LAV III RWS versus LAV III with turret

[Mortar guy]

I just thought I'd throw in some points on the (planned) way ahead for LAV III RWS as briefed by the PMO. As many of you know, we had originally planned to purchase 74 (IIRC) LAV III TUAs but this number was then reduced to 33. As a result, there were 41 additional hulls sitting around without TUA turrets called LAV III LKs (for "Less Kit"). Now the Army's plan is remanufacture a number of these LAV III LK's with RWS to fill in the role of Bison ISCs that are being remanufactured into Ambs, CPs, MRTs etc. Therefore, the LAV III RWS will not result in us taking turrets off of existing LAV III ISC/CPs.

Hope this helps.

MG

 

[George Wallace]

a_majoor

The turret of the LAV is small enough as is, and to make it smaller doesn't make sense.  It is crowded enough with the equipment that is already in the turret.  It is also crowded and cramped for an average sized soldier, without Body Armour, let alone someone of your size.  

If the turret is to be upgraded, it will have to have a lot of thought put into ergonomics.  It is not a matter of just installing "boxes" where you see an open space, as the crew still have to move the guns throught a full range of motion, as well as perform IA's and Stoppages on those wpns.  A difficult thing to do in the current configuration at times.

Putting the turret crew below the turret ring, makes for quite a 'climb' for the CC to make to get that "heads up" capability.  It will require quite a rearrangement of equipment to achieve the lower turret and crew positioning, possibly the complete redesign or even complete design of a new vehicle.  


Mortar guy

Those sound like sensible purchases/mods.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Mortar guy

Those sound like sensible purchases/mods.

Agree 100 %.

Taking turrents off of LAVs already in use I don't like but replacing the bison with a LAV is deffinaly a good idea.
Bison needs replacing in a big way.

RWS on the RG31 and any LAV mod needs a STAB too. The CF not taking the stab kits then changing their minds (as per normal CF SOP) was probably pretty costly.

 

[a_majoor]

The point of the Wegman turret design is the roof can be quite a bit lower, hence the crew can also sit lower in the hull, without a long climb up to the hatches.

Since this hypothetical exercise is about getting a new turret, one would hope the designers do indeed consider ergonomics, placement of kit and all the other sundry factors (although we can all think of many places where this was not the case..... :rage The main point here is if we want to get some of the advantages claimed by the RWS, we have to look at some far reaching changes to the design of the turret of an AFV to gain the advantages of the new systems without loosing the good points of the traditional designs.

 

[KevinB]

The LAV needs a LARGER turret - not smaller. Its already too small to do the things you want inside of it.

 

[Command-Sense-Act 105]

The LAV needs a LARGER turret - not smaller. Its already too small to do the things you want inside of it.

Full circle?

 

[KevinB]

;D  Too true (but remember I'm the guy that thinks the 011's should crew the LAV's)

I'd be curious if the Bradley turret would fit on the LAV chassis?

 

 

[ArmyRick]

No need. There is a version of the Delco turret that has a TOW launcher on either side. See the Kuwaiti Desert Warrior (Its a UK warrior chasis with a delco turret and TOW missile on either side).

I would like to know why we didn't do that in the first place.

 

[George Wallace]

No need. There is a version of the Delco turret that has a TOW launcher on either side. See the Kuwaiti Desert Warrior (Its a UK warrior chasis with a delco turret and TOW missile on either side).

I would like to know why we didn't do that in the first place.

Several reasons really.  The missiles would have taken up room inside and cut down on the Dismounts.  You would have to expose yourself to reload.  The addition of a missile system to the turret, would have encouraged crews to take more chances in engaging MBTs.  The 25mm was considered as effective, if not more so, than a single guided missile in engaging multiple targets. 

[Edit:  Forgot ......  Money.]

 

[Bomber]

I just thought I'd throw in some points on the (planned) way ahead for LAV III RWS as briefed by the PMO. As many of you know, we had originally planned to purchase 74 (IIRC) LAV III TUAs but this number was then reduced to 33. As a result, there were 41 additional hulls sitting around without TUA turrets called LAV III LKs (for "Less Kit"). Now the Army's plan is remanufacture a number of these LAV III LK's with RWS to fill in the role of Bison ISCs that are being remanufactured into Ambs, CPs, MRTs etc. Therefore, the LAV III RWS will not result in us taking turrets off of existing LAV III ISC/CPs.

Hope this helps.

MG

He said exactly what I was going to post, so I can only support his claim.  This is indeed the plan for the surplus TUA kits. 

 

[vonGarvin]

Of course the Bradley Turret would fit.  For the most part, it's the same turret (shell), but the inside is definately different.  I like the bradley turret, with it's larger ammo bin (sideways!) and the way to get out the back.  But, having our bin the way it is allows for the GIBs to push ammo up, so...
but to talk of 011's in the turret, unfortunately (perhaps), they cannot knit enough of them to crew the LAVs, Coyotes and Tanks.  Besides, what would we do with all those 031's, put them in a combat support platoon? [/sarcasm]
If I were King of APCs (not yet....one day, maybe, but not yet....) the vehicle would have tracks (to give it similar mobility to a tank), be shorter, have enough room for 6 in the back (and their kit!), and would have tons of armour.  In fact, it would look something like this:


(FYI, it's a Marder, and here is some info on it:
Der Schützenpanzer "Marder" ist ein gepanzertes Vollkettenfahrzeug, dessen Panzerschutz und Beweglichkeit auf ein Zusammenwirken mit dem Kampfpanzer "Leopard" abgestimmt sind. Die Besatzung von neun Soldaten kann auf- oder abgesessen vom Panzer kämpfen. Der "Marder" kommt bei der Bundeswehr in der Panzergrenadiertruppe zum Einsatz.
The APC "Marder" is an armoured fully tracked vehicle, whose armoured protection and mobility that is designed to complement the "Leopard" main battle tank.  The crew of 9 soldiers can fight with or without tanks.  The "Marder" in the Federal Armed Forces is used by the Armoured Infantry.)

 

[Kiwi99]

We place way too much emphasis on the rangism of having guys in the back to supply ammo.  Lets look at where the ammo is stored, under the turret.  When you have a full seven guys in the back of a LAV III with all their kit on, incl flak and tac, and all the other kit associated with operations, it is nearly impossible for them to firstly get the ammo out, let alone to the turret.  Sure, if you pull off the line this may be achievable, but not during combat as the turret traverses every which way.
Secondly, when the section is not in the back and you are running low on ammo, you CANNOT get it yourself without sacrificing the effectiveness of your turret.  I speak from experience here when the enemy fire is so intense on your car you cannot climb out of the turret into the back.  There are so many tartgets that the commander cannot crawl back as the turret may HAVE to move unexpectedly. And for the commander will lose command and control in an environment where those two things are paramount.
So with ammo storage, the more you can get in the turret the better, cause it is useless under the commander where no-one can get it.

 

[vonGarvin]

So with ammo storage, the more you can get in the turret the better, cause it is useless under the commander where no-one can get it.

True enough.  Good point, and well-taken.

Which makes the turret that much more capable than ANY RWS system.

 

[KevinB]

My point for the Bradley turret was more room and more available ammo.  Also I'd rather go with it rather than a TUA turret -

Kiwi has way more operational experience with the LAV than I -- but even my trip to Kabul showed clearly that you can't reload during a fight with the GIB's feeding you just based on the range shoots we worked on there.
   

Kiwi et. al. -- what about taking some of the disabled LAV turrets and trying to salvage them?

 

[Kiwi99]

Kev,
the guys at GDLS and maintainers in the forces have being doing a stellar job getting systems back on the line.  Disabled turrets are fixed and sent back for fitting to LAVS.  There are some though that are too screwed up from IED to salvage.  We learnt a lot with LAV over there that we had worked well in WX but poorly in combat, for example, standing in the turret while attacking an objective.  With ref to LAV TUA hulls and spares, I believe the plan is to fit RWS to them and they will begin to replace the Bison.  It will enable better logistics and all other things as blown up cars can be salvaged to fix  both types.  Can you get me a contact through your network with a STRYKER guy for some dialougue about their issues with LAV chassis, and how the STRYKER works for them?  I got a fair idea that you tend to find yourself in some strange places.  See what you can dig up on STRYKER for me if possible.

Kiwi out

 

[MJP]

And put them onto the hull with missing turrets I-6?  I much rather have them retrofitted to be armoured LAV replacements for the Bisons.  The Bison's did a fairly decent job over there but having two armoured vehicles out there made the job more difficult for the MRT guys who had to carry extra parts for two systems.  One common vehicle makes it that much easier for them.

I also like it for crew survivabilty in a LAV vs Bison.  Driver & CC are much better protected in a LAV IMHO.

and Kiwi beat me......

 

[KevinB]

Kiwi -- PM inbound

Mike -- just an idea I pulled out of my Ass...

 

[MJP]

I just didn't understand what you where getting at....I figured that was it but hate assuming

 

[KevinB]

You hit on it.  I knew a few of the LAV's where INOP due to body damage and figured what the hell.

  Maybe the militia will finally get the BISON now
 
 

 

[Mortar guy]

...With ref to LAV TUA hulls and spares, I believe the plan is to fit RWS to them and they will begin to replace the Bison. 
Kiwi out

This sounds vaguely familiar...

MG