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

[a_majoor]

Israel has developed an 8X8 vehicle platform which is designed for a combat weight of 35 tons. While this seems pretty enormous for a wheeled vehicle (and completely opposite of the sort of thinking behind the 8 ton "Combat Guard" prototype), it is probably the logical endpoint to current thinking of wheeled IFV's:

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/08/israel-eitan-armor-personal-carrier.html

Israel Eitan Armor Personal Carrier uses commercial auto parts for lower cost but has upgraded protection

Israel unveiled the first prototype of the Eitan, a new 8×8 armored personnel carrier developed by the Ministry’s Tank Development Program Directorate (Mantak), as a possible successor for thousands of American-made M-113 Armored Personnel Carriers (APC) Israel has been operating since the 1970s. The new APC is said to be more protected, efficient and affordable than foreign off-the-shelf alternatives, and would be available at half the cost of the Israeli Namer Infantry Carrier Vehicle (ICV).

Eitan uses commercially available automotive components. This enabled the designers to develop an APC that will cost half as the tracked Namer, and less than similar wheeled APCs available in the world market. The hull was developed in the country, along with the weapon systems, survivability and protection systems used. According to Mazliah, the need for a wheeled armored vehicle such as Eitan evolved from lessons learned in recent combat operations in Gaza. The Eitan complements the Merkava and Namer, as it can transport infantry squads on roads, without relying on tank transporters. Eitan has a maximum road speed of +90 km/h (56 mp/h).

Israel’s new Eitan 8×8 wheeled armored personnelo carrier has entered developmental testing. Two more prototypes are in production and will begin testing soon. Photo: Israel MOD

Similar to Merkava and Namer, Eitan does not rely only on ballistic armor for protection but uses a combination of survivability systems for to enhance the survival of the crew, passengers, and the entire vehicle. Designed for a gross vehicle weight of up to 35 tons (77,000 pounds), Eitan provides sufficient base protection for common battlefield threats. Using the Trophy Active Protection Systems (APS), the vehicle can effectively avoid high-level threats without proportionally increasing the weight of its armor. To protect the occupants from blast effects, of mines and IEDs, Eitan has been designed with protected, relatively high floor. The tyres are fitted with runflat inserts meaning they can continue to function even after suffering multiple hits. The passive protection provided by modular armor is applied to the vehicle’s front and sides, while equipment modules add to its security. The vehicle will be initially produced at the Israel MOD AFV plant, at an annual production rate of several dozens of vehicles, as is the case with the Namer ICV.

The vehicle is designed as a common, modular platform that can be configured into different variants by replacing hull modules. Variants typically include APC and command vehicles equipped with remotely operated .50 Cal machine gun, and weapon carriers, to be fitted with remotely operated turrets mounting 30/40mm automatic cannon. The turret will also have accommodation for several missile launchers.

While most 8×8 APCs evolved from lighter platforms, the Israeli APC was designed from scratch for 30-35 tons, which is the upper limit of similar designs. All 8x8s are designed for similar roles – they are designed as modular, role configurable platforms, in a weight range of 18-30 tons, each carrying 8-11 troops.

 

[a_majoor]

It looks like Israel will follow so many western armies and introduce an 8x8 APC of its own. 

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/land/2016/08/01/israel-unveils-wheeled-actively-protected-armored-carrier/87907090/

Looking to our own fleets, I wonder, could the Army upgrade its LAV 2 and older (so, Bison, Coyote, and any remaining AVGP in stocks) to the LAV 6?  Yes, we will be really getting all new vehicles but that is also true of the LAV 3 to LAV 6 upgrades.  Then we could get some of the support platforms that we need and it would not involve a whole nasty procurement.

It makes perfect sense to have one basic platform rather than a hockey sock off mini fleets. By some counts we should have 1000-1400 LAV class vehicles (which would cover all the various variants and replace Bisons, Coyotes, TLAVs, TAPV's etc.), which would also solve all sorts of logistical, training and support issues. In the ideal world I'd like to see the LAV 6 go on a diet as well, since the huge increase in weight compromises nobility (especially cross country mobility), but many "platform" variants will be without a turret, which should save a considerable amount of weight right there.

 

[Kirkhill]

It makes perfect sense to have one basic platform rather than a hockey sock off mini fleets. ...

Within limits.  I agree that there should be as much commonality as possible.

But.

There needs to be a variety of classes that conform to the variety of environments (and modes of insertion) likely to be encountered.

eg half tonne GVW, 3 tonne GVW, 7 tonne GVW, 15 tonne GVW, >15 tonne GVW  (CH-146, CH-148/9, CH-147, CC-130 and CC-177/Rail/Sea/Road.)
and vehicles for firm ground and those for soft going (including water).

 

[tomahawk6]

Israel has developed an 8X8 vehicle platform which is designed for a combat weight of 35 tons. While this seems pretty enormous for a wheeled vehicle (and completely opposite of the sort of thinking behind the 8 ton "Combat Guard" prototype), it is probably the logical endpoint to current thinking of wheeled IFV's:

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/08/israel-eitan-armor-personal-carrier.html

The Israelis dont have to fly their heavy equipment as we do.As a result they can uparmor their vehicles to their hearts content.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

A turretless LAV for some Reserve units with a plate over the turret ring and Commanders hatch in it would work. You could cycle high use hulls to training and move turrets as required.

 

[GK .Dundas]

A turretless LAV for some Reserve units with a plate over the turret ring and Commanders hatch in it would work. You could cycle high use hulls to training and move turrets as required.

Which sadly given our history will turn out to be another vehicle the reg force wont have to pay for ..

 

[Colin Parkinson]

No it won't be deployable........ [lol:

 

[Kirkhill]

Which sadly given our history will turn out to be another vehicle the reg force wont have to pay for ..

Part of the problem is that the RESERVE Force / Militia doesn't have to pay for those vehicles, or their weapons or their boots.  They have no budget.  They live on sufferance.

 

[MilEME09]

Part of the problem is that the RESERVE Force / Militia doesn't have to pay for those vehicles, or their weapons or their boots.  They have no budget.  They live on sufferance.

For this reason I think either the PRes needs its own dedicated budget or we need a unified one army strategy, I dont give a rats ass about the reservists will never use it arguement, are you going to trust some one on a vehicle or weapons system that someone only had workup training to learn? When the reserves stop being the ugly step child getting the left over scraps, maybe then we van get some where productive.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

 

[a_majoor]

Within limits.  I agree that there should be as much commonality as possible.

But.

There needs to be a variety of classes that conform to the variety of environments (and modes of insertion) likely to be encountered.

eg half tonne GVW, 3 tonne GVW, 7 tonne GVW, 15 tonne GVW, >15 tonne GVW  (CH-146, CH-148/9, CH-147, CC-130 and CC-177/Rail/Sea/Road.)
and vehicles for firm ground and those for soft going (including water).

Given our very small size and the multitude of environments that we need to operate in, then yes there is a need for several different classes of vehicle. OTOH, we also need to keep focused on logistics, commonality and costs.

I could suggest that the Canadian forces needs at least three classes of vehicle; a CCV for heavy forces (ideally a family like the CV90 or PUMA), a LAV class as the general purpose workhorses and a MTV for the north and other difficult terrain conditions. Numbers and allocations can provide an endless number of arguments, not to mention which specific variants should be purchased.

Of course, as suggested in other threads, the first thing that needs to be done is to have a clear doctrine to establish numbers and types, then we can have a coherent conversation. Maybe in 2019?