Why the Eryx? How effective is it?

[Brock]

The Eryx missile system was purchased to replace the Carl Gustav, but who decided to and why? The Eryx is far too heavy for its limited range of only 600m. The logic of purchasing the Eryx boggles the mind. Canada would have been better off waiting and purchasing the US Javelin missile system which can reach out to 2000m and is a soft launch fire and forget missile. The Eryx may be able decimate heavy armour, but it‘s limited usefulness in medium range (500-2000m) situations is non-existent. It seems to me the Bofors AT-4DPCS would provide a much more realistic replacement for the Carl G at platoon level provided two or three Javelin or similar weapons were available in a company anti-tank section. Any comments

 

[Mud Crawler]

I agree.We would have been better off with the Javelin.Plus it‘s fire and forget capabilities allow you to blow it up and get the f**k out before the enemy spots you.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I suppose the definitive answer would be to analyze the project documents to determine when the decision was made relative to what was available and proven.

Based purely on internet-based rumours, it seems the Eryx works now and Javelin may still have teething troubles.

 

[Brad Sallows]

As a follow-up, those interested might want to review the information about Eryx and Javelin at the following web pages, respectively:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/eryx.htm

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/javelin.htm

Unfortunately the development and acquisition cycle of Eryx is not documented on the FAS pages. The Infantry School Journal has a few Eryx articles:

http://www.brunnet.net/infsch/jrnl.htm

Based on the RHA penetration claims, it would seem Eryx may have a more powerful warhead.

 

[Yard Ape]

The fact is that the Eryx is secondary to the heavier AT weapons. Ideally you would engage tanks outside of their range to return fire. This role falls to the TOW. The Eryx will cover your ass when the TOW has failed, or is not present. Don‘t forget that W‘ the LAV III every section has a light anti-armour capability in the 25mm gun. If we were truely worried about anti-tank capabilities we would have used the LAV III w/TOW capabilities on every section vehicle.
http://www.delcodefense.com/LAV25.htm http://www.delcodefense.com/LAV25tow.htm

What we need is a mid-range AT weapon in addition to the Eryx and TOW.

The Eryx

Yard Ape

 

[2 Charlie]

Good job Yard Ape.

The Eryx was procured for very specific point protection. There is a lot of thought as to what is or is not needed, but at the end of the day, when all alse fails and your position is about to be over run, I think that this system will make a few people very happy.

As for the Javelin, yes it is a very capable system with a few probs, but here is a thought, do we employ a system by that name already? Yup, the Bird Gunners have the Javelin. In another forum it was asked if the AD was going to be kept or not.

I hope so, but lets not forget that the majority of portable anti air systems out there are designed for the front line grunts. It is awesome that we have a dedicated AD Arty and I hope they are maintained in the Bge concept, however, it was mentioned about grunts doing the job, in reality, just another point defence weapon.

On a lighter note, how could we buy the Javelin AT and deploy it in the same environment as the Javelin AD, .

 

[Yard Ape]

I‘d like to see the infantry get the job of point air defence of thier own positions and activities. Leave area defense, in/out air route coverage, and defense of Bge assest to the AD Artillery. DO NOT give the entire job to the infantry.

Yard Ape

 

[Nate2]

It seems that the Eryx SRAAW is a good replacement for the CG, especially with mech infantry units as the weight issue is not so pronounced. The ERYX capability seems to have been defined during the Cold War, when defensive AT was a prime mission of the CAF and most other nations in NATO Euro theatre. The Cdn Ifn Journal, Fall 1997, mentions that the current plan of 1 system per mech infantry section was derived from a cold war scenario of a battalion having to stop a Soviet Motor Rifle Regiment. This would require maximum use of terrain and preplanned fortifictaions for dispersed, dismounted infantry in order to extract the most from the ERYX. The ERYX SRAAW can be effective in todays conflicts which involve FIBUA or poor terrain as well, but it must be remembered that a SRAAW, guided or otherwise is primarily a defensive weapon. It offers excellent lethality (900+mm RHA penetration), accuracy (75%kill prob from shoulder, 95% from tripod) and reaction time (4.3 secs to max range). Of course, this is theorectical data-proper training is required to extract these high range figures.

However, in CAF service, particularly for the light inf battalions, this weapon needs to be augmented with an MRAAW, which to my knowledge, the Canadian LF have never had. Our European allies have used MILAN for some time, and the US had the Dragon before the Javelin. These wepons are in a differnent class from the ERYX because of the range at which they may be employed. The CAF should have a guided MRAAW(H) system in addition to the ERYX, fielded in the platoon weapons dets of light inf companies. The mech infantry could perhaps forego such a system as they have the Bushmaster and ERYX per section and TUA. Canada should have procured an MRAAW capability first, and then looked at a new SRAAW(H) ideally. It is doubtful if the CAF will receive an MRAAW(H) in the current budget climate.

Any opinions?

Regards,

Nate.

 

[Yard Ape]

I agree Nate. However, I would not consider a 25 mm gun a reliable AT weapon as its suitability agains the front of a tank is questionable. It is more of an APC killer. It is also important to remember that TUA is a battalion reasource. It has been suggested elsewhere on this forum that the LAV III APC‘s should have been bought with the LAV25-TOW turrets. This would have been a good idea, and perhapse should be considered when Canada takes (if Canada takes) the option to buy more LAV III‘s. In its absence a MRAAW should also be considered for mechanized Coy‘s.

Yard Ape

 

[Nate2]

Thanks for the correction Yard Ape, you‘re right, the 25mm bushmaster cannot deal with tanks. The Delcodefense 25TOW would give the LAV III equipped inf an excellent AT capability, with firepwoer equivalent to the Bradley. In the current funding climate, this is unlikely, but at least the possibility is there. Such a system would particularly be effective if Canada ever acquired the new TOW Fire and Forget missile. Short of this, a plausible solution would be to perhaps better distribute the TUA among mech inf coys and plts, and acquire an MRAAW(H) for plt weps dets. Some would argue that over arming a IFV would contribute to the IFV being used more as a ACV instead of supporting the infantry which is its first mission (especially if the LAV inf section has to be further reduced to carry extra TOW rounds). I‘m still undecided about whether or not this is true, but if Canada indeed sheds its MBT capability for LAV III 105s, then it would seem logical to put as much anti-armour capability as possible on the armoured platforms which we retain. Either way, our allies all use MRAAW(H) at the platoon weapons det level, and Canada should not ignore this fact. We need an MRAAW(H) system for the infantry. Thoughts?

Regards,

Nate

 

[McG]

The idea has been floating around in military academic groups ( and one which I support)that when Canada replaces the Cougar WFSV and the Leopard with the (as of yet undecided) ACV that the tank regiments should be dissolved and a fire support Coy be added to each Inf Bn. This would provide mech Bn with a high rate of fire medium range AT capable weapon. However, this would still leave the light Inf with a gap to fill through a MRAAW(H).

 

[Brock]

Well said my thoughts exactly. Three or four LAV III vehicles equipped with 105mm canons for every mechanized infantry company is probably the best way to integrate a heavy anti-armour direct fire weapon. Not only will an organization of this reduce the number of extra command positions required of tank squadrons, but it will better integrate the combat arms teams and thus ensuring better training and operational integration.

 

[Yard Ape]

If there were a way to add 2 x TOW in ready to fire positions to the LAV III MGS and the vehicle was integrated into In Bn‘s through a fires support company, then the need for AT Pl could be eliminated. The modified MGS would have the "high rate of fire medium range AT capable weapon" in the 105, and a long range slow rate of fire AT weapon in the TOW. Tps from the Coy could be tasked with either fire support to the rifle coys or independantly in the AT role.

This would still leave a requirement for a MRAAW or LRAAW (or both) in the Rifle Coys and Pls. Here I revisit my belief we should at the LAV-25 TOW turrets to our IFVs.

Yard Ape

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I've done a little light reading on the system and the one thing that seems troublesome is their limited range.

Can anyone out there comment?

Weapon hitting power?
Accuracy?
Reliability?
Tactics considering its short range?

Many thanks,



Matthew.    

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Accuarcy is dependant on the operator as it is wire guided.
the good part of the weapon is that it has limited back blast and therefore can fire inside a room (ie. FIBUA).
last I heard there was a problem with the missiles prematurely blowing up.  The rest can be found here:

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/2_0_41_1.asp?uSubSection=41&uSection=2

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

CFL,

Can you comment on the procurement of the Javelin system?

Is this a case of complementary systems, or one replacing the other?



M.  ???

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Sorry I've got nothing myself for ya there.

 

[Bartok5]

The "positives" are as follows:

- The Erxy warhead is highly effective against all current armour threats, as well as fortified structures. 

- The ability to fire from enclosed spaces due to minimal back-blast (2-stage motor with soft initial "boost launch) is particularly useful for defensive (and limited offensive) operations in urban terrain.

- The system tends to be quite robust and reliable, assuming that the firing post has not been unduly smashed about and the missiles have not been too roughly handled once removed from their transit packaging.

- The Mirabel Thermal sight offers a decent thermal surveillance and target-acquisition capability down to Section level in the absence of thermal crew-served weapon sights.  The range is limited by resolution (intended for 600m identification of AFVs), but it works pretty well.

- Reasonably quick reload with a trained crew.  A good crew should be able to fire 3 shots per minute, including the reload, target acquisition and tracking, and time of flight to impact.

The "negatives"are:

- 600 metre maximum range.  This means that the bulk of a current Canadian Rifle Coy's integral dismounted anti-armour capability is limited to employment in "ambush" style defence.  For tank-hunting teams, this means siting on a blind corner in close terrain (eg. a defile or forest track) with a maximum 600 metre linear killzone.  For area defence with an integrated anti-armour framework, this means that the Erxy must be sited on a reverse slope with a maximum 600 metre kill-zone.  Ideally, the Eryx will be sited on the flanks of the KZ to fire from enfilade with interlocking arcs.  In that case, given perfect terrain with no obstructions you can cover a KZ approximately 1000 metres wide.  If you must site Eryx at the base of the KZ and take frontal shots, the Eryx must be within 600 metres of the crest of the reverse slope (eg. able to engage anything that peeks over the top).  If enemy armour can see and engage you beyond the 600 metre max range of the weapon you are done-for.  The limited range creates problems for area defence KZ siting and management, due to the limited potential 1000 metre wide x 600 metre deep size of the KZ (even in ideal terrain).  Figure that your medium-density tactical minefield will be 300 metres deep across the base of your KZ to assist with the "fix" of the enemy, and that leaves you only 300 metres to the crest of the reverse slope for the enemy to pile up in so that you can destroy him.

- Optically sighted with wire-guidance.  The target has to be continually tracked by the gunner for the duration of the missile's flight.  If the gunner is suppressed by enemy fire or otherwise fails to keep the target within the reticle, the missile will miss.  Obstacles within the flight-path (heavy brush), fencing, etc, can disrupt the missile flight and/or break the guidance wires.  The wires themselves exert a considerable "pull" on the firing post once the missile is in flight, making it quite difficult to fire from the kneeling or standing unsupported positions. 

- Very bulky and heavy missiles, particularly when in the transit packaging.  Remove the protective packaging, and you run the risk of damaging the missile before you can fire it.  The transit packaging itself produces a huge amount of garbage.  Due to their bulk and weight there is a very limited capacity to transport Erxy missiles during dismounted operations (eg. raid, hasty attack break-in and fight-through, etc), airmobile and airborne ops.  Erxy is poorly suited to dismounted carriage except for very short distances with a limited ammo load of 1 or 2 missiles.

- The Firing Post batteries are a unique item, meaning that they aren't necessarily supported by coalition supply chains.  This was a significant issue during Op APOLLO, where the Mirabelle thermal sights were required to support the STA framework during airfield defensive operations.

There are undoubtedly other considerations applicable to the Eryx, but those are the key "pro's and con's" off the top of my head.  There is talk of increasing the missile range to 1000 metres with future ammo purchases, which would be a very welcome interim capability enhancement until such time as ALAWS enters service.

The Advanced Light Anti-Armour Weapon System (ALAWS) Project is well on-track, with trials ongoing.  As best I can recall from the last DLR update, we are looking at selection of a system early next year, with procurement to follow fairly quickly afterwards.  The 2 primary contenders are the U.S. Javelin, and the Israeli Spike Long-Range.  Both are equally impressive "fire and forget" systems capable of defeating any known enemy armour threat at impressive stand-off ranges.  I will defer to an Anti-Armour SME for the full specs, as I don't have them at my fingertips.  Suffice it to say that either system would represent a quantum improvement to our integral sub-unit (and now unit-level) anti-armour capability. 

I hope this answers a few of your questions.  All of the above info is off the top of my head, so if I've missed something or made a mistake, anyone with the requisite info should jump right in with a correction or elaboration.  I'm not Basic or Advanced A-Armour trained, so all I know are basic capabilities/limitations  and tactical employment techniques....

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Mark,

All I can say is "wow".   That response was so good I copied and pasted the text to a word document
so I can refer to it later.

Just outstanding!!!!

Thank you....

Cheers,


Matthew.  

 

[Highland Laddie]

Great response and summary Mark C.  I wasn't aware of the battery issue.

The range is definately an issue. At 600m I have heard it described by a CSM from 2 PPCLI as the Victoria Cross weapon: see tank, kill tank, get killed by next tank. I have always felt that a mid range anti tank missile system is needed as well for inf troops. The Eryx is a great short range weapon, and can be used very effectively in conjunction with the old Carl J (unfortunately being replaced 'in theory' by the Eryx) - Eryx takes the mid to heavy armour, Carl J the AVs and others. I have heard of some Mech Inf units carrying both, but I'll let someone else speak to that. The TOW is a long range weapon. Seems like we need a mid range weapon as well. Any thoughts / suggestions on this? I curious to see what other countries use as a mid-range weapon. The French helped develop the Eryx, what do they use as a mid-range weapon? Cheers.