Post New Topic  
Edit Profile | Register | Search | FAQ | Forum Home
    next newest topic
»  The War Diary   » The Combat and Supporting Arms   » Infantry   » Why the Eryx?

Email this page to someone    
Author Topic: Why the Eryx?
Brock
FNG
Member # 18

Member Rated:

posted 14 November 2021 21:04     Profile for Brock   Author's Homepage   Email Brock     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
The Eryx missile system was purchased to replace the Carl Gustav, but who decided to and why? The Eryx is far too heavy for its limited range of only 600m. The logic of purchasing the Eryx boggles the mind. Canada would have been better off waiting and purchasing the US Javelin missile system which can reach out to 2000m and is a soft launch fire and forget missile. The Eryx may be able decimate heavy armour, but it's limited usefulness in medium range (500-2000m) situations is non-existent. It seems to me the Bofors AT-4DPCS would provide a much more realistic replacement for the Carl G at platoon level provided two or three Javelin or similar weapons were available in a company anti-tank section. Any comments
Posts: 19 | From: | Registered: Nov 2000
Mud Crawler
Veteran Member
Member # 68

Member Rated:

posted 15 November 2021 14:12     Profile for Mud Crawler   Author's Homepage   Email Mud Crawler     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I agree.We would have been better off with the Javelin.Plus it's fire and forget capabilities allow you to blow it up and get the f**k out before the enemy spots you.
Posts: 143 | From: St-Hilaire, Qc, Ca | Registered: Sep 2000
Brad Sallows
Veteran Member
Member # 16

Member Rated:

posted 15 November 2021 15:41     Profile for Brad Sallows   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Sallows     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I suppose the definitive answer would be to analyze the project documents to determine when the decision was made relative to what was available and proven.

Based purely on internet-based rumours, it seems the Eryx works now and Javelin may still have teething troubles.


Posts: 59 | From: Burnaby BC | Registered: Jun 2000
Brad Sallows
Veteran Member
Member # 16

Member Rated:

posted 15 November 2021 15:51     Profile for Brad Sallows   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Sallows     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
As a follow-up, those interested might want to review the information about Eryx and Javelin at the following web pages, respectively:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/eryx.htm

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/javelin.htm

Unfortunately the development and acquisition cycle of Eryx is not documented on the FAS pages. The Infantry School Journal has a few Eryx articles:

http://www.brunnet.net/infsch/jrnl.htm

Based on the RHA penetration claims, it would seem Eryx may have a more powerful warhead.


Posts: 59 | From: Burnaby BC | Registered: Jun 2000
Yard Ape
Veteran Member
Member # 158

Member Rated:

posted 02 February 2021 11:25     Profile for Yard Ape   Email Yard Ape     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
The fact is that the Eryx is secondary to the heavier AT weapons. Ideally you would engage tanks outside of their range to return fire. This role falls to the TOW. The Eryx will cover your ass when the TOW has failed, or is not present. Don't forget that W' the LAV III every section has a light anti-armour capability in the 25mm gun. If we were truely worried about anti-tank capabilities we would have used the LAV III w/TOW capabilities on every section vehicle.
http://www.delcodefense.com/LAV25.htm http://www.delcodefense.com/LAV25tow.htm

What we need is a mid-range AT weapon in addition to the Eryx and TOW.

The Eryx

Yard Ape

[ 06-03-2001: Message edited by: Yard Ape ]


Posts: 132 | From: Northern Ontario | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged
2 Charlie
Veteran Member
Member # 157

Member Rated:

posted 02 February 2021 19:09     Profile for 2 Charlie   Author's Homepage   Email 2 Charlie     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Good job Yard Ape.

The Eryx was procured for very specific point protection. There is a lot of thought as to what is or is not needed, but at the end of the day, when all alse fails and your position is about to be over run, I think that this system will make a few people very happy.

As for the Javelin, yes it is a very capable system with a few probs, but here is a thought, do we employ a system by that name already? Yup, the Bird Gunners have the Javelin. In another forum it was asked if the AD was going to be kept or not.

I hope so, but lets not forget that the majority of portable anti air systems out there are designed for the front line grunts. It is awesome that we have a dedicated AD Arty and I hope they are maintained in the Bge concept, however, it was mentioned about grunts doing the job, in reality, just another point defence weapon.

On a lighter note, how could we buy the Javelin AT and deploy it in the same environment as the Javelin AD, .


Posts: 61 | From: | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged
Yard Ape
Veteran Member
Member # 158

Member Rated:

posted 05 February 2021 10:07     Profile for Yard Ape   Email Yard Ape     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I'd like to see the infantry get the job of point air defence of thier own positions and activities. Leave area defense, in/out air route coverage, and defense of Bge assest to the AD Artillery. DO NOT give the entire job to the infantry.

Yard Ape


Posts: 132 | From: Northern Ontario | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nate
FNG
Member # 209

Member Rated:

posted 05 March 2021 05:15     Profile for Nate   Email Nate     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
It seems that the Eryx SRAAW is a good replacement for the CG, especially with mech infantry units as the weight issue is not so pronounced. The ERYX capability seems to have been defined during the Cold War, when defensive AT was a prime mission of the CAF and most other nations in NATO Euro theatre. The Cdn Ifn Journal, Fall 1997, mentions that the current plan of 1 system per mech infantry section was derived from a cold war scenario of a battalion having to stop a Soviet Motor Rifle Regiment. This would require maximum use of terrain and preplanned fortifictaions for dispersed, dismounted infantry in order to extract the most from the ERYX. The ERYX SRAAW can be effective in todays conflicts which involve FIBUA or poor terrain as well, but it must be remembered that a SRAAW, guided or otherwise is primarily a defensive weapon. It offers excellent lethality (900+mm RHA penetration), accuracy (75%kill prob from shoulder, 95% from tripod) and reaction time (4.3 secs to max range). Of course, this is theorectical data-proper training is required to extract these high range figures.

However, in CAF service, particularly for the light inf battalions, this weapon needs to be augmented with an MRAAW, which to my knowledge, the Canadian LF have never had. Our European allies have used MILAN for some time, and the US had the Dragon before the Javelin. These wepons are in a differnent class from the ERYX because of the range at which they may be employed. The CAF should have a guided MRAAW(H) system in addition to the ERYX, fielded in the platoon weapons dets of light inf companies. The mech infantry could perhaps forego such a system as they have the Bushmaster and ERYX per section and TUA. Canada should have procured an MRAAW capability first, and then looked at a new SRAAW(H) ideally. It is doubtful if the CAF will receive an MRAAW(H) in the current budget climate.

Any opinions?

Regards,

Nate.


Posts: 13 | From: winnipeg | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
Yard Ape
Veteran Member
Member # 158

Member Rated:

posted 05 March 2021 15:34     Profile for Yard Ape   Email Yard Ape     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I agree Nate. However, I would not consider a 25 mm gun a reliable AT weapon as its suitability agains the front of a tank is questionable. It is more of an APC killer. It is also important to remember that TUA is a battalion reasource. It has been suggested elsewhere on this forum that the LAV III APC's should have been bought with the LAV25-TOW turrets. This would have been a good idea, and perhapse should be considered when Canada takes (if Canada takes) the option to buy more LAV III's. In its absence a MRAAW should also be considered for mechanized Coy's.

Yard Ape

[ 06-03-2001: Message edited by: Yard Ape ]


Posts: 132 | From: Northern Ontario | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged
Yard Ape
Veteran Member
Member # 158

Member Rated:

posted 06 March 2021 09:38     Profile for Yard Ape   Email Yard Ape     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
The turret we should have:


The turret we have:

Yard Ape


Posts: 132 | From: Northern Ontario | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nate
FNG
Member # 209

Member Rated:

posted 06 March 2021 17:07     Profile for Nate   Email Nate     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Thanks for the correction Yard Ape, you're right, the 25mm bushmaster cannot deal with tanks. The Delcodefense 25TOW would give the LAV III equipped inf an excellent AT capability, with firepwoer equivalent to the Bradley. In the current funding climate, this is unlikely, but at least the possibility is there. Such a system would particularly be effective if Canada ever acquired the new TOW Fire and Forget missile. Short of this, a plausible solution would be to perhaps better distribute the TUA among mech inf coys and plts, and acquire an MRAAW(H) for plt weps dets. Some would argue that over arming a IFV would contribute to the IFV being used more as a ACV instead of supporting the infantry which is its first mission (especially if the LAV inf section has to be further reduced to carry extra TOW rounds). I'm still undecided about whether or not this is true, but if Canada indeed sheds its MBT capability for LAV III 105s, then it would seem logical to put as much anti-armour capability as possible on the armoured platforms which we retain. Either way, our allies all use MRAAW(H) at the platoon weapons det level, and Canada should not ignore this fact. We need an MRAAW(H) system for the infantry. Thoughts?

Regards,

Nate


Posts: 13 | From: winnipeg | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
McG
Veteran Member
Member # 150

Member Rated:

posted 07 March 2021 15:37     Profile for McG   Author's Homepage   Email McG     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
The idea has been floating around in military academic groups ( and one which I support)that when Canada replaces the Cougar WFSV and the Leopard with the (as of yet undecided) ACV that the tank regiments should be dissolved and a fire support Coy be added to each Inf Bn. This would provide mech Bn with a high rate of fire medium range AT capable weapon. However, this would still leave the light Inf with a gap to fill through a MRAAW(H).


Posts: 104 | From: London | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged
Brock
FNG
Member # 18

Member Rated:

posted 08 March 2021 13:50     Profile for Brock   Author's Homepage   Email Brock     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Well said my thoughts exactly. Three or four LAV III vehicles equipped with 105mm canons for every mechanized infantry company is probably the best way to integrate a heavy anti-armour direct fire weapon. Not only will an organization of this reduce the number of extra command positions required of tank squadrons, but it will better integrate the combat arms teams and thus ensuring better training and operational integration.

--------------------


Posts: 19 | From: | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged
Yard Ape
Veteran Member
Member # 158

Member Rated:

posted 09 March 2021 14:49     Profile for Yard Ape   Email Yard Ape     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
If there were a way to add 2 x TOW in ready to fire positions to the LAV III MGS and the vehicle was integrated into In Bn's through a fires support company, then the need for AT Pl could be eliminated. The modified MGS would have the "high rate of fire medium range AT capable weapon" in the 105, and a long range slow rate of fire AT weapon in the TOW. Tps from the Coy could be tasked with either fire support to the rifle coys or independantly in the AT role.

This would still leave a requirement for a MRAAW or LRAAW (or both) in the Rifle Coys and Pls. Here I revisit my belief we should at the LAV-25 TOW turrets to our IFVs.

Yard Ape


Posts: 132 | From: Northern Ontario | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are ET  

Post New Topic   Close Topic    Move Topic      next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | CdnArmy.ca | Privacy Statement

2001 CdnArmy.ca. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
Ultimate Bulletin Board 6.04d




See the Chapters.ca History section for books on the Canadian Military.