# LAV 6.0



## Mountie

I've read a few articles about the LAV 6.0 and the information on the number of dismounts has varied between 6 and 7.  I've been inside one and it seems like 7 would be a tight squeeze.  Can anyone confirm how many dismounts the LAV 6.0 is designed to carry?

If it is only 6 is the rifle section being reorganized?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

You have just latched onto one of the biggest issues facing the infantry, go get yourself some popcorn.


----------



## Mountie

Do I assume from your reply that the LAV-6.0 only carries 6 dismounts and the section is to reorganized?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The number of dismounts a APC/IFV can carry in the real world affects the organizations of the sections, lot's of posts here in that regard about the pro's and con's of a turreted APC armed with a cannon vs something like the Styker and the effects on internal volume.


----------



## a_majoor

I suspect that at some future point in time the LAV 6.0 will be fitted with a cannon armed RWS or robotic turret which provides the internal volume for a full dismounted section, not to mention a lower profile, less weight, lower CoG and so on.

OTOH, a LAV 6.x with a cannon armed RWS or robotic turret will have a much higher cost, so the willingness of the government or even the Army to go that route will depend on a lot of other factors....


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Mountie said:
			
		

> I've read a few articles about the LAV 6.0 and the information on the number of dismounts has varied between 6 and 7.  I've been inside one and it seems like 7 would be a tight squeeze.  Can anyone confirm how many dismounts the LAV 6.0 is designed to carry?
> 
> If it is only 6 is the rifle section being reorganized?



Seven, uncomfortably.


----------



## Mountie

So no change to the section or platoon organization?


----------



## dapaterson

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Seven, uncomfortably.



Don't worry.


HLTA fixes that problem.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Mountie said:
			
		

> So no change to the section or platoon organization?



The Directorate of Land Requirements (DLR) started to explore this question a few years ago, prompted by the realization that new vehicles being planned (CCV, TAPV) might not match current section size. Based on my previous work on the infantry section attack, they contacted me to write the body of a paper on the subject, the result of which was this:

Organizing Modern Infantry: An Analysis of Section Fighting Power

As far as I know, there has been no open Infantry Corps discussions on the subject of reorganizing the platoon and section for future vehicles.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Don't worry.
> 
> 
> HLTA fixes that problem.



LOL!  

The vehicle affords better protection at the expense of pretty much everything else.  Storage behind the seats is now inaccessible, new blast seats with three point harnesses make sitting in the thing for any length of time incredibly painful (I pity the poor old senior NCOs with tweaked backs), vehicle is considerably heavier with poor distribution of weight which limits it's cross country mobility, the turret is a significant improvement though so it's not a complete bust.

A vehicle designed to fight the last war  8)



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> The Directorate of Land Requirements (DLR) started to explore this question a few years ago, prompted by the realization that new vehicles being planned (CCV, TAPV) might not match current section size. Based on my previous work on the infantry section attack, they contacted me to write the body of a paper on the subject, the result of which was this:
> 
> Organizing Modern Infantry: An Analysis of Section Fighting Power
> 
> As far as I know, there has been no open Infantry Corps discussions on the subject of reorganizing the platoon and section for future vehicles.



I am just hoping the Army can finally get me a pair of issued boots that don't fall apart at the first sight of the field.  I'll worry about the composition of an infantry section later.


----------



## George Wallace

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I suspect that at some future point in time the LAV 6.0 will be fitted with a cannon armed RWS or robotic turret which provides the internal volume for a full dismounted section, not to mention a lower profile, less weight, lower CoG and so on.
> 
> OTOH, a LAV 6.x with a cannon armed RWS or robotic turret will have a much higher cost, so the willingness of the government or even the Army to go that route will depend on a lot of other factors....




PALEASE!   Let's not reintroduce the MGS into this equation.  Prior to the announcement that Canada was going to replace the Leopard 1 with the MGS, we had sent several teams of Crewmen down to Trial the MGS and they failed it on more than one occassion.  Even the Americans are seeing the limitations of their similar equiped Strikers.  Stay away from that failed concept.


----------



## ArmyGuy99

Infantry, Infantry Infantry...

Why is that everyone wants to talk about how many INFANTRY soldiers we can cram into a LAV or whatever.  What about the attachments to said Section/platoon?  IF we cram 6 Infantry Soldiers into the LAV and have to be Hatches down (that's a little cosy in full battle rattle)...where do we put the Medic? The Dog Handler and Dog?  What if you have a FOO/FAC attached?  Where do these augments go?  I think, from experience, that someone up on high forgot about this.  The ONLY reason we had room in Afg for 8 in the LAV (the official #) was because 2 guys were in the Air Sentry Hatch.  I HAVE been crammed into one of those for convoy with 8 in seats, 2 on Sentry for 10 and those were NOT good experiences...claustrophobics need not apply.

If someone from NHDHQ/DLR is in here somewhere PLEASE remember that each Inf Platoon is allocated 1 medic that's 3 Junior Medics and a M/Cpl for each Company.  Please leave room for them.  Oh and please leave room so that we fit WITH our battle rattle.  Thank you.


----------



## a_majoor

Robotic turrets are not the MGS turret, but the point needs to be made that something has to "give" if we want a full section of dismounts (plus all the "enablers" we like to take out with us). We already are starting to get some real life experience with large calibre RWS and robotic turrets, so I would hardly say "never".

Consider too that other services are operating very complex "robotic" equipment with success (the CIWS is essentially a robotic turret for air defense of a ship, for example, and many UAV's are automated to a high degree, with the pilot essentially plotting where the vehicle goes and letting the on board systems do the rest. Self driving cars are another example of very complex machines and systems designed to work in very complex environments).

So the trade off is: 

a really expensive piece of kit on top of the vehicle to fight with, vs

Lower vehicle hight
Lower vehicle weight
Lower center of gravity
More interior room for the dismounted section

How these trade offs will be managed is beyond my level, and really a new vehicle (LAV 7?) will have to be designed and built to take full advantage of any benefits from this, although if the turret/RWS is well designed and built, retrofitted LAV6.X will benefit from this as well.


----------



## MedCorps

MedTech32 said:
			
		

> If someone from NHDHQ/DLR is in here somewhere PLEASE remember that each Inf Platoon is allocated 1 medic that's 3 Junior Medics and a M/Cpl for each Company.  Please leave room for them.  Oh and please leave room so that we fit WITH our battle rattle.  Thank you.



Actually, the force employment ratio for an Inf Coy is 2 Med Tech per Coy (1 x Cpl & 1 x MCpl) under the direction of the CSM.  After just seeing the results of Second Future Health Services Field Force Working Group I am confident this will remain and be reinforced in upcoming doctrine revisions. In a mech (motorized) infantry company these Med Tech's should be mounted in their own armoured ambulance. Especially given the prevalence of TCCC ratios in the Infantry Corps and the vast majority of force planning scenarios where we have air superiority the ratios should hold. 

Now, if justified by the unit medical plan additional medics can be attached from the HS Role 1 unit integral support (aka UMS) if they have one, to the Coys, in which case they might be attached down to Pl level and require space in the LAV. 

Food for thought.  

MC


----------



## Lumber

Why not split the section up into two vehicles? You could have a smaller, lighter vehicle, more room for auxilaries like medics and dog handlers, and if each vehicle had a robotic gun turret, you'd be adding additional firepower.

Cost?


----------



## dangerboy

That would increase the number of vehicles required in a BN and we don't have enough LAVs to do that.  If you give two LAVs to a Section then you are looking at 7 LAVs in a Platoon vice 4, 24 LAVs in a Coy vice 15.  It very quickly adds up.  You would also need to add 3 more people to a section which would add up to 9 more in a Pl and then 27 in a company, we just don't have the manpower to do it.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Lumber said:
			
		

> Why not split the section up into two vehicles? You could have a smaller, lighter vehicle, more room for auxilaries like medics and dog handlers, and if each vehicle had a robotic gun turret, you'd be adding additional firepower.
> 
> Cost?



Cost, span of control, lack of protection (a big no-no for the government) and sustainment.  Twice the vehicles, twice the fuel, parts, etc... required which now increases the size of your A and B echelons significantly.

In the Army things, generally work best in packets of three or four, any larger than that and it becomes two cumbersome for one person to manage.  The problem with LAV 6.0 is that we've taken an IFV and tried to also make it an MRAP (given it a V-Shaped Hull, added blast protection, added special seats with three point harnesses designed to cushion soldiers from a blast).  There have also been calls to remove the turret and put an RWS on it because a couple of soldiers got killed in rollovers, etc.  

We've greatly increased the weight of the original hull which has altered it's off-road performance and also made it far less mobile.  Putting an RWS on the hull to prevent death from rollovers is also a false savings because we need to think of how many lives the decisive firepower of the 25mm has saved.  I can think of a number of engagements, where without the 25mm, things may have turned out a lot differently.  In his book, "Dancing with the Dushman", Col Hope refers specifically to the combat power of the LAV III 25mm being the decisive weapon in his engagements with the Taliban.

What the Army needs to do is lose the infatuation with sexy and go with the tried, tested and true.  We need to standardize equipment across the CAF and if that means buying a vehicle that's a little cheaper, so be it.  I personally think we are too reliant on vehicles and we need to make significant investment in more man-portable systems i.e. AT Weapons, MANPADs, Mortars, etc...

I would much rather have a platoon of LAV IIIs that carry some light mortars and anti-tank weapons with them than a bunch of LAV 6.0 with nothing in them.  At the end of the day, it's all about layering of effects to provide the maximum amount of counters to what your enemy has at his disposal.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Pardon my foggy memory, but trying to recall my Jr NCO course, didn't a section consist of 12 people?


----------



## George Wallace

MedCorps said:
			
		

> Actually the force employment ratio for a Inf Coy is 2 Med Tech per Coy (1 x Cpl & 1 x MCpl) under the direction of the CSM.  After just seeing the results of Second Future Health Services Field Force Working Group I am confident this will remain and be reinforced in upcoming doctrine revisions. In a mech (motorized) infantry company these Med Tech's should be mounted in their own armoured ambulance. Especially given the prevalence of TCCC ratios in the Infantry Corps and the vast majority of force planning scenarios where we have air superiority the ratios should hold.
> 
> Now, if justified by the unit medical plan additional medics can be attached from the HS Role 1 unit integral support (aka UMS) if they have one, to the Coys, in which case they might be attached down to Pl level and require space in the LAV.
> 
> Food for thought.
> 
> MC



So?  Why do those Medics have to ride in a platoon vehicle?  They should have their own Amb and trail behind the Platoons and Company in the CSM's packet of vehicles.  

I don't know your actual experience, but in the Armour Corps, the medics travel in their own Amb with the SSM and the Mechs in A Ech.  Also, remember, this is not Afghanistan.


----------



## George Wallace

One of the problems with some of these 'robotic' systems, when thinking of large calibre wpns, such as cannons, is the reload time and time taken to change types of ammo.  That was one of the most serious problems with the MGS, the ammo carousel and reloading of that carousel once it was empty.  Changing the ammo from one type to another type, meant that the carousel had to cycle through several rounds to find the newly selected round.   As the carousel is not large enough to hold the full ammo load of the vehicle, another problem was the length of time required to reload the carousel after it was emptied.  Not ideal times when one is in Contact.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

George Wallace said:
			
		

> One of the problems with some of these 'robotic' systems, when thinking of large calibre wpns, such as cannons, is the reload time and time taken to change types of ammo.  That was one of the most serious problems with the MGS, the ammo carousel and reloading of that carousel once it was empty.  Changing the ammo from one type to another type, meant that the carousel had to cycle through several rounds to find the newly selected round.   As the carousel is not large enough to hold the full ammo load of the vehicle, another problem was the length of time required to reload the carousel after it was emptied.  Not ideal times when one is in Contact.



Let's not even mention dealing with jamming and misfires.  Think of how sensitive the bushmaster 25mm is.  If Bloggins happens to improperly layer the ammunition in the ammo bins, you'll end with a massive jam which will often require you take the feed covers and chutes off and hack at the ammo with plyers and wrenches.  Imagine having to do this to an RWS while under fire.


----------



## MedCorps

I agree, doctrinally the medics should not have to ride in a Inf Pl veh, because there should be no medics in the Inf Pl. 

In situation where you want a medic in the Inf Pl (based on the medical plan) then it is unlikely that they will be mounted in a Bison Amb (due to armd amb limited quantities and allocation in the land force). Sometimes it even might be undesirable (the Bison Amb trying to keep up with a LAV 6.0 Pl cross country, protection offered by the Bison Amb and having a support armoured vehicle in a platoon which needs to be managed outside of the regular LAV Pl TTPs). As such, as an exception to the standing employment concept, if medics are going to be pushed down to the Inf Pl they will need somewhere to ride. 

The concept I am describing is not Afghanistan-centric (where it seemed that every Pl had a Medic) but rather how it seems to be set out from the proceedings of the HS Future Field Force Working Group / doctrine re-write.  
  
MC


----------



## Infanteer

recceguy said:
			
		

> Pardon my foggy memory, but trying to recall my Jr NCO course, didn't a section consist of 12 people?



No.  Doctrinally it is 10.  In reality, they are only established at 8, and there are often holes in this.  5-6 is the norm.


----------



## Infanteer

MedCorps said:
			
		

> Actually, the force employment ratio for an Inf Coy is 2 Med Tech per Coy (1 x Cpl & 1 x MCpl) under the direction of the CSM.  After just seeing the results of Second Future Health Services Field Force Working Group I am confident this will remain and be reinforced in upcoming doctrine revisions. In a mech (motorized) infantry company these Med Tech's should be mounted in their own armoured ambulance. Especially given the prevalence of TCCC ratios in the Infantry Corps and the vast majority of force planning scenarios where we have air superiority the ratios should hold.
> 
> Now, if justified by the unit medical plan additional medics can be attached from the HS Role 1 unit integral support (aka UMS) if they have one, to the Coys, in which case they might be attached down to Pl level and require space in the LAV.
> 
> Food for thought.
> 
> MC



I've never seen this.  A Rifle Company Medical Det has been a MCpl with the CSM and Pte-Cpls embedded in each Platoon (for four personnel).  In Afghanistan, this was augmented with an attached ambulance with two additional pers (1 x Med Tech and a driver, not necessarily a medic).

Over the last few years, I've seen the Field Ambulance fires over one Medic/Platoon and a Coy Medic when possible for every deployment.  The hardest fill has always been the Master Corporal Coy Medic.  I believe this is a useful construct as platoons can be dispersed around the Companies operating environment.


----------



## Infanteer

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> We've greatly increased the weight of the original hull which has altered it's off-road performance and also made it far less mobile.  Putting an RWS on the hull to prevent death from rollovers is also a false savings because we need to think of how many lives the decisive firepower of the 25mm has saved.  I can think of a number of engagements, where without the 25mm, things may have turned out a lot differently.  In his book, "Dancing with the Dushman", Col Hope refers specifically to the combat power of the LAV III 25mm being the decisive weapon in his engagements with the Taliban.



I would offer that an RWS with a .50cal HMG or a C-16 GMG would provide sufficient firepower.  I'm a fan for taking turrets off so we get away from over aggressive use of a light armoured vehicle and create more space for what they are really supposed to be doing - moving dismounts to an approriate location to get their job done.  We need an APC, not a light tank.


----------



## dapaterson

Infanteer said:
			
		

> No.  Doctrinally it is 10.  In reality, they are only established at 8, and there are often holes in this.  5-6 is the norm.



My understanding is that they are doctrinally ten, Reg F establishment within the Bns eight, and for deployment set at eight Reg F + two P Res augmentees.


----------



## Lumber

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I would offer that an RWS with a .50cal HMG or a C-16 GMG would provide sufficient firepower.  I'm a fan for taking turrets off so we get away from over aggressive use of a light armoured vehicle and create more space for what they are really supposed to be doing - moving dismounts to an approriate location to get their job done.  We need an APC, not a light tank.



What about putting an RWS on the vehicles with infantry mounted on them, and have one additional LAVIII with bushmaster per platoon (or maybe company?) there for fire support?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Lumber said:
			
		

> What about putting an RWS on the vehicles with infantry mounted on them, and have one additional LAVIII with bushmaster per platoon (or maybe company?) there for fire support?



The French do something very similar with the VAB.


----------



## George Wallace

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I would offer that an RWS with a .50cal HMG or a C-16 GMG would provide sufficient firepower.  I'm a fan for taking turrets off so we get away from over aggressive use of a light armoured vehicle and create more space for what they are really supposed to be doing - moving dismounts to an approriate location to get their job done.  We need an APC, not a light tank.



I am proponent of having as little as possible above eye level of the commander, on a vehicle.  We used to be able to effectively ambush vehicles cresting, by simply watching for their antennae and waiting for the vehicle to appear under them.  Now people want to put a big honking RWS up top, with sights.  If antennae were easy to pick out, a big object like the RWS is even more obvious.


----------



## McG

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I would offer that an RWS with a .50cal HMG or a C-16 GMG would provide sufficient firepower.


Why not one RWS with both an MG and a GMG?  We could use the same RWS as was designed for the TAPV and then have a single common gunner course.
More firepower and a reduced individual training footprint.


----------



## Kirkhill

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I am proponent of having as little as possible above eye level of the commander, on a vehicle.  We used to be able to effectively ambush vehicles cresting, by simply watching for their antennae and waiting for the vehicle to appear under them.  Now people want to put a big honking RWS up top, with sights.  If antennae were easy to pick out, a big object like the RWS is even more obvious.



George, I know you are also a strong believer in heads-out commanding but what would you say to mounting the sights at the top of the array so that they are the first thing to crest the hill.

It was the difference between the Kiowa with the MMS and the Apache with its Chin mounted sights


----------



## cupper

MedTech32 said:
			
		

> ...where do we put the Medic? The Dog Handler and Dog?  What if you have a FOO/FAC attached?  Where do these augments go?



Isn't that what the equipment racks are for? >


----------



## George Wallace

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> George, I know you are also a strong believer in heads-out commanding but what would you say to mounting the sights at the top of the array so that they are the first thing to crest the hill.
> 
> It was the difference between the Kiowa with the MMS and the Apache with its Chin mounted sights



Ummm!  Although that is a sidetrack, the same reasoning applies.  Back in the day, before the advent of the Apache, it was the norm for a Kiowa to be the first thing you wanted to shoot down, as they were the FOO/FAC, and navigator for the flight of Cobras.  The first thing you would see of a Kiowa or attack helicopter would be the rotors above the trees or crest.  The addition of a MMS on top of the rotors made it even easier for one to detect their presence.  

In those days I always wondered what a 105 mm APFSDS would do to such a contact.     :camo:


----------



## Loachman

The "periscope" would be a lot less visible than the rotor and entire fuselage above eyeball level, however.

And the EO/IR system is a lot more effective than stab binos, allowing for greater stand-off.

The heat signature, however...


----------



## Franko

The only way you'll see a Canadian tank on the battle field is when it's ready to kill you. We don't expose our vehicles unless it's nessisary, just like George is talking about. We also shut off our engines to listen for other vehicles approaching.

All we show is eyes above a crest with binds and more often than not, we will see you first, then use sensors to confirm and get the gun on you prior to firing, then adopting a hull down position and firing immediately.

Again, it all depends on the crew and their commander. A good crew with proper SA will get the first shot off regardless of do-dads on a turret or hull. All these things are going to carry over to the new platforms as well. They work. 

Infantry don't have the worries of this stuff because, for the most part, they go from waiting area to waiting area waiting for combat team orders while Armour Recce and the tanks are in the lead.

As for 105 APFSDS, try 120. We have the slew rate to track aircraft now.     

Regards


----------



## George Wallace

Don't get me wrong.  I am in full agreement that the Infantry need wpns that will provide them with extra firepower.  Those weapon systems though, have to be of the right design that they can be easily cammed and employed without exposing a good part of, or the whole, vehicle.  Unfortunately, something like this does not fit the bill in my opinion; unless you are fighting on a baldass relatively flat tabletop:


----------



## Good2Golf

Whatever you guys do, stick with weapons on the LAV and trying to cram the full section in, that's the vital ground...don't give anyone ideas about using half a section and putting something on LAV-150 TAPV...like a 90mm or anything...


----------



## Good2Golf

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Don't worry.
> 
> 
> HLTA fixes that problem.



MilPoints inbound, after I clean up my coffee...  :rofl:


----------



## ArmyGuy99

Med Corps:

That is perhaps what is on paper...however in practice both on domestic OPS AND in Afg HSS deployed 1 Coy Medic and 3 Juniors to the Infantry also in Afg each OMLT/POMLT got one too.  Limiting the Inf Coy to two medics (a dismount and a mounted) and putting both those eggs into one vehicle with a giant hit me here on the sides IS bad doctrine and Piss Poor Planning.  Regardless of what Ottawa thinks there ARE enough pte's/cpl's to fill the need.  As stated it's getting the M/Cpl slot filled.  Also don't loose your medic you might not get a new one.  But there are enough to fill out 2 of our CMBGs  With limited augment from the ResF units (that's their function anyway..different discussion i know) well at least there WAS 2 years ago when I got the 3B kick in the ass.

So it goes to reason to make sure you have the room for augments...even if we remove the dismounted medics from the plt level what about translators and other force multipliers?  Having tunnel vision of just looking to put combat arms into the armored vehicle is being shortsighted.     The LAV works for the most part...it's just that the powers with the check book need to listen to the boots and pay attention to the lessons learned to improve it and actually buy it.  



ANY future vehicle needs to have room OR purchase enough so that there ARE enough vehicles to hand out...(like that's going to happen)...It's a change in Corporate thinking that's needed...no one ever thinks about where to put the doc or translator UNTIL you need a band-aid or have to talk to the local wing nuts.

And that's MY arm chair quarterbacking for the Generals for the day.


----------



## a_majoor

Bringing us back full circle, since we don't really seem to have any doctrine, we can't define what exactly we want our vehicle fleet to do for us.

Carry a dismounted section plus a few "enablers/floppers"? Bring back the M-113, a roomy, reliable battle taxi with plenty of room for "stuff". Just don't expect to fight it out with others on a one to one basis.

Zoom around to bring your dismounted section places before your enemies can figure out what you are doing and react, plus carry extra people and stuff? A Stryker would seem to fit the bill, being a souped up M-113 on wheels.

Go into a fight supporting your dismounted Panzergrenadiers? Now you need an IFV carrying a cannon and armour protection. The main principle is it should have similar mobility to the tank and other AFV's ion the combat team. How much protection is needed should be a carefully considered trade off, but a CV90 class vehicle would seem to be rather light for the role (even if teamed up with CV90120's and other CV90 based AFV's), so realistically we are looking at PUMA, ACHZARIT or NAMER class vehicles, with all the logistical headache that would entail.

The initial LAV III was a fairly decent compromise between the wheeled M-113 and having more firepower, but the LAV 6.0 is pushing the limits of a wheeled platform pretty hard, and the mobility and protection will never match that of a true IFV. Even replacing a lot of parts with titanium and ceramics (lots of advances on material science, including how to make titanium parts inexpensively) and replacing the turret with a RWS is never going to make the LAV 6.0 an IFV, regardless of what anyone says.


----------



## ballz

MedTech32 said:
			
		

> Med Corps:
> 
> That is perhaps what is on paper...however in practice both on domestic OPS AND in Afg HSS deployed 1 Coy Medic and 3 Juniors to the Infantry also in Afg each OMLT/POMLT got one too.  Limiting the Inf Coy to two medics (a dismount and a mounted) and putting both those eggs into one vehicle with a giant hit me here on the sides IS bad doctrine and Piss Poor Planning.  Regardless of what Ottawa thinks there ARE enough pte's/cpl's to fill the need.  As stated it's getting the M/Cpl slot filled.  Also don't loose your medic you might not get a new one.  But there are enough to fill out 2 of our CMBGs  With limited augment from the ResF units (that's their function anyway..different discussion i know) well at least there WAS 2 years ago when I got the 3B kick in the ***.
> 
> So it goes to reason to make sure you have the room for augments...even if we remove the dismounted medics from the plt level what about translators and other force multipliers?  Having tunnel vision of just looking to put combat arms into the armored vehicle is being shortsighted.     The LAV works for the most part...it's just that the powers with the check book need to listen to the boots and pay attention to the lessons learned to improve it and actually buy it.
> 
> 
> 
> ANY future vehicle needs to have room OR purchase enough so that there ARE enough vehicles to hand out...(like that's going to happen)...It's a change in Corporate thinking that's needed...no one ever thinks about where to put the doc or translator UNTIL you need a band-aid or have to talk to the local wing nuts.
> 
> And that's MY arm chair quarterbacking for the Generals for the day.



I can't help but think that you seem focussed on asymmetrical warfare and your experience in Afghanistan. Don't lose sight that our first and foremost focus must be the ability to destroy another well-equipped, conventional force. As we don't have the budget to have a fleet of vehicles for conventional warfare and vehicles for non-conventional warfare, we need to have the former and make do with that kit through our own ingenuity and determination when the latter occurs.

In a conventional setting, the FOO / FAC has his own LAV variant that he rolls in. I do not want medics in my platoon vehicles, that's the best spot for them to get killed. I don't want dog handlers and dogs. I don't want interpreters.

I want combat troops and as many weapons / ammo / etc as we can take on the attack. The medics are safest in the A ech until the fight is won and the area is secured, at which point the troops are going to start moving casualties to collection points. That takes enough time that the medics would be pushed up to the collection point and waiting to receive them for triage and treatment.

Or at least, that's what the book says if I'm tracking it right, and it's a good book.


----------



## George Wallace

ballz said:
			
		

> I can't help but think that you seem focussed on asymmetrical warfare and your experience in Afghanistan. Don't lose sight that our first and foremost focus must be the ability to destroy another well-equipped, conventional force. As we don't have the budget to have a fleet of vehicles for conventional warfare and vehicles for non-conventional warfare, we need to have the former and make do with that kit through our own ingenuity and determination when the latter occurs.
> 
> In a conventional setting, the FOO / FAC has his own LAV variant that he rolls in. I do not want medics in my platoon vehicles, that's the best spot for them to get killed. I don't want dog handlers and dogs. I don't want interpreters.
> 
> I want combat troops and as many weapons / ammo / etc as we can take on the attack. The medics are safest in the A ech until the fight is won and the area is secured, at which point the troops are going to start moving casualties to collection points. That takes enough time that the medics would be pushed up to the collection point and waiting to receive them for triage and treatment.
> 
> Or at least, that's what the book says if I'm tracking it right, and it's a good book.



 :goodpost:

Fairly much as it has been practiced over the years, covering a good majority of foreseeable COA's other that asymmetric.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The French having been focusing their light AFV's to fight in their old colonial backyard, and they work well there. I am not sure how they fared in Afghanistan and what they took beyond VAB's.


----------



## Underway

George Wallace said:
			
		

> :goodpost:
> 
> Fairly much as it has been practiced over the years, covering a good majority of foreseeable COA's other that asymmetric.



If that's the case then you need the 25mm to stay where it is.  It's "supposed" to handle enemy APC's and light IFV.  

As for LAV size, the whole section fits into a LAV, just 3 of them are required to operate/fight the vehicle.  Unless I'm reading the book wrong the vehicle_is_ part of the section.  Its the number of dismounts that everyone is discussing.  So the question is do you want more dismounts?  If so is there a different vehicle that should be used?  Or perhaps the vehicles should be crewed by armoured soldiers instead.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Colin P said:
			
		

> The French having been focusing their light AFV's to fight in their old colonial backyard, and they work well there. I am not sure how they fared in Afghanistan and what they took beyond VAB's.



They worked very well by all accounts.  I've got an article I'll link here when I get home.  The AMX-10 and ERC-90 Sagaie worked very well as they provided a lot of firepower while also being small enough to go places other larger AFVs couldn't get to.


----------



## Lumber

Underway said:
			
		

> If that's the case then you need the 25mm to stay where it is.  It's "supposed" to handle enemy APC's and light IFV.
> 
> As for LAV size, the whole section fits into a LAV, just 3 of them are required to operate/fight the vehicle.  Unless I'm reading the book wrong the vehicle_is_ part of the section.  Its the number of dismounts that everyone is discussing.  So the question is do you want more dismounts?  If so is there a different vehicle that should be used?  Or perhaps the vehicles should be crewed by armoured soldiers instead.



This is what I was saying earlier on. Get rid of the 25mm and put in additional seats and an RWS. Add an additional LAV to the platoon with the 25mm to be used for fire support. It could be crewed my specialized infanteers, kind of like how we train NCIOPs to be SACs.

**These suggestions are made with the explicit understanding that I'm in the Navy, have practically _zero_ army experience (basic only, really), and ergo really have no f***ing clue what I'm talking about  ;D


----------



## MilEME09

Lumber said:
			
		

> This is what I was saying earlier on. Get rid of the 25mm and put in additional seats and an RWS. Add an additional LAV to the platoon with the 25mm to be used for fire support. It could be crewed my specialized infanteers, kind of like how we train NCIOPs to be SACs.
> 
> **These suggestions are made with the explicit understanding that I'm in the Navy, have practically _zero_ army experience (basic only, really), and ergo really have no f***ing clue what I'm talking about  ;D



So basically you want an updated Bison, and one LAV 6 as part of a heavy weapons det?


----------



## McG

Stryker 6.0 and LAV 6.0 in the same organization.


----------



## Lumber

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> So basically you want an updated Bison, and one LAV 6 as part of a heavy weapons det?



Sounds about right, but now that I think about it, this reminds me a lot of the problems experienced in early WWII when armoured units were spread between infantry units instead of being concentrated in armoured units. So I'm not sure any more. Maybe have all the platoons in a company mounted in APCs with RWS and have a heavy weapns platoon (Squadron?) of nothing but IFVs or even Leopards in direct support?


----------



## George Wallace

Lumber said:
			
		

> ......... Maybe have all the platoons in a company mounted in APCs with RWS and have a heavy weapons platoon (Squadron?) of nothing but IFVs or even Leopards in direct support?



That is what is called a "Combat Team".


----------



## Kirkhill

MCG said:
			
		

> Stryker 6.0 and LAV 6.0 in the same organization.



Or this?















If you wanted something bigger than 25mm AND you wanted to lower the profile while maintaining common mechanicals.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Or this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you wanted something bigger than 25mm AND you wanted to lower the profile while maintaining common mechanicals.



The Airborne Amphibious Stolly  ;D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mr_pCrhTkk


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Colin P said:
			
		

> The French having been focusing their light AFV's to fight in their old colonial backyard, and they work well there. I am not sure how they fared in Afghanistan and what they took beyond VAB's.



As promised earlier, taken from "The truth about the French Army Pt III: The French Don’t Run" which is written by an American NCO embedded with French soldiers in Afghanistan.  It's a three part series and worth the read.

http://www.breachbangclear.com/contributor-chris-hernandez-on-working-with-the-french-army/  Part 1

http://www.breachbangclear.com/you-do-not-know-what-you-dont-know-and-the-jokes-are-wrong/  Part 2

http://www.breachbangclear.com/the-truth-about-the-french-army-pt-iii-getting-into-fights/ Part 3

Key quotes:



> One giant advantage the French had over us was with their use of tanks. We maintain an armored force that’s fantastic at defeating T-80s crossing the Fulda Gap, not quite so fantastic at fighting insurgents in mountainous valleys. The French had AMX-10s, light wheeled tanks that were perfect for counterinsurgency combat. They were a tremendous force multiplier.
> 
> French troops and armor in the Alasai Valley, Kapisa province, Afghanistan, 2009. Photo by Goisque.
> 
> One night before a major operation, I was laid out in the dirt on an outpost perimeter. I had fallen asleep at midnight. At 3 a.m. a tremendous explosion woke me. I lay still for a few moments, then asked a Marine on guard, “What the hell was that?”
> 
> He answered, “I don’t know, but something went right over our heads.”
> 
> When the sun rose, I was stunned to see an AMX-10 halfway up a mountain behind the outpost. A brave and/or stupid tank crew had rolled up a narrow trail in the dark, and hit some Taliban.
> 
> I didn’t envy the poor driver who had to negotiate that trail. Or the loader who I’m sure had to walk ahead of the tank, knowing that if he made a mistake his crew was rolling down the mountain. As a former tanker, I can tell you that driving a tank up a mountain in the dark isn’t something cowards do.


----------



## Mountie

MCG said:
			
		

> Stryker 6.0 and LAV 6.0 in the same organization.



How about Stryker 6.0 Infantry Carrier Vehicles with a RWS for the infantry and LAV 6.0 Armoured Cavalry Vehicles for cavalry to provide fire support.  Maybe even a larger 40mm cannon to replace the 25mm, since space wouldn't be needed in back for infantry. 

A light mechanized battle group could look something like this:

4 x Mechanized Rifle Company (15 Stryker ICVs)
1 x Cavalry Squadron (18 LAV 6.0 ACVs in 4 troops, one attached to each rifle company)
1 x Combat Engineer Squadron (2 field troops each with 4 LAV-Engineer)
1 x Direct Support Artillery Battery (4 M777's & 8 Stryker 120mm Mortar Carrier Vehicles)

In this set-up the Stryker 6.0 ICV's would provide close in fire support to the dismounts while the cavalry provided medium range heavier fire support.  The infantry would have 3 M2 .50 calibre machine guns and 1 40mm CASW in each platoon.  This would let the infantry focus more on infantry skills (I'm assuming a Protector RWS would require less training and maintenance than the LAV-III turret) and let the cavalry focus on the heavier fire support.  

And for those that are going to start talking about PY's, the fourth rifle company comes from disbanding the light infantry battalions and adding one company to each of the remaining two battalions.  The mortar troop in the artillery battery comes from the left over third rifle company in each disbanded light infantry battalion.  That's a discussion for another time.

We don't exactly have the combat power to fight a large-scale armoured force anyway.  We'd have to pull every tank together just to provide one regiment for a Cold War-era type battle with the Russians, Chinese or North Koreans.  So why not focus on the fight we can do well, the medium-weight fight?


----------



## Kirkhill

Mountie said:
			
		

> How about Stryker 6.0 Infantry Carrier Vehicles with a RWS for the infantry and LAV 6.0 Armoured Cavalry Vehicles for cavalry to provide fire support.  Maybe even a larger 40mm cannon to replace the 25mm, since space wouldn't be needed in back for infantry.
> 
> A light mechanized battle group could look something like this:
> 
> 4 x Mechanized Rifle Company (15 Stryker ICVs)
> 1 x Cavalry Squadron (18 LAV 6.0 ACVs in 4 troops, one attached to each rifle company)
> 1 x Combat Engineer Squadron (2 field troops each with 4 LAV-Engineer)
> 1 x Direct Support Artillery Battery (4 M777's & 8 Stryker 120mm Mortar Carrier Vehicles)
> 
> In this set-up the Stryker 6.0 ICV's would provide close in fire support to the dismounts while the cavalry provided medium range fire heavier fire support.  The infantry would have 3 M2 .50 calibre machine guns and 1 40mm CASW in each platoon.  This would let the infantry focus more on infantry skills (I'm assuming a Protector RWS would require less training and maintenance than the LAV-III turret) and let the cavalry focus on the heavier fire support.
> 
> And for those that are going to start talking about PY's, the fourth rifle company comes from disbanding the light infantry battalions and adding one company to each of the remaining two battalions.  The mortar troop in the artillery battery comes from left over third rifle company in each disbanded light infantry battalion.  That's a discussion for another time.
> 
> We don't exactly have the combat power to fight a large-scale armoured force anyway.  We'd have to pull every tank together just to provide one regiment for a Cold War-era type battle with the Russians, Chinese or North Koreans.  So why not focus on the fight we can do well, the medium-weight fight?



So something like this then?


----------



## Mountie

I wasn't thinking of the Stryker MGS, but either a LAV 6.0 with the 25mm turret or a 40mm CTA turret instead.  If you want a light tank type of vehicle I'd go with the 90mm cannon used on the Belgian Piranha (LAV).


----------



## Kilo_302

Panhard has continued its tradition of light cavalry type vehicles with the Sphinx and the Crab. You could probably get away with a 90mm on the Sphinx, though I'm not sure where that would fit in doctrine-wise.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/panhards-crab-may-just-be-the-future-of-armored-scout-v-1581746120


http://www.military-today.com/apc/panhard_sphinx.htm


----------



## Kirkhill

Cockerill offers a nice array of medium calibre turrets for the discerning Cavalry soldier.

http://www.cmigroupe.com/en/p/cockerill-medium-calibre-turrets


----------



## Kilo_302

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Cockerill offers a nice array of medium calibre turrets for the discerning Cavalry soldier.
> 
> http://www.cmigroupe.com/en/p/cockerill-medium-calibre-turrets



My thoughts exactly. But how would such a vehicle fit into current CF doctrine? Or force structure?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Display Pips' and bows onto it and call it an LightweightCombatFlexiableFullyIntergratedMulti-taskableAFVHQ, they figure something out


----------



## Kirkhill

How it might fit into structure and doctrine I will leave for others to chew on.

Here's another alternative.  A 40mm CTA gun turret with a pair/quad of ATGMs strapped on the sides (conventional turret layout?)







http://archive.defensenews.com/article/20130804/DEFREG01/308040011/Anglo-French-Cannon-Project-Finally-Bears-Fruit


----------



## Kilo_302

Back to the Cockerill 105HP for a moment, I couldn't find much data on it versus the L7 that's mounted in the MGS. 

Anyone have any idea whether a Stryker mated with the Cockerill 105HP would have been a better idea than the L7? 

I would imagine the mian reason the US went with the L7 (M68A1) on the Stryker is that they had already used the same gun on early Abrams, but it also begs the question: If the MGS is only intended for infantry support, why use a high pressure 105?


----------



## Eland2

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Back to the Cockerill 105HP for a moment, I couldn't find much data on it versus the L7 that's mounted in the MGS.
> 
> Anyone have any idea whether a Stryker mated with the Cockerill 105HP would have been a better idea than the L7?
> 
> I would imagine the mian reason the US went with the L7 (M68A1) on the Stryker is that they had already used the same gun on early Abrams, but it also begs the question: If the MGS is only intended for infantry support, why use a high pressure 105?



My understanding of the situation, and I could be wrong here, is that the MGS uses the M68 105mm gun which has been modified to use lower-powered ammunition. This was done in an effort to compensate for the relatively high centre of gravity of the MGS and the vehicle's narrow stance. A L7 main gun using full-power 105mm rounds might have caused the MGS to tip over (due to recoil forces) if the turret was traversed to the side while the main gun was fired.


----------



## Franko

It's intended role is as a tank destroyer.  Infantry support is a secondary role. 

Horrible vehicle, thankfully we never got it. 

Regards


----------



## GnyHwy

Nerf herder said:
			
		

> It's intended role is as a tank destroyer.  Infantry support is a secondary role.
> 
> Horrible vehicle, thankfully we never got it.
> 
> Regards



I'll play devil's advocate.  If it was used in the tank destroyer role i.e. static and concealed, it could do a hell of a job.  Being relatively light and wheeled also gives it better operational and strategic mobility.

When taken out of it's role and put into close combat, firing while moving and its ability to take a hit, then of course it would fail miserably. 

Almost seems that we defined the role, they delivered, and then we changed to role, expecting it to be a tank. 

No, I don't work for GD.  

Cheers,


----------



## Franko

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> I'll play devil's advocate.  If it was used in the tank destroyer role i.e. static and concealed, it could do a hell of a job.  Being relatively light and wheeled also gives it better operational and strategic mobility.
> 
> When taken out of it's role and put into close combat, firing while moving and its ability to take a hit, then of course it would fail miserably.
> 
> Almost seems that we defined the role, they delivered, and then we changed to role, expecting it to be a tank.
> 
> No, I don't work for GD.
> 
> Cheers,



It failed for bigger issues, like software issues, auto loader issues, overheating issues. The list goes on and on. I have a friend who actually used them in Iraq and they were horrible from his accounts beyond what I just listed.

Regards


----------



## George Wallace

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> I'll play devil's advocate.  If it was used in the tank destroyer role i.e. static and concealed, it could do a hell of a job.  Being relatively light and wheeled also gives it better operational and strategic mobility.
> 
> When taken out of it's role and put into close combat, firing while moving and its ability to take a hit, then of course it would fail miserably.
> 
> Almost seems that we defined the role, they delivered, and then we changed to role, expecting it to be a tank.
> 
> No, I don't work for GD.
> 
> Cheers,



Play 'Devil's Advocate' all you want.  You have hit on some of the major points squarely on the head.  Until you actually have experience siting an armoured vehicle to be able to provide effective fire and still have natural protection, it is difficult to see many of the flaws in their design.

The LAV is a long, 'narrow', eight wheeled vehicle.  The 105mm gun variant has the turret mounted on the rear third of the vehicle.  Unless you are on a parade square with a 10m (thick, not high) wall in front of you, you will find that it is fairly hard to find a firing position that will give you a level platform to fire from and good protection provided by the terrain.  More often than not, you will have to fully expose your vehicle, and many times that will be on a forward slope, in order to fire.  Never a good option for crew survivability in Contact.  If dug in in a static position, as you suggest, one still has to factor in the length of the vehicle and location of the turret.  Firing the LAV 105mm gun over the side presents another set of problems.

The Armour Corps failed the MGS twice that I know of, yet the Government was still willing to purchase it against the advice of the Corps.  It is a vehicle that would/is very limited in its employment.  Probably, as you suggest, only in dug-in positions.  I believe the American experience with their Strykers have come to a similar conclusion.

[PS:  I removed my original post as it needed to be reworked.]


----------



## Kirkhill

I understood the TOW version of the Stryker was the Tank Destroyer.  The MGS was intended to supply Direct Fire Support to the infantry.

As to the value of a Self Propelled Anti Tank Gun - SPATG - I find it interesting that on another thread we were discussing how much of a concern batteries of Towed Anti Tank Guns would be if you found yourselves facing the Russians.


----------



## GnyHwy

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Play 'Devil's Advocate' all you want.  You have hit on some of the major points squarely on the head.  Until you actually have experience siting an armoured vehicle to be able to provide effective fire and still have natural protection, it is difficult to see many of the flaws in their design.


  

No doubt it is bad design, probably more so a failed experiment.  It would be tough to site and if you are going to sacrifice crew protection, you might as well go towed and light.


----------



## a_majoor

As far back as 2006 (When I saw it at the AUSA exhibition) Cockerill had a105mm CT-CV turret which could be a "drop in" on a LAV chassis, so the idea isn't all that outlandish.

The CV-CT had a 16 round bustle and another 16 rounds in the back, used a Wegmann "cleft" turret for a very low profile and had the ability to elevate the gun to 420, so it could function both in an urban environment (engaging people on the rooftops), or in an indirect fire role. I don't recall if it had the sighting system and power elevation/traverse to act as an AA weapon vs attack helicopters the way some Gen 4 tanks can, but I suppose that is a matter of refinement of the basic design.

A LAV DFS version could be built using the CV-CT turret, but like everything else, is there the need, the will to do so and the resources available?


----------



## Mountie

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> How it might fit into structure and doctrine I will leave for others to chew on.
> 
> Here's another alternative.  A 40mm CTA gun turret with a pair/quad of ATGMs strapped on the sides (conventional turret layout?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://archive.defensenews.com/article/20130804/DEFREG01/308040011/Anglo-French-Cannon-Project-Finally-Bears-Fruit



This is exactly the turret I was talking about, I just couldn't find the picture.  I would think a battle group commander could make good use of a squadron of these.


----------



## Kirkhill

My concern with that turret is the effect of a 155mm Airburst (or a can of paint) on all those neat little moving bits and lenses on top of the turret.


----------



## a_majoor

Here is an interesting picture of the Polish "Rosomak" with a RWS mounted. Normally these have turrets armed with a 30mm cannon (being a licence built version of the Finnish Patria AMV), but there are also versions with an open "bucket" gunshield surrounding the gunner and a mounted HMG.


----------



## Eland2

George Wallace writes:



> The Armour Corps failed the MGS twice that I know of, yet the Government was still willing to purchase it against the advice of the Corps.  It is a vehicle that would/is very limited in its employment.  Probably, as you suggest, only in dug-in positions.  I believe the American experience with their Strykers have come to a similar conclusion.



The government of the day wanted the MGS regardless of the Armoured Corps' advice because they wanted a vehicle that could operate like a tank on the cheap, which was the main driver behind their desire to get Canada out of the tank business for good. But you know the old maxim, 'the man who buys cheaply pays twice as much in the end.'

As others have pointed out, the MGS could operate as an effective fire-support platform in carefully-prepared defensive positions. Unfortunately combat is often so fluid and fast-moving that the ability to consistently rely on prepared positions would be a rare luxury.

However, I am skeptical of the ability of the MGS to operate like a tank destroyer precisely because it utilizes lower-powered ammunition. As an infantry fire-support vehicle operating in defilades, the MGS with its less powerful ammunition would probably do OK as the targets would be somewhat softer.


----------



## George Wallace

:goodpost:  Eland2


----------



## McG

Eland2 said:
			
		

> I am skeptical of the ability of the MGS to operate like a tank destroyer precisely because it utilizes lower-powered ammunition. As an infantry fire-support vehicle operating in defilades, the MGS with its less powerful ammunition would probably do OK as the targets would be somewhat softer.


How do you define low powered?  The MGS fires the same M900 105mm APFSDS-T round as late M-60 and early M-1.1; it is no more "low powered" than the Leo C2.


----------



## George Wallace

Perhaps "low recoil" is a better description.


----------



## McG

Same M68 cannon firing the same M900 penetrator is the same recoil energy and the same terminal effects down range.  With plenty of factual differences between and MGS and a tank, there should be no need to grasp at imaginary differences.


----------



## Kirkhill

Early model MGS? 6 Pdr AT Portee - Western Desert 1942


----------



## George Wallace

MCG said:
			
		

> Same M68 cannon firing the same M900 penetrator is the same recoil energy and the same terminal effects down range.  With plenty of factual differences between and MGS and a tank, there should be no need to grasp at imaginary differences.



Not all wpns systems having the same cannon, firing the same ammunition, have the same recoil systems.  

I am not a Gunnery God, nor a weapon system designer; but I do know that small fact.  You can fire that cannon without a recoil system and the recoil is going to be much greater than firing that same cannon and ammo with a recoil system.  Different platforms will have different recoil systems.   The cannon and ammo are only part of the equation.


----------



## McG

Yes George, different recoil systems.  That does not change what I said earlier.  





			
				MCG said:
			
		

> Same M68 cannon firing the same M900 penetrator is the same recoil energy and the same terminal effects down range.


If you need, I can explain how length of recoil stroke changes the recoil perceived by the firing platform.  It is not a factor in terminal effects.


----------



## Eland2

MCG said:
			
		

> How do you define low powered?  The MGS fires the same M900 105mm APFSDS-T round as late M-60 and early M-1.1; it is no more "low powered" than the Leo C2.



I did not know that the MGS fires the M900 round. Thanks for setting me straight on this.


----------



## Old Sweat

MCG said:
			
		

> Yes George, different recoil systems.  That does not change what I said earlier.  If you need, I can explain how length of recoil stroke changes the recoil perceived by the firing platform.  It is not a factor in terminal effects.



And this has its own effect on the stability of the platform. Newton got it right, which is something to remember when somebody talks about fiddling with the length of the recoil run.

It also doesn't matter to the round once it leaves the tube.


----------



## a_majoor

From a technical perspective, there is no reason to doubt that large calibre weapons can be mounted on wheeled platforms. The CV-CT turret uses a 105mm cannon, and the Centauro tank destroyer mounts a 120mm cannon, similar to that of a Gen 3 tank. The BMP-3 turret has been demonstrated mounted on the Finnish Patria MAV, and it carries a 100mm cannon and a 30mm autocannon (along with a coax MG; things are pretty crowded in there).

The issue with the MGS isn't so much the cannon, but the rather awful mount that it is in.


----------



## McG

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> And this has its own effect on the stability of the platform. Newton got it right, which is something to remember when somebody talks about fiddling with the length of the recoil run.


The long recoil stroke is what lets a large gun fire from a lighter vehicle and keep stable.  The trade-off is in rate of fire as the gun spends more time in travel after each shot.


----------



## Old Sweat

MCG said:
			
		

> The long recoil stroke is what lets a large gun fire from a lighter vehicle and keep stable.  The trade-off is in rate of fire as the gun spends more time in travel after each shot.



Agreed. But the remaining force is transmitted through the non-recoiling mass into the ground. Hence the challenges of firing in an non-vehicle axis direction.

(I haven't computed the recoil equation for frigging near 50 years, so my detailed knowledge is very rusty.)


----------



## Eland2

Thucydides said:
			
		

> From a technical perspective, there is no reason to doubt that large calibre weapons can be mounted on wheeled platforms. The CV-CT turret uses a 105mm cannon, and the Centauro tank destroyer mounts a 120mm cannon, similar to that of a Gen 3 tank. The BMP-3 turret has been demonstrated mounted on the Finnish Patria MAV, and it carries a 100mm cannon and a 30mm autocannon (along with a coax MG; things are pretty crowded in there).
> 
> The issue with the MGS isn't so much the cannon, but the rather awful mount that it is in.



I've always felt that the MGS turret system was really an orphan product that General Dynamics couldn't find a home for, and so they stuck it on a LAV hull in an attempt to create something that was marketable just because it was different. From a crew safety/survivability standpoint, the turret confers only minimal benefits as the thin armour of the LAV hull and the turret are quite vulnerable to top-attack munitions.

Because the turret is situated so far back on the hull, the MGS can't do hull-down positions very well. In theory, the MGS turret should confer some degree of survivability if it were mounted further forward on the hull, as the gun would be the only thing an enemy could see over the crest and thus present the only target. Hence the turret crew might stand a better chance of surviving if an enemy tank does get in a lucky shot and takes out the main gun. 

On the other hand, at typical engagement distances, the MGS likely does OK without needing to resort to taking up hull-down positions or going into defiladed positions if the enemy force consists of soldiers armed with AK-47s and the odd RPG-7. If I had to go into any environment more threatening than that, I would want a regular tank providing fire support instead. 

I've heard/read that the autoloader system in the MGS is both complicated and awkward. That it works at all amazes me, but I could imagine that it might present a nightmare for weapons techs in the field if something does go wrong.


----------



## Underway

This is all true, but the rate of transfer is also important.  The length of time of the transfer does reduce the power on the vehicle.  A longer recoil with a stronger recoil system means that the power transfer to the vehicle is the same total amount just that over each subunit of time it is less.  This is the basic principle of recoil systems in everything from shocks to guns.  And yes the remaining force is transferred to the vehicle, just that the vehicle is ideally able to deal much more easily with what's left over, usually through mass and go force distribution systems.

From everything I've read the MGS needed one or more of the following changes:  more mass to deal with the force distribution, lower gun hight, wider base, smaller gun, different gun position.  It essentially comes down to a lower centre of gravity and a gun too big and awkward for the platform.

If they really want to put a gun on a MGS for infantry support and not worry about the anti-tank component then they should have gone with a 70-90mm round size.  It would have significantly increased rate of fire, platform stability and number of rounds while probably not bothering the "infantry support" capability.  It's also going to hurt the hell out of everything short of a MBT or heavy bunker.

Also a 120mm mortar variant would be awesome infantry support, which might even be better at AT than a 105 in some circumstances.  But we didn't do that either.

So at the end of the day that means that the MGS was in my mind designed to deal with MBT's of the T-72 to T-80 variety otherwise they would have used a lighter gun.


----------



## a_majoor

My understanding of the MGS system actually begins with the RDF project of the 1980's, and the reequiping of American and allied Armour units.

GD had produced an "expeditionary tank" using an early version of the MGS turret (think of the Swedish experiment with a Marder carrying a 105mm cannon on a remote control turret). The entire RDF project wound down in confusion, hence the orphaned turret. A lot of other orphaned things were also left over, including the AAI "ARES" 75mm canon using telescoped ammunition and capable of burst fire, which also never found a home. At about the same time, the move among allied armies was to go to 120mm main guns for tanks, leaving lots of 105mm ammunition and gun barrels available. (There is also a strange assumprtion among the Americans that anything with the name "tank" needed to be able to take on an MBT one on one, hence the ARES cannon was not "good enough" to arm a light tank...).

The turret and LAV hull does make a useful "bunker buster" and general support platform (although I would rather pay more money and get something like the CV-CT turret. A 120 mm mortar like the AMOS would be very useful as well, but if we can only have one, the CV-CT does offer a 420 elevation...).

Like the great man once said: "You nfight with the army you have, not the one you want", so the Strykers will be dealing with their MGS for a long time to come.


----------



## Soldier1stTradesman2nd

Instead of talking about what the Canadian Army should have for APCs/IFVs, how about we list out the several and significant issues being reported about the LAV 6.0 platform.  It is incredible what the troops are saying about this lemon of a vehicle.

General Dynamics Canada needs to be held to account for designing, building and delivering a seriously shoddy piece of kit.

I'll start:

A/C condensation piped into double hull, requiring draining every four hours or risk shorting out the wiring inside same space.


----------



## Ostrozac

Well, anecdotally, I hear that the LAV 6.0 has a great brake system, as long as there's no frost. Which makes it a bit touchy for our climate. And apparently it doesn't like being recovered, as in it is incredibly difficult to recover a broken down vehicle.

Given the lackluster response to the LAV 6.0, the similar response to the TAPV project, and the cancellation of CCV, is the infantry well on our way to being a light infantry based force? Or is our equipment making that decision for us?


----------



## CBH99

Let me ask you guys this, since you just brought up the lacklustre impression so far of the LAV 6.0.  

As a guy who got out when prior to the LAV 6.0 coming online, I'm curious - is the new LAV "better" or "worse" than the LAV 3?   Any/all issues from a user standpoint.


----------



## MilEME09

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Let me ask you guys this, since you just brought up the lacklustre impression so far of the LAV 6.0.
> 
> As a guy who got out when prior to the LAV 6.0 coming online, I'm curious - is the new LAV "better" or "worse" than the LAV 3?   Any/all issues from a user standpoint.



I haven't taken a LAV course at the weapons school, but got a walk around of it and asked a lot of question, My understanding is it is better, less top heavy (due to the larger chassis), more storage space, just better eveything really, that said it's still a LAV, still wheeled, and not a heavy IVF, you can only improve so much before you hit a wall. I personally would rate it as one of the better IFV's in the western world, would be made better if it had a couple ATGM's on the turret, but thats just me, modern tech can merge a standard and a TUA turret together easily I think.


----------



## Bzzliteyr

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I haven't taken a LAV course at the weapons school, but got a walk around of it and asked a lot of question, My understanding is it is better, less top heavy (due to the larger chassis), more storage space, just better eveything really, that said it's still a LAV, still wheeled, and not a heavy IVF, you can only improve so much before you hit a wall. I personally would rate it as one of the better IFV's in the western world, would be made better if it had a couple ATGM's on the turret, but thats just me, modern tech can merge a standard and a TUA turret together easily I think.



You mean like they had on teh Bradley IFV decades ago?


----------



## Soldier1stTradesman2nd

OK, more issues with the current rollout of LAV 6.0's:

1. As stated earlier, inherent design flaw with A/C condensation flowing into the double hull, incidentally where all of the critical wiring (non waterproof) resides. Hull needs 45 mins of draining for every 4 hours of operation;

2. Vehicles are being delivered without steering wheels;

3. Some vehicles are being delivered with drilled brake rotors (reportedly not replaced after factory tests);

4. Turret (while significantly enhanced from LAV III) wiring is messed up, causing "ghost turret" phenomenon - turret traverses slowly on its own

5. Vehicle is almost 10 tons heavier that LAV III - there is no vehicle in the CAF fleet (save a tank) that can recover the LAV 6.0;

6. Most of the fleet is grounded due to severe faults detected in the hydraulic brake systems (could cause catastrophic loss of braking ability)

I am sure there are more issues, incl crew ergonomics etc, but the above short list demonstrates abject lack of caring for quality control. Must get the Canadian delivery out of the way for Saudi vehicles to be produced...


----------



## PuckChaser

Are all these captured in a UCR? Seems like a more appropriate place to identify issues...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Soldier1stTradesman2nd said:
			
		

> OK, more issues with the current rollout of LAV 6.0's:
> 
> 1. As stated earlier, inherent design flaw with A/C condensation flowing into the double hull, incidentally where all of the critical wiring (non waterproof) resides. Hull needs 45 mins of draining for every 4 hours of operation;
> 
> 2. Vehicles are being delivered without steering wheels;
> 
> 3. Some vehicles are being delivered with drilled brake rotors (reportedly not replaced after factory tests);
> 
> 4. Turret (while significantly enhanced from LAV III) wiring is messed up, causing "ghost turret" phenomenon - turret traverses slowly on its own
> 
> 5. Vehicle is almost 10 tons heavier that LAV III - there is no vehicle in the CAF fleet (save a tank) that can recover the LAV 6.0;
> 
> 6. Most of the fleet is grounded due to severe faults detected in the hydraulic brake systems (could cause catastrophic loss of braking ability)
> 
> I am sure there are more issues, incl crew ergonomics etc, but the above short list demonstrates abject lack of caring for quality control. Must get the Canadian delivery out of the way for Saudi vehicles to be produced...



It's called, if it ain't broke, don't fix it!

The LAVIII worked just fine, then we went along and tried to turn an IFV in to an MRAP.


----------



## McG

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Are all these captured in a UCR? Seems like a more appropriate place to identify issues...


The Army and DGLEPM are well aware of the fleet problems.

The fault is partially ours.  While billed as an upgrade, these are essentially new vehicles (left over parts form the original vehicles are the LAV III monuments going up around the country) without an operational history in another country, and we did not choose to put a low rate initial production run through extensive RAMD trailing before accepting the design.


----------



## CBH99

Wow.  Just wow.

A definite lack of oversight when it comes to quality control, might be an understatement.  How can the same factory that produced the LAV 3 & currently produces the Stryker, allow vehicles to roll off an assembly line with critical defects?

Who is to say the Saudi order won't be so large, the workers won't be cutting corners on their vehicles also in order to meet a deadline?  I'm not a mechanic by any means, but ensuring critical systems are in working order should be a no-brainer.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

MCG said:
			
		

> The Army and DGLEPM are well aware of the fleet problems.
> 
> The fault is partially ours.  While billed as an upgrade, these are essentially new vehicles (left over parts form the original vehicles are the LAV III monuments going up around the country) without an operational history in another country, and we did not choose to put a low rate initial production run through extensive RAMD trailing before accepting the design.



Criminal ineptitude at its finest!  Who is getting fired?  Oh wait, we're the Canadian Army.  So nobody    >

How we manage to take a vehicle, that did Yeoman's work in the Sandbox and completely make a **** of it is just too funny.


----------



## McG

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Wow.  Just wow.
> 
> A definite lack of oversight when it comes to quality control, might be an understatement.  How can the same factory that produced the LAV 3 & currently produces the Stryker, allow vehicles to roll off an assembly line with critical defects?
> 
> Who is to say the Saudi order won't be so large, the workers won't be cutting corners on their vehicles also in order to meet a deadline?  I'm not a mechanic by any means, but ensuring critical systems are in working order should be a no-brainer.


It is not workers cutting corners.  The reality is that modern vehicles need extensive user and RAMD trials.  Without this, faults go unidentified until the vehicle is well into fielding.  When it comes to military equipment, normally the first government to buy is on the hook to do the RAMD (we did it with LAV III), and there are some countries where industry can pay the government to put a vehicle through its paces prior to marketing for export.


----------



## Loachman

MCG said:
			
		

> (left over parts form the original vehicles are the LAV III monuments going up around the country)



Left over parts include such things as complete hulls and turrets. Little survives from the original vehicles.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

How do you move a vehicle without a steering wheel? :facepalm:


----------



## cupper

recceguy said:
			
		

> How do you move a vehicle without a steering wheel? :facepalm:



With *GREAT* difficulty.  :nod:


----------



## Kirkhill

recceguy said:
			
		

> How do you move a vehicle without a steering wheel? :facepalm:









Never leave home without it.


----------



## Kirkhill

The French alternative to the LAV






British troops trained alongside a French armoured vehicle during today's training exercise on Salisbury Plain 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3552388/Britain-never-war-without-European-allies-Defence-Secretary-claims-denies-backing-EU-army.html#ixzz46Vuv3l8c 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Have the Brits shrunk or is that really a 12 foot tall vehicle?  I guess the good news is that you can see over the tops of houses.


----------



## Loachman

Well, their posture is poor and they're not wearing bearskins...


----------



## cavalryman

Typical French - making the 'maudit Anglais' walk instead of riding in the comfort of an air conditioned APC...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

No, it's the English who were trying to get away from the smell of garlic.  [


----------



## a_majoor

Interesting to walk by Wolseley Barracks and see the AVGP Grizzly parked out on the monument square, and compare its size with the LAV III or LAV 6.0.

I think the USMC hit the "sweet spot" with their LAV 25, it has the firepower of the LAV III but much better mobility since it is smaller and lighter. The French vehicle in the picture upthread simply screams "target".

The Israeli "Combat Guard" vehicle concept shows an alternative direction, using clever engineering, speed and active defense systems to transport a section in a vehicle weighing only 8 tons


----------



## RedcapCrusader

Soldier1stTradesman2nd said:
			
		

> 5. Vehicle is almost 10 tons heavier that LAV III - there is no vehicle in the CAF fleet (save a tank) that can recover the LAV 6.0;



Are the half dozen or so A/HSVS Wreckers not sufficient? Those things are pretty damn big, and if I'm not mistaken, are used frequently to haul around the Leo 2A6's.


----------



## dangerboy

If I remember correctly, the AHVS were bought as a UOR for Afghanistan and are not road legal for use in Canada (off of bases) so does not help us for any domestic operations.


----------



## PuckChaser

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> Are the half dozen or so A/HSVS Wreckers not sufficient? Those things are pretty damn big, and if I'm not mistaken, are used frequently to haul around the Leo 2A6's.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW0w8szMDlA


----------



## RedcapCrusader

dangerboy said:
			
		

> If I remember correctly, the AHVS were bought as a UOR for Afghanistan and are not road legal for use in Canada (off of bases) so does not help us for any domestic operations.



In a Domestic OP, it wouldn't matter what's road legal or not, it's about mitigating casualties. The cost of repairing some roads versus not having proper recovery assets which could lead to other more dire consequences is, I'm sure, understandable and would be forgiven should it be needed.

Also, they've been used out in training grounds and on bases quite frequently without much issue, it may just be that they're too tall and too wide to be safely operated on a standard highway, but not necessarily illegal for highway movement.

I stand to be corrected though.


----------



## MilEME09

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> In a Domestic OP, it wouldn't matter what's road legal or not, it's about mitigating casualties. The cost of repairing some roads versus not having proper recovery assets which could lead to other more dire consequences is, I'm sure, understandable and would be forgiven should it be needed.
> 
> Also, they've been used out in training grounds and on bases quite frequently without much issue, it may just be that they're too tall and too wide to be safely operated on a standard highway, but not necessarily illegal for highway movement.
> 
> I stand to be corrected though.



my understand from talking to truckers and vehicle techs is that they were to wide for a standard road way, meaning to take them off pass would be an obligatory wide load sign? or is that to easy?


----------



## a_majoor

While not an immediate fix, this program by DARPA could lead to new ways of doing things so all our vehicles are smaller, lighter and more versatile. Considering that we could roll up many "mini fleets" the CAF might consider looking in on tis program and seeing how we could design a family of vehicles using these new principles with a production run of several hundred to a thousand vehicles.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/04/darpa-program-to-revolutionize-vehicle.html



> *DARPA program to revolutionize vehicle and building designs to fully take advantage new advanced materials*
> 
> DARPA announced its TRAnsformative DESign (TRADES) program. TRADES is a fundamental research effort to develop new mathematics and algorithms that can more fully take advantage of the almost boundless design space that has been enabled by new materials and fabrication methods.
> 
> Advanced materials are increasingly embodying counterintuitive properties, such as extreme strength and super lightness, while additive manufacturing and other new technologies are vastly improving the ability to fashion these novel materials into shapes that would previously have been extremely costly or even impossible to create. Generating new designs that fully exploit these properties, however, has proven extremely challenging. Conventional design technologies, representations, and algorithms are inherently constrained by outdated presumptions about material properties and manufacturing methods. As a result, today’s design technologies are simply not able to bring to fruition the enormous level of physical detail and complexity made possible with cutting-edge manufacturing capabilities and materials.
> 
> “The structural and functional complexities introduced by today’s advanced materials and manufacturing methods have exceeded our capacity to simultaneously optimize all the variables involved,” said Jan Vandenbrande, DARPA program manager. “We have reached the fundamental limits of what our computer-aided design tools and processes can handle, and need revolutionary new tools that can take requirements from a human designer and propose radically new concepts, shapes and structures that would likely never be conceived by even our best design programs today, much less by a human alone.”
> 
> For example, designing a structure whose components vary significantly in their physical or functional properties, such as a phased array radar, and an aircraft skin, is extremely complicated using available tools. Usually the relevant components are designed separately and then they are joined. TRADES envisions coming up with more elegant and unified designs—in this case, perhaps embedding the radar directly into the vehicle skin itself—potentially reducing cost, size and weight of future military systems. Similarly, existing design tools cannot take full advantage of the unique properties and processing requirements of advanced materials, such as carbon fiber composites, which have their own shaping requirements. Not accounting for these requirements during design can lead to production difficulties and defects, and in extreme cases require manual hand layup. Such problems could be mitigated or even eliminated if designers had the tools to account for the characteristics and manufacturing and processing requirements of the advanced materials.
> 
> “Much of today’s design is really re-design based on useful but very old ideas,” Vandenbrande said. “The design for building aircraft fuselages today, for example, is based on a spar-and-rib concept that dates back to design ideas from four thousand years ago when ancient ships such as the Royal Barge of Khufu used this basic design concept for its hull. TRADES could revolutionize such well-worn designs.”


----------



## GnyHwy

Very cool stuff. The potential and theoretical that our our scientific minds come up with is practically endless, but without anyone flipping the bill for production and R&D, and no actual commitment or requirements coming from any army, these amazing ideas will remain in wait, or at least remain near the bottom of the pile of things to do.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

dangerboy said:
			
		

> If I remember correctly, the AHVS were bought as a UOR for Afghanistan and are not road legal for use in Canada (off of bases) so does not help us for any domestic operations.



From CASR
total wt., 93 t (110 t , tractor) , dead weight  23,000 kg,  fifth
  wheel load  (approx.) 23,000 kg ,  gross axle load  70,000 kg

(8x8 tractor) 8.4m L x 2.9m W x 4.02m H,  max speed: 88 km/h

Certainly seems to meet Alberta's regs http://www.qp.alberta.ca/1266.cfm?page=2002_315.cfm&leg_type=Regs&isbncln=9780779734542

I suspect it does not meet certain obscure regulations for lights, safety feature designed mainly to keep foreign made vehicles out to protect the now mostly extinct domestic market. But then I'm rather cynical. I suspect the Feds could carve out special regs for military vehicles exemptions if they so choose to.


----------



## Bzzliteyr

I have driven a Leopard C2 in Ottawa, I suspect it wasn't road legal.


----------



## MilEME09

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> I have driven a Leopard C2 in Ottawa, I suspect it wasn't road legal.



Mirrors? check, lights + signals? check, maybe not all the safety features the government would want, but it's a bloody tank, my understanding was part of the design was to make them road legal due to the need to be using roads in Europe if the red army ever came over the fulda gap. I don't know about canadian regulations but the Leo 1 and all models of it are road legal.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

One only has to look to government auctions of our vehicle fleets to see we've had lots of vehicles sold to civilians that weren't road legal. It's not due to condition, it's due to design. The old deuce and a half comes to mind for some reason.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The air over hydraulic system for the brakes as I recall.


----------



## sidemount

I dont believe it was that....it was because if something happened to one part of the brake system failed, you had a complete loss of brakes.

Modern vehicles are designed that if you have a failure somewhere, the other half of the system still works...usually opposing wheels ie: front driver and rear passenger are one system


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Yes and no, it was the one cylinder brake system.... loose either air or hydraulics and you won't stop.....BTW been there done that with the mlvw sev engr.....


----------



## cupper

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Yes and no, it was the one cylinder brake system.... loose either air or hydraulics and you won't stop.....BTW been there done that with the mlvw sev engr.....



More times than I care to recall. But it was part of the job too when you have to road test after doing work on them.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

sidemount said:
			
		

> I dont believe it was that....it was because if something happened to one part of the brake system failed, you had a complete loss of brakes.
> 
> Modern vehicles are designed that if you have a failure somewhere, the other half of the system still works...usually opposing wheels ie: front driver and rear passenger are one system



I had a singe master cylinder on my landrovers as well, generally replaced them with dual.


----------



## MilEME09

Get ready for something being announced, the Defense Minister will be at GDLS tomorrow for an announcement of some kind.


----------



## MilEME09

http://www.lfpress.com/2017/02/10/in-london-defence-minister-harjit-sajjan-announced-404-million-to-general-dynamics-lands-systems-canada-for-laviii-upgrades



> London industry has landed a $404 million military contract, preserving 250 manufacturing jobs.
> 
> General Dynamics Land Systems Canada, on Oxford Street, is getting cash from the Canadian federal government to upgrade 141 of the Canadian Army’s LAV III combat vehicles -- made in London -- extending their life to 2035.
> 
> “We are committed to delivering highly protected, flexible and capable vehicles to our soldiers and the LAV 6.0 provides the Canadian Army with best-in-class protection and mobility,” said Danny Deep, vice president of General Dynamics Land Systems Canada.
> 
> “This announcement is welcome news to the London area and to our suppliers across Canada whose jobs will be sustained with this additional work.”
> 
> The upgrade program delivers vehicles in what GDLS is calling its new LAV 6.0 configuration. The upgrades include the double-V hull, greater armour protection and mobility.
> 
> It is the second major announcement for the Canadian military's LAV III program in recent years. In 2011, Ottawa awarded GDLS Canada a $1.064 billion contract to upgrade LAVs.
> 
> This announcement brings to 550 the number of Canadian LAV IIIs, with upgrades.



video of the event via CTV

http://london.ctvnews.ca/defence-minister-announces-404m-to-upgrade-light-armoured-vehicles-1.3279265


----------



## Loachman

But "upgrade" in name only - completely new hull, turret, and most other bits.


----------



## MilEME09

Loachman said:
			
		

> But "upgrade" in name only - completely new hull, turret, and most other bits.



My issue is going back to the original upgrade announcement contract it was for 550 LAV's, so is this reannouncing or is it the remainder of the fleet getting the "upgrade"?


----------



## dapaterson

Different portions of the fleet were getting different ulgrades; this moves to a more common platform. 

It's more complex, but that's the Reader's Digest version.


----------



## Good2Golf

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> My issue is going back to the original upgrade announcement contract it was for 550 LAV's, so is this reannouncing or is it the remainder of the fleet getting the "upgrade"?



Intent for 550 announced at first.  409 from Ph.1 contracted last year.  Remaining 141 in Ph.2 now. 

Cheers
G2G


----------



## Old EO Tech

Could be that these are the LORITS that were not getting upgraded originally....

Jon


----------



## Good2Golf

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Could be that these are the LORITS that were not getting upgraded originally....
> 
> Jon



I know they were a mix of vehicle variants that hadn't yet been upgraded, but I can't recall what mix may have been LORITs and those that were never taken up to the LORIT standard.  I seem to recall engineer and other variants being in the final tranche of LAVUP mentioned here.  Probably a DLR website that gives all the details of the 550, but I can't find it at the moment.

Regards
G2G


----------



## dapaterson

Without going too far down the rabbit hole, yes, I believe this is the LORITs.


----------



## MilEME09

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Without going too far down the rabbit hole, yes, I believe this is the LORITs.



According to articles im reading LORIT's it is.


----------



## Underway

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> According to articles im reading LORIT's it is.



What happened to the LAV RWS in this whole program?  They were really good for patrolling and gave great SA in Urban environments with guns being able to be pointed in 4 directions. RWS had its issues but generally, it worked ok.  They were essentially LORIT standards without the turret.  Do they keep the RWS and were/are they upgraded to LAV 6.0 standards?


----------



## MilEME09

Waiting to see if my friend at GD has any information but sounds like the RWS would be included

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

For the civvies on the board (myself included)...

How will the new mechanized battalions be structured with the new LAV 6 and TAPV's?

Also is there any hope after this announcement we'll get good news on:
1.  ATGM purchase
2.  Leopard 2 Upgrades (perhaps also to a common standard)
3. Self-Propelled Howitzer acquisition 
4.  HIMARS acquisition

It would seem with our commitment to put troops in Latvia opposite a very well armed Russia, it would be prudent to fast-track all of the above given that all could be completed for a relatively small sum (especially in comparison to the Air Force and Navy projects).


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The ATGM would be easy, the SPG could likely be purchased from US reserve stocks (just look at their mothballed vehicle fleet in Nevada) Upgrading the Leo's is just money and time, but could be spread out over a number of years.


----------



## MilEME09

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> For the civvies on the board (myself included)...
> 
> How will the new mechanized battalions be structured with the new LAV 6 and TAPV's?
> 
> Also is there any hope after this announcement we'll get good news on:
> 1.  ATGM purchase
> 2.  Leopard 2 Upgrades (perhaps also to a common standard)
> 3. Self-Propelled Howitzer acquisition
> 4.  HIMARS acquisition



1. TOW's have been pulled out of storage already because of the eastern europe OPs, so seeing more bought isn't far fetched.
2. Will cost a alot of time and money to get all our fleet to one standard model, though this would be beneficial from a logistical and maintenance perspective.
3&4. it's possible but we have not had mobile arty since we retired the M109's, and going that route will depend on the type of force Ottawa and NDHQ want us to be.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

or reality might force it to be. Seems world events are not going as forecasted.


----------



## suffolkowner

Well the US delivered it's message to NATO, looking for a plan for meeting the 2% target


----------



## MilEME09

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Well the US delivered it's message to NATO, looking for a plan for meeting the 2% target



even half a percent, if spent wisely could make a lot of difference for the CF, maybe more leopards so all our tank regiments have them, enough radio's and C6's so everyone has them (especially the reserves), more ammunition, take the option for more trucks from the soon to start delivery MSVS SMP program (more logistics vehicles is never a bad thing)


----------



## ballz

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> more ammunition



Please God no, we need a full two weeks in February to expend all remaining ammo already.


----------



## MilEME09

ballz said:
			
		

> Please God no, we need a full two weeks in February to expend all remaining ammo already.



Then it sounds like to me ammunition is not being allocated properly, again problem for the Pres, to do a MG range, we get half a belt each, enough ammo to run everyone though PWT2, and maybe a couple reshoots


----------



## ballz

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Then it sounds like to me ammunition is not being allocated properly



Not being allocated at all, actually. That would require decision-making, planning & organizational skills, accountability, and accepting a minute level of risk.

Just another end fiscal year ammo burn-off at the Battalion....


----------



## Eland2

ballz said:
			
		

> Not being allocated at all, actually. That would require decision-making, planning & organizational skills, accountability, and accepting a minute level of risk.
> 
> Just another end fiscal year ammo burn-off at the Battalion....



This reminds me of the time when one of my uncles, who was running a supply section on a base several decades ago, had to instruct a bunch of his corporals to go out to every Canadian Tire store in town and buy as many standard carpentry hammers as they could using the money they were given. The hammers weren't needed but the whole exercise was carried out just so the logistics company could justify the same budget for the following year and thus not have a shortfall in funding.

Zero-based budgeting is a wonderful thing, isn't it?


----------



## Kirkhill

Been a while on this thread.

News on the LAV-25.  The Army is upgrading its Stryker fleet.  






https://www.army.mil/article/181203/soldiers_test_stryker_with_30_mm_cannon_more_upgrades_to_come

That is old news.  2 ACR is getting them for Europe.

This bit is a bit more interesting though.  The Abn troops are in need of more fire support that is air deployable.  Talk of M8s and MGSs  etc.

Apparently somebody has discovered that the Marine LAV-25 already fits the bill.  It armoured, armed and air deployable (as well as amphibious).  It is not as well protected as the Stryker/LAV 6.0.  It is not as heavily armed as the upgunned Stryker with its 30mm.  But it is better than a Humvee and you can air-drop four from a C-17.



> Army To Get Marine LAVs For The First Time
> By JAMES CLARK  on May 1, 2017 T&P ON FACEBOOK
> 
> As the military’s smallest service, the Marine Corps is often the last to receive new gear — getting M4s and upgraded .50-cal machine guns years after the Army’s already had them in spades — leading to a sense that Marines get the other branches’ hand-me-downs.
> 
> Well, looks like it’s the Army’s turn. For what’s probably the first time in its history, *the Army is looking to acquire modified Marine Light Armored Vehicles for air drop operations with the 82nd Airborne Division*, according to Military Times.
> 
> The LAV popped up on the Army’s radar due to its potential for airborne operations. *Compared to the Army’s Stryker infantry vehicle, the eight-wheeled LAV is lighter — between 31,000 to 38,000 pounds depending on the variant — and roughly four LAVs can fit into a C-17, compared to three Strykers*. The LAV-25s being eyed by the Army require a three-person crew, carry six additional passengers, and boast a 25 mm gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Light Armored Vehicle-25s from Bravo Troop, 5th Squadron, 73rd Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, line up in a tactical formation during a live fire training exercise.
> 
> 
> To get acquainted with the amphibious reconnaissance vehicle, soldiers with the 82nd’s 5th Squadron, 73rd Cavalry Regiment, have conducted simulator training alongside Marines at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina; driver training at Camp Pendleton in California; and maintenance training at Fort Lee, Virginia. The Corps also sent four LAVs for testing and training at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, where soldiers are familiarizing themselves with the vehicles.
> 
> General Dynamics, which produces the LAVs, is currently modifying three of them to be air dropped, according to Military Times. Though the company successfully air dropped both Strykers and LAVs in the early 2000s, this is the first time any military client has asked for LAVs to be modified — the chassis need parachute-rigging attachments installed — for that mission.
> 
> *The Army has shown interest in obtaining up to 60 LAV-25s from the Marine Corps*, Barb Hamby, a spokesperson for Marine Corps Systems Command told Military Times.
> 
> With the Army poised to receive Marine Corps hand-me-downs — while the Corps scopes out a hybrid spy sub — this news sounds too good to be true. But, if the Army does decide to take a bunch of LAVs off the Marines’ hands, the soldiers with the 82nd may want to set aside some time to repaint the interior. There’s no telling how many dick drawings grace the inside of a Marine LAV.



http://taskandpurpose.com/army-gets-marine-lavs-for-first-time/

Notions about "the best" vs "good enough"  and "risk management" vs "risk aversion" come to mind.

And in a related thought



> Marine Corps Investing in Light Vehicles To Take the Load Off Troops’ Shoulders
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Marine Corps is taking advantage of commercial-off-the-shelf technology to equip troops with new logistics vehicles.
> 
> Infantry Marines recently received dozens of ultra light off-road vehicles to provide logistics support and help lighten their load, according to the service. The delivery in February came six months after the contract award to Polaris Defense for 144 diesel-powered MRZR-D4s.
> 
> The acquisition was part of the service’s utility task vehicle program, said Mark Godfrey, vehicle capabilities integration officer at the Marine Corps’ capabilities development directorate.
> 
> The rugged, all-terrain UTVs had a number of requirements, including the ability to carry four Marines, each weighing 250 pounds, and 500 pounds of cargo, or some variation of that, he noted. Additionally, the vehicles — which are roughly 12 feet long — needed to be internally transported by the MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft and the CH-53E Super Stallion helicopters.
> 
> “We’ve had a long-standing requirement for this type of internally transportable vehicle,” he told National Defense. “We had Marines that were in special purpose MAGTFs [Marine Air-Ground Task Forces] and forward deployed that were being … placed in areas of operations, and they didn’t have a logistics platform to support them once they hit the ground.”
> 
> The service had been looking to equip infantry regiments with such a platform since 2004 when the Marine Corps drafted a joint operational requirements document, Godfrey said....



http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2017/4/3/marine-corps-investing-in-light-vehicles-to-take-the-load-off-troops-shoulders

Commercial Off The Shelf.  ie Available and Cheap.  And again "risk management" vs "risk aversion".

Or as somebody once said: "Something's better than nothing".

And, by the way, the Army is also looking at the Wrangler



> Earlier this year the U.S. Army had negotiations with Hendrick Dynamics, which developed a modified light off-road vehicle built on the Jeep Wrangler with a modified JP-8 diesel engine. This Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS) vehicle was dubbed the Commando and is now officially designated the Grand Mobility Vehicle (GMV).
> 
> "We're right in the transition to light mobility for our military," Marshall Carlson, Hendrick Dynamics’ general manager, told FoxNews.com. "This is much lighter than the JLTV, and it won't be armored – it is what is being called a 'better boot.' The GMV is for those light infantry and airborne infantry that can only move across the battlefield by walking at 3mph. This is literally a people mover that can go anywhere."
> 
> What also makes the GMV program notable is that Hendrick Dynamics is contracting the Jeeps from Chrysler, which is bringing the iconic vehicle back to the battlefield.
> 
> "Chrysler has been a great supporter of this program," added Carlson, "These are the export versions with the diesel engines, and we're modifying these for the military to provide that needed mobility. We think this is a game changer and one that literally went back to the future and took another look at the jeep."



http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/07/22/75-years-after-it-was-first-deployed-will-us-army-bring-back-jeep.html


----------



## a_majoor

Watching LAV 6.0's lumbering around in Wainwright is an interesting experience. The ruts they carved into the earth were visibly deeper than the ones the LAV 3's were churning into the earth, and I can't help but wonder where and when they won't be able to move cross country simply due to the high ground pressure.

This isn't to say the 6.0 isn't an impressive piece of kit, but seeing the "regression" back to the LAV 25 by the US Army does seem to say we have reached the point of diminishing returns. No doubt the LAV 25 chassis, or something of similar size could be recreated using more modern manufacturing techniques and materials to make it far better protected without inordinate weight gains, while we look around to see if there are other concepts and ideas which could get us similar results with a lower mass and logistical footprint.


----------



## Underway

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Watching LAV 6.0's lumbering around in Wainwright is an interesting experience. The ruts they carved into the earth were visibly deeper than the ones the LAV 3's were churning into the earth, and I can't help but wonder where and when they won't be able to move cross country simply due to the high ground pressure.
> 
> This isn't to say the 6.0 isn't an impressive piece of kit, but seeing the "regression" back to the LAV 25 by the US Army does seem to say we have reached the point of diminishing returns. No doubt the LAV 25 chassis, or something of similar size could be recreated using more modern manufacturing techniques and materials to make it far better protected without inordinate weight gains, while we look around to see if there are other concepts and ideas which could get us similar results with a lower mass and logistical footprint.



We're just protecting our strategic weak spot.  Casualties.  So the vehicles get bigger and more heavily armoured.  But I totally agree.  Had a good talk with my Coy Cmd once about how we might have done Afghanistan backwards WRT vehciles.  If we had of started with the big heavy vehicles and then as the Taliban started making the really big roadside bombs switched to light mobile vehicles to go where those bombs couldn't be placed...  

Anything heavier than the LAV 6.0 will probably have to be tracked.  As you say the ground pressure must be enormous on these things.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Noob question:  What are the technical reasons why they could not use wider tires to better distribute the heavier weight?


----------



## Underway

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Noob question:  What are the technical reasons why they could not use wider tires to better distribute the heavier weight?



Basically it's an engineering/space problem.  Wider tires mean more weight.  Also where the hell are you going to squish them under the vehicle?  If they stick out to far then you have a weird situation where the tires don't fit under the vehicle and all the attendant problems that comes with that.


----------



## a_majoor

This picture of the Panzer VII "Maus" shows the logical end; the tracks are almost the full width of the vehicle. You can imagine the effects with so much intrusion on the hull space. Now try this with wheels, and you would not be able to turn very well, unless you had fixed wheels and skid steering like a Bobcat or AMX-10RC


----------



## ballz

Underway said:
			
		

> We're just protecting our strategic weak spot.  Casualties.  So the vehicles get bigger and more heavily armoured.



We did a poor job of that then. The LAVs are still extremely vulnerable in a near-peer fight.

There is a very good article written by an Inf Major who went to Ukraine recently called "Chariots on Fire" which talks about the hard-learned lessons of combatants on both sides of the Russo-Ukraine conflict in their BMPs. Essentially the article argues that we need to adopt our current tactics to the LAV 6.0 which is extremely vulnerable.

It doesn't go as far as to say we made a mistake with going with light armoured vehicles that can bring a lot of firepower to the fight and should have went the same way as the Israelis and procured Heavy APCs (based on a tank chassis.... essentially a big armoured taxi), but it does outline the route the Israelis took and the route we took.

I agree with the article... IMO, our current tactics require HAPCs. As a LAV Capt for the last 2 years, and especially on Maple Resolve, I have become ever more tuned into how vulnerable the LAVs are and some ways in which we employ them that they quite frankly suck at.


----------



## George Wallace

:goodpost: :bravo:

As a Armour soldier, I have long argued the fallacies of going with Wheels over Tracks for mobility.  We have witnessed in Afghanistan that lightly armoured vehicles are easy kills for an enemy that is not even a peer.  We should have learned before we even went there from the Russian experience.  

If anyone missed it, look back at the Armour Corps discussions in these forums on the MGS and Stryker.


----------



## GR66

ballz said:
			
		

> We did a poor job of that then. The LAVs are still extremely vulnerable in a near-peer fight.
> 
> There is a very good article written by an Inf Major who went to Ukraine recently called "Chariots on Fire" which talks about the hard-learned lessons of combatants on both sides of the Russo-Ukraine conflict in their BMPs. Essentially the article argues that we need to adopt our current tactics to the LAV 6.0 which is extremely vulnerable.
> 
> It doesn't go as far as to say we made a mistake with going with light armoured vehicles that can bring a lot of firepower to the fight and should have went the same way as the Israelis and procured Heavy APCs (based on a tank chassis.... essentially a big armoured taxi), but it does outline the route the Israelis took and the route we took.
> 
> I agree with the article... IMO, our current tactics require HAPCs. As a LAV Capt for the last 2 years, and especially on Maple Resolve, I have become ever more tuned into how vulnerable the LAVs are and some ways in which we employ them that they quite frankly suck at.



Any source for this article by chance?  My quick Google-foo didn't come up with anything.


----------



## ballz

GR66 said:
			
		

> Any source for this article by chance?  My quick Google-foo didn't come up with anything.



It was in the Infantry Corp magazine thing, it's on the Inf School acims page... I'll find it at work tomorrow.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

ballz said:
			
		

> We did a poor job of that then. The LAVs are still extremely vulnerable in a near-peer fight.
> 
> There is a very good article written by an Inf Major who went to Ukraine recently called "Chariots on Fire" which talks about the hard-learned lessons of combatants on both sides of the Russo-Ukraine conflict in their BMPs. Essentially the article argues that we need to adopt our current tactics to the LAV 6.0 which is extremely vulnerable.
> 
> It doesn't go as far as to say we made a mistake with going with light armoured vehicles that can bring a lot of firepower to the fight and should have went the same way as the Israelis and procured Heavy APCs (based on a tank chassis.... essentially a big armoured taxi), but it does outline the route the Israelis took and the route we took.
> 
> I agree with the article... IMO, our current tactics require HAPCs. As a LAV Capt for the last 2 years, and especially on Maple Resolve, I have become ever more tuned into how vulnerable the LAVs are and some ways in which we employ them that they quite frankly suck at.



This is the weakness of the General Purpose Combat Capability (GPCC) Medium-weight Force.

Able to do everything but a master of nothing.  Our Mech Tactics are still based on post WWII armoured warfare doctrine; however, we've had to adapt to a variety of different operating environments and compromises have been made.

We are also too small to have a sufficiently capable heavy force while still being able to simultaneously accomplish our other tasks.


----------



## Kirkhill

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> We are also too small to have a sufficiently capable heavy force while still being able to simultaneously accomplish our other tasks.



Are you sure about Humphrey?  Or is just that there is failure to "concentrate the forces" available?

Grouping all the tanks in a single regiment, with a battalion or two of infantry, Divisional Arty and Engineers in one location would, it seems to me, promote the opportunity to polish up skills.  The other brigades could focus on ligther/GP taskings.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Are you sure about Humphrey?  Or is just that there is failure to "concentrate the forces" available?
> 
> Grouping all the tanks in a single regiment, with a battalion or two of infantry, Divisional Arty and Engineers in one location would, it seems to me, promote the opportunity to polish up skills.  The other brigades could focus on ligther/GP taskings.



One regiment of tanks still only gives you a squadron of deployable tanks if you follow a proper train-fight-rest cycle.  

Now I'm not talking about a mobilization.  If we had the opportunity to mobilize i.e. like WWII the Canadian Army would look radically different and probably have different equipment, orbats, etc.  

You'd probably see us fall in initially on American made kit and our CMBGs would probably look more like Armored BCTs and Infantry BCTs.


----------



## daftandbarmy

George Wallace said:
			
		

> :goodpost: :bravo:
> 
> As a Armour soldier, I have long argued the fallacies of going with Wheels over Tracks for mobility.  We have witnessed in Afghanistan that lightly armoured vehicles are easy kills for an enemy that is not even a peer.  We should have learned before we even went there from the Russian experience.
> 
> If anyone missed it, look back at the Armour Corps discussions in these forums on the MGS and Stryker.



And Gawd help us if we need to fight anyone in the snow, ironically for Canadians. The only thing you'll need to separate the armour from the infantry will be the nightly precipitation experienced in an average Ontario January evening. 

Unlike in 1970: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fK8hvND5sE


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> And Gawd help us if we need to fight anyone in the snow, ironically for Canadians. The only thing you'll need to separate the armour from the infantry will be the nightly precipitation experienced in an average Ontario January evening.
> 
> Unlike in 1970: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fK8hvND5sE



The tripping in mukluks footage is priceless  ;D


----------



## Eland2

At the risk of overstating the obvious, both the Canadian and US militaries have been forced to go with wheels rather than tracks for a reason. Wheels are cheap, tracks are not.

Even the Russians, with their fleet of BTR-60s, BTR-70s and later BTR-80s and 90s, had a Cold War doctrine that envisioned deploying the wheeled vehicles as follow-on forces after the T54s, T55s, T62s and T72s had punched through enemy lines after bearing the brunt of enemy counterattacks.

Here, we've got it arse-backwards - deploy tanks in penny-packet numbers if we absolutely have to, but use wheeled armoured vehicles as primary combat vehicles the rest of the time. The only time wheeled vehicles can be really successful in combat is when you're engaged in low-intensity warfare, roads and terrain are good, the enemy forces don't have much beyond small arms and grenades - AND the vehicles are kept well away from any really serious threats, like RPG teams located in well camouflaged or defiladed positions.


----------



## ballz

http://acims.mil.ca/org/EcoledInfantrySchool/RCIC/ICNL/Official/Infantry%20Corps%20Newsletter%20-%20Volume%201,%20Issue%203.pdf

An acims link to the newsletter... also worth reading the last article about marching fire written by Maj Matt Rolls.


----------



## a_majoor

Once again, a lot of this really comes down to not having any real doctrine to speak of, so decisions are based on how much spare change the CDS can find in his couch.

Wheeled vehicles have a time and place, and I could make a case for smaller, faster and lighter vehicles like the "Combat Guard", which weigh 8 tons, can carry an infantry section and have very high degrees of cross country mobility. Combat Guard is protected against many threats by the ability to carry a system like "Trophy" to shoot at incoming missiles and rockets. Chris Pook can make a case for even smaller and lighter vehicles (essentially technicals and ATVs) on the basis of strategic mobility and tactical air portability. This presupposed fighting like Cavalry and Mounted Rifles.

OTOH, if we are concerned about hitting complex defences manned by peer opponents, then we should be talking about Merkava C1 tanks supported by Achzarit HAPCs and some equivalent heavy engineer vehicle that can all move together in the assault. Massed heavy firepower by artillery and mortars would also have to be part and parcel of this sort of force.

And if we were serious about arctic sovereignty, as well as operating in Canadian winter with the side ability to operate in disaster relief like the recent floods in Quebec, then we would be kitted out like the Royal Marine Commandos with Bronco or Viking MTV's. (From a personal perspective, I think this option has the most flexibility, as well as being easily transportable to distant AO's. It also gives us a toolset to engage in other tasks like amphibious landings).

And we could have all kinds of side arguments about carrying enablers and what sort of special kit we would want to add to the mix as well, but unless *we* actually decide what it is we are supposed to do (this ties back with the arguments of National Interest and Grand Strategy), then we will continue to get deny packets of vehicles on an almost "ad hoc" basis (look at the multitude of micro fleets we got in Afghanistan) to deal with the problem of the day, rather than a comprehensive approach that encompasses everything from training and logistics to TTP's.


----------



## Underway

Thucydides said:
			
		

> OTOH, if we are concerned about hitting complex defences manned by peer opponents, then we should be talking about Merkava C1 tanks supported by Achzarit HAPCs and some equivalent heavy engineer vehicle that can all move together in the assault. Massed heavy firepower by artillery and mortars would also have to be part and parcel of this sort of force.



Side question.  Is a Merkava even rail transportable?  I didn't think it was as its just to damn big.  If that's the case then it's automatically a non-starter as a Canadian option.


----------



## Loachman

Not that there are many, if any, Canadian bases served by rail anymore.


----------



## Underway

Loachman said:
			
		

> Not that there are many, if any, Canadian bases served by rail anymore.



Directly or nearby.  Shilo and Shearwater are directly served.  Suffield has a rail pretty close as does Wainwright IIRC.  Winnipeg does as well.  Don't know about any of the others though I wouldn't be surprised if Pet has one nearby and Valcartier is so close to Quebec City I'm sure there's one close as well.


----------



## George Wallace

Underway said:
			
		

> Directly or nearby.  Shilo and Shearwater are directly served.  Suffield has a rail pretty close as does Wainwright IIRC.  Winnipeg does as well.  Don't know about any of the others though I wouldn't be surprised if Pet has one nearby and Valcartier is so close to Quebec City I'm sure there's one close as well.



You can scratch most of those off the list.  Last I unloaded in Wainwright it was 50 km or so South of the Base.  Petawawa and Gagetown no longer have any rail lines.  Everyone in Winnipeg has been moved to Shilo, which is a fair distance from the Main Line.  Canada has been pulling up Rail lines faster than it can build a Tim Hortons.  Seems Bicycle and Ski trails are the way to go.


----------



## LightFighter

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Last I unloaded in Wainwright it was 50 km or so South of the Base.




Wainwright has a rail line on the base.

http://www.army-armee.forces.gc.ca/assets/ARMY_Internet/images/news-nouvelles/2017/05/17-0146-pa01-2017-0146-012.jpg
United States Army M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tanks prepare to be offloaded from a train at Canadian Forces Base/Area Support Unit Wainwright, Alberta during Exercise MAPLE RESOLVE on May 11, 2017.


----------



## George Wallace

LightFighter said:
			
		

> George Wallace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can scratch most of those off the list.  Last I unloaded in Wainwright it was 50 km or so South of the Base.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wainwright has a rail line on/near the base.
> 
> http://www.army-armee.forces.gc.ca/assets/ARMY_Internet/images/news-nouvelles/2017/05/17-0146-pa01-2017-0146-012.jpg
> United States Army M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tanks prepare to be offloaded from a train at Canadian Forces Base/Area Support Unit Wainwright, Alberta during Exercise MAPLE RESOLVE on May 11, 2017.
Click to expand...


It depends on the 'carrier' as to where they bring their cars.  We unloaded to the South of Base around the town of Hughenden.


----------



## kratz

Borden and Halifax are the only two bases I'm certain that continue to have rail service that allows unloading ability. Are the depots at both locations.


----------



## Loachman

Borden has no rail service.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Loachman said:
			
		

> Borden has no rail service.



They probably did that as an ironic gesture as it's the centre for all our logistics training, right?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Have they disclosed max turret weight for the LAV 6?

I was just going to see if I could find turret info for various SPAAG turrets already in use to see what would be possible vs impossible (in the context of our GBAD thread). 

That is in advance, M.


----------



## Loachman

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> They probably did that as an ironic gesture as it's the centre for all our logistics training, right?



There were once both CN and CP passenger stations and freight operations in Borden, plus the CN station in Angus. That was during the steam era, before highways were paved and trucks were rare. The BFT trail follows old roadbed, and there is a short length of track still embedded in asphalt at clothing stores.

The CP line left the still-operational north-south mainline via a wye (three-way triangular track formation) just north of Baxter, where there was a tiny station built to look like a small castle and name Ypres. The roadbed can still be traced on the ground, and easily seen from the air.

The former CN line from Barrie-Allandale (once a major facility) to Collingwood through Angus was sold to Barrie and Collingwood many years ago, and operated as the Barrie-Collingwood Railway, based in Utopia east of Borden and south of Highway 90, where it interchanges with the same north-south CP mainline. A single train went from there once weekly in either direction, restricted to 10 mph due to the poor condition of the track. Collingwood bowed out of the operation a few years ago. The Barrie section may still be in operation, but I've not been through Utopia for some time so I do not really know.


----------



## MilEME09

You would think they would want bases close if not on a rail line still. Take Edmonton for example, wouldn't having 7 CFSD on or very very close to a rail head be possibly a good idea? ditto for 1 Svc BN.


----------



## Ostrozac

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> You would think they would want bases close if not on a rail line still.



The Canadian economy as a whole has been largely moving away from investing in rail infrastructure in favour of doing more with trucks, and this has been gong on for decades now. The military's own logistics by necessity are piggy backing on that civilian infrastructure. 

Personally, I wonder if the damaged railline to Churchill is going to be permanently repaired, or if they'll just put in a temporary patch and start work on a highway.


----------



## MJP

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> You would think they would want bases close if not on a rail line still. Take Edmonton for example, wouldn't having 7 CFSD on or very very close to a rail head be possibly a good idea? ditto for 1 Svc BN.



There is no need for the rail head to be right on the base in Edmonton nor would we or any rail service sink the upteen millions of dollars in infrastructure and upkeep. There is a major rail loading facility less than 20kms away, that is used when required.


----------



## Loachman

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> The Canadian economy as a whole has been largely moving away from investing in rail infrastructure in favour of doing more with trucks



The railways are still investing in infrastructure, and quite a lot, but only as warranted. They are most efficient when moving bulk or long-distance, and that is where they concentrate.


----------



## a_majoor

Merkavas, like other tanks (pretty much regardless of what nation makes them) are sized to fit on transport trailers and pass though railroad tunnels, highway tunnels and most trestle bridges. The real limitation of transporting modern MBTs lies more in their weight, since M-1s, Leopard 2's, Merkavas, Challengers and Le Clerc's can tip the scales at between 57 to 70,000kg. Traditionally only railbeds were engineered to carry this sort of weight, but modern road engineering (at least in first world countries) overcomes this, and modern trailers have far better suspensions that allow drivers to drive and turn even with a multitude of wheels distributing the load.

Regardless, any means to reduce the weight of MBT's, IFV's and other military equipment makes things much better in terms of transportation and logistics. Replacing turrets with RWS (some are capable of mounting 30mm cannons) or cleft "Wegmann" turrets reduces the armoured volume and provides perhaps the biggest single saving. Using modern materials and replacing hatches, suspension components etc. can also provide some savings. The power to weight ratio improves with putting the vehicle on a diet, or you can replace the power pack with a somewhat smaller one if you want the same power to weight ratio.

We need to look at the entire problem. Lighter AFV's mean less fuel consumption, and smaller transports which also need less fuel. Vehicles which don't need MCL 100 bridges to cross can go more places (and you don't need to carry MCL 100 bridging equipment either). The savings go downstream as well, hangers and base infrastructure does not need to be built for the size and weight of such big equipment and so on.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MJP said:
			
		

> There is no need for the rail head to be right on the base in Edmonton nor would we or any rail service sink the upteen millions of dollars in infrastructure and upkeep. There is a major rail loading facility less than 20kms away, that is used when required.





How many round trips does a transporter need to make to the railhead to move a tracked unit and how much time does the loading/unloading and rail loading soak up?


----------



## MJP

Well we don't have that many tracked vehicles so as many as it takes.  Again the commercial market can fill in where we lack numbers domestically and with planning operationally.  We need to maintain a capability but we shouldn't have excess transporters, rarely used rail lines or sink resources beyond a certain capability as it is a diminishing return on other fronts (procurement, maintenance, storage, IT, time). 

We can't be all singing all dancing, we have to make rational decisions as our budget, ppl and time are finite resources.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Loachman said:
			
		

> The railways are still investing in infrastructure, and quite a lot, but only as warranted. They are most efficient when moving bulk or long-distance, and that is where they concentrate.



Yep, I was out West a couple of years ago and saw a bunch of new track being laid.  There has to be. Financial reason for them to do so.  The rail line in Churchill died with the Wheat Board.  Want to blame someone, blame the Federal Government.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MJP said:
			
		

> Well we don't have that many tracked vehicles so as many as it takes.  Again the commercial market can fill in where we lack numbers domestically and with planning operationally.  We need to maintain a capability but we shouldn't have excess transporters, rarely used rail lines or sink resources beyond a certain capability as it is a diminishing return on other fronts (procurement, maintenance, storage, IT, time).
> 
> We can't be all singing all dancing, we have to make rational decisions as our budget, ppl and time are finite resources.



Likely some of that cost can be had from outside of the DND budget, plus a properly constructed line that does not see heavy use does not need much maintenance.


----------



## MJP

Colin P said:
			
		

> Likely some of that cost can be had from outside of the DND budget, plus a properly constructed line that does not see heavy use does not need much maintenance.



Dude you are arguing for a unicorn when the current donkey works well enough.


----------



## Loachman

All freight railways in Canada and the US are commercial operations. They will only operate where and when profitable, just like any other commercial operation. Unless the port in Churchill generates enough traffic to warrant continuing to maintain the line, and in the absence of government subsidies, it makes no sense to expect it to be operated.

As for running lines into bases, who would pay for those, besides the customer? Tracklaying is not cheap. CN and CP would be happy to accommodate us as much as any other paying customer, of course.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

http://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/index-eng.html

Promote as a way to reduce DND "Carbon footprint". In the past I have seen the government doing some very interesting funding options, at one point I was training students at the Armouries with monies from Employment Canada and then had another monies given to me to employ fisherman on some museum boats so they could earn employment credits to collect UI. I have also reviewed a large number of projects (bridges, roads, etc) where various government agencies where shoveling money out the door to stuff that would be far less useful than this. What you need is someone to watch and pounce on grants and funds to get what you want. Finding a way to tie to the political bandwagon dejour is important.


----------



## Kirkhill

Or.... 

The money could be used to buy Tanks, or ships to transport the Tanks once they get to Shearwater or Esquimalt.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

But tanks are evil and unnecessary in this enlightened age of Peacekeeping and Grey ships are full of political blackholes. Build a spur line, put up sign, cut ribbon announcing major Carbon savings at ceremony and "jobs for Canadians", then the dog and pony show leaves. Add +10 political points if work is complete within 6 month of election, add another 10 if in key riding, minus 10 if opposition stronghold.


----------



## Kirkhill

:goodpost:


----------



## George Wallace

Colin P said:
			
		

> But tanks are evil and unnecessary in this enlightened age of Peacekeeping and Grey ships are full of political blackholes. Build a spur line, put up sign, cut ribbon announcing major Carbon savings at ceremony and "jobs for Canadians", then the dog and pony show leaves. Add +10 political points if work is complete within 6 month of election, add another 10 if in key riding, minus 10 if opposition stronghold.



BRING BACK THE RAILWAY GUNS!   :warstory:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Complete and utter thread drift, but electric railguns on rail cars, powered by locomotives could be part of the upcoming mix.


----------



## Eland2

For what it's worth, the Highbury Avenue supply depot of CFB London had a rail line that ran right next to it. Seemed to me like a pretty good location for getting stuff that needs to be sent by rail sent off quickly and efficiently.

The rail line is still there, but the Highbury Depot is not, as it was torn down about five or six years ago.

CFB London was in a pretty good location as it not only had easy access to a railhead, but the airport is just 7km from where the base used to be, and just before you get to the airport, there's the Veterans' Memorial Parkway, which directly links to the 401 in the city's south end.


----------



## MilEME09

Eland2 said:
			
		

> For what it's worth, the Highbury Avenue supply depot of CFB London had a rail line that ran right next to it. Seemed to me like a pretty good location for getting stuff that needs to be sent by rail sent off quickly and efficiently.
> 
> The rail line is still there, but the Highbury Depot is not, as it was torn down about five or six years ago.
> 
> CFB London was in a pretty good location as it not only had easy access to a railhead, but the airport is just 7km from where the base used to be, and just before you get to the airport, there's the Veterans' Memorial Parkway, which directly links to the 401 in the city's south end.



Unfortunately removing bases from urban areas was a key liberal plan in the early 90s.


----------



## Loachman

The move of 1 RCR from London to Petawawa was initiated during Brian Mulroney's term as Prime Minister.


----------



## MilEME09

Sorta related, tests are now under way of 12 Strykers equipped with 30mm cannons, and Javelin missiles (6 of each type). Already coined the Dragoon, I wonder how easy it would be to up gun our LAV's to 30mm?

http://taskandpurpose.com/watch-army-test-upgraded-stryker-vehicles-meant-counter-russian-firepower/


----------



## ballz

Unless we know the EN is headed towards a better armoured APC, I'd rather not. The upgrade to the LAV 6.0 was a nightmare, but after 2 years of trials and 2 years using it in the field, we've got most of the bugs worked out (*knock knock*).

That and.... nothing we do with equipment procurement is easy, including an "upgrade."

I think I'd much rather see us procure an HAPC... having a HAPC and a IFV (LAV 6.0) would give us a lot of flexibility. Of course, I doubt we'll ever see this army fully equipped to fight and sustain one fleet of infantry vehs, let alone two... and certainly not simultaneously to finally having a real fleet of tanks!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I get the impression is that they want a HAPC on a wheeled chassis. At some weight point, wheels do not make sense and I suspect we passed that point, but I also suspect they can't get authority to purchase a tracked HAPC, but can get funding to buy a overweight design made here. GD was experimenting with a tracked Stryker, anyone knows what became of that?


----------



## Spencer100

New cannon on the Styker

http://www.defensenews.com/smr/european-balance-of-power/2017/08/16/upgunned-stryker-in-europe-to-help-shape-future-infantry-lethality/


----------



## Spencer100

Also an older piece,  Canada is looking at older Stryker hulls.  

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2016/12/08/peru-wants-us-army-stryker-infantry-carrier-vehicles/


----------



## Loachman

I am not sure why we would look at old US hulls, when we have/had a pile of our own older ones around. The LAV 6 hulls are all brand-new production, as that was the cheapest solution. The USMC had their old hulls completely stripped down, the bottoms cut off, and new ones welded on - much more work and much more expense.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Likely:

"We have money to modify the fleet totally from the ground up"

"Why don't we buy new ones?"

"There is no budget for new ones"

"But the costs are the same or close?"

"There is no budget for new ones"


----------



## a_majoor

Most likely some sort of procurement magic, money could be spent so long as it was for "upgrades", not new equipment. If the Marines were able to get an extended production run, they may have been able to get new and very different hulls, but still naming them LAV 25 (LAV 25B?), much like the F/A-18 Superhornet is essentially an entirely new airplane compared to the F-18.

A bit of an out of the box suggestion, since the US Army is using Strykers, other countries are considering them and the USMC has a demonstrated need for a newer vehicle, maybe we could put together some sort of consortium and have a very long production run of Strykers for Canada and all the other customers done at once. Economies of scale, low unit costs, extended employment in London and other benefits would apply. If necessary, we could build "green" hulls and let the final customers add radios, electronics and their own turrets or RWS, and still get something like 80% of the benefit.


----------



## Loachman

Ours were billed as upgrades, but in reality very little of the original vehicles survived into the "upgraded" ones. The USMC could have done the same thing, and saved money.

GD was producing LAVs for us, USMC, Kuwait, and possibly others in several variants during the 4 RCR tour a few years ago. Business looked good, and the Saudi deal (for which I have mixed feelings) will probably have them running at capacity for a while.


----------



## Underway

Found this accidentally.  Found it extremely interesting regarding how the US refirbishes their M1 tank.  I expect the LAV 3 went through a similar process to upgrade them and rebuild them. 

Part 1 Ultimate Factories - M1

Part 2 Ultimate Factories - M1


----------



## .Fred

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Wainwright has a rail line on/near the base.
> 
> http://www.army-armee.forces.gc.ca/assets/ARMY_Internet/images/news-nouvelles/2017/05/17-0146-pa01-2017-0146-012.jpg
> United States Army M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tanks prepare to be offloaded from a train at Canadian Forces Base/Area Support Unit Wainwright, Alberta during Exercise MAPLE RESOLVE on May 11, 2017.
> 
> 
> It depends on the 'carrier' as to where they bring their cars.  We unloaded to the South of Base around the town of Hughenden.


I was reading through the thread and stumbled on this post. Wainwright rail line is operational, we've just shipped out a bunch of lav6/msvs on them

Sent from my LG-H831 using Tapatalk


----------



## Spencer100

Well here is where the LAV go to die in London ON.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/london-ontario-lav-1.4734920


I like how the gov calls the LAV 3 to LAV 6.0 an "upgrade" when it really looks like a total new build.  I guess it is easier to get it though the buying process calling it an Upgrade.


----------



## Kirkhill

I wonder if they couldn't be stored in armouries - you know - as displays for the regimental museums.


----------



## Remius

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I wonder if they couldn't be stored in armouries - you know - as displays for the regimental museums.



Some of those museums are pretty small...

Pretty sure no reserve unit ever had those to begin with so what would be the link?. 

Wasn't there some sort of movement years ago to have them as monument all over the country?


----------



## CountDC

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Well here is where the LAV go to die in London ON.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/london-ontario-lav-1.4734920
> 
> 
> I like how the gov calls the LAV 3 to LAV 6.0 an "upgrade" when it really looks like a total new build.  I guess it is easier to get it though the buying process calling it an Upgrade.



Calling it an upgrade probably does make it easier as it is now maintenance vice a purchase.  Same kind of thing happened years ago at a certain base wanting new shacks.  No money to build new with but lots for maintenance and repairs.  Solution was to tear down everything but the main corner beams and rebuild on them - maintenance and repair.


----------



## dapaterson

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I wonder if they couldn't be stored in armouries - you know - as displays for the regimental museums.



Some are being converted to monuments.


----------



## Kirkhill

Remius said:
			
		

> Some of those museums are pretty small...
> 
> Pretty sure no reserve unit ever had those to begin with so what would be the link?.
> 
> Wasn't there some sort of movement years ago to have them as monument all over the country?



Perhaps they could be stored on the parade squares - four to the armoury?


----------



## Loachman

I had a tour of the General Dynamics factory in late 2013 or 2014.

It is a fascinating place.

Our LAV 6 are truly new vehicles. Very little survives from the old ones. It is much cheaper than doing what the US Marines were having done there at the same time - completely stripping their old LAV 25s, having the lower hulls cut off, and having new double-V hulls built and welded on.

There were stacks of cut armour pieces, ready to be welded together, half-hulls welded up and looking like giant plastic model kit pieces on longitudinally-rotatable jigs, and all sorts of interesting sights. Armour piece edges were precisely cut so that they naturally fitted together at the correct angles. Some brilliant work was being done. Many employees, especially on the management side, were ex-CF, including a few 4 RCR buds. The company takes its work seriously, partially due to that. R&D is constantly ongoing, based upon a lot of feedback from operators in many countries and some of the concepts being investigated were quite novel and ingenious.

LAV variants for other countries were also being built or upgraded. One was a turreted mortar variant, painted desert sand (I cannot remember the customer nation).

There is a LAV monument at Bowmanville, Ontario, on the north side of Highway 401. It is well-presented, but looks odd without all of the usual stuff tacked/tied on. That's the only one that I've seen.


----------



## Cloud Cover

There are LAV monuments popping up in a lot of places, find one near you! :  https://www.lavmonument.ca/en/index.html


----------



## Colin Parkinson

my youngest in front of the Seaforth one, FB post https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10157597675533957&set=a.10152825120173957.1073741827.566943956&type=3&theater


----------



## Cloud Cover

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> There are LAV monuments popping up in a lot of places, find one near you! :  https://www.lavmonument.ca/en/index.html



Quoting my own post here. As far as I can tell, the cost to obtain and install a LAV monument is about 30,000, plus transportation costs. Does anyone know if that is close to correct? Reason I am asking is that are several young men from the area I grew up who was KIA in Afghanistan. It wouldn’t take long to fundraisers for a monument and there is lots of room for one.


----------



## Loachman

Look on the FAQ page on the link that you posted.


----------



## MarkOttawa

This, for me, is right out of the blue--purchase with election in mind in contested ridings? And maybe to keep work going if/when Saudi contract is cancelled?


> General Dynamics to produce 360 LAVs for Canadian Armed Forces
> 
> Minister of National Defence Harjit S. Sajjan was at General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada (GDLS-C) to announce the purchase of 360 Light Armoured Vehicles from the London, Ont. company for the Canadian Armed Forces.
> 
> Sajjan said in a statement, "I am pleased to be moving forward with the strengthening of our fleet of armoured combat support vehicles as committed to in our defence policy, Strong, Secure, Engaged, while at the same time supporting Canadian jobs and innovation through our partnership with GDLS-C.”
> 
> The _cost of the project, announced on Friday, is estimated at up to $3 billion, with a repayable loan worth up to $650 million. The cost includes new infrastructure to house and maintain the vehicles_ [emphasis added].
> 
> As part of the deal, General Dynamics is expected to reinvest an amount equal to the contract's value into the economy.
> 
> Sajjan was joined by London Mayor Ed Holder and local MPs for the announcement.
> 
> General Dynamics has been at the centre of a debate around whether or not Canada should cancel the controversial Saudi arms deal.
> 
> General Dynamics has previously said that cancelling the contract would also hurt its workforce.
> 
> Representatives for the minister would not comment on whether this announcement affects the Saudi deal, but did say the minister will take questions after the announcement.
> https://london.ctvnews.ca/general-dynamics-to-produce-360-lavs-for-canadian-armed-forces-1.4552567



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## dapaterson

Sounds like this: http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/defence-capabilities-blueprint/project-details.asp?id=1013


----------



## MarkOttawa

Dataperson: Quite so, but boy does this announcement seem rushed (election) in view of timeline at your link above:



> ...
> Anticipated Timeline (Fiscal Year)
> 
> Completed Start Options Analysis
> 2021/2022 Start Definition
> 2024/2025 Start Implementation
> 2028/2029 Initial Delivery
> 2030/2031 Final Delivery...



Gov't news release:



> Canada negotiates new armoured combat support vehicles
> ...
> The LAV is a tested and proven platform that meets Canada’s Army needs. Having similar combat support vehicles in the Canadian Armed Forces fleet will offer a number of operational advantages, including reduced training and sustainment costs, as well as the availability of common spare parts to fix vehicles quickly during critical operations.
> 
> Armoured combat support vehicles serve key roles such as command posts, ambulances, and mobile repair. This new fleet will offer the protection and mobility that CAF members need to conduct their work in operational environments...
> https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2019/08/canada-negotiates-new-armoured-combat-support-vehicles.html



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## dapaterson

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Dataperson: Quite so, but boy does this announcement seem rushed (election) in view of timeline at your link above:



Governments rushing to make spending announcements before an election?  Inconceiveable!


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

On the bright side, the Canadian Army is getting some much needed kit that quite honestly should have been part of the initial purchase of the vehicle fleet.


----------



## Cloud Cover

"However, no contract has yet been signed, and full details around the price and timeline have yet to be determined."


----------



## MarkOttawa

But at least none of that pesky competition stuff  .

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

CP story, note no actual contract for new LAVs has been negotiated and signed:



> Liberals unveil multibillion-dollar sole-source deal for light armoured vehicles ahead of election
> 
> The federal Liberal government says it plans to award a multibillion-dollar contract for hundreds of light armoured vehicles to General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada without holding a competition, while also giving the company in London, Ont., a $650-million loan.
> 
> The surprise loan and sole-sourced deal for 360 LAVs was announced today by Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, only weeks before a federal election campaign in which the Liberals, New Democrats and Conservatives are expected to fight tooth and nail for seats across southern Ontario.
> 
> The government says the new LAVs are different from the ones GDLS has been building for Saudi Arabia as part of a $15-billion deal that has caused the company and federal government endless grief because of the Saudi kingdom’s abysmal human-rights record.
> 
> It also says holding a competition was not in the public’s interest because the new vehicles are largely the same as those already owned by the Canadian Forces.
> 
> The government, which did not immediately provide details on the loan, also says awarding the sole-sourced contract now will prevent layoffs while saving time and money after the company recently upgraded the military’s existing LAV fleet.
> 
> Conservative defence critic James Bezan nonetheless accused the Liberals of “cynical electioneering” and trying to distract attention away from the SNC-Lavalin affair by announcing the deal with GDLS now [_but did not criticize the buy itself_].
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-liberals-unveil-multibillion-dollar-sole-source-deal-for-light/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MilEME09

So basically increasing our LAV fleet by a third, to almost 1000 LAVs CaF wide. I wonder what the varient breakdown is for all of them. While i can say this is trying to buy votes in London, more kit for the caf is welcomed.


----------



## MJP

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> So basically increasing our LAV fleet by a third, to almost 1000 LAVs CaF wide. I wonder what the varient breakdown is for all of them. While i can say this is trying to buy votes in London, more kit for the caf is welcomed.



That there will be a ton of common parts is significant as well.  Right move IMHO


----------



## MarkOttawa

Cloud Cover:



> "However, no contract has yet been signed, and full details around the price and timeline have yet to be determined."



So, however sensible in principle this acquisition may in fact be, lord knows when any new wheels will actually turn on the ground. Merely Liberal election sound and fury at the moment.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Underway

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> So basically increasing our LAV fleet by a third, to almost 1000 LAVs CaF wide. I wonder what the varient breakdown is for all of them. While i can say this is trying to buy votes in London, more kit for the caf is welcomed.



I suspect (with no evidence) that many of these will be the Recce variant.  I'm not sure if the army's original plan of making the Armd Recce squadrons majority TAPV is falling through.  There certainly was a lot of pushback.

Alternatively replace things like the Bison Amb with a Lav Amb (LAmb?  haha).  Might not be the best option but commonality could be advantageous.


----------



## Good2Golf

dapaterson said:
			
		

> ...Inconceivable!


----------



## Infanteer

Underway said:
			
		

> I suspect (with no evidence) that many of these will be the Recce variant.  I'm not sure if the army's original plan of making the Armd Recce squadrons majority TAPV is falling through.  There certainly was a lot of pushback.
> 
> Alternatively replace things like the Bison Amb with a Lav Amb (LAmb?  haha).  Might not be the best option but commonality could be advantageous.



You suspect wrong.


----------



## ballz

From the CAF's facebook page...

"They will replace the current combat support fleet : the LAV II Bisons and the M113 Tracked LAVs"

Has some pictures... 

The TLAV replacement is apparently a wheeled variant. Replacing the TLAVs with wheeled variants would be a huge mistake.....

Replacing Bisons with a LAV 6.0 variant of the Bison makes sense, and the picture shows it as exactly that. No turret, etc.


----------



## Underway

ballz said:
			
		

> From the CAF's facebook page...
> 
> "They will replace the current combat support fleet : the LAV II Bisons and the M113 Tracked LAVs"
> 
> Has some pictures...
> 
> The TLAV replacement is apparently a wheeled variant. Replacing the TLAVs with wheeled variants would be a huge mistake.....
> 
> Replacing Bisons with a LAV 6.0 variant of the Bison makes sense, and the picture shows it as exactly that. No turret, etc.



Yay LAmbs are a thing (going with the CAF tradition of naming vehicles after animals... you heard it here first folks).  I agree wholeheartedly with the TLAV.  They were the vehicle in Afghanistan that was least likely to be damaged by an IED while I was deployed(we suspected due to their cross country mobility, why drive on the road when you could drive beside it? also who needs bridges?). 

Link for those who can't find the story on the CAF FB page.... 



> The CAF’s Armoured Combat Support Vehicles will be available in eight variants, providing services such as: ambulances, vehicle recovery, engineering, mobile repair, electronic warfare, troop carrying, and command posts.


----------



## ballz

Underway said:
			
		

> Yay LAmbs are a thing (going with the CAF tradition of naming vehicles after animals... you heard it here first folks).  I agree wholeheartedly with the TLAV.  They were the vehicle in Afghanistan that was least likely to be damaged by an IED while I was deployed(we suspected due to their cross country mobility, why drive on the road when you could drive beside it? also who needs bridges?).
> 
> Link for those who can't find the story on the CAF FB page....



We used TLAVs to recover the LAV 6.0 (and LAV III for that matter) all the time.... with the tracks they could always get in a good position and very rarely unable to get it out. Without the tracks, they're going to get stuck all the time (maybe more because of the plough) and now you've lost your MRV. Seems like a terrible idea.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

The contract is contingent on them winning election. How many promises did they keep from the last campaign? London will vote red and trudeau will renege.


----------



## MSmith

Infanteer said:
			
		

> You suspect wrong.



What makes you say that? I don't see how its out of the realm of possiblity


----------



## Underway

MSmith said:
			
		

> What makes you say that? I don't see how its out of the realm of possiblity



Umm the article posted and discussed in the four posts before you decided to post??  No recce variant.  Amb, Repair, Recovery etc...

The one that most interests me is the EW variant.  That seems new to the army's vehicle fleet.  It's about time, with all the drones and EW warfare popping up from various state and non-state actors.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Underway said:
			
		

> Umm the article posted and discussed in the four posts before you decided to post??  No recce variant.  Amb, Repair, Recovery etc...
> 
> The one that most interests me is the EW variant.  That seems new to the army's vehicle fleet.  It's about time, with all the drones and EW warfare popping up from various state and non-state actors.



They have EW variants.  They are Bisons with 21 EW Regt.  Cool vehicles with some neat capability but they are getting long in the tooth.


----------



## PuckChaser

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> They have EW variants.  They are Bisons with 21 EW Regt.  Cool vehicles with some neat capability *(that barely works)* but they are getting long in the tooth.



FTFY.

The only thing that's a bigger travesty on the wasted money in the EW project is the terrible design of the EW suite itself that after 10 years in Afghanistan and multiple recommendations to change, nothing happened. EW variants are multiple tonnes overweight (without bolt on armor) and stupidly have all the weight on the rear right side. When I was running one we proposed a suite redesign and pleaded for LAV3s, I guess its good they finally will get them when we've got no place to deploy them.


----------



## CBH99

There will always be a next time for deployment.  Better to deploy the next time with a new LAV than the old Bison.

Without getting into OPSEC type stuff, which I realize may prevent an answer on this particular subject, but curious...what capabilities are we generally lacking in in regards to the terrible EW suite?  Ive heard from multiple sources that the EW capabilities are very much lacking, and like you said, the ones we have aren't the most reliable....just curious if there was anything anybody could say without violating OPSEC type stuff about what capabilities they would like to see and/or are doable in the near future for us?


----------



## Cloud Cover

For those of you who have access to JED on DWAN, flip through a few issues and you will see how far behind we are.


----------



## Old EO Tech

Underway said:
			
		

> Umm the article posted and discussed in the four posts before you decided to post??  No recce variant.  Amb, Repair, Recovery etc...
> 
> The one that most interests me is the EW variant.  That seems new to the army's vehicle fleet.  It's about time, with all the drones and EW warfare popping up from various state and non-state actors.



This project doesn't include RECCE because RECCE variants are already part of the original LAV UP Project, they have not been delivered because of issues with the surveillance suite because the original OEM went bankrupt :-/  And now we have a mess of trying to get the IP for the mast from the courts and find a 3rd party company willing to pick up the pieces.


----------



## FJAG

Please tell me that we'll keep the surplus TLAVs and Bisons in some form of war stocks or assign them to the Reserve Force and not sell them for scrap and cut them up like we did the M109s.

 :facepalm:


----------



## dapaterson

FJAG said:
			
		

> Please tell me that we'll keep the surplus TLAVs and Bisons in some form of war stocks or assign them to the Reserve Force and not sell them for scrap and cut them up like we did the M109s.
> 
> :facepalm:



Old crappy equipment that's too expensive to sustain should be disposed of, not retained.

We don't need an army that could be featured on an episode of Hoarders.


----------



## MJP

FJAG said:
			
		

> Please tell me that we'll keep the surplus TLAVs and Bisons in some form of war stocks or assign them to the Reserve Force and not sell them for scrap and cut them up like we did the M109s.
> 
> :facepalm:



Fuck no.... We don't need more useless fleets to maintain


----------



## FJAG

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Old crappy equipment that's too expensive to sustain should be disposed of, not retained.
> 
> We don't need an army that could be featured on an episode of Hoarders.



If it's truly old and crappy and beyond salvage it should be. If on the other hand it is still usable, even if only as an interim training aid, it should receive a reasonable level of maintenance and be put into use.

Here's where we differ, I guess. In my mind a Reserve Force should be capable of quickly expanding the Regular Force with significant combat power not otherwise needed on a day to day basis and not merely fill in a few blank files in the Reg F establishment. Most other armies have forces that are tiered where some units and formations that have equipment that is older and less capable than its best equipped ones. The US does this as does Russia. (for example the T-80 modernization process https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russias-t-80-tank-no-joke-27086). If you do not have the equipment (and concurrently don't have reservists trained on it) then it's entirely impossible to expand (or to use an older out of favour  term - mobilize)

I agree completely with the idea of standardizing the Reg F fleet on the LAV chassis but that doesn't mean that there aren't uses for the existing TLAVs and Bisons in second/third line Reserve units providing at least one (if not two) properly manned and equipped combat support brigade(s). There is no acquisition cost, just ongoing maintenance costs. If we can't find the money for that it's because our leadership mindset is that it's just not necessary to be able to expand our force beyond the three brigades that we have because we'll never do anything but throw out the odd battle group on some mid-level activity.

I think that's a critical error in our leadership's philosophy vis a vis regular and reserve forces.

My new motto is "Keep the Metal! Use the Metal!"

 :cheers:


----------



## Ludoc

FJAG said:
			
		

> ... If on the other hand it is still usable, even if only as an interim training aid, it should receive a reasonable level of maintenance and be put into use...


I dearly love the bisons as a platform but they have been used hard for too many years. Most units I know concede they will only have about 50% of their fleets road worthy at one time. Even with their crews working full time to maintain them and full time mechanics supporting them we can barely keep them on the road. Saddling the reserves with our cast off broken equipment doesn't really help them.

However, if you read between the lines: 

1. We are buying 300+ new vehicles. They are going to replace about 100 bisons in service and some number of TLAVs that is probably much lower than that. So we expanding the fleet, a lot.

2. One of the variants we announced is a troop carry. The Reg Force has enough LAVs to carry it's troops, or at least it's mech infantry.

Too many vehicles to replace what we currently use them for, in a variant the Reg force does not need. Indeed a variant that is much less maintenance intensive (no need for turret monthlies/FCS tech inspections). I think the Reserves are going to get a bunch of brand new vehicles.


----------



## ballz

Ludoc said:
			
		

> I dearly love the bisons as a platform but they have been used hard for too many years. Most units I know concede they will only have about 50% of their fleets road worthy at one time. Even with their crews working full time to maintain them and full time mechanics supporting them we can barely keep them on the road. Saddling the reserves with our cast off broken equipment doesn't really help them.
> 
> However, if you read between the lines:
> 
> 1. We are buying 300+ new vehicles. They are going to replace about 100 bisons in service and some number of TLAVs that is probably much lower than that. So we expanding the fleet, a lot.
> 
> 2. *One of the variants we announced is a troop carry*. The Reg Force has enough LAVs to carry it's troops, or at least it's mech infantry.
> 
> Too many vehicles to replace what we currently use them for, in a variant the Reg force does not need. Indeed a variant that is much less maintenance intensive (no need for turret monthlies/FCS tech inspections). I think the Reserves are going to get a bunch of brand new vehicles.



I don't think you read that right. The troop carrier variants already exist. They were simply highlighting all the variants we will have once these variants are added to the mix. It would be quite silly to give the PRes LAV 6.0 section carriers.




			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> If it's truly old and crappy and beyond salvage it should be. If on the other hand it is still usable, even if only as an interim training aid, it should receive a reasonable level of maintenance and be put into use.



The TLAVs will still probably get used... they can be used to go recover the LAV 6.0 MRV that got stuck after trying to recover another LAV 6.0 that was obviously in terrain that a wheeled LAV 6.0 shouldn't be in. I'm sure the maintainers operating the MRV will have make some pretty funny remarks about lemmings and whatnot.


----------



## FJAG

ballz said:
			
		

> The TLAVs will still probably get used... they can be used to go recover the LAV 6.0 MRV that got stuck after trying to recover another LAV 6.0 that was obviously in terrain that a wheeled LAV 6.0 shouldn't be in. I'm sure the maintainers operating the MRV will have make some pretty funny remarks about lemmings and whatnot.



I must admit I've always stood on the tracked v wheeled argument ever since my tracked SP battery went blithely thundered on past an entire squadron/company group of Cougars and Grizzlies bogged down in a muddy field on the Lawfield Impact area.

 :nana:


----------



## Petard

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Old crappy equipment that's too expensive to sustain should be disposed of, not retained.
> 
> We don't need an army that could be featured on an episode of Hoarders.



On the other hand binning some of these vehicles does limit any depth, and going all wheeled doesn’t necessarily allow for tactical flexibility either 

The M109 fleet, and all light tracked vehicles (Recce and CP) associated with the Mech Bty’s were withdrawn without replacements. Up until late 2009 approximately 26 M109’s were kept in excellent condition, with the potential of bringing them back into service post Afghanistan, with one gun Bty Mech and the other towed in each Regt. This certainly would’ve given the gun Regt’s greater flexibility in deploying depending on the situation. But all were scrapped, or turned into monuments, all in the interest of saving money without really addressing capability deficiencies 

When M777 was brought into service, it was done in far fewer numbers than the M109s, and without vehicles for the Gun Dets, Recce or CP. Even the SMP variant of the gun tractor are limited in number, and cannot carry the gun det.  The Bty’s consequently play a catch as catch can whole fleet management game for vehicles, with a number of the MiliCOT gun tractors meant for the P Res getting borrowed by Reg Force units on a regular basis. This is bound to cause wear at a greater rate than intended, and reduce availability in the long term. Some of the TAPV castoffs were picked up by the Artillery and alleviated the situation somewhat for Recce, but gaps remain

It might help if the Gun Bty’s hung onto some of these TLAVs, it would alleviate the gun det vehicle problems, and increase their tactical mobility, something the M777 is somewhat handicapped in (although it does have high operational mobility).


----------



## Ludoc

ballz said:
			
		

> I don't think you read that right. The troop carrier variants already exist. They were simply highlighting all the variants we will have once these variants are added to the mix. It would be quite silly to give the PRes LAV 6.0 section carriers.



From the Government's fact page: https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2019/08/canada-negotiates-new-armoured-combat-support-vehicles.html



> The Honourable Harjit S. Sajjan, Minister of National Defence, announced that the government will acquire 360 combat support Light Armoured Vehicles (LAV) from General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada (GDLS-C).
> ...
> The current fleet of armoured support vehicles is comprised of the LAV II Bison and the M113 Tracked LAV.
> ...
> The CAF’s Armoured Combat Support Vehicles will be available in eight variants, providing services such as: ambulances, vehicle recovery, engineering, mobile repair, electronic warfare, troop carrying, and command posts.



Right now we are trying to read tea leaves. Part of problem is the press releases are probably not written by pers who really have all the information/really understand the differences in these vehicles. But it sounds to me like they are getting section carriers.

We just gave the armoured reservists TAPVs. I don't see this as much different. Training pers on the platform we will deploy them in, makes integration of the reserves into the Reg force much easier. 



> The cost also includes new infrastructure to house and maintain the vehicles.



Much like the TAPV contract. Sure we may build some LAV barns at each Reg force Bdes but I think we will pick some Reserve Force Armouries to get some upgrades for they new vehicles like with the TAPV.

I look forward to the announcements (closer to the election to keep this in the news cycle) clarifying what it is we are actually paying for.


----------



## ballz

Ludoc said:
			
		

> Part of problem is the press releases are probably not written by pers who really have all the information/really understand the differences in these vehicles.



That seems to be what is happening here... they're mixing up words they don't understand, at least that's what I'm thinking, yours is the more optimistic view I suppose.



			
				Ludoc said:
			
		

> We just gave the armoured reservists TAPVs. I don't see this as much different. Training pers on the platform we will deploy them in, makes integration of the reserves into the Reg force much easier.



This is a lot different. The training requirements for a LAV 6.0 are much more than a TAPV (longer), there are three positions that need to be manned and trained for (crew comd, gunner, and driver). And the PRes would not be deploying in those positions unless it's World War 3 so there's not exactly any utility in them having the quals. And you get rusty on those skills pretty quick, so if we were going to mobilize it'd be better to just put them through the grinder and have them deploy fresh off of the course. Not to mention the maintenance requirements...

And this is all ignoring the fact that I don't believe the TAPVs were ever meant for PRes... much like a lot of our kit, it just gets dropped on us and we figure out where to put it. In the case of the C16 for example, we put in CQ stores collecting dust for many years.


----------



## Infanteer

I believe the TCVs are meant to replace the M113 TLAVs being used in in Artillery and Engineer units to move sections around.


----------



## Kirkhill

ballz said:
			
		

> That seems to be what is happening here... they're mixing up words they don't understand, at least that's what I'm thinking, yours is the more optimistic view I suppose.
> 
> This is a lot different. The training requirements for a LAV 6.0 are much more than a TAPV (longer), there are three positions that need to be manned and trained for (crew comd, gunner, and driver). And the PRes would not be deploying in those positions unless it's World War 3 so there's not exactly any utility in them having the quals. And you get rusty on those skills pretty quick, so if we were going to mobilize it'd be better to just put them through the grinder and have them deploy fresh off of the course. Not to mention the maintenance requirements...
> 
> And this is all ignoring the fact that I don't believe the TAPVs were ever meant for PRes... much like a lot of our kit, it just gets dropped on us and we figure out where to put it. In the case of the C16 for example, we put in CQ stores collecting dust for many years.



Are there three crew positions in the TCV?  And what quals does the CC require?  

As for putting kit in stores and have it gathering dust for many years - isn't that explicitly the function of a reserve?  To be stored until it is needed?


----------



## Infanteer

The TCV, if it's like the ELAV or any Bison, should only have two crew members - driver and crew commander.

As for trying to get some utility out of TLAVs and Bisons, if you guys have lived the VOR fight in line units and what this would entail on downloading A vehicle platforms on reserve organizations with no internal, full time maintenance ability, you'd swat that good idea fairy fast.  Divesting old platforms will be a case of addition to capability by subtraction of maintenance liabilities.


----------



## Kirkhill

I agree about not putting worn out gear into reserve (or the reserves) but I suggest as a model this:









> The Green Goddess is the colloquial name for the Bedford RLHZ Self Propelled Pump, a fire engine used originally by the Auxiliary Fire Service (AFS), and latterly held in reserve by the Home Office until 2004, and available when required to deal with exceptional events, including being operated by the British Armed Forces during fire-fighters’ strikes (1977 and 2002). These green-painted vehicles were built between 1953 and 1956 for the AFS. The design was based on a Bedford RL series British military truck.
> 
> Auxiliary Fire Service
> 
> The Auxiliary Fire Service was established as part of civil defence preparations after World War II, and subsequent events such as the Soviet Union detonating an atomic bomb made their presence supporting civilians as part of Britain's civil defence an important role. It was thought that a nuclear attack on Britain would cause a large number of fires, which would overwhelm the ordinary fire service, so a large stock of basic fire engines was ordered to form a reserve capacity. They were in continuous use by the AFS, until disbandment in 1968 by the Harold Wilson Government.
> 
> The Green Goddess machines were not primarily fire engines (AFS members referred to them as 'appliances'); they are more correctly titled "self propelled pumps", with some being two-wheel drive (4x2), and others in four-wheel drive (4x4) form. Their main role was to pump huge quantities of water from lakes, rivers, canals and other sources into cities hit by a nuclear attack. The machines could be used in a relay system over a number of miles, with Green Goddesses at regular intervals to boost the water pressure. Firefighting was a secondary role.
> 
> Operational use
> 
> Prior to disbandment, the AFS used the Green Goddess extensively in support of the local fire services throughout the UK. They provided additional water delivery and firefighting capability at times when the regular fire brigades had a major incident to contain. The ability to relay large quantities of water over considerable distances was invaluable in some more remote locations, or where the incident required more water than local water systems could provide. Most UK boroughs had an Auxiliary Fire Service detachment housed alongside the regular brigade equipment.
> 
> After 1968, the vehicles were mothballed, but occasionally used by the Armed Forces to provide fire cover in a number of fire strikes, notably in 1977 and 2002 (see UK firefighter dispute 2002–2003). They were also deployed to pump water in floods and droughts. They were well maintained in storage, and regularly road tested. There was a less significant strike by firefighters in the Winter of Discontent (late 1978 and early 1979), where once again the Green Goddesses were drafted in to cover; it is largely forgotten by many as it occurred at a time when a significant percentage of public sector workers were on strike.[1]
> 
> The role of Green Goddesses was superseded by new contingency arrangements. The Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 gave the Government the power to instruct fire and rescue authorities to make their own vehicles available in the event of future industrial action. New Incident Response Units introduced after the September 11, 2001 attacks offered high power pumping ability among a range of other contingency functions.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Goddess

Obviously I am not recommending the infamous "buckets and ladders" of the 1950s here.  What is noteworthy, IMO, is that a government explicitly bought a "rainy day" fleet that served for 50 years supplying occasional reserve capacity.

Buy TCVs for a "rainy day".  Heck you could even supply them with a water pump and monitor and a bladder that you stuff in the back, and use them for fire fighting.

Edit: Although I would prefer these instead


----------



## FJAG

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The TCV, if it's like the ELAV or any Bison, should only have two crew members - driver and crew commander.
> 
> As for trying to get some utility out of TLAVs and Bisons, if you guys have lived the VOR fight in line units and what this would entail on downloading A vehicle platforms on reserve organizations with no internal, full time maintenance ability, you'd swat that good idea fairy fast.  Divesting old platforms will be a case of addition to capability by subtraction of maintenance liabilities.



Just a few random thoughts:

1) Reserve units put much less running time/year on their equipment which translates to less maintenance needs over the years and a longer service life;

2) every Reserve Brigade has a service battalion with a maintenance company. Refocus recruiting and retention and Class B contracts to up organic maintenance support within the Bde. What teenage boy doesn't want to be a mechanic on an armored vehicle?;

3) These classes of military vehicles do not need large or new housing barns to overwinter and generally do not need to be used in large numbers during the winter. Winterize and tarp most of them at the end of the summer training cycle for the next spring;

4) Run a proper refurbishment program at the time of transfer so that serviceable vehicles are properly inspected and put into running condition (or analyzed and catalogued for parts) before being put into reservists hands;

5) Here's a thought. Seriously review the staffing at various levels of headquarters and convert the funding for them to maintainers and warfighters. Just as an example, there are enough lawyers and support staff in the CF to man a small battalion of infantry (and if you convert their pay and benefits due to their higher rank levels to squadies--a whole battalion. As a further more detailed example, in total, the prosecution and defence arms of the legal branch are roughly established/manned at 2 Reg F Cols; 4 Reg F LCols; 21 Reg F Majs; 9 full-time civ assistants; 2 Res F LCols and 13 Res F Majs in order to annually handle some 62 courts martial, 9 appeals and various ancillary services). Ottawa is full of these types of examples. During the period 2004 to 2010 civilian personnel in the department grew by 33%, staff at headquarters above the brigade level by 46%, and within the National Capitol Region by 38%. We've become enamored with administering ourselves rather than creating a warfighting force that's a credible deterrent. Lack of equipment (whether new or old) for the Reserves is one giant part of this deficiency.

6) Why can we always find excuses as to why the Reserves are not capable of holding/maintaining equipment that they can use to augment/expand our defence capabilities (and thereby eliminating our deficiencies) rather than fixing the problem? Don't tell me its money. DND get billions and billions every year. It's how DND chooses to spend it that's the real issue.

Rant ends.

 :alone:


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

FJAG said:
			
		

> Just a few random thoughts:
> 
> 1) Reserve units put much less running time/year on their equipment which translates to less maintenance needs over the years and a longer service life;
> 
> 2) every Reserve Brigade has a service battalion with a maintenance company. Refocus recruiting and retention and Class B contracts to up organic maintenance support within the Bde. What teenage boy doesn't want to be a mechanic on an armored vehicle?;
> 
> 3) These classes of military vehicles do not need large or new housing barns to overwinter and generally do not need to be used in large numbers during the winter. Winterize and tarp most of them at the end of the summer training cycle for the next spring;
> 
> 4) Run a proper refurbishment program at the time of transfer so that serviceable vehicles are properly inspected and put into running condition (or analyzed and catalogued for parts) before being put into reservists hands;
> 
> 5) Here's a thought. Seriously review the staffing at various levels of headquarters and convert the funding for them to maintainers and warfighters. Just as an example, there are enough lawyers and support staff in the CF to man a small battalion of infantry (and if you convert their pay and benefits due to their higher rank levels to squadies--a whole battalion. As a further more detailed example, in total, the prosecution and defence arms of the legal branch are roughly established/manned at 2 Reg F Cols; 4 Reg F LCols; 21 Reg F Majs; 9 full-time civ assistants; 2 Res F LCols and 13 Res F Majs in order to annually handle some 62 courts martial, 9 appeals and various ancillary services). Ottawa is full of these types of examples. During the period 2004 to 2010 civilian personnel in the department grew by 33%, staff at headquarters above the brigade level by 46%, and within the National Capitol Region by 38%. We've become enamored with administering ourselves rather than creating a warfighting force that's a credible deterrent. Lack of equipment (whether new or old) for the Reserves is one giant part of this deficiency.
> 
> 6) Why can we always find excuses as to why the Reserves are not capable of holding/maintaining equipment that they can use to augment/expand our defence capabilities (and thereby eliminating our deficiencies) rather than fixing the problem? Don't tell me its money. DND get billions and billions every year. It's how DND chooses to spend it that's the real issue.
> 
> Rant ends.
> 
> :alone:



You have to be the first lawyer in the history of time FJAG that has advocated getting rid of some lawyers  ;D


----------



## Infanteer

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I believe the TCVs are meant to replace the M113 TLAVs being used in in Artillery and Engineer units to move sections around.



I should have clarified this by stating that the M113 allocation was based off Force 2013, which was the last significant Army Reorg.  The units are probably using different platforms, due to divestment, maintenance issues, and Army EMO rejigging the structure.



			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> What teenage boy doesn't want to be a mechanic on an armored vehicle?;



 :rofl:


----------



## Infanteer

FJAG said:
			
		

> 5) Here's a thought. Seriously review the staffing at various levels of headquarters and convert the funding for them to maintainers and warfighters. Just as an example, there are enough lawyers and support staff in the CF to man a small battalion of infantry (and if you convert their pay and benefits due to their higher rank levels to squadies--a whole battalion. As a further more detailed example, in total, the prosecution and defence arms of the legal branch are roughly established/manned at 2 Reg F Cols; 4 Reg F LCols; 21 Reg F Majs; 9 full-time civ assistants; 2 Res F LCols and 13 Res F Majs in order to annually handle some 62 courts martial, 9 appeals and various ancillary services). Ottawa is full of these types of examples. During the period 2004 to 2010 civilian personnel in the department grew by 33%, staff at headquarters above the brigade level by 46%, and within the National Capitol Region by 38%. We've become enamored with administering ourselves rather than creating a warfighting force that's a credible deterrent. Lack of equipment (whether new or old) for the Reserves is one giant part of this deficiency.



Oh, I'm with you.  But I have the challenge to the assertion that we need some sort of mechanized reserve.  We aren't Israel or Poland, where the reserves can be expected to fall into some depot and run out to fight with the equipment they train on.  If mobilization isn't a requirement, then we need to ask how our reserves are structured (but that's for another thread).



> 6) Why can we always find excuses as to why the Reserves are not capable of holding/maintaining equipment that they can use to augment/expand our defence capabilities (and thereby eliminating our deficiencies) rather than fixing the problem? Don't tell me its money. DND get billions and billions every year. It's how DND chooses to spend it that's the real issue.



I don't know, but google can give you a list of 3 and 4 star generals, DMs, and MNDs who could answer the question for you.


----------



## dapaterson

FJAG said:
			
		

> 1) Reserve units put much less running time/year on their equipment which translates to less maintenance needs over the years and a longer service life;



Yes, to an extent.  But unused vehicles rapidly become non-operational vehicles, which drives increased effort to maintain them.  It's not a linear relationship.  (Plus, less experienced operators tend to have more accidents, driving up the repairs required).



> 2) every Reserve Brigade has a service battalion with a maintenance company. Refocus recruiting and retention and Class B contracts to up organic maintenance support within the Bde. What teenage boy doesn't want to be a mechanic on an armored vehicle?;



Maint Coys were removed when the Res Svc Bns were restructured to have FSGs with Maint Pls.  Besides, it's a mistake to assume that Res Svc Bns are comparable to their Reg F counterparts in terms of manning or equipment - it would be like expecting the Canadian Scottish Regiment to force generate the same personnel and equipment as 1st Bn, PPCLI.

And class B growth is the problem, not the solution - it's a way to try to do full time on the cheap to avoid addressing the inherent institutional structural flaws of the CAF enterprise (Reg and Res) - which you speak to later on.



> 3) These classes of military vehicles do not need large or new housing barns to overwinter and generally do not need to be used in large numbers during the winter. Winterize and tarp most of them at the end of the summer training cycle for the next spring;



You might be surprised what protection is optimal, and what parts of the equipment are required to be properly protected - for technical or security reasons.



> 4) Run a proper refurbishment program at the time of transfer so that serviceable vehicles are properly inspected and put into running condition (or analyzed and catalogued for parts) before being put into reservists hands;



Given current elevated rates of VOR taxing current maintenance personnel, and that many requests for Res F augmentation are met with no fill becasue the Res F individuals already have viable full-time careers, who will do this work?  (Not arguing against the work, just wondering who will do it) 



> 5) Here's a thought. Seriously review the staffing at various levels of headquarters and convert the funding for them to maintainers and warfighters. Just as an example, there are enough lawyers and support staff in the CF to man a small battalion of infantry (and if you convert their pay and benefits due to their higher rank levels to squadies--a whole battalion. As a further more detailed example, in total, the prosecution and defence arms of the legal branch are roughly established/manned at 2 Reg F Cols; 4 Reg F LCols; 21 Reg F Majs; 9 full-time civ assistants; 2 Res F LCols and 13 Res F Majs in order to annually handle some 62 courts martial, 9 appeals and various ancillary services). Ottawa is full of these types of examples. During the period 2004 to 2010 civilian personnel in the department grew by 33%, staff at headquarters above the brigade level by 46%, and within the National Capitol Region by 38%. We've become enamored with administering ourselves rather than creating a warfighting force that's a credible deterrent. Lack of equipment (whether new or old) for the Reserves is one giant part of this deficiency.



"First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers"   But yes, regardless, we need a top to bottom rethink of how we are structured, who does what, what capabilities need to be full time, what can be part time, what facilities and equipment are needed to do so.  In my less imperfect world, we train on common fleets whether Reg or Res, and design our force to enable that, including full-time support (whether military or civilian) to enable it.



> 6) Why can we always find excuses as to why the Reserves are not capable of holding/maintaining equipment that they can use to augment/expand our defence capabilities (and thereby eliminating our deficiencies) rather than fixing the problem? Don't tell me its money. DND get billions and billions every year. It's how DND chooses to spend it that's the real issue.



Every opportunity the Army has had to fix the Reserves the folks made responsible decided nothing was broken, and wasted the opportunities, and sustained the status quo.

Pogo Possum clearly identified and articulated the problem.


----------



## Brad Sallows

If Pte (T) A and MCpl B (each of whom is either inf or armd) show up for a Roto, how long does it take to teach Pte A to drive and MCpl B to crew command (a turretless TCV)?


----------



## McG

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> So basically increasing our LAV fleet by a third, to almost 1000 LAVs CaF wide. I wonder what the varient breakdown is for all of them.


Look at the current variant break down for Bison and TLAV families. This will be just a little more than 1 for 1 replacements.



			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> Please tell me that we'll keep the surplus TLAVs and Bisons in some form of war stocks or assign them to the Reserve Force and not sell them for scrap and cut them up like we did the M109s.


These vehicles are old, worn, and tired. Nobody should be hoping we keep any of these to fill roles of lesser importance. If there is a need for more armoured vehicles, we should be asking why the ACSV buy is not for more platforms.



			
				Ludoc said:
			
		

> We just gave the armoured reservists TAPVs. I don't see this as much different.


We gave TAPV to PRes, but we did not buy it for them (in fact, the CLS who launched the project quite specifically said “I will never waste limited defence procurement dollars on buying an armoured vehicle for the reserves.”)  The requirements people were saddled with the task of linking too many incompatible roles on a single vehicle including reconnaissance, liaison, and cheap mechanized infantry. When the Army realized what it was doing, it was committed to the purchase and so it needed a place to hide the vehicle and save face. The PRes. So don’t confuse the TAPV at a PRes unit as any indicator as signs of an intent to equip the PRes for grander roles.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> I believe the TCVs are meant to replace the M113 TLAVs being used in in Artillery and Engineer units to move sections around.


The arty should be using the TCVs for their gun crews. The MTVE is a purpose build engineer section carrier and will be replaced by a purpose built engineer section carrier. If it is not more of the in-service LAV 6 based Engineer Section Carrier, it will likely be an upgrade of that vehicle. A simple APC would make a good fit for an Engr troop CP though. A TCV would also be a good fit for unit and brigade transport organizations that have to shuttle casualty replacements forward.


----------



## FJAG

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Oh, I'm with you.  But I have the challenge to the assertion that we need some sort of mechanized reserve.  We aren't Israel or Poland, where the reserves can be expected to fall into some depot and run out to fight with the equipment they train on.  If mobilization isn't a requirement, then we need to ask how our reserves are structured (but that's for another thread).



SSE states the following ay p. 50:



> ... Recent years have witnessed several challenges. Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea is an example that has carried grave consequences. Activities in the South China Sea highlight the need for all states in the region to peacefully manage and resolve disputes in accordance with international law, and avoid coercion and other actions that could escalate tension.
> 
> The re-emergence of major power competition has reminded Canada and its allies of the importance of deterrence. At its core, deterrence is about discouraging a potential adversary from doing something harmful before they do it. A credible military deterrent serves as a diplomatic tool to help prevent conflict and should be accompanied by dialogue. NATO Allies and other like-minded states have been re-examining how to deter a wide spectrum of challenges to the international order by maintaining advanced conventional military capabilities that could be used in the event of a conflict with a “near-peer.” ...



and from a Rand paper by David Ochmanek:



> The gold standard of deterrence and assurance is a defensive posture that confronts the adversary with the prospect of operational failure as the likely consequence of aggression



The SSE then goes on to assign a hodge podge of mission options that deploy nothing stronger than medium-weight LAV equipped battle groups. While technically we have the personnel and equipment to deploy three medium weight brigades and a divisional headquarters we have absolutely no capability or plan to deploy them en masse outside Canada.

Correct me if I'm wrong but if our estimate of the situation is that we will have several small scale low-level emergencies or conflicts to deal with on a day to day basis and a large scale conflict that we need to deter and possibly have to engage in in an extreme situation, then wouldn't the solution be to have full-time light to medium weight forces to deal with the day to day engagements and have a strong less expensive mechanized reserve force together with plans to develop and deploy it in the event of the unthinkable. As it is, we've ceded the possibility of ever engaging with our allies in a war against a heavy-weight enemy or of even deterring that enemy. 

IMHO we should never turn away from doing the necessary because we see it as difficult or even impossible. Break it into doable chunks and work at it. Retaining usable superseded  equipment "in reserve" is a start and a common practice with many countries in order to expand overall force capabilities. 

The only positive thing that I can say is that we're not the only military with our heads up our butts.

 :cheers:


----------



## Infanteer

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> If Pte (T) A and MCpl B (each of whom is either inf or armd) show up for a Roto, how long does it take to teach Pte A to drive and MCpl B to crew command (a turretless TCV)?



About 3 weeks individual training, and probably a few weeks collective training.


----------



## Good2Golf

FJAG said:
			
		

> ...Correct me if I'm wrong but if our estimate of the situation is that we will have several small scale low-level emergencies or conflicts to deal with on a day to day basis and a large scale conflict that we need to deter and possibly have to engage in in an extreme situation, then wouldn't the solution be...



Whew, I’m glad to see that you used a lower-case ‘e’ for estimate.   I’m pretty certain not many people were conducting an *E*stimate for SSE...


----------



## dapaterson

Infanteer said:
			
		

> About 3 weeks individual training, and probably a few weeks collective training.



Individual training provides individual skillsets at a basic level.  The experiential pillar of development often gets ignored - individual training provides the basics; collective training provides experience.

Think of it as going to see a doctor: for complex surgery, do you want someone who's just graduated and never done it before, or someone with experience who has done the procedure hundreds of times before?


----------



## Brad Sallows

>About 3 weeks individual training, and probably a few weeks collective training.

Like so many other skill sets, then, if Res F crew can be spun up during pre-deployment trg I find it hard to see a case for modern AFVs in our Res F given current funding and staffing.  We are well past steel boxes on wheels with simple weapons.


----------



## Kirkhill

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >About 3 weeks individual training, and probably a few weeks collective training.
> 
> We are well past steel boxes on wheels with simple weapons.



Are we, though?  I kind of think you can never have too many simple logistics vehicles.  Especially after people start beating up the ground between your dock/airhead/railhead/highway and your operating area.

Please send more trucks, with or without armour and weapons- preferably amphibious.


----------



## quadrapiper

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> ...a case for modern AFVs in our Res F given current funding and staffing.


As a convenient place to stash a fleet of active (versus drained, mothballed, and preserved) AFVs as an equipment reserve in case of need, while incidentally ensuring that reservists are trained on The Platform versus A Platform?


----------



## FJAG

Okay, I'm just going to do one more post and then bow out of the discussion.

The US Army National Guard has 5 armored brigade combat teams, 1 Stryker (LAV3) BCTs, 19 Infantry BCTs, 8 combat aviation brigades, 2 Special Forces Groups and, together with the Army Reserve, approximately 137 support brigades including artillery (cannon and rocket), AD, engineer, manoeuvre enhancement, military police, intelligence, signals, CBRN, and a whole hockey sock of divisional and theatre command resources. All of them are equipped even though some may not have the latest and best equipment but does include a whole lot of these which are all pictures of NG units:





















Please stop telling me it can't be done, that we don't have the money and that reservists aren't capable of handling mechanized units. We've told ourselves that we are useless for so long that we've become useless.

We just need to find the will and then make the way. We need to radically change the structure of our reserve force terms of service and composition. And incidentally, cull our headquarters' herds and their ever bigger rice bowls.

 :cheers:


----------



## Infanteer

FJAG said:
			
		

> We just need to find the will and then make the way. We need to radically change the structure of our reserve force terms of service and composition. And incidentally, cull our headquarters' herds and their ever bigger rice bowls.



You've just answered your own question.  This is what needs to be done to make the Reserves more relevant, not giving them a bunch of M113s that we procured in 1964.


----------



## Underway

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >About 3 weeks individual training, and probably a few weeks collective training.
> 
> Like so many other skill sets, then, if Res F crew can be spun up during pre-deployment trg I find it hard to see a case for modern AFVs in our Res F given current funding and staffing.  We are well past steel boxes on wheels with simple weapons.



The difference between a PRes Cpl and Reg F Cpl after a 6 month pre-deployment is negligible.  Similarly for the Lt's.  It's the MCpl/Capt and above where the experience really differentiates even after a pre-deployment.  The right coursing could reduce that time significantly.



			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> US National Guard stuff....



US National guard get approx. the same amount of training as the PRes do initially (though they don't have the BS weekend BMQ option).  However to retain their pension and health benefits they must do their 2 week (consecutive) mandatory training, miss that, lose pension.  Plenty of PRes soldiers never do more than parade the bare minimum to stay off of NES status.  Weekend exercises just don't cut it for experience the same way.


----------



## MilEME09

Underway said:
			
		

> US National guard get approx. the same amount of training as the PRes do initially (though they don't have the BS weekend BMQ option).  However to retain their pension and health benefits they must do their 2 week (consecutive) mandatory training, miss that, lose pension.  Plenty of PRes soldiers never do more than parade the bare minimum to stay off of NES status.  Weekend exercises just don't cut it for experience the same way.



This is a symptom of the bigger problem,  would you show up if you had the option not to if you came in to get no real training value. 

The number 1 thing being preached the the ARes right now is augmentation is prio 1. If the reg force wants that as our prio 1, then start acting like it. Stop this bull shit that we are less capable, less experienced, less trusted to do the job, and start training us to be able to augment you all properly. That means we all train on the same kit. Do we use it all the time? Maybe not but if you have a group of reservists come for work up training, the smaller that training delta is the better.


----------



## ballz

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> The number 1 thing being preached the the ARes right now is augmentation is prio 1. If the reg force wants that as our prio 1, then start acting like it. Stop this bull crap that we are less capable, less experienced, less trusted to do the job, and start training us to be able to augment you all properly. That means we all train on the same kit. Do we use it all the time? Maybe not but if you have a group of reservists come for work up training, the smaller that training delta is the better.



I had a post written up about this earlier but this thread has gone a bit off the rails. But since you're going down a similar road as I was going down...

I would have *zero* issues with having the PRes augment the Reg Force day-to-day (i.e. not just for tours) and then we can provide them all of this training and integrate them into the grind that one must endure to keep a LAV fleet maintained and LAV crews trained. 

But this idea that the reserves, with zero resources, can take on a LAV fleet and do it all internally is just silly. The reserves simply don't have the resources to do this internally. The *people* may be as capable but the Units as a whole simply aren't. That's why they augment the Reg Force with troops, not with with Battle Groups. It's also not "augmenting" the Reg Force at all. If anything it will end up sucking more out of the Reg Force as the PRes just won't have the resources required to do it, and they'll need Reg Force assets.

FTSE is a perfect example where we should be giving troops Class B contracts to go join a Reg Force unit. All the infrastructure is in place to employ them, provide good training, have them take part in good training, and lord knows when I was trying to "train" my platoon with 7 troops in the summer time because they are all tasked to frig, I could have used some augmentation. If a mechanized Battalion was full of reserve augmentees in the summer it would be a lot better way to keep the PRes folks engaged in mechanized infantry stuff than sending the PRes units a bunch of LAVs they can't maintain, can't store, and can't operate, and saying "hey, figure this out yourself."

But instead during FTSE the PRes Units are expected to be like a Reg Force Unit for the summer.... and I've seen the plans on how they intended to keep the now idle troops occupied, like running back-to-back-to-back first aid courses.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

If they are meant to replace the Bison, wouldn't the last variant be the NBC recce vehicle?

I am sure that the department wouldn't want people to consider that we still take "nuclear" into consideration: Way too warlike.


----------



## PuckChaser

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Without getting into OPSEC type stuff, which I realize may prevent an answer on this particular subject, but curious...what capabilities are we generally lacking in in regards to the terrible EW suite?  Ive heard from multiple sources that the EW capabilities are very much lacking, and like you said, the ones we have aren't the most reliable....just curious if there was anything anybody could say without violating OPSEC type stuff about what capabilities they would like to see and/or are doable in the near future for us?



In a nutshell, it doesn't reliably (sometimes at all) deliver what's promised. Its 1980s doctrine built on 1990s technology for a static peacekeeping mission in Bosnia. Very limited use of Software Defined Radios, which is critical to a modern EW vehicle. It's using the same contractors who have failed to provide working solutions for over 15 years without them being fired, and when fixes do come its usually in the form of a bigger and more cumbersome antenna system that still won't deliver the fidelity and systems reliability that is demanded of the limited amount of vehicles we have. There's also a big bunfight (or there was when I left the unit) between where TacEW ends and SIGINT begins, again limiting operational effectiveness. Successes in Afghanistan were built solely on the hard work of the crews to push through terrible kit to get proper Indications&Warnings and Threat Warnings out in a timely manner to actually save lives. 

Unfortunately you're right, the actual scope of the waste in that project would make yours and the CBC's head spin, but the details are at the SECRET level. We're so much further behind every other FVEY nation in TacEW its laughable.


----------



## MilEME09

https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/tender-notice/PW-20-00907488


Any one know if this is the planned surveillance suite for the LAV 6?


----------



## Retired AF Guy

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/tender-notice/PW-20-00907488
> 
> 
> Any one know if this is the planned surveillance suite for the LAV 6?



From the attached document: 



> 1.5. Project Scope 1.5.1.    The scope of the ISR Mod project covers the hardware, software, and specialty equipment necessary to implement and train use of a digitized Land ISR system and modern sensors. The ISR Mod project scope will include the following system components:
> 
> a)    Land ISR digitized C2 System that interfaces with the Land C2 and Battle Management System to integrate sensor information. It also needs to distribute information and intelligence to support manoeuvre forces, targeting and Joint Fires. The digitized system must ensure a sensor-to-effector linkage and will incorporate Allied standards for information, communications;
> 
> b)    Applications to streamline ISR information, aid in the tactical use of ISR data and the necessary gateways to migrate the information into the Land Battle Management System, Joint Fires and other applicable systems;
> 
> c)     ISR applications to reduce cognitive load, improve awareness and facilitate information sharing;
> 
> d)    ISR applications or software to improve sensor efficiency, cross-queuing and maximize sensor performance of both in-service and future systems;
> 
> e)    Modernization and integration of the existing CAF sensors, both hardware and software, into a unified ISR network;
> 
> f)    Acquisition of new sensors that address sensor gaps or obsolescence issues with the existing CAF sensor;
> 
> g)    Integration of the existing and new sensors into the Army armoured fighting vehicle fleet;
> 
> h)    New UAS platforms to carry sensors that cannot be integrated into existing Army UAS;
> 
> i)     Ability to carry sensor payloads on specialized armoured vehicles or networking infrastructure that cannot currently be integrated into existing Army armoured vehicles;
> 
> j)     Specialized communication systems to supplement existing and future communication systems to facilitate information flow;
> 
> k)    Distributed and networked Training Simulation System; and
> 
> l)    Initial provisioning of two (2) years spare parts and the establishment of In-Service Support Contracts: repair & overhaul, software upgrades, technical investigations and sparing.



Link


----------



## Cloud Cover

With respect to (i), is that subsection contemplating a new ISR Mod vehicle?


----------



## GR66

Here's a question that kind of ties together a couple of threads and goes back to page 1 of this thread about the LAV 6.0.

How many dismounts would a LAV 6.0 fit if the turret was replaced with a RWS (or simply removed to create an armoured battle taxi)?

Could you fit 9 dismounts with full battle gear?

Leaving aside what type of RWS you might have (Cannon, MG & Grenade Launcher, MG & Javelin, etc.), if you make the doctrinal decision that infantry are to fight dismounted and that the primary role of the APC is to provide mobility and protection bringing the infantry to the fight and any fire support it brings is a bonus, then perhaps you could:

Re-organize the infantry section to be 9 troops like the Australians trialed in their "Virtual Infantry Section Experiment" outlined on Page #29 in Michael O'Leary's Regimental Rogue article linked on the first page of this thread (http://regimentalrogue.com/blog/caj_vol13.3_06_e.pdf).

Quoting from the article:
"The nine-personnel section was in three elements (command, assault and support) of three
personnel each. The assault and support groups were identically equipped, each having a light
machine-gun and an M203 grenade launcher. The command group consists of the section
commander and two scouts"

"The nine-personnel section was determined to produce better overall results in the study’s analysis.
While this is probably based primarily on the fact that it was the familiar section organization for the
participating soldiers, there is another factor to be considered. The nine-personnel section allows the
commander the flexibility to remain outside the assault groups’ fighting process while directing them.
The commander also has the two section scouts as his own reserve, to be used to deal with new threats
or to reinforce the assault groups as dictated by the tactical situation.24 This allows the commander to
balance his attention between the immediate fight and command responsibilities, thus improving the
commander’s situational awareness and flexibility to react to the evolving situation. This section structure
gives the commander a significant advantage over the eight-personnel section structure, which places
the commander in the immediate fight as an assault group commander, while having to also command
the entire section and to monitor the actions and demands of the parent platoon."

To my mind this organization provides quite a bit of flexibility and resilience over our current LAV section organization.  The two "scouts" in the command element could be used to reinforce the assault/support elements to make them 4-troops each if required.  It would also allow for greater resilience in dealing with casualties.  Two casualties could be replaced with the "scouts" from the command element and still maintain your full 3-troop assault/support elements.  A 3rd casualty could be replaced by putting the section commander directly into either the assault/support element to keep them viable.  It wouldn't be until the 4th casualty that the section would have to reorganize into a single 4-troop assault group with the section commander being separate.  A 5th casualty would still leave you with a 4-troop assault group.

If I understand correctly with the current LAV section with 7 x dismounts, a single casualty puts you down to two 3-troop assault/support elements and a 2nd casualty would force you to re-organize to a single assault group (with the section commander separate).  

Both of these scenarios of course assume that the vehicle crews remain with the vehicles to provide mobility when required and fire support from their weapons when possible.

Another advantage of this would be that you could use this Section structure across the CF with LAV sections, Light Infantry sections and Reserve Infantry sections all using the same 9-troop sections.  Would this simplify training and make it easier for formed Reserve sub-units to be inserted into the Regular force structure as reinforcements?


----------



## Infanteer

I had an RWS-equipped LAV 3 and it easily fit 9 personnel in it.


----------



## blacktriangle

Infanteer beat me to it, but during the Afghan years, there were LAV-III RWS. No idea what became of them.


----------



## FJAG

GR66 said:
			
		

> Here's a question that kind of ties together a couple of threads and goes back to page 1 of this thread about the LAV 6.0.
> 
> How many dismounts would a LAV 6.0 fit if the turret was replaced with a RWS (or simply removed to create an armoured battle taxi)?
> 
> Could you fit 9 dismounts with full battle gear?
> ...



The US infantry squad consists of nine men; a squad leader and two fire teams of four (a team ldr, a grenadier, an LMG and a rifleman)

The concept of a Stryker brigade is to fight dismounted and the Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicle (ICV - M1126 - essentially a LAV 3 type body) is designed to provide rapid mobility but is NOT used as an infantry "fighting" vehicle. It carries a RWS that can mount either a .50; Mk 19 grenade launcher of 7.62mm M240; has a crew of two and carries a full nine man squad as dismounts. The platoon has four vehicles: one for each squad and one for the platoon commdr's team and the platoon's weapon det.

There have been a number of articles written in the US that the Stryker does not do well when one tries to use it with armour in an assault as 1) it does not have the mobility to accompany tanks over rough terrain; and 2) it's armour protection is very weak (The light in LAV means "lightly armoured")

Notwithstanding this, there has been a movement within the US Army to "upgun" the Stryker with a 30mm turret (and maybe a javelin missile launcher). The original intent is for these prototype vehicles (called the ICV Dragoon) is to replace many of the Stryker 105mm Mobile Gun Systems direct fire support vehicle (of which every infantry company in an SBCT had a three-MGS platoon) and which were found to be a piece of crap. The MGS's have been withdrawn from the battalions and some have been placed into the SBCT's cavalry squadron.

The ICV Dragoons are probably also destined to increase the capability of the SBCT's Cavalry Squadron and not for use within the Stryker infantry battalions but that is still up in the air as the evaluation process is still ongoing.

You should also note that a Stryker battalion, unlike the IBCT's infantry battalions do not have a weapons company. There is, however, an anti-tank company in the brigade which has 9 x TOW equipped Strykers. In addition each of the brigade's 27 rifle squads has a dismounted Javelin missile launcher withe their vehicle with 2 or 3 reloads. Trials are underway to create an ability to fir the Javelin from within the vehicles.

 :cheers:


----------



## McG

reverse_engineer said:
			
		

> Infanteer beat me to it, but during the Afghan years, there were LAV-III RWS. No idea what became of them.


They all seemed to end-up at 2 CER awaiting their turn to go into the LAV-up project and be "upgraded" to one of the LAV 6 variants that were coming off that line.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

4 has or had them too.. iirc...


----------



## GR66

Thanks for the info.  My understanding of the LAV 6.0 is that it has different seating than the LAV III as part of the mine protection upgrades.  I guess since I'm assuming that we're contractually wedded to the LAV 6.0 for the foreseeable future I was wondering about it's capacity specifically.  

How many of the APC versions of LAV 6.0 with the 25mm turret have been ordered and how many of those have been delivered to date?  Is there enough left to be produced that production could be switched to a non-turreted version?  I'm assuming (again) that re-building a turreted LAV 6.0 into a non-turreted LAV 6.0 would be too expensive to do (both economically and politically).  

I guess if finding a realistic vehicle option that would allow for 9 dismounts (i.e. the LAV 6.0 for the next 20 years) then discussion of a 9-person squad is hypothetical for our mechanized Battalions anyway.


----------



## MilEME09

Exact numbers are protected by operational security, however you should take note the last contract given to GDLS was for variants other then the infantry carrier.


----------



## Infanteer

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Exact numbers are protected by operational security, however you should take note the last contract given to GDLS was for variants other then the infantry carrier.



You sure about that, because PWGSC publishes this stuff.

https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/vbsc-acsv-eng.html

...and the previous buy of an upgrade of 550 was well publicized as well.

https://vanguardcanada.com/2014/01/29/lav-6-0-protected-mobile-lethal/


----------



## CBH99

550 LAV 6.0's...

Plus an additional 360 LAV 6.0 based vehicles to replace the Bisons and M113s, consolidating the fleet with a common vehicle base.


For a total of 860 vehicles.


Plus 500 TAPV.



Seems like the Army is actually doing alright on the armoured vehicle side of things


----------



## MilEME09

All those variants and yet no LAV based recovery vehicle.


----------



## dapaterson

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> All those variants and yet no LAV based recovery vehicle.


Part of the 360.


----------



## MilEME09

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Part of the 360.



Finally a LAV MRV? About time, we have been asking for it, for years, after all if a LAV needed recovering you needed an ARV because of the lack of a LAV based platform.


----------



## FJAG

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> All those variants and yet no LAV based recovery vehicle.



In the US Stryker Brigade Combat Team, the M984 Heavy Expanded Wrecker is the standard recovery vehicle.



> The M984 wrecker is the only HEMTT variant to have been produced in the A1 configuration, and this resulting in the change of recovery crane and retrieval system between A0 and A1 configurations. The current model is the M984A4. Standard equipment includes a 27,240 kg (60,050 lb) capacity two-speed recovery winch, a rear-mounted 11,340 kg capacity vehicle retrieval system, and a 6,350 kg (14,000 lb) at 2.74 m (9.0 ft) capacity Grove materials handling crane. A 9,072 kg (20,000 lb) bare drum capacity self-recovery winch is fitted as standard on the M984.



There are 3 x M984 in each of the Brigade Support Battalion's Forward Support Companies that are attached to each Stryker infantry battalion, Cavalry Squadron, Engineer Battalion and Fires Battalion  plus another 4 in the BSB's Field Maintenance Company (for a total of 22 in the brigade.)







The BSB Distribution company also has 6 x M916 Light Equipment Transporter with an M172 flat bed trailer that has a 25 ton capacity which can (if required) transport one of the current Stryker variants.






This is the only image of the LAV 6.0 MRV I've found:






https://www.gdlscanada.com/products/LAV/LAV-6.0.html

 :cheers:


----------



## MilEME09

FJAG said:
			
		

> In the US Stryker Brigade Combat Team, the M984 Heavy Expanded Wrecker is the standard recovery vehicle.
> 
> There are 3 x M984 in each of the Brigade Support Battalion's Forward Support Companies that are attached to each Stryker infantry battalion, Cavalry Squadron, Engineer Battalion and Fires Battalion  plus another 4 in the BSB's Field Maintenance Company (for a total of 22 in the brigade.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The BSB Distribution company also has 6 x M916 Light Equipment Transporter with an M172 flat bed trailer that has a 25 ton capacity which can (if required) transport one of the current Stryker variants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :cheers:



As I recall, the HEMTT was a rival to Mack for the MSVS smp, which they offered a recovery version which they even redesigned the crane for to allow it to do leo 2 turret pulls.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Which we declined. Is there any other country that shoots itself in the balls more than Canada?


----------



## MilEME09

https://militaryleak.com/2018/09/23/cmi-defence-cockerill-3030/

Well if we ever want to up gun the LAV, GDLS Europe has created a modular turret that has many different weapon configuration, including 25mm, 50mm and 105mm. Above is a video of the turret being tested on a LAV chassis.


----------



## Spencer100

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> https://militaryleak.com/2018/09/23/cmi-defence-cockerill-3030/
> 
> Well if we ever want to up gun the LAV, GDLS Europe has created a modular turret that has many different weapon configuration, including 25mm, 50mm and 105mm. Above is a video of the turret being tested on a LAV chassis.



Is the Cockerill turret not the one the Saudi's picked to put on some of theirs?


----------



## Ostrozac

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Is the Cockerill turret not the one the Saudi's picked to put on some of theirs?



That's right. The Saudis have purchased some LAV variants with the 105mm Cockerill CT-CV turret. It's a two man turret with an autoloader.


----------



## suffolkowner

article in the canadian army today about the Bison replacement

https://canadianarmytoday.com/the-agile-eight-leveraging-the-lav-6-0-for-armoured-combat-support/


----------



## MilEME09

Now this will never happen but could they offload the Bison or m113 fam to the PRes? Make a couple reserve units mechanized. Heavier recovery would be helpful to deal with larger vehicles to recover.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

480 vehicles going away, replaced by 380, the magical shrinking army  :


----------



## daftandbarmy

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Now this will never happen but could they offload the Bison or m113 fam to the PRes? Make a couple reserve units mechanized. Heavier recovery would be helpful to deal with larger vehicles to recover.



My unit was one of the Infantry Reserve units that had the Grizzlies. We had a platoon of four.

Maybe one was operational at any point in time, and we were full reliant on the good humour of the local base shop to fix everything, which was quite alot. 

Waste of time for those that don't have much of it, especially infantry, IMHO.


----------



## dapaterson

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Now this will never happen but could they offload the Bison or m113 fam to the PRes? Make a couple reserve units mechanized. Heavier recovery would be helpful to deal with larger vehicles to recover.



For the love of god, no.

Old broken vehicles without spares provide zero capability.  The CAF can't afford old, broken down, fractional fleets.

Moving to a common LAV platform for the majority is actually a good news story from the perspective of service support; keeping old, clapped out equipment would not be.


----------



## MilEME09

dapaterson said:
			
		

> For the love of god, no.
> 
> Old broken vehicles without spares provide zero capability.  The CAF can't afford old, broken down, fractional fleets.
> 
> Moving to a common LAV platform for the majority is actually a good news story from the perspective of service support; keeping old, clapped out equipment would not be.



How about sole source another 500 LAV's in the name of economic recovery


----------



## Ostrozac

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Now this will never happen but could they offload the Bison or m113 fam to the PRes? Make a couple reserve units mechanized. Heavier recovery would be helpful to deal with larger vehicles to recover.



My M113 in 2RCR was older than me. 10 years older than me. And I drove that thing back in the 90's. The old tracks are tired, give them a rest. And I also recall that our Bison/LAV-2 fleet was also pretty much driven into the ground, if my old Mortar Bison was any indication.


----------



## CBH99

Colin P said:
			
		

> 480 vehicles going away, replaced by 380, the magical shrinking army  :




Not sure, just throwing this out there.  Perhaps the TAPV numbers are somehow included in the calculation?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

That may be it, 500 TAPV, not exactly a like for like, but aren't they also replacing the armoured G-wagon?


----------



## CBH99

No.  The TAPV was purchased as a replacement for the Coyote (LAV 2) recce vehicle (with it's advanced recce & surveillance kit) and the RG-31, which was a MRAP type we purchased urgently for use in Afghanistan.


The G-Wagon and Milcot replacement is a separate project altogether.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

So 75 RG-31 and 203 Coyotes being replaced? For once there might actually a vehicle neutral replacement? colour me surprised!


----------



## CBH99

Between the 550 LAV 6.0, then the additional 360 LAV 6.0 based support vehicles...And the 500 TAPV...

I'm just as shocked as you are lol    


The surprise announcement of the 360 additional LAV 6.0 based support vehicles a few years ahead of what "Strong, Secure, Engaged" called for really surprised me.  One of the only pleasant surprises I can recall when it comes to CF procurement


----------



## OldSolduer

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Now this will never happen but could they offload the Bison or m113 fam to the PRes? Make a couple reserve units mechanized. Heavier recovery would be helpful to deal with larger vehicles to recover.



Not a good idea. The PRes have a difficult time training now and this would only compound it.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Not a good idea. The PRes have a difficult time training now and this would only compound it.



OTOH, we could use them as decorations in front of the hundreds of armouries we have stationed across the country (you know, so that we can speedily mobilize local populations for WW1  ).


----------



## MilEME09

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Not a good idea. The PRes have a difficult time training now and this would only compound it.



I shall freely admit being wrong, if they are run into the ground, it isn't worth the effort. Buying more LAV's though, placing them in training centers like Wainwright, and gagetown for training, coupled with putting simulators in reserve armouries would allow for a closing the the reserve training delta. Keeps the economy of London happy too.


----------



## dapaterson

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I shall freely admit being wrong, if they are run into the ground, it isn't worth the effort. Buying more LAV's though, placing them in training centers like Wainwright, and gagetown for training, coupled with putting simulators in reserve armouries would allow for a closing the the reserve training delta. Keeps the economy of London happy too.



Pooled training resources, and units in proximity to those training pools tasked with those skills (and getting sims) is to my mind a valid CoA.

But not all units would get "the toys" which would cause internal friction, and the Army's traditional approach has been to try to placate everyone rather than make rational equipment distribution decisions.  (That's common to both Reg F and Res F; the thankfully cancelled CCV had among the most egregious examples of that).


----------



## MilEME09

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Pooled training resources, and units in proximity to those training pools tasked with those skills (and getting sims) is to my mind a valid CoA.
> 
> But not all units would get "the toys" which would cause internal friction, and the Army's traditional approach has been to try to placate everyone rather than make rational equipment distribution decisions.  (That's common to both Reg F and Res F; the thankfully cancelled CCV had among the most egregious examples of that).



I agee, I would only task the closest units to training centers. Example for Wainwright I would pick the Loyal Edmonton Regiment, their proximity to both 1 VP and Wainwright makes them an ideal choice for a reserve infantry unit to become mechanized.


----------



## daftandbarmy

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I agee, I would only task the closest units to training centers. Example for Wainwright I would pick the Loyal Edmonton Regiment, their proximity to both 1 VP and Wainwright makes them an ideal choice for a reserve infantry unit to become mechanized.



Except they'd suffer from all the same exotic maintenance issues, with little recourse to quick assistance.

My guess is that everything 'militia' must be 'light'. 

Infantry walks, artillery is towed (well, not much choice there), armoured is 'recce', and we have some good, solid and reliable SMP vehicles to shuttle everything around for us.

In the reserves, if it can be fixed by the local GM dealership we've got the wrong vehicles.


----------



## MJP

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Pooled training resources, and units in proximity to those training pools tasked with those skills (and getting sims) is to my mind a valid CoA.





			
				MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I shall freely admit being wrong, if they are run into the ground, it isn't worth the effort. Buying more LAV's though, placing them in training centers like Wainwright, and gagetown for training, coupled with putting simulators in reserve armouries would allow for a closing the the reserve training delta. Keeps the economy of London happy too.



Pooled fleets need dedicated leadership, PYs, infra and other support resources.  Without it you just do a smaller version of the giant LAV fleet CMTC had when it first stood up that required 2 TAVs a year pulling from across the CA to maintain them. Which even then in the end couldn't keep up with the needs of the fleet.

If we we went down that road it would have to be very carefully implemented or else you just ending up with rusting carcasses.


----------



## FJAG

For me the issue has always been one of: what problem are we trying to solve?

I sometimes think that our whole defence plan is premised on the question: how can we keep our current regular force the size that it is and what limited level of "toys" do they need to have in order to have some capabilities.

We did Afghanistan and as a result we now have a vehicle which would do about as well there as any, the LAV6.0. Luckily it also has a useful purpose in North Europe because of the terrain there (albeit I'm always happier with tracked IFVs when accompanying tanks). That also saved our armour capability but because of the permissive air, completely gutted our artillery and air defence.

We aren't really prepared for North Europe (otherwise we'd have air defence, long strike artillery, a standardized tank--rather than three versions--and a robust sustainment capability instead of the cobbled-together ad-hocery that we go through for every mission. Luckily we did have some TOWs in storage this time instead of having sold them off to someone else). Its a minor diversion to keep us in the NATO face-saving game but our army isn't structured or equipped to fight seriously there.

Let me finish this piece of bile by adding two points:

1. I hate to throw anything with some life in it out. Stuff should go into preservation storage because when you need something, you'll need it quickly and may not find it on your local arms merchant shelf ready to use. M109s, and the whole fleet of tracked vehicles and old Coyotes and Bisons - store them. There are lots of old factories around Southern Ontario to keep them warehoused or send them out to the US Army's Sierra Storage facilities in California - that would cost us nothing except a train trip; and

2. Unless and until we seriously ramp up the manpower and workshop capacity of our maintenance arm, we might as well forget about having a "mechanized army" (and really, what war time use is there for the pure ground pounders and towed guns anymore except in very specialized and minimal roles). We need to breath a lot more life into the RCEME. If there's one branch that needs more full-timers and equipment (and a reliable spare parts supply system) it's them. 

 :2c:


----------



## quadrapiper

FJAG said:
			
		

> I hate to throw anything with some life in it out.


Is there anything currently in the fleet (and on its way out) that would serve better by being concentrated somewhere and driven into pieces, rather than tidily lifecycled out?


----------



## MilEME09

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> Is there anything currently in the fleet (and on its way out) that would serve better by being concentrated somewhere and driven into pieces, rather than tidily lifecycled out?



Project to replace MILCOT and G-wagon is well underway, so there's two fleets there.


----------



## FJAG

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> Is there anything currently in the fleet (and on its way out) that would serve better by being concentrated somewhere and driven into pieces, rather than tidily lifecycled out?



I haven't been on a base for a while nor looked at the condition of these vehicles so I'm partially talking out of my hat but there are some vehicles which could offer a decent service still in a training role for reservists who, quite frankly have sweet FA as it stands right now. If things like older M113s, Bisons and even M109s (if there are still some in storage) were put at centralized training centres where their use would be limited to some summer training exercises and the odd course or two then some of our reservists would gain some experience in working in a mechanized environment and one would have the entire winter period to bring up their maintenance standards. 

The question isn't so much as to whether we could get more life out of them (other armies are still getting valuable use out of much older equipment than this) but whether the senior leadership thinks that there's enough value coming out of the training to justify the ongoing maintenance costs involved.

Quite frankly, I'm a great pessimist in that I've watched year-after-year of divestment of equipment which still had a residual value for training and even operational use notwithstanding its maintenance costs while new directorate after new directorate is formed in Ottawa to take care of piddling administrative issues. The problem is that the those "necessary" directorates are an immediate and necessary problem for the folks that walk the halls up there while the training of reserves or having some spare emergency equipment around is an easily rationalized away expense.

I must admit the LAV6.0 is growing on me. I've always been a track fan ever since my M113 churned past an entire company/squadron group of AVGP Grizzlies and Cougars which were stuck hull deep in a field in Gagetown. I'm still not so sure that can keep up with Leopards. I've been in Marders which did easily. But I do like it's ability for rapid redeployment when even a marginal road system exists and it's armor and weaponry is pretty much up there with everything but the most high end IFVs. We do need more of them in all variations (and especially AD, mortar and anti-armour versions)

 :cheers:


----------



## Good2Golf

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> In the reserves, if it can be fixed by the local GM dealership we've got the wrong vehicles.



Unless, of course, it’s the Infantry Squad Vehicle...

:nod:


----------



## MilEME09

If any of you have DWAN access, I recommend going to the Army Electronic Library, and read some of the papers released this past January on the future out look of the CAF, in the capabilities area the shift appears to be in using the LAV 6 as the main vehicle family for as much as possible. Which most of us have stated and agreed upon here as one of the best moves the CAF can make given limitations of our resources. 

That said to make it a reality I think we would need a LAV 6 based SPG, SPAAG, Armoured Logistics Vehicle (if we insist on towed arty we need a armoured gun tractor), mortor carrier, TUA, Route clearance vehicle.


----------



## daftandbarmy

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> If any of you have DWAN access, I recommend going to the Army Electronic Library, and read some of the papers released this past January on the future out look of the CAF, in the capabilities area the shift appears to be in using the LAV 6 as the main vehicle family for as much as possible. Which most of us have stated and agreed upon here as one of the best moves the CAF can make given limitations of our resources.
> 
> That said to make it a reality I think we would need a LAV 6 based SPG, SPAAG, Armoured Logistics Vehicle (if we insist on towed arty we need a armoured gun tractor), mortor carrier, TUA, Route clearance vehicle.



Probably not a bad idea as about 99% of the conflicts we're likely to be involved in don't/won't require the 'Panzer Grenadier' treatment.


----------



## FJAG

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Probably not a bad idea as about 99% of the conflicts we're likely to be involved in don't/won't require the 'Panzer Grenadier' treatment.



I disagree on the "panzergrenadier" issue as we've plunked ourselves into Latvia and tied ourselves to it. 

If you look at the other national companies in the eFP Latvia battalion you'll find: Spaniards with 6 Leopard 2Es and 15 Pizzaro IFVs; Italians with C1 Ariete tanks and both Freccia and Dardo IFVs; Poland with a company of PT-91 Twardys; and Slovakia with a company of BMP 2s. Latvia has just acquired two battalions of M109A5Os (previous owner, Austria). While a mixed bag and subject to change on rotations, that's as much of a panzer reinforced panzergrenadier battalion as you'll find in the Bundeswehr.

The question is really as to whether or not the LAV6.0 is up to an IFV status. I've read articles coming out of the US National Training Centre where there was much criticism of pairing Strykers with Tanks. That's based on a) Strykers don't have the mobility to accompany the M1; b) Strykers are too lightly armoured (but LAV6.0s have more armour protection which is similar to some tracked IFVs); and c) Strykers are too lightly armed for the role (Stryker section carriers have only a .50 remote weapon system while the LAV6.0s 25mm is a pretty fair anti-APC weapon)

So we're really only talking mobility (as well as the glaring deficiency in sufficient anti-armour capability in our overall current establishments). Most of Latvia strikes me as terrain that wheeled apcs can handle (albeit not at speed accompanying tanks (been there and done that on the relatively smooth Shilo prairie and believe me when I say that the speeds that a Leo and a Marder can attain cross country leaves everyone else in the dust - not to mention tracked and armoured howitzers)

I'm a strong believer in that we need three separate capabilities (read three asymmetrical brigades): one heavy armour and IFV(and I don't rule the LAV6.0 out of this role) specifically for Europe (read Baltics); a light rapid reaction brigade for immediate deployment to elsewhere in the world and a medium LAV6.0 brigade for follow on forces to the rapid deployment for other missions elsewhere. This  concept of the all singing and dancing agile symmetric brigades we have now makes little sense to me other than for stroking the egos of the three Reg F infantry regiments to make sure no one is any better off than the other.

The light and medium brigades may do the majority of our "shooting situation" deployments, but on that 1% day in Latvia, we want the right gear and the right people there.

 :cheers:


----------



## daftandbarmy

FJAG said:
			
		

> I disagree on the "panzergrenadier" issue as we've plunked ourselves into Latvia and tied ourselves to it.
> 
> If you look at the other national companies in the eFP Latvia battalion you'll find: Spaniards with 6 Leopard 2Es and 15 Pizzaro IFVs; Italians with C1 Ariete tanks and both Freccia and Dardo IFVs; Poland with a company of PT-91 Twardys; and Slovakia with a company of BMP 2s. Latvia has just acquired two battalions of M109A5Os (previous owner, Austria). While a mixed bag and subject to change on rotations, that's as much of a panzer reinforced panzergrenadier battalion as you'll find in the Bundeswehr.
> 
> The question is really as to whether or not the LAV6.0 is up to an IFV status. I've read articles coming out of the US National Training Centre where there was much criticism of pairing Strykers with Tanks. That's based on a) Strykers don't have the mobility to accompany the M1; Strykers are too lightly armoured (but LAV6.0s have more armour protection which is similar to some tracked IFVs); and Strykers are too lightly armed for the role (but Stryker section carriers have only a .50 remote weapon system while the LAV6.0s 25mm is a pretty fair anti-APC weapon)
> 
> So we're really only talking mobility (as well as the glaring deficiency in sufficient anti-armour capability in our overall current establishments). Most of Latvia strikes me as terrain that wheeled apcs can handle (albeit not at speed accompanying tanks (been there and done that on the relatively smooth Shilo prairie and believe me when I say that the speeds that a Leo and a Marder can attain cross country leaves everyone else in the dust - not to mention tracked and armoured howitzers)
> 
> I'm a strong believer in that we need three separate capabilities (read three asymmetrical brigades): one heavy armour and IFV(and I don't rule the LAV6.0 out of this role) specifically for Europe (read Baltics); a light rapid reaction brigade for immediate deployment to elsewhere in the world and a medium LAV6.0 brigade for follow on forces to the rapid deployment for other missions elsewhere. This  concept of the all singing and dancing agile symmetric brigades we have now makes little sense to me other than for stroking the egos of the three Reg F infantry regiments to make sure no one is any better off than the other.
> 
> The light and medium brigades may do the majority of our "shooting situation" deployments, but on that 1% day in Latvia, we want the right gear and the right people there.
> 
> :cheers:



So that means, of course, that a great politician can argue that we can deploy a capability the others don't have as part of an Allied 'full spectrum of operations' force, right?


----------



## MilEME09

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> So that means, of course, that a great politician can argue that we can deploy a capability the others don't have as part of an Allied 'full spectrum of operations' force, right?



If you want a good laugh, the CAF long term outlook is a deployable division level HQ


----------



## daftandbarmy

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> If you want a good laugh, the CAF long term outlook is a deployable division level HQ



I don't think we have enough elephants for that...


----------



## CBH99

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> If you want a good laugh, the CAF long term outlook is a deployable division level HQ



Hey now, a division level HQ is something we actually COULD do!!

As long as it's commanding someone else's division.  Surely you don't mean a division level HQ, with our own division under it?  That would be RIDICULOUS


----------



## FJAG

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> So that means, of course, that a great politician can argue that we can deploy a capability the others don't have as part of an Allied 'full spectrum of operations' force, right?



Kind of funny actually. I've been working this last week on another article that discusses how we could do a minimal and an optimal solution for placing a prepositioned brigade into Latvia (or Poland). Should have it done in a few days and I'll post links to it here. The minimal solution is not as far fetched an idea as one might think although we do need to fill some of the "real war" capability gaps that we have and knock a few rough edges off our current belief systems.



			
				MilEME09 said:
			
		

> If you want a good laugh, the CAF long term outlook is a deployable division level HQ



Well? Why not? We have three manoeuvre brigades and a combat support brigade and about ten thousand spare people in Ottawa that we can drag out of the headquarters to fill in the manning.

 :stirpot:


----------



## MilEME09

FJAG said:
			
		

> Well? Why not? We have three manoeuvre brigades and a combat support brigade and about ten thousand spare people in Ottawa that we can drag out of the headquarters to fill in the manning.
> 
> :stirpot:



Sure, if we can get them to pass a valid medical, fitness test and PWT 3 without the use of a 5.56 pencil.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> If you want a good laugh, the CAF long term outlook is a deployable division level HQ



To command a host of units made up of Brigade/Battalion and company HQ's with L/Col, 10 majors, 5 Captains, 2 Lt's and 3 harassed Sigs ops. Each unit under them has a Major, 3 Captains, a few sigs and 1 under-strength section.


----------



## FJAG

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Sure, if we can get them to pass a valid medical, fitness test and PWT 3 without the use of a 5.56 pencil.



Personally, I'd waive all those requirements and issue them 51 pattern webbing, a grey blanket and Lee-Enfields.

 :stirpot:


----------



## Good2Golf

...and make them wear puttees!


----------



## OldSolduer

FJAG said:
			
		

> Personally, I'd waive all those requirements and issue them 51 pattern webbing, a grey blanket and Lee-Enfields.
> 
> :stirpot:



Oh you are nasty.....



			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ...and make them wear puttees!



And you're even nastier.... :rofl:


----------



## CBH99

Are we trying to use the bodies to flesh out the battalions?  Or organize them into their own battalion and distract the enemy as the waddle over the horizon?

Frankly, I'm fine with either.  Just wondering where we insert the new slab of molasses into the new ORBAT   ???


----------



## daftandbarmy

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ...and make them wear puttees!



Dude. I wore DMS boots and puttees for years. They’re awesome! (As long as, you know, it doesn’t rain much of course).


----------



## Old Sweat

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Dude. I wore DMS boots and puttees for years. They’re awesome! (As long as, you know, it doesn’t rain much of course).



I also wore puttees from 1957 to 1967 or 68, when they became a casualty of integration/unification.

Little known factoid: all the corps in the army wore their puttees with the end starting at the bottom and circling upwards except for the gunners. We started ours at the top and worked down. Don't ask me why, or I'll say something like we were the only ones in step again.


----------



## Dale Denton

If I was GDLS-C i'd be pimping out all of the variants already.

A LAV 6 IFV variant could be cobbled together. US Army already trialed many upgrades for survivability for their Stykers, so it shouldn't be too difficult to adapt and justify the expense. Justified by how heavy we use our LAVs, so in adopting upgrade the US chose not to (as they have many better-protected vehicles fulfilling roles our LAVs do like the Bradley). Would be pretty easy to go all in on the LAV now, keeping the line at London busy, could use in Europe for the EFP in Latvia.

*LAV 6 IFV:*

Slat armour and additional armour plating - Stykers equipped with it in Iraq

Active Protection System- Trialed but not accepted to due issues with space, weight and power integration (on a Styker though). 
https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/06/19/whats-happening-with-stryker-active-protection-congress-wants-to-know/

Saab Mobile Camouflage System - Trialed on Stykers in Europe, helps with "signature management against long-wave and mid-wave thermal sensors, near-wave and short-wave infrared, and radar."
https://www.defensenews.com/training-sim/2017/05/12/four-us-army-strykers-in-europe-get-survivability-upgrade/
https://saab.com/land/signature-management/force-integrated-systems/mcs_mobile_camouflage_system/

Hellfire/Martlet launcher - Fitted to IM-SHORAD turret, but could be fitted to existing 25MM turret instead.
https://www.army-technology.com/projects/stryker-a1/

All of these without mentioning the 30MM 'Dragoon' turret and the weight of them all together. 


Not to mention for heavy formations, LEO2s, combined with a LAV 6 IFV and a few of these:

LAV 6 SPH - Trialed in 2005 with a 105 from Denal, 30KM range.
https://www.gdls.com/products/stryker-family/stryker-sph.php.


----------



## FJAG

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I also wore puttees from 1957 to 1967 or 68, when they became a casualty of integration/unification.
> 
> Little known factoid: all the corps in the army wore their puttees with the end starting at the bottom and circling upwards except for the gunners. We started ours at the top and worked down. Don't ask me why, or I'll say something like we were the only ones in step again.



I wore mine until 1969 when I transferred to the Reg F. My instructors on basic training told me that the reason that the grunts rolled theirs from bottom to top was so that they overlapped like shingles and shed the water and mud better while we gunners and the cavalry who rode horses (and originally--Boer war, WW1--puttees went up the leg significantly higher) rolled theirs top down so that being tied down at the bottom near the ankle and stirrup they were less likely to come undone by chaffing against the horse and saddle while riding.

 :cheers:


----------



## FJAG

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> If I was GDLS-C i'd be pimping out all of the variants already.
> 
> A LAV 6 IFV variant could be cobbled together. US Army already trialed many upgrades for survivability for their Stykers, so it shouldn't be too difficult to adapt and justify the expense. Justified by how heavy we use our LAVs, so in adopting upgrade the US chose not to (as they have many better-protected vehicles fulfilling roles our LAVs do like the Bradley). Would be pretty easy to go all in on the LAV now, keeping the line at London busy, could use in Europe for the EFP in Latvia....



There are some interesting variants there that would indeed be useful.

Those links actually brought up another interesting fact, which is that the M1 Abrams is now also a GDLS product (originally Chrysler). With over 10,000 produced already and with the upgrade process that they have of refurbishing from the hull up, one could probably get much of the "strip" and "reassembly" work done here in Canada. (I've seen videos of the hull paint strip facilities at the Anniston, Alabama Arsenal and that pretty specialized - I think most of the reassembly is done just across the border from here in Lima, Ohio which is within easy reach of GDLS-C London)







See whole process here

I'd really like to see GDLS-C grow into a more robust local industry which IMHO means going a bit more in common with the US line of products.

 :cheers:


----------



## Dale Denton

FJAG said:
			
		

> See whole process here
> 
> I'd really like to see GDLS-C grow into a more robust local industry which IMHO means going a bit more in common with the US line of products.
> 
> :cheers:



Should be (if not secretly already) a national strategic facility and protected as such. Build and invest in its long-term survival and continue to fast-track any projects that could result in some work there. Would be different than Bombardier as its not almost wholly reliant on Fed money either.

If that CCV project were to be resurrected one day, the UKs Ajax (built by GDLS-Europe) should be at least partially built there. 

Offer countries with LAV 3 fleets a subsidized refit/upgrade/refurb plan like Boeing did with their Chinook D to E program. Countries like Ireland, NZ, Columbia.


----------



## MilEME09

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> Should be (if not secretly already) a national strategic facility and protected as such. Build and invest in its long-term survival and continue to fast-track any projects that could result in some work there. Would be different than Bombardier as its not almost wholly reliant on Fed money either.
> 
> If that CCV project were to be resurrected one day, the UKs Ajax (built by GDLS-Europe) should be at least partially built there.
> 
> Offer countries with LAV 3 fleets a subsidized refit/upgrade/refurb plan like Boeing did with their Chinook D to E program. Countries like Ireland, NZ, Columbia.



NZ is looking at replacing their LAV's, they are close  allies, we could offer the lav 6 to them at a discount.


----------



## FJAG

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> ... If that CCV project were to be resurrected one day, the UKs Ajax (built by GDLS-Europe) should be at least partially built there. ...



Not so sure about that.

While the Brits are getting some Ares as "specialist personnel carriers" to accompany the AJAX recce vehicles in armoured recce regiments of their strike brigades, they have decided to go with a much larger purchase of Boxers for the strike brigades' mech infantry role. 

Ajax will also provide recce for the remaining mech brigades where Warrior is the IFV. There is no plan to use Ares there.

I understand Ares has a crew of 3 and can carry seven additional folks, but there must be a reason why Ares doesn't fill the bill for their strike brigades' mech infantry battalions. Ares seems to be called a Protected Mobility Recce Support vehicle which seems to indicate a very specialized role.

 :cheers:


----------



## GR66

FJAG said:
			
		

> I disagree on the "panzergrenadier" issue as we've plunked ourselves into Latvia and tied ourselves to it.
> 
> If you look at the other national companies in the eFP Latvia battalion you'll find: Spaniards with 6 Leopard 2Es and 15 Pizzaro IFVs; Italians with C1 Ariete tanks and both Freccia and Dardo IFVs; Poland with a company of PT-91 Twardys; and Slovakia with a company of BMP 2s. Latvia has just acquired two battalions of M109A5Os (previous owner, Austria). While a mixed bag and subject to change on rotations, that's as much of a panzer reinforced panzergrenadier battalion as you'll find in the Bundeswehr.
> 
> The question is really as to whether or not the LAV6.0 is up to an IFV status. I've read articles coming out of the US National Training Centre where there was much criticism of pairing Strykers with Tanks. That's based on a) Strykers don't have the mobility to accompany the M1; b) Strykers are too lightly armoured (but LAV6.0s have more armour protection which is similar to some tracked IFVs); and c) Strykers are too lightly armed for the role (Stryker section carriers have only a .50 remote weapon system while the LAV6.0s 25mm is a pretty fair anti-APC weapon)
> 
> So we're really only talking mobility (as well as the glaring deficiency in sufficient anti-armour capability in our overall current establishments). Most of Latvia strikes me as terrain that wheeled apcs can handle (albeit not at speed accompanying tanks (been there and done that on the relatively smooth Shilo prairie and believe me when I say that the speeds that a Leo and a Marder can attain cross country leaves everyone else in the dust - not to mention tracked and armoured howitzers)
> 
> I'm a strong believer in that we need three separate capabilities (read three asymmetrical brigades): one heavy armour and IFV(and I don't rule the LAV6.0 out of this role) specifically for Europe (read Baltics); a light rapid reaction brigade for immediate deployment to elsewhere in the world and a medium LAV6.0 brigade for follow on forces to the rapid deployment for other missions elsewhere. This  concept of the all singing and dancing agile symmetric brigades we have now makes little sense to me other than for stroking the egos of the three Reg F infantry regiments to make sure no one is any better off than the other.
> 
> The light and medium brigades may do the majority of our "shooting situation" deployments, but on that 1% day in Latvia, we want the right gear and the right people there.
> 
> :cheers:



Question for the infantry types here.  If we were to go for 3 x asymmetrical brigades do you think that the LAV 6.0 is suited for the heavy, armoured brigade?

If not, would something like the Bronco ATTC be an acceptable alternative?  https://www.stengg.com/media/617866/bronco.pdf

You're basically trading a less mobile IFV-light for a minimally armed (RWS capable?) but more mobile battle taxi.  Is the better cross-country mobility, ability to swim and larger potential infantry section size a reasonable trade-off for the loss of firepower?

I know the preferred option would be for a tracked IFV or a heavy APC, but under the current economic climate I don't see Canada purchasing a non-LAV combat vehicle, but could possibly see something like the Bronco with non-combat applications (e.g. the North, flood response, fire response, etc.) being a possibility.


----------



## daftandbarmy

FJAG said:
			
		

> Not so sure about that.
> 
> While the Brits are getting some Ares as "specialist personnel carriers" to accompany the AJAX recce vehicles in armoured recce regiments of their strike brigades, they have decided to go with a much larger purchase of Boxers for the strike brigades' mech infantry role.
> 
> Ajax will also provide recce for the remaining mech brigades where Warrior is the IFV. There is no plan to use Ares there.
> 
> I understand Ares has a crew of 3 and can carry seven additional folks, but there must be a reason why Ares doesn't fill the bill for their strike brigades' mech infantry battalions. Ares seems to be called a Protected Mobility Recce Support vehicle which seems to indicate a very specialized role.
> 
> :cheers:



It seems they require a ‘strategic mobility’ capability for their infantry, hence the wheels. They want to be able to move large numbers of troops to the battle area fast, by road, and then fight. They’ve got the 40mm gun on another Ajax variant to provide close infantry support. A different concept from the APC with the cannon that we have become used to in recent years.


----------



## FJAG

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> It seems they require a ‘strategic mobility’ capability for their infantry, hence the wheels. They want to be able to move large numbers of troops to the battle area fast, by road, and then fight. They’ve got the 40mm gun on another Ajax variant to provide close infantry support. A different concept from the APC with the cannon that we have become used to in recent years.



Having some questions about how many folks an Ares can actually carry besides the 3 man crew. Another paper I saw said 4 which could mean that the 7 I mentioned before is crew plus dismounts. That makes sense for a recce squadron where there is a mix of gun vehicles and dismount recce/atk/surv dets rather than infantry per se.

I read one older article in Wavell Room that was very bullish on Strike and gave some good reasons for the idea but at the same time left me utterly unconvinced because the basic concept involves the idea that there will be so much space on the battlefield that the brigade will be able to manoeuvre around the heavy threats that could eat the brigade for lunch. That's a pretty gutsy "assumption" for your commander's "concept of operations" part of the OpsO. Mind you that was still pretty early in the proof of concept part of what Strike really will do although one would think that you have doctrine pretty much figured out before you buy billions of pounds sterling of kit.

This more recent article doesn't add much but does show three additional weaknesses in the existing concept. 

What I can't get away from is that heavy brigade actions are still very much in the game when you consider Iraq and the Ukraine which are short of the all-out peer-to-peer war with Russia that everyone seems to think is gone. Why is Saudi Arabia trying to buy 6-700 Leopard 2s? Could it be because Iran still has 2,000 MBTs of various types. 

Regretfully I think that the main reason non US armies are cutting back on MBTs is not because medium strike forces are a really great idea but more because the current crop of MBTs was developed during the Cold War it is reaching across the board life cycle end-points (which I sometimes think is an arms industry advertising gimmick born out of the auto industry's campaign to get you to buy a new car every few years). True, MBTs need upgrading to counter new threats and incorporate more efficient systems, but regardless, the cost of a new MBT or an upgrade to a current one, is getting very expensive and any ability to buy cheaper equipment which would allow you to retain your existing, highly expensive manpower, is one that gets jumped on by the brass hats.

I think that any idea to keep a pure "agile, multi-purpose" force is a Pollyannaish pipe dream. You need specialty forces and equipment.

The question whether the LAV6.0 can operate as an infantry fighting vehicle to accompany tanks is entirely dependant on the doctrine one intends to use. In the Stryker brigade the vehicle was always meant to protect infantry while mobile, but the infantry actually dismounts and fights dismounted. Basically what we bought into with the LAV was the Stryker concept.

So in short, if you are looking at infantry that has the capability to accompany tanks in the assault and dismount on or through the objective like a Bradley or a Marder, then no, the LAV6.0 isn't for you because it has neither the cross country mobility nor the protection needed. If your doctrine is that rather than supporting the tanks with infantry during the assault, the tanks and the LAVs support and protect the infantry during the approach and subsequent dismounted battle then a LAV6.0 will probably do. Those are two very different types of action.

 :cheers:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It's also highly dependent on terrain and season, winter, fall, spring of Eastern Europe your LAV are likely to be mired in mud the moment they leave the hard surfaces. In a place like Iraq, you have a lot more flexibility. The LAV 6.0 would be a beast in Mali, but even then limited by bridges and recovery options.


----------



## Ostrozac

Colin P said:
			
		

> It's also highly dependent on terrain and season, winter, fall, spring of Eastern Europe your LAV are likely to be mired in mud the moment they leave the hard surfaces. In a place like Iraq, you have a lot more flexibility. The LAV 6.0 would be a beast in Mali, but even then limited by bridges and recovery options.



On the subject of bridges, one thing that Mali has is a minimal number of bridges. This is driven by a limited number of rivers, and is a characteristic that North and West Africa share with the Arabian Peninsula and Afghanistan. It’s almost like we picked equipment that was optimal for fighting a counterinsurgency in an arid environment — and are now trying to shoehorn that into the ability to fight the Russians. Those are two different problem sets and with our equipment we are setting ourselves up to play hockey with a baseball bat.


----------



## MJP

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> On the subject of bridges, one thing that Mali has is a minimal number of bridges. This is driven by a limited number of rivers, and is a characteristic that North and West Africa share with the Arabian Peninsula and Afghanistan. It’s almost like we picked equipment that was optimal for fighting a counterinsurgency in an arid environment — and are now trying to shoehorn that into the ability to fight the Russians. Those are two different problem sets and with our equipment we are setting ourselves up to play hockey with a baseball bat.



We went with a LAV based fleet before going to fight a counter insurgency so I don't think that was a real consideration for the LAV 6 as the next choice rather the commonality/familiarity of the fleet (although that was a bit suspect) played a larger role.


----------



## Ostrozac

MJP said:
			
		

> We went with a LAV based fleet before going to fight a counter insurgency so I don't think that was a real consideration for the LAV 6 as the next choice rather the commonality/familiarity of the fleet (although that was a bit suspect) played a larger role.



That's a good point. LAV-3 was a post-Cold War project, though, and the decision to replace M113 and Grizzly with a wheeled APC was made after the decision to close down 4CMBG. Was it originally intended to be a primarily peacekeeping/low intensity vehicle, rather than a frontline NATO IFV? I'd probably have to dig into the old articles about the vehicle. 

I will note that we made the decision to go with an all-wheeled infantry carrier fleet before the US came out with their Stryker doctrine -- which was pretty clearly designed, in its original concept, to give more mobility and firepower to their light forces rather than being a frontline NATO/Korea heavy force. The US had a clear doctrine, but we made our decision before they came out with it, so that wouldn't  have been a factor.


----------



## CBH99

If I remember correctly, the LAV 3 was intended to be purchased around the 1200 vehicle mark to replace the M113 and Grizzly.
When the price tag came in too high, we ended up purchasing 650 LAV 3 and upgraded the M113 to the TLAV standard.

The purchase of this vehicle was meant for low intensity & medium intensity conflict, which is what we had been dealing with for decades at the time, re: Bosnia, Croatia/Serbia, etc etc.  The UN 'glory days'.

The Tacvest was designed for the same type of theater.  It was meant as an upgrade to the webbing with the old olive drab uniforms, and part of the new CADPAT uniform & kit.  It was designed with low to medium intensity peacekeeping & peace support operations in mind.


A lot of this equipment started to roll out in the late 90's, and I believe the LAV made it's debut during a peacekeeping deployment to Ethiopia & Eritrea.  At the time, it was a HUGE generational leap ahead of what anybody else was fielding for those kinds of operations.  The Coyote still had an extremely impressive surveillance system up until a few years ago too, and has since been updated accordingly.  

Then 9/11 happened, and Afghanistan happened.  A theater we hadn't remotely prepared for, as it was a complete divergence of what we had been doing for decades.  We had the Iltis, green camo, C3 and LG1 Mk 2... the best vehicle we had at the time, and most other NATO countries wish they had, was the LAV.  

Obviously there was a pretty generous shopping spree once Afghanistan kicked off, and the armed forces as a whole filled out with a lot more modern and decent kit.



But yes, our purchase of the LAV 3 did predate the American decision to go with the Stryker.  Our intended use, and their intended use also, was different than what the vehicle eventually evolved into doing.  

(I could be wrong on the above.  I realize yesterday when talking with a colleague, I joined 20 years ago...wtf happened?  Where did that time go?)    :2c:


----------



## Kilted

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I agee, I would only task the closest units to training centers. Example for Wainwright I would pick the Loyal Edmonton Regiment, their proximity to both 1 VP and Wainwright makes them an ideal choice for a reserve infantry unit to become mechanized.



Have they ended their affiliation with the PPCLI, everything that I have seen recently does not include their secondary title.


----------



## CBH99

Official affiliation?  Or do you mean regular working/training relationship?

I'd assume the reserve units in Edmonton would take advantage of having a large Army base just outside the city.  The access to ranges, courses, instructors, vehicles, infrastructure, etc etc is something that other reserve units throughout the country could only dream of.


----------



## MilEME09

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Official affiliation?  Or do you mean regular working/training relationship?
> 
> I'd assume the reserve units in Edmonton would take advantage of having a large Army base just outside the city.  The access to ranges, courses, instructors, vehicles, infrastructure, etc etc is something that other reserve units throughout the country could only dream of.



I think he means how they are also referred to as 4th Battalion PPCLI. which is a secondary title as they are designated as the feeder unit for the regiment.


----------



## FJAG

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I think he means how they are also referred to as 4th Battalion PPCLI. which is a secondary title as they are designated as the feeder unit for the regiment.



You can read a bit about the historical relationship between the PPCLI and the L Edm R starting at pg 72 of the 2018 issue of the PPCLI's Patrician.

 :cheers:


----------



## MilEME09

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I'd assume the reserve units in Edmonton would take advantage of having a large Army base just outside the city.  The access to ranges, courses, instructors, vehicles, infrastructure, etc etc is something that other reserve units throughout the country could only dream of.



Except the ATS ranges do not usually run on weekends, cause unions. All maintenance goes through 1 Svc Battalion so even though we have massive maintenance space at Debney, it is not used. There are institutional challenges for the PRes working with the reg force.


----------



## MJP

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Except the ATS ranges do not usually run on weekends, cause unions. All maintenance goes through 1 Svc Battalion so even though we have massive maintenance space at Debney, it is not used. There are institutional challenges for the PRes working with the reg force.



Umm ATS runs on the week ends, it is mil operators in the towers and Range Control in Edm is almost exclusively military there is no union issue.

Does Debney have a control shop? SPPS? Tooling? STTE specific to the veh platforms? Structure in DRMIS for PM and MM modules? Maint is much more than a willingness to fix something. If they don't have the bare basics of the latter (some of which is in short supply and makes sense to be in less locations) maybe they just need to work with 1 Svc Bn and use what they have? I am sure given the priority given to StAR that they might be willing to make things happen.


----------



## daftandbarmy

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> There are institutional challenges for the PRes working with the reg force.



And vice versa, big time  ;D


----------



## MilEME09

MJP said:
			
		

> Umm ATS runs on the week ends, it is mil operators in the towers and Range Control in Edm is almost exclusively military there is no union issue.
> 
> Does Debney have a control shop? SPPS? Tooling? STTE specific to the veh platforms? Structure in DRMIS for PM and MM modules? Maint is much more than a willingness to fix something. If they don't have the bare basics of the latter (some of which is in short supply and makes sense to be in less locations) maybe they just need to work with 1 Svc Bn and use what they have? I am sure given the priority given to StAR that they might be willing to make things happen.



Short answer yes, long answer I can PM you details after I'm done work.


----------



## FJAG

*London-made military vehicles, part of $3B order, start rolling off line*
Norman De Bono May 03, 2021  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Military vehicle made by London-based General Dynamics, part of a $3-billion federal government contract, are now rolling off the line. General Dynamics Land Systems Canada on Monday rolled out the first vehicle it has assembled as part of a multi-billion-dollar order for 360 new LAV 6.0 light armoured vehicles for the Canadian military.


> The Oxford Street manufacturer held an online event offering a first look at the armoured combat support vehicle – a troop carrier. It’s the first of eight different variants, military-speak for different models of the same vehicle.
> 
> It’s expected the second variant, a field ambulance, will roll off the line this summer.
> 
> Harjit Sajjan, federal minister of national defence, called the LAV 6 vehicle the “backbone” of the Canadian military and praised the nearly 2,000-strong London workforce.
> 
> “You do critical work every day,” he said.
> 
> Other variants include vehicle recovery, engineering, mobile repair, electronic warfare, troop carrying and command posts.
> 
> General Dynamics in London announced the four-year, $3-billion deal in 2019.
> 
> Since 2011, Ottawa has invested $1.5 billion to improve its London-made fleet of 550 LAV IIIs, extending their life to 2035.



London workers praised as military vehicles in $3B order start rolling off line

🍻


----------



## Dale Denton

^Good news. 

Was there a reason given why there aren't any Mortar Carrier or SHORAD versions bought too? Seems like we're going full-LAV 6.0 anyways, why not go full-bore?


----------



## dapaterson

SHORAD requires a functional AD system to integrate into.


----------



## FJAG

LoboCanada said:


> ^Good news.
> 
> Was there a reason given why there aren't any Mortar Carrier or SHORAD versions bought too? Seems like we're going full-LAV 6.0 anyways, why not go full-bore?


SHORAD is a separate project in its own right. I'm not sure of what the details of the SOR are as to what it's requirements for a chassis, but it would be logical that any prospective contractors would base it on the LAV 6 even if it doesn't call for that.

As to mortars - 🤷‍♂️ - I guess they just weren't an important enough priority to the people that stated the requirements.

🍻


----------



## dangerboy

Probably did not have the budget for two additional versions, so they prioritized what would be more essential. I do not know this for sure just my guess.


----------



## McG

LoboCanada said:


> ^Good news.
> 
> Was there a reason given why there aren't any Mortar Carrier or SHORAD versions bought too? Seems like we're going full-LAV 6.0 anyways, why not go full-bore?


Because it is deliberately a platform replacement. We did not have mortar carriers or SHORAD on any still in service Bison or TLAV variant, so the project never looked as such variants.


----------



## CBH99

The nice thing about having a GD plant in Canada - especially in Ontario - is that future orders can and most likely will be made.

If the capabilities are acquired, it’s good optics if the government orders a few more.  Especially around an election time.


----------



## Kirkhill

FJAG said:


> SHORAD is a separate project in its own right. I'm not sure of what the details of the SOR are as to what it's requirements for a chassis, but it would be logical that any prospective contractors would base it on the LAV 6 even if it doesn't call for that.
> 
> As to mortars - 🤷‍♂️ - I guess they just weren't an important enough priority to the people that stated the requirements.
> 
> 🍻



WRT mortars

From









						Army’s Development Of Long-Range Weapons Destabilizes Boundaries With Air Force
					

What if Army munitions had more range than fighter aircraft? What if mortars could hit targets usually reserved for howitzers?




					www.forbes.com
				






> *Mortars are typically used in close proximity to enemy formations*, lofting rounds in high parabolic trajectories that can then drop almost straight down on top of targets like entrenched infantry.
> 
> But testing by the Navy has shown that *mortar rounds can actually glide dozens of miles to more distant targets and then hit within a meter or so of intended targets*.
> 
> *This presents a potential challenge to the traditional use of fires, because a 120mm mortar round has the same explosive power as a 155mm artillery round. Mortars typically are much easier to move around on a battlefield.*



The Artillery is spoiled for choices - 120mm Mortars, 105mm Howitzers, 155mm Howitzers, Rockets, Missiles, Loitering Munitions, UAVs (Single Use, Attritable, Recoverable), GBAD, CRAM, Sensors galore, everything ISTAR, Battlefield Management, Interfacing with the national intelligence picture (or whatever it is called), satellites, High Altitude Pseudo Satellites, the RCN and the RCAF.

If any one department needs to be emphasized, it seems to me, it is the Gunners.  They are most positively impacted by the changing technology and they are the seminal organization, the ordnance department, from which the engineers, the arty, the navy and the air force all sprang - not to mention the Fusiliers.

Special Forces, Infantry and Cavalry - first and foremost - Sensors for the Artillery?

The Gunners - major political effect - a small number of gunners, most of them out of harms way (just like the RCAF), can have an inordinate effect on any battlefield the Government chooses, can be rapidly deployed, rapidly retargeted, rapidly recalled - rapidly respond to changing tactical, operational and strategic needs.   And be deployed from fixed locations  within the sanctuary of the homeland or be deployed on mobile platforms like ships, planes, LAVs and trucks, manned and unmanned.

And have the option of reviving the Field Artillery with my current bee in my bonnet - the unmanned 105mm portee.

Next CDS?  A Gunner?

Revive the Ordnance Department?   A Canadian Master-General of the Ordnance?

Edit - The RCAF as an airborne special force with the F35s acting as Artillery Sensors and Ordnance Platforms?


----------



## Kirkhill

And, given the current climate,  I am going to propose a candidate for the revived post of Master-General of the Ordnance.









						Farah Alibay - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## FJAG

There truly are some interesting choices available.

Most folks don't know that the "weapons" of the artillery are not their guns but their projectiles. The gun is the delivery mechanism while the projectile is what gives the artillery's effects (ie its "act" function) on the target. The choice of the propelling element that gets the projectile there has always been a system of trade-offs respecting the amount of explosive or steel or fuzing function or cost element or manufacturing simplicity etc needed to deliver that effect. If a mortar with a gliding round (or better yet a guided loitering one) can deliver the range of a gun with the same or better effect at the target then bingo. If a rocket is capable of delivering a more complex fuzed and steerable projectile because of the lower shock on launch then great. If a hand launched drone (or swarm of drones) can deliver sufficient punch to penetrate the top armour of an MBT then wonderful. The big issue is fire support coordination and a comprehensive network to allow all the sensors and delivery capabilities to act in harmony.

There's only one drawback to all of this. The artillery took a kick in the n*ts over the last two decades. In Canada we are still infantry centric. Notwithstanding the lessons learned in Afghanistan, we have let the artillery branch (or perhaps both the direct and indirect fire support branches) atrophy for a host of reasons. In the absence of a looming threat there is no particular sense of urgency within the Army to revive either capability in a serious way. We have lost much of the sense of what combined arms really are and what the essential components are that are needed.

Since PYs are the big issue, I would commit heresy, strip each brigade of one infantry battalion and use the PYs to strengthen the direct fire component (armour/anti armour); indirect fire (guns, mortars, drones, sensors, AD etc); and sustainment (particularly maintainers but supply also). A brigade with three manoeuvre battalions--armoured and/or infantry--can function. A brigade without sufficient direct  fire, indirect fire and sustainment capability cannot function for long.

🍻


----------



## Kirkhill

Do you have to strip an entire battalion?  Or can you achieve the same effect by reducing the infantry section to 6, like the Danes and Swedes and maybe reducing the Light Battalions to something that is not interchangeable with the LAV Battalions?   Maybe move the LAVs in the Battalions into a separate LAV Coy, or even a separate LAV Bn in the Bde?

Either way I am with you on the need to put the em-PHA-sis on a different syl - LAB - le and refocus the effort. 

1871 Dominion Land Survey
1871 RCA.  (Kingston and Quebec command the portals to the St Lawrence Seaway)
1874 NWMP.
1876 RMC.
1883 Schools of Infantry and Cavalry.
1903 Royal Canadian Engineers and Signalling Corps.
1910 RCN.
1912 RFC.

Ordnance first.
And I would include not just the launchers but also the sensors and the comms under Ordnance.
Next - figure out how few troops you need to effectively employ the Ordnance - and that includes infanteers, troopers, operators, pilots and sailors.


Follow the Swedes and you can reduce Tank Troops from 16 troops to 12 (Squadrons from 76 to 44) and Infantry Platoons from 40 to 28 (22 if the dismounts are reduced from 3x 6 to 3x 4)   A Troop and a Platoon would find you an additional 16 to 22 driver/operators.


----------



## Kirkhill

I can't find the old Mortar threads so if somebody wants to relocate this feel free.

Royal Marines playing around with 81mm mortars in a light mode while the Royal Artillery hunts them.









						Royal Marines Trial Can-Am 6x6 ATV For Mortars | Joint Forces News
					

Royal Marines from 45 Commando have been trialling Can-Am OUTLANDER MAX 6x6 all-terrain vehicles in the mortar transport role.




					www.joint-forces.com


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Old is new


----------



## Kirkhill

Hmmmm

FV4401 Contentious - Wikipedia 



Alternate version - Twin Wombat 120 mm Recoilless with 7 round auto-loaders

Here's the Royal Marines without the auto-loaders.


Now if only we new a company specializing in recoilless rifle rounds....


----------



## Kirkhill

Here's the Brit's FV4401 project - heavily influenced by the Swedish S-Tank  -  1x Driver/Gunner.   Aimed by aiming the vehicle.

2x 120mm Wombat recoilless rifles
2x 7 round revolver autoloaders

With the improvements demonstrated by Carl Gustav at the 84mm calibre  (warheads, guidance, confined space signature reduction, aiming systems, material upgrades) I can't help but wonder if a RWS variant is possible for mounting on a very light remote/autonomous carrier vehicle.

Bunker busting artillery piece
Adjunct to missiles in the Anti-AFV role
GP DF artillery


----------



## GR66

Or how about something like this?



From the Army Technology website:  Lockheed Martin UK unwraps future anti-armour concept

Lockheed Martin UK 8x8 Boxer with 16 x vertical launch tubes for Brimstone missiles with 360 degree engagement capability ideal for complex terrains such as valleys or urban city streets.  Has mast-mounted sensors to identify targets from behind cover or can hand off targets to forward units.  

More missile capacity than traditional turret equipped ATGM vehicles.  You wouldn't have to expose your LAV-based vehicle to LOS of heavier enemy armour units.  The targeting units can be lighter vehicles or dismounts that are less likely to be targeted/engaged by enemy loitering munitions, aircraft, etc.  Brimstone missiles have air-launched versions which raises the question of whether this vehicle could launch missiles while on the move?  

Furthermore, you could possibly adapt the vertical launch tubes to launch a variety of munitions.  Loitering munitions like the Switchblade 600 are tube launched and have a hand-off capability to controllers with a tablet.  Equip with canister-launched AA missiles and match one of these vehicles with a gun-based SHORAD vehicle so you've got more missiles available and the launcher can stay stealthy because it's not emitting any radar signals.  

LM UK is developing this as a modular system that could also be mounted on light vehicles (Reserves?) or in future Uncrewed Ground Vehicles (to keep Kirkhill happy ).

I'd view something like this as a land-based version of an arsenal ship/aircraft and ideal for an army like Canada that doesn't have heavy brigades.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

That`s roughly $3,200,000 to load that vehicle with one loadout. I am sure it`s quite capable, but that`s an eye watering amount for what might be one day of munitions for one vehicle.


----------



## Ostrozac

Colin Parkinson said:


> That`s roughly $3,200,000 to load that vehicle with one loadout. I am sure it`s quite capable, but that`s an eye watering amount for what might be one day of munitions for one vehicle.


The economics of modern war do appear to be a head scratcher that probably needs more serious and disciplined study, since historically it’s been so important.

Historically the two preferred models seemed to be either to aspire to have the second best equipment in the world, saving money on bleeding edge R&D and making up for it in mass, the Red Army/Soviet Army/Russian Army liked to follow this model, or have slightly better equipment than your opponent, to make up for his numbers, like the US did in Korea.

The late Cold War-to-modern US-led model of supremely, exquisitely good was deemed to be a success after Desert Storm, but I question it’s sustainability. Do we really want to keep going down the road of precision guided weapons for killing everything, including bunkers, trucks and tents? That’s like using $4 billion dollar frigates to shake down pirates and smugglers, which the west also does.


----------



## Kirkhill

Aside from the fact that in the era of Trillion dollar budgets a Million doesn't go as far as it used to how much time, space and blood are you willing to trade for that amount of treasure?

Not that my parsimonious Scots blood is opposed to finding the cheapest solution (and I am sure that old solutions back-burnered because of risk to operators can be safely reconsidered with remote/autonomous solutions). 

However our Gunners have a Field Artillery fixation.  With the advances in technology I believe that the Department of National Defence should be able to start living up to its name and actively pursuing Defence of the Realm strategies.  Who is responsible for building the Canadian Iron Dome to eliminate immediate threats? Master-General of the Ordnance?  Then, from that firm base, build out the RCAF/Space Command,  then the mobile protected bubbles the RCN provides internationally, then the expeditionary intervention forces of the Special Ops and the Army.


----------



## Kirkhill

Further to this is this



2x 15 NLOS missiles in 16 cell containers.  If that container's contents can be launched from the back of a LAV then it can be launched from the  back of a truck, from the deck of a ship, from a sea-can (how many ready to launch missiles in a 20 foot sea-can - I'm going to guess 5x2x15 (150 or so - the 16th cell is for the controls.), any flat surface.


----------



## Kirkhill

Netfires - Lockheed Martin - Raytheon   ca 2005-2011













						XM501 Non-Line-of-Sight Launch System - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Kirkhill

WRT price

As GR66 points out - there are other loadouts:  Switchblade, Coyote, LARMs, Spike to name a few.  And Anti-air missiles.


----------



## GR66

Kirkhill said:


> WRT price
> 
> As GR66 points out - there are other loadouts:  Switchblade, Coyote, LARMs, Spike to name a few.  And Anti-air missiles.



And I'm certainly not suggesting that all our eggs go in this VLS basket.  I'm simply suggesting that when you look at the ATGM options maybe a single vehicle that can carry 16 x assorted munitions might give more flexibility than vehicles that only have dual turret-based launchers.

I'm a firm believer in a solid high/low mix of platforms and weapons.  Each has it's role and you definitely need to have a large volume of cheap, low-tech systems to draw on once the high-priced, high-tech options are expended.  

And remember, not every conflict will be the final conflict, fight to the death, last man standing situation like WWII.  In some situations relatively small number of well targeted strikes might turn the tide in a limited conflict.  

A relatively light force that can call on the precision weapons of some "arsenal" LAVs  and HIMARS as required backed up by a bunch of LAV 105mm-SPGs and LAV-120mm mortar vehicles, etc. give you both high volume of fire as well as some staying power.


----------



## FJAG

Kirkhill said:


> Aside from the fact that in the era of Trillion dollar budgets a Million doesn't go as far as it used to how much time, space and blood are you willing to trade for that amount of treasure?
> 
> Not that my parsimonious Scots blood is opposed to finding the cheapest solution (and I am sure that old solutions back-burnered because of risk to operators can be safely reconsidered with remote/autonomous solutions).
> 
> However our Gunners have a Field Artillery fixation.  With the advances in technology I believe that the Department of National Defence should be able to start living up to its name and actively pursuing Defence of the Realm strategies.  Who is responsible for building the Canadian Iron Dome to eliminate immediate threats? Master-General of the Ordnance?  Then, from that firm base, build out the RCAF/Space Command,  then the mobile protected bubbles the RCN provides internationally, then the expeditionary intervention forces of the Special Ops and the Army.



Believe me, when an artillery regiment has a grand total of eight howitzers, then you are far, far away from having a field artillery fixation.

What the artillery has is exactly what the Army provides them the money for which is currently close to p***-all. Iron Dome? The Army took a then viable air defence system away from the artillery because it cost too much to keep it current. There's a new more modest system in the procurement stream which, if everything goes exquisitely correct, (and we know how well that works out) should be provided for in the 2026-7 budget.

The artillery doesn't lack ideas. What it lacks is funding in an era consumed with spending money on ships and fighters. Don't hold your breath for that Canadian Iron Dome.

😥


----------



## Kirkhill

FJAG said:


> Believe me, when an artillery regiment has a grand total of eight howitzers, then you are far, far away from having a field artillery fixation.
> 
> What the artillery has is exactly what the Army provides them the money for which is currently close to p***-all. Iron Dome? The Army took a then viable air defence system away from the artillery because it cost too much to keep it current. There's a new more modest system in the procurement stream which, if everything goes exquisitely correct, (and we know how well that works out) should be provided for in the 2026-7 budget.
> 
> The artillery doesn't lack ideas. What it lacks is funding in an era consumed with spending money on ships and fighters. Don't hold your breath for that Canadian Iron Dome.
> 
> 😥


Seen.  Agreed.


----------



## daftandbarmy

FJAG said:


> Believe me, when an artillery regiment has a grand total of eight howitzers, then you are far, far away from having a field artillery fixation.
> 
> What the artillery has is exactly what the Army provides them the money for which is currently close to p***-all. Iron Dome? The Army took a then viable air defence system away from the artillery because it cost too much to keep it current. There's a new more modest system in the procurement stream which, if everything goes exquisitely correct, (and we know how well that works out) should be provided for in the 2026-7 budget.
> 
> The artillery doesn't lack ideas. What it lacks is funding in an era consumed with spending money on ships and fighters. Don't hold your breath for that Canadian Iron Dome.
> 
> 😥


----------



## Brad Sallows

> Aside from the fact that in the era of Trillion dollar budgets a Million doesn't go as far as it used to how much time, space and blood are you willing to trade for that amount of treasure?



One of the side benefits of adopting "strategy of technology" is that it deters conflicts.  Saves a lot more money than it consumes.


----------



## Dale Denton

Lots of discussions on LAVs in other threads, but it felt best to add this here:

Screens from GDLS instagram page from AUSA seen below.

I'm an advocate of an strategic industrial strategy that enables us to "LAV-ify" as much as possible, then commit to a new base chassis for the next 30 years (CV90 Copy or BOXER) and continually build more variants. An Army and RCAF "NSS" so to speak. Commit to more Bell Textron products in refitted UH-1Y "Super-Griffons" and Vipers, BV206's and a domestic MILCOTS options for snowmobiles, ATVs and UTVs, Colt Canada/CZ lines open, etc....

Login • Instagram


----------



## CBH99

LoboCanada said:


> I'm an advocate of an strategic industrial strategy that enables us to "LAV-ify" as much as possible, then commit to a new base chassis for the next 30 years (CV90 Copy or BOXER) and continually build more variants. An Army and RCAF "NSS" so to speak. Commit to more Bell Textron products in refitted UH-1Y "Super-Griffons" and Vipers, BV206's and a domestic MILCOTS options for snowmobiles, ATVs and UTVs, Colt Canada/CZ lines open, etc....


I couldn’t agree more.  The baffling part is - why is this already not the case?  

Does Industry Canada, who is involved in all of our major acquisitions & capital projects, not look at how beneficial for the country it would be if the government would develop me and commit to an industrial base here. 

And all of those vehicles/platforms you mentioned are EXTREMELY easy to do with the current infrastructure.


----------



## KevinB

CBH99 said:


> I couldn’t agree more.  The baffling part is - why is this already not the case?
> 
> Does Industry Canada, who is involved in all of our major acquisitions & capital projects, not look at how beneficial for the country it would be if the government would develop me and commit to an industrial base here.
> 
> And all of those vehicles/platforms you mentioned are EXTREMELY easy to do with the current infrastructure.


Probably because the CF is generally a terrible business partner - as polices change on the whim of the .gov


----------



## CBH99

FJAG said:


> Probably because the CF is generally a terrible business partner - as polices change on the whim of the .gov


That’s true.  Very true.  It’s hard to do business with a partner like DND/CAF who can have even a project cancelled at basically any time, without much notice.  

Having bipartisan agreement on certain procurement policies would go a long way to correcting a large part of that.  

Streamlining procurement so only a few fingers are in the pie would help -  DND/CAF keeping a simple procurement simple would really help as well.  (Pistol replacement…_ahem_…) 


RCMP, CBSA, and almost every law enforcement agency in the country is a reliable business partner when it comes to vehicle acquisition, firearm acquisition, etc.  

None of them may be huge business partners individually, but those sales add up very quickly.  

DND/CAF may never be as stable as a partner just due to our purpose and capability goals.  We don’t need new medium or heavy logistic trucks every year, nor helicopters, nor fighters, nor warships, etc.  But we could use them more than once every 20+ years.  

But if we modified & simplified the way we do procurement, we could be a desirable business partner when it comes to smaller yet consistent sales - even on the capital acquisition side.  



For example, Bell Textron has their helicopter factory in (ofcourse) Quebec.  

Our initial purchase of 100 Griffons was great for that company, factory, local economy, etc.  

But once those 100 helicopters were delivered, Canadian government orders mostly dried up, minus the odd purchase here and there.  (We also screwed them out of supplying 15 helicopters to the Philippines.  A great way for Bell to consider closing their factory here next time they look to streamline their operations.)


Now that we’ve had the Griffon in service for quite some time, and our entire military is familiar with them - when it comes time for replacement, we could implement a simple 10 helicopters per year, for 10 years.  (Or something like that.  Maybe even do it in 5 year increments - I’m sure you get my drift.)

Sign the contract so it’s a done deal, so it doesn’t have to be revisited each year - perhaps modified to reflect economic or technological changes.  

The CAF can sell off the oldest choppers with the most hours, and have them replaced with newer birds.  Perhaps focus on delivering the newer birds to one squadron at a time, to keep things as simple as possible.  

The CAF is happy.  Bell is happy.  The local economy is happy because the work is highly skilled, well paying, and consistent.  The general public doesn’t have a huge panic attack with the price tag, and comes to support the CAF more and more as we become a more vital part of local economies.  And that really does trickle out in so many ways.  

Our boom & bust way of doing things is great for a company that wants a nice multi-billion dollar shot in the arm.  It’s bad for companies that want to do business on a consistent basis.  It’s terrible for companies that need to hire or train people with specialized skill-sets, who disappear after the work does.  


<It would just be nice if the elected officials in Ottawa grew up and said “Politics aside, we all agree this would benefit our country in the following ways.  Let’s agree to make this a policy, regardless of which party is in power.”

Because stable economies and jobs! jobs! jobs! are not only great for everybody, but it saves the political parties the hassle of needing to promise a bunch of nonsense come election times.  They can focus on their policies rather than surprise announcements to bribe voters.>


_KevinB, the above was in agreement with your post, and a bit of ranting.  (I’ve been doing that a lot lately…is this what getting older feels like?  Is that what I’m going through?)  It wasn’t meant as a lecture of the obvious by any means_


----------



## FJAG

We seem to have a technical glitch there. The quote you started with CBH99, which is listed as mine, is in fact KevinB's.

???


----------



## KevinB

FJAG said:


> We seem to have a technical glitch there. The quote you started with CBH99, which is listed as mine, is in fact KevinB's.
> 
> ???


Working as intended


----------



## McG




----------



## CBH99

FJAG said:


> We seem to have a technical glitch there. The quote you started with CBH99, which is listed as mine, is in fact KevinB's.
> 
> ???


😐🤷🏼‍♂️

I probably started to reply to something on my phone, but didn’t post it.  Then replied to something else from my computer & forgot to delete what I had started. 

Sorry guys


----------



## Kirkhill

This is the Marine Corps’ wish list for its next high-tech recon vehicle
					

Here are all the things that the Marine Corps wants its new Advanced Reconnaissance Vehicle (ARV) to be able to do.




					taskandpurpose.com
				






> In a Request For Information published Monday, the Marine Corps said it wants its new* Advanced Reconnaissance Vehicle (ARV)* to include munitions upgrades, electronic warfare capabilities and perform some long-neglected missions including air defense.
> 
> That includes *a cannon with programmable air burst **munitions* that can explode over the enemy’s head, *Javelin and Spike II missiles* and sensors capable of *detecting aerial drone threats. *
> 
> The ARV is to be the successor to the LAV-25, a light armored reconnaissance vehicle that’s been in service since 1983. Armed with a 25mm chain gun and capable of transporting six Marines, the LAV-25 has been a mainstay of the Marine Corps’ light armored reconnaissance battalions and *part of tactical theory adopted in the 1980s that emphasized, “outmaneuvering over firepower to win battles*,” according to The National Interest.
> 
> The request for the new vehicle lays out *six potential variants* of the vehicles: “The ARV FoVs is expected to consist of six (6) Mission Role Variants (MRVs): *Command, Control, Communications, & Computers-Unmanned Aerial System (C4-UAS*), *Organic Precision Fire-Mounted (OPF-M*),* Counter Unmanned Aerial Systems (CUAS)*, *30mm Autocannon and Anti-Tank Guided Missile (ATGM)*, *Logistics (LOG*), and *Recovery (R)*. The planned Acquisition Objective (AO) for the ARV is *533 units over five production years* allocated to the following MRVs.”


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Perhaps the UK can sell them slightly used Ajax's.....


----------



## Kirkhill

18.5 ton class 
GDLS (LAV)
Textron (Cottonmouth)

ARV Recovery
ARV Logistics

ARV C4-UAS

ARV OPF-M (Hero-120 Loitering Attack Missile)



ARV C-UAS (Something like the MSHORAD?)



ARV



Or perhaps with a Puma turret (it integrates 2x Spike Missiles)












						Cottonmouth™
					

Purpose-built for the United States Marine Corps Advanced Reconnaissance Vehicle (ARV) program.




					www.textronsystems.com


----------



## MilEME09

New CP rolls off the line


----------



## Kirkhill

Can heat seeking missiles find air-conditioners?


----------



## PuckChaser

Too bad it'll be filled with garbage radios and no Signalers to run it...


----------



## dapaterson

You mean fitted for not with garbage radios.


----------



## KevinB

I sort of expected the Troop/Cargo to be, like well a Stryker, not a giant malignant blimp.


----------



## McG

KevinB said:


> I sort of expected the Troop/Cargo to be, like well a Stryker, not a giant malignant blimp.


I believe there were a lot of political hands in this.  Seemingly overnight, CAF went from we cannot sole source ACSV to we will sole source for the platform that GDLS is trying to sell right now.  That platform is a LAV 6+ body designed to replace the Queen Mary .... which means the vehicles that are replacing TLAV APCs, ambulances, and engineer section carriers will all be giant billboards.  I'll admit that the ambulance in the A2 echelon probably benefits from standing space inside, but the ambulance in the A1 echelon should have as low a profile as possible when it is rolling up to pull combat team casualties off the objective.  Engineer section carriers on the LAV III and LAV 6 platforms have already struggled with weight management and that is not going to be helped by adding another 2 ft of height to the armoured hull.


----------



## FJAG

Then again there are a lot of images of very low profile but burned out BMPs. Makes one wonder what the optimal height is.


----------



## GK .Dundas

MilEME09 said:


> New CP rolls off the line
> 
> View attachment 69480


Well, that errrr, ..   ....interrrrsstting ahhh yeah .....Good Lord that THING is immense!


----------



## KevinB

FJAG said:


> Then again there are a lot of images of very low profile but burned out BMPs. Makes one wonder what the optimal height is.


Optimal height is being on the right side of NLAW and Javelin


----------



## KevinB

McG said:


> I believe there were a lot of political hands in this.  Seemingly overnight, CAF went from we cannot sole source ACSV to we will sole source for the platform that GDLS is trying to sell right now.  That platform is a LAV 6+ body designed to replace the Queen Mary .... which means the vehicles that are replacing TLAV APCs, ambulances, and engineer section carriers will all be giant billboards.


Wait what?
   The Combat Engineers are going to be rolling around without a Turret and in a CP sized Winnebago?  No one likes you anymore do they?
Criminal would have been more word for it.


McG said:


> I'll admit that the ambulance in the A2 echelon probably benefits from standing space inside, but the ambulance in the A1 echelon should have as low a profile as possible when it is rolling up to pull combat team casualties off the objective.  Engineer section carriers on the LAV III and LAV 6 platforms have already struggled with weight management and that is not going to be helped by adding another 2 ft of height to the armoured hull.


I cry for you folks.


----------



## KevinB

Kirkhill said:


> ARV C-UAS (Something like the MSHORAD?)
> 
> View attachment 67729


I really wanted to see the CAF get some of these.

Does GDLS only need to sell the crap that no one else wants to the CAF?


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> I really wanted to see the CAF get some of these.
> 
> Does GDLS only need to sell the crap that no one else wants to the CAF?



Nope.  We were there before them.  We turned it down.











						Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Just like we had these which we decided to turn into APCs



And they say we can't get any good stuff to play with.


----------



## FJAG

Kirkhill said:


> Nope.  We were there before them.  We turned it down.
> 
> View attachment 69483
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like we had these which we decided to turn into APCs
> 
> View attachment 69484
> 
> And they say we can't get any good stuff to play with.


Remember too that the MMEV was being looked at for its dual role and together with the MGS and LAV-TUA were being looked at as the Leo replacement. It basically used a LAV3 hull and the ADATS turret and guts.

There were a lot of reasons why this fell apart. Leos for Afghanistan basically undercut the requirement and $ broke the camel's back.

🍻


----------



## Kirkhill

FJAG said:


> Remember too that the MMEV was being looked at for its dual role and together with the MGS and LAV-TUA were being looked at as the Leo replacement. It basically used a LAV3 hull and the ADATS turret and guts.
> 
> There were a lot of reasons why this fell apart. Leos for Afghanistan basically undercut the requirement and $ broke the camel's back.
> 
> 🍻


That dammed accountant again.

Either/Or.

Leo or System of systems.
GMG or 60mm mortar.

There was nothing wrong with Rick's SoS or his BHS.


----------



## Kirkhill

ADATS

Air Defence   Anti-Tank  System.

One Missile.  Two Targets.


----------



## KevinB

Kirkhill said:


> ADATS
> 
> Air Defence   Anti-Tank  System.
> 
> One Missile.  Two Targets.


Admittedly it was a poor idea - one needed to view it as ADBATE (Air Defense, But Anti-Armor Emergency) 
  The dual role was in extremis - and not purpose built - lot cheaper AT missiles around...


----------



## FJAG

Kirkhill said:


> ADATS
> 
> Air Defence   Anti-Tank  System.
> 
> One Missile.  Two Targets.


The missile was designed for that though. It had an HE fragmentation/shaped charge warhead initiated either with a point detonating or proximity fuze. As I said in the Javelin argument, terminal effects matter and armour and aircraft have completely different vulnerabilities and exposure profiles that need to be catered for. You can build a missile that caters to both and ADATS' missile was built that way from square one.

🍻


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> Admittedly it was a poor idea - one needed to view it as ADBATE (Air Defense, But Anti-Armor Emergency)
> The dual role was in extremis - and not purpose built - lot cheaper AT missiles around...



Kevin, do you reckon that those Hellfires on the MSHORAD are only going to be used against helicopters?


----------



## Kirkhill

FJAG said:


> The missile was designed for that though. It had an HE fragmentation/shaped charge warhead initiated either with a point detonating or proximity fuze. As I said in the Javelin argument, terminal effects matter and armour and aircraft have completely different vulnerabilities and exposure profiles that need to be catered for. You can build a missile that caters to both and ADATS' missile was built that way from square one.
> 
> 🍻



In that case a good idea was scotched because command got lost in the weeds.

I always assumed MMEV and TUA were road-bound versions of this




I guess that's why they pay fly-boys more!


----------



## KevinB

Kirkhill said:


> Kevin, do you reckon that those Hellfires on the MSHORAD are only going to be used against helicopters?


Yes, very few ATGM/AGM’s have the speed and just as importantly maneuvering ability to succeed engaging an aircraft (unless it’s parked).


----------



## Kirkhill

KevinB said:


> Yes, very few ATGM/AGM’s have the speed and just as importantly maneuvering ability to succeed engaging an aircraft (unless it’s parked).



I was more thinking along the lines of tanks, boats and bunkers.


----------



## MilEME09

Didn't the MMEV fail testing because at 90 degrees a missile Launch flipped the vehicle? And they didn't want to spend more money to fix it


----------



## FJAG

Kirkhill said:


> In that case a good idea was scotched because command got lost in the weeds.
> 
> I always assumed MMEV and TUA were road-bound versions of this
> 
> View attachment 69492
> 
> 
> I guess that's why they pay fly-boys more!


ADATS wasn't. It was bought principally as an AD weapon for 4 AD in Europe. The AT element was one of those little things that may have swayed a vote in the room but wasn't what it was about.

MMEV was a good idea fairy gone manic in 2004/5 what with the whole mix of MGS and LAV TUAs. I think putting the ADATs system on a LAV was just a chassis standardization thing more than anything else (plus some system and ISTAR integration upgrades). The whole thing had a big price tag too ($750 million for 30 of them)



MilEME09 said:


> Didn't the MMEV fail testing because at 90 degrees a missile Launch flipped the vehicle? And they didn't want to spend more money to fix it



I hadn't heard that. The killer came in 2006 because tanks were needed in Afghanistan. The MGS money was used to buy them at bargain basement prices and both LAV TUA and MMEV went Tango Uniform as being no longer necessary or desirable. ADATS was kept on with 4 AD until 2011.

🍻


----------



## McG

I am aware of two requests from the TF in Kandahar which were denied for the purpose an equipment lifecycle management objective. The AVLB request was denied because sending those to Afghanistan would undermine the argument for their not being replaced, and LAV TUA was not sent because it might undermine continued progress of the tank replacement.

The AVLB justification may be just rumour. I know it was requested and denied, but I was never part of the conversations as to why.  I was in the room at a DLEPS Ops brief when instruction was given not to support any efforts to deploy LAV TUA because it could do jobs that CF said only a tank could do, and an in-service vehicle doing those jobs in Kandahar might have taken wheels of the tank replacement cart.


----------



## Dana381

McG said:


> I am aware of two requests from the TF in Kandahar which were denied for the purpose an equipment lifecycle management objective. The AVLB request was denied because sending those to Afghanistan would undermine the argument for their not being replaced, and LAV TUA was not sent because it might undermine continued progress of the tank replacement.
> 
> The AVLB justification may be just rumour. I know it was requested and denied, but I was never part of the conversations as to why.  I was in the room at a DLEPS Ops brief when instruction was given not to support any efforts to deploy LAV TUA because it could do jobs that CF said only a tank could do, and an in-service vehicle doing those jobs in Kandahar might have taken wheels of the tank replacement cart.



Now you did it, when the PMO see your post the leopards will be sold to the Dutch


----------



## KevinB

McG said:


> I am aware of two requests from the TF in Kandahar which were denied for the purpose an equipment lifecycle management objective. The AVLB request was denied because sending those to Afghanistan would undermine the argument for their not being replaced, and LAV TUA was not sent because it might undermine continued progress of the tank replacement.
> 
> The AVLB justification may be just rumour. I know it was requested and denied, but I was never part of the conversations as to why.  I was in the room at a DLEPS Ops brief when instruction was given not to support any efforts to deploy LAV TUA because it could do jobs that CF said only a tank could do, and an in-service vehicle doing those jobs in Kandahar might have taken wheels of the tank replacement cart.


I really cannot understand why the CA constantly shoots itself in the foot.
   The correct method was to field LAV-TUA and then say, it's great we need more, but we still need a tank because of XYZ...


----------



## Dana381

KevinB said:


> I really cannot understand why the CA constantly shoots itself in the foot.
> The correct method was to field LAV-TUA and then say, it's great we need more, but we still need a tank because of XYZ...



Not if you understand the poverty mentality, I grew up with it everywhere on P.E.I. and I see it with my customers occasionally. If there is a cheaper option, no matter how bad it is, they will take it. If the army wanted new tanks, tanks had to be the only solution. The lav was supposed to replace the tank so if a lav with tow could do the job 1/2 as well they would order 2x as many. Then as time went on drop 1/2 the order before delivery.


----------



## GK .Dundas

* Cough * Cougar DFSV _cough_


----------



## Underway

Few questions regarding these ACSV variants...

*Variants and Quantity*
1. Troop Cargo Vehicles (TCV) – General purpose LAV (41)
2. Ambulance (Amb) with four litters (49)
3. Command Post (97)
4. Engineer with dozer, auger and lane marking capabilities (19)
5. Electronic Warfare (18)
6. Maintenance Recovery Vehicle (54)
7. Mobile Repair Team (70)
8. Fitter/ Cargo Vehicle (13)

What is the difference between a Fitter/Cargo and Troop Cargo (for that matter what is a Fitter?)  

Also who uses the Command Post variant and how does it integrate into a CMBG?


----------



## Kirkhill

I can answer the one about the "Fitter".   That is a mechanic - as in a Pipe Fitter.  Originally they worked with steam pipes and were steam fitters then they transferred their skills to diesel engines which were also characterized by lots of pipes.  Then they started "fitting" all sorts of bits of metal and things together to keep vehicles and plants running.






						General Fitter - British Army Jobs
					

A general fitter services the Army's vehicles and equipment. Be sent anywhere in the world as a first class engineer in the British Army.




					apply.army.mod.uk


----------



## KevinB

No seat belts or seats is my guess. 
  Fitter/Cargo vehicles are general empty rear ended with D rings to lash down cargo


----------



## McG

Underway said:


> What is the difference between a Fitter/Cargo and Troop Cargo (for that matter what is a Fitter?)


The fitter has an arm to support power pack changes.





Underway said:


> Also who uses the Command Post variant and how does it integrate into a CMBG?


Battalion & Brigade HQs. Radio Rebroadcast teams. The medium range radar battery.


----------



## FJAG

Our fitter vehicle in an SP battery was  a 2 1/2 ton which had lots of cargo bins in racks in the back for spare parts.

🍻


----------



## McG

You probably don’t need a fitter when you have an ARV that can do the job.


----------



## Underway

So let me play this back so I understand

-the Fitter does simple replacement/repair jobs, and the cargo part of their job is to carry the spare parts for the quick repairs - which echelon does the fitter normally work?
-the reason there are few fitters is because the  Mobile Recovery Vehicle can do the same job if they have the spares nearby (crane out a power pack for example) and if they are not recovering vehicles in the field (do they recover under fire or are they an echelon removed...?)
-Mobile Repair Team are for more complicated or in-depth repairs of vehicles, they take what the MRV brings back and fix it up to go back in the fight (or just do the regular maint for the CMBG vehicles in the field?)

Do I have that sort of correct?  I need to find an EME friend and buy a pitcher one night to get all this info.


----------



## McG

In larger armoured platforms, one vehicle can do both recovery & fitter.  The smaller armoured platforms can generally do one or the other.  Your A echelon will have MRT & ARV, while the B ech will typically hold fitters & more MRT.


----------



## KevinB

McG said:


> View attachment 70357You probably don’t need a fitter when you have an ARV that can do the job.


Is it wrong when I see that, I cry the M109 was divested...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

McG said:


> In larger armoured platforms, one vehicle can do both recovery & fitter.  The smaller armoured platforms can generally do one or the other.  Your A echelon will have MRT & ARV, while the B ech will typically hold fitters & more MRT.


Every war I have read about there were shortages of recovery vehicles on all sides. The Germans in particular were very good at vehicle recovery in WWII, as they had to be in order to maintain any sort of tank force. The number of ARV's and recovery vehicles we have now is nowhere near enough.


----------



## GR66

Rheinmetall has developed a Boxer-based bridge layer.  If we're going to stick with the LAV as our primary combat vehicle then something similar on the LAV 6.0 chassis would likely make sense.


----------



## daftandbarmy

GR66 said:


> Rheinmetall has developed a Boxer-based bridge layer.  If we're going to stick with the LAV as our primary combat vehicle then something similar on the LAV 6.0 chassis would likely make sense.



But wouldn't this one be more 'Canadian', and therefore easier to push the spending plan through the current government? 

Biber/ Bieber: it's all about Justin time


----------



## KevinB

I don’t think a LAV will be able to do much for Bridge Laying - at least compared to a Leo2 chassis.   If you have Leo’s you want to use it as the AVLB chassis, as it will be able to carry a more significant bridge that would also be able to support it.


----------



## Kirkhill

I was watching a Task and Purpose video on the BTR series.  

The argument was over is it a poor vehicle ot just a vehicle being used poorly.

One side argued that the vehicle was fine as long as it's 7 dismounts were outside eliminating NLAW teams.

How many NLAW teams in range of the mother vehicle can 7 troops manage? Are they one section or three patrols?  What range can they clear?

My money is on the defence.


----------



## FJAG

McG said:


> View attachment 70357You probably don’t need a fitter when you have an ARV that can do the job.


Don't know how I didn't respond to this when you posted it.

Each battery definitely did have an M578 each plus two 5/4 MRTs (one for wheeled; one for tracked - these basically held the personnel, tools and some parts - actual recovery - if needed - was made by the M578), a 5/4 ton weapons tech, and a 5/4 Rad tech all over and above the 2 1/2 ton fitter/parts bin. It was a pretty healthy detachment..

🍻


----------



## CBH99

McG said:


> I am aware of two requests from the TF in Kandahar which were denied for the purpose an equipment lifecycle management objective. The AVLB request was denied because sending those to Afghanistan would undermine the argument for their not being replaced, and LAV TUA was not sent because it might undermine continued progress of the tank replacement.
> 
> The AVLB justification may be just rumour. I know it was requested and denied, but I was never part of the conversations as to why.  I was in the room at a DLEPS Ops brief when instruction was given not to support any efforts to deploy LAV TUA because it could do jobs that CF said only a tank could do, and an in-service vehicle doing those jobs in Kandahar might have taken wheels of the tank replacement cart.


I have mixed feelings on this…

On the one hand, not sending the AVLB just to save some minor face seems mind-boggling.  If the TF Commander requests a certain type of vehicle or capability that is in the inventory, give it to them.  Period.  

On the other hand, I totally understand politicking to buy tanks… can they technically perform the same task as a tank?  Somewhat.  

But as we all know, they are nowhere near as survivable… we would have lost a lot more people, and ended up with a much less capable vehicle if we had sent the LAV TUA

…

So do we praise the folks responsible for these decisions, because one of those decisions allowed us to buy proper tanks?

Or do we keep scorn upon them for risking our safety due to politicking?


----------



## Kirkhill

Or they could have supplied you with Milans or Javelins at the Coy/Pl level a decade or so prior...

And you could have been blowing up grape huts before the tanks got there.


----------



## Kirkhill

I've been tracking the German's problem of getting its Gepards to Ukraine.

First it needed a Swiss release for the Oerlikon cannons then it needed a separate release for the ammunition
Brazil offered to supply ammunition but NAMMO of Norway also provides 35mm ammunition that works with Bushmaster and Oerlikon cannons.
It apparently is the supplier of choice for the CV9035 IFVs.

So when I was looking at the SAAB info on its GLSDB and came across this offering I was intrigued.









						UTAAS Tank and Anti-Aircraft System | Saab
					

The Universal Tank and Anti-Aircraft System (UTAAS) is a versatile sight and fire control system for tanks and combat vehicles. It provides high hit probability against all ground targets, as well as against helicopters and high‑speed aircraft.




					www.saab.com
				




It seems to me that a 35mm upgun programme for the LAV 6.0 would put to rest a lot of my concerns about the platform (especially if a Javelin package was added).  Maybe start with adding a Troop per Squadron (Platoon per Company).


----------



## OldSolduer

Perhaps one of these? Salvage tank.


----------



## McG

Kirkhill said:


> Maybe start with ...


This is Canada. If you propose for government to start with a half measure, then it will never get beyond that.


----------



## Kirkhill

McG said:


> This is Canada. If you propose for government to start with a half measure, then it will never get beyond that.



In a Canadian mess somewhere..... Sergeants Marvin and Eeyore look on the future.


----------



## OldSolduer

OldSolduer said:


> Perhaps one of these? Salvage tank.


It comes with a crew trained and ready. Yah they are a little sketchy but will recover the stuff that is destroyed or whatever then sell it back to you.

If you want it cleaned it will cost extra....

I wanted to post a Jawa picture but...


----------



## FJAG

OldSolduer said:


> It comes with a crew trained and ready. Yah they are a little sketchy but will recover the stuff that is destroyed or whatever then sell it back to you.
> 
> If you want it cleaned it will cost extra....
> 
> I wanted to post a Jawa picture but...


Here ya' go.







🍻


----------



## Underway

OldSolduer said:


> It comes with a crew trained and ready. Yah they are a little sketchy but will recover the stuff that is destroyed or whatever then sell it back to you.
> 
> If you want it cleaned it will cost extra....
> 
> I wanted to post a Jawa picture but...


When I was transfered to C Coy 2VP Ops from the PRT HQ the 2IC came into Ops my first night shift.  Him and I didn't get along previous (didn't like the PRC TOC telling the Coy what to do, and I was usually the messenger).  He asked me "Star Wars or Star Trek".  My answer was "Star Wars".  We were good from then on.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Underway said:


> When I was transfered to C Coy 2VP Ops from the PRT HQ the 2IC came into Ops my first night shift.  Him and I didn't get along previous (didn't like the PRC TOC telling the Coy what to do, and I was usually the messenger).  He asked me "Star Wars or Star Trek".  My answer was "Star Wars".  We were good from then on.


Should have said "Babylon 5."


----------



## Underway

Retired AF Guy said:


> Should have said "Babylon 5."


Honestly Star Wars hasn't evolved and has become stale. But the new universes for Star Trek have me interested again.  Strange New Worlds' new take on some of the original series stuff is very interesting.  Their new "Balance of Terror" episode with Pike in command was amazing.

Need some cloaking tech on the LAV's...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

daftandbarmy said:


> But wouldn't this one be more 'Canadian', and therefore easier to push the spending plan through the current government?
> 
> Biber/ Bieber: it's all about Justin time
> 
> 
> View attachment 71814


Meanwhile the Philippines have bought a Merkva based Bridge layer


----------



## Skysix

MedCorps said:


> The vast majority of force planning scenarios where we have air superiority the ratios should hold.


With whose airforce and air defense regiments will air superiority be attained and maintained?


----------



## Underway

Skysix said:


> With whose airforce and air defense regiments will air superiority be attained and maintained?


Canada doesn't fight alone. Has never fought alone.  Right now its going to be NATO or US in the most probable scenario.


----------



## Prairie canuck

Question, is there not a built and trialed prototype *tracked* LAV6 / Stryker? Built by GDLS Canada it would be top of the list for TLAV would it not?


----------



## McG

TLAV is being replaced by ACSV.  A wheeled LAV 6+ with a hull tall enough to stand inside.  It will probably be a great CP, but we may regret having the A1 echelon ambulance as the tallest vehicle in the combat team.


----------



## GK .Dundas

Underway said:


> Canada doesn't fight alone. Has never fought alone.  Right now its going to be NATO or US in the most probable scenario.


Assuming of course that they can spare those assets.....I wouldn't bet the rent money on that.


----------



## Kirkhill

GK .Dundas said:


> Assuming of course that they can spare those assets.....I wouldn't bet the rent money on that.



Canada spent a lot of effort in WW2 gap filling - Building Corvettes, Mosquitos, CMP trucks, Bren Carriers and Brens - not to mention shells, wheat and cheese.
Gap filling was necessary because the assets weren't available - demand was greater than supply.  Just as it is in Ukraine.


----------



## CBH99

GK .Dundas said:


> Assuming of course that they can spare those assets.....I wouldn't bet the rent money on that.


The only real scenario where this may be an issue looking forwards will be a conflict with China.  And on this case, I imagine air & naval forces will be in the thick of the fight long, long before any friendly AD troops are getting their boots on the ground.  Because these operations absolutely will be joint operations with 2 or more NATO countries, they wouldn’t be ‘sparing’ any.

But it was that type of thinking during the COIN years (ground based AD isn’t required) that got us to this point in the first place, so I digress.  Obviously there is a need, even if it’s focused on loitering munitions & drones.  


That type of threat coming from Russia is now mostly a moot point.  (In my opinion anyway.)

The Ukrainians have used highly dispersed yet organized/coordinated teams w/ modern systems to great affect against both aircraft & enemy combat vehicles.  To the point most Russian vehicles were either destroyed/captured, and Russian jets don’t want to fly anywhere near their airspace.  

I think that strategy is what we (the west) would be employing, as that strategy advise came directly from NATO SOF organizations.


----------



## KevinB

CBH99 said:


> The only real scenario where this may be an issue looking forwards will be a conflict with China.  And on this case, I imagine air & naval forces will be in the thick of the fight long, long before any friendly AD troops are getting their boots on the ground.  Because these operations absolutely will be joint operations with 2 or more NATO countries, they wouldn’t be ‘sparing’ any.
> 
> But it was that type of thinking during the COIN years (ground based AD isn’t required) that got us to this point in the first place, so I digress.  Obviously there is a need, even if it’s focused on loitering munitions & drones.
> 
> 
> That type of threat coming from Russia is now mostly a moot point.  (In my opinion anyway.)
> 
> The Ukrainians have used highly dispersed yet organized/coordinated teams w/ modern systems to great affect against both aircraft & enemy combat vehicles.  To the point most Russian vehicles were either destroyed/captured, and Russian jets don’t want to fly anywhere near their airspace.
> 
> I think that strategy is what we (the west) would be employing, as that strategy advise came directly from NATO SOF organizations.


One needs to be careful from drawing too many conclusions from how UKR is fighting their war. 
  The proliferation of MANPADS and other GBAD in the UA is more due to the lack of Ukrainian aircraft to fight Air Superiority missions against Russian A/C.   
   Both Armies have pushed out a lot of AD assets to attempt to deny their opponents the ability to use AC for unfettered ground attack.


----------



## FJAG

McG said:


> TLAV is being replaced by ACSV.  A wheeled LAV 6+ with a hull tall enough to stand inside.  It will probably be a great CP, but we may regret having the A1 echelon ambulance as the tallest vehicle in the combat team.


Replacing the TLAV with ACSV isn't really the issue though. It's good to have the ACSV working in LAV battalions rather than the current fleet of TLAVs, but the fact of the matter is that there is a need for a new fleet of tracked IFVs and their supporting vehicles to accompany tanks in heavy units.

Creating a tracked version of our current LAV and ACSL fleet should not be a gigantic technical challenge. GDLS is already building tracked fleets (AJAX, MPF). The challenge, in order to create as much fleet standardization as possible, is to adapt tracked running gear to the existing LAV hulls and engines. I'm not an engineer but the drive train for a tracked vehicle with two powered sprockets and a torsion bar suspension should be simpler than that of an 8X8 wheeled vehicle.


----------



## FJAG

KevinB said:


> One needs to be careful from drawing too many conclusions from how UKR is fighting their war.
> The proliferation of MANPADS and other GBAD in the UA is more due to the lack of Ukrainian aircraft to fight Air Superiority missions against Russian A/C.
> Both Armies have pushed out a lot of AD assets to attempt to deny their opponents the ability to use AC for unfettered ground attack.


It sure seems to be working though considering the limited use of ac by Russia.

I don't want to be the one to say that airpower is dead 😁 ... but ... I'm tempted to considering how the air force seemed to prematurely announce the death of artillery.

It strikes me that its one of those "everything in moderation" things. The most successful suppression of enemy air power seems to still be a combination of the use of air superiority fighters and a robust integrated AD system.

🍻


----------



## Kirkhill

FJAG said:


> It sure seems to be working though considering the limited use of ac by Russia.
> 
> I don't want to be the one to say that airpower is dead 😁 ... but ... I'm tempted to considering how the air force seemed to prematurely announce the death of artillery.
> 
> It strikes me that its one of those "everything in moderation" things. The most successful suppression of enemy air power seems to still be a combination of the use of air superiority fighters and a robust integrated AD system.
> 
> 🍻



Bigger toolbox with more options - including tanks....


----------



## Spencer100

FJAG said:


> Replacing the TLAV with ACSV isn't really the issue though. It's good to have the ACSV working in LAV battalions rather than the current fleet of TLAVs, but the fact of the matter is that there is a need for a new fleet of tracked IFVs and their supporting vehicles to accompany tanks in heavy units.
> 
> Creating a tracked version of our current LAV and ACSL fleet should not be a gigantic technical challenge. GDLS is already building tracked fleets (AJAX, MPF). The challenge, in order to create as much fleet standardization as possible, is to adapt tracked running gear to the existing LAV hulls and engines. I'm not an engineer but the drive train for a tracked vehicle with two powered sprockets and a torsion bar suspension should be simpler than that of an 8X8 wheeled vehicle.


You mean like the one GDLS has already designed.  Just check the box at check out.  And GDLS will have it delivered....without need of your Prime account.






						Stryker+Tr Prototype Armored Personnel Carrier | Military-Today.com
					

The Stryker+Tr is currently being developed by General Dynamics Land Systems. It is a tracked version of the M1126 Stryker infantry carrier vehicle. The new APC is aimed at the US Army's requirement.



					www.military-today.com
				






			Google Image Result for http://pds25.egloos.com/pds/201211/09/60/f0205060_509c59d63b7b8.jpg


----------



## FJAG

Spencer100 said:


> You mean like the one GDLS has already designed.  Just check the box at check out.  And GDLS will have it delivered....without need of your Prime account.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stryker+Tr Prototype Armored Personnel Carrier | Military-Today.com
> 
> 
> The Stryker+Tr is currently being developed by General Dynamics Land Systems. It is a tracked version of the M1126 Stryker infantry carrier vehicle. The new APC is aimed at the US Army's requirement.
> 
> 
> 
> www.military-today.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Google Image Result for http://pds25.egloos.com/pds/201211/09/60/f0205060_509c59d63b7b8.jpg


I've seen that before. It's a bit heavy at 38 tons to the point where it needed a new engine different from the run of the mill 24 ton Stryker and even the 28 ton LAV 6. Not sure if the upgraded LAV 6 engine is the same as the T-Stryker. If you can't have the same basic hull and automotives as between the tracked and wheeled version of the LAV then you lose out on common maintenance. That's really why the M1283 makes so much sense as the AMPV in the Bradley units - a common chassis. For our small Army a common system as between the tracked and wheeled carriers would be a very useful.

🍻


----------



## Prairie canuck

FJAG said:


> I've seen that before. It's a bit heavy at 38 tons to the point where it needed a new engine different from the run of the mill 24 ton Stryker and even the 28 ton LAV 6. Not sure if the upgraded LAV 6 engine is the same as the T-Stryker. If you can't have the same basic hull and automotives as between the tracked and wheeled version of the LAV then you lose out on common maintenance. That's really why the M1283 makes so much sense as the AMPV in the Bradley units - a common chassis. For our small Army a common system as between the tracked and wheeled carriers would be a very useful.
> 
> 🍻


M1283 (Bradley) - 39 tons - 600hp - BAEsystems US 
CV9035 -               37 tons (includes turret)- 750 - 810hp - Hagglunds / Bofors Sweden
Tracked LAV (7?)- 38 tons - 675hp - GDLS Canada? 60 percent commonality with wheeled Strykers. WIKI - Stryker
So weight concerns between them is a wash.


----------



## FJAG

Prairie canuck said:


> M1283 (Bradley) - 39 tons - 600hp - BAEsystems US
> CV9035 -               37 tons (includes turret)- 750 - 810hp - Hagglunds / Bofors Sweden
> Tracked LAV (7?)- 38 tons - 675hp - GDLS Canada? 60 percent commonality with wheeled Strykers. WIKI - Stryker
> So weight concerns between them is a wash.


It's not the weight per se. It's the need for a different engine than the wheeled LAV. 60% commonality is pretty good but if most of that is hull components then it doesn't help so much as all the moving parts-the stuff that breaks and needs servicing-are different and you might as well choose a CV90 as your IFV.

But then again, as I said, I'm not an engineer. Maybe you can make the tracks work on the current LAV6 hull and engine as well.

🍻


----------



## suffolkowner

Did the slap the engine from the LAV 700 in it or the other way around?






						LAV 700 Armored Personnel Carrier | Military-Today.com
					

The LAV 700 armored personnel carrier was developed by General Dynamics Land Systems, of Canada. Its production commenced in 2017. It is one of the most protected armored personnel carriers in the world.



					www.military-today.com


----------



## FJAG

suffolkowner said:


> Did the slap the engine from the LAV 700 in it or the other way around?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LAV 700 Armored Personnel Carrier | Military-Today.com
> 
> 
> The LAV 700 armored personnel carrier was developed by General Dynamics Land Systems, of Canada. Its production commenced in 2017. It is one of the most protected armored personnel carriers in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> www.military-today.com


That's an interesting idea.

Based on the two spec sheets above, the 700 has a diesel Caterpillar C13 giving 711hp while the T-Stryker has a diesel giving 675hp. (as an aside the LAV3 had a Caterpillar 3126 Diesel producing 350hp and the LAV 6.0 a Caterpillar C9 rated at 450 hp on GDLS spec sheets but 375 on Caterpillar's (🤷‍♂️))

Caterpillar's spec sheets say the C13 delivers 520hp (577 for the C13B) so the numbers don't quite jive but by the looks of it the 700 has a slightly more powerful engine and the 6.0 a weaker one than the T-Stryker. The T-Stryker goes back to 2012 while the 700 didn't enter production until a few years later. 

Long story short, the engines for the T-Stryker as configured back in 2012 are not the same as our current fleet of LAV6 and the LAV 6 engine would probably not be powerful enough for a T-LAV6 version. Leaving aside the issue of any extra armour, I guess the real question is: how much weight does the tracked running gear and power transfer system add over and above the weight of the wheeled running gear?


----------



## McG

FJAG said:


> It's not the weight per se. It's the need for a different engine than the wheeled LAV.


Theoretically, you can have tracked and wheeled fleets that share a common engine, but they cannot have a common powerpack as the mated transmissions will be different.

… unless maybe you have a fleet of in series drivetrain hybrids and the powerpack is just the internal combustion motor mated to a generator.


----------



## KevinB

Strykers are getting the engine upgrade now too - as are Bradley’s 
   The current one can t power the data needs of the vehicles.


----------



## childs56

For engines being different as long as the engine itself is a commercial one and the transmission assembly a commercial set up all one does is contact the local dealer and get the engine fixed or a replacement.  This nonsense of running different engines is a determent to the fleet is silly. I would prefer to stay with one engine and one transmission manufacturer, but run what model number is proper.  If you run a C13 or C14/15 there are parts commonality along with program, tuning, diagnostic and parts.  If you run a Allison Transmission then stick with them. Waterous is good to deal with overall and can diagnose, train and send parts pretty quick, they can even help over the phone.  You can pretty much order up and have in reserve complete engine and transmissions on standby.


----------



## McG

childs56 said:


> all one does is contact the local dealer


Yeah. That works in a conventional war. Just go to the local store and all your logistics problems are magicked away.  No need for supply trains with scale of spare parts. No need for maintainers with experience on the kit.


----------



## McG

Uncommon platforms & uncommon parts are an impediment to repairability, availability, and maintainability on a month long FTX in Canada. It is not something that can be dismissed or wished away in the design of operational equipment fleets.


----------



## childs56

McG said:


> Uncommon platforms & uncommon parts are an impediment to repairability, availability, and maintainability on a month long FTX in Canada. It is not something that can be dismissed or wished away in the design of operational equipment fleets.


The problem is more a procurement issue then actual availability of parts. Heck our mechanics couldn't fix a 1/2inch air line for my Gun tractor. A quick trip to the local parts store fixed it real quick.  I know one can not go to the local store in war, but I would hope our procurement system would have general parts available during a war. Most engines are specific and your not going to fix them in the field except maybe a alternator change going on a stretch here maybe a injector, but you need specialty tools for that not to mention the diagnostic/ computer tools. Your going to be changing power packs out, keeping for example a CAT C13 and a Cat C15 in reserve should be able to be done by Supply, if not then your doomed anyways. Many of the parts such as compressors/ alternators etc should be compatible.  


McG said:


> Yeah. That works in a conventional war. Just go to the local store and all your logistics problems are magicked away.  No need for supply trains with scale of spare parts. No need for maintainers with experience on the kit.


There nothing wrong with the Maintainers learning how to repair, but how many of them change injectors on the current C9 engine or do a cylinder sleeve swap or head swap or even a complete a overhaul? How many shops are tooled up to do heads/sleeves in the field. They usually do a Power pack swap and send the engine off down the line. I doubt very much we overhaul our own engines. How many 1st second or even third line have the full Cat Diagnostic Software/ tools, how many do repairs on the transmissions? 

Did I read that right that our LAVS have a ZF seven-speed dual clutch transmission while the American one has Allison 3200SP transmission, which transmission is better, does anyone know? Lets talk about restriction of parts.


----------



## Kirkhill

Did a little more research into our Baltic Friends

Conveniently the populations of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania add up to 33.1 Million inhabitants.  We have 38 Million inhabitants.  So we have a bit of slack.

Our Baltic Buddies can field a Heavy (Tracked) Force, a Medium (Wheeled) Force and a Light (All Terrain Force).

The Heavy Force


M270 MRLS41​155mm SPH184​120mm SPM60​120mm MBT467​30mm CVR(T)198​35mm SPAAG6​AVLB35​AEV55​ARV54​CV90 IFV775​M113 APC795​ACSV APC150​ACSV SAM6​

All of the MBTs are various Leopard 2 Models
Some of the M270s have been donated to Ukraine by Norway
The ACSV is a new tracked APC manufactured in Flensburg on the German Danish border.
Half of the SPMs (Self Propelled Mortars - 120mm) are the Swedish twin barreled turreted Mjolnir.  The rest are Cardoms operated by the Danes.
K9s are very popular as SPHs
Lots of Engineering assets.
Lots of M113s still in service.

The Medium Force


HIMARS MRLS6​155mm SPH85​155mm Towed167120mm SPM39​IFV-30207​APC1887CBRN Recce6​

Piranhas, Boxers, Patria and Fuchs in 6x6 and 8x8 configurations are all very popular as armoured transports.  If they have RWS systems then they are light systems with one gun (7.62, 12.7 or 40) for self defence.   Only one country, Estonia has decided to upgun their Boxers with a 30mm cannon and Spike N-LOS (not LR or ER but N-LOS).  They have no tanks.

SPHs are Caesars and Archers.  
SPMs are AMOS twin barrelled 120mms on Patrias.

The Light Force 


Mercedes-Benz Unimog 435TruckEstonia4,500 to 5,500 kgMercedes-Benz UnimogTruck120[22]Latvia4,500 to 5,500 kgRG-32M GaltenMine-resistant 4x4 vehicle260​Sweden4,450 kgRG32MMine-resistant 4x4 vehicle74​Finland4,450 kgHumvee M1043Armoured car30Latvia3,900 kgHumvee M1113Armoured car8Latvia3,900 kgHMMWV StingerAir Defence3​Norway3,900 kgHumvee200+Lithuania3,900 kgVolvo C3034x4 & 6x6 Multi-purpose wheeled vehicle6500​Sweden2,900 kg



Toyota Land Cruiser???Norway2,643 kgToyota Land Cruiser12Lithuania2,643 kgMercedes-Benz G-Class4x4 utility vehicleEstonia2,500 to 3,000 kgMercedes-Benz G-Class4x4 utility vehicle (Armoured)50Latvia2,500 to 3,000 kgMercedes-Benz G-Class4x4 utility vehicle78Latvia2,500 to 3,000 kgMercedes-Benz G-Class4x4 utility vehicle3,000​Norway2,500 to 3,000 kgMercedes-Benz G-Class4x4 utility vehicle???Sweden2,500 to 3,000 kgNissan Terrano II???Norway1,760 kgLand Rover Wolf4x4 utility vehicleNorway1,600 kgLand Rover Defender 1104x4 utility vehicle?Finland1,600 kgLand Rover Defender4x4 utility vehicle2Latvia1,600 kgLand Rover Defender4x4 utility vehicle100+Lithuania1,600 kgToyota HiluxPickup truck?Finland1,050 kgPolaris MRZR 4All-terrain vehicleNorway952 kgPolaris MRZR 4All-terrain vehicle62Latvia952 kg


BvS 10All-terrain carrier48​Sweden8,500 kgBV308All-terrain carrier19​Finland5,450 kgBv 206sAll-terrain carrier50​Sweden5,450 kgSisu NA-120 GTAll-terrain carrier~250Finland5,250 kgBv 206All-terrain carrier4500​Sweden4,330 kgBv 206All-terrain carrier1000​Norway4,330 kgBV206 D6NAll-terrain carrier~400Finland4,330 kgBv 206All-terrain carrier10+Lithuania4,330 kgBv 206All-terrain carrierLatvia4,330 kgBv 202All-terrain carrier5000​Sweden3,200 kg


Can-Am OutlanderAll-terrain vehicle582Latvia530 kgLynx Outlander 6x6 ArmyAll-terrain vehicle100​Norway530 kgPolaris Bigboss 6WD ATVAll-terrain vehicleNorway488 kgPolaris Sportsman MV7All-terrain vehicle?Finland450 kgPolaris Sportsman 500/800 EFIAll-terrain vehicle?Finland359 kg


Lynx Yeti Pro V800SnowmobileNorway361 kgLynx Commander 800R E-TEC ArmySnowmobile200​Norway292 kgLynx 5900 and 6900SnowmobileNorway250 kgLynx GLX 5900Snowmobile?Finland250 kg

That equates to thousands of 4x4s (10 to 20,000),  over 10,000 of the Bandvagons and a few thousand ATVs and Snowmobiles.


I am not going to harp on the numbers of each individual type of system.  

My interest is the number of systems maintained.  Call it a toolbox or call it a stable.  Our friends choose to absorb the cost of maintaining the necessary equipment.  Even if it means maintaining a bunch of micro-fleets.


----------



## Kirkhill

Flensburger ACSV


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Basically an extended M113, nothing wrong with that and takes the place roughly of a M548.


----------



## FJAG

Reminds me of winter exercises in Shilo with our M109 batteries. A Echelons were a bit of tough sledding but the gun lines just plowed straight through it all.

Makes me wonder what a winter exercise with M777s look like - probably need front end loaders from Base CE to plow out the gun positions.

Is it any wonder I like tracks?


----------



## McG

The Hybrid LAV has been prototyped.


----------



## Dana381

childs56 said:


> Did I read that right that our LAVS have a ZF seven-speed dual clutch transmission while the American one has Allison 3200SP transmission, which transmission is better, does anyone know? Lets talk about restriction of parts.


ZF transmission parts were always tough to get through Volvo.  I know of one truck that had a ZF trans with problems. The truck "accidently" burnt one weekend in the dealer parking lot. Allison transmissions typically weren't hard to get parts for but they were expensive.


----------



## Maxman1

Spencer100 said:


> You mean like the one GDLS has already designed.  Just check the box at check out.  And GDLS will have it delivered....without need of your Prime account.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stryker+Tr Prototype Armored Personnel Carrier | Military-Today.com
> 
> 
> The Stryker+Tr is currently being developed by General Dynamics Land Systems. It is a tracked version of the M1126 Stryker infantry carrier vehicle. The new APC is aimed at the US Army's requirement.
> 
> 
> 
> www.military-today.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Google Image Result for http://pds25.egloos.com/pds/201211/09/60/f0205060_509c59d63b7b8.jpg



Maybe we could make our own "wanted to be different" version of the Bradley using the LAV's turret and make our own version of the Bradley variants.

Or not reinvent the wheel and just buy Bradleys, AMPV and the new M109A7 and M1299 which use Bradley components (no, a made-for-TV comedy movie based on a self-serving memoir is not a source) to use alongside (not replace) the LAV 6.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The US could produced the Bradley's sans turret but fitted for our turret, although the ATGM option would be nice, but does not have to be TOW. GDLS makes the turret in Canada.


----------



## McG

I don't know that I would be in a hurry to start fielding Bradley at the same moment that the US is looking for a replacement.  It is a good path to run into parts shortfalls while the vehicles are still early in their service lives.


----------



## KevinB

McG said:


> I don't know that I would be in a hurry to start fielding Bradley at the same moment that the US is looking for a replacement.  It is a good path to run into parts shortfalls while the vehicles are still early in their service lives.


We can give you a screaming deal on some used ones  
   A lot of new ones are still coming off the lines and others being upgraded to A4 standard.


----------



## FJAG

KevinB said:


> We can give you a screaming deal on some used ones
> A lot of new ones are still coming off the lines and others being upgraded to A4 standard.


Not to mention that the automotives and running gear and much of the hull is in the new M109A7s and the M1299, and, I think, the AMPV. I think the basic parts will be around for a few more decades.

🍻


----------



## Maxman1

McG said:


> I don't know that I would be in a hurry to start fielding Bradley at the same moment that the US is looking for a replacement.  It is a good path to run into parts shortfalls while the vehicles are still early in their service lives.



They've been looking at a replacement since the 80s, and every time it gets cancelled due to skyrocketing costs or excessive proposed weight and size (the GCIFV would have been up to 75 tons), for something that ends up looking like a Bradley anyway. And the M2A4 and AMPV have started entering service this year.


----------



## Kirkhill

Maxman1 said:


> They've been looking at a replacement since the 80s, and every time it gets cancelled due to skyrocketing costs or excessive proposed weight and size (the GCIFV would have been up to 75 tons), for something that ends up looking like a Bradley anyway. And the M2A4 and AMPV have started entering service this year.



And isn't the M109A7 built on the Bradley as well.


----------



## Maxman1

Kirkhill said:


> And isn't the M109A7 built on the Bradley as well.



It is. And the M992 ammunition supply vehicle, and the M1299 long range version of the M109A7, and the M270 MLRS.


----------



## Kirkhill

Maxman1 said:


> It is. And the M992 ammunition supply vehicle, and the M1299 long range version of the M109A7, and the M270 MLRS.



So 

M2 Bradley IFV Family
M3 Bradley CFV Family
M109A7 Family
M1299 ERCA Family
M992 Ammunition Carrier
M270 MLRS Launchers
M1283 AMPV GP
M1284 AMPV Amb
M1285 AMPV Med
M1286 AMPV CP
M1287 AMPV Mor

All on a 36 tonne capable drive 

And then there is the all important Observed Ground Pressure




The Hagglunds Bv206/BvS10 family of vehicles have a ground pressure in the 1.5 to 2.5 psi range.

A human on foot exerts about 16 psi but on only 1 psi if wearing snow shoes.


----------

