ideal one, is a flotation screen. This was used most notably with the World War Two Sherman Duplex Drive tank, but was available for the M109 and the British FV 432 APC. This still does not address the issue of how to propel and steer the vehicle. The Sherman had propellers and rudders while the others relied on their tracks for both, as did our screenless M113A1s. I believe our Grizzlies and Cougars had propellors by am prepared to be wrong on this.

Our Grizzlies and Cougars had propellers and rudders.  Future generations of the AVGP/LAV family did away with the Marine Drives as it was costly to maintain and seldom used.

I believe the LAV III design is still capable of floating, but it has no way to propel itself in the water.

 

[Franko]

Our Grizzlies and Cougars had propellers and rudders.  Future generations of the AVGP/LAV family did away with the Marine Drives as it was costly to maintain and seldom used.

I believe the LAV III design is still capable of floating, but it has no way to propel itself in the water.

The last LAV I saw near lost lake was not floating in any way, shape or form.

Regards

 

[Towards_the_gap]

The last LAV I saw near lost lake was not floating in any way, shape or form.

Regards

Indeed, any displacement that the LAV III may inherently have is negated by the quantity of fluids normally resident in the hull.

That and the fact it would leak like a sieve. Those rubber seals are not the best maintained part of the vehicle.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Wasn't one of the main reason the Coyote and LAV III weren't swimmers the higher bridge class?

 

[George Wallace]

Actually it takes more than that to make it amphibious. It all so needs to be water tight (big thing there) it also needs a bilge pump and drainage system, ...

Which I believe it has.

it would need a trim vain, ....

A simple mod. 

and a boat like hull.

Which it has, being more or less an upgraded version of the AVGP family.

It would also need to be designed so that it was evenly balanced when it was buoyant (floating).......

Easily fixed by adding ballast, as we did with the M113 family of vehicles, as well as the AVGP family.

It would need a steering system for when it was swimming.

This is the expensive part.  The Marine Drives are expensive, not only to design, but to maintain.  They would have to be designed to have protection from damage while moving through rough terrain on land.

....  So to make it amphibious you would need to design it from the ground up to have that capability, which isn't worth the cost compared to the return.

You may not have to design it from the ground up, but the cost would be the deciding factor for sure; especially if it were very seldom used. 

Don't get me wrong.  I am a strong believer that a true Recce Vehicle should be amphibious in order to perform its role.  Not all bridges will be there when you arrive; Right Moriarty?  The capability to cross bodies of deep water, lakes and rivers (not oceans), give Recce an element of stealth and surprise.  Not all water is fordable.  ALVBs are not always available.  It is an ability that we have loss, and monetary constraints are the major reason.

 

[George Wallace]

Indeed, any displacement that the LAV III may inherently have is negated by the quantity of fluids normally resident in the hull.

That and the fact it would leak like a sieve. Those rubber seals are not the best maintained part of the vehicle.

Driver maintenance or lack of.  >

 

[Tank Troll]

Which I believe it has.

A simple mod. 

Which it has, being more or less an upgraded version of the AVGP family.

Easily fixed by adding ballast, as we did with the M113 family of vehicles, as well as the AVGP family.

This is the expensive part.  The Marine Drives are expensive, not only to design, but to maintain.  They would have to be designed to have protection from damage while moving through rough terrain on land.

You may not have to design it from the ground up, but the cost would be the deciding factor for sure; especially if it were very seldom used. 

Don't get me wrong.  I am a strong believer that a true Recce Vehicle should be amphibious in order to perform its role.  Not all bridges will be there when you arrive; Right Moriarty?  The capability to cross bodies of deep water, lakes and rivers (not oceans), give Recce an element of stealth and surprise.  Not all water is fordable.  ALVBs are not always available.  It is an ability that we have loss, and monetary constraints are the major reason.

They are some what water tight as per TTG's post.
No bilge pump there for no drainage system.
In order to put a trim vain on you just can weld it there and say "Voila" a trim vain so not that easy of a mod.
The hull mainly the front glacis plate is flat and square it needs to be angular like the bow of a ship, so it can cut through the water like Cougar, Grizzly, and Coyote
Adding Ballast is easy during swim camp, not as easy in real life applications. It has ballast in it all ready, just not in the right spot, it is called troops and kit. I Remember all the prep it took to be able to swim 4 vehicles. It took half the day before they even saw water, then half the day just getting them balanced right. By the time we could swim them the day was over, and we had to go out the next day to do it.

I completely agree with you about the part it would play with Recce mission. However unless you can come up with a recce vehicle that can take the same IED blast that a Leo II can and still be swim capable then you need identify it, and sell it to the powers that be in Wally World North.

 

[George Wallace]

A few points:

Shape of bow only aids in cutting through the water.  M113 family did not have a "ships bow" and were able to move in water.

Bilge pumps are a simple addition.  Their being cut from the current family of vehicles can probably be boiled down to one of the many "cost cutting" measures taken in their manufacture.  There were many sacrifices made to keep costs down.

Trim vane is not a major redesign, as it was incorporated on earlier versions and again, with not requirement to have Marine Drive due to costs, it was taken off.

Ballast during 'Swim Camps' was to compensate for lack of 'Combat Loads' of ammo and kit.  Again, not a significant problem if the unit has the skills and knowledge to use.  We are overly "Safety conscious" and that can be time consuming.  Crew skills and knowledge are also a prime factor, not to mention their dedication to doing proper maint.

Point made earlier, the overall weight of the vehicle is increasing, so its buoyancy will also be affected.  If it now is too heavy to float, it will be restricted to what depths it will be able to ford.  To add "Submersion Hydraulics" would be very expensive, so fording depths greater than the height of the hull would likely not be possible with short preparation times.

 

[Loachman]

Another solution, and not a ideal one, is a flotation screen. This was used most notably with the World War Two Sherman Duplex Drive tank, but was available for the M109 and the British FV 432 APC.

I know an Officer (retired, now) of the 16th/5th Lancers whose Scorpion sank in whatever river flows through Hameln when the exhaust system burned through the floatation screen.

 

[Old Sweat]

I know an Officer (retired, now) of the 16th/5th Lancers whose Scorpion sank in whatever river flows through Hameln when the exhaust system burned through the floatation screen.

It's the Weser. These sorts of things used to happen to fractionalized cavalry.  ;D