Should Canada adopt the LAV III (AKA: Stryker) as its primary armoured vehicle family?
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,537
- Points
- 1,160
Wouldn't the Grizzly turret fit the Bison, or could be fitted to new LAV hulls. Build the hulls to fit the larger turret, but fit the smaller turret to save costs, you would be able to increase the fleet size without a huge cost, plus they would likely have more internal space freed up for another missions, like resupply, gun tractor, comm's, CP etc?
One would think that a cargo version of the LAV would be useful, with a flat back deck to carry pallatized cargo and a small crane, sort of like a wheeled Stormer.
One would think that a cargo version of the LAV would be useful, with a flat back deck to carry pallatized cargo and a small crane, sort of like a wheeled Stormer.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Too many mods Colin. you get to the point when it would be cheaper and faster to buy new...
Nothing says that a Grizz couldn't operate with LAVs & Bisons.
It isn't a Leo but bringing a 76 to bear for bunker busting duty when you need it right this instant - would be a handy resource to have in your back pocket... only ICK in that picture is that the hulls are some 30 yrs old.
Nothing says that a Grizz couldn't operate with LAVs & Bisons.
It isn't a Leo but bringing a 76 to bear for bunker busting duty when you need it right this instant - would be a handy resource to have in your back pocket... only ICK in that picture is that the hulls are some 30 yrs old.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Do we have LAV TUAs in theatre?
76mm can shoot and scoot. the TOW needs to stay on in place as the gunner brings it on target. Then there may be an issue of range. you can fire a 76 @ point blank range, something that isn't recommended with a TOW.
76mm can shoot and scoot. the TOW needs to stay on in place as the gunner brings it on target. Then there may be an issue of range. you can fire a 76 @ point blank range, something that isn't recommended with a TOW.
Mortar guy
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 330
Way back during one of the many Army.ca discussions about the MGS I floated the idea of a "Super Cougar" (horrible name, I know). Basically I was proposing that the 100 Cougars still in stocks be refurbished as per the Grizzly DLIR/WLAV LE and that the turret be upgraded. The turret upgrade would either add a new thermal sight or could involve replacing the 76mm gun with a new CMI Mk 3 90mm gun. CMI offers this kind of upgrade for Scorpion turrets as shown here: http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/turrets/cmi/
Anywho, I was thinking that this would add an effective (in terms of cost and capability) light armoured direct fire support vehicle as a quick, interim solution until a more modern DFS could be developed and purchased. It could keep up with the LAVs and would be suitable for bunker busting, wall breaching, convoy escort, FOB defence etc. in Afghanistan and it's light enough to be carried in a C-130 (not that that's really important). Justan idea...
MG
Anywho, I was thinking that this would add an effective (in terms of cost and capability) light armoured direct fire support vehicle as a quick, interim solution until a more modern DFS could be developed and purchased. It could keep up with the LAVs and would be suitable for bunker busting, wall breaching, convoy escort, FOB defence etc. in Afghanistan and it's light enough to be carried in a C-130 (not that that's really important). Justan idea...
MG
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I like Hitormiss's idea of the LAV TUA- new vehicles with some great new rounds for it, and it would reduce any maintenance issues-parts and finding mechanics still qualified to fix them ( the cougars),
let alone finding drivers old enough to drive them
let alone finding drivers old enough to drive them
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Boondock....
LAVs and Cougars are pretty much same family of vehicles. Driving the vehicles is NOT an issue.... ant there should be some similarity in fixing things - even if the LAV is a more complex beast.
New LAVs would be nice, will be nice BUT if you order em next week, you might take delivery by.. say... 09.
LAVs and Cougars are pretty much same family of vehicles. Driving the vehicles is NOT an issue.... ant there should be some similarity in fixing things - even if the LAV is a more complex beast.
New LAVs would be nice, will be nice BUT if you order em next week, you might take delivery by.. say... 09.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
geo said:
The LAV TUA hasn't been issued out to unit's yet it's still in the trial stage however the original TUA still exist. From personnel experience that TOW missile would have made a huge difference in Panjawi more so then some direct support 76mm Cougar. in fact if you check out the Combat Support Company thread I go a bit more in depth about it. I just think deploying a 30 yr old hull with a gun isn't in anyone best intrest not when I can have stand off distance and a better armour package.
Mortar guy
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 330
Boondock,
You realize that there are still hundreds of soldiers qualified to operate and maintain the Cougar, right? They were only removed from service very recently so the capability still has not faded completely.
As for the TUA - I hear you, it's a great piece of kit. However, it does not/cannot do the same things that a Cougar (or MGS, or Leopard etc.) can do. Many situations may not warrant a $70,000 missile when a $500 HESH round would do just as well.
Cheers
MG
You realize that there are still hundreds of soldiers qualified to operate and maintain the Cougar, right? They were only removed from service very recently so the capability still has not faded completely.
As for the TUA - I hear you, it's a great piece of kit. However, it does not/cannot do the same things that a Cougar (or MGS, or Leopard etc.) can do. Many situations may not warrant a $70,000 missile when a $500 HESH round would do just as well.
Cheers
MG
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
geo said:
I think that is a good point - not just minimum range, but close terrain.
While it would be nice to have the full spectrum of tools there, including the LAV TUA, won't the Leopards be covering both gaps that any LAV-Gun and LAV-TUA would fill?
Mortar guy: $70,000?! You need to shop better
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 2,461
- Points
- 1,160
I was sure I had seen that same name (Super Cougar) used on this site in a suggestion to upgrade the Cougar with a LAV 25 turret. I can not seem to find it while doing a search though.Mortar guy said:
We have a few TUA turrets that are not slated to be put onto LAV III. It would be nice to see them all move over.boondocksaint said:
They are very different beasts.geo said:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Our Cougars were shot gunnery-wise when we retired them (cracked mantlets, ventilation problems, turret ring problems, etc.). The gun is, believe it or not, too powerful for the vehicle. However, even its ancient gunnery system has/had some advantages over ATGWs, including:
- comparatively short engagement time
- ability to switch between targets very quickly
- ability to fire a variety of munitions, including HESH, smoke and cannister
- a relatively simple (albeit largely restricted to daytime ops) weapons system
- no annoying wires (heh)
- the ability to fire semi-indirect at relatively long ranges
- the ability to mass and control fires (a troop or squadron shoot against a platoon position would have the potential to do significant damage - from up to 2000m away)
A 76mm round would be useless against a tank. However, it would ruin a soft-skinned vehicle's day and would punch gaping holes in buildings and the like. Not a bad thing, really...
The discussion's purely academic, of course - the Cougar's gone...
- comparatively short engagement time
- ability to switch between targets very quickly
- ability to fire a variety of munitions, including HESH, smoke and cannister
- a relatively simple (albeit largely restricted to daytime ops) weapons system
- no annoying wires (heh)
- the ability to fire semi-indirect at relatively long ranges
- the ability to mass and control fires (a troop or squadron shoot against a platoon position would have the potential to do significant damage - from up to 2000m away)
A 76mm round would be useless against a tank. However, it would ruin a soft-skinned vehicle's day and would punch gaping holes in buildings and the like. Not a bad thing, really...
The discussion's purely academic, of course - the Cougar's gone...
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
the Cougar's gone...
Well said!
Well said!
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Like from a tank?? ;D
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Teddy that post of mine need's to be moved to the Super Cougar/LAVIII thread, so I don't want to derail this thread further....Buuuuttt
Though the Leo would have been great the day of the perticular engament I'm talking about. We may not have needed them had we had a TUA there the day before, Just would have been a huge firepower multiplier.
Though the Leo would have been great the day of the perticular engament I'm talking about. We may not have needed them had we had a TUA there the day before, Just would have been a huge firepower multiplier.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
MCG said:
The rate of fire wasn't the issue (as far as I know), the number of rounds we put down range was. We exceeded the EFCs (equivalent full charge) on the guns years before they were retired. We used them as a "tank" (yeah, I know :
) when the gun was orignally designed for an armoured car (the Saracen - the uprated version was installed in the Scorpion, then picked for the Cougar).Similar threads
