|
Background – LAV-RWS – Converting LAV TUA to Infantry Carriers |
|
Anti-Armour TOW Missile Launcher LAV TUAs become 'New' LAV-RWS
In the absence of any immediate armoured threat, the Canadian Forces cancelled many of its TOW missile-launching LAV TUA vehicles. With TUA turrets removed, 33 surplus LAV TUA – or 'TOW Under Armour'
– hulls were slated for conversion into turretless LAV Infantry Section Carriers. The idea was to supplement
both the aging Bison ISC and turreted LAV III fleets. In Aug. 2007, General Dynamics announced that it had
been awarded a $49.2M contract to convert 33 hulls to LAV-RWS
|
|
|
The heart of the conversions was replacing the TUA turrets with with twin crew stations and the Nanuk remote weapon station. This RWS is much
lighter than the LAV III's manned turret allowing the vehicle to carry heavier armour to protect from IEDs. It was
assumed that the LAV-RWS was so similar to standard LAVs that little extra training would be required
and the 33 vehicles could be quickly fielded. But none of the assumptions held. The LAV-RWS Project ended up running
two years over schedule and more than twice its budget. [1]
|
|
|
There is nothing wrong with the concept behind the LAV RWS. In effect, the LAV TUAs have been recycled as US M1126
Stryker analogues (albeit with different RWS ). [2] Rheinmetall Canada's Nanuk RWS is the most
distinctive feature of the LAV RWS but, as back up armament, these vehicles also have a W&E Platt swivel mount
as fitted to updated LAV III LORIT. The Platt
mount holds a 7.62mm C6 GPMG while the Nanuk is armed with a 12.7mm M2HB Browning.[3] This is substantially
less firepower than the standard LAV III [4] but LAV-RWS are intended for less onerous missions. [5]
|
|
|
The LAV-RWS Project's difficulties weren't technical, they are systemic procurement problems. In its audit of the LAV-RWS , the OAG blamed the cost
overruns on DND's failure to provide government with relevant details for the Project and vehicle
shortfalls on unrealistic assessments being made on training requirements (a recurring problem with projects). In a
15 Dec 2009 news story, CLS, LGen Leslie, is quoted as saying that DND had "rushed" LAV-RWS to
Afghanistan to counter larger IEDs with 5 tonnes of add-on armour protection. Considering the
history of LAV-RWS Project cost-overruns and delays, 'rushed' seems a very odd choice of words!
|
|
|
[1] The 33 LAV-RWS conversions were approved in Oct 2006 at a total cost of $55M. In March 2007, another $55M was
approved for add on armour kits. Either that budget or protection levels were judged inadequate and, in April 2007,
$8M more was approved for armour kits.
[2] The US M1126 Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicles have Norwegian Kongsberg M151 Protector RWS also used
on the CF's RG-31 APVs.
[3] The LAV-RWS main armament is a 12.7mm Browning but the Nanuk RWS can be armed with C6 and C9 machineguns
or a future AGL.
[4] The standard LAV III's armament is the main 25mm M242 autocannon, coaxial 7.62mm C6 and a flexible, roof-mounted
C6 or 5.56mm C9.
[5] DND sources such as The Maple Leaf have stated that "LAV RWS will replace the Bison". That
may be so for some missions but the OAG report makes clear that DND has no intention of permamently replacing either
the Bison or G-Wagon as DND had originally claimed. By contrast, the CLS emphasizes LAV-RWS protection
levels. Suffice to say, the LAV-RWS will not be used where fire support in needed.
|
|