Canada's MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)

[Kekkonen]

Yeah I am sure you Canadians here have heard all about it, but for the rest of us I ask this simple question, is this concept idea for real? Is this vehicle really supposed to be anti-aircraft and anti-tank capable, oh not to forget, be able to lay down indirect fire?

http://army.ca/album/Vehicles/Canadian/MMEV_Concept_2.jpg
MMEV concept

[Durandal]

Actually a vehicle with a single gun that fills an anti-armor, air AND can provide indirect fire is nothing new. There are a rather large number of them...though none truly entered into production at any level.

[Kekkonen]

Actually a vehicle with a single gun that fills an anti-armor, air AND can provide indirect fire is nothing new. There are a rather large number of them...though none truly entered into production at any level.

Do you have an example or two?

I can't really think of many such examples that could be usefull today combating fast attack jets, MBT's with the equivalent of 1500 mm of front armour, and the capacity to lobby indirect fire on soft and not so soft targets. It is this "do it all"-capability that I find somewhat interesting. Google turned up this as the MMEV concept on an official Canadian military site.

http://www.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/newsevents/spotlight/images/sportlav_mmev.jpg
Another concept of the MMEV, I take it the gun is for anti-tank
and indirect fire support, while there is some sort of missiles for AA

http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/5773/mmevconcept25or.jpg

It was however the picture above that got me interested and seems to be some kind of concept model as well, although the picture above is probably the wet PS-fantasy of someone. The turret and AA-missiles is based on the American ADATS, and two anti-tank missiles and unguided rockets have been added.

[Kingswat]

The turret and AA-missiles is based on the American ADATS


Could have sworn it was a swiss design.



ADATS is a low level short range air defence (SHORAD) system, capable of engaging both air and surface targets. It is manufactured by Oerlikon Contraves based in Zurich, Switzerland



that last pic is nice though even though it is photoshop.

[Durandal]

Do you have an example or two?

Sure...AAI's RDF/LT.

[Jippo]

Actually a vehicle with a single gun that fills an anti-armor, air AND can provide indirect fire is nothing new. There are a rather large number of them...though none truly entered into production at any level.

T-72 atleast, that was produced in numbers.


-jippo

[Durandal]

T-72 atleast, that was produced in numbers.


-jippo

No, the T-72 was not intended for a multi-role. Its design was purely anti-armor.

[scm77]

See here for a long discussion about this vehicle.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,16987.0.html

[Jippo]

No, the T-72 was not intended for a multi-role. Its design was purely anti-armor.

It is able to fire HE-FRAG indirectly up to something like 8 to 9km. That is what you were talking about, if I understood correctly.


-jippo

[Durandal]

It is able to fire HE-FRAG indirectly up to something like 8 to 9km. That is what you were talking about, if I understood correctly.


-jippo

We are talking about the Russian T-72, right? The tank with a gun elevation of 18º!?

Trust me, that is not a vehicle, designed from the ground up, to be a indirect fire weapon OR an anti-helo/plane platform.

Its a tank. ANY tank can fire a round 8 to 9 KM using HE.

[Kekkonen]

We are talking about the Russian T-72, right? The tank with a gun elevation of 18º!?

Trust me, that is not a vehicle, designed from the ground up, to be a indirect fire weapon OR an anti-helo/plane platform.

Its a tank. ANY tank can fire a round 8 to 9 KM using HE.

I assume he was talking about the HMG on the tank, that is somewhat suitable for AA purposes, I guess even an Hind or Apache pilot would become somewhat nervous if fired upon with a 12.7 mm HMG despite that their gunships are armoured and are supposed to do just fine.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t72/images/t-72_5.jpg
And there is of course this version of the T-72 with the 20 mm's for AA

Btw, AAI's RDF/LT looked like an interesting concept.

[Jippo]

Ahh, yes I'm talking about the tank. No I'm not talking about any HMG.

It has a bloody sight for shooting indirect fire with the main cannon and 20 kilo 125mm ammunition to something like 9km with the help of a forward observer! I don't know if it was in the original design task, added during manufacture or what but that tank is cabable to perform as a self-propelled artillery piece.

-jippo

Ps. and it can shoot helos down with the main gun too, I'm sure all tanks can given the right conditions. Is it effective in either of these roles? I don't know, what is effective? But it can do it.

[Durandal]

Ps. and it can shoot helos down with the main gun too, I'm sure all tanks can given the right conditions. Is it effective in either of these roles? I don't know, what is effective? But it can do it.

I think you can safely assume we are discussing roles a vehicle was DESIGNED to do, not fit a role haphazardly. Purposeful design that works. I mean, how is the T-72 going to fire at a target behind a 75M hill? It cannot.

Nor is the rate of fire for the main gun enough to EFFECTIVELY engage an aircraft/helo.

The vehicle (even the 20mm bolt ons inthe picture above was not DESIGNED for the task).

Keep it on topic.

[Kingswat]

Ahh, yes I'm talking about the tank. No I'm not talking about any HMG.

It has a bloody sight for shooting indirect fire with the main cannon and 20 kilo 125mm ammunition to something like 9km with the help of a forward observer! I don't know if it was in the original design task, added during manufacture or what but that tank is cabable to perform as a self-propelled artillery piece.

-jippo

Ps. and it can shoot helos down with the main gun too, I'm sure all tanks can given the right conditions. Is it effective in either of these roles? I don't know, what is effective? But it can do it.


I think someone has been playing too much battlefield 2 and Desert Combat for bf1942

[Kekkonen]

I mean, how is the T-72 going to fire at a target behind a 75M hill? It cannot.

Neither can the MMEV if it's armed with a main gun that also serves for anti-tank purposes, and thus should be rather high-recoil. In the concept photo with the ADATS someone has put un-guided rockets as the indirect fire cability, doubt those would be usefull to fire at something behind a 75 meter hill.

Something like the AMOS advanced mortar system would work fairly well I assume, can deliver both guided top-attack anti-tank grenades in an indirect mode, and anti-tank munitions in a direct mode as well, as well as shrapnel/smoke/illumination/cargo rounds direct and indirect. And adding MG's and SAM's to the turret would be no problem.


The vehicle (even the 20mm bolt ons inthe picture above was not DESIGNED for the task).

Oh come on, now you are just nitpicking. T-72 chassies are used in many AA-platforms, the latest one should be the Polish LOARA (with the PT-91). The Canadian's will probably choose some LAV-variant as the platform, and no it was not designed for the task of doing it all at the same time.

[Biggsm777]

The MMEV is simply the ADATs missile turret on a LAVV III chassis. ADAT stands for Air defence, Anti-tank. It has always had the ability to engage ground targets. Once again the Canadian Government/Military Brass is using a sexy new name for the same piece of gear. It uses the same missile in both roles. The missile travels at mach 3+ and uses kinetic energy to destroy targets like a MBT.

Not too sound to snotty in my very first post, but someone commented that any tank can engage at 8 km using HE. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that is entirely false. Most tanks have a max engagement range in the vicinity of 2.4 km at the most.

I am currently working at the Field Artillery School, Combat Training Centre in CFB Gagetown and this subject comes up on a nuaseatingly frequent basis.

Oh yeah...the ADATs cannot...I repeat cannot be employed as an indirect fire weapon. The missile is laser guided and is a direct fire Line of sight weapon only. To state that it is an indirect fire system is insulting to field Artillerymen like myself. The warhead has a very marginal explosive payload...only a few pounds. This is more than sufficient against aircraft, as most of them are not extremely durable....The depend on speed, stealth, etc for protection & not heavy armor. It is the extremely high velocity of the missile that makes it so effective in the anti-tank role....

[kinghk]

Most tanks have a max engagement range in the vicinity of 2.4 km at the most.


Max range on the firing computer on the Leo2A4No is 4000m. The rangefinder though is capable to measure distances up to 10km. Another thing that makes the tank useless to make indirect fire is that unlike real artillery you can't adjust the amount of gunpowder in the shells, atleast on most western designs. According to FAS (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/leopard2.htm) you can't elevate the turret over 20°, that would make the Leo rather useless in the role as artillery.

[Biggsm777]

The computer is one thing, the ballistic properties of the ammo (normally APFSDS..., armour piercing, fin stabilizing, discarding Sabot...when you are talking about the max ranges in tank ammo) get a little wobbly after that. If the planets aligned you might get lucky, but not likely.

For example the 25mm ammo fired from the LAV III can travel up to 20 km in some cases. That doesn't mean you can engage targets that far away. The effective range of the 25mm APFSDS...at least the range any sane gunner would start engaging an enemy AFV is in the vicinity of 1800m and below. You want to make sure you're rounds will have sufficient kinetic energy to penetrate...plus hitting a moving vehicle beyond that range, while moving yourself, even with a stab system, is a tricky affair.

Excellent point on the fixed amount of propellant. In addition to that, tank rounds are designed to have different effects than an artillery round, so using tanks in the indirect role is something of a last ditch effort.

[Durandal]

Not too sound to snotty in my very first post, but someone commented that any tank can engage at 8 km using HE. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that is entirely false. Most tanks have a max engagement range in the vicinity of 2.4 km at the most.

I swear, its like this thread is attracting all the kids.

During Operation Desert Storm a British Army Challenger tank achieve the longest range confirmed tank-to-tank kill at 5100 meters or 5.1km with an rifled 120mm APFSDS 'Charm' depleted uranium round.

Not a typical shot and obviously pushing it to its limit, but that was a direct tank to tank shot that clearly proves you VERY wrong. Nor is it indirect fire, which is what we are discussing.

Next!

[Durandal]

Oh come on, now you are just nitpicking. T-72 chassies are used in many AA-platforms...

Listen, I am going to try to explain this one more time. We are not talking about a chassis. We are talking about the weapon platform in general. You could mount quad zu-23s and mak it into a great fire support and AAA platform, but it would lack any anti-tank and definitely NO indirect fire capability.

I am not too sure ho hard it is to understand this...

They have yet to make a platform that does it well, but there are MANY designs where engineers have tried to "from the ground up" design a multi role weapon system...AAA, AT, and Indirect Fire. All three. Not 2 of any combination, but all 3.

My point was that this attempt is not something new.

[Kekkonen]

My point was that this attempt is not something new.

I hope you realize that you didn't make much sense, try explaining it again and focus on giving good examples rather than trying to sound condescending. I'm not a 17 year old kid and thus I don't care or learn much from your daddy knows it all attitude.

The example you gave lacked the indirect fire capability, and besides it was not even near the same concept as the Canadian MMEV that this thread is about. Since this is the equipment and not history forum I am not interested in cold war projects that doesn't reflect the threat scenario the Canadians expect to face with their MMEV in the future. What definitively is new with the MMEW is the "do it all" combined in such a light wheeled vehicle that is primarily designed as an APC.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see what weapon system they choose for the indirect fire capability.

[Jippo]

I think someone has been playing too much battlefield 2 and Desert Combat for bf1942

I haven't played those games, but I have served as a T-72 commander in the army. Does that count for anything, or do I have to play those games too...


-jippo

[Jippo]

I am currently working at the Field Artillery School, Combat Training Centre in CFB Gagetown and this subject comes up on a nuaseatingly frequent basis.


Sorry to burst your bubble, but read the previous post.

Just to add, T-72 has a scale that could be attached to the breech block that would be used to set the correct elevation according the instructions of artillery officer. I can't remember the details of it since we never even dreamed of using it, but it contained spirit scale and some other things.

But don't take my word for it:
http://www.taos-inc.com/afvs.htm#t-72

"Using the gunner's quadrant, the T-72 can fire HE-Frag rounds in the indirect mode out to 9400 m"

What comes to helos, tanks are able to fire at them and shoot them down for two reasons. First if APDSFS is used the trajectory is exceptionally flat and flight time short giving the chopper no time to react. The second reason is that tanks are exceptionally well equipped for hitting moving targets at extended ranges. I have personally seen a helo downed with a laser simulator system twice, both times with APDSFS. There is also Merkava add floating in the net where Merkava engages and destroys a chopper. Not a big thing....


-jippo

[Jippo]

Excellent point on the fixed amount of propellant. In addition to that, tank rounds are designed to have different effects than an artillery round, so using tanks in the indirect role is something of a last ditch effort.

Tank 125mm HE rounds are very much similar to artillery HE rounds. Steel shell, explosive inside and four position fuse in the nose. They are not dual purpose like American HEAT, but strictly for use against soft targets or field fortifications.


-jippo

[Kekkonen]

What comes to helos, tanks are able to fire at them and shoot them down for two reasons. First if APDSFS is used the trajectory is exceptionally flat and flight time short giving the chopper no time to react. The second reason is that tanks are exceptionally well equipped for hitting moving targets at extended ranges. I have personally seen a helo downed with a laser simulator system twice, both times with APDSFS. There is also Merkava add floating in the net where Merkava engages and destroys a chopper. Not a big thing....

-jippo

A question, in a hypothetical combat situation where you as a tank commander in your T-72 would have a Hind in front of you over the treetops, would you order the gunner to fire an APDSFS against it?

I guess there is not much to lose with trying, except the APDSFS itself.

[Jippo]

A question, in a hypothetical combat situation where you as a tank commander in your T-72 would have a Hind in front of you over the treetops, would you order the gunner to fire an APDSFS against it?

I guess there is not much to lose with trying, except the APDSFS itself.

If it is a long distance at over 1km and a threat(=on an attack run), sure I would! Best case scenario is chopper destroyed, worst case scenario is the situation we started with minus one round.

I wouldn't waste ammo on folks just flying past us though...


-jippo

[JoaMei]

Every tank can fire its main Gun at Helicopters, the Leopard 2 for example had pretty good results with its aiming system. And a 120mm HE airbursting near a Helo is nothing a Pilot likes very much.

[akmarksman]

Personally I would rather have a combined-force response..
That is..the Cannon cockers and their equipment stationed near the mid-back..with their grid system worked out..That would help with the long range indirect fire. (tanks on the grid,but no Line-of-Sight..such as on the other side of a hill))

Against a tank(LOS) I would try a Hummer with a TOW or better yet a M1 Abrams.
Anti-air...AH64D Longbow supported by Harriers and Hornets from the Navy
I wouldn't use a LAVIII(or Army's Stryker) for a MMEV or for troop transport.
For moving the troops(and protecting them) I would use the EFV(formerly known as the AAAV) or the M113 Gavin(with the new armor-kit being used by Israel)

Before I would move out any of these..I would have satellite images and have a couple of Predator UAVs in-flight and 2 on standby.

[Biggsm777]

I swear, its like this thread is attracting all the kids.

During Operation Desert Storm a British Army Challenger tank achieve the longest range confirmed tank-to-tank kill at 5100 meters or 5.1km with an rifled 120mm APFSDS 'Charm' depleted uranium round.

Not a typical shot and obviously pushing it to its limit, but that was a direct tank to tank shot that clearly proves you VERY wrong. Nor is it indirect fire, which is what we are discussing.

Next!

So I guess that means that every time a challenger engages a target at 5+ it will hit right? I mean if you say so....I once shot a hole in one on the back nine....unfortunately things like that are often the exception, not the norm.

But I digress...my original point is that the ADATs is not an indirect fire weapon system....nor is it a tank. Look at how vulnerable the LAVs in the US Stryker Brigades are. Without the "chicken-fence" to disrupt the shape charge jet of an incoming RPG they are in hurting shape. The ADATs...the crowning glory and saviour of the CF has the same chassis. Doesn't exactly fill me with the confidence I would like to have were I tasked to charge into battle tomorrow.

[Kekkonen]

Look at how vulnerable the LAVs in the US Stryker Brigades are. Without the "chicken-fence" to disrupt the shape charge jet of an incoming RPG they are in hurting shape. The ADATs...the crowning glory and saviour of the CF has the same chassis. Doesn't exactly fill me with the confidence I would like to have were I tasked to charge into battle tomorrow.

That was exactly what I was thinking, maybe the MMEV is a good vehicle when used from longer ranges, like the assault phase of the second Iraq war out in the desert. But we all know that combat engagements also tend to happen at close distances in the type of urbanized war that we see in Iraq today.

[Biggsm777]

Agreed. Another seemingly obvious problem I have with this system is the following:

Sure you can engage targets at 8 Km. But from a vehicle on the ground, how much can one see 8 Km away. Unless you are fighting in the wide open desert, the likelihood that you will spot a moving vehicle 8km away and be able to track it for long enough to engage it is small at best. And once you are under 4 km from your target in the MMEV (which would undoubtedly sit high atop your enemies "Things to blow Up" list) the old sphincter would start to pucker as a result of the vehicles minimal protection.

[Jippo]

In Finnish armor vs. armor combat training we mostly had engagement ranges mostly between 50-500m. Sometimes it was down to 15m, so a real knife fight so to speak. Direct fire position to 1km or more in this landscape is more of an exception, and I would think that much of the Canada to be somewhat similar.

But that's not to say long distances couldn't be done. ;)


-jippo

[Durandal]

So I guess that means that every time a challenger engages a target at 5+ it will hit right? I mean if you say so....I once shot a hole in one on the back nine....unfortunately things like that are often the exception, not the norm.

Not at all, nor did I say this was a normal engagement range. I simply pointed out that it WAS possible after you made this erroneous comment:


Most tanks have a max engagement range in the vicinity of 2.4 km at the most.

Which is completely false.

[Durandal]

Sure you can engage targets at 8 Km. But from a vehicle on the ground, how much can one see 8 Km away. Unless you are fighting in the wide open desert, the likelihood that you will spot a moving vehicle 8km away and be able to track it for long enough to engage it is small at best. And once you are under 4 km from your target in the MMEV (which would undoubtedly sit high atop your enemies "Things to blow Up" list) the old sphincter would start to pucker as a result of the vehicles minimal protection.

Its called battlefield intelligence collection. JSTARS and UAVS and other related data net designed to find, pinpoint, and designate targets. This is old technology and has been in use for over a decade and has been refined over the years.

Just because a human being cannot "see" 8km doesn't mean they do not they cannot target something that is 8km away.

Plus, with the new stuff coming out of DARPA over the next decade things are going to get even better.

This is NOT World War II. If it is moving on the battlefield we can see it and shoot it, be it 2km or 100km. Hitting it may be another issue, but seeing it is not.

I figure I guy in Artillery would know this.