Anti-Armour capability of the LAV III APC & Coyote.

[Yard Ape]

Tanks are leaving and there replacments will be too few in number to provide battlefield wide protection of our forces in the face of enemy armour.   This means if we plan to do anything more than fight on the defensive, our APCs will have to be able to protect themselves while the sections are mounted.   In the face of an enemy that practices mixing armour with infantry, we will be slaughtered.

For its own protection, the LAV Coy must be able to reach-out and kill tanks from at least as far as a tank could reach the company at max effective range.

There may be options.   The LAV-25 turret (the one found on our APC & the Coyote) can be fitted with two TOW missile launchers.   With this upgrade, every APC in Canada could kill up to two tanks.   Such a system would not take space from inside the vehicle as additional missiles would only be carried by the Coy Ech (the missiles are only intended for protection unless in a prepaired defensive postion).   In a defensive position, the vehicle could be contribute to the overall anti-armour plan.   A Companies worth of LAV III supported by TUA & MGS could make quick killing of enemy armour in a kill zone.

But the TOW requires the vehicle to sit static while firing.   In a chance encounter with enemy armour,   Infantry & recce/survielance only hope to survive may be mobility & bracking contact.   At the very least, these vehicles should not sit exposed for the time it takes to guide a missile home.   A fire & forget option would be better than TOW.   Is there a self guiding missile that is compatable with the TOW launcher?   If not then perahapse we should look at an upgrade that would but extended range Javelin launchers on the LAV-25 turret in the same configuration as the TOW launchers can be mounted.

 

[MG34]

It is not recce's job to kill tanks.The TOW system will not be added to the LAV turret,that much we know and has been told to us time and time again by the powers that be.The current AAP in the Inf Bn has been gutted to the point that it is all but useless.The AAP we had in 4 CMBG with 18 TUA was about the best we ever had it,of course now with the loss of the tank and the adoption of the MGS our AA punch has dropped significantly.
Infantry vehicles should not have TOW mounted or any other AA system for that matter,the job of the APC/IFV is to get the troops on the objective ASAP,not mix it up with tanks.That is the realm of the DFS organisation what ever it may be.The MGS has the same capabilities as a Leo to kill tanks,which with a 105mm was marginal at best when facing a modern army. The only thing that will make a difference is the purchase of more dedicated Anti Armour vehicles,the Infantry vehicles have  too much to worry about than taking on tanks.The TOW system on the Bradley is not very good,when you start dual tasking controls and sights or cramming dula systems in a small turret you get problems,couple that with training on the system you do not have an effective solution to the problem.

 

[CF_Lifer]

Wasn't the CF testing out a Direct Fire Support Turret for the LAVS, or STRYKERs?  I cant remember which one, but I think they were using a 105mm Gun weren't they? a LAV MGS? Using a General Dynamics Low Profile Turret? Theres a Picture of the STRYKER Direct Fire Support Vehicle.

 

[MG34]

I suggest you read what I posted,the MGS is 105mm you did get that right.

 

[CF_Lifer]

What did I get wrong? I got it off of http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-vehlavmgs1.htm
I agree with you that it is not the Infantry's job to combat tanks as a primary task. And Is certainly not a Recce vehicle's main responsibility. Do you think a 120mm gun would do better than the 105?

 

[AmmoTech90]

Yard Ape,

There are no members of the TOW family that are fire and forget.  The TOW NG is not wireguided but still requires tracking.  It is compatibile with ITAS though so Canada could see it sometime in the future.  Sadly TOW is coming to a end.  The US are moving on to the Common Missile System which will be base on Hellfire.  There is the possibility of that being fire and forget.
Having seen both Javelin and Spike trialled over several weeks I would say Javelin is the better missile despite Spike's longer range.  Just my opinion.
Perhaps instead of mounting the entire system to the vehicle, produce a mount where the CLU could be attached next to the gunner's hatch or the back passenger hatch.  I would think the gunner's hatch would be better as the missile has a distinct downward slant when loaded on the CLU and you wouldn't make many friends pointing the exhaust into the back of a LAV.  

 

[Yard Ape]

the job of the APC/IFV is to get the troops on the objective ASAP,not mix it up with tanks.That is the realm of the DFS organisation what ever it may be.

That is true, but 66 Mobile guns & 34 TUA are not enough protection for the army.  Unfortunatly, enemy tanks will not listen when our LAV crew try to explain they are not supposed to fight tanks.  A fire & forget misssile would give our APCs sufficient fire to protect themselves in a chance encounter with enemy armour (an encounter that would currently lead to a slaughter).  You will notice my origional post mentions TUA because it will still berequired for those positions where you want/plan to fight enemy armour.

 

[patt]

What did I get wrong? I got it off of http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-vehlavmgs1.htm
I agree with you that it is not the Infantry's job to combat tanks as a primary task. And Is certainly not a Recce vehicle's main responsibility. Do you think a 120mm gun would do better than the 105?

no, theres already enough problems with the 105 just image how many more the 120 would have

 

[CF_Lifer]

Hey Patty. I heard they were complaining about the LAV MGS being too Top Heavy....I'm sure changing it with a 120mm would only complicate this problem.

 

[Yard Ape]

There are well over a dozen threads on the MGS and 120 mm vs 105 mm.  Take your tangent to one of those threads please.

For those who have not seen the TOW system on the LAV-25 turret, I have a picture.  The launchers are in the ready to fire position, and rotate down to the side of the turret when not firing.  The same basic concept could be used for a number of fire & forget missiles.

 

[Kirkhill]

Maybe these would fit your bill YardApe

The Italian Israeli 60mm Hypervelocity Muzzle System Cannon based on OtoMelara's 76mm Naval Gun used on the DDH-280s.

It is light enough to use on an M113 with 80 rounds (and still carrying a 9 man crew), fires 3 round bursts, kills T55s for sure at about 1500 to 2000m (that knife fight zone I believe you were concerned about) and also effective, I believe but I can't find the citation, against T72s.  At the time that it was introduced, in the 80's, it was touted as being equivalent to the 105mm APDS fired from the L7.

Currently being considered by a number of armies, including the Italians and the Poles who were looking at it for their 25 tonne Patria APCs.

And it is housed in a "Real" turret. 

On which could be hung CKEM, the replacement for the TOW you were looking for.  The contract has been awarded to Lockheed Martin.  >4 km, 100lb, fire and forget kinetic kill against any and all targets.  Kind of like a shrunken LOSAT.

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/armored_personnel_carriers/m-113/HVMS.html
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/sherman/M-60.html

http://nationaldefense.ndia.org/article.cfm?Id=464

Seeking to bring about such a weapon is the CKEM (compact kinetic energy missile) program. George W. Snyder, project manager at AMRDEC, said the goal is to design a missile that is half the size of the Losat (line-of-sight antitank missile), scheduled to begin production in 2004. Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control is building 11 Losats to be tested by the Army's 82nd airborne division. Losat is 9.75 feet long and weighs 174 pounds. Launched from a Humvee truck, it can reach targets out to 4 km. â Å“It will help users understand how kinetic energy missiles perform in the battlefield,â ? said Snyder.
If CKEM progresses as the Army hopes, it will be 4.5 feet long and weigh 85 pounds. Ideally, officials said, the Army would like it to be 50 pounds. â Å“It won't be the ultra-lethal variety,â ? said McCorkle. â Å“But it may be sufficient.â ?
Three competitors are vying for a CKEM award: Raytheon Co., Lockheed Martin's missile division in Dallas and a small firm in Huntsville, Ala., Miltech Corp., teamed with the Boeing Co.
A fourth competitor, Alliant Defense, was eliminated, because its proposed missile was powered by a ramjet, a technology the Army considered too risky.
â Å“Kinetic energy is wonderful,â ? said Rosch. â Å“If you can put a Losat on a Humvee and send it with the 18th airborne corps, that gives them a capability they didn't have,â ? he said in an interview. â Å“But there are some problems. Losat has a huge signature. Reloading a 174-pound, 7-foot missile is a hard thing for light infantry to do.â ?

Lockheed Martin's CKEM version has a solid rocket motor, said Randy D. Tatum, manager of business development. He did not want to discuss his proposed guidance technology for CKEM, for competitive reasons.
It would be impossible to shrink the Losat missile by half and make it work, Tatum said in an interview. CKEM requires an entirely new design, to make it fly faster and to improve the penetration. â Å“The long pole in the CKEM program is the propellant technology. To make it as lethal as a full-size missile, you have to make it fly a lot faster than Losat. That means you have to put a more energetic propellant on it.â ?
Raytheon's Ignat is optimistic about the CKEM program. The company will conduct a firing demonstration this summer with the Norwegian firm Nammo Raufoss. The goal is to prove that a missile smaller then Losat will exceed its performance, said Ignat. â Å“We think it's doable,â ? he added.
Part of the company's strategy is to build a CKEM-type missile that can be fired from the Army's 7,500 TOW platforms currently in the inventory. The common missile and CKEM have to be able to fire from the same launcher, Ignat said. â Å“Our goal is to show that we can get the kinetic energy out of a smaller airframe, and we can make that missile fit into currently fielded launchers.â ?

Just some more grist for the mill.  Cheers.

 

[Kirkhill]

http://www.otobreda.it/products/schedule.asp?id=prod_land_hitfist_60_te

Here's a link to the Italian turret that combines the 60mm HVMS (auto loader) with TOWs.

Rate of fire 1 rd / 2 sec or in other words 3 rds in 4 secs.

Gun supplied by two 8 round magazines - APFSDS and Variable Fused-HE

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I think wire guided should go the way of the dodo and we should invest (if at all) in a FF missile.  That said I think R&D should also go into a round fired from the 25mm that could defeat MBT armour.  What is the effective range of a tank anyway.

 

[brihard]

Any half-decent tank gun can reach out and touch at 2500m+. Now of course, the tank's optics, the skill of the gunner, adn the stability built into the gunnery system will affect it- some tanks can shgoot quite accurately on the move, whereas others have to stop to have a chance at hitting something.

An American M1 Abrahms can generally knock out a target at 4km+ with it's 120mm Smoothebore. It's probably got the best computerized gunenry system in the world.

Any Soviet-era taank as of or after the T72 series has half decent gunenry systems too. The T-80s and later in particularly had relatively sophisticated systems. I'm nto sure about the inherent accuracy of the 125mm rifle gun they use, though. I'd be much mroe worried about the missiles they can shoot from the 125 tube...

 

[loyalcana]

Speaking of Fire & Forget missiles any news on the TOW2 Fire & Forget missile?

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Doesn't the W in TOW mean wire guided.

 

[Kirkhill]

Hence the FOTT (Follow On To TOW) fire and forget project (which was scrapped) and seems to have been replaced by thte CKEM (Compact Kinetic Energy Missile) by Lockhhed Martin.  CKEM in a miniaturized (term used loosely) version of the LOSAT (Line of Sight Anti-Tank) KEM mounted on Hummers.  If the LOSAT KEM has been compared to tossing a telephone pole at a tank at Mach 5 could a Compact version be described as "Tossing a Caber" ;D

 

[JBP]

Well, there is the option we ALREADY HAVE... And are supposidly going to be beefing up on in the future, around 2007...

ADATS... I talked to an old buddy of mine who is in an ADATS unit on the east coast, I asked him specifically about the problem of enemy tanks since Canada won't have a MBT in the future...

He said this:

Most modern armour (tanks or MBT's) have a firing range of about 1.7-2.5 Kilometers at best. The ADATS can fire from almost 8Km's away... That would give us a wicked advantage over enemy armour, we could be beating them to pieces as they were comming at us!

He said that there ARE problems with the ADATS of course, but that's the general idea, fire+move+fire+move+fire etc... The current ADATS he's using is wire-guided though. Same as TOW. You get the idea.. Then I asked him about the problem with the damn things being so HOT. Thier IR signature is HUUUGGEEE... He said it's true, and has no idea what they're suppose to do about that. Apparently the newer one's being made and set to deliver for 2007-2010 aren't going to be as hot or loud.

That helps with the whole Anti-Armour thing no?

:warstory:

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

The current ADATS he's using is wire-guided though. Same as TOW. You get the idea..  :warstory:

A dual role anti aircraft missile/anti tank missile that is wireguided?????

 

[Lance Wiebe]

The AD boys really like pointing out the range thing.  The range is great if you are engaging aircraft.  But honestly, how many places are there that allows you to observe and engage from 8 Km away?  The other problem is that the ADATS are few in number, have few projectiles, and take a long time to reload.  Also, once they open up, they are suddenly a high priority target, and there are any number of anti-radiation and IR projectiles out there.

While the ADATS will be credible on the defense, they are useless on the offense, or for patrolling.  A one-dimensional weapon.  Anyone that claims that ADATS can replace tanks simply does not understand armour warfare.

Another note.  Ask your buddy how effective the ADATS are against multiple, moving through use of ground, only exposing themselves for very short periods, the way armour is trained to move?  Not all terrain is like IRAQ!  Has anyone done a realistic trial, maybe in Gagetown?  Yeah, right.  No trial would be done, because it would expose the weakness of this idiotic plan to use an air defense asset to replace a tank.