Adding a Missile capability to the LAV III

[a_majoor]

A fire and forget system to snap shoot hard targets that the 25mm cannot deal with has some utility, but the more I think on it the worse the idea of a TOW or FOG-M (my suggestion a few posts back) looks.

The commander or gunner will need to be able to "shoot from the hip" when the bunker unmasks or the tank rolls around the corner, which eliminates about 99% of the missiles out there. Even a Javelin needs a few moments for the seeker to get to operating temperature and lock on, and a Starstreak has the KE of a 40mm round, better than a 25mm, but not by that much...Conceptual missiles like mini-LOSAT *might* be able to fill the role if these issues are addressed.

A better alternative may be to go to a larger gun that can deal with the problem, in calibres like 60-75mm. Burst fire weapons of that size have been demonstrated as far back as the 1980's, and ideas like telescoped ammunition make storing and handling the ammunition practical in a medium vehicle. Large calibre rounds can also be more versatile; APDSFS for armour, HEAT-MP for hard and soft targets and HE for blasting holes in walls. This is also the calibre that smart rounds with useful warhead sizes are possible (mini versions of TERM and STAFF).

 

[Kirkhill]

I guess I'm going to plough old ground here.

Adding a pair of ATGMs to the outside of the LAV would give the Platoon Commander 8 rounds to launch before anybody had to reload anything.  They wouldn't be the VC's wpns but the Pl Cmdr's weapons.

But that would be true if the Pl were given a TUA to accompany the Pl on Patrol.  And with the TUA you have another vehicle to fuel and maintain and another driver, commander and gunner to feed.

I'm not thinking of a high intensity conflict here, not even HEAT rounds for AT engagements, just 8 of those 462 RF Bunkerbuster TOWs that were purchased for the TUAs.

I know we disagree....


Cheers.

 

[KellGunner]

I am seeing a few interesting ideas.

1) That adding a missile capability to the LAV-III is more of quick shot idea, which makes sense, to have reloads with the vehicle takes up space (TOW missiles are not small by any means)) and its dangerous to reload the system due to it not being under armour

2)  That a sort of missile system under armour is needed.

3) Tactics would have to be hammered out if indeed these vehicles were to have the capability.

What i am thinking is that the vehicle has 2 missiles (pick a system that would be compatible with the LAV) no more no less, it does not make sense to pack more as it may not be needed but you can always get more through the CQ or SQ.  I think its a good idea that the Pl Commander be in charge of commanding the us of these wepaons unless its a direct threat say from a tank no one saw.  Like its been said it gives the Pl Commander 8 missiles to use instead of the Vehicle Commander with just 2 plus reloads (which as I states probably wouldnt be a good idea unless the LAV-III was enlarged to accommodate a few extra missiles).

 

[Kirkhill]

If not the TOW (too heavy, too big, too few, too expensive - although we seem to have already bought them) then how about the 70 mm APKWS (a 7 pack instead of 2 TOW - or perhaps a mix of APKWS and TOW distributed throughout the Pl/Tp)?

Note the comments about the marines in Fallujah wrt the capabilities of the 70mm.  And they are (or used to be) manufactured in Canada by Bristol Aerospace as the CRV-7.

And Thucydides....I've given up on the FOG-M, just as the US had.  The Netfires system promised to be more useful than FOG-M with greater capabilities so the FOG-M got scrapped.

Then the Netfires system got scrapped as well.....something about birds in the hand and bushes.

 

[Kirkhill]

And Bristol still does manufacture the CRV-7, as well as the CRV-PG in concert with Kongsberg:  A 12 km precision guided missile with AP and HE warheads that can be launched from the back of a Honda ATC apparently.

 

[a_majoor]

Just because the US has set aside the FOG-M does not mean anyone else has.

Gill/Spike and Dandy are Israeli FOG-M's, Brazil offers the Avibras FOG-MPM and the EU has the Polyphem with a range of 60km, an artillery weapon.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Maybe we just need a bolt-on 84 mm recoilless remote weapon system. Existing ammunition supply. Known weapons effects. With two or more barrels it could provide that desired bunker-busting capability and optimize the 84mm system for maximum range engagements without having section or platoon commanders get led into thinking they are ready to go toe-to-toe with MBTs.

 

[chrisf]

Crazy thought, but as long as it actually was the ammunition already inventory, it wouldn't expand the supply chain at all, and it gives dismounted troops the option dismounting the ammo as well...

 

[George Wallace]

Maybe we just need a bolt-on 84 mm recoilless remote weapon system. Existing ammunition supply. Known weapons effects. With two or more barrels it could provide that desired bunker-busting capability and optimize the 84mm system for maximum range engagements without having section or platoon commanders get led into thinking they are ready to go toe-to-toe with MBTs.

Now this is getting to be a discussion that SPARKY would get into.   

 

[chrisf]

No... wait... 84mm... T-LAVs... I think you're on to a brilliant idea here... T-LAVs can swim can't they?

 

[a_majoor]

Change Carl Gustav to AT-4 (more specifically an AT-4 CS [confined space]) which would be more appropriate as a fire and forget system mounted on the turret. The CS version would not cause so much damage to the vehicle or nearby dismounts, but the AT-4 does have limited range (@350m), unless it comes with a RAP round preloaded now. Even using turret optics, stabilization and the mass of the vehicle to brace the weapon, it is hard to imagine the effective range being farther than 600m, or more than 1500m if a RAP round exists.

I doubt the crew would be too interested in rolling up to 300m of a potential target that the 25mm is unable to deal with, but the basic idea would work with a longer ranged warhead.

 

[DirtyDog]

It's funny because I've seen several US Stryker commanders roll around with AT-4s up in their cupola.  Made me feel inadequate with just my pistol and rifle.

But then, they were often jealous of the 25.....

As far as the TOW on a LAV turret, how hard would it be to intergrate like on the Bradley?

 

[George Wallace]

As far as the TOW on a LAV turret, how hard would it be to intergrate like on the Bradley?

It's not hard at all.  It will add extra width and weight to the turret and therefore the vehicle.  It will remove approx four dismounts from the back.  It is too easy to do, but are the trade offs really worth it?

 

[AC 011]

It's not hard at all.  It will add extra width and weight to the turret and therefore the vehicle.  It will remove approx four dismounts from the back.  It is too easy to do, but are the trade offs really worth it?

Actually, this was done several years ago.  Two integrated TOW launchers - one tube on either side of the turret.  Width impact to the vehicle as a whole was zero as the launchers were installed in place of the side racks.  Demos were done for a couple of countries, but none (as far as I know) were ever put into service.  Weight, crew, loss of other stowage space - not to mention $$ - probably had much to do with the decisions at the time.  If it's wanted, it would not be hard to dust it off, give it an upgrade to today's standards and drop it in.

 

[DirtyDog]

Actually, this was done several years ago.  Two integrated TOW launchers - one tube on either side of the turret.  Width impact to the vehicle as a whole was zero as the launchers were installed in place of the side racks.  Demos were done for a couple of countries, but none (as far as I know) were ever put into service.  Weight, crew, loss of other stowage space - not to mention $$ - probably had much to do with the decisions at the time.  If it's wanted, it would not be hard to dust it off, give it an upgrade to today's standards and drop it in.

That's along the lines I was thinking.

 

[a_majoor]

Looking at the historical reasons for putting the TOW launcher on the M-2 really does not provide any reasons for us doing it today.

When the M-2 was being designed (mid to late 1970's), the overwhelming threat was mass armour attacks by Soviet forces, and the TOW handily outranged the 100 and 115mm cannons common on the T-55 and T-62 tanks in the Soviet inventory. For commanders faced with fighting a defensive battle against overwhelming odds, the extra firepower was welcome, and the trade offs seemed to be worth it.

Today, the vehicles no longer face overwhelming enemy tank formations, nor are the commanders  part of an integrated defense position, or for that matter, they will not be able to snipe enemy armour before the enemy can fire back. True there are threats the on board 25mm chain guns cannot deal with, and there may come a time when we will face a peer enemy with armour, but even then the TOW strapped top the side does not seem to be the appropriate response, given factors like range and the long time of flight (do you really want to sit exposed while the missile flies to target?). Any current solution needs to be very fast (acquire target, fire and time of flight)  and have enough range to keep the firing platform outside the effective range of their targets.

Various potential solutions exist, including fire and forget missiles with extended ranges, Kinetic Energy weapons like LOSAT that can be fired "from the hip", replacing the 25mm turret with a cannon armed turret (60mm to 105mm is possible) or bulking up the combat team with more dedicated platforms to fire missiles or cannon at DF targets. Each solution has its own pluses and minuses, something to keep in mind.

 

[NavyShooter]

I'll jump out of my lane for a sec with a quick question.

What capability are we currently lacking that this would provide?

If there is no well defined capability gap, why would we do it?

NS

 

[dan7108]

Not really qualified to speak on this topic, but I just happened to watch something that may be of interest.

http://www.history.ca/video/default.aspx

Greatest Tank Battles: "The Battle of 73 Easting"

Start watching around 1/2 way through the episode.

 

[GnyHwy]

Today, the vehicles no longer face overwhelming enemy tank formations, nor are the commanders  part of an integrated defense position, or for that matter, they will not be able to snipe enemy armour before the enemy can fire back. True there are threats the on board 25mm chain guns cannot deal with, and there may come a time when we will face a peer enemy with armour, but even then the TOW strapped top the side does not seem to be the appropriate response, given factors like range and the long time of flight (do you really want to sit exposed while the missile flies to target?). Any current solution needs to be very fast (acquire target, fire and time of flight)  and have enough range to keep the firing platform outside the effective range of their targets.

I agree a lot with this.  In a defensive, it is a no brainer to have missiles, but in a meeting engagement, or offensive, they don't make sense to me.  It would be interesting to see a simulation to see if the ATGMs would have any positive effect;  they might even have a negative effect, for the reasons mentioned above by Thucydides.

A tank round is fired at about 1800m/s, an ATGM is less than 300m/s.

 

[McG]

Since we're bringing this thread back to life after 2.5 years...

Remember, if you mount a TOW on the turret of a Coyote or a LAV III, you also have to store extra missiles.  As is, there is limited space for the Inf Section, and even less with a Surv Suite. 

And the question still stands:  Who is going to reload while under fire?

The question should not have still been standing as the answer was provided to you ~ 3 years prior.  Mounting TOW (or any heavy missile system) on a LAV does not immediately require that the system be re-loadable under fire nor even that there be re-load missiles inside the vehicle.

I think the idea of missiles on the LAV is excellent.  I think we also need to think of missiles more broadly than just anti-tank.  Each launcher type should have a range of potential payloads.  Top-attack TOW is probably not the way to go for grape-hut smashing.  However, a missile carrying a HESH or Thermobaric warhead would have smashed those things.

There is a version of the Delco turret that has a TOW launcher on either side. …  I would like to know why we didn't do that in the first place.

The missiles would have taken up room inside and cut down on the Dismounts.

Missiles only would have displaced dismounts if the basic load exceeded what was in the tubes.  Each vehicle could carry two ready to fire missiles.  Reloading would occur only in a leaguer with missiles carried by the echlon.  Dedicated missile vehicles would carry additional missiles & the ability to reload under armour. 

There is a version of the Delco turret that has a TOW launcher on either side. …  I would like to know why we didn't do that in the first place.

You would have to expose yourself to reload.

So don’t reload in contact.  Keep dedicated missile vehicles (like TUA) for this.

There is a version of the Delco turret that has a TOW launcher on either side. …  I would like to know why we didn't do that in the first place.

The addition of a missile system to the turret, would have encouraged crews to take more chances in engaging MBTs. 

The solution to this is training.  Train the crews not to take chances engaging tanks.  Train the crews when to engage tanks and when not to engage tanks.  Otherwise, we may as well use this argument to get rid of SRAAW(L) and SRAAW(M).

The actual question is why do we want the missiles on the vehicle.  Turning the LAV (or even the CCV for that matter) into a tank-hunting section carrier is not going to work.  However, a couple ready-to-fire missiles will do the trick if we want to increase the fire support the LAV is able to provide against fortified targets and if we want to provide an ability for the LAV to self-defend against a tank.