Should Canada adopt the LAV III (AKA: Stryker) as its primary armoured vehicle family?

[Daniel San]

I must be repeating what some might have said before me but I believe that the MBTs should still be imployed and for quite a while still in the cdn army.

Why: 1- Go over a pile of metal scrap (aka a car wreck) with an tire-equipped veh. I've got news for you, tires get punctured.
        2- Armour strength, the LAV III as modern as it is still is not as well armoured as the Leopard.
        3- Manoeuvrability, ya sure, the LAV is thinner than the Leopard therefore it squeeze into smaller spaces but the turning radius is largely in favour of the large cat, try rotating 360 ° with a LAV.
        4- With over a 100 MBTs, you can retire a few and conserve them for spare pieces, no? (cannibalizing)
        5- Go see what Matt Fisher suggests:

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-fisher1-1.htm

Transform the Leopard into an dedicated urban warfare weapon system. That would be useful.   ^-^

 

[a_majoor]

The argument about common logistics is cancelled out in true Canadian fashion by the retention and rebuilding of LAV I (6X6) and LAV II (Coyote, Bison) in the system. While I totally understand the impulse (desperation, since the government agreed to buy @ 400 of the required 1400 LAV III variants identified), it really doesn't help anyone except GD, who get nice contracts to do all this for us.

Here is A thought into what versions the other 1000 LAV IIIs "should" be: (add in the Reserve and there would be more than double the number)

LAV III section carrier: similar to the current version, but replaces the turret with an OWS for reduced silhouette, weight and hight.

Coyote IIa recce vehicle; mounts the Delco turret with LLTV or TI sights and carries a four man dismount squad in the back. Partnered with the Coyote IIb, which has a much improved surveillance suite that does not take 30 min to raise/lower. If warrented, a Coyote IIc with an NBC recce suite in the back can also be procured. Coyote IIb can also be issued as the forward observer vehicle for the Artillery.

LAV FS: a direct fire support vehicle carrying a small (60-90mm) high velocity cannon and a generous ammunition load (@ 40 rounds). The gun mount is high angled to deal with those annoying rooftop snipers in an urban fight. The same chassis is also available with a breach loading 81mm mortar (since you can pack a lot more 81mm mortar bombs into the vehicle as compared to the 120mm. Numbers do count).

LAV AT: carries a long range missile system such as HELLFIRE, BRIMESTONE or FOG-M, and replaces LAV-TOW and MMEV, since the missiles can be used direct or indirect and have at least an 8 km range. LAV-AA would use the same chassis if procured.

LAV LOGISTICS: configured like a pick-up truck, would carry pallatized or modular supply packs to support the other versions. A "camper top" would be added for ambulance, CP, mobile workshop and other similar vehicles.

LAV Pioneer: Mostly a light engineer vehicle that can keep up with the rest of the combat team and provide some mobility/counter mobility for the troops. The LAV MRT would be based on this version, and maybe both would be subvarients of the LAV LOGISTICICS "pickup truck".

LAV SP: The 105mm SP version of the LAV III, "just because".

The argument about the LAV being "too complex" for the reserve does not hold a lot of water for me, many armies issue equipment of equal or greater complexity to their reserves (Just walk past the compounds in Ft Knox, KY and you will see the equipment for a modern American Armoured Brigade stored for the Kentuckey National Guard...). If nothing else, the constant flow between the Regular and Reserve worlds would encourage and support the use of high end equipment.

The false economies of buying small numbers of equipment is really the crux of the problems accepting the LAV and the entire "wheeled army" thing. (I am aware of the virtue of track, so please don't start  ;D). If enough LAVs were available, then the equipment would be familier; and more people could have the experience to make sensible suggestions for modifications, changes to doctrine and TTPs and so on. A big production run would also invite economies of scale, most of the reason LAVs are so expensive is they are essentially hand built.

This draws a number of threads together, and "perhaps" will stimulate some thinking in the procurment world.....

 

[Kirkhill]

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050217/dcth035_1.html

STERLING HEIGHTS, Mich., Feb. 17 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The U.S. Army has ordered a fifth brigade of Stryker wheeled combat vehicles from General Dynamics Land Systems, a business unit of General Dynamics (NYSE: GD - News). The order for 423 vehicles to equip the brigade is valued at $582 million. Vehicle deliveries are slated for January 2006 through January 2007.

1000 mixed LAVs approximately 1.7BCAD with delivery from roughly January 2008 to June 2010.  Assuming the Americans only pick up the 6th Brigade set and don't opt for more.

 

[George Wallace]

a_majoor

That is the direction we should go if we want to stay with this "Wheeled" philosophy we currently seem to have.  At present, commonality of parts is a serious problem.  We are modifying AVGPs and retaining them in the system.  Coyote and Bison do not have commonality of parts.  All three of these vehicles do not have any commonality with LAV III and that is a serious supply and logistical problem, not only in parts but in other aspects such as vehicle recovery and transportation.  In vehicle recovery of all these vehicles, different methods must be utilized.  In transporting these vehicles, different procedures are implemented such as different tie down procedures, different numbers of vehicles loaded per rail car, different requirements to close up (ie. Coyotes require the exhausts to be plugged so that the turbos don't get damaged) vehicles, etc. 

A common platform would cut down on the Logistics problems.  It would cut down on training; D & M and Gunnery. 

Current Coyote, Bison and AVGP variants could be cascaded down to the Reserves solving a serious problem with lack of equipment to the Reserves and perhaps boost Recruiting.

GW

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

a_majoor

That is the direction we should go if we want to stay with this "Wheeled" philosophy we currently seem to have.   At present, commonality of parts is a serious problem.   We are modifying AVGPs and retaining them in the system.   Coyote and Bison do not have commonality of parts.   All three of these vehicles do not have any commonality with LAV III and that is a serious supply and logistical problem, not only in parts but in other aspects such as vehicle recovery and transportation.   In vehicle recovery of all these vehicles, different methods must be utilized.   In transporting these vehicles, different procedures are implemented such as different tie down procedures, different numbers of vehicles loaded per rail car, different requirements to close up (ie. Coyotes require the exhausts to be plugged so that the turbos don't get damaged) vehicles, etc.  

A common platform would cut down on the Logistics problems.   It would cut down on training; D & M and Gunnery.  

Current Coyote, Bison and AVGP variants could be cascaded down to the Reserves solving a serious problem with lack of equipment to the Reserves and perhaps boost Recruiting.

GW

George, my understanding was that AVGP were all LAV-I's, and the Coyote and Bison were LAV-II's (and as such would have parts commonality at least in the engine, chassis, etc.)?  Is that incorrect?

Thanks in advance,



Matthew. 

 

[George Wallace]

George, my understanding was that AVGP were all LAV-I's, and the Coyote and Bison were LAV-II's (and as such would have parts commonality at least in the engine, chassis, etc.)? Is that incorrect?

I wouldn't really  call the AVGP family LAV 1s, nor the Coyote and Bison as LAV II, but some do.  I truly have not heard anyone in the Forces call them that.  I imagine that this is the result of us calling the LAV III a LAV III and some want to create in their minds that its' predecessors had to be the LAV I and LAV II.   

The Bison came on line just after the LAV 25 that we produced for the USMC.  It had different suspensions and engines/trasmissions, etc.  The Coyote came on line later and include 'improvements' on them both.  Unfortunately, although they may look like they are the same, they are not.  Bison parts are not interchangable with those of the Coyote.  Suspensions are different, engines are different, etc.  If I remember correctly, you can't even exchange the wheels/tires.

Gw

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

I do favour an all LAV aproach to our infantry and recce forces.  LAV III with TOW or Javelin make a solid support system for infantry.  It is not a MBT, nor is the MGS, but it can defend itself if it finds itself facing an MBT.  It is not the same as the US or UK forces that can expect to whistle up heavy armour if they run into trouble, we must have the ability to defend ourselves with our own kit.  Lighter recce LAV, perhaps replacing the turret with .50 HMG to reduce weight, lower profile, and increase offroad performance, upgraded Coyote's for surveilance, dedicated missle LAV III for AT and AA.  LAV III with 120mm mortar for indirect fire, and 105mm direct fire.  We are not going to get MBT, we can do LAV.  If we go all LAV, we gain strategic speed, if we go half LAV half tracked, we can't catch the little guys, and can't fight the big boys.  If we go all LAV, we can have a robust fighting force that can contribute as part of an allied force, or alone.  Its something we can afford, and something we can use to accomplish the tasks we are likely to face.  As far as the theoretical air deployment ability of the LAV, not with our Hercs, not even if every one of the old birds were in the air at once. 

 

[George Wallace]

There are vast differences in Wheeled and Tracked Forces.   Wheels may be faster on roads, but bog easily cross country, be it wet ground or sand.   Tracked vehicles tend to win the manoeuvrability contest.   Wheeled win the highway contest.   I find a serious problem with people who think like civies and think the next conflict is going to involve highspeed moves across roads and parking lots in ideal conditions.   Tracked would win the day.   It is like a Tortoise and Hare story.

The amount of armour that can be applied to Tracked vehicles is usually more than can be applied to wheeled.  

Bridge classes that can be crossed by tracked vehicles are usually more flexible than wheeled vehicles.   A bridge may allow a
60 Ton tracked vehicle to cross, but only a 20 Ton double axled wheeled vehicle (a little exaggerated, but hopefully you catch my drift.).

The armour protection and size of weapon system that can be applied to wheeled vehicles as opposed to tracked is vastly different.

When it comes to travelling on roads the Wheeled fleet has the advantage.   When it comes to cross country, only a maniac in a wheeled vehicle can keep up to tracked vehicles.  

I am positive that the decisions to go wheeled are being made by NON-COMBAT ARMS, or at the very least non-combatants, who have no real idea of what a combat vehicle requires.   It amazes me that we have all these new publications; LESSONS LEARNED, and they are all old ideas and lessons that have been forgotten by the "younger" generation of officer we have today.   I argue vehemently against going Wheeled.   I forsee us having to learn more lessons over again, with a great loss of life in doing so.

But if we have to, we can see some very good suggestions on where our Wheeled Fleet should head, in the above posts.  Just remember that the type of employment we send these vehicles will be rather limited in scope.


GW

 

[Zipper]

I agree with you totally GW!

It is not a MBT, nor is the MGS, but it can defend itself if it finds itself facing an MBT.

Hmmm...    ...why do I doubt that? I seem to remember in Gunnery being told that the first shot wins, so be sharp and make it count(along with a cuff to the head).

If a full troop was facing a single MBT, I might say you'll get out with at least one. But since they usually travel in groups...

Sorry, I just find it rather naive to think that way.

We are not going to get MBT, we can do LAV. If we go all LAV, we gain strategic speed, if we go half LAV half tracked, we can't catch the little guys, and can't fight the big boys. If we go all LAV, we can have a robust fighting force that can contribute as part of an allied force, or alone. Its something we can afford, and something we can use to accomplish the tasks we are likely to face.

You know? Your probably right. I'm sure the politicians would love to hear it too. But then we lose the capability of getting and deploying MBT's quickly when the shit hits the fan. And it always hits the fan at some time. We're placing ourselves right back in the 30's, and we're going to make the same mistakes again and pay for it with lives. Plain and simple.

Of course, the candy man is going to be coming to town on Weds. Lets see what he has to say and then we'll be right back here looking at LAV variants.

 

[Zipper]

I'm not sure if this has been posted yet, as I did not read all 17 pages. But it brings the whole LAV III and wheels into a rather clear light.

http://www.g2mil.com/LAV-III.htm

Makes you think.

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

The only problem with M113 proposals is that to a Canadian politician, that gives them an excuse to not buy us new kit, but take our clapped out antique M113's and send them to Quebec where we will spend $500,000 each to refit Vietnam era kit to standards equal only on paper to the $200,000 price tag of the new kit.  On the air mobility aspects of the M113 with 25mm/Javelin turret, those proposals were based on the US C130-J, does anyone know if they are true of our own older birds as well?

 

[ArmyRick]

Zipper, that link you posted, is a couple years old.

As far as the picture of a US LAV25 getting stuck? In mud like that, beleive me the M113 would too. I have lots of expirience with the old classic. They're time has come. Only a handfull of re-fitted ones are all we should keep.

Most of the guys I know who are qualified M113 and LAVIII, say they would take the LAVIII hands down.

The LAVIII is not a grizzly or a LAV25, its alot better and far more mobile.

So what about tracked vehicle that would be fast and mobile? How about the Alvis Stormer APC series. The latest variants can do 80 KM/h Forward or reverse...

 

[Zipper]

Ok thanks.

No argument about the M113. Let the old thing die.

I posted that articule to reference more to the non-ability of packing one of those things (as well as a stryker) in a Herc. As well as the the argument about going all wheeled. No doubt they have their uses and will function quite well. But we have to maintain our armoured (track) capability as well.

Ah well.

 

[Zipper]

Here is another website that may be of interest. Considering their growing power both military and financial.

http://www.sinodefence.com/army/armour/default.asp

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

The Chinese WZ551 family of APC/IFV include:
Other variants include:

WZ554 self-propelled twin-23mm antiaircraft artillery guns, 6X6
WZ551D DK-9 (PL-9) air defence missile system, 6X6
WZ901F (Type 86) patrol vehicle, 6X6
WZ91 anti-tank guided missile launch vehicle, 4X4
Long-hull APC, 8X8
120mm Self-Propelled Mortar-Howitzer, 6X6
Armoured recovery vehicle (ARV), 6X6
Armoured ambulance, 6X6

Our LAV is a superior platform in all respects, but the WZ family shows the versitility of the basic design, and outlines production variants similar to those that a Canadian LAV force would grow to include.  I would like to see our LAV numbers ramped up the the 1000+ initially promised to the Canadian Army, and including dedicated antitank, antiaircraft, patrol, direct and indirect fire support, engineer and ambulance variants.

 

[Zipper]

Maybe so. But the reason I posted that site was to point out the fact that while the Chinese are building "rapid reaction" divisions with wheels, they are still greatly invested in track. As are the Russians and most of the countries that could be deemed "unfriendly" to us. Meaning that they do not have mutual protection agreements with us.

Its rather interesting that the "west" is turning itself into light forces by going wheeled (and shrinking in numbers) and making themselves believe the world is a safer place by putting out these brush fires in small African and middle-eastern nations. Meanwhile those countries that have been our historical opponents are still going heavy and increasing the sizes of their military's. China has the capability alone of fielding an army approx. 1.7 million in numbers. How many armoured divisions would that be?

Not that we should be preparing for a war with china, considering our attempted economic changes there. But I think we should be planning for "worst case" scenario's. And by slipping ourselves into a strict niche, we do ourselves a disservice.

It is unfortunate that the military in the States has once again been taken over by the politicians and is listening to Rumsfeld and his crazy "go light and fast" ideas. All that work put in by Powell and company to learn the lessons of Vietnam not with standing.

 

[Kirkhill]

"All that work by Powell......" almost resulted in a the US only having half-a-dozen sledgehammers in their tool box and confronted with a world of screws and nuts.

No doubt a sledgehammer is required.  Maybe even 2 or 3.  But other tools are needed as well.

Part of the Powell programme was expressly to limit the ability of the US government to act by limiting the tools available.  Light forces and Special forces represent a screw-drivers and multi-tools. Every bit as necessary as sledgehammers to allow governments to achieve outcomes in their national interest.

 

[big bad john]

Everyone has been talking about WZ551's and CV90's.  So I posted some photos of the families of vehicles.  enjoy

 

[Zipper]

Part of the Powell programme was expressly to limit the ability of the US government to act by limiting the tools available.   Light forces and Special forces represent a screw-drivers and multi-tools. Every bit as necessary as sledgehammers to allow governments to achieve outcomes in their national interest.

But wouldn't that be just the point? The US forces HAD light forces (Marines, Rangers, Airborne, etc) and Spec forces already and knew how to use them. So those tool were already in the chest if you will. The whole idea was to keep the government out of the day to day decisions, and to choose targets that were not only "politically" driven.

They've swung the opposit direction now, back to where they were in the early 70's. Micro-managed by people who do not know how to fight a war.

It still leaves to question the US's focus on light troops instead of keeping a successful mix.

 

[Kirkhill]

The whole idea was to keep the government out of the day to day decisions, and to choose targets that were not only "politically" driven.

Micro-managed by people who do not know how to fight a war.

War is a political act.   Politicians get a say.   It is equally valid to say that soldiers should have no say because they don't know politics.

Of course there is friction between the two sides - always are, always will be, especially when strong egos and heart-felt positions are involved.

The US did indeed have light forces - but they didn't have many of them and they had to fight awfully hard for a share of the budget.   The current focus on light is only by difference.   Before all the effort was dedicated to the heavy forces.   Much effort was directed against finding roles and budget for Marines, Infantry, Airborne troopers, Rangers and SF troops.   The ultimate denigration of all ideas associated with them was "too light to fight".   Any money that didn't go into diesel and tracks was wasted.  

Infantry in this view was only good for securing tank lagers and clearing defiles as the Shock Army roared around the edges of town.

If it looks like the Legacy Armored Force is taking a back seat it is only because they have occupied the front seat for so long and now the US is finding that they aren't much use to them in Iraq today.   The call now is for the Infanteer - and they don't have enough.