Adding a Missile capability to the LAV III

[Kirkhill]

In the absence of the System of Systems (MGS AND TUA), and now that the Armoured Corps has got their Tanks back,  could we now take another look at heavying up inf support by adding a couple of missiles to the LAV turrets to complement the 25-40mm main weapon and the 7.62 coax?

The range of missiles currently available has expanded from TOW ATGM to TOW-Radio Frequency with both AT and Bunker Buster warheads, Javelin, Spike (SR, MR, LR and ER) and CKEM (Compact Kinetic Energy Missiles).

 

[George Wallace]

My view on missiles on the side of the Coyote/LAV M245 25mm turret is the same as for the MBGDs.  They are there for a "one time use" in the case of an emergency.  They can not safely be reloaded when under fire.  Once used, their benefits are lost.

Leave the missiles to the Anti-Armour Platoon.

 

[vonGarvin]

Leave the missiles to the Anti-Armour Platoon.

We can't: they are no more.  They were cut by some brainiac somewhere in Ottawa :

 

[George Wallace]

We can't: they are no more.  They were cut by some brainiac somewhere in Ottawa :

Got the "neutered" feeling.

 

[Franko]

We can't: they are no more.  They were cut by some brainiac somewhere in Ottawa :

Hmmm...seem to recall seeing some Patricias still wearing the black beret in Edmonton. When did this happen?

Regards

 

[vonGarvin]

Hmmm...seem to recall seeing some Patricias still wearing the black beret in Edmonton. When did this happen?

Regards

You see?  That's part of the Armoured Regiment.  "TOW Platoons" used to be an infantry battalion sub-unit ;D

 

[Colin Parkinson]

You just confirmed my statement.

The MGS should never have been thought of as a replacement for the tanks we had (not to be confused with a "Tank Replacement".), nor should they have been for the Armour Corps.  They would have been a great supplement to the Inf Bn Support Wpns Coys, as would the Mortars, HMGs, etc.

The Cougar was a mistake for the Armour Corps, and we also saw what happened with the "Tank Trainer" that was never to be deployed.  It was the match of a fine turret from one fine vehicle, to the hull of another fine vehicle, to create of a piece of junk (sorry for the rant).

The older members of the Armour Corps remember this.  They also looked at a vehicle that really did not teach or maintain key skills required of Armour soldiers, a vehicle that did not carry a large Ammo load and required a long amount of time to replenish, and a vehicle that was better suited for the Infantry as a support wpn.

The Armour Corps now has a great "Surveillance" platform, and is getting tanks once again.  They now need a good Recce veh.  The Armour Corps also has to start equipping the Armour Reserve Units with the same equipment as the Reg Force or Reservists will no longer be able to fill posns in Reg Armd units............which is the current state of affairs already, but continuing to get worse. 

The MGS would not have done anything for Armd Reserves, other than provide a Gunnery platform to train on.  Driver skills would not be taught to the extent needed.  Commanders would learn all the wrong lessons for Veh SA.  All crews would learn bad lessons (as with the Cougar) on the use of ground and Tactics.  Maintenance would be a serious problem.   The list goes on and on, and it is compounded by the fact that the gap between Reserve Trg and Reg Trg in the Armour Corps is continuing to widen.

I always thought this would have made a decent recce vehicle to replace the Lynx
http://johnsmilitaryhistory.com/armorxm800.html

 

[Franko]

Only super Gavins will fill the bill!!

Regards

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Hmmm...seem to recall seeing some Patricias still wearing the black beret in Edmonton. When did this happen?

Regards

They are going the way of the dodo (black beret Patricias that is).

 

[Kirkhill]

My view on missiles on the side of the Coyote/LAV M245 25mm turret is the same as for the MBGDs.  They are there for a "one time use" in the case of an emergency.  They can not safely be reloaded when under fire.  Once used, their benefits are lost.

Leave the missiles to the Anti-Armour Platoon.

My take is that if 54 rounds of 105 available in 3x MGS to the Company Commander in the Stryker Battalion is enough to bust the bunkers available then wouldn't 28 missiles (2/LAV), and possibly a dedicated Missile Section with a couple of TUA be equally useful?

We're not talking a "Target Rich" environment here.  We're talking about roving patrols being able to deal with what they encounter without having to get D&B's "cast of thousands". 

 

[ArmyRick]

TOW has a bunker buster missile, I don't know if we ever picked up (I haven't crewed a TUA in over 10 years now).

Just keep in mind, 105mm/120mm is alot cheaper than TOW, re-loads a lot faster and is stablizied on tanks.

TOW Aero though has a 4,000m reach.

 

[a_majoor]

While guns generally have the edge, I would not be adverse to supplementing them with NLOS missiles like FOG-M, Gill/Spike and so on which can "reach out and touch someone" when they are under cover from DF rounds (25mm or 120mm). Missiles under direct control of the local commander (be it platoon commander or Combat Team Commander) would allow the unit to directly attack and neutralize depth positions before the artillery/mortars/helicopters/aircraft arrive on target. It would certainly give our side the ability to rapidly shape the battlespace to our liking....

That being said, there is still the issue of who carries and controls them. Something like the AAP of old would seem to be ideal, but then again we run into the manning/manpower issues.

 

[KellGunner]

I personally think it would be a good addition to the LAV-III.  It would give the LAV an ability to take out a tank if it needed to.  That being said i do not think any LAV-II would want to go toe to toe with a tank but if they were advancing and came into contact with a tank they would want to be able to dispatch it without having to call it in.

 

[ArmyRick]

Um...ya...thanks. Have you read thoroughly on this subject or anything fresh to add?

 

[KellGunner]

Um...ya...thanks. Have you read thoroughly on this subject or anything fresh to add?

Just saying that the added capabilities to the LAV-III is a great idea.  As well the TOW missiles we have in the system are for anti tank purposes, not buneker busting, though it will work due to the fact they have warheads with a couple of kilos of High Explosives, but its a HEAT warhead and not a general HE warhead.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I'm a fan of dismounting the infantry and having them take out the tanks.

 

[TheHead]

  Having a TOW as part of the armament would have been great over in Afghanistan in 2006.  25mm just doesn't cut it against the compounds or built up structures.  I would have loved to shoot a Tow missle into that white cursed white building.  Thank God for the armour now.

 

[George Wallace]

And the question still stands:  Who is going to reload while under fire?  It is like using a musket to take on a MG post. 

If you want to have a TOW, put it on a TOW vehicle with a reload system under armour, not on the side of a 25 mm M242 Turret.

 

[TheHead]

I understand  your concern and I've had the bad experience of having to hop out of my LAV, under fire, jumping into the back grabbing the ammo and running with my tail between my legs back in the hatch (Thanks Kiwi).

It would have just been nice to have a capablity to level a side of a compound than be able to rain some HEIT rounds into the breach.   

If someone is so concerned about reloading under fire they can always jockey for position into a safe location or forget about it. 

 

[George Wallace]

If someone is so concerned about reloading under fire they can always jockey for position into a safe location or forget about it.

To jockey back (no standard distance to get to a safe location) will take the 25 mm out of action as well.  That would take two valued wpns systems out of action for an indeterminate time. 

Remember, if you mount a TOW on the turret of a Coyote or a LAV III, you also have to store extra missiles.  As is, there is limited space for the Inf Section, and even less with a Surv Suite. 

A TOW UA or TOW ITV would be a better vehicle.  There would be protection for the crew to reload.  There would be room to carry a larger number of missiles and not take up more of the limited space that the Inf Section already uses or the Surv Suite in a Coyote.