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

MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)

  • Thread starter Herecomesthegun
  • Start date

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
5
Points
430
Perhaps we should reboot this concept a bit. There is still a need for a long range surveillance system, which the 3D radar system was supposed to provide. We do have a couple of "holes" in our firepower; long range DF and the ability to prosecute aircraft and aerial targets. Any military vehicle needs to have a robust self defense capability.

Putting these factors together would seem to point heavily towards a SPAAG/missile combination (and accept the long range DF is either a very secondary vehicle task or something provided by upgrading the Leopard 2). I would favor deleting the long range DF task, and using the networking capability to hand off target data derived from the SPAAG's long range surveillance radar. The automatic cannon(s) or Gatling gun of the SPAAG provides the close self defense capability, and some SAMs do provide a limited ability to engage ground targets (I am thinking Starstreak, with its ability to cover 6000m in 5 seconds and KE equal to a 40mm round).

However since AA seems to be a very small player these days, I suspect we don't have a large or strong enough institutional backing to get anything like this off the ground.
 

ironduke57

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Regarding an SPAAG for the CF. The WILDCAT turret could be an relative easy to integrate solution. Could be probably integrated on your existing LAV platform.

Krauss-Maffei project- initially based on Transport Panzer-1: 5 different fire control options available from V1 clear weather to V5 all-weather-fire-control & auto tracking. Fitted with 2x30mm Mauser Mk30-F cannons each with 250 rounds - fires 800 rounds per minute. range approx 3000m - S.Korea's Flying Tiger K-30 was based on the Wildcat. 4 Stinger, Mistral or Igla could added at the sides (2x2)

Regards,
ironduke57
 

jhayjhay0918

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The possibility has been took for the excessive height and weight of it will restrict it to only the largest strategic airlifters .



_________________
Refrigerator filter[/URL]   


[Edit to remove link in Signature line for a Sales Site.]
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
84
Points
530
JJ - Teddy has something to say to you....
;D
Teddy Ruxpin said:
The MMEV's passed on! This vehicle is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet it's maker! It's a stiff! Bereft of life, It rests in peace!  It's metabolic processes are now 'istory! It's off the twig! It's kicked the bucket, It's shuffled off it's mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-VEHICLE!!

(Apologies to Monty Python)

IIRC, the hulls originally destined for MMEV are now being converted to LAV RWS...but I've been wrong before.
 

Vimy_gunner

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hope this isn't a retarded question, but I was curious what are all the land vehicles manned by the Artillery?  From what I know, Lav III is one of them, but do Gunners use any others?  Other than the regular trucks to haul the howitzers around.

Have to say the Lav III looks cool! 
 

SabreTrooper

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
After reading this, a couple of things come to mind.  ADATS seems kind of irrelevant considering our current operational taskings.  We never to seem to have enough of the right equipment for whatever we are tasked to do.  Finally a "multi-mission" vehicle strikes me kind of like a Swiss Army Knife, you can do lots with it, just not particularly well.  I had hopes that with the LAVIII we'd finally have a chassis that was capable of plugging in modular equipment so we could adapt it to the required role.  Maybe the manufacturer who comes up with a chassis like this will be well rewarded.  With budgets being the way they are, having one very usable chassis where you could plug in an AT mod if the threat is armour, an AA mod if the threat is air...or if we need to do recce/surveilance then you have a mod for that.  It seems we are always trying to adapt non-adaptable equipment to meet the mission...so maybe we need to have the equipment designed to be adaptable.  Not having been in Afghanistan, I image though the terrain is ideally only suited to mules.  But then what happens if we have to go back into the Balkans or we wind up with another "conventional" enemy in the near future, we can't afford to have equipment for every possibility.  Just my thought on the matter.  Thank you!
 

xiaofan

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
There was a 8X8 variant of Wildcat SPAAG. The prototype is or was a marriage between Wildcat turret and Mowag Shark Weapons Carrier chassis. The vehicle was market throughout the 1980's and 1990's.

According to some source this vehicle was tested in Canada early in 1984.
 

Ex-Dragoon

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
0
Points
0
xiaofan said:
There was a 8X8 variant of Wildcat SPAAG. The prototype is or was a marriage between Wildcat turret and Mowag Shark Weapons Carrier chassis. The vehicle was market throughout the 1980's and 1990's.

According to some source in this vehicle  was tested in Canada early in 1984.

Which sources?
 

xiaofan

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
F.I.R.S.T. said:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=3948.0

I'm looking for other links.

There one other source mentioned the same thing. However looks like it has been copy from secretprojects.co.uk or other way around.

http://stingraysrotorforum.activeboard.com/forum.spark?aBID=126840&p=3&topicID=37129502
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
84
Points
530
Its alive........

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omxwpiOKL6A
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
457
Points
880
Well, that was...interesting.

I am not precisely sure what problem they are trying to solve with that device.
 

Bird_Gunner45

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
SeaKingTacco said:
Well, that was...interesting.

I am not precisely sure what problem they are trying to solve with that device.

Possibly something akin to the TUA?

Either way, it's only an ground to ground platform, so not really the MMEV concept.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
402
Points
880
I do like the Russian approach, gun/missile launcher. In a short high intensity war you are going to run out of missiles fast and no guarantee of early resupply,  the gun leaves you with some AA defense and will likely be good for smallish UAV's and helicopters. Not to mention ground targets. It also allows some live fire training for the gunners when there is no budget to fire real missiles.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
84
Points
530
To be honest I prefer this approach

87md.jpg


50 ready rounds available to be launched direct from the limber and sent 8 km down range to take out point targets or saturate area targets.

Forget your 120mm mortars.  81mm for the dismounted infantry.  70mm Hydra (APKWSII - DAGR - LOGIR) for close support arty and 155mm/GMRLS for general support.

Now that gives multiple mission effects.

7028329.jpg



And on the related subject of Vehicles and what is appropriate -


5cp0.jpg

ob2k.jpg



Fielding a force based on SUVs and Pickups with Duallies.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
153
Points
680
Who knows maybe the renewed tension with Russia might revive the project due to the need for local area air defense from pesky Mi-24s?
 

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
5
Points
430
MilEME09 said:
Who knows maybe the renewed tension with Russia might revive the project due to the need for local area air defense from pesky Mi-24s?

In that case, you should probably get these instead, since they have already been taken into service (LAV 25 BLAZER SPAAG).

The sand coloured one has a radar and replaces the Stinger pods with the Mistral, but other small MANPADS and SAM's could be substituted if desired.
 

Bird_Gunner45

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
MCG said:
Who uses those?

The US Marine corps, although I didn't believe that they accepted the LAV-AD system into active service.  It had been intended as the replacement for the linebacker.

As for the need for a GBAD capability, I do believe (for more than just emotional reasons based on my name) that we require this capability.  I know that DLR is looking at a C-RAM system such as Skyshield as C-RAM is the current flavour of the day, and the MRR is supposed to come in next year and will act as an AD radar (though the purchase says CB primary it seems more likely to be an AD asset).  There is a push to acquire a RBS-70 BOLIDE missile system (8km range, 5000m ceiling, full networked) that would be man portable and vehicle mounted (like the avenger). 

UAS, aviation, and PGMs represent a large threat to Canadian forces deployed on expeditionary operations.  IF our doctrine, as represented in ADO 2021 calls for information domination how can be not have the ability to deny a prospective enemy their ability to collect info?  It really is counter intuitive to our doctrine, particularly on a dispersed battlefield where small echelons, if identified, can be cut off.

Now, does Canada need a complete Regiment of AD? Not really.  However, perhaps the answer is to create a large, modularized AD Battery (5-6 troops) similar to the modular US AD Bde to provide C-RAM and GBAD capabilities to an expeditionary force as required, with the ASCC capability provided by the composite batteries of 4 GS Regt or integral to the Div and Bdes (as is done in the US system). 
 

reveng

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
74
Points
480
The fact that we don't have some form of MANPADS has always blown my mind.

I see MANPADS/C-RAM and their associated sensor platforms (in addition to ESM/ECM) as a logical part of the "protective bubble" around our deployed forces.

My non-expert opinion though - I don't think we need or want some multi billion dollar turret bolted on top of a LAV...
 
Top