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

[Spr.Earl]

No,we still need a good Tracked Fighting Vehicle but use the LAV 3 as a support fire base so to speak because the 25mm is a good weapon but wheeled can't go where track can.
China is still building track and so are the Russians but in the West we are not,all's I say look out if push comes to shove!

 

[ArmyRick]

I pit an LAV III agaisnt the M113 any day and yes cross country. I was thoroughly impressed by what LAV III could do.

Here is a tip, tracks are not magical vehicles. I seen one of my buddies get one stuck in one foot of soft mud (he was expirienced driver).

There was a good picture in an old infantry journal of an M113 in croatia (UNPROFOR) with the thing stuck in deep mud. A MBT or a badger is a different story than the M113 (larger track and far more powerfull engine)...

my 2 cents (with 7 % GST and 8 % PST and 12 % interest compounded daily is..... now $ 5)

 

[Zipper]

5$! LOL

Agreed Rick. But a comparison of the LAVIII with a M113 is not very good either. We don't want to argue to keep the 113.

Compare instead modern tracked vehicles that would suit our needs better (CV90 family) with that of the LAVIII and you get a whole different picture. Especially when your trying to carry heavier armaments such as the MGS is.

Note: This of course is not to say that we want to get rid of the LAVIII (and well thought out variants). Just augment it with track like any other well equipped military.

I know...        ...dream on. ;D

 

[Kat Stevens]

Apples and oranges. Of course a tracked tin box of 1952 vintage won't out perform a snazzy new cyotobisolav.  The point that some are missing is that our (potential) adversaries are still designing, building, selling, and using tracks.  To revisit an old Armoured Engineer favourite;  "Q-how fast can a boat go through the mud? A- as fast as an AEV winch can pull it."

just my little ol' opinion, o'course...

CHIMO,  Kat

 

[RequiemVK]

Dont know if it have been already posted, but here ...


Design

In addition to generic criticisms from the choice of wheels over tracks, critics claim there are many flaws with the Stryker.
[edit]

ICV and general complaints

    * A lack of amphibious ability, since there is no waterjet. Unlike tracks, wheels cannot swim without waterjets.
    * A original "Key Performance Factor" was for it to be air-transportable by C-130. While it doesn't yet met the requirement to fly 1000 nautical miles via C130, it is still capable of flying combat ready 600 miles.
    * It is too heavy for parachute operations.
    * It is quieter but larger than comparable tracked vehicles. (Here, one must be fair: it is actually smaller in its basic dimensions than a BTR-80.)
    * The ICV weapons systems are heavy machine guns that are used with the Kongsberg Remote Weapons Station, which will have a stabilization capability to shoot on the move by 2006.
    * The vehicle's armor protects against 14.5mm, but the add-on-slat-armor only defeats RPGs with HE warheads. Armor-Piercing tipped RPGs have been known to punch through the slat-armor.
    * As with any vehicle mounted weapon, the vehicle commander must expose himself in the hatch to correct a weapons malfunction.
    * The interior is tight with a squad of fully combat equipped soldiers, to include body armor with ballistic plates and a second load of ammunition that is also carried on the vehicle

[edit]

MGS-specific criticisms

    * The C-130 cannot carry the heavier Mobile Gun System at all, thus totally failing the "Key Performance Factor" above.
    * Instead of using a low pressure gun like the M8 (or the Russian 2S25), the Stryker MGS uses the M60's 105mm M68A1 cannon. This gun has far too much recoil for the Stryker's weight class.
    * Thus, they added a muzzle brake. Muzzle brakes reduce recoil at the cost of extra blast and noise. The noise level in tests approached 200dB. It is estimated that means a soldier cannot safely approach within 450m of a firing Stryker MGS. The blast debris was also extensive, forcing the crew to fight in the buttoned-up position.
    * Even with the muzzle brake, the recoil still damages the MGS' more delicate internals, such as night vision electronics, the lights, instrumentation and helmets worn by test dummies. Without the muzzle brake, the recoil mechanism is destroyed.
    * Unlike the M8 autoloader, the MGS autoloader apparently cannot reliably select the right type of round. It also has a carousel with half the capacity, reducing its battle endurance.
    * Only 2-axles on a Stryker are equipped with run-flat tires. The MGS is too heavy to be supported on 2 axles.
    * No winch means no self-recovery
    * Various other ergonomic and survivability flaws.

[edit]

Updates

According to a Washington Post article, the Stryker vehicle has some serious faults; e.g. the insufficient ability to carry additional armor for protection against rocket-propelled grenades. The 5,000 pounds armor that was added caused problems with the automatic tire pressure system, causing crews to check tire pressure three times a day. Other problems include:

    * As designed, the weapon system does not shoot accurately when the Stryker is moving.
    * Troops cannot fasten their seat belts when they are wearing bulky body armor. This contributed to the death of two soldiers when their Stryker vehicle rolled over. This problem was fixed by the time the CALL report was published and six months prior to the Washington Post article.
    * Computer systems for communications, intelligence and other systems have malfunctioned in the desert heat due to air conditioning problems.

 

[ArmyRick]

Funny the troops who actually use the strykers sing praises for it...

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

My objections to the LAV III as our only armoured vehicle would go away if we adopted the twin TOW missiles turret in addition to the chaingun.  The cannon is never going to be a tankbuster, and if the MGS is not an anti-tank platform, then having TOW as part of the weapon mix will give our guys something to shoot back that can actually take out an MBT.  I know that we are not supposed to be fighting tanks, thats nice, and when the enemy starts accepting NDHQ proclamations on what weapons are permitted to fire on Canadian soldiers, I will actually accept it.  The argument that the Bradley and similar vehicles with missile/cannon combinations proved less effective than tanks is only relevant when you will have tanks, since we wont, a LAV that can defend itself sounds like a good move.  As far as the debate about weight, our poor old Herc's couldn't move one from Trenton to Edmonton, however it was configured, so I guess its a non issue.  Transportability would become more of an issue with an actual planing place to replace our strategic heavy lift (air) or purchase or RO-RO armour transport ships (sea).

 

[George Wallace]

TOW is not Fire and Forget.   I would not want to be in a LAV III firing a TOW at a Tank and waiting for it to impact before moving off....I'd move off alright....right through the Pearly Gates.   Unless they were being employed in the Anti-Tank role, in ambush positions, TOW would be useless to the LAVs.   Perhaps another missile system that was Fire and Forget would do.   That way the LAVs could withdraw as soon as they fire, and not remain an easy soft target to the other tanks on the field.

 

[Kirkhill]

Or perhaps something with a little more "stand-off" George?  Say an 8km missile instead of 4km?

 

[George Wallace]

Or perhaps something with a little more "stand-off" George?   Say an 8km missile instead of 4km?

If that were to be the case, yes.    But, then isn't that the philosophy behind putting the ADATS int the LdSH (RC).

 

[Kirkhill]

If that were to be the case, yes.  But, then isn't that the philosophy behind putting the ADATS int the LdSH (RC).

Doesn't mean its the only, or the best solution does it?

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/gill/

SPIKE-ER

The extended range (8km) version, Spike-ER, also has a larger warhead. It is designed for mounting on light combat vehicles but can also be removed and fitted onto a trispod. The vehicle package includes the missile in its canister, a remotely controlled turret with target acquisition system and electronics and gunner's station with multi-function display, control panel and handgrip.

A bi-directional fibre-optic datalink provides Spike-ER with a Fire and Steer mode, in addition to the other two modes. This means that the gunner does not need to lock-on to the target before launch, but can choose the target after launch and steer the missile to the target's most vulnerable point or hand over to fire-and-forget.

Rafael has developed a version of Spike-ER with a Penetration, Blast and Fragmentation (PBF) warhead which only explodes after penetration of the target (e.g. a wall), minimising collateral damage.

A Spike-ER launcher has been developed for helicopters. The four-round launcher requires no modifications to the helicopter, other than software integration. It can be fitted to a variety of helicopters, including AH-64 Apache (which can carry 16 missiles), AH-1S Cobra, A-129, MD-500, Mi-24 and others.

SPIKE-LR
Spike-LR is a portable anti-armour weapon system with a range of up to 4km, which can be operated in fire-and-forget mode and in fire, observe and update mode using the fibre-optic data link.

Spike-LR is equipped with a fibre-optic data link guidance system, which sends commands to the missile from the launch system and receives, into the gunner's field of view, images from the seeker. The gunner can update his aim point while the missile is in flight using the fibre optic link. As well as update target information, the datalink allows the gunner to switch targets and also receive real-time intelligence and perform battle damage assessment. The Spike system can work in non line-of-sight (NLOS) mode allowing the gunner to operate from a covered position. Spike-LR, which can also be installed on light combat vehicles, can be used to engage tanks, armoured vehicles, hardened shelters and low flying slow targets such as helicopters.

SPIKE-MR (GILL)
Spike-MR, the medium range version, is a portable fire-and-forget anti-armour missile system with a range up to 2.5km. It can have the option of the additional Fire, Observe and Update mode of operation if required.

I have been a real proponent of the Javelin system but perhaps there is merit to the Gill/Spike Family to take over the Javelin/TOW/ADATS roles?

Spike MR for the Infantry
Spike ER for the Cavalry (mounted in "saddlebags" on the LAV Turret)

Find something longer ranged for the support role

Spike LR at 4 km seems to be neither fish nor fowl, much like the TOWen.  -  Relatively short range (when trading shots with tanks), slow transit, slow rate of fire, few stowed kills

 

[a_majoor]

Putting TOW on the LAV III turret is wrong for the reasons stated by George. If we do need to supply LAV crews with a means to defeat hard targets, then they also need something that can be aimed and fired quickly, either "Fire and Forget" like Javelin (sorry Kirkhill, but following the Spike to impact with its FOG-M feature has the same flaws as TOW), or "snap shooting" targets with an evolved LOSAT. (Just the shock of it screaming past the bunker at Mach 5 should give the enemy pause).

The main reason to think this way is the LAV is an Infantry carrier (or fighting machine; you decide), and so the infantry soldiers need to act or react to threats right down to 0m (i.e. a mounted patrol in the city.) Obviously a different sort of vehicle would be prefferable, but since LAV is what we have, well this solution will do for now.

 

[Kirkhill]

either "Fire and Forget" like Javelin (sorry Kirkhill, but following the Spike to impact with its FOG-M feature has the same flaws as TOW)

I agree a_majoor.   That's why the Spike appeals to me.

A bi-directional fibre-optic datalink provides Spike-ER with a Fire and Steer mode, in addition to the other two modes. This means that the gunner does not need to lock-on to the target before launch, but can choose the target after launch and steer the missile to the target's most vulnerable point or hand over to fire-and-forget.

It can be used both in N-LOS, man-in-the-loop, over-the-horizon mode AND fire-and-forget.

Edit:

Actually, as I read it, a Spike equipped LAV, cresting a rise and confronting something heavier could immediately launch a retaliatory round, have the driver backup into defilade while the gunner is still locating and fixing the target.  Once the target is fixed the gunner could then leave the round alone as the vehicle continues to scarper or else, if the vehicle is behind cover, continue to watch the round fly to the target, and either complete the engagement, or at the last minute (on seeing the IFF panel) divert the missile to safe ground.

 

[Kirkhill]

Another Spike related link.

http://www.rheinmetall.de/print.php?lang=3&fid=1515

The Poles have a 30mm turret with a pair of Spikes for their Patria 8x8 LAVs.

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

Another Spike related link.

http://www.rheinmetall.de/print.php?lang=3&fid=1515

The Poles have a 30mm turret with a pair of Spikes for their Patria 8x8 LAVs.

  I like the Spike system, the LAV III would work well with twin Spike mounts, instead of TOW that I suggested earlier.  Spike gives good range, shoot/scoot ability.  The ability to snap shoot, and alter designated target after firing, allows our crews to both haul a$$ and kick it (a good idea in the light armour game).

 

[a_majoor]

That is interesting. I had thought the missile mode had to be designated prior to launch, but if the gunner can join in the regular programming after a "snap shoot" launch, then so much the better. I do think it would be rather difficult for the gunner to fix the target and guide to impact while in a bouncing vehicle driving backwards at high speed.

Snap shooting with hypervelocity rounds like LOSAT wuold allow emergency engagements, while Spike or Javelin would allow for more deliberate engagements. Perhaps a mixed battery; 2XSpike and 2X mini LOSAT in a launcher box.

 

[Kirkhill]

I do think it would be rather difficult for the gunner to fix the target and guide to impact while in a bouncing vehicle driving backwards at high speed.

Probably so.  But the time of flight to 8 km (roughly 25 to 30 seconds) can be an asset in an N-LOS system.  With a top-attack profile and a wide field of view there is time to gather the target and evaluate the surrounding area (deduced from statements saying it is possible to evaluate the surrounding area for better targets and shift the point of aim).

Having said that, the Compact version of the LOSAT (CKEM - 60 inches, 100 lbs) could be of interest as well.  Perhaps not having both Spike and CKEM mounted on the same vehicle but maybe within the troop?  By the way, one of the problems that the LOSAT is still struggling to overcome seems to be not just a massive launch signature but a plume of exhaust gases that draw a line between target and launch point.

http://www.missilesandfirecontrol.com/our_products/antiarmor/CKEM/product-CKEM.html

Perhaps the troop could even have a support patrol/section with a pair of vehicles mouting a box of N-LOS missiles or have a section of longer range support missile vehicles assigned for particular missions?

Not suggesting answers, just alternatives.

Although I do think that the 60mm HVMS turret with a pair of Spikes, on a suitable chassis, would make for an interesting system with a useful range of competencies.  Particularly if aligned with Coyote type surveillance, Mini UAVs and something like Hellfire/Brimstone/Longbow/Netfires in support.

It wouldn't make for an assault force but it would make for a screening and skirmishing force that could supply and interesting mix of fire support.

 

[a_majoor]

Were getting a fruit salad here.

Long range firepower should be held by the "armoured" and "artillery" vehicles in the team, such as tanks, TOW, mortars etc. They can hold enough ammunition natures to make them effective at what they do, without having a bunch of infantry filling the back. For a LAV III, we should be thinking of a short to medium range weapon to allow the crew to do an emergency engagement of hard targets at short range ("Holy S**t, Earl, where did that come from? Missile, Tank ON! [gunner: ON]. FIRE!!!).

In fact, if we go all the way with this sort of thinking, a bundle of unguided rockets would allow a snapshot, cause the enemy to put his head down and allow the driver to boot it in full reverse, while in the background (say, 8 km away  ) the Spike gunner gets kicked awake and launches a round in support of the unfortunate infantry carrier.

 

[Kirkhill]

I happen to like fruit salads!!!

In fact, if we go all the way with this sort of thinking, a bundle of unguided rockets would allow a snapshot, cause the enemy to put his head down and allow the driver to boot it in full reverse

Hmm.  What can be done with the Smoke Grenades launchers, Metalstorm type technology and micro electronics?

while in the background (say, 8 km away  ) the Spike gunner gets kicked awake and launches a round in support of the unfortunate infantry carrier.

Spike gunner gets kicked awake?  That might be seen as a less than complimentary view of those in support trades.

Actually I take your point about effective IA systems for Infantry Carriers.  In fact for any vehicles.

But as to putting the Spike or similar systems, 8km behind the front line of armour plate, isn't that kind of leading with your chin?  Why not put the Spikes up there with the leading armour, use the available sensors (Coyote-UAVs-Dismounted patrols-etc) check "over the hill" to reduce uncertainty as much as possible.  Eg.  The mini-UAVs being considered for the LAVs - 10 can be flown simultaneously from one laptop out to a distance of 35 miles (something on that order - memory fading) They can take on at least some of the wheels-in-ruts type reconnaissance of lines of advance reducing risks to forward elements.

By keeping Spike etc forward then there is more opportunity to strike at the enemy before coming in range of the enemy's guns.  Isn't there?

On the question of whether the LAV-III should be the only vehicle to carry this "fruit salad" -  Use the LAV for infantry carrier and support roles as is.  But while the drive train of the system might be retained for the "weapons" vehicles, is there any real need to maintain the high profile box?  Something a little lower for recce/fire support perhaps?  A flat bed for deep support systems and cargo?

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I read that the combatants in the Afghan civil war (Northern Alliance et al vs Taliban) mounted surplus 57mm rocket pods from Hips/Hinds onto BMP as a direct fire system.  They would basically let'er rip at a target and go back for more.  Not sure how effective it was, but it would make for a good video.

We've been down the LAV/Coyote missile trail a few times.  I still argue that Coyote would benefit from two turret mounted AT missiles (TOW or otherwise) to deal with situtations when they'd be far from help.  I would also say that this is less of a priority for the LAV.

During my course down south one of the interesting dilemas was how to employ Bradley mounted infantry units, especially in the defence.  The vehicle was best suited for long range fights, while the dismounts were best suited for up close (a little less of a problem with Javelin I suppose).  Unless you split the infantry from their vehicles you ended up putting one element in a position for which it was not really suited.

2B