LAV III Mobile Gun System (MGS)

[xxtruthxx]

Yes and they will all work magically together, despite their inherent, and possibly even critical, flaws to overcome the hordes of WTO tanks that are due to come over the Inter-German Border at any day now. The fact that all three systems are incomprehensibly expensive, untested, stymied by massive technical hurdles, and easily destroyed by a 12 year old with an RPG shouldn't worry us. Besides, Combat Team attacks on dug-in BMP platoons is our greatest challenge, not fighting insurgencies in complex terrain.

Exactly!
Why are we spending countless dollars on three plat forms, and the echelon to keep them running and combat effective. These platforms namely the MGS have are not battletested and as such we shouldnt be phazing out our MBT untill we know for sure the MGS can fill its roll. Isn't the need for a heavily armored Direct Fire Support platform more necessary?

Hear, hear Guest.

All they need to do is go back to page one on this thread and start reading all 25 pages of it.

Yeah your right we have been over these topics, but we haven't really come to a conclusion. The thread is moving from one topic to the next and back again. Cant really avoid it.

 

[Guest]

I'm curious, How many times has a  12 year old with an RPG  taken out one of the LAV's you ride in?!?!?

I know more than a handfull a U.S  Servicemen who HAVE taken RPG hits to their Strykers.


Everyone has such a hate on for this concept, why can't you people at least wait untill you have some experince with these tools before you blather on about how badly they suck.


Have you seen RPG damage in person?  I have.. not getting into OPSEC issues, but the guys in charge know exactly what the threats are, and plan accordingly

If you think that man with an RPG means certain death to a LAV or Stryker.. ...  :

MMEV (if it works).. will  be one awesome vehicle.

I don't know of any reason at this point to prove it won't.

I'm curious as why you think it won't..know something we don't? On  the dev team?  :

As for your hordes of tanks,.. when did you see we will face this big threat?

Did'nt you guys get the memo?

NO MORE ARMOUR BATTLES!!!! FINISHED! WE WON'T BE ALLOWED TO PLAY!!!!

However an overlapping missle system with gun support should more than suffice for your BMP Platoon scenario.

We will never go anywhere without heavy support from our alies, as such, our leaders feel we need to be LIGHT-MEDIUM

Our leaders WILL NOT put us in a situation where we will have to face Heavy Armour alone.. Think about it.

It's been hashed to death.. get over it and move on.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Guest while you make points that are thought out and which I happen to disagree with why don't you do us all a favour and fill out your profile so it adds some credibility to what your saying.

 

[Guest]

I filled it as much as I can.

For the same reason I'm, a "guest"

I'll boil down my argument to this,

LAVs are much more survivable then most might imagine,
There are solutions to alot of percieved problems

Don't shoot the horse until you at least have a chance to look at the leg.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

You wouldn't happen to be involved with the MGS or any other part of the DFS family are you?

 

[Mortar guy]

I have never seen such propaganda, such shameless toadying. Ladies and gentlemen, we have a believer on our hands! After giving people a hard time for not reading posts, how about you read this one:

The MMEV (and to a lesser degree the MGS) are, in my humble opinion, the prime examples of what is wrong with both our doctrine and procurement systems. Here are some things I know with a fair degree of certainty about this whole situation:

1) The Army is adopting new doctrine focussing on non-linear, asymmetric warfare in 'complex terrain'. Commonly known as three block war. Our own doctrine states that most fighting our Army will undertake in the future (or even now for that matter) will be in cities, forests, mountains and jungles against a guerrilla or insurgent type enemy. No one has yet been able to tell me how a lightly armoured, extremely expensive vehicle with limited mobility and weapons geared to destroying tanks at very long ranges is going to fight Tabliban insurgents in the mountains of Afghanistan etc.

2) The MGS was forced down our necks by politicians and was not the brainwave of someone in DLR. The Army looked at a light weight wheeled direct fire system in the mid to late nineties as a possible replacement for the Cougar and, maybe, the Leopard. An SOR was drawn up for this vehicle and GMDD in London did some initial conceptulization work on an Armoured Combat Vehicle (ACV). However, experiments showed that the ACV could not fight and survive on the modern battlefield so the project was shelved until technology could allow a 20 ton vehicle to fight and survive like a 60 ton tank. In the interim the Army spent a good chunk of change upgrading the Leo C1 to the C2 standard so that they could remain in use until 2015. Then, in 2003, out of nowhere the MND announces the MGS purchase and everyone who remembers the ACV project is scratching their heads. In fact, the SOR for the MGS wasn't realeased until one month after the announcement of the purchase and it was almost identical to the ACV SOR. The project staff literally did a find and replace on the SOR to put 'MGS' where 'ACV' used to be! So now we have a vehicle that has already proven it is not capable of meeting the requirements laid out in the SOR. Now, here is where I have a problem with the procurement/doctrine world. When the MGS/MMEV buy was forced down our necks we could have taken a hard look at the realities of modern warfare and the capabilites our Army would posses and written a decent 'concept of employment' for the direct fire system of systems. My argument here boils down to this: the MGS is a decent Assault Gun but is a shitty Tank Destroyer. In fact, the US Army lists the target set for their MGS as being bunkers, infantry in the open, soft skin and light armoured vehicles and its mission is to support assaulting infantry in close terrain. We, in our infinite wisdom, decided to employ the MGS as a tank destroyer in concert with other, similar, tank destroying vehicles (MMEV, TUA). The target set for the direct fire system of systems includes the T-72M tank first and foremost and the concepts I have seen in various briefings talk about 'range overmatch' against opponents thanks to the 8km range of the ADATS. This sounds distinctly like a system designed to fight the Soviet hordes on the rolling North German Plain rather than take on guerrillas with AKs, IEDs and Molotov cocktails. We should pull our heads out of our collectective posterior regions and start thinking about employing the MGS as an Assault Gun vs. as a Tank Destroyer.

3) The MMEV may 'brief well' on PowerPoint but actually making that thing work will not be as easy as photoshopping an ADATS turret onto a LAV hull! The presentations I have seen have shown the MMEV equipped with the ADATS missile (or Hellfire for direct fire), CRV7 rockets (laser guided a la LKPK), NLOS missiles and (get this) SLAMRAAM missiles. On top of this they want to mount a new 3D search radar and new EO system on the turret too. This is an unparalleled technical challenge that will end up costing us a hell of a lot more than we think (if it ever works). Each of the weapon systems mentioned above uses a different guidance system (laser beam rider, laser homing, fibre optic, radar/data link) and none have ever been integrated onto the same platform. On top of that, if you replace the radar and EO system, you will have to replace the display systems and computers too and then you have to squeeze all that kit into a LAV chassis or, worse yet an MGS chassis! Someone is dreaming in technicolour. The icing on the cake is that we then intend to employ this vehicle in a three block war scenario - a scenario where LOS is rarely more than 1 km, where the enemy is not considerate enought to drive around in the open in T72s and where one IED or RPG could easily destroy your extremely expensive vehicle and kill your highly trained crew.

In that post I listed just a few of the problems with the MMEV and MGS. There are several other technical problems with each that have yet to be overcome. I will spare you as those problems have been posted several times before and are also available via OSINT.

Now, for some of your ingenious arguments in support of the DF system of systems:

Everyone has such a hate on for this concept, why can't you people at least wait untill you have some experince with these tools before you blather on about how badly they suck.

Good point. Despite the flawed concept, the outdated and irrelevant doctrinal basis for the vehicles (created after the MGS was ordered I might add), and the numerous serious techical hurdles to overcome (to say nothing of spending close to 2 billion dollars on less than 100 vehicles), I think we should wait until DLR makes this sow's ear into a stunning silk purse. What right do we, as professional soldiers, have to get involved in what is clearly a political procurement process, right? We should just shut up and take all the LSVWs, nylon raincoats and MMEVs the government can throw at us. Or, on the other hand, perhaps we could voice our grave concerns over this whole idea.

As for your hordes of tanks,.. when did you see we will face this big threat?

Did'nt you guys get the memo?

NO MORE ARMOUR BATTLES!!!! FINISHED! WE WON'T BE ALLOWED TO PLAY!!!!

Exactly my point. So, if no more armour battles, why waste money on what amounts to a very expensive anti-armour vehicle (MMEV) and a very poor quality tank destroyer (MGS). Clearly sarcasm does not transmit on these means.

However an overlapping missle system with gun support should more than suffice for your BMP Platoon scenario.

OK, once again, sarcasm did not transmit. While I agree that the DFSofS might work against a BMP pl, I think the Taliban and the Iraqi insurgent (i.e. the type of enemy we are most likely to face in the future) have disbanded the last of their BMP platoons due to budget cuts. Could you explain to me how an MMEV is going to help us fight the Taliban, or any other such insurgent force? Granted some of the capabilities are useful but those capabilities already exist on other platforms. For example, LR precision direct fire = TUA. NLOS fire = M777 with Exalibur. AD = ADATS (in its current form). So why try to make this vehicle the jack of all trades when it really doesn't add any capability on the battlefield, is extremely expensive, is very vulnerable, and doesn't contribute to our new doctrine of fighting the "Three Block War" in complex terrain?

We will never go anywhere without heavy support from our alies, as such, our leaders feel we need to be LIGHT-MEDIUM

Ah yes, that old cop out. "We can have a mediocre army because the Americans will be more than happy to devote some of their stretched and limited resources to pulling our chestnuts out of the fire". Why should we always relegate ourselves to the status of beggars of NATO? Are we so lacking in self-confidence that we can't ever see ourselves operating out of reach of the American's shirt sleeves? I would argue that we are not and that Gen Hillier has already stated that we should be more independent. Do you realize how many Leopard 2's we could buy for the amount being spent on 66 MGS and 34 MMEV? More than we would need is the answer. Are you sure you know what medium weight means in the Canadian context? For the Americans it describes forces with more firepower and protection than their light forces while also being more mobile than their heavy forces. Medium forces are an American solution to an American problem and have little relevance to Canada. Our army now is heavier in terms of protection, mobility and sheer mass than it has ever been AND we are nowhere near air mobile. Adopting terms like 'medium weight' without understanding their context or applicability to our experience smacks of dilettantism and intellectual midgetry.

Sorry I got wound up about this, but as you can tell I (and a very large number of people I know) feel very strongly about this subject. I simply refuse to roll over on this subject because I feel so strongly. I believe it is my duty as a professional soldier to reach down, grab my nuts, and speak up when I see something wrong and, in my opinion, the MMEV falls squarely into the category of "something wrong".

"His Majesty made you an officer because he thought you would know when not to follow orders"

MG

 

[Guest]

Mortar Guy.

It's obvious you have a vastly different opinion on this subject then I do.. fair enough.

I won't argue manovure doctrine or deployment strategies.. thats out of my lane.

However I do know a thing or two about complex and heavy WS..

Your assesment of the MMEV's viability is quite flawed, IM-not so-humble-O.

Multiple munition types and complex, inter-married guidance systems have co-existed together quite well for years on 1000's of platforms with many hours of operational testing.

What could these possible magical platforms be?? Why.. you might call them AMMEVs.. (Airborne Multi-Mission Effects Vehicles) AKA Attack Aircraft.

Yes, engineers figured out a while back how to cram a whole bunch of weapons systems, sensors and electronics in a fairly tight space.

MMEV is basically an "Attack Aircraft".. on the ground.. okay.. thats stetching it.. but thats how system intregration is being approched. (I'm being serious.. I know of a couple of aircraft systems people who are consultants in a few projects, not related to aircraft.)

You do realize that no-one is intending to "drop an ADATS turret on a LAV" Ad-Hoc?

Current mission computer. radar.. EO.. all off it will be thrown out, replaced. Packages have grown alot smaller since the 80ies..

It won't need that horrendously large APU, either.

As for survivability,  an RPG-7 is by no means assured an ability to knock out a LAVIII variant..

In fact, due to the LAV's wheels.. I'd argue it's easier to get a mobility kill on a Bradley..

(no, I don't need to argue.. just ask someone in a Stryker brigade..)

There are up-armour projects continuing..

I have no doubt, as far as the LAV family is concerned, we will see protection systems that will make the infamous RPG-7,  even some large calibler AP rounds, "almost" a non-concern.

Not that far off either..

Are there challenges?.. sure.. but I can't see any we can't overcome.

I still think MMEV has a potential to be a revolutionary design, one that could put Canada in the forefront.

I get shudders thinking of a UAV passing targets off to the MMEV for NON-LOS fun. It would put fear into enemy blackhats.

Guided Rockets would be useful in the hills and ridges of A-Stan.

BTW, LAV TUA is a real success, systems integration went pretty smoothly, and ITAS is the cat's ***.

I think I recall a few nay-sayers bleating on about how "You can't do that" "It'll tip over" "You can't fit a new targeting system in there!".. bla..bla..

Look for TOW RF in the near future...

 

[Guest]

Aou wouldn't happen to be involved with the MGS or any other part of the DFS family are you?

I suppose you( and possibly others) think i'm a corporate shill.

I'll just say.. I'm not a sales or managment person.. so I have no interest in "The Big Picture" or "Bottom Line"

I'm a Canadian who's lucky enough to be able to get my hands dirty.. 'nuff said.

 

[George Wallace]

Guest

First things first.  I have got a request from a few others that you append your 'name' as it is often confused with the thousands of other 'guests' who visit the site.

Second thing, would to be to fill out some of your profile so that we may know from where you are coming.  If you are a lobbyist for GM or General Dynamics or some other company with interests in this matter we may have some other questions to pose at you.  If you have no military experience, as seems to be the case, with your last post, we will be able to more accurately correct you in your assumptions.

I have kept quiet on this and a few of your other posts on this subject, but see that I must make some points.  You have stated that the LAV III MGS doesn't have stability problems.  What makes it any better than any other LAV in this case?

On this matter:

Multiple munition types and complex, inter-married guidance systems have co-existed together quite well for years on 1000's of platforms with many hours of operational testing.

What could these possible magical platforms be?? Why.. you might call them AMMEVs.. (Airborne Multi-Mission Effects Vehicles) AKA Attack Aircraft.

Yes, engineers figured out a while back how to cram a whole bunch of weapons systems, sensors and electronics in a fairly tight space.

MMEV is basically an "Attack Aircraft".. on the ground.. okay.. thats stetching it.. but thats how system intregration is being approched. (I'm being serious.. I know of a couple of aircraft systems people who are consultants in a few projects, not related to aircraft.)

This shows a very serious flaw in your arguments.  You obviously have not worked on Tracked Vehicles or any other Cross-country capable vehicles at all, or for any period of time, to have made that comment.  Land combat vehicles, unlike combat aircraft, take a lot of punishment and abuse and the equipment they carry is subject to that abuse.  The more technology you want to put into combat land vehicles, the more you will have to cushion from vibration and sudden shock.  The constant vibrations from the Tracks and the effects of rough ground on the contents of Armoured Vehicles constantly creates opportunities for technology to fail.  

I also find it interesting that we are progressing with the idea of using the MGS, MMEV, and other layers of defence in this "System of Systems", and our Doctrine seems to be getting away from that in our new concepts of Ops and fighting our WOT.


[EDIT]  Sorry....I don't type that fast and some of the questions were answered in anticipation of some of us asking them.

 

[Mortar guy]

Wow, what an increibly incoherent post. You have successfully managed to undo most of your own arguments so this is almost not worth the effort. Fortunately, I like the sound of my own typing. OK, where to start?

I won't argue manovure doctrine or deployment strategies.. thats out of my lane.

Right on as both of those things are very much in my lane. If you want this to be a debate of the technical merits of the MMEV we can do that but I have to say that debating the technical merits of any military kit without talking about the why, where, how and when it will be used is like pissing yourself in a dark suit: you feel all warm but nobody takes notice.

What could these possible magical platforms be?? Why.. you might call them AMMEVs.. (Airborne Multi-Mission Effects Vehicles) AKA Attack Aircraft.

Seeing as you are so versed in the ways of the airforce, perhaps you could let our viewers know how much one of those bad boys costs? Or better yet, explain how many maintenance hours per flight hour the average attack aircraft requires, or how many millions of dollars and years of training go into making a pilot, or how planes and bullets (or birds, or hail, or FOD - not to mention RPGs) don't mix well. I mention all these things because they are problems the MMEV will have to face. For example, the MMEV will be, without a doubt, the most costly armoured vehicle in the world. Its incredibly complex systems (EO ball, radar, Link 16, computers, radios, weapons, vertonics) will require intensive maintenance to stay up and running and the maintainers and crews will have a training bill that would rival that of some airforce trades. Furthermore, the exposed EO ball, radar and missiles will be extremely vulnerable to pretty much everything on the battlefield. A 5.45mm bullet in a 3D radar transit/receive module = a broken MMEV and a costly repair. Comparing the MMEV to attack aircraft may brief well but the two operate in vastly different environments with different threats.

You do realize that no-one is intending to "drop an ADATS turret on a LAV" Ad-Hoc?

Never did I say that. In fact, if you read my posts you will see that I have been saying from the get-go that this is not as simple as Photoshopping an ADATS turret onto a LAV chassis.

I have no doubt, as far as the LAV family is concerned, we will see protection systems that will make the infamous RPG-7,  even some large calibler AP rounds, "almost" a non-concern.

Yes I am familiar with the Israeli and German systems as well as the work done by DREV. However, I will reitirate what I said ealier: the MMEV will have to fear everything on the battlefield from 5.45mm ball to molotov cocktails to IEDs. Your magic armour solves only one problem and besides, history is rife with declarations of the invincibility of weapons systems. The only armour system that provides a reliable degree of protection against most threats is that found on modern tanks. Finally, if you read the MMEV SOR you'll note that funding for the magic armour is not included in the budget. That means that our incredibly expensive MMEVs just got a little more pricey.

I get shudders thinking of a UAV passing targets off to the MMEV for NON-LOS fun. It would put fear into enemy blackhats.

So which is it? Earlier you said that fighting enemy armour was a thing of the past but now the thought of MMEVs taking on enemy armour makes you shudder? Oh, and by the way, please describe for me the NLOS missile that the MMEV will mount as I assume it will be MOTS. The only one I can think of thats ready for fielding is the Spike NT-D which has a range of (drum roll please) 8km! Not too impressive. Why not just use Excalibur with its 40km range?

Guided Rockets would be useful in the hills and ridges of A-Stan.

They would? How would the MMEVs get into the hills of Afghanistan? Slung under a Chinook? Granted in some situations direct fire rockets would be helpful but no more so than 25mm HEI fire from a LAV or even (once again) Excalibur rounds. So why risk a very expensive vehicle when there are other options that can do the job just as well with much less risk?

I think I recall a few nay-sayers bleating on about how "You can't do that" "It'll tip over" "You can't fit a new targeting system in there!".. bla..bla..

Look for TOW RF in the near future...

I'd love to know if these two sentences are in anyway related in your mind. Anyway, are you telling me that the LAV chassis (yes the one that has rolled over numerous times in Canadian service) will somehow no longer be at risk of rollovers once you mate that massive ADATS (yes the one that has rolled over a couple of times in Canadian service) turret with it? Is this the physics equivalent of "two wrongs make a right"? Also, you still haven't addressed what I wrote about the MMEV having four or more weapons systems, each with their own guidance systems. You do know that the ADATS missile, SLAMRAAM, Spike NT-D, APKWS all require different guidance systems, right? Not only that but they each have a different form of pylon interface.

So I've gone on again about all the things wrong with the MMEV so I suppose its time to say what I would do differently.

1) Kill the MMEV project. Its a boondoggle and a long ways away from becoming technically feasible or even cost effective.

2) Redirect the funds into two new projects. Firstly, buy about a regiments worth of surplus German Leopard 2A4s (say $400 million). Secondly, buy a true NLOS capability in the form of PAM. The NT-D is a mediocre NLOS missile compared to the PAM and I would think we could get a couple of batteries worth of the latter for about $350 million.

3) Keep MGS and TUA but modify our doctrine to reflect their use as bunker busters and assault guns rather than as tank destroyers.

That was very much the Reader's Digest version but I think you get the point. Try as you might but I will never be so enamoured with the PowerPoint briefings on the MMEV as to believe this vehicle is a good idea. Far from putting us in the "forefront" I think this vehicle, and the techno geeks who ignore the realities of modern war and are entranced with the idea of fighter aircraft on eight wheels, will do more harm than good to our Army.

Regards,

MG

 

[xxtruthxx]

OK so I may not be able to keep up with the technical prowess of some of the senior posters. That being said I can still argue that common sense side of this debate. One of the main issues here was that fact that the SofS and the plat forms needed to create it and keep it running are going to expensive on a ludicrous level. The training, ammo, spare parts, and manpower cost are going to be dumped on top of the already out out rageious price tag. As mortar guy said, there are plat forms out there that can do to jobs of the MEEV, and the TUA and a fraction of the cost. As a booster to that point,( Guest )if you believe that we will be so readily back up by our allies, would it not make sense to use platforms that have parts commonality with those of our allies so we can take advantage of their supply lines? You could easily drop that technical side of this argument and drum it down to dollars and cents. Its going to cost allot money ( Something the CF doesn't seem of have allot of) to make MEEV and MGS combat effective.
Once again these are my observations.

Truth.

 

[Guest]

<sigh>

I DON'T think we should have given up heavy armour
I DON'T think MGS is a true Tank Destroyer (MMEV IS intended to destroy amour..)

I AGREE with quite a bit of what Mortar Guy has been saying actually.

I mainly feel alot of you are being a little unfair and jumping the gun in such loud opposition to 2 platforms that haven't even been fielded yet.

I strongly suspect that if we were keeping our Tanks or getting new ones, some of you might actually find MGS and MMEV usefull.

Sound like you should be blaming leadership (including the CDS), not platforms.


George W.

I DO have experience with heavy Veh/WS.. I know exactly the constraints as opposed to fragile aircraft systems.
I still maintain that this is doable, and Millions of $$$/ 1000's of man hours and more than a few corporate reputaions are betting on producing a winner.

There are some VERY smart people behind these "Transformation Innitiatives"

As for MG,

I can't believe I'm arguing with you guys about the LAV's stability.

How many "Hull pos at 90 deg." incidents have there been?.. Now add up operational hours and miles, factor out crew error.. The LAV is a stable, reliable weapons platform. (Why am I telling YOU this ferchrisake
?!?)

Obviously the armour school will work out how to employ the MGS without tipping it over.

I have faith in BlackHats

I am out of my lane on this next comment..

Am I wrong to assume the following:

1x Coyote/ISTAR
1 x DFS trp  MMEV in overwatch
2x LAVIII w Inf sec to protect DFS

Is that not a deployable, defensible building block? (I admit tactics are not my forte)

No system is an island to itself, Even Tankers breath a little easier when an Inf trp is around. (although they'd never admit it)

The MMEV by itself is certainly vulnerable, but I doubt it will ever have to fight alone.

There was another platform that was rather vulnerable, yet considered invaluable.. the M109

You could almost poke holes in it with a high-powered washer from Canadian Tire. I new guys who joked " You hope the enemy uses AP, so it'll fly right through"

However, if you needed to reach out and kill something...... (or a whole plt. of somethings..)

Again, as I've asked before, Do you believe, that the CDS AND others would be so calous, as to throw away scant resources and spend armour crew lives on a fataly flawed system?

On the subject of MMEV missle guidance,

I predict:


Longbow inspired millimeter wave radar
LADAR
GPS/SAL or GPS/IIR

This will support both Hellfire and re-designed ADATS seeker (as well as the rockets)

pylon mounts/data bus have all been done in the world of Airpower. (yes, I know I know fragile.. but these systems can be hardened and isolated)

Just my prediction.. no returns or refunds, must be 18yrs or older.

I'm not pretending to know all the answers, I know some of the questions those who DO have the answers are asking themselves.

Some people I respect have their reputations on the line on this and other projects.. knowing how capable they are, I have all the faith in the world.

You should too.

 

[prom]

As for MG,

I can't believe I'm arguing with you guys about the LAV's stability.

How many "Hull pos at 90 deg." incidents have there been?.. Now add up operational hours and miles, factor out crew error.. The LAV is a stable, reliable weapons platform. (Why am I telling YOU this ferchrisake
?!?)

Obviously the armour school will work out how to employ the MGS without tipping it over.

I have faith in BlackHats

You know what your brilliant!!! I cannot beleive I and all here have never seen this before! Thanks guest.

hell if you take out all possibilities of a roll over occuring then i guess it is a stable platform. Like anything that never moves and is only used in a very narrow wiondow of use it will rarely do something that is not meant to do, where if you a re to be adaptable you have to be able to be mobile not just be limited to flat terrain and no human operators......really, why spend that kind of money on a peice of kit that you cant do anything else with.

 

[Guest]

You know what your brilliant!!! I cannot beleive I and all here have never seen this before! Thanks guest.

hell if you take out all possibilities of a roll over occuring then i guess it is a stable platform. Like anything that never moves and is only used in a very narrow wiondow of use it will rarely do something that is not meant to do, where if you a re to be adaptable you have to be able to be mobile not just be limited to flat terrain and no human operators......really, why spend that kind of money on a peice of kit that you cant do anything else with.

I'm not sure I understand you.

What are you saying? That LAV's are inherently unstable? That we keep tipping them over?

Our LAVs have been doing the job just fine.

My point was, MMEV, LAV TUA and LAV MGS are no more stable/instable than any other..

 

[KevinB]

I guess we plan on being ambush from the front or rear only these days?


Guest, you remind me of some of the DLR "Great" Minds who constantly defend their choices in the face of logical arguments from the end user...

 

[Guest]

I guess we plan on being ambush from the front or rear only these days?

I'm sorry, I don't get your reference.

In what way will the MMEV or MGS be indefensible from the sides.

You do realize that the MGS can fire broadsides just as well as anything else.

As well, I've never noticed a problem with the LAVIII spilling brass either.. (After at least 12 or more test firings I've been present at)

Guest, you remind me of some of the DLR "Great" Minds who constantly defend their choices in the face of logical arguments from the end user...   

You don't agree with me fine, but try not to close your mind completely.







[/quote]

 

[Clément Barbeau Vermet]

I'm curious, How many times has a  12 year old with an RPG  taken out one of the LAV's you ride in?!?!?

MMEV (if it works).. will  be one awesome vehicle.

As for your hordes of tanks,.. when did you see we will face this big threat?

We will never go anywhere without heavy support from our allies, as such, our leaders feel we need to be LIGHT-MEDIUM

Our leaders WILL NOT put us in a situation where we will have to face Heavy Armour alone.. Think about it.

1)It is just a matter of time before we start to get some LAVs blown-up by RPGs. If the can destroy Russian MBTs, even if they are not well armoured, they can certainly destroy LAVs.

2)The MMEV will be an "awesome vehicle" for the first 20 seconds of combat..... until it runs out of missiles (it has only 2 AT missiles) and the enemy tank/anti-tank team destroys it.  

3)Hordes of tanks, our allies faced that just a decade and a half ago. One chance they had good MBTs.  : The problem with our leaders (political and military) is that because of the current OP in Afghanistan they think we will not face any other kind of enemy in the future. What did people say after WW1? "Humanity will never do the same mistake again." And then what? WW2. What did they say after that? "This war sorted out all conflicts in the world." But our troops were in Korea a few years later. When the Berlin wall was destroyed? "Our huge and powerfull armed forces are now useless..." Then Iraq, the 4th world military power, invaded Kuwait and was going to invade Saudi Arabia, therefore controlling half of the world petroleum. Our army was not there that time. But why? Oups! We could not move our army. Our allies decided not to move our army because they could send some far better equipment than what we could propose. And if they would have given us a lift, our troops would have had suffered some terrible losses. Why? Because "We don't need to buy modern tanks, we will never face hordes of tanks again."  :crybaby:

4)It is extremely sad that Canada, once the 4th world power (after WW2), once that country which had such a formidable army, that country which took Vimmy, Caen, Juno beach, Ortonna, ect., which fought so well at Ypres, Dieppe, Hong Kong, Kapyong, ect., that country which pushed back, not only once, but twice, the current world first super power, that country which designed the mother of all modern combat aircraft, the Avro Arrow, will NOT BE ABLE TO FIGHT ANY MODERN ARMY OUR WILL HAVE TO RELY ON ITS ALLIES TO BE ABALE TO DO SO.  :'(

I which this will never happend.    

 

[KevinB]

Guest,

Your comments based upon "How many hull pos'n 90 incidents..." led me to beleive you dont consider them an issue.

FWIW the LAVIII turret can jam up with brass from the 25mm - that based on my very less than 12 shoots that I used it in both in Canada and in Afghanistan.

I've seen what and RPG can do to vehicles - I've even fired an RPG at something once too (it was on a range) The Fire Supression system may save US soldiers with their non burst into flame at the first sign of heat uniform - but I'm guessing that the "but it dries easily" CADPAT will shrink wrap the crew, prior to the flash being able to be extinguished.


I dont have a closed mind at all - I hope it works - I really do - its impact on me either way is NILL - I'm one of those dirty greasy civy PSD guys now so the goings on in the CF affect me at zero - other than I get worked up by self proffessed experts in some fields imposing their views of how life works onto the end user.  For all I know your Gen Hillier - either way it only affects my ulcer, as it does not affect my skin one iota...

 

[Kirkhill]

You know - I am starting to think this entire project may be a lost cause already.  Not from any technical reason but from a lack of "buy-in". 

I have sold and supplied identical systems (industrial, not military) to different customers in the past.  Some times I couldn't get away from phone calls at 3 O'Clock in the morning because something else had broken down.  In other instances the customer thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread.

The difference was, in most case IMHO, whether or not there was "buy-in" on shop floor.  If the operators were involved from the get go, or the proposing manager was a trusted individual then things went smoothly.  If on the other hand the manager was not trusted and the system was imposed - well less sleep for me.

I don't know if any of this kit will work. I don't know if the tactics, training and procedures associated with the kit will get the job done.  I do think it is a bit of red herring to suggest that the "system of systems" is a fancy way of spinning replacing the Leopards.  The Leopards themselves are part of a system of systems - defined in terms of a Combined Arms Team, a Battle Group, a Brigade Group or such other concepts as mutual support and defence in depth.  It is not unreasonable to suggest that some of the jobs the MBT does can be done by other means.  It is also not unreasonable to suggest that MBTs can do things that can't be done any other ways.  However,  reality is that no matter how big and expensive your tool kit is every now and then you run into a job where you don't have the perfectly designed tool and have to improvise.

Is the MBT indispensable?  Possibly except when you don't have one and can't get it where you would like it.  It has to be able to get within at least 5 km of the enemy to be able to deliver its package of potential energy to the target.  Is the LAVIII more likely to be able to close enough to deliver its package?  I don't know. With missiles it can reach out 8 km anyway and remove a target.

If you want to remove obstacles by destroying them then I would suggest that a LAV firing from a defilade position is as capable as anything else that can hit what it is aiming at.  On the other hand if you want to get right into the other guy's face and convince them not to bother fighting (the humane solution?) then perhaps a large amount of armour plate is just the ticket.

Regardless of the merits of the proposed solutions I also know that if the level of reservations to this project expressed on this site are indicative of the attitude of the "shop floor" then I, as a supplier or "manager"  would not anticipate getting too much sleep, nor would I anticipate the deployed effort living up to my expectations.

Cheers.

 

[Guest]

I'd like to speak to the WepTech who serviced that gun if your LAV was choking up like that....

The dual feed is supposed to work very well..were they breech blocks or something in the belts?

I've seen RPG hits on Strykers,
I've read numerous AARs on wounded Strykers.. some fortunate, others not so..
(I've also seen a low pressure 75mm hit a LAV with spaced armour.. know what happens?.. Not much...

There are strengths and weaknesses as you know

I can see that most here are against the DFS Trp in it's current vision.
That the loss of Heavy armour has been a setback in both capability and Morale.

Is it specificaly the above, or more the entrenched position of pretty much every military mind I've known..
"The Old way IS the best way.. thats why it's the OLD way"

It's hard to focus this mindset on new ideas.

Maybe the CF's vision for future armour roles will turn out to be flawed in the end.

I'm no tactition, or strategist.

However, isn't it possible in the very least.. that in such an event, the platforms themselves might be worthy?!?