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

[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.

[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

[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.