• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)

  • Thread starter Herecomesthegun
  • Start date
H

Herecomesthegun

Guest
He, im new here well atleast at posting, i've been reading posts/discussions here for a while anyways ive realized alot of people speculate the MMEV will be ADATS mounted on a LAV lll chasiss, even CASR thinks so. http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-vehlavmmev.htm
However this site here shows an image of the MMEV concept, and well their aint no adats!
http://www.drdc-rddc.dnd.ca/newsevents/spotlight/0403_e.asp
Please tell me what you think about the type of vehicle you think it will be and also what you thing the advantages and disadvantages of the MMEV will be
 

Lance Wiebe

Sr. Member
Reaction score
1
Points
230
Persoanlly, I see nothing but headaches for this all-singing all-dancing vehicle.

First off, direct fire is the role of armour.  Indirect fire (NLOS) belongs to the artillery, and air defense belongs to the artillery.

Secondly, the NLOS is supposed to be controlled by recce, painting targets with laser designators.  Um, just who will assign priorities, just who will control  when and where who paints the targets, and where does electronic security come in?

Who assigns the priorities for vehicle use?  Do we use it primarily for air defense?  NLOS? 

Where is it positioned?  After all, the range apparently, is 8 KM for NLOS and AD, although this may be improved.

I think that there's more questions than answers.

I'm also wondering just how expensive a all-singing all-dancing piece of equipment will be, both to operate and maintain.
 

RNW

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
I think if we find ourselves without tanks in 2010 MMEV will be needed to compliment MGS and the LAV TOW. If the MMEV has ADATS missles or similar weapons (up to now most concepts have included these) then it will bring an important punch to the battlefield: long range (8-12 kms) tank-killing ability. If all we have is LAV based systems I think it will be important to be able to take out enemy armour at a distance that is far enough that enemy MBTs won't be able to hit us and thus wipe us out. I think ADATS missles are hugely expensive, mind you, which could present a problem.
 
Y

Yard Ape

Guest
That link shows a low profile MGS.   The Army's plan for the MMEV is to use ADATS.   I have seen the presentations, and someone has even posted the concept pictures to this site:
MMEV_Concept_2.jpg


Here is one thread on it:
http://army.ca/forums/threads/1580.0
 
A

ags281

Guest
Hmm... the picture on the R&D site looks remarkably like a hotrod shop grabbed an MGS, resulting in it being lowered and sectioned.  ::) Looks like it's going to be a tight squeeze inside there.
 
H

Herecomesthegun

Guest
YardApe, the picture you posted has adats along with some other arnament, could you explain what they areif you know?
 
Y

Yard Ape

Guest
The MMEV will expand on the ADATS to use more munition types (in the picture there are rocket pods & different missile types).

There is no final design that I know of, so everything is just someones vision of what could be.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
187
Points
710
Yard Ape and Here Comes the Gun

The concept mockup seems to include the Hydra-70 modules and a pair of Hellfires. 

Hydra -70 is a system that uses the 70 mm rocket commonly used on Helicopters for ground support. One variant, the CRV-7, can also be used on the CF-18 for ground support.  It used to be manufactured by B ristol Aerospace in Winnipeg, don't know if it still is.

CRV-7 and the usual variants are unguided rockets.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/hydra-70.htm

The US is working on a guided version to take out soft and lightly armoured targets at long range. It is call the APKMS Advanced Precision Kill Missile System. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/apkws.htm

Incidentally the 70mm rocket (2.75")  was originally designed as an anti-air capability - designed to establish a wall of steel between the target and an incoming missile.

It has previously been hung on to  LAV-25 turrets, along with TOWs by the USMC.  It has also been hung onto  the LAV-AD along with the Gatling gun and Stingers.

Starting to sound like a Multi-Missions Effect Capability.

I presume the idea on an Afghanistan type mission is to take along one squadron that can be assigned by troops to specific tasks rather than having to take in separate troops and batteries of LAV-TOWs, MGSs, ADATS, AMOS-120s, etc.

Actually this kind of begs a question - could a couple of pairs of TOWs  or Hydra-70 boxes be hung on the outside of the MGS?  Assuming weight alllowances of course.


:-\















 

Cdn Blackshirt

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
34
Points
530
I need to ask a dumb question....

If you're not going to be carrying troops why wouldn't you use the LAV-II chassis as per Coyote instead?

It's lighter.  

It would be Herc Transportable.

....and you could use the existing LAV-AD as the base for development.

blazer8.jpg

blazer5.jpg


Thanks in advance,



Matthew.   ;)
 
H

Herecomesthegun

Guest
Now if I understandd correctly the MMEV, Tow UnderArmour, and MGS will be used together to gain direct fire capability. I also grasp the concept that different missiles coud be used
in the system, however the range would still be in the 8km mark...Icant help but wonder how this short range could be of anyuse if the vehicle was be used for anti-tank capability.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
187
Points
710
the range would still be in the 8km mark...Icant help but wonder how this short range could be of anyuse if the vehicle was be used for anti-tank capability.

Herecomesthegun

Could you clarify your concern here?  I am at a bit of a loss when you describe 8km in the direct fire anti-tank role as short range.

Reference some of the weapons systems that might be combined in the MMEV.

105mm  rifle  2-4 km  depending on target
120 mm cannon/rifle 4-5km depending on target
120mm Halat (cannon launched laser guided missile) about 6 km

Javelin ATGM 2.5 km
TOW ATGM 3.75 km
Hellfire ATGM >5km
Joint Common Missile >5km
ADATS (Anti-tank role >8km)

Stinger Anti-Aircraft Missile (1-8km)
Starstreak Anti-Air Missile (5 km)
ADATS (Anti-Air role >8km)

Hydra-70  5-10 km (Direct Fire)
                10-15 km (Indirect Fire)


I don't think the idea behind the MMEV is that all vehicles should be identically configured all the time. I think the idea is that like an AH-64 the commander can take a squadron/battery of vehicles into the field along with a few containers of various weapons and munitions and configure the vehicles to meet various threats.

The Hydra-70 alone would be a useful piece of kit having HE, HEAT, Flechette, WP and RP smoke, IR and Whilte Light Illuminating Rounds.  It can be employed to thicken AT defenses (direct fire or sub-munitions) APers (HE or Flechette) Anti-Air (Flechette) or as a poor mans mobile artillery.

I can just see the fight over cap-badges now  >:D ;D

Cheers








 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
187
Points
710
Kirkhill said:
the range would still be in the 8km mark...Icant help but wonder how this short range could be of anyuse if the vehicle was be used for anti-tank capability.

Herecomesthegun

Could you clarify your concern here?   I am at a bit of a loss when you describe 8km in the direct fire anti-tank role as short range.

Reference some of the weapons systems that might be combined in the MMEV.

105mm   rifle   2-4 km   depending on target
120 mm cannon/rifle 4-5km depending on target
120mm Halat (cannon launched laser guided missile) about 6 km

Javelin ATGM 2.5 km
TOW ATGM 3.75 km
Hellfire ATGM >5km
Joint Common Missile >5km
ADATS (Anti-tank role >8km)

Stinger Anti-Aircraft Missile (1-8km)
Starstreak Anti-Air Missile (5 km)
ADATS (Anti-Air role >8km)

Hydra-70   5-10 km (Direct Fire)
                 10-15 km (Indirect Fire)


I don't think the idea behind the MMEV is that all vehicles should be identically configured all the time. I think the idea is that like an AH-64 the commander can take a squadron/battery of vehicles into the field along with a few containers of various weapons and munitions and configure the vehicles to meet various threats.

The Hydra-70 alone would be a useful piece of kit having HE, HEAT, Flechette, WP and RP smoke, IR and Whilte Light Illuminating Rounds.   It can be employed to thicken AT defenses (direct fire or sub-munitions) APers (HE or Flechette) Anti-Air (Flechette) or as a poor mans mobile artillery.

I can just see the fight over cap-badges now   >:D ;D

Cheers

PS   I can't find the reference just now but I seem to recall that a single rocket was equivalent in effect to a 105mm round.   Therefore a seven round pack on a vehicle would supply the local commander equivalent fire-power to a C3 battery firing one round for effect. 4 packs distributed around an 8 car recce troop   could be a useful back pocket capability

(4-6 of the FerretIIs being discussed (perhaps 7.62 and Javelins) , 0-2 Coyote-Masts/Cmd (7.62,25,Starstreak?) , 2 MMEVs configured with 2x105mm rifles, 4 TOWs or Hellfires or Joint Common Missiles between them and 4 7-packs of Hydra-70s with various warheads (smoke, HE,illuminating).   The MMEVs and Coyotes in overwatch might give the guys in the Ferrets a greater sense of comfort.

On the other hand the combination of gun and missile on one vehicle could result in cases where the gun would be rendered surplus to requirements   and undesirable weight if the commander needs arty support from stand-off ranges.

Perhaps the answer is to have the abiltity to hang missiles from the MGS as well supplying the ADATS platform with the ability to launch the same missiles along with their existing missiles.

Kind of like that answer :-\
 
H

Herecomesthegun

Guest
well, its seems to mee with that data you posted kirkhill that its a very capable vehicle,
and the fact that the army plans to procure the MMEV with MGS and TOW Under Armour which have been
planned to work collaborately , I just cant see why people are complaining about replaing the Leopard C2s??
Could you please give some insight into my question?
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
187
Points
710
I am the wrong person to ask I am afraid, George Wallace, Slim, Franko or Ex-Dragoon could fill you in better.

I think though that the difference is in capability.   Infantry occupies.   Artillery Destroys. Armour Assaults. ie it gets up close and personal with a defended locality so that it can be occupied   rather than just destroyed.

The MMEV system or systems, whatever they end up to be and however they are armed, are direct fire artillery systems, they destroy threats.

The assault requires heavily armoured APCs (armoured not armed), preferably with tracks, to carry infantry onto the objective. It also requires tanks, with tracks and heavy armour, to accompany the assault forces onto the objective to supply direct fire support in the face of enemy fire.

When not used for the assault they are also capable of swanning around the countryside engaging like-minded cavalry men in tanks. ;) Cheers George.

Just a reminder Herecomethegun, as far as I know the MMEV is a "concept" vehicle.   The platform has yet to be decided as has the weapons mix.   Despite the fact there are many capable platforms and weapons systems out there and potentially in the pipeline nobody knows yet how such a system would perform in practice and in which situations it would be an asset and in which situations it would be a liability.

Cheers :)
 

Lance Wiebe

Sr. Member
Reaction score
1
Points
230
One of my big worries is that the MMEV and the YUA are basically defense-orientated vehicles.  By that, I mean that because they cannot fire on the move, they cannot be used in the assault.  While the MGS can fire on the move, its mobility is restricted because it is a very large, top-heavy vehicle on wheels.

In todays warfare, stationary vehicles are dead vehicles.

Trying to replace the tank with cheap alternatives is a concept that anyonein a command position should realise is a stupid concept.

And if, as the pundits say, that Canada will never go to war, then why are we talking about the MMEV?

If we are going to equip and train for war, then lets do it right!
 

Ex-Dragoon

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1
Points
0
I have been out of the Armoured Corps for 10 years and the idea of replacing a tank with a lightly armoured wheeled vehicle just seems to obviously wrong. A wheeled force backed up with heavy armour I can see. We are the only nation replacing an effective tank with wheeled LAVs, the other countries of the world must be envious of this brilliant idea and can't wait to implement it for their militaries. ::)  Guess what it isn't a good idea, who else is going the same. No one thats who, it will only end up getting people killed if we continue along this path.
 

Slim

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I hear that the Conservatives have promised to scrap the silly thing and go get us more tanks. :D
 
A

ags281

Guest
I hear that the Conservatives have promised to scrap the silly thing and go get us more tanks.   :D

:D indeed! If we're working on getting lift, just design those lift capabilities to take whatever tank we need to get the job done. Equipment to suit doctrine, not the other way around!

I'd trust the conservatives with a minority, but not with a majority. This type of equipment issue just might still get by in the compromise process, while some of the less sensible policies would have to be cut. Actually, a Liberal minority would see some necessary equipment programs as well (with a large Conservative share of the seats a close second to them that is), so either way. Minority is what we need for this mandate: there are quite a few MP's out there who could use a few years of reminding that the absolute power of a majority can be taken away by the people if taken for granted. Well, that and the fact that it would be more tempting for a majority (Conservative or other) to give up their promise of free votes and electoral reform. Ok, perhaps too far off topic... stopping there
 
H

Herecomesthegun

Guest
It seems to me that alot of people disaprove of the MGS, TOW, and the MMEV partially because they are wheeled, but speed is propbably one of the most important aspects of war. Besides our foreign policy is shifting to the idea of bringing piece to the middle east (heh, that rymes) and tracked vehiles shoudnt do very well in the desert enviroment of the midleeast or atleast i think
:p, In my opinion we should go along with having a wheeled force.
 

Infanteer

Army.ca Myth
Staff member
Directing Staff
Donor
Reaction score
380
Points
1,030
Thanks kiddo.

It seems to me that alot of people disaprove of the MGS, TOW, and the MMEV partially because they are wheeled, but speed is propbably one of the most important aspects of war.

All the speed in the world will do you know good if your vehicle is a flaming wreck.  Survivability, offered by a level of armour only tracked chassis can support, is another one of those aspects of war you seem to know.

Besides our foreign policy is shifting to the idea of bringing piece to the middle east (heh, that rymes)

Please direct us to that policy shift, Mr Axworthy

tracked vehiles shoudnt do very well in the desert enviroment of the midleeast or atleast i think

Tracks spread the weight of a vehicle out over a larger surface area, and hence are less likely to get stuck in the sand.  Now why don't you zip it and try and learn something instead of cluttering up discussions with your blahblah.
 
Top