Much has changed since the initiation of this thread. Some changes have brought us closer to an all LAV III force and some have brought us farther. We recently had a change in Prime Minister and a major cabinet schuffel that saw a new MND. As of now, we do not have an indication of what funding priority this team will put toward the CF and we do not know their stance on some critical decisions made in the last few months of the previous PM (ie MGS).
Plans are a foot to retire the Cougar without a replacement (a loss of 100 Cavalry/DFS vehicles) and it has been announced that all 114 x Leopard C2 will be replaced by 66 x LAV III MGS. This will leave only 200 Coyote available as potential Cavalry vehicles (and even then the value of the surveillance suites will limit what is available for this role). The ADATS is being looked at for conversion to MMEV (mounted on a LAV III and with a variety of missile types available to fill specific roles) and it appears that the M109 will be replaced by towed or wheeled SP howitzers (possibly on a LAV III platform).
The AVGP life extension program has introduced CP, gun tractor, VSORAD, and other variants. The M113 life extension has also turned into a much larger endeavour than was originally predicted in this thread. However, the bulk of the M113A3 and MTVLs were destine to serve in Armd and Arty Regts along side tracked Leopards and M109s (vehicles which now seem unlikely to hang around). Have these changes been able to invalidate any of the opinions surrounding the LAV III as the sole platform of the land forces?
I continue to want to see MBTs remain (at a reduced level) in our army (1 x heavy, 2 x medium CMBGs). For commonality of mobility, I would have no objections to seeing TLAVs employed alongside the MBTs. However, if we do not continue to employ tanks then there is no need for TLAVs in the Armd Regts, and if we do not continue to employ M109s then there is no need for TLAVS in the Arty Regts.
In our wheeled units, we should be looking to replace all AVGP and Bison with LAV III (and not extending the life of those vehicles). These vehicles are not able to keep up with the LAV III, and their presence in a unit puts an extra burden by requiring to maintain additional spare parts for one or two unique vehicles and by requiring the maintenance of small cadres of trained mechanics and crews. Replacement of these vehicles would require a commitment from our government to buy additional LAV III, but I think the long term benefits would prove to be worth the cost (and due to the nature of roles filled by AVGP and Bison, we would save money by not requiring that these new LAV III have turrets).
With a few exceptions, I believe the LAV III could provide a common platform for all CF Armd Veh.
Recce. The LAV III is too big to fill this role & still be stealthy. This is the reason I do not recommend it to replace the Coyote. There are many who would argue that the Coyote is also too large and we should have an Armd LUVW/LPV . However, no arguments make the LAV III better suited that our current vehicle. One could also suggest the need for such vehicles to be amphibious.
Engineering. The LAV III will not be able to do many of the tasks that would be required of an engineer vehicle. It would not have the earth moving power nor the ability to get to as many places to do tasks where they are required.
Tank. Only a tank can replace a tank. However, this deserves closer examination. The tank is the idea all-in-one cavalry vehicle, DFSV, and tank destroyer. As a DFSV, the LAV III MGS may provide an acceptable alternative to a tank. Due to the 105 mm cannon the vehicle would have the same range, same tank killing potential, and similar rate of fire as our Leopard C2. The LAV III MGS could be employed in a fire base on a LAV Coy attack. It could be dug-in anywhere one might consider using a tank to harden a defensive position, and it could be employed anywhere one would position a tank to take sniping shots out to its max range. However, I have heard several arguments on why the LAV III MGS cannot fill the role of cavalry vehicle (fight mounted enemy in open country, intimate support to infantry, exploitation, pursuit, lead advance to contact, etc). Most of the arguments revolve around the reduced situational awareness (compared to a turret) that the MGS layout will result in. A LAV III Armd Cav Veh could take the form of a LAV III with a turret much like the APC but with two TOW missiles (or two Javelin AT missiles) in ready to fire launchers. Alternately, turrets with a 60 mm or 90 mm cannon and two anti-tank missiles could be considered. It would also be worth while to consider the several successful platforms which have incorporated a 105 mm cannon or larger onto a wheeled cavalry vehicle. Regardless of what is chosen, unless we have tanks, we will only have a partial replacement.
Note 1: Some of the key related threads to this topic have been:
LAV III with 105mm
How does the stryker compare with the LAVIII APCs?
New DFS vehicles
Getting the Stryker-redeployment of the Leo‘s
The Stryker
Should the CF retain MBTs?
Note 2: The MTVL&TLAV family of APCs could also have provided a common platform for all CF Armd Veh to a greater extent than the LAV III. They could have filled the recce (new Lynx) & some engr roles that the LAV cannot.