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

[a_majoor]

US forces exist across a wide spectrum. The purpose of the SBCT and the "Objective Force" is to have something which hits harder than the "light" forces; while more portable than the heavy force. Consider it took 6 months to assemble the force for the first Gulf War, and moving 4ID was almost impossible in time to take part in OIF; a medium force makes sense.

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

Considering our own, far more limited logistics ability, we have to take a serious look at what force we can actually support, once deployed.  The LAV III with all variants, would give us a commonality of parts to make our logistics tail supportable.

 

[Zipper]

War is a political act.   Politicians get a say.   It is equally valid to say that soldiers should have no say because they don't know politics.

Of course there is friction between the two sides - always are, always will be, especially when strong egos and heart-felt positions are involved.

Thats for sure. Politicians get a say about whether TO go to war. Once it has been said, they should step back and let the soldiers do their job of winning it while working on ways of ending it as soon as possable. The first gulf war was a good example of this.

If it looks like the Legacy Armored Force is taking a back seat it is only because they have occupied the front seat for so long and now the US is finding that they aren't much use to them in Iraq today.  The call now is for the Infanteer - and they don't have enough.

Also a good point. You cannot be to "heavy" on the armoured side. The whole point is to hold ground, which needs a infanteer. So I would agree that they need to balance the mix again. But keeping the heavy side is a must.

Considering our own, far more limited logistics ability, we have to take a serious look at what force we can actually support, once deployed. The LAV III with all variants, would give us a commonality of parts to make our logistics tail supportable.

Good point as well. If your going to invest in a chchassisthen stick with as few as possable throughout your variants to keep the support costs down. But I still say we need tracked, and to the point of an MBT.

The fact that we still have AVGP's, Coyote/Bison (LAV II's if you will), and are getting the LAV III just doesn't make sense from a cost/support point of view. Eliminate two of them and stick with the one wheeled chassis. Then get a tracked chassis (CV-90 perhaps?) and its variants, and then an MBT. Not necessarily in that order.

Three chassis to support and pay for, and less headache.

 

[Kirkhill]

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2005/Mar/UF-Marine_Corps.htm

US Marine Corps wants to add 5 more LAV companies in Iraq with a total of 125 vehicles.  Future plans for armour also discussed.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

The USMC were pioneers in this field and their success in DESERT STORM lead to the Saudis making a huge order for LAV-25s and renewed interest in Australia, Canada and other nations. 

I doubt that the US SBCTs will serve in their intended purpose of being a force deployed to a theatre after the light forces and before heavy forces.  I believe that they will instead become the forces intended for the stability and security phase of a campaign (after the light and heavy forces do their thing).  LAVs have some advantages over both light and heavy forces in security operations.  A force of Coyotes and LAV IIIs would be quite useful in Iraq (outside of the Fallujah style battles, perhaps).

Cheers,

2B

 

[a_majoor]

The Objective force may be a "bell curve", some light on the left, the bulk of the forces being medium weight deployable for followup, security and stabilization, flanking, screening and rear area security, exploitation and persuit; and some heavy forces on the right to crack the hard nuts.

 

[Farmboy]

I'll have to find the story but it seems that all the LAVs in Iraq are parked because the armour SUCKS.

They have a "Bird Cage" on them to help protect against RPGs however the enemy just uses a one-two punch with them to penetrate the cage and armour.

They are great vehicles as long as they don't have to fight.

 

[a_majoor]

Going over the posts of people who have "been there"; as well as articles and blogs by serving US service members, and articles in US Military professional journals paints a different picture of the LAV and Stryker in combat.

We all know the LAVIII/Stryker is not meant for the stand up fight, and current efforts are directed to developing the proper doctrine and TTPs to use these vehicles. I suspect you are reading an article with an ulterior motive: proponents of the "heavy metal army" who want to keep the traditional army, opponents of George W Bush who ignore any good news and play up bad news, competitors of GD who want us to buy something else...

The arguments we want to examine here are based on the fact that we have them, and we need to find the best way to use them

 

[Kirkhill]

As usual I'll have to agree with a_majoor on this one.

LAVs and Strykers do seem to have their uses - and add a lot of capability to the forces out there.  The secret, as far as I can tell, like everything else, is to fully understand the limitations and advantages and employ it in situations maximizing potential benefit while minimizing potential risk.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Farmboy,

You can't use M1s to patrol an entire country.  LAVs offer the patrolling mobility advantages of HUMMVWs while having better protection against most threats (small arms, mines IEDs, VBIEDs).  The USMC LAV-25s fought in both Gulf Wars and they seem happy with them.  LAVs cannot replace a heavy force in front line combat but they do offer advantages elsewhere.

I'd rather conduct mounted escorts, QRFs and patrols in a Stryker/LAV (not talking about the MGS here) than a HUMMVW.

Cheers,

2B

 

[Zipper]

Agreed but again. Majoor does have his point, and the LAV III (I'll still reserve judgement on the MGS) is a good piece of kit within its operational capabilities. And I think the Stryker is the MGS  2Bravo.

However for us to be going over entirly to LAV's sets us into such a small operational capability as to be stifling.

We all know the LAVIII/Stryker is not meant for the stand up fight, and current efforts are directed to developing the proper doctrine and TTPs to use these vehicles.

The arguments we want to examine here are based on the fact that we have them, and we need to find the best way to use them

You bet they have their place. But is that place allowing us to keep a properly trained and flexable military?

Maybe for now, since we are so broken. But we have to look at expanding that role so that we just don't become the only 1st world nation (G-8 nation) military having the same capability as a many 3rd world nations do now. Hell at the cost of their own people, many of those countries have larger militaries with MBT's.

And at the cost of repeating myself about the China example. In the Globe yesterday (I think, and I'll need to find it), they refered to the growing fear around the world of China's continued 10 year double diget build up of its military.

Now that they have nukes, their current power (on land) rivals that of the US and Russia combined (my own assessment from looking at the numbers).

So for now the LAV's are a good thing to help fix our broken military, and we need to figure out the TTP's to use them properly. But we need to do this quickly and then start looking at gaining back the capabilities we lost by scrapping the MBT's and track programs.

 

[George Wallace]

The Stryker is a family of vehicles.  The MGS is only one of the versions.  The majority of vehicles in a Stryker Bde are turretless.

GW

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Zipper,

As George pointed out the LAV familiy is called many things in many places.  In US Army parlance the "Stryker" refers to the whole family of vehicles.  The Mobile Gun System (MGS) with the 105mm Low Profile Turret is not yet in service but the Infantry Section Carrier (basically a LAV III without the 25mm turret) is in service in Iraq with the US Army.  In Canada the MGS is sometimes called "Stryker" because we already have the LAV III and the press picked the term up.  I call it the MGS to prevent confusion.  

A Troop of MGS might have been good to have on hand in Kabul but I wouldn't patrol the streets with it.  The Stryker ISC would be a good patrol vehicle in the IED threat environment. That is why I mentioned the LAV/Stryker but stated that I was leaving the MGS out.  In trying to be clear I guess I ended up being confusing.  

Cheers,

2B

 

[Kirkhill]

Zipper:

If a guy comes at you with a sword, which would you choose?  A shield, a gun, or be sporting and pick up another sword so as to give him a chance?

Just because the Chinese have lots of tanks I don't consider that an argument for us to have lots of tanks.  Frankly I want something that renders their tanks useless.

While I, and a lot of others here, accept the role of tanks on the battlefield and would like to see them in our inventory the reality is otherwise and there needs to be workarounds.

As to maintaining tanks, as you might have noted the future planning suggests that 30 tonne vehicles are likely to be replacing 70 ton vehicles in US/UK planning over the next 10-15 years.  Already 30 ton Bradleys and Warriors, not to mention 25 ton Strykers (20 tons + Cage (estimated) are protecting their crews against RPGs.  So in 5-10 years time the kit on the marketplace is likely to be somewhat different than the kit on offer today.

So your recognition of the need to get things right today with what we have and add capabilities in the future,  while right on the money, may mean that in  5-10 years time the consensus as to what the battlefield requires may change again.

Cheers.

 

[Zipper]

GW/2Bravo - I stand corrected. 

Damn you Kirk. To damn logical by half.

I am stating not so much that we must have a tank to tank match for the Chinese, but that we (and other western countries) are reducing their military's (personal and capabilities) while they are greatly increasing theirs. Yes rolls will change again in 10-20 years I am sure. I would just like to see some idea of us changing with it in that we are recognizing that we need the greater capabilities of "heavier" track, and even to the point of MBT's. There roll is no where near as dead as some would like to think.

And I will argue the survivability of the "cage" system. One hit yes, multiple hits no.

 

[a_majoor]

I think even a Leopard or M-1 might not look too fresh after taking multiple hits. Even if the vehicle is not destroyed, the electronics and sight system will be damaged by the impact. If the birdcage allows the crew to back out or debus before they are incinerated, then it serves its purpose.

Once again, the LAV family is not for the stand up fight!

Enhanced surveillance from "LAV-TOW" will be very handy for the Cavalry concept, especially down at the Cavalry team level. This gives the Cavalry team commander real time input independent of the "recce troop" or "surveillance squadron", as well as supplimenting input upstream to the ISTAR CC. I will restate the need for replacing the TOW with a more capable multi-mode weapon to give the team more punch on the screen/counter recce battle, as well as to fight out of an ambush or other bad situation.

 

[Kirkhill]

And I will argue the survivability of the "cage" system. One hit yes, multiple hits no.

I won't argue that one because I don't know. Perhaps somebody else can look it up. One thing I do know is that the only current effective defence on the market that will protect any vehicle in the 360 degree environment is ERA - reactive armour.  And than Definitely won't sustain multiple hits. 

 

[Farmboy]

Once again, the LAV family is not for the stand up fight!

So if Canadians do need to stand and fight.............??

What about patroling and getting ambushed??

Enemy tactics have already employed two RPGs fired at the same vehicle moments apart.

Should we just stay away from anywhere we might get engaged?

 

[Kirkhill]

Once again, the LAV family is not for the stand up fight!


So if Canadians do need to stand and fight.............??

What about patroling and getting ambushed??

Enemy tactics have already employed two RPGs fired at the same vehicle moments apart.

Should we just stay away from anywhere we might get engaged?

Farmboy,

You can't use M1s to patrol an entire country.   LAVs offer the patrolling mobility advantages of HUMMVWs while having better protection against most threats (small arms, mines IEDs, VBIEDs).   The USMC LAV-25s fought in both Gulf Wars and they seem happy with them.   LAVs cannot replace a heavy force in front line combat but they do offer advantages elsewhere.

I'd rather conduct mounted escorts, QRFs and patrols in a Stryker/LAV (not talking about the MGS here) than a HUMMVW.

Cheers,

2B

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

So if Canadians do need to stand and fight.............??

What about patrolling and getting ambushed??

Enemy tactics have already employed two RPGs fired at the same vehicle moments apart.

Should we just stay away from anywhere we might get engaged?

    Mobility, armour and firepower are the hallmarks of armour, but lets face it, ambushes are rarely initiated by people who don't think they can put enough bang down range to do the job.  Even against heavy armour, the initiation of an ambush is usually watching the lead vehicle get killed.  The cannon on the remainder of the patrol should provide suppressing fire, and fire support while the infantry dismounts and flanks the enemy who initiated the ambush.  MBT would be great, but no ones buying them for us.  Tracked IFV can bear more armour, but are hard to keep on the road, and the result would that on longer missions the same patrol in soft skinned vehicles while the armour stayed in laager.  The LAV's have the armour superior to light vehicles, weapons credible enough to act as support, and mobility that can be maintained during extended deployments.  Who cares what armour we could put on a vehicle without the legs to patrol with the intensity that ours require?  The choice is a patrol with armour (LAV) or a patrol reduced to soft skinned vehicles, with armour relegated to reaction forces due to maintenance necessity.  Take a look at the km logged by the LAV fleet in Iraq, verses the Bradley.  The Bradley is the badder boy all right, but it is sure hard to keep on the road, and the US have lavished more support on them then we ever could.