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

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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brock
  • Start date Start date
One point that was recently brought up by one of the LO's (I think the TRADOC LO) in the US is that with the SCTF and in future ops - Canada will have to be prepared to operate in all three blocks and that the US would not tolerate our inability to not do so.  This was derived from the results of a wargame held where the US trialed their future abilities and we were able to utilise our future combat construct as well.  The question that I would have (and I am not a detractor of the MGS or Stryker) is whether the Operations in Iraq that are ongoing currently justify the consideration of the Stryker and MGS as a "first block" option.  Although we define war in three blocks this, I don't think, automatically means an urban only focus.  So what I am trying to get at (knowing the Marines had LAVs) is - has the Stryker family proven itself in a first block/possibly open terrain environment, to justify us using it for that purpose? It may have proven successful in the urban fight but what about the wide open battlefield?
 
<2 MUSD apiece for new amphibious LAVs.

Pentagon Contract Announcement
 
 
(Source: US Department of Defense; issued Feb. 2, 2006)
 
 
General Dynamics Land Systems, Sterling Heights, Mich., was awarded on Jan. 31, 2006, a $128,302,167 firm-fixed-price contract for Light Armored Vehicles and Supporting Logistics and Engineering Products. 

Work will be performed in Sterling Heights, Mich. (7 percent), and London, Ontario, Canada (93 percent), and is expected to be completed by June 30, 2008. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This was a sole source contract initiated on Aug. 10, 2005. 

The Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command, Warren, Mich., is the contracting activity (W56HZV-06-C-0255). 

 
 
General Dynamics Awarded $257 Million Contract for Light Armored Vehicles
 
 
(Source: General Dynamics Land Systems; issued Feb. 2, 2006)
 
 
STERLING HEIGHTS, Mich. --- General Dynamics Land Systems, a business unit of General Dynamics, has received a $128 million increment of a $257 million contract for 130 new eight-wheeled Light Armored Vehicles (LAV-A2) in various configurations for the U.S. Marine Corps. The contract has a total potential value of $307 million if a $50 million option for electric turret drives is exercised. 

The LAV-A2 variants are an improved version of the Marines' Light Armored Vehicle series which entered service in the 1980s and continues operational employment today. General Dynamics will deliver armored personnel, anti-tank, command & control, logistic, and mortar variants beginning in July 2007. Work will be performed by existing General Dynamics employees in London, Ontario, Canada; Sterling Heights, Mich.; and Woodbridge, Va. Work is expected to be complete by July 2008. 

The Light Armored Vehicle A2 provides the Marine Corps' Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion a mobile, agile and survivable system for conducting offensive and defensive operations in support of the Marine Air-Ground Task Force. The eight-wheeled amphibious armored vehicle is equipped with an improved suspension, is fitted for enhanced armor protection and features an automatic fire suppression system for crew protection. Power is provided by a Detroit Diesel 6V53T diesel engine developing 275 horsepower coupled to an Allison MT653, 6 speed (5 forward, 1 reverse) automatic transmission. The four rear wheels drive the vehicle on a full-time basis, but eight-wheel drive is selectable. 


General Dynamics, headquartered in Falls Church, Va., employs approximately 72,200 people worldwide and had 2005 revenue of $21.2 billion. The company is a market leader in mission-critical information systems and technologies; land and expeditionary combat systems, armaments and munitions; shipbuilding and marine systems; and business aviation. 

-ends- 

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.17226637.1138985248.Q@OJIMOa9dUAABSzadU&modele=jdc_34

 
Further to my last - from National Defense Magazine:

These comments are noteworthy:

Active protection "sounds like a great system . but I'll stick with the slat armor," said Army Lt. Col. William "Buck" James, deputy commander of the Arrowhead Stryker brigade combat team, who spent a year in Iraq.

The slat armor is a cage-like structure mounted on the Stryker vehicle. It adds bulk and limits maneuverability, but soldiers have attested to its ability to stop rocket-propelled grenades from penetrating the vehicle.

Unlike the Marine light-armored reconnaissance companies, the Stryker units engage in more aggressive offensive operations, even though they are an infantry force.

"The Stryker brigade was designed for small-scale contingencies, but with the level of combat power it has, it's generated discussions about killing tanks," James said. Armed with shoulder-fired Javelin antitank missiles, for example, Stryker soldiers can "seek out and destroy armor."



January 2006

Demand Grows for Light-Armored Vehicles

By Sandra I. Erwin

The Marine Corps is creating five new light-armored reconnaissance companies and is buying 120 vehicles to equip these units.

The 120 light-armored vehicles, or LAVs, could be delivered as early as 2007, said Col. John Bryant, Marine Corps program manager for the LAV.

The reconnaissance companies, by design, specialize in intelligence collection and security missions, but commanders in Iraq continue to find new ways to employ them, Bryant told military contractors at a conference of the Institute for Defense and Government Advancement in Silver Spring, Md.

"The LAV platform is so versatile that we end up performing a variety of missions," he said. Light armored reconnaissance battalions generally serve as the "eyes and ears for the division commander," Bryant noted. Light armored reconnaissance companies function as the "mobile eyes and ears" for the infantry regiment commander.

"We don't have enough LAR companies," Bryant said. The new five companies will be added to each active-duty battalion, and two will be allocated to the reserve battalion.

The new vehicles are being purchased with war-emergency funds that were appropriated by Congress last year. A bare-bones LAV hull costs about $1 million. A weapons turret ranges from $1.5 million to $2.5 million each.

A purchase agreement for the 120 LAVs was expected in early 2006, said a spokesman for the manufacturer, General Dynamics Land Systems. The vehicles will be delivered about 18 months after the contract is signed.

The Marines operate nearly 900 LAVs of several variants, and at least half the vehicles have been refurbished so they can last until at least 2015. Beyond that, the Marines have not yet decided on a replacement vehicle.

Under a so-called "service life-extension program" that began five years ago, LAVs have received upgraded electronics, control panels, corrosion control features, new tires and wheels and "thermal signature reduction" modifications to make them less visible to enemy sensors.

One of the newer variants of the vehicle, the LAV-25, will be upgraded with a sophisticated thermal sight, beginning in 2007.

The command-post version of the LAV will be equipped with digital command-and-control systems, a satellite communications terminal that works on the move, and a high-frequency radio antenna that also operates while the vehicle is in motion. The Marines own 50 command-post vehicles.

To help thwart roadside-bomb attacks in Iraq, LAVs are being outfitted with automatic fire-suppression systems, Bryant said. Most vehicles still have manual devices.

In its 2008 budget, the Corps will fund other "survivability" upgrades for the LAV, such as hardened components that can withstand landmine blasts and "active protection" systems that shoot down incoming rockets or antitank missiles.

None of these upgrades has yet been defined and no technologies are likely to be selected for at least two years, Bryant said. "We are watching what the U.S. Army is doing, we are working with some foreign governments to ensure there's more than one system to compete."

The Army is evaluating active-protection systems for its light-armored vehicles, the Strykers, although frontline troops continue to favor traditional armor as a more reliable form of protection.

Active protection "sounds like a great system . but I'll stick with the slat armor," said Army Lt. Col. William "Buck" James, deputy commander of the Arrowhead Stryker brigade combat team, who spent a year in Iraq.

The slat armor is a cage-like structure mounted on the Stryker vehicle. It adds bulk and limits maneuverability, but soldiers have attested to its ability to stop rocket-propelled grenades from penetrating the vehicle.

Unlike the Marine light-armored reconnaissance companies, the Stryker units engage in more aggressive offensive operations, even though they are an infantry force.

"The Stryker brigade was designed for small-scale contingencies, but with the level of combat power it has, it's generated discussions about killing tanks," James said. Armed with shoulder-fired Javelin antitank missiles, for example, Stryker soldiers can "seek out and destroy armor."

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2006/Jan/SB-Demand.htm
 
Hm.  No mention of the MGS variant.

It also sounds more like the LAV II chassis than the LAV III, doesn't it?  Detroit instead of CAT for example?
 
Actually that would sound about right Lance.  They are probably looking for commonality with what they have since they are talking about adding companies to existing units.  And as you say, no reference to the MGS.
 
The LAV 25 is of the same generation as the Coyote or Bison, but there is no particular reason that production line can't be re opened. Now if someone in our organization was smart about it, we could slide in and at a minimum share assembly line space to upgrade our Bisons and Coyotes and  restock on spare parts.

VonGarvin and RecceDG have spoken in favor of the Bison as a mortar carrier and recce vehicle, and it is versatile enough to be a wheeled M-113 and adapted for all kinds of other roles, why not go for it and buy a few hundred new ones for the CF? Yes it will upset programs like the LARV (Light Armoured Recce Vehicle), but we could be taking delivery in 2008, not looking at the prototype in 2011.....
 
What happen the Combat Engineer LAV? I heard that the prototype looked interesting but was never followed up on. If you are going to have a wheeled force, you better dam well ensure that your Combat Engineers can keep up and take care of the obstacles under fire. Do we still use that Wheeled bulldozer that they had in the mid-80’s?


The MGS (aka a bunch of problems traveling in the same general directions). Everyone claims it is new high tech, in actual fact it is an old gun (60’s) turret designed in the 80’s on a hull designed in the 90’s.

There are a lot of better turret options out there than this, also a 90mm LP gun would more ammo to be carried. The only reason to keep the 105 is so we can pretend to have some sort of AT option. Having a 90-105mm gun equipped LAV in addition to tanks is a good idea, trying to pretend they will adequately replace tanks is a very bad idea. I personally think the LAV family was a great idea, but I also think keeping a combat group using MBT’s, CV90’s and M109’s is equally important.

Canada will spend the rest of this century being involved in expeditionary wars and conflicts and each will be quite different than the other, having a mixed force of light and heavy that is always being evolved is the only way to be prepared for the next task given to the military.
 
Here's a question from a old Sapper who rode in the first Bison's in the Wack in 95 and has not been in a so called APC in yonk's.
How come we are having so many roll over's with the LAV?
Is it driver?
I think not ,too many in the last little while,what gives?
 
Reviving this thread in light of 2Bravo's comments on the MGS and this article:

Canadians survive RPG attack near Kandahar
GRAEME SMITH

Globe and Mail Update

Kandahar, Afghanistan — A Canadian armoured vehicle was hit by two rocket-propelled grenades Friday as troops rushed to provide backup for local Afghan police and soldiers fighting a battle against Taliban insurgents west of Kandahar.

The thick armour of the LAV-3 vehicles protected the Canadian soldiers from the blast, about 10 kilometres west of Kandahar. None of the soldiers was hurt. One of the vehicle's eight wheels was damaged, so soldiers replaced it and kept moving.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060414.wcanafgh0414/BNStory/International/home
Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provision of the Copyright Act.

I find this noteworthy because the LAV apparently survived a double RPG hit "WITHOUT" the benefit of the bird-cage on the Strykers.  Without getting into the details of the armour on the LAV vs the Stryker I thought this interesting.

Especially seeing as how exposure to enemy fire now (Blast, Chemical-HEAT, and I assume light Kinetic-small arms) has occured in an operational environment.  From the news reports it would seem to indicate that you are quite well protected as long as you can keep behind armour.
 
KH, I think it's a bit early to jump to any conclusions, as there are all sorts of questions incidents like these raise:

  • did the RPG fuse properly?
  • what part of the vehicle was hit?
  • was it a direct hit or merely a near miss?
  • were the rounds actually functional (a "problem" sometimes in Astan)?

On and on...  I should think that an RPG would penetrate a LAV III over all arcs, so find myself wondering what actually happened here.  Unfortunately, we'll have to wait and see...
 
I'm going to throw out a curve ball on this:

Make all new LAV's "LAV II" chassis. This would be a vehicle like the Coyote/Bison although it should be a new build with as much commonality as possible, and come off the line with the latest in engines, ergonomics, suspensions, built in data buses etc.

The turreted version is the Coyote II, and the basis for a 25mm DFSV, SPAAG with a Blazer or similar turret, Forward observer/FOO/FAC/MFC, surveillance system and so on.

The unturreted version can be used for a whole hockey sock of missions, including APC (mounting a RWS like the Stryker), mortar carrier, Ambulance, CP, Artillery Gun tractor (if we use towed artillery) or SP (if not), ATGM carrier, Sapper/Light engineer vehicle, electronic warfare and so on. One poster even said an unmodified Bison made a good Recce vehicle.

Why the LAV II? For one thing it is smaller and lighter than the LAV III, which reduces various logistical problems, and allows you to go in places the LAV III is too large to fit. A smaller vehicle has better signature management, and some advantages in passive protection (i.e. is harder to see). The LAV II has been proved large enough to carry a Delco 25mm turret, a Blazer SPAAG turret and the surveillance system kit of a Coyote and the Emerson "Hammerhead" TOW turret. Given that, it should be big enough for a 105mm Direct Fire turret and the Denal 105mm SP turret as well.

Big, lumbering vehicles like the LAV III are, I think, at the edge of the line for wheeled vehicles, and if we are going to a medium weight army, then perhaps a bit of a diet is in order. Logistics, transportation issues and operational/tactical mobility issues can be eased through the use of a smaller, lighter common chassis, and the USMC LAV 25 series, Canadian Coyote and Bison's show a wide range of useful vehicles are possible in this size/weight range.
 
The unturreted version can be used for a whole hockey sock of missions, including APC (mounting a RWS like the Stryker),

Or perhaps something a little heavier like the Rafael 30mm/Spike combination RCWS-30 adopted by the Czechs.  http://www.defense-update.com/events/2005/summary/LIC-protect-2.htm

Another thought, in line with your downsizing to the LAVII, Arthur, and the possible adoption of an RCWS system, is an opportunity to address armour, manpower and ability to contribute to stability operations.

Assume that we are rich in money (as a nation - not DND) but poor in man-power (at least of the "expendable" variety).  Therefore supplying tech-heavy rather than man-power-heavy units would seem to make sense.

Setting aside the light/mech infantry discussion for a second, suppose the LAV section were downsized to 7 (with a turreted vehicle) or 6 (with an RCWS equipped APC) as a matter of course.  This would allow for a smaller vehicle, potentially with heavier armour because fewer bodies means less weight.  It would also mean more sensors and heavy weapons per soldier while at the same time allowing for a 4-man fire team for debussing.  A platoon would be 4 vehicles, with 8 crew (Spike/30mm/7.62mm) supplying mobility and overwatch protection and there would be 16 dismounts in 4 teams of 4.

The BisonII with the RCWS-30 and the 2+4 crew would be more deployable than the LAVIII with the notional 3+7 crew.  Making the 1st and 2nd Battalions (LAV) conform to this structure would allow for more sub-units with less manpower and allow for manpower saved to be tranferred to the various light/airborne/CSOR/JTF units being stood up, not to mention truck drivers and sigs etc.

One other point about a smaller vehicle: the smaller surface area requires less armour of a given thickness to cover it.  Therefore it is possible to put thicker armour on a smaller vehicle than on a larger one, assuming the same power train and suspension.

And what role for the Armoured Corps.....Armoured Recce + Armoured Assault.  Somebody still needs to do it.

 
a_majoor said:
Why the LAV II? For one thing it is smaller and lighter than the LAV III, which reduces various logistical problems, and allows you to go in places the LAV III is too large to fit. A smaller vehicle has better signature management, and some advantages in passive protection (i.e. is harder to see). The LAV II has been proved large enough to carry a Delco 25mm turret, a Blazer SPAAG turret and the surveillance system kit of a Coyote and the Emerson "Hammerhead" TOW turret. Given that, it should be big enough for a 105mm Direct Fire turret and the Denal 105mm SP turret as well.

I don't recall seeing too much of a difference between the two when they were parked side-by-side on the battalion lines.  The LAV III was definitely larger, but I don't think there difference is enought to make a difference tactically - any crewmen who can substantiate or refute this?

I think the LAV III is a better choice considering their preponderance in the US orbat.
 
Arthur- was it not a LAV II made in London about 10 years ago that tested a 105mm arty gun which blew all the doors and hatches off when the gun fired?
 
WRT the test firing of a 105mm, I don't recall the exact details, it sounds plausible but there should certainly be enough experience around now with the various LAV programs to validate/invalidate the idea.

The USMC is a big user of the LAV 25 family, and there were some other big customers as well (Saudi National Guard for one), so we actually have a choice; all LAV II or all LAV III, as opposed to a bit of A and a bit of B. Realisticly, we will always have something of a mixed fleet, but standardizing on one thing would be good. A LAV II program has the potential for economies of scale, since not only would there be several hundred to a thousand vehicles, but current Coyotes and Bisons could be remanufactured to accept the common engines, dirvetrain, databus etc. The Marines might want to come in, and the Sauds, giving a huge economy of scale and lowering the unit price for all.

I'm not sure I am with Kirkhill about the manpower reductions (a Bisonesque APC should be able to hold MORE troops without a turret basket intruding into the hull), but the point about surface area and armour protection is well noted.



 
funny thing.... went by the 202 workshops.  Lots of freshly painted turrets with what looks like brand new 76mm guns.... 

Doesn't mean anything but.... interesting nevertheless.
 
Yep, got to keep those painters busy, very interesting, new 76mm guns as in longer calibre, muzzle brake or fume extractors? Wonder if anyone is making new ammo for the 76mm that we used, most Scorpion users have gone to the 90mm.
 
76mm is not an "oddball" calibre at this time.
Perry class Frigates use it
RSA Rooikat use it
Singapore Bionix uses it and if memory serves me right - the Belgians & the Dutch (or is that Danes) have em as well.......

Obviously not the kind of weapon to go nose to nose with a MBT but could effectively look after bunkers, such as they are in Afghanistan....
 
Or, more likely, they're off the Cougars and being refurbished as we prep the fleet for disposal.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgiip/ddsal/land_e.asp


 
Back
Top