Should Canada adopt the LAV III (AKA: Stryker) as its primary armoured vehicle family?
Gunnar
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 374
- Points
- 830
"War is nothing but the continuation of state policy by other means" - Karl von Clausewitz, 1833
Armour costs money, and most Canadians think that the forces are unnecessary, as there will be now be no more wars. Who‘d want to attack Canada? How are we to convince the government to pay for something the electorate doesn‘t care about?
Heard a story, possibly apocryphyal, of a Leo "jumping" an M1 which was hidden behind a sand dune, with barrel pointing to the rear. Instant bullseye! May allso be another kind of bull tho...
But the Canadian forces will only ever be deployed in pre-pacified, peacekeeping areas where everyone will see the maple leaf and automatically love us. Why would they shoot at tires?
But since we won‘t be getting tanks, it‘s kinda pointless to discuss. We probably won‘t even be getting new Hercules.
See where the line broke? I think that is the future of the Canadian Forces. Sad, isn‘t it?
Like any other political vote-buying scheme, the bases that are open are determined by political requirements, not by the requirements of national defence. The largest military bases are located in remote areas to defend us against unemployment. The reserve units are in the major centres in case of an invasion.
From a strictly defensive point of view, it makes sense to have the tools to build your military apparatus in-house. War tends to use up materiel, should it ever come. However, this crap where they buy a 3-rate piece of junk from some Canadian firm, solely because it is Canadian, is stupid. Buy the *plans* for the equipment, built it in the country, and insist on only the best.
Which is why the troops still love Lou MacKenzie, even to this day. But he is no longer a General, except in name.
M
Mogrok
Guest
Regardless of how Canadians think about our military we need to have the goods to do any job that is handed to us. If we totally rely on the rest of the world to provide protection for us how then can we have any say in how things are done in that world.
There is a lot of waste in our military and even with our current budget we could be doing better if there weren‘t political decisions behind all appropriations and base sites.
As a society we have to decide if we either want our military or not, if we do our spending should reflect that and if we don‘t fine then as well. Just get rid of this half assed military we got right now.
What we need to show the government how far our military has fallen is to fall flat on our faces in one of our operations. But no we find away to overcome all the odds and usually surpass expectations. No wonder the government thinks we don‘t need more money.
There is a lot of waste in our military and even with our current budget we could be doing better if there weren‘t political decisions behind all appropriations and base sites.
As a society we have to decide if we either want our military or not, if we do our spending should reflect that and if we don‘t fine then as well. Just get rid of this half assed military we got right now.
What we need to show the government how far our military has fallen is to fall flat on our faces in one of our operations. But no we find away to overcome all the odds and usually surpass expectations. No wonder the government thinks we don‘t need more money.
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 2,354
- Points
- 1,160
While a rapid reaction capability is important, I think it is less relevant to the Canadian LAV debate. We lack sufficient integral airlift capability to move any mechanized force rapidly. Rapid reaction could be done by light infantry (and there are airmobile armoured vehicles we could buy to support such a force).
Our mechanized forces are moved by chartered sealift or chartered airlift (neither a good option for rapid reaction). In the event that forces are deployed by sea, there is very little difference between a tank and a LAV. The problem is less to do with lift and more to do with the political will to deploy Leopards/M109s & the logistics associated with supporting an additional vehicle platform. With a LAV based alternative, we may start to see our deployed forces including this greater capability. If the LAV III based alternative comes at the expense of maintaining MBTs & heavy SP Arty, then we will find our capabilities greatly compromised if we ever fight a mechanized war.
Much of what we need now will require major capitol expenditures. These big one time costs cannot be covered by reducing waste in the CF & DND. They must be budgeted for individually to ensure that the money comes. Some times the government would rather pay more in the long run that spend a lot now (and benefit from greater efficiency).
Sad because it seems to be true.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 210
but isnt it still a 105mm? the Leop 2 has a 120 right?
M
Mogrok
Guest
With modern rounds, especially if we get DU penetrators but even with Tungsten, the difference in calibre is less of an issue. Few tanks can take a hit from an APFSDS/DU round. So engagement speed and accuracy count for more. The new turret systems have vastly improved our marks in those areas. I wonder how the CANAM challenge went this year?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
The last CANAM was won by the Americans 36-33. The Strats sent newly qualified crews and gave the Americans a run for their money. The B Sqn team won the main gun shoot but lost overall to coax night shooting. The Regiment intends to return the trophy to Canada by winning in Oct in Suffield! :tank:
J
jrhume
Guest
But do your politicians understand the difference between a 105mm cannon armed LAV3 and an MBT?
Lets say they elect to purchase a limited number of wheeled, armored vehicles, like the LAV family, and maybe add enough new C-130 aircraft to handle minimal deployment capabilities. The current government seems fixated on "peacekeeping" as opposed to "warfighting". So they re-equip the CF for that role, whether we‘re talking LAVs, C-130s, or other equipment.
Then 5-10 years down the road that same group of pols, or even a new bunch, are forced to commit your forces into a combat scenario halfway around the world. The reasons for such a move could be many, but they would be primarily driven by a political response to a situation somewhere in the world. In other words, the military wouldn‘t really be involved in the decision process -- as usual. The CF would just get marching orders and be expected to carry on.
So now your reinforced brigade, equipped entirely with wheeled vehicles and trained primarily for peacekeeping duties is deployed into combat. Who do you think will get the blame when all those young Canadians get shredded by an enemy fielding tracked, armored vehicles? It won‘t be the pols, although they may lose control of the government in the long run.
Look at the British forces deployed to France in 1940. Their function was to die and buy time for the British Army to reinvent itself in a form suitable for armored combat. Same thing with ABDA naval forces in the opening days of the Pacific War in 1941-42. Wrong weapons, wrong tactics. The sailors died buying time.
South Africa uses wheeled, armored vehicles to a large extent and uses them well. However, their likely engagement scenarios are pretty much limited to Africa and they are unlikely to ever face a real armored force -- at least for the forseeable future.
Canada‘s pols seem to feel that your country will never face direct assault by a foreign power. I think that‘s true, but that means that Canadian troops must be prepared for everything up to and including armored combat with tracked vehicles because the possibility of their encountering such a scenario is far higher than the pols assume. At least in my opinion. Warfare is the least controllable activity people engage in. Canada‘s forces are likely to be involved in combat against tank-equipped forces somewhere, sometime.
Besides, hasn‘t anyone ever considered the possibility of a large scale suicide assault conducted with some sort of armor from a Ro-Ro type freighter. Tom Clancy described the taking of Iceland in "Red Storm Rising" using just such a ship. What could a battalion-sized terrorist group do with something as common as T-72 tanks backed up with simple APCs in one of Canada‘s port cities?
Western civilization is engaged in a long-term conflict with people who loathe all of us, not just Americans. Canada is a target and could be viewed as an easy target by certain groups with the wherewithal to carry out such a raid.
People tend to think of invasions as being conducted in order to take and hold territory. But what if the enemy just wants to kill Westerners and has no intention of holding ground or even of surviving? What ships would stop them? How long would it take the CF to engage and destroy the terrorists? Especially if your wheeled armor is deployed on peacekeeping duties in God knows where?
I got off the subject. LOL.
<hops off soapbox>
Jim
Lets say they elect to purchase a limited number of wheeled, armored vehicles, like the LAV family, and maybe add enough new C-130 aircraft to handle minimal deployment capabilities. The current government seems fixated on "peacekeeping" as opposed to "warfighting". So they re-equip the CF for that role, whether we‘re talking LAVs, C-130s, or other equipment.
Then 5-10 years down the road that same group of pols, or even a new bunch, are forced to commit your forces into a combat scenario halfway around the world. The reasons for such a move could be many, but they would be primarily driven by a political response to a situation somewhere in the world. In other words, the military wouldn‘t really be involved in the decision process -- as usual. The CF would just get marching orders and be expected to carry on.
So now your reinforced brigade, equipped entirely with wheeled vehicles and trained primarily for peacekeeping duties is deployed into combat. Who do you think will get the blame when all those young Canadians get shredded by an enemy fielding tracked, armored vehicles? It won‘t be the pols, although they may lose control of the government in the long run.
Look at the British forces deployed to France in 1940. Their function was to die and buy time for the British Army to reinvent itself in a form suitable for armored combat. Same thing with ABDA naval forces in the opening days of the Pacific War in 1941-42. Wrong weapons, wrong tactics. The sailors died buying time.
South Africa uses wheeled, armored vehicles to a large extent and uses them well. However, their likely engagement scenarios are pretty much limited to Africa and they are unlikely to ever face a real armored force -- at least for the forseeable future.
Canada‘s pols seem to feel that your country will never face direct assault by a foreign power. I think that‘s true, but that means that Canadian troops must be prepared for everything up to and including armored combat with tracked vehicles because the possibility of their encountering such a scenario is far higher than the pols assume. At least in my opinion. Warfare is the least controllable activity people engage in. Canada‘s forces are likely to be involved in combat against tank-equipped forces somewhere, sometime.
Besides, hasn‘t anyone ever considered the possibility of a large scale suicide assault conducted with some sort of armor from a Ro-Ro type freighter. Tom Clancy described the taking of Iceland in "Red Storm Rising" using just such a ship. What could a battalion-sized terrorist group do with something as common as T-72 tanks backed up with simple APCs in one of Canada‘s port cities?
Western civilization is engaged in a long-term conflict with people who loathe all of us, not just Americans. Canada is a target and could be viewed as an easy target by certain groups with the wherewithal to carry out such a raid.
People tend to think of invasions as being conducted in order to take and hold territory. But what if the enemy just wants to kill Westerners and has no intention of holding ground or even of surviving? What ships would stop them? How long would it take the CF to engage and destroy the terrorists? Especially if your wheeled armor is deployed on peacekeeping duties in God knows where?
I got off the subject. LOL.
<hops off soapbox>
Jim
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
There is definately Pros and Cons for everything. What you have to understand is that they are not replacing the Leo. The Leo‘s are remaining in the West with the Strathcona‘s. Some in Edmonton and the rest in Wainwright as part of the training establishment. The LAV MGS is going to be used as a counter recce vehicle, stripping the enemy recce vehicles in conjunction with hand held anti-armour weapons. It should not be up against large numbers of MBT‘s in combat only those that are part of the enemy recce elements, while tactics,etc are not developed yet that is the intent. We know how vulnerable the vehicle is but that is what the government is giving us, so we have to get on with the job. Hopefully with flanking tactics and fire & movement we can deny the enemy information. We will definately NOT be using them for direct assault on enemy defensive positions, etc as the tanks were used for. 
:tank:
:tank:
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
I haven‘t read through it all but thought I‘d post anyway.
http://www.cochraneinstitute.com/Reports/strykerreality22.pdf
http://www.cochraneinstitute.com/Reports/preventdeaths43a.pdf
http://www.combatreform.com/lavdanger.htm
Fact or fiction? Not to sure, but I got it from here: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=11663
See Yard Ape‘s answers.
http://www.cochraneinstitute.com/Reports/strykerreality22.pdf
http://www.cochraneinstitute.com/Reports/preventdeaths43a.pdf
http://www.combatreform.com/lavdanger.htm
Fact or fiction? Not to sure, but I got it from here: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=11663
See Yard Ape‘s answers.
- Reaction score
- 7,349
- Points
- 1,160
First Stryker Brigade Proving its Worth in Iraq
(Source: US Army; issued April 6, 2004)
WASHINGTON --- A year after conducting its Initial Operational Capabilities testing, the Army's first Stryker Brigade Combat Team is fairing well in Iraq, according to senior Army procurement officials.
Members of the Pentagon press corps got an update April 5 on successes of the Army's first fielded SBCT -- 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, based in Fort Lewis, Wash. -- and the Army's fielding plan for the remaining planned Stryker brigades.
â Å“The 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division is performing extremely effectively in combat in Iraq,â ? said Col. Nick Justice, acting assistant deputy for Acquisition and Systems Management for the assistant secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology. â Å“The SBCT has effectively used speed and situational understanding to kill and capture dozens of enemy fighters.â ?
That speed and quietness of the wheeled Strykers, compared to armored track vehicles, has earned the 3-2nd a nickname among many Iraqis, Justice said. Iraqi citizens around Samarra gave the brigade Soldiers the nickname â Å“Ghost Ridersâ ? as the Stryker vehicles arrive and deploy their infantrymen with little noise or warning.
Citing that no Soldiers have been killed due to rocket-propelled grenade or improvised explosive devise attacks while riding in a Stryker vehicle since the 3-2nd arrived in Iraq last fall, Justice said that Army leaders are very pleased with its survivability in combat. The most serious injury due to an RPG attack against a Stryker vehicle to date has been a broken ankle.
The brigade has suffered casualties in Iraq -- chief among them, three Soldiers were killed in a Stryker rollover when a roadway embankment gave way in December.
Strykers in Iraq are augmented with add-on slat armor that is proving effective against RPG attacks.
Despite the effectiveness of the slat armor against the current threat in Iraq, the Army is still pursuing the development of reactive armor.
â Å“Slat armor is successful, but we don't want to be locked into it as there are other threats out there where reactive armor is needed,â ? Justice said.
The Army plans on building enough Stryker add-on reactive armor kits to equip several brigades. Those brigade sets will be drawn from a pre-positioned site and used when a mission requires it, according to Army officials. The first brigade set of reactive armor is scheduled to be fielded in March 2005, with another set ready the following year.
Stryker operations in Iraq have given Army procurement officials some lessons learned that will be implemented in the near future. Among those lessons, there is a need for greater sensor range and greater reach back communications capability. To address the sensor issue, the Army plans to make the sensor mast on the Stryker Reconnaissance Vehicle taller; and for the communications issue, replace the 44 Near-Term Digital Radios in the brigade with 53 satellite radio sets capable of operating in a joint environment over greater distances.
On the logistics side, the 3-2nd is proving that having a common chassis for its combat vehicles means a smaller logistics tail. The brigade is carrying about 160 lines of spare parts, compared to an armored brigade that carries about 300 lines of parts, Justice said. Having a common family of vehicles within the brigade also means a common set of skill sets among brigade Soldiers to keep the vehicle maintained, he said.
Stating that a year of combat operations equates to about seven years of normal operational use of a combat vehicle, Justice said the operational readiness rate of the Stryker is about where he expected it to be -- above 90 percent.
There are two variants and eight other configurations of the basic Stryker Infantry Carrier. The Mobile Gun System and the Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Reconnaisance and Survey Vehicles have yet to be field due to several human engineering issues that are being worked, according to officials. Low rate production of the MGS is expected to start late this summer, Justice said.
The Army's second SBCT -- 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division â “ is currently undergoing it Initial Operational Capabilities evaluation. It is expected to certified by the Department of Defense as operationally ready sometime this summer.
The next brigade to transform to a SBCT will be 172nd Infantry Brigade (Separate), Fort Richardson, Alaska. The 172nd will start getting its Stryker vehicles in May, Justice said.
A February Defense Acquisition Board decision has funded the fourth Stryker brigade -- 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment (Light), Fort Polk, La.
DoD has recently directed the Army to include the remaining brigades for Stryker conversion -- 2nd Brigade, 25th Infantry Division (Light), Schofield Barracks, Hawaii; and the 56th Brigade of the 28th Infantry Division (Mechanized), Pennsylvania Army National Guard -- in its budget planning process.
-ends-
http://195.154.204.115/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.1538.1058812216&modele=jdc_34
(Source: US Army; issued April 6, 2004)
WASHINGTON --- A year after conducting its Initial Operational Capabilities testing, the Army's first Stryker Brigade Combat Team is fairing well in Iraq, according to senior Army procurement officials.
Members of the Pentagon press corps got an update April 5 on successes of the Army's first fielded SBCT -- 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, based in Fort Lewis, Wash. -- and the Army's fielding plan for the remaining planned Stryker brigades.
â Å“The 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division is performing extremely effectively in combat in Iraq,â ? said Col. Nick Justice, acting assistant deputy for Acquisition and Systems Management for the assistant secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology. â Å“The SBCT has effectively used speed and situational understanding to kill and capture dozens of enemy fighters.â ?
That speed and quietness of the wheeled Strykers, compared to armored track vehicles, has earned the 3-2nd a nickname among many Iraqis, Justice said. Iraqi citizens around Samarra gave the brigade Soldiers the nickname â Å“Ghost Ridersâ ? as the Stryker vehicles arrive and deploy their infantrymen with little noise or warning.
Citing that no Soldiers have been killed due to rocket-propelled grenade or improvised explosive devise attacks while riding in a Stryker vehicle since the 3-2nd arrived in Iraq last fall, Justice said that Army leaders are very pleased with its survivability in combat. The most serious injury due to an RPG attack against a Stryker vehicle to date has been a broken ankle.
The brigade has suffered casualties in Iraq -- chief among them, three Soldiers were killed in a Stryker rollover when a roadway embankment gave way in December.
Strykers in Iraq are augmented with add-on slat armor that is proving effective against RPG attacks.
Despite the effectiveness of the slat armor against the current threat in Iraq, the Army is still pursuing the development of reactive armor.
â Å“Slat armor is successful, but we don't want to be locked into it as there are other threats out there where reactive armor is needed,â ? Justice said.
The Army plans on building enough Stryker add-on reactive armor kits to equip several brigades. Those brigade sets will be drawn from a pre-positioned site and used when a mission requires it, according to Army officials. The first brigade set of reactive armor is scheduled to be fielded in March 2005, with another set ready the following year.
Stryker operations in Iraq have given Army procurement officials some lessons learned that will be implemented in the near future. Among those lessons, there is a need for greater sensor range and greater reach back communications capability. To address the sensor issue, the Army plans to make the sensor mast on the Stryker Reconnaissance Vehicle taller; and for the communications issue, replace the 44 Near-Term Digital Radios in the brigade with 53 satellite radio sets capable of operating in a joint environment over greater distances.
On the logistics side, the 3-2nd is proving that having a common chassis for its combat vehicles means a smaller logistics tail. The brigade is carrying about 160 lines of spare parts, compared to an armored brigade that carries about 300 lines of parts, Justice said. Having a common family of vehicles within the brigade also means a common set of skill sets among brigade Soldiers to keep the vehicle maintained, he said.
Stating that a year of combat operations equates to about seven years of normal operational use of a combat vehicle, Justice said the operational readiness rate of the Stryker is about where he expected it to be -- above 90 percent.
There are two variants and eight other configurations of the basic Stryker Infantry Carrier. The Mobile Gun System and the Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Reconnaisance and Survey Vehicles have yet to be field due to several human engineering issues that are being worked, according to officials. Low rate production of the MGS is expected to start late this summer, Justice said.
The Army's second SBCT -- 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division â “ is currently undergoing it Initial Operational Capabilities evaluation. It is expected to certified by the Department of Defense as operationally ready sometime this summer.
The next brigade to transform to a SBCT will be 172nd Infantry Brigade (Separate), Fort Richardson, Alaska. The 172nd will start getting its Stryker vehicles in May, Justice said.
A February Defense Acquisition Board decision has funded the fourth Stryker brigade -- 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment (Light), Fort Polk, La.
DoD has recently directed the Army to include the remaining brigades for Stryker conversion -- 2nd Brigade, 25th Infantry Division (Light), Schofield Barracks, Hawaii; and the 56th Brigade of the 28th Infantry Division (Mechanized), Pennsylvania Army National Guard -- in its budget planning process.
-ends-
http://195.154.204.115/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.1538.1058812216&modele=jdc_34
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Does it not seem odd that an Infantry carrier is going to be outfitted with reactive armour?
Isn‘t RA inherently dangerous to any personnel in the nearby area? For tanks this isn‘t as much of an issue (generally), but for a troop carrier that halts and deploys infantry, isn‘t this dangerous?
What if the vehicle takes a hit shortly after deploying troops, or if the troops are pinned down close to the vehicle after employment, while the IFV takes multiple hits?
Can anyone shed some light on this? Maybe RA technology has advanced significantly to allow this on IFV and APC‘s....I‘m just a civilian after all.
Isn‘t RA inherently dangerous to any personnel in the nearby area? For tanks this isn‘t as much of an issue (generally), but for a troop carrier that halts and deploys infantry, isn‘t this dangerous?
What if the vehicle takes a hit shortly after deploying troops, or if the troops are pinned down close to the vehicle after employment, while the IFV takes multiple hits?
Can anyone shed some light on this? Maybe RA technology has advanced significantly to allow this on IFV and APC‘s....I‘m just a civilian after all.
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
BTT
Some interesting questions to be discussed on this vehicle and some recent developments in Iraq with its‘ employment and performance there.
GW
Some interesting questions to be discussed on this vehicle and some recent developments in Iraq with its‘ employment and performance there.
GW
P
PriceCHofO
Guest
The first article (I haven‘t read the other two) seems to be satisfying an already predetermined agenda, rather than giving a fair analysis of the vehicle. The writing seemed rather biased to me.
Good discussion.
Bottom line, we need direction, ie: a white paper on defence. Once we know what our war time tasks are, we (read none of us ) can then structure our Force to meet those objectives.
One thing to consider is that we, as citizens, must ensure that if we send our kids "in harm's way" that they are trained, equipped, and led to not only win, but win with the least number of caualty's possible.
Anyone remember "Blackhawk down"?...think a tank or two would have made a dfference.....?
Cheers-Garry
Bottom line, we need direction, ie: a white paper on defence. Once we know what our war time tasks are, we (read none of us
) can then structure our Force to meet those objectives.One thing to consider is that we, as citizens, must ensure that if we send our kids "in harm's way" that they are trained, equipped, and led to not only win, but win with the least number of caualty's possible.
Anyone remember "Blackhawk down"?...think a tank or two would have made a dfference.....?
Cheers-Garry
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,226
- Points
- 1,160
Actually I do think that the tanks that were sitting onboard the ships off-shore would have made a differance, in fact this whole episode may not have happened if the UN had a heavy armoured force on the ground the ROE's to back it up. Not to mention a command structure that was willing to make an example out of one of the warlords.
Y
Yard Ape
Guest
I agree with Yard Ape ;D
8) Yard Ape
8) Yard Ape
Similar threads
