New armoured army vehicles may not make Canadian cut

Hopefully our government isn't starting to get "cold feet," in procuring all our "military equipment" that was promised now that we are leaving Afghanistan.

Canada historically has always been bad with maintaining its military, the military has a long history of fighting for even the slightest upgrades when we are not in a war. The politicians have learned nothing from the 200+ years (I include some pre-confed as we were considered extremely bad by a colony's standards) that we have repeated the process of being under armed and scrambling to arm as we realize how far behind everyone else we are. This will be no different.

We should Design our own.

How could we design and build our own? Is there a large and bankrupt car company nearby who's manufactory we can acquire for cheap? Some sort of a mythical "General Motors"?

Thats just none sense. Couldn't ever happen.

It's funny cause the LAV-III was built by, and now is being rebuilt by, a division of General motors.

Though frankly, I'm not a big fan of the LAV-III. The thing is gucci, has more power than a LAV-25, goes the same speed, but can get to the top speed quicker, and best of all has a Caterpillar powerplant driving the thing. They put tank rounds through the engine block and the thing still ran till it chewed itself to pieces.

But the flaws of the LAV-III? It's too tall to fit into the herc combat ready, both the RWS versions, the TOW version, and the 25mm versions. The sights on the 25mm versions and the original RWS seen on the E-LAV are early 90s vintage and frankly are crap compared to modern thermal sighting systems. The kick in the nuts there is that the thermal system was designed to be easily replaceable incase of damage (designed for the marine corps at the end of the cold war), same thing for upgrading.

Simple solution for that would be to upgrade the 25mm turret with the thermals and daycam taken from the latest RWS version, stick two up on top of the turret where the current systems are, and interlink the video feed so that if one system gets shot out, the second system is still functional.

More fixes for what I consider flaws or defficientcies: The slope of the side-armour on a LAV-III is next to useless. It is almost vertical enough that it loses most of it's ability to deflect rounds like on the older LAV-25. WHy not actually make it vertical to increase interior space with a very marginal increase in weight. Lastly, the thing is a touch two short. You can fit a full infantry section in the back, but the things were designed for 7 guys, not for 8. Extending the platform by a foot or two to allow 8, or even nine guys (a full section plus a medic) would allow the next platform to carry a full compliment, their kit, and ammo, far more comfortably than the current version. Back to the turret, the thing is too tall. Find a way to sink a turret into the hull so that the vehicle isn't 9 feet tall, and can fit into a herc combat ready. By that I mean the only thing you'd have to do after landing or dropping the vehicle on a pallet is get the crew on board and start fighting. The old LAV-25 could do it minus the LWR. Not 100% sure if it could be done on the old AVGPs, not qualified on those things. Lastly, even thogh it is more powerful than a LAV-25, it is still underpowered, especially with up-aurmour. I feel a minimum of 25hp/tonne at base combat weight, or 20hp/tonne with up-armour (whichever produces the higher minimum hp/torque requirements) should be considered when choosing the next power pack. If at all possible, stick with CAT. It's an awesome engine which will last forever barring the results of combat. However if we could get an older, non-computerised version that is simpler for the driver of the vehicle to do daily mantinence on, aswell as fix more minor problems himself on, that would be awesome. Maintinence on the LAV-III engine compared to the older LAV-25 engine is a pain in the ass, and takes forever to do, mostly because of the computerised engine system.

Actually that division of GM was sold to General Dynamics Land Systems back in the early 2000's, but the factory is still in London, ON.

The combat-ready Herc trasport requirement is pointless, IMO, given that we have C-17s and most vehicles are either moved by sea or contracted air transport anyway, esecially when you consider all the fule, ammo, spare parts, etc that have go along with a deployment. I can't imagine too many scenarios where Canada would need to fly combat-ready vehicles into a theatre by CC-130. We probably wouldn't have enough CC-130s available at any one time for an effecitve combat airlift mission anyway.

That being said, there are difficulties inherrent to the fact that the LAV is wheeled, which adds to height and therefore top-heaviness. It also has diminshed mobility in mud an other off-road terrain. It has shown itself to be fairly resiliant against typical threats such as RPGs, at least when it comes to crew protection but often the damage from IED's in particular is enough to cause a hull loss. So I think its fair to procure a heavier, tracked vehicled meant for frontal assault that will likely be much slower but better protected and likely have better firepower. The 25mm chain gun us good for penetration but when you're firing on a mud hut, its just a waste of ammo as the round goes through the front wall and right through the back wall without killing any enemies unless they happen to be standing in the path, in which case thats a waste of ammo. At the same time, 25mm is at the lower end of what you would want to engage another modern armoured vehicle. Given the reality of modern warfare in third-world theatres, we would need is something that can fire an HE or Frag round that can kill mulitple dismounted personnel and/or collapse small structures like mud huts.

I'll give you the first point. I based my argument on the fact that every vehicle has GM logo's plastered all over the inside of the damned thing.

I don't think a transport ready herc requirement is pointless. The more ways you can deploy to a combat zone while combat ready, and the quicker you can do it, the better. And we don't have enough C-17s to really do anything besides shuttle our very limited number of tanks, and supplies/personel for a prolonged combat operation. Then again, I don't know how much we can deploy with our herc fleet either; I don't know how many operational aircraft we currently have, how many you would need to transport an infantry battalion with enough support to last for 48-72 hours in a combat zone, etc. Generally I think we need more aircraft.

Some of the difficulties you mention because the LAV is wheeled is inherint due to what the military demanded. For instance, they are top heavy because the military wanted a vehicle narrow enough to fit inside a herc. A BTR-90, on the other hand, is 3.2 meters wide compared to a LAV-IIIs 2.6, yet both are approximately 2.8-2.9 meters tall. A BTR is actually less top-heavy than both the M-113, and the M-2 Bradley, which are both tracked vehicles.

Though personally, I don't understand why a vehicle with a suspension system that would allow the chassie of the vehicle to be lowered on-the-fly for air transport and urban comabat/road transport hasn't come around. Would deal with my misgivings of the LAV-IIIs air transportability and top-heavyness on the highway quite nicely. Though in rough terrain where you need every inch of ground clearance you could spare, tipping over would again be an issue.

As for the 25mm, I agree it is too small, and think the 30mm mounted with a 7.62mm co-ax and a pair of TOW-missle launchers would be the best mix for engageing dismounted infantry, light vehicles, Light and Heavy Infantry fighting vehicles, and tanks. Just need a sighting system that simply adjusts it's range indication based on the weapon and type of ammo used.