McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,158
- Points
- 1,160
The LAV III has been an excellent vehicle and back when this thread was started it would have been an excellent platform to replace all AVGP and Bison in the CF inventory. However, with the Future Family of Combat Vehicles project, I think we can aim for a new platform that uses improvements in technology to avoid many of the trade-offs that were required in the LAV III.
The FFCV should have the tactical mobility of a tank and the operationa & stratigic mobility of the LAV III. However, given that both the US (with FCS) and the UK (with FRES) are still working on the solution to this platform requirement, I think we should be cautions in rushing ahead to introduce a new vehicle now. Yet, I understand there is a desire to push forward quickly so that FFCV can head-off problems that may (if the current tempo continues) eventually come from LAV fleet attrition.
As I've said, the LAV III is a very good vehicle. If attrition rates require we replace lost LAV II and LAV III, then I would recomend an interim LAV III purchase (does attrition replacement have to be considered a major capitol project or can we consider it O&M?) GDLS & LAV users have been learning from operational use of the LAV III & Stryker. A new 5.5 suspension system will allow these vehicles to carry much more weight in armour, and GDLS has developed a LAV IIH (effectively a next generation) that will take advantage of the 5.5 suspension to allow for a greatly increased survivability package. Other companies have other solutions to increase the max vehicle weight potential of the LAV III.
As it is clear the vehicle still has life in it, we should continue to rely on the LAV III (or IIIH) until the right platform is available for FFCV.
The FFCV should have the tactical mobility of a tank and the operationa & stratigic mobility of the LAV III. However, given that both the US (with FCS) and the UK (with FRES) are still working on the solution to this platform requirement, I think we should be cautions in rushing ahead to introduce a new vehicle now. Yet, I understand there is a desire to push forward quickly so that FFCV can head-off problems that may (if the current tempo continues) eventually come from LAV fleet attrition.
As I've said, the LAV III is a very good vehicle. If attrition rates require we replace lost LAV II and LAV III, then I would recomend an interim LAV III purchase (does attrition replacement have to be considered a major capitol project or can we consider it O&M?) GDLS & LAV users have been learning from operational use of the LAV III & Stryker. A new 5.5 suspension system will allow these vehicles to carry much more weight in armour, and GDLS has developed a LAV IIH (effectively a next generation) that will take advantage of the 5.5 suspension to allow for a greatly increased survivability package. Other companies have other solutions to increase the max vehicle weight potential of the LAV III.
As it is clear the vehicle still has life in it, we should continue to rely on the LAV III (or IIIH) until the right platform is available for FFCV.