• 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?

mainerjohnthomas said:
     So you would be the impressionable or the knowledgable ;D?   Seriously, if its all the gov't is going to buy, isn't it time we stopped mourning what we can't have, and work on how to use what we can?   As far as the weapon mix being crap, there are a lot of nations using various wheeled platforms to provide the same weapon mix, and if you don't beleive me, look into it.

I know GW is going to come back on that one. But I think the moaning is about the fact that those countries using wheeled vehicles are also using track, and the wheels are simply an augmentation of capability as opposed to a singular.

As for the other meaning. Well thats what this place is for. To bitch about things (for those still in) without the possibility of screwing your career, and to exchange views on what may or may not be better alternatives in both equipment and use of such.

Quite frankly there have been some incredibly good ideas put forward on these boards that, who knows? May actually have a chance of being listened too.
 
Zipper said:
I know GW is going to come back on that one. But I think the moaning is about the fact that those countries using wheeled vehicles are also using track, and the wheels are simply an augmentation of capability as opposed to a singular.

As for the other meaning. Well thats what this place is for. To ***** about things (for those still in) without the possibility of screwing your career, and to exchange views on what may or may not be better alternatives in both equipment and use of such.

Quite frankly there have been some incredibly good ideas put forward on these boards that, who knows? May actually have a chance of being listened too.
    Actually, I agree with the necessity of track.  I just think that Canada has become a niche army.  And that if we are to play any meaningful role in international affairs, it is by providing a force that can contribute to an international effort with a force that we can provide, deploy and support.  I just don't see us having the ability to do heavy armour any more.  It WILL be important on the battlefield of tomorrow, it just won't be us driving.  The US or UK will be senior partners in any major conflict the CF deploys in, and we must concentrate on providing an army that can bring its own weapons and skills to that coalition.  Wheeled light cavalry and mechanized infantry is what the gov't has decided we are going to do.  Having said that, we must concentrate on making the most of that role.  And by going all LAV III we can make a credible contribution, getting the most bang for our buck.  If we are going to specialize, to be a niche force, let us be the best and most well rounded practitioner of the craft.  Done properly, we can have an army that will serve us well, and serve any coalition we are part of.  Let us be a real force at what we can do, and not a paper tiger that dabbles at a hundred tasks we cannot commit to doing well.
 
"Actually, I agree with the necessity of track"
Agree it has its place.

"I just think that Canada has become a niche army."
Agree.

"And that if we are to play any meaningful role in international affairs, it is by providing a force that can contribute to an international effort with a force that we can provide, deploy and support."
This is the CDS intentions...

"I just don't see us having the ability to do heavy armour any more."

We have been out of this game ALONG time now. Some won't admit it. If we were going to become a real mech force to be taken seriously. during the mid eighties was the optimal time to do so. Our M113s were at the 25 year point then. We could have upgraded to warrior or more than likely Bradley (yes a pricey$$$ affair). However we didn't.

For all you people out there yapping on and on about we need heavy MBT this and that, we need SPH and so on.

If we are going to acquire a heavy force, then we need serious air lift capability and Sea lift capability. WE DON'T HAVE THAT. So its off to become a medium force.

Oh the p*ssing and moaning about how soldiers are going to dye in the hundreds because we use LAVIII. Come on we have been using LAVIII on operations for a couple of years now and if anything, they have enhanced our capability.

I would say yes, if the LAVIII were serving in Iraq (not the US stryker) it would do fine. That 25mm chain gun is nothing to sneeze at.

Heavy armour for Canada is not around for now, the CDS is quite clear we are going to have medium and light weight forces. Let get on with it.

As I have said before, our best weapon is a highly trained and motivated infantryman.

 
 
The 6V53 engine of the M113 is 1960's technology, very heavy for its performance.  The Volkswagen V10 diesel is an example of what can be accomplished with a clean sheet of paper in terms of power to weight, and given that this or comparable engines are in production for the civilian market, inexpensive by military standards ($10,000?).  At least a thousand pounds forward saved for frontal reinforcement, as well as some additional useable space.

Improving the protection quite literally would require armour removal, in this case by milling the thickness of the relatively soft and thick aluminum of the hull in selected areas with CNC machinery.  I have worked with such machinery in the recent past, and am quite familiar with what it can do (the key factor is the competence of the operator to ensure that it cuts the metal where required, since errors would be time consuming to correct, but the learning curve is low and it is more a question of the operator's personality and work habits).  The installed and ready to go cost of this machinery is no more than $500,000, significantly less if moderately simpler and less powerful tooling is employed (cost-benefit analysis required, made easier by the thousands of companies operating such machinery).

Some sections would be easier to remove wholesale, the most obvious being the broad sections of the sides and front, removed in sections with cutting tools attached to the  CNC machinery.  There are likely to be some complicating details to removing some sections of plate, but none that would be insurmountable with proper prepartion and removal of the relevant items, just as would be done with some conversions to install length extension plugs to the vehicle.

The removed material would be remanufactured as an aluminum/aluminum oxide matrix composite, a material with twice the ballistic resistance of homogenous alloys of aluminum.  If practical, the replacement panels would be manufactured on site, quite possibly within a few dozen feet of the CNC machinery in order to eliminate handling and shipping costs, which might also be used be used to cut the remanufactured material to shape if moulds for every replacement panel would not be cost effective.  The replacement panels would be re-welded to the vehicle in process, either by manual methods or CNC aluminum welding machinery.

Small quantities of granular titanium and/or tungsten carbide would be incorporated into the outer layers of the aluminim matrix armour to enhance ballistic performance, as well as significantly further raise the energy required to initiate self-sustaining combustion of the new aluminum-aluminum oxide (the materials inside the vehicle actually cause the vehicle to burn in the same manner as steel vehicles, a re-evaluation of these materials should be the priority; the heat required to cause self-sustaining combustion is many times higher than that required to kill the occupants regardless).  Titanium panels are already used in up-armoured versions of the M113, once again a remanufacturing process without a material cost.  Lower hull sections of the M113 would not benefit significantly from remanufacturing, they would be reinforced with thin external titanium plate and a thick liner of fire-resistant Kevlar and Spectra fibres.

At 12 tons, the remanufactured vehicle would possess 50% greater internal space than the LAVIII at 16 tons, a 100% increase in weight efficiency at roughly a quarter of the cost of the latter.  Lower silhouette and center of gravity, double the protection, more maneouvable, development potential if required, air portable by C-130 or CH-47, lower support costs.  The development cost of the vehicle would not be high, since the separate elements of the new drivetrain, powertrain, and re-armouring can all be performed and thoroughly tested and evaluated independently.  I would be concerned about the ability of the military and large companies to do this in a cost-effective manner, perhaps the only real problem area, but as a small to medium business exercise well within feasibility.

Although this conversion could be described in greater detail, hopefully this is sufficient to explain what was meant by my remarks.
 
M113 is gone - sorry to let you down.

Better start talking about what to do with LAV CAV instead of wasting energy on "aluminum matrix milling"....
 
Infanteer said:
M113 is gone - sorry to let you down.

Better start talking about what to do with LAV CAV instead of wasting energy on "aluminum matrix milling"....

The Department of National Defence (DND) is upgrading approximately 400 M113 Armoured Personnel Carriers (APCs) as part of the overall Canadian APC Life Extension (LE) Project modernization program (i.e TLAV). The M113LE Project addresses existing capability deficiencies of mobility, capacity, firepower and protection by providing the Canadian Forces with a low risk, cost effective, and modern APC with growth potential to meet the Canadian Forces operational requirements to the year 2020.

There are 6 variants,
MTVL http://publications.dewengineering.com/tlav/web/MTVL.html
MTVE http://publications.dewengineering.com/tlav/web/MTVE.html
MTVC http://publications.dewengineering.com/tlav/web/MTVC.html
MTVF http://publications.dewengineering.com/tlav/web/MTVF.html
MTVR http://publications.dewengineering.com/tlav/web/MTVR.html
M113A3 http://publications.dewengineering.com/tlav/web/m113a3.html

Chimo!
 
Sorry, I should of clarified - I meant that is was gone as the primary maneuver vehicle of the CF (along with the Leo).  I was aware that is was being maintained for certain support functions.
 
Infanteer said:
Sorry, I should of clarified - I meant that is was gone as the primary maneuver vehicle of the CF (along with the Leo). I was aware that is was being maintained for certain support functions.

Lol, should have thought that one over a bit more before I posted it  ;)

Chimo!


P.S. Has anyone done the TLAV course? I will be doing it mid-april and would like a heads-up of what to expect.
 
Some 280+ M113's remain in the inventory, and old surplus ones can be bought for a song.

LAV can not be lifted by C-130 over anything but short range at cool sea level conditions, unless you believe in the two billion dollar C-17 fantasy to move a handful of armoured vehicles at a time.

A C-130 crashed on take-off in Afghanistan killing all aboard because they thought it was loaded to 25,000lbs, investigation later revealed it was about 32,000lbs and was the direct cause of the crash.  Maximum practical limit of C-130 is 25,000lb., the goal the original M113 was designed to meet.  Antonov's require large prepared airfields, and can not be flown where there is anything more than an extremely remote chance of being fired on, assuming they are even available when needed.  Ro-Ro ships can not dock in land-locked countries like Afghanistan, some minimum airlift capacity required regardless.

It is often necessary to airlift fuel and supplies, which can cost as much as $25 a pound.  OEF is costing the Americans tens of billions, much of it the cost of extensive airlift, despite the close proximity of available fuel.  Support costs are critically important to the effectiveness and quality of tools available to a globally deployed force, and these tools have a vital effect on effectiveness regardless of the training, skills, and dedication of the people using them.

The up-armoured Strykers in Iraq are being protected by the Kurds, and few if any are being used in the Sunni triangle in order to protect the multi-billion dollar contracts for them.  Several American soldiers have been killed in Iraq by these vehicles rolling over on them (GM would probably have been sued if these vehicles were a civilian product, just like the controversy over Ford Explorers and their tires and the resulting rollover deaths).

The LAVIII is not only a poor design that can be replaced with little to no net cost, but all costs considered it is unaffordable within Canadian defence budgets.
 
T.S.Rea said:
The up-armoured Strykers in Iraq are being protected by the Kurds, and few if any are being used in the Sunni triangle in order to protect the multi-billion dollar contracts for them.  Several American soldiers have been killed in Iraq by these vehicles rolling over on them (GM would probably have been sued if these vehicles were a civilian product, just like the controversy over Ford Explorers and their tires and the resulting rollover deaths).

What are you talking about - ask Matt Fisher about his experiences in OIF in a LAV.  I've photos and stories (that are posted on these forums) of incidents with LAVs (both in accidents and in combat) and they aren't the death-trap you're making them out to be.  Heck, I think one of our members here (MJP?) was in a LAV rollover in Afghanistan and he said the crew came out of it alright.

Is your name Mike Sparks by any chance.  I'm sensing the same rabid postulating and preaching that I've seen before.  Care to provide any personal experience with all your posts?
 
Infanteer said:
Heck, I think one of our members here (MJP?) was in a LAV rollover in Afghanistan and he said the crew came out of it alright.

I wasn't there, but it was one of the LAVs in my Pl that rolled over.  In that roll-over and a few others that I have seen, the LAV was always able to drive away on it's own power.  Pretty good for a so-called inferior vehicle if you ask me.
 
I am not familiar with the particular accident you are referring to.  Moreover, any type of armoured vehicle can rollover or be involved in similar acccidents, especially since they are being operated under dangerous terrain conditions.  Stability and a low center of gravity are important.  However, the top heaviness of the design makes it far more prone to doing this, and rollovers is any type of motor vehicle are frequently fatal.  In fact, some years ago there was a fatality in the Canadian army involving an old American jeep equipped with a 106mm recoilless rifle, an arrangement widely criticized before and after as being dangerously top-heavy.  In the pressure to outfit required equipment, little to no effort appears to be go towards the inherent safety of the vehicles themselves, resulting in fatalities without a single shot being fired.

When the American Strykers were in the original convoy to northern Iraq, two of them rolled over, killing several soldiers.  I have seen numerous references to rollovers of the LAV, and although the reports could be skewed by political bias, albeit with restricted information from military sources, the physical characteristics of this vehicle are obvious, as well as the effect of it in similar top heavy civilian motor vehicles on flat paved surfaces.  I can only view as insane the plans to mount 105mm guns and the ADATS missile on top of this.

As should be obvious, I am definitely not a fan of the LAVIII, and that view is based entirely on the vehicle itself.  A simple web search will reveal that I am not alone.
 
T.S. Rea why don't you fill out your profile so we can know your background. Cause it seems you are speaking out of your ***! Can you provide your sources for the LAV incidents?

Last I heard, the Strykers were rejected by the US ARMY and therefore was not in service.


 
The Americans have about 6 variants of the Stryker in service.

Seems to me there are something like 10 variants planned.
 
Lance Wiebe said:
The Americans have about 6 variants of the Stryker in service.

Seems to me there are something like 10 variants planned.

So they solved the design flaws?
 
Nfld Sapper,

As Lance Wiebe alluded to there are serveral variants of the "Stryker" either in US service or in various stages of design and fielding.  The baseline IFV Stryker is basically a LAV III without the turret.  This variant has been in Iraq for over a year now.

The Mobile Gun System (MGS) is the version of the Stryker armed with the 105mm Low Profile Turret (LPT).  This variant is also being sought by Canada, and I have read that this one has had some teething problems.  In Canada, the press and some soldiers call the MGS the "Stryker", and this is the cause of much confusion.

Cheers,

2B

 
The LAV/Coyote family will work very well for us (the Canadian Army) as long as we use them appropriately.  They are excellent vehicles for the types of missions that we have been receiving and will likely continue to receive in the near future. 

Our wheeled family of AFVs performed very well in Afghanistan in my opinion.  Our Coyotes and LAVs could get around the city at speed if required.  They had plenty of firepower if required (and having the potential for firepower means that you often don't end up having to use it in those situations).  While RPGs are always a threat, improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and small arms fire were less of a threat for a Coyote crew than a crew in a soft-skinned vehicle.  Bisons offered a way to get groups of soldiers through the city with protection.

Wheeled AFVs do have a roll-over risk.  We had a Coyote roll over when the road gave way.  It was a high embankment road and a Coyote-sized "bite" out of the road was evident after the roll-over.  There were some very tense moments, but everybody walked away (the crew dug-out the driver).  Bear in mind it was the road that gave way, so perhaps even a tracked vehicle could have flipped as well.

I am a tanker, but I do think that we have a well-equipped force for our missions.

Cheers,

2B
 
T.S.Rea,
You still have not explained what you mean by "convert M113 vehicles to a wheels and tracks configuration"?
 
MCG said:
T.S.Rea,
You still have not explained what you mean by "convert M113 vehicles to a wheels and tracks configuration"?


I think he means turning them into half-tracks   ;D :D

 
Back
Top