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

[George Wallace]

Fellas Fellas
The Cougar/Huskey/Grizzly are not "LAVS", they are AVGPs. The LAV family started with the LAV 25/ Bison. The LAV II is the Coyote and the LAV III is well our LAV (Kodiak) and the Stryker Family. Being at the School you find things out. I have a poster kicking around. It has the GM family from AVGP to the LAV family. It has different mods even a halftrack pic.

How soon we forget.

(Recce41, there are some questions you can answer for a girl in the Thread "What happens during QL3?" if she hasn't received enough info yet.)

GW

 

[12alfa]

Data from Mowag (the 1st manuals if you were around to have them) (which I do) state that indeed the veh we call the AVGP is a Piranha I, and that would make the bison a Piranha II, and therfore what we have now is a Piranha III, we now call them LAVIII's.

But what do I know?

Do a search, the AVGP is a name the Canadain gov put on the project to buy new veh's thats all.

LAV is like MBT is it not?   light armoured veh, and main battle tank.......

I still miss them.....

 

[George Wallace]

Fill your boots.

All the D&M for the AVGP family of vehicles is different from the Bison.  The D&M for the Bison is different from the Coyote.  The D&M for the Coyote is different from the LAV III.  In all cases, the parts are different, driver stations are different and just because you are qualified to drive one, does not qualify you to drive all.  You require an Air Brake Crse before you can get on a LAV III D&M Crse.  So if you are happy with your views fine,  but I am sure that if you were to tell anyone that a Bison is the same as a Coyote, ie. LAV II, you will be shot down.

GW

 

[12alfa]

I'm not trying to start something here GW.

I'm posting what the manufacture has said, not what you or the armoured school says.

As you know there are many varaints of the mowag, with common parts in some and differences.

My post was from the mowag site and the orginal pams we got way back when, and they I would think would know the facts, but feel free to correct me and them at your leisure.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

I have a poster kicking around. It has the GM family from AVGP to the LAV family. It has different mods even a halftrack pic.

I would be very interested in seeing the image of the "halftrack" LAV/Pirahana.

Anyway you could get the poster scanned (at least the halftrack section) and post it online?

 

[George Wallace]

If I remember right, from all those IDR journals I used to subscribe to, MoWag used to always trial both wheeled and tracked prototypes of all their designs.

GW

 

[Gobsmacked]

So what is your source? Please don't say the local news paper....  

Regards

As always, an ATI request from earlier this year.
(You'd be amazed at all the 'horsepucky' you can gather from seemingly disparate requests)

Regarding Franko's OPSEC concerns in  this thread:  http://Army.ca/forums/threads/18309/post-101201#msg101201



I took the info out, pasted it in here. If the consensus is that it's OK, we can just copy and paste it back in....





FYI - a little bit more from same analysis:

"November 2005 - MND & PW&GS seek EPA from Treasury Board and authority to exercise the contract option for 50 additional MGS; January to June, 2007 - delivery of second 16 vehicles; January to June, 2008 - delivery of third 16 vehicles; June 2008 to March 2009 - Delivery of final 18 vehicles; April 2009 to March 2010 - Standardization of all MGS to final configuration.

Delivery of sixteen vehicles during the Preliminary Project Approval stage [by January/June 2006] is necessary to address integration issues [fitting of some Canadian unique  equipment - Radios; Smoke Grenade Launchers; C6 Machine Gun; and Laser Warning receiver, and operator/maintainer training] and to provide an early operational capability.  Four vehicles are required to conduct integration work and to verify the functionality of some Canadian unique requirements, such as the communication system.  Twelve vehicles [squadron = basic operational formation] are needed to develop the military tactics, techniques and procedures for this new equipment.  Early delivery of twelve vehicles for tactical development is necessary to ensure that the CF have some direct fire support capability [ twelve vehicles would be ready to deploy on operations by July 2007] that can be deployed when the Leopard I tank is phased out of service in 2007.

 

Procurement of a new direct fire vehicle through an Advance Contract Award Notice [ACAN] to GDLS-C
[London, Ontario]:  The ACAN process is used when the Government believes that only one contractor is capable of meeting a statement of requirements (still in formulation stage).  The intention to enter into a contract is posted and other manufacturers have the opportunity to demonstrate they can meet the operational requirement.  In this way, the ACAN process is considered competitive.  Should another contractor offer a compliant product, the full competitive contracting process must be invoked.  Disadvantages - Other potential suppliers may view the use of the ACAN process negatively because the 30-day posting of the notice does not provide them with much time to respond."

 

[Herecomesthegun]

http://science.howstuffworks.com/stryker.htm
there are many pages of info (some specifically for the MGS),
im not sure if this is the right section of the forum to post this website

 

[Gayson]

Very cool! 

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Interesting page.  Explain all of the Stryker varients.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/stryker1.htm

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

"So in keeping with the "best of both worlds" approach of the Stryker project, its tires are built with a new technology that makes them almost as versatile as tracks."

"The Eaton/Dana Corporation created a special pressure-control system (CTIS, or Central Tire Inflation System) for the Stryker's eight tires, so that they can be inflated or deflated at will from within the vehicle"  Too bad we aren't allowed to use them on the LAV anymore.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Critics of the Stryker, including military analysts, congresspeople and combat veterans, have argued that the project has not met its objectives and may never fulfill the ambitious ideals of the Army Transformation Plan (see the later section Mission: Vehicle for the New Army for details). Discussion has focused on three main problem areas:
Vulnerability - Even with the addition of the slat armor "cage," there is a significant concern that the Stryker is susceptible to RPG attack. As of April 2004, at least one Stryker had fallen victim to an RPG in Iraq. According to reports, of two RPGs fired at this particular Stryker, one got past the slat armor and destroyed the vehicle. (More on slat armor in the next section.) Strykers in the field have also been damaged by bombs and rollover accidents.

Weight and Transportability - The 7,000+ pounds of additional armor added to the Stryker before shipping off to Iraq may have increased its weight and height beyond the standard allowable capacity of C-130 payloads. Even without the added armor, during one phase of testing the Stryker's crew had to temporarily remove several components before it could be loaded on a C-130. After landing, it took as long as 17 minutes to ready the Stryker for its mission.

General Design Flaws - There have been complaints about several systems not working as well as was claimed by the manufacturer. Some combat troops have reported problems with frequent tire blowouts, and the excess weight from the added armor has caused problems with the self-recovery winch. In addition, there are some reports that the slat armor increases the width of the vehicles to such an extent that they can not travel in groups of two, side-by-side, on narrow roads.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

The cannon can fire four different types of ammunition:

HE/HEP (high-explosive) rounds, which penetrate and destroy bunkers and walls
KE (kinetic-energy) ammunition, which destroys armored vehicles
HEAT (high-explosive, anti-tank) ammunition, which attacks vehicles and personnel with its fragmentation capabilities
Anti-personnel canisters, which are designed to attack infantrymen outside of their vehicles
In addition, the MGS has up to two secondary weapons, a 7.62-mm and a .50-caliber machine gun. To match all of this weaponry, the defensive system of the MGS is more robust than that of the ICV. Current plans for MGS armor call for special, reactive armor to go with the current steel structure and ceramic tiles. This Stryker also contains detectors for nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. By definition the heftiest of Stryker variants, the MGS presents the biggest challenge in meeting the weight requirements for rapid deployment by C-130 plane.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

General Shinseki's plan ordered the development of a new set of combat brigades to be known as an "interim force." Each of these brigades would be self-sufficient, as powerful as a tank battalion, and able to be deployed by air anywhere in the world within 96 hours. This is no easy task considering that current heavy brigades must be moved by ship and often require weeks to deploy. An interim-force brigade or platoon of brigades would be used in one of two ways:

as a first-responder, establishing and maintaining a presence until the heavier mechanized units arrived

 

[VRC]

The Stryker has been reported as both over weight & oversize.  The overweight means that (a) it can't carry a full combat load, or (b) the Herc has a range of less than 200 miles.  Those facts have been reported on newer, USAF Herc - would anyone care to guess how our somewhat older CC-130's will cope?


VRC

 

[Gobsmacked]

muskrat89,

Thanks for putting the ATI info back into my Sept 16 post. 

Besides this info being "Italicized", keep in mind that MGS SOR is (still in formulation stage) - even though we will be putting the Cart before the Horse (before TB EPA approval) and purchasing 16 LRIP MGS (in basic US config with minimal mods) by Dec 2004 for amazing price of just C$30M (under MND purchase authority) once US LRIP of 1st 72 MGS occurs.  :
For a bargain! like this we should be able to acquire all 66 MGS for just C$123.75M ?, plus ILS, Cdn mods and ammo. 

Also, in my post in 'Leo C2 not a tank' thread,
In pro-MGS CAJ Vol7.1 PR mouthpiece - LCol Petit also indirectly trashes the argument for MGS as he attempts to trash 120mm SP mortar acquisition by noting that,
"The acquisition of 120mm turreted SP mortars would be very expensive and time consuming as vehicle/ammunition development and full type qualification must be completed prior to production."
Acquisition of a 120mm turreted mortar system is discounted by LCol Petit, even though MGS is being acquired under same circumstances - MGS still developmental! until completion of LRIP build and testing by US Army! 
Yet some 72x AMS is in Saudi service on LAV-II 8x8 chassis (sounds like type qualified to me), while twin-120mm AMOS, capable of 14 MRSI, is on order for Finnish Army (x24), and has already been integrated on: 6x6 XA-203 PC; Swedish CV-90 (with a couple dozen CV-90 chassis pre-ordered for AMOS integration; and combat boat 90.
Not to mention all the HE/WP/Smoke/ILLUM/Cargo (AFV top-attack) ammo currently available for these mortars, incl: Strix PGMM - precision IF capable of knocking out MBTs through use of Precision top-attack munitions from 1,500m to 7,500m.
Maybe DLR office just doesn't follow current developments??  ???

Gob

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Interesting points, Gobsmacked!

Perhaps LCol Petit is starting to think that DLR tells the Army what its requirements are? 

Instead, of course, of providing equipment to meet the requirements of the Army.

It sometimes seems that way......

 

[Gobsmacked]

Perhaps LCol Petit is starting to think that DLR tells the Army what its requirements are? 

Instead, of course, of providing equipment to meet the requirements of the Army.

It sometimes seems that way......

Lance, It sure does!
It just wouldn't do to give the Army a usefull multi-purpose, ie. a potential MMEV-FSV (Multi-Mission Effect Vehicle - Fire Support Vehicle), piece of kit that could deploy with all LAV-III battlegroup deployments (providing both IF - sorely lacking - and bunker-busting DF) vs inadequate MGS that can only deploy 50% of time under planned squadron-level CONOPS alongside MMEV-ADATS and LAV-TUA.

Also, LCol Petit is Extremely Ill-informed regarding current 120mm SPM developments (as we are sure they would not resort to 'misinformation' to defend the inadequate MGS  ) by claiming "there is no hi explosive antitank [HEAT] round developed for these systems" as HEAT rounds for 120mm turreted SPM are available from at least 2 sources, CIS and China, and likely under development by western manufacturers. 
A quick reference check reveals a 120mm HEAT round for the 8x8 BTR-8 2S23 NONA turreted 120mm SPM, with Min 300m DF capability to potential Max 13,000m IF capability, is available from CIS sources. 
The 11 August 2004 'JDW' also notes 'New ammunition for Chinese 120mm mortar'.  "To engage armoured targets in the direct-fire mode, a fin-stabilised HEAT [high-explosive anti-tank] projectile has been developed with a claimed range of up to 1,500m.  Its HEAT warhead will penetrate up to 600mm of conventional steel armour.  It is much less effective against more advanced armour systems.  (Meanwhile,) there is also an HE projectile containing 5kg (vs standard 1.8kg) of TNT with a maximum range of 9,500m." 

LCol Petit also states SPM can "fire standard HE rounds at LAV and tanks in self-defence, and damage should result, but this ammo is not expected to defeat tanks".  Yet two-120mm HE mortar rounds direct-fired simultaneously from a twin-120mm AMOS at close range (in an emergency) should prove extremely potent - although the provision of PGMM such as Strix should mean that only in rare cases would AMOS or AMS have to directly face MBT as the SPMs' 'raison-d'etre' is IF.  :soldier:

 

[Lance Wiebe]

There is a huge amount of potential in the 120mm mortars.  Some, I would argue, are crossing the border between mortar and gun! 

For those interested in following the 120mm mortar debates raging throughout many publications, there is a lot of information available.  In my opinion, there is still work to be done on the 120mm breech loaded mortar.  Having said that, there is a huge amount of R&D going in to the devolpment of this weapon system, much more than is being put into the MGS! 

But, there are many advantages to the 120mm breech loaded mortar.Much cheaper to produce, because of the simple recoil systems and breeches.  Highly effective in built up areas.  Also, as noted, HEAT rounds for self protection against armoured threats.  Besides all this, they can act as regular mortars providing fire support.  The 120 ammo is much more effective than the 81mm mortar!

The disadvantages include the requirements for direct fire and indirect fire FCS systems, the difficulty hitting moving targets (due to the muzzle velocity - think Cougar), fairly low ammo loadouts due to the size of the ammunition.  The rounds are also fairly long, and the fins easily damaged.  This is primarily due to the fact that even with a higher muzzle velocity than a standard mortar, the muzzle velocity is not high enough to make the fins as small as a 120 smooth bore cannon, for example.  Various companies are out there working on solutions to these disadvantages, and I believe that a major western army will be buying these really soon, like within the next two or three years.

 

[12alfa]

Another disavantage is their slow reload times, in comparison to a cannon /tube in a MBT.

Can't really see them replacing a DF afv.

re: leoC2 turret...
"We may have made them look aesthetically pleasing and give our iron fist the impression of new kit, but in reality folks, we have stepped back two generations for a turret."

What was  the thinking of the poster?