Is the LAV 3 amphibious?

[Towards_the_gap]

Driver maintenance or lack of.  >

Easy to say, but you try convincing a driver that it's necessary to clean and silicone lube every bit of rubber on a hatch. That's assuming it's still there, I recall looking at most hatch seals (not the dragoon kind either hahahahahaha) and thinking 'hmm, if we get in a CBRN threat environment I'm screwed' as I idly toyed with the bits of dessicated rubber hanging from the bare metal of the hatch rim.

Also, with the amount of repairs/refurb still required by the fleet, I doubt you're going to find any 2nd line unit that would be happy to start modding LAV III's, adding trim vanes, marine drives, periscopes, torpedo tubes, sails and whatnot. When I left we were having a hard time keeping up with annual inspections, let alone major maintenance. It was a constant matter of robbing peter to pay interest to paul, balancing the VOR's and the road worthy vehicles. Then you'd roll out the gate on ex and tow half your fleet back within 48 hours due to breakdowns, and suddenly finding yourself pretending LSVW's were ELAV's.

 

[Kirkhill]

Piranhas swim in Brazil..... pass it on  :-*

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Brazil-Grows-its-Piranha-III-Vehicle-Fleet-05176/

 

[Towards_the_gap]

Piranhas swim in Brazil..... pass it on  :-*

When you don't take part in expeditionary wars for 10 years straight you find the time to do things like swim APC's.

 

[a_majoor]

No, we fritter our time and resources away on other things like determining which funding pool the mens's Christmas dinner should be paid out of, what historical era our ranks should be modeled after and how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

The perhaps one excuse in the Sandbox is since there were no real water features to swim across, there was no need to develop or train for that particular skill. In the larger picture, it was decided somewhere that the cost/benefit ratio of having amphibious mobility did not work out. People like George and I might disagree, but we don't get a say in the matter.

 

[Kirkhill]

When you don't take part in expeditionary wars for 10 years straight you find the time to do things like swim APC's.

Like these guys....

 

[Robert0288]

That seems a canoe wake away from turning into a sub.

 

[cupper]

Like these guys....

Sure, throw the recovery asset in the water. What could possibly be wrong with that? ;D

 

[Kirkhill]

Note the Safety Boat?  And I swear that LAV was getting lower in the water......  ;D

 

[dapaterson]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2u6cd-qUDtw

 

[cupper]

So, the answer is, encase it in plastic it will float.  :nod:

 

[Towards_the_gap]

Like these guys....

Sorry

When you don't take part in expeditionary wars for 10 years straight on a shoestring budget, you find the time to do things like swim APC's.

 

[George Wallace]

That video reminded me of Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka Dot Bikini the way that the Driver was hesitating to get INTO the water........

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I think it all depends on what one calls "amphibious", especially in relation to (non-existent) amphibious assault ships.

The limited capability of some APC's and tanks to "swim" across some limited distances of flat calm waters, so as to cross small rivers and lakes in your way  is not exactly an "amphibious" capability - which would require the capability of landing from a reasonably long distance of ocean coast through waves and the surf.

The Marines may "swim" their LAV III in that video, but when it comes to actual ladings from the 'phibs, they only swim their AAV-7's (true amphibious APC's) and land the LAV's using landing crafts.

 

[Kirkhill]

General Dynamics Marine Personnel Carrier Completes Critical Marine Corps Swim and Human Factors Testing

STERLING HEIGHTS, Mich. – General Dynamics Land Systems’ Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC) vehicle successfully completed the U.S. Marine Corps’ water performance swim and human factors testing at the Amphibious Vehicle Test Branch (AVTB), in Camp Pendleton, Calif. General Dynamics Land Systems is a business unit of General Dynamics (NYSE: GD).

“Our teams in Michigan, South Carolina, Virginia and Canada developed a vehicle that performed impressively during testing and demonstrated the ability to meet the Marine Corps’ MPC vehicle requirements,” said Michael D. Bolon, senior vice president, General Dynamics Land Systems U.S. Marine Corps and Navy Business Sector. “Our vehicle clearly demonstrated it has the amphibious capabilities that the Marines seek with the required outstanding survivability.”

Marine Corps teams at AVTB tested many critical vehicle features including troop egress and component storage, reserve buoyancy, center of gravity, water maneuverability, hydrodynamic stability, ocean speed into head seas and surf transit capability. The General Dynamics MPC demonstrated exceptional swim capabilities at its fully armored combat weight, along with the required ability to carry 12 Marines and their equipment. Rapid tactical and emergency egress through the vehicle’s large roof hatches and rear ramp was also demonstrated.

The General Dynamics MPC demonstrated ample buoyancy at the fully armored combat weight, including two days of supplies to support 12 Marines in combat operations, and provided substantial stability and safety for amphibious tactical movements. This included safe maneuvering through plunging surf levels of up to four feet and reaching water speeds of over six knots. The General Dynamics MPC’s rugged design allows it to maintain a stable waterborne attitude for all swimming and surf-penetration maneuvers.

In addition to its strong swimming capability, General Dynamics’ MPC offers excellent crew, troop and equipment accommodation. It provides land mobility capability compatible with the M1A1 tank. Based on the combat-proven LAV III family of vehicles, its unique double-V hull provides unmatched protection levels for improved survivability. This MPC is the first amphibious vehicle of its type to demonstrate its swim capability with the double-V hull.

“General Dynamics has a long and proud history of providing land and amphibious combat systems to the Marine Corps. We look forward to continuing this strong partnership by drawing on the industry’s broadest base of amphibious combat vehicle knowledge and experience to deliver optimum and best value solutions,” said Bolon.

More information about General Dynamics Land Systems is available at www.gdls.com.

Information about General Dynamics is available at www.generaldynamics.com.

Maybe the CCV money could be spent buying some basic Bison 2s (LAV-Log) type vehicles based on the LAVIII, with amphibious capabilities.  Some of the rest of the money could be added to the LAV Up programme to make some portion of the rest of the fleet amphibious.

Then, perhaps, the CA could cross rivers like the St Lawrence, Fraser, MacKenzie, Saskatchewan, Otonabee (look it up) without having to sign a government contract to get a bridge built.

And, if the water is calm enough, and the ship is close enough to shore, they might even be able to come ashore from the sea.

 

[George Wallace]

And, if the water is calm enough, and the ship is close enough to shore, they might even be able to come ashore from the sea.

Of course this would also require the appropriate purchase of the appropriate Engineer Vehicles to prepare the entry and exit points on the shorelines at said water crossings sites.  >

 

[Fishbone Jones]

How did we get from 'Is the LAV 3 amphibious?' to trying to define a role and purpose for amphibious vehicles of which we have no need or mandate?

 

[PuckChaser]

How did we get from 'Is the LAV 3 amphibious?' to trying to define a role and purpose for amphibious vehicles of which we have no need or mandate?

Or money to buy.

 

[Kirkhill]

Or money to buy.

Need? Yes (rivers and lakes abound in Canada - salt water excursions would be nice but are not critical)
Mandate? No (and that's a shame)
Money? Yes (see unused capital returned to General Revenues and also CCV funds - not to mention funds directed to Canadian companies for being Canadian).

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Need? Yes (rivers and lakes abound in Canada - salt water excursions would be nice but are not critical)
Mandate? No (and that's a shame)
Money? Yes (see unused capital returned to General Revenues and also CCV funds - not to mention funds directed to Canadian companies for being Canadian).

It's a pie in the sky.

That money would never be reallocated.

Keeping swimmers viable is a maintenance intensive task. The costs to manpower, training and parts is enormous.

Any around here, that remember the swim camps we had, would agree.

Vehicles were hardly out of the box and a couple of years old before they were quarantined from swimming.

Frankly, it's not worth it.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Crawled around a PT-76, that thing was designed to be amphibious first and foremost, large internal volume. It gave up some stuff to be that. At the end of the day you don't need everything to swim, just some that can do it well.