Family of Future Combat Vehicles

[TangoTwoBravo]

I do not pretend to know what the US decision-makers are thinking, but perhaps the rationale is that the current heavy fleet is seen as being able to handle conventional/symetrical/peer threats and the current mixed fleet of vehicles is also handling the COIN fight (both arguable premises, but there you go). Perhaps pumping billions into these systems, which in many cases are not necessarily mature technology, is seen as too high a risk given what exists in the fleet and the foreseen threats?

Why have a 48-54 ton concept MCV when you can have an M1A2 or Leopard 2A6 which are battle-proven technologies? I will take proven armour protection over the promise of active defence.

Regarding the age of fleets, I was a Battle Captain for a squadron of thirty to forty year old vehicles. As long as we had parts we were OK which is true of any vehicle. I think that the existing MBTs in the West will continue to soldier on for a few decades yet, although I am sure that their systems will be upgraded. The US takes rebuilds very seriously.

Other vehicles may well be replaced before them, and FCS variants/outputs will probably be some of those platforms that enter service.

 

[Kirkhill]

T2B: you may not know what the High Head Yins are thinking but you seem to be thinking the same thing they're saying.

Today, the Army uses 6-ton Humvees, designed to bring a few soldiers through uneven terrain; 18-ton Stryker troop carriers, to haul infantrymen around an urban battlefield; and 72-ton tanks, optimized for destroying another big army. Under Future Combat Systems, all of these would've been replaced with one family of vehicles, each 27 tons big.

"Trying to build that range of capabilities into a single vehicle — really we hadn't gotten there yet. And the question is whether you even can do that," Gates says.

Source

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The active systems can also be deployed unto the M1, giving it even further protection from some of the newer weapons entering the battlefield. It's clear that certain players are trying hard to aqquire modern ATGM to use against western MBT's. Some of the makers would not be to sad if some of their systems were able to destroy a M1, Chally or Merk, even as they claim no knowledge of how the bad guys got hold of their systems.

One thing I learned in the CG, a multi-tasked system is something that can do many thing, but none them well.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

So here's some pure speculation on my part:

I'd be willing to bet that given the pending cancellation of FCS, we're going to see legacy systems like Bradley, and M1 operational for the next 15-20 years.  Even then, FCS was never going to be a 1 for 1 replacement for these pieces of equipment, and Bradley and M1 were going to be used concurrently, albeit the FCS brigades were going to be the 'tier 1' active duty units, with lower readiness active duty and National Guard units equipped with the legacy systems.

I do suspect that an armoured Self-Propelled Howitzer replacement project for M-109 in US service will probably begin in the next few years and I'd be suprised that the selected product for the mech infantry and armoured units isn't something that uses an MLRS type chassis with a US in-service 155mm gun system i.e. Americanized 'Artillery Gun Module' http://www.military-today.com/artillery/agm.htm.  For the SBCTs probably the BAE M777 mounted on Stryker 'portee' style will be selected if they end up writing a requirement for an SPH rather than towed artillery, which they currently are using.

In regard to what Canada's Family of Future Combat Vehicles program will end up fielding here are my bets:

LAV IIII fleet will be rebuilt to LAV-H standard.  In 5-7 years we may see a weapons system upgrade from 25mm to 40mm Case Telescoping Weapons System, provided that it is successful in French and British service.  Possibly the turret will be replaced with a remote system so as to allow for more armour for the hull and a lower center of gravity. Apart from increased cross country mobility, the weapons and armour upgrade will go a long way to satisfying the requirements of CCV (which I'll get to later).

Additional LAV-H variants will be procured to replace AVGP, Bison, and TLAV vehicles, albeit not at a 1-for-1 replacement, and the procurement will be run in fits and starts/drib drab fielding as there's alot of ambiguity and lack of coherent planning and management for armoured support/specialized vehicles i.e. Bison/AVGP/TLAV ARV/MRT, TLAV MTVE, Bison CP, Ambulance, EW, NBC Recce, etc.  By 2020 we'll probably see the last of the Bison and TLAV variants replaced with LAV-H models.

What we may see is that once the Bison's and AVGP are phased out with LAV-H replacements, we could see a sell-off of our Coyotes to a country looking to expand its armoured vehicle fleet and replacement (again with reduced numbers) with a recce variant of LAV-H.  Again though, I doubt we'd see much happen in this area before 2020.

Light Armoured Patrol Vehicle will likely be spec'd to piggyback on whatever vehicle is chosen for the US JLTV program.  Barring a cancellation of JLTV, LAPV will be spec'd to whatever vehicle is chosen for the US MRAP-ATV project.  This one shouldn't be a difficult sell to TB, because of the 'peacekeeping' duties and the increased protection levels that it will provide over and above the vehicles it replaces (thereby saving Canadian lives), given the defence priorities of a likely future Liberal government.  As part of that TB sell, some of the specialized versions of the Bison and TLAV family may get roped into LAPV, i.e. NBC Recce, Ambulance (more of a replacement for LSVW ambs though), etc.

Close Combat Vehicle will not get funding approval and instead will be offered as the sacrificial lamb by the Army to Treasury Board to gain funding of LAV-H upgrades and procurement of LAV-H based variants.

As with our procurement of Leopard 1 variants, several years will probably go by with us still using the Leo 1 ARV, AEV, and AVLB.  Once we hit critical mass with respect to parts availability and maintenance issues with the Leo 1 'hangers-on' we'll get the Swiss Ruag Leo II AEV 'Kodiak', Buffel ARV, and AVLB.

Regarding the 'Future Indirect Fires Capability' (FIFC), through the defacto selection of M777 as Canada's next tube artillery system through a series of UORs, I'd be suprised if a SPH portion of FIFC doesn't end up being the LAV III M777 'portee' type system, based on commonality of the gun and chassis with in-service equipment.

On the Long Range Precision Rocket side of things, if this thing gets through funding approval, it would likely be the HIMARS system mounted on whatever the MSVS SMP chasis is selected.

All in all, the Canadian Army's CMBGs will likely look like an SBCT-Heavy once FFCV is fielded, rather than what was the proposed FCS equipped Brigade Combat Team.

 

[ArmyRick]

Another option is to look at the UK Army FRES program. the vehicles to be used in that will be a combination of tracked and wheeled (the main wheeled vehicle selected is the Pirahna 4 or 5 8 x 8).

Maybe thats the route we need to consider is some vehicles heavy and track based (MBT, CEV, AVLB) and some wheeled (IFV, recce).

thoughts?

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

The Hagglunds SEP concept also looks interesting, and it offers a common chassis with options for tracks or wheels (not a user-switch though). I am not sure if that specific vehicle will get fielded by anyone, but it is an example of what we might expect in the next ten to fifteen years. Replacing the mid-weight 'utility' APC/Recce/FOO etc etc with a common chassis with wheels or tracks options is certainly an interesting thought that achieves some level of commonality but maintaining some specific capabilities for specific requirements.

I still don't think we are near getting to one chassis for all our needs.

 

[Mountie]

So here's some pure speculation on my part:

I'd be willing to bet that given the pending cancellation of FCS, we're going to see legacy systems like Bradley, and M1 operational for the next 15-20 years.  Even then, FCS was never going to be a 1 for 1 replacement for these pieces of equipment, and Bradley and M1 were going to be used concurrently, albeit the FCS brigades were going to be the 'tier 1' active duty units, with lower readiness active duty and National Guard units equipped with the legacy systems.

I do suspect that an armoured Self-Propelled Howitzer replacement project for M-109 in US service will probably begin in the next few years and I'd be suprised that the selected product for the mech infantry and armoured units isn't something that uses an MLRS type chassis with a US in-service 155mm gun system i.e. Americanized 'Artillery Gun Module' http://www.military-today.com/artillery/agm.htm.  For the SBCTs probably the BAE M777 mounted on Stryker 'portee' style will be selected if they end up writing a requirement for an SPH rather than towed artillery, which they currently are using.

In regard to what Canada's Family of Future Combat Vehicles program will end up fielding here are my bets:

LAV IIII fleet will be rebuilt to LAV-H standard.  In 5-7 years we may see a weapons system upgrade from 25mm to 40mm Case Telescoping Weapons System, provided that it is successful in French and British service.  Possibly the turret will be replaced with a remote system so as to allow for more armour for the hull and a lower center of gravity. Apart from increased cross country mobility, the weapons and armour upgrade will go a long way to satisfying the requirements of CCV (which I'll get to later).

Additional LAV-H variants will be procured to replace AVGP, Bison, and TLAV vehicles, albeit not at a 1-for-1 replacement, and the procurement will be run in fits and starts/drib drab fielding as there's alot of ambiguity and lack of coherent planning and management for armoured support/specialized vehicles i.e. Bison/AVGP/TLAV ARV/MRT, TLAV MTVE, Bison CP, Ambulance, EW, NBC Recce, etc.  By 2020 we'll probably see the last of the Bison and TLAV variants replaced with LAV-H models.

What we may see is that once the Bison's and AVGP are phased out with LAV-H replacements, we could see a sell-off of our Coyotes to a country looking to expand its armoured vehicle fleet and replacement (again with reduced numbers) with a recce variant of LAV-H.  Again though, I doubt we'd see much happen in this area before 2020.

Light Armoured Patrol Vehicle will likely be spec'd to piggyback on whatever vehicle is chosen for the US JLTV program.  Barring a cancellation of JLTV, LAPV will be spec'd to whatever vehicle is chosen for the US MRAP-ATV project.  This one shouldn't be a difficult sell to TB, because of the 'peacekeeping' duties and the increased protection levels that it will provide over and above the vehicles it replaces (thereby saving Canadian lives), given the defence priorities of a likely future Liberal government.  As part of that TB sell, some of the specialized versions of the Bison and TLAV family may get roped into LAPV, i.e. NBC Recce, Ambulance (more of a replacement for LSVW ambs though), etc.

Close Combat Vehicle will not get funding approval and instead will be offered as the sacrificial lamb by the Army to Treasury Board to gain funding of LAV-H upgrades and procurement of LAV-H based variants.

As with our procurement of Leopard 1 variants, several years will probably go by with us still using the Leo 1 ARV, AEV, and AVLB.  Once we hit critical mass with respect to parts availability and maintenance issues with the Leo 1 'hangers-on' we'll get the Swiss Ruag Leo II AEV 'Kodiak', Buffel ARV, and AVLB.

Regarding the 'Future Indirect Fires Capability' (FIFC), through the defacto selection of M777 as Canada's next tube artillery system through a series of UORs, I'd be suprised if a SPH portion of FIFC doesn't end up being the LAV III M777 'portee' type system, based on commonality of the gun and chassis with in-service equipment.

On the Long Range Precision Rocket side of things, if this thing gets through funding approval, it would likely be the HIMARS system mounted on whatever the MSVS SMP chasis is selected.

All in all, the Canadian Army's CMBGs will likely look like an SBCT-Heavy once FFCV is fielded, rather than what was the proposed FCS equipped Brigade Combat Team.

Sounds pretty good.  I think you are dead on.  A LAV-H Canadian Stryker Brigade Group of sorts.  Only thing I would change is the FIFC would be a M777 on a MSVS portee rather than a LAV-III portee.  Nothing wrong with the LAV-H SPH though, just a hunch.  Cheaper I would assume.  And how about the future Fennek F2GT being proposed by Germany's KMW as a sequel to their Fennek instead of the US JLTV? Looks pretty good.

http://www.kmweg.de/administration/media/temp/kmw-005-f2eu_eng.pdf

 

[Matt_Fisher]

Fennek (or the Fennek Mk2 which is now being developed/marketed) is too recce. specific to fulfill the various roles that LAPV will be tasked with.  JLTV or MRAP-ATV will also be in service in far greater numbers than Fennek, so logistics support from the manufacturer will be alot less problematic.

 

[a_majoor]

If the Joint Tactical Radio System gets the bugs worked out, then the foundational premise of FCS can be applied to any vehicle or system which has JTRS and associated systems installed.

In the US context, most of the manned FCS systems could be canceled if the JTRS information networking can be installed in legacy vehicles, although given the increasing age of the fleet and the heavy logistical burden there are arguments for continuing with most of the FCS systems except for the "Tank" analogue. Being able to almost double the range of an M-2 in a vehicle with similar size and weight reduces the logistics train for fuel handling, for example, and the SP artillery system is most certainly needed.

For Canada, the forecast of the LAV-H eventually supplementing or replacing the vehicle fleet seems well founded, and advances in combat networking and miniaturization means more internal space will become freed up as time progresses (frankly, it is possible now using hardened laptops and tablet type computers to replace the multiplicity of "boxes" inside AFV's. Even the wiring harness can be supplemented by wireless technology where COMSEC and EMCON are not a concern). With a bit of forward planning and ruthless project management, we can even avoid the mismash of "almost" compatable LAVs as each project comes up for approval.

 

[Mountie]

Fennek (or the Fennek Mk2 which is now being developed/marketed) is too recce. specific to fulfill the various roles that LAPV will be tasked with.  JLTV or MRAP-ATV will also be in service in far greater numbers than Fennek, so logistics support from the manufacturer will be alot less problematic.

I don't pretend to have the experience to disagree with you, I'm just wondering why you think that.  Simply going by the company websites and public JLTV requirements I would think that the Fennek 2 had a nice variety and met the standards.

JLTV requirements compared to Fennek 2: (armour protection isn't listed for either the JLTV or F2GT so I couldn't compare them)

Payload Category A:  Payload capacity of 3,500 lbs.  The only version is to be the General Purpose Mobility with a crew of 4.  Fennek 2 Light Variant has a total weight of 22,000 lbs and a crew of 4 and the Basic Variant (slightly stretched) has a total weight of 33,000 lbs and crew of 6.

Payload Category B: Payload capacity of 4,000-4,500 lbs. 
Infantry Carrier Variant - 2 crew + 4 troops
Reconnaissance Variant - total crew of 6
Command & Control on the Move - 4 crew
Heavy Weapons Carrier - 5 crew and heavy weapon (7.62mm MG - 40mm AGL or anti-armour missile)
Close Combat Weapons Carrier - 4 crew + weapon
Utility Variant - 2 crew
Ambulance - 3 crew + 2 stretchers
There are Fennek 2 variants to fill all these roles.  The 4x4 Basic Variant can fill all these roles.  Total weight of 33,000 lbs and crew of 6 for the Weapons and Utilty variants, crew of 8 for the Command & Control variant.  The Extended Variant could easily be configured to carry 2 stretchers.

Payload Category C: Payload of 5,100 lbs
Shelter Carrier/Utility/Prime Mover - 2 crew + shelter carrier or cargo bed
Ambulance - 3 crew + 4 stretchers
The Fennek 6x6 Heavy Version Extended can fill the Shelter Carrier and Ambulance roles and the 6x6 Heavy Version Pickup can fill the Utility and Prime Mover variants.  Total weight of 53,000 lbs and crew of 3 + the shelfter carrier for command post or ambulance and the pickup bed.

The pictures of the three finalist variants look just as recce as the Fennek 2 I think.

The three finalists are Northrop Grumman/Oshkosh, AM General/General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin.

 

[Kirkhill]

Given all these changes possible.... is it practical yet to consider the possibility of a 2 Operator Crew?  One driving, one commanding-shooting, or when stationary the driver shooting while the "commander" conducts surveillance, or the driver conducts surveillance while the commander handles administrative chatter?

It seems with the ROWS concept, switchable screens and joystick controls that the crew doesn't have to be tied to a particular station. (And I consider the MGS to be a large calibre ROWS - the same might be said for HIMARS-MRLS, where the crew conduct operations from inside the cab, not to mention the concept of netting the entire force so that the local/distant commander can see what his subs are seeing and, conceivably, take charge of the weapons systems and actively engage targets)

Could TTPs be developed to successfully work a 2-car patrol/team with a total of 4 crew?  I am thinking in terms of the discussion about manning numbers, especially when conducting Constabulary Duties over large Spaces and the need to maintain a force in the field for a long while.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

When the Ferret was in service, we had exactly that:  A 2 person crew.  However, unlike conventional policing, where you can put 2 constables in a cruiser, patrol around a neighbourhood, then park and lock the car if you need to do some dismounted stuff, then return to the vehicle, I don't think the operating environment where the military is deployed would allow for the vehicles to be left unattended.

Also, crew exhaustion becomes a major factor in considering the merits of a 2 person crew.  Gone are the days when at night, we'd leaguer up for even just a few hours sleep.  Thermal/Night Vision imaging systems, improved command and control systems, and other technological advances over what we had when the Ferret was in service can require a much higher optempo than we experienced then.

Even with that said, there was an article back in the mid 90's in the Armour Bulletin that was discussing the exhaustion rates for crews and specifically did a break down on the amount of time that a Ferret equipped recce. squadron would be combat ineffective due to sleep deprivation as a result of its 2 person vehicle crews.

With respect to the Fennek 2, Given that on the Euro side of the house, there are several other competing designs for that protected vehicle market, i.e. Gefas, Dingo 2, etc. even if Fennek 2 is adopted by Germany and a couple other countries, the logistical infrastrure and support capability will be no where near as comprehensive as what will be there for the US JLTV, something that will likely make the successful JLTV candidate that much more attractive to the CFs for LAPV.

 

[dapaterson]

Given all these changes possible.... is it practical yet to consider the possibility of a 2 Operator Crew?  One driving, one commanding-shooting, or when stationary the driver shooting while the "commander" conducts surveillance, or the driver conducts surveillance while the commander handles administrative chatter?

Building a vehicle with multiple on-the-fly re-programmable stations is a good way to go - having it operateable (if that's a word) by two crew members is a great concept - but keep the crew at four for redundancy and to permit a crew commander keep their SA and not always have to focus on the near fight.

 

[Kirkhill]

Would it make a difference if the concept of operations relied on firm bases (FOBs, Platoon Houses, Police Forts....) vice long range recce, advance to contact, maintain contact on a 24/7 battlefield?

In other words, differentiating again between High Intensity and Low Intensity, is there room in the Army's inventory for two separate vehicles that the same crews could operate in two different modes depending on the operating environment?  As you said Matt, we had that with the Ferret, used with effect on the Green Line in Cyprus I believe, and an uncle of mine drove an original Dingo on the Inter-German Border back in the 40's.  Something more akin to a ruggedized Cruiser than a Formation Recce Vechicle?

Edit to add:  Something that would be more in line with the needs of the RAF Regiment, conducting Base Protection Duties and Close Patrols, than the needs of our current Recce Squadrons?

Edited again to add:  Or  perhaps I am thinking more along the lines of a vehicle more in line with the traditional needs of Infantry - traditionally a slow moving force designed to hold ground instead of Cavalry - a fast moving force designed to disrupt, shape and recconoitre.

 

[a_majoor]

While not an FFCV per se, this idea of robotic "outriders" is interesting:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/05/ripsaw-robotic-tank.html

Ripsaw Robotic Tank


Built by twin brothers, Geoff and Mike Howe of Barwick, Maine, the Ripsaw, unmanned ground vehicle, can careen at high speed [over 60 mph] over obstacles that would leave a vehicle’s crew dazed and bruised. It is operated by a driver in another vehicle using a modular crew station that can be unbolted and placed in a range of Army vehicles, including the Stryker and all the MRAP models. It is a cheap unmanned vehicle that is able to drive at the full speed of Humvees or other military truck convoys.

A weaponised version, modified by the Army’s Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC) at Picatinny Arsenal, NJ, includes a remotely operated M240 machine gun. The gun is operated by a separate person using another modular station that can be put in a range of vehicles. The Ripsaw can carry a payload of 2,000 pounds. It is not armored and each track can be removed as a unit should it be damaged. It was funded by an earmark worth about $1 million.

Howe and howe is a small company with about a staff of 16 (although if prospective sales for some of the vehicles are made this staff will increase.

 

[Kirkhill]

I recall that one of the problems indicated with the TALON-SWORD system was that it moved so slowly that it was relatively easily to disarm - effectively delivering weapons and ammunition to the opposition.

It would be interesting to see someone try to disarm this thing at 60 mph.

 

[a_majoor]

More on the Ripsaw. Go to the link for Youtube videos:

http://www.popsci.com/invention

Tank Delivers Death at 60MPH

See the Ripsaw in action: An unmanned beast that cruises over any terrain at speeds that leave an M1A Abrams in the dust
By Bjorn Carey Posted 05.21.2009 at 12:04 pm 10 Comments

Mean Machine: Troops could use the Ripsaw as an advance scout, sending it a mile or two ahead of a convoy, and use its cameras and new sensor technology to sniff out roadside bombs or ambushes John B. Carnett
View Photo Gallery

Today's featured Invention Award winner really requires no justification--it's an unmanned, armed tank faster than anything the US Army has. Behold, the Ripsaw.

Cue up the Ripsaw’s greatest hits on YouTube, and you can watch the unmanned tank tear across muddy fields at 60 mph, jump 50 feet, and crush birch trees. But right now, as its remote driver inches it back and forth for a photo shoot, it’s like watching Babe Ruth forced to bunt with the bases loaded. The Ripsaw, lurching and belching black puffs of smoke, somehow seems restless.

Like their creation, identical twins Geoff and Mike Howe, 34, don’t like to sit still for long. At age seven, they built a log cabin. Ten years later, they converted a school bus into a drivable, transforming stage for their heavy-metal band, Two Much Trouble. In 2000 they couldn’t agree on their next project: Geoff favored a jet-turbine-powered off-road truck; Mike, the world’s fastest tracked vehicle. "That weekend, Mike calls me down to his garage," Geoff says. "He’s already got the suspension built for the Ripsaw. So we went with that."

Every engineer they consulted said they couldn’t best the 42mph top speed of an M1A Abrams, the most powerful tank in the world. Other tanks are built to protect the people inside, with frames made of heavy armored-steel plates. Designed for rugged unmanned missions, the Ripsaw just needed to go fast, so the brothers started trimming weight. First they built a frame of welded steel tubes, like the ones used by Nascar, that provides 50 percent more strength at half the weight.

Ripsaw: How It Works: To glide over rough terrain at top speed, the Ripsaw has shock absorbers that provide 14 inches of travel. But when the suspension compresses, it creates slack that could cause a track to come off, potentially flipping the vehicle. So the inventors devised a spring-loaded wheel at the front that extends to keep the tracks taut. The Ripsaw has never thrown a track 

Behind the Wheel: The Ripsaw’s six cameras send live, 360-degree video to a control room, where program manager Will McMaster steers the tank  John B. Carnett

When you reinvent the tank, finding ready-made parts is no easy task, and a tread light enough to spin at 60 mph and strong enough to hold together at that speed didn’t exist. So the Howes hand-shaped steel cleats and redesigned the mechanism for connecting them in a track. (Because the patent for the mechanism, one of eight on Ripsaw components, is still pending, they will reveal only that they didn’t use the typical pin-and-bushing system of connecting treads.) The two-pound cleats weigh about 90 percent less than similarly scaled tank cleats. With the combined weight savings, the Ripsaw’s 650-horsepower V8 engine cranks out nine times as much horsepower per pound as an M1A Abrams.

While working their day jobs — Mike as a financial adviser, Geoff as a foreman at a utilities plant — the self-taught engineers hauled the Ripsaw prototype from their workshop in Maine to the 2005 Washington Auto Show, where they showed it to army officials interested in developing weaponized unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs). That led to a demonstration for Maine Senator Susan Collins, who helped the Howes secure $1.25 million from the Department of Defense.

The brothers founded Howe and Howe Technologies in 2006 and set to work upgrading various Ripsaw systems, including a differential drive train that automatically doles out the right amount of power to each track for turns. The following year they handed it over to the Army’s Armament Research Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC), which paired it with a remote-control M240 machine gun and put the entire system through months of strenuous tests. "What really set it apart from other UGVs was its speed," says Bhavanjot Singh, the ARDEC project manager overseeing the Ripsaw’s development. Other UGVs top out at around 20 mph, but the Ripsaw can keep up with a pack of Humvees.

Over the Hill: Despite the best efforts of inventors Mike

and Geoff Howe, the Ripsaw has proven unbreakable. It did once break a suspension mount — and drove on for hours without trouble  John B. Carnett

Back on the field, the tank has been readied for the photo. The program manager for Howe and Howe Technologies, Will McMaster, who is sitting at the Ripsaw’s controls around the corner and roughly a football field away, drives it straight over a three-foot-tall concrete wall. The brothers think that when the $760,000 Ripsaw is ready for mass production this summer, feats like this will give them a lead over other companies vying for a military UGV contract. "Every other UGV is small and uses [artificial intelligence] to avoid obstacles," Mike says. "The Ripsaw doesn’t have to avoid obstacles; it drives over them."

Check out the rest
​

​

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Another Christe?

 

[ArmyRick]

getting away from RIPSAW (Another thread maybe?) and back to future family of combat vehicles. The LAV High Capacity (LAV-H), would it be better able to support a direct fire weapon system? For those in the know?

I remember seeing the beast in May last year and the GDLS guys said it could handle something like 5,000 Kg more than the current LAV III series. With that I see the vehicle being able to handle more armour and maybe a 90mm or 105mm weapon system for reserve/cavalry use.

Thoughts and idears?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Is that the 8x8 version that was used to test the GIAT turret?