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

[Gobsmacked]

Just to shed some light on this.....

Canada DOES NOT have the Stryker...we have the LAV III...different beast in many ways

Also....Canada does not have the lift capabilities. They require the C-130 J to get off the ground (barely BTW)

Don't even get me started on the MGS POS

:

As previously noted by others, Stryker is LAV III.5  (ie. adjustable height, pws, etc)

It looks like members have not put 2+2=5 together yet re: MGS and deployability. (also possible via C-130H - but just barely  )

Per a 'Technical Briefing' by MGen Caron following Army Transformation announcement late Oct 03.

"You would have to look at one - more than one trip to have at least four MGS in theatre.  And the usual - the usual unit of employment is at least four, at the minimum three."
Therefore, based on Air Force restrictions "Three Hercules flights are required to transport two LAV-III vehicles" (As noted in Air Force's 2003 'Aerospace Capability Framework' released 31 May 2004 - what they don't acknowledge is what was stated in GAO report that the Hercs in question are Tactically Armoured C-130Hs), a minimum of 6x CC-130Hs (out of 11 Hs total)  would be required for basic intra-theatre movement of 4x  18,734kg (41,300 lbs) MGS (per GDLS-C website) less-than 250 mi - in nearly ideal flight conditions, based on GAO analysis of Air Mobility Command data (per GAO report - ie. max 100nm @ 42,000 lbs).  You can't count the 2 C-130H-30s - weight reduced by some 5,000 lbs - the approx added weight of the 15' stretch mods w\o any additional fuel capacity, therefore not capable of LAV-III transport, possibly Bison.  Plus, at 48% availability - requiring two Hercs assigned to ensure completion of one mission, this doubles the requirement to 12x CC-130H (not accounting for those in normal 3rd line maintenance/upgrades - ie. likely max 9 of 11 available at any given moment - or hr based Periodic inspections) to airlift 4x MGS.  This compares very unfavourably with just 2x 'C-17 equivalent' aircraft needed to move 6x AMOS MMEV-FSV or MMEV-ADATS or LAV-III-type vehicles over 3,000 nm. :fifty:

Cheers 

 

[George Wallace]

So what are you trying to say?

GW

 

[George Wallace]

:

As previously noted by others, Stryker is LAV III.5 (ie. adjustable height, pws, etc)

It looks like members have not put 2+2=5 together yet re: MGS and deployability. (also possible via C-130H - but just barely )

No one in the CF calls the LAV III a Stryker, so why do you civies?

We have covered the POS MGS and many of its' pitfalls in a thread or two on the MGS.

We know they won't fit in Hercs.   We know Canada does not have the Airlift capabilities to move troops, without bringing up the question of vehicles.   We know the Canadian Navy does not have the capabilities to move troops or equipment by sea, having no RORO ships.   We all, in this trade, can read between the lines when NDHQ pushes "Wheels" over "Tracks".   We know the Left run the country and we are now a "Third World Army" at best (probally further down the scale).

Gw

 

[12alfa]

Anyone here think we will fly Lav's or MGS's to wherever?

The usuall mode of transportation had been seaborne has it not?

Halo was by a Antonov I think, ah yes , got pics from Federation airport.

Sea is the norm, this C-130 is a pipe dream, in which the pipe is filled with funnie stuff I would think.

But I may be wrong, was once.....last year.

 

[Gobsmacked]

No one in the CF calls the LAV III a Stryker, so why do you civies?

We have covered the POS MGS and many of its' pitfalls in a thread or two on the MGS.

We know they won't fit in Hercs.  We know Canada does not have the Airlift capabilities to move troops, without bringing up the question of vehicles.  We know the Canadian Navy does not have the capabilities to move troops or equipment by sea, having no RORO ships.  We all, in this trade, can read between the lines when NDHQ pushes "Wheels" over "Tracks".  We know the Left run the country and we are now a "Third World Army" at best (probally further down the scale).

Gw

George,

I don't call LAV-III Stryker either, read more carefully please! :

Piranha = LAV
LAV-I = USMC LAV-25, CF Grizzly; Cougar; Husky
LAV-II = Coyote, Bison
LAV-III = CF LAV III, and variants: CP; FOO; TUA; PNR; MMEV-ADATS.
LAV-III.5 = US Styker & Stryker variants, & MGS.

The initial 16 MGS will have "Minimal Canadian-Specific Equipment . . . almost identical to the U.S. model" - even though MGS remains at developmental prototype stage, per Recent 2003 SECRET level ANALYSIS 'Whether to acquire the Mobile Gun System for the CF'.
The Schedule calls for contracting of initial 16 MGS vehicles, "no later-than Dec 04" under MND C$30M authority (w\o ILS), for "January to June 2006 delivery" - with "No Canadian Acquisition Prior to U.S. Order for (initial 72 low-rate) Production Version", followed by Nov 05 Treasury Board approval of  C$661M balance of project for remaining 50 MGS for 2007-2009 delivery.

As for why the extra MGS/airlift info - I figured those viewing the site might be interested in some of the details, and not just the conjectural (sometimes right) banter.
Remember, the Canadian Public hopefully views this site sometimes! ^-^

As for what we've spent on deployments to Afghanistan alone, at last count per ATI its somewhere near US$100M for both airlift (An-124/Il-76) and sealift (chartered of course). 
        [$ currency amt corr 05/09/04]

Remember, I'm not one of the uninformed kiddies who rant on this site.
Chk my writing in: Vanguard, Frontline, CDR, Air International.

Edited: 04,09,2004 - LAV-II - Coyote  [Typo Corrected]  Yes, its possible for a guy to have a 'Blond Moment' too. ;D

 

[12alfa]

The Cougar is a LAV-I as the Griz and huskey.

 

[George Wallace]

The Cougar is a LAV-I as the Griz and huskey.

'think that was just a typo....should have been Coyote....

GW

 

[Spc_Cameron]

oh boy...

alright yeah the Stryker wasn't one of the  US Army's better ideas and we're paying for it to.  the first week 2ID was in Mosul they lost 4  ( the armour is to light ). but hey what can you say... common sense isn't all that common specially when it comes to the Brass.

The marines, as much as I hate to admit it , have the right idea.. If you're going to build a  Med brigade of vehicles, stack that baby with a 25 mm , hell a CIV ( commanders Independant Viewer ) would be nice too. Thank god I'm a BFV crew member.

 

[12alfa]

'think that was just a typo....should have been Coyote....

GW

Had I done that (typo) you would be kickin my ass all the way to Scotty dog woods on this fourm, wouldn't ya!

 

[George Wallace]

;D

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I would love to have a meeting with whoever signed off on these for us and give him a swift kick in the junk.

 

[canuck101]

I thought it was the honarable John Macallum that signed the contract. i could be wrong.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Well I mean the officer who convinced him to go this way.

 

[canuck101]

Well we will never know that i think.

 

[canuck101]

well usually at that level it would be a general giving the minister options i would think.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Sorry I misread your post as saying "you will never know what I think".  I will be deleting my post.

 

[canuck101]

cool no problem man.  ;D  Just staying up in the OC ie Ottawa 8)

 

[Franko]

The initial 16 MGS will have "Minimal Canadian-Specific Equipment . . . almost identical to the U.S. model" - even though MGS remains at developmental prototype stage, per Recent 2003 SECRET level ANALYSIS 'Whether to acquire the Mobile Gun System for the CF'.
The Schedule calls for contracting of initial 16 MGS vehicles, "no later-than Dec 04" under MND C$30M authority (w\o ILS), for "January to June 2006 delivery" - with "No Canadian Acquisition Prior to U.S. Order for (initial 72 low-rate) Production Version", followed by Nov 05 Treasury Board approval of   C$661M balance of project for remaining 50 MGS for 2007-2009 delivery.

So what is your source? Please don't say the local news paper.... 

Regards

 

[Recce41]

Fellas Fellas
The Cougar/Huskey/Grizzly are not "LAVS", they are AVGPs. The LAV family started with the LAV 25/ Bison. The LAV II is the Coyote and the LAV III is well our LAV (Kodiak) and the Stryker Family. Being at the School you find things out.  I have a poster kicking around. It has the GM family from AVGP to the LAV family. It has different mods even a halftrack pic.
Franko
We are tagging on to the US order. The first will most likely go to the School then to the Regt (Strats). It's a big circle, people should not worry, a tank will come back. Remember, Canada is not a Military Country. From the start, Canada has over come. From in 1812-15, 1836, then the Boar War, then WW1, WW2, Korea. We are a buy to need Military. If we would train to be the best, with what we have. And stop bitching about it. The Military would be better. Fuck I was happy in my Lynx. Over the Coyote.
An Army is not what you have but how you use it.
By the way even the US cannot load to fight their Strykers. It takes 3 Hercs or 2 C-17s.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Remember, I'm not one of the uninformed kiddies who rant on this site.
Chk my writing in: Vanguard, Frontline, CDR, Air International.

Under what byline?