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

[Yard Ape]

Have you seen the presentation for the MMEV?   The Army leadership has been pretty firm about our presenting the message that â Å“the MGS will not replace the Leopard.   The MGS is one of a spectrum of vehicles that will displace the Leopard while sustaining our combat capability.â ?   The problem is, the â Å“newâ ? vehicles will also â Å“displaceâ ? the M113 TUA and the ADATS.   What are the new vehicles?   They are LAV III TUA, MGS, and MMEV.  

What do they bring?   The MGS has the shortest range, but fires on the move and has a higher rate of fire.   The TUA has slightly better range & accuracy, but reduced rate of fire.   The MMEV may be to only step forward in capability . . . maybe.   It will have the greatest range in the Anti-Armour role.   However, the intent is to have new missiles developed to give it a range of mission specific capabilities not currently available (much like the CF-18 can have bomb loads configured to a mission).   I have heard talk of single purpose munitions (AT or AA specific), scatterable mine munitions, demolition/anti-bunker missiles, and the traditional dual purpose missile.   However, we will have few MMEV than we do ADATS (and this means not enough to do all the wonderful stuff promised).  

Why is indirect fire not part of the â Å“displace the Leopardâ ? plan?   A LAV III with AMOS or AMS would be a valuable asset to an Infantry Company Group without tanks.   The breach loaded 120 mm mortars could fire conventional or dual-purpose munitions in indirect & even direct roles.   The dual-purpose munitions would give the ability to threaten armour hidden on a reverse slope.   Smart munitions could identify and target tanks.   If we are not going to have tanks, then at the very least, this is another capability we need to assist in the â Å“displacing.â ?

. . . then again, think what we could do with all the above and tanks.

8) Yard Ape


proud member of:
Apes for Tanks   :tank:

 

[Infanteer]

Wow, I think this has to be the most persistent thread at army.ca.  And I don't think it has resolved a single thing yet....

 

[bossi]

Wow, I think this has to be the most persistent thread at army.ca.  And I don't think it has resolved a single thing yet....

Sometimes it's okay to flex our "cerebral muscles", just for practice ... 

A man who takes a lot of exercise rarely exercises his mind adequately.
B.H. Liddell Hart:  Thoughts on War, xi, 1944

Call me a heretic, but ... a mixed fleet always has advantages as well as disadvantages.
For example:  If every armoured vehicle we own has a turret on it ... the logistical tail/echelon might become prohibitive.

"At the operational level much more than the tactical, logistics may determine what is possible and what is not; for a campaign plan that can not be logistically supported is not a plan at all, but simply an expression of fanciful wishes."
- John F. Meehan III, The Operational Art 

And, the tank/armoured car debate always reminds me of the fire/garden hose debate: 
You can water the lawn with a fire hose if you have to, but ...

Go hard or go home.
As an infanteer, I'd like to believe my armoured brethren can go anywhere, kill anything (bigger than me).
We're witnessing too many examples of "dumbing down" requirements and specifications (e.g. EH101).
I'd hate to read about some Canadian soldiers getting killed because they should have had tanks instead of armoured cars (and, yes - I'm deliberately using antiquated terminology, in order to underscore the suggestion the difference between tracked dreadnaughts and wheeled pyrotechnic incinerators ... chuckle).

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Well, it took a while, but I have finally read all of the posts on this thread.

Good arguments from both sides, and several have hit the proverbial nail on the head.  The current direction for the Armed Forces is fairly straight forward, in it, the Canadian Army has to be able to field a Brigade capable of fighting in a mid to high intensity conflict.  Tha actual wording includes "able to fight alongside the best, against the best", and "The retention of multi-purpose, combat-capable forces represents the only prudent choice for Canada. " 

Does the sole use of the LAV III and its variants allow us this capability?  Not a hope.

For those that say we cannot afford tanks, I say, look at Australia.  A similar sized armed forces, that get less of a budget, but they are much more combat capable than we are.  Do you suppose it could be that they do not spend over one third of the bidget in NDHQ?  Or that maybe that 26% of the strength of our Armed Forces are commissioned officers?  Or that they do not have 600 full Colonels/Naval Captains?  Or that Full Colonels and above receive a 15% bonus on their pay every year?

Could it be that Canada does not need money so much as it needs a complete overhaul of our hierarchy?  Could it be that Canada can afford to have a medium brigade, plus two or three light brigades equipped with LAV III & varaints, if we cut down our extravagant command element in Ottawa, and put the money where it is required?

Maybe once the defense review is done, it will be time for another White Paper, and maybe our focus can be restored.

Maybe, but until somebody has the courage to take on the bureaucracy, any more money assigned to the Forces will be swallowed up by the so-called leaders that inhabit NDHQ.

At least, in my not very humble opinion!

 

[Garry]

Lance!!!!

Welcome to the board, and great to hear from you...long time no see!

Excellent post!

Cheers-Garry

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Why, thanks, Garry!

I'll be posting a few more thoughts once in a while, but there sure is a lot of stuff to read on this site!

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Going by this article from Reuters, it would appear that big business hasn't written off heavy armoured vehicles just yet!

By F. Brinley Bruton
LONDON (Reuters) - With its last-minute swoop on tank-maker Alvis, Europe's biggest military contractor BAE Systems seeks to meet armies' renewed demand for traditional battlefield equipment.
BAE Systems on late Thursday said it would buy the maker of the Vickers Challenger tank and other armoured vehicles for 355 million pounds ($651 million), or 320 pence per share. Alvis withdrew its recommendation for a 280p bid by U.S. military contractor General Dynamics.
BAE's move tracks the increasing dependence of armed forces on armoured vehicles in the wake of the war in Iraq, experts said on Friday.
"What Iraq showed was that there was a renaissance in the need for heavy armour. There you saw major armour and tank engagements the like of which you hadn't seen for decades," said Lee Willett, head of military capabilities at the Royal United Services Institute, a London-based think tank.
Not only does Alvis manufacture the sort of 70-tontanks called for by battles in Iraq, it is also a major player in the light and medium-sized military vehicle sector, which became more important during the recent spike in international instability that came after the end of the Cold War.
"The Iraq war last year and the ongoing occupation of the country by U.S. and British troops, among others, show the need to both deploy and protect soldiers in close combat situations," Willett said.
ACHILLES HEEL
With Iraq and other conflicts, governments are sinking more money into so-called land systems, such as the tanks and armoured infantry fighting vehicles that Alvis makes. BAE, which traditionally emphasized air and naval equipment, saw Alvis as key to covering that sector, said analysts.
"Land systems have always been BAE's weakest point. That has been an acceptable position to have when air, and to a certain extent naval, areas have been receiving a disproportionate amount of the budget," said one London-based aerospace analyst who asked not to be named.
"Land systems are beginning to start taking a bigger share of the budgetary cake," he added.
Willett said Vickers Challenger tanks performed better than their U.S. counterparts in the Iraq conflict. While reports show that the U.S. forces have lost about 20 of their tanks, the British have lost only one, and this one through friendly fire
By buying Alvis, Britain's only armoured vehicle manufacturer, BAE makes sure that aggressive and acquisitive General Dynamics does not corner the European market, said Clive Forestier-Walker of Numis Securities.
"Leaving aside the industrial logic, it is just to make sure that General Dynamics is not a prime contractor in the UK," he said.
BAE announced the deal at a time that European industry executives and politicians have expressed fears of U.S. domination, fueled by rising U.S. defense spending, which at over $200 billion a year dwarfs what Europe spends collectively.
The Royal United Services Institute's Willett said that BAE was making sure it benefits from the growing realization that wars in the future will not be won by generals staring at computer screens or by planes flying high above the battlefield.
He quoted military historian and author T. R. Fehrenbach: "You may fly over a land forever; you may bomb it, atomize it, pulverize it and wipe it clean of life, but if you desire to defend it, protect it and keep it for civilization, you must do this on the ground the way the Roman legions did, by putting your young men into the mud."
BAE's shares were down 0.59 percent at 211-3/4p. Alvis shares jumped 14.29 percent to 316 pence.
(Additional reporting by Louise Heavens and Steve Slater)

:tank:

 

[Yard Ape]

Call me a heretic, but ... a mixed fleet always has advantages as well as disadvantages.
For example:   If every armoured vehicle we own has a turret on it ... the logistical tail/echelon might become prohibitive

Nice summary of a complex position.  I think we need two fleets of general purpose armoured vehicles: one wheeled & one tracked.  Inside each fleet, the vehicles should be homogeneous (ie: all wheel are LAV III based, and all track are TLAV based).  As for the comment on turrets, we have put the turret on far more vehicles that we should have.  A LAV III that was bought to fill the role of a CP does not need a turret (but our's have them!).  We need to look at the turretless LAV III with protected weapon station (PWS) in the Canadian Army.

Note:  The Stryker is basiclly just a turretless LAV III with protected weapon station (PWS).

 

[30 for 30]

I agree. At the very least I'd like to see one light-medium tracked battlegroup in the order of battle, using  M113A3s/MTVLs, MTVEs etc. (all of which we have recently upgraded...almost 300 I believe), so we would at least have one formation that could be drawn upon if we needed to deploy somewhere where cross-country maneuver in challenging terrain was an issue.

Such a battlegroup would also have the advantage of being easily up-armourable to achieve RPG protection. From what I've read RPG protection is a problem with wheeled LAVs, and our LAVs are generally at maximum weight levels already (?). Hopefully technological developments will allow for eventual comprehensive RPG protection. On the downside the tracked formation would not have the punch of a LAV battlegroup, but tracked TUAs that we already have could assist in that department.

Mixing both tracks and wheels within a battlegroup (ie. M113s supporting LAVs) is something we should try to avoid as much as possible, as LAVs need to use their speed advantage at every opportunity for maximum success. After reading through this entire thread I think the best plan for the Army is to be overwhelmingly LAV wheeled, but to also keep tracks, and keep tracked units together in their own formation. I personally would keep all vehicles under 30 tons to ensure easier deployability and keep costs lower, though I know some will disagree with me on that point. Perhaps the purchase of the 66 DFS vehicles could be broken down into 2/3 MGS and 1/3 M8 AGS so the tracked battlegroup would have some medium (25 tons with RPG armour), tracked, protected, DFS. Anyway, I should probably stop there 

 

[bossi]

(chuckle - oh, what the heck - why stop there ... ?  I'm going to throw another jerry can on ...) :evil:
I've got one enduring memory of an exercise I spent with the RCDs
(remember, I'm an infanteer ... I was getting some OJT/famil prior to my Mech Cbt Tm Comd crse ... but, I digress ...)

One of the more educational experiences was the privilege of riding around for the better part of a day in the SSM's APC, most of which was spent un-bogging Cougar's (okay - they were Cougars, not LAV III's, but ...)
I was impressed at how the APC never got stuck, and how the Cougars got bogged down so often
(and, it wasn't even the monsoon season ...)

And, I'm glad to see others agreed with my turret comment - thanks, Yard Ape - glad we're on the same team! :tank:

 

[Yard Ape]

Wow, I think this has to be the most persistent thread at army.ca.   And I don't think it has resolved a single thing yet...

Is it any different than the persistent topic that is the basis of a dozen threads?


. . . oh wait, it is that too.

 

[bossi]

Hmmm ... it's a shame this guy killed himself, but since we're discussing the merits of tracks vs. wheels ...

Tank Man in Granby, Colorado

(url=http://www.nbc10.com/news/3385580/detail.html] Another URL with video clip [/url]

 

[karpovage]

Isn't a Stryker similar to the CA's Bison? What's the difference?

 

[George Wallace]

Isn't a Stryker similar to the CA's Bison? What's the difference?

No.  It is a whole different 'animal'.  The Bison is the 2nd generation of LAV.  The Stryker is a much larger vehicle and the 3rd generation.  The Stryker family comes in different variants.  The US has bought an APC variant that from a great distance may look like a Bison, but when put side by side, it would be a lot larger.

Canada's LAV III's have the same turret, more or less (more), as the Coyotes.  They have the 25 mm Bushmaster M245 Chaingun and a few upgrades.

GW

 

[Yard Ape]

Here is the line-up that will replace the last tracked vehicles in the Infantry & Armoured.  Notice that in all cases we will also see a reduction in numbers:

 

[SoCalSooner]

Is the Canadian Army getting this and is it any good?  Cheers, from sunny Southern California.

 

[MG34]

Depends on what vehicle you are talking about,the Stryker APC variant is much less capable than our 25mm cannon armed LAV 3 although they share a common chasis.If you mean the MGS then maybe we will be getting them maybe not..The lieberals that the sheep have voted in again for some unknown reason have a pretty good track record for lying.

 

[Yard Ape]

Is the Canadian Army getting this and is it any good?  

Stryker is the name that the US government gave to the vehicle platform that we call the LAV III (note: Stryker is LAV III).  We had an APC variant with a LAV 25 turret long before the US decided to buy LAV III (and it was a while after that decision was made that the US chose to rename the vehicle "Stryker").

The US has several types of "Stryker" just as we are developing additional types of "LAV III" (TUA, MMEV, Engineer).  Canada has decided to buy the Stryker/LAV Mobile Gun.  Because this was designed for the vehicles the US is buying (and GM does not want to upset the bigger customer) we seem to have taken to calling the MGS as "Stryker" (technically it is incorrect of us to refer to just this platform as "Stryker" as we should be calling it "LAV III MGS" or "Stryker MGS").

So, Canada had "Stryker" before the US, but ours are different and the US has more types.

 

[soldiers301]

The Stryker are too heavier for the CC-130Hercules, and one of the principal reason to buy it was to be air transportable by the CC-130Hercules  :-\. What do you think about it ?

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/News/2004/08/15/pf-583586.html

 

[George Wallace]

First off, Canada is not buying the STRYKER.   We have LAV III.   The MGS is a POS that we are in the process of procurring.


This article (SORRY I DON'T HAVE A LINK) being circulated through RCAC channels is more accurate to the thread that you have just started:

GAO Calls Stryker Too Heavy for Transport
Weight of Armored Vehicle Cuts Flying Range of C-130 Aircraft, Congress Is Told"
By Thomas E. Ricks



Washington Post Staff Writer


The Army's new medium-weight armored vehicle, the Stryker, weighs so much that it curtails the range of C-130 military cargo aircraft that carry it and under certain conditions make it impossible for the planes to take off, a new report for Congress found.



"The Stryker's average weight of 38,000 pounds -- along with other factors such as added equipment and less-than-ideal flight conditions -- significantly limits the C-130's flight range and reduces the size force that could be deployed," said the Government Accountability Office, the watchdog arm of Congress.



Indeed, the report said, a C-130 with an average-weight Stryker wouldn't even be able to take off from higher elevations in Afghanistan, such as Bagram or Kabul, during daylight hours in summer.



The findings support the claims of critics that the eight-wheeled Stryker -- now in use in Iraq -- won't be able to meet the original goal of being able to roll into a C-130, be flown 1,000 miles and leave the plane immediately able to engage in combat. When 2,000 pounds of associated equipment such as ammunition is loaded into the aircraft with the typical Stryker vehicle, the report said, the C-130's range is about 500 miles -- and if heavier equipment is loaded it's much less. The report noted that the Army subsequently has dropped that 1,000-mile range requirement for the system.



The Stryker program -- expected to have a total cost of about $8.7 billion for acquiring about 1,800 vehicles -- is the centerpiece of the Army's controversial attempt in recent years to move away from heavy, tank-oriented forces and become more agile, both in getting to the battlefield and in maneuvering on it. Critics, however, worry that the Stryker is too vulnerable to enemy fire, and that attempts to strengthen it would decrease its ability to be deployed.



Indeed, two years ago, those critics had gained so much attention that the Army put on a demonstration in which four of the combat vehicles were airlifted to Andrews Air Force Base. Before an audience that included one leading skeptic, former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), a C-130 pulled up in front of a hangar, dropped its ramp, and offloaded a Stryker and all its gear, plus two crew members and nine infantrymen, in less than 10 minutes.



But the GAO report found that the weight of the Stryker and its gear and crew makes such a scenario unlikely in a real combat deployment, because it probably would be necessary to move much of the "equipment, ammunition, fuel, personnel and armor on separate aircraft." After being unloaded from the C-130s, the Strykers then would be outfitted with their armor and prepared for combat, a time-consuming task.



Asked what he now thinks of the October 2002 demonstration at Andrews, in light of the GAO findings, Gingrich was bitterly critical of the Army, calling the display "a cheap stunt."



"It was a nice piece of public deception," Gingrich said. "The senior Army deliberately misled the Congress and the secretary of defense about air transportability."



An Army spokesman didn't have any immediate comment on the GAO report, which was released when the Pentagon was all but closed on a Friday in August. He noted that the Defense Department, when asked by the GAO for comment, stated that it "concurs that operational requirements for airlift capability . . . need clarification."



The GAO's findings are especially troubling for the Army because fighting in Iraq over the last two years has resulted in changes to the Stryker that make it even heavier. New armor is being issued to the vehicles to protect them against rocket-propelled grenades, which have been a major danger to U.S. forces in Iraq.



The report also said that some variants of the Stryker, such as the Mobile Gun System, are heavier than the average version, and so are "probably too heavy" to be transported very far via C-130.  

GW