One step closer... Army looking to acquire LAV-25s

[Tegyrius]

The LAV-25 is more air-transportable than the Stryker, so the 82nd Airborne is interested in swiping some from the Marines:

http://taskandpurpose.com/army-gets-...07c70-84185409

- C.

[James Langham2]

They handed them back in 1991 as they didn't like them....

[Louied]

IIRC, the Army wanted them for the 9 ID in the 80's but Congress but the kybosh on that.

[ArmySGT.]

Too light to fight and to heavy to run.

I get that it is Cavalry and intended for reconnaissance. Still it is grossly overmatched by the BMP-3 and BMP-4 in the recon/counter recon fight.

Even the Russian 30mm grenades can pen this at 200 meters. Current gen RPG-16 rounds will tear it in half. The 25mm chain gun is losing effectiveness against the BMP-3 and may not pen a BMP-4 at long range. Lack of an ATGM is a negative against Cavs traditional screening role against counter attack.

By the time all that is fixed it will be back up to what a Stryker weighs.

[cawest]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

Too light to fight and to heavy to run.

I get that it is Cavalry and intended for reconnaissance. Still it is grossly overmatched by the BMP-3 and BMP-4 in the recon/counter recon fight.

Even the Russian 30mm grenades can pen this at 200 meters. Current gen RPG-16 rounds will tear it in half. The 25mm chain gun is losing effectiveness against the BMP-3 and may not pen a BMP-4 at long range. Lack of an ATGM is a negative against Cavs traditional screening role against counter attack.

By the time all that is fixed it will be back up to what a Stryker weighs.

i think that is why they are going to the 30mm soonish

https://www.army.mil/article/181203/...grades_to_come

[The Dark]

Originally Posted by cawest

i think that is why they are going to the 30mm soonish

https://www.army.mil/article/181203/...grades_to_come

One potential problem I see with the Stryker Dragoon is it's almost as heavy as the Stryker MGS; there's only about half a ton of difference in their weights (about 40,000 pounds for the Dragoon and 41,000 for the MGS). It's probably going to need the reinforced suspension of the MGS, and it's not going to be quite as mobile or air-mobile as the current ICV (which is two tons lighter than the Dragoon). Maybe I'm just being pessimistic, but it feels like the Stryker is forever being cast as having potential to do this, that, and the other thing, but it's never very good at whatever it's supposed to do; sort of a jack-of-all-trades, master of none kind of thing.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by cawest

i think that is why they are going to the 30mm soonish

https://www.army.mil/article/181203/...grades_to_come

That is the remote turret for the Stryker. Which the article says is using the ammunition from the A-10. I thought it was a modified 30mm such as the AH-64 Apache currently fields. So I am confused on that point.

This vehicle here is the LAV-25 that the 82nd is thinking of fielded for their Cavalry element. Which I suppose is an upgrade over HMMWVs, and still completely overmatched by the BMP-3 or BMP-4.

[cawest]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

That is the remote turret for the Stryker. Which the article says is using the ammunition from the A-10. I thought it was a modified 30mm such as the AH-64 Apache currently fields. So I am confused on that point.

This vehicle here is the LAV-25 that the 82nd is thinking of fielded for their Cavalry element. Which I suppose is an upgrade over HMMWVs, and still completely overmatched by the BMP-3 or BMP-4.

the Bushmaster type weapons are chain drive, and the A-10 is a Gatling. the chain gun could be chambered in 30x173 (the a-10 round). it was called the Mk44 as far as i remember. the M2/3 have a 25mm and its 25x173m the M230 on the AH-64 shoots 30x113

[The Dark]

Originally Posted by cawest

the Bushmaster type weapons are chain drive, and the A-10 is a Gatling. the chain gun could be chambered in 30x173 (the a-10 round). it was called the Mk44 as far as i remember. the M2/3 have a 25mm and its 25x173m the M230 on the AH-64 shoots 30x113

The one on the Dragoon is the XM813, which is a Mk44 with a longer barrel, a different mount, and an improved recoil system. By swapping out around a half dozen parts, it can fire either the 30x173mm GAU-8, 30x170mm Rarden, or 39x180mm Super Forty (it was originally a 40mm round, and the name stuck even after the caliber shrank slightly). AFAIK, the Army tests have all been with 30x173mm.

[Cdnwolf]

Looks like my city gets another nice defense contract if they do.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by cawest

the Bushmaster type weapons are chain drive, and the A-10 is a Gatling. the chain gun could be chambered in 30x173 (the a-10 round). it was called the Mk44 as far as i remember. the M2/3 have a 25mm and its 25x173m the M230 on the AH-64 shoots 30x113

The LAV-25 that the 82nd is getting is the vanilla with a 25mm.

Nothing in the article about the Stryker at all; except that the 82nd doesn't want the Stryker because of the weight and lack of amphibious capability.

So I was trying to focus on Pros/Cons of the LAV-25 as a platform for Cavalry.

[Olefin]

and yet again BAE still has the answer the Army needs sitting at York - i.e the AGS - can reach out and touch people a hell of a lot better than a 25 or 30mm - and definitely air-transportable

[WallShadow]

Originally Posted by Olefin

and yet again BAE still has the answer the Army needs sitting at York - i.e the AGS - can reach out and touch people a hell of a lot better than a 25 or 30mm - and definitely air-transportable

Hey, Olefin, d'ya think you could sneak a coupla AGS's off-campus? They'd be lots of fun cruising the circuit in York, don'tcha think? Might keep down some of the street crime, too.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Olefin

and yet again BAE still has the answer the Army needs sitting at York - i.e the AGS - can reach out and touch people a hell of a lot better than a 25 or 30mm - and definitely air-transportable

The Armored Gun System isn't a Cavalry role. These LAVs are going to the 82nds organic Cavalry elements. The 105mm would be great, but the LAV has 8x8 wheels and is amphibious. The LAV is going to need Javelins for the AT mission.

[ArmySGT.]

In the short term I only expect two changes to the LAV-25 fundamentally for the Airborne. The brackets mentioned so that the LAV can be palletized for low velocity airdrop or LAPES (Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System). The second the radios. The 82nd being the 82nd is going to use their variant of SINCGARS (Single Channel Ground to Air Radio System) and probably some other dedicated digital systems like Blue Force Tracker.

Still why they passed on the Wiesel 2 I don't know. That was tested repeatedly. For Cavalry all it is missing is amphibious.

Pro's.

• Common parts that are stocked and produced by suppliers currently.
• Instituitional training for operators and maintainers to include simulators exist.
• All systems and weapons are current and fielded with trainers, maintainers, and Master Gunners institutional programs in use.
• Platform is current internationally with other NATO members increasing R&D and Institutional training base.
• Cross Service training programs exist and a joint LAV Marine/Army can rapidly stand up.
• Can carry a Squad or Section, reducing the number of chassis to transport one platoon to an objective with better unit cohesiveness.

Con's

• Light Armored Vehicle, the threat environment has evolved since the LAV-25 was first fielded. IEDs and EFPs will do catastrophic damage this chassis and crew.
• 25mm Chaingun is losing effectiveness to emerging "light" armored IFVs and Recon vehicles. The gun is going to have to be upgraded to 30mm, 35mm, or 40mm to be effective against peer threats.
• No AT capability for the gunner. A stopgap is using the Javelin on a pintle mount such as the Dragon was once employed. This opens up that gunner to small arms fire, artillery or mortar fragments, and opens the interior to chemical agents or smoke.
• Thermal signature is large and obvious with the front engine and elevated exhaust; something that has to be considered with peer systems using thermal viewers to identify and target our platforms.
• Driver fatigue, this legacy system is uncomfortable on it's best day with alternate drivers a requirement on any long march.
• The large size for a recon platform decreases effectiveness.

[swaghauler]

I think a lot of what we are seeing here is the result of "Consolidation Directives" coming down from the Secretary of Defense. Chuck Hagel instituted a policy (a while back now) that ALL of the branches needed to get together and buy the same "stuff" in order to simplify supply. In this order, were directives to find "common ground" on ammunition, missiles, and everyday things like boots, batteries, and radios. I know this is why the continued acquisition of the Griffon Missile was stopped by the Navy and why the Army has sold them Hellfire Longbows. It is also the reason that the F35 was equipped with 25mm Autocannon instead of 20mm (over Air Force objections). The other branches decided to equip 25mm as standard and the Air Force was "out voted." I wonder how interesting things are going to get now that both the Navy and the Army seem to have concluded that 25mm is "inadequate" against newer threats and have decided to move up to a larger 30mm round. I'll bet that's also why the LAV-25 is now being considered by the Army. The DOD said "get a common AFV with the Marines to simplify parts/maintenance and training" or else. The Army is just "along for the ride" on this procurement because they got to keep their upgraded Bradleys.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

... and still completely overmatched by the BMP-3 or BMP-4.

The Airborne is always overmatched -- on paper. It's our skill and the element of surprise that equalizes the odds.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by WallShadow

Hey, Olefin, d'ya think you could sneak a coupla AGS's off-campus? They'd be lots of fun cruising the circuit in York, don'tcha think? Might keep down some of the street crime, too.

I would love to have been able to drive one - got to take an M88, a M109 and a Bradley for a spin - one benefit of working there - and we found some very interesting things in those vehicles that we refitted - included lots of live ammo, grenades, you name it

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

The Airborne is always overmatched -- on paper. It's our skill and the element of surprise that equalizes the odds.

I seem to remember the Germans during the Bulge thinking they could easily push the Airborne out of the way - didnt work very well back then either

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Army acquisition - hell, all procurement for all branches except maybe Naval (sub/surface) is so fucked it's not even funny.

The M1 was a world-beater...fifteen years ago. The US' artillery systems are so out of date it's laughable, and they're using up MLRS' as targets at Elgin (I've seen the photos of them being hauled out and prepped) because hey, HIMARS is good enough, right? The K9 Thunder from South Korea is in every way a superior artillery system to the M109-whatever-revision-we're-up-to-now. Longer range, more accurate. Don't even get me started on the edge South Africa have. The proof is in the purchasing; armies are ditching the M109 for the K9. We had a great chance with the Crusader SPH! Now we don't even use parts of it, despite it being qualitatively better than the 109.

Stryker never, ever should've been bought. Ever. MGS was worse than terrible, and this new 30mm turret looks like something a kid bodged together out of two model kits, and is worse in every way to competing vehicles.

We've flushed how many billions down the shitter on the useless F35? When we could've kept F22 lines open? (not that the F22 should've been procured anyway: the YF-23 was the better aircraft...). My wife works for the Army, and was at work the day Congress canned the RAH66, my God what a cluster. They had a battalion's worth of people who were getting ready to move to Orlando and Ft. Rucker and elsewhere who literally woke up one morning and found that they were either out of work, or despite having sold their homes and packed up their families, being told they weren't going anywhere.

Shit's just getting worse and worse, and I'm sick to death of thinking about it. Our military either drags along half-broken fifty year old shit that has to be babied along and was outclassed 30 years ago or pours money into whiz-bang junk that might work in another decade when the software for its systems is finally written, debugged, patched, patched again, updated, and patched. There's no middle ground, there's no "we've got good working gear in between those extremes". If we had to go to war tomorrow - I mean a real war, not this Fahrenheit 451-esque phony, 20-hour war bullshit against troops that wouldn't rate "Category-C" in the WarPac lineup - the results would make the retreat down the Korean peninsula look like a St. Patrick's Day parade.

/rant

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

The Airborne is always overmatched -- on paper. It's our skill and the element of surprise that equalizes the odds.

The Airborne era is over. C-141, C-5, and even C-17s would never make it into a peer or near peer air space with the lead time that information has now.

Tap the phones at Domino's. Begin real time imagery of Green Ramp, and the real time surveillance of parking lots at 82nd HQ, the RDF Bde, Langley, and Dover AFB there will be a hell of a lot more then 12-20 hours to prepare.

Anyway that's another thread. Airborne is for SOF and putting Rangers into third world hostiles that cannot protect their own air space.