Army.ca Forums

Army.ca => Land Vehicles => Topic started by: Mountie on March 15, 2015, 15:21:41

Title: LAV 6.0
Post by: Mountie on March 15, 2015, 15:21:41
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?
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Colin P on April 10, 2015, 12:27:42
You have just latched onto one of the biggest issues facing the infantry, go get yourself some popcorn.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Mountie on April 12, 2015, 14:55:11
Do I assume from your reply that the LAV-6.0 only carries 6 dismounts and the section is to reorganized?
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Colin P on April 13, 2015, 11:46:16
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Thucydides on August 27, 2015, 22:52:00
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....
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on August 27, 2015, 23:42:37
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Mountie on August 27, 2015, 23:58:08
So no change to the section or platoon organization?
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: dapaterson on August 28, 2015, 00:07:31
Seven, uncomfortably.

Don't worry.


HLTA fixes that problem.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Michael O'Leary on August 28, 2015, 00:14:36
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 (http://regimentalrogue.com/blog/caj_vol13.3_06_e.pdf)

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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on August 28, 2015, 00:20:35
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)

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 (http://regimentalrogue.com/blog/caj_vol13.3_06_e.pdf)

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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: George Wallace on August 28, 2015, 09:30:24
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MedTech32 on August 28, 2015, 10:01:22
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Thucydides on August 28, 2015, 13:03:01
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MedCorps on August 28, 2015, 13:09:57
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 
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Lumber on August 28, 2015, 13:11:20
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?
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: dangerboy on August 28, 2015, 13:19:36
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on August 28, 2015, 13:30:51
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.

Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on August 28, 2015, 13:31:33
Pardon my foggy memory, but trying to recall my Jr NCO course, didn't a section consist of 12 people?
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: George Wallace on August 28, 2015, 13:31:43
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: George Wallace on August 28, 2015, 13:39:42
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.   
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on August 28, 2015, 13:45:41
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. 
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MedCorps on August 28, 2015, 13:46:25
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 
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Infanteer on August 28, 2015, 13:49:53
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Infanteer on August 28, 2015, 13:52:31
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Infanteer on August 28, 2015, 14:14:32
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: dapaterson on August 28, 2015, 14:19:22
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Lumber on August 28, 2015, 14:47:23
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?
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on August 28, 2015, 15:03:52
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.

(http://images.forum-auto.com/mesimages/52606/vab13.jpg)
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: George Wallace on August 28, 2015, 16:11:03
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MCG on August 28, 2015, 17:21:38
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Chris Pook on August 28, 2015, 19:18:57
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

(http://www.airforceworld.com/heli/gfx/oh58/oh58_2.jpg)
(http://www.helis.com/h/h64_6.jpg)
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: cupper on August 28, 2015, 19:40:21
...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? >:D
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: George Wallace on August 28, 2015, 19:49:17
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

(http://www.airforceworld.com/heli/gfx/oh58/oh58_2.jpg)
(http://www.helis.com/h/h64_6.jpg)

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:
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Loachman on August 28, 2015, 20:01:43
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...
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Nerf herder on August 28, 2015, 20:04:00
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
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: George Wallace on August 28, 2015, 20:17:13
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:

(http://images.forum-auto.com/mesimages/52606/vab13.jpg)

Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Good2Golf on August 28, 2015, 20:56:57
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...  :whistle:
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Good2Golf on August 28, 2015, 21:16:22
Don't worry.


HLTA fixes that problem.

MilPoints inbound, after I clean up my coffee...  :rofl:
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MedTech32 on August 29, 2015, 10:36:39
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Thucydides on September 02, 2015, 23:25:22
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: ballz on September 03, 2015, 00:17:16
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: George Wallace on September 03, 2015, 09:08:10
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Colin P on September 03, 2015, 11:08:57
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Underway on September 03, 2015, 13:24:57
: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 vehicleis 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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on September 03, 2015, 14:19:30
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Lumber on September 03, 2015, 15:30:46
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 vehicleis 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
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MilEME09 on September 03, 2015, 16:45:37
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?
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MCG on September 03, 2015, 16:46:45
Stryker 6.0 and LAV 6.0 in the same organization.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Lumber on September 03, 2015, 16:56:38
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?
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: George Wallace on September 03, 2015, 17:17:47
......... 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".
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Chris Pook on September 03, 2015, 18:30:17
Stryker 6.0 and LAV 6.0 in the same organization.

Or this?

(http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/data/504/2g1a17.jpg)
(http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/data/504/2g1a15.jpg)
(http://www.military-today.com/trucks/alvis_stalwart.jpg)

If you wanted something bigger than 25mm AND you wanted to lower the profile while maintaining common mechanicals.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: daftandbarmy on September 03, 2015, 19:47:29
Or this?

(http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/data/504/2g1a17.jpg)
(http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/data/504/2g1a15.jpg)
(http://www.military-today.com/trucks/alvis_stalwart.jpg)

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
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on September 04, 2015, 11:34:59
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/ (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/ (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/ (http://www.breachbangclear.com/the-truth-about-the-french-army-pt-iii-getting-into-fights/) Part 3

Key quotes:

Quote
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.

Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Mountie on September 04, 2015, 12:58:25
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? 
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Chris Pook on September 04, 2015, 15:22:00
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?

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/Stryker_ICV_front_q.jpg/300px-Stryker_ICV_front_q.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/Exercise_Allied_Spirit_I%2C_Day_5_150117-A-EM105-337.jpg/300px-Exercise_Allied_Spirit_I%2C_Day_5_150117-A-EM105-337.jpg)
(http://www.military-today.com/missiles/m1134_stryker.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/Stryker_ESV_front_q.jpg/300px-Stryker_ESV_front_q.jpg)
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Mountie on September 04, 2015, 16:39:56
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).
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Kilo_302 on September 04, 2015, 17:41:31
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://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/panhards-crab-may-just-be-the-future-of-armored-scout-v-1581746120)


http://www.military-today.com/apc/panhard_sphinx.htm (http://www.military-today.com/apc/panhard_sphinx.htm)
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Chris Pook on September 04, 2015, 18:01:35
Cockerill offers a nice array of medium calibre turrets for the discerning Cavalry soldier.

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

(http://www.cmigroupe.com/upload/gallery/637/n-471x301-CMI-Defence-Cockerill-CSE-90LP_02.jpg)

(http://www.cmigroupe.com/upload/gallery/632/n-471x301-CMI-Defence-Cockerill-LCTS-90MP_02.jpg)

Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Kilo_302 on September 04, 2015, 18:07:49
Cockerill offers a nice array of medium calibre turrets for the discerning Cavalry soldier.

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

(http://www.cmigroupe.com/upload/gallery/637/n-471x301-CMI-Defence-Cockerill-CSE-90LP_02.jpg)

(http://www.cmigroupe.com/upload/gallery/632/n-471x301-CMI-Defence-Cockerill-LCTS-90MP_02.jpg)

My thoughts exactly. But how would such a vehicle fit into current CF doctrine? Or force structure?
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Colin P on September 04, 2015, 18:46:47
Display Pips' and bows onto it and call it an LightweightCombatFlexiableFullyIntergratedMulti-taskableAFVHQ, they figure something out
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Chris Pook on September 04, 2015, 18:47:03
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://cmsimg.defensenews.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=M5&Date=20130804&Category=DEFREG01&ArtNo=308040011&Ref=AR&MaxW=640&Border=0&Anglo-French-Cannon-Project-Finally-Bears-Fruit)

http://archive.defensenews.com/article/20130804/DEFREG01/308040011/Anglo-French-Cannon-Project-Finally-Bears-Fruit
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Kilo_302 on September 04, 2015, 20:18:08
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?
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Eland2 on September 05, 2015, 01:55:35
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Nerf herder on September 05, 2015, 08:26:18
It's intended role is as a tank destroyer.  Infantry support is a secondary role.

Horrible vehicle, thankfully we never got it.

Regards
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: GnyHwy on September 05, 2015, 09:10:22
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,
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Nerf herder on September 05, 2015, 11:06:50
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
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: George Wallace on September 05, 2015, 11:16:57
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.]
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Chris Pook on September 05, 2015, 11:40:43
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.



Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: GnyHwy on September 05, 2015, 12:01:54
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Thucydides on September 05, 2015, 12:25:16
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?
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Mountie on September 05, 2015, 12:54:57
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://cmsimg.defensenews.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=M5&Date=20130804&Category=DEFREG01&ArtNo=308040011&Ref=AR&MaxW=640&Border=0&Anglo-French-Cannon-Project-Finally-Bears-Fruit)

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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Chris Pook on September 05, 2015, 14:38:09
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Thucydides on September 06, 2015, 01:08:35
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Eland2 on September 06, 2015, 13:54:35
George Wallace writes:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: George Wallace on September 06, 2015, 14:15:38
 :goodpost:  Eland2
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MCG on September 06, 2015, 14:27:38
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: George Wallace on September 06, 2015, 14:39:33
Perhaps "low recoil" is a better description.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MCG on September 06, 2015, 14:48:40
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Chris Pook on September 06, 2015, 15:26:32
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/The_British_Army_in_North_Africa_1942_E12643.jpg)

Early model MGS? 6 Pdr AT Portee - Western Desert 1942
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: George Wallace on September 06, 2015, 18:29:53
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MCG on September 06, 2015, 18:36:36
Yes George, different recoil systems.  That does not change what I said earlier. 
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Eland2 on September 06, 2015, 19:00:46
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Old Sweat on September 06, 2015, 21:17:11
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Thucydides on September 06, 2015, 22:40:19
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MCG on September 06, 2015, 23:34:18
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Old Sweat on September 06, 2015, 23:41:57
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.)
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Eland2 on September 07, 2015, 00:24:08
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Underway on September 07, 2015, 00:28:38
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Thucydides on September 25, 2015, 20:35:52
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Soldier1stTradesman2nd on November 16, 2015, 00:35:28
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Ostrozac on November 16, 2015, 00:48:15
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?
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: CBH99 on November 16, 2015, 01:47:38
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. 
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MilEME09 on November 16, 2015, 02:38:38
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Bzzliteyr on November 16, 2015, 13:37:26
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?
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Soldier1stTradesman2nd on November 16, 2015, 21:18:45
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...
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: PuckChaser on November 16, 2015, 21:27:53
Are all these captured in a UCR? Seems like a more appropriate place to identify issues...
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on November 16, 2015, 21:33:22
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. 
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MCG on November 16, 2015, 21:38:15
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: CBH99 on November 16, 2015, 21:44:47
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.

Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on November 16, 2015, 21:52:11
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    >:D

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. 
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MCG on November 16, 2015, 22:14:00
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Loachman on November 17, 2015, 19:26:15
(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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on November 17, 2015, 19:34:02
How do you move a vehicle without a steering wheel? :facepalm:
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: cupper on November 17, 2015, 19:55:24
How do you move a vehicle without a steering wheel? :facepalm:

With GREAT difficulty.  :nod:
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Chris Pook on November 17, 2015, 19:58:21
How do you move a vehicle without a steering wheel? :facepalm:

(http://i01.geccdn.net/site/images/large/534185.jpg)

Never leave home without it.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Chris Pook on April 21, 2016, 22:14:43
The French alternative to the LAV

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/04/21/17/3367FEFF00000578-0-image-a-45_1461257924190.jpg)

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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Loachman on April 21, 2016, 22:54:17
Well, their posture is poor and they're not wearing bearskins...
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: cavalryman on April 21, 2016, 23:27:31
Typical French - making the 'maudit Anglais' walk instead of riding in the comfort of an air conditioned APC...  :whistle:
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on April 21, 2016, 23:33:02
No, it's the English who were trying to get away from the smell of garlic.  [:D
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Thucydides on April 23, 2016, 12:45:52
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
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: LunchMeat on April 23, 2016, 15:09:12

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.

Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: dangerboy on April 23, 2016, 15:18:05
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: PuckChaser on April 23, 2016, 15:19:13
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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW0w8szMDlA)
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: LunchMeat on April 23, 2016, 16:12:29
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MilEME09 on April 24, 2016, 07:04:04
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?
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Thucydides on April 24, 2016, 18:45:28
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

Quote
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.”
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: GnyHwy on May 20, 2016, 23:17:26
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Colin P on June 03, 2016, 16:30:25
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.

Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Bzzliteyr on June 07, 2016, 16:25:15
I have driven a Leopard C2 in Ottawa, I suspect it wasn't road legal.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MilEME09 on June 08, 2016, 14:56:53
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on June 08, 2016, 15:07:18
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Colin P on June 08, 2016, 16:43:52
The air over hydraulic system for the brakes as I recall.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: sidemount on June 08, 2016, 19:56:18
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
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: NFLD Sapper on June 08, 2016, 20:16:06
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.....
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: cupper on June 08, 2016, 20:26:18
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Colin P on June 09, 2016, 11:10:11
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MilEME09 on February 10, 2017, 01:36:17
Get ready for something being announced, the Defense Minister will be at GDLS tomorrow for an announcement of some kind.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MilEME09 on February 10, 2017, 15:10:52
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

Quote
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
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Loachman on February 10, 2017, 16:08:07
But "upgrade" in name only - completely new hull, turret, and most other bits.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MilEME09 on February 10, 2017, 16:13:12
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"?
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: dapaterson on February 10, 2017, 16:17:36
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Good2Golf on February 10, 2017, 16:33:57
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
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Old EO Tech on February 10, 2017, 20:36:50
Could be that these are the LORITS that were not getting upgraded originally....

Jon
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Good2Golf on February 10, 2017, 21:03:13
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
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: dapaterson on February 10, 2017, 21:16:19
Without going too far down the rabbit hole, yes, I believe this is the LORITs.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MilEME09 on February 11, 2017, 14:45:16
Without going too far down the rabbit hole, yes, I believe this is the LORITs.

According to articles im reading LORIT's it is.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Underway on February 11, 2017, 23:33:52
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?
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MilEME09 on February 12, 2017, 02:31:16
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

Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on February 12, 2017, 14:18:09
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).


 :salute:
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Colin P on February 13, 2017, 16:03:41
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MilEME09 on February 15, 2017, 14:11:02
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Colin P on February 15, 2017, 15:39:29
or reality might force it to be. Seems world events are not going as forecasted.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: suffolkowner on February 15, 2017, 17:26:46
Well the US delivered it's message to NATO, looking for a plan for meeting the 2% target
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MilEME09 on February 15, 2017, 18:13:09
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)
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: ballz on February 15, 2017, 18:23:51
more ammunition

Please God no, we need a full two weeks in February to expend all remaining ammo already.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MilEME09 on February 15, 2017, 18:26:23
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
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: ballz on February 15, 2017, 18:39:55
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....

Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Eland2 on February 15, 2017, 18:59:39
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?
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Chris Pook on May 02, 2017, 13:26:22
Been a while on this thread.

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

(https://www.army.mil/e2/c/images/2017/01/25/463593/size0.jpg)
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.

Quote
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.

(http://49m47r1ce5b927clot3yajgk.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/3283485.jpg)

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

Quote
Marine Corps Investing in Light Vehicles To Take the Load Off Troops’ Shoulders

(http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/-/media/sites/magazine/2017/04/mrzr-at-quantico-1_878.ashx?h=500&w=878&la=en&hash=969912922F4E3C6857BB079B2A5335258BA9C17C)

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

Quote
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
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Thucydides on May 08, 2017, 20:26:05
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Underway on May 15, 2017, 23:02:24
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on May 20, 2017, 10:58:04
Noob question:  What are the technical reasons why they could not use wider tires to better distribute the heavier weight?
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Underway on May 20, 2017, 17:47:41
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Thucydides on June 20, 2017, 18:59:14
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
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: ballz on June 20, 2017, 19:53:05
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: George Wallace on June 20, 2017, 20:09:25
 :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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: GR66 on June 20, 2017, 20:49:53
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: ballz on June 20, 2017, 21:07:06
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on June 20, 2017, 21:49:25
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Chris Pook on June 20, 2017, 22:41:03



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.

Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on June 20, 2017, 22:49:27
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: daftandbarmy on June 20, 2017, 23:31:36
: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

Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on June 20, 2017, 23:58:57
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
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Eland2 on June 21, 2017, 00:52:06
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: ballz on June 21, 2017, 11:24:38
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Thucydides on June 22, 2017, 17:43:33
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Underway on July 07, 2017, 22:44:36


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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Loachman on July 07, 2017, 22:52:11
Not that there are many, if any, Canadian bases served by rail anymore.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Underway on July 07, 2017, 23:02:12
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: George Wallace on July 07, 2017, 23:06:59
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: LightFighter on July 07, 2017, 23:42:57
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: George Wallace on July 07, 2017, 23:56:54
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.

It depends on the 'carrier' as to where they bring their cars.  We unloaded to the South of Base around the town of Hughenden.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: kratz on July 08, 2017, 00:03:14
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Loachman on July 08, 2017, 05:27:04
Borden has no rail service.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: daftandbarmy on July 08, 2017, 12:06:26
Borden has no rail service.

They probably did that as an ironic gesture as it's the centre for all our logistics training, right? :)
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on July 08, 2017, 16:28:01
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.   :salute:
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Loachman on July 09, 2017, 00:30:28
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MilEME09 on July 09, 2017, 03:23:53
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Ostrozac on July 09, 2017, 06:44:58
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MJP on July 09, 2017, 08:49:16
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. 

Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Loachman on July 09, 2017, 13:02:14
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Thucydides on July 09, 2017, 13:21:15
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Colin P on July 10, 2017, 11:48:05
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?
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MJP on July 10, 2017, 12:15:44
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. 

Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on July 10, 2017, 12:42:39
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Colin P on July 10, 2017, 13:26:38
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.
 
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MJP on July 10, 2017, 15:08:34
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Loachman on July 10, 2017, 15:40:02
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Colin P on July 10, 2017, 15:56:37
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.   
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Chris Pook on July 10, 2017, 15:58:54
Or....

The money could be used to buy Tanks, or ships to transport the Tanks once they get to Shearwater or Esquimalt.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Colin P on July 10, 2017, 16:29:24
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Chris Pook on July 10, 2017, 17:27:22
 :goodpost:
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: George Wallace on July 10, 2017, 18:09:55
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:
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Colin P on July 11, 2017, 11:35:13
Complete and utter thread drift, but electric railguns on rail cars, powered by locomotives could be part of the upcoming mix.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Eland2 on July 11, 2017, 13:53:42
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MilEME09 on July 11, 2017, 14:06:52
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Loachman on July 11, 2017, 15:27:52
The move of 1 RCR from London to Petawawa was initiated during Brian Mulroney's term as Prime Minister.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MilEME09 on August 18, 2017, 17:16:05
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/
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: ballz on August 18, 2017, 21:34:53
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!
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Colin P on August 23, 2017, 12:52:45
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? 
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Spencer100 on August 23, 2017, 13:18:33
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/ (http://www.defensenews.com/smr/european-balance-of-power/2017/08/16/upgunned-stryker-in-europe-to-help-shape-future-infantry-lethality/)

Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Spencer100 on August 23, 2017, 13:20:38
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/ (https://www.defensenews.com/land/2016/12/08/peru-wants-us-army-stryker-infantry-carrier-vehicles/)

Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Loachman on August 23, 2017, 16:21:21
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Colin P on August 23, 2017, 18:31:11
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"

Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Thucydides on August 23, 2017, 21:40:21
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Loachman on August 23, 2017, 22:42:55
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Underway on January 02, 2018, 20:11:11
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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8uFVKmAj5o)

Part 2 Ultimate Factories - M1 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dG4CLaBMfVU)
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: .Fred on June 15, 2018, 21:13:08
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

Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Spencer100 on July 10, 2018, 11:23:28
Well here is where the LAV go to die in London ON.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/london-ontario-lav-1.4734920 (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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Chris Pook on July 10, 2018, 13:25:48
I wonder if they couldn't be stored in armouries - you know - as displays for the regimental museums.   
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Remius on July 10, 2018, 13:37:30
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?


 
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: CountDC on July 10, 2018, 14:49:31
Well here is where the LAV go to die in London ON.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/london-ontario-lav-1.4734920 (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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: dapaterson on July 10, 2018, 14:56:45
I wonder if they couldn't be stored in armouries - you know - as displays for the regimental museums.

Some are being converted to monuments.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Chris Pook on July 10, 2018, 16:05:07
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? 
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Loachman on July 10, 2018, 18:29:08
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: CloudCover on July 13, 2018, 22:01:16
There are LAV monuments popping up in a lot of places, find one near you! :  https://www.lavmonument.ca/en/index.html
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Colin P on July 13, 2018, 22:20:57
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
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: CloudCover on July 14, 2018, 10:32:38
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Loachman on July 14, 2018, 15:38:44
Look on the FAQ page on the link that you posted.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MarkOttawa on August 16, 2019, 15:01:39
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?
Quote
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

Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: dapaterson on August 16, 2019, 15:12:01
Sounds like this: http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/defence-capabilities-blueprint/project-details.asp?id=1013

Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MarkOttawa on August 16, 2019, 15:20:28
Dataperson: Quite so, but boy does this announcement seem rushed (election) in view of timeline at your link above:

Quote
...
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:

Quote
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

Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: dapaterson on August 16, 2019, 15:22:41
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!
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on August 16, 2019, 15:27:30
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: CloudCover on August 16, 2019, 15:39:21
"However, no contract has yet been signed, and full details around the price and timeline have yet to be determined."

Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MarkOttawa on August 16, 2019, 15:48:51
But at least none of that pesky competition stuff  ;).

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MarkOttawa on August 16, 2019, 16:21:05
CP story, note no actual contract for new LAVs has been negotiated and signed:

Quote
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
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MilEME09 on August 16, 2019, 16:36:47
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MJP on August 16, 2019, 16:39:43
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
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MarkOttawa on August 16, 2019, 16:49:22
Cloud Cover:

Quote
"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
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Underway on August 16, 2019, 17:05:13
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Good2Golf on August 16, 2019, 17:29:02
...Inconceivable!

Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Infanteer on August 16, 2019, 17:35:49
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: ballz on August 16, 2019, 19:28:07
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.

Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Underway on August 16, 2019, 21:17:26
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....  (https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2019/08/canada-negotiates-new-armoured-combat-support-vehicles.html?fbclid=IwAR0XFfDeWXS97Vhom7aekND8F8pghVWdhhYRsA9RQvylZ1HyLXJ2X-lFGK0)

Quote
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: ballz on August 17, 2019, 02:06:24
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....  (https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2019/08/canada-negotiates-new-armoured-combat-support-vehicles.html?fbclid=IwAR0XFfDeWXS97Vhom7aekND8F8pghVWdhhYRsA9RQvylZ1HyLXJ2X-lFGK0)

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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Fishbone Jones on August 17, 2019, 02:29:57
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MSmith on August 17, 2019, 12:22:41
You suspect wrong.

What makes you say that? I don't see how its out of the realm of possiblity
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Underway on August 17, 2019, 13:20:30
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. 
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on August 17, 2019, 13:27:16
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.

(https://dewengineering.com/sites/default/files/img/casestudies/bison08.jpg)
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: PuckChaser on August 17, 2019, 17:12:00
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: CBH99 on August 17, 2019, 19:01:30
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? 
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: CloudCover on August 17, 2019, 22:44:12
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Old EO Tech on August 17, 2019, 23:29:31
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: FJAG on August 17, 2019, 23:51:08
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:
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: dapaterson on August 17, 2019, 23:57:39
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MJP on August 18, 2019, 00:16:34
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:

frig no.... We don't need more useless fleets to maintain
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: FJAG on August 18, 2019, 00:44:44
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 (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:
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Ludoc on August 18, 2019, 01:56:20
... 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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: ballz on August 18, 2019, 02:22:54
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.


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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: FJAG on August 18, 2019, 02:56:10
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:
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Petard on August 18, 2019, 03:04:24
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).

Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Ludoc on August 18, 2019, 03:28:44
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 (https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2019/08/canada-negotiates-new-armoured-combat-support-vehicles.html)

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: ballz on August 18, 2019, 04:00:06
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.

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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Infanteer on August 18, 2019, 10:50:50
I believe the TCVs are meant to replace the M113 TLAVs being used in in Artillery and Engineer units to move sections around.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Chris Pook on August 18, 2019, 11:04:44
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? 
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Infanteer on August 18, 2019, 11:09:35
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Chris Pook on August 18, 2019, 13:01:05
I agree about not putting worn out gear into reserve (or the reserves) but I suggest as a model this:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Green_Goddess_1.jpg/280px-Green_Goddess_1.jpg)

Quote
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

(https://www.baesystems.com/en/download-en/multimediaimage/webImage/20151116153532/1434570545061.jpg)
(https://www.baesystems.com/en/download-en/multimediaimage/webImage/20151116152506/1434570545001.jpg)
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: FJAG on August 18, 2019, 13:31:43
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:
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on August 18, 2019, 13:56:17
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
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Infanteer on August 18, 2019, 14:44:06
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.

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

 :rofl:
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Infanteer on August 18, 2019, 14:50:47
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).

Quote
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: dapaterson on August 18, 2019, 14:56:32
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).

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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)

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/QMxU2ZAaNG4YKErlGASmXIRlI-w=/0x0:638x480/1200x800/filters:focal(268x189:370x291)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/63698749/pogo-met-the-enemy.0.1505425927.0.jpg)
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Brad Sallows on August 18, 2019, 15:11:23
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)?
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MCG on August 18, 2019, 15:15:49
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.

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.

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.

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.

Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: FJAG on August 18, 2019, 15:40:18
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:

Quote
... 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:

Quote
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:
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Infanteer on August 18, 2019, 16:53:28
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Good2Golf on August 18, 2019, 17:16:08
...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 Estimate for SSE...
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: dapaterson on August 18, 2019, 17:18:41
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?
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Brad Sallows on August 18, 2019, 19:47:37
>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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Chris Pook on August 18, 2019, 20:00:27
>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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: quadrapiper on August 18, 2019, 20:10:18
...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?
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: FJAG on August 18, 2019, 20:54:25
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:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DkGqJMSVsAAsqRr.jpg)

(https://www.armytimes.com/resizer/a55-I5sTvZ_AIJeDAq0dBi5s6yo=/1200x0/filters:quality(100)/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-mco.s3.amazonaws.com/public/WG4N4YOYGZBULDRTCA4VWVQBHU.jpg)

(https://c8.alamy.com/comp/P45MK1/a-m106-paladin-with-battery-b-2d-battalion-114th-field-artillery-regiment-155th-armored-brigade-combat-team-mississippi-army-national-guard-engages-a-target-during-a-direct-fire-event-at-fort-hood-texas-june-16-2016-mississippi-national-guard-photo-by-staff-sgt-scott-tynes-102d-public-affairs-detachmentreleased-P45MK1.jpg)

(https://www.ainonline.com/sites/default/files/styles/ain30_fullwidth_large_2x/public/uploads/2016/02/apache.jpg?itok=D7YJkeGK&timestamp=1454360306)

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:
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Infanteer on August 18, 2019, 20:57:29
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Underway on August 18, 2019, 21:56:54
>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.

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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MilEME09 on August 19, 2019, 00:50:56

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 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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: ballz on August 19, 2019, 03:15:43
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on August 19, 2019, 14:16:48
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.  ;)
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: PuckChaser on August 19, 2019, 17:53:07
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MilEME09 on February 21, 2020, 11:10:51
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?
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Retired AF Guy on February 22, 2020, 09:49:24
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:

Quote
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 (https://buyandsell.gc.ca/cds/public/2020/02/19/3c348fdf24d2bff21830ebcc993d2172/en_w8476-206262_isr_mod_rfi_orig_19feb2020.pdf)
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: CloudCover on February 23, 2020, 14:26:13
With respect to (i), is that subsection contemplating a new ISR Mod vehicle?
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: GR66 on April 18, 2020, 13:31:35
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 (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?




Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Infanteer on April 18, 2020, 13:37:35
I had an RWS-equipped LAV 3 and it easily fit 9 personnel in it.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: reveng on April 18, 2020, 13:39:24
Infanteer beat me to it, but during the Afghan years, there were LAV-III RWS. No idea what became of them.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: FJAG on April 18, 2020, 14:29:48
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:
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MCG on April 18, 2020, 16:17:28
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: NFLD Sapper on April 18, 2020, 16:35:24
4 has or had them too.. iirc...
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: GR66 on April 18, 2020, 17:35:31
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. 



Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MilEME09 on April 18, 2020, 18:21:27
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Infanteer on April 18, 2020, 19:06:40
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/

Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: CBH99 on April 18, 2020, 19:11:52
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
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MilEME09 on April 18, 2020, 19:22:45
All those variants and yet no LAV based recovery vehicle.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: dapaterson on April 18, 2020, 19:51:04
All those variants and yet no LAV based recovery vehicle.
Part of the 360.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MilEME09 on April 18, 2020, 20:09:48
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: FJAG on April 18, 2020, 20:10:56
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.

Quote
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.)

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/HEMTT_M984A4_wrecker.jpg/1280px-HEMTT_M984A4_wrecker.jpg)

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.

(https://olive-drab.com/images/id_m916_700_03.jpg)

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

(https://www.gdlscanada.com/images/products/LAV-6-MRV.jpg)

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

 :cheers:

Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MilEME09 on April 18, 2020, 20:15:53
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.)

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/HEMTT_M984A4_wrecker.jpg/1280px-HEMTT_M984A4_wrecker.jpg)

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.

(https://olive-drab.com/images/id_m916_700_03.jpg)

 :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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: CloudCover on April 18, 2020, 22:39:14
Which we declined. Is there any other country that shoots itself in the balls more than Canada?
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MilEME09 on April 23, 2020, 20:03:14
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Spencer100 on April 23, 2020, 20:15:23
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?
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Ostrozac on April 23, 2020, 21:58:13
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: suffolkowner on July 23, 2020, 16:41:20
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/
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MilEME09 on July 23, 2020, 17:22:32
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Colin P on July 23, 2020, 17:46:03
480 vehicles going away, replaced by 380, the magical shrinking army  ::)
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: daftandbarmy on July 23, 2020, 19:27:24
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: dapaterson on July 23, 2020, 19:37:12
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MilEME09 on July 23, 2020, 20:00:28
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 ;)
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Ostrozac on July 23, 2020, 20:32:23
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: CBH99 on July 23, 2020, 20:52:13
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? 
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Colin P on July 24, 2020, 01:46:47
That may be it, 500 TAPV, not exactly a like for like, but aren't they also replacing the armoured G-wagon?
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: CBH99 on July 24, 2020, 02:26:26
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. 
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Colin P on July 24, 2020, 02:38:11
So 75 RG-31 and 203 Coyotes being replaced? For once there might actually a vehicle neutral replacement? colour me surprised!
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: CBH99 on July 24, 2020, 02:56:55
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    :o


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   ;)


Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Hamish Seggie on July 24, 2020, 09:04:07
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: daftandbarmy on July 24, 2020, 10:38:58
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 :) ).
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MilEME09 on July 24, 2020, 10:42:25
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: dapaterson on July 24, 2020, 10:50:13
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).
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MilEME09 on July 24, 2020, 10:58:34
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: daftandbarmy on July 24, 2020, 11:28:58
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MJP on July 24, 2020, 11:54:38
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.

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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: FJAG on July 24, 2020, 15:22:36
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:
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: quadrapiper on July 24, 2020, 18:47:31
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?
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MilEME09 on July 24, 2020, 19:04:04
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: FJAG on July 24, 2020, 20:19:47
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:
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Good2Golf on July 27, 2020, 08:26:59
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... (http://xcept 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.)

:nod:
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MilEME09 on July 27, 2020, 11:20:00
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.

Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: daftandbarmy on July 27, 2020, 12:48:50
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: FJAG on July 27, 2020, 14:10:04
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:
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: daftandbarmy on July 27, 2020, 15:40:02
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? ;)
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MilEME09 on July 27, 2020, 16:15:16
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
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: daftandbarmy on July 27, 2020, 17:46:37
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... :)
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: CBH99 on July 27, 2020, 17:53:23
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   ;)
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: FJAG on July 27, 2020, 18:03:45
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.

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:
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MilEME09 on July 27, 2020, 18:45:13


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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Colin P on July 27, 2020, 19:05:58
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: FJAG on July 27, 2020, 20:20:50
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:
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Good2Golf on July 27, 2020, 20:56:19
...and make them wear puttees!
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Hamish Seggie on July 27, 2020, 21:11:58
Personally, I'd waive all those requirements and issue them 51 pattern webbing, a grey blanket and Lee-Enfields.

 :stirpot:

Oh you are nasty.....

...and make them wear puttees!

And you're even nastier.... :rofl:
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: CBH99 on July 27, 2020, 21:15:43
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   ???
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: daftandbarmy on July 27, 2020, 23:53:55
...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). :)
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Old Sweat on July 28, 2020, 09:25:23
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: LoboCanada on July 28, 2020, 12:36:32
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/ (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://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/ (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/ (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 (https://www.gdls.com/products/stryker-family/stryker-sph.php).



Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: FJAG on July 28, 2020, 12:54:14
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:
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: FJAG on July 28, 2020, 13:14:31
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)

(https://i.insider.com/5266f061ecad040760830084?width=800&format=jpeg&auto=webp)

See whole process here (https://www.businessinsider.com/rebuilding-m1-tank-2013-11#army-depot-in-anniston-alabama-is-the-first-stop-for-the-m1-tanks-the-tanks-will-spend-an-average-of-4-months-here-before-they-are-shipped-off-for-the-second-reconstruction-phase-some-600-miles-away-in-lima-ohio-1)

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:
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: LoboCanada on July 28, 2020, 14:13:51

See whole process here (https://www.businessinsider.com/rebuilding-m1-tank-2013-11#army-depot-in-anniston-alabama-is-the-first-stop-for-the-m1-tanks-the-tanks-will-spend-an-average-of-4-months-here-before-they-are-shipped-off-for-the-second-reconstruction-phase-some-600-miles-away-in-lima-ohio-1)

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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MilEME09 on July 28, 2020, 15:41:07
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: FJAG on July 28, 2020, 20:57:49
... 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:

Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: GR66 on August 03, 2020, 12:10:33
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 (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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: daftandbarmy on August 03, 2020, 12:39:59
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: FJAG on August 03, 2020, 15:22:07
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 (https://wavellroom.com/2017/10/12/the-british-armys-strike-concept/) 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 (https://wavellroom.com/2020/01/07/strike-brigades-more-than-just-a-medium-weight-capability/more recent article) 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:
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Colin P on August 03, 2020, 17:07:06
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. 
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Ostrozac on August 03, 2020, 23:11:56
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MJP on August 04, 2020, 00:14:49
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Ostrozac on August 04, 2020, 00:55:34
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: CBH99 on August 04, 2020, 01:09:15
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?)   :o :2c:
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: Kilted on October 11, 2020, 02:26:50
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: CBH99 on October 11, 2020, 10:36:43
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. 
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MilEME09 on October 11, 2020, 13:48:50
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: FJAG on October 11, 2020, 14:54:20
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 (https://ppcli.com/wp-content/uploads/Pat_18_ppcli.pdf).

 :cheers:
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MilEME09 on October 11, 2020, 15:16:15

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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MJP on October 11, 2020, 15:37:39
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.
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: daftandbarmy on October 11, 2020, 19:14:17
There are institutional challenges for the PRes working with the reg force.

And vice versa, big time  ;D
Title: Re: LAV 6.0
Post by: MilEME09 on October 11, 2020, 20:18:38
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.