MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)

[a_majoor]

Most of what is "offered" by the MMEV can be accomplished more cheaply and easily by taking (insert favorite tank here), and providing a load-out of advanced ammunition.

A tank can carry 30-40 rounds of 120mm ammunition under protection, giving the crew lots of choices:

Through tube missiles for those long range shots (LAHAT has a range of 13Km when fired semi indirect at a designated target).
APDSFS for hard or elusive targets (potentially even enemy helicopters)
HESH or HEAT-MP to defeat a wide range of targets, both hard and soft. The Americans use HEAT-MP, while the British and Canadians favor HESH.

Tanks and gun armed vehicles have a high rate of fire, so can engage multiple targets quickly, have protection against enemy weaponry and a drivetrain and suspension system which provide excellent cross country mobility. To a lesser extent, this can be accomplished with a LAV III based fire support vehicle packing a 105mm cannon and a similar choice of ammunition. Modern AFVs have day/night and thermal surveillance and sight systems to identify and track targets, and can be fitted with high bandwidth data transfer systems to trade target and situational awareness information.

As for the anti aircraft requirement, this is best done by a dedicated system or systems. The front line vehicles can thicken up the fire with their on board machine guns and (perhaps) the occasional main gun shot if opportunities arise, or if specialized AA shells or through tube missiles can be developed (probably cued from off board sensors).

As for the "3D" awareness, I'm not qualified to comment, but it seems to me that you would probably get better results cuing off AWACS or J-STARS type systems (or both) for wide ranging situational awareness.

You can get virtually everything described here in Military Off the Shelf (MOTS) form, and rather than try to wedge it in into a single vehicle, the sensitive electronic sensor systems can be distributed among many elements of the force and airborn platforms. The airborn antenna can be much larger than vehicle mounted ones.

 

[Infanteer]

Thanks for your "support"...and who are you?

Ever conduct operations in the real world?   Work for Oerlikon do you?

A profile would be nice from someone who seems to be "setting facts straight"... Rather than quote from a brochure, tell us what this boondoggle is actually supposed to accomplish on the battlefield...  8 km - heh... $350000 missiles against "Toyota trucks" - heh... "effects" - heh.  The concept might work perfectly well on the range in Suffield or on some dreamer's desk in NDHQ - drag this thing into Afghanistan and watch what it can't do...

By the way, this is hardly a cap badge issue, as you seem to condescendingly think it is.  It's common sense:  this is a vehicle no one really wants and fewer really need.  Sum it up and spend the money elsewhere. 

Checkmate....well played.  :warstory:

 

[vonGarvin]

HESH or HEAT-MP to defeat a wide range of targets, both hard and soft. The Americans use HEAT-MP, while the British and Canadians favor HESH.

HESH requires a rifled barrel in order to make it work.  Failing that, it would have to get its spin from fins, perhaps.  The HEAT-MP (MP=Multi-Purpose) is one option, but the point is well taken: there are a variety of ammunition natures out there right now that can provide for multi mission effects (like the use of that buzz word?)
Anyway, just wanted to clarify for the great unwashed out there the reason the brits (and us) use HESH: Brit 120mm is rifled, our 105mm is rifled, whereas tanks such as the M1 series (120mm variants) and Leo 2 series have smoothbore cannon. This was necessary at the time of their development as they were primarily designed to take out tanks at range.  Since sabot ammo is fin stabilised, there was no need for rifling, which only reduces the velocity of the round at longer ranges as energy is lost causes the projectile to spin.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

From Teddy Ruxpin:

Work for Oerlikon do you?

That was exactly what I thought when I read it as well....


Matthew.

 

[Mortar guy]

Boondoggle is an understatement. I'm too tired to restate all the technical problems I have mentioned before so I'll just add this little bit:

Do any of you MMEV supporters out there realize how much an ADATS missile costs and how reliable they are? Or how about the training costs for the crew? We have a hard enough time keeping TOW gunners current.

Or how about the much more important doctrinal issues? How does the MMEV figure into the Global Wait On Terror? Is the MMEV appropriate for fighting the 'ball of snakes'?

Can we afford to spend $800 million on 33 vehicles that are far too vulnerable to do the kinds of tasks we use our armoured vehicles for in Kandahar (patrols, escort etc.)?

Are there better things we could be spending money on?

MG

 

[Kirkhill]

Does this have any bearing on the discussion? --- "No move West" for ADATS.

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/6_1_1.asp?id=1023

Air defence in the fight and leading change
Wednesday, April 26, 2006

 
An air defence anti-tank system (ADATS) from 4 Air Defence Regiment (4 AD Regt, RCA) moving along a tank trail. 4 AD Regt, RCA, is stationed at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown, New Brunswick. 

CFB GAGETOWN, New Brunswick — Airspace and air defence capability play an important part in the modernization of the Canadian Forces.


Gunner Andrew Van Norden, in the driver's position in his ADATS, is a member of 119 Battery, 4 AD Regt, RCA.

Recently, at CFB Gagetown, the commander of Land Force Doctrine And Training System, Brigadier-General Stuart Beare, briefed the air defence community on the future of the trade.

Bgen Beare explained that the interim role of air defence is to generate Airspace Coordination Centres (ASCCs), generate the capacity to shoot down things that fly and integrate the direct fire team, as circumstances or requirements exist.

"The Army commander decided no move of air defence capability West and no move of the 4th Air Defence Regiment in the near term," he added.At the briefing, Warrant Officer Fred Frigault of the Field Artillery School noted that some of the trades have lost a lot of soldiers because they are unsure of the future of air defence.

The Army commander decided no move of air defence capability West and no move of the 4th Air Defence Regiment in the near term.
 
— Brigadier-General Stuart Beare

"The Field Artillery School will continue to generate all of the courses required to produce the ASCCs and shooter capabilities. The 4 AD Regt, RCA, is the force generator for the Army ASCCs and shooters and 210 Work Shop will continue to support both entities in the same manner in which it is now," said BGen Beare.

Major Ron MacEachern, of Land Force Development and Implementation, confirmed that an interim establishment with five ASCCs based in Moncton, New Brunswick, and three troops of four air defence anti-tank systems (ADATS) based out of Gagetown should become effective as of April 1, 2007.

Article by Sergeant Kyle Richards
Photos by Master Corporal John Bradley and courtesy of Wikipedia

 

[Armymatters]

Do any of you MMEV supporters out there realize how much an ADATS missile costs and how reliable they are? Or how about the training costs for the crew? We have a hard enough time keeping TOW gunners current.

Just to give an idea of how expensive the ADATS missile is, it is about 300,000 bucks per missile. For comparison's sake, TOW has a per missile cost of $25000-45000, according to someone at Raytheon Missiles (all in US Dollars), which is 1/6 of ADATS. Hellfire is around $58,000 USD per missile, 1/5 of ADATS.

Also of note: The US Army rejected ADATS due to low reliability in field conditions, and instead went for the Bradley Stinger Fighting Vehicle instead. Kinda makes me wonder that if the US Army rejected it, why did we buy it?  ???

So I will agree with Mortar guy that perhaps there are better things to spend the $800 million dollars on than this.

 

[ArmyRick]

No move west? Whatever happened to this grand direct fire support regiment idea? Or is this getting binned with chuck at the helm now? Anybody who actually knows please answer? Cheers.

 

[TCBF]

So, this leaves us with a tried and proven combination of:

1. Tanks - rapid fire, direct fire (mostly), medium range.
2. Anti-tank vehs: direct fire, long range, slow rate of fire.
3. Air Defence vehs: for SHORAD, a mix of guns and missles.

The revolution is dead.

Tom

 

[Mortar guy]

Long live the revolution!

How about this:

Direct fire:

Light/Assault Gun for Afghanistan-type missions - 66 x MGS
Heavy for conventional warfighting - ~60 x Leopard C2 (replaced in 2015)
ATGM - 33 x LAV TUA

Air Defence:

34 x ADATS with minimal modifications (to be replaced by CLAWS/SLAMRAAM circa 2010)

NLOS:

NLOS-LS with PAM and LAM or HIMARS with GMLRS

Drop the MMEV project altogether and use that money to buy CLAWS/SLAMRAAM and HIMARS/NLOS-LS.

Eh? Eh?

MG

 

[Mortar guy]

Not sure what VT1 is and I wasn't proposing SLAMRAAM on the ADATS chassis. I meant, buy CLAWS/SLAMRAAM MOTS from the US. As is.

Spike ER only has an 8km range. PAM has 70km, as does GMLRS and LAM has a 200km + range. Hell with HIMARS and ATACMS, you can accurately hit targets from just  under 300km. Besides, the Spike ER requires some pretty skillful operators to fire NLOS as the missile must be flown to where you think the target is, the target must be acquired and then you have to steer the missle to the target. I think the Spike ER is a great long-range ATGM but using it for NLOS would be stretching it a bit I think.

MG

 

[a_majoor]

So, this leaves us with a tried and proven combination of:

1. Tanks - rapid fire, direct fire (mostly), medium range.
2. Anti-tank vehs: direct fire, long range, slow rate of fire.
3. Air Defence vehs: for SHORAD, a mix of guns and missles.

The revolution is dead.

Tom

Tweaking the ammo mix for tanks to include through tube missiles like LAHAT, or spending the money to bring sensor fused munitions (like STAFF) to fruition will close off the need for option two. The marriage of sensor fused "smart" rounds and breach loading mortar technology should give us an direct/indirect fire, all aspect (long and short range), high rate of fire option as well.

These options should be nowhere near as expensive as new MMEV's, retooling the ADATs production line, integrating yet another munition on the ADATS turret etc. I am willing to put the savings into a CV-90 family of tanks, mortar carriers and AD vehicles though.

 

[George Wallace]

Tweaking the ammo mix for tanks to include through tube missiles like LAHAT, or spending the money to bring sensor fused munitions (like STAFF) to fruition will close off the need for option two. The marriage of sensor fused "smart" rounds and breach loading mortar technology should give us an direct/indirect fire, all aspect (long and short range), high rate of fire option as well.

I've got to disagree with you on this.  Although it is nice to have the capability for tube launched missiles in tanks, it would slow down their rate of fire.  To abandon the second option/layer in the Defence or Offence is not a good option.  Like in overlapping arcs of fire, each have their role to play, and overlap the other's role.  To take one out of the equation, weakens the whole.

 

[a_majoor]

I'm sending an unclear message as usual 

The idea of long range coverage by ATGM is essential, but the limitation (slow rate of fire) makes this less desirable. Tanks with through tube missiles would have the slow rate of fire limitation with current technology, but sensor fused munitions and other "smart" rounds would provide the long range/high rate of fire option we want. Much of this technology was being developed in the 1980s and 1990s under such programs as STAFF and TERM, so the basic technology is out there. As an aside, it doesn't have to be tanks that are the exclusive purveyors of this sort of fire, these rounds could also be adapted to be fired from conventional artillery or the Infantry could be issued an SP assault gun that uses these rounds in the anti-armour role (a real role for the MGS or similar vehicle). High speed ATGMs like LOSAT would also fit the requirement if we can afford for multiple tools in the toolbox.

The other aspect I was thinking of is the use of mortar launched rounds in this role. Mortars also provide a high rate of fire, and have a potentially long range (particularly in 120mm). The fact the round will be high in the air when the seeker becomes active gives it a wide field of view, so you can discover potential targets before they come in range of your forces (or you come in range of them). Smart mortar rounds also negate a lot of the enemy ability to hide in defiles and behind other terrain features that mask them from our DF systems.

When viewed in this light, the "all singing and dancing" MMEV doesn't bring anything really different to the table, and uses the most difficult possible method to get there.

(Second aside: many posts back it was asked how an MMEV would fit in a full spectrum environment pitted against a "technical". If that is one of the primary threats, than a SPAAG such as the "Blazer" turret fitted to a LAV, armed with a 25mm Gatling cannon and a pod of 70mm rockets to replace the Stingers would certainly be the vehicle of choice)

 

[MdB]

As an aside, it doesn't have to be tanks that are the exclusive purveyors of this sort of fire, these rounds could also be adapted to be fired from conventional artillery or the Infantry could be issued an SP assault gun that uses these rounds in the anti-armour role (a real role for the MGS or similar vehicle). High speed ATGMs like LOSAT would also fit the requirement if we can afford for multiple tools in the toolbox.

The German 155 mm self-propelled artillery M109 seems to fit the bill with a 350 km autonomy and a range of 24.5 km (up to 40 with "smart" rounds) AND a semi-automatic loading system that enable to fire 6 rounds per minute.

The only thing is that I don't see any rounds following a moving target. Maybe I missed that in the many preceding posts. Or, the 155 mm rounds would be like the mortar rounds with the heat detecting device that could steer the round inside a certain area.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Rocketman:

Some good info here and I really do appreciate your posts and point of view.  No worries, I have no desire to whip out my copy of Janes' and go "shopping".

However, I really must question (again - heh) what we're doing here.  What operational requirement is there for 36 ADATS on steroids?  In the current operational environment, I might be able to make a case for retaining a small number of systems for air defence purposes - using the current stock of missiles and the current chassis - for specific scenarios (the 2010 Olympics come to mind).  It now appears (given the cancellation of the 4 AD move, etc.) that this will be an air defence system (as much as ADATS is, at any rate).  One has to question what threats the system is to engage, particularly in a coalition setting.

This thread has pointed out some glaring deficiencies with the platform (at least as originally advertised), one of which you highlight - close protection.  I would submit that no amount of coaxial firepower is going to be capable of providing self defence for such a high value asset.  If you're firing a C-6 from an ADATS-type vehicle, you're in big trouble.  If you want the vehicle to go into harm's way, the missile containers (plus any sensor suites) need to be fully armoured, it must be easily supportable (not trailing an HL tanker, in other words), it cannot be overly top heavy (as a LAV III with ADATS is certain to be) and it has to have an effective close-in self-defence capability.

So, are we to "suck it up", and field a system simply to keep Oerlikon in business?  It seems to me that we've been doing that for some time now.  Again, this appears to me to be a system looking for a mission, rather than the other way around.  Canada is not a big enough player in this game to develop its own extremely expensive systems that cannot be sold anywhere else.  Witness our previous experience with the original ADATS....

Personally, I'd cancel the thing, keep an orphan ADATS troop in service for AD tasks and tell Oerlikon to pound salt - definition contract or not.  It would be worth the $150m just to rationalize our direct fire capability in a coherent manner, something we're certainly not doing now.

My 2 cents, as always.

TR

 

[a_majoor]

Hmmmm, you want a serious shopping list Rocket Man? From the sounds of your post, MMEV will be primarily an AA weapon with a secondary duty of overwatch (given the radar and E/O suite you are implying). Given that, and the other conditions laid down (i.e. must be a LAV, requires self defense capabilities) then here are some suggestions:

Plan A

1. The turret should have a similar layout to the Blazer SPAAG/missile combination. While the 25mm Gatling gun is good from one logistics standpoint (i.e. shares ammunition), the rate of fire induces a lot of others. We are also implying overwatch capabilities so go big on the gun, maybe the 35mm Skyranger cannon firing AHEAD ammunition and a coaxial C-6. The turret should be derived from the Wegmann type turret to achieve a low profile and maximize crew protection.

2. Starstreak makes an excellent choice for the missile in both the AA and DF roles, it is a very fast supersonic missile so should deliver considerable KE to the target. Starstreak probably won't kill a tank, but could certainly disrupt the FCS, and cause considerable damage to lesser targets beyond the range of the 35mm.

3. Interchangeable pods, so if the situation is clear (i.e. Afghanistan, where there is little or no air threat), then the Starstreaks can be swapped out for a nice extended range missile like Spike LR (4000m range) or Spike ER (8000m range). Of course there should be an option for "Pod A" to carry one missile type and "Pod B" to carry the other if the situation is a bit confused.

4. Phased array antenna to reduce the amount of mechanical "bits" required.

Plan B

1. CV_CT turret for the beast, it has a 12 or 16 round bustle for the 105mm main cannon (fed by an autoloader) and has room for at least 16 more rounds in the hull (probably a lot more).

2. Focus the R&D money to perfecting 105mm "smart" ammunition for long range engagements against hard targets. The old STAFF and TERM programs in the United States were developing several types of smart ammunition and DRES also has some programs along these lines.

3. More R&D on smart shells or through tube missiles optimised for AA work (a giant sized AHEAD shell, so to speak). If this is impractical, then a missile pod for the AA weapons as in Plan A

4. Phased Array antenna.

I would not be so set on the 35km+ range for the radar, it probably makes more sense to go with a compact radar/FCS system and cue the weapon with off board sensors. You will need to do this with NLOS attacks on ground targets anyway, we will just need to devote enough bandwidth to accept input from ASCC assets as well. Besides, the ground environment is hard on electronics, so uncooled TI systems and fairly simple radar sets will probably last longer and work more reliably for the soldiers using them.

As an aside, given the volume of the systems and ammunition being carried, and the electrical requirements of the radar, electro-optical suite and computers, has any consideration been given to swapping out the MMEV power pack for a hybrid system?

 

[TCBF]

"The project team is all ears, guys... where should they go?"

- Back to the drawing board?

;D

 

[Kirkhill]

OK, how about this one:

These things are supposed to be netted in in any event.  Why not put the sensors on one vehicle and just put a launcher on the others?  This would reduce the weight and height of the vehicles and would allow the operators to stay away from all those smokey trails.  2 sensor vehicles plus 4 launchers = 1 troop.  Don't mount any missiles with less than a 5 km range - 10+ would be better and plan on siting these things with the artillery well behind the fight.  C6s and 50s in the crew commander's hatch for local defence.

As for the MGS, if they are already committed to the vehicles but the turret is a bust think about mounting a_majoor's "cause celebre" the CV-CT 105.

On the tanks, use "my grandfather's axe" principle.  We replaced the turret on the Leo 1s.  Now replace the hulls and drives.  In 5 years time you can put a new turret on your new hull and still use the original 1972 serial number.  My Grandfather's Axe lives on.

Cheers.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I'll throw something way outside the box and see if it's worthy of discussion or not.

If the LAV-III chassis is incapable of provide MBT-like anti-tank firepower along with high quality anti-aircraft capabilities in one chassis, what about reversing the process and determining what Canadian Forces do need, and if those chassis can be fit to perform those roles.

Specifically, what happens if you created a "Theatre Control" group composed of LAV-III chassis fitted out to provide a protective bubble around deployed Canadian Troops.

If we've got 34 chassis, let's start with the assumption we'll produce (4) groups of (8) vehicles.

In every 8-pack you'd include:
(1) Dedicated LAV with OTS phased array radar - AN//MPQ-53 phased array radar?  (4 total)
(2) Dedicated LAV with OTS missile system with ABM capability - PAC-3? (8 total)
(2) Dedicated LAV with HIMARS 6-pack (8 total)
(3) Dedicated LAV's to launch, control, recover Surveillance UAV's and/or with tethered balloon-mounted surveillance cameras (12 total)

In short, give the theatre commander an 8-pack of complimentary vehicles to provide a previously unavailable surveillance, detection and destruction zone....because as others have said, I simply cannot figure any way to beef-up a LAV-III to make it a stand-alone weapons system.

On a side note, I would very much like to see a direct fire weapon added to compliment the 25mm on the standard LAV-III.  Specifically, I'd like to see what the Spike ER Penetrate, Blast & Fragmentation warhead can do....


Matthew. 

P.S.  I've been typing this for 5-minutes and sure enough I hit preview, I get the red warning, and Kirkhill's stolen my thunder.  Screw you hippy!  ;D