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

[a_majoor]

2Bravo has it right, of course. No one vehicle or system can be all things to all people, and LAVs are no exception. We can attempt to festoon the LAV with all kinds of systems and devices to cover weak points and contingencies (replacing one of the rear bins with a Coleman cooler, fer instance  ), we can do some drastic surgury on the basic LAV to make specialty vehicles like Kirkhill's "LAV technical" (a giant 8X8 pickup truck with a weapons mount bolted to the flatbed. Puts Toyota Land Cruisers to shame); or we can even go to different vehicles for different roles. Long range fire support can come from missiles launched from HMMVWs, for example (with TOWs being fitted in real life, and various prototypes carrying EFOG-M, Hellfire and LOSAT), although you might be careful driving trough unsecured areas in one of those.

Since for purposes of logistical efficiency we have tried to standardize on the LAV family, we are probably best served by carrying out this process to a logical conclusion. All systems which are currently on non LAV III chassis should be phased out and transferred to new build LAV IIIs. I am with Kirkhill for a LAV III "pickup" version, you can mount a mortar, or weapons pedestal, or put on a "camper top" to make a CP, ambulance or whatever. Coyote IIs will be the only exception, the surveillance system goes on a complete LAV III with turret, and we can add a launcher box for a self defence system.

 

[Kirkhill]

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2005/oct/stryker_units.htm

key quotes


"It does fit on a C-130. I've flown in one with it," said Lt. Col. William James, deputy commander of 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, also known as the first Stryker Brigade Combat Team.

"During our year there, not a single soldier died inside a Stryker vehicle. There were a couple of soldiers riding who were hit, but nobody died inside a vehicle. And there were penetrations that were fairly catastrophic," said Lt. Col. Barry Huggins, commander of the 2-3 Infantry Battalion, who served as the first Stryker Brigade's executive officer in Iraq.

The Stryker's armor protects against 14.5 mm rounds. Before deploying to Iraq, the first Stryker brigade acquired slat armor that could be added to the vehicle to protect soldiers from RPGs. The 5,200-pound armor wraps around the sides of the vehicle and deflects RPGs, which then explode away from the vehicle.

"There were physically very few places that we couldn't go within that urban terrain," said Mullen.

The 1/25 has put 5 million miles on its Stryker vehicles

The Stryker operational readiness rate was in the high 90s routinely, which is way above Army standard, said Huggins, of 3/2. "That's in part a function of the vehicle, in part it's a function of the tremendous contractor support it came with. They put in place a very effective system that did a tremendous job of keeping our combat power available to us," he said.

....a night-time operation in Samarra during which eight platoons raided a 10 by 10 km section of the city

"That battlespace that we operated in was 25 times what we were envisioned to do-50 by 50 kilometer blocks is how they designed the brigade. And what we ended up doing was covering a 276 by 226 kilometer box, around 48,000 square kilometers as opposed to 2,500. That is phenomenal," said Huggins.

Comment:  Brigade of 3864 replace 101st Div with 18,000 in the Battle Space.

 

[Kirkhill]

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2005/oct/army_transformation.htm

Stryker Brigade also touted as transformation model.

Discussion about the need for a Brigade Troops Battalion to handle independent companies and platoons.

 

[George Wallace]

Don't forget....what they call a Stryker has no turret.

 

[Kirkhill]

Don't forget....what they call a Stryker has no turret.

Right.  It is an armoured transport.

 

[Infanteer]

The Stryker is the name of the entire class of vehicles, is it not?  The troop carrying model is simply one type of Stryker.

 

[Kirkhill]

Right.

They transport Infantry sections, Engineer Sections, Cavalry Scouts, Mortars, FOO Teams, Medical Teams, NBC Teams, Sigs Teams and Command Teams.

They also happen to carry weapons.

 

[McG]

LAV III and Stryker are names for the same family of vehicle (eg. Stryker MGS = LAV III MGS).

 

[ArmyRick]

I have heard a lot of yap yap and arm chair quaterbacking about the entire stryker family, the stryker BCT concepts and so on. It seems to me that the US Army is having success and that the front line soldiers who use them actually have alot of confidence in them. I have talked to some RCD friends of mine at work and they agree alot with me (old guys too who were fully qualified on the leos)...

Fact One; The Stryker is not the death car that some web sites have made it out to be

Fact Two; M113 are a far poorer choice for the roles and missions of the Strykers

Fact Three; Yes, Bradley and Abrams rock hard and deliver a very lethal blow BUT at 60 KM/H and far fewer dismounts. Plus a taxing supply chain...

Strykers are here and they are working. Nay sayers, take a hike.

 

[George Wallace]

The Stryker is the name of the entire class of vehicles, is it not?   The troop carrying model is simply one type of Stryker.

LAV III and Stryker are names for the same family of vehicle (eg. Stryker MGS = LAV III MGS).

I think I posted all that near the beginning of this thread.....or was it in another   ???

 

[Kirkhill]

I think I posted all that near the beginning of this thread.....or was it in another   ???

Revolution 29

 

[Kat Stevens]

Strykers are here and they are working. Nay sayers, take a hike.

Yes Sgt! Will that be at the double, Sgt? :

 

[ArmyRick]

Stevens, ain't you been listening lately to routine orders, son? Running in combats in forbidden except during tactical training (includes CQC). Now steady up.  BY THE LEFT QUICK MARCH !

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Why "naysayers take a hike"?

There's plenty wrong with the MGS, and there is certainly room for improvement of the LAV III.

 

[ArmyRick]

Yes the Stryker Armored Family is not perfect (The MGS is not the ONLY version). However my point is all this doom and gloom about using strykers (and their are several web sites that bash it). There is supposed to be a mass stash of dead bodies from using strykers according to some of these experts.

Well, US troops (You the ones who do far more dangerous missions than our army) that use the stryker are praising them. They are fast, some what quiet (compared to a bradley I guess) and they work very well.

Yes they required bird cage, but guess what? SO DID THE M113s in IRAQ !!! I have seen pics of the so called gavins (M113) covered in the bird cage.

Tires can't work in battle. Only tracks. I am sick of hearing this junk. Guess what? LAVIII in Erotrea lost a wheel and was able to drive back to camp still. Blow out a track on the M113 and your pooched. Unless you have enough spare track pads and end connectors., even at that it takes time to get the track back up and running.

Their is a video of a Stryker being blown to bits, and in one week it was operational again.

Oh yeah, there is room for improvement WITH any armored vehicle.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Some good reviews on the Stryker family of vehicles:


October 2005
Stryker Units Win Over Skeptics
By Grace Jean
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2005/oct/stryker_units.htm

"The Stryker, as a vehicle, has proven its worth. It has saved lives," said Maj. Nicholas Mullen, rear detachment commander of the 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, which is known as the second Stryker brigade combat team.

"I'm going back for a second year in Iraq, and I'm damn glad I'm going in a Stryker," said [Lt. Col. William James, deputy commander of 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division] of 3/2. The first Stryker brigade is training for deployment next summer (see related story).

The success of the first two Stryker Brigades has fueled more confidence in the capabilities of the vehicle. But as the brigades continue to transform, soldiers in those brigades continue to evaluate strategies for best utilizing the Stryker.

 

[a_majoor]

Bottom line; the LAV III was an inspired choice for the CF, and most of the variants will be useful in our bag of tricks to support manoeuvre warfare with a medium weight expeditionary force.

We still need to sort out some issues with the LAV family. Indirect fire needs to be addressed with both mortars and artillery. A LAV III hull would make a good 81mm mortar carrier, since it can hold a useful amount of ammunition internally as well. 120mm mortars are "nice", but I would question the amount of on board ammunition, and also the "overkill" factor when shooting danger close to the dismounted troops. Various versions of a LAV SP have been touted (I like the LAV-105 with the South African gun and ammunition), but we could also go for a turretless "gun tractor" towing a light 105 or 155 if we really need to have a low cost version.

Direct fire has been taken over by people with their heads farther in the clouds than I usually go. A LAV hull can probably mount a low pressure 105 or a high pressure 90mm max, unless the laws of physics have been repealed. Low profile turrets or pedestal overhead gun mounts don't seem to be favored, so a workable MGS would mount the GIAT 90mm turret or something similar.

As for the missile firing version, TOW is pretty much at the end of the line, and ADATS has technical issues which limit the utility as a DF weapon. A long range missile with some "Fire and Forget" capability like HELLFIRE or BRIMESTONE is one way to go, or EFOG-M can be mounted to provide positive control to impact. Some sort of LOSAT type hypervelocity missile can be a secondary round for "snap shooting" unexpected tatgets at shorter ranges. (I would think the LAV-Missile version would load the LOSATS while on the move, and the fire and forget missiles when on overwatch. A mixed battery is also possible.)

There does not seem to be any LAV-AD in the works, which is a major oversight. The LAV III hull is large enough to mount most of the common AD turrets and a large store of ammunition. Even if most enemies do not have powerful air forces, almost anyone can cobble together a UAV, and we need to be able to put out the eyes of any enemy who can launch UAVs.

If we want to go all the way in expeditionary forces, then we also need a LAV Logistics to carry cargo under protection in unsecured areas (i.e. everywhere). Once again, the large size of the hull makes this a useful and practical option.

 

[Jantor]

Hello everyone.

I wonder if this might be something to consider re-guarding a LAV based AD weapon


http://www.defense-update.com/products/a/aheadsparc.htm


Buz

 

[Kirkhill]

Very interesting Jantor.

I wonder if Oerlikon Contraves are taking some of the same design principles into the ADATS/MMEV project? Specifically data linking with remote radar relying on an onboard E/O suite for tracking.  That might tend to reduce the centre of mass and the power requirements caused by incorporating the radar into the ADATS vehicle.  It also doesn't say anything about crew size.

Second thought occurs with respect to the 750,000,000 price tag for the 33 vehicles - perhaps some of that money is being used to create an integrated comms network using the MMEV as the corner stone and test bed weapons system with a view to plugging in other systems later.  The MMEV system might be able to work with netted, discrete command, surveillance (radar and Coyote) and firing (MMEV) points.  The ADATS system already allows for, as far as I understand for one vehicle to launch missiles from either its own or other assets using a hardwired network when static.  If that capability could be made mobile....and expandable

That might be worth the 750,000,000.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I'd just like some more Coyotes (along with smaller OCSs and upgraded optics). 

2B