Piranha, LAV, LAV III (4X4, 6X6, 8X8, 10X10) wheeled armored vehicles

[GTX]

A reply to a quote by MAD in the Halftracks (M3, Sdkfz.251, and others) Questions and What-if Ideas? thread:

The Caesar wheeled SPH is what I would like to see in service with the Australian Army.
I very much disagree with the current ADF policy of 'its shinny I want it' and 'Hay they have it, we want it'.
Just look at the monster systems they are looking at Pz2000, AS-90 etc.............
Good system yes!
But they are way to heavy, expensive, and probably the most important in my opinion not strategically mobile enough.

Well the Caesar along with the similar Israeli Atmos 2000 system or BAE Systems Bofors' Archer system (see below) were in the original round but were eliminated in favour of the two fully tracked systems (Pz2000 - I think this will win and K-9) to the surprise of everyone who thought this was really the type of system the ARA wanted.

Atmos 2000 system:




Archer system:



Another alternative would be to mount something like this in the rear of an ASLAV (especially in say a modified ASLAV-PC or ASLAV-R variant):





I also thought the trialled 120mm Mortar ASLAV was a great idea and was surprised it wasn't taken up (though today one could also do a version with the twin 120mm AMOS system):




.

Regards,

Greg

[GTX]

Another ASLAV trial I wasn't aware of until now was a trial with TOW missiles:



Be interesting to see whart othe rturret configurations would be possible - Air Defence variant perhaps?

Regards,

Greg

[GTX]

Another pair of ASLAVs whiffs I'd like to do would be one with a Netfires/Non-Line-of-Sight Launch System (NLOS-LS) module in the rear (see here for info):



and one carrying Tactical UAVs in the rear - either a:

VTOL UAV such as some of the Future Combat System (FCS) Organic Air Vehicle (OAV) offerings:



or perhaps a small catapult ramp launched variant:

http://www.forfreedom.ca/img/TUAV%20launch4.jpg

or perhaps modifying the Netfires system above to carry something like a launchable variant of the Advanced Ceramics Research Coyote expendable UAV (note this has been developed for dropping from sonobouy tubes):



Regards,

Greg

[dy031101]

There was a proposal to mount a M777 155mm howitzer on the back of a LAV (I can't remember which one- was it a Stryker?).

[dy031101]

Be interesting to see whart othe rturret configurations would be possible - Air Defence variant perhaps?

It should be able to take versions of the Blazer turret just like LAV-AD...... or the Wildcat turret trial-mounted on the Transportpanzer 1?

[GTX]

There was a proposal to mount a M777 155mm howitzer on the back of a LAV (I can't remember which one- was it a Stryker?).

I forgot about that - actually there have been a few ideas - see here,

Regards,

Greg

[Jschmus]

I read yesterday that the Marines are planning to field an automatic 120mm mortar on the LAV chassis.  They call it "Dragon Fire".

[DarrenP]

I wonder how a Piranah variant for the UK would have looked around the time the Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians were buying. The British had come on board as well have some mates who are ex armoured recce who drool over the coyote and its capabilities. Would also have been good for the UK Mech brigades instead of the Saxon!

[rickshaw]

Archer system:

I used to work for a company that provided the CAM systems for the (much troubled and expensive) advanced APC project.  I was sent one day down to Tenix at Port Adelaide to upgrade the computer system.  I was surprised to see an Archer parked in their compound.  Big beastie!

[anthonyp]

The prevailing thought among most of the people in the office is that since the official demise of FCS, the next family of ground vehicles for the US Army will be wheeled vehicles.  Not necessarily Stryker variants, but some new family of vehicles.  The above pics are seen as precursors to that project.

[rickshaw]

rickshaw, is the "advanced APC project" the same things as Land 400 Future Combat Vehicle System? If so, any insights as to where that's heading?

No.  This was part of Land 106.  Land 400 is much more wide ranging and longer term.

[GTX]

Thanks for the clarification. (These DMO listings make Aussie projects sooo much easier to follow than similar 'systems' elsewhere!)

One likes to think that, but as someone who's job is to know what the Australian Defence Acquisition plans are, I can tell you that the reality is much more confusing .  Supposedly the Defence Capability Plan clarifies things but even that doesn't...

Regards,

Greg

[rickshaw]

These things are relative Greg 

Compared to some defence departments' (which shall go unnamed) procurement sections, DMO's a beaut. Doesn't mean that there won't be c*ck-ups Downunder. Just means the rest of us are envious ... but you already knew that!

Land 106 has pretty much been a cockup from start to finish.  Not necessarily the fault of (then) Tenix (now BAE).  The Australian Army got more and more ambitious and what started out as a simple upgrade grew like topsy.  The result has been a cost blow out and of course the Army (and Government) have reacted accordingly.  They've reduced the numbers to be upgraded and decided to not spend the required money needed on the actual manufacturing line for the upgrade.  The result has been that its gone on for far too long and become increasingly irrelevant.

The company I used to work for witnessed this.  We were subbies, hired to create the CAM system for reboring the chassis holes for the suspension arms in the experimental phase of the project.  We did so.  Then when the go ahead was given, rather than make it a double-sided machine, the cheap bastards decided to try and save money and keep the single-sided machine for the production line.  Result was each hull now took twice as long and there were alignment problems (hence the upgrade we had to do).

Didn't help that Tenix had chosen what was IMO the craziest way of doing the hull lengthening.  Instead of chopping two APCs and welding the back to the front to get the increased length or even just ordering new hulls from FMC (who apparently still churn them out quite happily), they opted to slice each APC in half and weld seperate plates in between.  I'll be interested to see how long they guaranteed the welds to last, knowing all the fun other companies have had in welding Aluminium hulls for AFVs together _after_ they were built.

It would have been better to either (a) purchase the vehicles overseas; (b) license manufacture them downunder; (c) assemble them downunder.   It would also have been better, considering they have just purchased new MBTs to look at alternative, more modern designs.  While the M113 is more than adequate for the defence of Australia and use in our main theatre of operations, it obviously won't last long in a high-intensity environment such as Korea or the Middle East - which was what the last government was planning to use the "Australian Defence Force Marine Corps" for. 

[GTX]

The Australian Army got more and more ambitious and what started out as a simple upgrade grew like topsy

Oh, the number of times I have seen that happen for all three services ... and yet it is always the contractor who gets the blame! .

Anyway, back to whiffing - how about a tracked or half-tracked LAV?

Regards,

Greg

[anthonyp]

^ looks like one of the Bradley mods were working on that's been drinking Slimfast...