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

[Recce41]

I am not saying to buy a M1 or Leo. But a Light type tank. A CG 2000, 30 tons, tracked, a 105 HV (it can kill a T72), has a crew of 4, no auto loaded. If a miss fire the CC does not have to get out. If the Coax has to be reloaded the crew does not have to get out. ETCETC. In Bosnia, Somalia, Kosovo Tanks! were used. It is because we cannot air lift them, we never use them. But we cannot airlift the new ones also.
You don‘t need air support to use tanks. Has anyone seen what happens when the lavs assault the Obj. They get stuck. I remember using the old Cougars, as tanks. **** them got stuck and there was not support for the Inf. As I said if you loose the skill who will teach it.If we need it.
A light tank will do the same job, as aMBT. Its tracked, has tracks, can move cross country, can fire on the move cross country.
It does not matter if we have track or wheels, it all costs money. Even now, there are no parts, No parts for Coyotes, no parts for the Lavs, no parts for crap.
Most people think of the tank as the big fire breathing beast. It is more, its the ring of steel. The shield on the assualt.

 

[Bert]

Good post Recce41. I can only hope Mr. McCallum reads it in his drive to balance functionality with political expediency.

 

[onecat]

"MBT‘s viability is questionable. Look at what the Americans did to Iraqi armour in both Gulf conflicts. Look at what Israel did to Eqypt, Syria, and Jordan during their conflicts. The MBT is a sitting duck without air support and intelligence. The American Apaches, Commanches, A-10s, and communication systems co-ordinated together were responsible for the devastation of Iraqi armour."

I just had to point out that if the MBT is a sitting duck without support from the air; what do you think the CF LAV"s are going to be? With weaker armour, I think they will be an even easier target. And like has been stated before they get stuck... just how bad will it look our force is wiped out because they were stuck in the mud.

 

[Bert]

Exactly, so what is behind McCallum‘s thinking? (I point him out because ultimately he makes decisions based on information presented to him).

The Styker isn‘t a replacement for the MBT and can‘t be considered a "tank" due to its inefficienies and mobility issues. Either the government is reducing the capability of the Army
(no shield for assault) to fill a niche in multi-national engagements or an intermediate step for combined arms. Offical public documents are ambiguous about this change in force structure.

The face of battle can change in a conflict, but Canadian LAVs wouldn‘t be placed in a situation intentionally matched against T-72s or significantly placed off-road. Another ally would end up doing that. Against large conventional forces, the combined arms of air, artillery, armour, and infanteer would face off.
Canada hasn‘t seen this since the Korean War. We trained for it during the Cold War.

Small scale conflicts that pit small light infantry, sniping, guerrilla (sp?), terrorist small arms, and mines are now common in Canadian operations. Armour built for these operations has become lighter, more mobile on existing roads, more stealthy, less intrusive, and more intelligent due to shared command and control nets. Is this the style of conflict for the next 25 years?

So again, were does Canada fit? Where should we fit? Does McCallum know? If you were to rearrange Canadian Army force structure with manpower and materials, how would you do it?

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Quote:

MBT‘s viability is questionable. Look at what the Americans did to Iraqi armour in both Gulf conflicts. Look at what Israel did to Eqypt, Syria, and Jordan during their conflicts. The MBT is a sitting duck without air support and intelligence. The American Apaches, Commanches, A-10s, and communication systems co-ordinated together were responsible for the devastation of Iraqi armour. Guarenteed every serious military in the world has taken notes.

I do believe M1s and British Challengers were in on defeating the Iraqi armour nor was I aware that the Commanche entered service.

 

[Bert]

Sorry guys, I don‘t mean to hijack this thread. I‘m bored, the girlfriend is at work, its Sunday, and my first day off in 16 days. Tell me to shut up if you want.

Ex-Dragoon>
"I do believe M1s and British Challengers were in on defeating the Iraqi armour nor was I aware that the Commanche entered service."

Yes, I‘m not saying that armour didn‘t defeat armour. Air support made a majority of the hits. The different was the command and control nets the Americans used that the Iraqis and most militaries couldn‘t. An A-10, an AWACs, could receive targetting info from the ground and then relay that to an M1 or a Challenger, and BOOM off a round or several to the target and vis-versa. Thats combined arms. The air component gave the Americans greater visibility and enhanced ability to target.

From my reading, Commanches are found in the active US military on trial basis and even in Iraq but I don‘t know if they‘ve entered service per se either. I‘ll try to find the link.

 

[Recce41]

Bert
On one of my tours to bosnia, I ended up looking at the wrong end of a T64 tank‘s barrel. What was I in a Cougar, 76mm, wheeled. On another tour, I had rounds fired on my Cougar. If it was a tank, I wouldn‘t have cared. The Lavs are just fancey Cougars. Why does the Dutch have LEO tanks in Bosnia? Just in case, they are needed. Why does the US have tanks in Kosovo? just in case, why do the British have tanks on ALL their tours, just in case!
Our Leos in Bosnia/ Kosovo were the only tanks that could cross, bridges the Leos, M1, Challangers could not. They were used all the time. Even a troop of 4 tanks makes people look.
People say what tanks do we have to face. All the rag *** countries own tanks. Even old T55, T64,T72. A Leo with add on armour could face down a T80, with a well trained crew.
Why? It is a tank. A Lav agains even a T55? where could it go of road? maybe not. A tracked veh has a better chance. If we all give in now, the Military will be a small no punch Military.
I have seen programs on TV, and the US, Britian etc. Say why even hear Canada? For we have gone to # 12 in Peacekeeping, # 31 for Aid, # 6 in world affairs, and **** last from 4th in Nato standing. Now no tanks. We should just pull back and hide. For even most Africian/ Asian countries have more power than we do.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

That was my understanding as well Bert...never heard of any Commanche that made its way to Iraq

 

[Coniar]

Reasons why Stryker is a bust.

1. Cant stand up to a MBT
2. Lots of bugs and gremlins
3. Downgrading from 114 MBT‘s to 66 of something that cannot replace a tank in any sense.
4. Undeployable with our current airlift capabilities.
5. They have been documented as a failure by the U.S.
6. Waste of money, we could buy alot of other things sorley needed instead of blowing cash on something that will never be used effectivley
7. No tracks. Limiting strategic options as well as increasing vulnrability


Good Things about the Stryker

1. Takes Leo‘s out of service wich are mechanically hard to keep running.
2. Built with an eye for current and future operations.


This is the information I have gathered from the news and this forum as well as several newspaper articles. It seems to me as if the Stryker is not the best choice for the Canadian armed forces. Realisticley we cannot afford the cost of MBT‘s and cannot deploy them effectivley if we could afford them. We cannot afford to buy "replacments" that do not replace anything the Leo‘s brought to the table and dont even do well at what they are built for. the best REALISTIC option would be to purchase smaller tanks with smaller guns and possibly TOW missiles such as the Bradleys. Smaller tanks with smaller guns are PROVEN to be effective even agaisnt a MBT. Case and point Rommel and the Afrika corps. British "honey" tanks where highly effective against the Panzers and Panthers in the desert due to better mobility and picking the weak spots on the enemy. Well the stuart wast the "perfect" weapon for the job it still did the job.
I dont know if such a veichle exists or how much it would cost to purchase it, but a small, tracked TANK, possibly with a TOW type system, deployable by Hercules would be ideal for our needs and resources. Once again with the cost and lengthe of time involved in R&D and procurment unless such a veichle is already being produced it would be a very long time before the Canadian forces ever saw it...

THIS is exactley what im talking about

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/stormer30/index.html

 

[Bert]

Recce41>
"On one of my tours to bosnia, I ended up looking at the wrong end of a T64 tank‘s barrel. What was I in a Cougar, 76mm, wheeled. On another tour, I had rounds fired on my Cougar. If it was a tank, I wouldn‘t have cared. The Lavs are just fancey Cougars."

I wonder whats in McCallum‘s mind then if Stryker‘s are acquired?

I don‘t want to sound morose, but how long would that T-64 survived if there was an engagement? I assume there would have other CF personnel and equipment there plus several T-64s and enemy positions. Dispite the gun pointed at you, how would the situation evolve?

In the situation of you being fired at, how would the situation evolve if a Cougar got hit it had turned serious? I understand there was ROE. What sequence of events would occur to neutralize the enemy.

Given that the enemy would shoot first, the CF would shoot back, and a sequence of events would take place unit one side or the other is in ruins. If McCallum is acquiring Strykers, and put them in the senario, the question is WHY? Is there a logic to his reasoning?

 

[Jason Jarvis]

If crew protection is an issue, why not put the main gun in a turret? I know this would increase the weight, but would it also make the vehicle even taller (and so make it less likely to fit into a Herc)?

Here are a couple designs I found interesting:

LAV-105 (with a 105 mm in a turret)
LAV-300 (with a 90 mm in a turret)

It doesn‘t look to me like the turrets add any extra height over the MGS.

Given the capabilities of modern ammunition, how much is lost if the MGS switched from a 105 to a 90 (logistical arguments aside)?

 

[jrhume]

I haven‘t read enough about the Stryker to form an opinion yet, but I would like to point out that the M1 tank suffered from a number of defects and the accompanying bad publicity during the 70s and 80s. Ongoing development took care of those shortcomings and led to the M1A1 of today. Further enhancement will occur during the service life of the Abrams.

I know a Marine who has a poor opinion of the Stryker, echoing some of the same issues that have been raised here. Possibly, the thing will never do the job for which it was designed. On the other hand, further development may improve it more than any of us can imagine.

One thing I know for sure -- the Stryker will see active service. Soldiers will pay for mistakes made in development. As usual.

As for what Canada does, my opinion counts for little or nothing. It seems to me that Canada could support at least one all-up armored brigade. If that brigade was set up with the same equipment and technology as a US armored force (following the pattern established by Canadian naval forces), then it could be trained and deployed alongside US forces in a seamless manner -- or it could be deployed as a stand-alone force for peacekeeping or other duties.

Just a thought -- and not a new one, even on this forum.

Jim

 

[McG]

Much has changed since the initiation of this thread. Some changes have brought us closer to an all LAV III force and some have brought us farther. We recently had a change in Prime Minister and a major cabinet schuffel that saw a new MND. As of now, we do not have an indication of what funding priority this team will put toward the CF and we do not know their stance on some critical decisions made in the last few months of the previous PM (ie MGS).

Plans are a foot to retire the Cougar without a replacement (a loss of 100 Cavalry/DFS vehicles) and it has been announced that all 114 x Leopard C2 will be replaced by 66 x LAV III MGS. This will leave only 200 Coyote available as potential Cavalry vehicles (and even then the value of the surveillance suites will limit what is available for this role). The ADATS is being looked at for conversion to MMEV (mounted on a LAV III and with a variety of missile types available to fill specific roles) and it appears that the M109 will be replaced by towed or wheeled SP howitzers (possibly on a LAV III platform).

The AVGP life extension program has introduced CP, gun tractor, VSORAD, and other variants. The M113 life extension has also turned into a much larger endeavour than was originally predicted in this thread. However, the bulk of the M113A3 and MTVLs were destine to serve in Armd and Arty Regts along side tracked Leopards and M109s (vehicles which now seem unlikely to hang around). Have these changes been able to invalidate any of the opinions surrounding the LAV III as the sole platform of the land forces?

I continue to want to see MBTs remain (at a reduced level) in our army (1 x heavy, 2 x medium CMBGs). For commonality of mobility, I would have no objections to seeing TLAVs employed alongside the MBTs. However, if we do not continue to employ tanks then there is no need for TLAVs in the Armd Regts, and if we do not continue to employ M109s then there is no need for TLAVS in the Arty Regts.

In our wheeled units, we should be looking to replace all AVGP and Bison with LAV III (and not extending the life of those vehicles). These vehicles are not able to keep up with the LAV III, and their presence in a unit puts an extra burden by requiring to maintain additional spare parts for one or two unique vehicles and by requiring the maintenance of small cadres of trained mechanics and crews. Replacement of these vehicles would require a commitment from our government to buy additional LAV III, but I think the long term benefits would prove to be worth the cost (and due to the nature of roles filled by AVGP and Bison, we would save money by not requiring that these new LAV III have turrets).

With a few exceptions, I believe the LAV III could provide a common platform for all CF Armd Veh.

Recce. The LAV III is too big to fill this role & still be stealthy. This is the reason I do not recommend it to replace the Coyote. There are many who would argue that the Coyote is also too large and we should have an Armd LUVW/LPV . However, no arguments make the LAV III better suited that our current vehicle. One could also suggest the need for such vehicles to be amphibious.

Engineering. The LAV III will not be able to do many of the tasks that would be required of an engineer vehicle. It would not have the earth moving power nor the ability to get to as many places to do tasks where they are required.

Tank. Only a tank can replace a tank. However, this deserves closer examination. The tank is the idea all-in-one cavalry vehicle, DFSV, and tank destroyer. As a DFSV, the LAV III MGS may provide an acceptable alternative to a tank. Due to the 105 mm cannon the vehicle would have the same range, same tank killing potential, and similar rate of fire as our Leopard C2. The LAV III MGS could be employed in a fire base on a LAV Coy attack. It could be dug-in anywhere one might consider using a tank to harden a defensive position, and it could be employed anywhere one would position a tank to take sniping shots out to its max range. However, I have heard several arguments on why the LAV III MGS cannot fill the role of cavalry vehicle (fight mounted enemy in open country, intimate support to infantry, exploitation, pursuit, lead advance to contact, etc). Most of the arguments revolve around the reduced situational awareness (compared to a turret) that the MGS layout will result in. A LAV III Armd Cav Veh could take the form of a LAV III with a turret much like the APC but with two TOW missiles (or two Javelin AT missiles) in ready to fire launchers. Alternately, turrets with a 60 mm or 90 mm cannon and two anti-tank missiles could be considered. It would also be worth while to consider the several successful platforms which have incorporated a 105 mm cannon or larger onto a wheeled cavalry vehicle. Regardless of what is chosen, unless we have tanks, we will only have a partial replacement.

Note 1: Some of the key related threads to this topic have been:
LAV III with 105mm
How does the stryker compare with the LAVIII APCs?
New DFS vehicles
Getting the Stryker-redeployment of the Leo‘s
The Stryker
Should the CF retain MBTs?

Note 2: The MTVL&TLAV family of APCs could also have provided a common platform for all CF Armd Veh to a greater extent than the LAV III. They could have filled the recce (new Lynx) & some engr roles that the LAV cannot.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Hey when will you guys start building aircraft that look like UFOs?

Or should I say, get them out of storage...

 

[Recce41]

The poster are old. There should be 4 tank troops of 4 tanks. But! the ****s in Ottawa, want 3 troops. The Lav should have 3 crew and 8. But!, the ****s in Ottawa, have the CC getting out. The Lav cannot fight, without a CC. Hiller has stated THER will be, COMMITTED CREWS.

 

[Garry]

Interesting discussion.

FWIW, let me throw this in- we in the Military don‘t make policy, we enforce it....although it is fun to debate!

When we do go to enforcing the policies, we do it in the manner that the electorate desires- and right now that manner includes country‘s that we have treaties with.

Take the old standard "you never stand alone" and broaden it, from the soldier to our country.

What I believe we need is clear direction on what we‘re expected to do by the electorate (ie MND). Once our mission has been decided, then we can go ahead and equip and train our Forces....and we‘ll do it right.

As a taxpayer, I don‘t want to loose any more of my hard earned dollars than need be. Can we afford a true "balanced" force? Maybe, but the social programs would take a terrible beating, and while I‘m comfortable with that, I doubt I‘ll see it...and maybe that‘s a good idea.

That leaves us (I say us ‘cause we‘re the electorate too) with a decision to make- do we want to spend big $$ on a small, balanced, all-arms Military, or do we want to reduce the force, and specialize in certain aspects of warfare in conjunction with our Allies?

Tough call, that, deciding to rely on friends for our own sovereignty......

Other considerations are our commitments to our friends...as they rely (somewhat) on our contributions. Keep in mind that making War eventually devolves down (to a large extent)to $$-those who spend the most tend to win. As well, those who carry the largest burden in collective defence tend to get to make the big decicions (like reconstructing Iraq, for instance)

Trade decisions within NATO, actions taken on country‘s political wants, and to a large degree the respect that other country‘s hold each other in is often based on their contribution to the mutual good- and we‘ve lost a lot of influence and respect world wide in the past decade.

While I really don‘t care what the rest of the world does, and therefore could care less how much influence Canada has on the rest of the world, there are times when it is VERY nice to have influence- like in gaining release of Canadians held abroad, or when negotiating tarifs or other disputes.....

IMHO- if we‘re going to send our kids in harms way we, as the guys sending them, OWE them the best kit and training that exist...or we shouldn‘t send them. Argue all you want- but if I send my kid to war I want him (or her) to have Tanks leading the way, with 155 Artillery and MLRS rolling overhead, up to date Fighters operating behind the lines, and Infantry keeping the Tanks safe (sorry, couldn‘t resist!)...heck, I‘d love to see the Bonny II making steam.....

Am I dreaming?

No- the gear may not be ours, but our allies.

It‘s up to us to make whatever we have left desireable enough to our Allies that they WANT us there. We did it with the PPCLI snipers a few years back, and the rest of the Reg‘t made such an impression on the US Army that they have a free ticket to play anytime.

What we have is good...heck, great. If keeping it that way means downsizing, or even specializing, I‘m all for it.

At least give us the opportunity to hold our head up.

Cheers-Garry

 

[RCD]

Before we commit to these new toys. let‘s put our resources to our LIFT (Air& Sea) capabilies first.
On the RV-85 it took 7 to 10 days to recievied our equipment from Petawawa.An that was in Canada move.Today method seems to be to contract out and hope for the best.We waited this long we can we can wait a little longer.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Thank you, I appriciate that you give credit where it‘s due

I‘ve always wondered what you guys would use the firestorm for. Besides taking cattle and probing hill billies of course.

 

[Mogrok]

The purpose of a military is to enhance and enforce foreign policy. It gives the government an option that if they continue the current state of affairs we will no longer have.

Lav 3‘s to replace everything is not really an option. The lessons learned from the recent Iraq conflict showed MBT‘s leading the way even into Urban areas to give infantry cover and positions to fall back on as well as fire support. The lighter Bradleys were getting taken out too easily. And the wheeled vehicles were slowed down with a simple flat. Which under combat conditions is hard to change.

Future warfare based on globalization will definitely have a urban component too it which light forces simply cannot survive in. Armour is required there.

I do agree that the LAV family is an excellent platform and that almost all support and infantry can be supported thru them. However a MBT whether in its current role as the hammer or in a role as a Infantry support vehicle is required.

Our Leo1‘s with modern warheads and if there was a political will for DU rounds could fullfill this roll if they were overhauled completely with new internals. The hull can still stand up to urban warfare and its mobility as a lighter tank has in the past surprised our allies on manoevres. Against modern TOW and Main Armaments no it cannot stand up. But luckily for us most of our allies are the only ones with that capability. Our Leo‘s would of been fine in Iraq fighting against the Tanks: T-72 and older, for which they were designed to beat.

I would of course prefer newer modern tanks but if cost was an excuse then the above option would be acceptable.

Regarding the Lav 105mm same armament as the Leo so we are not getting an increased Kill capability but we are losing both the mobility and armour protection. Interesting idea but when your main support weapon can be taken out by a good shot shooting at tires it seems a little weak.

The americans want it to provide some fire support to the Airborne when they hit the ground and for there rapid deployment brigades. More of a defensive role not offensive. An example is the Iraq war once again once the Airfield in Northern Iraq was secured the Heavy Lifters brought the Abrams in. This requires larger lifters then our current aging fleet of Hercules.

This goes to a larger question: What is the future role of our armed forces? Maybe irrelevant considering we are signatories of several international agreements for what our commitments of military are supposed to be, not that we even meet those.

Our biggest waste of money is the fact that we have way too many Wings across the country just to keep employment in some smaller areas that belong to some MP‘s riding. We need maybe 3 Wings, 2 naval Bases, and probably 3 Army Bases. Not including training areas.

Construction of military equipment in Canadian factories. Yes this provides jobs but usually ends up doubling the cost of the project as opposed to just buying the equipment elsewhere fine if the government doesn‘t mind using the Military for economic supports but take the difference out of some other budget not ours. If we could buy it somewhere else cheaper then the Government should reimburse us for getting there MP‘s reelected.

Well enough of my rant. Having been in Armour for 7 years, Communications for 2 and now in Intelligence I have seen and heard so many of the problems with our military and it all seems to stem back to a backboneless leadership and a much too involved civilian process in how we do our business. Any General that does have a backbone that makes any statement usually winds up ending his career progression.

I welcome full debate on this and totally expect to get slagged.

 

[RCD]

What is the future role of our armed forces?That is a good question Mogrok.