MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)

[George Wallace]

But looking for 8 km line of sight shots seems to be pretty limiting as to the terrain on which you could use this kit.   The amount of dead ground possible between launcher and the 8 km horizon suggests to this civvy that the crews might have some nasty surprises in their futures.

I think this is a result of the latest 'Warrior Analysts' harking to the Gulf War as the way warfare will be in the future.  I look at the Gulf Wars as being very bad examples of what war will look like in the future.  A large technologically advanced force crossing a flat open desert to attack a rather lesser technically advanced and organized force is an anomaly, not a standard for what is to come (even if it was twice).

 

[Kirkhill]

For my money George (speaking as a taxpayer) I would sooner take the money to be invested in this MMEV beast and buy you (well your mates anyway) your small recce vehicle, equip it with good sights, designators and comms.  Next step would then be to upgrade the arty with some of these longer ranged missiles that can stand in for close air support.  Recce squadron with arty in direct support.

 

[Infanteer]

George, I'll one-up Kirkhill and buy an M1 Abrams tank; saber squadron is direct support.... 8)

 

[George Wallace]

Well...If you insist. 

 

[a_majoor]

Why stop at 8Km? A LAHAT through tube missile can hit targets out to 13 Km provided there is someone who can see and designate the target. If we want to engage "all aspect" targets an EFOG-M can go as far as the fiber optic reel allows, and does not require an active designaton by a forward observer, negating some forms of DAS and providing surprise for our team. There have been various forms of sensor fused gun and artillery munitions which can attack targets hunkered down in the low ground waiting for the ADATS to fly harmlessly over their heads as well.

The primary job of the MMEV is to provide long range covering fire (8Km), so the need for armour protection isn't as urgent, but enemy forces will be on the lookout for high value targets, and the battlefield situation may change suddenly, so a certain amount of protection and DF capability is a must for any military system. A converted Leopard hull as an MMEV has the huge advantage of a large and protected ammunition carrying capacity, along with a powerful engine and large protected volume (to hold and power all the gucci electronic devices), but even a LAV III hull with a suitable turret covers most of the issues we need to address.

 

[vonGarvin]

George, I'll one-up Kirkhill and buy an M1 Abrams tank; saber squadron is direct support.... 8)

Why stop at Squadron?  I'd rather have a few regiments of heavy tanks.  Leopard 2A6 EX?  The Greeks are getting 170 Leopard 2 HEL (a version of the 2A6 EX) purchased in March 2003 for delivery between 2006 and 2009.  On top of this, they are getting 183 used Leopard 2A4 and 150 Leopard 1A5s (purchased on August of this year).  Do the math, and that's over five hundred tanks.  The Leo 2 HELs are 120mm L55 (vice the old L44 barrels).  I'm no math wizard, but that's a heck of a lot more power coming at you!  (The Tiger was 88mm L56, and look how powerful it was!)
FACTS ABOUT GREECE:
Population:  10,668,354 (July 2005 est.)
GDP:  $226.4 billion (2004 est.)
Federal Budget (Expenditures annually): $64.4 billion
Now, lets look at Canada, which is buying, not just over 500 tanks, but 66 (!) MGS thingys:
Population:  32,805,041 (July 2005 est.)
GDP:  $1.023 trillion (2004 est.)
Federal Budget:  (Expenditures annually):  $144 billion
So, explain to me, if a country that spends 64.4 billion a year on everything (roads, sewers, healthcare, education, military, etc) buys 500 tanks,  why can't a country that has more than twice the budget get a thousand tanks?  (just looking at the math, people, looking at the math)
BTW: the Hellenic government runs a deficit budget, whilst Canada runs surpluses (Surpli?).

Garvin signing off and going for a smoke!  (Just might slam my head against a wall in the process)
:brickwall:

 

[Infanteer]

...because Canada hasn't had a civil war and a bunch of shoot-outs with Turks in the last 50 years.

 

[vonGarvin]

...because Canada hasn't had a civil war and a bunch of shoot-outs with Turks in the last 50 years.

Neither has Spain, but they're getting tanks.  The US had a civil war well over a hundred years ago.  When's the last time Sweden was in a war?  (Check out the Leopard 2 Strv 122)  The question stands...no...I'll amend it.  So, explain to me, if a country that spends 64.4 billion a year on everything (roads, sewers, healthcare, education, military, etc) buys 500 tanks,  why can't a country that has more than twice the budget get TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY TANKS instead of 66(!) MGS!?!?!?!  And check out one of the reasons why the Swedes went with a modified Leopard 2A5 (modified): "The Leo 2A5 Improved was found to be as good as the Abrams, but at a lower total cost" (http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product.php?prodID=2019)
Enjoy!

Now, back to, you guessed it.... :brickwall:

 

[George Wallace]

...because Canada hasn't had a civil war and a bunch of shoot-outs with Turks in the last 50 years.

It was only thirty-one years ago since our last shoot-out with the Turks.  The CAR in Cyprus, 1974.

 

[Guest]

Got some more MMEV info...

BTW.. this is NON-OPSEC PUBLIC DOMAIN

According to the last Oerlikon "info session" :

quote:

"To create the MMEV, ADATS turrets will be adapted to the GDLS Canadian built 8x8 Light Armoured Vehicle (LAV) chassis common to the CF's existing vehicles. "

"Equipped with the original ADATS missiles as well as with two other missiles types, the MMEV will be able to engage ground targets directly or indirectly in collaborative engagement scenarios with TOW under armour and the mobile gun system"

Here's a vid: http://www.oerlikon.ca/images/MMEV.wmv


Watch those CRV rockets fly.. from an ADATS! LOL

Would anyone call the other a Helfire?  looks like one

I've noticed they've slimmed down the turret, and improved the radar/EO (Should be no more unstable than a current LAV)

Maybe it won't suck so bad after all..

Anybody else copy this?

 

[Kirkhill]

The video doesn't appear to work but I took this picture off their site.  The missile mix appears to be 4x ADATS, 2x Hellfire/Brimstone, 2x7 70mm.  General range envelope 7 to 10 km direct and indirect regardless of munition.

 

[Guest]

The video doesn't appear to work but I took this picture off their site.  The missile mix appears to be 4x ADATS, 2x Hellfire/Brimstone, 2x7 70mm.  General range envelope 7 to 10 km direct and indirect regardless of munition.

The video works if you "right click and save as" from I.E. Then rename to "*.wmv"

I'll describe some points, for those that can't play it.

Basically.. it's a mockup vid, showing stock footage with animation.

It does however show an interesting live fire test of the ADATS in a config I've never seen before.

In the vid.. it shows a current M113/ADATS config firing the 70mm "rockets"

I assume these are the same unguided rockets used  by the AF

The terminology used for this sequence is " Low-Cost Precision Kill Rockets" Range: 8+ Km

Next sequence demos a "Ground Fire Ant-Armour Range Overmatch" Range: 8+ Km

Next we have " Non-Line of Sight" Engagement Capability " Range 8+ km

(This sequence involves an animation of an MMEV receiving target data from a Spwewer UAV, then launcing what appears to be a terrain following missle to target.)

Finally we have "Air Defence" Range: 10 km

Now, I realize that this is all just demo and animations.

However, if this things actually works.. I'd think it would be quite a potent platform. ADATS missle alone is a very fast, very lethal piece of kit.
(With a modern radar and fire control system.. it would be even more powerfull)

Since we are putting alot of eggs (read $$$)  in this particular basket.. I certainly hope it works.

I mean.. the way I see it, the only chance of success for  our DFS trio, pretty much rides on the MMEV's ability to "reach out and kill something".. BEFORE the MGS or TUA are in rangethemselves.. no?!?

Interesting times..

Oh.. notice the "tank" that gets hit by the MMEV Animation.. looks like an Abrams to me.  Hrmmm......

 

[Kirkhill]

Guest:

Thanks for the advice.

The Low Cost Precision Kill Weapons System is basically a standard 70mm rocket motor and warhead with a new front end that can home in on laser and fly it to the target.  Its supposed to be a lower cost version of the Hellfire for killing lower cost, more lightly armoured targets.

Cheers.

 

[Eland]

Neither has Spain, but they're getting tanks.  The US had a civil war well over a hundred years ago.  When's the last time Sweden was in a war?  (Check out the Leopard 2 Strv 122)  The question stands...no...I'll amend it.  So, explain to me, if a country that spends 64.4 billion a year on everything (roads, sewers, healthcare, education, military, etc) buys 500 tanks,  why can't a country that has more than twice the budget get TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY TANKS instead of 66(!) MGS!?!?!?!  And check out one of the reasons why the Swedes went with a modified Leopard 2A5 (modified): "The Leo 2A5 Improved was found to be as good as the Abrams, but at a lower total cost" (http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product.php?prodID=2019)
Enjoy!

Now, back to, you guessed it.... :brickwall:

I feel the way you do, vonGarvin. Anytime I see a discussion involving tanks and the Canadian Army, I want to bang my head against the wall. Simply because I see too many military professionals (officers and other ranks) claiming that Canada doesn't need tanks, and repeating that claim like it's an article of faith.

To buttress the argument, these same people will trot out the following specious arguments:

"Tanks are obsolete." Well, if this is true, then why have many G8 countries (European and otherwise) just bought new tanks, or nearly-new tanks, or are in the process of building new tanks? True, some countries (like the UK) are rationalizing their fleets, but they are by no means abandoning their tanks. Indeed, what now distinguishes Canada from other G8 countries is that it consistently refuses to do as other industrialized G8 nations do, and that is maintain defence forces sufficient to preserve their sovereignty and shoulder a share of the collective defence burden. In this respect Canada has been abjectly wanton and negligent. Canada would probably not be a G8 nation if it did not possess vast natural resources.

"Canada is vast, we couldn't afford to buy tanks in the numbers needed to defend that vastness." Tanks were never designed to cover large salients. They are a maneuver weapon, intended to counter enemy armour, apply shock and render a decisive outcome as the infantry make contact. Even modest numbers of tanks can be decisive. But to expect the same of vehicles like MMEV and MGS, which are made vulnerable by lack of armour? Puhleasse!

"Canada can't afford tanks. They are expensive to buy, operate and maintain, etc., etc." The cost of not having tanks in battle is always much greater in terms of blood and treasure. To say nothing of increasing the risk of losing battles because of blind faith in the idea that Canada's army will always be able to rely on coalition partners to do the heavy lifting. Well, what happens when the arrival of that 'heavy lifter' is delayed, or worse, it fails to arrive at all, at a juncture when Canadian troops find themselves caught flatfooted in combat? That happened in the Medak Pocket when the PPCLI  were waiting for French armour to show up. Lucky for them that the opposing side didn't decide to bring in reinforcements.

Canada is a wealthy nation. Something is terribly, terribly wrong when countries with one third of Canada's GDP can afford to buy tanks for their militaries. Relying on another country to defend us is not only unfair and horribly ignorant, it's a sure path to loss of sovereignty, even if the loss occurs on relatively benign terms. It's also dangerous to rely on the "nuclear umbrella", because there are many circumstances where any use of nuclear weapons is extremely ill-advised.

"Canada is too small (to need tanks)". Uh, what about Sweden, with less than one-third of Canada's population and GDP. Its terrain is similar to Canada's in many places, yet it doesn't prevent the Swedes from deploying tanks there. In fairness, the Swedes seem to prefer employing their Leos in the gently rolling, open farm country to the south of Stockholm, but tanks tend to be at their best in such places.

"Canada is a peacekeeping nation. Tanks are inappropriate for peacekeeping duties; they are too aggressive". Unfortunately, peacekeeping is an enterprise which died at the end of the Cold War. And anyway, Canada hasn't been able to claim the world's top peacekeeper spot for a long time now, having sunk to 34th on the list. The geostrategic environment which exists now involves asymmetrical warfare and peacemaking.  The Americans have found it necessary to deploy tanks to prosecute what is essentially a guerilla war in Iraq, putting the lie to the argument that tanks can only be employed in Fulda Gap-style confrontations between massed armies.

"Canada will never be involved in another major war." Funny, that's what we said at the end of World War One, and look what happened. By 1939, the Canadian Army was essentially unable to engage in combat beyond a nominal level. Indeed, if the US (or Israel) attacks Iran soon, there is a good chance Canada (and other countries) may find themselves inevitably embroiled in the conflict regardless of their efforts to avoid it. As in 1939, we won't be prepared.

I suspect that the opposition to tanks is borne of two elements. The first element is cultural, and the result of an attempt to cast Canada as this nice, inoffensive, non-attackable country with helpful Boy-Scouts-cum-soldiers. Tanks are necessarily incompatible with that mindset. The other element is ideological, supported by a government which disingenuously uses phrases like "peacekeeping" or "operations other than war" to avoid frightening an ill-informed populace which would like to continue believing in the fairy tale which says that the world is a safe place and that dialogue always works when seeking to deal with conflict. Mao was right when he said, "All power flows from the barrel of a gun." If you don't have that gun, well...

<rant mode off>

   

 

[Armymatters]

To wade into the debate:
Cancel the damned thing. You are trying to do WAY too much on one platform. We will have a jack-of-all-trades, master of none platform (just like JSS!) that does everything mediocre, but doesn't do anything well.

+8km range? Can be done with a ground-launched variant of Hellfire or the future Joint Common Missile.
http://www.missilesandfirecontrol.com/our_news/factsheets/factsheet-HF_II-TURRET.pdf
http://www.missilesandfirecontrol.com/our_news/factsheets/factsheet-HF_II-SURF_LNCH.pdf

Non-Line of Sight Engagement Capability? AGM-114L variant, or the future Joint Common Missile.
http://www.missilesandfirecontrol.com/our_news/factsheets/factsheet-HF_II-TURRET.pdf
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/cm.htm

Air Defence? Get the CLAWS (HUMRAAM) launcher, but mount it on a 2 1/2 ton truck instead of a HMMVW, and tow the MPQ-64 Sentinel behind the truck. Range of the air-launched AMRAAM is 75km, but the range is slightly less for HUMRAAM due to the fact it is ground launched. If you need something with a shorter range, get the Blazer turret and mount it on a LAV III.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/surface-launched/
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/blazer/

Someone else has developed, tested, and is either fielding or fielded all of the above systems. Additional commentary:
http://www.ciss.ca/Commentary_Transformation.pdf

MMEV does one thing good, and that is a decent pyrotechic show... that's about it.

 

[Kirkhill]

Armymatters:

I think the whole point of the exercise is to create 1 platform that as logistically compatible with some of the rest of the gear that is currently being operated and then switch out the missiles depending on the mission.  As stated before this is not a new concept - the Air Force has been doing this for years.  Rather than taking a variety of vehicles into theatre on the off-chance they might be needed,  then having some of them idle most of the time the idea seems to be to take one vehicle into theater with a variety of munitions and then configure the vehicle to the threat.  This might be a bit of a stretch for the organization but keep in mind Rommel converted his 88mm anti-aircraft batteries into anti-tank batteries in the Desert.  That probably gave some German gunners a moment's pause.

As to your missile selection: 

JCM is dead.  Check Global Security or Lockheed Martin if you prefer.

The Hellfire/AGM-114 series are intended to be used with the MMEV launcher. As are the Hydra 70 / LKPKWS.  The only thing missing from your wish list is the AMRAAM which is an entirely different asset than an 8 km Air Defence asset like the ADATS missiles (which we already possess).

MMEV does one thing good, and that is a decent pyrotechic show... that's about it.

As to that crack - care to offer some personal experience, observation or third party report to support it?

MMEV may be over priced.  It may be too much of a reach.  It may underperform.  It may be all of those things. On the other hand it may work and it may be a key element in creating a comprehensive netcentric fire support system - which seems to be the intent and may explain the high cost of development.

One of the key aspects of the ADATS system as it stands just know (as I understand it) is that all ADATS vehicles in battery can be netted by cable so that the gunner on one vehicle can launch missiles from any vehicle. If that capability can be converted into a wireless capability and the net expanded to include Coyotes and LAVs then many things  would change.

Cheers,.

 

[Armymatters]

I am saying that purchasing off-the-shelf systems may be more economical in the long run. ADATS is a missile no ally is using or plans to use,. If you read the CISS report on MMEV and ADATS, they consider it a strategic orphan, meaning that we are alone if we want to support the system, and upgrade it. NATO interoperability should be emphasised; it drives down unit costs, and support costs. ADATS is a missile that has not given good value to the CF, despite its capabilites; the only deployment of ADATS is at the 2002 Kananaskis summit, where it protected the summit from errant private aircraft.

One must ask the following questions about ADATS:
1. Is this item a necessary addition to the army's inventory?  Is interoperability with key allies enhanced by its acquisition?

2. Is the vehicle is meant for tasks that need not be undertaken, given the opposition Canadian troops are expected to face in the future?

3. Finally, will it will offer strategic mobility improvements over its tracked predecessor?

My opinions are as follows:
1. The answer is no. ADATS is not essentially necessary due to the lack of deployment of the system. Regarding interoperability, ADATS is an aging system has won no foreign orders, nor does it have any prospect of doing so. No ally uses ADATS, meaning that it is a strategic orphan with our allies.

The air defence role, can be filled easily by off-the-shelf equipment that allies are currently fielding and using on the battlefield. The USMC uses the Blazer turret as the LAV-AD, which gives USMC armoured divisions a potent air-defense platform for its armoured divisions. The USMC is also testing and developing CLAWS (HUMRAAM), and they have intention the field the system. The Norwegians also field a ground launched AMRAAM system: it is the Norwegian Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System (NASAMS), developed by Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace. NASAMS is a netcentric warfare system. Clearly, for netcentric air defence, there are systems already being used by our allies for that purpose.

Lockheed's Hellfire turret and ground launched Hellfire system is also a netcentric warfare system; helicopters, soldiers with laser designators, and UAV's all interlink together to guide the Hellfire missile to the target. The system is also avaiable now, and can be easily be adapted to the LAV III and Coyote without serious modifications.

2. The answer is no. MMEV is not meant for the tasks that are expected of the CF. It offers only incremental improvements to the army'’s other direct fire support platforms, and is likely the most expensive way of neutralizing ground targets. MMEV emphasises its range over anything else, but it does not even entertain the possibility that Canada could be fighting anyone other than guerrillas and insurgents in the years ahead. General Hillier has said repeatedly that we face not “the bear”, but rather “a ball of snakes”. Such parties fight asymmetrically; their ambush/hit and-run tactics call upon small arms, light weapons and improvised explosive devices. They do not field (sizeable) armoured forces. They do not have unmanned air vehicles or cruise missiles, let alone air forces. Therefore, from where does the requirement for long-range direct fire originate?

During the Cold War, we had two vehicles for direct fire support: the Leopard tank and, later, the TOW Under Armour variant of the M-113. If two vehicles were judged adequate to fight Soviet tank armies, why does the army require a total of three vehicles (including two missile-carriers) for ground support in today’s strategic climate? Clearly, any post-Cold War operational scenario will be considerably less target-rich than the Fulda Gap of the 1980s. It does not make sense why MMEV is needed. As stated before, the system offers only incremental improvements to the army'’s other direct fire support platforms, and is likely the most expensive way of neutralizing ground targets. Adding MMEV would conceivably give the CF the ability to destroy targets at longer ranges, but there seem to be preciously few scenarios in which Canadians gunners will have an unobstructed tactical field of view for 8 km.

As if to stake out new operational territory for the MMEV, the DND announcement included a cryptic reference to its ability to strike targets behind hillsides using non-line-of-sight weapons. But none of the latter exist in the CF inventory. The procurement of, say, a fibre optic-guided missile (FOGM) might fit the bill but none are currently in allied service. It is therefore a statement against the  value of MMEV that its effectiveness over the current systems lies in a weapons package that either does not exist or may never exist.

3. Will MMEV offer strategic mobility improvements over its tracked predecessor? The answer is no. The only way to transport the MMEV and its accompanying vehicles is by sea, or by allied or chartered airlift This means that the costly transfer of the ADATS system and electronics to the LAV III chassis seems wholly unnecessary, as the latter offers no weight savings over the M-113. The MMEV will not be transportable on the C-130 Hercules – at least without the partial dismantling of the turret assembly. The vehicle will be top heavy, on a platform that is already known for being a bit top heavy, as tragically exemplified in the November 2005 rollover of a LAV III in Afghanistan, that killed one Canadian soldier and injured 4 others.

One of the key aspects of the ADATS system as it stands just know (as I understand it) is that all ADATS vehicles in battery can be netted by cable so that the gunner on one vehicle can launch missiles from any vehicle. If that capability can be converted into a wireless capability and the net expanded to include Coyotes and LAVs then many things  would change.

The same can be said about ground launched variants of AMRAAM and Hellfire; with AMRAAM, it has been demostrated to be able to interlink with the AEGIS naval system, and will be able to interlink with an AWACS, and other ground radar systems. With Hellfire, the Coyote and the LAV III can be fitted with a laser designator to guide Hellfire missiles onto their targets. The same can be said about giving UAV's a laser designator, and soldiers a designator to point out targets for the missile. Lockheed Martin has already developed on its own the designator and the launch system. All we have to do is to buy it and we can get the system very quickly. I think every CF soldier can easily be trained on how to point a laser designator on a target and paint the target with the laser.

 

[CF Supporter]

Just discovered your site.  I enjoyed reading your comments and opinions on MMEV and its potential impact on the CF. However I would like to get some the facts straight, there seems to be too much shooting from the hip, namely on MMEV Configuration / Role, MMEV value and MMEV status.

(1) MMEV Configuration / Role is the result of 3 factors
- Chronic under funding of DND,
- Changing reality (3 block war, RMA),
- Existing CF capability. 

Canada simply put can not afford a $25B/yr Defence budget - like it or not that's our reality - health care is about to suck up 50% of all governments expenses in the next few years.  This means that as for the navy and the air force, the army kit needs to become more multi-role and multi-missions while standardizing equipment and training in order to get more bang for the buck while remaining able to perform their mission This also means that Canada Army will restrict its capabilities and missions to what it can afford while remaining relevant to our partners and to our nation.  MMEV will provide a flexible, affordable and sustainable army tool to perform three key missions.  Think of it of low-cost attack helicopter on wheel working 24/7 at 1/3 of the price and minimum personnel to operate it.

MISSION A - joint operations, interoperability and Surveillance for Homeland Defence with NORAD, NATO and ABCA forces (3D Radar, Link 11/16, ASCC, Command Post) it is the only army system that gives you real-time 3rd dimension awareness (e.g. tell the friendly air force jocks in real-time where our forces are on the ground...and avoid fratecide - wish ADATS had been there before in Khandahar)

MISSION B - Protect our troops and vital points (including in Canada) against fast-air, cruise, UCAV etc... - Canada by treaty is obligated to have its own organic air-defence.  This is the only ground based air defence left in Canada (thanks to budget cut back) -

MISSION C - Provide direct and Non-Line of Sight fire support against hardened target (tanks, bunker, Toyota trucks) up to 8km.  This is the holy Mary pass machine, which out-range out-gun anything out there, not the kit you put in front with the MGS, TUA.

CHANGING REALITY - as expeditionary forces the CF is limited to what it can carry and support.  Standard vehicle platforms but different payload configurations give commander in the field flexibility (contrary from some statement I read you don't do all the mission at once - you gear up for each mission).  Air Force and Navy are used to multi-mission - I guess the Army is still stuck in cap badges battles to its own detriment.

CF CAPABILITY - MMEV system is in fact modernisation on an ADATS (which was limited to AD because of Cap badge issue) but ADATS stands for Air Defence Anti-Tanks, 80% of the MMEV kit will come from Military Off the Shelf equipment.  A new system will imply facilities costs, retraining, new missiles, etc... Moreover, would cost at least twice as much. You don't need to buy the AD and 70mm rocket - there is plenty in stock in the system.

(2) MMEV Value - lets get the facts straight again
· 33 MMEV = $750M .... WRONG
· 33 MMEV, 5 ASCC, 5 Mobile Command Post, DND costs (incl PWGSC - taxes), spares Project Management, training, TTPs
· $750M = $200M Project management, engineering, spares, integration and tests, $400M equipment and $150M DND/PWGSC costs
· P.S. ADATS was designed mid-1980 with mid-1980 computers - modernization means just that
· Real-recurring cost per units $10M - similar systems costs much more
· One independent system per mission (e.g. AD, radar, tanks, etc.) $10M each - excluding the ammo, infrastructure, retraining, etc.
· Attack Helicopter costs:  $30M USD per unit, plus missiles, ground crew, and dealing with your air force buddies, and 4-6 hours reactions time if the weather is good

(3) MMEV Status - this is not a concept vehicle it is real - what new is the platform (LAV III) and the new sub-systems.  MMEV status will depends on if the army continue fighting between themselves, become indecisive once against and give the opportunity to the air force and the navy to grab the money for their priority while you guy still try to figure out what you want to do once again.

Sorry, if I appear blunt but it sadden me to see the army collapsing on itself once more because of internal doubt of caps badge fighting.  You deserve better.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Thanks for your "support"...and who are you?

Ever conduct operations in the real world?  Work for Oerlikon do you?

A profile would be nice from someone who seems to be "setting facts straight"... Rather than quote from a brochure, tell us what this boondoggle is actually supposed to accomplish on the battlefield...  8 km - heh... $350000 missiles against "Toyota trucks" - heh... "effects" - heh.  The concept might work perfectly well on the range in Suffield or on some dreamer's desk in NDHQ - drag this thing into Afghanistan and watch what it can't do...

By the way, this is hardly a cap badge issue, as you seem to condescendingly think it is.  It's common sense:  this is a vehicle no one really wants and fewer really need.  Sum it up and spend the money elsewhere. 

 

[ArmyRick]

There is a Multi-Mission Effects vehicle out there...




The US Army has been using it for years.....



It is called the AH-64 Apache.



Only its better than the LAV MMEV because it can go up and down, forwards and backwards, siode to side and travel at 300 KM/H. You get the picture.