• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Should Canada adopt the LAV III (AKA: Stryker) as its primary armoured vehicle family?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brock
  • Start date Start date
The real answer is probably a little of "A" and a little of "B".

There is no question we need more AFV's in the here and now, to top up battlefield casualties, replace worn out equipment and to build to fleet to the point we are not constantly shuffling the deck. Certainly we can improve upon what we already have, MCG has pointed out various product improvements that can be made to the LAVIII family, and adopting product improved LAV's is certainly fast, easy to accomodate through the system (training, logistics etc), and not too far out of line with our allies capabilities. The US uses the Stryker and LAV 25 (both close relatives to the LAV III), and the British FRES project is trialling the MOWAG LAV, BOXER and one other vehicle which are pretty similar to the LAV III as well.

MCG's point about FFCV makes sense, but I'm afraid the need for AFV's is too pressing now to wait, and like some others, I suspect that the advanced features desired on FFCV, FRES and FCS will put them farther into the future than we will like. In the Canadian context the FFCV could be introduced as the LAV III is on its last legs or rushed into service full of teething problems in a mad scramble to meet an urgent operational need.

Given much of what these programs promise revolve around the electronic systems rather than the hulls, I really think the best way is flowing through with LAV III+ to top up the fleet,continue building LAV 3.5 to get enough vehicles to be where we really want to be, then introduce the computer systems and electronic bits in an incrimental fashion while transformational hull technologies are developed.
 
I'd push for the LAV IIIH.  Slightly more elbow room in the back but a much greater max vehicle weight & apparently better mobility.  But put it through its paces up at TPOF first

a_majoor said:
MCG's point about FFCV makes sense, but I'm afraid the need for AFV's is too pressing now to wait,
I don't dispute this & have made comments to this effect myself:
MCG said:
If attrition rates require we replace lost LAV II and LAV III, then I would recommend an interim LAV III purchase

However, as we know the FFCV project is intended to resolve the long term vision, I don't agree that we should rush out to fill all of our vehicle desires with new LAV today.  We should buy what we need to be sustainable with managed readiness (despite all its problems) & have some safety room for losses.  If we were to get the LAV fleet right today, then politicians & bureaucrats would point to all the money spent there and use that as leverage to minimise funding to FFCV.

.... now, if the initial FFCV options analysis suggests that the LAV III (or IIIH) is right platform for future . . . .

 
Fair enough, we don't want to eat the seed corn by meeting today's needs. On the other hand, my impression is programs like FCS, FFCV and so on are looking at a total package, so the LAV III architecture would be entirely replaced by a new hull, perhaps a serial electric machine like the SEV, using advanced material science to reduce weight to the magic "C-130 transportable" and advanced electronic, computer and communications technologies to work within a battlefield internet.

If you subtract the automotive and material science parts, much of what is wanted "could" be achieved through incrimental upgrades to the FCS, communications suite and so on. If that is the case, then upgrading existing vehicles "would" suffice, although in our context there are not really enough vehicles to upgrade and expand our capabilities. (with the best will in the world, "Managed readiness" is only a short term solution to a critical resource shortage).
 
Just curious why converting the whole fleet of section carriers and command posts to the RWS is a bad idea?  The US Army is planning to mount the XM307 25mm weapons system on the RWS used on its Strykers in the not to distant future.  The XM307 is a 25mm weapon weighing only 50 pounds.  It can be changed to a .50 calibre machine gun in two minutes by changing four parts.  The US Army is also updating its RWS with stabilization and laser range finders.  Would this final product not be equal to the fire power found in the current turret?  This would provide room for two additional troops and additional armour.  The US Stryker carries a crew of two and nine dismounts and will soon mount additional armour. 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m307.htm


 
It's possible that these 33 vehs could be used in specialist roles.
FOO, EW (don't tease me!), or convoy escort specific dutes to free up the gun LAVs
 
FOO's do not use normal gun LAV, they have an OP Variant that has a more accurate navigation system, amongst other things, so don't see them replacing them with this type. In any case it's better if the FOO looks like one of the others.
Might be worth looking at for the Gun Det vehicle, or at least upgrade the TLAVs with that type of RWS.
 
Petard said:
FOO's do not use normal gun LAV, they have an OP Variant that has a more accurate navigation system, amongst other things, so don't see them replacing them with this type. In any case it's better if the FOO looks like one of the others.
Might be worth looking at for the Gun Det vehicle, or at least upgrade the TLAVs with that type of RWS.

T-LAVS already have an RWS Platform.
 
Some have one, but it is a Oerlikon - Rafael PWS fitted by DEW engineering, and it is not the same as the Kongsberg one on say the RG31, others have the old 1 metre turret with 50 and C6, and all the other foibles that go with that system

I'm referring to the RWS with a stab FCS; that would be a good upgrade
 
Jammer said:
It's possible that these 33 vehs could be used in specialist roles.
FOO, EW (don't tease me!), or convoy escort specific dutes to free up the gun LAVs

LAV Ambs...get my brethren out of their Bison    8)
 
Mountie said:
The US Army is planning to mount the XM307 25mm weapons system on the RWS used on its Strykers in the not to distant future. 
As soon as you swap the barrel and feed sprocket, it is called the XM312.  The "X" in both means experimental and therefore not something we can use as argument to start removing turrets today. 

Initally the XM307 was funded under the FCS project.  The .50 cal conversion was developed by the project team as the ammunition was less expensive & more available to support certain design testing.  The US infantry became interested in the .50 cal and so started funding the XM312.  Budget cut back have since seen the FCS project stop its funding to the XM307 and the US infantry is expressing a lack of intrest in funding the 25 mm weapon.  Therefore, it is not likely that the XM307 will see the operational light of day any time soon.  My source for the information is the US project team responsible for these wpns, and this information is only one month old.
 
A couple of recent Stryker pic's from Diyala province Iraq.

65918.jpg


65913.jpg
 
I ran across this LAVIII hit piece today from the folks at combat reform. Its the old tracks vs wheels debate. The idiots must never have seen a tracked vehicle stuck in the mud I guess. ::)

http://www.combatreform.com/aesindex.htm
 
Just opened up that link and right away looking at the title "LAV-3/Strykerrs fail in Afghanistan; Canadians ditch their own wheeled trucks for more mobile and better armored tracks! Enter Leopards and M113 MTVL Gavins!"  I know it is one of SPARKY'S websites.   ::)
 
"the 1st Tactical Studies Group (Airborne)"    aka "Sparky".

Infamous at Tanknet over many years of wheels vs tracks debates.

Inventor of the "Gavin:

 
:rofl:

Sparky....just when I needed a laugh today.

Regards
 
Recce By Death said:
:rofl:

Sparky....just when I needed a laugh today.

Regards
yup I used to laugh at Sparky too............up until I started receiving the e-mails near incoherent rantings and what could be construed as threats.Now I don't find him as funny as I used to.Currently  I'm working on the theory that I'm relatively safe if his sense of direction is anything like  his sense of reality it could be decades before he figures out just where Canada is
 
GK .Dundas said:
yup I used to laugh at Sparky too............up until I started receiving the e-mails near incoherent rantings and what could be construed as threats.Now I don't find him as funny as I used to.Currently  I'm working on the theory that I'm relatively safe if his sense of direction is anything like  his sense of reality it could be decades before he figures out just where Canada is

Exactly the point, hence my laughter. He may try to mount an all out Gavin offensive!

Saw what he sent you (at least I believe it was you) on another site dedicated to the legend of ol' Sparky. He is quite out there in the either....

Regards
 
Recce By Death said:
Exactly the point, hence my laughter. He may try to mount an all out Gavin offensive!

Saw what he sent you (at least I believe it was you) on another site dedicated to the legend of ol' Sparky. He is quite out there in the either....

Regards
Don't think so I've never made those e-mails public, deleted them long ago
They sure gave me an "interesting " look at how that gentleman's mind works.
 
Back
Top