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

[12alfa]

Re:
but when I am advancing with the troops I would like to have the fastest response time possible
The gun armed MMEV is an idea of getting that capability

I would think, (after operating on many a net(s) ) for many years, fail to see how a MEWV can deliver a wpn to a target  faster than a MBT in a suppoting role as we have been doing for the last 60+ years.

We all know that this ISTAR and comms is not all that great at the best of times. No lazer trg'ing and firing on with said ammo from 20 KM back (in a parking lot) is going to cut it for a grunt on the ground taking fire from a AFV.

Wake up people! we will lose people with these drawing board systems, lets go with what we know works, why is this so hard to understand?

 

[McG]

A complete LAV-III fleet is the way to go. As I heard quoted by an American, "the LAV-III is the M113 of the 21st Century".

Not 100% in agreement.  The bulk of the arguments here focus on the LAV III not being heavy enough for some roles.  I would suggest that the LAV III is too heavy for some roles.  Specifically recce (not to be confused with surveillance), cbt sp to recce, and liaison.  The LAV III may be the M113 of today, but even in its day we went smaller than the M113 for recce (remember the Lynx).

 

[a_majoor]

If we were clever enough, we could have a series of LAVs, LAVlettes, LAV+ for almost any purpose. The M-113 provided a large part of the mechanical heritage of the Lynx, as well as numerous other machines like the M-109, M-548 and so on.

A "cut down" 6X6 using LAV III mechanicals could be the basis of the recce vehicle, while the 8X8 stripped of the fighting systems can be the "Bison II" for CP's, Ambulances, or Logistics vehicles. MOWAG had demonstrated a 10X10 chassis as well...

 

[Kirkhill]

MOWAG used to build a 7.5 tonne 4x4 variant of the LAV.

 

[hammerz]

Well we now know the LAV III can take a beating!!!

http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/articles/military_photos_2004101123.asp

 

[Inch]

Getting hit indirectly with a bomb and getting hit with an APFSDS are quite different. A Sabot round will kill just about anything out there. I bet a Leo or Abrams wouldn't have shown nearly as much damage in the roadside bomb scenario.

Cheers

 

[McG]

That Stryker looks like an APC.  I bet guys in an M113 would not have been so lucky.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Hmmm.

Rolled one and a half times.  Nobody hurt at all, aside from ringing in ears.

Any of you guys ever been in a rollover?

Something smells about this story.  I think a wee bit of propaganda is in evidence.

 

[Kirkhill]

More to add to the debate on the LAV-Stryker

US Army perspective after employment in Iraq AND in Alaska (during Winter)

http://www.news-miner.com/Stories/0,1413,113~7244~2588955,00.html

 

[Kirkhill]

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34

And from the other side of the argument, the Dutch buy 184 CV9035s - now there's a useful round, a reasonable weight of armour, good volume and good mobility.

 

[Kirkhill]

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34

A little bit more on the Stryker as perceived by the Americans.

Summary.

Very Good, Best Available, Especially for Urban Warfare, Not Perfect - Improvements suggested and being implemented.

Cheers.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I'm just curious if they would still be available if all the previous productions lines had switched to Strykers?



Matthew.    ???

 

[Kirkhill]

Sorry Blackshirt, I didn't understand your question. Could you rephrase?

In the meantime here is another commentary on the Strykers.   George should be interested in this one.

Stryker Brigade Concept Proves Itself in Ninewa
 
 
(Source: US Department of Defense; issued Jan. 15, 2005)
 
 
BAGHDAD, Iraq --- The Stryker Brigade is well-designed for the decentralized war against insurgents the coalition is waging in Iraq, said Brig. Gen. Carter Ham, commander of Task Force Olympia, during an American Forces Press Service interview today.  

With 14 months of combat experience under its belt now, the Stryker Brigade concept has proven itself. The brigade in Mosul now â “ the 1st Brigade of the 25th Infantry Division -- is using its flexible capabilities to hunt down insurgents and terrorists intimidating Iraqis who want a free and democratic country.  

The brigade has substantially more infantry than a typical brigade, and uses technology to leverage the infantry when they dismount. The brigade also has more intelligence capabilities â “ including an unmanned aerial vehicle capability â “ and more internal options for firepower.  

The Stryker vehicle itself has received glowing reports. The mission-capable rate dipped below 90 percent only once in the last year, and that was during the equipment hand-off from one brigade to another.  

The wheeled vehicle also can move faster and farther than the typical infantry brigade. The smooth-riding vehicle also allows troops to arrive at a fight rested. "It doesn't shake the crew like a typical Bradley (fighting vehicle) does," Ham said.  

The brigade demonstrated that capability many times in 2004. Strykers moved from Mosul to Kut and Najaf in April. They arrived ready for the fight. "We often launch strikes that go over 100 kilometers into the desert," Ham said. "That's tough to do in a Bradley.  

"But it's important to remember that it's not an 'either-or' proposition," he continued. "There is a definite place for Bradleys and main battle tanks. We have tanks in Mosul right now, and I'm here to tell you that the insurgents don't like them."  

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34

 

[ArmyRick]

Big thing to remember is the US army is going with three types of forces
Heavy Mechanized (Bradley, abrams, paladin, etc), Light (airborne, air assault, etc) and now they want medium (Stryker brigade combat teams).
The SBCT were not meant to replace a abrams or bradley. Shinseki implemented this concept because the army needed a medium weight, semi-quick deployable force with some fire power..
A stryker brigade has less fire power than a Armoured brigade but can move quicker..
A stryker brigade has more fire power than a light brigade but is harder to deploy..

When talking strykers in US concepts they employ them differently than what we would do..

 

[Kirkhill]

Stipulated on all counts and agreed Armyrick.

Cheers.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Sorry for the vagueness Kirkhill.

What I meant to ask was how hard would it be to convert a production line back to LAV-III's if we wanted more of them?



M.  ;D

 

[Matt_Fisher]

I think that NDHQ needs to pay attention to the last paragraph in particular.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2005/n01152005_2005011502.html

Stryker Brigade Concept Proves Itself in Ninewa
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Jan. 15, 2005 â “ The Stryker Brigade is well-designed for the decentralized war against insurgents the coalition is waging in Iraq, said Brig. Gen. Carter Ham, commander of Task Force Olympia, during an American Forces Press Service interview today.

With 14 months of combat experience under its belt now, the Stryker Brigade concept has proven itself. The brigade in Mosul now â “ the 1st Brigade of the 25th Infantry Division -- is using its flexible capabilities to hunt down insurgents and terrorists intimidating Iraqis who want a free and democratic country.

The brigade has substantially more infantry than a typical brigade, and uses technology to leverage the infantry when they dismount. The brigade also has more intelligence capabilities â “ including an unmanned aerial vehicle capability â “ and more internal options for firepower.

The Stryker vehicle itself has received glowing reports. The mission-capable rate dipped below 90 percent only once in the last year, and that was during the equipment hand-off from one brigade to another.

The wheeled vehicle also can move faster and farther than the typical infantry brigade. The smooth-riding vehicle also allows troops to arrive at a fight rested. "It doesn't shake the crew like a typical Bradley (fighting vehicle) does," Ham said.

The brigade demonstrated that capability many times in 2004. Strykers moved from Mosul to Kut and Najaf in April. They arrived ready for the fight. "We often launch strikes that go over 100 kilometers into the desert," Ham said. "That's tough to do in a Bradley.

"But it's important to remember that it's not an 'either-or' proposition," he continued. "There is a definite place for Bradleys and main battle tanks. We have tanks in Mosul right now, and I'm here to tell you that the insurgents don't like them."

 

[Kirkhill]

Good question.

Do we want more LAV-IIIs?  Or would Stryker variants fill the bill?

 

[George Wallace]

Do we want more LAV-IIIs? Or would Stryker variants fill the bill?

We are kinda arguing MacIntosh and Spartan or Granny Smith here. 

I do see us upgrading Coyote chassis to LAV III chassis in the future (but not near future) just for commonality of the fleet.  Remember that we lost the Lynx, not because it was really older than the M113--which it wasn't, but because there were a variety of parts that were no longer manufactured.  I can see this happening throughout the Forces, as Bison, Grizzly, Coyote parts become more rare, then it would only make sense (If it makes sense, it won't happen) to build a fleet based on the LAV III Chassis and we will have the "Stryker" here also.

GW

 

[Kirkhill]

Further along the line of "If wishes were horses then Gypsies would ride",

If we were to consider a HEAVY Tracked Component in any fielded force,

But we still wanted to maintain a road mobile

rapid relocation capability

And we followed on from George's thought about the MAN transporters

What would happen if we considered this combination?

http://www.oshkoshtruck.co.uk/Products/HET.cfm
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/cv90/

The HET can carry 2 of the CV90 class vehicles at a roadmarch speed of 80 km/h. 

That would mean that 8 HETs could carry 16 CV90s in some combination of the CV9035 and CV90120, or a mini-combat team.

A team like that could be added to either a LAVIII battle group (either Recce, Inf or Light Armoured) in the "open spaces" or could be on hand to supply support to a Light Infantry force in an Urban setting.

Could the CV90 be sold as a heavy APC rather than a tank, even though it is armoured, has tracks and a large gun?

Would the CV90 supply enough protection?  Stipulating it couldn't go toe to toe with another CV90120 let alone an Abrams or a Leo 2 (or for that matter a Leo C2).

30 tonne vehicles like Bradley and Warrior seem to survive a lot of hits in Iraq.