— Rebuild or Replacement for the LAV III 'Platform'?
The CF's light armoured vehicle fleet  in Afghanistan is being ground down by IED attacks, bad roads, and
constant patrolling. Even the newest LAV IIIs (left) are wearing out. In the press, CDS Gen Rick Hillier
has revealed that the CF is looking for LAV III replacements. Earlier, the CLS, LGen Leslie, suggested in a
leaked report that overhaul and rebuild could extend the LAV III fleets service life. In April 2008, the maker
of the LAV III, General Dynamics Land Systems- Canada, displayed its new LAV-H concept vehicle to staff at
NDHQ in Ottawa (right). So what exactly is GDLS-C's new LAV-H?
LAV-H: Light Armored Vehicle-High Capacity
LAV-H is a 'Technology Demonstrator Chassis' based on a US Stryker. At a glance, a LAV-H
looks very much like the Piranha IIIC, Mowag's version of the LAV III (right), but there are major
differences. The Piranha/LAV III/Stryker family were designed for a gross vehicle weight of 17-t.
LAV-H has a 25 tonne GVW to cope  with the greater weight of operational equipment and add on armour. Extra
protection is also afforded by a revised floor beneath the crew compartment that now forms a shallow 'V'
to deflect IED and mine blasts from below (left).  As can be seen, LAV-H add-on armour is also consider- ably
thicker than that currently applied to CF LAV IIIs (especially hull side plates).
CF LAV III – Fate of the Future Fleet
All Afghan-deployed LAV IIIs must be rotated out for refit and repair every 12 months  and
replacement stocks are dwindling. If the entire LAV III fleet is to be replaced altogether, new
vehicles may look very much like LAV-H. If, on the other hand, the LAV IIIs are 'reset',
upgraded LAVs may be indistinguish- able from current LAV IIIs – but better protected and
able to handle today's higher weights.
 Currently in Afghanistan, the CF has light armoured vehicles from three distinct families – the
wheeled LAV IIIs, two representatives of an earlier generation of 8x8 wheeled LAVs (the Bison carrier and
Coyote recce vehicle), and the tracked TLAVs (M113A3s or MTVLs). All of these vehicles must cope with a
hostile climate (geographical and often human) at weights far greater than originally designed for.
 The LAV-H was developed to demonstrate potential Stryker refit improvements to the US Army. As such, the
LAV-H was based on a US M1126 IFV (effectively a turretless LAV III). The LAV-H's chassis and armour
improvements could be applied to any LAV III chassis.
 The higher GVW is possible because of the LAV-H's improved hydro-pneumatic suspension. (For comparison
sake: LAV III GVW is 17.2 tonnes and curb weight is 14.2 tonnes. M1126 Stryker is 13.9 tonnes
while, oddly, LAV-H's curb weight is listed at only 13.2 tonnes). LAV-H suspension is based on the
Piranha V – an evolved LAV III developed for the British FRES competition – with a baseline of
 A potential criticism of the LAV-H upgrade is that, while belly armour may be enhanced, that crew
compartment 'V' shaped floor does not extend forward to the driver's position. Overviews of CF Afghan
vehicular casualties suggest that drivers are very vulnerable to IEDs.
However, troops in the rear would be better protected, sitting isolated from the floors in
roof-suspended seats from Armatec Survivability.
 In 2006, GDLS-C established a LAV III overhaul and refit centre in Edmonton to handle CF
vehicles being returned from Afghanistan. A post-deployment 'reset' program at that Edmonton facility would
be an economical way to deal with LAV shortfalls. But, there are two problems. The original LAV III
procurement plans were cut back in the mid-'90s. So, the CF was short of LAV IIIs from the outset
(which brings up replacing Bison ISCs...). And, previous wheeled LAV life-extension projects (WLAV / APC-LE)
were not managed well by DND. The best plan may be to farm-out management of a 'reset' for surviving LAV
IIIs and top up stocks/replace Bison with new-built LAV-Hs.