Author Topic: LAV 6.0  (Read 140696 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 52,180
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,352
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #325 on: July 27, 2020, 10:20:00 »
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.

"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 #326 on: July 27, 2020, 11:48:50 »
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.
“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 FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 306,960
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,680
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #327 on: July 27, 2020, 13:10:04 »
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:
« Last Edit: July 27, 2020, 16:49:48 by FJAG »
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 daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 321,145
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,378
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #328 on: July 27, 2020, 14:40:02 »
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? ;)
“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 #329 on: July 27, 2020, 15:15:16 »
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
"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 #330 on: July 27, 2020, 16:46:37 »
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... :)
“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 CBH99

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 51,590
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,304
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #331 on: July 27, 2020, 16:53:23 »
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   ;)
Fortune Favours the Bold...and the Smart.

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

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 306,960
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,680
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #332 on: July 27, 2020, 17:03:45 »
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:
« Last Edit: July 27, 2020, 19:18:04 by FJAG »
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 MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 52,180
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,352
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #333 on: July 27, 2020, 17:45:13 »


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.
"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 #334 on: July 27, 2020, 18:05:58 »
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.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 306,960
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,680
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #335 on: July 27, 2020, 19:20:50 »
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:
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 #336 on: July 27, 2020, 19:56:19 »
...and make them wear puttees!

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 #337 on: July 27, 2020, 20:11:58 »
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:
Freedom Isn't Free   "Never Shall I Fail My Brothers"

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

Offline CBH99

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 51,590
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,304
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #338 on: July 27, 2020, 20:15:43 »
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   ???
Fortune Favours the Bold...and the Smart.

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

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 #339 on: July 27, 2020, 22:53:55 »
...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). :)
“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 Old Sweat

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 229,555
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,007
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #340 on: July 28, 2020, 08:25:23 »
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.

Offline LoboCanada

  • Member
  • ****
  • 4,915
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 221
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #341 on: July 28, 2020, 11:36:32 »
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/

Saab Mobile Camouflage System - Trialed on Stykers in Europe, helps with "signature management against long-wave and mid-wave thermal sensors, near-wave and short-wave infrared, and radar."
https://www.defensenews.com/training-sim/2017/05/12/four-us-army-strykers-in-europe-get-survivability-upgrade/
https://saab.com/land/signature-management/force-integrated-systems/mcs_mobile_camouflage_system/

Hellfire/Martlet launcher - Fitted to IM-SHORAD turret, but could be fitted to existing 25MM turret instead.
https://www.army-technology.com/projects/stryker-a1/

All of these without mentioning the 30MM 'Dragoon' turret and the weight of them all together.


Not to mention for heavy formations, LEO2s, combined with a LAV 6 IFV and a few of these:

LAV 6 SPH - Trialed in 2005 with a 105 from Denal, 30KM range.
https://www.gdls.com/products/stryker-family/stryker-sph.php.




Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 306,960
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,680
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #342 on: July 28, 2020, 11:54:14 »
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:
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 FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 306,960
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,680
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #343 on: July 28, 2020, 12:14:31 »
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)



See whole process here

I'd really like to see GDLS-C grow into a more robust local industry which IMHO means going a bit more in common with the US line of products.

 :cheers:
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 LoboCanada

  • Member
  • ****
  • 4,915
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 221
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #344 on: July 28, 2020, 13:13:51 »

See whole process here

I'd really like to see GDLS-C grow into a more robust local industry which IMHO means going a bit more in common with the US line of products.

 :cheers:

Should be (if not secretly already) a national strategic facility and protected as such. Build and invest in its long-term survival and continue to fast-track any projects that could result in some work there. Would be different than Bombardier as its not almost wholly reliant on Fed money either.

If that CCV project were to be resurrected one day, the UKs Ajax (built by GDLS-Europe) should be at least partially built there.

Offer countries with LAV 3 fleets a subsidized refit/upgrade/refurb plan like Boeing did with their Chinook D to E program. Countries like Ireland, NZ, Columbia.

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 52,180
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,352
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #345 on: July 28, 2020, 14:41:07 »
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.
"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 #346 on: July 28, 2020, 19:57:49 »
... 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:

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 GR66

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 67,140
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 762
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #347 on: August 03, 2020, 11:10:33 »
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

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.

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 #348 on: August 03, 2020, 11:39:59 »
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.
“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 FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 306,960
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,680
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #349 on: August 03, 2020, 14:22:07 »
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 in Wavell Room that was very bullish on Strike and gave some good reasons for the idea but at the same time left me utterly unconvinced because the basic concept involves the idea that there will be so much space on the battlefield that the brigade will be able to manoeuvre around the heavy threats that could eat the brigade for lunch. That's a pretty gutsy "assumption" for your commander's "concept of operations" part of the OpsO. Mind you that was still pretty early in the proof of concept part of what Strike really will do although one would think that you have doctrine pretty much figured out before you buy billions of pounds sterling of kit.

This more recent article doesn't add much but does show three additional weaknesses in the existing concept.

What I can't get away from is that heavy brigade actions are still very much in the game when you consider Iraq and the Ukraine which are short of the all-out peer-to-peer war with Russia that everyone seems to think is gone. Why is Saudi Arabia trying to buy 6-700 Leopard 2s? Could it be because Iran still has 2,000 MBTs of various types.

Regretfully I think that the main reason non US armies are cutting back on MBTs is not because medium strike forces are a really great idea but more because the current crop of MBTs was developed during the Cold War it is reaching across the board life cycle end-points (which I sometimes think is an arms industry advertising gimmick born out of the auto industry's campaign to get you to buy a new car every few years). True, MBTs need upgrading to counter new threats and incorporate more efficient systems, but regardless, the cost of a new MBT or an upgrade to a current one, is getting very expensive and any ability to buy cheaper equipment which would allow you to retain your existing, highly expensive manpower, is one that gets jumped on by the brass hats.

I think that any idea to keep a pure "agile, multi-purpose" force is a Pollyannaish pipe dream. You need specialty forces and equipment.

The question whether the LAV6.0 can operate as an infantry fighting vehicle to accompany tanks is entirely dependant on the doctrine one intends to use. In the Stryker brigade the vehicle was always meant to protect infantry while mobile, but the infantry actually dismounts and fights dismounted. Basically what we bought into with the LAV was the Stryker concept.

So in short, if you are looking at infantry that has the capability to accompany tanks in the assault and dismount on or through the objective like a Bradley or a Marder, then no, the LAV6.0 isn't for you because it has neither the cross country mobility nor the protection needed. If your doctrine is that rather than supporting the tanks with infantry during the assault, the tanks and the LAVs support and protect the infantry during the approach and subsequent dismounted battle then a LAV6.0 will probably do. Those are two very different types of action.

 :cheers:
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/