Lance Wiebe
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 230
Sorry, 12Alfa, I missed that one!
Where is it?
Where is it?
a_majoor said:LAV 3.5.1
The problem with late night posts is you start loosing track of your thread:
Firepower (cont) To suppliment any direct fire assets,
12Alfa said:As we have seen in studies, reports, war-gaming etc, the Lav is not a tank. Up gunning it with ATGM's will I would think make the crew think they are a MBT, they already think this now.
I think the US has the correct idea, no turret and a small wpn station on there Striker's, and the tanks doing the tank work.
How did we get to the point where we think a Lav will fill the role of the tank by placing ATGM's on the veh?
I think you missed the US idea. Tanks are not a part of the Stryker brigades. They are a part of the legacy brigades. Each type of brigade is suited to a different type of fight.12Alfa said:I think the US has the correct idea, no turret and a small wpn station on there Striker's, and the tanks doing the tank work.
Attacking the enemy's morale is as important as physically destroying him, just harder to "measure" until they throw down their guns and run away. The LAV 3.5 ideas are an attempt to improve on what we have, so we can get the good (road speed, quiet movement) without too much of the bad (being stuck on roads, lack of protection).Mountie said:They are able to sneak up and deploy their troops before anyone knows what's happening.
Our own Mech brigades were not all that heavy even "in the day", so if there is a way to get an acceptable LAV DFVS (either a better gun like the ARES 75, or some sort of missile system like FOG-M or LOSAT), then we are almost back to where we were in the 1980s.Let's also remember, a medium infantry battalion is just basically a light infantry battalion mounted in Strykers. It is not a replacement for heavy mechanized infantry. It is more of a replacement for the light infantry that is too vulnerable in peace support operations. The medium battalion is made to ride into battle and then fight dismounted with limited fire support from the Stryker's RCWS. So when we are comparing and judging, try comparing the Stryker to the HMMWV or the LUVW that light units use. That is what they have really replaced.
Lance Wiebe said:The LAV III has many strengths, and just as many weaknesses. One of the great weaknesses is the fact that as wheeled vehicles gain weight, they lose cross country mobility. The US and most other countries have done a great many things to reduce weight while enhancing effectiveness. Our LAV, with its 25mm cannon, is at the very tip of the maximum weight that a wheeled vehicle is useful. Add more weight, and you end up with a vehicle useless for cross country mobility. Both the MGS and the proposed MMEV will be well beyond the usefull weight point.
Ground pressure affects cross country performance, so the LAV 3.5 needs to go on a diet. The turret can be replaced by an overhead weapons mount (see illustration: http://www.sfu.ca/casr/mp-lavpws.htm ), and steel components should be replaced with lightweight composites wherever possible. Very wide profile tires to reduce ground pressure will also enhance cross country performance.
Distribution of ammunition determines the role that particular vehicle will perform (direct or indirect fire), sorting out lots of logistical issues (although creating a few new ones). The "three headed monster" we are creating now will have so many difficulties in terms of interoperability, logistics, etc. that it may be best to get a clean sheet of paper and start over
The MGS was purpose built with a new light weight 105 mm cannon, capable of firing all natures of NATO ammunition. Canada opted out of this, because we still have a couple of hundred M68/L7 barrels laying around. Just because they weigh three times the amount of the designed barrel, didn't matter to the PMO team at all. Cost, not capability was, and is, the sole factor considered. The fact that the weapon mount, and the vehicle suspension was designed for a lighter weight system also doesn't matter. The US Army has no intention of using M68 barrels on their MGS, BTW. That the vehicle top heavy weight also has caused the US Army to place restrictions on its use doesn't matter, either.
The MMEV may, indeed, become a vehicle that will work wonders from several map sheets away. Who knows? No design team has sat down yet, indeed, no statement of requirement as of yet.
It will be at least a decade before we see a vehicle of this type.
Therefore, the over weight top-heavy MGS, accompanied by the TOW variant will do without. Also no requirement for a wheeled artillery vehicle yet, the towed pieces we own will do fine.
The MMEV, TOW, and MGS may, just may, be able to do the mission of tanks on the defense side, but have absolutely zero capability when forced to do anything on the move, such as on the assault, or even retrograde ops.
Although the MMEV may be able to fire from the next province in the future, it might be nice to give it the capability of leaving a parking lot before it is in a fire position. It simply cannot move in the winter cross country, and will have limited cross country capability any other time. Even with such super capable vehicles, which will obviously be the very best in the world, we actually may have to engage some country or organisation that may even have such things as smart artillery rounds, or even UAV's. We just might want the ability to manouever away from the mall parking lots......
I don't really have anything against the LAV III family of vehicles. I do have strong thoughts (anyone notice) on basing our entire army on one platform. I don't agree with the powers that be that we will never, ever, required to operate alone, that we will always work with allies with capabilities we don't have. That says to me that we are seconding command of our future forces away now, to our allies. I wouldn't mind seeing maybe two light brigade size forces equipped with this family of vehicles, with one Brigade size force as air mobile, and on brigade size force as heavy.
Also, GD has announced that the MGS will be produced in the USA, not in London. No "buy Canadian" argument there!
In the future, EMP weapons may even make the LAV family even more worthwhile.
I do have another thought, though. Why in tarnation did we, as an army, spend hundreds of millions of dollars upgrading the tank, rebuilding the Cougars, and developing the so-called TLAV, just to park them all? An army always screaming about having no money seems to have had plenty to waste in the recent past.
Speaking of waste, why are SSM's in Recce Squadrons being issued LAV III's, in a Coyote Squadron? Just so mechs have to be dual qualified, more spare parts carried, seeing as how they use 85% different parts, or what? Does this make any sense? Well, I suppose as much sense as using a multi-million dollar Coyote to conduct route recces........
Perhaps it would help if we stopped thinking of the MMEV as a underarmoured, wheeled tank replacement that is going to go toe-to-toe with "real" tanks and instead think of it as what it is. A wheeled, lightly armoured self-propelled artillery piece that is going to stand back anything from 8 to 30 km from the FEBA (depending on the missiles that the Government buys) and launch a large number of precision-guided, discriminating, fire and forget rounds into the battle space in front of you. Sitting in your Coyote 5 km away from the enemy tanks, out of range of their guns and hull down you will be able to lase the incoming rounds onto the target. If you are in close country or cities, the tanks might sneak up on you then the infanteers with the Javelin CLDs can launch their own weapons or can lase incoming rounds onto them, or for that matter onto bunkers or buildings.