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

[McG]

The ASLAV 2, which is a turretless LAV III and requires a crew of 2.

I think it is actually a turetless "LAV II" or Bisson as we call it.

Would our mechanized force benefit in terms of O&M costs, training requirements, parts, ect, etc if we binned the Bison and all its varients and adopted the turretless LAV III as a general purpose vehicle?

Yes, but then you have procurment costs.  I'd cut the AVGP fleet first.

 

[Infanteer]

I wasn't referring to Force capability, only the Army Fleet.

with over 100 (expensive) Coyote frames that are relatively new, scrapping them isn't an option in the near future.  Unfortunately, we will have to deal with a multi-vehicle fleet for now.  How interchangeable are parts on the LAV 25 (Coyote) and the LAV III (I remember someone saying that Coyote and Bison were two different creatures altogether)?

LAV TUA/Mortar/ MGS (perhaps a smaller cannon - 90mm?) would be worth looking at.

As for artillery, I always thought guns stuck on a LAV chassis looked awkward.  I always thought the South African G-6 would go well with a LAV CAV organization - I know its a different chassis, but thems the breaks.  Any thoughts on this?

 

[Infanteer]

I think it is actually a turetless "LAV II" or Bisson as we call it.

Actually, going on my AFV skills, I think you're right.  Those smallish tires on the turretless varients say "LAV 25".  I'm not sure if it is the equivelent of a Bison though.  I thought George Wallace said that the Bison and the LAV25 are two different creatures.

My mistake was mixing up ASLAV 3 (which is a turretless LAV 25) with LAV III.

Oh well.

Yes, but then you have procurment costs.   I'd cut the AVGP fleet first.

Sounds like a good start (I'm assuming AVGP means Grizz/Couger?).

 

[Kirkhill]

Zipper and Gobsmacked:

Don't scrap the AVGPs and the Bison/Coyotes - Pass them back to the reserves.

Better than what they have aren't they.  GW and ArmyRick have made a similar suggestion on some of these threads.

Infanteer:

How about that GDLS LAV/Denel 105 with the 30+ km range that the Americans trialled? Not an option for you?

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/21166.0.html

Posted by GW.

 

[Zipper]

LAV TUA/Mortar/ MGS (perhaps a smaller cannon - 90mm?) would be worth looking at.

As for artillery, I always thought guns stuck on a LAV chassis looked awkward.  I always thought the South African G-6 would go well with a LAV CAV organization - I know its a different chassis, but thems the breaks.  Any thoughts on this?

Since the MGS is basically a SP gun, then either a 90 or 105 would do. Yes it looks weird, but having the same chasis is what this is all about.

Sounds like a good start (I'm assuming AVGP means Grizz/Couger?).

Yes. Include the Husky as well.

with over 100 (expensive) Coyote frames that are relatively new, scrapping them isn't an option in the near future.  Unfortunately, we will have to deal with a multi-vehicle fleet for now.  How interchangeable are parts on the LAV 25 (Coyote) and the LAV III (I remember someone saying that Coyote and Bison were two different creatures altogether)?

Yes, your right. We couldn't scrap them. Scrap the AVGP and send all the LAV II (bison and 25) down to the reserves. That would give a leg up on training some of the armoured regiments in Cavalry.

The parts are not interchangable between the 25 and the III. As well as the Bison and 25. GW knows more about that.

 

[Infanteer]

Infanteer:

How about that GDLS LAV/Denel 105 with the 30+ km range that the Americans trialled? Not an option for you?

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/21166.0.html

Hey, never looked at that.  If it works - great.  Saves us from having to implement another chassis and gives the guns the ability to play the fast and furious LAV CAV game.

Since the MGS is basically a SP gun, then either a 90 or 105 would do. Yes it looks weird, but having the same chasis is what this is all about.

I just figured that there were a few 90mm turrets that didn't present such a problem to incorporating it as that silly 105mm "Tank Killer" - but yes, you're right, SP Gun is what we're looking for in an MGS.

Yes, your right. We couldn't scrap them. Scrap the AVGP and send all the LAV II (bison and 25) down to the reserves. That would give a leg up on training some of the armoured regiments in Cavalry.

You're right - the possibility here exists - although I'd want to keep the chassis' for the reserves at a minimum as well.

The Reserves is an imporatant issue - all our talks about Force Capabilities and Reorganization and we've yet to touch on the subject once.

The parts are not interchangable between the 25 and the III. As well as the Bison and 25. GW knows more about that.

That's what I thought.  Too bad - makes a bigger footprint.

 

[Zipper]

How about that GDLS LAV/Denel 105 with the 30+ km range that the Americans trialled? Not an option for you?

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/21166.0.html

Wow. Very nice. Get rid of the MGS in favour of that. Or put it down to 90mm and call it a sp and still give it to the Arty.

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

I don't know how many of you watch what is happening with international arms sales and procurement on the Jane's sites, but these were in my last land force update:

SOCOM eyes Stryker for urban ops
The US Army is sending 16 8 x 8 Stryker medium armoured vehicles to special operations forces in Afghanistan and US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) is considering further purchases for urban warfare, according to senior military officials.
[Jane's Defence Weekly - first posted to http://jdw.janes.com - 25 February 2005]

Turkish Pars fighting vehicle to start trials
The Turkish FNSS Savunma Sistemleri Pars (Leopard) 8 x 8 armoured fighting vehicle (AFV) will soon start a series of trials in Turkey, following its unveiling at the IDEX 2005 exhibition in Abu Dhabi in February.
[Jane's Defence Weekly - first posted to http://jdw.janes.com - 25 February 2005]

Czech Republic set to revise 8 x 8 requirement
The Czech Republic Ministry of Defence (MoD) has ordered the army to re-evaluate its requirements for new 8 x 8 armoured vehicles by the end of the first quarter of 2005, before an international tender worth up to Kcs25 billion ($.1.1 billion) is announced.
[Jane's Defence Weekly - first posted to http://jdw.janes.com - 25 February 2005]

Mowag Piranhas get bigger and tougher
The Swiss company Mowag has already won a leading position in the field of wheeled armoured vehicles with its Piranha series and it is now following its success with further development of the third-generation Piranha III and work on the new, fourth-generation Piranha IV.
[Jane's International Defence Review - first posted to http://idr.janes.com - 24 February 2005]


News Briefs enjoys a unique subscriber base worldwide. If you are interested in advertising to this audience, call Carly Litchfield on +44 (0) 20 8700 3738 or e-mail: [email protected]

     As you can see, the LAV III and its equivalents are enjoying a large amount of interest from those nations who are interested in maintaining modern fighting forces.   These are not "poor man's tanks", but a light cavalry fighting vehicle.   Canada should indeed move to an all LAV III regular force, with the Coyotes and Bison relegated to the Reserves, where they would provide much better training for the LAV III than the Cougar ever gave for the Leopard.   The LAV III is not fought like a Main Battle Tank, and a Mongol horse archer never fought like a heavy cavalry knight, but they managed to carve a fairly large path through them.   Canada is not going to be able to fight a heavy cavalry war, we lack the size to build a credible force, or deploy one.   We can provide a robust light cavalry, a combined arms force of mechanized infantry, armoured reconnaissance, direct and indirect fire support, with logistics and support elements mounted on compatable LAV III chassis for ease of maintenance, and survivability in low and mid intensity sustained combat operations.     ;D

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Hm.

It seems to me that all of the quotes from Jane's talk about getting a wheeled vehicle to augment existing capabilities.  They all have an armour Corps, they all have attack helicopters, they all have SP arty, in other words, the wheeled vehicle is being used not as a sole operating vehicle, but as a niche vehicle.

I've said it before, by going all LAV, we drastically reduce the capabilities of our Armed Forces. 

However, I fully endorse the idea of cascading the AVGP fleet to the reserves, with the idea of cascading the Coyote down to them in the future.  It would be a win-win for all concerned.  Especially seeing as how we are rapidly becoming a niche army......

 

[George Wallace]

Hm.

It seems to me that all of the quotes from Jane's talk about getting a wheeled vehicle to augment existing capabilities. They all have an armour Corps, they all have attack helicopters, they all have SP arty, in other words, the wheeled vehicle is being used not as a sole operating vehicle, but as a niche vehicle.

I've said it before, by going all LAV, we drastically reduce the capabilities of our Armed Forces.

However, I fully endorse the idea of cascading the AVGP fleet to the reserves, with the idea of cascading the Coyote down to them in the future. It would be a win-win for all concerned. Especially seeing as how we are rapidly becoming a niche army......

Lance

When the PC Party makes you Min of National Defence, can I get to be your Deputy?    ;D

GW

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

Hm.

It seems to me that all of the quotes from Jane's talk about getting a wheeled vehicle to augment existing capabilities.   They all have an armour Corps, they all have attack helicopters, they all have SP arty, in other words, the wheeled vehicle is being used not as a sole operating vehicle, but as a niche vehicle.

I've said it before, by going all LAV, we drastically reduce the capabilities of our Armed Forces.  

However, I fully endorse the idea of cascading the AVGP fleet to the reserves, with the idea of cascading the Coyote down to them in the future.   It would be a win-win for all concerned.   Especially seeing as how we are rapidly becoming a niche army......

 

[Lance Wiebe]

mainerjohnthomas;

Did you have a comment?

George;

They wouldn't dare. 

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

Sorry, the computer ate my last post, save the quote.  As I attempted to say earlier, we are a niche army now.  The Leo's we have, medium outdated tanks that they are, will never again see deployment.  All we are going to field are light cavalry forces, and going with an all LAV III fleet gives us the chance to deploy an expeditionary force with sufficient punch for low and mid intenstiy conflicts, and to serve as a screening/skirmishing force for a coalition force where the US/UK supply the heavy armour.  We are out of the tank business, and that is that (I personally don't like it, but no one voted for me).  We are a small army, keeping commonality of parts reduces our logistics tail and increases our force projection ability.  The LAVIII family gives us a platform that provides APC, SP direct fire, TUA anti tank, ( and hopefully soon an SAM and 120m mortar), engineering, amubulance, and logistics vehicle.  All the roles required, on a single platform, a supply chain that Canada can actually support with our (deplorably run down) airlift capability.  Give the Reserves the LAV II in all its forms, and let them train on kit that has some relavence to the material they will use with their parent Regiments (anyone else recall the stupidity of Cougar training as a "Leopard Trainer"?).  If we have more platforms, it reduces our ability to supply and deploy them, it results in a force that trains like a tiger in Wainwright, and deploys like a hamstrung chicken overseas because we cannot deploy all the required elements, and  some of the elements deployed become hanger queens because we cannot maintain them if employed agressively.  I would rather train on a force that resembles what we will actually deploy, and deploy a force that can patrol and fight sure and certain of the knowledge that spares are available, and what is deployed can be maintained in fighting orde for the duration of deployment.  Tracks are wonderful, tracks are matchless, tracks are a stone bitch to keep running after a few hundred clicks of bad country. LAV's we can do, if we have all LAV III we can do more, longer, more effectively.  Going all LAV III increases our ability to meet mission objectives, if we were defending Edmonton from an invasion from BC, than tracks would get my vote, since we're fighting "over there" than wheels is the way.

 

[Zipper]

Agreed with you for the most part there.

Unfortunately our government probably won't see it that way. Chances of any LAV's ever making down to the Militia are probably few and far between for a few years yet. Chances of going to an all III platform are also not good, since we have so many coyotes and bisons already, not to mention still useable Huskies.

Also, the chances of them purchasing all those variants are not good either. Thank god they are for the engineers, but the rest? Jeez I hope so.

As for being able to deploy them. Not right now. Not unless we lease or borrow other aircraft. Our Hercs are in no shape to do the job, nor are they able to move the III chassis anyway.

And if you ask me, the chances of us being made into a light Cav force, or even able to engage in a medium intensity conflict anytime soon (5 -10 years) are close to nil.

But who knows what may happen.

 

[George Wallace]

Actually, mainerjohnthomas, I thought what you just posted to be a crock pot full of big words put together randomly to give the appearance of something that they aren't and impress the impressionable, but confuse the knowledgable.  It was absolute crap.

GW

 

[T.S.Rea]

Despite the large amount of money sunk into the LAVIII, significant numbers of M113 based vehicles remain, as do upgraded versions of the LAVIII's immediate predecessor.  It does not represent a significant technical hurdle to convert M113 vehicles to a wheels and tracks configuration so that the whole force enjoys the tactical mobility of wheels and the tractive and protective benefits of tracks when required.  A significant part of the cost of the LAVIII are electronics, sensors, and weapons that are not indivisible tied to the vehicle.  Selected M113's can be re-armoured where relevant at zero weight growth, offering far superior protection than the LAVIII will ever offer, and even if they sell the existing unused M113's, worn out hulls can be bought cheaply.  I reject virtually all arguments concerning the merits of the LAVIII as confusing theory with the actual reality of its implementation, it is a sunk cost fallacy, and one that can be remedied while actually saving money in the intermediate term.  Weight to military value is critical to strategic mobility of the army and its relevance (if not the very survival of the armed forces as a geniune military force), and support costs grow exponentially with weight.

 

[McG]

T.S.Rea,
Unless you plan to entierly replace the hull, I cannot see how you would increase the armour of an old M113 without any increase in wieght.

What do you mean by "convert M113 vehicles to a wheels and tracks configuration"?

 

[George Wallace]

Despite the large amount of money sunk into the LAVIII, significant numbers of M113 based vehicles remain, as do upgraded versions of the LAVIII's immediate predecessor.

Could you more clearly define what you mean by "LAV III's immediate predecessor"?

It does not represent a significant technical hurdle to convert M113 vehicles to a wheels and tracks configuration so that the whole force enjoys the tactical mobility of wheels and the tractive and protective benefits of tracks when required.

I'd like to see your figures on this?  I am sure that the costs are prohibitive and the whole idea to be unrealistic.

A significant part of the cost of the LAVIII are electronics, sensors, and weapons that are not indivisible tied to the vehicle.

The same is true of all modern AFVs.

Selected M113's can be re-armoured where relevant at zero weight growth, offering far superior protection than the LAVIII will ever offer, and even if they sell the existing unused M113's, worn out hulls can be bought cheaply.

M113's are already being upgraded.  Some have been upgraded to TLAV, a whole new animal.

I reject virtually all arguments concerning the merits of the LAVIII as confusing theory with the actual reality of its implementation, it is a sunk cost fallacy, and one that can be remedied while actually saving money in the intermediate term. Weight to military value is critical to strategic mobility of the army and its relevance (if not the very survival of the armed forces as a geniune military force), and support costs grow exponentially with weight.

Huh?

 

[Infanteer]

Huh?

I'll second that.

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

Actually, mainerjohnthomas, I thought what you just posted to be a crock pot full of big words put together randomly to give the appearance of something that they aren't and impress the impressionable, but confuse the knowledgable.   It was absolute crap.

GW

    So you would be the impressionable or the knowledgable ;D?  Seriously, if its all the gov't is going to buy, isn't it time we stopped mourning what we can't have, and work on how to use what we can?  As far as the weapon mix being crap, there are a lot of nations using various wheeled platforms to provide the same weapon mix, and if you don't beleive me, look into it.