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

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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brock
  • Start date Start date
Ha ha ha....Sparky is having a heart attack!!!

That is too freakin' funny!

Regards
 
Well I am glad I was recently personally honoured by Mikey with the title "FU*KTARD"  ;D

He most have been in a good mood as he only capitlized a few words.


from dyanmicpara:
You go ahead and keep on making rationalizations for wheels, keep on getting blown up. Maybe someday you'll wake up to the laws of physics on planet earth, maybe not. Its highly likely you'll stick to your prejudices regardless of the facts, that's what weak ego arrogant types which populate volunteer, western militaries do.

In the meantime, we'll call our light M113 tracks Gavins, and keep on deleting your relativistic, defeatist comments.


We are SOLDIERS and we call M113 Gavins.

That's more than one, moron.

So don't even dare say not one Soldier you fu*ktard.

Your comments have been deleted and you are blocked.

BY A SOLDIER.

Did I call you a fu*ktard?

Yes I did.
Click to expand...
 
Here is a version of the LAV shown at Eurosatory 2008. This is the Pirahna EVO with the Lance turret package, the LAV-H from GDLS will look similar so far as the hull is concerned; I have no knowledge of any upgraded or new turrets being considered (indeed, replacing the turret with an RWS may actually be the wave of the future; but that is just speculation on my part):

 
Thucydides said:
... the LAV-H from GDLS will look similar so far as the hull is concerned ...
Click to expand...
As opposed to speculating on appearance, we've already had a picture of a LAV-H posted in the thread: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28681/post-659097.html#msg659097
 
[quote author=NFLD Sapper]
What the heck is an RP31?  Think you mean RG-31 and if they do put a RWS system on the LAV 3.5/H I hope they put something more powerful that a C-6 :-\

Seen a few LAV III ENGR varients (I guess that's what they are called) in Gagetown last summer, to me it just seems wrong to have a dozer blade on a LAV.
[/quote]

Actually, I didn't mind that mine had a C-6 mounted instead of a .50 in Afghanistan. Reason being was that a C-6 will give you a higher rate of fire, plus you can fit a lot more rounds in the ammo can of the RWS. Granted the .50 has more stopping power, but would come in handy for uparmoured Ins vehicles .... if there were any.

Yeah those Eng Lavs are different looking eh, they come with an RWS system in them as well.
 
MCG said:
As opposed to speculating on appearance, we've already had a picture of a LAV-H posted in the thread: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28681/post-659097.html#msg659097
Click to expand...

Wouldn't a RWS with a similar size gun just push more equipment stuff down into the hull using up more volume?

 
Colin P said:
Wouldn't a RWS with a similar size gun just push more equipment stuff down into the hull using up more volume?
Click to expand...
Actually, you can get more space inside the hull by doing this.  There are remote weapon stations with 30 mm cannon, 7.62 mm coax, 2 x SPIKE (or similar sized AT missile), and MBGDs.  All of this sits on-top of the hull and the requirement for a turret basket no longer exists.
 
The Samson (Israel) 30mm RWS is just such a peice of equipment. It uses up nothing on the interior of the vehicle. I think it would be the ideal system except I beleive it should have some type of shielding to protect the mechanism of the chain gun and the crew when they re-load.

Its too easy for timmy taliban to RPG the hell of the RWS. Its been done before.
 
Personally i think Canada still needs tanks, I think it would help out our cause if the LAV III and the Leopard went out on Patrols together, The LAV's could flank and be fast movers while helping the Infantry clear the Villages, and the tanks would stop any escaping talib's or even have to destroy those grape drying huts that the talibs use as good cover
 
Doucet3 said:
Personally i think Canada still needs tanks, I think it would help out our cause if the LAV III and the Leopard went out on Patrols together, The LAV's could flank and be fast movers while helping the Infantry clear the Villages, and the tanks would stop any escaping talib's or even have to destroy those grape drying huts that the talibs use as good cover
Click to expand...

This is based on all your experiance with combined arms and tours in Afghanistan to know what the land is like, etc? Stick in your lane, which is observing/reading and that is all.


Also, your signiture line is BS
 
Doucet3 said:
Personally i think Canada still needs tanks, I think it would help out our cause if the LAV III and the Leopard went out on Patrols together, The LAV's could flank and be fast movers while helping the Infantry clear the Villages, and the tanks would stop any escaping talib's or even have to destroy those grape drying huts that the talibs use as good cover
Click to expand...

Please don't tell us that your experience is MW2 or Bad Company 2.

As for Canada still needing tanks, glad you agree with the leadership of the CF and Government...seeing as we just purchased some Leo2s and have been using Leo2A6M in Afghanistan for quite some time now.

Not even going to touch the LAV BS....so many things wrong with that. If it were a house Mike Holmes would walk away.

A small suggestion....keep your settings on receive for a while.

Regards
 
Just a quick comment. As I see it is is a judgement between commonality  and speciality of equipment. An age old problem of any military.  i would have to favour the adoption of a family of vehicle approach. With the vehicle being as diverse a platform as is possible ,while still providing a re sonable level of all round performance . IE the LAV's.  This offers the forces the desired commonality for logistics and the various units that receive the vehicles the most wide range of combat capabilities and force protection. How ever i do not believe that any single weapon system can be relied upon to provide "all things for all situations" Some consideration must be given to the purchase of limited numbers of vehicles from outside the primary family of vehicles. IE The Leo's, The CC V's the MP V's etc.....
The exact numbers of these vehicles purchased would be limited by budget constraints and tactical considerations. But it would be a prudent decision to have a least a niche operational capability , which could be expanded when required. In my opinion anyway...........
 
.... from the CF/DND Info-machine:
The recent experiences of the Canadian Forces and our allies in Afghanistan and other operational theatres continue to demonstrate the ongoing requirement for a highly protected, yet highly mobile Light-Armoured Vehicle.  The use of mines, improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and anti-armour weapons has become more prevalent, posing a greater risk to personnel.

The LAV III Upgrade project will capitalize on existing and evolving technology to improve the protection, mobility and lethality of the LAV III fleet.  The project will modernize a portion of the existing LAV III fleet to ensure it remains a highly protected, operationally mobile and tactically agile combat vehicle that will remain the backbone of domestic and expeditionary task forces, extending the life span of the LAV III to 2035.
The following upgrades will be performed on the LAV III:
  • Upgrade of mobility systems such as powertrain, suspension, running gear and brakes;
  • Upgrade of the weapon system; and
  • Installation of additional armour, heightening its protection against increased threats.
The LAV III Upgrade project will upgrade 550 vehicles with an option for an additional 80.  Initial operational capability is scheduled for 2013.

In October 2011, the Government of Canada announced a $1.064 billion contract, awarded to General Dynamics Land Systems – Canada (GDLS–C) of London, Ontario, for the implementation phase of the LAV III UP project. This phase consists of upgrades to the mobility systems, the weapon system, and installing additional armour and improved seating, strengthening its protection against increased threats.
Click to expand...
 
Lookit all the news releases this week!
 
Why do all these releases say that the Canadian Army is getting a "new and improved fleet of Light Armoured Vehicles III"?
It is the same old fleet of LAV III and only some of the vehicles will be improved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Blackadder1916
    • Like
    • Insightful
What will medicine on the battlefield look like?
Replies
9
Views
930
KevinB
KevinB
George Wallace
SEP 2024 - Kiel Institute Report - "Fit for war in decades: Europe's and Germany's slow rearmament vis-a-vis Russia"
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
brihard
B
Kirkhill
Active Protection Systems
Replies
6
Views
6K
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
    • Like
Multi Domain Task Force - Canada
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
daftandbarmy
daftandbarmy
Kirkhill
Hybrid Electric Vehicles
19 20 21
Replies
411
Views
169K
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
Back
Top