I was skimming through a copy of Jane's the other day and spotted something about this proposed CVR(T) replacement that I didn't know. It has a rear door, not dissimilar to that on the Merkava. Struck me as a very good idea, particularly if you could use it to drop a dismount off to recce the path ahead. Maybe even a UGV. Space dependant of course.

The question is, why didn't the UK buy it?

What?

I think that he just means that there wasn't enough money to buy the Stormers.

 

On a related topic, this jogged my memory, and I recall that the Stormer family of vehicles was considered for the US Army (and maybe the Marines as well) Light Armored Vehicle, back in the eighties.

The MOWAG Piranna won, of course, but how it was chosen over the Stormer, with far better mobility due to its low ground pressure, is beyond me (since the LAV needs special consideration when the Marines bring them in over the beach).

 

A book on the US Army noted that Congress disapproved funding for the LAV "but that doesn't mean the Army won't get its LAV in the long run).  Lo and behold, two decades later, we have the Stryker.

(Actually, I don't have anything against the Stryker, it's fine.  The requirements that drove that selection process, and that are driving FCS development, are what I have a problem with.)

 

That makes two of us.

I'll be home in a few hours yet, will have access to past Jane's encyc's that have the (proposed) Stormer family in depth.

...not that I haven't mentioned it before numerous times   on various threads here (Alvis LPXV: link ,and surely a few other places, too.)

Too bad I can't find any websites with pic of them.

Most I can offer is which Jane's Armour & Artillery I know of had them, on which pages.

Stealing from my above-mentioned link, my own post:

"UK, the Alvis LPXV (Low Profile Expiremental Vehicle), a further development of an earlier-announced Stormer-based family of vehicles (think every model of the Scorpion/Spartan series, plus others, but stretched with an additional road wheel). Never materialized beyond mock-ups, although Stormer itself has been somewhat of a success (it did make production, even if in limited numbers). (see it on pp 519-520 of Jane's Armour & Artillery, 1990-91, and as the earlier Stormer-based family of vehicles in Jane's A & A 1985-86, p 376)

Like the MARS 15 series, its combat weights, depending on models, would've fallen between 12-18 tonnes."

 

The 1985-86 Jane's Armour & Artillery describes:

 

In June 1982 Alvis released outline drawings for 14 variants based on the chassis of the Stormer APC.

1)-anti tank with Emerson TOW launcher (M901 ITV "Hammerhead" semi-retractable launcher, although some customers may have preferred a system using the Euromissile HOT).

2)-air defense (MANPADS, pic displays a single tube akin to Mistral, or maybe RBS70).

3)-mortar carrier (internal turntable in troop compartment, most likely in 81mm, although a long-tubed 60mm is certainly feasible- 120mm with ammo racks would be a tight squeeze in a hull that's 2.4m maximum in width).

4)-missile launcher platform (looks reminiscent of the M113-based Lance system, but drawing suggests an enclosed cab with a reduced-height hull- it could also be an ideal chassis to mount a counterfire radar system...or even a C-RAM for today's threats).

5)-maintenance recovery (no external discernible features shown differentiating it from the APC model, but aft-mounted winch and towing gear is likely).

6)-engineer (pic shows front dozer blade, retracted crane or bucket arm on aft deck right side).

7)-Electronic Warfare/Battalion Command & Control (built-up "box" crew compartment similar to M113-based M577 command carrier, with a built-up extendable section to the rear of the hull and tracks- in my opinion, these would most likely be two distinct vehicles).

8)-logistics carrier (pic shows collapsible crane to right side rear- the platform depicted is akin to the APC variant, not the flat-decked Streaker high-mobility load carrier).

9)-ambulance (built-up model like EW/Command vehicle).

10)-light armored squad carrier (by appearance, Stormer APC).

11)-Mobile Protected Gun-Near Term/Light Assault (Stormer hull/chassis with a Scimitar-like turret, or a Bradley turret minus the TOW pod, autocannon main weapon 25-30mm I'm guessing- this would in effect be the Stormer "light tank").

12)-assault gun (Stormer hull/chassis with 76mm L23-type gun, very short 105mm howitzer, 81 or 120mm gun mortar, 90mm Cockerill Mk3 type gun or even French DEFA D921/CN90F1, can't specifically tell by the pic).

13)-low profile 75mm (Scorpion-like lower profile hull mounting the ARES 75mm gun, but the 76mm M32 could've also been an option, as well as the high-velocity 75mm guns as used on early AMX-13s and Israeli M50 Shermans).

14)-low profile 90mm (Scorpion-like lower profile hull mounting, most likely, Cockerill (Mk8) or MECAR (KEnerga 90/46) gun, but French weapons (52-cal CN90F4 as used in TS90 turret) shouldn't be ruled out- the lowered center of gravity would allow for longer-barreled, higher-pressure guns than the APC hull could comfortably accomodate).

 

...paragraph goes on stating "Since then, Alvis has carried out extensive development and pre-production trials, supplementing the 32,187km of testing by the USMC during the LAV program.

The first Stormer production vehicle with the 250bhp engine was completed in early 1984."

 

A following paragraph describes the MPWS/MPGS:

 

Alvis also proposed the 75mm ARES cannon or the Rheinmetall Rh-105-11 SLR gun (Super Low Recoil, having a long recoil stroke with an impulse of 11 tonnes) for the MPGS requirement (due to its lengthened recoil stroke to reduce peak recoil impulse, this weapon would most likely be built into an external overhead pod not unlike the Stryker MGS or similar overhead gun pod concepts from the late-1980s/early-1990s era).

 

I myself am also curious as to the requirements, and testing of vehicles for, the USMC's LAV competition.

My guess is,

short of the air mobility requirements,

we won't see much difference between it and numerous Stryker and FCS requirements,

where speed, light weight, and relatively thin skin

is determined to be suitable enough defence in place of heavier protection.

 

...Without crying conspiracy, I'm also curious as to just how much political favor had its hand in the USMC decision

(but then again, what defense program didn't?).

I'd be curious to know why a foreign design (Piranha) was chosen over a domestic design like the Cadillac Gage/Textron Commando V-series (V-300, V-600, etc) 6x6 armored cars.

I'm guessing it's because the Piranhas had limited swimming ability with minimal preparation, and the V300/600 didn't?

The light tank I was looking at was in Jane's armour and artillery 1998-99. Stabilised 30mm Bushmaster II, plus TOW tubes.

Army-Technology.Com's entry for the Stormer 30 here link

7.62 GPMG coul have a short effective range, but that depends on how you define "effective range" and the mounting system.

Stormer Vs. Piranha could be down to all sorts of things, like cost, offset options, logistic considerations and sundry things other than mobility.