- Reaction score
That's one of many possibilities. It's this comment that really got me thinking:In the article you posted in the Future Armour thread it talks about the evolving need for composite force structures. Maybe this type of mixed structure actually suits the evolving nature of dispersed warfare. Having the light "sense" elements more intimately tied to the heavier "close combat" elements (as well "strike" elements in the CS Company?) would allow you to shorten the kill chain.
If having this mix at the Battalion level is too far down the structure then maybe keeping our existing Infantry Brigade structure (1 x Light "Sense" Battalion, 2 x Mech "Close Combat" Battalions and an Artillery "Strike" Regiment). Similarly you could have an Armoured Brigade with 1 x Cavalry Regiment and 2 x Tank Regiments.
Food for thought.
It may be that what is now obsolete is the medium-weight vehicle – they offer an unhappy balance of insufficient physical protection and being too large for effective signature management by concealment and stealth.
We've thrown a lot of eggs into that medium-weight basket. I must admit I've always been a big sceptic of the LAV III while I thought the Stryker was a good idea. The big difference was that the 25mm turret makes you think of it as a fighting vehicle while the Stryker with just a small RWS is seen, IMHO more reasonably, as just an armoured personnel carrier not designed to be taken into harm's way but just to offer some protection while mobile.
The LAV 6 upped the protection to the point where Canadian commanders thought that the Close Combat Vehicle Project was no longer necessary. I think that was a misappreciation of both what an IFV is supposed to do and an armoured battle taxi can do when the fighting gets real. Like @KevinB, I'm sceptical of the value of the LAV6 as it is. Take away the turret, make more room for dismounts and add a small defensive RWS and perhaps an exterior rack of stand-off indirect fire 15 km missiles or loitering munitions and it might make a valuable infantry transport vehicle. For close combat I have other equipment in mind - But - it is what it is and the LAV6 is what we have so we need to find a use for it.
I have the same thoughts about TAPVs. Take them out of the front line but use them in the near-front line as weapons carriers for air defence a la M-SHORAD, or long range loitering munitions or even hauling trailers as logistics carriers where their armored protection is good enough for stray dumb artillery and the like. Just not with the recce forces. I still like the little low signature French VBLs or German Weasels for the sense function but tied into stand-off long range indirect or fire and forget weapons systems - strike as you call them - that can give them some bite.