|
Author
|
Topic: Why the Eryx?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brad Sallows
Veteran
Member # 16
Member Rated:
|
posted 15 November 2021 15:51
As a follow-up, those interested might want to review the information about Eryx and Javelin at the following web pages, respectively:http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/eryx.htm http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/javelin.htm Unfortunately the development and acquisition cycle of Eryx is not documented on the FAS pages. The Infantry School Journal has a few Eryx articles: http://www.brunnet.net/infsch/jrnl.htm Based on the RHA penetration claims, it would seem Eryx may have a more powerful warhead.
Posts: 82 | From: Burnaby BC | Registered: Jun 2000
|
|
|
|
2 Charlie
Veteran
Member # 157
Member Rated:
|
posted 02 February 2021 19:09
Good job Yard Ape.The Eryx was procured for very specific point protection. There is a lot of thought as to what is or is not needed, but at the end of the day, when all alse fails and your position is about to be over run, I think that this system will make a few people very happy. As for the Javelin, yes it is a very capable system with a few probs, but here is a thought, do we employ a system by that name already? Yup, the Bird Gunners have the Javelin. In another forum it was asked if the AD was going to be kept or not. I hope so, but lets not forget that the majority of portable anti air systems out there are designed for the front line grunts. It is awesome that we have a dedicated AD Arty and I hope they are maintained in the Bge concept, however, it was mentioned about grunts doing the job, in reality, just another point defence weapon. On a lighter note, how could we buy the Javelin AT and deploy it in the same environment as the Javelin AD, . 
Posts: 61 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Nate
Recruit
Member # 209
Member Rated:
|
posted 05 March 2021 05:15
It seems that the Eryx SRAAW is a good replacement for the CG, especially with mech infantry units as the weight issue is not so pronounced. The ERYX capability seems to have been defined during the Cold War, when defensive AT was a prime mission of the CAF and most other nations in NATO Euro theatre. The Cdn Ifn Journal, Fall 1997, mentions that the current plan of 1 system per mech infantry section was derived from a cold war scenario of a battalion having to stop a Soviet Motor Rifle Regiment. This would require maximum use of terrain and preplanned fortifictaions for dispersed, dismounted infantry in order to extract the most from the ERYX. The ERYX SRAAW can be effective in todays conflicts which involve FIBUA or poor terrain as well, but it must be remembered that a SRAAW, guided or otherwise is primarily a defensive weapon. It offers excellent lethality (900+mm RHA penetration), accuracy (75%kill prob from shoulder, 95% from tripod) and reaction time (4.3 secs to max range). Of course, this is theorectical data-proper training is required to extract these high range figures. However, in CAF service, particularly for the light inf battalions, this weapon needs to be augmented with an MRAAW, which to my knowledge, the Canadian LF have never had. Our European allies have used MILAN for some time, and the US had the Dragon before the Javelin. These wepons are in a differnent class from the ERYX because of the range at which they may be employed. The CAF should have a guided MRAAW(H) system in addition to the ERYX, fielded in the platoon weapons dets of light inf companies. The mech infantry could perhaps forego such a system as they have the Bushmaster and ERYX per section and TUA. Canada should have procured an MRAAW capability first, and then looked at a new SRAAW(H) ideally. It is doubtful if the CAF will receive an MRAAW(H) in the current budget climate. Any opinions? Regards, Nate. 
Posts: 15 | From: winnipeg | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nate
Recruit
Member # 209
Member Rated:
|
posted 06 March 2021 17:07
Thanks for the correction Yard Ape, you're right, the 25mm bushmaster cannot deal with tanks. The Delcodefense 25TOW would give the LAV III equipped inf an excellent AT capability, with firepwoer equivalent to the Bradley. In the current funding climate, this is unlikely, but at least the possibility is there. Such a system would particularly be effective if Canada ever acquired the new TOW Fire and Forget missile. Short of this, a plausible solution would be to perhaps better distribute the TUA among mech inf coys and plts, and acquire an MRAAW(H) for plt weps dets. Some would argue that over arming a IFV would contribute to the IFV being used more as a ACV instead of supporting the infantry which is its first mission (especially if the LAV inf section has to be further reduced to carry extra TOW rounds). I'm still undecided about whether or not this is true, but if Canada indeed sheds its MBT capability for LAV III 105s, then it would seem logical to put as much anti-armour capability as possible on the armoured platforms which we retain. Either way, our allies all use MRAAW(H) at the platoon weapons det level, and Canada should not ignore this fact. We need an MRAAW(H) system for the infantry. Thoughts?Regards, Nate
Posts: 15 | From: winnipeg | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
McG
Veteran
Member # 150
Member Rated:
|
posted 07 March 2021 15:37
The idea has been floating around in military academic groups ( and one which I support)that when Canada replaces the Cougar WFSV and the Leopard with the (as of yet undecided) ACV that the tank regiments should be dissolved and a fire support Coy be added to each Inf Bn. This would provide mech Bn with a high rate of fire medium range AT capable weapon. However, this would still leave the light Inf with a gap to fill through a MRAAW(H).
Chimo!
Posts: 159 | From: London | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Yard Ape
