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

[McG]

From AUSA 2007, here is more on the LAV H:

General Dynamics Land Systems introduced a major upgrade for the Light Armored Vehicle (LAV) design, which could be implemented as a mid-life upgrade for US Army Stryker as well as LAV 3s, currently operational with the US Marine Corps and the armies of Canada and New Zealand. The upgrade designated 'LAV-H', is proposed to be undertaken as part of major post-combat reset reconditioning. Under the process, the vehicle's automotive and power plant systems will be upgraded to support a 25% Gross Vehicle Weight increase from the current 42,000 to 55,000 lbs. (25 tons). The vehicle's curb weight will be 29,000 lbs (13.2 tons). As part of such upgrade, GDLS intends to install a Caterpillar C7 engine and Allison 3200SP transmission.
Addressing the growing demand for on-board power, a new 500 Amp alternator will be installed, coupled with an expandable and scalable solid-state power distribution and control system. An optional Lithium-ion battery pack could nearly double electrical power storage capacity on board, with the same space claim as the standard vehicle battery pack. The crew will be able to exhaust nearly all battery power without having engine restart failures, relying on the 24V Capacitive Start System offering power reserve for the engine starter, independent of the main battery. The vehicle was demonstrated at AUSA 2007 with a Protector Weapon station mounting a heavy machine gun and a Javelin missile launcher.
The upgrade also includes a significant increase in protection, with the introduction of enhanced belly protection, hull modifications include reshaped V profile for improved blast resistance. Externally, large appliqué armor modules and redesigned hatches are introduced, improving protection and minimizing vulnerability, caused at the seams between armor modules. Externally and internally, the vehicle has better protection against IEDs, for example, with the introduction of blasts absorbing mine resistant seats (or benches).

Also from AUSA 2007, here’s why we can no longer claim our Coyote is a generation ahead of the US LAV 25. 

General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada delivered the first LAV-A2 to the US Marine Corps, The A2 is an updated version of the Marines' Light Armored Vehicle series, which has been in use since the 1980s. In February 2006 GDLS Canada was awarded a contract to upgrade 157 LAVs in six variants, into A2 version. These variants included LAV-25, anti-tank, command & control, logistics, mortar and Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Reconnaissance System (NBCRS). The upgraded vehicles are fitted with an improved suspension, and are readied to receive enhanced armor protection. New safety precautions include an automatic fire suppression system for crew protection.

Pictures available with full article here:  http://www.defense-update.com/events/2007/summary/ausa07afv.htm

 

[Stryker_11A]

One thing that does bug me is everywhere I go from that site they always seem to put an emphasis on "The Canadian built..." It almost seems like some of them are taking a knock at it being built in Canada or the fact its built by us Canadians. Like its trying to make it seem like it would be better if it were built in the U.S. or us Canadians don't do as good a job as the U.S. could. 

I have never heard anyone in my battalion say anything negative about the Strykers being manufactured in Canada. Of course, they all know my wife and son are Canadians.

Seen a few LAV III ENGR varients (I guess that's what they are called) in Gagetown last summer, to me it just seems wrong to have a dozer blade on a LAV.

Not only do they have mine plows, but you can also put on SMP-Surface Mine Plow, MR-Mine Roller, SOB - Straight Obstacle Blade, and AMP – Angled Mine Plow

Sparky is trying to associate himself with the Asymmetric Warfare Group, a group of high speed types running around Iraq/Afghanistan coming up with the latest doctrine for COIN.

 

[McG]

Stryker_11A,
I've read in a handful of Rand reports that the key advantage of the Stryker Brigades is the vehicle network based on a data radio (which we have by another name) and your command and control software.  Would you agree that this is true?

 

[Stryker_11A]

Stryker_11A,
I've read in a handful of Rand reports that the key advantage of the Stryker Brigades is the vehicle network based on a data radio (which we have by another name) and your command and control software.  Would you agree that this is true?

100%. The situational awareness that the entire C3 provides is invaluable. I am not sure if you are familiar with the Force XXI Battle Command, Brigade-and-Below (FBCB2). This is a tactical network system which will display friendly units, identified enemy units, and other information on a GPS overlay. You can also send standardized reports like call for fire (CFF), logistics, situation reports. There are other capabilities within the brigade which integrates and digitizes the CFF process, increasing accuracy of the rounds, reducing time on target, and decreasing adjustments.

Data flows rapidly from the trucks in the line platoons to battalion and brigade TOCs, giving the commanders all the information the need to quickly asses the situation and react. It clears up allot of the fog of war, which is invaluable.

 

[McG]

I am not sure if you are familiar with the Force XXI Battle Command, Brigade-and-Below (FBCB2).

I know exactly what the software & radios are supposed to do & how they are supposed to do it.  However, I've never seen either put to field use and that is the only important feedback.

Your statement shows that "network enable operations" (NEO) and "network centric warfare" are more than just fancy buzz-phrases.  Too bad the CF is not there yet.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on the turret & 25 mm cannon that our vehicles have.  Experience in Afghanistan has pretty much cemented the opinion that we would not trade our LAV III for the few additional dismounts that your vehicles provide.  At the same time, many accept that a mixed fleet with turrets & RWS would be a good thing (and others have suggested we could have the 25 mm or larger in an external gun configuration).  What do you think of these options in the perspective of a Stryker Brigade?

 

[Stryker_11A]

There are several graphical views in FBCB2 (1:50,000 maps, Satellite imagery) over which you can display fire control measures, sector boundaries, strip maps, along with blue positions. I relied on this piece of equipment in Iraq, it was by far the most useful piece of gear that I used. My platoon did over 500 missions and never got lost. A platoon leader never getting lost is unholy!

I am always about having more firepower. A motorized platoon with 2 Stryker infantry carriers, 2 LAV-III ISC, and 2 MGS would be packing some serious heat. The remote weapons station can currently be fitted with an M-2 12.7mm and MK-19 40mm, but they are working on a more modular RWS which is adaptable to M-307 12.7/25mm and Javelin missiles. By moving to a more modular system, you can tailor the vehicle for each mission in order to effectively bring the appropriate firepower to bear. I don’t know if I like the idea of giving up a squad, but I do like having that firepower. I would drop a fire team for 2 ISC in a heartbeat though.

You probably won’t ever see an ISC in the SBCT, but you probably see a 25mm on the RWS real soon.

 

[ArmyRick]

So far it sounds as though the Stryker series is a real hit with the troops (plus the command and control software). Did you guys work with the MGS at all?

 

[Stryker_11A]

So far it sounds as though the Stryker series is a real hit with the troops (plus the command and control software). Did you guys work with the MGS at all?

We are being fielded them this fiscal year. Right now the MGS crewmen, who are 19K MOS tank crewman, are training as infantrymen. My only experience on the MGS is from briefings and a Leadership seminar. I am a qualified Stryker infantry platoon/company and Stryker battalion mortar officer.

 

[George Wallace]

Superman is a good read.  It is one of Michael Yon's Blogs.  Interesting videos accompany his narrative, including a terrorist video of a IED attack on a Stryker and the reports afterward of how the all the crew survived.

 

[Royal]

Couple of points here;

1.  I heard back in October, that the Marines were being fielded 2 Company's worth of MGS directly to Iraq for trials and eval.  Probably not the best scenario to find out if something is broke, but they believe the numbers and have worked all the development kinks out on-line rather than on dust.

2.  Canada is seen as a world leader in the LAV world.  This is due, dare I say it, to the AVGP!  There, it is out.  We are considered by the ABCA nations to be 30 years down the LAV road.  This explains the comments about "Canadian made" otherwise it wouldn't be any good.

3.  What is the main problem then with our LAV fleet and doctrine?  Well for starters, we didn't buy enough of them, and then we planned on everyone getting them.  Too little spread too thin.  Now, we are wearing them out and can't get a procurement plan off the ground to buy the necessary replacements.  we don't want to invest more into them, but we need more of them.  Kinda makes me feel like chasing our tails.

There was another thread, (honestly, I do not know where to find it or how to search) written by "Alex" that discussed a possible organization for the land forces.  It hinged on 4 Brigades of two BGs per and an additional Li Inf/Airmobile force of Bn strength.  I thought it was a good read and is not fixed onto a platform.  I also noticed another thread in this box from a guy in Sweden, trying to convince Army.ca that we should buy CV-90 across the Cf as the next fleet.

 

[McG]

What is the main problem then with our LAV fleet and doctrine?  Well for starters, we didn't buy enough of them, and ...

and we did not buy the support fleet: LAV MRT, LAV Amb, LAV unit/sub-unit  CP, LAV EW, etc.

 

[T.S.Rea]

The LAV is a descendant of the MOWAG Piranha, itself an indirect descendant of similar WWII German types.  These vehicles were never designed with anything vaguely related to the FCS types being promoted by the major arms corporations.  Length to beam, suspension/hull type and form, etc., are all ill-suited for expanded development.

Examined AFV-W types along with similar APC-T's in depth for years/decades, came to the conclusion the need to improve on some of Christie's concepts.  After some intensive mental gymnastics, devised a gearing system that would do the job (compact 32-1 98% efficient involute CVT), but I am not suicidal enough to go forward with that.

However, something similar could be developed with acceptable weight/volume/cost/efficiency compromises with conventional mechanical/hydraulic/electrical technologies.  The problem is the arms corporations are not even remotely interested in quality product, they just want to sell the most expensive and least practical junk they can get away with.

Already have significant numbers of LAV's, they should be balanced with half to two-thirds as many MTVL's, since neither type alone would be entirely satisfactory.  I see no great difficulty with vehicle type organized battalions of the three infantry regiments and a similar organization for the tank/recce/arty/eng/CSS squadrons and batteries, since they could shift and flesh out the units most suited to the operation.  Most of the non-drivetrain related equipment could be shared in common with the entire fleet.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Any experiments done to see what is the biggest gun the current LAV turret could safely take, say in the form of a low pressure 90mm or such? Might make a nice HESH delivery system. I also wonder if a single barreled AMOS type system could be maximized for direct fire using a HESH and HE round? 

 

[George Wallace]

Any experiments done to see what is the biggest gun the current LAV turret could safely take, say in the form of a low pressure 90mm or such? Might make a nice HESH delivery system. I also wonder if a single barreled AMOS type system could be maximized for direct fire using a HESH and HE round? 

Colin

If it weren't for this being a LAV thread, I'd ask if you may be Mike Sparks in disguise for this comment:  ;D

I also wonder if a single barreled AMOS type system could be maximized for direct fire using a HESH and HE round?

The MGS has the 105.  I think there was some contemplation of larger, but it was then a question of ammo storage and ammo load.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

If it weren't for this being a LAV thread, I'd ask if you may be Mike Sparks in disguise for this comment:

Them's fighting words!  ;D

Funnily enough there is another post here in this thread that made me think that "he who shall not be named" was visiting us again.

Having watched the AMOS video's the round is actually quite short, basically a mortar round. IF a direct fire version could be made I think could have a very short case, as you are basically lobbing it at the bad guy. The MGS suffered from having a big high pressure gun firing full sized tank ammo. Mind you the Centurio could carry up to 40 rds if I recall correctly. With the MGS I think they were just asking to much of the chassis and trying to make use of the extra 105mm barrels lying around. Mowag did experiment with the 105mm GIAT turret on a 10x10 LAV III chassis which seems a more logical route if one feels the need to have both a direct fire and AT capability in a LAV chassis..

 

[T.S.Rea]

The LAVIII was built as an air defence platform with the 5 barrel 25mm GAU-12 (and missiles), which has a recoil load of a little over 5000 pounds, a few hundred pounds less than a 120mm mortar.  I don't know if the turret rings are identical, but it probably would not be really difficult to swap out the 25mm Bushmaster for a 120mm mortar in perhaps one in every five or ten vehicles in order to give LAVIII battalions an organic HE support weapon.  There is probably enough space in the turret to fit five to eight rounds in the turret near the breech of the weapon in a protected enclosure so the commander can load projectiles in a couple of seconds with the loader/rear machinegunner keeping them replenished from another thirty or so in the hull.  Might as well be possible to adapt Leopard II HE shells with a small propellant charge for direct fire, although they might require some addiional modifications for the shells to be stable in flight at lower velocities (or change the shot size/packing in a canister round).  Taken further, could even develop a sabot round that can defeat any armour apart from tanks.  In indirect fire, the mortar would have enough range to cover the operational area of a battalion, so they would always be on call for fire support.

Obviously, my bias is to this arrangement, partly owing to the practicality of a similar 120mm mortar constructed of titanium/composites with an integral carriage that would weigh in somewhere around 400/450 pounds, including a lightweight battery or fuel cell to propel the weapon along at walking speed for several kilometres.  Ammunition weight would be more of an issue than the mortar itself.  A mid bore pivot and support on the tube could allow the weapon to be loaded from the breech end at waist level while standing or kneeling, eliminating the exposure of loading rounds through the muzzle seven feet from the ground.  If the blast effects were acceptable, the base plate could be mounted as a shield and the weapon employed as a short range recoilless infantry gun.  Evolving the concept further, the tube might be interchangeable with a low pressure/velocity 155mm rifled tube, allowing the use of a greater range of projectiles matched to whatever is immediately available or better suited to a particular fire mission.

I am sure others might have different views on the matter, but I think the 120mm/(155mm) mortar/gun would fit well between the 155mm howitzers and lighter 40/60/81mm.

Nonetheless, I hope the information concerning what kind of recoil loading the LAVIII can reasonably tolerate is helpful, and as you probably were aware the bigger 105mm tank gun proved to be big with a recoil loading that I would quickly estimate here as being three times or more greater than this.

 

[Mortar guy]

The LAVIII was built as an air defence platform with the 5 barrel 25mm GAU-12 (and missiles)

Oh really? Not that it matters, but when I read this line, I realized I had no interest in anything you subsequently wrote. You might want to check your facts.

MG

 

[geo]

TSR... your profile is still blank.
Would you mind filling in a bit of the details so everyone can have a better idea of who we're talking to?

 

[McG]

The MGS suffered from having a big high pressure gun firing full sized tank ammo.

Colin,
Your sentence reads as though you believe the MGS to be a failed idea that died away.  If you go visit the LAV III MGS thread, you will see that it is still alive, serving operationally in Iraq, and apparently doing well.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27491/post-668869.html#msg668869

 

[Colin Parkinson]

As a DF support weapon I suspect it does a decent job, but I don’t consider it a terribly successful design, very limited ammo load, top heavy, lacking good situational awareness. I suspect that other issues will crop up as the vehicles get used. The saving grace for the design is that the US army is using it as a support weapon and not as a tank replacement. Had the designers cast off the need for a high pressure gun, and fitted a LP gun of similar calibre they would have solved a lot of the above mentioned problems and still have the DF capability.