Author Topic: LAV 6.0  (Read 69617 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cdn Blackshirt

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 10,820
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,331
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #175 on: July 08, 2017, 15:28:01 »
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:
IMPORTANT - 'Blackshirt' is a reference to Nebraska Cornhuskers Football and not naziism.   National Champions '70, '71, '94, '95 and '97.    Go Huskers!!!!

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 186,497
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,749
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #176 on: July 08, 2017, 23:30:28 »
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.

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 33,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,444
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #177 on: July 09, 2017, 02:23:53 »
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.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Ostrozac

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 26,665
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 648
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #178 on: July 09, 2017, 05:44:58 »
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.

Offline MJP

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 135,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,218
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #179 on: July 09, 2017, 07:49:16 »
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. 

Hope is not a valid COA

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 186,497
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,749
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #180 on: July 09, 2017, 12:02:14 »
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.

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 182,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,216
  • Freespeecher
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #181 on: July 09, 2017, 12:21:15 »
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.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 103,170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,904
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #182 on: July 10, 2017, 10:48:05 »
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?

Offline MJP

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 135,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,218
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #183 on: July 10, 2017, 11:15:44 »
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. 

Hope is not a valid COA

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 87,884
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,489
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #184 on: July 10, 2017, 11:42:39 »
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.

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 103,170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,904
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #185 on: July 10, 2017, 12:26:38 »
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.
 

Offline MJP

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 135,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,218
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #186 on: July 10, 2017, 14:08:34 »
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.
Hope is not a valid COA

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 186,497
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,749
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #187 on: July 10, 2017, 14:40:02 »
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.

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 103,170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,904
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #188 on: July 10, 2017, 14:56:37 »
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.   

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 185,440
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,846
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #189 on: July 10, 2017, 14:58:54 »
Or....

The money could be used to buy Tanks, or ships to transport the Tanks once they get to Shearwater or Esquimalt.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 103,170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,904
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #190 on: July 10, 2017, 15:29:24 »
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.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 185,440
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,846
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #191 on: July 10, 2017, 16:27:22 »
 :goodpost:
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 430,135
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,435
  • Crewman
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #192 on: July 10, 2017, 17:09:55 »
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:
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 103,170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,904
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #193 on: July 11, 2017, 10:35:13 »
Complete and utter thread drift, but electric railguns on rail cars, powered by locomotives could be part of the upcoming mix.

Offline Eland2

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,700
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 99
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #194 on: July 11, 2017, 12:53:42 »
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.

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 33,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,444
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #195 on: July 11, 2017, 13:06:52 »
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.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 186,497
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,749
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #196 on: July 11, 2017, 14:27:52 »
The move of 1 RCR from London to Petawawa was initiated during Brian Mulroney's term as Prime Minister.

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 33,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,444
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #197 on: August 18, 2017, 16:16:05 »
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/
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline ballz

    ...

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 99,896
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,968
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #198 on: August 18, 2017, 20:34:53 »
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!
Many persons have a wrong idea of what constitutes true happiness. It is not attained through self-gratification, but through fidelity to a worthy purpose.
- Helen Keller

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 103,170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,904
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: LAV 6.0
« Reply #199 on: August 23, 2017, 11:52:45 »
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?