LAV III RWS versus LAV III with turret

[Kiwi99]

I recently put together an After Action Review with regard to the LAV III in Afghanistan.  It covered both good and bad points and ways to inprove the vehicle.  This paper went to Ottawa and was well recieved.  Furthe discussion with PMO LAV made a lot of ref to the LAV III with a remote weapon station for the future.  Personally I am against remote systems as I believe all weapons should be controlled directly by the operator.  I am after feedback from anyone who has used the LAV III, and whatthey believe the pros and cons would be to having a RWS vice a manned turret.  My reasons are as follows;
1.   situational awarness.  Even with LSAS it is limited.  With head out of turret you ca nee a lot more.
2.   stoppages and ammunition resupply
3.   presence.  even on peace support ops you need to be seen so as to not be seen as afraid.
4.   what are the limitations to weapon calibre
5.   the commander assists the driver when driving at night or over bad terrain
6.   navigation more difficult, even with TAV NAV.  the commander needs to see the ground as a camera will not show depth properly
7.   command and control.  where are my dismounts in relation to the vehicle.
8.   protection of the RWS itself.  
9.   in combat you need all the systems to be big and clunky as your fine motor skills deteriorate.  Basing all my situational awareness and gun control off a screen has me concerned.  Periscopes can get shot out, yes, but if your screen goes down, well, what then.

I understand that any system with RWS will have backups like periscopes, etc.  But having to replenish the ammo and fix stoppages when the weapon system is that high off the car sounds uncool, especially if the enemy fire is so intense that raising your head will get you hit.
I am sure that there is pros out there for RWS, lets hear them.


[Edit: A sentence was removed due to OPSEC.]

 

[Teflon]

I have to go with the turret, for alot of reasons many already mentioned in the above post but mainly due the fact that the LAV all ready cost a furtune the way it is, with a RWS the cost would increase and lets face it, this is Canada and our country will only spend so much on the military.  Besides I spent a whole tour riding a turret and in my mind that's where the operators should be - can't beat the Sit awareness of the turret.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Folks, given the technical nature of this thread, let's limit the responses to those with experience on the equipment.  If necessary, start a parallel thread for the sidebar discussions.

Thank you

Army.ca Staff

 

[MJP]

I've read your paper Kiwi, bang up job on it.

I'm with you and Teflon on this one.  RWS is not for a vehicle that requires a massive amount of situational awareness.  I think one thing they forget is that the RG RWS works because you have a fairly decent 360 view around the vehicle from the gunners chair through all the windows.  While a remote weapon system in a LAV won't  (hopefully) prevent the CC from having his head up and getting a read on the situatio.  Only having a few small viewports around the turret would make it extremely hard for him to maintain any sort of SA once he was down.  This of course assuming that they keep everything else the same in the vehicle.

 

[vonGarvin]

There are so many differences between any RWS and "conventionally" turreted vehicles that I cannot see one system being replaceable with the other.  The main advantage for a "conventionally" turreted vehicle is that given current technology, you can have a much bigger weapon with the turreted system, and, as you've mentioned, access to the weapon itself for remedying stoppages and the like.


My $0.02 worth.

 

[a_majoor]

I am rather curious as to why anyone is considering replacing the turret on a LAV with an RWS anyway? What advantages are "they" proposing an RWS will give compared to a turret?

The only thing that comes to my mind is lower weight/lower profile, which is worth considering, but maybe there are other ways to achieve the same goals (i.e. replacing some items with lightweight substitutes using advanced materials that are just as strong or stronger than steel)

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I could see the utility of an RWS on a LAV III chassis if the vehicle was being used in the role that Bisons currently fill (as a CSS vehicle).  Ambs, MRTs, CPs and vehicles carrying PAX in convoys could all benefit from an RWS instead of an exposed crewman.  I think it would be ideal if the option to operate "exposed" was retained, as this would give the crew commander options. 

As for the LAVs in the companies, I think the posters above pretty much nailed it. 

 

[RHFC_piper]

Having taken an RG-31 gunners course (pre-deployment) and gunning in a LAV (on turret shift in Panjwayi), I've had the unique experience of using both.   I personally like the RWS system on the RG-31, as it automatically applies the ballistics once a target is lasered, and the IR is quite a bit more advanced than the LAVs (not going into specs), and the optics have a 'zoom'...  But I can see where it lacks.  

As was stated before; the RWS is great for a vehicle like the RG-31 because it's light, and the vehicle has windows to spot targets more easily.  Since I've never used the LAV turret in 'intense combat' (just some pot-shots into Pashmul) and I don't have a gunners course for the LAV, I can't comment intelligently on the effectiveness, in comparison, of SA through the LAV turrets parascopes. But the RWS screen in comparison to the LAVs Thermal or Day scope... I'd rather have the screen.  It has a wider field of view (I found anyway) and a more clear view in both thermal and day (which can be switched at a push of a button).

The RWS currently in use on the RG-31 isn't without it's faults, though... and they've pretty much been covered already;  Ammo reloading, etc, etc.  But I think there can be a compromise and the technology used in the RG-31's RWS could be employed in the LAVs existing turret, or the RWS could be used on a LAV / Coyote as a secondary support platform.

The concept behind the RWS is to keep the gunners in a safe position and not exposed in a turret.  Not that the LAV's turret is completely exposed, but consider the other vehicles the RWS is used on (Hummers, LUVWs someday, RG-31s).  Would you rather stick out of a open hatch?  With that in mind,  wouldn't it be better if the turret crew could be further in the belly of the beast (LAV) and still be able to engage?   The RWS system it's self consumes a lot less space in the vehicle itself;  more ammo could be stored (for use in bins) in the turret itself.  And then theres the bonus of improved optics and a sighting system which applies ballistic automatically, reducing human error, and possibly increasing the effective range of the weapon by applying the correct ballistics for extreme ranges (works for the .50 on the RG-31s RWS).  Just some thoughts.

adversely: What about having an RWS mounted on top of the turret.  With some programming, the system would be able to compensate for the movement of the main turret and add the option of engaging the target with .50cal when in a turret-down possition (with the main turret), or engage multiple targets at once with a .50 and the 25mm.

I could picture this system on a Coyote, with the gunners position replacing the 'bird gunners' position.  Due to the height of the RWS system, and with good placement, the system could be used as 'Air sentry' or 'rear guard' when in convoy, and could provide extra fire power when fighting.  This would provide added protection to the crew as they could travel with 'hatches down' all the time.

Anyway, I don't think we should be looking at this as a 'versus' situation, as the technology is very flexable and can be adapted to suit.  I think the RWS system is amazing and very practical in an RPG / IED rich environment, but has its weaknesses and needs some improvements. Where as, The LAV turret is a powerfull fighting platform proven in multiple engagements, but it needs some upgrades to fight even more effectively.  

 

[George Wallace]

RHFC_piper

Your post starts out saying that you have used both, and later you go on to say you don't have a LAV Gnry Crse.  That invalidates a lot of what you have posted, as you don't really have all the knowledge to truly compare the two.  Looking through a sight and pulling the triggers, does not a LAV Gnr make.  You don't have the intricate knowledge of the sights and equipment to honestly give a comparison. 

adversely: What about having an RWS mounted on top of the turret.  With some programming, the system would be able to compensate for the movement of the main turret and add the option of engaging the target with .50cal when in a turret-down possition (with the main turret), or engage multiple targets at once with a .50 and the 25mm.

To mount a RWS on top of the turret is ludicrous.  You have already admitted to it making a vehicle top heavy, and the LAV family is 'top heavy', so what would adding another turret on top of the existing turret add up to?......besides a Roll Over waiting to happen.  Not only that, but it would give the crew information overload.  The turret crew already have enough on their plate with their existing wpns, so they don't need another complicated wpn system to add to their distractions. 

 

[Kiwi99]

Having been in an enviroment where IED and RPG are plentiful (Panjwai/Pashmul), I loved the fact that I was in the turret.  Given the exposed nature of RWS, and the inability to 'up-armour' the system, it is extremely vulnerable to both forms of attack. 

MOD note: Sentenced removed due to OPSEC

  But why put a RWS on with a .50 cal when you can have a turret with a 25mm or bigger.  Honestly, if you are always confined to the vehicle with little or no chance of exposing yourself, where is the fun and adrenaline.  Nobody will join the forces if you take that away. 
As a commander of a LAV III in Pashmul  feb-aug last year, I cannot stress the importance for the commander to be in a turret, standing up, maintainiong all types of situational awareness. Yes, when the RPG and bullets start flying you cannot stand up and are restricted to periscopes.  But it is not impossible.  One of the armies biggest training faults is that we never train hatches down inthe LAV. Having a RWS would not make it any easier.  And if it gets taken out, well then what?
Finally, the RG-31 is great for on the highway, but in Helmend or Panj it is out of its element.  The worst ride ever, no stab on the RWS and that screen lights up the entire car at night.  To use the RG and the RWS as a comparison to LAV and turret is wrong.  That why RWS is on RGs and maybe one day LUVWs; they are not fighting vehicles, they are escort and convoy vehicles.
I am liking very much some of the ideas being presented here, and it is good to see both sides of the argument.

 

[RHFC_piper]

RHFC_piper

Your post starts out saying that you have used both, and later you go on to say you don't have a LAV Gnry Crse.  That invalidates a lot of what you have posted, as you don't really have all the knowledge to truly compare the two.  Looking through a sight and pulling the triggers, does not a LAV Gnr make.  You don't have the intricate knowledge of the sights and equipment to honestly give a comparison. 

I have fired both, as I stated.  I have a gunnery course for 1 (RG-31), as I've stated.  I agree that fire at the enemy with a 25mm doesn't make me a gunner, as I varified with the statement "I can't comment intelligently on the effectiveness, in comparison, of SA through the LAV turrets parascopes" refering to the fact that I've not had the experience using the full system in intense combat, which a also stated.  This is why this is an oppinion based on comparing experiences.

What I was trying to get at was; Instead of having to apply balistics manually, the RWS applies them automatically once you've engaged the laser on the target.  I personally found it harder to engage targets with the LAV turret than the RWS turret...  Just a personal experience.

Granted the RG-31 gunners course isn't the LAV gunners course, a lot of the theories are identical.   And during work up, we all (section) were given a crash course on the basic operations and theories of the LAV turret, 25mm and coax.  Again, not a gunners course, but it sure came in handy when I engaged 2 targets in Panjwayi while on turret sentry.

To mount a RWS on top of the turret is ludicrous.  You have already admitted to it making a vehicle top heavy, and the LAV family is 'top heavy', so what would adding another turret on top of the existing turret add up to?......besides a Roll Over waiting to happen.  Not only that, but it would give the crew information overload.  The turret crew already have enough on their plate with their existing wpns, so they don't need another complicated wpn system to add to their distractions. 

I don't remember every posting anything (here) about making it a vehcle top heavy... I actually didn't even consider it (I don't know why, since I've seen the effects on both vehicles)... but it is a good point.  Regardless, the point I was trying to make with that is the possible integration of technologies.  Perhaps the RWS doesn't have to be mounted on the existing turret, perhaps on the back deck. (I know, there are issues with that too.)  All I'm getting at is the technology for RWS is worth the while, and can improve the safety conditions of the crew and improve the ability to engage.

As for the crew "information overload"....  Why does the turret crew have to operate the RWS?  As the name dictates, it's Remote... thus the gunner could be anywhere in the vehicle... Which is why I suggested the RWS gunner position replacing the Air-sentry gunners position in the Coyote.  All that's required is a screen and a joy-stick.

Either way, I think the LAV would benifit greatly from the use of the Optics system on the RWS... perhaps just as an upgrade to the existing system (not on a seperate turret).

 

[ArmyRick]

George, take note. He may not have a a formal LAV gunnery course but if he has fired LAV 25mm/co-ax at REAL targets (not paper targets as most people have done throughout their careers) then I would value his opinion. I would say say piper has some valid points to bring to the table.

I remember being given a crash intro to LAVIII Turret as well and then allowed to try it out in the simulator for my last tour. Never fired live though.

 

[George Wallace]

ArmyRick/RHFC_piper

Don't take offense when I say, having fired a LAV doesn't give you the intricate knowledge of the system that you would have if you had the Gnry Crse.  Anyone can pull the trigger on any wpn system, and it really doesn't matter where; on the range or in battle.  What I am saying is that if you don't know how to operate the sights and their capabilities, don't attempt to make a comparison (that some here may take as gospel).   Just because I can fire my C7/C8, doesn't mean that I can tell a Shooting Coach all about the intricacies of firing them.  Your input about the RWS, that you trained on, is valid, but I will not accept your having 'fired' the LAV (no matter where), without a thorough knowledge of it, as being a absolutely valid qualifier in comparing the two.  You are extremely and intricately knowledgeable of the one, but not the other (or lesser so of the other).

I will drop that now and move on to your comments of adding a RWS to a LAV/Coyote and say you are full of it.  It just brings us back to all our discussions on the MGS and how it is a POS that does not allow the crew enough SA.  The LAV family are high enough as is.  To add to the top of the turret is ludicrous.  To put anything on top of the turret, the size of a RWS, will take away from the Crews SA.  To put anything like a RWS on the back for the Air Sentries will also take away SA, as well as a good 1/3 of the arcs that the 25 can cover.

Older guys may remember that the first Marders had one, sometimes two, remote MGs mounted on their rears.  One of the very first mods they made was to remove them.  The problems of SA can usually be solved with the removal of remote wpns stations.  They are not all negative, and you will find that we have already put forward some situations and vehicle types where RWS could be valuable.  They would be of value to the B Echelons, but more of a hindrance in the F Echelons, in most cases.   It will all depend on the vehicle and the role.

Your ideas for improvements or conversion to the sighting systems in the RWS may be an improvement to some of the clutter in the LAV turret, and then again, may just add to it.  I know the SAS monitor and added boxes under the CC's seat were more of a hinderance than a help.  However, improvements to the sighting systems are always welcome.

 

[Jarnhamar]

but I will not accept your having 'fired' the LAV (no matter where), without a thorough knowledge of it, as being a absolutely valid qualifier in comparing the two. 

As was stated before; the RWS is great for a vehicle like the RG-31 because it's light, and the vehicle has windows to spot targets more easily.  Since I've never used the LAV turret in 'intense combat' (just some pot-shots into Pashmul) and I don't have a gunners course for the LAV, I can't comment intelligently on the effectiveness, in comparison, of SA through the LAV turrets parascopes.

Piper seems VERY aware about how far his lanes extend. Doesn't sound like he was trying to pass himself off as a SME at all, what gives?
Personally I think theres a considerable difference between what happens on the range and what happens in theater too

I remember the CDS talking about turrentless lavs. I've only gunned with the RWS on the RG31 and in that medium I like it but replace a lav turrent with it? no way.
Too many problems with it and it takes so much away from the lav.  I'm not sure the optics capabilities of the lav turrent so maybe I can see the $600'000 RWS system up there as an additional piece of kit.

 

[warchild]

I don't believe there is any option with this for a few reasons.  Firstly, the LAV III intimidation is first and formost.  With the 25 (Distance caliber and variety of ammo), there is no better option.  SA is a big issue but for those that have had a read of the paper kiwi is talking about, there are new options proposed for the C/C & gnr with ref to crew protection.  This would nullify the RWS point on protection of the crew. 

Optics.....well there is room for discussion in that.  I really liked the zoom and thermal option in the RG-31 but again I refer to the thermal dew point.  Again the solution would be to incorporate the technologe into the turret for the 25.

Hands down we need to stick with the turret and develop it from there.  I also think that the people that are interested in the RWS for the LAV are comparing it to the Stryker platform used in Iraq.  Still an IFV but with the urban element involved there and the use of their M1's and Bradley's in that environment for support (Iraq has more hardball to drive on) they can get away with it.  In Afghanistan we are our own support.

 

[Teflon]

I have to agree that the zoom ability in the RG-31 RWS is outstanding and that the LAV III turret could certainly benefit from such a feature, the LAV turret already being fairly component tight though I will leave it up to those with better minds then mine to figure out how and if this could be done, hopefully without it being an externally mounted component that could be shot off or damaged easily.

It would have been outstanding to have that zoom ability in my turret over there though!

In the end the optics package in the LAV turret like all veh components I sure will one day be revamped and modified to include such improvements.

 

[ArmyRick]

What about a combination of LAV III and stryker ICV?

The one advantage I see to a stryker carrier is that  you can squeeze 2 crew plus 9 dismounts (more boots on the ground). Plus from yanks I have talked to, they say they can squeeze alot of extra ammo, weapons and goodies in their carriers. I am also a fan of the stryker 120mm mortar (not as deadly as 155mm but it is far more mobile and it can be brought into action very fast), it would compliment the M777 nicely I thinks.

How about an infantry platoon with 2 x LAVIII (more fire power and fewer dismounts) and 2 x Stryker carriers (less fire power, more dismounts). Ideas on this thought?

Given that the enemy is currently mostly infantry, the .50 is nothing to dismiss so lightly.

Cheers, Rick (Preparing for a volley of angry replys)

 

[George Wallace]

Army Rick

Excellent suggestion.  I would only change one thought, and that it would still be a crew of three; Dvr, Comd, and Gnr.

I, too, am a proponent of the 120 mm mortar, and its' wide range of munitions and capabilities.  Is the Stryker a turreted mortar?

 

[ArmyRick]

Nope. Its on a pretty high speed low drag turn table with digital bells and whistles. I will drag up a picture of the system in action for you.
http://www.army.mil/-images/2006/12/26/1558/
http://www4.army.mil/armyimages/armyimage.php?photo=10434

http://www.primeportal.net/apc/hans-hermann_buhling/stryker_mortar_carrier/

Cheers

 

[a_majoor]

Since every problem has a solution (when you ask me!) here are the short, medium and long term solutions:

Short term: Replace the commander's hatch with an Urden cupola from Israel. This can be locked in the 1/2 open position but is actually covering the commander like a steel umbrella. The commander remains "heads up" but has some more protection compared to hatches open, allowing for improved S/A when under contact

Medium term: Improve the LAV III FCS to incorporate the better features of the RWS system; i.e wider field of view, "zoom" and automatic ballistic calculations. This might involve something simple like changing the camera, or really involved like total rewiring and software replacement, so this requires careful consideration and planning.

Long term: as part of the LAV 3.5 program, replace the Delco turret with a Wegman turret. The Wegman turret is a cleft turret design which allows the weapon to elevate and depress in the slot in the turret roof (one reason western tanks in general are higher than Soviet/Russian ones is the requirment for guns to depress 100. Extra turret hight is needed for recoil in an enclosed design). The crew is seated much lower in the hull, although their heads are still above the turret ring and they can go heads up when they wish. The turret is smaller and lighter, which also reduces the top heaviness factor and reduces overall weight and signature as well. This does not translate into more space for troops and kit inside the vehicle, however.

The LAV 3.5 will also need a diet, so hatches, the ramp and many internal fittings should be replaced by lightweight composite materials wherever possible, but that is a different thread.....