Could someone explain why CAF wants LAV 10x10 with RCH, or at least link an article that explains their current wants? Noah mentioned them wanting the protection level of the LAV platform; is that greater or less than the K9? I don't actually know a ton about mobile artillery, but I assume they reduce the armour to compensate for the weight of the gun, and the fact they are supposed to be behind the front line, not on it. I thought that we were looking at tracked IFV to increase their usability in the artic, as a apposed to the wheeled LAVs, so I'm surprised that they would prefer a wheeled artillery platform over a tracked one.
Choosing the LAV platform allows more standardization in supply chains as they already have a lot in service, so can minimize the number of spare parts and training have to do.
This. Not the only reasons. The Army has centralized tracked maintinence with the Leos, so there is going to be a period of reintroduction to a tracked platform. Tracked platforms are also seen as more expensive and less transportable, another factor for Canada that might seem minor, but adds to the list. A LAV-based SPH also fits nicely in the middle, protected more than traditional trucked based system, shares commonality, able to keep with the LAV fleet. Kinda the 'best of both' sort of glasses.
This fetish for rather heavy vehicles on wheels needs to be dealt with and the term LAV changed to MAV for the LAV 6, which is not a light vehicle anymore. If you want wheeled, you need to keep the weight down and accept the lesser armour scheme. I dearly hope we get the K9 instead, keep the M777 for some roles and conflicts,
If K-9 was to be built here for export, I could see our military opting for a split fleet of tracked K-9 and K-10 with the possibility of also procuring some hybrid LAV chassis/K9 gun systems/loaders wouldn't be difficult to ship LAV chassis to the K-9 factory for modifications especially if it's set up in Ontario. Just a thought.
Im intrigued. It seems like a bit of a hail mary move from Hanwha, but a very interesting proposition and sure to give Hanwha some extra points in their favor.
Mught be hope for the K9MH? A K9 turret on a Zetros, or that domestic built truck chassis? Would have the speed of a wheeled SPH, & be (much) cheaper & more sustainable than a LAV 10x10.
I think the protection is a red herring. Truck SPHs wjth armoured cabs protect the crew to a similar level from shell splinters & small arms (ibid the turret for the gun). It might be less protected in other locations... But a LAV is not a tank either. LAVs won't stop an autocanon round or... More likely now, an FPV. & If you're close enough for your armour protection against Heavy machine guns to matter... Your SPH is already toast.
I just think they really want a LAV SPH bit don't really have a good excuse besides supply chains and such, which is why we're forced to yell at each other about protection requirements, and honestly? By this point I have just accepted it. Sure bro, it's about protection....
My assumption here is that this will be a dedicated, Canadized chassis, whoch by this point you know what? I won't complain. At least it will be Canadian I guess. I've accepted the five, six, ten truck fleet. At least this one is trying to have a Canadized supply chain. Could maybe get some commonality out of it at least.
A 10x10 LAV with a redesign to hold ammo and featuring 155mm gun and turret may not be so much different size wise to a K9, stability, drivabilty and the axles/wheels ability to handle the weight of such kit without a much larger maintenance requirement is a bigger question.
Could someone explain why CAF wants LAV 10x10 with RCH, or at least link an article that explains their current wants? Noah mentioned them wanting the protection level of the LAV platform; is that greater or less than the K9? I don't actually know a ton about mobile artillery, but I assume they reduce the armour to compensate for the weight of the gun, and the fact they are supposed to be behind the front line, not on it. I thought that we were looking at tracked IFV to increase their usability in the artic, as a apposed to the wheeled LAVs, so I'm surprised that they would prefer a wheeled artillery platform over a tracked one.
Choosing the LAV platform allows more standardization in supply chains as they already have a lot in service, so can minimize the number of spare parts and training have to do.
This. Not the only reasons. The Army has centralized tracked maintinence with the Leos, so there is going to be a period of reintroduction to a tracked platform. Tracked platforms are also seen as more expensive and less transportable, another factor for Canada that might seem minor, but adds to the list. A LAV-based SPH also fits nicely in the middle, protected more than traditional trucked based system, shares commonality, able to keep with the LAV fleet. Kinda the 'best of both' sort of glasses.
there was a speed standard set that the tracked vehicles couldnt meet
maybe an aversion to tracks in a non tracked forces
Funniest requirement since fire on the move got canned
This fetish for rather heavy vehicles on wheels needs to be dealt with and the term LAV changed to MAV for the LAV 6, which is not a light vehicle anymore. If you want wheeled, you need to keep the weight down and accept the lesser armour scheme. I dearly hope we get the K9 instead, keep the M777 for some roles and conflicts,
If K-9 was to be built here for export, I could see our military opting for a split fleet of tracked K-9 and K-10 with the possibility of also procuring some hybrid LAV chassis/K9 gun systems/loaders wouldn't be difficult to ship LAV chassis to the K-9 factory for modifications especially if it's set up in Ontario. Just a thought.
Im intrigued. It seems like a bit of a hail mary move from Hanwha, but a very interesting proposition and sure to give Hanwha some extra points in their favor.
Hanwha is just throwing whatever they can out there by this point. They know it will resonate politically, which is the important thing.
Just a side note, Korea just tested a K-9 with a dual loader they claim now gives it the fastest fire rate in the world.
Mught be hope for the K9MH? A K9 turret on a Zetros, or that domestic built truck chassis? Would have the speed of a wheeled SPH, & be (much) cheaper & more sustainable than a LAV 10x10.
I think the protection is a red herring. Truck SPHs wjth armoured cabs protect the crew to a similar level from shell splinters & small arms (ibid the turret for the gun). It might be less protected in other locations... But a LAV is not a tank either. LAVs won't stop an autocanon round or... More likely now, an FPV. & If you're close enough for your armour protection against Heavy machine guns to matter... Your SPH is already toast.
I just think they really want a LAV SPH bit don't really have a good excuse besides supply chains and such, which is why we're forced to yell at each other about protection requirements, and honestly? By this point I have just accepted it. Sure bro, it's about protection....
My assumption here is that this will be a dedicated, Canadized chassis, whoch by this point you know what? I won't complain. At least it will be Canadian I guess. I've accepted the five, six, ten truck fleet. At least this one is trying to have a Canadized supply chain. Could maybe get some commonality out of it at least.
I guess a big question would be: Which fits onto a Globemaster or a C-130 easiest: a K9 or 10x10 LAV?
A 10x10 LAV with a redesign to hold ammo and featuring 155mm gun and turret may not be so much different size wise to a K9, stability, drivabilty and the axles/wheels ability to handle the weight of such kit without a much larger maintenance requirement is a bigger question.