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

[Kirkhill]

First Principles - as I understand them.

The units using the Stryker were/are Light Units.  Light Infantry and Light Cavalry.
The infantry were expected to fight on their feet.
They needed to transport the tactical sub-sub-sub-unit that the US Army had determined was necessary to win the local fight: 9 troops.

Vehicle designed to carry 9 troops with their kit to the area of operations.

Support weapons to be carried on the same vehicle to simplify road moves, maintenance and logistics.  Support weapons to include 60/81/120mm mortars as well as  ATGM and 105mm DF weapons.  Other DF weapons in 7.62-40mm mounted on Inf Carriers.

None of these weapons are for the Heavy Fight - That fight to be handled by the Heavy Units with Abrams and Bradleys.

The Stryker is a Battle Taxi, or an Armoured Deuce and a Half. The vehicle is sufficiently robust that it can also carry a Heavy DF weapon which comes in handy when the Tankers aren't around to add some tone to the discussion.
Situational Awareness develops at the pace of the dismounted infantryman - not the mounted cavalryman.

From all accounts the MGS is meeting the needs of the US Infantry quite nicely.  What the Stryker Cavalry thinks of it I haven't heard.  As a replacement for the Leo II or the Abrams?  Well it is probably better than a Leo in the hangar at Gagetown when you are deployed but not quite as good as a Leo rumbling along beside you.

Can we leave the MGS as "FUTank" discussion alone and consider it on its merits for what it CAN do as opposed to what it was never meant to do?

I'm with MCG on this one Colin.

Chris.

 

[ArmyRick]

Kirkhill, well said.

The Stryker MGS is part of the Stryker Infantry battalion. Its a DFS assett, pure and simple. Yes a MBT can do so much more but it can not travel 100 KM/H plus to keep up with the other vehicles.

If you want I can put up a bunch of youtube links of the MGS in action in Iraq doing what it was intended to do.

Personally, I really think Canada should forget CV90 or Puma or any of that and get on board with the US army MGV prgram as part of the FCS. The NLOS C is supposed to be officially unveiled at the US Army ball this year. Everything I have read and looked at concerning the US Army FCS program seems very much a good idea. Keep in mind the systems are due to be ready by 2015, by then our LAVIII fleet may very well be ready for reserve service.

 

[a_majoor]

While a wheeled DFS is a great idea, the primary difficulty with the MGS is the turret, with all the various flaws that have been pointed out in the preceding 44 pages and in other threads. There is no question that other turrets exist which can be mated to the LAV III chassis, and many address issues that the MGS in its current form does not.

That being said, one issue we do need to be aware of is the issue of logistics and costs; is it really worthwhile to spend a vast sum of money for a system which is unique to Canada? How much of an advantage would we get being able to tap into the vast economies of scale gained by using equipment which is similar to or identical to our largest ally?

My personal opinion (FWIW) is the MGS in its current form is not the answer to our DFS needs, and it would be worth the cost to investigate and integrate a different turret for a LAV III based DFS vehicle. However (and this is an even bigger however), given we are looking towards the next generation of vehicle with the FFCV program, it may be more sensible to hold off and see what comes down the pike. Armyrick has pointed out the American FCS as one potential solution, others have suggested everything from the Swedish CV-90 family, the Swedish SEP program, ex American M1 and M2's, German PUMA's and other more exotic solutions.

Maybe what we need is an entirely fresh thread on the Future Family of Combat Vehicles (FFCV), remembering the issues ultimately boil down to logistics (including purchase and O&M costs), doctrine (what do we want them to do?) and flexibility (can you do the same things with the FFCV in Wainwright as you do in Gagetown? Darfur?, the Fulda Gap? the Panjawii district?).

 

[ironduke57]

..., the Swedish SEP program,...

Just a side note. SEP is dead.

Oh and PUMA FTW!  ;D

Regards,
ironduke57

 

[McG]

While a wheeled DFS is a great idea, the primary difficulty with the MGS is the turret, with all the various flaws that have been pointed out in the preceding 44 pages and in other threads.

Keep in mind that many of the accusations of fault were baseless, speculation &/or not correct in regards to the production model.

 

[Franko]

Keep in mind that many of the accusations of fault were baseless, speculation &/or not correct in regards to the production model.

Stryker MGS: Problems in the Field

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Stryker-MGS-Problems-in-the-Field-04731/

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aQNWUyZEyOn8

 

[McG]

I am not saying that there are not problems.  Only that many of the problems reported & accepted as true within this thread are pure BS.

 

[geo]

Umm... Mods
shouldn't we be discussing the MGS in the MGS thread?....
(before this thread gets polluted like some of the others)

 

[Spencer100]

The british have picked the Piranha 5 for their new program. 


GD Vehicle Picked for FRES
By andrew chuter
Published: 7 May 16:25 EDT (12:25 GMT)  Print  |    Email

LONDON - General Dynamics UK will be confirmed May 8 as the winner of Britain's Future Rapid Effects System armored vehicle competition, sources said.


The Future Rapid Effects System program has decided to develop the Piranha V. (General Dynamics) The government is expected to announce in Parliament that the company has beat out rivals Nexter and ARTEC to become the provisional preferred bidder to develop the utility variant of the multi-billion-pound FRES family of medium-weight wheeled vehicles.

Related TopicsEurope
Land Warfare
GD UK will receive a two-year development contract for the Piranha 5, a proposed version of its big-selling Piranha line of vehicles, sources said.

Neither the MoD nor General Dynamics could be contacted before this story went to press.

Up to 2,000 of the vehicles are expected to be built as the cornerstone of the British Army's air-transportable armored forces.

The vehicle was to enter service in 2012, a date that may slip as much as two years due to funding constraints.

The decision will come as a bitter blow to Nexter. French government and industry officials mounted a major effort in recent weeks to turn around the Army's preference for Piranha. They even offered to give Britain 120 VBCI vehicles due to be delivered to the French Army next year, should London want to procure vehicles early under an Urgent Operational Requirement while it awaited development work on the FRES platform.

 

[Spencer100]

A couple questions for those in the know.....What is the difference between the LAV line and the Piranha line and also is there a difference between the new LAV-H and the Piranha 5?  Is it just Europeon drivelines? 

 

[McG]

A couple questions for those in the know.....What is the difference between the LAV line and the Piranha line and also is there a difference between the new LAV-H and the Piranha 5?  Is it just Europeon drivelines?  

This has been answered a many times if you search.

Piranha was the Swiss MOWAG product.  GM Diesel (London ON) bought rights to build it as AVGP (and then later LAV).  LAV is Piranha in most regards, however it is redesigned to make use of North American parts/suppliers as opposed to European.  You will also notice that the generations do not develop uniformly.  Piranha III still has a few notable features of Piranha II/LAV II that were gone by the time of LAV III (have a look at driver hatches as a start point).

 

[Spencer100]

Thanks, I was looking more about the diferences with LAV-H and Piranha V.  Plus GD has now purchased both Mowag and GM-D London.  Is GD developing them together or are they being developed on diferent paths.  Also with GD Piranha as the base for FRES would help us if we go with LAV-H?

 

[McG]

Plus GD has now purchased both Mowag and GM-D London.

Not quite.  GM Diesel became GM Defence & it purchased Mowag.  GDLS later bought GM Defence.

 

[ArmyRick]

I beleive general dynamics owns Mowag now as well.

 

[geo]

Not quite.  GM Diesel became GM Defence & it purchased Mowag.  GDLS later bought GM Defence.

Posted on: Today at 07:53:22Posted by: ArmyRick 
Insert Quote
I beleive general dynamics owns Mowag now as well.

Ummm... if GM Diesel becomes GM Defence
and GM Defence and buys Mowag
and GDLS buys GM Defence....

Unless GM Defence sold Mowag prior to being sold to GDLS
or GDLS sold Mowag after buying GM Defence....

YES, GDLS owns Mowag   

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The British will require that it uses a mix of Whitworth and metric bolts, although at least 2% of the fasteners will have to Imperial as well. All screws will need to be flat bladed. Lucas will supply the electricals (and the smoke) The vehicle will have a reduced ammo load to for more boiling vessels and storage of mushy peas and bangers. The vehicle will also require a trailer to carry the new and improved Clansman radio. Also the Brits will demand that a special turret be designed to fit their diminishing stocks of the Radan Gun, which they will not have enough to fit all vehicles, which will then require a mod to take a .50cal in it's place.  ;D

 

[Kirkhill]

I does luv mushy peas and bangers - with nice bit of cider vinegar for the peas.  Don't forget to supply necessary storage for the vinegar. ;D

 

[Spencer100]

I guess I deserve that :'(  Ask a question like that and get an answer that will at least make you laugh....that is why I like this site.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I does luv mushy peas and bangers - with nice bit of cider vinegar for the peas.  Don't forget to supply necessary storage for the vinegar. ;D

... and brown sauce, of course 

 

[a_majoor]

Mike Sparks must be foaming at the mouth over this one:

http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/defencewatch/archive/2008/07/25/u-s-army-to-retire-m113-apcs-not-suitable-for-current-wars.aspx

U.S. ARMY TO RETIRE M113 APCs: NOT SUITABLE FOR CURRENT WARS

My colleague Kris Osborn at Defense News has an interesting article about the U.S. Army’s plans to retire the Fox reconnaissance vehicle and M113 Armored Personnel Carrier and replace them with Stryker and Bradley fighting vehicles.

According to an Army power point presentation on future combat and tactical vehicle strategy, the 111 20-ton Fox vehicles, which will reach the end of their useful life by 2012, will be replaced by the Stryker Nuclear Biological, Chemical and Reconnaissance Vehicle.

This is what Kris writes:

The 6,000 M113s are “not suitable for an era of persistent conflict” due to “survivability shortfalls and space, power, weight constraints,” the Army document notes.

“All alternatives [referring to Bradley, Stryker, JLTV, FCS vehicles] have better reliability than the M113,” the documents say.

The retirements of the Fox and M113 will begin immediately, if the Army’s plan is approved by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England and the Pentagon comptroller after it is presented.

The M113s in 15 heavy brigade combat teams would be replaced with 1,455 Strykers and 240 Bradleys, while the ones in Echelons Above Brigade, units higher than brigade combat teams such as the division or corps level, will be replaced with 2,471 Strykers, the document states.

Retiring the M113s will save the Army at least $691 million through 2030 in operational and maintenance costs, according to the service’s analysis of its gas efficiency, electricity and power requirements. It costs the Army $38.20 to drive an M113 one mile, more than double the $14 figure for the Stryker.

Newer vehicles are also designed to require less maintenance and fewer specialized parts.

This move in the U.S. is in contrast to the Canadian Army’s decision to upgrade a number of its M113s (see my previous post on the TLAV) and use them in operational theatres such as Afghanistan, where they have been getting rave reviews.

Of course the US Army is far wealthier than we are, and can afford to forego recycling M-113's for lack of a suitable replacement.