I think Canada should buy Bradley AFVs

[cody630]

i think we should buy some Bradly's they are better the the lavs and they won't tip over as much as the lavs they have better fire power then the lavs




(I'm sorry, ya'll, and this isn't a dig at the kid, but that title was irritating the crap out of me. pc)

 

[big bad john]

Tip over really...PLEASE do some reading now that you have the opportunity and don't go off half cocked sprouting statements with nothing to back them up.  Do you have any actual experience?  I doubt it highly.  So read and back up your arguments with facts.  Lesson over I will now take questions from the floor.  Yes, that means if you have a thought out question you may PM me.  Think it out!

 

[Red 6]

The Bradley is a good combat vehicle. It has an effective armor envelope and provides a range of firepower. For a conventional battlefield, you'd be hard pressed to find a better infantry combat vehicle. But, it's a maintenance hog, you can hear it a mile away and it's heavy for its size. I would imagine its also much more expensive to operate in comparison to a wheeled vehicle. The US Army can afford the Bradley, but I'm not sure many others can. That's part of the reason why so few armies are equipped with the Bradley. Another supporting issue is deployability. If you're going to buy it, you need lift assets to get it where the action is.

There's nothing wrong with the LAV family. You have a lot of flexibility there. It has good mobility and enough firepower to get most jobs done that the infantry needs. It's quiet, and doesn't make you a slave to the metal like the Bradley. But, I'll grant you the Bradley is definitely a great IFV/CFV. But, the reality is that the Bradley is old technology. Although there isn't a real follow-on system to replace it, the Bradley is outdated right now. It's classed as a "Legacy System."

Ideally, you should have a mix of wheeled and tracked infantry carriers. The key question you have to answer is, "What do we want to do with this combat system?" If you're planning on fighting on a heavy mechanized battlefield, than something like the Bradley is the ticket. But, if it's peace enforcement/peace keeping or force projection, than wheels may be a better choice. But, the budget dictates what you can afford to procure. When an army purchases anything, it has to consider everything from initial development costs, to life cycle rebuilds and spares to fuel costs over 20-25 years. Right now, the GDLS tank plant in Lima, Ohio is rebuilding old M1 hulls and turrets from the early 80s into brand new M1A2 tanks. Who else could afford that?

 

[1feral1]

i think we should buy some Bradly's they are better the the lavs and they won't tip over as much as the lavs they have better fire power then the lavs

Standard armament of GM's LAV and Bradley AFV? Strange, I thought all M242 25mm CGs were the same, but what do I know about LAVs, as it looks like Cody is the SME here.

Wes

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Cody,

Red 6 gave you an excellent run-down on the Bradley, and I'll just amplify his post.

It is good that you want the best kit for the army, but I don't think that simply buying Bradleys would help us right now.  In fact, we are looking pretty good with regards to AFVs in this theatre.  The main advantages of the Bradley (we'll focus on the M2) over the LAV III are its tracks and its TOW. 

The tracks on the Bradley are an advantage in soft terrain, but the LAV with its wheels has off-setting advantages in other areas.  We've been down the wheels vs tracks lane a few times.

The TOW is an advantage if you are expecting enemy armour.  Not so much of an issue where we are, and putting a TOW launcher on the LAV turret is an option (we've also been around this axle a few times).

Both LAVs and Bradleys have a high centre of gravity.  Bradleys have tipped/flipped.  Armour protection details are classified, but the M2 and LAV III will be roughly comparable.  Bradleys have been killed by IEDs in Iraq.

For the theatre we are in now the LAV III is the right vehicle.  In fact, the LAV III is pretty much the big dog here.  It has operational mobility, tactical mobility, protection and firepower.

Cheers,

2B

p.s.  Read a little more and post less for a little while.  Its often a good idea to just lurk for a while.

 

[Bzzliteyr]

Even tanks flip when put in the right circumstances.

 

[Red 6]

The Bradley and LAV both mount the M242 25mm cannon and the M240 coax. The Bradley mounts the TOW heavy AT missile. That's the only difference in terms of weapon.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

If we are getting a tracked IFV, I think the CV-90 family would be a better fit for us, a larger selection of vehicles types within. I think Canada owning tracks is important, but in conjunction with the LAV family not either or.

 

[McG]

The TOW is an advantage if you are expecting enemy armour.  Not so much of an issue where we are, and putting a TOW launcher on the LAV turret is an option (we've also been around this axle a few times).

Two launchers with 1 missile each (compared to one launcer with two missiles on the Bradley).

I think Canada owning tracks is important, but in conjunction with the LAV family not either or.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28681.0.html

 

[Bobbyoreo]

Sorry dont have any links but the Bradley had alot of problems when it came into service and the cost was huge.

 

[Canadian.Trucker]

I would say that the LAV III has held it's own, and can compete quite well with the Bradley.  The reports from Afghanistan is that it's the right vehicle for the task at hand.  I've seen images of LAV's that have been hit with IED's and other Anti-vehicle weaponry and it's rather amazing the punishment that these vehicles have taken and can still stay in the fight with limited mobility.  The LAV III has proven to be a versatile vehicle and a great piece of equipment for the army.

While the Bradley has also been proven in battle and has it's place, it's not quite what the Canadian army needs right now for what we're doing, at least in a primary vehicle capacity.  Perhaps as a secondary vehicle (ie. 1 Bradley for every 3-4 LAV's), but the point has already been brought up about maintenance costs and the need for TOW has not come into play for us as of yet on a large scale.

LAV III...I love thee

 

[1feral1]

Here is two pics of an ASLAV Type 1 Phase 3 car. Note the 25mm CG, and of course my girlfriend in the spider hole.

This is one of A Sqn's vehicles ;D!

I took these pics yesterday.

Like the name?

As for standared armament, along with a generic M242, a MAG 58 coax, and on the Platt mount (Aussie designed by William Platt from Sydney - I have met him countless times when I was with DNSDC) a generic MAG 58 flex is fitted. The flex now comes with a bipod,  Picatinny rail on the feed cover, and  butterfly spade grips to be used as an option, but most cars use the wooden butt. The flex differs from a generic Infantry gun, as it has the three positional gas reg, and the standard cone typer flash suppressor (not the slotted C6 type or the US M240B type either), same as the coax, and standard gun for armoured vehicles and window gun use by Army Aviation and RAN.

In the 1st pic, not the small green box by the head light. This is the HUD (Heads Up Display). It gives the driver and C/C a view of a speedo, and two warning lights. One for FIRE, the other for GAUGES.

In the 2nd pic, also see the small accessory hatch to the right. This is for acces to service air, slaving, and trickle charger for the batts.


Cheers,

Wes

 

[Trooper Hale]

Armoured Anzac! Nice one.
And well done to Red, most people would have just laughed at the kid, you took the time to get into details on how his conviction was flawed (do you call a sentance a "conviction"? Statement maybe).
On ya fellers,
Hales

 

[George Wallace]

Wes

You got pretty much a bare-ass Coyote there.  LAV III has a much better Driver's hatch.  The Exhaust Systems are totally different too.  Most major differences are internal.  The LAV III is also a much larger vehicle.  Tpr Hale can probably get you a couple of pictures to compare the two. 

 

[Franko]

Tpr Hale can probably get you a couple of pictures to compare the two. 

That's if he's not too busy riding around on his mountain bike   

Regards

 

[1feral1]

Ya George, I have only seen a few pics of the LAVIII. Up armoured, heavier, better. But I bet we'll have the Phase 3's for the next 30 yrs here.

Our cars have been taking abuse with IEDs on several occasions now, and so far, so good. They have been getting good reviews from the lads who are in them.

Cheers,

Wes

 

[Bzzliteyr]

Wes, that HUD is the same one that's on the Bisons here.  Same with the entry panel.  I believe you guys have the "step-up" version of the lav-25, like the US bought, with improvements from the Bison and LAV-Recce (Coyote).  To me, they are all LAV-2 family with the original LAV-1 being the AVGP family (some suggest USMC lav-25 is LAV-1, I disagree).

The LAV-3 is a huge beast, taller than our Leo C2 MBT!! Beautiful 20 inch rims (not pimped out) and a CTIS (Central Tire Inflation System).  It's driver position is a godsend compare to the archaic ones of the from er LAV famiies, all it needs is a cup holder!!

 

[1feral1]

I am new to the LAV, posted in where I am at only in December of last year. So still learning.

Ya, we still gotta inflate/defate the tyres manually. Time consuming stuff. I am impressed where these vehicles can go, and what they can do, but in 3 wks of trg on our car alone, we wrecked 4 tyres beyond repair, using the runflats, as designed.

Cause of flats was tree stumps and related bush material. Plus I managed to break a T/rod too. Overall I rate the vehicle a 8/10 performance wise.

Cheers,

Wes

 

[Kirkhill]

Hey Wes - what do you rate the driver at? Performance wise.  ;D

 

[Patrolman]

I am not sure if it is true but, I heard a rumour a couple of years back that the Americans were in the process of upgrading from the 25mm to a 30mm on their Bradleys.
I am not sure about the tire inflation system on the Lav III  either. When I left 2RCR a year ago we were not allowed to use the system. Apparently it was causing some oil leakage causing the tire inflation system to malfunction. Has it been sorted?