Post New Topic  
Edit Profile | Register | Search | FAQ | Forum Home
    next newest topic
»  The War Diary   » The Combat and Supporting Arms   » Artillery   » Air Defence

Email this page to someone    
Author Topic: Air Defence
starlight1
Veteran Member
Member # 141

Rate Member

posted 19 July 2021 16:31     Profile for starlight1   Author's Homepage   Email starlight1     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
A question to the gunners out there:

I recently finished reading Tom Clancy's book Marine
and in it he mentioned that the USMC uses a variant of the LAV
that is armed with stinger missiles and a GAU cannon. Apparently
the USMC is very happy with this vehicle and is planning to order more. Being a medic and not a AD gunner, my question to the gunners out there is:
1) Is this system an effective and reliable weapon?
2)Would it be more cost effective?
3) Could it play an important role in air defence in Canada?

Thanks to anyone who can shed some light on this for me.


Posts: 3 | From: vancouver,bc,canada | Registered: Jul 2000
Gunner
Moderator
Member # 39

Member Rated:

posted 20 July 2021 00:28     Profile for Gunner   Author's Homepage   Email Gunner     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Starlight1,

I spent awhile tonight on the internet looking for a picture of said wpn system, however, I was unable to find one. I've only experience with the US Army Avenger system. I'm not an AD Gunner (Mr Magoo may be lurking around ... whereever bird gunners hang their hat when they are not being used), however, in answer to your questions:

1) Is this system an effective and reliable weapon?

I'll have to go with the information you brought from Tom Clancy (who am I to argue with Tom Clancy?). However, in a perfect world, the Marine Corps LAV variant would fit in quite nicely with our movement to medium weight, all wheeled fleet of LAV.

But, there is nothing wrong with the AD Eqpt (ADATS, Gun/Skyguard, and Javelin) that we have. The trouble is we don't use it for what it is designed for and it's only become an expensive air force training tool. The Army has not been kind to the Air Defence.

2)Would it be more cost effective?

Probably not as we spent a billion dollars on eqpt we don't use properly. What's to say we would spend more money (that we don't have) and purchase new eqpt (simply because it is wheeled) and don't use it properly either.

3) Could it play an important role in air defence in Canada?

Same answer as question 2.

Hope it helps. If you get anymore information on the vehicle, plse post again.


Posts: 96 | From: Army of the West | Registered: Jun 2000
Mr Magoo
Veteran Member
Member # 67

Rate Member

posted 20 July 2021 11:19     Profile for Mr Magoo   Author's Homepage   Email Mr Magoo     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
One of the problems we have in Canada is that ideally we
would want an AD weapon system to be forgiving, which is
a good thing for Allied pilots and aircraft.

The Stinger system is a "fire and forget" missile, the Javelin
on the other hand is not. An operator can cause the Javelin
missile once fired to leave its track, go ballistic (straight up)
and self-detonate harmlessly away from the once-intended target.
This is of course an important safety feature because for both systems the IFF (identify friend or foe) is entirely left up to the "Mark 1 eyeball" of the operator. In this day and age of coalitions, we can face the Iraqi Air Force with their MIGs, and have the Syrians on our side with their MIGs.

The Stinger's other failing is that it is a heat-seeker, so it's
best to fire it at the back of an en aircraft. In a lot of cases
in the fashion that Canada deploys AD manpads systems that means
the aircraft will already have dropped it's payload of munitions
on or about the intended target.

Having said that the Americans have a different system of employing AD. They saturate an area, believe heavily in interdiction missions and in ambushes with the Stinger. They pick potential fly routes and cover them, when the en flys by everybody can open up. Canadians for largely economic and philosophical reasons allot areas of responsibility
and track targets passing off the option to fire from one detachment to another as the aircraft enters a det's area of responsibility and then exits.

The AD LAV veh variant is an exciting system, rapidly deployable,
robust, able to carry a number of missiles, easily transportable
by air, sea, flatbed, or rail. Currently in Canada we're using
the LSVW to transport AD manpads dets, which is not an optimal
solution. It can't go everywhere, and can't keep up with tanks
and APCs on the march.


Posts: 24 | From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada | Registered: Jun 2000
Gunner
Moderator
Member # 39

Member Rated:

posted 20 July 2021 13:31     Profile for Gunner   Author's Homepage   Email Gunner     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Mr Magoo brings up a very good point on the portability/manoevre capability of the AD Manpads Dets. During Ex Prairie Ram in 1998, 1 CMBG conducted an exercise in Suffield that ran 3 Batttle Groups (based on 1 PPCLI (grizzly based plus two sqns of leopards and other attachments), 2 PPCLI (M113 based plus two sqns of leopards and other attachments) and LdSH (RC) (three x 15 Leopards/sqn plus one or two companies of infantry from 1 PPCLI) through live fire battle run. They were ably supported by 1 RCHA (+) on each battle run and the remainder of 1 CMBG assets (plus FGA and Apaches from the Idaho National Guard). It was an incredible experience and one that we don't do very often anymore. I don't expect to see it again for awhile. Anyone, I digress. Elements of 18 AD Regt and 4 AD Regt (out of Moncton) deployed to support the exercise. There were two main problem with the AD participation: one was manoevrability of the AD as they were tpted in LSVW and were not able to keep up with the BG (the BG had to wait for the AD when it was there turn to attack enemy targets). Secondly, the AD personnel simply did not have the experience to work at BG level operations. This is a concern as the AD Btys are a fmn level resource, however, if we don't train at BG level it is not surprising that the skills of the AD Gunners are not where they should be.

Just my comments on a beautiful Thursday morning in God's Country (aka Alberta)!


Posts: 96 | From: Army of the West | Registered: Jun 2000
Brad Sallows
Veteran Member
Member # 16

Member Rated:

posted 20 July 2021 15:00     Profile for Brad Sallows   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Sallows     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
LAV-AD at:

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


Posts: 59 | From: Burnaby BC | Registered: Jun 2000
Gunner
Moderator
Member # 39

Member Rated:

posted 20 July 2021 17:04     Profile for Gunner   Author's Homepage   Email Gunner     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Thanks Brad!

The trouble with purchasing that variant was it would give everyone "gun" envy!


Posts: 96 | From: Army of the West | Registered: Jun 2000
starlight1
Veteran Member
Member # 141

Rate Member

posted 21 July 2021 01:52     Profile for starlight1   Author's Homepage   Email starlight1     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Thanks to all for your replies.
One more question to Mr. Magoo:
Could an M113 or a Bison be configured to carry AD assets,
thereby replacing the LSVW for said purpose? Would this
allow AD assets to then keep up with faster moving vehicles
(i.e. tanks/LAV's)?

Posts: 3 | From: vancouver,bc,canada | Registered: Jul 2000
Mr Magoo
Veteran Member
Member # 67

Rate Member

posted 21 July 2021 11:30     Profile for Mr Magoo   Author's Homepage   Email Mr Magoo     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Indeed a M113 could be configured. The ADATs uses a M113
chassis. M113s would be better for manpads (man portable
AD systems) than for the ADATs.

With the ADATs (AD Anti-Tank system) the turret is so heavy
that the veh can be unstable and has difficulty moving along,
it's very tough on the power-pack.

Originally the plan was that the Leopard would be replaced,
and the 120 Leopards would be divided into two groups, 60
would be kept as is for Armr Recce, and the other 60 would be
ADATS and Engr vehs. How sweet that would have been!

I think maybe the Bison would be best for our purposes. Good
tactical mobility, and great strategic mobility, plus not too
heavy on maintenance. The problem is that M113s reqr a fair
bit of maintenance. I know my unit was offered a dozen or more
M113s but we haven't the budget, or the maintainers to keep them in good repair. So we passed. I'm not certain what happened
to them, I think maybe the bde took them for the LI Bn.


Posts: 24 | From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada | Registered: Jun 2000
McG
Veteran Member
Member # 150

Member Rated:

posted 23 January 2021 05:13     Profile for McG   Author's Homepage   Email McG     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Would the LAV-AD be suited to Canadian AD tactics if the stingers were replaced with Javelins or Starstreak HVMs?
Posts: 104 | From: London | Registered: Jan 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.