Author Topic: LAV 6.0  (Read 140704 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Ostrozac

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 36,840
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 782
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #300 on: April 23, 2020, 20:58:13 »
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.

Offline suffolkowner

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 20,545
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 504
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #301 on: July 23, 2020, 15:41:20 »

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 52,180
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,352
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #302 on: July 23, 2020, 16:22:32 »
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.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 178,980
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,601
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #303 on: July 23, 2020, 16:46:03 »
480 vehicles going away, replaced by 380, the magical shrinking army  ::)

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 321,145
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,378
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #304 on: July 23, 2020, 18:27:24 »
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.
“To stand on the firing parapet and expose yourself to danger; to stand and fight a thousand miles from home when you're all alone and outnumbered and probably beaten; to spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary.”
— Jerry Pournelle —

Offline dapaterson

    Halfway to being an idiot-savant.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 544,255
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,501
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #305 on: July 23, 2020, 18:37:12 »
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.
Putting the *** in acerbic.

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 52,180
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,352
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #306 on: July 23, 2020, 19:00:28 »
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 ;)
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Ostrozac

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 36,840
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 782
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #307 on: July 23, 2020, 19:32:23 »
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.

Offline CBH99

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 51,590
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,304
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #308 on: July 23, 2020, 19:52:13 »
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? 
Fortune Favours the Bold...and the Smart.

Wouldn't it be nice to have some Boondock Saints kicking around?

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 178,980
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,601
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #309 on: July 24, 2020, 00:46:47 »
That may be it, 500 TAPV, not exactly a like for like, but aren't they also replacing the armoured G-wagon?

Offline CBH99

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 51,590
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,304
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #310 on: July 24, 2020, 01:26:26 »
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. 
Fortune Favours the Bold...and the Smart.

Wouldn't it be nice to have some Boondock Saints kicking around?

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 178,980
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,601
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #311 on: July 24, 2020, 01:38:11 »
So 75 RG-31 and 203 Coyotes being replaced? For once there might actually a vehicle neutral replacement? colour me surprised!

Offline CBH99

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 51,590
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,304
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #312 on: July 24, 2020, 01:56:55 »
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   ;)


Fortune Favours the Bold...and the Smart.

Wouldn't it be nice to have some Boondock Saints kicking around?

Offline Hamish Seggie

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 252,347
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,122
  • This is my son Michael, KIA Afghanistan 3 Sep 08
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #313 on: July 24, 2020, 08:04:07 »
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.
Freedom Isn't Free   "Never Shall I Fail My Brothers"

“Do everything that is necessary and nothing that is not".

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 321,145
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,378
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #314 on: July 24, 2020, 09:38:58 »
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 :) ).
“To stand on the firing parapet and expose yourself to danger; to stand and fight a thousand miles from home when you're all alone and outnumbered and probably beaten; to spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary.”
— Jerry Pournelle —

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 52,180
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,352
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #315 on: July 24, 2020, 09:42:25 »
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.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline dapaterson

    Halfway to being an idiot-savant.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 544,255
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,501
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #316 on: July 24, 2020, 09:50:13 »
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).
Putting the *** in acerbic.

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 52,180
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,352
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #317 on: July 24, 2020, 09:58:34 »
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.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 321,145
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,378
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #318 on: July 24, 2020, 10:28:58 »
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.
“To stand on the firing parapet and expose yourself to danger; to stand and fight a thousand miles from home when you're all alone and outnumbered and probably beaten; to spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary.”
— Jerry Pournelle —

Offline MJP

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 196,070
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,824
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #319 on: July 24, 2020, 10:54:38 »
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.
Hope is not a valid COA

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 306,960
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,680
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #320 on: July 24, 2020, 14:22:36 »
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:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline quadrapiper

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 12,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 402
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #321 on: July 24, 2020, 17:47:31 »
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?

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 52,180
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,352
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #322 on: July 24, 2020, 18:04:04 »
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.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 306,960
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,680
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #323 on: July 24, 2020, 19:19:47 »
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:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 271,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,326
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #324 on: July 27, 2020, 07:26:59 »
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...

:nod: