Background --- Rebuild or Replacement for the LAV III 'Platform'?

Canadian American Strategic Review ^ | May 2008 | (backgrounder)

[Clive]

he CF’s light armoured vehicle fleet [1] in Afghanistan is being ground down by IED attacks, bad roads, and constant patrolling. Even the newest LAV IIIs (left) are wearing out. In the press, CDS Gen Rick Hillier has revealed that the CF is looking for LAV III replacements. Earlier, the CLS, LGen Leslie, suggested in a leaked report that overhaul and rebuild could extend the LAV III fleets service life. In April 2008, the maker of the LAV III, General Dynamics Land Systems- Canada, displayed its new LAV-H concept vehicle to staff at NDHQ in Ottawa (right). So what exactly is GDLS-C’s new LAV-H?

--------------------------------------------------------

LAV-H: Light Armored Vehicle-High Capacity LAV-H is a ‘Technology Demonstrator Chassis’ based on a US Stryker.[2] At a glance, a LAV-H looks very much like the Piranha IIIC, Mowag’s version of the LAV III (right), but there are major differences. The Piranha/LAV III/Stryker family were designed for a gross vehicle weight of 17-t. LAV-H has a 25 tonne GVW to cope [3] with the greater weight of operational equipment and add on armour. Extra protection is also afforded by a revised floor beneath the crew compartment that now forms a shallow ‘V’ to deflect IED and mine blasts from below (left). [4] As can be seen, LAV-H add-on armour is also consider- ably thicker than that currently applied to CF LAV IIIs (especially hull side plates).

--------------------------------------------------------

All Afghan-deployed LAV IIIs must be rotated out for refit and repair every 12 months [5] and replacement stocks are dwindling. If the entire LAV III fleet is to be replaced altogether, new vehicles may look very much like LAV-H. If, on the other hand, the LAV IIIs are ‘reset’, upgraded LAVs may be indistinguish- able from current LAV IIIs – but better protected and able to handle today’s higher weights.

--------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes:

[1] Currently in Afghanistan, the CF has light armoured vehicles from three distinct families – the wheeled LAV IIIs, two representatives of an earlier generation of 8x8 wheeled LAVs (the Bison carrier and Coyote recce vehicle), and the tracked TLAVs (M113A3s or MTVLs). All of these vehicles must cope with a hostile climate (geographical and often human) at weights far greater than originally designed for.

[2] The LAV-H was developed to demonstrate potential Stryker refit improvements to the US Army. As such, the LAV-H was based on a US M1126 IFV (effectively a turretless LAV III). The LAV-H’s chassis and armour improvements could be applied to any LAV III chassis.

[3] The higher GVW is possible because of the LAV-H’s improved hydro-pneumatic suspension. (For comparison sake: LAV III GVW is 17.2 tonnes and curb weight is 14.2 tonnes. M1126 Stryker is 13.9 tonnes while, oddly, LAV-H’s curb weight is listed at only 13.2 tonnes). LAV-H suspension is based on the Piranha V – an evolved LAV III developed for the British FRES competition – with a baseline of 26-t.

[4] A potential criticism of the LAV-H upgrade is that, while belly armour may be enhanced, that crew compartment ‘V’ shaped floor does not extend forward to the driver’s position. Overviews of CF Afghan vehicular casualties suggest that drivers are very vulnerable to IEDs. However, troops in the rear would be better protected, sitting isolated from the floors in roof-suspended seats from Armatec Survivability.

[5] In 2006, GDLS-C established a LAV III overhaul and refit centre in Edmonton to handle CF vehicles being returned from Afghanistan. A post-deployment ‘reset’ program at that Edmonton facility would be an economical way to deal with LAV shortfalls. But, there are two problems. The original LAV III procurement plans were cut back in the mid-’90s. So, the CF was short of LAV IIIs from the outset (which brings up replacing Bison ISCs...). And, previous wheeled LAV life-extension projects (WLAV / APC-LE) were not managed well by DND. The best plan may be to farm-out management of a ‘reset’ for surviving LAV IIIs and top up stocks/replace Bison with new-built LAV-Hs.

[Clive]

-

[alloysteel]

There apparently a need for this vehicle.

There is sufficient technology to build improved versions.

There is a list of potential customers (the military establishment of both US and Canada) as well as other military agencies, and certain paramilitary operations.

There may even be civilian applications.

So who is opposing the program of building these machines?

[Red6]

Recommendation: Jump on board with the FCS.

[Red6]

The Stryker is a “interim” vehicle. It's a stop gap that was chosen because of it's low risk, cost, and immediate availability. It's a good platform especially for scenarios as in Iraq today, but it's not what we really need because it can't cover the full spectrum of warfare.

[SJSAMPLE]

FCS is a ship that alternates between sinking and swimming.

The Canadian government doesn’t have the long-term focus to put up with the FCS overruns and delays.

[Red6]

Sure,

Like the F22, JSF....... I've never hear people like you before./sarc

The FCS is not only coming, it's further along than most think. Give it two years and we'll see what you have to say then.

[SJSAMPLE]

Two years is extremely optimistic for the FCS.

The Army’s been talking about it for nearly 20 years (yes), long before they began folding other programs into it to give it life. The concept is sound and some items, like NLOS-C seem to be providing some successes.

But, remember, the FCS of 20 years ago isn’t exactly the current FCS and it will get fuddled with even more.

I was always a proponent of both the F-22 and JSF, but anybody who thinks the JSF will be fielded by the current target date of 2012 is kidding themselves.

[Little Pig]

Sounds good to me. So when will the LAV-III and the Stryker hit the surplus market?

[driftdiver]

“So when will the LAV-III and the Stryker hit the surplus market?”

Soon probably but it will be in 6 inch pieces after they’ve been de-milled.

[SENTINEL]

The 17 tons was dictated, I believe, by the payload capacity of a C-130, our workhorse transport plane. I think 25 tons is too heavy, but, no time to check it right now....

[Red6]

https://www.fcs.army.mil/index.html

It's coming. Some of the spin offs are already being fielded.

Stryker was a quick fix for a need we had identified years ago. It's cheap, low risk, fits into the doctrine and meets our demands, and is available quickly. It's also very modular using a common motor and wheels, the weapons station (CROWS) can be used on other platforms, as can the FBCB2 and drivers thermals etc. The Stryker was a great answer for the “interim,” but you don't want to go into a high intensity slug fest with it. -IMHO

[Clive]

With the C130J-30 (Which will be the new Canadian Forces workhorse) we would be looking at an operational payload of about 16 tonnes (about 17.25 tons) for a 2400 mile range.

[NorthOf45]

The LAV III has been a very successful workhorse for the Canadian Armed Forces and is thought very highly of by all in the military. No need to shop for a new one. Stay with an improved version of the tried and true. Keep it in Canada and stay with General Dynamics.

[Clive]

d’accord

[Grimmy]

The heavier weight of the new design could well cause some serious strategic liabilities for the Canadian forces.

Transport, both sea and air, is always at a premium. The higher the requirements for the transport, the harder it becomes to fill the end user needs.

Better armor is a good idea, unless it means devolving to situations of no armor due to transport bottlenecks.

[SJSAMPLE]

Stryker is not, by any standard, “cheap”, and neither will the FCS variants. Mission creep and technology have expanded its price far beyond the original intentions for an interim vehicls. It’s still a good vehicle, but there are plenty of concerns that have to be passed on to the FCS.

And there are still questions about Stryker’s ability to fit one of the original intentions of the FCS - Deployability.

It grew in height and weight to the point where a single C-130 could not combat deploy a complete vehicle (crew, fuel, ammo, etc.). FCS is and will have some of the same issues, as they weight savings have yet to be reaped. Until you solve that particular problem, FCS remains unable to fulfill its basic requirement.

It’s not a question of wether or not it’s coming, but when. And, when it comes, it will be guaranteed to be far more expensive than originally envisioned or advertised.

[2CAVTrooper]

“The Stryker is a “interim” vehicle. It’s a stop gap that was chosen because of it’s low risk, cost, and immediate availability. It’s a good platform especially for scenarios as in Iraq today, but it’s not what we really need because it can’t cover the full spectrum of warfare.”

Well.....Chosen more because of greased skids, padded wallets, winks, handshakes, and cushy post retirement defense sector jobs rather than low risk, cost, and immediate availability.

For low cost the Army should have gone with the MTVL since they already have 40,000 M113’s in storage and about a hundred years worth of parts already in the system.

[2CAVTrooper]

“The FCS is not only coming, it’s further along than most think. Give it two years and we’ll see what you have to say then.”

I agree.

There are many aspects of FCS that have either already been fielded or will be fielded in the next 3 to 5 years.

[2CAVTrooper]

IIRC, the Stryker program called for the vehicle to weigh no more than 19 tons fully loaded so it can roll-on/roll-off a C-130 ready to fight.

[2CAVTrooper]

“With the C130J-30 (Which will be the new Canadian Forces workhorse) we would be looking at an operational payload of about 16 tonnes (about 17.25 tons) for a 2400 mile range.”

Stick with the MTVL then.

They’re a lot lighter than the wheeled LAV III/Stryker’s.

[rmlew]

And 30mm Aluminum armor is supposed to cut it for protection?

[Red6]

When you see a cost of “XYZ” you have to consider that this includes an engine, wheels, thermals, weapons station, FBCB2, etc etc etc that can all be re-used on other platforms. It was intended that way! MOST of the cost of the vehicle isn’t the chassis, but all the appliqué equipment on board. The Stryker is OK. There was near zero risk of major technological failure, unlike FCS which while giving a much greater pay-off when complete is also far more challenging. The Stryker is fairly cheap, we did pump them out pretty quickly to the force, and they are effective, they don’t require a large logistical footprint……….

The Stryker is fast and can easily travel hundreds of miles where a tracked vehicle has serious issues because of maintenance. He uses less fuel, and because of his hull design and ground clearance can deal better with IEDs and mines in what it can withstand. The Stryker brings to the table some good aspects that makes him valuable in today’s scenarios i.e. Somalia, Haiti, Liberia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Balkans. But I would not have wanted to have been in a Stryker during the major ground combat phase in Iraq.

FCS will bring with it a common platform (ease logistics) designed around the network centric concept, hard and soft kill active protection, add on ERA, and will be more capable in firepower etc. It’s an entirely more potent package that is able to deal with a world where we are doing peacekeeping in Iraq and might fight a major theater war in Korea some day. -IMO

[NorthOf45]

We do have C-17s now.

[Grimmy]

“We do have C-17s now.”

How many?

[Clive]

NorthOf45 wrote:
"We do have C-17s now."

Grimmy wrote:
"How many?"

Four. The US allowed Canada to jump the queue for fast delivery.

[Clive]

The C130J-30 will be the standard workhorse for both Canada and the US. Canada has 17 on order.

Canada has standardized on the LAV III, certainly for the Afghanistan job.

[NorthOf45]

Ain't she a beauty.

[Little Pig]

Yeh, I know, but a guy can dream, can’t he? If I’m going to commute in Dallas traffic, I wanna do it in style.

[Grimmy]

4 lifters are makes a much too skinny logistics train for equipment depending on that specific lifter for rapid deployment.

There’s also the reality that some of those 4 frames will be diverted to humanitarian relief at times.

There’s also built in down time for long haul airframes for maintenance.

Not trying to say that having the best possible protection for your ground pounders isn’t a good thing. But, as in all things warfare, logistics determines what can and can’t be.

I doubt Canada or her forces would be stuck all along in the logistics effort when push came to shove, but its also probably not wise to build in dependence upon outside transport if it can be avoided.

[Grimmy]

My actual guess is that as things wind down in both Iraq and Afghanistan, we’ll be seeing the jihadi scum moving into pre-established networks in europe. We’re also likely to see an explosion of rabid jihadism in the indo and pacific areas too.

There were hundreds of thousands of jihadi trained up in various camps prior to 9/11. We’ve only culled a part of that diseased herd so far.

But, in an effort to be a bit more on topic to the fighting vehicles...

the armor vs penetration fight will always evolve quickly toward defeating the armor regardless of the thickness. If Abrams were our primary vehicle, we’d have seen mechanisms already produced and deployed to nullify them, even if only by breaking the track or simply flipping them over with lifting charges.

The way it tends to work is, you build the best you can lift to needed areas. If you build past your capacity to move them on demand, you’ve simply spend time and resources on expensive parking lot fixtures.

[Grimmy]

Criminy Griminy, learn to pay attention to your wordings already. Too many errors to list in those last two postings...

Sorry folks. If I was any good at it, I’d be getting paid for it.

[Clive]

The existing fleet of C130s are still doing most of the work and will continue to do so. Canada is buying 17 C130J-30s and they will still be the standard workhorse.

The existing Canadian Fleet has the oldest C130s still flying but they are doing an excellent job including low level drops to FOBs in Afghanistan. In the process, Canadian Forces are wearing them out.

The C17s provide lift capacity for the big jobs that are beyond the C130 capability such as lifting DART to a disaster site or Leopard tanks to an operational theatre.

To lift the tanks they had to be flown two at a time to near Afghanistan by rented Antinov and then to Kandahar one at a time by US Air Force C17s.

At the time of the tsumami disaster Canada did not have the independent lift capacity to lift its DART to Sri Lanka and so had to wait its turn to rent an Antinov.

[Clive]

I should add that Canada is one-tenth the population and gross national product of the United States and a succession of Liberal governments (and admittedly a Red Tory one) have caused the military budget to be cut beyond reason.

The current government has to rebuild while keeping its obligations in Afghanistan so it has to prioritize.

In addition to the urgent purchase of the C17s, we are waiting delivery other equipment including Sikorsky choppers to replace the Sea Kings embarked on our frigates and are negotiating the purchase of Chinooks, land vehicles, UAVs and howitzers.

Canada urgently needed howitzers for the Afghanistan job and could not wait for the manufacturer's delivery schedule so the USMC sold Canada enough M777s to equip the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery deployments to Afghanistan.

The point is that Canada cannot just buy everything that the armed forces thinks it needs, all at once. Decisions have to be made as to what to buy, what to buy first and what must wait its turn. The Afghanistan job is dictating much of the priority decision making.

[NorthOf45]

Yes, while we do have the C-17s now, heavy lift is still limited for us. However, we now don’t have to beg, borrow and steal to move heavy gear.

[Grimmy]

I was pointing the logistics issue at the concept of replacing the existing IFV with a heavier model that wouldn’t be liftable in the C130s.

Building into bottlenecks is not usually a good feature.

[Grimmy]

That is always a good thing to see happening.

There’s usually lots of side bennies to improved lift capacity that is not specifically military as well.

“Mercy Flights” both to foreign disasters and within your own domestic AO will benefit from the ability to move larger bulk loads.

[Grimmy]

“I should add that Canada is one-tenth the population and gross national product of the United States and a succession of Liberal governments (and admittedly a Red Tory one) have caused the military budget to be cut beyond reason.
The current government has to rebuild while keeping its obligations in Afghanistan so it has to prioritize.

In addition to the urgent purchase of the C17s, we are waiting delivery other equipment including Sikorsky choppers to replace the Sea Kings embarked on our frigates and are negotiating the purchase of Chinooks, land vehicles, UAVs and howitzers.

Canada urgently needed howitzers for the Afghanistan job and could not wait for the manufacturer’s delivery schedule so the USMC sold Canada enough M777s to equip the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery deployments to Afghanistan.

The point is that Canada cannot just buy everything that the armed forces thinks it needs, all at once. Decisions have to be made as to what to buy, what to buy first and what must wait its turn. The Afghanistan job is dictating much of the priority decision making.”

Nothing I’ve said was meant to cast a critical arrow at Canada or the Canadian Military.

I was simply pointing out that when reading up on considerations of new fighting vehicle designs, the vehicle itself is never the only consideration. There’s also the ability to get the vehicle to the fight and keep it maintained.

I did not even mean to imply that Canada shouldn’t go with the heavier fighting vehicle, necessarily. Only that those of us looking at the options and commenting from the sidelines should understand that there are issues that impact the final choice that someones going to have to make that aren’t always obvious.

The Soldiers of Canada always show up strong where ever they go. Canadians have every reason to be immensely proud of their fellow citizens in uniform.

[2CAVTrooper]

"And 30mm Aluminum armor is supposed to cut it for protection?"

What kind of armor do you think the Stryker has?

Take away the Stryker's applique armor and it's the same as the M113.

Early MTVL with applique armor:

[Clive]

Grimmy wrote:
"Nothing I've said was meant to cast a critical arrow at Canada or the Canadian Military."

And I did not take it as criticism, merely as a fact. Your point is valid. There are imbalances that call for an explanation.

Those imbalances will be inevitable as Canada catches up on decades of neglect while in a state of belligerency. Balance has to be sacrificed to the immediate needs of hostilities but we also need to keep in mind that Canadian Forces need to achieve a state of equilibrium between the branches and services as all are essential to meeting each other's requirements.

I am not sure that I am making myself clear but Canada has to face some facts.

The Artillery needs howitzers. The Infantry needs lift capability and mobility The Cavalry needs effective armour and recce vehicles that can cope with climate conditions not in contemplation by a NATO nation intended to fight a European war. All need better UAVs. The Navy will soon be in urgent need of new destroyers and multi role support vessels. The north needs Arctic patrol vessels. The list goes on and on.

All these needs come from a limited taxpayer pocket and as such they appear to contend against each other but the fact is that they complement each other and so the priorities have to be intelligently set, all the while making sure that the men and women in harms way right now are properly equipped and supplied.

[Grimmy]

It’s never easy, is it?

[Clive]

Grimmy wrote:
"It’s never easy, is it?"

Too bloody true.

It was ever thus. Sun Tzu makes reference to the problem in his "Art of War" (circa 500 bce).

[Mabus]

The LAV-H will still be c-130 transportable. 17 and 25 tons aren’t the weights of the vehicles; they’re the maximum weights the engines and suspensions can handle in the respective vehicles.

The combat ready LAV-III only weighs about 10.5 tons, and the LAV-H only weighs slightly more. The difference is the LAV-H can be fitted with about twice as much applique armour.

[Grimmy]

Good to know. Thanks.

All my training was in breaking tanks. Not too terrible much learning in the what weight listing means what. It was all mostly about issues of how thick the armor and where to hit it to hurt it best.