LAV MGS/TOW/ADATS

Hunter41 · Post by **Hunter41** » Oct 30 2003

Well the Canadian Army is focusing even more on LAV. The Minister of National Defence announced yesterday the Leopard C2 (same as a 1A5) is being retired and replaced by LAV MGS. The plan is also to upgrade to LAV TOW and LAV ADATS as well to create a "medium direct fire system". If you want to see some interesting videos, go to:

http://www.gdls-canada.com

then check out the multi-media gallery.

There is a lot of internal debate in the Army on this subject. Not everyone is convinced retiring the Leopard completely is a good idea(myself included), and lots of other issues are raised, such as, how do you employ the ADATS in a direct fire role, etc. This system of systems seems particularly vulnerable to me at ranges under 2km. The idea is to mitigate risk by employing more ISTAR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition, Reconnaissance) assets forward who will see find the enemy, thereby increasing the force's situational awareness. In addition, combined-arms groupings will be used more often at the company level. The concept is similar to the US Stryker Brigade concepts. Anyways, to get to game relevant points, please add a LAV ADATS. The ADATS missile has an 8km range and should be able to penetrate the frontal armour of just about any tank on the battlefield. The radar for the ADATS can detect aircraft at 30 km.

[ This Message was edited by: Hunter41 on 2003-10-30 16:27 ]

Post by **Balthagor** » Oct 31 2003

Thanks! I had completely missed the ADATS System family and I really think it is an innovative system. I also wanted to talk about the Canadian decision to purchase the Stryker MGS. Before I cover that, back to the ADATS

What category should it go in? It is literally both an Anti-Tank unit and an Air Defense unit. Where we put it doesnâ€™t really matter except for where players would find it when they wanted to build it. Also, some people might not realize that they have access to such a versatile weapon. My thoughts are to put it in Anti Tank. It will have both a strong Hard Attack value and a strong Close Air. At a 10km range it is certainly a close air defence system. This would mean that people looking for an Air Defence unit might never find it unless they knew about it.

I will also put it in on 3 Chassis â€“ M113, LAV-III and Stryker. I will also have a towed version. Actually, the towed will probably be in the Air Defense category. Will it be confusing to find the towed in Air Defense with the others in Anti Tank? I figure that the towed versionâ€™s lack of mobility would make it more useful as an air defence platform.

I will also put some helicopter upgrades so that units that are normally outfitted with TOW could be upgraded to use ADATS. Should ADATS be seen as an upgrade to Hellfire? Should it do more damage (anti tank role) than Hellfires?

I could also make a HMMWV version but it would be assumed to only fire two missiles at a time. Basically the same configuration as LOSAT. Or would that be redundant since the LOSAT is available?

On the issue of Canada buying Strykers; everything seems to indicate that the Stryker and the LAV are in the same family but different vehicles. Your comments seem to suggest theyâ€™re the same...?

Personally, as a Canadian, I think it is a very good idea. We where talking about it here yesterday and George and I think that the media really put the wrong slant on it and even government have the wrong idea. Somebody in parliament said that we are sending our soldiers to their deaths. I couldnâ€™t disagree more. The Americans really took a liking to our LAVs during their time in the Balkans and both Canadian and American forces have been using vehicles similar to these for years. The LAVs may not have the same level of armour as the Leopard but the mobility gained is often invaluable. They keep saying that Canada canâ€™t depend on light armour but we canâ€™t get our heavy armour to the action! Really, the only people we could use our tanks against is the US and that would certainly be sending them to their deaths

For the types of actions that we are participating in, these types of armoured vehicles sound like just the right thing to me. Even assuming some vulnerability of these systems under a 2km range, I would expect the Stryker MGS and ADATS systems to be mixed in with the current set of equipment that includes a number of LAVs with 25mm gun turrets. The Stryker will allow us to get a unit with a serious weapon to frontlines quickly.

Another consideration for Canada purchasing the Stryker is the fact that with production runs already under way, both cost and delivery time are reduced. Heck, some General could go down to London, Ontario and pick them off the assembly line

With the fact we cannot afford the kind of expenditures you see in the US we need to make more of our purchases on equipment that is cheaper due to volume production. Perhaps instead of buying into the EH-101 helicopters, we should have waited for the next run of US Blackhawks. One thing that I certainly believe, with how rarely Canada does upgrade itâ€™s equipment, all of our purchases should look for the best equipment we can afford.

Hunter41 · Post by **Hunter41** » Oct 31 2003

I would honestly put ADATS in the air defence category because of the equipment itself and the way it is employed. The ADATS turret is quite large and has a radar dish mounted on top of it. It is designed to be a static system, and the electronic equipment that goes with it is fairly sensitive. The whole system isn't currently designed to bash cross-country and keep up with rapidly moving LAV-based forces. Even mounting the system on a LAV chassis, I have my doubts that getting jostled around cross-country would be good for the targeting system. That being said, the debate in the Army is just starting, and putting the ADATS on LAV would probably include a number of upgrades to the whole system.

I think you can narrow down the ADATS armoured chassis to just M113 and LAV III. Stryker and LAV III are almost the same chassis. The engine and almost all the components are exactly the same, I think Stryker is slightly shorter. I like the towed ADATS idea, something like that would be ideal for light forces. Be aware that ADATS is a real stinker when it comes to fuel consumption. I don't have figures at my finger tips, but I know they need to be refuelled about every six hours on the M113 chassis when static and operating the radar.

Instead of upgrading TOW units to ADATS, I'd look at upgrading them to fire-and-forget "common missiles" which are being designed to replace TOW and HELLFIRE. If you want more info, just type "common missile" into a search engine and you'll get lots of hits. You could also upgrade to Compact Kinetic Energy Missiles (CKEM), which is like a TOW-sized LOSAT missile. In Canada, Defence Research Development Canada (DRDC)was investigating a High-Energy Missile (HEMi) concept designed to replace ADATS with a 1m long, 20 kg missile designed to hit Mach 7 within 400m of launch. This technology is at least 10 years out, but people are thinking about it. You should also look into the US Objective Force "Netfires" concept, it is quite innovative.

Active (armour) Protection Systems (APS) are something else you should consider as an upgrade. Basically APS takes reactive armour one step further by intercepting incoming rounds a few metres from the targeted vehicle.

As for Stryker, your points are valid and are the same ones our leaders keep bringing up. My main issues are:

1) We're buying MGS without having any doctrine for it.

2) We're retiring the Leopards completely rather than handing them off to the reserves and maintaining some MBT capability.

3) We've committed to Stryker MGS before the technical bugs have been worked out, and the US Army completes its trials. It's still two years from delivery, so I'm hoping the major bugs get worked out, but what do we do if the US Congress kills the MGS program in the US in favour of the M-8?

4) The Leopard was a good vehicle for peace support operations. It performed well in Kosovo. In most of the missions we have participated in during the last decade including Croatia, Bosnia, Somalia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan, the belligerants (for lack of a better term)possessed tanks. The reasons the Leopard has seen limited use since the end of the Cold War are due more to Canadian political sensitivities and reluctance to use a tank on peacekeeping operations, than it is to operational shortcomings or logistical demands.

5) The US Army FCS is supposed to be entering service around 2010, and should be a whole generation ahead of the Stryker technically. I almost think we would have been better off living with the Leopard for another 5 years so we could get a truly revolutionary LAV.

6) 600 million seems awfully high for only 66 Stryker MGS. I hope that figure includes upgrades to TOW and ADATS and lots of ammunition and technical support, or else we're paying over 9 million per MGS. Besides, we just spent $200 million to upgrade the Leopards only a couple of years ago.

On a final note, I recently completed a large research paper on Army Transformation. I still have dozens of presentations and documents on file about the US Objective Force, Future Combat Systems, Objective Force Warrior, and other topics related to Army Transformation that might provide some good references for future military units in your game. These files are all open source, and most can be found on the internet; however, if you're interested, I can burn a CD and mail it to you, since I already have my research collated on my hard drive.

Keep up the good work, it's great to see so many quality games being made here in Canada!

[ This Message was edited by: Hunter41 on 2003-10-31 17:50 ]

Post by **Balthagor** » Nov 03 2003

Thanks for the words of encouragement and the information! Iâ€™ve followed your suggestion and put all the ADATS systems into the anti-air category as well as omitting a Stryker version. Once I get the basics in Iâ€™ll add some future versions that assume some upgrades. I also gathered a lot of data on the â€œcommon missilesâ€ idea and will incorporate that once Iâ€™ve had a chance to read through everything.

I liked your APS tech item so itâ€™s already in the list. I just need to decide which future tank designs will list it as a requirement.

As for your points on the Stryker MGS;

1) I can see where that could pose a problem. With the game design Iâ€™ve not had need to look at anything pertaining to doctrine so I canâ€™t really comment

2) I do agree that the reserves could make very good use of the Leopards and I think it is important our forces remain familiar with general tank operation. My only concern would be cost involved in keeping them even somewhat in service but it might not cost that much, I donâ€™t know.

3) I do think they will have a lot of the bugs worked out by delivery time. The fact that the Stryker so resembles the current line of LAVs should help, shouldnâ€™t it? As for the M-8, I donâ€™t think theyâ€™ll go that way. They seem to be favouring mobile forces like the decision makers here that picked the Stryker.

4) I see your point, that some of our not using the Leopards has been more choice than necessity, but if we arenâ€™t going to use them for whatever reasons, might as well move to something we will use.

5) I would have had no problem with that idea, but I know that our armed forces have been crying for some equipment upgrades (rightfully so)

6) You got me on this one. I didnâ€™t know that we had upgraded the Leopards, but that seems to have been our first mistake. I think we should be looking for something newer either way. As for the ~9million each, I agree that the price should probably have been about half that. I suppose weâ€™d have to see the exact purchase order to know how much weâ€™re being ripped off. I wonder if thatâ€™s something that can be requested? After all it is our money being spent. I know a lot of other documents are available upon request... Oh, the things Iâ€™d do if I had nothing but time on my hands.

dust off · Post by **dust off** » Nov 03 2003

will the ADATS be treated like an anti-tank unit when it comes to engaging ground units, as it has some set up issues for fire and move to be invalid?

Hunter41 · Post by **Hunter41** » Nov 03 2003

Please don't limit APS to just tank designs. APS is being developed for light armoured vehicles generally to improve their survivability. In terms of the game, the APS should be available depending on nation and tech level rather than specific vehicle type.

Post by **Balthagor** » Nov 04 2003

Dust offâ€™s comment is actually a good one. If I make it an Anti-Air unit, I would have to set it to not be able to capture land to be consistent. None of our anti air units are considered to be able to capture territory as they move since they are such clearly defensive units. There might be some argument that an ADATS equipped unit would be able to take territory. Then again, the counter argument would be that an â€œAnti Air battalion of ADATS equipped unitsâ€ is only outfitted for defensive roles. In theory, the game assumes that some LAV III battalions have one or two ADATS equipped units in their mix. So I still support Anti Air, but I thought Iâ€™d double check that this wonâ€™t seem strange. This would be the only limitation of it being in the Anti Air category. It would still have a good Hard attack value.

On the APS subject; oh! I didnâ€™t know, will do. Iâ€™ll be sure to select a certain selection of units from all land categories that are assumed to move in that direction. Remember that APS research doesnâ€™t improve your existing units, it unlocks new units that use APS. Some units can be upgrades such as having a LAV III and a LAV III w/APS. Once you researched APS you could research and build the LAV III w/ APS but any LAV IIIs you had built would need to be given an â€œupgradeâ€ order that would send them back to base for an overhaul that takes both time and money. This is the way research was designed within the game. So since anyone could research APS I will be sure it unlocks units for most regions. Iâ€™ve currently attached a tech level requirement of 103 to APS and any units so outfitted would be 104+. Does that seem like itâ€™s available too early? Should it be closer to 106? BTW, tech level 106 is supposed to be like things seen in 2006.

Hunter41 · Post by **Hunter41** » Nov 04 2003

I'd stick with ADATS being anti-air. ADATS cannot fire on the move, thus using it in an offensive ground role, other than in a combined-arms unit would be suicide. In addition, the only anti-personnel weapons ADATS has are the personal weapons of the crew. As for APS, I'd put APS at tech level 108, maybe 106 at the earliest. Some technology demonstrators have been tested, including APS mounted on a Bradley that intercepted RPG while the Bradley was moving at 20 mph. However, I'd give the technology at least a couple of more years to mature to the point in can be used reliably in combat operations. Second generation APS (tech level 112-115) should be able to intercept KE rounds too. Are electro-thermal chemical (ETC) guns and electromagnetic (EM) guns included in the upgrade options too? Finally, how do battlefield management systems (BMS) factor in to unit effectiveness in SR 2010?

Post by **Balthagor** » Nov 06 2003

Wow, youâ€™re certainly keeping me on my toes!

K, The ADATS are in the Anti-air, done. I put the APS and APS-KE at 107 and 114 respectively. Iâ€™ve added ETC and EM guns to the list but I need to do more research to see how they will fit into the game. BTW, what is the difference between an EM gun and a rail gun? They seem to be the same thing.

As for BMS, we donâ€™t really incorporate any of this kind of technology since communication cannot be disrupted between the player and his forces. The only thing I could see using these for is that researched these types of systems could either increase line of sight of all units or increase spotting strength for all units (Spotting strength would make it easier to see units within LOS).

Hunter41 · Post by **Hunter41** » Nov 06 2003

Thanks for implementing my suggestions! You are correct, rail guns are "slang" for EM guns. As for BMS, without being familiar with the game mechanics, it's hard to make a recommendation on how to model it. The very nature of most computer wargames, means that when one of your units spots the enemy, you as the "commander" are aware of it and your overall situational awareness improves. After looking at the unit spreadsheets and reading the different columns of characteristics, I think BMS might be most effectively modelled through an initiative bonus. My rationale is that lower commanders are more likely to show initiative and make sound, prompt decisions when they have good situational awareness. Operations tend to go to hell when commanders are unsure of the situation and don't know how to react. By gaining a better grasp of the situation than their opponent, commanders are able to get inside their enemy's decision and create confusion, which can snowball into chaos for the enemy. Anyways, to sum up, an initiative bonus might be the best way to model BMS.

Post by **Balthagor** » Nov 07 2003

K, I'll see what I can do to incorporate this. I'll have to see if I make it a simple technology that provides an overall initiative bonus or if I make the technology unlock new units that have better initiative.

Chris Latour
Battlegoat Studios

Hunter41 · Post by **Hunter41** » Dec 13 2003

I recently attended a few briefings about Canadian Army transformation. The LAV ADATS will be known as the Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle (MMEV). The first iteration is version 1 (MMEV v1) and should enter service around 2008. Its more than just a LAV ADATS as it will include upgrades to the fire control system, and there will be some new missiles developed that are specifically designed for direct fire against tanks. In the slighter longer term (by around 2013), Non-Line of Sight missiles with ranges in the tens of kms will enter service that can be launched from the same tubes.

[ This Message was edited by: Hunter41 on 2003-12-12 22:36 ]

dust off · Post by **dust off** » Dec 21 2003

British forces review has recently anounced a similar decision to mothball a brigade's tanks.

However, we should remember that these decisions seem to be based on the proposition that a high intensity war with a large power is not likely in near future.

Post by **Balthagor** » Dec 21 2003

All that means for the game is they would be in reserves instead of predeployed.