Infantry Direct Fire Support Vehicle?

[Journeyman]

That would be pretty fucking cool.

OK, that is the technical terminology for it.....
But wise words nonetheless.

I agree whole-heartedly that a "relatively" simple addition of one USMC-type Delco TOW turret per platoon, with one more with the LAV Capt, would provide an incredible increase in integral firepower (and I'm a BIG fan of 'integral'!), and provide a whole world of flexibility to the Battle-Group Commander's planning.

However, "relatively" is in quotes because there's always a training/support bill. Having just read John Conrad's What the Thunderer Heard reaffirmed the logistic bill (yep -- ammo, bean-counters, wrench-turners -- they're all involved with each combat/equipment decision!).

So ya, I'd ask their opinion too......

 

[vonGarvin]

Oh no. He finally went there. Right back to his fallschirm-stoss penquins!

Hey, don't dis the Penguins!  They would be as effective as a single-purpose IDFSV.  As Journeyman said, "Someone think of the logistics.  Oh, won't anyone think of the logistics?"

 

[McG]

Hey, don't dis the Penguins!  They would be as effective as a single-purpose IDFSV.  As Journeyman said, "Someone think of the logistics.  Oh, won't anyone think of the logistics?"

Ooo!  Ooo!  I did, I did! See, I mentioned:

... the costs (money, manpower, supply & transport space, etc) that would come with a unique vehicle.

While the logisticians & techs were not explicitly stated, they were implied within the manpower.  The parts & ammunition were implied in consumption of money and S&T space.

... I'm going to get myself a cookie now.  :clown:

 

[Journeyman]

Well, the true measure of brilliance is in how much someone agrees with you 

 

[a_majoor]

WRT upgunning the LAV family, I would advocate 35mm, since we could incorporate already existing advanced ammunition (AHEAD), along with bigger and better versions of the usual mayhem. This also would provide ins for other things: a LAV SPAAG using the 35 + AHEAD with some sort of 3d radar, a Coyote II mounting the weapon as an FSV for the recce coy/sqn, and a related program for the Navy to swat incoming missiles (the "Millenium Gun" 35mm revolver cannon). Logistics and economy of scale would help a lot.

WRT 5 RCR; who did you think painted all the ice in Antarctica white? 

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

and a related program for the Navy to swat incoming missiles

I think you will see the navy go to the Rolling Airframe Missile or the like when its time to retire the Phalanx.

 

[a_majoor]

RAM is good for one of the outer layers, but a gun still rules the final approach, and I doubt you can launch a RAM at a Somali pirate speedboat (but a gun will do wonders....)

 

[NavyShooter]

OK,

I hope you guys don't mind me jumping out of my lane here, (I'm a sailor...what does a squid know about tanks n stuff anyhow, right?)

How about a platform that may be able to be fitted on a current LAV hull?

Keep the same hull, so most of your ve-tronics remain the same (at least those in the hull.)

Add a new turret.

Instead of the 105mm direct fire guns, how about a twin 120mm....autoloading mortar?

The AMOS:

http://www.patriahagglunds.fi/amos.html

It is capable of being fitted to the LAV III hull.  Provides direct or indirect fire-support out to ranges of 10 Km, with a max rate of fire of 26 rounds per minute.

Because it's a mortar, not a big gun, it's got a much lower recoil impulse (see the videos) and it's not going to over-stress the platform.

Onboard ammo load is quoted at 84 HE rounds, and it has the capability to carry 6 precision guided rounds (ie STRIX) so you have the added capability of getting PGM delivery.

As an aside, a 105 mm OE 105 F1 High-Explosive (HE) round contains 2 kg of Hexolite 50:50 as it's explosive filler.  A standard 120mm Mortar round contains 2.5 kg of Comp B explosive.

Anyhow, I could be wrong (probably am) but perhaps getting a few of the AMOS mortar turrets would provide the direct fire support you're looking for, while still being capable of a multi-role capacity to do "other" stuff.

NS

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Who knows Navy shooter, you may one day end up serving on a "navalized" LAV  ;D

http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/aw/dti0908/index.php?startid=20

OTO Melara is currently developing the Multifunctional Weapon System (MWS), an unmanned turret system weighing 5.5 metric tons for 8x8 wheeled or tracked armoured vehicles, based on the popular 76mm Super Rapid naval gun. 8 ready-to-use rounds are placed on a revolver feeding system around the rammer. A further 24 rounds are stored in the turret. Radar and electro-optical surveillance and targeting systems are also fitted. The MWS can also fire the DART anti-missile guided ammunition up to a range of 8km. The system is also proposed for the C-RAM role.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

RAM is good for one of the outer layers, but a gun still rules the final approach, and I doubt you can launch a RAM at a Somali pirate speedboat (but a gun will do wonders....)

Seeing how RAM is replacing a lot of the gun based CIWS systems throughout the world I think most Naval Commands would disagree with you.

 

[a_majoor]

Seeing how RAM is replacing a lot of the gun based CIWS systems throughout the world I think most Naval Commands would disagree with you.

Hence why I am not in the Navy 

Seriously though, in today's environment being able to deal with small sea borne targets (Somali pirates, Iranian Revolutionary guard speedboats, AQ suicide boaters) would seem to be an asset to any system. If you are going to use a missile, the only one that I know of that can deal with these sorts of targets along with aerial threats is the Thales Starstreak (covers 6000m in 5 seconds and has the KE of a 40mm shell on impact), although I am willing to be proved wrong yet again...

Looping back to the DFSV aspect of this thread, a LAV "Blazer" SPAAG with a 25mm gatling gun would also have quite the effect on ground targets, and it is also an integrated system mounting both the gun for short range targets and missiles (Stinger or Mistral) for longer engagements. Now this is not only not a low tech system (per ArmyRick's initial post), it isn't even an Infantry weapons system, but it can conceivably do the job.

Once again, an argument for the all arms approach.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Oh believe me I would not have any problems seeing several 20-30mmm guns mounted on the upper decks to help counter the FIAC and suicide boat threat at all.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I seem to remember that when you try to design an armoured vehicle specifically for Infantry support, you get this kind of result:

 

[vonGarvin]

You *could* also get something like this, though:

 

[McG]

I seem to remember that when you try to design an armoured vehicle specifically for Infantry support ...

I don't think there is anything inherently leading any infantry fire support vehicle to be a design failure.  A vehicle of any role can turn out to be a flop if you get the design/engineering wrong.

At the same time, a brilliantly engineered vehicle will also be a flop if the role for which it was designed is inadequate or irrelevant.  If there is a requirement for a Canadian IDFSV, then I assume it would be to fill some firepower capability gap at the company or battalion level:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/83079.0.html

So, what is the capability gap?

 

[Petard]

I would say the Infantry capability gap remains an indirect fire support one, as much as it is a direct one.
But who has the manpower to look after it?

I think this gap grew about 2003 when the Battalion's indirect fire capability was given, as a residual task, to the Artillery.
It hasn't ever really worked, IMO, because they don't have the manpower either to look after the higher level capabilities, as well as this one of organic fire support within a Battalion.
Despite force generating indirect fire (and sense) capability for a Battle Group, and deployed Artillery capability continuing to respond to the lowest level of control of the unit it is tasked to support, it isn't always tasked to support a Canadian unit since it remains commanded at the highest level. It still is very much a Brigade level resource.
How many times over the last 3 years have we seen a Troop of M777, or more, tasked to support British, Dutch, or other nationalities? While they are doing that it has usually meant a reduction in firepower available to the Canadian Battle Group it deployed with.
.
Sometimes this doesn't matter, but sometimes it does.
Close Air Support is not always available either.

I know AMOS has been tossed out there, but it is a very complex system by the way. Might I suggest something else?
The image is of GD's direct and indirect fire support vehicle, mounting a 120mm mortar with day/night sights. The advantage it has is the ability to fire truly direct as opposed to just high angle.

 

[daftandbarmy]

You want to give mortars back to the infantry?  Why reverse an ongoing trend to take away the 84mm and 60mm?

Here's an idea: give the tanks a mortar too so they don't get arty envy, just like the Merkava:

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Mekava.htm

 

[TCBF]

- Tankers don't want mortars, we want the Infantry and the Bde Recce Sqn to have mortars.
- Most crewmen thought it was abject insanity to take the Mortar, Aslt Pnr and AD Pl away from the infantry, but that was 1990s insanity, when we allowed folks to give up CFE (sure could use Lahr now), build regimental lines at the end of a strategic 14,000 foot runway to garuntee more business to Edmonton International, and hire people before their TQ3 crse was ready to load.
- Once the money started up again, the PYs went to CMTC and other places.

 

[a_majoor]

While the debate seems to have been ended, I found some pics of what ArmyRick may have had in mind. This seems to be an assault gun built around a reworked M-113 chassis, but I can't find the reference to what this was called or who built it.

If it is a reworked M-113, the protection will not be all that great, but there should be enough room for plenty of ammunition. This seems to be a 1980's design, no day/night or thermal sights seem to be included.

Interesting reworking of an old idea though:

 

[Franko]

Can you say Super Gavin?   

Crap...I guess Sparky will be along shortly.      :

Regards