• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Canada's MMEV

Firefly 2

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
461
Reaction score
8
From Wiki:

The Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle (MMEV) was a dual-purpose short range surface-to-air and anti-tank platform intended for use by the Canadian Forces. It was based on Air Defense Anti-Tank System (ADATS) technology, and integrated onto an 8×8 wheeled LAV III. The MMEV project was canceled in 2007.

Development

In late September 2005, the MND announced a $750M project for 30 to 40 new MMEVs. Prime contractor for the first, $100M phase of the project was to be Oerlikon Contraves Canada. The Canadian Forces worked with Defence R&D Canada and Canadian industry through the Technology Demonstration Program to develop fire control systems and ergonomics that would directly contribute to the development of the MMEV. Oerlikon Contraves Canada was selected for the MMEV project since it owns the intellectual property rights to the ADATS technology, the cornerstone of the new MMEV system.

The MMEV was designed to engage fixed wing aircraft and helicopters at low to medium altitudes (20+ km), and land-based targets at up to 8km.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-Mission_Effects_Vehicle



A do it all that went wrong. I was always a bit baffled by the configuration of the turret, and especially the fact that there was so much ordnance in the open. The rocket pods were to contain some kind of guided FFAR to engage smaller targets at a lower cost. Looks a bit like a GI Joe toy though.
 

JohnR

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
621
Reaction score
103
What are the white missiles on the lower outer weapons stations, doesn't look like the IRIS T mentioned in the text on Wiki?
 

Apophenia

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,588
Reaction score
890
The missiles are Hellfires. The "some kind of guided FFAR" were to be Bristol CRV-7s. The RWS shown was highly improbable (since Rheinmetall Canada make the competing, in-service Nanuk RWS for the Canadian Forces).

MMEV is dead but the ADATS are to be updated (M113A2 vehicles up to M113A3 TLAV standards).
 

Rickshaw

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
2,023
Reaction score
106
I've always believed ADATS is quite an intriguing idea. Essentially it assumes that all guided missiles do the same job - be guided to a target to destroy it. Problem is that means that its warhead has to be "jack of all trades", which suggests that it necessarily isn't optimised for the target its sent to destroy. I wonder how well ADATS does really against modern MBTs with their uprated armour? Which is perhaps why they opted to also carry Hellfires.

The idea of using FFAR isn't a silly one. There are laser guided ones in development at the moment and they have considerable potential IMO to be both accurate and cheap.

My biggest concern about this is putting all these systems on the one vehicle. Putting all one's eggs in one's basket is never a good idea in an intensive battlefield environment where its destruction invariably means that your unit is then deprived of ALL its fire support.
 

Apophenia

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,588
Reaction score
890
rickshaw: you've nailed it with all-eggs-in-one-basket. Especially when MMEV was supposed to be one component of an integrated system. So why not break up the missile launching component as well?

I don't think the ADATS round will have any difficulty with modern armour. The Hellfire was chosen for MMEV because the original ADATS missile was too expensive (when bought, each ADATS round cost CAN$300,000. The AGM-114 cost was around US$68,000 per unit).

There's nothing to choose from between ADATS and Hellfire on warheads (both have 12.5 kg HE fragmentation/shaped charge combos). Range is about the same too (8 km). Big difference between the missiles themselves is speed -- ADATS Mach=3, AGM-114 Mach=1.3

FFAR: the exact round to be used were the CRV7-PG (Precision Guided) which combined Bristol's 70mm rocket with semi-active laser guidance for Kongberg's Penguin (with options for GPS guidance and ARM use). The range for the CVR7-PG was also going to be 8 km (which must simplify targeting).

http://www.bristol.ca/Downloads/CRV7-PG.pdf
 

Firefly 2

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
461
Reaction score
8
rickshaw said:
I've always believed ADATS is quite an intriguing idea. Essentially it assumes that all guided missiles do the same job - be guided to a target to destroy it. Problem is that means that its warhead has to be "jack of all trades", which suggests that it necessarily isn't optimised for the target its sent to destroy. I wonder how well ADATS does really against modern MBTs with their uprated armour? Which is perhaps why they opted to also carry Hellfires.

The idea of using FFAR isn't a silly one. There are laser guided ones in development at the moment and they have considerable potential IMO to be both accurate and cheap.

My biggest concern about this is putting all these systems on the one vehicle. Putting all one's eggs in one's basket is never a good idea in an intensive battlefield environment where its destruction invariably means that your unit is then deprived of ALL its fire support.

I've never stated that the idea off using FFAR's is a silly one, as they could be ( in guided form) far more efficiënt an option to destroy slightly armoured targets. But as you said: destroying such a platform would mean depriving a unit from fire support, essentially destroying tactical liberty of movement for said unit. Could the MMEV be classified as " an RMA idea gone wrong"?
 

JohnR

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
621
Reaction score
103
RMA? Not familiar with that one. Please advise.

Regards.
 

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,555
Reaction score
163
RMA: Revolution in Military Affairs, of which there have been many. The current/last one is the application of information systems to situational awareness and communications. Now known as NCW: Network Centric Warfare.

I wouldn't chalk down the MMEV to an RMA, its more of a budget conscious system trying to save money on fires by providing scalable missiles. Under the current RMA an MMEV would be more like the FCS NLOS-LS that links all sensors with an on call precision missile capability.
 

Apophenia

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,588
Reaction score
890
Abraham Gubler said:
... its more of a budget conscious system trying to save money on fires by providing scalable missiles...

Exactly. MMEV was also an exercise in recycling. The existing Oerlikon ADATS turrets were to be refurbished and updated for installation on LAV IIIs (although those LAV hulls would probably have been new-builds). Another Canadian Forces fire support project, the LAV TUA, used the same approach. Kvaerner turrets were taken from M113 hulls, refurbished, and installed on LAV III hulls.

Had MMEV been built, it probably would've followed the fate of LAV TUA. Most of those conversions were never completed. The hulls were converted into M1126 Stryker-style infantry carriers with Nanuk RWS. The Kvaerner turrets went into storage.

BTW, the third element of this CF fire support project was to be a Canadian version of the M1128 MGS.
 

Firefly 2

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
461
Reaction score
8
Cost effective network linked fire support... Wow, but I still think it looks like a GI Joe toy. Will the Canadian army soldier on with their Leopard's then?
 

Apophenia

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
2,588
Reaction score
890
The Leopard C2 (1A5) is to be phased out along with its support vehicles (although no word on the Beaver AVLB). The deployed tanks have been augmented by loaned German Leopard 2 A6M CANs in Afghanistan.

The future plan is to replace the German 2 A6Ms with rebuilt ex-Dutch Leopard 2 A4s. Twenty were to be sent to Germany as loaner replacement. Some were to be brought up to full 2 A6M CAN standard for Canadian Forces use.

Other 2 A4s were to be brought up to 2 A6 standards with mounting points for IBD composite and bar armour (mounted when the vehicles were to be deployed). This is now somewhat up in the air. There is talk that the L/44 guns might be left as is (as an economy measure). So, I guess that would give the Canadian Forces '2 A4Ms'.

Still other ex-Dutch tanks would remain 2 A4s (for training or spares) or become ARVs or AEVs (now a semi-separate project called Force Mobility Enhancement).

All the recent announcements have focused on new tracked IFVs ('Close Combat Vehicles') and a new wheeled family ('Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicles'). Nothing about fire support.
 

Similar threads

Top